99-23049 RESO
RESOLUTION NO. 99-23049
A Resolution of the Mayor and City
Commission of the City of Miami Beach,
Florida, setting a public hearing, at
the request of the city Manager, 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, the City Manager 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, the city Manager, 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 11:00
A.M., on February 17, 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 20th day
, 1999.
ATTEST:
-~ r~~
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
TRM:tm
C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\RS9943-R.WPD
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & lANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
1-lt--,'11
Dote
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33319
http:\\ci.miami-beach.f1.us
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Telephone 673-7010
Facsimile 673-7782
January 5, 1999
Mr. Dean J. Grandin
Historic Preservation and Urban Design Director
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Re: Design Review File No. 9943; 300 - 400 South Pointe Drive
Dear Mr. Grandin:
In reference to the above noted matter. please be advised that I, in my capacity as City Manager, am
hereby requesting a review by the City Commission of the November 10, 1998 decision of the
Design Review Board (DRB) regarding Design Review File No. 9943. This project consisted of
changing the status of an existing entrance driveway for South Pointe and Portofino Towers from
temporary to permanent
I would request that the City Commission review the project approved by the DRB and remand the
matter back to the DRB for further consideration as I have a concern with the present location and
design of the existing driveway, and the substantially negative impact it has on the pedestrian
character of the immediate streetscape. Furthermore, the dimensions of the existing ramping system
do not allow for an appropriate sidewalk type use to front the north side of the subject site, thus
resulting in the entrance ramp, as well as the site as a whole, turning its back to the low scale
character of the surrounding area.
Based upon the record of the proceedings, I do not believe that the ORB properly examined the
architectural drav.jngs for consistency with the Design Review Criteri~ listed in Sectiop~ 11 ~-251 of
the Miami Beach Code 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", as required by said Subsection.
With regard to the design, orientation and siting of the subject entrance ramp, I do not believe that
the ORB based its decision on substantial competent evidence, nor did they observe the essential
requirements oflaw. Specifically, sufficient substantial competent evidence did not exist to satisfy
the following Design Review Criteria:
1. Criteria No.2 regarding "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".
January 5, 1999
Page Two
2. Criteria No.6 which requires that "the proposed Structure indicates a sensitivity to and is
compatible with the environment and adjacent Structures, and enhances the appearance of
the surrounding properties".
3. Criteria No.7 which requires that "the design and layout of Buildings 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".
4. Criteria No. 17 which requires, in part, that "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".
With regard to the above, the following is noted:
1. No computer enhanced photographs or drawings were submitted to the Board which
accurately reflected the manner in which the existing drive-way relates to the as-built context
of the immediate area, particularly along South Pointe Drive and the low-scale residential
area to the north.
2. Detailed photo montages and drawings depicting the existing drive-way superimposed within
the subject site from multiple vantage points down South Pointe Drive, Collins Avenue,
Ocean Drive and the recently approved Ocean Parcel projects were never submitted.
Because of this, the Board could not accurately determine the impact the existing drive-way
has on the subject site from these public rights-of-way, as well as the impact on the low-scale
character of the residential district to the north and the new existing scale of West A venue,
as vieweclfrom north and south of the subject site. .... _ .
Additionally, the DRB did not observe the essential requirements of law in that Design Review
Criterias No.2, No.6, No. 7 and No. 17 have not been satisfied. In light of these numerous
shortcomings and the failure of the Board to base their decision on substantial competent evidence
and observe the essential requirements oflaw, I recommend that the decision of the Design Review
Board to approve the project be REMANDED back to the Design Review Board for the following
modifications:
1. The applicant shall be required to submit a new driveway and ramping system. which better
acknowledges the street/sidewalk along South Pointe Drive, and includes some form of
activity along the northern portion of the existing site including, but not limited to,
retail/commercial space.
January 5, 1999
Page Three
By copy of this letter to the City Clerk's Office, I am hereby advising that Office to schedule an
appeal hearing before the City Commission in accordance with the parameters set forth in the Zoning
Code.
io Rodriguez
City Manager
S~:TRM
M:\$CMB\ TEMP\9943-APP. WPO
cc: R. Parcher
1. Gavarrete
W. Cary
O. Grub Frieser
C. Schulman
ORB File #9943
.." ~.
:i
ill
jl!
III
III
III
III
III
III
,II
i! 'I)
.'I!
ii :::
III
III I
ill I
I II ~ II J
III 1"'"'11'---" I
IU L.JI' II
III II!
III II'
I IU :: i
i 1 : ~ It I
I i ~ ,r II I
II IJ 1,1
III III ::]
I : ~ II ·
I II'
I : ~~ tI :
I; 1"'"'111 II'
III L.JI ~ II '
III II!
III :: I
III I':
:~ Ill!
III ::;
:: till I
I. j r :: :
," J · III
:~ 1"" I II'
III It I,' III
In ~- II'
I'll ' III
I. I~::: I
II' ,Ii Iii ii II I I
::' d
l' r :: : 1~
li;w · II:
"II !^ II'
II ill ' Ii>' II I r
i Ii Ii i 1;1 II I
II' ", : II II! -f
i--~ ! \Jj~ f l--;':- '- "
'I' I,.. ,:" ' ,
i '~~~~I / I: "
:1 v/. "
II I~/ '-
ii! i r \
II ~ I i \
I' t " I
! I ';\ i;
: :' 1< \ t! t"
II ,,;::.-=_::'_'~ I
i: 17 1"-'... /
I:', ~ ,~, "/1
""" ,,,...........- .../ /
i: ", f9", '-:::::::~:::>/
'I; II' I. '
I,' --.. H -</
i i_II i I -rt, i - - -
\\1 I !' I: ' I -
1", <) ~l 1 '-r11
:".J l;i HI r
j
I
i
I
!.]I
.~ ~!I
-J:l"
0-:1
'5 ~Ii
Cl. E;
,II
;11
Ii
'I
I,
"
a'"""
Il.":i
"1 -::---
It /::;;;'/'/'"---=
f; '~<A"''''~'-1-'::-:''
/~f/ 9~:- ;'
I~>' ,t~/ I I ~ I
/I.r 11/ \ \- ,
1,,'/ 11/ \.>..... 1::....---:
1/llf ;>o/ff' -"'",,"
I 1'/ IIi /.......... 1. \
11/ II I I 1""" ,') } /
II III I I, ( 1..1.-"/'" /
) / II I \ \, \. r .....~ // ,
I 1/ ,( \ ' ,,,,.;tt /(' :
\ \\ \Ic\ ....-1"'\ \ :
'i 'fc--// \ \ :
; II II: '
III II'
,II 'I'
: It II I
; /11'1 ,:
,I! II
I It j II 1
I II! Ii ~
1 II t:l I
/ I) r l..' '.
III i ,,\
\ \\, II f
\ 'l1.......r( (
111 III
: I( III
I H jl:
I II !l i
III III
i II III
III III
J)) II \
I f( \\\
\ \\ 1/1
\ 'l!.......r(( {
~ II Ii I 1
;:: ::: '
! lj II'
III ill
Iii III
111 ...1
) J) ~ \
fit \\ \
\ \\ i II I
,'/
I
~ :
CI.
:..c:
CfJ
~
Q)
c:
t
CU
a..
/ -.....,
,
\...... _/
, ,
, ! Ii
\ \ ;" jf!
,\ .!
\ \ ,I ~ _ _ _ _
, ,,_, ; //---_-:" I.
,,,', ///_,,' // /;_-__ "tl// ~~ '-
_ Jc.. ,'", I II II I //" ..'"
f, I \ ',', \ II II'" / ~',;t / /:;>/ '" : 8!:
I" \ \ ,-:....,' ((.-::/" "=--=/ Q)
1 ',1 I , ~ 11; II :- ' .
1 'I'" :!Ij 11 ,,,,;=:'~, ,(/)
I ,II" J'~: . II! II I t-
ill i,; II ' :' , " I ~
f!lf" r. IlIf"I~-'
fll I; ,1 I,ll 11 I
" " . I I 11 II I ,
. 'It II I J
, ,
"
ii,
j"
'I'
',1
Q)
.J:::
I--
~I
I
i
~t: fj 1. ~ i J
{'Il!.rf ;!{l'd.1 II :'
,Ill 11'1...J tJ )I
JJ{i!l 1;)lil1'" H' 11
111'11: 11 !1f: fi1 Hi H
. ;In! Ii n!iiH Hi fiI; -1'1
d__' .!
! . ~ -'
f
I
I
I
i r
I L
11
Ii
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c:
"',
C.
c::
gl
:'=1
0'
E
<1l
"0
/
I
//
I
I
I
I
-...,
I
j~
~
v
\
Q
\1\
~<
c:lst
~~
\
-
,II ___J I
':: ~""""",~====,,_" I
I. ~,____ ",,,.,;.,;.,;' f -"""~ ~~il <?= !
:!~ '7':-..-'----:=J----~ ~,,~~ iff{ ,
III /r ~<.-;.;.~;~ ,~:.- -.: -.-~~~,~~"'--"""------ -
i!i ~"' / //~~~;::":..:;..~4\:--, T'" '" ~:~<:< ~~u'u'-..im'-h
III lI..~ .t/ /:'f"...< :' : ----~t ...-.:.~', _--~~-J
III 1 /'''' '~~~ .... ---- -
:'It~ . f/ I~/ /;~/ '- '- :===> '..." ""I ~- --r~"", I
III i I // I:~I ~/~_;;e"'=~;.;., II _.0' ~ ""\=~=1
'" . I 11/ {II It..,;>f'/ '\ J/ ,. II I \ \ i
," I II/I "/ I I I ,I \. ,~...' I , \ \ I I'
, II ~ I I I II I "I ' ~-:.. / I \ \
4 ,I / I II ( \', ..,.!.tJr'''', , ' , \ Ii
ill ! I)) II ""'::..~""",,,,'A-~; II i /-...., '. \" ...
::: t I : II '" -_.0'\ I : ==> I i I I I n
, Ii II : \\'--rf/ \ \ i " \ ;; 11 \, - / I!
::: I"' ~ ,!I 'I II 1\..-' , _ 1$ " Ii '1
" i" L JJ ; II ' I 'I II, _ / - \ \ ' ;. '--- '::. -, 1
II II ' ,If II; /.0' \ ~
II :: ::;:: ::' " . ,;, ,~--_:' ,//_<'~:~t-
:Ii II' ;11 III I ~'..fc. ,......... ,iI ,,' / 'I :y'
II 'Ii II: I ill I "r-- f, ,"','- III III ~.o'1 1'1
I' i" II , : I: ,I Ii!' I ! " \ '-:.... ,) ((.., ~ / , ,~-=r
I Iii II!" III 'I " III II r~ :' I
I :" II ! )!) II ~ "i ' I, ,\ I iI II Ie = = """ I
III III i/I \I'i" r{..' I I Ii I: ! III III ~' I
jlll II! \\\ -iTT _o-r'l" k I It' III III I ili ,I
I. II , 'I 'ri"-"'il'1 . I I I II I, I I' II 1 I , II' t'
11/ III III III I I' ,,~j I II i I Iii III II "
'Ii 1"''' I II I I" II I " I II I' I II II I , I ~; f; I
: I~ L JJ : II I I II ,I I I I '- -, ," "I " 1
III I" III I I '
III I II! I" ill I I I
In I II I I II II t I I Il'ili
III III III III I I
: ~ J II I ;)J II \ I I I "I
III III III \I \ I I I ,I f-I
:n r II I I I, III I I i
In t i ::: 'I'riyo I I I ;! 1
:" r II I I 1111' I I I ".
:. i I II: I II f Ii I I I',~, ,: 1,:11
IU II i I II Ii I (I I
'u 1"" III ,II II: ,. I I I
IU l!...I: III Iii III j. i ~I": j
I ~~ I~: : :;::: : j. I .
II :~ II I i r:;)J ll'C ',':
I" . II I I fIt \\ \ { I I
Iii! !! if: f! 1'1:1:-"1 . i ! i i
I~:: : 9:::!1 l,:1 " r : : LI I
/111 . II j. I r I rl I
/111 I /;1 II I - I I I i I
',I : II III , : IIJ I
I-'~ I II / V/~/l ," III I
I 1...... ,lj /, I 1 f --~:...'< 't!
Ii ,: '~~~!;II/.o' I: ij:"l t~ '.\. i~ I
v . \ \ I \1
I <=r:= t; ," t
III I r - \ 1\
: t ~ I I i
I:! _-2\ i~',l~1 1,1
y':;;--- ~, )~
,;{ '" <', /.o' /l. ,
_,I... "....... .....1..... ... '" '" /' / : ~ '
IF', 1- : :J::':' - - ~,' t I i
..., -r i i-- - r _ _ 'j ;, i
I;"'" , il ,/ ,I I I - J
il. ~J.'o __:ltl: ! J,7
I
I
Cii I'
~ =1,1
- ~I
0"51
c "'I,
._ CD I
'O.oi:
t:: EI
~~I
;. 1
i:~ I
I ,t j;
. a..
...c
en
--
(lJ
c:
t
C'O
. Cl...
!
C'OI
I '-.!'
, :::l'
<:51
, (lJ,
,~~I
...cJ
(J.
:~j
--'
8!i
(lJ
,Cn
(lJ
...c
I--
· il
! J I J
IJ I J
- II ~
-f .
If' ii if
" II
Ii I '
l: U '
; t it "1
I111 ~IIt~
WI WI ~t!
i~l' nl' in
r. I I_ f I, II
, . .
{
, ,
, :
. "l. _ .
1
I.
IL
11
, J
I
I
I
,
c:i
",'
C,
<%I'
01
",'
C::'
iiil
"01
'0'
c::I
"'I
Cl
C::'
;;;
",'
c,
i~
(jj
~
0=
-~.
o "
c '"
;.:.8
0-
tE
o ~
c.::
~I
-I
I
Ir@l~-:=- -=:.:
r-! i_I :=-.u =
1_1< .I ~
! ~-~;I~-
~~-----
"nl II' -
':.1"" '
I
I
c
~I
>,
Q)I
'ii!
Q)I
51 ;
~i g
-' ..
~I :11 i
~I ~.!
u lj,.~..
: rt~,~
_! ! i:
i I
f~:~
'''I~~,~ 2
I' !I I "G
;....fI7r.7---~~---:--~ ~,
: ~.\
P;.1
I'~
'i~11 .
~'.~ ~~
~~ ~ ~
1::
c
9
'"
>
Q)I
ii I
-::1
""
:81
"
~!
-i
-!
fl
31
c:
~I
~I
'0'
~I
Ei
'"
_i
;;
'.
j'
: ~
.l ,';
t. .
:.d
~ : ; .
."
.' ~ p~
" 1
~!
'0
~:
:g
,', I
~.;p ~:
~
'"
1 ,.
~ H
~'. '"
~l :1
lliil Ii
....
'C\;[ji .
I' ,
-~--: r.~. ;;,.
I I" \
I', '
1\ ,I ,
~t~~
\
, . ~-~I~\
· ' i . : ~ :"\." '
:.. ~ _ _ _ L .. _ I
~
c:
c:
'"
';:'
,....
-<
c.,
""
u
;;;
~
~
.2
u
Q)
'"
e:
c:...
if
;=
f---
<:)
. -~ -.;,..
I
I
I
I
~ J
0'"
- .1:1
g ~i
.- Q,),
- .01
gEl III
0.!!!1 III
a. EI III
I iJJ
ill
III
IiI
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
!II
III
III
III
III
III
ill
III
III
III
III
In
!Il
III
In
:/j
II
III
ill
III
III
"
II
II
II
II
II
II
"
U
II
II
II
n
II
..,
J
j
!
;
I! I;
Ii i1' -,...... ~... ~ I
L oJ ~:!~! I If, !
ri!li liiii~
f:~' l!f:~1
t :
; I
1 I
1"'1 11 I
L.J.
I
I
!
I
!
t
f I~
:i
1"" I.
L.J:
i
t :: ~
fl' "." i .
t ~i~l; !
fl-",,, -1
II.I~til'~!
I ,!I. !if
~~~~~
II
1 ~ "
~, :0 i
r--..
U
,-
".
- .
"
~
..s::::
<:.Y
~'
<C
~I
!et
<l.)
ICn
<l.)
..s::::
~
.,J1k Ifilt d "I tll.l
,Jill ,'I ~. ~ t1~I': .
I~mlm~. !~~g ~ e! H~ ~ I ~! ~ U I ~II~ ~!
'~~.J ~ ,H ~ 5 II s ~i!!!ill! : '!1 ~ I ill, ~ .~ I
~llll~,lI c . rm \m'1 'i:i.~. '
'I ~J!~ ~lIU~m~ ~~. .1, ~~!'~ p~! a ff i
I! .~a~J ~!~~~~~~,~~~~ !~!~~!
.", ~.
i
ifl.tlllt
.1" I f lit
~ HIt : Hi
! !:~~: F;~;~
: ,
1
~I
01
-.;:1
ell I
S'I
'61
O!
E,
0:'
ell 1
c;
Ol
,=.
E:
ell'
0;
.
::. 3. ,
j;I~' !i;!
~~i.;~~~.~.:~
"1,1'...-
iiiilliiii
.. .. 1 _ _ ~ .. .. .. '.
i '!l!ll,j} ,iJjHI!.
u llil'~l i}H'rl~;!il
I H :jil:ltfl!iilhiflll
i I I
I; ... '~!I~!i!t!
i~
<)=-
IJ
, ,,'l 1
"" f
I'l; ",
'I ..
I,
Q;
~ ,.1
0="
- .<::'1
o ul'
c::: CUll
.- Q)I'
- .0,
gE:
o!l!1
a. Ei
I
!
"
,"
"'
III
lit f------
III .::..------ - - - ------ ---------- --- ---......
ii! ..~;;;:ic.: ~: ... 9u,_n_-__m_--n-r--n-
iii 11"''' "ff;<&~::l-: ~ ..-;_---_, ~
ill ~.. I~?/~ ': \ t f==c> . ..;;"- 1',~,
J 1.'1 // / \; -.... : / / f ' \
III / '1/1 \ ".,&.:::=::::~'" 'I \'
III 1/ 11/ .>-:"~ 41' I; \,
::: 'l /" /'l~" ') ,y,) " II
ill I /1, ,,' I II (L......?,,{', \ \
If I \ \.. ....Q....... I I -.... II
'II ,I) , "( \ ~-:;r'" ...,.....; I ,,1 \ I I
III h ,l ........:..""'\.... \: I J i f I \
,,1./' 'II I I ' :' II: I I: I I 1,_1
) II i \\.... II J \ \ \ \ / / t
III II , I 11--11' ( I 'I I l- -:. -- -:.'"' f
I I U .-,' II I I If II I \ \ \ /,. ......... r
,I' !U L.JIi III I II III \ "'-..... II' ....,;---.... .....,'V''''''''
I U II I I q II I ,~" / ........-:...., " ~/ I // ....,).-
I i II II I ,I, ii, I \, ' f If " I 0' 1 II .. :>>..
i IU III I" il, -"+--JC:f, I'":"" \1\ 111...,:..11 I!.. ..-
I IU III ,I[ ", I I" I ,,_-11 It.. II ,r"'f
, "' III I I[ ", I II \ 1 ili'l[ r " I I II I
J r II II I I II JI I ': \, \ I II II Ie:: oF = ='1 I )1
," 111)1[ "I I II I t'J 11I''''~r II I' I
III II I )) II \ r' r I I" II '" I I ill ! I
I II II I '\ 1\', ~II ,I I I II I I r I "f" I , , I III t I
II III., I 11I"zi 1.1111,11 11,1'
,: I , \ 'll"-""rf I r-..J I II I I G I II II I U , , ~I f' i
IU I I II III I I II! I j III II! J II I
I II ,.., I I III II I '- ..., "
IU L.J, I I Ii II I I
'" I I Ii iI I I
III I III III I
II'" I I" ,II I
In I III III I
1,"1 I IJJll\ I
,In t I f II II \ ,
i:~ t I : \\"-""// :
I II II I J II If I/"I
,," f ::: I II III ( I
II' ! ~ [J ! ii i i!i!i ! II,: i
'n I III III l!.j ,
I 'n ,i. II I ) JJ ll.\ t', I
II iii I" II \ '
! II ii Ii i ')'-=- '( !
I';: i p iii ~ II~ l ~ ~ I ii
I~ . If )11 U ~ ~ I
I',I~'~, i \../ "..-:..-:.~' ":':'-:" [, :
'k.. ,,,'Yo''',= I ,', I
1 .....~":.~""'// ""._ '" I
/1 I III Oli \\ I
I I ~ ~ \\:
I' t:I 11 \ I
lii'r \'
iii ' I I
[Iii '.: iSJ" /
I' ~ "
! r'\ ~ "
II ;.y=-=r-I~\ 1/ I /~.
I I /;( I, ..;..,~
I! ~ ','..... "../,/ Irl;!
fI': i", '..... .....L____-"'" ",,/ t II..:"
ji"':', r /'\', 1---- / t' jl,t1
.1 if"" , . 'l'!.h
;, I/.....~ r- r, l.i1'fi!
'- /I /-'" I --_.: / '""j-
~ \\ I' _./ J l1:'i ~!
,.." 6, I ,
L.J L.__
<>==
CI.
~
CJ)
~
m
, c:
, : t::
I: CU
~Ia..
i'
..~ .1-
..;. i ~ C"O
fi i ::J
! I ...-
!I~
'-
1'.-
~
u
.::t:
I,
II
II
I
!I
!i
~
~
.m
U)
m
~
I-
~
· ti j ! I .1
I .' ",
· j d: I ~ Ii .. f
,. fl i Jf ~H=f~,
.1 '1 H I,.~ 1",
,liP, ,w:J! ~t'Jf;
Ii I i
'.
.~ ~.
I
: I
~I
~
gl
~
l~
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PLANNING OEPARMENT
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
m
-
-
-
TELE_ CI(l!SJ~J.7550
FAC_LE (3051~J.7559
December 17, 1998
Marquesa Development, Ltd; c/o Cliff Schulman
Greenberg Traurig et al. P.A.
1221 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
RE: Final Order for Design Review File No. 9943
300-400 South Pointe Drive
Dear Mr. Schulman:
Attached, please find an executed copy of the Final Order, for the above noted project.
Notwithstanding the issuance of Design Review approval for said application by the Design
Review Board, all outstanding development issues must be addressed, including without
limitation, the satisfaction of any procedures required pursuant to the 1984 Development
Agreement, to the extent applicable.
Specifically, since the Portofino Tower project (of which the above is a component) was
reviewed and approved under the 1984 Development Agreement, it is our understanding
that all reviews and approvals must continue to be made under the Development
Agreement. Accordingly, based on Section 6A of the Development Agreement, this
Department has concluded that the proposed driveway reconfiguration constitutes a
substantial amendment and therefore, requires approval of the City Commission. Please
note, nothing herein shall be construed to reinstate or revitalize the 1984 Development
Agreement.
Therefore, the City Commission's approval or the proposed amendment to the Concept
Plan, and all outstanding zoning matters must be fully resolved prior to the issuance of any
Certificate of Completion for the subject project. If you have any questions with regard to
this matter or you would like to discuss it further, please contact me.
Sinr& l. tM
Dean J. Gadin. Jr.
Planning Director
DJG:TRM
F:\PLAN\$ALL\TEMP\9943-FO.L T
cc: D. Grub Frieser
C. Colonesse
ORB File No. 9943
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
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 Portof ino 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, testimony
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 sculpture, in a pedestrian
scale, shall be required along the north side of the
subject property, in between the sidewalk and the
driveway, in a manner to be approved by staff.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, based upon the foregoing findings of fact,
the evidence, information, testimony and materials presented at the
public hearing, which is part of the record for this matter and the
staff report and analysis, which is adopted herein, excluding the
staff recommendations which were. amended by the Board, that the
'Application.for Design Review approval is granted for the above-
referenced project subject to those certain conditions specified in
paragraph B of the Findings of Fact hereof (condition #1), 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
S)(G-
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 requestin9 a building permit. three (3) sets of plans approved
~~ ~h~ ;~ard. ~odified in accordance with the above conditions. as
Ii ~s annotated floor plans which clearly delineate the Floor
~~~~ ;~tio (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 11~ day of
I)QAi\\ tt\
, 1998.
By:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
S~~ ('~I~
Chairperson
Approved as to Form:
~:.. !,2-jl1!c{'t;
Office ~ - of I the
(Initials/Date)
City
Attorney
in possession of the Clerk of the Board:
/ A-;' ~-qq
Review Board
F:\PLAN\$DRB\DRB98\NOVDRB98\9943.FO
2
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
lD
-
-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
FROM:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DEAN J. GRANDIN, Jr., DIRECTOR~
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~'
TO:
DATE:
NOVEMBER 1 A, 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 1 A, 1998, seeking to change the status
of the existing vehicular entry-drive from temporary to permanent, and the matter was
continued to a date certain of May 12, 1998, in order to address the concerns
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 to 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 DETERMINATION:
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 Bui~ding 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
2
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 little 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
10. Landscape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an adequate
relationship with and enhancement of the overall Site Plan design.
- Satisfied
1 1 . 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
1-2. 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
13. 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
15. To promote reduced crime and fear of crime through the use of Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design Guidelines and Strategies.
- Satisfied
16. 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
1 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
1 8. The Building shall have an appropriate and fully integrated rooftop architectural
treatment which substantially screens all mechanical equipment, stairs and
elevator towers.
- Satisfied
19. 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.
RECOMMENDATION:
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
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that a public hearing will be held by the City
Commission of the City of Miami Beach, on Wednesday, January 20, 1999, at
2:30 p.m., in the Commission Chambers, 3rd floor, City Hall, 1700 Convention
Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, 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 (DRB File No. 9943).
Inquiries may be directed to the Planning Department at (305) 673-7550.
Copies of the related documents are available for public inspection during
normal business hours in the Public Works Department, 4th floor, City Hall.
All persons are invited to appear at this meeting 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. This hearing may be continued at this meetinq
and under such circumstances, additional legal notice would not be provided.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat., the City hereby advises the public
that: if a person decides 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 made, which
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be
based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the
introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissable or irrelevant evidence"
nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons
needing special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should
contact the City Clerk's office no later than four days prior to the
proceeding. Telephone (305) 673-7411 for assistance; if hearing impaired/,
telephone the Florida Relay Service numbers, (800) 955-8771 (TDD) or (800;
955-8770 (VOICE), for assistance.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
http:\\ci.miami-beach.f1.us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO.
I~ -q9_
TO:
Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members of the City mmission
DATE: January 20,1999
FROM:
Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager
'"
SUBJECT:
Request b the City Manager for the City Commission to set 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.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission set a public hearing on February 17,
1999 with a time certain of 11 :00 A.M to review a decision of the Design Review Board (DRB),
wherein it approved a request by Marquesa Development, Ltd., to change the status of an existing
entrance driveway for South Pointe and Portofmo Towers from temporary to permanent at 300 - 400
South Pointe Drive (DRB File No. 9943).
BACKGROUND
On November 10, 1998, the Design Review Board (DRB) 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. The staff report
to the DRB for this project and the Final Order are attached, hereto, for informational purposes.
On January 5, 1998, the City Manager on behalf of the City Administration, 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).
On January 6, 1999, the City Commission set a date certain of January 20, 1999, to consider a
request by the City Manager to review the Order of the Design Review Board. However, the matter
was not properly noticed.
ANAL YSIS
The Design Review Section of the Miami Beach Code allows the City Manager on behalf of the City
Administration to seek "review" of any Design Review Board Order by the City Commission. In
AGENDA ITEM R S f\ 2...,
DATE-1-2..0-9~
this particular instance the City Manager on behalf of the City Administration 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 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 5/7th vote of the City Commission is
required.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission set a public hearing on February 17,
1999 with a time certain of 11 :00 A.M. to review a decision of the Design Review Board (DRB)
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). It is recommended that this appeal be scheduled on
February 17, 1999 in order to be heard at the same Commission meeting as the appeal of Mr. Jere
Bishop for the same DRB File, as well as to coincide with a request to modify the 1984
Development Agreement consistent with the Design Review approval granted under DRB File No.
9943 (which hearing shall also be scheduled for February 17, 1999).
S~/DJG:TRM
c:\ WINDOWS\TEMP\CM9943-R. WPD