99-23016 RESO
RESOLUTION NO. 99-23016
A Resolution of the Mayor and City
Commission of the City of Miami Beach,
Florida, setting a public hearing to
review a Design Review Board Decision
approving a request by Marquesa
Development, Ltd., to change the status
of an existing entrance driveway for
South Pointe and Portofino Towers from
temporary to permanent at 300 400
South Pointe Drive.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami
Beach recognize that a process for the review of decisions
rendered by the Design Review Board has been established under
Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach Code; and
WHEREAS, an affected person has the right to seek a review
by the City Commission of a project approved by the Design Review
Board; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board, on November 10, 1998,
approved a request by Marquesa Development, Ltd., to change the
status of an existing entrance driveway for South Pointe and
Portofino Towers from temporary to permanent at 300 - 400 South
pointe Drive (DRB File No. 9943); and
WHEREAS, The Appellant, Mr, Jere Bishop, an owner of
property within 375' of the project which is the subject of the
appeal, has requested a review of the decision rendered by the
Design Review Board concerning DRB File No. 9943.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
1. The City Commission hereby sets a time certain of 2:30
pm, on January 20, 1999 to review the decision of the Design
Review Board (DRB File No. 9943) wherein it approved a request by
Marquesa Development, Ltd., to change the status of an existing
entrance driveway for South Pointe and Portofino Towers from
temporary to permanent at 300 - 400 South Pointe Drive.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 6th day of
January, 1999.
ATTEST:
V;!fJ1
~ r P 1U-WM-
MAYOR
APpROVED ftS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
CITY CLERK
/Uf.~L I1jWY
Cl ornev
TRM:tm
T:\AGENDA\1999\JAN0699\REGULAR\RES-9943,WPD
Frida~'~ Decem ber II ~ 1998
To the: Historic Presen'ation and llrban Design Director
Miami Beach, Florida
Subject: Appeal of DRB decision in File No. 9943
The undersigned aggrieved person~ as well as those
aggrieved persons listed in the attach ment hereto hereb~'
appeal the subject DRB decision to the City Commission for
consideration of the issues raised in that attachment.
Although the decision being appealed seems somewhat
innocent in subject matter (i.e. making permanent a drivewa'y
now temporary)~ we believe the implications of that decision
are so profound that it must be considered a substantial
modification of the South Pointe Concept Plan. Hence, under
the 1984 South Pointe Development Agreement, only the Ci~,'
Commission has the authority to rule on the matter.
Inc rely yours,
e Bishop~ Unit 604, South Pointe Tower
400 South Pointe Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
(305) 535-1130
Appeal to the Miami Beach City Commission of the ORB
decision re File No. 9943
1. Introduction - This is an appeal of the November 10, 1998
ORB decision in design review file #9943 approving an
application of Marquesa Development to make the currently
temporary entrance drive ramp for South Pointe and Portofino
Towers the permanent ramp. The appeal is timely since it is
filed prior to expiration of the 20 day period of time
subsequent to issuance of the final order in said file.
2. Basis - The decision in #9943 amounts to a substantial
modification of the South Pointe Project Concept Plan. Under
the 1984 South Pointe Development Agreement, only the
Miami Beach City Commission has the power to approve
substantial modifications to the Concept Plan.
3. Foundation - In 1995, under DRB file # 4807, the ramp
was declared a substantial modification to the Concept Plan
and thus it was only allowed on a temporary basis. Quote:
" The entrance applied for ----- is not consistent with the
Concept Plan in the (1984) Development Agreement.
This entrance is not a substantial modification of the
Agreement as long as it is only temporary. The entrance will be
considered temporary as long as it is removed by the earlier of
the following dates: a. Three years from March 7, 1995, or b.
the date set for its removal at the time this Board approves
plans for completion of the remaining phases of the project as
shown on the Concept Plan."
4.Further foundation - The Concept Plan was approved by the
City Commission in 1984. Since then, no substantial
modifications have been allowed by the City Commission. The
Concept Plan is a well conceived overall master plan for
development of the 18 or so acres known as the South Pointe
Project. When the initial pioneering purchasers in South
Pointe Tower bought their units the Concept Plan was an
integral and important part of the sales pitch. Unless
exceedingly unusual conditions arise, the Concept Plan should
be carried out to the letter in deference to the initial
purchasers as well as the current occupants of South Pointe
Tower. This proposal reroutes vehicle traffic from the Concept
Plan's Ocean Drive combined project condominium entrance
to a new entrance just for the Portofino and South Pointe
Towers. The indirect effect of this rerouting is to facilitate the
isolation of the latter two towers from the rest of future
development. However, a k~y feature of the Concept Plan was
and is an integration of all surface amenities in the overall
South Pointe Project for the use and benefit of all four
condominium buildings proposed. Naturally all four condo
associations would share the cost as well as the control of these
amenities. This is a much more preferable end result from the
perspective of South Pointe Tower than the current situation,
where Portofino Tower, owing to their slight numerical edge in
number of residential units, enjoys a 3 to 2 perpetual edge in
the now governing Master Association. If the City supports
and assures the Concept Plan's approach, eventually an
enlarged Master Association will exist and a more
democratically elected Master Board will watch over these
facilities. This end result was promised to the pioneering initial
South Pointe purchasers w'hen they bought. It is fair and
proper that the City, a signatory of the 1984 Development
Agreement and approving entity for the Concept Plan do
nothing to derail the higher purposes of the Concept Plan!
Please do not allow this driveway relocation to become
permanent in derogation of the Concept Plan!
5. Merits of the Concept Plan - Extensive surface
amenities serving four condominium towers, each with a voice
in operation of the amenities. One large interior parking
structure pr~viding parking for all four towers. Condo
buildings and the hotel placed such as to maximize views from
all buildings. The hotel, a naturally intensive use and one open
to the general public, has its public and service entrances ofT of
Biscayne (now South Pointe Drive), thus not mixing hotel and
condominium traffic.
6. Concept Plan Reaffirmation - We, the undersigned
aggrieved parties, recommend to the City Commission that a
public hearing be held to review the merits of the Concept Plan
in the light of current and potential future conditions in South
Miami Beach to ascertain the Plan's value as a master plan
today.
7. Unless and until the Concept Plan is found to not meet
City needs, we urge that no changes should be allowed except
under the procedures spelled out in the 1984 Development
Agreement.
8. For the City's information, the recently DRB approved
file numbers 9192 and 10385 both also will require City
Commission approval under the 1984 Development Agreement
for the same reasons this matter requires such approval!
9. To assist the Commission in ascertaining the merits of
this appeal, it is suggested that a hearing be held to ascertain
the proper threshold for a change to be considered a
"substantial modification" to the Concept Plan.
This appeal is made by the undersigned aggrieved
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
DRAFT
MEETING DATE: November 10, 1998
IN RE: The Application for Design Review Approval to
change the status of an existing entrance driveway
for South pointe and Portofino Towers from
temporary to permanent.
PROPERTY: 300 - 400 South pointe Drive
FILE NO: 9943
o R D E R
The applicant, Marquesa Development, Ltd, filed an application with
the City of Miami Beach's Planning Department for Design Review
approval.
The City of Miami Beach's Design Review Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT, based upon the evidence, information, testi~ony
and materials presented at the public hearing and which is 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 proj ect as submitted is not
consistent with the Design Review Criteria Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8 &
17 in Section 118-251 of the Miami Beach Code.
B. The project would be consistent with the afore-stated criteria
and requirements if the following conditions are met:
1. Public Art in the form of sculpturel in a pedestrian
scale I shall be required along the north side of the
subject propertYI in between the sidewalk and the
driveway I in a manner to be approved by staff,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED I based upon the foregoing findings of factI
the evidence, informationl testimony and materials presented at the
public hearingl which is part of the record for this matter and the
staff report and analysis, which is adopted hereinl excluding the
staff recommendations which were amended by the Boardl that the
Application for Design Review approval is granted for the above-
referenced project subject to those certain conditions specified in
paragraph B of the Findings of Fact hereof (condition #1) I to which
the applicant has agreed.
No building permit may be issued unless and until all conditions of
approval as set forth herein have been met. The issuance of Design
Review approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all
other required Municipal, County and/or State reviews and permits,
including zoning approval. If adequate handicapped access is not
provided, this approval does not mean that such handicapped access
is not required or that the Board supports an applicant's effort to
seek waivers relating to handicapped accessibility requirements.
When requesting a building per.mit. three (3) sets of plans approved
by the Board. modified in accordance with the above conditions. as
well as annotated floor plans which clearly delineate the Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) calculations for the project. shall be submitted
to the Planning Department. If all of the above-specified
conditions are satisfactorily addressed, the plans will be reviewed
for building permit approval. Two (2) sets will be returned to you
for submission for a building permit and one (1) set will be
retained for the Design Review Board's file. If the Full Building
Permit is not issued within one (1) year of the meeting date and
construction does not commence within two (2) years of the meeting
date, and continue diligently through completion, the Design Review
approval will expire and become null and void.
Dated this
day of
, 1998.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
By:
Chairperson
Approved as to Form:
City
Attorney
Office of the
(Initials/Date)
Final Order filed and in possession of the Clerk of the Board:
Clerk of the Design Review Board
(Initials/Date)
F:\PLAN\$DRB\DRB98\NOVDRB98\9943.FO
2
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
in
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
81 AFF REPORT
FROM:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DEAN J, GRANDIN, Jr., DIRECTOR~
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~'
TO:
DATE:
NOVEMBER 10, 1998 MEETING
RE:
DESIGN REVIEW FILE NO. 9943
300 - 400 South Pointe Drive
The applicant, Marquesa Development, Ltd, is requesting Design Review Approval to
change the status of an existing entrance driveway for South Pointe and Portofino
Towers from temporary to permanent.
HISTORY IPROJECT:
On February 8, 1994, the applicant received Design Review Approval for the
construction of a 44-story Condominium Tower. One of the conditions of said
approval was that revised drawings for the ground level retail storefronts and entrance
driveway be submitted to the Board as a revision to the approved plans at a later date.
The existing driveway was approved as a "temporary driveway".
On October 4, 1994, the applicant came before the Board for Design Review Approval
for revisions to previously approved plans for a new entrance feature. At this meeting,
the Board made a finding of fact that "the entrance system is the major point of
interface between the project and the surrounding area". The Board denied the
applicant's request to modify the entrance feature to the project.
The applicant came before the Board on March 10, 1998, seeking to change the status
of the existing vehicular entry-drive from temporary to permanent, and the maltter was
continued to a date certain of May 12, 1998, in order to address the c:oncerns
delineated in the staff report. On May 12, 1998, the matter was continued to a date
certain of June 9, 1998, in order for the applicant to have additional time to address
the concerns expressed in the previous staff report.
On June 9, 1998 the matter was continued to August 11, 1998 and then tCl August
26, 1998; on August 26, 1998 the matter was continued to a date certain of October
13, 1998. On October 13, 1998, the application was continued to a date certain of
November 10, 1998, at the request of the applicant.
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING CODE:
The application, as proposed, appears to comply with all pertinent aspects of the City
Zoning Code; this shall require final verification,
ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE
Additional information will be required for a complete accessibility review pursuant to
the requirements of the Florida Accessibility Code (FAC).
CONCURRENCY DETERMINA liON:
A preliminary evaluation of this application indicates that it will not degrade the
adopted Levels of Service (LOS) for Roads, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage,
Potable Water and Recreation. Accordingly staff has made a preliminary determination
that the concurrency requirements of the code have been met,
COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA:
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 the structure or proposed structures in relation to the site, adjacent
structures and surrounding community. Staff recommends that the following criteria
is found to be satisfied, not satisfied or not applicable, as hereto indicated:
1 . The existing and proposed conditions of the Lot, including but not necessarily
limited to topography, vegetation, trees, drainage, and Waterways.
- Satisfied
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.
- Not Satisfied; see Staff Analysis
3. The dimensions of all Buildings, Structures, setbacks, parking spaces, Floor Area
Ratio, height, Lot Coverage and any other information that may be reasonably
required to determine compliance with this Ordinance.
- Satisfied
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 Subsection B of this
Section.
- Satisfied
..,
5. The proposed Structure is in conformity with the standards of this Ordinance
and other applicable ordinances, architectural and design guidelines, and plans
insofar as the location and appearance and design of the Buildings and
Structures are involved.
- Satisfied
6. The proposed Structure indicates a sensitivity to and is compatible with the
environment and adjacent Structures, and enhances the appearance of the
surrounding properties.
- Not Satisfied; see Staff Analysis
7, The design and layout of 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.
- Not Satisfied; see Staff Analysis
8. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the Site shall
be reviewed to ensure that all parking spaces are usable and are safely and
conveniently arranged. Access to the Site from adjacent roads shall be
designed so as to interfere as linle as possible with traffic flow on these roads
and to permit vehicles a rapid and safe ingress and egress to the Site.
- Not Satisfied; see Staff Analysis
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.
- Satisfied
1 O. Landscape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an adequate
relationship with and enhancement of the overall Site Plan design.
- Satisfied
11 , Buffering materials shall be reviewed to ensure that headlights of vehicles,
noise, and light from Structures are adequately shielded from public view and
pedestrian areas.
- Satisfied
12. Storm drainage, sanitary waste disposal, and water supply shall be reviewed'
and considered in terms of the adequacy of existing systems, and the need for
improvements, both on-Site and off-Site, to adequately carry runoff and
sewage, and to maintain an adequate supply of water at sufficient pressure.
3
-Satisfied
, 3. Garbage disposal shall be reviewed to ensure freedom from vermin and rodent
infestation. All disposal systems shall meet municipal specifications as to
installation and construction,
- Satisfied
14, The overall project shall be reviewed for compliance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan or Neighborhood Plans that apply to or affect the subject
property ,
- Satisfied
, 5. To promote reduced crime and fear of crime through the use of Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design Guidelines and Strategies.
- Satisfied
, 6. 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).
- Satisfied
, 7. 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.
- Not Satisfied; see Staff Analysis
, 8, The Building shall have an appropriate and fully integrated rooftop architectural
treatment which substantially screens all mechanical equipment, stairs and
elevator towers.
- Satisfied
, 9. 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).
- Satisfied
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff believes that the existing drive-way, as presently located and designed, has a
substantially negative impact on the pedestrian character of the immediate
4
streetscape. Furthermore, the dimensions of the existing ramping system do not allow
for an appropriate sidewalk type use, such as retail; consequently the entrance ramp
designs literally turns its back to the low scale character of the surrounding area.
In addition to these urban issues, staff also has a concern relative to the final outcome
of the entrance system for the Ocean Parcel proJect. In this regard, it may eventually
be concluded that both the existing Portofino and South Point Towers will have to
share a common access point with the final site plan for the entire master parcel.
RECOMMENDA TION:
In view of the foregoing analysis, staff strongly recommends that this application be
DENIED, and that a new ramping system, which better acknowledges the
street/sidewalk along South Pointe Drive, be re-submitted as a new application.
DJG:TRM
F:\PLAN\ $DRB\DRB98\NOVDRB98\9943, NOV
5
:ITY OF MIAMI BEACH
;ITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
ltlp:\\ci, miami-beach, fl, us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO,
/3-CjCJ
TO:
Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members of the City Commission
DATE: .January 6,1999
FROM:
Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager
~
SUBJECT:
A Resolution of the May and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach,
Florida, setting a public hearing to review a Design Review Board Decision
approving a request by Marquesa Development, Ltd., to change the status of an
existing entrance driveway for South Pointe and Portofino Towers from
temporary to permanent at 300 - 400 South Pointe Drive.
RECOMMENDA TION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission, pursuant to Subsection 118-262 of the
Miami Beach Code. set a public hearing on January 20, 1999. with a time certain. to review a
decision of the Design Review Board (ORB). wherein it approved a request by Marquesa
Development. Ltd.. to change the status of an existing entrance driveway for South Pointe and
Portofino Towers from temporary to permanent at 300 - 400 South Pointe Drive (DRB File No.
9943),
BACKGROUND
On November 10, 1998, the Design Review Board (ORB) approved a request by Marquesa
Development, Ltd., to change the status of an existing entrance driveway for South Pointe and
Portofino Towers from temporary to permanent at 300 - 400 South Pointe Drive, The staff report
to the DRB for this project and the Draft Final Order are attached, hereto, for informational purposes,
On December 1 t, 1998, Mr. Jere Bishop, an owner of property within 375' of the project which is
the subject of the appeal, on behalf of himself: as well as Ernst Rosenkrantz, Michel Leibovici,
Esther Vidaurreta.luis Pujol and Olga Cenal, who also own property within 375' of the project which
is the subject of the appeal, filed a request to have the Order of the Design Review Board reviewed
by the City Commission, pursuant to Section 118-262 Of the Miami Beach Code (see attached
letter),
ANALYSIS
The Design Review Section of the Miami Beach Code allows an "affected" to seek "review" of any
Design Review Board Order by the City Commission, In this particular instance Mr. Bishop, an
owner of property within 375' of the project which is the subject of the appeal, on behalf of himself:
DATE
C-LE-
\-lo'<1..i
AGENDA ITEM
as well as Emst Rosenkrantz, Michel Leibovici, Esther Vidaurreta, luis Pujol and Olga Cenal, who
also own property within 375' of the project which is the subject of the appeaL is seeking a review
of the Final Order for the project described herein.
Pursuant to Section 118-262 of the Miami Beach Code, the review by the City Commission is not
a "de novo" hearing, It must be based upon the record of the hearing before the Design Review
Board. Furthermore, Section 118-262 (b) states the following:
In order to reverse, or remand for amendment, modification or rehearing any decision of the
Design Review Board, the City Commission shall tind that the Design Revie\v 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,
Mr, Jere Bishop has indicated that the basis for the appeal is that the decision of the Design Review
Board amounts to an amendment to the Concept Plan of the 1984 Development Agreement and that
only the City Commission has the authority to amend said Concept plan,
In order to reverse or remand a decision of the DRB, a 517th vote of the City Commission is
required,
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission set a public hearing on January 20, 1999,
with a time certain, to review a decision of the Design Review Board (ORB), wherein it approved
a request by Marquesa Development, Ltd., to change the status of an existing entrance driveway for
South Pointe and Porto fino Towers from temporary to permanent at 300 - 400 South Pointe Drive
(DRB File No, 9943).
SR~:~:TRM
T:\AGENDA \ I 999\JAN0699\REGULAR\PHR-9943 . WPD