Enrique Norten South Beach Zoning Questioned

8/12/2019 Enrique Norten South Beach Zoning Questioned

1/35

FROMTHECITYATTORNEYSOFFICE

July21,2014

DearMr.Walters:

Iapologizeforthedelayinnotrespondingsooner. Mr.Aguilaaskedmeto

respondtoyouremail. Pleasebeadvisedthatwealsoopinedthattheproposal

wasnotspotzoning. Pleaseseeattached. Further,disclosureofnonclient

relationshipsisnotrequired. Pleaseletmeknowifyouneedanythingfurther.

Sincerely,

GaryHeld


2/35

MIAN\IE CHMEMOR NDUM

TO Land Use and Development CommitteeFROM Jose Smith, City AttorneyGary M. Held, First Asst. City Attorney D TE June 6 2011SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ON THE OCE N BEACH HISTORIC DISTRICT R PS ZONING

MENDMENTThe City Attorney s Office was requested to review the proposed amendment todetermine whether it violated spot zoning. In addition, after further consideration, weevaluated whether the proposed amendment violated principles of equal protection. Inboth instances, the conclusion is that while we have a concern that not all propertieswithin the zoning district will benefit from the proposed amendment, no violation of spotzoning or equal protection should result from its adoption.Spot zoning:Florida s Third District Court of Appeal ( DCA ) has cited approvingly the followingexplanation of spot zoning: .

The definition of spot zoning is well established: Spot zoning is the namegiven to the piecemeal rezoning of small parcels of .Iand to a greaterdensity, leading to disharmony with the surrounding area. Spot z.oning isusually thought of as giving preferential treatment to one parcel at theexpense of the zoning scheme as a whole.Further, the Third [DCA] detailed spot zoning as: [A] rezoning whichcreates a small island of property with restrictions on its use different fromthat of surrounding properties-solely for the benefit of a particular propertyowner.In characterizing the elements of spot zoning, a spot zoning challengetypically involves the examination o the following: 1 the size of the spot;2 the compatibility with the surrounding area; 3 the benefit to the ownerand 4 the detriment to the immediate neighborhood.

Bird-Kendall Homeowners Ass n v. Metro. Dade County Bd. of County Comm rs, 695So. 2d 908 910 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (citations omitted).Attorneys for the property owner proposing the residential project that h s resulted inthis proposed amendment have submitted a legal memorandum that analyzes theamendment under this last test suggesting that no spot zoning arises from this

lUDC 7


3/35

June 6 2011and Use andDevelopment Committee MeetingRPS-4 Zoning DistrictAmendment - Proposed Modifications Current Height RestrictionsPage ofproposal. We have no dispute with the overall n l ~ s s and conclusion reached in thatmemo.A comprehensive explanation of spot zoning is found in an article published in theAmerican Law Reports ALR , which describes the tests courts use in evaluating spotzoning:

There is no precise formula for determining whether the zoning orrezoning o a particular parcel constitutes illegal spot zoning. As athreshold matter, the courts have generally noted that a parcel cannot betoo large per se to preclude a finding of illegal spot zoning, nor can it be sosmall that it mandates a finding of illegal spot zoning. One court, forexample, found illegal spot zoning where the reclassified parcel was 635acres in an affected area o 7,680 acres. Although the courts invariablyevaluate the size of the parcel in question, they have made clear that thesize of the parcel in question is not alone determinative of illegal spotzoning. Nor does the reclassification of more than one parcel negate thepossibility of finding illegal spot zoning. Courts have invalidated zoningamendments after finding that a multiple-parcel reclassification was asubterfuge to obscure the actual purpose of special treatment for aparticular landowner.The most widely accepted tests for determining illegal spot zoning,sometimes stated in combination, sometimes separately, are whether thezoning of the parcel in question is in accordance with a comprehensivezoning plan; whether'the zoning of the subject parcel is compatible withthe uses in the surrounding area; and whether the zoning of the subjectproperty serves the public welfare or merely confers a discriminatorybenefit on the owner of the property. These criteria are flexible andprovide guidelines for jUdicial balancing of interests.

Determinqtion whether zoning or rezoning o particular parcel constitutes illegal spotzoning 73 A.L.R.5th 223 (originally published 1999) (Citations and footnotes omitted).

Using the most widely accepted tests from the ALR article, the proposed amendmentis in accordance with the City's comprehensive zoning plan, is compatible with the usesin the surrounding area, and serves the public welfare, as explained in both Mr. DelVecchio's memorandum, and the staff report. Based upon these factors, and taking intoconsideration the analysis by the property owner's attorneys, we do not believe it likelythat the proposed amendment will be considered spot zoning. qual protectionWhile likely not spot zoning, some property owners within the RPS-4 district will benefitfrom this amendment, and others will not. As one court recently explained:

LUDC 77


4/35


5/35

June 6 2011Land Use and Development Committee MeetingRPS 4 Zoning DistrictAmendment - Proposed Modifications Current Height RestrictionsPage fregulations. Taking these factors into consideration in a rational basis test analysisthese are goals that the City Commission can pursue and it is conceivable that theproposed ordinance would further these purposes. Thus rational basis analysis issatisfied and it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed amendment is not likely tobe found to be violative of q u ~ protection.

GMH/sF:\ATTO\HELG\Ordinances\RPS-4 Apartments\Jun 2 11 RPS4 Heights - CAO MEMO doc

LUDC 79


6/35

MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

Page1of3

16July

2014

RaulAguila,Esq.

CityAttorney

CITYOFMIAMIBEACH

Subject:GreenbergTraurig23May2011adviceRPS4ZoningAmendment

DearMr.Aguila:

AttachedpleasefindGreenbergTraurigs23May2011LegalOpiniontotheCityofMiamiBeach

advisingthat

aproposed

amendment

to

RPS

4under

consideration

did

not

constitute

spot

zoning.

Itismyunderstandingthatanamendmentwasputforwardandinitiallydraftedbycounselat

large for the community, Frank Del Vecchio, Esq. The amendment would immediately and

clearly benefit of the owners and developers of the project, known as EnriqueNorten 321

Ocean Drive because its advertised architect is Enrique Norten, whom I do not believe is

licensedasanarchitectinthisstate.

Theowner is listedasaFloridaregistered foreign limited liabilitycompany,321OceanDrive,

LLC,managed

by

321

Ocean

Holding

LLC,

aDelaware

entity,

unregistered

in

this

state

the

last

time Ichecked.Thedeveloper isAriaDevelopmentGroupofNewYork,withprincipalsDavid

Arditi, JoshuaBenaimandTimGordon.Mr.Arditisparentscontrolawellknown realestate

company, CardinalDevelopment. The contractor is Coastal Construction, controlled by Tom

Murphy,whotestified infavoroftheamendment.Thesalesrepresentativepartneringonthe

projectisCerveraRealEstate,controlledbytheCerverafamily.

Mr.DelVechhiolivesadjacenttotheparcelsbeingdeveloped,andtheamendmentwasdesired

by him and neighbors to prevent the developers from carrying out their threat to sell the

propertyfor

hotel

development

ifthey

did

not

have

their

way,

acondominium

development

with aheightexceedingby far the current75 limitation;as if therewereonly aneither/or

option,eitherabighotelora tall condominium, ignoringotherpossibilities, suchasa small

hotelalongthelinesofthehistoriconethatwasinthatspot,oradogpark,etc.

GreenbergTraurigattorneysopinedthattheamendmentwouldhaveabroadbenefitinasmuch

asthequidproquoforincreasedheightwouldbegreatersetbacksonthesidesoffiveparcels


7/35


Page2of3

(theRoyalAtlantic, thePresidential,OceanPoint,Marriott,andHiltonBentley) therefore the

zoningwould not be for few people on a small spot. Furthermore, the additional sideback

requirement alongwith the zoning change thatwould allow the developers of 321 Enrique

Nortentobuildhigherwouldsomehownotbeincompatiblewiththesurroundingarea.

Asalaymanofaverageintelligenceacquaintedwiththeoceanfrontblocksinvolved,Iopinethat

Greenbergslegalopinioninthematterisspecious.

Iwillbegratefultoyou ifyouwillkindlyprovidemewiththeCityAttorneysopiniononthis

issue,andletmeknowiftheCityAttorneysofficerequiredGreenbergTraurigtodiscloseany

attorney/client relationships the firm may have had with the entities and persons named

above,andanyotherpersonswhoseidentityiscloakedbytheentities.

BestRegards,

DavidArthur

Walters

Whoreallybenefitedfromthespotzoning?


8/35


Page3of3

CommissionerEdTobinapplaudedbydevelopers


9/35

1

2

reenbergTraurigTo Gary Held, Esq.First City AttorneyCity of Miami Beach

From Lucia Dougherty, Esq.Edward Martos, Esq.Date May 23,2011Re Whether the proposed amendment of he RPS-4 zoning designation within theOcean Beach Historic District constitutes impermissible "spot zoning"

I. BACKGROUNDThe Ocean Beach Historic District (the "Historic District") in the City of Miami Beach

(the "City") contains approximately three city blocks that are zoned "Residential PerformanceStandard 4 or "RPS-4."1 The property within each of these three city blocks fronts the oceanand are divided into relatively narrow and deep lots. Under the RPS-4 designation, the City ofMiami Beach Zoning Code (the "Zoning Code") limits structures on 100-foot lots to a maximumheight of seventy-five feet. Within the three block area inside the Historic District, however, fivebuildings currently reach a height of 100 or more feet. See chart belowA proposed amendment to section 142-696 of the Zoning Code would modify the RPS-4zoning designation to increase potential building height and to create greater side setbackrequirements for apartment buildings within the Historic District on lots whose use has beenrestricted, as a condition precedent to their development approvals, to use as an apartmentbuilding for at least thirty years. The area affected by the proposed zoning change includes

twelve parcels. As noted above, five of these twelve are currently 100 feet or more in height.The majority of these parcels have been divided into condominiums. Apart from condominiumunit owners, four of the twelve parcels are owned by three separate entities. As noted below,five of the twelve parcels within the affected area would be eligible to benefit from the proposedzoning change.

o c e ~ ~ T he Arlington, ContributingHotel ,3_ 4D25 ocean rfh ;;savoy _ i o n t r i u ~ i n gr I Hotel ;

Outside the Historic District, the City contains only one other area zoned RPS-4, the areas nearby areas justsouth of South Point Drive which contains a number of high-rise residential projects that are dramatically standtaller than I 00 feet.

LUDC 63


10/35

Gary Held, Esq.May 23,2011Page2 of

1


11/35

Gary Held, Esq.May 23 2011Page 3 of7

ill DISCUSSIONSpot zoning occurs where a single property or a small area is rezoned in a piecemeal

manner. The practice is universally condemned for two reasons. See Parking Facilities, Inc.v. City ofMiami Beach, 88 So. 2d 141, 143 (Fla. 1956). First, the Courts have acknowledgedthat spot zoning is anathema to comprehensive planning. d (Invalidating the approval of aparking garage with ground-level retail within a residential neighborhood because the use of aportion of the building for stores or other business enterprises would violate the integrity of thedistrict and plant therein a growth which could well spread and destroy the character of theneighborhood. ); cf S. W Ranches Homeowners Ass n v. Broward County, 502 So. 2d 931 (Fla.4th DCA 1987) (Rezoning of a single parcel from low-density rural to allow a landfill andresource recovery plant was not spot zoning because such change was consistent with thecomprehensive plan and compatible with an adjacent prison.). Second, spot zoning offends thegeneral legal prohibition against special legislation. See e.g., City Commission of the City ofMiami v. Woodlawn Park Cemetery Co. 553 So.2d 1227, 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ( [A]rezoning which creates a small island of property with restrictions on its use different from thatof surrounding properties-solely for the benefit of a particular property owner-constitutes illegalspot zoning. On the other hand, singling out a small tract of land for a use restriction differentfrom that of surrounding properties may be upheld where the legislative action is properly relatedto the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. ).

Accordingly, Florida courts generally weigh four considerations when determiningwhether a particular zoning change amounts to illegal spot zoning. Namely, the Courts haveexamined:

1 The size of the spot;2) The compatibility with the surrounding area;3) The benefit to the owner; and4) The detriment to the immediate neighborhood.See Parking Facilities, Inc. v. City ofMiami Beach, 88 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1956); Dade County v.Inversiones Rafamar S.A., 360 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Examining each ofthe aboveconsiderations demonstrates that the proposed amendment to the RPS-4 designation does notamount to illegal spot zoning.

1 The Size of the SpotThe rezoning of a single parcel or of a small area is not spot zoning per se. Rather, the

size of the area that is rezoned serves merely as a proxy for measuring the degree to which theother considerations listed above are satisfied. If a zoning change affects only a small area, thereasoning goes, there exists a strong likelihood that the change is designed to benefit only theone or few landowner(s) within that area at the potential detriment to the general public welfare.Thus, although the rezoning of a 0.23-acre parcel from an agricultural use to a business usesolely to allow the operation of an animal feed store may embod[y], to the nth degree, all theevils of spot zoning, if such a rezoning is properly related to the public health safety, morals

LUDC 65


12/35

Gary Held, Esq.May23, 2011Page 4 ofand general welfare or is consistent with the purpose of the local comprehensive plan, then thesingling out [of] a small tract of land for a use restriction different from that of surroundingproperties may be upheld. Compare Bird-Kendall Homeowners Ass n v. Metropolitan DadeCounty Bd. of County Com rs, 695 So. 2d 908, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) with Woodlawn ParkCemetery, 553 So.2d at 1240 and Town ofJuno Beach v. McLeod, 832 So. 2d 864, 867 (Fla. 4thDCA 2002) (citing Southwest Ranches Homeowners Ass n, Inc. v. Broward County, 502 So. 2d931,935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

Applied to the present facts, the size of the spot test demonstrates that the proposedchange to the RPS-4 designation would not constitute spot zoning. The area affected by theproposed zoning change cannot be considered small or piecemeal. The area coversapproximately three city blocks, and constitutes all of the land designated RPS-4 within theHistoric District and approximately half of the land citywide that has been so designated.However, because the size of the spot test is less concerned with the actual size of the

area affected than the number of landowners affected as a result, the test is arguably betterconceptualized as a number of landowners affected test. See e.g., Little v. Board of CountyCom rs of Flathead County, 631 P.2d 1282, 1289 (Mont. 1981) ( The area in which therequested use is to apply is rather small, however, this factor is more concerned with the numberof separate landowners benefited by the requested change than it is with the actual size of thearea benefited. ) cited throughout NORMAN WILLIAMS JR. AND JOHN M. TAYLOR 1 .AMERICANLAND PLANNING LAW 28:2, TESTS FOR SPOT ZONING (July 2010). Taking this approach, showsthat the proposed zoning change inures to benefit of a large number of property owners.Approximately 1,030 property owners over twelve parcels will be subject to the zoning change.As of today, approximately five of the twelve parcels would be eligible to take advantage of theproposed zoning change's increased relaxed height restriction. The size of the spot test therebydemonstrates that the proposed zoning change does not amount to impermissible spot zoningbecause it does not inure to the sole benefit of one or a few landowners at the expense of thepublic interest or the comprehensive zoning of an area.

1 he Compatibility with the Surrounding AreaWhile the size of an area to be rezoned is not determinative ofwhether a proposed zoningchange constitutes spot zoning per se, the compatibility of a proposed change with existingcomprehensive planning and the surrounding neighborhood has been held to be determinative ofthe issue. See Debes v. City ofKey West 690 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (rezoning frommedium density residential to commercial use as a shopping center was appropriate andnecessary in light of he character of he surrounding neighborhood including neighboring zoning

designations); Town ofJuno Beach, 832 So. 2d at 864 (rezoning from residential to commercialoffice did not amount to spot zoning because the change was consistent with the town'scomprehensive plan where the land use designation permitted such development and the propertyacross the highway contained a commercial shopping center); Southwest Ranches HomeownersAss n, 502 So. 2d at 935; (citing Inversiones Rafamar S.A., 360 So. 2d at 1133) (construction ofa water treatment facility; see generally, City ofMary Esther v. Tringas Theaters, Inc., 301 So.2d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Dade County v. Moore, 266 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Root

LUDC 66


13/35

Gary Held, Esq.May 23,2011Page 5 of7v City of outh Miami 190 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). In this regard, the proposed zoningchange does not, as a matter of law, constitute illegal spot zoning. The proposed zoning changewould not permit any new uses. Rather, the proposed change would merely allow apartmentbuildings in the area to be constructed at greater heights (equal or lesser than neighboring 100and 103 foot towers) in exchange for more restrictive side setbacks and a recorded covenantrestricting use of the property to residential uses. Accordingly, the proposed zoning change isboth consistent with the City's comprehensive planning and zoning, and also compatible with theactual uses in the surrounding neighborhood.

The proposed zoning change is fully consistent with the City's comprehensive plan andzoning designations for the area. The City 's comprehensive plan designates the subject area andits surroundings for multifamily residential uses including hotels. The RPS-4 zoning designationpermits residential and limited hotel uses. Notably, the Zoning Code currently allows moredense and intense hotel and accessory uses for oceanfront properties than it does for nonoceanfront properties. See Code 142-693, 696-97. Within the Historic District, the area isbuffered to the north and the west by RPS-3 zones. These zones allow the same uses permittedwithin the RPS-4 zone but at a lesser density and intensity. The property to the south of thesubject area across South Point Drive and outside of the Historic District is also zoned RPS-4. Because it is outside ofthe Historic District, however, the Zoning Code permits significantlygreater density and intensity. The proposed zoning change would not alter the uses permittedwithin the subject area. Additionally, the proposed zoning change would be consistent with theZoning Code's practice of allowing more dense and intense uses along the oceanfront.Accordingly, the proposed zoning change retains the general planning scheme established by theCity's comprehensive plan and zoning designations.

The kind of development allowed by the proposed zoning change would be fullycompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Despite containing a few hotels,the area subject to the proposed zoning change is distinctly residential in character. Theproposed zoning change would retain that character. Although it would allow additional height,any development attempting to benefit from the proposed change would be limited to a heightequal to or less than the multiple other towers within the neighborhood including the five 100-103 foot towers in the immediate area and the multiple dramatically taller towers south of SouthPoint Drive. See Town of Juno Beach 832 So. 2d at 864 (Including property across a majorhighway as part of the neighborhood relevant to the compatibility of a zoning change); Root190 So 2d 359 (Including property across municipal boundaries). Furthermore, any suchdevelopment would be limited residential uses through a thirty-year restrictive covenant.Accordingly, any development allowed by the proposed zoning change would be consistent withthe City's comprehensive plan and area zoning, compatible uses in the surroundingneighborhood and, as a matter of law, would not constitute spot zoning.

2 The Benefit to the Owner versus the Detriment to the Immediate NeighborhoodTo ensure that a zoning change does not amount to spot zoning or special legislation, thecourts have also compared the benefit that the owner(s) of the property to be rezoned wouldexperience to the detriment suffered by the immediate neighborhood. The proposed zoning

LUDC 67


14/35

Gary Held, Esq.May23, 2 11Page 6 of7change strikes a balance between public and private interests in a number of ways. First, theproposed zoning change mitigates the potential adverse impacts that might result from anincrease in potential building height by requiring that any building seeking to build above theseventy-five feet that is currently permitted also include a side setback of fifteen feet twice aslarge as the current setback requirement. Second, the proposed zoning change ensures that thehistoric nature of the neighborhood is preserved by limiting its application to those lots that donot include contributing structures. Finally, the proposed zoning change guarantees that itsincreased height allowance will not be used to permit the construction of non-residentialproperties by requiring the recording of a restrictive covenant limiting the property to residentialuses for thirty years. By requiring the recording of a restrictive covenant, the proposed zoningchange effectively ensures that the public will be protected from the potentially more intenseimpacts that could be generated by hotel uses currently permitted within RPS-4 zones. Together,the above provisions ensure that any private benefit provided by the proposed zoning change willnot be granted at the undue detriment of the public interest. Indeed, approximately 1,030residents living within the area affected by the proposed zoning change will benefit from theincreased side setbacks and the preserved residential character of the neighborhood that theproposed zoning change could provide.

IV CONCLUSIONAccordingly, the proposed zoning change would not constitute spot zoning because anydevelopment allowed by the proposed zoning change would be fully consistent with the City scomprehensive plan and zoning code, would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood,and would be wholly within the public interest.

LUDC 68


15/35

Hernandez LeonorFrom:Sent:To:Subject:

Tom C Murphy [[email protected]]Wednesday, July 06, 2011 3:11 PMBower, Matti H.; Libbin, Jerry; Exposito, Jorge; Gongora, Michael; Wolfson, Jonah; Tobin, EdWeithorn, Deede321 Ocean Drive

Dear Mayor Bower and Commissioners-I am a long-time resident of Miami Beach and a senior executive at Coastal Construction. I am writing to stronglysupport the 32 Ocean Drive project and the zoning amendment that makes the plan feasible. Please do not kill thisproject with sweeping zoning legislation that few residents are aware is even up for debate. t is important thatMiami Beach encourage development plans such as 32 Ocean Drive that: 1 have extensive and strong communitysupport 2 involve great architects, 3 are fully compatible with nearby buildings in terms of heigh t and 4 promotelow intensity use consistent with this historic neighborhood.I thank you for your service to the community.Sincerely,Tom C Murphy

1LUDC 32


16/35

MIAMI BE CHOFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM

TO Jorge M Gonzalez City ManagerFROM Jonah Wolfson CommissionerDATE: April 29 h, 2011SUBJECT: Agenda Item

Please place on the May 11 h, 2011 Commission meeting agenda a referral of theattached proposal to the Land Use and Development Committee for discussion.If you have any questions please contact Leonor Hernandez at extension 6437JW/Ih

e ore commilted to providtng excel/en public service nd safety to oil who hve. work. nd pl y in our65

genda l t e m _ C _ _ _ ; t _ B ~Date_.=..s ....;..1.;_/ _;.J...;....


17/35

April28 2011MEMO FOR: Commissioner Jonah WolfsonFROM: Frank Del Vecchio, 301 Ocean Drive, Apt. 604, Miami Beach, FL 33139SUBJ: Requested City Commission Consent Agenda Item: Ocean Beach HistoricDistrict R-PS4 Zoning AmendmentACTION REQUESTED: This is a request for placement of the attached item on the CityCommission s May 11, 2011 Consent Agenda for referral to the city commission s LandUse Development Committee and the Planning Board.I have drafted a zoning amendment to enable the development of oceanfront residentialcondominiums in the residential R-PS4 section of the Ocean Beach Historic District. Theunusually deep lots in this section of the historic district pose insurmountable problemsfor residential condominium development. If the area is to retain its primarily residentialcharacter this zoning change is essential.This request is the product of three months analysis of the feasibility of residentialcondominium development on a deep oceanfront lot at 315-321 Ocean Drive. The site isin a section of the historic district that is zoned residential, and permits hotels but notcommercial.The property was purchased in December, 2010 by Tim Gordon, David Arditi and JoshBenaim. Friends since grade school, these three young men, each active in family realestate development that includes award-winning historic preservation in Manhattan andParis, have been searching for a distinctive project on which to collaborate as a team.Since closing on the site, they have received and rejected offers from hotel developers ata premium to their investment. Their vision is a luxury condominium of distinctivearchitectural merit that will function as an integral element of the historic residentialcommunity. They intend to be directly and jointly responsible from design throughconstruction and full occupancy.This vision is supported by neighbors, who have observed how the activities at largehotels can adversely impact abutting residential. A hotel development on the site wouldplace activities on balconies and outdoor accessory use restaurants only feet from theadjacent condominiums. Traffic and taxi queuing would significantly impact thisresidential section of the Ocean Beach Historic District. (Contrast the intensity of usegenerated by a 130-unit hotel on the site, with its restaurant and patron activity, to that ofa 40-unit luxury condominium.)The challenge posed by a uniquely deep, narrow lot abutted closely by residential condosalong its entire length is how to make a condominium feasible. Whereas a hotel can be

66


18/35

squeezed in between its neighbors, providing outdoor activities for its patrons, units in aluxury condominium require view amenities not essential for hotel guests.After exploring various architectural avenues, the team found one that will meet historicdistrict objectives and minimally impact its neighbors: by increasing height from thecurrent 75-foot maximum to one hundred feet the height of the major oceanfrontcondominiums in the historic district), units can be designed with either ocean views, orwith vistas up and down Ocean Drive at the western elevation. The increased heightwould enable greater distance separation from the condos on each side. Side setback ofthe pedestal structure above parking could be doubled, from the current 7.5 feetseparation, to 5 feet.)A zoning amendment applicable solely to new condominium development in theresidentially zoned oceanfront section of the Ocean Beach Historic District would makethis possible. Design and architectural details of condominiums development pursuant tothe requested amendment would be the province of the Historic Preservation Board.ATTACHED: Draft ofProposed Zoning Amendment

7


19/35

ZONING AMENDMENT [Language added is underlined; deletions are struck through.]Sec. 142-696.- Residential performance standard area requirements.The residential performance standard area requirements are as follows:

Residential SubdistrictsPerformance Standard ; R PSJ R PS2 R PS3 R PS4Minimum lot area ; 5,750 square feet 5,750 square feet . 5,750 square feet 5,750 square feetMinimum lot width i50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feetRequired open space ratio i 0.60, See section 0.65, See section 0.70, See section 0.70, See section 142-704142-704 . 142-704 142-704Maximum building 45 feet 45 feet 50 feet Non-oceanfront- 80 feet;height* Lots 50 feet wide Lots 50 feet wide: Lots 50 feet wide Oceanfront-I 00 feet; except that inl or less-35 feet or less-3 5 feet or less-35 feet the Ocean Beach Historic Distric t- 3feet for the first 60 feet of lot depth,

75 feet thereafter, subject to the line-of-sight analysis of section 142-697(d)i Lots 50 feet wide or less- 35 feet

Maximum number of 5 5 5 Non-oceanfront- 8stories Lots 50 feet wide Lots 50 feet wide Lots 50 feet wide Oceanfront - 11or less--4 or less--4 or less--4 Lots 50 feet wide or less - 4In the Ocean Beach HistoricDistrict- 7Maximum floor area ratio ,1.25 1.50 '1.75 2.0Minimum floor area per I New New New New construction- 550apartment unit (square construction- construction- construction- Rehabilitated buildings - 400feet); except as provided :700 650 600in section 142-1183 for lRehabilitated Rehabilitated Rehabilitatedelderly housing buildings--400 . buildings--400 : buildings--400Minimum floor area per N/A .N/A 15 = 300-335 15 = 300-335 square feethotel unit (square feet) square feet 85 = 335+ square feet85 =335+l square feetMinimum parking Pursuantto chapter 130 and section 142-705 requirement.Minimum off-street , Pursuant to chapter 130, article III.loadingSigns Pursuant to chapter 13 8Suites hotel ; Pursuant to article IV, division 3 of this chapter.*Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions regarding maximum building height, in the Ocean Beach historic district, asdefmed in subsection 118-593(e)(ll), the maximum building height for a lot located in the R-PSI, R-PS2, or R-PS3zoning districts(i) With a lot exceeding 50 feet, and(ii) Upon which there exists a contributing structure which has not received a certificate of appropriateness for demolitio(or any such approval has expired),shall be 3 5 feet.

68


20/35

1. Notwithstanding the above height restrictions, existing structures within a local historic district are subject to section142-1161.2. n the R-PS4 zoning district, within the Ocean Beach Historic District, when an existing contributing structure isnonconforming with respect to the height regulations in section 142-696, such structure may be repaired, renovated orrehabilitated regardless of the cost of such repair, renovation or rehabilitation, notwithstanding the provisions of chapter118, article IX, Nonconformances.3. Lots at a width of 50 feet or less aggregated with adjacent parcels after November 3, 2002, shall have a maximumheight of3 5 feet and shall not be allowed the increased height for parcels wider than 50 feet.4. Notwithstanding the above height restrictions, in the R-PS4 zoning district, within the Ocean Beach Historic District,the maximum height of an oceanfront residential condominium building on a lot 100 feet or more wide shall be 100 feet,II stories.(Ord. No. 89-2665, 20-4(B), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 94-2908, eff. 2-26-94; Ord. No. 97-3097, 3, 10-8-97; Ord. No. 983107, 7 1-21-98; Ord. No. 98-3150, 2, 11-4-98; Ord. No. 99-3169, 1 2-3-99; Ord. No. 2002-3386, 1 11-13-02;Ord. No. 2005-3483, 8 5-18-05; Ord. No. 2006-3522, 1 7-12-06)Sec. 142-697. - Setback requirements in the R-PS1, 2, 3, 4 districts.(a) The setback requirements in the R-PS1, 2, 3, 4 districts are as follows:

Front Side, i Side, RearInterior Facing a StreetAt-grade 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Non-oceanfront lots 5 feetparking lot Oceanfront lots - 50 feet from bulkhead(below linebuilding)Subterranean 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet ;Non-oceanfront lots 0 feet

IOceanfront lots 50 feet from bulkheadline

Pedestal feet. 7.5 feet, except when section 15 feet Non-oceanfront lots - 10% of lot depth(e) below p p l i e s ~ i 1 Oceanfront lots - 20% of lot depth, 50Exceut that in the R-PS4 Izoning district, within Lots 50 feet wide or less - 5 i eet minimum from bulkhead l i n ~the Ocean Beach feet. Exceut that in the R-PS4 ; Exceut that in the R-PS4 zoning districtHistoric District, for a zoning district, within the within the Ocean Beach Historic Districresidential condominium Ocean Beach Historic District, for a residential condominium buildingIbuilding on an for a residential condominium on an oceanfront lot 100 feet or more oceanfront lot 100 feet or building on an oceanfront lot wide - 20% of lot deQth.more wide, 5 feet 100 feet or more wide, 15 feet1minimum. for any QOrtion of the Qedestal II :

above 3 5 feet height.I

\ - lTower : 50 feet, except that in the The required pedestal setback iThe Non-oceanfront lots 15% oflot depth1R-PS4 within the Ocean plus 0.10 the height of the required Oceanfront lots 25% oflot depth, 75 f1Beach Historic District, building. Exceut that in the R- pedestal minimum from bulkhead line. Exceut t1the minimum shall be 60 PS4 zoning district, within the setback in the R-PS4 zoning district, within thefeet exceut for a Ocean Beach Historic Dist rict plus Ocean Beach Historic Dist rict for aresidential condominium for a residential condominium 0.10 the residential condominium building on anbuilding on an building on an oceanfront lot height o oceanfront lot 100 feet or more wide -oceanfront lot 100 feet or 100 feet or more wide, 15 feet. the 20% of lot deuth.more wide, 5 feet buildingminimum. 1

69


21/35

(b) All required setbacks shall be considered as minimum requirements except for the pedestal front yard setback andpedestal side yard facing a street setback which shall be considered as both a minimum and maximum requirements, excefor a residential condominium building on an oceanfront lot 100 feet or more wide, the front yard pedestal and tower setbshall be considered as a minimum.(c) For lots greater than 100 feet in width the front setback shall be extended to include at least one open court with aminimum area of three square feet for every linear foot of lot frontage.(d) In the R-PS4 zoning district, within the Ocean Beach Historic District, the tower portion of ground-floor additions tocontributing buildings, or new eoastruetioa shall meet a line-of-sight, which for the purpose of this section is defined asnot visible when viewed at eye-level (5'6 from grade) from the opposite side of the adjacent right-of-way.(e) In the R-PS4 zoning district within the Ocean Beach Historic District, when an existing contributing structure has aminimum 5-foot sideyard setback, the setback of new construction n connection with the existing building may beallowed to follow the existing building line. The maintenance ofthe existing setback shall apply to the linear extension othe existing building.(Ord. No. 89-2665, 20-4(C), eff. 10-1-89; Ord. No. 90-2722, eff. 11-21-90; Ord. No. 94-2908, eff. 2-26-94;Ord. No. 2002-3386, 2, 11-13-02; Ord. No. 2006-3522, 2, 7-12-06)

7


22/35

MIAMIBEACHPL NNING EP RTMENT

HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARDSTAFF REPORT

FROM:

DATE:

Richard G Lorber, AICP, LEED Acting Planning Director lJ lApril 10, 2012 Meeting

RE: Historic Preservation File No. 73013 Ocean Drive 3 Ocean Drive

The applicant, 321 Ocean Drive, LLC., is requesting an After-The-Fact Certificate ofAppropriateness for the total demolition of the prior 3-story Simone Hotel, and a Certificate ofAppropriateness for the construction of a new 7-story mult ifamily building and a new 9-storymultifamily building on the subject site.LEGAL DESCRIPTIONLots 6 7 less the westerly 15.00 feet thereof for Street Widening purposes, Block 115 ofOCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO.4 According to the Plat Thereof, as Recorded in Plat Book 3Page 151, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.HISTORYThe subject site has a lengthy history before the Historic Preservation Board dating back to2005, when the first of a series of applications came before the Board for the Bijou project,which included the substantial demolition of the former 3-story Simone Hotel, along with theconstruction of a new7-story building. The project (HPB File No. 3690) approved by the Board in2006 included the retention of approximately thirty (30 ) feet of the front portion of the originalhotel. This project never went forward and is now expired.The property came before the County s Unsafe Structures Board in 2010, and the Simone Hotelwas ordered to be demolished. The demolition commenced in August 201 0 and the property hasremained vacant since that time.SITE DATAZoning -Future Land Use Designation Lot SizeProposed FARProposed Height -Prior Use/Condition Proposed Use

RPS-4 (Residential High Density)RPS-4 (Residential High Density)38,989 S.F.77,898 S.F. /2.0 (Max FAR = 2.0), as represented by theapplicant9-stories / 100 feet, 115 feet to highest non-habitableprojectionHotel - 43 rooms / Vacant SiteMultifamily Residential (30 units)


23/35


24/35


25/35

Page 4 of 14HPB File No 7301Meeting Date: April 10 2012ot Satisfied

h The original architectural design or any subsequent modifications that haveacquired significance.ot pplicable

III The examination of architectural drawings for consistency with the criteria pursuant toSection 118-564 a 3 of the Miami Beach Code and stated below, with regard to theaesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of any new or existing structure, publicinterior space and physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacentstructures and properties, and surrounding community. The criteria referenced aboveare as follows it is recommended that the listed criteria be found Satisfied, Not Satisfiedor Not Applicable, as so noted :a 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.

ot Satisfied; See lIa. Aboveb The dimensions of all buildings, structures, setbacks, parking spaces, floor arearatio, height, lot coverage and any other information that may be reasonablynecessary to determine compliance with the requirements of the underlyingzoning district, and any applicable overlays, for a particular application orproject.

ot Satisfied; See Zoning Analysisc The color, design, surface finishes and selection of landscape materials andarchitectural elements of the exterior of all buildings and structures and primarypublic interior areas for developments requiring a building permit in areas of thecity identified in section 118-503.ot Satisfied; See lIa. boved The proposed structure, and/or additions to an existing structure is appropriate toand compatible with the.environment and adjacent structures, and enhances theappearance of the surrounding properties, or the purposes forwhich the districtwas created.

ot Satisfied; See lIa. Abovee The design and layout of the proposed site plan, as well as all new and existingbuildings and public interior spaces shall be reviewed so as to provide anefficient arrangement of land uses. Particular attention shall be given to safety,

crime prevention and fire protection, relationship to the surroundingneighborhood, impact on preserving historic character of the neighborhood anddistrict, contiguous and adjacent buildings and lands, pedestrian sight lines andview corridors.ot Satisfied; See lIa. bove

f Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movementwithin and adjacent to the site shall bereviewed to ensure that clearly defined, segregated pedestrian access to the siteand all buildings is provided for and that any driveways and parking spaces areusable, safely and conveniently arranged and have a minimal impact on


26/35

Page 5 o 14HPB File No. 7301Meeting Date: April 10, 2012pedestrian circulation throughout the site. Access to the site from adjacent roadsshall be designed so as to interfere as little as possiblewith vehicular traffic flowon these roads and pedestrian movement onto and within the site, as well aspermit both pedestrians and vehicles a safe ingress and egress to the site.Not Satisfied See lIa Above

g Lighting shall be reviewed to ensuresafe movemento personsand vehicles andreflection on public property for security purposes and to minimize glare andreflection on adjacent properties and consistent with a City master plan, whereapplicable.Satisfiedh Landscape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an adequaterelationship with and enhancement o the overall site plan design.Not Satisfied See Staff Analysis and Concern Noi Buffering materials shall be reviewed to ensure that headlights ofvehicles, noise,and light from Structures are adequately shielded from public view, adjacentproperties and pedestrian areas.Satisfiedj. Any proposed new structure shall have n orientation and massing which issensitive to and compatible with the building site and surrounding area andwhich creates or maintains important view corridor s .Not Satisfied See lIa Abovek All buildings shall have, to the greatest extent possible, space in that part o theground floor fronting a sidewalk, street or streets which is to be occupied forresidential or commercial uses; likewise, the upper floors o the pedestal portion

o the proposed building fronting a sidewalk street, or streets shall haveresidential or commercial spaces, or shall have the appearance o being aresidential or commercial space or shall have n architectural treatment whichshall bufferthe appearance o a parking structure from th surrounding area andis integrated with the overall appearance o the project.Not Satisfied See lIa Above All buildings shall have an appropriate and fully integrated rooftop architecturaltreatment which substantially screens all mechanical equipment, stairs andelevator towers.Satisfiedm Any addition on a building site shall be designed, sited and massed in a mannerwhich is sensitive to and compatible with the existing improvement s .Not Applicable

-n All portions o a project fronting a street or sidewalk shall incorporate namounto transparency at the first level necessary to achieve pedestrian compatibility.Not Satisfied See lIa Above


27/35

Page 6 of 14HPB File No. 7301Meeting Date: April 10, 2012o The location, design, screening and buffering of all required service bays,delivery bays, trash and refuse receptacles, as well s trash rooms shall bearranged so as to have a minimal impact on adjacent properties.

SatisfiedCERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION EVALUATION CRITERIA:Section 118-564 f 4 of the Land Development Regulations ofthe Miami Beach Code providescriteria by which the Historic Preservation Board evaluates requests for a Certificate ofAppropriateness for Demolition. The following is an analysis of the request based upon thesecriteria:I The Building, Structure, Improvement, or Site is designated on either a national or statelevel as a part of an Historic Preservation District or as a HistoricArchitectural Landmarkor Site, or is designated pursuant to Division 4, Article X Chapter 118 of the MiamiBeach Code as a Historic Building, Historic Structure or Historic Site, Historic

Improvement, Historic Landscape Feature, Historic Interior or the Structure is of suchhistoric/architectural interest or quality that it would reasonably meet national, state orlocal criteria for such designation.SatisfiedThe former structure w s designated as part of the Ocean Beach Local HistoricDistrict; the building was designated as Contributing in th historic district2 The Building, Structure. Improvement, Landscape Feature or Site is of such design,craftsmanship, or material that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty and/orexpense.Not SatisfiedThe former structure not be difficult or inordinately expensive to reproduce3 The Building, Structure, Improvement, or Site is one ofth last remaining examplesof itskind in the neighborhood, the country, or the region, or is a distinctive example of anarchitectural or design style which contributes to the character of the district.SatisfiedThe former structurew s one of the last remaining examples of its kind and was adistinctive example of anArt Deco Hotel which contributed to th characterofthdistrict4. The Building, Structure, Improvement, Landscape Feature or Site is a contributingbuilding, structure, improvement, site or landscape feature rather than a noncontributingbuilding, structure, improvement, site or landscape feature in a historic district asdefined

in section 114-1, or is an architecturally significant feature of a public area of the interiorof a historic or contributing bUilding.Satisfied .The subject structurew s designated as contributing th Miami Beach HistoricProperties Database

5 Retention of the Building, Structure, Improvement, Landscape Feature or Site promotesthe general welfare of the City by providing an opportunity for study of local history,architecture and design or by developing an understanding ofth importance and valueof a particular culture and heritage.Satisfied


28/35

Page 7 of 14HPB File No. 7301Meeting Date: April 10, 2012The retention of the subject structure was critical to developing an understandingof important Miami Beach architectural styles.

f the proposed demolition is for the purpose of constructing a parking garage, the Boardshall consider it if the parking garage is designed in a manner that is consistent with theSecretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for RehabilitatingHistoric Buildings, U.S. Department of the Interior 1983), as amended, and/or thedesign review guidelines for that particular district.Not SatisfiedThe demolition i n t he subject application is not for the purpose of constructing aparking garage.

7 In the event an applicant or property owner proposes the total demolition of acontributing structure, historic structure or architecturally significant feature,there shall be definite plans presented to the board for the reuse of the propertyif the proposed demolition is approved and carried out.Satisfied .The applicant is proposing a new residential project for the site.

8 The Dade County Unsafe Structures Board has ordered the demolition of a Structurewithout option.SatisfiedThe Dade County Unsafe Structures Board did order the demolition of the former3-story Simone Hotel structure.STAFF ANALYSIS:Wh ile it is unfortunate that the entire Simone Hotel had to be demolished, pursuant to ademolit ion order, staff had recognized this necessity dating back several years based on athorough inspection of the former structure. s indicated by th photos submitted with priorapplications, along with personal inspections by staff, many of the basement columns w erealmost fully deteriorated, and columns were poured with angled s te el su pp or t cages thatresulted in insufficient concrete coverage of the steel. Such poor construction techniques likelyaccelerated the building s on-going deterioration and lead to its ultimate demolition.It is important to note that the original S imone Hotel s interior side setbacks of only f ee t 5 )resulted in extremely undesirable living conditions, and the substantially increased towersetbacks of the proposed new construction, along with the substantial open courtyard betweenthe proposed new buildings will substantially enhance the surrounding properties. In February of2012 the City Code was revised in an effort to enable the construction of a residential projectsuch as this one, with a substantial open courtyard in the middle of the site, in order to enhancethe livability for both this property and the neighboring residential buildings.St af f c om me nd s t he applicant and t he de sig n team on th e sophist icated and very forwardthinking approach to the project. The scale, massing, height and building orientat ion are allconsistent with the built context of the east side of Ocean Drive. Additionally, the variations insurface finishes, changes in plane and the very skill ful distribution of architectural form haveresulted in a very iconic building. Indeed, the overall design concept and its execution representthe direction of new architecture that has come to define Miami Beach over the last decade.


29/35

Page 8 of 14HPB File No. 7301Meeting Date: April 10 2012Staff also commends the applicant for agreeing to participate in the beach walk master plan. Asthe subject project fronts directly on the Ocean and includes a substantial degree of newconstruction the applicant has agreed allow for and construct a grade level public beach walkalong the rear of the subject site. Such beach walk would follow the approved AtlanticGreenways Beach alkMaster Plan.While highly supportive of the proposal staff has identified several areasof concern particularlyas seen and experienced from Ocean Drive and the beachfront. These areas of concern centeron how the structure addresses the more low scale pedestrian oriented character of OceanDrive and the dune/beachwalk at the rear of the site.First the design of the interior ground level facing Ocean Drive will need to be re-studied asmore than half of the building frontage is consumed by an FPL vault. hencombined with therequired 22 driveway and a small lobby with a side entrance the p e ~ s t r i n experience alongOcean Drive is completely ignored and the overall design concept is atypical of the historicpattern of raised front terraces along the street frontage that contained substantial lobbies oractive uses directly accessed from the sidewalk. n order to address this deficiency staff wouldstrongly recommend that the FPL vault be relocated elsewhere within the parking garage andthat the lobby be expanded along the entire frontage of Ocean Drive. Additionally a primaryaccess door facing the street and accessed from the sidewalk is badly needed as the subjectstructure has no identification at the pedestrian level.This modification to the interior plan will also allow for a more active and dynamic west elevationat the first level as transparency will define the entire sidewalk edge. hewater feature shouldalso be modified with direct connections to the new front door and windows. Thisreconfiguration of the ground floor will create a much more defined s ense of entry which iscompletely lacking in the proposed design.Second while the architect has offset the massing of the courtyard elevations and successfullybroken down the s cale of the architecture by incorporating changes n railing and windowdesigns the Oceanfront elevation appears as one large mass lacking the same successfulscale and design attributes of the courtyard elevations. This is particularly acute at the first 2floors which are composed entirely of a single plane of glass. Staff believes that the overallmassing of the east elevation should be slightly offset n building plan and that the design of thefirst 2 floors of the east elevation should incorporate solid features and/or finishes. These designmodifications will help form a more cohesive architectural whole with the rest of the tower andwill establish a more compatible relationship with the neighboring properties.Third the submitted plans lack adequate details of the major architectural elements includingthe proposed venetian blind glass screens perforated metal screens aluminum cladding andfritted glass window system. Together these systems create the primary architecture and overallidentity of the bUilding. Given the experience of the project architect staff is very confident thatthese details can be addressed as partof the bUilding permit process. However it s recommendthat several three-dimensional renderings be provided and include closer views of the buildingso that the relationship and design of these systems can be fully evaluated.Finally staff has a concern with the vehicular access and drop-off area on the north side of thesite. Such concerns include the type of ventilation proposed required lighting and the adequacyof the turning radius shown. These code mandated issues will need to be addressed n amanner that does not compromise the architectural integrity of the proposed building and will


30/35


31/35

Page 10 of 14HPB File No. 7301Meeting Date: April 10 2012with a primary access door facing and accessible from the sidewalk. This shallinclude modifications to the proposed wa te r feature in o rd er to allow directconnections between the new front door and west windows of the lobby directlyto the sidewalk; the dimensions material and access points to the revised lobbyarea shall be provided.

b A more active and dynamic west elevation inclusive of a substantial amount oftransparent glass shall be required at the first level.c Detailed plans and elevations of the walls ceiling and flooring of the interiordriveway and drop-off areas on the north side of the property shall be providedas part of the Building Permit plans. The applicantshall provide a detailed designproposal for these interior areas including additional opaque screening to buffernoise and lights from the neighboring properties as we ll a s t he use of nonstucco surface finishes in order to carry the high level of exterior design into thevehicular access space. The materials and overall architectural concept for theinterior areas of the vehicular access and driveway areas on the north side of thesite shall be provided.d. The scale massing and design of the east elevation shall be further studied anddeveloped in a manner to be approved by staff. t a minimum the e as televation shall be slightly offset in building plan and the design of the first 2floors of the east elevation shall incorporate solid features and/or finishes.e Details of the first 2 levels of the north and south elevations shall be required; thefinal d esig n deta ils of these portions of the building including materialslandscaping and any additional screening of driveways and parking areas thatmay be required shall be subject to the review and approval of staff.f Three-dimensional renderings shall be provided including closer views of thebuilding in order to fully evaluate the relationship and design of the variousarchitectural systems. Based upon these drawings the final design details oftheproposed venetian blind glass screens perforated metal screens aluminumcladding and fritted glass window y t ~ shall be developed.g Details of the venti lation system required for the parking and drive-way levelsshall be provided. Any mechani cal ventilation that may b e required shall bechased vertically through t he su bje ct structure up to roof in a m an ne r to bereviewed and approved by staff. The location of any required mechanical andventilation fixtures and devices for the parking level shall be clearly delineated on

the floor plans and site plansat the t ime of Building Permit review and shall besubject to the review and approval of staff.h Any security fencing or gates shall not be located within the required front yardand shall be setback behind the face of the front building.i Adequate trash room space shall be provided in a manner t o be approved bythe Planning and Public orksDepartments. All trash containers shall util izerubber wheels or the path for the trash containers shall consist of a surfacefinish that reduces noise.


32/35

Page o f 14HPB File No. 7301Meeting Date: April 10, 2012

j. The finished elevation of the rear pool deck and side yards shall not besubstantially elevated above grade.k 3-Demensional drawings of the proposed structure shall be provided, whichclearly indicate the extent of all roof-top elements. All stair towers, elevators, andmechanical equipment shall be appropriately designed, screened and detailed ina manner consistent with the building s design vocabulary. An historic analysis of the Simone Hotel, inclusive of a photographic and writtendescription of its history and evolution on the site, shall be submitted to andapproved by staff; prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; such historicanalysis shall be displayed prominently within the public area of the structure, ina location to be determined by staff.m An identification marker of the proposed new structure, including the name ofthe

design architect and year of construction, shall be required. The design,dimensions, material and location o such marker shall be consistent with theprototype B oval), and shall be submitted to and approved by staff, prior to theissuance of a Building Permit. Such marker shall be two 2) square feet in size,consist of a stainless steel, brushed aluminum or similar finish and utilize an Arialfont with routed out or engraved black letters.n Manufacturers drawings and Dade County product approval numbers for all newwindows, doors and glass shall be required, prior to the issuance of a buildingpermit.o All roof-top fixtures, air-conditioning units and mechanical devices shall be

clearly noted on a revised roof plan and elevation drawings and shall bescreened from view, in a manner to be approved by staff.p Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the project Architect shallverify, in writing, that the subject project has been constructed in accordance withthe plans approved by the Planning Department for Building Permit.

3 A revised landscape plan, prepared by a Professional Landscape Architect, registered inthe State of Florida, and corresponding site plan, shall be submitted to and approved bystaff. The species type, quantity, dimensions, spacing, location and overall height of allplant material shall be clearly delineated and subject to the review and approval of staff.t a minimum, such plan shall incorporate the following:a All existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground; in the event FPLrequires the undergrounding of the utilities of the adjacent properties, thiscondition may be waived.b If feasible, and not in conflict with underground utilities, street trees with theCity s standard bound aggregate system with fertilization trench, irrigation and uplighting shall be incorporated into the City right of way along Ocean Drive, in amanner to be reviewed and approved by staff.


33/35

Page 12 14HPB File No. 7301Meeting Date: April 10, 2012c. Hedge material any kind shall not be permitted within the front area of theproperty.d. All exterior walkways and driveways shall consist of decorative pavers, set insand or other equally semi-pervious material, subject to the review and approvalof staff.e. All landscape areas abutting driveways and parking areas shall be defined bydecorative bollards.f. A fully automatic irrigation system with 100 coverage and an automatic rainsensor in order to render the system inoperative in the event of rain. Right-ofway areas shall also be incorporated as part of the irrigation system.g. The utilization of root barriers and/or structural soil, as applicable, shall be clearlydelineated on the revised landscape plan.h. The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the exactlocation of all backflow prevention devices. Backflow prevention devices shallnot be permitted within any required yard or any area fronting a street orsidewalk, unless otherwise permitted by the Land Development Regulations.The location all backflow prevention devices, and how they are s.creened fromthe right-of-way, shall be clearly indicated on the site and landscape plans andshall be subject to the review and approval of staff. The fire departmentshall require a post-indicator valve PIV) visible and accessible from the street.i. The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the exactlocation of all post-indicatorvalves PIV), fire department connections FDG and

all other related devices and fixtures, which shall be clearly indicated on the siteand landscape plans, and shall be subject to the review and approval of staff.j. The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the exactlocation of all applicable FPL transformers orvault rooms; such transformers andvault rooms, and all other related devices and fixtures, shall not be permittedwithin any required yard or any area fronting a street or sidewalk. The location ofany exterior transformers, and how they are screened with landscape materialfrom the right-of-way, shall be clearly indicated on the site and landscape plansand shall be subject to the review and approval of staff.k. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate ofOccupancy, the LandscapeArchitect for

the project architect shall verify, in writing, that the project is consistent with thesite and landscape plans approved by the Planning Department for BuildingPermit.4. All bUilding signage shall be consistent in type, composed of flush mounted, non-plastic,individual letters and shall require a separate permit.5. The final exterior surface color scheme, including color samples, shall be subject to thereview and approval staff and shall require a separate permit.


34/35

Page 13 of 14HPB File No. 7301Meeting Date: April 10 20126. A traffic mitigation plan, which addresses all roadway Level of Service LOS) deficienciesrelative to the concurrency requirements o the City Code, required, shall be submittedprior to the issuance of a Building Permit and the final building plans shall meet all other

requirements of the Land Development Regulations of the City Code.7. All new and altered elements, spaces and areas shall meet the requirements of theFlorida Accessibility Code FAC).8. The project shall comply with any landscaping or other sidewalk/street improvementstandards as may be prescribed by a relevant Urban Design Master Plan approved priorto the completion of the project and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.9. The applicant may be required to submit a separate analysis for water and sewerrequirements, at the discretion of the Public Works Director, or designee. Based on apreliminary review of the proposed project, the following may be required by the PublicWorks Department:

a. A traffic and neighborhood impact study shall be conducted as a means tomeasure a proposed development s impact on transportation andneighborhoods. The study shall address all roadway Level of Service LOS)deficiencies relative to the concurrency requirements o the City Code, and ifrequired, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The finalbuilding plans shall meet all other requirements of the Land DevelopmentRegulations of the City Code. The developer shall refer to the most recent City ofMiami Beach s Traffic and Neighborhood Impact Methodology as issued by thePublic Works Department.b. - - Remove/replace sidewalks, curbs and gutters on all street frontages,

applicable. Unless otherwise specified, the standard color for city sidewalks isred and the standard curb and gutter color is gray. c. Mill/resurface asphalt in rear alley along property, if applicable.d. Provide underground utility service connections and on-site transformer location,if necessary.e. Provide back-flow prevention devices on all water services.f. Provide on-site, self-contained storm water drainage for the proposeddevelopment.g. Meet water/sewer concurrency requirements including a hydraulic water modelanalysis and gravity sewer system capacity analysis as determined by theDepartment and the required upgrades to water and sewer mains servicing thisproject.h. Payment of City utility impact fees for water meters/services.i. Provide flood barrier ramps to underground parking or minimumslab elevation tobe at highest adjacent crown road elevation plus 8 .


35/35

Page 14 of 14HPB File No 7301Meeting Date: April 10 2012

j. Right-of-way permit must be obtained from Public Works.k All right-of-way encroachments must be removed. All planting/landscaping in the public right-of-waymust be approved bythe PublicWorks and Parks Departments.

10. t the time of completion o the project, only a in l Certificate of Occupancy (CO) orin l Certificate of Completion (CC) may be applied for; the staging and scheduling othe construction on site shall take this into account. All work on site must be completedin accordancewith the plans approved herein, aswell as anymodifications approved orrequired by the Building, Fire, Planning, CIP and PublicWorks Departments, inclusive ofall conditions imposed herein, and by other Development Review Boards, and anymodifications required pursuant to field inspections, prior to the issuance of a CO or ce.This shall not prohibit the issuance of a Partial or Temporary CO or a Partial orTemporary CC

11. The Final Order shall be recorded in the Public Records o Miami-Dade County, prior tothe issuance of a Building Permit.12. The Final Order is not severable, and ifany provision orcondition hereof is held void orunconstitutional in a final decision by a court of competent jurisdiction, the order shall bereturned to the Board for reconsideration as to whether the order meets the criteria forapproval absent the stricken provision or condition, and/or it is appropriate to modify theremaining conditions or impose new conditions.13. The conditions of approval herein are binding on the applicant, the property s owners,

operators, and all successors in interest and assigns.14 Nothing in this order authorizes a violation of the CityCode or other applicable law, norallows a relaxation of any requirement or standard set forth in the City Code.RGL:TRM:MABF:\ HPB\12HPB\Apr12\7301.Apr12.docx

Enrique Norten South Beach Zoning Questioned

Documents

Transcript of Enrique Norten South Beach Zoning Questioned