98-22775 RESO
RESOLUTION NO. 98-22775
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 Transnational
Properties, Inc., for the renovation,
alteration and partial demolition of an
existing hotel structure and the
construction of a 26 story suites hotel
building and a 42 story condominium
tower at 6801 Collins Avenue.
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 18 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager on behalf of the City
Administration has the right to seek a review by the City
Commission of projects approved by the Design Review Board; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board, on May 12, 1998, approved
a request by Transnational Properties, Inc., for the renovation,
alteration and partial demolition of an existing hotel structure
and the construction of a 26 story (257' to the highest non-
habitable projection) suites hotel building and a 42 story (397'
to the top of the roof) condominium tower at 6801 Collins Avenue
(DRB File No. 9796).; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager on behalf of the City
Administration, has requested a review of the decision rendered
by the Design Review Board concerning DRB File No. 9796.
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 July 1, 1998, to review the decision of the Design
Review Board (DRB File No. 9796) wherein it approved a request by
Transnational Properties, Inc., for the renovation, alteration
and partial demolition of an existing hotel structure and the
construction of a 26 story (257' to the highest non-habitable
projection) suites hotel building and a 42 story (397' to the top
of the roof) condominium tower at 6801 Collins Avenue.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 17th day of
, 1998.
ATTEST:
,~o rAA~
.
CITY CLERK
TRM:tm
F: \PLAN\$ALL\CC_MEMOS\RES-9796 ,WPD
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
/JI11 {JI!) J Il- ..~._.
~
'/\/1 t .
Date
..
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
MEETING DATE: May 12, 1998
IN RE: The Application for Design Review Approval for the
renovation, alteration and partial demolition of an
existing hotel structure and the construction of a
26 story (257' to the highest non-habitable
projection) suites hotel building and a 42 story
(3971 to the top of the roof) condominium tower.
PROPERTY: 6801 Collins Avenue
FILE NO: 9796
o R D E R
The applicant, Transnational Properties, Inc., filed an
with the City of Miami Beach's Planning, Design
Preservation Division for Design Review approval.
application
& Historic
The City of Miami Beach's Design Review Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. 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, Design
and Historic Preservation Division Staff Report, the project
as submitted is not consistent with the Design Review Criteria
Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 14 in Subsection 18-2 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 89-2665.
2. The project would be consistent with the afore-stated criteria
and requirements if the following conditions are met:
1. Revised site plan, floor plan and elevation drawings
shall be submitted to and approved by staff; at a
minimum, said drawings shall incorporate the following:
a. The perforated eyebrow on the west elevation of the
existing Carillon Hotel shall be retained and
preserved, in a manner to be approved by staff.
b. Fully detailed elevations which clearly delineate
5fGif
all surface materials and finishes on all portions
of the project shall be required.
c. Details of the proposed parking screening devices
for the condominium parking structure shall be
required, and shall be required.
d.
The first level of
proposed condominium
so as to provide
interest.
the north elevation of the
structure shall be redesigned
substantially more visual
e. The entrance on the north side of condominium
portion of the project shall be further defined and
enhanced; specifically, an architectural and visual
focal point shall be required which clearly
identifies the pedestrian and vehicular entry
points.
f. The existing Carillon sign shall be retained and
preserved, if possible, or relocated.
2. A revised landscape plan, and corresponding site plan,
prepared by a Professional, shall be submitted to and
approved by staff. The species type, quantity,
dimensions, spacing, location and overall height of all
plant material shall be clearly delineated; at a minimum,
said plan shall incorporate the following:
a. All exterior grade level walkways shall consist of
decorative pavers, set in sand.
b. 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.
c.
Detailed, botanically diverse planting
located adjacent to staircases and arrival
shall be required.
areas,
courts,
d. Underplantings for all palm trees, especially where
the smooth gray 'pole like' trunks of Royal Palms
meet the ground, shall be specified on the final
2
SIC if
plans.
e. The strong character of the different landscaped
areas, whether they be pool side, street side,
separating properties, or circulation areas, shall
be further defined by different varieties of palm
trees.
f.
City and state guidelines for
emergency vehicles to the side
property shall be addressed.
the access of
and rear of the
g. The planting areas where the stairs on the west
side of the property are removed shall be expanded
and enhanced.
h. Public art and/or sculpture shall be incorporated
into or around the garden areas to further accent
and refine these areas.
i. Well defined and dedicated pathways and walkways
for pedestrian accessibility from the street to the
hotel and condominium entrances shall be provided.
This may be accomplished with paving material and a
pattern which is different from that being used in
the vehicular area.
j . New plantings or augmentation of the Beach Dune
Area shall require the review and approval of the
Florida Department of Beaches and Shores and the
Metro-Dade Department of Environmental Resource
Management ( DERM).
k. All connectors to the existing Boardwalk shall be
of the same style as that which currently exists.
1. There shall be at least one (1) alternating palm
tree species or height per storefront bay, on the
first level of the west elevation, subject to the
review and approval of staff.
3. The final exterior surface color scheme, including color
samples, shall be subject to the review and approval of
3
S ((V
staff and shall require a separate permit.
4. A traffic mitigation plan, which addresses all roadway
Level of Service (LOS) deficiencies relative to the
concurrency requirements of Section 22 of the Zoning
Ordinance, shall be required and the final building plans
shall meet all other Zoning Ordinance requirements. Said
traffic mitigation plan shall be prepared by the
applicant, submitted to and approved by the Planning and
Zoning Director, reported to the City Commission and
shall be executed by the parties referenced therein,
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Said traffic
mitigation plan shall be a condition to the building
permit and shall be fully implemented prior to (and shall
be a precondition for issuance of) a final Certificate of
Occupancy (C.O.) for the project.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. All new and altered elements, spaces and areas shall meet
the requirements of the Florida Accessibility Code (FAC).
8. The project shall comply with any landscaping or other
sidewalk/ street improvement standards as may be
prescribed by a relevant Urban Design Master Plan
approved prior to the completion of the project and the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, based upon the foregoing findings of fact and
the staff report and analysis, which is adopted herein, including
the staff recommendations which were amended by the Board, that the
Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review
approval is granted for the above-referenced project subject to
those certain conditions specified in numbered paragraph 2 of the
Findings of Fact hereof (conditions #1-8, inclusive), to which the
applicant has agreed.
4
SKr
The subject application for Design Review Approval has become
nonconforming due to amendment(s) to the Zoning Ordinance which
impact upon same. The City shall endeavor to give full meaning to
such amendments by enforcing same as provided by law. The
applicant is proceeding with full notice that they may be
prohibited from securing a building permit or proceeding with the
application unless same is amended to cure any nonconformity. If
the applicant should elect to proceed, they do so at their own risk
of the consequences, including the loss of additional expenditures
of money, time and effort which will not be considered in
determining any equitable claims.
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 permit. 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. Design and Historic Preservation Division. 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 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
I ~ r day of
_1v L--L.
By:
, 1998.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
~~ K. {~
Chairperson
Approved as to Form:
~ lttLl q<6
Office of the
( Initials/Date)
City
Attorney
5
,
~
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
m
-=-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
TO:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DEAN J, GRANDIN, Jr., DIRECTOD ~
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~
FROM:
DATE:
MAY 12, 1998 MEETING
RE:
DESIGN REVIEW FILE NO. 9796
6801 Collins Avenue - The Carillon Hotel
The applicant, Transnational Properties, Inc" is requesting Design Review Approval for
the renovation, alteration and partial demolition of an existing hotel structure and the
construction of a 26 story (257' to the highest non-habitable..projection) suites hotel
building and a 42 story (397' to the top of the roof) condominium tower.
The applicant is advised that the subject application for Design Review Approval has
become nonconforming due to amendment(s) to the Zoning Ordinance which impact
upon same. The applicant is hereby notified that the City shall enaeavor to give full
meaning to such amendments by enforcing same as provided by law. At the
applicant's request, this application is being heard by the City's Design Review Board.
The applicant is proceeding with full notice that they may be prohibited from securing
a building permit or proceeding with the application unless same is amended to cure
any nonconformity, The applicant is further advised that should they elect to proceed,
they do so at their own risk of the consequences, including the loss of additional
expenditures of money, time and effort which will not be considere~ in determining
any equitable claims.
HISTORY:
This application was originally approved by the Design Review Board on December 6,
1997, However, the applicant failed to obtain a Full Building Permit within one (1)
year of said approval and the Design Review Approval expired,
On February 10, 1998, the application was continued to a date certain of February 25,
1998, due to the length of the agenda. On February 25, 1998, the application was
continued to a date certain of May 12, 1998, in order to address the concerns
expressed by Board members, as well as those enumerated in the Staff Report,
SITE DATA:
Zoning -
Future Land Use Designation-
Lot Size -
Existing FAR -
Proposed FAR -
Existing Height -
Proposed Height-
Existing Use/Condition -
Proposed Use -
CD-3 (Commercial, High Intensity)
CD-3 (Commercial, High Intensity)
252,976 S.F,
N/A
1,137,582 S,F./4,5 (Max FAR = 4,5), as
represented by the applicant
1 74 feet 1 1 7 stories
397' 1 42 stories
Vacant Hotel
Hotel-Condominium Project
THE PROJECT:
The hotel component of the project, which will be located on the southern portion of
the property, will consist of the existing Carillon building and a new 22 story suites
hotel to it's south, Access to this part of the project will be from a newly constructed
entrance ramp and circular drive-way, located at about the same place as the existing
entrance ramp.
The condominium segment of the project, which will be located on the northern tier
of the pr9P~rty, will consist of a new 50 story tower. Acce~~ to this portion of the
project will be from a newly dedicated street right-of-way on the north side and retail
storefronts will align the western perimeter of the pedestal, fronting Collins Avenue.
A breakdown of the floor plan of the entire project, by component, is enumerated
hereto:
Condominium:
Basement: Parking &.Loading
Level 1: Entrance and Drop-Off, Parking
Level 2: Parking
Level 3: Parking
Level 4: Parking
Level 5: Parking
Level 6: Roof Garden
Level 7-31: Condominium Units
Level 32-42: Custom Condominium Units
Hotel:
Basement:
Level 1:
Level 2:
Level 3:
Level 4:
Parking & Loading
Entrance and Drop-Off, Parking and Lobbies
Meeting Rooms
Hotel Suites and Ballrooms
Hotel Units
2
Level 5:
Level 6:
Level 7:
Level 8:
Level 9:
Hotel Units, Hotel Roof Garden & Tennis Courts
Hotel Units
Hotel Units
Hotel Penthouse Units
Hotel Heliport
The elevations of the new towers are composed of undulating planes of solid stucco
grids with floor to ceiling glass and sliding glass doors. The parking garage segments
of the structures are clad in smooth stucco, with wave shaped openings and
decorative grille work allowing for open ventilation.
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING CODE:
The application, as proposed, is inconsistent with the following aspects of the City's
Zoning Code, for which variances have been granted:
1, A variance to waive Section 13-8.A which prohibits the alteration or extension
of non-conforming buildings unless such alteration decreases the degree of non-
conformity.
2, A variance to waive up to all of the minimum required 20'-0" front yard
pedestal setback in order to construct a stair and fOUl'JJain feature 0'-0" from
the front (west) property line and to retain the existing building 14'-0" from the
front property line.
3. A variance to waive up to 36'-0" of the minimum required 50'-0" front tower
setback in order to retain the existing tower portion of the building 14'-0" from
the front (west) property line and to construct that portion of the exhibition hall
which is within the tower setback 20'-0" from the front property line.
4, A variance to waive all of the minimum required 5'-0" side yard setback for
driveways in order to widen and create street end improvements to 69th Street.
5. A variance to waive 20'-0" of the minimum required side yard pedestal setback
of 60'-0" ft, in order to construct the parking structure for the ,north tower 40'-
0" from the north property line.
6. A variance to waive all of the minimum required rear yard pedestal setback of
67'-0" in order to retain the pedestal portion of the existing hotel structure on
the rear property line.
7, A variance to waive all of the minimum required rear yard tower setback of 83'-
3" in order to retain the tower portion of the existing hotel structure on the rear
property line.
3
8. A variance to waive up to all of the minimum required 20'-0" front yard
pedestal setback in order to construct a stairs and arcade feature 0'-0" from the
front (west) property line, and the retail area 16'-0" from the front property line.
9, A variance to waive 30'-0" of the minimum required 50'-0" front tower setback
in order to construct that portion of the north tower parking structure which is
within the tower setback 20'-0" from the front property line.
10. A variance to waive 20'-0" of the minimum required side yard facing a street
tower setback of 60'-0" ft. in order to construct that portion of the north tower
parking structure which is within the tower setback 40'-0" from the north
property line,
11 , A variance to waive 1 6' -3" of the minimum required rear yard tower setback of
83'-3" in order to construct that portion of the north tower parking structure
which is within the tower setback 67 feet from the rear property line.
These variances expire on September 7, 1998, However, due to the design changes
proposed herein, the application will need to come back before the Board of
Adjustment for an amendment to the previously approved variances.
The project may also exceed the maximum allowable FAR for the site, as a number of
interior, non-projecting balconies may not have been counted toward total FAR of the
project. A reduction in the amount of floor area to address this FAR overage may be
necessary (unless the design of the proposed balconies is changed). These and all
other zoning related matters shall be subject to final verification. .
ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE
Additional information will be required for a complete accessibility review pursuant to
the requirements of the Florida Accessibility Code (FAC); based upon the information
submitted, a preliminary evaluation of the project indicates the following:
1. All accessible routes must coincide with the route used by the majority of the
people.
2. An accessible route from the sidewalk to the building and to the accessible
parking spaces must be provided.
3, Accessible parking spaces must be located so that a disabled person does not
walk or wheel behind parked vehicles.
4
4. Accessible Hotel rooms must be provided for as prescribed by the Florida
Accessibility Code for Building Construction section 9. When choosing the
accessible units, options of view and price must be provided,
5, When valet parking is provided an accessible passenger loading zone is required,
6, A lavatory inside the accessible toilet stall shall be required,
7, Accessibility to all levels above and below the accessible grade level must be
prOvided.
CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION:
A preliminary evaluation of this application indicates that it will not degrade the
adopted Levels of Service (LOS) for Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable
Water, and Recreation, Accordingly staff has made a preliminary determination that
the concurrency requirements for these portions of the code have been met.
With regard to the adopted LOS for Roads, a preliminary review of the traffic impact
analysis submitted by the applicant has indicated that the project does not meet the
concurrency requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Consequently, a mitigation plan
must be ~ubmitted by the applicant, approved by the Admini~tration, and reported to
the City Commission, prior to the issuance of any Building Permit for the project.
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 Concern #1, #2 and Staff Analysis
The entrance on the north side of condominium portion of the project lacks an
architectural and visual focal point and does not clearly identify the pedestrian
and vehicular entry points; defined and dedicated pathways and walkways for
pedestrian accessibility from the street to the hotel and condominium entrances
has not been provided for; the proposed configuration and orientation of the
5
residential tower parallel to Collins Avenue, is not sensitive to, nor compatible
with the as-built character and pedestrian fabric of the immediate area and has
a negative impact on the view corridor slated for this section of the project.
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.
- Not Satisfied; see Concern #1, #2, #3 and Staff Analysis
Fully detailed elevations which clearly delineate all surface materials and finishes
have not been submitted; the first level of the north elevation of the proposed
condominium fails to provide adequate visual interest; exterior surface and paint
color samples have not been provided and the Underplantings proposed for a
number of palm trees, as well as the Dune areas of the property have not been
fully developed.
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,
- Not Satisfied; see Concern #1, The Zoning Analysis and Staff Analysis
Fully detailed elevations which clearly delineate all surface materials and finishes
have not been submitted; the first level of the north elevation of the proposed
condominium fails to provide adequate visual interest.
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 Concern #1, #2 and Staff Analysis
The first level of the north elevation of the proposed condominium fails to
provide adequate visual interest at the sidewalk level; the proposed
configuration and orientation of the residential tower parallel to Collins Avenue,
is not sensitive to, nor compatible with the as-built character and pedestrian
fabric of the immediate area and has a negative impact on the view corridor
slated for this section of the project.
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,
6
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 Concern #1, #2 and Staff Analysis
The proposed configuration and orientation of the residential tower parallel to
Collins Avenue, is not sensitive to, nor compatible with the as-built character
and pedestrian fabric of the immediate area and has a negative impact on the
view corridor slated for this section of the project.
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 Concern #2 and Staff Analysis.
A dedicated pedestrian path from the sidewalk on the north side of the property
to the condominium entrance has not been provided for.
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.
- Not Satisfied; see Concern #2 and Staff Analysis
Detailed and botanical diverse planting areas have not been provided near
staircases and arrival courts and Underplantings for all palm trees have not been
specified; the strong character of the different landscaped areas have not been
properly defined by different varieties of palm trees.
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.
- Satisfied
7
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,
- Not Satisfied; see Concern #4
Although the project complies with all other aspects of the-Comprehensive Plan,
it is not consistent with the Traffic Circulation Element. Consequently, a traffic
mitigation plan, which addresses all roadway Level of-Service (LOS) deficiencies
relative to the concwrency requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, shall be
required prior to the issuance of any Building Permit.
15, To promote reduced crime and fear of crime through the use of Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design Guidelines and Strategies,
- Satisfied
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing a major hotel/condominium project,...which has the potential
to take full advantage of the vistas afforded by the subject property. The overall
arrangement and architectural treatment of the elevations of the project are interesting
in concept and staff believes the entire project design will eventually be successful.
However, staff does have a concern with the lack of fully detailed" elevations which
clearly delineate all surface materials and finishes as well as the manner in which the
north pedestal addresses the sidewalk. Specifically, the overall treatment of the
pedestal on the north side of the project, facing the street and sidewalk, is overbearing
and insensitive to the pedestrian nature of the area.
Shortcomings in this regard include the lack of retail stores, the lack of details provided
for the proposed parking screening devices, and the overall design of the north
elevation of the proposed pedestal, which is in need of substantially more visual
interest. Substantive changes in the design of the entrance on the north side of the
condominium portion of the project are needed in order to create architectural and
visual focal points which clearly identify the pedestrian and vehicular entry points and
take advantage of the visibility of the new right-of-way,
Staff has an even greater concern with the proposed north-south orientation of the
proposed tower (parallel to Collins Avenue). Although the siting of the structure
parallel to the Ocean will maximize the vistas for those units with an easterly view, the
8
impact it will have on the surrounding area from all distances, in terms of visibility,
view corridors and the penetration of light/air, is enormous.
As echoed by the Board at the previous meeting, staff would strongly suggest that the
proposed condominium tower be re-oriented east-west (perpendicular to Collins
Avenue), so as to prevent the creation of a large "canyon" which is not prevalent
along this stretch of Collins Avenue. Such a modification would also provide ocean
vistas for ALL units within the proposed condominium tower and enhance the vistas
of the northern units in the existing Carillon Hotel.
The modifications required at this time are of such magnitude that new drawings
should be submitted and brought back before the Board at a later date, Further,
depending upon the final magnitude of changes, a new application may have to be
submitted.
RECOMMENDATION:
In view of the foregoing analysis and inconsistencies with the aforementioned Design
Review criteria, staff recommends the application be continued to a date certain of
July 14, 1998, in order to address the following concerns:
1, Reyised site plan, floor plan and elevation drawings ~hall be submitted; at a
minimum, said drawings shall incorporate the following:
a, The orientation of the proposed condominium tower shall be
perpendicular to Collins Avenue, in order to be more compatible with the
built environment.
b, Fully detaHed elevations which clearly delineate all surface materials and
finishes on all portions of the project shall be required,
c, Details of the proposed parking screening devices for the condominium
parking structure shall be required, and shall be required.
d, The first level of the north elevation of the proposed condominium
structure shall be redesigned so as to provide substantially more visual
interest.
e, The entrance on the north side of condominium portion of the project
shall be further defined and enhanced; specifically, an architectural and
visual focal point shall be required which clearly identifies the pedestrian
and vehicular entry points.
9
f, The manner in which the north side of the project addresses the
pedestrian scale of the immediate area, at the sidewalk level, shall be
fundamentally re-studied by the applicant, This may include the addition
of a retail storefront component.
2, A revised landscape plan, and corresponding site plan, prepared by a
Professional, shall be submitted, The species type, quantity, dimensions,
spacing, location and overall height of all plant material shall be clearly
delineated; at a minimum, said plan shall incorporate the following:
a, All exterior grade level walkways shall consist of decorative pavers, set
in sand,
b. 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,
c. Detailed, botanically diverse planting areas, located adjacent to staircases
and arrival courts, shall be required,
d.. Underplantings for all palm trees, especially when~ the smooth gray 'pole
like' trunks of Royal Palms meet the ground, shall be specified on the
final plans.
e, The strong character of the different landscaped areas, whether they be
pool side, street side, separating properties, or circulation areas, shall be
further defined by different varieties of palm trees.
f. City and state guidelines for the access of emergency vehicles to the side
and rear of the property shall be addressed.
g, The planting areas where the stairs on the west side of the property are
removed shall be expanded and enhanced,
h. Public art andlor sculpture shall be incorporated into or around the garden
areas to further accent and refine these areas,
J. Well defined and dedicated pathways and walkways for pedestrian
accessibility from the street to the hotel and condominium entrances shall
be provided. This may be accomplished with paving material and a
pattern which is different from that being used in the vehicular area.
J, New plantings or augmentation of the Beach Dune Area shall require the
review and approval of the Florida Department of Beaches and Shores
and the Metro-Dade Department of Environmental Resource Management
( DERM),
10
k, All connectors to the existing Boardwalk shall be of the same style as
that which currently exists.
3. The final exterior surface color scheme, including color samples, shall require a
separate permit.
4. A traffic mitigation plan, which addresses all roadway Level of Service (LOS)
deficiencies relative to the concurrency requirements of Section 22 of the
Zoning Ordinance, shall be required and the final building plans shall meet all
other Zoning Ordinance requirements, Said traffic mitigation plan shall be
prepared by the applicant, submitted to and approved by the Planning and
Zoning Director, reported to the City Commission and shall be executed by the
parties referenced therein, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, Said traffic
mitigation plan shall be fully implemented prior to (and shall be a precondition
for issuance of) a final Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) for the project.
5, Manufacturers drawings and Dade County product approval numbers for all new
windows, doors and glass shall be required, orior to the issuance of a building
permit,
6. AIL roof-top fixtures, air-conditioning units and mecl1.~,nical devices shall be
clearly noted on a revised roof plan and shall be screened from view,
7. All new and altered elements, spaces and areas shall meet the requirements of
the Florida Accessibility Code (FAC),
8. The project shall comply with any landscaping or other sidewalklstreet
improvement standards as may be prescribed by a relevant Urban Design Master
Plan approved prior to the completion of the project and the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy,
DJG:TRM
F:\PLAN\$DRB\DRB98\MA YDRB98\9796.MA Y
11
City of Miami Beach
Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division
Staff Report
TO:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
FROM:
DEAN 1. GRANDIN, Jr., DEPUTY DIRECTOR:
DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN & HISTORIC PRESER
DATE:
DECEMBER 3, 1996 MEETING
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: DESIGN REVIEW FILE NO. 8087
6801 Collins Avenue - The Carillon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The applicant, Transnational Properties, Inc., is requesting Design Review Approval for the
renovation, alteration and partial demolition of an existing hotel stlUcture and the construction of
a 120 unit, 22 story (207' to the top of the roof and 233 I to the highest non-habitable projection)
suites hotel building and a 248 unit, 49 story (473 I to the top of the roof and 485 to the highest
non-habitable projection) condominium tower.
SITE DATA:
Zoning - CD-3 (Commercial, High Intensity)
Future Land Use Designation-CD-3 (Commercial, High Intensity)
Lot Size - 252,976 S.F.
Existing FAR - N/ A
Proposed FAR - 1,137,582 S.F.l4.5 (Max FAR = 4.5), as represent~d by the applicant
Existing Height - 174 feet 1 17 stories
Proposed Height- 473' 1 49 stories (485 feet to highest non-habitable projection)
Existing UselCondition - Vacant Hotel
Proposed Use - Hotel-Condominium Project
THE PROJECT:
The hotel component of the project, which will be located on the southern portion of the property,
will consist of the existing Carillon building and a new 22 story suites hotel to it's south. Access to
this part of the project will be from a newly constructed entrance ramp and circular drive-way,
located at about the same place as the existing entrance ramp.
The condominiwn segment of the project, which will be located on the northern tier of the property,
will consist of a new 49 story tower. Access to this portion of the project will be from a newly
dedicated street right-of-way on the north side and retail storefronts will align the western perimeter
of the pedestal, fronting Collins Avenue. A breakdown of the floor plan of the entire project, by
component, is enwnerated hereto:
Condominium:
Basement: Parking & Loading
Levell: Entrance and Drop-Off, Parking
Level 2: Parking
Level 3: Parking
Level 4: Parking
Level 5: Parking
Level 6: Roof Garden
Level 7-31: Condominiwn Units
Level 32-49: Custom Condominiwn Units
~
Basement:
Levell:
Level 2:
Level 3:
Level 4:
Level 5:
Level 6:
Level 7:
Level 8:
Level 9:
Parking & Loading
Entrance and Drop-Off, Parking and Lobbies
Meeting Rooms
Hotel Suites and Ballrooms
Hotel Units
Hotel Units, Hotel Roof Garden & Tennis Courts
Hotel Units
Hotel Units
Hotel Penthouse Units
Hotel Heliport
The elevations of the new towers are composed of undulating planes of solid stucco grids with floor
to ceiling glass and sliding glass doors. The parking garage segments of the structures are clad in
smooth stucco, with wave shaped openings and decorative grille work allowing for open ventilation.
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING CODE:
The application, as proposed, is inconsistent with the following aspects of the City's Zoning Code:
1. The project exceeds the maximwn allowable FAR for the site, as a number of interior, non-
projecting balconies have not been counted toward total FAR of the project.
2. The north side pedestal setback, as well as the front and rear tower and pedestal setbacks, are
inconsistent with the minimwn setback requirements of the Code.
3. The driveway on the north side of the property does not meet minimum setback
:2
requirements.
4. On the south side of the property, the parking spaces, cooling towers and rear pool deck all
fall within the required setback areas.
5. The amount of impervious lot coverage in the rear 50 feet of the property has not been
calculated; at least 50% of said area must be pervious landscaped, open space.
6. The proposed stairways leading to the retail arcade beneath the condominium portion of the
project are in the required setback area.
7. More than 50% of the required parking for the condominium portion of the project consists
of valet spaces.
8. Residential parking is proposed to be located below grade, which may be contrary to FEMA
regulations.
A reduction in the amount of floor area to address the FAR overage shall be necessary, (unless the
design of the proposed balconies is changed) and all other inconsistencies shall require either
substantial changes in the design of the project, or variances will need to be requested. At this time,
staff is not inclined to recommend favorably for some of the variance requests, as they appear
excessive. These and all other zoning related matters shall be subject to final verification.
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 Concern #1, #2 and Staff Analysis
The entrance on the north side of condominium portion of the project lacks an
architectural and visual focal point and does not clearly identifies the pedestrian and
vehicular entry points; the number of individual stairways which access the retail
arcade on the west elevation is overly excessive and negatively impacts the pedestrian
experience, and well defined and dedicated pathways and walkways for pedestrian
3
accessibility from the street to the hotel and condominium entrances has not been
provided for; the proposed metal trellis, loading zone and cooling towers, which are
located in between the new condominium structure and the existing Carillon, all have
a negative impact on the view corridor slated for this section of the project; below
grade parking for condominiums is not permitted under FEMA regulations.
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.
- Not Satisfied; see Concern #1, #2, #3 and Staff Analysis
Fully detailed elevations which clearly delineate all surface materials and rmishes have
not been submitted; the first level of the north elevation of the proposed condominium
fails to provide adequate visual interest, and the northwest comer pedestal of the
proposed condominium tower does not address or venerate the comer location of the
property; exterior surface and paint color samples have not been provided and the
underplantings proposed for a number of palm trees, as well as the Dune areas of the
property have not been fully developed.
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.
- Not Satisfied; see Concern #1, The Zoning Analysis and Staff Analysis
Fully detailed elevations which clearly delineate all surface materials and finishes have
not been submitted; the first level of the north elevation of the proposed condominium
fails to provide adequate visual interest, and the northwest comer pedestal of the
proposed condominium tower does not address or venerate the comer location of the
property.
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 Concern #1, #2 and Staff Analysis
The first level of the north elevation of the proposed condominium fails to provide
adequate visual interest at the sidewalk level and the number of individual stairways
which access the retail arcade on the west elevation is overly excessive and negatively
impacts the pedestrian experience of the subject property; the proposed configuration
and orientation of the residential tower, as well as the entire pedestal portion of the
project, is not sensitive to, nor compatible with the as-built character and pedestrian
fabric of the immediate area.
4
7. The design and layout of Buildings shall be reviewed so as to provide an efficient
arrangement ofland 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 Concern #1, #2 and Staff Analysis
The proposed metal trellis, loading zone and cooling towers, which are located in
between the new condominium structure and the existing Carillon, all have a negative
impact on the view corridor slated for this section of the project; the proposed
orientation and configuration of the residential tower, as well as the entire pedestal
portion ofthe project, is not sensitive to, nor compatible with the as-built character and
pedestrian fabric of the immediate area.
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 Concern #2 and Staff Analysis
Vehicular access to the residential parking area is inhibited by the location of a
landscape island.
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.
- Not Satisfied; see concern #2 and Staff Analysis
Detailed and botanically diverse planting areas have not been provided near staircases
and arrival courts and underplantings for aU palm trees have not been specified; the
strong character of the different landscaped areas have not been properly defined by
different varieties of palm trees.
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.
- Not Satisfied; see concern #4
5
Garbage, trash and refuse areas have not been identified in the plans in any manner
provided and a Concurreny Evaluation is required.
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.
- Not Satisfied; see concern #4
Concurreny Evaluation Required.
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
Envirorunental Design Guidelines and Strategies.
- Satisfied
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant is proposing a major hotel/condominium project, which has the potential to take full
advantage of the vistas afforded by the subject property. The overall scale, arrangement and
architectural treatment of the elevations of the project is interesting in concept and the entire project
design can eventually be successful.
However, staff has a significant concern with the inconsistencies with the Zoning Ordinance, as
enumerated herein, as well as the lack of fully detailed elevations which clearly delineate all surface
materials and finishes. In this regard, the applicant has not had an opportunity to meet with the
Planning and Zoning Director to go over any of these inconsistencies with the Code, and serious
concerns have arisen upon review of the submitted plans as to the effect these inconsistencies seem
to be having on the scale and magnitude of the project.
Specifically, the overall treatment of the pedestals on the north and west sides of the project, facing
the respective streets and sidewalks, is overbearing and insensitive to the pedestrian nature of the
area. Shortcomings in this regard include the lack of depth and the proposed elevation of the retail
stores, the lack of details provided for the proposed parking screening devices for the condominium
parking structure, and the design of the north elevation of the proposed condominium structure,
which is in need of substantially more visual interest.
Substantive changes in the design and siting of the project are needed to address these concerns,
including lowering the retail to grade level and widening it's depth, extending the proposed
storefronts on the west side of the pedestal around the comer to the north elevation and enhancing
the appearance of the pedestal structure at the sidewalk level. The entrance on the north side of
condominium portion of the project, as well as the northwest comer pedestal, is also in need of
further enhancement in order to create architectural and visual focal points which clearly identify
the pedestrian and vehicular entry point and take advantage of the comer location. The orientation
6
of the condominium tower also needs to be restudied to reduce its impact on Collins Avenue and the
areas to the west.
With regard to the hotel portion and rear of the project, staffhas a concern with the excessive amount
of impervious surface area provided at the rear of the property, as well as the filling-in of the existing
glass entrance of the Carillon hotel and the size of the porte-cochere and ballroom facing Collins
Avenue.
Although breaking the site into two components will help to reduce canyonization of this stretch of
Collins A venue by allowing light and air between the two areas, the proposed elevation of the view
corridor in between the existing Carillon Hotel and the new condominium tower is misleading in that
it does not accurately represent the location of loading docks and cooling towers. In addition to
removing the metal trellis in this area, it is suggested that the proposed cooling towers be relocated
to the roof of the structure and that the loading spaces be relocated within the pedestals of the north
side of the Carillon and the south side of the new condominium tower.
In conclusion, it is strongly recommended that the applicant and architect meet with the Planning
and Zoning Director to discuss how the number and degree of variances for this project can be
substantially reduced. On a site of this magnitude, there should be few, if no, variances required.
These shortcomings, as well as those delineated in the recommendation and Zoning Analysis section,
are numerous and substantial in scope. Accordingly, it is strongly suggested that the applicant's
architect take the time to meet with staff to address these concerns, and resubmit the project at a later
date,
RECOMMENDATION:
In view of the foregoing analysis and inconsistencies with the aforementioned Design Review
criteria, staffrecommends the application be continued to a date certain of February 4, 1997, in order
to address the following concerns:
1. Revised elevation drawings shall be submitted; at a minimum, said drawings shall
incorporate the following:
a. The condominium tower shall be re-oriented and reconfigured to be more compatible
with the built environment.
b. Fully detailed elevations which clearly delineate all surface materials and finishes on
all portions of the project shall be required.
c. Details of the proposed parking screening devices for the condominium parking
structure shall be required.
d. The first level of the north elevation of the proposed condominium structure shall be
7
redesigned so as to provide substantially more visual interest, in a manner to be
approved by staff.
e. The entrance on the north side of condominium portion of the project shall be further
defined and enhanced in a manner to be approved by staff; specifically, an
architectural and visual focal point shall be required which clearly identifies the
pedestrian and vehicular entry points,
f. The northwest comer pedestal of the proposed condominium tower shall be further
enhanced and embellished upon so as to take advantage of the comer location; this
may include rounding the comer with storefronts.
g. The metal trellis in this area within the view corridor in between the existing Carillon
Hotel and the new condominium tower shall not be permitted; the proposed cooling
towers within this area shall be relocated to the roof of the structure and the loading
spaces in this area shall be relocat~d within the pedestals of the north side of the
Carillon and the south side of the new condominium tower.
h. The proposed retail arcade on the west side of the property shall be widened in depth
and expanded to the north side of the property; said arcade shall also be relocated at
grade level.
1. The blocking-in of the entire glass entrance curtain wall on the west side of the
existing carillon shall not be permitted; said elevation shall include a substantial
transparent component.
2. A revised landscape plan, and corresponding site plan, prepared by a Professional, shall be
submitted to and approved by staff. The species type, quantity, dimensions, 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, said plan shall incorporate the following:
a. All exterior grade level walkways shall consist of decorative pavers, set in sand.
b. 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.
c. Detailed, botanically diverse planting areas, located adjacent to staircases and arrival
courts, shall be required.
d. Underplantings for all palm trees, especially where the smooth gray 'pole like' trunks
of Royal Palms meet the ground, shall be specified on the final plans.
e. The strong character of the different landscaped areas, whether they be pool side,
8
street side, separating properties, or circulation areas, shall be further defined by
different varieties of palm trees, in a manner to be approved by staff.
f. City and state guidelines for the access of emergency vehicles to the side and rear of
the property shall be addressed.
g. The planting areas where the stairs on the west side of the property are removed shall
be expanded and enhanced, in a manner to be approved by staff.
h. Public art and/or sculpture shall be incorporated into or around the garden areas to
further accent and refme these areas.
1. Well defined and dedicated pathways and walkways for pedestrian accessibility from
the street to the hotel and condominium entrances shall be provided. This may be
accomplished with paving material and a pattern which is different from that being
used in the vehicular area.
J. New plantings or augmentation of the Beach Dune Area shall require the review and
approval of the Florida Department of Beaches and Shores and the Metro-Dade
Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM).
k. All connectors to the existing Boardwalk shall be of the same style as that which
currently exists.
3, Exterior surface and paint color samples shall be submitted.
4. The location of all garbage and refuse areas shall be clearly delineated on revised plans and
all inconsistencies with the Zoning Ordinance, as delineated herein, shall be appropriately
addressed.
DJG:TRM
F:\PLAN\$DRB\DRB96\DECDRB96\8087.DEC
9
o~tt~~t~o
\TTIlHNt:VS \T
1~~~~lo
l. \ .,
Lucia A, Dougherty
305-579-0603
,-
:..
February 14, 1997
--'!
BY FAX AND MAIL
:-,
-:-:;
-,'
(,.,:-:'
-
-:-.
\,...
Mr, Dean J, Grandin, Jr,
Development, Design and Historic
Preservation Services
City of Miami Beach
City Hall
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
'CJ
Re: Transnational Properties, Inc., 6801 Collins Avenue (currently the Carillon
Hotel), Miami Beach, Florida
Dear Dean:
In response to your attached February 13, 1997, correspondence, this is to confirm that
assuming the required variances are granted, the design changes indicated in the February 4
Architectonica plans, which are delineated in your attached. letter will be incorporated into the final
permit drawings,
Sincerely,
/4 /kf4 /4
Lucia A. Dougherty
cc: Mr. Paul Murphy
Mr, Harold Rosen
GREENBERG TRAURIG HOFFMAN LIPOFF ROSEN & QUENTEL, P. A.
1221 BRICKELL AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 305-579-0500 FAX 305.579-0717
MIAMI NEW YORK WASHINGTlPi, D.C,
FORT LAUDERDALE WEST PUM BE:ACH TALLAHASSEE ORLANDO
CITY OF MfAMI8EAhH
PLANNING, DESIGN" HISTORIC PRESERVATION DMSION
-" '
CITY HALL 1 700 CONveNTION CI!Ni'ER DRlV! MIAMI BIACH FLONOA 3313&
m
.-
-
-
TlLII'HlINIl csotl 17.7110
"'c-..: (30" 1n-7I11
VIA: FACSIMILE AND MAIL
February 13, 1997
Ms. Lucia Dougherty
Greenberg, Trauig, at aI., P.A.
1221 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
RE: Design Review Fi~e #8087; 6801 Collins Avenue - The Carillon
Dear Ms. Dougherty:
As you may be aware, o,n December 3, 1996, the Design Review Board approved the
above noted project, whlch consists of the renovation, alteration and partial demolition
of the existing Carillon hotel structure and the construction of a new 120 unit, 22
story suites hotel building and a 248 unit, 49 story residential condominium tower.
Over the past few wee~s, the City Administration has been involved in negotiations
with your client in order ;to avert an appeal by the City Manager of the decision of the
Design Review Board t~ the City Commission.
J
Specifically, concerns ~re raised relative to the orientation and possible impact in the
neighborhood of the proposed north condominjum tower and the manner In which the
entire project addresses the street and sidewalk pedestrian environment. Revised
drawings have been su~mitted by the project architect, Arquitectonica, which include
a new cut-out in the north tower and changes in the height, siting and architectural
detailing of the retail storefronts along Collins Avenue.
In this regard, we havQ concluded that the design changes delineated on the plans
submitted by Arquitectpnica dated February 4, 1997, address the concerns Initially
raised by the Administration. Accordingly, the City Administration will not appeal ORB
File No. 8087, subject iO written confirmation from you that the following conditions
will be forthcoming In a~y submission for a building permit for the above noted project,
in addition to those already imposed by the Design Review Board in the Final Order for
the project:
1 . The retail portio~ of the north side of the project shall be redesigned in order to
better address the pedestrian scale of the immediate area, at the sidewalk level.
Specifically, the jretail portion of the north side of the project shall be lowered
i
February 1'3, 1997
Page Two
and moved closer to the sidewalk along Collins Avenue, as shown on the
revised plans preJ,l,ared by ArquitectonJca, dated February 4, 1997; this change
shall require a variance from the Board of Adjustment and will also result in the
softening of the v;aual impact of the pedestal and tower levels from the street
and sidewalk levels, as the retail storefronts will now be closer to the sidewalk
and have a more prominent role in the overall design of the project.
2. In order to better ~ntegrate with the as-built character of the existing buildings
to the north, the retail portion of the north side of the project shall be continued
around the corner and encompass a greater portion of the north side of the
building, as required in the Final Order for the project.
3. Decorative pavinp of the service alley shall be extended to the front property
line in order to create a clear view corridor. No cars or trucks shall be allowed
to park and 10ad/~Jnload in the service alley.
4. The additional Ie;vel of parking, as shown on the revised plans prepared by
Arquitectonica, dated February 4, 1997, shall be required. This will alleviate
any shortage of' required parking for the project, and lessen the impact of
parking generated by the project on the immediate area.
6. The larger cut-out provided in the north tower, as shown on the revised plans
prepared by Arquitectonica, dated February 4, 1997, shall be required, so as to
lessen the impa~t of the orientation of the proposed tower on the immediate
area.
6. The two (2) staircases on the west side of the property, fronting Collins
Avenue, shall be ~urved in a manner which better relates to the wave perimeter
wall; this will make the front of the project more sympathetic to the pedestrian
scale of the immediate area. Said staircases shall not. encroach into public right-
of-way.
7. The design of the streetscape on Collins Avenue and 69th Street shall be
coordinated and ~pproved by Engineering and Construction Management so that
it is consistent with the North Beach Streetscape Plan.
8. The physical connection between the existing Carillon .nd the neW suites tower
shall be shown ~n the revised plans, as approved by the Design Review Board.
February 13,1997
Page Three
As time is of the essence, I would appreciate a written response, via facsimile, no later
than Friday, February 14, 1 997, advising the City as to whether your client would
agree to these conditions.
Thank you for your continued assistance and cooperation in this matter.
Sln~:, ./b:' .,,'
f/I/# ~,~ /tV" !J~", J f/,,,A-t
Dean J. Grandin, Jr.
Deputy Director, .
Development, Design and Historic Preservation Services
DJG:TRM
F:\PLAN\$ALL \GEN_ CORR\EXTERNAL\DG-CARR. WPD
cc: J. Garcia-Pedrosa
S. Rodriguez '
H. Mavrogenes
T. Mooney
D. Grub Frieser
DRB File #8087 '
~ITY OF MIAMI BEACH
ITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
:tp:\\ci.miami-beach. f1. us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO.
n:l-q8
TO:
Mayor Neisen Kasdin and
Members of the City C
DATE: June 17, 1998
FROM:
Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager
SUBJECT:
A Resoluti n 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 Transnational Properties, Inc., for the Renovation,
Alteration and Partial Demolition of an Existing Hotel Structure and the
Construction of a 26 Story Suites Hotel Building and a 42 Story Condominium
Tower at 6801 Collins Avenue.
RECOMrVlENDA TION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission set a public hearing on July I, 1998, with
a time certain, to review a decision of the Design Review Board (DRB), wherein it approved the
renovation, alteration and partial demolition of an existing hotel structure and the construction of a
26 story suites hotel building and a 42 story condominium tower at 680 I Collins Avenue (DRB File
No. 9796).
BACKGROUND
On May 12, 1998, the Design Review Board (DRB) approved a request by Transnational Properties,
Inc., for the renovation, alteration and partial demolition of an existing hotel structure and the
construction of a 26 story (257' to the highest non-habitable projection) suites hotel building and a
42 story (397' to the top of the root) condominium tower at 6801 Collins A venue (DRB File No.
9796). The staff report to the DRB for this project and the Final Order are attached, hereto, for
informational purposes.
On June II, 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 18-2.K
of Zoning Ordinance 89-2665 (see attached letter).
ANALYSIS
The Design Review Section of the Zoning Ordinance allows the City Manager on behalf of the City
Administration to seek "review" of any Design Review Board Order by the City Commission. In
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.
Agenda Item c.. '1 L
Date Ce.- tJ -<1 )?
Pursuant to Subsection 18-2.K, 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 18-
2.1 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:
a. provide procedural due process
b. observe essential requirements of law, or
c. base its decision upon substantial, competent evidence.
The City Manager on behalf of the City Administration, has indicated that the basis for the appeal
is that the Design Review Board departed from the essential requirements of the law and failed to
support its decision with competent and substantial evidence concerning Design Review Criterias
No.6 and No.7.
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 July 1, 1998, with
a time certain, to review a decision of the Design Review Board (DRB), wherein it approved the
renovation, alteration and partial demolition of an existing hotel structure and the construction of a
26 story suites hotel building and a 42 story condominium tower at 6801 Collins Avenue (DRB File
No. 9796).
SR~d~~TRM
F:\PLAN\$ALL\CC _MEMOS\PHR-9796. WPD
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33319
http:\\ci.miami-beach.fl.us
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Telephone 673-7010
Facsimile 673-7782
June II, 1998
Mr. Dean 1. Grandin
Historic Preservation and Urban Design Director
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Re: Design Review File No. 9796; 6801 Collins Avenue - The Carillon
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 May 12, 1998 decision of the Design
Review Board (DRB) regarding Design Review File No. 9796. This project consisted of the
renovation, alteration and partial demolition of an existing hotel structure and the construction of a
26 story suites hotel building and a 42 story condominium tower.
I would request that the Commission review the project concerning the orientation of the proposed
condominium tower and the manner in which the project addresses the street and sidewalk, and
remand the matter back to the Design Review Board for further consideration. Based upon the
record of the proceedings, I do not believe that the DRB properly examined the architectural
drawings for consistency with the Design Review Criteria listed in Subsection 18-2.A of the Zoning
Ordinance 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.
Furthermore, with regard to the design, orientation and siting of the proposed structure, I do not
believe that the DRB based its decision on substantial competent evidence, nor did they observe the
essential requirements of law. Specifically, sufficient substantial competent evidence did not exist
to satisfy Design Review 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". Further, a sufficient amount of substantial competent
evidence did not exist to satisfy Design Review 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". In this regard, the following is noted:
I. No computer enhanced photographs or drawings were submitted to the Board which
accurately reflected the manner in which the siting and orientation of the proposed new tower
on the north side of the site would relate to the as-built context of the immediate area;
although a model of the massing of the tower and outlines of the surrounding blocks were
submitted they lacked sufficient detail of the existing area.
2. Detailed photo montages and drawings depicting the proposed new tower on the north side
of the site superimposed within the subject site from multiple vantage points down Collins
Avenue, Harding Avenue and 71st Street were never submitted. Because of this, the Board
could not accurately determine the impact the placement of the structure will have on the
vistas from these public rights-of-way, as well as the impact on the low scale residences to
the immediate west of the subject site.
3. Adequate documentation (e.g. computer enhanced photographs and drawings, detailed
elevations, etc..) which delineated the impact of the proposed new tower on the urban context
of the area as viewed from the Beach and the Ocean, was not submitted.
To this end, the Board did not observe the essential requirements of law in that Design Review
Criterias No.6 and No.7 have not been satisfied.
The issues noted herein were the subject of a previous appeal considered by the Administration in
January of 1997. Although the applicant was able to resolve some of those issues, and the
Administration agreed not to appeal that particular application, the changes to the design of the tower
in the new application do warrant further consideration.
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 siting of any new tower on the north side of the site shall better relate to the as built
character of the immediate streetscape and have less of an impact on the view corridors of
the low scale residences in the surrounding area.
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.
r 0 Rodriguez
City Manager
SRie:TRM
T:\AGENDA\JUN1798\REGULAR\9796-APP.WPD
cc: R. Parcher
J. Gavarrete
W. Cary
T. Mooney
D. Grub Frieser
L. Dougherty
DRB File #9796