LTC 071-2023 Victory in In re Shore Club Property Owner, LLC, 1901 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach Shore ClubMIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
LTCNo. _
LETTER TO COMMISSION
TO: Mayor Dan Gelber and Members of the City Commission
FROM:
DATE:
Rafael A Paz, City Attorney v"v-o
February 14, 2023
SUBJECT: Victory in In re: Shore Club Property Owner, LLC, 1901 Collins Avenue,
Miami Beach ("Shore Club")
The purpose of this L TC is to advise you of the City's recent victory in an appeal from the
Historic Preservation Board's approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Shore
Club. I am pleased to inform you that Special Magistrate Miriam Maer affirmed the HPB's
decision in the case of In re: Shore Club Property Owner, LLC, 1901 Collins Avenue,
Miami Beach.
The Shore Club property contains a mosaic of architectural styles that characterize the
City's rich cultural heritage, including classic Art Deco design and post-war Miami-Modern
("MiMo") style. The property, which is located within the nationally registered Miami Beach
Architectural District as well as the Ocean Drive/Collins Avenue Local Historic District,
consists of the following buildings:
• the three-story contributing Shore Club Hotel building ("Shore Club Building"),
which fronts the east side of Collins Avenue, and which was developed in 1949
by Albert Anis;
• the eight-story contributing Cromwell Hotel building ("Cromwell Building"), which
fronts the south side of 20th Street, and which was developed in 1939 by Robert
A Taylor;
• the eight-story contributing addition to the south side of the Shore Club Building,
which was developed in 1955 by Melvin Grossman (the "Grossman Annex"); and
• the twenty-story non-contributing addition at the center of the property and non-
contributing cabanas developed by David Chipperfield Architects in 2001 (the
"Chipperfield Additions").
071-2023
O n M a y 1 0 , 2 0 2 2 , th e H P B a p p ro v e d a C e rt ifi c a te o f A p p r o p r ia te n e s s fo r a s ig n ifi c a n t
re d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e S h o r e C lu b p ro p e rt y to a lig n w it h th e C ity 's lo n g -te rm g o a ls fo r a
re s ilie n t liv e , w o r k , a n d p la y c o m m u n ity . A m o n g o th e r e le m e n ts , th e a p p ro v e d
re d e v e lo p m e n t p ro p o s e s to :
• s u b s ta n t ia ll y re d u c e th e in te n s ity o f h o te l u s e o n th e P ro p e rt y fro m 3 1 2 h o te l u n its
to a m a x im u m o f 6 5 h o te l u n its ;
• d e v e lo p a n e w s e v e n t e e n -s to ry o c e a n -fa c in g c o n d o m in iu m to w e r w ith a m a x im u m
o f 8 0 u n its ;
• re s t o r e th e h is to r ic fe a t u r e s o f th e S h o r e C lu b B u ild in g a n d lo b b y ;
• re m o v e th e G ro s s m a n A n n e x a n d C h ip p e rf ie ld A d d itio n s ; a n d
• re s t o r e th e h is to r ic fe a t u r e s o f th e C ro m w e ll B u ild in g lo b b y w h ile h a r m o n iz in g th e
lo b b y w it h th e e n t r a n c e w a y to th e n e w re s id e n t ia l to w e r a d d itio n .
T h e S e ta i R e s o rt a n d R e s id e n c e s C o n d o m in iu m A s s o c ia tio n , In c . a n d a u n it o w n e r
a p p e a le d th e H P B 's d e c is io n , a r g u in g th a t th e H P B fa ile d to c o m p ly w ith th e C ity C o d e 's
p ro c e d u r a l a n d z o n in g re q u ir e m e n ts . A ft e r c o n s id e r in g th e p a rt ie s ' b r ie fs a n d h e a rin g th e
p a rt ie s ' a r g u m e n t s , S p e c ia l M a g is t r a te M a e r ru le d th a t a ll o f th e o b je c to rs ' a rg u m e n ts
la c k e d m e r it.
T h e C it y 's c a s e w a s lit ig a te d e n t ir e ly in -h o u s e b y D e p u ty C ity A tt o rn e y N ic k K a lle rg is a n d
S e n io r A s s is t a n t C ity A tt o rn e y F r e d d i M a c k .
A c o p y o f th e S p e c ia l M a g is t r a te 's O r d e r is a tt a c h e d . F e e l fr e e to c o n ta c t m e o r C h ie f
D e p u t y C ity A tto rn e y R o b e rt R o s e n w a ld fo r fu rt h e r in fo r m a t io n a b o u t th is o r a n y C ity
lit ig a t io n m a tte r .
R A P /R F R /f m
B E F O RE T H E S P E C IAL M A G I S T RA T E
F O R T H E H I S T O RI C P RES E RV A T I O N B O A R D
H P F IL E N O . 2 1 -0 4 8 1
C A S E N O H P S M -2 0 2 2 -0 0 4
IN RE : SH O RE CLUB
PR O PERTY OWNER,
LLC 19 0 1 C O LLIN S
AVENUE, MIAMI BEACH
ORDER
This Order concerns the appeal by Appellants, Setai Resort &
Residences Condominium Association, Inc., and Stephen Soloway
(collectively, the "Appellants") from the Order of the Historic
Preservation Board (the "HPB") dated May 16, 2022, approving, with
conditions, the application filed by Shore Club Property Owner, LLC
("Shore Club" or "Applicant") for a Certificate of Appropriateness (the
"COA'') for the property located at 1901 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach,
Florida (the "Property").
BACKGROUND
The Property is located within the Miami Beach Architectural
District and the Ocean Drive/Collins Avenue Local Historic District.
It contains the 3-story Shore Club Hotel contributing building, the 8-
story Cromwell Hotel contributing building and the 8-story
contributing addition to the south side of the Shore Club Building (the
"G rossm an An n ex") as w ell as the 20-story non -contribu ting addition
at the cen ter of the Pr operty and non-con tri bu tin g caban as (the
"C hipperfield A ddition s").
The Sh ore C lu b application requested a C O A fo r the partial
dem olition an d renovation of tw o bu ildings on the site, the total
dem olition of tw o buildings, the construction of tw o new additi ons and
landscape and hardscape m odificati on s (the "Project") fr om th e C ity
of M iam i B each (th e "C ity"). N o variances or w aivers w ere requested.
(V ol. 1 at A.000032-33)1
AP PLIC ATIO N PR O C E SS :
1) The In itial Proposal, con tin u ed by th e H PB to M arch 8, 2022 du e
to certain Staff recom m endation s.
2) Th e First Am en ded Proposal, presented at the M arch 8, 2022 H PB
pu blic hearing, an d then contin u ed to the M ay 10, 2022 m eeting so
that the A pplican ts cou ld address: A ) The preserv ation of th e
G rossm an An nex; B ) th e im pact of th e m assin g of th e proposed
addition on th e adjacent C rom w ell B uilding; and C ) th e restoration of
th e ribbed glass feature on the Shore C lub B u ilding's C ollins Aven u e
facade. (M AR T.0000 121-126).
1 References to Appellants' Appendix shall be identified as "Vol. [number], at [A. page number) in conformity with
Appellants' Index. References to pages of the transcript of the March 8, 2022 HPB hearing shall be identified as
"MART.[page number]" in conformity with the court reporter's pagination. References to pages of the transcript of
the MAY 10, 2022 HPB hearing shall be identified as "MAYT.[page number]" in conformity with the court reporter's
pagination. References to pages of the transcript of the September 13, 2022 Petitions for Rehearing shall be
identified as SEPT (page number)" in conformity with the court reporter's pagination. References to the
Appellee's Appendix shall be identified as "App., [Specific Document within Appendix], Page Number)"
2
3) T h e S eco n d Am en d ed Pr op osal, co n sid ered at th e M a y 10 , 20 2 2 ,
H P B Pu b lic H ea rin g . T h e C O A w a s ap p roved , su bject to th e Sta ff
r e c o m m en d ed con d ition s an d ad d ition a l co n d iti on s (th e "P roffered
C o n d i t io n s ") im p o s e d b y t h e H P B at th e co n cl u sion of th e Pu b li c
H e a ri n g w h ich fu rth er red u ced th e m a ssin g an d in ten sity of th e
p r oj e c t . (V o l. 1 at A . 0 0 0 0 0 1)
4) T h e A pp ell an t's Petition fo r R eh ea rin g, w h ich w a s den ied b y
th e H P B at its Sep tem b er 13 , 20 22 m eetin g an d th is ap p ea l en su ed .
(V ol. 1 at A .0 0 0 0 0 8 )
PU B L IC H E A R IN G S
M A R C H 08 , 20 2 2 H P B
T h e C ity's H istoric P reserv ation an d Ar ch itectu re O fficer
D e b o r a h T a ck ett , a m em b er of th e C ity 's Pla n n in g D ep a rtm en t (th e
"D e p a r t m e n t ") reco m m en d ed ap p rov al of th e Pr oject, su bject to
c o n d i t io n s . T h e H P B h e a r d t e s t im o n y fr o m m e m b e r s o f t h e A pp lica n t's
t e a m , in cl u d i n g it s a r c h i t e c t , P r o fe s s o r o f Ar c h it e c t u r e a t Y a l e
U n iv e r s i ty , R o b e r t A .M . S t e r n , a n d S t e v e n G . A v d a k o v , it s h i s t o r ic
p r e s e rv a ti o n a r c h i t e c t , a n d s e v e r a l o t h e r e x p e r t w it n e s s e s , d e s c r ib i n g
h o w t h e F ir s t Am e n d e d P r o p o sa l m et th e C O A cri teria set fo rth in
S e c t i o n 1 1 8 -5 6 4 of th e C o d e.
K e n t H a r r i s o n R o b b i n s , rep resen tin g th e A p p ell a n ts, objected to
th e First Am en d ed Prop o sa l w ith th e a ssistan ce of a 30 -p a g e sl id e
sh ow , an d w as p erm itt ed to cro ss exa m in e. (M A R C H T .0 0 0 0 5 0 -5 9 )
H P B m em b ers exp ressed th eir co n cern s ab o u t th e prop o sa l,
in cl u d in g th e m a ssin g of th e prop osed Project an d dem o lition of a
3
c o n t r i b u t i n g b u i ld i n g , a n d c o n t in u e d t h e m a t t e r t o it s M ay 1 0 , 2 0 2 2
m e e t i n g .
M AY 1 0 , 2 0 2 2 H P B
M s . T a c k e tt r e c o m m e n d e d a p p r o v a l o f t h e S e c o n d Am e n d e d
P r o p o s a l , e x p l a in in g t o t h e H P B th a t th i s p r o p o s a l, wi t h t h e
D e p a r t m e n t 's r e c o m m e n d e d c o n d i t io n s , m e t t h e H P B c ri t e r ia a n d t h e
c o n c e rn s e x p r e s s e d a t t h e M a r c h 8, 2022 HPB meeting. The scope of
demolition was reduced so that all contributing structures would be
preserved, the mass of the proposed addition was reduced and the
ribbed glass would be included in the Shore Club's fa~ade. No
variances or waivers were requested. (MAYT. 000004-6)
The Shore Club team testified that the residential building
would be 50,000 square feet smaller than the one in the First
Amended Proposal, historic features would be restored, there would
be substantial reduction in traffic from the prior Shore Club Hotel
operation and the loading area in the Second Amended Proposal
would minimize impacts on 20h Street.
Appellant's counsel raised new objections and presented
another slide show to the HPB. (MAYT. 000047 - 57)
Testimony from members of the public in support of the Project
included several Miami Beach residents with expertise in historic
preservation and urban design. These supporters included: Herb
Sosa, former Chair of the HPB, former Executive Director of the Miami
Design Preservation League, and former President of Dade Heritage
Trust (MAYT. 000071-81); John Stuart, an architect and former
4
m em ber of the H PB , (M AY T . 000036) an d W yn B radley, fo rm er
m em ber of th e H PB (M AY T . 0000 39 )
O ther pu blic speakers su p portin g th e project incl uded : B ri an
D avi s, on behalf of the N autilu s H otel, th e im m ediate south ern
neighbor to the Sh ore C lub property; T im oth y S ch m and , on behalf of
the Lincoln R oad B u sin ess Im provem en t D istrict; Jon athan Plutz ik,
an own er of the n earby the B etsy H otel; an d C arter M cD ow ell ,
represen ting B H I M iam i, th e developer of th e B u lgari H otel on the
north side of the S etai. (M AY T . 00007 1-83)
After hearing the H PB express reserv ation s as to th e m assin g,
the A pplicant proffered changes to th e Second Am en ded Pr oposal
w hich w ou ld redu ce th e siz e and len gth of the tow er even m ore, and
address signage and oth er con cern s (th e "Pr offered C ondit ions").
(M AY T . 000 13 7) B oard m em bers expressed their satisfaction th at
these redu ction s w ou ld m ake the Project m ore com patible w ith th e
surroun ding properties and voted to gran t th e C O A su bject to all of
the condition s. (M AY T . 000 15 7-15 9)
STA N D A R D O F R E V IE W
M iam i B each C ity C ode, S ecti on 118 -9(c)(4 ) (th e "C ode")
establish es the lim ited scope of revi ew befo re the S pecial M agistrate.
It provides that the S p eci al M agistrate, in its revi ew of th e order of
the HPB, shall determine whether (i) procedural due process was
provided; (ii) the essential requirements of law were observed; and (iii)
the HPB's decision was supported by substantial competent
evidence.
5
Although termed an appeal, this standard is the same as the
first-tier certiorari review of municipalities' quasi-judicial land-use
decisions in a Florida circuit court. B ro w a rd C n ty . v. G .B . V. Int'7, 7 8 7
So. 2 d 8 3 8 , 8 4 2 (Fla . 2 0 0 1); C ity of D e e rfi e ld B e a ch v. Va lla n t, 4 1 9
So. 2 d 62 4 (Fl a. 19 8 2); Ha in e s C ity C om m u n ity D e v. v. Heg g s, 6 5 8
S o.2 d 5 2 3, 5 2 9 (Fl a. 19 9 5).
Certiorari review of local government action is deliberately
circumscribed out of deference to the agency's technical mastery of
its field of expertise. Mu rcia n o v. S ta te 2 0 8 So. 3 d 13 0 (Fla . 3 d D CA
2 0 1 6); Me tro. D a d e C n ty . v. P . J . B ird s In c., 6 5 4 So. 2 d 1 7 0,1 7 5 (Fla .
3 d D CA 19 9 5).
APPELLANTS WERE AFFORDED DUE PROCESS
Procedural due process requirements of quasi-judicial hearings
are significantly less stringent than those for judicial hearings.
Quasi-judicial proceedings are not controlled by strict rules of
evidence and procedure. "Due process is a flexible concept and
requires only that the proceeding be essentially fair." C a ri llon C m ty .
R e sid e n ti al v. S e m in ole Cn ty, 4 5 S. 3 d 7, 9 (Fl a. 5h D CA 2 0 1 0)
Je n n in g s v. D a d e Cn ty., 5 8 9 So. 2 d 13 3 7 (Fla . 3 d D CA 19 9 1). The
'core' of due process is the right to notice and the opportunity to be
h ea rd . L a C h a n ce v. E ri ck so n, 5 3 3 US 2 6 2 (1998) [p a ra lle l cita ti on s
o m itte d]")
Appellants do not argue lack of notice or opportunity to be heard
at the HPB hearings. (Appellant's Reply Brief at Page 13). They
participated in each hearing, and engaged in cross examination.
6
Th ey a ga in ex p ressed th eir objection s a fter th e cl ose of th e secon d
p u b lic h ea ri n g , ju st befo re th e actu a l vote w a s ta k en (M AY T . 00 0 15 3 -
15 4 .)
A p p ell an ts prop osed du e process vio la tion s are w ith ou t m erit.
1) A p p ell a n ts h a v e n o du e p rocess righ t to rev iew revi sed p lan s
at still an oth er h ea rin g w h en th e P roffered C on d ition s red u ced th e
siz e an d len gth , an d th u s th e in ten sity , of th e Project, in crea sin g its
c o m p a t i b i l it y w ith th e n eigh b o rh oo d .
R e q u i ri n g a n a d d i t io n a l p u b l ic h ea rin g any ti m e con d ition s w ere
n o t a l r e a d y in cl u d e d in t h e a p p l i c a t io n , as Ap p ella n ts argu e, even
th ou gh th e ch a n ges w ere of ben efi t to th e n eigh b orh oo d an d red u ced
th e size of th e d evelop m en t, w ou ld ca u se co stl y an d u n n ecessary
d elay , an d dissu a d e ap p li can ts fr om offerin g co n cession s th a t resu lt
in better projects.
C o d e Section 118 -5 6 1 (b ) em p ow ers th e H P B to att a ch co n d ition s
at th e sa m e tim e it gra n ts th e C O A : "In gran tin g a C ertifi ca te of
A p p rop ria ten ess, th e H P B an d th e pla n n in g dep a rtm en t m ay
prescrib e ap p ro p ria te con d ition s an d sa fe gu a rd s, eith er as p a rt of a
w ritten ord er or on a p p rov ed plan s." C od e Section l 18 -5 6 4 (d ) also
em p ow ers th e H P B to atta ch w ritten con d itio n s to th e C O A w ith ou t
th e n eed for an oth er h ea rin g .
T h e HPB determined it had enough information to properly
evaluate the Second Amended Proposal and Proffered Conditions.
It had held two public hearings, heard testimony from the public,
including the Appellants, examined the Application and exhibits,
7
discu ssed the issues w ith A pplicant's expert s, w ith the A ppellants,
w ith Staff and Le gal C oun sel, and am ong th em selves.
Its C hair, M r. Lo pez, stated:
I think the presen tation s have been thorough ; the team s
representing both the appellan t an d the public have
been excellen t. ... The B oard has had a ch ance to ask
questions, to voice concerns, to m ake com m ents. W e've
had th e applicant proffer som e solutions that w ill
a c t u a lly p r e s e rv e t h e o c e an vi ew s fo r m any residents in
th e S e t a i, w h ic h I th in k is im p o r t a n t t o m a ny o f t h e
in d ivi d u a l s h e r e ... (M AY T . 0 0 0 1 5 7 )
H P B m e m b e r M r. B r e s lin u n d e r s t o o d th a t t he Project w as
c o m p a t ible w ith the neighborhood: H e discu ssed buildin gs in the
im m ediate area and concl uded w ith: "... So, I don 't th ink that th is
m assing is out of place." (M AY T. 000134)
The H PB 's expert staff had advi sed it the design changes w ere
specific and m easu rable, m inor in nature and w ere in sufficien t detail
fo r staff to im plem en t and enfo rce. Staff testified the Proffered
C o n d it io n s w e r e "cry stal cl ear" and specific and there w ou ld be no
problem in im plem en ting them . Its legal cou n sel advi sed the
m em bers that the C ode em pow ered the HPB to attach reasonable
conditions and safeguards. (MAYT. 000158)
Additional safeguards and reasonable conditions are frequently
attached to approvals of land use applications during public hearings,
and land use codes are written to provide for this flexibility. This
8
p r o vi d e s a w a y t o a d d r e s s c o n c e r n s r a is e d b y t h e p u b li c a n d th o s e o f
t h e b o a r d m e m b e r s w ith o u t th e n e e d fo r a n a d d it io n a l p u b li c h e a r in g .
T h e H P B d e t e r m in e d th e S e c o n d Am e n d e d Pr o p o s a l w ith th e
a d d i t io n a l r e d u c t io n s im p o s e d b y t h e P r o ffe r e d C o n d itio n s , th u s
r e d u c i n g t h e in t e n s ity o f th e P r oj e c t , m e t t h e C O A c r it e r ia . T h e S p e c ia l
M a g is t r a t e is p r o h ib it e d fr o m r e -w e ig h in g t h e e vi d e n c e b e fo r e th e
H P B . Broward Cnty. v. G.B. V. Intern., Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838, 846
(Fla.2001)
(2) The HPB did not improperly delegate its quasi-judicial
authority to Staff by the attachment of the Proffered Conditions to
the Order granting the COA. Adopting technical and measurable
criteria for its professional staff to implement is an acceptable
delegation of non-discretionary authority. Sims v. State, 754 So. 2d
657, 669 (Fla. 2000); St. Johns Cty. v. NE. Fla. Builders Ass'n, 583 So.
2d 635, 642 (Fla. 1991). Doing so ensures that the design of the
Project complies with the intent of the HPB members.
Appellee's citation to Avatar Dev. Corp. v. State, 723 So.2d 199,
207 (Fla. 1998) is applicable and demonstrative of the case at hand.
In that case, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the authority of an
administrative agency to impose enforceable permit conditions. It
opined that the administrative body "is in the best position to
establish appropriate standards and conditions for applicants." The
Supreme Court explained that that agency, as is applicable to the
HPB in the instant matter, "employs persons equipped with the
knowledge and expertise necessary to handle such highly technical
9
an d in trica te m a tters in th e en d less variety of rea l-life situ a ti on s th a t
are presen ted [.]" Id.
The City's experienced Staff can properly administer a carefully
drafted and measurable condition such as that which is contained in
the COA Criteria 1 (C) (g):
The first eight (BJ levels of the new tower addition
shall be reduced in length by 30'0" from the east,
in a manner to be reviewed and approved by staff
consistent with the Certificate of Appropriateness
Criteria and/or the directions from the Board. (Vol.
1, a t A.000002)
This is purely a ministerial act of measurement. The other
Proffered Conditions contain similarly measurable, specific, and
detailed instructions. (Vol. 1, at A.000002)
3) The HPB did not violate Appellants' due process by failing to
strike Appellee's filing of the Shore Club HPB Supplemental Package
(the "Supplemental Package"). (Vol. 4 at A.000973) There is no legal
authority establishing a time frame for submission of evidence. The
Applicant is entitled to submit evidence in support of its Second
Amended Proposal. (Code Section 118-562) The HPB has no
obligation to address motions to strike or objections to evidence.
"Quasi -judicial proceedings are not controlled by strict rules of
evidence and procedure" Jennings, Id. at 1340.
10
A p p e ll a n t s e nj o y e d fa r in e x c e s s o f th e m i n i m u m d u e p r o c e s s t o
w h i c h t h e y w e r e e n ti t le d in th is q u a s i -j u d ic i a l p r o c e e d i n g .
T H E E S S E N T IAL R E Q U I R E M E N T S O F LA W W E R E M E T
T h e r e q u i r e d "d e p a rt u r e fr o m th e e s s e n t ia l r e q u ir e m e n t s o f la w "
s t a n d a r d is a s t a n d a r d o f r e vi e w t h a t "m e a n s s o m e t h i n g fa r b e y o n d
le g a l e r r o r ." Jones v State, 477 So. 2d 566, 569 (Fla. 1985) (Boyd, C.J.
concurring specially) "an inherent illegality or irregularity, an abuse
of judicial power, an act of judicial tyranny perpetrated with
disregard of procedural requirements, resulting in a gross
miscarriage of justice." Heggs, supra
The Special Magistrate must review the record to determine
whether the applicable law was applied in accordance with the
established procedure. Dade Cnty. v Gayer, 388 So. 2d 512, 515 (Fla.
3d DCA 1998) In doing so, great deference must be given to the City's
interpretation of the codes and regulations it is charged with
administering. Its interpretation will not be reversed unless clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. Carillon Cmty. Residential v. Seminole
Cnty, 45 S. 3d 7, 9 (Fla. 5W DCA 2010)
As previously stated on page 6 of this Order, certiorari review of
local government action is deliberately circumscribed out of
deference to the agency's technical mastery of its field of expertise.
Approving the COA subject to the Proffered Conditions complied
with the HPB's governing Code provisions and was not a violation of
the essential requirements of law.
11
Staff testified th at the im pact of th e Proffered Condition is to
reduce the length of the developm ent and the m ax im um floor plates.
Staff found this to be a minor change th at enhanced th e com patibility
of the Project with the neighborhood.
The HPB determ ined it had sufficient info rm ation upon w hich
to m ake its decision on M ay 10. The affirm ative vote of all except one
m em ber of the HPB dem onstrates that the Board felt it understood
the Application and the Proffered Conditions and could evaluate
them against the COA criteria. (See pages 4 and 5 of this Order)
Relying on its own expertise and experience, and after discussion
among themselves, the HPB determined the project, as modified by
the Proffered Conditions, met the COA criteria for approval.
The Appellant would like the Special Magistrate to determine
the Proffered Conditions constitute a major change to the design, and
that revised plans must be submitted at another hearing before the
HPB before a vote could be taken. (Appellants' Reply Brief, p. 27)
However, that would be impermissible. To do so, the Special
Magistrate would have to reject the Staff interpretation of the rules
under which it operates on a daily basis, and would have to reweigh
the evidence.
As stated earlier in this order, the HPB and the City's
professional staff are in the best position to interpret the codes under
which it operates.
The HPB had the authority in the Code to approve projects
subject to conditions and Staff and the HPB strictly followed the law
in granting this COA.
12
Lo a d in g Sp a ces
A pp ella n ts att em p t to argu e th a t th e essen tia l req u irem en ts of
law w ere vi o la ted b eca u se th e req u ired th ree (3) off-str eet loa d in g
sp a ces are n o t in cl u d ed in th e A p p lica tion , an d in th eir ab sen ce, n o
on -street loa d in g p la n or loa d in g w a iver ob tain ed , prior to th e H P B
decision .
H ow ever, th e Sp ecia l M a gistra te fi n d s th is sta tem en t to b e
factu a lly in co rrect as th ree loa d in g sp a ces are vi sib le on th e p lan s,
an d n o on -street loa d in g p la n or w a iver is req u ired . (V ol 4 at
A . 0 0 0 7 9 9 an d A .0 0 0 8 0 1)
A pp ell an ts th en att em p t to argu e th at th e loa d in g sp aces m u st
ea ch acco m m o d a te a 40 -foot-lon g tru ck . T h e A p p ell an ts are
m isrea d in g th e cl ea r lan g u a ge of th e ap p li ca b le C o d e. T h e C o d e does
n o t req u ire loa d in g spa ces la rger th a n 10 fe et b y 20 feet, an d
em p ow ers Sta ff to determ in e th e a p p rop ri ate sca le of lo a d in g spa ces
b a sed on th e delivery veh icl es ex p ected to be u sed . C o d e Section
13 0 -10 3 (1) A t lea st on e of th e th ree (3) loa din g sites is large en ou gh
to acco m m od a te a 40 -foo t-lon g tru ck (A p p ., T raffic Stu d y 0 5 -10 -2 2 ,
A tta ch m en t G -1)
C O A criteria req u ir es th a t H P B ex a m in e loca tion , d esig n ,
screen in g an d bu fferin g of all req u ir ed serv ice or d elivery bay s fo r
m in im u m im p a ct on adja cen t prop erties. C od e 11 8 -5 6 4 (a )(3)(0). Staff
testifi ed th a t th e n u m b er, siz e an d co n fi gu ra tion of th e loa d in g
sp a ces m et th e req u irem en ts of th e C o d e.
A pp ell an ts a rgu e th a t th e m a n eu v erab ility of veh icl es at th e site
w a s n ot an a lyzed . H ow ever, Sta ff testified th a t th e C ity's
13
tran sportati on depart m ent revi ew ed m an euverability in and out of
the site. (V O L 7 at SE PT .0 00044 )
The Traffic E n gineer testified:
W ith regard to th e loadin g: T h e loadin g space
w as vett ed fo r th e site to en su re that loading
veh icl es cou ld adequ ately, you know , access
th e loading bay an d serv e the site w ith w hile
m inim izi n g im p acts to 20h S treet and th e
pu blic right of w ay. T h at w as a critic al piece of
an alysis th at w e su bm itt ed to th e C ity fo r
revi ew ." (M AY T . 000027 )
A ppellan ts argue th at the H PB did n ot h ave sufficient eviden ce
to evaluate criteria related to the ingress an d egr ess of traffi c and its
flow alon g the 20 Street corridor, including criteria in Code Section
118-564(a)(3) (Appellants' Initial Brief at 40).
However, the testimony of the Traffic Engineer contradicts this
statement. His testimony is supplemented by the expert traffic study,
dated April 14, 2022, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.,
(the "Traffic Study"), which is part of the Application. The Traffic
Study analyzed the potential traffic impacts of the Project. The Traffic
Engineer testified that the Project represents a decrease in traffic
compared to what was there previously, and that the Project itself
and loading vehicles from the Project will not exacerbate the current
situation on 20h Street. (MAYT.000026)
Staff at the September 13, 2022 HPB's Hearing on the Petitions
for Rehearing of the May 10, 2022 decision of the HPB to grant the
14
C O A t e s t ifi e d t h a t S t a ff h a s d e t e r m in e d th e P r o p e r ty c a n
a c c o m m o d a t e a ll o f t h e r e q u ir e d lo a d in g , t h a t th e T r a ffi c S t u d y w a s
p a r t o f th e r e c o r d b e fo r e t h e H P B a t t h e M a y 1 0 , 2 0 2 2 h e a rin g , th a t
t h e lo a d in g w a s d is c u s s e d a t b o t h h e a r in g s , a n d th a t th e H P B
m e m b e r s h a d t h is in fo r m a t io n b e fo r e t h e y vo t e d . (S E PT . 0 0 0 0 3 4 )
A p p e ll a n t s a r e n o t c o m p e t e n t t o c h a ll e n g e th e d a ta ,
m e t h o d o l o gy o r c o n cl u s io n s in th e T r a ffi c S t u d y a n d th e r e fo r e th e ir
s t a t e m e n t s a r e n o t r e le v an t a n d a r e d is r e g a r d e d . Pollard v. Palm
Beach C nty., 560 So. 2d 1358, 1359 (Fl a. 4h D CA 1990) Where
technical expertise is required lay opinion testimony is not valid
evidence upon which a determination can be based in whole or in
part. Jesus Fellowship, Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cn ty., 752 So. 2d 708, 710
(Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
Furthermore, the COA Criteria included in Code Section 118-
564(a)(3)(f) do not require the type of analysis for proposed restaurant
and beverage uses that Appellants assert. The COA Criteria as to
traffic issues require only that it be designed to ensure safe and
convenient pedestrian and vehicular access. The City's Staff report
and analysis found that the traffic COA Criteria were "satisfied".
VOL. 2 at A.000363)
The concern raised by Appellants in its Reply Brief as to
potential future zoning is speculative and not relevant to this limited
review on certiorari. It is noted, however, that HPB Order for COA
dated May 10, 2022, (VOL. 1 at A.000006) provides that: "nothing in
this order authorizes violation of the City Code or other applicable
15
law , n o r allow s a relax a tion of an y req u ir em en t or sta n d a rd set fo rth
in th e C ity C o d e" an d , fu rt h er, "th e issu a n ce of th e ap p rov al do es n ot
reli ev e th e ap p li ca n t fr om ob tain in g all oth er req u ired .... revi ew s an d
perm its, in cl u d in g fi n a l zon in g app rov al".
T h e H P B fo ll ow ed th e essen tia l req u irem en ts of th e law in
gra n tin g th e C O A .
T H E H P B 'S D E C IS IO N W A S SU P P O R T E D B Y S U B S TAN T IAL
C O M P E T E N T E V ID E N C E
T h e H P B 's O rd er m u st be u p h eld if th ere is an y co m p eten t
su b stan tial evid en ce su p p ortin g it. Dorian v. Davis, 874 So.2d 661
(Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Eckler v. Orange Cnty., 73 So.2d 545 (Fla. 5%
DCA 2000) (holding that a quasi-judicial determination by a local
government should be upheld if any valid reason is supported by the
record).
"On first-tier certiorari review, the circuit court's task is to
review the record for evidence that supports the agency's decision,
not that rebuts it - for the court cannot reweigh the evidence.
[Emphasis original]" Broward Cnty. v. G.B. V. Intern., Ltd., 787 So.2d
838, 846, n.25, (Fla. 2001), citing Haines City Community Dev. v.
Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 530 (Fla.1995)
The Special Magistrate's review is limited in scope and cannot
reweigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment for that of the HPB.
Broward Cnty., Id. at 846 n.25 (Fla.2001); Heggs, Id. at 530.
The City's Planning Director, Thomas R. Mooney, AICP,
submitted his "Staff Report and Recommendations" to the May 10,
2022 HPB meeting, recommending approval of the Project, subject to
16
en um erated conditions. M s. Tackett presen ted the D epartm ent's
analysis and recom m endation of approval, testifying that the
A pplication m et th e C O A criteri a su bject to the Staff recom m ended
condition s contained in its R eport.
M s. Tackett testified that the Proffered C on ditions, w hich
redu ced the len gth of the tow er and the m ax im um siz e of the floor
plates, resulted in a design that achieves a greater level of
com patibility w ith the surrounding historic distric t.
These report s and verbal testim ony of Staff alon e are sufficient
com peten t an d substantial eviden ce to support the H PB 's approval of
the C O A w ith con dition s. Village of Palmetto Bay v. Palmer Tri nity
Pri v. Sch., Inc., 128 So. 3d 19, 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (finding that a
thorough staff review and subsequent written recommendation
constituted competent substantial evidence); City of Hialeah Gardens
v. Miami-Dade Charter Found., Inc., 857 So. 2d 202, 205 (Fla. 3d DCA
2003) (stating that the testimony of professional staff, when based on
"professional experiences and personal observations, as well as
[information contained in an] application," constitutes competent
substantial evidence); Du sseau v. Metro. Dade Cnty, 794 So. 2d 1270,
1275-76 (Fla. 2001). ("As long as the record contains competent
substantial evidence to support the agency's decision, the decision is
presumed lawful and the court's job is ended.");
Additionally, Applicant's plans, letters of intent, presentations,
and the testimony of its expert consultants constitute competent and
substantial evidence to approve the Project and issue the COA. Public
testimony referred to in the Public Hearing section of this Order from
17
fo r m e r m e m b e r s o f t h e H P B a n d fr o m a dj a c e n t a n d n e a r b y p r o p e r ty
o w n e r s a s t o t h e c o m p a t ib i li ty o f th e P r oj e c t wi t h t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d
c o n s t i t u t e a d d i ti o n a l c o m p e t e n t a n d s u b s t a n t i a l e v id e n c e t h a t t h e
H P B a c t e d c o r r e c t ly .
A s lo n g a s t h e r e c o r d c o n t a in s c o m p e t e n t s u b s t a n t ia l e vi d e n c e
t o s u p p o rt t h e a g e n c y 's d e c is i o n , t h e d e c i s io n is p r e s u m e d la wf u l
a n d t h e c o u rt 's j o b is e n d e d . Du sseau, Id. at 1275-76.
AND ultimately, the Special Magistrate only looks to see if the
record contains substantial competent evidence to support the HPB
decision, which it does.
CONCLUSION
The Special Magistrate finds that the Appellants were afforded
due process, that the essential requirements of law were followed and
that there was competent substantial evidence to support the
decision of the HPB.
Accordingly, the Historic Preservation Board's decision is AFFIRMED.
DATE: February 13, 2023
Miriam Maer
Special Magistrate
Copies to: Laura Torres-Garzon, Clerk of the Special Magistrate
All Counsel of Record
18