Palau Sunset Harbor DRB PetitionBEFORE 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, I sland View Addition
According to the Plat Thereof as Recorded in Plat
Book 9 , Page 144 of the Public R ecords of Miami-
Dade County
1201 -1237 20th Street, Miami Beach, Florida
_________________________________ .!
PETITION TO REVERSE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION
The Suns et 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 R egulations , requests that the City of Miami
Beach City Corrunission ("commission") at its March 13, 20 13 meeting
reverse the decisio n of the Miami B eac h Design Review Board ("DRB") to
grant the application for design review approval for the Palau Sunset Harbor
development (DRB File No. 22889) ("Palau development"), or in the
alternative remand the matter back to the DRB with instructions for review
consistent with the requests herein.
1 Agenda Item R? A
Date .3-J3-/3
INTRODUCTION
Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC, ("Palau" or "applicant") applied for DRB
approval for the Palau development, a large mixed use project proposed for
property it owns at 1201-1237 20th Street, Miami Beach. The project would
abut a well-established single-family residential neighborhood. The Palau
development would not only destroy important view corridors to the water
and from 20th Street to the historic Sunset Islands bridge but also block
abutting neighbors' views even more than does the Sunset Harbor townhouses
immediately to its west. Given the virtually unanimous obje ction to the
project by its residential neighbors, no one was surprised that the Palau
application consumed hours of contentious public hearings before the DRB.
During the DRB review proces s not one neighbor spoke in favor of this
massive development. Furthermore, the DRB decision-making process
included: procedural error, a failure to correctly apply the law and on a key
issue a failure to base its decision on competent substantial evidence.
At the core of any quasi-judicial body's review of an application is the
basic guarantee that the process is fundamentally fair.1 DRB members failed
1 The city commission's review of this matter pursuant to section 118-262
also fails to provide a party seeking its review with the due process one would
expect in a quasi-judicial proceeding. In thi s process, the party initiates the
commission's review by filing the petition (if represented by counsel) and
must file "appropriate legal briefs" setting forth argument and facts in support
2
to make required disclosures of meetings with Palau representatives prior to
the meetings of August 7 and October 2, 2012. Such ex parte communication
is contrary to a fair and impartial quasi-judicial hearing process and a breach
of the city's obligation to provide basic procedural due process.
The failm·e of the applicant and design review staff to address
compliance with the specific DRB review criteria, and the failure of the order
to show compliance with those criteria shows that the DRB did not observe
the essential requirements of law when it approved the application. This
warrants reversal of the DRB decision.
of its case. The petitioner must show that the DRB failed to provide due
process, or did not observe the essential requirements of law, or failed to base
its decision on competent substantial evidence. This mirrors the process and
review standards of an appellate court. But that is where the similarities end.
In an appellate proceeding, the petition is followed by a response to the
arguments in the petition from the other side and that response brief is
followed in many cases by a reply to those arguments. This process insures
that all parties (and the court) know and understand all the arguments. This is
transparent and open process that is fair and provides all parties procedural
due process. Therefore, it leads to few if any surprises to either side. The
Miami Beach process guarantees a closed and opaque process and is designed
to keep information away from the petitioner. Here, the city and the applicant
have all the information regarding the petitioner's arguments. But because
there is no reciprocal obligation for the city or applicant to provide a response
to the petition, the petitioner has no information regarding the city or
applicant's arguments. The city commission is equally in the dark. All of this
makes for a process that is skewed toward one side. That is a process that fails
to meet the standards of basic fairness in order to afford all parties a fair, open
and impartial hearing. In that hearing the " ... the opportunity to be heard must
be meaningful , full and fair, and not merely colorable or illusive.'' Rucker v
City of Oca la, 684 So. 2d 836, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
3
Design review staffs conclusory statements on compliance with
required review standards without any stated factual basis are not competent
substantial evidence. Therefore, the DRB decision and order regarding the
project's compliance with all the review criteria is not based on competent
substantial evidence.
The DRB has no authority to d e legate to city staff any of its duties to
evaluate and make final determinations about whether the application meets
DRB r eview criteria. This authority is vest ed only in the DRB , but that board
through its order incorrectl y delegated that power to the city's design review
staff.
These fundamental failures on the part of the DRB warrant the reversal
of that board's approval of the Palau applicati on .
PARTIES
Sunset represents its members who are property owners on both Sunset
Isl and 3 and Sunset Is land 4 across the waterway from the proposed Palau
development site. Its members include property owners within 375-feet of the
site.
Lens owns the property at 2000 North Bay R oad, across Sunset Drive
from and within 375-feet of the proposed Palau development site.
4
Palau owns the property located at 1201-1237 20th Street, Miami
Beach, Florida. It applied for and rece ived DRB approval for the Palau
development on that site.
On August 7, and October 2, 2012, the DRB held a publicly-noticed,
quasi-judicial hearing and reviewed the application for de sign review
approval for the Palau development. At that hearing the neighbors
individually and through counsel appeared before the Design Review Board.
Exhibit N, 68:15-70:1,93:5-94:5,71:10-77:11, 182:9-184:11 , August 7, 2012
Transcript. Exhibit 0, 56:14-59:23,60:10-70:10,72:7 -76:12, 103:17-104:19,
130:21-146:12, October 2, 2012 Transcript Volume 1.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In late 2011, Palau applied to develop the property abutting the Sunset
Islands and its historically-designated entrance. Exhibit A, Aerial map of area.
The applicant proposed a bulky, 5-story, 109,279 square-foot (including
approximately 13,056 square feet of commercial space) mixed-use
development on this CD-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity zon ing district)-
zoned site. Exhibit B, Planning Board Staff Report, April24, 2012.
The Palau site abuts RS-3 (property on N. Bay Road and Sunset Drive)
and RS-4 (Sunset Island 4) single family residential neighborhoods to the east
5
and north and RM-3 multi-family property (S unset Harbour Townhomes) to
the west. Exhibit C , Zoning Map.
At the planning board the applicant sought a conditional use approval
to allow development exceeding 50,000 s quare-feet p lus the use of
mechanical parking lifts, among other things. Exhibit D , Planning Board Staff
Report, April 24, 2012.
Faced with strong neighborhood opposition, the planning board
continued the matter several times. Neighbors sought a project that was less
bulky and more in scale with the ab utting sing le-family residential
neighborhood. In particular, the neighbors cited the monolithic massing of the
building and requested that the board require increased setbacks and more
articulation to lessen the impact of the massive structure on its neighbors.
Ultimately on May 22, 2012, the planning board approv ed the conditional us e
for a modified development with a specific condition relating to Design
Review B oard approval:
"5. The applicant shall work with D es ign R eview Staff to furth er
modify the proposal to ad dress the following, subject to
revie w and approval of the Design Review Board:
(a) Pulling back the massing, east of the World Savings
Bank property, with emphasis on upper floor setback and
the northeast comer of the building and adding more
green space.
6
(b) Further modifying the ground floor area along the canal
(terraces) to minimize the h ardscape and increase the
amount of open, landscaped area at gr ade level.
(c) Adding more canopy trees for increased s hade to the
landscape plan particularly along Sunset Drive. Also
work with Sheryl Gold on this item.
(d) Removing parking on Sunset Drive.
(e) Reducing encroachment on the line of sight from Sunset
Island 4.
(f) Working with Public Works staff to limit u-turns at the
guardhouse."
Exhibit D, August 7, 2012 Design Review Board Staff R eport.
With this directive from t he planning board, the applicant made
revisions to its plan and submitted it to the Design Review B oard. That board
held its initial hearing on the application on A u gust 7, 2012.
At that hearing the neighbors focused on the zoning code charge to the
DRB to examine development plans for consistency with the criteria in
section 118-25 1 regarding aesthetics, safety and function of the structure and
the physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent structures
and the surrounding community. According the DRB r eview criteria, the
development must not have a negative impact on adjacent n eighborhoods.
Under these standards, the developer must eliminate or mitigate aspects of the
proposed project that adversely affect the surrounding area.
7
Neighbors presented expert testimony addressing the impacts of the
project on the adjacent properties. Their expert and the city's design review
staff found that the project failed to meet eight of the fifteen applicable
standard s. Exhibit E Alvarez Power Point Presentation , and Exhibit D , August
7, Design Revi ew Board staff report). Neighbors also submitted a transcript of
the expert testimony of University of Miami Professor of Architecture
Francois LeJeune at the May 22, 2012 Planning Board hearing on Palau's
conditional use application. Professor LeJeune stated that the project sh ould
be redesigned to reduce its mass and scale and maintain the view corridor
from West Avenue toward the water and Sunset Island 4. Exhibit F, Excerpt
of Francois LeJeune Testimony, May 22, Planning Board hearing.
In their discussion of the DRB 's neighborhood compatibility criteria
the neighbors addressed the Palau project's impacts on the historic Sunset
Islands neighborhood and the historic Sunset Island Bridge . In particular, the
neighbors cited the 1996 Historic Designation Report. The report discussed
the importance of "sensitive new construction" in the context of the
neighborhood's character, which is defined by the elements of scale,
proportion, massing, materials and details. Exhibit G Designation Report, 21.
The report also examined "compatibility with the character of the Historic
Sunset Islands Neighborhood," which positively influences proportion and
8
scale, massing and materials. ld., 22. In particular, the rep ort noted: "When
there is a combination of structural building types surrounding a project site,
scale and proportion of the buildings closest to the proposed construction
sh ould be observed." Id.
The DRB voted to continue the item to its October 2 meeting based on
the staff recommendation for a continuance so that the applicant could
address staff's concerns about the p roposal.
Prior to the O ctober 2, 20 12, DRB h earing, planning department staff
had asked neighbor representatives to prov ide it with their concerns and how
those concerns could be resolved. The neighbors submitted a proposed
resolution approving the application with conditions. The p roposed resolution
set forth specific findings and the f ollowing conditions for approval:
a. The entire length of the building abutting and east of the
World Savings Bank property shall be set back an additional
15 feet.
b . The entire length of the fifth floor of the northern side of the
building facing Sunset Island No.4 shall be set back an
additional ten feet.
c. The entire length of the eastetn portion of the building along
Sunset Drive shall be stepped back as follows:
1. First fl oor an additional ten feet (curren t proposed
se tback plus ten feet);
9
u. Second and third floors an additional five feet (current
proposed setback plus 15 feet);
111. Fourth and fifth floors an additional five feet (current
proposed setback plus 20 feet).
Exhibit H, Sunset Islands 3 &4 Proposed Resolution, October 2012.
Design review staff included the proposed resolution as an attachment
to the October 2, 2012 staff report, noting that the neighboring residents
continue to have serious concerns with the application. Exhibit I, 7, Staff
Report, Design Review Board, October 2, 2012. In its analysis staff
discussed one proposed finding regarding the comparison of the Palau project
with the Sunset Harbor Townhomes development to its west but failed to
address the other findings and conditions, including those relating to the
Sunset Drive view corridor and the proposed setbacks. Id.
The applicant presented its revised plans to the DRB at the October 2,
2012 hearing. Design review staff determined that these plans adequately
responded to their concerns and recommended approval of the application.
Notwithstanding the staff's position, the neighbors addressed the failure
of the application to adequately address three of the DRB review criteria that
focus on neighborhood compatibility:
a. Criteria 6 requires that the proposed structures must be
compatible with adjacent structures and enhance the appearance
10
of s urrounding properties. Yet neither the applicant nor the
design review staff explained how this massive project is
compatible with the abutting single-family properties and in what
way it "enhanced" the appearance of these properties.
b. Criteria 7 states that the site plan layout must show efficient
arrangement of land u ses, especially the relationship with the
surrounding neighborhood, impacts on adjacent buildings and
lands, pedestrian sight lines and view corridors. But the plan for
the project shows that existing site lines and view corridors are
degraded or eliminated. The applicant did n ot ad dress h ow it met
this criterion. Design review staff also did not discuss or addres s
and how the revised plans met this criterion in their written
report2 or in their presentation.
c. Criteria 12 says that the massing and orientation of structures
must be sensitive to and compatible with the s urro unding area
and also create or maintain important view corridors. Howeve r ,
the massing and placement of the building fails to "create or
maintain" important view corridors as it degrades the view
corridor along Sunset Drive from 20th Street to the historic
entrance t o Sunset I slands 3 and 4 .
Neighbors proposed a simple solution that would meet the three criteria
at issue: Step back the proposed building along Sunset Drive an additional ten
feet at the ground floor, an additional five feet on the second and third floors
2 The staff report merely stated that the criterion is "satisfie d". Exhibit I, 3.
11
and an additional five feet on the fourth and fifth floors. Exhibit H, 2,
Proposed Res o lution.
On Octob er 8, 2012, the board rendered its order granting design
review approval to the Palau pursuant to des ign r eview criteria set forth in
section 118-251 of the Miami Beach Land Development R egulations and
subject to conditions set forth therein.
On O ctober 23, 2012, Sunset and another entity petitioned the DRB to
rehear the matter p urs uant to secti on 118 -2 6 1.
On December 4, 2012, with only fo ur of the seven members present,
the DRB considered the petition for rehearing:
a. The D RB considered and denied a motion to continue the
h earing 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.
c. There were no further motions. Therefore, the DRB counsel
interpreted the DRB rules to determine that the l ast d ecision 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
r ehearing.
The DRB Order denying the rehearing was rendered on December 10,
2012, and Neighbo rs filed their reques t fo r city commission review of the
12
DRB decision pursuant to section 118-262. The city commission
subsequently set the request for hearing on its March 13, 2013 agenda.
STANDARD OF REVIE\'V
This city commission's standard of review requires a detennination of
whether (1) the proceedings before the DRB afforded procedural due process;
(2) the DRB observed the essential requirements of the law; and (3) the
DRB 's decision was supported by competent substantial evidence. Sec. 118-
262(b), Miami Beach Land Development Regulations.
ARGUMENT
The DRB consideration of this matter was characterized by procedural
errors. Its order fails to show that it correctly applied the DRB criteria and
that its decision was supported by competent substantial evidence:
a. The failure to disclose ex parte communications pursuant to
sections 2-511 through 513 of the Miami Beach Code of
Ordinances is a failure 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.
13
b. The applicant failed to meet its initial burden. to show that it met
the DRB review standards, warranting reversal of the DRB
approval.
c. 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.
d. A staff report and presentation, which failed to examine or
address the specific requirement for ''the propo sed structuren to
have "an orientation and massing ... which creates or maintains
important v iew corridors" is not competent substantial evidence
of compliance with that review criteria.
e. The DRB improperly delegated to design review staff its
authority to evaluate and approve plans as meeting DRB review
criteria.
DRB Members Failed to Disclose Ex Parte Communications as Required
by Sections 2-511 through 2-513 of the City Code
Section 2-511 defines a prohibited ex parte communication as any
written or oral corrununication 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.
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 matter
14
of any ex parte corrununication, 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."
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 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 ... "
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. Design review staff acknowledges that such
communication did indeed take place. And staff states that such meetings
were disclosed by the chairman who stated at the August 7, 2012 meeting:
"We have met --most of us have met with your team to go over the project.
We have heard everything everybody has to say here." Exhibit N, Transcript
150:14-19.
15
According to design review staff this general statement by the chair is a
disclosure for all DRB members (despite lack of any legal authority for the
chairman to speak for DRB members on their ex parte communications) and
meets the code 's requirement for "[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 and made a part of
the record." Exhibit L, 3, Staff Report, Design Review Board, December 4,
2012. This is a fundamental misreading of the code and law in that it assumes
that the chairman has knowledge of each DRB member' ex parte
communications. The chairman as a matter of law cannot speak for the
members of the DRB regarding their ex parte communications. Such
knowledge only can be gained either through ex parte discuss ions ,
discussions with staff, or discussions with fellow DRB members. Therefore,
this staff interpretation3 itself is an admission by the chair of a violation of the
"Sunshine Law," which prohibits communication between two or more DRB
members (including through third parties) on issues related to official DRB
business. Section 286.011, Fla. Stats.
3 Palau accepts staff's interpretation that the chairman's statement is an
accurate disclosure of the board members' ex parte communications. Exhibit
M, 5, Palau Response to Petition for Rehearing.
16
Astoundingly, Palau erroneously claims that the incorporation of the
August 7, hearing record at the October 2, 2012 DRB hearing applies to the
disclosure of ex parte communications made after that August 7 meeting.
This mocks any idea that this quasi-judicial process was fundamentally fair
and that neighbors and other participants in this process had adequate notice
of these post August 7 communications.
At best, the chairman's "disclosure" is limited to himself. At worst it is
a violation of the SllllShine Law. In either event the chairman failed to
disclose the subject matter of this communication, or the identity of the
person, group or entity with which the communication took place. And no
other board member made these required disclosures.
According to section 2-512(b) without such disclosm·e a presumption of
prejudice arising from that/those ex parte communication(s) remains attached
to that communica tion. These non-disclosed ex parte communications and the
attached presumption of prejudice effectively impacted the neighbors' ability
to obtain a fair hearing and denied them procedural due process. Furthermore,
this direct violation of the city code and state law (if you accept staff's and
Palau's position that the chairman spoke for the entire board when he made
his "disclosure" statement) is a failure of the DRB to observe the essential
requirements of law. (See also: J ennings v. Dade County, 589 So.2d 1337,
17
1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). "Upon proof that a quasi-judicial officer received
an ex parte contact , a presumption arises ... that the contact was prejudicial.
The aggrieved party will be entitled to a new and comp lete hearing before the
commission [here, the DRB] unless the defendant proves that the
communication was not prejudicial.").
Palau Failed to Meet Its Initial Burden to Show That It Met DRB Review
Criteria Requiring That it Created or Maintains Important View
Corridors
In the DRB review of the development proposal, the applicant has the
initial burden to show that it has met the DRB approval requirements. Irvine
v. Duval County Planning Commission, 495 So.2d 167 (Fla.l986). These
requirements are set out in sections 118-251 through 264 of the Miami Beach
Land Development Regulations. However , Palau failed to meet that burden
by its fail ure to address the DRB review criteria and how it met each of those
standards.
In particular, the applicant did not present any evidence that it complied
with Section 118-25 1(a) (12). That criteria requires a showing that the
orientation and massing of the proposed structure is (among other things)
compatible with the surrounding area and that it "creates or maintains
important view corridors." In its presentation the applicant failed to show that
it complied with this requirement.
18
That failure warrants reversal of the DRB' s approval of the application.
The DRB Failed to Evaluate the Elimination and/or Diminution of Four
View Corridors as Required by Section 118-251(A) (12)
Section 118-251(a) requires the DRB to include the examination of
architectural drawings for consistency with specific criteria with regard to the
aesthetics, appearances, safety, and ftmction of the proposed stntcture "and
physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent structures and
surrounding community."
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.
There is no indication in the record (including the transcripts or staff
recommendations) or the final order of the Design Review Board to show that
the proposed Palau development has an orientation and massing that "creates
or maintains" important view corridors .
The orientation and massing of the Palau building eliminates four
existing view corridors: (1) the West Avenue view corridor to the waterway
that extends between the World Bank property and the Sunset Harbor
Townhomes; (2) the view corridor to the waterway that extends between the
19
World Savings building and the existing incomplete structure to its east; (3)
the view corridor to the waterway that extends between the existing
incomplete structure and the Mark's Cleaners building to the east; and (4) the
view corridor along Sunset Drive, from 20th Street to the historic Sunset
Islands Bridge.
Furthermore, the orientation and massing of the proposed Palau
building diminishes the existing view corridor along Sunset Drive, from 201h
Street to the historic Sunset Islands Bridge.
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.
Both design review staff and Palau state that the DRB considered '\riew
corridors" and required "that the northeast comer of the building be further
setback in order to lessen the impact on the historic Sunset Island bridge."
According to staff and Palau this change "fully satisfied the Board's request."
Exhibit L, 2 December 4, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report. But this
DRB request was never characterized as preserving an important view
corridor. It was a response to the building's impact on the historic bridge
20
itself, not the view corridor along Sunset Drive from 20th Street to the historic
bridge.
In fact, there is no reference in the testimony presented by the staff or
the developer at the October 2, 2012 hearing connecting this change in the
plans to the creation or maintaining of important view corridors. There is no
mention of the Sunset Drive view corridor by the staff or Palau
representatives at either the August 7, or October 2, 2012 DRB hearings.
The Design Review Staff Report Fails to Address Specific Criteria
Requiring a Building's Massing to "Create or Maintain Important View
Corridors" and is Not Competent and Substantial Evidence of
Compliance With That Review Criteria.
Competent substantial evidence is defined as that evidence relied upon
to sustain the ultimate finding that is "sufficiently relevant and material that a
reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the conclusion
reached." De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912, 916 (Fla. 1957). Competent
substantial evidence is not opinion unsubstantiated by facts. City of Apopka v.
Orange County, 299 So.2d 657, 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
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
21
substantial evidence to the DRB to suppo1t its decision that the Palau
development is consistent with that standard.
The October 2, 2012 staff report's statement that criteria 12 was
"satisfied" is not competent substantial evidence of that assertion because it is
opinion with no stated factual basis.
Any claim of deference to design review staff's interpretation of the
design review criteria fails where the staff has not even addressed a key
component of the criteria at issue. Note that the staff report of October 2 only
states that the criteria is "satisfied." There is no reference or mention of "view
corridor~' in the staff report despite the clear language of the provision
requiring that the building create or maintain important view corridors .
Deference to the staff's interpretation is not unlimited, and the city
commission's role is not unquestioning. This is especially true where there is
no mention of "view corridor" in the context of this criterion in the staff
report or in the transcripts of the DRB hearings.
Furthermore, any deference claimed by staff or Palau is overcome by a
showing that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of
law. Bell South Telecommunications v. Johnson, 708 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla.
1998). Here the DRB failed to apply the correct law by failing to apply each
of the elements of criteria 12 --in particular the requirement to create or
22
maintain important view corridors. When the agency's construction clearly
contradicts the unambiguous language of a rule, the construction is clearly
erroneous and carmot stand. Woodley v. Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services, 505 So.2d 676,678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also)
Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. v. Board of County
Commissioners of Brevard County, 642 So.2d 1081, 1083-1084 (Fla. 1994).
The DRB Improperly Delegated to Design Review Staff Its Authority to
Evaluate and Approve Plans Pursuant to DRB Review Criteria.
The city commission has delegated certain authority to the DRB to
approve design review applications subject to specific criteria set forth in
section 118-251. This authority, spelled out in sections 118-251 through 265,
does not allow the DRB to delegate to design review staff its responsibility
and duty to make decisions based on those criteria. 4
Yet that is what the DRB did when it approved the Palau development.
According to the final order of the DRB, it approved the project subject to
conditions, including:
4 While section 118-260 authorizes the planning director to approve, approve
with conditions or deny an application for eight specific issues all associated
with minor public improvements, and rehabilitation, alterations and
demolition of structures or portions of structures, it does not authorize the
DRB to delegate its authority to approve an application (or any portion of an
application) for new development such as the Palau project.
23
a. 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. Emphasis added. Exhibit I, 2, October 2,
2012 Design Review Board Staff Report.
b. 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. Emphasis added. Exhibit I, 2,
October 2, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report.
c. The plaza at the northeast comer 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. Emphasis added. Exhibit I, 3, October 2, 2012 Design
Review Board Staff Report ..
While there is authority for the DRB to prescribe conditions of
approval, there is no authority for the DRB to delegate its review and
approval authority for new development to staff. Section 118-264, Land
Development Regulations. Each of these conditions transforms design review
decisions into staff-level determinations, without any authority in the land
development regulations.
Florida law provides that a legislature may not delegate the power to
24
make law or the right to "exercise unrestricted discretion in applying the
law." Sims v. State, 754 So.2d 657, 668 (2000). The DRB, without any
legislative authority, gave staff the power to approve plans as a condition of
DRB approval. That power is reserved to the DRB and cannot be delegated
absent specific legislative authority. There is no such authority in the city
code.
Therefore, the DRB order is invalid because the DRB review is
incomplete. Any changes to the plans must be approved by the DRB and not
staff. vVhile staff may review these plans and make recommendations, it is
the DRB that has the sole authority to approve new development for
compliance with the design criteria. This final DRB review has not occurred.
For this reason, this order must be quashed.
CONCLUSION
The neighbors request the city commission to (a) review the decision of
the DRB and (b) reverse or in the alternative, remand this matter to the DRB
with instructions that the DRB require additional setbacks along Sunset Drive
as set forth herein .
25
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 .
Respectfully Submitted,
26
W. TUCKER GIBBS, ESQ.
Attorney for Neighbors
P.O. Box 1050
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
Tel (305) 448-8486
Fax (305) 448-0773
Email: tucker@wtgibbs.com
JJL~~
W. TUCKER BBS
BEFORE THE MIAMI BEACH CITY COlVIMlSSION
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
APPENDIX
("'") _,
-<
c-:: r· rt-,
.,.J. . v;
C • ...,.., ...,.,
() ,.,,
PETITION TO REVERSE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION
VOLUME I
Resp ectfully Submitted ,
W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A.
P.O. Box 105 0
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
Tel (305) 448-8486
Fax (305) 448-0773
Email: tucker@wtgibb s.com
.......,
=
~ JJ ...., .. 1""1
to ..-..,
N ~
~·.""' -J 'I ··-
-o <""'
:X ·n
r:-? ::J
N
N
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX
PETITION TO REVERSE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION
EXIITBIT
A. Aerial Map of Area.
B. Staff Report, Planning Board (Conditional Use), April24, 2012.
C. Zoning Map of Area.
D. Staff Report, Design Review Board, August 7, 2012.
E. Power Point Presentation, Mark Alvarez, August 7, 2012.
F. Testimony of Francois LeJeune, (Planning Board), May 22,2012.
G. SWlset Islands Bridg es, Historic Designation Report , August 1996.
H. SWlset Islands 3 &4 Proposed Resol ution, October 2012.
I. Staff Report, Design Review Board, October 2, 2012.
J. Design Review Board Order, October 8, 2012 (Rendition Date).
K. Affidavit of Terry Bienstock, De cember 26, 2012.
L. Staff Report, Design Review Board, December 4, 2012 .
M. Palau Response to Petition for Rehearing.
N. Transcript, Design Review Board, August 7, 2012.
0. Transcript, Volume 1, Design Review Bo ard, October 2, 2012.
P. Transcript, Volume 2, Design Review Board, October 2, 2012.
1
EXHIBIT "A"
Q)
~
~
~
~
' ~ ::s
Cl)
.~ -~ cu ......
(/J .... ::::::
>< :a
0 ..::
c.. CD ~ ..., ~ 0 c
'-0 8 a.. 0
EXHIBIT "B"
e f\1\lAN\l BEACH
PlANNING DEPARTMENT
Staff Report & Recommendation
TO :
FROM:
Chairperson and Members OJ~
Planning Board
Richard G. Lorber, AlCP, LEED A '
Acting Planning Director
PlANNING BOARD
DATE : April 24, 2012
SUBJECT: File No. 2043-1201, 1225 & 1237 20 Street. -Palau Sunset Harbor
BACKGROUND
The applicant initially submitted an application to appear before the Board at the January 24
meeting. Conditional Use approval was sought for a development exceeding 50,000 sf of floor
area, as well as for the use of mechanical parking lifts. The proposal was for a 5-story, mixed use
building , mostly residential, with a total of 109,279 sf of floor area, including a mechanical parking
garage.
The development program included 13,056 sf of g ro und level commercial space, including a
restaurant, along Sunset Drive and 20th Street; and 70 residential units on levels 2 - 4 along the
canal, across from Sunset Island 4. The project was to be built on three (3) full lots and the
northern portion of two (2) other lots including the Cypress Bay property previously approved by
the Board , but abandoned while under construction, and the Mark's Cleaners property.
There is a restrictive covenant on the southern portion of the property, tying the former Cypress
Bay property to the "World Savings Bank property", currently owned by MAC SH, LLC. These two
properties were at one time one single property, and were split at the time of the propo sed
construction of the former Cypress Bay project, which required a covenant in-lieu of unity of title.
The application was continued by staff to the February 28 meeting to give the applicant additional
time to complete the application. However, in light of strong opposition expressed at the February
28 meeting, the applicant requested continuance to t he March 27 meeting to continue t he dia log
w ith the neighbors.
In the time period between the February and March Board meetings, the applicant made changes
to the initially proposed project to meet concerns of staff regarding the overall density and intensity
of the project . A restaurant was originally proposed at the southeast corner of the property.
Howev er, that use was changed to retail as is the rest of the comme rcial use on the site.
The applicant submitted to staff a list of modifications the developer agreed to prior to the March
Board meeting, as requested by the homeowners associations, see attached .
At the March 27 Planning Board meeting representatives of Sunset Harbor Co ndominium and the
Townhouse Associations, as well as numerous Sunset Island 4 homeowners spoke again st the
proposal . The latter objected mostly to the proposed height of the building along the canal, but
also expressed their wish for the proposed project to maintain scale , massin g and compatibility
with the bridge into t he island, which is designated as a historic site.
Planning Board
File No. 2043. 1201-1237 20 Street
April 24, 2012 Page 2
There was testimony from MAC SH, LLC's legal counsel who brought a traffic engineer, Jeffrey
Buckholz, as an expert witness. Mr. Buckhol z gave a visual presentation critiquing the Traffic
Impact Study done by Richard Garcia & Associates (RGA), a traffic consultant hired by the
applicant and reviewed by FTE, a peer reviewer, and the City's transportation staff. RGA, FTE , and
staff responded to Mr. Buckholz' critique.
The Board held lengthy discussions based on the testimony-voting to bring the app li cant back to
t he April 24 meeting so it cou ld continue t he dialogue with t he ne ig hbors and explore ways t o scale
down the height and massing within the building footprint to try to reach a compromise.
UPDATE
Since the March 27 Planning Board hearing, meetings have continued to take place between the
applicant and MAC SH, LLC, and the Sunset Island 3 and 4 HOA, as well as staff. The applicant
submitted to staff a list of modifications made as a result of meetings with the HOA, see attached.
As a result of t hese modificatio ns, the total number of parking spaces requ ired went further down
from 143 to 140 spaces and the provi ded t ota l number of spaces went up fro m 152 t o 153. Also ,
the layout of the spaces and ais les in the garage changed. In addition, as a result of a
recommendation from the Design Review staff, a small valet office was added close to 20th Street
in front of the relocated loading spaces. Further, the developer would be including an elevator to
provide private access to the twenty waterfront units.
As of this writing, representatives of the Sunset Island HOA are still not satisfied with the above
referenced changes and have met with staff. Perhaps there is a possibility that more meetings
could take place and the project may contin ue to evolve before the April meeting. The applicant
has submitted a narrative detailing the changes that they have made to the ir proposal , since
inception , in response to t he concerns expressed by neighbors and the Boa rd. Also, th e Sunset
Island 3 & 4 Association has submitted a revised list of conditio ns they would desire to see
attached to any approval. In reviewing the requested conditions, many of them are sensible and
are either included in staffs recommendation s or warrant further consideration by the Board. The
first condition, addressing the overall height and number of stories, is really the largest issue for
them, and the hardest for the developer to comply with and still provide a marketable and
economically feasible project.
Overall, there has been substantial time and effort put forth by everyone and cons id erab le
progress has been made . As a result, st aff be lieves that as c urrent ly proposed , the project is
bette r t h an when ori ginally submitted months ago . Even though there may sti ll not be a meeting of
the minds, staff believes that it is still possible for all the parties to reach a compromise they can all
live with. Given the condition of the property today, with the abandoned remains of previou s
incomplete construction, it is important that this site be redeveloped sooner than later. Although
staff believes that the proposed design and overall level of construction have been greatly
improved, obviously, they are still not perfect; however the Design Review Board process may also
be able to further refine the proposal from that standpoint. Therefore, staff believes that, on
balance, the project merits a recommendation of approval.
However, should t he Planning Board believe, on ba lance, that the overall impact of the project as
proposed , inclusive of issues of maximum height , building mass in g, and visua l impact to
surrounding neighborhoods, is unacceptable, then the Board is also within their prerogat iv e to
request additional modifications, and, ultimately, if these are not possible, to reject the application .
This statement is given in an attempt to clarify any issues that may have been raised regarding the
powers and duties of the Planning Board over this application.
Planning Board
File No. 2043. 1201-1237 20 Street
Apri/24, 2012
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Page3
In view of the foregoing analysis, staff recommends that the application be approved, subject to the
following conditions, which address the inconsistencies with the aforementioned Review
Guidelines:
1. The Planning Board shall maintain jurisdiction of this Conditional Use Permit. If deemed
necessary, at the request of the Planning Director, the applicant shall provide a progress
report to the Board. The Board reserves the right to modify the Conditional Use approval at
the time of a progress report in a non·substantive manner, to impose additional conditions
to address possible problems and to determine the timing and need for future progress
reports. This Conditional Use is also subject to modification or revocation under City Code
Sec. 118-194 (c). ·
2. This Conditional Use Permit is issued to Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC, as applicant and owner
of the property. Subsequent owners and operators shall be required to appear before the
Board to affirm their understanding of the conditions listed herein.
3. The conditions of approval for this Conditional Use Permit are binding on the applicant, the
property owners, operators, and all successors in interest and assigns.
4 . The proposed project shall go before the Design Review Board for approval of the
proposed project, and also for approval of the modification of the site plan associated with
the restrictive covenant as required by that document. ·
5. Any substantial modifications to the plans submitted and approved as part of the
application, as determined by the Planning Director or designee, may require the applicant
to return to the Board for approval of the modified plans.
6. Valet storage of vehicles shall be exclusively for the use of Palau at Sunset Harbor, as
proposed by the applicant.
7. As proposed, residential valet drop-off and pick-up shall take place inside the garage.
Visitor and commercial valet drop-off and pick-up shall remain on 20th Street.
8 . The applicant shall work with the City to designate the use of 2 parking spaces on 201/l
Street for valet service and delivery by larger vehicles, as proposed by the applicant.
9. The parking garage shall consist of approximately 153 spaces, as proposed. The garage
operation shall be 24 hours per day, seven days a week. There shall be security personnel
of at least one person monitoring the garage operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The structure, operation, procedures, maintenance, service response procedures, remote
technical service team, local, on-site service team, and spare parts inventory shall be in
accordance with the manufacturer specifications, as proposed by the applicant.
10 . The noise or vibration from the operation of mechanical parking lifts, car elevators, or
robotic parking systems shall not be plainly audible to or felt by any individual standing
outside an apartment or hotel unit at any adjacent or nearby property. In addition, noise and
vibration barriers shall be utilized to ensure that surrounding walls decrease sound and
vibration emissions outside of the parking garage.
Planning Board
File No . 2043. 1201 -1237 20 Street
Aprif 24, 2012 Page4
11 . For mechanical lifts, the parking lift platform must be sealed and of a suffiCient width and
length (minimum of eight feet by 16 feet) to completely cover the bottom of the veh icle on
the platform to prevent dripping liquids or debris onto the vehicle below.
12. All free-standing mechanical parking lifts must be designed so that power is required to lift
the car, but that no power is required to lower the car, in order to ensure that the lift can be
lowered and the top vehicle can be accessed in the event of a power outage; robotic
garages and vehicle elevators must have backup generators sufficient to power the system.
13 . All mechanical lifts must be designed to prevent lowering of the lift when a vehicle is parked
below the lift.
14. The ceiling heights of any parking level with parking lifts within the parking garage shall be
a minimum of 11 feet by six inches.
15 . All parking lifts shall only be operated using a spring loaded underwriters laboratories (UL)
approved key switch control. No push button is allowed.
16. All electrical components of the lifts shall be Underwriters Laboratories (Ul) approved .
17 . All mechanical parking systems , including lifts , elevators and robotic systems must be
inspected and serviced at least once per year with an annual safe ty report signed by a
licensed mechanical engineer.
18. All mechanical lifts shall be maintained and kept in good working order.
19. The mechanical lifts and vehicle elevators must be inspected and serviced at least once per
year with an annual safety report signed by a Ucensed Mechanical Engineer and submitted
to the Planning Department.
20. The generators shall be maintained in proper operating condition. The location of the
generators shall be submitted for the review and approval by staff to ensure than any
negative impacts associated with the operation or testing of the equipment are minimized.
The generators shall be installed in accordance with Code requirements regarding
minimum flood plain criteria.
21 . Deliveries and trash pick~up shall take place alongside the curb on 20ltl Street as depicted
on the plans. The trash containers shall have rubber wheels . Delivery hours shall be
lim ited to between 7:00AM and 9:00AM, as proposed. The applicant shall work with the
City to designate that area a commercial loading zone with applicable signage .
22 . No commercial marina or docks shall be permitted on or adjacent to the subject property.
23. No residential condomin ium unit shall be used for commercial purposes, ex<>ept for home-
based businesses, as permitted by Section 142·1411 of the City Code.
24. Except as may be required for Fire or Building Code/life Safety Code purposes, no
speakers shall be affixed to or otherwise located on the exterior of the subject property.
25. The applicant shall include bicycle parking for patrons of the retail businesses and visitors
in the plaza at the southwest corner of the project on 20 111 Street, as well as at the corner of
20tn Street and Sunset Drive in a manner subject to the review and approval of staff.
Plann;ng Board
File No. 2043. 1201 -1237 20 Street
April 24, 2012 PageS
26. The applicant shall submit an MOT (Method of Transportation) to Pu blic Works Department
staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The MOT shall
address any traffic flow disruption due to construction activity on th e site.
27. Prior to the issuance of a building permit , the applicant shall participate in a Transporta tion
Concurrency Managem ent Area Plan (TCMA Plan), if deemed necessary, by paying its f air
share cost. as determined by the Concurrency Management Division .
28. The applicant shall submit to staff a restrict ive covenant st ipulati ng that the commerc ial
spaces shall be used exclusive ly for retail and not for restaurant, nightclub or bar uses.
29. The applicant s hall submit to staff a re st rictive covenant stipul ati ng that a valet service
operator would be provided for the mechanical parking for as long as the use continues.
30. A final concurrency determination shall be conducted prior to the iss uance of a Building
Perm it. Mitigation fees and concurrency administrative costs shall be paid prior to the
project receiving any Building Permit.
31 . The applicant shall obta in a full bui lding permit within 18 months from th e da t e of the
meeting, and the work sha ll proceed in accordance with the Fl orida Building Code .
Extensions of time for good cause , not to excee d a total of one year for all extensions, may
be granted by the Planning Board .
32. The applicant s hall resolve outstanding violations and fines, if any, prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the subject development project.
33. The Planning Board sh all retain the rig ht to call the owner or operator back before t hem and
modify the hours of operation if there are va lid complaints, as determined by Code
Compliance, about loud, excessive, unnecessary, or unusual noise .
34. A violation of Chapter 46, Article IV, "Noi se," of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida
(alkla "noise ordinance"), as may be amended from time to time, shall be deemed a
violation of this Conditional Use Permit and subject to the remedi es as described in section
118-194, Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida.
35. This order is not severable, and if any provision or condition hereof is held vo id or
unconstitutional in a final decision by a court of competent jurisdiction , the order shall be
re turned to the Board for recons ideration 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.
36. Within a rea so nable time after applicant's receipt of this Conditional Use Permit as signed
and issued by the Planning Director, the applicant shall record it in the Public Records of
Miami-Dade Co unty, at applicant's expense, and then return the recorded instrument to the
Planning Department. No building permit or certificate of completion shall be issued until
this requirement has been satisfied.
37. The establishment and op eration of this Conditional Use sha ll comply with all the
aforem ent ioned condi t ion s of approval ; non-compliance shall constitut e a viol ation of the
Code of the City of Miami Beach , Florida, and shall be subject to enforceme nt procedures
set forth in Section 114-8 of said Code and such enforcement procedures as are othervvise
available . Any failure by the applicant to comply with the condition s of this Order shall also
Planning Board
File No. 2043. 1201-1237 20 Street
Apri/24, 2012 Page6
constitute a basis for consideration by the Planning Board for a modification or revocation of
this Conditional Use.
38 . Nothing in this order authorizes a violation of the City Code or other applicable law, nor
allows a relaxation of any requirement or standard set forth in the City Code
RGUKMH
c: Gary Held, First Assistant City Attorney
F:\PLAN\$PLB\2012\4-24-2012\2043 -1201 -1237 20 St rpt rgl edits and kmh edits April.doex
EXHIBIT ''C''
Proposal Context Zoning districts RS-2 RS-3 RS-4 RM-1 RM-3 CD-1 CD-2 1-1 GU Legend: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Multifamily Residential Multifamily Residential Commercial, Low Intensity Commercial, Medium Intensity Light Industrial Government Use
EXHIBIT ''D''
EXHIBIT "E"
Conditional Use Revievv Palau Sunset Harbor City of Miami Beach Design Review Board 7 August, 2012 1700 Convention Center Drive Presentation for Sunset Islands HOA Presentation by Mark Alvarez
Sunset Island Resident's Concerns Height • Vertical height of elevation above grade • Numerous rooftop appurtenances and other structures not counted Bulk • Combination of width and height of fa~ade • Two smaller buildings have less bulk than one larger one ~ • Articulation I varigation of wall as a mitigating treatments • Affected by distance Buffering • North side (canaJ) • East side (sunset Drive) • Creates distance, visual relief • Landscaping to hide bulk or break up visual massing • Treatments of public spaces
UJ c ::s en
CD .. -en -m
~ a.
:a
tD en -· a.
CD ::s .. • en
n
0
~ n
CD
~
:1 en
Design Review Criteria Sec. 118-251 (a) 1 Lot conditions Satisfied 2 Location of buildings, structures, etc. Not Satisfied Insufficient plan detail and labeling 3 Sufficiency of plans information Not Satisfied Insufficient plan detail and labeling 4 Exterior design and landscaping Not Satisfied Additional canopy trees: £D..!.lQh further development needed NE comer requires further reduction 5 Location, appearance, and design Not Satisfied Increase setback from east property line NPians require further development" FAR reduction or redesign balconies 6 Sensitive, compatible with environment Not Satisfied Revise solid roof top canopy, more open Meet Planning Board 5/22 approval condiUons FAR reduction or redesign balconies 7 Efficient arrangement of uses Not Satisfied Revise solid roof top canopy, more open Meet Planning Board 5/22 approval conditions 8 Pedestrian and vehicular traffic Satisfied 9 Lighting to ensure safety Satisfied 10 Landscape and paving materials Not Satisfied Additional canopy trees: DlJ.jjj} further development needed 11 Buffering to shield noise and light Satisfied 12 Compatible I sensitive massing & Not Satisfied Meet Planning Board 5/22 approval conditions orientation & preserves view corridors 13 Active street level uses I parking liner Satisfied 14 Screened roof top equipment Satisfied 15 Compatible addition to existing bldg. Not Applicable 16 First level transparency fronting street Satisfied 17 Location of service and delivery areas Satisfied
Planning Board Conditions May 22, 2012 Conditions to work with staff subject to DRB approval a) pull back massing east of World Savings Bank property • with emphasis on upper floor setback • and northeast corner of building • add more green space b) Further modify ground area along canal to minimize hard scape c) Add more canopy trees, particularly along Sunset Drive d) Remove parking spaces on Sunset Drive e) Reduce encroachment on line of sight from Sunset Island 4 f) Work with public works staff to limit u-turns at guard house
FAR -Intensity FAR Permitted FAR Provided ~~-··· ~.1---··------------·-· ------... 2.00 1.98 0.02 ~1...·--------------~~ . . .. 109,350 square feet 108,384 square feet ----966 -s·quare feet -··----_____ , .. \!M!,l, __ --·-•.. ~-~~ lj ~ I qJ j PI~~ I t t m ~~----~~--~~
FAR-Recessed Balconies 966 square feet to reach FAR =2.00 Recessed balcony areas highlighted in red areas not provided, and not measurable based on dimensions provided L£VEI.. •u ~t;,V.!eJ.& ___ ---.. ,,,. ~~E_I._S tiT,:) ~L~ .._._.. ROOF LEVEl. td ..
FAR-Ground Floor "Void'' Spaces 966 square feet to reach FAR =2.00 Two interior spaces, marked as "void" on ground floor plan areas not provided, but measure to approximately= 3,800 s~f. ( ;;:c:r; ) _____ < ___ _ll..,.J ".·I l -~: ]I 'II ----) __ . ., II 1 ., I I ! I I i ~ ~ ... ~-<OV GROUND LEVEL N.T.S. { ) j .:.1-.. I . :. -~
Height Compatibility Measures of Height Compatibilit}' Site Lines • Used in other studies to transition for height and scale • Measure of perception of scale, and affects sense of privacy and enjoyment • Defined by angle of view from ground viewer to top of obstruction • May also be expressed as a ratio of height to horizontal distance • This example from Afton Road Neighborhood Planning Study, CMB, 2007 shows using setbacks to maintain site fine. RAMP. ~-. .!~~NG )I( HISTORIC DISTRICT
Height Compatibility Site Lines • May 22"d Planning Board drawing was benchmark for conditions • Reference points are Sunset Harbor Midrise and Sunset Harbor Town homes • Proposed Palau Building shown as meeting or below Sunset Harbor Midrise sight line • Measured from eye height on Sunset IV backyard . __ _. , __ _, ...... _, "·· ........ ··--• ·-~ =· , __ _ ~ ..... -----1----------' , .. --....... ' i • Eye height as ground plane + 5 %' • Ground plane is NGVD + 6' • Distance from seawall is 20': minimum rear yard in RS-4 zone .f'=--'~-'::=" NORTH-SOUTH SECTION -I'IIOIOS8>· PAlAU AT~~ SUI<SfTt.....ouot lOW-& Ml!)aiSt ~~ --0 .r.~c::= • • SlfUMCO«fOI' SUHSE'ItWtiOUit 10-.ousE & 14>-HISE :t . . ii ""%.":io : I : --~= .... ' I : I : ;~ ... ! --~y) .. • l ~ ..:.:::~ ~ ::X
Height Compatibility Site Lines & Visual References 1··--il ··-•. !: ,, : WI':!,."S• i ::!:1!:1!~~~~~~~!liii!lljjilliliii;;;;;;;;;;~ilii~~ii;::.Jl111~11~~~ll~:.;: ~ : . --:~~ t + -i •I '-~·~I ; : t: t :::----..,,-., 1-----~: ··-H-'"rtJ , -~-=~~=~:=::rs--~-~~q~~~~~~ ' . -PU<-j' i I ··--: ··--· ! I l ... ~::...~ ...... ~ i 'q -=·71 Visual sight line effect taken from seawall of 1520 W 21st Street at eye level Palau sightline drawing section at 1420 W 2151 Street (3rd house west from park)
~ en
§ -· ..
ft)
"' r fD -· ... :I
~ CD
m a. CD
~ :I n =-3
D) ..
~ ••
iiiiiiiii I (~) /1/W, -111111111 ~ ·.
Sight Line Benchmark Site Lines (angle & ratio) • Sunset IV to Sunset Harbor Townhomes: 6.7° angle 1' height for every 8.5' distance • Sunset IV to Sunset Harbor Midrise: 12.0° angle 1' height for every 4.7' distance • Condition states no obstructions above the sight line ~,~ '·-•....,.;,y·-"'411tllllt ... ..,_ • including: roof top appurtenances, • roof top stairwells and erevator shafts, • roof top canopy structure i~ I . .., . ., ~ I .......... -~i '· ..:: ... i ~.~1 .. .AI• ,, ,; -·· ~·' rr•t"fti T. f · ~ -~t• · I!IIOW';ljif!i== ······· ··-NQRTii-SOUTH SECTION ... ,....,..., .. .._.. :t'.!l NUGG~ IIIII i oce ~ D D i11t ~ ~1nl t I II --------------~~ i4,NttKAHOI.It ~·loU).-• ...acno• "'"""""' .... t~~~ llllf ... IMOOOC.Clf ---~·NO.aY
/ Height Incompatibility Site Angle Calculations Sight angle = arctangentdeg ( Sum of target building heights above NGVD-Sum of viewer heights above NGVD ) Sum of horizontal distances from viewer to far;:ade or view obstruction
.,
\-
\:\
•\
> • 0
~ ~f ' I
~ ~I>' !
I--i
~~~ ~
f-
>----f-......
f-t-t-F-
II; -t-t-~ ~
~ 1-f-1--~· I-
1-
1--
~ i""'
1--
!•!
lll!m:' 1-1-1--I
I p.
t:;;;;;;;;;:
f-t-
1-~
1--
1--
~
1--
1--m
f
!1111!1 111i
1--1-t-t-
• :E
~ CD
• • ~ -· Q) ~ ca ~ r-·0.. Q) s· :s-
0 rn ... c:: C'D 0 (i3 (I) -"0 Cl. ~ 0 0 ~ n Q t:r
0 a 0 (I) =E "([) 3 rn Q) ...... t)-
([) 0 -a <2-~ Dt ([) r-0 ([) ... ~ (§ -· a -cr .. o 0'1 ....., -· 0 <D -"0 en -· -. ... en ~ St '< c:: ;:::,
(") ~
~ Q)' -.Cti (b
~ Q)
(")
I= t-t-
F ~ I
'-=
CD en
i ~ ;
p !
l
c • .. Height Incompatibility • Site Lines • Measured to brow above Level 5 residential terraces • Edges of terraces shown in red: brows above shown on roof top plan • Blue dashed line highlights RM-2 setback line •• 1165 -~ [¥iWiiMI ~ 0 z ~h ~ !ii ,~ 8 ~~-~ Cl~i~ ;rl ~ ~ ... D ·D II IJ• G ,, :flu 1 .m ~~l5 FLOOR PU\N ~ I I·---·I A1.04
Height Incompatibility Site Lines • Sunset IV to Palau at West Side (Unit 401) Terrace Brow • Sunset IV to Palau at Center (Unit 403) Terrace Brow • Sunset IV to Palau at East Side (Unit 405) Terrace Brow • Sunset IV to Palau Roof Top Elevator Shaft & Canopy: • Sunset Harbor Midrise • Sunset Harbor Townhomes 13.3° angle 12.5° angle 13.8° angle 11.9° angle 12.0° angle 6.7°angle •• 1186 1 ii&lZi!!iMit I lit; p!n i .m I -I
%
CD -· ca :r ... -:I n
0
3 -a
S» .... -· ~ -· --· ....
'<
Landscape Plan Street (south) and Canal (north) facades • Important for pedestrian comfort, energy reduction, buffering .,.__~ .... ....._ ........ ~ CMIII'IIIG. CNW. -•wawr r.au POM'JU Cl»l .. -..ouLGG
5-G) ~ :::s E:;
ll) ::::::
s ~· s
Q) """ s· :::s (/) ...
(/) ;t (Q
~ Q) ~-~ ~ -(Q (/)
(lJ
Q)
"""""" 0
'"" C/)
3
Q)
::::::: ....
CD >< C')
~
"""""" s·
(')
0
3
'"t)
Q)
:::"! C/)"
0 :::,
~ ~ ::r-
0 s
<b
'"" s s·
(Q
(I)
FAR -Intensity Floor area means the sum of the gross horizontal areas of the floors of a building or buildings, measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the exterior face of an architectural projection, from the centerline of walls separating two attached buildings. However, the floor area of a building shall not include the following unless otherwise provided for in these land development regulations. ( 1) Accessory water tanks or cooling towers. (2) Uncovered steps. (3) Attic space, whether or not a floor actually has been laid, providing structural headroom of less than seven feet six inches. (4) Terraces, breezeways, or open porches. (5) Floor space used for required accessory off-street parking spaces. However, up to a maximum of two spaces per residential unit may be provided without being included in the calculation of the floor area ratio. (6) Commercial parking garages and noncommercial parking garages when such structures are the main use on a site. (7) Mechanical equipment rooms located above main roof deck. (8) Exterior unenclosed private balconies. (9) Floor area located below grade; however, if the ceiling is above grade, one-half of the floor area that is below grade shall be included in the floor area ratio calculation. (1 0) Enclosed garbage rooms, enclosed within the building on the ground floor level. . Volumetric buildings, used for storage, where there are no interior floors, the floor area shall be calculated as if there was a floor for every eight feet of height. When transfer of development rights are involved, see chapter 118, article V for additional regulations that address floor area. Floor area ratio means the floor area of the building or buildings on any lot divided by the area of the lot
Design Review Criteria Sec. 118-251(a) Design review encompasses the examination of architectural drawings for consistency with the criteria stated below, with regard to the aesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of any new or existing structure and physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent structures and surrounding community. The board and the planning department shall review plans based upon the below stated criteria, criteria listed in neighborhood plans, if applicable, and design guidelines adopted and amended periodically by the design review board and/or historic preservation board. Recommendations of the planning department may include, but not be limited to, comments from the building department and the public works department. If the board determines that an application is not consistent with the criteria, it shall set forth in writing the reasons substantiating its finding. The criteria referenced above are as follows: (1) The existing and proposed conditions of the lot, including but not necessarily limited to topography, vegetation, trees, drainage, and waterways (2) The location of all existing and proposed buildings, drives, parking spaces, walkways, means of ingress and egress, drainage facilities, utility services, landscaping structures, signs, and lighting and screening devices (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 district, and any applicable overlays, for a particular application or project. (4) The color, design, selection of landscape materials and architectural elements of exterior building surfaces and primary public interior areas for developments requiring a building permit in areas of the city identified in section 118-252 (5) The proposed site plan, and the location, appearance and design of new and existing buildings and structures are in conformity with the standards of this article and other applicable ordinances, architectural and design guidelines as adopted and amended periodically by the design review board and historic preservation board and all pertinent master plans.
Design Review Criteria Sec. 118-251(a) (6) 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. (7) The design and layout of the proposed site plan, as well as all new and existing buildings shall be reviewed so as to provide an efficient arrangement of land uses. Particular attention shall be given to safety, crime prevention and fire protection, relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, impact on contiguous and adjacent buildings and lands, pedestrian sight lines and view corridors. {8) Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the site shall be reviewed to ensure that clearly defined, segregated pedestrian access to the site and all buildings is provided for and that all parking spaces are usable and are safety 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. (9) Lighting shall be reviewed to ensure safe movement of persons and vehicles and reflection on public property for security purposes and to minimize glare and reflection on adjacent properties. Lighting shall be reviewed to assure that it enhances the appearance of structures at night. (10) Lanu~cape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an adequate relationship with and enhancement of the overall site plan design. (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. (12) 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). (13) The building has, where feasible, space in that part of the ground floor fronting a street or streets which is to be occupied for residential or commercial uses; likewise, the upper floors of the pedestal portion of the proposed building fronting a street, or streets shall have residential or commercial spaces, shall have the appearance of being a residential or commercial space or shall have an architectural treatment which shall buffer the appearance of the parking structure from the surrounding area and is integrated with the overall appearance of the project
Design Review Criteria Sec. 118-251(a) (14) The building shall have an appropriate and fully integrated rooftop architectural treatment which substantially screens all mechanical equipment, stairs and elevator towers. (15) 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). (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. (17) The existing and proposed conditions of the lot, including but not necessarily limited to topography, vegetation, trees, drainage, and wateiWays. (18) 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.
Qualifications MARK ALVAREZ 625 NE ~ Tc.rra.ce Mialnl, Florida 33137 tel 7'86-208-MSS URBAN PLANNER e-mail: malvuese>bc>llsouth.ncl • • • • • professional planner 20 years practice in Florida masters degree, planning EXPERIENCE Mr. AlvarQ. provides land use planning. tl111l$portation planning. and development cighiS analysis services to public entities and private interesiS, including: comprehensive plan amendments; zoning analysis and amendments; developing area plans for redeve.loprnent and neighborhood preservation; asslstin~: citizens groups to liaison with governments; and analyzing development compliance. In the transportation area of ~ctice_ he performs work to develop tnu\Sportalioo improvemenJs !hat leverage redevelopmeul, and to developing tl111l$lt system improvements for large and small systems. He has over 20 years of experience in: stakeholder engagement. baseline asses.sment, issue prioriti7.ation, de••elopment of performance indicators. impact analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and development of sustainable strategies. · l'rindpal Dec. Z006-pn.seoc t d · 'I • • Alva.raPIUiniog Miami, Florida mas ers egree, CIVI englneenng MI. Alva:re:c provides land use planning. transponatioo planning. aod development rights accepted in judicial hearings as planning expert MARK ALVAREZ KAS~ASA MEMBER AMUtt.ANtN-._"11Rl'ftOfctlt.A._,M.ANNfA~ )\'LYI* ~J'~ analysis services. Major projects include: Ciry qf !Wrrh Mom/ JJccxil Land J.>eve/opnent Cede amendmetlls, Pin«re.st CS-1 Ccrrldof' M1srer Plan; Cityq{NorthMilmU Beach Compvhenstve Plan; Ctry qf North Mtaml La-d Use C-«ie Antemmenls; Hf?st PI!JTfne Oxnmun!Jy Ret:lt:veJopmen Area (CRA) F~ q{Necesslry. Goulds I Curkr Bay 0« ~ qf Necessity; F7orlda Gold COCll1 Eltaric Jthicle and Charging lnjnstruc/UTe Anal~ls /11/lage of Pineaest 'Jioonrll OraJiaJor Study; SOIJJh Dade Bwway Transit Pario-and-Rlde and Feeder Plan; PI/1/Xil'eSI SouJh Di:de fflglr.w:ry lnLersecrion Srud)l • Senior .Research Associ a~ Jun. :Z003-Dec. 2~ Cen.te.r for Urban 'Jhm.sportation Rcsearcb, University or South Florida Tampa. Florida As a University of South Florida Research faculty meml>e£, Mr. Alvarez was the l'.rincipal Investigator for four large 118nsil I lend use planning studies with a total value of over $1.6-miUion. He also conducted quantitalive msn~~nt and policy analysis efforts for govemmerual clients. Capitallmprover:nent Administrator Nov. 1999-Jun. 1003 City of Miami Beath Miami Bead!, Florida Mr. Alvarez coordinated the programming of a $400-rnillion capital impro>'ement program (CIP). Reporting to the Assistant City Manager and Chief FinanciBI Officer, he coordinated with lhe City's departments of fUlance, budgeting. planning, public wo!i(s, parking, buildings, and media relations to prioritize the City's streetscape, utility, parks, and public facility projects. Principal Apr. 1998-Jun. 2003 Meridian ConsultinJt,lnc. MiJunl, Florida Mr. Alvarez. integrated provided specialized urban planning services in transportaJion, transit and parking improvements 10 Sl.lpport economic development strategies in taban downtovo.n settings, and comprehensive plan amendments. He worked with planning teams on major urban planning elforJs in Northwest, Midwest, and in Florida Senior Planner Nov.I993-Apr. 1998 TheCo1T11djno C1-oup Miami, Florida Mr. Alvarez led transporwion and community plonning projects, managed the company's planning staff, and developed proposals for new wooc He was the project manager foc maoy major public sector projects that included: transit development, transportation conidors, ttaffic calming, community redevelopment area designariorJs and, land use policy plans. Rq;onal Planner Aue. 1992-Nov. 1993 Soudt Florida .Regional Planning Council Hollywood, Florida Mr: Alvnrc2 was responsible for land use and transportation-related planning assif1111I1eoiS, including: evaluating local comprehensive plan an1endments: upda.ting the Transporta.tion Element of the SuliJegic Regional Policy Plan. and he Wl!S lhe Project Manager for the US Department of Energy and Florida Oepattment ofCommWlity Affairs' Clean Cities Pro&~ EDUCATION Masin-of St:iwcc Croll F,,.gi,eering 01r.it~ State University 1992 Master of Cily •nd P.egio11a/ Plamli>tg Ollio Statt Unic>ersity 1992 B11chelor of Scienct Operations Mnttagemo•t Ohio State U>liversity l!J88 PllOFES S ION A L DEVELOPMENT Ameriazn ltrslilute of CtrlijW Plannvs, 1996 Profosumnlism and Ethic< Semingr, lOti 'Pie MelmpoU/on Cotter, Pedrstrilln Sflf~ly Trai" ing ProgrtmJ. 1995 FDOT Callflboral /tJr Plar'" ing Dispuhl Rescbltion Wo'*"hop, 1993, Grou>th MaJtagemeut Colifllcl R.Jsclulio" Consorti"'n COMMUNITY SERVICE CilyofMJami Sekclim1 Cmnmill«, Mitmri Midfuwlr Th>llty Plll11 City of Milfmi I.Jppcr E.llst SideCooJOCt1 BisctJyt~e Bouler>ard Cornmitfee CityofMI.lrni Beo.:/1 TnmspQrtulion and PtlrlciJtg Ccmtmitlt,_ Commissum Appoinlu City of Miami &ad1 Ttlrffic Calming Commillte
Massing Canal side facade • Some visual relief provided with varigation • Separating larger building into smaller units to better match scale is more effective Building facade height Sunset Harbor townhouse 27'h Sunset Harbor townhouse 33'h Proposed Palau at Sunset Harbor SO'h Typical Sunset Island home ~~.,.,., --.....,.owe ... 33'h (max) ~ width . 25'w 30'w 291'w 40'w facade area 675sf 900sf 14,550 sf 1,200 sf ............... <*O~~f ..,_..,..._
EXHIBIT "F"
.•
., ..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
15
EX CE RPT FROM PRO CEED IN GS
(REQUESTED BY TUCKER GIBBS, ESQ.)
(Testimony of
Professor J ean F ranco i s Le Jeune )
MEETING OF THE PLAN NIN G BOA RD
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
16 File Number 204 3, 1201, 12 25 , 1237 20th S t reet
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
May 22, 2012
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
30 5-371-7 692
Page 1
---
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
APPEARANCE OF IDENTIFIED SPEAKERS
Planning Bo ard:
Randy Weisburd, Ch airman
Henry Stolar
Robert Wo lfarth
Charles Urstadt
Daniel Veitia
Les l ie Tobin
Richard Lorber
8 AT TO RN EY FOR CITY OF MIAMI BEACH :
Ga ry Held, ES QU IRE
9
10 ATTO RN EY FOR PALAU SUNS ET HARBOUR:
11 WAYN E PAT HMAN, ESQ.,
Pathman Le wis, LLP
12 On e Biscayne Tower
Suite 2400
13 2 So uth Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33 13 1
14
1 5 ATTORNEY FOR MAC SH LLC:
16 KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, ESQ.,
Attorney at Law
17 1224 Washingt o n Av e nue
Miami Beach, Flo rida 33139
18
19
20
21
22
2 3
24
25
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LL C
305-3 71 -7692
Pa g e 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
2 2
23
24
25
(Wh ereupon, the fo l lowing i s a n
excerpt fr om t he h earing pro c eeding s :)
* * * * *
TH E CHA IRPE RS ON: Th i s is t he Ch air 's
ten minutes. Okay.
Mr . Le Jeune said he would beat the
ten -minute clock .
MR . LEJEUNE: Ye s.
THE CHAIR PERSON : I do not hav e any
other members of t he p ublic --are there any
member s o f the public tha t inadvertently
di dn 't sign onto t he l og ?
So , n o. Yo u ar e our last i ndividual.
MR . LEJEUNE: Th an k you for your
pat i ence and the way you are runn ing t he
meeting. My name i s Jean Francois Le Jeune.
I live on Belle Isle, Apartment 302, Mi a mi
Beach, Florida .
I u sed to be a r es i dent of the Sun set
Isle n e ighborhood at the time o f the
co ns tructio n of the Publ i x, a nd I a m al s o a
member of the Bo ard of the Belle Is l e
Association.
I hav e be en on this Boa rd fo r t hree
years and a ha l f, f ollowed by three other
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES , LLC
30 5-3 71 -7 692
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
24
25
y ea rs on the h i storic pres erva tion Board, so
I know very well how things work and the
complexity of running t hese is sues.
I would like to s ay t hat I wa s a sked
to make an urba n design and planning
archi tectu r al review of the proj ect.
Arch itecture is not an issue, really,
at this po i nt, but urban d es ign and plan nin g
i s. I think we al l agree from all sides tha t
the proj ect at that lo ca tion is a ne ce ssary
step to i mprove a n eigh borhood which ha s come
to a major proce ss of tra ns formati on .
The n eighborhood is mo re developed
tha n it us ed to be. We have , right now, an
abandoned building, and al so , we have --we
have the "Mark" b uildi n g standi ng there at
the corner of Sunset Drive, which I would
like to match the borders of that buildi ng.
I actually believe tha t the bu ilding h as
historic value, in that i t was designed by
Rober t Swartzburg, who was actually the
architect of the Del a no Hotel. I t is an
empty building. I have the belief that it i s
a very impo rtant building.
And it is a sensitive project. The
KRESSE & ASSOCI AT ES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sunset project might be able to possibly
integrate some of the aspe cts of the
building, and certainly re call perhaps the
existence of that structure in the near
future.
Regarding the p roj ec t, it se lf , h avi ng
most of the major points have already been
made . It is obviously a very important
project in terms of massing. It is extreme ly
b i g, and I am pointing to some aspe cts of the
massing that --you can see them on the
d r awing on there of --the proj ec t is about
hal f of th e scale and mass of Sunset Harbor
apartments and townhouses, but it actua l ly
occupies the entire s pace that sepa rat es from
houses from the apartments. So where Sunset
Ha rbor actually shows two rows of buildings,
separated by green space s and open space that
we are hea ring from, there is a mu c h larger
space and much larger compact. Some people
said, monolithic st ructure . I want to
actually make a lit tle joke, pe rhaps, that
the word "Palau" is actually a palace. I
don 't know whether the developer has taken
that word for granted.
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305 -371 -7 692
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
The question is whether or not it is a
pal ace or it has the massing that a palace
his. It may not be the mos t appropr iate way
of looking at this project.
So I do believe that because of the
overall similarities that have been made and
ana lysis of the project , the height, even
though the building --because --in fac t,
the heights have been reduced from the first
proposa l that has be en done, the setbac k of
the third and fourth flo or, but that doesn 't
ta ke awa y from the FAR, which has behaved the
same.
I want to make sure that the BP
tha t al l the co nces sions tha t appears in
here that they are act ually maintained in
th e FAR as it was from the beginning.
But I wo uld like to also say that the
height of the project , at this point , of
43 fee t is a co ntinuous height . It is the
slab of the ceil i ng floo r, and it is very
dif fe rent from the varying height, includ in g
setbac ks that are used by the Sunset
townhouses.
I thi nk --wi thin the style of the
KRESSE & ASSO CIATE S , LLC
305 -37 1-7692
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building tha t the developer a n d the architect
are aimi ng at , I th ink such a quality of not
enveloping full, equal facade is full y
possible and desirable.
I must say al so that it not very easy
for u s to assess a project f r om the ma terial
that has been given by the d e velo per.
Facades are actually, in part, proffered with
trees and t h ings like that, whi ch ma k e it
very difficul t for eve n an architect to read
the p lan concept completely.
And the --some of the renderings are
al so, let's say, somewhat, if you will,
"fuz zy" in t heir de fi nition a n d their
precision.
But I would like to --I am surprised
that the --and I know there are issue s of
covenants and legal issues between the
Mi chael Comras company, 126 1 20th Str eet and
the pro ject, but I would like to, personally,
see if the way the building wraps around the
structure on 1261 20th Street has an adverse
impact .
I mean, I cannot really recall --and
if there are legal issues that are permitted
KRESSE & ASSOC IAT ES, LLC
305-37 1-7692
Pag e 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building that the deve l oper and the archi te ct
ar e aiming at , I th ink such a qualit y of not
e nveloping full , equal facade is ful ly
pos sible a nd desirab l e .
I must say al so that it not ve ry easy
for us to assess a project from the materia l
that has been given by the devel ope r.
Facades are actually, in part , proffered wi th
trees and things l ike tha t, which make it
very difficult for even an arch itect to read
the p l an concept compl etely.
And the --some of the renderin gs are
also, let•s say, somew hat, if yo u will,
"fuzzy .. in their definition and their
precis ion.
Bu t I woul d like to --I am surprised
tha t the --and I know ther e are iss ue s of
covenants and legal issues between the
Michael Comras company, 1 261 20th Street and
the project, but I woul d like to, pe rs onally,
see if the way the building wraps around the
struct ure on 1261 20th Street has an adverse
impact .
I mean, I cannot really recall --and
if t here are l egal i s sues tha t are p e rmitted
KRESS E & ASSO CIATES, LLC
305-37 1-769 2
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
14
15
16
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the proposal, I am not supposed to d iscu ss
that --but I cannot recall such a situation
where an existing building, which a ctual ly
doe s quite nicely as a landma rk , as a form of
architecture like this. Just remember that
our building wa s actually done right after
the conclu s ion of the Pub lix.
It was done in relationship with
Publix in its structure, in its a rchitec ture .
It is v ery simple to believe t hat tha t
building would be wrapped up with a
qua si-5 0 feet wall, with some apartments and
association spaces facing.
The architect acted very nicely with
the Board where he shows us the space between
the existing townhouses and the new proj ect
that will be used as green space. So parts
that are green space, parks that are green
space, I wo uld not use the 26 feet, or
28 feet --more or l ess --that is extreme ly
limite d, and that perhaps one of the best
solutions for t his project would ac tually be
to make it shorter.
There are issues about height. Th e
residents have talked about t hose. I think
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
2 3
2 4
25
they make sense. I actualiy b elieve that,
from a design plan poi nt of vi ew, that
interrupting the path of structures that we
put a long the r unway woul d be very us eful,
and openi n g up the gap between the Sunset
t ownhouses a nd new project let 's sa y , twi ce,
maybe 50 f ee t , or someth i ng like that, 50, 55
f eet would act ually make --would go a long
way to change the appearance o f tha t
structure, seen from the residents of Sunset
Islands ' point of view, b ut it will also do
something that I think Mi ami Beach has
always , always been very keen of. It
actua l ly mainta ins a vis t a from West Avenue
toward the wat e r and toward the i slands.
That vista will be eli minated.
I think i t is very cle ar fro~ the
material tha t you have re ce i ved, and any wa lk
i n the neigh borho od will show that it is h e re
that if s till --if you b ui ld the s tructur e
as p r oposed, 46 to 5 0 f eet, immediately
behind the 1 261 S tre et, that v ista, whi c h i s
still in place today, t hanks to t he
architect, t he way t hey h andl e d t he s i de,
will be el imina ted. I think t hi s the point
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7 692
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of v iew of t he planning a nd urba n des ign in
the City of Miami Be ach. This is a main
issue, and I believe it has to be cons i dered
by the Board .
Suns et Harbor Tower s made that ve ry
clear in one direction . The towers, Sunset
Harbor Dri ve , Palau , nor t h/south dire ct ion
actual ly ha s a no rthern vista towards t he
water. It doesn 't exist in the e ast/wes t
dire ction, which probably was a mistake at
that time.
I think we have to insist on the
the nei ghborhood has to op en u p and to
continue to open o nto n ature, the cana l and
even --be cause you can actual ly see the
hous es acro ss the c anal from the Suns et
Harbo r neighborhood.
So I think these are --it seems to b e
that in te rms of the urb an des ign and
architecture , this is a major adverse impact
on an exis t ing p rope rty.
It i s not the one t hat h as been
Page 10
discussed mostly in the mee ti ngs so far . It
is ano ther --it is actually a building which
is part of the district and ha s the same
KRESSE & ASSO CIATES, LLC
305-371 -7 692
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
2 4
25
Page 11
functi o n that most of the district a round
I think that needs t o be considered very
se r iously by the Board.
Otherwise, becau se my time i s up, I
would say --I wou ld suggest that the project
be rede sign ed i n o rder to re spond to t he
r es ident s' comments . I think that what the
site needs would be probably to develop as a
townhouse --is t o reduce ma ss a nd s cale .
The s ugges tio n that pa rt of it be
bu i lt in such a wa y to allow the l and s cape to
go underneath and come back in is
interesting . It reduces the lengths of the
waterside by leaving it ope n, at l east a s to
Wes t Avenue --tha t see ms to b e one log i ca l
s ol ution to e liminat e th e ef fect on the
exist ing bui l ding, but also to continue the
quality of l i fe i n the t r ans f ormation and
development.
THE CHA IRPER SO N: Th a nk you.
MR . LE JEUNE : So a s I think you can
see , my main point , main point is i n
photograph number seven and --yes, mostly
s even, I mean, six is a n interesting one
because i t is t aken fr o m the steps o f Publi x
KRESSE & ASSOCI ATE S, LLC
3 05 -3 71 -7 69 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 3
24
2 5
Page 12
--this is actual ly a very p ubl ic ope r ation.
The re are thous a nds o f residents and
thousands of pe op le walking around, go ing up
that ramp.
And actually, you can see t he urban
n e ighbo rhoo d. You can s e e the lands cape that
is ar ound, and I be li eve that imag e number
seven is directly --i t shows you the ext e n t
of the open vis t a tha t we have now, and I
canno t know what wi l l happ en, b ut yo u can
i magine it bas i ca l ly will b e done.
Than k you v ery much.
TH E CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR . PATHMAN : Francois --
MR . RO BBINS: For the r ecord, we want
t o mov e in the photographs --as we ll as the
professor's re port --into the re cord , and
his CV into the record i n order t o support
his t estimo ny.
Thank you.
THE CHAIR PE RS ON: Cro ss ?
MR. PATHMAN: It i s not often you get
to cross-examin e a former Boa rd member who
asks you q u estions. Now I get t o ask him
questi ons. So I will try to be bri ef, but I
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LL C
305-371-7 692
1 d o have a f ew q uest ions .
2 CROSS -EXAMINATION
3 BY MR. PATHMAN:
4 Q. You s a id you currently res i de o n Belle
5 I s land.
6 A . Yes.
7 Q. And c an yo u de s cribe just quickly the
8 make -up of Be ll e Island , what kind of buildings,
9 home s?
10 A. Yes . I t is -- h a s a side wh ich is
1 1 mos tly apartmen t bui l di ngs on the sou the rn sid e ,
1 2 and then there is a side which is mostly --half
13 s ingle-family, residential, in a very unique
14 orga niz ation on t he Bea ch.
15 And t hen there is one --an i mpo rtan t
16 b ui l di ng, i t is a mi x ed-u se that i s a mixed
17 residential area, definite l y .
18
19
Q.
A.
Single-family home s the re, as well ?
S ome single-family h ome s , bu t they
2 0 d o n't r ea ll y have u p to th e s tree t . T he y bu il t
2 1 the i r a l leys perpendicul a r . It is a very
22 different s i tuation .
2 3 Q. But t h ings wo rk p re tty wel l the re,
2 4 right ?
2 5 The re a re n o cr ises o ve r t h ere ?
KRESS E & ASSOCIATE S, LLC
3 05 -371 -7 69 2
Page 13
1 A. There i s no crisis, no. But I think
2 you probably --the members who have been
3 f ollow ing this know tha t the boa rd ha s been
4 de a ling with the very contentious i ssue of the
5 development of Sunset Island, with matters that
6 a re not t o tal ly, t otall y di ff erent fr om th is
7 Bo ard.
8 Q. But with all due respect, you are here
9 to --comme nt s on our applica tions we r e
10 ne ga tive, a nd yo u wer e hi red to do t hat;
1 1 co rrect?
12 But y ou live in a n area that is pr etty
13 simi lar. It has a lo t of h igh-ri se s,
14 apartments , and it has single-family homes;
15 co rrect?
1 6 A. Yes. But it ha s signi fi can tly
17 different zoning , and it is a lready residential,
18 and it is all different condi t i ons .
1 9 You can't comp are. It is n o t an --it
20 is an isla nd t hat has been very --ful l of
21 litigation for many years, including the tall
22 s tructure on the corner of --you know, I a m n ot
23 su re how relevant it is, but I would notate that
24 Sunset Island, Belle Island is an example of
25 good p lanning . We ll , it wo rks together. "Good
KRESSE & AS SOCIATES , LLC
305-371 -7 69 2
Page 1 4
1 p lanning" is another ques tion.
2 Q. So you unde rstand that our proj ect is
3 in a comm e rcial zoning district, correct?
4
5
A.
Q.
Absol ut ely true.
And we are proposing a less int ens e
6 use as residential with a little b i t of reta il?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. When did y ou become aware of our
9 pro ject ? I kno w you state you are active in the
10 community, but I 'm just curio us. When d id you
11 first he ar about our applicat ion?
12 A. Well, I wa s a ware o f that I was
13 aw a re relatively l at e, I mu st con fess , o f th is
14 project. I have fol lowed i t t hroug h television,
15 and I was aware , befo re the pro ject , of the
16 Cypre ss pro ject earl ier.
17 But I mu s t say that I wa s not aware a t
18 the time, more than s e ven months ago .
19 You know, the part of the problem of
20 the publi c --the increase in size. If you go
21 into a drive by there or wa l k there or bike
22
23
t here, we
different
almos t every day , but it is very
i f you are no t within the of fic ial
2 4 limits, yo u don 't ge t informati on. I am afraid
25 i t wou ld be ve r y limi t ed.
KRE SSE & ASSO CIATES, LLC
305-371 -76 92
Page 1 5
1 Q. Did you see ou r la st presentation in
2 March?
3 A. I didn 't see the presentation. I have
4 seen it since then.
5 Q. And so when did you become awar e of
6 the project? Two, three , four months ago maybe?
7
8
9
10
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
About a month ago.
About a month ago?
Yes, about a month ago.
Okay. Would you say that everything
11 you stated toda y so far is your opin io n, as
12 to
13 A. It is absolutely my opinion. You know
14 me. I have been on the Board. I am actual ly a
15 professor. I would not state any opinion th at
16 would not be mine, mo ney or no mon ey. It
17 doesn't matter. I would be very, very clear on
18 that.
19 Q. And are you here today as professor or
20 an expert, as a member of the facu lty of the
21 University of Miami or jus t as a neighbor?
22 A. I am he re as an expe rt. I was invited
23 to come here as an expert. I may have come on
24 my own to this meeting, but I can't say right
25 now, because --
KRE SSE & ASSO CIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 16
1 Q. As an expert, a s an expert, have you
2 prep a red any s t udies or d one any evaluation of a
3 neighborhood based upon a ny studies or hired any
4 profe ssionals to gui de yo u in your p re senta tion
5 today?
6 A. No. I was --I have been basically
7 usi n g my ow n a nal ysi s .
8 Q. Okay. So is it f air to say that you
9 have not provide d any competent substantial
10 e vidence sup ported by fa cts?
11 A. I wo uld not be tal king with that
12 asp ect , because I have n ot heard one singl e
13 argument today, nor in the sta ff repo r t, about
14 the impac t of thi s project on the existing
1 5 structure of 1261 20th Street, wh ich I happ en to
16 find extre mely i ntere sting, working very we ll
17 with the public and providing open use from the
18 nei g hborhood to the water , to thousands o f
19 sho p pers into the --and fo r me , tha t is v e ry
20 important.
21 And I am sorry tha t I didn't hear it
22 before , and I unde rstand the residents ar e on
23 the other side. I actually am from t he o ther
24 side . I a m coming from the oth e r side , from
2 5 across the neighborhood . It is a very different
KR ESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-37 1-7692
Page 17
1 situation than the re sidents, and I am su rpri sed
2 that the staff report doesn't actually consider
.
3 that condition. That is a problem.
4
5
6
Q.
A.
Q.
Have you read the staff report?
Of course.
And are you aware that staff finds
7 this pro ject to be compatible with the
8 neighborhood, and meets all the zon i ng
9 requirements and plan requirements?
10 A. I have read some statements in the
11 staff report which I find somewhat ambiguous.
12 Q. But you acknowledge that that is what
13 the staff report says?
14
15
A.
Q.
Ye s.
And do you understand that --and I
16 know this may be a legal te rm --but the staff
17 report is considered comp etent and substantial
18 evidence?
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ROBBINS : I am going to obje ct to
that.
THE WIT NESS: I do n 't know if it is
for me to respond to that , but the staff
report is written by pro fes sional p lanner s,
architects, and I am a professional at the
time. So I consider that, whatever
KRES SE & ASSOC IATES, LLC
305-371-7692
you
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 19
know --evidently, the staff repor t is an
independent rep ort by staff memb e rs, based on
their professi ona l competency, the ir ana lys is
of the code and t hei r interpretation o f the
guide l ines.
MR. HELD: If you ar e looking to me,
Mr. Pa thman --
MR. PAT HMAN: You know wh at my
question is.
MR . HELD : For the moment, my
r esponsibility here i s to make sure that the
process is fair a nd to de fe nd whatever
decision the Board makes.
And I don't know , unti l y ou vot e , wh at
that decision is . So t h e opinions that I
give, I believe, are f airl y evenhanded.
An d I would advis e y ou that Profes s or
Le Jeune 's testimony is competent substantial
evidence before the Bo ard, ba sed upon t he
case law as I unde rstand it.
MR. PATHMAN: But it has to be
supported by facts .
MR. HELD: Yes. The fa cts are a ll o f
the document s that h e revi e ws that ar e par t
of the application, the plans, the re co rds,
KR ES SE & ASSOCIATE S, LLC
305-3 71-7692
1
2
3
4
5
6
and wha t he h as obs erve d in the community.
Those a re --the fa cts upon which hi s
opinions are based is competen t substant ial
evidence.
MR. PATHMAN: I would ve ry
r espe ct fu lly disagree . And there are a
7 number of cases we can cite.
8 Gary is aware of a number of them, and
Page 20
9 is currently litigating the m on beha lf o f the
10 City.
11 BY MR. PATH MAN:
12 Q. But have you looked at our report, the
13 t ra f fic report or our line of sight studies
14 prior to coming t oday?
15 A. T he traffic report --I have not
16 looked at the t ra ffic rep ort . I personally tend
17 to not be li eve th em . They have been proven
18 wrong on many, many circumstances, in the good
19 way and i n the bad way .
20 Regarding the line of sigh t --the
21 sight l ines --I must say tha t from --f or me ,
22 these are not --first of all, I a m opposing the
2 3 project from anot her po int of vi ew, which is
24 mainly the po int that I am tryi ng to a dd to this
25 me eting .
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
1 But --the sight lines that are shown
2 in the report are fin e, but you know, I do not
3 believe tha t the sight lines taken from a
4 privat e property to have the same impor tance as
5 sight lines taken from a public space.
6 Remember, issues of sight line s on
7 Lincoln Road, things like that --thes e are
8 sight lines that are experienced by passers by,
9 visitors --on the private property, it depe nds
10 --we have much --where you stand.
11 I do not h ave any problem with the
12 sight plans presented by your cli ent and by the
13 ar chi te ct. But I can also argue that if I go
14 back ten feet at that sight l ine, or g o to the
15 second fl oor of the house where that section is
1 6 made, the se ction is irrel evan t. So I mean, it
17 is not using i t . It makes sense, but I don 't
18 t hink it i s relevant on the property.
19 Q. And are you aware of the fa ct that the
20 current zoning allows us to go to 50 f eet, and
21 t hat our project currently is at roughly about
22 45 feet, six inches?
23 A. Yes. I am aware o f that because of
24 the evidence I have reviewed from you, because
25 that is better for your project.
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
305 -3 71-7692
Page 21
1 Q. So you al so understand that we hav e --
2 not only h a ve lower FAR t han wha t is pe r mit t ed,
3 but we have s etba c ks that are gre ater than what
4 is r equired , and we h a ve lowered the he i ght of
5 the bu ilding to g r eate r than than what is
6 perrni tted?
7 A. I unders tand al l of th e criteri a.
8 That i s why we are here all together . There i s
9 no issue about that.
10 Q. An d in yo ur pres entatio n, you didn 't
1 1 de fi ne any quote "adve rs e impact s ."
1 2 Do you have anythin g that y ou could
1 3 say is a direct a d vers e impact to t he
1 4 ne ighborhoo d, f rom the --
15 A. My an alysis is that the way the
16 building --the proposed bu i lding, the way it
17 deve lops its massing along the waterwa y and
18 wrapping around 1261 --is a n adv erse impact on
1 9 the Suns et ne ighborh ood. No t the r e sidential
20 one . I am talking abo ut t he nei g hborhoo d,
2 1 Sunset Harb or nei g hborhoo d, b ecause we a re
2 2 losing an important op en v is ta within the
23 rel e vanc y . I person ally think that it i s an
24 adverse i mpact.
25 Also, i t does , from an architect 's
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
3 05-3 71-769 2
Page 22
Page 23
1 point of view, diminish the value of an
2 important bu ildin g in the City, and I am not
3 talking from the inside. I am ta lking about the
4 owne r of the bui lding.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 3
24
25
MR . PATHMAN : I have no f urther
question s, but I do h ave a comme nt.
I wo uld just li ke to say that I --I
understand the professor 's last comme nt, that
it wo uld be grea t if it was a pa rk . It is
not . It is a commercial property. We have
--someone has a right to build there, and we
are building a les s intense use , which
effe ctively they acknowl edge, and it does n't
ha ve an adver se impac t to the nei ghborhood
where you have a Publix, a public parking
ga rage and yo u have a Offic e Depot and so on.
So I would ask you to consider this.
So far, n othing has really been presented
that sugge s ts we have an a dverse impa ct on
the neighborhood.
THE CH AIRPERSON: Thank yo u .
With that, I don't believe there are
any other member s of the public who wi sh to
be h eard, and a gai n, for the second time no w,
we close the public portion of the hearing.
KRE SSE & ASSOC IATES, LLC
3 05-371-769 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
17
1 8
1 9
20
21
2 2
23
24
2 5
MR . PATHMAN : I have some c l osin g
comme nt s, as well .
THE CHAIRPERS ON: I got you c overe d.
I re serve.
(End o f t r an scr iption of excerp t from
p r ocee ding .)
* * * * *
KRES SE & ASSO CIATE S , LL C
305-371-7 692
Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
1 3
14
15
1 6
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIF ICATE OF NOTARY
STATE OF FL ORIDA:
ss.
CO UNTY OF DADE:
I, S HARON PELL VE LA ZCO , a Court
Reporter in and fo r the State of F lorida at
La rge, do hereby c ertify that I was a uthorized
to and di d stenographica l ly repo rt the
proceedings in the above-styled cause at the
time a nd place a s set f orth; that the f oregoing
pa ge s, numb ered fr om 1 to 25, inclusive ,
constitute a true record of an excerpt from my
s tenographic notes.
I fur ther c ertif y that I am not an
attorney or counsel o f any of the parties , nor
re lated to any of the parties , n or fi nanci al ly
inte res ted in the act io n .
WITNESS my Hand and Of f icia l Seal th is
22nd day of Ma y , 2 0 12.
SH~l::::: ~V~PR
COURT RE PORTER NOTARY PUBLIC
COMMISSION NO: EE 015147
Expires 8/19/2014
KRES SE & AS SO CIATES, LL C
305 -371-7692
Page 25
A
abandoned4:15
able 5: l
aboveAstyJed 25:8
absolutely 15 :416:13
acknowledge 18:12 23:13
acted 8:14
action 25:16
active 15:9
add20:24
adverse 7:22 10 :20 22:11
22:1 3,18,24 23:1 4,1 9
advise 19:17
afraid 15:24
ago 15 :18 16 :6,7,8 ,9
agree4:9
aiming 7:2
alleys 13:21
allow 11:11
allows 21 :20
ambiguous 18 :11
analysis 6:7 17:7 19:3
22:15
apartment 3:17 13: 11
apartments 5 :1 4,16 8:12
14:14
appearance 2:1 9:9
appears 6:15
application 15: II 19:25
applications 14:9
appropriate 6 :3
arcbitect4:22 7:1,10 8 :14
9:24 21:13
architects 18:24
arcbite ctural4:6
architecture 4:7 8:5 ,9
10 :20
architect's 22 :25
area 13:17 14:12
argue 21:1 3
argument 17: 13
asked4:4
asks 12:24
aspect 17: 12
aspects 5:2,10
assess 7:6
association 3:23 8:13
attorney 2:8,10,15,16
25:14
authorized 25:6
Avenue2:179:1411:15
aware 15:8,12,13,15,17
16:5 18:6 20:8 21:19,23
B
back 11 :12 21:14
bad20:19
based 17:3 19:2,19 20:3 close 23:25
basically 12: 11 17:6 closing 24:1
Beach 1:13 2:8,17 3:18 code 19:4
9:12 I 0:2 13 :14 come 4:11 II: 12 16:23 ,23
beat 3:6 coming 17:24 20:14
beginning 6:17 comment 23:6,8
behalf20:9 commen ts 11:7 14 :9 24:2
behaved 6: 12 commercial15:3 23:10
belief4 :23 COMMISSION 25:22
believe4:19 6:5 8:10 9:1 community 15: I 0 20: 1
10:3 12:7 19:1620:17 compact 5 :20
21:3 23:22 company7:19
Belle3:17,22 13 :4,8 14:2 4 compare 14:19
best 8:21 compatible 18:7
better 2 1 :2 5 competency 19 :3
big5:10 competent 17:9 18 :17
bike 15:21 19:18 20 :3
Biscayne 2: 12,13 completely 7: ll
bit 15:6 complexity 4:3
board 1:12 2 :2 3 :22,24 4:1 Comras 7:19
8:15 10 :4 11 :3 12:23 concept 7:11
14:3,716:1419:13,19 concessions 6:15
borders4:18 conclusion 8:7
Boulevard 2:13 condition 18:3
BP6:14 conditions 14:18
brief 12:25 confess 15:13
build 9:20 23: 11 consider 18 :2,25 23:1 7
building 4:15,16,18,19,23 considered 10:3 11:2
4:24 5 :3 6:8 7:1,21 8:3,6 18:17
8:1110:2411:1713:16 constitute 25:11
22:5,16,16 23:2 ,4,12 construction 3:21
buildings 5:17 13:8, 11 contentious 14:4
built 11 :11 13:20 continue 10:14 ll :17
continuous 6:20 c corner 4:17 14:22
canal10:14,16 correct 14 :11,15 15:3
case 19:20 counsel25:1 4
cases20:7 COUNTY 25:3
eause25:8 course 18 :5
ceiling 6:21 Court 25 :4,2 1
certainly 5:3 covenants7:18
CERTIFICATE 25:1 covered 24:3
certify 25:6,13 crises 13 :25
Chairman 2:3 crisis 14:1
CHAIRPERSON 3:4,9 criteria 22:7
11:20 12:13,21 23:21 Cross 12:2 1
24:3 CROSS-EXAMINATI ...
Chair's 3:4 13:2
change9:9 crossAexamine 12 :23
Cbarles2:5 curious 15:10
circumstances 20:18 current 2 I :20
cite20:7 currently 13:4 20:9 21:21
City 1:1 3 2:8 10:2 20:10 cv 12:18
2 3:2 Cypress 15:16
clear9:17 10:6 16:17
client 21: 12 D
clock3 :7 DADE 25:3
KRES SE & ASSOC I ATES, LL C
305 -371-7692
Page 26
Daniel2:5
day 15:22 25:18
dealing 14:4
decision 19 :13,15
defend 19:12
define 22:11
definitely 13 :17
definition 7:14
Delaoo4:22
depends 21 :9
Depot23:16
describe 13:7
desigo 4:5,8 9:2 10:1 ,19
designed 4:20
desirable 7:4
develop 11:8
developed 4: I 3
developer 5 :2 4 7:1,7
development 11:19 14:5
develops 22: 17
different 6:22 13:22 14:6
14 :17,18 15 :23 17 :25
difficult 7:10
diminish 23 :1
direct 22:13
direction 10:6,7,10
directly 12:8
disagree 20:6
discuss 8:1
discussed 10 :23
district 10:25 11:1 15:3
documents 19:24
drawing 5:1 2
drive4:1 710:7 15 :21
due 14 :8
E
earlier 15:16
east/west 10:9
easy 7:5
EE 25:22
effect 11:16
effectively 23 : 13
eliminate 11:16
eliminated 9: 16,25
empty4:23
entire 5:15
enveloping 7:3
equal 7:3
ESQ 1:7 2:11 ,16
ESQUIRE2:8
evaluation 17:2
evenhanded 19:16
evidence 17:10 18:18
19 :1 9 20:4 21:24
evidently 19: l
example 14 :24
excerpt 1:6 3:2 24:5 25:11
exist 10:9
existence 5 :4
existing 8:3 ,16 10:2 1
11 :1 717:14
experienced 2 1:8
expert 16:20,22,23 17: 1, I
Expires 25:22
extent 12:8
extremely 5 :9 8:20 17:1 6
F
facade 7:3
Facades7:8
facing 8:13
fact6:8 21:1 9
facts I 7:10 19:22,23 20:2
faculty 16:20
fair 17:8 19:12
fairly 19:16
far6:1 2,1710:23 16:11
22:2 23 :18
feet6:20 8:12,19,20 9:7,8
9:21 2 1:14,20,22
File i :16
financially 2 5:15
find 17:1618 :1 1
finds 18:6
fine 21:2
first 6:9 15:11 20:22
FL2:13
floor 6 :11,21 21:15
Florida 2:17 3:18 25:2,5
followed3:2 5 15:14
foiJowing 3 :1 14:3
foregoing2.5:9
form8:4
former 12:23
forth25:9
four 16 :6
fourth 6:11
Francois 1:9 3:1612:14
full 7:3 14:20
fully7 :3
function 11: 1
further 23:5 25:13
future 5:5
fuzzy 7:1 4
G
gap9:5
garage 23:16
Gary 2:8 20:8
cm:as 1:7
give 19 :16
given 7:7
go 9:8 11 :12 15:20 2 1:1 3
21:14,20 integrate 5:2
going 12:3 18:19 intense 15:5 23:12
good 14:25,25 20:18 interested 2.5:16
granted 5:25 interesting 11:1 3,2417:16
great 23:9 interpretation 19:4
greater 22:3,5 interrupting 9:3
green 5:18 8:17,18,18 invited 16:22
guide 17:4 irrelevant 21:16
guidelines \9:5 island 13:5,8 14:5,20,24
14 :24
H islands 9:11 ,15
half3:25 5:13 13:12 Isle 3:17,20,22
Hand 25:17 issue 4:7 10:3 14:4 22:9
handled 9:24 issues 4:3 7:17,1 8,25 8:24
happen 12:10 17:15 21:6
Harbor 5:13,17 10:.5,7,17
22:21 J
HARBOUR2:10 Jean 1:9 3:16
HARRISON 2: I 6 Jeune 1:9 3:6,16 11:21
hear15:1117:2l Jenne's 19 :18
heard 17:12 23:24 joke 5:22
hearing 3:2 5:19 23 :25
height 6:7,19,20,22 8:24 K
22:4 keen 9:13
heights6:9 KENT2:16
Held 2:8 19 :6,10,23 kind 13:8
Henry 2:4 know4:2 5:247:17 12:1 0
high-rises 14:13 14:3 ,22 15:9,19 16:13
hired 14 :1017:3 18:16,2 11 9:1 ,8,1 4 21:2
historic 4:1 ,20
homes 13:9,18,19 14:14 L
Hote14:22 landmark 8:4
house 21:15 landscape 11:11 12:6
houses 5:16 10:16 Large25:6
larger5:19,20
I late 15:13
IDENTIFIED 2:1 law2:1619:20
image 12 :7 Le 1:9 3:6,16 ll:21 19 :1 8
imagine 12: 11 leaving 11:14
immediately 9:21 legal7:18,2518:16
itnpact7:23 10:20 17:14 LEJEUNE 3:8,14
22:13,18,24 23:14,19 lengths 11 :13
impacts 22: 11 Leslie2:6
importance 21:4 let's 7:13 9:6
important 4:24 5:8 13 :15 Lewis2:1I
17:20 22:22 23:2 life 11:18
improve 4: ll limited 8:21 1.5:25
inadvertently 3: 11 limits 15 :24
inches 21 :22 Lincoln 21 :7
including 6 :22 14 :21 line 20:13,20 21:14
inclusive 25:1 0 Jines 20:21 21:1 ,3,5,6 ,8
increase 15 :20 litigating 20:9
independent 19:2 litigation 14:21
individual 3:13 little 5:2215:6
information 15:24 live 3:17 14:12
inside23:3 LLC 2:15
insist 10:12 LLP2:ll
KR ESS E & ASS OCIATES, LLC
305-371-7692
Page 2 7
locat ion 4:10
log 3:12
logical 11:15
long 9:8
looked 20:12,16
looking 6:4 19:6
Lorber2:6
losing 22:22
lot14:13
lower22:2
lowered 22:4
M
MAC2:1 5
main 10:2 11:22,22
maintained 6:1 6
maintains 9:14
major4:12 5:7 10:20
mak~up 13:8
March 16 :2
Mark4:16
mass 5:13 11:9
massing .5:9,11 6:2 22 :1 7
match4:18
material7:6 9 :18
matter 16:17
matters 14:5
mean 7:2411:2421:16
meeting 1:12 3:16 16:24
20 :25
meetings 10:23
mee~ 18:8
member 3:22 12:23 16 :20
members 3:1 0, l 1 14:2
19:2 23:23
Miami 1:13 2:8,13,17 3:17
9:12 10 :2 16:21
Micbael 7:19
mine 16:16
minutes 3:5
mistake 10 :10
mixed 13:16
mh:ed-use 13:16
moment 19:10
money 16:1 6,16
monolithic 5:21
month 16:7,8,9
months 15:1 8 16:6
move 12:16
N
name3:16
nature 10:14
near 5:4
necessary 4:10
needs 11 :2,8
negative 14:10
neighbor 16:21
n eighbo rhood 3:20 4 :11
4:13 9:19 10 :13 ,17 12:6
17:3,18,2 5 18 :8 22:14,19
22:2 0,2 1 23:14,20
new 8:16 9:6
nicely 8 :4,14
northern 10:8
n ortb/so utb 10 :7
NOTARY 25 :1,2 1
notate 14:23
n ot es 25:12
number 1:16 11 :23 12:7
20 :7 ,8
numbered 2 5: I 0
0
object 18: I9
observed 20:1
obv iously 5:8
occupies 5:15
Office 23:16
official1 5:23 2 5 :17
Okay 3 :5 16:10 17:8
op en5:1810:13,1411:14
12:9 17 :17 22:22
ope oing 9:5
op eration 12: l
opinion 16:\1 ,13,15
op inion s 19:15 20:3
opposing 2 0:22
order 11:612:18
organizat ion 13 :1 4
overall 6:6
owner 23:4
p
p ages25 :10
palace 5:23 6:2,2
Palau 2:10 5:23 10:7
pa rk23:9
parking 23 :15
par-ks 8 :1 8
part7:81 0:25 11:1 0 15:1 9
19:24
parties 2 5:14,1 5
pa rts 8 :17
passers 21:8
path 9 :3
Pa thman 2 :11 ,11 12 :14,2 2
13 :3 19:7,8,21 2 0:5,11
23:5 24:1
patience 3:15
P ELL 25:4 ,2 1
p eo ple 5 :20 12 :3
permitted 7:25 22:2,6
perpendicular 13 :2 1
person a lly 7:20 20:1 6 0
22:23 quality7:211:18
photog raph 1 1:23 quasi-50 8:12
photogra phs 12:16 question 6 :1 15:1 19:9
place 9:23 25:9 quest ions 12:24 ,25 13:1
plan 7 :1 19:2 18:9 23 :6
planners 18 :23 quieldy 13:7
planning 1:1 2 2:2 4 :5,8 quite 8:4
10:1 14 :25 15 :1 quote 22:11
plans 19:2 5 2l:I2
point4:8 6:19 9:2,11 ,2 5 R
1 1:22,22 20:23,24 23:1 ramp 12:4
pointing 5: I 0 Randy2:3
points 5:7 read 7: IO 18:4,10
po rtion 23:25 r eally 4:7 7:24 I3:20
possible 7:4 23:18
possi bly 5:1 r ecall 5:3 7:24 8:2
precisian 7:1 5 received 9 :18
prepared 17 :2 record 12:15,1 7,18 25:11
presentatiou 16:1,3 17:4 records 19:25
22:10 redesigned 1 I :6
presented 21:12 23:18 reduce II:9
preservation 4 : l reduced 6:9
pretty 13:23 14:12 reduces 11:13
prior 20:1 4 Regarding 5:6 20:20
private 2 1 :4,9 related 25:1 5
probably 10:10 11:8 14:2 relationship 8:8
problem 15:1 9 18:3 21: ll relatively 15:13
proceeding 24:6 releva ncy 22:23
proceedings 1:6 3:2 25:8 releva nt 14:23 2 1:18
process4:1219:12 remember8 :5 21:6
profess ional 18:23,24 19 :3 renderings 7:12
profess ionals 17 :4 report 12:17 17:13 18:2,4
professor 1:9 16:15,1 9 18:11,13,17,23 19:1,2
19:17 2 0:12,13,15,1 6 21:2 25 :7
professor's 12:17 23:8 Reporter 25:5,21
proffered 7:8 REQUESTED 1:7
project 4:6, l 0,2 5 5:1,6 ,9 required 22 :4
5:12 6:4,7 ,19 7:6 ,20 requir emen ts 18:9,9
8:16,22 9 :6 11:5 15:2,9 reserve 24:4
15:14,15,16 16:6 17 :14 reside 13:4
18:7 20:23 21:21,25 resident3:19
property 10:21 21:4 ,9,18 residentia1 13:13,1 7 14:1 7
23:10 15:6 22:19
propos al6:10 8:1 residents 8:25 9:10 11 :7
proposed 9:21 22:16 12 :2 17:22 18:1
proposing 15:5 resp ect 14:8
proven 2 0:17 respectfully 20:6
provided 17 :9 respond 11 :6 18:22
providing 17: 17 responsi bility 19:11
public3:10,1112:1 15:20 retail \5:6
17:17 2 1:5 23:1 5,23,25 review 4:6
25:21 reviewed 21 :2 4
Publil: 3:21 8:7,9 11 :25 reviews 19:24
23 :15 Richa rd 2:6
put9:4 right4:148:6 13:2416:24
23:11
KR ESS E & AS SO CIAT ES, LLC
305-3 7 1 -7 69 2
Pa ge 2 8
Road 21:7
ROBBINS 2:16 12:15
18 :19
Robert2:4 4:21
roug.h ly 21 :21
rows 5:17
RPR 2 5 :21
runn ing 3:15 4:3
runway9:4
s
says 18 :13
scale 5:13 11:9
Seal 25:17
secon d 21:15 23:2 4
section 21 :15 ,16
see 5:1 I 7 :21 10:15 11:22
12:5,6 16 :1,3
seen 9:10 16:4
sense 9: l 2l:l7
sensitive 4:2 5
separated 5: I 8
separates 5:15
seriously 11 :3
s et 25:9
setb ack 6: 10
setbacks 6:23 22:3
seven II :23,24 12:8 15:18
SH 2:15
SHARON 25:4,21
shoppers 17:19
shorter 8:23
show 9:1 9
shown 21 :1
sh aws 5:17 8:15 12:8
side 9:24 13:10,11 ,1 2
17:23,24,2 4
sides 4 :9
sigbt 2 0:13 ,20,21 2 1:1,3 ,5
21:6,8,12,1 4
sign 3:12
significantly 14:16
similar 14:13
similarities 6:6
simple 8:10
single 17: t 2
single-family 13 :13,18,19
14:1 4
site 11:8
situation 8:2 13:22 18:1
six 11 :24 21 :22
size 15:20
slab 6:21
solution 11 :16
solutions 8:22
somewhat 7:13 18 :11
sor ry 17:2 1
South2:13
southern 13:11
space 5:15,18,20 8:15,17
8:18,19 21:5
spaces 5:18 8:13
SPEAKERS 2:1
SS25:2
staff 17 :13 18:2,4,6,11 ,13
18 :16,22 19:1,2
stand 21:10
standing 4 :16
state 15:9 16:15 25:2,5
stated 16:11
statements 18:10
stenographic 25 : 12
stenographically 25:7
step4:1 1
steps 11 :25
Stolar 2 :4
street 1:16 7:19,22 9:22
13:20 17:15
stru cture 5 :4,21 7 :22 8 :9
9:10,20 14:22 17:15
structures 9 :3
s tudies 17:2,3 20 :13
style 6 :25
substantiall7:9 18:17
19:18 20:3
suggest 11 :5
s uggestion 11:10
s uggests 23 :19
Suite2:12
Sunset 2:10 3:19 4 :17 5:1
5:13,16 6:23 9:5 ,10 10:5
10:6,16 14:5,24 22:19,21
support 12:18
supported 17:10 19:22
supposed 8: 1
sure6:1414:23 19:11
surprised 7:16 18:1
Swartzburg 4:21
T
take 6:12
taken 5:24 11:25 21:3,5
talked 8:25
talking 17:11 22:20 23:3,3
tall14:21
television 15: 14
ten3:521:14
tend 20:16
ten-minute 3:7
term 18:16
terms 5:9 10:1 9
testimony 1:8 12:19 19:18
Tbank3:14 I 1:20 12:12
12:13,20 23:21
thanks 9:23 wall8:12
things 4:2 7:9 13:23 21:7 want5:21 6:14 12:15
tbink4:9 6:25 7:2 8:25 W ashington 2:17
9:12,17,25 10:12 ,18 11:2 water9:1510:917:18
ll:7,21 14 :1 21:18 w aterside ll : 14
22 :23 waterway 22: 17
third 6:11 way 3:15 6:3 7 :21 9:9,24
thousands 12 :2,3 17 :18 11:1120:19,1922:15,16
three 3:24,2 5 16:6 WAYNE2:ll
time3:20 10:1111 :415:18 Weisburd 2:3
18:25 23:24 25:9 West9 :1411:15
Tobin 2 :6 wisb23:23
today 9 :23 16:11,19 17:5 WITNESS 18 :21 25 :17
17:1 3 20:14 Wolfarth 2:4
totally 14:6,6 word 5:23,25
Tower2:12 work4:2 13:23
towers 10:5,6 working 17:16
townhouse 11 :9 works 14:25
townhouses 5:14 6 :24 8:16 wrapped 8:11
9:6 wrapping 22: 18
traffic 20:13,15,16 wraps7:21
transcription 24:5 written 18 :23
transformation 4:12 11:18 wrong 20:1 8
trees7:9
true 15:4 25:11 y
try 12:25 years 3:25 4:1 14:21
trying 20:24
TUC KER 1:7 z
twice9:6 zoning 14 :1 7 15:3 18 :8
two 5 :17 16:6 21:20
u 0
underoeatb 1 1:12 015147 2 5 :22
understand 15:2 17:22
18:1 5 19:20 22:1,7 23:8 1
unique 13:13 1 25:10
University 16:21 12011:16
urban 4:5 ,8 10:1,19 12:5 1224 2:17
Urstadt2:5 12251:16
use 8:19 15:6 17:1 7 23:1 2 12371:16
userut 9 :4 1261 7 :19,22 9:22 17:15
22:18
v
value 4:20 2 3:1 2
varying 6:22 22:13
Veitia 2:5 20th 1:16 7:19,22 17:15
VELAZCO 25:4,21 2012 1:19 25:18
view 9 :2 , 1l 10: 1 20:23 20431 :16
23:1 22 1:19
visitors 21 :9 22nd25:18
vista 9 :14,16,22 10:8 12:9 24002:12
22:22 25 25:10
vote 19:14 26 8 :19
28 8:20 w
walk9:18 15 :21 3
walking 12:3 302 3:17
KRESSE & ASSO CIATE S, LLC
3 05 -371 -7692
Pa ge 29
331312:13
33139 2:17
4
43 6:20
4521:22
46 9:21
s
50 9:7,7,21 21:20
559:7
8
8/19/2014 25:22
EXHIBIT ''G"
. \ .
·.,.
-·sUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES
Nos. l, 2 AND 4
MIAMI BEACH
HISTORIC STRUCTURES
DESIGNATION REPORT
Sunset Islands Bridge#1, const11.1cted in 1929.
Prepared By~
City of Miami Beach
Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division
A~ust 1996
\ r
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
msTORIC DISTRICf DESIGNATION REPORT
FOR
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1, 2 AND 4
MIAMI BEACH HISTORIC STRUCTURES DESIGNATION
Prepared by:
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PLANNING, DESIGN AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DIVIS ION
AUGUST1996
...
~I I~
Railing Detail, Sunset Islands Bridge Ill
MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION
Seymour Gelber, Mayor
Commissioners:
Sy Eisenberg
Susan F. Gottlieb
Neisin 0. K.asdin
Nancy Liebman
David T. Pearlsoo:
Martin Shapiro
Jose Garcia-Pedrosa, City Manager
. '
MIAMI BEACH HISTORIC
PRESERVATION BOARD
Robert H. Schuler, Cbairman
Victor'Diaz
. Sarah E. Eaton
William B. Medellin
Jose A. Gelabcrt-Navia
Anthony Noboa
Linda Polansky
HerbSosa
MIAMI BEACH
PLANNING BOARD
Joy Alschuler, Chairwoman
Jonathan Belo.ff
Marvin Green
Henry Kay
Clark Reynolds
Jose Smith
Todd Tragash
·MIAMI BEACH DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN AND IDSTORIC PRESERVATION
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Harry Mavrogenes. Director
Dean J. Grandin, Jr.,l)eputy Director
PLANNING~ DESIGN AND IDSTORIC PRESERVATION DMSION
Janet Gavatrete, Dir~or
PRINCIPAL AUTHORS
William H. Cary, Historic Preservation Coordinator
Frank G. DelToro, AlCP, Plannet
Special Contributor
Janus Research
St. Petersburg, Florida
' . o I t
I
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
I. Request
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES Ill, 2 AND 4
MIAMI BEACH HISTORIC STRUctURES
DESJGNATIOH REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
···············-··················-···························································!
11. Designat ion Process .................................................................................... 2
ID. Relation to Ordinance Criteria ............................................................ .3
IV. General Description ofBoundaries ............................................................ 8
V. Present Owners ..•....•.........••......•...•............................•.•........•.......... ,.10
VI. Present Use .............................................................................................. 10
vn. Present Zoning .................................................................................. 10
VIII . Historiea! Background ...................................................................... 12
IX. Architectural Background ...................................................................... 17 .
X. Planning Context .................................................................................. 20
XI. Planning , Design and Histori c Preservation Division Recommendations ... 23
XU. Endnotes ..................................................................................................... 25
' .
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
I. BEOUEST
At its February 8, 1996 meeting, the City of Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board noted the
impact the development of the Sunset Islands 1, IT, ill and IV has had on the history and development
of the City of Miami Beach. The Board further noted the historic role the Sunset Isles Bridges have
played in defining the special tropical island character of the Sunset Islands residential
neighborhood. Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are not only the sole surviving original Mediterranean-themed
public works engineering structures in the City of Miami Beach, but are also the only remaining
bridges of their kind in South Florida. Citing the aesthetic, architectural, and historical importance
of the bridges to the Sunset Islands neighborhood and the fl!St major "boom" period of the City
during the 1920's, the members of the Board expressed concern over the possible loss of these
significant structures and their pc:>ssible replacement with structures not sensitive to the special
character and history of the Sunset Islands. Accordingly, the Board directed the staff of the
Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division to prepare a preliminary evaluation and
recommendation telative to the local designation of Sunset Islands Bridges # 1, 2 and 4 as historic
structures .
At its June 11, 1995 meeting, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed an independent analysis of
the historic significance of the bridges prepared by Janus Research of St. Petersburg, Florida, f~rthe
Florida Department of Transportation. as well as the preliminary evaluation and recommendation
prepared by the staff of the Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division. The Board
concurred with both said reports that the S\UlSet Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 not only met the
designation criteria listed in Section 19-5 of Zoning Ordinance No. 89-2665 for designation as
Miami Beach historic structures, but were also eligible for nomination to the National Register of
Historic Pl~. The Board further noted the clear significance of the Sunset Islands Bridges #1. 2
and 4 to the successful development and defining character of the Sunset Islands and the City of
Miami Beach, observing that these important historic structures could be dramatically altered or even
lost in the near future if .not .afforded proper recognition and protection through historic designation.
Accordingly, the Board directed the staff to prepare a designation report relative to the group
.designation of the Sunset Islands Bridges # 1, 2 and 4. The Board further directed staff to schedule
and publicly notice a September 1996 hearing to consjder and vote on the proposed designation of
the Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4. On September 12, 1996, 1he Historic Preservation Board
1marninously approved a motion to recoiPID.end the designation of tho Sunset Islands Bridges#l, 2
and 4 as Miami Beach Historic Structures in accordance with staff recommendations as reflected in
this designation report.
1
. .
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES # 1, 2 AND 4 HiSTORIC DESIGNATION
U. DESIGNATION PROCESS
The process of historic designation is delineated in Section 19-5 of the Miami Beach Zoning
Ordinance. An outline of this process is provided below:
Step One:
SteoTwo:
Stc;p Tbree:
A request for designation is made .either by the City Commission,
Historic Preservation Board, other agencies and organizations as listed
in the Ordinance, or the property o\vners involved. Proposals for
designation shall include a completed application form available
from the Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division. ·
The Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division prepares a
preliminary review and recommendation for cons ideration by the
Board.
The Historic Preservation Board considers preliminary evaluation to
detennine if proceeding with .a designation report is warranted.
The designation report is a historical and architectural analysis of the
proposed district or site. The report: ·
1} describes the historic, architectural and/or
archeological significance of the property
er subject area proposed for Historical Site
or District designation;
2) recommends Evaluation Guidelines to be
used by the Board to evaluate the
appropriateness and compatibility of
proposed Developments affecting the
designated Site or district; and
:3) will serve as an attachment to the Zoning
Ordinance.
StEm Four: The designation report is presented to the Board at a public hearing.
If the Board determines that the proposed district satisfies the
requirements for designation as set forth in the ordinance, the Board
2
SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGES #I. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
Step Five:
Siell Sjx:
transmits a recommendation in favor of designation to the Planning
Board and City Commission.
The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the proposed
designation, and shall consider the proposed historic designation as
an amendment to the zoning ordinance amendment and, subsequently,
transmit its recommendation to the City Commission. ·
The City Commission may, after two (2) public bearings, adopt an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which thereby designates the
Historic Preservation Site or Historic District.
ill. REI,AliON TO ORDINANCE CRITERIA
In accordance with Section 19-S(B) of the Zoning Ordinance, eligibility for designation is
determined on the basis of compliance with listed criteria .set forth below.
1. The Historic Preservation Board shall have the authority to recommend that properties be
designated as Historic Buildings, Historic Structures, Historic Improvements, Historic
Landscape Features, Historic Interiors (architecturally significant public portions only),
Historic Sites or Historic Districts if they are significant in the historical, architectural,
cultural, aesthetic -or archeological heritage of the City of Miami Beach. the county, state or
nation. Such properties shall possess an .integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling or association and meet at least one (1) of the following criteria:
a. Association with events that have made a significant
contribution to the history of Miami Beac~ the county, state
or nation;
b. Association with the lives ofPersons significant in our past
history;
c. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a historical period~
architectural or design style or method of construction;
d. Possesses high artistic values;
3
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGE'S # t. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
e. Represent the work of a master> Serve as an outstanding or
representative work of a master designer, architect or builder
who contributed to our historical, aesthetic or architectural
heritage; 0
f. Have yielded, or are likely to yield information important in
pre-history or history;
g. Listed in the National Register of Historic Places;
h. Consist of a geographically definable area that possesses a
significant concentration of Sites, Buildings or Structures
united by historically significant past events or aesthetically
by plan or physical development, whose components may
lack individual distinction.
2. A Building, Structure (including the public portions of the interior), Improvement or
Landscape Feature may be designated historic even if it has. been altered if the alteration
is reversible and the most significant architectural elements are intact and repairable.
The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are eligible for designation as they comply with the criteria
as outlined above.
1. Staff finds the SWlSet Island Bridges #1, 2 and 4 to be eligible for historic designation and
in confonnance with designation criteria as specified in section 19.5 of the Zoning Ordinance
for the following reasons:
A. Association wjth eyents tbit have made a sienificant contribution to the h istocy
of Miami Beach. the County. st.ate or nation;
The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are associated with the early creation and
development of Miami Beach's Sunset Islands neighborhoods, consisting of four
of South Florida's first man-made dredged islands. The vital link of the SWlSet
Islands to each other and to the Miami Beach barrier island was the Sunset
Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4, which significantly contributed to the realization and
appeal of one of the City's earliest tropical residential island neighborhood s.
4
_SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES# I. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
B. Association with the lives of Persons sj~nificaut in ow Past histgry:
The Sunset Islands were developed by the Stmset Islands Company, headed by
S. A. Lynch, President of Paramount Pictures. His presenc e significantly
· contributed to publicity efforts fueling the continued development of Miami
Beaoh., helping make the Sunset Islands home to prominent citizens locally and
nationwide. .A3 a result of many of his efforts, several renowned film,
entertainment and political personalities maintained residences on the Sunset
Islands, as well as elsewhere throughout Miami Beach.
C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a historical period. architectural or
desiw style Q1' metbod .of consmction:
The Sunset Islands Bridges #t 2 and 4 possess characteristics illustrating 1920's
nboom-timett Mediterranean Revival Style architecture, which was the original
architectural style standard of the Sunset Islands, as well as the "style of choice "
for early Miami Beach. The bridges are also the documented last remaining
bridges in South Florida with continuous arched re inforced concrete girders
which were cast on-site over the water.
D. Possess hi~ artisti c values:
-The Sunset Islands Bridges #I, 2 and 4 represent one ofthe earliest architectural
design styles in the progression. of public works construction in Miami Beach.
Further, they reflect the . unique design origins of the S\Ulset Islands
neighbomood. Each bridge consists of three massive, sweeping shallow arches
with closed spandrels, and possess Classically influenced cast concrete mn-type
guardrail balusters and railing s. Crafted cast iron lamp posts sit on the top of
solid guardrails at ends of each bridge. Collectively, these elements give the
Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 a unique elegance ·and gracefulness
characteristic of the historic era in Miami Beach during which they were built.
The bridges are constructed .of reinforced concrete, which utilized some of the
earliest air entraining agents.and methods for achieving enhanced durability and
longevity .
s
.SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
E. R~ the work ofamaster desiWler. architect or builder who contributed to
histQrica}. aesthetic or arcbitectwal herita2e:
ln the context of the Simset Islands Bridges #I, 2 and 4, the term ''Master' shall
· relate to architects and e.ogineets. Construction drawings were prepared by
locally renowned Miami engineer W .E. Reynolds ai1d the Concrete Steel Bridge
Company, whose involvement in other public works projects included the Pan
Ameri~ Air Base ramp approach at Dinner Key (Miami), Miami River Bridges
(Miami Springs), the Biscayne Bay Turning Basin at Bayfront Park (Miami), and
a fourth "sister,. bridge to the Sunset Islands Bridges, which was constructed in
Orlando, Florida in 1929.
F. Have yielded. or ate likely to 2ield information important in pre·history QI
histor.y:
The character, quality and detail of the Sunset Isla.Ild Bridges #1, 2 and 4
illustrates one of the many social "faces" of Miami Beach and South Florida
during the 11 boom-time" era from circa 1922 through 1929. The bridges' design
connotes a discrete image of wealth, the prosperity enjoyed by some in Post
World War J America., and the relative extravagance of the "Roaring Twenties"
Era. In addition to the \L'3e of "high style" design elements in utilitarian projects
engineering structures, the bridges' construction materials and techniques, some
of the_ most expensive at .the time, illustrate the general development consensus
of the "boom-time" era in Miami Beach--producing the big);lest quality available,
no matter at what cost.
G. Listed jn the National Re&istg of Historic Places:
Currently the Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are neither individually nor
collectively designated site(s) or structure(s) listed in the National Register of
Historic Places, although in its July 1995 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey
conducted for the Florida Department of Transportation:, Janus Research of St.
Petersburg, Florida, determined all three bridges to be eligible for listing.
SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGES #1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC D~IGNATlON
H. Consists of a ieoiraphically definable area that possesses a sj~nificant
wncentration of Sites. Buildinas or Stru<(.tures united by historicallY si~ificant
past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development wbose components
may lack individual djstincti on;
The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 do not consist of a geographically
definable area, but ~e individually contributing structures within the
geographically defmable area known as the Sunset Islands I, ll, II1 and IV, and
collectively form the links. that unify the individual isles into a ·cohesive urban
form; The bridges qualify as significant proposed historic structures as a group
of components integral to the special historic character of the neighborhood.
2 . Altered structures proposed for designation in the City of Miami Beach may be
designated historic structures if alterations are readily reversible and/or significant
architectural elements are intact and repairable. 1n addition, staff expands its fmdings
to include individual or collective groups of structures which ,are contributing, despite
alterations, as important factors in representing the architectural or cultural history of
Miami Beach or maintaining the special character of a neighborhood. · ·
7
.SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGf1l1, 2 AND 4 HISTORIC Dt:SIGNA TION
IV. GENERAL DESCRIPTION O(J..,OCATION
The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are located in the Sunset Islands neighborhood,~
consisting of Sunset Islands I, II , III and IV of the Sunset Lake Platted Subdivision. Sunset
Island Bridge #1 carries Sunset Drive.'bver Sunset Lake Canal and links Sunset Island IV with
the Miami Beach barrier island. Sun5'~t Island Bridge #2 carries Sunset Drive over Sunset Lake.
Canal and links Sunset Island IV wj.th Sunset Island III. Sunset [sland Bridge #4 carries West
29th Street over the Sunset Lake Canal and links Sunset Island I with the Miami Beach barrier
island . A detailed description oftffe bridges' locations, is as follows:
...
Sunset Islands .Bridge #1 <#nmences at the northeast corn er of Lot 22, Block 15A ·
of the Island View Addidon of the Sunset Lake Subdivision-on the Miami Beach
barrier island, ending at the southwest corner of Lot 7, Block 4 of Sunset Island IV
in the Sunset Lake Pl att~ Subdivision-, running in a southeast·northwest direction.
Sunset Islands Bridge #2 commences at the northeast ~rner of Lot 31, Block 4A
of Sunset Island IV in the Sunset lake Platted Subdivision, ending at the soUthwest
corner of Lot 26, Block $0 of Sunset Island Ill in the Sonset lake Platted
Subdivi!>ion, n.1nning ir1 a southeast·northwest direction. Sunset Islands Bridge #4
commences at the northwest comer of lot 13, Block t 2 of the Sunset lake Platted
Subdivision· on the Miami Beach barr ier island, ending at the northeast comer of Lot
1, Block 1 of Suns'.t Island I in tne Sunset Lake PJaned Subdivision, running in an
east·west direction. -. .
... ,.
The described locations of the structures recommended for desig:ruttion by the Planning, Design
and Historic Pte~rvation Division are shown on the foUowing Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and
4 Locator Map (Map 1). ·
;
i .
'•
. '
8
SUNS£T ISI.AND I
SUNSfliSlAND II
SUNSlllSlAND til
lOtAno·;of
SUNSET ISLAND
I RID Of. 14
M.:lQ..l.: Proposed SnDset Islands Bridges #1, l ·an 4 historie
structure deslguatioa sites as recommended by the City
of Miami Beach Plaouiog, Desilln and Historic
Preservation Division.
9
SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
V. PRESENT OWNERS
The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are the property of The State of Florida
Department ofTransportation. The bridges' maintenance is overseen by the District Six
office of the Florida Department of Tra.DSportation, located in Miami, Florida.
VI. PRESENT USE
~predominant use of the bridges is as state roadways, providing . access between the
residential Sunset Islands I, U~ Ill and IV and the Miami Beach barrier island.
VD. PRESENT ZONING
The Sunset Islands Bridges # 1, 2 and 4 sit within residential zoning districts of the City
of Miami Beach. The Miami Beach Barrier Island landing of Sunset Islands Bridge #1,
however, abuts a commercial district at the intersection of Alton and North Bay Roads.
Established Zoning Districts in which the Sunset Islands Bridges #1 , 2 and 4 are sited in
or adjacent to include : ·
CD-2 CollUnercial Medium Intensity
GU Government Use
RM-2 Residential Single Family
RM·3 Residential Single-Family
Please refer to the zoning map (Map 2) for further reference.
10
..SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES# I. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
, .. -.
<(,
I
u
'"
: .
~
\ \ . ~)·~·~~~~~~~~~
...j •.• ~..,.:.:......::..,:....:..,_;,.,__,.;:_,ji;r-,.-..:.,.4;.,.;;..~~~ ....... --.. ......
\
MruL,l: Zoniog Dbtrids witblD wllicb the proposed Sunset ·Islands
Bridges #1 1 2 ~nd 4 Hlstcnie Structures are located.
11
_SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #I. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
VIU. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Sunset Islands Bridg~ #1, 2 and 4 are the oldest bridges remaining in their original form
in South Florida, and are three out of the four last remaining bridges of their kind in the State
of Florida. 1 The bridges link the Sunset Islands neighborhood wi1h the Miami Beach banier
island and provide a unique tropical island residential neighborhood unlike any other in Miami
Beach and the greater 'Miami area. The bridges span over the Sunset Lake canals and are located
West ofNorth Bay Road, Alton Road and the Bayshore Golf Course. The Sunset Islands are
also the last islands to be constructed in the fir.it archipelago of man· made dredged residential
islands in Florida.
'W'
__ .,_/ ___,.;..._...)!>
~
AP::,:owlM J!ot.1. 1M~~ M1cmi BMcb. ~ ·---.: .-j ;~-"'.-;e········• ==·::::::::::•: ·-... :. -.. --: =-,_ ::::::: ~-········· t ROTUt~l ..... eo.--...... ~ ---. . . . . . . . . . • ~~=:::=----......;.;;,;:; ~~~::::::::· =::::: :::::::::: ~~:::::::::
"'"'-Vlloo ... _ • • • • • ,. Qeot.llolol • • • • • • • • • • ,. Aov c:.lo -• • • • • • • • • • r __ ..._ .... ~• a..-.Koooo .•........ 1 "-'....,,...._ , ••••• , • _. r-n..-4------. n a.rr-..... -..... Jl ~...., ........... 1 "--<=--..... *' _ .............. u ,-~-.......... .
--········ .. ~--··········" _,_ ............. 11 -~-······· ~-•••••••••• If ----·····" ===:::::::: ~~-: ::::::::: ::::::.-.::!:::::::::: ~
-.-··········• a.-.w-~Wo~ ••.•••••• z• ~--•••..•• 11 --T--.••.• ~I _.._ .. • • .• • .•. II _.,_,_ . , , • , , .. 7
,....__ • • ••• •••• ~ --··• •••• • ••· I --·· • •·• •• ..... r--···•••••117 ---·····•• I --····•••••••N ~~-:::::::: :::::..~~ ::: :::~ ~,..;.,·:: ::::: :·J ,. __ .......• .-s--........... 12 --~-••• : •• • II
---. ••••••••• 11 ..._ __ .........• ..... -Molol ........ :10 -~-.. .....•
--•••.•••••• It T~"-"'1 .......... &a --··········· .. .,._r-_ ....... , "---·····. --......... .. -&oool •. • • • • • •. • II
·--•••••••••• II
--.. ••••••••• 1'41
IUI.I3JATI ~ ~
r-.~ ·······•
·The Sunset Islands Neighborhood is portrayed in the 1939-1 940 Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce
Hotel and Apartment Guide as the only residential tropical island neighborhood truly close to the" heart
of it all, • so exclusive that only one bridge was originally planned for access to the Sunset l$lands
from the Miami Beach barrier Island. HASF.
12
SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGES # 1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESJGNATION
The Sunset Islands were developed by the Sunset Islands Company, headed by S. A. Lynch.
President ofParamount Pictures. Through his influence and presence, 'Mr. Lynch succeeded in
making the Sunset Islands home to famous entertainers and renowned businessmen and
politicians from across America. ~ the last quarter of the 20th Century comes to a close, the
Sunset Islands Bridges remain as some of the only remaining examples in Miami Beach of the
wealth and ~amour of the first "boom·time" era in the City and of early 20th Century America
Each bridge is approximately 150
feet long, forty feet wide and
posseSs a sidewalk along at least
one of its railings. All three
bridges feature low, open,
symmetrical railings ov.er and
through which the view of the·
islands, Sunset Lake and Biscayne
Bay is unobstructed. The bridges
link the different islands, but all
four isles are not equally
accessible: Sunset Islands Ill and
IV are linked to each other, with
Island IV linked to the Miami
Beach barrier island, and Sunset
Islands I and II are linked to each
other, Island 1 being linked to the
Miami Beach barrier .island.
However, Sunset Islands II and Ill
are ~ted by the Sunset Canal.
Suqset lliles as "int'ed from tbe 1ir with S. Lynch, inset ca. l!J32
Klienberg1 1996.
Though designed simultaneously, (he bridges were constructed as lots on the different islands
were sold. Sunset Islands Bridges # 1 and 4 were built in 1927, linking Sunset Islands I and IV
to the Miami Beach barrier island, and Sunset Islands Bridge #2 in 1929.2 This was actually the
cornerstone of Lynch's marketing and development strategy: the Sunset Islands Company would
sell lots on the islands closest to tho Miami Beach barrier island, "closing·in" on Islands ll and
UI.3 Once Lynch filled Islands I and IV with prominent residents, Islands II and III would
13
SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGES #l. 2AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION ..
become even more desirable as exclusive addresses, since the properties would already be
surrounded by the likes of prominent businessmen, film and entertainment personalities. In fact,
Lynch understood what was the essence ofthe Miaml Beach land boom:
Lavish though they were, gx-eat houses and the big spenders that
lived in them did not ruake the Florida boom . Left to
themselves, 1;he Stotesburys and Fi:restones would llave created
only a few isolated enclaves for the wealthy--as Robe Sound is
today. What. made Florida • s fortune in the twenties, {and again
in the fifties and sixties,) was the average man•s desire to
play along with the rich, and his bel.ief that he had an
inalienable right to do so.•
By 1936, Lynch was· on a steady ancl successful sales course and marketing campaign. The
Sunset Islands Company's 1936 Portfolio of Estates described the Islands:
For y o u who have dnamed of a. tropical ~South Sea Island" 1\Qme, this portfolio has a.
story to rell-a story of how S®res of America's business and social leaders a.re making
similar dreams come true.
The setting f~r our story is one of a.Lmost legendary ~auty-a ~oup of four islands lying
in famed Biscayne Bay. literally at theheart of Miami Beach. yet se.duded and sheltered
by broad picturesque waterways. lavishly landscaped, groomed to perfedion over a
period of twelve years <luring which they were withheld tram the market, StUlSet lslands
were f\na.Uy opened two brief y~ 8g(Hl!)d immediately won a s.ensationa1 acceptance
from an a.rnaud public.
Here. then, was no bare "development" or ·~on"-but an Impressive. park-like
residential area with permanent improvements completed at a cost of over a. mi!Uon and
a halt dollars. carefully resl:ricted and ready for irrunediate construction of homes and
estates N!flec::ting the magic of the "Lure of the Tropics." ·
The pages (of the portfolio] which follow complete the story. Ntariy four million doUa.rs
have to date been ~ted in property and bul.lding-an .Oo'erwhelmin& endorsement of the
Islands and the advantages they offer·for winter estates or year-round homes. It is out'
sincu'e hope that •reading between the lines" of tl\estory told here. you will find the answer
to -your problems of location. environment and co~enial nel~ors For your permanent
"Place in· the Sunw-Qn Sunset Islands. s
The portfolio included a list of residents, a venerable "Who's Who" of local and national civic
and business leaders. In 193~ the ·isles were already home to Jame s L. Knight of the Miami
Herald; Irving Reuter, Reuters News Service; Charles Sears McCulloh, heir to the Sears fortune;
W. Bruce Macintosh, renowned American artisan and craftsman and the Baron Gerard
Limnander de Niewenhove of Austria-Hungarian Niewenhove Metal works fame. Throughout
14
.. . ~
SUNSET ISLANDS BRlDGES #1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC Pt.SIGNATION._
the 1940's and the early post-World War II years, the likes of Tony Bennett, Desi Amaz, Steve
Allen, Jimmy Durante, Carmen Miranda and ~y other celebrities maintaining winter addresses
on the isles ensured properties on the SlD1Set Islands remained some of the most desirable and
exclusive in Miami Beach-so exclusive, that it was unfortunately not until 1972 that all
remaining restricted ownership policies were eo.dcd .on some of the properties .
SJ~:btuetq "c.tlles of the famous, the Nikko Sightseeloa Bo•t appears to pas$ aader
SuaHt blavds Bridp ffl clrea UK Ira Elep11t, Penoul Collectio•.
The Sunset Islands Company was not solely responsible for the construction of the SUil.Set
Islands. Although platted in 1925 and the Sunset Canals dredged in 1926, construction of
re.9idences did not begin to rapidly occur until ten years later. This was due in part to the actions
of Miami Beach developer Cad Fisher~ who felt threatened by the possible competition of land
sales by the Sunset Islands Company.6 Fisher widened the canal between the islands and the
mainland, creating Sunset Lake, and was able to~ his ·influence to delay applications by the
Sunset Islands Company for building bulkheads and filling in the area for land improvement. 7
The islands QOuld not be developed lUltil the bridges were constructed between 1927 and 1929.
15 .
SUNSET ISLANDS BRlDGES # 1. 2 ANI) ·4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
Dred&e f111 6-0111 tJae newty created Suaset lAke, es.te.rB Jlaorc Florida Hbtoric:al Archive~.
By the time the Sunset Islands began to develop into an exclusive Mediterranean Style tropical
island residential neighborhood, the boom-time era of Miami Beach real estate was beginning
to deflate . 1 Tbe subdivision remained mostly undeveloped until after the land boom crash and
the early 1930's Depression era. Sub$J:ltial development of the Sunset Islands began during the
late 1930's~ prior to the effects of World War IT and the construction boom that followed it
However. the quality and detail ·of the Sunset Island Bridges #1, 2 and 4's design and
construction well illustrates the prosperity of Miami Beach's and Florlda1s "boom-time" era trom
circa 1922 through late 1929. The bridges' design illustrates a discrete image ofwealtlt, the
prosperity of Post World War I Ameriea and the extravagance oftbe."Roaring Twenties" Era '
through the use of the Mediterranean style in utilitarian public works structural design. The
bridges' construction materials and techniq~ some of the most expensive at the tirne,9 illustrate
the general development consensus of the "boom·time" em in Miami Beach··producing the
highest quality available, no matter at what the cost.
16
-.SUNSET ISLANDS BRJDGES # 1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
Construction drawings were prepared by locally renowned Miami engineer W.E . Reynolds and
the Concrete Steel Bridge Company, whose involvement in other public works projects included
the Pan American Air Base appro(\Ch at Dinner Key (Miami), Miami River Bridges (Miami
Springs), and the Biscayne Bay Turning Basin at Bayfron t Park (Miami). The company also
built the only other remaining bridge similar to the Sunset Islands Bridges, the Washington
Street Bridg.e in Orlando, Florida:
A $10,400 proposal by the Concrete Steel Bridge Cornpaoy of Miami Beach was.cbo$en. The
WashingtDn Street Bridge was constnLctcd of reinfoo:ed can crete. It contains three arches with
closed spendrels. The upper part of the bridge, with its heavy piers, balusters and ll&ht standards
•• v are of f:he Bea1llt Artll (term often med in describing Meditettall.ean Revival style features ) style
of architecture. The wide massive $Weeping arches are typical of this style as welJ.1D
IX. ARCWTECIURAL BACKGROUND
The Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2 and 4 represent one of the earliest architectural design styles
in the progression of public works construction in Miami Beach, as well as reflecting the unique
design origins of the Sunset Islands neighborho od. The bridges are constructed of reinforced
concrete:, manufactured with some ofthe earliest air entraining agents for durability.11 Each.
bridge consists of three massive, sweeping arches with closed spandrels and possess classical
cast concrete urn-type guardrail balusters. Crafted cast iron lamp posts sit on the top of the
guardrails at each end of the bridges. Collectively, these elements give the Sunset Islands
Bridges.#), 2 and 4 a unique appearance and high aesthetic quality.
Significant advancements in construction technology were introduced to South Florida and
Miami Beach during the first quarter of the twentieth century, particularly in the use of
reinforced concrete. The use of concrete in constructing arched bridges was established at the
tum of the nineteenth century with a steel mesh system patented in 1894 by Chicago engineer
Josef Mel an. This development dramatically reduced the amount of steel girders previously
required in vehicular bridges. As the understanding of reinforced concrete construction
developed, the highly efficient and durable concrete deck·girder bridge system was introduced
by industrial architects Albert and Julius Kalm of Detroit, Michigan. Concrete deck-girder
bridges were more economical to construct than those involving arched girders alone, and soon
evolved into the cantilevered girders which today are the basis of modern bridge and elevated
roadway support design. The Sunset Islands Bridges # 1, 2 and 4 are the recorded last remaining
concrete girder bridge structures poured on-site in South Florida, a pr~ since eliminated by
transit~mixed concrete, pre·stresstd and/or pre· fabricat ed slabs and girders.12
17
.SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGES# 1. 2 AND 4 HISTORJC DESIGNATION
The Sunset Islands Bridges # 1, 2 and 4 are also some of the first recorded reinforted concr&te
structures in South. Florida to utilize small quantities of admixtures and modifiern such as the air~
entraining agent Ferro Bond, t) dramatically improving the concrete's strength, durability and
curing chara~terlstics in the salt water ofBiscayne Bay and the tropical climate of Miami Beach.
All three Sunset Island Bridges #1, 2 and 4 are virtually identical. Each roadbed rests on a
substructure of concrete gjrders across the width of the bridge, featuring · shallow segmental
arohes at eaeh of the spans. The arched girders are framed into concrete cross--beams which rest
on rectangular concrete piers (two piers per beam). The guardrails above feature pre--cast
concrete um~type balusters, with guardrail bays divided by solid square concrete posts.
Rectangular posts are used to divide the bays at each arched end. The end bays of each guardrail
are so1id concrete with one large rectangular recessed paneL 14
Ornamental cast~iron lamp posts rest on top of the guardrails. The fluted ca.st-iron lamp posts,
surrounded by acanthus leaves at the bottom, rests on a square pedestal in plan (rectangular in
height) which is flanked by decorative volutes (upright scroll brackets). Additional acanthus
leaves encircle the upper portion of the post whl~h supports the ele<:tric light fixtures, each post
having a single upright Boulevard-type globe made of te:xtured opaque glass. 15
A stucCoed guardhouse located at the northeast corner of Sunset Islands Bridge #4 was probably
built i:n the 1940's. It is still utilized today for a guard to monitor the access gate which allows
cars onto the islands. The guardhouse abut:s the bridge's guardtail but is visibly sep arate fr om
it ~gned in the Moderoe Style, it featur es a flat, built-up roof. Its unusual plan coosists of
an angled facade wall oriented towtltd the southeast.16
18
-SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES# 1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
Mediterranean Revival Style
ca. mld 1910s ·early 1930s
Sul&let hluul Brid&e #1 as seealoo1dng toward Sr~aset hiAild IV from tho Miamt :S.dl betrler i.slaad, 1995.
Medi~ Revival architecture was the "style of choice" fot the first major boom period in .
Miami Beach, particularly in the Stmset Islands. Its connotation of Mediterranean resort
architecture, combining expressions of Italian. Moorish, North African and Southem Spanish
themes, was found to be an appropriate and colllillel'Cially appealing image for the new Floridian
seaside resort.
During the mid 1910s through the early 1930s the style was applied to hotels, apartment
buildings, commercial structures, residences and public works engineering structures. Its
.architectural vocabulary was characterized by stucco walls, low pitched terra cotta and historic
Cuban tile roofs, arches, scrolled or tile capped parapet walls and articulated door surrounds,
sometimes utilizing Spanish Baroque decorative motifs and Classical elements. Feature
-detailing was occasionally executed in keystone .
Application of the architectural vocabulary in the Sunset Islands ranged 'from sparing to
modestly exuberant. The Sunset Islaods Bridges demonstratecl'the quiet wealth of"boom-time"
Miami Beach simply and elegantly.
.19
-SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #1 , 2 AND 4 HI$.TORIC DESIGNATION
X.. PLANNING CONTEXT
Historic Dimic:t Designation Promotes: _,_
Continuous Neiehborhood Ephancement · .
. The Sunset Islands neighborhood is ctwacterized by a significant number of
•'contributing" buildings and public w.otks engineering structures reflective of
distinctive architectural and development patterns from the earliest days of Pre-
World War ll t•boom~~e~~ Miami Beach to the present. The Sunset Islands I, II, ill
arid IV and ·the Sunset Island Bridges still appear much as they did throughout their
rich past, despite the effects of dramatically changed times. Many significant
structures, once neighbored by open spaces, Biscayne Bay, or buildings and
structures of complimentary scale wcharacter, remain very much dependent upon
a compatible and supportive enviromnent in the future, which promotes sensitively
designed new projects.
The review and approval of projects Wlder the City's Design Guidelines and the
Historic Preservation Ordinance ·will ensure smart development which is sensitive (jJ} to the unique aesthetic character of the area and respectful of its early origins. Miami
Beach has one of the finest and most progressive historic preservation ordinanc03 in
the nation. lt was custom des igned to address the special needs of a rapidly
redeveloping historic seaside resort community with a view toward wise management
of historic resources in tandem with appropriate new development Historic
--designation will reinforce and promote continuous quality enhancement of the Sunset
Islands neighborhood, just as it has done with remarkable success in the National
Register Historic District in south Miami Beach.
Increased Arcbites:tural Considerati!!B
Historic structure des ignation is a means of maintaining the special character of a
place through increased architectural consideration when the construction of new
buildings or other structures or additions to existing buil dings or other structures are
proposed
Buildings. individua l public works/engineering structures,. and natural landscape
features, old and new, are usually the major defining elements in the makeup of a
neighborhood's character. The speciau character of a neighborhood can be
maintained and reinfo~ed by bighljghting and preserving the significant architectural
20
. .
SUNSET ISlANDS BRlDGES #I. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
features of its contributing buildings and landmarks and by understanding and being
considerate of those special qualities in the design of new construction.
Although some buildings and structures are more representative of specific ~styles"
than others·, there is a sizable collection of twentieth century modem architectural
periods on the Sunset Islands from the late 1920's to the present day, with the Sunset
·x~1ands Bridge s# 1, 2 and 4 representing the start of the progression of architectural
styles with the Mediterannean Revival Style.
In other instances a single contributing structure may not seem to possess a special
significance when viewed by itself, but when viewed together with its neighboring ·
buildings and/or structures, it reinforces a unified image of a distinct and attractive
neighborhood contributing to the special character of the community's· urban fabri c.
This is evident throughout the Sunset lslands with the Sunset Islands Bridges #1, 2
and4.
Historic District designation does not preclude the opportunity for appropriate new
development to .occur at a site, it simply promotes compatible quality construction
ili~e. ·
Sensitive New Construdiop
New buildings, public works engineering and additions to existing buildings and
structures can blend into a neighborhood without imitating or trying to replicate an
historic architectural period. By incorporating the important architectural qualities
of a particular neighborhood into contemporary design and properly siting the
building, a new structure or addition can blend with its surroundings and be
compatible with the neighborhood. In addition, by following existing design
guidelines, renovations deemed appropriate by the Design Revi~w and/or Historic
Preservation Boards can be accomplished without being detrimental to the
established character of the structure or to the neighborhood as a whole.
A number of elements work together to define not only a building's or structure's
character, but also a neighborhood's. These elements include a scale, proportion,
mass~ materials and details. These basic elements are found in all architecture and
may vary to create different styles.
Understanding these elements and their relationship to each other is essential for
designing compatible renovations, additions, and new buildings. Along with current
21
SUNSET JSIANDS BRIDGES# I. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
Design Guidelines, historic designation promotes an understanding of such design
features and does not require or recommend reproductions of period architecture. To
the contrary , compatible contemporary design is encouraged for new construction
and additions.
Historic designation affirms the Design Guidelines based on simplicity and design
quality, and helps property owners make the most appropriate improvements to~
properties with the least adverse effect possible to property values.
Compatibility Wjtb the Character of the Historic Sunset Islands Nei~bborhood. Which
Positively Intluenc~; ·
Proportion and Scalt
Proportion deals with the relationship of the heigh t to the width of the bridge structure
and with the relationship of each part to the whole. Scale deals with the relationship of
each bridge structure to the other buildings and structures in the area, the part to the
whole, as well as the scale of the pedestrian. When there is a combination of structural)
·building types surrounding a ro · ect site, scale and roportion of the build in s clOisV 'ifc;-
to e propo construction should be observed. Additions aqdlor structural
reconstruction saouid respect the original scale and prop ortions.
Musia~
Massing deals with the volumes created by the sections of a building or a structure.
For example, a simple Modeme structure may be one mass but a Mediterranean
Revival building with a tower, wings, hip roof, etc., has varied massing. Placing a
boxlib: structure in a neighborhood of high quality articulated buildings may not be
appropriate. R..eoovations or additions to structures should respect the massin8..2.f
existing buildings and neighborhood chara$J'.
MateriJls and Detajb
Materials and details used on a st:.ructure form an important part of a structure's style
and character. Materials used on the walls and other surfaces of new projects should
be compatible with those on existing buildings and other structures. The use of
22
. ., .
SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGES #1. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNA110N
appropriate materials and textures helps new construction fit into existing
neighborhoods and helps additio ns to blend with the original architecture.
XL UANNING. DESJGN AND IDSTORIC PRESERvATION DIVISION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Criteria for DesienatioDi The Planning, Design and Historic Preservation
Division finds the Sunset Islands Bridges # 1. 2 and 4 in compliance with the
Criteria for Designation listed in Section 19-5 (B) of the Miami Beach
Zoning Ordinance, Ordirumce Number 89-266S.
2. Site Boundaries: The Sunset Islands Bridges # l, 2 and 4 within the Miami
Beach City Limits (complete legal description provided in Section W.
General Descrlptifm qJLocatjon: location of bridges is shown on Map 1)
Upon careful research and investigatioD.t staff determined that the
aforementioned Sunset Island Bridges were indeed of IocaJ, reg ional and
historical significance, having an impact not only on local development
history, but also modem construction technology.
The Historic Preservation Boaro, at its September 12, 1996 meeti.ng, adopted
the recommendations of the City of Miami Beach Planning, Design and
Historic Preservation Division as described within the Sunset Islands Bridges
-#1, 2 and 4 Hi storic Designation Report, and recommends historic
designation in accordance with Section 19~5 of the Miami Beach Zoning
Ordinance 89-2665 with locations shown on Map 1 and more fully descn'bed
in Section IV (General Description of Boundaries).
3. Areas Subjcg to Review: All bridge elevations and plans, including
structural and architectural features, gate houses, lighting fixtures, site and
landscape features, as well as public ~ghts--of-way, including bridge
roadways and approaches.
Regular maintenance of public utilities, drainage, and mechanical
systems, sidewalks aod roadways shall not require a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
23
• f ••
. . .
~·
_SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES #I. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
4 . Reyicw Guideline$; The Planning, Design and Historic Preservation
Division recommends that a decision on an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness shall be based upon compatibility of the physical alteration
or improvement with surrounding properties and where applicable in
substantial compliance with the following:
a. The Secretazy of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating HistOJ'ic Buildings as revised from time
to time;
b. Other guidelineslpolicieslplaos adopted or approved by resolution or
ordinance by the City Commission;
c. All additional criteria as listed under Section 19-6 (C,2) of
City of Miami Beach Zoning Ordinance 89-2665;
d. City of Miami Beach Design Guidelines as adopted by the Joint
Design Review/Historic Preservation Board October 12, 1993,
Amended June 7, 1994, and as may be expanded upon in the future.·
24
•,
..
..SUNSET ISlANDS BRIDGES #l. 2 AND 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATION
ENDNOTES
1. Florida Bridges and Ro.adways Database. State ofFlroida Intcmet Web Site, Histroic Resources CoUCQtion. State of Florida
Secretary of State, State Historic Preservation Office, Tallhassee, FL. 1996.
2. Constructi~n Pmnit Reconb, 192N929. City of Miami Beach, Public Worts Division. Miami Beach, Florid!.
3. Letter from Daniel Read to Jtadolph VanDer B~gan of the Atlanta Retail C~it Company, February 3, 1932. Miami Beach
Letters CoUection. Historical Museum of South Plorida Archives, Miam~ florida.
· 4. Redfor<l. Polly. Bmjon-Dsll!ar Sandbec. E. P. Dutton & Co., New York. 1970. p. 149.
S. Portfolio of&!ates. Sunset Islands Company, 1936. p. 3.
6. Carl Graham Fisher. Personal Lcttm Collection and Other Documents. Historical Museum of Soutb Florida Alcllives,
Ml4mi, Florida.
7. ~id .
8, Tax. assessment records, 1927-t935. City of Miami Beach and Metro-Dade County Property Tax Asscswent Office. Miami
Beach. Florida and Metro-Dade County, Florida.
9. Florida. Bridges and Roadw.ys Database. State cf flroida [nt.emet Weh Site, Histroic Resoun:es Colleetion. State ofPlorida
Secrctllt)' of State, State Historic ~rvwon Office, Tallhlwcc, FL. 1996.
10. RH. Dfcl(enson Al:a!eaParlc and the Washington Street Bridge Designarloo Report. Lawson&'Femcreefc Neighborhood
Association,. Orlando, Florida. 1996. p . 2.
11. Senkavitcll, Analolv. Direotor, Graduate Program in Ristoric.Preservatlon Planning. Univecsity ofMlchiga.n, Ann Arbor,
Mlcltl gan.: ~ersonallnterview, August 1996 .
12. Cutttual Resource Assessment Survey of the Sunset Islands Bridge: #&76708 in Dllde County, Plorida. JW1US Research, St
Petersburg. Florida, for lhe Florida Department ofTransportatlon, Dislrict Six, Miami. July 1995.
13. Senkavitcb, Anatolv. Dlrtdor, OI'Bduatc Program in Historic PrelervationPlanniog. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Mlcl\igan. Personal lntcrvic:w, August 1996. ·
14. Cultural Resource .Assessment Smvcy of the Sunset Islands Bcid~ iiiS76108 in Dade County, Florlda. Janus Research, St.
Petem,urg, Florida. :for the florida Department ofTransportation, District Six. Miami. July 1995.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
25
EXHIBIT "H"
Proposed findings of fact and conditions to be included
in a resolution approving with conditions the design
review application by Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC.
The Miami Beach De sign Review Board approves, sub jec t to the
conditions below, the applicati on of Pal au Sunset Harbor, LLC
for a mi xed-use bu ilding for the si te legally described as
follows:
uAll of Lots 22. 23 , and 24, and the north 70 fee t of Lo ts
25 and 26 in Block 15A of 'Island Vi ew Addition' According
to the Plat Thereof, as Recorded in Plat Bo ok 9, Page 144,
of the Public Records of Miami-Dade Co u nty, Florida."
1. The findings included in the Aug ust 7, 2012 Design Review
Board Staf f Report, are adopted as findings to this
approval except as modified herein.
2. The conditions included in the August 7, 20 12 Design Review
Board Staff Report, are adopted as c ondit ions to this
approval except as modified herein.
3. The Design Revi ew Board makes the fol l owing findings:
a. Sunset Drive ex t ending from 20th Street t o the histor ic
Sunset Island Bridge is an important view corridor
that is a major defining element of this
neighborhood's character.
b. The character o f the waterfront f acing Sunset Island
No. 4 is illustrated by the articulated design and
minimized massin g of the Sunset Harbor To wnho mes which
are designed as lower scale buildings (with heights
between 27 and 33 feet, widt hs of 25 to 30 feet and
waterfront fa9ade areas be tween 675 and 900 feet )
close to the waterfront, behind which are tal ler
buildings. These clos e-to-waterfron t buildings reflect
a relationship to the single-family buildings (with
max i mum heights of 33 feet, widths of approximately 40
feet and fa9ade areas of approximately 1,200 square
fee t feet) across the waterway.
c. The project is inconsistent with the May 22, 2012
Conditional Use approval of the Planning Board as it
rel ates to the massing of the building e ast of the
World Savings Bank b ui lding.
d. The project is inconsistent with the May 22, 2012
Conditional Us e approval o f the Planning Board as it
1
relates to the encroachment on the line of sight from
Sunset Island No. 4.
e. The project is inconsistent with the following Des ign
Review Cr i teria in relation to the site, adjacent
s tructures and surrounding community:
i. Cri teria No. 6, regarding the proposed
structure's sensitivity to and compatibility with
the environment and adjacent structures , and
enhances the appearance of surrounding
properties.
ii . Criteria No. 7, regarding design and layout of
the proposed site plan and its arrangement of
land uses as it applies to the relationship to
the surrounding neighborhood, impact on
contiguous and adjacent buildings and lands,
pedestrian sight lines and view corridors.
iii. Criteria No. 12, regarding the structure's
orientation and massing and its sensitivity and
compatibility with the building site and
surro unding area and its creation or ma intenance
of important view corridor(s).
4. The De sign Review Boa rd approval of the application is
subject to the following conditions:
a. The entire length of t h e building abutting and east o f
the World Savings Bank property shall be set back an
additional 15 feet.
b. The entire length of the fifth floor of the northern
side of the building facing Sunset Island No. 4 shall
be set back an additional ten feet.
c. The entire length of the building of the eastern
portion of the building along Sunset Drive shall be
stepped back as follows:
i. First floor an additional ten feet (current
proposed setback plus ten feet);
ii. Second and third floors an additional five feet
{current proposed setback plus 15 feet);
iii. Fourth and fi fth floo rs an additional five feet
(current proposed setback plus 20 feet).
5. The Design Review Board notes that the proposed design of
the building includes an interior courtyard. That courtyard
may be eliminated to accommodate some or all of the loss of
floor area created by the conditions s e t forth herein.
2
EXHIBIT ''I''
MIAMI BEACH
PlANNING DEPARTMENT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM : Richard G. Lorber, AICP, LEED i
1
0
STAFF RtzJP-RT
Acting Planni ng Director (Jv---
DATE: October 2, 2012 Meeting
RE : Design Review File No. 22889
1201·1237 20th Street -Palau at Sunset Harbor
The applicant, Pala u Sunset Harbor, LLC., is requesting Design Review Approval for the
construction of a new 5-story mixed-use building, wh ich will replace all existing structures on the
subject site, to be demolish ed. The applicant is also request ing Design Review Board appro val
for modifications to a previously approved site plan, which is the subject of a Declaration of
Restrictive Covenants in Lieu of Unity of Title,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
All of Lots 22 , 23 , and 24, and the north 70 feet of Lots 25 an d 26 in Block 15A of "Island Vi ew
Addition• According to the Plat Th ereof, as Record ed in Plat Book 9, Page 144, of the Publi c
Record s of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
HISTORY:
The application came before the Board on August 7, 20 12, and was continued to a date certain
of October 2, 2012 , in order to add re s the concem s expressed by the Board and Staff, as well
as to fully re-notice the application.
SITE DATA:
Zoni ng·
Future Land Use Designation-
Lot Size-
Existing FAR •
Pro posed FAR -
Existing Height -
Propo sed Height-
Existing Use/Condition ·
Pro posed Use -
THE PROJECT:
C0-2 (Com mercial , Medium Intens ity)
CD-2 (Commercial, Me dium Intensity)
54,765 SF
Not Provided
108,269 SF /1.98 (Max FAR:; 2 .0)
Not Provided
5-stories I 50 feet, 60 feet to highest no n-hab itable
projection
Vacant con struction site and vacant dry cleaners
Mixed-Use -50 Residentia l Units , 11,325 S.F. of
Commercia l Space, and 153 parking spaces (140
required)
The applicant has submitted plans entitled "Palau at Sunset Harbour", as prepared by Kobi Karp
Architecture, Interior Design & Planning , dated August 2012.
Page 2 of 14
ORB File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
There is a restrictive covenant on the southern portion of the property, tying the former Cypress
Bay property to the "World Savings Bank property", currently owned by MAC SH, LLC. These
two properties were at one time one single property, and were split at the time of the proposed
const ruction of the former Cypress Bay project, wh ich req ui re d a covenant in·li eu of un ity of title.
The applicant is proposing the contruction of a new 5-story mixed-use building on the site
currently occupied by the abandoned 'Cypress Bay' development as well as the now vacant
Mar1<'s Cleaners site. The ~ro u nd floor is comprised of commercial units facing the majority of
Sunset Drive as well as 20 Street. Veh icular entrance to the property is located at the south
west corner of the site. Parking is provided at the first floor and part of the second floor in the
center of the project, utilizing vehicular lifts in most areas. Residential units are located on the
up per five floors , wi t h a central landscaped courtyard provided above the parking ga rage,
surrounded by residential units. A common pool and pool deck, as we n as private roof-top
terraces are also proposed.
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING CODE :
A pre limi nary review of the project ind ica tes the following :
1. As required by the City Code, Conditional Use approval from the Planning Board wa s
approved on May 22, 2012.
This shall not be considered final zo ning review or approvaL These and all zoning matters sh all
require final review and verification by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a
Building Pennit, including final par1<ing calculations and a concurrency review.
ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE:
Additional information will be required for a complete review for compliance with the Florida
Building Code 2001 Edition, section 11 (Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction .)
T he abo ve noted comments sha ll not be considered final accessibility review or approva l.
These and all accessibility ma tters shall require fi nal review an d verification by the Buildin g
Departmen t prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
PRELIMINARY CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION:
In accorda nce with Cha pter 122 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, the Transportati on and
Concurrency Management Division has conducted a prelim inary concurrency evaluation and
determined that the prefect does meet the City's concurrency requirements and level-of-service
standards. The City's concurrency requirements can be achieved and satisfied through
payment of mitigation fees or by entering into an enforceable devel opme nt agreement with the
City. The Transportation and Concurrency Management Division will make the determination of
the project's fair-share mitigation co st.
A fina l concurrency determination shall be conducted prior to th e issua nce of a Building Perm it.
Mitigation fees and concurrency administrative costs shall be paid prio r to the project rece iving
any Building Permit. Without exception, all concurrency fees shall be paid prior to the issuance
of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy.
COMPLIANCE WtTH DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA:
Design Review encompasses the examination of architectural drawing s for consistency with the
criteria stated below with regard to the aesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of the
Page 3 of 14
ORB Fil e: 228 89
Meeting Date: October 2 , 2012
structure or proposed structures in relation to the s ite , adjacent structures and surrounding
community. Staff recommends th a t the followi ng criteria is foun d to be satisfied, not sati sfied or
not applicable, as hereto indicated:
1. The existing and proposed conditions of the lot, including but not necessa ri ly limited to
topography, vegetation, trees, drainage, and water.vays.
Satisfied
2. The location of all exi sting a nd proposed buildings, drives, pa rk ing spaces, walkways,
means of ingress and eg ress, drainage faciliti es , utility services, lan dscaping structures,
signs , and lighting and screening devices.
Satisfied
3, The dim ens ions of all buildings, structu res, setbacks, parking spaces , floor area ratio,
he ig ht, lot coverage and any other infonnation that may be reasonab ly necessary to
determine compliance with the requirements of the underlying zoning district, and any
applicable overlays, for a particular application or project.
Satisfied
4. The color, design, selection of landsca pe materials and architectural elements of
Exterior Building surfaces and p ri mary public interior areas for Developments requiring a
Building Permit in areas of the City identified in section 118-252.
Satisfied
5. The proposed site plan, and the location, appearance and design of new and existing
B uildings and Structures are in conformity with the standards of this Ord inance and other
applicabl e ord inances, architectural and design guidelines as adopted and amende d
periodically by the Design Review Board and Historic Prese rvation Boards, and all
pertinent master plans.
Satisfied
6. The proposed Structure, and/or additio ns or modifications to an existing structure,
indicates a sensitivity to and is compatible with the environment a nd adjacent Structures,
and enhances the appearance of the su rrounding properties.
Satisfied
7. The design and layout of the proposed site plan, as well as all new and existing building s
shall be reviewed so as to provide an efficient arrangement of land uses. Particular
attention sha ll be given to safety, crime p re vention and fire protection , relationship to the
surrounding neighborhood, impact on co ntiguous and adjace nt Building s and land s,
pedestrian sight tines and view corridors.
Satisfied
8. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adj acent to the site shall be
reviewed to ensure that clea rly defined, s egregated pedestrian access to the site and all
buildings is provided for and that a ll parking spaces are usable and are safely and
conveniently arranged; pedestrian furniture and b ike racks sha ll be considered. Access
to the Site from adjacent roads shall be designed so as to interfere as little as possib le
with traffic flow on these roads and to perm it vehicles a rapid and safe Ingress and
egress to the Site.
Satisfied
Page 4 of 14
ORB Fil e: 2.288 9
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
9. Lighting shall be reviewed to ensure safe movement of persons and vehicles and
rei1ecti on o n pub lic property for sec urity purposes and to minim ize glare and reflectio n on
adjacent properties. Lighting shall be reviewed to assure that it enhances the
appearance of structures at night.
Satisfied
10 . Landscape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an adequate relationship
with and enhance men t of the overal l Sit e Plan de sign.
Satlsfled
11 . Buffering ma terials sha ll be rev iewed to ensure that headlights of veh icles , noise, and
light from structures are adequately shielded from public view, adjacent properties and
pedestrian areas.
Sa tis fled
12. The proposed structure has an orientati on and massing which is sensitive to and
compatible with th e building site an d surro un ding area and which creates or mainta ins
important view conidor(s).
Satisfied
13. The building has, where feasible, space in that part of the ground floor fronting a street
or streets which is to be occupied for residential or commercial uses; likewise, the upper
floors of the pedestal portion of the propo sed bu ild ing fro nti ng 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
appeara nee of the parking structure from the surround ing a rea and is integrated with the
overall appearance of the project.
Satisfied
14. The building shall have an appropriate and fully integrated rooftop architectural treatment
which substantially screens all mechanical equipment. stairs and elevator towers.
Satisfied
15 . An addition on a building site shall be designed , sited and massed in a mannerwtlich is
sensitive to an d co mpatib le with the existing improve ment(s).
Not Applicable
16. All portions of a project fronting a street or sidewalk shall incorporate an arch itectura lly
appropriate amount of transparency at the first level in order to achieve pedestrian
compatibility and adequate visual interest.
Satisfied
17 . The location , design, screening and buffering of all required service bays, delivery bays,
trash and refuse receptac les , as well as trash rooms shall be arranged so as to ha ve a
minimal impact on adjacent properties.
Satisfied
STAFF ANAL YSfS: .
Page 5 of 14
ORB File: 22889
Mee ti ng Date: October 2. 2012
As indicated previous ly, the applicant is proposing a well conceived and highly desirable mixed
residential and comme rcial plan for the redevelopment of the subject site . Staff is very pleased
with the modem design vocabulary propos ed, which will help form an iconic gateway to the
Sunset Harbor ne ighborhood. At this point the plans have been reviewed extensively by the
Planning Board and the Design Review Board with considerable input from the surround ing
neighborhood. Important issues related to the operation of the valet (which will be completely
internal to the property), as well as the garage entrance/exit location, have been extensively
evaluated, and approved as outlined In the requirements of the Planning Board's Conditional
Use approval, which was also included for reference in the origin al appli cation provided. It
should be noted that the applicant could have proposed an entirely commercial development of
this site, which would have had a much higher impact upon the adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
On May 22, 2011, the project received Conditional Use approval from the Planning Board. As
part of that approval the Planning Board imposed the following condition related to the Design
Review Board approval:
5. The applicant shall work with Design Review staff to furth er modify the proposal
to address the following , subject to review and approval by the Design Review
Board:
a. Pulling back fhe massing, east of the World Savings Bank property, with
emphasis on upper floor setback and the northeast corner of the bw7ding ,
and adding more green space.
b. Further modifying the gro und floor area along the canal (terraces) to
minimize the hardscape and increase the amount of open, landscaped
area at grade level.
c. Adding more canopy trees for Increased shade to the fandscape plan/
particularly along Sunset Drwe. A/so work with Sheryf Gold on this item.
d. Removing parking spaces on Sunset Drive.
e. Reducing encroachment on the line of sight from Sunset Island 4.
f. Working with Public Works staff to limit u·tums at the guardhouse.
Staff has reviewed the revised plans for compliance with the above conditions and has the
following comments and recommendations:
5 .a-Puffing back the massing, east of the World Savings Bank property, with emphasis on
upper floor setback and the north east corn er of the building, and adding more green space.
Staff believes this condition has been satisfied . Since the previous ORB meeting, the
massing at the northeast corner of the building has been further reduced with an
increased setback of approximately ten {10') feet for the entire portion of the building
located .north of the northeast stalrNell, as previously recommended by staff. The
reduction in massing at this comer is important so as not to overwhelm the historic
Sunset Island bridge. To the neighborhoods benefit, however, it is also important to note
that the massing of the building facing north has also been further broken down with
additional modulation in plan of the residential units and balconies facing the waterway,
compared to the plans previously reviewed. The previous ly proposed continuous
balconies have been replaced with individual balconies at most levels.
Page 6 of 14
DRS File: 22889
Meeting Date: Octobe r 2. 2012
S.b. -Further modifying the ground floor area along the canal (terraces) to minimize the
hardscape and increase the amount of open, landscape d area at grade level.
Staff believes this condition has been substantially satisfied. Based upon the plans
provided (Sheet L-1) the terraces of the ground floor units facing the waterway have
been reduced in size and the area for at-grade landscaping has been substantially
increased. Furhter, add itional understory planting and groupings of shade trees (green
bu ttonwood), have been incorporated into the design. Clustered groupings of shade
trees, as previously recommended by staff arenow located in a variety of locations,
which will provide the shade canopy desired while also allowing views to the waterway
from the residential units. This will benefit both the condo units as well as the single
family homes across tlie waterway. Staff woutd further recommend that In the areas
where the sta irwa y access to the first floor of residential units is not in conflict with the
partialfy underground parking, that these stairs be set in to the terraces, rather tha n
projecting further into the available common landscaped areas, in order to further
increase the area available for at-grade landscaping. As the drive aisle on the north side
of the site exceeds the minimum 22'-0~ by 1 '-1 0", staff would recommend that the entire
north wall of the garage structure, along with the adjacent stalrNay access to t he
residential terraces above be setback an additiona l 1'-10" from the north property line.
This will allow for more landscaping along the entire north side of the slte.
S.c. -Adding more canopy trees for Increased shade to the lands cape plan, particularly along
Sunset Drive. Also work with Sheryl Gold on this item.
Staff believes this condition is satisfied. Since. the previous meeting, the applicant has
increased the building setback along the ground floor of the south elevation facing 20th
Street, resulting in a total sidewalk width with minimum of 12'-0". This additional setback
now allows for the placement of more canopy trees within the sidewalk along the entire
south side of the property, which will greatly enhance the pedestrian character of the
street. A combination of green buttonwood trees and live oak trees is now proposed.
5.d.-Removing parking spaces on Sunset Drive.
Staff believes this condition is satisfied, to th e extent possible by the applicant. The
applicant has removed one ( 1 ) perpendicular parking space from the plans along Sunset
Drive, near the comer of 20th Street, as it may be too close to the intersection. The
Parking Department has indicated that the removal of all parking spaces does not meet
City Code requirements, as the removal is not for the sole purpose of creating access to
an off-street parking facility. In order to approve su ch removal , approval from the City
Commission would be required, in addition to payment of $35 ,0 00 for each space
removed. Staff recognizes the need for street par1<ing in this rapidly developing
neighborhood, and believes that the enhanced landscape plan proposed for the area
along Sunset Drive will substantially mitigate the retention of the (3) perpendicular
parking spaces.
5.e -Reducing encroachment on the line of sight from Sunset Island 4.
Staff believes this condition is satisfied. In comparing the north~south section line of
sight diagram, the roof.top elements in the revised plans have been further setback from
Page 7 of 14
ORB File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
the north elevation of the building, substantially red ucing their visibility as viewed from
the rear yards of the residential properties on Sunset Island 4. Further the applicant has
clarified that there is no internal connection between the top floor units fronting the
wate!Way and the roof~top terraces. Staff would atso recommend that the Board !l.Q!
approve any roof-top structures that are not specifically called out in the plans and
elevations provided.
5.f ~ Working with Public Works staff to limit u-turns at the guardhouse.
Staff believes that this condition is satisfied. After further review with the Public Works
Department, both Planning and Public Works staff believe that eliminating the break ln
the center median south of the new guardhouse would require anyone that made a
wrong tum onto Sunset Drive to proceed through the guard gate and across the bridge
to Sunset Island 4 in order to tum around. With the elimination of drop~off areas along
Sunset Drive for either the residential units or the commercial uses, staff does not
believe that u~tums before the guardhouse will be a significant issue.
As previously recommended by staff, the app licant has reloca ted the la ndscap e buffer from the
center of the sidewalk along Sunset Drive to the edge of the curb. This allows for one wider
sidewalk adjacent to the commercial spaces and an enhanced landscape buffer. It is also
impo.rtant to note that the transition between the elevated bridge and the sidewalk along the east
side of the property has been further developed. The applicant has submitted a photo overlay
entititled "Retaining Wall Study'', which indicates how the grade will be modified in this location.
The applicant has indicated that additional documentation Will be submitted at the meeting which
visually depicts the proposed new construction at this corner lavation. Staff is confident that with
further deve lopment and detailing the extensive grade change can be resolved with a suita ble
design solution.
However, as per the resolution from the Sunset Islands 3 & 4 Association submitted on
9/26/2012 (see Attachment 1}, the neighboring residents still have serious concerns. Staff
believes that the Planning Board review and Design Review Board review have resulted in
significant improvements to the overall design. In comparing the Palau project with the adjacent
Sunset Harbor Towhnhomes project, they are composed of two entirely different architectural
vocabularies. The Townhomes Incorporate a sixty·five (65') foot height condition along 201h
Street with 2·story townhouse units along the canal and an intervening courtyard in-between .
The Palau project is characterized by a modern, progressive architectural vocabulary with
expansive use of glass and modem materials, however both presecve a similar amount of open
sky as viewed from the Public Park across the canal. Staff must also stress that the land area of
the Sunset Harbor Townhomes project is approximately th ree (3) tim es the area of the Pa lau
project, and the length of Palau along the waterway is less than one-half of the Towhnhomes
project, resulting in substantially less Impact lt is also importan t to note that more than one-half
of the Palau site is located directly across the canal from a public park, with two and a half
single fam ily home sites directly facing the project to the west of the park.
lastly, as indicated in the 'City Attorney's Opinion on Applications by Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC
to the Planning Board and Oesig n Review Board' (see Attachment 2 ), the property at 1261 20th
Street ('Parce l A'), previously owned by World Bank., is owned by MAC. World Bank also owned
the adjacent land at 1237 20th Street ('Parcel B'), sold to lease Florida Sunset Harbor, LLC.
Lease Florida began constructing a project called Cypress Bay, which ceased construcijon prior
to completion. Wortd Bank sold Parcel 8 to Lease Florida without approval of a lot split by the
Page 8 of 14
ORB File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
Planning Board. This was not discovered until the Cypress Bay project was underway. To
remedy ttl is situation, and to address a deficiency in parking for the Cypress Bay project, among
other issues (cross easements for utilities, access and relief from Interior setbacks), MAC and
Lease Florida executed a Covenant in Lieu, pursuant to City Code Section 118-5, so Parce ls A
and 8 could be considered one site for zoning purposes. The parties also executed the
Declaration setting forth the cross-easements between these properties. Palau, the current
owner of Parcel B, and the successor under the Covenant in Lie and the Declaration, recently
purchased the Mari<'s Cleaners property at 1201 20 1h Street ('Parcel C').
Palau's new project on Parcels Band C requires a modification of the site plan attached to the
Covenant in Lieu and the Declaration, as provided for in The Covenant in Lieu. The Covenant in
Lieu indicates the following:
No modification shall be effectuated in such site plan without the written consent of the
then Owner(s) of the Property, whose consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and
the written consent of the Director of the City's Planning Department. ... Should the
Director or any Owner(s) of any portion of the Property withhold such approval, the then
owner( s) of the phase or portion of the property for which modification is sought shall be
permitted to seek such modification by application to modify the plan at public hearing
before the appropriate City Board or the City Commission of Miami Beach, Florida,
(whichever by law has jurisdiction over such matters).
The City Attorney and the Acting Planning Director have determined that the Design Review
Board is th e appropriate Soard to address a site plan modification.
Accordingly, should the Bo~rd approve this application, it will be approving a modification of the
site plan, "Exhibit C", of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants In Lieu of Unity of Title (see
Attac.hment 3), which was executed on December 15, 2010, between Lease Florida Sunset
Harbor LLC., and MAC SF , LLC, and further amended (Amended and Restated Declaration of
Easements and Restrictive Covenants) by the same parties, executed on February 23.2011
(see Attachment 4}.
City Code section 118~5 requires the applicant to combine the multiple lots comprising the
subject property with a unity of title or covenant in lieu of unity of title before obtaining a building
permit. Accordingly, 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 approval of the
City Attorney, combining the lots comprising the subject property, before submitting its
application for a building permit.
RECOMMENDATION :
In view of the foregoing analysis, staff recommends the application be approved, subject to the
following conditions, which address tile inconsistencies with the aforementioned Design Review
criteria:
1. The appli cant shall comply with City Code section 118-5 by executing and recording in
the public records a unity of titl e or covenant in lieu, subject to the approval of the City
Attorney, combining the lots comprising the subject property, before submitting its
application for a building permit.
Page 9 of 14
ORB File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
2 . Revi~ed 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 drive ais le on the north sid e of the site sha ll be reduced from 23 '-1 0" to 22'-
0" in width, and the entire garage structure, along with adjoining steps to the
residential terraces above shall 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, includ in g any canopies , and stairwell or elevator bulkheads,shall be
further de vel oped 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, subject to the review and app roval of staff. No roof-top elements that
are not explicitly shown on the roof plans 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 applican t shall engage a soils engineer to eva luate the former Mar k's
Cleaners site for possible chemicals contamination, shall provide such report to
staff, and shall take and take any and all necessary action to decontaminate the
site, if necessary.
f. All roof-top fiXtures , air-conditioni ng units and mechan ical devices shall be
clearty 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 t he subject project has been constructed in accordance with
the plans approved by the Planning Department for Bu ilding Permit.
3. A revised landscape plan, prepared by a Professional Land sca pe Architect, registered in
the State of Florida, and corresponding site plan, shall be submitted to and approved by
staff. The species type , quanti ty , dimensions, spacing, location and overall height of all
plant material shall be clearty delin eated and subject to the rev iew and approval of staff.
At a minimum, such plan shall incorporate the following:
a. Irrigation, uplighting and the City's standard bound aggregate system with
ferti lization trench may be required for a II street trees located within the sidewalk,
subject to the review and approva l of staff.
b. Along the north elevation in the area s where the stairNay access to the first level
of residential units is not in conflict with the partially underground parking, such
Page 10 of 14
DRB File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2 , 2012
stairs shall 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.
c. The applicant sha ll further study and prepare plans , including corss sections, for
the trans ition area from the Sunset Isle bridge approach to the project plaza at
the northeast comer of the site. Th ese plans should also include the public
access corridor to the canal walk, which may be required by the County's
Shoreline Review Board.
d. A fully automatic irrigation system with 1 00% 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 syste m.
e. The utilization of root barriers and/or structural soil, as applicable, shall be clearly
delineated on the revised landscape plan.
f. The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the exact
location of all backflow preventors and all 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 shall be subject to the re view and app roval of staff.
g. The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the exact
location of all app licable FPL transformers or vault rooms; such transfonners 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 clearly indicated on tne site and landscap e plans
and shall be subject to the review and approval of staff.
h. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Landscape Architect or
the project architect shall verify, ln writing, that the project is consistent with the
site and landscape plans approved by the Planning Department for Building
Permit.
4. All 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 faci ng north.
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.
' ..
Page 11 of 14
DRB File: 22889
Mee ti ng Date: October 2. 2012
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 mechan ical devices shall be clearly noted
on a revised roof plan and shall be screen ed from view, in a manner to be approved by
staff.
9 . All new and altered elements, spac es and a reas shall meet th e requirements of the
Florida Accessibility Code {FAC).
10. The applicant may be required to submit a separate analysis for water and sewer
requirements, at the discretion of the Publi c Works Directo r, or designe e. Based on a
prelimi nary review of the proposed project, the following may be req uired by the Public
Works Department:
a. A traffi c and neighborhood impact study shall be co nducted as a means to
measure a proposed development's impact on transportation and
neighborhoods. The study shall address all roadway Level of Servic e (LOS)
deficiencies relative to the concurrency req uirements of the City Code , and if
requ ired, shall be submitted prior to the issu ance of a Building Permit. The fina l
building plans shall meet all other requirements of the Land Development
Regulations of the City Code. The developer shall refe r to the mo st recent City of
Miami Beach's Traffic and Neighborhood Impact Methodology as Issued by the
Public Works Department.
b. Remove /repl ace sidewalks, curb s and gutters on all street frontages, if
applicabl e. Unless oth erwise specifi ed, the standard color for city sidewalks is
red, and the standard cu rb and gutter color is gray.
c. Mil l/resurface aspha lt in rea r alley al ong property, if app li cab le.
d. Provide underground utility service connections and on-site transfonner location,
if necessary.
e . Prov ide back-flow preve ntion devices on all water services .
f. Provide on-site, self-contained sto rm water drainage for the proposed
development.
g . Meet water/sewer concurrency requirements incl uding a hydraulic water model
analys is and gra vi ty sewer system capacity ana lysis as detenn ined by the
Department and the required upgrades to water and sewer mains servici ng this
project.
h . Payment of City utility impact fe es for water meters/services.
i. Provid e flood barrier ramps to und erground parKing or minimum slab elevation to
be at highest adjacent crown road elevation plus a•.
j. Right-of-way perm it must be obtained from Public Works.
Page 12 of 14
DRB File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
k. All right-of-way encroachments must be removed.
I. All planting/landscaping ln the public right-of-way must be approved by the Public
Works and Parks Departments.
11. 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 all successors in interest in whole or in part to comp ly with
the following operationa l 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 Des ign Review Board (DRS ) or the Planning Director shall retain the
right to call the owners and/or opera tors 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 valid violation (as determined by Code Compliance) about loud,
excessive, unnecessary, or unusual noise or other conditions of th is
approval. An adverse adjudication of a violation against the owner or
operator is not necessary for the board to have jurisdi ction over the
matter under thJs condition. This cond iti on vests jurisdiction independent
of any other condition hereof.
iii. A violation of Chapter 46, Article IV, "Noise,· of the Code of the City of
Miami Bea ch, Florida (a/'K/a "noise ordinance"), as amended, shall be
deemed a violation of this approval and subject the approval 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 se ntence 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 otherwise 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 halls, as defined in the
Miami Beach City Code, shall be prohibited, and the applicant will no t
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. OPERAT IONAL CONDITIONS
Page 13 of 14
OR B Fil e: 22889
Meeting Date: Oc tob er 2, 201 2
i. All trash containers shall utilize rubber whee ls , or the path for the tras h
con ta in ers shall consist of a surface finish tha t reduces noise, in a
manner to be reviewed and approved by sta ff.
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 re main closed while trash and trash bags are be ing deposited in
dumpsters . Doors shall remain closed and secured when not in active
use.
iii, Trash room(s)/garbage room(s) sha ll be la rge enough, or sufficient in
number to accommodate enough dumpsters so that no more than one
pick up of garbage per da y will be necessary.
iv. Garbage dumpster covers shall be closed at all times except when in
active use.
v. Garbage pickups and service deliveries shall not take place between
6PM and8AM.
vi. Outdoor cooking anywhere on the premises is prohibited. Kitchen and
oth er cooking odors will be contained within the premises. AU kitchens
and other venting sh all be chased to the roof and venting systems shall
be employed as necessary to minimize or dissipate smoke, fumes and
ado~.
vii. Equipment and supplies shall not be stored in areas visible from streets,
alleys or nearby buildings.
12. The project shall comply with any landscaping or other sidewalk/street improvement
standards as may be pre scribed by a rele vant Urban Design Maste r Plan approved prior
to the completion of the project and the Issu ance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
13. T he Final Order shall be recorded ln the Public Record s of Miami-Dade Co unty, prior to
the issuance of a Build ing Perm it
14. At the time of completion of the project, only a Final Certificate of Occupancy {CO) or
Final Certifi cate of Completion (CC) may be appli ed for; the staging and scheduling of
the construction on site shall take this into account. All work o n site must be completed
in accorda nce with the plans approved herein , as well as any modifications approved or
required by the Building, Fir e, Planning, CIP and Public Works Departments, Inclusive of
all conditions imposed herein, and by other Development Review Boards, and any
modifications required pu~uant to field in:;pections, prio r to the issuance of a CO or CC.
This shall not prohibit the issuance of a Partial or Te mporary CO, or a Pa rtial or
Temporary CC.
15. The Final Order Is not severable, and if any provis io n or conditio n hereo f is held void or
unconstitutional in a final decision by a court of competent jurisdiction, the order shall be
Page 14 of 14
DRB File: 22889
Meeting Date: October 2. 201 2
returned to the Board for reconsideration as to whether the order meets the crtteri.a for
appro v?l absent the stricken provision or condition, and/or it Is ap propriate to modlfy the
remaining conditions or impose new conditions.
16. The conditions of app roval herein are bind ing on the applicant, the property's owners.
operators, and all successors in interest and as signs.
17. Noth ing In this order authorizes a violatio n of the City Code or other appli ca ble law, nor
allows a relaxation of any requireme nt or standard set forth in the City Code .
RGL:WHC:MAB
F:\PLAN\$DRB\ORB12\0ctORB12\22889.0ct1 2.docx
A~NHMfWT I
Proposed findinqs of fact and conditions to be included
in a resolution approving with conditions the design
review application by Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC.
The Miami Beach De sign Re view Board approves, subject to t he
conditions below, the applicat i on of Palau sunset Harbor, LLC
fo r a mixed-use bu ilding for the site legally described a s
fol lows:
"Al l o f Lot s 22. 23, and 24, and the north 70 feet of Lo ts
25 and 26 in Block lSA of 'Island View Addition' Ac cording
to the Plat Thereof, as Re corde d in Plat Boo k 9, Pag e 144,
of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.u
1 . The f indings included in the August 7, 2012 De sign Review
Boa rd Staff Repo r t, are adopted as findings to th i s
approval e xcept as mod ified here in.
2. The co nditions included in the August 7, 2012 Design Review
Bo a r d Staff Report, are adopted as condit ions to this
approval e xcept as modified herein.
3. The De sign Re view Board ma kes the f ollowing findi ng s (in
additi on to those fi ndi ngs presen ted in the staff report):
a . Sunset Drive extending from 20 th Street to the his toric
Sunset Island Bridge is an important view corr idor
that is a major defining element of thi s
neighborhood's character .
b . The charact er of the waterfront facing Sunset Island
No. 4 is il lus tra ted by the art iculated d es ign a nd
minimi zed massing of the Suns et Harbor Townh om es which
are designed as l ow er sca le buildings {with heights
betwe en 27 and 33 feet, wi dths of 25 to 30 feet and
waterfront fa9ade areas between 675 and 90 0 fee t)
close to t he waterfront, behind which are ta ller
buildings . The se close-to -wate rfront buildings re fle ct
a relationship to the sing l e -family buildings (wi th
max imum he ights of 33 feet, wi dths of app roximate ly 40
fe et and fa9ade areas of approximatel y 1,200 squa re
feet f eet) across the wa terway.
c. The projec t is inconsistent with the May 22 , 20 12
Conditional Use approval of the Planning Board as i t
rel ate s to the ma s sing of t he building e ast of the
Wor l d Savings Ba nk bui lding .
d. The pro ject is inconsistent with the May 22, 2012
Con dit ional Use approval of the Planning Boa rd as it
1
w
relates to the encroachment on the line of sight from
Sunset Island No. 4.
e. The project is inconsistent with the following Design
Review Cri teria in re lation to the site, adjacent
structures and surrounding community;
i. Criteria No. 6, regarding the proposed
structure's sensitivity t o and compatibility with
the environment and adj a cent structures, and
enhancement the appearanc e of surrounding
properties.
ii. Criteria No. 7, regarding design and layout of
the proposed s ite pla n and its arrangement of
land uses as it applies to the relationship to
the surrounding neighborhood, impact on
contiguous and adjacent buildings and lands ,
pedestrian sight lines and view corridors.
iii. Criteria No. 12, regarding the st r ucture's
orientation and massing and its sensitivity and
compatibility with the bu i lding site and
surrounding area and its creati on or maintenance
of important view corridor(s).
4. The Design Review Board approval of the application is
subject to the following conditions (in addition to those
conditions presented in the staff report ) :
a. The entire length of the building abutting and east of
the World Savings Bank property shall be set back an
additiona l 15 fee t.
b. The entire length of the fifth floor of the northern
side of the building facing Sunset Island No. 4 shall
be set back an additional ten feet.
c. The entire length of the building of the eastern
portion of the building along Sunset Dr ive shall be
stepped back as follows:
i. First floor an additional ten feet (current
proposed setback plus ten feet) ;
ii. Second and third fl oo rs an additional five feet
(current proposed setback plus 15 feet);
iii. Fou rth and fi fth floors an additional five feet
(current proposed se t back plus 20 fee t).
5. The Design Rev iew Board notes that the proposed design of
the building includes an interior courtyard. That courtyard
may be eliminated to a ccommodate some or all of the l oss of
floor area created by the conditions set forth herein.
2
EXHIBIT ''J''
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
MEETING DATE:
FILE NO:
PROPERTY:
LEGAL:
INRE:
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,
Florida.
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
s u bject s ite, to be demolished. The appfi cant is a lso requesting Design
Review Board approval fo r modifications to a previously approved si te
plan, which is the subject of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants in
lieu of Unity of Title.
ORDER
The applicant, Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC ... 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, testi mony and materials presented at the public hearing
and wh ich 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 su bmitted is consistent with the Design Review
Criteria in Section 118·251 of the Miami Beach Code.
B. The project would remain consistent with the criteria and requirements of section 118-
251 if the following conditions are met:
1. The app li cant sha ll comply with City Code secti o n 118-5 by executing and
recording in the public records a unity of title· or covenant in lieu, subject to the
Page 2 of 8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
ORB File No. 22889
approval of thB City Attomey, combini ng the Jot s comprising the subject property,
before submitti ng its app li cation for a building permit.
2. The applicant shall execute and record in the public records of Miami-Dade
County an easeme nt providing for public access between the hours of sunrise
and sunset. over its waterfront wal kway, su bject to the approval of t he City
Attorney, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed project.
3 . Site plan approval is contingent upon meeting Public School Concurrency
requ irements. App li cant shall obtain a v alid Sch ool Conc urrency Determinat ion
Certificate (Certificate) issued by the Miami -Dade County Public Schools. The
Certificate shall state the number of seats reseiVed at each school level. In the
event sufficient seats are not available, a proportionate share mitigation plan
shall be incorporat ed into a tri -party development ag reeme nt and duly exec uted
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 mi nimum , such drawings shall incorporate the following:
a. The drive aisle on the north side of the site shall be reduced from 23'-10.
to 22'-o~ in width, and the entire garage structure, along with adjoining
steps to t he residential terraces above shall be setback an additional 1 '-
1 oa from the north property li ne, and the add itional 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 arch itectural proje ctions and f eatures , shall be provid ed in a
manner to be reviewed and approved by staff.
c. The roof top, including any canopies, and stairwell or elevator bulkheads,
shall be f urther developed and detailed to include any and all such
elements tha t may be proposed above the ma in roof level, and shall be
lowered in height to the extent possible, not to exceed a clear height of 8'-en 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 exp licitly shown on the mof plans 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 arch itectura l treatment of wes t elevation fac ing the former bank
building, shall be provided, in a manner to be reviewed and approved by
staff.
e. The applicant shall engage a soils enginee r to evaluate the fo rmer Mark's
Cleaners site for possible chemicals contamination, shall provide such
report to staff, and shall take any and all necessary action to
decontaminate the site, if necessary.
f . All roof~top fixtures, air-conditioning units and mechan ical devices shall
be clearly 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 Certifica te of Occupancy, the project Architect
shall verify, in writing, that the subject project has been constructed in
Page 3 of 8
Meeti ng Date: October 2, 2012
ORB File No. 22889
accordance with the plans approved by the Pla n ning Department for
Bui lding Permit.
5. A revised landscape plan, prepared by a Professional Landscape Architect.
registered in the State of Florida, and corresponding site plan , shall be subm itted
to and approved by staff. The species type, quantity, d i mensions. 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 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, uplighting and the City's standard bound aggregate system with
fertilization trench may be required for all 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 part<ing, such stairs shall be relocated to be in-set into the
terraces in order to increase the available landscape area for at-9rade
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 walk, 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 soil, as applicable, shall be
-eleatly-E!elffieated-eA-tfle revisee-ffifleseepe-f>ISA-,...------------
g. The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the
exact location of an 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, s i amese 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
shall 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 an<;i vault rooms, and all other related devices and fiXtures,
shall not be permitted within any required yard or any area fronting a
street or s idewalk. The location of any exterior transformers, and how
they are screened with landscape material from the right-of-way, shall be
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 Per mit.
6 . All 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 pennitted facing north.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Manufacturers drawings and Dade County product approval numbers for all new
windows, doors and glass shall be required, prior to the i ssuance 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 requirements of
the Florida Accessib ility Code (FAC).
1 2. The applicant may be required to submit a separate analysi s for water and sewer
requirements, at the discretion of the Public Works Director, or designee. Based
on a preliminary review of the proposed p roject, the following may be requ i red by
the Public 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 all roadway Level of Service
(LOS) deficiencies relative to the concurrency requirements of the City
Code, and if required, shall be submitted prior to t he issuance of a
Building Permit. The final building plans shall meet all other requirements
of the Land Development Regulations of the City Code. The developer
shall refer 1o the most recent City of Miami Beach's Traffic and
Neighborhood Impact Methodology as issued by the P ublic Works
Department.
b. Remove/replace s i dewalks, curbs and gutters on all street frontages, if
applicable. Unless otherwise specified, the standard color for city
sidewalks is red, and the standard curb and gutter color is gray.
c. M i ll/resurface asphalt in rear alley along property, if applicable.
Page 5 of 8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
ORB Fil e No. 22889
d . Provide underground utility service connections and on-s ite transform er
location, if necessary.
e. Provide back-flow prevention devices on all wate r services.
f. Provide on-site, self-contained storm water drainage for the proposed
development.
g. Meet water/sewer concurrency requirements including a hydraulic water
model analys is and gravity sewer system capacity ana lysis as determined
by the Department and the required upgrades to water and sewer ma ins
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-ot-way permit must be obtained from Public Works.
k. All right-of-way encroachments must be removed .
I. All planting/landscaping irr the public right-of-way must be approved by
the Public Works and Parks Departments.
13. The Applicant agrees to the following operational co nditions for all perm itted uses
and shall bind itself, lessees, permittees, concessionaires, renters, guests, users,
and successors and as signs and all successors in interest in whole or in part to
comply with the following operational and noise atten uation 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 co unters shall be permitted on the
premises .
H. The Design Review Board (DRB) or the Planning Director shall
retain the right to call the owners and/o r operators back before the
DRB, at the expense of the owners and / or opera to rs, to impose
and/or modify the hours of operation, or amend or impose other
condition s, should there be a valid violation {as determined by
Code Compliance) about loud, excessive, unnecessary, or
unusual noise or other conditions of this approval. An advers e
adjudica ti on of a violation aga inst the owner or operator is not
necessary for the board to have jurisd iction over the matter under
this condition. This condition vests jurisdiction independent of any
other condition hereof.
iii. A viola tion of Chapter 46 , Article IV, ·Noise,• of the Code of the
City of Miami Beach, Florida (alkfa "noise ordinance"), as
amended, shall be deemed a violation of this approval and subject
14.
Page 6 of8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
ORB File No. 22889
the approval 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 otherwise
located on the exterior of the premises.
v. No outdoor live music shall be permitted at any time, inclusive of
percussion, musical instrum~nt. or vocal.
vi. Entertainment establishments, as well as dance halls, as defined
in the Miam i Beach City Code, shall be proh ibited, and the
app li cant will 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 CO NDITIONS
i. All trash containers shall utilize rubber wheels, or the path for the
trash containers shall cons is t 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
provi ded 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 will be necessary.
iv. Garbage dumpster covers shall be closed at all times except when
in active use.
v. Garbage pickups and service deliveries shall not take place
between 6PM and BAM.
vi. Outdoor cooking anywhere on the premises is proh ibited. 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 shall 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
Page 7 of 8
Meeting Dat e: October 2, 2012
DRB File No. 22889
Master Plan approved pri or t o t h e completion of th e p roject and the is suance of a
Ce rtificate of Occupancy.
15. The Final Order shall be recorded in the Public Reco rds of Miami-Dade County,
prio r to the issua nce of a Buil di ng Permit.
16. At the time of comp let ion of the project, only a Final Ce rtificate of Occu pancy
(CO ) or Final Certificate of Comp letion (CC) m ay be applied fo r; the staging and
scheduling of the construction on s ite shall ta ke thi s into account All work on
s ite must be completed in accor dance w ith the pl ans approved herein, as well as
any modifications approved or req uired by the Building, Fire, Plann in g, CIP and
Public Works Departments, inclusive of all conditions imposed herein, and by
other Development Review Boards, and any modifications required pursuant to
fi eld inspections, p rior to th e issu an ce of a CO or CC. This sha ll not prohibit the
issuan ce of a Partial o r Temporary CO, or a Partial or Temporary CC.
17. The Final Orde r is no t severab le, and if any p rovis ion or condition hereof is held
void or uncons tituti ona l in a f inal decisio n by a court of competent juri sdiction, the
ord er shall be ret urned to the Board for reconsideration as to w hether t he orde r
meets th e criteria fo r approva l abs ent th e stricken provision o r condition, and/or it
is appropriate to mod ify the remaining conditio ns or impose n ew con ditions.
1 8. Th e co nditions of approval herein a re b inding on the applicant, the property's
owners, operators, and all successors In interest and as signs.
19. Nothing in this orde r authorizes a violation of the City Code or other applicable
law, nor allows a rel axation of any requirem ent or sta ndard set forth in the City
Code.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, based upon t he fo regoing fi ndings of fact, the evid ence , inform ati on,
testimony and materials presented at the pub lic hearing, which are part of the r ecord f or th is
matter, and th e staff report and analysis, which are adop ted herein , includ ing th e staff
recommendations which we re adopted by the Board, that the Ap plication tor D esi gn Re vie w
approval is GRANTED for the a bove~referen ced project su bject to those certain conditions
spe cified In Para graph B of th e Findings of Fact (Condition Nos. 1-19, inclusive) hereof, to
which the applicant has agreed.
PROVID ED, the applicant shall build substantially in accordance wi th the plans approved by the
Design Revie w Board , as determined by staff, entitled "Palau at Sunset Harbour", as prepared
by Kob i Karp Architecture, Interior Design & Planning , dated August 2012, modified in
accordance w ith the conditio ns set fo rt h in this O rder and staff review a nd a pprova l.
No building permit may be issued unless and until all conditions of ap proval t hat must be
satisfied prio r to perm it issuance as set forth in this Order ha ve been met The Issuance of
Desig n Review Approval does not relieve the ap plica n t f rom obtainin g all other req uire d
Mun ic ipal, County and/or State reviews and perm its, includ ing final zoning approval. If adeq uate
hand icapped access is not provided on the Board~approved plans , this approval does not mean
th at s u ch handicapped access is not required .
When re questing a building permit, the plans sub mitted to the Building Department for permit
shall ba con sistent with th e plan s approve d by th e Board, modifie d in accordance with th e
conditions set forth in this Order.
If th e Full Building Permit fo r the p roject is n ot issued with in eighte en ( 18 ) m onths of the mee1in g
Page 8 of 8
Meeting Date: October 2, 2012
ORB 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 time, 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 conditions. If the Full Building Perm it 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 Desig n 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 land development
regulations of the City Code.
Dated this ~"h\ day of ()c.TO" EL , 20~
STATE OF FLORIDA )
)SS
COUNTY OF MIAMI·DADE )
The foregoi"'J instrument was acknowledged before me this 4.JZ day of
Oe!..t-o t2_ e./L-20~ by Thomas R. Mooney, Design and Pr~ Manager,
Planning Departm ent, City of Miami Beach, Florida, a Florida Municipal Corporation, on behalf
of the Corporation. He is personally known to me. ~~~-~~
• ... MY~IONIDI>~148 NOTARY PUBLIC
~~OF,..il'>~ ==~1!: M i ami-Da~e .O:ll:lnty,. Florida
My commiSSIOn exptres: $-()?. -/.:8
Approved As To Form: ~
Legal Oepartment: __ ---:~f-F-..._ _______ ( /1-'1--~'~~
Filed with the Clerk of the Des ign Review Board on I~ ~ 2-2() I?
F:\PLAN\$DRB\DRB 12\0ctDRB 12\22S89.0ct2012.FO.docx·
EXHIBIT "K"
W. Tucker Gibbs
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Richard:
terry bienstock <tbienstock@tbienstock.com>
Wednesday, December 26 , 2012 10:19 AM
'Lorber, Richard '; 'Be lu sh, Michael '; 'Cary, Will iam '
W. Tucker Gibbs; 'Jackie Lalonde'; 'Peter Lur ia'; 'Jeff Brandon '; 'Smith, Jose ' ·
Affidavit re Palau
Affidavit.pdf
On behalf of Sunset Islands 3 & 4, r submit for the official file, my affidavit as to what I would have testified t o upon
rehearing. Jose Smith suggested I put my testimony in affidavit form and file it with the Planning Dept so it is part of the
record for the appeal to the Commission. I will drop off the original affidavit at your office.
I will also forward by separate cover, the email I sent to the DRB members before the vote, asking for a meeting . I w ill
just forward a single request as a sample. The identical request went to all the DRS members.
Terry Bienstock
President
Sun set Islands 3 & 4
1
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA )
)
COUNTY OF MIAMI~ DADE )
BEFORE ME, the Wldersigned authority, person ally appeared Terry Bienstock, Affiant, who
being by me first duly sworn; on oath deposes and says that:
1. I am President of the SW1set Islands 3 & 4 Property Owners, Inc . ("Sunset Island s").
2. On August 7, and October 2, 2012, the City of Miami Beach Design Review Board
("DRB") held publicly noticed, quasi-judicial hearings and reviewed the application for
design review approval for the Palau Sun set Harbor development (DRB File No. 22889)
("Palau project").
3. On August 7, and October 2, 2012, SWlSet Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc.
appeared before the City of Miami Beach Design Review Board to object to the
application of Palau Sunset Harbor on its decision to grant the application for design
review app roval for the Palau project.
4. I attended and testified at the August 7, and October 2, 2012 DRB hearings.
5. In connection with the ORB proceedings regarding the Palau project, I along with another
representative of Sunset Islands was advised by Staff that it was improper to meet with
the DRB members outside the publically-noticed hearing, so we made no such attempts
before the August 7, 2012 meeting.
6. At the August 7, 2012 meeting , a general comment was made by the Chair that "some"
members had met with "some" Palau representatives. As a resul t, we approached the
Chair and several members after the meeting and asked if they would meet with us. They
said no .
7. We again heard that after the August 7, 20 12, postponement of the vote on the Palau
project, that Palau was continuing to meet with DRB members regarding the Palau
project. So I sought again to meet with each DRB member between August 7 and Oct. 2,
2012.
8. No member would meet with us or discuss what infonnation Palau told them in
connection with the vote to take place on October 2~ 2012.
------------·-----·-----·-------·-----·.
9. I sent an email to each DRB member, a representative sample of what was sent to each
DRB member is attached. No DRB member responded.
10. At the DRB meeting on October 2, 2012, no DRB member disclosed whether they had
direct communications with Palau representatives regarding the Palau project, what was
discussed, and what aspects of the project were shown to them on site. ·
11. After we filed for rehearing, I again reached out to all DRB members to meet on site.
This time, they all responded and we met with all but one DRB member on the Palau site.
12. On November 16, 2012, representatives of the association and I met with DRB chair
Jason Hagopian on site. He stated he had visited the Palau site previously and had
discu ssions with Palau representatives regarding the Palau project before his vote on Oct.
2, 2012.
13. On November 16,2012, I met with DRB member Carol Housen on site. She stated, and
confinned in writing that she bad visited the Palau site previously and had discussions
with Palau representatives regarding the Palau project before her vote on Oct. 2, 2012 and
after the August 7, 2012 meeting. She also stated that she was directed only to look at the
canal side of the project, and the developer's representatives did not discuss the project 's
impact on the Sunset Drive view conidor.
14, On November 29 , 2012, I met with DRB member Lilia Medina on site. She stated she
had visited the Palau site previously and had di scussi ons with Palau representatives
regarding the Palau project before her vote on Oct. 2, 2012. She stated that she was only
directed to look at the canal side of the project, and the developer's representatives did
not discuss the project's impact on the Sunset Drive view corridor.
15. On November 30, 2012 , I met with DRB member Leslie Tobin on site. She stated she
had visited the Palau site previously and had discussions with Palau representatives
regarding the Palau project before her vote on Oct. 2, 2012.
16. On December 3, 2012, I met with DRB member Seraj Saba on site. He stated he had
visited the Palau site previously and had discussions with Palau representatives regarding
the Palau project before his vote on Oct. 2, 2012 .
17. Affiant declares that he has examined this Affidavit and to the best ofhis knowledge and
belief, it is true, correct and complete.
18. Further the Affiant says naught.
-----·-----·-
STATE OF FLORIDA )
)
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Terry Bienstock, who is personally
known to me or has produced Fot.. ~ 854> 1 'f/ Sl-/ 1 ~ fAentification, and who did take an oath.
WITNESSED my hand and seal this -<-'-1 day ofDecember, 2012.
Notary Public
-------------4---.,~~~".:~,, RutEN H VANES ~
Printed name of Notary Public fmto.._) Notary Nile · Stlte crt ADt11t1 ,
My Commission Expires: i · · My C0111ca. &,1m Oct 1<1 . Hta ~'It , ~ C011111leeloll I DO t27251 ~ ·~ ... "'':\ loiiQef Tlwouall ..... .., ANn.
·-------------·--
EXHIBIT "L"
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
MEETING DATE:
FI L E N O:
PROPERTY:
LEGAL:
IN RE:
December 4, 2012
22889
1201-1237 2 0th 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 decisio n of the Design
Review Board, wherein it approved both the construction of a new 5-s tory
mixed-use build in g to replace all 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 origi na l application f or Des ign
Review Approval, detennining 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, t hat the project as submitted was consistent with the D esign
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 P etition , 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 last decision of the Board shall stand as the
deci sion of the Board, and that the request for a rehea ri ng of the subject project is DENIED .
Dated this day of
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) ss
Page 2 of 2
Meeting Date: December 4, 2012
ORB Fife No. 22889
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) Thefp~oing instrument was acknowledged before me th is !tJA day of
&t!!~t2./Z....... 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 t~
NOTARY PUBLIC
Miami-Dade County, Florida ':>,
My commission expires: fR.,.. 2 -/ /
Approved As To Form: c:J::/2 1/ _ j
Legal Department ---~w-~:._____:_...:.__ __ ( 1 ,J .. ltJ· ~~I~ )
IZ-/10 j_UJit-("'cf,t--1 Filed with the Clerk of the Design Review Board on
F:IPV\N\$0RB\ORB12\DecORB12\22889-RH Denied Dec12 FO GH.docx
EXHIBIT ''M"
INRE:
BEFORE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
OF IDE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA
DRB FILE NO. 22889
PALAU SUNSET HARBOR
1201 -1237 20t1t STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
PALAU SUNSET HARBOR, LLC'S RESPONSE TO
MAC SH, LLC'S AND SUNSET ISLANDS 3 AND 4 PROPERTY
OWNERS. INC.'S PETITION FOR REHEARING
Applicant, PALAU SUNSET HARBOR, LLC, (hereinafter referred to as
"PALAU,. or "Applicant") hereby responds to the Petition for Rehearing (hereinafter
referred to as the "Petition"), filed on October 23,2012 by MAC SH, LLC and SUNSET
ISLANDS 3 AND 4 PROPERTY OWNERS, INC. (collectively hereinafter referred to as
"Petitioners"), and states as follows :
Backeround and Procedural History
On May 22, 2012, the Planning Board of the City of Miami Beach, Florida
unanimously approved PALAU'S application for a Conditional Us e Permit. On October
2, 2012, the Design Review Board of the City of Miami Beach, Florida unanimously
approved PALAU'S application for Design Review Approval. The foregoing approvals
were issued to PALAU after mu1tiple hearings and continuances before the Planning
Board, Design Review Board and Board of Adjustment, spanning a time period just shy
1
of one full year.1 On October 23, 2012, Petitioners filed their Petition for Rehearing of
the Design Review Board's October 4, 2012 Order Granting PALAU Design Review
Approval. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioners' request for a rehearing
should be denied because the Petition for Rehearing is without merit and Petitioners do
not meet the threshold requirements to have the Petition heard by the Design Review
Board.
Analysis and Argument
Pursuant to City of Miami Beach Code Section 118~261, the design review board
has the discretion to hear or not to hear a petition for rehearing. The first sentence of
Section 118-261specifically provides that "the design review board may hear a petition
for rehearing by any person identified in section 118-262". Section 118-261 further
provides, in relevant part, as follows:
The petition for rehearing must demonstrate to the board that
(i) there ts newly discovered evidence which will probably
change the result if a rehearing is granted, or (ii) the board
has overlooked or failed to consider something which
renders the decision issued erroneous. (emphasis added).
The Design Review Board must deny Petitioners' request for a rehearing because
Petitioners fail to satisfy either of the two requirements in Section 118-261 cited-
above, which would allow the Design Review Board to even consider the Petition.
1 The Planning Board and tbe Design Review Board's unanimous approvals were issued after
approximately 11 and 8 hours of presentations before those respective boards and approximately
15 hours of meetings with Staff.
2
None of Petitioners' artz.uments demonstrate something newly discovered or an
overlooked issue. On tbe contrary, Petitioners assert matters that were aJready
extensively considered by the Design Review Board.
Petitioners assert the following seven (7) arguments in support of their Petition for
Rehearing:
1. Failure to evaluate the elimination and/or diminution of four view corridors
pursuant to Section 118-251(A)(l2);
2. Failure to evaluate the application consistent with the historic designation
report of the Sunset Islands bridges pursuant to Section 118-251(A)( 6);
3. Failure to disclose ex-parte communications as required by Sections 2-511
through 513 of the City Code;
4. Failure to consider the effects of modifications to previously approved site plan
pursuant to Miami Beach Code 118-5;
5. Fa:ilure to evaluate the addition on the building site pursuant to 118-
251(A)(15);
6. Failure to consider setbacks and overlooked evidence; and
7. Failure to consider modification of operation and use.
This Response wiU address each of Petitioners' seven arguments, as follows:
1 .. Failure to evaluate the elimination and/or diminution of four view
corridors pursuant to Section 118-2Sl(A)(12)
Petitioners disingenuously argue that the Design Review Board failed to
evaluate the elimination and/or diminuti on of four view corridors pursuant to Section
118 -25 1(A)(l2). All applicable view corridors were carefully reviewed and evaluated by
3
both the PlaiUling Board and Design Review Board. The Staff Reports generated by
these Boards evidence this and reveal that the Palau site plans and schematics (with
respect to view corridors) comply with all relevant design review criteria. Petitioners'
argument is further undermined by the fact that the Petition attaches a report authored by
Jean-Francais Lejeune, dated May 17t 2012, that specifically addresses the issue of the
vistas and view corridors Petitioners complain about.2 Further, the date of Mr. Lejeune's
report, alone, unequivocally demonstrates that Petitioners' argument pertaining to view
corridors and vistas is not newly discovered evidence. Lastly, Petitioners· argument
ignores the fact that the Board, at the October 2, 2012 Design Review Board meeting,
required additional setbacks to the northeast comer of the Palau project, which Palau
complied with.
Based on the foregoing, Petitioners fail to demonstrate something newly
discovered or something overlooked by the Board. This position is supported by
Design Review Board Staff, as evidenced by the Design Review Board Staff Report
dated December 4, 2012.
2. Failure to evaluate the application consistent with the historic designation
report of the Sunset Islands bridges pursuant to Section 118·251(A)(6)
This argument should insult the Design Review Board, considering Petitioners
devoted, at the October 2, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, a considerable portion of
their argument to the historic designation report of the Sunset Islands bridges. At this
meeting, Board member Jason Hagopian, and Petitioners' counsel, Tucker Gibbs, both
1 It is worth noting that Mr. Lejeune's testimony at the May 22, 2012 Planning Board meeting stated that
the Palau project does not have any adverse impacts on the Sunset Islands residential neighborhood.
4
acknowledged the Board's receipt and review of the historic report. Moreover, there was
considerable testimony and cross-examination concerning the report. Additionally, there
was open discussion at the October 2> 20 12 meeting, wherein it was highlighted that
Assistant Planning Director, William Cary, the author of the historic designation report,
was recommending approval by the Design Review Board. Lastly, Petitioners ignore the
fact that Palau's site plan was modified to scale back the northeast corner of the Palau
project for the sole purpose of showing sensitivity to the historic bridge.
Based on the foregoing;, Petitioners fail to demonstrate somethin~ n~wly
discovered or something overlooked by tbe Board.
3 . Failure to disclose ex-parte communications as required by Sections 2-511
through 513 of the City Code
The Design Review Board Staff Report for the December 4, 2012 meeting
correctly points out that ex-parte communications were discussed and disclosed at the
August 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting. The December 4, 2012 Staff Report
correctly points out that the Board Chainnan stated, at the August 7, 2012 meeting
"[W]e've met, most of us here have met with [Palau's development] team to go over the
project.'' Furthermore, at the October 2, 2012 Design Review Board meeting,
Petitioners' counsel, Tucker Gibbs, read into the record that Petitioners are incorporating
all documents and records from the prior Design Review Board and Planning Board
proceedings-thus, mooting Petitioners' argument about ex-pate communications.
5
Based on the foregoing, Petitioners fail to demonstrate something newly
disco':ered or somethJng overlooked by the Board.
4. Failure to consider the effects of modifications to previously approved site
plan pursuant to Miami Beach Code 118~5
In addition to the reasons set forth in the Design Review Board Staff Report for
the December 4, 2012 meeting (a copy of which is attached to this Response as Exhibit
"A"), this argument fails because it completely ignores the fact that the Petitioners
devoted a substantial amount of time to this is sue at the October 2, 2012 meeting. At this
meeting, Petitioner, MAC SH, LLC's representative, Michael Comras, Petitioners'
counsel, Kent Harrison Robbins, Assistant City Attorney, Gary Held, and Assistant
Planning Director, William Cary, all made specific references on the record concerning
the effects of modifications to the previously approved site plan. This issue was well
vetted at the October 2, 2012 meeting, which caused William Cary to specifically state at
the meeting that Mr. Comras met with Staff to address all of Mr. Comras' issues. and
concerns relating to the modified site plan and how it affects MAC SH, LLC's/Comras'
building.3
Based on the foregoing, Petitioners fail to demonstrate something newly
discovered or somethlne overlooked by the Board.
3 It should be noted that Petitioners' Argument No.4 is personal to MAC SH, LLC and Mr. Comras, not
to the remaining Petitioner.
6
S. Failure to evaluate the addition on the building site pursuant to 118-
2Sl(A)(IS)
This argument is invalid for the same reasons discussed in Palau 's response to
Petitioners' Argument No. 4, above. Petitioners simply ignore the fact that Petitioners
devoted time to this issue at the October 2, 2012 meeting.
Based on tbe foregoing, Petitioners fall to demonstrate somethine; newly
discovered or something overlooked by the Board.
6. Failure to consider setbacks and overlooked evidence
In addition to the reasons set forth in the Design Review Board Staff Report for
the December 4, 2012 meeting, this argument fails because it is rendered moot by
Palau's modified site plan that was approved by the Design Review Board. The Staff
Report from the October 2, 2012 Design Review Board states as follows:
The City Attorney and the Acting Planning Director have
determined that the Design Review Board is the appropriate
Board to address a site plan modification. Accordingly,
should the Board approve this application, it will be
approving a modification of the site plan ...
Pursuant to the above.cited language from the Staff Report, Petitioners' argument
is invalid because (i) the Design Review Board specifically addressed its authority to
modify the old site plan and (ii) the setbacks Petitioners complain about are no longer
relevant as they have been superseded by a new site plan.4
4 .It should be noted that the Palau project meets or exceeds all reqcired setbacks.
7
Based on the foregoing, Petitioners fail to demonstrate something newly
discovered or something overlooked by the Board.
7. Failure to consider modification of operation and use
This argument is invalid for the same reasons discussed in Palau's response to
Petitioners' Argument No. 4, above. Petitioners simply ignore the fact that Petitioners
devoted time to this issue at the October 2) 2012 meeting.5
Based on the foregoing, Petitioners fail to demonstrate something newly
discovered or something overlooked by the Board. This position is supported by
Design Review Board Staff, as evidenced by the Design Review Board Staff Report
dated December 4, 2012.
Con elusion
As stated above, the Design Review Board should deny Petitioners' request
for a rehearing because Petitioners fail to meet the threshold requirements for a
rehearing. The Petition for Rehearing must be denied unless Petitioners demonstrate
something newly discovered or something overlooked by the Design Review Board -
which Petitioners have failed to do. Petitioners' arguments are completely contradicted
by the record that was compiled after nearly 11 hours of presentations before the
Planning Board and 8 hours of presentations before the Desig n Review Board, which
Boards issued unanimous approvals to Palau. Further, Petitioners' arguments insult the
' Additionally, it should be noted that the Planning Board detennined that the Palau project has a less
intensity then the dry cleaning business that was previously operating on the subject property.
8
Design Review Board, as they suggest that the Design Review Board lacks the
perspicacity to understand the requirements needed to proceed with a rehearing. It is
hard to believe, as Petitioners argue, that Petitioners, Design Review Board, Staff and the
Applicant overlooked so many critical aspects of the design review process, especially
when the facts overwhelmingly show the opposite. Based on the foregoing, the request
for a rehearine, and the Petition itself, should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP
Counsel for PALAU SUNSET HARBOR, LLC
One Biscayne Tower
2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2400
Miami, FL 33131
Tel No.: (305) 379 -2425
Fax No.: (305) 379-2420
By:f/7~
WayneM. Pathman, Esq.
r:\palau WliSOt hubour\pJ.lau 3Uil3el harbtrur • dC$ign review bo•rd\pldg\palau'l rarponse to pcll\iOll fbr rehearing.docx.
9
EXHIBIT ''A''
(9 MIAMf BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
FROM:
DATE;
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
Richard G. Lorber, AICP, LEED A?
Acting Planning Director J11t/cr R&.L.
December 4, 2012 Meattng
RE: Design Review File No. 22889
1201·1237 20th Street-Palau at Sunset Harbor
The re-hearing applicants, MAC SH, LLC, and the Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners,
Inc., are requesting a re~hear1ng of a previous decision of the Design Review Board, wherein It
approved both the construction of a new 5~story mlxedwuse building to replace all existing
structures on the subject site, to be demolished, as wetl modifications to a previously approved
site plan, which is the subject of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants in Lieu of Unity ofTiije.lf
the re-hearing request is granted it may be heard immediately.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
All of Lots 22, 23, and 24, and 1he 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.
HISTORYIREQUE.SI:
On May 22,2011, the project received Conditional Use approval from the Planning Board.
The application was approved by the Design Review Board on October 2, 2012, subject to the
conditions of the Final Order.
On October 23, 2012 a 'Petition for Rehearing' was filed by the MAC SH, LLC., and the Sunset
Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc.
Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach City Code specifies that the Design Review Board may
consider a petition for rehearing by the applicant, the owner{s) of the subject property, the city
manager, an affected person, Miami Design Preservatlon League, or Dade Heritage Trust. For
purposes of this section, ~affected person" shall mean either a person owning property within
375 feet of the applicant's project reviewed by the board, or a person that appeared before the
board (directly or represented by counsel), and whose appearance is confirmed in the record of
the board's public hearing( s) for such project. The petition for rehearing must demonstrate to the
board that:
(I) there Is newly discovered evidence which will probably change the result If a
rehearing is granted, or
Page2 of5
ORB File: 22889
Meeting Date: December 4, 2012
(II) the board has overlooked or failed to consider something which renders the decision
issued erroneous.
The basis for the attached re-hearing petition subm itte d by the applicant is that there Is newly
discovered evidence Which Is likely to be relevant to the decision of the board.
STAFF ANALYSIS;
The petition for rehearing claims that several ite ms were overlooked or were failed to be
cons idered by the Board . Staff believes that this Is not the case, as all Items mention ed In the
reasons for the petition were discussed and considered by the Soard as outlined below.
Page 3 of the re~hearing petition:
FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE ELIMINATION AND/OR OIMUNiTION OF FOUR VIEW
CQ~RIDORS pURSUANT TO SECTION 11 9-251 (Al( 12)
First, staff must note that any reference pertaining to view corridors implies Public View
Corridors, and not private view corridors. Any views to the ..._.,aterfrom the MAC SH LLC., are not
protected public view corridors, and lhe property owner does not have an Inherent right to water
views through the same or another owner's property. All of the view corridors referenced In the
PQtltlon were discussed and reviewed by both the Planning Board and the Design Review
Board. The Board, at the August 7, 2012 meeting, did require that the northeast comer of the
building be further setback In order to lessen the Impact on the historic Sunset Island bridge,
and this change was made in the plans presented to the Board for the October 2, 2012 meeting,
and the change fully satisfied the Board's request.
This Is NOT newly discovered evidence which will probably change the result if a rehearing is
granted.
Page 5 of the re-hearing petition:
FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE APPLICATION CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC
DESIGNATION REPORT OF THE SUNSET ISLANDS BRIDGES PURSUANT TO SECTION
118-251(8)(6)
Tlie Board was pro vided cop ies of the designation report or made aware of the designation
report at the August 7, 2012 meeting . This issue was discussed and evaluated by the Board at
both the August 7, 2012 and October 2, 2012 meetings. Although the Pa lau Project ls not
located within the Sunset Isles Bridge historic site, nor Is the project subject to the regulatory
review or approval of the Historic Preservation 13oard, both the Plann ing Board and the Desig n
Review Board did serio usly consider the compabillty of the proposed Palau structure with the
historic br idg e and did require that the northeast corner of the proposed Pa lau structure be
modified and significantly set further away from the historic bridge In order to complement ralher
than detract from the historic site.
This Is NOT newly discovered eVIdence which will probably change the result if a rehearing ls
granted.
Page 7 of the re~hearing petition;
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EX~PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 2~511
THROUGH5130FTHECITYCODE
Page 3 of5
ORB File: 22889
Meeting Date: December 41 2012
Ex-parte communications were discussed at the August 7, 2012 meeting.
At the beginning of the Board discussion, the Board Chairman indicated "We've met, most of us
here have met with your team to go over the project", (referring to the Palau development team),
and other Board members Individually Indicated that they had met with the applicant.
This is NOT newly discovered evidence which will probably change the result If a rehearing Is
granted.
Page 8 of the re-hearing petition:
FAILURE IO CONSlQER IHE EFFECTS OF MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
SITE PLAN fUB§UANI TO MIAMI BEACH CODE 11§-§
It was clearly stated In the the Staff Report from the October 2, 2012 meeting that by approving
the subject application, the Board would also be approving a modification to the site plan:
"Lastly, as Indicated In the 1City Attorney's Opinion on Applications by Pafau Sunset
Harbor-, LLC to the Planning Board and Design Review Board' (see Attachment 2), the
property at 12($1 2r:Jh Street ('Parcel AJ , previously owne d bt World Bank, Is owned by
MAC. World Bank also owned the adjacent land at 1237 2d Street ('Pa rcel BJ, sold to
Lease Florida Sunset Harbor, LLC. Lease Florida began constructing a project called
Cypress Bay, which ceased construction prior to completion. World Bank sold Parcel B
to Lease Florida without approval of a lot split by the Planning Board. This was not
discovered until the Cypress Bay project was underway. To remedy this situation, and to
address a deficiency in parking for the Cypress Bay project, among other issues (cross
easements for utilities, access and relief from interior setbacks), MAC and Lease Florida
executed a Covenant In Lieu, pursuant to City Cod& Section 118·5, so Parcels A and B
could be considered one site for zoning purposes. The parties also executed the
Declaration setting forth the cross--easements between these properlies. Palau, the
current owner of Parcel B, and the successor under the Cowmant in Ue and the
Declaration, recently purchased the Mark's Cleaners property at 1201 2dh Street ('Parcel
CJ.
Palau's new project on Parcels B end C requires a modification of the site plan attached
to the Covenant in Ueu and the Declaration, as provided for In The Covenant In Lieu.
Tha Covenant In Lieu Indicates the following:
No modification shall be effectuated in such sfte pJsn wllhout the written consent
of the then Owner(s) of the Properly, whose consent shall not be unreasonably
withheld, end the written consent of the Director of the City's Planning
Department. ...Should the Director or any Owner(s) of any portion of the
Property withhold such approval, the then owner( s) of the pha$e or portion of the
property for which modification is sought shalf be permitted to seek such
modification ·by application to modify the plan at public hearing before the
appropriate City Board or the Cfty Commission of Miami Beach, Florida,
{whichever by law has jurisdiction over such matters).
The c;ty Attorney and the Acting Planning Director have determined that the Design
Ravfew Board is the appropriat8 Board to address a site plan modification.
Page 4 of5
ORB File: 22889
Meeting Date: December 4, 2012
Aaoordlng/y, should the Board approve this application, it will be approving a modification
of the site plan, "Exhibit C~ of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants In Lieu of Unity of rme (:see Attachment -3), which was executed on December 15, 2010, bet'#een Lease
Florida Sunset Harbor LLC., and MAC SF, LLC, and further amended (Amended and
Restated Declaration of Ea sements and Restrictive Covenants) by the same parties,
executed on February 23, 2011 (see Attachment 4). "
This Is NOT newly discovered evidence which w\11 probably change the result if a rehearing Is
granted.
Page 10 of the re-hearing petition:
FAILURE TO EVALUATE THE ADD ITION ON THE BUILDING SITE PUSUANT TO §118-251
(Al£15)
The Staff Report erroneously Indicated that th is criteria was "Not App licab le", an d this wa~
corrected to ·satisfied" on the record at the October 2, 2012 meeting. The des ign of the
proposed new build in g and its relationship with the fonner 'World Savings Bank' building was
discussed at length, and both the Board and staff determined that the proposed new building
was sensitive to and compatible with the existing improvement.
This is NOT newly discovered evidence which will probably change the result if a rehearing is
granted.
Page 11 of the re-hearing petition:
FAILURE TO CONSIDER SETBACKS AND OVERLOOKED EVIDEN CE
The setback analysis referred to in the petition has no beari ng on the application, as It is noted
on the setback analysis (Exhibit B) In the petition, the noted setbacks are the
"minimum setback requirements 1f the property was not joined for zoning purposes
through a covenant In /lew of unity of tifle. -Note: RM setbacks are based upon su/Yey
data of /rrGgular proportions and are approximate. 1
'
As the property, Including the parcel owned by MAC SH LLC., is In fact consfdered one
property for zoning purposes as they are joined by a unity of title, these setbacks do not apply.
There are no required setbacks between the MAC SH, LLC. pro perty and the parcels owned by
the app llcant for the Pa la u proJect. In fact the Pa lau project provides a greater setback between
the 'MAC SH, LLC., parcel and the Palau proJect than the zero setback th at the Code allows.
This Is NOT newly discovered evidence which will probably changa the result if a rehearing is
granted.
Page 12 of the re-hearing petition:
EAlbURE TO CONSIDER OPEBAI10N AND USE
The Board reviewed and discussed the increase in commercial space with the proposed
modification to the site plan , as well as the nine (9) parking spaces referred to In the petition,
rendering this argument not-valid.
Page 5 of5
ORB File: 22889
Meeting Date: December 4, 2012
This Is NOT newly discovered evidence wh ich will probably change the result If a rehearing Is
granted.
BECOMMENDA!IOfii .
In view of the foregoing analysis, staff recommends tl'le request for a re-hearing of the subject
application be DENIED .
RGL:WHC:MAB
F:\Pl.ANI$0P.B\ORB12\0ct0R812122li89.0ct12.dcx:K
BEFORE THE MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FaE 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 Accordin g
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
APPENDIX
(')
~
··(
\) ,.....
-· ......... _,
(J",
C:> ... q
--.,
c-) -,..,
PETITION TO REVERSE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION
VOLUME II
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
~ c::::. -'-> -r. ;;: ,.....)
co ·n
N :·-.,
-...] I I -""tl .; :.:r .
i'3 ll .. ;:;,
N w
EXHIBIT ''N''
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
l7
19
19
20
21
22
23
2f
25
l
2
l
4
$
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
lS
15
ll
l8
19
20
a~
22
23
24
2S
~·
Page 1 Pa ge 3
1 (Whereupon, the following proceedings
2 were had:)
3 MR. BELUSH: This is Number 22889,
4 1201 to 123 7 20th Street, Pal au at Sm~set
5 Harbor. The applicant is requesting design,
6 review approval for the construction of the
(TRANSCRIPTION FROM CD) 7 new five -story, mixed-use building which will
8 place all exi sting structures on the subject
MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 9 site to be demolished, and staff is
CITY OF .MIAMI BEACH 10 recommending that the applicant give the
11 presentation and that members of th e public .
1 2 speak, and that the application be continued
REGARDING: 2043, 1201, 1225, 1237 20th Street 13 to a date certain of October 2, this year.
l4 MR. CARY: This is a very interesting
1 5 project wh ich has been reviewed, probably had
August 7, 2012 16 more public hearing exposure than almost any
17 other project on Miami Beach, prob ably
18 20 hours, at least, before the Planning Board
19 which --after which time it was granted a
20 conditional use approval, where all of the
21 traffic issues have been evaluated by the
22 Plann ing Board and having studied and
23 approved, and a tremendous amount of publi c
24 testimony has been granted, and there is very
' 25 good reason why thi s project has had the
Page 2 Pa g e 4
1 attention that it-that it -that it is APPEARANCE OF IDENTIFIED SPEAKERS 2 getting.
DESIGN REVlEW BOARD : 3 I am just going to briefly outline a Jason HagopWI, Chairperson 4 little bit of the earlier history on the Mickey Minagorri
Smj Saba s site, as many of you know, where Sunset Carol Housen 6 Harbor Towers I an d II are current ly located, Marilys Nepornech ie
William Cary 7 was originally the site of a -of a --a Michael Belu.sb 8 lumber yard.
9 MR. RO BB INS : I don't mean to
ATrORNEY FOR CITY OF MIAMI BEACH: 10 interrupt you, Mr. Cary, but{ wanted to OARY HELD, ESQUIRE
ll file --request a continuance on the basis of
AITORNEY FOR PALAU SUNSET HARBOUR: 12 improper notice, and I don't want to waive
DAVID SACKS, ESQ., 13 our rights concerning that. So I didn't want
Pathman Lewis, LLP 14 to disrupt you , but, you !mow, if Mr. Held One Biscayne Tt~Wer
15 can raise that --Suite 2400
2 South Biscayn e Boulevard 16 tv1R CARY: It is up to the chairman, I Miami, Fl. 33t31 11 think.
AITORNEY FOR MAC SH LLC: 18 MR. ROBB£NS: Mr. Chairman, I do have
KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, ESQ ., 19 a motion to continue this matter for fai lure
Attorney at Law 20 for provide proper pubHc not ice. 12.24 Washington Avenue 21 THE CHAIRPERS ON: ls that true? Miami Beach, Florida 33139
22 MR. HELD: Can you state with more ---23 specificity the grounds for your --
24 MR. ROBBINS; Two grounds, m~der the
2$ City charter--
KR ES SE & AS SOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
1 (Pa ge s 1 t o 4 )
1
2
3
4
5
6
..,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
2l
22
2 3
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 5
1vfR. HELD: Can you say your name? 1
MR. ROBBINS: My name is Kent Hamson 2
Robbins. I represent MAC HS LLC , which is 3
the owner of1261 20th Street. Mr. Comras' 4
property, the old World Bank building, it is 5
not that old, actually, but it is the World 6
Bank building. 7
Under the Miami Beach Charter, under 8
the Citizens' Bill of Rights, the right to 9
notice, per.;ons are entitled to notice of a 10
city hearing; shall be timely informed as to 11
time, place, nature of the hearing, and the 12
legal authority pursuant to which the hearing 13
is to be held. And the key word here is 14
nature of the hearing, and the legal 15
authority, pursuant to which the hearing is 16
to be held. 17
The issue here is whether or not the 18
notice properly gives a legal authority to go 19
fonvard on this hearing. There is no 20
citation to any ordinance. Although it says 21
it is going to be a design review approval, 22
it doesn't say under what provisions of the 23
code, and what is the legal authority to go 2 4
forward with the hearing. And that's 2 5
Page 6
required under the City charter.
But moreover, there is another defect,
a substantive defect as to notice, and that
has to do with an -· we are going to pass
this out--the issue of the covenant in lieu
of unity of title under 118-5.
As you probably know, our proj ect, our
site at 1261 is part of a unified site plan,
with the Cypress building, which are the two
adjoining lots to my client's building.
And that covenant in lieu of unity of
title has been opined upon by the City
attorney concerning objections that my client
may have as a signato.ry to that covenant as
to when objections can be raised as to •• as
to conformance with or violations of the
covenant in lieu of unity oftitle.
The City attorney opined on
February 7, 2012, after receiving memos from
both the applicant here, as well as my
client, that the matter of the covenant in
lieu of unity of title must be considered by
this board at this hearing as part of its
consideration of the modification of the site
plan.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 7
And it specifically said that we are
supposed to go forward before this board
under 118-5, which was not cited, nor was the
issue of the covenant in lieu of unity of
title actually noticed for this hearing.
So that is the fundamental defect .
Just to understand how indepth we are going
to have go on this issu e, although it has
been noticed, if we were forced to go
forward, we will have the right, under 118-5,
as well as under the terms of the covenant in
lieu of unity of title to present and
consider the prior approved site plan to the
project, as well as prior approvals and
orders considering that prior plan, and how
the proposed change in the site plan and
modifications would impact the
previously-approved site plan for this
project.
And I would actually tender to you and
show you the actual -· what was the approved
site plan , and explain why we believe that it
is inappropriate for the site plan to be
changed, in light of the covenant in lieu of
unity of tit le. And we would be entitled to
Page 8
that entire evidentiary hearing.
However·· and Mr. Held, correct me if
I am wrong --it has not even been noticed
for this matter. Yet, we are obligated by
the memo of the City attorney to go fonvard
in this forum, in this process, and raise aU
of these issues . So given that already, the
staff has recommended continuance of this
matter for the plans to be further adapted
and cleaned up, it would probably be in the
best interests for this matter to be
continued, to be properly noticed with formal
notice by advertising, by posting and by
mailing, specifying that this matter will go
forward, not only on the design review
application, but also on the modification of
the covenant in lieu of unity of title, and
the site plan related to that.
For that--on that ground, I would
ask that this matter be continued for the
reason s of that defective notice .
THE CHAIRPERSON: Gary, I will
respond.
'MR. ROBBINS: For the record, we are
going to be placing into the record the
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7 6 92
2 (Pages 5 to 8)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
Page 9
covenant, the amended covenant, the
easements, agreements, as well as the opinion
of th e City attorn ey .
Thank yo u.
··as we ll as 118-5.
tvfR. SACKS: I believe that may be part
ofyour staff package, those covenants, we
may--
Maybe not the co venant.
MR . HELD: Wait. I need to hear Mr .
Sacks' comments on this.
tvfR. SACKS: Y es. I was simply
pointing out for sake of ease fo r the board
that I do believe-pl eas e confirm, that th e
City Attorn ey's opinion letter on the
covenant Mr. Robbins raises, is in your
package. 1 believe that it is ••
MR. HELD: Yes, the opinio n is in your
package. The o pinion states that •• that a
reques t for m odification of the site plan is
properly before the board and part of this
application. So the question is, is it -· is
either that specific aspect of the
application, the ap proval of a modification
of the site pl an , does th at need to be
Page 10
separately included in the legal notice, and
does this specific code section need to be
identifi ed as part of the legal notice?
So we recently have modi fied our
notice procedures to include a reference to
the -· the code section under which the
specific applications are made, and this
legal notice does not.
I wouldn't have opined that a separate
noti ce needs to be stated for the
modification, which would be part of your
design review approval, but the plannin g
director thinks that that also co uld hav e
been se parately noticed, and possibly should
have been separately noticed. So a request
for continuance is properly well stated,
though it wo uld have to be because we have a
30-d ay notice requirement.
Now, th.at would probab ly have to be
for probably --
MR. ROBBIN S: October.
MR. HELD: -the October hearing.
MR. ROBBIN S: And instead of --the
next heari ng is right after Labor Day, an d
most of my -· most of the neighborhood is not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
!>
6
1
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 11
going to be around the day after Labor Day.
MR. HELD: So it is not just that you
would continue the item. It has to be
renoti ced?
1v1R. ROBB lNS: That's correct.
THE CHAIRPERS ON: It would have to be
renoticed for the October meeting.
MR. SACKS: Can I j wnp in here for a
minute, please?
David Sacks , Law Office of Patlunan and
Lewis, representing Palau Sunset Harbor, the
applicant in this matter.
With respect to the notice issue,
notwiths tan ding any changes that may have
been made, there is Florida case law on point
that says that notice·· it just needs to be
out there. It can be insufficient so long as
the public is advised.
It is a technical po int. It is form
over substanc e, and he is here . The peo ple
in this audience are here.
I would say that having said th at, and
getting all dressed up, don't give us "no
place to go."
We are here today, fo lks. We have
Page 12
been at this since January.
And I would also like to remind
everyone on this board that your other bo ard,
Board of Adjustm ent --we had an appeal where
guess what, notice and due process were
argued at that hearing, and •• this paat
Friday's hearing -we won on that point, as
well.
In my opinion, bas ed upon everythi ng I
h.ave heard --and I can go back to January --
both myself and my team, including the owners
th at are here from Israel, have flown in
today. So to allow a fo rm over substance
technical issue when we are all here makes
zero sense.
And I would also say that there is
Florida case law on this point. So 1 would
ask that you allow us --and I believe
Wi lliam, you were in the middle of saying
that you recommended a continuance, but you
wo uld allow us to move fo rward. 1 think that
should be granted, just -·
THE CHAIRPERSON: Well my greatest
concern is that th is could have been brought
to the attention of tile chairman of tile board
KR ESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(3 05) 37 1-769 2
3 (Pa ges 9 to 12)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
Page 13
and the City attorney at 8:30 this moming.
We have had people waiting here--
.MR. SACKS : Agreed.
THE CHAIRPERSON: --for fiv e hours.
And that, I t hink, is very unfortunate and
very uncourteous.
l\4R. SACKS : I agree.
MR. HELD: Okay. Thank you, Mr.
Cbair.
MR. LORBER: Ri chard Lorber, acting
planning d irector. Having been very familiar
with this case and brought it through the
previous board hearing and then an appeal, I
can tell you, David is right. We have had--
been at this fo r a long time.
However--in the notice provision --
not including the citation to the code, if
that was all we were talking about, Kent is
good at finding that, and we can deb ate
whether it could go forward.
I tend to think that that is kind of
minor. We will co rrect that in the future .
However , Kent's first point about the action
being taken here today ·• you actually are
being asked to do two things: Your normal
Page 14
DRB fun ction approving the, you know,
reviewing and approving the project is of
co urse, before th is board, but in this case,
there is also an extra added feature , an d
that is, you are actually the board that is
going to review the modification of the
proposed si te plan that is co ntained in the
covenant in lieu of unity of title, that does
go back previously to a previous vers ion of
this.
The very long history -probably have
to go through the wh ole h istory with you.
But in this case, it was al ways my intention
to have the advertisements say, "approve the
building," but also "review and approv e the
modification to the site plan associated with
the covenant in lieu."
I see now that that didn't occur, that
it is not part of the notice.
And I th ink --David, I hate to do
this, but I would recommend that we
re·advertise and include the revision of the
site plan, because that is part of the unique
as pect of this case.
There is this covenant in lieu of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 15
unity oftitle. It does contain a site plan.
And the code --that cov enant says that it
must be --it can only be amended by going
through the City, which --the appropriate
board at the City, which has been deemed to
be theDRB.
I wou ld also recommend the co ntinuance
for two months. I hate to have to do it.
MR. SACKS: Can the project be at
least presented with no -·
MR. LORBER : Wait. One othe r
comment •• excuse me, William .
The room is fu ll of people, and often,
when we discuss with an appellant this proper
noti ce or improper notice and they make the
case that there is improper notice, I point
out that, "but the room is full of people."
So there is an awareness of the
project, and peopl e are here today. And I
thi nk it might be unfair to the people that
have taken the time out to come down and sit
through the first part of your hearing, to
just send them home. Maybe it would be okay
if we did hear testimony, had the beginning
discussion. It is a complex project, so
Pa ge 1 6
maybe you could get in -· you know, the first
hearing. Let's di scuss if that is--to
allow parties.
!vffi.. HELD : --allow the applicant to
hear board comments, since --well, you have
had an opportuni ty to review the application,
but -· up to now.
MR. CARY: But then we will re ·notice
it pro perly. That is all I can offer.
MR. SACKS: I appreciate it. I would
like to read into the record, though, on the
chance that we still can go forward, that
case that I had mentioned ·-the cas e
mentioned, it says , in part; "Plaintiffs
adm it that the advertised public bearing was
h eld prior to the enactment of the zoning
ordinances, therefore, they were afforded the
noti ce and an opportunity to be heard."
You are here. Mr. Gibbs is here.
I will go on with the case.
-"That the notice did not comply
with law, with state law requirements is not
constitutionally significant."
In other words, defi cient notice is
proper under this case. So while I
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
4 (P a ges 13 to 16)
l
2
3
4
5
6
i
a
9
10
ll
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 17
appreciate the co mment, Richard, at least l
allow us to be heard. 2
l certainly would like us to be heard J
again. The owners have showed an interest in 4
coming to the six Planning Board hearings, to $
various meetings with the neighbors. They 6
are sitting here today, from --coming in 7
from Israel, to be here, expecting to be a
heard. 9
Notwithstanding the technical issues 10
that came up, but also in light of case law, 11
I think we should be allowed to be heard. I 12
would really appreciate the Board to consider 13
that, in the totality of the circumstances. 14
MR. HELD : Mr. Ch.air -·so you won't 15
know until the end of a presentation, 1 6
rebuttal, public hearing, until you --if you 1 7
would have voted for approval anyway. So 18
taking into acco unt Rich ard's comments that 19
we should have --go forward with the 20
hearing, and th.e Board at least give comments 21
and deliberate, then we will know where we 22
stand. So --2 3
THE CHAIRPERSON: But we don't make a 24
motion today. Is that the idea? 2 5
Page 18
MR. HELD; Well, that is the opinion
of the planning director. I would concur
with that. We are proceeding, you know ·-it
is the applicant's risk at going forward,
because Mr . Ro bbins will exercise his rights
of appellate review and challenge it.
And we will probably be in court,
anyway. If not that issue, it will be
another issue. We can decide at some later
point in the proceeding whether you are
actually going to take a vote on the merits
or not, is my feeling.
MR. SACKS: Well, they should at least
have the benefit of hearing your comments.
MR. ROBBINS: There are other issues
abo ut the incompleteness of the application
which l would present at the beginning of my
presentation, and some of these issues were,
in fact, raised in the staff report.
But the poi nt is, every member of this
board is sworn to uphold the Miami Beach
Charter. The Miami Beach Charter and the
Citizens' Bill of Rights s pecifically has
very detailed requirements concerning notice.
And it is a matter of respect to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
n
22
23
24
25
Page 19
citi zens of Miami Beach that noti ce be
compelled by its --by the planning staff and
by the City so citi.zens will have full notice
of what is happening in front of their boards
to decide whether or not they should appear
or should not appear. So this is so
critical, and it is an issue of cit izens'
rights. lt is not just an issue of whether
or not we are going to delay this project.
THE CHAIRPERSON: And we defer to
recommendations from Gary and the legal
department. I mean, we are not lawyers here .
And we defer to the recommendations
from Gary and the legal department. I mean.,
we are not lawyers here.
I do wonder if we go through the
process -and then we are going to actually
then ·-we may continue it again •• what ••
what happens --
MR. HELD: That was the reco!IUnendarion
of staff anyway, which contemplated you
hearing and giving initial comments.
MR. LORBER: I guess our staff
recommendation--in your staff report, does
recommen d continuance to October on the basis
Page 20
of those issues Kent brought up. But that is
still·-you have a room full of people.
There is no reason why you can't hear some
comments, get fam ili ar with it, and then
follow our staff recommendation fro m the
staff report, which was to continue to
October.
THR CHAIRPERSON: Right. The staff
recommendation is to hear the presentation
for the, for the Board to take public
testimony, for the Board to discuss the
project --and our recomm en dation was for the
project to be continued until a later date
for the concerns of staff to be addressed.
MR. GIBBS: Mr . Chainna.n, my name is
Tucker Gibbs, and I represent the Sunset
Islands Three and Four homeowner's -·
property owner's association.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. GIBBS: Sorry, I said Sunset
Islands --I apQlogize. My concerns --my
client's concern is the way you all are
trying to go about doing this is neither fish
nor fowl.
Our position is, either you decide to
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
5 (Pages 17 to 20)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 21
take all the testimony you are going to take
and vote on this issue and be done with it,
or you say, okay--allow people to speak,
but acknowledge that there is going to be
Mother hearing, which is what you are
talking about.
My concern is --is that as the
attorney for my group, I do not want to make
my presentation today unless l know that when
I make my presentation , you are going to vote
after it. I do not want to get up here and
make my presentation, have my clients to get
up here and speak to yo u all today and then
two months later, in October, have them --
have you all say, "Okay, we heard it two
months ago, Md we are going to vote on it
now."
That is unacceptable. It is a due
proce ss issue for my clients, so my position
is, you all should decide what you are going
to do. I have no probl em with taking public
testimony, but the staff report says there
are plenty of problems with this application.
One of the reasons why staff has asked it to
be continued is because of the problems. So
Page 22
those problem s may be rectifi ed in one form
or fashion between now and the next meeting,
but everybody will have spoken to a set of
ptans and an application that was incomp lete.
So r have a real problem with that
Yes , we have very general iss ues ,
which I think people can speak to today. But
specific issues relating to the specific
plans-· well, ifthere are prob lems with
those specific plans, if there are dimensions
mi ssing. the elevations and certain other
issues are not compatible --are not
consistent, that is a problem.
So I think we ought to take a step
back, frankly. Have your meeting, have the
meeting in October, have the applicant do all
of th e things staff has told the applicant to
do in terms of making their plans better and
maki ng their plans more responsive.
We will meet with the applicant. We
will talk about the issues. 1 mean, the
applicant knows what our iss ues are, but we
will continue to talk with the applicant and
hopefully come up with at lea st narrowing the
issues before the next-· before the meeti ng
1
2
3
•
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pag e 23
in October.
But I got to tell you, it is •• righ1
now, we are in a kind of a quandary. I don't
want to have my people get up here and make
our full-hlown presentation and then be cut
out in October.
TiiE CHAIRPERSON: Are we going to
still get to vote at the end and still make a
motion today?
MR. HELD: You are talking about a
vote on the merits, or on continuance?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just like we would
do a nonnal item, whe re we go to ·-at the
end. say, "Is there a motion," and then a
motion to continue -
MR. HEL D: Well, it seems like the
party at risk, which is the applicant, wants
you to go forward. So if you. as a board,
feel thet you have received enough
information and you are ready to vote, then r
would say you can go ahead and vote. And if
TilE CHAIRPERSON: Well, we always V<Jte
at the end of a presentation.
MR. HELD: Well, it is either to vote
Page 24
on the mer its or to contin ue. It is one or
the other.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.
MR. HELD: So if Mr. Gibbs wanted to
waive his right to make a presentation before
you take a vote, that is up to him. But his
-if his main concern is he may not get an
opportunity to present if you continue it, if
he has presented here and th ere may be a new
set of plans, we should assure him that if
there is a revised set of plans, that there
will be time fo r additi onal comments in
October as long as they are not duplicative
of what has been said here today.
MR. GIBBS: And therein lies the rub.
And that is the concern, Mr. Chairman. The
concern is, is tbat our comments, even though
they are going to be transcribed and they are
on tape and everything else, will become
stale.
THE CHAIRPERSON: But that is how it
is every time we continue a project. We hear
--we hear you one time, we have a
continuance. We say we vote to continue the
proj ect with the staff co mments, and then we
KRESSE & AS SO CIATES, LLC
{305) 371 -7692
6 {Pages 21 to 24)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 25
come next month and you come again. And that
is the process.
MR. GffiBS: I understand that. But I
want·· if that is the process, I want the
ability to advocate for my clients. I want •
the ability for my clients to say, "Well, you
know what, we want to wait. We want to wait
until October to make our presentalion."
If you all are going to wait until
October, if the plans are not complete, I
th.i.nk we have a right to make our full
presentation in October, when it is .fresh and
when we have everything. Because .. yes, it
becomes duplicative. Why should we be forced
to make our presentation two months before
the decision is made?
I don't understand that.
THE CHAIRPERSON: And what are you
presenting?
MR. GIBBS: I represent the neighbors,
or at least some of the neighbors. 1 won't
preswne to say I repres ent all of the
neighbors.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
:MR. GIBBS: My only point is, is that
Page 26
we want to be able to make our case in one
coherent fashion. We do not want to make it
in this month and then in the next month.
THE CHAIRPERSON: But what I can't say
is that when we continue in October that
there won't be another continuance. I mean,
you have to do it at some point, and we do
have peop le that come ••
N£R. GffiBS: Right.
THE CHAIRPERSON: -·for three
meetings, and the neighbors come every single
time. So I don't know how to tell you··
MR. GffiBS: I do this for a living. I
know that.
N£R.. HELD: Mr. Chair, even if the
application was complete, if the Board
decided that they were not ready to vote on
it, you would be making two presentations.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand.
MR. HELD: So I understand your point,
Tucker, and you have made it well. But we··
you know, if the Board wants to proceed, they
should just be allowed to proceed.
And Mr. Chair •·
MR. GIBBS: Obviously, Mr. Chairman,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 27
this is the Board's prerogative . I arn giving
you our position. I feel very strongly about
it, obviously, and that is where we stand.
We would like the opportunity to be ab le to
make our case on the complete application.
Thank you.
MR. GIBBS: For the record ·-
MR. SACKS: Excuse me . May I?
I was next, please.
MR. ROBBINS: Sure.
MR. SACKS: Thank you.
MR..ROBBINS: Yourtum.
lvffi... SACKS: I appreciate that.
You went two in a row, by the way.
I would also like to state for the
record •• and Tucker's argument, while I
understand it, don't forget the fact that we
have had -since January 2012, we have had
meetings January, Fe bruary, March, April,
May, and we have had a March seven hour
hearing.
And so what I am trying to say is the
same thing Tucker is saying, that we have
revealed all of our cards, too, which sound
like, if 1 can metapho rically categorize what
Page 28
you are saying, we have done that, as welL
But I think that we are all here
today. I have read some cases that say even
deficient notice is satisfactory. Again, we
are all -· we are all here. Who has been
prejudiced?
Due process is a nice word, but we are
all here today. Allow us to be heard today.
I would even go so far as to ask for a
vote •• r don't think it is going to
happen •• a vote on the merits. That is how
confident I feel on this projecl We have
been at this a long time.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay .
MR. SACKS: Thank you .
MR. GffiBS: Can I just make one quick
response?
THE CHAIRPERSON: One quick response.
MR. GIBBS: What he is talking about
is a Planning Board decision. I get it.
Design review is not the Planning Board, and
believe me, you all told me this from the
very begirming. The design review is a
different venue, different standards. This
is a new day. It is not all the way from
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(30 5 ) 371-7692
7 (Pag es 25 to 28)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 29 Page 31
January. It starts now. 1 scrutinized and been the subject of many,
So this is new. It is design review. 2 many hours of public hearings.
Thank you. 3 As I was indicating, where the Sunset
THE CHAIRP ERSON : Thank you. 4 Harbor Towers One and Two arc today was
MR. SACKS: I would also .!ike to read 5 originally a low-scale lumberyard. When
into the record the case that I cited 6 those towers were constructed, it was the
regarding deficient notice. That case is •• 7 intention of the developer to continue that
What is the cite --8 development on the west side--on the north
MR. HELD: David, just hand it in to 9 side of the site, along the waterway
the clerk. Okay? 10 separating Sunset Isl ands Four from the --
MR. SACKS: Okay. That's even better. 1l what is now the --what is the industrial
THE CHAIRPERSON: So we are going to 12 district And so it was only as a result of
proceed with this application. 13 your major protest from within the
And if the applicant wishes to step up 14 residential community, particu larly the
and make the presentation --15 islan ds, that that decisio n to continue that
MR ROBBINS: Mr. Chairman, may I 16 development, which would have blocked all
continue with my -· 11 views and literally put the industrial
TifE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I forgot your 18 district in a 20·story --you know --high
--19 box, that caused the development of what then
MR. ROBBINS: Comment an hour ago? 20 became the townhouse development, right
Well , at this point, we also want to 21 across the street from Publix, to be
raise issues concerning the insufficiency of 22 compl etely re-configured to be lower than the
the application and the defects of the 23 scale and to not permit the development that
application, the site plan and submission 24 was goin g to occur there previously.
requiremen ts. 25 So certainly, with the developm ent of
Page 30 Page 32
Do you want me to raise that at a 1 the -the eastern portion of the site now,
later date? 2 it is very appropriate for the neighbors of
THE CHAIRPERSON : I have--as a 3 the project to be very concerned about what
board, we have to·· we have to know that 4 is going to be developed there so we don't
staff has reviewed the application. If it 5 end up with another, you know, Sunset Harbor
wasn't a ready application, we wouldn't be 6 Towers-type of project in this location.
looking at it. So --1 And the-· you know, Planning Board
MR. HELD: Kent, why don't you make a did a lot of soul searching on this, and they
that as part of your presentation after the 9 requested, when they granted the conditional
applicant's presentation. Okay? 10 use approval, that the Design Review Board,
MR. ROBBmS: [can certainly do that, ll you know, specifically address certain issues
but there are -· 12 with regard to the project. And those are
MR. HELD: Thank you, Kent. 13 summarized on Page 6 of our staff report
MR. ROBBmS: Thank yo u very much , Mr. l4 On May 22nd of20ll, the proj ect
Held. 15 received conditional use approval from the
MR. SACKS: Is it still morning? 16 Planning Board. As a part of that approval,
Good afternoon. 17 the Planning Board imposed the following
MR. HELD: Wait. Staff has to 18 condition related to the Design Review Board
complete his report. 19 app roval. "The applicant shall work with the
THE CHAIRPERSON: We have not gotten 20 design review staff to further mod ify the
past that, yet. 21 proposal to address the following subject for
MR. CARY: Mr. Chairman, members of 22 review and approval by the Design Review
the Board, member of the public, just to 23 Board: A, pulling back the massing east of
continue -there is good reason why this has 24 the World Savings Bank building , with
been a project which has been very 25 emphasis on upper floor setbacks and the
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
8 (Pages 29 to 32)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
Page 33
northeast comer of the building, and adding
more green space;
B, further modifying the ground floo r
area along the canal, the terraces, to
mi nimize the hard scap e and to increase the
amount of open landscaped area at grade
level;
C, adding more canopy trees for
increased shade to landscaped plan,
particularly along Sunset Drive, and to also
work with Cheryl Gold on this item, who is
a·· you know, a landscape specialist;
D, removing parking spaces on Suns et
Drive;
E, redu cing encroachm ent on the line
of sight from Sunset Island Four, that is
from the residential property, single-family
residential properties;
And F, working with the Public Works
Department to limit U-tums at the
guardhouse, whjch is located on Sunset Drive.
And staff has met with the applicants
and the architects and the neighbors on
numerous occasions to be able to address al l
of these issues in a satisfactory manner.
Page 34
Many changes have been made to the
project whi ch have add ressed these concerns,
additional work is needed. That is one of
the reasons that we have requested that the
Board con tinue the proj ec t and not approve
the project at this time.
There are many factors that need to be
consid ered be re. First and foremost is the
··the design and massing of the new project
which is across from the Sunset Harbor Four
does not adversely impact or overwhelm the
residential properties to the north . We
be lieve th at many design modifi cations have
been made, and a few more can be made, as
well.
Additionally, the project has to be a
viabl e project. It has to have a certain
number of residential units that can be
marketed, as well as viab le comm ercia l space,
and it has to be able to contrun all of its
own parking and not have an adverse impact
upon new traffic circulation in the area or
upon the ease and attractiveness of the
Sunset Isle Three and Four resid ents being
able to approach their residences, which only
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
l?
18
lS
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 35
has one , yo u know , bridge access, which is
from Sunset Drive, and for their access to
their own property not to be disrupted by
this new development project.
And 1 will not state that this is not
a large project. It is a large project.
Whenever you put a five -story high project
next to a sin gle-family residential
neighborho od, it is a big project.
And so the Board does have to very
serio usly consider the relationships between
those projects, even though we have a larger
project immediately to the west of it.
But all in all, we have found that the
developer and the archite cts and the
neighb ors have been all responsive to
discussions that we have bad. We feel the
project is, you know, very definite ly going
in the right direction. There are so me
further refinement and improvements that need
to be made, including increasing the set-back
on the east side. We have recommended that
the setback from the northeast comer be
increased, you know, to a minimum of ten feet
more of set back. We have recommended that
Pa ge 36
th e stairs that are on the terraces fo r the
individual units on the waterway, whereve r
possible, be pulled back into th e terraces,
themselves, rather than project ing out into
the ope n landscaped area that the Plann ing
Board requested the Design Review Board
further consider. We believe that the
landscaping of this project really, to the
max --to really ens ure that th e project does
not physically overwhelm the surrounding
contacts, should be very carefully addressed.
To that end, we are recom mend ing that
along the 20th Street elevation of the
project, the eastern portion of the building,
which is the retai l space, be set back an
additional ten feet to provide adequate area.
Otherwise, we are only going to have a
five-.foot sidewalk·· to provide adequate
area for major shade, canopy, because we feel
that the number of canopy trees on the side
is insufficient. I think we have provided
you with a copy of the comments that were
made by·· by Cheryl, Cheryl Go ld, with her
assessment of the status of the landscapin g
plan, wh ich we feel is not adequate, to date.
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(30 5 ) 371 -7692
9 (P age s 33 to 36)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
n
18
1 9
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
ll
12
13
14
15
1 6
11
1 8
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
Page 3 7
All in all , we think it is a 1
handsomely-designed project We think that 2
it will be an asse t to the neighborho od, but 3
we think it is imperative that the Board, you 4
know, spend the additional time necessary 5
working with the app licant and the 6
applicant's architect and the nei ghbors to 7
finetune the project so that we achieve that o
critical balan ce that is neces sary . 9
And it is only because of the unique, 10
you know, siting of this project next to the l1
single-family res ident ial neighborhood, and 12
wh at could have happened there, that the 13
adjacent·· those single-family property 14
owners, as well as the property owners of the 1 5
Sunset townhouses immediately to the west 16
have a very legitimate concern and want to 1 7
see thi s--this process be, you know, fully 18
an d thoroughly inves tigated, and resolved 19
properly. 2 0
THE CHAIRPERSON : Th ank you, Willi am. 2 1
Okay. Good afternoon. Please state 22
your name and address . 2 3
MR. SACKS : Good afternoon . David 24
Sacks, with law offices at 2 South Biscayne 25
Page 38
Boulevard, on behalf of the applicant, P alau
Sunse t Har bor.
Before I go on •• and Mr. H eld --Mr.
Held, in an abundance of caution, do we ••
does the Boar d need to take any kin d of vote,
based upon what hap pened just before with
respect to --
'MR. HELD: No, they are proceeding.
MR. SACKS: So we are proceeding.
There is no need to do that. Okay.
tviR. GIBBS: So this matter has not
been continued at all?
"MR. HELD : It has not been continued.
They are taking it un der advisement
JvlR. GIBBS: Okay. Thank you.
"MR. SACKS: Anyway, thank you for
allowing us to con tinue today. We are--
agai n, representing Palau Sunset Harbor .
With us to day is our architect, Kobi
Karp ofKobi Karp Archi tecture and Des ign, as
well as the owners of the property, Meyer
Srebni.k and Jill .Kravitz.
W e would like to thank some of the
members o f the Board who have met with us
regarding this project over the last fe w -·
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
e
9
1 0
11
12
l3
14
l5
16
l7
16
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
Page 3 9
wei!, last few months since the May 22nd
Planning Board approval.
I wou ld als o li ke to state that that
Pl anning Board order -and while Tucker is
correct in saying that it is a totall y
different board -· that order carries a heck
of a lot of weight. There were certain
findings of fa ct and conclusions of law that
we re made on that day, incl uding but not
li mited to the fact th at the proj ect is
consistent with the comprehensive plan, the
City of Miami Beach's comprehens ive plan and
the land development regulations.
Having said that, I would like to also
rem ind the Bo ard th at th ere is a history
involving the Planning Board, and it is a
necessary board, step one ·-Planning Board.
If you have a proj ect that is in excess of
50,000 square feet, yo u need Planning Board
approval before yo u get to Design Review
Board.
We also incorp orated into our project
a very unique and efficient --the
utilization of the mechani cal parking, and
that is why we are in front of the Planning
Page 40
Board. Obviously, the residents were very
involved in the process , and therefo re, the
Planning Board had a very lon g history.
So I do think that it counts. It ·-I
do think that it matters. So after a
January, February, March, April, May
scheduled hearings, some of which were seven
to ei ght hours, as I mentioned a li ttle bit
earlier •• and during that process, a heck of
a lot of neighborhood outreach, all of the
associations in the area were met with
nwnerous times. I wo uld say -30 is a fai r
number. That may be debatable, but it is
certainly ri ght up there with maybe a
variance on •• two on each si de.
THE CHAIRPERS ON: Just really quick··
MR . SACKS: Yes?
THE CHAIRP ERS ON: If we can --I know
we will have a long meeting -· so I would
like if--maybe have yo ur presentation be
limited to a bout 20 minutes, at most, an d
then rebuttal responses, ten minutes.
We have a lot of people to hear. So
j ust -· if yo u can-be very "pointful" an d
"impactful ," that would be great.
KRE SS E & ASS OCI AT ES, LLC
(3 05 ) 3 71 -7692
1 0 (P ages 37 to 40)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
l3
14
lS
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
1 5
16
l'l
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 41
MR. SACKS: I was an au ctioneer in a
past life, so I can do that
So to continue, we had a lot of
neighborhood outreach. There were many
concessions made •• that I will mention a
littl e bit later --that are also in your
package tod ay --that state concess ion afte r
concession after concession, and ifl may,
the goalpost kept getting moved with respect
to some of the neighb orhood outreach .
There--after everything that was
asked for that was put--reduced to, in
writing, there are still --because we met
with some of the nei gh borhood associations or
a ne ighborhood associati on yesterday, and
again , new requests were made even yesterday.
Again, the project as I had mentioned
a little bit earlie r is a mi xed-used project
that has 50 residential units. The
resi denti al portion of the proj ect is along
20th Street, and ·-I am sorry --yes. It is
al ong 20th Street, and the com mercial
component --I'm sorry . The commercial
component is up front and aligned with the
sides the property fronti ng Sunset Harbor,
Page 42
with pure residential behind the -· behind
the property fronting the waterway facing the
Sun set Harbor Three and Four.
That was also a concession, might I
add.
The commercial space is app roximately
11,000, a l ittle over 11,000 square feet.
Again, I had mentioned the Planning Board
order that we had where again, there were
f.md ings of fact, conclusions of law,
consistency with the co mpreh ensive plan, the
structures and uses are consistent with the
land development regulations, as I mentioned,
and that the public health safety, moral s,
and general welfare will not be adversely
imp acted.
That was a finding of fact at the
Planning Board level. Evidence required that
any quasi-jud icial heari ng, especially for
land use zoning matters •• an d that includes
recommendations made •• again at the Planning
Board level, but time after time, we have had
recommendations for approval January through
--February through May, all reconunendations
for ap proval , and we kept m aking changes,
1
2
3
4
s
6
1
B
9
lO
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
H
15
1 6
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 43
many iterations; again, in IIJI effort to
comply with some of the neighborhood concerns
and staff concerns.
Again, I bad mentioned the
nei gh borhood outreach. With in your package
is an AprilS, 201 2, memo of the -prior to
the first extensiv e Planning Board meeti ng.
that is the one that I mentioned that about
was eight hours. We weTe here--at least
our team was here, and everybody in thi s --
many of the people in this room--
concessions were made that included ·-that
we mo ve the egress from Suns et Drive to 20th
Street, increase landscaping; we removed
rooftop trelli s work , relocated the pool ,
in corporated valet parking, im proved stacking
and traffic fl ow of interior parking, created
an internal loading zone. We red uced the
number of residential units from 70 ·-and I
think it --at one point, it may have been
more, and certainly, that is consistent with
the comp plan and the zoning code --to no
more th an 50.
All concessions, all serious
concessions; and agai n, in an effort for our
Pa ge 44
client to wor k with the City of Miami Beach
and design a gorgeous project, as William
said, at the gateway to the Sunset Harbor
area.
l should also mention that one of the
things that we chose not to do in con cessio ns
that we made is that the Cypress Bay
proj ect ·· if you are familia r with the area,
the Cypress Bay proj ect was ap proved , I
believe, in 2006. But whenever it was
approved, there was a height variance granted
that I believe gave up to what ·· 63 -three
extra feet. We chose not to pursue that
additional square footage, an d we are well
within our zoning envelope. We are below the
50-foot requ irement, and I will say with
respect to every oth er aspect of zoning, we
meet setbacks. I mean, I could go on and on,
but ag ain, I am trying to keep this brief.
And we have added beverages and bike
racks to Sunset Drive because again, it is
th e fro nt and gateway to thi s imp ortan t area
that is evolving as we sp eak.
We decided to do all of these things,
again, to make it look fantastic for the
KRES SE & ASSO CIAT ES, LL C
(305) 371 -7692
11 (Pages 41 t o 44)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 45
entire neighb orhood and for this proj ect.
Additional modi fic ations were made ••
and I don't mean to belabor the point, but it
is important that we get th is on the record,
bec ause change, change, change --it can't go
on. l'm very --I'm disheartened by the fact
that we cann ot even seek an approval today,
but I must get, for the record, the
ad ditional changes.
We also lowered the north elevation of
the four-story residential structure.
We set back the top two floo rs
approximately -· a setback of an
approximately n ine feet.
We decided not to have boat slips used
for commercial use. Again , all at the
request of the neighb orhood associati ons.
Valet was moved to the interior of the
building.
Landscaping --added significant,
significant landscapi ng to the east
elevation;
Relocating the lobby to 20th Street,
and probably some addi tion al things, but I am
going to stop right there. I guess the point
Pa ge 46
was received . We have worked with the
neighbors . We have made concessions. We
comply with the zon ing code .
By the way, this is a
commercially-zoned property. Yet, we are
putting a mixed-used project in place.
We comp ly with the--we are
consistent with the com p plan. And again, as
I stated earlier, the Planning Board found
that as a finding of fac t.
An d again, you know, there is no need
to go on with the fact that we have had
neighborhood outreach. I think I have made
that point abundantly clear, and I think 1
have made the point that we have had
competent substantial evidence all the way
through until today, and that is going to
co ntinu e, because -· and as William mentioned
a little bit earlier, th ere was a directi ve
of sorts, kind of the handing of the bato n at
the May 22 P lanning Board hearing. [ believe
William read into the record the conditions
5-A through F.
Well, that was the co nditi on whereby
it was almost a mes sage to the Design Review
1
2
3
4
$
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
l7
16
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pag e 47
Board to look at add itional things,
additio nal things that related to what is in
your purview.
And Ko bi Karp is going to go into
those right now as part of his presentati on,
but it is essentially a checklist of "done,
don e, done and done,'' because that is what we
have to do in order to get this project
approved, because we have had opposition,
continuing opposition, every ste p of the way.
We would like to get this project approved.
Thank you.
Ko bi, I am going to tum it over to
you.
MR. KARP: Hi. Good afternoon. Thank
you very much for seeing us. My name is Kobi
Karp, for the record, and this is Jennifer
McCaughney. She is the one who actu ally does
all of the work.
My nam e is Kobi Karp, and as --I
don't want to belabor the history, but I do
want to bring you just up to speed as to
where this project is located and where we
came from and, hope fu lly, where we are going.
This project is uniquely located right
Page 48
here. This is actually where the new garage
is being built by Scott Robbins, this whole
bl ock right here, which has substantially
commercial .
Our zon ing is at this comer. It is
CD-2. So as was mentioned before, there were
commercial uses there before . There was ••
Mark's Dry Cleaners is there, which we are
proposing to demolish. There is the existing
shell of the condominium project which was
previously app roved there, obviously, with a
variance. We are lo ok ing to demolish that,
as well.
Immediately across the street, we have
a project that was recently approved, old
Rosin ella Bakery. It is the old funeral
home, and it is now being converted into a
bakery and a restaurant.
And immediately adjacent to it starts
oth er nice commercial uses. There is a gym,
which was converted from what is an old
Jewish temple, and next to it is Martino
Tires.
This wraps around a large block, wh ich
is the FP&L substation right h.ere, which is
KRE SS E & ASSO CIATES, LL C
(3 0 5) 371-7692
12 (Pa g es 45 t o 48)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
12
1 3
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
Page 49
al so aligned ·-across th e street from us by 1
the old Car Doctors, which also is a Robbins 2
development, which has offices in the second 3
floor and has commercial on the ground floor. 4
Taking that into reality, we are 5
immediately adjacent ·· across the street 6
here. This is the bridge that brin gs you to 7
Sunset Island. It is a bit on th e tilt. The 8
entry to Sunset Island, or basically two 9
hills. And then there is a bridge which goes 1 o
on an angle and focuses your attention to 11
this public park. 12
This is the fountain on Alton Road. 1 3
It is a park . There is a park right here, lt
whi ch is a green space, and thes e parks 15
basically function as buffers and create a 16
nice separation to the single family 1 7
resid ential on North Bay Road right here, 18
which we have met with and, as was mentioned. 1 9
we have som e letters of support. 2 0
And obvi ous ly, there are som e 21
neighbors who are not for the project. And 22
just for the record, I live ri ght-I li ve 23
on Sunset Island since 199 3, with my wife and 2 4
my kids. We live right here. So most of 25
Page 50
these folks in the room are my neighbors .
Actually, I think all of them, except
Ken t Harrison Robbin s. He is not my
neighbor.
We basi call y-· but seriou sly this is
the site located right here. This is the
Michael Comras office, which was previously
-· and it is shown right here •• it is the
old World Bank. And our proj ect basically
calls for, on 20th Street, to have a
commercial liner on the street.
The height is 50 feet. We are not
seeking any variances. We are looking at the
staff comments. We have met with staff.
A ctually, we agree with most of their
comments, and what I would like to do, if you
would like me --give me a minut e, I would
like to walk you through the project, if that
is okay.
Good.
The project, basically, sits on the
comer, which is CD-2. It bas a p ath which
leads you straight to Sunset Isl and.
Sunset Island has a bridge •• oh, I
almost forget. I also brought Andy Witkin
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
16
1 9
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
Page 51
with me, th e landscape architect, in case
there are many discuss ions or -· a Jot to be
had about the landscaping.
But what we are looking to do is
create a nice pedestrian gesture, which would
al low the pedestrian movement fr om th e Sunset
Island to come across and walk onto the
neighborhood.
The neighborho od is up and co ming.
There is a lot of nice restauran ts which are
coming into the neighborhood, and we are
looking to promote that. So the landscape
that we propose is to have that path. Along
it, we have a separate path which was
mentioned. We have two points of entry. We
have a principal point of entry to the
buildin g on 20th Street. This is commercial
retail on the ground level, and right now , if
you would gi ve me a minute, I have a map
which is kind of interesting.
Here it is.
This is o ur site right here, and this
is the commercial district. This is Sunset
Harbor Townhomes. They go betw een 60 feet
down to 30 feet in height.
Page 52
Our height restriction is 50 feet. So
we are right in the middle. We actual ly made
a section that is part of the drawings -
Actually, Jennifer, do you have those
drawings?
Because there were comments on the
staff report that we wanted to clarifY to
you, specifically, there was a note about
FAR. because our balcony was touching on
three sides. And so what we did is we cut it
loose.
So we have a set of drawings ••
Thank you very much -·
So what we are proposing, in essence,
is a buildin g which meets and greets the
setbacks which are required, and it is all
residential along the water because we are
inunediately across from Sunset Number Four.
But if you look here, there is a park.
And this is the publi c park ofSWlset IV. So
there is a park here.
This is the entry and the exit of
North Bay Road, and there is a park here.
There is the park with the fo untain.
This is the Car Doctors with
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 3 71-7692
13 (Page s 49 to 5 2)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 53
Rosinella, a nd this is the FP&L substation. 1
That is the Pub lix with the parking 2
right here. J
And over here would be where Scott 4
Robbins is building his p arking structure. s
So that is our neighbors to this side. 6
The neighbors to this side, which is 7
across a 120-foot wide waterway --that we 8
have single -fam ily res idential, of three 9
h omes that face immediately, directly right 10
here. 11
So most of our property, not all of 12
our property, but most of our property 13
essentially faces the park of Sunset Island 14
Number Four. 15
There is a park here. There is also a 16
green park here, and there is an other green 17
space over here. 18
There is a house right here, 19
immediately across the bridge, and let me see 20
if I have a ph oto of that --1 think I have a 21
photo of th at--which was just recently 22
built. 23
This is the section, actually, which 24
is kind of interesting. Tbis is the section 25
Page 54
loolcing across the waterway. It is a blow-up
of what is in your pa ckage. But in essence,
to keep it simple, the picture is what is --
exi stin g at Sunset Harbor Townhomes.
They have lower ris e on the water, and
they have a little bit higher towards the
street. We are at a 50-feet height
restriction, and what we tried to do is
create more of a green space along the water
promenade --along the water, an access, a
public access to the water.
So we have that. And then what we did
is we have two stories of residential on top
of two stori es of re sidenti al, and at
planning --what we were asked to do was set
it back. So we set it back on an angle. So
when you're standing across the waterway,
there is a 120 -foot waterway, plus the
setbacks --we were able to mitigate and
create a view corrid or, which actually
required us to lower our building on the
water side by approximately ten percent.
The property that sits imm ed iately
across the water is thi s one right here. So
th is house •• and most houses on this --this
l
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
l4
1S
16
l7
19
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pag e 55
is the park, across the bridge, and this is
the house that was just recently built. And
it says, right, there are other houses also
·· similar, about 30 to 35 feet, with nice
roof-topped terraces.
And this house speci ficall y sits
diagonally from our site, which is right
here.
This board is kind of inter esting. It
has where the Cypress building was built, was
approved, and as was mentioned, received a
variance of two feet.
Jennifer?
Three --three feet.
Nonetheless, we are not looking to
increase our height . We are looking to lower
our height, especially as we advance towards
the water. And thi s li ne right here
sign ifies basically that we wo uld be setting
ourselves further away from this comer.
This is the com er that staff has
recommended for us to set back an addit ional
ten feet from the setback line.
Having said that, som e of the things
that--you know, over here, which are kind
Page 56
of interesting --now, we have created a
realm where the parks are and where we have
set our building back where there is an
opportunity to create more plaza and
landscaping. What staiT has also menti oned
is that right now, there is some parking
spaces here. There is an "insy" and "outsy"
for Mark's Dry Cleaners. You come, you drive
underneath. It is a drop-otT. It has been
there for the past ten .. maybe two decades,
three decades.
But in essence, what we are proposing
to do is not to have an insy or outsy here
for our vehicles. We are only hav ing it at
this location, and our valet is inside. So
most people who live in the building --there
are about --no more th an 50 apartments in
the buildin g --there are 20 apartments
facing the water, five per flo or, fo ur flo ors
facing the water, and the other 30 live on
top of the co mmercial.
And what we are proposing to do is
have a lobby which brings you into a core
here, which brings you into th e 30 units, and
you continue down the other gallery, and it
KRES SE & AS SO CIATES, LL C
(305) 3 71-7 69 2
14 (Page s 5 3 to 56 )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
21
25
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
a
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
Pa ge 57
brings you into the 20 units on the waterway. 1
We are proposing to have a pede strian 2
access, public access along the water, like a 3
shoreline promenade, if you will, with 4
beverages and so forth, and we are looking to s
create a setback and landscaping, which then 6
giv es some private landsc ap ed area for the 7
Jen al apartments. a
We also have a view corridor that we 9
have to respect, for Mr. Comras' property, 10
the World Bank right here, so that is the 11
angle that we are looking here. 12
And staff is asking us to move from 13
the setback another ten feet on the 14
commercial sid e. 15
And these are the landscaping which 16
are currently under construction, but the 17
site, Sunset Is lands, was fin ally able to 18
find a way to relocate the gatehouse from 19
this location, and it will be centrally 2 0
located right here, which is kind of aligned 21
with our little pedestrian entry into the 22
building on that side. 23
So in essence, the concept of the 2 4
building is pretty straightforward in that 25
Page 58
what we are looking to do is to create
res idences that go around --there is one,
two, three, four , five --like [ said,
residences here on fou r floors, so there are
20 apartments right here.
And then there are some residences
here, which we •• again, we pulled back, and
there are some res idences over the
commercial.
Our pool -in a mini, inside the
building, we created an open s pace which has
a cross-ventilated space, whi ch affords the
units the opportunity, if they want it, to
have a floating garden and a mini-tiered
area, which is --we have thought qu.ite
"vernacular" in architecture to some of the
other apartment buildings in Florida. But it
also creates a nice green space, and it
allows us to keep the pool and the
mini-tiered area whi ch sits on top of the gym
right here, away from the private areas, with
very private terraces, which are not public.
There are private terraces on the rooftop.
So to get back to that section, this
is the section, if you will, to look at the
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pa ge 59
World Bank.
This is 20th Street right here. And
this would be the canal. Thi s would be the
public promenade. This would be the setback.
This would be the residential that we would
step back. You can see how it comes up a
little bit higher when it gets to 20th
Street.
And this is the shape, pretty much, of
the World Sank as it exists right now . This
is our gym, and it is open on top to the
landscaped area.
Am I clear on that?
Good. So then what we wanted to do is
we created a little rendering just to help--
thi s is our entry into the garage. This is
the commercial on 20th Street. And because
it is a CD-2 zo ning. the commercial setbacks
are X. but the setbacks for residential and
mo st of ou r project is residentia l - even
though it is CD-2 --and we can do full
commercial, as has been and is currently the
use th ere -· we are looking to have
residential. The residential setbacks are
greater than the commercial setbacks. So you
Pa ge 60
can clearly see, even on 20th Stree t, that
the residences are substantially set back.
The ghosted-in element is the World
Bank, and behind it, this is our gym which
opens up to the garden . This is our
walk-along, which is open, cross-v entil ated,
with land scaping at the ground level.
I ghosted it in so that I can see what
th e building looks like, not only in
elevation, but also in 3D.
And then what we did also is we have
--can I show them the black and red,
Jennifer?
This is a more precise plan, because
--and it is convoluted. I will pass it
around, but in essence, what it tries to show
is the red is where we were before, and the
black is where we pulled it in even further.
(End of CD 1.)
(Beginning of CD 2.)
•••There is a duplication of the last
three pages of CD 1 for the first three pages
ofCD2)•n.
.MR. KARP: --for the Jenai
apartments.
KRE S SE & AS SOCIATES, LL C
(305} 371-7 692
1 5 (Pages 57 to 60)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
11
18
1 9
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
Page 61
We also have a view corridor that we 1
have to respect, for Mr. Comras' property, 2
the World Bank right here, so that is the 3
angle that we are looking here. 4
And staff is asking us to move from 5
the setback another ten feet on the 6
commercial side. 7
And these are the landscaping which a
are currently under construction, but the 9
site, Sunset Islands, was finall y able to 10
find a way to relocate the gatehouse from 11
this location, and it will be centrally 12
located right here, which is kind of aligned 13
with our little pedestrian entry into the 14
building on that side . 15
So in essence, the concept of the 16
building is pretty straightforward in that 1 7
what we are looking to do is to create 1a
residences that go around --there is one, 19
two, three, four, five -like I said. 20
residences here on four floors , so there are 21
20 apartments right here. 22
And then there are some residences 23
here, wruch we-again , we pulled back, and 24
there are some residences over the 2 s
Page 62
commercial.
Our pool •• in a mini, inside the
building, we created an open space which has
a cross-ventilated space, which affords the
units the opportunity, if they want it, to
have a floating garden and a mini-tiered
area, which is •• we have thought quite
"vernacular" in architecture to some of the
other apartment buildings in Florida. But it
also creates a nice green space, and it
allows us to keep the pool and the
mini-tiered area which sits on top of the gym
right here, away from the private areas, with
very private terraces, wh ich are not publi c.
They are private terraces on the ro oftop.
So to get back to that section, this
is the section , if you will, to look at the
World Bank.
This is 20th Street right here . And
this would be the canal . This would be the
public promenade. This would be the setback.
This would be the residential that we would
step back. Yo u can see how it comes up a
little bit higher when it gets to 20th
Street.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
11l
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
2 5
Pa ge 63
And this is the shape, pretty much, of
the World Bank as it exists right now. This
is our gym, and it is open on top to the
landscaped area.
Am T clear on that?
Good. So then what we ..wnted to do is
we created a little rendering just to he lp--
this is our entry into the garage. This is
the conunercial on 20th Street. And becau se
it is a CD-2 zoning, the commercial setbacks
are X, but the setbacks for the residential
and most of our project is residential -
even though it is CD-2 --and we can do full
co mmercial, as has been and is currently the
use there .• we are looki ng to have
residential. The residential setbacks are
greater than the commercial setbacks. So you
can clearly see, even on 20th Street, that
the residences are substantially set back.
The ghosted-in element is the World
Bank, and behin d it, this is our gyro which
opens up to the garden. This is our
walk-along, which is open, cros s-ventilated,
with landscaping at the ground level.
I ghosted it in so that I can see what
Page 64
th e building looks like , not only in
elevation, but also in 3D.
And then what we did also is we have
--can I sho w them the black and red,
Jennifer?
This is a more precise plan, because
--and it is convoluted. I will pass it
around, but in essence, what it tries to show
is the red is where we were before, and the
black is where we pulled it in even further.
So it clearly ·-you can se e here,
this is the setback. We were behind the
setback. And we were able to pull it in even
more. We did it into the garden space right
here, which is our gym, with the pool on top,
and the idea ·-the notion is tb at yo u walk
along and you enter yo ur unit within the
garden , and then th e apartmen t opens up, this
view here, it looks to Miwni Beach, and this
looks up North Bay Road.
MR. CARY: Excuse me ··excuse me,
Kobi. Can you just clarify, when you say •·
"What we had before, and what we have now,"
these changes were made in direct response to
the co ncerns of th e neighbors and the
KRESSE & ASSOC I ATE S , LLC
(305) 3 71-7692
16 (Pages 61 to 64)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
Page 65
Plaruring Board?
MR KARP: Yes.
!viR. CARY: So this is the revised plan
that was reviewed and approved by the
Planning Board?
MR. KARP: Yes, William; correct.
MR. CARY: So red is the original plan
for the Planning Board, and the black is the
revised plan?
MR. KARJl: Correct, yes. And 1 wanted
to show you that because we --even though we
do have some neighbors here who are not
supporting us , we did try to accommodate --
you know, you can't make all of the people
happy all of the time, but maybe some people
some of the time.
But this is the walk.
This is the green setback.
'Th is is the residential -and the
parking --and our parking --
Now, in comparison--forget the
parking on Mark's Dry Cleaners, but I am
talking about just the element, itself, of
Cypress. It had two levels of parking, which
was exposed to the outside, on the vertical
Page 66
walls.
Our parking propose s to be not only
covered from the top , but to be closed in,
and we have the parking requirements for the
residential and for the commercial in the
project. So it is important to note tha~
because what we tried to do here is -· there
it is, in essence.
Right. This is kind of interesting,
because this is from the back --thi s is from
the park looking across, and this is the
bridge, 120-foot from seawall to seawall.
And again, our seawall right now is a
low seawall, so you -obviously, we will
have to put a new seawall, which is going to
raise it in height, similar to the seawall on
the other side of the park, which will bring
our finished grade elevation to probab ly six
and a half or seven NGVD.
This is the townhomes of Sunset
Harbor. There is a liner here and then there
is another liner in the back. The units on
20th, Jennifer·· are what, six stories?
They are six stories.
And what we are looking to do is to
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
ll
1 2
13
14.
15
1 6
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
2 4
2 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
H
lS
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pa ge 67
make a big separation, a landscape separation
between the two projects, because there is an
opportunity, if you will, to create a
negative space, an open space, between the
two projects. And--because if people would
want to come and wruk here -and you can see
it clearly on the black and whi te more than
the color landscape •• they can walk all the
way along here and then they can come to thi s
little linear park. And if something ever
happens with this prop erty and it does get
developed, because it can get developed
50 feet, five stories. It can get infilled
in, maybe there would be a link, so that
people can actually walk all the way aro und
and·-I thought it would be kind of nice.
And then separate circulation all together
for people who want to walk to the island.
And then of course, if Public Worlc!
decides to get rid of these parking spaces,
or not, then that area would be landscaped as
--as a comer with a sitting area and so
forth.
Did I miss anythi ng?
MR. CARY: Just to clarify, we covered
Page 68
5-A through 5-f in the staff report.
!viR. KARP: Yes. Yes, sir, and 1 am
here if you have any suggestions or ideas. I
will sit right here.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you
very much.
Okay. At this time, is there anybody
in the audience that wi shes to comment on
this application?
Please, one at a time. Step to the
microphone, state your name and address, and
you will have five minutes to make your
comments, and we will move on. We have a lot
of comments to address today.
MR. GIBBS: My name is Tucker Gibb~
and I represent the Sunset Harbor -· Sunset
Island. l don't know why l keep on doing
it -III and IV neighborhood association.
I am going to wait to make my full
presentation, but I am going to introduce the
people who will be speaking. We will be
having--excuse me -presentations by Mr.
Terry Bienstock. He will be followed by Mark
Alvarez, to be followed by one of the
neighbors, Dr. Olga Lens, and followed by
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
17 (Pages 65 to 68 )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
Page 69
Peter Luria. That will be our presentation.
That will--other mem bers of the
public, obviously, will be speaking, and then
I would like to wrap up at the --at the
conclusion of the public hearing.
Thank yo u very much.
MR. HEL D: Tucker, is three minutes a
person --do you think that will be enough?
MR. GIBBS: Pardon me? Well, I think
five, and I will te11 you why. I--th is is
a quasi judiciaJ proceeding. I unde rstand
that you all may or may not be taking a vote,
and there may be a notice issue, but I assume
we are still a quasi-j udi ciaJ proceeding.
This is an issue that relates to a
staff report that is rather lengthy. It also
relates to 16 applicable standards that are
--to be ap plied, no t to mention 5A thro ugh F
of the Planning Board's decision. So we
would like to be able to make our full case.
And Mr. Alvarez is -is an expert
witness, as a planner, who is going to be
discussing so me of these issues.
MR. HELD: Okay. Thanks.
MR. GIBBS: So we would like to make a
Page 70
l
2
3
Jj
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
1'1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
full presentation. 1
MR. ROBBINS: My name is Kent Harrison 2
Robbins, an d I already id entified myself. 3
And we would also ask more than just five 4
minutes to make our presentation. We have to 5
deal with the covenant in lieu of unity of 6
title, which is an entire presentation as to 7
the approp riatenes s of the proposal with 8
respect to what had been previously approved 9
by the City. One of the problems we have is 10
the City lost the Design Review Board file 11
for the prior approval ·-12
MR. HELD: Kent, can you --13
MR. ROBBINS: We have to reconstruct, 14
and that is going to be some difficulty. 15
Even that, alone, may take 15, 16
20 minutes. 1 i
lviR HELD: We will make that decision 18
when you come up. You are out of tum, at 19
this point. 20
"MR. ROBBINS: Well, I just wanted to 21
make certain that I am not waiving my right. 22
We certainly can't do it in five minutes. 23
MR. HEW: Mr . Chair, I think--the 2 4
swear witnesses. 25
P age 71
THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure. If--whoever
is going to speak on this project, please
stand and raise your right hand.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the
whole tl)lth, and nothing but the truth.
PROSP ECTIVE WITNESSES : We do, yes :
THE CHAIRP ERSON: Okay.
Thank you, everybody. Let's get
started.
MR. BIENSTOCK Good afternoon. My
name is Terry Bienstock. I am a 26 -year
resident of the Sunset Island Three, 2312 Bay
Avenue; also president of the Sun set Islands
III and IV Property Associ ation.
Let me start out, just for the reco rd,
because I have asked Mr. Karp if I could use
some of the blow-ups that he was using to
show you folks, an d he just told me no. So I
will do my best, without reference to any of
the diagrnms that ·-
This is the neighborhood outreach that
you have heard about. It is a wonderful,
frien dly outreach tha1 culminated in a
meeting last night where we were not shown
one piece of paper or one plan. So let me
Page 72
start out by sayin g very simply, we are
opposed to this development as it is
proposed .
We want a development, we want a
mixed-use devel opment. This is not a bad
looking building. It is in the wrong place.
It is too massive.. rt is out of scale, and
it is too high for this neighborhood.
It is a neighborhood, it is a -· it is
a parcel or a series of parcels cobbled
together that is an odd shape. It is not
on ly an odd shape, but it is completely
surrounded by nothing more on every side, all
four sides, by either singl e--family homes or
two-story commercial parcels.
So to start out, they are proposing
something that th ere tower over every
adjacent parcel.
This is what I guess some will call a
transitional ares.. It goes fr om si ngle
-family homes to som e homes to some
commercials, to some high-rises further away,
and some five-story commercial further away.
But the fact is , on three sides, it is
adjacent to no more than homes that are two
KRESSE & ASSO CIA TES, LLC
(305) 3 71-7 692
18 (Pages 69 t o 72)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 73
stories high on three sides. 1
On the fourth side, there are 2
commercial parcels which Mr. Karp talked 3
ab out that are stories high, including the 4
Comras building. The World Bank building. 5
that is only two stories. 6
This is a proj ect that is way out of 7
scale for this location. 8
It would be fine somewhere else. It 9
might be fine two blocks away. But where ~t 10
is, is overwhelming to the neighborhood, and 11
this is just for any neigh borhood . 12
So Jet me talk about that for a 13
minute. 14
The SWlset Islands One, Two, Three, 15
and Four are one of the last remaining 16
histOrically considered neighborhoods in all l 7
of Flori da; not just in the area, not just on 18
the beach, but in all of Florida. 19
Our neighborhood was so significant 20
and so original ·-and what I have shown up 21
here .• I have fo und some postcards of 22
Lincoln Road from the 1930s and I 940s of what 2 3
our islands looked like. 2 4
And by the way, I am proud to say, our 25
Page 7 4
islands··
MR. HELD: Mr. Bienstock, if you are
going to walk away fr om the podiu m. use the
microphone.
MR. BIENSTOCK: I will use the mic.
I am proud to say, ou r islands look
substantially like that today, after·· since
the 1920s when we started. We take ·-
alth ough we own our homes, we don't consi der
us to be owners. We oonsider ourselves to be
stewards, because we understand the
significance and the importance of
maintaining the historic values of the area,
and not just our homes, but of our
neighborhood .
We have worked with the City of Miami
Beach --improve the values of the area And
not just our homes, but of our neigh borhoo d.
We have worked with the City of Miami Beach
to embark on almost $10 million worth of
infrastructure changes and improvements to
these islan ds that are in process.
At the front entrance ~-and again,
sorry I can't use the Karp documents --but
at the front entrance, what we show you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 75
doesn't tell the story. The City of Miami
Beach is spending half a million dollars, to
which we are oontributing upwards of a
hundred thous and dollars ·-the entire reason
for the entrance --pre-dating Palau •• is
all going to be building a new guardhouse,
new landscapi ng-and by the way, when we
had to design it, we had to come to the
Histo ric Preservation Board, and al1 these
boards.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You came to this
Board.
MR. Bl'ENSTOC K: And we came to this
Board to make sure that it was
archit ecturally sensitive to the mass and
scale of the historically designated bridges
and to the neighborhood, and it was designed
to be consistent with the adjoining bridge.
Needless to say, years ago, when we
fought the Sunset Harbor development from the
tower go ing to where the townhouses were, we
had to liti gate it. Th ey had already gotten
their approvals. We foWld out about it, as
the tower was going in, tow ering over our
homes.
Page 76
We sued, and ultimately they gave up
--gave in, and built the townhouse. And we
thought we solved the issue. We thought we
solved the mass and scale of what is going
across --to be both residential and to be
scaled so it would be like singl e-family
homes, and then step up.
Need less to say, we were shocked when
this project was propo sed; a project that
should be on Biscayne Boulevard or South
Dixie Highway, or somewhere in a commercial
area., and would be perfectly appropriate.
But in the midst of a residential
neighborhood?
And you are goin g to hear fo lks speak
who live on every side, and they have
submitted written oomments, and some of them
are here. They ace going to talk about what
it is going to look !ike, to look out their
front doo r or their side door or their back
yard and have to look up, and up and up , to
the top of the building immediately adjoining
them.
You guys are going to make a decisi on.
You will go on to the next thing.
KR ESSE' & AS SO CIATE S, LL C
(305) 371-7692
19 (Page s 73 to 7 6)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 77
The se folks are going to build a project and
they will go on to the next thing. We are
going to be faci ng this buil ding every time
we drive into home and away from home for the
rest of our lives.
So we ask that thi s project be scaled
back to something that is compatible and
consistent with the historic bridge, historic
neigh borhood, and single family home
nei ghborhood.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERS ON: Thank you, sir.
State your name and address?
MR. ALVAREZ: Mark Alvarez. I am a
professional planner. My addres s is at 310 9
Grand A venue, Number 3 31, Miami, Florida.
Hol d on one second while I plug this
back in.
That always happens. Excuse me. I
will need probably a little more than five
minutes, if that is okay.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just talk fast. You
will do it.
MR. ALVAREZ: Okay . I will do my
best.
Page 78
The Sunset Islands residents'
concerns, and I think Mr. Bienstock framed
them out very well --but all along, there
have been basically three maj or issues, and
it is about the height, the bulk of the
building, and the buffe ring. These are the
·• this is exactly what was presented in the
Planning Board, but I think Mr. Bienstock
framed this out perfectly.
I think you have to understand that
Sunset Island, when you look at the
transition, you have to look at what yo u are
transitioning to, and what Sunset Island is.
And I love the fact that Mr. Bienstock
used the word "stewardship," because it is
such a historic island. It is really
different when you drive in there. And so
the stewardship asp ect of this is very
important. It is not only a single-fam ily
resi dential neighborhood, but it is one that
is very hi storic and very characteristic of
the early development ofMiami Beach.
You have seen the aerial before. I
was going to talk about its position both
north and south, but I think it has been
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 79
discussed, so I will save my time.
This is design review criteria,
relatively summarized, 17 criteri a. What I
did is I made a colu mn there that shows, from
the staff report, what was satisfied and what
was not satisfied.
The colors aren't coming out so good,
but there are nine -· I am sorry ~-eight
that were not satisfi ed of thos e 17 cri teria.
Now, admittedly, most of those boil down to a
few points. The first one is, as was
discussed between you, the materials ·· that
the drawings are not really comp lete. There
are a lot of dimensions missing. There are
labels mi ss ing. There are stairwells that -
whene the roo f used to be, I think, labeled
as stairwells, or as I once understood them
to be stairwells, but they are no longer
labeled. We are not sure how high they are,
etcetera .
The other things they rel ate to is
there is an FAR issue, and the most important
thing, the most important two things are
goi ng to do with the height and scale of the
building, the bulk of it, I should say, and
Page 80
also the -· the lack of landscaping.
I am going to speak •• sorry. I am
too loud?
You hear me now? Perfect. I am sorry
ifl was too loud.
I am going to speak to two of these,
actually three of them, three, and one of
them in quite a bit of detail. So I will try
to go as quickly as I can.
I al so disc ussed the Planning Board ,
the Planning Board sou ght, before giving its
conditional use approval, to put in six -·
basically, six condi tions. On e of them was
about pulling back the massing, both on the
eas t side and on the north sid e. And with
that, they --they •· they made a condition
about sight lines. And sight lines is
something I am goi ng to sp eak about quite a
bit, in the time I have.
Their condition about sight lines was
that there would be no roofto p appurtenances,
none of the things that are no longer counted
towards the height that would go beyond that
sight line , but there was also a few
important things about the sight line.
KRE SS E & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(3 05) 371-7692
20 (Pages 77 to 80 )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 81
What I want to talk. about fim is 1
FAR. And just for--very bri efly--the FAR 2
they have is close to the FAR. 3
We are very close to the FAR that is 4
allowed, which allowed us 2, and ,!hey are at 5
1.98. I think I actually made a presentation 6
in the Planning Board and said we are not 7
trying to take away any FAR. We don't care B
about their development rights. We just care 9
about the outside of the building and how it 10
affects the neighborhood. 11
However, upon reviewing these 12
drawings, there were some thin gs that stuck 13
out, and I guess it was -it came to my 14
attention because of the staff comments. 15
Staff had made a comment about the balconies 16
that were now--some of them were somewhat 1 7
recessed, and I showed them in red--it 1e
doesn't come out quite that red on the screen 19
--but those balconies may be counted toward 20
FAR. and staff suggested that they should be, 21
and they should be dimensioned and properly 22
accounted for. 23
What I thought was a more important 2 4
issue were these two spaces on the ground 25
Page 82
floor. There are two spaces on the ground
floor that are completely surrounded by
walls. They are not very well labeled, but
they are labeled as void. They have walls
around them. They have no doors into them.
We are not actually sure what they are. But
they are parts of the building, and according
to your code, they should count as FAR.
However, these drawings exclude those two.
These drawings that were submitted by
the applicant show on the first -· the ground
level, the left top one, those two spaces
have no blue in them. So they were not
included in the FAR. They are not parking.
Th ey are not--to what we know. We just
don't know what they are, but they should be
counted to the FAR. And hopefully , that
will-that issue will be resolved. I
measured it, which was a little diffi cult on
the plans. I think we are in the range of
three, almost 4,000 square feet, between
those two spaces, and it would put it over
the FAR.
Now, I want to talk about height, and
this is the thrust of really what I want to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pag e 83
talk about.
It is conunon for a measure --height
is about relationship to the neighborhood.
We are talking abo ut transition, and it is
not only th e height, but it is the distance
that the height is from the place, from the
neighborhood, from the house, from whatever
it is that you are transitioning to.
So this is --just a study from Alton
Road, and it shows the basic concept of using
sight Jines. And sight lines take into
account that re lationship betw een height and
distance, and things that --for example,
they use a tree here, say, well, we can
obstruct it with a tree, and we will use that
line as our reference.
So it is just to show that we used
these very commonly, and it is a very good
measure, to show that relationship for
transition.
When we get to the application in
front of you, what I have right now is the --
and Mr. Karp explained this, and he explained
it very well --this is --what went to the
May 22nd --and I am showing it b ecause that
Page 84
is what the Planning Board said, "This is the
sight line for which no appurtenances go
above, and this is the sight line that we are
making our conditions about."
And what is important about the sight
lin e is you could draw a sight line to th e
top of a proposed building, and it doesn't
mean anything, because that building moves
around. It moves up, it moves down as you go
through the process . It may move sideways
and so forth. But he tied it to a reference
point. The top line's reference point--the
bottom line's reference point is the Sunset
Harbor Townhomes, 33-foot , the peak of them .
The top line --what the Planning
Board was referring to, its reference point,
its built reference po int, something that is
out there, something that can 't move, is the
top comer of the Sunset •• excuse me, the
Sunset Harbor midrise, which is 65 fe et, but
about 11 0 to 120 feet back from the wall.
That is the line.
What has happened is ·-and I am
afraid that we have not paid attention to the
fact that that line is actually defined, and
KRESSE & AS SOCIATES, LLC
(305) 3 71-7 692
21 {Pages 81 to 84)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 85
it has an angle. We have been talking about 1
what goes above and what goes below it, but 2
we have not talked about the fact that that 3
line is fixed. 4
And if we look at :what that line comes 5
out to, that is just a reference. I won't 6
sp end too much time on this. It is just a 7
picture from --from a few houses to the left 8
showing the space between the two midrise 9
buildings and then the lowrise buildings at 10
Sunset Harbor. ll
And this is a drawing of Sunset 12
Harbor, and I think it shows one important 13
thing that I want to point out, which is that 1 4
there is a separate building --and you have 15
put the very large, tall mass, very far to 1 6
the back. And the very low mass is in the 17
front. 18
And in fact, those do produce two 19
separate sight angles, but that is how they 20
achieved what was considered to be a 21
compromise for compatibility to this 22
neighborhood. So that is--that is our 23
benchmark. 2 4
And again, all of this is measurable, 25
Page 86
because that is built.
And when you me asure out everything,
and you look at all·-it is basically just
calculating the height over the distance, and
then you get an angle. And Sun set Harbor
townhouses, the lower ones make an angle from
Sunset Island Four, basically, exactly 1he
way ·-the way that was drawn on the
application. Yo u have a person standing on
their back yani I use the setback line for
that, 20 feet back. I calculated everything
off ofNGVD, so they are a little higher, and
the person's eye is a little bit higher,
etcetera. It is all of the distances. The
angle for Sunset Harbor is 6.7 degrees. Or,
if you prefer to talk about rise over run,
one foot in height for every eight feet,
eight and a half feet of distance.
The benchmark one, the one for Sunset
Harbor midri se, is 12 degrees. And again, if
you want to talk about rise and run, it is
one foot of height for every 4.7 feet
horizontal. So that is our benchmarks.
Now, the way the drawing is sho wn --
and this is the current one •• you can see --
1
z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
1"1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 87
actually, you can't see on this screen, but
-it is very faint, but there is actually
still something that pokes above that line.
But wh.at is also important is you are
looking at a section line of their building.
For example, you have seen that their
building, the blue --shaded in blue part has
two sort of masses.
So the se ction line goes through the
interior court. Of course, it doesn't tell
you in this diagram that there is something
closer to us, to the west, which is the
gymnasium, and there is something further
away, which is the--Sunset Drive.
So it is actually more massive than
was suggested by these two sort of columns.
But what is more important is that this
occ urs at a certain plac e on the building,
and there are other parts of the building
that come out further than that.
So I am not going to get into this,
unless you want to, just for Jack of time,
but that is the calculations. r have the
tables, etcetera.
What 1 want to sho w, instead, is where
Page 88
those lines were taken from. What I measured
to were from these drawings. One is the --
the very top point, it is very light, is the
stairwell, the elevator --sorry, the wall
for the elevator that goes up to the --to
the roof, and the one that's further to the
left is the brow. There is a brow extending
over the terrace of the fifth floor.
May I have a little more time, please?
THE CHAIRPERSON: You have had double
the time. So I have to suggest to you, to
wrap it up, please.
MR. GffiBS: Excuse me. Excuse me. As
the attorney for the neighbors, 1 have to
say, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding. My
clients are entitled to make their case, to
produce their competent substantial evidence.
This is ow-expert on this issue, which is
critical to your decision.
'MR. HELD: You are not entitled to
unlimited time, Tucker. The Chair and the
Board are entitled to set reasonable time
limits at three minutes. That is been upheld
in the courts, Tucker.
l\IIR. GIBBS: Throe minutes isn't long
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
22 (Pages 85 to 88}
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 89
enough. He is our expert 1
MR. HE LD: He has already had ten 2
minutes. So we don't have to discuss three. 3
MR. GIBBS: Okay. If you want to cut 4
him you off,, it is your prerogative. It is s
appealable. 6
MR. HELD: He was not cutting him off. 7
He was giving him additional time, and you 8
-~~0~~ 9
MR. GIBBS: I am just ask ing for him 10
to have the time he is needs. 11
MR. HELD: It is not go ing to be 12
unlimited. 13
MR. GIBBS: I don 't ask for that 14
15
MR. KARP: Thi s is Kobi Karp . I just 16
wanted to clarify for the record that maybe I 17
misunderstand Mr. Terry. He has --my boards 18
are public. He can use them any time he 19
wants. 20
Plus, my Board are already being 21
abused up there -abused, sorry--they arc 22
being used up there, anyway. 23
So please, feel free to use it, Terry. 24
I am sorry if I misunderstood you when I came 2 s
Page 90
off and you came on. Thank you very much.
Sorry.
THE CHAJRPERSON: Please continue .
MR. ALVAREZ: Sorry. The data is
public reco rds.
Just to further in form you about where
those edges are--again, it is the brow. It
is the edge of the brow --of the brow above
the terraces o f the fifth floor. I just
wanted you to be very clear about where we
are measuring the sight lines to. An d I took
you there.
And you can see, because those brows
go in and out on the building. They are on
different places. And I believe that the one
that you --that you saw from the diagram
that is with the application, is about where
unit 403 is , in the middle. And that one is
pretty far back. An d in fact , that one gives
us about --the way I went through the
measurements, about a 12 and a half degree
ang le. Just a tiny bit more than that angle
that was given to you by the Plannin g Board.
Howev er, the other parts of the
building, to the west and to the east, stick
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 91
out quite a bit from that, and they don 't
subscribe to that --to that sight angle. So
they are too high, or too far forward. They
either ·• either they are needing to be moved
back or moved down. And you can see the
angles. There, 3.3 on unit 405 is and sorry.
13.3 and 13.8 fo r unit 405.
So they exceed th at angle for the
Sunset midrise.
Just lastly, I want to go into --I am
sorry, the colors don't work very well on
this screen, but we spent a lot of time
looking at the ·-the north/south --the
transition to the north. As you go furth er
east, of cou rse, there is a park. We talked
about houses, but the park is just as
important That is where everybody in the
co mm unity co mes to, and they need to have the
same access and the same sight lines and the
same consideration for transition.
And then as we wrap around to the
Sunset Drive, you have -· you have homes, you
have one home right across tlte street from
Sun set Drive, and two parks.
And again, the same cons id eration
Page 92
need s to be given. I co uldn't calculate that
because we don't really have enough
information in the plans to even have a
comment for the applicant to supply a study
of the transition across Sunset Drive. That
is in the •• it is in you r comments from the
staff. So the same goes for that, exct:pt I
couldn't calculate it for that, that
northeast part going into that neighborhood
along Baysh ore Drive .
And lastly, it is just the
landscaping. I think staff has given you a
very good opinion on that. It is just that
··the drawi ngs are straight out of the
submittal.
You know, the landscaping is very
sparse, to my eye, but there are far better
experts than 1, and I think he has done a
very good job on that, those comm ents.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Who is next?
MR. SACKS: Real quick, I just want to
make sure I have the opportunity~
cross-examine the experts.
Is that permissible, Gary?
KRESSE & AS SO CIAT ES, LL C
{305) 371 -7692
23 (Pages 89 t o 92)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
9
9
10
l1
12
13
14
15
16
17
lB
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
2 3
2 4
25
Page 9 3
MR. HELD: Yes.
MR. SACKS: Thank you.
TifE CHAIRPERSON: Please state your
name and address.
MS. LENS : My name is Olga Lens, and I
live at 2000 North Bay Road, which is across
from this project that we are discussing here
today .
I agree completely with the opinion
and the objections of my neighbors , although
I don't belong to the island. I think that,
contrary to something that this -thi s
gentleman here said before, 1 think that my
property is going to be adversely, to use his
word s, affected by this construction, because
it is going to occlude completely the side of
my house to the --to the sea, to the bay.
And besides, I think I understand ---
although I don't understand very well --the
language of lawyers or aschitects. The
entrance or some of the garage facilities are
going to be facing, practically, the side of
my house, and --which is going to increase
the traffic, the vehicles, and the --human
exchange there.
Page 9 4
So I repeat myself--and I don't want
to take more of yo ur time --I think that the
objections are very proper, and I feel that I
am directly affected by those circwnstances.
Okay? Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank: you very much.
Okay, next'?
MR. LURIA: If I could take a moment
to put a Board up --
Good morning -afternoon.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please state your
name and address.
MR. LURIA: lt is --good morning. I
didn't expect it to ~thi s long.
Good afternoon. My name is Peter
Luria, and !live on Suoset {stand ill. 1800
West 23rd Street I am also a member of the
Board of directors.
In my hand is a petition signed by
over a hundred residents from al l the Sunset
aisles, One, Two, Three, Four --Sunset
Is lands, the Sunset Harbor Towers and lower
North Bay Road, which I will leave with you.
While we would like to see this
property developed, its current design is not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
i
e
9
10
ll
1 2
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 95
sensitive enough to the neighborhood. We
agree with the staff report, but feel that
their recommendations do not go far enough.
The mass, scale, height and leugth of this
bui ldin g is too overwhelming. It is one huge
box, instead of sepasate buildings, and their
design encompassing five separate lots, has
no view conidors or breezeways.
These ase some of our recommendation;
Number one, reduce the mass, scale and height
of this structure; eliminate the entire 5th
floor along the water, and also along Sunset
Drive .
At least eliminate the top floor at
the northeast comer alon g the northeast
comer nearest the historic Sunset Island
bridge looking across the canal at the public
park. That is the publ ic park right here;
Follow the precedent of the Sunset
Harbor Townhomes directly to the wes t These
are 33 feet in height.
Num ber two, incr eas e the setback on
the northeast co mer nearest of the historic
Sunset Island bridge. The staff report
recommends an additi on al ten-foot setback,
Page 96
but tbat is not far en ough.
The additional ten-foot setback
recommended in the staff report onl y !>rings
it back to wh ere it is currently. This
five-story building will overwhelm this
histor ic bridge and diminish its
significance. Replacing a one-story building
with a five-story one is just not the same.
The Miami Beach Historic Structure's
designation report, on Page 20, read s,
"Historic structure designation is a means of
maintaining the arch itectural special
chasacter of a place to increase
architectural consideration when construction
of new buildings and other structures, or
additi ons to exi sting structwes or buildings
are proposed."
End of quote.
The required setback, therefore,
should be greater th an now exists.
And number thre e, notch the fir st
floor of the southeast comer at the
intersection of Sunset Drive and 20th Street.
This historic comer is a gateway to
the Sunset Hasbor district, and the
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 3 71 -76 92
24 (Page s 93 to 96)
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
l1
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 97
transition from mixed use to the residential
neighborhoods of the SWlSet Islands and lower
North Bay Road. It has been a drive through
for Mark's Cleaners, the large overhang
allowing for a view around the comer. It
was designed by Robert Swartburg, the
architect of the Delano HoteL Follow this
precedent.
Notching the comer would allow for an
outdoor cafe and increase the pedestrian
traffic and soften the transition from
residential to mixed use.
In conclusion, a project of this
magnitude, stretching five combined
properties at this special location, requires
a more sensitive design.
This site is the gateway to the Sunset
Harbor district and the transition from mixed
use to the residential neighborhoods of the
Sunset Islands and lower North Bay Road.
Treat it as such. Make it more compatible
with the neigh borhood. Reduce the mass,
scale, height and length of this massive
building. Give us back our comers and
reduce the mass, as compensation for losing
Page 98
view corridor and breezeways.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
MR. LURIA: Now, may I ask one other
indulgence?
Our architect couldn't make it, but I
have an e-mail that he sent. If I cou ld read
it, it is a sho rt ·-
STAFF: And I passed it out.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We have a copy of it
here, I think.
MR. LURIA: Is that -·
THE CHAIRPERSON: I think that is
fine . Yes.
MR. LURIA: Okay . Very good. Thank
you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
MR. CARY: For the TV viewers'
information, that is a letter from Francois
LeJeune.
MR. LURIA: Sorry, what?
MR. CARY: That is a letter from
Fnmcois LeJeune?
MR. LUIUA: Yes.
MR. CARY: Thai is who you I!Ie
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
l7
1a
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pa ge 99
referring to?
MR. LURIA : Yes, as a resident of the
neighborhood. Correct. Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon.
Ju st state your name an d address, please.
MS. LELAND: Good afternoon. As
everyone knows, my name is Jackie Leland. I
am a resident of Sunset lsland. I am also a
member of the Budget Advisory Co mmittee Bo ard
for the City of Miami Beach and, much like
yourselves, I have a fiduciary duty, like you
do, today.
I am here because I want to talk to
you about the fi duciary duty you have. I
know thai you folks know bow seriou s it is,
and I am certainly not trying to preach to
the choir here.
We do have to live for the rest of our
lives with this decision that you make, and
it is a critical decision. We are in favor
of the development, as long as that
development is appropriate in tenns of its
mass and scale, which it is not Because it
-· and we had a very contentious issue all
throughout the Planning Board on this
Page 100
project.
1, personally, have talked to, I would
say, about 150 folks from --not just our
is lands, but from neighboring buildings, and
there is not a single person I met while
canvassing and serving and talking to people
that were in favor of this.
Kobi says that there arc a couple of
people in favor of the project; I think that
is Kobi and the attorney. Other than that, I
am not sure who is in favor of the project as
it is currently proposed.
Mr. Torry has been eloquent, as have
all of you, in reviewing the diagrams
assigned to the Design and Review Board for
decision --obviously, he speaks to the need
to make sure that the appropriate project is
put in place.
We have seen the disasters in our
neighborhood right across the street from us
of what happens when we don't stand the line.
I have had to do it in the Budget Advisory
Committee meetings. 1 have had to say,
"Look. We cannot afford to do this because
ofX, Yand Z. It is just that simple."
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
25 (Pages 97 to 100)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
H
\5
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
24
25
Page 101
We ask that you simply deny it as
proposed, that you do send them back to do
the right thing.
We have tried to work with them, but I
can assure you, they have never tried
diligently to work with us on their issues.
They have not tried to work with us on mass
and scale. They have thrown little bones,
thinking that that is going to suffice, but
it really doesn'l
So I --I, personally, beg you to
please not allow this project to move forward
until there is true compromise being made
here that we all can live with in perpetuity,
which is what is going to happen to this
building.
Thank you very much for your time.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
There were a lot of people that stood
up--
Please state your name and address,
please.
MS . MANNING: My name is Jo Manning.
I live at 1460 Ocean Drive. I am a member of
the Historic Preservation Board. I am a
Page 102
member at l.arge, l ike Ms. H ousen and Mr.
Minagorri. l do not presume to speak for
that Board. l arn speaking as someone who
Jives here, who is a private citizen, and who
has seen too much development. l arn speaking
out against over development.
This project, in my opinio n,
significantly overwhelms the surrounding
context There is no question in my mind. I
think here, less is really more.
There is extreme massing.
I picked up a few terms from being on
the Board, even though l am not an architect
and I am not a lawyer, but I think I have
some common sense. And one of the things I
want to bring up is the traffic study --l
have not lo oked at the traffic study, but any
traffic study that can say everything is
going to be all right, when there are several
parking garages, two very large grocery
stores, several residential complexes, buses,
taxis--all kinds of people be ing picked up
and dropped off for the grocery stores, and
for the restaurants --let's not forget the
restaurants --I have a good friend who lives
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.
15
16
17
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14.
15
15
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 103
on Sunset Island Four. I visited her many
times. There is going to be a problem at
that guardhouse. I have seen problems
already. There is going to be a traffic
issue, with all due respect to the traffic
study.
I think this needs to be a more modest
proposal I think that just because
something can be built doesn't mean it should
be built. I think you have to step back and
look at what this is going to do to the
neighborhood. We have a duty, we have an
obligation. We have to think as several
people have said about the future. This will
be the future, if this is allowed to happen .
We should make it a good future.
Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
Please ·-just state your name and
address, please.
MS. FROJLICK: Good afternoon . My
name is Marilyn Froil!ck. I am the president
of the homes of Sunset Harbor. We are very
much affected by this project because we are
right next door. And [have seen today a lot
Pa ge 104
of people get up here and ~ against the
project, and·-because it affects them
personally.
When Scott Robbins built his garage, I
was the frrst one here in support of that
garage, although that beautiful, beautiful
building completely took our view away. l
live in the penthouse, and I used to see the
water. Now, r see Scott's garage--which is
very nice, but it is not the water --but I
stood here and I supported that project
As a matter of fact, I was one of the
people from day one --1 go back 12 years --
trying to bring a garage to Sunset Harbor,
because we need it in order for the
businesses to prosper. And it is --this
project is massive. It is a little bit too
big. It has --it needs to be tweaked,
definitely, it needs to be tweaked. But it
needs to be built, because what we have there
now is the dilapidated building in the
comer .
We have a building that was started to
be built, and it is --you know, in this --
it has to be tom down, and if we make life
KRESSE & ASSOC IATES , LLC
(305) 371-7692
26 (Pages 101 to 104)
1
2
3
(
5
6
1
II
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
a
9
10
11
12
13
u
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
2J
24
25
Page 105
so difficult for people who want to come to 1
Miami Beach to do a good project, if we make 2
life so difficult, they are going to leave, 3
and who knows what is going to go up there. 4
Maybe three warehous es? s
More stores? 6
Two-story stores that we don't need? 7
This is the gate to Sunset Harbor a
also. It is not only the gate to the Sunset 9
Islands. 10
We have to live with this, too, and we 11
don't want these people or any other 12
developer to get so scared of the people that 13
have power and can-hire lawyers and can 14
hire consultants, you know, to com e in fro nt 15
of all of the boards and scare them away, 16
after we have to live--if they go into 17
their little islands, or they go onto Bay 18
Road, but we have to li ve with whatever is 19
there now. And it is horrible. What is 20
there now is very bad for Sunset Harbor. Not 21
only for the townh omes, but for everybody. 22
I live next door to two huge towers. 23
And you know what, they don't bother me. You 24
get used to just coming home and, you know, 1 25
Page 106
live --I look at the other side. I have the
towers. I look outside my other window, I
have the entire bay. Okay? So you have to
compromise in life. And you have to respect
other people, too.
So 1 urge this Board to give the
recommendations to this developer on how to
make the best possible project, but not to
just make it so hard on --that it will just
walk away and leave us with the Mark's and
that building that needs to come down.
And you k.now , they have to ilX their
prob lem with Comras, because they have
someth.ing, of course, going on there that the
City of Miami Beach should have never let
that happen, but it flew by.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
Please state your name and address.
MS. LAWSON: My name is Jane Lawson,
1810 Jefferson Avenue, Miami Beach.
Good afternoon. I am here as a
resident of Palm View Historic District
advocating on behalf of my fellow Miami Beach
residents and their stated desire to restrict
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
lB
19
21)
21
22
23
24
25
Page 107
the scale and massi ng of this proposed
project.
As a community, I believe that we must
go well beyond the footprint in assessing new
real estate developmen ts to the surrounding
communities. Especially when they are
immediately adjacent to a single-family-
and residential neighborhood.
In addition, I am here rep resenting
the Board of directors and the general
membership of Miami Beach United, which is
dedicated to preserving the integrity of our
residential neighborhoods, among other
things.
I want to tell you that tv!BU has
endorsed the concept of a transitional zon e
where all proposed developments within
350 feet of a single-family neighborhood
would not exceed the allowable height for
that --for the neigh borhood, and be
permitted only 15 percent of that height from
a distance of between three hundred and five
hundred fee t away fro m the neighborhood.
While obviously, this concept is just
a concept, at this point, it is not an
Page 108
ordinance. In the future, such an ordinance
would serve to protect the neighbo rhoods like
Sunset Three and Four from out-of-scale,
adjacent developments.
And I want to say --I didn't have a
lawyer. I don't know, you know, come from an
island or North Bay Road. I come from Palm
View. I shop all the time in that
neighborhood, and really, to see su ch a mass
as I enter 20th Street where Mark's Cleaners
is •• you know, I appreciate that it is a
nicely-designed build ing, but I really
believe that the massing and the scale needs
to be rethought a bit.
And I support everything that Terry
and Peter have said on it And I hope that
the Design Review Board will consider the
concept of appropriateness of massing on tbis
all-important project, and I thank you very
much.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
Please state yow full name and
address.
MR. DEL VECC IDO: Frank Delvecchio, 301
Ocean Drive. I am trying to put myself in
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
27 (Pages 105 to 10 8)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
l4
l5
16
11
1B
1 9
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
ll
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pa ge 10 9 Page 111
your shoes. How do you apply the design 1 carve-out in between.
review criteria to the overwhelming problem 2 So I have tried to develop some
here , which is massing? 3 language to deal with the problem of massing.
So I took a stab at it, and if you 4 And the language I developed, which
look at your --at the recommended conditions 5 followed·· for south of Fifth was to
in the staff re port, which is on page nine of 6 differentiate secti on s of the north elevatio n
14, I will give you three suggestions of how 7 basically in three planes, in the vertical
to grapple with this ov erwh el ming problem of 8 plane, in the horizontal plane , and at the
mas sing. 9 ground level , that is with setback. So that
First •• and those deal with setback, 1 0 the massing would be more harmonious with the
height, and massing, itself. 11 adjacent prop erties.
On the issue of setback, condition lC 1 2 I believe you are going to continue
in the staff report recommends an additional lJ this. I believe there is a flexi bility
setback often fe et from the street and from 14 within the •• within the FAR. and the
the bridge. There has been testimony that 15 objectives of the developer to maximize his
that would put it back to the original when 1 6 FAR
there was only a one-story building, now 1 7 There are a lot of things that an
there are three-story buildings. So l think 18 architect could do with this as far as the
you can consider doub ling that to a 20-foot 19 stepback on the higher floors of residential.
setb ack. So conditi on lC would strike the 20 You coul d actually give some residential
ten-foot setback an d substitute a 20-foot 21 views from the stepback floor s northward over
setback. 22 th e water.
Then I suggest two additions to 23 So these are my three suggestions as
condition one. Condition one deal s with the 24 you --as you work to come up with a
massing, scale and height. Dealing with 2 5 harm oni ous development.
Page 110 Pa g e 11 2
mas sing, I suggest that the north facade that 1 Thank you .
is facing the water --you could deal with 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very mu ch.
mass ing by steppi ng back the higher floors, 3 Okay, next?
floors four and five , so that the elevation 4 Please state your name and address,
facing the water is basical ly on a line with 5 please.
the adjacent townhomes, whi ch are around 6 MR. ROBBINS: My name is Kent Harrison
33 feet, and that step back would be the 7 Robbins. I already announced who I
fourth floor and the fifth floor on some kind 8 represent
of an angle, I am suggesting, a 4 5-degree 9 First of all, l want to raise a number
angle. That will -would give you an 10 of issues as far as fundamental fairness, as
opportunity to modulate the design and push ll far as why we --this matter should be
the upper floors back and give a -a line 1 2 continued and not have to go forward.
equivalent to the townhomes im medi ately 1 3 MR. HELD: Maybe we can agree on a
adjacent to the waterway . l4 time, Kent.
And then the last condition, how do 1 5 MR. ROBBINS: Well, we have three
you deal with a 200 to 250-foot long 1 6 issues to go through. First, we have a
building? 11 procedural objection, you asked me to delay
William Cary came up with a terrific 16 until I make my presentation.
idea on a recent ordinance, on south of 19 MR. HELD: Can you do it ·· the whole
Fifth, where we are in a historic area, where 20 thing in I 5 minutes?
most of the lots are 15 fe et, where there 21 MR. ROBBINS: No.1 have to also make
would be a development of lots greater than 22 a presentation, unles s this Board agrees that
50 feet, there would be some diffe rentiation 23 it is going to continue it --as to the issue
as if there might ·· you might even feel 24 concerning the covenant in lieu of unity of
there were two buildings, with a notched 25 title, and we are entitled to due process,
KRESSE & AS SO CIATE S, LLC
(3 05 ) 371-7692
28 (Pages 10 9 to 11 2)
'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
21
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 113 Page 115
and that is a --procedure that has never l following: One, it should show th e location,
even been addressed by this staff yet. 2 dimensions and character of parking spaces,
So I have to go through what was a 3 as well as storm drainage and sanitary
covenant, what were the obligations in the 'l facilities."
covenant, and what is being proposed. 5 Well, why is that important?
I also make my substantive objections, 6 Well, there are two reasons: Under
to the extent 1 can, to what is being 7 our covenant, there are nine spaces that
proposed. 8 could be utilized on our site by the
So [ suspect it could be 20 to 9 commercial parking next door.
25 minutes. I will cut it short. 1 0 Yet, it is not clearly defined, the
Remember, at the BOA, we were able to ll relationship of how th ey are going to use
keep it down fairly short, and I will do my 1 2 those parking spaces.
best to do it, but my client has due process 13 Given that we originally offered those
rights. He is part of this unified site. He 14 nine spaces when there was only going to be
is consid ered a unified, aggregated property, 15 3,000 square feet, now, there is 11,000
joined with this project, and he opposes this 16 square feet of commercial space, we do not
project because it is not compatible. So why 1'1 know what relationship or how they are going
shouldn't we have at least what they have? 19 to allocate the use of that parking space.
.MR. HELD: I understand. 19 It is supposed to --location, dimensions and
Is the sense of the Board that you are 20 character should be clarified.
going to continue it, at this point? 21 Also, with respect to the storms sewer
Do you --does the Chai.r know ? 22 issue, there is a storm sewer easement and
TilE CHAIRPERSON: I--yes. We will 23 utility easement if you look at the surv ey,
continue. 24 and there has been no consideration about how
"MR. HELD: Can you bold off on the 25 this new plan and proj ect is going to be
Page 114 Page 116
covenant in lieu argument until October? 1 built right on top of a utility easement.
MR. ROBBINS : I am --I reserve my 2 They would have to apparently -· I
rights as to that. 3 believe they would have to move that utility
:MR. HELD: Sure. 4 easement, but that utility easement goes
MR. ROBBfl\IS : Absolutely. I will 5 right through the center of my client's
raise that at the next hearing. 6 property, and he is not going to consent to
MR. HELD: So 15 minutes? 7 the tearing up of his property or the
MR. ROBBINS: Yes. 8 changing of the easement. So there has been
JvlR HELD: Thank you. 9 no discussion as to that utility easement and
MR. ROBBINS: Thank you. 10 how that is going to be handled.
MR. HFLD: Thank you. ll The other iss ue that we have is there
MR. ROBBINS : The first thing I want 12 should be a tabulation of project density and
to go over is the deficie ncies. Now, I want 13 square foot of lot area per apartment unit.
to tell you something. I think Kobi Karp and 14 That is number ten under 118~ 1.
his firm, as you know, are just excellent, 15 There are no FAR tabulations on a
excellent architects. So I don't want you to 16 per-apartment-unit basis, nor are there FAR
take my-my criticism of his application 17 tabulations on a floor basis.
and his plans as a criticism of him. He is 1 8 And under the submission requirements,
obviously ~-he is a champagne architect, and 19 under the submission requirements, as far as
he has probably been put on a beer budget. 20 tabulation, zoning data --it compels FAR
So you know, he has not done 21 calculations for each floor. And if you look
everything he is supposed to do here. 22 at your -the plans that were presented --
Now, under Section 118~1, Site Plan--23 and let me get the number --the plans, as
"When land development and regulations 24 presented ·• and that is A 0.02, which is the
require site plans, site plans sh all show the 25 FAR tabulations, there is no "separate floor
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305 ) 371-7692
29 (Pages 11 3 to 116)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
..,
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
lS
16
lJ
18
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
Page 117
tabulation on each floor." 1
That is compelled . 2
And [will submit a copy of the 3
submission requirements under the Design 4
Review Board. 5
There are no tabulations. ft is just 6
a dimension. And this was one of the 1
problems they had before the Planning Board. 8
They didn't provide these tabulations and 9
actual calculations ofthe FAR, and they are 10
trying to sneak FAR into-· into the 11
balcon ies, wh ich are prohibited. 12
And if you include the calculations of 13
the FAR·· we don't know how much FAR is on 14
the site, so we can't intelligently make 15
recommendations as to how much can be 16
diminished on the massing of thi s project. 1 J
For if you don't know what the real FAR 1 a
cal culations are, how do you know how much, 19
as a matter of right, they reall y can build 20
on this site? 21
This Board needs to make this 22
applicant com e back with those calcu lations . 23
There is also the issu e rai sed ·· and 2 4
I am not going to rep eat anything, I will 25
Page 11 8
allow the testim ony of the planner, who is a
very well--knowledgeable gentleman, but he
also talked about on the ground level, th e
areas that are stated "void," we don't know
how that is treated, but it ap pears to be a
closed area. Yet, th at is not included in
the FAR.
That should be included in the FAR,
and that should diminish the massing and
height and width of this building.
Now, let's go over to another
submission that is lacking. There is
suppo sed to be--under thi s "Submission
Requirements," und er five, there are supposed
to be detailed plans an d el evations of the
existing and proposed building, indi cating
all dimensions, surface materials, design
features and elements, texture, colo r, as
well as attachments such as signs."
What was presented to us, until today,
was a very vague and very blurred set of
plans.
Today, we received these new set of
plan s, and they look pretty good, but we
didn't have an opportunity to really evaluate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
u
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 3
2 4
25
Page 119
the new set of plans that were handed to you
today.
Yesterday, my cli ent, Michael Comras,
asked the planning staff, "Aie there any
additional plans?''
They said no. So tOday, at the
hearing, we are handed these new set of
plans. Aie these plans better than the other
ones?
Absolute ly. But th ey still do not
meet the requirements of service materials,
texture, color, elevation -"should also
indicate window design and all architectural
elem ents."
That is not shown.
This is a Design Review Board. This
is not a Planning Board. You should have the
opportunity of looking at all these details.
We are talking about a massive building, 250
fronta ge along the water, over 100,000 squar e
feet, and yet they don't give you these
details.
And then additionally, under number
si x, "Th e floor plans for all new and
existing floors of a proposed building should
Page 120
be subm itted."
There is no indication where the
kitchens are, where the windows are in the
plan. There is no ind ication where the -·
where 1he bathrooms are going to be. There
is no in dication, in the set of plans that we
were working from, as to where any of that
is. And I don 't think even in the revised
set of plans -there is a new set -~ there
is any indication.
This, once again , is a Design Review
Board, and they don't give you this
fwidamental information.
Finally, contextual sketches ~~ this
is re ally impo rtant, to be able to un derstand
the relationship of th is project to the
adjoining projects.
It says under number seven, "A
contextual sketch or detailed computer photo
image of the project showing street
elevations of the proposed project and
schematic elevations to the building on
either side."
Well, there are actually buildings on
all sides. This goes fro m end to en d. And
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 3 71 -7 692
30 (Pages 117 to 120)
l
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
Page 121 Page 123
all they have here --and it is repeated both 1 facility and our build ing to the sectionals,
in the plans handed today to us, as well as 2 the sectionals that were provided to you.
the plans that were submitted as part of the 3 And if you look at the sectionals that
application under A 2.04 --their A.2 --it 4 were provided to you, the north/south
only shows the contextual north elevation. 5 sectional --it doesn't go through the area
It doesn't show the contextual 6 on the appendage that is behind my clienfs
relationship for the east elevation, nor does 7 property,lots --I think lots 24 and 25.
it show the context where it relates to my a Rather, it goes behind --let me see. I'm
client's building, where it relates to the 9 sorry.
World Bank and its relationship to the west 10 Excuse me. Lots 25 and 26, it doesn't
side and south side of the appendage that 11 show --it shows sectional through the center
goes behind his building. 12 of the building, but that doesn 't relate to
There is no contextual relationship, 13 the area of the void behi nd my client's
and you know how --I thlnk all of you are 14 building. It doesn't relate to the --to the
familiar with --you know, how wonderful and 15 apartments behind my client's building. So
how auspicious that building is. But it is 16 we can't really line everything up.
literally v.7apped around and hidden, at least 17 And why is this important to have
from three sides, from the neighborhood. 18 sectionals?
And there is no attempt to relate, 19 There are a few reasons. First of
from an architectural standpoint, what is 20 all, there is a problem with the means of
being proposed from what is already there. 21 egress from their building.
And you need to know that, and they shouldn't 22 Now, there is a new set of plans that
eve n expect this Board to make a 23 were provided as to the ground \eve~ and I
determination until all these fundamental 24 would be di rected more towards the
analytical materials are provided to you so 25 architects --in the new set of plan s, if you
Page 122 Page 124
you can apply your knowledge, experience and 1 look at the ground floor --I am trying to do
wisdom to this application. 2 this with just having a couple of minutes to
So you are being deprived of the 3 review it. l have not had a chance to have
ability to properly analyze thi s project. 4 my architect review it.
And until this information is provided, it ~ My architect, in fact, Jean Francois
makes it very difficult for us, as people 6 Le Jeune was, in fact, precluded from
that are conjoined with this property, from 7 testifYing today, or giving advice becau se he
analyzing how this is going to impact us. a has now been put on the Planning Board. And
And I show you another problem that we 9 we were just advised, just before this
have, and this is something that r think the 10 bearing, that he would be prevented from
architects will really appreciate. 11 testi fying on behalf of my client, and cannot
There are sectionals, you know, and in 12 serve as our expert in this matter.
sectionals, you try to figu re out how -the 13 But I am trying to do the best I can.
hei ghts of each of the elevations of each of 14 1 have been a consultant attorney for over
the floors and its relationship to the 15 5,000 square feet of develo pment, so l have
project, to the grade, as well as to above 16 learned to look at some plans.
grade. Well, there is a particular problem 17 And as far as what I can tell --and I
with our project. Our project is using -18 am not testifying, I am just saying that the
our project uses nine feet of their driv eway, 19 architects should look at this and be able to
of their land, to provide for a 22 --excuse 20 see that the means of egress from the
me, 11 feet of their land to provide a 21 stairway on the first level, if you look at
driveway for our parking spots. 22 --on the set of plans that were provided to
Yet, we do not see the relationship or 23 us today, the means of egress is not clear.
we do n't have sufficient infonnation to 24 And as you know, the means of egress
analyze the relationship of our parking 2S has to run all the way --if you are
-
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
31 (Pages 121 to 124)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 1 25
looking --Ms. Nepomichie , if you will look 1
at the stairway, and Mr. Hagopian, if you 2
look at that stairway·· and that stairway 3
nee ds to really exit outside. It is a 4
secondary means of egress. It actually has 5
to-· it is over 75 feet from the other 6
stairway. So to exit fro m there --it 7
doesn't show how it is going to come along 8
the property. 9
Now, initially, if you look to the 10
other set of plans, it showed a way along the 11
perimeter of my client's property. But now, 12
to try to "pretty up" the edge, they show 13
landscaping in the area that woul d be th.e 14
pathway for the means of a cces s, life s afety 15
access to the front of the building. So this 16
is not even really a realistic plan. And if l 7
you look at the landscaping plan, th ere is no 18
showing of anything on that level. So they 19
are using landscaping to block a means of 20
egress for a person to escape from this 21
building, should there be a fire. It is not 22
going to be pennitted to be built in any way, 23
no doubt about it, but how can you analyze 24
the impact of this building to my client's 25
Page 126
property if you don't even have this basic
infonnati on of means of egress on the edge of
my client's property?
They show, on some of these
ele vations, landscaping along the edge, in
some of the renderings that were prov ided to
you, but there is no --no place to put
landscaping, unl ess they push the building to
the east 5 to 10 feet, and push it to the
north 5 to 10 feet.
There is another issue concerning why
the sectional is so important, and that's the
issue of what is allowed on the·-on the
level of the fir st floor .
Now, as you all know, and-~ but I
will just rem ind you, because I know you gu ys
are experts in land developm ent regul ations,
under [L) ---excuse me. Under 130-38 (C),
because there is mechanical parking in this
project, there are no variances allowed.
None. There cannot be a single variance in
this project.
However, however, under 140·308, NCD
2nd District, the firs t floo r facing a
waterway must have res idential use or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 127
commercial uses along its facade.
So if you look at it, they put a void
there. They don't put a residential use on
the most western side, and along the ground
level, all they have is a grassy area to walk
' in. That's not a residential use. That's
no t a commercial use. That's the required
setb ack for an RM-2 area.
So there is no res idential commercial
use lining the parking garage. That is
prohibited under the CD-2. So what they
tried to do is --to try to cover up this
problem, what they have do ne is ··this is a
three-foot higb area If you look at the
original drawing -· and I was just looking at
it just now, one that was handed to us just
now today, the picture of the bridge and
existing seawall--and you can look at the
survey--the height of the existing seawall
is three feet. So they -· to try to cover up
and mask the parking garage, instead , and
putting a use in there, they raised the level
from three feet to six feet, or si x
and-a-half feet, to block it, and they don't
put any residential use along that edge.
Page 1 28
You are going to probably hear an
argwnent saying, "Well, it is going to be
impractical. You can't put habitable space
on the grou nd leve l. It is not going to meet
the flood zone."
Well, the reason why they can't meet
the habitable space requirement is because
the mechanical parking is preventing them
from designing it in a way that would be
appropriate; or, alternatively, to get the
appropriate variances.
So they are using an excuse by their
own situation, by their own doing, they are
adding --they are essentially not putting
the required liner on the first floor . This
is the problem:
What they did was, to put them sel ves
into a further position --to force
themselves--to make it appear as though
they are compelled to do that --and they
said it was a gift to us --by reducing the
height from 60 feet to 47 feet. But they had
to reduce all of the heights, all of the
floo rs there. So it reduced the subterranean
even further down and put the void further
KRESSE & AS SO CIAT ES , LLC
(305}· 371 -7692
32 (Page s 12 5 to 12 8)
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
1 4
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 129
down so there is not sufficient area.
Now, the reason I can't go into this
--into more detail is because there is no
section al so I can actually demonstrate how
•• if they designed this building, they could
have put a residential use liner along the
north side of the building.
Now, the other issue that gets me
really annoyed is the allegati on --the
representation that this developer made so
many concessions, they redu ced from 70 un its
to 50 units .
They had to. The required parking
made them reduce the num ber of parking
spaces , and yo u can't •• in ord er to
provide --to build this building, it is not
--in the histori c district, they had to
provide the required parking, and the
required parking would only allow them to
have 50 units in 13 square feet of commercial
space. They could not put any more parking
in this space. And therefore, they couldn't
put any more units.
So for them to say that they made a
concession from 70 units to 50 units, is
Page 130
hogwash. They didn't have a choice, under
the code.
So they reduced the height to mask
this lower level problem, and they reduced it
from 73 un its or 70 units down to 50 units··
because they had to , to comply with the code .
Not for any other reason. Not because they
made concessions.
The only things they really made a
concessi ons was putting in --putting in the
val et parking because they had to, and it was
appropriate . There was no sufficient parking
in fro nt of the buildi ng to put a valet stall
and to put the loading zone inside th e
building. because otherwise, it would have
been in the front setback of the building,
whi ch was prohibited, especially if there is
some residential use on the first level.
That's--that's really the problem we
have here. So there is a gross
misrepresentation about the concessions made
by this applicant. They have not made
concessions. They really have stonewalled
us, stonewalled the neighborhoods, and that's
wh at we are stuck with.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 131
And then they don't even give us
enough infonnation to be able to assess it
and for thi s Board to assess what is going
on. So don't be foo led.
I am go ing to tell you what, Kobi is a
great architect. They have good lawyers, and
they are doing their best for their client,
because that's what their client told them to
do, but they did not do what is compatible,
what is appropriate .
Would yo u hand out the rest of
tho se -· the photographs -
THE CHAIRPERSON: You are over your
time.
MR. ROBBINS: Okay. I will just hand
out the photographs. And I promise two
minutes on th at, an d I wil l stop.
lbis is one --and while the
photographs are being handed out •• this is
one of the most auspici ous locations in the
City of Miami Beach. It is the primary
entryway to Sunset Isles, one of the most
beautiful residenti al areas, as well as the
primary cntryway through 20th Street, which
is the entryway to Sunset Harbor.
Page 132
And ifyou look at these
photographs --and let me go through them.
They are all numbered, one through --1
through 8 --
And we have provided those at the last
hearing--
you can look at this and look at how
auspicious on the -the importance of this
building, as a transitional building.
Looking from the south, looking north
at the Mark's Cl eaners is number one .
Look at the green space on the right.
Look at the "low" where the funeral
h ome is, two stori es. That is going to
remain two stories.
The Mark's --existing Mark's
Cleaners, the entryway and bridge to Sunset
Isles -·
Then there is another --another shot
from that same angle, a little bit better
vision, a little better view showin g the
fountain.
Then looking due --due west along
20th Street, once again, it is a low-scaled
neighborhood in the immediate area.
KRESSE & AS SOCIATES, LL C
(30 5 ) 371-7692
3 3 (Pages 129 to 132)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 133
The storefronts on the south side
is --it is very clear that it is low to
scale, and it is currently low scale.
If you go to the next one, number
four, you start to see my client's building.
It is a two-story building. •
And then you go forward down 20th
Street, and you get a sense of where the
taller building is from Sunset Harbor.
And then you see my client's building,
and how auspicious it is, and how great a
building it is.
And then you see the view --that they
are going--number seven--the view
corridor.
And Francois LeJeune, if we are going
to --he testified at the Planning Board
hearing, so we are going to submit the
transcript of his testimony .
He was cross-examined, so it would be
admi ssi ble --and that --that transcript --
you can pass it out --
That transcript --he testifies that
this view corridor should be preserved more
than it is being proposed now. This is an
Page 13 4
important view corridor, and should be
respected.
And then the last one is the view from
the canal, from the waterway.
TilE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MR. ROBBINS: This is important I
really appreciate all your time. Thank you
very much. I look forward to seeing you in a
couple of months. Hopefully, we will be able
to sit down and have some common dialogue and
be able to work this out.
And I introduce to you the well-known
and respected businessperson from our
community, Michael Co.mras.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please--just state
your name and address, please.
MR. COMRAS: Good afternoon, Board
members, staff.
Michael Comras , with offices at 1261
20th Street, or should I say, that were at
1261 20th Street. I say that because if you
look at the rendering I just provided, which
was provided by the ap plicant, it shows my
building vaporized; it is actually --how the
Palau project was designed as if my buildrng
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
'1
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 13 5
wasn't there.
I have been developing properties oo
Miami Beach for approximately 20 years, many
of wh ich are in the historic district. A
critical component of all of our projects are
sensitivity to scale, mass, and context
When my building is "devaporiz:ed," you can
clearly see that none of these items have
been addressed . The height and mass
completely envelopes my property. The
monolith that sp ans approximately 260 feet
long without breaks for view corridors is
harsh and lacks articulation.
The rendering is not just --the
rendering is just not accurate, does not
match the site plan, floor plans, or
elevation provided by the appli cant.
I do understand that the new drawings
may provide for some ofthis detail , but as
of yesterday, when I spoke to Midtael Belush,
those drawings had not been received.
The renderings show --sorry.
The renderings are just not accurate.
It does not match the site plans, floor plans
or elevations provided by the applicant. It
Pa ge 136
is actually impossible to understand how this
area works without -across -· north and
south of my property. The renderings show
some very low landscaping along the north
adjoining property line.
On the landscaping plan, there is no
landscaping in that area.
In fact, on the site plan , there is
not even an area for landscaping.
It is also unclear if the area between
the stairwel\ and the western building edge
is all glass. That section is necessary for
us to confirm, amongst other things, that
there is adequate height under the overhang
so cars can --cars parked along the north
si de of my prop erty will have enough room to
back up.
It would also allow us to understand
how the properties would be separated, but
also work together.
I would ask, as part of your approval
process, that you require that no noisy
back-of-house functions like generators or
other items be placed in that area
This is not an issue of money. This
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
34 (Pages 133 to 136)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 137
is an issue of quality of life. I spend my 1
days in that building, every day. Most of us 2
are at our office more than we are at home. 3
This is my home. r am not treated quite like 4
the homeowners along --Qn the Sunset Harbor s
Townhomes, or in the Sunset Island homes, but 6
this is my home. And [j ust need their 7
property to be respectful of my property. 9
But the drawings and the details that have 9
been provided to date do not take into any 10
consideration my property or provide for any 11
of those details. 12
I-in an effort to not only offer 13
criticism, I had arranged to have Professor 14
John Francois Le Je1me come and speak and 15
offer some suggestions --whi ch r will be 1 6
happy to meet with the developer at some time 17
to discuss as to b.ow these properties could 18
work together. But at this po int, I do not 19
have Professor LeJeune to offer some of 20
those comments. 21
Before I--I would respectfully 22
request that you continu e this project so we 23
may be provided with the proper detail s to 2 4
fully understand the massive project. I 25
Pa ge 138
thankyo11. 1
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 2
Okay. Does anybody else that hasn't 3
spoke yet need to speak? 4
Okay. That is going to end public 5
comment right now. 6
You need to do what? 7
MR. GIBBS: I am just going to ask the a
Board to allow me to be able to speak at the 9
next meeting and make my presentation after 1 0
everything has been presented. That's all. 11
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I don't think 1 2
that's a problem, yes. 13
MR. GffiBS: Okay. I just wanted to H
verifY that on the record. Thank you all 15
very much. 16
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you . 17
MR. GIBBS: Tucker Gibbs. 18
MR. SACKS: Thank you. I would like 19
to call--I would like to cross-examine a 20
couple of peop le, please. I might as well 21
just do it in simple order. 1 would like--22
Bienstock to stand, please, to the stand, to 23
thedais. 2 4
Mr. Bienstock, you are with the --you 2 5
Page 139
are the president of the association?
MR. BIENSTOCK: I am.
MR. SACKS: That's correct?
MR. BIENSTOCK: I am.
MR. SACKS: That is the Sunset Harbor
Hom eown ers Association --
MR. BIENSTO CK: No, Su nset Isles.
l'vffi.. SACKS: So I do it, too. Just
like Tucker.
?v!R. BIENSTOCK: Three and Four.
MR. SACKS: Bingo.
In yo ur capacity as the presid en t, you
have been invo lved at the project for·-[
guess it was back as far as when the project
appli cation was filed; correct?
MR. BIENSTO CK: Yes.
MR. SACK S: Since that time, have you
had various oonversations, the meetings -I
menti on 30 or so --with that approximation
in mind, have you been part of many of those,
most of those, all of those?
MR. BIENSTOCK: We have not bad
anywhere near 30 meetings. We had a handful
of meetings before the May Plann ing Board,
and then we were told by your client that
Page 14 0
they had no intention of ever meeting with us
again.
MR. SACKS: Bot there has been --
besides meetings , I would imagi ne, because in
this modem age, there are e-mails and things
like that. of that nature.
There has been e-correspondence
between yourself, I guess , our project team,
Mr. Cicero, Kobi Karp, etcetera --that has
transpired over the, I guess, months, many
months?
MR. BIENSTOCK: Not since May.
MR. SACKS : Not since May?
MR. BIENSTOCK: Until two days ago.
MR. SACKS; Yes, because in May, there
was an app roval, and now we have this
heari ng, and there has not exactl y been
dialogue. But that has been the case.
There has been just an l.Ulbelievable
amount of ~mails that hav e transpired.
MR. BIENST OC K: No, not true.
MR. SACKS : I have an unbel ievable
amount of e·mai!s, believe me.
MR. BIENSTOCK: So do l, but they have
nothing to do with this project .
KRESSE & ASSO CIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
35 (Pa ges 137 to 140)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
16
19
20
21
22
2 3
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1 4
1:5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
Page 141
MR. SACKS: Well, they go directly to
the heart of the matter. They go directly to
this project at issue, where all of the
issues that you raised with respect to mass,
scale, etcetera •• were discussed, and mass,
scale and heigbt and all of the issues that
you raised today were actually--while the
purview of the Planning Board is to follow
those guidelines, there were many designer
guidelines that were actually addressed;
height, mass, scale --all of those things
were addressed at that time.
IvfR. BIENSTOCK: No -·
MR. SACKS: Do you remember that ?
MR. BIENSTOCK: No.
MR. SACKS: They were, in fact.
MR. BIENSTOCK: No.
MR. SACKS: They were, and it was at
the Planning Board that those issues were
adjudicated -although this is a completely
different Board, that is probably why many of
these issues are conflated.
And the Planning Board took it upon
themselves to listen to the residents, and
listen to the residents, and listen to the
Page 142
residents, on many of the issues that you
have raised .
MR. BIENSTOCK: No. Ifl may explain?
MR. SACKS: Please.
MR. BIENSTOCK: We were --we have
been consistent, since certainly February ••
and I think I submitted my e-mail to the
Planning Board from February that said the
main issue that we hav e with this project is
the size, mass, scale, and height.
There were a lot of small issues.
Those, by and large, have been dealt with.
But they were throwaway issues. For example,
we said there were too many units. We were
told by the developer that they had said 71,
but they really always planned for 50. "So
we are going to go to SO."
You cal1 that a concession?
I call that giving the sleeves off a
vest, because the hard issue was the building
was too tall and too uninterrupted, too
massive. We raised it in February . We
raised it in March, April , May, June, July-·
August, too, this hearing ·-and that has not
been addressed other than with minor tweaks
l
2
3
4
5
6
'1
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pa g e 143
here and there, until the staff suggested
some major changes, which we were told last
night from your client were not acceptable to
them.
:MR. SACKS: Is it fair to say that
many of the requests that were made, in your
opinion -and only your opinion --that we
were planning on doing that were part of our
plans --that many of the requests you made
to change, we did make those changes at the
request of, I guess, yourself, as the·· in
your capacity as presi dent; correct?
MR. BIENSTOCK: There were many
changes that were minor in nature that your
client conceded to, yes. And --
MR. SACKS: Minor in-·
MR. BIENSTOCK: -· and we appreciate
that.
MR. SACKS: "Minor" -is a reduction
of70-plus units to SO-units considered
minor?
Would you consider that number of
units minor?
MR. BIENSTOCK: Minor, because they
told me they were doing it anyway.
Page 144
MR. SACKS: No, that is not true, not
at all.
MR. BIENSTOCK: They -·
MR. SACKS: That is not true. I will
go on.
MR. BIENSTOCK: You can ask all of the
other people who sat at the meetings and were
told the exact same thing I was told. They
are here in the audience.
MR. SACKS : WeU, let me just state
this for the record. In your capacity for
the association, do you send out e-mails on a
regular basis to your association on •• on a
regular basis?
MR. BIENSTOCK: Not on a regular
basis, but periodically, as there is
something to report.
MR. SACKS: Would you say that after
evelj' Planning Board hearing, that you did
so?
MR. BIENSTOCK: I don't know ifi did
it after every Planning Board, but after
some.
MR. SACKS: Yes, you did. And if you
would like, I will submit to the clerk all of
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
36 (Pages 141 to 144)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
1 6
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 145
these e-mails, if you would like, after, that
do state that after each hearing, that you
have made certain misrepresentations, and
they are in the e-mail, about the property
bei?g higher--60 feet, for example.
And, I would say that you provided
misinformation to your entire association.
And they, in fact, relied on your
evidence or on what you were saying, and that
was pure misinformation.
MR. GIBBS: Could 1 object --as Mr.
Bienstock's attorney, it is quasi-judicial
proceeding. I am allowed to object on behalf
of my client. This has nothing to do with
the standards that you all are supposed to be
applying, as Design Review Board members.
You tell me how any of these questions have
anything to do with your application of those
standards to this set of plans, because it
doesn't.
MR. SACKS: I will make--
MR. GiBBS: It is more like making a
speech.
The question is: He is entitled to
ask my client questions about facts that he
Page 146
testified to at the hearing today, not about
some e--mail he may have sent to a member of
his board, or somewhere else.
MR. SACKS: l will make the
connection.
The mis statements are evideoce. The
evidence went out to various neighbors.
Various neighbors are testifying today based
upon some of those misstatements.
MR. GlBBS: Then you need to
cross-examine them, not my client, my
president.
'MR. SACKS: But he is president of the
association that sent them out. This is --
MR. GIBBS: It does not--
MR. SACKS: There is a connection
between the misstatements and--
MR. GiBBS: No--
'MR. SACKS: There absolutely is. And
therefore, that evidence is not competent,
substantial evidence as a result of the
misstatements. That is the point that I am
trying to get across.
NIR. GIBBS: Fact-based evidence is
competent, substantial evidence, and ifhe
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 147
can say what specific evidence it is and then
try to tie it in, that would be great .
MR SACKS: Your first word you
said--
MR. GIBBS: But to specific testimony
that was made today, relating to the
standards --that is the issue. But to sit
here and drag -· we have been here --l have
been here --I got here at 8:30 and came back
at9:30.
You all hav e been here since 8:30.
This is ridiculous. The idea is, is
the standa.ds, and whether or not you guys
are going to apply those standards to the
facts as they present them.
To tallc: about e-mails and try to go
back is ridiculous . Absolutely ridiculous.
Number one --
MR. SACKS: You said, "fact-based."
You said, "fact-based," and I am saying these
are not facts. That is what I am
establishing.
MR. GIBBS: To be defined.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We understand what
you are--
Page 148
MR. SACKS: Let me go on more
specifically.
When you mention mass, scale, height,
etcetera, are you aware that the property is
zoned CD -2?
lviR. BIENSTOCK: I don't ·-
MR. SACKS: The property is CD-2. Are
you aware of some of the zon ing? You were at
many of the hearings, you might know.
MR. BIENSTOCK: Just that ·-whatever
I have heard here. I am not an expert
MR. SA CKS: 50 feet is the height
limitation. Is the property within that
zoning envelope, the light limitation?
MR. BIENSTOCK: Today?
MR . SACKS: Yes.
MR. SACKS: Let me answer--
Sorry, let me Jet·-you can answer.
MR. BIENSTOCK: I would say no,
because that is ••
MR. GIBBS: I object
MR. SACKS: I pulled back, because l
know the answer.
MR. BIENSTOCK: In my opinion --you
want my opinion?
. --
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
37 (Pages 145 to 14 8)
1
2
3
4
5
6''
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1i
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 149
MR. SACKS: Yes . 1
MR. BIENSTOCK: No. z
Can I answer? Can I answer, counsel? 3
MR. SACKS: Yes. 4
MR. BffiNSTOCK: Because it is five 5
stories, and then there is a whole roof deck 6
with a trellis, with a ceiling. 7
We have objected to the roof deck from 9
day one because there is really a sixth 9
story. So my answer would be no, I think 10
this is a six-story building. ll
MR. SACKS: It is all permitted by 12
code, everything that I have just said. 13
MR. BIENSTOCK: That is not what staff 14.
has said. They said that the trellis that 15
you are putting up is not permitted by code. 16
It is a h ard ened structure and shouldn 't be. 17
It sho uld be some type oflighter trellis . 18
MR. SACKS: Let me move on, because 19
that is a--I disagree with that 20
wholeheartedly. But it certainly would have 2 1
been in every single staff report, because we 22
have never changed --or we have reduced, in 2 3
fact, and that has been consistent all along. 2 4
I will continue. 25
Page 150
Are you aware that the property is
consistent with the City's compreh ensive
development plan?
l\!IR. BIENSTOCK: No, I don't know one
way or the other.
MR. SACKS: It is.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Let's just focus
things on design-related issues right now,
because that's really the issue that is --it
is the only issue that this Board --I mean,
the other legal issues and thin gs, that is
something that our lawyers --the City lawyer
is going to have to work out.
And honestly, we hav e read through
everything that we have got in our packages.
We have met·· most of us have met
with your team to go over the project. We
have heard everything everybody has to say
here.
1 mean -· I am going to speak for
myself, but 1 am very aware of what the whole
--there is some interpretations here that
are going on. I know what yo u are doing.
Most of it is within the purview of the code.
I understan d that, but we are also here to
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 151
review the design and to hear the residents
of this City and what they have to say about
the project.
So, I mean, the back and forth that is
hap pening here --I get your point. l know
you are saying, "lt is to code and everything
is fine," and this side is saying, "We don't
like it that high. We want it lower. We
want it less massive ."
And I know --I mean, thi s whole --it
is allowed by the code issue. It comes in
fro nt of us with every single project th ey
have; and we deny things that are approved by
the code and we accept other things that are
approved by the code. So I want to keep
things on point.
And I think our Board is definitely
goin g to have to see this proj ect again . We
are going to perhaps make a motion to
continue . And you lmow, hopefuUy, slot of
these issu es th at --that are legitimate
issues are addressed to --is comfortable. I
don't know if there needs to be more meetings
with whoever is in the area to go over what
are some of the maj or sticking points, but
Page 152
staffhas given some of their recommend ations
in the rep ort.
But clearly, between now and the next
meeting, which I guess would be in October?
By the time you have the project--
updated, I think there has to be some
serious, sit-down --it is going to help to
get some ·-some support, for sure, on the
project. It doesn't have to be anybody that
Is in this room.
Bu t -· I mean, thi s project is in the
middle of a very, very complex and poignant
location on the Beach. That's why there are
so many people here. And there were people
here that were ·-I think, just co uldn't
stick aro und, and figured they would come
back late r.
We want to see so mething happen here,
too. I mean, we are a Design Review Board.
So we review projects that are part of
developm en t on the Beach. And I think
residents, whether they are pro or
anti-development, need to welcome projects on
the beach and know that this Board and the
City and the staff take projects like this
KRE SS E & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(3 05) 3 7 1-7692
38 (Pages 149 to 152)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 153
very, very, very seriously. l
I think all commercial projects should 2
at least come in front of our Board, twice, 3
at minimum. 4
And we approved a couple of big 5
projects last -last month. I mean, we want 6
to give every project a lot of attention. 7
So we are just looking at the design . a
The other legal issues which are --I know 9
are perhaps important, those kind of need to 10
be worked out with Gary and his team. 11
And the who le noticing issue--I 12
mean, Wlfortunately, there were some problems 13
with how the project was noticed, but it was 14
within the legal purview, and I --l really 1 5
think between now and whenever this project 16
comes back in front of us, we just need to 17
get some con sensus here and a real clear 18
understanding of what was don e in response to 19
some of the issues, why some things weren't 20
done. 21
I mean, we could --this could go on 2 2
and on and on. I know that it is very --2 3
there has been a lot of meetings and there 2 4
has been a lot of terms and issues that have 25
Page 1 54
been brought up, and concerns , and this -·
some people say that they have not been
addressed, and you say they have been
addressed.
And there are tiny concessions, bigger
concessions, but I think, if we don't seek
some substantial understanding of what the
design is, next time --we are going to be
just as confused next time as we perhaps are
this time.
MR. CARY: Mr. Chairman?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR. CARY: Manyormostofthe
concerns that have been expressed during the
course of the public testimony have been, you
know, summarized in the staff report, and
staff has made a number of recommendations
based upon those concerns. We know these are
con cerns that the neighborhood has.
There is one thing that I w~:~nted to
try to clear up, i fi could. And that is the
whole sight line discussion that came up at
the Planning Board.
It is my understanding tha:t the issue
of the Planning Board was that when vie wed
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 15 5
from the singl6-family residential properties
across the waterway, there shall be no less
sky visible above the highest point of the
Palau project than there is above the highest
point of the highest project to its west. I
wanted to make sure that by being blocked by
the new project, and by the
previously-approved project, which has
already been built adjacent to it --that was
basically the standard and the criteria that
the Planning Board hoped the Design Review
Board would also adhere to.
And I think it is also imp ortant, if
the Board is agreeable to doing so, if the
Board could at least·-if you don't want to
engage in your own analysis of the design at
this time, if you could provide some guidance
to the appli cants and some feedback to the
neighborhood, whether you agree with the
concerns that have beeo identified by staff
in the staff report, as well as the issues
that you believe that-that we believe need
to be further addressed before this project
comes back to the Board for consideration ·-
We have tried to address all of the
Page 156
issues that Michael has already identified as
the issue of the FAR calculation in the staff
report. We know where we stand on that
The applicant has already begun to
address that issue . Those drawings just carne
in today. We are seeing them for the f1rst
time as you are seeing them. So they were
not part of the package. So it is correct
that the FAR calculations, based on the
current plans, are not correct, and those
types of things do have to be addressed. But
those things are all noted in the staff
analysis and the staff report.
:t.-lR. SACKS; And Mr. Chair, just to
clarify things, although distasteful,
sometimes a cross-examination can be ·-the
purpose of it was, it was to attack,
essentially, the credibility in some
instances.
There has been essentially a
credibility issue that has been established.
and that is part of where we were going,
where I was going. Because my clients, like
I have said, have been frustrated through
this process.
KRESSE & AS SO CIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
39 (Pages 153 to 156)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
t1
1 2
1 3
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 157
That said, if we would·· if you would l
like to stop the cross-examinatio n and 2
continue, because I see --I am readi ng the 3
tea leaves as to where the Board is going --4
Certainly, we are going to be back 5
here. I have many comments for Mr. Alv arez , 6
if we could cross-exami ne him . 7
Or we could --and 1 am sure he is B
going to put on the same presentatio n next 9
time--I don't know. What is the will of to
the Board ? 11
Because there are many more co mments 12
that I have, but I do not want to waste 13
anybody's time here. 14
MR. CA RY: Well , David, it is a Design 15
Review Board , public hearing. Thos e are the 16
issues that are being considered by --by the 1 7
Board. That is the task that the City 18
Commission gave to th e Design Rev iew Board: 19
~we want for you to review all proposed new 20
design within the City. If you don't feel it 2l
is up to an adequate standard, make 22
recommendations on how it may be approved, 2 3
and see to it that it is approved, that it is 2 4
improved." 25
Page 158
It is not a courtroom. The
cross-exam inatio n that you are doing is
turning more Board members off to your case
than it is bringing along with you . If you
focus on the design issues th at hav e been
raised by the neighborhood and by staff and
by others, you will be making a great deal
more progress with th e Board, because
frankly, I th ink everybody gets very, very
turned off with the interrogation, especially
when it gets very, very negati ve. Because
mos t of us, frankly, are not even following
it. I mean, you are intimately familiar with
all ofthe legal issues and all of the
e·mails that have gone back and forth. T he
rest of the Board is not. They are looking
at design.
MR. SACKS: Right. And design -·I
would say that --I would like to know more
specifically what the desi gn issues ·-what
the adverse impacts are, and how •• how
they--
MR. CARY: You have a very qua lified
Board that will make those de terminations.
MR. SACKS: That is at the heart of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
1 3
1 4
15
16
l1
lB
1 9
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
Page 159
the matter. But I think I would be remiss,
on behalf of my client --because this has
been again -· and if there was any kind of--
that was never my intention. However, to·-
we speak the truth of what has happened and
what the history of this project has been,
and how we have been stonewalled.
And by the way, we are compliant with
the rode. We are compliant with all of the
staff reports that have recommended approval
to date.
This staff--I would imagine that the
next recommendalion that you will see, and as
we met last week, would recommend approval.
So we will likely go there. So I think that
is the way we need to go.
But again , I would be remiss on behalf
of my cli ent unl ess I did state for this
Board, knowing that there was mos t likely a
continuan ce, that there really is a
credibility problem, and we have been
stonewalled.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. That's noted.
MR. SACKS: Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It is noted.
Pa ge 160
And, I want everybody to have
confidence that I am pretty certain aiJ of us
are going to, between now and the next
meeting, take a pretty hard look at
everything that we have and do what we need
to do to make sure that we •• because we have
to disseminate all of the information we hear
here today . So whether somebody is cred ible
or not credible, or if they are lyi ng or
not --I mean, honestly, I have --we have no
control over that.
So that's wh.y the drawings and the
exhibits and the design --those things have
to speak. That's our -· that is it. This is
what is going to happen. And so --the Board
is approving what is on paper ·-
MR. SACKS: Right.
THE CHAIRP ERSON: That is the iss ue.
So like the issues about the sight line and
William's clarificat ion of that--I can look
at the sight line draw ing and I can say, if
what Will iam said is true, then I can make an
assessment like, "Oh, this diagram is
actual! y correct."
But ifit is -so l think there are
KRESSE & AS SO CIATE S, LLC
(30 5 ) 37 1 -7692
40 (Pages 157 to 1 6 0)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
ll
12
13
14
15
1 6
l7
1 8
1 9
20
21
2 2
23
24
2 5
1
2
3
4
!)
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 161
some things that ne ed to be clari fie d in the 1
design and the drawings. That is my--if we 2
are going to com·e and go through the Board 3
and kind of go over what we would like to see 4
next time -r th ink I agree with most of s
staff's comments. 6
I think maybe , kind of looking at 7
whatever the outstand ing issues are that a
maybe the community is having, that you try 9
to approach them with some sensitivity. 1 10
understand you can't j ust lop an enti re floor 11
off of this entire buil ding and reduce it by 12
ten units, or 15 units fr om a developm ent 13
deal. Iguessit isnot goingto work. But 14
every deal --for every peg, ther e is a hole, 15
and I--you know, I think everybody would 16
like this --wants this to work here. And 1 7
that's -· that's the ch allenge, J think . 1 B
1 mean, I know it has been a lon g road 19
for your team and for the residents . From 2 0
what I have heard, and what I believe, there 21
has been many meetings and many phone calls 22
and many e-mails and community meetings, 2 3
assoc iation meetings and signature gathering, 2 4
and you know, the great part about that is 2 5
Page 16 2
tha1 there is concern about it. And that's 1
the point. 2
I mean, when we have-· you just 3
witness ed seven othe r proj ects come in front 4
of us, and not one person stood up to even s
say, "I like it" or "1 don't like it." 6
So it does make for a longer pro cess 7
here, but the idea is that at the end of all a
this, the Beach ends up with the best project 9
that we can have. So that's all I have to 10
say about it tight now. 11
I would like to get some comments from 12
my other Bo ard mem bers, and then hopefully, 1 3
we can make a motion. 1 4
MR. SABA : Good afternoon. lam just 1 5
going to make a few quick comments about my 1 6
initial impressions. Before I do that. I 17
shoul d discl ose I met with the appli cant last 1 8
week. 19
First of all, I think. the comment 2 0
staffhas mad e about --1 believe cond ition 21
l-C, "setback from the property line ten 22
feet," is a go od one. I would recommend 23
that It gets very tight as far as 2 4
pedestrian access along that street. 2 5
Page 16 3
I would like to see somethin g along
thos e terms .
Number two, along Sunset -Sunset?
Yes. Along Sunset Drive --I did ask
the applicant. while l was meeting with them
last wee k, to rework the corner there.
Actually, that is mainly on the
Suns et, but mainly that comer. I am not
sure ifl saw something like that on one of
the boards, but it certai nly wasn't in the
package. So r would like to see --I would
like to see that again. I would like to see
that rework ed a littl e bit more. That is a
very good opportunity, in my vi ew, to have
some public space. And really, you have sucll
a wide area fro m the curb all the way to the
bu ilding --that something really nice can be
done there, that I th ink can •• can frame the
view as you're coming into the island.
And then a third, also, is on the
other side, the side of the channel·· I
think that also needs a little more
development. It is very diffi cult to see
from the sections that we have been provided
really what is going on there, but it see ms
Pa ge 16 4
that there is not really a lot of public
space. So I would like to see more public
space.
On that side , it looks like two people
can barely fit there, according to thi s
section that I have.
A nd I also think that the drawings are
a little bit exaggerated. So I would like to
see the reality of the plant material when
they are installed.
I would like to see a little bit more
public space on the boardwalk. There was a
lot of private space, and very little public
space.
I also think further renderings of the
buil din g--maybe from differe nt views --l
mean, we really only have this one shot that
looks like I am lying on the ground, looking
up at the building, which I think is a very
deceiving perspective.
So I would like to see more
perspective shots of the 3D model from
vari ous angl es , especially coming in from -
from Alton Road down 20th Street, and what
that app ro ach is going to look like .
KR ESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(3 05 ) 371-7692
41 (Pages 161 to 164)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 16 5
MS. NEPOMECHIE: Good afternoon. 1
Almost good evening, at this point. It has 2
be en a long day. I would be glad to actually 3
echo our chair's appreciation for the 4
intensity with which this community and all 5
of the participants in this process have 6
approached the project . 7
Clearly, a lot of people care a lot e
about what is happening here, and not only 9
the people who are financially vested in the 10
pro cess, but everyone else. 11
Clearly, the Board, neighbors and 12
everyone who is working with and for them I 13
think that the result will be a very good 14
bu ildi ng. 15
I ~-actually, I appreciate what there 16
is to date on this. I agree completely that 17
the building is not where it could be or 1e
where it should be, but it is the beginning 19
of, I think, a very valuable project. 20
I appreciate that it is a mixed-use.. 21
it introduces res identi al area in a threshold 22
moment of the City where there are elements 23
from many, many different parts, and use s in 24
the Ci ty that are comi ng together; and I 2 5
Page 1 66
think it does it using a building typology
that is very--su ch a part of the history of
Mi ami Beach.
It is a courtyard bu ild ing. It is a
courtyard building that at the moment, is
consistent--of consistent height all the
way around. Courtyard buildings don't need
to do that.
If there are way_s to make the numbers
work --and only those who have got access to
that information can speak to that with great
precisi on, which would ·-this Board cannot,
by definition-· if there are ways to make
th e numbers work, then I think that lowering
the height of the build ing along the waterway
is something that makes a certain amount of
sense.
Increasing setbacks--by staff and
many of the people who have come to speak
this afternoon makes a certain amount of
sense.
Certainly, respecting existing
buildings already on the property and
establishing and articul ating those
relationships in a way that is clear makes a
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
.9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pag e 167
great deal of sense.
As I look through this, my one big
suggestion to the architect's group --1
don't know ifKobi and any of his colleagues
are still here --
You are still here. Kobi, build i
model. Build a physical model that includes
your project, the bridge, Sunset Is le, what
is across the way ~-on Suns et -· a piece of
Suns et Harbor -that really deals with all
of these changes in elevation which are
mysterious between the edge of your property
and the edge of the existing condi tions.
Physically build it at a 16 scale, at
a little bit bigger, if you can do it.
Given the amount of investment already
involved in this process, I think that it
wouJd answer a million questi ons. It will
make your job of communicating your
aspirations a million times easier, and I
really, really su ggest that it be done.
It is a wonderful visioning tool that
will make a lot of these things really work.
So that is thought number one.
As I go through the drawings, I would
Page 168
say that --yes. I am interested in the sort
of mysteri ous moments, that gray --the
gentleman who spoke about the void spaces --
he was making a point about FAR.
I am just curious as to how those
spaces are going to be used, and 1 am
wondering if there is a better way to think
about them.
The northeast comer, the southeast
comer of the property --I just need
information. I am thinking th e pb.ysical
model might provide it, but if there are
other means to do it, I would be grateful for
that
As I look at the project, the
architectural elements and language are
fairly and consistently with the building. I
love the idea of intro duc ing wood screen s, as
well as the glass and CQncrete elements.
I don't see them applied in the same
way at every part of the elevation, so l am a
little confused, and some of that would
actually -· r believe could be clarified.
I think that this is a project that
will be a really valuable addition to the
KRESSE & ASSOCIATE S , LL C
(305) 37 1 -769 2
42 (Pa ge s 165 to 1 68 )
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
ll
1 2
13
1 4
15
16
1 ?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l O
l1
1 2
l3
1 4
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P age 1 69
Beach, to Sunset Isl e, to the entire part of 1
the -· this new sort of developing, once upon 2
a time, semi-warehouse, semi-industrial part 3
ofMiami Beach. 4
r think it is a wonderful step in a 5
really good direction. I think that 6
visioning tools that will make conversation 7
easi er are really wh at is needed here so that a
we can move forward . 9
And that's it. 1 o
MS. HOUSEN: Thank you. I will be 11
brief. Ifl have more--hopefully, when you 12
come back on the continuance, that will 13
clarify. It is •• I had big ci rcles around H
my voids. I am not sure what they were. Bu t 15
I had other questions on staff 16
recommendations on the traffic mitigation 17
plan --I don't know if that has bee n done 18
yet , but I think it is going to be a very 19
important part of th is project. 2 o
And que stions that I , personally, have 21
are thes e commercial units --I would like to 22
be able to kno w how is somebody going to be 2 3
able to get in to make deliveries, say, to 24
their restaurants, coolers, refrigerators, 2 5
Pag e 1 70
beer trucks, thin gs that are really big and
large --where are they going to be coming
in?
Where are they going to park?
T see one place over here on 20th
Street, but I also see one dumpster , which
makes me think, way over back by the closest
location to the gate at Sunset Islands -· it
is impossibl e to make a delivery from here to
there. You're going to flow this traffic for
commercial space and deliv eries, which I
would like to see come back with more
explanation on that, where the dumpsters are
going to be.
I just see bi g squares. I do n't see
how this is actually going to flow, or what
kind of businesses it may attract, other than
offices.
l\liR. SACKS: Well, we have that.
MS. HOUSEN: I am sure. It is not in
my package, and I never di d meet with anyone
before today, but I did have the pr oject
downloaded . So I have been reading it for
about a -months.
Kobi, you had something to say?
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
1 0
11
12
1.3
l4
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pa ge 171
Thank you.
MR. KARP: Yes. Just for FY1, page
Al.OlO, you can see we had to provide both
residential and commercial trash separately.
Air conditioning --on the right hand side,
you have on e section ana you have the
commercial trash room on the other side,
right here.
MS. HOUSEN: I see it right here.
MR. KARP: That is proposed to be a
commercial loading area, and it is noted as
such r ight here.
MS. HOUS EN : In fro nt?
MR. KARP: Yes, ma'am.
And also , we have the traffic study by
Garcia, and we will resubm it that as part of
it, as well.
MS. HOUSEN: So that has be en done ?
:MR. KARP: Yes. And we will clarify,
like Marilys says, the area , the crawl spac e
underneath the building, which has been
cross-ventilated space. It is not an PAR
area .
MS. HOUSEN: Okay. Th ank you. That
will really allay my concerns , and I look
Pa ge 17 2
forward to seeing it, Kobi.
tv1R.. KARP: And we will take thos e
architc:ctural comments on the model. We wiU
have it next time, and the ty ing up of the
e 1 evations --
THE CHAJRPERSON: Mickey?
MR. MTNAGORRl: Good afternoon.
When -· when new development kind of has this
confrontation with the homeowners --and the
passion that we beard here today, it is
four o'cl ock . So thi s is a ne w record fo r
us--
At some point. you are going to have
to get fo ur votes ·-
(End of CD Number 2.)
(Beginning of CD Number 3.)
(First few pages of CD 3 is a
dupl icati on of the end of CD 2.)
MS. NEP OMECHIE: --really suggest that
it be don e.
It is a wonderful visioni ng tool that
will make a lot of these things really work.
So that is thought number one.
As I go through the drawings, I would
say that .. yes. I am interested in the sort
KRESSE & AS SO CIATES; LLC
(305) 3 71 -7692
4 3 (Page s 16 9 t o 17 2)
l
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 173
of mysterious moments, that gray --the 1
gentleman who spoke about the void spaces --2
he was making a point about FAR. 3
T am just curious as to how those 4
spaces are going to be used, and I am s
wondering if th ere is a better way to think 6
about them . 7
The northeast comer, the southeast B
comer of the property --I j ust n eed 9
infonnation. I am thinking the physical 10
model might provide it, but if there are 11
other means to do it, I would be grateful fo r 12
that. 13
As I look at the project, the 14
arch itectural elements and language are 15
fairly and consistently with the building. l 16
love the idea of introducing wood screens, as 17
well as the glas s and concrete elements. 18
I don't see them applied in the same 19
way at every part of the elevation, so I am a 20
little confused, and some ofthat would 21
actually--1 believe could be clarified. 22
I think that this is a proj ect that 23
will be a really valuable add ition to the 24
Beach, to Sunset Isle, to the entire part of 25
Page 1 7 4
the --this new sort of develop ing, once upon
a time, semi-warehouse, semi-industrial part
ofMiami Beach.
I think it is a wonderful step in a
really good direction. I think that
visioning tools that will make conversation
easier are really what is needed here so that
we can move fo rward .
And that's it.
MS. HOUSEN: Thank you . I will be
bri ef. Ifl have more--hope full y, when you
come back on the continuan ce, that will
clarify. It is -I had big circles around
my voids. I am not sure wh at they were. But
I had other questions on staff
recomm en datio ns on the traffic mitigation
plan --I don't know if that has been done
yet, but I think it is going to be a very
important part of this project .
And questions that I, personally, have
are these commercial units --I would Hk.e to
be able to know how is somebody going to be
able to get in to make deliveries, say , to
th eir restaurants, coolers, re frig erators,
beer trucks, things that are really big and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 17 5
large -wh ere are they going to be coming
in?
Where are they going to park?
[ see one place over here on 20th
Street, but I also see one dum pster, which
makes me tlllnl<. way over back by the closest
location to the gate at Sunset Isles --it is
imposs ible to make a delivery from here to
there. You're going to flow this traffic for
co mm ercia l space and deliv eries , wh ich I
would like to see come back with more
exp lanation on that, where the dumpsters are
goi ng to be.
I just see big squares. I don't see
how this is actual ly go ing to flow , or what
kind of bu sinesses it may attract, other than
offices.
tvfR. SACKS: Well, we have that.
MS. HOUSEN: I am sure. It is not in
my package, and I never did meet with anyone
be for e today, but I did have the project
downloaded. So I hav e been reading it for
about a --months.
Ko bi, you had something to say?
Thank you.
Page 176
MR. KARP: Yes. Just for FYI, page
Al.OIO, you can see we had to provide both
residential and co mmercia l trash separately.
Air conditioning --on the ri ght hand side,
you have one section and you have the
commercial trash room on the other side ,
right here.
MS. HOUSEN: I se e it r ight here.
l'v1R. KARP: That is proposed to be a
commercial loading area, and it is noted as
such right here.
MS. HOUSEN : In front?
lV!R. KARP: Yes, ma'am.
And also, we have the traffic study by
Garcia, and we will resubm it that as part of
it, as well .
MS. HOUSEN: So that has been done?
1\IIR. KARP: Yes. And we will clarify,
like Marilys says, the area, the crawl spac e
underneath the building, wh ich has been
cross-venti lated space. It is not an FAR
area.
MS. HOUSEN: Okay. Thank you. That
will really allay my concerns, and I look
forward to seeing it, Kobi.
KRE S SE & ASSO CIAT ES , LL C
(3 0 5) 3 7 1-7 692
44 (Pages 17 3 to 1 76)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
la
19
20
21
22
2 3
24
2 5
Page 177
MR. KARP: And we will take those 1
architectural comments on the model. We will 2
have it next time, and the tying up of the 3
elevations --4
THE CHAlRPERSON: Mickey? 5
MR. MINAGORRl: Good afternoon. 6
When -when new development kind of has this 7
confrontation with the homeowners --and the e
passion that we heard here today, it is 9
four o'clock. So this is a new record for 10
us--11
At some point, you are going to have 12
to get four votes --13
Usually, we have five people, even 14
though we hav e, I think, six Board members 1 5
now? 16
THE CHAIRPERSON: Seven, starting in 17
September. 18
MR. MINAGORRI: So there has got to be 19
a--a four-vote--I would like to see less 2 o
lobbying, Jess lawyers--and no offense to 21
the lawyers present, but we are not Judge 22
Judy here, and the truth of the matter is 23
that we really want to get the information so 2 4
that we can make an intelligent decision. 2 s
Page 17 8
Today, I think because of all of the
legal and having Gary and --we felt
intimidated that we may be crossing certain
legal matters. So whatever legal matters
need to be resolved , they should be resolved
prior to coming in front of this Board.
I really want this to be a clean
process. I really want to hear--I pay a
lot of attention to the neighbors, to the
homeowners, how they are going to be
impacted, and I also pay attention to the
fact that you are working within the law,
within what zoning says .
So having said that, we are going to
have to make a decision one way or the other.
And all we are saying is let's find a way to
create a meeting of the minds so that next
time it comes before --before us, number one
is, we all get a real clear picture of our
concerns that are answered, whether it is
with the sample, whether it is with all of
the infonnation that we have asked here
today.
I think the idea ofMarilys, of doing
a real mock -up of the project, I think the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
1 3
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 179
model, we could--well, a lot of other
developers have come before us, and that
helps to clarify, I would say, 95 percent of
the questions.
I think the communication between one
side and the other--one side is saying, "We
just got this today" --I am appalled to
think that anything would oome up before us
when you have so many people that are
opposing it, that are not getting the
information. And even though you are -
cross-examining him, I feel that if they say
they have no t gotten the information, and you
say they have, then there is a
miscommunication somewhere.
And we are not here to play judge, and
I think we are here to get the facts and to
decide where do we go. But I mean, there is
really a miscommunication between the
developer and the side of the homeowners. So
that has to be cleared up.
I don't know how many --forget
abC>ut -just erase everyth ing and start
fresh and say, we made a presentation. We
know -·you are not going to get a vote today
Page 180
from us, but at least we all got a sense of
where this is going so that when we meet
again in October, we can make a decision, but
that we all feel comfortable with.
lviR. CARY: Mr. Chairman, just so that
the TV members of the public watching this
public hearing know that the development
review process is truly working, I will just
summarize some basic quality improvements
that are already been made to the project as
a result of the Planning Board public
hearings: One is that the lobby was
relocated from Sunset Drive to 20th Street
only. There is no lobby at all for the
residents on Sunset Drive.
There is no action --garages , from
Sunset Drive.
All valet services and parking are
required to be internal to the •• to the
building.
There may be no valet drop-off, you
know, on the street, or valet services on
20th Street.
The upper two floors of the residences
facing the waterway have been set back --how
KRESSE &'ASSO CIATES, LLC
(305 ) 371-7692
45 (Pages 177 to 180)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
s
6 .,
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 181
many feet now, Kobi?
Ten feet or 12 feet further back from
the tower floors to address the sight line
and sky visibility issues.
The northeast comer of the building
has been pulled back further still.
There has been a lot of design
development -· excuse me. I shouldn't say,
"design." I should say, "massing and scale
adjustment" made to the project during the
course of these many public hearings that
have already been held.
So I don't want for the neighbors or
the public to feel that--that the
development review process is not working,
because I think it is working exactly the way
it is intended to work.
But I think the message that this
Board is delivering to you·· and certainly,
staff is delivering ·• really focus on the
design issues. That is where thi s Board can
be of the greatest assistance to you and to
the neighborhood.
I think Marilys' suggestion of a white
carbon massing model that includes the
Page 18 2
neighborhood so that the Board can understand
the spatial relationships between the
single-family homes on the north side of the
waterway and the townhouse project next to -
and your project will really answer a lot of
questions relative to wheth er the pr oject
design is really achieving what you need for
it to achi eve.
MR. BIENSTOCK: Can I say something to
leave on a posi tive note ?
Because we have heard a lot of
negativ e, and l will be real ly brief.
We want this project to be done. We
are okay with this development We are okay
with the architect, notwithstanding the back
and forth. We really are.
Kobi is a friend as well as a
neighbor. When they came to us and said,
"Give us some ideas," we didn't put together
a group of everybody like, people who had
nothing, no idea or just ant i everyth ing.
We put a group together, Scott
Robbins, Chad Oppenheim, JeffBrandon, a
property developer, Jeff Lex, a prominent
deve loper, Peter an d myself·-an d Bill
1
2
.3
4
5
l;
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
Page 183
Taylor, another prominent--these are people
who were made to say "yes" to this .
We have 118 homes. I dare to say
15 percent of the residents are developers ;
building developers, lawyers for developers.
I was outside general counsel for
Arvida and Lennar. We want this project.
We have gone over and over, trying to
figure out how to help them get this done .
We don't want it done five years from
now. We wan t it done now. There are
solutions to this problem. They have sat
with the Scott Robbins of the world and the
Chad Oppenheims of the world, and they said,
"Here is the way to remass the building an d
make your money, and you can leave and you
will have a great project and everyone wi ll
be happy."
The problem has been, we are at
dichotomy. It was highlighted last time.
They don 't want to Jose one s quare foot.
That is a problem. That is where we are.
We want to get this done. We put a
group together to try to help them to get it
done, and we are committed to try to do that.
Pa g e 18 4
We have met·-our groups have met
with staff many times, an d we are available.
We want to help this project get approved.
We don't want you to deny it. We want you U>
get a sensible project together.
And I will shut up and sit down.
MR. SACKS: And he is keeping it
positive?
I respectfully disagree with much of
what Mr. Bienstock said.
That is my last oomment.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Well,
let's make a motion.
MS. NEPOMEC.HIE: So I would like to
move that we continue this proj ect for the
day ofwhat--
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: October second.
MS . NEPOMECHIE : Ocrober 2nd meeting.
UNIDENTIFlED SPEAKER: I seco nd.
THE CHAIRPERSON: All those in favor?
Aye .
And then also to note, we will do a
full publi c re-notice of the application, and
the plans will be due by noon on August 31st
MR. BELU SH; -wait around for six
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(3 05) 37 1-7 69 2
46 (Pages 181 to 184)
l
2
3
4
s
6
7
B
9
10
ll
12
13
l4
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
24
25
1
'l
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
2 3
24
2 5
Page 18 5
hours·· if·-if the B oard wi shes, we c ou ld
do a time certain.
TilE CHAIRPERSON: Can you do the
agenda that way, to put this project first
next tim e?
JviR. CARY: What the Board has always
requested in the past is that they are
allowed to do single-family residences first.
If the Board wants to make an
exception for that, and it would help the
neighbors to know when the project is going
to be heard, staff would--
TilE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I think we
should put it in the beginning.
NfR. BELUSH: Ot-do you want to do a
t ime certain of say 11 o' clock, and then we
can focus on getting the single-family homes
out of the way?
JviR. CARY: What is the best time for
the nei ghborhood , Terry?
MR. BIENSTOCK: (Inaudible).
MR. CARY: Well , we are not going to
be here at five o'clock.
(Inaudi ble).
MR. CARY: But remember, the board
Page 1B6
meeting begins at 8:30. Do you want to have
it at 9:00 A.M?
MR. BIENSTOCK: If you are going to do
it fi rst, do it fir st.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just put it at-·
MR. BIENS TOCK : People can come before
work as opposed to ·-go to work ·-
MR . CARY: Do you want to do a time
certain of9:00 A.M.? That way, you can get
exte nsions out of the way.
TilE CHAIRPERSON: What would we get in
front?
What would we get between 8:30 and
nine?
MR.. CARY: You want to make it 8:30?
We will make at 8:30.
THE CHAJRPERSON: Well, warn the
single-family homeowners. Just Jet them
know.
Okay. The meeting is adj ourned .
Who seconded the motion, please?
MR. CARY : Who?
THE CHAlRPERSON : Who seconded that
last motion?
MS. HOUS EN: 1 will second it.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
a
9
10
11
12
l3
14
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
l1
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 187
THE CHAJRPERSON : Myreli s first did it,
and Carol seconded it.
MR. BELU SH: I got it.
(WHEREUPON, the tran scription from CDs
was concluded. )
Pa ge 188
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY.
STATE OF FLORIDA:
ss.
COUNTY OF DADE:
1, SHARON PELL VELAZCO, a Court
Reportx:r in and for the State of Florida at
Large , do hereby certify th at I was authorized
to and did stenographically report the
proceedings in the above-styled cause before the
City of Miami Beach Design Review Board, at the
tinu: and place as set forth ; that th e foreg oing
pages., numbered from l to 189, in clusiv e,
constitute a true record of my stenograph ic
notes.
I further certicy that 1 am not an
attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor
related to any of the parties, nor financially
interested in th e action.
WITNESS my Hand and Official Seal this
7th day of August, 201 2.
SHARONPELLVELAZCO ,RPR
COURT REP ORTER NOTARY PUBLIC
COMNOSSION NO: EE 015147
Expires 8/19/2014
KRES SE & AS SO CIATES, LLC
(3 0 5 ) 3 71 -76 92
47 (Pages 185 to 188)
l
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
u
15
16
l7
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
Page 1 89
CERTIFICATE -REPORTER NOT ARY OA lH
THE STATE OF FLORIDA)
CO UNTY OF MlAMI-DADE)
I, Sharon Pelt Velazco, Notary Public for the
State of Florida, certifY that any and all
witnesses or parties requested to be sworn by
the court reporter during the course of the se
proceedings, as indicated in the transcript of
proceedings, personally appeared before me and
were duly sworn .
WllNESS my hand and official seal this 7th day
of August, 2012.
SHARON PELL VELAZCO, RPR
Notary, State of Florida
Commiss ion No: EE 015147
Ex pires 081 19/2014
KRES SE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 3 71 -7692
48 (Page 1 89)
A
$1074:20
A.2 121:4
A.M 186:2,9
Al.OIO 171:3 176:2
ability 25:5,6 122:4
a Me 26:1 27:4 33 :24 34 :20
34:25 54 :19 57:18 61:1 0
64:13 69:20 113 :11
120:15 124:19131:2
134 :9,11 138:9 169 :23
169:24 174:22,23
above--s tyled 188 :8
absolutely 114:5 119:10
146:19 147:17
abundance 38:4
abundantly 46:14
abused 89:22,22
accept 151:14
acceptable 143:3
access 35:1 ,2 54:10,11
57:3,3 91 :19 125:15,16
162:25 166:10
accommodate 65 :13
account 17:19 83 :12
accounted 8 I :23
accu.rate 13 5:15,23
achieve 37:8 182 :8
achieved 85 :21
achieving 182:7
acknowledge 21:4
acting 13:10
action 13:23 180:16
188:1 7
actual7:21 117:10
adapted 8:9
add 42:5
added 14:4 44:20 45:20
adding 33 :1,8 128:14
addition 107 :9 168:25
173 :24
additiona124:12 3 4:3
36:16 37:5 44:14 45:2,9
45:24 47:1,2 55 :22 89 :8
95:25 96:2 109:13 119 :5
additionalJy 34:16 119:23
additions 96:16 109:23
address 32:11,21 33:24
37:23 68:11,14 77:13,15
93 :4 94:12 99:5 101:21
103 :20 106:19 108:23
112:4134:16 155:25
156 :5 181 :3
addressed 20:1 4 34:2
36:11 113 :2 13 5:9
141:1 0,1 2142:25 151 :22
154:3,4 155:_23 156:11
adequate 36 :16,18,25 allocate 115:18
136:14 157:22 allow 12:13,18,21 16:3,4
adhere 155:12 17:2 21:3 28 :8 51:6 97:9
adjacent 37:14 48:19 4 9 :6 101:12 11 8:1 129:19
72:18,25 107:7 108:4 136:18 138:9
110:6,14 111:11 155:9 allowable 107:19
adjoining 6:10 75:18 allowed 17:12 26:23 81:5
76:22 120:17 136 :5 8 1:5 103:1 5 126:13,20
adjourned 186:20 145:13 151:11 185:8
adjudicated 141:20 allowing 38:17 97:5
adjustment 12 :4 181 :10 allows5 8:19 62:1 1
admissible 133 :21 alternatively 12 8:10
admjt 16 :15 Alton 49 :13 83:9 164:24
admittedly 79:10 Alvarez 68:24 69:21 77:14
advance 55:17 77:14,2 4 90:4 157:6
adverse 34:21 158:21 amended 9:1 15 :3
adversely 34:11 42:15 amount 3:23 33:6 140 :20
93:14 140:23 166:16,20 167:16
advertised 16 :15 analysis 155:16 156:1 3
advertisements 14:14 ana lytical 121 :25
advertising 8 :13 analyze 122:4,25 125:24
advice 124:7 analyzing 122:8
advised 11:18 124:9 and-a-half 127 :24
advisement 38: 14 Andy 50:25
Advisory 99:9 100:22 a o gle 49 :11 54:16 57:12
advocate 25:5 61:4 85:1 86:5,6,15
advocating 106:24 90:22,22 91:2,8 110 :9,10
aerial 78:23 132:20
afford 100:24 angles 8 5:2 0 91 :6 164 :23
afforded 16: I 7 announced 112 :7
affords 58:12 62:4 annoyed 129:9
afraid 84:24 answer 148:17,18,23
afternoon 30:17 37:22,24 149:3 ,.3,10 167:18 182:5
47:15 71:10 94:10,15 answered 178:20
99:4 ,6 103:21 106:22 anti 182:21
134:17 162:15 165:1 anti-development 152:23
166:20 172 :7 177:6 anybody 68:7 138:3 152:9
age 140 :5 anybody's 157 :14
agenda 185:4 anyway 17:18 18:8 19:21
aggregated 113:15 38:16 89:23 143:25
ago 21 :16 29:20 75:19 apa rtment 58:1 7 62:9
140:14 64:18 116:13
agree 13:7 50:15 93 :9 95:2 apartments 56 :17,18 57:8
112:13 155 :19 161:5 58:5 60:25 61:22 t23:15
165:17 apologize 20:21
agreeable 15 5:14 appalled 179:7
Agreed 13:3 apparently 116 :2
agreements 9:2 appeal12:4 13:13
agrees 112:22 appealable 89 :6
ahead23:2l appear 19:5,6128:19
Air 171:5 176:4 APPEARANCE 2:1
aisles 94:21 appeared 189:14
aligned 41:24 49 :1 57:21 appears 1 I 8:5
61:13 appellant 15:14
all-important 10 8:19 appellate 18:6
allay 17 1:25 176:24 appendage 121 :11 123 :6
allegation 129:9 applicable 69:17
KR ES SE & AS SOC IATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
Page 190
applicant 3 :5,10 6:20
11:1216:422:16,17,20
22:22,23 23 :17 29:14
32:19 37:6 38:1 82:11
92:4 117 :23 130:22
134:23 135:17,25156:4
162:18 163:5
applicant's 18:4 30:10
37 :7
applicants 33:22 155:18
application 3:12 8:16 9:22
9:24 16:6 18:16 21:23
22:4 26:16 27:5 29:13
29:23,24 30:5,6 68:9
83 :2 186:9 90 :17 114:17
121:4122:2139:15
145 :18 184:23
applications 10:7
applied 69:18 168 :20
173:19
apply 109:1 122:1 147:14
applying 145:16
appreciate 16:10 17:1,13
27:13 108:11 122:11
134 :7 143:17 165:16,21
appreciation 165:4
approach 34:25 161:10
164:25
approached 165:7
appropriate 15:4 32:2
76:12 99:22 100:17
128:10,11 130:12 131 :10
appropriateness 70:8
108:1 8
approval3:6,20 5:22 9:24
10 :1 2 17 :18 32:10,15,16
32:19,22 39:2,20 42:23
42 :2 5 45:7 70 :12 80:12
13 6:2 1 140:16 159:10,14
approvals 7:1 4 75:23
approve 14:1 4,15 34 :5
approved3:23 7:13,21
44:9 ,11 47:9,11 48:11 ,15
55 :11 65:4 70:9 151 :13
IS 1:15 153:5 157:23,24
184:3
approving 14:1,2 16 0:16
approximately 42:6 45 :13
45 :1 4 54:22 13 5:3,11
approximation 139:19
appurtenances 80:21 84:2
April27:19 40:6 43:6
142:23
architect 37:7 38 :1 9 51:1
97:7 98:6102:1 3 lll:18
114:19124:4,5131:6
182:15
architect's 167:3
architects33:23 35:15
93:20 114:16 122:11
123:25 124:19
architectural96 :12,14 .
119:13 121:20 168:16
172:3173:15 177:2
architecturally 75:15
architecture 38:20 58:16
62:8
area 33:4,6 34:22 36:5,16
36:19 40:1144:4,8,22
57:7 58:15,20 59:12
62:7,12 63:4 67:21,22
72:20 73:18 74:13,17
76:12 I 10:20 116:13
118:6 123:5,13 125:14
127:5,8,14 129 :1 132 :25
136:2,7,9,10,24 151:24
163:16165:22 171:11 ,20
171:23 176:10,19,22
areas 58:21 62:13 118:4
131:23
argued 12:6
argument27:16 114:1
128:2
arraDged 137:14
articulating 166 :24
articulation 135:13
Arvida 183:7
asked 13:25 21:24 41:12
54:15 71:16 112:17
119:4 178:22
asking 57:13 61:5 89:10
aspect 9:23 14:24 44:17
78:18
aspirations 167:20
assess 131:2,3
assessing 107:4
assessment 36:24 160:23
asset 37:3
assigned 100:15
assistance 181:22
associated 14: 16
associatioo20:18 41:15
68:18 71:14 139:1,6
144:12,13 145:7146:14
161:24
associations40:1 1 4l:14
45:17
assume 69: 13
assure24 :10 101:5
attachments 118 :1 9
attack 156:17
attempt 121:19
attention 4:1 12:25 49: l l
81:15 84:24 153:7 178:9
178:11 55:19 78:4 80:13 86:3,7
attorney2:9,11,16,18 6:13 110:5 111 :7 155:10
6:18 8:5 9:3 13:1 21:8 basis 4:1119:25 116:16,17
88:14 100:10 124:14 144:13,14,16
145:12 188:15 bathrooms 120:5
Attorney's 9:1 5 baton 46:20
attract 170:17 175:16 bay 44:7,9 49:18 52:23
attractiveness 34:23 64:20 71:12 93:6,17
auctioneer 41 :1 94:23 97:3,20 105 :1 8
audience 11:21 68:8 144:9 106:3 108 :7
August 1:16 142:24 Bayshore 92:10
184:24 188:19 189:18 beach 1:102:9,193:17 5:8
auspicious 121 :16 131:20 18:21,22 19:1 44:1
132:8 133:11 64:19 73:19 74:17,19
authority 5:13,16,19,24 75:2 78:22 96:9 99:10
authorized 188:6 105 :2 106:15,21,24
available 1 S4:2 107:11 131:21 135:3
Avenue2:18 71:13 77:16 152:13,21,24 162:9
106:21 166:3 169:1 ,4 173 :25
aware 148:4,8 150:1,21 174:3 188:9
awareness 15:18 Beach's 39:1 2
Aye 184:21 beautiful104:6,6 131:23
beer 114:20 170: I 174:25
B beg 101:11
B 33:3 beginning 15:24 18:17
back 12:10 14:9 22:15 28:23 60:20 165:19
32:23 35:25 36:3,15 172:16 185:14
45:12 54:16,16 55:22 begins 186:1
56:3 58:7,24 59:6 60:2 begun 156:4
61:24 62:16,23 63:19 behal£38:1106:24 124:11
66:10,22 76 :20 77:7,18 145 :13 159 :2,17
80:14 84:21 85:17 86:10 belabor 45:3 4 7:21
86:11 90:19 91:5 96 :4 believe 7:22 9:6, 14, 17
97:24101:2103:10 12:18 28:22 34:13 36:7
104:13 109:16 110:3,12 44:10,12 46:21 90:15
117:23 136:17 139:14 107:3 108:13 111:12,13
147:9,17148:22151:4 116:3 140:23 155:22,22
152:17 153:17 155 :24 161 :2 1 \62 :21 168:23
157:5 158:15 169:13 173 :22
170:7,12 174 :1 2 175:6 belong 93:11
175:11 180:25 181:2,6 Belush 2:7 3 :3 135:20
182:15 184:25 185 :15 187:3
back-of-bouse 136:23 beocbmark 85:24 86:19
bad 72:5 105:21 benchmarks 86:23
bakery 48:16,18 benefit 18 :14
balance 37:9 best 8:11 71:19 77:25
balconies 81:16,20 117:12 106:8 113:13 124:13
balcony 52:9 131:7 162:9 185:19
Bank 5:5,7 32:24 50:9 better22:18 29:11 92:17
57:11 59:1,10 60:4 61:3 119:8 132 :20,21 168:7
62:18 63:2,21 73:5 173:6
121:10 beverages44:20 57:5
barely 164:5 beyond 80:23 107:4
based 12:9 38:6 146:8 Bienstock 68:23 71 :10,11
154:18 156:9 74:2,5 75:13 78:2,8,14
basic 83:10 126:1 180:9 138:23,25 139:2,4,7,10
basically 49:9,16 50:5 ,9,21 139:16,22 140:12,14,21
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
Page 19 1
140:24141:13,15,17
142:3,5 143:13,17,24
144:3,6,15,21 148:6,10
148:15,19,24149:2,5,14
150:4 182:9 184:10
18 5:21 186:3,6
Bienstock's 145:12
big35:9 67:1 104:18 153:5
167 :2 169 :1 4 170:1,15
174:13,25 175:14
bigger 154:5 167:15
bike44:20
Bill 5:9 18:23 182:25
Bingo 139:11
Biscayne 2:13,14 37:25
76:10
bit4:4 40:8 41:6,18 46:19
49:8 54:6 59:7 62:24
80:8,19 86:13 90:22
91:1104:17 108:14
132:20 163:13 164:8,11
167: IS
black 60:12,18 64:4,10
65:8 67:7
block 48:3,24 125:20
127 :24
blocked31:l6155:6
blocks 73:10
blow-up 54:1
bJ(Jw -ups 71:17
blue 82:13 87:7,7
blurred 118:21
BOA 113:11
board 1:9 2:3 3:18,22 6:23
7:2 9:13,21 12:3,3,4,25
13:13 14:3,5 15:5 16:5
17:5,13,21 18:2120:10
20:11 23:18 26:16,22
28:20,21 30:4,23 32:7,10
32:16,17,18,23 34:5
35:10 36:6,6 37:4 38:5
38:24 39:2,4,6,15,16, 17
39:17,19,2140:1,3 42:8
42:1 8,22 43:7 46:9,21
47:1 55:9 65:1,5,8 70:11
75:9,12,14 78:8 80:10,11
81:7 84:1,16 88:22
89:21 90:23 94:9,18
99:9,25 100:15 101:25
102:3,13 106:6107:10
108:17 112:22 113:20
117:5,8,22 119:16,17
120:12 121:23 124:8
131:3 133:17 134:1 7
138:9 139:24 14 1:8,19
141:21,23 142:8 144:19
144:22 145:16 146:3
150:10 151:17 152 :19,2 4
153:3 154:23,25 155 :11
155:12,14,15 ,24 157:4
157:11,16,18,1 91 58:3,8
158:16,24 !59: 19 160:15
161:3 162:13 165:12
166:12 177:15 178:6
180:11 181:19,21 182:1
185:1,6,9,25 188:9
Board's27:169:19
boards 19 :4 75:10 89:18
I 05:16 163:10
boardwalk 164 :12
boat45:15
boil 79:10
bones 101 :8
bother 105:24
bottom 84 :13
Boulevard 2:14 38:1 76:10
box 3 I:I9 95:6
Brandon 182:23
breaks 135:12
breez eways 95:8 98:1
brid ge 35:149:7,10 50:24
53:20 55 :1 66:1 2 75 :18
77:8 95:17,24 96:6
109:15 127:17 132:17
167:8
bridg es75:1 6
brief44:19 169:12 174:11
182:12
briefly 4:3 81 :2
bring 47:22 66: 17 102: 16
104:14
bringing 158:4
brings 49:7 56:23,24 57:1
96:3
brought 12:24 13:12 20:1
50:25 154:1
brow 88:7 ,7 90:7,8,8
brows90:13
budget 99:9 100:22 114:20
buffering 7 8:6
buffe rs 49:16
build 77:1 117:20 129:16
167:6,7,14
building 3:7 5:5,7 6:9,10
14:15 32:24 33 :1 36:14
45:19 51 :1 7 52:15 53:5
54:2 1 55:10 56:3,16,18
57 :23,25 58:11 60:9
61 :15,17 62:3 64:1 72:6
73:5,5 75:6 76:22 77:3
78:6 79:25 81:1 0 82:7
84 :7,8 85:15 87:5,7,1&
87:1 9 90:14,25 95:5
96:5,7 97:24101:16
104:7,21 ,23106:11 30:22 64:21 65:3,7
108:12 109:17 110:17 67:25 98:18,22,25
118:1 0 ,16 119:19,25 110:18 154:ll,13 157:15
120:22 121:9,12,16 15 8:23 180:5 185:6,19
l23 : 1,12, 14,15,21 185:22,251 86:8,1 5,22
125:16,22 ,25 126:8 case 11:15 12:17 13:12
129:5,7,16 130:13,15,16 14:3,13,24 15:16 16:13
132:9,9 133:5,6,9,10,12 16:13,20,25 17:11 26:1
134 :24 ,25 135:7 136:11 27 :5 29:6,7 51:1 69:20
137:2 142:20 149:11 88:16 140:18 158:3
161 :1 2 163:17 164:16,19 cases 28:3
165:15,18 166:1 ,4,5,15 categorize 27 :25
168:17 171:2 1 173:16 cause 188:8
176 :20 180:20 181 :5 caused 3 1:19
183 :5,15 caution 38:4
buildings58:1 762 :9 85:10 CD 1:7 60:19,20,22,23
85:10 95:6 96:15,16 172:15,16,17,1 8
100:4 109:18 11 0:2 5 CD-248:6 50 :22 59 :18,21
120:24 166:7,23 63:10,13 127:11 148:5 ,7
built 48:2 53 :23 55:2,10 CDs 187:4
76:2 84:17 86:1 103:9 ceiling 149:7
103:10 104 :4,20,24 center 116:5 123:11
116:1 125 :23 15 5:9 centrally 57:20 61:1 2
bulk 78:5 79:25 certain 3:13 22:11 32:11
buses 102:21 34:17 39:7 70:22 87:18
businesses 104:16 170:17 145:3 160:2 166:16,20
175 :1 6 178:3 18 5:2,16186:9
businessperson 134:13 certainly 17:3 30:1131:25
40:14 43:21 70:23 99:16 c 142:6 149:2 1 157:5
C33:8 126:18 163:10 166:22 181 :19
cafe97:10 CERTJFICATE 188 :1
caJculate 92:1,8 189:3
calculated 86:1 1 certify 188:6,14 189 : l 0
calculating 86:4 Cbad 182:23 183:14
calculation 156:2 Cbair 13:9 17:15 2 6:15 ,24
calcul ations 87:23 116:21 70:24 88:21 113:22
117 :10 ,13 ,19 ,23 15 6:9 156:14
caH72:19 138:20142:18 chair's 165:4
142:19 chairman 4:16,18 12:25
calls SO: 10 161:22 20:15 2 4:16 2 6:25 2 9:16
canal33 :4 59:3 62:20 30:22 154:11 180:5
95:17 134 :4 Cbairpers()n 2:4 4:21 8:22
canopy 33:8 36:19,20 11:6 12:23 13:4 17:2 4
canvassing 100:6 19:10 20 :8 23:7,1 2,23
capacity 139:12 143:12 24:3 ,2125:18,24 26:4,10
144 :1 1 26:19 28:14,18 29:4,12
Car 49:2 52:25 29:18 30:3 ,20 37:21
carbon 181 :2 5 40:16,18 68 :5 71:1,7
c ards 27:24 75:11 77:12,22 88 :1 0
care 81:8,9 165:8 90:3 92:21 93:3 94:6,11
carefully 36:11 98:3,10,13, l7 99:4
C arol 2:5 187:2 101:18103:18 106 :1 8
carries 39:6 108:21112:2 113 :23
cars 136:15,15 131:13 134:5,15 138:2
carve-out 111: 1 13 8:12,1 7 147:24 150:7
Cary2:63:14 4:10,1616:8 154 :12 159:23,25 160:18
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES , LLC
( 30 5 ) 371-76 92
Page 1 92
172:6177:5,17 184:1 2
184:20 185:3,13 186:5
186:11 ,17,23 187:1
challenge 18:6 161:18
champagne 114:19
chance 16:12 124:3
change 7:16 45 :5,5,5
143:10
changed 7:24 149:23
changes 11:14 34:142:25
45:9 64:24 74:21 143 :2
143 :10,14 167 :11
changing 116:8
channel 163 :21
character 96:13 115:2,20
characteristic 78:21
charter 4:25 5:8 6:1 18 :22
18 :22
checklist 47:6
Ch eryl33: 11 36:23,23
choice 130 :1
choir 99:17
chose 44:6,13
Ciu ro 140:9
circles 16 9:1 4 174:13
circulation 34:22 67:17
circumstances 17:14 94:4
citation 5:21 13 :17
cite 29:8
cited 7:3 29:6
citizen 102:4
citi.zens5:9 18:23 19:1 ,3,7
city 1:10 2:9 4:25 5:11 6:1
6:12,18 8:5 9:3,1 5 13:1
15:4,5 19:3 39:1244:1
70:10 ,1174:16,19 75:1
99:10 106:15 131:21
150:1215 1:2152:25
157:18,21 165 :23,25
188:9
City's 150 :2
clarification 160 :20
clarified 115:20 161:1
168:23 173:22
clarify 52:7 64:22 67:25
89:17 156:15 169:14
171:19174:13 176:18
179:3
clean 178:7
cleaned 8:1 0
CJeaners 48:8 56:8 65:22
97:4 108 :10 132:11,17
clear 46: 14 59:13 63:5
90:10 124:23 133:2
153:18 154:21166:25
178:19
cleared 179:21
elearly60:163:18 64:11
67:7 115: I 0 135:8 152:3
165:8,12
clerk 29:10 144:25
client6:13,2144:1 113:13
119:3 124:11 131:7,8
139:25 l43:3,15 145:14
145:25 146:11 159:2,18
client's 6:10 20:22 116:5
121 :9 123:6,13,15
125:12,25 126:3 133 :5
133:10
clients 21:12,19 25:5,6
88:16 156:23
clock 185:16
close 81:3 ,4
closed 66:3 1 18:6
closer87:12
closest 170:7 175:6
cobbled 72:10
code 5:24 10:2,6 13:17
15:2 43 :22 46:3 82:8
130:2,6 149:13,16
150:24 151:6,11,14,15
159:9
coherent 26:2
colleagues I67:4
color67:8 118:18 119:I2
colors 79:7 91:11
column 79:4
columns 87:16
combined 97:14
come 15:21 22:24 25:1 ,1
26:8,11 51:7 56:8 67:6,9
70:19 75:8 81:19 87:20
105:1,15 106:11 108:6,7
11 I:24 ll7:23 125:8
137:15 152:16 153:3
161:3 162:4166:19
169:13 170:12174:12
175:11 179:2,8 186:6
comes 59:6 62:23 85:5
9 1:18 151:11 153:17
155:24 178:1&
comfortable 151:22 180:4
coming 17:5,7 51:9,11
79:7 105:25 163:19
164:23 165:25 170:2
175:1178:6
comment 15:12 17:1 29:20
68:8 81:16 92:4 138 :6
162:20 184:11
comments 9:11 16:5 17 :19
17:21 18:1419:22 2 0:4
24:12,17,25 36:22 50:14
50:16 52:6 68:13 ,14
76:17 81:15 92:6,19
137:21 157:6,1 2 161:6 134:1 4,17,19
162:12,16172:3 177:2 conceded 143:15
commercial34: 19 41 :22 concept 57:24 61:16 83:10
41:23 42:6 45:16 48:4,7 107:16,24,25 108 :1 8
48:20 49:4 50:11 51:17 concern 12:24 20:22 21:7
51:23 56:21 57:15 58:9 24:7,16,17 37:17 162:1
59:17,18,22,25 61:7 62:1 concerned 32:3
63:9,10,14,17 66:5 72:15 concerning4:I3 6:13
72:23 73:3 76:11115:9 18:24 29:22 112:24
115:16 127:1,7,9 129:20 126:1 1
153:2 169:22 170:11 concerns 20 : 14,21 34:2
171:4,7,11 174:21 43:2,3 64:25 78:2 154:1
175:10 176:3,6,10 154:14,18,19 155:20
commercially-zoned 46:5 171:25 176:24 178 :20
commercials 72:22 concession 4 1:7,8,8 42:4
Commission 157:19 129:25 142:1 8
188:23 189:23 concessions 41:5 43:12,24
committed 183:25 43:25 44:6 46:2 129:11
Committee 99:9 100:23 I30:8,}0,21,23 154:5,6
common 83:2 102:15 concluded 187:5
134:10 conclusion 69:5 97:13
commonly 83:18 conclusions 39:8 42:10
communicating 167:19 concrete 168 :19 173:18
communication 179:5 concur 18:2
communities 107:6 condition 32:18 46:24
community 31:14 91:18 80:16,20 109: 12,20,24
I 07:3 134:14 16I:9,23 109:24 110 :15 162:21
165:5 conditional3 :20 32:9,15
comp 4 3:22 46:8 80:12
comparison 65:21 conditioning 17 I:5 176:4
compatibility 85:22 conditions 46:22 80:1 3
compatible 22:12 77:7 84:4 109:5 167:13
97:21 113:17131:9 condominium 48: I 0
compelled 19:2 117:2 confidence 160:2
128:20 confident 28: 12
compels 116:20 confirm 9:14 136:13
compensation 97:25 conflated 14l :22
competent 46:16 88:17 conformance 6:16
146:20,25 confrontation 172:9177:8
complete 25:10 26:16 27:5 confused 154:9 168 :22
30:19 79:13 173 :2 1
completely 31:22 72:12 conjoined 122:7
82:2 93:9,16 104:7 connection 146:5,16
135:10 141:20 165 : t 7 consensus 153:18
complex 15 :25 152:12 consent 116:6
complexes 102:21 consider7:13 17:13 35:11
compliant 159:8,9 36:7 74:9,10 108:17
comply 16:21 43:2 46:3 ,7 109:19 143 :22
130:6 consideration 6:24 91:20
component41 :23,24 135:5 91:25 96:14 115:24
comprehensive 39:11,12 137 :11 15 5:24
42:11 150:2 considered 6:22 34:8
compromise 85:22 10 I: 13 73:17 85:21 113:15
106:4 143:20 157:17
computer 120:19 considering 7:15
Comras 5:4 50:7 57:10 consistency 42:11
61 :2 73:5 106:13 119:3 consistent22:13 39:11
KRESSE & AS SOC IATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7 69 2
Page 19 3
42 :12 43:21 46:8 75:18
77:8 142:6 149:24 150:2
166:6,6
consistently 168:17 173:1 6
constitute 188 :12
constitutionally 16 :23
constructed 31 :6
construction 3:6 57: 17
61:9 93:15 96:14
consolf8nt 124:14
consultants 105:15
contacts 36: II
contain 15:1 34:20
contained 14:7
contemplated 19:21
contentious 99:24
context 102:9 121:8 135:6
conte dual l20:14,19
121 :5,6,13
continuance4:11 8:8
10:1 6 12 :20 15:719:25
23:11 24:24 26:6 159:20
169:13 174:12
continue 4 :19 11:3 19:18
20:6 22:23 23:15 24:1,8
24:22 ,24 26:5 29:17
30:24 31:7,15 34:5
38:17 41:3 46:18 56:25
90:3 I 11 :I2 112:23
113 :21,24137:23 149:25
151:20 157:3 184 :15
continued 3:12 8:12,20
20:13 21:25 38:12,13
112:12
continuing 47:10
contrary 93: 12
contributing 75:3
control 160 :11
conversation 169:7 174:6
conversations 139:18
converted 48:17,21
convoluted 60:I5 64:7
coolers 169 :25 174:24
copy 36:22 98:10 117:3
core 56:23
corner 33:1 35:23 48:5
50:22 55:20,21 67:22
84:19 95 :15,16,23 96:22
96:24 97:5,9 I 04:22
163:6,8 168:9,10 173:8,9
18\:5
corners 97:24
correct 8:2 11:5 13:22
39 :5 65:6,10 99:3 139:3
139:15 143:12 156:8,10
160:24
corridor 54:20 57:9 6l:I
98:1 133:15,24 134:1
corridors 95:8 135:12
counsel149:3 183:6
188:15
count 82:8
counted 80:22 81:20 82:17
counts40:4
COUNTY 188:3 189:7
couple 100 :8 124:2 134:9
138:21 153:5
course 14:3 67:19 87:10
91:15 106:14 154:15
181:11 189:12
court 18:7 87:10 188:4,22
18 9:12
courtroom 158:1
courts 88:24
courtyard 166:4,5,7
covenant 6:5,11, 14,17,21
7:4,11,24 8:17 9: 1,1,9, 16
14:8,17,25 15:2 70:6
112:24 113:4,5 114:1
115:7
covenants 9:7
cover 127:12,20
covered 66:3 67:25
crawl 171 :20 176:1 9
create 49:16 51:5 54:9,20
56:4 57:6 58:1 61:18
67:3 178:17
created43:17 56:1 S8:11
59:15 62:3 63:7
creates 58:18 62: I 0
credibility 1.56:1 8,21
159:21
credible 160:8,9
criteria 79:2,3,9 109:2
15 5:10
criticall9:7 37:9 88:19
99:20 135:5
criticism 114:17,18 137 :14
cross-examination 156:16
157:2 158:2
cross-examine 92:24
138:20 146:11 15 7:7
cross-examined 133:20
cross-examining 179:12
cross-ventilated 58:12
60:6 62:4 63:23 171:22
176:21
crossing 178:3
culminated 71 :23
curb 163:16
curious 168:5 173:4
current 86 :25 94:25
156:10
currently4:6 57:17 59:22
61:9 63:14 96:4 100:12 delay 19:9112:17
133:3 deliberate 17:22
cut23:5 52:10 89:4 113:10 d eliveries 169:24 170:11
cutting 89:7 174:23 175:10
Cypress 6:9 44:7,9 55 :10 delivering 181 :19,20
65:24 deliv ery 170:9 175:8
D
Delvecchio l 08:24,24
d emoJish 48:9,12
033:13 demolished 3:9
DADE 188:3 demonstrate 129:4
dais 138:24 density 116:12
dare 183:3 d eny l OI:I 151:13 184:4
data 90:4 116:20 department 19: 12,14
date 3: 13 20:13 30:2 36:25 33:20
137:10 159:11 165:17 deprived 122:3
David 2:12 11:10 13:14 d esign 1:9 2:3 3:5 5:22
14:20 29:9 37:24 157:15 8:15 10:12 28:21,23
day 10 :24 11:1,1 28:25 29:2 32:10,18,20,22 34:9
39:9 104:13 137:2 149:9 34:13 36:6 38:20 39:20
165:3 184:16 188:19 44:2 46:25 70:11 75:8
189:17 79:2 94:25 95:7 97:16
days 137:2 140:14 100:15 108:17 109:1
deal70:6 109:10 110:2,16 110:11 117:4 118:17
ll1:3 158:7161:14,15 119 :1 3,16 120:11 145:16
167:1 151:1 152:19153:8
Dealing 109:25 154:8 155:11,16 157:15
deals 109:24 167:10 157:1 9,2 1 158:5,17,18
dealt 142:12 158:20 160:13 161:2
debatable40:13 181:7,9,21 182:7 188:9
debate 13:19 design-related 150:8
decades 56:10,11 designated 75:16
deceiving 164:20 d esignation 96:10,11
decide 18:9 19:5 20:25 designed 75: 17 97:6 129:5
21:20 179:18 134:25
decided 26:17 44:24 45:15 designer 141:9
decides 67:20 designing 128:9
decision 25:16 28:20 31:15 desire 106:25
69:19 70:18 76:24 88:19 detai180 :8 129:3 135:19
99:19,20 100:16 177:25 detailed 18:24 118:15
178:15 180:3 120:19
deck 149:6,8 details 119:18,22 137 :9,12
dedicated 107:12 137:24
deemed 15:5 determination 121 :24
defect 6:2,3 7:6 d eterminations 158:24
defective 8:21 devaporized 135:7
defects 29:23 develop Ill :2
defer 19: I 0, l3 develope d 32:4 67:1 2,12
deficiencies 114:13 94:25 111:4
deficient 16:24 28:4 29:7 developer31:7 35:15
defined 84:25 115:10 105:13 106:7 111:15
147:23 129:10 137 :17 142:15
definitely35:1 8104:19 179:20 182:24,25
151:17 developers 179:2 183:4,5
definition 166: 13 183:5
degree 90:21 developing 135:2 169:2
degrees 86:1 5,20 174:1
Delano97:7 development 31:8,16,19
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
Page 19 4
31:20,23,25 35:4 39:13
42:13 49:3 72:2,4,5
75:20 7 8:22 81 :9 99:21
99:22 102:5,6 110:22
111:25114:24124:15
126:17 150:3 152:21
161:13 163:23 172:8
177:7180:7 181:8,15
182:14
developments 107:5,17
108:4
diagonally 55 :7
diagram 87:11 90:16
160:23
d iagram s 71:20 100:14
dialogue 134:10 140:18
dichotomy 183:20
different 2 8:24,2 4 39:6
78:17 90:15 141:21
164:16 165:24
differentiate Ill :6
differentiation 110:23
difficult 82: 19 10 5:1,3
122:6 163:23
difficulty 70:15
dilapidated 104:21
diligently 101:6
dimension 117:7
dimensioned 81:22
dimensions 22:10 79:14
115:2,19 118:17
diminish 96:6 118:9
diminished 117:17
direct 64:24
directed 123:24
direction 35:19 169:6
174:5
directive 46:19
directly 53:10 94:4 95 :20
141:1,2
director 10:13 13:1118:2
di rectors 94:18 I 07:10
disagree 149:20 184:9
disast.ers 100:19
disclose 162: 18
discuss 15 :1 416:2 20:11
89 :3 137:18
disc ussed 79:1,12 80:10
141:5
discussing 69:23 93:7
discussion 15:25 20:19
116:9 154:22
discussions 35:17 51:2
disheartened 45 :6
disrupt 4:14
disrupted 35:3
disseminate 160:7
distance 83 :5,13 86:4,18
107:22
distances 86: 14
distasteful I 56:15
district3l:l2,1 8 51:23
96:25 97 :18 106:23
126:24 129:17 l35:4
Dixie 76:1l
Doctors 49:2 52:25
documents 74:24
doing 2 0:23 68: 17 128: I3
131:7 143:8,25 150:23
155 :14158:2 17&:24
dollars 75:2,4
door 76:2 0,20 103:25
105 :23115:9
d oors 82:5
double 88:10
doubling 109:19
doubt 125:24
downl oaded 170:23
175:22
Dr 68:25
drag 147 :8
drainage 115 :3
draw 84:6
drawing85:12 86:24
127:15 160:21
drawings 52 :3,5,12 79: 13
81 :13 82:9,1 0 88:2
92:14 135:18 ,2 1 137:9
156:5 160:12 161 :2
164:7 167 :25 172 :24
drawn 86:8
DRB 14:1 15 :6
dressed 11 :23
drive 33:10,1 4,2 135:2
43 :13 44:21 5 6:8 77:4
78:1 7 87:14 91:22,24
92:5,10 95 :13 96:23
97:3 101:24 108:25
163:4 18 0:13,15,17
driveway 122:19 ,22
drop-off 56:9 180:21
dropped 102:23
Dry 48 :8 56 :8 65:22
due 12:5 21:18 28:7 103:5
112:25 1 13:13 132:23 ,23
18 4:24
duly 189:15
dumpster 170:6 175:5
dumpsters 170 :13 17 5: 12
duplic.ation 60:21 172:18
duplicative 24:13 25:14
duty 99:11,14 103:12
E
E33:15 enter64:17 108:10
e.-co rrespondence 140 :7 ent ire 8: I 45: l 70:7 75:4
e-mail 98:7 142:7 145:4 95:11 106:3 145:7
146:2 161 : ll, 12 169: l 173:25
e-mails 140:5,20,23 entitled 5:1 0 7:25 88:16,20
144:12 145:1 14 7:16 88:22 112:25 145:24
158:15 161:23 entrance 74:23,25 75:5
earlier 4:4 40:9 41:18 46:9 93:21
46:19 entry 49:9 51:15 ,16 52:22
early 78 :22 57:22 59:1 6 61:14 63 :8
ease 9:13 34:23 entryway 131:22,24,25
easement 115:22,23 11 6:1 132:1 7
116:4,4,8,9 envelope44:15148:14
easements 9:2 envelopes 135:10
easier 167:20 169:8 174:7 equivalent 110:13
east 32 :23 35:22 45:21 erase 179:23
80:15 90:25 91:15 121:7 escape 125:2 I
126:9 especiall y 42: 19 55: 17
eastern 32:1 36:1 4 107:6 130:17 158:1 0
echo 165:4 164:23
edge90:8 125:1 3 126:2,5 ESQ2:12,1 7
127:25 136:11 167:12,13 E SQUIRE2:10
edges 90:7 essence 52:14 54:2 56; 12
EE 188 :23 189 :23 57:24 60:1 6 61:16 64 :8
efficient 39:23 66:8
effort 43:1,25 137:13 essentially47:6 53:14
egress 43:13 123:2 1 128:14 156:18 ,20
124:20,23,24 125:5,21 established 156:21
126:2 establishing 147:22
eight 40 :8 43:9 79:8 86 :17 166:24
86:18 estate 107:5
either 9:23 20 :25 23:25 etcetera 79:20 86:14 87 :2 4
72:14 91 :4,4 120:23 140:9 141:5 148 :4
element 60:3 63:20 65:23 evaluate 118:25
elements ll8: 18 119: 14 evaluated 3:21
165:23 168:1 6,19 173:1 5 evening 165:2
173:18 everybody 22:J 43:10 71:8
elevation 36:13 45:10,22 91:17 105:22 150:18
60:10 64:2 66:18 110:4 158:9 160:1161:16
I 11:6 119 :12 121:5,7 182:20
135:17 167:1 1 168:2 1 evideoce42:18 46:16
173:20 88:17 145:9 146:6,7,20
elevations 22: 11 118:15 146:21 ,2 4,25 147:1
120:21 ,22 122:14 126:5 evidentiary 8:1
135:25 172:5 177:4 evolving 44:23
elevator 88:4,5 exa ct 144:8
elim inate 95:11 ,14 ex.actty78:7 86:7 140:17
eloquent 100:13 181:16
embark 74:20 exaggerated 164 :8
emphasis 32:25 example 83:13 87 :6
enactment 16:16 142:13 14 5:5
encompassing 95:7 exceed 91 :8 107:19
encroachment 33:15 excellent 114:15 ,16
endorsed 107:16 exception 185:10
ends 162:9 excess 39:1&
engage 155:16 exchange 93:25
ensure 36:9 exclude 82:9
KRES SE & ASSO CIATE S, LL C
(30 5) 3 71-7692
Page 195
neuse 15:12 27:8 64:21
64:2168:22 77:1 9 84 :19
88:13,13 122:20 123:10
126:18 128:12 I 81:8
exercise 18 :5
exhibits 160: 13
existing 3:8 48:9 54 :4
96:16118:16119:2 5
127:18,19 132:16 166:22
167 :13
exi sts 59:10 63:2 96:2 0
exit 52:22 125 :4,7
expect94:14 121:23
e1:pecting 17:8
el:perien ce 122:1
expert 69:21 88:18 89: 1
12 4:12 148:11
exp erts 92 :18,24 126:17
Expires 188 :2 3 189:24
explain 7:22 142:3
explained 83:23 ,23
explanation 170:13 175:12
exposed 65:25
expos ure 3:16
expressed 154:14
extending 88 :7
extension s 186:10
exteosive 43:7
estent I 13:7
extra I4:4 44:13
extreme 102:11
eye 86:13 92:17
F
F 33:19 46 :23 69:18
facade 110:1 127:1
face 53:10
face s53 :14
facilities 93:21 115 :4
facility 123 :1
fa cing 42:2 56:19,20 77:3
93 :22 110:2,5 126:24
180:25
fact 18:19 27:1 7 39 :8,10
42:10,17 45:6 46:10,1 2
72:24 78:14 84:25 85:3
85:19 90:19104:12
124:5,6 136:8 141:16
\45:8 149:24 178:12
fa ct-based 146:24 147:19
I 47:20
facto rs 34 :7
facts 145:25 147:15,21
179:17
failure4:19
fain t 87:2
fair 40:12 143:5
fai rly 11 3:1 2168:17
173:16
fairness 112:10
familiar 13:11 20:4 44:8
121:15 158:13
family 49 :1 7 72:2 1 77 :9
fa ntastic 44:25
far 28:9 52:9 79:22 8 1 :2,2
81:3 ,4,8,2 1 82:8,14,17
82:23 85:16 90:19 91:3
92:17 95:3 96:1 111 :14
111:16,18 112:10,11
11 6:1 5,16,19 ,20,25
117:10,11 ,14,14,18
118:7,8 124:17 139:14
156:2,9 162:24 168:4
171:22173:3 176:21
fa shion 22:2 2 6:2
fast 77:22
favor 99:20 100:7,9,11
184:20
fe ature 14:4
features 118:18
F ebruary 6:19 27:1 9 40:6
42:24 142:6,8,22
feedback 155:18
feel 2 3: 19 27:2 28:12
35:17 36:1 9,25 89:24
94:3 95:2 110:24 157:21
179:12 180:4 181:14
fe eling 18:12
feet 35:24 36:16 39:19
42:7 44:13 45 :14 50:12
51:24,25 52 :1 55:4,12,14
55:23 57:14 6 1:6 67:13
82:21 84:20,21 86:11 ,17
86:18,22 95 :2 1 107:18
107:23 109:14 110:7,21
110:23 u 's:15 ,I6119:21
122:19,21 124:15 125:6
126:9,10 127:20,23 ,23
127:24 128:22,22 129:20
13 5:11 145:5 148:12
162:23 181:1,2,2
fellow 106:24
felt 178 :2
fiduciary 99: 11,14
fifth 88:8 9 0:9 110:8,20
111:5
figure 122:13 183:9
fig ured 152:16
fil e4:11 70:11
fil ed 139 :15
fin a lly 57:18 61:10 120:14
financially 165 :10 188:16
find 57:1 9 61:11 178:16
finding 13:19 42:17 46:10
findings 39:8 42:10 1 t 1:5
fine 73:9,10 98:14 151:7 following 3:1 32:17,21
fioetune 37:8 115:1 158 :12
finished 66: 18 fooled 131 :4
fire 125:22 foot 86:17,221l6:13
firm 114:15 183:21
first 13:23 15:22 16:1 34:8 footage 44:14
43:7 60:22 79:11 81:1 footprint 107:4
82:11 96:2 1 104:5 force 128:18
109:10 112:9,16 114:12 forced 7:9 25:1 4
123:1 9 124:21 126 :14,24 foregoing 188:10
128:15 130:18 147:3 foremost 34:8
156:6 162:20 172:17 forget27:17 50:25 65:21
185 :4,8 186:4,4 187:1 102:24 179:22
fi sh 20:23 forgo t29:18
fit 164:5 form 11:1912:13 22:1
five 13:4 56:19 58:3 61:20 formal8 :12
67:13 68:12 69:10 70:4 forth 57:5 67:23 84 :11
70:23 77:20 95:7 97:14 15 1:4 158 :15 182:16
107:22 110:4118:14 188:10
149:5 177:14 183:1 0 forum 8:6
185:23 forward 5:20,25 7:2,10
five-foot 36: 18 8:5,15 12:2113:20
five-story 3:7 35:7 72:23 16 :12 17:20 18:4 23:18
96:5,8 9 1:3 101:12 112:12
fix 106 :12 133 :7 134 :8 169:9 172:1
fixed 85:4 174:8 176:25
FL2:15 fought 75:20
flew 106:16 found 3 5:14 46:9 73 :22
flexibility 111:1 3 75:23
floating 58:14 62:6 fountain 49:13 52:24
flood 128:5 132:22
floor 32 :25 33 :3 49:4,4 four20:17 31:10 33:16
56:19 82:1,2 88:8 90:9 34:10,24 4 2:3 52:18
95:12,14 96:22 I 10:8,8 53:15 56 :19 58:3,4
116:1 7,2 1,25 117:1 61:20,21 72:14 73:1 6
119:24 124:1 126:14,24 86:7 94:21 103:1 108:3
128:15 135:16,24 161:11 110:4 133:5 139:10
floors 45:12 56:19 58:4 172:11,14 177:10,13
61:21 110:3,4,12 111:19 four-story 45:11
111 :21 119:25 122: 15 four-vote 177:20
128:24 180:24 181 :3 fourth 73:2 11 0:8
Florida 2:19 11:1 5 12:17 fowl 20:24
58 :17 62:9 73:1 8,19 FP&L48:25 53:1
77:16 188:2,5 189:6,10 frame 163:18
189:23 framed 78:2 ,9
tlow43:17 170:10,16 Francois 98:19,23 124:5
175:9 ,15 133 :1 6 137 :15
flown 12:12 Frank 10 8:24
focus 150:7 158:5 181:20 franldy22:15158:9,12
1&5:1 7 free 89:24
focu ses 4 9:1 1 fresh 25:12 179:24
folks 11 :25 50 :t 71:18 Friday's 12 :7
76:15 77:1 99:1 5 100:3 friend 102:25 182: 17
follow 20:5 95:19 97:7 friendly 71:23
141:8 Froilick 103 :2 1 ,22
foiJowed 68:23,24,25 fron t 19:439:25 41:24
KRESSE & AS SO CIATE S, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
Page 19 6
44:22 74:23,25 76:20
83:22 85:18 105:15
125:1 6 130:13,16 151:12
153:3,17 162:4 171:13
176:12 178:6 186:12
frontage 119:20
.
fronting 41:25 42:2
frustrated 156:24
full 15:13,17 19:3 20:2
25:11 59:21 63:13 68:19
69:20 70 :1 108:22
184:23
full -blown 23:5
fully 37 :18 137:25
fun ction 14:1 49:16
functions 136:23
fundamental7:6 112:10
120:1 3 121:24
funeral48:16 132:13
further 8:9 32:20 33:3
35:20 36 :7 55:20 60:18
64:10 72:22,23 87:13,20
88:6 90:6 91:14 128:18
128:25,25 155:23 164:1 5
181:2,6 188:14
future 13:22 103:14,15,16
108:1
FYI 171:2 176:1
G
gall ery 56 :25
garage 48:1 59:16 63:8
93:21 104:4,6,9,14
127:10,21
garages 102:20 180:16
Garcia 171 :16 176:15
garde n 58:14 60:5 62:6
63:22 64 :1 4,18
Gary 2: lO 8:22 19: l1,14
92:25 153:11 178:2
gate 105:8,9 170:8 17 5:7
gatebouse 57: I 9 61:11
gateway 44:3,22 96:24
97:17
gathering 161:24
geoeral22:6 42:15 107:10
183:6
gen erators 136:23
gentle man 93:13 118:2
168:3 173:2
gesture 51 :5
getting 4:2 11 :23 41:9
179 :1 0 185:17
ghosted 60 :8 63:25
ghosted-in 60:3 63:20
Gibbs 16:1 9 20:15 ,1 6,20
24:4,15 25:3,20,25 26:9
26:13,25 27 :7 28 :1 6,1 9
38:11,15 68:15,15 69:9
69:25 88 :13 ,2 5 89:4,10
89:14 138:8,14,18,18
145:11,22 146:10,15,18
146:24 147:5,23 148:21
gift 128:21
give 3:10 11:23 17:21
50:17 51:19 97:24 106:6
109:7 110:10,12111:20
119:21 120:12 131:1
153:7 182:19
given8:7 90:23 92:1 ,12
115:13 152:1 167:1 6
gives 5:19 57:7 90:19
giving 19:22 27:1 80:11
89:8 124:7 142:19
glad 165:3
gla ss 136:12 168:19
173:18
go 5:19,24 7:2,8,9 8:5,14
ll :24 12:10 13:20 14:9
14:12 16:12,20 17:20
19 :16 20:23 23:13,18,21
28:9 38:3 44:18 45:5
46:1247:4 51:24 58:2
61:19 76 :25 77:2 80:9
80:23 84:2,9 90:14
91:10,14 95 :3 104:13
105:4,17,18 107:4
112:12,16 113:3 114:13
118:11123:5129:2
132:2 133:4,7 141 :1,2
142:17 144:5 147:16
148:1 150:17 151 :24
153:22 159:15,16 161:3
161:4 167:25 172:24
179:18 186:7
goalpost 41 :9
goes 49:10 72:20 85:2,2
87:9 88:5 92:7 116:4
120:2 5 121:12 123:8
g~ing 4:3 5:22 6:4 7:7 8:25
11:114:615:3 18 :4,11
19:9,17 21:1,4,10,16,20
23:7 24:18 25:9 28:10
29:12 31:24 32:4 35:18
36:17 45:25 46:17 47 :4
47 :13,24 66:15 68:19,20
69:22 70:1571:2 74:3
75:6,21,24 76:4,1 5,18,19
76:24 77:1 ,3 78:24
79:24 80:2,6,18 87:21
89:12 92:9 93:14 ,16,22
93:23 101:9,15102:19
I03:2,4,ll 105:3 ,4
106:14 111 :12 112:23
113 :2 1 115:11,14,17,25 182:22 183:24
116:6,10 117:25 120:5 groups 184:1
122:8 125:8,2 3 128:1 ,2,4 guardhouse 33:21 75 :6
131:3,5 132:14 133:14 103:3
133:16,18 13 8:5 ,8 guess 12:5 19:23 45:25
142:17 147:14 150 :13,20 72:1981:14139:14
150 :23 151:18,19 152:7 140:8,10 143:11 152:4
154:8 156:22,23 157:4,5 161:14
157:9 160:3,15 161:3,14 guidance 155:17
162:16 163:25 164:25 guidelines 141:9,10
168:6 169:19,23 170:2,4 guys 76:24 126:1 6 147:13
170 :10,14,16 172:13 gym 48:20 58:20 59: 11
173:5 174:18,22175:1,3 60:4 62:12 63:3,21
175:9 ,13 ,1 5 177:12 64:15
178:10,14 179:25 180:2 gymnasium 8 7: 13
185:1 1,22 186:3
Gold 33:11 36:23 H
good 3:25 13:19 30:17,24 habitable 128:3,7
37:22,24 47:15 50:20 Hagopian 2:4 125:2
59:14 63:6 71 :10 79:7 half66:1975:2 86:18
83:18 92:13,19 94:10,13 90:21
94:15 98:15 99:4,6 hand 29:9 71:3 94:19
102:25 103:16,21 105:2 131:11,15 17 1:5 176:4
106:22 118:24 131:6 188:18 189:17
134:17162:15,23 163:14 ha nded 119:1,7 121:2
165:1,2,14 169:6 172:7 127:16 131:19
174 :5 177:6 h andful 139 :23
gorgeous 44:2 handing 46:20
gotten 30:20 75 :22 179:13 handled 116:10
grade33:6 66:18 122:16 handsomely-designed
122:l7 37 :2
Grand 77:16 happen 28 :1110L:l 5
granted3 :19,2412:22 103:15 106:16 152:\8
32:9 44:11 160:15
grapple 109:8 happened 37:13 38:6
grassy 127:5 84:23 159:5
grateful168: 13 173: 12 happening 19:4 151:5
gray 168:2 173:1 165:9
great40:25 131:6 133:11 happens 19:19 67:11
147:2 158:7 161:25 77:19 100:21
166:11 167:\ 183:17 bappy 65:15 137:17
greater 59 :25 63:17 96:20 183:18
110 :22 Harbor3:54:61l:ll31:4
greatest 12:2 3 18 1:22 32:5 34:10 38:2,18
green 33:2 49:15 53:17,17 41:25 42:3 44:3 51:24
54:9 58:18 62:1 0 65:18 5 4:4 66:2168:16 75 :20
132:12 84:14,20 85:11,13 86 :5
greets 52:15 86:15,20 94:22 95 :20
grocery 1 02:20 ,23 96 :25 97:18 103:23
gross 130:20 104:14 105:8,21 131 :25
ground 8:19 33:3 49 :4 133:9 137:5 139:5
51:18 60:7 63:24 81:25 167:10
82:1,11 111:9 118 :3 HARBOUR 2: 11
123 :23 124:1 127:4 hard 33:5106:9 142:20
128:4164:18 160:4
grounds 4:23,24 hardened 149:17
group21:8 167:3 182:20 harmonious 111:10,25
....
KRESSE & ASSO CIAT ES, LL C
(305) 371-7692
Pa ge 197
Harrison 2:17 5:2 50:3
70:2 112:6
harsh 135:13
hate 14:20 15:8
health 42:14
hea r9:10'15:2416:520:3
20:9 24:22,23 40:23
76:15 80:4 128:1 151:1
160:7 178:8
beard 12:10 16:18 17:2,3
17 :9,1 2 21:15 28 :8
71:22 148:11 150:18
161:21 172:10 177 :9
182:11 185:12
bearing 3:16 5:11,12,13
5:15,16 ,20,25 6:23 7:5
8:1 10:22,24 12:6,7
13:13 15:22 16:2,15
17:17,21 18:14 19:22
21:5 27:21 42:19 46:21
69:5 114:6 119:7 124:10
132:6 133:18 140:17
142:24 144:19 145:2
146:1 157:16 180 :7
hearings 17:5 31:2 40:7
148:9 180:12181:11
heart 141 :2 158:25
heck39:6 40:9
height44:11 50:12 51:25
52:1 54:7 55 :16,17
66:16 78:5 79:24 80:23
I
82:24 83:2,5,6 ,12 86:4
86 :17,22 95:4,10,21
97:23 107:19,21109:11
109:25 118:10 127:1 9
128:22 130:3 135 :9
136:14141:6,11142:10
148:3,12 166 :6,15
heights 122:14 128:23
beld 2:10 4:14,22 5:1,14
5:17 8:2 9:10,18 10:22
11 :2 13:8 16:4,16 17:15
18:1 19:20 23:10,16,25
24:4 26 :15,20 29:9 30:8
30:13,15,18 38:3,4,8,13
69:7,24 70:1 3,18,24 74:2
88:20 89:2 ,7,12 93:1
112:l3,19 113:19,25
114 :4,7 ,9,ll 181 :12
help 59:15 63 :7 152:7
183:9,24 184:3 185:10
helps 179 :3
Hi 47:15
bidden 121:17
high 31:18 35:7 72 :8 73:1
73:4 79:19 91:3 127:14
151:8
bigb·rises 72:22
higher 54:6 59:7 62:24
86: 12,13 110 :3 111:1 9
145:5
highest I55:3,4,5
highlighted 183:20
Highway 76: II
hills49:10
hire 105:14,15
h is toric 74:13 75:9 77:8,8
78:16,21 95:16,23 9 6:6,9
96:11 ,2 4 101:25 106:23
110:20 I29:17 135:4
historically73:17 75:16
history 4:4 14:11,12 39 :15
40:3 47:21 159:6 166:2
hogwash 130:1
hold 77:17 113 :25
bole 161:15
home 15 :23 4 8:17 77 :4,4,9
91:23 105:25 132:14
137:3,4,7
homeowner's 20:17
homeowners 137:5 13 9:6
172:9 I77:& 178 :10
179:20 186:18
homes 53:10 72:14,21 ,21
72:25 74:9,14,18 75 :25
76:7 91:22 103:23 137:6
182:3 183:3 185:17
honestly 150:14 160:10
hope 108 :16
hoped 15 5:11
hopefully 22:24 47:24
82:17134:9 151:20
162:13 169:1 2 174:11
horizontal86:23 111 :8
horrible 105:20
Hotel97:7
hour 2 7:20 29 :20
hours 3:18 13:4 3 1:2 40 :8
43:9185:1
house 53 :1 9 54:25 55 :2,6
83:7 93:17,23
Housen 2:5 102: I 169 : II
170:20 171:9,13,18,24
174:10 175:19176:8,12
176:17 ,23 186:25
houses 54:25 55 :3 85:8
91:16
HS5:3
huge 95:5 I05:23
human93:24
hundred 75:4 94:20
10 7:22,23
I
idea 17 :25 64:16 110:19 indicate 1\9:13
147:12 162:8 168:18 indicated 189:1 3
173:17 178 :24 I82 :21 indicating 31:3 11 8:16
ideas68:3 182:1 9 indication 120:2,4,6,10
identified 2:1 10:3 70:3 individual36:2
155:20 156:1 indulgence 98:5
ll4:6 industrial 31: I1, 17
fil68:18 71:1 4 94:16 in fill ed 67: 13
image 120:20 inform 90:6
imagin e I40:4 159:12 information 23:20 92:3
immediate 132 :25 98:19 120:13 122 :5,24
immediately 35:13 37:16 126:2 131 :2 160:7
48:14,I9 49 :6 52:18 16 6:11 168 :11 I 73:1 0
53:10,20 54:23 76:22 177:24 178 :22 179:11,13
107:7110:13 informed 5:11
impact 7:17 34:11,21 infrastructure 7 4:21
122:8 125 :25 initiall9:22 162:17
impacted42:1 6 178 :11 initially 125 :10
impactful40:25 inside 56:15 5 8:10 62:2
impacts I58:21 130:14
imperative 37:4 installed 164 :10
importance 74:12 132:8 instances 156:19
important44:22 45 :4 66:6 insufficiency 29 :22
78:19 79:22,23 80 :25 insufficient 11 :17 36:21
81:24 84:5 85 :13 87:4 insy 56:7,13
87:17 91:17 115:5 integrity 107:12
120:15123:17126:12 intelligent 177:25
134:1 ,6 l53 :I O 15 5:13 intelligently 117:15
169:20 174:19 intended 18 1:1 7
imposed 32:17 intensity 165:5
impossible 13 6:1 170 :9 intention 14:13 31:7 140:1
175 :8 159:4
impractical 128:3 interest 17:4
impressions 162:17 interested 168:1 172:25
improper 4:12 15:15,1 6 188 :17
improve 74: 17 interesting 3:14 51 :20
improved 43:16 157:25 53:25 55:9 56:1 66:9
improvements 3 5:20 interests 8:11
74:21 180:9 interior43:17 45:18 87:10
inappropriate 7:23 internal43: 18 I80: I9
Inaudible 185:21,24 interpretations 150:22
include 10:5 14 :2211 7:13 interrogation 158: 10
included 10:1 43 :12 82:14 interrupt 4: I 0
118:6,8 intersection 96:23
includes 42:20 167:7 intimately 158 :1 3
181:25 intimidated 178:3
includ ing 12:11 13 :17 introduce68:2 0 134:12
35:21 39:9 73:4 introduces 165:22
inclusive 188: 1 l introducing 168: 18 173: 17
incomplete 22 :4 investigated 37:19
incompleteness 18:1 6 investment 167:16
incorporated 39:22 4 3:16 involved 40:2 139:13
increase 33:5 43 :14 55:16 167:17
93:23 95:22 96:13 97:!0 involving 39:16
increased 33 :9 35:24 island 33 :16 49:8,9,24
increasing 35 :2 1 166:18 50:23,24 51 :7 53 :14
indepth 7:7 67:18 68:17 71:12 78:1 1
KRE S SE & AS SO CIAT ES, LLC
(305) 37 1-7 6 92
Page 19 8
78 :13,16 86:7 93:\l
94:1 6 95:16,24 99:8
103:1 108 :7 137:6
163:19
)slands20:17,2131:10,15
57 :18 61 :10 71:1 3 73:1 5
73:24 74:1,6,22 78:1
94 :22 97:2,20 100:4
I 05:10,18 I70:8
Isle 34:24 167:8 169:1
173:25
Isles 131:22 132:18 139:7
175 :7
lsrael12:12 17:8
issu e 5:18 6:5 7:4,8 11:13
12:1418:8,919:7,821:2
21 :19 69:13,15 76:3
79:22 81 :25 82 :18 88:18
99:24 103:5 109:12
11 2:23 115:22116:11
117:24 12 6:11,1 3 129:8
136:25 137:1 141 :3
142 :9,20 147:7 150:9,10
151:11 153 :12154:24
156:2,5,21 160:18
issues 3:21 8:7 17:10 18:15
18: 18 2 0: 1 22:6,8,12,21
22:22 ,25 29:22 32:1 1
33 :25 69:23 78:4 101:6
112:10,16 141:4,6,19,22
142:1,11 ,13 l50:8,1I
151:21,22 I53:9,20,25
155:21 156:1 I5 7:17
158 :5,14,20 160:19
161:8 181:4,21
item 11:3 23:13 33 :11
items 135 :8 136:24
iterations 43:1
IV 52:20 68:18 71 :14
J
Jackie 99:7
Jane 106:20
January 12:1,10 2 7:18,19
29: l 40:6 42:23
Jason2:4
Jean I24:5
Jeff 182:23 ,24
Jefferson 106:21
Jennjfer 47:17 52 :4 55:13
60 :13 64 :5 66:23
Jeuoe 98 :20,23 124:6
133:16 137:15,20
Jewis h 48 :22
Jill 38:22
Jo 101:23
job 92:19 I 67:19
John 137:15
joined 113:16
judge 177:22 179:16
j udicial69: 11
Judy 177:23
Juty 142:23
jump 11:8
June 142:23
K
Karp 38:20,20 47:4,15,17
47:20 60:24 65:2,6,10
68:2 71:16 73:3 74:24
83:23 89:16,16 114:14
140:9 171:2,10,14,19
172:2 176:1 ,9,13,18
177:1
keep 44:19 54:3 58:19
62:11 68:17 ll3:l2
151:15
keeping 184:7
Kent2:17 5:2 13:18 20:1
30:8,13 50:3 70:2,13
11 2:6,14
Kent's 13:23
kept 41:9 42:25
key 5:14
kids49:25
kind 13:2123:3 38:5 46:20
51 :20 53:25 55:9,25
57:21 61:13 66:9 67:16
110 :8 153:10 159:3
161 :4,7 170:17 172:8
175:16 177:7
kinds 102:22
kitchens 120:3
know4:5,14 6:7 14:1 16:1
17 :16,22 18:3 21:9 25:7
26:12,14,22 30:4 31:18
32:5,7,11 33:12 35:1,18
35 :24 37:5,11,18 40 :1 8
46:11 55:25 65:14 68:17
82:15,16 92:16 99:15,15
104:24 105 :15,24,25
106:12 108:6,6,11
ll3:22 114:15,21115:17
117:1 4,18,19 118:4
121:14,15,22 122:12
124:24 126 :15 ,16 144:21
148:9,23 150:4,23 151:5
151:10,20,23 152:24
153 :9,23 154:16,18
156:3 157:10 158:19
161:16,19,25 167:4
169 :18,23 174:17,22
179:22,25 180:7,22
185:11 186:19
knowing 159:19 10:8 19:ll,l4 l 50:ll
knowledge 122:1 153:9,\5 158:14178:2,4
knowledgeable 118:2 178:4
knows 22:22 99:7 105:4 legitimate37:17 151:21
Kobi 38:19,20 47:4,13,16 Leland 99:6,7 ,
47:20 64:22 89:16 100:8 leoai 57:8 60:24
100:10114:14131:5 length 95:4 97:23
140:9 167:4,6 170:25 lengthy 69:16
172:1 175:24 176:25 Lennar 183:7
181:1 182:17 Lens 68:25 93:5,5
Kravitz 38:22 let's 16:2 71:8 102:24
118:11 150:7178:16
L 184:13
L 126:18 letter 9:15 98:19,22
labeled 79:16,19 82:3,4 letters 49:20
labels 79:15 level33:7 42:18,22 51:18
Labor 10:24 11:1 60:7 63:24 82:12 Ill :9
lack80:l 87:22 118:3 123:23 124:21
lacking 118:12 125:19 126:14 12 7:5,22
lacks 135:13 128:4 130:4,18
la nd 39:13 42:1 3,20 levels 65:24
114:24 122:20,2 1 126 :1 7 Lewis2:131l:ll
landscape33:12 51:1,12 Lex 182:24
67:1,8 lies 24:15
landscaped 33:6,9 36:5 lieu 6:5,11,17,22 7:4,12,24
57:7 59:12 63:4 67:21 8:17 14 :8,17,2 5 70:6
landscaping 36 :8,24 43:14 112:24 114:1
45:20,21 51:3 56:5 57:6 life 41:2 104:25 105:3
57:16 60:7 61:8 63:24 106:4 125:15 137:1
75:7 80:1 92:12,16 light7:24 17:lt 88:3
125:14,18,20126:5,8 148:14
l36:4,6,7,9 lighter 149:18
language 93:20 11 I :3,4 limit33:20
168:16 173:15 limitation 148:13,14
large 35:6,6 48:24 85:16 limited 39:10 40:21
97:4 102:1,20 142:12 limits 88:23
170:2175:1 188:6 Lincoln 73:23
larger 35:12 line33:1 5 55:18,23 80:24
lastly 91:10 92:11 80:25 83;16 84:2,3,6,6
law 2:18 11:10,15 12:17 84:15,22,25 85:4,5 86:10
16:22,2217:11 37:25 87:3,5,9 100:21 ll0:5,12
39:8 42:10 178:12 123:16 136:5 154:22
Lawson 106:20,20 160:19,21 162:22 181:3
lawyer 102:14 108:6 line's 84:12,13
150:1 2 linear 67:10
lawyers 19:12,15 93:20 liner 50: 1 1 66:21,22
105:14 131:6150:12 128:15 129:6
177:21,22 183:5 lines 80:17,17,20 83:11,11
Le 98:20,23 124:6 13 3: 16 88:1 90:11 91:19
137:15,20 lining 127:10
leads 50:23 link67:1 4
learned 124:16 li sten 141 :2 4,25,25
leave 94:23 105:3 106:10 literally 31:17121:17
182:10 183: l6 litigate 75:22
leaves 157:4 little 4:4 40:8 41:6,18 42:7
left 82:12 85:8 88:7 46:19 54:6 57:22 59:7
legal 5:13,15,19,24 10:1,3 59:15 61:14 62:24 63:7
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
Page 199
67:10 77:20 82:19 86:12
86:13 88 :9 101:8104:17
105:18 132:20,21 163:13
163:22 164:8,11,13
167:15 168:22 173 :2 1
live 49:23,23,25 56:16,20
76:16 93 :6 94:16 99:18
101:14,24104:8 105:11
105:17,19,23 106:1
lives 77:5 99:19 102:4,25
living 26:13
LLC2:16 5:3
LLP 2:13
loading 43:18 130:14
171:11 176:10
lobby 45:23 56:23 180:12
180:14
lobbying 177:21
located 4:6 33:2 1 47:23,25
50:6 57:21 61:13
loc ation 32:6 56:15 57:20
6l:l2 73 :8 97:15 115:1
115:19152:13 170:8
175:7
locations 131:20
long 11:1713:15 14:11
24:13 28:13 40:3,19
88:25 94:14 99:21
110:16 135:12 161:19
165:3
longer 79:18 80:22 162:7
look 44:25 47:1 52:19
58:25 62:17 74:6 76:1 9
76:19,21 78:11,12 85:5
86:3100:24103:11
106:1,2 109:5 115 :23
116:21 118:24 123:3
124:1,16,19,21 125;1,3
125:10,18 127:2,14,18
132:1,7,7,12,13 134:8,22
160:4,20 164:25 167:2
168:15 171 :25 173:14
176:24
looke d 73:24 102:17
looking 30:7 48:12 50:13
51:4,12 54:1 55:15,16
57:5,12 58:1 59:23 61:4
61:18 63:15 66:11,25
72:6 87:5 91:13 95:17
119:18 125:1 127:15
132:10,10,23 153:8
[58:16 161 :7 164:18
looks 60:9 64:1,19,20
164:4,18
loos e 52:11
lop 161:11
Lorber 13:10,10 15:11
19:23
lose 183:21
losing 97:25
lost 70:1 1
lot32 :8 39:7 40:10,23 41:3
5 1:2,1 0 68:13 79 :14
91:12 101:19103:25
111:17116:13 142:11
151:20 153 :7,24,25
164:1 ,13 165:8,8 167:23
172:22178:9 179:1
181:7 182:5,11
Jots 6:10 95:7 110:21,22
123:7,7,10
loud 80:3,5
love78:14168:18 173:17
low66:14 85:17132:13
133:2,3 136:4
low-sea 1e 31 :5
low-scaled 132:24
lower31 :22 54:5,21 55 :16
86:6 94:22 97:2,20
130:4151:8 18 1:3
lowered45:10
lowering 166:14
lowrise 85:10
lumber 4:8
lumberyard 3 1:5
Luria 69:1 94:8,13,16 98:4
98:12,15,21,24 99:2
lying 160:9 164:18
M
ma'am 171:14 176:13
MAC 2:16 5:3
magnitude 97: 14
mailing 8:14
main 24:7 142:9
maintaining 74:13 96:12
major 31:13 36:19 78:4
143:2 151:25
making 22:18,1 9 26:1 8
42:25 84:4 145:22 158 :7
168:4 173:3
manner 33:25
Manning 101 :23,23
map 51:19
March 27:19,20 40:6
142 :23
Marilyn 103:22
Marilys2:6 17 l:20 176:19
178:24 181:24
Mark68:23 77:14
Mark's 4&:8 56:8 65:22
97:4 106:10 108:10
132:11,16,16
marketed 34:19
Martino 48:22 100:23 139:18,23,24
mask 127:21 130 :3 140:4 144:7 151:23
mass 75:15 76:4 85:16,17 153:24 16 1:22,23,24
95:4,1 0 97:22,25 99:23 meets 52:15
101:7 108:9 135:6,9 member 18:20 30:23
141 :4,5,1l 142 :1 0 148:3 94:17 99:9 101 :24 102:1
masses 87:8 146:2
massing 32:23 34:9 80:14 members3:1130:22 38:24
102:11 107:1 108:13,18 69:2 134:18 145:16
109:3,9,11 ,25 t 10:1,3 158:3 162:13 177:15
111:3,10 117:17 118:9 180:6
181 :9,25 membership 107:11
massive 72:7 87:15 97:23 memo 8:5 43:6
104:1 7 119:19 137:25 memos6:1 9
142:22 151:9 mention 41:5 44:5 69:18
match 135:16,24 139:19 148:3
material164:9 mentioned 16:13,14 40:8
materials 79:12 118:17 41:17 42:8,13 43:4,8
119:11 12 1:25 46:18 48:6 49:19 51:15
matter4:19 6:21 8:4,9,11 55:11 56 :5
8:14 ,20 11:12 18:25 merits 18:11 23:1124:1
38:11 104:12 11 2:11 28 :1 1
117:20124:12 141:2 message 46:25 181: I 8
159:1 177 :23 met 33:22 38:24 40:11
matters 40:5 42:20 178:4 41 :13 49:19 50:14 100:5
178:4 150 :1 6,1 6 159:14 162:18
max36:9 184:1,1
maximize 1 t 1:15 metaphorically 27:25
MBU 107:15 Meyer38:21
McCaugbney 47 : 18 Miami 1:102:9,15,19 3:17
mean 4:9 19:12,14 22:21 5:8 18:21,22 19:1 39:1 2
26:6 44:18 45:3 84:8 44:1 64:19 74:16,19
103:9 150:10,20 151:4 75 :1 77:16 78:22 96:9
151:10 152:11,19 153:6 99:10 105:2 106:15,21
153:13,22 158:13 160:1 0 106:24 107:11 131:21
161:19 162:3 164:17 135:3 166:3 169:4 174:3
179:18 188:9
means 96:11123:20 MIAMI-DADE 189:7
124:20,23,24 125:5,15 mic 74:5
125:20 126:2 168:13 Michael 2:7 50:7 119:3
173:12 134:14,19 135 :2 0 156:1
measurable 85:25 Mickey2:4172:6177:5
measure83:2,19 86:2 microphone 68:11 74:4
measured 82:19 88:1 middle 12 :19 52:2 90:18
measurements 90:2 1 152:12
measuring 90:11 midrise 84:20 85:9 86:20
mecbanical39:24 126:19 91:9
128:8 midst 76:13
meet22:20 44:18 119:11 million 74:2 0 75 :2 167 :18
128:4,6137:17 170:21 167:20
175 :20 180:2 Minagorri 2:4 102:2 172:7
meeting 1:9 11:7 22:2,15 177:6,19
22:16,25 40:19 43:7 mind 102:9 139:20
71:24 138:10 140:1 minds 178 : 17
152:4 160:4 163:5 mini 58:10 62:2
178:17184:18 186:1,20 mini-tiered 58:14,20 62:6
meetings 17 :6 26:1 127:19 62:12
~
.... _~_.. __
KRE SS E & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
Pag e 2 00
minimiu 33:5
minimum 35 :24 153:4
minor 13:22 142:25
143:14,16,19,21 ,23,24
minute 11:9 50:17 5l:J9
73:14
minutes 40:21,22 68:12
69 :7 70 :5,17,23 77:21
88:23,25 89:3 1 12:20
113:10 114:7 124 :2
131:17
miscommunication 179:15
179:19
misinformation 145:7,10
misrepresentation 130:21
misTepresentations 145:3
missing 22: 11 79: 14,15
misstatements 146:6,9,17
146:22
misunderstand 89:18
misunderstood 89:25
mitigate 54:19
mitigation 169:17 174:16
mixed 97:1,12,18
mixed-use 3:7 72:5 165:21
mixed-used 41:18 46:6
mock-up 178:25
modell64:22 167:7,7
168:12172:3 173:11
177:2 179:1 181:25 .
modern 140:5
modest 103:7
modification 6:24 8:16
9:20,24 10:11 14:6,16
modifications7 :1 7 34:13
45 :2
modified 10:4
modify 32:20
modifying 33:3
modulate 110:11
moment 94:8 165:23 166:5
moments 168:2 173:1
money 136:25 183:16
monolith 135:11
montb 25:126:3,3 153:6
months 15:8 21:14,16
25:1 5 39:1 134:9 140:10
140:11 170:24 175:23
morals42:1 4
morning 13:1 30:1 6 94:10
94 :13
motion 4:19 17:25 23:9,14
23 :1 5 151:19 162:14
184:13 186:21 ,24
move 12:21 43:1 3 57:13
61:5 68:13 84:10,18
101:12116:3 149:19
169:9 174:8 184:15
moved 41:9 4 5:18 91:4,5
movement51:6
m oves 84:8,9,9
Myrelis 187:1
mysterious 167:12 168:2
173:1
N
name 5:1 ,2 20:15 37:23
47:16,20 68:11 ,15 70:2
71: ll 77:13 93:4,5
94:12,15 99:5,7 101 :2 1
101:23 103:19,22 106:19
106:20 10 8 :22 112:4,6
134:16
narrowing 22:24
n a ture 5:12,15 140:6
143:14
NCD 126:23
n ear 139:23
nearest 95:16,23
n ecessary37:5 ,9 39:17
136:12
need 9:10,25 10 :2 34:7
35:20 3 8:5,10 39:19
46:1177:2091:18
100:16 104:1 5 105 :7
121:22 137:7 138:4,7
14 6 : lO 152:23 153:10,17
155:22159:16 160:5
161:1 166:7 168:10
173:9 178:5 182:7
n eeded 34:3 169:8 174:7
n eeding 91 :4
Needless 75:19 7 6:8
needs 10 :10 11:16 89:11
92:1 103:7 104:18,1 9,20
106:11 108 :13 117:22
125:4 151:23 163:22
negative 67:4 15 8:11
182:12
neighbor 50:4 182:18
n eighborhood 10:25 35:9
37:3,12 40:10 41:4,10,14
4l:I5 43:2,5 4 5:1,17
46:13 51:8,9,1168:18
71:21 72:8,9 73:11,1 2,20
74:15,18 75:17 76:14
77:9,10 78:20 81:11
83:3,7 85:23 92:9 95 :1
97:22 99:3 100:20
103:12 107:8,1 8,20,23
108:9 121:18 132:25
154:19 155:19 158 :6
181:23 182:1 185:20
neighborhoods 73:I7 97:2
97:1 9 107:13 108:2 notes 188:13
130:24 notice 4:12,20 5:10,10,19
neighboring 100:4 6:3 8:13,21 10:1,3,5,8,10
neighbors 17:6 25:20,21 10 :18 11 :13,16 12:5
25:23 26:11 32:2 33:23 13:16 14:19 15:15,15,16
35:1 6 37:7 46:2 49 :22 16 :18,21,24 18:24 19:1,3
50:1 53:6,7 64:25 65:12 28:4 29:7 69:13
68:25 88:14 93 :10 146:7 noticed 7:5,9 8:3,12 10:14
146 :8 165:12178:9 10 :15 153 :1 4
181:13 185 :11 noticing 153:12
neither20:23 notion 64:1 6
Nepomechle2:6 165:1 n otwithstanding 11 : 14
172 :19 184 :1 4,18 17 :1 0 182:15
Nepomichie 125:1 number 3 :3 34:18 36:20
never 101:51 06:15113:1 40:13 43:19 52:18 53:15
149:23 159 :4 170:21 77:16 95 :1 0,22 96:21
175:20 112:9 116:14,23 119:23
new 3:7 24:9 28:25 29:2 120:1 8 129:14 132:11
34:9,22 35:4 41:16 4 8:1 133:4,14 143:22 147:18
66:15 75:6,7 96:15 154:17 163:3 167 :24
107:4 115:25 118:23 172:15,16,2 3 178:18
119:1,7,24 120:9 123:22 numbered 132:3 I 88:11
123 :25 135 :18 155 :7 numbers 166:9,14
157:20 169:2 172:8,11 numeroas 33:24 40 :1 2
174:1177:7,10
NGVD66:19 86:12 0
nice 28:7 48:20 49:17 51:5 0185:16
51:1 0 55:4 58:18 62:10 o'clock 172 :11177:10
67:16 104:10 163 :17 185:23
nicely-d esigned 108:12 OATH 189:3
night 71:24 143:3 object 89:9 145:11 ,13
nine 4 5:14 79:8 109:6 148:21
115 :7,1 4 122:1 9 186:14 objected 149:8
noisy 136:22 objection 11 2:17
noon 184:24 objections 6:13,15 93:10
normal13:25 2 3: l3 94:3 113:6
north 31:8 34:12 4 5:10 objectives I l1:15
49:1 8 52:23 64:20 78:25 obligated 8:4
80:1 5 91:14 93:6 94:23 obligation 103:13
97:3 ,20 108:7 110:1 obligations 113:4
111 :6 121:5126:10 obstruct 83 :15
129:7 132:10 136:2,4,15 obviou sly 26:25 27:3 40: 1
182 :3 48 :11 49 :2 1 66:14 69:3
north/south 91:13 123:4 100:1 6107:24 114:19
northeas t33:13 5 :23 92:9 occasions 33:24
95:1 5,15,23 168:9 173:8 occlude 93: 16
181:5 occur 14:18 31:24
northward 1 11:21 occurs 87 :18
Notary 188:1,22 189:3,9 Ocean 101:24 108:25
189:23 October 3:13 10:21,22
notch 96:21 11 :719:2520:7 2 1:14
notched II 0:25 22:16 23:1 ,6 24:13 25:8
Notching 97:9 25 :10,12 26:5 114:1
note 52:8 66:6 182:10 152:4 180:3 184 :17,18
184:22 odd 72:I1,12
noted 15 6:12 159:23,25 offense 177:2 1
171:11 176:10 offer 16:9137:13,16,20
.
KR ES SE & AS SO CI AT ES, LLC
(305) 37 1-7692
Page 2 01
offered 11 5:13
office 11 : I 0 50:7 137:3
offices 37:25 49:3 134:19
170:18 175:17
officiall88:18 189:17
oh 50:24 160:23
okay 13:8 15:23 21:3,15
25:24 28:14 29:10,11
30:10 37:2 2 38:10,15
50:19 68:5,7 69:24 71:7
77:21,24 89:4 92:21
94:5,7 98:15 106:3
112:3 131:15 134:5
138:3,5,14 159:23
171:24 176:23 182:14,14
184:12 185 :13 186:20
old 5:5,6 48:15,16,21 49:2
50:9
Olga 68:25 93:5
once 79: 17 120:11 132:24
169:2 174:1
one-story 96:7 109:17
ones 86:6 119:9
open 33:6 36:5 58 :11
59:11 60:6 62:3 63:3,23
67 :4
opens 60:5 63:22 64:1 8
opined 6:12,18 10:9
opinion 9:2,15,18 ,1 912:9
18:1 92:13 93:9 102:7
143:7,7 148:24,25
Oppenheim 182:23
Oppenheims 183:14
opportunity 16:6,18 24:8
27:4 56:4 58:13 62:5
67:3 92:23 110:11
118:25 119:18 163:14
opposed 72:2 186:7
opposes ll3:16
opposing 179: I 0
opposition 47:9,10
order 39:4,6 42 :9 47:8
104:15 129:15 138:22
orders7:15
ordinance 5:21 I 08: I, 1
110:19
ordinances 16:17
original65 :7 73:21 109:16
127:15
originally 4:7 31:5 115 : l3
ougbt22:14
out-of-s ule 108:3
outdoor 97: I 0
outlloe4:3
outreach 40:10 41:4,10
43:5 46:1 3 71:2 1,23
outside 65:25 81:10 106:2
125:4 183:6
o utstanding 161 :8
outsy 56:7,13
overhang 97:4 136:14
overwhelm 34:11 36:10
96:5
overwbelming73:11 95:5
109:2,8
overwbeJms 102:8
owner 5:4
owner's 20:18
owners 12:11 17:4 37:15
37:15 38:21 74:10
p
package 9 :7,17,1 9 41:7
43:5 54:2 156:8 1'63:11
170:21175:20
packages 150:15
page 32:1 3 9 6:10 109:6
171:2176:1
pages 60:22,22 172:17
188:11
paid 84:24
Palau2:11 3:411 :1138:1
38:18 75:5 134:25 155:4
Palm 106:23 108:7
paper 71:25 160:16
parce 172:10,18
parcels 72:10,15 73:3
Pardon 69 :9
park49:12,14,14 52:19,20
52 :21,23,24 53 :14,16,17
55:1 66:11 ,17 67:10
91:15,16 95:18,18 170:4
175:3
parked 136:15
parldng33:13 34:2 139:24
4 3:16,17 53:2,5 56 :6
65 :20 ,20 ,22 ,24 66:2,4
67:2 0 82 :14 102:20
11 5:2 ,9,12,18 122:22,25
126:19127:10,21128:8
129:13,14,18,19,21
130:11,1 2 180:18
parks49:15 56:291:24
part 6:8,23 9:6,21 10:3 ,11
14:19,23 15:22 16:14
30 :9 32 :16 47 :5 52:3
87:7 92:91 13 :14 121 :3
136:2\ 139:20 143:8
152:20156:8,22 161 :25
166:2 168:21 169:1,3,20
171:16 173 :20,25 174:2
174:19176:15
participants 165 :6
parttcuJar 122:17
particularly 31:14 33:10 photographs 13 1:12,1 6,19
parties 16:3 188:1 5,16 13 2 :2
189:1 1 physica1167:7 168:11
parts 82:7 87:19 90 :24 173:10
165 :24 . physically36:1 0 167 :14
party 23 :17 picked 102:12,22
pass 6:4 60:1 5 64:7 133:22 picture 54:3 8 5:8 127:17
passed 98:9 178:19
passion 172 :10 177:9 piece71 :25 167:9
path 50:22 51:13,14 place 3:8 5:12 11:24 46:6
Pathmao 2 :13 11: I 0 72:6 83:6 87:18 96:13
pathway 125:15 100:18 126:7 170:5
pay 178:8,11 175:4 188:10
peak84:14 placed 136:24
pedestrian 51:5,6 57:2,22 places 90:15
61:14 97:10 162 :25 placing 8:25
peg 161:15 Plaintiffs 16:14
Pell188:4,22 189:9,22 plan 6:8 ,25 7:13,15,16,18
penthouse 104:8 7:22 ,23 8:18 9:20,25
people 11:20 13:2 15:13 14:7,16,23 15:129:24
15:1 7,19,2020 :2 2 1:3 33 :9 36:25 39:11,12
22:7 23:4 26:8 40:23 42: 11 43:22 46:8 60: 14
43:11 56:1 6 65:14,15 64:6 65:3,7,9 71:25
67:5,15,18 68:2 1 100:6,9 114:23 115:25 120 :4
101 :1 9 102:22 103:14 125:1 7,18 135:16 136:6
104:1,13 105:1,1 2 ,13 136:8 150:3 169:18
106:5 122:6 138 :2 1 174:17
144:7 152:14,14 154 :2 pla ne 111:8,8
164 :4 165 :8,1 0 166:19 planes 111:7
177:14 179:9182:20 planned 142:16
183; 1 186:6 planner 69:22 77:15 118:1
per-apartment~unit planning3:18,22 10:12
I 16:16 13:1 1 17:5 18:2 19:2
percent 54:22 107:2 1 2 8:20,2 132:7,16,17 36:5
179:3 183:4 39:2,4 ,16,17,19,25 40:3
Pedect80:4 4 2:8,1 8,21 43:7 46:9,21
perfectly 76:12 78:9 54:15 65:1,5 ,8 69:19
perimeter 125: 12 78:8 80:10,1181:7 84:1
periodically 144:1 6 84:15 90:23 99:25 117:8
permissible 92:25 119:4,17 124:8 133:17
permit 31 :23 139:24 141:8,19,23
permitted 107:21 125:23 142:8 143:8 144:19,22
149:12,16 154:23 ,25 15 5:11 180:1 t
perpetuity 10 \:14 plans 8:9 22:4,9,10,18,19
person 69:8 86:9 100:5 2 4:10 ,11 25:10 82 :20
125:21 162:5 92:3 114:18,25,25
person's 86 :13 116:22,23 118:15,22,24
persona lly 100:2 1 0 I: 11 119:1,5,8,8,24 120:6,9
104:3 169:21 174:20 121:2,3 123:22,25
189:14 124:16,22 125:1 I 135:16
person s 5: 10 135:24,24 143 :9 145:19
perspective 164:20,22 156:10184:24
Peter 69:1 94:1.5 108:16 plant 164:9
182:25 play 179 :16
petition 94:19 plaza 56:4
phone 161:22 please 9:14 11:9 27:9
photo .53:21 ,22 120:19 37:22 68:10 7 1:2 88:9
-
KRESSE & ASSOC I ATES, LLC
(30 5) 37 1 -7692
Page 202
88 :12 89:24 90 :3 93:3
94:1199:5101:12,21 ,22
103:19,20106:19108:22
112:4,5 134:15,16
138:21,23 142 :4 186 :2 1
plenty 21 :23
plug 77:17
plus 54:18 89:21
podium 74:3
poig nant 152:12
point 11:15,19 12:7,17
13:23 15:16 18 :10,20
25:25 26:7,20 29:21
43:20 45:3 ,25 46:14,15
51:16 70:20 84 :12,12,13
84 :16,17 85:14 88:3
107:25 113:21 137:19
146:22 151:5,1 6 155:3,5
162:2 165:2 168:4
172:13 173:3 177:12
pointful40:24
pointing 9:13
points51:15 79:11151 :25
pokes87:3
pool43:15 58:10 ,1962:2
62:11 64:15
portion 32: l 36:14 41:20
position 20:25 2 1:1 9 27:2
78 :24 128:18
positive 182:10 184:8
possible 36:3 106 :8
possibly 10:14
postcards 73:22
posting 8:13
power 105:14
practically 93 :22
pre-dating 75:5
preacb 99: 16
precedent 95: 19 97:8
precise 60:14 64 :6
precision 166:12
precluded 124:6
prefer 86:16
prejudiced 28:6
prerogative 27:1 89:5
present 7 :12 18:17 24:8
147:15 177:22
presentation 3:1117:16
18:18 20:9 2 1:9,10,12
23 :5,24 24:5 25 :8,12,15
29:15 30:9,]0 40:20
47 :5 68:20 69:1 70:1,5,7
81 :6 112 :18,22 138:10
157:9 179:24
presentations 2 6:18 68:22
presented 15:10 24:9 78:7
116:22,24 118 :20 138 :11
presenting 25: 19
Preservation 75:9 10 1:25
preserved 133:24
preserving 107:12
president 71:13 I 03:22
139:1,12 143 :12 146:12
146:13
presume 25:22 102:2
pretty 57:25 59:9 61:17
63:1 90:19 118:24
125:13 160:2,4
prevented 124 :10
preventing 128:8
prev ious 13:13 14:9
previously 14:9 31:24
48:1150:7 70:9
previously-approved 7:18
15 5:8
primary 131 :21,24
principal 51:16
prior7:13,14,15 16:16
43:6 70:12 178:6
private 57:7 58:21 ,22,23
62:13,14,1 5 102:4
164 :13
pro 152:22
probably 3:15,17 6:7 8:10
10:19,20 14:11 18:7
45:24 66:1 8 77:20
114:20 12 8:1 141:21
problem 21:21 22:5,13
103:2 106:13 109:2,8
111:3122:9,17123:20
127:13 128:16 130:4,19
13 8:1 3 159:21 183:12 ,1 9
183:22
pro blems 21:23,25 22:1,9
70:10103:3 117:8
153:13
procedurall1 2: 17
procedure 113:1
procedures 10:5
proceed 26:22,23 29:1 3
proceeding 18:3,10 38:8,9
69:11,14 88:1 5 145:13
proceedings 3:1 188:8
189:13,14
process 8 :6 12:5 19:17
21:19 25:2,4 28:7 37:18
40:2,9 74:22 84:10
112:25 113:13 136:22
I 56:25 162:7 165:6,11
167:17 178:8 180:8
181:15
produce 85:19 88:17
professional77: 15
Professor 13 7: 14,20
progress 158:8 94:25 113 :15 116 :6,7
prohibited 117:12 127:11 122:7 123:7 125:9,12
130:1 7 126 :1,3 135:10 136:3,5
project3:15,17,25 6 :7 136:16 137:8,8,11 145:4
7:14,19 14:2 15:9,19,25 148:4,7,13 150:1 162:22
19:9 20:12,13 24:22,25 166:2 3 167 :12 168:10
28:12 30:25 32:3,6,12,14 173 :9 182:24
34:2,5,6,9,16,17 3 5:4,6,6 propos al32:2l 70:8 103:8
35:7,9,13,18 36:8,9,14 propose 51:1 3
37:2,8,11 38:25 39:10,18 propos ed 7:16 14:7 72:3
39:22 41:17,1 8,20 44:2,8 76:9 84:7 96:17100:12
44:9 45:1 46:6 47:8,11 101:2107:1 ,17113:5,8
47:23,25 48:10,15 49:22 118 :1 6 119:25 120:21
50:9,18,21 59:20 63:12 12 1:21 133:25 157:20
66:6 71:2 73:7 76:9,9 171:10 176:9
77:1 ,6 93:7 97 :13 100:1 proposes 66:2
100:9, II, 17 101:12 proposing 48:9 52:14
102:7 103:24104:2,11 56 :12 ,22 57:2 72:16
104:17 105:2 106:8 PROSPECfiVE 71:6
107:2 108:19113:16,17 prosper 104:16
115:25 116:12117:1 7 protect 108:2
120:16,20,21 122:4,1 6 protest 31 : 13
122:18,18,1 9 126:20,22 proud 73:25 74:6
134:25 137:23 ,25 139:13 provide4:20 36:16,18
139:14 140:8,2 5 141:3 117:9 122:20,21 129:16
142:9150:17 151:3 ,12 129:18 135:19 137:11
15 1:18 152:5 ,9,11 153:7 155:17 168:12171:3
153:14,16 155:4,5,7,8,23 173 :11 176 :2
159:6 162 :9 165:7,20 provided36:21 121 :25
167:& 168:15,24 169:20 122:5 l23:2,4,23 124:22
170:22 173 :14,23 174:19 126:6 132:5 134:22,23
175:2 1 178:25 180:10 13 5:17,25 137 :10,24
181:10 182 :4,5,6,13 145 :6 163 :24
183:7,1 7 184:3,5,15 provis ion 13:16
185:4,11 provisions 5:23
projecting 36 :4 public 3:11,16,23 4 :2 0
projects 35:12 67:2,5 11:1816:1517:1 720:10
120:17 135 :5 152:20,23 21:21 30:23 31:2 33:19
152:25 153 :2,6 162:4 42:14 49:12 52:20 54:11
promenade 54 :10 57:4 57 :3 58:22 59:4 62:14
59:4 62:21 62 :21 67:19 69:3 ,5
promiae ot 182:24 183:1 89:19 90:5 95:17,18
promise 131:16 138 :5 154:15157:16
promote 51:12 163:15 164: I ,2 ,12,13
proper4:20 15:14 16 :2 5 180 :6,7 ,11 181:11,14
94:3 13 7:24 184:23 188 :22 189:9
properly 5:19 8:12 9:21 Publix 31:21 53:2
10:16 16:9 37:20 81 :22 pul164:1 3
122:4 pulled 36 :3 58:7 60:1 8
properties 33:18 34:12 61:24 64:10 148:22
97:15 111:11 135:2 181 :6
13 6 :19 137:18 155:1 pulling 32:23 80:14
property 5:5 20:18 33:17 pure42:1145:10
35:3 37:14,15 38:21 purpose 156:17
41:25 42:2 46:5 53:12 pursuant 5:13,16
53:13,13 54 :23 57 :1 0 pursue 44:1 3
61:2 67:ll 71:14 93:14 purview47:3 141:8
KRE SSE & AS SOCIATE S, LLC
(305) 371 -7 692
Page 20 3
150:24 153:15
push 110: 11 126:8,9
put 3l:17 35:7 41:12
66:1 5 80:12 82 :22 85:16
94:9100:18 108:25
109:16114:20124:8
126:7 127:2,3,25 128:3
128:17,25 129:6,21,23
130:13,14 157:9182:19
182:22 183:23 185:4,14
186:5
putting 46:6 127:22
128:1 4 130:10,10149:16
0
qualified 158:23
quality 137:1 180:9
quandary 23 :3
quasi69:11
quasi-j udicia l42:19 69:14
88 :1 5 145 :12
quest ion 9:22 102:9
145:24
questions 145:17,25
167:18 169:16,21174:15
174:20 179 :4 182:6
quick28:16,18 40:16
92 :22 162:1 6
quickly 80 :9
quite 58:15 62:7 80:8,18
81 :19 91 :1 137:4
quote 96:18
R
racks 44:21
raise4:15 8:6 29:22 30:1
66:16 71:3 112:9114:6
raised 6:15 18:19 117:24
127:22 141:4,7 142:2,22
142:23 158:6
raises 9:16
range 82:20
re-advertise 14:22
re-configured 31 :22
re-n ot ice 16:8 184:23
read 16:11 28:3 29 :5
46 :22 98:7 150:14
read ing 15 7:3 170 :23
175:22
reads 96:10
ready 23:20 26:17 30:6
real 22:5 92:22 107:5
117:1 8 153:18 178:19,25
realistic 125: 17
reality 49:5 164:9
really 17:13 36:8,9 40:16
78:16 79:13 82:25 92:2
101:10 102:10 108:9,1 2 83:1 6 84:11,12,13,16,17
117:20 118:25 120:15 85:6
122:11123:16125:4,17 referring84:16 99:1
129:9 130:9,19,23 134:7 refinement 35:20
142:16 149:9150:9 • r efrigerators 169:25
153:15 159:20 163:15,17 174:24
163:25 164:1,1 7 167:10 rega rd 32:12
167:21 ,21,23 168 :2 5 regarding 1:13 29:7 38:25
169:6,8 170:1 171:25 regular 144:13,14,15
172:19,22173:24 174:5 regulatioos39:13 42:13
174:7,25 176:24 177:24 114:24 126:17
178:7,8 179:19181:20 relate79:2l 121:19 123:12
182:5,7,12,16 123:14
r ealm 56:2 r elated 8:18 32:18 47:2
r eason 3:25 20:3 30:24 188: 16
75:4 128:6129:2 130:7 relates 69:15,17 121 :8,9
reasonable 88:22 r eJating 22:8 147:6
reasons 8:2 1 21 :24 34:4 relationship 83:3,12,19
115:6 123:19 115:11,17120:16 121:7
rebuttal l7:17 40:22 121:10,13 122:15,23,25
received 23:19 32:15 46: l relationships 35:11 166:25
55:11118:23 l35:21 182:2
receiving 6:19
recessed 81: 18
recommend 14 :21 15:7
19:25 159:14 162:23
recommendation 19:20,24
20:5,9,12 95 :9 159:13
r ecommendations 19:11
19:13 42:21,23,24 95:3
106:7117:16 152:1
154:17 157:23 169:17
174:16
recommended 8:8 12:20
35:22,25 55:22 96:3
109:5 159:10
recommending 3: l 0 36: 12
recommends 95:25 109:13
reconstruct 70: 14
reco rd 8:24,25 16:11
20:19 27:7,1 6 29:6 45:4
45:8 46:22 47:17 49:23
71:15 89:17138:15
144:11172:11177:10
188:12
records 90:5
rectified 22: 1
red 60:12,17 64:4,9 65 :7
81:18,19
reduce 95:1 0 97:22,2 5
128:23 !29:14 161:12
reduced 41:12 43:18
128:24 129:11 130:3 ,4
149:23
r educing 33 :1 5 12 8:21
reduction 143:19
reference 10:5 71:19
relative 182:6
relatively 79:3
relied 145:8
relocate 57:19 61:11
relocated 43:15 180:13
ReJocatiog 4 5:23
remain 132:15
remaining 73: 16
remass 183:15
rememberl 13:11141:14
185 :25
remind 12:2 39:15 126:16
remiss 159:1,17
removed 43:14
removing 33 : 13
rendering 59:15 63 :7
134:22 135:14,15
renderings 126:6 135:22
135 :23 136:3 164:15
renoticed 11:4,7
repeat 94:1 117:25
r e peated 121:1
Replacing 96 :7
report 18:19 19:24 20:6
2 1:2 2 30:19 32:13 52:7
68:1 69:16 79:5 95 :2,24
96:3,10 109:6,13 144:17
149 :22 152:2 154:16
155:21 156:3,13 188:7
r eporter 188:5,22 189:3
189 :12
reports 159:10
represent 5:3 20:16 25:20
25:22 68:16 112:8
representation 129:10
representing 11: 11 38:18
107:9
request4:119:20 10:15
45:17 137 :23 143:11
requested 32:9 34:4 36:6
185:7 189 :11
requesting 3:5
requests4l:l6143:6,9
requil"e 114:25 136:22
requ ired 6:1 42:18 52:16
54:21 96:19 127:7
128:15 129:13,18,19
180:19
requirement 10:18 44:16
128:7
requir ements 16:22 18:24
29:25 66:4 116:18,19
l17:4 118 :14 119 :11
requires 97 :15
reserve 114:2
residences 34:25 58:2,4,6
58:8 60:2 61:19,21,23,25
63 :19 18 0:24 18 5:8
resident 7 1:12 99:2,8
106:23
reside ntial 31:14 33 :17,18
34:12,18 35:8 37:12
41 :19,2042:143:19
45:11 49:18 52:17 53:9
54:13,14 59:5,19,20,24
59:24 62:22 63:11 ,12,16
63:16 65:19 66:5 76:5
76:13 78:20 97:1,12,19
102:21107:8,13 111:19
111:20 126:25 127:3,6,9
127:25 129:6 130:18
131:23 15 5:1 165:22
171:4 176 :3
residents 34 :24 40: I 78:1
94:20 106:25 141:24,25
142: I 151 : I 152:22
161:20 180:15183:4
resolved 37: 19 82 :18
178:5,5
respect II: 13 18:25 3 8:7
41 :9 44:1 7 57:10 6 1:2
70:9 103:5 106:4 115:21
141 :4
respected 134:2,13
respectful 137:8
respectfully 13 7:22 184:9
respecting 166:22
respond 8:23
response28:17,18 64:24
153:19
responses 40:22
r esp on sive 22:19 35:16
KRESSE & AS SO CIATES, LLC
(305) 37 1-7692
Page 20 4
rest 77:5 99:18 131:11
158:16
restaurant 48: 18
restaurants 5 I:IO 102:24
102:25 169:25 174:24
restrict 106:25
restriction 52: l 54:8
resubmit 171:16 176:15
result31:12146:21165:14
180:11
retall36:1 5 5 1:18
ret hought 108: 14
revealed 27:24
review 1:9 2:3 3 :6 5:22
8:15 10:12 14:6,15 16:6
18:6 28:21,23 29:2
32:10,18,20,22,22 36:6
39:20 46 :25 70 :11 79:2
100:15 108:17 109:2
117:5119:16120:11
124:3,4 145:16151:1
152:19,20 155:11157:16
157:19,20 180:8 181:15
188:9
reviewed 3:15 30:5 65:4
reviewing 14:2 81 :12
100 :14
revised 24:11 65:3,9 120:8
revision 14:22
rework 163 :6
reworked 163: 13
Richard 13:10 17:1
Richard's 17:19
rid 67:20
ridi culou s 14 7:12,17,17
right 5:9 7:10 10:24 13:14
20:8 23:2 24:3,5 25:11
26:9 31:20 35:19 40 :1 4
45 :25 47:5,25 48 :3,25
49:14,18,23,25 50:6,8
51 :18,22 52:2 53 :3 ,10,19
54:24 55:3,7,18 56:6
57 :11,21 58:5,21 59:2,10
61:3,13,22 62:13,19 63 :2
64:14 66:9,13 68:4
70 :2 2 71 :3 83:22 91:23
95:18 100:20 101:3
102:19 103:25 116:1 ,5
117:20 132:12 138:6
150:8 158:18 160:17
162:11 171:5,8,9,1 2
176:4, 7,8, 11
rights 4:13 5:9 18:5,23
19:8 81 :9113:14114 :3
rise 54:5 86:16,21
risk 18:4 23:17
RM-2127:8
road49:l3,18 52:23 64:20
73:23 83:10 93:6 94:23
97:3,20 105:1 9 108 :7
161:19164:24
Robbin s 2:17 4:9,18,24
5:2,3 8:24 9:16 10:21 ,23
1 1:5 18:5,15 27:10,12
29:16,20 30 :11,14 4 8:2
49:2 50:3 53 :5 70:2,3,14
70:2 1 104:4112:6,7,15
112:21 114:2,5,8,1 0,12
131:15134:6 182:23
183:13
Robert 97:6
r oo f 7 9 : 16 88 :6 149:6,8
r oof-topped 55 :5
rooftop 43:15 58:23 62:1 5
80:21
r oom 15:13,l720:243:ll
50:1 136:1 6 152:10
171:7 176:6
R osinella48:16 53:1
row27:14
RPR 188:22 189:22
rub24:l5
run 86:16,21 124:25
s
Saba 2 :5 162 : 15
Sacks 2:12 9:6,11,12 11:8
11:10 13:3,7 15 :9 16:10
18:13 27:8,11,13 28:15
29:5,11 30:1 6 37:24,25
38:9 ,16 40:17 41:1
92:22 93:2 138:19 139:3
139:5,8,1l,I7 140:3,13
140:15,22 141:1,14,16
141:18 142:4143:5,16
143:1 9 144:I,4,10,I8,24
145:21 146:4,13,16,19
147:3,19 148:1,7,12,16
148:17,22 149:1,4 ,12,19
150:6156:14158:18,2 5
159:24160:17 170:19
175:18 184:7
safety 42:14 125:15
sake9:13
sample 178:21
sanitary 115:3
sat 144 :7 183:12
satisfactory 28:4 33:25
satisfied 79:5,6,9
save79:1
Savings 32:24
saw90:16163:9
saying 12:19 27:23 28:1
39:5 72:1 124:18 128:2
145:9 147:20 151:6,7 seek45:7 154 :6
178:16179:6 seeking 50:13
says5:2111:1615:216:14 seen 78:23 87:6 100:19
21:22 55:3 100:8 120:18 102:5 103 :3,25
171:20 176:19178:13 semi-indostrial 169:3
scale 31:23 72:7 73:8 174:2
75:16 76:4 79:24 95:4 semi-warehouse 169:3
95:1 0 97:23 99:23 101:8 174:2
107:1108:13 109:25 send 15:23 101:2 144:12
133 :3,3 135:6 141:5,6,I 1 sense 12:I5102:15 113 :20
142:10 148 :3 167:14 133:8 166 :17,21 167:1
181:9 I 80:1
scaled 76:6 77:6 sensible 184 :5
scape 33:5 sensitive75:15 95:1 97:16
scare 105:16 sensitivity 135:6 16 1:10
scared 105:13 sent 98:7 146:2,14
scheduled 40:7 separate 10:9 51:14 67:17
schematic 120 :2 2 85 :15,20 95:6,7 116:25
Scott 48:2 53:4 104:4 separated 136:19
182:22 183:13 separately 10:1,14,15
Scott's 104:9 17 1:4 176:3
screen 81:19 87:1 91:12 separating 3 I : 1 0
screens 168:18 173 :17 separation 49:17 67: I, 1
scrutinized 31 :1 September 177:18
s ea 93:17 Seraj 2:5
seal188:18 189:17 series 72: I 0
searching 32:8 serious 43 :24 99:I 5 152:7
seawa1166:1 2,12 ,13 ,14,15 seriously 35: 11 50 :5 15 3 : 1
66:16 127:18,19 serve 108:2 124:12
second 49:3 77:17 \84:17 service 119:11
184:19 186:25 services 180 :18,22
secondary 125:5 serving 100:6
seconded 186 :2 1,23 187:2 set22:3 24:10,11 35:2 5
section 10:2,6 52:3 53:24 36:15 45:1 2 52:12 54:15
53:25 5 8 :24,25 62:\6,17 54:16 55 :22 56:3 60:2
87:5,9 114:23 136:12 63 :1 9 88:22 118:2 1,23
164:617I:6176:5 119:1,7 120:6,9,9 123 :22
sectional123:5,11 126:12 123:2 5 124:22 125:11
129:4 145:1 9 I 80:25 188:10
sectionals 122 :12,1 3 123:1 set-back 35:21
123 :2,3 ,18 setback 35:23 45:13 55:23
sectjo ns 111:6163:24 57:6,14 59:4 61:6 62:21
see 14:1 8 37:18 53:20 59:6 64 :12,13 65:18 86:1 0
60: I ,8 62:23 63: 18,25 95:22,25 96:2,19 109:10
64 :11 67:6 86:25 87:1 109:12,14 ,20,21,22
90:1 3 91:5 94:24 104:8 111 :9 127 :8 130:1 6
104:9 108:9 122:23 162:22
123 :8 124:20 133:5,1 0 setbacks 32:25 44: 18
133:13 \35:8 151:18 52:16 54:19 59:18,19,24
152:18 157:3,24 159:13 59:25 63:10,11,16,17
161 :4 163:1 ,11,12,1 2,23 166:18
164:2,9,11,21168:20 setting 55:19
170:5,6,12,15,15 171:3,9 seven 27:20 40:7 66:19
173:19 175:4,5,11 ,14,14 120:18 133:14 162:4
176:2,8 177:20 177:17
seeing 47 :161 34:8 156:6,7 sewer 115:21 ,22
172:1 176:25 SH 2:16
KRE SSE & AS SO CI AT ES, LLC
(305) 37 1-7 6 92
Page 20 5
shade 33:9 36:19
shaded 87:7
shape 59 :9 63:1 72:11 ,1 2
Sharon 188:4,22 189:9,22
shell48:10
shocked 76:8
sboes 109:1
shop 108:8
shoreline 57 :4
sbort98:8113:I0,1 2
shot 132:1 9 164:17
shots 164:22
show 7:21 60:12,16 64:4,8
65:11 7l:l8 74:25 82:11
83:17,19 87:25 114:25
115:1 121:6,8 122 :9
123:11 125:8,13 126:4
135:22 136:3
showed 17:4 81:18125:11
showing 83 :25 85:9
120:20 12 5:19 132 :21
shown 50:8 71:24 73:21
86:24 119:15
shows 79:4 83:10 85:13
121:5 123 :11134:23
shut 184:6
side 31:8,9 35:22 36:20
40:15 53 :6,7 54 :22
57:15,23 6 1:7,15 66:17
72:13 73 :2 76 :16,20
80:15,15 9 3:16,22 106 :1
120:23 I2 1 :11,11 127 :4
129:7 133:1 136:16
151:7163:21,21 164:4
171:5,7 176:4,6 179:6,6
179:20 182 :3
sides 41:25 52: l 0 72:14,24
73:1 120 :25 121:18
sidewalk 36:18
sideways 84:10
sight 33:16 80:17,17,20,24
80:25 83:11,11 84:2,3,5
84:6 85 :20 90:1191:2
91 :1 9 154:22 160:19,2 1
181:3
signatory6:14
signat ure 161:24
signed 94: 19
significance 74:1 2 96:7
significant 16:23 45:20,21
73:20
significantly 102:8
signifies 55: 19
signs 118 :19
similar 55:4 66:16
simple 54:3 100:25 138:22
simply 9:I2 72:I 101:1
single 26:11 49:17 72:20
77:9 100 :5 126:21
149:22151:12
single-family 33:17 35:8
37:12,14 53:9 72:14
76:6 78 :1 9 107:7,18
155:1 182:3 185 :8,17
186:18
sir 68:2 77: 12
sit 15:21 68:4 134:10
147:7 184 :6
sit-down 152:7
site 3:9 4:5,7 6:8,8,24 7: 13
7:16,18,22,23 8:18 9 :20
9:25 14:7,16,23 15:1
29:24 31 :9 32:1 50:6
51:22 55:7 57:18 61:10
97 :1 7 11 3:1 4114:23,25
114:25115:8117:15,21
135:16,24 136:8
siting 37:11
sits 50:21 54:23 55:6 58 :2 0
62:12
sitting 17:7 67:22
situation 128:13
six 17:5 66:18,23,24 80:12
80 :13 11 9:24 127:23,23
177:15184:25
six-story 149:11
sixth 149:9
size 142:10
sketch 120:19
sketches 120:14
sky 155:3 181:4
sleeves 142:19
slips 45:15
srnall142:11
sneak 117:1 1
soften 97:11
solutions 183:12
solved 76:3,4
somebody 160:8 169:23
174 :22
somewbat 81:17
sorry 20:20 41:21 ,23
74:24 79:8 80:2,4 88:4
89 :22,25 90:2,4 91:6,11
98:21123:9 135:22
148 :1 8
sort87:8,16168:1 169:2
172:25 174:1
sorts 46:20
sought 80:11
soul32:8
sound27:24
south 2:14 37:25 76:10
78:25110:19111:5
121:11132:10 133:1 staff3:9 8:8 9:718;1919:2
136:3 19:21,23,24 20:5,6,8,14
southeast 96:22 168:9 21:22,24 22 :17 24:25
173:8 30:5,18 32:13,20 33:22
space 33:2 34:19 36:15 43:3 50:14,14 52:7
42:6 49:15 53:18 54:9 55:21 56:5 57:13 61:5
58:11,12,18 62:3,4,10 68:1 69:16 79:5 81 :15
64:14 67 :4,4 85:9 81:16,21 92:7,12 95:2,24
115:16 ,18 128:3,7 96:3 98:9 109:6,13
129:21,22 132:12 163:15 113:2 119:4 134:18
164:2,3,12,13,14 170:11 143:1 149:14,22 152:1
171:20,22 175:10 176:19 152:25 154:16,17155:20
176:21 155:21 156:2,12,13
spaces 33:13 56:7 67:20 158:6159:10,12 162:21
81:25 82:1 ,12,22115:2,7 166:18 169:16 174:15
115:12,14 129:15 168:3 181:20184:2185:12
168:6 173:2,5 staffs 161 :6
spans 135:11 stairs 36:1
sparse 92:17 stairway 124:21 125:2,3,3
spatial182:2 125:7
speak3:1221:3,13 22:7 stairwell88:4 136:11
44:23 71:2 76:15 80:2,6 stairwells 79:15,17,18
80:18 102:2 137:15 stale24:20
138:4,9 150:20 159:5 staJI130:13
160:14166:11,19 stand 17 :23 27:3 71:3
SPEAKER 184:17,19 100:21 138:23,23 156:3
SPEAKERS 2:1 sta ndard 155:10 157:22
speaking 68:2 1 69:3 102:3 standards 28:24 69:17
102:5 145:15,19 14 7:7 ,13,14
speaks 100:16 standing 54:17 86:9
special96:12 97:15 standpoint 121:20
specialist 33 :12 start71 :15 72:l,l6133:5
specific 9:23 10:2,7 22:8,8 179:23
22:10 147:1 ,5 started 71:9 74:8 104:23
specificaJiy 7:1 18 :23 starting 177: 17
32:11 52:8 55:6 148:2 starts29:1 48:19
158:20 state 4:22 16:22 27:15
specificity 4:23 35:5 37:22 39:3 41 :7
s pecifying 8:14 68:11 77:13 93:3 94: II
speech 145:23 99:5 101:21 103:19
speed47:22 106:19 108:22 112:4
spend 37:5 85:7 137:1 134:15 144:10145:2
spending 75:2 159:18 188:2,5 189:6,10
spent 91:12 189:23
spoke 135:20 138:4 168:3 stated 10:10,16 46:9
173:2 106:25 118:4
spoken 22:3 states 9:19
spots 122:22 status 36:24
square 39:19 42:7 44:14 stenographic 188:12
82:21115:15,16 116:13 stenographically I 88:7
119:20 124 :1 5 129:20 step 22:14 29:14 39:1 7
183 :21 47:10 59:6 62:23 68 :10
squares 170:15 175 :14 76:7 103 :10 169:5 174:4
Srebnik 3 8:22 stepback 110:7 111: 19,21
ss 188:2 stepping 110:3
stab 109:4 stewards 74:11
stacking43:16 stewardsbip 78:15,18
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(30 5) 371-7692
Page 206
stick 90:25 152:16
sticking 151:25
stonewalled 130:23,24
159:7,22
stood 101:19 104:11 162:5
stop45:25 131:17 157:2
storefronts 13 3 : I
stores 102:2 1,23 105:6,7
stories 54:13 ,14 66:23,24
67:13 73:1,4,6 132:14,15
149:6
storm 115:3,22
storms 115:21
story75:1 149:10
straight 50:2 3 92:14
straightforward 57:25
61:17
street 1:13 3:4 5:4 31:21
36:13 41:21,22 43:14
45 :23 48:14 49:1,6
50 :10,11 5 1:17 54:7
59:2,8,17 60:1 62:19,25
63 :9,18 91:23 94:17
96:23 100:20 108:10
109:14 120:20 131:24
132:24 133:8 134:20,21
162:25 164:24 170:6
175:5 180:13,22,23
stretching 97:14
strike 1 09:20
strongly 27:2
structure45:ll 53:5 95:11
96:11 149:17
Structure's 96:9
structures 3:8 42:12 96:15
96:16
stuck 81:13 130:25
studied 3 :22
study 83:9 92:4 102:16,17
102:18 103:6 171:15
176:14
subject3:8 31:1 32:21
submission 29:24 116:18
116:19 117:4 118:12,13
submit 117:3 133:18
144:25
submittal92:15
submitted 76: 17 82: l 0
120:1 121:3 142:7
subscribe 91 :2
substance 11 :20 12: 13
substantial46:16 88:17
146:21,25 154:7
substantially 48 :3 60:2
63:19 74:7
substantive 6:3 113:6
substation 48:25 53: I
Page 20 7
substitute 109:2 t survey 115:23 127:19 Terry68:23 71:11 89:18 16t:l6,18 162:20163:18
subterranea n 128:24 sus pect 113 :9 89:24 100:13 108:15 163:22 164:7,15,19
sued 76:1 Swartburg 97:6 185 :20 165:14,201 66:1 ,14
suffice 101:9 swear70:25 71:4 testified \33:1 7146:1 167:17 168:7,24 169:5,6
sufficient 122:24 129:1 sworn 18:21 189:11,15 testifies 133:23 169:19 170:7 171:6,23
130:12 testifying 124:7,11,18 174:4,5,1 8 175:6 177:15
suggest 88: 11 109:23 T 146:8 178:1,24,25 179:5,8,17
110:1 167:21 172:19 tables 87:24 testimony 3:24 15:24 181:16,18,24 18 5:13
suggested 81:21 87:16 tabulation 11 6:1 2,20 20:11 21:1 ,22 109:15 thinking 101:9 168:11
143:1 117:1 118:1 133:19 147:5 173:10
suggesting 110:9 tabulations 11 6:15,1 7,25 154 :1 5 thinks 10:13
suggestion 167:3 181:24 117:6,9 t exture 118:18 119:12 third 163:20
suggestions 68 :3 109:7 take 18 :11 20:10 21 :1,1 thaok 9:4 13:8 27:6 ,11 thoroughly 37:19
111:23 137:16 22:14 24:6 38:5 70:1 6 28:15 29:3 ,4 30:13 ,14 thoug bt58:15 62:7 67:16
Suite2:14 74:8 81:8 83 :11 94:2,8 37:21 38:15,16,23 47:12 76:3,3 8 1:24 167:24
summarize 180:9 114:17 137 :1 0 152 :25 47:15 52:1 3 68:5 69:6 172:23
summarized 32:13 79:3 160:4172:2 177:1 71:8 77:11,12 90:1 thousand 75:4
154:16 taken 13:24 15 :21 88:1 92:20 93:2 94:5,6 98:2,3 tb ree 20: 17 2 6: I 0 34:24
Sunset2:11 3 :44:511:11 talk22:21,23 73:13 76:18 98:15,17 99:3 101 :17,18 42 :3 44:12 52:10 53 :9
2 0:16 ,20 31:3,10 32:5 77:22 78:24 81:1 82:24 103:17,18 106:17,18 55:14,14 56:ll 58:3
33:10,13,16,21 34:10,24 83:1 86:16,21 99:13 108:19,21 112:1,2 114:9 60:22,22 61:20 69:7
35:2 37:16 38 :2,18 147:16 114:10,11 134:7 138:1,2 71:12 72:24 73:1,15
41:25 42 :3 43:13 44:3 talked 73:3 85 :3 91:15 138 :15,17 ,19 159 :2 4 78:4 80:7,7 82:21 88:23
44:2 1 49 :8,9,24 50:23,24 100:2 118:3 169:11 171 :1,24 174:10 88:25 89:3 94:21 96:21
5 1:6,23 52:18,20 53 :14 ta lking 13:18 21:6 23 :10 175:25 176:23 105:5 107:22 108:3
54 :4 57:18 61 :1 0 66:20 28:19 65:23 83:4 85:1 Thanks 69:24 109:7111 :7,231 12 :15
68:16,16 71:12,13 73:15 100:6 119:19 tbing 27:2 3 76:25 77:2 121:18 127:20,23 139:10
75:20 78:1,11 ,13 84:13 tall85:16 142 :2 1 79:23 85:14 101:3 three-foot 127:14
84:19,20 85:11,12 86:5 ,7 taller 133:9 112:20 114:12144:8 three-story 109:18
86:15,19 87:14 91:9,22 tape 24:19 154:20 threshold 165:22
91:24 92:5 94:16,20,2 1 task 157:18 things 13:25 22:17 44:6,24 throwaway 142: 13
94 :22 95:12,16,19,24 taxis 102:22 45:24 4 7:1,2 55:24 thrown 101 :8
96 :23 ,25 97:2,17,20 99:8 Taylor 183:1 79:2 1,23 80 :22,25 81: 13 thrust 82:2 5
103:1,23 104:14 105:8,9 tea 157:4 83 :13 102:15 107 :14 tie 147:2
105:21108:3 131:22,25 team 12:11 43 :10 140:8 11 1:17 130:9 136:13 tied 84: II
132:17 133:9 137:5,6 150:17 153 :11 161 :20 140 :5 141 :11 150:8,11 tight 162:24
139:5,7163:3,3,4,8 tea ring 116:7 151 :13,14,16 15 3:20 tilt 49:8
167:8,9,10 169:1170:8 technical11:1 9 12:14 156:1 1,12 ,15 160:13 time 3:19 5:12 13 :15 15:21
173:25 175:7 180:13,15 17:1 0 161:1 167:23 170:1 24:12,22,23 26:12 28:13
180:17 .tell l3:14 23:2 26:12 69:10 172:22 174:25 34:6 37:5 42:22,22
supply92:4 71:4 75:1 87 :10 107:15 think4:1712:21 13 :5,21 65:1 5,16 68:7,10 77:3
support 49:20 104:5 114 :1 4124 :17 131:5 14:20 15 :20 17:12 22:7 79: 1 80:19 85:7 87:22
108:15 152:8 145 :17 22:1 4 25:11 28:2,10 88 :9,11,21,22 89:8 ,11,19
supported 104:11 temple 48:22 36 :21 37:1 ,2,440:4,5 91:12 94:2 101:17 108 :8
supporting 65 :13 ten 35:24 36 :16 40:22 43 :20 46 :13,14 50:2 I 12:14 131:14 134:7
supposed 7:2 114:22 54:22 55:23 56:10 57:14 53 :21 69:8,9 70:24 78:2 137:17 139:17 141:12
ll5:19 118:13,14145:15 61:6 89:2 109:14 116:14 78:8,10,25 79:16 81:6 152:5 154:8,9,1 0 155:1 7
sure27:10 71:1 75 :14 161:1 3 162 :22 181 :2 82:20 85:13 92:12 ,18 156:7 157:10,14 161:5
79:19 82:6 92 :23 100:11 ten-foot 95:25 9 6:2 I 09:21 93:11,13,18 94:2 98:1 1 169:3 172:4 174:2 177:3
10 0:17 114:4 152:8 t end 13:2 1 98:13 100:9 102 :10,1 4 178:18 18 3:20 185:2,5
155:6 157:8 160:6 163:9 tender 7:20 103:7,8,10,13 I 0 9:1 8 185:16,1 9 186:8 188:10
169:15 170:20 174:14 terms 7:1 1 22:18 99:22 114 :14120:8 121:14 timely 5:11
175:19 102:12 153 :25 163 :2 122 :10123:7 138 :12 times40:12103:2 167:20
surface 118:17 terrace 88:8 142:7 149:10 151:17 184:2
surrounded 72:13 82 :2 terraces 33:4 36:1,3 55:5 152:6,15,21 153 :2,1 6 tiny 90:22 154:5
surrounding 36 :10 102:8 58:22,23 62 :14,15 90:9 154 :6 155 :13 158 :9 Tires48:23
• I 107:5 terrific 110:18 159:1,15 160:25 161:5,7 title 6:6,12,17,22 7:5,12,25
KRESS E & AS SO CIATES, L LC
(305) 371-76 92
8:1714:815:170:7
112:25
today 11:25 12:13 13 :24
15:19 17:7,2 5 21 :9,13
22:7 23 :9 24:14 28:3,8,8
31:4 38:1 7,19 41:745:7
46:17 68:14 74:7 93:8
99:12103:25 ll8:20,23
119:2,6 121:2 124:7,23
127:17 141:7 146:1,8
147:6 148 :15 156:6
160:8 170 :22 172 :10
175:21 177:9178:1,23
179:7,25
told 22:17 28:22 71 :1 8
131:8 139:25 142 :15
143 :2,25 144:8,8
tool167:22 172:21
tools 169:7 174:6
top 45:12 54:13 56:21
58:20 59:11 62:12 63:3
64:15 66:3 76:22 82:12
84:7,12,15,19 88:3 95:1 4
11 6 :1
torn 104:25
totality 17:1 4
tota lly 39 :5
touching 52:9
tower2:13 72:17 75:21 ,24
towering 75:24
towers 4:6 31:4,6 94 :22
105:23 106 :2
Towers-type 32:6
townhomes 5 1:24 54:4
66:20 84:14 95:20
105:22 110:6,1 3 137:6
t ownhouse 31:20 76 :2
182:4
townhouses 37:16 75 :2 1
86:6
traffic 3:21 34:22 43 :17
93:24 97:11 102:16,17
102:18 103:4,5 169:17
170:10 171:15 174:16
175:9176 :14
transcribed 24:18
transcript 133:19,21 ,2 3
189:13
transcription 1:7 187:4
transition 78:12 83:4,20
9 1:14,20 92:5 97:1 ,11,18
transitional 72:20 107:1 6
132:9
transitioning 78:13 83:8
tnnspired 140: 10,20
trasb 17 1:4,7 176 :3,6
Treat97:21
treated 118:5 137:4 unacceptable 21:18
tree 83 :14,15 unbelievable 140:19,22
trees 33:8 36:20 unclear 136: 10
trellis43:15 149:7,1 5,18 uncourteous 13:6
tremendo u s 3:23 underneath 56:9 171:21
tried 54:8 66:7 I 01 :4,5,7 176 :20
111:2127:12155:25 understand 7:7 25:3,17
tries 60:16 64:8 26:19,20 27:17 69:11
trucks 170 :1 174:25 74:11 78:10 93:18,19
true4:21 101:13 140:21 113:19 120 :15 135:18
144:1,4 160:22 188 :12 136:1,18137:25 147:24
truly 180 :8 150:25 161 :11 182:1
truth 71 :4,5,5 159:5 understanding 153:19
177:23 154:7,24
try65:1 3 80:8122:13 understood 79:17
125:13 127:12,20 147:2 unfair 15:20
147:16 154:21161 :9 unfortunate 13 :5
183:24 ,25 unfortunately 153:13
trying 20:23 27:22 44:19 UNIDENTIFIED 184:1 7
81:8 99:16 I 04:14 184:19
108:25 117:11 12 4:1,13 unified 6:8113:14,15
146:23 183:8 uninterrupted 142:21
Tucker20:16 26:2 1 27:23 unique 14:23 37:10 39 :23
39:4 68:15 69:7 88:21 uniquely 47:25
88:24138:18 139:9 unit 64:17 90:1 8 91:6,7
Tucker's 27:16 116:13
turn27:1247:13 70:19 United 107:11
turned 158:10 units 34:18 36:2 41:19
turning 15 8:3 43:19 56:24 57:1 58:13
TV 98:18 180:6 62:5 66:22 129:11,12,20
tweaked 104:18,19 129:23,25,2 5 130:5,5 ,5
tweaks 142 :25 142:14 143:20,23 161 :13
twice 153:3 161:13 169:22 174:21
two4:24 6:913:25 15:8 unity 6:6, II, 17,22 7:4,12
21:14,15 25:15 26:18 7:25 8:17 14:8 15:1 70:6
27:14 31:4 4 0:15 45:12 112:24
49:9 51:15 54 :13,14 unlimited 88:21 89: l3
55:12 56:10 58:3 61:20 updated 152:6
65:24 67:2,5 72:25 73:6 upheld 88:23
73:10,15 79:23 80:6 uphold 18:21
8\:25 82:1,9,12,22 85:9 upper 32 :25 110:12
85:19 87:8,16 91 :24 180:24
94:21 95:22 102:20 upwards 75:3
105:23 109:23 110:25 urge 106:6
115:613 1:16 132:14,15 use 3:20 32:10,15 42:20
140:14 163:3 164:4 45:16 59:23 63:15 7 1:16
180:24 74:3,5,24 80:12 83:14,15
two-story72:15 105:7 86:10 89:19,24 93:14
133:6 97:1 ,12,19 115:11,18
tying 172:4 177 :3 126:25 127:3,6,7,10,22
type 149:18 127 :25 129:6 130:18
types 156 :1 1 uses 42:12 48:7,20 122:19
typology 166: 1 127:1 165:24
u
Usually 177:14
utility 115:23 116:1,3,4,9
U-turns 33:20 utilization 39:24
ultimately 76: l utilized 115:8
KR ESSE & AS SOCIATE S, LLC
(30 5 ) 371-7 692
Page 208
v
vague 118:21
valet43:16 4 5:18 56:15
130:11,13 180:1 8,21 ,22
valuable 165:20 168:25
173:24
values 74:13,17
vaporized 134:24
varia nce40:15 44:11
48 :12 55 :12 126:21
variances 50:13 126:20
128:11
various 17:6 139:18 146:7
146:8 164:23
vehicles 56 :14 93:24
Vela zco I 88 :4,22 189 :9,22
venue 28:24
verify 138:15
vernacular 58 :16 62:8
version 14:9
vertica165 :25 111:7
vest 142:20
vested 165:10
viable34:1 7,19
view 54:20 57 :9 61:1
64:1 9 95 :8 97:5 98:1
104:7 106:23 108:8
132:2 1 13 3:13 ,14,24
134:1,3 135 :12163:14
163:19
viewed 154 :25
viewers 98:18
views 31:17 111:21 164:16
violations 6: 16
visibility 181 :4
visible 155:3
vision 132:21
visioning 167:22 169:7
172:21 174:6
visited 103:1
void 82:4 118:4 123:13
127:2 128 :25 168:3
173:2
voids 169:15 174:14
vote 18:1121:2,10,16 23:8
23:11,20,21 ,23,25 24:6
24 :24 26:1 7 28:10,11
38:5 69:12 179:25
voted1 7:18
votes 172:14 177:13
w
wait9:10 15:1125:7,7 ,9
30 :18 68:1 9 184:25
waiting 13:2
wa ive 4:12 24:5
waiving 70:22
walk50:18 51:7 64:16
65:17 67:6,8,15,18 74:3
I 06: I 0 127:5
walk-along 60:6 63 :23
wall 84:21 88:4
walls 66:1 82:3,4
want4:12,13 21:8,1123:4
25:4,4,5,7,7 26:1,2 29:21
30:1 37:17 47:21,22
58:13 62:5 67:6,18 72:4
72:4 81 :1 82:24,25
85:14 86:21 87:22,25
89:4 91:10 92:22 94:1
99:13 102:16 105:1,12
107:15 108:5 112:9
114:12,13,16 148:25
151:8,9,15 152:18 153:6
155:15157:13,20160:1
177:24178:7,8 181:13
182:13 183:7,10,11,21
183:23 184:3,4,4 185 :1 5
186:1,8,15
wanted 4:10 24:4 52:7
59:14 63:6 65:10 70:21
89:17 90:10 138:14
154:20 155:6
wants 23:17 26:22 89:20
161:17 185:9
warehouses I 05:5
warn 186:17
Washington 2:18
wasn't30:6 135:1 163:10
waste 157:13
watching I 80:6
water 52:17 54 :5,9,10,11
54:22,24 55:18 56:19,20
57:3 95:12 104:9,10
110:2,5 Ill :22 119:20
waterway 31:9 36:2 42:2
53:8 54:1,17,18 57:1
110:14126:25 134:4
155:2 166:15 180:25
182:4
way 20:22 27:14 28:25
46:4,16 47:10 57:19
6l:ll 67:9,15 73:7,25
75:7 86:8,8,24 90:20
124:25 125:11,23 128:9
150:5 159:8,16 163:16
166:7,25 167:9 168:7,21
170:7 173:6,20 175:6
178:15,16181:16 183:15
185:4,18 186:9,10
ways 166:9,13
week 159 :14 162:19 163:6
weight39:7
welcome 152:23
welfare 42:15 wrap 69:4 88:12 91 :2 1
well-known 134:12 wrapped 121:17
went27:1 4 83 :24 90 :20 wraps48:24
146:7 writing41:13
weren't 153:20 written 76:17
west31:8 35:13 37:16 wrong 8:3 72:6
87:12 90:25 94:17 95:20
121:10132:23 155 :5 X
western 127:4 136:11 X 59:19 63 :11100:25
white 67:7 181:24
wboJeheartedly 149:21 y
wide53:8 163:16 y 100:25
width 118:10 yard 4:8 76:21 86:10
wife49:24 year 3:13
William 2:6 12:19 15 :12 years 75:19 104:13 135:3
37:21 44:2 46: t 8,22 183 :10
65:6110:18160:22 yesterday 41:15,16 119:3
William's 160 :2 0 135:20
window 106:2 119:13
windows 120:3 z
wisdom 122:2 z 100:25
wishes 29:14 68:8 185:1 zero 12:15
Witkin 50:25 zone 43:18 107:16 128:5
witness 69:22 188:18 130:I4
189:17 zoned 148:5
witnessed 162:4 zoning 16:16 42:20 43:22
witnesses 70:25 71:6 44:15,17 46:3 48:5
189:11 59 :18 63 :l0 116:20
won 12:7 148:8,14 178:13
wonder 19:16
wonderful71:22 121:15 0
167:22 169:5 172:21 0.02 116:24
174:4 015147 188:23 189:23
wondering 168:7 173:6 08/19/2014 189:24
wood 168:18 173:17
word 5:14 28:7 78:15 1
147:3 160:19,22132:3 188:11
words 16:24 93:15 1-C 162:22
work32:19 33:11 34:3 1.98 81:6
43:15 44:147:19 91:11 10 126:9,10
101:4,6,7111:24134:11 100,000] 19 :2 0
136:20 137:19 150:13 11122:21185:16
161:14,17 166:10,14 11,00042:7,7 115:15
167:23 172:22181:17 110 84:21
186:7,7 118 183:3
worked 4 6:l 74:I6,19 118-1 114:23 116:14
153:11 118-5 6:6 7:3,10 9:5
working 33:19 37:6 120:7 12 86:20 90:21 104 :13
165:13 178:12 180:8 181:2
181:15,16 120 84:21
works 33:19 67:19 136:2 120-foot 53:8 54:18 66:12
world 5:5,6 32:24 50:9 12011:133:4
57:11 59:1,10 60:3 61:3 1224 2:1 8
62:18 63:2,20 73:5 1225 1:13
121:10183:13,14 1237 1: 13 3 :4
worth 74:20 1261 5:4 6:8 134:19,21
wouldn't 10:9 30:6 13 129:20
KRESSE & AS SOC IATE S, LLC
(305) 371-7 692
Page 20 9
13.3 91:7
13.8 91:7
130-38 126:18
14 109:7
140~308 126:23 .
1460 101:24
15 70:16 107:21 110:21
112:20 114:7 161:13
183:4
150 100:3
16 69:17 167:14
17 79:3,9
180094:16
1810 106:21
189 188:11
l920s74:8
1930s 73:23
1940s 73:23
1993 49:24
lC 109:12,20
2
2 2:14 3:13 37:25 60:20,23
81 :5172:15,18
2.04121:4
203:1840:2156:1857:1
58 :5 61:22 70:17 86:11
96:10 113:9 135:3
20-foot 109:19,21
20-story 31:18
200 110:16
200093:6
200644:10
201132:14
2012 1:16 6:19 27:18 43:6
188:19 189:18
2043 1:13
20th 1:13 3:4 5:4 36:13
41:21,22 43:13 45:23
50:10 51:17 59:2,7,17
60:1 62:19,24 63 :9,18
66:23 96:23 108:10
131:24 132:24 133:7
134:20,21 164 ;24 I 70:5
175:4 180:13,23
2246:2 1 122:20
22889 3:3
22nd 32:14 39:1 83:25
2312 71:12
23rd 94:17
24 123:7
24002:14
25113:10 123:7,10
250 119:19
250-foot 110:16
26123:10
26-year 71:11
260 135: I 1
2nd 126:24 184:18
3
3 172:1 6,17
3,000 115:15
3.3 91:6
30 40:12 51:25 55:4 56:20
56 :24 139:19,23
30..day 10:18
301 108:24
310977:15
31st 184:24
33 9 5:21 110:7
33-foot 84 :14
331 77:16
331312:15
331392:19
35 55:4
350 107:18
3D 60:10 64:2 164:22
4
4,000 82:21
4.7 86:22
403 90:18
40591:6,7
45-degree 110:9
47128:22
5
543:6 126:9,1 0
5-A 46:23 68:1
5-F 68:1
s,ooo 124:15
50 41 :19 4 3:23 50:12 52:1
56:17 6 7:13 110:23
129:12,20,25 130:5
142:16,17 148:12
SO-fe et 54:7
SO-foot 44:16
50-units 143:20
50,000 39:19
SA 69:18
5th 95:11
6
6 32:13
6.7 86:15
60 5 1:24128:22 145:5
6344:12
65 84:20
7
71 :166:19
7043:19129:11,25 130 :5
70-plus 143:20
71 142:15
73 130:5
75125:6
7th 188 :19 l89:17
8
8132:4
8/19/2014 188:23
8:3013:1 147 :9,11 186:1
186:13,15 ,16
9
9:00 186:2,9
9:30147:10
95 179:3
KR ES SE & ASSOCIATES, LL C
(3 05) 371-7692
Page 210
.
EXHIBIT "0"
Page 1
VOLUME I
l
2
3
4
~
6
1
8
9
MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
2~
25
DRB21889
1201, 1225, l237 20th Street
October 2, 2012
APPEARANCES
DESIGN REIIIP.W BOARD:
Jason Jiaaopian. Clnirpeoon
• Michael Bolu.sh
Se,.jS<a
~ Willi am Cary
Carol Houren
' Leslio Tobin
Uli.Modil>a
1 Mickey Ro.. S~inbtrg
8
ATTORNEY POll CITY Of MlAMJ BEACH:
t GARY HELD, 5SQUIRI!
10
ATTORNEY FOR. PALAU SUNSET HAR.BOUR:
11
WA YN1! PAlliMAN. ESQ .
12 P.W.art U.wis, U.P
One Bi1cayne Tower
ll Sui~2400
2 Soulh Biocayne Boll levard
11 Miami. a 33131
ATTORNEY FOR MAC SH LLC:
KENI'Hi\RRJSONROBBINS,ESQ,
11 Attorney at Law
1224 Washioglan Avenue
u Miami Bu~ Florida Jl 139
" ATIO!\NEY FOR SUNSET ISLANDS HOMEOWNERS
20 ASSOCIAnON;
Zt TUCK.Iilt G!llBS, ESQ
U.w Offi«< or W. Tllclcer cnbbo
22 383 ~ Utopio Court
Coconut (lrno;e. a 33131
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll.
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pag e 3
(Whereupon, the following proceedings
were bad:)
* * • * •
THE CHArRPERSON: Thank you.
MR . BELUSH: Now, the first
application we have for review is DRB 2288 9,
1201 through 1237 20th Street, Palau at
Harbour South . The applicant, Palau Sunset
Harbour LLC, is requesting design review
approval for the construction of a new
five-story, mixed-use building which will
replace all exi sting structures on the
subject site to be demolished.
The applicant is also requesting the
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.
And one thing I just want to make
clear, in the staff report, we have several
attachments, including attachment one, which
includes a resolution from the neighbors to
the north requesting modified conditions.
These are conditions from the neighborhood.
Page 4
These are not staff conditions, that we are
recommending approval of.
MR. CARY: And Mr. Chairman , I would
just like to comment a little bit on this
project, because it has been a very
interesting review process, and I really
think that it --it very carefully points out
how the publ ic bearing process works so
successfully in Miami Beach.
This project, as most of you know,
went first before the Planning Board for a
conditional use permit involving multiple
public hearings and many, many hours of
public hearings.
The neighborhood legitimately had
serious concerns that they felt needed to be
addres sed for an existing single-story and
partially constructed new construction on the
site being rep(aced by five-story
construction, which will obviously, clearly,
significantly change the scale of this
neighborhood.
Those concerns were taken vecy much to
heart by the Planning Board, to the extent
that when the Planning Board did grant the
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 3 71 -7692
1 (Pages 1 to 4)
1
2
3
4
5
6 ,
8
9
10
1l
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 5
conditional use approval, as Leslie Tobin,
you will remember, because she was on the
Planning Board at that time --the Planning
Board actually requested fonnally that the
applicant work with the neighborhood and with
the Planning Department and work toward
achieving certain goals that the Design
Review Board would hopefully observe in its
review of the design for the project.
This is because the Planning Board
doesn't get involved in the review of design,
but it did review the concept of massing,
size, location of the project, and all that
before granting the conditional use permit.
I think that this has resulted in a
number of really important changes in the
proj ect, from my perspective. It really
forced the applicant and the architect to not
only sharpen their pencils, but really define
their horizon as to what was a realistic
project to be able to develop on this very
unique site, which on one side, is faced by
--one of our earliest islands built in the
mid 1920s, Sunset Island Four.
Immediately next to an historic
Page 6
bridge, the Sunset Islands bridges were
designated back in 1997, on the edge of an
industrial district, and at the entrance to
--to these two unique islands and on a, you
know, a rather pristine waterway that leads
into Biscayne Bay.
So it has been a tricky site. It is
an oddly-shaped site, and many, many
challenges have had to be met here.
We have spent--planning staff has
spent a great deal of time both meeting with
the neighborhood, with Terry and with Peter
and with Tucker. We have met on so many
occasions with the applicants and their
architects, it is almost impossible to count
any longer.
We have met, you know, frequently with
Michael Comras to address his concerns, with
the various architects and with his
attorneys, as well.
And we realize that no project is
going to be perfect here, but we feel that
the design of this project has come a very
long way. We think it has progressed very
nicely, and it has, you know, arrived to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l'1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 7
point that the staff is very comfortable in
recommending approval of the project subject
to, you know, the conditions that we have
outlined in the rep crt.
So r look forward to the public
testimony. I think it is, you know, a real
tribute to the City of Miami Be ach that so
many poople from the neighborhood are coming
Ollt today to be involved in what will be one
of the most significant residential projects ,
new residential projects, I think, that will
be developed in the city for a long time to
come. I think it will set a lot of standards
on how --the obligation of a new residential
project to try to fit as well as it can into
an existing neighborhood in an existing
contx:xt So I am looking forward to the
discussions today.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, William.
Gary?
MR. HELD: :MI. Chair, I just have a
couple of comments, as well . First, with
regard to citizen testimony, there is a case
that 1 usually quote a couple of sentences
from, from the Third District Court of
Page 8
Appeal, to assist citi zens in detennining the
nature of the ir comments. So the case is
Miami-Dad e County versus Wahlberg. lt is
from 1999, and--give me a moment to ~croll
down-·
The language is that "Citizens'
testimony in a zoning matter is perfectly
pennissible and constitutes substantial
competent evidence so long as it is
fact-.based . Mere generalized statements o.f
opposition are to be disregard ed , but
fact-based testimony is not."
And if there are any questions with
regard to that, I can --I can expand.
Attachment number two in the Board
packag e is an opinion from the City attorney
with regard to the appropriateness of the
application before you, and attached to that,
as well, are the two covenants.
Attachment three is a decl aration of
restrictive covenant, unity of title, and
attachment four is an amended and restated
declaration of-title.
We believe that the matter is
perfectly and properly before you.
KRESSE & AS SO CIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
2 (Pages 5 to 8)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
H
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
1 0
11
l2
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 9 Page 11
The adjoining property owner to the 1 If the applicant believes that it is
west bas objected to the application. So 2 -that is unfair, and you want equal time,
part of your task today is to approve a J we can do that at the discretion of the
modification of the site plan that is 4 Chair.
attached to these documents. 5 MR. P A TilMAN: I would ask for equal
And the criteria that you should use 6 time, espec ially fo r rebuttal.
for making a determination as to whether it 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay ..
is appropriate to modi fy the site plan to a Thenk. you . Let's get things started.
allow the proposed development is the design 9 Please state your name and address. Thank
review criteria that is in the code. So we 10 you.
don't need to look to any other authority. ll MR. PATHMAN: My name is Wayne
You have your scope defined by the ordinances 12 Pathman. I am with the Law Office ofPathman
of the land development regul ations, and you 13 Lewis, One Bis cay ne Tower, Two South Biscayne
should confine yourselves to those criteria. 14 Boulev!!Jd, Miami, Florida, Suite 2400 .
If you have any questions with regard 15 We are here today on DRB file number
to any of the documents, I am happy to 16 22889. Prior to being here today and before
discuss those, as wen . 1 7 I actually go into it, I would like to thank
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Gary. 1 8 staff, William and Michael and Gary for all
Okay. Does the Board have any 19 of the time that they have spent with us
preliminary q uestions right now before we 20 working on thi s file through the Planning
hear from the applicant? 21 Board, as well as preparation for today's ORB
MR. HELD: Mr. Chair, we were go ing to 22 hearing.
discuss time. 23 Good morning to Mr. Chairman and
TI-lE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 24 members of the Board. A little bit of prior
I think we would like to limit our 25 history I would like to give you, prior to
Pag e 10 Page 12
initial presen tatio ns to 15 mi nutes per 1 going into our presentation and Kobi Karp,
speaker, and public coounent to three, three 2 our architect's presentation, which will be
to four minutes, please. We have a lot of 3 very thorough. We have a model, as
people to get through. We want to hear 4 requested. We have a number of boards to
everybody. We want to give everybody the 5 show you.
opportunity to ··to be heard, but we also •· 6 Prior to today, we had received
we need to get through the project. We thin k 7 unanimous Planning Board approval for a
the staff rep ort and all of the background 8 conditional use of a project in excess of
homework the Board has done puts us in a very 9 50,000 square feet, and for mechanical
qualified place to listen to everybody and to 10 parking. Staff had previous ly recommended
· make o ur decisions. Okay? 11 approval. The planning staff had recomm ended
So let's get things started. 12 approval for !hat, before that Board. We
MR. ROBBINS: May I make a question -13 have had num erous hearings before the
of infonn ation, point of information? 14 Planning Board; two very lengthy ones, one
My name is Kent Harrison Robbins. I 15 lasting almost seven hours, Bnother over four
represent MAC SH LLC. That is part of the 16 hours. So this -· this project has been well
unified site, development site that is before 17 digested before staff and before the Planning
you today. 16 Board .
We would request 15 minutes, would 19 Hopefully, today, we will do it in
lilce to present -· giv en that it directly 20 less time, but I can't guarantee that. I
impacts our property, and we are part of that 21 know our presentation is relatively short.
development site. 22 I did want to bring to your attention
MR. HELD: Mr. Chair, I would expect 23 that prior to even !he time fram e that we
that Mr. Robbins and also Mr. Gibbs would 24 would have rome to the ORB, we engaged !he
each have 15 minutes. 25 assistant directo r and William Cary in
KRES SE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(30 5 ) 371-7692
3 (Page s 9 t o 12)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 13
looking at our project while going to the
Planning Board, and the reason for that was
we wanted to get input , knowin g we were
coming to this Board, and not have to design
twice, not have to go through on e B.oard and
get approvals for something that this Board
may not like, so we engaged William. William
attended those hearings and we believe that
we have a project that we will present today
that incorpo rates all of the conce rn s that
staff has, and I believe that is why we have
such a glowing recommendation from staff,
where not only does Mr. Cary indicate that we
have satisfied the concerns or conditions,
but in s ome occasions exceptionally
satisfied.
In my 25 years of doing this here
before the City of Miami Beach, that is one
of the nicest reC<Jmmendations I have had on
behal f of any of my applicants or an y of my
clients.
And I think it is important to
understand that, because as William said
before we started, the amount of time and
effort that went into preparing for this
Pa ge 14
hearin g, the concerns of th e neighb orhood,
not just Sunset Island, but th e entire
neighborhood on both sides of the bridge.
So there has been a lot of thought, a
lot of revisions. We have made over 30
concessions, both as a result of staff's
comments, the neighborhood comments, to this
plan .
The proj ect, we believe, will add a
vibrancy to the Sunset neighborhood. We
believe that the Sunset neighborhood is
evolving. You have a new parking garage with
retail , and it needs multi-family homes, as
well, to work together and make a substanti al
neighborhood th at is beginning to be
generated in that area
I think most of you are very familiar
with t he neighborhood, and know that this is
something that is going to evolve and it is
going to contin ue to evolve , and staff has
taken all of that into considerati on by
virtue of their analysis of our project.
We have incorporated, like I said,
almo st 30 suggestions made by the
neighborhood and staff, some of which are and
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2J
24
25
Page 15
som e of the things that we have con ceded are,
we ,have reduced the height, the permitted
height.
This is a commerci ally zoned piece of
property. The permitted height is 50 feet.
We have below SO feet at approximately
46 feeL We have less than the permitted FAR
that we are allowed. And that we meet or
exceed all of the setback requirements.
The area is C<Jmpliant a hundred
percent with the comprehensive plan and the
zoning footprint. Again, this is a
commercially zoned property.
The Planning Board has already
approved or accepted plans concerning traffic
circulation, parking, dro p-off and
deliveries, trash removal, ingress and
egress.
We are completely, a hundred percent
requi red --I mean, compliant with the LDR.s .
That was one of the determinations the
Planning Board had to make, as well as staff.
So you have received some infonnation
by representatives of the Sunset Is lands,
saying that we are not compliant, but in
Page 16
fact, we are a hundred percent compliant
Th.e scale of this project is perfectly
in c:onfonnance with the neighborhood, and
staff, on both occasions, both before the
Planning Board and before you here today, has
determined that And that's their job. They
--they apply all of the criteria that is set
forth that is mandated originally by the
Commission, and all of that was done here.
And ifyou are fam iliar with the
criteria, a num be r of things that are
suggested are that they are consistent with
the LDRs, which J indicated we already have,
and we have the approval from the Planning
Board, that the scal e of the proposed project
is compatible with the su rround ing area. The
Planning Board has determined that we are.
You also will have that right to make that
determination.
The issue concerning noise--we have
already gone through all this with the
Planning Board. We went through how we would
only have ambient noise, no outdoor speakers,
no outdoor restaurants, etcetera, the •• no
commercial boat dockage and so on.
KR ES SE & AS SO CIATES, LLC
(305) 37 1 -7692
4 (Page s 1 3 to 1 6)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 17
A \I of that has already been digested.
All of that is already part of the conditions
of the Planning Board resolution.
We also have the Planning Board
determination --•
If that is for me, please hold my
calls, thank you.
--has determined that the proximity
for similar size structures and residential
uses does not create adverse impact. We went
through that on two occasions with the
Planning Board in very long hearings, and it
was determined by the Board that we do not
have those negative impacts.
There was a lot of testimony given by
both sides and experts, and ultimately, we
had the unanimous decision by the Planning
Board. Ms. Tobin, who was there fo r most of
the hearing on both the presentations, I am
sure is well aware of that and can advise her
fellow Board members of the--all of the
issues we addressed, and even the five issues
that you raised concerning ingress and
egress, trash removal, parking and so on, all
of that has been addressed.
Page 18
You are here today to •• not only to
approve the design, but to modify the site
plan. I will get into it a little bit later,
because you are going to hear argument about
these easements.
I hope all of you have read the City
attorney opinion, because I think that should
put your mind at ease concerning these
easements and what is required of us pursuant
to those covenants. I am not going to get
into that now, unless you --unless you ask
me latexto review those. I have them. I
was one of the original drafters of the
amend ed covenants, representing a prior owner
of the property. So I am well versed on the
issue of the covenants and what was raised
during those negotiations.
Now, at this time. I would like to
introduce our architect, Kobi Karp , who will
take you through a very extensive review of
our project.
We have a model. I would invite you
to come down, maybe, when Kobi is looking at
the model to explain everythi ng in detail,
and I would ask that you favorably review our
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
1 0
ll
12
13
14
15
16
1 1
18
1 9
?.0
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
ll
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
2 2
23
24
25
Page 19
application and that you give me tilne for
rebuttal.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
MR. HELD: Mr. Chair, just to clarify,
if the Board does go down to the model, aJI
conversations by Board members have to be on
the record with the microphone.
THE CHAIRPERSON: On the microphone.
Okay.
If you -· if we go to look at the
model and you say anything, or we tallc about
it, we have to be on a mic. Okay?
Ready when you are.
MR. KARP : Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. Sorry it took me a couple of
minutes to set up some of the boards. But
what I wanted to --my name is Kobi Karp,
2915 Biscayne Boulevard, and I am the
architect for the project.
Thank you very much for seeing us
ftrst thing in the morning. Appreciate it
very much.
I wanted to take a minute because I
did COITII! up in front of you a couple of
Page 20
months ago and presented this project. More
specifically, what we have done since then,
we have had an opportunity further to get
some of the comments that we have received on
the project and fmd ways to implement them.
If you would be just so kind to give
me a couple of minutes, I will just walk you
through it. Okay?
One of the things that we were
requested is to bring the color landscape
plan with the landscape material. There were
a number of concerns about the plant
material, the quantity of the plant material
and the circulation.
More specifically, we are in a very
unique --site, as was mentioned, where we
are not only along the water that we are
proposing a public promenade, but we are
obviously also along 20th Street and how that
relates from the gateway to the community.
We did make a little model, and it
just reverts back --to go back to the macro,
before we go to the micro, we made a model
which basicall y shows the neighborhood,
single-family resi dential, immediately across
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(30 5 ) 371-7692
5 (Pages 17 to 20)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
"' a
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
1 5
16
li
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 21
a 120-foot wide waterway, and the bridge. 1
We are located right there. As you 2
probably have seen in your staff report, it 3
is pretty comprehensive. What we did do 4
specifically is that we lowered our height 5
along the water to four residential floors, 6
each on e being about nine feet, which would 7
be 36 feet in height, of the residential over B
the base flood elevation. 9
And that helped us also to create a 10
facade which is quite in context of the 11
neighborhood buildings. 12
This is just an image looking fro m the 13
waterway toward the bridge, and Jooki ng at 14
the waterway from the bridge onward. 15
I can go on and talk to you about the 16
neighborhood and the context ofthe 1 7
neighborhood. Obviously, you all know that 18
the neighborhood has, on one side, right 19
here, kitty-cornered, we have a very 2 0
beautifully--I think a very beautifully 21
designed Publix. Right here on this comer, 22
by Carlos Zapata. 23
This right here is the Car Doctors, 2 4
which was then converted to a retail with 25
Page 22
offices on the second floor --streamlined 1
building. 2
Immediately behind it, it hides the 3
FP&L substation for the community. 4
Over here, we have the single-family 5
residential of Sunset Island. I live on 6
island number three since 1999. 7
And it is interesting in context 9
because when we met, we looked at some of the 9
houses which are about 33 feet in height, and 10
their height and their slopi ng roofs, and we 11
looked at bow it is that we can relate and 12
some of the things that you see in your 13
pac!c.aie. We agreed to remove al l of the 14
roofto p structures and elements to really 15
create a slim and slender facade along the 1 6
water. 17
Having sai d th.at, another important 18
note which is shown quite nicely in the 19
renderings·· it is the space that was then 20
created. At the last meeting, there was a 21
concern about how it is that we meet the 22
comer toward the bridge, and how it is that 2 3
we can potentially set the corner back. And 2 4
not only that, but also straighten out the 25
Page 23
building. So we met with staff. We have
loo ked at a nu mber of options, and what we
have come up with is essentially a way to
push the building back, and also set it back.
That created a visual effect which you can
see also on the model, and also on the
rendering. It blows it up quite nicely, and
it shows on the landscape plan --which I
happen to have here --
There it is.
There is a public walk which lets you
walk across the bridge, which is not really
as defi ned right now because of all of the
vehicular penetrations which occurred via
Mark's Dry Cleaners. So obviously, we
eliminated those. We do not have any
vehicular penetrations on Sunset Drive.
We also pushed the building back and
created a plaza on this comer, and we also
are trying to create a plaza on the corner of
20th and Sunset as you arrive to the site.
Those were some of the comments we
re ceived last time, and seeing obvious ly if
we can increase our landscaped area and
buffer with plant material, which is not
Page 24
exotic, more deciduous and so forth, and the
canopy that would give it the protection.
We met with various folks who are
concerned about the landscape. They had
comments, gave us specifications, and I
bel ieve that we have implemented them into
the landscape plan.
One important note that I did forget
to mention as soon as I walked up -· the
commeots by your staff and the
recommendations and conditions that are
allotted in your staff report, we agree with
each one, and one completely.
So that is, in essence, the direction
that we have been working with on the
landscape plan, setting the building baclc,
setting the top two floors of our buil ding --
obv iously, we have four residential floors
facing the water-to take the top two
floors and set them back even further. You
can see that on --quite clearly in your --
in your packag e. There are floo r plans, and
on those floor plans, you can see first that
the roof plan pushes the structure back and
creates the stepping effect. And we fe lt
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305 ) 3 71 -7692
6 (Pages 21 to 24)
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
ll
12
13
H
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 25 Page 27
that to be important. 1 Right here. We implemented this board
let me just tell you what page you may 2 on the 300 series to see how it is that we
look on, if you have the package in front of 3 can step our building and how we can make our
you. The progression of building massing--4 impact as minimal as possible in relationship
which are thes e pages right here --we put s not only to the single-family residential
them into the record because it showed us the 6 across the water--because the single-family
progress of evolution of the project since we 7 residential across the water, as soon as you
presented this project originally back in 8 enter Sunset Island, has homes which are
November of last year. 1 presented it to the 9 about 33 feet high. If yo u count the rails
Sunset Island Tower, North Bay Road, Sunset 10 and all that, it counts even taller.
Harbour Tower and Townhomes. So if [need to 11 What we wanted to do is really go into
stop, just tell me. 12 a direction which is more tranquil and
What I got --58 seconds --but in 13 sub.ducd. And you can see the architecture of
essence, that shows the progres s of the 1 4 the Sunset Harbour ·-and what we tried to do
evolution that we are going. But more 15 is bring the language of the architecture
important-· and I will try to be brief--we 16 which is more modem and contemporary, and
brought materials. 17 what we wanted to do was to find a way, bow
We feel th at the architecture is a 19 it is that we can streamline the building and
critical element for us. I brought a sampl e 19 break up the massing in a three-dimensional
board here which I will be more than happy to 20 way. So we broke up the facades, which you
share with you. It basically shows the 21 can see. That cost us some FAR, as well ,
materials that we arc looking to use. 22 because it counts as FAR.
We are looking with an eye towards 23 We have stepped it back, and we have
recycle. We are looking at Resista material 24 also let it sit right immediately on the
wood to create more of a residenti al effect, 25 grassy landscaped area, and that is important
Page 26 Page 28
specifically so toward the Sunset Drive 1 to feel because when you look at this
destination . 2 section. the pink height are the townhomes,
And then obviously, on the other side 3 and· the blue height is us right here.
on 20th Street, where we have more of an 4 So if you take these four floors right
industrial facade, that changes the 5 here, one, two, three, four -and you
architecture language quite a bit. 6 me asu re them in height, you can see that the
Having said that, j ust as a reference, i overall height of this element right here is
the discussions last time that we had was how 8 39 feet. ten--it is 40 feet. And that is
it is that we treat the pedestrian movement 9 the interesting delta, because once you meet
in the building. 10 the base flood elevati on --and all of us
And if you will remember, what we said ll have to meet the base flood elevation ·-
is that we have two towers within the 12 because we are residential. We are not
building. We have an elevator which is along 1 3 commercial.
Sunset Drive , which then services the 20 14 The mandate by my client here was,
residential units . 15 "Look, Kobi , I don't want to have any
We have fou r residential floors, and 16 commercial boats on the water. I don't want
there are five units per floor. So we have, 17 to have any commercial tenants on the water."
in essence, 20 residontial floors --20 19 Meaning, "I don't want to have any
residential units --forgive me for that 19 food and beverages, com mercial. 1 don't want
little mistake. Just making sure you guys 20 to use the variance, Kobi, that the previous
are aw ake after all of the coffee you had. 21 project, Cypress" --Cypress had a three-foot
But what is very unique about this 22 high variance request , a canopy top on the
project is that yes, the site is unique, and 23 roof.
yet, the site is different. And if you look 24 He said to me, "No, I don't want to
at the board --let me take it out of here. 25 use that. I want to use my rooftops only for
KRESSE & AS SO CIAT ES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
7 (Page s 25 to 28)
1
2
3
4 . s
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
l4
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 29 Page 31
private uses, and take the pool area and keep 1 We are proposing to have a public
the pool as small as you can." 2 access along the water, with benches and
How big is the pool, Jennifer? 3 seating, and at that end, when you come to
15? 15 by 30. 4 the end, there is a littl e park.
It is the size of a re sidential pool. 5 Then in the future -· because right
"And Jet it be only access ible for the 6 now, there is a bank bui lding here which
homeowners, because we agreed to have not 7 belongs to Mich ael Comras. And that building
more than 55 ho meowners on this project." 8 may or may not stAy there. And if it does
And that's important to acknowledge, 9 not stay there, there can be a 50-foot high
because what we did then is we divided the 10 structure there.
project with the comments from staff which 11 So when we looked at --with an eye to
sai d, "Piea.Se give us an entry of a 12 the future -because the futur e sometimes
pedestrian on 20th Street." 13 comes --this is a ghosted-in image where
And everybody said to us, "Pleas e give 14 there is a gem •• these are our un its--that
us a vehicular entry and exit on 20 th Stre et. 15 there might be an op po rtunity in the futur e
"Pleas e take your garbage and your 16 for people to circle back to the public
loading insi de . w 17 right-of-way and walk all the way around.
So we di d all of th at . 18 We did the same thing in the Capri,
And then what became interesting is it 19 where we made all of the streets public
created an opportunity to create a building 20 domain.
th at is quite low and streamlined that fits 21 So that is the architectu re.
into the setback. 22 These are the details that we are
When we studied further, since our 23 looking at. That is the landscape changes
last meeting ov er the past two months, and we 24 and modi ficatio ns that we hav e done. I think
met with staff, we found ways to shave it off 25 that staff has noted each and every item in
Page 30 Page 3 2
of the comer of the bridge. And the reason 1 there.
th at that be came important is because on on e 2 I have brought more boards, but I
side, meaning on 20th Street, right here, 3 would rath er answer any questions.
this is 20th Street -this is the towers, 4 Did I miss anything, Wayne?
and this is the entry. 5 Oh, circulatio n. Yes, very important.
But you can see in perspective --and 6 What we carne to this site --because
this is an artist's rendering, so I am 7 this site is --basically functions in a very
telling you, it is taken out of our model and 8 unique way, as a circulation hub to the end
it is pretty dam close, but you can see-· 9 of North Bay Road, to the park right here--
and right now, the gatehouse is under 10 there is a fountain park.
construction. You can se e the gap betw een 11 Right here, there is another park
the gatehouse and the sidewal k, and the 12 which is basically just a green space.
sidewalk and the property line. 13 And then here, we are -· you can see
And if you go there now, you can start 14 on this page, A0003, where the oran ge line
to actually envision it. 15 would be, that is our residential setback,
And in your package, I put a little 16 which we meet, greet, and beat.
photo. It is immediately afte r the long 17 You can look at the actual setbacks
picture, you know, that has this-kind of 18 that we have. We have sub stantially more
the next page after that has a site photo, 19 setbacks.
standing on the property, which starts to 20 And it goes up from 20 feet, it goes
show you what the landscape plan clearly 21 up to 30 feet. It goes up to 50 feet on the
reflects, the amount of open space that we 22 comer, on the diagonal as you measure the
h ave, not only to provi de a walk to --yeah, 2 3 diagonal from the brid ge .
not only to provide a walk, but also to 2 4 And I want to be very crystal clear
provide a public access. 25 about it, because there is a concrete pole, a
KRESSE & AS SOCIATE S , LLC
(30 5) 3 71 -7692
8 (Pages 29 to 32 )
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
1'1
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 33
concrete FP&L pole when yo u come acros s the 1
brid ge . And it is existing there, and you 2
can see it And that is all the way on the 3
edge ofthe seawall. 4
When you get to the pole and you step s
back 50 feet on an angle, that is where our 6
building starts. So it is a big, open gap 7
space which would be quite nice to enter the B
island because you will feel that you are 9
entering not only with one side of 10
landscaping, but with both sides of ll
landscaping, and you will have an opp ortu nity 12
to leave the island vi a the bridge and have 13
again that landscaping effec t on both sides. l4
And that is what is important. 1 5
And we have more trees in here, but we 16
didn't want to hid e it. We wanted to expose 1 i
it We wanted to·show it the way it really 18
would be without the landscaping. But you 1 9
can clearly see the pol e on this comer, and 20
you can clearly see where the Mark's Dry 21
Cleaners are currently , and how far back we 22
would be. 23
And that is also--by defmition of 24
the use, we are not doing a commerc ial use. 25
Pa ge 34
We--one of the original thoughts was why
don't we mak e co mm erci al volumes th at 50 feet
high, and then the setbacks are substantial ly
less, as well.
We want to make our resi dential
proj ect We want to make a residential
proj ect which is complementary to the
neighborhood.
There are people on Sunset Islands who
are my neighbors wh o have contacted me to
meet with the developer and look for
apartments in the building. So it is a very
nice, complementary building, yet, at the
same time, it is not on Sunset Island. It is
next to other commercial uses .
And I believe that architecturally, we
have strived with your Planni ng Departm ent
and with your staff to come up with an
architectural solution which is quite
interesting.
The circulation that Wayne was
referring to is that right now, there is an
entry and exit on Sun set Drive, and that will
be completely eliminated.
There is also an entry and exit at
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
1 9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
Pa ge 35
this comer that will be eliminated.
Our on ly vehicular entry and
penetration shall be along th e west si de
where you enter the building, and that's
where you circulate.
Once you enter the building, valet
will be there to pick up your car, give it
back to you. So we are b'yi ng to not only
meet th e parking requirements, both fo r the
residents and the commercial uses , which we
do have, but also beat them and have a full
valet service. So take that load off of the
street.
The circulation from pedestrian is
very imp ortant, because what happens now is
that we have created --you can see in these
photos, you have a sidewalk, and then you
have bu ildings that come up to the sidewalk.
And as much as you like me to be this
close to you, it is not as nice as if it was
to be 20 feet set back, plus additional
setbacks for th e landscaping .
So with that, I will stop.
Wayne?
MR. PA1'HJ\.1AN: Baywalk.
Pa ge 36
MR. KARP : Baywalk, yes. One of the
islands that we did feel that was very
important for our proj ect and very unique--
you can see the setback that we have, because
we are--across from the Sunset Island III
and IV park.
When you come across the bridge and
you have to realize that you see this bridge,
the bridge turns away and fo cus es its focal
point on the fountain park.
Wh en it was desi gned, this bri dge from
Sunset Island, it was not perpendicu lar to
our property, but it was on an angle . The
angle is about 35 degrees, and it fo cuses you
towards this fountain park right here.
Well , what we have then created is--
based on the last meeting, is if we have a
plaza on the comer here, which can be used
for outdoor seating and so forth, you can
walk along Sun set Drive and make a left and
walk along the water .
We felt it to be important that we can
offer that as part of the public realm, that
fo lks can actually walk along the water and
have that opportun ity, because the water body
KRESSE & ASS OCI AT ES , LLC
{305 ) 371-7692
9 (Pages 33 to 3 6)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
ll
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 37
is quite nice. It is about 120 feet from 1
seawall to seawall. 2
And if you have been on the property 3
right now, the seawall that exists is very 4
low. Our mandate is to put a new seawall, s
very much like the seawall that is across the 6
park, which would bring it up to 66 NGVD. 7
Because for example, the hou se right here, a
this house, the ftnished floor elevation has 9
to meet the base floo d elevation, which is 10
about nine, ten NGVD, and then the seawall 11
that we have right now is quite low. It is 12
made of basically sacks of clay. 13
We are going to put a proper seawall l4
with a proper seawall cap, which will give us 15
also the promenade. 16
Wayne --open space, of course. 17
MR. CARY: First. I wan t to thank the 18
Design Review Board for specifically 19
requesting that you provide this model , 20
because I think that is a wonderful 21
opportunity, and I encourage all members of 22
the publi c to try to take a look at the model 23
even before you give your testimony. 24
And I certainly request that all of 25
Page 38
the Board members do so, as well. It is an l
exceptionally well made model. 2
But what this points out to me is the 3
process that I had discussed earlier. You 4
know , I have had wonderful conversations with s
Terry Bienstock, who has Jived in this 6
neighborho od for a long period of time, and ..,
Terry told me how Sunset Towers III was going 8
to be built where the townhouses project is 9
tooay. And it is only because of Terry and 10
other neighborhood residents who were 11
seriously a\anned at what the impact would be 12
if a Sunset Tower lll was built where the 13
town ho uses project is today, that has 1. 4
resulted in the townhouse project that just 15
dramatically reduced the scale of the 16
development. 11
Now, imagine ifwhatwas before os 18
today was Sunset Towers III, at that height, 19
and the manner in which it would eclipse the 20
neighborhood and pretty much the --this 21
entire portion of the city. 22
Kobi, what I wanted to ask you is, 23
what is the scale of the project--of the 24
model, itself? I am sorry. 25
Page 39
MR. KARP: The scale is one inch to
40.
l\.1R. CARY: Okay, one inch equals
40 feet
How high are the Sunset Harbour
towers?
MR. KARP: These towers are--250,
plus or minus feet.
MR. CARY: 250. So they are more than
five tim es the height.
MR. KARP: Yes.
MR. CARY: Okay. Now, if one of those
towers was before us all today, I would not
want to be in this public hearing room. I
mean, there is ·no way that staff could even
review it realistically and make any
suggestion to the Board that in any way this
. was a quality design or something that works
within the neighborhood, within the
neighborhood context.
What this points to is the huge
importance of the public hearing process,
because Teny and his neighbors did, you
know, really a remarkable job in really, you
know, blocking a huge urban design mistake
Page 40
that wo uld have occurred if they had not been
there. And you know, that is extraordinary,
and I think there is not a person here that
is not here with good reason and good
concern, but I think if you look at this
model and look at what could have been and
you look at what we are dealing with today
and the refinements that have been made, and
you look at the relationship of the size of
any one of the homes, you know, in the Sunset
Islands area, compared with the scale of your
homes --and the scale has been broken down
on both Sunset Harbour, both the townhouses
proj ect and on the Palau proj ect --I think
that you will see that the whole design and
planning pro cess in the City has really
worked very much in fav or of the community.
And this is --you know, this is a
community that is responsive to the neigh bors
and to the public. So-· you know, every
word of public testimony is valuable and is
important for the Board to take into the most
serious consideration, but we are pretty
pleased with the way this has come out.
MR. KARP: And I just want to add, I
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
10 (Pages 37 to 40)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
1 3
14
15
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
2 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
']
a
9
10
ll
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
Page 41
have been coming in front of the Design 1
Review Board for the past few months , years, 2
and both Mi chael Belush , William Cary , J
everybody and the staff has taken great care 4
to look at each atl.d every elevation . 5
And not the rear, the jamb-how does 6
it face the water, yes, but how does it face 7
the street? 8
How does it face the MAC building? 9
What is the elevation? 10
What is the fini sh? 11
What is the setback? 12
What is the landscaping? 13
And even the conditions in the report 14
give staff and us an opportun ity to look even 15
greater at certain detaits that they would 16
like to have. 1 7
And it is not just the Design Review 18
Board. It is also the Planning Board When 19
we met with the Planning Board and when we 20
met with the staff: we went through that with 21
a fin e-tooth comb. 2 2
And again, if there was-there are 2 3
things that we could do, you know, move the 24
egress otT th e 20th Street, increase the 2 5
Page 42
landscaping, remove the rooftop trellis,
relocated pool, incorporate the valet parking
all in side, improve the stacking, create
internal loading zone, reduce the number of
residential un its, don't use the nine parking
spaces which the MAC has next door ·· and
leave it alone •• I agreed not to use, please
don't us e the height vari an ce, don 't hav e the
parldng structure exposed -all of those
things were continuously compounded over
time . And I personally am very happy to
stand here in front of you longer than I
normall y woul d have taken, but with the deep
scrutiny that I went through, because at the
end of th e day, yeah, th ese folks are my
neighbors, and they have been for the past
15, 20 years, almost, but it is also
someplace where I enter and exit the island
on a daily basis. So it is in my best
interest.
And there are some great architects on
--who live on the island. Chad Oppenhe im
lives two doors down . We met with him, we
sat in the backyard with Meier. He was k ind
enough to o ffer us coffee.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 43
We met with Bill Taylo r, wh o is
actually--you know, lives right over here.
So it is interesting, because we are
across ·from the park of Sunset Island II! and
IV. We are at an important location where we
are zipper connection between the commercial
and industrial facade, if you will , of an up
and comi ng neighborhood, whether it is -·
whether it is the parking structure, which I
personally liked that Scott had done by
Archi tectoni ca, or wh ether it is the Publix
whicb is kitty-comered to me --wh ich I
like, also·· I mean, do I pre fer the FP&L
substation to be clad and be treated
differently?
Yes. But there is nothi ng that we can
do about those th ings.
There is a commerc ial development
across where the funeral home is being
converted.
So it -it is interesting. Do we
want to make a statement that is better than
the existing context? Meaning, you know,
these structures on th e bay which are 70 feet
high, or 65, or whate ver it is ·-yes, we do.
Pag e 44
Do we want to be shorter than them?
Yes.
Do we have an opportunity to create a
public realm, a public space, a pedestri an
circulation around them?
Yes, we do have that opportunity, and
create a statement of architecture which is
unique to the neighborhood and the community.
So ·· and by the way, the model is--
you know, pretty much to scale. It is
laser-cut.
We tried even the trees ·· to take the
quantity and the &izes of the trees and the
vegetation. So if you like them and you want
to hold us to them, we are fme with th at
So that's -· that's the process that
we have gone through . And honestly, for me,
it is --it has been a pl eas ure.
Thank you.
THE CHAlRPERSON: Thank you.
Does that conclude yo ur presentation
at this point, besides rebuttal?
MR. PATHMAN : Besides rebuttal, yes.
THECHAlRPERSON: Okay.
MR. PATHMAN: One thing! would like
KRES SE & AS SO CIAT ES , LLC
(305 ) 371-76 9 2
11 (Page s 41 to 44 )
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
a
9
10
11
1 2
1 3
u
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
Pa ge 45 Page 47
to mention, if you want to hear about l while, the old Miami Beach is sli pping away.
traffic -· which we did very extensively 2 Our islands were built in 1927. 1
before the Planning Board, and our traffic 3 have a modest little hous e on Island IV,
plan was adopted and ap proved by the City --4 which is surrounded by houses in the ten, 12,
you can certainly disc uss that, but I don't 5 and the $14 million category, which is why,
know that it is necessary. 6 as Mr. Cary points out, that we have a
THE CHAIRPERSON: It is something that 7 booming real estate market.
the --was reviewed and approved with the e But if we cheapen it with items like
Planning Board level? 9 this, projects like this, we are going to
MR. PATIIMAN : Yes, it was. Extensiv e 10 destroy the hen th at lays the gold en eggs.
conversation, review, a number of experts on ll I would like to come over ·-and I
both sides •• reviewed by the City, as well, 12 don't know ifl have-
and the City examiner testified on the record 13 MR. HELD: Sir, you do have to use the
that they approved the plan and that we are 14 microphone. So you cannot speak without the
·-actually have a lower count than what is 15 microphone, sir.
even permitted. 16 MR. INGRAHAM : The first thing I
THE CHA IRPERSON: Okay. 17 noticed about this model is •• that was
MR. PATHMAN : And all that is a matter 19 hidden from me --from Mr. Karp prior to the
of pub lic record. 1 9 meeting -he refused to show it to anyone,
THE CHAIRPERSON: I think that is 2 0 as well as the drawings. They are a big
suffi cient for me, unless somebody else on 21 secret, l guess.
the Board feel s they want to hear more about 22 But anyway, the first thing I noticed
it. 23 about this model is that it is not to scale.
Okay. At this time, we will open up 24 It is not to scale at all.
to pub lic comment. 25 I don't know •• I think Mr. Karp even
Page 4 6 Page 48
When you step up to th e mic, please be 1 admitted that it was a little bit ·-a little
sure to state your name and address . 2 bit different.
MR. INGRAHAM: Could I have a 3 But I want to point out to you some
microphone? 4 really significant things here.
My name is William Ingraham . I live 5 First of all, I was the one who led
at 21 25 Lake Avenue. I am a practicing 6 the fight again st Sun set Harbour, Mr. Cary.
attorney, and I have lived on Lake Avenue for 7 I was the head of the coalition.
45 years. 8 MR. HELD: I congratul ate you.
And my family is an old Florida 9 :MR. INGRAHAM: I spent two years
family. I have raised my children on Lake 1 0 fighti ng with these people over their
Avenue. And I remember when they were 11 construction.
little, we had "to send to Miami to get a 12 When they first came to us with the
pizza becaus e there was no one selling pizzas 13 idea of building this tower here, th ey said,
on Miami Beach. It was a city of old peop le, 14 "Oh, we will put some pretty trees along the
and it was pretty run down . And over the lS side here, and you won't mind it at all ,
years, we know what has happened to Miami 16 having this great big building there ."
Beach. 17 Well, to make a long story short, we
But what I am concerned with, as a 19 fought two years. Each side spent over a
resident, is that over the last couple, two 19 hundred thousand dollars in legal fees. This
or three years, we seem to see a creeping 20 was not a gift from anybody . We had to fight
away of the standards to preserve Miami 21 every inch of the way .
Beach. 22 The developer, who was Canadian -an d
All of a sudden, we are listening to 23 incidentally, put up some crappy buildings
pretty words from architects and attorneys 24 when he got through -sued us personally,
about this, that, and the other, and all the 2 5 brought slap suits against the officers of
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
12 (Pages 45 to 48)
1
2
3
4
s
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
1 5
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
2Z
23
24
25
Page 49
the corporation for fighting him in court.
And this went on for two years. And I
say it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars
in attorney's fees. And fi nally, fmally,
the developer saw reason and we were amenable
to negotiations , so we arrived at a
compromise.
First of all, the ugly high-rise was
eliminated And in the place of the ugly
high-rise, the builder agreed to build
townhouses.
Now, if you look at the townhouses,
you will see that they have some specia l
features. First of all, they are set back.
lfl may point, they are set back from
the waterway, which is erroneously depicted
as being much wider than it re ally is.
They are set back. Also, they are set
back with two-story height lim itations, with
four stories on 20th Street, or whatever that
street is, over there. They are four stories
there, and two stories here, with a very nice
setback.
And this was a product of two yearn of
litigation.
Page 50
So 20 years have go ne by . We th ou ght
this matter was closed forever, and it would
never be reopened and we would never be here
again facing the same turmoil that we had
20 years ago.
But Mr. Karp and his friends, who are
out of town developers, have brought us this
building here. And if you no tice, th e
setback is not the same setback as on the
other property.
And do you notice also th at as the old
Sunset Harbour developer promised us, "Well,
we will plant some pretty trees here and then
you won't mind all thi s concrete."
Over here, on this sid e here, this
looks like they planted some trees for us on
the city property.
In my research on our island entrance,
I found that Mark's Cleaners had appropriated
a great deal of public land for their parking
lot and their areas. And it looks like --
Palau here has also built on the property
tine, up to the property line, and they have
gratu itously given us back the public area
there that has always belonged to our
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
1 6
17
1 9
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
ll
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
Page 51
entrance.
They have also mischaracterized our
en trance here, and they have not really
reflected the impact of this big high-rise on
the houses on North Bay. Road.
These houses on North Bay Road are
selling in the millions, tens of millions of
dollars--
TilE CHAIRPERSON: Sir, we are go ing to
do our best over her e to --to maintain the
time limits. So we have given you a few
extra minutes. If you can just wrap it up,
please.
MR. INGRAHAM: Thank you. I am really
appearing as an attomey for myself. I am
not appearing as a resident. I am an
attorney. I am a practicing attorney, and I
think I deserve more than two minutes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, you are
hitting five, over five.
MR. HELD : Right. And we really-we
are really limiting the atto rney
representations to those that are
representing groups.
tv!R. INGRAHAM: I think I made my
Page 52
point.
My point is that Palau, despite all of
the pretty talk, has not met the same
standards that were established 20 years ago
in the Sunset Harbour project.
And I also want to point out to you
that thi s is going to be another example of a
Walgreens on Pine Tree and Artbur Godfrey.
I think you all are familiar with that
monstrosity. It was permitted by --
permitted, approved by the Desi gn Review
Board, and then when it was built, everybody
was horrified, the way it sat back agai nst
the canal, and how ugly it is in that area.
Well, we got the same si tuation here.
This area is so bad that when it rains, the
water is two feet deep.
The City has perm itted all these
businesses, high rises, grocery stores,
shops, parking garages, without mitigation
from the developers. And consequently, this
-· this is a gridlock here on --for exampl e,
on Saturday evenings, busy section, it is
gridlocked and we have to use the center
section here, which is now crammed with cars
KRES SE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(30 5 ) 37 1 -7692
13 (P ages 4 9 t o 52}
1
2
3
•
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
15
1 6
11
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
2 0
2 1
2 2
23
24
25
Page 53
every day.
Th ere has been no •• no consi deration
by the city plann ing in respect to us
homeowners who live on these two islands and
who have expensive propertie s.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERS ON: Thank yo u very much.
MR . CARY: Kobi, cou ld you please
clarifY i f the scale of this model is
l 00 percent accurate, or all representations?
MR . KARP : Yes, thi s mode l is, and
also, this model is laser-cut. So what we
did is we took the CA D fil es that we have and
then we I aser cut it.
And j ust to be speci fi c, you can see
bow this is --this water body right here is
abo ut \20 feet wi de, and you can put scales
to it. You can meas ure it and it is very
precise. This right here --you bet.
MR. INGRAHAM : (Inaudi ble)
THE CHAIRPERSON: Make sure to tallc:
into the mic, please.
MR. KARP: Yes, you are, but let me
just ··
You have to account for th e quarter
Page 54
in ch at the bottom of the scales, the
triangular sc al e ··yes , I don't want to cut
your scale, but ri ght here --I will be more
than ha ppy also to share with you .
Okay. This is 50 here, and then here,
is no t.
H ere, it is less, by four feet, okay,
fro m the total hei ght.
But I will be more than happy to send
·-to give you my CAD drawings for the City
and so forth , and they can check it and
qualify i t
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Kobi.
MR. KARP: Because again, our
intention he re is •• in the trees' and the
vegetation we are representing, we. cannot get
a TCO or a C O -· and I am sorry I wasn't here
for the fight with these neighbors, but these
neigh bors had a different zoning.
The zoning here was CD -RM 3. We··
we have a 50 --the code changed and our
height changed and o ur FAR changed for this
design. So what we did is we took th e co de
and the setbacks and we met all of the
setbacks, wh ether they are height an d they
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 55
are FAR. and we have met them, greet them and
beat them.
Furthermore, what we did is we decided
to do this project with our residential
co mponent so that the comme rcial element on
it is on 20th ·street and on the comer.
So our --and then here, you can see
that these townhomes are about 65 feet high
in the back and they are about 25 fe et high
in the .fro nt, and we are 45 feet high on the
water. So you can see that the heights are
there, and we are not 1rying to misrepresent
anythi ng.
On the contrary, if you come and look
at the --at th e map, you will see that the
laser cut --we took the p ublic works fo r the
bridg e, for the gatehouse, and we gave it to
the guys who make the model , and that's what
they cut, and th en we took great care to do
all of that.
Again, you can see also that we even
represente d here without our seawall being
built So once our seawal l will be built, it
would create ev en a better ·-so we took
great care to really tone down any kind of
Page 5 6
thoughts.
And also , the last time when we came
in fr ont of you --sorry to interrupt yo u -·
you said you wanted th e renderings in a
certain angling. So we rendered the ••
rendered in a certain angle so the buil dings
look like what they would reall y loo k like at
six feet.
TilE CHAI RPERSON: Okay. Thank you.
MR. KARP: So sorry fo r the very long
answer .
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please state your
nam e and add ress.
MR. BRANDON; My name is JeffBrnndon.
I live at 2 130 Bay Avenu e, and I have since
1987, and I sp eak as a residen t.
Today, l talk abo ut the facts as Mr.
Ko bi •.
The project is contextually intens ive.
Not my words, those are Chad Oppenheim's.
You remember him last ti me. This project
does not fi t on this property. It is a fi ne
project, it is design ed beautifully and it
has some wonderful material s. It will be
some place a very much credit to it, but not
KRE SS E & AS SOCI ATE S , LLC
(3 0 5 ) 3 7 1-7 692
1 4 (P a ge s 53 to 5 6 )
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 57
on this piece of property.
One of the views -
1HE CHAIRPERSON: Please take the
microphone with you, sir. If you are going
to talk while walking, just take the mic,
okay?
MR. BRANDON: That particular-· I
showed to you because it is part of Mr.
Karp's package in the previous iteration to
plans. I think it is also current with what
we have today.
We have not seen those plans until
they were made available to us, nor was the
model.
But what I show you that is •• that is
a mass of building that occupies all of this
site, with minimal setbacks on the east ,
which is the biggest concern I have today,
which is the Sunset Drive corridor. The
building masses right up to the actual
setback. There is actually no given thought
to what you guys have as your Miami desjgn
criteria.
And I tried to rea!~. it to you from
yours, that "buildings in the bay front
Page 58
should provide light breeze corridor to the
ocean and the bay."
This doe s not·· have llttle of that
at all. What you are being told here today
is that there is a massive effort that has
been made over the Sunset Is land bridge. It
is not the case . It simply does not happen.
You are also charged with
responsibility of building's pedestal should
not fonn a continuous sheer wall .
lfthis doesn't fomt a continuous
sheer wall for the entire width of the
property, then what does?
It is a mass of building. An
attractive building, nobody can say that Kobi
has not designed a beautiful building. But
it is in the wrong spot.
You are also •· "new construction, if
taller than neighborhood buildings" •• and
this is taller -· "should be terraced to
maintain the perception of compatible s cale."
Those are your design criteria.
Mr. Pathm an would have you believe
that scale is perfectly in compliance with·
the ne igh borhood. I object to that, and I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
9
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
l6
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 59
disagree with that. The residents are here
today not because we support this project
Those people are here today becau.se they want
to see something that is compatible,
~mething that does have the sensitivity a.nd
the context of the entire neighborhood,
something that picks up •· you folks speak ••
and I am not an architect, but you talk about
vocabulary.
You talk about appropriateness of
plans. This is an absolutely critical piece
of property. It is the entryway into a
ne ighborhood. It is not just the entryway to
our islands. It is the entryway to Sunset
Harbour, which is going to be one of the most
dynamic places to be over the next 20 years.
I am absolutely privileged to w8.lk: by this
property every day.
We support this proj ect We have
never opposed this project. We just don't
support this project as it is currently being
presented to you.
Thank you for your time.
TiiE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
MR. PATHMAN: A coupl e of quick
Page 60
comments. It is easi~r if we go one on one.
MR. KARP: Just a quick comment. The
roodering that is being presented to you is
being presented from model ·-
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am very aware of
that, thank you.
MR. KARP: Not to scale.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Good rooming. State
your name and address.
MR. BIENSTOCK: Terry Bienstock,
president of Sunset Islands lli and IV
Association, resident at 23\2 Bay A venue,
Sunset Island DI .
"Those who 'cannot remember the past
are condemned to repeat it."
How often have we heard that?
The fact thai so mething can be built
or meets some technical requirements doesn't
mean it is the right thing for the right
place. We have seen that over and over again
on Miami Beach.
The mission of the DRB is to weed out
those projects that are out of scale with the
neighborhood, and this is one of them. It
negatively impacts our residents, both
KRESS E & ASSOCIATE S , LLC
(3 05) 371-7692
15 (Pages 57 to 60)
l
2
3
4
5
6
1
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
n
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
2 2
23
24
2 5
Page 61
financially as well as aesthetically.
We have to see this project every
single day, multiple times a day, because it
is --it now becomes our front entrance.
In Palau, we believe you are looking
at an arrogant project Its des ign, mass,
and height sjmply overwhelms everything
surrounding it, even the mod el, whi ch we sh ow
is not in scale. But regardless, it gives
you enough of an idea.
It is surrounded on three sides by
single-family homes. No one we have spoken
to over the past year while this has been
evaluated has looked at this project and
turned to us and said, "You know, this looks
right for this area. This looks right."
Peop le have said, just as Jeff Brandon
said--by the way, Jeff is a developer .
This is not somebody ·-somebody who's
against development. This is what he does
for a living, builds projects like this.
No one has looked at thi s and said,
"This looks right."
Some people have said, "Th is is a nice
building, but it is the wrong place."
Page 6 2
Some people fear that it won't be
built so there will be just emptiness. But
that is not the criteria for this group.
Some fear that there will be, you
know, warehouses built there, or something
worse could be built there .
You heard Mr. Cary talk about what
could be, what could have been. It could
have been a high-rise.
Well, that is not the criteria. It is
not what could hav e been. It is what is and
what Will be.
And we know what it is today because
it is already constru cted. All three, four
sides are finished. That is what they will
look like for the next hundred years, or
50 years.
What we want is a proj ect in the
center of it that enhances the neighborhood,
not detracts from it, not diminishes it.
You are looking at a project that is
five and then six stories with the pool deck
that simply dwarfs all of the properties
around it, the single-family homes on three
sides --and even the commercial on the
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
2 4
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Hl
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
11
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
Pa ge 63
fourth sid e is only two-story commerc ial.
Even the Comras building next to it is only a
one-story, one and-a-half story commercial.
No w staff has said there is no adverse
neighborhood impact. I have to say, after
working with staff and being at thes e
meetings, that conclusion is simply
misdefined.
Let me just say this: The conclusion
that there is no ·adverse neigh borhood impact
was reached by staff before they ever spoke
to anyone in the neighborhood.
Th ey will confirm that th e first time
we met with staff, they have already issued
their report saying no adverse neighborhood
impact. They had not met with one person in
the neighborhood.
Second, is they said this --this
doesn't have a problem with historic bridges,
and their only report that was issued in
1996, approved by the Commission--and is
the governing law in the area of the historic
neighborhood, the hi storic bridges and the
Sunset Islands --they issued a report saying
it meets all criteria, and admitted to us
Pa ge 64
that they didn't even know -the director
didn't even know that this was a
historically-designated bridge, that it was
adjacent to it. Didn't know.
So the fact that today, staff is
saying that this meets the criteria to the
residents has --carries very little weight.
The meager changes that occurred .•
you all were pretty clear at the last meet ing
in August Go back with the residents, take
into account the mass and scale and the
height issues that the residents have said,
talked about, and do someth ing about it.
And thars precisely what didn't
happen. We never heard from them again until
Friday, and you all know what that was about.
That was just for appearances's sake. They
didn't meet with us, they didn't reach out to
meet with us. Instead, they worked to give
minimum lip service to what staff requested,
because they didn't even do everything staff
requested, they did some of what staff
requested, and hoped they could slide this
through.
After C<>nsultation with three credible
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305 ) 371-7692
16 (Pages 61 t o 64)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
11
19
19
20
21
22
23
21
25
Pa ge 65
architects, you have seen their reports, land l
planning engineer and several developers who 2
live in our islands, we met with staff and 3
proposed what we had proposed before. If you 4
look at thi s project, the reason we are ip 5
this fix is because they created all this 6
interior space, inste ad of making it on the ?
exterior. a
The secret garden. Had they put the 9
garden on the outside, we wouldn't be here lO
because they would be able to set back the 11
building in a rational fashion to reduce the 12
mass and scale and have som e step-in that 13
would make a very big change in the 1 4
appearance of the building. 1 5
lnstead, they decided to benefit the 16
handful of residents that live there, to the 17
detriment of the hundreds and hundreds of 18
residents who live all around it. 19
Staff said to us, "Can you put 20
something in writing? Can you put a proposal 21
in writing? We don't think what you are 22
asking for is unreasonable. And we will send 23
it to the Design Review Board," which we did, 2 4
and then they did, and you have it in front 25
Page 66
of you. And others will talk about that. 1
But I just want you to hear one thing: 2
When you hear our residents speak. don't just 3
listen to what they say, but listen to who 4
they are. These are. not crazies who are 5
coming in here to say, "Oh. all development 6
is bad, we don't want to --we don't want 7
anything" -· it is not true. You are going 8
to listen to architects and engineers and 9
lawyers and doctors and developers, and 10
listen carefully to what they have to say. 11
Thankyou. 12
THE CfWRPERSON: Thank you. 13
MR. PA'I1IMAN: Mr. Chairman, r have one H
question ofMr. Bienstock. 15
You referred to a report concerning 16
the historic bridge, I believe. 17
THE WlTNESS: Yes. 1e
MR. PA THMAN: Were you referring to 19
the historic bridge designation report for 20
the Sunset Islands bridges l, II and IV? 21
MR. BIENSTO CK: Yes. 22
rvffi. PATIIMAN: Okay . And you indicated 23
that staff has not adequately looked at and 24
examined the issue in relation to our 25
Page 67
building and the bridge; is that correct?
:MR. BIEN STOCK: No.
MR. PATHMAN: What did you state?
1\IIR.. BIENSTOCK: What I stated is that
when we first met with staff and they had
already issued the report supporting this
project, the planning director informed us
that he was unaware of this report and didn't
know the bridge was historic.
MR. PATIIMAN: Are you aware that the
author of this report is the assistant
director, tvlr. William Cary?
MR. BIENSTOCK: Yes. But I am talking
about Mr. Lorber, who is the head of the
Planning Department, who issued the report
Mr. Cary was not involved in the report to
the Planning Board. It was Mr. Lorber.
MR. PA THMAN: But you understand that
Mr. Cary is the assistant director and has
been involved both at Planning Board level
and today at the ORB, and the report was
drafted at Mr. Cary's discretion to give to
the DRB; is that correct?
MR. BIENSTOCK: That is obvious.
lviJl P ATHMAN: And are you aware of a
Page 68
paragraph in this report that states the
following ··I would like to read this into
the record --"Design combines historic
designation, promotes an understanding of
such desi gn features and does not require or
recommend reproductions of period
architecture. To the contrary, compatible
contemporary design is encouraged fo r new
construction and additions."
MR. BIENSTOCK: Are you aware of where
it says that "renovations ··placing a
boxlike structure" -on Page 22 -
"compatibility with the character of the
historic -· island neighbor which positively
influences·· placing a boxlike structure in
a neighborhood of high quality, articulated
buildings may not be appropriate.
Renovations or additions and structures
should respect the mass of existing buildings
and character. n
And those types of statements are
throughout the historic designation report.
(Applause.)
:MR. P A THMAN: I am actually glad that
Mr. Bien stock read that because it just go es
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(30 5) 371-7692
17 (Pages 65 to 68)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.5
16
17
lS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
a
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pa ge 69
to show you that he is not understanding what 1
he is reading in this docwnent 2
Mr. Cary is the one who authored it. 3
He has reviewed it. He has applied these 4
standards to our application, has given us a s
glowing recommendati on . 6
It is not a bo xlike structure. It 7
does not meet that criteria he just read. It a
is more in line with what I read. 9
And you have Mr. Cary here today, who 10
can certainly answer these questions for you, 11
and you don't have to take my word or Mr. 12
Bienstock's word. 13
But the truth is, it is a 14
well -designed buildin g that is compat ible 15
with the neighborhood and compatible with the 16
bridge . 17
MR. BIENSTOCK: This report is not 1a
even referenced in the staff report. It is 19
not even mentioned. 20
THE CHAIRPERSON: The entire Board did 21
receive a copy of.that. 22
MR.BIENSTOCK : Atmy-atmy 23
submission. 2 4
THE CHAIRPERSON: And we did all look 25
Page 70
at it and read it. So I mean. that is all I
can at least offer at thi s point We are
aw are ofit. I read it. I highlighted it.
1 --the same questions you both read off.
So--
MR. PATHMAN : I think it is oonve nient
when you have the author of the article, who
is also the assistant director who wrote the
recommendation.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay thank yo u, both
of you. Thank you.
Next, please, state your nam e and
address, thank you.
DR. KADTY ALA : Kumar Kodiyala, 21 11
Regatta A venue.
I live in direct sight lines of the
proposed proj ect. My wi fe and I are both
surgeons. We moved here elgltt years ago and
stumbled on this wonderful neighbo rhood, and
have had the privi lege of raising our two
and-a..halfyear-old twin sons here.
This is my first utterance at a public
meeting in thi s forum, and to be honest, it
may be my last because I take offense of
telling our president of our homeowners
1
2
3
4
5
6 .,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 71
association he doesn 't quite understand what
he is saying --he is reading.
We are here as residents of our
neighborhood. We are all professionals of
this neighborhood, giving our own time for
the better benefit of our city .
I wUI!eave the details to Mr.
Bienstock and other developers within my
neighborhood. But I echo the comments they
have said in multiple meetings in the past
and will be saying in the future, that the
nature of the project is a wonderful idea.
All of us welcome a development of
this site, particularly since th is is a
once-in-a-generation project that will be
here for decades and decades to come.
However, I echo those concerns as to
si ze, scope, scal e, and density that Mr.
Bienstock had so eloquently outlined in
numerous other meetings.
The issue is, it is a neighborhood.
It is not purely a business aspect, and as
someone who drives up and down Al ton Road,
this is our one chance to make a visually
appea ling entrance to the historic South
Pa ge 72
Beach neigh borhood.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
Please, nelCt person --j ust-good
morning.
Just state your name and address,
please.
MS. HOLLANDER: Thank you. Thank you
for the opportunity to be here.
My name is Susan HoUander, and I live
at 1450 West 21st Street, which is in direct
sight line of the projea, of the Palau
project.
I am pro-development, with
lim itations. 1 have to be. By day, 1 am a
real estate advisor, commercial realtor and
real estate attorney.
By night, I teach real estate law in
the business school ofF1U and at NYU.
Winston Churchill has said that nwe
shape our buildings, and thereafter, they
shape us."
I ask that you please keep this in
mind as we reshape the future of what will
happen in this neighborhood.
It has been mentioned by both the
KRE SSE & ASSO CIAT ES , LL C
{305) 371 -7692
18 (Pages 69 t o 72)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 73
developer and by the residents that we are at
the gateway to our neighborhood. It is not
only the gateway, but it is the only way in
and out unless you want to swim there --
which 1 did consider when the new owner of
the property rented the property to a movie
company for several months that blocked
entrance with their major trucks and told me
not to talk on my cell phone even when I
walked by because it would disturb the movie
that was being filmed there. 1 needed to get
home and I was talking on my cell phone.
But that was just another use that
this current owner is using in the interim
that has caused a disturbance to the
neighbors, and that is not even the permanent
use.
Another issue is that they have
mentioned the historic bridge. The report
that was written by Mr. Cary that·· we
understand or we don't understand, but I
think something that the developer
understands very well is that the historic
bridge on the low scale of our neighborhood,
adds value to their project. And that's why
Page 74
they want to pack as many units as they can
facing our neighborhood that are small scale,
because it is pleasing to view that.
And like I said, I am pro-development.
I want a beautiful project there, but I don't
want the benefit to that developer at the
detriment to all the homes and a ll the people
that live on our island.
So that addresses massing and scale
and traffic, to some extent I am still
concerned about the three parldng spaces that
I understand -and correct me if I am wrong
·-will be on 20th Street, because those are
three spaces, but as we know on Miami Beach,
people take the liberty to park anywhere they
see a place that they could fit more than
three cars in. And as I said, it is the only
entrance in and out Not just for us trying
to get home and make dinner, but for
emergency vehicles that come In and out,
police cars, anybody that is trying to get in
and out •• that is the only way. So I am
concerned about traffic and those three
parking spaces.
I am concerned about the setback from
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
11
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
H
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 75
the water. When we see the townhomes, we see
setback -· it is a larger setback, and the
townhomes are only two stories and they are
terraced.
This is a block. It might be a
prettier block than the townhomes, but it is
still a massive block, massing, and we just
see a big square across from us.
Something else that I am concerned
about is crime reduction. They say that they
are going to have a public walkway that I
guess will empty itself directly onto OUT
bridge. So again, they are using our park
and our bridge·-which I realize is a public
park •• our park and our bridge and OUT low
density to increase the value of their
property, while not really caring that much
about what we have to say.
And I am sure we have all been to a
lot of hearings, but we have been here--we
have been fighting tooth and nail, basically,
because it has been a very slow progress to
get any •• any reductions or any setbacks
from the developer. And if we weren't here
today, and if we hadn't been here for the
Page 76
past, I guess, six or eight months, we would
not have had anything happen.
But 1 just ask you, please keep in
mind that we do shape our buildings, and
thereafter, they shape us. And today, each
of you has the opportunity to shape the
future of not only how the residents will
e..xperience living on Sunset Islands, but also
how people wh.o enjoy using the canal will
experience, as well.
Thank you for the opportunity to be
here.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
MR. PATHMAN: I don't have any
questions, but I do have a couple of
comments. I just want to clarify the record
on a couple of things; one, with regard tO
three parking spaces •• we have met
extensively with the City and Public Works
and the Parking Departnent, and obviously,
they control the parking spaces. Mr. Cary is
aware of that. We did get them to eliminate,
I believe, one space, but they are not in
agreement of agreeing to eliminate the other
three spaces. Jt is not something we
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
19 (Pages 73 to 76)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 77
control. They want them there. They feel it
is necessary. Maybe in the future when the
building is built, they might reconsider, but
it is not within our control.
The other thing is that the public
walkway that was referred to •• that is a
requirement under the shoreline review, for
it to have a bay walk. We would prefer not
to have it, but -· because it is something we
are going to be landscaping, encroaching on
our private property --but it is required
for the public benefit as well as the
island's benefit.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MS. HOLLANDER: If l can just address
that --I don't mind if they have it. I just
want to know what type of extra steps they
are going to do to abate crime and
home lessness.
TilE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR. HELD: Mr. Chair, Ithiukjust to
further clarify the record, those three
spaces are on Sunset Drive and not 20th
Street.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.
Page 78
Next is··
Please state your name and address.
MR. SAMUELS : Yes. 1 am Michael
Samuels. I am at 1830 West 24th Street on
Sunset Island HI. I have lived there for
the past 12 years.
My story is that I joined the Board of
the homeowners association of Sunset Island
III and N several years ago and served for a
number of years on the Board, eventually as
the vice president.
The reason I joined the Board was
virtually solely becau se I felt that the
entrance to our islands was •• was an
eyesore. It was a very deficient place in
tenns of the appearance of Mark's Cleaners.
The appearance of the parks-· it was
like everybody said, the gateway to the
neighborhood, and that area needed attention
from our homeowners Board. So we did what we
could for several years, made little
progress, Mark's was not going anywhere.
And now, we have a completely
different opportunity, and it is incredibly
exciting.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
9
9
1 0
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 79
And I want to say that l am in favor
very much of developing this project. I want
Mark's gone. I want something that is
architecturally sensitive and beautiful and
sophisticated and going to enhance the
entranoe to our islands and the entire
neighborhood. And I do think the developers
have made some concessions in that regard,
and I think we are partway there. And the
key is to get the rest of the way there.
I am not going to go over the details.
I think Terry did a great job, and I think
Jeff BI'11Ildon did, too. I think we want less
massing. We want more teO"acing. We want
better setbacks. We want better context, and
we are partway there. The key is to fmisb
the job and to get the project right. This
is our one chance, and this is what our
homeowners' association and people like me
have been dreaming about for years. So I
hope the Board takes this very seriously.
Thank you.
THE CH.AJRPERSON: Thank you very much.
Just state your name and address.
Thank you.
Page 80
:tvfR. CAPORALE: My name is Robert L.
Ca(JQrale, C-A-P-0-R-A -L-E . I live at 1710
West 23rd Street, which, as you know, is on
Sunset Island III.
I am a member of the homeowners
association, but lam appearing on behalf of
myself and my family.
We are responsible, caring and tax
paying citizens of this city. We are not
obstructionists, and we bring to you and to
your attention our feelings about this
project and whether or not it is compatible
with the neighborhood.
And I understand why counsel for an
applicant would express the opinion that it
is compatible with the neighborhood, but I
suggest to you to look out at the
neighborhood, and I suggest to you that no
one here from this neighborhood thinks that
this project is compatible.
You have heard others describe the
site as unique, important, a gateway to the
Sunset Harbour neighborhood, the entire
neighborhood, not just our neighborhood, our
residential neighborhood.
KRESSE & AS SOC IATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
20 (Pages 77 to 80)
1
2
3
4
5 .
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
t
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
H
15
16
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
Page 81 Page 83
And they also describe this project as l nobody like you looking to see what was
a resi denti al project. Well, I happen to be 2 happening. The only way it could be stopped
a lawyer, and I suggest to you that those-3 was to go to court And fortunately, the
that that terminology is a bit deceptive, 4 people of Sunset Harbour did that.
because what we have here is a developer who 5 It was a long battle. We all watched,
intends to build a condominium project, sell 6 and we were proud that the neighbors were
those condo units, and they will be gone. 7 able to express their displeasure and have a
They arc not a neighbor . They are not a 8 change made there.
citizen of this city. They are a developer 9 The staff report concerned me. I love
for profi t. I underst8nd that. They have a 10 William Cary. He always does the be st. But
right to attempt to do that. But they do not ll you or someone called Palau an icon for the
have a right to come in and impose upon this 12 neighborhood, the Sunset Harbour
community and this neighborhood a building 13 neighborhood. That is not an icon. It is
and a structure that is not compat ible. And 14 what you are hearing described here. It is a
l suggest to yo u tbat notwithstanding the 15 piece of concrete that is going to have 20 --
staff report, you, as Board members, have an 16 is it 20 no w -· it is hard to keep track
obligation and a duty that I hope you will 17 because it keeps changing. It is a piece of
apply and not just rubb er stamp a staffs 18 concrete that is being built there for
report. We wouldn't need this Board if that 19 profit. Who knows what it will actually tum
is all you were going to do. 20 out to be.
So I ask that you apply your criteria 21 One of my side endeavors is chairing
care fully, specifically to this proj ect, and 22 the Miami Beach United, whi ch is an
keep this neighborhood in a manner that saves 23 organization that formed last year to protect
its value, makes it safe, makes it pretty, 24 the rights and the pleasures ofliving here
and keeps our families and our neighborhood 25 and having a quality of life as a resident.
Page 82 Page 84
th e way it should be, and not to be imposed 1 We have passed a resolution whi ch is going to
upon by this proposed development. 2 be heard in November at the Land Use where it
Thank you. 3 requires that these kinds of commercial
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very mu ch . 4 projects, residential in nature or whatever
Good morning. s they are, that are out of scale with the
MS. LIEBMAN: Good morning. 6 residential area, such as Palau, will be
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please state your 7 reviewed for 1be height, the mass, the scale,
name and address. a the sh eer walls, the lack of visuals going
MS. LIEBMAN : My name is Nancy 9 toward the water, all of those arguments.
Liebman. I live on Belle Isle, 9 Island 10 You have been there before because
Avenue. I am here today as a neighbo r.. I am 11 Belle Isle --we argued the same things when
here today as a preservation activist in this 12 the proj ect was going on the north side of
city for the past 32 years, and 1 was a 13 the Venetian causeway. This is residents
tittle concerned about what is going in my 14 trying to work with residents, which I think
neighborhood just around the comer where I 15 you all are.
live, work, do have children who live In 16 And I would urge you to consider some
Sunset Harbolli. So I am very concerned about l7 of the things that are just going to be
what this is. 19 thrown into th is neighborhood. Sunset
I was here ·-I don't even know how 19 Harbour is an emerging neighborhood. It used
many years ago when the towers were built. 20 to be nothing but a tow yard. It has
We were all horrified. I didn 't even live 21 improved. It's great. Don't let that energy
near there, but to see that go ing up on the 22 --don't let that energy stop. Don't let
waterfront -· those were the dark days of 23 projects that are out of scale and not good,
Miami Beach. That is the best way I can 24 as they did in the dark days.
describe it. There was nobody, none of you, 25 Thank you. Very nice to visit with
..
KR ESS E & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 37 1-7692
2 1 (Pages 8 1 to 84)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
l1
12
13
l4
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 85
you. I have never seen all of you together.
THE CHAIRPERS ON: Thank you ve ry much.
Good morning.
MR. URSTADT: Good morning. My name
is Charlie Urstadt, and I am a member the
Planning Board. I am the chairman of the
Miami Design Preservation Leagu e. I am on
the Board of Belle Isle Residents
Association. I live in Belle Isle, but I am
not here in any of those roles right how.
Hi, Wayne. How are you?
MR. PATHMA.N: Hi, Charlie. How are
you?
MR. URSTADT: 1 spent a lotoftime
with Wayne because--SJid I have many hours
spent on this project because of the Planning
Board. And I thought I would bring some of
my experiences in that role here and maybe
help you all in what you are facing right
now .
It is tough. I mean, I have sat up
there, sat right there where you a..re, and
this project went on for hours and hours and
hours. I guess 1 heard 14, and then I heard
another six, or something like that. So I
Page 86
have a Jot of knowledge and experien ce with
what this is.
And our criteria as Planning Board
members is obviously different from what you
all are dealing with, and I think when we
went through the details of thi s project, we
all felt --I mean, the consensus that I
gathered on the Bo ard was that this was a
gre at project in many ways and could do many
wonderful things for the Sunset Harbour
nei ghborhoods. And that is a plus for Mi ami
Beach, without a doubt.
Mark's is gone, and the sad structure
next to it is not a good thing fo r the whole
city. So having this property improved is
fantastic.
And it is important to you, obviously,
to balance the rights of the owner of the
pro perty with the greater goo d of the city,
and how that will be affected . And I think
on the whole, having a new residential
condominium designed well in that spot is
going to be good for everybody.
But yo u obviously have very strong
powers in the sense that the powers that you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 87
have to impose on the applicant in terms of
de sign will make a significant impact on this
project, and I think that is something that
if! were in your position, I would obviously
take very seriously.
Nancy, former Commissioner Liebman,
just referen ced the Belle Isle project across
the street from the Grand Ve netian. And in
that situation, the Design Review Board
impos ed some very stiff standards, standards
which, in fact, wound up reducing the square
footage of the property. So you know, you do
have strong powers, and you need to use those
wisely.
And 1 will be very bri ef, Mr.
Chairman. I know I am runn ing out of time.
My point, I guess, is that you have
real ly a com pany of different possibilities
and ways of dealing with thi s. But if you
look around, you can see the resi dents are
very concerned about this.
And I found that every time there was
further discussion amongst the residents and
further criteria, other concerns expressed by
the Board, this project improved.
Pa ge 88
And so there is n.o harm in listening
to what is being said, making your own
comments and suggestions, letting the
developer know what yo u thi nk, and then
continuing it, if need be.
So that is my--my sage advice, and I
appreciate your time .
Thank you very much.
MR. PA TilMAN: Mr. Chainnan, I have a
couple of questions of Charlie, if I may.
Charlie, you indicated-
MR. URST ADT: Remember Bea Kalstein?
Does anybody here remember Bea?
Wayne sort of hangs aroun d and look at
you as you're talking \i ke see did. She was
wonderful.
Thank you, Wayne. Sorry. You are
wonderful. Sorry.
MR. PATHMAN: Well, I am not sure what
that meant, but I guess it was a compliment.
MR. URSTADT: She was great.
MR. PA THMAN: You mentioned you are a
member of the Planning Board, and you are
currently serving on the Planning Board .
MR. URSTADT : That is correct.
KRE SSE & AS SO CIATES , LL C
(305) 371-7692
22 (Page s 85 t o 88)
.
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
l4
15
1 6
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
1 0
ll
12
13
l4
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
2 2
2 3
24
25
Page 89
MR. PATHMAN: And you recall our 1
presentation and that there was a unanimous 2
vote, one of which was yours. 3
MR.. URSTADT: Correct. 4
MR. PATHMAN : And you recall you had 5
mandated that we do a few things. You put a 6
few cond itions that imposed on the proj ect in 7
order to obtain a vote; is that correct? 8
MR. URST ADT: That's correct. 9
N.IR. PATifMAN: And we di d all ofthem. 10
MR.. URSTADT: You did a great job. 11
MR. PA1HMAN: And since then, we have 12
even modified the plan even more. 13
MR.. URST ADT: That's great, and H
apparently, you need to do more because the 15
residents seem very upset. 16
.MR..PATHMAN: Well,itisnotabout 1 7
doing more. We may never be abl e to satisfY 18
everybody, because I think we have done about 19
everything we have been able to do. 20
But my concern is that you are here -· 21
you are here today speaking again, although 22
you already have given us your directive when 23
you sat on the Planning Board-· 24
--I have not finish my question --25
Page 9 0
MR. URSTADT: What they are facing
here on the Design Revi ew Board -
MR. PATHMAN: But l have not fmished
my question.
--'and we fmished and we did
everything that you asked of us whe n you were
on the Planning Board. And many of these
same issues, everything that you have heard
today was heard in front of the Planning
Board. Wasn't that correct?
MR. URST ADT: l think the design is a
different criteria than what the Planning
Board was considering.
:MR PA TilMAN: The design may be a
different criteria, but everything you have
heard today was heard in front of the
Planning Board, wasn't it, for the most part?
MR. URSTADT: Not necessari ly. There
were other pe ople who s poke, and that is not
necessarily true.
MR. P ATHMAN: Can you tell me what you
heard to day that is different?
MR. URSTADT: Well , I think Terry
Bienstock made some great points, and l think
some of those things were different. I think
1
2
3
4
5
6
"'
8
$1
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 91
one of those problems that there has been
with this proj ect is there has been a very
contentious atmosphere, and a lot of that has
to do with the kind of cross-exam ination that
is being done, like here. So I would suggest
that a little more conciliation would be
probably in order, and might make a big
difference.
MR. PATIIMAN: Well, I appreciate your
sentim ents, but unfortunately, I have an
obligation to make a record in case there is
an appeal, and that is why it is necessary to
cross-examine.
MR. URSTADT: Do what you have to do,
Wayne.
MR. PA TilMAN: My issue was that you
voted, you appr oved it, and we met all of the
cond itio ns that you put up on us; is that
correct?
MR. URSTADT: As f said on the
Planning Board .
MR. PATIIMAN: Thank you.
Tiffi CHAIRPERSON: Thank you both.
Good morning.
MS. LALAND: Good morning. Jackie
Page 92
Laland, 151 5 West 22nd Street.
I'm --1 think I have been before you
folks before, spoken on ·-on behalf of the
residents before.
I am also , you know, a mem ber of the
association, an officer of the associ ation.
I want to call a spade a spade, you
know?
It is real simple. Yo u loo k over
there, you can see the mistakes that were
made by the City. Those big two aces of
spades right over there, you know, loo k, are
completely out of character with our
buil ding.
But that is not the project we are
talking about today. We are talking abo ut
one that is to be buil t, one where you folks
specifically gave a directive to those
developers, and they specifically ignored
your directive, which was to get in touch
wi th us folks, the neighborhood, and to try
to work it out. Becau se we want to work it
out. Everybody has told you we want to work
it out. They haven't, and they are not going
to, and they are not going to do anything
KRE SSE & A~SOCIATES, LLC
(30 5 ) 3 7 1 -7692
23 (P a ges 89 to 92)
l
2
3
4
0
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 89 Page 91
MR. PA THMAN: And you recall our 1 one of those problems that there has been
presentation and that there was a unanimous 2 with this project is there has been a very
vote, one of which was yours. 3 contentious atmosphere, and a lot of that has
MR. URSTADT: Correct 4 to do with the kind of cross-examination that
:MR. PA 'IHMAN: And you recall you had 5 is being done, like here. So I would suggest
mandated that we do a few things. You put a I) that a little more conciliation would be
few conditions that imposed on the project in 7 probably in order, and might make a big
order to obtain a vote; is that correct? 8 difference.
~ URSTADT: That's correct 9 :MR. PA TilMAN: Well, I appreciate your
MR. PATIIMAN: And we did all of them. 10 sentiments, but unfo rtunately, I have an
MR. URST ADT: You did a great job. 11 obligation to make a record in case there is
MR. P A THMAN: And since then, we have 12 an appeal, and that is why it is necessary to
even modified the plan even more. 13 cross-examine.
MR. URSTADT: That's great, and 14 MR. URST ADT: Do what you have to do,
apparently, you need to do more because the 15 Wayne.
residents seem very upset. 16 MR. PA THMAN: My issue was that you
MR. PATHMAN: Well, it is not about 17 voted, you approved it, and we met all of the
doing more. We may never be ab le to satis.fY 18 conditions that you put upon us; is that
everybody, because I think we have done about 19 correct?
everything we have been able to do. 20 MR. URSTADT: As I said on the
But my concern is that you are here •· 21 Planning Board.
you are here today speaking again, although 22 MR. PATHMAN: Thank you .
you already have given u.s your directive when 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you J:>oth.
you sat on the Planning Board --24 Good morning.
•• I have not finish my question •• 25 MS. LALAND: Good morning. Jackie
Page 90 Page 92
MR. URSTADT: What they are facing 1 Laland, 1515 West 22nd Street.
here on the Design Review Board --2 I'm --I think I have been before you
MR. PATHMAN: But I have not finished 3 folks before, spoken on --on behalf of the
my question . -4 residents before.
··'and we finished and we did 5 I am also, you know, a member of the
everything that you asked of us when you were 6 association, an officer of the association.
on the Planning Board. And many of these 1 I want to call a spade a spade, you
same issues, everything that you have heard a know?
today was heard in front of the Planning 9 It is real simple. You look over
Board. Wasn't that correct? 10 there, you can see the mistakes that were
MR. URSTADT: I think the design is a 11 made by·the City. ThGse big two aces of
different criteria than what the P lanning 12 spades right over there, you know, look, are
Board was considering. 13 completely out of character with our
MR. PATHlviAN: The design may be a 14 building.
different criteria, but everything you have 15 But that is not the project we are
heard today was heard in front of the 16 talking about today. We are talking about
Planning Board, wasn 't it, fo r the most part? 17 one that is to be built, one where you folks
MR. URSTADT: Not necessarily. There 18 specifically gave a directive to those
were other people who spoke, and that is not 19 developers, and they specifically ignored
necessarily true. 20 your directive, which was to get in touch
l\.1R. PATIIMAN: Can you tell me what you 21 with us folks, the neighborhood, and to try
heard today that is different? 22 to work it out. Because we want to work it
.MR. URSTADT: Well, I think Terry 23 out. Everybody has told you we want to work
Bienstock made some great points, and 1 think 24 it out. They haven't, and they are not going
some of those things were different. I think 25 to, and they are not going to do anything
KRESSE & A~SOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
23 (Pages 89 to 92)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
14
l::i
16
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
• 2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 93
unless you guys tell them what to do. 1
And so that's your respons ibility. 2
And I know how hard it is to have a very 3
serious re sponsibility, we just had it in the 4
Budget Advisory Committee. We have-we had s
to go and we had a Jot oflobby!ng where we 6
had to tell folks that the best thing for the 7
City of Miami Beach was to enact a better B
pension plan so that the residents of this 9
city would be better off. lO
It wasn't easy. We had a lot of 1 1
people that didn't want us to tell th e truth. 12
And we are asking that you tell these 1 3
developers the truth, because unless you tell 14
them that they have to be compatible with the 1 5
neighborhood, that they have to work with us, 16
they are not going to do it. 17
We tried, you know? And we are 18
reasonable people. 19
So once again, I ask you to please 20
exercise your powers; as Charlie said, to 21
please understand that we do not feel that 22
this building, as it is proposed now, is 23
compatible with our neighborhood, but we do 24
sincerely believe that it can be, if-you give 25
Page 94
those developers that directive .
l thank you very much for your service
to the City.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
MR. PATHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I have no
questi ons, but I do have a couple of comments
I would like to make the Board aware of.
As noted in the staff report, we met
and have tried to meet many times with the
Sunset Islands Homeowners Association.
And most recently --I think it was
about three weeks ago --my client was
contacted by Mr. Luria, who is a Board
member, and asked to meet.
My client said he would be happy to
meet. He would like to bring our project
manager, which is Matt Cicero, who is sitting
over there, to meet with them .
They rejected that meeting. They only
wanted to meet with our principal , Mr. Meier
Zabemick, without any other representation.
I was not going to attend the meeting,
but the project manager was going to be
there .
They refused to meet with us. And
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
a
9
1 0
1l
1 2
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
25
Page 95
then there was som e dialogue over the last
few days about meeting -which again, they
indicated that there was no point in meeting
if we are not going to make any changes.
We have ma de all of the changes that
the Board has asked us to do, that the
Planning Board has asked us to do, and that
staff has asked us to do.
But our meetings, for the most part,
have been contentious. They have not been
productive, and there is a whole other
element that we may get into as to what those
meetings really entailed.
Unfortunately, they chose to tell us
who we should meet with. I mean, who could
meet -who could attend the meeting , which
they said only Mr.·zabemick can attend. Mr.
Zabemick said, "l need to have my project
manager there. He is intimately familiar
with the project. He knows all of the
details, and it will be a more productive
meeting if he is there."
And they refused, and there are
e-mails or texts that corroborate that. So I
want you to be aware of that. It was not
Page 96
that we were saying, "We will not meet with
you." We did try, and they rejected it.
In addition to that, we have--we
have tried very diligently to incorporate--
they don't give us any credit, but th ere are
over 30 changes from the time that we fi led
this application before the Planning Board to
today. Mr. Cary is aware of those. He has
taken those into consideration, and many of
the things that you are hearing are not
accurate. We have made significant changes
to this project.
1HE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you .
Good morning. Please state your name
and address .
DR. IVERS: Good morning. Hi. My
name is Dr. Robert Ivers. I live at 2122 Bay
Avenue, Sunset Island Number IV . I have
lived there since 1976. I was born and
raised here in Miami Beach, went to North
Beach, Nautilus, Beach High. 1 have had my
practice on Lincoln Road for 42 years .
There has been a very serious probl em
going on, on 20th Street, which happens to be
the main entrance over here. I can't give
KRESSE & ASSOC IATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
24 (Pages 93 to 96)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
1<1
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 97
you the exact date, but in particular, was •. l
last week, we had that torrential rain that 2
lasted about 35 minutes in there. 3
I do some work with the Weather Bureau 4
because r am a ham radio operator and I am on 5
their emergency net in there, and I am part 6
of their spotter program. 7
At that tim e, Tremont Towing said that B
they had the largest money day that they have 9
ever had towing cars out of there. It was 1 o
impossible to get from Alton Road, from the 11
east, and into •• 12
THE CHAIRPERSON: You have to stay on 13
the mic. l4
MR. HELD: Yes, you do, sir. 15
DR. IVERS: Sorry. 16
This is the entrance right here.. 17
1HE CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it is 18
·-turned on. 19
I don't know how to.. 20
DR. IVERS: All right. And I •• and 21
the entrance over here. I went back -· I 22
live at the end of Sunset Island. I put on 2 3
my foul weather gear, walked over. We 24
measured 34 inches of water in there in less 25
Page 98
than 35 rrunutes -ofrain. 1
Whil e I came back over here, two 2
police cars-were being towed out of there. 3
It was impossible to leave or any-· I looked 4
over here, and now the same problem is going 5
on over at the Fresh Market here. 6
Now, I have heard before this Board 7
that·· that everybody said that they did a
traffic studies, height elevations and 9
everything else. If you are going to have 10
this whole project back here asking for 1 1
another five feet elevation in here, another 12
set of steps--up over the third step of 13
Publix, okay, that went up over there, all l4
right. In the middle of this whole thing, 15
the movie production company for.. 16
Tremont •• and some of you may have seen it, 1 7
it is on cable TV. l forget exactly what 18
channel was on there -· was a huge trucker 19
which carne over there and had to tow Tremont zo
out of there. 21
()kay? 22
Now, here, we have over here, okay, on 23
an --and this was not a named stonn. Forget 2 4
about during a hurricane or a real torrential 25
Page 99
tropical storm. This was just one of our 30,
35-minut.e downpours.
A car is going to enter here because
it is flooded from approximately the ·-about
ten feet in from where M3!k's is, all the way
down in here, okay?
Part of it is when I looked down at
your new garage, which I guess is owned
partly by the City, I don't know-~ the north
entrance was block~ off. It was flooded,
you could not enter that garage, and that's
the City's project.
So whoever did the traffic studies in
here and height elevations in here--okay.
Now, where are they going to park if
they can't enter here because their cars are
flooded out? Okay?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your
comments.
MR. KARP: Just as a side note to Dr.
Ivers, right now, obviously, the site that
stopped construction·· just ~topped, and the
water from Mark's Dry Cleaners is running
into the public right-of-way.
Our project is designed to take all of
Page 100
the water, hold it on our side, and we
maintain it on our side. So that wiU
alleviate any water that comes up on our
side, and we have the drainage contained
on-site. Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
DR. IVERS: In response to Mr. Karp
there, I talked to the general construction
manager up in Lakeland, Florida, for Publix
in there. They said they have come before
the City approximately five times. The City
says, "We cannot raise it anymore ."
The problem is there, and that's it.
()kay?
In particular, I have--there, I saw
the flooding of the garage. I went over to
the manager of Publix, who had six cars
trapped up·· upstairs, up there, and they
were putting food that was defrosting back in
there because there was no way that the cars
were coming out. They actually blocked the
entrance and exits to Publix in there. So--
1HE CHAlRPERSON: Thank you.
DR. IVERS : -· how are we going to
enter in there?
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
25 (Pages 97 t o 100)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
u
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
n
22
23
24
2 5
Page 101
Where are we --they going to park?
1HE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
DR. IVERS: They STe either going to
stack up on Sunset Drive --
TI-IE CHAIRPERSON: And next, please--
MR. P A TliMAN: If I could just arld
about that parking issu e and the flooding-·
we have mechanical parking, so cars are
allowed in there.
DR. SINGA YA: Good morning. My name
is Dr. Singaya. I live right across from the
project where it is going to be happening.
It is 14 10 West 21st Street.
I welcome the project. It is goi ng to
clean out the whole neighborhood, which is a
plus thing. But my concern is, it is
surrounded by three residential in the behind
and two sid es. It is an all residential
neighborhood. So I think residents should be
heard about the height, because if it is
going to stand out above all of the
structures around it, it is going to look
odd. And I think that's one of the major
concerns, that it should match the adjacent
structure, at least the Sunset Harbour
Pa ge 102
townhouses. It shouldn't be bigger than
that. So that's my concern. Once you build,
you can't take it away, so you have to
restrict it ri ght from the beginning.
So I think that's my concern. and I
live rigltt behind it. You know?
And if you look, you know, all ofth.e
houses here on the island are, like, a
certain height I mean, it is going to
overlook all of the--over the structures,
and --but it is going to be the only--
highest structure in that neighborhood on
that line, on the whole road. And my concern
is, it should match the adjacent stru cture,
at least the Sunset Harbour townhouses.
THE CHAIRPERSON : Okay. Thank you for
that, presenter.
MR. PATHMAN: But I do have a couple
of comments .
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Pathman, were
yo u saving your comments for rebuttal']
MR. PATIIMAN: Well, I think, like we
did in Planning Board, it was easier -·
MR. HELD: But you are not doi ng
cross-examination, so maybe you should j ust
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
1
2
3
4
5
6 .,
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
1 ~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2:l
24
25
Page 103
hold it
tvfR. GIBBS: I have no problem with him
doing this in place of rebuttal If this is
in place of rebuttal, that is fme.
.MR. PA~: I am trying to be
infonnative and correct the record .
MR. HELD: Add it to your list.
tvfR. P ATHMAN : That is my list. ·
THE CHA IRPERSON: So Tucker and Kent,
are you planning on --
MR. GIBBS: Th ere are some more
people.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please, Jet's step
up.
Thank you.
Just state your name and address.
DR LENS: My name is Dr. Olga Lens,
and I live in the house that is --not in the
island, but it is in the comer at the
entrance of the island.
I am not going to repeat all of the
concerns of these --of my neighbors, let's
call them_ But I have ·-want to tell you
that I feel that my house is the most
affected from all of th ese projects, because
Page 1 04
I live just across the street wh~ all these
things is going--this drama is going to
develop.
So 1 am not going to go into it, ilrto
this, but I want--I feel like I am going to
have these people, the co ndominium, as
someone has called it --very prop erly, in my
opinion -sitting in my parlor, because I --
it is going to be a very narrow space between
them and I.
I th ink that the project is vecy nice.
It is beautiful, it is fantastic, but it is
going to affect the tranquility in my house.
And besides, I want to express -·
express my public appreciation to Mr. Teay
here, who has given me the opportun ity to
voice out all these concerns, which are my
nei ghbors', which are mine, too. It is okay.
Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
DR. LENS: I hope that everything is
going to work out.
MR. DEL VECCIO : Good morn ing.
THE CHAIRPER SON: Thank you.
Good morning.
KRES SE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371 -769 2
26 (Pages 101 to 104)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 105 Page 107
MR. DEL VECCIO: Good morning. frank 1 individual on bebalfofagood planning··
Delveccio, 301 Ocean Drive. 2 THECHAIRPERSON: Okay. Whydon'tyou
I think there are two questions of the 3 -
Board. 4 MR. DEL VECCIO: Now I am going to
MR. PATiiMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Board s collc:ct myself. I wish I had a drink of
members, before Mr. Delveccio speaks, I would 6 water.
like to ask if he is here as a registered 7 Boy, you totally threw me off.
lobbyist. I know he bas sometimes spoken on 8 I see this is a question of power and
behalf and is a registered lobbyist, and I am 9 judgment, and you, as members of the Board,
wondering if he is being paid today and if he 10 have --have to decide whether you have
is a registered lobbyist, or has he 11 sufficient, substantial, competent evidenOe
registered. 12 to disapprove this project or recommend
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Delveccio? 13 significant conditions which would meet
MR. DEL VECCIO: What did Charlie 14 standards of compatibility.
Urntadt say about the ··the tenor of the 15 1 believe, after having attended the
other side? 16 Planning Board sessions on this and this one,
MR. PATHMAN: It is just a question. 11 and seeing the evidence, that the •• the
MR. DEL VECCIO: Why do they do that 18 neighborhood has made a .credible case that
kind of thing? 19 th.e project, as presented, doesn't meet
r retired, after 25 years service as a 20 design compatibility standards. And based on
federal official, and Director of Planning 21 looking at the cases that I have seen and the
and Redevelopment for HUD, New England and 22 opinions of counse~ the test will be •• if
moved here in 1996. 23 the applicant appeals your negative decision,
I am a retired attorney from Z4 whether you based it on substantial,
Massachusetts. I have not taken a penny from 2 5 competent evidence.
Page 106 Page 108
anyone in my 16 years here on the Beach. I 1 So I think you should have some
have donated my time ·-pro bono, and we have 2 confidence that you could go either way.
an attorney who has the gall to come up with 3 On the ques tion of judgment then, you
a prejudicial statement like that. 4 have to decide whether the recommendations of
I am really offended by that. s the neighborhood --which are basically to
MR. PA THMAN: I am sorry that you are 6 retain the density, there is no reduction in
offended, but if you are a lobbyist, I wanted 7 density, no reduction in use of allowable
to know if you are regi stered because I had 8 FAR -· it is a question of setback and
checked and you were not registered. Simple 9 step-back.
question. I know you had registered in the 10 And the neighborhood did present some
past. I wanted to know. 11 recommended conditions. These are hard
MR. HELD: Okay. Wayne -Wayne, I 12 decisions for the-for the devel oper
think he has answered the question, and I am 13 because he would have to rearrange the
not even counting the answer against his 14 massing, not reduce the massing.
time. 15 So you are design profession als. You
So if you are ready to begin, Mr. 16 have had substantial experience in yow
Delveccio ·· 17 private careers, and on this Board you have
MR. DE L VECCIO: Well, he has mad e a 18 not hesita.ted to make a decision in the pasl
mistake in his facts. He said I have 19 This is a contentious project, and for
registered as a lobbyist in the past. I have 20 me, I think the case is made that setbacks
never registered as a lobbyist. I am not a 21 and further setbackS would tremendously
lobbyist. I do not represent private 22 improve the compatibility with the
interests. I have spoken on behalf of my 23 neighborhood.
condominium association and neighborhood 24 Thank you very much.
associations, and I am doing so as a •• as an 25 I am sorry for getting angry with you,
KRESSE & ASSOCIATE S , LLC
(305) 37 1-7 692
27 (Pages 105 to 108)
.
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
lS
l6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
Page 109 P a ge 111
fellow counsel, but it •• it touched me 1 actually collected 10,0 00 signatures of
personally. 2 residents to put on the public --to have a
MR PATHMAN: I had-· !j ust had tD 3 publ ic referendum to rezone that area. We
ask. You know that. 4 campaigned, we did a lot of work. So our
TilE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much . s group can be persistent, as well as the
Good morning . Please state your name 6 developer in this case.
add address. 7 At the end of the day, and most
MR. WElNER: My name is Gary Weiner. 8 importantly, we finally sat down with the
I've lived at 2142 Bay Avenue on Sunset 9 developer and changed the project
Island IV for the last 15 years. I lived on 10 s.ignificantly. And privately, they told us
-· at 1430 Wes t 21st Street for about ll that they felt it was a better project.
20 years prior to that. and then prior to 12 There was a great deal of attention
that, when I was a kid, I lived in Kumar's l3 paid --on the waterway in that discussion,
old house. So I have been on the island 14 and that is why the townhornes on the front of
about 40 years, plus or minus. 15 20th have a higher •• a greater height to
My father bought the building that was 16 them than on the actual water.
referred to previously as Car Doctors, in 17 We, of course, face that same issue on
19SO, so I have a lot of experience with this 19 the entranceway to our island on Sunset Drive
neighborhood. 19 right now.
I am speaking today as a resident. I 20 But this does sound pretty
was also treasurer of the island for 21 co ntentious, from what I have heard today. 1
13 years, and vice president for several, and 22 just want to let you know that it doesn't
president for several. 23 have to be that way. I think with your help
There is no point to repeating many of 24 in this, and with maybe a renewed effort, we
the fme points that have been already ma de 25 can try to do something that will make this
Page 110 Page 112
by my fellow residents, but you should know 1 more palatable to everyone.
that I also believe that the project, while 2 Thank you.
being beautiful in design by one of our 3 TilE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
neighbors, Kobi, has too much mass. 4 Anybody else for public comment? I
There are two facts that I do want to 5 know there are a lot of yo-u in the audience.
present today. When I was treasurer, we used 6 Please step up to the mic.
to do our assessments •• and I can teU you 7 I W8llt to make sure everybody has the
that there is nearly a half a billion dollars a chance to speak.
worth of real estate property on the two 9 Good morning.
islands. And I hope that the Board takes 10 MR. LURIA: Good morning.
into account the potential impact on the 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Please state your
value of our properties, vis-a-vis the 12 name and address. Thank you.
project. 13 MR. LURIA: My name is Peter Luria. l
The second point and more important I l4 Jive at 1800 West 23rd Street, Sunset Island
would like to make is, what is contentious 15 ill. I am a member of the Board of
doesn't have to be contentious. It is 16 Directors, but I am speaking on my own
possible to work together. 11 behalf, as a resident.
Along with Bill Ingraham and seven or 19 I would like to take a moment j ustto
eight other people who dealt with the Sunset 19 mention that Mr. Patlunan, at the last hearing
Harbour project, a project which was 20 before the Planning Board, also chose to
permitted -when we got hold of it and we 21 disclose this confidential settlement
actually spent, I think more than those two 22 communication between us and the developer.
years --and during that project --during 23 It was not relev ant to the issues before the
that time, it was very contentious at the 24 Planning Board then. nor is it now.
start, but it didn't end that way. We 25 It is Mr. Patlunan 's desperate attempt
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
28 (Page s 109 to 112)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1S
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 113
to prejudice the Board against us. This 1
e-mail has been shown to Jose Smith, the City 2
attorney, and he considered it not only 3
irrelevant, but a completely legal attempt on 4
our part to mitigate the impact of this • s
project on our neighborhood. 6
But since Mr. Pathman chose to bring 7
it up again, he should disclose that Palau 8
did offer to pay us 50 to $75,000 so that we 9
would go away and to help our underground. 10
We turned It down. n
I don't know bow many times you see 12
100 people s1gn an e-mail. That shows you 13
the concerns of the neighborhood. A hundred 14
people signed this e-mail opposing the 15
project as it basically now stands. 16
That was turned in at the last 17
hearing. 18
The staff report me ntioned all ofth.e 19
conditions that, in their opinion, hav e been 20
satisfied, but omitted the most important 21
one: The resident's concern regarding the 22
mass and scale. It is a glaring omission, 23
and I am asking the Board to please correct 2 4
it. 25
Page 114
The developer will tell you all of the
concessions that they have made --all of
which were made grudgingly, screaming and
kicking, forced by either the Planning
Department, the Planning Board, but none have
addressed the core issues of mass and scale.
Reg arding the number of units, they
did go from 70 to 50 along the canal, which
made a lot more sense, anyway, but did not
reduce the square footage.
They moved the pool to another
location on 'the roof. That's fine.
They agreed to certain use
restrictions. They were forced to, but
that's fine. We think that those are smart.
And they did do some landscaping
improvements •· grudgingly, and not after
being asked several times.
The key to your solution is the secret
garden. That is the core of this.
Jfyou ··it is a book called The
Secret Garden. Okay? For those of you··
Now, they designed it--it may be
nicer than a prison, but they designed it
like that, from the outside, as big as they
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 115
can, with this secret garden in the center.
Okay? A zen garden that's supposed to be
for, I guess, meditation, but bas given us
nothing but ulcers.
One of the mistakes -the big
mistake, and it was made somewhere in the
City, and I think it really should have been
illegal--was the division of the property
where the World Bao1c is, allowing it to be
developed on the back side. That doesn't
make sense. And as a result, we are dealing
with that issue.
I think you should separate it so we
have a view corridor. Let them build
townhouses back there separate from the core
structure.
As far as the core structure goes,
they have moved it away fr om the strategic
bridge by ten feet, but -·you have basically
the same feet away, maybe a little more, but
it is five stories tall, not one, as it is
now . And so·· right across, adjacent to a
public park.
I would tell you, please eliminate one
unit --they have five units per floor--one
Page 116
unit on the top floor so it is not so massive
right in that comer, which is better for the
strategic bridge and also across from our
park.
And bow you would take advantage of
the secret garden •• pus.h the top two floors
back into that garden along the Sunset Drive .
You have the room.
They can have a terrace, you know, for
the --where the one apamnent was eliminated
for the apartment next door, and you would
have the ability to push: that back.
I am really not an architect. I don't
profess to be. I am just trying to give some
soluti ons, some ideas to -to Palau to
consider, which they really don't ·-won't do
unless you really push the issue.
Those are some ideas I think that
might hel p resolve the concerns of some of
the residents and allow them to build this
building.
Thank you very much.
1liE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
MR. P A THMAN: I have some questions
for Mr. Luria, ifl may, rvtr. Chairman.
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
29 (Pages 113 to 116)
1
2
3
5
6
1
8
9
1 0
11
12
l3
14
15
16
n
le
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
•
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 117
THE CHAIRPERSON : Okay.
MR. PA'IHMAN: Mr. Luria, you mentioned
MR. LURIA: May I get a glass of
water?
MR. PATHMAN: Yes.
MR. LURIA: Go ahead.
MR.. PATHMAN: No, I will wait for you
to return.
Are you ready?
MR. LU RlA: Are you?
MR. PA1HMAN: I am always ready.
MR. LURIA: I know you are.
MR. P A THMAN: I am going to show you a
copy of the e-mail that you referred to that
you sent out on January 7, 2012. Can you
please let me know if that is the e-mail that
you sent, that you referred to earlier where
you had indicated about an e-mail that was
disclosed to the City attorney and to the
Planning Board?
MR. LURIA: That is one of many
e-mails.
MR. PATHMAN: I am j ust asking you if
that is the one you are referrin g to.
Page 118
MR. LURIA: Let me answer it my way,
would you please, unless you would like to
answer for me.
lvlR. PATHMAN: Well, I asked you a
specific question.
MR. LURIA: And I am trying to give
you my answer--
MR. P A THMAN: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. LURlA: •• in my way.
It is one --that is the answer to
your question·-of sever11l e-mai!s.
I did discu ss this with Jose Smith.
Mr. Held did come into the meeting, and it
was considered irrelevan t and nothing
illegal, even though he would like to apply
it.
There are other e-mails prior to that
regarding the -the underground project
which was discussed at a Board meeting with
Palau when they had another attorney, Michael
Larkin, and they were supposed to get back to
us, but we didn't have numbers. I finally
got some of the numbers and I sent an e-mail.
I thought we .were trying to resolve
it, and maybe I was kidding around with my
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 119
sense of humor, but that is all it was
intended to be, as far as the wording of it.
But yes, that is my e-mail.
MR. PATHMAN: Okay. And can you read
for me the third --the second highlighted
portion of1he second paragraph, beginning
with "How much?"
MR. LURIA: Let me ask a question ••
Mr. Held --Mr. Held--is this rel ev ant to
the issue before this Board?
MR. HELD: You have already stated
that the City attorney has said no .
MR. LURIA: So then why are we going
over it here, okay, at th is point?
MR. HELD: I think you were the one
that brought it up first, Mr. Luria.
MR. LURlA: No, I never brought it up
before. I am asking if it is not relevant,
then why do we have to discuss it in front of
--to prejudice this Board and waste
everybody's time?
MR. HE LD: Are yo u done?
Because I don't want to confuse the
court reportt.r.
.MR. P A Tl-WAN: Sure.
Page 120
MR. LURlA: God forbid.
MR. HELD: If this was brought up
before at the Planning Board, it was not
brought up at this meeting, and you were the
one who introduced it at this me eting. So
you are--Mr. Pathman is entitled to
cross-examine you on it If you have given
your an swer --
Wayne--
lvlR. P A THMAN : He has not given his
answer. I just asked him to -
MR. HELD: He did answer the question .
Nobody guaranteed ••
MR. PAIHMAN: I am on question number
two.
MR. HELD: Okay. The Board doesn't
really care about thi s. So why don't you
just drop it, Wayne?
.MR. PATHMAN: Well, Gary, the reason I
am not going to drop it is because I have to
make a record. Mr. Luria put it into the
record just now and I want to clarity the
record.
MR. HELD: The Court is not going to
clarify it either. Just dro p it.
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
30 (Pages 117 to 12 0)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1/
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 121
:MR. PATIIMAN: Well, that will be up to 1
the Court to decide. 2
MR. HELD: How many questions do you 3
have on this subj ect? 4
l\iiR. P A THMA.N; I may have five or six. 5
MR. HELD: That is too many . Ask two. 6
MR. PATHMAN: Gary, come on. I have a 7
right to cross-examine, and I was allowed to a
do that at the Planning Board. I have the 9
right to do it here. 10
( was not the one who put it in play. 11
He put it in play. He made a comment about 12
my client offering him money, okay, which 13
never happened. 14
MR. LURIA: That's not true. That's 15
absolutely not true. 16
MR. HELD: Peter, come on --1 1
MR. PATHMAN: He stated it is a 18
confidential memo, which it is not. It was 19
copied to a number of people. It was sent to 20
Mr. Cicero. It is not a confidential memo. 21
It is not. 22
MR. LURIA : The memo may be copied to 23
more than one person. I don't know that the 24
meaning of confidential memo means only one 25
Pa ge 122
individual gets a copy of it
MR. HELD: You •• okay. Exc use me fof
a moment. 1 am going to rule that since the
City attorney has opined that this is not
rel ev ant, there should be no further
examination on this issue.
MR. PATHMAN: Gary, when was that
opined?
And that's hearsay . There is no such
opinion.
Mr. Smith-excu se me, Jose Smith
told me the exact opposite-· the City
attorney. "You should introduce it."
Okay?
So if you want to get Jose down here ,
let's get Jose down here.
MR. HELD: You did introduce it. This
line of questioning is not going anywhere.
Nobody cares about it.
MR. PA~N : Well, it is--someone
should care.
MR. HELD: Ask your five questions and
get it over with, Wayne.
MR.PATHMAN: Thank you, Gary.
MR. LURIA: I think we should have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 123
Jose Smith come down .
MR. HELD: I don't think that's
necessary.
MR. LURIA: Well, if it is not
necessary, it is not relevant. I don 't think
I want to answer any more questio ns regarding
something that has no relevance to this
Board.
And is·· this is typical of the--
the approach that Palau has done. When we
try to work out these issues, they --they
make it impossible.
MR. HELD: Peter, if you want to
decline cross-examination, then go allead and
sit down.
MR. LURIA: Thank you.
MR. PATHMAN: I will read it into the
record then. In the second paragraph, it
states here, "How much extra will it cost you
if you have to eliminate one col umn of
apartments from your plans?
"We are a.n equal opportunity, pay for
playPOA."
Now, this was not a confidential memo .
This was sent to Mr. Cicero, who is the
Pa ge 124
project manager, saying that if we don't play
ball with them, "You are going to lose one
fl oor of your building, because we are going
to protest you until the very end of the
day," which is what they are doing here.
And he just said earlier that they
want us to reduce it by one fl oor. That is
exactly--
MR. LURlA: No, I never said that
MR. PA THMAN: I would like to have the
opportunity to speak.
MR. LURlA: 1 never, never said that.
You put words in my mouth.
MR. PATHMAN: I asked--Mr. Hel d
instructed him to sit down.
MR. HELD; No, I asked him if he
wanted to sit down.
MR. P A THMAN : Well, you can't cut me
off and Jet him speak and not let me
cross-examine, Gary. Come on.
:MR. LURlA; I would like to answer
something that -·
MR. PATHMAN: Everything he has said
so far is hearsay.
MR. LURIA: Well ·-it is up to •• it
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LL C
(305) 3 71-7 69 2
31 (Pages 121 to 124)
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
9
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 12 5
is really not relevant to this Board, but l
they will have to determine if it is 2
relevant But really, the attorney has 3
already said it is not. 4
HoV[ever, it is true that they offered 5
us money, but-we were doing an underground 6
project. There are two big FP&L poles in 7
front of their unit. That's why we said, 8
"You should pay for yours and we will pay for 9
ours." 10
The problem is, it is a vacuous 11
connection, because you can't take one down 12
on one side. As a result, we decided to 13
leave our last po!e up and not even deal with 14
that issue. They will decide if they want to 15
take their poles down. 16
Our association is going to vote on 1?
spending $2 million to underground our 18
utilities sometime this fall. 19
As far as the--the reducing one 20
floor--that was an idea --that was after 21
--the issue was that Palau carne to our Board 22
to ask for our --wanted our support. They 2 3
were fining Comras. So it may not have been 2 4
worded properly, but I was referring to--25
Page 126
they wanted our support, and we didn't think
there were any issues.
We were always told that "There are no
variances we are asking for. There is really
nothing --we would like you -· would like
your support."
So we said, "Reduce the number of
units and get rid of the curb-cut,"
basically, and some use restrictions.
Only after about two weeks after that
e-mai l, that Chad Oppenheim raised up the
subject and said, "I am sorry. I was at the
Board meeting, lam not a member of the Board
and I was not at the aimual homeowners
meeting , but there are some issues you should
take into e.ccount; mass and scale."
And· that's when we reversed. But it
had nothing to do --it is not an attempt to
blackmail them. It is an attempt to try to
settle this. But as you can see, they really
are not interested in settling with the
residents.
MR. HELD: Okay, can we stop this line
now?
And Wayne, if you think you are going
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 127
to be denied due process because there is no
cross-examination, then make it part of your
appeal.
At this point, I think we just -·
should just go on with the hearing.
MR. PATHMAN : So am I to understand
that Peter--
MR. HELD: Peter, will yo u please take
a seat?
I think you made your point.
MR. PATHMAN: So he is--I am not
going to be allowed to rebut and do
cross-examination?
I want to make the record clear
because I am going to take you up on your
offer.
MR. HELD : You are allowed to.
MR. PAlliMAN: I want to make it clear.
Oby.
MR. HELD : We can't talk at the sam e
time. Are you done ?
MR. PATHMAN: I am done--
"MR. HELD: Thank you.
MR. PATHMAN: --with that comment.
!viR. HELD : Okay. Mr. Luria has
Page 128
declined cross-examination.
MR. PA1HMAN : Okay.
:MR. HELD: If you want to make that an
issue on appeal, fine. You still have •• may
have some time for rebuttal. You can in clud.e
whatever you want to say in your time for
rebuttal.
MR. LURJA : If that is the case, I
will go back up.
MR. HELD : Peter --
MR. LURIA: You told me to go sit
down.
MR. HELD : You declined
cross-examination. Will you stop it already?
"MR. LURIA: I am not the one doing it.
MR. HELD: Really?
MR. LURJA: He is still up there.
"MR. HELD: Mr. Chair, please call-·
is there another witness from the public?
:MR. PATHMAN: Mr. Held, we did not
bring this up. It was not going to be part
of our presentation. I had it here, Mr.
Luria brought it up and put into the record.
I have every right to comment on it and I
have every right to make an argument on
KRESSE & ASSOC IATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
32 (Pages 125 to 128)
1
2
3 .
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 12 9
behalf of my client. 1
MR. HELD: And we said you could do 2
that as part of your rebuttal. 3
.MR. PATHMAN; No, l want to do it now. 4
MR. HELD: You don't get to do s
everything you want to do, Wayne. 6
:MR. PA TilMAN: I am asking the 7
chairman. Okay? s
It is important-you just let him 9
speak for 15 minutes on this issue. I wasn't 1 o
going to raise the issue. Okay? 11
It was raised at the Planning Board. 12
The Planning Board heard it. It is public 13
record. I was going to leave it alone. But 14
he raised it, and now it is an issue. 15
MR. HELD: It is not an issue. 1 6
MR. PATHMAN: He mentioned they 17
offered them money, which we never did. 18
MR. HELD: Can you please call another 19
witness, Mr. Chair? 2 o
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will save it for 21
the rebuttal, please. 2 2
We are go ing to see the next person 23
from the public. 2 4
Please state your name and address. 25
Page 130
MR. GIBBS: Wait, there is one other
person.
I am sorry.
THE CHAIRPERSON: So-· okay . So will
there be anybody else from the public?
Okay.
MR. GIBBS: [just wanted to get my
stuff togeth er, as they say.
MR. HELD: So just to clarity, Mr.
Gibbs will have 15 minutes of time. Is that
acceptable?
You don't need that long.
MR. GIBBS: l am hoping I don't need
that long. I don't think I do, but ·-
MR. HELD: [will set the clock.
MR. GIBBS: --1 will do my best.
l\11R. HELD: We are happy to have
leftover time for you, Tucker.
MR. GIBBS: Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, still.
MR. GIBBS: Good morning.
My name is Tucker Gibbs, law offices
at 3835 Utopia Court in Coconut Grove, and I
represent the Sunset Islands III and IV
property owners.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 131
And my clients --I want you all to
understand, you have heard this, my clients
support a mixed-use development at this
location. Their concern about this project
centers on its impact on the single-family
residential neighborhood. Specifically, as
you heard, the project is too big. It is out
of scale with its neighbors. It is much too
massive. Its height is incompatible with the
single-family neighbors to the north. and to
the east. And the plans before you today,
after months of meetings, months of
discussions, Planning Board hearings in March
and Ma.y --you all heard it several months
ago in August --our position is these plans
do not comply with three critical design
review criteria and the code that you need to
apply, which warrants your denial of this
application.
Before I get into the body of my
argument, I would like to incorporate into
the record -·just to be ··just to be safe
·-all documents relating to this Design
Review Board hearing and proceeding, as well
as the Planning Board proceeding which has
Page 132
been referenced ad nauseam today, and go on
to my argurnent.
This development is located at the
northeast comer of Sunset Harbour, CD2
zoning district, where it is next to
single-family zoned properties across Sunset
Drive and across the canal on Sunset Island
IV.
The project is adjacent to Sunset
Drive from 20th Stret!t to the historically
designated Sunset Island bridge, which I
think Mr. Bienstock said is the only entrance
to Sunset Island Ill and IV.
The project also abuts the World
Savings bank property and the Sunset Tower
Townhomes to its southeast and east.
To its south is the Publix and other
commercial establishments.
This is the only commercial or
commercial/residential mixed-use project
adjacent to single-family residential in the
Sunset Harbour CD-2 district. And yet, my
clients do not object to the mixed-use
development here. They object to a mixed-use
development here ·-excuse me·-they object
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 3 71 -7692
33 (Pages 129 to 132)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
i
8
9
10
1l
12
13
14
15
1 6
li
lB
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 1 33
to thi s one, as you have heard, because the
project quite simply is incompatible with its
neighbors .
The developer does not seem to
understand that this site on the edge, on the
edge of that CD-2 distri ct, next to a
single-family zoned neighborhood, is unique
and warran ts condition s to protect this
neighborhood from its impacts.
Over the years, City staff has
recognized this special comer of Miami
Beach. As we talked about, in 1995, the
Historic Preservation Board designated the
bridge as historic, and the designation
report noted the historic character o f the
area.
I know you all have looked at the
historic des ignation report, but I want to
talk to you about a coupl e of things in that
report whi ch are critical to your revi ew and
critical to your application of those three
standards.
The designation rep ort noted the
historic character of the area. The report
also recognized "The design guidelines of the
Page 134
City will ensure smart development which is
sensitive to the unique aesthetic character
ofthe area, and very respectful of its early
origins."
According to the report, on Page 20,
it says, "Buildings, individual Public Works,
engineering structures and natural landscape
fe atures, old and new, are usu ally the major
defining elements in the make-up of a
neighborh ood's character: The special
character of a neighborhood can be maintained
and reinforced by highli ghting and preserving
the significant architectural features of its
contributing bui ldings and landmarks ."
Landmarks such as the bridge.
"By understanding and being
considerate ofthose special qualities in the
design of new construction" ·· and then it
goes forward, further on Page 21, and says,
"a number of elem ents work together to define
not only a bu ilding or structure's character,
but a neighborhood's. These elements include
scale, proportion, massing and materials and
details. These basic elements are found in
all architecture and may vary to create
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
ll
12
13
14
15
1 6
li
1 8
19
20
21
2 2
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
s
6
1
8
9
1 0
11
1 2
13
14
1 5
1 6
17
lS
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
Page 135
different sty les."
So we understan d that a di fferent
style can work here as long as it addresses
scale, proportion, massing, material and
details as it relates to the historic
property, which is the bridge.
Understanding these elements and their
relationship to each other is essential for
designing compatible renovation , additions
and new buildings. And as I said , these
elements are the bases of the 17 design
review criteria you app ly when you make your
decision .
The Design Review Board examines
development plans , as they say in the code,
for consistency wi th the criteria, with
regard to aesthetics , appearances, safety and
function of the structure, physical
attributes of the project in relati on to the
site, adjacent structures and the surrounding
community. And a look at that criteria shows
the deve lopment must not have a negative
impact on the adjacent neighborhood.
Under these standards, the developer
must eliminate or mitigate aspects of the
Page 1 36
project which adversely affect the
surrounding area. The following criteria
that focus on neighborhood compati bility, we
assert, are not satisfied. And that is
numb er six, criteria number six, which talks
about proposed structures must be compatible
with adjacent structures and enhance the
appearance of surrounding properties.
That means that this project has to
actually enhance the appearance. People can
talk about Mark's. They can talk about the·
falling down building next door. We
und erstand that. But the appearanc e is more
than ju st Mark's and more than just that
property next door. That appearance is the
view corridor, the view corridor down 20th --
I me an, excuse me, down Sunset Drive from
20th to the bridge, to the historic bri dge.
That is an important issue for thi s
community. It is an important issue in tenn s
ofhistoric context.
The site plan Jay-o ut·· number seven,
the next DRB criteria --the site plan
lay-out must show efficient arrangem ent of
land uses, especi ally the relati onship with
KRESSE & ASSOC I ATES, LLC
(305) 3 71-76 92
34 (Page s 133 to 136)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
Hi
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 137
the surrounding neighborhoo d, impacts on 1
adjacent building and lands, pedestrian sight 2
lines and view corridors. 3
View corridors are very important in 4
your evaluation. Yet, I don't think I saw 5
the term "view corridor" in anything that was 6
before you. lt wasn't brought up by the 7
applicant. It wasn't brought up in the staff 8
repon, but view corridors are critical. 9
This plan degrades or eliminates the 10
existing sight lines and view corridors , and 11
I just reference you to the last meeting you 12
all had. Mr. Alvarez got up and spoke about 13
sight lines. This degrades sight lines·, not 14
only across the canal, but it degrades sight 15
lines on Sunset Drive. 16
Criteria number 12 •• massing and 17
orientation of structures must be sens itiv e 18
and compati ble with the surrounding area and 19
also create or maintain important view 20
corridors -· maintain or improve important 21
view corridors. And my question: How does a 22
five-story structur e on top of Sunset Drive 23
maintain that view corridor to Sunset Isle IV 24
and the historic bridge? 25
Page 138
The staff report is troubling in some
of its conclusions and conditions. In
concluding that the project as now des igned
satisfies all of the Design Review standards,
as well as the Planning Board's conditions,
it is not clear as to a couple of issues.
And l wanted to address specifically
--and I am going to find it here --
condition 2-C.
Cond ition 2-C talks about lowering -·
"any canopy, stairwell, elevator, bulkhead
shall be lowered to the height --to the
extent possible."
Our concern is these should not be
visible from Sunset Isle rv . It should not
be visible.
When we look at that building, those
pretty elevations and everything else showing
what my clients are going to be looking at --
that should be what they are looking at.
They shouldn't be looking at an elevator
shaft. They shouldn't be looking at a
stairwell shaft. They shouldn't be looking
at air conditioning un its or anything else
that they have up there.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2$
Page 139
They should be looking at a building.
And that material should--that for lack of
a better word, that stuff should be massed,
it should not be visible.
2-D speci fically says, "The fin al
design" --regarding the western elevation ·-
"leaves the design review of that facade and
that portion of the property solei y to
staff," with no design review by you.
It is design review by staff.
It is our position -that is your
job. You want to delegate that to staff, you
are delegating that to staff with absolutely
no standards, no instructiQn.
The fact is, that's your decision. If
they have not designed this property right on
that western side, and it needs, as they say
here , aU design revi ew, that's what this
Board does, is design review.
So you need to--you need to review
that. That's our position.
2-F, it says that--it says, "Rooftop
fixtures, mechanic al equipment mus t be noted
on a rev ised roof plan.."
That--that recommendation has been
Page 140
in the Design Review recommendations from the
beginning. Design Review Board staff has put
that in there before the meeting in August,
and I can't find it
Now, look. I am not an architect. I
am not a planner, but I saw this plan, which
was the plan back in August of this year -
and it bas the rooftop plan --I don't see a
single mechanical equipment. And they may
have no mechanical equipment on the roof. I
do not know, but this rooftop plan, which is
A-1.05, doesn't show really anyth ing except
terraces and elevator lobbies, some stairwell
shafts and elevator shafts.
The plan that I got just recently also
shows virtually the same thing. On the
rooftop design on A·l.04, it doesn't show
mechanical equipment or anything else. I may
be wrong. lbere may be mechanical equipment
I just want it to be cl arified, because if
there isn't a plan that shows all of the
fixtures, the canopies, the trellises,
whatever they have got up there, then this is
not complete. You all need to see that.
My clients want to know -they want
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
35 (Pages 137 to 140)
l
2
3
4
5
6 .,
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 141
to know when they look •• those people who
live on Sunset Island IV along that waterway,
the people who use that park, who want to
enjoy that park. they want to know what they
are going to see. Are they go ing to be
seeing trellises, canvas top s, whatever?
Are they going to see mechanical
equipment?
I don't know where it is.
At some point, I hope staff can tell
me or the a pplicant can tell me on which set
of these plans this is shown.
Those are ·• those are small issues,
relati vely speaking, but they are important
issues. They are importan t iss ues to my
client, and again, we woul d like to see them
resolved.
My clients' issues are pretty clear.
The project is too big. It lacks contextual
sensitivity. I love Chad Oppenheim's
comment. I thought that was a perfect way to
put it.
You all have it in good perspective,
and it is too massive, and thus incompatible .
In addition to the staff
Page 142
reconunendations, in attachment one, we had a
proposed findings of fact and con ditions.
And wh at I would like to do is basically ask
you all •• we would like you to find that as
a matter of fact, that Sunset Drive extendin g
from 20th to the historic Sunset Drive bridge
is an important view co rri dor. 'Ib.at is a
major defining element of the neighborhood's
character.
We would also like you to recognize as
a finding of fact that the character of
waterfront facing Sunset Isle IV is
illustrated by the articulated design and
minimized massing of the Sunset Harbour
townhomes close to the waterway, and the se
close-to-waterfront buildings reflect that
relationship to single-family houses because
they are somewhat comparable, unlike this
building at its closest point to the water.
We would also like you all to find as
a matter of fact that it is inconsistent with
the conditional use approval of the Planning
Board as it relates to the massing of the
building east of the Worl d Savings Bank
building, the one that nob ody has dealt with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
1'1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
6
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
Page 143
yet that you are going to hand off to staff.
We also would like you to find as a
matter of fact the project is inconsistent
with the May conditional use approval with
the Planning Board as it relates to the
encroachment on the line of sight from Sunset
Island IV.
And fina lly, we would also like you
all to find as a matter of fact that it is
inconsistent with criteria number six,
criteria number seven, criteria number 12, as
I have discussed with you, and as it is in
the attachment number one.
And we would like you to include two
condi tions, two additio nal conditions that
staff has not included; number one, that the
entire length of the building abutting and
east of the World Savings Banlc property
should be set back an additiona115 feet,
really provide that buildi ng --Professor Le
Jeune spoke at the Planning Board . It is in
the record. He specifically talked abo ut the
fact that you need to h.ave a sense of space.
You need to be able to see the bui lding in
its context.
Page 144
Having this buildjng so close to that
architectural gem, as some people have
described it, is a travesty. Pull this
bu ilding back. Give the neighbori ng building
some space.
The second condition we would like is
the entire length of the building, ofthe
easte rn p<Jrtion of the building along Sunset
Dri ve should be stepp ed back. It should be
stepped back, as a first floor, an additional
ten feet. The second md third floors, an
additional five feet, and the fourth and
fifth floor, an additional five feet.
That stepping back provides a
legitimate view corridor. You don't have
that. What they have done is step it bac.k in
very small increments. We would like larger
increments to provide that necessary view
corridor.
We would also like you to cl arify
condition 2-C which requires --we would like
it to require that no rooftop fixtur es and
structures be visible from Sunset Isle IV.
Condition number 2-D, that ORB should
be reviewing the fi nal architectural
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 37 1-7692
36 (Pages 141 to 144)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
Page 145
treatment and other desi gn details of the l
western elevation prior to the issuance of a 2
building penn it. 3
Condition 2-F, the DRB approval is not 4
fmal until th e ap plicant submits the 5
required roof plans showing all fixtures on 6
the rooftop; that is, jfthey have not 7
already don e that --I can't find it. 8
So in conclusion, the staff has done a 9
very good job. I think everybody here can 1 0
agree on one thing: Staff has done a very ll
good job in trying to encourage the developer 12
to improve its response to the neighbors' 13
legitimate conce rn s regarding the negative H
impacts of this project. 15
The developer does not want to bui ld a 16
smaller, Jess intense and compatible project. 17
What the dev elo per has done, as somebody has 18
said, is that the developer has not done 19
anything on its own. The developer has only 20
done what this staffhas pushed and pushed 2 1
him to do. The developer has not done 22
anything on its own. The neighbors have 2 3
pushed and the City has pushed, and the 2 4
developers made it very clear that it is not 25
Page 146
going to do anything unless the staff 1
essentially fo rces it to do it. 2
We urge you to require the developer 3
to design the project that reflects the 4
sites's unique position on the edge of the 5
commercial district abutting single-family 6
residential neighborhood, either condition 7
the proj ect as recommended by staff, with our 8
additional proposals, or deny the application 9
and protect our neighborhood. 10
I thank you very much for your 11
attention. 12
THE CHAIRPERSON : Thank you very much . 13
MR. HELD: Mr. Chait, can we clarify 14
who is making the presentation, and how much 15
time he is requesting? 16
Mr. Comras? 1?
MR. COMRAS: Soi'T}'? 1 8
MR. HELD: Are you seeking a 19
three-minute presentation, or are you taking 20
time from Mr. Robbins? 21
How is this going? 22
MR. COMR.AS: 1 am actually speak on 23
behalfofComras Company, the tenants of the 24
building at 1261 20th Street and I would ask 25
Page 147
that I get ap proxim ately ten minutes.
MR. HELD: And are you sharing time
with Mr. Robbins?
'MR. COMRAS: No. It is not the
intention. We have different things tha~ we
are discussing.
MR. ROBBINS: (Inaudible.)
MR. CO MRAS: I will make it as brie f
as I can.
I ap preciate the courtesy of this
being heard.
MR. HELD: It is up to the chai r.
TIIE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Just please
be as efficient as you can.
'MR. CO.MRAS: I th ank you .
My name is Michael Cornras . I'm a
tenant of the building at 1261 20th Street,
inunediately adjacent to the project Palau.
As the --in connection with the
project, when this property was acquired by
the ownership, it was acquired with the
understanding that there were two documents
that were part of this --that came along
with the site, the Declaration of Restrictive
Covenants in Lieu of Unity ofTitle and
Page 14 8
Amended and Restated Declaration of Easement
and Restated Coven ants.
We both acquired the lots--the
predeces sor of Palau, as well as myself,
acquired the lots, and atta ched tp those
documents was an approved site plan. And the
approved site plan is what I put in front of
you here. I would like to take a second and
review that.
And I am here to say that I am
pr~rdevel opment. I am a developer here on
the Beach for 20 years. I developed well
over 20 buildings, and I really do want to
see some positive development on this site,
but understanding where l am coming from , in
tenns o f this site plan.
The original site plan consisted of
the entire site, which was ultimately split
with an illegal lot split by the predecessors
of interest. The City required covenants to
be issued, which ultimately were executed.
In those covenants, it allowed us --
it allowed people to develop the property in
accordance with the approved site plan that
was attached. And as you can see in front of
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
37 (Pages 145 to 14 8)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.
25
Page 149 Page 15 1
you, the approved site plan shows the 1261 l Cypress Bay proj~ which required a
building with its parking around it, and 2 Covenant in Lieu ofUn ity of Title. This
parking, surface parking, only surface 3 document has the approved site plan attached
parking up to the water. All of the massing 4 to it."
was placed to the east of the property. 5 T he adding of a third parcel
In the declaration s, it does allow for 6 comp letely changes the original intent of the
the modificati ons to the appro ved site plan. 7 covenants. The City attorney in his memo
The modifications, if they are not agreed to, B dated February 2nd states, "As Parcel Cis
get to come in front of this Board. So you 9 not included in the defmition of property,
guys get charged with trying to determine 10 in either the Covenant in Lieu or the
what is a fair, reasonable change to an 11 Declaration, it raises the question of
approved site plan whi ch both parties agre ed 12 further mod ification of these documents."
to when these sites were acquired. 13 It goes on to say-· it goes on to say
The approved site plan shows no 14 that "This issue must be revolved prior to
development north of the property. It sho ws 15 the issuance of a building permit for the
the 13 spaces, while the proposed site plan 16 Palau project. We have a question as to how
maximizes that uea between the rear of the 17 the developer expects to resolve this open
building and the water. ta issu e. The addition of parcel C combined
The approve d site plan, in the 19 with the oversized internal magic gard en and
declaration of easements in 5.6 reads "MAC 20 extensive use of the mechanical parking has
hereby acknowledges MAC's approval of and 21 greatly intensified this development, to the
consent to development and construction of 22 detriment of Parcel A and the surrounding
the project pu rs uant to the appr ov ed site 23 nei ghborho od.
plan ." 24 There was a portion of the City
The De claration of Restrictive 25 attorney's memo referring back. He states,
Page 150 Page 152
Covenants in paragraph one states ''The 1 "The cross easements between Parcel A and
subject site will be developed as a unified 2 Parcel B, which are the --in the declaration
deve lopment site in substantial accordance 3 remain the same," and then he foo tnotes that
with the approved site plan," a copy of which 4 "Th ere is no increase in stated cross
is attached as Exhibit C, which is in front 5 easements and the declaration on the MAC
of you. 6 parcel. Therefo re, no modification of the
The approved site plan calls for 7 declaration to account for the change in the
20 units, res idential units, with 8 site plan and the covenant in lieu."
3,600 square feet of retail space. The 9 The covenant created in connection
proposed site plan requires --looks for 10 with the Cypress Bay project provides fot an
50 units and over 11,000 square feet of 11 easemen t. The easement is for short time
retail space. 12 parking on parcel A from the 3,600 feet of
That is two and a half times the 1 3 retail space to be located on parcel B.
number of units that was originally proposed 14 When all of a sudden, a site plan is
for this site, and over 300 --three times 15 mod ified to increase the retail sp ace from
the amou nt of retail that was proposed fo r 16 3,600 square feet to over 11,000 square feet ,
this site. 17 an over 300 percent increase in the space ,
The developer seeks to unilaterally 18 the intensity is just too great on my
add a third parcel into this covenant. The 19 property. We are going to be parking for
covenant only governs two parcels, as 20 11,000 feet where the approved site plan only
indi cat ed in the staff report which states, 21 contemplated 3,600 square feet. The Planning
"These two properties were at one tim e one 22 Board h.as required that all parking for the
single property, and were spli t at the time 23 new project be accom modated internally.
of the propo sed development , at the time of 24 Should the Palau project move forward,
the proposed construction of the former 25 we would request, as part of any approval, a
KRESSE & ASS OCIATES 1 LLC
(305) 371 -769 2
38 (P a ges 149 to 152)
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
l7
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
1 0
l1
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 153
condition eliminating the parking easement
from the covenants.
The approved site plan did not
contemplate any structures to the north of
Parcel A between the building and the water.
The new site plan not only proposes to
maximize the development in this area, but
also to build without regard to interior
setbacks that would otherwise be required but
for the declarations. This approach greatly
intensifies encroachmen1s affecting Parcel A.
The face of the Palau building--
The facing of the Palau building along
with the north side of Parcel A will come to
within approximately one parking space.
We would ask that this distance be
increased and the mass reduced.
And I just want to point out what I am
speaking about.
The property line sits right here.
The way the project is currently
designed is that the first floor will come up
to this level, this line, and the second
floor will cantilever over all the way up to
the back ofthis building.
Pag e 154
This entire mass will be replaced, the
surface parking lot will be completely·
replaced with a five-story structure
canti levering to the south within l 6to
20 feet of my rear office window.
In summary, given the existence of
these covenants and their intent with the
attached approved site plan, we respectfully
ask this Board to create a balance between no
development to the north of Parcel A and the
intensive development that is ·being proposed.
Reducing the scale, massing and
introduction of view corridors will greatly
enhance the long term viability of this site.
Without it, Parcel A will have three
cavernous, 50-foot walls surrounding it.
As a suggestion, perhaps transitioning
from the two-story townhomes, maybe to
three-story townhomes and working its way up
to four stories through the back of Parcel A
would be a solution.
--insist in any approval a condition
to remove the parking easement from the
declarations, to determine now how the
developer plans to unify the sites prior to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
2.3
24
25
Page 1 55
obtaining a building permit.
And on condition two, I echo Tucker's
opinion that the staff report should add the
word "west" --after the word "west, • add the
"south elevations, as well."
And then five, the last item would be
on the landscape plan provided by Kobi
earlier, there is no landscape at all to the
north of my building and to the south of
theii elevati on.
I thank you, and I would ask that you
find a balanced solution to this issue .
THE CHAlRPERSON: Thank you very much.
MR. HELD: Mr. Chair-
THE CHAIRP ERSON: Yes, sir?
MR. HELD: There were two points
raised that are legal issues that I would
like to comment on.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please.
MR. HELD: The first one is the
replacement of the surface parking with the
five·stol'}' building north of the Coroias
building. and whether there is anything in
the document that relates to that.
And so in --on the 20th Street side
Pa ge 15 6
of the·-what used to be called the Lease
Florida structure, there is a sight line
easement that is angled which provides
visibility coming from the east to the west
on 20th Street for the Comras building.
That is specifically provided for in
paragraph 4 .3 of the second document,
attachment four.
There is no sight line easement that
is similarly provided for the property that
is north of the Comras building.
So we have to assume that the
covenant, itself, does not prohibit the
placement of a structure on that portion of
the property, and that that is an opinion
that I have reached. There may be contrary
opinions in the room . You are welcome to
express them when I am done.
The second point is the adding of the
Mark's Cleaners parcel to the east, and there
is a portion of the modification paragraph in
attachment four--it is paragraph 6.13, and
it provides "The foregoing shall not prevent
any owner from placing additional covenants,
conditions, restricti ons or easements on its
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
39 {Pages 153 to 156)
1
2
3
4
s
6
;
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1 4
15
1 6
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
Page 157
own parcel not inconsistent with or in
conflict with this declaration."
And it was our opini on that adding the
Mark's Clean ers parcel and combining that
with the rest of the Palau-owned site to
create the proposed site plan does not
interfere with or unnecessarily burden the
Co mras parcel to the extent that it would be
prohibited by the documents.
So it is our opinion that the Palau
property or interests can add the Mark's
Cleaners parcel without the consent of
Comras.
MR. COMRAS: I would like to clarify
th e two points, because I was not referring
to a sight line fro m the rear of my property.
I am referring to the site plan ••
MR. HELD: No, I understand . I was
saying that --
MR: COMRAS: Ifl canjustfmish. I
am sorry.
MR. HELD: Yes.
l\.1R. COMRAS: So the site plan which is
attached to the agreement, which was approved
··and clearly, there is a process that it is
Page 158
allowed to go through this Board to adjust
for the site plan. And what I am saying is
not necessarily that 1 want to preserve a
sight line, but I am concerned with the
massing of what is being proposed, and going
from nothing to the opposite extreme, and the
developer taking advantage of th is Board by
proposing somethi ng so ob tuse for a site that
is very narrow.
And if you have been out to the site,
you have seen the distance from the back of
my building to the water, and you have seen
from the rendering the overhang which will
encroach all the way forward.
So when you start tal king about, Gary,
the second two items of increasing the volume
of the retail space from 3000 to over
11,000 square feet, and those people have the
right to use the parking on my site, to say
that that does not increase the intensity of
an easement, I don't think is correct.
1\fR. HELD: Well, I think with regard
to the nine spaces -· and staff can
confirm --they are no longer relying on the
nine spaces that are provided fo r to cover ••
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
2 0
2l
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
l{)
11
l.2
13
l4
15
16
l7
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 159
MR. CO MRAS : Then those nine spaces
out to be removed from the covenants. That
should be a condition by this Board, if you
choose to go forward with this project.
B~t the other·-j ust the other item
is the intensity of the massive structure
behind --and perhaps this offers a solution
in terms of the height and mass transitioning
from the low-scale townhomes to the much
larger structure to each of the properties.
Thank you.
MR. PA THMAN: Mr. Chairman, I have
some questions of Mr. Comras, if I may.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please.
MR. PATHMAN : Mr. Comras, when you
purchased yo ur property, were you not aware
of the then-amended and restated declaration
of easements, restricted covenant and the
deed --I mean, excuse me, the deed in lieu
of unity of title?
MR. COMRAS: With the approved site
plan, yes.
MR. PATHMAN: And most recently as
last year, you retained counsel to
renegotiate those covenants and easements.
Page 160
And do you recall that I was the attorney
representing Nlr. Wasserstcin?
MR. COMRAS: There was no real
negotiation of the covenants. It was more a
fulfilling or the completion of the doc uments
that were previously in place.
MR. PA TilMAN: You have before you and
you read into the record from them, the
Amended and Restated Declaration.
MR. COMRAS: Yes.
MR. P A THMAN; And that's what was
filed and recor ded of record last year?
MR. COMRAS : Yes.
MR. PA THMAN: Okay. Let me bring to
your attention that the first thing on the
declaration of restrict ive covenants,
paragraph one says, "The owners of the
property whose consent shall not unreasonably
be withheld" --you have always withheld your
consent, right, to any of the changes·-
MR. COMRAS: I don't believe
withholding my cons ent was IJJI!'easonable in
any fashion. •
If you look at the scale of what you
are proposing to take advantage of, given tlle
KRESSE & AS SOC IATES, LLC
(30 5 ) 371 -7692
40 (P age s 1 57 t o 160)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
J
4
5
6
1
a
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 161
site had no structures on it, you are
building the maximum you could possibly
obtain, cantilevering to the south to within
20 feet of the building.
MR. PATHMAN: But isn't that what you
agreed to when you purchased the property?
:MR. COMRAS: We agreed to an approved
site plan with the resolution of--procedure
for resolution if we do not agree, and that's
why we are here in front of this Board today.
MR. P A THMAN: And you recognize, as
counsel for the City has stated, the plans,
the site plan, can be modified, and the City
has rendered an opinion from the City
attorney to both the Planning Board and the
ORB to suggest that we have right to modify,
and we have the right to modify the site
plan?
MR. COMR.AS: Nobody is suggesting you
cannot modifY the site plan. We are
suggesting it should be modified in a
cohesive, sensitive manner which is not
negatively impacting the neighborhood and the
parcel of land which we occupy.
MR. PATHMAN: And as counsel for the
Page 1 62
City, Gary Held has pointed out, the only
thing that you reserved in ~ese declarations
was a line of sight on 20th Stre et. Is that
not correct?
MR. COMRAS: No. I reserved the right
to disagree with the site plan changes.
MR. PA THMAN: Mr . Chairman, I would
submit that if you read the City attorney's
opinion--which I would just like to read a
couple of the conclusions --that Mr. Comras
has misstated the accuracy of the
declarations, has not agreed with the City
attorney's opinion, which I think is more
relevant as the fact that this is something
that, as Mr. Held has indicated, is from the
City attorney . This is the advice that was
given to the Planning Board, the advice that
is given to this Board.
MR. CO:MRAS: And it says that the
application --
MR. ROBBINS: I am objecting to this
and putting this into the record. Thi s
opinion of an attorney --
MR. PA THMAN : It is already in the
record.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
n
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
Page 163
MR. ROBBINS: The attorney is not
here, and that should not be adm itted at this
time.
MR. CARY: Well, it--
MR. HELD: Sorry, William-
It is rebuttal. It is not
cross-examination. If you want to make a
statement, include it to your list on
rebuttal.
MR. PA TilMAN: Well, my issue is that I
have asked Mr. Comras ••
MR. HELD: No, I understand that.
Wayne, we have to distinguish between
rebuttal and cross-examination.
MR. PATHMAN: lam.
MR. HELD: You are not in the process
of asking or restating a question or an
answer. Okay?
MR. PA THMAN: Gary, I understand.
MR. HELD: You are making this-
MR. PA THMAN: Then I will ask him a
questi on . Okay?
Have you read the City attorn ey's
opinion?
MR. COI\ofRAS: Yes.
Page 164
MR. PATHMAN: Okay. Canyoureadfor
me--
This is a copy of the opin ion.
MR. ROBBINS: This is outside the
scope of direct testimony and it is not
relevant
MR. HELD: Wayne, just include it in
your rebuttal.
MR.PATHMAN: Gary-·
MR. ROBBINS : The opinion is in the
record already.
MR. PATHMAN: The rebuttal will-take
three hours.
MR. HELD: The opinion is in the
record. Mr. Robbins is correct.
MR. ROBBINS: So what do we need fo r
him to read it? It has no relevancy .
MR. PATHMAN: Because 1 have questions
after he reads it.
You are not going to allow me to then
ask-
MR. HELD: No. If you are going to
ask a question, then ask a question already.
But stop making argument as part of your
cross-examination.
KRESSE & ASSOC I ATES, LLC
(305) 37 1-7 692
41 (Pages 161 to 164)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
1 1
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 165
:MR. PATHMAN: Ifyou look at the l
declaration, Mr. Comras, where it indicates 2
that "The proposed modifications of the 3
property, usage of the property, physical 4
condition or site plan may be required to , 5
return to the appropriate Development Review 6
Board, and if modification or release a i
previously-issued approvals have --or 8
imposed conditions." 9
You agree that you accepted that 10
condition, and that you signed this document ll
when it was recorded for public record? 12
MR. COMRAS: I agreed that if 1 3
something was not in accordance with my l4
reasonableness, that we could bring it to 15
this Board, and this Board could make a 16
determination as to what is equitable in 1 7
terms of the development. 1 8
I think by you proposing massive 1 9
development on this is looking to take 2 0
advantage of this Board and the community. 2 1
MR. PATHMAN: I am not going to have 2 2
any further questions . 23
They are all nonres ponsive. 24
THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. 25
Page 166
Please state your name and address.
MR. ROBBINS: Hello. My name is Kent
Harrison Robbins. My offices are at 1224
Washington A venue, Miami Beach, Florida.
I represent MAC SH LLC, which is the
property owner of 1261 20th Street.
Now, let's quickly go over what the
issues are here and why I am making this
presentation. As you remember, last time we
were here, I obj ected because there was
insufficient notice concerning the one --one
of the two matters that you need to consider
at1his hearing, and I brought forth the fact
that the prior hearing had not been noticed
concerning approval of modifications of a
previously approved site plan.
That was not noticed. So then we had
to renotice it and come back and spend all of
the money to have another appearance here.
Now we have this hearing, and I sen t a
letter out yesterday to make certain
everybody would -would consider this
matter.
Has everybody received the October 1,
2012, letter sent to this Board?
l
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
1 0
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 167
Has anybody not received it?
Let's put it that way.
I want to bring it to your attention,
and bring parts of it to your attention.
But as presented in this Board , what
is being proposed to be added is lot 22,
which is the Mark's cleaner property. That
wa s not originally part of the site plan .
)\.{r. Comras has an interest in this
site plan, and MAC SH LLC has an interest in
that site plan because that is the plan which
was agreed to by the parties.
Now there is a process within the
code, under 118-5 of the code concerning land
development regulations involving unified
development sites.
118-5 specifically says--and this is
actually also stated in the covenant signed
by both parties -"Proposed modifications to
the property's use, operation, physical
condition or site plan shall also be required
to return to the appropriate Development
R eview Board or boards for consideration of
the effect on prior approvals, and the
affirmation, modification, or release of
Page 168
previously-issued approvals or imposed
conditions."
Now, we are submitting a copy of this
letter, and attached to this letter is, in
fact, that not only the approved site plan,
but also a copy of the previous Design Review
Board order approving the project that had
been partiall y constructed on the site, the
five-story building which was set back from
my client's property, which provided only
surface parking on the north 70 feet oflots
25 and 26.
That is the approved site plan, and
there is a DRB approval for that proj ect.
Unfortllnately, the staff did not
provide you with a copy of that ORB order or
the plans fr om that DRB order. We have the
construction project plans, and that's where
we also extracted in formation from here.
Unfortunate ly, th e DRB fil e could not,
I guess, be found at the City. However, we
were given a set of building construction
plans for that project, which was Design
Review-approved and was signed off by the
Planning Department.
'KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LL C
(30 5 ) 37 1 -7692
42 (Pages 165 to 168)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
ll
12
13
14
15
1 6
l7
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
2 4
2 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
l2
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
2 0
2 1
2 2
23
2 4
25
Page 169
So that is the best reconstruction we 1
can have of the plans that were approved by 2
the Board, and we are going to submit a copy 3
of those plans for the record. 4
And the members of the thi~ Board s
should be allowed to review those plans. 6
Why am I going into such detail about 1
these rules? a
Because the staff report did not bring 9
to your attention your o bligations to look at 10
the prior approvals and look what has •• what 11
is being suggested to be changed. 12
And that is your duty, and that is a 13
requirement. But unfortunately, that has not 14
been presented to you, so when I sent you the 15
letter yesterday, having received the 16
planning report which staff·~ staff report 1 7
which did not include those proposed prior 18
orders and prior approvals, I felt obligated 19
to provide that to you so you could make a 2o
reasonab le decision based on the code and 2 1
fulfill your duties as a member of the Design 22
Review Board. 23
So having given that to you and having 2 4
had a chance to·-hopefully, to review that 25
Pa ge 17 0
letter with the attachments, 1 also wanted to
bring to your attention something that I
brought to you two months ago, but which
still has not been corrected --and that is a
deficiency of the site plan.
You know, the site planA.lO, which is
the overlay on this approval, a copy of which
we are also going to be including in the
record, that is in the set of plans being
presented to you.
Under ll8-.( for site plans, the site
plan is supposed to specify all property
lines, location, dimensions oflot, setback
lines , easements, and location, size of
sanitation, storm sewers , culverts. It is
also supposed to provide calculations of
square footage of overall proj ect density and
square foot of lot area per apartment unit.
None of that was provided. That is
required under the site plan requirements
under -under the code, under 118-1 .
So why is that so important?
It is so important because when you
want to analyze what was approved versus what
is being proposed to be able to determine th e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 1 71
impact on the changes and the effect of these
proposed changes from the original approved
plan, you have to compare apples to apples.
And that's the site plan information.
In fact, in the building •• the
building plans that were provided by me, they
have those analyses. They show all of the
setbacks. They show all of the square
footage per unit. That was not provided
here.
And why is that?
Well, we can't really figure out how
much FAR is being transferred .
Now, who was the person on the expert
•• the expert from the City who is handling
unified development sites?
Who is the --is that you, Mr. Belush,
or is that Mr. Cary?
We need to have somebody that will be
able to testifY as to that--you know, be
able to question the --
MR. Belush: Sony, what are you
asking?
MR. ROBBINS : This is a unified
development side. Therefore, it incorporates
Pa ge 172
--so I am asking for the person from the
staff who analyzed this project as to the
uniform --unified development site under
118-5.
Mr. Cary, did you do that?
Did you evaluate ••
MR. HELD: We wouldn 't be designating
on the spot an individual. If you have a
question, ask the question, and we will see
if someone can answer.
MR . ROBBINS: I will ask Mr. Belush.
If he doesn't know and they are not prepared,
that is fine, but we need to have a staff
expert to be able to analyze a unified site
plan, because under the code, the unified
site plan not only includes what they are
proposing, but also my client's project.
My project has--is part of that
unified si1e plan, and unless they consider
my unified site plan in evaluating this
project, you really are nat doing your job.
Because you have to look at all of the
development on the site, not just what is
being proposed here, but also what is on Mr.
Comras's site.
KRESSE & AS SOCIAT ES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
43 (Page s 169 to 172)
1
2
3
4
s
6
')
f)
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
l U
19
20
21
22
2 3
24
25
Page 173
And you have to lo ok at the Design 1
Review Board's analysis based on 2
incorporating my client's development on the 3
s~. t
Isn't that correct,.Mr. Cary? s
MR. CARY: Yes, and that is exactly 6
what we have done, Mr. Robbins. I think that 7
your client will testify that he met with us, a
together with another architect with, with 9
Les Palenson to look at how the development 1 0
project would potentially impact his site. 11
He made a series of recommendations. 12
MR. ROBBINS: Thafs correct. 13
MR. CARY: We asked the architects to 14
address those recommendations. Those have 15
been made, substantial changes were made to 16
the plan in order to accommodate your 17
client's concerns, including the right-of-way 1 8
area, the ability of cars to back out 19
property, raising the height of the building 20
in that area so there would be no impact 21
or-22
MR. ROBBINS: Right. 23
MR. CARY: -·negative impact on the 24
ability to maneuver cars in the area. 2 5
Pa g e 1 74
MR. ROBBINS: So can I ask you a
questi on··
MR. CARY: We discussed the past
elevation, mostly with Mr. Comras.
All of those concerns were rel ated
directly to the architects, and those
eoncems have been --have been addressed to
the extent that is appropriate at the desi gn
-· at the design development level before a
project goes into a full permit drawi ngs and
final design development.
MR. ROBBINS: Right. So --so you
evaluated this project as a unified
development site. Where did you state that
in your staff report?
I didn't see any reference to unified
development site as with respect to "Mr.
Cornras's property in th e evaluation of the
impact ofhis FAR and setbacks --
lviR. CARY: We evaluated the proj ect
relative to the design of the new structure
and its relationship to the existing fonner
World Savi ngs Bank project, and we reviewed
it in accordance with the request of the
Planning Board, as well.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 9
19
:zo
21
22
23
24
25
Page 1 7 5
MR. ROB BINS: Right.
MR CARY: The Planning Board had
significant discussion about what changes
they would like to see made, what changes
they did not want to have made.
They decided not to have a view
corridor through along ·-along -· it would
be .West A venue, through to the water . They
decided that was inappropriate, that it was
fine for the --for the project to come up to
where it is ·· it is propos ed to be located.
So yes, we took into consideration
what was requested by the Planning Board, as
weU as what was request ed by your client.
MR. ROB BINS : Let's go into some of
the issues -·
MR. CARY: No I am not going into any
further detail. It is inappropriate . I am
not on cross-examination ·-
MR. ROBBINS: The issue of setbacks
between --and how you evaluated what would
be the appropriate setback between my
client's ··the east side of my cli ent's
property and the west side of the proposed
Page 176
project.
Originally, the original site plan
provided for a 21-foot setback from my
client's property. Isn't that correct?
tvm.. CARY: Mr. Robbins, we are
evaluating tb.e currently-proposed project.
not a proj ect that was previou sly approv ed by
the Design Review Board which had a
complete ly different design concept and a
completely different plan.
We are reviewing what is before the
Board now, and whether it satisfies the
requirements of the design evaluation
criteria.
Mit ROBBINS: So just to make certain,
you didn't analyze the impact that this
proposed project would have on the exi sting
approved site plan?
Jut to put that --
MR. CARY: I think I have already
stated that we have very carefully examined
the impact that it would have been, and if it
would have a significant impact ••
MR. ROBBINS: I am asking you.
l\4R. CARY: -· in upgrad ing the quality
KRESSE & AS SOCIA TES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
44 (P age s 173 to 17 6)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
l7
19
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
Page 177
of the elevation, the design of the building, l
which this Board is responsible for looking 2
at, this Board will detennine if they --3
lvfit RO BBIN S: I am not asking you. 4
MR. Cf.RY: If there is adequate S
distance between the development, between the 6
existing World Savings Bank project and the i
new project, whether the elevations have been a
adequately and properly developed. Those are 9
the responsibilities of the Design Review 10
Board. 11
MR. ROBBINS: Would you agree that 12
21 feet was the original proposed setback of 13
the project that was previously approve d, and 14
now there is a zero setback? 15
MR. CARY: That is totally irrelevant. 16
MR. ROBBINS: Okay. And would you 17
agree .also that originally, the FAR and 18
density was 1.42 for the original project, 19
and now it is 2.0? 20
Wouldn't you agree? 21
l\.1R. CARY: 2.0 is pennissible. 22
MR. ROBBINS: Right. But it is 23
substantially increased. 2 4
MR. CARY: What is your point ? 2 5
Page 178
MR. ROBBINS: Would you agree also·-
MR. CARY: No, I am not agreeing to
anything further, Mr. Robbins . I am sorry,
we are we reviewing a compl etel y separate
project. We are not reviewing something that
was previously approved by the Board which
began and has ceased construction.
MR. ROBBINS: I am asking you also,
are you agreei ng that there is also •• there
would be, right now, as being proposed in the
data. the data sheet that is provided , ni ne
parking spaces on my client's property is not
being internalized into the parking garage
and the CUP as per the CUP order which
requires approximately 153 parking spaces?
But in fact, nine spaces are now being
maintained on my client's property?
MR. CARY: Based upon our preliminary
zone evaluation, the project, as designed,
satisfies the requirements of the City code.
lvfit ROBBINS: Okay. Well , I am asking
you about a condition use permit. Didn 't the
order --and I have a copy of the order if
you need to look at it -ifyou didn't --it
was specifically said at the hearing ·-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
li
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 179
wasn't it specifically stated that all
parking would be internalized within the
parking garage on the Palau site, and the
parking would not go on my client's property.
MR. CARY: The project, as designed,
satisfies the building--the City code
requirements.
MR. ROBBINS: But I am asking you
about the conditional use.
MR. CARY: It satisfies the bu ilding
requirements, Mr. Robbins.
MR. ROBBINS: So you are saying-· do
you know if the nine parking spaces are going
to be utilized as part of-
MR. CARY: It satisfies the City code
requirements.
MR. ROBBINS: I am asking you, as far
as this particu lar project is concerned, is
this proj ect going to utilize nine parking
spaces--
MR. CARY: I have already provided you
with the answer, Mr. Robbins.
MR. ROBBINS: On my client's site.
'MR. CARY: It satisfies the
requirem en ts of this developmen t.
Page 180
MR. ROBBINS : I am not finished with
my question. May l ask my question?
MR. HELD: Kent, I think you have
asked the question ab ou t five times.
MR. CO MRAS: He answered it the way he
wants to answer it.
MR. ROBBINS: I am going to ask him,
does those nine spaces --are those nine
spaces on my client's property part of the
required, necessary par.king in order to build
the Palau project?
lv!R. Bel ush: Let's ask the architect,
in their parking-type relations, do they
consider those parking spaces ·-if those are
required parking, or-· my understanding was
that all of the required parking was being
provided within the building envelope. And
that is access parking.
MR . HELD: Introduce your name again
for the record, please.
MR. KARP: Hi. My name is Kobi Karp.
Address, 2515 Biscayne Boulevard.
MR. HELD: Thank you. Do you have an
answer to that question?
MR. KARP: I happen to have an answer
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 3 71-7692
45 (Pages 177 to 180)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 181
to Kent's question. Hopefully, I can address
it I am not using any of those nine spaces
that are spoken about. We have our own
parking on our own project for the
• residential and the commercial component, so
we are not looking to use any of those
spaces.
MR. ROBBINS: Thank you.
So then we would be asking you for a
continual -· this Board approval, that those
nine spaces not be utilized as part of the
project.
MR. HELD: And they were not proposed
to be utilized.
MR. ROBBINS: Well --
lVIR. KARP: Again, what Kent is saying
is not necessarily what I was saying. Right.
You asked me for the zoning. I just want to
make sure that I am not here to --to do
anything.
I am here to put--to make sure that
we all agree that the project, as designed,
meets all of the zoning criteria, and I have
all of the parking that I need enclosed
within my parking structure, completely.
Page 182
Thank you.
Thank you.
MR. HElD: Thank you, Mr. Karp.
MR. ROBBINS: I want to bring to your
attention·· should--and it is now being··
everybody is bying to not answer the
question --should those nine shared parking
spaces be utilized on my property, the
original approved project provided for only
3,600 square feet of retail space. The
proposed project has 11,325 square feet of
space. It would triple th e intensity of use
of my client's lots, my client's property,
contrary to the intent of the easement, and
contrary to the intent of the parties when
they entered into the site plan.
The project is explicitly defined in
these documents as a 20-unit, 3,000-square
foot commercial property .
That is how the project is defined.
What we are trying to do is just
assure that the intent of the parties is
evaluated by this Board, and the impact on--
on :Mr. --on MAC SH LLC, Mr. Comras's
property, is not adversely impacted by this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2Z
23
24
25
Page 183
change, or unnecessarily adversely impacted.
And it is the responsibility of this
Board, because the staff--the staff has not
done it, at least, it is the responsibility
of the Board to consider what has been
previously approved under the code, and look
at what the changes in impact will have to
mi ni mize that impact.
Under one -under the code and
criteria, under one --under the criteria,
under one·· excu se me --under Section 12,
the proposed ·-you have to look at the
proposed structure and its orientation,
massing, whether it is sensitive and
compatible with the buildings.
The putting of all this mass against
the World Bank building is not appropriate,
and you should cons ider that and analyze
that, especially consider important view
corridors. That is the responsibility of the
Design Review Board, not the responsibility
of the Planning Board.
As a representative of the Planning
Board stated before you, it is your
responsibility to look at these view
Page 184
corridors, these issues.
MR. KARP: Let me just try to he lp you
out for a second. ifl may, because Kent did
bring up a point. If you look at Page A-01,
you can-it is quite simple. You can see
on page A-01 what Kent was saying, which is
why don't we just give up those spaces whi ch
are back there and landscape it. And Michael
said the same thing. Michael Comras said the
same thing.
And that's fin e. That's great.
Because what can be a condition is, take the
area, if you will, of where you can see on
page A·l.O 1 where the six parking spaces are
that we have left space to access those
parking, just landscape it all.
It sounds to me like they want to give
it up, those spaces, and that should be a
condition, and to just give up those s paces,
just make it alll~dscaping, and I think
that's a very valid suggestion. [t actually
works nice because you can see •• there is a
view corridor between the Sunset Harbour
townhomes and where it is that we are
proposing on the west side as a CD setback,
KRESSE & ASSOC IATES , LLC
(305) 371-7692
46 (Pages 181 to 184)
1
2
3
4
5 .
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
1
2
3
(
5
6
1
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 185 Page 187
and then there is an RN setback of 26 feet, 1 ~ss in the proceedings.)
plus. 2 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY
We can--we already are proposing to 3 STATE OF FLORIDA:
ss. landscape it and connect it to the public 4 COUNTY OF DADE : right-of-way, and that will be quite nice as 5 I, SHARON PELL VELAZCO, a Court
a big garden that goes all the way around 6 Reporter in and for the State of Florida at
that connects to the public promenade. 7 Large, do hereby certi ty that I was, authorized
:tviR. CARY: And staff would certainly 8 to and did stenographically report tbe
be very supportive of that suggestion. 9 proceedings in the above·styled cause at the
MR. KARP: I think it is a good 10 time and place as set forth; that the foregoing
suggestion, and it would be nice to landscape 11 pages, numbered ftom I to 188, Vo\wne I,
12 inclusive, constitute a true record of my that whole area. 13 stenographic notes. MR. CA RY: Excellent idea. 14 I further certify that l am not an MR. COMRAS: If I could respond to 15 attorney or counsel of any of the part ies, nor
that --as it relates to th ose parking 16 related to any of the parties, nor fmancially
spaces, the parking spaces will --are going 11 interested io the action.
to be utilized. We would ask that the 18 WITNESS my Hand and Official Seal this
building, itself, the structure, be set back 19 23rd day of February, 2013.
and be reduced in size and mass, and 20
incorporate landscape along there. 21
Just to clarify what William spoke 22 SHARON PELL VELAZCO, RPR
COURT REPORTER NOTARY PUBLIC before ·-when we met, we totaUy reviewed 23 Commission NO : EE 015147 the elevations as provid ed by Kobi so I would Ex pires 811912014
understand exactly what was being proposed. 24
It does not mean that I agreed with it. But 25
Page 186 Page 188
it actually --just clarifying what was l
proposed --so I just want to make that 2
clear. 3 CERTIFICATE · REPORTER NOTARY OATH
So there is no desire to remove those 4
5 spaces to provide all that landscaping. 6 THE STATE OF FLORIDA) In fact, if the building along the 7 COUNTY OF MIAMl·DADE) north line of the property was set back and e
reduced in height and scale, they could put 9 I, Sharon Pell Velazco, Notary Public for the
in the appropriate landscaping as required, 10 State of Florida, certify that any and all
as I would do, when I go to develop other 11 witnesses or parties requested to be sworn were
properties next to other people. 12 sworn by the Chairman during the course of these
Thank you. 13 proceedings, and were duly sworo.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 14 WITNE SS my hand and official seal this 23rd day
MR. HELD: Mr. Chair, before Mr. 15 of February, 2013.
Pathman continues, can ·-ljust want to 1 6
check with the court reporter to see how she 17
18 is doing.
19 MR. ROBBINS: She is a very good court
SHARON PELL VELAZCO, RPR reporter. I use her when Mr. Patlunan doesn't 20 NotaJy, State of Florida use her. So she knows and does --Commission No: EE 015147 TilE CHAIRPERSON: We are going to stop 21 Expires 08/1912014
for a moment and take a five-minute break. 22
And lunch has anived for those Board 23
members who have ordered it 24
(Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., there was a 25
KRESSE & ASS OC IATES, LLC
{305) 371-7692
47 (Pages 185 to 188)
A
$1447:5
$2 125:18
$75,000 113:9
A-01 184:4,6
A-1.01184: 14
A-1.04140:17
A-1.05 140 :12
A.lO 170:6
A000332:14
abate 77:18
ability 116:12173:19,25
able 5:21 65 :11 83:7 89:18
89:20 143 :24 170:25
171:20,21 172:14
above-styled 187:9
absolutely 59:11, I7
121:16139:13
abuts 132:14
abutting 143:17 146:6
acceptable 130: 11
accepted 15:15 165:10
access 30:25 31:2 180: 18
184:15
accessible 29:6
accommodate 173: 17
accommodated 152:23
account 53:25 64:11
110:11 126:1 6152:7
accuracy 162:11
accurate53:10 96:11
aces 92:11
achieving 5:7
acknowledge 29:9
a cknowledges 149:21
acquired 147:20,21 148:3
148:5 149 :13
action 187:17
activist 82:12
actual32:17 57:20 111:16
ad 132:1
add 14:9 40:25 101:6
103:7 109:7 150:19
155:3,4 157:11
added 167:6
adding 151:5 156 :19 157:3
addition 96:3 141 :2 5
151:18
additional35:21 143:15
143:19 144:10,12,13
146:9 156:24
additions 68:9 ,18 135:9
address 6: 18 11 :9 40:2
56:13 60:9 70:13 72:5
77:15 78:2 79:24 82:8
96:15 103:1 6109:7
112:12 129:25 138:7
166:1 173:15 180:22 amenable 49:5
181:1 amended 8:22 18:14 148:1
addressed 4: 17 17:22,25 160 :9
114:6 174:7 amount 13:24 30:22
addresses 74:9 135:3 150:16
adds73:25 analyses 171:7
adequate 177:5 analysis 14:22 173 :2
adequately 66:24 177:9 analyze 170:24 172: 14
adjacent 64:4 101:24 176 :16183:18
102:14 115:22 132:9,21 analyzed 172:2
135:20,23 136:7 137:2 and-a-half 63:3 70:21
147:18 angle 33:6 36:13,14 56:6
adjoining 9:1 angled 156:3
adjust 158:1 angling 56 :5
admitted 48 :1 63:25 163:2 angry I 08:25
adopted 45 :4 annual 126:14
advantage 116:5 158:7 answer 32:3 56: II 69: 11
160:25 165:2 1 106:14118:1 ,3,7,10
adverse 17:10 63:4,10,15 120:8,11,12 I23 :6
adversely 136: l 182:2 5 124 :211 63:18 172:10
183:1 179 :22 180:6,24,25
advice88:6 162:16,17 182:6
advise 17:2 0 answered 106:13 180:5
advisor 72:15 anybody 48:20 74:21
Advisory 93:5 88:1 3 112:4 130:5 167:1
aesthetic 134:2 anymore 100:12
aesthetically 61: 1 anyway 47:22 114:9
aesthetics 135 :17 apartment 116:10, ll
affect 104:13 136:1 170 :I8
affirmation 167:25 apartments 34:12 123:2 1
ago 20:1 50 :5 52:4 70:18 apparently 89:15
78:9 82 :20 94:12 131:15 appeal 8:19 1:12 127:3
170:3 128:4
agree 24:1 2 145:11 161 :9 appeaUng 71:25
165:10 177:12,18,21 appeals 107:23
178:1 181 :22 appearance 65:15 78:16
agreed 22: 14 29:7 42:7 78:17136:8,10,13,15
49:10 114:13 149:8,12 166:19
161:6,7162:12 165:13 appearances 2:1 135:17
167:12185:25 appearances's 64:17
agreeing 76 :24 178:2,9 appeaT iog5 1:15,I6 80:6
agreement 76:24 157 :24 Applause68:23
ahead 117:7 118:8 123 :14 apples 171:3,3
air 138:24 applicant 3:8,14 5:5,18
alarmed 38 :12 9:21 11 :1 80 :1 5 87:1
alleviate 100 :3 107:23 137:8 141:11
allotted 24:12 145 :5
allow 9:9 116:20 149 :6 applicaots 6:14 13:20
164:20 applicati o~t 3:6 8:18 9:2
allowable 108:7 19:1 69:5 96:7 131:19
allowed 15:8 101:9 121:8 133 :21146:9 162 :20
127:12,17 148:22,23 applied 69:4
15 8:1 169:6 . apply 16:7 81:18,21
allowing 115:9 118:15 131 :18135:12
Alton 71:23 97:11 appreciate 19:22 88:7
Alvarez 137:13 91:9 147:10
ambient 16:23 appreciation 104:15
KRESSE & ASS OCIATES, LLC
{305) 371-76 92
Page 189
approach 123:10 153:10
appropriate 9:8 68: 17
165:6 167:22 174:8
175:23 183:17 186:9
appropriated 50:19
appropriateness 8: 17
59:10
approval3:10,15 4:2 5:1
7:2 12:7,11,1216:14
142:22 143:4 145:4
149:21 152:25 154:22
166:15 168 :14 170:7
181:10
approvals 13:6 165 :8
167:24168:1169:11 ,19
approve 9:3 18:2
approved3:1615:15 45:4
45:8,14 52:11 63:21
91:17 148:6,7,24 149:1,7
149:12,14,1 9,23 150:4,7
151:3 152:20 153:3
154:8 157:24 159:21
161:7 166:16168:5,13
169:2 170:24 171:2
176:7,18 177 :14 178:6
182:9 183:6
approving 168:7
approximately 15:6 99:4
100:11 147:1 153:15
178:15
architect 5:18 18:1.919:20
59:8116:13 140:5173:9
180:12
architect's 12:2
Architectonic& 43:11
architects 6:15 ,19 42:21
46:24 65:1 66 :9 173:14
174:6
architectural 34:19
134:13 144:2,25
architecturally 34:16 79:4
architecture 25 :18 26:6
27:13,15 31 :2144:7
68:7 134:25
area 14:16 15:10 16:16
23 :24 27:25 29:140:11
50:24 52:14,16 61:16
63:22 78:19 84:6 111:3
133:16,24 134:3 136:2
137:19 149:17 153 :7
170:I8 173 :19,21,25
184:13 185:12
areas 50:2 1
argued 84:11
argument 18:4 128:25
131:21 132:2164:24
argumeots 84:9
arrangement 136:24
arrive 23:21
arrived 6:25 49:6 186:23
arrogant 61:6
Arthur 52:8
article 70:7
articulated 68:16 142:13
artist's 30:7
asked 90:6 94:14 95:6,7,8
114:18 118:4 120:11
124:14,16 163:11 173:14
180:4 181:18
asking 65:23 93 :13 98:11
113:24 117:24 119:18
126 :4 129:7 163:17
171 :23 172:1176:24
177:4178:8,21 179:8,17
18 1:9
aspect 71:22
aspects 135:25
assert 136:4
assessments 110:7
assist 8:1
assistant 12:25 67: ll, 19
70:8
association 2:20 60:12
71:1 78:8 79:19 80:6
85:9 92:6,6 94:10
106:24 125:17
associations 106 :25
assume 156:12
assure 182:22
atmosphere 91 :3
attached 8:18 9:5 148:5,25
150:5 151:3 154 :8
157:24 168:4
attachment 3:22 8: 15,20
8:22 142:1 143 :13 156:8
156:22
attachments 3:22 170:1
attempt 81:11 112:25
113:4 126:18,19
attend 94:22 95:16,17
attended 13:8 107:15
attention 12:22 78:19
80:11 11 1:12146:12
160:15 167:3,4 169:10
170:2 182:5
attorney 2:8, l 0, 15 , 17,19
8:161 8:7 46:7 51:15,17
51:17,22 72:16 105:24
106:3 113:3 117:20
118:20 119:12122:4,13
125:3 151:7 160:1
161:15 162:16,23 163:1
187 :15
attorney's49:4151:25
162:8,1 3 163:23 60:12 77:8 96:17 109:9
attorneys 6:20 46:24 151:1 152:10
attractive 58:15 B aywa lk 35:25 36:1
attributes 135:19 Bea 88:12,13
audience 112:5 Besch 1:8 2:8,18 4:9 7 :7
August 64:10 131:15 13:18 46:14,17,22 47:1
140:3,7 60:21 72:1 74 :14 82:24
author 67:11 70:7 83:22 86 :12 93:8 96:20
authored 69:3 96:2 1,21106:1 133 :12
a utbority 9:11 148:12 166:4
a uthorized 187:7 beat32:1635:ll55:2
available 57:13 b ea utiful58:16 74:5 79:4
Avenue 2:17 46:6,7,1 1 104:12 110:3
56:15 60:12 70:15 82:1 I b eautifully 21:2 1,21 56:23
96:18 109:9 166:4 175:9 b ega n 178:7
awakt26:21 b eginning 14:15 102 :4
aware 17:20 60:5 67:10,25 119:6 140:2
68:10 70:3 76:22 94:7 b eha lf 13:20 80:6 92:3
95:25 96:8 159:16 105:9 106 :23 107:1
112:17 129:1 146:24
B believe 8:24 13:8,11 14:9
B 152:2,13 14: II 24:6 34:16 58:23
back 6:2 20:22,22 22:24 61:5 66 :17 76:23 93:25
23:4,4,18 24:16,20,24 107:15 110:2 160:21
25:8 27:23 31:16 33:6 believes 11 : 1
33:22 35:8,2149:14,15 Belle 82:10 84: II 85:8,9
49:18,1 9 50:24 52:13 87:7
55:9 64:1065:1197:22 belonged 50:25
98:2,11 100:19 115:10 b elongs 31:7
115:15 116:7 ,12 1 18:21 Belush 2:4 3:5 41:3 171:17
128:9 140:7 143 :19 17 1:22 172:11 180:12
144:4,9,10,1 4,16 151:25 benches 31:2
153:25 154:20 158:11 benefit 65 :16 71:6 74:6
166:18 168:9 173 :19 77:12,1 3
184:8 185:18 186:7 best 42:19 51:1 0 82:24
background 10:8 83:10 93:7 130:16 169:1
backyard 42:24 bet53:19
bad 52:16 66:7 b etter 43:22 55:24 71:6
balance 86:1 8 I 54:9 79:15,15 93:8,10 lll:ll
b a lanced 155:12 116:2 139:3
bal1 124:2 beverages 28:19
bank31:6 115:9 132:15 B ienstock3 8:6 60:10,10
142:24 143:18 174:23 66:15 ,22 67:2,4,13,24
177:7 183:17 68:10,25 69:18,23 71:8
base 21 :9 28:1 0, ll 37:10 7 1:1 9 90:24 132:12
based 36:17 107:20,24 Bienstock's 69:13
169:21 173:2 178:18 b ig 29:3 33:7 47:20 48:16
bases 135: 11 51:4 65:14 75:8 91:7
basic 134:2 4 92:11114:25 115 :5
basically 20:24 25:21 32:7 125:713 1:7 141:19
32:12 37:13 75:21 108:5 185:6
113:16 115:19126:9 bigger I 02: 1
142:3 biggest 57 :18
basis 42:19 Bill43: 1 110:18
battfe 83:5 billion 110 :8
bay 6:6 25:10 32;9 43:24 Biscayne2:12,13 6:6
51:5,6 56:15 57:25 58:2 11:13,13 19:19 180 :22
KR ESSE & ASS OCI ATES, LLC
(305) 37 1-7692
Page 190
bit 4:4 11:24 18:3 26:6
48:1,2 81 :4
blackmail 126:19
block 75:5,6,7
blocked 73:7 99:10 100:2 1
blocking 39:25
blows23:7
blu e28:3
board 1:7 2 :2 3:15 4:11,24
4:25 5:3,4,8,10 8:15
9:1910:911:21,2412:7
12:12,14,1813:2,4,5,6
15:14,22 16:5,15,17,22
17:3,4,12,13,18,2119:6
19:7 25:20 26:25 27:1
37:19 38:1 39:1 7 40:22
41 :2,19,19,20 45:3,9,22
52:12 65:24 67:17,20
69:21 78:7,10,12,20
79:21 81:1 6,19 85:6,8,17
86:3,8 87:9,25 88:23,24
89:24 90:2,7,10,13,17
91:21 94:7 ,13 95:6,7
96:7 98:7 102:23 105 :4
105:5 107:9,16 108:17
110:10 112:15,20,24
113:1,24114:5117:21
118:19 119:10,20 120:3
120:16121:9 123:8
125:1,22 126 :13,13
129:12,13 13 1:13,24,25
133:13 135:14 139 :19
140:2 142:23 143 :5,21
149:9 152 :22 15 4:9
158:1,7 159:3 161:1(),15
162:17,18 165:7,16,16
165 :21 166:25 167:5,23
168:7169:3,5,23 174 :25
175:3,14176:8,12177:2
177:3,11 178:6 181:10
182:23 183:3,5,21,22,24
186:23
Board's 138:5 173:2
b oards 12:4 19:17 32:2
167:23
boat 16:25
boats28:16
body36:25 53:16131:20
bono 106:2
book 114:21
booming47:7
born 96:19
bottom 54:1
bought 109:16
B oulevard 2:13 I 1:14
19 :19 180:22
boxlike68:12,15 69:7
Boy 107:7
Brandon 56:14,14 57:7
61:1 7 79:13
break27:19 186:22
breeze 58:1
bridge 6:1 14:3 21:1,14,15
22:23 23:12 30:1 32:23
33:2,13 36:7,8,9.)11
55:17 58:6 64:3 66:17
66:20 67:1,9 69:17
73:19,24 75:13,14,15
115:19116:3 132:11
13 3:14134:15 135:6
136:18,18 137:25 142:6
bridges 6:163:19,23 66:21
brief25:16 87:15 147:8
bring 12:22 20:1027:15
37:7 80:10 85:17 94 :16
113 :7 128:21 160:14
165:15 167:3,4 169:9
170:2 182:4 184:4
broke 27:20
broken 40:12
brougbt25:17,1 9 32:2
48:25 50:7 119:16,17
120:2,4 128:23 137:7,8
166:13 170:3
Budget93:5
buffer 23:25
build 49:10 81:6102:2
115:14 116 :20 145:16
153 :8 180:10
builder 49: I 0
building 3:1122:2 23:1,4
23:18 24:16,17 25:4
26:10,13 27:3,18 29:20
31:6,7 33:7 34:12,13
35:4,6 41:9 48:13,16
50:8 57:16,2.0 58:14,15
58:16 61:25 63:2 65:12
65:15 67:1 69:15 77:3
81:13 92:14 93 :23
109 :16 116:21 124:3
134:2 1136:12137:2
138:17 139:1 142:19,24
142:25 143:17,20,24
144:1,4,4,7,8 145:3
146:25 147:17 149:2,18
15 1:15 !53:5,12,13,25
155:1 ,9,22,23 156:5,11
158:12 161:2,4 168:9,22
171 :5,6173:20 177:1
179:6,10180:17183:17
185:18 186:6
building's 58:9
buildings21:12 35:18
48:23 56:6 57:25 58:19
68:17,19 72:20 76:4 163:4 171:18 172:5
134:6,14 135:10 142:16 173:5,6,1 4,24 174:3,20
148:13 183:15 175:3,18176:5,20,25
builds 61:21 177:5,16,22 ,25 178:2,18
built 5:23 38:9,13 47:2 179:5,10,15,21,24 185:8
50:22 52:12 55:23,23 185:13
60:17 62:2,5,6 77:3 Cary's 67:22
82:20 83:18 92:17 case 7:23 8:2 58:7 91:11
bulkhead 138:11 107:18 108:20 111:6
burden 157:7 128:8
Bureau 97:4 cases 107:21
business 71:22 72:18 category 47:5
busin esses 52:19 cause 187:9
busy 52:23 caused 73:15
causeway 84:13 c cavernous 154:16 c 150:5 151:8,18 CD 54:20 184:25
C-A-P-0-R-A-L-E 80:2 CD-2 132:22 133:6
cable 98:18 CD2132:4
CAD 53:13 54:10 ceased 178:7
calculations 170 : 16 cell 73:9,12
call92:7 103:23 128:18 center52:2462:19115:1
129:19 centers 131 :5
called 83:11 104 :7 114 :21 certain 5:7 41:16 56:5,6
156:1 102:9 114:13 166:21
calls 17:7 150:7 176:15
campaigned 111:4 certainly 37:25 45 :5 69:11
Ca11adiao 48:22 185:8
canal52:14 76:9 114:8 CERTIFICATE 187:2
132:7 137:i5 188:3
canopies 140:22 certify 187:7,14 188:10
canopy 24:2 28:22 138:11 Chad 42:22 56:20 126: 11
cantilever 153:24 141:20
cantilevering 154:4 161:3 chair7:219:22 10:23 11:4
canvas 14 1:6 19:5 77:21128:1 8
cap 37 :15 129:20 146:14 147:12
Caporale 80: 1,2 155:14 186:14
Capri 3l:l8 chairing 83:21
car 21 :24 35:7 99:3 109:17 chairman 4:3 11 :23 66:14
care 41:4 55:19,25 120:17 85:6 87:16 88:9 94:5
122:21 116:25 129:8 159:12
careers 108: 17 162:7 188:12
carefully 4:7 66 : 11 81 :22 Chairpe rson 2:3 3:4 7:19
176:21 9:18,2411:7 19:4,9
cares 122:19 44:20,24 45:7,17,20 51:9
caring 75:17 80:8 51:19 53:7,21 54:13
Carlos 21:23 56:9,12 57:3 59 :24 60:5
Ca~ol2:5 60:8 66:13 69:21,25
carries 64:7 70:10 72:2 76:13 77:14
cars 52:25 74:17,21 97:10 77:20,25 79:23 82:4,7
98:3 99:16 100:17,20 85:2 91:23 94:4 96:13
101:8 173:19,25 97:13,18 99:18 100:6,23
Cary2:5 4:3 12:25 13:1 3 101:2,5102:16,20 103 :9
37:18 39:3,9,12 41:3 103:13 104:20,.24 105:13
47:6 48:6 53 :8 62:7 107:2 109:5 112:3,11
67:12,16,19 69:3,10 116:23 117:1 129:21
73:20 76:21 83:10 96:8 130:4,20 146:13 147:13
KRESSE & AS SOCIATE S, LL C
(305) 371-7692
Page 191
155:13,15,19 159:14
165:25 186:13,21
challenges 6:9
chaoce 71:24 79:18 112:8
169:25 .
ebange4:21 65:14 83:8
149: l1 152:7 183 :1
changed 54:21,22,22
111:9 169:12
changes 5:16 26:5 31:23
64 :8 95:4,5 96:6,11
151:6 160:20 162:6
171:1,2 173:16175:4,5
183:7
changing 83: 17
channel98: 19
character 68:13,20 92:13
133:15 ,24 134:2,10,11
134:21 142:9,11
chnged 58:8 149:10
Charlie 85:5,12 88 :10,11
93 :2 1 105:14
cheapen 47:8
cbeck54:11 186:16
checked 106:9
children 46:10 82:16
choose 159:4
cbose 95:14 112:20 113:7
Churchill72 :19
Cicero94:l7 121:21
123 :25
circle 31:16
circulate 35 :5
circulation 15: 16 20: 14
32:5 ,8 34 :21 35:14 44:5
citizen 7:23 81:9
citizens 8:1,6 80:9
city 1:82:8 7:7,12 8:16
13:1818:638:2240:16
45:4,12,13 46:14 50:11
52 :1 8 53:3 54:10 71:6
76:19 80:9 81:9 82 :13
86:15,19 92:11 93:8,10
94:3 99:9 100:11,11
113:2 l15:7 117:20
119:12 122:4,12 133:10
134:1 145:24 148:20
15 1:7,24 16 1:12,13,14
162:1,8,12,16 163 :23
168:21171 :1 5 178:20
179:6,15
City's 99:12
clad 43:14
clarified 140:20
elarify 19:5 53:9 76:16
77:22 120:22,25 130:9
144:20 14Q:14 157:14
185 :21
clarifying 186: I
day 37:13
dean 101:15
cleaner 167:7
Cleaners 23: 15 33:22
50:1 9 78:16 99:23
156:2 0 157:4,12
clear 3:21 32:24 64:9
127 :1 4,18 138:6 141 :18
145:25 186:3
clearly 4:20 24:21 30:21
33:20,21 157 :2 5
client 28:14 94:12,15
121:13 129:1 141;16
173 :8 175:1 5
client's 168:10 172:17
173 :3 ,18 175:24,24
176:4 178:12,17 179:4
179:23 180 :9 182:13,13
clients 13:21 13 1:1,2
132:23 138:19 140:25
141:18
clock 130:15
close 30:9 35:20 142:15
144:1
close-to-waterfront
142:16
closed 50:2
closest 142:19
coalition 48:7
Coconut 2:22 130:23
code 9 :1 0 54:21,23 131:17
135:15 167:14,1-t 169:21
170 :21 172 :15 178:20
179:6,15 183:6,9
coffee 26:21 42:25
cohesive 161 :22
coUect 107:5
collected 111: 1
coror 20:10
column 123:20
comb41:22
combined 151 : 18
combines 68:3
combining 157:4
come 6:23 7 :13 12:24
18:23 19:25 23:3 31:3
33:1 34:18 35:18 36:7
40:24 47:11 55:14 71:16
74:20 81:12 100:10
106:3 118:13 121:7,17
123:1 124:20 149:9
153:14,22 166:18 175:11
comes 3 1:13 100:3
comfortable 7:1
coming7:8 13:4 41:143:8
66:6 100:21 148:15 Comras 6:18 31:7 63:2
156:4 125:24 146:17,18,23,24
comment 4:4 10:2 45:25 147:4,8,1 5,16155:22
60:2 112:4 121 :12 156:5,11 157:8,13,14,20
127:24128:24 141:21 157:23 159:1,13,15,21
155:18 160:3 ,1 0,13,21 161:7,19
comments 7:22 8:2 14:7,7 162:5,10,19163:11,25
20:4 23:22 24:5 ,10 165:2,13 167:9 174:4
29:ll 60:171:9 76:16 180:5 184:9 185:14
88:3 94:6 99:19 102:1 9 Comras's 172:25 174:18
102:21 182:24
co mmercial16:25 28:13 conceded 15:1
28:16,17,19 33:25 34:2 concept 5:12 176 :9
34:15 35:10 43:6,18 concern 22:22 40:5 57:18
55:5 62:25 63:1,3 72:15 89:21 10 1:1 6 102:2,5,13
84:3 132:18,19 146:6 113:22 131:4138;14
181:5 182:19 concerned 24:4 46: 18
commercial/residential 74:ll,23,25 75 :9 82:14
132:20 82:17 83:9 87:21 158:4
commercially 15:4,13 179:18
Commission 16 :9 63:21 concerning 15:15 16:20
187:23 188:20 17:23 18:8 66:16 166:11
Commissioner 87:6 166:15 167:14
Committee 93:5 concerns 4:1 6,23 6:1 8
communication 112:22 13:10,1414:120:12
co mmunity 20:20 22:4 7 1:17 87:24101:24
40:17,19 44:8 81:13 103:22 104:17 113:14
135:21136:20 165:21 116:19 145:14173:18
company73:7 87:1 8 98 :1 6 174:5,7
146:24 concessions 14:6 79:8
comparable 142: 18 114:2
compare 171 :3 conciliatio n 91 :6
compared 40:11 conclude 44:21
compatibility 68:13 concluding 138:3
107:14,20 108 :22 13 6:3 conclusion 63:7,9 145:9
compatible 16:16 58:21 conclusions 138:2 162:10
59:4 68:7 69:15,16 concrete 32:25 33:1 50:14
80:12,1 6,20 81 :14 93 :15 83:15,18
93:24 135:9 136:6 condemned 60: 15
131:19 145:17 183:15 condition 138:9,10 144:6
competent 8:9 107:11,25 144:21,24 145 :4 146:7
complementary 34:7,13 153:1 154:22 155:2
complete 140:24 159:3 165:5,11 167:21
completely 15:1 9 24:13 178:22 184:12,1 9
34:24 78:23 92:13 113:4 conditiona14:12 5:1,14
151:6 154:2 176:9,10 12:8 142:22 143:4 179:9
178:4 18 1:25 conditionhag 138 :24
completion 160:5 conditions 3:24,25 4:1 7:3
compliance 58 :24 13:14 17:2 24:11 41:14
compliant 15:10,20,25 89:7 91 :18 107 :13
16:1 108:11 113:20 133:8
compliment 88 :20 138:2,5 142:2 143:15,15
comply 131:16 156:25 165:9 168:2
component 55:5 181:5 condo 81:7
compounded 42:10 condominium 81 :6 86:22
comprehensive 15:1121:4 104:6 106:24
co mpromise 49:7 confidence 108 :2
KRESSE & AS SO CIATE S, LL C
(305) 371 -7692
Page 192
confidential 112:21
121:19,21,25 123:24
confine 9 :14
confirm 63:13 158:24
conflict 157:2,
conformanc.e 16:3
confuse 119 :23
congratulate 48:8
connect 185:4
connection 43:6 125 :12
147:19 152:9
connects 185 :7
consensus 86 :7
consent 149:22 157:12
160:18,20,22
consequently 52:21
coosider73:5 84:16
116:16 166:12,22 172:19
. 180:14 183:5,18,19
considerate 134:17
consideration 14:21 40:23
53:2 96:9 167:23 175:13
considered 113:3 118:14
considering 90:13
consisted 148:1 7
consisten cy 135 :16
cons istent 16:12
constitute 187:12
constitutes 8 :8
constructed 4: IS 62:1 4
168:8
construction 3:10 4:18,20
30:11 48:1 1 58:18 68:9
99 :22 100:8 134:18
149:22 150:25 168:18,22
178:7
consultation 64:25
contacted 34:10 94 :13
contained 100 :4
contemplate 153:4
contemplated 152:21
contem porary27:16 68:8
contentiou s 91:3 95 :10
108:19110:15,16,24
111:21
context7:1 7 21:11,17 22:8
39 :20 43:23 59:6 79:15
136:21 143:25
contextual1 41:19
contextually 56:19
continua l l81:10
continue 14 :20
continues 186:15
continuing 88:5
continuous 58:10,11
continuously 42:10
contrary 55:14 68:7
156:16 182:14,15
contributing 134:14
control76:21 77:1 ,4
convenient 70:6
conversation 45 :11
conversations 19:7 38:5
converted 21:25 43 :20
copied 121:20,23
copy 69:22 117:15 122:1
150:4 164:3 168:3,6,16
169:3 170:7 178:23
core 114:6,20 115 :15,17
corner 21:22 22:23 ,24
23:19,20 30:1 32:22
33:20 35:1 36:18 55:6
82:15 103:19 116:2
132:4 133:11
corporation 49: 1
correct 67:1,23 74:12
88:25 89:4,8,9 90:10
91:19 103:6 113 :24
158:21 162:4 164:15
173:5,13 176:4
corrected 170:4
corridor 57:19 58:1
115 :14 136:16,16 137:6
137:24 142:7 144:15,19
175:8184:23
corridors 137:3,4,9,11,21
137:22 154: l3 183:20
184:1
corroborate 95:24
cost 27:21 49:3 123:19
counse1 80:14 107:22
109:1 159:24161:12,25
187:15
count 6:15 27:9 45:15
counting 106:14
counts 27: I 0,22
County 8:3 187:4 188:7
couple 7:22,24 19:16,25
20:746:19 59:25 76:15
76:17 88:10 94:6 102:18
13 3:19 138:6 162:10
course 37:17 Ill :17
188:12
court 2:22 7:25 49 :1 83:3
119:24 120:24 121:2
130:23 186:16,18 187:5
187:22
courtesy 147:10
covenant 8:21 150:19,20
151:2,10 152:8,9 l56:13
159:18 167:18
covenants3:I8 8:1918:10
18:14,16 147:25 148:2
148:20,22 150 :1151:7
153:2 154:7 156:24 61:3 72:14 97:9111:7
159:2,25 160:4,16 124:5 187:19 188:14
cover 158 :25 days 82:23 84:24 95:2
crammed 52:25 deal6:1150:20 111:12
crappy 48:23 125:14
crazies 66:5 dealing 40:7 86:5 87:19
create 17:10 21:10 22:16 115:11
23:20 25:25 29:20 42:3 dealt 110: 19 142:25
44:3,7 55:24 134:25 decades 71:16,16
137:20 154:9 157:6 deceptive 81 :4
created 22:2123:5,19 decide 107:10 108:4 121:2
29:20 35:16 36:16 65:6 125:15
152:9 decided 55:3 65:16 125:13
c reates 24:25 175:7,10
c.-edible 64:25 107:18 deciduous 24:1
credit 56:25 96:5 decision 17:17 I 07:23
creeping 46:20 108:18 135:13 139:15
c rime 75:10 77:18 169:21
criteria 9:6,10,1416:7,11 decisions 10:11 108:12
57:23 58:22 62:3 ,l0 deck62:22
63:25 64:6 69:8 81:21 declaration 3: 17 8:20,23
86:3 87:24 90:12,15 147:24 148:1 149:20,25
131:17135:12,16,21 151:11 152:2,5,7 157 :2
136:2,5,23 137:17 159:17 160:9,16 165:2
143:10,11,11176:14 declarations 149:6 153:10
181:23 183:10,10 154:24 162:2,12
critical25:19 59:11 decline 123:1 4
131:16 133:20,21 137:9 declined 128:1,13
cross 152:1,4 deed 159:19,19
cross-examination 91:4 deep 42:13 52:17
102:25 123:14 127 :2,13 deficiency 170:5
128:1 ,14 163:7,14 deficient 78:15
164:25 175:20 define 5:19 134:20
cross-examine9l:I3 120:7 defined 9:12 23:13 182:17
121:8 124:20 182:20
crystal 32:24 d efining 134:9 142:8
culverts 170:15 d efinition 33:24 151:9
CUP 178 :14,14 defrosting 100:19
curb-cut 126:8 degrades 137:10,14,15
cu.rrent 57:10 73:14 degrees 36: 14
currently 3 3:22 59:21 delegate 139:12
88:24 153:21 delegating 139:13
currently-proposed 176:6 deliveries 15 : 17
cut 53:14 54:2 55:16,19 delta 28:9
124:18 Delveccio 104:23 105:1,2
Cypress28:21,2l 151:1 105:6,13,14,18106:17
152:10 106:18 107:4
demolished 3:13
D deniall3l:l8
DADE 187:4 d enied 127:1
daily42:19 density71 :18 75 :1 6108:6
dark 82:23 84:24 108:7 170 :17 177:19
darn 30:9 deny 146:9
data 178:11,11 Department 5:6 34:17
date 97:1 67: IS 76:20 114:5
dated 151 :8 168:25
day42:15 53:159:18 61:3 depicted 49: 16
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305} 371-7692
Page 193
describe 80:21 81:1 82:25
described 83:14 144:3
deserve 51:18
design l :7 2:2 3:9,15 5:7,9
5:11 6:23 9:9 13:4 18:2
37:19 39:18,25 40:15
41:1,18 52:11 54:23
57:22 58:2 2 61:6 65:24
68:3,5,8 85:7 87:2,9
90:2,11,14 107:20
108:15 110:3 131:16,23
133:25 134 :18 135:11,14
138:4 139:6,7,9,10,18,19
140:1,2,17 142:13 145:1
146:4 168:6,23 169:22
173:1 174:8,9,11,21
176:8,9,13 177:1,10
183:21
designated 6:2 132:11
133:13
designating 172:7
designation 66:20 68:4,22
133:14,18,23
designed 21:22 36:11
56:23 58:16 86:22 99:25
114:23,24 138:3 139:16
153:22178:19 179:5
181:22
designing 135 :9
desire 186:4
desperate 112 :25
despite 52:2
destination 26:2
destroy 47:10
detail 18:24 169:7175:19
details 31:22 41:16 71:7
79:11 86:6 95:21 134:24
135:5 145:1
determination 9:7 16:19
11:5 165:17
determinations 15:21
determine 125:2 149:10
154:24 170:25 177:3
determined 16:6,17 17:8
17:13
determining 8:1
detracts 62:20
detriment 65:18 74:7
151:22
develop 5:21 104:3 148:23
186:10
developed 7:12115:10
148:12 150:2 177:9
dev eloper 34:11 48:22
49 :5 50:12 61:18 73:1
73:22 74:6 75:24 81:5,9
88:4 108: l2 111:6,9
112:22 114:1 133:4
135:24 145:12,16,18,19
145:20,22 146:3 148 :11
150:18 151:17 154:25
1.58:7
developers 50:7 52:21
65:2 66:10 71:8 79:7
92:19 93:14 94:1 145:25
developing 79:2
development 9:9,1 3 10:17
10:22 38:17 43:18 61:20
66:6 71:1 3 82:2 131:3
132:3,24,25 134:1
135:15,22 148:14149:15
149:22 150:3,24 151 :2 1
153:7 154:1 0,11 165:6
165:18,20 167:15,16,22.
17 1:16,25 172:3,23
173:3,10 174:9,11,14,17
177:6 179:25
diagonal32:22,23
dialogue 95:1
diffe rence 91:8
different 26:24 48:2 54:19
78:24 86 :4 87:18 90:12
90:1 5,22,25 135:1,2
14 7:5 176:9,10
differently 43: 15
digested 12:17 17:1
diligently 96:4
dimensions 170:13
diminishes 62:20
d inner 74:19
direct70:16 72:10 164:5
dire ction 24:14 27:1 2
directive 89:23 92: 18,20
94:1
directly 10 :2 0 75:12 174:6
director 12:25 64:1 67:7
67:12,19 70:8 105:21
DiTectors 112:16
disagree 59:1 162:6
djsa pprove 107:12
disclose 112 :2 1 11 3:8
disclosed 117:20
discretion 11:3 67:22
discuss 9:17,23 45 :5
11 8:12119:19
discussed 38:4 118:19
143:12 174:3
discussing 147:6
discussion 87:23 111:13
175:4
discussions 7:18 26:8
131:13
displeasure 83:7
disregarded 8:11
distance 153:16 158:11 duly 188:13
177:6 duties 169:22
distinguish 163:1 3 duty 81 :17169:13
district 6:3 7:25 132:5,22 dwarfs 62:23
133:6 146:6 dynamic 59: 16
disturb73:10
disturbance 73: 15 E
divided 29: I 0 e-mail 113:2,13,15 117:15
division 115:8 117:17,19118:2 3 119 :3
dockage 16:25 126:11
doctors21 :24 66:10 e-mails 95:24 117:23
109:17 118 :11,17
document 69:2 15 1:3 earlier 3 8:4 117:1 8 124:6
155:24 156:7 165:11 155:8
documents 9:5,16 13 1 :23 earliest 5:23
147:22 148:6 151:12 early 134:3
157:9 160:5 182:18 ease 18:8
doing 13:17 33:25 89:18 easement 148: I 152:11, l l
102:24 103:3 106:2 5 153 :1 154:23 15 6:3,9
124:5 125:6 128:15 158:21 182:14
172:21186:17 ea sements 18:5,9 149:20
dollars48:19 49:3 51:8 152:1,5 156:25 159:18
110:8 159:25 170:14
domain 31 :20 easier 60:1 102 :23
donated 106:2 east 57:17 97 :12 131:11
door 42:6 116:11 136:12 132:16 142:24 143:18
136:15 149:5 156:4,20 175:24
doors42:23 eastern 144:8
doubt 86 :1 2 easy93:11
downpours 99:2 echo71 :9 ,17155:2
Dr 70:14 96:16,17 97:16 eclipse 38:20
97:21 99:20 100 :7,24 edge 6:2 33:4 133:5,6
101:3,10,11 103:17,17 146:5
104 :21 .EE 187:23 188 :20
drafted 67:22 effect 23:5 24:25 25:25
drafters 18:13 33:14 167:24 171:1
drainage 100:4 efficient 136 :2 4 147:14
drama 104:2 effort 13:25 58 :5 111:24
dramatically 3 8:16 eggs47:10
drawings 47:20 54:10 egress 15 :18 17:24 41:25
174:10 eight70:18 76:1 110:19
DRB 1:10 3:611 :15,21 either 101:3 108:2 114:4
12:24 60:22 67:21,23 120:25 146:7 15 1:10
13 6:2 3 144:24 145:4 elemeot25:19 28:7 55 :5
161:16 168:14,16,17,20 95:1 2 142:8
dreaming 79:20 elements 22:15 134:9,20
drink 107:5 134 :22,24 135:7,11
Drive23 :1 7 26:1 ,14 34:23 elevation 21:9 28:10,11
36:2057:1977:23101:4 37:9,10 41:5,10 98:12
105:2 111:18 116:7 139:6 145:2 155:10
132:7,10 136:17 137:16 174:4 177:1
137:23 142:5,6 144:9 elevations 98:9 99: 14
drives 71:23 138:18 155:5 177:8
drop 120:18,20,25 185:23
drop-off 15:1 6 elevator 26:13 138:11,2 1
Dry23:I5 33:2199:23 140:13,14
due 127 :1 elimin ate 76:22,24 115 :24
KR ESS E & AS SO CIATE S, LLC
(3 05) 37 1-7692
Page 194
123:20 135:25
eliminat ed 23:16 34:24
3 5:1 49:9 116:10
eliminates 137:10
eliminating 153: l
eloquently 71 :1 9
emergency 74:20 97 :6
emerging 84:19
emptiness 62:2
empty75:12
enact 93:8
encl osed 181 :24
encourage 37:22 145 :12
encouraged 68:8
encroach 158:14
encroaching 77:10
encroachment 143:6
encroachments 153: II
endeavors 83:21
energy 84:21 ,22
engaged 12:24 13:7
engineer 65 :2
engineering 134 :7
engineers 66:9
England 105 :22
enhance 79:5 13 6:7,10
154:14
enhanees 62:19
enjoy 76:9 141 :4
ensure 134:1
entailed 95: l3
enter27:8 33:8 35:4,6
42:18 99:3 ,11,1 6 100:25
entered 182:16
entering 33: 10
entire 14:2 38:22 58:12
59:6 69:21 79:6 80:23
143:17 144 :7 148:18
154:1
entitled 120:6
entrance 6 :3 50:1 8 51 :1,3
61:4 71:25 73:8 74:18
78:14 79:6 96:25 97:17
97 :22 99:10 100:22
103:20 132 :12
entranceway 11 1:18
entry 29:12,15 30:5 34:23
34:25 35:2
entryway 59:12,1 3,14
env elope 1 80: 17
envision 30:1 5
equal 11:2 ,S 123:22
equals 39:3
equipment 139:23 140 :9
140:10,18,19 141:8
equitable 165:17
erroneously 49: 16
especially I 1:6 13 6:25
183:19
ESQ 2:11,1 6,21
ESQUIRE2:9
essence 24:14 25:14 26:18
essential1 35:8
essentially 23:3 146:2
estabJisbed 52:4
establishments 132:18
estate47:7 72:15,16,17
ll0:9
etcetera 16:24
evaluate 172:6
evaluated 61:14 174:13,20
175:22 182:23
evaluating 172:20 176:6
evaluation 137:.5 174:18
176:13 178:19
evenings 52:23
eventually 78:10
everybody 10:5,5,10 29:14
41:4 52:1 2 78:18 86:23
89:19 92:23 98:8 112:7
145:10 166:22,24 182:6
everybody's 1 I 9:21
evidence 8:9 107:11,17,25
evolution 25:7,15
evolve 14 :19,20
evolving 14 :12
exact 97:1 122:12
exactly 98:18 124:8 173:6
185:24
examination 122:6
e:x:ami ned 66:25 176 :21
examiner 4.5: 13
examines 135:14
example 37:8 52:7,22
exceed 15:9
Excellent 185:13
exceptionally 13:15 38:2
-ex ces s 12:8-
exciting 78:25
excuse I 05:5 122:2,11
132:25 136:17 159:19
183:ll
executed 148:21
exercise 93 :21
Exhibit 150:5
existence 154:6
existing 3:12 4:17 7:16,16
33:2 43 :23 68:19 137:11
174:22 176:17 177:7
exists 37:4
exit29:15 34:23,25 42:18
exits l 00:22
exotic 24:1
expand 8:14
expect 10 :23 119:2 124:24 125:20
expects 151 : 17 171:13 174 :19 177:18
expensive 53:5 179:17
experienc.e 76:8 ,10 86:1 fashion 65:12 160:23
108:16 109:18 father 109:16
experiences &5: 18 favor 40:17 79:1
expert 171:14,15 172:14 favorably 18 :25
experts 17:16 45:11 fear 62:1,4
Expires 187:23 188:21 features 49: 14 68:5 134:8
explain 18:24 134:13
ex plicitly 182:17 February 15 1:8 187:19
ex pose 33: 17 188:15
exposed 42:9 federal10.5:21
express 80:15 83:7 104:14 feel6:22 25:18 28:1 33:9
104 :15 156:18 36:2 77:1 93:22 103:24
expressed 87:24 104:5
extending 142:5 feelin gs 80:11
extensive 18:20 45:10 feels 45:22
151:20 fees 48:19 49:4
extensively 45:2 76:19 feet 12:915:5,6,721:7,8
ex tent 4:24 74:10 138:13 22:10 27:9 28:8,8 32:20
157:8 174:8 32:21,2 133 :6 34:2
exterior 65:8 35:21 37:1 39:4,8 43 :24
extra51 :12 77:17123:19 52:17 53:17 54:7 55:8 ,9
extracted 168:19 55 :10 56:8 98:12 99:5
extraordinary 40:2 11 5:19,20 143:19 144: ll
extrem e 158:6 144:12,13 150:9,11
eye25 :23 31:11 152:12,16,16,20,21
eyesore 78:15 154:5 158:18 16 1:4
F
168:11 177:13 182:10,11
185:1
facade21:ll 22:1 6 26:5 fellow 17:21 109 :1 110:1
43:7 139:7 felt4:1624:25 36:22 78:13
facades 27:20 86 :7111:11169:19
fa ce41 :7,7,9 111 :17 fifth 144:13
153:12 fight 48:6,20 54:18
faced 5:2 2 figh ting 48:10 49: I 75:2 t
facing24:19 50:4 74:2 figure 171:12
85:19 90:1 142:12 file 11 :15,20168:20
153:13 filed 96:6 160:12
fac t 16 :1 ·60:17 64 :5 87:11 files 53:13
139:15 142:2,5,11,2 1 filmed 73:11
143:3,9,23 162:14 fiDal l39:5 144:25 145:5
166:1 3 168:5 171:5 174:11
178:16 186:6 finally 49:4,4 111:8
fact-based 8: I 0,12 118:22 143:8
facts 56:17 106:19 110:5 finan cially 61: I 187:16
fair 149 :11 find 20:5 27:17 138:8
falll25:l9 140:4 142:4,20 143:2,9
falling 136:12 145:8 155:12
familiar 14:17 16 :10 52:9 finding 142:11
95:19 findings 142:2
families 81 :25 fine44:15 56:22 103:4
family 46:9,10 80:7 109 :25 114:12,15 128 :4
fantastic 86:16 104:12 172:13 175:11184:11
far 15:7 27:21,22 33:22 fine-t ooth 41 :22
54:2255:1108:8115:17 fining 125:24
KR ES SE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(30 5 ) 37 1-7692
Page 195
finis b 41:11 79:1 689:25
157:20
finished 37:9 62:15 90:3,5
180:1
first 3:5 4:11 7:22 19:22
24:23 37 :18 47:16,22
48:5,12 49 :8,14 63 :13
67:5 70:22 119:16
144:10153:22155:20
160:1 5
fit 7:15 56:22 74:16
fits 29:2 1
FlU 72:18
five 17:22 26:17 39:10
51:20,20 62:22 98:12
100:11115:2 1,25 121:5
122:22 144:12,13 155:6
180:4
five-minute 186:22
five-story 3:11 4:19
137:23 154:3 155:22
168:9
fix 65:6
fixt ures 139:23 140:22
144:22 145:6
FL 2:1 4,22
fl ood 21:9 28:10,11 37:10
flooded 99:4,10,17
flooding 100:16 101:7
floor 22:1 24:22,23 26:17
37:9 115:25 116:1 124:3
124:7 125 :21 144:10,13
153:22,24
floors 21:6 24:17,18,20
26:16,18 28:4 116:6
144:11
Florida 2:18 11:14 46:9
100:9 156 :2 166:4 187:3
187:6 188 :6,10,20
focal36:9
focus 136:3
focuses 36:9,14
folks 24:3 36:24 42:15
59:7 92:3,17,21 93:7
following 3:1 68:2 136 :2
food 28:19100:19
foot 170:18 182:19
footage 87:1 2 ll4: 10
170:17 171:9
footnotes 152:3
footprint 15 :12
forbid 120:1
forced 5:18 114:4,14
forces 146:2
foregoing 156:23 187:1 0
forever 50:2
forg et 24:8 98:18,24
forgive 26:19
form 58:10,11
formally 5:4
formed 83:23
former 87:6 150:25
174:22
forth 16:8 24:1 36:19
54:11 166:13 187:10
fortunately 83:3
forum 70:23
fo rward 7:5,17 134:19
152:24 158:14 159:4
fought 48:18
foul97:24
found 29:25 50:1 9 87:22
134:24 168:2 t
fountain 32:10 36:10,1 5
four 5:24 8:22 10:3 12:15
21:6 2 4:18 26:16 28:4,5
49:20,21 54:7 62:14
154:20 156:8,22
fourth 63:1 144:12
FP&L 22:4 33:143:13
125:7
frame 12:23
Frank 105:1
frequently 6: 17
Fresh 98:6
Friday 64:16
friends 50:6
front 19:25 25:3 41:1
42:12 55:10 56:3 57:25
61:4 65:25 90:9,16
111:1 4 119:19125:8
148:7,25 149:9 150:5
161:10
fulfill 169:22
fulfilling 160:5
full35:1l174:10
function 135:18
functions .32:7
funeral43:19
further 20:3 24:20 29:23
77:22 87:23,24 108:21
122:5 134:19 151:12
165:23 175:19 178:3
187:14
Furthermore 55:3
future 31:5,12,12 ,15 71:11
72:23 76:7 77:2
G
gall 106:3
gap 30:11 33:7
garage 14:12 99:8,11
100 :16 178:13 179:3
garages 52:20
garbage 29:16 14:19,20 18:4,10 25:15
garden 65:9,10 114:20,22 37:14 38:8 47:9 51:9
115:1,2 116:6,7 151:19 52:7 57:4 59:15 66:8
185:6 75:11 77:10,18 78:22
Gary2:97:209:1811:18 • 79:5,11 81 :20 82:14,22
109:8 120:19 121:7 83:15 84:1,8,12,17 86:23
122 :7,24 124:20 158:15 92:24,25 93:17 94:22,23
162:1 163:19 164:9 95:4 96:24 98:5,10 99:3
gatehouse 30:10,12 55:17 99:15 100:24 101:1 ,3,12
gateway 20:20 73:2,3 101 :14,21,22 102:9,11
78:18 80:22 103:21 104:2,2,4,5,9,13
gathered 86:8 104:22 107:4 117:14
gear 97:24 119:13 120:20,24 122:3
gem31 :14 144:2 122:18 124 :2,3 125:17
general100:8 126:25 127:12,15 128:21
generalized 8:10 129:11,14,23 138:8,19
generated 14:16 141:5,5,7143:1146:1,22
gentlemen 19:16 152:19 158:5 164:20,22
getting l 08:25 165:22 169:3,7 170:8
ghosted-in 31:13 175:18 179:13,19 180:7
Gibbs2:2 1,2110:24103:2 185:16 186:21
103:11 130:1,7,1 0,13,1 6 golden 47 :10
130:19,21,22 good 11:23 19:15 40:4,4
gift48:20 60:8 72:3 82:5,6 84:23
give8:4 10:5 11:25 19:1 85:3,4 86 :14,19,23 91:24
20:6 24:2 29:12,14 35:7 9 1:25 96 :14,16101:10
37:15,24 41:15 54:1 0 104:23,25 105:1 107 :1
64:19 67:22 93 :25 96:5 109:6 112:9,10 130:20
96:25 116:14 118 :6 130:21 141 :23 145:10,12
144:4 184:7,17,19 185:10 186:18
given 10:20 17:15 50:24 governing 63:22
51:11 57:21 69:5 89:23 governs 150:20
104:16 115 :3 120:7,10 Grand87:8
154:6 160:25 162 :17 ,18 grant4:25
168:22 169:24 granting 5:14
gives 61:9 grassy 27:25
giving71:5 gratuitously 50:24
glad 68:24 great6:1141:4 42:21
glaring 11 3:23 48:16 50:20 55:19,25
glass 117:4 79:12 84:21 86:9 88:21
glowing 13:12 69 :6 89:11,14 90:24 Ill :12
go 11:1713:5 19:6,11 152:18184:11
20:22,23 21:16 27:11 greater 41:16 86:19
30:14 60:1 64:10 79:11 111:15
83:3 93:6 104:4 108:2 greatly 151:21 153 :10
113:10 114:8117:7 154:13
118:8 123:1 4 127:5 green 32:12
128:9,ll 132: I 158:1 greet32:16 55:1
159:4 166:7 175:16 gridlock 52:22
179:4 186:10 gridlocked 52:24
goals 5:7 grocery 52: 19
God 120:1 group 62:3 1 11:5
Godfrey 52:8 groups 51:24
goes 32:20,20,21 68:25 Grove 2:22 130:23
115:17134:19 151:13,13 grudgingly 114:3,17
174:10185:6 guarantee 12:20
going 6:22 9:22 12:1 13:1 guaranteed 120:13
KRESSE & ASS OCI ATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
Page 196
guess47:21 75 :12 76:1
85:24 87 :17 88:20 99:8
115:3 168:21
guidelines 133:25
guys26:20 55:18 57:22
93:1149:10
H
Hagopian 2:3
half 110:8 150:13
ham 97:5
hand 143:1 187:18 188:14
bandful65:17
handling 171:15
hangs 88:14
happen 23:9 58:7 64:15
72:24 76:2 81:2 180:25
happened46:16 121:14
happening83:2 101:12
happens 35:15 96:24
happy 9: 16 25:20 42: 11
54:4,9 94:15 130:17
Harbour2:10 3:8,9 25 :11
27:14 39:5 40:13 48:6
50:12 52:5 59:15 80:23
82:17 83:4,12 84:19
86:10 101:25 102:15
110:20 132:4,22 142:14
184:23
hard 83:16 93:3 108:11
harm 88:1
Harrison2:1610:15166:3
head 48:7 67:14
hear 9:21 10:4 18:4 45 :1
45:22 66:2,3
beard 10:6 60:16 62:7
64:15 80:21 84:2 85 :24
85:24 90:8,9,16,16,22
98:7101:20 111:21
129:13131:2,7,14133:1
147:11
hearing4:8 11:22 14:1
17:19 39:14,22 83:14
96:10 112:19 113:18
127:5 131 :24 166:13,14
166:20 178:25
hearings 4:13,14 12:13
13:8 17:12 75:20 131:13
hearsay 122 :9 124:24
beart4:24
height t 5:2,3,5 21:5,8
22:10,1128:2,3,6,7
38:19 39:10 42:8 49:19
54:8,22,25 61:7 64:12
84 :7 98:9 99:14 101:20
102:9 lll :l5 131:9
138:12 159:8173:20
18 6:8
heights 55:11
Held 2:9 7:21 9 :22 10:23
19:5 47:13 48:8 51 :21
77:21 97:1 5 102:24
103:7 106:12 118:13
11 9:9,9,11,1 5,2 2120:2
120:12,16,24121:3,6,1 7
122:2,17,22 123:2,13
124:14,16 126:23 127:8
127:17,20,23,25 128:3
128:10,13,16,18,20
129:2,5,16,19 130:9,1 5
130:17 146:14,1 9 147:2
147:121 55:14,1 6,20
157:1 8,22 15 8:22 162:1
162:15 163:5,12,16,20
164:7,14,22 172 :7 180:3
180:19,23 18 1:13 182:3
186:14
Hello 16 6:2
belp 85:1 911 1:23 11 3:10
116:19 184:2
helped 2 1:10
hen 47:10
hesitated 108:18
Hi85 :ll,l296 :16180:2 1
hidden 47:18
hide 33:17
bides 22:3
high 27:9 28:22 31:9 34:3
39 :5 43:25 52:1 9 55:8,9
55 :1 0 68:1 6 96:21
high-ris e 49:8,10 5 1:4
62:9
higher 1 I 1:15
h ighes t 102:12
highlighted 70:3 119 :5
highlig hting 134: 12
historic 5~25 63:19 ,22,23
66:17,20 67:9 68:3 ,1 4 ,22
71:25 73:19,23 133:13
13 3:14,15 ,18,24 135:5
136:18,21 137:25 142:6
historically 132:10
historically-designated
64:3
history 11:25
hitting5 1:20
bold 17:6 44 :15 100:1
103:1110:21
Hollander 72 :7,9 77:15
home 43:19 73:12 74:19
home1essness 77:1 9
homeowners 2:19 29:7,&
53:4 70:25 78:8,20
79:19 80 :5 94:1 0 126:1 4
homes 14:13 27:8 40:10,12 implemented 24:6 27:1
61:12 62:24 74:7 im p ortance 39:22
homework 10:9 important 5:16 13 :22
honest 70:23 22:1 8 24:8 25 :1,16
honestly 44:17 2 7 :25 2 9:9 30:2 32:5
hop e 18:6 79:2 1 81:17 33:15 35:15 36:3,22
104:21 11 0:1 0 14 1:1 0 40:22 43:5 80 :22 86:17
hoped 64:23 110:14 113:21 129:9
h opefully 5:8 12:19 136:19,20 137:4,20,21
169:2 5 181:1 14 1:14,15 142 :7 170:22
h oping 130:13 170:23 183 :19
h o rizon 5:20 impo rtant ly 111:8
horrified 52:13 82:21 impose 81:1 2 87:1
hours4:13 12:15,16 8 5:15 imposed 82:1 87:10 89 :7
85:23,23,24 164:13 165:9 168:1
bouse 37:8,9 47 :3 103:1 8 impossible6:15 97 :11 98 :4
103:24 104:13 109:14 123:12
H o usen 2:5 im p rove 42:3 108:22
h o uses 22:10 47:4 51:5,6 137:21 145 :13
102:8 142:17 improved 84:2 1 86:15
hub32:8 87:25
HUD 105:22 improvements 114:1 7
hug e 39:2 1,25 98:19 ina ppropria t e 175:10,19
humor 119:1 Ina udible 53:20 147:7
hundred 15:10,19 16 :1 inc h 3 9 :1,3 4 8:2 1 54:1
48:19 62:16113:14 in ch es 97:25
huadreds 49:3 65:18,18 incidentally 48:23
hurrica ne 98:25 include 128:5 134:22
143:14 163:8 164:7
I 169:18
icon 83:11,13 included 143:16 151:9
id ea48:13 61 :10 71:12 in dudes 3:23 172: 16
125 :21 185:13 including 3:22 170 :8
id eas 116:15,18 173:18
ignored 92:19 inclusive 187:12
ll 66:2 1 incompatible 131 :9 133 :2
III 36:5 38:8,13,19 43:4 141:24
60:11 ,13 78 :5,9 80:4 inconsistent 142 :21 143 :3
11 2 :15 13 0 :24 132 : l3 143:10 157:1
illega1 115:8 118:15 in co rporate 42:2 96:4
148:1 9 13 1:21 185 :20
illustrated 14 2:13 incorporated 14:23
im age 21:13 31:13 in co rporates 13: 10 171:25
imagine 38:18 incorporating 173 :3
immed iately 5:25 20:25 in c rease 23:24 4 1:25
22 :3 27:2 4 30:17 147:18 75:16 152:4,15,17
impact 17:1027:4 38:1 2 158:20
51:4 63:5,10,16 87:2 in creased 153:17 177:24
110 :11 113 :5131:5 increasing 158:16
135 :23 171 :1 173:11 ,21 inc r edibly 78:24
173:24 174:19 176:16,22 incr emen ts 144:17,18
176:23 182:23 183:7,8 in d icate 13:13
impacted 182:25 183 :1 ind icated 16: 13 66:23
impacting 161 :23 88:11 95:3 117:19
im pacts 10:21 17 :14 60:25 150:21 162:15
133:9 137: I 145:15 ind icates 165:2
implement 20:5 individual I 07:1 122: I
KRE SSE & AS SO CIATE S, LL C
(3 05) 3 71-7 6 92
Pag e 197
134:6 172:8
industrial 6 :3 2 6:5 43:7
influen ces 68: 15
information 10:14,14
15:23 168 :19 171 :4
informa tive 103:6
informed 67:7
Ingra ham 46:3,5 47 :1 6
48:9 51:14,25 53:20
110:18
ingress 15 :17 17:23
initial 10:1
input 13:3
inside 29:17 42:3
insi st 154:22
instructed 124:15
instruction 139:14
in s ufficient 166:11
intended 11 9:2
int ends 81 :6
intense 145 :17
intensified 15 1 :21
intensifies 153: 11
intensity 152:18 158:20
159:6 182:12
intensive56:19 154:11
intent 151:6 15 4:7 182:14
182:1 5,22
in t en ti on 54:15 147:5
interest 42:20 148:20
167:9,10
inte rested 126:21 187:17
interesting 4 :6 22:8 2 8:9
29:19 34:20 43:3,21
interes ts 106:23 157:11
interfe re 157 :7
inte rim 73:14
interior 65 :7 153:8
interna l42:4 151:1 9
internalized 178:13 179:2
interna lly 152:23
inter r upt 56:3
intim ately 95:19
introduce 18:19122:13 ,17
180:19
introd uced 120:5
introduction 154:1 3
invite 18:22
involv ed 5 :11 7:9 67:16,20
involving 4: 12 167: I S
irrelevant 113:4118:14
177:1 6
island 5:24 14:2 22:6,7
25: tO 27:8 33:9,13
34:14 36:5,12 42:1 8,22
4 3:4 47:3 50:1 8 58:6
60:13 68:14 74:8 78:5,8
80:4 82:10 96:18 97:23
102:8 103:19,20 109:10
109:14,21 tll:l8 112:14
132:7,11,13 141:2 143:7
island's 77:13
islands2:19 5:23 6:1,4
15:24 34:9 36:2 40:11
47:2 53:4 59:14 60:11
63:24 65 :3 66:21 76:8
78:1 479:694:101 10:10
130:24
lsle 82:l0 84:11 85:8 ,9
87:7 137:24 138:1 5
142:12 144:23
issuance 145 :2 151:15
issue 16:20 18 :16 66:25
71:21 73:18 91:16101:7
111:17115:12116:17
119:10 122:6 125:1 5,22
128:4 129:10,11,15,16
136:19,20 151:14,18
155:12 16 3:10 175 :2 1
issued 63:14,20,24 67:6,15
148:21
issues 17:22,22 64:1 2 90:8
ll2:23 114:6 123 :11
126:2,15 138:6141:13
141:15,15 ,1 8 155 :17
166:8 175 :17 184:1
item 31:25 155:6 159:5
items 47:8 158: 16
iteration 57:9
IV 36:6 43 :5 47:3 60:1 1
66:21 78:9 96:18 109:10
130:24 132:8,13 137:24
138:1 5 14 1:2142:12
143:7 144 :23
Ivers 96:16,17 97:16 ,2 1
99:21 100:7,24 101:3
J
Jackie 91 :25
jamb41:6
January 117:16
Jasoo2:3
Jeff56:14 61:17,18 79:13
Jennifer 29:3
Jeuoe 143:21
job 16:6 39:24 79:12,17
89:11139:12145:10,12
172:21
joined 78:7,12
J ose 113:2118:12122:11
122:15,16 123:1
judg ment 107:9 108:3
Jut 176:19
K lacks 141:19
Kadiyala 70:1 4,14 ladies 19:15
Kalstein 88:12 Lake46:6,7,10
Karp 12:118:1919:15,18 Lakeland 100:9
36:139:},7,1140:25 La land 91:25 92:1
47:18,25 50:6 53:11,23 land9:13 50:20 65:1 84 :2
54:14 56:10 60:2,7 136 :25 161:24 167:14
99:20 100:7 180:2 1,21 la ndmarks 134:1 4,15
180:25 18 1:16 182:3 lands 137:2
184:2 185:10 landscape20:10,ll 23:8
Karp's 57:9 24:4,7,16 30:21 31:23
keep29:1 72:22 76:3 134:7 155:7,8 184 :8,16
81:23 83:16 185:4,11,20
keeps 81:25 83: I 7 landscaped 23:24 27:25
Kent2:16 10:15 103:9 landscaping 33:11,12,14
166:2 180:3 181:16 33:19 35:22 41 :13 42:1
184:3,6 77:10 114:1 6 184 :20
Kent's 181 :1 186 :5,9
key 79:10,1 6 114:19 language 8:6 26:6 27:15
ldcking 114:4 Large 187:7
ldd 109:13 larger 75 :2 144:17 159:10
kidding 118:25 largest 97:9
kind 20:6 3 0: l 8 42:24 Larkin 118:21
55:25 91:4 105:19 laser 53:14 55:16
ldnds 84:3 laser-cut 44:11 53:1 2
kitty-cornered 21 :20 lasted 97:3
43:12 lasting 12:15
know4:1 0 6:5,17,25 7:3,6 law2:17,21 11:12 63:22
12:21 14:1 8 21 :18 30:18 72:17 130:22
38:5 39:24,25 40:2,10,18 lawyer 81:3
40:20 41:24 43 :2,23 J~wyers 66:10
44:10 45:6 46:1 6 47:12 lay-out 136:22,24
47:25 61 :15 62:5,13 lays 47:10
64:1,2,4,16 67 :9 74:14 LDRs 15 :20 16:13
77:17 80:3 82:19 87:12 Le 143 :2 0
87:16 88:4 92:5 ,8,12 leads 6:5
93:3,18 97.:20 99:9 Leagoe 85:7
102:6,7 105:8 106:8,10 Lease 156:1
106 :11 109:4 110 :1 leave 33:13 42:7 71:7 98:4
l11:22 112:5ll3:12 125:14 129:14
116:9 )]7:13,17 121:24 ·leaves 139:7
133:17 140:11 ,25 141:1 led48:5
141:4,9 170:6 17 1:20 left 36:20 I 84:15
172:12 179:13 leftover 130: 18
knowing 13:3 legal48:19113:4 155:17
knowledge 86:1 legitimate 144:15 145:14
knows 83:19 95:20 186:20 legitimately 4:15
Kobi 12:1 18:19,23 19:18 length 143:17 144:7
28:15,20 38:23 53:8 lengthy 12:14
54:13 56:18 58:15 110:4 Lens 103:17,17 104:21
155:7 180:21 185 :23 Les 173:10
Kumar70:14 Leslie 2:6 s: 1
Kumar's 199:13 let's 10:1211 :8 l03:13,22
122 :16 166:7 167:2
L 175 :16 180:12
L 80:1 letter 166 :21,25 168:4,4
lack 84:8 139:2 169 :1 6170:1
KR ESS E & ASSOC IATES , LLC
(3 05) 371 -7 692
Page 198
letting 88:3
level 45:9 67:20 153:23
174 :9
Lewls 2:121Ll3
liberty 74:15
Liebman 82 :6,9,10 87 :6
lieu 3:18 147:25 151:2,10
152:8 159:19
life 83:25
light 58:1
liked43:10
Lilia 2:6
limit9:25
limitations 49:19 72:14
limiting 51 :22
limits 51:11
Lincoln 96:22
line 30:13 32:14 50:23,23
69 :9 72:11 102:13
122:1 8126:23 143:6
15 3:20,23 156:2,9
157:1 6 158 :4 162:3
186:7
lines 70:16 137:3,11,14,14
137:16 170:13,14
lip64:20
list 103:7,8 163 :8
listen 10:10 66:4,4,9,11
Jistening 46:23 88:1
litigation 49:25
little4:4 ll:24 18:3 20:21
26 :10 30:16 3 1:4 46 :12
47:3 48:1,1 58:3 64 :7
78:21 82:14 91:6 115:20
live 22:642:22 46:5 53:4
56 :15 65:3 ,17,19 70:16
72:9 74:8 80:2 82 :10,16
82:16,21 85 :9 96:17
97 :23 101:1 1 102:6
103:18104:1112:14
141 :2
lived 38:6 46:7 78:5 96:1 9
109:9,10,13
lives 42:23 43:2
living61:2l 76:8 83:24
LLC 2:15 3:9 10:16166:5
167:10 182:24
LLP 2:12
load 35:12
load ing 29:17 42:4
lobbies 140:13
lobbying 93:6
lobbyist 105:8 ,9,1 1 106:7
106:20,21,22
located 21 :2 132:3 152: 13
175 :12
locati on 5:13 43:5 114 :1 2
131:4 170:13,14
long6:24 7:1 2 8:917:12
30:17 38:7 48:17 56:10
83:5 130:12,14 135:3
154:14
longer6:1 6 42:12 158 :14
1ook7:5 9:1119:1125:3
26:24 28:1,15 32:17
34:11 37:23 40:5,6,7,9
41:5,15 49:12 55:14
56:7,7 62:16 65:5 69:25
80:17 87:20 88:14 92:9
92:1 2 101:22 102:7
135:21138:17 140:5
141:1 160:24 165:1
l69:10,Il 172:22 173:1
173:10 178:24 183:6,12
183:25 184:4
looked 22:9,12 23:2 31: I 1
61:14,22 66:24 98:4
99:7 133:17
looking7:I7 13:118:23
21:13,14 25:22,23,24
31:23 61:5 62:21 83:1
107:21 138:19,20,21,22
138 :23 139:1 165:20
177 :2 181:6
looks 50:16,21 61:15,16,23
150:10
Lorber 67:14,17
lose 124:2
lot 7:13 10:3 14:4,5 17:15
50:2 1 75:20 85:14 86:1
91:3 93:6, II 109:18
111 :4 ll2:5 114:9
148:19 154:2 167:6
170:13,18
lots 148:3,5 168:11182:13
love 83:9 141:20
low29:21 37:5,12 73:24
75:15
low-scale 159:9
lower 45:15
Jowered21:5 138:12
lowering 138:10
luncb 186:23
Luria 94:13 112:10,13,13
116:25 117:2,4 ,7,11,13
117:22 118 :1,6,9 119:8
119:13,16,17 120:1,21
12l:l5,23 122:25 123:4
123:16 124:9,12,21 ,25
127:25 128:8,11,15,17
128:23
M
MAC2:1510:1641:942:6
149:20 152:5 166:5 meager64:8
167:10 182:24 mean 15:20 39:15 43:13
MAC's 149:21 60:19 70:1 85:21 86:7
macro 20:22 95:15 102:9 136:17
.magic 151:19 159:19 185:25
main 96:25 meaning 28:18 30:3 43:23
maintain 51:10 58:21 121:25
100:2 137:20,21,24 means 121:25 136:9
maintained 134:11 178:17 meant88:20
major73:8 101 :23 134:8 measure 28:6 32:22 53:18
142:8 measured 97:25
make-up 13 4:9 mecbanicall2:9 101:8
making 9:7 26:20 65:7 139:23 140:9,10,18,19
88:2 146:15 163:20 141:7151:20
164:24 166:8 Medina2:6
manager94:17,23 95:19 meditation 115:3
100:9,17 124:1 meet 15:8 22:22 28:9,11
mandate 28: 14 37:5 32:16 34:11 35:9 37:10
mandated 16:8 89:6 64:18,19 69:8 94:9,14,16
maoeuver 173:25 94:18,20,25 95:15 ,1 6
manner 38:20 81:23 96:1 l0N3,19
161:22 meeting l :7 6: II 22:2 1
map 55:15 29:24 36:17 47:19 64:9
March 131: l3 70:23 94:19,22 95:2,3,1 6
Mark's23:15 33:21 50:19 95:22 118:13,19120:4,5
78: 16,22 79:3 86:13 126:13,15 137:12 140:3
99:5,23 136:11,14 meetings 63:7 71:10,20
156:20 157:4,11 167:7 95:9,13 131:12
market47:7 98:6 meets 60:18 63:25 64:6
mass 57 :16 58:14 6J :6 181:23
64:11 65:13 68:19 84:7 Meier 42:24 94:20
110:4 113:23 114:6 member 80:5 85:5 88:23
126:16153:17 154:1 92:5 94:14 112:15
159:8 183:16 185:19 126:13 169:22
Massacb usetts 1 05 :25 members 11:24 17 :21 19:7
massed 139:3 37:22 38:1 81:16 86:4
masses 57:20 105:6 107:9 169:5
massing 5:12 25:4 27:19 186:24
74:9 75:7 79:14 108:14 memo 121 :19,21,23,25
108:14 134:23 135:4 123:24 151:7,25
137:17142:14,23 149:4 mention24:9 45:1112:19
154:12 158:5 183:14 mentioned 20:16 69:20
massive 58:5 75:7 116:1 72:25 73:19 88:22
131:9 141:24 159:6 113:19117:2 129:17
165:19 Mere 8:10
match 101:24 102:14 met 6:9,13,17 22:9 23:1
material20:11,13,13 24:3 29:25 41:20,21
23:25 25:24 135:4 139:2 42:23 43 :1 52:3 54:24
materials 25: 17,22 56:24 55:1 63:14,16 65:3 67:5
134:23 76:18 91:17 94:8 173:8
Matt94:17 185:22
matter 8:7,24 45:18 50:2 Miami 1:82:8,14,184:9
142:5,21 143:3,9 166 :23 7:711:14 13:18 46:12
matters 166:12 46:14,16,2147:1 57:22
maximize 153:7 60:21 74:14 82:24 83:22
maximizes 149:17 85:7 86:11 93:8 96:20
maximum 161 :2 133:11166:4
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LL C
(305) 37 1-7692
Page 199
Miami-Dade 8:3 188:7
mic 19:13 46:1 53:22 57:5
97:14 112:6
Michael2:4 6:18 11:18
31:7 41:3 78:3 118 :20
147:16 184:8,9
Mickey2:7
micro20:23
microphone 19:8,9 46:4
47:14,15 57:4
mid 5:24
middle 98:15
million 47:5 125:18
millions 51:7,7
mind 18:8 48:15 50:14
72:23 76:4 77:16
mine 104:18
minima127:4 57:17
minimize 183:8
minimized 142:14
minimum 64:20
minus 39:8 109:15
minute 19 :2 4
minutes 10:1,3,19,25
19:17 20:7 51:12,18
97:3 98:1 129:10 130:10
147:1
misch.aracterized 51:2
misdefined 63:8
misrepresent 55:12
mission 60:22
misstated 162:11
mistake 26:20 39:25
106:19115:6
mistakes 92 :10 115:5
mitigate 113:5 135:25
mitigation 52:20
mixed-use 3: 11 131 :3
132:20,23,24
modell 2:3 18:22,24 19:6
19:12 20:21,23 23:6
30:8 37:20,23 38 :2,25
40:6 44:9 47:17,23 53:9
53:11,12 55:18 57 :14
60:4 61:8
modern 27: 16
modest47:3
modification 9:4 151:12
152:6 156:21 165:7
167:25
mod ifications 3:16 31:24
149:7,8 165:3 166:15
167:19
modified 3:24 89:13
152:15 161 :13,21
modify 9:8 18:2 161:16,17
161:20
moment 8:4 112:18 122:3
186:22
money 97:9 121:13 125:6
129:18 166:19
monstrosity 52:10 .
months 20: 1 29:24 41:2
73 :7 76:1 131:12,12,14
170:3
morning 11:23 19:15,22
60:8 72:4 82:5 ,6 85:3,4
91:24,25 96:14,16
101:10 104:23,25 105:1
109:6 112:9,10 130:20
130:21
mouth 124:13
move 41:24 152:24
moved 70:18 105:23
114:11 115:18
movement 26:9
movie 73:6,10 98 :16
multi-family 14:13
multiple 4:12 61:3 71:10
N
nail7.5:2 l
name 10:15 11:9,11 19:18
46:2,5 56:13,14 60:9
70:12 72:5,9 78:2 79:24
80:1 82:8,9 85:4 96:14
96:17101:10 103:16,17
109:6,8 112:12,1 3
129:25 130:22 147:16
166:1,2 180:19,21
named98:24
Nancy 82:9 87:6
narrow 104:9 158:9
natural l34:7
nature8:2 71:12 84:4
nauseam 132:1
Nautilus 96:21
near 82:22
nearly II 0:8
necessarily 90:18,20 15 8 :3
181:17
necessary45:6 77:2 91:12
123:3,5 144:18 180:10
need 9:11 10:7 25:11
8l:l9 87 :1 3 88:5 89:15
95:18 130:12,13 131:17
139:20,20 140:24 143:23
143:24 164:16 166:12
171 :191 72:13 178:24
181:24
needed4:1673:1178:19
needs 14:13 139:17
negative 17:14 107:23
135:22 145:14 173:24
negatively 60:25 l6l :23 nonresponsive 16.5:24
negotiation 160:4 normally 42:13
negotiations 18:17 49:6 north 3 :24 25:10 32:9 51:5
neighbor 68:14 81:8 82:11 51:6 84:1 2 96:20 99 :9
neighborhood 3:25 4:15 131:10149:1.5 153:4,14
4:22 5:5 6:12 7:8,16 154:10 155:9,22 156:11
14:1,3,7, 10, 11, 15 ,18,25 168:11 186:7
16:3 20:24 21:12,17,18 northeast 132:4
21:19 34:8 38:7,11,21 Notary 187:2,22 188:3,9
39:19,20 43:8 44:8 188:20
58:19,25 59:6,13 60:24 note 22:19 24:8 99:20
62:19 63:5,10,12,15,17 noted 31:25 94:8 133:15
63:23 68:16 69:16 70:19 133:23 139:23
71:4,5,9,21 72:1,24 73:2 notes 187:13
73:24 74:2 78:19 79:7 notice50:8,11 166:11
80:13,16,18,19,23,24,24 noticed 47:l 7,22 166:14
80:25 81:13,23,25 82:15 166:17
83:12,13 84:18,19 92:21 notwithstanding 81:15
93:16,24 101:15,1 9 November 25:9 84:2
102:12 106:24 107:18 number 5:16 8:15 11:15
108:5,10,23 109:19 12:4 16:11 20:12 22:7
113:6,14 131:6 133:7,9 23:242:445:1178:10
134:11 135:23 136:3 96:18 114:7 120:14
137:1146:7,10 15 1:23 121:20 126:7 134:20
161:23 136:5,5,22 137:17
neighborhood's 134:10,22 143:10,11,11,13,16
142:8 144:24 150:14
neighborhoods 86 :11 numbered 187:11
neighboring 144:4 numbers 118:22,23
neighbors 3:23 34:10 numerous 12:13 71:20
39:23 40:19 42:16 54:18 NYU72:18
.54:19 73:16 83:6 103:22
104:18 110:4 131:8,10 0
133:3 145:13,23 OATH 188 :3
net 97:6 object 58:25 132:23,24,25
never 50:3,3 59:20 64:15 objected 9:2 166:10
85:1 89:18 106:21 objecting 162:21
119:17 121:14 124:9,12 obligated 169:19
124:12 129:18 obligation 7 :1 4 81:17
new 3:10 4:18 7:11 ,14 91:11
14:12 37:5 58:18 68:8 obligations 169:10
73:5 86 :2 1 99:8 105:22 observe 5:8
134:8,18 135:10 152:23 obstructionists 80:10
153:6 174:2 1 177:8 obtain 89:8 161:3
NGVD37:7,11 obtaining 155:1
nice 33:8 34:13 35:20 37:1 obtuse 158:8
49:22 61:24 84:25 obvious 67:24
104:11 184:22 185:5,11 obviously 4:20 20: 19
nicely6:2 5 22:19 23:7 21:18 23:15,23 24:18
nicer ll4:24 26:3 76:20 86:4,17,24
nicest 13:19 87:4 99:21
night 72:17 occasions6:1413:l5 16:4
nine 21:7 37: ll 42:5 17:11
158:23 ,25 159:1178:11 occupies 57:16
178:16 179:13,19 180:8 occupy 161:24
180:8 181:2,11 182:7 occurred 23: 14 40: 1 64:8
noise 16:20,23 ocean 58:2 105:2
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
Page 200
October 1:16 166:24
odd 101:23
oddly-shaped 6:8
offended 106:5,7
offense 70:24
offer 36:23 42:25 70:2
113:9127:16
offered \25:5 129:18
offering 121:13
offers 159:7
office 11:12 154:5
officer 92:6
officers 48:25
offices 2:21 22:1 130 :22
166:3
official105:21 187:18
188:14
Oh 32:5 48:14 66:6
okay 9:19 10:11 11:7
19:10,13 20:8 39:3,12
44:24 45 : 17,24 54:5,7
56:9 57:6 66:23 70:10
98:14,22,23 99:6,14,17
100:14 102:16 104:18
106:12 107:2 114:22
115:2 117: l 118:8 119:4
119:14120:16121:13
122:2,14 126:23 127:19
127:25 128:2 129:8,11
130:4,6 147:13 160:14
163:18,22 164:1 177:17
178:21
old 46:9,14 47:1 50:11
109:14 134 :8
Olga 103:17
omission 113:23
omitted ll3:21
on-site 100:5
once28:9 35:6 55:23
93:20 102:2
once-in-a-generation
71:15
one-story 63 :3
ones 12:14
onward 21:15
open 30:22 33:7 37:17
45:24 151:17
operation 167:20
operator 97:.5
opined 122:4,8
opinion 8:16 18:7 80:15
104:8 113:20 122: I 0
155:3 156:15 157:3,10
161:14 162:9,13,23
163:24 164:3,10,14
opinions 107:22 156: 17
Oppenheim 42:22 126:11
Oppenheim's 56:20
141:20
opportunity 10:6 20:3
29:20 31:15 33:12 36:25
37:22 41 :15 44:3,6 72 :8
76:6,11 78:24104:16
123:22 124: ll
opposed 59:20
opposing 113:15
opposite 122:12 158 :6
opposition 8:11
options 23 :2
orange 32:14
order 89:8 9l:7 168:7,16
168:17 173:17 178 :14,23
178:23 180:10
ordered 186:24
orders 169:19
ordinances 9:12
orgaitization 83:23
orientation 137:18 183:13
original18:13 34:1 148:17
151:6 171:2 176:2
177:13,19 182:9
originaJJy 16:8 25:8
150:14 167:8 176:2
177:18
origins 134 :4
outdoor 16:23,24 36:19
outlined 7:4 71:19
outside 65 : I 0 114:25
164:4
overal128:7 170:17
ov e rhang 158:13
ov erlay 170 :7
overlook 102:10
oversized 151:19
ov e rwhelms 61:7
owned 99:8
ow ner 9:1 18:14 71:5,14
86:18 156 :24 166 :6
owners 13 0:25 160:17
ownership 147:21
p.m 186:25
pack74:1
p
package 8:16 22:14 24:22
25:3 30:16 57:9
page25:2 30 :19 32:14
68:12 134 :5,19 184:4,6
184:14
pages 25:5 187:11
paid 105:10111:13
palatable 112:1
Palau 2:10 3:7,8 40:14
50:22 52 :2 61:5 72:1 1
83:11 84:6 113:8 116:15
118:20 123:10 12 5:22
147:18148:4 151:16
152:24153:12,13 157:10
179:3 180: ll
Palau-owned 157 :5
P alenson 173: 1 0
paragraph 68:1 119:6
123:18 150:1 156:7,21
156:22 160:17
parcel 150:19 151:5,8,18
151:22 1~2:1 ,2 ,6,12,13
153:5,11,14 154:10,15
154:20 156:20 157:1,4,8
157:12 161:24
parcels 150:20
park31:4 32:9,10,11 36:6
36:10,15 37:7 43 :4
74:15 75:13,15,15 99:15
101 :1 115:23 116:4
141:3,4
parking 12:10 14 :12 15:16
17:24 35:9 42 :2,5 ,9 43 :9
50:2 0 52:20 74:11,24
76:18,20,21 101 :7,8
149:2,3,3,4 151 :20
152:12,1 9,22 153:1,15
154:2,23 155:21 158 :19
168:11 178:12,13,15
179:2,3,4,13,19 180:10
180:14,15,16,18 181:4
181:24,25 182:7 184:14
184:16 185:15,16
parking-type 180 :13
parks 78 :17
parlor 104:8
part9:3 10:1 6,2117:2
36:23 57:8 90:17 95:9
97:6 99:7 113:5 127:2
128:21 129:3 147 :23
152:25 164:24 167:8
172:18 179:14 180:9
18 1:11
partially 4:1 8 16 8:8
particular 57:7 97:1
100:15179:18
particularly 71:14
parties 149:12 167:12,19
182:15,22 187:15 ,16
188:11
partly 99 :9
parts 167:4
partway 79:9,16
passed 84:1
Pathman 2:11,12 11:5,11
Il:12,12 35:25 44:23,25
45:10,18 58:23 59:25
66:14,1 9,23 67:3,10,18
67:25 68:2 4 70:6 76:14
85:1 2 88:9,19 ,22 89:1 ,5
89:10,12,17 90:3,1 4,21
91 :9,16,22 94 :5101:6
I 02: 18,20,2 2 103 :5,8
105:5,17 106:6 109:3
11 2:191 13:7 116:24
11 7:2,6,8,1 2,14,24 118:4
118 :8 119:4,25 120:6,10
120:14 ,19 121:1 ,5,7,18
122 :7,20,24 123:17
124:10,14,18,23 127:6
127:11 ,18,22,24 128 :2
128:20129:4,7,17
159 :12,15,23 160:7,11
160:14 161:5,11,25
162:7,24163 :10,15,19
163 :2 1 164:1 ,9,12,18
165:1,22 186:15,19
Pathman's 112:25
pay 11 3:9 123 :22 125:9 ,9
paying 80:9
pedestal 58:9
pedestrian 26 :9 29:13
35 :14 44:4 137:2
Pell 187 :5,22 188 :9 ,19
pencils 5:1 9
penetration 35 :3
penet rat ions 23:14,17
penny 105:25
pension 93:9
people 7:8 10:4 31:16 34:9
46:14 4&: 10 59:3 61:17
61 :24 62:1 74:7,15 76:9
79:19 83:4 90:19 93 :12
93:19 103:12 104:6
110 :19 113:1 3 ,15 121 :20
136:10 141 :1,3 144:2
148 :23 158:18 186:11
percent 15:11,19 16: l
53 :10 152:17
perception 58:21
perfect 6:2 2 141 :21
perfec tly 8:7,2 5 16:2
58:24
period 38:7 6 8:6
perma nent 73 : 16
permissible 8:8 177:22
permit 4:12 5:14 145:3
151:15 155:1 174:10
178:22
permitted 15:2,5,7 45:16
52:10,11,18 110:21
perpendicular 36: 12
persis tent 11 1:5
persDn 40:3 63:16 72:3
KRESSE & ASSO CIATES , LLC
(30 5 ) 371-7692
Page 2 0 1
121:24 129:23 130:2
171:14 172:1
personally 42:11 43:10
48:24 109:2
perspective 5:17 30:6
141:23
Peter6:12 1l 2:13121 :17
123:13 127:7,8 128:10
phone 73:9,12
photo 30:17,19
photos 35:17
ph ysical 135: 18 165 :4
167:20
pick35:7
picks 59:7
picture 30:18
piece 15:4 57:1 59:11
83:15,17
Pine 52:8
pink 28:2
pizza 46:13
pizzas 46:13
place 10:10 49:9 56 :25
60:20 61:25 74:16 78 :15
103:3 ,4 160 :6 187:10
placed 149:5
placemen t 156:14
places 59:16
placing 68:1 1,15 156:24
plan 3:17 9:4,8 14:815:11
18:3 20: l l 23:8 24:7,16
24:24 30:21 45:4,14
89:13 93:9 136:22,23
137:10 139 :24 140:6,7,8
140:11,15,21 148:6,7,16
148:17,24 149:1,7,12,14
149:16,19,24 150:4,7,10
151:3 152 :8,1 4,20 153:3
153:6 154:8 155:7 157:6
157:17,231 58:2159:22
16):8,13,1 8,20 162:6
165:5 166 :16 167:8,10
167:11,11,21 168:5,13
170:5,6,12,20 171:3,4
172:15,16,19,20173:17
176:2,10,18 182:16
planner 140:6
planning 4:11 ,24,25 5:3,3
5:6,10 6:10 11:2012:7
12 :11,14,17 13:2 15:14
15:22 16:5 ,14,17,22 17:3
17:4,12,17 34:1 7 40:16
41 :19,20 45:3,9 53:3
65:2 67:7,1 5,17,20 85:6
85:16 86:3 88:2 3,24
89:24 90:7,9,12,17 91:21
95:7 96:7 102:23 103:1 0
I 05:21 107:1,16 112:20
112:24 114:4,5 117 :2 1
120:3 121:9 129:12,13
131 :13,25 138:5 142:22
143 :5,21 152:2 1 16 1:1 5
162:1 7 168 :25 169:17
174 :25 175 :3,14 183:22
183:23
plans 15:15 24:22,23
57:10,12 59:1 1 123 :2 1
131 :11,15 135:1 5 141:12
14 5:6 154:2 5 161:1 2
168 :17,18,23 169:2,4,6
170:9,11 171:6
plant 20: 12,13 23:25
50:13
plante d 50:16
play 121:11,12 123:23
124:1
plaza 23:19,20 36:18
please I 0:3 11:9 17:6
29:12,1 4,16 42:7 46:1
51 :13 53:8,22 56:12
57:3 70:12 72:3,6,22
76:3 78:2 82:7 93:20,22
96:14 10\:5 103 :13
109 :6 112:6,11 113 :24
11 5:24117:17 118:2
127:8 128:18 129:19,2 2
129:25 147 :13 155:19
159:14 166:1 180:20
pleased 40:24
pleasing 74:3
pleasure 44:18
pleasures 83:24
plus 35:21 39:8 86:11
101:16 109 :15 185:2
POA 123:23
point 7:1 10:14 36:1 0
44 :22 48:3 49:15 52:1,2
52:6 70:2 87 :17 95:3
109:24 110 :14119:14
127 :4,10 141:10 142:1 9
153 :18 156:19 177:25
184:4
pointed 162:1
points 4:7 38 :3 39:21 47:6
90:24 109 :25 155:16
157 :15
pole 32:25 33:1,5,20
125:14 .
poles 125:7,16
police 74:21 98:3
pool 29: 1 ,2,3,5 42:2 62 :22
114:11
portion 38:22 119:6 139:8
144:8151 :24156:1 4,21
position 87:4 131:15
139: l1 ,2 1 146 :5
positille 148: 14
positively 68: 14
possibilities 87:18
possible 27:4 110:17
138:1 3
possibly 161:2
potentia1 110:11
potentially 22:24 173:1 1
power 107:8
powers 86:25,25 87:13
93:21
practice 96:22
practieing 46:6 5 1: 17
precise 53:19
precisely 64:14
predecessor 148 :4
predecessors 148:19
prefer43:13 77:8
prejudice 113:1 119:20
prejudicial106:4
p r eliminary 9:20 178:18
preparation 11 :21
prepared 172:12
p r eparing 13 :25
present 10:20 13:9 108 :1 0
11 0:6
presentation 12: 1 ,2,21
44:21 89:2 128:2 2
146:15,20 166:9 .
presentations 10:1 i7:19
presented 20:1 25:8,9
59:22 60:3,4 107:19
167:5 16 9:15 170:10
presenter 102:17
preservation 82:12 85:7
133:1 3
preserve46:21 158:3
preserving 134:12
president 60:11 70:25
78: 11 109:22,23
prettier 75:6
pretty 21:4 30:9 38:21
40:23 44:10 46:15,24
48:14 50:13 52:3 64 :9
81:24111:20 13 8:18
141:18
prevent 15 6:23
previous 28:20 57:9 168:6
previously 3:16 12:10
109:17 160:6 166:16
176:7 177:14 178:6
183:6
previously-issued 165 :8
168:1
principal 94:20
prior 11: 16,24,25 12:6,23
18:14 47:18109:12,12
118:17 145:2 15 1:14
154:25 166:14 167:24
169:11 ,18,19
prison 114:24
pristine 6:5
private 29:1 77:11 106:22
108:17
priv ately 111:10
privilege 70:20
privileged 59:17
pro 106:2
pro-development 72:13
74:4 148:11
probably 21:3 91 :7
problem 63:19 96:23 9 8:5
100:13 103:2125:11
problems 91:1
procedure 161:8
proceeding 131:24,2 5
proceedings 3: 1 187: I ,9
188:13
process 4 :6,8 38:4 39:22
40:16 44:16 127:1
157:25 163:16167:13
product 49:2 4
production 98: 16
product iv e 95:11,21
profess 116:14
professionals 71:4 108: 15
Professor 143:20
profit 81:10 83:19
prog ram 97:7
progress 25:7,14 75:22
78:22
progressed 6:24
progression 25:4
prohibit 156:13
pr.oh ibited' 157:9
pr.oject4:5,10 5:9,13,17
5:21 6:21 ,2 3 7:2,15 10:7
12:8,16 13:1,9 14:9,22
16:2,15 18:21 19:20
20:1,5 25:7,8 26:23
28:21 29:8,11 34:6,7
36:3 38:9,14,15,24 40:1 4
40:14 52:5 55 :4 56:19
·56:21,23 59:2,19 ,20,21
61:2,6,14 62:18,21 65 :5
67:7 70:17 71:12,15
72:11,12 73:25 74:5
79:2,17 80:1 2 ,20 81:1,2
81:6,22 84:12 85:16,23
86:6,9 87:3,7,25 89:7
91:2 92:15 94:16,23
95:18,20 96:12 98:11
KRE SSE & AS SO CIATE S, LL C
{305) 371-7692
Pa g e 202
99:12,25 101:12,14
104:11 107:12,19 108:19
I 10:2,13,20,20,23 111:9
111:11 11 3:6,16 1 18:18
124:1125:7 131:4,7
132:9,14,20 133 :2
135:19136:1,9 138 :3
14 1:19 143:3 145 :15,17
146:4,8 147:18,20
149:23 151:1 ,161 52:1 0
152:23,24 153 :21 159:4
168:7,14,18,23 170:17
172:2 ,17,1 8,2 1 173:11
174:10,13,20,23 175:1 1
176:1,6,7,17177:7,8,14
177:19178:5,19 179:5
179: 18,19 180:11 181:4
181:12,22 182:9,11,17
182:2 0
projects 7:10,11 47:9
60 :2 3 61:2 1 84:4,2 3
103:25
promenade20:18 37:16
185:7
promised 50: 12
promotes 6 8:4
proper 37:14,15
properly 8:25 104:7
125:25 177:9
properties 53:5 62:23
110:12 132:6 136:8
150:22 159 :10 186 :11
property 9:1 10:21 15:5
15:13 18 :15 30:13,20
36 :1 3 37 :3 50:10,17,22
50:23 56 :22 57:1 58:13
59:12,18 73:6,6 75:17
77 :11 86 :15,1 9 87:12
110:9 115:8 130:25
132:15 135:6 136:15
139:8,16 143:18147:20
148:23 149:5,15 150:23
15 1:9 152:19 15 3:20
156:10,15 157:ll,l6
159:16 160:18 161:6
165 :4,4 166:6 167:7
168:10 170:12 173 :20
174:18 175:25 176:4
178:1 2,1 7 179:4 180:9
182:8,13 ,19,25 186:7
property's 167:20
proportion 134:23 135:4
proposal 65:21
proposals 146:9
proposed 9:9 16:15 65:4,4
70: 17 82:2 93 :23 136:6
142:2 149:16 150:10,1 4
150:16,24,2 5 154:11
157:6 158:5 165:3 167:6
167:19 169:18 170:25
171:2 172:24 175:12 ,25
176:17 177:13 178:10
181:13 182:11183:12,13
185:24 186:2
proposes 153:6
propos iog 20:18 31:1
158:8 160:25 165:19
172:17184:25 185 :3
protect 83:23 133:8
146:1 0
protection 24:2
protest 124:4
proud 83:6
provide 30:23,24,25 37 :20
58:1 143:20 144:18
168:16 169:20 170:16
186:5
provided 15 5:7 156:6,10
158:25 168:10 170:19
171 :6,9 176:3 178:11
179:21 180:17 182:9
185:23
provides 144:14 152:10
156:3,23
proximity 17:8
public 4:8,1 3 ,14 7:5 10:2
20:18 23:11 30:25 31:1
31:16,19 36:23 37:23
39:14,22 40:20,21 44:4,4
45:19,25 50:20,24 55 :16
70:22 75 :11,14 76:19
77:5 ,12 99:24 104:15
111:2,3 112:4115:23
128:19 129:13,24 130:5
134:6 165:12 185:4,7
187:22 188:9
Publix 21:22 43:11 98:14
100:9,17,22132:17
Pul1144:3
purchased 159:16 161:6
purely 7 1:22
pursuant 18:9 149:23
push 23:4 116 :6,1 2,1 7
pushed 23 :18 145:21 ,21
145:24,24
pushes 24:24
put 18:8 25:5 30:16 37:5
37:14 48:14 ,23 53:17
65:9 ,20,21 89:6 91 :18
97:23 111:2 120:21
121:11' 12 l24: 13 128:23
140:2 141:22 148:7
167:2 176:19 181:2 1
186:8
puts 10:9 92:9 98 :25 110:9 160:3
putting 100:19 162:22 rea listic 5:20
183:16 r ealistically 39:16
rea lize 6:21 36:8 75:14
0 r eaJiy4:6 5:16,17,19 22:1 5
qualified 10:10 23:12 27 :11 33 :18 39:24
qualify 54:1 2 3 9:24 40:16 48:4 49:17
qualities 134:17 51:3,14,21,22 55:25 56:7
quality 3 9:1 8 68:16 83 :2 5 7 5 :17 87:18 95:13 106:5
176:25 115 :7 116:13,16,17
quantity20:13 44:13 120: 17 125: I ,3 126:4,20
qu:~:rter 53:25 128:16 140:12 143:20
question 10:13 66:15 148:13 171:12 172:21
89:25 90:4 105:17 realm 36:23 44:4
106:10,13 107 :8 108:3 ,8 realtor 72:15
118:5,11 119:8 120:12 rear41:6 149:17 154:5
120:14137:22 151:11 ,16 157:16
163:17,22 164:23,23 rearrange 108:13
171:21 172:9,91 74:2 re.asoo 13:2 30:1 40:4 49:5
180:2,2 ,4,24 181:1 182:7 65:5 78:12120:19
guestioning 122: 18 reasonable 93:19 149: 11
questions 8:13 9 :15,20 169:21
32:3 69:11 70 :4 76 :1 5 reasonableness 165:15
88:10 94:6 105:3 116 :24 r ebut 127:12
121:3 122:22 123:6 rebuttall l:6 19:2 44:22
159:13 164:18 165:23 44:23 102:2 1 10 3:3,4
quick 59:25 60:2 128:5,7 129:3,22 163:6,9
quickly 166:7 163:14 164:8,12
quite 21:11 22:19 23:7 recall 89:1 ,5 160:1
24:21 26:6 29:2 1 33:8 receive 69:22
34:19 37 :1,12 7 1 :1 receiv ed 12:6 15 :23 20:4
133:2 184:5 185:5 23:23 166:24 167:1
quote7:24 169:16
r ecess 187:1
R r ecognize 142:10 161:11
radio97:5 recognized 133:11,25
f'&iJ S 27:9 recommend 68:6 107:12
rain 97:2 98:1 r ecommendation 13:12
rains 52:16 69:6 70:9 139:25
ra is e 100:12 129:11 recommendations 13:19
raised 17:23 18:16 46:1 0 24:11 108:4140:1 142 :1
96:20 126:11 129:12,15 173:12,15
155:17 recommended 12:10,ll
r a ises 151:11 108:11 146:8
raising 70:20 173 :20 recommending 4:2 7:2
r ational 65: 12 r econsider 77:3
reach 64:18 reconstruction 169:1
reached 63:11 156:16 reco rd 19:8 25:6 45:13,19
read 18 :6 57:24 68:2,25 68:3 76 :16 77:22 91:11
69:8,9 70:1,3,4 119:4 103 :6 120:21,22,23
123:17 160:8 162 :8,9 123:18 127:14 128:23
163:23 164:1,17 129 :14 131:22 143:22
reading 69:2 71:2 160:8,12 162:22,25
reads 149:20 164:19 164:11,15 165 :12 169:4
ready 19:14 106:16 11 7 :10 170:9 180:20 187:12
117:12 recorded 160:12 165:12
real7:6 47:7 72:15,16,17 r ecycle 25:24
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LL C
(305) 371-7692
Page 203
Red evelopmen t 105 :22
reduce42:4 65:12108:14
114:10 124:7 126:7
reduced 15 :2 38:16 153:17
185:19 186:8
reducing 87:11 125:20
154:12
reduction 75:10 108:6,7
reductions 7 5:23
reference 26:7 137:12
174:1 6
referenced 69:19 87 :7
132:1
referendum 111:3
referred 66:16 77:6
109:17 117:15,18
referring 34:22 66:19
117:25 125:25 151 :2 5
157:15,17
refineme nts 40:8
reflect 142:16
reflected 51:4
reflects 30:22 146:4
refused47:19 94:25 95:23
regar d7:23 8:1 4,17 9:1 5
76:17 79:8 135:17 153:8
158:22
regarding 113:22 114:7
118 :1 8 123:6 139 :6
145:14
regardless 61:9
Regatta 70:15
registered 105:7,9,11 ,1 2
106:8,9;10,2 0,21
regulations 9:13 167:15
reinforced 134:12
rejected 94:19 96:2
relate 22:12
related 174:5 187:16
relates 20:20 135:5 142 :23
143:5 155 :24 185 :15
relating 131:23
relation 66 :25 135 :19
relations 180: 13
relationship 2 7:4 40:9
135 :8 136 :2 5 142 :17
174:22
relat ive l 74:21
relatively 12:21 141: 14
release 165 :7 167:25
relevance 123:7
releva ncy 164:17
relevant 112:23 119 :9 ,18
122:5 123 :5 125 :1 ,3
162 :14 164 :6
reloca ted 42:2
relyiDg 158:24
remain 152:3
remarkable 39:24
remember 5:2 26:11 46:11
56:2 1 60:14 88:12,13
166:9
removall5:17 17:24
remove 22: 14 42: I 154:23
186:4
removed 159:2
rendered 56:5 ,6 161:14
rendering 23 :7 30:7 60:3
158 :13
renderings 22:20 56:4
renegotiate 159:25
renewed 111 :24
renotice 166:18
renovation 135:9
renovations 68:11,18
rented 73:6
reopened 50:3
repeat60:15 103:21
repeating 109:24
replace 3:12
repJaced4:19 154:1,3
replacement 155:21
report 3:21 7:410:8 21:3
24:12 41:14 63:15,20,24
66:16,20 67:6,8,11 ,15,16
67:21 68:1,22 69:18,19
73:1 9 81:16,19 83:9
94:8 11 3:19 133:15,18
133 :20,23,24 134:5
137:9 138:1 150:21
155:3 169:9,17,17
174 :15 187 :8
reporter l19:24 186:16,19
187:6,22 188 :3
reports 65:1
represent 10:16 106:22
13 0:24 166:5
·representation 94:21
representations 51 :23
53 :10
representative 183:23
representatives 15:24
represented 55:22
representing 18:14 51 :24
54:16 160:2
reproductions 68:6
request 10:19 28:22 37:25
152:25 174:24
requested 5:4 12:4 20 :10
64:20,22,23 175:14,15
188 :11
requesting3:9,14,24 37:20
146:16
require 68:5 144:22 146:3
required 15:20 18:9 77:11 156:25
145:6 148:20 151:1 restrictive 3:18 8:21
152:22 153:9 165:5 147:24 149:25 160:16
167:21 170:20 180: tO, 15 result 14:6115:11125:13
180:1 6 186:9 resulted 5:15 38:1 5
requirement 77:7 169:14 retail14:13 21:25 150:9
requirements 15:9 35:9 150:12,16152:13,15
60: 18 170:20 176:13 158:17 182:10
178:20 179:7,11,16,25 retain 108:6
requires 84:3 144:21 retained 159:24
150:10 178:15 retired 105:20,24
research 50: 18 return 117:9 165:6 167:22
reserved 162:2,5 reversed 126:17
reshape 72:23 reverts 20:22
resident 46:19 5 1:16 56:16 review 1:7 2:2 3:6,9,15 4:6
60:12 83:25 109:20 5:8,9,11,12 9:10 18:12
112:17 18:20,25 37:19 39:16
resident's 113 :22 41:2,18 45:11 52:11
resident ia l7:10,11,14 17:9 65:24 77:7 87:9 90:2
20:25 21:6,8 22:6 24:18 131:17,24 133:20 135:12
25:25 26:15,1 6,1 8,19 135 :14 138:4 139:7,9,10
27:5,7 28:12 29:5 32:15 139:18,19,20 140:1,2
34:5,6 42:5.55 :4 80:25 148:9 165 :6 167:23
81:2 84:4,6 86 :21 168:6 169:6,23,25 173:2
101:17,18131:6132:21 176:8 177 :10 183:21
146:7 150:8 181:5 Review-approved 168:24
residents 35:10 38:11 59 :1 reviewed 45:8,12 69:4
60:25 64:7,10,12 65 :17 84:7 174:23 185 :22
65:19 66:3 71:3 73:1 reviewing 144:25 176:11
76:7 84:13,14 85 :8 178:4,5
87:20,23 89:16 92:4 revised 139:24
93 :9101:1911 0:1111:2 revisions 14:5
116:20 126:22 revolved 151:14
Resista 25:24 rewne 11 1:3
resolution 3:23 17:3 84: 1 rid 126:8
161:8,9 right 9:20 16:18 21:2,19
resolve 116:19118:24 21:22,24 23:13 25:5
151:17 27:1,24 28:3,4,7 30:3,10
resolved 14U 7 31:5 32:9,1134:22
r es pect 53:3 68 :1 9 174 :17 36:15 37:4,8,12 43:2
respectfull34:3 51:2153:16,19 54:3
respectfully 154:8 57:20 60:19,19 61:16,16
respond 185:14 61:23 79:17 81:11,12
response 100:7 145:13 85:10,1 9,22 92:12 97:17
responsibiUties 177:10 97:2198:15 99:21
responsibility 58:9 93 :2 ,4 101:11 102:4,6 111:19
183:2,4,20,21 ,25 115:22116:2 12 1:8,10
responsi b le 80:8 177:2 128:24,25 139:16153 :20
responsive 40:19 15 8:19160:20 161:16,1 7
rest79:10 157:5 162:5 165:25 173:23
restated 8:22 148:1,2 174:12 175 :2 177:23
159:1 7 160:9 17 8:10 181:17
restating 163:17 right-of-way 31 :17 99:24
restaurants 16:24 173:18 185 :5
restrict 102:4 rigbts 83 :24 86:18
restricted 159:18 r ises 52:19
restrictions 114:14 126:9 RM 54:20
KRESSE & AS SO CI ATE S, LL C
(30 5) 371-7692
Pa ge 204
RN 185:1
road 25:10 32:9 51:5,6
71:23 96:22 97:11
102:13
Robbins2:1 6 10:13,1 5,24 ,
146:21 147:3,7 162:21
163:1 164:4,10,15,16
166:2,3 171 :24 172:11
173:7,13 ,23 174:1 ,12
175:2,16,21 176:5,15,24
177 :4,12,17,23 178:1,3,8
178:21 179:8,11 ,12,17
179:22,23 180:1,7 181:8
18l:l5 182:4 186:18
Robert 80:1 96: 17
role 85:18
roles85 :10
roof 24:24 28:23 114:12
13 9:24140:10 145 :6
roofs 22:11
rooftop22 :15 42:1139:22
140:8,11 ,17 144:22
145:7
rooftops 28:25
room 39:14116:8156:l7
Ross2 :7
RPR 187:22 188:19
rubber 81:18
rule 122:3
roles 169:8
run 46:15
running 87:16 99:23
s
Saba 2:4
sacks 37:13
sad 86:13
safe 81:24 131:22
safety 135:17
sage 88:6
sake 6 4:17
sample 25 :19
Samuels 78:3,4
sanitation 170:15
sat 42:24 52:13 85 :21,22
89:24111:8
satisfied 13 :14,16 11 3:21
136:4
satisfies 13 8:4 I 76: 12
178:20 179:6,10,1 5,24
satisfy 89:18
Saturday 52:23
save 129:21
saves 81:23
saving 102:2 1
Savings 132:15 142:24
143:18 174:23 177:7
saw49:5 100:15 13 7:5
140:6
saying 15 :25 63:15,24
64:6 71:2, ll 96:1 124:1
157:19 158:2 179:12
181:16,17 184:6
says68:1 t 100:12 134:6
134:1 9 139:5,22,22
160:17 162:19167:17
scale4:2116:2,15 38:16
38:24 39:140:11,12
44:10 47:23,24 53:9
54:2,3 58:21,24 60:7,23
61:9 64:11 65:13 7 1:18
73:24 74:2,9 84:5,7,23
113:23 114:6126:16
131:8 134:23 135:4
154:12 160:24 186:8
scales 53:17 54: I
school72:18
scope9:12 71:18164:5
Scott43:10
screaming 114:3
scroll8:4
scrutiny 42:14
seall87:18 188:14
seat 127:9
seating 3 1:3 36: 19
seawall33:4 37:2,2,4 ,5,6
37:11 ,14,15 55 :22,2 3
second22:163:18 110:14
119:5,6 123:18 144:6,11
148 :8 153:23 156:7,19
158:16 184:3
seconds 25:13
secret47:21 65 :9 114:1 9
114:2211 5:1 116:6
section 28:2 52:23,25
183:11
see 22:13 23:6 24:21,23
27:2,13,21 28:6 30:6,9
30:11 32:13 33:3 ,20,21
35:1 6 36:4,8 40: IS
4 6:20 49:13 53:15 55:7
55:11 ,15 ,21 59 :4 61:2
74:16 75:1,1,8 82:22
83 :1 87:20 88:15 92:10
107:8 113:12 126:20
129:23 140:8,24 141:5,7
141 :16 143:24 148:14,25
172:9 174:16 175:5
184:5,13,22 186 :1 6
seeing 19:21 23:2 3 107:17
141 :6
seeking 146:19
seeks 150:18
seen 21 :3 57:12 60:20 65:1
85:1 98 :1 7 107:21 shared 182:7
158:11,12 sharing 147:2
sell81 :6 Sharon 187 :5,22 188:9,1 9
selling 46:13 51:7 sharpen 5:19
send46:12 54:9 65:23 shave29:25
sense86:25 114:9115:11 sheer 58:10,12 84:8
119:1 143:23 sheet 17 8: ll
sensitive 79:4 134:2 sbops52:20
137:18 161:22 183:14 shoreline 77 :7
sensitivity 59:5 141 :20 s bort 12:21 48': 17 152:11
sent 117:16,18118:23 shorter 44:1
121:20 123:25 166:20,25 show 12:5 30:21 33:18
169:15 47:19 57:15 61:8 69: l
sentences 7:24 117:14 136:24 140:12,17
sentiments 91: I 0 171:7,8
separate 115:13,15178:4 showed25:6 57:8
Seraj 2 :4 showing 138:18 145:6
series27:2 173:12 shown22:1 9 113:2 141:12
serious 4 :1 6 40:23 93:4 shows 20:24 23:8 25 :14,2 1
96:23 ll3:13 135:21 140:16,21
seriously 38:12 79:21 87:5 149:1 ,14,15
served 78:9 side 5:22 21:19 26:3 30:3
service 35:12 64:20 94:2 33:10 35 :3 48:15,18
105:20 50:15 63:1 83:21 84:12
services 26: 14 99:20 100:1,2,4 105:16
serving 88:24 115:10 125:13 139:17
sessions 107: 16 153:14155:25 171:25
set 7:13 16:7 19:17 22:24 175:24,25 184:25
23:4 24:20 35:21 49:14 sides 14:3 17:16 33:11,14
49:15,18,18 65:11 98 :13 45:12 61:11 62:15,25
130:15 141:11143:19 101:18
168:9,22 170:9 185 :18 sidewalk 30:12,13 35:17
186:7 187:10 35:18
setback 15:9 29:22 32:15 sight 70:1 6 72:11 137 :2,1 1
36:4 41 :12 49:23 50:9,9 137:14,14,15 143:6
57:21 74:25 75:2,2 156:2,9 157:16 158:4
108:8170:13 175:23 162:3
176:3 177:13,15 184:25 sign 113:13
185:1 signatures 111:1
setbacks 32:17,19 34:3 signed 113:15 165 :11
35:22 54:24,25 57:17 167:18 168:24
75:23 79:15 108:20,2 1 significant 7:10 48:4 87:2
153:9171:8 174:1 9 96:11 107 :13 134:1 3
175:21 175:4 176:23
setting 24:16,17 significantly 4:21 111:10
settle 126 :20 similar 17:9
settlement 112:21 similarly 156: 10
settling 126:21 simple 92:9 106:9 184:5
s even 12:15 110:18 13 6:22 simply 58:7 61:7 62:23
143: ll 63:7 133 :2
sewers 170: I5 sincerely 93:25
SH2:15 10:16 166:5 Singaya 101:10,11
167:10 182:24 single 61:3 140:9 150 :23
shaft 138:22,23 single-family 20:25 22:5
shafts 140:14,14 27:5,6 61:12 62:24
shape 72:20,21 76:4,5,6 131:5,10 132:6,21133:7
share 25 :2 1 54:4 142:17 146:6
KR ESSE & ASSO CIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
Page 205
single-story 4: 17
sir47:13,15 51:9 57:4
97:15 155:15
sit 27:24 123 :15 124:15,17
128:11
site 3:13,16 4:19 5:22 6:7
6:8 9:4,8 10:17,17,22
18:2 20:16 23:2126:23
26:24 30:19 32:6,7
57:17 71:14 80:22 99:21
133:5 135:20 136:22,23
147:24 148 :6,7,14,16,17
148:18,24 149:1,7,12,14
149:16,19,23 150:2,3,4,7
150:10,15,17 151:3
152:8,14,20 153:3,6
154:8,14 157:5,6,17 ,23
158:2,8,10,19 159:21
16l:l,8,13,17,20 162 :6
165:5 166:16 167:8,10
167:11,21 168:5,8,13
170:5,6,11,11,20 171:4
172:3,14,16,19,20,23,25
173:4,11 174:14,17
176:2,181 79:3,23
182:16
sites I49:13 154:25 167 :16
17 1:16
sites's 146:5
sits 153:20
sitting 94:17 104:8
situa tion 52:15 87:9
six 56:8 62:22 76:1 85:25
100:17 121 :5 136:5,5
143:10 184:14
size 5:13 17:9 29:5 40:9
71:18 170:14 185:19
sizes44:13
slap 48:25
slender 22:16
s1ide64 :23
slim 22:16
slipping 47:1
s1oping22:1l
slow 75:22
smal129:2 74 :2 141:13
144:17
s maJJer 145:1 7
smart 114:15 134: I
Smith 113:2 118:12
122:11,11 123:1
solely 78:13 139:&
solution 34:1 9 114: 19
154:21 155:12 159:7
solutions 116: 15
somebody 45:21 61:19,19
145:18 171 :19
someplace 42:1 8
somewbat 142:18
soos 70:21
soon 24:9 27 :7
sophisticated 79:5
so rry 19:16 38:25 54:17
56:3,1 0 88 :17,18 9 7:1 6
106:6 108:25 126:12
130 :3 146:18 157:21
163 :5 171:22 178:3
sort 88:14
sound 11 1:20
sounds 184:17
sou th 2:13 3:8 11:13 7 1:25
132 :1 7 154:4 155:5 ,9
161 :3
sou theast 132:16
space 22:20 30:22 32:12
33 :8 37:17 44:4 65 :7
76 :23 104:9 143 :23
144 :5 150:9,1 2152:13
152:15,17 153:15 158:17
182:10,12 184:15
spaces 42:6 74: I 1,14,24
76:18,21,25 77:23
149:16 158:23,25 159:1
178:12,15,16 179:1 3,20
180:8,9,14 181:2,7,11
182 :8 184:7 ,14,18,1 9
185 :16,16186:5
s pade 92:7,7
spades 92 :12
speak47:14 56:16 59:7
66:3 112:8 124 :11 ,19
129 :10 146:23
speaker 10:2
s peakers 16:23
speaking 89:22 109:20
112:16 l41:l4 153:19
speaks 105:6
special49: 13 133:11
134:10,17
specific 53:15 1 1 8:5
specifically20:2,15 21 :5
26:137:19 81:22 92:18
92 :19 131:6 138:7 139:5
143 :22156:6 167:17
17 8:25 179:1
specifications 24:5
specify 170:12
s pend 166:18
spending 125 :18
spent 6:10,11 1 1:19 48 :9
48:18 85:14,16 110 :22
split 148:18,19 150:23
s poke 63:11 90:19 137:13
143 :21 185:21
spoken 61:12 92:3 105:8 stenographic 18 7:13
106:23 181:3 stenographically 187:8
s p ot 58:1 7 86:22 172:8 step 27:3 33:5 46: l 98:13
spotter 97:7 I 03:13 112:6 144 :1 6
square 12:975:8 87:11 step-back 108:9
114:10 150:9 ,11 152:16 step-in 65 :13
152:16,2 1 15 8:1 8 170:17 stepped 27:23 144:9,10
170:18 171 :8 182:10,ll stepping 24:25 144:14
ss 187:3 steps 77:17 98:13
stack 10\:4 stiff87:10
stacking 42:3 stop25:12 35:23 84:22
sta ff 3:214:1 6:10 7:1 10:8 12 6:23 128:14 164:24
11:18 12:10,11,17 13 :11 186:21
13:12 14:20,25 15 :22 stopped 83:2 99:22,22
16:4 2 l:3 23 :124:10 ,12 stores 52:19
29:11,25 31:2 5 34:18 stories 49:20,21,22 62:22
39:15 41 :4,15,21 63 :4,6 75:3115:2 1154:20
63:11 ,1 4 64:5,20,21,22 storm 98 :24 99: 1·170: 1 S
65:3,20 66:24 67:5 story 48:17 63:3 78:7
69:19 81:16 83:9 94 :8 straighten 22:25
95:8 113:19 133:10 strategic 115:18 116:3
137:8 13 8:1 139:9,10,1 2 streamline27:18
139:13 140:2 141:10,25 streamlined 2 2:1 29:2 1
143:1,1 6 145 :9,11,21 street 1:1 1 3:7 20:19 26:4
146:1 ,8 150:21 1?5 :3 29:13,15 30:3,4 35:13
158:23 168:1 5 169:9,17 41:8,25 49:20,21 55:6
169:17 172:2,13 174:15 72:10 74:13 77:2 4 78:4
183:3 ,3 185:8 80:3 87:8 92:1 96:24
staffs 14 :6 81:18 10 1:13 104:1 109:11
stairwell 13 8: 11 ,23 140: 13 112:14 132:10 146:25
stamp 81 :18 147:17 155:25 156:5
s tand 42:1 2 101 :21 162:3 166:6
standards 7:13 46:21 52:4 streets 31 :19
69:5 87 :10,10 107:14,20 strived 34:17
133:22 135:24 138:4 strong 86 :2 4 87 : 13
139:14 structure 24:24 31:10 42 :9
standing 30:20 43:9 68 :1 2,15 69:7
stands 113:16 8 1:14 86:13 10 1:25
start 30 :14 110:25 158 :15 102:12,14 115 :16,17
started 10:12 11:8 13:24 135:18 13 7:23 154:3
starts 30:20 33 :7 156:2,14159:6,10
s tate 11:9 46:2 56:12 60:8 174:21 181:25 183:13
67:3 70:12 72:5 78:2 185:18
79:24 82:7 96:1 4 103 :16 structure's 134:2 1
109:6 112:11 129:25 structures 3:12 17:9 22: 15
166:1 174:14 187:3,6 43:24 68:18 101:22
188:6, I 0,20 102:10 134:7 135:20
stated67:4 119:11121:18 136:6,7137:18 144:23
152:4 16 1:12 167:18 153:4 161:1
176:21 179:1 183 :24 studied 29:23
statement43:22 44:7 studies 98 :9 99:13
106:4 163:8 stuff 130 :8 139:3
statements 8:10 68:21 stumbled 70: I 9
states 68:1 123: 19 150 :1 style 135:3
150:21 151:8,25 styles 135 :1
stay31:8.9 97 :13 subdued 27:13
Steinberg 2:7 su bject 3:13,17 7:2 121:4
KRES SE & AS SO CI ATES, LL C
(30 5) 37 1-7692
Page 2 06
126 :12 150:2
submission 69:24
submit 162:8 169:3
submits 145:5
subm\~ing 168:3
substaotial8:8 14:14
107:11,24 108:16 150:3
173:16
substantially 32:18 34:3
177:24
substation 22:4 43 :14
successfully 4:9
suddeo46:23 152:14
sued 48:24
sufficient45:21 107:1 1
suggest 80:17,18 81 :3 ,15
91:5161:16
sugges ted 16:12 169:12
suggesting 161:19,21
suggestion 39:17 154:17
184:21 185:9,11
suggestions 14:24 88 :3
Suite 2:13 11:1 4
suits 4 8:25
summary 154:6
Sunset2 :10,19 3:8 5:24
6:1 14:2,10,11 15 :24
22:6 23:17,2 1 25 :10,10
26:1,14 27:8,14 34:9,14
34:23 36:5,1 2,20 38:8,13
38:19 39:5 40:10,13
43:4 48:6 50:12 52:5
57:19 58:6 59:14 60:11
60:13 63:24 66:21 76:8
77:23 78:5,8 80 :4,23
82:17 83 :4 ,12 84 :18
86:10 94:10 96:18 97:23
101:4,25 102:15 109:9
110:19 111:18 112:14
116:7 130:24 13 2:4 ,6,7,9
132:11,13 ,15,22136:17
137:16,23,24 138:15
141:2 142:5,6,12,14
143:6 144:8,23 184 :23
support 59:2,19,21 125:23
126:1,6 131:3
supporting 67:6
supportive 185:9
supposed 115 :2 118:21
170:12,16
sure 17:20 26:20 46:2
53:2 1 75 :19 88:1 9 112:7
119:25 181:19,21
surface 149:3,3 154:2
155:2 1 168:1 1
surgeons 70:18
surro unded 47:4 61 :11
101:17
surrounding 16:16 61:8
135:20 136:2,8 137:1,19
151:22 154:16
Susan 72:9
swim 73:4
sworn 188:11,12,13
T
take 18:20 19:24 24:19
26:25 28:4 29:1,16
35:12 37:23 40:22 44:12
57:3,5 64:10 69:12
70:24 74:15 87:5 99:25
102:3 Il2:18 116 :5
125:12,16 126:16 127:8
127:15 148:8 160:25
164:12 165:20 184:12
186:22
taken4:23 14:2130:8 41:4
42:13 96:9 105:25
takes 79:21 110:10
talk 19 :12 21:16 52:3
53:21 56:17 57:5 59:8
59:10 62:7 66:1 73:9
127:20 133:19 136:11,11
talked 64:13 100:8 133:12
143:22
talking 67:13 73:12 88:15
92:1 6,16 158:15
talks 136:5 138:10
tall l15:21
taller 27:10 58:19,20
task 9:3
ta:x. 80 :8
Taylor43:l
TC054:17
teach 72:17
techoical60: 18
teJI25:2,l290:2193:1,7
93:12,13,14 95:14
103:23 110:7 114:1
115:24 141:10,11
telling 30:8 70:25
teo 28:8 37:1 1 47:4 99:5
115:19 144:11 147:1
tenant 147:17
tenants 28:17 146:24
tenor 105:15
tens 51 :7
term 137:6 154:14
terminology 81:4
terms 78:16 87:1 136:20
148:16 159:8 165:18
terrace 116:9
terraced 58:20 75 :4
terraces 140:13
terracing 79:14 137:5 145:10 158:21 ,22
Terry 6:12 38:6,8,10 162:13 165:19 173:7
39:23 60:10 79:12 90:23 176:20 180:3 184:20
104:15 185:10
test 107:22 thinks 80:1 9
testified 45:13 third 7:25 98: 13 119:5
testify 171 :20 173:8 144:11 150:19151:5
testimony 7:6,23 8:7,12 thorough 12 :3
17:15 37:24 40:21 164:5 thought 14:4 50:1 57:21
texts 95:24 85:171!8:24141:21
thank 3:4 7:19 9:1& 11:8,9 thoughts 34: 1 56:1
11:17 17:7 19:3,4,21 thousand 4&: 19
37:18 44:19,20 51:14 thousands 49:3
53:6,7 54:13 56:9 59:23 three 8 :20 10:2,2 22:7
59:24 60:6 66:12,13 28:5 46:20 61:11 62:14
70:10,11,13 72:2,7,7 62:24 64:25 74:11,14,17
76:11,13 77:14,20,25 74:23 76:1&,25 77:22
79:22,23,25 82:3,4 84:25 94:12 101:17 131:16
85:2 88:8,17 91:22,23 133:21 150:15 154:15
94:2,4 96:13 99:18 164:13
100:5,6,23 101:2 102:16 three-dimensiona127: 19
103:15 104:19,20,24 three-foot28:21
108:24 109:5 112:2,3,12 three-mhiute 146:20
116:22,23 122:24 123:1 6 three-story 154: 19
127:23 130:19146:11,13 threw 107:7
147:15 155:11,13 159:11 thrown 84:18
180:23 181:8 182: I ,2,3 time5:3 6:ll 7:12 9:23
186:12,13 11:2,6,19 12:20,23 13:24
then-amended I 59:17 18:18 19:123:23 26:8
thing3:20 19:22 31:18 34:14 38:7 42:1145:24
44:25 47:16,22 60:19 5 1:11 56 :2,2 1 59:23
66:2 77:5 86:14 93:7 63:13 71:5 85:1 4 87:16
98:15 101:1 6 105:19 87:22 88:7 96:6 97:8
140:16145:11160:15 106:2,15 110:24 119:21
162:2 184:9,10 127:21 128:5,6 130 :10
things 10:12 11:8 15:1 130:18 146:16,21 147:2
16:11 20:9 22:13 41:24 150:22,23,24 152:1 I
42:10 43:17 48:4 76:1 7 163:3 166 :9 187:10
84:11,17 86:10 89:6 times 39:10 61:3 94:9
90:25 96:10 104:2 lOO:II 113:12 114:18
13.3:19 147:5 150:13,15 180:4
think4:7 5:15 6:24 7:6,11 title 3:19 8:21,23 147:25
7:13 9 :25 10:7 13:22 151:2 159:2 0
14:17 18:7 21:21 31:24 Tobin2:65:1 17:18
37:21 40:3,5 ,14 45 :20 today7:9,18 9:3 10:18
47:25 51:18,25 52:9 11:15,1612:6,19 13:9
57:10 65:22 70:6 73:22 16:5 18:1 38:10,14,19
77:21 79:7,9,12,12 ,13 39:13 40:7 56:17 57: II
84:t4 86 :5,20 87 :3 88:4 57:18 58:4 59:2,3 62 :1 3
89:19 90:11,23,24,25 64:5 67 :21 69:10 75:25
92:2 94 :11 97:18101:19 76:5 82:11,12 89:22
101 :23 102:5,22 104:11 90:9,16,22 92:16 96:8
105:3 106:13 108:1,20 105:10 109:20 110:6
110:22111:23 114:15 111:21 131:ll 132:1
115:7,13 116:18 119:15 161:10
122:25 123:2 ,5 126:1,25 today's 11:21
127:4,10 130:14 132:12 told 38:8 58 :4 73:8 92 :23
KRE SSE & ASSO CIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
Page 207
111:10 122:12 126:3
128: ll
tone 55:25
tooth 75:21
top 24:17,19 28:22116:1 ,6
137:23
tops 141:6
torrential97:2 98:2 5
total54:8
totally 107:7 177:16
185 :22
touch 92:20
touched 109:1
tough 85:21
tow 84:20 98:20
towed 98:3
tower 2:12 11:13 25:10,11
38:13 48:13 132:15
towers 26:12 30:4 38:8,19
39:6,7,13 82:20
towing 97:8, J 0
town 50:7
towohomes 25: 11 28:2
55:8 75:1,3,6 111:14
132:16142:15 154:18,19
159:9 184:24
townhouse 38 :15
townhouses 38:9,14 40:13
49:11,12 102:1,15
115:15
track83:16
traffic 15:15 45:2,3 74:10
74:23 98 :9 99:13
tranquil27: 12
tranquility 104:13
transferred 171:13
transitioning 154:17 159:8
trapped 100:18
trash 15:17 17:24
travesty 144:3
treasu-rer 109:21 110:6
treat26:9
treated 43:14
treatment 145: I
Tree 52:8
trees 33:16 44:12,13 48:1 4
50:13,16 54:15
trellis 42: I
trellises 140:22 141:6
treme ndously 108:21
Tremont 97:8 98:17,20
triangular 54:2
tribute 7:7
tricky 6:7
tried 27:14 44:12 57:24
93:18 94:9 96:4
triple 182:12
tropical 99: I
troubling 138: I
trucker 98:19
trucks 73:8
true 66:8 90:20 121:15,16
125:5 187:12
truth 69:14 93:12,14
try 7:1 5 25:16 37:23 92:21
96:2 111:25 123 : 11
126:19184:2
trying 23 :20 35:8 55:12
74:18,21 84:14 103:5
116:14118:6,24 145:12
149:10 182:6,21
Tucker2:2 1,216:13 103:9
130:18,22
Tucker's 155:2
turmoil50:4
turn 83:19
turned 61:1 5 97:19 113:11
113:17
turns 36:9
TV98:18
twice 13:5
twin 70:21
two 6:4 8:15,19 11:13
12:14 17:1124:17,19
26:12 28:5 29:24 42:23
46 :19 48:9,18 49:2,22,24
51:18 52:17 53 :4 70:20
75:3 92:1 198:2 101:18
105 :3 110:5,9,22 116:6
120:15 121:6 12 5 :7
126:10 143:14,15 147:22
150:13,20,22 155:2,16
157:15 158:16 166:12
170:3
two-story 49:19 63 : I
154:18
type77:17
.types 68:21
typical l23:9
u
ugly 49:8,9 52:14
ulcers 115:4
ultimately 17:16 148:18
148:21
unanimous 12:7 17 :17
89:2
unaware 67:8
underground 113: 10
118:18125:6,18
understand 13:23 67:18
71:173:2 1,21 74:12
80 :14 81:10 93 :22 127:6
131 :2 133:5 135:2
136:13 157:18 163:12,19 182:8 185:17
185:24 Utopia 2:22 130:23
understanding 68:4 69: 1 u tterance 70:22
134:16 135:7 147:22
148:15 180:15 v
understands 73:23 vacuous 125:11
unfair 11:2 valet 3 5:6,1 2 42:2
unfortunately 91:1 0 95:14 valid 184:21
168:15,20 169:14 valuable 40 :2 1
unified 10 :17 150:2 value 73:25 75:16 81:24
167:15 171:16,24 172 :3 110:12
172:14,15,1 9,20 l74:13 variance28:20,22 42:8
174:16 variances 126:4
uniform 172:3 various 6:19 24:3
unify 154:25 vary 134:25
unilaterally 150:18 vegetation44:14 54 :16
unique 5:22 6:4 20:16 vehicles 74:20
26:22,23 32:8 36:3 44:8 vehicular 23:14,17 29:15
80:22 133:7 134 :2 146:5 35:2
unit 115:25 116:1 125:8 Velazco 187 :5,22 188:9,19
170:18 171:9 Venetian 84:13 87:8
United 83:22 versed 18 :15
units 26:15,17,19 31:14 vers us 8:3 170:24
42:5 74:1 81:7 114:7 vi a bility 154:14
115:25 126:8 138:24 vibr a ncy 14:10
150:8,8 ,11,14 vice 78:11 1 09:22
unity 3:18 8:21147:25 vi ew74:3 115:14 136 :16
151:2 159:20 136:16 l37:3,4,6,9,11,20
unnecessarily 157:7 183:1 137:22,24 142:7 144:15
un.reasona ble 65:23 144:18 154:13 175:7
160:22 183:19,25 184:23
unreasonably 160: 18 views 57:2
upgrading 176:25 virtually 7 8: 13 140:16
upset 89:16 virtue 14 :22
upstairs 100:18 vis-A-vis 1 10:12
urban 39:25 visibility 156:4
urge 84 :16 146:3 visible 138:15,16139:4
Urstadt85:4,5,14 88 :12 144:23
88:21,25 89:4,9,11,14 visit84:25
90:1,11,18,23 91:14,20 visual23:5
105:15 visual1y 71:24
usage 165 :4 visuals 84:8
use4:12 5:1,14 9:6 12:8 vocabulary 59:9
25:22 28:20,25,25 33:25 voice 104 :17
33:25 42:5,7,8 47:13 volumel:S 158:16187:11
52:24 73:13,17 84:2 v ol umes 34 :2
87:13 108:7114:13 vote 89:3,8 125:17
126:9 141:3 142:22 voted 91:17
143:4 151:20 15 8:19
167:20 178:22 179:9 w
181:6 182:12 186:19,20 W2:21
uses 17:10 29:1 34:15 Wahlberg 8:3
35:10 136:25 wait 117:8 130:1
usually 7:24 134:8 Walgreens 52:8
utilities 125:19 walk20:7 23:11 ,1 2 30:23
utilize 179:19 30:24 31:17 36:20,21,24
utilized 179:14 181 :11,14 59:17 77:8
KRE SSE & ASS OCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7 69 2
Page 208
walked 24:9 73:10 97:24
walking 57:5
walkway 75:1177:6
Wtll58:l0,!2
walls 84:8 154:16
want3:20 10:4,5 11:2
12:22 28:15,16,18,19,24
28:25 32:24 33:17 34:5
34:6 37:18 39:1 4 40:25
43:22 44:1,14 45:1,22
48:3 52:6 54:2 59:3
62:18 66:2,7,7 73:4 74:1
74:5,6 76:16 77:1,17
79: 1,2,3 , 13,14,14,15
92:7,22,23 93:12 95:25
103:23 104 :5,14 110:5
Ill :22 112:7 119:23
120:22 122:15 123:6,13
124:7 125:15 127:14,18
128:3,6 129:4,6 131: I
133:1 8 139:12 140:20,25
140:25 141:3,4 145:16
148:13 15 3:18 158:3
163:7 167:3 170:24
175:6181:18182:4
184:17 186:2,15
wanted 13:3 19:18,24
27:11,1 7 33:17,1 8 38:23
56:4 94:20 106:7,11
124:17 125 :23 126:1
130:7 138 :7 170:1
wants 180:6
warehouses 62:5
warrants 131:18 133:8
Washiogton 2:17 166:4
wasn't 54:17 90:10,17
93:1 1 129:10 137:7,8
179:1
Wasserstein 160:2
waste 119:20
watched 83:5
water 20:17 21:6 22:17
24:19 27:6,7 28:16,17
31:2 36:21,24,25 4 I :7
52:17 53:16 55: It 75 : I
84:9 97:25 99:23 100:1
100:3 107:6 111:16
117:5 142 :19 149:4,18
153:5 158:12 175:9
waterfront 82 :23 142:1 2
waterway 6:5 21:1,14,1 5
49:16 111:13 141:2
142:15
way 6:24 23 :3 27:17,20
31:17 32:8 33:3,18
39:15,17 40:24 44:9
48:21 52:13 61:18 73:3
74:22 79:10 82 :1,24
83:2 99:5 100:20 108:2
11 0:25 111 :23 11 8:1,9
141:2 1 153:21,24 154:19
158:14 167:2 180:5
185:6
Wayne 2 :1 1 11:1 1 32:4
34:2135:24 37:17 85:11
85:15 88 :1 4,17 91 :15
106:12,12 120:9,18
122:23 126:25 129:6
163 :13 164:7
ways 20:5 29:25 86:9
87:1 9
weather 97:4,24
weed 60:22
week 97:2
w eeks 94:12 12 6:10
weight64:7
W einer 109:8,8
w e lco me 71:13 101:14
156:17
well-design ed 69 :15
went 4: II 13:25 16:22
17:10 41 :2 1 42:1 4 49:2
85:23 86:6 96:20 97:22
98:14 100:16
weren't 7 5 :24
west 9:2 3 5:3 72:10 78:4
80:3 92:1101:13 109:11
112:14 155:4,4 156:4
175:9,25 184:25
western 139:6,17 14 5:2
wide 21:1 53:17
wi.d er49:17
wid th 58:12
wife 70:17
William 2:5 7:19 11 :18
12:25 13:7,7,23 41:3
46:5 67:12 83:10 163:5
18 5 :21
window 154:5
W ins ton 72:19
wisely 87: 14
wish 107:5
withheld 160:19,19
withholding 160 :22
witness66:18 128:19
129:20 187:18 188:14
witnesses 188:11
wo nderful 37:2l 38:5
56:24 70:19 71:12 86:10
88:16,18
wondering 105:10
wood25:25
word 40:2 1 69:12,13
139:3 155:4,4
worded 125:25 0
wording 119:2 0151 471 87 :23 188:2 0
words 4 6:24 56:20 124:13 08/1912014188:2 1
work 5:5,6 14 :14 82:1 6
84:14 92:22,22,23 93:16 . 1
97:4104:22 110 :17 1166:24 187:1 1
111 :4123:11 134 :20 1.42 177:19
135:3 10,000 11 1:1
worked 40:17 64:19 100 53:1 0 113 :13
working 1 1 :20 24 :15 63 :6 11,000 150 :11 152:16,20
154 :19 158:18
works 4:8 39 :18 55:1 6 11,325 182:11
76:19 134 :6 184:22 118-1 170:11 ,21
World 115:9 132:14 118-5167:1 4 ,17 172:4
142 :24143 :18174:2 3 12 47:4 7 8:6 137:17
177:7 183:17 143:11 183 :11
worse 62:6 U:02186:25
worth 110:9 120 37:1 53 :17
wouldn't 65:10 81:19 120-foo t21:1
172:7 177:21 1201 1:11 3:7
wound 87:1 1 1224 2 :17166:3
wrap51 :12 12251 :11
writing 65:2 1,22 1237 1:11 3:7
w ritte n 73:20 1261 146:25 147:17 149:1
wrong 58:1 7 61 :25 74:1 2 166:6
140:19 13 109:22 149:16
w r ote 70:8 14 85:24
1410 10 1:13 X 1430 109:11
1450 72:10 y
15 10 :1,1 9,2 5 29:4,4 42:17
yard 84:20 109:1 0 129:10 130:10
yeab 30:23 42:15 143:19
y ear 25:9 61:13 83:23 1515 92:1
140:7 159:24 160:12 1531 78:15
y ear-old 70:21 16 106:1 154 :4
yea rs 13:17 41:2 42:17 17 135:11
46:8,1 6,20 48 :9,1 8 49:2 1710 80:2
49:24 50:1,5 52:4 59:1 6 1800 11 2:14
62:16,17 70:18 78:6,9,10 1830 78:4
7 8:21 79:20 82:13,20 1881 87:11
96:22 10 5:20 106:1 1920s 5:24
109:10,12,15,22 110:23 1927 47:2
133 :10 148:1 2 1950 109:18
y esterday 166:21 169:16 1976 96:19
1987 56:16 z 1995 133:12
Zabernick94:21 95:17,18 1996 63:21 105:23
Z apata 21:23 1997 6:2
zen 115:2 1999 8:4 22:7
zero 177 :1 5
z ipper43:6 2
zone 42:4 178: 19 2 1:16 2:13
z oned 15:4,13 132:6 133 :7 2-C 13 8 :9,10 144:21
zoning 8:715:1 2 54:19,2 0 2-D 139:5 144 :24
132:5 18 1:18,23 2-F 139:22 145:4
2.0 177:20,22
KRES SE & ASS OCI AT ES, LLC
(30 5 ) 371 -7 692
Page 209
20 26:1 4 ,18,18 32 :20
35:21 42:17 50:1,5 52:4
59:16 83 :15,16109:12
134:5 148:12,13 150:8
154:5 161:4
20-un it 182:18
20121 :16117:16 166 :25
201 3 187:19 188:15
201b 1:11 3:7 20:19 23:21
26:4 29:13 , l5 30:3,4
4 1:25 49:20 55:6 74:13
77:23 9 6:24 11 1:15
132:10 136 :16,18 142:6
146:25 147:17 155:25
156:5 162:3 166:6
21 134:19 177:13
21 -foot 176:3
2111 70:14
2122 96:17
2125 46:6
2130 56:15
2142 109:9
21st72:10 101:13 109:11
22 68:12 167:6
22889 1:10 3:611 :1 6
22nd 92:1
231 2 60:12
23rd 80:3 112:14 187:19
188:14
2400 2:1311:14
24th 78:4
2513:17 55 :9 105:20
168:12
250 39:7,9
2515180:22
26 168:12 185: l
2915 !9:19
2nd 15 1:8
3
3 54:20
3,000-square 182:18
3 ,600150:9 152:12,16,21
182:1 0
30 14:5,24 29:4 32:21 96:6
99:1
300 27:2150:15 15 2:17
3000 158:17
301 105:2
3l 82:13
33 22:10 27:9
3313 1 2:14,22
331392:18
34 97:25
35 36:14 97:3 9 8:1
35-mi nu te 99:2
36 2 1:8
3835 2:22 130:23
3928:8
4
4.3156:7
4028 :8 39:2,4 109:15
42 96:22
45 46:8 55:10
46 15 :7
5
5.6149:20
50 15:5,6 32:21 33:6 34:2
54:5,21 62:1 7 113:9
114:8 150:11
50-foot 31 :9 154: 16
50,000 12:9
5529:8
5825:13
6
6.13 156:22
65 43 :25 55:8
6637:7
7
7117:16
7043:24 114:8 168:11
8
8/19/2014 187:23
9
9 82:10
KRES SE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305 ) 37 1 -7692
Page 210
EXHIBIT ''P''
1
2
3
•
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
1
~
l
•
s
'
l •
9
10
11
12
u
u
15
16
1 7
18
u
20
2l
22
2J 2.
2S
Pag e 211 Page 2 13
1 (Whereupon, the foll owing proceedings
2 were had:)
I 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: We have just wait
4 until we are ·· on .
VOLUMEll 5 Okay. We are going to reconvene where . 6 we left off, Mr. Ro bbins.
MEETING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 7 l'v1R. ROBBINS : I am going to try to
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH a summarize and raise a few more issues and
9 move on .
DRB 228 89 1 0 We would like to adopt the comments of
120 l, 122S, 1237 20th Street 11 learned co-counsel, Mr. Gibbs, and his
12 expert, and we do not have to rehash those
1 3 issues.
1 4 You have to look at specifically
15 criteria six, sev en, eight, 12 and 15.
Octob~ 2, 2012 16 -Now, look at 15. This is important
17 here . 15 says·· "An addition on a building
18 site shall be designed, sited, massed in a
19 manner that's consistent with existing
20 compatible--existing improvements."
21 Apparently, there was an oversight by
22 the staff when they wrote down that that
23 criteria is not applicable. because this is a
24 unified site plan. This is an existing
2 5 building, the World Bank build ing, and this
Pa ge 212 Pa ge 21 4
l is essentially an addition to the site. APPEARANCES
2 So it has to be the siting, the design
DESIGN REVIEW BOAlU>: 3 and the mass has to be sensit ive to and
JO$on Ha,opion, ~ 4 compatible with the existing improvements. Mioha<l Belush
SenjSabo 5 That is your charge, and you have to
Wi\Jiem Caty 6 do that. Catol HollSeD
Le•!io Tobin 7 So apparently -· and with all due Ulia.Medina
Mickey MloiQOiri 8 respect--apparently, the nature of this
AITORNE Y FOR CITY OP MIAMI BEACH: 9 project--because it is a competent in lieu
10 of unity of title, and it is a un ified site GARY RllLD, ESQUilUi
11 plan --that's not something that is normally ATTORNE Y FOR PALAU SUNSET HARBOUR: 12 reviewed by the Design Revi ew Board , and it WAYNB PATHMAN, ESQ.,
l'athnwt Lowis, U.P 13 is very unusual. Ottc Biscl)'ll6 Tower
Suite2400 14 In fact, I have actually reviewed, I 2. Solllh Bi.cayne Boulovvd 15 believe, every single unified project that Miami. Ft. 33131
ATTORNEY FOilMAC SHU.C: 1 6 has been approved by the City over the last
KENT HAR.RJSOH ltOBBINS. ESQ ., 17 15 years, and it averages about one or two a Attorney Ill Law 18 year. And very rarely do they co me back to 1224 WuhingtoG Avtme
Miami B011ch, Florida 3313\l 19 the Design Review Board.
ATTORNEY FOR SUNS£T ISLANDS HOMEOWNERS 20 So the City is not used to its own ASSOCIATION: 21 criteria, which is to consider the old
W TUCKE.R GIBBS, ESQ. 22 project and compare it to the new project. Law Ofl'oce3 o! W. Tuclc.,. Giblu
3835 Ulopia Court 23 Unfortunately, they don't have that much COCGnut Grove, Fl. 331 3 1 24 experienc e, so they miss thos e criteria under
---25 118-5.
KRESSE & AS SO CIATES, LLC
(305) 3 7 1 -7692
1 (Pages 211 to 214)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 215 Page 217
So that's why 15 is particularly l They--the requi red parking minimizes the
applicable. You have to look at my client's 2 number of units . They have just enough
property as part of that site, and then 3 parking for 50 units, and they couldn't put
analyze this in addition to that site. 4 any more parking on that site. So they
MR. CARY: That was a typo, Mr. 5 didn't give up anything.
Chamnan. You are absolutely correct. That 6 Even the FAR --I think it is -·
should have been marked satisfied. 7 108 ,00 0 square feet is allowed, and this is
MR. ROBBINS: Well, okay. And there 8 1 07. A thousand square feet, Jess than one
wasn't --it was testimony by the staff 9 percent was given up in FAR.
member that Mr. Cary--that he did not 10 They have not given up.
consider comparison. He looked at this 11 Make them sit down. We have been
entire -· this new design review proj ect. 12 trying to do this for almost --over a year
This is not a new design review proj ect. It 13 now. Sit down and try to get some type of
was a prior order, and you have to look at 14 compatibility, some type of modification,
that. 15 some type of giving up a little bit here and
You know what Michael Comras is 16 a little bit there to make it more
looking for? 17 appropriate and compatible.
He is looking for balance. He doesn't 18 Don't allow this building to be built
want it all. He knows he is going to have to 19 in a way that doesn't respect the existing
probably give up some of that·· that view 20 west view corridor. Professionals as you,
conidor, that view that he has now looking 21 that view corridor on West Avenue is an
ovec the lots, that be h ~ the clear view, 22 important view corridor that should be
which you would expect on the site plan. He 23 considered.
realizes that, but he realizes that this 24 There is also the issue of the
Board bas a duty to balance the respective 25 internal parking. There has been jumping
Page 216 Pa ge 218
interests of the property and assure 1 around as to whether or not --whether or not
compatibility. 2 the nine spaces that are my client's
Mr. Gibbs suggested puttin g townh ouses 3 property, is or is not going to be utilized
on that--the rear 70 feet oflots 25 and 4 as part of this proj ect
26. We think that is a great idea. Or, 5 It was my understanding before the
there should be a transition from the five 6 conditional use permit and according to the
stories OT four stories down to three and two 1 order of the conditional use permit by the
stories, to make it more compatible with the 8 Planning Board, those nine spaces were to be
two-story units that are facing the water and 9 internalized, and there was to be 153 parking
Sunset Harbour. lO spaces within the garage, itself.
That's what we are asking for . Thaf.s 11 And there was no consideration of
what we are asking fo r, is some balance, som e 12 circulation offthe s ite and into my client's
--you know, the developer, he is acting like l3 prop erty when it was analyzed by •· by the
he is giving so many concessions. If you 14 Planning Board.
look at the analysis of the concessions, 15 This Board should make it a condition
there are nearly none on our side. 16 that this covenant is changed in order to
I think: there is •• they had a setb ack 17 assure that those nine spaces are never
of five feet, and the reason they had a 19 utilized and circulation never goes off-site,
setback five feet and cantilever was because 19 and it is maintained and internalized. That
they were interfering with a driveway which 20 should be a requirement and condition of this
was part of the easement. 21 Board.
They have not given up anything. 22 In addition, in addition, there are
Whatever they did, they had to do. When they 23 issues involving the indemnification
say they reduced it from 70 units to 24 proceedings and issues that I raised with Mr.
50 units, they didn't really give that up. 25 Held , this matter, the pending matter before
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
2 (Pages 215 to 218)
1
2
3
4
5
6'
7
B
9
10
ll
l2
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 219
the Board of Adjustment that was ruled and is
not a final determination, and this is more
of a legal Issue •• but there •• when a
matter is filed before the Board of
Adjustment, all matters and hearings are
supposed to be stayed unless certain
conditions precedent are met by the
developer. And one is to indemnify the City
.from any attorney's fees that it would incur
as a result of--of that process. This
developer has not even done that.
Now, we have gone forward-· over my
objections, we have gone forward with this
here. I don't want to hold these people up
and not allow them to have their just due and
be able to make a presentation. But this
matter should have been stayed, and it should
not have been heard unti1 --until they
indemnified the City for their costs.
Finally, all I am doing is·-is going
to make certain that there are certain things
in the record. I want to make certain that
the Planning Board order is in the record so
this Board can review it and identify th.e
fact that there are 153 parking spaces that
Page 220
were supposed to be part of the garage and
not supposed to be on my client's site, and
for the other purposes.
I also want to bring it to your
attention that that Planning Board decision
did not contemplate or consider the FAR that
was on my clienfs lot, so when they approved
the FAR, it did not include the FAR on my
client's property. And I think that is a
fundamental problem because·· unless FAR
over 50,000 is specificaJiy approved, there
has to be a credit taken down for the
approved FAR from the amount ofF AR that
constitutes my client's building, and that
has not been done.
In addition, I want to make certain
that there was a memo that I submitted in the
record, and I want to make certain that is
there. We are going to be doing a reduced
copy for the clerk, a reduced copy of the
overlay for the original site plan and the --
and the proposed new site plan, and we are
going to submit a copy of that into the
record.
I also would ask this Board to take
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
1 7
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
11
18
1 9
20
2.1
22
23
24
2 5
Page 221
notice of the prior records. We submitted a
set of photographs of the neighborhood which
showed the importance of the World Bank
building, the beauty of the World Bank
building, but more importantly, the beauty of
this particular location within the City.
As everybody knows, there is that
beautiful park and open space at the. comer
of 20th Street and Sunset. across the way, a
tremendous green space. This is a critical
building. This is the building that
introduces everybody to Sunset Harbour. It
introduces everybody to Sunset Islands. It
should have auspicious architecture.
For you to go back and say, "Make it
more compatibl~ make it better," is
something that this Board has the
responsibility to do.
This is the first time you have
actually had a hearing where you are
considering the facts. Before, it was just a
procedural matter and it was continued
without sp ecific directions.
But I remember this Board said, this
Board said, "Work with the developer," and
Page 222
told us to work with the developer. When we
'tried to work with ilie developer, we were
told they are not going to do anything unless
they tell us what to do, unless this Board
tells us what to do.
They are not going to change it. So
you need to exert your power and you need to
do what's right and assure compatibility.
Don't get run over by this developer. Don't
let him think because he is aggressive --
they have a very powerful lawyer, a very
influential person . They have an influential
people, developers, and investors. But that
is not the issue for this Board. This Board
is purely an architect:ural Board considering
compatibility.
We have architects on this Board, and
these --these architects and experts can
evaluate the appropriateness and
compatibility. And all my client is askin g
for is some balance and some fairness and
equity .
Thank you.
Mlt HELD: Mr. Chair-
THE CHAIRP ERSON: Thank you very much.
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
3 (Pages 219 to 222)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
u
u
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
Page 223
Yes, Gary?
MR. HELD: I have a comment on the
issue of modifying the covenant with 'regard
to the nine parking spaces, as both Kent and
Mr. Comras have asked.
Reading attachment three, I think the
authority of this Board for modification is
limited to the site plan and not the
covenant. You don't really have authority to
breach the terms of the covenant, itself, bul
what you have authority to do is modify the
site plan.
And I don't see any language --and
unless somebody wants to point it out to me
that you have authority to modify the
covenant, itself, l don't think you do. So
the nine spaces would have to be modified by
agreement between the parties, if there ever
was an agreement.
Kent'?
MR. ROBBINS: r think the City does
have that authority. The City, through its
supervisory authority, specifically provides
the planning director and the City attorney
to negotiate and consider the term s, and to
Page 224
assure that tenus of the covenant are
compatible with land development regulations
and the orders of the Design Review Board,
Historic Preservation Board and Plannin g
Board. And that authority is inherent in
llS-5, and it is explicit as far as the
responsibility of the planning director to
review it and the City attorney to review it.
And I know that the covenant, in fact,
was imposed by the Planning Department
because there was a plan use disaster that
occurred where the proj ect was approved
without the appropriate lot splits. So as a
band-aid, the covenant was imposed upon the
project in order to assure that they can go
forward with their building permit. A
condition of any building permit is the
unification of plans. The unification will
require that we require further
documentations concerning the incorporation
of lot 22 into the project. The City would
have the authority and discretion to make
demands as far as what is appropriate with
the unification tenns and language, and I
think -in fact, I know that the City would
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 225
have the ability to impose those conditions
as conditions for the Board as well as
condition of approval of any unified
development site.
MR. HELD: Thank you, Kent, for your
comments, but my opinion stays the same.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Gary.
Okay. Is there anybody else that
would like to comment on this application
right now? I know there are a lot of you in
the audience that weren't intending on
speaking, but this is your opportunity.
Anybody want to come up and speak
favorably about the project?
MR HELD: So why don't we just
identify the amount of time that Wayne gets
for rebuttal and --
How much time do yo u need?
MR. PATHMAN: Well, I am going to have
Kobi go through some of the architectural
issues and rebuttal, and then obv iously there
were quite a few peopl e who spoke, so l can
try to do it in 20 minutes, 30 minutes.
MR. HELD: Is 15 okay?
MR. PATHMAN: It is probably not going
Page 22 6
to be 15, but I can try.
MR. HELD: You can try.
MR. PATHMAN: But Kobi is going to
need at least 15 minutes of his own to walk
you through the architectural issues that
were raised.
MR. KARP: I will try to be a lot
less, Gary, I promise. I just want to bring
a couple of points that the lawyers brought
up.
If you just give me a second to look
at the plans that we submitted, please,
because --and I will be as brief as
possible. Because a couple of things were
brought up which I thia.k we need to review.
l will start it at the end instead of in the
beginning.
If you just entertain me-just go to
the last page, which is A 301 of your package
which we submitted, and it shows a section
through the World Bank. It-· because
"compatib le" was discussed a few times, and I
wanted to discuss its relationship, and that
is also why we brought the modeL Not only
for our commercial properties, but it is a
KRE SS E & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(30 5) 371-7692
4 (Page s 223 to 226)
l
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
1 2
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
Page 227 Pag e 229
section that shows --that shows the existing 1 white elevation on the bottom and it has a
bank. 2 color elevation on top. And the reason is so
It shows --it is a west section in, 3 there is no •• so it is crysta l clear on th e
and it goes to --all the way to the 4 bottom what is the existing building.
boardwalk, the public right-of-way, all the 5 And I do think that the World Bank is
way on the left. It shows how it is that we 6 a beautiful building. And you can see how it
have two residential floors and how we set 7 is that we are proposing to have the finishes
back two residentia l floors. a there, and that's why r brought you the
And it is important to note because 9 finished material board so you can see the
then you can see how it is in the back that 10 finishes one by one .
we accommodated the parking to be continued 11 And you can see how the commercial is
and rema in behind the bank. 12 facing 20th Street, and you can see how the
If you just would be kind enough and 13 residential -the three floors of
entertain me just for one more second, and 14 residential right above it are purely
you go on to the page A 300, it is the 15 residential. And you can see the sizes of
colorful one. It looks like this. 16 the units, because the sizes of each and
And the reason is because I just 11 every unit is laid out on the floor plans.
wanted to be crystal clear that we did take 18 And on the roof plan, you can see
time to really reduce the height along the 19 exactly what the mechanical air cond ition ing
water body , and not only set it back to the 20 are going to be and where the elevators are.
residential --because a residential 21 I just want to take you-· if you just
setback •• you can see it has a setback to 22 give me one more second, please--to A-2.01.
match what it is at the townhomes, the 23 A-2.Ql is the elevation, again, faci ng
shorter townhomes on the water, but we also 2 4 the bank, and it has, in black and white, the
stepped it back for the top two floors. 25 dimensions. It shows us how it really st eps
Page 228 Pa ge 230
And you can see there exactly how we 1 back along the water. lt notes where the
set it back and how we took care to have a .2 cladding of the Resi sta is, and it also shows
floor height, nine-foot eight, nine-foot 3 you where the existing bank is.
eight ·-the top of slab, top of slab, with 4 And then it goes up and above it and
an eight-inch slab only gives us nine feet 5 shows it in color because that's --that
clear. We didn't ask for ten feet inside. 6 flo ating brown volume is our gym that faces
We could have. It is fo ur residential i the secret garden.
floors, and what we are trying to do is have 8 Again, the secret garden, we have that
it as low as possible. 9 range, and that range, and we can get rid of
And you can clearly see --I showed 10 it all together. It just doesn't do us any
you the photo. When you enter Sunset Island 11 good. That is what we met with Stef about,
Number Four, the first house on the right 12 we met with the neighborhood.
hand side, it is 30-plus feet. I won't make 13 That garden is a vernacular massing
up a number for you because it meets base 14 that we use here in Florida for cross
flood elevation. You can do the math, 15 ventilation. It creates a beautiful
yourself. 16 landscaped space inside. It creates a green
And then it has a rooftop element and 1 7 environmenta l building with cross
it has a rail to it. So it is goi ng to be 18 ventilation, and it does not add to the
extremely close to my proposed four 19 massing. and that's what we discussed.
residential floors. 20 And by the way, the architects I met
Now, it sits on the setback of its 21 with for that was Chad Oppenheim --we sat in
property. 22 his back yard --and Bill Taylor, who are
That's where I go on·· p lease, if you 23 both very knowledgeable, very qualified
just give me one more second --and you can 21 architects with years of experience. They
see on Page A-2.o3. A-2.o3 has a black and 25 have given us comments before, and I was -·
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LL C
(305) 371 -76 92
5 (Pag e s 227 t o 230)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
l1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 231
and my developer said, "Please, if you have l
ideas and solution, give it to us, H 2
graphically, and so forth. "We will be more 3
than happy to implement." 4
And l even spoke to Bill Taylor a few 5
minutes ago. He had some comments, and we 6
will work those out because they are very 7
valid comments that we can accommodate. a
Sony to interrupt, but Page A· 1.05 --9
A-1.05 clearly shows that --how it is that I 10
set the building back. And specifically, you 11
can see· from the comer. 12
The comer is where the bridge and 1 3
actually the site is unique and bows out. 14
What we have done is we have held the line 15
straight and we have set it back. The 16
requirement setback is 20 feet, and you can 17
see that itself, is set back to 30 feet from 18
the canal, 37 feet, plus, from Sunset Drive, 19
and from the comer, as you meas ure it, it is 20
52. 21
And what that does is, it creates 22
vistas and view corridors that do not exist 23
right now. If you look at the landscape 24
plan, you can see that the existing 25
Page 232
single-story structure blocks the vistas to
the water. There is no accessibility to the
water.
Let me rephrase it. The stru ctures
that exist there right now are up to the
seawall. What we are proposing is to
demolish it, pull it back 20 feet, and
landscape it --make it a public promenade so
that you can have access.
So yes, are we compatible? Yes. We
are relating ourselves not only to the ex-
Gar Doctors and not only to single-famil y
residential in height, but al so we are
providing landscaping and setbacks at the
ground level and vistas and view corridors.
And again, you can look at A-1 .05. It
is a perfectly good example. The building
sets itself back.
And also, on the townh omes side,
meaning on the west side, we have that whole
landscaped garden area.
1 just want to point those items out
to you because you can see on the roof,.it
says, AC, AC, AC, and that's where the
mechanical is hidden, completely encased and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 23 3
enclosed, just like our parking.
And we did reduce our quantity of
uni ts --getting back to the parking --and
yes, I can have more parking because I can
simply expand my parking. So I am not short
on parking, and parking does not dictate.
But again, Kent is a lawyer, and
that's why I want to bring it to the record
that I can have more parking enclosed and
encased in this structure, and I can have
more density . But we have made a decision
together to decrease the density.
1 just want to talce you, please, for
one second, to Page A-1.03. And you can see
on Page A ·1.03 , which is the 4th floor, how
it is that we have pulled back along the
water and along the comer.
And you can see those striped lines
are the terraces, and I am just noti ng them
so that people who are not archi tects who
happen to be loo king at it can clearly say
and look and see where it is that we were,
and we did manage to pull it back.
And you can see the size of the units.
The size of the units on the water are
Page 23 4
bigger, and the units that face 20th Street
are substantially smaller, and you have the
sizes right there, and you can look at them.
Again, I just want to take you, if yo u
just give me one more opportunity, to Page
A-1.01. That is a plan that is on top of the
commercial. So you see the commercial is
below, and then we have pulled it back on
Sunset Drive to meet the R.M-2. You can see
on Sunset Drive, we pulled on the RM-2, and
then when we come to the comer, we pulled it
even more. And that's what we have done
since the last time we came here in front of
you.
You were asking me to pull it back. so
I pulled it--1 pulled it back in both
directions.
And you can see clearly that my
parking is encased and enclosed in between
the structure, completely.
And if you please just go to Page
A-1.00, it is important, because what was
noted between --what was pre viously approved
and what was previously submitted--I looked
at my staff review that I got, and in there,
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
{305) 371 -7 692
6 {Pag es 231 to 23 4)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
Page 235
there are actua lly eight and-a-halfby II
plans of the project that was previously
approved. JeffFalkanger was the architect.
And it clearly shows drainage on the property
ofthe World Bank. It clearly shows
circulation. It shows a lot of detail in it.
But what is interesting is, on my
project, on Palau, you can clearly see that
what we have done is we have created a green
space towards the bank with bike racks. We
have glazed the facade facing 20th Street so
you dop't see the cars. And that is
important, because the previous project that
was approved had the parking garage exposed
to the public right-of-way, both to the
single-family residential and both to the
public right-of-way on 20th Street. We do
not have that condition.
That building that was previously
approved was three tloors over two floors,
for a total of five floors. I have four
floors of residential facing, meeting the
base flood elevation criteria.
And you can clearly see on Page A-1.00
how it is set back with the bike racks, how
Page 236
it is that we meet the RM·2 setback of
26 feet and we are setting back.
So the compatibility of the size and
the scale·· I mean, the model shows a lot
because it clearly shows that this building
here --I can pull into the secret garden,
but I don't have a secret garden behind the
World Bank. All I can do is pull it back as
much as possible. Alii can do is lower it
as much as possible, and I have substantially
done so, and I have provided a vista and a
view corridor facing this way. And that's
very important because I have also opened up
the vista and view corridor here, aperture
here fac ing Sunset, and that is important to
understand because when you look at my s ite
plan, you will see that the drive --like I
told you, the bridge is on an angle looking
to the fountain.
And then you will see that [ have set
my building back on the comer and opened up
the aperture even more, so that when you are
in the public right-of-way, you will see the
building open up, and the aperture towards
the bridge.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
1 0
ll
1 2
13
l4
15
16
11
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
l 2
13
H
15
16
1'7
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
24
25
Page 237
So am I respecting the bridge?
Yes, I am; very much so.
And at the pedestrian level, you have
full access to the bridge and to the walk
along the promenade.
And if you are able to fly, and you ·
are 20 feet up in the air, you can clearly
see how the aperture opens up and how you
will start to see the vista of the park here.
That's why I think it is very critical to
understand that not only did we take it
seriously, the massing and the size --1
mean, this is a building next door. Thafs
what was approved. Whatever they did --here
it is, it is right here. It is sitting next
to my building. You can see it
And by the way, I didn't do it on
purpose. It just fell because it sat all
night in my car.
This is--this is what it looks like,
and it sits on the street. You can go there
and between this facade and this facade,
which is a beautiful glass facade by Publix,
I have compression.
What we have done is we have done to
Page 238
the commercial -and by doing the
residential, we have set it back. We have
set it back substantially on top of 20th
Street. We have set it back on Sunset Drive.
And we have even more so done it on the
single-family residential.
And this house right here is very
similar in height to my bouse --to my
building. And this house is closer to the
property line. It is closer to the public
right-of-way, and when I enter the island, I
see this even more so.
So can I make this building be a park?
That's not my mandate. My mandate was to
make this building the best that I can, with
the maximum amount of green space and public
spaces that I can. to make the circuJation
work the best that I can. And anybody who
has given me any comments, whether it was the
planning staff, the neighbors, the Planning
Board members--and by the way, neigh bors-
I went to neighbors. I got letters of
support from this house and Pardo, and 1 went
and got other letters of support from other
people.
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
7 (Pages 235 to 238)
1
z
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
1 4
1 5
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 239 Page 241
And I didn't ask anybody to com e here. 1 approve that admini str atively. So I want to
And this here is very important to z be sure that you address Tucker's concern ,
understand, that any comments that they have 3 which is a very good concern. This is what
given to us ··Bill Taylor just gave me 4 too often happens with some so many of the
comments about the stai rcase tower. He said 5 buildings we approve here. And once the
it should be treated in a certain manner. 6 mechanical engineer gets done, we end up with
I said, "Bill, that is a very good 7 incomplete mechanical forests up on top of
co mment. I will certain ly implem ent it." 8 otherwise beautiful buildin gs, that have a
And that Is the kind of input that has 9 very negative impact, and then the
been very positive. When I finished my 10 neighborhood has to look at them. So --
presentation, I said it has been an honor and ll MR. KARP: Yes, I a\:Cept that
a pleasure to work with your staff, to work 12 condition, and it is a go od condition. Thank
with the Planning Board and to work with the 13 you very much.
neighbors. And I have received great 14 MR. CARY: Thank you.
comments, and many of those comm ents, I have 15 Also, you may want to --you know, we
been able to accommodate--most of them. 16 spend a lot of time relocating the lobby-
And that's why it was a pleasure to do and l7 MR. KARP: Yes.
work in this project, which took a tittle bit 18 MR. CARY: --from Sunset Drive so it
longer than expected. 19 wouldn't have an adverse impact on the
I --ifl missed anything -20 residents of the islands, and the lobby is
Wayne, did I miss anything? 21 relocated from Sunset Drive to 20th Street.
Jennifer? 22 As well as widenin g the -· setting the
MR. PATHMAN: I will cover it 23 building back further along its pedestal to
"MR. KARP: Okay. I will sit down. 24 be able to provide 12 feet minimum of clear
MR. CARY: Kobi, I want to ask you a 25 sidewalk width in order to provide major tree
Page 24 0 Page 242
questi on, please. Tucker raised a point 1 pits so that we have major canopy trees to
relative to the rooftop elements, stair 2 further mitigate any adverse impact the
bulkheads, elevator bulkheads, whatever. 3 height of the building may have on the
You are aware that we have a condition 4 street. I don't know if you want to talk
in the staff report whi ch is recomm ended to 5 about those ••
the Board, a condition 2~C, which says the 6 MR. KARP: Yes, I do want to talk
rooftop excluding any canopies and stairwell 7 about that. And specifically, we did do
or elevator bulkh eads shall be further 8 that. And y(.lu can see on 20th Street, on
developed and detailed to include any and all 9 Page A-1.00-and we put that note in there
su<;h elements that may be proposed above the 10 of a 12-foot sidewalk, and the tree planters
main roof.deck and shall be lowered in height 11 is in there because we di d have meetings and
to the extent possible, subj ect to review and 12 comments of specific size of trees, and types
approval of staff. No rooftop elements that 13 of trees that were requested to be
are not explicitly shown on the roof plans 14 implemented in there, and we have agreed to
and elevations presented to the Board shall 1 5 that.
be approved at a later date by staff. 16 And yo u can clearly see als o how we
That condition means that if 1? have set it back, on Page A-1 .00, on the
everything is not on the drawings that are 18 ground floo r plan, and it has a 12-foot
befo re the Board tod ay, and when the permit 19 sidewalk.
drawings come in, and we find that you have 20 And furthermore , j ust so-sorry to
to have more rooftop mechanical enclosures 21 interrupt --one second --you can see on
and all of that, that has to come back to the 22 Sunset Drive where the gateh ouse is. We have
Des ign Rev iew Board for approv al. 23 notched it back to meet the RM-2 plus
MR. KARP: Yes, sir. 24 setback. And we have created there a whole
MR. CARY: We will not be able to 25 landscaped area with a public promenade that
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES,·LLC
(305) 371 -7692
8 (Pages 239 to 24 2)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
11)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 243
meets all of the shorel ine requirements; the
width, the benches, and so forth. The
landscaping •• and we have that as a
pedestrian promenade all the way along.
So our intent is to create it as a
public promenade, and create a landscape, a
buffer between us and the building.
MR. CARY: And also, you have met with
Cheryl Gold, as requested by the Planning
Board?
tvlR. KARP: Yes, and Cheryl had given.
us specific instructions of what it is that
she wants to have there and we have
accommodated it.
And if·· right, Jenn ifer?
Yeah, everything.
And I have also, from Andy Witkin, the
lWidscape architect here with us, as well.
Yes, we have absolutely been more than happy
to do so.
MR. CARY: Okay. And for the benefit
of the TV viewers who, you know, have not
received a copy of this e-mail from Cheryl
Gold, from Chery l Gold to Richard Lorber
dated September 28th, which is Friday--
Page 244
"Richard, we have reviewed the latest
landscape plan and we are encouraged to see a
vast improvement from the original plan.
"We appreciate staff's commitment and
ongoing work with the developer to achieve a
considerable increa~e of shade canopy in the
revision ofthe species selection."
She goes on to talk about the
elimination of parking spaces, which she was
also encouraged by.
So--
MR. KARP: Any questions? Any
suggestions?
I am here to assist. Thank you.
Thank you.
"MR. PATHMAN: I will try to be as
brief as pos si ble, but obviously there are a
number of things I need to address. I
appreciate the Board's indulgence because I
have to make a record on certain things, and
it is necessary, as this matter may
ultimately be appealed. So I will try to
move quickly.
First. I would like to say that in
dealing with staff, and not just Mr. Cary and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
Pa ge 245
Michael Belush, but with Mr. Lorber and other
memb ers, before I went to the Planning Board,
w~ sp ent a considerable amount of time. It
wasn't as if we just came in here and threw
some plans and filed them and didn't meet
with staff and didn't meet with the
neighborhoods; didn't, you know, hear or
consider all of the things you just heard, a
letter--or was it a letter read by Mr.
Cary --someone who was concerned about the
landscaping. As soon as we became aware that
that person was concerned about the
landscaping, we approached them.
And we have always bad a very positiv e
attitude. The developer has had a very
positive attitude.
And something that you should
understand is that this project is on
commercial property, and they would have a
right to go in and develop a conunercial
project. They chose not to. They chose to
develop something that they felt would be
compatible with the neighborhood, that would
help the neighborhood as it's becoming more
vibrant. And you see the resurgence of this
Pa ge 246
area, that it would combine both multi-family
and some small retail. And that's clearly
permitted.
And we are below the height that we
are permitted, 50 fe et We are below the
FAR, we meet or exceed the setback. We meet
or exceed the landscaping.
So when you look at staff's report -·
which 1 think, William, knowing how this
matter would be contested by the
neighborhood·· one neighborhood only, by the
way, there is nobody else here from the other
associations, or that has appeared --and so
you have the Sunset Harbour --or Sunset
Island Homeowners Association, and I
understand their concerns. We always have.
But we don't get any credit for all of the
concessions that we have made, and there were
many. But in looking at William's report, l
think he identifies many of them.
And I don't know how often you have a
report that says, "satisfied," or
"exceptionally satisfied."
And that's something that you need to
understand, because the law says that there
KRESSE & ASSOC I ATES, LLC
(305) 37 1 -7692
9 (Pages 243 to 246)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
5
j
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 247
is competent substantial evidence as
presented by the staff report. And that
report needs to be rebutted by anybody who is
protesting. I don't think you heard that
today. You heard a lot of hearsay. You
didn't hear any experts. You heard people
complaining. Yes, we knew that was going to
happen, but you don't hear anybody say -and
l have handed two cases to Gary --what the
standard is, the standard that you are
supposed to employ in evaluating this
process.
And I would like to just read this one
case into the record. It is a. district court
case out of the Third Di strict, and it says
as follows , it says--and I am just
paraphrasing·-that the applicable zoning
district --and that means the applicable
zoning code standards of review, wh ich we
have, as iden tified by staff--and by the
Planning Board's ratification of our
submittal to them and their unanimous
approval --if this is accomplish ed, then the
application must be granted, must be granted,
unless opposition carries its burden. Its
Page 248
burden is --which is to demonstrate the
applicant's requests do not meet standards
and are, in fact, adverse to the publ ic
interests.
Well, ~e have met all of the
standards. Staff has indicated we have met
all of the standards. There is a Sup reme
Court case that says the followi ng: "The
party opposing the appli cati on must show by
competent substantial evidence that the
proposed exception did not meet such
stan dards , and was, in fact, adverse to the
public interest. It goes on to say that they
"must show by competent substantial evidence
that the proposed exception " --this is the
important part ·· "does not meet the
published cri teria."
What does that mean?
Well, the published criteria is what
you are mandated to find when yo u make a
vote. It is what staff has give n you in
their report. It is what th e Planning Board
has already ratified and unani mously
affmned. So if you didn't find or hear that
today --which I don't believe you did --you
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 249
must find in our favo r . You must find that
comp etent substantial evidence that has been
presented by us, by staff, has not been
refuted.
There have been a couple of other
things that have been said through out the
day. One thing that I think is important·-
and I will take thi s out of order --but
Professor Le Jeune testified at the Planning
Board hearing. He was not here today. He
was an expert, I believe hired by Mr. Comras
or Mr. Kent Harrison Robbins, and they
referred to him today as if he was against
the project, or that he said things that it
was adverse to the neighborhood . I want to
read to you from th e record what he did say.
"My analysis is that the way the building,
the proposed building, the way it develops
its massing along the waterway and wrapping
around 1261" --which was the address--"is
an adverse impact on the Sunset --is not an
adverse impact on the Sunset neighborhood.
It is an impact" -meaning the Sunset
neighborhood, meaning Sunset Islands •• "it
is not an impact to the Sunset Island
Page 250
neighborhood. It is an impact on the other
side of the bridge."
So here was an expert that was
pro ffered by the other side, so to speak, Mr.
Comras, and he says -and he is somoone who
currently sits on the Planning Board . He
used to sit, I think. on this Board, and he
testifi ed and said under oath that there is
no imp act to the residential neighborhood.
And I have a copy of the tran script
here if anybody wants to see it.
I fmd that compelling. Why?
Be cause they don't mention it . They
didn't tell you that. They, in fact,
misquoted Professor Le Jeune.
And here Kent is now going to come and
take up my time and tell you someth ing else,
but the record is here.
And I would like to ftnish before Kent
interrupts me . I gave him that courtesy. I
would like that courtesy.
Do you guys mind for a second, please?
So that wasn't told to you. That is
totally disingenuous because you have someone
who you probably all know who sits on a Board
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 37 1-7692
10 (Pages 247 to 250)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page. 25 1 Page 253
here at the City and said the exact opposite 1 originally, the staff wanted the ingress and
of what was represented here today. 2 egress to the building to be on Sunset Drive,
You heard issues about code 3 but the association did not. We allocated
requirements and setbacks. Well, I am not 4 with staff, Planning Director Lorber that we
going to get into too much detail about that 5 wanted to move it to 20th Slreet, even though
because you h~ve the staff report, and it is 6 that's not what staff wanted.
a strong report . 7 We did that for the benefit of the
And I think. you all rely heavily on 8 residen ts on Sunset Island. That's just one
staff. You know that they are very 9 of the concessions which caused us to
qualified. You know that Mr. Cary is the 10 redesign, redo everythlng.
assistant director, and is very thorough, 11 We then internalized --and Ms. Tobin
esp ecially in an issue like this. This 12 can tell you that one of her issues when she
wasn't like something was a surprise, that we 13 was on the Planning Board was traffic
were going to have a long hearing today or 14 circulation; where are all of the cars going,
not have protesters. And I am sure he took 15 bow are you dealing with the cars, how are
that into consideration when he wrote his 16 you dealing with the traffic?
recommendation. And there is nothing in that 17 We have an excellent traffic plan. We
recommendation that says this project should 18 internalized all of the drop-off and all of
not be approved. Noth ing . 19 the pick-up for both the resid ents who live
I want to touch just quickly --1 20 there and the retai l. It is all
didn't intend to bring up Mr. Luria's comment 21 internalized, as well the trash pick-up.
about the pay for play. He brought it up. 22 We also have created an extended lane
But I have to make a record, unfortunately, 23 there so you are not blocking traffic for
and I am just going to comment on this. This 24 deliveries. And those will be regulated by
was a memo that was sent by them, by Mr. 25 time constraints, whether it is seven A.M. to
Page 252 Page 254
Luria, copied to all the Board members and 1 rune A.M., whatever the deliveries will be.
sent to my client, saying, "Here is our 2 We will work with 1256 on that. It is
conditions." 3 something that we put on the record at the
You can read it however you want to 4 Planning Board.
read it, I think the language is pretty --5 Again, I want to reiterate, competent
pretty clear. Okay? 6 substantial evidence . That is the standard.
No one put a gun to his head. No one 7 There has been none today. Not one expert
said to bring it up today. That was his own 8 testified to say that our project is not in
fault for bringing it up. But he brought it 9 keeping with the ne ighborhood, that it has an
up, and that's what we have been dealing 10 adv~rse impact, that our traffic is not -
with. 11 you know ·• study was not done correctly or
I don't think that this Board should 12 that our parking was a problem. Nothing.
condone that activity. I didn't like having 13 Not anything. A complete zero .
to deal with it, but that has been the 14 It was just statements, most of which
contention that we have had all along. H I would tell you was hearsay. For instance,
And we have tried diligently to work 16 Mr. Luria held up a piece of paper and said,
with the Board. I know a number of people 17 "I have a hundred signatures here."
that live on the island, and we have made 18 He didn 't indicate whether it was
many concessions, but not one person, not one 19 certified; diddt indicate whether it was
that carne up here said anything about the 20 notari zed; didn't indicate who the signatures
concessions that we have made. Not one. But 21 were. We don't know what they were told when
William can tell you, I can tell you, Kobi 22 they signed this, allegedly. We don't know
can tell you, my client can tell you that it 23 what kind of e-mail was sent out. No
is over 30, and they are significant. 24 establishment of any base for the
You know, just by way of example, 25 consideration of those signatures. Complete
~
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
11 (Pages 251 to 254)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 255 Page 257
hearsay. l explaining to you the detail on the project,
And you would think-and I expected 2 the overhang portion of those spaces, we
that after all of this, all of these hours, 3 could have put our building further out so
all of these presentations, that there would 4 that those spaces would not be useab le, but
have been something, that there would have 5 we didn't, because our property line goes
been something that they would have boo that 6 further into those parking spaces.
said, "Well, here is evidence of something. 7 But to be a good neighbor-· which he
Here is some documentation." 8 doesn't want to admit -we pulled the
But to the contrary. Everything they 9 building back beyond the property line and we
said, we refuted -every single thing --10 allowed him to use those spaces which we ace
with competent, substantial evidence, 11 not going to use. So he is goin g to have
including professor LeJeune's statement, 12 better use of those spaces than we are
including what the law says the standard is. 13 because we are not including them in our --
Mr. Conuas brought up issues about the H MR. LORBER: Can I just correct the
easement. He has a convenient memory, 15 record?
because I negotiated with him and his lawyer 16 The statement that ··
•·• who is not here today --those easements 17 Richard Lorber, acting Planning
to be modified. And at no time did he l S Director. Hi··
reserve unto himself anything, anything other 19 The City did not pennit what you just
than a 20-foot easement or roughly a 20·foot 20 said. Those spaces must be accessible, and a
easement on 20th Street. 21 proposal that did •·
He could have said, "Well, I am not 22 MR. P ATHMAN: Thafs what I am saying.
signing this because I want a view of the ·-23 MR. LORBER: No, you said, "We could
a corridor to the back." 24 do it."
And one thing --and I think the City 25 MR. PATHMAN: No, but what I am
Page 256 Page 258
attorney can opine on is --that the 1 saying, Richard, when we had this discussion,
exclusion of something doesn't mean it is 2 is that we could agree to eliminate the
included. It means it is excluded. 3 spaces altogether, but we also realized we
He didn't ask for it to be included 4 had this covenant, so we pulled the building
and therefore, he has no right to ask for 5 back so there is no conflict. there is no
this Board to consider it 6 issue.
And very speciftcally, through Mr. 1 He will have use of the spaces. We
Comras and Mr. Robbin s, what they are trying s are not planning on using them, at this
to get you to do with the nine spaces is give 9 point. They are not part of our required
them a windfall, take them away from us, give 10 parking. so he has the benefit of that.
it to him so he has a better value to his 11 :MR. LORBER: There would not be·· the
property. And one day, when his building is 12 City would not pennit the ground floor of the
tom down and he builds a five-story 13 developer-proposed building to encroacb
building -as he is entitled to •• he will 14 ·closer than the req uired back-up space
have the use of that area. 1 5 necessary for full use of those parking
Well, I would advise you as counsel 16 spaces that currently exist, regardless of
already has, you can't take the spaces from 17 any arrangements or ••
us. We are not us ing them. They are not 18 MR. PA THMAN : But you acknowledge that
part of our required parking, but you can't 19 that is part of our property, that the
take them. They are ours, and that would be 20 property line extends to -
a taking. 21 MR. LORBER: It very well may be.
And unless we agree with Mr. Comras to 22 MR. PATH.MAN : That is all.
revise the covenants, the only chance he has 23 MR. LORBER: But the previous site
of getting the spaces back •• but just so he 24 plan -the unfortunate previous site plan
understands, you understand -when Kobi was 25 bas those spaces and the City would not let
..
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
12 (Pages 255 to 258)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
12
13
1<1
15
16
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 259
any encroaclunent take away the usability of
those spaces, period.
Thank you.
MR. PA UlMAN: The --going on, the
covenants specifically are designed to allow
this to happen. The City attorney has given
you an opinion that was part of your package,
and in that opinion, it says the following:
"The application to the Planning Board
for conditional use approval was properly
such a request, and the subject matter of the
request is properly before the Planning
Board.
"As to Design Review Board
application, the subject matter of the
request for Design Review approval is
properly before the Design Review Board. I f
MAC objects to site plan modifications, the
subj ect matter of an application by Palau to
modify the site plan in the covenant in lieu
from a Cypress Bay project for the Palau
project is properly before Design Review
Board."
These opi nions do not reach the
sufficiency of clearness because that is a
Page 260
whole --another argument which Gary can tell
you , but that is not necessary for this
purpose.
It says, "Following Design Rev iew
Board approval, the site plan modifi cation --
it is not necessary to further modify either
the covenant in lieu or the declaration as
provided in the covenant in lieu, paragraph
five, or declaration, paragraph 6.13. An
'Order ·· a similar action of Design Review
Board can be executed and recorded to reflect
such change."
So the poi nt is that after you beard
all of these arguments and all of the things
that Kent was saying. and Mr. Comras , that's
not accurate.
What is accurate is the digestion of
all of those documents --which the City was
involved in back when they were ori gi nally
executed , and again was reviewed by them
before they were executed this past year and
recorded--gives you the power to do exactly
what we are here before you --approve this
plan, modify our site plan .
They are not adversely affected by our
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
1 9
20
2l
22
23
2 4
25
Page 261
site plan. They want you to beli eve that,
but the truth is, both parties, back when Mr.
Comras bought this property, knew what they
were buying.
These declarations were part of tbe
conditions upon which he bought the property .
He then had another bite at the apple to
modify them last year. He did He signed
it. and it was recorded.
And the staff is telling you in the
report that we have the right to add this
other parcel, to make a better improvement in
the neighborhood., to combine these two lots.
If you recall --and I don't know if
you •• it's in your package or not ·-but
Cypress Bay was the last developer of the
middle parcel, and they got a three-foot
height variance. They also had all their
parking facing the water, and not one
protester. Not one.
So here we come along with this
project -· it iS an excellent project, a lot
of detail, a Jot of time spent, a lot of
concentration on what the neigh bors want, not
just Sunset Island -we addressed the issues
Page 262
of the Sunset townhomes, the Sunset Harbour
buildings, the North Bay Road and so on, and
oth ers who had an interest in the area --and
everybody has welcomed us, other than the
Sunset Island Homeowners Association.
We believe that the project designed
by Kob i Karp and all of the things that we
have been asked to do and have incorporated
into our project •• many of them
voluntarily--it is not like it was a fight
over it. We said, "Okay . We wi ll
incorporate that."
Or, "Here is some of our own ideas" --
staff has embraced that. Not just the Design
Review Board staff, but the Pl ann ing staff
and the Planning Board. So we are batting a
thousand so far. We are three for three, at
least from staff and the Board, itself.
We--I ask you to consider that and
consider that when you are deliberating. as
well as the fact that no evidence has been
presented --comp etent, substanti al evidence
--that shows that we have deviated from the
required criteria.
Let's see --just bear with me for a
KRESSE & ASS OC IATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
13 (Pages 259 to 262)
1
2
3
4
s
6
1
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 263
second. 1 just want to review my notes. 1
I mentioned the variance. Again, we 2
are not using that variance, even though we 3
could have. We would have had an entitlement 4
~~~ 5
To show the good faith of our client, 6
who is the head of the project, he said, ''No, 7 •
we don't want any variances." a
We didn't seek the variances for 9
height, for density. We did the opposite. 10
We condensed. And I think that that is ll
something that you should seriously consider, 12
because we are outside or below our pennitted 13
footprint. H
Again, I want to reiterate the 15
importance of what the covenants really say 16
and what the City attorney's opinion says. 17
It basically telb you that we have the right 18
to develop our parcel independent of Mr. 19
Comras's parcel, and he has the same right. 20
I asked Mr. Comras at the Planning 21
Board hearing, "Would you agree today on the 22
record to agree to reduce your height and 23
density that you have a right to on your 24
property?" 25
Page 264
He said no.
But I asked him that because he was
pushing us to do it and telling the Board
that we should be doing it, and that we
should be required to have something less.
He had an opportunity to be "The good
citizen" and say, "You know what, I am going
to do it. I am going to commit to it today,
I am going to do something Jess than."
But the truth is, most likely --I
mean, I don't know. I am not a
·fo rtuneteller -· but his property will be
developed into something probably different
th.an what it is today. As that area
continues to evolve and emerge into a vibrant
area, I am sure you are going to see it a
different building than what is there today.
There was talk about unification. The
City attorney has already opined and we have
met with the City attorney after the Board's
approval --and it has to be in succession ••
you approve , you agree to allow us to modify
our site plan, we then submit probably a
covenant in lieu of unity of title to combine
our two parcels and we have a unified plan
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 265
that meets all of the code requirements, all
of the setback requirements.
There have been other comments about
working wi1h the neighborhood. Now, working
with the neighbor doesn't always mean that
you agree, but you try. And we did that. I
know that I attended at least ten meetings
with the Sunset Island Homeowners
Association; another half a dozen with other
associations; numerous ones wi1h staff. Not
for the purposes of banging our project
through and saying that, you know, "This is
the way it is going to be, or the highway."
It was to reach concession as much as
we could, to make compromise, and we were the
only ones who compromised. 1l was a one-way
conversation. We are the only ones who
compromised.
Just wrapping up •• Mr. Robbins had
intimated about me being a powerful and
influentia l attorney. I don't know exactly
where he was going for that, but I know it
wasn't a compliment.
And I can tell you that at no time did
myself, my client or anybody on this team
Page 266
ever approach anybody •• whether it was a
homeowner's association or staff or a member
of a Board --in any improper way or try to
use any improper influence. We had straight
discussions with very good and qualified
people like Mr. Cary , Mr. Belush , Mr. Lorber,
Mr. Hel d.
And this was a difficult project. It
is a difficult project, as far as
presentation. It is a beautiful project and
it belongs in the neighborhood. It belongs
where it is being built.
And you have staff recommendation, you
have a strong staff recommendation. You have
heard nothing that allows you --I mean, you
can obviously make the decision you want --
but there has •• no evidence has been
presented that says we are not within the
criteria or footprint that we are entitled
to.
And I think that the Planning Board,
too, had taken up many of these issues, not
necessarily directly design, but they granted
us the right to have more than 50,000 square
feet.
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305} 371-7692
14 (Pages 263 to 266)
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
l4.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 267
The mechanical parking -we made a
number of concessions, it was a difficult
process, a longer process than it was even
before this Board -at least so far --and
we got their approval and we got a unanimous
vote.
I also think it is important that when
you consider who was here today as far as the
residents, you should consider who was not
here. No one from the other associations
appeared against this project, and that would
be at least three other associations that I
am aware of that are in favor of this project
by their absence. And we have met with th em
and they said they have no objections.
And that should be considered, too.
It is not just about one neighborhood. It is
not just about their actions or their issues
with regard to massing. We have taken into
consideration over 30 different things to
create a better project for the neighborhood.
And this neighborhood, as you have
heard some way, is evolving . It is changing
and it is going to continue to change. But
--you already have on the south side of the
Page 268
bridge where our project is located, you have
a destination Publix. You have a new parking
garage that bas 30,000 square feet of retail,
which is a project I also worked on. You
have new emerging businesses that are retail.
You have the funeral home converting into a
restaurant cafe and shop. You have a power
station--it is not like this doesn't fit.
And we are in scale when you look at
the building-· and one of the things --I
just want to use this one board to
demonstrate --I don't think our eyes can see
over mountains or waves. You don't do this
with your eyes. You see what is in front of
you. And when you say, "mass," you either
see mass or it is not.
You heard people comment about the
Sunset Harbour townhomes, but I mean, they
don't ever talk about the buildings in the
back, the big ones.
And I mean, when you look at this and
if you look to this area here, your eye
doesn't look over this and then over that.
It sees the mass. Yes, there is a slight
break, but you see a 65 to 70-foot, rather,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 269
building, and they are telling you that
everything should be 35 feet or 33 feet.
The fact is, you already have
buildings that are much higher. And those
buildings, why they were able to do that is
they got a variance. Well, we can't get that
variance. So if we were to condense our
project, we wouldn't be able to seek a
variance to have more mass or more height
like they did at the Sunset Harbour
townhomes.
But the truth is, if you have driven
the area and you have seen those properties
from both the water side and the street side,
they are massive; three times, plus, more
massive than ours.
And so --in keeping with the
neighborh ood --I thinlc we are more than in
keeping with the neighbo rhood . And again, l
would just like to say that Professor Le
Jeune agreed, as did other experts on the
Board, the Plannin g Board, that this does not
have a negative impact to the neighborhood.
Thank you very much for your time, and
we appreciate your positive consideration and
Page 270
request you approve this project.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR GIBBS: Mr. Otainnan, can I just
have one minute?
Because there are some statements here
that I don't believe are accwate.
MR. PATHMAN; Are we going to go back
and forth?
MR. GIBBS: No, J just want one
minute, and that will be it.
THE CHAIRPERSON: One minute.
MR. GIBBS: Okay . I would like a
minute to rebut.
A reminder to the Board that this is a
continuation of the hearing on the 7th of
August, at which time there was pr ofessional
expert testimony provided by Mr. Mark
Alvarez, who dealt with issues of sight and
of the view corridors. And it is in your ••
it is in your packet. It was handed out, the
-· that material.
Number two, Dr. LeJeune actually
provided a letter--which was also presented
at the last meeting -in which he talked
about ·-"I can still •• I still consider the
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
15 (Page s 267 to 270)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 271
project to be excessively monolithi c for
mass, footprint and overall height. The
relation to the existing building is weak and
difficult to evalu ate."
And he goes on and makes a proposal to
reduce the height of the project by one floor
in the northeast section. And he goes on,
an d you have that in your record , too, that
was presented in the last meeting.
In addition, at the Planning Board
meeting, Dr. LeJeune specifically says that
"1 would suggest that the project be
redesigned in order to respond to the
residents' comments. I think that this site
needs --what the site needs woul d be
probably to develop as a townhouse to red uce
mass and scale."
Dr. Le Jeune was not a big supporter
ofthis project. You can look at the record,
and the record says that.
Thank yo u very much.
Tiffi CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
:MR. PA TilMAN: I would like to just
comment--I never said he was a supporter.
What I did say and the po int I was trying to
Page 272
make on the reco rd is there is no adverse
impact on the Sunset neighborhood, not on the
residential one.
That is all I was trying to make a
point of.
11ffi CHAIRPER SON: Thank you.
Do you need one more minute?
!VfR. ROBBINS: Just a minute.
I want to make it clear that as fa r as
your responsibility as members of this Board,
you have the author ity to use your expertise
to apply the criteria to this project. You
are not bound by a staff report. You are not
bound by a detennination by an expert of the
appli cant. You have the expertise, as an
expert Board, to consi der, weigh and make a
determination. That determination would be
upheld unless there is --unless it meets the
burd en of --a challenge is met --if the
. burden is met during the course of a
challenge. And nothing has been suggested
that it would be chall enged in that mann er .
Just --as far as Professor Le
Jeune ··Professor Le Jeune specifically
recommended in writing that you should
1
2
3
4
5
6
' 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 273
maintain the current height for the rest of
the proj ect, but open up the lower floor in
the area adjacent to the existing structure.
This can be done by removin g two
apartm ents and placing the building on a 15
to 18-foot pied a terre that would create a
view corridor to and from the isl and. This
strategy would allow to articulate the
buildin g in two clearly identifiable section s
and reduce its overall impact and masses, and
that, of course, would preserve the view
corridor, something that everybody recogni zes
is important, and not only the view of the
building, but the view from West Avenue over
the water to Sunset Islan d.
That is alii would like to say today.
I really appreciate all of the time
and effort that this Board has taken. I know
we have a Jot of experts and archi tects,
engineers, people that really have knowledge
in the area. and I am hoping that we have a
great discussion about what is appro priate,
what is compatible, and what we are going to
be seein g in this area of Miami Beach for the
next few generations.
Page 274
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR. PA THMAN: I want to be clear about
something. I just want to be clear about
something. I am not sayi ng th at Professor Le
Jeune was here to support us, but he made it
very clear ·-but they have not refuted --
even though two lawyers have come up here ·-
that it has no impact to the residential
neighborhood. That is what he said, on the
record.
THE CHA IRPE RSO N: We understand.
MR . PATHMAN: Thankyou.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
Okay. So at this time, we are going
to close public comment offici ally.
Okay?
Just before we get started with Board
comment, I do sincerely want to thank all of
you, whether you are residents or homeowners
in the area, legal counsel, clients,
applicant, etcetera, and of course, to my
fellow Bo ard members, thank you for --
everybody for taking the time and the effort
to be here and to voice your thoughts on the
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
16 (Pages 271 to 27 4)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
1l
12
13
l4
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pa ge 27 5 Page 277
project. 1 in the district?
I have gone .. been to many of these 2 MR. P A TilMAN: Or mo re, with --
meetings where I have al ways sort of ended 3 including all of the HOAs, but rough ly about
them saying that I am surprised when there is 4 ten --eight or ten with the Sunset Islands.
not comment or support, whether it is su pport 5 MS. HOUSEN : And did you have some
or opposition to a proj ect, when I see 6 positive support from the area, from -
single-family homes being built, or other ., MR. PATHMAN : Yes, that's why they are
projects . So in the sense of what this Board 8 not here protesting from the Sunset
can do and what these Design Review Board 9 townhomes, the Sunset Harbour buildings and
meetings are fo r, I appreciat e the 10 North Bay Ro ad association. Mostly, they do
involvement 11 not wi sh to be --to be involved, but they
And as a fe llow Mi ami Beach resident 12 had nothing negative to say and they were not
and as I can speak on behalf of my whole 13 here to speak again st the project.
Board, we take this process very seri ously. 14 MS. HOUSEN: Some of my concerns--
There has been a littl e bit of 15 and I will go over them one by one --the
discussion, maybe, about the fact that maybe 16 flood ing problem. I think Kobi said that's
we have not been reviewing things, or we have 17 going to be resolved when he puts in his
DOt seen things, but I assure you, we receive 18 underground work. Is that correct, that the
all of the documents that are available for 19 fl ooding is goin g to go away on that bridge,
public consumption, and we do read and review 20 or be modified?
all of the drawings and all of thee-mails 21 MR. KARP : Yes, Carol. Ri ght now,
and all of the reports. lt is qu ite a bit of 22 what ha ppens is there is DO drainage system
work. And we know that we owe that to --to 23 for the site, for the Mark's Dry Cleaners
the applicant and to the residents and to 2 4 and/or the job that stopped constru ction.
everybody in the City. 25 What we will do is we will have our
Page 276 Page 278
So -and I want to assure you that l drainage for our prope rty, and we will
everybody on the Board , including myself, 2 collect all of the run-off, and we have to do
takes this role very seriously. 3 so also by law. And that's what we can do.
I don 't know if·· I know one of our 4 Absolutely.
Board members has to leave soon, still--5 MS. HOUSEN: Okay.
Yes? 6 Maybe Kobi --you could explain this
Okay. Okay. I think it is going to 7 better . The view corridor from th e buil ding
·-I am looking forward to sort of hearin g e from the bank, which would be going east,
some of the comments that relate to the 9 north and east; is that correct?
design of the project. 10 Yes.
We, of course, have·· will take into 11 MR. KARP: Um-humm.
consideration everything that we have heard 12 MS. HOUSEN: Where --the side where
today, but J would like us to focus on what 13 your gymnasium is , o.nd •• are they going to
we can do, what the thoughts are in the 14 hav e--it looks like where the bike racks
design and what can be done, or what maybe 15 are--I believe it's set back quite a bit to
needs to be done to make this the best 16 leave those windows in an open space from the
project th at we can for this neighborhood. l1 bank . And I wan t to make sure I am reading
So ifthere is a volunteer from the 18 that correctly. I am looking at A-1.00.
Board that would like to start comment--1 9 You see, by the bicycle racks there,
Carol? 20 where yo u recomm ended putting greenery in
MS . HOUS EN: I will start. A coup le 21 between the two buildings here --
of questi ons and a coupl e of commen ts. First 22 I\1R. KARP: Yes.
of all, the question for Mr. Pathman. 23 MS. HOUSE N: --I am talking about
You said there have been about ten 24 view space here.
meetings, appro ximately, with different HOAs 25 I\1R. KARP: Yes.
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 3 71-7 692
17 (Pages 275 to 278)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
" 5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
1 3
l4
1 5
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 279
MS. HOUSEN; So this is all going to 1
be open to the bank? 2
"MR. KARP: Yes , and green space as 3
well; correct. 4
MS. HOUSEN: Okay. That clarified 5
that. 6
I had notes on your •• rooftop. 7
Just a minute. 8
On five, A-5, A-1.5 , is this accurate ~
to be all of your A C and what is going to be 1 o
installed on the roof, or is there additional 11
pieces that need to go up there for -12
MR. KARP: No additional pieces need 13
to go up there. 14
MS. HOUSEN; So A-1.5 is--is how you 15
are proposing it? 16
MR. KARP: That's correct. 17
MS. HOUSEN: It covers them all? 18
MR. KARP: That's correct. 19
MS. HOUSEN: Will there be cooling 2o
towers on the roof? 21
MR. KARP: No. There will be split 22
air conditioners. No cooling towers. 2 3
MS. HOUSEN: I think that is my only 24
question. 25
Pa ge 280
Thank you.
THE CHAlRPERSON: Thanks.
Leslie?
MS. TOBIN: Okay . So I have had the
privilege of hearing this project over and
over and over again.
rt-I have to commend Kobi --1
think from the first time I saw this project
to where it is now, it is --you have
addressed so many of the concerns that we had
in the Planning Board. You have addressed a
lot of concerns that I think as a Planning
Board we had, and individually, as we had.
I think the building does a great job
of breaking down the mass that was first
presented to us. When it was first presented
to us, it was one long elevation that
really --you know, for the Sunset Island
homeowners --did nothing.
I mean, you know, it--it has come so
far since then. I -1 have, you know, a few
comments that --that I have thought of as we
have been sitting here today.
I think --you know, it concerns me
that-it is ni ce to hear Mr. Pathman say
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 281
that there are the homeowners associations --
maybe not Sunset Harbour-· Sunset Island--
but Sunset Harbour and some of the others
that are in favo r. You know? And I don't ·-
I think it would be --
(Unintelligible from the audience).
MS. TOBIN: Okay. But th ey are not
here.
(Unintelligible from the audience).
MS. TOBIN: I watched the last
hearing.
MR. PA lHMAN : It is all hearsay.
MS. TOBIN: Well, you know, I wish
that--unfortunately, I wish there had been
som e here that were in favor, because I think
it would be •• it would be nice to hear that.
I think that, you know, in reviewing
the plan, l think what Mr. Luria sai d about
that corner unit, you know --that has been a
struggle that we have had from the beginning,
that first unit, the comer that comes from
Sunset Island coming out to -· over the
bridge.
You know, 1 know you stepped it back.
I know that you've--you know, you have done
Page 282
a lot of things. Part of me just feels like,
you know, to get rid of that top comer unit
could bring that scale down and maybe make,
you know --I mean, I don't want to design
it. I know that things --you know, that
there is a breaking point where you have to
have so many units in order to do it, but I
feel like if it could just be that one, you
know, so ins tead of four, you know, four
stories, it is three stories -· I feel like
it could reduce the scale. Thafs just my
feeling.
I also feel like --you know, some of
these comments that are made, you know,
regarding the setbacks that you have from the
World Savings Bank onto your side --I think
you all have done a great job of making those
setb acks along that side. You 're maintaining
the same setbacks that they already had to
use, and so I don't see why there is such an
issue, you know?
You are doing a two-story space there,
and then it is stepping back also. So I
think you guys have addressed that very well.
I feel like -· you know, as far as the
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-769 2
18 (Pages 279 to 282)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6 ,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 283
enclosed parking ·-I th ink it is a nice 1
thing that you are not looking at parking. I 2
think that th e secret garden is covering the 3
parking, and you know, for •• I wouldn't want 4.
to see a mass of a building that is all , you 5
know, one big. hu ge building. I would rather 6
see what you all have done in breaking it 7
dovvn. e
l think that--you know, I know you 9
can only do the best you can with the water 10
and sewer. I fee l like that who le area --if 11
I try to go to Publix on a day where we have 1 2
bad one of those flash rains, nobody can get 13
inandout 14
I don't--you know, I think that's 15
something that as the City , we need to try 16
and figure out how we can work on that. I 17
don't know if that's the Planning Board--18
but I feel that, you know, you have 19
accommodated-· you have moved that entrance, 20
like we asked you to. 21
You have done a lot of the things. I 22
thi nk, you know, where --1 happ en to real ly 23
like the diversity in that elevation where 2 4
yo u have got the Resista on the stairwell--25
Page 284
I do understand that it is kind of a mas s
when you are driving over from Sunset Harbour
-I mean, from Sunset Island, out, that
maybe, you know , where that--becau se that
is a new el ement that wasn't there before.
And you lmow, maybe there is something
that can be done to soften it. ] like •• r
like very much that •• the design of it. I
think the scale is very much in -· in line
with what's going on in Sunset Harbo ur.
I just think that maybe, yo u know,
just that one top corner unit, you know , if
anything. coul d be, you know, removed, scaled
down ··l don't know. It is ·-you know,
when I look at the proposed perspective that
you have coming over, that is the first thing
that I see . And so mayb e if it just cam e
down a little bit, it might help the
homeowners. I don't know.
But I think yo u have accommodated and
worked very well with, you know, everythin g
that has been thrown at you.
:M:R. KARP: I will just try to be bri ef
and discuss it This is the element you are
talking about he re, and I think that staff
1
2
3
4
5
6 ,
a
9
1 0
ll
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
Page 285
and I have spoken, and B ill Taylor as well,
that we are going to look at things to soften
it up substantially.
This ·-this comer right here that
you are talking about -· and I put this
rendering because it shows both si des. It
shows the buildin g, which is my proposed
comer, versus the proposed comer. And this
comer has to be taken in balance because
there is a park immediately again st it.
I wanted to take you --if you just
give me a second --to a sheet in the plans
that I subm itted to you, Page A --A-2.00.
And A-2.00 shows how the bridge
ascends up, and then it shows the two
residential units and how I set them back.
And you can see at the comer--and
if you give me a second, and you might want
to look at the model--it •• the come r--
we have set it back to the tune of 50 feet.
So this request to bring it dovvn in
height ·-originally, my building was
50 fe et. So what I did, since the P lanning
Board •• I brought it down four feet, and I
also pushed it back, so that I created that
Page 286
whol e green space in front there, Leslie.
So it became a·-I mean, when you
look at the plan of this thing, the corner is
not only set back from the face of the
building substantially, and not only from the
aperture of the bridge·· because when you go
across, yo u are looking down to the fountai n .
It is a critical corner for me. And by --
MS. TOBIN: And it has come so far. I
am not ·· you know, I am just merely stating,
you know, a thought of, you know-it is
hard to sit up here and see how far you have
com e, how much Ms been done , and still hear
so --I mean, four and a half hours of
opposition. You know?
And that's a -· you know, we struggl e
up here.
In terms of everything that you have
done, yo u know, you meet all of the criteria.
It is just very hard, you know--and I am -·
and I don't know that there is ever goi ng to
be anything that everybody is going to agree
on . I don't --I mean, sitting here and
sitting through the Planning Board, I don't
think that is ever going to happen.
KRESSE & ASSOCIAT ES, LLC
(305) 3 71-7 692
1 9 (Pages 283 to 286)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 287
You know, it was just a thought --and
trust me, I know how much you brought that
back. I know how much you have done that.
And I know what that --l know what is
involved in that.
You know, I don't know that I can give
anybody any solutions. It is just --you
know, it is just a thought.
MR. KARP: Thank you. But definitely,
al l of the iss ues that you have with the
staircase and so forth, for sure.
Absolutely. Thank you.
MS. TOBIN: Thank you.
1HE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Leslie.
J\.1R. CARY: Leslie , there is one thing
that he --Kobi and I had --had discussed,
you know, possibly considering on that--
that top flo or, northeast comer unit, was to
either eliminate or substantially reduce the
extent of the--of the roo f over the
terrace, to begin to pull back, you know, the
perceived mass at that point.
I don't know if that is something that
you think is worth looking at further. It is
one of the things that we have thrown aJound.
Page 288
I think it works extremely well,
successfully, the way it is right now,
arch itecturally, the way it is now.
MS . TOBIN: I do, too. It is just-·
it is like I said. It is just hard to hear
so much agai nst it. Like, you know, I ••
when you look at the perspective, that is
just the only thing I see that may be --
MR. CARY: Right.
MS . TOBlN: If there is even more a
way to soften it -·
You know, ifKobi reworks it, I wtll
leave that to him. But maybe that's it.
Maybe that is-· you kn ow, extends out so
far-·
MR. KARP: That is a good point, and I
--I think that we should certainly study
that. Absolutely. Because I think that
would push it back substantially, and-· from
that hori zontal cantilever, yes.
MS. TOBIN: Whi ch Frank Lloyd Wright
might not like, but ·-
:t--AR. KARP: He is my hero. I grew up
in Minnesota.
Yes, that is a very good point, and I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
1 2
13
H
1 5
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 289
think we should certainly entertai n it.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Seraj, would you?
MR. SABA: Hi. Good afternoon.
MR. KARP: Good afternoon.
MR. SABA: I would, in general, coneur
with the rest of the Board. I think it is a
very attractive building, stylistically. I
think it is going to be very nice. It does
set itself apart from the townhomes that are
next to it, and I think that's -· that's a
plus.
I have one comment, or actually, a
question about the large space on the
north east comer. It was-it was quite a
point during your presentation that there was
a lot of public access all the way aJOund,
and I tho ught that r heard somebody somewhere
say that th ere was a plaza on that comer
next to th.e bridge.
MR. KARP: If you look on Page
A-1.01 --
MR. SABA: Yes.
MR. KARP: Wbat we have done is we
have taken the sidewalk and then we continued
Page 290
the sidewalk, obviously, outside of our
property, so it is buffered by the
landscaping, so that the drive coming off of
Sunset Island has a green landscape buffer of
bushes and trees and so forth.
Then there is a wide sidewalk, and
then it comes to our property.
What we did th en is pulled into our
property, our walk, which then lets you walk
on our property to a plaza tennination where
there is a bench, make a left, meaning go
westerly, walk along the water.
So now you have views and vistas for
the public all the way along the water, the
whole length of the property, with benches
every so often, with trees, so it is shaded.
And it really face s north, so it is kind of
nice.
And you wa lk all the way along the
water . Wben you come to the end of the
property, meaning all the way to the west,
where you come to the property line adjacent
to th e townhomes, that's where we have a 25,
26-pl us foot setback. There, we cre ated
another plaza park with benches and so forth
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 3 71-76 92
20 (Page s 287 to 290)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 291
where people can sit.
If sometime in the future there is an
opportunity where another building will come
in, instead of the World Bank, I am sure that
there will be a continuation to bring it back
to the public right -of-way on 20th Street.
MR. SABA: So we are talking about --
I mean, maybe a ten-foot large plaza with a
bench?
MR. KARP: Yes. I would say that it
is about-·
MR. SABA: It is not really that --
that large, but 1 mean --I thought --when I
heard it, I thought it was, like, a lot
larger, because there is a big open space
there. But most of that open space is a
private garden?
MR. KARP: Yes.
MR.. SABA: Is that correct?
.MR. KARP: Seraj, I understand where
you are going, and it is a good point. And
certainly, now there I have a 50-foot -l
have basically a 30-foot landscaped square.
I can certainly enlarge it and make it a more
--a more--
Pag e 292
MR. SABA: And is there going to be
anything that is in that space that is going
to be blocking the view corridor as you are
coming up Sunset?
MR. KARP: Just landscaping.
MR. SABA: A fence there?
?vffi.. KARP: Just landscaping.
lvffi.. SABA: No fence, no walls,
anything in that space?
l\1R.. KARP: By code, I would have to
put a picket fence, you know, because of
shoreli ne requirements and so forth, sunset
to sunset right, accessibility so people
don't go back there --because we have to
maintain it, and --and take care of in
perpetuity.
But certainly, I will be more than
happy to study the opportunity to enlarge
that area for security purposes, yes.
MR . PA THMAN: It is a standard
shoreline requirement.
TilE CHAIRPERSON: Is this open to the
public during certain hours, and at night,
the gate is closed?
l\1R.. KARP: Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
11
1 8
19
20
21
22
2 3
24
25
Page 293
THE CHAIRPERSON: But that's how the
bay walks are.
MR. KARP: Yes. Yes, absolutely.
MR. SABA: No. I mean --you have
pushed it bacl:: significantly in that -in
that comer, and you know, tlie building being
pushed back so much --I am just -it would
be a shame if, you know, you pushed your
building back, but then there was some, you
know, other element there that blocked the
view corri dor as you are approaching the
bridge. That's my concern. So l think
that's a very important point that was made
there.
MR. KARP: r agree.
MR. SABA: My only other comment is -·
you --you know that there was one -· well,
there was, I guess, a few requests that we
made the last time, and one of them was that
--was that the developer meet with the
association. And it is sort of disappointing
that that didn't happen, because I think that
bad that happened and we still were looking
at the same project here, and everything
being the same, you know, maybe we wouldn't
Page 294
have had so much animosity that we had this
morning. You know? Maybe it would make our
decision a little bit easier. But
unfortunately, that didn't happen. And so we
also have to take that into consideration.
I - I -· that doesn't sit real well
with me, that we asked for a simple meeting
to happen and you know, had you guys had a
meeting and couldn't work things out, and
then still came back here, I think that would
have been a big difference. But
unfortunately, it didn't happen, for whatever
reason . And the reason isn't really that
important, but it could have happened, and it
didn't happen.
MR. PATHMAN : Ifl could just quickly
comment ·-we wanted to meet. You know, my
client contacted-
(Unintelligible from the audience.)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Don 't lie,
Wayne. Don't lie, that is nonsense.
Tiffi COURT: Okay, okay. We got it.
We got it.
MR. P A TilMAN: The point is that we did
try. My client can ·-he has the e-mail, if
KRESSE & ASS OC IATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
21 (Pages 291 to 294)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
e
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
1 0
11
12
1 3
l4
1 5
16
11
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pa g e 295
you want to sho w it -· 1
THE CHAIRPERSON : We have seen it. We 2
know it 3
MR. PATIIMAN: We tried. 4
THE CHAIRPERSON : We know all of the 5
details. 6
MR. P A THMAN: And we had many 7
meetings, and I am sorry that we couldn't a
meet again . ~
MR HELD: Mr. Chalr --l o
THE CHAIRPERSON : Yes, Gary ? ll
MR. HELD : I noticed during the 12
conversati ons that there is no conditions 13
dealing with an easement for public access on 14
the waterfront walkway, and I drafted one and 15
can read it into the record, either now or 16
whenever you are ready. 17
MR. PATHMAN: Gary, that would be 18
required of shoreline-19
MR. HELD: Sorry --20
MR PATHMAN : When we go to shoreline, 21
they will require us to . 22
MR HELD: Well. we will also add 23
some1hing that says the applicant shall 2 4
execute and record in pub lic records an 25
Page 296
easement, subject to the approv al of the City l
attorney, providing for public access over 2
its waterfront walkway before the iss uance of 3
a building pennit." 4
THE CHAIRPERSON: Right , between th e 5
hours of sunrise and --6
MR. CARY: Sunset, is what our normal '
condition reads. B
MR. HE LD: Yes. We will incorporate 9
that into the text of the easement. 10
MR. PATHMAN: Okay. Okay. 11
Thank you, Seraj. Any other landscape 12
issue. 13
That you see now that that •• 14
MR. SABA: No, th e landscap e plan is 1 5
really well done. 16
Another •• another point to me --and 17
I think we did ask for the building to be set 18
back along 20th Street, which they did, and l 19
think that whole streetscap e there is --you 20
know, is really improved. 21
I think, you know, they did mo st 22
everything that we asked . 23
No other comments. 24
THE CHAJRPERSON : Thank you. 25
Page 29 7
Lilia?
MS . MEDINA: Yes, thank you.
I think the project has really
benefitted from a lot of the discussion, the
meetings, the •• the Planning Bo ard
conditions have been met in most part except
for the parking spaces on Sunset Drive that
is --that's so methin g that still is an issue
with Public Works.
I don't have any concerns about the
discussion by MAC, and I think th at the
building has been pulled back adequately.
I think that the view corridor, now
that it has been clarified on the west side
where you hav e 26 feet of easem ent, will be
helpful to have that West Avenue end point.
I do beli eve that the Sunset Drive
view corridor has been met at the angle that
it is.
I have one questi9n that I perhaps am
--misunderstood from Tucker Gibbs' comments.
Was there a mention that the.re was an
elevator shaft on the north side of the
building?
Or--not sure?
Page 29 8
You might have said that , Tucker, and
I am not sure if that's true or not.
MR. GIBBS: Let me come up and speak.
Yours is bigger.
Yes, I was looking at the -· there is
an elevator lobby, lt says, towards the north
side, behind that --behin d the •• this unit.
the unit in the northeast comer.
There is an ele vato r lobby and there
is the stairwell at the same general
location.
There is also a stai rway --I don't
know if that is just the stairway up from the
unit below, or --to the roof, but there is a
stainvell up at the one on the west side.
Those are the two --I think there are
a coup le in the back towards the secret
garden.
MS. MEDINA: But there are not any on
the north side?
MR. GIBBS : Yes, it is on the northern
portion of the --
MS . MEDINA: But it is not really
facing totally onto the waterway?
MR. KARP: No . It is on -it is
KRESSE & ASSOC I AT ES, LLC
(305) 371 -7 692
22 (Pages 295 to 29 8)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
e
9
10
11
l2
13
14
15
16
l7
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 299
specifically --he is on Page A-1.05, and he
i s referring to -you see, see grid line
number two.
And right behind that, correct, is a
staircase --an elevator and a staircase.
And what happened-if the building
is 40 feet high and if it is set back from
the property line about 40 feet --which it
is, and more, you --that's why that section
that we drew shows that it is completely
hidden behind there.
And I can show it to you again. But
--I am sorry. So what we did is we set the
staircases and the elevators all the way back
to that grid line two, would be behind grid
line two so that it would not very visible
from--
MR. GIBBS: Ana that was our concern,
only that it not be visible from IV.
MS. :MEDINA: Thank you.
I think, again, the project has
benefitted fro m a lot of changes, but on the
other hand, I am concerned about so many
folks from Sunset Isle.
This has been going on for a while,
Page 300
since November, and you know, to me, it is
very important, public corrunent. r am going
to be a little bit more drastic than just
looking at the northeast comer unit. 1
believe that maybe the planning--that the
Design Review Board and maybe the staff would
consider --and I know th is is a financial
impact on the project, but in line with the
ex.isting townhouses on the north side, if the
project could be redesigned to remove one
line, one floor of units on the north side.
So-
MR. KARP: Are you asking me, Lilia,
because ··
MS. MEDINA: That is my suggestion, to
look at that.
!'viR. KARP: That is a good question.
And if you look at the model right here--
and again, because these townhomes back here
go to 60 feet, 65 feet on 20th Street --70,
at the peak. and on the waterfront, they are
20,25 feet.
And you can see in this photo right
here that not only are we in context, and not
only are we compatible to it, but also you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
l1
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 301
can see that by setting it back and reducing
the height as we did --because our height is
shown to you on Page A 300.1, and you can see
the pink townhomes on the front, and you can
see the pink townhomes in the back --and we
are rigl1t here.
This is the unit that ycu are talking
about, and it is within the setback. If you
were to stand on the other side of the
waterway and look across --and that's why we
removed all of the staircases and all of the
elevators , because we had this element on our
roof. We removed it. We stepped it back
substantially. You can see how much we
stepped it back right here.
And we have also reduced the height to
nine feet clear and --nine feet clear. And
the house that I showed you on the other side
of the water is -has substantially more
height.
So I -I like to be pos itive on what
it is that 1 can do and jump on the other
side, but my structure here clearly states
from floor to roof is 39 feet, ten inches.
MS. MEDINA: And how does that compare
Page 302
--how does that compare with the townhomes,
the lower buildings?
MR. KARP; To the peak over the
townhomes --yeah --
Let me just be conservative, Ms.
Medina. Let's say that my building is
40 feet, and the townhomes to the peak is
33 feet. So the difference is the seven
feet, right?
But you see the pink here?
The townhomes are closer to you. So
what I did is I set it back, the first two
floors, and I brought them down two feet.
And then I took the top two floors and
I set them back another ten feet Ten feet
is three steps back.
And all of those actions were done in
order to accommodate what it is that we are
talking about, about height, becau se we are
not only in context of the townhomes in the
front, we are also in context with the
townhomes in the back.
You do not see just the front ones.
You also happen to see the ones in the back,
because it is important to understand that
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
( 3 0-5 ) 3 71-7 6 9 2
23 (Pages 299 to 302)
1
2
3
4
s
6
..,
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
1 1
1 2
13
14
1 5
16
l?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 3 0 3
you see it in three dim ension. So that's why 1
I took a three-dimensional photo and I took a 2
section that clearly shows --because this 3
happens across from the park. It happens 4
across from one, two and-a-half homes right 5
~~ 6
And that's why I took that action, 7
because I couldn't push it back anymore and I 8
could not pull it down anymore. 9
And you can see in my plans --I have 10
two separate cores; one for the units on the ll
water, which are bigger and lower and set 12
back, and I have the other one for the units 13
on 20th Street. 14
And those units have the rooftop 15
elements and they have higher clearance. 16
They are 50 feet in height 17
And that's why we took this action, 19
and that's what is important. 19
So to Jose another floor doesn't 2 o
achieve as much as what we have achieved here 21
with your staff over the past six months of 2 2
pulling down, pulling back into the proj ect 23
--and by the way, nine feet clear in sight 24
--by the time you put the air conditioning 25
Pa ge 304
and the mechanical systems --I pulled it as
low as I can . I didn't play aro und with it
I said, this is as low as I can go, and
that's what I di d.
And by the way, because you were
talking abo ut the neighbors, when I went to
the Planning Board, I look time --because
they are also my neighbors-· and I went
around and I spoke to the neighbors and I met
with the neighbors. And I wanted to see what
the comments were. I met with the neighbor
who lives in this here, and they have given
me letters of support and so forth.
But I want to continue to work with
comments.. And as I told you, Bill Taylor,
who lives in the house right here, came to me
this morning, said, "l looked at the plans
and I was thinking about the staircase," the
5ame as what Leslie has just said.
"Maybe we can make it less massive.
Maybe we can make it more open. Maybe we can
--because it is a low rise. It is not a --
even a midrise ."
And we can do that, and we can work
with staff on that. Absolutely. Why not?
l
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
l4
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 305
We can do that .
And thos e are positive rem arks,
absolutely, that don't affect the project in
a way that you are thinking about, because to
remove a floor off of it doesn't do the
effect that you want it to.
What we did is, when we were closer -
and that's what was being referred to by
Leslie -· we were closer to the water, we
were in the same line as the townh~mes. And
we said, "Let's pull it back, and let's pull
it back not only for the first two floors,
but let's pull it back for the second two
fl oors."
And then you asked me about the
elevators. And the elevators sit over here .
That's that little cube sticking up. And you
see how it is below the red?
I could have made it taller . I didn't
do that. I don't play those games. I wanted
it to be as slim and as low as I can.
And that's why I pushed it back. l
didn't -you know, Willi am and I sat down
and we said, "Let's just push it back."
We also said, "How about here?"
Page 306
You see, this is what Leslie just
said. "This eyebrow here --in perspective ,
if you get rid of that eyebrow--it is like
a hat that sits. If you get rid of it, it
will look better."
And that's why I right away said,
"That is a valid point. Let me jump on
that."
That's --just like Seraj said to me,
"You know, Kobi, you have all this big,
green, open space here ."
I. have this big, green, open space
here that does not exist right now.
"Why don't you use it in the more
proper fashion, make something out there ?"
And right away , I will jump on that.
I will say yes to those things. That is very
logica l.
Sorry about the long answer.
MS . MEDfNA: It is obvious that you
have done a lot of modifications and you have
a setback that is pretty substantial on that
north side.
l think, you know, overall, the design
is very good The materials that are being
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(3 0 5) 3 71-7 692
24 (Pages 303 to 30 6)
1
2
3
4
~
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
11
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2.
25
Page 307 Page 309
used is --is very modem and pleasing to the 1 the neighborh ood, this is really the best
eye. 2 that we can do.
The setbacks, the bay walk or the 3 And yes, you can tell me to lob off a
canal walk, the corridor -· sort of the 4 unit and you can tell me to lob off a floor,
ability to have all--cafes ··all of that 5 but it is not right. 1 am already below the
is really pedestrian amenities that I am in . 6 FAR. I am already below the height. I
favor of. 7 already have the parking that is required,
I am still concerned, though. I mean, 8 and there's going to be an ordinance where I
you know , as far as the Sunset Isle 9 do not need to provide it, but I provided it.
neighborhood, this is a substantial number of 10 And I could have circulated on 20th
folks that have come out, time and time 11 Street. I could have circulated on Sunset
again. So--12 Harbour. But I had people on Sunset Island
MR. KARP: And Ms. Medina, I will take 13 who said to me, "Kobi, we want to get off
it a step further. We met before, and you 14 that island in an emergency vehicle, and we
know, some of the suggestions were "Why don't 15 don't want to have ·-not an entry or an
you take a floor off on the water, and why 16 "outsie" to the project We don't want
don't you put it right here?" 17 anyth ing stopping the emergency vehicles."
You know, "Why don't you just take 18 So we took it off completely. I took
this right here and locate it here on the 19 it off completely. There is no entry at all
back," right ? 20 of any vehicles from tbe side. And not only
Well , that would mean that I would 21 did I then move it away, I moved it all the
need to go in for a variance and a hardship. 22 way.
And this code was set by the public and by 23 So to •• to comply with all of those
the officials who looked at this and said, 24 requirements, whenever a corriment like that
"Do you know what, make it 50 feet high. 25 came, we pushed it way back. If yo u look at
Page 308 Pa ge 310
This is what we want at the entrance. • 1 the model and you come to the plaza and you
There was a building here approved 2 see on this comer, how this comer relates
with a height variance, with expose d parking, 3 to this comer, not on ly is it shorter, not
with commercial and residential. So not only 4 only is it set back, not only is there a
did I step up to the plate and meet all those 5 public promenade, there is a public view of
conditions, but we have greeted them and we 6 200 feet long that people can walk. They
have set it back. That's why I have such a 7 cannot walk now, and never could, even if
nice staff recommendation for approval. 8 there was commerci al, because it wouldn't
And if 1 can go for a variance, \) have the setback. You can only do that
somebody will oppose that variance. For 10 because you have a resid ential project.
sure, somebody will oppose thai variance. 11 And because you have a residential
And I will take that square footage and I 12 project which is complementary to the
will put it here ·· thafs not going to •• 13 residential program here and here •• this guy
that's the problem that--and the 14 built a 30, 35 feet for his house. I will go
discus sions that we had also with the 15 measure it with you happily. This guy is
Planning Board. Those things came up before. 16 going to be demolished one day. Guess what,
And that's why I feel that everything 17 he is going to be.
that has been requested from me from the 18 And this guy has already demolished,
Planning Board and from the DRB •• and that's 19 and his height of the ceilings are 12 to
why Leslie says •• it is an overhaul of the 20 14 feet. And this will be demolished. They
project. That's why I stood here and I said 21 are all being built the same way.
to you it is a pleasure and honor to be here, 22 So if they are being built at 33 or
it is a much better project. 23 3 5 feet, and I am being built at 40 feet, and
And can I make eve rybody happy? No. 24 I am in a commercial use next to 65,70 ••
But within the code and the req uirements and 25 next to 75 feet --and that's why I stepped
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
25 (Pages 307 to 310)
~
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 311 Page 313
it back That's why I created that element, 1 properties across the waterway -that was a
and that's why I come before you. 2 point of very major discussion by the
So if to Jo b off a fl oor was a 3 Plann ing Board, and essentially , the standard
solution, Ms. Medina, it would have been 4 the Planning Board established was that when
done. But it is not the solution. 5 you were in the rear yard of the
.MR. HELD: Mr. Chair, I just have to 6 singl e-family residences across the waterway,
make a comment about the significance of 7 that there be, essen tial ly, no less sky
either the number of people who come out or 8 visible above the new project than there is
the presen ce or absence of a homeowners 9 above the existing townhouses project. So
association or not. 10 that is why, yo u know, staff specifically
This is a quasi-judi cial hearing, and 11 asked Ko bi to go through this very , you know,
yo ur deci sion has to be based on the evidence 12 exacting process of producing these drawings
that is presented and the criteria in the 13 that you see on sheet A·3, you know, .300.1,
cod e . And while, you know, passions have 14 which compares the amount of sky that is
been high and there is a lot of opini ons 15 abo ve that line.
about whether this is a good project or not, 16 And that is what--he literally based
you really have to examine the p lans, take 11 his setback, in setting back the top two
the legitimate, competent, substantial 19 floors of the new project, was that you would
evidence that has been presented and make a 19 have an equivalent amount of light and air
decision . 20 and sky visible so that someone in a home
You know, there are other classic 21 behind the new proj ect is not deprived of any
statements that zoning--you know, can't be 22 more sky view or light or air than is
assi gned --or you know, and I read the 23 deprived of that if they were behind the
statement at the beginning about wh at 24 townh ouses. That is the way that that sky
competent s ubstantial evidence is for citizen 25 view order was established, and that's why
Pa ge 31 2 Page 314
testimony. It is fact-bas ed. It is not just 1 the Board --why the Planning Board and my
opinion. 2 staff, you know, has not requested or
And you have to make your decision 3 suggested that an add itional floor be
based up on the facts that are presented, and 4 removed.
not the num bers of peopl e. 5 We have already bad those units pushed
And as a matter of fact, I often 6 way back into what the secret garden space
comment when a co ndi tion is proposed , you 7 was going to be. It has been substantially
know, it is subject to the neighbo r, or 9 redu ced by probably 15 feet, 1 would say, in
something like that--th at's considered an 9 width .
illegal, unlawful delegation of authority . 10 Kobi?
You have to mak e a decision, not the 11 MR. KARP: Yes.
neighb or. 1 2 MR. CARY : In order to be abie to
TilE CHA IRPERSON: But if the Board 13 acc omp lish that.
feels, for instance, that there is something 14 I f the Board thinlcs maybe it needs to
with the context of the way the form the 15 be back further, then maybe it needs to go
overall building is doesn't relate to the 1 6 . back further.
existing context, that's a valid reason for n I mean, those are some of the iss ues
us to make an adjustment or a recommen dation. 19 that are up for more discussion .
MR. HELD: Right. That is a design 19 (Unintelligible comment from the
issu e that yo u are making a an info nned 20 audience.)
judgment on, as an app ointed Board member. 21 MR. HELD : First of all, it is
Tiffi CHA IRPERSO N: Okay. 22 imp roper.
MR. CARY: Lilia, ifi could just 23 Secon d of all , it is not on the record
comment on your concern relative to the view 24 because it is not in the microphone. And you
corridor from the sin gle-family residen tial 25 can only come up to 'the microphone at this
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
26 {Pages 311 to 314)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
2 3
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pa ge 315
point if you are invited to by the chair. l
THE CHAIRPERSON: Lilia? 2
MS. MEDlNA: I think you have 3
clarifi ed it, Kobi, and thank you. 4
:MR. KARP: Thank yo u. 5
THE CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon. 6
l\.1R. MfNAGORRI: Good afternoon. 7
As a president of an HOA mysel f, r a
appreciate what you and yo ur HOA have done 9
here today, and I take your comments very, 10
very seriously because we deal with this man y ll
times. And we really, really come together 12
to see how it is going to really affect the l3
-· the neighborhood. We just don't have as 14
many docto rs as you do , in our neighborhood. 15
But thank God, we are not elected 16
officials. Otherwise, we would be in trouble 17
here today, because you guys h.ave a very 18
stro ng supp ort for what you are asking for. 19
Having looked at that, I would say 20
that from looking at the photographs here on 21
Page A-0.07 , where it shows the empty garage 22
and the dry cleaning building that I don't 2 3
know how long they have been there·-I would 24
really be in a crying mode, because that is 2 5
P age 316
even more horrible, horrible to look at than
the Sunset townhouses.
So I mean, to --to say that thi s is
•• that nobody has ever complained about
this, or that this is something that the
homeowners association is not head over heels
try ing to either destroy these buildings or
make it into a park -· I don't live on the
island. but it just seems like just an
eyesore.
And ·the fact that you have a few homes
that have a direct line of sight to these
buildings--
But on the other hand, I hear Leslie,
who has been part of th e Planning Board, and
is now on our Board, and I hear, you know,
corrunents from --from my colleagues who are
very professional and have been part of this
whole process. And it seems that, Kobi , you
have done a fantastic job of kind of really
tweaking it and makin g all of the adaptations
so that number one, so that it is legal, it
meets code , it is within compliance.
So you can't satisfy everybody, but I
think if you look at that comer that Leslie
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 317
and Seraj were talking about and see how we
could smooth that so that maybe that comer
that is a little bit more of the show point
of the building as we are leavin g ··
I understand that home that is over
30 feet right at the comer there, and I also
understand that you have all these other park
areas around· it. But the truth of the matter
is that -you know, fo r me, I think that
this is a project that has been already
really studied, dissected with a microscope.
I have never seen so much detail and so many
hours spent on a project as the attorney had
explained, al l of the meetings that have been
happening before it comes to us. But as the
Design Review Board, I like the project. 1
like what I see.
And I think that based on-on the
parking -· I think that's part of the
massiveness of the proje ct, because you have
brought in the parking to the first level, to
the ground level, and the way that it is
spread out ·-I mean , you are obviously
taking all of the square footage that you
have brought, to bring the building, but you
Page 318
have wrapped it around the bank an d you have
done it in a way that it just seems to have o.
·-a nice pedestrian flow. So I, for one, I
like what I see, and r hope that we could all
make a decisio n today to move forward with
it.
MR. KARP: Thank you, Mi ckey.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mickey.
Just some quick architectural
questions, first.
Sheet A-!. 05 --thi s is the roof plan
again. Just really qui ckly, the units that
face the canal ·-they •· the access to those
roof terraces, it happens from that public--
th e corrid or that is to the south of the
units?
There is no internal stair that takes
you up from the un it up to the terrace; is
that correct ••
tviR. KARP: Correct.
THE CHAIRPERSON: -· on tnose units in
the back, around the canal.
MR. KARP: Yes .
THE CHAIRPERSON: And when I am
looking on that roof plan again, there is a
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
27 (Page s 315 to 31 8)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 319 Page 321
•• there is a dashed --dark dashed line that 1 four.
starts sort of on the south, and the east 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: And when I look at
side, { see there is an arrow, concrete 3 sheetA-1.00, around the adjacent --A-1.00
canopy above. That concrete canopy is only 4 •• excuse me, around the adjacent bank
occurring on the south face and two-thirds of s building, the setbacks -· I am seeing it says
the east faee; is that correct? 6 a zero.
l'v!R. KARP: Yes, that is true. 7 Technically, there is a-· there is no
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And those 8 setbacks that are required around those two
units on those two faces do have stairs that ~ lines, the north/south running line and the
connect their unit to the private roof 10 east/west running lin e?
terrace--11 MR. KARP: Yes, but we do hold back
MR. KARP: Yes. 12 the building five feet--we hold it five
THE CHAIRPERSON: --internally. 13 feet so that we can landscape that area over
MR. KARP: Yes., that's true. 14 there.
THE CHAIRPERSON : Sheet L-1 --it is 15 TiiE CHAIRPERSON: I think there is a
the last sheet in our packet, the landscape 1 6 walkway that runs north/south. Is that
plan. The·· the ground floor garden on the 17 right?
west side, that's --the west side, right? 19 MR. KARP: So along the property,
Even though the •• 19 along •• you see where it says "electrical
MR. KARP: Left is west. 20 room" and "loading spaces"?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. The 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: I do.
arrow is going -· 22 MR. KARP: Right. And then there is a
MR. KARP: Yes, the arrow is going in 23 setback. We were hoping to lan dsc ape that
the wrong direction. 24 area.
Tiffi CHAI..RPER.SON: On the west side, 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Currently,
Page 320 Page 322
that is at the same •• that's --you can 1 there is--on the L·l plan, there is no
basically get on that lawn from the river-· 2 landscape indicated on the north/south run
from the bay walk, basically? 3 there?
"MR. KARP: Yes. 4 :MR. KARP: Ye s. You are correct, and
TiiE CHAIRPERSON: There is a 5 that needs to be landscaped.
connection there around the same plane? 6 TiiE CHAJRPERSON: So the entire
MR. KARP: Yes, you can. 1 length, basically?
TiiE CHAIRP ERS ON: The code does not 8 MR. KARP: Yes, the entire length,
allow you to add another story to the 9 please.
southern part of the building and take a 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Similar to the
story off the front, the north part of the ll little bit that you have on the L-1 sheet
building-· 12 running east/west, the CES 36?
MR. KARP: No. 13 MR. KARP: Yes, that is a true
THE CHAIRPERSON: -without getting a 14 statement
variance. 15 TiiE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. That is-·
MR. KARP: No. Th e code does not 16 MR. BELUSH: Jason, we have a
allow me that 17 condition in the staff report.
l'viR.. HELD: And the variance wouldn't 18 Condition 2-D, to address the design,
be allowed, anyway. There is a maximum of A 19 because it wasn't really clear what was
three· foot height. It is impossible. All 20 happening in that area.
height variances is limited to that now. 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. On sheet
Tiffi CHAJRPERSON: Okay. 22 A-3 .00.1 -that is the colored sheet with
lvfR. KARP: And that is what we have, 23 the light blue and the red and the pink, and
only four floors instead of fi ve that you 24 I gues s there is an increase in
have on 20th Street, facing the water. Only 25 floor-to-floor height on the top units
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
28 {Pages 319 to 322)
l
2
3
(
5
6
7
6
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
1&
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
':)
10
11
12
13
14
l.S
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 323
because they are the penthouse units, and --l
MR. KARP: Which--sorry, Jason-2
THE CHAIRPERSON: Your color plan with 3
the view lines, the pink and the --4
MR.KARP: Yes. 5
THE CHAIRPERSON: I see the top units 6
on the north --7
MR. KARP; Yes. And I also have 8
drains from the roof, that I want to take 9
them internally. 10
THE CHAlRPERSON : Well, okay. That's 11
sort of the end of my technical questions, at 12
this point 13
You know, I, too, you know, distinctly l4
remember at the conclusion of our last 15
meeting that the Board did req uest --16
suggest, strongly suggest that the applicant 17
and the residents get together to work some l e
things out 19
So the level of what did happen 20
between that meeting and this meeting. 21
between the two groups -it is a little hard 22
to exactly know, but it sounds like not --23
there was not actually --seems like there 2 4
was not a lot of actual sit-downs and 25
Page 324
discussions. Maybe, if anything, there was
more -I don't know -· arguments and
oppositions.
So that said, I do sort of echo what
Seraj said about the fact that it is •• you
know, it is --it is very interesting that I
know, typically, when someo ne opposes
something, they will come out and speak about
it. And maybe if they don't oppose it, maybe
they don't come out.
So it is a little bit strange that
there isn't--that the applicant didn't find
a way to ·-if-I am sure there are people
out there that support this project. You
have mentioned this, there are other
associations, there are letters, e-mails -
none of tho se really have been a part of the
package that we have received for this
meeting.
It would have been good to hear, you
know, somebody or some people saying that
either they --they approve or they have no
comment about it.
So r certainly appreciate the efforts
of the Sunset Island Homeowners Assoc iation
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
l4
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 325
in mobilizing their association to get out
here and speak on behalf of the project, but
I also realize that it doesn't mean that
nobody supports that project. They just
don 't happen to be here. I have to know
that.
We review many, many proj ects where
nobody comes at all, so I know that on those
projects, some people oppose it and some
people are for it. So we --we --ll ke I
said, we value everybody's opinion and
concerns on this project.
I don't live in this neighborhood , but
I live here on the Beach. I live on an
island that is funny. It has some recent
development that was bigger than -that was
more of a commercial, multi-family n~e,
and at that time, I had a lot of concerns
about how that was going to affect access to
my -well, I live up on Allison, near
LaGorge. When Aqua was being built, it was
this whole thing, and new traffic --and
granted, I don't have a historic bridge that
leads to my --leads to Allison. lt is
connected. But you are very familiar with
Page 326
that. I am sure a lot of you pas s that--
that bridge many times.
But you know, when I first looked at
this --at this project, if there was nobody
here in opposition , you know, the first time
acound, I said wow, there has been a lot of
effort, it looks like, in the design and the
clarification and the delineation of this
proj ect. And I thought with all of the
exciting development that is happening in
this neighborhood -I said wow, this is
really a nice addition to see in this
neighborhood.
You know, in light of the opinions
voiced by the residents in the nearby area ·-
and 1 know it is not j ust people on the
Sunset, but you know, from around the whol e
area, it certainly made myself --and I am
sure the Board and staff ·· even take a more
-a more stringent, scrutinized look at the
whole project, as a whole.
I am really glad to see some of the
changes that have happened between the last
meeting and this meeting. r th ink the
setbacks being increased and some of those
KRESSE & ASSOC I ATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
29 (Pages 323 to 326}
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
1 3
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 3 2 7 Page 329
issues are certainly a bonus overall for the 1 and to the gateway to the Sunsets. I mean, I
project. I see things--you know, the 2 just -you know, obviously, there are a lot
incre ase in the foliage and the trees along 3 ofimpro vement going on in that area right
the canal --I think it is kind of nice that 4 now with the new guardhouse and the new
you did it, but I also think in a way --I am 5 street improvements, and this is sort of, you
not quite sure why you would want to block 6 know, a private venture that is ··l think is
the views from both sides of--you know, by .., going to be a huge asset to the public, the
havin g the se big shade trees on the north 8 public part that is there . And that includes
side of the building, which you don't re ally 9 the series of three little parks that are
need. 10 sort of spread onto the Sunsets and then sort
But you know, I know it is going to be ll of around .
better for the residents to look over. 1 2 And then thi s increased setback along
Now, that said, I want to think and I 13 -· along 20th and along the street to the
do believe that this project will be a 14 Sunset Islands, these humongous setbacks that
benefit for everybody that live s in that 15 are going to have the patterned sidewalk, 1
neighborhood, whether they are on Sunset I, 1 6 am sure, and the landscaping and this little
II , ill, IV, on Is land A venue, on the 11 pocket park near the bridge now, \.ffiich I
Venetians or anywhere in this neigh borhood. 1 8 thirik, yo u know, I would like maybe to put as
I know it may be hard fo r the residents to --1 9 one of the condition s that we approve this ·-
to see that, because I know they have been 20 thal we sort oflook at maybe expanding that,
involved with this project for months in 21 whether it be part of the river walk side,
relation to the massing and the size and the 22 the bay wal k side, or maybe it is more part
detailing and --so big, and it is so much, 23 of the sidewalk side. I don't know. I don't
and why is it tall er than the buildings next 2 4 know what can be done, that maybe since there
door •• these are all very valid concerns. 2 5 is so much area there, that you kind of ch ip
Pa ge 3 2 8 Pa ge 330
It is funny to me, though, that we get this 1 into that comer and maybe make somethi ng
much opposition to thi s project, but when a 2 that is mor e ··l don 't know. You have to
house is bei ng built ri ght next door on 3 work with Public Works and the City and
SunSet that is completely out of scale and 4 things, but--really look at that comer.
out of whack, and bigger than anything I ever 5 I definitely think, you know, you do
want to see that comes in front of this 6 need to have your concrete canopy on the
Board, that nobody shows ·-you know, I ? roofs up at ten feet high?
shouldn't say nobody. We have had people 8 I would suggest maybe we bring tho se
that have come to ··to oppose those. But 9 •• bring th ose down, yo u know?
that there is such a large outpouring for 10 And all of your·· your--it is not
this project, but so much less when something 11 exactly clear how high your elevator shafts
is actually happening on the isl and --1 2 and your stai rwells pop up, but l certainl y
Now, granted, it is a residence versus 13 want to make sure those are kept to a
a multi -fami ly resident ial, but you know, I H minimum, you know , eight feet or whatever it
thi nk ~e di stance that this is o ff the •• 15 is •• has to be nine fee t to get you r --you
you know-· not right in the center of the 16 know, but to keep those as low as possible.
neighborhood, of the islands, but off on the 1 7 I know the --th e concrete overh ang on
oth er side of the canal , I think the air 18 the roof--it is fairl y extensive on the
spa.ce between the residential, the 1 9 south and the west side. I would suggest
single· family residential and the 20 keeping it as low as yo u can . You don 't have
mul ti-family residential that is pro vided by 2 1 to get any -you know, you probably have
the canal and the view corridors that have 22 some lighting there, but maybe you can keep
been presented by the project-· I mean , 1 23 all of the MEP systems away from that, and it
think this is going to be a huge enhancem ent. 2 4 just can be this canopy that is just, you
Yes , to the gateway, to this neighbor, 25 know, at eight and a half feet or something,
-
KR E SSE & AS SOCIATES, LL C
(3 0 5 ) 3 71 -7692
30 (Page s 327 to 330)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
ll
12
13
u
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pag e 331
or nine feet or something, you know,just to
bring it down, because all those things, you
will see.
You do see some of these things that
are popping up on the roof. I mean, because
of your location, you are able to get really
far away from the building, and so the sight
lines are -they are lon g.
So I am just trying to work at ways we
can compress things a little bit.
I did like Lilia's idea of removing
the overhang at the corner, mayb e, kind of
lighten up the comer a little bit, even
though you have set it back 50 feet from the
comer, I think, is a lot of--I am a big
fan of strong comers. But I know here, we
are trying to give room for the bridge to
breathe.
But you know, I have thought long and
hard about this project. And certainly, you
know, even in the middle of the night,
thinking about its effect on the
neighborhood, and why everybody is so
passionate about it. And it is really good
to see.
Pa ge 332
It is bard for our Board because we
have to dissect the design and the comments ,
and then on the side of all that, there is
all of the k:ind of·· the legal discussions
that have been going on as a sub text to this
project, which typically, we don't --
typically, don't have to deal with .
So I think --I think the articulation
of the facades and the materials --it is ••
it is a lot more than just a big white box,
and that's what I really like about it.
I do appreciate the undulations that
you have created on the north facades facing
the canal, despite the fact that it is going
to create some units that are going to be in
perpetual shade. I mean, I unde rstand the
sacrifices there.
I don't think just by making it the
same height as the townhouses in the back
that all of a sudden, it fits into the
context I don't think that's·-I don't
think that's really a solution.
So I am sympatheti c to the re side nts
that live on the Sunset that faces this
building, but I think it is going to be a
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
a
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
ll
12
l3
l4
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 333
grand improvement. And, over time, like a
lot of the other signature pieces of
architecture that are in this city that
maybe, you know, were a little bit bigger or
bigger than what people wanted , and were
still approved and were still within code, if
you are looking at --I mean, even the
parking garage that was built is certainly
bigger than what is around it, 1111 parking
garage.
I mean, a lot of these things-it is
not always about just matching the building
height And for me, that's -·has been the
struggle here, is knowing that this is a
bigger building than --than what is around
it, but I think the way that ii has been
articulated and designed is very successful.
So that's my initia l thoughts , for
sure.
MR. CARY: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted
to comment to the Board and to the -to the
neighbors that I think one of the most
instructive things for me for this project
has been the ability to look at this really
amazing model, because you kn ow, I have
Pa ge 334
always felt that when you replace a one-story
building with a--you know, four and-a-half,
five-story building, it is going to have a
huge impact, regardl ess of how well designed
it maybe.
But in literally coming over here and
looking at this project, looking at the scale
of the townhouses projects, looking at the
scale of the residences on Sunset I-fslan d
IV, looking at the scale of the new parking
garage next to Publix , looking at the
overwhelming monstrosity of scale of the
Sunset Harbo ur towers, I'm not nearly as
concerned about being shocked by this being a
large project when it is built.
I think that it has been articulated
in a way, and it has a much more--low
horizontal, low-sl un g fee l than I had rea lly
ever imagined that it was going to have, even
from all of the excellent perspective and
renderings that have been provided.
But like with any, you kn ow, high
quality project·· and this comm ent is
directed to the developers and to Kobi --is
that God will be in the detaili ng. I mean, a
KRESS E & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 3 71-7 692
31 (Pages 331 to 33 4)
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
l1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
--·
Page 335
planning staff is going to look very 1
carefully at how this building is detailed, 2
how the materials are used, and how it is J
executed, because you have to have the same 4
quality of detailing that we would expect to 5
be invested into any new residential 6
structure on the Sunset Islands neighborhood. 7
I mean, it really has to be good, ~cause it a
is a focal point. I mean, this is the first 9
thing that you see when you come off of Alton 1 o
Road, and it is just going to have to be 11
really good. 12
So I know you have already invested a 13
few dollars, but I think you really need to 14
consid er investing what it takes to really 15
put your -your name on the map in terms of 16
producing a really high quality residential, 17
you know, development in Miami Beach. 18
And as we can see, you know, that--19
now that we have been identified as the, you 20
know, the number one, you know, residential 21
conun unity in the U.S., I think that sets a 22
standard that we have to live up to. And if 23
you were not prepared to do that, you would 2 4
not be here and you would not have hung in 25
Page 336
here for as long as you have.
So again , I would encourage everyone
that has not had a chance to sit down and
look at that model. It really is rath er
amazing, and it really--it really lays to
rest any lingering concern I may have had
relative to the scale, mass and bulk of the
project being excessive.
And I think that that is really a
direct result of this, you know, intensive
involvement by Tucker and Terry and Peter and
everyone else in the neighborhood that has
just --that have just been absolutely
relentless in making your concerns known to
the planning staff, to the Planning Board, to
the Design Review Board and to anyone else
that would be willing to Listen to you, and I
think the project has tremendously improved
in the process.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is the applicant
willing to adhere to all of the comments that
are in the staff report?
MR. HELD: Conditions.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Conditions, thank
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
l3
H
15
16
17
18
19
zo
21
22
23
24
25
Page 337
you.
MR. CARY: Kobi, could you just
clarify for us --the northeast corner, top
floor unit, that does not have a terrace; is
that correct?
lv:lR. KARP: The northeast does have a
terrace, and it is accessible from the publi c
stai rcase. So it does have a terrace.
MR . CARY: It does have a terrace?
:MR. KARP: Yes, but the comment that
was made about cutting back --
MR. CARY: --removing the roof canopy
over that terrace, entirely or substantially
and working with staff to ••
MR. KARP: Yes.
:MR. CARY: And the applicant is
willing to accept that?
MR. KARP: Yes.
:MR. CARY: And we can provide a
condition in the staff report to effectuate
that, in addition to Gary's excellent
proposal to add a condition relative to
providing access to the water, public water,
public walk along the waterway.
MR. HELD: William, do you have a
Page 338
condition for the plaza?
I have written something. 1 don't
know whether you have written something, as
well·-
MR. CARY: Seraj, would you like to
define for us what condi tion you would like
for that northeast ground level plaza?
MR. HELD: I can read som ething and
you can work with it, if you want.
tvm... SABA: My concern is --well,
there are two things: One is -you know, is
the public space going to be a little bit
larger; and number two, just maintaining the
view towards--towards the water, because I
mean, he has pulled the building back. I
don't want some other, you know, obstruction
in that space, whether it is --it might be
inadvertent -landscaping, or a fence that
we are not thinking of. l just want to make
sure that that is preserved.
MR. CARY: Preserved from Sunset
Drive, a clear view through to the waterway?
MR. SABA: Correct.
MR. CARY: And the elevation of the
bridge and the park across the way?
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
32 (Pages 335 to 338)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
ll
12
13
H
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
2l
22
23
24
25
Page 339
?viR. SAB A: Right. 1
MR. CARY: That is a very important 2
point. 3
MR. SABA : And I believe be also said 4
that he would work with staff on -s
Youlcnow, ifyou could expand the 6
public space a little bit mo re, that would be 1
fine with me . 6
MR. KARP : Yes, I--9
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Right now, yo u 10
sort of have this elevated lawn area as part ll
of that unit I mean, I was thinking you 12
would get a big chunk of that off, make that 13
little yard smaller, and add it to the --to H
the public side. 15
I mean, right now, the public plaza is 16
basically a bench and a little bit of •• I l 7
mean, I would --I wou ld suggest taking --I 18
don't know, like, a good ten-foot by 15-foot 19
chunk out of that--that elevated lawn area 20
and giving it back to the·· to the river 21
walk, the bay walk area or the sidewalk area 22
Does that make sense? 2 3
MR. KARP: Yes, it makes sense . I 2 4
think we will sit down with staff and 25
Page 340
absolutely come up with something that works
very well. Absolutely .
TilE CHAIRPERSON: It might affect the
gated --the way the gated walkway heads to
the bay walk. Maybe the si dewalk gets, you
know •• but I think it would 1:>e nice to give
more of a substantial portion back to the
public.
MR. SABA: Yes . The opposite corner
on 20th and Sunset, it is such a node. It is
a nade, and that's kin<t of what I think the
other com er needs to be. And it doesn't
have to be that big, either, but, you know·-
MR. KARP: But in the same spirit.
absolutely.
MR. HELD: So Mr. Chair, I have a
sentence that might work.
THE CHAIRPERSON : That is how
designers describe it.
Now you tell us, Gary.
MR. HELD: The plaza at the northeast
oomer of the project shall be further
studied to enlarge it, to improve its
visibility and functionality, and to add it
to the waterfront wallcway easement fo r public
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
Z2
23
24
25
Page 341
access subject to the review and approval of
staff.
I mean, feel free to edit
MS. HOUSEN: Gary, if! can add-
there was a discussion --on 20th Street, on
that small area between the bank and the
project, to udd more landscaping, which Kobi
had agreed to do ••
MR. HELD: 1 think Michael said there
is a condition -
MR. BELUSH: We already have a
condition -·
MR. HELD: -that addresses that.
MS. HOUSEN: Okay.
MR. PA TH1viAN: We have no objection to
that language.
MR. HELD: I think staff understands
from the comments of the Board what was
intended.
TilE CHAIRPERSON: And ifthere is to
be a condition about lowering the canopies on
the roof--
MR. KARP: Yes , I will work with staff
to lower-·
MR. BELUSH: I have a condition here,
Page 342
if you can , to eliminate the canopy. "The
rooftop canopy at the no rtheast comer unit
directly covering the terrace below shall be
eliminated in order to further minimize the
perceived height and mass at the northeast
comer of the site in a manner to be reviewed
and improved by staff."
MS. TOBIN: l don't think it needs to
be elimin ated or reduced-·
l'v!R . BELUSH: You could say so ••
"shall be reduced, • in stead of "eliminated."
Tiffi CHAIRPERSON: And I was making
reference to the •• whatever the rooftop -
MR. CARY: You were talking about the
rooftop structures, themselves ?
T HE CHAIRPERSON: Structures.
MR. CARY: You want them to be··
THE CHAIRPERSON: They are shown at
ten feet high.
MR. CARY: No greater than eight-foot
six, to the underside.
lHE CHA IRPERSON: I think that would
be a good compromis e. Yes.
MR. KARP: On the roofing, absolutely,
yes.
KRE SS E & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 37 1-7692
33 (P ages 339 to 34 2)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 343
r-.1R. CARY: And then you would make
eight feet to the underside of the
structures, the rooftop elements.
.MR. KARP: Yes, yes. I just need to
make -· because I am going to have roofing up
there. So we are going to work together to
lower it as much as possible to meet code,
and it should be coming down to about
eight-foot six clear to the underside from
the roofing.
So we will definitely lose a foot, a
foot and-a-half.
MR. CARY: With a clear height, then,
not to exceed eight-foot six?
'tviR. KARP: Yes, sir.
Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: And the railings
that you are proposing or are going to
propose for all those upper terraces --are
they glass railings that are inset from the
edge, or have we figured that out yet?
r-.1R. KARP: Yes. That is what we have
been working on with staff.
MS. TOBIN: Do we need to make a
motion, or is it something that --I mean,
Page 344
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
19
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
because there are so many things •• 1
MR. HELD: Someone needs to make th e 2
motion. 3
MS. TOBIN: But there are so many 4
conditions that have been added. s
MR. HELD: Well , the motion could just 6
reflect "the condition s that have just been 7
discussed," and staff and we have kept record s
~th ~. 9
MS. TOBIN: Okay. So I will make the 10
motion. 11
:MR. BELUSH: One other thing I need to 12
add --just a second. I need to add a 13
condition regarding school concurrency. 14
This was given to me by the Miami~Dade 15
School Board, and it basically states, "Site 16
plan approval is contingent upon meeting 1 'l
public school concurrency requirements . 18
Applicant must obtain a valid school 19
concurrency detennination certificate issu ed 20
by the Miami-Dade Public Schools. The 21
certificate shall state the number of seats 22
rese rved at each school level. In the event 23
sufficient seats are not available, a
proporti onal share mitigation plan shall be
24
25
Page 345
incorporated into a tri·part development
agreement and duly executed prior to issuance
of a building permit."
It basically states th at they can't
get their building permit until they satisfy
the school's request for --•
MR. HELD: That is a request by the
School Board, and you sho uld include it.
So if--the motion should be a
two-part motion; one is to grant the Design
Review approval, and the second part is to
approve the modification of the site plan and
the covenants that are attached to the staff
report.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Can we--is
there a motion to approve the modifications
to the site plan?
MR. HELD: lt could be one motion.
THE CHA IRPERSON: Okay. Who will-·
what is the motion?
MS. TOBIN: I will make a motion to
approve the--to approve this based on the
conditions that we just read into the •• into
what, the staff -· okay. Is that it?
MR. HELD: It is to grant Design
Page 346
Review approval and approve the modification
of the site plan, subject to the standard
conditions and the other conditions read into
the record.
MS. TOBIN: What he said . What he
said.
TilE CHAIRPERSON: Is there a second?
MS. HOUSEN: l will second the motion .
THE CHAIRPERSON : Thank you.
All those in favor.
MR. CARY: The second was?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Carol, and the first
was Leslie. All those in favor --
BOARD TN UNISON: "Aye."
MR. KARP: Thank you very much for
your tim e.
MR. P ATHMAN: Thank you for your time
and consideration.
(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., there was a
recess in the proceedings.)
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
34 (Page s 343 to 346)
1
2.
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ZJ
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
lS
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
2~
Pa ge 3 47
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY
STATE OF FLORIDA:
ss.
COUNTY OF DADE:
I, SHARON PELL VELAZCO, a Court
Reporter in and for the State ofFlorida at
Large, do hereby certifY that r was authorized
to and did stenographically re port the
proceedings in the above-styled cause at the
time Slld place as set fo rth; that the foregoing
pages, Volume IT, inclusive, constitute a true
record of my stenographic notes.
I further certify that I am not an
attorney or counsel of any of the parti es, nor
related to any of the parties, nor financially
interested in the action .
WITNESS my Hand and Official Seal this
23rd day ofFebruary, 2013 .
SHARON PELL VELAZCO, RPR
COUR T REPORTER NOTARY PUBLIC
Commission NO: EE 015147
Expires 8/19/20 14
Page 3 48
CERTIFICATE· REPORTER NOTARY OATH
THE STATE OF FLORIDA)
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE)
I. Sharon Pet! Velazco, Notary Public for the
State of Florida, certify that any and all
witnesses or parties requested to be swo rn were
sworn by the Chairman during the course of these
proceedings, and w.ere duly sworn.
WITNESS my hand and official seal this 23rd day
ofFebruary, 2013 .
SHARON PELL VELAZCO, RPR
Notary, State of Florida
Commission No: EE 015147
Expires 08/19/2014
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
{305) 371 -7692
.
35 (Pages 347 to 3 48)
A -A-0.07 315:22
A-1.00 234:22 235:24
242:9,1 7 278:18 321:3,3
A-1.01234:6 289:22
A-1.03 233:14,15
A-1.05 231:9,10 232:1 6
299:1 318:11
A-1.5 279:9,15
A-2.00285:13 ,1 4
A·l.Ol 229:22,23
A-2.03 228:25,25
A-3 313:13
A-3.00.1 322:22
A-5279:9
A.M 253:25 254:1
ability225:1 307:5 333:24
able219:16 237:6 239 :16
240:25 241 :24 269:5,8
314:12 331:6
above-styled 347:8
absence267:14 311:9
absolutely 215:6 243:19
278:4 287:12 288:18
293:3 304:25 305:3
336:13 340:1,2,15
342:24
AC 232:24,24,24 279:10
accept241:11 337:17
access 232:9 237:4 289:17
295:14 296:2 318:13
325:19 337:23 341 :1
accessibility 232:2 292:13
accessible 257:20 337:7
accommodate 231:8
239:16 302:18
accommodated 227:11
243 :1 4 283:2 0 284:20
accomplish 314:13
accomplished 247:23
ace: urate 260:16,17 270:6
279:9
achieve 244:5 303:21
achieved 303 :21
acknowledge258:18
acting2t6:13 257:17
action 260:10 303:7,18
347:15
actions267:18 302:17
activity 252:13
actual323:25
adaptations 316:21
add 230:1& 261:11295:23
320:9 337:22 339:14
340:24 341 :4,7 344 :13
344:13
added 344:5
addition 213:17 214: l and-a-balf235:1 303:5
215:4 218:22,22 220:16 33 4:2 343:12
271:10 326:12 337:21 and/or 277:24
additional279: 11,13 Andy 243 :17
314:3 angle236:18 297 :18
address 241:2 244:18 animosity 294:1
.
249:20 322:18 answer 306:19
addressed 261 :25 280: I 0 anybody 225:8,13 238:18
280: II 282:24 239:1 247:3,8 250: II
a ddresses 341:13 265:25 266:1 287:7
adequately 297:12 anymore 303:8,9
adhere 336:22 anyway 320:19
adjacent273:3 290:22 apart 289 : 10
321:3,4 apartments 273:5
adjustment 219 :1,5 aperture 236:14,22,24
312:18 23 7:8 286:6
a dministratively 241:1 apparently213:21 214:7,8
admit257:8 appealed 244:22
adopt213:10 APPEARANCES212:1
adverse 241:19 242:2 appeared 246:13 267:1 l
248:3, J 2 249 :15,21,22 apple261:7
254:10 272:1 applicable213:23 2 15:2
adversely 260:25 247:17,18
advise 256:16 applieant272:15 274:22
affect305:3 315:13 325:1 9 275:24 295:24 323:17
340:3 324:12 336:21 337:16
affirmed 248:24 344:19
afternoon 289:4,5 315:6,7 applicant's 248:2
aggressive 222: 10 applicatiou 225:9 247:24
ago231:6 248:9 259:9,15,19
agree 256:22 258:2 263:22 apply 272:12
263:23 264:22 265:6 appointed 312:21
286:22 293:15 appreciate 244:4,19
agreed 242: 14 269:21 269:25 273:17 275:10
341:8 315:9 324:24 332:12
agreement 223:18,19 approach 266:1
345:2 approached 245:13
air 229:19 237:7 279:23 a pproacbing 293 :1 1
303:25 313:19,22 328:18 appropriate 217:17
allegedly 254:22 224:13,23 273:22
Allis.on 32 5:20,24 appropriateness 222 :19
allocated 253:3 approval225:3 240:13,23
anow217:18 219:15 259:5 247:23 259:10,16 260:5
264:22273:8 320:9,17 264:21 267:5 296:1
allowed 217:7 257:10 308:8 341:1 344:17
320:19 345:11346:1
allows 266: 15 approve 241:1 ,5 260:23
altogether 258:3 264:22 270:1 324:22
Alton 335:10 329:19 345:12,16,22,22
Alvarez 270:18 346:1
aroaziug 333:25 336:5 approved 2 14:1 6 220:7, ll
amenities 307:6 220:13 224:12 234:23
amount 220:13 225:16 235:3,14,20 237 :14
238:16 245:3 313:14,19 240:16 251:19 308:2
a nalysis 216:15 249:17 33 3:6
analyze 215:4 approximately 276:25
analyzed 218: 13 Aqua 325:21
KRESSE & AS SOC IATE S, LLC
(305) 371-7 692
Page 349
architect235:3 243:18
architects 222:17,1 8
230:20,24 233:20 273:19
architectural222:15
225:20 226:5 318:9
architecturally 288:3
architecture 221:14 333:3
area232:21242:25 246:1
256:15 262:3 264:14,)6
268:22 269:13 273:3,21
273:24 274:21 277:6
283:11292:19 32 1:13,24
322:20 326:15,18 32 9:3
329:25 339: 11,20,22,22
341:6
areas317:8
argument 260:1
arguments 260:14 324:2
arrangements 258:17
arrow 319:3,22,23
articulate 273:8
articulated 33 3:17 334:16
articulation 332:8
ascends 285:15
asked 223:5 262:8 263:21
264:2 283 :21294:7
296:23 305:15 313:11
asking 216:11,12 222:20
234:15 300:13 315:19
asset 329:7
assigned 311 :23
assist 244:14
assistant 251 :11
association 212:20 246:15
253:3 262 :5 265:9 266:2
277:10 293:2 1 311:10
316:6 324:25 325:1
associations 246:13
265:10 267:1 0,12 281:1
324:16
assure216:1218:17 222 :8
224:1,15 275:18 276:1
attached 345:13
attachment 223 :6
attended 265:7
attention 220:5
attitude 245 :15 ,16
attorney 212:8,11,16,17
212:20 223:24 224:8
256:1 259:6 264:19,2 0
265:21296:2 317:13
347:13
attorney's 219:9 263:17
attractive 289:8
audience225:1 1281:6,9
294:19 314:20
August 270:16
auspicious 221:14
authority 223:7,9,11,15,22
223:23 2 24:5,22 272:1 1
312:10
autborized 347:6
available 275:19 344:24
Avenue212:1 8 217:21
273:14 297:16 327:1 7
averages 214:17
aware 240 :4 245:11
267:13
Aye346:14
B
back214:18 22 1:15 227:8
227:10,20,25 228:2
230:1,22 231:11,1 6,18
232:7,1 8 233:3,16 ,23
234:8,1 5,16 235:2 5
236:2,8,21 2 38:2,3,4
240:22 241:23 242:17,23
255:24 256:24 257:9
258:5 260:19 261 :2
268:20 270:7 278:15
28 1:24 282:23 285:1 6,20
285:25 286 :4 287:3,21
288:19 291:5 292:14
293:5,7,9 294:10 296:19
297:12 298:17 299:7,14
300:19 301:1,5,13,15
302: 12, 15,16,22,24
303:8,13 ,23 305:11 ,12
305:13,22,24 307:20
308:7 309:25 310:4
3 1l:1313:17 314:6,15
314 :16 318:22 321 :11
331:14 332:19 337: ll
33 &:15 339:21 340:7
back-up 258 :14
bala nce215:18,25 216:12
222:21 285:9
band-aid 224:1 4
banging 265:11
ban k213 :25 221:3,4
226:21 227:2,12 229:5
229:24 230:3 235:5,10
23 6:8 278:8,17 279:2
282:16 291:4 318:1
321:4 341:6
base 228:14 235:23 25 4:24
based 311 :12 312:4 313:16
317:18 345:22
basically 263: 18 291:23
320:2,3 322:7 339:17
344:16 345:4
batting 262: I 6
b ay 259:21261:16 262:2
277:10 293:2 307:3 blocking 253 :23 292:3
320:3 329:22 339:22 blocks 232:1
340:5 blue 322:23
Beach 211:8 212:8,18 board 2 11:7 21 2:2 214:12
273 :24 275:12 325:14 214:19 215:25 218:8,14
335:18 218:15,2( 21 9:1,4,23,24
bear262:25 220:5,25 221:17,24,25
beautiful 221 :8 229:6 222:4,14,14,15,17 223:7
230:15 237:23 24 1:8 224 :3,4 ,5 225:2 229:9
266:10 238:2 1239:13 240:6,15
beauty221:4,5 240:19,23 243:10 245 :2
becoming 245:24 24&:22 249:10 250:6,7
beginning 226:17 28 1:20 250:25 252:1 ,12,17
311:24 253:13 254:4 256:6
behalf275:13 325:2 259 :9,13,14,17,23 260:5
beJieve214:15 248:25 260:11 262:1 5,16,1&
249:11261:1262:6 263:22 264:3 266:3,2 1
270:6 278:15 297:17 267:4 268:11 269:22,.22
300:5 327:14 339:4 270 :14 271:10 272:10,16
belongs 266: ll, ll 273:1 8 274:18,23 275:8
Belush 212:4 245:1 266:6 275:9,14 276:2,5,19
322:16 341:11,25 342:10 280:11 ,13 283:18 285 :2 4
344:1 2 286:24 289:7 2 97:5
bench 290: I 1 291:9 300:6 304:7 308:16,19
339:17 31 2:13,21 313:3,4 314:1
benches 243:2 290:15,25 314:1,14 316:15,16
benefit 243:21 253:7 317:16 323:16 326 :19
258:10 327:15 328 :7 33 2:1 333:21
benefitted297:4 299:22 336:1 5,16 341 :18 344:16
best 238:15,18 276:16 345:8 346:14
283:10 309 :1 Board's 244:19 247:21
better22l:16 256:11 264:20
257:12 261:12 267:21 boardwalk 227:5
278:7 306:5 308:23 body 227:20
327:12 bonus 327:1
beyond 257:9 bottom 229:1,4
bicycle 278:19 bought 261:3,6
big 268:20 271:18 283:6 Boulevard 212 :1 4
291:15 2 94:ll 306:10,1 2 bound 272: 13,14
327:8,23 331:15 332:10 bows 231:14
339:13 340:13 bol 332:10
bigger 2 34:1 298:4 303:12 breach 223:10
325:16 328:5 333:4,5,9 break 268:25
333:15 breaking280:15 282:6
bike 235 :1 0,25 278:14 283:7
Bill 230:22 231:5 239:4,7 breathe 3 31: 18
285:1 304:15 bridge 231: 13 236: 18,25
Biscayne 212:13,14 237:1 ,4 250 :2 268:1
bit217:15,1 6 239:18 277:19 281:23 2 85:14
275:15,22 278:15 284:18 286:6 28 9 :20 293:12
294:3 300:3 31 7:3 325 :2 3 326:2 329:17
322:11 324:11 331:10,13 331:17 338:25
333:4 338:12 339:7,17 brief 226:13 244 :17
bite261 :7 284 :23
black 228 :25 229 :24 bring 220:4 226:8 233:8
block327:6 251:21 252:8 282:3
blocked 293:10 285:21 291 :5 31 7:25
KRESSE & ASS OCIATES, LLC
(305) 3 71-7 692
Page 350
330:8,9 331:2
bringing 252:9
brought226:9,15,24 229:8
2 51:22 252:9 255:14
285:24287:2 302:13
317:21,25
brown230:6
buffer 243:7 290:4
buffered 290:2
building 213 :17,25,25
217:18 220:14 221 :4,5
221:11 ,11 224:16,17
229:4,6 230:17 231 :11
232:17 23 5:1 9 236:5,21
236:24 237:13,16 238:9
2 38:13,15 241:23 242 :3
243:7 249:17,18 253:2
256:12,14 257:3,9 258:4
258:13 264:1 7 268:10
269:1 271 :3 273:5,9,1 4
278:7 280:1 4 283 :5,6
285:7,22 286:5 289:8
291 :3 293 :6,9 296:4,1&
297:12,24 299:6 302:6
308:2 312 :16 315:23
317:4,25 320:10,12 '
321:5,12 327:9 331 :7
332:2 5 333:12,15 334:2
334:3 335 :2 338:15
345:3,5
h\lildings 241:5,8 262:2
268:19 269:4,5 277 :9
278:21 302:2 316:7,13
327:24
builds 256:1 3
built 217:18 266:12 275 :7
310:14,21,22,23 325:21
328:3 333 :8 334:15
bulk 336:7
bulkheads 240:3,3,8
burden 247:25 248:1
272:19,20
bushes 290:5
businesses 268:5
buying 261 :4
c
cafe 268 :7
cafes 307:5
canal231 :19 307:4 318:13
318:22 327 :4 328:18,22
332:14
canopies 240:7 341:21
canopy 242 : l 244:6 319:4
31 9:4 330:6,24 337:12
342:1,2
cantUever 216:1 9 288 :20
car 232:12 237:19
care 228:2 292:15
carefully 335:2
Carol212:5 276:20 277:21
346:12
carries 247 :25
cars 235:12 253:14,15
Cary212:5 215:5,10
239:25 240:25 241 :14,18
243:8,21 244:25 245:10
251:10 266:6287:15
2 88:9 296 :7 312:23
3 14:12 333:20 337:2,9
337:12 ,16,19 33&:5,21
338:24 339:2342:14,17
. 342:20 343:1,13 346:11
case 24 7: 14,15 248:8
cases 247:9
cause 347:8
caused 253:9
ceilings 31 0: 19
center 328:16
certain 219:6,21,21 ,22
220:16,18 239:6 244:20
292:23
certainly 239:8 288: 17
289:1291:22,24 292:17
324:24 326:18 327:1
330:12 331:20 333 :8
certificate 344:20,22
347:1 348:1
certified 254:19
certify 347:6,12 348:8
CES 322:12
Cbad230:21
cbair 222:24 295:10 31 1:6
315:1 340:16
Chairman 21 5:6 270:3
333:20 348:10
Cbair.person 211:3 213:3
222:25 225:7 270 :2,11
271:22 272:6 274:2,12
274:1 4 280:2 287:14
289:3 292:22 293: 1
295:2,5,11 296:5,25
312:13,22 315:2,6 318:8
318:21,24 319:8,13 ,15
3 19:21,25 320:5,8,14,22
321:2 ,15,21,25 322:6,10
322:15,21 323:3,6,ll
336:21,25 339:10 340:3
340:18 341:20 342:12,16
342:18,22 343:17 345:15
345:19 346:7,9,12
cballenge272:19,21
challenged 272:22
chance256:23 336 :3
cbange222:6 260:12 333:6 343:7
267:24 colleagues 316:17
changed 218:16 collect 278:2
changes 299:22 326:23 color 229:2 230:5 323:3
changing 267:23 colored 322:22
charge 214:5 colorful 227:16
Cheryl243:9,11,23,24 combine246:1261:l3
chip329:25 264:24
cbose 245:21,21 come 2 14:18 225:13
chunk 339:13,20 234:11 239:1 240:20,22
circulated 309: 1 0,1 1 250:16 261:21 274:8
circulation 218:12,18 280:20 286:9,13 290:20
235:6 238:17 253:14 290 :22 291:3 298:3
citizen 264:7 311:25 . 307:11 310:1 311:2,8
city 211 :8 212:8 214:16,20 314 :2 5 3 15:12 324:8,10
219:8,19 221:6 223:21 328:9 335:10 340:1
223:22,24 224:8,21,25 comes 281:21 290:7
251:1 255:25 257:19 317:15 325:8 328:6
258:12 ,25 259:6 260:18 coming281:22 284:16
263:17 264:19,20 275:25 290:3 292:4 334:6 343 :8
283:16 296:1 330:3 commend 280:7
333:3 comment 223:2 225:9
cladding 230:2 239:8 251:21,24 268:17
clarification 326:8 271:24 274:16,19275:5
clarified 279:5 297: 14 276:19 289 :13 293:16
315:4 294:17 300:2 309:24
clarify 337:3 311:7 312:7,24 314:19
classic 3 11:21 324:23 333:21 334:23
Cleaners 277:23 337:10
cleaning 315:23 comments213:10 225:6
clear 215:22 227:18 228:6 23 0 :25 231:6,8 23 8:19
229:3 241 :24 252:6 239:3,5,15,15 242:12
272:9 274:3,4,7 301:17 265:3 271:14 276:9,22
301:17 303:24 322:19 280:22 282:14 296:24
330:11 338:22 343:9,13 297:2 1 304:11,15 315:10
clearance 303:16 316:17 332:2 336:22
clearly 228:10 231 :10 341:18
233:21 234:18 235:4,5,8 commercial226:2 5 229: I 1
235:24 23 6:5 237:7 234:7,7238:1245:19,20
242:16 246:2 273:9 308:4 310 :8,24 325:17
301:23 303:3 Commission 347:21
clearness 259:25 348:18
clerk 220:20 commit 264:8
client 222:20 252:2,23 commitment 244:4
263:6 265:25 294:18,25 community 33 5:22
client's 215:2 218:2,1 2 compare 214:22 301:25
220:2,7,9,14 302:1
clients 27 4:21 compares313:14
close 228:19 274:16 comparison 215:11
closed 292:24 compatibility 216:2
closer238:9,10 258;14 217 :1 4 222:8,16,20
302:11 305:7,9 236:3
co-counsel21 3:11 compatible 21 3:20 2 14:4
Coconut 212:23 . 216 :8 217:17 221:16
code247:19 251:3 265:1 224:2 226:22 232:10
292:10 307:23 308:25 245:23 273:23 300:25
311:14 316:23 320:8,16 compelling 250:12
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
Page 351
competent 214:9 247:1
248:10,14 249:2 254:5
255:11262:22 311 :18,25
complained 316:4
complaining 247:7
complementary 310:12
complete 254:13,25
completely 232:25 234 :20
299:10 309:18,19 328:4
compliance 316:23
compliment 265:23
comply 309:23
compress 331: 10
compression 237:24
compromise 265:15
342:23
compromised 265:16,18
Comras 215:16 223:5
249:11 250 :5 255:14
256:8,22 260:15 261 :3
263:21
Comras's 263:20
concentration 261 :24
coo cern 241 :2,3 293: 12
299:18 312:24 336:6
338:10
concerned 245:10,12
299:23 307:8 334:14
concerning 224:20
concerns 246:16 277:14
280:10,12,24 297:10
325:12,18 327:25 336:14
concession 265:14
concessions 216:14,15
246:18 252:19,21 253:9
267:2
conclusion 323:15
concrete 319:3,4 330 :6,17
concur 289:6
concurrency 344: 14,18,20
condense 269:7
condensed 263:11
condition 218:15,20
224:17 225:3 235:18
240:4,6,17 241:12,12
296:8 312:7 322:17,18
337:20,22 338:1,6
341:10,12,21,25 344 :14
conditiooal 218:6,7
259:10
conditioners 279:23
conditioning 229:19
303:25
conditions219 :7 225 :1,2
252:3 261:6295:13
297:6 308:6 329:19
336:24,25 344:5,7
345:23 346:3,3
condone 252: 13
conflict 258:5
connect 319:10
connected 325:25
connection 320:6
conservative 302:5
consider214:21215:11
220:6 223:25 245:8
256:6 262:19,20 263 :12
267:8,9 270:25 272:16
300:7•335: 15
considerable 244:6 245:3
consideration 21 8: I 1
251:16 254:25 267:20
269:25 276:12 294:5
346:18
considered 217:23 267 :16
312:9
considering 22 I :21 222:15
2 87:17
consistent 213:19
constitute 347:10
constitutes 220: 14
constraints 253:25
construction 277:24
consumption 275:20
contacted 294:18
contemplate 220 :6
contention 252: 15
contested 246:10
context 300:24 302:20,21
312:15,17 332 :2 1
contingent 344:17
continuation 270:15 291:5
continue 267:24 304:14
continued 221:22 227:1 1
289:25
continues 264:15
contrary 255:9
convenient 255:15
conversation 265: 17
conversations 29 5:13
converting 268:6
cooling 279:20,23
copied 252:1
copy 220:20,.20,23 243:23
250:10
cores 303:11
corner 221 :8 231:12,13,20
233:17234:11236:21
281:19,21 282:2 284:12
285:4,8,8,9, 17 ,1 9 286 :3
286:8 287:1 8 289:15,19
293:6 298:8 300:4 310:2
310:2,3 316:25 317:2,6
330:1,4 331:12,13,15
337:3 340:9,12,22 342:2 Cypress 259:21 261 :16
342:6
corners 331:16 D
correct215:6 257:14 DADE347:3
277:18 278:9 279:~, 17 dark319:1
279:19 291:19 299:4 dashed319:l ,l
3l8:19,20 319:6 322:4 date240:I6
337:5 33 8:23 dated 243:25
correctly 254:11 278:18 day 249:7 256:12 283:12
corridor215 :21217:20,21 310:16 347:17 348:12
217:22 236:12,14 255:24 deal 252:14 315 :11 332:7
273:7,12 278:7 292:3 dealing 244:25 252:10
293:11297:13,18 307:4 253:15,16 295:14
312:25 318:15 dealt 270:18
corridors 231:23 232:15 decision 220:5 233:11
270:19 328:22 266:16 294:3 311 :12,20
costs219:19 312:3,11318:5
counsel256: 16 274:21 deck 240:1l
347:13 declaration 260:7,9
COUNTY 347:3 348:5 declarations 261 :5
couple 226:9,14 249:5 decrease 23 3: 12
276:21,22 298:17 define 338:6
course 272:20 273 :11 definitely28 7:9 330:5
274:22 276:11 348:10 343 :1 1
court 212:22 247:14 248:8 delegation 312: I 0
294:22 347:4,20 deliberating 262:20
courtesy 250:20,21 delineation 326:8
covenant218:16 223:3,9 deliveries 253:24 254:1
223:10,16 224:1,9,14 demands 224:23
258:4 259:20 260:7,8 demolish 232:7
264:24 demolished 31 0:16,18,20
covenants 256:23 259:5 demonstrate 248:1 268:12
263:16 345:13 density 233:1 1,12 263:10
cover 239:23 263:24
covering283:3 342:3 Department 224:10
covers 279: 18 depri'Ved 313 :2 1,23
create 243:5,6 267:21 describe 340: 19
273:6 33 2:15 design 211:7 212:2 214:2
created 23 5:9 242:24 214:12,19 21 5:12,13
253:22 285:25 290:24 224:3 240:23 259:14,16
311:1 332:13 259:17,22 260:4,10
creates 230:15,16 231:22 262:14 266:23 275:9
credit220:12 246:17 276 :10,15 282:4 284:8
criteria 213:1 5,23 214:21 300:6 306:24 312:19
214:24 235:23 248:17,19 317:16 322:18 326:7
262:24 266:19 272:12 332:2 336 :16 345 :10,25
286:19 3 11 :13 designed 213 :18 259:5
critical221:10 237:10 262 :6 333:17 334:4
286:8 designers 340:19
cross 230:14,17 despite 332:14
crying 31 5:25 destination 268:2
erystal227: 18 229:3 destroy 316:7
cube305:17 detail 23 5:6 25 1:5 257: I
current 273:1 261 :23 317:12
currently 250:6 258:16 detailed 240:9 335:2
321:25 detailing 327:23 334:25
cutting 337: II 335:5
KRESSE & AS SOC IA TES, LLC
(305) 371 -7 69 2
Page 35 2
details 295 :6
determination 219:2
272:14,17,17 344:20
develop 245:20,22 263:19
27 1:16
developed 240:9 264: 13
developer216:13 219:8,11
221:25 222:1,2,9 231:1
244:5 245:15 261:16
293:20
developer-proposed
258:13
developers 222:13 334:24
development 224:2 225:4
325:16 326:10 335:18
345:1
develops 249:18
deviated 262:23
dictate 233:6
difference 294:11 302:8
different 264:13,17 267:20
276:25
difficult26 6:8,9 267:2
271 :4
digestion 260:17
diligently 252:16
dimension 303:1
dimen sions 229:25
direct316:12 336:10
directed 334:24
direction 319:24
directions 221:23 234: 17
directly 266:23 342:3
director 223:24 224:7
251:11 253:4 257:18
disappointing 293 :21
disaster 224:11
discretion 224:22
discuss 226:23 284 :2 4
discussed 226:22 230:19
287:16 344:8
discussion 258:1 273:22
275:16 297:4,11 313:2
314:18 341:5
discussions 266:5 308:15
324:1 332:4
disingenuous 250:24
dissect 332:2
dissected 317: 11
distance 328:15
distinctly 323:14
district 247:14,15,18
277:1
diversity 283:24
doctors 232:12 315:15
documentation 255 :8
documentations 224:20
documents 260:18 275:19
doing 2 19:20 220:19 238:1
264 :4 282:22
dollars 33 5:14
door237:13 327:25 328:3
dozen 265:9
Dr270:22 2 7 1:1 1,18
drafted 295:15
drainage 235:4 277:22
278 :1
drains 323:9
drastic 300:3
drawings 240 : 18,20
275:21313:12
DRB 211:10 308:19
drew299:10
drive 2 3 1:19 234:9,10
236 :17 238:4 241:18 ,21
242:22 253 :2 290:3
297:7,17 338:22
driven 2 69: 12
drivewa y 216:20
driving 284:2
drop-off253:18
dry277:23 315:23
due 214:7 219:15
duly 345:2 348: 11
duty 215:25
E
e-mail243:23 254:23
294 :25
e-mails275:21 324:16
easement216:21255:15
255:20,21 295:14 296:1
296:10 297:15 340:25
easements 255 :17
easier 294:3
east 278:8,9 319:2,6
east/west 321 : tO 322:12
ecbo 124:4
edge 343:21
edit 341:3
EE 347:21 348 :18
effect 305:6 331:22
effectuate 337:20
effort 273:18 274:24 326:7
efforts 324:24
egress 253:2
eigbt 2l3:15 228:3,4 235:1
277:4 330:14,25 343:2
eight-foot 342:20 343 :9,14
eight-inch 228:5
either 260:6 268:15
287 :1 9 295 :1 6 311 :8
316:7 324:22 340:13
elected 31 5:16
electrical 321: 19 etcetera 274:22
element 228:17 2 84:5,24 evaluate 222:19 27 1:4
293 :10 301:12 31 1:1 evaluating 247:11
elements 240:2,10,13 event 344 :23
303:1 6 ~43:3 everybody 221:7,12,13
elev ated 339:11,20 262:4 273:12 274:24
elevation 228:15 229:1,2 275 :2 5 276:2 286:22
229:23 235:23 280:17 308:24 3 16:24 327:15
283 :24 338:24 331:23
elevations 240: 15 everybody's 325 :11
elevator 240:3 ,8 2 97:23 evidence 247: l 248:1 0,14
298:6,9 299:5 330:11 249:2 254 :6 255:7,11
elevators 229:20 299:14 262:21,22 266 :17 311:1 2
301:12 305 :16,16 311:19,25
eliminate 2 58 :2 287:19 evolve 264: 15
342:1 evolving 267:23
eliminated 342:4,9,11 e.s:232:11
elimination 244 :9 enct25 1:1
embraced 262: 14 exacting 313 : 12
emerge 264:15 exactly 228:1 229: 19
emergency 309 :14,17 260:22 265:21 323:23
emerging 268:5 330:11
employ247:11 examine 3 11:17
empty 315:22 example 232:17 252:25
encased 232:25 233:10 e:xceed246:6,7 343:14
234:19 excellent 253:17 261 :22
eoclosed233:1,9 234:19 33 4:20 33 7:21
283:1 exception 248:11 ,15
enclosures 240:21 exceptionally 246:23
encourage 336:2 excessive 33 6:8
encouraged 244:2,10 e.s:cessively 271:1
encroach 258:1 3 exciting 326:10
encroachment 259:1 excluded 25 6:3
ended 275:3 excluding 240:7
engineer 241:6 exclusion 256:2
engineers 273:20 excuse 321 :4
enhancement 328 :24 e:r:ecu te 295:25
enlarge 29 1:24 292 :18 executed 260:11,20,2 1
340:23 335:4 345:2
ente r 228:11 238:11 exert 222:7
entertain 226:1 8 227:14 exist 231 :23 232:5 258:16
2 89:1 306:13
entire 215:12 322:6,8 existing 213: 19,20,24
entirely 337:13 2 14:4 217:19 227:1
entitled 256: 14 266:19 229:4 230:3 231:25
entitlement 263:4 271:3 273:3 300:9
entrance 283:20 308: l 3 12:17 3 13:9
entry 309: l5, 19 ex.pand 233:5 339 :6
envi ronmental 23 0:17 e.s:panding 329:20
equity 222:22 e-xpect 21 5:23 335 :5
equivalent 313:19 expected 239:19 255:2
especially 251 : 12 experience 214:24 230:24
ESQ 212:12,17,21 expert213:12 249:11
ESQUIRE 2 12:9 250:3 2 54:7 270:17
essentially 214:1 313:3,7 272:14,16
esta blis bed 31 3:4,25 e:cpertise272:11,15
establishment 254:24 experts 222:18 247:6
KRES S E & AS SO CIATE S, LLC
(305) 371-7692
Pa ge 353
269:21273:19
Expires347:2 1348:19
explain 278 :6
explained 317:14
explaining 257:1
explicit 224 :6
explicitly 240:14
exposed 235 :1 4 308:3
extended 253 :22
utends25 8:20 288 :14
extensive 330:18
extent 240:12 287 :20
extremely 228:19 288:1
eye 268:22 307:2
eyebrow 306:2,3
eyes268:12 ,14
eyesore 316 :10
F
facade 235:11 237:22,22
237:23
facades 332 :9,13
face234:1 286:4 318:13
319:5,6
faces230:6 290:17 3 19:9
332:24
facing 216 :9 229:1 2,23
235:11,22 23 6:12,15
261:19 298:24 320:25
332:13
fact 2 14:14 219:25 224:9
224:25 248:3,12 250:14
262:21269:3 275:16
312:6 316:11 324:5
332:14
fact-based 312:1
facts221:21 312:4
fairly330:18
fairness 222:2 1
faith 263:6
Falkanger 235:3
familiar 325:25
family 325:17
fan 33 1:16
fantastic 316:20
far 2 17:6,9 220:6,8,8,10
220:13,13 224:6,23
246:6 262: 17 266:9
267:4,8 272:9 ,23 280:2 1
282:25 286:9,12 288:15
307:9 309:6 331:7
fash io n 306 :15
fau1t 2 52:9
favo r 249:1267:13 281:4
281:15 307 :7 346:10,13
favorably 225:14
February 34 7:17 348:13
feel 282: 8, I 0,13,25 283: II
283 :19 308 :1 7 334:18
341 :3
feeling 282:1 2
feels 282:1 31 2:14
fees 219:9
feet 216:4,18 ,19 217 :7 ,8
228:5,6,13 23 1:17,18,19
232:7 236:2 237:7
241 :24 246 :5 266:2 5
268:3 269:2,2 285 :20,23
285:24 29 7:15 299:7,8
300:20,20,22 301:17,17
301:24 302:7,8,9,13,15
302:15 303:17,24 307:2.5
310:6,14,20,23,23,25
31 4:8 3 17:6 321:12,13
33 0:7,1 4,1 5,25 331 : I, 14
342:19 343 :2
fell23 7:1 8 ·
feUow 274:23 275:12
felt 245:22 334: 1
(ence 292:6,8,1 1 338:18
fight 262:10
figure 283:17
figured 343:21
filed 21 9:4 245:5
fina1 219:2
Finally 219:2 0
financial300:7
financiaUy 347:14
find 240:20 248:20,24
249: t, l 250: I 2 324:12
fine 339:8
finish 250:19
finished 229:9 239: 10
fin is hes 229:7,10
first 221:19 228:12 244:24
276:22 280 :8,15,16
281:21284:1 6 302:12
305 :12 314:2 1317:21
31 8:10 326 :3,5 3 35:9
346:12
fit268 :8
fits 332:20
five 216:6,18 ,19 235 :21
260:9 279:9 320:24
321:12,12
five-story 25 6:13 334 :3
FL 212:14,23
flash 283:13
floating 230:6
flood 22 8:15 235:23
flooding 277 :16,19
floor 228:3 229:17 233 :15
242:18 258:1 2 271 :6
273:2 287 :1 8 300:11
301:24 303 :20 305:5 games 305:20
307:1 6 309:4 3 11:3 garage 218:10 2 20:1
314:3 319:17 337:4 235:14 268:3 315:22
floor-to -floor 322:25 33 3:8,10 334:11
.floors 227:7,8,25 228:8,20 garden 230:7,8,13 232:21
229:13 235:20,20,21 ,22 236:6,7 283:3 291:17
302:13,14 30 5:12,14 298:18 31 4:6 319:17
313:1 8 320:24 Gary212:9 223 :1 225:7
Florida 212:18 230:14 226:8 247:9 260:1
347:2,5 348:4,8,18 295:11 ,18 340:20 341:4
flow31 8:3 Gary's 337:21
fly237:6 gate 292:24
focal335:9 gated 340:4 ,4
focus276:1 3 gatebouse 242:22
foliage 327:3 ga teway 328:25 329:1
folks 299:24 307:1 t g eneral289:6 298:10
following 213:1 248:8 generations 273:25
259:8 260 :4 getting 233:3 256 :24
fo llows 247:16 320:14
foot 290;24 343:11 ,12 Gibbs 2 12:2 1,22 213:11
footag e308:1 2 317:24 2 16:3 270:3 ,9,12 297:21
footprint263: 14 266:19 298:3,2 1 299:18
271:2 give215:20 216:25 217:5
foregoing 347:9 226: 11 228:24 229:22
fo rests 241 :7 23 1:2 234:5 256:9,10
form 312:15 285:12,18 287:6 331:17
forth 2 31:3 243:2 270:8 3 40:6
2 87:11290:5,25 292:12 given 21 6:22 21 7:9,1 0
304:13 34 7:9 230:25 23 8:19 239:4
fortuneteller 264:12 243:11 248:21 259:6
forward 219:12,13 224:16 304:12 344:15
276:8 3 18:5 gives 228 :5 260:22
fountain 236:19 2 86:7 giving21 6:1 4 217 :1 5
Cour 216:7 228:7,12,19 339:21
235:2 1 282:9,9 285:24 glad326:22
286:14 320:24 321:1 glass 237 :23 343:20
334:2 glazed 235:11
F rank 288:21 go 22 1:1 5 224:15 225 :20
free 341 :3 226:18 227:15 228:23
Friday 2 4 3:25 234:21237:21245:20
front234:13 268:14286:1 270:7 277:15,1 9 279:12
301:4 302:21,23 320:11 279:14 283:12 286:6
328:6 290:11 292:14 2 95:21
full237:4 258:1 5 300:20 304:3 307:22
functionality 340:24 308:9 310:14 313:11
!u ndamental 220: l 0 3 14:1 5
f11neral 268:6 God 315:16 334:25
funny 325:15 328:1 goes 218:18 227:4 230:4
further 224: 19 240:8 244:8 248:13 257:5
241:23 242:2 2 57:3,6 271:5,7
260:6 287:24 307:14 going213:5,7 21 5:19
314:1 5,16 340:22 342:4 21 8:3 219:20 220:19,23
347:12 222:3 ,6 225:19,25 226:3
furthermore 242:20 228:18 229:20 247:7
future 291:2 250:16 25 1:5,14,24
G
253:14 257:11 ,11 259:4
264:7,8,9 ,16 265:13 ,2 2
KRES SE & AS SO CIATE S, ·LL C
(30 5) 371 -7 6 92
Page 3 5 4
267:24 270:7 273:23
274:15 276:7 277:17,19
278:8,13 279:1,10
28 4:10 285:2 286 :2 1,22
286:25 289:9 291 :21
292:1,2 299:25 300:2
308:1 3 309:8 310 :16,17
314:7 315:13 319:22,23
325:19 327:11 328:24
329:3 ,7,1 5 332:5,14,1 5
332:25 334:3,19 335:1
335: ll 338:12 343:5,6
343:18
Gold 243 :9,24,24
good 230: 11 232: 17 239:7
241:3,12 257:7 26 3:6
264:6 266:5 288:16,25
289:4,5 29 1:21 300:17
306:25 311 :16 31 5:6,7
324:20 331 :24 335:8, 12
339:1 9 342:23
grand 333 :1
grant 345:10,25
granted 247:24,24 266:23
325:23 328 :13
graphically 231 :3
grea t216:5 23 9:14 273:22
280:14 282:17
greater 342:20
green 221:10 230:16 235:9
238:16 279:3 286:1
290:4 306:11,12
greenery 278:20
greeted 308:6
grew 28 8:23
grid 299:2,15,15
ground 232:15 242:18
258:12 317 :22 319 :17
338:7
groups 323:22
Grove 212 :23
guard bouse 329:4
guess 293:18 310:16
322:24
gun 252:7
gu y 310 :1 3,15,1 8
guys 250:22 2 82:24 2 94:8
315:18
gym230:6
gymnasium 278: l3
H
Hagopian 2 12:3
half265:9 286:14 330:25
hand 228:13 29 9:2 3
316:1 4 347:16 348:12
handed 247:9 270:20
happen 233:21 247:8
259:6 283:23 286:25
293:22 294:4,8,12,15
302:24 323:20 325:5
happened 293 :23 ~94:14
299:6 326:23
happening 317:15 322:20
326:10 328:12
bappens 241:4 277:22
303:4,4 318 :1 4
happily310:15
happy 231:4 243:19
292:1 8 308:24
Harbour212:11216:10
221:12 246:14 262:1
268:18 269:1 0 277:9
281:2,3 284:2,10 309:12
334:13
bard 286:12,20 288:5
323:22 327:19 331:20
33 2:1
hardship 307:22
Harrison 212:17 249: 12
hat306:4
head 252:7 263:7 316;6
heads 340:4
bear 245:7 247:6,8 248:24
280:25 281:16 286:13
288:5 316:14,16 324:20
heard2l9:18 245:8 247:4
247:5,6 251:3 260:13
266:15 267:23 268: 17
276:12 289 :18 291 :1 4
hearing 221:20 249:10
251 :14 263:22 270:15
276:8 280:5 281:11
3ll:ll
hearings 219:5
hearsay 247:5 254:15
255:1 281:12
heavily 251:8
heels 316:6
height 227:19 228:3
232:13 238:8 240:11
242:3 246:4 261:18
263:10,23 269:9 271:2,6
273 :1285:22 301:2,2,16
301 :20 302:19 303:17
308:3 309:6 310:19
320:20,21 322:25 332:19
333:13 342:5 343:13
held 212:9 218:25 222:24
223:2 225:5,15,24 226:2
231:15 254:16 266:7
295 :1 0,12,20,23 296:9
311:6 312:19 314:21
320:18 336:24 337:25
338:8 340:16,21 341:9 immediately 285:10
341:1 3,17 344:2,6 345:7 impact241:9,19 242:2
345:18,25 249:21,22,23,25 250:1 ,9
help 245:24 284:18 254:10 269:23 272:2
herpful 297:16 273:10 274:9 300:8
bero288:23 334:4
Hi 257:18 289:4 implement231:4 239:8
hidden 232 :25 299:11 implemented 242:14
higb 299:7 307:25 311:15 importance22 1:3 263:16
3 30:7' 11 334:22 335 : 17 important 213:16 217:22
342:19 227:9 234:22 235:13
higfler269:4 303:16 236:13,15 239:2 248:16
highway265:13 249:7 267:7 273:13
hired 249: 11 293:13 294:14 300:2
historic 224:4 325:23 302:25 303:19 339:2
HOA315:8,9 Importantly 221:5
HOAs 276:25 277:3 impose225:1
hold 219:14 321:11,12 imposed 224:10,14
home268:6 313 :20 317:5 impossible 320:20
homeowner's 266:2 improper 266:3,4 314:22
homeowners 212:20 improve 340:23
246:15 262:5 265:8 improved 296:21 336:18
274:20 280:19 281:1 342:7
284:19 311:9 316 :6 improvement244:3
324:25 261:12 329:3 333:1
homes 275:7 303:5 316:11 improvements 213:20
honor 239:11 308:22 214:4 329:5
hope318:4 inadvertent 33 8:1 8
hoping 273:21 321:23 inches 301:24
horizontal288:2 0 334:18 include 220:8 240:9 345:8
horrible 316: 1,1 included 256:3,4
hours 255:3 286:14 292:23 includes 329:8
296:6 317:13 including 255:12,13
house 228:12 238:7,8,9,23 257:13 276'2 277:3
301:18 304:16 310:14 inclusive 347:10
328:3 incomplete 241 :7
Housen 212:5 276:21 incorporate262:12 296:9
277:5,14 278 :5,1 2,23 incorporated262:8 345:1
279:1,5,15,18,20,24 incorporation 224:20
341:4,14 346:8 increase 244:6 322:24
huge 283:6 328:24 329:7 327:3
334:4 increased 326:25 329:12
humongous 329: 14 incur219:9
hundred 254:17 indemnification 218:23
hung335:25 indemnified 219:19
I
indemnify 219:8
independent263:19
idea216:5 331:11 indicate 254:18,19,20
ideas 231:2 262:13 indicated 248:6 322:2
identifiable ~73 :9 individually 280:13
identified 247:20 335:20 indulgence 244:19
identifies 246:20 influence 26 6:4
identify 219:24 225:16 influential222: 12,12
IT211:5 327:17 347:10 265:21
III 327:17 informed 312:20
illegal 312: 10 ingress 253:1
imagined 334:19 inherent 224:5
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LL C
{305) 371-7692
Page 355
initial 333:18
input239:9
inset 343 :20
inside 228:6 230:16
installed 279: 11
instance254:15 312:14
instructions 243:12
instructive 333:23
intend 251 :21
intended 341: 19
intending 225:11
intensive 336:10
intent 243:5
interest248:13 262:3
interested 347:15
interesting 235:7 324:6
interests 216:1 248:4
interfering 216:20
internal217:25 318 :17
inter nalized 218:9,19
253:11,18,21
internally 319:13 323:10
interrupt 231:9 242:21
interrupts 250:20
intimated 265:20
introduces 22 1:12,13
invested 335:6,13
investing 335:15
investors 222:13
invited 315:1
involved 260: 19 277: 11
287:5 327:21
involvement 275:11
336:11
involving 218:23
island228:11238:11
246:15 249:25 252:18
253:8 261:25 262:5
265:8 273:7,15 280:18
281:2,22 284:3 290:4
309:12,14 316:9 324:25
325:15 327:17 328:12
334:9
islands 212 :20 221 :13
241:20 249:24 277:4
328:17 329:14 335:7
Isle 299:24 307:9
issuaiu:e 296:3 345:2
issue 217:24 219:3 222:14
223:3 251 :12 258 :6
282:21 296:13 297:8
312:20
issued 344:20
issues 213 :8,13 218:23,24
225:21 226:5 251 :3
253:12 255:14 261:25
266:22 267:18 270:18
287: lO 314:1 7 327:1
items 232:22
IV299:19 327:17 334:10
J
Jas on 212 :3 322:16 323 :2
J eff235:3
Jennifer 239:22 243:15
J e une 249:9 25 0: 15
269:21 270:22 271 :11,18
272:24,24 274:6
Jeune' s 25 5:12
job 2 77:24 280:14 282:17
316:20
judgment 312:21
jump301 :22 306:7,16
jumping 217:25
K
Karp 226:7 239:24 240:24
241:11,17 242:6 243:11
244:12 262:7 277:2 1
278:11 ,22,25 279:3,13
279:17,19,22 284:23
287:9 288:16,23 289:5
289:21 ,24 291:10,18,20
292:5,7,10,25 2 93 :3,15
29 8:25 300:13 ,1 7 302:3
307:13 314:11 31 5:5
318:7,20,23 319:7,12,14
31 9:20,23 320:4,7,13,16
320:23 321:11,18,22
322:4,8,13 323:2,5,8
337:6,10,15,18 339:9,24
340:14 341:23 342:24
343:4 ,15,22 346:15
~eep 330:16,22
k eeping254:9 269:17,19
330:20
Kent 212:17 223:4,20
225:5 233:7 249:12
250:16,1 9 260: IS
kept 330:13 344:8
kind 227:13 23 9 :9 254:23
2 84:1 290:17 316:20
327:4 329:25 331:12
332:4 340: l l
knew 247 :7 261:3
know 215:16 216:13 224:9
224:25 225:10 24t:I5
242:4 243:22 245 :7
246:21 250:25 251 :9' 10
252:17,25 254:11,21,22
261:14 264:7,11 265:7
265:12,21,22 273:18
275:23 276:4,4 280:18
280:20,21,24 281:4,13
2 81 :17,19,24,24,25,25 language 223:13 224 :24
282:2,4,5,5,9,9,13,14,21 252:5 341:16
282:25 2 83:4,6,9,9,15,18 la rge 289:l4 291:8,13
283:19,23 284:4,6,11 ,12 328:10 334:15 347:6
284:13,14,14,19,21 larger 291:15 338:13
286:10,11,11,15,16,19 latest 244:1
286:20,21 287:1,2,3,4,4 law 212:17,22 246:25
287:6,6,8,17,21,23 2&8:6 255:13 278:3
288: 12,14 292:11 293:6 lawn 320:2 339:11,20
293:8,10,17,25 294:2,8 lawyer222:11 233:7
294:17 295:3,5 296:21 255:16
296:22 298:13 3 00: 1, 7 lawyers 226:9 274:8
305:23 3 06:10,24 307:9 Jays 336:5
307:15,18,25 311:14,21 Le 249:9 250:15 255:12
311:22,23 312:8 313: I 0 269:20 270:22 27 1:1 1,18
313:11 ,13 314:2 315:24 272:23,24 274:5
316:16 317:9 323:14,14 leads 325:24,24
323:23 324:2,6,7,21 learned 213: 11
325:5,8 326:3,5,14,16,17 leave 276:5 278:16 288 :13
327:2,7,11,1 1,19,20 leaving 3 17:4
328:7,14,16 329:2,6,18 left 213:6 227:6 290: II
329:23,24 330 :2,5,9,14 31 9:20
330:16,1 7,21,25 33 1:1 legal 219:3 274 :2 1 316:22
331:16,19,21 333:4,25 332:4
334:2,22 335:13,18,19 legitimate 311: 18
335:21,21 336:10 338:3 length 290:15 322:7,8
338:11,16 339:6,1 9 Leslie 212:6 280:3 286:1
340:6,13 287:14,15 304:19 305:9
knowing246:9 333:14 306:1308:20 3 16:14,25
knowledge 273:20 346:13
knowledgeable-230:23 let's 262:25 302:6 305:11
known 33 6:14 305:1 1,13,24
knows 215:19 221:7 letter 245:9,9 270:23
Kobi 225:20 226:3 239:25 letter s 23 8:22,24 304: 13
252:22 256:25 262 :7 324:16
277:16 278:6 280:7 levei 232:1S 237 :3 317:21
287:16 288:12 306:10 317:22 323:20 338:7
309:1 3 3 13:11 314:10 344 :23
315:4 316:19 334:24 Lewis 212:12
337:2 341:7 lie 294:20,21
lieu 214:9 259:20 260:7 ,8
L 264:24
IA 319:15 322:1,11 light 313:19,22 322:23
LaGorge 325:21 326:14
laid 229 :17 lighten 331:13
land224:2 lighting 330:22
landscape 231 :24 232:8 Lilia 212:6297:1300:I3
243:6,18 244:2 29 0:4 31 2:23 315:2
296:12,15 319:16 321:13 Lilia's 331:11
321 :23 322:2 limited 223:8 320:21
landscaped 230 :16 232:21 line 231:15 238:10 257 :5,9
242:25 291:23 322:5 258:20 284:9 290:22
landscaping 232:14 243:3 299:2,8,15,16 300:8,1 1
245:11,13 246 :7 290:3 305 :1 0 313 :15 316:12
292:5,7 329:16 33 8:18 319:1 321:9,10
341:7 Jin es 233:18 321:9 323:4
lane253:22 331:8
KRESSE & ASS OCIATES, LL C
(30 5) 37 1-7692
Page 356
linge ring 336:6
listen 336:17
literally 31 3:16 334:6
little 217:15,16 239:18
275:15 284:18 294:3
300:3 305:17 317:3
322:11 323:22 324:11
329:9,16 331:10,13
333:4 338:12 339 :7,1 4
339:17
live 252:18 253:19 316:8
325:13,14,14,20 332:24
335:23
lives 304:12,16 327:15
LLC212:16
Lloyd 288:21
LLP 212:12
loading 321 :20
lob 309:3,4 311:3
lobby 241:16,20 298 :6,9
locate 307:19
located 268: 1
location 221 :6 298:11
331:6
logical306:18
long251:14 280:l7 306:19
310:6 315:24 331:8,19
336:1
longer239:1 9 267:3
look213:14,16 215:2,14
216:15 226:11231:24
232:16 23 3:22 234:3
236:16 241:10 246 :8
268:9,21,22,23 27[:19
284:15 285:2,19 286 :3
288:7 289:2 1 300:16,18
301:10 306:5 309:25
316:1 ,25 321:2 326:20
327:12 329:20 330 :4
333:24 335:1 336:4
looked215 :11234:24
304:17 307:24 315 :20
326:3
looking 215 :17,1 8,21
233:21 236:1 8 246:19
276:8 278:18 283:2
286:7 287:24 293:23
298:5 300:4 315:21
318:25 33 3:7 334:7,7,8
334:10,11
looks 227:16 237:20
278: 14 326:7
Lorber 243:24145:1
253:4 257:14,17,23
258:11,21,23 266:6
lose 303:20 343:11
lot 220:7224:13,21225:l0
-
226:7 235:6 236:4
241:16247:5 261:22,23
261:23 273:19 280:12
282:1 283:22 289:17
291 :1 4 297:4 299:22
306:21 311:15 32 3:25
325 :18 326 :1,6 329 :2
331 :15 332:10 333:2,11
lots 2 15:22 216:4 261:13
low 228:9 304:2,3,22
305:21 330:1 6,20 334:17
low-slung 334:18
lower 236:9 273:2 302:2
303:12 341 :24 343:7
lowered 240: 11
lowering 34 I :21
Luria 252:1 254:16 281 :18
Luria's 251:21
M
MAC 2 12:16 259:18
297:11
main 240:1 1
maintain 273:1 292:15
maintained 218:19
maintaining 282:18
338:13
major 24 J :25 242: 1 313:2
making 282:17 312:20
316:21 332:18 336:14
342:12
manage 233:23
mandate238:14,14
maudsted 248:20
manner213:19 239:6
272:22 342:6
map 335:16
Mark 270:l7
Mark's 2 77:23
marked 215:7
mass 214:3 268:15,16,24
269:9 271:2,17 280:15
283:5 284:1287:22
336:7 342:5
massed 213:18
masses 273: l 0
massing 230:13,19 23 7:12
249:19 267:19 327:22
massive 269:1 5,1 6 304:20
massiveness 317:20
match 227:23
matching 333:12
material229 :9 270:21
materials 306:25 332:9
335:3
matb 228:15
matter 21 8:2 5,25 21 9:4,17
221:22 244 :21 246:10 Miami 211:8 2 12:8,14,18
259:11,15,19 31 2:6 273:24 275:12 335 :18
317:8 M iami-Dade 344:1 5 ,21
matters 219:5 348:5
maximum 238:16 320:1 9 Micbael2l2:4 215:16
mean 236:4 237:13 248 :18 245:1 341:9
256:2 264:11 265:5 Mickey 212:7 318 :7,8
266:1 5 268:18,21280:20 microphone 314:24,25
282:4.284:3 286:2,14,23 microscope 317:11
291 :8,13 293 :4 307:8,21 middle 26 1:1 7 33 1:2 1
314:17 316:3 317:23 midrise 304:23
325:3 328:23 329:1 Minagorri 2 12 :7 3 15:7
331:5 332:16 33 3:7,11 mlnd250:22
334:25 335:8,9 338:15 minimize 342:4
33 9 ; 12, 16,18 341:3 minimizes 217:1
343:25 minimum 241:24 330:14
meaning 232:20 249:23,24 Minnesota 288:24
290:11,21 minute 270:4,10,11,13
means240:17 247:18 272:7,8 279:8
256:3 minutes 225:23,23 226:4
measure23 1:20 31 0:1 5 2 31:6
mechanical229:19 232:25 misquoted 250: 15
240:21241:6,7 267:1 mi ssed 239:20
304:1 misunderstood 297:21
Medina 212:6 297:2 mitigate 242:2
2 98:19,23 299:20 300:15 mitigation 344:25
301:25 302:6 3 06:20 mobilizing 325:1
307:13 3 11:4 315:3 mode 31 5:25
meet 234:9 236:1 242:23 model 226:24 236:4
245:5,6 246:6,6 248:2,11 2 85:19 30 0:18 31 0:1
2 48 :16 286 :19 293:20 333:25 336:4
294:17 295 :9 30 8:5 modern 307:1
343:7 modification 217:1 4 223 :7
meeting 211:7 235:22 260:5 345:12 346:1
270:24 271:9,11294:7,9 modifications 259 :18
323:16,21,21 324:19 306:21 345:16
326:24,24 344 :17 modified 223:17 255:18
meetings 242:11 265:7 277:20
275:3,10 276:25 295 :8 modify 223:11,15 259:20
297:5 317:14 260:6,24 261:8 264:22
meets 228: 14 243: 1 265 :1 modifying 2 23;3
2 72:18 31 6:23 monolithic 2 71: 1
member215:10 266:2 monstrosity 334:12
312:21 montbs303:22 327:21
members 23 8:21 245 :2 morning 294:2 304:17
2 52 :1272:10274:23 motion 343:25 344:3,6,11
276:5 345:9,10,16,18,20,21
memo 220:17 251:25 346:8
memory 255: 15 mountains 268:13
mention 250:13 297:22 move 213 :9 244:23 253:5
mentioned 263:2 324:15 309:21 318:5
MEP330:23 moved 283:20 309:2 1
merely 286:10 multi 325:17
met 219:7 230:11,12,20 multi-family 246 :1 328:14
243:8 2 48:5,6 264:20 328:21
267:14 272:19,20 297:6
297:18 304:9,11 307:14 N
KRES SE & AS SO CIATE S, LL C
(305) 371 -7692
Pa g e 357
nam e 335:16
nature214:8 325:17
near 325:20 329: 17
nearby 326:15
nearly216:16 334:1 3
necessarily 266:23
necessary 244:21 258:15
260:2,6
need 222:7,7 225:18 226:4
226:15 244:18 246 :24
272:7 279:12,13 283:16
307:22 309:9 327:10
330:6 335 :1 4 343 :4,24
344:12,13
needs 247:3 27 1:1 5,15
276:16 314 :14,15 322:5
340:12 342:8 344:2
negative 241:9 269:23
277:12
11egotiate 223:25
negotiated 255:16
neigbbor257:7 265 :5
304:ll 312:8,12 328:25
neighborhood 221:2
2 30:12 241 :10 245:23,24
246:11,11 249:15,22,24
250:1,9 254:9 261 :13
2 65:4 266:11 267:17,21
267:22 269:18,19,23
272:2 274:1 0 276:17
307:10 309:1315:14,15
325:13 326:11,13 327:16
327:18 328:17 331 :23
335:7 33 6:12
neighborhoods 245:7
neighbors 238:20,21 ,22
239:14 261 :24 304 :6,8,9
304:10 333:22
never 218:17,18 271:24
310:7 317:12
new214:22 215 :12,1 3
220:22 268:2,5 284:5
313:8,18,21 325:22
329:4,4 334:10 335 :6
nice 280:25 281:16 283: I
289:9 290:18 308:8
318:3 326:12 327:4
340:6
night 237:19 292:23
331:21
nine 218:2,8,17 223:4,17
228:5 254 :1 256:9
301:17,17 303:24 33 0:15
331: I
oine-foot 228:3 ,3
oode 340: 10,11
nonsense 294:21
normal 29 6:7
normally 214:11
nortb 262:2 277:10 278:9
290:17 297:23 298 :6,20
300:9,11 306:23 320:11
323:7 327:8 332:13
north/so uth 321:9,16
322:2
northeast 271:7 287:18
289:15 298 :8 300:4
337:3,6 338:7 340:21
342:2,5
northern 298:2 1
notarized 254 :20
Notary 347:1,20 348:1,7
348:1 8
notched 242:23
note 227:9 242:9
noted 234:23
notes 230:1 263:1 2 79:7
347:11
notice 221:1
noticed 295:12
noting 2 33:19
November 300:1
number21 7:2 228:12,14
244:18 252:1 7 267:2
270:22 299:3 307:10
311:8 31 6:22 33 5:21
338:13 344:22
numbers 3 12:5
numerous 26 5:10
0
oatb 250:8 348:1
objection 341 :15
object ions 219:13 267:15
objects 259: 18
obstruction 338:16
obtain 344:19
·obvious 306:20
obviously 225:21 244:17
266 :16 290 :1 317:23
329:2
occurred 224:12
occurring 319:5
October211:16
off-site 218:18
Offices 212:22
official 347:16 348:12
officially 274: 16
officials 307:24 315:17
okay 213:5 21 5:8 225:8,24
239:24 243 :2 1 252:6
262:11 270:12 274:15,17
276:7,7 278:5 279:5
280:4 281:7 294:22 ,22
296:11,11 3 12:22 319:8 p
320:22 321:25 322:15 ,21 p.m 346:1 9
323 :11 341:14 344:10 package 226: 19 259:7
34 5:1 5,19,2 4 26 1:15 32 4:18 old 214:21 pac ket 270:20 319: 16
once241:5 page 226:19 227:15
one-story 334:1 228:25 23 1:9 233:14,15
one-way 265:16 234:5,21235:24 242:9
ones 265: ro, 16,17 268:20 242:17 285:13 2 89:21
302:23,24 299:1 301:3 315 :22
ongoing 244:5 pages 347:10
open 221:8 236:24 273 :2 Palau 212:11 235:8 259:19
278:16 279:2 291:15,16 259:21
292:22 304:21 306:11 ,12 paper 254:16
opened 236:13,21 puagrapb 260:8,9
opens237:8 paraphrasing 247 :17
opine 256:1 parcel 261:12,17 263:19
opined 264:19 263 :10
opinion 225:6 259:7,8 parcels 264:25
263 :17 312 :2 325:11 Pardo 238:23
opinions 25 9:24 3 11:15 park 221 :8 237:9 23 8:13
326:14 285:10 290:25 303:4
Oppenheim 230:21 316:8 317:7 329:17
opportunity 225 :12 234:5 33 8:25
264:6 291:3 292:18 parking 217:1,3,4,25
oppose 308: I 0,11 324:9 218:9 219:25 223:4
325:9 328:9 227:11 233:1,3,4,5,6,6,9
opposes 324:7 234:19 235:1 4 244:9
opposing 248:9 254:12 2 56:19 257:6
opposite 2 51: I 263:10 25 8:10,15 261:1 9 267:1
340:9 268:2 283:1,2,4 297:7
opposition 247:25 275:6 30 8:3 309:7 31 7:19 ,21
286:15 326:5 328:2 33 3:8,9 33 4:10
oppositions 324:3 p a rks 329:9
order21 5:14 218:7,16 part 215:3 216:21 2 18:4
219:23 224:15 241:25 220:1 248:16 256:19
249:8 260:10 271:13 258:9,19 259:7 261:5
282:7 302:18 313 :25 2 82:1297:6 316 :15,18
3 14:12 342:4 317:19 320:10,11 324 :17
orders 224:3 329:8,21,22 339:1 1
ordinance 309:8 345:11
original220:21 244:3 particular 22l :6
originally 253:1 260:19 particularly 215:1
285:22 parties223:18 261 :2
outpouring 328: 1 0 347:13,1 4 348:9
outside263:13 290:1 party248:9
outsie 309: 16 pass 326:1
overall 27 l:2 273 :10 passionate 331:24
306:24 3 12:16 327:1 passions 31 1:14
overhang257:2 330:17 Patbman 212: 12,12
331:12 225:19,25 226:3 239:23
overhaul308:20 244:16257:22,25 258:18
overlay 220:21 258:22 25 9:4 270:7
oversigbt 213:21 271:2 3 274:3,13 276:23
overwhelming 334:12 277:2,7 280:25 281:12
owe275:23 292:20 294:16,24 295:4
295:7,18 ,21 296 :1 1
KRESSE & AS SO CIATE S, LL C
(305) 37 1-7 692
Pag e 358
341:15 346:17
patterned 329:15
pay 25 l:22
peak 300:21 302:3,7
pedestal241 :23
pedestrian 237:3 243:4
307:6 318 :3
Pell347:4,20 348:7,17
pending 218:25
penthouse 323:1
people219:14 222:13
225:22 233:20 238:25
247:6 252:17 266 :6
268:17 273:20 291:1
292:13 309:12 310:6
311:8 312:5 324:13,21
325:9,10 326:16 328:8
333:5
perceived 287:22 34 2:5
percent 217:9
perfectly 232:17
period 259:2
permit 218:6,7 224:16,17
240:19 25 7:19 2.5 8:12
296:4 345 :3,5
pe rmitted 246:3,5 263:13
perpetual 332:16
perpetuity 292:16
person 222:12 245: l2
25 2:19
perspective 284:15 288:7
306:2 334:20
Peter 336:11
photo 228:11300:23 303:2
photographs 221:2 315:2 1
p.ick-up 253 :19,21
picket 292: 11
piece 254:16
pieces279:1 2,13 33 3:2
pied 273:6
pink 301:4,5 302:10
322:23 323:4
pits 242:1
place347:9
placing 273:5
plan 213:24 214:11 215:23
220:21,22 223:8,1 2
224:11229:18 231 :25
234:6 236 :17 242:18
244:2,3 25 3:17 258:24
258:24 259:18,20 260:5
260:24,24261:1264:23
264:25 281 :1 8 286:3
296:15 318:11,25 319:17
32 2:1 323:3 344:17,25
345:12,17 346:2
plane 32 0:6
planning 218:8,14 2 19:23
220:5 2 23:24 2 24:4,7,10
238:20,20 239:1 3 243:9
245:2 247:21 248:22
249:9 2 50:6 253:4,13
254:4 257:17 258:8
259:9,1 2 262:15 ,1 6
263:21 266 :2 1 269:22
271:10 280:1 1,12 283:18
285 :23 286:24 297 :5
300:5 304 :7 308:16,19
313:3,4314:1 316:15
335 :1 336:1 5,15
p lans 224: 18 226: 12
229:17 235:2 240:14
245 :5 285:1 2 303:10
304:17 311:17
planters 242:10
plate 308:5
p la y 251:22 304 :2 305:20
plaza 2 89:19 290: 10,25
291 :8 3 10:1 33 8:1 ,7
339:16 340:21
please 226:1 2 228:23
229:22 231 :1233:13
234:21 240:1 250:22
322:9
pleasing 307:1
pleasure 239: 12, 17 3 08:22
plus 2 31:19 242:23 269:15
289:12
pocket 329:1 7
point 223:14 232:22 240 :1
258:9 260:13 271:25
272:5 282 :6 287 :22
288:16,25 2 89:16 291:21
293:13 294:24 296:17
297:16 306 :7 3 13:2
31 5:1 317 :3 323:13
335:9 339:3
points 226:9
pop 330:1 2
popping 331:5
portion 257:2 298:22
340:7
p ositive 23 9:10 245 :14,1 6
269:25 277:6 301:21
305:2
possible 226 :1 4 228 :9
236:9,10 240:12 244:17
330:1 6 34 3:7
possibly 287: 17
p ower 222:7 260:22 268:7
powerful 222:1 1 2 65:20
precedent 219 :7
prepared 335:24
preseD ce 311 :9
pres entation 219:16 325:4,12 326:4,9,21
2 39:11 266:10 2 89:16 327:2,14,2 1 328 :2 ,11,23
presentations 255:4 331:2 0 332:6 333:23
pres en ted 240:15 247:2 33 4:7,15,23 336:8,18
249:3 2 62:22 266:18 340:22 341 :7
270:23 27 1:9 280:16,16 projects 275:8 325:7,9
3 ll :13,19 3 12:4 328:23 334:8
P reservation 2 24:4 promenade 232:8 23 7:5
preserve 273:11 242:25 243:4,6 310:5
preserved 338 :20,2 1 promise 226:8
president 3 15 :8 proper 306:15
pretty 252:5,6 306:22 properly 259:10,12,17,22
p revious 23 5:13 25 8:23,24 pro perties 226:25 2 69:13
previous ly 2 34 :23,24 313:1
23 5:2,19 pro perty 215:3 216:1
prior215:14221 :1345:2 2 18:3,13 220:9 228:22
p r ivate 291:17 319:10 235:4 238:10 245:1 9
329:6 256:12 257:5,9 258:19
privilege 2 80:5 25 8:20 261:3,6 263:25
probably2l5:20 225:25 264:12 278:1290:2,7,9
2 50 :25 264 :13,23 2 71:16 290:10,15,21 ,22 299:8
3 14:8 33 0:21 321:18
problem 220:10 254:12 p ropo rtional 344:25
277:1 6 308:1 4 pro posal 257 :21 271:5
p rocedur al221 :22 337:22
proceedi ngs213:1 218:24 prop ose 343: 19
346:20 347:8 348:11 proposed 220:22 228:19
process 219:10 247:12 240:10 248:11 ,15 249:18
267:3,3 275:14 313:12 284 :15 285:7,8 312:7
3 16:1 9 336:19 proposing 229:7 232 :6
p r oducing 313:12 33 5:17 279:16 343:1 8
p rofess ions 1270: 16 protester 26 1 :20
3 16:18 pro tester~ 251: 15
Profess ionals 217:20 prot esting 247:4 277:8
profess or 2 49:9 250:1 5 provide 241:24 ,25 309:9
2 55:1 2 269:20 2 72:23,24 33 7:19
274:5 p r ovid ed 236: ll 260:8
p r offered 2 50:4 27 0:17,23 309 :9 328:21
p rogram 31 0: 13 334:21
p roject 214:9,15,22,22 provides 223:23
2 15:1 2,13 218:4 224:12 p1"0Viding 23 2:14 296:2
224:15,21 225:14 235:2 337:23
23 5:8,13 239:18 2 4 5:18 public 227:5 232:8 235:15
245:21 249:14 251:18 23 5:17 23 6:23 23 8:10,1 6
254:8 257:1 259:21,22 242:2 5 243:6 248:3,13
261 :22,22 262:6,9 263:7 274:16 275:20 289:17
2 65:1 1266:8,9,10 290:14 29 1:6 292:23
267:11,13,21 268:1,4 295:14 ,25 296:2 297:9
2 69 :8 270 :1 271:1 ,6 ,12 300:2 307:23 310:5,5
271:1 9 272:12 2 73:2 3 18:14 32 9:7,8 330:3
275:1,6 276:10,17 337:7,23,24 338:12
2 77:13 2 80:5,8 2 93:24 339:7,1 5,1 6 340:8,2 5
297 :3 299:21 300 :8,10 344:18,21 347:20 348 :7
303:23 305:3 308:21,23 publish ed 248:17,19
309:1 6 3 10:10 ,12 311 :1 6 Publix 2 37:23 26 8:2
31 3 :8,9,1 8,2 1 317:10,13 2 83:12 334:11
3 17:16,20 324:14 325:2 pull 232:7 233:23 234: I 5
KRE SSE & AS SO CIATE S, LL C
(30 5) 371 -7 692
Page 359
236:6,8 287:21 303:9
305:11,11 ,13
pulled 2 33 :16 2 34 :8,10,11
234:16,16 257:8 258 :4
290:8 297 :12 304:1
338:15
.
pulling 303 :23,23
pure ly 222 :15 229:1 4
purpose 23 7: 18 260:3
purposes 220:3 265:11
292:19
push 288:19 303:8 305:24
pusb ed 28 5:25 2 93 :5,7,8
305:22 309:25 314:5
push in g 264:3
put 21 7:3 242:9 252:7
254:3 257:3 2 85 :5
292:11 303:25 307:17
308:13 329:l8 33 5:16
puts 277:17
putting 216:3 278:20
0
qualified 230:23 2 51:1 0
2 66:5
q ua lity 334:23 335:5,17
quantity 2 33:2
quasi-judicia l 311 :l l
question 240:1 276:23
2 79:25 289:1 4 2 97:2 0
300:17
q u es tions244:12 276:22
31 8:10323:12
quick 31 8:9
qu ic kly 2 44 :23 251:20
294:16 31 8:12
quite 225:22 275:22
278:1 5 2 89:15 327:6
R
racks 23 5:1 0,25 2 78:14,19
rai\228:18
railings 343:17,20
rains 2 83:13
raise 2 13 :8
raised 2 I 8:24 226:6 240: 1
range 2 30:9,9
rarely214 :18
ratification 247:2 1
ratified 248:23
reach 259 :24 265:14
read 245 :9 247:13 249:16
2 52:4,5 275:20 295:16
311:23 338:8 345:23
346:3
reading 223:6 278:17
reads 296:8
ready 295:17
real294:6
realize 325 :3
realized 25 8:3
realizes 215:24,24
really 216:25 223:9 227:19
229 :25 263: 16 273: 17 ,20
280: 18 283 :23 290: l 7
291:12 294: l3 296:16,21
297:3 298 :23 307:6
309:1311 :17 315 :12,12
315:13,25 316:20 317:11
318:12 322:19 324:17
326:12,22 327:9 330:4
33 1:6,24 332:11,22
333 :24 334:18 335:8,12
33 5:14,15,17 336 :4,5,5,9
rear 2 16 :4 31 3:5
reason 2 16:1 8 227:17
229:2 294:13,13 3 12:17
rebut 270:13
rebuttal225: 17,21
rebutted 247:3
rec.all 261 :14
receive 275:18
receiv ed 239: 14 243:23
324:1 8
recess 346:20
recognizes 273:12
recommendation 251 : 17
251:18 266:13 ,14 308:8
31 2:18
recommended 2 40:5
272:25 278:20
reconvene 2 13:5
record219:22,23 220 :1 8
220:24 233:8 244:20
247 :1 4 249:16 250 :1 8
251 :23 254:3 2 57:15
263:23 271:8,19,20
272:1 274:11 295:1 6,25
3 14 :23 344:8 346:4
347:11
recorded 260: 11,22 26 1 :9
records 221:1 29 5:25
red 305:1 8 322:23
redesle n 253:1 0
redesig ned 271:13 300:10
redo 253 :10
reduce 227:19 2 33:2
263:23 271:6,16 273:10
282 :11 287 :19
reduced 216:24 220 :19,20
3 0 1:16 314:8 342:9,11
red udng 30 l : l
reference 342:13
referred 249:13 3 05:8
referrin g 299:2 265:1,2 292:12 308:25
reflect 260:11 3 44 :7 3 09:24 344:18
r efuted 249:4 255:1 0 r eserve 255:19
274:7 r eserved 344:23
regard 2 23:3 2 67:19 r esidence 328:13
r egarding282:15 344:14 r esidences 31 3:6 334:9
regardl ess 25 8:16 3 34:4 r es ident 275:12
regulated 253 :24 r esidential227:7,8,21,21
regulations 224 :2 228:7,20 229:13,14,15
rehash 2 13 :12 232:1 3 23 5:1 6,22 238 :2
reiterate 2 54:5 263:15 23 8:6 250:9 272:3 274:9
r elat e 276:9 312:16 285:1 6 308:4 310:10,11
related 347:14 3 10:13 3 12:25 328:14,1 9
relates 310:2 328:20,21 335:6,17,21
relating 232: I l r esidents 241:20 253:8,19
r elation 2 71:3 327:22 2 67:9 27 1:14 274:20
relationship 226:23 275:24 323 :18 326:15
r elative 240 :2 312:24 327:12,19 332:23
336:7 337:22 R esista 2 30:2 283:25
relentless 336:14 r esolv ed 277:17
relocated 241 :21 r es pect 214:8 217:19
relocating 241 : 16 r es pecting 237:1
rely251 :8 r es p ective 21.5:25
remain 22 7:12 r es pond 271:13
remarks 305:2 r es ponsibility 221:18
r e member 22 1:24 323:15 224 :7 272:10
reminder 270 :14 rest273 :1 2 89:7 33 6:6
remove 300:10 305:5 r estaurant 2 68 :7
removed 284:13 301:11,(3 r es ult 219:10 336:10
314:4 res urgence 245:25
r emovin g 273:4 3 31:11 r etail246:2 253:20 268:3
337:12 268 :5
r endering 285 :6 r eview2ll:7 21 2:2 214:12
r enderings 334:21 214 :19 2 15:12,13 219:24
rephrase 232:4 224 :3,8,8 2 26:15 23 4 :25
replace 33 4:1 240:12,23 247:19 259:14
repo rt 240:5 246:8,19,22 259:16,1 7,22 260:4,10
247 :2,3 248 :22 251 :6,7 262:1 5 26 3:1 275:9,2 0
261 :11 272:1 3 322:17 300:6 317:16 325:7
336:23 337:20 345:14 336:16 34 1:1 345:11
347:7 346:1
Reporter 347:5,20 348:1 r eviewed 21 4:12,1 4 244:1
reports 275:22 260:20 342:6
represen ted 25 1:2 r eviewing275:1 7 2 81:17
request 259:11,12,16 r evise 2 56:23
270:1 285:21 323:16 r evisi on 244:7
345 :6 ,7 reworks 288:12
request ed 242:13 2 4 3:9 Richar d 243:24 244: 1
308 :18 3 14 :2 3 4 8:9 257 :17 258:1
r equests 2 48:2 293:18 r id 230:9 2 82:2 30 6:3,4
t equire 224:19,19 295:22 right 222:8 225:10 228:12
required 217:1 25 6:1 9 2 29:14 23 1:24 23 2:5
258:9,14 262:24 264 :5 234:3 23 7 :15 2 3 8:7
295:19 309:7 321:8 243:15 245:20 256:5
requirement 21 8:20 2 61:11 263:18,20,24
231 :17 292:21 266:24 277:21 285:4
requirements 243:1 251 :4 288:2,9 292:13 296:5
KRE SSE & AS SOC IAT ES , LLC
(30 5) 371 -76 92
Pa g e 360
299:4 300:18,23 301:6
30 1:15 302:9 30 3:5
304:16 306:6 ,13,16
307:17,19,20 309:5
3 12 :19 31 7:6 319:18
321:1 7,22 328:3,16
329:3 339:1,10,16
right-of-way 227:5 23 5:15
235:17 236:23 238:11
291:6
rise 304:22
rive r 320:2 329:21 339:21
RM-2 234 :9,10 23 6: I
242:23
R oa d 262:2 277:10 335:11
Robbins 212:17 21 3:6,7
2 15:8 223:2 1 249:12
256:8 265:19 272:8
role276:3
roof 229 :18 232:23 240 :11
240:1 4 279:11 ,21 287:20
298 :14 30{:13,24 3 18:11
318:14,25 3 19:10 323:9
330:18 331:5 337:12
341 :22 342:15
roofing 342:24 343:5,10
roofs 330 :7
rooftop228:1 7 240 :2,7,13
240:21279:7 303:15
342:2,13 343 :3
room 321 :20 331 :17
roughly 255 :20 277:3
RPR 347:20 348:1 7
ruled 21 9 :I
run 222:9 322:2
run-off278:2
r unniug 321:9,l0 322:12
runs321:16
s
Saba 2 12 :4 289 :4,6,23
291:7,12,19 292:1,6,8
293:4,16 296:15 338:10
338:23 339:1,4 340:9
sacrifices 332:17
sat 230:21 237:18 305:23
satisfied 21 5:7 246 :22,23
satis fy 316:24 345 :5
Savings 282:16
saw 2 80:8
saying 252:2 257:22 258:1
260:15 265:12 274:5
2 75:4 324:2 1
says 2 13 :1 7 232:24 240:6
246:22,2 5 247:1 5,1 6
248:8 250:5 251 :18
255:13 259:8 260:4
263:17 266:18 271:11,20
295:24 298:6 308:20
321:5,19
seale 236:4 268:9 271:17
282 :3,11 284:9 328:4
334:7,9,10,12 336:7
scaled 284:13
school344:14,16,18,19,23
345:8
school's 345:6
Schools 344:21
scrutinized 326:20
seal347:16 348:12
seats 344:22,24
seawall232 :6
second226:11227:14
228:24229:22 233:14
242:21250:22 263:1
285:12,18 305:13 314:23
344:13 345:11 346:7,8
346:11
secret 230:7,8 236:6,7
283:3 298:17 314:6
section 226:20 227:1,3
271:7 299:9 303:3
sections 273:9
security 292:19
see 223:13 227:10,22
228:1,10,2 5 229:6,9,11
229:12,15,18 231:12,18
231:25 232:23 233 :14,18
233 :22,24 234:7,9,18
235:8,12,24 236:17,20
236:23 237:8,9,16
238:12 242:8,16,21
244:2 245:25 250:11
262:25 264:16 268:12,14
268:16,25 275:6 278:19
282:20 283:5,7 284:17
285:17 286:12 288:8
296:14 299:2,2 300:23
301:1,3 ,5,14 302:10,23
302:24 303:1,10 304:10
305:18 306:1 310:2
313:13 315 :1 3 317:1,17
318:4 319:3 32 1:19
323:6 326:12,22 327:2
327:20 328:6 331:3,4,25
335:10,19
seeing273:24 321:5
seek263:9 269:8
seen 269: l3 27 5: 18 295:2
317:12
sees 268:24
selection 244:7
sense 275:8 339:23,24
sensitive 214:3
sent251:25 252:2 254:23 235:4,5,6 236:4,5 262:23
sentence 340:17 285:6,7,14,15 299:10
separate 303:11 303:3 315:22 328:7
September 243:25 side 216:16 228:13 232:19
Seraj 212:4 289 :3 291:20 232:20 25 0:2,4 267:25
296:12 306:9 31 7:1 269:14,14 278:12 282:16
324:5 338:5 282:18 297:14,23 298:7
series 329:9 298:15,20 300:9,11
seriously 237:12 263:12 301:9,18,23 306:23
275:14 276:3 3 15:11 309:20 319:3,18 ,18,25
set221:2 227:7,20 228:2 327:9 328:18 329:21,22
231:11,16,18 235:25 329:23 330:19 332:3
236:20 238:2,3 ,4 242:17 33 9:15
278:15 285:16,20286:4 sides 285 :6 327:7
289:10 296:18 299:7,13 sidewalk 241 :25 242: I 0,19
302:1 2,15 303:12 307:23 2 89:25 290:1,6 329:15
308:7 310:4 331:14 329:23 339:22 340:5
347:9 sight 270:18 303:24
setback 216:17,19 227:22 31 6:12 33 1:7
227:22228:21231:17 signature 333:2
236: 1 242:24 246:6 signatures 254:17,20,25
265:2 290:24 301:8 signed 254:22 261 :8
306:22 310:9 313:17 significance 311:7
321:23 329:12 significant 252:24
setbacks 232:14 251:4 significantly 293;5
282 :15,18,19 307:3 signing 255:23
321:5,8 326:25 329:14 similar238:8 260:1 0
sets 232:18 335:22 322:l0
setting 23 6:2 241 :22 30 I: l simple 294:7
313:17 simply 233:5
seven213:15 253:25 302:8 sincerely 274:19
sewer283:11 single 214:15 255 :10
SH212:16 single-family 232 :12
shade 244:6 327:8 332:16 235:16 238:6 275:7
shaded 290 :16 312 :25 313:6 328:20
shaft 297:23 singl~story 232:1
shafts 330: l I sir240:24 343:15
sbame293:8 sit 2 t 7:11 ,13 239:24 250:7
share 344:25 286:12 291:1 294:6
Sharon 347:4,20 348 :7,17 305:16 33 6:3 339:25
sheet 285:12 31 3:13 sit-downs 323:25
318:11319:15,16 321:3 site 213:18,24 214:1,1 0
322:11,21,22 215:3,4,23 217:4218:12
shocked 334:14 220:2,2!,22 223 :8,12
sbop268:7 225:4 231:14 236:16
shoreline 243:1 292: 12 ,2 1 258:23,24 259:18,20
295:19,21 260:5,24 261:1 264:23
short 233:5 271:14,15 277:23 342:6
sborter227:24 310 :3 344:16 345:12,17 346:2
show 248:9,14 263:6 295:1 sited 213 :18
299:12 317:3 siting214:2
showed 22 1:3 228:10 sits 228:21 237:21 250:6
301:18 250:25 306:4
shown 240:14 301 :3 sitting 237:15 280 :23
342:18 286:23,24
shows 226:20 227: l, 1,3 ,6 six213:15 303:22 342:21
229:25 230:2,5 231:10 343:9,14
KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
(305) 371-7692
Page 361
size 233:24,25 236:3
237:12 242:12 327 :2 2
sizes 229:15,16 234 :3
sky 313:7,14,20,22,24
slab 228:4,4,5
sli ght268:24
slim 305:21
small 246:2 341:6
smaller 234:2 339:14
smooth 317:2
soften 284:7 285:2 288:1 I
solution 231 :2 311:4,5
332:22
solutions 287:7
somebody 223:14 289:18
308:10,11 324:21
soon 245:11 276:5
sorry 231:9 242:20 295:8
295:20 299:13 306:19
323:2
sort 275:3 276:8 293:21
307:4 319:2 323:12
324:4 329:5,10,10,20
339:11
sounds 323 :23
south 212:14 267:25
318:15 319:2,5 330:19
southern 320:10
space 22 1:8,10 230:16
235:10 238:16 258 :14
278:16,24 279:3 282:22
286 :1289:14 291:15,16
292:2,9 306:11,12 314:6
328:19 338:12,17 339:7
spaces 218:2,8,10,17
219:25 223:4,17 238:17
244 :9 256:9,17,24 257:2
257:4,6,10,12,20 258:3,7
258:16,25 259:2 297:7
321:20
speak225:1 3 250:4 275:13
277:13 298:3 324:8
325:2
SPEAKER 294:20
speaking 225:12
species 244:7
specific 221 :23 242:12
243:12
specifically 213: l4 220:11
223:23231:11242:7
256:7 259:5 271:11
272:24 299: I 313 :10
spend 241:16
spent245:3 261:23 317:13
spirit 340:14
split 279:22
splits 224:13
spoke225:22 231:5 304:9
spoken 285:1
spread 317:23 329:10
square 217:7,8 266:24
268:3 291:23 308:12
317:24
ss 347:2
staff213:22 215:9 234:25
238:20 239:12 240:5,13
240:16 244:25 245:6
247:2,20 248:6,21 249:3
251:6,9 253:1,4,6 261:10
262:14,15,15,18 265 :1 0
266:2,13,14 272:13
284:25 300:6 303:22
304:25 308:8 313:10
314:2 322:17 326:19
335 :1 336:15,23 337:14
337:20 339:5,25 341 :2
341:17,23 342:7 343:23
344:8 345:13,24
staff's 244:4 246:8
stair 240:2 318: 17
staircase 239:5 287:11
299:5,5 304:18 337:8
staircases 299:14 30 I: 11
stairs 3 19:9
stairway 298:12, 13
stairwell240:7 283:25
298:10,15
stairwells 330:12
stand 301:9
standard247:10,10 254:6
255:13 292:20 313:3
335 :23 346:2
standards 24 7 :19 248:2,6
248 :7,1 2
start226:16 237:9 276:1 9
276:21
started 274:18
starts 3 19:2
state 344:22 347:2,5 348:4
348:8,18
statement255:12 257:1 6
311:24 322:14
statements 254:14 270:5
311 :22
states 30 1:23 344:16 345:4
stating 2 86:10
station 268:8
stayed 219:6,17
stays 225:6
Stef230:11
stenographic 3 47:11
stenograpblcally 347:7
step307:14 308:5
stepped 227:25 281:24
301:13,15 310 :2 5
stepping 282:23
steps 229:25 302:16
sticking 305: 17
stood 308:21
stopped 277:24
stopping 309:1 7
stories 2\6:7,7,8 282: 1 0
282:10
story 320:9,11
stralght 231: 16 266:4
strange 324:11
strategy 273:8
street21l:ll 221:9 229:12
234: I 235:11,17 237:21
238:4 241:21 242:4,8
253:5 255:21 269:14
291:6 296:19 300:20
303:14 309:11 320:25
329:5,13 341:5
streets cape 296:20
striagent 326:20
s triped 233:18
strong 25 1:7 266:1 4
31 5 :19 331:16
s trongly 323:17
structure232:1233:10
234:20 273:3 301:23
335:7
structures 232:4 342:15
342:16 343:3
struggle 281 :20 286:16
333:14
studied 3 17:11 340:23
study254:11288:17
292:18
styli stica lly 289:8
Sll bject 240: 12 259: 11, 15
259 :19 296 :1 312:8
341:1 346:2
submit 220:23 264:23
submittal247:22
s ubmitted 220:17 221:1
226:12,20 234:24 285:13
substantial247:1 248:10
248:14 249:2 254:6
255:11 2 62:22 306:22
307:10 311:18,25 340:7
substantially 234:2 236:10
23 8 :3 285:3 286:5
287:19 288:19 301:14,19
314:7 33 7:13
sobtext 332:5
successful333:17
successfully 288:2
succession 264 :21
sudden 332-:20
sufficiency 259:25
sufficient 344:24
suggest 271:12 323:17,17
330:8,19 339:18
suggested 21 6:3 272:21 •
3 14:3
suggestion 300:15
suggestions 244: 13 307:15
Suite 2 12:13
summarize 213:8
sunrise 296:6
sunset212:11 ,20 216:10
22 1:9,12,13 228:11
231:19 234:9,10 236:15
238:4 241:18,21 242:22
246:14,14 249:21,22,23
249:24,25 253:2,8
261:25 262:1,1,5 265:8
268:18 269:10 272:2
273:15 277:4,8,9 280:18
281:2,2,3,22 284:2,3,10
290:4 292:4,12,13 296:7
297:7,17299:24 307:9
309:11 '12 316:2 324:25
326:17 327:16 328:4
329:14 332:24 334:9,13
33 5:7 338:21 340:10
Sunsets 329:1,1 0
supervisory 223:23
support 238:23,24 2 74:6
275:5,5 277:6 304:13
315:19 324:14
supporter 27 1:18,24
supports 325:4
supposed 2 19:6 220:1 ,2
247:11
Supreme 248:7
sure241:225 1:1 5 264:16
278:17 287:11291:4
297:25 298:2 308:11
324:13 326:1,19 327:6
329:16 330:13 333:19
338:20
surprise 25 I: 13
surprised 275:4
sworn 348:9,10,ll
sympathetic 332:23
system 277:22
systems 304: t 330:23
T
take220:25 227:18 229:21
233:13 234:4 237:11
249:8 250:17 256:10,17
25 6:20 259:1 275:14
276:ll285:11292:I5
294:5 307:13,16,18
KRESSE & AS SO CIATE S, LL C
(305) 37 1-7 692
Page 362
308:12 311:17315:10
320:10 323:9 326:19
taken 220 :12 266:22
267:19 273:18 285:9
289:25
takes 276:3 3 18:17 335:15
talk242:4,6 244:8 264:18
268:19
talked 270:24
talking 278 :23 284:25
285 :5 291 :7 301:7
302:19 304:6 317:1
342:14
taJler 305 :19 327:24
Taylor 230:22 231:5 239:4
285:1 304:15
team 265:25
technical 323:12
Technically 321:7
tell 222:4 250:14,17
252:22,22,23,23 253:12
254:15 260:1265:24
309:3,4 340:20
telling26l :10 264:3 269:1
tells 222:5 263:18
ten 228:6 265:7 276:24
277:4,4 301:24 302:15
302:15 330:7 342:19
ten-foot 291:8 339:19
termination 290: lO
terms 223:10,25 224:1,24
286:18 335:16
terrace 287:21 318: 18
319:11 337:4,7,8,9,13
342:3
terraces233:19 318 :14
343:19
terre 273:6
Terry 336:11
testified 249:9 250:8 254:8
testimony 215:9 270 : 17
312:1
text296:10
thank222:23,25 225:5,7
241:12,14 244:14,15
259:3 269 :2 4 270:2
271:21,22 272:6 274:1,2
274:13,14,19,23 280:1
287:9,12,13 289:2
296:12,25 297:2 299:20
315:4,5,16 318:7,8
319:21 336:20,25 346:9
346:15,17
Thanks 280:2 287:14
thiog249:7 255 :10,25
283:2 284:16 286 :3
287:15 288:8 325:22
335:10 344:12
tbings219:21226:14
244:18 ,20 245 :8 249 :6
249:14 260:14 262 :7
267:20268:10 275:17,18
2 82:1 ,5 2 83:22 285:2
287:25 294:9 306:17
308:16 32 3:19 327:2
330:4 331:2,4,10 33 3:11
333:23 338:11 344;1
tbink216:5,17 217:6
220;9 222:10 223:6,16
223:21224:25 226:1 5
229:5 237:10 246:9 ,20
247:4 2 49:7 250:7 251:8
252:5,12 255:2,25
263:11 266:21267:7
268:12 269:18 2 71:1 4
276:7 277:16 279:24
28 0:8,12,14,24 281:5,15
28 1:17,1 8 282:16,24
283:1,3,9,15,23 284:9,1 1
284:20,25 286:25 287:24
288:1 ,17,18 289:1,7,9,11
293 :1 2,22 294:10 296:18
296:20,22 297:3,11,13
298:16 299:21 306:24
3 15:3 3 16:25 31 7:9,18
317:19 321:15 326:24
327:4,5,13 328:15 ,18 ,24
329:6,18 330:5 331:15
33 2:8,8,18,21,22,25
33 3:16,22 334:1 6 33 5:14
335:22 336:9,18 339:25
340:6,11 341:9,17 342:8
342:22
thinking 304:18 305:4
33 1:22 33 8:19 33 9:1 2
tbinks 314:14
Third 247:15
thorough 25 1 : 11
t hought 280:22 286:11
2 87:1,8 2 89:18 291:13
291:14 326:9 331:19
tho ughts 274:25 276:14
333:18
tho usand 217:8 262:17
three 216:7 223 :6 229:13
235:20 262:17 ,17 267:12
269 :15 282:1 0 302 :16
303:1 329:9
three-dimensional 303:2
three--foot 261:17 320:20
tbrew 245:4
thrown 284:22 287:25
time221:19 225 :1 6,18
227:19 234:13 241:16
245:3 250:17 253:25 trouble 315:17
255:18 261:23 265:24 true 298:2 319:7,14
269:24 270:16 273:17 322:13 34 7:10
274:15,24 280:8 293:1 9 trust 287 :2
303:25 304:7 307:11,1 I truth 261 :2 26~: 10 269:12
325:18 326:5 333:1 317:8
346:16,17 347:9 try 213:7 2 17:13 225:23
times 226:22 269:15 22 6:1,2,7 244:16,22
315 :12 326:2 265:6 266:3 283:12,16
title 214: l 0 264:24 284:23 294:25
Tobin 212:6 253:11 280:4 trying2 17:12 228:8 256:8
281:7,10,13 286:9 271:25 272:4 316:7
287:1 3 288:4,10,21 331:9,17
342:8 343:24 344:4,10 Tucker 212:21,22 240:1
345:21 346:5 297:21 298 :1 336:11
today 240:19 247:5 248:25 Tucker's 241 :2
249:10,13 25 1:2,14 t une 285:20
252:8 254:7 255:1 7 TV243:22
263 :22 264:8,14,17 tweaking 31 6:21
267:8 273:16 276:13 two 214:17 216:7 227:7,8
280:23 315:10,18 318:5 227:25 23 5:20 247 :9
to1d222:1,3 236:18 250:23 261:13 264:25 270:22
254:21 304:15 273:4,9 274:8 278:21
top 227:25 228:4,4 229:2 285:15 29 8:1 6 299:3,15
234:6 238:3 24 1:7 28 2:2 299:16 302:12,13,14
284:12 287:18 302:14 303 :5,11305:12,13
313:17 322:25 323:6 313:17 319:9 321 :8
337:3 3 42:1 5 323:22 338 :11,13
torn 256:13 two-part 345:1 0
total 235:21 two-story 216:9 282:22
totally 250:24 298:24 two-thirds 319:5
touch 251 :20 type 2 17:13,14,15
tower212:13 239:5 types 2 42:1 2
towers 279:21,23 334 :13 typically 324:7 332:6,7
townbomes 227:23,24 typo 215:5
232:19 262:1 2 68:18
269:11 277:9 289:10 u
290:23 300 :19 301 :4,5 u.s 335:22
302:1,4,7, 11 ,20,22 ultimately 244:22
30.5:10 Um-humm 278:11
townhouse 271 :16 unanimous 247:22 267:5
townhouses216:3 300:9 unanimously 248:23
313:9,24 31 6:2 332:19 underground 277:18
334:8 underside342:2 1 343:2,9
traffic 253:13,16,17,23 understand 236:16 237:11
254:10 325 :22 239:3 245 :1 8 246 :1 6,25
t r a nscript 250: l 0 256:25 274:12 284:1
transition 216 :6 291 :20 302:25 317:5,7
trash 253:21 332:16
treated 239:6 understanding 218:5
tree241 :25 242:10 understands 256:25
trees 242:1,12,13 290 :5,16 341 :17
327:3,8 undulations 33 2:1 2
tremendous 221: I 0 unfortunate 258:24
tremendously 336:18 unfortunately 214:23
tri-p art 345: I 251 :23 281:14 294:4,12
tried 222:2 252:16 295:4 UNIDENTIFIED 294:20
KRE SSE & AS SOC IATE S, LLC
(305) 371 -7692
Page 36 3
unification 224:18 ,1 8,24
264:18
unified 213:24 214:10,15
225:3 264:25
Unintelligible 281:6,9
294:19 314:19
unique 231:14
UNISON 346:14
unit 229:17 2 81:19,2 1
282:2 284:12 287:18
298 :7,8,1 4 300:4 301:7
309:4 318:18 319:10
337:4 339 :1 2 342:2
units 216:9,24,25 21 7:2,3
229:16 233:3,24,25
234:1282:7 285 :16
300:11303:11 ,13,1 5
314:5 31 8:12 ,1 6,21
31 9:9 322:25 323:1,6
332:15
unity214:10 264:24
unlawful 312:10
unusual21 4: 13
upheld 272:1 8
upper 343:19
usability 2 59:1
use 218:6,7 224:11 230:14
256:15 257:10,11,12
2 58:7,15 259:10 266:4
268:11 272:11 282:20
306:14 3 10:24
useable 257:4
utilized 218 :3 ,18
Utopia 212:22
v
valid 231:8 306:7 312:17
327:25 344:1 9
value 2 56 :11 325:11
vatiance261:18 263:2,3
269:6,7,9 307:22 308:3,9
308:10,11 320:15,18
variances 263:8,9 320:21
vast244:3
vehicle 309:14
vehicles 309:17,20
Velazco 347 :4,20 348:7,17
Venetians 327:18
ventilation 230:15,18
venture 329 :6
vernacular 23 0:13
versus 185:8 328:13
vibrant 245:25 264 :15
view 21 5:20,21,22 217:20
2 l 7:2 l,22 231:23 232:15
236:12,14 255:23 270:19
273:7,11,13,14 278:7,24
292:3 2 93 :11297:13,18
310 :5 312:24 313:22,25
323:4 328:22 338:14,22
viewers 243:22
views 290:13 327:7
v isibility 340:24
visible 299:16,19 31 3:8,20
vista 236:ll ,14 237:9
vistas 231:23 232:1,15
290:13
voice 274:25
voiced 326:15
volume 211 :5 23 0:6
347:10
voluntarily 262:10
volunteer 276:18
vote248:21 267:6
w
W 212:2l,22
wait213:3
walk226:4 237:4 290:9,9
290:12,19 307:3,4 310:6
310 :7 320:3 329:21 ,22
337:24 339:22,22 340:5
walks 293:2
walkway 295:15 296:3
321:16 340:4,25
walls 292:8
want 215:19 219:14,22
220:4,16,18 225:13
226:8 229:21 232:22
233:8,13 234:4 239:25
241:1,15 242:4,6 24 9:15
251 :20 252:4 254:5
255:23 257:8 261:1 ,24
263:1,8,15 266:16
268: 11 270:9 272:9
274:3,4,19 276:1278:1 7
282:4 283:4 285: 18
295 :1 304:14 305:6
308:1309:13,15,16
323:9 327:6,13 328:6
330:13 338 :9,16,19
342:17
wanted 226:23 227: 18
253:1,5,6 285:11 294:17
304:10 305:20 333:5,20
wants 223:l4 243:13
250:11
Washington 212: 18
wasn't2l5:9 245:4 250:23
251:13 265:23 284:5
322:19
watcbed281 :1 0
water 216:9 227:20,24
23 0:1 232:2,3 233:17,25
261:19 269:14 273:15 323: 18 330:3 331:9
283:10 290:12,14,20 338:9 339:5 340 :17
301:19 303:12 305:9 341:23 343:6
307:16 320:25 33 7:23,23 worked 268:4 284:21
338:14 wor!dng 265:4,4 337:14
waterfront295:15 296:3 343:23
300:21 340;25 works288:1 297:9 330:3
waterway 249:19 298:24 340:1
301:10 313:1 ,6 337:24 World 213 :25 221:3,4
338:22 226:21 229 :5 235:5
waves 268:1 3 236:8 282:16 291:4
way2 17:19 22 1:9 227:4,6 worth 287:24
230:20 236:12 237:17 wouldn't 24l:l9 269:8
238:21 243:4 246:12 283:4 293:25 310:8
249 :17,18 25 2 :25 265:13 320:18
266:3 267:23 2 88:2,3,11 wow 326:6,11
289:17 290:14,19,21 wrapped 318:1
299:14 303:24 304:5 wrapping 249: 19 265:19
305:4 309:22,25 310:2 1 Wright 288:21
312:15 313:24 314:6 writing 272:25
317:22 3 18:2 324:13 wr itten 338:2,3
327:5 333:16 334:17 wrong 319:24
338:2 5 340:4 wrote213 :22 251:16
Wayne 212:12 225:16
239 :21 294:2 1 X
ways331:9
weak271 :3 y
weigh 272: 16 yard230:22 313:5 339 :1 4
welcomed 262:4 yeah 243:16 302:4
went238:22,23 245:2 year214:1 8 217:12 260:21
304:6,8 261:8
weren't 225 :11 years 214: l 7 230:24
west 217:2 0,21 227:3
232:20 273:14 290:21 z
297:14,16 298:1 5 31 9:18 zero254:13 321:6
3 19:18,20,25 330:19 zoning 247:1 7,19 31 1:22
westerly 290:12
whack328:5 0
white 229:1,24 332:10 015147 347:21 348:18
wide 290:6 08/19120 14 348:19
widening 241:22
width 241 :25 243:2 314:9 1
William 212:5 246:9 107 217:8
252:22 305:23 337:25 108,000217:7
William's 246:19 11 235:1
willing 33 6:1 7,22 337:17 111133 3:9
windfall 2 56: 10 118-5214:25 224:6
windows 278:16 12 213:15 241:24 310:19
wish 277:11 281:13,14 12-foot 242: 10,18
Witkin 243: 17 12:10 346:19
WITNESS 347:16 348:12 1201 211:11
witnesses 348:9 1224 212:18
work 221:25 222:1,2 1225211:11
231:7 238:18 239:12,12 1237211:11
239:1 3,18 244:5 252:16 1256254:2
254:2 275:23 277:1 8 1261249:20
283:17 294:9 304:14,24 14 310:20
KRESSE & AS SO CIATE S, LL C
(305) 37 1-7 692
Pag e 364
IS 213:15,16,17 2 14:17
215:1 225:24 226 :1,4
273:5 314:8
15-foot 339:19
153 218:9 219:25
18-foot 273:6
2
2211:16212:14
2-C 240:6
2-D 322:18
20 225:23 231:17 232:7
237:7 300 ;22
20-foot 25 5:20,20
200 3 10:6
2012 211:16
2013 347:17 348:13
20th 211: 11 22 1 :9 229:12
2 34:1 235 :11,17 238:3
241:21 242:8 253:5
255:21 291 :6 296:19
300:20 303:!4 309:1 0
320:25 329:13 340:10
341:5
22 224:21
22889 211 :10
23rd 347:17 348:12
2400 212:13
252 16:4 290:23 300 :22
26 216:5 236:2 297:15
26-plus 290:24
28th 243:25
3
30 225:23 231: 18 252:24
267:20 310:1 4 317:6
30-foot 291:23
30-plus 228 :13
30,000 268:3
300 227:15
300.1301:3 313 :13
301 226:19
33 269:2 302:8 310:22
33131212:14,23
33139212:18
35 269:2 310:14,23
36322:12
37 231:19
3835 21 2:22
39 301:24
4
40 299:7,8 302:7 31 0:23
4th 233 :15
5
50 216 :25 217:3 246 :5
285 :20,2 3 303 :17 307:25
33 1:14
SO·foot 291 :22
50,000 220:11 266:24
52 2 3 1 :21
6.13 260:9
60 300 :20
6
65 268 :25 3 00:20
65,70 310:24
7
7 0 2 16:4,24 300:20
70-foot 268:25
75 310:25
7th 270 :15
8
8/19/2014 347:2 1
KRESSE & ASSOCI ATE S, LLC
(3 05) 371-7 692
Page 36 5
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A resolution, 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, as requested by W. Tucker Gibbs, PA on behalf of
Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens, as affected persons.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
IN/A
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 that the City Commission review a 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 20th Street-Palau at Sunset Harbour.
On January 16, 2013, the City Commission set the public hearing for 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).
Based upon the issues raised in the petition, the Administration recommends that the City Commission deny
the appeal.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
The Design Review Board approved the subject development project on October 2, 2012, subject to the
conditions of the Final Order.
Financial Information·
Source of Amount
Funds: 1
I I 2
3
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
Cl Clerk's Office Le islative Trackin
Richard Lorber or William Cary
Si n-Offs:
Department Director
//' / //
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Palau Project DR~ F:ne No. 22889 Appeal -SUM :f.-1
c.,····-"/
MIAMI BEACH
31
Account
Manager
AGENDA ITEM _(<\..::...7'":-f\~
DATE .3-13-\3
~ MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachll.gov
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Cqmmission
p'l
Kathie G. Brooks, Interim City Manager /~ ·
March 13, 2013 /
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Palau Appeal
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, [GRANTING OR DENYING] AN
APPEAL REQUEST 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.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the issues raised in the petition, the Administration recommends that the
City Commission deny the appeal.
BACKGROUND
On October 2, 2012, the Design Review Board (ORB) approved DRB File No. 22889,
pertaining to a 5-story, mixed-use development project located at 1201-1237 201h Street
-Palau at Sunset Harbour.
On October 23, 2012 a "Petition for Rehearing" was filed by MAC SH, LLC, and Sunset
Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc. Such re-hearing request was considered by the
DRB on December 4, 2012. 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 was determined by the
attorney for the Board that the last decision of the Board stands as the decision of the
Board (which was for approval of the application).
Pursuant to City Code Section 118-262, W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., on behalf of Sunset
Islands 3 and 4 Property owners, Inc. and Olga Lens, as affected persons, filed a
"Request For City Commission Review of the Design Review Board Decision"
("Request") rendered on October 8, 2012 (ORB File No. 22889) pertaining to the
approval of Palau project.
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
32
Commission Memorandum
Palau Appeal-Public Hearing
March 13, 2013 Page 2of 4
(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.
The Request alleges that the definition of 'affected person' has been satisfied because
the named appellants appeared at the hearing before the ORB. (Request para. 4).
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 ORB. 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) observe 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 5/ih vote of the City Commission
is required.
ANALYSIS
The ORB's review of the subject project was based upon the information and exhibits
submitted by the applicant, and the Board had before it the recommendation for approval
with proposed conditions presented by its professional staff in the form of a
comprehensive staff report, all of which constitute competent, substantial evidence in
support of the decision. The Board agreed with the staff recommendation in the report.
The Request claims that several issues justify reversal or remand. This is not the case,
as all issues raised were discussed and considered by the ORB as outlined below.
The Petition raises the following arguments on appeal:
1. ORB members failed to disclose ex parte communications as required by
sections 2-511 through 2-513 of the City Code. (at Petition, page 14).
2. Palau failed to meet its initial burden to show that it met ORB review criteria
requiring that it created or maintains important view corridors. (at Petition,
page 18).
3. The ORB failed to evaluate the elimination and/or diminution of four view
corridors as required by section 118-251 (a)(12). (at Petition, page 19).
4. The design review staff report fails to address specific criteria requiring a
building's massing to create or maintain important view corridors is not
competent and substantial evidence of compliance with that review criteria (at
Petition, page 21 ).
5. The ORB improperly delegated to design review staff its authority to evaluate
and approve plans pursuant to ORB review criteria (at Petition, page 23).
These issues are each discussed below.
1. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY
SECTION 2-511 THROUGH 513 OF THE CITY CODE
33
Commission Memorandum
Palau Appeal-Public Hearing
March 13, 2013 Page 3of 4
Ex-parte communications were discussed at the August 7, 2012 meeting. At the
beginning of the Board discussion, the Board Chairman indicated "We have met, most of
us have met with your team to go over the project," Transcript at p. 150, (referring to the
Palau development team), and another Board member individually indicated that she
had not met with the applicant (see Transcript at p. 170). These statements by Board
members satisfied the disclosure requirement in the City Code. If Appellants wanted the
"reasonable opportunity to refute or respond to the communication," as provided by
Section 2-512(a)(4), they should have taken this opportunity at the hearing. Further, if
they thought ex parte contacts had occurred but had not been disclosed, they should
have raised this possibility and objected at the hearing. Otherwise, this objection should
be considered waived.
2. FAILURE TO MEET ITS INITIAL BURDEN TO SHOW THAT IT MET ORB
REVIEW CRITERIA REQUIRING THAT IT CREATED OR MAINTAINS
IMPORTANT VIEW CORRIDORS.
Appellants assert that "the applicant has the initial burden to show that it has met the
ORB approval requirements," and "Palau failed to meet that burden by its failure to
address the DRB review criteria and how it met each of those standards." Petition at 18.
Palau, however, satisfied the requirement to meet its initial burden by providing the plans
that showed which view corridors were provided and to what extent. There is no
requirement that a separate document or explanation be provided showing how each
design review criteria is satisfied. With respect to view corridors, the plans themselves
are evidence of such proof.
3. THE ORB FAILED TO EVALUATE THE ELIMINATION AND/OR DIMUNITION
OF FOUR VIEW CORRIDORS PURSUANT TO SECTION 118-251{a)(12).
Section 118-251 (a)(12) provides: "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)."
First, it is important to understand that not all view corridors are protected. View
corridors across or over another person's or entity's property are not always protected.
View corridors in setback areas, or along sidewalks are likely protected. Each one is
evaluated on its own merits. Views to the water from the adjacent property across the
Palau property is not a protected view corridor, and a property owner does not have an
inherent right to water views through another owner's property.
All relevant view corridors referenced in the Petition were discussed and reviewed by the
DRB. The Board, at the August 7, 2012 meeting, did require that the northeast corner of
the building be further setback in order to lessen the impact on the historic Sunset Island
bridge, this change was made in the plans presented to the Board for the October 2,
2012 meeting, and the change fully satisfied the Board's request. The Board's review
and discussion of views in the plans satisfied the design review criterion on this point.
4. THE DESIGN REVIEW STAFF REPORT FAILS TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC
CRITERIA REQUIRING A BUILDING'S MASSING TO CREATE OR MAINTAIN
IMPORTANT VIEW CORRIDORS IS NOT COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THAT REVIEW CRITERIA.
34
Commission Memorandum
Palau Appeal-Public Hearing
March 13, 2013 Page 4 of 4
The staff evaluation contained in the staff report is competent substantial evidence. It is
fact based, because it is based on a review of the application and its accompanying
plans and surveys and accompanying documents, and is based upon field inspections,
and thus is competent substantial evidence upon which the ORB can base its decision
under Florida law. City of Hialeah Gardens v. Miami-Dade Charter Foundation, Inc., 857
So.2d 202, 204-05 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) ("the Chief of Police, the Director of Public
Works, and the Chief Zoning Official, gave specific fact-based reasons for their
recommendations that the application be rejected."); Metropolitan Dade County v.
Sportacres Development Group, 698 So.2d 281, 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ("maps,
reports and other information which, in conjunction with the testimony of the neighbors, if
believed by the Commission, constituted competent substantial evidence."); Dade
County v. United Resources, Inc., 374 So.2d 1046, 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
("recommendations of professional staff'); Norwood-Nor/and Homeowner's Ass'n v.
Dade County, 511 So.2d 1009, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ("Dade County Development
Impact Committee report"); Metropolitan Dade County v. Fuller, 515 So.2d 1312, 1314
(Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ("staff recommendations").
5. THE ORB IMPROPERLY DELEGATED TO DESIGN REVIEW STAFF ITS
AUTHORITY TO EVALUATE AND APPROVE PLANS PURSUANT TO ORB
REVIEW CRITERIA.
The inclusion of conditions in the ORB Order that allows staff to make specific decisions
on plans to be submitted is not an unlawful delegation of authority. These are minor
matters within the scope of staff's authority, including materials, finishes, glazing
(windows), railings, architectural projections, landscaping, walkways, fences, facades
between buildings, and the compliance of the applicant with a condition imposed to
enlarge a plaza and connect to a walkway. The ORB need not involve itself in every
minor detail of the design of a proposed development. These matters are included in
board orders to emphasize staff's review of them when the project is submitted for
building permit. Unlawful delegations arise when insufficient standards are set out for
the implementation of delegation by the person to whom authority was delegated. The
design review criteria remain the standards against which either the Board at the time of
design review approval, or the design review staff at time of building permit, and are
sufficient to provide a lawful delegation of authority on these minor points.
A review of the transcripts for the ORB hearings indicates that the ORB observed the
essential requirements of law, made its determinations based on substantial, competent
evidence, and afforded all parties involved due process. Additionally, the Board held
public hearings during which members of the public were afforded the opportunity to
testify and present evidence. Based upon all of the competent, substantial evidence
submitted, the Board determined that the proposed project would meet the Criteria for
Design Review Approval in Section 118-252 of the Code, subject to the conditions in the
Final Order.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the issues raised in the petition, the Administration recommends that the
City Commission deny the appeal.
KGB/JGG/GMH/RGLrrRM
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Palau Project ORB File No 22889 Appeal-MEMO 3-13-2013 rev2.docx
35
MIAMI BEACH
City Clerk's Office MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM, Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk -~
DATE: February 27, 2013
SUBJECT: Petition to Reverse Design Review Board (ORB) Decision Relative to File
22889, Palau Sunset Harbor.
Attached is the Petition to Reverse Design Review Board Decision regarding Palau Sunset
Harbor filed by W. Tucker Gibbs, Esq., attorney for The Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property
Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens. In addition, Mr. Gibbs has filed a lengthy Appendix (Volumes I
& II), consisting of 352 pages, which has been be placed in your iPad Dropbox and linked to
the City's webpage. If you would like a printed copy of the Appendix, please call me at
305.673.7411 or email me at rafaelgranado@miamibeachfl.gov.
If additional parties file pleadings on this matter, they will be forwarded to you as well.
This item is scheduled to be heard by the City Commission on March 13, 2013, at 5:01 p.m.
as item R7 A -A Resolution [Granting Or Denying] An Appeal Request 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.
REG/Ic
F:\CLER\$ALL\LILIA\DRB-Palau,docx
\lv'e ore commifled to prov1ding oxl:elleni public service ond sofr",. to o!! who ·'1ve vvork ond ploy rn our vtbronl /ropfcol. hisloric communif'l
36
MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION
REVIEW BOARD 22889
PALAU SUNSET _._ .... ..,. ..... ,._._..
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
PETITION TO REVERSE 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") at its March 13, 2013 meeting
reverse 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) ("Palau development"), or in the
alternative remand the matter back to the DRB with instructions for review
consistent with the requests herein.
1
37
INTRODUCTION
Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC, ("Palau" or "applicant") applied for DRB
approval for the Palau development, a large mixed use project proposed for
property it owns at 1201-1237 20th Street, Miami Beach. The project would
abut a well-established single-family residential neighborhood. The Palau
development would not only destroy important view corridors to the water
and from 20th Street to the historic Sunset Islands bridge but also block
abutting neighbors' views even more than does the Sunset Harbor townhouses
immediately to its west. Given the virtually unanimous objection to the
project by its residential neighbors, no one was surprised that the Palau
application consumed hours of contentious public hearings before the DRB.
During the DRB review process not one neighbor spoke in favor of this
massive development. Furthermore, the DRB decision-making process
included: procedural error, a failure to correctly apply the law and on a key
issue a failure to base its decision on competent substantial evidence.
At the core of any quasi-judicial body's review of an application is the
basic guarantee that the process is fundamentally fair.1 DRB members failed
1 The city commission's review of this matter pursuant to section 118-262
also fails to provide a party seeking its review with the due process one would
expect in a quasi-judicial proceeding. In this process, the party initiates the
commission's review by filing the petition (if represented by counsel) and
must file "appropriate legal briefs" setting forth argument and facts in support
2
38
to make required disclosures of meetings with Palau representatives prior to
the meetings of August 7 and October 2, 2012. Such ex parte communication
is contrary to a fair and impartial quasi-judicial hearing process and a breach
of the city's obligation to provide basic procedural due process.
The failure of the applicant and design review staff to address
compliance with the specific DRB review criteria, and the failure of the order
to show compliance with those criteria shows that the DRB did not observe
the essential requirements of law when it approved the application. This
warrants reversal of the DRB decision.
of case. The petitioner must show that the DRB failed to provide due
process, or did not observe the essential requirements of law, or failed to base
its decision on competent substantial evidence. This mirrors the process and
review standards of an appellate court. But that is where the similarities end.
In an appellate proceeding, the petition is followed by a response to the
arguments in the petition from the other side and that response brief is
followed in many cases by a reply to those arguments. This process insures
that all parties (and the court) know and understand all the arguments. This is
transparent and open process that is fair and provides all parties procedural
due process. Therefore, it leads to few if any surprises to either The
Miami Beach process guarantees a closed and opaque process and is designed
to keep information away from the petitioner. the city and the applicant
have all the information regarding the petitioner's arguments. But because
there is no reciprocal obligation for the city or applicant to provide a response
to the petition, the petitioner has no information regarding the city or
applicant's arguments. The city commission is equally in the dark. All of this
makes for a process that is skewed toward one side. That is a process that fails
to meet the standards of basic fairness in order to afford all parties a fair, open
and impartial hearing. In that hearing the" ... the opportunity to be heard must
be meaningful, full and fair, and not merely colorable or illusive." Rucker v
City of Ocala, 684 So. 2d 836, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
3
39
Design review staff's conclusory statements on compliance with
required review standards without any stated factual basis are not competent
substantial evidence. Therefore, the DRB decision order regarding the
project's compliance with all the review criteria is not based on competent
substantial evidence.
The has no authority to delegate to city staff any of its duties to
evaluate and make final determinations about whether the application meets
DRB review criteria. This authority is vested only in the DRB, but that board
through its order incorrectly delegated that power to the city's design review
staff.
These fundamental failures on the part of the DRB warrant the reversal
of that board's approval of the Palau application.
Sunset represents its members who are 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.
Lens owns the property at 2000 North Bay Road, across Sunset Drive
from and within 375-feet of the proposed Palau development site.
4
40
Palau owns the property located at 1201-1237 20th Street, Miami
Beach, Florida. applied for and received DRB approval for the Palau
development on that site.
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 development. At that hearing the neighbors
individually and through counsel appeared before Design Review Board.
Exhibit N, 68:15-70:1, 93:5-94:5,71:10-77:11, 182:9-184:11, August 7, 2012
Transcript. Exhibit 0, 56:14-59:23,60:10-70:10,72:7-76:12, 103:17-104:19,
130:21-146:12, October 2, 2012 Transcript Volume 1.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In late 2011, Palau applied to develop the property abutting the Sunset
Islands and its historically-designated entrance. Exhibit A, Aerial map of area.
The applicant proposed a bulky, 5-story, 109,279 square-foot (including
approximately 13,056 square feet of commercial space) mixed-use
development on this CD-2 (Commercial Medium Intensity zoning district)-
zoned site. Exhibit B, Planning Board Staff Report, April24, 2012.
The Palau site abuts RS-3 (property on N. Bay Road and Sunset Drive)
and RS-4 (Sunset Island 4) single family residential neighborhoods to the east
5
41
and north and RM-3 multi-family property (Sunset Harbour Townhomes) to
the Exhibit C, Zoning Map.
At the planning board the applicant sought a conditional use approval
to allow development '"'"""'~'"''"' 50,000 square-feet plus the use of
mechanical parking lifts, among other things. Exhibit D, Planning Board Staff
Report, April24, 2012.
Faced with strong neighborhood opposition, the planning board
continued the matter several times. Neighbors sought a project that was less
bulky and more in scale with the abutting single-family residential
neighborhood. In particular, the neighbors cited monolithic massing of the
building and requested that the board require increased setbacks and more
articulation to lessen the impact of the massive structure on neighbors.
Ultimately on May 22, 2012, the planning board approved the conditional use
for a modified development with a specific condition relating to Design
Review Board approval:
"5. The applicant shall work with Design Review Staff to further
modify the proposal to address the following, subject to
review and approval of the Design Review Board:
(a) Pulling back the mas sing, east of the World Savings
Bank property, with emphasis on upper floor setback and
the northeast comer of the building and adding more
green space.
6
42
(b) Further modifying the ground floor area along the canal
(terraces) to minimize the hardscape and increase the
amount of open, landscaped area at grade level.
(c) Adding more canopy trees for increased shade to the
landscape plan particularly along Sunset Drive. Also
work with Sheryl Gold on this item.
(d) Removing parking on Sunset Drive.
(e) Reducing encroachment on the line of sight from Sunset
Island 4.
(f) Working with Public Works staff to limit u-tums at the
guardhouse."
Exhibit D, August 7, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report.
With this directive from the planning board, the applicant made
revisions to its plan and submitted it to the Design Review Board. That board
held its initial hearing on the application on August 7, 2012.
At that hearing the neighbors focused on the zoning code charge to the
DRB to examine development plans for consistency with the criteria in
section 118-251 regarding aesthetics, safety and function of the structure and
the physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent structures
and the surrounding community. According the DRB review criteria,
development must not have a negative impact on adjacent neighborhoods.
Under these standards, the developer must eliminate or mitigate aspects of the
proposed project that adversely affect the surrounding area.
7
43
Neighbors presented expert testimony addressing the impacts of the
project on the adjacent properties. Their expert and the city's design review
staff found that the project failed to meet eight of the fifteen applicable
standards. Exhibit E Alvarez Power Point Presentation, and Exhibit D, August
7, Design Review Board staff report). Neighbors also submitted a transcript of
the expert testimony of University of Miami Professor of Architecture
Francois J eune at the May 20 Planning Board hearing on Palau's
conditional use application. Professor J eune stated that the project should
be redesigned to reduce its mass and scale and maintain the view corridor
from West A venue toward the water and Sunset Island 4. Exhibit Excerpt
of Francois Le J eune Testimony, May 22, Planning Board hearing.
In their discussion of the 's neighborhood compatibility criteria
the neighbors addressed the Palau project's impacts on the historic Sunset
Islands neighborhood and the historic Sunset Island Bridge. In particular, the
neighbors cited the 1996 Historic Designation Report. The report discussed
the importance of "sensitive new construction" in the context of the
neighborhood's character, which is defined by the elements of
proportion, massing, materials and details. Exhibit G Designation Report, 2L
report also examined "compatibility with the character of the Historic
Sunset Islands Neighborhood," which positively influences proportion and
8
44
scale, massing and materials. Id., 22. In particular, the report noted: "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." Id.
The DRB voted to continue the item to its October 2 meeting based on
the staff recommendation for a continuance so that the applicant could
address staff's concerns about the proposaL
Prior to October 2, 2012, DRB hearing, planning department staff
had asked neighbor representatives to provide it with their concerns and how
those concerns could be resolved. The neighbors submitted a proposed
resolution approving the application with conditions. The proposed resolution
set forth specific findings and the following conditions for approval:
a. The entire length of the building abutting and east of the
World Savings ank property shall be set back an additional
15 feet.
b. The entire length of the fifth floor of the northern side of the
building facing Sunset Island No.4 shall be set back an
additional feet.
c. entire length of the eastern portion of the building along
Sunset Drive shall be stepped back as follows:
1. First floor an additional ten feet (current proposed
setback plus ten feet);
9
45
n. Second and third floors an additional five feet (current
proposed setback plus 15 feet);
111. Fourth and fifth floors an additional five feet (current
proposed setback plus 20 feet).
Exhibit H, Sunset Islands 3 &4 Proposed Resolution, October 2012.
Design review staff included the proposed resolution as an attachment
to the October 2, 2012 staff report, noting that the neighboring residents
continue to have serious concerns with the application. Exhibit I, 7, Staff
Report, Design Review Board, October 2, 201 In its analysis staff
discussed one proposed finding regarding the comparison of the Palau project
with the Sunset Harbor Townhomes development to its west but failed to
address the other findings and conditions, including those relating to the
Sunset Drive view corridor and the proposed setbacks. ld.
The applicant presented its revised plans to the DRB at the October
2012 hearing. Design review staff determined that these plans adequately
responded to their concerns and recommended approval of the application.
Notwithstanding the staff's position, the neighbors addressed the failure
of the application to adequately address three of the
focus on neighborhood compatibility:
review criteria that
a. Criteria 6 requires that the proposed structures must be
compatible with adjacent structures and enhance the appearance
10
46
of surrounding properties. Yet neither the applicant nor the
design review staff explained how this massive project is
compatible with the abutting single-family properties and in what
way it "enhanced" the appearance of these properties.
b. 7 states that the site plan layout must show efficient
arrangement of land uses, especially the relationship with the
surrounding neighborhood, impacts on adjacent buildings and
lands, pedestrian sight lines and view corridors. But the plan for
the project shows that existing site lines and view corridors are
degraded or eliminated. applicant did not address how it met
this criterion. Design review staff also did not discuss or address
and how the revised plans met this criterion in their written
report2 or in their presentation.
c. Criteria 12 says that the massing and orientation of structures
must be sensitive to and compatible with the surrounding area
and also create or maintain important view corridors. However,
the massing and placement of the building fails to "create or
maintain" important view corridors as it degrades the view
corridor along Sunset Drive from 20th Street to the historic
entrance to Sunset Islands 3 and 4.
Neighbors proposed a simple solution that would meet the three criteria
at Step back the proposed building along Sunset Drive an additional ten
feet at the ground floor, an additional five feet on the second and third floors
2 The staff report merely stated that the criterion is "satisfied". Exhibit I, 3.
11
47
and an additional five feet on the fourth and fifth floors. Exhibit H, 2,
Proposed Resolution.
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 11 1 of the Miami Land Development Regulations and
subject to conditions set forth therein.
On October , 2012, Sunset and another entity petitioned the DRB to
rehear the matter pursuant to section 118-261.
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 tie vote.
c. There were no further motions. Therefore, the DRB counsel
interpreted the DRB rules to determine 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.
The DRB Order denying the rehearing was rendered on December 10,
2012, and Neighbors filed their request for city commission review of the
12
48
DRB decision pursuant to section 118-262. The city commission
subsequently set request for hearing on its March 13, 2013 agenda.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This city commission's standard of review requires a determination of
whether (1) the proceedings before the DRB afforded procedural due process;
(2) the DRB observed the essential requirements of the law; and (3) the
DRB's decision was supported by competent substantial evidence. Sec. 118-
262(b ), Miami Beach Land Development Regulations.
ARGUMENT
The DRB consideration of this matter was characterized by procedural
errors. Its order fails to show that it correctly applied the DRB
that its decision was supported by competent substantial evidence:
· and
a. The failure to disclose ex parte communications pursuant to
sections 2-511 through 513 of the Miami Beach Code of
Ordinances is a failure 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.
13
49
b. The applicant failed to meet its initial burden to show that it met
the DRB review standards, warranting reversal of the DRB
approval.
c. 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.
d. A staff report and presentation, which failed to examine or
address the specific requirement for "the proposed structure" to
have "an orientation and massing ... which creates or maintains
important view corridors" is not competent substantial evidence
of compliance with that review criteria.
e. The DRB improperly delegated to design review staff its
authority to evaluate and approve plans as meeting DRB review
criteria.
Members Failed Ex Communications as
by Sections 2-511 through City Code
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.
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 matter
14
50
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."
Section 12(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 public meeting on matter shall be orally stated and disclosed on the
record at the public meeting prior to the vote on the matter ... "
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. Design review staff acknowledges that such
communication did indeed take place. And staff states that such meetings
were disclosed by the chairman who stated at the August 7, 2012 meeting:
"We have met --most of us have met with your team to go over the project.
We have heard everything everybody has to say here." Exhibit N, Transcript
150:14-19.
15
51
According to design review staff this general statement by the chair is a
disclosure for all DRB members (despite lack of any legal authority for the
chairman to speak DRB members on their ex parte communications) and
meets the code's requirement for "[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 and made a part of
the record." Exhibit 3, Staff Report, Design Review Board, December 4,
2012. This is a fundamental misreading of the code and law in that it assumes
that the chairman has knowledge of each DRB member' ex parte
communications. The chairman as a .u ....... ""'"'-'-of law cannot speak for the
members of the regarding their ex parte communications. Such
knowledge only can be gained either through ex parte discussions,
discussions with staff, or discussions with fellow DRB members. Therefore,
this staff interpretation3 itself is an admission by the chair of a violation of the
"Sunshine Law," which prohibits communication between two or more DRB
members (including through third parties) on issues related to official DRB
business. Section 286.011, Fla. Stats.
3 Palau accepts staff's interpretation that the chairman's statement is an
accurate disclosure of the board members' ex parte communications. Exhibit
M, 5, Palau Response to Petition for Rehearing.
16
52
Astoundingly, Palau erroneously claims that the incorporation of the
August 7, hearing record at the October 2, 2012 DRB hearing applies to the
disclosure of ex parte communications made after that August 7 meeting.
This mocks any idea that this quasi-judicial process was fundamentally fair
and that neighbors and other participants in this process had adequate notice
of these post August 7 communications.
At best, the chairman's "disclosure" is limited to himself. At worst it is
a violation of the Sunshine Law. In either event the chairman failed to
disclose the subject matter of this communication, or the identity of the
person, group or entity with which the communication took place. And no
other board member made these required disclosures.
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. non-disclosed ex parte communications and the
attached presumption of prejudice effectively impacted the neighbors' ability
to obtain a fair hearing and denied them procedural due process. Furthermore,
this direct violation of the city code and state law (if you accept staff's and
Palau's position that the chairman spoke for the entire board when he made
his "disclosure" statement) is a failure of the DRB to observe the essential
requirements of law. (See also: Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So.2d 1337,
17
53
1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). "Upon proof that a quasi-judicial officer received
an ex parte contact, a presumption arises ... that the contact was prejudicial.
The aggrieved party will be entitled a new and complete hearing before the
commission [here, the DRB] unless the defendant proves that
communication was not prejudicial.").
Palau Failed Meet Its Initial to Show That Met DRB Review
Criteria Requiring it Created or Maintains Important View
Corridors
In the DRB review of the development proposal, the applicant has the
initial burden to show that it has met the DRB approval requirements. Irvine
v. Duval County Planning Commission, 495 So.2d 167 (Fla.l986). These
requirements are set out in sections 118-251 through 264 of the Miami Beach
Land Development Regulations. However, Palau failed to meet that burden
by its failure to address the DRB review criteria and how it met each of those
standards.
In particular, the applicant did not present any evidence that it complied
with Section 118-25l(a) (12). That criteria requires a showing that the
orientation and massing of the proposed struch1re (among other things)
compatible with the surrounding area and that it "creates or maintains
important view corridors." In its presentation the applicant failed to show that
it complied with this requirement.
18
54
That failure warrants reversal of the DRB 's approval of the application.
The Failed to Evaluate the Elimination and/or Diminution of Four
View Corridors as Required by Section 118-251(A) (12)
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."
Section 118-25l(a) (12) states: "The proposed structure has an
orientation and massing which sensitive to and compatible with the
building site and surrounding area and which creates or maintains
important view co:rridor(s)." Emphasis added.
There is no indication in record (including the transcripts or staff
recommendations) or the final order of the Design Review Board to show that
the proposed Palau development has an orientation and massing that "creates
or maintains" important corridors.
The orientation and massing of the Palau building eliminates four
existing view corridors: (1) the West Avenue view corridor to the waterway
that extends between the World Bank property and the Sunset Harbor
Townhomes; (2) the view corridor to the waterway that extends between the
19
55
World Savings building and the existing incomplete structure to its east; (3)
the view corridor to the waterway that extends between the existing
incomplete structure and the Mark's Cleaners building to the and (4) the
view corridor along Sunset Drive, from 20th Street to the historic Sunset
Islands Bridge.
Furthermore, the orientation and massing of the proposed Palau
building diminishes the existing view corridor along Sunset Drive, from 20th
to the historic Sunset Islands Bridge.
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.
Both design review staff and Palau state that the DRB considered "view
corridors" and required "that the northeast comer of the building be further
setback in order to lessen the impact on the historic Sunset Island bridge."
According to staff and Palau this change "fully satisfied the Board's request."
Exhibit L, 2 December 4, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report. But this
DRB request was never characterized as preserving an important view
corridor. It was a response to the building's impact on the historic bridge
20
56
itself, not the view corridor along Sunset Drive from 20th Street to the historic
bridge.
In fact, there is no reference in the testimony presented by the staff or
the developer at the October 2, 2012 hearing connecting this change in the
plans to the creation or maintaining of important view corridors. There is no
mention of the Sunset Drive view corridor by the staff or Palau
representatives at the August 7, or October 2, 2012 DRB hearings.
Design Review Staff Report Fails to Specific
Requiring a Building's Massing to "Create or Maintain View
is Not and Substantial Evidence of
Compliance With Review
Competent substantial evidence is defined as that evidence relied upon
to sustain the ultimate finding that is "sufficiently relevant and material that a
reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the conclusion
reached." De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912, 916 (Fla. 1957). Competent
substantial not opinion unsubstantiated by facts. City of Apopka v.
Orange County, 299 So.2d 657, 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
The failure of the applicant and city staff to present evidence to the
board that Palau development meets the specific requirements of section
11 1 (a) (12) --that the orientation and massing of the structures creates or
maintains important view corridors --is a failure to present competent
21
57
substantial evidence to the DRB to support its decision that the Palau
development is consistent with that standard.
The October 2, 2012 staff report's statement that criteria 12 was
"satisfied" is not competent substantial evidence of that assertion because it is
opinion with no stated factual basis.
Any claim of deference to design review staffs interpretation of the
design review criteria fails where the staff has not even addressed a key
component of the criteria at issue. Note that the staff report of October 2 only
states that the criteria is "satisfied." There is no reference or mention of "view
corridor" in the staff report despite the clear language of the provision
requiring that the building create or maintain important view corridors.
Deference to the staffs interpretation is not unlimited, and the city
commission's role is not unquestioning. This is especially tnw where there is
no mention of "view corridor" in the context of this criterion in the staff
report or in the transcripts of the DRB hearings.
Furthermore, any deference claimed by staff or Palau is overcome by a
showing that has been a departure from the essential requirements of
law. Bell South Telecommunications v. Johnson, 708 So.2d 594, 597 (Fla.
1998). the DRB failed to apply the correct law by failing to apply each
of the elements of criteria 12 --in particular requirement to create or
22
58
maintain important view corridors. When the agency's construction clearly
contradicts the unambiguous language of a rule, the construction is clearly
erroneous cannot Woodley v. Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services, 505 So.2d 676,678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also,
Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. v. Board of County
Commissioners of Brevard County, 642 So.2d 1081, 1083-1084 (Fla. 1994).
The Improperly Delegated to Design Review Staff Authority to
Evaluate Approve Plans Pursuant to Review
city commission has delegated certain authority to the DRB to
approve design review applications subject to specific criteria set forth in
section 118-251. This authority, spelled out sections 118-251 through 265,
does not allow the DRB to delegate to design review staff its responsibility
and duty to make decisions based on those criteria. 4
Yet that is what DRB did when it approved the Palau development.
According to the final order of the DRB, it approved the project subject to
conditions, including:
4 While section 118-260 authorizes the planning director to approve, approve
with conditions or deny an application for eight specific all associated
with minor public improvements, and rehabilitation, alterations and
demolition of structures or portions of structures, it does not authorize the
DRB to delegate its authority to approve an application (or any portion of an
application) for new development such as the Palau project.
23
59
a. The final design and details, including materials, finishes,
glazing, railings, and any architectural projections and
features, be provided in a manner to be
approved staff. Emphasis added. Exhibit I,
2012 Design Review Board Staff Report.
and
October 2,
b. 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
reviewed and by Emphasis added. Exhibit I, 2,
October 2, 2012 Design Review Board Staff Report.
c. The plaza at the northeast corner of the site shall further
studied and enlarged to improve visibility
functionality, and shall be added to the waterfront walkway
easement for public access, subject to and approval
of staff. Emphasis added. Exhibit I, 3, October 2, 2012 Design
Review Board Staff Report ..
While there is authority for the to prescribe conditions of
approval, there is no authority for DRB to delegate its review and
approval authority for new development to staff. Section 118-264, Land
Development Regulations. Each of these conditions transforms design review
decisions into staff-level determinations, without any authority in the land
development regulations.
Florida law provides that a legislature may not delegate the power to
24
60
make law or the right to "exercise unrestricted discretion in applying the
law." Sims v. State, 754 So.2d 657, 668 (2000). The DRB, without any
legislative authority, gave staff the power to approve plans as a condition of
DRB approval. That power is reserved to the and cannot be delegated
absent specific legislative authority. There is no such authority in the city
code.
Therefore, the DRB order is invalid because the DRB review
incomplete. Any changes to the plans must be approved by the DRB and not
staff. While staff may review these plans and make recommendations, it is
the DRB that has the sole authority to approve new development for
compliance with the design criteria. This final DRB review has not occurred.
this reason, this order must be quashed.
CONCLUSION
The neighbors request the city commission to (a) review the decision of
the DRB and (b) reverse or in the alternative, remand this matter to the DRB
with instructions that the DRB require additional setbacks along Sunset Drive
as set forth herein .
25
61
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 fair hearing.
Respectfully Submitted,
26
62
W. TUCKER GIBBS, ESQ.
Attorney for Neighbors
P.O. Box 1050
Coconut Grove, Florida 133
Tel (305) 448-8486
Fax (305) 448-0773
Email: tucker@ wtgibbs.com
RESOLUTION NO..._. -----
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, [GRANTING OR DENYING] AN APPEAL
REQUEST 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
WHEREAS, a process for review by the Mayor and City Commission of decisions
rendered by the Design Review Board when requested by an applicant or any affected person
has been established under Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach City Code; and
WHEREAS, Palau Sunset Harbor, LLC was the applicant for a proposed 5-story, mixed-
use development project, which was approved by the Design Review Board on October 2, 2012
and the Order for such approval was rendered on October 8, 2012 (ORB File No. 22889, 1201-
1237 20th Street -Palau at Sunset Harbour); and
WHEREAS, a request for a re-hearing of the DRB decision pertaining to File No. 22889,
which was requested by MAC SH, LLC, and Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property Owners, Inc, was
denied by the Design Review Board on December 4, 2012 and the Order for such denial was
rendered on December 10, 2012; and
WHEREAS, W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., on behalf of Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property
Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens, has requested a review of the Design Review Board order
rendered on October 8, 2012, pertaining to the proposed 5-story, mixed-use development
project, (ORB File No. 22889, 1201-1237 20th Street-Palau at Sunset Harbour).
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 118-262, 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) provides: 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)observe essential requirements of law, or 3)base its decision upon
substantial, competent evidence; and
WHEREAS, Section 118-262(a) requires the appellants to file with the City Clerk a
written transcript of the hearing before the Design Review Board two weeks before the
scheduled public hearing on the appeal; the transcript and associated material were transmitted
to the Mayor and City Commission via LTC; and
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2013, the City Commission set the hearing for this appeal to
be held on March 13, 2013, and the City Clerk was directed and did notice such hearing; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2013 the City Commission heard the parties, and pursuant to
the argument given, the written materials submitted, and having been duly advised in the
premises determined that the October 2, 2012 decision of the Design Review Board [did or did
not] result in, respectively, 1) a denial of due process, 2) a departure from the essential
requirements of law, nor 3) a decision that was not based upon substantial, competent
evidence; and
63
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2013 a motion was made by the City Commission to [grant or
deny] the appeal by W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., on behalf of Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Property
Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens of the October 2, 2012 decision of the Design Review Board
pertaining to ORB File No. 22889; and
WHEREAS, the motion to [affirm or reverse] the decision of the Design Review Board
was made and seconded, and approved by a vote of __ _
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and City Commission hereby
[grant or deny] the appeal filed by W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., on behalf of Sunset Islands 3 and 4
Property Owners, Inc. and Olga Lens and [reverse or affirm] the October 2, 2012 decision of the
Design Review Board pertaining to ORB File No. 22889.
PASSED and ADOPTED this ____ day of March, 2013.
ATTEST:
RAFAEL GRANADO, CITY CLERK
MATTI HERRERA BOWER
MAYOR
T:\AGENDA\2013\March 13\Palau Project ORB File No. 22889 Appeal-RESO 3-13-2013.docx
64
THE MIAMI HERALD I MiamiHerald.com NE
H
CITY OF MIAMI-BEACH
THURSDAY, FEB~UARY 7, 2013 I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that a public he~ring will be held by the Mayor and City Commission of the. City of
Miami Beach, Florida, in the-Commission Chambers, 3rd floor, City Hall, I 700 Convention Center Drive, Mlaml Beach,·
Florida. ·Otl Wednesday; Maroh '13, 2013, at 5:01 p,m. pu~uant To ~ct!on 118~262 Of The City Code, For An Appeal
Filed By W, :rucker Gibbs, RA, On Behalf Ot Sunset ls!af!qs, 3 And 4 Property Ownere, Inc. And Olga Lens, Of The
Design Review Board's Order Relative To ORB Fl!e No .• 22889 For i 20i ~ 1237 20th Street, Palau At Sunset Harbor
Inquiries may be dlrecte,>l to the Pla~n!ng Depart~~rit at (305) 673-7550.
' '\-
Parties to the appeal are Invited to appear at this hearing; or be represented by an agent, or to express their views
in writing addressed to the City Commission, c/o the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall,
Miami Beach, Florida 33139. The revlew shall be based on the record of the hearing before the Design Review Board,
' · shall not be a de novo hearing, and no new, additional t~stimony shall be taken. This hearing may be qpened and
continLied and under such notice would not be provided.
,-;-'
of Miami Beach , ,_.
Pursuant to Section 286.01 05, Fla. Stat., the CitY hereby adv,ises the public th~t: if, a person d~cides to appeal any
·decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting or its hearing, such person
must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is ma~e. which record includes the testimony and evic:Jence
upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the introduction or
admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise
allowed by law. ·
To request this material in accessible format, sign language interpreters, information on access fqr persons
with disabilities, and/or any accommodation to rev,iew any document or participate in any· City-sponsored
proceeding, please contact us five days in advance at (305) 673-7 411 (voice) or TIY users ma'y also call the
Florida Relay Service at 711.
Ad# 763
65
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
66
BEFORE THE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA CITY COMMISSION
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FILE NO. 22889
C"') r"-) c:;:;;:,
INRE:
··~ -....
"'< (..J.> .::r.)
PALAU SUNSET HARBOR c-, 5: r-n r-~
1201-1237 20th STREET, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 331g( ci, ~~~
(/) ~ •<"'"~
C:) _n, ...
l""] .t:;"· ·n
... ,.~! "" ........ j
PALAU SUNSET HARBOR, LLC'S RESPONSE TO SUNSET ISl{~NiS 3'"M·
AND 4 PROPERTY OWNERS, INC.'S AND OLGA LENS'
PETITION TO REVERSE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISION
PALAU SUNSET HARBOR, LLC, (hereinafter referred to as "PALAU")
hereby responds to SUNSET ISLANDS 3 AND 4 PROPERTY OWNERS, INC.'S
(hereinafter referred to as "SUNSET") and OLGA LENS' (hereinafter referred to as
"LENS") (collectively hereinafter referred to as the "OPPONENTS") Petition to
Reverse Design Review Board Decision (the "Petition"), filed with the City of Miami
Beach, Florida on February 27, 2013, and states as follows:
Background and Procedural History
On May 22, 2012, the Planning Board of the City of Miami Beach, Florida
unanimously approved PALAU'S application for a Conditional Use Permit. On
October 2, 2012, the Design Review Board of the City of Miami Beach, Florida
unanimously approved PALAU'S application for Design Review Approval. The
foregoing approvals were issued to PALAU after multiple hearings, continuances, an
appeal and a rehearing, occurring before the Planning Board, Board of Adjustment
rATnMAN LEwis, LLP. oNE niscAYNE TowER, sUITE ~4oo. 2 souTn mscAYNE nLv Agenda Item R7 A
Date 8-/3-/3
and Design Review Board. The Planning Board's unanimous approval was issued
after four (4) hearings and over fourteen (14) hours of presentation. The Design
Review Board's unanimous approval was issued after approximately eight (8) hours
of presentations before the Design Review Board, spread out over two (2) hearings
almost two (2) months apart. In addition, the foregoing approvals involved
approximately twenty (20) hours of meetings with Staff from the Planning Board
and Design Review Board. The PALAU project could very well be one of the most
thoroughly vetted and evaluated projects in the history of the City of Miami Beach.
Both the Planning Board and Design Review Board unanimously approved
PALAU's application because PALAU listened to directions and suggestions from
the Planning Board, Design Review Board, Staff and neighbors and significantly
modified the project to appease Staff and neighbors. The following are some of the
many reasons demonstrating why PALAU received unanimous approval from both
the Planning Board and Design Review Board:
• PALAU has not maximized their permitted FAR;
• PALAU meets or exceeds all setback requirements;
• PALAU fully complies with the comprehensive plan, zoning footprint and
all applicable Land Development Regulations;
• PALAU is not using a 3 foot height variance granted to it;
2
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
• PALAU's traffic, nmse, trash removal and parking plans/studies were
approved;
• PALAU's mass and compatibility with surrounding areas was approved;
• OPPONENTS' own expert, Jean-Francois Lejeune, testified that the
PALAU project does not have any adverse impacts on the Sunset Islands
residential neighborhood.
In addition to the foregoing, it is important to note that there is substantial
support for the PALAU project from the neighbors and the community as a whole.
OPPONENTS are solely composed of some residents from Sunset Islands 3 and 4
Property Owners, Inc. and one resident on North bay Road. None of the other
neighborhoods are opposing PALAU and PALAU has a binder full of letters of
support from the residents of the other neighborhoods. PALAU also has letters of
support from residents of Sunset Islands 3 and 4. More people will live in
PALAU than are opposing PALAU. In fact, PALAU already has most of the units
pre-sold.
On February 27, 2013 SUNSET filed its Petition to Reverse Design Review
Board Decision. OPPONENTS' Petition follows the Design Review Board's
December 4, 2012 Order Denying SUNSET'S Motion for Rehearing of the Design
Review Board's unanimous approval of the PALAU Project on October 2, 2012.
For the reasons discussed below, the Petition should be denied because the Petition is
3
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
without merit and OPPONENTS fail to meet the legal standards required to undo the
unanimous approval of the Design Review Board.
Legal Standard
Pursuant to City Code Section 118-262(b ), OPPONENTS cannot prevail unless
the City Commission finds that the Design Review Board did not do one of the
following:
1. Provide procedural due process;
2. Observe essential requirements of law; or
3. Base its decision upon substantial competent evidence.
Procedural Due Process
The record shows that OPPONENTS were afforded procedural due process.
Procedural due process requirements are met if the parties are provided notice and an
opportunity to be heard. Jennings v. Dade County, et al., 589 So.2d 1337, 1340 (Fla.
3rd DCA 1991). Further, the parties must be able to present evidence, cross-examine
witnesses, and be informed of all the facts upon which the Design Review Board acts.
I d.
In our case, the Design Review Board's unanimous approval was issued after
approximately eight (8) hours of presentations before the Design Review Board,
4
PA TI-lMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
spread out over two (2) hearings almost two (2) months apart, wherein evidence was
presented, witnesses were cross-examined and all facts upon which the Design
Review Board acted were disclosed on the record.1 OPPONENTS monopolized
many of those eight (8) hours of presentations to present their own evidence and
testimony and to examine witnesses.
The Design Review Board afforded the parties more than enough procedural
due process.
Observe Essential Requirements of Law
The court in Sams v. St. John's County Code Enforcement Board, 712 So.2d
446 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) recited the burden to establish the failure to observe
essential requirements of law, and found that it hadn't been met in that case:
The required "departure from the essential
requirements of law" means something far beyond legal
error. It means an inherent illegality or irregularity, an
abuse of judicial power, an act of tyranny perpetrated
with disregard of procedural requirements, resulting in
a gross miscarriage of justice. Sams at 446.
Stated differently, the failure to observe the essential requirements of the law is
a "failure to accord due process within the contemplation of the Constitution, or
commission of an error so fundamental in character as to fatally infect the judgment
1 At the Planning Board stage, unanimous approval was issued after four (4) hearings and over
fourteen (14) hours of presentation wherein evidence was presented and witnesses and experts were
cross-examined.
5
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
and render it void". City of Winter Park v. Jones, 392 So.2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA
1981 ).
This Commission cannot overturn the Design Review Board's decision and
reach a different conclusion simply because it is not satisfied with the result.
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Pitts, 815 So.2d 738, 742 (Fla.
1st DCA 2002). This Commission may correct an error "only when there has been a
violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
Allstate Insurance Company v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885 (Fla. 2003); Ivey v.
Allstate Insurance, 114 So.2d 679, 682 (Fla. 2000); Sams, supra. A disagreement
over the interpretation of the law is not a basis for reversal or remand of the decision
of the Design Review Board. Kaklamanos, supra; Ivey, supra.
OPPONENTS have neither presented an argument nor revealed any record
evidence that shows the Design Review Board committed an error so fundamental in
character as to fatally infect the decision and render it void. This is so because the
Design Review Board committed no error. Consequently, OPPONENTS do not
show that the Design Review Board failed to observe essential requirements of law.
Decision Based On Substantial Competent Evidence
This Commission must limit its review to a determination as to whether the
decision below is supported by competent substantial evidence and must ignore
6
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
evidence that is contrary to the decision below. Florida Power & Light Company v.
City of Dania, 761 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 2000); Town of Manalapan v. Gyongyosi, 828
So.2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Sarasota County v. Kemper, 746 So.2d 539 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1999). Competent substantial evidence is tantamount to legally sufficient
evidence. Florida Power at 1092. The issue before the Commission is not whether
the Design Review Board's decision is the "best" decision or the "right" decision or
even a "wise" decision but is whether the decision is lawful. Dusseau v. Metropolitan
Dade County Bd. of County Com'rs, 794 So.2d 1270, 1275-1276 (Fla. 2001).
This Commission must review solely the record to assess the evidentiary
support for the Design Review Board's decision. Evidence contrary to the Design
Review Board's decision is outside the scope of the inquiry at this point, for the
Commission, above all, cannot reweigh the "pros and cons" of conflicting evidence.
As long as the record contains competent substantial evidence to support the agency's
decision, the decision is presumed lawful and the Commission's job is ended.
Dusseau at 1275-1276.
It is well settled law in Florida, that absent an abuse of discretion, the
Commission cannot set aside the decision of a quasi-judicial body merely because the
reviewing court may have reached a different conclusion on the evidence, where there
is substantial competent evidence legally sufficient to justify the order challenged.
City of Jacksonville Beach v. Car Spa, Inc., 772 So.2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000);
7
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Florida Power, supra; St. Johns County v. Smith, 766 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA
2000); Hillsborough County v. Putney, 495 So.2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In other
words, this Commission cannot substitute its evaluation of competent substantial
evidence for that of the Design Review Board. Town of Juno Beach v. McLeod, 832
So.2d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
As discussed in greater detail below, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the
Design Review Board's approval of the PALAU project. The evidence is not only
substantial but un-rebutted. Pursuant to the above-cited Florida law, because there is
competent substantial evidence to support the design Review Board's decision, the
decision is presumed lawful and the Commission's job ends here.
Legal Argument
I. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS
OPPONENTS' argument, that ex-parte communications were not disclosed,
fails for two reasons, as follows:
1. Ex-parte communications were disclosed on the record.
The record clearly demonstrates the disclosure of ex-parte communications.
Both the Design Review Board Staff Report for the December 4, 2012 meeting, and
OPPONENTS' Petition, correctly point out that the Chairman of the Design Review
8
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Board disclosed on the record, at the August 7, 2012 Design Review Board meeting,
that the Design Review Board Members met with and had ex-parte communications
with the PALAU team. This, alone, satisfies the spirit and intent of section 2-512 of
the Miami Beach Code of Ordinances, which Code section provides for disclosure on
the record of ex-parte communications.
OPPONENTS' argument that the Design Review Board Chairman's August 7,
2012 disclosure of ex-parte communications is somehow lacking, because the Design
Review Board continued the August 7, 2012 hearing to October 2, 2012, is without
merit. "A continuance generally means only that the date of hearing is postponed."
McKinney v. Hirstine, 257 Iowa 395, 131 N.W.2d 823, 825 (1964). "It does not
affect the merits of a case; it leaves all matters as they were before, except that the
time is changed." Id. Further, Black's Law Dictionary (Rev. 4th ed.) defines a
continuance as " ... the entry of a continuance made upon the record of the court, for
the purpose of formally evidencing the postponement, or of connecting the parts of
the record so as to make one continuous whole".
As demonstrated by the above-cited cases, the Chairman's August 7, 2012
disclosure is, alone, sufficient because the occurrence of the continuance to October
2, 2012 is immaterial because the law treats the October 2, 2012 hearing as if it
occurred on August 7, 2012. Pursuant to McKinney, supra, and Black's Law
9
P A TI-lMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Dictionary, supra, the continuance had no affect on the merits of the proceeding, "left
all matters as they were before" and resulted in "one continuous whole".
Furthermore, to the extent that OPPONENTS argue that any alleged ex-parte
communications occurring after August 7, 2012 should have been disclosed at the
October 2, 2012 hearing, such argument fails because SUNSET has not identified on
the record whether any such communications even exist. The only ex-parte
communication OPPONENTS identify on the record is the above-referenced
disclosure from the Chairman, which communication occurred prior to the August 7,
2012 hearing. OPPONENTS Petition is devoid of any facts showing that ex-parte
communications occurred after August 7, 2012. OPPONENTS merely argue on Page
15 of its Petition that "based on information and belief' other ex-parte
communications exist. Such non-factual, vague and precarious language IS
insufficient to show error because this proceeding before this Commission 1s,
pursuant to City Code Section 118-262, not a de novo hearing. Thus, this
Commission is not permitted to consider any arguments or evidence that is not
already contained on the record and that was not asserted or introduced at the time the
Design Review Board approved PALAU's application on October 2, 2012. As of
October 2, 2012, OPPONENTS never raised the issue of ex-parte communications
and, therefore, OPPONENTS are barred from doing so now for the first time before
this Commission. Under Florida law, it is the appellant's duty to point out where in
10
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
the record the alleged error can be substantiated. SeeN & D Holding, Inc. v. Town of
Davie, 17 So.3d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). OPPONENTS do not point out where in
the record ex-parte communications exist after August 7, 2012. This fact is fatal to
OPPONENTS' argument.
Based upon the foregoing, OPPONENTS' argument fails because (i) there was
disclosure on the record of ex-parte communications occurring before August 7,
2012; (ii) OPPONENTS do not comply with Florida law that requires OPPONENTS
to point out where in the record ex-parte communications exist after August 7, 2012;
and (iii) OPPONENTS base their argument on nothing more than "information and
belief', which is insufficient under Florida law.
2. OPPONENTS waived their right to object to ex-parte communications
The second reason OPPONENTS' argument fails is OPPONENTS waived
their right to complain about ex-parte communications by failing to timely object.
OPPONENTS, after learning of the ex-parte communications on August 7, 2012
failed to raise an objection prior to the Design Review Board's approval of PALAU'S
application. The first time SUNSET complained about ex-parte communications was
in a Petition for Rehearing filed with the City on October 23, 2012, some 78 days
after SUNSET first learned of the ex-parte disclosure when the Chairman announced
same at the August 7, 2012 Design Review Board hearing. The first time LENS
complained about ex-parte communications was in the Request for City Commission
11
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Review of Design Review Board Decision, filed with the City on December 28, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as the "Request"), 144 days after LENS first learned about the
ex-parte communication that the Chairman disclosed on August 7, 2012. Instead of
diligently exercising their right to inquire about the ex-parte communication,
OPPONENTS took no action for 78 and 144 days, respectively, and waited until after
the Design Review Board voted in PALAU'S favor to first express an objection to the
ex-parte communication. There is not a single shred of evidence in the record to
show that OPPONENTS raised the ex-parte issue until after Design Review Board
approval in this matter. As stated above, under Florida law, it is the appellant's duty
to point out where in the record the alleged error can be substantiated. See Town of
Davie, supra. Again, OPPONENTS do not point out where in the record they
complained about ex-parte communications prior to the Design Review Board's
approval on October 2, 2012. This fact is fatal to OPPONENTS' argument.
Furthermore, to allow OPPONENTS to tardily raise this ex-parte issue, after
resting on its laurels, would be manifestly unfair and contrary to City Code Section 2-
512( 4), which requires disclosure of the ex-parte communication so that an affected
party is given "a reasonable opportunity to refute or respond to the communication".
See City Code Section 2-512(4). OPPONENTS were advised of ex-parte
communications on August 7, 2012 and, thus, OPPONENTS had reasonable
12
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP o ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE2400 o 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
opportunities to refute or respond to the communications but failed to do so.
OPPONENTS are not entitled to a second bite at the proverbial apple.
For the forgoing reasons, OPPONENTS' arguments relating to ex-parte
communications are without merit and this Commission should reject same.
II. FAILURE TO MEET DRB REVIEW CRITERIA FOR CREATING
OR MAINTAINING VIEW CORRIDORS
SUNSET argues that the Design Review Board wrongfully approved
PALAU'S application because PALAU did not present any evidence showing the
project creates or maintains view corridors, per City Code Section 118-251(a)(12).
This argument is completely without merit because it ignores the mountain of
competent substantial evidence presented by PALAU, upon which the Design
Review Board relied. The competent substantial evidence presented by PALAU
consists of, in part, testimony from PALAU'S architect, Kobi Karp, Design Review
Board Staff Reports, fact based comments from Design Review Staff and Board
members and the site plans submitted by PALAU.
Under Florida law, PALAU'S site plans constitute competent substantial
evidence upon which the Design Review Board can base its decision. See City of
Hialeah Gardens v. Miami-Dade Charter Foundation, Inc., 857 So.2d 202, 205 (Fla.
3rd DCA 2003). The Design Review Board considered and reviewed the plans and
found them to comply with City Code Section 118-25l(a)(12), as recommended by
13
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
the Design Review Board Staff in the Staff Report, dated October 2, 2012, which
Staff Report specifically provides that the criteria found in Section 118-251(a)(12)
(regarding view corridors) is satisfied. There is an abundance of Florida law that
provides that staff reports/staff recommendations constitute competent substantial
evidence. Hialeah Gardens, supra; Metropolitan Dade County v. Fuller, 515 So.2d
1312, 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Dade County v. United Resources, Inc., 374 So.2d
1046, 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Specifically, the transcript for the October 2, 2012 Design Review Board
meeting is saturated with testimony and comments from Staff and Design Review
Board Members themselves, relating to view corridors.2 For example, at the October
2, 2012 hearing, William Cary, responding to comments from someone opposing the
project, stated as follows:
MR. CARY: [The Planning Board] decided not to have a
view corridor along . . . West A venue, through to the
water. They decided that it was inappropriate, that it was
fine for the -for the project to come up to where it is -it is
proposed to be located. So yes, we took into consideration
what was requested by the Planning Board, as well as what
was requested by your client. (October 2, 2012 DRB
Hearing Transcript, Page 175, Lines 7-14).
2 It should be noted that PALAU listened to the DRB and its Staff and made great effort to
accommodate and implement their comments and suggestions.
14
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Another example of evidence in the record justifying the decision of the Design
Review Board (in relation to view corridors) comes from project architect, Kobi
Karp, who testified at the October 2, 2012 hearing, as follows:
MR. KARP: The requirement setback is 20 feet, and you
can see that itself, is set back to 3 0 feet from the canal, 3 7
feet, plus, from Sunset Drive, and from the corner, as you
measure it, it is 52. And what that does is, it creates vistas
and view corridors that do not exist right now. The
structures that exist there right now are up to the seawall.
What we are proposing is to demolish it, pull it back 20
feet, and landscape it --make it a public promenade so that
you can have access. So yes, are we compatible? Yes. We
are . . . providing landscaping and setbacks at the ground
level and vistas and view corridors. And again, you can
look at A-1.05. It is a perfectly good example. The
building sets itself back. (October 2, 2012 DRB Hearing
Transcript, Page 231, Lines 16-24 and Page 232, Lines 4-
18).
Moreover, the hearing transcripts show Design Review Board Members,
themselves, commenting on and evaluating the issue of view corridors. For example,
Design Review Board Member, Lilia Medina, commented as follows:
MS. MEDINA: I think the project has really benefitted
from a lot of the discussion, the meetings, the --the
Planning Board conditions have been met . . . and I think
that the building has been pulled back adequately. I think
that the view corridor, now that it has been clarified on
the west side where you have 26 feet of easement, will be
helpful to have that West Avenue end point. I do believe
that the Sunset Drive view corridor has been met at the
angle that it is. (October 2, 2012 DRB Hearing
Transcript, Page 297, Lines 3-19)
15
PATI-IMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA33131
The above-cited portions of the record unequivocally demonstrate that the issue
of view corridors was extremely well vetted and the Design Review Board's decision
was based on competent substantial evidence.
Accordingly, OPPONENTS' argument is invalid and this Commission should
reject same.
III. FAILURE TO EVALUATE ELIMINATION AND/OR DIMINUTION
OF VIEW CORRIDORS
OPPONENTS argue that the Design Review Board wrongfully approved
PALAU'S application because the Design Review Board did not evaluate whether
the project creates or maintains view corridors per City Code Section 118-251(a)(12).
OPPONENTS' argument fails for the same reasons OPPONENTS' previous
argument fails, and then some. This argument flies in the face of the competent
substantial evidence upon which the Design Review Board relied to render its
approval. This argument ignores the fact that there were many hours spent during
Design Review Board hearings wherein both sides presented evidence devoted to the
topic of view corridors and such issue was thoroughly discussed and evaluated by the
Design Review Board and its Staff.
In addition, OPPONENTS conveniently fail to mention that the record consists
of a report dated May 17, 2012, authored by Jean-Francois Lejeune, one of
SUNSET'S own experts, who testified before the Planning Board on May 22, 2012.
16
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Mr. Lejeune's report and testimony specifically address OPPONENTS' issues and
complaints about view corridors.3 Thus, it is disingenuous for OPPONENTS to argue
that the Design Review Board failed to evaluate the view corridors when
OPPONENTS, themselves, actively participated in facilitating the Design Review
Board's evaluation process.
Lastly, OPPONENTS' argument ignores the fact that the Design Review
Board, at the October 2, 2012 Design Review Board meeting, required additional
setbacks to the northeast comer of the PALAU project, which PALAU complied
with.
For the foregoing reasons, OPPONENTS' argument IS invalid and this
Commission should reject same.
IV. STAFF REPORT FAILS TO ADDRESS MASSING AND IS NOT
COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
OPPONENTS argue that the Design Review Board Staff Report dated October
2, 2012 fails to address specific criteria requiring massing to create or maintain view
corridors per City Code Section 118-251(a)(12). OPPONENTS also argue that the
October 2, 2012 StaffReport is not competent substantial evidence.
3 It is worth noting that Mr. Lejeune's testimony at the May 22, 2012 Plam1ing Board meeting stated
that the Palau project does not have any adverse impacts on the Sunset Islands residential
neighborhood.
17
PATI-IMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA33131
SUNSET'S argument fails because the October 2, 2012 Staff Report
specifically provides that the criteria per City Code Section 118-251(a)(12) is
"satisfied" and there is an abundance of Florida law that provides that a Staff Report
constitutes competent substantial evidence. Hialeah Gardens, supra; Fuller, supra;
United Resources, supra.
As stated above in response to OPPONENTS' prior arguments, the October 2,
2012 Staff Report is just a small part of the competent substantial evidence that the
Design Review Board relied upon. The Design Review Board also relied upon expert
testimony, site plans and fact based comments from Staff, all of which constitute
competent substantial evidence and demonstrate that the Design Review Board
properly evaluated massing.
Below are excerpts from the August 7, 2012 and October 2, 2012 Design
Review Board hearings, which are part of the record in this matter, which excerpts
show how massing was evaluated by the Design Review Board.
From Assistant Planning Director, William Cary, at the August 7, 2012 DRB
Hearing, Transcript Page 181, Lines 7-17:
MR. CARY: There has been a lot of design development-
-excuse me. I shouldn't say, "design." I should say,
"massing and scale adjustment" made to the project
during the course of these many public hearings that
have already been held. So I don't want for the neighbors
or the public to feel that --that the development review
18
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE2400 •2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
process is not working, because I think it is working exactly
the way it is intended to work.
From Assistant Planning Director, William Cary, at the October 2, 2012 DRB
Hearing, Transcript Page 336, Lines 2-8:
MR. CARY: So again, I would encourage everyone that
has not had a chance to sit down and look at that model. It
really is rather amazing, and it really --it really lays to rest
any lingering concern I may have had relative to the
scale, mass and bulk of the project being excessive.
From Palau Architect, Kobi Karp, at the October 2, 2012 DRB Hearing, Transcript
Page 25, Lines 4-12:
MR. KARP: The proe:ression of building massing
which are these pages right here --we put them into the
record because it showed us the progress of evolution of
the [massing of the) project since we presented this
project originally back in November of last year. I
presented it to the Sunset Island Tower, North Bay Road,
Sunset Harbour Tower and Townhomes. So if I need to
stop, just tell me. What I got--58 seconds--but in essence,
that shows the progress of the evolution that we are going.
From Design Review Board Member, Leslie Tobin, at the October 2, 2012 DRB
Hearing, Transcript Page 280, Lines 4-12:
MS. TOBIN: Okay. So I have had the privilege of hearing
this project over and over and over again. It --I have to
commend Kobi --I think from the first time I saw this
project to where it is now, it is --you have addressed so
many of the concerns that we had in the Planning Board.
You have addressed a lot of concerns that I think as a
Planning Board we had, and individually, as we had. !
think the building does a great job of breaking down the
mass that was first presented to us. When it was first
19
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
presented to us, it was one long elevation that really --you
know, for the Sunset Island homeowners --did nothing.
Thus, the record reveals expert testimony, fact based Staff comments and fact
based comments directly from the Design Review Board, all of which show that
massing was thoroughly vetted and all of which serve as competent substantial
evidence. Based on the foregoing, OPPONENTS' argument has no merit and this
Commission should reject same.
V. THE DRB DELEGATED TO STAFF ITS AUTHORITY TO
EVALUATE AND APPROVE PLANS
OPPONENTS argue that the Design Review Board improperly delegated to
Design Review Staff its authority to approve PALAU'S plans.
This argument should not be considered by the Commission because
OPPONENTS failed to raise this issue in its Request for City Commission Review of
Design Review Board Decision, filed with the City on December 28, 2012. Pursuant
to City Code Section 118-261(a), the Request" ... shall state the factual bases and
legal argument in support of the appeal ... " OPPONENTS, having failed to comply
with City Code Section 118-26l(a), cannot now raise this issue for the first time
before this Commission.
Even if this argument was properly before this Commission, it has no merit
because the Design Review Board has already approved the plans and has not
delegated approval of the plans to Staff. The Design Review Board merely vested
20
PATI-IMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Staff with the authority to perform ministerial and administrative tasks such as
ensuring compliance with future conditions imposed by the Design Review Board.
OPPONENTS reference nothing in the record that prevent Staff from performing this
limited duty. The Design Review Board treated PALAU'S application and approval
no differently than that of any other developer.
For the forgoing reasons, OPPONENTS' argument is either not properly
before this Commission or without merit and, therefore, this Commission should
reject same.
Conclusion
OPPONENTS' Petition does not set forth any basis to disturb the Design
Review Board's unanimous approval of PALAU's application. The record
demonstrates that (i) the parties were provided with procedural due process, (ii) the
Design Review Board observed essential requirements of law; and (iii) the Board's
decision is based upon substantial competent evidence. The record shows that the
Design Review Board carefully and competently evaluated PALAU'S application
during many hours of hearings and presentations. There is an overwhelming amount
of competent substantial evidence to support the Design Review Board's approval.
Pursuant to the above-cited Florida law, this Commission cannot re-hear or re-weigh
the evidence and cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Design Review Board.
21
PATHMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE 2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
Based upon the above-referenced facts and above-cited law, OPPONENTS Petition
must be denied.
Dated March i5 , 2013
Respectfully submitted,
PATHMANLEWIS, LLP
Counsel for PALAU SUNSET HARBOR,
LLC
One Biscayne Tower
2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2400
Miami, FL 33131
Tel No.: (305) 379-2425
Fax No.: (305) 379-2420
r:\palau sunset harbour\palau sunset harbour -design review board\pldg\palau response to appeal petition.docx
22
PATI-IMAN LEWIS, LLP • ONE BISCAYNE TOWER, SUITE2400 • 2 SOUTH BISCAYNE BLVD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
BEFORE 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~~~ ~~~
.•' ",•: