98-22784 RESO
RESOLUTION NO. 98-22784
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 two (2) 54 story
apartment towers with a total of 580
units, and a 40 story structure
consisting of 234 hotel units and 220
timeshare/condominium 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 two (2) 54
story (546'-211 to the top of the roof and 576'-211 to the highest
architectural projection) apartment towers with a total of 580
units, and a 40 story (424'-211 to the top of the roof and 454'-2"
to the highest architectural projection) structure consisting of
234 hotel units and 220 timeshare/condominium units at the Ocean
and Easement Parcels located at the southeast corner of South
Pointe Drive and Ocean Drive (DRB File No. 9193); 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. 9193.
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
2:05p.m6 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 two (2) 54 story (546'-2"
to the top of the roof and 576'-2" to the highest architectural
projection) apartment towers with a total of 580 units, and a 40
story (424'-2" to the top of the roof and 454'-2" to the highest
architectural projection) structure consisting of 234 hotel units
and 220 timeshare/condominium 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
~:
1998.
ATTEST:
.~r eJA~
CITY CLERK
TRM:tm
F:\PLAN\$ALL\CC_MEMOS\RES-9193.WPD
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FORfXECUnON
/~
~
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
http:\\ci.miami-beach.fl.us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM No.38 3-Cf8
TO:
Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members of the City Co ission
DATE: June 17, 1998
FROM:
Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager
SUBJECT:
A Resoluti 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 Two (2) 54
Story Apartment Towers with a Total of 580 Units, and a 40 Story Structure
Consisting of 234 Hotel Units and 220 Timeshare/Condominium Units at the
Ocean and Easement Parcels Located at the Southeast Corner of South Pointe
Drive and Ocean Drive.
,.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission, pursuant to Subsection 18-2.K of the
Zoning Ordinance, 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 two (2) 54 story apartment towers with a total of 580 units, and a 40 story structure
consisting of 234 hotel units and 220 timeshare/condominium units at the Ocean and Easement
Parcels located at the southeast comer of South Pointe Drive and Ocean Drive (DRB File No. 9193).
BACKGROUND
On January 6, 1998, the Design Review Board (DRB) denied a request by Continuum LLC, for the
construction of two (2) 54 story (546'-2" to the top of the roofand 576'-2" to the highest architectural
projection) apartment towers with a total of 580 units, and a 40 story (424'-2" to the top of the roof
and 454'-2" to the highest architectural projection) structure consisting of234 hotel units and 220
timeshare/condominium units at the Ocean and Easement Parcels located at the southeast comer of
South Pointe Drive and Ocean Drive (DRB File No. 9193). 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).
AGENDA ITEM~
~-11-9.~
DATE
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
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 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 denied a request
by Continuum LLC, for the construction of two (2) 54 story apartment towers with a total of 580
units, and a 40 story structure consisting of 234 hotel units and 220 timeshare/condominium units
at the Ocean and Easement Parcels located at the southeast comer of South Pointe Drive and Ocean
Drive (DRB File No. 9193).
SR':DJG:TRM
T:\AGENDA \JUN1798\REGULAR\PHR-9193. WPD
REI.LY TO'
TEW CARDENAS REBAK
KELLOGG LEHMAN
DEMARIA & TAGUE, L.L.P.
MIAMI
WRITER'S DIRECT liNE
(305) 539-2480
E.MAIL,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
AC@TEWLAW.COM
June 10, 1998
Mr. Dean Grandin
Director of Planning, Design
and Historic Preservation
City of Miami Beach
1700 CcfilVention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
0\C~
::rt~qg5
\ ~ I \ ~~ .q ~
Re: DRB File Nos. 9193
Dear Mr. Grandin:
On January 6, 1998 the Design Review Board denied Application No. 9193 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. 9193. 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.
MIAMI CEI-;TER. 26TH FLOOR. 201 SOl.;TH BISCAYNE BOULf:V,\RD. MIAMI. FLORJDA 33131-4336, TELEPHONE 305/536 -1112, FACSIMILE 305/536 -III G
. WEST PALM BEACH OFFICE .
COMEAU BULDI:>:C. Sun 1000.319 CLEMATIS STREET. WEST PAL.'-'I BEACH. FLORIDA 33401. TELEPHONE 561/835-4200. FACSI.MILE 56I1M3;-l:..:
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,
[be
AL CARDENAS
cc: S~gio Rodriguez
Murray Dubbin, Esq.
Tom Mooney
Bruce Eichner
Nathan Hong
Brian Tague, Esq.
Joseph L. Rebak, Esq.
H: \BDF\DA T A \EICHNER\LETIERS\GRANDIN.L T4
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PLANNING, DESIGN & HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION
m
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
STAFF REPORT
FROM:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DEAN J. GRANDIN, Jr., DEPUTY DIRECTO~
DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN & HISTORIC PRESERVATION SERVICES
TO:
DATE:
JANUARY 6, 1998 MEETING
RE:
DESIGN REVIEW FilE NO. 9193
Ocean and Easement Parcels located at the southeast corner of South
Pointe Drive and Ocean Drive - Ocean Parcel
The applicant, Continuum, L.L.C., is requesting Design Review approval for the
construction of two (2) 54 story (546'-2" to the top of the roof and 576'-2" to the
highest architectural projection) apartment towers with a total of 580 units, and a 40
story (424'-2" to the top of the roof and 454'-2" to the highest architectural
projection) structure consisting of 234 hotel units and 220 timeshare/condominium
units.
HISTORY:
The application came before the Board on September 2, 1997, and after discussion
was continued to a date certain of October 7, 1997, at the request of the applicant.
On October 7, 1997, the matter was heard again and continued to a date certain of
November 4, 1997, and then to a date certain of November 17, 1997.
On November 17, 1997, the application was continued to a date certain of January
6, 1998, in order to address Board concerns related to the design of the pedestal, the
location of the entry ramp and the manner in which the pedestal portion of the project
relates to the neighboring South Pointe Park.
SITE DATA:
Zoning -
Future land Use Designation-
lot Size -
Existing FAR -
Proposed FAR -
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
Existing Use/Condition -
Proposed Use -
459' (Portofino Tower) & 305' (South Pointe Tower)
54 stories / 546'-2" (576'-2" to highest non-
habitable projection)
Vacant parcel and condominiums
580 Condominiums and 234 hotel units and 220
timeshare/condominium units.
Existing Height -
Proposed Height-
· Refers to the Master Parcel which includes the sites of the existing South POlnte and Portofino Towers
THE PROJECT:
The applicant is proposing to construct two (2) large condominium towers and a hotel
structure on the vacant ocean parcel at the southeastern tip of the City; the proposed
project is on a site which is part of an overall master site, inclusive of the existing
South Pointe and Portofino Towers. Access to the subject site will be from South
Pointe Drive, at the southern terminus of Ocean Drive, and consists of one (1) two (2)
separate driveways for each condominium tower. A breakdown of the floor plan of
the proposed project is enumerated hereto:
level One:
level Two:
level Three:
level Four:
levels 7-54:
Parking
Parking .
Parking, hotel lobby and entry drive
Apartment tower lobbies and entry drive
Condominium and hotel units
The condominium and hotel towers consist of a translucent array of clear glass
windows, fritted glass screens, and clear glass balcony rails. Also, a pedestrian
sidewalk is proposed on the western edge of the project site, which is now open to
the sky and connects the sidewalk on South Pointe Drive (formerly Biscayne Street)
to the adjacent South Pointe Park.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS:
A level three (3) traffic impact analysis has been submitted by the applicant; said
analysis is being reviewed by staff to determine the impact of the proposed project on
the traffic service levels of the site and immediate area.
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.
2
Staff review of the submitted plans has found the proposal to be inconsistent with the
following aspects of the City Zoning Ordinance:
1 . The tower side setback should be the same for both sides; the tallest building
on the site is used to calculate the side setback, as noted:
480' x 10% = 48' + 5'(pedestall = 53'-Tower setback for both sides
2. The rear setbacks were calculated incorrectly; the average lot depth is 1.382'
1,382' x 20% = 276' - rear pedestal setback
1,382' x 25% = 346' - rear tower setback
3. 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.
,.
4. Variances shall be required for the rear setback for the hotel and condominium,
as well as the side setback for the Hotel.
5. 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.
6. Due to the height of the proposed new towers, the existing tower setback for
South Pointe Towers becomes nonconforming; consequently, a variance shall
be required to retain the existing South Pointe Towers Building.
7. It is not clear whether or not this project is to be reviewed for compliance with
the South Pointe Development Agreement; if said Agreement is no longer
operative the proposed Ocean Parcel Project may require either a Unity of Title
or a Restrictive Covenant in lieu of Unity of Title, tying the Ocean Parcel to the
overall development site.
These and all zoning matters shall be subject to final verification, including the issue
as to whether this application is to be viewed as part of the larger building site or as
a parcel to be subdivided as a separate lot.
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
3
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
Adequate details and dimensions of the proposed entrance driveways and retail
structures on the north elevation, 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
r,equired to determine compliance with this Ordinance.
- Not Satisfied; see Concern # 1, #2 and Staff Analysis
Full details and dimensions of the proposed entrance driveways and retail
structures on the north elevation, as well as dedicated pedestrian pathways and
accessibility compliance, have not been provided; the width of the proposed
pedestrian entry steps to the third and fifth levels of the proposed pedestal are
too narrow and are not clearly identifiable from the sidewalk.
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 detailed; adequate detail of
the submitted pedestal elevations at the street level has not been provided.
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 and Staff Analysis
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.
4
- Not Satisfied; lee Concern #1, #2 and Staff Analysis
The entrance to the proposed site is slightly vehicularty oriented and negatively
impacts the pedestrian character of the immediate area as well as the proposed
pedestrian avenue into South Pointe Park; the pedestal portions and retail
storefronts of the project have not been adequately detailed; the south elevation
of the proposed pedestal is slightly overbearing and negatively impacts the vista
looking northward from South Pointe Park.
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 slightly vehicularty oriented and negatively
impacts the pedestrian character of the immediate area as well as the proposed
pedestrian avenue into South Pointe Park; the pedestal portions and retail
!\.tore fronts of the project have not been adequately detailed; the south elevation
of the proposed pedestal is slightly overbearing and negatively impacts the vista
looking northward from South Pointe Park.
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 #1 and Staff Analysis
A revised traffic impact study to address staff concerns has been submitted,
but has not been fully 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 #3 and Staff Analysis
The landscape plan is slightly 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.
5
- Not Satisfied; see concern #3 and Staff Analysis
The landscape plan is slightly underdeveloped in terms of softening and
buffering the large entrance driveway at the northwest corner of the project.
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; Concurrency Evaluation 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; Concurrency 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; Concurrency Evaluation Required.
1 5 . To promote reduced crime and fear of crime through the use of Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design Guidelines and Strategies.
- Satisfied
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff must preface this analysis by clearly continuing to express its serious concern
with regard to any additional ultra high-rise tower construction in the South
Pointe/Ocean Beach area, as well as the need for substantial variances to the Zoning
Ordinance to achieve the high-rise project as proposed. Preferably, a much lower scale
of development should occur .on the sUQject site, and one which is somewhat more
residential in architectural character. than the proposed towers. This would
significantly assist in maintaining the traditionally relaxed pedestrian/residential resort
atmosphere of the Ocean Beach/South Pointe area for the equal enjoyment of future
generations of average residents and visitors alike.
Of particular concern to staff is the overwhelming visual assertiveness of the three
proposed triangular towers in relation to the low-scale southern view corridors of
Ocean Drive and Collins Avenue, as well avenues further west. Equally troubling is the
lack of a master site development plan for the overall Ocean Parcel/South Pointe
property that cohesively integrates the proposed project with the existing South Pointe
and Portofino Towers located on the western portion of the development site. Such
integration was implicit in the Portofino Tower site plan approved by the Design
Review Board, even to the extent that the existing vehicular entrance to the Portofino
6
Tower building was approved as a temporary improvement; the permanent entrance
was intended to be located substantially further east on South Pointe Drive, at the
southern terminus of Ocean Drive; this would leave the present curb cut as one of the
at-grade entrances to the residential parking garage. A second at-grade garage
entrance already exists on the south side of the project.
The Concept Plan under the South Pointe Development Agreement contemplated a
balanced development over the entire site, with 2,319,750 square feet of floor area
(this is roughly 500,00 square feet less than the maximum permissible development
on the overall site under the CPS-3 Zoning classification). This project, when added
to the existing South Pointe and Porto fino Towers projects would result in a total of
2,757,901 square feet on the overall site, or roughly 438,800 square feet of additional
floor area over what was originally contemplated in the Development Agreement
Concept Plan. As such, it could be now argued that the proposed density on the
Ocean Parcel is excessive relative to the overall site, and what had been a balanced
master site plan would become imbalanced with the implementation of the proposed
project. If viewed alone, the effective proposed F.A.R. on the Ocean Parcel is
disprop.ortionate not only to the master site area, but to the overall neighborhood.
Staff is seriously concerned about this imbalance.
A serious concern identified in the previously reviewed Ocean Parcel site plan was the
weak urban relationship between the overall Portofino/Ocean Parcel development site
and South Pointe Park, which flanks its entire southern border. As reconfigured, the
project master plan for the Ocean Parcel portion of the development site begins to
significantly address and acknowledge the public importance of South Pointe Park as
the most southerly, and arguably most dramatic, public recreational place and scenic
vantage point in the City of Miami Beach; a broader, more clearly defined esplanade
is being proposed which extends Ocean Drive southward as a landscaped pedestrian
avenue into South Pointe Park. This proposed promenade, which would be fifty one
feet (51') in width at its narrowest point, would intersect the park at approximately
its mid point, between the Portofino and Ocean Parcel portions of the development
site, creating the pedestrian friendly park gateway that it is missing today.
The applicant is to be commended for removing the previously proposed two (2) level
parking garage along the west side of this pedestrian corridor, thus enabling the
esplanade to be significantly expanded. Likewise, the applicant's architect should be
complimented for relocating the vehicular entrance ramps for the proposed Ocean
Parcel towers further eastward, where they are effectively contained within the
footprint of the project pedestal, and behind the structured landscape wall. Although
these positive changes contribute significantly to the creation of a meaningful public
amenity, the applicant should further this gesture by 1) relocating the two proposed
tennis courts along the west side of the corridor to a suitable alternate location, and
2), by relocating the present (temporary) main entrance ramp to the Portofino and
7
South Pointe Towers to a new and permanent location as generally proposed in the
previously approved Portofino master site plan.
Notwithstanding aforementioned design and urban planning concerns, and given the
potential development density of the project site, the applicant's architect has
engendered a sophisticated residential and time-share hotel design solution which
attempts to reduce the anticipated adverse impact of ultra high-rise construction on
adjacent low-scale neighborhoods to the north. Additionally, appealing vistas have
been achieved from the proposed units. This is partially due to the very large size of
the subject development site as well as to its unique location near the south tip of the
island, where it is slightly removed from the low-scale traditional urban neighborhoods
to the north.
With regard to addressing the anticipated looming presence of the proposed high-rise
construction, the applicant's architect has employed an architecturally sagacious
system of translucent and transparent facades for the proposed towers, composed of
steel frames, double glazed clear glass curtain walls with mini blinds encapsulated
betweerit the panes' of glass, and fritted glass sun screens, as well as French and open
balconies delineated by clear glass bulkheads and aluminum rails. The result is tower
structures that would be much lighter, smoother and more elegant in appearance than
the neighboring South Pointe and Porto fino Tower buildings to the west on the same
site. Furthermore, the facade concept displays an acute effort to continue the Beach's
design tradition of an architectural continuum responsive to its time.
In addition to endeavoring to advance the resident and visitor urban experience in
Miami Beach, a permanence of structure has also been designed into the proposed
towers; the facade systems include the selection of time tested high-rise exterior
construction systems, materials and finishes. This is intended to ensure the long term
durability of the structures in a highly abrasive marine environment, a threshold
consideration given the difficulty and expense of frequent facade maintenance for such
tall structures. Time has taught the lesson in South Beach that less durable
construction systems and materials, employed in buildings constructed during the
1930s and 1940s, has resulted in serious later maintenance and restoration challenges
for owners and architects.
The eastern portion of the overall development site has been laid out so as to maximize
the vistas from the proposed new units as well as to minimize the impact on the vistas
of existing units within the existing two Portofino Tower structures on the west side
of the site. This has been accomplished through the use of unique triangular floor
plates for the three (3) towers, as well as an airy and sculptured juxtaposition of the
proposed structures to one another, as they rise from a common low and broad base.
A serious effort has likewise been made to orient the proposed towers in a manner
which acknowledges the north-south axis of Ocean Drive and Collins Avenue, and
8
places the mass of the new towers eastward of the direct southern view corridor
established by Ocean Drive.
In previous submissions for the eastern portion of the overall development site, the
applicant was proposing an isolated project, a scheme which created a private
residential enclave that had no bearing or relationship to the immediate street scape
and pedestrian fabric of the surrounding area, nor to South Pointe Park. As is the case
with South Pointe and Portofino Towers, there was no clearly defined entry focal point
from the sidewalk of South Pointe Drive into the project and, further, little in the way
of visual urban activity took place at the public pedestrian level. This deficiency was
further exacerbated by the excessive number of curb cuts that were proposed for the
project.
In an effort to correct these shortcomings, the applicant has reduced the total number
of curb cuts along South Pointe Drive, successfully integrated a public esplanade
connecting South Pointe Park with Ocean Dive, and has introduced retail storefronts
along the north elevation of the pedestal/garage portion of the proposed project, facing
South ~ointe Driv"e. Collectively, these revisions have significantly lessened the
potential negative impact of heavy vehicular circulation and a major parking structure
upon the project site and adjacent neighborhood to the north.
Despite the continuing project improvements, however, staff continues to have
reservations relative to the significant urban contextual and architectural concerns
raised earlier in this analysis, as well with the lack of adequate detail submitted for the
pedestal and public esplanade portions of the project. Again, while the massing,
design and materials chosen for the tower portions of the project are sophisticated and
may somewhat lessen the overall impact of these large structures on the surrounding
area, more detail is still needed as to how the proposed project will successfully
connect to the existing Portofino structures and grounds on the west side of the same
development site, as well as compatibly relate to the immediate surrounding area in
terms of pedestrian and vehicular access, and the design of the retail storefronts.
In order to address adequately these and other previously raised contextual, design,
and site planning issues, staff strongly recommends that the width of the stairwell
connecting the sidewalk along Biscayne Street to the third level pedestal be
substantially widened and made more inviting to the pedestrian; this modification
should also be applied to the stairwell connecting the third level of the pedestal to the
fifth level. It is also suggested that the proposed retail storefronts along South Pointe
Drive, as well as the pedestal portions of the project, provide a design, massing and
surface finishes scheme which acknowledges and is compatible with the special
pedestrian scale and character of traditional neighborhood to the north. It is further
suggested that the grade level tennis courts be removed so as to further widen the
9
proposed pedestrian extension of Ocean Drive southward, thus enhancing the
pedestrian and visual avenue into South Pointe Park.
Relative to the architectural design of the proposed Ocean Parcel towers, staff believes
that the proposal by the architect to lighten the color palette for the curtain wall
system, as well as to substantially reduce the number of secondary vertical framing
elements in the tower facades, contributes to an overall architectural character which
is at once softer and more residentially thoughtful, yet still uniquely sophisticated and
precise. Although staff believes that the collective design refinements proposed will
result in a project which is significantly more responsive to the context of South Beach
its overall urban persona harkens to metropolitan Miami beyond. Staff must stress
once again, the rear setback variances necessitated by this design are substantial and
the applicant should not proceed in the belief that they would be automatically
approved by the Board of Adjustment.
In summary, staff believes that the applicant has done a good job of addressing several
of the key issues raised in the previous staff reports as well as those articulated by the
Board;,. however, . as of this writing, adequate revisions and details have not been
submitted in order to finalize a Staff recommendation relative to approval or denial.
Staff is confident, however, that the applicant's architect will continue to embrace the
challenge of addressing the concerns noted herein, and that a higher level of design
development in this project will be addressed through new and more detailed drawings
to be submitted and brought back before the Board at a later date.
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
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. Barrier free equity access as a thoroughly integrated design component
throughout the project.
b. Details of the proposed retail storefronts and the entranceway stairwell
at the first level of the north elevation of the Ocean Parcel project shall
be required which reinforce a sensitivity to the low scale character of the
adjacent urban environment to the north.
c. Greater detail of the pedestal portion of the project shall be required
which maximizes a pedestrian friendly character in keeping with the
urban traditions of the Beach, including a firmer and more defined
10
connection with the tower portions of the project, as well as a stronger
connection to the street.
d. The proposed entrance stairwell which connects the top of the pedestal
to the sidewalk shall be redesigned and widened; specifically, said feature
shall be widened so as to clearly identify a more prominent pedestrian
access way to the entrances of the proposed towers.
e. The existing temporary vehicular entrance ramp leading from South
Pointe Drive to South Pointe and Portofino Towers shall be eliminated
and a new permanent entrance ramp designed concurrent with the
proposed vehicular entrance ramps to the Ocean Parcel towers; said
permanent new entrance ramp shall be generally located as previously
approved in the Portofino master plan, or in an appropriate alternative
location subject to the approval of the Board.
f. New retail storefronts shall be introduced on the site of the removed
,. temporary vehicular ramp to the South Pointe and Portofino Towers; said
retail storefronts shall be designed in a manner compatible with the
proposed shopfronts in the pedestal portion of the Ocean Parcel project.
g. The overall Ocean Parcel/South Pointe development site shall be master
planned as a cohesive and balanced urban whole, sensitive to the
traditional pedestrian character and scale of South Beach; a well
designed, comfortably lighted, and appropriately landscaped public
pedestrian esplanade connecting South Pointe Drive with South Pointe
Park shall be developed as the central spine which units the east and
west portions of the development site.
2. The proposed tennis courts on the west side of the grade level pedestrian
connection to South Pointe Park shall be eliminated so as to provide a more
expansive and suitable public pedestrian avenue/esplanade into South Pointe
Park as well as an urban focal point at the southern terminus of Ocean Drive.
Said development shall be coordinated with any master site development
currently being planned for South Pointe Park.
3. A revised landscape plan, and corresponding site plan, as well as pedestal 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 plans shall incorporate the following:
a. Details of the proposed entrance driveway system, with multiple ramps
and curb-cut access points, shall be submitted.
11
b. Details of the entire proposed loading zone at the southwest corner of
the pedestal shall be required; all trucks must be able to fit completely
within the confines of said zone and no stacking of trucks or vehicles of
any type shall be permitted within the pedestrian connector from
Biscayne Street to South Pointe Park. The proposed loading zone area
shall only be operational from 8:00 am - 1 :00 pm, Monday thru Saturday,
and a Dockmaster or loading Supervisor shall be present at all times.
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. Detailed floor plans for levels P-3 and P-5, which clearly delineates all
circulation, shall be required. Dedicated pedestrian access ways, which
are physically segregated from all vehicular lanes and which connect to
the stairwells accessing the sidewalk, shall be required.
e. The proposed pedestrian access way to the third level of the pedestal
shall be physically and architecturally separated from the driveways, and
shall be substantially widened.
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. 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. All new and altered elements, spaces and areas shall meet the requirements of
the Florida Accessibility Code (FAC).
10. The project shall comply with any landscaping or other sidewalk/street
improvement standards as may be prescribed by a relevant Urban Design Master
12
Plan approved prior to the completion of the project and the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
DJG:TRM/WHC
F:\PlAN\$DRB\DRB98\JANDRB98\9193.JAN
,.
13
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 two (2) 54 story (546' -2" to the
top of the roof and 576'-2" to the highest
architectural projection) apartment towers with a
total of 580 units, and a 40 story (424'-2" to the
top of the roof and 454'-2" to the highest
architectural proj ection) structure consisting of
234 hotel units and 220 timeshare/condominium
units.
,.
Ocean and Easement Parcels located at the southeast
corner of South pointe Drive and Ocean Drive
Ocean Parcel
PROPERTY:
FILE NO:
9193
ORDER
The applicant, Continuum, L.L.C., filed an application with the
City of Miami Beach's Planning, Design & Historic Preservation
Division for Design Review Approval for the construction of two (2)
54 story (546'-2" to the top of the roof and 576'-2" to the highest
architectural projection) apartment towers with a total of 580
units, and a 40 story (424'-2" to the top of the roof and 454'-2"
to the highest architectural projection) structure consisting of
234 hotel units and 220 timeshare/condominium 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 demonstrated that the concurrency
requirements of Section 22 of the Zoning Ordinance have been
met.
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
two (2) 54 story (546'-2" to the top of the roof and 576'-2" to the
highest archit~ctural projection) apartment towers with a total of
580 un"lts, and a 40 story (424' _2" to the top of the roof and 454'-
2"to the highest architectural projection) structure consisting of
234 hotel units and 220 timeshare/condominium units is DENIED.
day of
fJ(J~_, 1998.
Dated this J..~~
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
City of Miami Beach, Florida
By:
(~ K.~/~'
Chairperson
Approved as to Form:
~ Z;?-3lq~
Office of the
(Initials/Date)
City
Attorney
F:\PLAN\$DRB\DRB98\JANDRB98\9193.FO
2