You are on page 1of 35

FROMTHECITYATTORNEYSOFFICE

July21,2014
DearMr.Walters:
Iapologizeforthedelayinnotrespondingsooner.Mr.Aguilaaskedmeto
respondtoyouremail.Pleasebeadvisedthatwealsoopinedthattheproposal
wasnotspotzoning.Pleaseseeattached.Further,disclosureofnonclient
relationshipsisnotrequired.Pleaseletmeknowifyouneedanythingfurther.
Sincerely,
GaryHeld
(9 MIAN\I BEACH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Land Use and Development Committee
FROM: Jose Smith, City Attorney
Gary M. Held, First Asst. City Attorney
DATE: June 6, 2011
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ON THE OCEAN BEACH HISTORIC DISTRICT R-PS4 ZONING
AMENDMENT
The City Attorney's Office was requested to review the proposed amendment to
determine whether it violated spot zoning. In addition, after further consideration, we
evaluated whether the proposed amendment violated principles of equal protection. In
both instances, the conclusion is that while we have a concern that not all properties
within the zoning district will benefit from the proposed amendment, no violation of spot
zoning or equal protection should result from its adoption.
Spot zoning:
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal ("DCA") has cited approvingly the following
explanation of spot zoning: .
The definition of spot zoning is well established: Spot zoning is the name
given to the piecemeal rezoning of small parcels of .Iand to a greater
density, leading to disharmony with the surrounding area. Spot z.oning is
usually thought of as giving preferential treatment to one parcel at the
expense of the zoning scheme as a whole.
Further, the Third [DCA] detailed spot zoning as: [A] rezoning which
creates a small island of property with restrictions on its use different from
that of surrounding properties-solely for the benefit of a particular property
owner.
In characterizing the elements of spot zoning, a spot zoning challenge
typically involves the examination of the following: 1) the size of the spot;
2) the compatibility with the surrounding area; 3) the benefit to the owner
and 4) the detriment to the immediate neighborhood.
Bird-Kendall Homeowners Ass'n v. Metro. Dade County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 695
So. 2d 908, 910, n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (citations omitted).
Attorneys for the property owner proposing the residential project that has resulted in
this proposed amendment have submitted a legal memorandum that analyzes the
amendment under this last test, suggesting that no spot zoning arises from this
lUDC#76
June 6,2011
Land Use and Development Committee Meeting
RPS-4 Zoning District Amendment - Proposed Modifications to Current Height Restrictions
Page 2 of4
proposal. We have no dispute with the overall n l ~ s s and conclusion reached in that
memo.
A comprehensive explanation of spot zoning is found in an article published in the
American Law Reports (ALR), which describes the tests courts use in evaluating spot
zoning:
There is no, precise formula for determining whether the zoning or
rezoning of a particular parcel constitutes illegal spot zoning. As a
threshold matter, the courts have generally noted that a parcel cannot be
too large per se to preclude a finding of illegal spot zoning, nor can it be so
small that it mandates a finding of illegal spot zoning. One court, for
example, found illegal spot zoning where the reclassified parcel was 635
acres in an affected area of 7,680 acres. Although the courts invariably
evaluate the size of the parcel in question, they have made clear that the
size of the parcel in question is not alone determinative of illegal spot
zoning. Nor does the reclassification of more than one parcel negate the
possibility of finding illegal spot zoning. Courts have invalidated zoning
amendments after finding that a multiple-parcel reclassification was a
subterfuge to obscure the actual purpose of special treatment for a
particular landowner.
The most widely accepted tests for determining illegal spot zoning,
sometimes stated in combination, sometimes separately, are whether the
zoning of the parcel in question is in accordance with a comprehensive
zoning plan; whether'the zoning of the subject parcel is compatible with
the uses in the surrounding area; and whether the zoning of the subject
property serves the public welfare or merely confers a discriminatory
benefit on the owner of the property. These criteria are flexible and
provide guidelines for jUdicial balancing of interests.
"Determinqtion whether zoning or rezoning of particular parcel constitutes illegal spot
zoning," 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 amendment
is in accordance with the City's comprehensive zoning plan, is compatible with the uses
in the surrounding area, and serves the public welfare, as explained in both Mr. Del
Vecchio's memorandum, and the staff report. Based upon these factors, and taking into
consideration the analysis by the property owner's attorneys, we do not believe it likely
that the proposed amendment will be considered spot zoning.
Equal protection:
While likely not spot zoning, some property owners within the RPS-4 district will benefit
from this amendment, and others will not. As one court recently explained:
LUDC#77
._-:
June 6,2011
Land Use and Development Committee Meeting
RPS-4 Zoning District Amendment - Proposed Modifications to Current Height Restrictions
Page 3 of4
[I]f [the government] permits some [persons to have a right], then it must
PE?rmit all citizens to have an equal right unless there is a reason
substantially related to the pUblic health, safety, morals and welfare of the
community which justifies unequal treatment under the law. Equal
protection of the governed is the bedrock of constitutional government.
Without it, government fails.
Orange County v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 823 So.2d 732 (Fla. 2002) (quoting the
DCA, which had quashed an ordinance establishing a 5,000 ft. distance separation
between liquor stores; the Florida Supreme Court then reversed the DCA, upholding the
ordinance on rational basis analysis).
As the proposed amendment does not involve a suspect classification or fundamental
right, according to the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, it should also be
evaluated under the rati o"naI basis test. Haves v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921-22
(11
th
Cir. 1995) (upholding disparate treatment between houseboats located in different
water bodies of the city). As the Haves court explains, the rational basis test involves
the following analysis:
The first step in determining whether legislation survives rational-basis
scrutiny is identifying a legitimate government purpose - a goal - which the
enacting government body could have been pursuing; The actual
motivations of the enacting governmental body are entirely irrelevant.
Moreover, the Equal Protection Clause does not require government
decision makers to articulate any reason for their actions.
The second step of rational-basis scrutiny asks whether a rational basis
exists for the enacting governmental body to believe that the legislation
would further the hypothesized purpose. "The proper inquiry is concerned
with the existence of a co'nceivably rational basis, not whether that basis
was actually considered by the legislative body." As long as reasons for
the legislative classification may have been considered to be true, and the
relationship between the classification and the goal "is not so attenuated
as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational," the legislation survives
rational-basis scrutiny.
Id. (citations omitted).
Based upon the memoranda submitted by the Administration and Mr. Del Vecchio, the
proposed amendment seeks to encourage compatible residential deyelopment in the
RPS-4 district, recognizing that 100 feet in height is necessary for such a development
to be financially feasible. The amendment does not extend to new hotel structures,
recognizing that such new hotel structures reaching 100 feet in height could create
impacts adverse to the neighborhood's residential character that a residential structure
of the same height would not create. The proposed amendment would protect the
subject area by limiting the scale of future hotel uses to that permitted by existing zoning
lUDC#78
June 6,2011
Land Use and Development Committee Meeting
RPS-4 Zoning District Amendment - Proposed Modifications to Current Height Restrictions
Page 40f4
regulations. Taking these factors into consideration in a rational basis test analysis,
these are goals that the City Commission can pursue, and it is conceivable that the
proposed ordinance would further these purposes. Thus, rational basis analysis is
satisfied, and it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed amendment is not likely to
be found to be violative of q u ~ protection.
GMH/s
F:\ATTO\HELG\Ordinances\RPS-4 Apartments\Jun 2011 RPS4 Heights - CAO MEMO.doc
LUDC#79
MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

Page1of3

16July2014
RaulAguila,Esq.
CityAttorney
CITYOFMIAMIBEACH
Subject:GreenbergTraurig23May2011adviceRPS4ZoningAmendment
DearMr.Aguila:
AttachedpleasefindGreenbergTraurigs23May2011LegalOpiniontotheCityofMiamiBeach
advising that a proposed amendment to RPS4 under 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 Enrique Norten 321
Ocean Drive because its advertised architect is Enrique Norten, whom I do not believe is
licensedasanarchitectinthisstate.
The owner is listed as a Florida registered foreign limited liability company, 321 Ocean Drive,
LLC, managed by 321 Ocean Holding LLC, a Delaware entity, unregistered in this state the last
time I checked. The developer is Aria Development Group of New York, with principals David
Arditi, Joshua Benaim and Tim Gordon. Mr. Arditis parents control a well known real estate
company, Cardinal Development. The contractor is Coastal Construction, controlled by Tom
Murphy, who testified in favor of the amendment. The sales representative partnering on the
projectisCerveraRealEstate,controlledbytheCerverafamily.
Mr.DelVechhiolivesadjacenttotheparcelsbeingdeveloped,andtheamendmentwasdesired
by him and neighbors to prevent the developers from carrying out their threat to sell the
property for hotel development if they did not have their way, a condominium development
with a height exceeding by far the current 75 limitation; as if there were only an either/or
option, either a big hotel or a tall condominium, ignoring other possibilities, such as a small
hotelalongthelinesofthehistoriconethatwasinthatspot,oradogpark,etc.
GreenbergTraurigattorneysopinedthattheamendmentwouldhaveabroadbenefitinasmuch
asthequidproquoforincreasedheightwouldbegreatersetbacksonthesidesoffiveparcels
MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

Page2of3

(the Royal Atlantic, the Presidential, Ocean Point, Marriott, and Hilton Bentley) therefore the
zoning would not be for few people on a small spot. Furthermore, the additional sideback
requirement along with the zoning change that would allow the developers of 321 Enrique
Nortentobuildhigherwouldsomehownotbeincompatiblewiththesurroundingarea.
Asalaymanofaverageintelligenceacquaintedwiththeoceanfrontblocksinvolved,Iopinethat
Greenbergslegalopinioninthematterisspecious.
I will be grateful to you if you will kindly provide me with the City Attorneys opinion on this
issue,andletmeknowiftheCityAttorneysofficerequiredGreenbergTraurigto discloseany
attorney/client relationships the firm may have had with the entities and persons named
above,andanyotherpersonswhoseidentityiscloakedbytheentities.
BestRegards,
DavidArthurWalters
Whoreallybenefitedfromthespotzoning?
MIAMI MIRROR TRUE REFLECTIONS

Page3of3

CommissionerEdTobinapplaudedbydevelopers
1.
2.
II GreenbergTraurig
To: Gary Held, Esq.
First City Attorney
City of Miami Beach
From: Lucia Dougherty, Esq.
Edward Martos, Esq.
Date: May 23,2011
Re: Whether the proposed amendment of the RPS-4 zoning designation within the
Ocean Beach Historic District constitutes impermissible "spot zoning"
I. BACKGROUND
The Ocean Beach Historic District (the "Historic District") in the City of Miami Beach
(the "City") contains approximately three city blocks that are zoned "Residential Performance
Standard 4" or "RPS-4."
1
The property within each of these three city blocks fronts the ocean
and are divided into relatively narrow and deep lots. Under the RPS-4 designation, the City of
Miami Beach Zoning Code (the "Zoning Code") limits structures on 100-foot lots to a maximum
height of seventy-five feet. Within the three block area inside the Historic District, however, five
buildings currently reach a height of 100 or more feet. See chart below.
A proposed amendment to section 142-696 of the Zoning Code would modify the RPS-4
zoning designation to increase potential building height and to create greater side setback
requirements for apartment buildings within the Historic District on lots whose use has been
restricted, as a condition precedent to their development approvals, to use as an apartment
building 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 condominium
unit 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 proposed
zoning change.
....T The Arlington
, ! Contributing
! Hotel ,
3
_ 4D25 ocean .......... rfh-;;savoy .. _ ..___ i
r. I Hotel ;
Outside the Historic District, the City contains only one other area zoned RPS-4, the areas nearby areas just
south of South Point Drive which contains a number of high-rise residential projects that are dramatically stand
taller than I 00 feet.
LUDC#63
Gary Held, Esq.
May 23,2011
Page2 of7
1 <1ooft.
---+-- ------;-'-'----+-- -. .
i Yes
i (79)
7
. i 325 Ocean ! East Atlantic
! Dr. I Gardens
I ' <100 No l I Yes
Noncontributing I <100ft. I ft. Yes I Multiple 1 (
49
)
..------------l------
8 ! 315-321 21 Ocean
:- __ i3_2_1_0_c-ean--+-, -----1
Ocean Dr. rive
Yes i
-------------+-------
! Yes
j
<100ft.
I
<100
l Yes
No
ft.
------------
ultiple 9.
10
161 Ocean
Dr .
Marriott South
Beach
Contributing 100+ ft. 100+ ft Yes
..........____ ---------------------------------------l--------------------------+-----------------+-------------....
121 Ocean
11 South of Fifth Contributing <100ft. 100+ ft Yes
Dr.
The Hilton
-+--::: ..: ..; .._____..___ ............ .... +-------------!-----------+-------
Yes
j Multiple 12
101 Ocean
Dr.
Bentley
! Miami
Approx. No. of Eligible Parcels:
Noncontributing 100ft.
i5
!
100+ ft Yes
IT. QUESTION PRESENTED AND SHORT ANSWER
!
i Yes
! (115)
!
I
: 1,030
l
This memorandum examines whether such an amendment would amount to illegal "spot
zoning" under Florida law. As explained below, the proposed zoning change would not
constitute "spot zoning." The zoning change does not apply to single parcel or to a small area
owned by select private interests. To the contrary, the proposed change applies to all of the area
within the Historic District that has been zoned RPS-4. Twelve parcels and approximately 1,030
separate property owners could benefit from the greater side setback requirements and potential
new residential development (as opposed to hotel development).
Furthermore, and more importantly, the proposed zoning change is consistent with the
general scheme provided by the City's comprehensive plan and Zoning Code, and is compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood which already includes multiple towers of 100 or more feet
in height. Finally, the proposed zoning change includes a number of provisions that ensure that
private benefit is not placed before the public interest. These provisions mitigate any potential
adverse impacts, preserve the historic character of the neighborhood, and safeguard the area
against incompatible (i.e., non-residential) uses.
LUDC#64
Gary Held, Esq.
May 23,2011
Page 3 of7
ill. DISCUSSION
Spot 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 of Miami Beach, 88 So. 2d 141, 143 (Fla. 1956). First, the Courts have acknowledged
that spot zoning is anathema to comprehensive planning. Id (Invalidating the approval of a
parking garage with ground-level retail within a residential neighborhood because "the use of a
portion of the building for stores or other business enterprises would violate the integrity of the
district and plant therein a growth which could well spread and destroy the character of the
neighborhood."); 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 and
resource recovery plant was not "spot zoning" because such change was consistent with the
comprehensive plan and compatible with an adjacent prison.). Second, spot zoning offends the
general legal prohibition against special legislation. See e.g., City Commission of the City of
Miami 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 that
of surrounding properties-solely for the benefit of a particular property owner-constitutes illegal
spot zoning. On the other hand, singling out a small tract of land for a use restriction different
from that of surrounding properties may be upheld where the legislative action is properly related
to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare.").
Accordingly, Florida courts generally weigh four considerations when determining
whether a particular zoning change amounts to illegal "spot zoning." Namely, the Courts have
examined:
1) The size of the spot;
2) The compatibility with the surrounding area;
3) The benefit to the owner; and
4) The detriment to the immediate neighborhood.
See Parking Facilities, Inc. v. City of Miami 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 above
considerations demonstrates that the proposed amendment to the RPS-4 designation does not
amount to illegal spot zoning.
1. The Size of the Spot.
The 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 the
other considerations listed above are satisfied. If a zoning change affects only a small area, the
reasoning goes, there exists a strong likelihood that the change is designed to benefit only the
one 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 use
solely to allow the operation of an animal feed store may "embod[y], to the nth degree, all the
evils of spot zoning," if such a rezoning is "properly related to the public health safety, morals
LUDC#65
Gary Held, Esq.
May23, 2011
Page 4 of7
and general welfare" or is consistent with the purpose of the local comprehensive plan, then the
"singling out [of] a small tract of land for a use restriction different from that of surrounding
properties may be upheld." Compare Bird-Kendall Homeowners Ass'n v. Metropolitan Dade
County Bd. of County Com'rs, 695 So. 2d 908, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) with Woodlawn Park
Cemetery, 553 So.2d at 1240 and Town of Juno Beach v. McLeod, 832 So. 2d 864, 867 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2002) (citing Southwest Ranches Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Broward County, 502 So. 2d
931,935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
Applied to the present facts, the "size of the spot" test demonstrates that the proposed
change to the RPS-4 designation would not constitute spot zoning. The area affected by the
proposed zoning change cannot be considered "small" or "piecemeal." The area covers
approximately three city blocks, and constitutes all of the land designated RPS-4 within the
Historic 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 better
conceptualized as a "number of landowners affected" test. See e.g., Little v. Board of County
Com'rs of Flathead County, 631 P.2d 1282, 1289 (Mont. 1981) ("The area in which the
requested use is to apply is rather small, however, this factor is more concerned with the number
of separate landowners benefited by the requested change than it is with the actual size of the
area benefited.") cited throughout NORMAN WILLIAMS, JR. AND JOHN M. TAYLOR, 1 .AMERICAN
LAND PLANNING LAW 28:2, TESTS FOR SPOT ZONING (July 2010). Taking this approach, shows
that 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 the
proposed zoning change's increased relaxed height restriction. The size of the spot test thereby
demonstrates that the proposed zoning change does not amount to impermissible spot zoning
because it does not inure to the sole benefit of one or a few landowners at the expense of the
public interest or the comprehensive zoning of an area.
1. The Compatibility with the Surrounding Area.
While the size of an area to be rezoned is not determinative of whether a proposed zoning
change constitutes spot zoning per se, the compatibility of a proposed change with existing
comprehensive planning and the surrounding neighborhood has been held to be determinative of
the issue. See Debes v. City of Key West, 690 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (rezoning from
medium density residential to commercial use as a shopping center was appropriate and
necessary in light of the character of the surrounding neighborhood including neighboring zoning
designations); Town of Juno Beach, 832 So. 2d at 864 (rezoning from residential to commercial
office did not amount to spot zoning because the change was consistent with the town's
comprehensive plan where the land use designation permitted such development and the property
across the highway contained a commercial shopping center); Southwest Ranches Homeowners
Ass'n, 502 So. 2d at 935; (citing Inversiones Rafamar S.A., 360 So. 2d at 1133) (construction of
a water treatment facility; see generally, City of Mary 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
Gary Held, Esq.
May 23,2011
Page 5 of7
v. City ofSouth Miami, 190 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). In this regard, the proposed zoning
change does not, as a matter of law, constitute illegal spot zoning. The proposed zoning change
would not permit any new uses. Rather, the proposed change would merely allow apartment
buildings in the area to be constructed at greater heights (equal or lesser than neighboring 1 00
and 103 foot towers) in exchange for more restrictive side setbacks and a recorded covenant
restricting use of the property to residential uses. Accordingly, the proposed zoning change is
both consistent with the City's comprehensive planning and zoning, and also compatible with the
actual uses in the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed zoning change is fully consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and
zoning designations for the area. The City's comprehensive plan designates the subject area and
its surroundings for multifamily residential uses including hotels. The RPS-4 zoning designation
permits residential and limited hotel uses. Notably, the Zoning Code currently allows more
dense and intense hotel and accessory uses for oceanfront properties than it does for non-
oceanfront properties. See Code 142-693, 696-97. Within the Historic District, the area is
buffered to the north and the west by RPS-3 zones. These zones allow the same uses permitted
within the RPS-4 zone but at a lesser density and intensity. The property to the south of the
subject 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 significantly
greater density and intensity. The proposed zoning change would not alter the uses permitted
within the subject area. Additionally, the proposed zoning change would be consistent with the
Zoning 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 the
City's comprehensive plan and zoning designations.
The kind of development allowed by the proposed zoning change would be fully
compatible 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. The
proposed 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 height
equal 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 South
Point Drive. See Town of Juno Beach, 832 So. 2d at 864 (Including property across a major
highway as part of the "neighborhood" relevant to the compatibility of a zoning change); Root,
190 So. 2d 359 (Including property across municipal boundaries). Furthermore, any such
development would be limited residential uses through a thirty-year restrictive covenant.
Accordingly, any development allowed by the proposed zoning change would be consistent with
the City's comprehensive plan and area zoning, compatible uses in the surrounding
neighborhood and, as a matter of law, would not constitute spot zoning.
2. The Benefit to the Owner versus the Detriment to the Immediate Neighborhood
To ensure that a zoning change does not amount to spot zoning or special legislation, the
courts have also compared the benefit that the owner(s) of the property to be rezoned would
experience to the detriment suffered by the immediate neighborhood. The proposed zoning
LUDC#67
Gary Held, Esq.
May23, 2011
Page 6 of7
change strikes a balance between public and private interests in a number of ways. First, the
proposed zoning change mitigates the potential adverse impacts that might result from an
increase in potential building height by requiring that any building seeking to build above the
seventy-five feet that is currently permitted also include a side setback of fifteen feet-twice as
large as the current setback requirement. Second, the proposed zoning change ensures that the
historic nature of the neighborhood is preserved by limiting its application to those lots that do
not include contributing structures. Finally, the proposed zoning change guarantees that its
increased height allowance will not be used to permit the construction of non-residential
properties by requiring the recording of a restrictive covenant limiting the property to residential
uses for thirty years. By requiring the recording of a restrictive covenant, the proposed zoning
change effectively ensures that the public will be protected from the potentially more intense
impacts 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 will
not be granted at the undue detriment of the public interest. Indeed, approximately 1,030
residents living within the area affected by the proposed zoning change will benefit from the
increased side setbacks and the preserved residential character of the neighborhood that the
proposed zoning change could provide.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the proposed zoning change would not constitute spot zoning because any
development allowed by the proposed zoning change would be fully consistent with the City's
comprehensive plan and zoning code, would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood,
and would be wholly within the public interest.
LUDC#68
Hernandez,Leonor
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tom C. Murphy [tcmurphy@coastalconstruction.com]
Wednesday, July 06, 2011 3:11 PM
Bower, Matti H.; Libbin, Jerry; Exposito, Jorge; Gongora, Michael; Wolfson, Jonah; Tobin, Ed;
Weithorn, Deede
321 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 strongly
support the 321 Ocean Drive project and the zoning amendment that makes the plan feasible. Please do not kill this
project with sweeping zoning legislation that few residents are aware is even up for debate. It is important that
Miami Beach encourage development plans such as 321 Ocean Drive that: 1) have extensive and strong community
support 2) involve great architects, 3) are fully compatible with nearby buildings in terms of height and 4) promote
low-intensity use consistent with this historic neighborhood.
I thank you for your service to the community.
Sincerely,
Tom C. Murphy
1
LUDC#32
MIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
FROM: Jonah Wolfson, Commissioner
DATE: April 29'h, 2011
SUBJECT: Agenda Item
Please place on the May 11'h, 2011 Commission meeting agenda a referral of the
attached proposal to the Land Use and Development Committee for discussion.
If you have any questions, please contact Leonor Hernandez at extension 6437.
JW/Ih
We ore commilted to providtng excel/en! public service and safety to oil who hve. work. and play in our
65
Agenda
Date_.=..s -....;..1.;_/-_;.J...;..../_
April28, 2011
MEMO FOR: Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
FROM: Frank Del Vecchio, 301 Ocean Drive, Apt. 604, Miami Beach, FL 33139
SUBJ: Requested City Commission Consent Agenda Item: Ocean Beach Historic
District R-PS4 Zoning Amendment
ACTION REQUESTED: This is a request for placement of the attached item on the City
Commission's May 11, 2011 Consent Agenda for referral to the city commission's Land
Use & Development Committee and the Planning Board.
I have drafted a zoning amendment to enable the development of oceanfront residential
condominiums in the residential R-PS4 section of the Ocean Beach Historic District. The
unusually deep lots in this section of the historic district pose insurmountable problems
for residential condominium development. If the area is to retain its primarily residential
character this zoning change is essential.
This request is the product of three months' analysis of the feasibility of residential
condominium development on a deep oceanfront lot at 315-321 Ocean Drive. The site is
in a section of the historic district that is zoned residential, and permits hotels but not
commercial.
The property was purchased in December, 2010 by Tim Gordon, David Arditi and Josh
Benaim. Friends since grade school, these three young men, each active in family real
estate development that includes award-winning historic preservation in Manhattan and
Paris, 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 at
a premium to their investment. Their vision is a luxury condominium of distinctive
architectural merit that will function as an integral element of the historic residential
community. They intend to be directly and jointly responsible from design through
construction and full occupancy.
This vision is supported by neighbors, who have observed how the activities at large
hotels can adversely impact abutting residential. A hotel development on the site would
place activities on balconies and outdoor accessory use restaurants only feet from the
adjacent condominiums. Traffic and taxi queuing would significantly impact this
residential section of the Ocean Beach Historic District. (Contrast the intensity of use
generated by a 130-unit hotel on the site, with its restaurant and patron activity, to that of
a 40-unit luxury condominium.)
The challenge posed by a uniquely deep, narrow lot abutted closely by residential condos
along its entire length is how to make a condominium feasible. Whereas a hotel can be
66
squeezed in between its neighbors, providing outdoor activities for its patrons, units in a
luxury condominium require view amenities not essential for hotel guests.
After exploring various architectural avenues, the team found one that will meet historic
district objectives and minimally impact its neighbors: by increasing height from the
current 75-foot maximum to one hundred feet (the height of the major oceanfront
condominiums in the historic district), units can be designed with either ocean views, or
with vistas up and down Ocean Drive at the western elevation. The increased height
would enable greater distance separation from the condos on each side. (Side setback of
the pedestal structure above parking could be doubled, from the current 7.5 feet
separation, to 15 feet.)
A zoning amendment applicable solely to new condominium development in the
residentially zoned oceanfront section of the Ocean Beach Historic District would make
this possible. Design and architectural details of condominiums development pursuant to
the requested amendment would be the province of the Historic Preservation Board.
ATTACHED: Draft of Proposed Zoning Amendment
67
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 Subdistricts
Performance Standard ; R-PSJ R-PS2 R-PS3 R-PS4
Minimum lot area ; 5,750 square feet 5,750 square feet . 5,750 square feet 5,750 square feet
Minimum lot width i 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet
Required open space ratio i 0.60, See section 0.65, See section 0.70, See section 0.70, See section 142-704
142-704 . 142-704 142-704
Maximum 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 in
l
or less-3 5 feet or less-3 5 feet or less-35 feet the Ocean Beach Historic District- 35
feet 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- 8
stories Lots 50 feet wide Lots 50 feet wide Lots 50 feet wide Oceanfront - 11
or less--4 or less--4 or less--4 Lots 50 feet wide or less - 4
In the Ocean Beach Historic
!
District- 7
Maximum floor area ratio ,1.25 1.50 '1.75 2.0
Minimum floor area per !I New
'New New New construction- 550
apartment unit (square construction- construction- .. construction- Rehabilitated buildings - 400
feet); except as provided :700
650 600
in section 142-1183 for l Rehabilitated Rehabilitated Rehabilitated
elderly housing buildings--400 . buildings--400 : buildings--400
Minimum floor area per N/A .N/A 15% = 300-335 15% = 300-335 square feet
hotel unit (square feet) square feet 85% = 335+ square feet
85% =335+
l
square feet
Minimum parking Pursuantto chapter 130 and section 142-705 requirement.
Minimum off-street , Pursuant to chapter 130, article III.
loading
Signs Pursuant to chapter 13 8.
..
Suites hotel ; Pursuant to article IV, division 3 of this chapter.
* Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions regarding maximum building height, in the Ocean Beach historic district, as
defmed in subsection 118-593(e)(ll), the maximum building height for a lot located in the R-PSI, R-PS2, or R-PS3
zoning 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 demolition
(or any such approval has expired),
shall be 3 5 feet.
68
1. Notwithstanding the above height restrictions, existing structures within a local historic district are subject to section
142-1161.
2. In the R-PS4 zoning district, within the Ocean Beach Historic District, when an existing contributing structure is
nonconforming with respect to the height regulations in section 142-696, such structure may be repaired, renovated or
rehabilitated regardless of the cost of such repair, renovation or rehabilitation, notwithstanding the provisions of chapter
118, article IX, "Nonconformances."
3. Lots at a width of 50 feet or less aggregated with adjacent parcels after November 3, 2002, shall have a maximum
height of 3 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 1 00 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. 98-
3107, 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, Rear
Interior Facing
a Street
At-grade 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Non-oceanfront lots- 5 feet
parking lot Oceanfront lots - 50 feet from bulkhead
(below line
building)
Subterranean 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet ;Non-oceanfront lots- 0 feet
I
Oceanfront lots- 50 feet from bulkhead
line
Pedestal
feet.
7.5 feet, except when section 15 feet Non-oceanfront lots - 10% of lot depth
(e) below
i
1 Oceanfront lots - 20% of lot depth, 50 1 Exceut that in the R-PS4
I
zoning district, within Lots 50 feet wide or less - 5
i
feet minimum from bulkhead
the Ocean Beach feet. Exceut that in the R-PS4 ; Exceut that in the R-PS4 zoning district,
Historic District, for a zoning district, within the within the Ocean Beach Historic District,
residential condominium Ocean Beach Historic District, for a residential condominium building
I building 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 feet
1
minimum. for any QOrtion of the Qedestal
I
I
:
above 3 5 feet height.
I
\ -
l
Tower : 50 feet, except that in the The required pedestal setback iThe Non-oceanfront lots- 15% oflot depth
1
R-PS4 within the Ocean plus 0.10 the height of the required Oceanfront lots- 25% oflot depth, 75 fee1
1
Beach Historic District, building. Exceut that in the R- pedestal minimum from bulkhead line. Exceut tha1
1
the minimum shall be 60 PS4 zoning district, within the setback in the R-PS4 zoning district, within the
feet exceut for a Ocean Beach Historic District plus Ocean Beach Historic District for a
residential condominium for a residential condominium 0.10 the residential condominium building on an
building on an building on an oceanfront lot height of 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
1
building
minimum.
1
69
(b) All required setbacks shall be considered as minimum requirements except for the pedestal front yard setback and
pedestal side yard facing a street setback which shall be considered as both a minimum and maximum requirements, except
for a residential condominium building on an oceanfront lot 100 feet or more wide, the front yard pedestal and tower setback
shall 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 a
minimum 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 to
contributing buildings, or new eoastruetioa shall meet a line-of-sight, which for the purpose of this section is defined as
not 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 a
minimum 5-foot sideyard setback, the setback of new construction in connection with the existing building may be
allowed to follow the existing building line. The maintenance ofthe existing setback shall apply to the linear extension of
the 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)
70
MIAMIBEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
STAFF REPORT
FROM:
DATE:
Richard G. Lorber, AICP, LEED L
Acting Planning Director lJ//lC
r
-
April 10, 2012 Meeting
RE: Historic Preservation File No. 7301
321 Ocean Drive - 321 Ocean Drive
The applicant, 321 Ocean Drive, LLC., is requesting an After-The-Fact Certificate of
Appropriateness for the total demolition of the prior 3-story Simone Hotel, and a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the construction of a new 7-story multifamily building and a new 9-story
multifamily building on the subject site.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lots 6 & 7, less the westerly 15.00 feet thereof for Street Widening purposes, Block 115 of
OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO.4, According to the Plat Thereof, as Recorded in Plat Book 3,
Page 151, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
HISTORY:
The subject site has a lengthy history before the Historic Preservation Board dating back to
2005, 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 the
construction of a new 7-story building. The project (HPB File No. 3690) approved by the Board in
2006 included the retention of approximately thirty (30') feet of the front portion of the original
hotel. This project never went forward and is now expired.
The property came before the County's Unsafe Structures Board in 2010, and the Simone Hotel
was ordered to be demolished. The demolition commenced in August 201 0 and the property has
remained vacant since that time.
SITE DATA:
Zoning -
Future Land Use Designation -
Lot Size-
Proposed FAR-
Proposed 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 the
applicant
9-stories / 100 feet, 115 feet to highest non-habitable
projection
Hotel - 43 rooms / Vacant Site
Multifamily Residential (30 units)
Page 2 of 14
HPB File No. 7301
Meeting Date: April 10, 2012
FORMER STRUCTURE:
Constructed in 1937 and designed by architects Norden and Nadel, the former Simone Hotel
was classified as 'Contributing' in the Miami Beach Historic Properties Database and was
located within the Ocean Beach Local Historic District. It was a good example of a lowscale Art
Deco hotel, incorporating corner windows with continuous eyebrows, a 'ziggurat' parapet with
two portholes and two circular reliefs, a continuous wide projecting eyebrow at the ground floor,
and a raised front terrace. The Simone Hotel was originally constructed as a 2-story building that
was approximately half the depth of the building as it existed prior to its demolition. The later
third floor addition extended the fac;ade design of the original building, and a 3-story attached
addition extended the depth of the structure.
THE PROJECT:
The applicant has submitted plans entitled "321 Ocean Drive", as prepared by Ten Arquitectos,
dated April 10, 2012.
The proposed application includes a request for an 'After The Fact Certificate of
Appropriateness for Demolition', for the 2010 demolition of the former Simone Hotel on the
subject site. In addition to this request, the applicant is proposing to construct a new 7-story
multifamily building fronting Ocean Drive and a new 9-story multifamily building at (he rear of the
subject site. Covered parking is provided at the ground level, accessed by a driveway at the
north side of the site. Above the parking area is a landscaped roof deck, which forms a courtyard
between the two proposed new buildings.
COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING CODE:
A preliminary review of the project indicates that the application, as proposed, may be
inconsistent with the following portions of the City Code:
1. Review and approval of the Planning Board will be required for the proposed mechanical
parking lifts.
The above noted comments shall not be considered final zoning review or approval. These and
all zoning matters shall require final review and verification by the Zoning Administrator prior to
the issuance of a Building Permit.
ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE:
Additional information will be required for a complete review for compliance with the Florida
Building Code 2001 Edition, section 11 (Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction).
These and all accessibility matters shall require final review and verification by the Building
Department prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
PRELIMINARY CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION:
In accordance with Chapter 122 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, the Transportation and
Concurrency Management Division has conducted a preliminary concurrency evaluation and
determined that the project does meet the City's concurrency requirements and level-of-service
standards.
A final concurrency determination shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Mitigation fees and concurrency admi.nistrative costs shall be paid prior to the project receiving
any Building Permit. Without exception, all concurrency fees shall be paid prior to the issuance
of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy.
Page 3 of 14
HPB File No. 7301
Meeting Date: April 10, 2012
COMPLIANCE WITH CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CRITERIA:
A decision on an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be based upon the
following:
I. Evaluation of. the compatibility of the physical alteration or improvement with surrounding
properties and where applicable, compliance with the following criteria pursuant to
Section 118-564(a)(1) of the Miami Beach Code (it is recommended that the listed
criteria be found Satisfied, Not Satisfied or Not Applicable, as so noted):
a. The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as revised from time to time.
Satisfied
ub. Other guidelines/policies/plans adopted or approved by Resolution or Ordinance
by the City Commission.
Satisfied
II. In determining whether a particular application is compatible with surrounding properties,
the Board shall consider the following criteria pursuant tq Section 118-564(a)(2) of the
Miami Beach Code (it is recommended that the listed criteria be found Satisfied, Not
Satisfied or Not Applicable, as so noted):
a. Exterior architectural features.
Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis and Concern No.1
Further design development and detailing of the ground level of the west
elevation along Ocean Drive is needed as the proposed design is
inconsistent with the established context and character of the surrounding
pedestrian environment. Also, the massing of the first 2 levels of the
Oceanfront building overwhelms the scale of the oceanfront environment.
b. General design, scale, massing and arrangement.
Not Satisfied; See lIa. Above
c. Texture and material and color.
Not Satisfied; see Concern No.1 and Staff Analysis
Exterior surface color samples have not been submitted.
d. The relationship of a, b, c, above, to other structures and features of the district.
Not Satisfied; See lIa. Above
e. The purpose for which the district was created.
Not Satisfied; See lIa. Above
f. The relationship of the size, design and siting of any new or reconstructed
structure to the landscape of the district.
Not Satisfied; See lIa. Above
g. An. historic resources report, containing all available data and historic
documentation regarding the building, site or feature.
Page 4 of 14
HPB File No. 7301
Meeting Date: April 10, 2012
Not Satisfied
h. The original architectural design or any subsequent modifications that have
acquired significance.
Not Applicable
III. The examination of architectural drawings for consistency with the criteria pursuant to
Section 118-564(a)(3) of the Miami Beach Code and stated below, with regard to the
aesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of any new or existing structure, public
interior space and physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent
structures and properties, and surrounding community. The criteria referenced above
are as follows (it is recommended that the listed criteria be found Satisfied, Not Satisfied
or 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.
Not Satisfied; See lIa. Above
b. The dimensions of all buildings, structures, setbacks, parking spaces, floor area
ratio, height, lot coverage and any other information that may be reasonably
necessary to determine compliance with the requirements of the underlying
zoning district, and any applicable overlays, for a particular application orproject.
Not Satisfied; See Zoning Analysis
c. The color, design, surface finishes and selection of landscape materials and
architectural elements of the exterior of all buildings and structures and primary
public interior areas for developments requiring a building permit in areas of the
city identified in section 118-503.
Not Satisfied; See lIa. Above
d. The proposed structure, and/or additions to an existing structure is appropriate to
and compatible with the.environment and adjacent structures, and enhances the
appearance of the surrounding properties, or the purposes for which the district
was created.
Not Satisfied; See lIa. Above
e. The design and layout of the proposed site plan, as well as all new and existing
buildings and public interior spaces shall be reviewed so as to provide an
efficient arrangement of land uses. Particular attention shall be given to safety,
crime prevention and fire protection, relationship to the surrounding
neighborhood, impact on preserving historic character of the neighborhood and
district, contiguous and adjacent buildings and lands, pedestrian sight lines and
view corridors.
Not Satisfied; See lIa. Above
f. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the site shall be
reviewed to ensure that clearly defined, segregated pedestrian access to the site
and all buildings is provided for and that any driveways and parking spaces are
usable, safely and conveniently arranged and have a minimal impact on
Page 5 of 14
HPB File No. 7301
Meeting Date: April 10, 2012
pedestrian circulation throughout the site. Access to the site from adjacent roads
shall be designed so as to interfere as little as possible with vehicular traffic flow
on these roads and pedestrian movement onto and within the site, as well as
permit both pedestrians and vehicles a safe ingress and egress to the site.
Not Satisfied; See lIa. Above
g. Lighting shall be reviewed to ensure safe movement of persons and vehicles and
reflection on public property for security purposes and to minimize glare and
reflection on adjacent properties and consistent with a City master plan, where
applicable.
Satisfied
h. Landscape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an adequate
relationship with and enhancement of the overall site plan design.
Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis and Concern No.2
i. Buffering materials shall be reviewed to ensure that headlights of vehicles, noise,
and light from Structures are adequately shielded from public view, adjacent
properties and pedestrian areas.
Satisfied
j. Any proposed new structure shall have an orientation and massing which is
sensitive to and compatible with the building site and surrounding area and
which creates or maintains important view corridor(s).
Not Satisfied; See lIa. Above
k. All buildings shall have, to the greatest extent possible, space in that part of the
ground floor fronting a sidewalk, street or streets which is to be occupied for
residential or commercial uses; likewise, the upper floors of the pedestal portion
of the proposed building fronting a sidewalk street, or streets shall have
residential or commercial spaces, or shall have the appearance of being a
residential or commercial space or shall have an architectural treatment which
shall buffer the appearance of a parking structure from the surrounding area and
is integrated with the overall appearance of the project.
Not Satisfied; See lIa.Above
I. All buildings shall have an appropriate and fully integrated rooftop architectural
treatment which substantially screens all mechanical equipment, stairs and
elevator towers.
Satisfied
m. Any addition on a building site shall be designed, sited and massed in a manner
which is sensitive to and compatible with the existing improvement(s).
Not Applicable
-
n. All portions of a project fronting a street or sidewalk shall incorporate an amount
of transparency at the first level necessary to achieve pedestrian compatibility.
Not Satisfied; See lIa. Above
Page 6 of 14
HPB File No. 7301
Meeting Date: April 10, 2012
o. The location, design, screening and buffering of all required service bays,
delivery bays, trash and refuse receptacles, as well as trash rooms shall be
arranged so as to have a minimal impact on adjacent properties.
Satisfied
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION EVALUATION CRITERIA:
Section 118-564 (f)(4) of the Land Development Regulations of the Miami Beach Code provides
criteria by which the Historic Preservation Board evaluates requests for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for Demolition. The following is an analysis of the request based upon these
criteria:
I. The Building, Structure, Improvement, or Site is designated on either a national or state
level as a part of an Historic Preservation District or as a Historic Architectural Landmark
or Site, or is designated pursuant to Division 4, Article X, Chapter 118 of the Miami
Beach Code as a Historic Building, Historic Structure or Historic Site, Historic
Improvement, Historic Landscape Feature, Historic Interior or the Structure is of such
historic/architectural interest or quality that it would reasonably meet national, state or
local criteria for such designation.
Satisfied
The former structure was designated as part of the Ocean Beach Local Historic
District; the building was designated as "Contributing" in the historic district.
2. 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/or
expense.
Not Satisfied
The former structure w u ~ not be difficult or inordinately expensive to reproduce.
3. The Building, Structure, Improvement, or Site is one ofthe last remaining examples of its
kind in the neighborhood, the country, or the region, or is a distinctive example of an
architectural or design style which contributes to the character of the district.
Satisfied
The former structure was one of the last remaining examples of its kind and was a
distinctive example of an Art Deco Hotel which contributed to the character ofthe
district.
4. The Building, Structure, Improvement, Landscape Feature or Site is a contributing
building, structure, improvement, site or landscape feature rather than a noncontributing
building, structure, improvement, site or landscape feature in a historic district as defined
in section 114-1, or is an architecturally significant feature of a public area of the interior
of a historic or contributing bUilding.
Satisfied .
The subject structure was designated as contributing in the Miami Beach Historic
Properties Database.
5. Retention of the Building, Structure, Improvement, Landscape Feature or Site promotes
the general welfare of the City by providing an opportunity for study of local history,
architecture and design or by developing an understanding ofthe importance and value
of a particular culture and heritage.
Satisfied
Page 7 of 14
HPB File No. 7301
Meeting Date: April 10, 2012
The retention of the subject structure was critical to developing an understanding
of important Miami Beach architectural styles.
6. If the proposed demolition is for the purpose of constructing a parking garage, the Board
shall consider it if the parking garage is designed in a manner that is consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings, U.S. Department of the Interior (1983), as amended, and/or the
design review guidelines for that particular district.
Not Satisfied
The demolition in the subject application is not for the purpose of constructing a
parking garage.
7. In the event an applicant or property owner proposes the total demolition of a
contributing structure, historic structure or architecturally significant feature,
there shall be definite plans presented to the board for the reuse of the property
if 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 Structure
without option.
Satisfied
The Dade County Unsafe Structures Board did order the demolition of the former
3-story Simone Hotel structure.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
While it is unfortunate that the entire Simone Hotel had to be demolished, pursuant to a
demolition order, staff had recognized this necessity dating back several years based on a
thorough inspection of the former structure. As indicated by thE? photos submitted with prior
applications, along with personal inspections by staff, many of the basement columns were
almost fully deteriorated, and columns were poured with angled steel support cages that
resulted in insufficient concrete coverage of the steel. Such poor construction techniques likely
accelerated the building's on-going deterioration and lead to its ultimate demolition.
It is important to note that the original Simone Hotel's interior side setbacks of only feet (5')
resulted in extremely undesirable living conditions, and the substantially increased tower
setbacks of the proposed new construction, along with the substantial open courtyard between
the proposed new buildings will substantially enhance the surrounding properties. In February of
2012 the City Code was revised in an effort to enable the construction of a residential project
such as this one, with a substantial open courtyard in the middle of the site, in order to enhance
the livability for both this property and the neighboring residential buildings.
Staff commends the applicant and the design team on the sophisticated and very forward
thinking approach to the project. The scale, massing, height and building orientation are all
consistent with the built context of the east side of Ocean Drive. Additionally, the variations in
surface finishes, changes in plane and the very skillful distribution of architectural form have
resulted in a very iconic building. Indeed, the overall design concept and its execution represent
the direction of new architecture that has come to define Miami Beach over the last decade.
Page 8 of 14
HPB File No. 7301
Meeting Date: April 10, 2012
Staff also commends the applicant for agreeing to participate in the beach walk master plan. As
the subject project fronts directly on the Ocean, and includes a substantial degree of new
construction, the applicant has agreed allow for and construct a grade level public beach walk
along the rear of the subject site. Such beach walk would follow the approved Atlantic
Greenways Beach Walk Master Plan.
While highly supportive of the proposal, staff has identified several areas of concern, particularly
as seen and experienced from Ocean Drive and the beachfront. These areas of concern center
on how the structure addresses the more low scale, pedestrian oriented character of Ocean
Drive 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, as
more than half of the building frontage is consumed by an FPL vault. When combined with the
required 22' driveway and a small lobby with a side entrance, the experience along
Ocean Drive is completely ignored and the overall design concept is atypical of the historic
pattern of raised front terraces along the street frontage that contained substantial lobbies or
active uses directly accessed from the sidewalk. In order to address this deficiency, staff would
strongly recommend that the FPL vault be relocated elsewhere within the parking garage and
that the lobby be expanded along the entire frontage of Ocean Drive. Additionally, a primary
access door, facing the street and accessed from the sidewalk, is badly needed, as the subject
structure has no identification at the pedestrian level.
This modification to the interior plan will also allowfor a more active and dynamic west elevation
at the first level, as transparency will define the entire sidewalk edge. The water feature should
also be modified with direct connections to the new front door and windows. This
reconfiguration of the ground floor will create a much more defined sense of entry, which is
completely lacking in the proposed design.
Second, while the architect has offset the massing of the courtyard elevations and successfully
broken down the scale of the architecture by incorporating changes in railing and window
designs, the Oceanfront elevation appears as one large mass, lacking the same successful
scale and design attributes of the courtyard elevations. This is particularly acute at the first 2
floors, which are composed entirely of a single plane of glass. Staff believes that the overall
massing of the east elevation should be slightly offset in building plan and that the design of the
first 2 floors of the east elevation should incorporate solid features and/or finishes. These design
modifications will help form a more cohesive architectural whole with the rest of the tower, and
will establish a more compatible relationship with the neighboring properties.
Third, the submitted plans lack adequate details of the major architectural elements including
the proposed 'venetian blind glass screens', perforated metal screens, aluminum cladding, and
fritted glass window system. Together, these systems create the primary architecture and overall
identity of the bUilding. Given the experience of the project architect, staff is very confident that
these details can be addressed as part of the bUilding permit process. However, it is recommend
that several three-dimensional renderings be provided and include closer views of the building,
so 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 the
site. Such concerns include the type of ventilation proposed, required lighting, and the adequacy
of the turning radius shown. These code mandated issues will need to be addressed in a
manner that does not compromise the architectural integrity of the proposed building, and will
Page 9 of 14
HPB File No. 7301
Meeting Date: April 10, 2012
not cause an undue hardship or become a nuisance for the residential units to the immediate
north. As this vehicular access area will be highly visible from the street and sidewalk, staff
would recommend that further design development of the interior and exterior spaces would be
in order. In this regard, additional, opaque screening will be required, as well as the use of non-
stucco surface finishes, in order to carry the high level of exterior design\into the vehicular
access space.
In summary, the applicant has proposed a highly evolved and exceptional development concept.
Given the overall scope and size of the project however, staff believes that the concerns
identified herein should before the project is reviewed by the Board. Consequently, staff
recommends that the application be continued to the May 8,2012 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
In view of the foregoing analysis and the inconsistencies with the aforementioned Certificate of
Appropriateness criteria, staff recommends the application be continued to a date certain of May
8, 2012, in order to address the following concerns:
1. The applicant has voluntarily offered, proffered and agreed to allow and construct a
grade level public beach walk ("Public Beach Walk") along the rear of the subject site.
This proffer and agreement is based on a particularized evaluation and assessment of
the subject project, the rational nexus between such project and its impact on the local
transportation network, and the rational nexus and rough proportionality between the
subject project and the beach walk master plan. The approval of the subject application
is contingent upon such Public Beach Walk being construCted in accordance with the
following conditions.
a. A new Public Beach Walk shall be designed, permitted and built by the applicant.
All costs associated with the design, permitting and construction of the Public
Beach Walk, as described herein, shall be borne by the applicant.
b. The applicant shall enter into and record a restrictive covenant, approved by the
Miami Beach City Attorney, which runs with the land, confirming the applicant's
agreement to design, permit and construct a Public Beach Walk, in accordance
with the conditions herein. The restrictive covenant shall be recorded in the
public records, at the expense of the applicant.
c. The Public Beach Walk shall be consistent with the beach walk master plan, and
shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department, as well as
all other applicable regulatory agencies and authorities.
d. The Public Beach Walk shall be permitted and substantially completed prior to
the issuance of the Final CO for the work approved herein.
2. Revised elevation, site plan and floor plan drawings shall be submitted; at a minimum,
such drawings shall incorporate the following:
a. The ground level of the west elevation shall be completely redesigned in order to
create a defined sense of entry and an identifiable pedestrian experience. At a
minimum, the FPL vault shall be relocated elsewhere within the parking garage
and the lobby area shall be expanded along the entire frontage of Ocean Drive,
Page 10 of 14
HPB File No. 7301
Meeting Date: April 10, 2012
with a primary access door facing and accessible from the sidewalk. This shall
include modifications to the proposed water feature in order to allow direct
connections between the new front door and west windows of the lobby directly
to the sidewalk; the dimensions, material and access points to the revised lobby
area shall be provided.
b. A more active and dynamic west elevation, inclusive of a' substantial amount of
transparent glass, shall be required at the first level.
c. Detailed plans and elevations of the walls, ceiling and flooring of the interior
driveway and drop-off areas on the north side of the property shall be provided
as part of the Building Permit plans. The applicant shall provide a detailed design
proposal for these interior areas, including additional opaque screening to buffer
noise and lights from the neighboring properties, as well as the use of non-
stucco surface finishes, in order to carry the high level of exterior design into the
vehicular access space. The materials and overall architectural concept for the
interior areas of the vehicular access and driveway areas on the north side of the
site shall be provided.
d. The scale, massing and design of the east elevation shall be further studied and
developed, in a manner to be approved by staff. At a minimum, the east
elevation shall be slightly offset in building plan, and the design of the first 2
floors 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; the
final design details of these portions of the building, including materials,
landscaping and any additional screening of driveways and parking areas that
may be required, shall be subject to the review and approval of staff.
f. Three-dimensional renderings shall be provided, including closer views of the
building, in order to fully evaluate the relationship and design of the various
architectural systems. Based upon these drawings, the final design details ofthe
proposed 'venetian blind glass screens', perforated metal screens, aluminum
cladding, and fritted glass window y t ~ shall be developed.
g. Details of the ventilation system required for the parking and drive-way levels
shall be provided. Any mechanical ventilation that may be required shall be
chased vertically through the subject structure up to roof, in a manner to be
reviewed and approved by staff. The location of any required mechanical and
ventilation fixtures and devices for the parking level shall be clearly delineated on
the floor plans and site plansat the time of Building Permit review and shall be
subject to the review and approval of staff.
h. Any security fencing or gates shall not be located within the required front yard
and shall be setback behind the face of the front building.
i. Adequate trash room space shall be provided, in a manner to be approved by
the Planning and Public Works Departments. All trash containers shall utilize
rubber wheels, or the path for the trash containers shall consist of a surface
finish that reduces noise.
Page 11 of 14
HPB File No. 7301
Meeting Date: April 10, 2012
j. The finished elevation of the rear pool deck and side yards shall not be
substantially elevated above grade.
k. 3-Demensional drawings of the proposed structure shall be provided, which
clearly indicate the extent of all roof-top elements. All stair towers, elevators, and
mechanical equipment shall be appropriately designed, screened and detailed in
a manner consistent with the building's design vocabulary.
I. An historic analysis of the Simone Hotel, inclusive of a photographic and written
description of its history and evolution on the site, shall be submitted to and
approved by staff; prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; such historic
analysis shall be displayed prominently within the public area of the structure, in
a location to be determined by staff.
m. An identification marker of the proposed newstructure, including the name ofthe
design architect and year of construction, shall be required. The design,
dimensions, material and location of such marker shall be consistent with the
prototype B (oval), and shall be submitted to and approved by staff, prior to the
issuance 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 Arial
font with routed out or engraved black letters.
n. Manufacturers drawings and Dade County product approval numbers for all new
windows, doors and glass shall be required, prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
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 be
screened from view, in a manner to be approved by staff.
p. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the project Architect shall
verify, in writing, that the subject project has been constructed in accordance with
the plans approved by the Planning Department for Building Permit.
3. A revised landscape plan, prepared by a Professional Landscape Architect, registered in
the State of Florida, and corresponding site plan, shall be submitted to and approved by
staff. The species type, quantity, dimensions, spacing, location and overall height of all
plant material shall be clearly delineated and subject to the review and approval of staff.
At a minimum, such plan shall incorporate the following:
a. All existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground; in the event FPL
requires the undergrounding of the utilities of the adjacent properties, this
condition may be waived.
b. If feasible, and not in conflict with underground utilities, street trees with the
City's standard bound aggregate system with fertilization trench, irrigation and up
lighting shall be incorporated into the City right of way along Ocean Drive, in a
manner to be reviewed and approved by staff.
Page 12 of 14
HPB File No. 7301
Meeting Date: April 10, 2012
c. Hedge material of any kind shall not be permitted within the front area of the
property.
d. All exterior walkways and driveways shall consist of decorative pavers, set in
sand or other equally semi-pervious material, subject to the reviewand approval
of staff.
e. All landscape areas abutting driveways and parking areas shall be defined by
decorative bollards.
f. A fully automatic irrigation system with 100% coverage and an automatic rain
sensor in order to render the system inoperative in the event of rain. Right-of-
way 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 clearly
delineated on the revised landscape plan.
h. The applicant shall verify, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the exact
location of all backflow prevention devices. Backflow prevention devices shall
not be permitted within any required yard or any area fronting a street or
sidewalk, unless otherwise permitted by the Land Development Regulations.
The location of all backflow prevention devices, and howthey are s.creened from
the right-of-way, shall be clearly indicated on the site and landscape plans and
shall be subject to the review and approval of staff. The fire department
shall 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 exact
location of all post-indicator valves (PIV), fire department connections (FDG) and
all other related devices and fixtures, which shall be clearly indicated on the site
and 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 exact
location of all applicable FPL transformers orvault rooms; such transformers and
vault rooms, and all other related devices and fixtures, shall not be permitted
within any required yard or any area fronting a street or sidewalk. The location of
any exterior transformers, and how they are screened with landscape material
from the right-of-way, shall be clearly indicated on the site and landscape plans
and shall be subject to the review and approval of staff.
k. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Landscape Architect for
the project architect shall verify, in writing, that the project is consistent with the
site and landscape plans approved by the Planning Department for Building
Permit.
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 the
review and approval of staff and shall require a separate permit.
Page 13 of 14
HPB File No. 7301
Meeting Date: April 10, 2012
6. A traffic mitigation plan, which addresses all roadway Level of Service (LOS) deficiencies
relative to the concurrency requirements of the City Code, if required, shall be submitted
prior 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 the
Florida Accessibility Code (FAC).
8. The project shall comply with any landscaping or other sidewalk/street improvement
standards as may be prescribed by a relevant Urban Design Master Plan approved prior
to the completion of the project and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
9. The applicant may be required to submit a separate analysis for water and sewer
requirements, at the discretion of the Public Works Director, or designee. Based on a
preliminary review of the proposed project, the following may be required by the Public
Works Department:
a. A traffic and neighborhood impact study shall be conducted as a means to
measure a proposed development's impact on transportation and
neighborhoods. The study shall address all roadway Level of Service (LOS)
deficiencies relative to the concurrency requirements of the City Code, and if
required, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The final
building plans shall meet all other requirements of the Land Development
Regulations of the City Code. The developer shall refer to the most recent City of
Miami Beach's Traffic and Neighborhood Impact Methodology as issued by the
Public Works Department.
b. - - Remove/replace sidewalks, curbs and gutters on all street frontages, if
applicable. Unless otherwise specified, the standard color for city sidewalks is
red, 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-flowprevention devices on all water services.
f. Provide on-site, self-contained storm water drainage for the proposed
development.
g. Meet water/sewer concurrency requirements including a hydraulic water model
analysis and gravity sewer system capacity analysis as determined by the
Department and the required upgrades to water and sewer mains servicing this
project.
h. Payment of City utility impact fees for water meters/services.
i. Provide flood barrier ramps to underground parking or minimumslab elevation to
be at highest adjacent crown road elevation plus 8".
Page 14 of 14
HPB File No. 7301
Meeting Date: April 10, 2012
j. Right-of-way permit must be obtained from Public Works.
k. All right-of-way encroachments must be removed.
I. All planting/landscaping in the public right-of-way must be approved by the Public
Works and Parks Departments.
10. At the time of completion of the project, only a Final Certificate of Occupancy (CO) or
Final Certificate of Completion (CC) may be applied for; the staging and scheduling of
the construction on site shall take this into account. All work on site must be completed
in accordance with the plans approved herein, as well as any modifications approved or
required by the Building, Fire, Planning, CIP and Public Works Departments, inclusive of
all conditions imposed herein, and by other Development Review Boards, and any
modifications 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 or
Temporary CC.
11. The Final Order shall be recorded in the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, prior to
the issuance of a Building Permit.
12. The Final Order is not severable, and if any provision or condition hereof is held void or
unconstitutional in a final decision by a court of competent jurisdiction, the order shall be
returned to the Board for reconsideration as to whether the order meets the criteria for
approval absent the stricken provision or condition, and/or it is appropriate to modify the
remaining 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 City Code or other applicable law, nor
allows a relaxation of any requirement or standard set forth in the City Code.
RGL:TRM:MAB
F:\$HPB\12HPB\Apr12\7301.Apr12.docx