98-22783 RESO
RESOLUTION NO.
98-22783
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
denying a request by Continuum LLC, for
the construction of three (3) 42 story
apartment, hotel and time share towers
with a total of 1,034 units at the Ocean
and Easement Parcels located at the
southeast corner of South Pointe Drive
and Ocean 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 18 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the applicant for a project has the right to seek a
review by the City Commission of projects denied by the Design
Review Board; and
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board, on January 6, 1998, denied
a request by Continuum LLC, for the construction of three (3) 42
story (432' to the top of the roof and 462' to the highest
architectural projection) apartment, hotel and time share towers
with a total of 1,034 units at the Ocean and Easement Parcels
located at the southeast corner of South Pointe Drive and Ocean
Drive (DRB File No. 9486); and
WHEREAS, The Applicant, South Beach Ocean Parcel (formerly
Continuum LLC), has requested a review of the decision rendered
by the Design Review Board concerning DRB File No. 9486.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
1. The City Commission hereby sets a time certain of
2:00 p.~. on July 1, 1998, to review the decision of the Design
Review Board (DRB File No. 9193) wherein it denied a request by
Continuum LLC, for the construction of three (3) 42 story (432'
to the top of the roof and 462' to the highest architectural
projection) apartment, hotel and time share towers with a total
of 1,034 units at the Ocean and Easement Parcels located at the
southeast corner of South pointe Drive and Ocean Drive.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 17th day
of June
~YO:
1998.
ATTEST:
~d' P AA c/;uA
CITY CLERK
TRM:tm
F:\PLAN\$ALL\CC_MEMOS\RES-9486.WPD
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
~
(/ fl,cg ~
OGle
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
http:\\ci.miami-beach.fl.us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 3B2..-98
TO:
Mayor Neisen Kasdin and
Members of the City Co
DATE: June 17, 1998
FROM:
Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager
SUBJECT:
A Resolutio of e Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach,
Florida, Setting a Public Hearing to Review a Design Review Board Decision
Denying a Request by Continuum LLC, for the Construction of Three (3) 42
Story Apartment, Hotel and Time Share Towers with a Total of 1,034 Units At
the Ocean and Easement Parcels Located at the Southeast Corner of South
Pointe Drive and Ocean Drive.
,.
RE(;OMMENDA TION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission, pursuant to Subsection 18-2.K of the
Zoning Ordinance, set a public hearing on July I, 1998, with a time certain, to review a decision of
the Design Review Board (DRB), wherein it denied a request by Continuum LLC, for the
construction of three (3) 42 story apartment, hotel and time share towers with a total of 1,034 units
at the Ocean and Easement Parcels located at the southeast comer of South Pointe Drive and Ocean
Drive (DRB File No. 9486).
BACKGROUND
On January 6, 1998, the Design Review Board (DRB) denied a request by Continuum LLC, for the
construction of three (3) 42 story (432' to the top of the roof and 462' to the highest architectural
projection) apartment, hotel and time share towers with a total of 1,034 units at the Ocean and
Easement Parcels located at the southeast comer of South Pointe Drive and Ocean Drive (DRB File
No. 9486). The staff report to the DRB for this project and the Final Order issued by the DRB are
attached, hereto, for informational purposes.
On June 10, 1998, Mr. Al Cardenas, on behalf of South Beach Ocean Parcel Ltd. (the successor in
interest to the applicant Continuum LLC), 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 an Applicant to seek "review" of any
Design Review Board Order by the City Commission. In this particular instance Mr. Cardenas, on
behalf of the Applicant, South Beach Ocean Parcel Ltd. (the successor in interest to the applicant
Agenda Item e 1 T
Date ~-\l-9B
Continuum LLC), is seeking a review of the Final Order for the project described herein.
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.J 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.
Mr. Cardenas, on behalf of South Beach Ocean Parcel Ltd. (the successor in interest to the applicant
Continuum LLC), has indicated that the basis for the appeal is that the Design Review Board failed
to provide the applicants with procedural due process and failed to observe essential requirements
oflaw; additionally, Mr. Cardenas has contended that the decision of the Design Review Board to
deny the application was not based upon substantial competent evidence.
In order to reverse or remand a decision of the DRB, a 5/7th 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 Denied a request
by Continuum LLC, for the construction of three (3) 42 story apartment, hotel and time share towers
with a total of 1,034 units at the Ocean and Easement Parcels located at the southeast corner of South
Pointe Drive and Ocean Drive (DRB File No. 9486).
S~ .t(:DJG:TRM
T:~DAVUN 1798\REGULAR\PHR-9486.WPD
2
REJ.1.Y TO
TEW CARDENAS REBAK
KELLOGG LEHMAN
DEMARIA & TAGUE, L.L.P.
MIAMI
WRITER'S DIRECT LINE
(305) 539-2480
[.1\IAI1.
ATTORNEYS AT LA');'
AC@TEWLAW.COM
June 10, 1998
Mr. Dean Grandin
Director of Planning, Design
and Historic Preservation
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
M L~ :#= A ~ is b
,-
~ III ,5'-/. IS
Re: DRB File Nos. 9486
Dear Mr. Grandin:
On January 6, 1998 the Design Review Board denied Application No. 9486 filed by
Continuum L.L.C.. That decision was formalized in a written order dated February 25, 1998.
Thereafter, a petition for rehearing was timely filed within the (15) days allotted by Section
18-2 (1) of the City of Miami Beach Zoning Ordinance. On May 12, 1998, our client, South
Beach Ocean Parcel Ltd. as successor in interest to Continuum L.L.C. appeared before the
Design Review Board on the petition for rehearing. The petition was denied. That denial was
formalized in a written order dated May 31. 1998.
Pursuant to Section 18-2 (K)(1) of the City of Miami Beach's Zoning Ordinance,
South Beach Ocean Parcel Ltd. as a successor in interest to the applicant Continuum L.L.C.
and as an interested person, requests review, by the City Commission, of the Design Review
Board's February 25, 1998 order denying Application No. 9486. This request was originally
filed on May 29, 1998, within the permissible time allotted for such a request. This letter is
solely for purposes of further clarification as requested by the City.
As required by ordinance, this appeal is based solely on the record of the January 6,
1998 hearing. It is our position that in their consideration of this application, the Design
Review Board failed to provide the applicants with procedural due process and failed to
. MIAMI OFFICE.
ML\~II CENTER. 26TH FLOOR, 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD. MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131.4336. TELEPHONE 305/536.1112. FACSIMILE 305/536.1116
. WEST PALM BEACH OFFICE.
CO.'v1EALJ BUILDING, SL:ITE 1000.319 CLEMATIS STREET, WEST PAL'v1 BEACH. FLORIDA 33401, TELEPHONE 5611835.4200. FACSIMILE 561/835.1~-I~
observe essential requirements of the law. In addition the decision to deny this application
was not based upon substantial competent evidence.
I enclose the applicable fee and required mailing labels. If you have any
questions or require any further material from us please contact me.
Very truly yours,
AL CARDENAS
cc: Sergio Rodriguez
,
Murray Dubbin, Esq.
Tom Mooney
Bruce Eichner
Nathan Hong
Brian Tague, Esq.
Joseph L. Rebak, Esq.
H:\BDF\DA TA\EICHNER\LETIERS\GRANDIN.L T3
ffi
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PLANNING, DESIGN & HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DEAN J. GRANDIN, Jr., DEPUTY DIRECT~
DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN & HISTORIC PR~ON SERVICES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
JANUARY 6, 1998 MEETING
DESIGN REVIEW FilE NO. 9486
Ocean and Easement Parcels located at the southeast corner of South
Pointe Drive and Ocean Drive - Ocean Parcel
RE:
.'
The applicant, Continuum, L.L.C., is requesting Design Review approval for the
construction of three (3) 42 story (432' to the top of the roof and 462' to the highest
architectural projection) apartment, hotel and time share towers with a total of 1,034
units.
HISTORY:
The applicant came before the Board on November 4, 1997, and the matter was
continued to a date certain of November 17, 1997. On November 17, 1997, at the
request of the applicant, the matter was continued to a date certain of January 6,
1998.
SITE DATA:
Zoning -
Future land Use Designation-
Lot Size -
Existing FAR -
Proposed FAR -
Existing Height -
Proposed Height-
Existing Use/Condition -
Proposed Use -
CPS-3 (Commercial Intensive Mixed Use)
CPS-3 (Commercial Intensive Mixed Use)
805,904 S.F. *
972,901 S.F. / 1.21 *
2,757,901 S.F./3.42* (Max FAR=3.5), as
represented by the applicant
459' (Portofino Tower) & 305' (South Pointe Tower)
54 stories / 546'-2" (576'-2" to highest non-
habitable projection)
Vacant parcel and condominiums
540 Condominiums and 234 hotel units and 260
timeshare/condominium units.
* Refers to the Master Parcel which includes the sites of the existing South Pointe and Porto fino Towers
THE PROJECT:
The applicant is proposing to construct two (2) large apartment towers and a hotel
structure on the vacant ocean parcel at the southeastern tip of the City; the proposed
project is part of an overall master site, inclusive of the existing South Pointe and
Portofino Towers. Access to the subject site will be from two (2) points on South
Pointe Drive, one at the southern terminus of Ocean Drive and the other to the
immediate east, and consist of two (2) separate driveways, one for the apartment
towers and the other for the hotel. A breakdown of the floor plan of the proposed
project is enumerated hereto:
level One: Parking
level Two: Parking .
level Three: Parking, hotel and apartment tower lobbies and entry drive
level Four: Parking
levels 7-42: Condominium and hotel units
The subject towers are massed in a triangular form and are sited toward the western
portion of the remainder of the existing vacant tract. The condominium and hotel
towers consist of a translucent array of aluminum frame windows with fritted glass
screens (i.e., double glazed panels with miniature blinds between) and clear glass
balcony rails.
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING CODE:
The application, as proposed, has been reviewed for zoning compliance on the premise
that the project is part of the larger building site; however, this assumption is subject
to confirmation by the applicant and a final determination by the Planning and Zoning
Director. While the Planning and Zoning Director has met with the applicant's attorney
to discuss the issue in greater detail, it has not yet been resolved; the matter is
scheduled to be discussed further with the City Attorney.
Staff review of the submitted plans has found the proposal to be inconsistent with the
following aspects of the City Zoning Ordinance:
1. The shaded FAR drawing are too small to verify floor area. Some areas on the
lower parking levels within the building look like they should be included and
were not and the covered stairs within the parking garage shall be included in
the FAR calculations. The corner balconies may have to be included in the FAR.
2. The parking requirement for residential projects in the CPS-3 Zoning District is
1.25 spaces per unit; all excess spaces must be included in the FAR
calculations.
2
3. It is not clear whether or not this project is to be reviewed for compliance with
the existing South Pointe Development Agreement.
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 may be
required:
1. At least one (1) accessible entrance must be in the accessible route (accessible
route from the sidewalk, accessible parking spaces, accessible passenger
loading zones, etc.).
2. All public and common areas must be usable and accessible by the disabled
(e.g. parking spaces, laundry rooms and swimming pools).
3. AI doors must provide a 32" clear opening and accessible hardware.
,.
4. An accessible route must be provided to and through the units.
5. Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats and other environmental controls
must be in accessible locations.
6. Reinforcement in the bathroom walls to allow for the future installation of grab
bars around the toilet, tub and shower shall be required.
7. Usable and accessible kitchens and bathrooms shall be required.
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 #2 and Staff Analysis
3
Full details and dimensions of the pedestal and tower portions of the project, as
well as dedicated pedestrian pathways and accessibility compliance have not
been provided.
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.
- Not Satisfied; see Concern #2 and Staff Analysis
Full details and dimensions of the proposed entrance driveways, as well as
dedicated pedestrian pathways and accessibility compliance have not been
provided.
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, #4 and Staff Analysis
The submitted color samples are not an accurate reflection of the actual color
chips and the entrance access points have not been fully developed; the
submitted pedestal elevations are underdesigned and very weak at the street
level and the tower portions of the project lack sufficient detail for a project of
this magnitude and impede a proper evaluation of the project.
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, #2 and Staff Analysis
The entrance to the proposed site is overly vehicularly oriented, incorporates an
excessive number of curb-cut access points and does not address the pedestrian
character of the immediate area; the pedestal portions of the project are
underdeveloped and poorly detailed; the proposed siting of the towers is too
close to the existing South Pointe and Portofino Towers and has a negative
impact on the view corridor at the southern terminus of Ocean Drive.
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 entrance to the proposed site is overly vehicularly oriented, incorporates an
excessive number of curb-cut access points and does not address the pedestrian
character of the immediate area; the pedestal portions of the project are
underdeveloped and poorly detailed; the proposed siting of the towers is too
4
close to the existing South Pointe and Portofino Towers and has a negative
impact on the view corridor at the southern terminus of Ocean Drive.
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 Concern #1, #2 and Staff Analysis
The entrance to the proposed site is overly vehicularly oriented, incorporates an
excessive number of curb-cut access points and does not address the pedestrian
character of the immediate area; the pedestal portions of the project are
underdeveloped and poorly detailed; the proposed siting of the towers is too
close to the existing South Pointe and Portofino Towers and has a negative
impact on the view corridor at the southern terminus of Ocean Drive.
8. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the Site shall
De 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 #9
A revised traffic impact study to address staff concerns has been submitted,
but not yet reviewed as of this writing.
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
The landscape plan is underdeveloped in terms of overall plant design.
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.
- Not Satisfied; see concern #2 and Staff Analysis
The landscape plan is underdeveloped in terms of softening and buffering the
pedestal along the south property line.
5
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; Concurreny Evaluation Required.
1 3. Garbage disposal shall be reviewed to ensure freedom from vermin and rodent
infestation. All disposal systems shall meet municipal specifications as to
installation and construction.
- Not Satisfied; 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.
- Not Satisfied; Concurreny Evaluation Required.
15. To promote reduced crime and fear of crime through the use of Crime
~revention Through Environmental Design Guidelines and Strategies.
- Satisfied
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Given the potential allowable density of the site, the applicant has proposed a highly
sophisticated residential project which attempts to reduce the impact of the proposed
tower structures on the low-scale character of the immediate area, while still providing
expanded vistas from all units. In this regard the unique and contemporary use of
translucent and transparent steel frames, fritted glass and aluminum carry forward the
historical tradition of evolving architecture of our time, while providing structures
which are much lighter and elegant in appearance than the neighboring hi-rise buildings
to the west and on the same site.
Unfortunately, unlike the other submission for this same site under ORB File No. 9193,
the siting of the towers in this application has a severe impact on the view corridor at
the southern terminus of Ocean Drive and the subject towers are located too close to
the existing South Pointe and Portofino Towers. Although the submitted site plan
minimizes the setback variances which would be required for the project if the towers
were located on the east side of the site, the negative impact the proposed siting of
the towers has on the as-built urban context of the South Pointe area is substantial.
In this regard, it is suggested that any proposed "as of right" site plan provide
adequate distance separation from the existing South Pointe and Portofino Towers and
that the view corridor at the southern terminus of Ocean Drive be maintained and
preserved.
6
Staff also has a concern with the seclusion of the site, which has created a private
residential enclave that has no bearing or relationship to the immediate streetscape and
pedestrian fabric of the surrounding area. As is the case with South Pointe and
Portofino Towers, there is no clearly defined entry focal point from the sidewalk and
little in the way of visual activity takes place at the sidewalk level. This deficiency is
further exacerbated by the excessive number of curb cuts proposed for the project; it
is clear from the site plan design that the interests of expediting and streamlining
vehicular access has taken a front seat to the urbanistic pedestrian oriented
surroundings of the site.
Staff also has a concern with the lack of detail and manner in which the pedestal
portion of the project has been developed and presented; specifically, there is no
reference whatsoever to the sidewalk fabric or beachside ambience of the immediate
surrounding resort area. In this regard, it is strongly suggested that the entire pedestal
portion of the project be re-thought so that some form of appropriate physical activity
be incorporated into the pedestal program on the north side of the structure, fronting
the sidewalk on South Pointe Drive, in conjunction with a larger, more defined
entry'Jl.'aY to the hotel/apartment lobbies.
In conclusion, the siting of the proposed towers in this application presents a
substantial obstacle to a successful project. If this issue can be resolved, staff is
confident that the applicant's architect can meet the challenge of addressing the
shortcomings pertaining to the details and design of the project, as noted herein.
However, the modifications required are of such magnitude that new drawings should
be submitted and brought back before the Board at a later date.
RECOMMENDA TION:
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
March 10, 1998, in order to address the following concerns:
1 . Revised elevation drawings shall be submitted; at a minimum, said drawings
shall incorporate the following:
a. Retail storefronts or other forms of appropriate physical activity and
visual interest shall be required at the first level of the north elevation.
b. The pedestal portion of the project shall be redesigned and detailed on all
elevations, in order to form a firmer and more defined connection with
the tower portions of the project, as well as a stronger connection to the
street.
c. Details of .all elevations shall be required, particularly at the pedestal leveL
7
2. The site plan shall be modified to provide for a pedestrian extension at Ocean
Drive onto the site with no less that a pedestrian connection at its southern
terminus into South Pointe Park. This will require that the proposed towers be
relocated eastward, or the floor plans of each modified so that there are only
two (2) towers on site.
3. A revised site plan and corresponding landscape plan, as well as floor plans,
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. The proposed entrance driveway system, with multiple ramps and curb-
cut access points, shall not be permitted; said driveway and entrance
system shall instead consist of one (1) primary ingress/egress point from
South Pointe Drive, which feeds into the parking areas and provides more
direct access to the hotel and apartment tower lobbies.
,.
b. The continuation of Ocean Drive southward, in conjunction with
condition #2, shall be open to the sky and may entail the elimination of
the parking structure on the west side of the property.
c. 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.
d. The proposed driveways shall be further softened and buffeted with
additional landscape material.
e. A pedestrian accessway, which is physically and architecturally separated
from the driveways, and connects people from the sidewalk to the entry
lobbies, shall be provided.
4. All building signage shall be consistent in type and composed of flush mounted,
individual letters.
5. The exterior surface color scheme, including color samples, shall be submitted.
A light color palette for the steel framing systems shall be required to preserve
the nautical uniqueness of the site and location.
6. Final building plans shall meet the concurrency requirements of Section 22 of
the Zoning Ordinance and shall meet all other Zoning Ordinance requirements.
7. Manufacturers drawings and Dade County product approval numbers for all new
windows, doors and glass shall be required.
8
8. 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.
9. Detailed revised drawings shall be submitted to allow for a more complete
assessment and evaluation of required variances to the Zoning Ordinance;
variance requests should be minimized to the greatest extent possible.
10. All new and altered elements, spaces and areas shall meet the requirements of
the Florida Accessibility Code (FAC).
DJG:TRM
F: \ PLA N\ $ D R 8\D R 89 8\J AND R 8 9 8\ 9 48 6. J A N
,.
9
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
MEETING DATE:
January 6, 1998
IN RE:
The Application for Design Review Approval for the
construction of three (3) 42 story (432' to the top
of the roof and 462' to the highest architectural
projection) apartment, hotel and time share towers
with a total of 1,034 units.
PROPERTY:
Ocean and Easement Parcels located at the southeast
corner of South Pointe Drive and Ocean Drive
Ocean Parcel
FILE NO:
9486
,.
ORDER
The applicant, Continuum, L.L.C., filed an application with the
City of Miami Beach I s Planning, Design & Historic Preservation
Division for Design Review Approval for the construction of three
(3) 42 story (432' to the top of the roof and 462' to the highest
architectural projection) apartment, hotel and time share towers
with a total of 1,034 units.
The City of Miami Beach's Design Review Board makes the following
FINDING OF FACT:
1.
The project, as
subsections of the
1998 Staff Report.
submitted, is inconsistent with those
Zoning Ordinance as noted in the January 6,
2.
The applicant has not
requirements of Section
met.
demonstrated that the concurrency
22 of the Zoning Ordinance have been
3. Design Review encompasses the examination of architectural
drawings for consistency with the criteria stated in
Subsection 18-2 of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to the
aesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of the structure
or proposed structures in relation to the site, adj acent
structures and surrounding community. Based on the following,
including, but not limited to, the plans and documents
submitted with the application, and the reasons set forth in
the Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division staff
report of January 6, 1998, excluding certain recommendations
therein, the project, as submitted, is not consistent with
Design Review Criteria Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12,
13 & 14, as set forth in Subsection 18-2.A of Zoning Ordinance
89-2665.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact
that the request for Design Review Approval for the construction of
three (3) 42 story (432 I to the top of the roof and 462 I to the
highest architectural projection) apartment, hotel and time share
towers with a total of 1,034 units is DENIED.
Dated this
2. ~fi1
day of
re1YJ~, 1998
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
,.
By:
~~ K'~/~
Chairperson
Approved as to Form:
WI .J I.-:H /qr;
I /
Office of the
(Initials/Date)
City
Attorney
F:\PLAN\$DRB\DRB98\JANDRB98\9486.FO
2