Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-98-0450J-98-280 4/20/98 RESOLUTION NO. v v 450 A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1201 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE (F/K/A SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE), MIAMI, FLORIDA; TO BE COMPRISED OF NOT MORE THAN 749 UNITS, ACCESSORY AND COMMERCIAL SPACE AND 1,254 PARKING SPACES (INCLUDING VALET SPACES); DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on November 7, 1997, the applicant, Judith A. Burke, for Multiplan USA Corp., a Florida Corporation, submitted a complete Application for Major Use Special Permit for the Bayshore Palms Project pursuant to Articles 5, 13 and 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, for the property located at approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive (f/k/a South Bayshore Drive), Miami, Florida, as legally described on "Exhibit B", attached hereto and in "Exhibit All, the Development Order attached hereto; and WHEREAS, development of the Bayshore Palms Project requires the issuance of a Major Use Special Permit pursuant to Article 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended; and ATTACHMENT (S)I � CONTAINED CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APR 2 8 1998 fiawauftn N" 08- 450 WHEREAS, the Large Scale Development Committee met on July 25, 1997 to consider the proposed project and offer its input; and WHEREAS, the APPLICANT has modified the proposed project to address the expressed technical concerns raised at said Large Scale Development Committee meeting; and WHEREAS, the Urban Development Review Board ("UDRB") met on November 13, 1997 to consider the proposed project and recommended approval of the project, with conditions as specified on the attached Development Order herein; and WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting held on January 12, 1998, Item No. 12, following an advertised public hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 1998-0010 by a vote of seven to zero (7-0), RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Special Exception component of the Major Use Special Permit Development Order as attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting held on February 18, 1998, Item No. 1, following an advertised public hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 14-98 by a vote of six to zero (6-0), RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Major Use Special Permit Development Order as attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami to issue a Major Use Special Permit Development Order as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: - 2 - 98 - 4�+� Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. A Major Use Special Permit Development Order, attached hereto as Exhibit "Al' and made a part hereof, is hereby approved subject to the conditions specified in said Development Order, per Article 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, for the Bayshore Palms Project (hereinafter referred to as the "PROJECT") to be developed by Multiplan USA Corp., ("APPLICANT"), at approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive (f/k/a South Bayshore Drive), Miami, Florida, more particularly described on "Exhibit B", attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 3. The PROJECT is hereby approved for the construction of up to seven hundred forty nine (749) residential units, accessory commercial and recreational space and one thousand two hundred and fifty-four (1,254) parking spaces (including valet spaces). Section 4. The Major Use Special Permit Application for the Bayshore Palms Project also encompasses the lower ranking Special Permits as set forth in the Development Order, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. Section 5. The findings of fact set forth below are hereby made with respect to the subject PROJECT: a. The PROJECT is in conformity with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000, as amended. - 3 - 98- 4�9 b. The PROJECT is in accord with the SD-5 Zoning classification of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended. c. Pursuant to Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the specific site plan aspects of the PROJECT, i.e., ingress and egress, parking, signs and lighting, utilities, drainage, preservation of natural features and control of potentially adverse effects generally, have been considered and will be further considered administratively during the process of issuing a building permit and a certificate of occupancy. d. The PROJECT is expected to cost approximately $246 million (with an additional approximately $158 million in construction period economic benefits), and to employ approximately 325 workers during construction (FTE); the PROJECT will also result in the creation of approximately 105 permanent new jobs. The PROJECT will generate approximately $9.5 million annually in tax revenues to local units of government (1997 dollars). e. The City Commission further finds that: (1) the PROJECT will have a favorable impact on the economy of the City; - 4 - 98- 450 (2) the PROJECT will efficiently use public transportation facilities; (3) any potentially adverse effects of the PROJECT will be mitigated through compliance with the conditions of this Major Use Special Permit; (4) the PROJECT will favorably affect the need for people to find adequate housing reasonably accessible to their places of employment; (5) the PROJECT will efficiently use necessary public facilities; (6) the PROJECT will not negatively impact the environment and natural resources of the City; (7) the PROJECT will not adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood; (8) the PROJECT will not adversely affect public safety; (9) based on the record presented and evidence presented, the public welfare will be served by the PROJECT; and (10) any potentially adverse effects of the PROJECT arising from safety and security, fire protection and life safety, solid waste, heritage conservation, trees, shoreline development, minority participation and - 5 - 98- 45- 0 employment, and minority contractor/subcontractor participation will be mitigated through compliance with the conditions of this Major Use Special Permit. Section 7. The Major Use Special Permit, as approved and amended, shall be binding upon the APPLICANTS and any successors in interest. Section 8. The application for Major Use Special Permit, which was submitted on November 7, 1997, and on file with the Department of Planning and Development of the City Of Miami, Florida, shall be relied upon generally for administrative interpretations and is made a part hereof by reference. Section 9. This Major Use Special Permit will expire two (2) years from its effective date which is thirty (30) days after the adoption of the herein Resolution. Section 10. The City Manager is hereby directed to instruct the Director of the Department of Planning and Development to transmit a copy of this Resolution and attachment to the developers: Multiplan USA Corp., 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1800, Miami, Fl. 33131. Section 11. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are made with respect to the Project as described in the Development Order for the Bayshore Palms Project, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof by reference thereto. 6 - 98- 4t150 Section 12. The Major Use Special Permit Development Order for the Bayshore Palms Project (Exhibit "All) is hereby granted and issued. Section 13. In the event that any portion or section of this Resolution or the Development Order (Exhibit "A") is determined to be invalid, illegal, or unconstitutional by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall in no manner affect the remaining portions of this Resolution or Development Order (Exhibit "All) which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 14. This Resolution shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of April , 1998. JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR In accordance with Miami Code Sec. 2-36, since the Mayor did not indicate approval of this legislation by signing it in the designated place provided, said legislation now ts n cs effective with the elapse of ten (10) days fr m the date of Corniniscicn action regarding same, without the Mayor exerc' ng v ATTEST: _-�CI '�'ll+���S�' rt,�Y aJt_e , ,.. Y .+... t a' rk WALTER J. FOEMAN, CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: , & n r, f -/,/ /—(/ , GEORG K. WYSO , I ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY W2349 - 7 - 08 4b0 EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. DATE: BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT DEVELOPMENT ORDER Let it be known that pursuant to Articles 5, 13 and 17 of Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, the Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, has considered in a public hearing, the issuance of a Major Use Special Permit for the Bayshore Palms Project (hereinafter referred to as the "PROJECT") to be located at approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive (f/k/a South Bayshore Drive), Miami, Florida; see legal description on "Exhibit B", attached hereto and made a part hereof; said legal description is subject to any dedications, limitations, restrictions, reservations or easements of record. After due consideration of the recommendations of the Zoning Board and Planning Advisory Board and after due consideration of the consistency of this proposed development with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, the City Commission has approved the PROJECT, and subject to the following conditions approves the Major Use Special Permit and hereby issues this Permit: 98- 4bO PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed Bayshore Palms Project is a residential development located at approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive (f/k/a South Bayshore Drive), Miami, Florida; ("PROJECT"). The PROJECT is located on a gross lot area of approximately 328,321 square feet (7.54 acres) and a net lot area of approximately 220,849 square feet (5.07 acres) of land (more specifically described on "Exhibit B", incorporated herein by reference). The remainder of the PROJECT's VITAL DATA is attached hereto as "EXHIBIT C", and incorporated herein by reference. The proposed PROJECT will consist of no more than seven hundred forty-nine (749) residential units in two sixty-seven (67) story towers with approximately 9,500 sq. ft. of retail space and 7,455 sq. ft. of restaurant space; the PROJECT also includes a recreation deck with an Olympic lap pool, an "infinity edge" swimming pool, a wading pool, spa, and racquetball and squash courts; the PROJECT also includes a fitness center, a Wellness Center containing meditation and massage areas and a community room. The PROJECT will also provide a total of one thousand two hundred and fifty-four (1,254) parking spaces (including valet spaces). The ownership, operation and maintenance of common areas and facilities will be by a mandatory property owner association in perpetuity pursuant to a recorded Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. - 2 - 98- 450 The Major Use Special Permit Application for the Bayshore Palms Project also encompasses the following lower ranking Special Permits: CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, for a Federal Aviation Authority Clearance letter; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 906.6 for a swimming pool and outdoor recreational area; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 917.1.2 for valet service; CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 923.2 for reducing loading berth dimensions from 12x35 to 10x35; CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 6, Section 605.3 for development within the SD-5 District; CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 908.2 for access from a public street with widths greater than 25 feet. CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 15, Section 1511 for development between Biscayne Bay and the first dedicated public right-of-way; CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 6, Section 605.5(2), for outdoor service of food/drink/shelter; CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 6, Section 605.4.4 for relocation of the required retail/services along pedestrian pathways to elsewhere within the structure; CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT as per Parking Guides and Standards to reduce parking stall width when adjacent to a wall or column; CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 6, Section 605.8.3 to allow an urban plaza along S.E. 12th Street. Pursuant to Articles 13 and 17 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, approval of the requested Major Use Special Permit shall be considered sufficient for the subordinate permits and requested referenced above. - 3 - 98" 450 The PROJECT shall be constructed substantially in accordance with plans and design schematics on file prepared by Luis Revuelta, P.A., dated November 1997; the landscape plan shall be implemented substantially in accordance with plans and design schematics on file prepared by Bradshaw Gill & Associates, dated November, 1997; said design and landscape plans may be permitted to be modified only to the extent necessary to comply with the conditions for approval imposed herein; all modifications shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of the Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of any building permits. The PROJECT conforms to the requirements of the SD-5 Zoning District, as contained in Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended. The existing comprehensive plan future land use designation allows the proposed mix of commercial and residential uses. THE APPLICANT, ITS SUCCESSORS, AND/OR ASSIGNS, JOINTLY OR SEVERALLY, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS, SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING: 1. Meet all applicable building codes, land development regulations, ordinances and other laws. 2. Provide a list of agencies from which approvals and/or permits must be obtained prior to initiation of development and the permit or approval required of each. 3. Allow the Miami Police Department to conduct a security survey, at the option of the Department, and to make recommendations concerning security measures and systems; further submit a report to the Department of Planning and Development, prior to commencement of construction, demonstrating how the Police Department recommendations, if any, have been incorporated into the PROJECT security and construction plans, or demonstrate to the Planning Director why such recommendations are impractical. 4. Provide a letter from the Department of Fire -Rescue indicating APPLICANT'S coordination with members of the Fire Plan Review Section at the Department of Fire - Rescue in the review of the scope of the PROJECT, owner responsibility, building development process and review procedures, as well as specific requirements for fire protection and life safety systems, exiting, vehicular access and water supply. 5. Provide a letter of assurance from the Solid Waste Department that the PROJECT has addressed all concerns of the said Department. 6. Prepare a Minority Participation and Employment Plan to be submitted to the City's Director of Minority and - 5 - 98- 4`i � Women Business Affairs for review and comments, with the understanding that the City's Minority/Women Business Affairs and Procurement Ordinance No. 10538 is a guide that the APPLICANT must use its best efforts to follow. 7. Prepare a Minority Contractor/Subcontractor Participation Plan to the City's Director of Minority and Women Business Affairs for review and comment, with the understanding that the City's Minority/Women Business Affairs and Procurement Ordinance No. 10538 is a guide that the APPLICANT must use its best efforts to follow. 8. Record in the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions providing that the ownership, operation and maintenance of all common areas and facilities will be by the property owner or a mandatory property owner association in perpetuity. 9. Record a certified copy of the development order with the Clerk of the Dade County Circuit Court specifying that the Development Order runs with the land and is binding on the APPLICANT, its successors, and assigns, jointly or severally. 10. Demonstrate to the City that the PROJECT has either: 1) completed its condominium requirements and has been approved for such by the State of Florida; or 2) provide the City with an executed, recordable unity of - 6 - 98- 4to" title or covenant in -lieu of unity of title agreement for the subject property; said agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney's Office. 11. Provide the Public Works Department of the City of Miami with plans for proposed sidewalk and swale area improvements, (including the construction of a proposed cul-de-sac turnaround at the easterly end of S.E. 12th Street) for their review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Urban Development Review Board ("UDRB"), provide the Department of Planning and Development with: a) a modified landscape plan as specified in the minutes from the UDRB meeting of November 13, 1997; b) a modified elevation which revises building treatment for the garage ramps on both buildings, along with a new buffering strategy to include landscape and built elements in an attempt to soften the ramps' effect on the breezeway between both buildings; c) an "interim improvements" proposal for that portion of the site which will not be developed as part of the first phase; and d) a reconfiguration of the recreation decks on the loth levels so as to appropriately address their role as the main amenity complex for the relatively large community of building residents. Said modified plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the - 7 - 98- 450 Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13. Provide the Department of Planning and Development with a temporary parking plan which addresses construction employee parking and temporary parking arrangements for the existing building during the construction period; said plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of any building permits. 14. Pursuant to the Zoning Division, a building permit for the proposed project shall also be subject to the following: a) obtaining the required FAA approval letter for height of towers; and b) obtaining a letter from the Department of Planning and Development qualifying the project as a "Phased Project" pursuant to Zoning Ordinance No. 11000. THE CITY SHALL: Subject to payment of all applicable fees due, establish the effective date of this Permit as being thirty (30) days from the date of its issuance with the issuance date constituting the commencement of the thirty (30) day period to appeal from the provisions of the Permit. - g - 98- 450 The Bayshore Palms Project, proposed by the applicant, Multiplan USA Corp., ("APPLICANT"), complies with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000, is consistent with the orderly development and goals of the City of Miami, and complies with local land development regulations and further, pursuant to Section 1703 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000: (1) the PROJECT will have a favorable impact on the economy of the City; and (2) the PROJECT will efficiently use public transportation facilities; and (3) the PROJECT will favorably affect the need for people to find adequate housing reasonably accessible to their places of employment; and (4) the PROJECT will efficiently use necessary public facilities; and (5) the PROJECT will not negatively impact the environment and natural resources of the City; and (6) the PROJECT will not adversely affect public safety; and (7) the public welfare will be served by the PROJECT; and (8) any potentially adverse effects of the PROJECT will be mitigated through conditions of this Major Use Special Permit. - 9 - 98- 450 The proposed development does not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the City of Miami. Pursuant to Section 1305 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, the specific site plan aspects of the PROJECT i.e., ingress and egress, offstreet parking and loading, refuse and service areas, signs and lighting, utilities, drainage and control of potentially adverse effects generally have been considered and will be further considered administratively during the process of issuing individual building permits and certificates of occupancy. -10- 98- 450 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL Portions of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4,, 5, 6 Block 1 and the 10 foot vide PRIVATE LANE lying South of said Lot 6, "AMENDED PLAT OF -HIBISCUS PLACE", according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3 at Page 110; Portions of Lot B and the 4 foot wide walkway lying South of said Lot B, "AMENDED PLAT,.OF MIRADO COURT", according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 14 at Page 44; Portion of Jot 9, 'HICHLEYMAN'S SUBDIVISION", according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 1 at Page 184, all of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida AND submerged land and land (formerly submerged, now filled) lying Easterly of the above mentioned subdivisions. All of the above being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Monument Line intersection of South Bayshore Drive and S. E. 12th Street as shown on Sheet No.37—AE of the Municipal Atlas of the City of Miami (last revised June Sth, 1979); thence South 76 degrees 37 minutes 50 seconds East, along the Monument Line of said S. E. 12th Street, for 65.01 feet; thence South 13 degrees 22 minutes 10 seconds West, at right angles to the last and next described courses for 31.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of the following described parcel; thence South 76 degree 37 minutes 50. seconds East, along the North line of the aforementioned Lot 1, Block 1 and its Easterly prolongation, for 289.42 feet to a point on the Metropolitan Dade County, Florida Bulkhead Line (U.S. Harbor Line) as shown on that certain plat as recorded in Plat Book 74 at Page 3 (sheet 3) of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; thence South 5 degrees 37 minutes 20 seconds West, for 203.22 feet; thence South 2 degrees 35 minutes 13.5 seconds West for 456.59 feet (last mentioned two courses being coincident with the aforementioned Dade County Bulkhead Line); thence North 76 degrees 39 minutes 05 seconds West, along the Easterly prolongation of the South line of the aforementioned Lot 9, for 156.46 feet to a Point on a Curve (said point bears North 55 degrees 29 minutes 09 seconds East from the radius point of the following described curve); thence Northwesterly, along a circular curve to the left, having a radius of 741.50 feet and a central angle of 1 degree 09 minutes 53 secornds for an arc distance of 15.07 feet; thence North 76 degrees 39 minutes 05 seconds West, along a line parallel with and 10.00 feet North of, as measured at right angles to, the South line of said Lot 9, for 183.26 feet to a Point of Curvature; thence Northwesterly, Northerly and Northeasterly, along a circular curve to the right, having a radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for an arc distance of 39.27 feet to a Point of Tangency; thence North 13 degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds East, for 115.00 feet to a Point of Curvature; thence Northeasterly, Northerly and Northwesterly, along a circular curve to the left, having a radius of 458.43 feet and a central angle of 21 degrees 34 minutes 08 seconds for an arc distance of 172.58 feet to a Point of Reverse Curvature; thence Northwesterly, and Northerly, along a circular curve to the right, having a radius of 398.43 feet and a central angle of 4 degrees 47 minutes 04 seconds for an arc distance of 33.27 feet to a point on said curve (said point bears South 84 degrees 33 minutes Si seconds Wast, froze the radius point of the last described curve); thence North 6 degrees 01 minutes 04 seconds East, for 10.08 feet; thence North 6 degrees 08 minutes 30 seconds East, for 45.36 feet; thence North 13 degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds East,for 220.10 feet to a Point of Curvature (last mentioned six courses being coincident with the Easterly Right —of —Way Line of the aforementioned South Bayshore Drive, as shown on said Municipal Atlas Sheet of the City of Miami); thence Northeasterly. Easterly and Southeasterly, along a circular curve to the right, having a .radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of 90 degrees 01 sinuces 15 seconds for an are distance of 39.28 feet to the Point of Beginning. All lying and being -in Section 39. Township 54 South, Range 41 East, City of Miaa►i, Dade County, Florida. 9 8 - 45-0 EXHIBIT "C" PROJECT DATA SHEET FOR BAYSHORE PALMS Location Brickell Bay Drive, between S.E. 12th and 14th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida Zoning Classification City of Miami Zoning SD-5 (Mixed use development) Lot Area NetLot Area.............................................................. Additional Area for F.A.R. Brickell Bay Drive ..................................................... S.E. 12th Street........................................................... BiscayneBay.............................................................. S.E. 14th Street........................................................... Total................................................................ Total Gross Site Area............................................................ Flood Zone VE (EL15) Firm Map No. 12025C0191 J Community No. 120250191 J 220,849 s.f.(5.07 acres) 28,547 s.f. 7,966 s.f. 62,988 s.f. 7,971 s.f. 107,472 s.f. 328,321 s.f.(7.54 acres) -1 9$- 450 F.A.R. Allowed.........................................................................................4.25 (w/o bonus) Provided.................................................. .....................................4.41 (including bonus) Allowable_ Floor Area (F.A.R. Mixed Use - 4.25........................................................ 1,395,364 s.f. Retail, Restaurant Allowable increase in floor area -Retail, restaurant bonus (Sec. 605.7.2(b)) for every (1) one square foot of floor area the total allowable floor area shall be increased by (3) three square feet. Retail................................................................................ 9,500 s.f. x 3 = 28,500 s.f. Restaurant.........................................................................7,455 s.f. x 3 = 22,332 s.f. TotalF.A.R. Bonus.....................................................................50,832 s.f. Total Floor Area Allowed with/Bonuses...................................1,446,196 s.f. Net Floor Area Provided Proposed Areas: Pedestal Ground Level - Mezzanine Level - Second Level - Third Level - Fourth Level - Fifth Level - Sixth Level - Seventh Level - Eighth Level - Ninth Level - Total Net Pedestal .................. Total Net Both Pedestals...... North Tower South Tower 145 s.f. 145 s.f. 6,949 s.f. 10,824 s.f. 10,238 s.f. 11,802 s.f. 12,728 s.f. 12,049 s.f. 9,053 s.f. 7,068 s.f. 11,119 s.f. 10,526 s.f. 11,119 s.f. 10,526 s.f. 11,119 s.f. 10,526 s.f. 11,119 s.f. 10,526 s.f. 4,903 s.f. 5.091 s.f. ...88,492 s.f. .......................89,083 s.f. ..........................................177,572 s.f. C-2 9 8 - 4"0 Tower: North Tower Bay Units - 47 Levels x 11,604 s.f. Each Level 545,388 s.f. Suite Units - 6 Levels x 10,178 s.f. Each Level 61,068 s.f. Penthouse Units - 3 Levels x 9,190 s.f Each Level 27,570 s.f. Total Levels 56 Total Net Tower: 634,026 s.f. Total Net Both Towers .................................... Total F.A.R. Provided ..................................... South Tower 545,388 s.f. 61,068 s.f. 27,570 s.f. 634,026 s.f. 1,268,052 s.f. 1,445,627 s.f. Open Space Required (1 J% of Gross Lot Area) ....................... 49,052.25 s.f. Provided ( % of Gross Lot Area) ................. 85% 279,072 s.f. Lot Coverage Provided.................................................................... 124,480 s.f. 56% of Net Site Area 38% of Gross Site Area Height Required ................................................... No Height Limitations Provided .................................................... 749'-0" to Roof 784' to Decorative Element SetBacks Brickell Bay Drive (West) Required 20'-0" Provided 20'-0" Biscayne Bay (East) Required: First (35) Thirty -Five of Height = 25'-0" Setback increased by 50% of the additional height over (35) Thirty -Five feet Height to Eighth floor - 92'-4" M.S.L. 92'-4" - 35'-0" (Height) = 57'-4" (Additional Height) 574" x 50% = 28'-8" 28-8" + 25 (Required Min. Setback) = 53'-8" Provided 54'-0" ...................................................................... —3 9 8 - 4j9 S.E.. 12th Street (North) Required................................................................. 20'-0" Provided................................................................. 25'-0" (Pedestrian Urban Plaza) S.E. 14th Street (South) (Class I1 Permit) Required 20'-0" ................................................................. Provided................................................................. 20'-0" OffStreet Parking 749 units ....(Min. = 1/Unit Max = 2/Unit)........... 749 (Min. 1/Unit Max.2/Unit) Retail ................ 1/1000.s.f....................................... 5 (Each Tower) Restaurant ......... Max 1/100.................................... 40 North Tower Number of Parking Spaces Required ................................ 749 (Minimum) Number of Parking Spaces Provided ................................. 1180 (North = 580 South = 600) Handicap Spaces Required ................................................. 24 (12 per Tower) Handicap Spaces Provided ................................................. 24 (12 per Tower) Parking Ratio...................................................................... 1.5 Spaces/Unit OffStreet Loading Loading Berths Required ... (per Tower) ................... (4) 1205 & (2) 12x55 Loading Berths Provided ......................................... (5) 1205 & (1) 12x55 (Class II Permit) c-4 9 8 - Ca0 CITY OF MIAMI CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM R L (7 �. TO: Mayor and Members of th ity C ssion •uQ JUL _7 All :43 FROM: Alejandro Vilarello, pity Auto �J DATE: July 1, 1999/�ioh-ri/se C; ITS RE: Third Districl�Appeal Victory: Tibor Hollo's challenge of Resolution No. ch Approved the Bayshore Palms twin -towered Bayshore Driveoject on Biscayne Bay It is my pleasure to inform you that the Third District Court of Appeal has issued an order rejecting further review, thus upholding the City Commission's decision on the subject project and denying the challenge filed by Mr. Tibor Hollo. As you may recall, Mr. Hollo and other commercial property owners had strenuously opposed a Major Use Special Permit for the development of the twin -towered high-rise Bayshore Palms project. The opponents objected to the proposed buildings' orientation, argued that the City Code protected their right to view the bay, and appealed the Commission's approval. On March 26, 1999, I informed you that the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court had affirmed the Commission's decision. That court's order, which was the subject of Mr. Hollo's latest petition, had held that the record of the proceedings below distinctly and unequivocally provided the requisite "competent and substantial evidence" necessary to substantiate the City Commission's action. That Court had also rejected, based on the abundant record established in those public hearings, Mr. Hollo's contention that the City Commission had "misapplied its Zoning Ordinance." The Third DCA rejected Mr. Hollo's petition, outright, without oral argument, obviously agreeing with the lower court. As I advised you on March 26`h, and will now reiterate, this victory and the courts' decisions are significant for several reasons: they should allow the developer to move forward on a major downtown development unanimously approved by the City Commission; and it unequivocally demonstrates how very difficult it is for anyone to overturn a City Commission decision when a full record is developed during your proceedings, all parties are given an opportunity to present their case and evidence, and your decision is based on that testimony and evidence. c: Donald H. Warshaw, City Manager Walter Foeman, City Clerk Dena Bianchino, Assistant City Manager Ana Gelabert, Director, Department of Planning & Zoning Frank K. Rollason, Director, Department of Building & Zoning 1EM:eh:TIBOR:w02MeMayorAppCtDec.doe PZ-18 PLANNING FACT SHEET APPLICANT Judith Burke for Multiplan, USA Corp. HEARING DATE February 18, 1998. REQUESTILOCATION Consideration of a Major Use Special Permit for the Bayshore Palms Project located at approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Complete legal description on file with the Hearing Boards Office. PETITION Consideration of a Major Use Special Permit for the Bayshore Palms Project at approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive to allow a Planned Unit Development consisting of 749 residential units; accessory retail and 1,254 parking spaces. PLANNING Approval with conditions. RECOMMENDATION BACKGROUND AND Please see attached analysis and recommendation. ANALYSIS PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD Approval with conditions VOTE: 6--0 CITY COMMISSION Continued from CC 3/24/98. APPLICATION NUMBER 97-059 Item #1 ................. ............................ ....... ....................................... ......................... .............. ..................... .............. ............................ ........................ ........ : CITY OF MIAMI • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 444 SW 2NO AVENUE, 314D FLOOR • MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33130 PHONE (305) 416-1435 . ...... .......................................... D..... ........e:..... .0............................................................................................. ............................... g Pa e 1 at2/09/98.. 98- 450 Analysis for MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT for the BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT located at 1201 Brickell Bay Drive CASE NO. 97-059 Pursuant to Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the subject proposal for the Bayshore Palms Project has been reviewed to allow the following Major Use Special Permit: • Special Exception per Article 6, Section 605.4.3 (2) to allow a B_ ar/lounge within the SD-5 district; The requested Major Use Special Permit is for the purpose of allowing the Bayshore Palms Project, a Planned Unit Residential Development project consisting of a total of 749 residential units to be accommodated within two high-rise towers, with accessory commercial space and 1,254 parking spaces for the property located at approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive within the Brickell area (see attached legal description, location maps and aerial photographs for exact property boundaries). The following findings have been made: • It is found that the proposed planned unit development project will benefit the Downtown District by creating new housing opportunities for employees of the area as well as attracting new residents to Downtown Miami. • It is found that the subject of this Special Exception, specifically -a Bar/Lounge, for the proposed project is completely within the scope and character of the project given that it is a very high density, luxury residential project to be located along a significant parcel on the waterfront of Downtown Miami. • It is found that the Urban Development Review Board (UDRB) has recommended approval of the proposed project, with conditions, as specified on the attached minutes from its public meeting held on November 13, 1997. • It is found that the Large Scale Development Committee (LSDC) met on July 25, 1997 and has reviewed the project for compliance with technical concerns and has recommended the following: I, 98 - 450 1. pursuant to the Department of Public Works, the project requires plans for proposed sidewalk and swale area improvements (including the construction of a proposed cul-de-sac turnaround at the easterly end of S.E. 12" Street) prior to the issuance of a building permit; and 2. pursuant to the Downtown NET Office, the applicant shall submit a parking plan for construction employees and temporary parking arrangements for the existing building while the new building is under construction; said parking plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of any building permits. • It is found that the Department of Planning and Development is in concurrence with the findings of the LSDC and will require compliance with the above referenced conditions prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed project. • It is found that due to the location of the proposed project along Biscayne Bay, the applicant shall be required to present the project to the Miami -Dade County Shoreline Development Review Committee for review and approval; the City of Miami shall require a final Resolution from said Committee prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. • It is found that with respect to all additional criteria as specified in Section 1305 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, the proposal has been reviewed and found to be adequate. Based on these findings, the Department of Planning and Development is recommending approval of the requested Planned Unit Development Project with the following conditions: 1. The approval of this Major Use Special Permit shall be subject to the recordation of the following documents prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed project: a. Unity of Title or covenant in lieu thereof providing that the ownership, operation and maintenance of all common areas and facilities will be by the property owner or a mandatory property owner association in perpetuity. b. Development Order specifying that the Development Order runs with the land and is binding on the Applicant, it successors and assigns, jointly or severally. 2. Pursuant to the Downtown NET Office, the applicant shall submit a parking plan for construction employees and temporary parking arrangements for the existing building while the new building is under construction; said parking plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of any building permits. 2 98- 450 3. Pursuant to the Department of Public Works, the applicant shall provide plans for proposed sidewalk and Swale area improvements (including the construction of a cul-de-sac turnaround at the easterly end of S.E. 12"' Street) prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. Pursuant to the UDRB, the conditions, as specified on the attached minutes from the meeting held on November 13, 1997, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit; compliance with said conditions shall be determined by the Department of Planning and Development. 5. Pursuant to the requirements of Miami -Dade County, the proposed project shall require the review and approval of the Shoreline Development Review Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. 6. This approval shall also be subject to all additional conditions specified in the Final Development Order for the project. 98- 450 CITY OF MIAMI URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Meeting of November 13, 1997 UDRB Report for: BAYSHORE PALMS Review of Major Use Sreciai Permit proposal for development of a phased project consisting of two 57 story towers atop 10 story pedestals containing a combined total of 749 units. Item: 1 of 2 Location: Approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive. Applicant: Multiplan / Ms. Judith Burke, Esq. / Mr. Luis Revuelta, Architect. Case number: 97-111 Vote: Approval (4 to 1) UDRB Resolution: Proposal recommended for approval as presented in plans and supplementary materials submitted by the applicant, subject to the following conditions: That a revised landscape plan be submitted, to be reviewed and approved by staff, to include a greater coherence and consistency in the use of landscape materials. which appropriately softens the edges of the development both as it faces the right-of-way and within the breezeway between both buildings. The landscape plan shall also contain specific furniture and other fixtures and/or appurtenances to articulate the open spaces provided on site. All this in an effort to present a more welcoming and "open" feeling as viewed from the Brickell Bay Drive. That a revised treatment be presented for the garage ramps on both buildings, said treatment shall be submitted, to be reviewed and approved by staff, along with a new buffering strategy to include landscape and built elements in an attempt to soften the ramps' effect on the breezeway between both buildings. Staff Recommendations: In addition to those concerns expressed by the Urban Development Review Board, as captioned above, staff recommends that an "interim improvements" proposal be submitted, to be reviewed and approved by staff, for that portion of the site which will not be developed as part of the first phase. Staff also recommends that the configuration of the recreation decks on the 10`' level be revised and re -designed in a detailed fashion so as to appropriately address their role as the main amenity complex for the relatively large community of building residents. Said proposal shall be submitted, to be reviewed and approved by staff CITY OF MIAMI • OFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 444 SW 2"d Avenue, 3" Floor • Miami, FI. 33130 98- 450 57, _ . 6 I Z• (5 5 :VAtE T S W 9 ST S.c 4 ST e o I _ s 70 ' _ o . v ,a .. ,s ,• n I ,• T ,o s' , ' c • �` 72 u 71 , • o° , • + n • ,• zo z za 1_ ST S.W. 10 ST Q S j s71.7 � LU s >I s 0 := t ' t04 Is a Q o•oGo O 111' S T S. W. >. I I S T / . R T// ¢ o ZZ 85 8 Y 84YSHOR e• 11 Ix M „ 16 y cr 12 CAR ST 6 _ 0 (! >t • i u • 100 8 ` FORTE II of K ,s » u �• T ,• HSIDE OOleM zz za "•uT �2 W r ,+ Y .•ii v v •• °••• r•� 0. g 13 ». ��$ T. S.E. 13 ST t� "� rr+s ST. ° ., • •• : e • T • s . z � t• - she 'C_K t _ ° `� u ,• r n a :0 100 r :,A:•. ., f f . M .. a. S » A v _ - w of • S � .. • • •. r S. W. 14 e 96 n J °•� „ '" • Q • J PO 4 i ,• ..s u Hsu w » 1s . • 41 RTE• � _ ,• •, • • •': ' • S.W. 14 TERR. Z ° Y T PLq 'O • . " ST. 7 l 96w• � tiry 99 �.E ••z=a G \1 t . • �D iss- •, f 9 7 M ,, a 4'•`go •` •• ►�y�O� yt4y �• . S ° 0 1 to , I rb f zo is + • •' OwE COSTA BELL 9 • • ! • • • •• •t , •,` usR� OS Sue. •�S • ' 0 2' t• •' s � P 98- 450 LEGEND u,A.•i rI T V i J M i TC t- 2&9 AL 2 �•,� � .tea• � :��` �: _ ilk 1 CITY OF MIAMI i€ 2' URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 November 13, 1997 4 5. 6 7 8 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: 9€ 10 11€ WILLY BERMELLO E 12: MR. BUENO 13€ CLYDE JUDSON 14€ HAKKI KOROGLU 15 JOEL MARSTEN 16€ ALBERTO PEREZ 171 DANIEL WILLIAMS 18 DAVID WOLFBERG, 19 2 0 ,` I 21 22 23 i l 2 4 11 25 1 JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 1 98- 450 2 1! MR. CHAIRMAN: Meeting of the Urban Development 2 Review Board. Joel, I'm not sure how we add Mr. Perez's 3 ! name. 4 A BOARD MEMBER: The record should just indicate ii 5j: that Mr. Perez is present. is 6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. 7A BOARD MEMBER: Yes. You can do roll call and 8i indicate who is present. 9i MR. CHAIRMAN: We can do roll call again? Okay. 10 MR. GARCIA: Roll call: Mr. Bermello; Mr. 11 Judson -- 12 MR. JUDSON: Yes. 13, MR. GARCIA: -- Mr. Koroglu; Mr. Bueno; Mr. 14 Marston -- 15,? MR. MARSTON: Here. 16: MR. GARCIA: -- Mr. Williams; Mr. Wolfberg. ii 17 MR. WOLBERG: Here. 18 MR. GARCIA: -- Mr. Perez. 19`: MR. PEREZ: Here. 20 MR. GARCIA: We have a quorum, sir. i 211: MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Since this is a 2211 reconvening, we will continue with the item that we 231 started with earlier today, the Terremark Brickell II I: 2411 project. And with that in mind I need to ask the li 25111 applicants to make sure that anyone speaking on behalf of a: ;i JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 3 1 the owners are registered lobbyist with the City of Miami. 2' MR. GARCIA: I need to introduce into the 3 record t_^.e fact that Mr. Bermello has expressed that he is 4: has a conflict of interest and therefore he has recused r: 5: himself. We shall not be counting him as absent but 3: 6i: rather as abstaining. 7: MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. �i 8`•. MS. PARDO: Hello, my name is Adriane Pardo with i 9€ law offices with Greenberg Traurig located at 1221 10Brickell Avenue. With me here today is Ed Jacobson who is 11 the executive vice president of the owner of the property 12 which is Terremark Brickell II, Limited. Also with us here 131: today are the architects from the firm of Bermello and i€ 141: Ajamil. They are Miss Terry Garcia, Vivian Bonet, Pearl 15i: Aquillo, Scott Bakos, George Puig and Boris Granderson. 16 The property for the project before you is located on 17Brickell Avenue between S.E. 14th Terrace and S.E. 14th e 18€ lane. It is a proposed five-star hotel, office building, 19 and residential. We're very excited about this project. C 20!:: We think that it's going to be a wonderful addition to 21 Brickell Avenue, something that's greatly needed as well. 22f: And with that I'm going to turn the floor over 23�€ to Vivian Bonet who will go into greater detail about the 24j architecture of the building. Thank you. e 25 PERSON 2: Good afternoon. My name is Vivian c JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 81 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l: 16 i! 17 18 19 E 20' 21 22 23 24i i 25 4 Bonet. I'm the project manager and an associate with Bermello Ajamil and Partners, located at 2601 South Bayshore give, Suite 1000. I am filling in for Willy t: j Bermello who I've been working with for about ten years I� now and this is the first time I get to impersonate him. E The project is a true mixed use, and it will be the first of its kind in Miami. It consists of four components in a single articulated 38-story tower. We have office, residential, hotel, and retail all the way around the property. The site on an urban level acts as a hinge between the residential area of Brickell and the financial district. The site lends itself for a mixed use. We're trying to bring back daytime and nighttime activities on Brickell. By doing so, we've done a lot of urban pedestration aroun& the entire project and we've opened up a lot of stores and retail at a street level which becomes a human scale. We have several entrances to the parking garage into the site, not off Brickell. We have deviated all of the traffic off of 14th Terrace in a six lane motor court. It has access from the hotel into the parking garage this way, and we also have access through the back for the hotel and for the office. And we have an egress here for the office. This doubles up -- it functions as whichever the user is at the time. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98 - 450 5 '-' We're going to take you just through the plans 2!1 really quickly. This is the second floor which is basic 3 old ba-k of house for the hotel and to service areas and 41 our first level of parking. The third floor is our main 5 ballroom and meeting room level. It has a prefunction 6€ area and an outdoor garden cafe terrace and it has another 7! level of parking garage which is connected at this level 8. to the ballroom. So you can'self-park or you can valet 9'1 and access the ballroom at this level. 10` This is the fourth floor of the building where 111 the fitness area is at and it's also our sky lobby for the 12€ office tower. This is basically the main connections to 13 the office tower. There is a lobby on the ground floor 14 but everybody will be using this one basically for the 151 office. This is also connected to the garage. This is 161 the fifth floor through the 14th floor. It is our typical 171 hotel floor plate. We have 246 hotel rooms and they run 18! from the 5th to the 14th level. This does not connect to 19: the parking garage. This is another level at this floor, 201: but it does not connect. 2111 On the 15th floor we have residential floors 221 that are rentals. They run through the 15th to the 18th 2311€ floor, and at this level on the 7th floor of the parking 24 garage we now introduce a recreation deck that has several 251 amenities, keeping in mind the diverse activities of the JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 6 is 1! users. We have a three -lane lap pool. We have a 2': jogging/walking trail. We have a tennis court. We have a is 3i racquet,all court. We have indoor racquetball courts. 4� And we also have a vida course and rock climbing. is This is the final 19th through 38th floor. This 6: is a transfer floor, the 19th. This is where we divert 7 all of our access and all of our major back of house to 8 the hotel area. And this is the typical floor plate from 9 the 20th to the' 32nd. This is the typical floor plate 10 from the 33rd to the 38th. This is the office. We have 11 370,000 square feet of office space. i 12 A BOARD MEMBER: Could you go back to the what 13 we saw as the -- I think the ground floor and go through 1411 the uses there with us? l 15 PERSON 2: Sure. Sure, no problem. The ground 16� floor is basically all the hotel amenities. You have the t 17 lobby lounge, the bars, you have the restaurant, and you 18` have the kitchen, and you have the retail that surrounds 19€ the entire parking area. We also have the main entrance 201: of the office and hotel. You either go_to the reception 211: area or you go across to the office core. We have a 22: Brickell entrance to every single item which opens up at 23street level. Now this is all just parking garage in 1 3: 241i here. Okay? 25= The site consists of 5.1 acres. It's a city is JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 7 1' block bounded by Brickell on the west and 14th Terrace and 2 14th lane on the north and south. The project meets all 3 city cede requirements, and we're not asking for any is 41: variances. The site has two major issues which is a l: 53 pedestrian and vehicular access, which I've briefly 6 explained to you already how we've treated it. The 7�service access which is all located on 14th lane was put 8 there on because purpose ause most of the surrounding areas are 9 all back of house anyways from the condominiums to the 10 adjacent properties. That's over here on this lane right 11 here. It's condensed and it's buffered by landscaping. 12 It's recessed back also. Our project meets all of the 13 following urban requirements and the issues have been i' 14 addressed for it. Avoiding obstructions of all the views 151 from other buildings by location of the building along 16 Brickell Avenue. We'll go to my -- I don't think I'll 17€ make it -- I'm stuck. Can you push this over a little 18'. bit? Okay. 191 As you can see we've put the building on 20 Brickell Avenue therefore avoiding any obstruction to 21 these buildings in the surrounding areas which are all is 22�s condominiums. The single tower is stepped up to 577 feet. 23 It only really basically takes up 20 percent of the 24 property. The other 80 percent are the 7-story parking 251 garage and ballroom amenity areas. So it's really not as a: I JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 8 tal1 as it seems at the beginning. We've scaled it up 2' gradually in order to maximize our views also. The garage is 31€ level ;end the base of the hotel conform with the existing 4€ density and its surroundings. Therefore the tower becomes 5 a landmark for this area. 6� In summary, we subscribe to a number -of urban 7! design objectives which are intended to maintain the 8`• maximum possible sensitivity to the surrounding 9`:, environments and to protect and enhance -the urban quality 10' of life in and around the subject property. 11 e 7-stor As far as the parking garage, the y is 12! parking garage has 963 parking spaces and it is topped off 13 with a very nice lush park sort of ambiance, which was 14€ previously discussed earlier. The architectural features 15; -- the first is the pedestrian plaza in front of the , 16 building which becomes a welcome mat for the mix use 17 tower, and the second is the dramatic courtyard which will 18! serve as a forum for arrivals and departures of both 19 private and commercial vehicles. The materials are I 20;` basically precast for the major hotel and office structure I 211 and then we have granite and polished marble on the 2 2 bottom. ): C 23i At this time I would like to introduce Pearl lE 2411 Aquillo, our landscape architect who will explain the 25 project landscape concept. I JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 2 3 4 5 6 7' 8 3 9 9 PERSON 3: Thank you, Vivian. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I'll begin by saying that this project repres::nts to us the merging of two very different landscapes, that is the old and the new Brickell. From Simpson Park to Wainright Park, stretching all the way to south of 15th Road we have the old Brickell Hammock. This building occurs at what we believe to be the juncture which enters into the new Brickell, the Wall Street of the south. 10 The challenge here for us was to define a 11' project which marries these two realities and sets a is 1211 precedent for future projects in this area. We've begun 131 to do this with the use of oak trees at the Brickell 141:: frontage, departing from predominant use of palms in the I 151: Brickell area at this time. We felt it was important to 16: begin to introduce what has been introduced in the 1711 medians, which is the live oak. At the Brickell area is 181` we've done this in decorative tree grates, using palm 191 trees as accents for the main entrance and also at the I' 20: main motor court. These would be medule (phonetic) date 21'Ipalms. : 22Along the side areas, we've set what we believe 23i are a stage set for the retail and the restaurants in 24' these areas. The oaks here are in raised seating 251 planters with native cuntene (phonetic) as the ground ii JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 2 3 is 4 5 6: 7 8 9 10 i0 cover bed. The paving pattern has been designed to reflect t:-e columns of the building and the articulation of the building facade. We've used -- let's see over here -- for paving materials we've used bands of paving with granite cobblestones. At the corners, staying wit:^.in the urban context of the Brickell area, we've used textured concrete pavers with a contrasting Londonlock paver. This occurs at the corners and in the parking court area here and also at the entrance of.the parking garage. 11 The oaks have also been used at the entrance of 12 the parking garage here in a much more natural setting, 13 free form beds of ground covers. And along the back of 14 the building, we've used royal palms to create height and is 15j also keeping in mind the wind velocities that may be 16�€ happening in this area. The service areas have been 171 ':. buffered with lagustern (phonetic) trees and native thatch 18 palms and also ground covers and shrubs. We've used 19i` potocarpus (phonetic) in areas that we feel needed to have is 20! a more clipped appearance. But flowering trees such as c 21! tritofa has.tada (phonetic), philodendron xanadu, key I r•. 22 spider lily, lariapede (phonetic), they've all been used 23: as the predominant plant pallet of the ground floor. i€ 241' Moving up to the recreation deck and the fitness 25! park that's above the parking garage, the concept here JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 11 i was to create a very colorful and dynamic space, 2; predominantly an active space with variety of recreational 3{ options. The landscape areas have been created to define I is 4i the separate spaces, creating a very beach like tropical I 5! area near the pool in which the paving is very free 6 flowing. And this is the use of colored concrete with the 7 keystone textured banding. And then moving into what we 8 believed was a more clipped, controlled plant pallet, 9: again using native trees such as clusias (phonetic) and in 10€ this case using palms as accent. Palm trees were 11! predominantly used in this area and this was a mix of 1fl` coconut, thatch palms, hurricane palms, all very wind 13: tolerant types of plants. 14: The creation of what we felt to be a somewhat �I 151cool environment was important to us. We did this with 16.€ the use of many overhead trellises, even along the 17 jogging/walking path. We've used water features to 18: create, again, a very cooling effect. Umbrellas have been 191: used. And even the use of sod pads, so to speak -- sod 1€ 201: terraces to break up some of the paving in this area. The 1 2111 paving materials are the rubberized jogging track, and s 22i? this would be used in the areas that would be 3: I 23i predominantly for walking and jogging along here. And I 24: then the colored concrete would be predominantly in the pool area. The planters along the interior of the space 25i I€ JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98— 450 12 I would be at grade. And as we move to the edge of the 2 building, those planters become raised to begin to define 31:: the edges and the space. l: 44 There are three other outdoor open spaces that 5 we're providing and I'd like to talk about those briefly. 6 The ballroom garden terrace, which is this space --,and 7 you do see it here on the third floor level -- is 8€ immediately opposite the prefunction space at the ballroom i 9 level. We use the Centrust sky lobby as inspiration for 10this space, taking close note of the plants that have been 11 used there, tried and true in native clusias, thrynex 12€ (phonetic) palms, coconut palms, those types of palms. We 13see this as a very flexible courtyard space with movable 1411 potted plants. A very nice private grotto has also been ii i€ 151i created with something as a backdrop, maybe a nice 1€ 16 colorful mural that could be used as the space for taking 17 photographs for that type of activity. The paving 18': materials here were very important. We felt that the 19' strength of the materials would really help to create the I 20!' space since the plants were really going to be movable. 211 And 'here we use the green slate and the textured concrete 3: 221bands again. 23 On the fourth floor is the sculpture terrace. 24� You see this space here. These are some images that we've I: 2511 created for this space, again using the slate and the : JACK SESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 13 1' concrete textured pavers. This is the space that's 2!: happening here. And it actually extends all the way to 3 the other side of the building. is 4i Using the courtyard at MOMA in New York City is 5f designed by Robert Myan (phonetic) as inspiration, we is 6: combined planting, water, lighting, seating, and the rich 7: paving materials to create what we felt was a very quite 81 contemplative space. The plant materials at this 9? courtyard are clusias, cliptopoto carpis (phonetic), i 3E sculpted patly guavas (phonetic), and a sloping bed of 11 'jasmine -- dwarf jasmine to begin to create a frame for 12€ this space. This space would be used by the spa guests 13� and the hotel guests. And it would be more of a very 3: 14;: quite, private type of space. 15 On the same floor as the hotel and spa pool is a 16 more private relaxing pool area which we show here. These 171: are some images again repeating a very similar plant 181: pallet of the coconut palms, the thrynex, brezias 19: (phonetic) as accents, and colorful sculpture walls. And I 20�: sculpture could also be introduced into.this pool area. 1 21 Bamboo has also been used here, again thinking of the wind 221: velocities and you know the scale that we would like to is 23 create here. 241: In conclusion, I'd like to say that it's been a 251: pleasure working with Vivian and Scott and the is JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 i€ 14 architectural team at B&A on what we believe has been a 21: true design collaboration. And I think the product 3 3: reflec-s t.'.at here. We believe that this project will be 4 a very quality project for the Brickell neighborhood and 5: for all of Miami. This concludes our presentation and we 6 welcome any questions at this time. 7i MR. CHAIRMAN: Any comments from the members of i 8: the board? 9 MR. PEREZ: On the east side of the facility 10: where you have the more so-called natural approach to 11€ planting -- maybe it's just that I'm too far away from it 12€ -- do I walk on the outside between that element and the 13 roadway or how do I walk around that? 14 PERSON 3; Yes, you walk on the outside here. 15 You mean here? 161 MR. PEREZ: Yes. 17`: PERSON 3: Yes. 18! A BOARD MEMBER: Albert, if you look on L-1 you _ 191 can -- l: 20'� PERSON 3: Would you like to take a look at -- 21 MR. PEREZ: No, no. It's okay. It's okay. 22'' PERSON 3: You would walk along here. Basically is 231 the cobblestone -- 24 A BOARD MEMBER: Into your microphone, please. t: 251€ Into your microphone. I `i JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 D PERSON 3: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. The 2: cobblestones are continued and there's a more narrow 3{:: sidewalk created here. 411 MR. PEREZ: How wide is that sidewalk? 5i: PERSON 3: 1 believe it's between five and eight is 6 ifeet. i".." 711 PERSON 2: Five feet. 8! PERSON 3: Five feet? Okay. 9 MR. PEREZ: Now you have retail in back of that 10:: planting, so is the retail facing -- if I want to say by 11: whatever -- is there pedestrian area between the green 12! space and the store fronts? 13: PERSON 3: Okay. Yes. 14: MR. PEREZ: So it's a split circulation system? is 15 PERSON 3: Here it is. There is a main entrance 16: into this retail area here. 17 MR. PEREZ: Yes. 18: PERSON 3: And then there's planting in the 191! front of that. 20� MR. PEREZ: So there's a way that I can look at 21ii: the wares and all of that and then I have the green 221;. between myself and the roadway and the walkway, no? 23�: PERSON 3: Exactly, exactly. 24�:: MR. PEREZ: Okay. 25: PERSON 3: Remember this is really the back of li JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 1 98- 450 _6 l the aroject and this is kind of considered the back alley. 2,: MR. PEREZ : Is it? I 3� PERSON 3: So we saw it as a little bit maybe 41: less urban as the environment in the front. 5: MR. PEREZ: Right. Okay. That's all I have for 61' now. Thank you. 3: 7�s A BOARD MEMBER: While you're there talking 8: about the retail in the back, with burying the retail -- 9 PERSON 3: I'll leave that to Viv. 10 A BOARD MEMBER: -- in the kind of alley -- I I1 mean if it really is retail in the alley -- 12- PERSON 3: Is this retail? Along the back? 13 A BOARD MEMBER: The piece which is in the back. 14 PERSON 2: Yes. i€ 151 A BOARD MEMBER: I mean I applaud the concept of 16 drag retail to the back of the project but it just kind of 17 seems to me that if retail is going to be successful there 18 that it be visible, kind of very well connected, and in 19? fact some reason to drag people back there. 20}: PERSON 2: Well one of the concepts we had for 21i€ the retail back there was to have like mini -warehousing a: 22` like for filing, like air conditioned spaces inside of a 231beautiful facade, but not a retail as your thinking of a 24 store front retail. Okay? Because a store front retail i' 25I would not really -- JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 17 ii li A BOARD MEMBER: Willy always asks this 2::: question. The retailer is not going to work here, so the 3,: real ratan is put there for the reason of some sort of 411 transition for the parking? 511 PERSON 2: Transition space, right. 6: A BOARD MEMBER: Right. So the use is going to 7.' be more like a mini -warehouse that looks like -- 8, PERSON 2: But not like a storage warehouse, 9: just more like a filing or local air condition space. 101: A BOARD MEMBER: I need to ask my favorite 1111 question. Has staff reviewed the plan and is this plan in 12. compliance with the Dade County landscape code? 13 PERSON 1 (Jack): We haven't at this point in 14: time because design is still in an on going stage reviewed 1511 it for compliance with the landscape code of Dade County. 16:: PERSON 3: It is in compliance. We've done the 17: numbers and it is in compliance. -- 18 PERSON 2: We're above 19: PERSON 3: -- of Dade County and the City of 201: Miami. But with Dade County taking precedence over the 211i City of Miami. 22" PERSON 3: It is. we have a high percentage of 2311 natives also as you can tell from the plant pallet. 24: Louder? Yes we've used a high percentage of native plants 25':: as you can tell from the plant pallet if you'll take a JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES .11 18 i look at plant list, with the use of the live oaks, royal 2,: palms, thatch palms. We tried to introduce natives in as 3 many places as we could. 411 A BOARD MEMBER: The problem that I've had is 511trying to work with the code is probably open space, 6�:: numbers of trees required, and it is those kinds of counts 7J and then finding an appropriate corollary land use. And 8!i we think that -- I mean I personally believe that it's 9 very difficult to look at an urban project in relationship 10 to the Dade County Code. So I've traditionally been 11 asking that question. 12 PERSON 3: Yes. 13 A BOARD MEMBER: Have people really gone and 1 41 said did you find a Dade County comparable -- okay -- land 15` use and do you have the right open space and the right 161 tree count? 17 PERSON 3: We did all of those calculations and 18 we met or exceeded it. I don't know the exact numbers but 19 j I -- i€ 201 PERSON 2: They're right here. l: 3: 21 PERSON 3: -- know that we did. Okay. 22 MR. PEREZ: While they're all looking through 23's. the numbers and all of that, I have a question more out of 24` curiosity more than anything else. If we're emphasizing 25 that the plant material tends to be on the native side -- JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 19 1 and that of course needs to be applauded and I'm glad that 2 you're trying to do that -- some of the materials such as 3 slate _­:d granite and all of these things are kind of 41: foreign to our language here. 5 1: PERSON 3: Sure. is 611 MR. PEREZ: Not color concrete. That's a H 1: 7i traditional material from our atrium in this area. Was 1 8` there any other consideration in trying to maybe use -- 9€ tie it back more into -- because there's things like 10' terrets which is a material that has been in this area 11 since the turn of the century and it lends itself in that I: 12 form if you wanted to make it such. 13 PERSON 3: Sure. I understand. 14€ MR. PEREZ: And color concrete and so on. But 15 things like slate and granite and all of that, they read 16 northeast to me. They read, you know, Robert Syme 17 (phonetic) whom I used to work for many years ago and all 18 of that kind of thing. It's that idiom that seems to be 19 from that. is 20 PERSON 3: Right. Well.as far as the is 21 materials, we introduced the granite because in talking to 221 the architects they were using the granite in the interior 231of the building. And really where we're using the granite is 241: at the ground floor is almost, you know, a reflection of 25 the building facade. So we introduced the granite here r 11 JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 498- 450 20 1' but then going back to the concrete pavers at the corners 2 which we felt most of the pedestrians here will be coming 3'::from a ross the street, across Brickell from the Metro 41Mover, and we tried to tie in at these corners for that i€ 5ii reason. So this is concrete paving with the keystone is 61i textured at the corners. 7 MR. PEREZ: So the granite is where you have the 81 bosca (phonetic) trees -- 9 PERSON 3: Right. 10€ MR. PEREZ: -- is that correct? 1131PERSON 3: The granite is here. I 12 MR. PEREZ: And then the concrete in between? 13 PERSON 3: And then the concrete is here at 141 these -- I 1511 MR. PEREZ: Okay. 161 PERSON 3: -- areas here. So we think we kind 17 of married the two languages pretty well in trying to 18€ complement the building and the materials that were being 19� used for the building. i€ 20€ MR. PEREZ: Let me ask you something again out 21' of just -- this is just curiosity on my part. Are you 22 using utilizing other urban elements such as bollards and i 23, elements such as that as part of the language? 241 PERSON 3: We are not using bollards, but we I 251` are using a lot of street furniture. We're even is 1s JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 21 1 considering a special decorative bus stop, any kind of 2 grading will be particularly selected for this site. Even 3' manholc covers will be custom designed. So all of the 411 urban elements -- benches also -- are going to complement 11 5 this. We're going to make it a very people friendly f i 6 ground level. 7 MR. PEREZ: Is there seating on the public 8 space? 9 PERSON 3: That's on the ground floor level -- i 101 MR. PEREZ: On Brickell? 11`:. PERSON 3: -- predominantly. Yes. 121 MR. PEREZ: The question that I asked before the 1€ 13 meeting that I should be asking now is is that an ungrade 14` relationship or is this one of those -- i 15`: PERSON 3: Ungrade. 16i MR. PEREZ: It's street level? 17:! PERSON 3: You will walk directly from the 18; street level into the building. There are no steps. 19: MR. PEREZ: What kind of luminaires are you 3� 20 using on your project? 21; PERSON 3: We're still debating that with 3s 221` Willy, but I think we're coming to a closer conclusion of 231 i maybe using this type of luminaire, both off the building. 24l There will also be canopies off the building. 251. PERSON 2: Correct and brackets. f: I� JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 22 PERSON 3: We're looking at wall brackets on 2 the building and possible lighting of the building 3 elemen`-s . is 4€ MR. PEREZ: But in the wide plaza that you have 5' on the east side of the building -- I don't know how wide 61; that is -- how wide is that space? Between the 'facade of 7;; the building and the curb side on the east side. 81 PERSON 3: On the east side here? 9 10: 11 12 13 14� 3 15 16 22, 23 i 24 i 25! MR. PEREZ: Yes. PERSON 3: That's set back. I can't read it anymore. The right-of-way set back is about here and I think we have -- from the right-of-way set back back is 30 feet we probably have an additional 20 feet. MR. PEREZ: So then you're going to need some sort of luminaire that's germane to the building? PERSON 3: Right. MR. PEREZ: I imagine you also have whatever it's called facing onto the street side that's public lighting for -- PERSON 3: Yes, we understand the importance of all of those elements in creating the human scale there and we will definitely introduce all of those elements. MR. PEREZ: Are you using high pressure sodium or are you using me metal halide? PERSON 3: It's high pressure sodium. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 9 10 11 12 13 14 i, 15' 16 17 18 19 2C r 21' 22 is 23 j 24 25 MR. PEREZ PERSON 2: street side. MR. PEREZ: PERSON 2: MR. PEREZ: PERSON 2: this time. 23 Are you? Are you sure? why? That's what FP&L recommended on the But those are your lights. Oh, on the inside? Your lights. Oh, no. We haven't selected that at MR. PEREZ: I'm confused. Because FPL yes dictates what goes on in the world I think sometimes. PERSON 2: Right. Are you talking -- MR. PEREZ: But the reason -- PERSON 2: Are you talking inside the project? MR. PEREZ: No, I'm talking on your property line in your space -- in other words there's a line there that I'm not seeing, but I'm sure it says -- PERSON 2: We haven't selected that yet on what we're going with. We're just starting engineering right now. MR. PEREZ: Okay, thank you. A BOARD MEMBER: Just so I can be consistent, your north/south piece that makes up the hotel runs the full block -- PERSON 2: Correct. That's correct. A BOARD MEMBER: -- and this has been an issue JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 24 for us on other projects where we are concerned about view 2i corridors. Can you tell me your justification for 3 buildi-g that wall versus turning it in the other is 0: direction and parallel to other building on Brickell? 5 PERSON 2: we've oriented the building in that 11 61 direction because we thought it would be better for the 7i: adjacent properties. If we turn the building, we'd be 8i blocking more viewing and obstructing more buildings then 9;1 if we turned it towards Brickell. 101 A BOARD MEMBER: To the east of you? I1 PERSON 2: Right. Actually we'd obstruct our 121 own building, Fortune House if we do it this way. 131i A BOARD MEMBER: Am I on? I am. 14 PERSON 2: Yes, you are. is 151: A BOARD MEMBER: I need to do the 1611 congratulations for someone paying attention to the 17 pedestrian kind of scale. And I didn't mean to be asking 181 the kinds of questions that I did, the ones about the -- I 191` mean it's kind of sill to look at open space on a ro ect (; Y P P P J i€ 201like this and when you start to talk about where is the i1 21;: open space. It's no place for anybody except the people in 221 the building can use it and some other people can look at 11 1 2311 it. But certainly the attention to what's going on on the 241 streetscape I think is important to all of us. And I'm 25; hearing Al down there starting to ask those pointed 3! �E I! JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 08- 450 25 i questions about whether or not it's going to be nigh 2' pressure sodium or metal halide. 3 PERSON 2: Right. 1: i 4! A BOARD MEMBER: From a streetscape point of 5 view, it becomes one of those issues that I guess if we 6 could influence someone we would like to influence 7 someone. 8€ PERSON 3: Right. 9 PERSON 2: We'll definitely take it under 10 consideration. I 11 PERSON 3: We understand. 12 A BOARD MEMBER: You talked about the screening 13 of the service area. Can you do a little pointing on a 141 plan and tell me where the screening for the service area is 15 is? 16 PERSON 3: Right here. 17€ PERSON 2: Basically it's right here on this 18`: plan, the landscaped areas. We've got three lanes and 19€ then one lane here for our four loading bays that are f€ 20 required. And they're recessed down. The service area is 2111 right here. We set it back enough from Brickell so it 221wouldn't be a view obstruction or -- 231: A BOARD MEMBER: There's an area then if you 1 24� continue further west where there's a big piece of paving, 25 is that also driveway accessed into the building? JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 08- 450 26 1 PERSON 2: This is a driveway access into the 2-:1 parking garage. 3' A BOARD MEMBER -- am I going east or west? Is I 4,:'• north up? i€ 5; PERSON 2: That's west and -- 61 A BOARD MEMBER: Okay. I: 7: PERSON 2: -- that's east. 8's A BOARD MEMBER: If you start at where the 9: driveways are into the service area -- 10! PERSON 2: Okay here. 11' A BOARD MEMBER: Come to the west. 1 21 PERSON 2: Okay. 131 A BOARD MEMBER: Okay? But you went too far. 141 There's a big hunk of open paving against the building in 151 there -- 16I: PERSON 2: Here? No, there's nothing there. 1E 17' A BOARD MEMBER: There's nothing -- t 18: PERSON 2: There's no driveway, no. It's just 1911 sidewalk. is 20 A BOARD MEMBER: And you didn't feel compelled 21 to continue with the street trees or something through 22 that stretch. 23i: ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER: Isn't that the loading 24;: dock entrance? 251; PERSON 2: No, the loading dock entrance is , JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 08- 450 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 is 1 I 16 ' 17 18 19 ; 20 i 21 I 22 is 23 1 24 25 27 over here. It's that area here. We need to out it on -- PERSON 3: Okay. I'm sorry. I was distracted i trying to put this here. The service area is -- PERSON 2: No, no. He's talking about -- we need to put these two together. Maybe you can see it better here. You're talking about this area here? It's this area right here? A BOARD MEMBER: Okay. And that's not -- PERSON 2: Okay. That's the beginning of the service area. Right here. There's a trash compactor here. A BOARD MEMBER: So if there's -- PERSON 2: And then we've got the service corridors -- A BOARD MEMBER: There's a line of two, four, six oak trees starting from the southwest corner. PERSON 2: Oh, I see what you're saying. I think they just mimicked it. I think we can add maybe two more oaks. things. A BOARD MEMBER: I mean you could -- PERSON 2: Yeah, we could. A BOARD MEMBER: -- without limiting access to PERSON 2: No, we can bring another oak up. A BOARD MEMBER: Is that -- I mean is that one of JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 28 those kind of blank walls to the building? I can't 'Lind 2 my way into the what the elevations are like. 3 PERSON 2: I'm going to show it to you right 4i: now. 5 A BOARD MEMBER: A south elevation? 6: PERSON 2: If I can find them. This space 71 this area here? This bay right here. 8: PERSON 3: You're saying that we could extend 9 the 10; PERSON 2: Yeah, that we can add -an extra oak 11; on the 12. PERSON 3: No problem. 13: A BOARD MEMBER: I mean I don't know what you 141 1 mean I'm just looking at the thing and saying 15 11 4 PERSON 2: No, definitely. That was just 16 A BOARD MEMBER: With as nice a pedestrian 17: canopy as you're creating and if you don't have some 18: reason to be putting vehicles through there, why you 191:: wouldn't continue that kind of canopy look and to put 20,: PERSON 2: We've actually shown it on the 21 elevation. I think it's just spreading the trees out a 221i little bit. Because we show it sticks out here and it 23!: sticks out there, but they're not placed in the same way. 241: MR. CHAIRMAN: Anymore questions or comments? 25: is MR. WOLFBERG: I just would like to make one JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 2 3 12 is 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21'. i. 22 23 24 i! 25 29 before I guess I would make a motion next. I would first like to commend you. I think you've done a great job in -- PERSON 2: Thank you. MR. WOLFBERG: -- presenting an attractive building as an addition to the city. I also think that your treatment of the garage -- that is going to be precast, right? PERSON 2: That's correct. MR. WOLFBERG: I think that for the first time -- garages are unnecessary or necessary evils, but I think you've at least done something that makes it -- while it is a garage, it's a little softened by the detailing and the scale of it. And I think you ought to go back and tell Willy how easily this went without him. PERSON 2: I'll make sure I do that. MR. WOLFBERG: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Wait a minute. We didn't vote yet. MR. WOLFBERG: I move that we approve as it has been presented. MR. MARSTON: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Francisco, if you could call the roll for us, please. MR. GARCIA: The motion was made by Mr. Wolfberg and seconded by Mr. Marston. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 30 MR. MARSTON: Could we do a orccedsra'_ t^._ng? 2 MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir. 3 MR. MARSTON: Did we ask for comments from is 4: anybody else and/or should we? is 511 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well usually this is not a public is 61: meeting. If someone wants to make comments, they need to 7 make that known to us. 8 MR. GARCIA: Procedurally speaking, if someone 91 wants to be recognized by the board they can approach the I 101 board and it is the board's prerogative to either i' illy recognize them or not to. 12+' The motion then made by Mr. Wolfberg and 13i seconded by Mr. Marston -- Mr. Wolfberg? 14i MR. WOLFBERG: Yes. is 15j: MR.. GARCIA: Mr. Marston? 161MR. MARSTON: Yes. is 1711 MR. GARCIA: Mr. Judson? 3E 1811 MR. JUDSON: Yes. 19�: MR. GARCIA: Mr. Koroglu? 20 MR. KOROGLU: Yes. 211 MR. GARCIA: And Mr. Perez? I 22I1 MR. PEREZ: Yes. is 23i: MR. GARCIA: The motion passes unanimously. 24 PERSON 2: Thank you very much. 251 PERSON 3: Thank you very much. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 08- 450 2 is 3 is 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 3:- MR. MARSTON: While we're still '-ere can I do one other commendation? It sure was nice to have someone show ur: and show us landscape materials. We never even get the architects to tell us what their materials are. But at least in this case -- well all you had to do was say precast in stone and immediately we'd say well that's nice. (Pause). MR. CHAIRMAN: Francisco, I think we're ready for the next applicant. (Pause). 12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we ready? 13 MR. GARCIA: The second item to be taken up by 1 14 this board this afternoon is actually Item # 1 on the 15 agenda. It is a review of revisions made to a major use 16€ special permit proposal for development of a phased 171�* project consisting of two 57-story towers atop 10-story 1811I pedestals containing a combined total of 749 units. The 1's 19{` applicants are Multiplan as developers and Louis Rivwell 20. architects are the architects for this project. The Case 21No. Is 97-111. 22; By way of brief introduction I'd like to say. 23F that the item again is before you pursuant to a request 24 25 made by this board to see the item again and perhaps discuss the issues that you had brought up earlier and see JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES ti • E 32 1': what response or what reaction the arc^.itect had had. I 2 would also like to add that staff has worked diligently 3€ with the applicant and has gone over the issues you have 4{' presented and we feel that the responses the applicant is } 51 brings before you today are certainly -- have certainly 6i been thoroughly researched and are appropriate and if need 7 be we will continue to work with the applicants to 8 whatever extent the board directs. 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. With that in mind, Louis 10 -- if you don't mind me calling you Louis? 11€ MR. RIVWELL: Not at all. 12`: MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The last time you did a 13 very thorough job making your presentation. I'm sure you is 14 recall what the main concern of the board was. I think 3i 151: it's the consensus of the board that for the sake of time 16 if you could just deal with what changes you've made 17 rather than taking us through the entire presentation and 18 we'll comment to those changes that you've made. 19MR. RIVWELL: Thank you for making that easier, 20 much easier for us all. Yes, that's no problem. 2111 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. 1 ! 22i: MR. RIVWELL: After our last meeting we set up 23j various meetings with staff and we discussed the different 24 possibilities on how to site these towers. In our first 25j meeting which was a quite lengthy meeting, we discussed is r JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 33 1; the three different areas of influence that are next to us 2; and we came to the conclusion that we have an area of 3, influence that's on the shore that is principally 4i residential. Behind that area of influence we have an is 5±€ area that's commercial/residential and 6€ residential/commercial. And then we have a further area 7 that will be to the west of Brickell Avenue that would be 8 mainly commercial. 9 In that meeting we sat down and we used the 101 acetates and began to shift the buildings in different 11 directions. And the conclusion that we all came to was 1 121: that by shifting the buildings totally perpendicular to 13:: the water. What we do is we actually impact substantially 14i that area of influence, that residential area 15i1 substantially by doing that. It was a suggestion made to 16>` us to do these studies to gage the impact that those 17{: towers would have on pedestrian and there are some studies 181: that are coming soon that also are pictures shot from up 19'€ in different buildings. 20': As you can see on these photographs -- which are 21enlargements of the package that you have -- when we 22 twisted the buildings perpendicular to the water, the 231 massings of the building were substantially impacting to 24 the pedestrians and the vehicular circulation that goes 25; traveling north and south on Bayshore and it would be the JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 34 1 same on Brickell Avenue to a lesser extent. 21; As far as the changes that we've made to the 3 pedestal in our meetings with Francisco and Jack, they 4 '; felt that the edge of the pedestal, mainly at the top, 5€ needed to be softened and try to make it relate more i 6€ between the two pedestals. And what we did is the same 711 edge treatment which is a stepping treatment that we have 8[ towards the bay was implemented on both the north side and 9 the south sidetof the pedestal. We -- based on, I think, 10 a comment that David made -- met with Alex, David, and 11€•with the staff to try to figure out in which ways we could 12€ raise the level of the view quarters. And in'both 13 instances we were told that that would not be possible to 14 ` do. 15 We did some preliminary studies in trying to i€ 16€ implement more dynamic studies in the pedestals. We did 17€ not go very far in those studies because what happened was 18 that we were losing quite a bit of efficiency and it was 191 -- we were so lost that we were having to add a couple of is 20i more levels of parking to the pedestal which we felt -- we 21i€ in staff felt that it was not appropriate to do. f: is 22i One of the other comments that was made was that is 23:: the circulation was not appropriate. We again in our 2411 meetings with staff went over our philosophy of the 25 circulation, both pedestrian and vehicular on the site. 1 ' JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES a: 98- 450 35 it was also the determination made jointly by us -hat our 2- access to the site through the center and then the 3 vehicular access to either side was very appropriate, that 41` there was no desire to really implement a lot of vehicular 5! traffic here. We were told that the fact that we were I: l's 611 hiding and coming in with all of our service from 12th and 7�i under the building was very appropriate. What we are in 81` the process of doing is studying the landscaping to create � P g Y g P g 9 more canopy material here, both and 12th and 14th and 10 Bayshore. And we are also going to be working closely 11 with staff on the upper plaza which they felt that it was 12, something that they would like to work with us closely 131: since it's going to be seen not only from the residents of 14, the buildings but from buildings next to us. 151: So essentially that's where we were -at right is 16 !:: now. 17 MR. JUDSON: I have a question of staff. 1811 MR. MARSTON: He had to step out for one moment. 19s He'll be back very shortly I'm sure. 20�: A BOARD MEMBER: Can we look at the -- 21ii MR. MARSTON: In fact he's here now. 22� A BOARD MEMBER: -- view pieces? Can we pull 23i them up a little tighter? I: 24� PERSON 1 (JACK): Which ones do you want, Jerry? 251A BOARD MEMBER: The acetate, the view pieces. is c is JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 36 MR. WOLFBERG: And maybe you can explain what 211 they're showing us. is 31: MR. RIVWELL: What this shows us is the 411 buildings turned perpendicular to the water. 5,: MR. WOLFBERG: It don't work. 6. MR. RIVWELL: I'm sorry? 7:: MR. WOLFBERG: You said they don't work or 8 MR. RIVWELL: No. What this shows is the 9' building perpendicular to the water 10 MR. WOLFBERG: Right. 11 MR. RIVWELL: -- and cones of shadows or view 12i: impediments that these buildings would have. 13 MR. WOLFBERG: From that corner? 41 MR. RIVWELL: From this area. 15!:: MR. WOLFBERG: On the corner of that building 1611 looking out? 171:: MR. RIVWELL: No, no. This should have not 18j:: really been shown all the way. It's only the area behind is 19;1 the building and the area behind this building that we 20:: feel that these building will be impacted by the location 21!:: of this tower perpendicular to the water and the same is 223: thing here by the yacht club and the building right behind 231! the yacht club and whatever happens further on back. And 241: this shows essentially what showed on the other view 251:: studies that we had done of the impact of the towers if is JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 37 1 they remained the way they are to the properties 2; immediately to the west. 3' MR. JUDSON: My question of staff is Louis said 4f: several times in his presentation -- and I think you is 5i: started out as well, Francisco, indicating that you all i€ 6' had worked very diligently with him and his staff to try 7:: to come up with something that was a little bit different. 81: My question to the Planning and Development staff is as 9: staff do you all feel like the response -is appropriate? 101 MR. RIVWELL: Would you care to make that li ill;::question a little bit more specific? With regards to what is 12': in particular? I mean we're confident with the project as 13 a whole, but I'd like to address it more specifically 141: perhaps. I: 3: 15: MR, JUDSON: Well I'm going to -- let me put it 16: into context, the basis of my question, and the other is 171 board members can kind of correct me if I go astray. We 18j sometimes as board members recognize the limitations we I€ 191: have in terms of the amount of authority that we have. 20i And we also recognize the Director of Planning can ignore 21-< our reco=endations and this moves on and the applicant 22i doesn't have to come back. 23i' At the last meeting it seemed to me that the 24: primary issue was the orientation of the buildings. We 25: don't waste his time and we don't want to waste our time. i' JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 9 8 - 450 38 1+ The orientation of the buildings has not changed and so my 2'. question then is, from a staff standpoint in terms of the 3',:; view gi-=rters as the way the code is written, my question is 41: is is the staff satisfied with the applicant's response? ;s 53 MR. RIVWELL: Thank you for clarifying that. is 6�€ Let me first state that we have met a number of times, 7` three -- if I recall correctly -- with the applicants, and 8 from the very first meeting we had with them we expressed 9 with them that we understood the gist of your observations 10 to be -- the most important one anyway -- that the view 11 corridor should be addressed. So we went to work right 12 after that on that particular issue. We, since then, have 13 come to understand the applicant's rationale and why it is 14l! the building should be positioned that way, the way in 1 15 which they are superimposing them to this day. 161i I feel that Mr. Aquilla has expressed his -- Is 17 articulated his rationale in an effective manner. If I is 181: can sum it up, our opinion is that whenever you erect a t: 19i: building of that height and that mass, regard less of 20 which way you position them, they're going to impact one 21' party or another. Given the design that the applicant is 22 proposing, we feel that the best positioning for those two i 23 towers, based on the overall impact they will have on the is 24: skyline of the city as seen from the bay shore as well as is 25i: on the abutting properties the way they are presently i€ JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 08- 450 39 presenting it is probably the most effective and the most 21 advantacteous to all. 3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. With that in mind I'll ii 41 open the floor up to comments from the rest of the board 1 5; members. is Ii 6: MR. WOLFBERG: Do we want to hear from Jack or? I i€ 73 MR. MARSTON: I have one question maybe 8 either-- 9 PERSON 1 (JACK): Hello. Is that a question 10 for me? 11€ MR. WOLFBERG: Yes. I figured you were standing 12 there for a reason, Jack. 13€ PERSON 1: Well I heard the term staff, so I 14': assumed since I'm staff maybe I should be here. 151€ MR. MARSTON: Could I start, you think? Which 3: 16; is in the eloquent presentation of a very elegant design, 17� we were continually reminded of the fact that the only {s 18€ marketing plan that would work for these kinds of units 19,' were views of the water. We were reminded that even is 20 though we as design professionals -- and having been in 211:: many wonderful buildings in the City of Miami -- 22�!; appreciate the city skyline as well. 23: But the one thing these building had to have was is 24; a view of the water. And the rationale that we're going is 251s through today, I believe, to talk about how the mass of is c JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 08- 450 40 1' these buildings works with other buildings -- at least if 2: I'm read_ng the diagrams correctly -- is that we're 3ii worrier: about the people in adjacent residential buildings 3i 41: seeing the skyline of Miami if we turn the towers, when in 5 fact they probably bought there not to see the skyline I: i€ 6 but to see the water. So if we're not impacting their 7 view of the water, we're not impacting their view, I would 8: think if I went back to the original rationale for the 9 only reason I buy there is to look at the water. What do 10 you think? 11:: PERSON 1: Your turning that right back around 12€ on him, aren't you? 13: MR. MARSTON: Yes, I am. 14€ PERSON 1: Okay. I feel compelled to put a 15is� footnote on Mr. Judson's comment. The director -- at I 1611 least this director does not ignore what this board says. 17j: I do have, by the way, the law and the process is 18 constructed the responsibility of making the final 19 decision. And I think that it has been very rarely that I H 20; have disagreed or changed this board's vote. I can think 21i�:; of one case over there on Brickell Gateway, that little is r 221: plaza that we played around with some pavers and stuff. 231 But I do have that responsibility so in this case when the l 241 board's reaction came back and the request to further 25i€c analyze this and the concerns that you expressed, we took is JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 41 1 :hat very much to hear fi at I d-d _s I actually went 2 down to Brickell and I vent up in some of the buildings. 3 I went uc in a number of condominium buildings, all the 4! way dog-.n from the imperial to the 15th Road to the Foreig 5i� Ambassadors to north of the river. I went back of 6:: Brickell, along Brickell Avenue itself, and I tried to get I; a sense of what were the more complex relationships 7i I 8 between buildings and view corridors and the environments 9: that were surrounding them. And it turned out to be an i 10l: interesting and somewhat enlightening experience for me I' ill' because what I found was, as those maps indicate, there is 12: a very high density, a crop of buildings, sprouting up 131 along the bay that all our positioning amongst themselves f 14j: to try to .capture the views that they can and they're all 151: for the most part residential. we had one failed office I€ 1611building. I think it was on this site. No, the site next i€ 17: door to the north. That ultimately was knocked down. 18: But the market seems to be telling us that it is 19: the bay front and the views -- whatever view you want -- 20;: it is the views that are the issue. I mean people pay a 211i lot of money for those buildings to go sit on their is 221: balcony and look whichever way they look. I 23�: And you had a different zone to the west of 24! that which is largely office. And it seemed to me that 25': while people enjoyed their views from the offices, it was is is JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 4 2- 1 not a cri,.ical factor in the office market or In the 2 office user as far as optimizing that view. L mean it was 3 encug'r to be downtown and have a view any w`ich way and 4 that was okay. And further to the west, once you co west 5 of Brickell, it seemed to me -- and I went to the bu_Idinc I' 6 over on 2nd Avenue, the new one -- that the cone of the 7 view angle as effected by buildings on the bay front is 8 such a narrow degree difference between one way or the 9? other, that in the panoramic view that you're dealing with is is 10: from that brown zone, that further western zone, what you ill! did with this building or any building that otherwise 12j: complied with the view corridor would have been little or I 131 no impact of inconsequence to anybody that far west, given I 1411 the panoramic that you were dealing with. I; 15! So I was persuaded that I wasn't that concerned is 16 about residential west of Miami Avenue. I was only 3E ii 111 moderately concerned about views from the office corridor 18 itself on Brickell because it wasn't really a key issue. 19'; And I was quite concerned because I was on the terraces in 1's 201 the residential buildings along the bay. And what I was I 21i able to picture for myself was standing on those balconies 22� looking north and south what the impact of this building i is 23''s would be either edged parallel to the bay or edged right 24�:i angles to the bay. And it seemed to me that it would be a c is 251s significant difference. You would lose the Port of Miami. s j? JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 9R-- A%fi 2 3i 4 5 6 43 - You wo,,:ld lose ^e boat Biscayne Boulevard corridor. You would iose -- and the interesting thing here is that the bay is not a straight lire. The bay turns this way. So that -- Mr. Left. A BOARD MEMBER: Mr. Left, on the record please, 7;!: PERSON 1: From this particular area, 15th Road 81 and particularly the buildings to the north of them, you 9� -do in fact get a view of the bay looking straight across 10i: this property. It's not a view of more buildings. It's a I 11 view down toward Rickenbacker Causeway. That's -- this 12: was the issue here. From here, this is all bay view 13 coming down this way. And the positioning of these is 14 buildings in this manner changed -- these buildings are 15: not that high compared to these. 16 This was the issue here. From here, this is all l 171:: bay view coming down this way. And the positioning of 181these buildings in this manner changed -- these buildings is 191i are not that high compared to these. And from this point 20 of view these buildings did seem to have a more 21: significant impact on the view corridor to the south than is 221: if they were turned parallel to the bay. So my is 23 responsibility was not to disregard completely the 24� marketing issues that they had. I mean everybody -- you 25 can't ignore that. I mean that's what is financing these i€ I' JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES f'- 450 buildings. My greater responsibility was to try to find the balance of all of the view impacts and the value of 3 those _e:•; impacts concerned in the larger community and 4€ :Hake a weighted decision. And once I experienced that 180 5! degree rotated kind of view experience, I was persuaded 61that -- not the in this project's best interest but in the I 7' interest of all of the players involved in that Brickell 81' area. There would probably be on balance more adverse �. P Y 911 impacts in terms of limiting key corridors of view by 1011 turning this building at a right angle to the bay than s e 1111 there would be to the more westerly projects facing a I 121i project parallel to the bay. And I'm not saying that the 1311 views of other projects -- and I think we all heard from $$I: 141 the gentleman with the project by the Mutual of Omaha just 1 15! to the immediate west of this. I was also mindful of the f 16 fact that only one side of the building will be impacted i 17!; by this project. The north side of that building is in i€ 1811 fact unobstructed by any -of this. 19 So I was left with a half of ane building in an 20': otherwise office zone that was, I think, worth 21i considering. I was mindful of that developer's concern. 22' But I had to compare that with what's going on on the 23' block to the north, the projects to the south, Fortune is 241House, and what will come yet further to the north. And I c c 2511 had to ask myself what is on balance the best interest of l JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 45 this -:eicnbonccod. And : would ::ave to say -- and : do-:'t 2 want this to be the last word, but you did as:{ me w:nere 3 we're cor-i-g from at this point -- I would nave to say 4 that I'm persuaded that I think the answer to Mr. ;udson's question is we are on balance comfortable with the 61: orientation that they had at the beginning and still have I: 71 because I think it has the least impact to the most 8j people. 91 10{ 11 12 r 13 14 21 22' 23i 24i 25': MR. JUDSON: With that in mind, let me say, Jack, that my question came from -- to put it in a positive light knowing that you didn't have to come back to us -- since you did come back to us, being a director that wants to seriously consider our comments. That's why I have to question if staff is supporting the come back what was the basis for it? PERSON 1: You know my reaction initially was very much like yours. I saw this project. I saw the one across the street, and I saw the buildings this way, and I saw them that way and I went, whoa. Now maybe what am I missing here? This looks like a no-brainer. Okay? And then I told the applicant I'm not going to discuss this further. I want to hear what the board says. I'm going to stay out of this, stay neutral. Just go to the board and see what happens. And your reaction was pretty much like mine initially. But once you gave me your reaction. and I JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 46_ 1 was comae=led to tihen sit down and face what '.could be my 2 ultimate decision that I have the responsibility of 3 making It was at that point that I went out and 4 wondered around the neighborhood. And I went -:o in is 5':: buildings and I stood on balconies and I looked out is 611 windows and I said,, well actually I think this is the way 71 it is. And it changed -- I changed my own :Hind on it. 8`•. MR. JUDSON: Let me say this. I have a 911 question. Being very familiar with the Brickell area and 1€ 10 this particular part of Brickell, the question to staff is 11 as you went through this analysis is this a site that 12; uniquely allows itself to this particular orientation 131' because of the way the shoreline curbs and the location of i€ 14';' the other condominiums just to the south. 15?: PERSON 1: I think that that certainly was one is i 16issue. If this was say Bristol Towers and there is -- 11f what's the new one? Santa Maria? Now Santa Maria is just 18i1 this project. I mean it's a big flat building turned face 19�� to the bay, parallel to the bay. I think that we'd be 20 less concerned about which way they were oriented, in my 211 mind, but the fact that you can stand at the Foreign i 22� Ambassadors and look and see Rickenbacker Causeway across 23j1 the water down to Elliot Key and Soldier Key -- I couldn't is 24j see Elliot Key but I could see down towards Soldier Key -- 25i that to me was a view that was worth considering. And it - JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES ` 8- 450 47 l was us-- looking a: another building. 2 MR. JUDSON: Any other comments or quest_ons? 3:: MR. WOLFBERG: I think as was stayed before -- 4 and again. I'm always careful to acknowledge and we talked 5 about t:lis earlier today the fact that in 20 minutes or 45 6i: minutes of sitting up here I think it's almost l 7� unprofessional for us to be critical of somebody who has 8 worked on this an awful lot of hours and weeks and months. 9 However, I do feel that there was some very strong i 10;: statements made at the last meeting and I think we all i a Illi work very hard to be careful in our suggestion of 12 consideration. we specifically dealt with the orientation 13, and I have to say, Louis, when you resented this the ,: Y . Y P l4ii first time you very truthfully said and honestly and 15!:: sincerely said we're designing these buildings because i 161 this is the way our client wants it to be. He wants to 17� look at the water. Okay? And you were sincere in saying i 181€ it. And quite honestly what other people do -- and you 19j� know that's their problem. _ 20' Our marketing plan is to let people see the 21€ water, period. End of story. And I respect you for that, 22 and I -- if you recall I even said well that's a dilemma 23! that we have in that we serve clients. And their goal is 24�: not necessarily to make the city fabric better. Their j 25i€ goal is to sell units and I think that's the dilemma that JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 1 3 4 5 6 7 8! i 9 ; 10 11# 1 12 13) 14 !! 15 c 16 is 20 1 21!' 22 i 23 i 24! 25 �I 4 3- we al face. I think that we came out with a very strong stateme-:n in the orientation. I think it's certainly a conceptual thing. And I'm going to say that, again, we certainly haven't done the research that Jack has now done in going and looking at the site and maybe we should have. I will say that since your last presentation, every time I drive up and down I-95 I look at Santa Maria and I squint my eyes so I can see double. And I try and imagine two of those things next to each other and I have to say I like strong architecture but I think that borders on brutal. And I'm very, very concerned. And I've every been one to say that I wish that you guys had just come in and showed us phase one and come back five years from now with Phase Two. MR. RIVWELL: We're showing you two phases, but we have a plan here today that shows Phase One. Maybe I didn't make -- MR. WOLFBERG: Phase One works just fine. I'm worried about these to towers next to each other. And forgetting view corridor, I'm just looking at the mass of two Santa Marias next to each other. And again that's taking a lot of my attention when I'm driving past there. The other element that I raised at the last meeting was the base of the building that I thought was rather JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES I 49 insensit;.ve, and I would 'hope that Mr. Left ::ou�d look a: 2 that a ___tle bit further because I think -- you know 3` -nese ire going to be powerful buildings no Tatter which 4 direction they face. Go ahead. 5' PERSON 1: I have to tell you, as a matter of 61 fact, when we did talk a little more about this with the 7:: applicant, in my mind I keyed in very much on that picture 8'• right there. And I have to tell you I mentioned to them 9?s that one of my least favorite architectural spaces in 10 Miami is at the base of the Grand, and the scenario of IIIhigh spaces, levered big concrete columns, ramps, and I 121 thought, wow, I hope we don't do that again. And I'm not 13�! entirely convinced at this point that this solution in my 14 i. m backg mind resolves that. I'down on the round now and 15!: I'm looking at this very important space between these 1611 very monumental buildings and I'm not convinced that l: 171 that's been resolved sufficiently, nor am I convinced I: 18� that the upper level deck which is the open space -- I 191! think we saw another solution today on how you can treat 201� upper level decks. I'm not sure that this one has arrived } 211€ yet. So I guess I have somewhat of a mixed emotion. I is 221 realize the main issue at stake here was the orientation 23 based on the last meeting. But I believe that we've got 241 to take an additional look however the buildings are is 25ii oriented at that grand plane, that central corrLdor, how JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 M. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1E lE 22 i 23 24I i i 25 50 'ney're ha.-dling those ramps and those coi•=mns and that big open area as well as that upper level deck because think ^_ere's more work to be done. MR. WOLFBERG: On that point, Jack, and in generality, again, I said it at lunch today when we were talking about this in the previous meeting I wish we would just charge the code to tell us the things that people can and cannot do. For instance that residential views are •more important than office views. Because the code doesn't say that. PERSON 1: No, it doesn't. MR. WOLFBERG: The code says view corridors. PERSON 1: Yes. MR. WOLFBERG: And I think if those are real, then let's do it. And I would love to see the code -- and this is something that I think is critically important because we're building these massive garages which we have to to satisfy the requirement. But if there was some way -- I mean New York City dealt with stepping buildings and they called it a sunlight code. Maybe we could call this a sunlight code or a people code that requires that these massive garages rather than go up nine stories straight up PERSON 1: Yes, the wedding cake code. MR. WOLFBERG: That we create a wedding cake. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 450 you know lou_s '-.as gone to t^e _rouble o_ 2 putting ...._ts on the outs _de, but we haven t used t e fact 3 I at _ _ere are units there to undulate or create ter races 4 or anything like that to soften that facade. We've got 5, these big blocks and that's what people see. Houston did 6 this 25, 30 years ago and destroyed downtown because they Is 7 built downtown nine floors up. 8ff; PERSON 1: Not to mention Denver. i 9r MR. WOLFBERG: I would hope that we would begin 1011 to perhaps give a little bit more direction in the code is 11so that -- you know because Louis is doing his job and as 12'• far as we're concerned we don't have any power to change 1€ 13:: it and probably your power is somewhat limited as well I 14i' because the code gives you difficult in enforcing it and is 151!1 it becomes rather arbitrary then. So that's my comments. is 16i MR. GARCIA: Louis, you I think indicated to me is 17 that you agreed that you were going to have to give a 18' little more thought to the plaza and that you were 19' continuing to refine some of the ground level issues. 20 MR. RIVWELL: we intend to work with you guys on 21 that. i 22' MR. GARCIA: What can you give us as some 23 comfort here that in the future we can continue to have 24 that Kind of dialogue and hopefully arrive at some 25i solution apart from just setting the whole project aside. is JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 3 4 5 l is 6 7 El 14i 15 16' I 17 i i 18 19 a' 20i 21 22 i 23 is 24 c 25 I! I 52 know yo_ want to move forward, you want to have t^e comfort of knowing t at the basic frame work of this pro;ecr -as been accepted, but what are you willing to give us as a little opportunity to continue to work wit.. this here? MR. RIVWELL: I'd like to set up sulrett (phonetic) with you and whoever -- Francisco and whoever else you deem necessary -- and just work at it until we're all satisfied. MR. GARCIA: Okay. Well perhaps this board could be a part of a surett. Not that a surett literally where we're all going to roll up our sleeves and design, but I do think that whatever the board is of a mind to do, I would be certainly receptive to taking yet another step in this process at some point and bringing back those particular issues that I've just mentioned. If there are others maybe you would like to talk about too. But I think the key issue is what do we do with these big buildings, and I've come to my own thoughts on that. MR. WOLFBERG: In response to that, Jack, before you make a motion, I would just like to say I don't want to design your building. Okay? I think you've heard what we would 'Like. I think we -respect your talent enough. We just hope you'll take what we've suggested to you back to your client and say I need to -- JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES MWIEW 5 3_ MR. R1VW77L. And we will do that. ..st want 2 to :7a.<e a brief comment that my presentation, although 3 did ma.:e a lot of emphasis on the importance of the 4': orientation of our building, I do remember :Waking also 5 quite a bit -- quite a few times -- the statement that I 6;: strongly felt -- and I felt like this since Santa Maria -- 71that when you have a building that is perpendicular to the 8€ water, you spend more time looking at these buildings -- 91 just like you were telling me when you're driving north or loll south on L'S-1 or Dixie Highway or I-95. You spend more 113 time looking at these buildings at an angle that you do on 3: 121 straight on elevation. I can never really take a look at I311 straight elevations otherwise I end up in an accident. i€ 14�: So I honestly believe that although we have our 15; marching orders to design these buildings, the siting of 161: these building regardless of what our marching orders 17' were, have the least amount of impact on the vehicular and 18: pedestrian circulation that is greatest in town on the i 19r north and south access. 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments? 21 MR. MARSTON: Mr. Chairman? 1: is 22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes? 23j MR. MARSTON: I'm still wrestling with the 24; issue. I'm wrestling with the issue because at the end of 251:: the last meeting I was drawing little sketching on my plan is JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 3 4 is 5 54 here and 1 was tryi-q to get 70U J to look at views to the soul;:. And Louis told me, no the only views were to t�-.e ea=t. Jack now tells me there are good views to _ e south which 7 was convinced there were when I looked at the site plan. 6i I'm right with David on the Santa Maria and 7 whether or not we have authority as a board, power as a 8's board, I think we have a responsibility to ourselves and 9 to the professional community to be able to stand up and 10 say billboards are billboards and that it's not something ili' that we agree with if we think they're billboards. I'm { 12disappointed that there wasn't perhaps -- I mean there's 131 only two approaching on this project, one is parallel, one f: 14: is perpendicular. And in fact maybe there is -- if there is 15il were two of these pieces on the skyline but they were two 16 blocks apart, I don't think it would offend me as much as 171 it does. But the fact that the two billboards are 110 18! feet apart, they're matching towers, gives me pause. 19{ And I'm not going to -- certainly not going to is 20' tell Louis how to design his building. Do I think it's 211 good for the city and do I think it's good for citizenry 22� and do I think it creates a dynamic skyline' Is it good 23; for all of the residential people in the neighborhood' s 24: I'm sorry, I don't. And if I have to, you know, express is 25 that view even though it may be overruled, I don't believe JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 55 a good sol.ition the way it n 2 MR. C:4AIR:'`Z . Yes? 3 PERSON 1. _f I may offer one 4 Like the bayfront, I-95 turns. I think w-:a= you'll see _s 5 that the northbound approach of I-95 while you're look---.g 6': at Santa Maria to your right is looking more or less -- 7 not head on, but closer to a frontal perspective on this 81:`: property. I think you might find that you're not solving 9 anything by turning the buildings perpendicular to the t: 10� bay, you're only changing modestly the angle of the view i€ 11I that you're getting from that northeasterly approach as I' 12 you're moving up. 13i` There's a much lesser or shorter stretch of I-95 I 14': after you make that turn on 15th Road, you probably would 15i not, in my opinion, significantly change the visual 16: perspective, the impact of the facade of the building 17 presenting itself as a wall or an edge by turning it at is 181 right angles to the bay because of the oblique perspective 19i and the long perspective that you'll have coming from the 20. south. I doubt that anyone would probably notice much of 21€ a difference one way or the other. The illusion in all of 22;: this -- and I always struggle with this because I've done 23; a lot of design review is that you're almost always c 241presented with the one head on elevation view, whereas we 25i experience most of the city as a moving oblique JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 2 3 4 5 6 i 1 7 8 I€ 9 10 11 12 21 22 23 24 25 56 perspective. A.^.d so you constan,�iy have to semi d yor�e'_� that b. __ruing this bu__din g, you're just presenting to that oblique perspective on 3rickell, on i-95, yet the same thing. And it's rare that you get that one moment of the head-on view that seems to present itself as the issue in these drawings. MR. KOROGLU: May I make my comment? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, go ahead. MR. KOROGLU: I'm not of the same mind as my good colleague here to my left. I think the design team has exhausted all of its efforts and looked at it very carefully. I think the indication is they have gone through every step of the process again one more time with the staff. I think at this stage of the process I think I would make a motion to approve it with the conditions that you keep on working with the staff, especially on the plaza level and other matters. MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion needs a second. MR. WOLFBERG: Second. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the motion? MR. PEREZ: Mr. Chairman I have more humble questions that I don't know that I quite understand buildings, ones that are what eight or ten stories in height. I don't know that I walk around looking up or JACK HESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 37 -___ -_ _ -. _ro,�b_ed coo_= =..e s__e o__... o -•- ..se = had other th_ncs -at mea.._ s_ne- 3..- ::e site plan, as -- addresses So--- 0 Bays :ore ,__ve, I. see a tremendous amour_t of f_a.e _actor 7 from the point of view of an: individua_ such as --:e who 8 would never be able to afford an unit in that building but 9 perhaps Tight decide that I want to walk around _... see 10 a lot of driveways, different things happening, grass and 11 al'_ that Sind of things, and that troubles me oecause to 12 me this is as urban as we are in Miami. And the corners 13 also trouble me because there seems to be an obsession 14 about leaving the corners open. 15 vow, if one were to think of the corner which 15 are t`e crossing point of most people as oasis i. ^e 17 midst of the way an individual gets from point A to oo-nt 13 B, therefore then change the vocabulary in between. as 19 connections between those pools, those spaces oasis, then 2� the whole damn thing begin to sort to hang together, what ?: I call :^.a: ging together. I look at this t:-ing and = see 22 somebody traversing -- again I'm addressing South Bays:^ore 23 Drive ar.d _'m trying to picture it in my head and I see a 24 Lot of driveways and things going back and fort-. I think 25 there's a better way of solving a1'_ of this in a much. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 -v-.ber - - -- -� a :7Ore sue..----'e -,ia 0= _c�0_ _nC -• - =_ -- ---ss,,.e. rea�_�e tnat ere may no. be oedestr_y.. =ere, b�_t :ere s a_.%ays _ question Lf we ..ad pro-, _dec -- o what Is __? If _ bu__d i_ or if you build _ :ney w_l: 7 come. So the ouestion would be is that if we bui_d i~_, 8 perhaps they will come. I'm troubled because I see tr:is 9 as I see every other building that I seem to encounter and 10 7 had some trouble with my health some years ago and the _= question of having to ::ave to address even today the '2 question of going up and down and things going back and 13 fort:.. '�+ould it not be better to consider this whole thing as a bass from which this building or built-' 5 depart and then give the ground plan as it should? _o I thir:k we give .:p -- somebody wrote a wonder_`.,_ _7 book w:^ic, is kind of crazy and insane, but I think it's 18 called -- what the hell is it? Something to do with 19 asphalt. I forget the title right now, but what it is is 2 we're caving up in our society basically -- everythi.^.g is 21 based .inon how the automobile or the vehicular area works 22 and then the left over space is given to the people who 23 walk on by and go to places and eat. And there is 24 something wrong with :.hat idea. I see a lot of that 25 happening here, notwithstanding the fountains and some of JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 _.._nc:s _....._ .r-e ..a=.e.._.,e. S . =�F' sva.Ce -_ and '% no_ _a .{ __- C: ...-.e _- -- =o corners, Est _:,e wco_e =.._nc nd = Co _ -.ean to =a_k abo'lt the arev:ous oresentat_on :=eca-7se :d='s �..�3_r on my Dart. _ ow you've spe.^.= a 1O� 0= t:me wor:{_ng or. =hese things. From my ignorant eyes of not having been =crche w'noie dissertation the last time, I don't see enc,,.:c^ :-:aterial here that I understand what it ;s t'.-:a= �� you're dc_ng here on the pedestrian level from a oav_nc l2 poi..= o_ v_ew, _fighting point of view, plant_ng pei_.= o'_ 13< view, .:ps and downs, what are we giving back to, scan, s guy _ike -.e who's lust going to walk around it and sort D_ � _ook a--_t and say, hell this looks nice. - may no-- be _o able to iive t,ere, but this is kind of good. Tca::k yc:. 7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Could you repeat your 18.€ motion for me? :? MR. KOROGLU: The motion was to approve with 2 . c0.^.C:. =-o ns that they keep on working with the staff =o 2: resc_ve :-.e matters at the pedestrian levels. 22 MR. CHA!R_MA.V: For my sake I'm ass-.:ming =cat 23 incl-:des cow the garage pedestals are treated. A^:y ot'.-:e_ 24:: ques=ions or comment before we vote on the mo=ion? cal'_ 25 _ne ro��. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 ".r. wo_=pery :`.r. 10r0 _�? y _ ORCG= Yes. .%R. G::RC--a Mr. vo_fberc' 5 MR. NOL_ 3SRG. qo_ng =o vo~e _s 5 hope _..a_ we approve enough p rase -'No dce_n' _ 7 happen. 8 MR. GARCIA: Mr. Judson? 9 MR. JliDSON: Yes. i0 MR. GARCIA: Mr. Marston? MR. MARSTON . No. i2 MR. GARCIA: Mr. Perez? i3 MR. PEREZ: Clarify something for me cefore = say my tying here. Are we saying that part of t-a—: _5 is that _ney need to revisit some of these t�_ncs _-at = _5 ast Caen_ half an -our -- is _hat -- li MR. GARCIA: Yes. i8 MR. PEREZ: Then yes. 19 MR. GARCIA: The motion passes four to one. 2,) MR. WOLF3ERG. Move to adjourn.. ?7 MR. KOROGLL': I second it. 22 MR. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? 23 ALL. Ave. 24 25 - - - - - JACK HESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 =o__=-= _-=_--.sc7 C,: 6 - �- 8K l Transcriber Date 9 r: 'o 11 �` I 12 is 13 a: is 14 :5 15 is 7 y 1: iE 1 � l ii 19 2 0 :: 21 22 23 24 25 JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 RESOLUTION PAB - 14-98 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, OF A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1201 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE TO ALLOW A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 749 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ACCESSORY COMMERCIAL SPACE WITH 1,254 PARKING SPACES WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT IT COMPLIES WITH ALL CONDITIONS OF THE SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW _ BOARD; 2) THAT TOWER NO. TWO (2) BUILDING PERMITS BE CONTINGENT UPON AVAILABLE CREDITS FOR THE- NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE DOWNTOWN DRI. HEARING DATE: February 18, 1998 ITEM NO. 1 VOTE: 6-0 ATTEST o des Slazyk, Assii'tanulaikaor Department of Planning and Development 98- 450 APPLICATION FOR A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT File Number MU- - It is intended that major use special permits be required where specified uses and/or occupancies involve matters deemed to be of citywide or area -wide importance. The City Commission shall be solely responsible for determinations on applications for major use special permits. (See Article 17) The City Commission shall refer all applications for major use special permits to the Planning Advisory Board and to the Director of the Department of Planning, Building and Zoning for recommendations, and may make referrals to agencies, bodies, or officers, either through the Department of Planning, Building and Zoning or directly for review, analysis, and/or technical findings and determinations and reports thereon. (Section 1301.5.) I, Judith A. Burke, hereby apply to the Director of Planning, Building and Zoning of the City of Miami for approval of a Major Use Special Permit under the provisions of Article 17 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance. Address of Property: East of Brickell Bay Drive between S.E. 12th Street and N.E. 14th Street Nature of Proposed Use (Be specific): 749 Unit Residential Condominium Project This application also includes: (A) a request for a Major Use Special Permit to construct a parking structure containing in excess of 500 parking spaces; and (B) a request for a Major Use Special Permit for a phased project. Preliminary Application: I attach the following in support or explanation of the Preliminary Application: 1. Two copies of a survey of the property prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land Surveyor. 2. Affidavit disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of interest form (attach Forms 4-83 and 4a-83 to application). 3. Certified list of owners of real estate within a 375-foot radius from the outside boundaries of property covered by this application (attach Form 6-83 to application). 4. Maps of: (a) existing zoning, and (b) adopted comprehensive plan designations for areas on and around the property covered by this application. Page 1 of 2 98- 450 4. Maps of (a) existing zoning, and (b) adopted comprehensive plan designations for areas on and around the property covered by this application. 5. General location map, showing relation to the site or activity to major streets, schools, existing utilities, shopping areas, important physical features in and adjoining the project, and the like. 6_ Concept Plan (a) Site plan and relevant information. Section 1304.2.1 (d through h). (b) Relationships to surrounding existing and proposed future uses, and activities, systems and facilities (Section 1702.3.2a). (c) How concept affects existing zoning and adopted comprehensive plan principles and designations; tabulation of any required variances, special permits, change of zoning or exemptions (Section 1702.3.2b). 7. Developmental Impact Study (an application for development approval for a Development of Regional Impact may substitute). 8. Other (8a specific): See attached supplemental documents 9. Fee of $30,000.00, based on Ordinance 10396. Additional fees for any required special permits, changes of zoning, or variances shall be in accord with zoning fees as listed in Section 62-61 of the City Code and Ordinance 10396. Fee tabulation: Building(s): Other (Specify): Total: $30,000.00 Final Application I attach the following additional information in support or explanation of the final application: krSignatu cQ+`- Owner or Authorized Agent Judith A. Burke Name: Address: City, State, Zip: Phone: This application is [ ] approved [ ] denied in accord with City Commission Resolution Number: Other: Jack Luft, Director Planning, Building and Zoning Department Date: Page 2 of 2 J 450 s AFFIDAVIT STATE OF FLORIDA } } SS COUNTY OF DADE } Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared Judith A. Burke, who being by me first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says: That she is the legal representative of applicant, submitting the accompanying application for a public hearing as required by Ordinance 11000 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, affecting the real property located in the City of Miami, as described and listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and made a part thereof. 2. That said applicant which she represents has given its full and complete permission for her to act in their behalf for the change or modification of a classification or,regulation of zoning as set out- in the accompanying petition. 3. That the pages attached hereto and made a part of this affidavit contain the current names, mailing addresses, phone numbers and legal descriptions for the real property of which she is the legal representative. 4. The facts as represented in the application and documents submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are true and correct. Further Affiant sayeth not. Sworn to and Subscribed before me this a? -A day of 0 -A s t . 1997 k I&A4 (SEAL) Judith A. Burke tary blic, State of Florida at Large oN i LAL My Commission Expires: CHREMAN 'ZY F -MUC STM-E. OF FLORIDA 1 C:Ob:::rSStON NO. CC424&V MY COMML9lriON FXP. hA999 98- 450 ra OWNER'S LIST Owner's Name Mailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: See Exhibit "A" Owner's Name Mailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: Owner's Name Mailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 375 feet of the subject site is listed as follows: Street Address c/o Judith A. Burke, Esq. Shutts & Bowen LL 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1600 Miami, Florida 33131 Street Address Legal Description Legal Description 98-- 450 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL Portions of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4„ 5, 6 Block 1 and the 10 foot vide PRIVATE LANE lying South of said Lot 6, "AMENDED PLAT OF 41BISCUS PLACE", according to the plat thereof as recorded in .Plat Book 3 at Page 110; Portions of Lot B and the 4 foot vide walk%.;ay lying South of said Lot B, "AMENDED PLAT. OF MIRADO COURT', according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 14 at Page 44; Portion of jOt 9, "HICHLEYMAN'S SUBDIVISION", according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 1 at Page 184, all of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida AND submerged land and land (formerly submerged, now filled) lying Easterly of the above mentioned subdivisions. All of the above being more particularly described as follows: Com=nce at the Monument Line intersection of South Bayshore Drive and S. E. 12th Street as shown on Sheet No.37-AE of the Municipal Atlas of the City of Miami (last revised June 8th, 1979); thence South 76 degrees 37 minutes 50 seconds East, along the Monument Line of said S. E. 12th Street, for 65.01 feet; thence South 13 degrees 22 minutes 10 seconds West, at right angles to the last and next described courses for 31.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of the following described parcel; thence South 76 degree 37 minutes 54. seconds East. along the North line of the aforementioned Lot 1, Block 1 and its Easterly prolongation, for 298.42 feet to a point on the Ma4ropolitan Dade County, Florida Bulkhead Line (U.S. Harbor Line) as shown on that certain plat as recorded in Plat Book 74 at Page 3 (sheet 3) of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; thence South 5 degrees 37 minutes 20 seconds West, for 203.22 feet; thence South 2 degrees 35 minutes 13.5 seconds West for 456.59 feet (last mentioned two courses being coincident with the aforementioned Dade County Bulkhead Line); thence North 76 degrees 39 minutes 05 seconds West, along the Easterly prolongation of the South line of the aforementioned Lot 9, for 156.46 feet to a Point on a Curve (said point bears North 55 degrees 29 minutes 09 seconds East from the radius point of the following described curve); thence Northwesterly, along a circular curve to the left, having a radius of 741.50feet and a central angle of 1 degree 09 minutes 53 seconds far an arc distance of 15.07 feet; thence North 76 degrees 39 minutes 05 seconds West, along a line parallel with and 10.00 feet North of, as measured at right angles to, the South line of said Lot 9, for 183.26 feet to i Point of Curvature; thence Northwesterly, Northerly and Northeasterly, along a circular curve to the right, having a radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for an arc distance of 39.27 feet to a Point of Tangency; thence North 13 degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds East, for 115.00 feet to a Point of Curvature; thence Northeasterly, Northerly and Northwesterly, along a circular curve to the left, having a radius of 458.43 feet and a central angle of 21 degrees 34 minutes 08 seconds for an arc distance of 172.58 feet to a Point of Reverse Curvature; thence Northwesterly, and Northerly, along a circular curve to the right, having a radius of 398.43 feet and a central angle of 4 degrees 47 minutes 04 seconds for an arc distance of 33.27 feet to a point on said curve (said point bears South 86 degrees 3 3 minutes 51 seconds West, from the radius point of the last described curve); thence North 6 degrees 02 minutes 04 seconds East, for 10.08 feet; thence North 6 degrees 08 minutes 30 seconds East, for 45.36 feet; thence North 13 degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds East,for 220.10 feet to a Point of Curvature (last mentioned six courses being coincident with the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of the aforementioned South Bayshore Drive, as shown on said Municipal Atlas Sheet of the City of Miami); thence Northeasterly, Easterly and Southeasterly. along a circular curve to the right, having a radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of 90 degrees 01 minutes 15 seconds Car an are distance of 39.28 feet to the Point of Beginning. All lying and bein4-in Section 39, Township 54 South, Range 41 East. City of Miami, Dade County. Florida. 98- 450 DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP Legal description and street address of subject real property: See attached Exhibit "A." Property is located east of Brickell Bay Drive between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street, Miami, Florida. 2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership. Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parries having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question 12 requires disclosure of shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. The current Owner of the Property is Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation. This application is filed by Multiplan USA, Inc., a Florida corporation the contract purchaser of the Property. The Disclosure of Ownership for Multiplan USA, Inc. is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question #2, and (b) located within 375 feet of the subject *real property. NONE ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT Judith A. Burke STATE OF FLORIDA } SS: COUNTY OF DADE } Judith A. Burke, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the (Attorney for Owner) of the real property described in answer to question #1, above that she has read the foregoing answers and that the same are true and complete;'and (if acting as attorney, for owner) that she has authority to execute the Disclosure of Ownership form on behalf of the owner. (SEAL) b: .iii OF RADMA I Ct; 61NIIS:rON NO CC,6%W SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED i�lYC0N. 2SN&0? Dcp. F1Lw pg before me this ,�.� day of C� _ 0c.A 4, , 1997 Notary Public, State of Florida at Large 98- 450 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL Portions of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4,, 5, 6 Block 1 and the 10 foot vide PRIVATE LANE lying South of said Lot 6, "AMENDED PLAT OF -HIBISCUS PLACE", according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3 at Page 110; Portions of Lot B and the 4 foot wide walkway lying South of said Lot It, "AMENDED PLAT,.OF MIKADO COURT", according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 14 at Page 44; Portion of dot 9, 'HICHLEYMAN'S SUBDIVISION", according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 1 at Page 184, all of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida AND submerged land and land (formerly submerged, now filled) lying Easterly of the above mentioned subdivisions. All of the above being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Monument Line intersection of South Bayshore Drive and S. E. 12th Street as shown on Sheet No.37-AE of the Municipal Atlas of the City of Miami (last revised June 8th, 1979); thence South 76 degrees 37 minutes 50 seconds East, along the Monument Line of said S. E. 12th Street, for 65.01 feet; thence South 13 deggrees 22 minutes 10 seconds West, -at right angles to the last and next described courses for 31.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of the following described parcel; thence South 76 degree 37 minutes 50. seconds East, along the North line of the aforementioned Lot 1, Block 1 and its Easterly prolongation, for 298.42 feet to a point on the McAropolitan Dade County, Florida Bulkhead Line (U.S. Harbor Line) as shown on that certain plat as recorded in Plat Book 74 at Page 3 (sheet 3) of the Public` Records of Dade County, Florida; thence South 5 degrees 37 minutes 20 seconds West, for 203.22 feet; thence South 2 degrees 35 minutes 13.5 seconds West for 456.59 feet (last mentioned two courses being coincident with the aforementioned Dade County Bulkhead Line); thence North 76 degrees 39 minutes 05 seconds Gest, along the Easterly prolongation of the South line of the aforementioned Lnt 9, for 156.46 feet to a Point on a Curve (said point bears ?forth 55 degrees 29 minutes 09 seconds East from the radius point of the following described curve); thence Northwesterly, along a circular curve to the left, having a radius of 741.50feet and a central angle of 1 degree 09 minutes 53 seconds for an arc distance of 15.07 feet; thence North 76 degrees 39 minutes 05 seconds West, along a line parallel with and 10.00 feet North of, as measured at right angles to, the South line of said Lot 9, for 183.26 feet to i Point of Curvature; thence Northwesterly, Northerly and Northeasterly, along a circular curve to the right, having a radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for an arc distance of 39.27 feet to a Point of Tangency; thence ?forth 13 degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds East, for 115.00 feet to a Point of Curvature; thence Northeasterly, Northerly and Northwesterly, along a circular curve to the left, having a radius of 458.43 feet and a central angle of 21 degrees 34 minutes 08 seconds for an arc distance of 172.56 feet to a Point of Reverse Curvature; thence Northwesterly, and Northerly, along a circular curve to the right, having a radius of 398.43 feet and a central angle of 4 degrees 47 minutes 04 seconds for an arc distance of 33.27 feet to a point on said curve (said point bears South W degrees 3 3 minutes 5! seconds WCst, from the radius point of the last described curve); thence North 6 degrees 02 minutes 04 seconds East, for 10.08 feet; thence North 6 degrees 08 minutes 30 seconds East, for 45.36 feet; thence North 13 degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds East,for 220.10 feet to a Point of Curvature (last mentioned six courses being coincident with the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of the aforementioned South Bayshore Drive, as shown on said Municipal Atlas Sheet of the City of Miami); thence Northeasterly, Easterly and Southeasterly, along a circular curve to the right, having a .radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of 90 degrees Ol minutes 15 seconds for an arc distance of 39.28 feet to the Point of Beginning. All lying and being -in Section 39. Township 54 South, Range 41 East, City of Miami, Dade County, Florida. 98 -- 450 W—a:11•Ii". DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP Multiplan USA Corp., a Florida corporation is owned 100 percent by Investment Counseling Corp., S.A., an Uruguay corporation, which is owned 100 percent by Jose Isaac Peres. Jose Isaac Peres c/o Multiplan USA Corp., One Biscayne Tower, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1800, Miami, Florida 33131. 98- 450 Exhibit "B" ZONING FACT SHEET Case Number: 1997-0080 12-Jan-98 Item No: 12 Location: Approx. 1201 Brickeil Bay Drive Legal: (Complete legal description on file with the Office of Hearing Boards) Applicant: Bayshore Palms 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., #1600 Judith A. Burke 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., #1600 Miami, FL 33131 Miami, FL 33131 App. Ph: (305) 379-9187 Rep. Ph: (305) 379-9187 ext Rep. Fa () = ext Zoning: SD-5 Brickell Avenue Area Residential -Office District Request: Special Exception as part of a Major Use Special Permit for Bayshore Palms, listed in Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Article 6, Section 605.4.3(2), Permitted only by Special Exception, to allow a Bar/Lounge. Recommendations: Planning and Development: Approval with conditions. Public Works: Plat and Street Committee: Dade County Transportation: No comments. Enforcement History, If any C.E.B. Case No: N/A Last Hearing Date: Found: N/A Violation(s) Cited: N/A Ticketing Action: N/A Daily Fine: $0.00 Affidavit Non -Compliance Issued on: Warning Letter sent on: Total Fines to Date: $0.00 Lien Recorded on: Comply Order by: CEB Action: History: Analysis: Please see attached. Zoning Board Resolution No: ZB 1998-0010 Zoning Board: Approval with conditions to City Commission Vote: Appellant: N/A 7-0 98- 450 Analysis for a Special Exception component of a MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT for the BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT located at 1201 Brickell Bay Drive CASE NO. 1997-0080 Pursuant to Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the subject proposal for the Bayshore Palms Project has been reviewed to allow the following Special Exception as a component of a Major Use Special Permit: • Special Exception per Article 6, Section 605.4.3 (2) to allow a Bar/lounge within the SD-5 district; The requested Major Use Special Permit is for the purpose of allowing the Bayshore Palms Project, a Planned Unit Residential Development project consisting of a total of 749 residential units to be accommodated within two high-rise towers, with accessory commercial space and 1,180 parking spaces for the property located at approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive within the Brickell area (see attached legal description, location maps and aerial photographs for exact property boundaries). The following findings have been made: • It is found that the proposed planned unit development project will benefit the Downtown District by creating new housing opportunities for employees of the area as well as attracting new residents to Downtown Miami. • It is found that the subject of this Special Exception, specifically -a Bar/Lounge, for the proposed project is completely within the scope and character of the project given that it is a very high density, luxury residential project to be located along a significant parcel on the waterfront of Downtown Miami. • It is found that the Urban Development Review Board (UDRB) has recommended approval of the proposed project, subject to conditions, as specified on the attached minutes from its public meeting held on November 13, 1997. • It is found that the Large Scale Development Committee (LSDC) met on July 25, 1997 and has reviewed the project for compliance with technical concerns and has recommended the following: 98- 450 1. pursuant to the Department of Public Works, the project requires plans for proposed sidewalk and swale area improvements (including the construction of a proposed cul-de-sac turnaround at the easterly end of S.E. 12ffi Street) prior to the issuance of a building permit; and 2. pursuant to the Downtown NET Office, the applicant shall submit a parking plan for construction employees and temporary parking arrangements for the existing building while the new building is under construction; said parking plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of any building permits. • It is found that the Department of Planning and Development is in concurrence with the findings of the LSDC and will require compliance with the above referenced conditions prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed project. • It is found that due to the location of the proposed project along Biscayne Bay, the applicant shall be required to present the project to the Miami -Dade County Shoreline Development Review Committee for review and approval; the City of Miami shall require a final Resolution from said Committee prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. • It is found that with respect to all additional criteria as specified in Section 1305 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, the proposal has been reviewed and found to be adequate. Based on these findings, the Department of Planning and Development is recommending approval of the requested Planned Unit Development Project with the following conditions: 1. The approval of this Major Use Special Permit shall be subject to the recordation of the following documents prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed project: a. Unity of Title or covenant in lieu thereof providing that the ownership, operation and maintenance of all common areas and facilities will be by the property owner or a mandatory property owner association in perpetuity. b. Development Order specifying that the Development Order runs with the land and is binding on the Applicant, it successors and assigns, jointly or severally. 98- 450 2. Pursuant to the Downtown NET Office, the applicant shall submit a parking plan for construction employees and temporary parking arrangements for the existing building while the new building is under construction; said parking plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3. Pursuant to the Department of Public Works, the applicant shall provide plans for proposed sidewalk and swale area improvements (including the construction of a cul-de-sac turnaround at the easterly end of S.E. 12'h Street) prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. Pursuant to the UDRB, the conditions, as specified on the attached minutes from the meeting held on November 13, 1997, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit; compliance with said conditions shall be determined by the Department of Planning and Development. 5. Pursuant to the requirements of Miami -Dade County, the proposed project shall require the review and approval of the Shoreline Development Review Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. 6. This approval shall also be subject to all additional conditions specified in the Final Development Order for the project. 98- 450 CITY OF MIAMI URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Meeting of November 13, 1997 UDRB Report for: BAYSHORE PALMS Review of Major Use Special Permit proposal for development of a phased project consisting of two 57 story towers atop 10 story pedestals containing a combined total of 749 units. Item: 1 of 2 Location: Approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive. Applicant: Multiplan / Ms. Judith Burke, Esq. / Mr. Luis Revuelta, Architect. Case number: 97-111 Vote: Approval (4 to 1) UDRB Resolution: Proposal recommended for approval as presented in plans and supplementary materials submitted by the applicant, subject to the following conditions: That a revised landscape plan be submitted, to be reviewed and approved by staff, to include a greater coherence and consistency in the use of landscape materials, which appropriately softens the edges of the development both as it faces the right-of-way and within the breezeway between both buildings. The landscape plan shall also contain specific furniture and other fixtures and/or appurtenances to articulate the open spaces provided on site. Al this in an effort to present a more welcoming and "open" feeling as viewed from the Brickell Bay Drive. 2. That a revised treatment be presented for the garage ramps on both buildings, said treatment shall be submitted, to be reviewed and approved by staff, along with a new buffering strategy to include landscape and built elements in an attempt to soften the ramps' effect on the breezeway between both buildings. Staff Recommendations: In addition to those concerns expressed by the Urban Development Review Board, as captioned above, staff recommends that an "interim improvements" proposal be submitted, to be reviewed and approved by staff, for that portion of the site which will not be developed as part of the first phase. Staff also recommends that the configuration of the recreation decks on the 10`h level be revised and re -designed in a detailed fashion so as to appropriately address their role as the main amenity complex for the relatively large community of building residents. Said proposal shall be submitted, to be reviewed and approved by staff CITY OF MIAMI • OFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor • Miami, FI. 33130 98- 450 Mr. Tucker Gibbs offered the following Resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION ZB 1998-0010 AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1305 OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS PART OF A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BAYSHORE PALMS, LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 6, SECTION 605.4.3 (2) PERMITTED ONLY BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION, TO ALLOW A BAR/LOUNGE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1201 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE _ LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A" HEREBY ATTACHED; ZONED SD-5 BRICKELL AVENUE AREA 'RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE DISTRICT. THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION PER PLANS ON FILE WITH A TIME LIMITATION OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) MONTHS IN WHICH A ,BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED AND IT IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AS STATED IN EXHIBIT "B" HEREBY ATTACHED. Upon being seconded by Mr. Osvaldo Moran-Ribeaux the motion was passed -and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mses. Basila, Cuervo & Hernandez -Acosta Messrs. Barket, Gibbs, Obregon & Moran-Ribeaux NAYES: None ABSENT: None 1 Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 7-0 Teresita L. Fernandez, Chief Office of Hearing Boards January 12, 1998 - Item # 12 Zoning Board 98- 450 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL Portions of Lots 1. 2, 3, 4,. 5, 6 Block 1 and the 10 foot vide PRIVATE LANE lying South of said Lot 6, "AtMNDED PLAT OF 41BISCUS PLACE", according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3 ac Page 110; Portions of Lac B and the 4 foot vide walkway lying South of said Lac B, "AMENDED PLAT.Or MIRADO COURT", according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 14 at Page 44; Portion of }or 9, I"AICHLEYMAN'S SUBDIVISION", according to the plac thereof as recorded in Plat Book 1 at Pate 184, all of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida AND submerged land and land (formerly submerged, now filled) lying Easterly of the above mantioned subdivisions. All of the above being more particularly described as follows: Commence ac the Monument Line intersection of South Bayshore Drive and S. E. 12th Street as shown on Sheet No.37-At of the Municipal Atlas of the City of Miami (last revised June Bch, 1979); chance South 76 degrees 37 minutes 50 seconds East, along the Monument Line of said S. E. 12th Street, for 65.01 feet; thence South 13 degrees 22 minutes 10 seconds hest, at right angles to the last and next described courses for 31.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of the following described parcel; thence South 76 degree 37 minutes 5Q., seconds East, along the North line of the aforementioned Lac 1, Block 1 and its Easterly prolongation, for 268.42 feet to a point on the Madropolitan Dade County, Florida Bulkhead Line (U.S. Harbor Line) as shown on that certain plsc as recorded in Plat Book 74 at Page 3 (sheet 3) of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; chance South 5 degrees 37 minutes 20 seconds best, for 203.22 feet; thence South 2 degrees 35 minutes 13.5 seconds West for 456.59 feet (last mentioned two courses being coincident with the aforamenzioned Dade County Bulkhead Line); thence North 76 degrees 39 minutes 05 seconds West, along the Easterly prolongation of the South line of the aforementioned Lot 9, for 156.46 feet to a Point on a Curve (said point bears North 55 degrees Z9 minutes 09 seconds East from the radius point of the following described curve); thence Northwesterly, along a circular curve to the left, having a radius of 741.50 feet and, a central angle of 1 degree 09 minutes 53 seconds for an arc distance of 15.07 feet; thence North 76 degrees 39 minutes 05 seconds West, along a line parallel with and 10.00 feet North of, as measured ac right angles to, the South fine of said Lot 9, for 133.26 feet to i Point of Curvature; thence Northwesterly, Northerly and Northeasterly, along a circular curve co the right, having a radius of 25.00 feet and a ccncral angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for an arc distance of 39.27 feet to a Point of Tangency; thence North 13 degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds Essc, for 115.00 feet to a Point of Curvature; thence Northeasterly, Northerly and Northwesterly, along a circular curve to the left. havint a radius of 458.43 feet and a central angle of 21 degrees 34 minutes 08 seconds for an arc distance of 172.58 feet to a Point of Reverse Curvature; thence Northwesterly, and Northerly. along a circular curve to the right, having a radius of 396.43 feet and a central angle of 4 degrees 47 minutes 04 seconds for an arc distance of,33.27 feet to a point on said curve (&aid point bears South 84 degrees 33 minutes 51 seconds West. from the radius Point of the last described curve); thence North 6 degrees 02 minutes 04 seconds Last, for 10.08 feet; thence North 6 degrees 08 minutes 30 seconds East. for 45.36 feet; thence North 13 degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds East.for 220.10 feet to A Point of Curvature (last mentioned six courses being coincident with the Easterly Right -of -Nay Line of the aforementioned South Bayshore Drive, as shown on said Municipal Atlas Sheet of the City of Mimi); chance Northeasterly. Easterly and Southeasterly, along a circular curve to the right, having a .radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of 90 degrees 01 minutes 15 seconds Car an arc distance of 39.26 feet to the Point of Beginning. All lying and bein r in Section 39. Township Sr South. Range 41 East. City of Miami. Dada County. Florida. 98 - 450 CONDITIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DE' )PINT 1. The approval of this Major Use Special Permit shall be subject to the recordation of the following documents prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed project: a. Unity of Title or covenant in lieu thereof providing that the ownership, operation and maintenance of all common areas and facilities will be by the property owner or a mandatory property owner association in perpetuity. b. Development Order specifying that the Development Order runs with the land and is binding on the Applicant, it successors and assigns, jointly or severally. 2. Pursuant to the Downtown NET Office, the applicant shall submit a parking plan for construction employees and temporary parking arrangements for the existing building while the new building is under construction; said parking plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3. Pursuant to the Department of Public Works, the applicant shall provide plans for proposed sidewalk and swale area improvements (including the construction of a cul-de-sac turnaround at the easterly end of S.E. 12" Street) prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. Pursuant to the UDRB, the conditions, as specified on the attached minutes from the meeting held on November 13, 1997, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit; compliance with said conditions shall be determined by the Department of Planning and Development. 5. Pursuant to the requirements of Miami -Dade County, the proposed project shall require the review and approval of the Shoreline Development Review Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. 6. This approval shall also be subject to all additional conditions specified in the Final Development Order for the project. EXHIBIT "B" 98- 450 ZONING 99M ACTION ON =ZTITIOM FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION I move ,that the request on agenda item �� be denied) t rants in that the requirements of Section 2405) (were n satisfied by relevant evidence in the record of the public hearing. Q-4) as stated in the city,s findings of fact, or -) as demonstrated by the petitioner, or c) on the basis of the following: ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Zoning Board, in its decision to (grant) (deny) the special exception, shall make written findings that the applicable requirements of this Zoning Ordinance, Section 2305, (have) (have not) been met. Circle avDropriate conditions: 1303.1 Inorress and Sates. Due consideration shall be given to adequacy of ingress and egress to the property and structure and uses thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire and emergency - 1303.2 Offstreet Parkiao and Loadiav Due consideration shall be given to offstreet parking and loading facilities as related to adjacent streets, with particular reference+ to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, internal traffic flow and control, arrangement in relation to access in case of fire or other emergency, and screening and landscaping. 1305.3 Raf ao and seswice areas. i Due consideration shall be given to tho location, scale, design, and screening of refuse and service areas to the manner in which refuse is to be stored; and to the manner and tisinq of refuse collection and deliveries, shipments, or other service activities, as such natters relate to the location and nature of uses on adjoininq properties and to the location and character of adjoining public ways. 1305.4 Sims and lioatina. Due consideration shall be given to the number, size, character, location and orientation of proposed signs, and of proposed lighting for signs and premises, with particular reference to•traffie safety, glare, and compatibility and harmony with adjoining and nearby property and the character of the area. 98- 450 1305.5 Utilities. Due consideration shall be given to utilities required, %+ith particular reference to availability and capacity of systems, location of connections, and potentially adverse appearance or other adverse effects on adjoining and nearby property and the character of the area. 1305.6 Drainaoe Due consideration shall be given for drainage, with particular reference to affect on adjoining and nearby properties and on general drainage systems in the area. where major drainage volumes appear likely and capacity of available systems is found marginal or inadequate, consideration shall be given to possibilities for recharge of groundwater supply on the property, temporary retention with gradual discharge,, or other remedial measures. 1305.E Preservation of natural featurM. Duo consideration shall be given to provision for the preservation of existing vegetation and geological features whenever possible. 'lt _ 1 _ -1t1 i _1 _ ' Y . In addition to consideration of detailed elements indicated above, as appropriate to the particular class or kind of special permit and the ciseumstancee of the particular case, due consideration shall be given to potentially adverse effects generally on adjoining and nearby properties, the area, the neighborhood, or the City, of the use or occupancy as proposed, or its location, construction, design, character, scale or manner of operation. Whom such potentially adverse effects are found, consideration shall be given to special remedial measures appropriate in the particular circumstances of the, case, including screening or buffering, landscaping, control of aanner or hours of operation, alteration of use, of such space, or such other measures as are required to assure that such potential adverse effects will be eliminated or ainiaixed to the, maximum extent reasonably feasible, and that the use of occupancy will be compatible and harmonious with other developmsmt in the area to a degree which will avoid substantial depreciation of the value of nearby property. igeutum Oat* -:4 IL Item 98- 450 CITY OF MIANII OFFICE OF HEARING BOARDS APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION sAtAtrrrrflArssssfsAAsrrsssAltArsessrsisrrsssfAtssrrsAAfltsssAss,ASlrrssssslsssrrsrAfssrtrssssfsr SECTION 2-653 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, GENERALLY REQUIRES ANY PERSON WHO RECEIVES COMPENSATION, REMUNERATION OR EXPENSES FOR CONDUCTING LOBBYING ACTIVITIES TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST WITH THE CITY CLERK, PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES BEFORE CITY STAFF, BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION. A COPY OF SAID ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK (MIAMI CITY HALL), LOCATED AT 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, 3 313 3. «rtrtf�A+1*trrr4srAAttrsrrA*t*rr�/rfAfttrrArrrAfAtltsrtrfrf/ttrsrtrAfA+►*rrrfr*ffifttrrrr*rAAtfrrr• NOTE: THIS APPLICATION MUST BE TYPEWRITTEN AND SIGNED IN BLACK INK. Within the City generally, or within certain zoning districts, certain structures, uses, and/or occupancies specified in this ordinance are of a nature requiring special and intensive review to determine whether or not they should be permitted in specific locations, and if so, the special limitations, conditions, and safeguards which should be applied as reasonably necessary promote the general purposes of this Zoning Ordinance and, in particular, to protect adjoining properties and the neighborhood from avoidable potentially adverse effects. It is further intended that the expertise and judgment of the Zoning Board be exercised in making such determinations, in accordance with the rules, considerations and limitations relating to Special Exceptions (see Article 16 of the Zoning Ordinance). Formal public notice and hearing is mandatory for Special Exceptions. The Zoning Board shall be solely responsible for determinations on applications for Special Exceptions except when otherwise provided for in the City Code. All applications shall be referred to the Director of the Department Planning and Development for his recommendations and she Director shall make any further referrals required by these regulations. II Judith A. Burke , hereby apply to the City of Miami Zoning Board for approval of a Special Exception for the property located at Fast of Bricker t Bav nr; Ue ha+twccn c 12th St. and N. E. folio number . Nature of Proposed Use (please be specific): 749 Unit Residential Con In support of this application, the following material is submitted. X 1. Two original surveys of the property prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land Surveyor within one year from the date of application. X 2. Four copies -signed and sealed by a State of Florida Registered Architect or Engineer -of site plans showing (as required) property boundaries, existing (if any) and proposed structure(s), parking, landscaping, etc.; building elevations and dimensions and computations of lot area and building spacing. 98- 450 X 3. Affidavits disclosing ow uership of property covered by application -ad disclosure of interest from (attached to application). X " 4. Certified list of owners of real estate within a 375-foot radius of the outside boundaries of property covered by the application. x 5. At least two photographs that show the entire property (land and improvements). X 6. Recorded warranty dzed and tax forms for the most current year available that show the present owner(s) of the property. X 7. Other (Specify and attach cover letters explaining why any document you are attaching is pertinent to this application). All the above j922=tatinn is rnntnw�Q : _ the Major Use Special Pezmit Application which was filed on November 10, 1997. 8. Fee of S to apply toward the cost of processing according to Section 62-156 of the Zoning Ordinance: SpecialException........................................................................................5 800.00 Special Exception requiring automatic city commission review.......................$2,000.00 Extension of time for special exception........................................................5 500.00 Public hearing mail notice fees, including cost of handlingand mailing per notice....................................................................5 3.50 Surcharge equal to applicable fee from item above, not to exceed eight hundred dollars (S800.00) except from agencies of the city; such surcharge to be refunded to the applicant if there is no appeal from a property owner within three hundred and seventy-five (375) feet of the subject property. Multi -Plan USA, Inc. Signature By: Judith A. Burke, Attorney -in -fact Name c o Shutts & Bowen Address 201 S. Biscayne Blvd. Suite 1600 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone 379-9187 Dale Decenlber 18 1997 98- 450 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me. this �51 day of Decarber 19 9 7 , by JLA i th A Fb„ k who is personally known to me or who has, produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath Christian Notary Public -State of 1 Commission No.: My Commission Expim —0o,41MUSION EXP. AAAAAAARARAARAA♦AlAAAA}RlAAIA}A!RlRRAAAAAARR}AIRAAARlAAAR•A!RlAA}AAAlRlARlAlAlRAAAlA}A!AlAAAA*f STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 19 , by of 1 corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/She is personally known to me or has produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. Name: Notary Public -State of Florida Commission No.: My Commission Expires: A**AAA*A*A}AAAARAliAAAAAAAAA!}A}!}A!R!A!A!!A!lAAAAAA!•!!!AlARAAAAAAlAAAlA!*}«!*}lAAAlA**!!!RlAAf STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 19 . by _ partner (or agent) on behalf of a partnership. HvSS a is personally known to me or who has produced _ as identification and who did (did not) take an oath Name: Notary Public -State of Florida Commission No.: My Commission Expires; 48- 4.11 -'-)' 0 Large photographs (on poster board) were entered into the public record on April 28, 1998 Commission Meeting. Item number PZ-18, Resolution Number 98- 450. The photos are with Teresita Fernandez. The documents are numbered 1-20. 98- 450 RALPH WARBURTG FAIA PE AICP ARCHITECT * ENGINEER * PLANNER 420 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 33146 305/667-5185 Bayshore Palms Testimony: City of Miami Commission, 28 April 1998 1. Good evening, my name is Ralph Warburton, architect -engineer -planner, my consulting office is at 420 South Dixie Highway, Coral Gables, FL and, since I am a Professor of Architecture at the University of Miami I have an office there as well. As you can see from my distributed outline biography, I am licensed to practice architecture and engineering in Florida and other states, and to practice planning in the two states that register community planners. (I served as Chairman of the Board of Architects for the City of Coral Gables and Chief of Planning for Skidmore, Owings and Merrill in Chicago.) I have been involved in these fields since 1952 in many states, and have resided and practiced in Florida for about 26 years. Examples of some relevant work include leadership of the design team planning the development of major railroad air rights on Lake Michigan opposite Chicago's loop, (where 7-700' high Y-shaped residential towers and 2-700 ' high square office towers were planned @ 200' min. spacing), achievement of a compromise between the then three major Key Biscayne land owners and Metro -Dade County on development issues in 1973, planning consultation to St. Petersburg, FL, assisting the City of Coral Gables in achieveing restoration of the Biltmore Hotel, advising attorneys -sellers -buyers regarding aspects of many Brickell Avenue buildings, (including the Palace), etc. 2. I have visited and photographed the site and environs several times, reviewed background government documents, reviewed the submitted application publication of the developer, including all plan sheets, reviewed recent publicity, etc. 3. I have included above my review of pertinent provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, which I have in my office. 4. The basic Visual Corrider Definition is given in Metro -Dade Code Section 33D- 32, under "Article III. Shoreline Development Review": "Visual corridor: An . unobstructed area extending from a public right-of-way to the shoreline which is retained at grade and landscaped in such a manner as to permit and encourage views of the water." Subfnitte BPALMS.WPS:RW rectarcl in conne-clM. with * FLORIDA A8005742 + PE019766 It..- " 2 g" y Walter Fwnan 9 8 - 4 �, 9 oty cie*� In the City of Miami Comprehensive Plan, "Goal CM-2" states: "Ensure adequate public access to Biscayne Bay and the city's shoreline." "Objective CM-2.1" states:... increase... visual public access to Biscayne Bay and the city's shoreline." Note that on applicants first plan sheet, A-1, on the Vicinity Map the platting of the subject property into 13 lots has some lot lines coincident with the center lines of two east west streets (S.E. 12th Tern and S.E. 13th Street) from Biscayne Boulevard to the former South Bayshore Drive. This essentially defines visual corridors to the Bay through these lot 'side yards along lot lines' from the most heavily travelled nearby public way: Brickell Avenue, which now has a daily traffic volume of over 16,000 vehicles -- probably over 20,000 persons. Projected to Year 2000, these numbers grow to, respectively, nearly 40,000 and approaching 60,000 -- without considering traffic from this or any other new projects. (See applicants Bayshore Palms book Article III, Tab 3, Figures 3, 4, etc.) The proposed project towers and parking garages end these visual corridors and deny visual access to the bay to many thousands of people at ground level - plus occupants of many surrounding moderate -rise buildings - from west of Brickell Avenue to the Bay. This is of particular interest with regard to Zoning "Sec. 605. SD-5 Brickell Area Office - Residential District." (Note Office in the title wording.) The first paragraph of "Sec. 605.1. Intent" states "..its importance to the economic well being of the city as a prestigious high-rise office district....' In the second paragraph of 605.1. is found: "In the interest of...maintenance of principal views from within the destrict and adjoining areas,.. -it is intended that development, at appropriately high intensity, shall be so designed to as to assure open character, attractive and secure open space available to the general public at ground level....' In "Sec. 605.3.2(1)" is found: "...minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." Under Zoning "Artical 13. Special Permits; Generally", Sec. 1303 reads in part: "Where applications for Special Permits indicate that applications proposed therein ... do not meet the standards and requirements of this ordinance, and could not practically and reasonably be made to do so by attachment of conditions and safeguards so authorized and limited, such applications and permits shall be denied." A transcript of the review board meeting was reviewed. In it member Marston states in part: "Do I think its good for the city and do I think its good for citizenry ... ?.... I don't .... I don't believe that it is a good solution as it now stands." (p.54, 20-25; p.55, 1) Another member, Wolfberg, said: "...when you presented this the first time you very truthfully and honestly and sincerely said ... this is the way our client wants it to be .... and,...you recall I even said ... we serve clients ... and their goal is not necessarily to make the city fabric better." (p.47, 13-24) I agree with these men for the above reasons, and believe that the Multiplan executives should instruct their architect to now produce a creative plan to fully meet the city requirements. BPALMS. WPS:RW 2/2 98- 450 LEGAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Joe Carollo Commissioner Wilfredo (Willy) Gort Commissioner Humberto Hernandez Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Thomas Regalado Commissioner Arthur Teele, Jr. I • FROM: Frank Schnidman, Esq. , Jon M. Henning, Esq. Representing Tibor Holl 7/a Florida East ,ea Realty, Inc. SUBJECT: City Commission Agenda Item PZ18 --April 28, 1998 Resolution - (J-98-280) Major Use Special Permit for Bayshore Palms Project DATE: April 28, 1998 cc: City Attorney Alejandro Vilarello Subrnitteil Mto i�hia pubiic record in co`^°aec�ion with Item LLLIL w 9 S( Walter Foernan City Cleric 98- 450 STATEMENT: The Application for a Major Use Special Permit for the Bayshore Palms Project Cannot be Approved as Submitted, But May be Approved Conditioned Upon Tower Reorientation. ISSUES: 1. Can the Bayshore Palms proposed project be built as submitted as a matter of right? 2. Can the Miami City Commission approve the Bayshore Palms project, as submitted, without violating the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and City Code? REPLY: 1. The Bayshore Palms proposed project cannot be built as submitted as a matter of right. It has not been designed in conformance with the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and City Code. 2. The Miami City Commission cannot approve the Bayshore Palms project as submitted without violating: a. The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. b. The City Code, including 1) City Charter 2) The Master Use Special Permit (MUSP) Requirements 3) The SD-5 Zoning Requirements DISCUSSION: The Application under consideration by the City Commission is a Major Use Special Permit for Bayshore Palms, a 67-story multi -family condominium project between Southeast 12th and 14th Streets on the east side of Bayshore Drive, extending to the edge of Biscayne Bay.' 1 There are four classes of special permits which are provided in Section 1301 of the City Zoning Code. In ascending order of scrutiny, they are: • Class I Special Permit (determined by the Zoning Administrator); • Class II Special Permit (determined by the director of the Department of Planning and Zoning); • Special Exceptions (determined by the Zoning Board); and • Major Use Special Permit "MUSP" (determined by the City Commission). b�c 4 �t1 she kJ , 0- *d Tttt 9 8- 450 Several of the owners of property, including many located between Brickell Avenue and Bayshore Drive west of the proposed project, are united in their opposition to the configuration of the residential towers parallel to the Bay. This orientation not only unnecessarily and illegally blocks the views from these properties of Biscayne Bay, but also will cast an extensive shadow over the Brickell Avenue area, because of the flat -against -the -Bay orientation. Special permits in relation to zoning shall be issued or denied only in accordance with the procedures, standards and requirements of this zoning ordinance. Where applications for special permits demonstrate that... standards and requirements for special permits are met, ... the city ... shall issue such permit... Where applications for special permits ... do not meet the standards and requirements of this ordinance, and could not practically and reasonably be made to do so by the attachment of conditions..., such applications and permits shall be denied. [emphasis added] (Sec. 1301, City of Miami Zoning Code) There are several provisions of the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and City Code that provide a basis for denial of this tower configuration. As proposed, the tower is parallel to the shoreline, forming two 250 foot wide barriers to the Bay, reaching a height of 784 feet. Bayshore Palms would apparently be taller than any other building already built in Miami -Dade County. A building of such proportions deserves careful attention to applicable policies, laws and regulations. The applicant has no legal right to such a configuration and the City Commission has no legal obligation to approve the application as proposed. To the contrary, the configuration of the towers as proposed, is in violation of the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and City Code, as explained in this memorandum. There is a threshold Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan issue which must be addressed. Though many goals, objectives and policies can be listed which direct Commission attention to the impact of this Major Use Special Permit, one which must be discussed in relation to impact on views appears in the Coastal Management element. ,Albfnitte'd into the pub►ic r c rdl in connecti n °th Raft IBC ! f OPF �ow, ion 3 98- 450 Goal CM-2: Ensure adequate public access to Biscayne Bay and the city's shoreline. Objective CM-2: Prevent the net loss of, and where feasible, increase, physical and visual public access to Biscayne Bay and the city's shoreline. . . . Policy CM-2-1.7: By 1990, incorporate provisions for public physical and visual access to the shoreline in its waterfront zoning regulations. The Bayshore Palms project proposal goes to great lengths to deal with the physical aspects of access to the shoreline. It makes many concessions and provides many inducements to attract the public to the fringe walkway between the structures and the Bay. It does not, however, make such an effort when it comes to visual public access to the Bay. At ground level, and between the structures and the Bay, "visual public access" is provided. However, when the Zoning Ordinance is examined, which implements the requirements of Policy CM-2.1.7, the "visual public access" for the public using properties west of the proposed towers is not addressed with equal consideration. As discussed in this Memorandum, the fact that this property is located in the only SD-5 district in the city, a district which is designed to protect and enhance high-rise office use, the "visual public access" of present and future high- rise office use must be given equal enthusiastic and progressive efforts to meet the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Goal of adequate public access and the Zoning Code's implementation of that Goal and its Objective CM-2.1 and Policy CM-2.1.7 to protect and provide "visual public access" to the primary users of the SD-5 district -- the high-rise office use. It has been stated that it is desire to maximize profits that motivates this orientation -- that the wide view of Biscayne Bay would bring a premium price, high property assessed valuation and substantial tax revenue for the City of Miami. Yet, no substantial consideration has been given to date, by the City, of eclipsing existing property values due to obstruction of the Bay view from the existing properties in the western shadow of the proposed Bayshore Palms. Twin rd 5ri nnectior, with 4 War F . n ciy C 98- 450 towers of this configuration will close the shades on future development of other nearby vacant parcels or parcels subject to redevelopment, at the level of quality desired in the Brickell Avenue SD-5 area. This type of chilling effect on the unique SD-5 district, continuing and growing as a "prestigious high-rise office district" is an improper action disregarding the priority importance of high-rise office buildings in the SD-5 district. The proposed site is located in the SD-5 Brickell Avenue Area Office Residential District, as provided in Section 605 of the City of Miami Zoning Code. The SD-5 section of the City Code provides: This district is of special and substantial public interest because of its prime location on Brickell Avenue along the bayfront and the Miami River, close to and visible from the CBD and Biscayne Bay, and its importance to the economic well-being of the city as a prestigious high-rise office district, housing, banking, finance, international trade, and other professional office uses. [emphasis added] (Sec. 605.1, City Zoning Code.) The Zoning Code further provides: Uses and design should recognize the proximity to the areas of great natural beauty which are historically significant to the city. High density, so long as it provides public and scenic access to these natural and historic areas, is permitted. Water views, easy access to contiguous waterwalks, and several key water vistas should be made available to the public. [emphasis added] (Sec. 605.1, City Zoning Code.) The Code indicates the City's concern, in this SD-5 District, for the "maintenance of principal views from within the district and adjoining areas ... it is intended that development, at appropriately high intensity, shall be so designed as to assure open character, attractive and secure open space available to the general public at ground level..." [emphasis added] (Sec. 605.1, City Zoning Code.) Contrary to these critical provisions of the City Code, the broad design of Bayshore Palms' towers (long and narrow along the waterfront), casts massive shadows and blocks the view of pedestrians, office tenants and others caught in the shadow of Bayshore Palms. ifiiu C'i' " record o or�nacb o 14-;, on _JLZf Lelk Waiter Foemar° 5 CRY n** 98- 450 The SD-5 Zoning provisions (Sec. 605.1) specifically reference Section 3(mm) of the Waterfront Charter Amendment of the City of Miami Charter. The City values its open vistas to the water so greatly that it has included a provision in the Charter for side yard setbacks requiring aggregate side yard setbacks equal to at least 25% of the distance (frontage) along Biscayne Bay. While the applicant seems to have met the side yard requirements using the liberal Code provision that measures property lines to the centerline of the adjacent right-of-way, the point is that the City Commission's responsibility is "...to preserve the City's natural scenic beauty, to guarantee open spaces and to protect the waterfront is rooted in the City Charter." (Sec. 3(mm)(10.) The City Zoning Code provides for "control of potentially adverse effects" which would result from the development of Bayshore Palms, as proposed. Recalling that the MUSP is the most restrictive of the four special permits, as listed in footnote 1, the City Zoning Code provides: [A]s appropriate to the particular class or kind of special permit and the circumstances of the particular case, review for appropriateness shall be given to potentially adverse effects generally on adjoining and nearby properties, the area, the neighborhood, or the city, of the use or occupancy as proposed, or its location, construction, design, character, scale or manner of operation. Where such potentially adverse effects are found, consideration shall be given to special remedial measures appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case, including ... alteration of proposed design or construction of buildings, relocation of proposed open space or alteration of use of such space, or such other measures as are required to assure that such potential adverse effects will be eliminated or minimized to the maximum extent reasonable feasible, and that the use or occupancy will be compatible and harmonious with other development in the area to a degree which will avoid substantial depreciation of the value of nearby property. [emphasis added] (Sec. 1305.8, City Zoning Code.) City Code Sec. 605, 3.2 provides: The purpose of the Class II Special Permit shall be to ensure conformity of the application wi e �` r�5"�'ed' intef!V f the district, coneMa fi X . 6 98- 450 with the general considerations listed in section 1305, and with the special considerations listed below. Among the "special considerations listed below" is the first one: Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings. The intent of the City Code is to enhance the district so that it can continue to perform "its importance to the economic well-being of the city as a prestigious high-rise office district..." (Sec. 605.1.) In this regard, it is clear that the concerns for the high-rise office uses in the district are primary --as there are many other areas of the city where residential development can occur, but limited areas of "special and substantial public interest because of its prime location..." (Sec. 605.1.) The parallel orientation will have a blighting effect upon properties whose views of the Bay are permanently eclipsed by the towers and darkened by the tower shadows for a significant portion of every day. This not only impacts existing structures within the zone of influence, but also future development. Existing buildings will see tenants depart when leases expire, and have to reduce rents commensurate to space without Bay views. In addition, the proposed orientation will affect buildings conceived for development or redevelopment but not yet born, buildings only a twinkle in the eye of the landowner, and future buildings not yet even considered. The purpose of the SD-5 district is to foster and protect the district's potential "as a prestigious high-rise office district." The Commission is mandated to require development design "to assure open character..." in "the interest of ...maintenance of principal views from within the district and adjoining areas." (City Code Sec. 605.1.) Therefore, when reviewing an application for development within the SD-5 district, the Commission must not limit its consideration to the positive economics of the proposal, ignoring negative impacts; and the Commission must keep its focus on the future to make sure that current decisions do not preclude the long - Submitted word �11 c"On- 7orlpe,,a€ wi ��r th MWnaim .:: , Waftr Fmi ,, 98- 450 term implementation of public policy to foster this unique high-rise office district of "...special and substantial public interest. .."Z 2 It is important to understand how the language of Code Sec. 605 Brickell Avenue Area Office - Residential District places a priority on high-rise office use over residential use. The SD-5 district is unique -- there is only one in the City. The Intent section, Sec. 605.1 states: This district is of special and substantial public interest because of its prime location on Brickell Avenue along the bayfront and the Miami River, close to and visible from the CBD and Biscayne Bay, and its importance to the economic well- being of the City as a prestigious high-rise office district housing banking, finance, international trade, and other professional uses (emphasis added). After a paragraph which discusses, among other items, maintenance of principal views, the third paragraph states: It is intended that multifamily residential occupancy in this area is to be promoted and encouraged, either in separate buildings or in combination with office and supporting retail and service uses, and that such supporting uses shall be scaled and designed to serve needs of the district. The next paragraph then goes on to state: Uses and design should recognize the proximity to the areas of great natural beauty which are historically significant to the city. High density, so long as it provides public and scenic access to these natural and historic areas, is permitted. Water views, easy access to contiguous water -walks, and several key water vistas should be made available to the public (emphasis added). Understanding the primary focus of this "prestigious high-rise office district" is even easier when you compare the language of Sec. 605 with that of Sec. 606. SD-6, SD-6-1 Central Commercial Residential Districts. The Intent of these districts is: These districts are of special and substantial interest because of their proximity to the Central Business District and the need to provide supporting and complementary high -density residential and office development with major retail shopping and entertainment activities. The SD-5 district gives high-rise office development a priority. The SD-6 districts give high density residential a priority. Therefore, since the SD-5 district's priority concern is high-rise office, the determination to orient the Bayshore Palms project towers to minimize impact on residential use at the substantial negative impact on high-rise office us�t-'C`i i1r€f' st1n :car inar'�rrtiurv, af,� 98— 450 CONCLUDING COMMENT: Throughout the application review process, the applicant has alleged that the proposed project can be built as a matter of right. This is not true, because an accurate reading of the SD-5 regulations clearly lead to the conclusion that the views from the high-rise office buildings are important, and carry a greater importance than the views from the residential uses if a balancing between residential and office impact is to be made. Staff support of the proposed project's orientation is therefore in error. The record indicates that the towers are proposed parallel to the Bay to maximize profit for the developer. The record also indicates that in analyzing the impact of the parallel orientation to structures within the district, the residential uses north and south of the site would be benefited by the proposed orientation, and that "view is not a critical factor in the office market or in the office user..." (Jack Loft before the UDRB, quoted by Lourdes Slaczyck before the Planning Advisory Board, 18 February 1968.) This staff comment is simply not true. In this district, view of Biscayne Bay is one of the prime assets a building has, and Bay views command a premium price. In addition, the existence of views from high-rise office buildings are one of the things the SD-5 regulations are designed to protect. How the orientation was selected -- quoting Judith Burke, attorney for the applicant, at the 12 January 1998 Zoning Board hearing: "As to the issue of the orientation of the building, we looked at the general population around the building and the circle closest to where this building, around the perimeter of it, most of them are condo residential buildings. The way the orientation of the building -- flat -- restricts their views so much less than if the buildings were perpendicular, so that is the first level. The levels behind them, which is further away from the building, are basically office buildings. There is a greater impact with the buildings being flat, but they are set much further back, and the views are not quite as important to the office buildings as they are to all the residents around there, and that is how we chose the orientation."a««��E4=.� r=a k 9�$PtA: �; 9g-450 And, the argument that residential properties will be least impacted by the proposed orientation is also not accurate. Applicant and staff cite the impact on buildings north and south of the site, and reference an approved but not yet built project to the north (Yacht Club -- Phase II). Yet, they are silent about the devastating impact to the approved but not yet built residential project just west of the site. Such argument, therefore, suffers from inconsistencies. In summation, the decision to be made by the City Commission is not a head count between condominium owners and high-rise office building owners and tenants. This decision by the City Commission is based upon the law, which requires the Commission to protect the primary use of the SD-5 District as a "prestigious high-rise office district, housing banking, finance, international trade, and other professional office uses." (Sec. 605.1.) Approval of the proposed project with the proposed tower orientation will have a blighting effect on the high-rise office district, and is therefore not in accord with the law. This does not mean that the only alternative is to deny the project. The proposed project can be conditionally approved subject to reorientation of the towers, as referenced above, pursuant to City Code Section 1306. That orientation is urged by the opponents and required by the Code. SubMitted irltc Me public t � r Li�ctrtnecti �nl an ter owngn hy- C 10 9 8— 450 $3 (mm) Building and zoning: (i) To provide by ordinance building, plan- ning, and zoning regulations and re- strictions governing the height, num- ber of stories, method of construction, type, and size of buildings and other structures; the percentage and portion of the lot or site that may be occupied; the size of the front, rear, and side yards, courts, and other open spaces; the location, use of buildings, struc- tures, and land for trade, industry, residences, apartment houses, and other purposes; and the widening and future widening of streets in zoned street areas that the city may establish. Such regulations may provide that a board of appeals or the city commission may determine and vary the application of building, planning, or zoning ordi- nances in harmony with their general purpose and intent. GO In order to preserve the city's natural scenic beauty, to guarantee open spaces, and to protect the waterfront, any- thing in this charter or the ordinances of the city to the contrary notwithstand- ing, neither the city nor any of its agencies shall issue building permits for any surface parking or enclosed structures located on Biscayne Bay or the Miami River from its mouth to the N.W. 5th Street Bridge, CHARTER AND RELATED LAWS (A) which are not set back at least 50 feet from the seawall (where the depth of the lot is less than 200 feet, the setback shall be at least 25 percent of the lot depth), and (B) which do not have average side yards equal in aggregate to at least 25 percent of the water frontage of each lot based on average lot width. (iii) The above setback and side -yard re- quirements may be modified by the city commission after design and site - plan review and public hearing only if the commission determines that the modifications requested provide public benefits such as direct public access, public walkways, plaza dedications, cov- ered parking up to the floodplain level, or comparable benefits which promote a better urban environment and public advantages, or which preserve natural features. Wherever setback, side -yard, or site -plan review requirements of zon- ing ordinances are greater than the foregoing requirements, such greater requirements shall govern. record in eonneoA on 'tom C / " 'alter Foemaj-1 City Clerk 98- 450 BWAYNE BAY MANAGEMENT ARTICLE IL RESERVED* Secs. 33D-21-331)-30. Reserved. ARTICLE IIL SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT RE'VIEWt Sec. 33D-31. Legislative intent. (d) In accordance with the provisions and rec- ommendations of the Biscayne Bay Management Plan, the procedures and criteria included here- inbelow are intended to achieve the following ob- jectives: (5) To avoid monotony in building heights and widths and appearances along the devel- oped areas of shoreline and, above all, to avoid further walling off of the shoreline through appropriate site preparation and landscape design. (6) 1b prevent the siting of uses along the bay - shore that are incompatible with adjacent in -water and developed areas. (10) To plan and design new developments, or make improvements to existing develop- ments, in a manner that will enhance the view and enjoyment of the water and shore- line area from the street, from the water, from within the development and over- looking the development. Sec. 33D-32. Definitions. Visual corridor. An unobstructed area extending from a public right-of-way to the shoreline which is retained at grade and landacapL4 manner as to permit and encourage views e water. Of D 01, A, n C P 1 Sec. 605. SD-5 Brickell Avenue Area Office -Residential District. Sec. 605.1. Intent. This district is of special and substantial public interest because of its prime location on Brickell Avenue along the bayfront and the Miami River, close to and visible from the CBD and Biscayne Bay, and its importance to the economic well-being of the city as a prestigious high-rise office district housing banking, finance, international trade, and other professional office uses. In the interest of reduction of travel and traffic within the city generally, conservation of energy, maintenance of principal views from within the district and adjoining areas, and ' preservation and enhancement of existing desirable features of design, landscaping and ap. i pearance, it is intended that development, at appropriately high intensity, shall be so designed las to assure open character, attractive and secure open space available to the general public at ground level, and appropriately located recreation space serving residential uses. It is intended that multifamily residential occupancy in this area is to be promoted and encouraged, either in separate buildings or in combination with office and supporting retail and service uses, and that such supporting uses shall be scaled and designed to serve needs of the district. Uses and design should recognize the proximity to the areas of great natural beauty which are historically significant to the city. High density, so long as it provides public and scenic access to these natural and historic areas, is permitted. Water views, easy access to contiguous waterwalks, and several key water vistas should be made available to the public. The district, because of a high concentration of residences both within the district and in neighboring areas and because of a large daytime population of workers, should facilitate the urban walking experience. It is intended that offstreet parking requirements be minimal and be so located and designed as to minimize visual impact. It is further intended that accessory parking structures be low in profile, and that their top decks, where seen from principal buildings, shall present an attractive appearance. The district, especially along Brickell Avenue, should maintain large urban pedestrian walkways which include overhead shade, sitting areas and public art and fountains. Landscape and street frontage open space are consistent with the financial and service entities which operate in the district. 605.3.2. Considerations in making Class 11 Special Permit determinations. The purpose oTthe Class II Special Permit shall be to ensure conformity of the application with the expressed intent of this, district, with the general considerations listed in section 1305, and with the special considerations listed below. In making determinations concerning construction of new principal buildings or the location, relocation ar .substantial exterior alteration of existing principal buildings, the director of planning, building and zoning shall obtain the advice and recommendations of the Urban Development Review Board, except as established in section 600.4.4. - 1. Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented ,d i daa to muumizo imped- iments to water views from principal public vi om higher portions of nearby buildings.(' g WsfiE3t" ctq, ckadk d'� 1301.4. Major Use Special Permits; intent, determinations by city commission; referrals. It is intended that Major Use Special Permits be required where specified uses and/or occupancies involve matters deemed to be of city-wide or area -wide importance. The city commission shall be solely responsible for determinations on applications for Major Use Special Permits (see article 17). The director of the department of planning, building and zoning shall make recommen- dations on all applications for Major Use Special Permits and for any amendments thereto and shall transmit said applications and recommendations to the planning advisory board for its 1305.8. Control of potentially adverse effects generally. In addition to the review of detailed items indicated above, as appropriate to the particular class or kind of special permit and the circumstances of the particular case, review for appro- priateness shall be given to potentially adverse effects generally on adjoining and nearby properties, the area, the neighborhood, or the city, of the use or occupancy as proposed, or its location, construction, design, character, scale or manner of operation. Where such potentially adverse effects are found, -consideration shall be given to special remedial measures appro- priate in the particular circumstances of the case, including screening or buffering, land- scaping, control of manner or hours of operation, alteration of proposed design or construction of buildings, relocation of proposed open space or alteration of use of such space, or such other measures as are required to assure that such potential adverse effects will be eliminated or minimized to the maximum extent reasonably feasible, and that the use or occupancy will be compatible and harmonious with other development in the area to a degree which will avoid substantial depreciation of the value of nearby property. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91; Ord. No. 10976, § 1, 4-20-92) i� d Objective LII-1.5: Land development regulations will protect the city's unique natural and coastal resources, and its historic and cultural heritage. Policy LU-1.5.1: Development orders in the city will be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies contained in the Natural Resource Conservation and Coastal Management elements of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. Policy LU-1.5.2: Land use regulations and development policies will be consistent with the intent and purpose of Metro Dade County's Waterfront Charter Amendment, Shoreline Development Review Ordinance, and the rules of the Biscayne ' Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Area. Goal CM-2: Ensure adequate public access to Biscayne Bay and the city's shoreline. Objective CM-2.1: Prevent the net loss of, and, where feasible, increase, physical and visual public access to Biscayne Bay and the city's shoreline. Policy CM-2.1.1: Where appropriate and in the interest of public safety, future land use and land development regulations will require non -water dependent or related development or redevelopment to maintain public access to the shoreline. (See Parks, Recreation and Open Space Policy PR-1.1.11.). rew n pnneq r h . on 9.8 - 450 APR-21-98 TUE 10:17 AM H-#- FAX K0. P. 2 A N C N+ T[ C i v N! [ N i 1 N E I 1 1 N 0 April 13, 1998 Honorable Joe Carollo Mayor City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 BERMELLD•AJAMIL A►AATNERS•INC P L A N It I N 6 I N T C A 1 0 N 0 1 S 1 0 N L A N 0 S C A P C A N C N I T C C 1 0 N I re: Bayshore Palms Project Major Use Special Permit Application Dear Mayor Carollo: 1 respectfully request that when the above referenced application is heard by the City Commission at its meeting of April 28 to please consider adopting the following resolution: (a) Deny the MUSE' Application as presented; or, (b) Move for continuance, sending the application back to the City's Urban Development Review Board (UDRB) and request that the application be heard by at least 75% of the Board, including the recently appointed members. if approved, this application, unlike the hundreds of applications that I have reviewed during my tenure as Chairman of the UDRB over the last six years, can establish a horrible precedent for the City's waterfront. The negatives associated with this application clearly outweigh the advantages; and the disadvantages will not only permanently impact the surrounding neighborhood, but the ecology of the adjacent bay bottom as well. The application is being submitted by Multiplan, a prestigious and sophisticated Brazilian developer. It is obvious, from the exhibits that accompanied the application that this is a quality developer with an interest in the finest of materials and quality construction. The developer's architect, Mr. Luis Revuelta, is one of the finest architectural designers in Miami; a consummate professional; and a friend. 2801 SOUTH SAYSHORE DRIVE • I:TH FLOOR • MIAM1 FL 33133 - 305 E55 2050 . FAX 305 159 S631 r'ec,o, 9 8- 450 Kerr Walter Foernan NORM APR-21-98 TUE 10:17 AM i(l FAX NO. P. 3 re: Bayshore Palms Project April 13, 1998 Page 2 However, the application has a serious flaw. One that although elaborated by the architect through drawings and maquettes, was not created by him. The developer's thirst for maximizing profit, at all costs, resulted in two, linear twin towers paralleling the bay shore to afford maximum "water views" from each apartment. The result was a site planning concept which basically walls off the rest of the Brickell neighborhood _ to the west, so that the Bayshore Palms condo owners can enjoy direct, uninterrupted views of the bay. The latter is bound to multiply Multiplan's profits, but just as certain, it will trigger a devaluation of properties in the immediate surroundings. The developer had an opportunity to provide for bay views, without "wailing off" the rest of the neighborhood. This opportunity was first suggested to the developer by the Urban Development Review Board (UDRB) at the developer's first presentation before the board. "Instead of orienting the twin towers parallel to the bay, the developer should orient them perpendicular to the bay -(see the attached exhibit)." This was the board's message to the developer. The difference in a parallel verses a perpendicular orientation is as apparent as the "open versus closed position of tevelor blinds when you try to look out of a window". This rather simple concept was subsequently rejected by the developer in what can only be described as a response of greed and arrogance. It should be noted that, at the developer's first presentation before the UDRB, the entire board was ready to deny the application. The board had no problem with the building's architectural design or its height. It did have a BIG problem with the building's orientation. However, in deference to the architect (and the developer), a motion was made to defer and continue the item so that the architect could have sufficient time to revise the site plan and change the building's orientation. The applicant agreed to return to the board, and the UDRB unanimously deferred the item. Unbeknownst to me and other colleagues on the board, when the developer returned for his second presentation, he returned not with a modification of the site plan as requested by the board, but with a more expensive presentation to justify their "unmodified site plan". Unfortunately, I had to leave for South America that day and missed the second presentation. l was surprised to later learn that the board, by a vote of 4-1, recommended approval of the application, thus reversing the commentary, observations and findings of the board at the prior meeting. Although, the second meeting's minutes were transcribed (paid for by the applicant), the first exist only on tape. At the last UDRB meeting, I requested that the City Attorney have the tapes of the first meeting transcribed and provided to you prior to your April 28 meeting. I don't know about others in our community, but I don't want a "concrete canyon" along our waterfront. Take a look at Collins Avenue, between 41 st and 67th ranneci`o Wn ?- On � tr Walter Foeman city Cleric 9 8- 450 APR-21-98 TUE 10:18 AM EEC FAX K0. P. 4 re: Bayshore Palms Project April 13, 1998 Page 3 Avenues. You can stand on the median and never see the sun, except at noon. The twin Bayshore Palms Towers are like sculptural pickets. Individually, quite beautiful. But together, they nevertheless create a picket fence, one that blocks you out and walls off the community from Biscayne Bay. Sincerely yours, I XAJ4�r Willy A. Bermello, AIA, AICP Chairman Urban Development Review Board Enclosures cc/w/encl: Jqse Garcia -Pedrosa Lourdes Siazyk, Planning Director URDB Members F:\SECRTY\MICHELLE\W PDOCS\UDRB\1998\041303. W PD .9: [�1i'Eci€OU WQ ;ire pikJ 6 re co rd I Ine �t`on i Its Ar, Zg Walter Powietn City Clerk 0909WE r v is .� r i %/�rrr/ r/ / "ir ,; � / r:,- r it/r r/ r r r , r r r' / r / "i r �rr�/r%'/rrr��/r�r / i � ,'/ ii � =/rr .^; 1i ',rri/�i�r//r//�� /<"% %�r i/��/ i � j / /� r� �/ r/�� i/ i'/ ji/, / � ri/ r r ,. %r/� �'/ r///� r r"� , r/',/r.,r-� %diii/r y�,�r���%r -',/ r/r r. _, r :oi �/i /, r � r/ii/ r /. ,c � r„% '/ r / r i:� // �/ rii/� rr�j j"/ ,v / j� r / / �' , , r , �,.. /� � / / �r / '., r 'y r � r // ,,,v /,,,�� / / / r; r�� /r / r �r � / J//��. i � ,. r O� CJ �ti ��� ��� U��j r/% .,/;. ;;,fin. / r r � /� I/, ,- /� l// � � / rrr �/ ` /� / j!/ r/'�, r r �/j r / �/%rr �'. , �. /> � '// / ' ,r i,, � �... _.. �: APR-27-98 MON 11:17 AM BAYSHORE.PLACE.CONDO 305 373 5987 &PR. 27 ' 98 (MON) 10:30 WORLr- IVE97 305 " 9 3056 PACE, 2/0 P.02 This Agreement is entered into this - day of April, 1998, by and between Brickellinvest Joint Venture, a Florida general partnership ("Hrickellinvest"), and Point View Association, Inc., a Florida not fbr profit corporation (the "Association"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, Brickellinvest is the owner of a 5.07 acre parcel of land located east of Brickell Bay Drive between S-E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street in the City of Miami, more particularly dcscribcd in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and inc;orpoiatrd hGivin by this reference (the "Property")., and WHEREAS, the Association is is homeowners association ConSiSting of six (6) residential condominium and cooperative associations, all of which are located along Bric:kell Bay Drive south of S.E. 14th Street (the "Association Property"); and WHEREAS, Brickellinvest has applied to the City of Miami (the "City") for a Major Use Special Permit (the "Application") to construct on the Property a high rise condominium project containing two towers with a total of 749 units commonly known as Bayshore Palms (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, due to the proximity of the Property to the Association Property, the parties have met to discuss numerous issues relating to the surrounding area, including traffic control on Di ickell Bay Drive and security in the area of the public baywalk; and WHEREAS, the Association strongly supports the Project and has written letters to the City requesting Approval of the Application; and . WHEREAS, both Brickellinvest and the Association are committed to improving the surrounding area; and WFMREAS, Brickellinvest and the Association have agreed to work together in providing certain improvements to the area for the mutual benefit of the partles. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows - Submitted' irz ` : public record in conriecrtion with stern Pz-1 S or, Walter Foernan City Cie* .APR-27-98 MON 11:18 AM BAYSHORE.PLACE.CONDO 305 373 5987 nrn, 27 ' 96 (laar:) 10:51 WORLr '►fiGT 305 ° 9056 PAGE, 9/9 P.03 1. The Association plans to petition the city and other required governmental authorities (collectively, the "Authorities"), for permission to install two guard houses and electronic traffic gates (the "Guard Houses") within the public right ur way on Brickell Bay drive (the "Governmental Approvals"), One Guard House shall be located on S.E. 14th Street and the other on S.E. L*OvStreet, in the locations shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Brickellinvest sliall cooperate with and strongly support the Association's effort to obtain the Governmental Approval, 3. Brickellinvest, at its sole cost and expense, shall prepare a budget for the design and construction of the Ward Houses. If such budget exceeds Two Hundred Thousand and Nol100 Dollars ($200,000.00), it shall be approved by the Association. 4. Rrickellinvest, at its sole cost And expense, shall cause its architect, Luis Revuelta, P.A., to design the Guard Houses and prepare the architectural plans and specifications required by the Authorities in connection with seeking the Governmental Approvals. The plans shall pruvido for unch Guard house to have air conditioning, a toilet, and access to water, electricity and telephone communication, and othetwisc to be in compliance with all applicable building codes. The rlanc fnr the Guard Houses shall be approved by both Brickellinvest and the Association prior to the Associatiwtn'"ubmittal of same to the City for approval. 5. Once the Association has received the Governmental Approvals, Brickellinvest shall construct the Guard Houses pursuant to the approved plans at the agreed upon locations. Brickellinvest shall commence such construction within ninety (90) days of the date of final Governmental Approval and shall thereafter complete construction within one hundred eighty (190) days frum uumrnencement. The time limitations outlined herein are subject to obtaining building permits and other required Governmont4l Approvals in a timely manner and general provisions of force mz&ure. 6. In the event Brickellinvest is not permitted by the Authorities to either design or construct the Guard Houses, and the Authorities mandate that the Guard Houses be designed .2. Submitted into rite: put,w. P�Oon r1 itll Waiter City Cie* ki APR-27-98 MON 11:18 AM PAYSHORE.PLACE.CONDO 305 373 5987 P.04 APR. 27 ' 90 (MON) 10:32 WORLr-NVE6T 305 ' 3056 PAGE-4/9 and/or constructed by the Authorities, Brickellinvest shall pay the cost of the construction of the Guard Houses. Z. it is understood And Agreed that Brickellinvest shall not be required to expend in excess of Two Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($200,000,00) for the design and/or construction of the Guard Houses, whether the Guard Houses are designed and constructed by Brickellinvest -or the Authorities. S. Upnn completion of the Guard Houses, the Association shall have sole responsibility for the maintenance of the Guard Houses and Brickellinvest shell have no responsibility thercfur. 9. In the event the Association does not obtain the Governmental Approvals for the Guard Houses within four (4) years of the date of this Agreement (which time shall be extended fbr the period of any appeals of any order refusing to grant such Governmental Approvals), the obligation of Brickellinvest under paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Article 1 shall be terminated. 10. In such event describers in paragraph 9 shrive, the Association shall decide upon alternative improvements to Brickell Bay Drive between S.E. 14th and S.E. 15th Streets that are mutualiy beneficial to the Property and the Association Property, Such alternative improvements shall be subject to Brickellinvest's approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Drickellinvest shall, subject to the limitations of this paragraph, pay for the cost of the design and/or construction of such approved improvements. The plans and specifications and the budget for such improvements shall be subject to approval by both Brickellinvest and the Association prior to the submittal of same to the Authorities fbr their approval. Brickellinvest may elect either (i) to cause the design and construction of such improvements to be completed at its expenm or (ii) require the Association to cause the design and conatntction of nieh improvements to be completed at the Association's expense and to reimburse the Association for such expense upon completion of such improvements, subject, howevci, to the limitations set forth In the next sentence. In no event shall Brickellinvest be required to expend for the design and/or construction of such improvements more than it would have paid for the design and/or construction of the Gruard Houses; provided, however, that if Brickellinvest is unable to prove the amount it would have paid for the design and/or construction of the Guard Houses, thA Ift amount that Brickellinvest shall be obligated to pay for the improvements described Et mltted iniu , rtr&ron nnecti r� t' � miter Fcoman Caj Ch.-rk APR-27-98 M.ON 11:19 AM BAYSHORE.PLACE.CONDO 305 373 5987 P.05 APR, 27 ' 98 (MON) 10:99 WORLL Eul AAGB. 6./R in this paragraph shall not exceed the sum of Two Hundred Thousand and NaA00 Dollars ($200,000.00), less whatever sums Brickellinvest expended in connection with the Guard Houses. 11. The parties agree that it is in their mutual benefit to ardiance the walkway flronting Biscayne Bay adjacent to the Association Property as well as the public walkway to be constructed by Brickellinvest adjacent to the Property (collectively, the "Baywalk") and to that end have agreed to coordinate the design and installation of improvements to the Baywalk. 12. As part of the Baywaik enhancement cliurt, Brickcllinvest shall design and construct a design feature (the "Feature") to be located on the public right-of-way along the Raywalk where lh;$ropeity intersects the Association Property, The general location of that Feature is shown on Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated by this referenoo. 13. Brickellinvest shall cause its architect, Luis Revualta, P.A,, to design the Future. The plans for the Feature shall be approved by both Brickcllinvest and the Association prior to Brickellinvest's submittal of same to the City for approval. 14 Rrickellinvest shall pay all costs in connection with the design, construction and installation of the Feature. l 5. Provided that Brickellinvest has timely received all Govei nmental Approvals for the Fcature, if Brickellinvest has not substantially completed construction of the Feature prior to seeking a certificate of occupancy for the smithern tower of the Project, Brickellinvest shall place into escrow with a mutually acceptable escrow agent on mutually acceptable terms such sum of money as is necessary to complete such construction, •III. STREET LIGHTIN 16. The parties agree that it is in their mutual benefit to coordinate the design of street lighting along Briekell Bay Drive adjacent to the Property and adjacent to the Association Property. Submitted irW iii., -'t- record In �onne °fi it a own IAA Bl f! '�VtttHe�r F city Ciedc APR-27-98 MON 11:20 AM BAYSHORE..PLACE.CONDO 305 373 5987 APR. 27 ' 99 (MON) 1 d ; 33 wGgLD MOT 6/9 17. Prior to installing any such street lighting, Brickellinvest and the Association shall agree upon the design of such street lighting such that the appearance of such street iighting adjacent to the Association Property is consistent and coordinated with the appearance of such street lighting adjacent to the Property, all subject to and in accordance with any requirements imposed by the Authorities. N. Subject to any requirements imposed by the Authorities, (i) Brickellinvest shall, at its sole cost and expense, cause such street lighting to be installed along Brickell Bay Drive adjacent to the property, and (ii) the Association shall cause such street lighting to be installed along Brickell Bay Drive adjacent to the Association Property. 19, Within ten (10) days after the Association (i) completes the installation of such street lighting along Brickell Bay urive adjacent to the Association Property, and (ii) provides written notice to Brickellinvest of such completion, together with paid invoices for such work, Brickellinvest shall reimburse the Association for the actual, out-of-pocket costs incurred by the Association for such work, up to a maximum of Fifty Thousand and No/100 Dollnis ($50,000,00). AI) costs incurred by the Association in exucss of such amount shall be the sole responsibility of the Association. s f._.► li ' ' # . v _. 20. The Association Property faces the south facade of the southern tower of the Project ; Korder to provide a pleasing view and to enhance the entire area, Brickellinvest has agreed to provide landscaping in that area and on the facade in substantially the forth shown on Fxhibit "n" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 21. Subject to any requirements imposed by the Authorities. Brickellinvest shall provide that vehicles that exit the Property from the service entrance to be located along S.E. 14th Street shall be restricted to right turns only. Submitteu fit �l =,tk • � C{•%if•- recces onnect' n it -S-Item I ran iAlafter oermn Gityy aC:lettc P.06 av AIJ APR-27-98 MON 11:20 AM BAYSHORE.PLACE.CONDO 305 373 5987 P.07 APR, 27 - 98 WON1 10 94 WORLD' :ST 005 S, 3056 PA09. 7/9 V. CONSTRUCTION ACTI,MMS 22, , Subject to any requirements imposed by the Authorities, it is Brickellinvest"B present• imontion to construct the southern tower of the Project before Constructing the northern tower, and, during such construction of the southern tower, to provide on -site parking to the north of such construction site for all constructions workers and all employccs of Briakellinvest and its general contractor and subcontractors. Subject to any requirements imposed by the Authorities, it is also Brickellinvest's present intention to limit access to the Property to S.E. 12th Street and S.B. 12th Terrace during construction of the Project. 23. The Application is scheduled for final approval by the City Commission on April 28, 1998. it is understood and agreed that, In the event the Application is denied and such denial is not timely appealed to Circuit Court, this Agreement shall be null and void. 24, , It is further understood that, in the event the Application is approved, but subsequently appealed to Circuit Court, Brickellinvest's obligations under this Agreement shall be considered stayed for the period of time that the appeal is pending and Brickellinvest shall thereafter be obligated to fulfill its responsibilities hereunder only in the event Brickellinvest is successful in such appeal_ 25. In the event the Application is denied by the City Commission and such denial is appealed by Brickellinvest to Circuit Court, the obligations of Brickellinvest under this Agreement shall be stayed for the period of time that the appeal is pending and Brickellinvest shall thereafter be obligated to fidfill its responsibilities hereunder nnly in the event Rrickellinvest is successful in such appeal, a~3Ziixnlit:ted R'� 3 dh _6. i�Itfoni�annect! record n comn Wafter oeman ���t� atotic APR-27-98 MON 11:21 AM BAYSHORE.PLACE.CONDO 305 373 5987 P.08 APR. 27 .98 (MON) 101�5 WORLDI ST 90� 9' �G5o PACE. 8/9 vu. Asso iATiON's slizzag 26. In the event of any appeal or other suit concerning the Application or otherwise concerning Brickellinvest's right to proceed with the Project, the Association shall support Brickellinvest's position in any such appeal or suit and shall, ifBrickellinvest so elects and the court so permits, join in such appeal or suit in support of Brickellinvest's position. 27. The Association hereby acknowledges that it does not object to the placement of a restaurant in the southeast corner of the southern tower of the Project. u 1a X0W 28. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida, without application of conflicts of laws principles. 29. The parties shall submit any dispute arising under this Agreement to binding arbitration conducted under and governed by the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The parties will divide the costs charged by the AAA. Each party shall otherwise be responsible for its own costs and attorneys' fees. 30. Each party has participated tUlly in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement with full benefit of counsel. Accordingly, this Agreement shalt not be more strictly construed against either party. 31. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and may not be changed, altered or modified except by an instrument in writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of such change is sought. 32., This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties .-e ,%— hereto and their respective legal representatives, successors and permitted assigns. This Agreement may not be assigned by the Association. This Agreement may not be assigned by Brickellinvest, except in conjunction with any conveyance of the Property or a portion thereof. 33, In the event any term or provision of this Agreement is determined by appropriate judicial authority to be illegal or otherwise invalid, such provision shall be given its Submitwo record In onnect Un t ----- -- -7-gym 1 on ifter. �f city, C � - APR-27-98 MON 11:22 AM BAYSHORE.PLAC.E...CONDO 305 373 5987 AP1k, 27 ' 98 (MON) 10:35 WORLW ST soD 9' IOSG PACT 9/9 P.09 nearest legal meaning or be construed as deleted as such authority determines, and the remainder of this Agreement shall be construed to be in full force and effect. 34. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which may be considered an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their heads and seal on the date first above written. PAINT VIEW ASSOCIATION, a Florida not -for -profit corporation f By Nelly Za ra Its; President BRICKELLINVEST Florida general partnE Its; VENTURE, a 4dftc&v*rj1jKf ' 0 SubMitted -g- eecord I ortrec T- Waiter F-4n city Glerk �i' APR-27-98 MON 11:16 AM BAYSHORE.PLACE.CONDO 305 373 5987 P.01 P(DOJY427 yj�(y Association, Inc. COSTA FELLA • BRICKELL SHORES • BAYSHORE PLACE BRICKELL BAY TOWERS • POINT VIEW ON THb HAY FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Please deliver the following pages to: NAME: %1 l q A) -11t �), Zito ✓P FACSIMILE NO: 3? 3 . D s 6 FROM: /JE��(� c �rylU2iP, NO. OF PAGE$/INCLUDING COVER SHE'BT: DATE: -)7 g9 Z.� subm"Itzaa into ff, recorci�� � �onn,zw � ed Walter Foemsn 01ItM9Lka•AJAMIL A PA AI R I n 9 1NC AAfR111l1Y11IMO . IHI1AIOp pi{lid • fAH01CA11 4+C411IVNC MEMORANDUM TO: Phil Yaffe FROM: Willy A. Bermello DATE: February 27. 1898 RE: Palm say Court Project t Phil, I have met With our staff, who are trained In the preparation of computer Imaging and animation, and they have ,advised me that it will take approximately 21x weeks to construct the 3-dimensional computer drawing of the neighborhood surrounding the I Hokell Palm Bay Court project and the two proposed towers, as a basis for preparing a series of computer generated shadow studies; and site line analyses. Our fee for these services, plus the Cost of Color plots and mounting. is .a, sum of Eighteen Thousand Dollars (t18,000,00). It is my understanding that you'plan to use this as part of your presentation and to complement testimony which will be provided by a planning consultant that you are in the process of retaining, If we're to have this completed by March 23t0, we will to receive your notice to proceed by no later than this coming Monday. Thanks in advance for considering us for this engagement and I look forward to discussing it with you. END OF MEMORANDUM WAB:mk P-S./ I have onclosed out short form Contract In connection with thew services. Enclosures z nn� w h on colw/encl: Rai Fernandez W r F an Project File 09770.000 ty Clerk FASICAMMICHeLLIt P0000M 0 14900i2702 NPO IQ� 60BTR SAYtkV11E pRIVE • JOTH rLOOR • MIAM1, Fl 33143 • 1101 000 1000 - FAX 300 969 4000 01p�MholAl.n{I AA011H1! • nN01{a �au�nf vn ..— 450 r 17 r PROFESSIONAL SIRVICES AOREEMEINT THIS AGREEMENT, made end entered into Fabruary 27, 1998, by and between BERMELLO, AJAMIL 81 PARTNERS, INC. (9&A) and FLORIDA EAST COAST REALTY, INC, (Client) provides for the Professional Servioss described under item 2 of this Agreament- 1. DESCRIPTION Of PROJECT SITE: Brickell Palm Bay Court, Miaml, Florida 2, DESCRIPTION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO BE PROVIQI~D BY H&A: Preparation of computer imaging and animation to oonatruct a 3•dimen3ional computer drawing of the neighborhood surrounding the project site; as well as the two proposed towers, as a basis for oomputer generated shadow etudles and site line analvaes which will bC used to complement testimony to by provided by is planning consultant to bo retained by the Client. 3. THE COMPENSATION TO BE PAID B&A for providing the requested services shall be: A lump sum fee of Eighteen Thousand Dollers 1$18,000.00). Reaelpt of an oxvcuted agreement by B&A will pe notice to proceed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is accamed on the date written above, subject to the terms and conditions above stated and the provisions set forth on the reverse.side, CUENt' FLORIDA EAST COAST REALTY, INC BERMELLO, A JAMIL & PARTNERS, INC, SIGNED: SIQNEt7; TYPED NAME; 11hor Hello TYPED NAME;_ illy A- eirralallo TITLE: TITLE!_ Pr•cid.nt DATE-. DATE., Client to return fully executed vriyinAl to O&A, Submitted into ale public Ifs record —In wig on W" Waiter Foamm aty GJe* f,�1�rQh1 Y1Mi�NelLr,wPooc6�8 D%1066\020703.wrp Apgtmem 4m; 02127198 Aqm;-pN 1NW100d D404MOOT 2- IRS 98- 450 Rovenuo 5orvlco for ilia limo of personnel engaged 111feotly In ilia work, Reimbursable costs include: tees of Professional Assoclalas !whose expertise it required to compete fM 11rojocil and out-of-pocket woritios, the cost of which shall be ch*rood at actual costs plus a 10% edminiFtri,tive ortarge and shell be liemlzed slid Included in the Invoice. Tyypleol out-of.pocket extense$ shelf Include, 14ul not bo 1lrnitgq to, travel okpan4so flodging, meols, etc_) job related rnlfsege at the prevailingp compony ►ale, long dislanco t■I■ hone calls, courier, rinting and rvprar tact#on r-de atn, end survy supplies and materials, T094s expenses phall h6 computed as (pl�own: photocopies $0,26 Deivl Miles s 40,2e per mile Color iGoploa (8-112 x 11) 41.90 caci TrsvRo Fxponto at Vogt Color Co lea (11 x 17) $2.00 each Posts ppe at Copt Blue Prints I1100 eaoll Lonp0 Dlatanee Teropliono Including taxes at cost Mylara 00,00 each Mobile Phone expeneat including sexes at coal Volum 03.00 each Shipping at cost FAX I)1.00 per shoot Printing at cost Computer time iCADD) 420,00 per hour 6uglangnce tout of town only) at call CompUtor Multimedia System $40.00 par hour Perking Pees & Tolls at r:odt S. INVOICE PRQCLDURES AND PAYMENT: B&A shell submit Involeeg to the Client for work accomplished clurin each Wonder month. For seivlt;es provided an a Lump Sum basis, the amount of each monthly invoice shell he, detormined on ills "perabiltaye of compietlon method,, whereby 13&A will estfinete the pereerltspd of the total work 1provlded on a bump Sum basis) accomplished daring the InvOICing period, Monthly B&A (rivoicet shell include copntatoly Ilctod, any chorgoo toy aorvloos which limo ehorgoo ondlor unit cnsu shall lipply, such Invoice• shall also Include, sepa/ately (istod, oily cltarget for Professional Associates and reimburaehle costa, li)lioh Invoices shall be Otte slid payable by tilt+ client upon receipt. The Client, ps owner or authorised agent for the owner, that In default of such peYrnent, hereby sprsds to pay ail at►ate of collpclivit, Including ressollobfe eltornery'a feaF, re, nrdloss of whothor lapel votion Ilr Initiated, Tho Client haroby aeknowtedpss that unpaid invoices tliall accrue Interest at IS% par onnum after they have been unpaid 46 day* after client reCelvss ilia Invoice. Work on ilia project shall bo sutpondod until all unpaid Inyoicet are paid In full. 0. COST ESTIMAT111116: Client hereby voknowled eK that BQ1A eehnat warrant that eenmateli of probable construction or onsratill(1 coots provided by B&A will not very from octusl costs litourred by ilia Client, 7_ LIMIT OF LiA81LITY: The Client agrees that ilia tofel appro eta of liability of 11&A to the Cllant Ilia to the afford, om►45lohs, or negllpant iota of BOA e11011 slot exceed the total fee for services rondorpd by b&A for this project. Should the Miami find the above forme unecceptab)e, then, prior to undortnklno the work, on equitable surcherge to absorb BMA's Iilarease In Insurance, premiums will be negotiated, 8. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES; If, under this Agraamuntprofoselonat serylees are provided durtnp the construotion pharm of the project, B&A !boll not Do rotlli6o ble for or hove control over means, methods, tseht,lquet sequenced, or prooaduree, or for valotyy pr4cautiens ajW programs in connection with the Work; nor shall D&A bo responsible for ills Contractor's failure to carry out tho Work In ecgurdance whh tlin Contract Dootintontc or for Contractor'@ fallury to comply with eppllooble laws, ordinances. ruleg or ropulationa. 9. INaURANCE: iKA shall of all times carfy, an all operations hereunder wo(kar's oornponvatioil Insurance, public Ilablifty end property damage Insurance, and automotive public liability and property damage Insurance. 10, ASOIQNMENT: Neither Ilia Client nor B&A will osa)gn or trenster Its interest In thle Agreement without iho writtan consent 01 the other, 11. St;$PANSIONt T49MiNATION. CANCILLAYION OR A`ANOONM4NT; Both parliorr may su000nd, canr:oi, terminslo or nonn0on this agreement. 'rho parties shell be, given seven (7` days' offer written notice of such action, (9(LA shall be cornpnnseted for ilia proloasiohal aorv)oos {Irovided up io the Oslo of @uspsnctof), termination, oatloollation or abandonment in accordance with the proViolons Of tills Agreement for all work perforrtle(l ul) to the date Of euspondion, termlliatton, concellaflon or Abandonment, Including relmhursobla axponims, 12. ENTIRETY 012 AOREEMENT: This writing amb0011e9 1110 entlre appreemsflt end underplending between the parties haroto, and there tire no other agrebmsille slid understandings, prat or written, with reference tR ilia subjject matter hereto that Arc not mar ed hotiolli and superseded hereby, No nilaretion, chanos or modilic■tion of tho torms of this Agroomont shell be, valid unless made In writing. slgned by both parties heroin. 13, 000VMi.NTs: Any rQQuco by the o11an1 or others of doeumenfc end plane that rosull from 04A'a rarvices under thle agreement sllall to Pot CLIENT'S or olllon' sate risk without Iltblllly to B&A 14, PROMOTIONM 8&A shall have %lie right to Include representation* of the design of tho PreleOt )nc►udlny photographs of the Interior Arid ogterler alrlong fop pmnioilonnl and professional materiais, O&A will be made aworo of, end have socosc to any project phr,loptephv produced lyy the Cllont, Con@Ullanis, or Contractors. end have ritfhls to duplicate photography for promotlrnnal and nrofookional use, -at B&A'@ oxpense. Sgg,A's msterialr shall not include the Cilont's confidential or proprlefery Informatlon if the Clion1 het proviously advixod P&A )l1 Writing of the specific information oonoldered by the Client to be confidentltl or ptopriotary. The Client 4linll provido professional erndlt to 86A on silo Constructlon *loll (it appropriate), in ilia promotional mater(als for the projoct, qnd In any media roleaees porteininp to the design, constructlon or pomplation of the pro)oct. 16, It is egreed by the Cilert thei ilia Consultant will assign certain $tall to perform the 6ervicos requested under thls Agreement. The Glipkm ripreat not to solloft or hire employeett from B&A during the torm of the Agreement or for a period of no lest than Olin (1 your after the lormInatlon of the eervinea nrevldad hvreln. ub minted into the pt� AG Frla O"Vell MICN6iLR1i�PDpC611iD11D@a10Y270>I 80rd tin stifle t. nM Apml•p►a nsvised D•comher 1, 1997 �L/ylmlXlt1 WftftPr �1aElttitictii (Vy f�. ,rk 0 5 - 4 a BRIO LL AREA ASSCfClATi 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 37"080 VIA FACSIMILE. TO: PHILLIP YAFFA FROM: BRENDA HAIRSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RE: BAA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING, MARCH 10, 1998 OPINION OF SPECIAL CONCERN DATE: MARCH 23, 1998 Per your request, the following is the position taken by the Brickell Area Association Board of Directors at its.March 10, 1998, meeting. The Board approved a motion to issue an "Opinion of Special Concem" opposing the NortIVSouth orientation of the buildings proposed by MultiPlan USA on its site at Brickell Bay Drive, between SE 12th and 14th Streets. . r n 98- 450 CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 28, 1998 BAYSHORE PALMS PROPOSAL PRESENTATION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION A. RON MASTRIANA INTRODUCTION OF TEAM OVERVIEW BASIS FOR OBJECTION DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES IMPACTED B. PHIL YAFFA DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT - MODEL INTRODUCTION DESCRIBE THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ORIENTATION OF THE PROPERTIES IMPACTED. DESCRIBE SHADOW OF IMPACT WITH EXHIBITS C. l JON HENNING LEGAL ANALYSIS WITH REGARD TO VIEW I . CITY CHARTER 2. SD-5 ZONING 3. CLASS II PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 4. INTRODUCE AND QUALIFY RALPH WARBURTON (I) WALK THRU SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE A. VIEWS B. SD-5 COMPLIANCE C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT COMPLIANCE D. FRANK SCHNIDMAN - CONTINUE LEGAL ARGUEMENT 1. DISCUSSION OF OFFICE PRIORITY OF SD-5 VS. SD6 AND R4 2. DISCUSS ECONOMIC WELL BEING REQUIREMENTS OF SD-5 3. QUALIFY TOM SCHRX%f& I AS EXPERT ON ECONOMIC IMPACT 4. ESTABLISH SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM SCHLOSS AS TO ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT. E. TESTIMONY OF PROPERTY OWNERS IMPACTED 1. GLORIA IIF:RNANDF.Z - IMPACT ON 1221 BUILDING 2. JIJ�WLT .L .L a MS - IMPACT ON 1401 BRICKELL 3. TIBOR HQL.L l - IMPACT ON APPROVED AND PROPOSED PROJECTS F. FRM DIRECT RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS record 4hi Co-vine�,Iorf. jai"h Walter Fo(mmn City Clerk 98- 450 L. THOMAS SCHLOSSER, C.P.A. MANAGER Position Consultant, Sharpton, Brunson & Company, P.A. Education and B.S., Industrial Administration & Engineering, Certifications Yale University M.B.A., Accounting & Finance, New York University C.P.A., Florida, New York & several other states C.V.A., Certified Valuation Analyst C. D.P., Data Processing Management Association C.M.C., Institute of Management Consultants Professional Controller, Euro-American Investment Corp., history Miami, 1985-1993 Self-employed, C.P.A./Consultant, Florida and New England, 1978-1985 Partner, Coopers & Lybrand, Boston, 1973--1978 Director of Management Audits, GAC Corporation, Miami, 1971-1973 Vice President, Finance, Wellington Computer System, New York, 1970-1971 Auditor to Manager -in -Charge, Management Advisory Services, Price Waterhouse & Co., Miami 1958-1970 Professional Principal consultant on several economic impact studies for and business multi -million dollar projects. experience Consultant on a major right-of-way impact study for Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization. Development of numerous eminent domain cases on behalf of the State Attorney General's Office where business damage claims were involved. Principal consultant on several cases to determine appropriate claim amounts in civil litigation matters. Submitteo lima me public record, In cor"I.ection with Partner -in -Charge of a study to determine whether a city ftE:tn � q owned electric utility should be abandoned in favor of Walter Foeman purchasing power from neighboring cities and the state grid. City Clerk Manager -in -Charge of a project to design and implement a cost accounting and management information system for the world's largest manufacturer of yarn cones for the knitting industry. 98- 450 L. THOMAS SCHLOSSER, C.P.A. MANAGER Professional Manager -in -Charge of a project to design and implement a and business cost accounting and management information system for a e x p e r i e n c e large manufacturer of blankets. (cont.) Audit Senior -in -Charge, Con Edison Corporation, New York City. This assignment included systems and financial audits of a four million customer billing and information system. In charge of a sixty -man internal audit staff of a two -billion dollar financing, land & community development corporation Systems development of investor database for a large ($100,000,000) real-estate investment trust Development of a flight scheduling and pilot/flight attendant time maximization system Design and implementation of cost accounting systems for various smaller enterprises. Capital Budget Development Feasibility and economic impact studies - various projects Lotus, Excell and Quattro Pro model development Clients have included: Florida Attorney General's office State of Florida Comptroller office Various Law Firms on behalf of their clients Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization Resorts International SONOCO Corporation Town of Ipswich, Massachusetts Consolidated Edison (New York) Paramount Pictures Professional Member, Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants and community Serving on Litigation Services Committee activities Past President, Boston Chapter, Financial Executives Institute Past President, Miami Chapter, Institute of Internal Auditors Past Vice President, Miami Chapter, National Association Submitted into Me pubac of Accountants recoVconnecti 'tl Serving on Yale University Alumni Schools Committee ftm -on Walter Foeman city Cie* 98- 450 EXHIBITS PROFFERED INTO THE RECORD BY COUNSEL FOR BRICKELLINVEST JOINT VENTURE CITY OF MIAMI CITY COMMISSION HEARING APRIL 28, 1998 1. November 25, 1997 letter from Brickell Homeowners Association. 2. April 24, 1998 letter from Point View Association, Inc. 3. April 24, 1998 letter from Brickell Shores Condominium Association, Inc. 4. April 24, 1998 letter from Point View on the Bay, Bayshore Cooperative, Inc. 5. April 24, 1998 letter from Commodore Bay Condominium Association, Inc. 6. April 24, 1998 letter from Costa Bella Association, Inc. 7. April 24, 1998 letter from Brickell Bay Tower. 8. April 24, 1998 letter from Bayshore Place. 9. Resume of Beverly J. Merchant. 10. Resume of John A. Blazejack. 11. Resume of Reginald R. Walters. 12. Resume of Mary Newton. 13. Resume of James W. Fourqurean. MIA95 215777.1 - LXC re dr'tll� .a�i�i� 98- 450 Brick 11 Homeowners AsSI _iation November 25, 1997 Manuel de Zarraga Multiplan USA, Inc. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1802 Miami, FL 33131 RE: Bayshore Palms Development Dear Manny: Thank you for arranging the presentation on your Bayshore Palms Project to our BHA Board of Directors at our November 19th meeting. The attendees at the Board Meeting were favorably impressed with the proposed development. We were particularly pleased with the high quality of design, the low density of development and the sensitive, pedestrian — friendly treatment along Biscayne Bay. We took note that you have not requested any variances in order to develop this Project and the special exception included in the application is required only in order to provide a restaurant along the Baywalk, which should benefit the entire area. In addition, the orientation of the towers on a north/south axis appears to be the least restrictive to the views of the surrounding neighborhood as well as those who travel along Brickell Avenue and Brickell Bay Drive. We were especially impressed by the contribution these twin towers should add to Miami's waterfront profile. Your project looks like the kind of development that is in keeping with our vision of the Brickell Neighborhood's future. We wish you success with this major undertaking. Sincerely T. Sinclair (Tory) JacoMlt r,�ait.z President moo d Water FOORW c4 1.098- 454 195 SW 15th Rd., Suite 203, Miami, FL 33129 Phone (305) 858.9699/Fax (305) 858-6248 podply ya� Association, Inc. COSTA BELLA a BRICKELL SHORES a BAYSHORE PLACE RRI.CKPLI, DAY TOWERS a POINT VIEW ON THY. RAY April 24,.1 98, Honorable Mayor Joe Carol to and City of Miami Commissioners The City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Re: Bayshore Palms Development Honorable Mayor Carollo and Commissioners: Point View Association, Inc., is a homeowners association comprised of the following condominiums and cooperative located in Brickell Bay Drive in the City of Miami: Commodore Hay, Brickell Bay 'Power, 13ayshore Place, Point Vtew at the 13ay, Brickell Shores and Costa Bella. in total, we represent the owners of approximately 1,000 condominium and cooperative units. Because our homes are located in the closest proximity to the proposed Bayshore Palms project we took special intwust in reviewing the plans. We met on a number of occasions with the devefk► of the project and were favorably impressed with the high quality of design, low density of development and pedestrian friendly treatment along Biscayne Bay. We strongly recommend that the City Commission approve the Bayshore Palms project, as submitted, with the orientation of the two towers in the location proposed by the developer. The fact that the towers have been designed on a north/south axis was a siginificant inducement for the homeowners we represent to support the project. This orientation allows the towers to be set far back from the bay and provides the least possible impediment to our existing views. We hope that the City Commission will seriously consider the opinions of the existing residents in the area of the project when making their decision. We believe the project is the kind of development that will increase our property values and the Brickell neighborhood. We thank you for your consideration of our position. Very truly yours, Point View Association, Inc. Ally ora Presi , near e nnec€lot' w' h Item _�:�on -�v Waiter Poerrtan City Clork 1408 Brickell Bay Drive #1211, Miami, Florida 33131 98 - 450 CON DOM I N I UAA ASSOCIATION INC. 1440 S. E. Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida 33131 Phone (305) 358-2876 April 24, 1999 Honorable Mayor Joe Carollo and ft' rrf Miami Commissioners The City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Re: Bayshore Palms Development Honorable Mayor Csirollo and Commissioners: We strongly recommend that the City Commission Approve the Bayshore Palms project, as submitted, with the orientation of the two towers in the location proposed by the developer. The tact that the towers have been designed on a north/south axis was a siginifieani inducement for the homeowners we represent to support the project. This orientation allows the towers to be sot far back from the bay and provides the least possible impediment to our existing views. We hope dust tllc City Commission will seriously consider the opinions of the existing residents in the area of the project when making their decision. We believe the project is the kind of development that will increase our property values and the Brickell neighborhood. We thank you for your consideration of our position. Ve truly yours, E- McCormick precidcnt Submitted Into the public j record ° I Wnttrman City clerk 98- 450 April 24, 1998 Honorable Mayor Joe Carollo and City of Miami Commissioners The City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, l;l. 33133 Point View O N T H e B n Y BAY SHORE COOPERATIVE, INC. 1430 BRtCIELL DAY DRIVE M", FLORIDA 33131 (.W.5) 374.4321 Ref 007-98 Bayshore Palms Development Honorable Mayor Carollo and Commissioners: We strongly recommend that the City Commission approve the Bayshore Palms projects, as submitted, with the orientation of the two towers in the location proposed by the developer. The fact that the towers have been designed on a north/south axis was a significant inducement for the homeowners we represent to support the project. This orientation allows the towers to be set far back from the bay and provides the least possible impediment to our existing views. We hope that the City Commission will seriously consider the opinions ofthe existing residents in the area of the project when making their decision. We believe the project is the kind of development that will increase our property values and the Brickell neighborhood. We thank you for your consideration of our position. Very truly yours, Mrs. Alen DeTournillon Member -At -Large, for the Board of Directors Bay Shore Cooperative, Inescabmittea into Vh� �tpublic: rewl �i nnect" itemon Walter �n city Clerk 9 8- 450 COMMODORE BAY CONDOMINIUMASSOCM7101V (M"MI-J)ADAT L VNIVo ING 1402 .Brkkell Bay Drlue, Sulfa 203 Mifind, FL 331.31 Tel: (30S) 358-0667 Fax; (30S) 3SB-3170 April 24, 1998 Honorable Mayor Joe Carollo and City of Miami Commissioners The City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami. FL 33133 Re. Bayshorc Palms Development Honorable Mayor Carollo and Comomissioners: We strongly -recommend that the City Commission approve the Bayshore Palms project, as sub&�,-v4th the orientation of the two towers in the location proposed by the developer. The fact that the towers have been designed on a north/south axis was a significant inducement for the homeowners we represent to support the project. This orientation allows the towers to be set far back from the bay and provides the least possible impediment to our existing views. We hope that the City Commission will seriously consider the opinions of the existing residents in the area of the project when making their decision. We believe the project is the kind of development that will incroasc our property values and the Brickeil neighborhood. We thank you for your coosideration of our position. Very truly yours, ASSOCIATION (MIAMI-DADi1 COUNTY). INC. cc: N. Zamora S. Vetiz File �ttorr�s record vnn Itemt' :...i «: m on1 Wolfer City Clerk 9 8- 450 CQSTA BELLA ASSOCIATION, INC. 1,450 ORICKELL BAY DRIVE (3053-373-31 00 MIAMI - FLORIDA - 33131 FAX (30S)-373-31 29 April 24. 1998, Honorable Mayor Joe Carollo and City of Miami Commissioners The City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Re: Bayshore Palms Development Honorable Mayor Carollo and Commissioners: We strongly recommend that the City Commission approve the Bayshore Palms project, as submitted, with the orientation of the two towers in the location proposed by the developer. The tact that the towers have been designed on a north/south axis was a siginificant inducement for the homeowners we represent to support the project. This orientation allows the towels to be set tar back ftuin the bay and provides the; bast possible impediment to our existing views. We hope; ttlttt.tbe.0ty Commission will seriously consider the: opinions of the existing residents in the -area of the project when making their decision. We believe the project is the kind of development that will increase our property values and the Brickcll neighborhood. We thank you for your consideration of our position. Very t � brnitl d into the public; re('0rd onnecti itE 1 on Walter Foe -man 9 8 - 43"0 April 24, 1998 Honorable Mayor Joe Carollo and City of Miami Commissioners The City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Re: Bdyahurc Pultns Development Honorable Mayor Carol to and Commissioners: BNCKEEE We sironbly recommend that the City Commission approve the Bayshore Palms project, as BAY submitted, with the orientation of the two towers in the location proposed by the developer. Thy TOWER fact that the towers have been designed on a north/south axis was a siginificant inducement for the homeowners we: represent to support the; project. This orientation allows the towers to be set far buck from the bay and provides the Nast possible impediment to our existing views, We hope that the City Commission will seriously consider the opinions of the: existing residents in the area of the: project when making their decision. We believe: the project is the kind of development that will increase our property values and the Brickell neighborhood. We thank you for your consideration of our position. -Very truly yours, Nell aurora Pte •i ent paf�r�liiE'l i8 rite 34 T ti on Walter Foeman City Clerk 1408 Southeast 9ayshore Drive/Miami, Florida 33131 / (306) 373-2606 9 g - 450 raIN IMiw�rw� I I April 24, 1998 Honorable Mayor Joe Carollo and City of Miami Commissioners The City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Re: Bayshore Palms Development Honorable Mayor Carollo and Commissioners: We; strongly recommend that the City Commission approve; the: Bayshore Pohns project, as submitted, with the. orientation of the two towers in the location proposed by the developer. The tact that the towers have: been designed on a north/south axis was a sibinificant inducement for the homeowners we re;prusunt to suppurt the project. This orientation allows the towers to be set far.back from the bay and provides the least possible impediment to our existing views. We hope that the City Commission will seriously consider the opinions of the existing residents in the area of the project when making their decision. We: believe the: project is the kind of development that will increase our property values and the Brickell neighborhood. We thank you for your consideration of our position. truly yo , ambert M.D. Q-A t Rem on Wafter Foeman 9 g— 450 Irvt CONSULTING QUALIFICATIONS BEVERLY J. MERCRANT President Since 1979, Ms, Merchant has been involved in the economic analysis of real estate including residential, resort, retail, office, and industrial properties within Florida, the Caribbean and nationally. Assignments have ranged from evaluating investment and disposition opportunities to economic impact analysis, development feasibility studies and downtown revitalization strategies. A frequent client is the University of Miami for whom consulting assignments have involved analyzing potential acquisitions in terms of economic feasibility and suitability and then working with the university on negotiating the transaction. Some assignments extend beyond real estate, however. Ms, Merchant has twice prepared applications on the university's behalf for the acquisition of federal property through the U.S. Department of Education and recently conducted a disposition analysis for UM's downtown conference center. Ms. Merchant is also a commercial real estate appraiser. Recently, she has appraised condominium towers on Miami Beach, an exclusive multi -building condominium community, and various office and industrial buildings in Miami -Dade County, as well as distribution centers, manufacturing plants and retail stores at various locations in, the southeastern United States for a major supermarket chain. While working for Avatar Holdings, Ms. Merchant directed all of the planning and analysis for a 191- acre, Intracoastal, waterfront community in Hollywood, Florida, including calculating the highest returns under various development scenarios. That community is currently under development, At Cushman and Wakefield she directed the research and disposition planning for about 18,000 acres held by the MacArthur foundation in Palm Beach County, providing recommendations on the pricing and timing for sale of some 200 parcels. Prior to forming Merchant Associates, Inc., Ms. Merchant was the Director of Acquisitions and Investments, and Planning and Budget for Avatar Holdings, a real estate developer and utility company. Before joining Avatar, she was Manager of Project Analysis for Cushman & Wakefield, an associate with Economics Research Associates and with GA Partners/Arthur Andersen. CREDENTIALS: University of Maryland, B.A.; University of Miami, M.B.A., Beta Gamma Sigma State Certified General Appraiser, No, 0001441; Licensed Florida Real Estate Broker Member, Urban Land Institute 1995 President, Dade Economic Forum Founder and Past -President, Commercial Rea) Estate Women (CREW), National Network (NNCREW) delegate, 1994 & 1995, Adjunct Professor of Finance, University of Miami, starting Fall 1998 reClr � r� Jr nett" Item, on MERCHANT' ASSCIONI'liS, ING 'NOW J:ot-ft n ..., -; 9 8- 450 QUALIFICATIONS JOHN AM BLAZEJACK, MAL CRE President Blazejack & Company ! Academic Florida State University, BA. Florida International University - M.S.M. Real Estate Most Recent Courses 1992 - Level II Course 520 - Highest and Best Use and Market -Analysis 1994 - Level II Course 530 - Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches Experience Mr. Blazejack, President of Blazejack & Company, has been active as a real estate counselor since 1970. His experience includes residential and income property appraisals, market and feasibility studies, and acquisition and disposition reports. The work bas been for at wide range of property types including office, industrial, commercial and special use properties, hotels and recreational facilities. These assignments have been conducted in over twenty states and extensively throughout Florida. Mr. Blaxejack is a qualified expert witness who has testified in Federal district and lower courts. He is an approved iristruetor of both the Appraisal Institute (AI) and the American Bankers Association. Mr. Blazejack is a past president of the Greater Miami Chapter of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers and was the 1992 President of the South Florida Chapter of the Al, Designations and Licenses MAI Member, Appraisal Institute, Certificate Number 60K currently certified. CRE Member, American Society of Real Estate Counselors, Certificate Number 1131, Registered Florida Real Estate Broker State -Certified General Rcal Estate Appraiser, License Number 0000093. Affiliations Mr. Blazejack is a member of the National Valuation Review Board. Sahmitted into ihcv puib!ic tutor• ennec lor, item on .) My - Walter Foeman City Clerk 98- 450 BLAZEIACK&COMPANY (tfAl ESTATE COUNSELORS I it- rhlCrrl P F a I FCTATF RM"WF0 John A. Blazejack, MAI, C.-.. Expert Witness COURT JUDGE/DATE CASE & REF Fifth Judicial Circuit Mark J. Hill HFC Commercial Realty, Inc. Lake County. Florida Nov., 1990 vs. Lakeside Inn of Mt. Dora Case # 891181-CA-01 Circuit Court of Mary Lupo Ramada Inn (Hotel) )Palm Beach County, Florida 1990 U.S. Bankruptcy Court Eugene R. Wedoff Courts of Kendall (Apartments Northern District of Illinois Nov., 1991 Eastern Division U,S, Bankruptcy Court A,J. Crystal CSC Transportation, Inc. (Lan .Southern District of Florida Nov. 27, 1991 BHG Investments, Inc. (Debto Case #90-14134-BKC-AJC U.S. Bankruptcy Court 'Southern District of Florida U.S. Bankruptcy Court Southern District of Florida U.S. Bankruptcy Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division Sidney M, Weaver Operating II, Inc. 1992 d/b/a Inverrary Resort (Hotel) (Debtor) Case #91-22816-BKC-SMW Sidney M. Weaver Royal Bay Corp. June 16, 1992 (Deering Bay PUD) Case #92-10074-BKC-SMW Robert E. Ginsberg Naples Shores Residential August 18, 19, 1992 Community . Pine Coast Enterprises, Ltd. Case #90B21420 'U.S. District Court Shelby Highsmith Circa Limited (Odessa Apts.) Southern District of Florida U.S. District Judge vs. The City of Miami August 17, 1993 Case #90-1109-CIV-HIGHS Circuit Court of 11th Ronald M. Friedman Simkins Industries, Inc. vs. Judicial Circuit July 31, 1995 Waclar Ahmad Kahn, etc, :Dade County, Florida Case #94-12172-CA 02 U.S.Bankruptcy Court Stephen Freedman Home Mission Board v, Southern District of Fla. December 1, 1995 Evangelical Hatian Church of Florida Case #95-13830-BKC-SHF U.S.Bankruptcy Court Stephen Freedman Savanna Club Corp., Debtor Southern District of Fla. December 14, 1995 Case #95-32352-BKC-SHF MCyyyy'''+;;;rAron nr�r�, •�Y., ( ri ,F,� Walter 1=019man 9 8- 450 city ojed+ Date 3/3/92 3/29-4/4/92 5/10-5/16192 8/4/92 916192 1/26-1/29/93 3/15/93 6/6-6/12193 9/11/93 9/21-9/24/93 10/24-10/30/93 2/13-2119/94 3/8194 5/26/94 10116-10/72/94 10/23-10/29/94 10/30-11/5/94 JOHN A. BLAZBTACK Te%L� hin ralirng' ngagements IPesent Oreanizatioa/I.ocation Coarse Federal Financial Institutions Income Property Lending Examination Council Arlington, VA Appraisal Institute R.E. Appraisal Principles Indianapolis, IN Appraisal Institute R.E. Appraisal Principles Dallas, Texas Federal Financial Institutions Income Property Lauding Examination Council Arlington, VA Federal Financial Institutions Income Property Lending Examination Council Arlington, VA Federal Financial Institutions Income Property Lending Examination Council Arlington, VA S.M.U. Analyzing the Project & Dallas, TX Appraisal Review of Income Property Appraisal Institute 110-Appraisal Principles University of San Diego San Diego, CA Appraisal Institute Hotel Valuation Fort Lauderdale, FL Federal Financial TAstitutions Income PrOPerty Lending Examination Council Arlington, VA Appraisal Institute 520-Market Analysis Boca Raton, FL Appraisal Institute 520-Market Analysis West Palm Bch, F11 Wisconsin Realtors Assoc. Impact of Environmental Madison, W1 Hazards on Real Estate DDA Miami CBD Miami Office Market Miami, FL Appraisal Institute 520-Market Analysis Portland, OIL Appraisal Institute 110-Appraisal principles Chicago, 1L Appraisal Imst$"`' #+030,Advanced Sales Boca Raton, J 'G'0 11 n1iO parison & Cost Approach Ott Waster F:cw� 9 8— 450 �1_ Education: Professional Experience: Current Status: Professional Membership: Volunteer Activities: 661--75q` ? Reginald R. Walters, AICP B.S. Architecture, University of Virginia, 1954 Master in City Planning, The Georgia Institute of Technology, 1956 28 years - Planning Director, Metropolitan Dade County Planning Dept. (1964-1992) 5 years - Chief, Comprehensive Plan Division/Assistant Director, Metro Dade Co. Planning Dept. (1959-1964) 3 years - Land Planner, Savannah -Chatham County Metropolitan Planning Commission (1956-1959) Retired June 1992; Honorary title of '!Planning Director Emeritus" was conferred.by the Dade County Board of County Commission on June 16, 1992. Part-time Planning and Zoning Consultant The American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Bd. of Dir., The Redland Conservancy Bd. of Dir., Florida Christian School Bd. of Missions, Florida Baptist Convention -Fund-, Miami Baptist Asaeeiatien— Deacon/Bible teacher, West Flagler Park Baptist Church rep°°op'd,�A_ �:f�ilneC�� r � Item Wafter oemm City Clerk Jan., 199$ MOM MARY NZEW ONI� M. Sc. Biological Sciences Ms. Newton serves as Permit Specialist and Marine Biologist for Coastal Systems International. She has studied tropical marine ecology in South Florida and the Caribbean, and she has extensive knowledge of tropical marine ecosystems. For her Master's degree, Ms. Newton completed a highly technical morphological study using advanced statistical software and imaging. Experience ➢ Research Assistant, National Marine Fisheries Center, Miami, FL. Collected data in the international status of shark fisheries for CITES (Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna). Assisted in field sampling in channel net project. Sorted oceanic ichthyoplankton into phyletic groups. Assisted in raising coral reef labrids for experimentation > Research Assistant, Wesleyan Univrsity, Middletown, CT. Created bathymetric map of study area and determined sediment regime through bathymetric profiles, side -scan sonar and sediment samples Education > Master of Science, Marine Biology and Fisheries, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Miami, FL, 1997 > Bachelor of Arts, Environmental Science, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, 1993 Publications ➢ Newton, Mary, 1996. Geometric Morphometrics. Informal presentation, American Elasmobranch Society Meeting, June 1996 > Newton, Mary, 1995. CITES and Sharks. Poster presentation, American Elasmobranch Society Meeting, June 1995 ➢ Newton, Mary, 1992. Dredge Spoil Disposal and the -Bathymetry and Substrate Morphology South of the Northeast Shelf off the Connecticut River. Undergraduate thesis. 120 pp Registrations ➢ PADI, Open Water Diver Affiliations and Awards ➢ American Elasmobranch Society ➢ Society for the Study of Evolution ➢ Recipient, Lerner Gray Fund for Marine Research, May 1996. ➢ Recipient, Ford Foundation Undgt Cadu to Fellowship Grant, June 1991 a� L myfled is a racor� nn0 1' "It� hem on 450 Walter Foeman city O e* Coasta i systcrns Int �r,l-I9lQ P.03 Education Ph.D. 1992. University of Virginia, M.S. 1987. University of Virginia, B.A. 1983. University of Virginia, Positions held 1993- Assistant Professor, Departrr Research Program, Florida li 1:992 Postdoctoral research associ advisor. 1983-1992 Graduate research assistant, 1983-1987 Research biologist, National of Environ of Environ of Blolotr of Biological Science tational University San Francisco State I. ity of Virginia. m Society. Teaching Experience At FIU: Undergraduate courses: Ecol , , Ecology Lab. Graduate Courses: Advanced - Commun Marine Vascular Plants, TechnFlogy es in Seagrass E At SFSU: Graduate courses: Advances iogeochemistry Research Interests May 4, 199b rental Sciences. rental Sciences. and Environmental Sciences. and Southeast !Environmental J.T. Hollibaugh, Ecosystems, Ecology of Siogeochemistry of the coastal ocean 1 Nutrient cycling in the marine environment Primary productivity of aquatic system Seagrass physiological ecology Ecosystem modeling Publications (peer reviewecO I Fourqurean, ).W., T.O. Moore, D. Fry, and ),I. Hollibaugh. In revi . Spatial and temporal variation in C:N.P ratios, WIN, and 811 C of eelgrass (Zostera arina L) as indicators of ecosystem processes, Tomales Day, 0 4, USA. Marine Ecoll - Progress Series. 6ankovich, T.A. and J.W. Fourqurean. In rev ew. Seagrass epiph loads along a nutrient availability gradient, Florida Bay, FL, 4l4;Y;i(In,Pess Series. r cor l rnegti aArftt� 1b on�S on 412 VYalter F man 9 8 Ci Chic 450 _,vteens Int - 1997 16 : 44 May 4, 1997 JamesjW. Fourqurean Zieman, J.C., J.W. Fourqurean and T.A. Frankdvich. in review. Seal term trends in abundance and productivity and the role of sa Progress Series. Smith, T.). ill, L. Romero and J.W. Fourqurean In prep. Nutrient co of dead wood on nutrient cycling in m ngrove forests. Fourqurean, J.W., K.L. Webb, J.T. Hollibaugh and S.V. Smith. 1997, community to ecosystem respiration, Tomales Bay, Californii Science. 44:493-505. Boyer, J.N., J.W. Fourqurean, and R.D. Jones. in press. Spatial trenc Bay and Whitewater Bay: Zones of similar influence. Estuart Chambers, R.M., J.W. Fourqurean, J.T. Hollibaugh and S.M. Vink. 1 terrestrially -derived, particulate phosp to P dynamics in 18(3):518-526. torus ; Fourqurean, J.W., G.V.N. Powell, W.J. Kenwojthy and J.C. Zieman. manipulation of nutrient supply on cof-hpetition between the testudinum and Halodule wrightii in Florida Bay. Olkos 72:: Fourqurean, J.W. and J.C. Zieman. In review. .A comparison of the 4 whole plant carbon budgets of the tro ical American seagras Halodule wrightii, and Syringodium fi forme. Marine Ecolol Zieman, J.C., R. Davis, J.W. Fourqurean and h I.S. Robblee. 1994. V Bay seagrass dieoff. Bulletin of Marine Science 54(3):1068, Fourqurean, J.W., R.D. Jones and J.C. Zieman.} 1993. Processes infl, characteristics and phosphorus limitati n of phytoplankton b Inferences from spatial distributions. E uarine, Coastal and Fourqurean, J.W., J.C. Zieman and C.V.N. P;11. 1992. Relationsl nutrients and seagrasses in a subtropical carbonate environm 65. Fourqurean, J.W., J.C. Zeman and G.V.N, Po production in Florida Bay: evidence h Thalassia testudinum. limnology and Chambers, R.M. and J.W. Fourqurean. 1991. a wetland mac ophyte (Pe/tandra virg, Fourqurean, J.W. and I.C. Zieman. 1991. Ph budget of the seagrass Thalassia testu< 170. Powell, G.V.N, J.W. Fourqurean, W.J. Kenwo seagrass enrichment in a subtropical e Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 3 4obblee, M.B., T.R. Barber, P.R. Carlson, M.). L.A. Yarbro, R.T. Zieman and J.C. Ziei Thalassia testudinum in Florida Say (t Powell, G.V.N., W.J. Kenworthy and J.W. Fot limitation of seagmss growth in a trop Marine Science 44(1);324-340. 4ieman, ).C., J.W. Fourqurean and R.L. Iversc of seagrasses and macroalgae in Floric I. 1992. Phosphor the C:N:P ratios of sanography 370W ternative criteria for a (L.)) Kunth. Aqua synthesis, respiratioi im. Marine Ecolom and J.C. Zieman. iry: observational e :567-579, irako, J.W. Fourqui . 1991. Mass moi ). Marine Ecology irean. 1989. Expe estuary with restrk —u,� 348 4096 P . 0.5 Page 2 ss dieoff in Florida Bay: long ity. Marine Ecology - ons and the influence Contributions of the plankton Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf in water chemistry of Florida 95, importance of L west coast estuary. Estuaries. 995. The effects of long term eagrasses Thalassia rpensation irradiance and Thalassia testudinum, - Progress Series. role of climate in the Florida sing water column nutrient lass in Florida Bay, FL, USA: f Science. 36:295-314. between porewater Marine Biology 114:57- s limitation of primary he dominant seagrass 12-171 assessing nutrient limitation of c Botany 40:305-320. and the whole plant carbon - Progress Series 690-2);161- 991. Bird colonies cause Derimental evidence. an, L.K. Muehlstein, D. Porter, ility of the tropical seagrass Progress Series. 71:297-299. mental evidence for nutrient .d circulation. Bulletin of . 1989. Distribution abundance and productivity Say. Bulletin of Marine Science 44(1):292.311. iet7s'�;ru '�e. on Walter �c city Apr-28-98 11:24A Coastal Systems Int 1-305-661-1914 P.05 to TUN-17-199^ 16:•15 SE ENV RES PROGRAM 305 348 4096 P.04 I I i May 4, 1997 James W. Fourqurean Page 3 Publications (other) Durako, M.J., J.W. Fourqurean and 9 others. 994. Seagrass die -off n Florida Say, In: Douglas, J. (ed.) Proceeding., of the Gulf of Mexi Symposium. U.S.E.P.A., Tarpon Springs, FL. pp. 14- 15. Fourqurean, J.W. 1992. The roles of resourco availability and comp tion in structuring seagrass communities of Florida Bay. Ph.D. Di' ertation, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia. 280 pp. Fourqurean, J.W. and J.C. Iieman. 1991. Ph nthesis, respiratio and whole plant carbon budgets of Thalassia testudinum, Hal ule wrightii and Syri ium filiforme. pp 59-70 in Kenworthy, W.J. and D.E. Haunert (eds.) The light requirem nts of seagrasses: proceedings of a workshop to examine the capabiii I of water quality crit 'a, standards and monitoring programs to protect seagrasses. NO AI Technical Memo►an m NMFS-SEFC-287. Continental Shelf Associates. 1991. A comparison of marine productivity among outer continental shelf planning areas. Supplement -An evaluation of benthic habitat primary productivity. Final Report, U.S. Depamment of the 1�terior, Minerals Mani gement Service 005 Study MMM 91-0001, Contract *14-35-0001�30487, Herndon, VA..244 pp + appendix. Fourqurean, J.W. 1987. Photosynthetic response to temperature anc salinity variation in three subtropical seagrasses. MS Thesis, Department of Enviromme ital Sciences, University of Virginia 80 pp. Zieman, J.C. and J.W. Fourqurean. 1985. Th4 distribution and abun Jance of benthic vegetation in Florida Bay, Florida. Final report, USNPS South Florida Rese rch Center, Everglades National Park, Contract CX5280-2-22Q4. Participation in Invited Workshops 1997 Developing an integrated monitoring 1 Sponsored by NOAA-NO5. Key Largc 1996 Workshop on Florida Say nutrients, sp Management Committee. Key Largo, 1 1,995 Site stabilization of the submerged wn Sponsored by the Submerged Cultural May. 11993 Modeling circulation dynamics in Flor Oceanography and NOM. Miami, Ft 1992 Workshop on water quality protection Sponsored by NUM, EPA and Florida February. 11991 Mapping the Florida Keys National Mi Natural Resources and NOM. Marath 1991 Florida Keys Nutient Workshop, spans Center, Key Largo, FL, USA. 25-26 Jt 1990 Workshop on the capability of water q from deteriorating water transparency. South Florida Water Management Dist 1988 Seagrass modelling workshop, sponsor and Wildlife service. New Orleans, Li rogram for the south Fiorida marine ecosystem. FL May 13-14. )nsored by the Interag cy Florida Say Program L July 1-2. do of the H.M.S. Fowey in Biscayne National Park. tesources Unit of the 40onal Park Service. 7-10 la Bay. Sponsored by Florida Institute of USA, 13-14 Ocrt. 19 3. plan for the Florida K s National Marine Sanctuary. Department of Natu Resources. Miami, FL. 4-7 ne Sanctuary. Spor i, FL, USA, 16.18 Si red by the NOAA N iality criteria and Sponsored by N. ict. West Palm S Icnec;t on .� Water by Florida Department of onal Undersea Research Lrds to protect seagrasses Marine Fisheries Service and FL, USA, 7-8 November. Is,ltesearch Center, U.S. Fish 8 98- 450 Apr-28-98 11:25A Coastal Systems Znt 1-305-661-1914 P_O6 JUN-17-1997 16:45 SE EtJV RES PROGRAM 305 34e 4096 P.05 May 4, 1997 James�W. Fourqurean Page 4 Invited Oral Presentations i 1997 Seagrass status and trends monitoring component of EPA's Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality Protection PrIgram. U,S. Environm ntal Protection Agency Headquarters, Washington, DC. Feb 1. 1996 Fourqurean, J.W, and T.A. Frankovich. Seagmss elemental c tent and epiphyte loads along the nutrient availability gradient in Flo�ida Bay. Florida Bay fence Conference, Key Largo, FI December 10-12 1996 Zieman, J.C., J.W. Fourqurean and T.Ai Frankovich. Seagrass ieoff in Florida Bay. long- term trends in abundance and growth of Thalassia testudinuff i and the role of hypersalinity. Florida Bay Science Conference, Key Largo, FI December t 12 1996 What seagrasses tell us about nutrientsinFlorida Bay. Worlahop on Florida Bay nutrients, sponsored by the Interagency Florida aay Program Management Committee. Key Largo, FL July 1-2. 1996 Spatial and temporal pattems in near-s`ore water quality insouth Florida: water flow, rainfall, seagrass dieoff and algae blooms, Department of M ine Science, University of South Florida, fit. Petersburg, FL Feb 9, 1995 Fourqurean, J.W., G.V.N. Powell, W.J.IKenworthy and J.C. Zi amm. Long-term seagrass monitoring on Cross Bank: the effects of manipulation of nutrent supply on competition between the seagrasses Thalassia testudinum and Halodule +ightii in Florida Bay. Florida Bay Science Conference, Gainesville, OL Oct 17-18 1995 Nuttie, W.K., ).W. Fourqurean, B.J. Cosby and J.C. Zieman, mass -balance model of salinity in Florida Bay. a tool for research and management. Florida Say Science Conference, Gainesville, FL Oct 17-181 1995 Fourqurean, JAN., R.D. Jones and J.N. toyer. Water Quality onitoring in Florida Bay; insights into the bio try p bays gh geochemis of file subtropical ba and stuaries of southwest Florida. Florida Bay Science Conference, Gainesville, FL Oct 17-18 1.995 Zieman, J.C, J.W. Fourqurean and T.A.I Frankovich. Monitori g seagrass productivity in Florida Say. Florida Bay Science Conference, Gainesville, FL 17-18 1995. Fourqurean, J.W., J.N. Boyer and R.D. $cines. Biogeochernical characteristics of the bays and estuaries of southwestern Florida, Gulf of Mexico. ERF ameting, Corpus Christi, TX. November 12-16. ' 1995 Zeman, J.C., J.W. Fourqurean, F. Sargint and C. Kruer. Ben I is habitat mapping of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuar{+ and Florida Bay, Thi Thematic Conference on Remote Sensing for Marine and C Environments. Sean! , WA Sept 18-20. 1995 The use of regional pattern in elemental composition of mactIpphytis as an indicator of ecosystem -scale variation In nutrient a allability. Summer Marine Colloquim Series, Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium, auphin Island, AL. Juile 27. 1:995 The use of seagrasses as indicators of trient availability in coastal environments. Fairchild Tropical Garden Research Center, Mia i, FL, 8 March. 1;995 Seagrass dieoff, water quality and biog mchernistry of Florida Say. Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic U iversity, Boca Raton, L, 20 January. 11994 Stable nitrogen isotope ratios from Tor ales Bay, CA, seagras s: implications for the biogeochemistry of the ecosytem. S nd Coastal Wetlands cology and Management Symposium, Key Largo, FL, 6.8 Deceev bee. T994 Effects of manipulation of nutrient supply on competition amongst Florida Bay seagrasses. Department of Biology Seminar Series Ui3�ii ihr C�£.Miami, , q� )94bJys, FL., 24 October. el h i on t Walter Fooman City Clett 9 8- 450 Apr-2£9-98 11:26A Coastal Systems Int 1-305-661-1914 P.07 JUN-17-199^ 16*46 SE ENU RES PROGRAM 305 348 4096 P.Q6 I May 4, 1997 JamesjW. Fourqurean Page 5 1994 Seagrasses and water quality in Florida Say. Weathering the Corm: Florida Coastal Management Conference. Jacksonville FL Sept 25-27. 1994 Childers, D.L. and J.W. Fourqurean. Measuring materials exc ianges on intertidal seagrass banks in Florida Bay using throughflov flumes. ASLO-PSA m teting, Miami, FL. June 10-16. 1994.Zieman, J.C., J.W. Fourqurean and M.B. Robblee. A conceptual model of seagrass dieoff in Florida Bay, A,SL.O-RSA meeting, Mianli, FL. June 10-16. 1994 Fourqurean, J.W. and R.D. Jones. Wat r quality in marine estuarine waters of Florida Bay. Florida Coastal Ocean Sciences S;rnposium, Rosensteil chool of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, U. of Miami, FL, 21-22 April. 1993 Ecology of Florida Bay: seagrass die -off, hypersalinity, and algal blooms. Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, U. of Miami, FL, 1 Dec 1993 Recent ecological changes in Florida Bay: hypersalinity, algal blooms and seagrass die -off. Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placo, FL, 7 Oct. 1993 Chambers, R.M., J.T, Hollibaugh and J^ Fourqurean, Sources and fates of phosphorus in fringing marshes, Tomales Say, Califorj ia. ERF meeting, Hil n Head, SC, 14-18 November. 1992 Zleman, J.C., R_ Davis and J.W. Fourqurean. The role of cii to in the Florida Bay seagrass die -off. Ecological Society of America meeting, Honolulu, HI, August. 1991 The competing roles of light and sediment nutrients In strUCtL ring seagrass communities in Florida Bay. National Wetlands Resea{ch Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Slidell LA, 21 June. 1989 Zieman, J.C., J.W. Fourqurean and R.TI Zieman. The Florida Bay seagrass die -off: process changes, potential causes and a conceptual model. ERF mee In& Baltimore MD, 8-12 October. 1988 Fourqurean, J.W., R.C. Zimmerman an¢ ).C. Zieman. Thep synthesislllght relationship for the seagrass 7halassia testudinum and its effect on depth distribution: a comparison of methods. AGU-ASLO Ocean Sciences meeting, San Franc! CA, 5-0 December, 1987 Fourqurean, J.W., J.C. Zieman, W.J. Kdnworthy and M.S. Fon seca. Factors determining the depth distribution of seagrasses from the Gulf of Mexico and he Caribbean. ERF meeting, New Orleans LA 25-29 October. 1-987 Powell, G.V.N., W.), Kenworthy and J W. Fourqurean. Expe imental evidence for nutrient limitation of seagrass growth in a tropiotal estuary with restri circulation. Symposium: Florida Bay, a subtropical lagoon. Miami FL, 1-6 June. 1987 Zieman, J.C., J.W. Fourqurean and R.L! Iverson. The distribution and abundance of seagrasses in Florida Say. Symposium; Florida Say, a subtrog 4cal lagoon. Miami FL, 1-6 June. Contributed ii rrsentations 1i997 Willsle, A.A., Fourqurean, J.W., Durak�, M.D. and J.C. Ziem n. �Seagrass monitoring in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctua�. Walt Dineen Soocie 1 Annual Meeting, Miami, FL, May 22-24. 1997iFourqurean, J.W., Durako, M.D. and J . Zieman. Seagrass status and trends monitoring in the Florida Keys National Marine Sandiary. Southeastern E$tuarine Research Society meeting, Key Largo, FL April 10.12. 1996 Boyer, J.N., J.W. Fourqurean and D. R dnick. Temporal Vwds in water chemistry of Florida Bay (1989-1995): influencgflltigLarg�t a !ties. Winter ASLO meeting, H,., Santa Fe, NM. rpCCir rtrl:cfi r ' � �i g wadter IF i City 98 - 450 Apr-28-98 11:26A Coastal Systems Int 1-30S-661-1914 P.08 TUN-17-1997 16:47 5E e�i.i RES PROGRAM 305 348 4096 P.07 May 4, 1997 James W. Fourqurean Page 6 1:996 Sansone, F.J., B.N. Popp, G.W. Tribble,J.W. Fourqurean, J.R. Chariton, T.M. Rust, and J.8. Culp. Organic matter diagenesis withi Forda key reef frameworks. International Coral Reef Symposium, Panama City, Panama, June 23-27. 1995 Durako, M.J. and ).W. Fourqurean. Changes in photosynthesis versus irradiance characteristics of Thafassia testudinum in response to short-term light reduction, ERF meeting, Corpus Christi, TX. Noveml4* 12-16. 1995 Zieman, J.C., J.W. Fourqurean, and 4 dthers. The effects of chronic light reduction on seagrasses across the Gulf of Mexico: the EPA coastal submerged aquatic vegetation initiative. ERF meeting, Corpus Christi,!TX. November 12-16. 1995 Zieman, J.C., Frankovich, T.A., J.W. F*rqurean and M.S. Ro blee. The effects of chronic light reduction on seagrasses in Florid Bay. ERF meeting, C us Christi, TX. November 12-16. ' 1994 Frankovich, T.A�, J.W. Fourqurean andlR.D. Jones. Epiphyte l3ads and seagrass C:N:P as indicators of nutrient availability. ASLd-PSA meeting, Miami, FL. June 10-16. 1994.Chambers, R.M., J.W. Fourqurean and S-M. Vink. Fate of part 1,cylate phosphorus entering Tomales Bay, Califomia. ASLC-AGU Ocean Sciences Meeting, San Diego, CA. February. 1993 Fourqurean, J.W., J.C. Zieman, J.T. Hoilibaugh, S.A. Macko aid T. Moore. Inferring ecosystem -scale patterns of nutrient availability and sources L sing regional distributions of C:N:P and b"N of seagrasses. ERF meeting, Hilton Head, SC, 14-15 November. 1993 Zieman, J.C., J.W. Fourqurean and M.B. Robblee. The effect of Hurricane Andrew, seagrass dieoff, and allied stresses on seagrasses and seagrass productivity in Florida bay and south Florida. ERF meeting, Hiltoo Head, SC, 14-18 No -ember. 1992 Zieman, J.C., R. Davis and J.W. Fourguerean. The role of cli to in the Florida Bay seagrass die -off. Symposium on the Florida K Regional Ecosystem. Miami FL, 16-20 November. 1991 Fourqurean, J.W., J.C. Zieman and G.V.N. Powell. Phosphorus limitation of primary production in Florida Bay: evidence from the C.N.P ratios of he dominant seagrws Thalassia testudinum. ERF meeting, San Francisco CA, 10.1 A November. 1991 Zieman, J.C., J.W. Fourqurean and R.Ti Zieman. The ecologi ml basis for the Florida Bay seagrass dieoff. ERF meeting, San Francisco CA, 10-14 Nove rber. 1990 Fourqurean, J.W., J.C. Zieman and GA(.N. Powell. Phosphoi us limited development of subtropical seagrass beds in Florida Bad+. ASLO summer mee "ng, Williamsburg VA, 10.15 June. 1990 Chambers, R.M. and J.W. Fourqurean. I Nutrient limitation in a Virginia tidal freshwater marsh. ASLO summer meeting, Williamsburg VA, 10-15 June. 1989 Childers, D.L., J.W. Fourqurean and G:V.N. Powell. Intertidal seagrass banks as critical estuarine habitat': evidence from a nutrient exchange study in Florida Bay, FL. ERF meeting, Baltimore MO, &12 October. 1989 Childers, D.L., J.W. Fourqurean and GIV.N. Powell. Nutrieni exchange dynamics of a regularly exposed intertidal seagrass bank In Florida Bay, FL. GERS meeting, Cocodrie LA, 6-8 Apri I. 1;988 Fourqurean, J.W., J.C. Zieman and G. N. Powell. Nutrient imitation of seagrass development in Florida Bay. AGU-AS O Ocean Sciences meeting. New Orleans LA 16-22 January. 1986 Lagera, L.M., J.W. Fourqurean, L.K. 81 m and J.C. Zieman. P licrabial involvement in detritus processing in Chesapeake Bay surficial sediments. A$LO summer meeting, ror-0on 91 ,����CiiiYDa;S�Yf. �.a 6 ��- 450 Wafter F city Cie* Apr-28-98 11:27A Coastal Systems Int 1-305-661-1914 P.09 JUN-17-199^ 16:47 S6 ENu RES PROGRAM 305 348 4096 P.0e May 4, 1997 James IW. Fourqurean Page 7 Presentations by My Students at Regional and National Scientific M j ings 1997 Rose, C.D. and J.W, Fourqurean, Spat i variability and prod ctivity of the seagrass Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass) in t Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Wait Dineen Society 1" Annual Meeting, M mi, FL, May 22-24. 1997 Davis, B.0 and J.W. Fourqurean. The importance of inters ific interactions between calcareous macroalgae and seagrasses. i Poster presented at 54 utheastern Estuarine Research Society meeting Key Largo, FL April 10-12. 1997 Romero, L., Smith, T.). III, and J.W. Fo+rqurean. Physiochemical factors controlling wood decomposition rates in three south Flo�ida mangroves. Po r presented at Southeastern Estuarine Research Society meeting, K . Largo, FL April 10.12. 1997 Rose, C.D. and J.W. Fourqurean. Factors influencing producl ivity of the seagrass Thalassia testudinum in the Florida Keys Nationail Marine Sanctuary. Oral presentation at Southeastern Estuarine Research Society meeting, Key Largo, FL April 10.12. 1997 Walter, M.S. and J.W. Fourqurean. Foiaging behavior of Hatedule wrightd. Poster presented at Southeastern Estuarine Research Society meetini, Key Largo, FL April 10.12. 1997 Rose, G.O. and 1. W. Fourqurean. Spatilal variability and prod ctivity of the seagrass Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass) in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Florida Ecological and Evolutionary Symposlutin, Archbold Biologica Station, May 17-18 1995 Escorcia, S.P., J.W. Fourqurean and J.0 Zieman. Intra-annual variation of C, N and P in Thalassia testudinum. Poster presented at ERF meeting, Corpus Christi, TX. November 12- 1995 16. Romero, L., J.W. Fourqurean and T.J. Smith 111. Disturbance influences on dead wood dynamics and nutrient cycles in mangroves. Poster present at ERF meeting, Corpus Christi, TX. November 12-16. Grants and Funding Environmental Protection Agency. "Seagrass monitoring in the Florid. Keys National Marine Sanctuary" $500,000, Oct 1994 - Sept 11998. National Park Service. `Relationship of sedlmektary sulfur, iron and hosphorus cycling to water quality in Florida Bay: how seagrass d4offs contribute to alpi blooms,' $76,871, 5/97- 4/99. (With R.M. Chambers) Environmental Protection Agency. Multiscale assessment of the pop ation status of Thalamia testudinum: a new approach to ecosys4m management. S87 ,000, 10/1/96-9/30/99. (With M.D. Durako, P-I, and 4 other co-PI's). United States Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division. Pro msal fcr a dedicated issue of the journal Estuaries for long-term studies of Florida Bay. $21 500, December 1996. National Biological Survey. $31,802. `Recove� of mangrove forests ollowing Hurricane Andrew." July 1996 - June 1997. Florida institute of Oceanography. Shiptime award for teaching and esearch. $10,000, Feb. 1996 National Biological Survey. "Studies of wood�ecomposition and n lent dynamics in southwest Florida mangrove forests." $55,994, J 1996 - Dec 1996. National Biological Survey. "Hurricane And technical services." $5,000, Sept 1995-Dec 1995. National Science foundation, Academic Rese rch Infrastructure Program. 'Acquisition of an advanced isotope ratio mass spectrom er for ecosystems studies at Florida International University. $201,960, January 1996. ( ovith B. Fry, PI, and 4 other Co-Pl's). records InI C nneefi wi .� g 98- 450 Walter Foeman Clty Gkok Apr-28-98 11:28A Coastal Systems Int 1-305-661-1914 P.10 JUN-17-1997 16;48 SE ENO RES PROGRAM May 4, 1997 James W. Fourqurean 305 346 4096 P.09 Page 8 National Biological Survey. "Florida Bay seapass technical services. S5,000, Sept 1995 -Mar 1996. i National Marine Fisheries Service. "Analysis o seagrass monitoring to from Biscayne Bay, Florida." $12,000, Sept 1994 - Apr 19 5. Everglades National Park. "Development of a hydrological mass bales ce model of Florida Bay, Everglades National Park." $41,468. Sept 1994 - Aug 1995. Nvith J.C. Zieman, M.B. Robbiee, and B.J. Cosby). Rorida Department of Environmental Protection. "Southwest lloriO Shelf Water Quality Monitoring." C; 5272. $57,500/yr, May 1994 - Oct 1996. (with R.D. Jones). National Science Foundation. "Acquisition off n autoanalyzer." BI 9317198. $40,000, Mar. 1994, (with J.T. Hollibaugh, R.M. Cha obers). Florida Sea Grant. "Photographic mapping of 5eagrasses in Florida Bay." $20,161, Aug. 1993 - July 1994. South Florida Water Managment District. "Monitoring water quality n South Biscayne Bay." C- 4226, $103,000/yr, Sept. 1993 - Aug. 1994. (with R.D. Jones). National Park Service. "Effects of Hurricane Andrew on water quality and biogeochemistry in the near -shore marine and estuarine areas of Everglades National Park." $240,000, Oct 1993 - Sept. 1995. (with R.D. Jones) , Environmental Protection Agency. Coastal Submerged Aquatic Veg Lion Initiative. CR 820443- 01-0. $142,9001yr, Oct. 1992 - Sept. 994. (with J.C. Lem and 4 other Co-PI's). NOAA National Undersea Research Program. j "The use of seagirasse to determine the sources of natural and anomalous nutrient inputs Ito the Florida Keys N Tonal Marine Sanctuary." $20 000/yr, Jan. 1992 - Dec. 1995. (with J.C. Zieman and S. k. Macko). Prof msional Organizations American Association for the Advancement of Science American Society of Limnology and C*eanography Ecological Society of America Estuarine and Coastal Sciences Association Estuarine Research Federation { j Other ProfeWonal Activities ` I for Limnology and Ciceanography; Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science; Bulletin of Marine Science; Estuaries; Marine Ecology - gr.s Series; Ecological Applications; Water Resources BulletiT; Journal of Experimer tal Marine Biology and Ecology; Archiv fur Hydrobiologie; Cord Reefs. Reviewer of proup-saJs; for National Science Foundation, National 04 eanc Administration, National Undersea Research Program, Conn ict Environmental Protection. membership on advLjgry jg&rrie NOAA's Florida Say Technical Advi ry Group, 1993- FIU Scientific Diving Control Board, 1 94-, Diving Safety ce Sub Itted into tilt pub i�; s►eco cpr�nectio wi h 1be11t fSS r Wafter F City Cie�tl�' -aphic and Atmospheric Department of r, 1996- 08- 450 MIAMI DIVER BRICKELL KEY LU LAJ .� w U 4 w., r�TNST 13TN SJRJEET AFFr it �r 14 � BISCAY N E BAY ly SrREFr Ike � , •'err► �� I **r * ltjftftftft t r CLOCK TI M E: 9:00 AM I �+ LATITUDE: 25.77 LONGITUDE -80.19 APPROXIMATE 4�, SHADOW LENGTH: 2,200 FEET l A!I IN vj, 1 .Y / 10 ., f CLOCK TIME: 9:45 AM i• - + LATITUDE: 25.77 r LONGITUDE -80.19 APPROXIMATE SHADOW LENGTH: 1,000 FEET mopopp- - ftq� kilImo` mm )t **w. 011, -A *j CLOCK TIME: 10:30 AM LATITUDE: 25.77 LONGITUDE -80.19 APPROXIMATE SHADOW LENGTH: 850 FEET CLOCK TIME: 11:75 AM LATITUDE: 25.77 LONGITUDE -80.19 APPROXIMATE SHADOW LENGTH: 600 FEET CLOCK TIME: LATITUDE: LONGITUDE APPROXIMATE SHADOW LENGTH: 12:00 NOON 25.77 -80.19 450 FEET i Submitted recordIte on WalterFoemaM SHADOW STUDY - MARCH 15TH city ciett 98— 450 0 CLOCK TIME: 3:00 PM LATITUDE: 25.77 LONGITUDE -80.19 APPROXIMATE SHADOW LENGTH: 500 FEET w� • r � CLOCK TIME: 5:00 PM LATITUDE: 25.77 LONGITUDE -80. 19 APPROXIMATE SHADOW 1,00 FEET LENGTH: cc a W MIAMI RIVER w w w > a �► r,�TH 13TH S REET f. :0 ft 14 T y SrREEr 4% orro BRICKELL KEY BISCAYNE BAY CLOCK TIME: 9:00 AM LATITUDE: 25.77 LONGITUDE -80,19 APPROXIMATE SHADOW LENGTH: 3,400 FEET i, f are CLOCK TIME: 9:45 AM LATITUDE: 25.77 LONGITUDE -80.19 APPROXIMATE SHADOW LENGTH: 2,000 FEET d�� CLOCK TIME: LATITUDE: LONGITUDE APPROXIMATE SHADOW LENGTH: 70:30 AM 25.77 - 80. 7 9 1,350 FEET y CLOCK TIME: 11:15 AM a. r 'r� + LATITUDE: 25.77 LONGITUDE -80.79 ' APPROXIMATE SHADOW LENGTH: 900 FEET .. ..... CLOCK TIME: r LATITUDE: LONGITUDE APPROXIMATE 1 SHADOW LENGTH: 72:00 NOON 25.77 -80.19 750 FEET CLOCK TIME: 1:00 PM LATITUDE: 25.77 LONGITUDE -80, 19 APPROXIMATE SHADOW LENGTH: 7,000 FEET 7711 16 CLOCK TIME: 3:00 PM LATITUDE: 25.77 r� LONGITUDE -80.19 APPROXIMATE SHADOW LENGTH: 7,200 FEET I Ift ok CLOCK TIME: 5:00 PM LATITUDE: 25.77 LONGITUDE -80.19 APPROXIMATE SHADOW LENGTH: 2,000 FEET - s"`"". F,, t � . •ram r� l • -III a PAN Ipp if ir l r t� x .. _.� tr PETITION M OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF 13A'YSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION 097-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vebemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palma, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. l2th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of lot as paral proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to can a narrower shadow. Sec. 60530) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structurt to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to L•C Constryttiesc we as presently proposed. —&�Cm + ts 01. Sign e _ = Address — Print dame Print 4rne SipanLre _lire CkNA , Dr' a 4. ,,��..��p �L Il�JAJ S i znzture Print Nara Si�tvre v I _ \ Print ?fie c� ignature Print Name (00 3 - p 1 S0 Phone #' 2i.9::l�>i*?4c.KGt Address Phone 4 Address Cos -i/ Phone r M2 Address Phone r Address Phone r 15 t�', /Q- l so C, Address `751 Phone public =,Ul necAi€fit') with i -01on PETITION III' OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSF U PALMS PROJECT - APPLICA'r' *IN #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palma, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. l 2th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildiogs should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(l) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to roquirc the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We quest that the Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construe towers as ntly proposed. �1 L Signature Address Paint NN AM Sigrtanu-c Print e i atlurc / e 4.`� �l 'Signiture U 7 Cvf P 'nt Name Si gn.atzrre Print Name 6. ` Signature Prim Name Phone 4 /oo S. R;C.4 e- '6&& 4101 Address 2 5-g--4-744 Phone 4 t oo '�' k'c- AVAIIV/ Address Phone # l x Is. bud. itCq Address Phone r l®� S� Address 5� L�'14 Phone r /too r Address 35 2S -- V -77 YY Phone T 8" 4 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshom Palma, 67 stories high, 794 foot tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Str ee and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildiogs should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(1) Class D Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points az ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you _ to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as presently proposed. 0 1 , " 1. 1201 atll #v p7� 6 Signature _ _ Address / / Print Name Phone 9 2. gna Address Q Print lame Phone 4 s. - 0-t ru° 4Kell puts 6 0,6 Si P,aturc Address 1 r<<f�ct^ 3os Z 3 7 t — Y625— Print Name Phon' 4. ""LA �0* 11. e_.l_.Q_.Me. hA Itf- C06 iz,natLrr Address 1xhU)1Z,D 2.,w �} l -f65< —hone Print Name r 5. Signature Pint ?Warne 6. Signature Print Marne Address Phone r Address Phone T 98- 450 PETI i ION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTA . ION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshom Palma, 67 stories Mgh, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. ) 2th Street and S.E. loth Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have Iess impact on the public's view of the Bay and to case a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(1) Class D Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as 10 minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at round level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comp)y with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as presently proposed. 1. C7Signature (� nt ame 2. \ ` Signature 5. N ignaturc ff0VU S CAQe-i Print Narncn Signature Print Name Address Phone 4 Address ^ Phones* 2 Address -177 4�&S/a Phone t' 3Z® lC _�OZ9400 - Address 35/3/ 31/-7�Z3 Phone r Address k? - 7d33 Phone r Address Phone r PETi i ION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTii'ION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tali, situated pamilel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. I2th Strw and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.30) Class U Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower siructurt to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that e City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to con these presently proposed. '75U 3LU q8 pIQCP pipoie ignature _ Address JU LI E LUyo Print Name ,2 Si a 3. D t Name 4 i�rtature Print N c 7 SignaStu�re r Print Name 6. � Signature Print Name C?�22o-21ou3 Phone Address at f"*. — q %- Z Z l 1 `1 Address Phone (0 3o) CoLi-,A)S Ave. 43/ems Address (,Jozi�) &6-0-i --�&,)-1 Phone r 3os Address 8'� -CQ( Phone 4 �3 WC1 5-w - l Y (SA Address Phone n 98- 450 PETI i ION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIEN r.& LION OF BAYSHORF PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION W-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12tb Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the oricatation of these two buildings. The buildiogs should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a wamwer shadow. Sec. 6053(1) Class D Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points al ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to ;on t these towers esently proposed. r[ature _ Address& Yj /1_- 35 �)— -7 In X'1 Print Name � r �CcY rR Print Narrfe S ipaturc ��� � V (5 ,' Print Name 4. r S i gnatur � — Print Name Si.gnatzire Print Name 6. SI=`nature Print Narnt Phone 4 Address Phone 4 i't Zc" Address 3-) - 55 , - It (6-7 y Phone A V Address 'T' Fc� Z-/G / - ,-3 LT y Phone Address Phone r Address Phone 98- 450 PETi.LION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENT,-, t'ION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshom Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Suvel and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. Tbc buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(l) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as presently proposed. Q1 i ignature / _ Address y-'r-�r,\-(��r (am! Lac� - r-- P 'nt Name Sr aturc Print Name 3. �jdct-k'Qz S ignatt� Print Name 5. Signature Print Name 6. S i gnarure Print Name Phone 4 Address � In-) - ) JQ Phone t 1 1, 4 -1 ` 2 4 a Address Phone Pbone- Address Phone r Address Phone r � - 450 PETI A.tON IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTA a iON OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the oricntat9on of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow_ Scc. 605.3(1) Class U Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request thattheity Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct th w sently proposed. Signature Address t Name Phone 4 2. 9075 NLd ' aturc Address EIV � "') 6, �)- 0 i 0 (P PrixrName Phone 4 3. 9 5. Name S i cniftuYe rf5� Print Nr e�j Signature Print N ame 6. _ 1�i1�cDr'1l� n> i1 Signature Wt � S-G rQ a 9"0 u,I YV Print Name 2 ' PLC Address Phone # 3(o) Address 3 0'{-35Y- 009 Phone # Address Phone 4 4/5 �'3 ►'V (:t) 1-3 �� � Address Gql- 60C Phone n 98- 450 PET!. YON IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTA & !ON Off' BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshom Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(1) Class U Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as presently proposed. 2. 3. 4 lr c S �QSignature C.� Print Name Signature Print Name Signature Print Name 6. Signature Print Name S6o� hw��.� Zvi C Address Phone 4 Address Phone 4 A/V iz ,1 t;-"- Address Phone * � oil Address Phone 4 Address Phone TM Address Phone, 08- 450 PETITION III' OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALIAS PROJECT - APPLICATION h97-0059 The undersigned coneemed citizens who live, work or rocreate in the City of Miami hereby vebcmently oppose the development and construction of tk Bayshom Palms, 67 stories high, 78A feet tall, situated pamliel to Biscayne Bay betwccn S 12th Strut and S- 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting; to tnc oricntzboo of these two buildings. Tbc buildings should be perpendicular to ttx shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(l) Class II Special Permits states "Along waurfronts., buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points al ground level and from hightT portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structsre to mike h perpendieul:s to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as present)), proposed. Signature Print Name 2. % 01-9M �C�iJ1 �rtature Print Name Signanzt- (--S �S MU 5 � Print Name S � L�rtaturc Luigi PL= RAL. i A ?nnt Nam-- Sig=a=e Pr:n. ?v 2rtge 6. Gcz� S i mature ti MON i CA 1- • &P�R�'-� A Pr:nt N=t Address Phone 4 7�I SW %t -CT s,o M Address (-�_ oO 4 ,'� S- 7 Phone a s Address (.o`+3- 97 a7 Phone Address Phone r l4�1 Add: css Piton-. 4goi Amin # ^d zss 331 acf (-�O5) d5-9o�1 Phone T e7 450 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORMN TATION OF BAYSP U PALMS PROJECT - APPLICAT- `N #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vebemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palma, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay betwoen S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the ofientabon of these two buildings. The buildiogs should be perpendicular to tt�e shoreline instead of pa hol as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to can a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(1) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points ai ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to re -quire the turning of the tower structure to make h perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the Ciry of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as proposed. Signature Address Print Name ]A/ OP2 Signatwrc ��11 P nt am ;Signature r IName /K' t S i=zrum 4 Arw S Pint Name Signature .S*eV Print Name r��-Z�; 0-5a? Phone 4 6X, S �UNSC-7 Address r 3oo Phone 4 Addrtss 5�Z/— �,/-C/ -S Phone Address 76 Phone r Address Phone r q0 L4 I kjA" A)F Address 3 31S f 310G- 8- 3313 Phone r 98- 45 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSF U PALMS PROJECT - APPLICA'' `N #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vebemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palma, 67 stories high, 784 fmt tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Strut and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to tire- orientation of these two buildings. The buildiogs should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(1) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structurt to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construe then towers as press by proposed. -K- u( q( wc� Z S S�u1r<e� 337r/ l / gqSignature Print Name 2. p—% ignaturc Print Name Signature 12 Print Name 4. Si re 0 Print . e Siggn ��Zs E►- �-Z,J Print Name Address 2- Phone a L.-A Y1 UJ 1 Address 9 1i�o - 1 Phone 4 zZ/ PGA � Address Phone # U Address �l Phone r u Jcy 7 L4--- Address Phone r Address Phone T 98- 4JO PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSF U PAIMS PROJECT - APPLICA7 `N #97-0459 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or macate in the City of Miami hereby vebemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Strw and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to d-oc shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have Iess impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(1) Class U Special Permits =tes "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. e quest at the Cc ity Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to eo towas presently proposed. 11 `` ``!!Q'� ature Address T- PrintNamr, 2. `Signature Print Name 3. Signature 0-'NA6q C-)o�-e1(a 2ARA (Poz f Print Nafne &,6 , A Si ' nrre06 Pl Prini N arne Signature Pn'nt Name C� � i2- one f' Address (q,M Phone 4 -J-w l55+ Address `�O C3 -- 5(A -I�A 7913 Phone r 3oK-- `6- 6(73 Address Phone# Address 9S G �3 Phone T Address Phone;'; 98- 4bO PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSF '2E PALMS PROJECT - APPLICAT `N #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palma, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Sued and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientabon of these two buildings. 7bc buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sm. 6053(1) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the taming of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as presently proposed. n 1. Signature Address Print Name Phone n' 2. �'�U �� / 3 S Signature Address Drin e a. Siznztum Print Name Signamre �. /e&VAIE-b�l P.-int Narne Z& S . gnzntre=rtzt ureAltlx Print Name Phone 4 //oe,A5 St,- ?s S`/ Address Phone' t Cv 3 a r1G ,( I + r Address ( 6,7 5) 5� Phone r Address Phone Address �'3o-0ez)-9rt2-- Phone I 9 8 - 450 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSF U PAI S PROJECT - APPLICAT-'N #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizms who live, work or mcreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Strw and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sex. 605.3(I) Class U Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at round level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make h perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City cone. We construct tb nest that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to Print Name 2. Signature Print Name 3. S ignarure Print Name 4. Si mixture Print Name 5. Signature Print Name 6. Signature Print Name 1110i2YN' Address /-C 3tSt� Phone 4 Address Phone 4 Address Phone " Address Phone r Address Phone '- Address Phone r 98— 450 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSF U PALMS PROJECT - APPLICAT `N #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or rum ate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshort Palms, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the c6entabon of these two buildings_ The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sac. 6053(1) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to roquire the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as presently proposed. Signature 'Qo N W t C)GN t cfL fJ Print Name 2. Signature A. Print Name 3. 4. S i grtature Print Namc Signature �Z] III N SIr2 6.4 Si= re /)6L topt & S i c-c it Print Name Z(V ST- M�q,,��. Address Phone # M�RX4 Address 5S)32-1 Gov Phone 4 Address t, -71 0 Phone t Z20 N , d1CT6RtAr Fir- W - -�• own. Address qS4-y67-W38 Phone r q2 (S 1�: Address a54 G -7-��a Phone r xr/t^4/a Address C!305) �cr�)L-v �^r � Phone r 98- 450 PETITION P4 OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSF '2E PALMS PROJECT - APPLICA7 `N #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 32th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(1) Class U Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct tlyfsc towers aspresentlyproposed.00C/ Signature Address �G��i� Print Name Phone 4 2. )k :2 rtJ E 158 ST 33162 Signature Address c-'RQ-LOS E. U(QuEz. Print Name S' gnaturc av(\ ( � f Pirint Name 4. Signzrurc Print Name 5 Signature 30 S P}h�one 4 Address 6 Phone Address Phone r Address Pint Narne Phone r 6. Signature Address Print Name Phone , 98- 450 PETiI'ION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIEEN'TATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #917-0059 7be undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vebement:ly oppose the development and constr=on of the Baysborc Palms, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, siivatee paraiiel to Biscayne Bay betwocn S_= 12th Strtct and Sr:. 14th Street on South Bayshorc Drive. The undersigned individuals go on rwx>rd as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to tfic shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Ss. 6053(I) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views uom principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower ssuctu t to make it perpendicul-ar to Biscayne Bay and eompiv with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Ba_vshore Palms plans to construct these t.owe s as presc tly proposed. 40 J� Signature l , Print N e Signature Ca n a Co Eck /"0 Print Name 3. ��-- Si�atwr t Namc Si_ re v L-70R G nL/4 Print Nam-- Si2n2t:�e u C A \ . 17 6. �! �gnire ..^era: lvzl-ze A d dress �q- Phone s1 blPaL,Ak�yid� Address d-aq -o/a?y Phone 1- - (3cju Address Phone # Addmss ?none f Adaress Piton- ,zd6. ass �•�— 1 e Phone r 98- 450 PETITION III' OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF - - BAYSHORE PALMS PRO.TECI' - APPLICATION #,9`i-OQ59 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or rocreate in the City of Miami h=bv vebemrntly oppose the development and construction of the Bayshort Palms, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay bcuwocn S B. 121h Strtu and S-- 14th Street on South Bayshorc Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientabon of these two buildings. 7bc buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreiine instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay end to cast a narrowC shadoµw. Sr`. 6053(l) Class 11 Special Permits states "Along wxerfrona, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points a2 ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structtut to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and eompiy with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as presently proposed. z n Signature s .tY? iQU� nt Name S i�rtaturc &I i KaNGt PH t Name . signatw-c Print Name S i gna-rurc �Qt/✓a✓�,`�1 ? c.�✓�rzEs P rint Nam-- Sig=2^.=e Pre: ?v zinc -> e4- t J i /Signature 511,10 / V ZA-)e ,/ , V F' Address i 305- - 531� -e)6 �8 Phone Address Phone 4 70 /Z%. E 1,2) S S /- � 61 A6 Address Phone �- ( �C� ! (/, � �2y A ddttss (�s 3, '- Phone r Alm`L— Add-css Phon-- 10I-ce `U- U1. S� S AQG.. ASS Phone r 98- 450 PETITION III' OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF - BAYSHORE PAL11 S PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehcmentiy oppose the development and construction of the Baysborc Palms, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay bctwecri S 12th Strcat and S- 14th Streat on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to tic orientation of these two buildings. Tric buildings should be perpendicular to the shomlinc instead of parallel as proposed, to have Ions impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. b053(1) Class U Special Permits states "Along warerfronrs, buildings shall be so orientrd and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view poinu ai ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to rtquirc the turning of the tower strvcm-at to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the Ci Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to con ese towers as ntly proposed. /o/ e b sc �. �� Ale 1. �EDIQGIiN>/dtS. 1 ( (i� /'71 Ar�tt Address Apt 0S 61c- AGAN /%� cs Print (Name 2. Wl Sigma ` 3. Print Name Sigaan rc Print Name >J s') 37,Y-9 6 00 � Isbonc c����, yia3 Address Phone Addrrsss Phone 4. S i mature Print Namc Sigma^.= e P,-:a:1N, une 6. S i gmature I =1 Name Phone r Ad&css Pnonc Aaa. css Phone r 98- 450 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF - BAYSHORE PA.UAS PROTECT - APPLICATION #.`97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or rxraatc in the City of Miami hereby vehcarrntly oppose the development and comtr u tion of the Bayshort Palms, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S 12th Strut and S.L._ 14th Street on South Bays.hore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the oricntat7on of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to tt,c shorziinc instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadoµ-. Sex. 605.3(1) Class D Special Permits states "Along waterfron¢, buildings shall be so oriented and dcsipe:d as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to roquirc the turning of the tower saurnat to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct ujor towers presently prop. � Signature �! U /�R y iGZ Print e ,> 2. S i gnaturt: X/ i Z�,95 P t Nam Signan= Print Name S i criarurc Print Nzznt- Sigisz^:re Prat ?v 2rne 6_ Signature Pit Namt Address Phone ,X-lo,9 A),Zt/ 7- Address Od 97 Phone �-Zy w 2Q S�` Address Viz- Phone r Address Phone r Address Phonc Add. -ss Phone r 98` 450 -3' t PE'=ON III` OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALNIS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 794 feet tal1, situated parallel to Biseaync Bay between S_ 12th Strut and S-L 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the oricnta2ioo of these two buildings. Tbc buildiogs should be perpcndir-uiar to the shoreline irizzad of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sew. 6053(1) Class E Special Permits states "Along wa er-fronru, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from highs portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower stiucttffe to make c perpendieulzr to Biscayne Bay and comply with Ciry code. uest that the Ciry Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to con esc towers as presently proposed. 1. &ignaturc i nt Name 7 Sitnar= Print 1izJn ignatt.trc �f;lS A . �O�E/✓ Prins Name 4. Si cnature- Z�L,&7"aL ?rint Name 6. i mature Pl'L�i Name D ILE �'L i ✓ & "A'1W Address e_rtl- D ti Phone /355/ .<�C2 7�� Address . Lz Phone l6le&VVN YLV.(V,A, Avg W3 Address 45.ssq.9 Phone 1 v 7 r 6- Sw iJY Cl Address 37/- J-9 y Y SX 301? Phone r A6&css X(o ",-)X 7 Phone ,=.da. ass �-7✓ - t � �-! � An � L� K,.� Phone r 98- 40 PE'=0N nit OPPOSITION TO ORIEN-rA77O' OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROTECT - APPLICATION ", 97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or rocrtatt in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshorc Palms, 67 stories high, 7&4 feet tall, situated parallel to Bisea}mc Bay betwccn S.B. i2th Street and S- 14th Street on South Bayshort Drive. The undmigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientabon of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to t6c shomhnc instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sr--. 6053(1) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize irnp=irnents to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower s=uen= to make it peipendieuizr to Biscayne Bay and comply with City coot. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct ' csc towers as present}} roposrd. Signature Address D-(WO �kf 9, J-t �Print Name Phone 4 -f 2. lX. _ �o Z_cts T �v`c� Au,?- �;sJQc,� Signature Address 6. Clk Al e 11., j e.2 P nt 1v e S1L^;aturt L-� � f►'1g.rt,�o �oc�� J � -c Z Print Name S i mature e�-V)�)9 Phone Address C-7, as-) -�x I -bl 13 Phone Address Print Namc Phone r Si2z12A:re Address Pry: N-'ame Phonc Sizna ure Add ass Print N. am e Phone r 98- 450 Fr=ON IN OFFO=0N TO ORIENMATTON OF BAYSI RE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICA. )N *5` 7-0059 'Ibe undersigned concerned citizens who li� to or recreate in the City of Miami htmbv veb mently oppose the development and oonsvuction of the Baysborc Pima, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, -situated parallel to Biscayne Bay betwom S 12th Strcea And S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshorc Drive. The undersigned individuals go on sword as objecting to the oricnmbon of thest two buildings. Tbc buildings should be perpendicular to tfic shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to can a narrower shadow. Sc:--. 6053{)) Class D Special Permits states "Along watcrfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at pound level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We tu-gc you to roquirz the turning of the tower sruc=t to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that th itv Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Ba_vshom Palms plans to construct tbcs to rs ly proposed. 1. Sign turc Address Print Name Phone n �igrtaturt ddress not Nzrne Phone 4 c�3D�� q 7, Sipaturc Address S 36 - 2 �2 3 P-irrt Name Phone AddMss Z- (oZ2 Phone f 5tl�- clad Adcress (-a1) �-�I( I � Phone 4� rd l� V N o S i ^nam;rt C/L n/� Pl.ut Iv=f sip Phone r 98- 450 7 A-30-1995 7:20PH FROM MASTRIANA/CHRISTIAN. 9545661592 U I 1 OI P. 2 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION 097-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(1) Class 11 Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct #ese towers as presently proposed. Signature Address ot5��-� Print Name Phone� j A 1'� H, 0 # Signature Print Na me 6_ _ —5-igmture /f-,, oesk4e�e,4,-, Print Name i5, /q--c s�bt� 0 �) Address Phone # Address -A�- 7 7 7 Phone 4 :5P S �, /-J -- C)C, Address 372- Phone # Address Phone # Address Phone # 98- 450 9 PETr*ZON III' OPPOST!"ION TO ORIEN-r.ATION OF BAYSI. ,E PALMS PROJECT - APPLICA'. )N *97-0059 The undersigned concemed citizens who live, work or roas+ate in the City of Miami hereby vebcmently oppose the development and construction of the Baysbore Pa.1mb, 67 stories high, 7&4 fat tall, situated parallel to Biscayne, Bay between S_E. 12th Svutxnd Sj- 14th Suet on South Baysbom Drivc. The undcmignesd individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of thm two buildings. The builditgs should be pcipe:nd►eular to the shorclinc instead of pairaDol as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(1) Class 11 Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water view& from principal public view points ai pound level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower suvcane to make h perpendicular to Bismyne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshom Palms plans to con tthesc towers as presentlyproposcd. P J / Signature A ddrzss C. 5 IC6 vt 3 3 i 3 Print Name Phone Sip. -f r/. �c� Print NZ.•ne: Si�attuz: 4. 4 P.-int Nzmc S j or aillrE /// b A-Ve 3ia Address iYll�m.7 r f-C. 3 3/�i Phone ' Address 3l�) 3 77- 6 Ss� Phone -" Addrrss ?�, ?none r AdE-ress 1�J a?F`f Phone A6d ss Phone r 98— 450 flo PET''T'ION DN OPPOSITION TO ORIENT,kTION OF BAYS: RE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICA. -)N *57-0459 'Ibe undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreatr in the City of Miami hereby -vehtmrntly opposc the development and construction of the Baysbore Palms, 67 stories high, 7&4 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne. Bay batwoen S a 12th Strcca and S.E.. 14th Street on South Baysborc Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to ttx shorclinc instead of pambol as proposed, to have kss impact on the public's view of the Bay and to can a narrower shadow. Scr.. 605.3()) Class D Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points ai gound level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make h perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshom Palms plans to Signature. Prm, ?vzmc .4. Si�..ature rein: )`i�c ✓ Sima=e 6. Si Ena;ure Address Phone ; Address Phone. }' Address Phone A ddmss Pnonc T Ad cress Pnonc A6d,-rss phont r 08- 450 PETr'TTON IN OPPOSITION TO OREEN-NATION OF BAYSi RE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICA. JN #97-0059 -rbe undersigned coaeemed citizens who live., work or racreate in the City of Miami hereby -vebctaently oppose the deveiopmcnt and eonsmiction of the Baysborc Palma, 6? stories hig}i, 784 foot ta11, shuatea parallel w Biscayne, Bay betwom S.E.12th Street and S.- 14th Suva on South Bayshorc Drive. The undersigned individuals go on r„cord as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to bx shomlinc instead of parallel as proposed, to have (ass impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a mrrowe7 shadow. Sex. 6053()) Class D Special Permits states "Along warcrfronrs, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at gvund level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to raquirc the turning of the tower strucnac to make, h perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with Ciry code. we eaues that the- City Commissioners of the Ciry of Miami deny Bayshom Palms plans w construct ' r�sc to ors as prescntly proposal. ___ $ gnaturc Address P ' t Name. Sip2rurt ate,,, '"— G EI P=" 'Namt Phone ' Address Phone AQ81'CSS Phone t, dcsLss Pnonc r Address Pnonc :F :tic.--ss Phone r- 98- 450 N PETr'*'ION IN OPPOSMON TO ORIENTA T'ION OF $AYSi RE PALMS PROJECT - APPLI CA. jN *5 7-0059 f5�q-OG0 The undersigned conoemrd citizus who live, work or rvcrcate in the City of Miami hercbv -vebcmently oppose the development and oonsuvction of the Bayshore Palms., 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay be woes S_E. 12th Strw And S.E. loth Strxt on South Bayshort Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the o6enm6on of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to ttx short -lint instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow•. Sce. 6053()) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimiz.c impediments to water views from principal public view points at pound Level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to roquim the turning of the tower strvce to make h perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with city code. we request that the City Commissionen of the Ciry of Miami deny Bayshom Palms plans to construct these towers as pres:cntiypropos-od. i Signature Addrrss .: Cl 1 F , v, 1�L'-0C VO - (3oS Prins Namc Phone CAn ��� �,1 l C 3v S) S-A 9 C�, 1_'-t Si2nEturc Address V,A a 4--tc�A � V Ck-_ �- L\ STD Phone A ddrms Phone f J A ,dress Y 6� d) � ?hone r s-3 6 - 16 40 Md6 -css S 3 6 -/� (16 Pnonc — ,^ b css Phone }- 98- 450 PEI' l O,N IN OPPOSITION TO ORMNT I TION OF BAYS. RE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICA -)N *97-0459 The undersigned eoneemzd citizew who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby -vebcmently oppose the dcvoiopment arid oonsv=on of the Bayshorc Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, Shunted parallel to Biscayne. Bay between S 12th Strcez and S-L 14th Street on South Baysborc Drive. Tho undersigned individuals go on rocord as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. "I he buildings should be perpendicular to the shorziinc instead of parallel as proposod, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to can a narrower shadow. Scc. 6053(1) Class D Special Permits smics "Along waterfronrs, buildings shall be so orienud and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at p-ound level and from higher portions of nearby buildinp." We urge you to require, the turning of the tower strueturt to make h perpendicular to Biscayne. Bay and comply with City code, We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshort Palms plans to construct those towers as presently proposed. / Signature Addrrss t� o S q qPo et C41 Print N , c 2 1 % q ?Tint lvame Signature 4. � - S Ad rat N�-�e Phone h J wimI Ad6TCSS gL�, L - �z l Phone Address Phone r �d Ad: ress Phone r S� 7- / 12 Aocress Phone. - A 6:6 ;-Ss �000DO Pnont 98- 450 PET*T'ION TN OPPIOSITION TO ORIET'T"TION OF BAYS. RE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICA. 3N #91-0059 ?be undersigned conomed citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehcmrntly oppose the devdopmcnt and coratuation of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 78A feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne, Bay between S_lr. 12th Svizz and S.E.. 14th Smart on South Bayshorc Drive. The undersigned individuals go on rword as objecting to the orient ihon of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shorclinc instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to can a narrower shadow. Sex. 6053()) Class D Special Permits sues "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designrd as to minimize, impediments to water views from principal public view points at pound level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to mquirz the turning of the tower savctwt to make h perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code, We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshom Palms plans to construct these towers as presently -proposed. 1. Sign ture Print Name Signanu-c Print Nzrne Sipaturt print N-2m 5i:^natvr� P:in: Tiamc P.in: )N-a..�e . A E. l61 20 Sc-- p6y5oofs -0,( Address () � Phone #, ),�2 01 e4;-d,-,P-v Av Address -;� -� 5 * -- S Phone " r A ddrrss Phone /vl h dr-zs� Pbonc f A&a -css Pnonc - PADDc f 98- 450 7 PEON TA' OPPOSITION TO ORMNTA'nON OF RAYS, RE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICA JN *97-0059 The undmigned conceaned citizew who live., work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and 'on of the Baysbore Palma, 67 -stories hig}i, 78A feet tal1, situated parallel to Biscayne. Bay berwam S 12th Strut and S.E.. 14th Suvea on South Bayshore Drive. The undorsigned individuals go on rocord as objectingto the orientation of these two buildings. Tht buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline, instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053()) Class D Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so orientad and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from _principal public view points ai ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the taming of the tower sttzreaat to make h perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. de request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshom Palms plans w rbesc towers &,v- ff 2lscntly proposed. Signature Print N c Signaturr Print 11 Sl=,Iruj i S i -nary �rzrn ign2^.�e 6. Address Phone *' °f • 1 C.-) --i3R-/ c_ (Ck L /q4/f Address OGR a C� ( I Phone A ddrrss Phone 4.4 . d�2ss Phone r Atscress 37z_ Phc)n:: _ Aaw—_ss I �_ ]✓none r 98- 450 PE=ON IN OPPOSITION TO ORMN'T/ATION OF BAYS! kE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICA. )N *91—OD59 The undersigned coneemrd citizens who live, work or recrtatc in City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the devoiopment and oonstru zon of the Baysbort Pslma,d2.sion's iti 7 oet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay hetwom S-E. 12th Strut And S.F.. l oth Suit on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the oricntataoa of these two buildings. ?Tc buildings should be pcspcndicuiar to t6c shorzlinc instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on tnc public's view of the Bay and m can a narrower shadow. Scc. 605.3(l) Class D Spacial Permits states "Along waserfronz, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at pound level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to roquire the turning of the tower suvettvt to make h perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshom Palms plans to construct these towers as presently proposed. Si�nz��re P=' 11 N z t 10� I 1� S�- A ddrrss Phone >' Address E26l/�'� PhoTi'c t' Address ,:,37, J1-,->-7-?7 Phone r Ad dress Paonc r Address Pnon: A6dJ ass PhD= r 98 - 450 FL-rMON IN OPPOSITION TO ORIF.h'T.A'MON OF - BAYSI ?E PALMS PROJECT - APPLICA. )N *57-0059 ?ire undersigned conowntd citizemt< who live, work or roasatc in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the $aysbore Palma, 67 stories high, 78A feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Ray berwom S-F. 12th Strczz and S-L l 4tb Sant on South Baysbom Drive. The undersigned individuals go on rword as objecting to tix orienmfion of these two buildings. Tbc buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instrmd of parallel as proposes], to hzve less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cart a narrower shadow. Scz. 6053()) Class D Special Permits =tcs "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments eo water views from principal public view points ai gvund level and from high= portions of nearby buildings." We urge you zo mquire the turning of the tower s=uctwt to make h perpendicular to Bismync Bay and comply with City code. We request that City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshom Palms plans to constructer us esentlypro sed. 1. / I (� 1 3& V Signature Address 7- V�AS�� - /3053713-�Z c " P»one Ak i 7- SiCr,aturt Address Print 1�ame Phone �Irt S i parurt Address J writ am Phone f A dcimss 6. 14 Phone r \ C 1 S?i""i2L'7e iidC.l'CSS 5 � �i-,UT TQ/ iaw-- Pnonc ,=.sty ass : none r 98- 450 8 PL=ON Vq OPPOSITION TO ORIENT.ANION OF BAYSI U PALMS PROJECT - APPLICA. )N #97-0059 7be undersigned conoemed citizens who live, work or rocmate in the City of Miami horcbv -yebcmently opposs the devolopment and construction of theBsyshore Palms, 67 stories high, 78A foes tall, situated parallel to Biscayne, Bay betwocn S.L 12th Street and S.E.. 14th Street on South $aysbom Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objocting to the oricata60n ofthesc two buildings. 7bc buildirgs should be perpendicular to the shomlinc instead of parallel as proposed to have less impact on tIDc public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Se=. 6053()) Class II Special Permits states "Along waserfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and dmipx:d as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at pound level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to roquirc the fuming of the tower structun to make h perpendicular to Bis=ync Bay and comp)v with City code. 6. Sl Eatltre P. 1 zl-ze :ity of Miami deny Bayshorc Palms plans to '/12 J Address �/L 3� Phone, R' Address to P V 1c_r��`1 74,). Phone t ADO Address t - Phone � o0 � �� f, dd=ss 4�- Phone r /zdr �>&dwf 4✓� Ad&css Phone, ;add. ass Phone T- lp:�- 98- 450 0 PE1 1 1 ON PN OPPOSITION TO ORIEN"T.ATION OF - BAYSi a PALMS PROJECT - APPLICX. )N #57-0059 -I*be undersigned concerned citizuu who live, work or rsomate in the City of Miami hereby •vehcmently oprposc the development and construction of the Baysborc Palms, 67 stories ivgh, 78A feu tall, situated parallel to Biscayne, Bay betwom S.E, 12th Street .and S.E.. 14th Street on South Bayshort Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. ?he, buildings should be perpendicular to the shomlinc instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on tht public's view of the Bay and to can a narrower shadow. Scc. 6053()) Class D Special Permits sues "Along waserfroars, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points ai ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower struenue to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code, _ uest -that the Ciro Commission= of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to Mtpw presently proposed. /1� �V-C re, Address N 2.�Pei 4 �- Sipa=rt Print X, e Signaram P::nt Name Phone �,rf <, �/(,: . Address Phone t Address Phone.' /„^dews pbonc f A&L-css Phone - Ad -tss !'none f 98- 450 P=10N IT OPPOSITION TO ORMN'Ti rION OF BAYSI, _tE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICA_ N *97-0059 'Ibe undersigned cmcemed citizens who live, work or rm=tc in the City of Miami hereby vahcmentiy oppose the development and oonstruction of the Baysborc Palms, 67 stories high, 78A feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay bctwccn S_F— 12th Sm%2 And SI— 14th Street on South Bayshort Drive. Mhe, undesigned individuals go on record as objecting W the oricatttiioo of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shomiinc ins:Lrsd of panllol as pro -posed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Ste. 605.3(I) Class D Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and desitmed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points al pvund level and from highs portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower strueuue to make h perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and ootaply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshom Palms plans to co t these towers as 1}' proposed. _ Signa ure Address lei Print Name Phone 4 Signawc Print ?vane Siparurt Prtnt Nzmt Iq S i L"it=,,- t Print Ti�nc Sig�t:�e 6. Simaarure Address Phone " Addrtss Phone f A 66=ss Phone t A&L-css Phone : � A6 css Pnane r 98- 450. PZT2 ,N iav OPPOSITlRON TO ORIErTTA )N OF RAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersignod conceracd citizcas Who live, v►c►rk or aem to in the, r*y of Mini hamby yr b=mtly oppose the development and construction of 1ho bgvbOn Palms, 67 stories high, 784 fiat tall, situated parallel to Bieeayne Bay between 5.8. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Surat on 69A Bgyahom Drive. The ut►derrlgned Individuals go on record as cMwft w fie oria melon oftt w two buildings. The buDdings should be perpendicular to the Aorelizto instead of parallel as proposed, to have leas hnpact on the public's view of the Bay and to costa narrower shadow. See. 6053(Q Class IISpecial Permits totes "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be'so oriented and dw4wed as to aunimiza Impediments to venter viewti5vm principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the taming of tho tower *ueh" to make it perpeadiealar to $9wapm Bry and eomply with City oode, We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Baysiwre Palms plans to coastruot these towers as preseatty propm—& i. ,o 4 , I� i$;0Uure Address 01 tint In ignarare C apA T mmo i-�R�IA NDE2 Print Name S. Signature Print Namc 6. Signature Print Name Phone # 100 ( Da4 azjgti &0 y Df , S.v r TF 21 D 4- Addrees SIT 89g9 phone # tool 8e.I YJ;L . 6aj Ii , sum` -�t04 Address 51� - 8qq 9 Pb*w N sA+ttz A-S A Qa(F AddMs 5-1-1-89G G Phone # Addmss Phone # Addraa Phone # 98 - 45-�O PETITION IN OPPOSrnON TO ORIENTATION of RAYSBORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned Concerned eltizw Who live, vkwt or reati to in then My of Miami Eby vch meetly oppose the &Tdopntent and constnretion of the ft:b= Palau, 67 stories hlgh, 794 fleet tall, situated parallel to Uieeayne Day betwoon S.B. 12th Stfeet mod S.E. 14th Strad on 69uth Boyahow Drive. 'ilia uodasigned individuals go on tocord as objectingW the odes ation ofUM two bedding:. no buildings should be perpendicular to the tthorelino hmftd of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view ofthe Bay and to costa rutw%w shadow. See. 6053(1) Class U Spcdd Patdittt hates "A1aag waterfronts, buildings shall be'so cric ate+d and deaWW as to nunknize impediments to vA*W view$ from principal public view polnu at ground lcvoi and from higher portions of nearby buildings." we urge you to requim the turning of the. tower etmetow to m" it pegxv&calwrto Mecayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to It ShAe tower$ as prowitty propo$ed. I 4. sire Pont Noma .. S. Signature Print Nona Signature Print Namc 401 N 40. 134 k� A rye A?Qf2 Addcass Penb rOLe A nes . F L 3302$ 954-44l--2384 Phone # VR6 o q&� �^^Addreal?WtfbVe AileS Fl, 33W)24 Phone # Address -305,Vas- 13 ss "moo Address Pho"# A&Wu Phixw # Address Phone # 08- 450 PETmoN YN OPPOswION TO ORIENTATION OF RAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #974059 The uoderfignod concerned c[6z= who live, merle of recreate in the rgy of Miami hereby vdmmto y oppose the devcloprtt W and cau*tenon of rho ftfhot+e Palms, 67 smrias high, 794 fleet tall, situated parallol to laic .Ww Day behvow S.S. 12th Street and S.E. l ddt Seroot on &oath Baphom Drive. The uni1=1ped Individuals go on record as objcc ft to the od enWon of these cure btxtldiug. 'the buildings should be pape"cular to the Amluto hmwd o(paraW as proposed, to have less impact on tiro public's view of the Bay and to cast a namwer shadow. Sao. 6053(1) Class II Sptcal Pert&U slates "Along wate rfmatt. bulldinp shall be'so cricated and deaWW as to minimize impediments to vtw" views from principal public view points at ground Icvei and from higher pordow of 110arby buildings." We urge you to requ;m the tuning of *o tower Ametw a to make it pet xaAcularto $iw4rw Bay aid ceenply_with City code. . We request that City CommWonen of the City of Miami deny Bryshore Pains plans to consum these pft wally Proposed. Address Phone # sisnatm J ewe- LL U nnwi cs am 4.�7 6, Print Namc S. 8igaatum �a r, C( ante" Print Nirrtt: Signatus+e Print Namc Address Phone # Address 3'7s lv.SO0 Pboae N /1)y / 6-"-, C '7 �"� Address T - 6 SZ» -- Phone g 00 Addrosa 427.-- to S4�)o Phone 0 II Addren Phone # 98- 450 PRTM%JN IN OPPOSI'1<7ON TO ORMN'TA1,JN OF RAYSBORE PALMS PROnCT - APPLICATION #974059 The undo igned concerned citizens who live, %TA or. eertr.ta in the ('.try of Miami herby v&= ntly oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms. 67 stories high, 784 %at tall, situated parnilel to Biscayne Bay b*ween S.E. 126 Street mid S.E. 14th Shoot on 69A i3gyahoro Drivc. no undersigned Individuals go on record as objecting W the orlalmKion orttleae two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the dwrelim inatad of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay end to cast a nomwer shadow. Sec. 6053(1) Clew A SpwW Peralits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be'so oriented uA designed as to minimize impediments to vt*W riewiefiam principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildioSt" We urge you to require the tuning of the, tower thudoo to mfik6 it peependicularto $9tacaryne Bay and comply with City we request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to t Prescatly proposed. 1. Sigmure Print Name I /Signature A- 44o d E S Prim Name /6.Xw Print Name U SiREWre Print Name M S. r.1 Signature Print Hama Signature. Print Name Address Phone # Ads C or), s-? - 9 n-r Phone # C? Address // l� 3 5 uv �- ew Addroea rhone # Addresn Phone # 98- 450 PETXTION IN OPPOSUION TO ORIEN'rAnOx O RAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION W4059 Tile undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recroft in ow ('*y of Miami lunvby vehemently oppose the dovclopme w and eonskWion of ft bqihm Palms, 67 stories high, 784 fleet tall, situated parallel to Hicea)w Bay between S.S. 126 Street and S.E. lath Stroot on South Bsyshoro Drive. IU undersigned Individuals go on record as objax4 to the orleratatlon orthese two bedding:. lire buildings should be perpendicular to the Aorelinte instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the publics view of the Bay and to east a nwowe r shadow. See. 6053(i) Class 11 SpwW Patnits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be'so oriented and desippod as to minimize. impediments to A*w views from principal public view points at ground Icvel and from higher ports w of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower rtniao* to make it perpendicular to Wwayne Boy .ne comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami dwy Bayshore Palms plans to consw6ftese towers as tly propose& n ifi/u�atture Address P ' t Phone # 2. t store % Address —T ant aulc Phone 0 addren Print Na3fie 1'bwne tr 4, siwmtum S. Pratt Name signature )tom' t Kama 6. Signature Print Name Phone g Phone # Address Phone # 98- 450 PETITION IN OPPOSMON TO ORIENTATION OP RAYSHORE PALMS PROnCr - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersignod concerned ct67,ms who live, work or . em to in the t^.ity of Mutmi hereby v6=ently oppose the development and cot **don of the D y*= Pahas, 67 stories high, 754 fleet at situated parallel to Hioe )w Day between S.R. 12th Street oaid S.E. 14th Stroot on Sou& Day -show Drive. The wademigned Mdividuats go on Tecord as objc fug W fie orkamxion ofthese two boil Uw. The buildings should be pape"cular to the shoreli:to instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of tine Bay and to cast a n arowcr Aadaw. See. 6053(1) Class A SpmW PeridU states "Along watorfironts, buildings shall Wso orltsmed and deskvAd as to minimize impediments to Nwer views from principal public view Wmu at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We age you to require the tinning of tiro tovmc ttruchm to mkt it peapeadictditr to Wscayne Bay and comply with, City code. we request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to Construct these towers as tty WA 1 v �- Sifiu ure Print Name Stgnetatrc �Lb uri �t s Prin me s tug Print Name 4. S49N WO Print Name .. S. Signature Punt xamc 6. Signature Print Name Address a 64- '� ?� , z z 227 Phone N Milo: / J i `t: — 2 2-Z % Phone # Address 3�7 113 o mme N Phone # Phone # Address Phone # 08- 450 PYrTITION IN OPPORMN TO ORMNTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-059 Tire uodorsigttod concerned citizens who live, work or rein to in then MY Qf Miami hamby vehemaffly oppose the developawd aid construction of ft Dayehm FW=, 67 stories high, 784 fleet tali, situated psrnliel to 13iccayne Bay bohween S.R. 12th Street acid S.E. 14th Shoot on South Bayshom Drivc. The undersigned Individuals go on record as objeadng m tho odawdon ortttese two boildings. The buildings should be petptatdicular to the dwrobe instead of parallel as pyopoeed, to have less hopact on the pubiio•s view of the Hay end to cast a narrower shadow. Sea 6053(1) Class IISpwW PettiAits teWw "Aloes wawrfronts, buildings shall Wso oriented and designed as to minitnize impediments to vtstter views front principal public view points at ground lave4 and from higher portions of nearby building&" We urge you to require the tundog of sloe to"*, ti6lomm to make it petp@udieWxr to Wwayne Bay and comply_ with City code, 5. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bryshore Palms plans to "Ure :1,,oj(loSipmare: Print Noma 6. Signature Pzint Name In P Address C5--\32r,7---.I7- r Phone # set. Phone # Address f3 )k V Piaone K S, A. A Address ,. A,. A. lam# A j� _ Addmu Phow # Address Phone # 98- 450 PETITION 1(N OPPOSITION TO ORIENTAISON OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROnCT - APPIdCATION 074059 The nndarsignod concerned Citizens who live, work of .00 to in the !'.sty of Miami herby vdtarmrtly oppose the dowlopment and con kwlion of the BttydOt+a Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to 13iocaM Bay betwoon S.E. 126 Street mid S.l;. lath Shoot on South Bayahom Drivc. The undusigned Individuals goon record as objcWq m the wicam lon orttm tyro baildings. 'lire buildings droaid be potpatdioular to the dwmffao instead of pamllel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay end to Cast a nmww r shadow. See. 6053(1) Chess II Special Pertab testes "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be'so oriented and dnWW as to minim!= impedimenta to muter viewAnnn principal public view pobru at ground lcvel and from higher portions of nearby buildings." WC Wr you to require the fuming of *e tovvrr ttnieWm to make it peepeadiculsr to Biacarype Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami dopy Bayshore Palms plans to cmnstruot these towers as pfWatly propo" siffj"ture �VW.Me. �fN1ef Name z. stgnu�e Print Name it. Addreu i 321 Phono Address Phone # 6 Y --5—/ Ss Addma P Narpe Pbane � /Q 4, iltcndt Addmu 6. Name M� .!7c / /. Phone g -9VA COcK H • COcr04 Napi� � A _ Print Namc 7ei //� thane # -;% NFU 4' AvL Address 3o S 5 Phtmc 08- 450 PETITION IN OPPOsrnON TO ORIENTATION OF RAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-059 The undOrsiSt:od ooaaetaed citizms vrho lino, aYuic or rectMte in tbn l`rity of Miami hereby vchwnontly oppose the dewlap and makixtion of ft Deys6w Palms, 67 stories high. 784 feet tall, situated parallel to HiwaM Day bot«waa S.R. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Strout on South DaYahom Urivc. Thu undersigned individuals go on record as objc stag Vo the odcaWot ofittete two botldiaga. The buildings should be pa pendicular to the dwm im icatead of parallel as propwA to have less k npact on tho public's view of the Bay and to cast a natroww. dadow Sea 605.3(1) Class R SpKW Permits states "Alaog waterfronts, buildings shall Wso cricated and desixod as to minirnin impodiments to vt*w view, from principal public view poims at ground lcvtd and from higher portions of neailry buildings." We utge you to requee the tuminS of the. t~c thuetwe to nuke it per;wu icuisr to W w4yaw Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commiuioms of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palau plans to consmm tbesc W*ws as presently pmpose& 1. , 2. Print Name .. S. signature Prim Hama 6. Signature Print Natnc /S'bo �, � ( % 3 S," w Address Phoaa # Adden Phone # Address i!e # Address ` Phone # Address Phone # Addren Phone # 98 -- 450 PETITION IN OPPOSI'1<'iION TO ORMNTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 Ile undersigned concerned chimm who live, work or. em to in the r*y of Miami herby v&ernentiy oppose the development and caustrudlon of the Bay*= Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to $icce)w Boy between 5.13. 126 Street and S.E. 14th Stroot on South Bayshora Drive. The undersigned Individuals go on record as objea ft m ttto orknretton of d= two btrlldings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline hafted of parallel as proposed, to have 1tBs impact oa the public's view of the Bay end to costa narrower shadow. Sea 6053(1) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shalt be'so oriented and de:ip W as to minitnroe impediments to water viewi1imn principal public view paints at ground lcvol and from higher portions of nearby buildings - We Mtge you to require the taming of tfiG tower Wuctow to make it perpendicular to giacayAe Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Coninibsioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct cowers sty proposed. ioaacu Address p c✓t S PrintYme 2. 5ro 7771. Print Name , /1 z. Name 4. SiQra"re Print Name M S. Signature Print Nana 6. Signature Print Namc /phone # Address -T 3a6 A -3 0 -oc 00 a # —/ Address Phone # Addras Phone # Address Phone # 98 - 450 PETXTION IN OPPOSrnON TO ORIENTATION OF RAYSHORE PAIMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-059 The undersigned concerned cWnms who livo, %nark at rearente in the, rAty of Miami hereby vrheanently oppose the dovr;lopnUO and construction of tlnc Baysh= Palms, 67 stories high, 794 fleet tall, situated parallel to Hiecayne Day botwom S.R. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Seract on South Bayahoro Drive. Tho turd=Igned indlvidcals go on record as objeaft W Cho orleatuion ofdm two beikUW. The buildings should be perpendicular to the droralim instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of tine Bay end to oast a narrower shadow. Set. 6053(1) CI= A Spelt prl Pa tdu tuft "Along waterfronts. buildings shall Wso orica led and dts:Wwd as to minimize impediments to %vur vie" fiom principal public view points at ground Iml and from higher portions of nearby baildiaSt" We urge you to require the turning of the. tower ftme too to nW* it perpesrdicular to Aiwayme Bay arnd comply with City code. We request that the City Comnniuionera of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to ca nstrum these 4ywers as frosently proposed. si�twre PcintName o�6N cv Sip"We Print Nap► — z. siitnstu n - �G of jafoe Plat Name 4 kkaL& +f. f'evt - Sis nwre U j signature y , A Lv A v.-3 ,G-PLAN) Print Ntnmc F Address 2-?L�, P-, t-1: �; k 9 Ph oaa # so Address Phone # 0600 --SW Address -zZo — 844fo Pl�e N Address Phone g Addrw Phone # g Addreas Phone # 98- 450 APR-21-96 10:32 FROM=BRICKELL BAY TOWER LTD ID=3053746644 PAGE p]alnoNI IN OPPOS)riM TO 0RUMA13ONI OP MYSHOIM PAIXS PROi= - APPIUCATIONs M-00 The UndIrSigwd wncaraod chums wbo lire vxwk or am in Am My of Muni hemby ve6eoleatiy o oae the develo ellt and ootlsa,teti0a aCdiG $sty a Pdtass 67 stDdm high, 7M font u t. smiaod parallel to B,io Aa w Boy b*wom S.B. 12th Sheet and Ste, lath Skoot m Sov& B*Vbmc Dsivc. Tltc wrdess[gpod hsdividtrals gp OR 1eGc1d as obi W tbG ofttteae iwo badldtag�. The Wlftp st wN be parpaldkulas IDtb da1elata k6ftd of parelld as prop0604 b bm ]as impM on dta pwbWs view ofSe Day end to cyst a nwoww shadow Sm 6M3(i) CbmII SpOCW Pits tm "Aloog watafintr.. bvlldrmo *all bo'so mimed sAd do4pled w to ntmtenaw =pedmtents to a*ar vift s fiom principsi public view poiots at gm d Ic vel and front ' patinas of nwdrj, buiHics - We wp you to rogt&s the taming of dw tam shuthae to mskt it petlxwd 0WwfI* Daresyaw Bsy mW eomPit► with City Dods. We request that dw City Commfss 0=S of 6e City of W00i dany BAYdx me Palms pleas to coo\st� o as putty prgmo& I. V' z 3. �)In6x,ZA C,-1 arc Plot N=* • �! G• .ter 3s2-.S9S ># 0o sphm AddMU ��g-sue 5 # 14056 w ss fit. Pboae p addm 25o -737—(-- N 0 r-I S'-iz��-4o6c Ad&*= Nis S("z`? -tr Pboue # 13� 1/1 X'ETXTION IN OPPOSrrION TO ORMNTATIONi OF BAYSSORE PAIMS PROJECT - APPUCATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned chinas who live, work or .ew to in the (Ity of Miami hereby W mently oppose the devetolrrnerrt and coo *w1on of tlro i3riftre Puts. 67 stories high, 784 fleet tap, situated pamfial to lsiwA) w Bay between S.B. 12th Street mid S.E. 1 4t6 Street on South DW&orc Drivc. The undersigned Individuals go of rocmd as obje ;ctng m qk odcuWon of tlm two belkbV. The buildings should be porpatdicular to the shmtvEw irrstad of pary&I as propos4 to have k3s impact on the public's vicw of the Bay and to cast a nartvwer shadow Sea 6053(1) Clax U Spud Pettrtttt hates "Along waterfron% buildings shall be'so oriented and desired as to minimize impediments to voter views from principal public view poinu at ground lcvel and from hig lrcc portions of nearby buildings." We age you to require the tumin of'the, t~.r ttnicu ze to make it perpendiculwr to $iscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Comntitsioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to esc towers as P ttrpropoted. S' Address /? Phone # 2.1----" L' Signsrarc Tint Name Slgnattrrc Pratt Name 4. Sig nab" 4 RM Ptiat Name M Sigaatum i;'siru Nina Signature Print Namc 07 /501/(L'W-0—/' Address �u C 3 Phone # Address A—, 3 3 /3 / �30-U&0y Punta N Address Phone # Addras Phone # Address Phone # 98- 450 PETXTION IN OPPOSrr90N TO ORIENTATION OP RAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned chizrns who live, wane or. em to in the r4ty of Miami hereby whemendy oppose the development and conswulion of the b rysbore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biceayuuo Bay between S.E. 126 Street erA S.E. 1 ath Strout on South Beyshore Drive. The undersigned Individuals go on record as objeaIng to pto oricnantiorl oftltese two bolkllrtgs. 'tine buildings should be perpendicular to the dnaelitta instead of pan&l as propoeed, to have kas impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a rmowe r shadow See. 6053(I) Class 111 SpwW Patdb dates "Along waterfronts, buildings shall Woo oriented and desit W as to minimize impediments to *barter views from principal public view paints at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the towev thuetom to make it pegm3dicularto Wwatyae Bay and eoenply_with City o0de, We requat that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshom Palms plans to eonaruot These towers as pcoseatly propaaed. sigature Q Print Name 2. C-A-:41 n 4�- 1 prim e Print Name S. signature �-1 Paint Naau: Signature Print Name Address nn Addrars W Gb_ Ct) Phone, # Address s36 00 Phone M 2-4o2Z e Zo/ 57" Address Phone g Addreea phone # Addreog 98 _ 450 X'RTXTION IN OPPOSMON TO ORIENTATI0N OF RAYSHORE PAi,MS PROEM - APPLICATION #97-0059 The tmdenignrod ConCeMCd C162nms Who live, antic of recrtrde in the r*y of Miami herby vehomm ly oppose the development nrd comtrUdW of ft $ayshote Pahas, 67 Mdas high, 794 fleet tall, situated parallel to laicesyne Day between S.R. 12th Street arA S.E. 14th Strout on 99A Beyahoro Drive. The uodcrsigned tndividnals go on record as objeWn to ft orlaiWon ortttese two btrlldiags. nz buildings should be porpatdicular to the Ao efi to kwtead of parallel as propoW4 to have less bwm on the public's view of the Bay and to coda taarower shadow. Sea 6053(1) Class iI SpCcW Petro U tbdec "Along waterfronts, buildim shall Wso orimad and dos4p ed as to minimize Impediments to -Ava rie" from principal public view Wwu at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We wwge you to require the trunins ofthe, t~z ehuch" to make it perpesulicularto giscuyne BEY and empty with City code. W= that th City Co=dstionas of the City of Miami deny Bayslwra Palms pleas to a t alas rocatly propM& 1. Name 2. S. Signature Print N+uM 6. Signature Print Nwnc Address Phone it a — Address Phone # al)�3 Address Pbwne N Address A&ms MOW # Address Phone # 98- 450 PSTXTION IN OPPOWION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROnCT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undorsigtod commed c1622- who live, antic or recrtwte in " CAty of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the dovelapment and construction of the Bgvb a Palms, 67 stories high, 794 feet tali, situated pamllal to 13iwgw fay bommeen S.B. 12th Street and S.E. lath Ste d on South Baphoro Drive. The uodcmlgned Individuals go on Mord as objcoft 10 rho orla Wotl oftttese twr: belldlag:. The buildings should be pwpatdicular to the shoreline instead of pan&l as propoaod, to have kss bgma on the public'` view of the Bay and to cost a narower shadow. Sao. 6053(1) Class 11 Spc4d PettA u do= "Aim# watcrfiw% buildiaw shall be'so oricated and deitp W as to miaitalm impediments to mwAr views fram principal public view poims at goound level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We age you to require the tuming of the town Wuewra to make tt perpaxlic.War to hiscaps Bay wad empty_with City code. We request that the City Coma issionm of the City of Miami deny Bayshora Palms plans to esc towers as pro= proposed. I. ZNV-n Name 2. signscate L Print Napa z. slgnatut� Print Norte smnaty 9 Pdnt Name S. /,MA [� L - Print Name Address c;2-74?— Phone # Q` wee 06/o 7 - 9` Phone # Address tsz!5 Sw Lao Tear. Address ;,ir Lf 1 q Atone IV Z35 .' fw l,5and 1 y�/c Address )Ma- 3�3a Phone # 98- 450 I" ETITION IN OPPOSMON TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PAWS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-059 The underaigrod concerned citizens who livo, antic or rem to in the (Afy of Miami Eby W mtmtly oppose the devclop mumt mW cousunc6on of ttw Dgih +e Palms. 67 stories high. 764 fleet at situated parallel to 13io 4qw Day bohman S.R. 12th $tract and SJE. 14th Shoot on South Bayshom Driw. Mm undem(ped fndlvkhmis go on t+eooad as objaAW m the odcuWcn of these two bcuaiags. The buildings should be perpendicular to the t wmlino instead of p&rxilet as proposed to have less hnpact on the public'` view of the Bay and to cast a narowrr shadow. Sea 6053(1) Class II Spcdd PettdU tWu "Ak og waterfronts, buildings shall be'so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to %N*Ier views from principal public view paints at ground icvd and from higher portions of nearby btdldiags." We urge you to require the turning of floe tower struetwe to make it perpendicular to WMlyne Bay and eoerply_with City code. We request that the City C6mmiui0=s of the City of Muni dewy Bayshore Palms plans to coast[= these towers is try propotae. Print Name 2. Signarare Print Name 3. Signature Print Name 4, SWtature Plat Name M S. Signature 6. Signature Print Nnmc Address f Phone # Addren Phone # Address pb mt K Address Phone # Address Phone # 98- 450 PETXTION IN OPPOSrnON TO ORIENTATION OF RAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-059 The vadarsigned concerned c!6zms who rive, ark or reeresto in ow MY of Miarni hereby vel mentiy oppose the dovelopimm and eonstruetion of ft Drflbw Pat=, 67 dories high, 794 fleet tall, situated pam lel to laiecayne Day bohvew S.B. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Strout on South Bayshow Drive. The urA=Iped (rAivlduals go on tocotd as objcc ft Vo tbo orlanaaion of gWw two bdlkUp. The buildings should be porperugoular to the shoreline instead of puaffel as proposed to have kss hnpact oa the public's view ofthe Bay and to coda narrower shadow Sea 6053(1) Class IX SpO;W PetWU stdas "Along watortmats, buildIW shall be'so oriented and desip W as to minimize impediments to letter views from principal public view Wwu at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." we urge you to require the turning of the tower struehne to make it perpeadicutar to 13itcayna Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Co=gtsioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshwe Palms plans to construct these towexx , prowntly proposed. Signature Print Name 2. S(geawre 1 A4 OdWOW Prim Name 4 z. Signature 4. S. loo/ bn'�Z'llwvj It O2 Address Phone # Addn= -�) S-�- - 2 2 Phone # / of /�104lr Address at Norte "me d Ilezz &v!, S' Address Print Name Sipatum Tt dm Hama 6. Signature Print Name Phalle # Phone # Addren Phone # 98- 450 PETITION IN OPPOSUION TO ORIENTATION OF RAYSHORE PAIMS PROJECT' - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undo igtod concerned citizens who live, none or rem to in the f Aty of Miami hemby vehemently oppose the do%vlopmant and cansaucemn of the Httyt m Palms. 67 stories high, 784 fact tall, situated Parn1161 to Biocayne Boy between S.K. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Stroat on South 11aphote Drive. The undcrslgned individuals go on record as objccdag io ft oriental{on ofgww tutu bepoing. 'tiro buildings should be pwpwAculu to the *Axel no hmtead of par alki as pmpoeed, to have less hupact on tho public's view of the Bay and to cast a narvwer shadow. Sea 6053(1) C1sss if Spodd Pahilb states "A1aag waterfronts, buildiis shall be'so orknted and desip W as to min6in impediments to vtwec views from principal public view paints at ground lcvol and from highcc portions of warty buildings." We vW you to require the tumipg of tbo tower ttrudhus to maka k pegmK1ictdar to $iwayAs Bay and comply_wlth City code. . .1 j i .! 4U "Print Name I Slgeetarc Prim Name z slgnattu+c � 141 P t Name swature 0 Q 2-e-�e Ati ,gip — PtW Name S. Signature rdm Nunc 6. Signature Print Namc City of Miami deny Bayshme Palms plans to I v lraNINE / w .. 3 or - 37�---2-/oa Phoac # bs - 32Q - Phone # be - Address �i0�'- 7� 9— 2-//6r� rh me M i o o t ( &A Ali-► Address Phone # Addross rhme # Addteia Phone # 98- 450 PETXrI.,oN IN OPPOSli'J ON TO ORIENTA1 aJN OF RAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #9741059 The nndersignod concerned citizens who live, nark or. em to in the rhty of Miami herby veltamontly oppose the devel qea t and c retraction of the b yobon Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Hiwzyne Bay between S.E. 126 Stress mid S.E. 14th Strout on South Dephoro Drive. The undersigned Individuals go on record as obja xfng m the orlarattion of ftse two Wilding. 'tine buildings should be perpendicular to the dtorebo instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to coda narrower shadow. Sea 6053(1) ClW U SpWW Pe=its states "Alcoq waterfronts, buildings shall Wso oriented and desUpted as to minimize impediments to -Amer viewlefi= principal public view paints at ground level and from higher potions of nearby buildings." We rage you to requis the turning of the tc+wrr oruc m to make it Perpendicular to $imayne Bay and eomply with City o0d0, We request that the City Commissioners eonstruot�ltese tower as pe+osen pow Siamure 6-b rj /P� 2. '/ Signature Print Name Slgrtatur,e , Print Name —� C� 4.' S. fries Namr. 6. 4 Print Name Of the City of Miami deny BaydKft Paints p1anS to a t �17, -,�&/ ee, � /'. Address z 0- 0 33 1 Phones # Phone # V rltaue; � Address k) Phone # Addrm Phoaa # 98 - 450 PETIT-k..N IN OPPOSrMN TO ORI NT jL -JN of BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #974059 The undersigned concerned citizms who live, work or. em to in thy, !'*Y of Miami hereby vel manly oppose the developmw aid con kWion of tlto Bad= Palms, 67 smries high, 784 fwt wA situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.F. 126 Street and S.E. 1 dth Strad on South Boyahore Drive. lU undasigeed individuals go on record as objecting m ttw orlaYa dOn of these tWe btrlldings. TM buildings should be pwpm&cular to the dwreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Hay and to cast a nasower shadow. Sao. 6053(1) Class U SpwW Petmits states "AlwS waterfron% buildings shalt be'so oriented and dw4pted as to minimize impediments to water viewefi m principal public view pains at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We age you to n quire the turning of dw, tow" ttruchm to ara]ck it perpwdicidw to 131aaay" Bay and comply with City code, We reg4est tftad the. contract these Owers" Point Name i E� 2 ' Signature r �1,� Print Name 3. Slgttaturc Pratt Name 4. Side Print Name 5. Signature Print Hams 6. Signature Print Name of the City of Miami dwy Baydwre Palms plans to Address s-� 00 one # c� we Q c4 s Cc b otJ e Addroa Phone # Plwee o Address Phom # A&Wu Phone # Addrew Phone # 98- 450 . Tll.,jN IN OPPOSITION TO 0RI9NTA1,4)N OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The uudorsignod concerned citizens who live, mirk at reorto in the l'.ity of Miami herby vtdt=w* oppose the development and conskut Lion of the Pww, 67 stories high, 784 fleet tall, sinoted oaenllal to Biwayne Bay between S.B. 12th Street mid S.E. 14th Strout on South Bayshom Drive. 11w undencigeed Individuals go on record as objceting tv the ark nWOn offtse, two buildings. The buildings should be potpendicular to the dw elino instead of paralkl as proposed, to have less impact on the poblWs view of the Bay and to coda rwrowcr shadow. Sao. 6053(1) Class 11 Spada( Pettnita states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be'so oriented and designed as to tainitnize impediments to vt*W viewe'fivm principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower m nlehm to make it peipetiAkWitr to Biscay" Bay mid comply with City code. we request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Brldwre Palms plans to eonstruot these towers as pro may proposed. - Si�tture p' e 2. Signature Ani4m/A */;. /Print Name ! Signature Print None 4. Suttee /; �iV_E E S Print Nami 8i N-S Poorer"y6ZJVA. 6. (1�7— a /Do / 6A?-*cA:, ccfa# Address 373--" Phone # /AO/ &Y�G&i& Addren 373-5SeV Phone # /OD �9 / rrt Address �3-sso� �313� Phone � Address Phone µ �N Address .373 --sl60 rhone # l r'-01� II-,- Addre:u — Phone # 98- 450 7PRTIT,..N IN OPPOSUION TO ORIENTAI-JN OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #974 059 71te undersigned coucerned Citizens Who live, work or ratite in then My of Miami herby vdtemotttly oppose the development and conshuction of the Bay*m Palms. 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between 5.13. 126 Street and B.E. loth Strout on South Dephora Drive. The undersigned Individuals go on record as objeotltng Vo fie orlal=10n Oflttese two 11611dingf. The buildings should be parpondicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on tine public's view of the Bay and to coda narrower shadow. See. 605.3(1) Clm U Special Patiah shtas "Almg waterfronts. buildings shall be'so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to wter vievw fi ra principal public view poims at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge You to require the fuming of 60 tower stilowm to make it peepatdicularto Diwayne Bay ■nd comply with City Code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to con"Ot these towers as presently proposed. J c,U 1. Suture Address Q►I r ao ���-�Y 3-)3-.J�Jvo _ Print Name Phone # 2. Signature Address Print Name Phone # Z. $immure Address Print Name PfioKe B E! S. SiRtatttae Print Name M Signature Paint NAMC 6. Signature Print Namc Phone # Addrosa Atone # Addrew Phone # 98- 450 PETITION IN OPPOSMON TO ORIENTATION of RAYSHORE PAIMS PROnCT - APPUCATION #97-0059 The undonignod concerned chim=s who live. Vkwt of recra is in tlm t^.tty of Miami hereby vrhememiiy oppose the dt velopeteat and construction of dto Sayshm Pabns, 67 stories high, 784 fiat tap, situated parallel to Isioeayw Bay boween S.B. 12th Street and S.E. loth Strout on South nayahom Drive. The undersigned Individuals go on tecord as objcc dng in OK aiaodon of tie two building. T& buildings should be potpw&cuiar to the dwm itto instead of pare iei as proposed, to have less hnpact on tho publies view of the Hay and to cast a nowwer shadow. Sea 6053(1) Class 11 SpWW Pataits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be'so crieuted and desip W as to min6in impedimenta to v1'a a views 5vm principal public view poiau at ground lcvol and from higher portions of roarby buildings." We, urge you to require the turning of the tower ttruetum to make it perpw4cularto hiw4yAe say and eomply_w{th City code. We request that the City Com iWionas of the City of Miami deny Bayd wo Palms plans to It. Signature PHat NAnte 4. SiWature Ptitlt Namc .. S. Signature rd m Namc 6. Signature Paint Namc 0�50171 SW Address Mac # Add - '�pS 5A4 I Phone # Address Plane N Address Phoaa # Addmu Address Phone # 98- 450 PETITION rN OPPOSrnON TO ORIENTATION OF RAYSSORE PAIMS PRORC r - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned eitimms who live, viwk at reormte in the f .ity of Miami hereby W maritly oppose the devolopmdrt and cotmnrctioa of the bVibote Palms, 67 dories high, 784 feet tall, situated paenlIal to Bioeaytu Bay bshveen S.B. 12th Street mid S.B. kith Strout on South Boyahore Drive, Mw undersigned individuals go on word as obje tfngw tho oficaWon oftttw two bulldings. The: buildings should be porpendicuiar to the dtocelim instead of paraffel as proposed, to have kss impact on the public's view of the Bay and to costa narrower shadow. See,. 605.3(1) Class 11 SpwW Pettnita gates "Alaag waterfronts, buildings shall be'so oriented and desWW as to minimize impediments to Vt' leer views from principal public view poiau at ground level and from higher portions of rrearby buildings." We urge you to reguim the: tattling of tho tower Wuceam to make it perprod icular to Wscaym Bay and comply_w[th City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Baysliore Palms plans to comstruRt shoe Lowe" as proseatly proposed. Ua ki-) A rfl�l jj,-� JJQ, 1. �l F, PrintHarne 2. Sig�nturc Prim Name ` ' Signature yG_RONICA -ZA UIQ2C Print Nude 4. ]R2E&Fk— W t i A /r S SiArndwre Riot/Name / S. Signature Vzo xl� 6. " �. Sb � Signature Print Namc ICY r)pic z � Address Phone # C30 333-2(-1,59 Ad Phone, # 100 '8 r 1 c.l k-2_0 act ri"u� — ate( 3 Address C365a . 23— z4s y Pbrortt X Address Phone # Addmo Phone # Address Sj l - `a�19°► Phone # 98- 450 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT — APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 146' Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(1) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as presently proposed. 1. Si ature nt Name 2 Signature dvw Y.r7-1-Y Z, jPrint Name ,Si t Jr..6iiname 4.re �r Print Name 5. �� 4J) Signature Print Name 6:----,..�_.�� Signature Print Name era/ 'A" Address ` J-3�-z31�o Phone # kJe,1(ke1( 114,e. -113Co Address S 3�)_,,2,77 Phone # 00,41 "R)KGC t'6-z Address 31 ' L3 ice' Phone # 6b/ 1g Address 15'30/ --.-)3Y� Phone # OW Address Phone # Address 6'& - Zs)L Phone # 11P14 A6�/13V V 98- 450 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT — APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 14t' Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(1) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to cons these tower&Ls presently proposed. 1. Yo Signature Address #A-" Ror,&A c2-7 ?— 3.2 P Nam 2. Signature G41S )QfyeZ rint NamVZWUA,.!4V 3. Signature /4A.-A XA-004,,�c. o Print Name 4. 4�� /4UZA�Z Signature 2080 l9.vr tee E in me 5. Signature Alzi + 440Pei A - PPrriint Name 6. _�Ij Signature 1-74 Print Name Phone # go Bk(c�,eLG AVE- Address "5y �L -- /6 f Phone # So l BQIck-Ex1- A015% Address ;33 _ 69-P—Sr Phone # IN l PEW164-eIZZ AV6'- Address Phone # Pd / $lef c,-reAZ f a6- Address 3 !? -- 3 fo Phone # l 13V clLe-V Address Phone # 08- 450 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT — APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 14t' Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(1) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. e request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to const ct ese towers as presently proposed. 1. Signature Address A Nib►'1. �)- V- I Pr' t Name Phone # 2. _ l�v ISMnature a:-Drl !i?xAaVC e0 0, Address JaF tJ L-QM Print Nam Phone # 3. nature �r L Address Print Name Phone # 4. Signature Address Print Name Phone # 5. Signature Address Print Name Phone # 6. Signature Address Print Name Phone # 98- 450 4-24-1995 1:03PH FROM t,"—,-r,RIANA/CHRISTIAN. 9545661592 P. 2 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S_E. 14th Street on South Bayshorc Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting, to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(1) Class]] Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower stricture to make it perpendicularto Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. WeTature/ e City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct the presently proposed. 11400 Address 4 z. 4. Print Name o0l" Signature Aweo Print N fi�e`` -f;t � ignat j ► c )AAA n)rtJ Print Name Signatu ,ant Namc 6. Signature 5c5---5-3&-127q Phone # 1S5o r. w. /i'*�Avw A66- c 4 Address Jar - '363 - .91-6 Phone # 9w, 5W /iN 44 . Address .oaf' . 2.r r- S rAj 2 Phone # ciao ScJ 3--? MEAJUE Address (305)-wU �►°1 q©ati Phone # -7 -7 Z-o .v • w /F 2- Address -3�0s�- S—J be- 32-cl1— Phone # Address Print Name Phone # - 9 8_ 450 50 PETI' 10"'N IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTA - -ON OF BAYSHOI,- PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATIxw #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshorc Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(1) Class lI Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower stnichire to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We r qu that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct towers presently proposed ature Address M t-CA Ad 9 N L4��L Print Name i ature �vaCN ,L) 0, CA2k,'E/lp 'Print Name 3. Signature Print Name 4. Signature 5. 91 Fnnt Name Signature CIO-, k=�1:-Q 7QVi 3C Print Name (130-K ) a)Y-Y33 Phone # Address : 7 d; y lPlhone # ,� s I •��/— /3%d Address Phone # p Address J C3 C,3 �J—a3 �5 Phone # Address p r3s— Phone # c040 '-�V-I- 1`' r1v%_ TES - Address f=L- 3 s 1 c7 C o>� gb0 - Phone # 98- 450 4-24-1 995 1 : ©3PH FROM t' ' 7TP. I ANA!CHR I ST I AN. 9545661592 P. 2 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the Pity of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshorc Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(1) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these tower as presently proposed / Signature Address 4 z. /I, Z 1,/ L- /3J&z JagnaLure Print Name 4. S, iiature Print Name $. Signatu . ]'zi an,e 6. Si afore Phone # Address Phone # 2 � Address &s- 126-1-1�99(l Phone # Ad ss -7d3 •`J lG' L�►��V Phone # Ave, 0 dress Phone ## /O--o �0 Address Print Name Phone # 9 Q_ 450 50 4-24-1995 1 : ©3PM FROM 1. ' DTP. I ANA!CHR I ST I AN. 9545681592 P. 2 PEMION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S-E. 14th Street on South Bayshorc Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(l) Class H Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower stnimire. to make it perpeadicularto Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as presently proposed. 1. Signature 14,63,eld 0 Print Name ature 4gn�YN e —3e� print Na z. � ---Signature Z 11F4, e c_L' Print Name 4. Signature Print Name 5, Signature Print Namc 6. Signature Print Name Z L/c 6 /ql9K6rbo,v Ld - Address 937y 797- oirZ Phone # (p�0 , sw { 56--- Address Phone # Address (3w)JN -oS to Phone # Address Phone # Address Phone # Address Phone # 9 8 a 450 4-24-1995 1:03PM FROM h""STRIANA!CHRISTIAN. 9545661592 P. 2 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshorc Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(1) Class Ir Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We equest that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to conZw s sently proposed. J Address (�5-f 107-ea hw Print Name Phone # 2. u� �aA) ?,:: 4/f°6o Vignature Address <sds& -S -7 7 Dz as' Pri Phone # 3. � e o.5 v vJ _VV Signature Address ft L a C24- Q-A Print Name �} 4 l�..Lumm 1,20 signature rant Name 6�6g � :), a y---C.-..3( ? cz t, Phone # �3OS) 530 8702- Address Phone # b Z 5 N WUNT7'-L1 CLV►6 WL ,-V-94 v Address Print Namc Phone # 6... S �' Signature Address Print Name Phone # 9$— 450 4-24-1995 1:03PM FROM t'"-,TRIANA!CHRISTIAN. 9545661592 P. 2 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and constriction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S-E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(1) Class H Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower stricture to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct sc towers resently proposed. a40171 6 SignatuW Address VR e�e_ ► �e�-fan ���[ -O G PrihtNam c Phone # Signature - Address %�� Print Name Phone # ' Signaotte Address o L • 3� �� 4 ­'S� r`'- �s Signature Print Name 5. signature ��seyl �vct Print Name 6. Signature Print Name Phone # -+xr� 4 z.or r -, C Gti.a(L G-An tS r FC Address Phone # 110 Ciwcti, -Vo .1 2!lem/ A"X611 Address -r*7 ( 9-7 -3 Phone # Address Phone # 9 8_ 450 50 4-24-1995 1:03PM FROM t•`,TRIANA/CHRISTIAN. 9545SGIS92 P. 2 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who Iive, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Strout on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(i) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower stnic lure to make. it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City Code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct thes"owers ps presently proposed. I. a Print Name L 2. L�( UU It��oyt - -� Signature z. 4. s. Print Name signature Address Phone Address z1�7 -?-� Phone # Address Phone # 3 Address , 7-(`y'U 36 Phone # tjV Cam-- / a S- I. —- Address Phone # ` ZEzz w x),6 Gl— Address (OZ�, �g Phone # _ 4 0 1V 4-24-1995 1 : ©3PM FROM t' ' DTP. I ANA/CHR I ST I AN. 9545661592 P. 2 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who Iive, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. See. 605.3(1) Class H Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. A We construct th 2. 3. nest that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to towers as presently proposed. /J 'l e Address Signature Print Name �iggnature Pr� t Nye Signature 1-11 ,u t Ac&✓c- %� d tint Name 6. �&'� PVC Signature f9tin 1-7 T! L Print Name Phone # 1 g 2/ ��i��c-z�- .�✓� . Address c 7f G7is— Phone # Address Phone # Address 3 � d-s-.P s�--/��s- Phone # Address CC(C& cc xd�- -90(l�7o �3 � - (P-a- o Phone ## Q3 575 Address Phone # 98— 4bO 4-24-1995 1:03PH FROM fA ^;-1`RIANA/CHRISTIAN. 9545661592 P. 2 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshorc Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(1) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower stnicture to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct ese tow as presently proposed. 1. � ipn e Address 2. l% 6 Ue Q � f Print N e Signature Print Name Phone # Address Phone # 5 18 - a-q �L/ C/"I)— %3/J� Address v Phone # Address ZL�--71(-�o Phone # � /11 V� Address 4' // s rev 8 Phone # 98- 450 4-24-1995 1:03PH FROM P'"VTRIANA!CHRISTIAN. 9545661592 F. 2 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S-E. l4th Street on South Bayshorc Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.30) Class H Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to 1. by 6.40. 021 ILA i ature Address Print Name Phone # 2.-� 9J-3 o s Signature Address A Pri t Name Si ature % Print -Name 4. &gt-,- / , �_ Signature d�"C�C--e, I L�,,L Print Name 5. S' nature 1--t(AAV1J 0A 11 rlt Print Name ConoS) 2-Az-- gt45- Phone # -�O-&, j UJ Address 7�% Phone # lY1-./ � S -,✓. %0 3C Address �30A Phone # Address Phone # Address Phone 4 9 8_ 450 J, L.F.N. Print 1, Jf� �✓l oC,-- -/ O.E. Print L dtxDS, Alicia G. r . Print Irasema 1 Printcom� Print Grissel A. Print Cary Rc Print Sandra I. Print wa,gw";im; sr. /Frank -- D.A. DNS %R��ri��✓ bff��1� � �.r�i r-� ,T� Address Phone coos 53 (, - 3 / / Add. Phone Add. Phone Add. Phone Add. VY Phone Add. Phone Add. Phone Add. Phone / - k Y Add. l Phone Add. Phone Add. Phone Add. Phone Add. 08 - 450 L.F.N. Signature Print Manny B. Signature Print MA vU6 L tgt�kNQ Rosa M. Signature Print Doll sC. Signature Print Phone Add. phone Add. nhnna pnone Add. phone Add. phone Add. phone Add Hnone l Add. phone Add. phone Add. phone 3 5 3b 3 Add. 1.5 111G.sT a.J�11Ut=. phone add. phone add. 98- 450 Claudinei 64, Signature Print G Pic ��1 9LS J.T. V. Signature Print J.M Signature Print L.P. Signature Print G.C. Signature Print f J.G bo i Signa e s W S Q- 64& exv Print P.L. Print M.S. Signature G'Lr�L Print MAC t'f}„t S,4nJT.4 EZC L.T. Signature Print R.G. Ic Signature Print L.F.B. Signature Print M.L. Signature Print II � Co r-�S i" c,i 1 a SLro 1) z I M Ypwx L 14 (L. r)1 phone c7-t>e�L 030jLD)46 add. ) Z Z- 13 r.4 C u.&'t- / /C-, k I M I t a 7W lAEA phone Add. ZIZ phone phone -&1-5 5363t add. �a22 t F C�Ccaci�, 1000 phone 30 5 536 3 I .2-Cj add. phone 30S o 31 2 add phone add phone add. phone / add. phone add. l phone j add. hone Add. 98- 450 „-APR-27-1998� 09:14 FROM MD_DATRAN MGT. INC. TO 4„24-im 7 -aj44 FRM4 fA4jTPaAN"0*ISTIAN �9bib . Me oatiirrugW canmaW ft= V& titre, WO& or reerarr b is tw CAly of MV=l *n6y v droata* q*m Gedl 11 pswnt and wMW0cdW Q( ty bgdM Pam% 67 hlV4 7t4 fsm tW4 siru bd pomm w tiwugrns Bw ust"m 99.126 S*d WA &L 141 St wt as Bomb swoom Dow lu a»die+so” bavmmita: es OF mwd "a"" to lte wmnom go= t" booffiw. mw p 1d l to dr. tioia�a in erld dpeei at propolad, * h►ve um kopwcmft pt�ta'i vtew eAe ft oW to m e mwvnr +, Sb-- 05-V) OWN N Sptacdti Perwb ttw "A % vr�re(raw, bai=M AW be so aa3 uW a d d rjWW •r'o v iows hm tom s ineit�6a Vino W SW cm* wa cay oodtw was 6d ow 5. Bison x� 6. cwnwftm of so city d Ama tomy rdw pwft lb � ✓ _ I /" [.� 7 , �33 W i-F�'f�Ti{QR,�:y '�7rc tyir h<t r,�, SPfe.a�a3 3 31 b 6 A _&70-306 Addnn fit? 3�4 Rim— I 98- 450 TOTnL P.02 FROM : ADVANCED/STEAMATIC PHONE NO. : 256 0770 Apr. 24 1998 09:43AM P1 ;RICKF-L.':. +atiJI�It `" IIi 'a-1_`?] qpp:. —":)8 11:14 NO,005 T, 4-26-199S 1 : r)n," r 1 FRUt i �•t�,., i al�a.'CH�: 15T I . 95dSaE 159- P. PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORMNTATION OF BA'YSHORE PALMS PROJECT - A.PPLICATION 097.0059 This undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in tho city of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development mid cone tedotl of they 96*0re Palms, 61 stories high, 714 feat tall, situated parolee! to Piwayrte Bay batween S.E. 12th Street and SX. 14th Stroot oz. South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals Soon record as objeoting to the oritntedon Of these two Mldings, The buildings should be paWndicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as prppowJ, w have less impact un dir, ppblio's view of the Say and to rant a narrower shadow. Sea. 645.3(1) Class lI Speolai Pertnits'states `:Along waterfronts, buildings shalt be so oriented and dbsiMd as to minimize impediment9 tO Water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require t w turning of the tower strvt+tore. to make it perpendicular tv Biscayne Bn? and comply with. City eddo. We request that the City Commi&tieners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to Construot those tore rs as a ly proposed. �r t�tw, a Addxes6 Print Name 2. 5lgrietere Print Name Siartature Print Nauut 4. -- Signature Print Name -T 5. Signawre Print Namic 6. Signature Phone * -Address "- - Phone # Address phone # Addriass Phone # Address I'hont � Address Print name Phone 4 98- 4bO 305-374-6371 UP PROPERTY MANAC. l l [ 1 i,�:� it 207 P01 APR 24 199 11:97 A-24- 1995 I : 03PtA FROM 0Ac"41 ANA, U-4k 1 S'i 1l�,s. PE'Y'Y'' ION IN OPPOSMON TO ORIENTATION OF HAYSHORE PALMS PROJEM - A"UCATION iM9' - IU andersigmW mcaned CttiiGW WW hV e, tATA M rVzole in the CAty 4r M"i wd hareby vebsmendy oppose tht: devebpamt =W wmbucfim of the Baydm Pabra, 67 crud high, 784 f t tail, sihuned pudlef to BiwMm ice , han"m S.S. 12th 6't W and S.S. 1 Ath Stred on gaunt boyahom t*Ivc. TM wdwa Reed WAividnats go 06 record ss ObjW tg to tht orkWridW Ott" WO bWi MP- Iho bttsldiW OXQK W pmpaWicAUIP file dwolins i abW otpsr WI •c p►opnwd, ao have iM iaq*ct on the publiols vkw of 6c Bw sad to cag a wwwt dofow, Sac. 60 3(l) Cb* II W P=b sores "Along wmaeonu. baildinp smil be so wiaeted and dw*wd. as w winimiar t %mMmeeatt to va*r views fu m primipal public vim prinu at ground kvsl tad fromWow porbans of AWuby baitdisSa.1, We wV You In r1tqakf d* tUrnin i afthe t*VWf dM0UW& ft anAkk* it ptqWa&CVkr1013ireay&e Osy atd C40fiP1Y With City cow. We raqunt, that to City Comn6mk t of the City of Mimi dcuy Btysbwa Palms plans to oansauK to t� Y Pad• ..----� s, 8;-:.C. - Aftm Print Nato 3 sire PrintlVs� 4 • pClQt N�iMC S. �.. g1g�tLLtCC pt6t Naaw 6.- Signtture Print N=mc pbons # Z S. A61-5IC"I?1L- ayy'37 AddhM ,,�3 -L�97E phmc d Addrms Phortt t .� phom it Pkow 0 08- 450 4-24-1995 1 03PH' FROM I ' . ' DTP. I ANA/CHR I ST I AN. 9545661592 P. 2 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S-E. 14th Street on South Bayshorc Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(1) Class H Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower stricture. to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as presently proposed. �t 1. rl/���� CL''C:c�pC✓4� � 1"l4r'..x C� �.7 Si u Address Print Name 2. Signature Print Name 3. Signature Flint Name 4. Signature Print Name S. Signature Print Namc 6. Signature (3tS) (t M Phone # Address Phone # Address Address Phone # Addmss Phone # Address Print Name Phone # 9 8_ 450 PE7,L ON DOPPOSITION TO ORT—EN'TATION OF BAYSHORE PADAS PROJECT - APPLICATION ,-00S9 Ibe undersigned concerned citizcv who live, wo;ic o: rxrzate in the City of Miami hemDv vebemcnuy oppose the deveiopment a.r,d eonstnl=on of the Bayst ore Palms, 61 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay oetwom S_- 12L? Sumcu and S_ 14th Strxt on South Baysnorr Drive. 7bc unacrsigned individuals go on record as objcctingv to tnc oncnvs' oo of these two buildings. 7Tc bulldiogS should be perpendicular to tt�c shorriinc inS+.c$d of pestle! as PT %eo to have less impact on tac public's Vic -' of the Bay and to can a narrower snano-. Ste. 6053(1) Class D Speei-J Permits szates "Along warerfronr,- buildings shall be so onentcd and dcsignc.; as to minimilr 1mvcCiments to water views from principal public view points as ground ievel and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We tine you to rcqu:� me turning of uric tower to makr r perpcndiel:lzr to Biscayne Bay and eorwply with City code. We rf-OUCS1 that the Ciry Commissione.-s of the City of Miami deny Bayshorc Palms plans to conyLr ut timsc towers PS prescntly proposed. Sim ture .:ant am c grin:l�ia^..c r� C� (` (}� u�_ CA 'U C''} S{o— mT-C Address Phone } �j 14 'l Address �<q Lam. '��l Pnonc r �0 szav -kP1 AddrtSS nGC: eSS 0.5-- 3, '� - --) -)/D Pnonc r At &css Pnonc = Pzoae r 98- 450 PETTIZON POPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORE PAIMS PRO.'EC - APPLICATION' 4, ,-0059 The undersigned concerned citizeru who live, work o, txreatc in the City of Miami hembv vehemently oppose the development and eonstru=on of the Bayshorc Palms, 67 stories high, 79.4 feet tall, situated parallel w Biscayne Bay between S.-. 121h Strict and S.': 14th Street on South.Ba,shore Drive. 'ihc undersimed individuals go on record zs obiccti4g to tnc onentrnoo of chest two buildings. ;Tic buildings should be ocpendieuiar to Ltic shor-hnc instran of ? ralicl as propose z nave iess impact on tic public's view of the Bay and m can a oarrowcr -'tA doo,�. 5t.. 6a53(l) Class E Sped: I Peraiis szatcs "Alone warerfmnr,, buildings shall be so onra=d and designed as to minimiz: impediments to water viCvt from principal public view points al ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to rcqui --ne r ruing of L+rc tower saucy—t to mzkc- a pc-pcndicul`r to Biscayne Bay and comply w;th Ciry code. We reo e that construct Thcs wcrs,4 ry Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshorc Palms plans to ly proposed. • NMI Emil ?tint Name SIgnzturc Lvvrzd c r eta n r t Z. Pr7ni Nwnt Phone r 33Z ti. u), l_3 y %'L, Address Phonc t A d d1tSS `J Tint Narnc :'atone Pain: N�-ic � c; FmarIre n�.^•. SS Phone r A6 cS5 P�cae. f �y-P799 98- 450 PET DN IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENT. !ON OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vebemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshom Palms, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Stree and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Scc. 6053(I) Class H Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comp)y with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construe c veers as presently proposed. 1. / l 5 L>'%'3 � V Signature Address Print Name Phone TM 2. ` ���Prini N2m� — o Signature /C Print Name 4, �/5i lure Print -Name 5.-- Signature 1.1 ) 29dr) • . . , Signature Print Name HOOTc�S � hone t "s Address Phone' Address t- Phone-1- Address �3 0 Lam,/-6 y � V P ne r �- Address Phone f Z 98- 450 PETI . _ JN IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTA -.ON OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miatni hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between SZ l2th Street and SX- 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(1) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. tWerequest that the Ci Commissioners of the, City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to conwers as sently proposed. / Signature Address / J J f l Print Name Phone # Signature Address Josa t arvtAvg Print ame J 3. Print Name 4. ignature Print Name Signature Print Frame 6. Signature Print Name Phone # Address 'Phone Address Phone # Address Phone 4 Address Phone 3,�`l -6"�--&--( 98- 450 PET 7N IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENT. 'ON OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(1) Class U Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct th towers as esently proposed. 1. " '279,�? W, ; ThSf Signatures Address A 41p h �'%N�ez 3S79 -14o q ^ Print Name Phone 4 �( S Ay u) 2. Si turc Address 3V p �'s( Print 4me Phone t �oY%it`ss�s'1vj S inn aturc Address Print Name Phone 4. S i tnature Address Print Name Phone TM 5. Signature Address Print Name Phone 6. Signature Address Print Name Phone f 98- 450 PE7n .,jN IN OPPOSITION TO ORiENTk--)N OF RAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or reerrate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshom Palms, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S:E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshom Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the oricatation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 605.3(l) Class R Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. it request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to these towers a§ Ipresentlylproposed. Print Name 4. Signature Gl,5e ( Lo, �1, L& Print Name 5. Signature Print Name 6. Signature Print Name Address c Phone # 1\ A""� 4ye -�- \9flu Address 5'3LJ Phone # Z�(01 &-twv Address 3/) d Phone # 133n(e S. ')_ �Y 5 Address Phone # Address Phone 4 Address Phone # UYuRcu w0 1k•S1PAko0rFoJLA ;y flatosty AtRll. 24" AT WOW 9$— 450 � PET: 7N IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENT. 'ON OF BAYSHORF PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION W-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Scc. 6053(I) Cass II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. e request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to hest' towers presently proposed. S uJ 3 C� Signat re Address 41A,63er �27 3cS 77'/- p/6e Print Name Phone ;r 2. ai a 9C7y/J!ry /D!�• Si�naturc Address �: a plea c 3OS- G 9 3 - & G SA Tint N e Phone t �.t,an,re Address Print Name` S i zn re r�S (11 0-=i 1 G_ h,� 00 d ry r Pf�nt ame 11,,� 5. �� Sigziature F�-Name ____ , Si-TZrur�- Print Name cs>z-g3— Phone Address Phone n Address Phone Address Phone f 98- 460 PETT 'ON IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENT ' "ION OF BAYSHt,AE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICAI „iN #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay anyt to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(I) Class 11 Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public viewpoints at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make h perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We that the City Commissioners of the. City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to con77cjt ere,. / presently proposed. Sign re ! Address Lk�n Print Name Phone 4 2. Signature �— Address Print Dame hone 4 3. Signature Print Name 4. Simature Print Name 5. Signature Print Name 6. Signature Print Name Address Phone Address Phone 1 Address Phone 4 Address Phone f 08 - 450 PETTi.JN IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTA_..JN OF RAYSHORF PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the dcvclopment and construction of the Bayshore Palma, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshom Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. See. 6053(1) Class R Special Permits states "Along waterfronts. buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. we request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshom Palms plans to consunct these towers as presently proposed. / r I. Signature Address f1 . f`(�i,?2 LiG XF� i Print Nirne Phone 9 2. Signature Address Print Name Signature \ Prin Name 4. _` Sifinature Print Name 5. Signature Print Name fi i d rV / • ��N - Print Name Phone # \k0\ Address � � Phone # v- Address Sly-f 2 el '4-1. Phone 0 % 0!�`/ _ aoc e Address Phone 5 / tl ZIC Address S35-S55 Phone h UVW( cu 'ho R • $p/Ft rFoA.A BY {l~104Y At1911. 11" AT Moww - 98- 450 it PETTL _ JN IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTA _ JN OF BAYSHORF PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami he mby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Baysbore Palma, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on rw d as objecting to the orientation ofthesse two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower ahadow. Sec. 6053(1) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as ntly proposed. 1. Q W L gw 24S4 },4-4 PI- 2.9/-7(,7 Signature, Address Tint Name 2. Signature PI Q&d M Chao Print Name 3. `( -Q-c a z(u"'U a k� 'gy/;�¢ Print Name 4. sinatre- -'kA6(';2 V. . W"'�YD&-J Print Name Phone # A-5 z2 5.w �t2 ur jY1�a c l� Address '5 5 1 !o is 3II- S1(Cb Phone # oP47C -.y4j !la /0::v Address '53c,-2�Qc7 Phone # _ Address Phone # rv�/�r Signature Address tic 4 "e,/ clAIV S Print Name Signature Print Name Address Phone TM fLEtrveteu 'to BY fW0AV RrRIV 11 " Alt Wow . 98- 450 s PETT,,JN IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTA _ -aN OF BAYSHORP PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshom Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between SZ l2th SVW and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. 71be buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sm. 6053(I) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be to oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to clonstroJet these towers as presently proposed. 1.1,C zytCK6cLL A.7 Si ure Address Aga 5-�g3y Prr o / Phone # 2. t Address Print a Phone # 3.1CkLLL il Signa Address /lA`tkiCiFi �Ui1T _ '5?Ci- SI�n� Print Name Phone # 4.., �. re( - A ddress 4! L C,0 VW! Print Name 5. us. �� Print Name Signature �thato Hr��Di iC I Print Name S 11 IS°IDy Phone # No l isri ck dl -kv. Address 5 Sao 2.. Phone x Address 532`2S � Phone TM 16EYURN -to R•SPka4f.oRA ;y fWV#%y Rr19I1. 11" AT tM*0s✓ . 98- 450 it PETIT .,jN IN OPPOSITION TO ORMfrk. _ JN OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshom Palma, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed. to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. See. 6053(l) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower stroeture to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct wets presently proposed. Signature Print Name Signature Prin{ e 3. 1 Signature Print m 4. lk Print Name Signature Print Name 6. . ' &t Signature Address Phone # 1 � I 6r,yi( Ave Address Phone # 43 Address (3Os) 6 � i 'i Phone # n l L( Address Phone # Address Phone # Address M,'sO AJ k)CA,<g10 M1111' /aIfy 30S 536 - 06668 Print Name Phone TM lKe'ru v to A•SPka*oaA ;y P0,104V �tR11. 1'F AT N60N 98-- 4-150 -, PETTj..JN IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTA _ .. 43N OF BAYSHORF PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or rommte in the City of Mimi hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palma, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation oftttese two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(1) Class II Special Peimift states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be to oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and oornp)y with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as presently proposed. Signature , U� G /"9 L c'=--Z Print Name 2. Si a Print Name Signature M AR1 N Print N 4. finature r Print Name Si 1.1 15�"01 Address �5` 3 /-'- v �O Phone # 14o f 6-ic_6 .L( Address Phone 4 )401 8Q►0xnJ ANE Address Phone >r 1_410/ Address < - S-s 3 01-C Phone 4 tk+Gl &sic% Address Phone TM Address -`-51 — �y Phone T f.ETv1tw to By {IMDct%i kPRIV 31" AT NWOa✓ 98- 450 1 PETTi-JN IN OPPOSITION TO ORMNTA. „ON OF RAYSHORF PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palma, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation ofthese two buildings. The buildiogs should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(1) Class H Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and oomp)y with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as presently proposed. e 4, 6c. �s, Print Name 2. 647 Sd�4S Print Name Q Signature Print Name 4. /I�R, ` `� Signature mfi 67-s /Fi'nt Nam s. - Signature 1 o L" Print Nank r J / Si ature k /'(P /' /9 Print Name Address Say-Sf8ro Phone 4 ,� A )imt�eo.ISfp Address Phone 4 l Yo J 1�r.�cc _ eve �r,��.1✓ I `r✓aD Address s ) 5 30 -2-9 Y '- - Phone it Address 5'J6- 4- Phone * & L�9 0. LO• q-7 PL . Address L305) 5 30-z`3 7� Phone Address Phone Uyultow 'to R •Spka4poaA EY PLIVOkH AtRll. 3 J" AT HDOW 9V-- 450 S PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTATION OF BAYSHORF PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshom Palma, 67 stories high, 784 feet tail, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(I) Class H Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct thesc towers as presently proposed. l . dtG 3991 ;! Signature l�.nc shoe code-r v Print Name 2. d '-� Signs I�RMF/j zA,-,,,� nt Name 3. Signature �7e 4. it_nature Print ame s. Signature ,4m A(For,.fo Print Name 6_ ,Cx 'kIMAJ Signature fflaXto, L. PQIQGIas Print Name -W 7 SW r 1 ZL 01- G w- Address scl(o -'r(og7 Phone 9 t L /\)w Ito 4",-- P Address Phone 4 Address 53,--56ts3 Phone # le Address Phone 0 7•s ro s u.) q 7 ''� �i�• Address cj"'30-'o7Cy7,r Phone 4 143-7 Address 8a 3-boos Phone Uvwtiv `Co 1k• S0*WW.of+•A By {lato-%Y 441 t- 3 f " AT tkVw 98— 450 to PETTA-_ JN IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTA ON OF RAYSRORF PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(1) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and oornp)y with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct thine towers as pr ently proposed. 1. `�s Signature Address i 'I 0,6 i a 5 3 E ZI Q Print Name (� Phone # 2. cXt Signature Address Print N Phone # 3. Address 4. =g2nn'aU=e' Print Name 6 ? a - Z`i 41 `o Phone # Address Phone # Address —q J Phone # 6. Q 1*0 Signature t_ j Address VaJA0r 6�>n 6-3() - � Print Name Phone TM I-EY41401 to R•SPk**"ftA Ey PRIORY AtRl1. zJ "AT WOW 08- 450 Ip PETTI i%IN IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENTN...JN OF BAYSHORP PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION 097-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palma, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S:E. 12th Steed and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshom Drive.. Mm undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(I) Class II Special Permits states "Along waterfronm. buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and oomp)y with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as presently proposed. ).&- 4D I le Signature Address Pn ame IV 1 Signature Print NaMe C9,1 K 0, Signature Print Name Signature QJ (, i ^�2JfeZ Print Name 530- 2R�3 Phone # Address `,©, Z��� Phone # ff ff Address 6-a fl -- Z-a l q? Phone # l 5 /u Z,v ST , Address S gL(31 Phone # Address aV 36).T e.�-e-6�i'�.� Phone n Address Cli �2.(,�, -2,Sa-) Phone # UYvRw To F+-SPkt*pop-A E V P&104Y AIFXI . 1 `f " AT tV~ - 98- 450 t PET 3N IN OPPOSITION TO ORIENT ION OF BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 784 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Sec. 6053(l) Class U Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and comply with City code. We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct th se towers as presently proposed. Signature Address Print N 2 Print Name Sip Print Name 4. S i ZT(aturE Ma riSSo- Tno co Print, Name /� 5. ` �10 A�ox�� 1 Signature n Print Name 6. ,-nature s�©S �Ci 7qG/ Phone 4 j 3 -? ;,v -� - C�i , 4-- " Address Phone # z 9 Address '0 �O E� Phone �/9�S�r/27 1�ocxa( Address (30S) u 57 - 67e 35 Phone # -�z j _,W 10 A Address (� �G S g l �- Phone r Address vLr2 J�1 1 To Print Name Phone T 98 — 450 PET. ON IN OPPOSITION TO ORMN` I ION OF 33A'YSHORE PALMS PROJECT - APPLICATION #97-0059 The undersigned concerned citizens who live, work or recreate in the City of Miami hereby vehemently oppose the development and construction of the Bayshore Palms, 67 stories high, 794 feet tall, situated parallel to Biscayne Bay between S.E. 12th Street and S.E. 14th Street on South Bayshore Drive. The undersigned individuals go on record as objecting to the orientation of these two buildings. The buildings should be perpendicular to the shoreline instead of parallel as proposed, to have less impact on the public's view of the Bay and to cast a narrower shadow. Scc. 605.3(I) Class H Special Permits states "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." We urge ,you to require the turning of the tower structure to make it perpendicular to Biscayne Bay and oornp)y with City code, We request that the City Commissioners of the City of Miami deny Bayshore Palms plans to construct these towers as presently proposed. Signature C11J11—,4 k 51,6 VA Z� 02 15,22,19� W� e A-62K Address � ns1 z25- o qQ Phone �7two Print Name Phone t nt Name 5. t_pC Signature Z-&A- Z Address Phone' 'Ss- oC-:E ►y Address Phone TM Address �30 Ssy� o� 7s- Phone Address Ja-I-- e ,, "G -7 Phone f 98_ 450 RECORD OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO MAJOR USE SPECIAL _PERMIT FOR BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT SUBMITTED FOR APRIL 28, 1998 CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION HEARING 1. Urban Development Review Board Report for November 13, 1997 meeting, including Urban Development Review Board Resolution. 2. Transcript of November 13, 1997 City of Miami Urban Development Review Board hearing, prepared by Jack Besoner & Associates. 3. Shoreline Development Review Application No. 97-12, submitted under letter of intent dated October 16, 1997. 4. Shoreline Development Review Committee Staff Report, dated November 14, 1997. 5. Shoreline Development Review Committee Resolution No. 97-SDRC-07, dated November 25, 1997. 6. City of Miami Staff Analysis for Special Exception Component of Major Use Special Permit, for January 12, 1998 Miami Zoning Board hearing. 7. November 25,1997 letter from Brickell Homeowners Association, submitted for the record at Miami Zoning Board hearing. 8. City of Miami Planning Fact Sheet and Analysis for Major Use Special Permit, for February 18, 1998 Planning Advisory Board hearing. 9. Transcript of Excerpt from the February 18, 1998 Planning Advisory Board hearing, prepared by John J. Blue & Associates. MIA95 213096.1 - LXCs4i1�A`f�I zq+ o 1X[ q a 6 9 9 aaaW4 R.16�6U� 01ty ciefu 9 8 - 4,'0 CITY OF MIAMI URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Meeting of November 13, 1997 UDRB Report for. BAYSHORE PALMS Review of Major Use Special Permit proposal for development of a phased project consisting of two 57 story towers atop 10 story pedestals containing a combined total of 749 units. Item: 1 of 2 Location: Approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive. Applicant: Multiplan / Ms. Judith Burke, Esq. / Mr. Luis Revuelta, Architect. Case number: 97-111 Vote: Approval (4 to 1) UDRB Resolution: Proposal recommended for approval as presented in plans and supplementary materials submitted by the applicant, subject to the following conditions: That a revised landscape plan be submitted, to be reviewed and approved by staff, to include a greater coherence and consistency in the use of landscape materials, which appropriately softens the edges of the development both as it faces the right-of-way and within the breezeway between both buildings. The landscape plan shall also contain specific furniture and other fixtures and/or appurtenances to articulate the open spaces provided on site. Al this in an effort to present a more welcoming and "open" feeling as viewed from the Brickell Bay Drive. 2. That a revised treatment be presented for the garage ramps on both buildings, said treatment shall be submitted, to be reviewed and approved by staff, along with a new buffering strategy to include landscape and built elements in an attempt to soften the ramps' effect on the breezeway between both buildings. Staff Recommendations: In addition to those concerns expressed by the Urban Development Review Board, as captioned above, staff recommends that an "interim improvements" proposal be submitted, to be reviewed and approved by staff, for that portion of the site which will not be developed as part of the first phase. Staff also recommends that the configuration of the recreation decks on the 10"' level be revised and re -designed in a detailed fashion so as to appropriately address their role as the main amenity complex for the relatively large community of building residents. Said proposal shall be submitted, to be reviewed and approved by staff CITY OF MIAMI • OFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 444 SW 20° Avenue, 3ro Floor - Miami, Fl. 33130 38 - 450 W t 16 2 W t o �,• N o: ,t is t t r • •e r T • S.W. 9 ST g E +! ST o 1 • , Q • 1 1 ,. T2 u 71 ! o • » n �• n to i t o _ o t el ST S.W. i0 ST Q S 't 7 _ r, U 104 e 0 1 mm , iJ .] r •! » .� • .• .1 .• .• SO t� �J L a = tt 1 D _ Q �. e0 1 ��. )• .,•S+.• w .. •, t • D -1N,5 .� a ST- S, W. I I S T. • raACr CITY • • i • s , a a $�U_1 !39 93 3 aR i $ 84YSM 00 sn II _� » ! • yll/.• :.:::, _ ROE' S g ei 12 ST. 3 s , S.� - � . 10 S sp,� ORTE. 11 °y E � h SRr/f 11i Ia w •+ I• „St4JTH51DE AMM - yyr` 12 Q �QAR 1 13 —�. S.E. 13 ST ..0 94 Q• • y TR4CT3J .t•.•.y.. �I w M R le M S.W. s. » 14 ~ ST • 3. t s UCP .e ! t o '• • Q • PART 4 ;i 41 f S' y S.W. 14 TERR. °PLA r 4CrA. Z4 r • r • i \\ �t, 9! yy f• J 011 4. G � S� 'J, .• � f. � e tO k � 1� 2 " +' 4h y ? - a UBw a '' .cT a OC A cc ♦ • • t •, •� �f ^OSTp L' h sue. • . 4er 4 s NN Tr v ti• �, s 4 V� b LEGERS _ / y n •• i r i T v i i u i T C 70 0 • v w 1, • n n ITT • s ,,, -00 12�► 7�1 x.: a n a� A � 2- IN i 98- 450 mug►P PEN 2 3 4 5 6 7 8, 9i 10 11 12 13 14 15 16{ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CITY OF MIAMI URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD November 13, 1997 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: WILLY BERMELLO MR. BUENO CLYDE JUDSON HAKKI KOROGLU JOEL MARSTEN ALBERTO PEREZ DANIEL WILLIAMS DAVID WOLFBERG, JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 2 1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Meeting of the Urban Development 2€ Review Board. Joel, I'm not sure how we add Mr. Perez's 3 name. 4@ A BOARD MEMBER: The record should just indicate 5' that Mr. Perez is present. 6i MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. i 7i A BOARD MEMBER: Yes. You can do roll call and 8`•: indicate who is present. 9: MR. CHAIRMAN: We can do roll call again? Okay. 101 MR. GARCIA: Roll call: Mr. Bermello; Mr. 11! Judson -- 12! MR. JUDSON: Yes. 13 MR. GARCIA: -- Mr. Koroglu; Mr. Bueno; Mr. 14` Marston -- 15i MR. MARSTON: Here. 161MR. GARCIA: -- Mr. Williams; Mr. Wolfberg. 171: MR. WOLBERG: Here. 18 MR. GARCIA: -- Mr. Perez. i c 19 MR. PEREZ: Here. E 20 MR. GARCIA: We have a quorum, sir. E 214 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Since this is a 221 reconvening, we will continue with the item that we 231 started with earlier today, the Terremark Brickell II 241 project. And with that in mind I need to ask the 2519 applicants to make sure that anyone speaking on behalf of E JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- C50 3 i 1 1 the owners are registered lobbyist with the City of Miami. i 21 MR. GARCIA: I need to introduce into the 3! record the fact that Mr. Bermello has expressed that he 4 has a conflict of interest and therefore he has recused E 51•: himself. We shall not be counting him as absent but 6� rather as abstaining. 71 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. 8 MS. PARDO: Hello, my name is Adriane Pardo with 9' law offices with Greenberg Traurig located at 1221 10 Brickell Avenue. With me here today is Ed Jacobson who is 11 the executive vice president of the owner of the property 12 1 which is Terremark Brickell II, Limited. Also with us here 13 today are the architects from the firm of Bermello and 14's Ajamil. They are Miss Terry Garcia, Vivian Bonet, Pearl 15:: Aquillo, Scott Bakos, George Puig and Boris Granderson. 16 The property for the project before you is located on 171 Brickell Avenue between S.E. 14th Terrace and S.E. 14th 181 lane. It is a proposed five-star hotel, office building, 19 and residential. We're very excited about this project. 20:! We think that it's going to be a wonderful addition to 21' Brickell Avenue, something that's greatly needed as well. 22 And with that I'm going to turn the floor over 23 to Vivian Bonet who will go into greater detail about the 24= architecture of the building. Thank you. 25PERSON 2: Good afternoon. My name is Vivian JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 9 8 ` C* 0 4 i li Bonet. I'm the project manager and an associate with 2 1 Bermello Ajamil,and Partners, located at 2601 South 3`'; Bayshore Drive, Suite 1000. I am filling in for Willy 4`•. Bermello who I've been working with for about ten years 5 now and this is the first time I get to impersonate him. 6 The project is a true mixed use, and it will be 7 the first of its kind in Miami. It consists of four 8€ components in a single articulated 38-story tower. We 9 have office, residential, hotel, and retail all the way 10 around the property. The site on an urban level acts as a 11 hinge between the residential area of Brickell and the 12€ financial district. The site lends itself for a mixed 13 use. 14 We're trying to bring back daytime and nighttime 15 activities on Brickell. By doing so, we've done a lot of 16 urban pedestration around the entire project and we've 17 opened up a lot of stores and retail at a street level 18 which becomes a human scale. We have several entrances to 19; the parking garage into the site, not off Brickell. We 20: have deviated all of the traffic off of 14th Terrace in a 21`•, six lane motor court. It has access from the hotel into 22 the parking garage this way, and we also have access 23'==; through the back for the hotel and for the office. And we 24have an egress here for the office. This doubles up -- it i 25 functions as whichever the user is at the time. '• JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98 - 450 5 1€ We're going to take you just through the plans 2 really quickly.. This is the second floor which is basic 3 old back of house for the hotel and to service areas and 4f our first level of parking. The third floor is our main E 5 ballroom and meeting room level. It has a prefunction 6 area and an outdoor garden cafe terrace and it has another 7•`• level of parking garage which is connected at this level 81 to the ballroom. So you can self -park or you can valet 9 and access the ballroom at this level. 10 This is the fourth floor of the building where 11 1 the fitness area is at and it's also our sky lobby for the 121 office tower. This is basically the main connections to 13! the office tower. There is a lobby on the ground floor 14 but everybody will be using this one basically for the 15 office. This is also connected to the garage. This is 16€ the fifth floor through the 14th floor. It is our typical i 17=, hotel floor plate. We have 246 hotel rooms and they run 181 from the 5th to the 14th level. This does not connect to 19`• the parking garage. This is another level at this floor, 20 but it does not connect. 21 On the 15th floor we have residential floors 22 that are rentals. They run through the 15th to the 18th 23; floor, and at this level on the 7th floor of the parking 24garage we now introduce a recreation deck that has several 25 amenities, keeping in mind the diverse activities of the JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 9 8- 450 6 11 users. We have a three -lane lap pool. We have a 2 jogging/walking-trail. We have a tennis court. We have a 3 racquetball court. We have indoor racquetball courts. 4 And we also have a vida course and rock climbing. 51. This is the final 19th through 38th floor. This 61 is a transfer floor, the 19th. This is where we divert 7 all of our access and all of our major back of house to 8€ the hotel area. And this is the typical floor plate from 9 the 20th to the 32nd. This is the typical floor plate 101 from the 33rd to the 38th. This is the office. We have 11 370,000 square feet of office space. 121 A BOARD MEMBER: Could you go back to the what 13 we saw as the -- I think the ground floor and go through 14: the uses there with us? 15 1 PERSON 2: Sure. Sure, no problem. The ground 16€ floor is basically all the hotel amenities. You have the 17`• lobby lounge, the bars, you have the restaurant, and you 181 have the kitchen, and you have the retail that surrounds 191 the entire parking area. We also have the main entrance 201 of the office and hotel. You either go to the reception 211: area or you go across to the office core. We have a 22` Brickell entrance to every single item which opens up at 231 street level. Now this is all just parking garage in 24 here. Okay? 25 The site consists of 5.1 acres. It's a city JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98 - 450 7 1: block bounded by Brickell on the west and 14th Terrace and 2; 14th lane on the north and south. The project meets all 3 city code requirements, and we're not asking for any 4 variances. The site has two major issues which is a 5 pedestrian and vehicular access, which I've briefly 6 explained to you already how we've treated it. The 7 service access which is all located on 14th lane was put 8 there on purpose because most of the surrounding areas are 91 all back of house anyways from the condominiums to the 10 adjacent properties. That's over here on this lane right 111 here. It's condensed and it's buffered by landscaping. 12€ It's recessed back also. Our project meets all of the 131 following urban requirements and the issues have been 14 addressed for it. Avoiding obstructions of all the views 151 from other buildings by location of the building along 16 Brickell Avenue. We',11 go to my -- I don't think I'll 171 make it -- I'm stuck. Can you push this over a little 181 bit? Okay. 19` As you can see we've put the building on 20Brickell Avenue therefore avoiding any obstruction to 21'' these buildings in the surrounding areas which are all 221 condominiums. The single tower is stepped up to 577 feet. 23. It only really basically takes up 20 percent of the 24 property. The other 80 percent are the 7-story parking i 25; garage and ballroom amenity areas. So it's really not as JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 8 1 tall as it seems at the beginning. We've scaled it up 2 gradually in order to maximize our views also. The garage 3 level and the base of the hotel conform with the existing 4E density and its surroundings. Therefore the tower becomes 5€ a landmark for this area. 6€ In summary, we subscribe to a number of urban 71 design objectives which are intended to maintain the 8` maximum possible sensitivity to the surrounding 91 environments and to protect and enhance the urban quality 10= of life in and around the subject property. 11 As far as the parking garage, the 7-story 12 parking garage has 963 parking spaces and it is topped off 132 with a very nice lush park sort of ambiance, which was 14previously discussed earlier. The architectural features 151 -- the first is the pedestrian plaza in front of the 16`: building which becomes a welcome mat for the mix use 17� tower, and the second is the dramatic courtyard which will 18 serve as a forum for arrivals and departures of both 19' private and commercial vehicles. The materials are 20•` basically precast for the major hotel and office structure 21i and then we have granite and polished marble on the 22: bottom. 23 At this time I would like to introduce Pearl 24: Aquillo, our landscape architect who will explain the 25 project landscape concept. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 9 8 — 4 b 9 1'', PERSON 3: Thank you, Vivian. Good afternoon, 21 gentlemen. I'll begin by saying that this project 31 represents to us the merging of two very different 4 landscapes, that is the old and the new Brickell. From 5 Simpson Park to Wainright Park, stretching all the way to 6: south of 15th Road we have the old Brickell Hammock. This 7`• building occurs at what we believe to be the juncture 8 which enters into the new Brickell, the Wall Street of the 9 south. 10: The challenge here for us was to define a 11 project which marries these two realities and sets a 12: precedent for future projects in this area. We've begun 13 to do this with the use of oak trees at the Brickell 14: frontage, departing from predominant use of palms in the 15 Brickell area at this time. We felt it was important to 16: begin to introduce what has been introduced in the 17: medians, which is the live oak. At the Brickell area 181 we've done this in decorative tree grates, using palm 19 trees as accents for the main entrance and also at the 20main motor court. These would be medule (phonetic) date 21 palms. 22 Along the side areas, we've set what we believe 23: are a stage set for the retail and the restaurants in 24: these areas. The oaks here are in raised seating 251 planters with native cuntene (phonetic) as the ground JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 10 1 cover bed. The paving pattern has been designed to 2 reflect the columns of the building and the articulation 3 of the building facade. We've used -- let's see over 4 here -- for paving materials we've used bands of paving 5 with granite cobblestones. At the corners, staying within 61 the urban context of the Brickell area, we've used 71 textured concrete pavers with a contrasting Londonlock 8 paver. This occurs at the corners and in the parking 9 court area here and also at the entrance of the parking 10 garage. 11 The oaks have also been used at the entrance of 12 the parking garage here in a much more natural setting, 13 free form beds of ground covers. And along the back of 14 the building, we've used royal palms to create height and 151 also keeping in mind the wind velocities that may be 16 happening in this area. The service areas have been 17 buffered with lagustern (phonetic) trees and native thatch 18`•; palms and also ground covers and shrubs. We've used 19 potocarpus (phonetic) in areas that we feel needed to have 20 a more clipped appearance. But flowering trees such as 21•, tritofa hastada (phonetic), philodendron xanadu, key 22 spider lily, lariapede (phonetic), they've all been used 231 as the predominant plant pallet of the ground floor. 24 Moving up to the recreation deck and the fitness 25' park that's above the parking garage, the concept here JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 11 1€ was to create a very colorful and dynamic space, 2€ predominantly an active space with variety of recreational 31 options. The landscape areas have been created to define 4€ the separate spaces, creating a very beach like tropical 5 area near the pool in which the paving is very free 6 flowing. And this is the use of colored concrete with the 7; keystone textured banding. And then moving into what we 8 believed was a more clipped, controlled plant pallet, 9€ again using native trees such as clusias (phonetic) and in 102 this case using palms as accent. Palm trees were 111 predominantly used in this area and this was a mix of 121 coconut, thatch palms, hurricane palms, all very wind 13 tolerant types of plants. 14€ The creation of what we felt to be a somewhat 15€ cool environment was important to us. We did this with 16€ the use of many overhead trellises, even along the 17 jogging/walking path. We've used water features to 181 create, again, a very cooling effect. Umbrellas have been 19 used. And even the use of sod pads, so to speak -- sod 20 terraces to break up some of the paving in this area. The 21 paving materials are the rubberized jogging track, and 22this would be used in the areas that would be 23 predominantly for walking and jogging along here. And 24 then the colored concrete would be predominantly in the 25: pool area. The planters along the interior of the space JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 12 1: would be at grade. And as we move to the edge of the 2E: building, those planters become raised to begin to define 31 the edges and the space. 4 There are three other outdoor open spaces that 5:: we're providing and I'd like to talk about those briefly. 6 The ballroom garden terrace, which is this space -- and 7 you do see it here on the third floor level -- is 8E: immediately opposite the prefunction space at the ballroom 91 level. We use the Centrust sky lobby as inspiration for 10`•. this space, taking close note of the plants that have been 11 used there, tried and true in native clusias, thrynex 12 (phonetic) palms, coconut palms, those types of palms. We 13 see this as a very flexible courtyard space with movable 14€ potted plants. A very nice private grotto has also been 15 created with something as a backdrop, maybe a nice 16€ colorful mural that could be used as the space for taking 17 photographs for that type of activity. The paving 181 materials here were very important. We felt that the i 1911 strength of the materials would really help to create the E 20 space since the plants were really going to be movable. E 211 And here we use the green slate and the textured concrete E 22 bands again. i 23: On the fourth floor is the sculpture terrace. i 24 You see this space here. These are some images that we've 25created for this space, again using the slate and the { JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16', 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 concrete textured pavers. This is the space that's happening here.. And it actually extends all the way to the other side of the building. Using the courtyard at MOMA in New York City designed by Robert Myan (phonetic) as inspiration, we combined planting, water, lighting, seating, and the rich paving materials to create what we felt was a very quite contemplative space. The plant materials at this courtyard are clusias, cliptopoto carpis (phonetic), sculpted patly guavas (phonetic), and a sloping bed of jasmine -- dwarf jasmine to begin to create a frame for this space. This space would be used by the spa guests and the hotel guests. And it would be more of a very quite, private type of space. On the same floor as the hotel and spa pool is a more private relaxing pool area which we show here. These are some images again repeating a very similar plant pallet of the coconut palms, the thrynex, brezias (phonetic) as accents, and colorful sculpture walls. And sculpture could also be introduced into this pool area. Bamboo has also been used here, again thinking of the wind velocities and you know the scale that we would like to create here. In conclusion, I'd like to say that it's been a pleasure working with Vivian and Scott and the JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 14 1 architectural team at B&A on what we believe has been a 2s true design collaboration. And I think the product 3 reflects that here. We believe that this project will be 4= a very quality project for the Brickell neighborhood and 5 for all of Miami. This concludes our presentation and we 6 welcome any questions at this time. 7MR. CHAIRMAN: Any comments from the members of 81 the board? 9 MR. PEREZ: On the east side of the facility 10 where you have the more so-called natural approach to 11 planting -- maybe it's just that I'm too far away from it 12€ -- do I walk on the outside between that element and the 13 roadway or how do I walk around that? 14€ PERSON 3: Yes, you walk on the outside here. 15€ You mean here? 16 MR. PEREZ : , Yes. 17 PERSON 3: Yes. 18€ A BOARD MEMBER: Albert, if you look on L-1 you 19 ; can -- 20 1 PERSON 3: Would you like to take a look at -- 211 MR. PEREZ: No, no. It's okay. It's okay. 22 PERSON 3: You would walk along here. Basically 231= the cobblestone -- 24 A BOARD MEMBER: Into your microphone, please. 251 Into your microphone. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 9 8_ 450 1 2 3 4` 5 6 7 8, 021 10 11' 12 13 14 15 16i 17' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 PERSON 3: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. The cobblestones are continued and there's a more narrow sidewalk created here. MR. PEREZ: How wide is that sidewalk? PERSON 3: I believe it's between five and eight feet. PERSON 2: Five feet. PERSON 3: Five feet? Okay. MR. PEREZ: Now you have retail in back of that planting, so is the retail facing -- if I want to say by whatever -- is there pedestrian area between the green space and the store fronts? PERSON 3: Okay. Yes. MR. PEREZ: So it's a split circulation system? PERSON 3: Here it is. There is a main entrance into this retail area here. MR. PEREZ: Yes. PERSON 3: And then there's planting in the front of that. MR. PEREZ: So there's a way that I can look at the wares and all of that and then I have the green between myself and the roadway and the walkway, no? PERSON 3: Exactly, exactly. MR. PEREZ: Okay. PERSON 3: Remember this is really the back of JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 i 16 1 the project and this is kind of considered the back alley. 2 MR. P.EREZ : Is it? 3 PERSON 3: So we saw it as a little bit maybe 41: less urban as the environment in the front. 5 MR. PEREZ: Right. Okay. That's all I have for 61 now. Thank you. 7 A BOARD MEMBER: While you're there talking 8 about the retail in the back, with burying the retail -- 9 PERSON 3: I'll leave that to Viv. 10:` A BOARD MEMBER: -- in the kind of alley -- I 111 mean if it really is retail in the alley -- 12 PERSON 3: Is this retail? Along the back? 13 A BOARD MEMBER: The piece which is in the back. 141 PERSON 2: Yes. 15 A BOARD MEMBER: I mean I applaud the concept of 16 drag retail to the back of the project but it just kind of 17 seems to me that if retail is going to be successful there 18 that it be visible, kind of very well connected, and in 191 fact some reason to drag people back there. 20: PERSON 2: Well one of the concepts we had for 21! the retail back there was to have like mini -warehousing 22€ like for filing, like air conditioned spaces inside of a 23beautiful facade, but not a retail as your thinking of a 24 store front retail. Okay? Because a store front retail 25f would not really -- JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 17 1 A BOARD MEMBER: Willy always asks this 2€ question. The retailer is not going to work here, so the 3g real retail is put there for the reason of some sort of 4 transition for the parking? 5 PERSON 2: Transition space, right. 6€ A BOARD MEMBER: Right. So the use is going to 7 be more like a mini -warehouse that looks like -- 8 PERSON 2: But not like a storage warehouse, 9 just more like a filing or local air condition space. 10 A BOARD MEMBER: I need to ask my favorite 11 1 question. Has staff reviewed the plan and is this plan in 12 compliance with the Dade County landscape code? 13 PERSON 1 (Jack): We haven't at this point in 14 time because design is still in an on going stage reviewed 15 it for compliance with the landscape code of Dade County. 16`•. PERSON 3: It is in compliance. We've done the 171 numbers and it is in compliance. -- 18 1PERSON 2: We're above -- 19 PERSON 3: -- of Dade County and the City of 20 Miami. But with Dade County taking precedence over the 21 City of Miami. 22 PERSON 3: It is. We have a high percentage of 23 natives also as you can tell from the plant pallet. 24 Louder? Yes we've used a high percentage of native plants 25`as you can tell from the plant pallet if you'll take a JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98-- 450 18 1 look at plant list, with the use of the live oaks, royal 2 palms, thatch palms. We tried to introduce natives in as 3 many places as we could. 4 A BOARD MEMBER: The problem that I've had 5 trying to work with the code is probably open space, 61 numbers of trees required, and it is those kinds of counts 7 and then finding an appropriate corollary land use. And 81 we think that -- I mean I personally believe that it's i 9 very difficult to look at an urban project in relationship 10 to the Dade County Code. So I've traditionally been 111 asking that question. 121. PERSON 3: Yes. i 13 A BOARD MEMBER: Have people really gone and 14 said did you find a Dade County comparable -- okay -- land 151 use and do you have the right open space and the right 161 tree count? 171 PERSON 3: We did all of those calculations and 18 we met or exceeded it. I don't know the exact numbers but i 19 I -- 20 PERSON 2: They're right here. f 21 PERSON 3: -- know that we did. Okay. 22 MR. PEREZ: While they're all looking through 23-1 the numbers and all of that, I have a question more out of 24; curiosity more than anything else. If we're emphasizing 25 that the plant material tends to be on the native side -- JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES rpi 450 19 1 and that of course needs to be applauded and I'm glad that 2€ you're trying to do that -- some of the materials such as 3€ slate and granite and all of these things are kind of 4€ foreign to our language here. 5 PERSON 3: Sure. 6: MR. PEREZ: Not color concrete. That's a 7 traditional material from our atrium in this area. Was 8! there any other consideration in trying to maybe use -- 9` tie it back more into -- because there's things like 10€ terrets which is a material that has been in this area 11 i since the turn of the century and it lends itself in that 12 form if you wanted to make it such. 13 PERSON 3: Sure. I understand. 14 MR. PEREZ: And color concrete and so on. But 15 things like slate and granite and all of that, they read 16 northeast to me. They read, you know, Robert Syme 17 (phonetic) whom I used to work for many years ago and all 18of that kind of thing. It's that idiom that seems to be 19 : from that. 20 PERSON 3: Right. Well as far as the 21 materials, we introduced the granite because in talking to 22 the architects they were using the granite in the interior 23 of the building. And really where we're using the granite 24' at the ground floor is almost, you know, a reflection of 25 the building facade. So we introduced the granite here JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 20 1 i but then going back to the concrete pavers at the corners 2 which we felt most of the pedestrians here will be coming 3 from across the street, across Brickell from the Metro 41 Mover, and we tried to tie in at these corners for that 51 reason. So this is concrete paving with the keystone 6! textured at the corners. 7 MR. PEREZ: So the granite is where you have the 8€ bosca (phonetic) trees -- 9 PERSON 3: Right. 10:1 MR. PEREZ: -- is that correct? 11 PERSON 3: The granite is here. 12€ MR. PEREZ: And then the concrete in between? 13 PERSON 3: And then the concrete is here at 141 these -- 15€ MR. PEREZ: Okay. 16 PERSON 3: -- areas here. So we think we kind 17 of married the two languages pretty well in trying to 18complement the building and the materials that were being 19used for the building. 20t MR. PEREZ: Let me ask you something again out 21E of just -- this is just curiosity on my part. Are you 22 using utilizing other urban elements such as bollards and 231. elements such as that as part of the language? 24i PERSON 3: We are not using bollards, but we 25are using a lot of street furniture. We're even I E JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 21 1 1 considering a special decorative bus stop, any kind of 2; grading will be particularly selected for this site. Even 3 manhole covers will be custom designed. So all of the 4€ urban elements -- benches also -- are going to complement 5`•; this. We're going to make it a very people friendly 6 ground level. 7 MR. PEREZ: Is there seating on the public 81 space? 9 PERSON 3: That's on the ground floor level -- 101: MR. PEREZ: On Brickell? 111 PERSON 3: -- predominantly. Yes. 12€ MR. PEREZ: The question that I asked before the 13 meeting that I should be asking now is is that an ungrade 14` relationship or is this one of those -- 15 PERSON 3: Ungrade. 16 MR. PEREZ:. It's street level? 17i PERSON 3: You will walk directly from the 18i street level into the building. There are no steps. 19 MR. PEREZ: What kind of luminaires are you : 201 using on your project? 21:`: PERSON 3: We're still debating that with E 22`•. Willy, but I think we're coming to a closer conclusion of 23`•: maybe using this type of luminaire, both off the building. 24There will also be canopies off the building. 25€ PERSON 2: Correct and brackets. : E JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES �, 8 -' 4 5 0 _` 22 1 PERSON 3: We're looking at wall brackets on 2' the building and possible lighting of the building 31 elements. 41 MR. PEREZ: But in the wide plaza that you have 51 on the east side of the building -- I don't know how wide 61 that is -- how wide is that space? Between the facade of 71 the building and the curb side on the east side. 8€ PERSON 3: On the east side here? 9 MR. PEREZ: Yes. 101 PERSON 3: That's set back. I can't read it 111 anymore. The right-of-way set back is about here and I 121 think we have -- from the right-of-way set back back is 30 13 feet we probably have an additional 20 feet. 14€ MR. PEREZ: So then you're going to need some 151 sort of luminaire that's germane to the building? 16€ PERSON 3: , Right. 17" MR. PEREZ: I imagine you also have whatever 181 it's called facing onto the street side that's public 19E lighting for -- i 20•`; PERSON 3: Yes, we understand the importance of r 21E all of those elements in creating the human scale there 22, and we will definitely introduce all of those elements. k 23 MR. PEREZ: Are you using high pressure sodium E 249 or are you using me metal halide? 25 PERSON 3: It's high pressure sodium. E JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 "W 23 11 MR. PEREZ: Are you? Are you sure? Why? 2 PERSON 2: That's what FP&L recommended on the 3 street side. 4 MR. PEREZ: But those are your lights. 5=', PERSON 2: Oh, on the inside? 6 MR. PEREZ: Your lights. 7; PERSON 2: Oh, no. We haven't selected that at i 81 this time. 9 MR. PEREZ: I'm confused. Because FPL yes 10 dictates what goes on in the world I think sometimes. 11 PERSON 2: Right. Are you talking -- 12: MR. PEREZ: But the reason -- 13 PERSON 2: Are you talking inside the project? 14: MR. PEREZ: No, I'm talking on your property 15; line in your space -- in other words there's a line there 161 that I'm not seeing,,but I'm sure it says -- 17; PERSON 2: We haven't selected that yet on what 18€ we're going with. We're just starting engineering right 19 ; now. 20; MR. PEREZ: Okay, thank you. 21' A BOARD MEMBER: Just so I can be consistent, 22I your north/south piece that makes up the hotel runs the 23; full block -- 24� PERSON 2: Correct. That's correct. 25 A BOARD MEMBER: -- and this has been an issue i JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98 - 450 24 1' for us on other projects where we are concerned about view 2 corridors. Can• you tell me your justification for 3- building that wall versus turning it in the other 4 direction and parallel to other building on Brickell? 5 PERSON 2: We've oriented the building in that 6 direction because we thought it would be better for the 71 adjacent properties. If we turn the building, we'd be 8.1 blocking more viewing and obstructing more buildings then 9 if we turned it towards Brickell. 10 A BOARD MEMBER: To the east of you? 11€ PERSON 2: Right. Actually we'd obstruct our 12 own building, Fortune House if we do it this way. 13 A BOARD MEMBER: Am I on? I am. 14 PERSON 2: Yes, you are. 15A BOARD MEMBER: I need to do the 16 congratulations for someone paying attention to the 17' pedestrian kind of scale. And I didn't mean to be asking 18 the kinds of questions that I did, the ones about the -- I 19 mean it's kind of silly to look at open space on a project 20 like this and when you start to talk about where is the 21 open space. It's no place for anybody except the people in 22 the building can use it and some other people can look at 23 it. But certainly the attention to what's going on on the 24€ streetscape I think is important to all of us. And I'm 25° hearing Al down there starting to ask those pointed JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98 - 4bO 'Wi 25 1 questions about whether or not it's going to be high 2 pressure sodium or metal halide. 3:` PERSON 2: Right. 4 A BOARD MEMBER: From a streetscape point of 5 view, it becomes one of those issues that I guess if we 61 could influence someone we would like to influence 7 someone. 8 PERSON 3: Right. 91 PERSON 2: We'll definitely take it under 10 consideration. 11 PERSON 3: We understand. 12€ A BOARD MEMBER: You talked about the screening 131 of the service area. Can you do a little pointing on a 141 plan and tell me where the screening for the service area 15 1 is? 161 PERSON 3: Right here. 171 PERSON 2: Basically it's right here on this 18plan, the landscaped areas. We've got three lanes and 191 then one lane here for our four loading bays that are 20 required. And they're recessed down. The service area is 21 right here. We set it back enough from Brickell so it 22i wouldn't be a view obstruction or -- 23E A BOARD MEMBER: There's an area then if you 24 continue further west where there's a big piece of paving, 25 is that also driveway accessed into the building? t JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98-- 4�0 26 1 PERSON 2: This is a driveway access into the 21 parking garage.. 3 A BOARD MEMBER -- am I going east or west? Is 41 north up? 5 PERSON 2: That's west and -- 6 A BOARD MEMBER: Okay. 7 PERSON 2: -- that's east. 8 A BOARD MEMBER: If you start at where the 9E driveways are into the service area -- 101 PERSON 2: Okay here. 11 A BOARD MEMBER: Come to the west. 12 PERSON 2: Okay. 13 A BOARD MEMBER: Okay? But you went too far. 14 There's a big hunk of open paving against the building in 151 there -- 16? PERSON 2: Here? No, there's nothing there. 17€ A BOARD MEMBER: There's nothing -- i 18€ PERSON 2: There's no driveway, no. It's just 191 sidewalk. 201 A BOARD MEMBER: And you didn't feel compelled 211 to continue with the street trees or something through E 22, that stretch. 23; ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER: Isn't that the loading z 241 dock entrance? 25; PERSON 2: No, the loading dock entrance is JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 9 8 - 4 :i 0 g 27 1over here. It's that area here. We need to put it on -- 2 PERSON 3: Okay. I'm sorry. I was distracted 3' trying to put this here. The service area is -- 41 PERSON 2: No, no. He's talking about -- we 5need to put these two together. Maybe you can see it 6 better here. You're talking about this area here? It's 71 this area right here? 8E: A BOARD MEMBER: Okay. And that's not -- 9 PERSON 2: Okay. That's the beginning of the 10 service area. Right here. There's a trash compactor 11 here. 12 A BOARD MEMBER: So if there's -- 13 PERSON 2: And then we've got the service 14 corridors -- 15 A BOARD MEMBER: There's a line of two, four, 16 six oak trees starting from the southwest corner. 17E. PERSON 2: Oh, I see what you're saying. I E 18E think they just mimicked it. I think we can add maybe two 19E more oaks. i 20 A BOARD MEMBER: I mean you could -- 21€ PERSON 2: Yeah, we could. f 22`•. A BOARD MEMBER: -- without limiting access to i 23, things. 24� PERSON 2: No, we can bring another oak up. i 25� A BOARD MEMBER: Is that -- I mean is that one of JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 4b VW 28 1 those kind of blank walls to the building? I can't find 21 my way into the what the elevations are like. 3 PERSON 2: I'm going to show it to you right i 4 1 now. 5° A BOARD MEMBER: A south elevation? 61 PERSON 2: If I can find them. This space -- 71 this area here? This bay right here. 81 PERSON 3: You're saying that we could extend 9 1 the -- 10': PERSON 2: Yeah, that we can add an extra oak 11 on the -- 12 PERSON 3: No problem. 13 A BOARD MEMBER: I mean I don't know what you -- 14 I mean I'm just looking at the thing and saying -- 15 : PERSON 2: No, definitely. That was just -- 16! A BOARD MEMBER: With as nice a pedestrian 171 canopy as you're creating and if you don't have some 181, reason to be putting vehicles through there, why you 19 wouldn't continue that kind of canopy look and to put -- 20` PERSON 2: We've actually shown it on the 21: elevation. I think it's just spreading the trees out a 22i little bit. Because we show it sticks out here and it 231 sticks i out there, but they're not placed in the same way. 24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Anymore questions or comments? 25 MR. WOLFBERG: I just would like to make one : JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98 - 450 Vor 29 1 before I guess I would make a motion next. I would first 21 like to commend you. I think you've done a great job in-- 3 1 z PERSON 2: Thank you. 4 MR. WOLFBERG: -- presenting an attractive 51 building as an addition to the city. I also think that 6' your treatment of the garage -- that is going to be 7 precast, right? 8t PERSON 2: That's correct. 9 MR. WOLFBERG: I think that for the first time 10 -- garages are unnecessary or necessary evils, but I think III you've at least done something that makes it -- while it 12 is a garage, it's a little softened by the detailing and 13 the scale of it. And I think you ought to go back and 141 tell Willy how easily this went without him. 151 PERSON 2: I'll make sure I do that. 16 MR. WOLFBERG: Okay. 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Wait a minute. We didn't vote 18 ' yet. 19i MR. WOLFBERG: I move that we approve as it has 201 been presented. 1 21: MR. MARSTON: Second. 22MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Francisco, if you could 231 call the roll for us, please. 24 MR. GARCIA: The motion was made by Mr. 25Wolfberg and seconded by Mr. Marston. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 30 1 MR. MARSTON: Could we do a procedural thing? 21 MR. GARCIA: Yes, sir. 3 MR. MARSTON: Did we ask for comments from 4!! anybody else and/or should we? 5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well usually this is not a public 61 meeting. If someone wants to make comments, they need to 7; make that known to us. 81 MR. GARCIA: Procedurally speaking, if someone 91 wants to be recognized by the board they can approach the 10 board and it is the board's prerogative to either 111 recognize them or not to. 121 The motion then made by Mr. Wolfberg and 131 seconded by Mr. Marston -- Mr. Wolfberg? 141 MR. WOLFBERG: Yes. 15 MR. GARCIA: Mr. Marston? 161 MR. MARSTON: Yes. 17 MR. GARCIA: Mr. Judson? _ 181 MR. JUDSON: Yes. _ 19i MR. GARCIA: Mr. Koroglu? 201 MR. KOROGLU: Yes. E 2111 MR. GARCIA: And Mr. Perez? 221 MR. PEREZ: Yes. _ i 23€ MR. GARCIA: The motion passes unanimously. 24: PERSON 2: Thank you very much. 25' PERSON 3: Thank you very much. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98-- 450 w 31 i 1 MR. MARSTON: While we're still here can I do i i 2€ one other commendation? It sure was nice to have someone 3€ show up and show us landscape materials. We never even 41 get the architects to tell us what their materials are. 5 But at least in this case -- well all you had to do was 6; say precast in stone and immediately we'd say well that's 7 nice. 8 (Pause). 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Francisco, I think we're ready 101 for the next applicant. 11 (Pause). 121 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we ready? 13`:. MR. GARCIA: The second item to be taken up by 14 this board this afternoon is actually Item # 1 on the 15 agenda. It is a review of revisions made to a major use 161 special permit proposal for development of a phased 17 1 project consisting of two 57-story towers atop 10-story 18 pedestals containing a combined total of 749 units. The 19f applicants are Multiplan as developers and Louis Rivwell E 20 architects are the architects for this project. The Case 21 No. Is 97-111. 22 By way of brief introduction I'd like to say 23 that the item again is before you pursuant to a request 24j made by this board to see the item again and perhaps 25 discuss the issues that you had brought up earlier and see i JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 32 11 what response or what reaction the architect had had. I 2€ would also like.to add that staff has worked diligently 3' with the applicant and has gone over the issues you have 4€ presented and we feel that the responses the applicant 5i brings before you today are certainly -- have certainly 6= been thoroughly researched and are appropriate and if need 71 be we will continue to work with the applicants to 81 whatever extent the board directs. 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. With that in mind, Louis 101 -- if you don't mind me calling you Louis? 11 MR. RIVWELL: Not at all. 12€ MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The last time you did a 131 very thorough job making your presentation. I'm sure you 14 recall what the main concern of the board was. I think 15 it's the consensus of the board that for the sake of time 16' if you could just deal with what changes you've made 17; rather than taking us through the entire presentation and 18@ we'll comment to those changes that you've made. 19 MR. RIVWELL: Thank you for making that easier, 20 much easier for us all. Yes, that's no problem. 21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. 22 MR. RIVWELL: After our last meeting we set up 23 various meetings with staff and we discussed the different 24E possibilities on how to site these towers. In our first 25 meeting which was a quite lengthy meeting, we discussed JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 33 1 the three different areas of influence that are next to us 2 and we came to.the conclusion that we have an area of 3 influence that's on the shore that is principally 4';. residential. Behind that area of influence we have an 5f area that's commercial/residential and 6 residential/commercial. And then we have a further area 7 that will be to the west of Brickell Avenue that would be 8 mainly commercial. 9 In that meeting we sat down and we used the 10 acetates and began to shift the buildings in different 11 directions. And the conclusion that we all came to was 12 that by shifting the buildings totally perpendicular to 13€ the water. What we do is we actually impact substantially 14i that area of influence, that residential area 15 substantially by doing that. It was a suggestion made to 16 us to do these studies to gage the impact that those 17 towers would have on pedestrian and there are some studies 18that are coming soon that also are pictures shot from up 191 in different buildings. 20 As you can see on these photographs -- which are 21 enlargements of the package that you have -- when we 22E twisted the buildings perpendicular to the water, the 23€ massings of the building were substantially impacting to 24the pedestrians and the vehicular circulation that goes 25E traveling north and south on Bayshore and it would be the JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES ,98- 450 34 1 same on Brickell Avenue to a lesser extent. 2 As far as the changes that we've made to the 3 pedestal in our meetings with Francisco and Jack, they 4 felt that the edge of the pedestal, mainly at the top, 5 needed to be softened and try to make it relate more 6 between the two pedestals. And what we did is the same 7 edge treatment which is a stepping treatment that we have 8 towards the bay was implemented on both the north side and 9•:` the south side of the pedestal. We -- based on, I think, 10 a comment that David made -- met with Alex, David, and 11; with the staff to try to figure out in which ways we could i r 12 raise the level of the view quarters. And in both 13 instances we were told that that would not be possible to 14 ` do. 15 We did some preliminary studies in trying to 16 implement more dynamic studies in the pedestals. We did 17; not go very far in those studies because what happened was 18: that we were losing quite a bit of efficiency and it was 19 -- we were so lost that we were having to add a couple of 20 more levels of parking to the pedestal which we felt -- we 21 in staff felt that it was not appropriate to do. 22One of the other comments that was made was that i 23 the circulation was not appropriate. We again in our 24 meetings with staff went over our philosophy of the 25 circulation, both pedestrian and vehicular on the site. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 08- 450 35 11 It was also the determination made jointly by us that our i 2 access to the site through the center and then the 3 vehicular access to either side was very appropriate, that 4 there was no desire to really implement a lot of vehicular _ 5= traffic here. We were told that the fact that we were 6= hiding and coming in with all of our service from 12th and 7; under the building was very appropriate. What we are in E E 81 the process of doing is studying the landscaping to create i 9E, more canopy material here, both and 12th and 14th and 10 Bayshore. And we are also going to be working closely 111 with staff on the upper plaza which they felt that it was 12 something that they would like to work with us closely 13 since it's going to be seen not only from the residents of 14 the buildings but from buildings next to us. 151 So essentially that's where we were at right 16 now. 17`; MR. JUDSON: I have a question of staff. 18 MR. MARSTON: He had to step out for one moment. t E 191 He'll be back very shortly I'm sure. E 20 A BOARD MEMBER: Can we look at the -- E 21E MR. MARSTON: In fact he's here now. 22 A BOARD MEMBER: -- view pieces? Can we pull 23them up a little tighter? i 24E PERSON 1 (JACK): Which ones do you want, Jerry? i i 25E A BOARD MEMBER: The acetate, the view pieces. i JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 36 1 MR. WOLFBERG: And maybe you can explain what 2€ they're showing us. 31 MR. RIVWELL: What this shows us is the t 4 buildings turned perpendicular to the water. 51 MR. WOLFBERG: It don't work. 61 MR. RIVWELL: I'm sorry? 7° MR. WOLFBERG: You said they don't work or -- 8 MR. RIVWELL: No. What this shows is the 9 building perpendicular to the water -- 10` MR. WOLFBERG: Right. 11 MR. RIVWELL: -- and cones of shadows or view 12 impediments that these buildings would have. 13 MR. WOLFBERG: From that corner? 14€ MR. RIVWELL: From this area. 151 MR. WOLFBERG: On the corner of that building 16`: looking out? 17[ MR. RIVWELL: No, no. This should have not t 18E really been shown all the way. It's only the area behind 19 the building and the area behind this building that we 20E feel that these building will be impacted by the location 21� of this tower perpendicular to the water and the same 22E thing here by the yacht club and the building right behind 23the yacht club and whatever happens further on back. And 24; this shows essentially what showed on the other view f 251 studies that we had done of the impact of the towers if JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 1� 2 3` 4 5 6 7 i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15, 16'. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 The orientation of the buildings has not changed and so my question then is, from a staff standpoint in terms of the view quarters as the way the code is written, my question is is the staff satisfied with the applicant's response? MR. RIVWELL: Thank you for clarifying that. Let me first state that we have met a number of times, three -- if I recall correctly -- with the applicants, and from the very first meeting we had with them we expressed with them that we understood the gist of your observations to be -- the most important one anyway -- that the view corridor should be addressed. So we went to work right after that on that particular issue. We, since then, have come to understand the applicant's rationale and why it is the building should be positioned that way, the way in which they are superimposing them to this day. I feel that Mr. Aquilla has expressed his -- articulated his rationale in an effective manner. If I can sum it up, our opinion is that whenever you erect a building of that height and that mass, regard less of which way you position them, they're going to impact one party or another. Given the design that the applicant is proposing, we feel that the best positioning for those two towers, based on the overall impact they will have on the skyline of the city as seen from the bay shore as well as on the abutting properties the way they are presently JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 39 1€ presenting it is probably the most effective and the most 21 advantageous to all. 3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. With that in mind I'll 4 open the floor up to comments from the rest of the board i 5 members. 6€ MR. WOLFBERG: Do we want to hear from Jack or? 7 MR. MARSTON: I have one question maybe 8' either-- 9 PERSON 1 (JACK): Hello. Is that a question 10 for me? 11 MR. WOLFBERG: Yes. I figured you were standing 12 there for a reason, Jack. 13 PERSON 1: Well I heard the term staff, so I 14 assumed since I'm staff maybe I should be here. 15 MR. MARSTON: Could I start, you think? Which 16 is in the eloquent presentation of a very elegant design, 17€ we were continually reminded of the fact that the only 18: marketing plan that would work for these kinds of units 19: were views of the water. We were reminded that even -------------------------------- 20 though we as design professionals -- and having been in 1 21 many wonderful buildings in the City of Miami -- 22€ appreciate the city skyline as well. 23 But the one thing these building had to have was i 24€ a view of the water. And the rationale that we're going 251 through today, I believe, to talk about how the mass of '• JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 9 8 - 4-0 40 1E these buildings works with other buildings -- at least if 2 I'm reading the diagrams correctly -- is that we're 3 worried about the people in adjacent residential buildings 4 seeing the skyline of Miami if we turn the towers, when in 52 fact they probably bought there not to see the skyline 6`1 but to see the water. So if we're not impacting their 7 view of the water, we're not impacting their view, I would 81 think if I went back to the original rationale for the 91 only reason I buy there is to look at the water. What do 101 you think? 11 PERSON 1: Your turning that right back around 12 on him, aren't you? 13 MR. MARSTON: Yes, I am. 14 PERSON 1: Okay. I feel compelled to put a 15€ footnote on Mr. Judson's comment. The director -- at 161 least this director does not ignore what this board says. 171 I do have, by the way, the law and the process is 18i constructed the responsibility of making the final 19 decision. And I think that it has been very rarely that I 20! have disagreed or changed this board's vote. I can think _ 211 of one case over there on Brickell Gateway, that little 22i plaza that we played around with some pavers and stuff. 23 But I do have that responsibility so in this case when the 241 board's reaction came back and the request to further i 251 analyze this and the concerns that you expressed, we took JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 45O 41 11 that very much to heart. What I did is I actually went 2down to Brickel.l and I went up in some of the buildings. 3`; I went up in a number of condominium buildings, all the �y 4 way down from the imperial to the 15th Road to the Foreign M (` d" 51 Ambassadors to north of the river. I went back of 6 Brickell, along Brickell Avenue itself, and I tried to get 7 a sense of what were the more complex relationships i 81: between buildings and view corridors and the environments 9€ that were surrounding them. And it turned out to be an 10`•. interesting and somewhat enlightening experience for me 11€ because what I found was, as those maps indicate, there is 12` a very high density, a crop of buildings, sprouting up 13 along the bay that all our positioning amongst themselves 14€ to try to capture the views that they can and they're all 15 for the most part residential. We had one failed office 16 building. I think it was on this site. No, the site next 17`, door to the north. That ultimately was knocked down. 182 But the market seems to be telling us that it is 191 the bay front and the views -- whatever view you want -- 20` it is the views that are the issue. I mean people pay a 21i lot of money for those buildings to go sit on their 221 balcony and look whichever way they look. 23And you had a different zone to the west of 24E that which is largely office. And it seemed to me that i 25 while people enjoyed their views from the offices, it was JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 9 8 - 45"0 42 1 not a critical factor in the office market or in the 2 office user as -far as optimizing that view. I mean it was 3 enough to be downtown and have a view any which way and 4 that was okay. And further to the west, once you go west 5 of Brickell, it seemed to me -- and I went to the building 6€ over on 2nd Avenue, the new one -- that the cone of the 7 view angle as effected by buildings on the bay front is 8 such a narrow degree difference between one way or the 9 other, that in the panoramic view that you're dealing with 10`: from that brown zone, that further western zone, what you 11 did with this building or any building that otherwise 12 complied with the view corridor would have been little or 13 no impact of inconsequence to anybody that far west, given 14f the panoramic that you were dealing with. 15 So I was persuaded that I wasn't that concerned 16`: about residential west of Miami Avenue. I was only 17 moderately concerned about views from the office corridor 18° itself on Brickell because it wasn't really a key issue. 19 And I was quite concerned because I was on the terraces in 20 the residential buildings along the bay. And what I was 21: able to picture for myself was standing on those balconies 22€ looking north and south what the impact of this building 231 would be either edged parallel to the bay or edged right 24 angles to the bay. And it seemed to me that it would be a 25, significant difference. You would lose the Port of Miami. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 9 8 - 45­0 2� 3 �INd 43 You would lose the boat Biscayne Boulevard corridor. You would lose -- and the interesting thing here is that the bay is not a straight line. The bay turns this way. So that -- 5 611 Mr. Left. If 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Fti 171 18', 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A BOARD MEMBER: Mr. Left, on the record please, PERSON 1: From this particular area, 15th Road and particularly the buildings to the north of them, you do in fact get a view of the bay looking straight across this property. It's not a view of more buildings. It's a view down toward Rickenbacker Causeway. That's -- this was the issue here. From here, this is all bay view coming down this way. And the positioning of these buildings in this manner changed -- these buildings are not that high compared to these. This was the issue here. From here, this is all bay view coming down this way. And the positioning of these buildings in this manner changed -- these buildings are not that high compared to these. And from this point of view these buildings did seem to have a more significant impact on the view corridor to the south than if they were turned parallel to the bay. So my responsibility was not to disregard completely the marketing issues that they had. I mean everybody -- you can't ignore that. I mean that's what is financing these JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 9S- 409 44 1 buildings. My greater responsibility was to try to find 21 the balance of all of the view impacts and the value of 3 those view impacts concerned in the larger community and 4 make a weighted decision. And once I experienced that 180 5' degree rotated kind of view experience, I was persuaded 62• that -- not the in this project's best interest but in the 7i interest of all of the players involved in that Brickell 81 area. There would probably be on balance more adverse 91 impacts in terms of limiting key corridors of view by 10€ turning this building at a right angle to the bay than 111 there would be to the more westerly projects facing a 12`1 project parallel to the bay. And I'm not saying that the 131 views of other projects -- and I think we all heard from 14€ the gentleman with the project by the Mutual of Omaha just 15i to the immediate west of this. I was also mindful of the 161 fact that only one side of the building will be impacted 171 by this project. The north side of that building is in 18 fact unobstructed by any of this. 19 So I was left with a half of one building in an 20otherwise office zone that was, I think, worth 21 considering. I was mindful of that developer's concern. 22 But I had to compare that with what's going on on the 231 block to the north, the projects to the south, Fortune 24i House, and what will come yet further to the north. And I 25`, had to ask myself what is on balance the best interest of JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 j 45 E E _ 1 this neighborhood. And I would have to say -- and I don't 2 want this to be. the last word, but you did ask me where 3! we're coming from at this point -- I would have to say E i 41 that I'm persuaded that I think the answer to Mr. Judson's 5 question is we are on balance comfortable with the E 6E orientation that they had at the beginning and still have 7 because I think it has the least impact to the most E 8! people. 9 MR. JUDSON: With that in mind, let me say, 101 Jack, that my question came from -- to put it in a 11positive light knowing that you didn't have to come back 12= to us -- since you did come back to us, being a director 13 that wants to seriously consider our comments. That's why 141 I have to question if staff is supporting the come back 15 what was the basis for it? i 16 PERSON 1: You know my reaction initially was 17very much like yours. I saw this project. I saw the one i E 18 across the street, and I saw the buildings this way, and I E 19j saw them that way and I went, whoa. Now maybe what am I 20 missing here? This looks like a no-brainer. Okay? And 21E then I told the applicant I'm not going to discuss this 22 further. I want to hear what the board says. I'm going to 23 stay out of this, stay neutral. Just go to the board and 24i see what happens. And your reaction was pretty much like 25 mine initially. But once you gave me your reaction and I JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98 - 45* 0 46 1 was compelled to then sit down and face what would be my 2 ultimate decision that I have the responsibility of 3E:, making. It was at that point that I went out and I 4 i wondered around the neighborhood. And I went up in 5 buildings and I stood on balconies and I looked out i 6 windows and I said, well actually I think this is the way i 7 it is. And it changed -- I changed my own mind on it. 8€ MR. JUDSON: Let me say this. I have a 9•`: question. Being very familiar with the Brickell area and 101 this particular part of Brickell, the question to staff is 11€ as you went through this analysis is this a site that 12uniquely allows itself to this particular orientation 13€ because of the way the shoreline curbs and the location of 14 the other condominiums just to the south. 15 PERSON 1: I think that that certainly was one 16 issue. If this was say Bristol Towers and there is -- E 171 what's the new one? Santa Maria? Now Santa Maria is just 18this project. I mean it's a big flat building turned face i 19E to the bay, parallel to the bay. I think that we'd be E 20' less concerned about which way they were oriented, in my 21 mind, but the fact that you can stand at the Foreign E 221 Ambassadors and look and see Rickenbacker Causeway across 23E the water down to Elliot Key and Soldier Key -- I couldn't 24see Elliot Key but I could see down towards Soldier Key -- 25E that to me was a view that was worth considering. And it i JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 ! 47 1; wasn't just looking at another building. 2€ MR. JUDSON: Any other comments or questions? 3`•• MR. WOLFBERG: I think as was stated before -- 4 and again I'm always careful to acknowledge and we talked 5; about this earlier today the fact that in 20 minutes or 45 6; minutes of sitting up here I think it's almost 7`, unprofessional for us to be critical of somebody who has 8; worked on this an awful lot of hours and weeks and months. 9; However, I do feel that there was some very strong 10; statements made at the last meeting and I think we all 11' work very hard to be careful in our suggestion of ; 12 consideration. We specifically dealt with the orientation 13; and I have to say, Louis, when you presented this the 14; first time you very truthfully said and honestly and 15 sincerely said we're designing these buildings because 161 this is the way our client wants it to be. He wants to 17; look at the water. Okay? And you were sincere in saying 18; it. And quite honestly what other people do -- and you 19. know that's their problem. 20 Our marketing plan is to let people see the 211 water, period. End of story. And I respect you for that, 22and I -- if you recall I even said well that's a dilemma 23that we have in that we serve clients. And their goal is 24 not necessarily to make the city fabric better. Their 25: goal is to sell units and I think that's the dilemma that JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 45" 0 48 1 we all face. 2` I think that we came out with a very strong 3 statement in the orientation. I think it's certainly a 4 conceptual thing. And I'm going to say that, again, we i 5' certainly haven't done the research that Jack has now done 6E in going and looking at the site and maybe we should have. 71 I will say that since your last presentation, every time I 8(= drive up and down I-95 I look at Santa Maria and I squint 9, my eyes so I can see double. And I try and imagine two of 101 those things next to each other and I have to say I like 11 strong architecture but I think that borders on brutal. 122 And I'm very, very concerned. And I've even been one to 13 say that I wish that you guys had just come in and showed 141; us phase one and come back five years from now with Phase 15 1 Two. 16MR. RIVWELL: We're showing you two phases, but 17 we have a plan here today that shows Phase One. Maybe I 181 didn't make -- i 19E MR. WOLFBERG: Phase One works just fine. I'm 20worried about these to towers next to each other. And 21, forgetting view corridor, I'm just looking at the mass of I 221 two Santa Marias next to each other. And again that's 23[ taking a lot of my attention when I'm driving past there. 24. The other element that I raised at the last meeting was 25 the base of the building that I thought was rather k E JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 49 11 insensitive, and I would hope that Mr. Left would look at 2 that a little bit further because I think -- you know 3 these are going to be powerful buildings no matter which i t 4 direction they face. Go ahead. 5 PERSON 1: I have to tell you, as a matter of 6 fact, when we did talk a little more about this with the 7` applicant, in my mind I keyed in very much on that picture 8 right there. And I have to tell you I mentioned to them 9 that one of my least favorite architectural spaces in 10 Miami is at the base of the Grand, and the scenario of 11 high spaces, levered big concrete columns, ramps, and I 12€ thought, wow, I hope we don't do that again. And I'm not 13 entirely convinced at this point that this solution in my 141 mind resolves that. I'm back down on the ground now and 15 I'm looking at this very important space between these 16: very monumental buildings and I'm not convinced that 17 that's been resolved sufficiently, nor am I convinced 18that the upper level deck which is the open space -- I 19think we saw another solution today on how you can treat 20: upper level decks. I'm not sure that this one has arrived 21; yet. So I guess I have somewhat of a mixed emotion. I 22 realize the main issue at stake here was the orientation 23 based on the last meeting. But I believe that we've got 24 to take an additional look however the buildings are 25: oriented at that grand plane, that central corridor, how JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 50 11 they're handling those ramps and those columns and that 2E big open area as well as that upper level deck because I 31 think there's more work to be done. 4: MR. WOLFBERG: On that point, Jack, and in 5 generality, again, I said it at lunch today when we were 6 talking about this in the previous meeting I wish we would 7 just change the code to tell us the things that people can 81 and cannot do. For instance that residential views are 9€ more important than office views. Because the code 101 doesn't say that. 11: PERSON 1: No, it doesn't. 12: MR. WOLFBERG: The code says view corridors. 13: PERSON 1: Yes. 14 MR. WOLFBERG: And I think if those are real, 15: then let's do it. And I would love to see the code -- and 161 this is something that I think is critically important 17 because we're building these massive garages which we have 18: to to satisfy the requirement. But if there was some way 19j -- I mean New York City dealt with stepping buildings and 20 they called it a sunlight code. Maybe we could call this 21' a sunlight code or a people code that requires that these 22massive garages rather than go up nine stories straight up 23 ; -- 24; PERSON 1: Yes, the wedding cake code. 25 MR. WOLFBERG: That we create a wedding cake. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 51 1 Particularly you know Louis has gone to the trouble of 21 putting units on the outside, but we haven't used the fact 3€ that there are units there to undulate or create terraces 4€ or anything like that to soften that facade. We've got 5 these big blocks and that's what people see. Houston did 6€ this 25, 30 years ago and destroyed downtown because they 71 built downtown nine floors up. 8; PERSON 1: Not to mention Denver. 9` MR. WOLFBERG: I would hope that we would begin 10; to perhaps give a little bit more direction in the code 11 so that -- you know because Louis is doing his job and as 12 far as we're concerned we don't have any power to change 13 it and probably your power is somewhat limited as well 14; because the code gives you difficult in enforcing it and 1511 it becomes rather,arbitrary then. So that's my comments. 161: MR. GARCIA: Louis, you I think indicated to me 17€ that you agreed that you were going to have to give a 181 little more thought to the plaza and that you were 19' continuing to refine some of the ground level issues. 20 MR. RIVWELL: We intend to work with you guys on 21`, that. 22MR. GARCIA: What can you give us as some 23 comfort here that in the future we can continue to have 24 that kind of dialogue and hopefully arrive at some 25; solution apart from just setting the whole project aside. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 9 8 - 4'50 52 lE I know you want to move forward, you want to have the 2 comfort of knowing that the basic frame work of this 3 1 project has been accepted, but what are you willing to 4 1 give us as a little opportunity to continue to work with 5 this here? 6 MR. RIVWELL: I'd like to set up surett 7 (phonetic) with you and whoever -- Francisco and whoever 8 else you deem necessary -- and just work at it until we're 91 all satisfied. 10 MR. GARCIA: Okay. Well perhaps this board could 11 be a part of a surett. Not that a surett literally where 12 we're all going to roll up our sleeves and design, but I 13 do think that whatever the board is of a mind to do, I 14 would be certainly receptive to taking yet another step in 15 this process at some point and bringing back those 16 particular issues that I've just mentioned. If there are 173 others maybe you would like to talk about too. But I 18 think the key issue is what do we do with these big 19 buildings, and I've come to my own thoughts on that. 20E MR. WOLFBERG: In response to that, Jack, before 21you make a motion, I would just like to say I don't want 22 i to design your building. Okay? I think you've heard what 23 we would like. I think we respect your talent enough. We 24 just hope you'll take what we've suggested to you back to 25 your client and say I need to -- JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 9 <' -- 4 .; 0 53 1€ MR. RIVWELL: And we will do that. I just want 2 to make a brief comment that my presentation, although I 3 did make a lot of emphasis on the importance of the 4 orientation of our building, I do remember making also 5 quite a bit -- quite a few times -- the statement that I 6 strongly felt -- and I felt like this since Santa Maria -- 7 that when you have a building that is perpendicular to the 8€ water, you spend more time looking at these buildings -- 9€ just like you were telling me when you're driving north or 10€ south on US-1 or Dixie Highway or I-95. You spend more 11 time looking at these buildings at an angle that you do on 12 straight on elevation. I can never really take a look at 13`:, straight elevations otherwise I end up in an accident. 14 1 So I honestly believe that although we have our 15 marching orders to design these buildings, the siting of 16 these building regardless of what our marching orders 17 were, have the least amount of impact on the vehicular and 18 pedestrian circulation that is greatest in town on the 191, north and south access. 20MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments? 21 MR. MARSTON: Mr. Chairman? 22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes? 23 MR. MARSTON: I'm still wrestling with the 24 issue. I'm wrestling with the issue because at the end of 25 the last meeting I was drawing little sketching on my plan JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 400 54 1`•. here and I was trying to get Louis to look at views to 2€ the south. And,Louis told me, no the only views were to 3' the east. Jack now tells me there are good views to the 41 south which I was convinced there were when I looked at 5 the site plan. 6€ I'm right with David on the Santa Maria and 71 whether or not we have authority as a board, power as a 81 board, I think we have a responsibility to ourselves and 9[ to the professional community to be able to stand up and 101 say billboards are billboards and that it's not something 1111 that we agree with if we think they're billboards. I'm 122 disappointed that there wasn't perhaps -- I mean there's 13 only two approaching on this project, one is parallel, one 14 is perpendicular. And in fact maybe there is -- if there 151 were two of these pieces on the skyline but they were two 161 blocks apart, I don't think it would offend me as much as 171 it does. But the fact that the two billboards are 110 181 feet apart, they're matching towers, gives me pause. 19? And I'm not going to -- certainly not going to 20. tell Louis how to design his building. Do I think it's i 21 good for the city and do I think it's good for citizenry 22and do I think it creates a dynamic skyline? Is it good 23: for all of the residential people in the neighborhood? 24 I'm sorry, I don't. And if I have to, you know, express 25E that view even though it may be overruled, I don't believe JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 i 55 1 that it is a good solution the way it now stands. 2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes? 3`, PERSON 1: If I may offer one thought on that? 4€ Like the bayfront, I-95 turns. I think what you'll see is 5 that the northbound approach of I-95 while you're looking 6 at Santa Maria to your right is looking more or less -- 7 not head on, but closer to a frontal perspective on this 8 property. I think you might find that you're not solving e 9= anything by turning the buildings perpendicular to the 10 bay, you're only changing modestly the angle of the view 111 that you're getting from that northeasterly approach as 12 you're moving up. 13 There's a much lesser or shorter stretch of I-95 14 after you make that turn on 15th Road, you probably would 15€ not, in my opinion, significantly change the visual 16 perspective, the impact of the facade of the building 17= presenting itself as a wall or an edge by turning it at 18 right angles to the bay because of the oblique perspective 19, and the long perspective that you'll have coming from the 20 south. I doubt that anyone would probably notice much of 21E a difference one way or the other. The illusion in all of f 22this -- and I always struggle with this because I've done 23a lot of design review is that you're almost always 24presented with the one head on elevation view, whereas we i i 251 experience most of the city as a moving oblique ` JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES ``n- 4150 i 56 i 1 perspective. i 2 1And so you constantly have to remind yourself i 3 that by turning this building, you're just presenting to 4•`' that oblique perspective on Brickell, on I-95, yet the 5= same thing. And it's rare that you get that one moment of 6E the head-on view that seems to present itself as the issue 7 in these drawings. 8:' MR. KOROGLU: May I make my comment? 9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, go ahead. 10 MR. KOROGLU: I'm not of the same mind as my 11 good colleague here to my left. I think the design team 12 has exhausted all of its efforts and looked at it very 13 carefully. I think the indication is they have gone 14 through every step of the process again one more time with 15 the staff. I think at this stage of the process I think I 16€ would make a motion to approve it with the conditions that 17 you keep on working with the staff, especially on the 18: plaza level and other matters. E 19E MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion needs a second. 20 MR. WOLFBERG: Second. 21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any discussion on the motion? 22 MR. PEREZ: Mr. Chairman I have more humble 23questions that I don't know that I quite understand 4 24buildings, ones that are what eight or ten stories in E i 25 height. I don't know that I walk around looking up or JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 450 57 i 1 sideways, but I'm troubled about the site plan. And I 2 wasn't here to finish -- the last time when the vote was 31 taken because I had other things that meant business for 4= us and I had to leave. 5' But the site plan, as it addresses south 61=. Bayshore Drive, I see a tremendous amount of fragmentation 7' from the point of view of an individual such as me who 81 would never be able to afford an unit in that building but 9€ perhaps might decide that I want to walk around it. I see 10' a lot of driveways, different things happening, grass and 11 all that kind of things, and that troubles me because to 121 me this is as urban as we are in Miami. And the corners 13€ also trouble me because there seems to be an obsession 14 about leaving the corners open. 15 Now, if one were to think of the corner which 16: are the crossing point of most people as oasis in the i 17 midst of the way an individual gets from point A to point 18E B, therefore then change the vocabulary in between as E 19connections between those pools, those spaces oasis, then 20 the whole damn thing begin to sort to hang together, what E 21 I call hanging together. I look at this thing and I see 22 somebody traversing -- again I'm addressing South Bayshore i 23E Drive and I'm trying to picture it in my head and I see a 24 lot of driveways and things going back and forth. I think 25 there's a better way of solving all of this in a much JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 4059 58 11 more, number one, urbane manner. Number two, in a way 2 that this is a much more sensitive way of resolving the 3 pedestrian issue. 4And I realize that there may not be pedestrian 5 there, but there's always a question if we had provided -- 61: what is it? If I build it or if you build it, they will 7; come. So the question would be is that if we build it, 8 perhaps they will come. I'm troubled because I see this 9 as I see every other building that I seem to encounter and 10 I had some trouble with my health some years ago and the 11 question of having to have to address even today the 12i question of going up and down and things going back and 13 forth. Would it not be better to consider this whole 144 thing as a basis from which this building or buildings 15 depart and then give the ground plan as it should? 16I think we give up -- somebody wrote a wonderful 17 book which is kind of crazy and insane, but I think it's 18 called -- what the hell is it? Something to do with 19: asphalt. I forget the title right now, but what it is is f 20' we're giving up in our society basically -- everything is 21 based upon how the automobile or the vehicular area works f 221 and then the left over space is given to the people who 23: walk on by and go to places and eat. And there is 24€ something wrong with that idea. I see a lot of that 25 happening here, notwithstanding the fountains and some of _ JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES , 9�- 4o0 ` 59 1 these other things that are happening. 2's So I would encourage you to consider the 31 realization of the space -- and I'm not talking about one 4 corner or to corners, just the whole thing. And I don't z 5`: mean to talk about the previous presentation because 6 that's unfair on my part. I know you've spent a lot of 7 time working on these things. 8`• From my ignorant eyes of not having been 9 through the whole dissertation the last time, I don't see 10:` enough material here that I understand what it is that 11 you're doing here on the pedestrian level from a paving 12 point of view, lighting point of view, planting point of 13 view, ups and downs, what are we giving back to, again, a 14 guy like me who's just going to walk around it and sort of 15 look at it and say, hell this looks nice. I may not be 161 able to live there, but this is kind of good. Thank you. 17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Could you repeat your 18 motion for me? 191 MR. KOROGLU: The motion was to approve with 20• conditions that they keep on working with the staff to 21, resolve the matters at the pedestrian levels. 22: MR. CHAIRMAN: For my sake I'm assuming that 23� includes how the garage pedestals are treated. Any other 246 questions or comment before we vote on the motion? Call 25 the roll. JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 45-9 60 i E 1 MR. GARCIA: The motion was made by Mr. Koroglu 21 and seconded by Mr. Wolfberg. Mr. Koroglu? _ 3 MR. KOROGLU: Yes. 4 MR. GARCIA: Mr. Wolfberg? 51 MR. WOLFBERG: I'm going to vote yes and I just 61 hope that we approve enough units that phase two doesn't _ i 7 happen. ; 8 MR. GARCIA: Mr. Judson? i 9 MR. JUDSON: Yes. 10 MR. GARCIA: Mr. Marston? 11 MR. MARSTON: No. 12`= MR. GARCIA: Mr. Perez? 13 1 MR. PEREZ: Clarify something for me before I 14 say my thing here. Are we saying that part of that motion 151: is that they need to revisit some of these things that I 16=== just went half an hour -- is that -- 1 17 MR. GARCIA: Yes. i ; 18= MR. PEREZ: Then yes. E E 19E MR. GARCIA: The motion passes four to one. 20 MR. WOLFBERG: Move to adjourn. i 21E MR. KOROGLU: I second it. ; 22E MR. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? 23E ALL: Aye. 24 f 25 - - - - - JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES 98- 439 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 161 17' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 I HEREBY CERTIFY that, the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above -entitled matter. Transcriber JACK BESONER & ASSOCIATES .?/i 3 /9e Date 98- 450 SHUITS & BOWEN LLP ATTORNEYS .AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW IA PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS) 1500 MIAMI CENTER 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131 %![AMI (305) 358-6300 BROWARD (954) 467-8841 JUDITH A. BURKE FACSIMILE 13051 381-9982 October 16, 1997 (305) 379-9587 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Alex A. David Shoreline Development Coordinator Metro -Dade County 111 N.W. First Street, 1 lth Floor Miami, Florida 33128 RE: Shoreline Development Review Application 97-12 for Multi -Plan USA, Inc. Dear Alex: This firm represents Multi -Plan USA, Inc., the developer of the proposed Bayshore Palms project. I have enclosed six (6) sets of our completed application for Shoreline Development Review, together with our response to the Shoreline Review Checklist and Questionnaire. Also enclosed in this package are photographs of the site and our check in the amount of $1,165.00 as a filing fee. Six (6) copies of (i) the site plan, (ii) the floor plans and elevations, (iii) the landscaping plan, (iv) the survey, and (v) the plat will be delivered directly to your office under separate cover. The property, which contains 5.083 + acres, is located east of Brickell Bay Drive between Southeast 12th Street and Southeast 14th Street in the City of Miami. The property is zoned SD-5 (Brickell Avenue area office/residential district) and designated residential on the City of Miami's Future Land Use Map. In addition, the Miami Downtown Master Plan designates this property for high intensity residential development. The proposed project will consist of two residential condominium towers containing a total of 714 units. Each tower is approximately 57 stories above a 10 story pedestal. In addition to housing the parking garage, the pedestal contains residential units facing Biscayne Bay. Therefore, the view from both the bay and the baywalk area of the first ten floors of the building will be of windows and the terrace areas of the units rather than the stark facade of the parking garage. Landscaping will also be provided on the pedestal facade. On the street level, or as close thereto as permitted by FEMA regulations, retail and restaurant space will be provided along portions of Brickell Bay Drive, Southeast 12th Street and the baywalk. The applicant proposes to develop a restaurant along the baywalk on the corner of 12th Street that AMSTERDAM OFFICE LONDON OFFICE ORLANDO OFFICE WEST PALM BEACH OFFICE EUROPA BOULEVARD 59 48 MOUNT STREET 20 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE ONE CLEARLAKE CENTRE, SUITE 500 1083 AD AMSTERDAM, LONDON WlY 5RE ENGLAND SUITE 1000 2S0 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE SOUTH THE NETHERLANDS TELEPHONE 01144171493-4840 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 MAILING ADDRESS P. 0. BOX 3555 TELEPHONE 011-3120-661-0969 FACSIMILE 071-44171-493-4299 TELEPHONE 407)4 5-316 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402-3555 FACSIMILE 011-3120-642-1475 FACSIMILE (4071425-8376 �� TELEPHONE(5611835-8500 9 [� - 4 L.� O FACSIMILE(561) 650-8530 Alex A. David October 16, 1997 Page 2 will be open to the public. The restaurant will provide outside seating areas overlooking the bay and will encourage the public to utilize the restaurant facilities and promote pedestrian traffic on the baywalk. Each tower will have a total of 57 stories. The majority of the floors will have six (6) units. The upper floors are designed with larger units, most of such floors containing only four units per floor. The top two residential floors have only two units per floor. The developer has planned a wellness center on the top floor (57th floor of the tower/67th floor of the building). This wellness center will provide facilities for all the condominium residents; such as libraries and meditation rooms so that all residents of the building can enjoy the spectacular views. As you know, the view corridor provided with this project (107' 2" wide) exceeds the 100 foot requirement. In addition, the north and south side vehicular ramps provide the pedestrian with a perceived width of 215 feet up to a height of 48 feet. The shoreline setback provided to the parking pedestal is 54 feet. The shoreline setback to the tower is 190 feet. Although the required shoreline setback for the entire building is 75 feet, we perceived each phase as two buildings; a ten story parking pedestal that meets all shoreline setbacks and other regulations, together with a residential tower that sits on top of this parking pedestal which also meets and exceeds the required setbacks. Further, the parking structure is clad with residential units, a restaurant and heavy landscaping along the water's edge. The developer has also provided a 20 foot landscape baywalk along the edge of Biscayne Bay. The central view corridor, which is a heavily landscaped, visually attractive plaza will be open to the public and will draw people from Brickell Bay Drive to the baywalk. After you've had an opportunity to review all of the enclosed materials, please let us know if there is anything additional that you need. We look forward to your favorable review and recommendation in connection with this application. Very truly yo s, Judith A. Burke cc: Ms. Lourdes Slazyk Mr. Manuel de Zarraga Mr. Luis Revuelta Mr. Matthew Schwartz MIA95 171761.1 - OM J V 4bO DATE: September 26, 1997 _ Shoreline AF No. 97-12 METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY BISCAYNE BAY SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION FORM MUNICIPAL/COUNTY DATA CITY OF (if applicable) Miami DEPARTMENT: City of Miami Department of Planning and Development DEPT. OFFICIAL WITH PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROCESSING APPLICATION: Lourdes Slazyk ADDRESS: 444 S.W. Second Avenue Miami., Florida Z I p 33130 PHONE NO. 416-1407 APPLICANT DATA NAME OF APPLICANT: Multiplan USA, Inc. % Judith A. Burke, Esq. ADDRESS: Shutts & Boffin LIP, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1600, Miami ZIP 33131 PHONE NO. 379-9187 NAME OF OWNER: Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company ADDRESS: Mutual of Omaha Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska ZIP 68175 APPLICATION REQUEST PHONE NO. DEVELOPMENT NAME (if any) : Bayshore Palms Brickell Bay Drive between S.E. 12th Street and ADDRESS/LOCATION OF REQUESTS): S.E. 14th Street IS THE SITE ADJACENT TO BISCAYNE BAY? Yes SECTION 38 TOWNSHIP 54 RANGE d1R ZONING DISTRICT SD-5 FOLIOS) 0102-1050-4010; 0102-1050-4020; 0102-1050-4030; 0102-1050-3020; 0102-1050-3021; LEGAL DESCRIPTION Sep- Exhihi t- "A" affnnhad BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: 1he project consists of two residential condominium towers, containing a total of 714 its. Each tower is ap proximately 57 stories above a 10 story pedestal containing both parking and residential units. 98- 450 WHAT DEVELOPMENT APPRr'kL PARCEL ACTIOPS (I.E., ZONE C TGE, SIZE IN SITE PLAN, VARIANCES, _ORMITS) ACRES ARE BEING REQUESTED AT THIS TIME? Major Use Special Permit including / Exhibit "B" attached. / DEP"-TMENT, BOARD OR OFFICIAL REI 4SIBLE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT ACTION APPROVAL 5.067 / City Commission approval required. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION FORM IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND THAT NO DEVELOPMENT ACTION PERMIT OR APPROVAL SHALL BE ISSUED UNTIL THE SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW HAS BEEN COMPLETED OR TERMINATED. e \ S I NAME ( PLEASE PRINT) : Judith A. Burke Note: When this application form is completed and signed, the applicant is required to send it along with the required application fee to: Shoreline Development Review Coordinator Developmental Impact Committee, Suite 1210 Metro -Dade Center 111 N.W. First Street Miami, FL 33128-1973 (305) 375-2589 98- 450 Office Fire Mo. 319106039 Legal Description 2 hibit w Parcel 1: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, in Block 1, of AMENDED PLAT OF HIBISCUS PLACE, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, at page 110, of the Public Reecrda of Dade County, Florida. Par all -A: And that certain tract of land lying between the Easterly boundary 14 a of said Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, in clock 1, of the AMENDED PLAT OF HIBISCUS PLACE, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, at page iic, of the Public Records of Dade County, Plcrids, and the United States Harbor Line along the west side of Biscayne Hay, more particularly described as -follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner- of Lot 1,_Block 1, of the said.AYgEN:HD PLAT 07 BIBISCUS PLACE, thence South 76 degrees 38 minutes 55 Seconds Sast along the prolongation Easterly of the Northerly boundary, line of said Lot 1, for a distance of 156.20 feet to the intersection with the United States Harbor Line; thence South 5 degrees 37 minutes 20 seeonda West along the said United States Harbor Line for a distance of 101.83 feet to -the intersection thereof with the prolongation Easterly of the Southerly boundary line of Lot 4, BlccJc i, of the said AMEDXZD PLAT OF HIBISCUS PLACE,. thence North 76 degrees.38 minutes SS seconds West along the prolongation. Easterly of the Southerly boundary line of the aforesaid- Lot 4 for a distance of 160 . $2 feet to the Southeast, corner of said Lot 4; thence North 6 degrees 59 minutes 37 secondi-cast along -the Easterly boundary line of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 1 of the said AMENDED PLAT Of - HIBISCUS PLACE for a distance of 201.26 feet to the Point of Beginning. Pargpl 3: Lots S Arid 6, in 810ck 1, of HIBISCUS ALXCE; according to the Amended Plat thereof recorded in Plat_SoOic. 3. at. Page 110, of the Public Records of Dade county, Florida. Parcel el 3-a,.Commance at the SW corner of Section 381 Township sa South, Range 41 East, Dade County,- Florida,. Mrs. Ragan 's-Danation Report 4 Claim 8 - 620.66 acres; thence -run North 88 c,egrees 01'minutes IS Seconds East along the South line of said Section 38 a distance of 6,367.25 feet to the int-ersection thereof with the center -line of Brickell A ovue: theact run.South 13.degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds west along -the center line of said brickell Avenue for a distance of $9.71 feet to the- intersection thersof-with the prolongation Northwesterly of the Southerly line of the: AMENDED PLAT OF HIBISCUS PLACE, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Sock 3, page 110, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; thence rum South_16 degrees 39 minutes. OS seconds East along the prolongation_Northwesterly_and along the Southerly line of the aforesaid AMENDED PLAT OF HIBISCUS PLACE..for a distance of 690 feet to the intersection thereof with the prolongation Southerly. of the weaterly line of Block 1 of the aforesaid AMENDED PLAT OF HIBISCUS PLACE; thence run. North 13 degrees TO minutes 55 seconds East along the prolongations Southarly and along the Westerly line of the aforesaid Block 1, for a distance of 100 feet to the NW corner of Lot S, Block 1, of the aforesaid AMIIMID PLAT OF HIBISCUS PLACE; thence run South 76 degrees 39 minutes OS seconds East along -the Werth line of the aforssaa Lot S and its prolongation southeasterly for a diet di of 351.12 feet to a point on the -face of an existing seawall. said point being 2.38 feet Westerly of the Dade County bulkhead line and the point of eeginniag of the tilled areal (Seawall has been clanged as appears from a survey Sketch prepared by Zur*ielIe-Whit taker, Inc:, under date of December 2, 1980) ; thence runs South 0 degrees 26 minutes 50 seconds west along the. face of said existing seawall for a distance of 92.32 feet to the intersection thereof with the prolongation Southeasterly of the South line of Lot 6, Block 1, of the aforesaid AKMMZD PLAT OF HIBISCUS 4LACE and a point on the Dade County Bulkhead line; thence run North 76 degrees 39 minutes 05 seconds west along the prolongation Southeasterly of the South line of the aforesaid Lot 6 for a distance of 164.66 feet, more or lass, to the intersection thereof with the former high water line of Biscayne Say and the BE corner of the aforesaid Lot 6; 98- 450 of:ice ..:e 'No. 3. 06039 Legs= Deacriptioa Sxislbit "A^ (continued) ran 'forth 6 degrees 39 minutes 46 seconds East along the former high water lire of Biscayne Say and along the last line of the aforesaid Lots S and 6 a distance of 90.62 feet to the NS corner of the aforesaid Lot 9; thence run South 76 degrees 39 minutes OS seconds East along t:s prolongation Southeasterly of the Northerly line of the aforesaid Lot 5 for"a distance of 136.67 feet; more or .ess, to the point of Beginning. Parcel 4: The private lane South of Lot 6, in Block 1, of HIBISCUS pLAcZ, according to t M Amended Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 3, page 11o, of the ?ublic Records of Dade County, Florida. a a - The North one-half (N 1/2) less the South Fifty (50) test thereof of Lot 113" of MIRADO COURT, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat nook 14, at Page 44, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Pare, 3-A: Comence at the SW co=er of Section 39, Township 54 South, Range 41 East, Dade County, Florida, Mrs. Ragan's Donation, Report 4, Claim 9, 620.66 i acres; thence run North 98 degrees 01 minutes 19 seconds last along the South line of said Section 38 for a distance of 6,367.25 feet to the intersection thereof with the center line of Brickall Avenue; thence south 13 degrees 20 , minutes 55 seconds West along the center line of said Srickall Avenue for a distance of 58.71 feet to the- intersection "thereof with the prolongation , Northwesterly of the southerly line of private Lane in Block 1 of the AmF.NDBD.. PLAT OF HIBISCUS PLACE according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, page 110, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, and along the prolongation Northwesterly of the Northerly line of Lot "B" of the AMMIDID PLAT OF MIRAW :aURT, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 14, at Page 44, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; thence South 76 degrees 39 minutes 05 seconds East along the prolongation Northwesterly and along the Southerly line of the aforesaid private lane and along the Northerly line of the aforesaid Lot "S" for a distance of 90 feet to the intersection thereof with the prolongation Southerly of the Westerly line of Block 1 of the aforesaid AMENDED PLAT OF HIBISCUS PLACE; thence rur. North 13 degrees 20 minutes 55 seconds East along the prolongation Southerly cf the Westerly line of the aforesaid Block 1 for a distance of 10 feet to the SW corner of Lot 6, Block 1, of the aforesaid dbn;ZED PLAT OF HIBISCUS PLACE; thence run South 76 degrees 39 minutes 03 seconds East along the South line of the aforesaid Lot 6, the same being the North line of the aforesaid private lane and along their prolongation Southeasterly for a distance of 371.60 feet to the intersection thereof with the Dade County Bulkhead line and a point on the face of an existing seawall and the Point of Beginning of the filled area; thence run South 2 degrees 35 minutes 13.5 seconds West along the Dade County bulkhead line for a distance of 61.07 feet to the intersection thereof with the prolongation Southeasterly of the Southerly line of tha North Halt less the South So feet thereof of the aforesaid Lot "S", thence run North 76 degrees 39 minutes OS seconds West along the prolongation Southeasterly of the Southerly line of the North Kalf less the south 50 feet thereof of the aforesaid Lot "B" for a distance of 172.57 feet, more of less, to the intersection thereof with the former high water line of Biscayne say and a point on the East line of the aforesaid Lot "B"; thence run North 7 degrees 13 minutes 07 seconds East along the former high water line of Biscayne Bay and along the East line of the aforesaid Lot 08" for a distanew-of 5o.29 teat ta- the YZl corner thereof; thencs run North 12 degrees 21 minutes 17 saccads East along the former high water line of Biscayne Hay and along the last line of the aforesaid private lane for a distance of 10 feet to the SS corner of the aforesaid Lot 6; thence run South 76 degrees 39 minutes 05 Seconds East along the prolongation Southeasterly of the Southerly line of the aforesaid Lot 6 ;nd prolongation southeasterly of the Northerly line of the aforesaid private lane for a distance of 169.69 feet, more cr less, to the Point of Beginning. Excepting from Parcel 3, parcel 4 and Parcel 5, the following described land: 98- 450 Cff:ce File No. 319606039 Legal ascription Exhibit "A" (continued) Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 5, Block 1, of the At'tE'NDBD PLAT OF HIBISCUS PLAC$, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, at Page ..o, of the Public Records of Cade County, Ficrida, thence van Southerly along ::e westerly line of Lot 5 and Lot 6 of said Block 1 for a distance of go.00 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 6; thence continue Southerly along the projection of the westerly line of said Lot 6 for a distance of 1.17 fee- to a point of curve; thence run Southerly along the arc of a curve to the right; :laving a radius of 506.95 feet, through a central angle of 7 degrees 06 min;:tes 5e seconds for an arc distance of 62.96 feet to a point on the Westerly line of Lot -B" of the AMRNDBD PLAT OF MIRADO COURT, according to the Plat thereof recorded in plat Book 14, at Page 44, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; thence run Easterly along a line parallel with the North line of said Lot ',B" for -a distance of 17.46 feet to a point; thence run Northerly through ' said Lot MB" along the are of a curve to the left, having a radius cf 439.43 feet; through a central angle of 2 degrees 20 minutes 06 seconds for an are distance of 19.7S feet to. a point of reverse cuznroj thence ran Northerly along ; the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 39S.43 feet through a central i angle of 19 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds for an are distance of 134.99 feet to i a point on the North line of said Lot S, in Block 1, of AMENDED PLAT of HIBISCUs P*.ACE; thence run westerly along the North line of said Lot 5 for a distance of 5.29 feet to a Point of Beginning; the sane having bean dedicated to the City of Miami by instrument dated March 14, 1960. Parc_al I.L The South 50 feet of the Forth 1/2 of the Lot "Be of the AMENDED PLAT OF MIRADO CCLRT, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 14, at Page 44, of the Public Records of Bade County, Florida, excepting and excluding therefrom the following: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot ,C" of the AMENDED PLAT OF MIRAAO COURT, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 14, at Page 44, of the public Records cf Dade Count•i, Florida; the said point of Commencement being a point of curvature; thence-r-4n Northerly along the are of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5C6.95 feet, through a central angle of it degrees 22 minutes 36 seconds for an are distance of 100.46 feet to the Point of Beginning of the following described parcel of land; to -wit: thence run. Northerly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 506.9S feet, through .a central angle of 5 degrees 50 minutes 03 seconds for an are distance of 51.62 feet to a point, said pcir.= being on the Westerly lire of Lot MB" of said TYMMED PLAT OF MiRADO COURT; thence run Easterly along a line 5o feet South of and parallel with the North line of said Lot „S" for a distance of 17.46 feat to a pcirt; thence run Southerly along the ass of a curve to the right, having a radius of 450.42 feet, through a central angle of 6 degrees 30 minutes 02 seconds for an are distance of 32.01 feat to a point; thence run westerly along a line too feet Scu_h of and parallel with the :forth line of said Lot "E" for a distance of 16.92 feet to the Point of Zoginning. Parcel 6-A: Land (formerly submerged, now filled) lying Easterly of and being contiguous with the Easterly line of the South 50 feet of the North 1/2 of Lot H" of AMS=ZD PLAT OF MYP-%W COURT according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Scok is, at Page 44, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, bounded as follows: Sounded on the North by the Northerly line of the aforesaid South 30 feet of the North 1/2 of Lot MB" of tae AMENABD PLAT OF MIR.ADO COURT extended Easterly to :he United States Harbor Line; Bounded on the South by the Southerly line of the said South SO feet of the North 1/2 of the aforesaid Lot MD" of the AYMMED PLAT OF MIRADO COURT extended Easterly to the United States narbor Line; Bounded on the west by the Easterly line of the aforesaid Lot "B" of the A14MED PLAT OF NIRADO COURT; Bounded on the East by the United States Harbor Line. The aforedascribed Parcel is also descri.sd as; 98- 4bO Otfice File No. 319606039 Legal Description Exhibit "A" (continued) Together with submerged land adjacent to the South 5o feet of the North 1/2 of the Lot "8" of AMENDED PLAT OF MIRADO COURT and extended Easterly to the ited States Harbor Line, excepting and excluding therefrom t :e following: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot "C" of the AMENDED PLAT OF mIRAZO CURT, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 14, at Data 44, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; t o said Point of Commencement being a point of cjxvature; thence run %4ortherly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 506.95 feet, through a central angle of 11 degrees 22 minutes 36 seconds for an arc distance of 100.66 fast to the Point of Beginning of the following described parcel of land; to -wit: thence run Northerly along the are of a curve to the left, having a radius of 306.99 feet, through a central angle of 5 degrees 90 minutes 03 seconds for ar. arc distance of 51.62 feet to a point, said point being on the Westerly line of Lot "B" of said AMENDED PLAT OF MIRADO CCCRT; thence run Easterly along a line 5o feet South of an parallel with the North line of said Lot "B" for a distance of 17.46 feet to a point; thence run Southerly along the are of a curve to the right, having a radius of 458.43 feet, through a central angle of 6 degrees 20 minutes 02 seconds for an are distance of 52.01 feet to a point; thence run westerly along a line 100 feet South of and parallel with the North line of said Lot 030 for a distance of 10.92 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel 7: South Half of Low "B" of yIRADO COURT, according to the Amended plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 14, at page 44, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Parcel 7-A: The submerged lands in Biscayne Day lying Easterly of the South Half of Lot "B" of the AM MED PLAT, OF MIRADO COURT, according to the Plat thereof recorded in plat Book it, at Public Page 44, of the Records of Dade County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Southwest corner of Lot "B" of the A!!NDSa PLAT OF MIKADO COURT, according to the Plat thereat recorded lL Plat Book 14, at Page 44, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; thence South 76 degrees 3a minutes 25 seconds East along the Southerly_lins of said Lot "So for a distance of 191.4 !set to the Easterly face of an existing concrete seawall and the Point of Beginning of the Tract of Submerged land herein described; thence North 7 degrees 07 minutes 50 seconds East along the Easterly face of said existing concrete seawall along the lasterly side of said Lot "B" for a distance of 100.6! feet to a point on the North line of the South half of said Lot "S"; thence South 76 degrees 38 minutes 2S seconds Last ale g the prolongation Easterly of the North line of the South half of said Lot "a" and along a _ine 100.00 feet North of at right angles to the prolongation Easterly of the Southerly boundary line of said Lot 11B„ for a distance of 176.36 feet to a point on the United States Harbor Line along the Westerly side of Biscayne Day; thence South 2 degrees 35 minutes 13.5 seconds West along the said United States Harbor Line for a distance of 101.3 feet to its intersection with the prolongation Easterly of the Southerly boundary of the aforesaid Lot "Be; thence North 76 degrees 38 minutes 25 seconds West along the prolongation Easterly of the Southerly line of said Lot "B" for a distance of 106.49 feet to the Point of Beginning of the Tract of submerged land herein described, lying and being in Section 39, Township 54 South, Range 41 East, in Dade County, Florida. Parcel 8-A: Lot 9, less the West 130 feet thereof of H109LEYMANIS SVDDIVISION, as recorded its Plat Book 1, page 184, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; and a portion of Lot 26 in Block 105-S of AMBNDED PLAT OF BRICRELL ADDITION, as recorded in plat Book s, page 113. of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; Excluding and Excepting from the said Parcel 6-A the following tract of land heretofore conveyed to the City of Miami, a political subdivision of Dade County, Florida; 9 8 - 4I)� Office File No. 3:9046039 Legal Description Exhibit "A" (continued) Beginning at a point on the North line of Lot 9, o: HICALSYM.AN'S SLwivYS20N, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Hook 1, at Page 184, of the Public Recorda of Dade County, Florida, said Point of Beginning being 150 feat East of the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 9; thence Southerly along at i. _ne parallel with and 150 feet East of the West line of said :,ot 9 :or a distance of 150.36 feet to a point South line of said Lcc 9; thence Easterly along the Southerly line of said Lot 9 to a point of intersection with a curved line which is the Northerly projection of a line concentric to and 60 feet distant Northeasterly of the Northeasterly line-cf Block 2 AMENDED PLAT OF pOI.WT v:EW, as recorded in Plat Hook 2, page 93, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; thence Northwesterly along said Northerly projection to the intersection of a line 10 feet Northerly of .he South line of Lot 9, HIMILrYMANIS SUSDZVZSION; thence westerly along a line 10 feat North of an Farallel with the southerly line of said Lot 9 to a point 160 feet Easterly of the Westerly line of said Lot 9; thence Northerly along a line parallel with and 16o feet Easterly of the West line of said Lot 9 for a distance of 140.36 feet to a point on the Northerly line of said Lot 9; thence westerly to feet to the Paint of Beginning. Parcel H-B: All land. lying easterly of and being contiguous with the Easterly Northerly and Southerly boundaries- of Lot 9 of KIG4LEYMS, S S*TdDIVISION as recorded in Plat .Book 1 at Page 124, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, more particularly bounded as follows. Bounded on the North by the most'' Northerly lin& of aforesaid Lot 9, HIMMLrIMM, S SUBDIVISION extended Easterly to the United States Harbor Line; bounded on the West by the Easterly line of the aforesaid Lot 9, AIC,liLEYM7 I S SUBDIVIS2G'.t; Bounded On the South by the Southerly line o'_ the aforesaid Lot 9, HIGHLEYMAN'S SUBDraSZON extended Easterly to the United States Harbor Line: Bounded on the East by the Ustited States Harbor Line. The aforedescribed Parcel is also described as: Together with all land lying between the North and South boundary lines of Lot 9 of HIGHLEYMANIS SUBDIVISION extending to the East and the established harbor lines o: Siscayne Bay and :sore particularly described as follows: From a Point of Beginning that is 25.feec North and 25 feet East of the intersection of the Gunter Lines of South bayshore Drive and Southeast 14th Street, in Miami, Dade County, Florida; run .north along the East right-of-way line of Sout% Baysho:e Drive a distance of 130.1t feet to a point; thence run East a distance of 357.0 feet to a point on the established harbor line at Biscayne Bay; thence r,m South 14 degrees SO minutes 30 seconds East along the said harbor line a distance of 153.46 feet -to a point; thence run West along the North right-of-way line of Southeast i4th Street and said right -of -Way line extended a distance of 396.8 feet to the Point of Beginning. LESS AND EXCEPTING frOM the above described property the following described property heretofore conveyea by Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation, to The City of Miami, a ruaicipal corporation, existing eider the law of Florida, by highway right-af-way Deed -of Dedication dated November 1, 1l76, recorded in Official Records Book 9533, at Page 642 of the Public Records of Dade -County, Florida; to -wit: .he westerly 15 feet of Lots 1 through 4- of Block 1 of AMENDED PLAT OF HIBISCUS ?LAC&, according to the Plat there=f recorded in Plat Book 3, at Page 110, of the Public Records of Dade. County, Florida, and all that part of said Lot 1 which lies within the external area formed by a 25 foot radius are concave to the Southeast, tangent to the North line of said Lot I and tangent to the easterly line of the Westerly 13 feet of said Lot 1. 0 98- 450 Office File No. 319606039 Legal Description Exhibit "A" (continued) That portion of Lots S and 6 of Block 1 of AMENDED PLAT OF HIBISCUS PLACE, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, at Page 110. of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, and more particularly described as follows: Cor=ence at tho Northwest corner of said Lot 5; thence run South 76 degrees 38 minutes 21 seconds Fait along the North lane of said Lot 5 for a distance of 5.28 feat to the Point of Segirzing of the hereinafter described portion; thence continue South 76 degrees 38 minutes ?1 seconds East along the North line of said Lot 5 for a distance of 9.72 feet to a Feint; thence run South 13 degrees 21 minutes 39 seconds west along a line 15 feet Easterly of and parallel with the west line of said Lot 5 for a distance of 45.00 "eat to a point of intersection with the North line of said Lot 6; .hence run South 6 degrees 09 minutes 14 seconds west for a distance of 45.36 feet to the.point of intersection with the South line of said Lot 6; thence run North 76 degrees 30 minutes 21 seconds west along the South line of said Lor 6 for a distance of 1.61 feet to the point of intersection with a circular curve concave to the Northeast, the center of which bears North 08 degrees 04 minutes S2 seconds last_ from said point of intersection; thence run Northeasterly along the arc of said circular curve, having a radius of 399.43 feet; through a central angle of 13 degrees 07 minutes 20 seconds for an are distance of 91.25-feet to the Point of Beginning. AND That westerly portion of Lot "H" of AM=1M PLAT OF MIKADO COURT, according - to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Hook 14, at Page 44, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, and more particularly described as follows: Begin at the Southwest corner o: said. Lot 0311. said Point of Beginning being also the point of curvature of a circular curve concave to the Northwest; thence run Northeasterly along the West line of said Lot "8" and along the arc of said circular curve concave to the Northwest, :living a radius of 506.99 feet, through a central angle of 11 degrees 22 minutes 36 seconds for an arc distance of 100.66 feet to a point; thence run South 76 degrees 38 minutes 21 seconds East parallel with the South line of said Lot- "in for a distance of /8.92 feet to t129 point of intersection with a circular curve concave to the Northwest, the center of which bears North 59 degrees 14 minutes 19.seconds Wait from said point of intersection; thence run Southwesterly along the arc of said circular curve, having a radius of 456.43 feet, through a central angle of 12 degrees 35 minutes 58 seconds for an arc dtstanee of 100.61 feet to the point of intersection with the South line of said Lot "3•; thence run North 76 degrees 30 minutes 21 seconds west, along the South line of said Let "211 for a distance of 20.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. AND Al: that part of Tract 9 of HIGALH' 'S SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Sock 1, at Page 164, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida which lie& within the external area formed by a 25 foot radius are concave to the Northeast, tangent to the Southerly line of said Tract 9 and tangent to the Westerly line of said Tract 9. 98- 4bO EXHIBIT "B" PERMITS NEEDED FOR BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT Class I Permit for FAA clearance (we'll probably need a variance or waiver from the FAA requirement). 2. Class I Permit to approve swimming pools and whirlpools (Section 9.06.6). 3. Class I Permit to allow valet parking at the project (Section 917.12). 4, Class II Permit to relocate the required 30% commercial development required along the Biscayne Bay property line to another location within the project (Section 6.05.4.(2)). 5. Class II Permit to develop within SD-5 zone (Section 6.05.3). 6. Class II Permit to approve an urban plaza along S.E. 12th street (Section 6.05.8.3). 7. Class II Permit to allow outdoor dining (Section 6.05.5). 8. Class II Permit to reduce the required size of unloading berth from 12 times 55 to 12 times 35 (Section 923.2.1). 9. Class II for development between Biscayne Bay and First dedicated public right-of-way Article 15, Section 1511. 10. Class II for roof sheltered area (605,513) MIA95 168538.1 - LIM 9 8 - 45�0 RESPONSE TO SHORELINE REVIEW CHECKLIST AND QUESTIONNAIRE I . The Applicant must obtain a Major Use Special Permit ("MUSP") from the City of Miami. Under the umbrella of the MUSP, the project requires the approval of those certain Class I and Class II Special Permits listed on Exhibit "B" to the application. Plans for the project have been reviewed by the Large Scale Development Review Committee. The project was presented to the Urban Design Review Board on September 24, 1997. However, the Board lost its quorum halfway through the presentation and, therefore, the item was deferred until the October 9, 1997 Urban Design Review Board hearing. The Applicant expects that the MUSP application will be considered by the Planning Advisory Board in November and the City Commission in December. The MUSP Application does not require action by the Zoning Board in that no variances are requested. Photographs of the site are enclosed. 2. The property is currently owned by Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company. Multiplan USA, Inc., a Florida corporation has a firm contract to purchase the property. It is expected that the closing will take place within thirty (30) to sixty (60) days from the date of this Application. 3. Attached with the Application is a copy of the survey as well as the tentative plat. Please be advised that the tentative plat was approved by the Miami City Commission on September 23, 1997 and is now being processed for submittal to Dade County for recordation. (k). 4. Seven (7) copies of the site plan for the project are enclosed. Floor plans and elevations for the project are enclosed. 6. A full landscaping plan for the project is enclosed. The site plan includes all of the information required under paragraph 7 (a) through The following is a response to specific questions at the end of paragraph T (i) Shoreline Setbacks Question - Is the required shoreline setback met? Answer - Yes. Question - Are there any buildings, accessory uses, above grade structures, ancillary structures or other uses in the shoreline setback area? Answer - Yes. Elevated (plus 3'6" MSL) private plaza for restaurant and tenant use (34'0" wide). (ii) Side Setbacks setbacks met? Question - Are the required shoreline (25' 0" minimum) and applicable municipal side Answer - Yes. (iii) Visual Corridor Question - Is there an unimpeded (horizontally and vertically) visual corridor from the public roadway to the water's edge that equals 20% of the width of the property (20.00' minimum, 100.0' maximum required)? Answer - Yes. (iv) Other Question - Are there any additional public or private amenities such as a shoreline walkway, a park, a dock (see DERM design manual), a fishing pier, a boardwalk, or a viewing platform provided? Answer - Yes. There are additional public and private amenities provided with the project. There is a 20 foot baywalk designed in accordance with the City of Miami Baywalk/Riverwalk Design Standards and Guidelines. In addition, we have provided pedestrian access to the View Corridor (plaza area) from Brickell Bay Drive to the Baywalk. Further there is a restaurant open to the public with Bayviews and outside seating areas adjacent to Biscayne Bay. (v) estion - To the best of our knowledge and for those items that are applicable, does this project adhere to the Design Guidelines for the Shoreline Setback Area (Section A), the Design Guidelines and Minimum Standards for the Shoreline Walkway (Section B), and the Design Considerations for Fishing Piers (Section C) as discussed in the Shoreline Development Review Manual (Reso. 275-85)? Answer - Yes. MIA95 168478.1-L1M. -2- 98- 450 SHORELINE REVIEW CHECKLIST AND QUESTIONAIRE In conjunction with reviewing the Shoreline Development Review Ordinance (85-14) and the Shoreline Development Review Manual (Resolution 257-85) this checklist and questionaire shall be completed. cc The following information shall be required to complete the shoreline development review: 1. A completed shoreline application form which shall include a brief description of all major elements of the project that require: Provided Not Provided N/A Explanation a) coastal construction, building, zoning, site plan permits or approvals (approving agency) b) type of approval c) date of request (or anticipated dates for all ,required local, regional, state and federal approvals approvals) d) photos of site 2. Documentation of zoning and ownership of the parcel, including all uplands and submerged lands. 3. A survey showing: • Provided Not Provided.,- N/A Explanation a) location and height'of all existing buildings b) location and height of all existing trees (variety, size) c) natural and archeological features Rev. 02/92 4. A site plan including the following information: Provided Not Provided N/A Explanation a) location of lot lines b) shoreline and municipal setbacks c) location, shape, size height of existing and proposed structures and accessory structures d) decorative walls and entrance features e) location of on -site and off-street parking f) loading facilities service areas and waste collection areas g) location of all streets, alleys, driveways, pedestrian ways and sidewalks 5. Floor plans and elevations bf: Provided Not.Provided N/A Explanation u a) all buildings and structures b) accessory structures c) cross sections through the entire property (bulkhead to right-of-way) d) adjacent buildings 6. A landscape plan including: Provided Not Provided N/A Explanation 1� a) the location, variety size and condition of all existing trees b) the location, variety, size, 7. c' d' e' f' 9; h' i' J k' 1' quality and quantity of all proposed trees and ground cover all proposed fences. decorative walls, berms landscaped areas buffers location of all public spaces visual corridors landscaping materials outdoor furniture recreational facilities lighting and trash receptacles Provided Not Provided N/A Explanation I Note: Wherever applicable site and landscaping plans should indicate how all historic or archeological features will be incorporated into the site plan. Figures indicating the following: Provided Allowable a) gross and net acreage b) -amount of landscaped open space in square feet required and provided c) required and provided setbacks (shoreline and zoning) d) maximum density allowed e) provided density f) building height from MSL. g) amount of building coverage ' at ground level in square feet , h) total trees and shade canopy required and provided i) parking required and provided n N/A (Explanation Provided Allowable N/A Explanation j) total amount of.paved area in square feet 1 k) such other design data as may o0 be needed to evaluate the project Note: All plans must be signed and sealed by a registered architect and/or landscape architect. Please answer the following questions as they relate to: Shoreline Setbacks Is the required shoreline setback met? If no, explain. Are there any buildings, accessory uses, above grade structures, ancillary structures or other uses in the shoreline setback area? If yes, list. Side Setbacks Are the required shoreline (.25.0' minimum) and' applicable municipal side setbacks met? If no, explain. visual Corridor :SJ Is there an unimpeded (horizontally and vertically) visual corridor from the public roadway to the water's edge that equals 20% of the width of the property (20.0' ! minimum, 100.0' maximum required)? coo C� If no, explain. Other Are there any additional public or private amenities such as,a shoreline walkway, a park, a dock (see DERM design manual),.a fishing pier, a boardwalk, or a viewing platform being provided? If yes, describe. To the best of your knowledge and for those items that are applicable, does this project adhere to the Design Guidelines for the Shoreline Setback Area (Section A), the Design -Guidelines and Minimum Standards for the Shoreline Walkway (Section B), and the Design Considerations for Fishing Piers (Section C) as discussed in the Shoreline Development Review Manual (Reso. 275-85)? If no, explain. 0 Note: Shoreline and side setbacks and visual corridors must be provided except where it would be impossible or highly impractical to meet said requirements as a result of the size or configuration of the subject site. SHORELINE REVIEW CHECKLIST AND QUESTIONAIRE In conjunction with reviewing the Shoreline Development Review Ordinance (85-14) and the Shoreline Development Review Manual (Resolution 257-85) this checklist and questionaire shall be completed. The following information shall be required to complete the shoreline development review: 1. A completed shoreline application form which shall include a brief description of all major elements of the project that require: Provided Not Provided N/A Explanation a) coastal construction, building, zoning, site plan permits or approvals (approving agency) b) type of approval c) date of request (or anticipated dates for all .Fequired local, regional, state and federal approvals approvals) d) photos of site 2. Documentation of zoning and ownership of the parcel, including all uplands and submerged lands. 3. A survey showing: Provided Not Provided,,- N/A Explanation a) location and height of all existing buildings b) location and height of all existing trees (variety, size) c) natural and archeological features Rev. 02/92 4. 6. A site plan including the following information: Provided Not Provided a) location of lot lines b) shoreline and municipal setbacks c) location, shape, size height of existing and , proposed structures and accessory structures d) decorative walls and entrance features e) location of on -site and off-street parking f) loading facilities service areas and waste collection areas g) location of all streets, alleys, driveways, pedestrian ways and sidewalks Floor plans and elevations df: Provided Not.Provided 4 a) all buildings and structures b) accessory structures c) cross sections through the entire property (bulkhead to right-of-way) d) adjacent buildings A landscape plan including: Provided Not Provided a) the location, variety size and condition of all existing trees b) the location, variety, size, N/A N/A N/A Explanation Explanation Explanation d°+ I coo cl� Provided Not Provided N/A Explanation q,tality and quantity of all proposed trees and ground cover cc c) all proposed fences d) decorative walls, berms e) landscaped areas f) buffers g) location of all public spaces h) visual corridors i) landscaping materials j) outdoor furniture k) recreational facilities 1) lighting and trash receptacles Note: Wherever applicable site and landscaping plans should indicate how all historic or archeological features will be incorporated into the site plan. 7. Figures indicating the following: Provided Allowable N/A Explanation a) gross and net acreage b) -amount of landscaped open space in squage feet required and provided c) required and provided setbacks (shoreline and zoning) d) maximum density allowed e) provided density f) building height from MSL, g) amount of building coverage ` at ground level in &quare feet h) total trees and shade canopy required and provided i) parking required and provided Provided Allowable N/A Explanation j) total amount of -paved area in square feet k) such other design data as may be needed to evaluate the project Note: All plans must be signed and sealed by a registered architect and/or landscape architect. Please answer the following questions as they relate to: Shoreline Setbacks Is the required shoreline setback met? If no, explain. Are there any buildings, accessory uses, above grade structures, ancillary structures or okther uses in the shoreline setback area? If yes, list. Side Setbacks Are the required shoreline (25.0' minimum) and' applicable municipal side setbacks met? If no, explain. sr''J dy Visual Corridor Is there an unimpeded (horizontally and vertically) visual corridor from the public roadway to the water's edge that equals 20% of the width of the property (20.0' minimum, 100.0' maximum required)? If no, explain. Other Are there any additional public or private amenities such as,a shoreline walkway, a park, a dock (see DERM design manual),.a fishing pier, a 'boardwalk, or a viewing platform being provided? If yes, describe. 41 To the best of your knowledge and for those items that are applicable, does this project adhere to the Design Guidelines for the Shoreline Setback Area (Section A), the Design -Guidelines and Minimum Standards for the Shoreline Walkway (Section B), and the Design Considerations for Fishing Piers (Section C) as discussed in the Shoreline Development Review Manual (Reso. 275-85)? If no, explain. Note: Shoreline and side setbacks and visual corridors must be provided except where it would be impossible or highly impractical to meet said requirements as a result of the size or configuration of the subject site. MEMORANDUM TO: Members DATE: Shoreline Development Review Committee SUBJECT: FROM: A4 4Da, fio rain Shoreline Development Review Committee November 14,1997 Bayshore Palms Shoreline Appl. No. 97-12 Section 33-D of the Code of :Metropolitan Dade County mandates preservation of the basic qualities, characteristics, natural, recreational and aesthetic values of the Biscayne Bay area. .Accordingly, the procedures and criteria set forth in the Code and in the Shoreline Development Review Manual (R-257-85) are intended to preserve or enhance the value of the Biscayne Bay area; encourage the best use of the shoreline area for resident and visitor. enjoyment; maximize public visual acid physical access to the water; encourage new shoreline development which respects the coastal envirOD3.nent by: avoiding the further walling off of the shoreline, encouraging the retention and use of native plant materials along the shoreline, providing landscaping in view corridors and setback areas that focuses views toward the water, thereby creating a natural edge and greenbelt -like quality along the bay shoreline, and planning anddesigning new or. improvements to existing development that will enhance the view, water and shoreline area from the street. L REQUEST Site Plan Approval for twin 67-story condominium buildings with a total of 7144 units. IL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tn accordance with the requirements of the Shoreline Development Review process (Chapter 33D, Code of Metropolitan Dade County) and the Shoreline Development Review Manual (R-257-85) staff has reviewed plans for the `Bayshore Palms" project as prepared. by Luis Revuel.ta, P.A., dated October 15, 1997, and consisting of twenty-one (21) sheets; landscape plans as prepared by Bradshaw Gill & Associates, dated October 8, 1997 and consisting of two (2) sheets; and, a survey and plat prepared by Schewbke-Shiskin & Associates also consisting of two (2) sheets. 98 - 4SO The applicant proposes the development of twin condominium buildings with a total of 714-units on a 5.083 acre parcel of land. The project is located east of South Bayshore Drive between SE 12 and SE 14 Streets within the corporate limits of the City of Miami. The development will consist of two 57-story residential towers above a 10-story parking and residential pedestal. The plans submitted provide for amenities such as plazas, swimming pools, wading pools, terraces, fountains, wellness centers, libraries, meditation rooms, a baywalk and restaurant. The project will attain a total height of 789' (N.G.V.D.). The subject site is zoned SD-5 (office/residential). The Adopted 2005 & 2015 Land Use Plan designates the subject property as being office/residential within the corporate limits of the City of Miami. The City of Miami Master Plan designates the subject site for high density residential development (500 routs/acre). A continuation of the public walkway from the proposed SE 12 Street plaza to South Bayshore Drive will be constructed. III. STAFF CR.ITIOUE Ordinance 85-14 Section. 1 - Legislative Intent It is staffs assessment that with certain modifications the project will meet the legislative intent. Ordinance 85-14 Section 8 - Review Criteria Shoreline Setback - Not in compliance. The shoreline setback proposed to the pedestal is 54' whereas 75' is required. The tower portions of the buildings are set back a minimum of 198'. However, Section 33D-38 provides that if shoreline walkways are provided, along with a covenant and provisions to ensure public use and maintenance of these walkways in perpetuity, the Committee may recommend that the shoreline setback be decreased. An additional attribute is the proposed restaurant and outdoor terrace area at the northeast corer. of the north building. This area has been proposed as an amenity which will provide public enjoyment of the bay and an added feature at the water's edge. The applicant has additionally provided a 14' wide illuminated public baywalk with a passive seating area and landscaping. Side Setbacks - In compliance. The required side setbacks are 25'. The proposed north side setback is 25', whereas, the south side setback varies fiorn 20' to 30'. 2 9 8 - 4� 0 Visual Corridor - Tn partial compliance. Although the majority of the view corridor width is 107', ancillary stnictures such as the guard house, fountain, water feature and planters will impede views through the !corridor. ft is suggested that the guardhouse be designed to be as unobtntsive as possible and built at grade. Additionally, it is recommended that sod or low groundcovcr areas be incorporated and/or substituted for some of the pervious area within the view corridor to soften the aesthetic views to and from the bay. In addition to utilizing the street ends to access the baywalk, the public will have unimpeded access through this area. Other Concerns Landscaping - in compliance. Landscaping within the view corridor should encourage views, be kept low and to the sides and utilize tall trees (such as Royal palins) so as not to impede views to and from the waterway. It is recommended that the landscaping behveen the baywalk and upper terrace be more concentrated with native salt tolerant plants and trees. Scaevola plus- eri is not readily available commercially and is often substituted with Scaevola frutescens (= S. taccada; = S. sericea), an exotic invasive species. The developer should be aware that pursuant to Section 24-27.1., Metropolitan Dade County Code, species listed under Policy 8I of the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Development Master Plan may not be sold, propagated or planted.. Likewise, the planting of controlled species, such. as the exotic Scaevola (half -flower) and the proposed Washington palm (Washingtonia robusta) are prohibited in this location. Any tree not specifically exempt under the County and City Codes will require a City of Miami Tree Removal Pen -nit. The landscape architect should try to incorporate any specimen size trees into the landscape plan. Miscellaneous Rip Rap - The property is bulkheaded on the east side. For aesthetic reasons and to attenuate boat wakes, it is recommended that limestone rip rap boulders be placed on a 2 horizontal to 1 vertical slope along both the east and north faces of the bulkhead. These boulders should extend to an elevation. above the high water mark. This work would require a Class I Permit. Shoreline Walkway - The 14' wide shoreline walkway/promenade is acceptable to staff. There will also be a 3' safety buffer along the cap of the bulkhead and another 3' landscaped area separating the walkway from the upper level planters and te7Tace. Although adequate seating areas arc provided shade trees should be substituted for the noted Date Palms. Class I Permit - The property is bulkheadcd along those portions which border Biscayne Bay including a dredged boat basin. Filling of the existing boat basin, as proposed, will require a standard form Class T Coastal Construction Perniit which requires review and approval by the Board of Commissimiers. Specific types of 3 9 8 - 4 � repair/replacement work on existing seawalls or bulkheads may be considered exempt from a regulatory Class X Coastal Construction Permit provided that the contractor subnits an engineering plan which the DERM determines meets acceptable standards for professional engineering design. Other types of seawall work including, but not limited to, the installation of new seawalls or the replacement of existing seawalls including non-exempt seawall work will require a Dade County Class I Coastal. Construction Permit. Both exempt and non-exempt seawall work require the submittal of engineering plans for departmental review. Manatee Protection - Although a docking facility is not a part of this application, the subject parcel lies within an area designated as "Limited Special Use" under the Dade County Manatee Protection Plan which bas been incorporated by reference into Section 24-58.3, Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Any proposed residential docking facility, including the installation of any structure enabling the mooring of vessels along the bulkhead and vessel storage, would be restricted to one powerboat per 100 linear feet of developable shoreline. Furthermore, dockage of commercial vessels, including courtesy docks, and water dependent public transportation dockage would be restricted to a maximum. density of one vessel per 500 feet of shoreline, or one slip per parcel, whichever is more restrictive. Additionally, DEPUM believes that the submerged lands waterward of the bulkhead are owned by the state and that a submerged lands lease may be required for a docking facility. The developer should be aware that new submerged lands leases within the Biscayne Aquatic Preserve are typically deniedby the state. M SUNE%LA-RY This project is recommended for approval., subject to conditions. k: Arax/sdr.!sdre9712 4 98- 450 SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE RESOLUTION 97 - SDRC 07 WHEREAS, Multiplan USA, Inc. has applied for approval of a site plan for the proposed Bayshore Palms Condominium located at South Bayshore Drive between SE 12 and SE 14 Streets and as fully described in the attached recommendation and site plans, and WHEREAS, the proposed project consists of twin 67-story condominium buildings with a total of 749-units with. related amenities, a restaurant, retail and a public baywalk on a 5.083 acre parcel, and WHEREAS, the subject application as filed with the Metro -Dade Department of'Planning Development and Regulation dated September 26, 1997 requests site plan approval, and WHEREAS, the Shoreline Development Review Committee considered whether and the extent to which the project as presented conformed to the Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan, the City of Miami Master Plan and the Biscayne Bay Management Plan, and WHEREAS, the Shoreline Development Review Committee of Dade County has as one of its primary responsibilities, the duty to determine the extent to which any plan or development action, as proposed, is in conformance with Dade County Ordinance 85-14 and the minimum standards set forth in Dade County Resolution 85-257, and WHEREAS, the Committee considered the recommendations of Dade County staff, and 98 - 45` 0 WHEREAS, a public meeting of the Shoreline Development Review Committee of Dade County, Florida, was advertised and held, as required by law, and all interested parties in the matter were heard, and upon due and proper consideration having been given to the matter; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that at its advertised meeting of November 19, 1997, the Biscayne Bay Shoreline Development Review Committee, as moved by Gladys M. Diaz and seconded by Caridad Hidalgo-Gato recommended approval of the development action as presented and enumerated in the attached staff report and site plans with the following provisions and conditions: 1. That the southeast and northeast corners at S.E. 12 and S.E. 14 Streets, respectively, be better articulated by landscaping and/or architectural features. 2. That a portion of the imitation keystone pavers in the view corridor be replaced with sod. 3. That shading through additional tree canopy be provided along the public baywalk and South Bayshore Drive. 4. That the service entrances along SE 12 and SE 14 Streets be constructed with decorative pavers. 5. That there be a continuity of the type and design of the concrete pavers utilized in the pedestrian plaza with the adjacent property to the north. 6. That the pedestrian movement through the view corridor be clarified, through an urban design strategy, to indicate public access. 7. That the proposed mahogany trees in the view corridor be replaced with palms. 8. That the applicants create more stacking on site or with a stacking lane along South Bayshore Drive. 9. That the applicants explore the option of creating two guardhouses outside the view corridor. 98 - 45" 0 CooP1 . (IN 9L669LC90C XV,4 66:ZT Hill L6/OC/ZT The vote on the motion was as follows: Les Beilinson - Excused Rosa Epstein - Yes Caridad Hidalgo -Cato - Yes Patrick McCoy - Absent W. Chad Williard - Yes Jose Feito - Excused Motion to approve passed - 7-0. Roberto Datorre - Yes Thorn Grafton - Excused Bill Rosenberg - Yes Andrew Witkin - Yes Gladys M. Dial - Yes This resolution constitutes the report of the Shoreline Development Review Committee together with all exhibits attached hereto submitted to the Board of County Corunissioners, Dade County, Florida pursuant to Dade County Ordinance 85-14 which shall become a part of all'hearings and/or permit records on the proposed development action. Respectfully submitted, An rew Witkin, A.S.L.A. Chair, Biscayne Bay Shoreline Development Review Committee 1/ Zr�4,7 Date App. # 97-12 k:Alex\sdr\reso9707 9 C5 0 t00 pj (IN 9L6t9LC90C Xdd 6t: ZT d11L L6/OC/ZT Analysis for a Special Exception component of a MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT for the BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT located at 1201 Brickell Bay Drive CASE NO. 1997-0080 Pursuant to Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the subject proposal for the Bayshore Palms Project has been reviewed to allow the following Special Exception as a component of a Major Use Special Permit: • Special Exception per Article 6, Section 605.4.3 (2) to allow a Bar/lounge within the SD-5 district; The requested Major Use Special Permit is for the purpose of allowing the Bayshore Palms Project, a Planned Unit Residential Development project consisting of a total of 749 residential units to be accommodated within two high-rise towers, with accessory commercial space and 1,180 parking spaces for the property located at approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive within the Brickell area (see attached legal description, location maps and aerial photographs for exact property boundaries). The following findings have been made: • It is found that the proposed planned unit development project will benefit the Downtown District by creating new housing opportunities for employees of the area as well as attracting new residents to Downtown Miami. • It is found that the subject of this Special Exception, specifically a Bar/Lounge, for the proposed project is completely within the scope and character of the project given that it is a very high density, luxury residential project to be located along a significant parcel on the waterfront of Downtown Miami. • It is found that the Urban Development Review Board (UDRB) has recommended approval of the proposed project, subject to conditions, as specified on the attached minutes from its public meeting held on November 13, 1997. • It is found that the Large Scale Development Committee (LSDC) met on July 25, 1997 and has reviewed the project for compliance with technical concerns and has recommended the following: 9 8 - 4-0 1. pursuant to the Department of Public Works, the project requires plans for proposed sidewalk and swale area improvements (including the construction of a proposed cul-de-sac turnaround at the easterly end of S.E. 12`h Street) prior to the issuance of a building permit; and 2. pursuant to the Downtown NET Office, the applicant shall submit a parking plan for construction employees and temporary parking arrangements for the existing building while the new building is under construction; said parking plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of any building permits. • It is found that the Department of Planning and Development is in concurrence with the findings of the LSDC and will require compliance with the above referenced conditions prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed project. • It is found that due to the location of the proposed project along Biscayne Bay, the applicant shall be required to present the project to the Miami -Dade County Shoreline Development Review Committee for review and approval; the City of Miami shall require a final Resolution from said Committee prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. • It is found that with respect to all additional criteria as specified in Section 1305 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, the proposal has been reviewed and found to be adequate. Based on these findings, the Department of Planning and Development is recommending approval of the requested Planned Unit Development Project with the following conditions: 1. The approval of this Major Use Special Permit shall be subject to the recordation of the following documents prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed project: a. Unity of Title or covenant in lieu thereof providing that the ownership, operation and maintenance of all common areas and facilities will be by the property owner or a mandatory property owner association in perpetuity. b. Development Order specifying that the Development Order runs with the land and is binding on the Applicant, it successors and assigns, jointly or severally. S- 4 2. Pursuant to the Downtown NET Office, the applicant shall submit a parking plan for construction employees and temporary parking arrangements for the existing building while the new building is under construction; said parking plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3. Pursuant to the Department of Public Works, the applicant shall provide plans for proposed sidewalk and swale area improvements (including the construction of a cul-de-sac turnaround at the easterly end of S.E. 12' Street) prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. Pursuant to the UDRB, the conditions, as specified on the attached minutes from the meeting held on November 13, 1997, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit; compliance with said conditions shall be determined by the Department of Planning and Development. 5. Pursuant to the requirements of Miami -Dade County, the proposed project shall require the review and approval of the Shoreline Development Review Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. 6. This approval shall also be subject to all additional conditions specified in the Final Development Order for the project. 98- 4.i0 Brickf- Homeowners Assoc tion November 25, 1997 Manuel de Zarraga Multiplan USA, Inc. One Biscayne Tower, Miami, FL 33131 Dear Manny: Suite 1802 RE: Bayshore Palms Development Thank you for arranging the presentation on your Bayshore Palms Project to our BHA Board of Directors at our November 19th meeting. The attendees at the Board Meeting were favorably impressed with the proposed development. We were particularly pleased with the high quality of design, the low density of development and the sensitive, pedestrian — friendly treatment along Biscayne Bay. We took note that you have not requested any variances in order to develop this Project and the special exception included in the application is required only in order to provide a restaurant along the Baywalk, which should benefit the entire area. In addition, the orientation of the towers on a north/south axis appears to be the least restrictive to the views of the surrounding neighborhood as well as those who travel along Brickell Avenue and Brickell Bay Drive. We were especially impressed by the contribution these twin towers should add to Miami's waterfront profile. Your project looks like the kind of development that is in keeping with our vision of the Brickell Neighborhood's future. We wish you success with this major undertaking. Sincerely T. Sinclair (Tory) Jacobs President 98-45O 195 SW 15th Rd., Suite 203, Miami, FL 33129 Phone (305) 858-9699/Fax (305) 858-6248 PLANNING FACT SHEET APPLICANT Judith Burke for Multiplan, USA Corp. HEARING DATE February 18, 1998. REQUEST/LOCATION Consideration of a Major Use Special Permit for the Bayshore Palms Project located at approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Complete legal description on file with the Hearing Boards Office. PETITION Consideration of a Major Use Special Permit for the Bayshore Palms Project at approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive to allow a Planned Unit Development consisting of 749 residential units; accessory retail and 1,254 parking spaces. PLANNING Approval with conditions. RECOMMENDATION BACKGROUND AND Please see attached analysis and recommendation. ANALYSIS PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD CITY COMMISSION APPLICATION NUMBER 97-059 VOTE: Item #1 :................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. CITY OF MIAMI • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 444 SW 2N0 AVENUE, 3R0 FLOOR • MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33130 PHONE (305) 416-1435 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... :D...5 ate: 02/09/98 Page 1 c 415' 0 Analysis for MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT for the BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT located at 1201 Brickell Bay Drive CASE NO. 97-059 Pursuant to Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the subject proposal for the Bayshore Palms Project has been reviewed to allow the following Major Use Special Permit: • Special Exception per Article 6, Section 605.4.3 (2) to allow a Bar/lounge within the SD-5 district; The requested Major Use Special Permit is for the purpose of allowing the Bayshore Palms Project, a Planned Unit Residential Development project consisting of a total of 749 residential units to be accommodated within two high-rise towers, with accessory commercial space and 1,254 parking spaces for the property located at approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive within the Brickell area (see attached legal description, location maps and aerial photographs for exact property boundaries). The following findings have been made: • It is found that the proposed planned unit development project will benefit the Downtown District by creating new housing opportunities for employees of the area as well as attracting new residents to Downtown Miami. • It is found that the subject of this Special Exception, specifically a Bar/Lounge, for the proposed project is completely within the scope and character of the project given that it is a very high density, luxury residential project to be located along a significant parcel on the waterfront of Downtown Miami. • It is found that the Urban Development Review Board (UDRB) has recommended approval of the proposed project, with conditions, as specified on the attached minutes from its public meeting held on November 13, 1997. • It is found that the Large Scale Development Committee (LSDC) met on July 25, 1997 and has reviewed the project for compliance with technical concerns and has recommended the following: I 98- 4050 1. pursuant to the Department of Public Works, the project requires plans for proposed sidewalk and swale area improvements (including the construction of a proposed cul-de-sac turnaround at the easterly end of S.E. 12" Street) prior to the issuance of a building permit; and 2. pursuant to the Downtown NET Office, the applicant shall submit a parking plan for construction employees and temporary parking arrangements for the existing building while the new building is under construction; said parking plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of any building permits. • It is found that the Department of Planning and Development is in concurrence with the findings of the LSDC and will require compliance with the above referenced conditions prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed project. • It is found that due to the location of the proposed project along Biscayne Bay, the applicant shall be required to present the project to the Miami -Dade County Shoreline Development Review Committee for review and approval; the City of Miami shall require a final Resolution from said Committee prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. • It is found that with respect to all additional criteria as specified in Section 1305 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, the proposal has been reviewed and found to be adequate. Based on these findings, the Department of Planning and Development is recommending approval of the requested Planned Unit Development Project with the following conditions: 1. The approval of this Major Use Special Permit shall be subject to the recordation of the following documents prior to the issuance of any building permits for the proposed project: a. Unity of Title or covenant in lieu thereof providing that the ownership, operation and maintenance of all common areas and facilities will be by the property owner or a mandatory property owner association in perpetuity. b. Development Order specifying that the Development Order runs with the land and is binding on the Applicant, it successors and assigns, jointly or severally. 2. Pursuant to the Downtown NET Office, the applicant shall submit a parking plan for construction employees and temporary parking arrangements for the existing building while the new building is under construction; said parking plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of any building permits. 2 98- 450 3. Pursuant to the Department of Public Works, the applicant shall provide plans for proposed sidewalk and swale area improvements (including the construction of a cul-de-sac turnaround at the easterly end of S.E. 12`h Street) prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. Pursuant to the UDRB, the conditions, as specified on the attached minutes from the meeting held on November 13, 1997, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit; compliance with said conditions shall be determined by the Department of Planning and Development. 5. Pursuant to the requirements of Miami -Dade County, the proposed project shall require the review and approval of the Shoreline Development Review Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. 6. This approval shall also be subject to all additional conditions specified in the Final Development Order for the project. 98- 4O urtiu1NNL CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD EXCERPT FROM THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS of a REGULAR SEMIMONTHLY MEETING of the CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD February 18, 1998 RE: Item No. 1 Application No. 97-059 Bayshore Palms Project MIAMI CITY HALL 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA ORIGINAL GO- At,A I Excerpt from the Record of Proceedings of the regular semimonthly meeting of the City of Miami Planning Advisory Board, at Miami City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, on Wednesday, February 19, 1998 commencing at 7:00 p.m., the Honorable James "Chip" Black presiding as Chairman. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ofelia Tabares-Fernandez Orlando Garcia, Jr. Jesus S. Casanova Doris K. Scheer Doreen Locicero ALSO PRESENT: George K. Wysong, III, Asst. City Attorney Teresita L. Fernandez, Chief Hearing Boards Office Lourdes Slazyk, Dept. of Planning and Development SHUTTS & BOWEN (BY: JUDITH A. BURKE, ESQ.) 1500 Miami Center 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Appearing on behalf of the Applicant SPEAKERS: Phillip Yaffa Luis Revuelta Walter Taft Bradshaw Manuel De Zarraga JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 450 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Call to order, Invocation) (Pledge of Allegiance, Roll Call) CHAIRMAN BLACK: Okay. Can we call for the first item? MR. YAFFA: Mr. Chairman, if I may, my name is Phillip Yaffa with offices at 100 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. I'm here tonight as a member of the public and senior vice-president of -- property owner on Brickell Avenue. I am requesting, as a matter of right, a deferral of Item Number One, the Major Use Special Permit application for Bayshore Palms Project. I am requesting this deferral as a matter of right based on the failure of the applicant to comply with the provisions of the City of Miami Code and the Zoning Ordinance. The specifics of this violation is as follows: The applicant appeared before the Urban Design Review Board and submitted JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98-- 450 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 into public record the various exhibits that they have set up for you tonight. Once they submitted those exhibits to the UDRB, they became a part of the public record. Under the Zoning Code, the public has a right to examine the public record and shall be given, and I quote, "A full opportunity to prepare for hearings." In violation of law; in fact, a criminal misdemeanor, the applicant removed from the public record all of these exhibits, depriving the public the opportunity to examine them. When I went before -- when I went to the Planning Department to examine their exhibits, I was informed that the exhibits were not a part of the public record, that they had been removed; in fact, never submitted to the Planning Department as were the requirements of the code. I requested Ms. Slayzk to call the applicant and ask if they would return to the public record the various exhibits. That was a week ago Monday. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA ��jj��,50(('�� 98— `f 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The applicant in fact voluntarily agreed to do so. The applicant delivered the exhibits back to the public record at 5:00 o'clock p.m. this past Friday. Saturday, Sunday, and Monday was a legal holiday. The first opportunity that the public had to come these documents was yesterday. We have planned and have on standby a number of expert witnesses that needed to come in to review the exhibits that were part of the public record. Under the City of Miami code, public records must be submitted no later than ten days prior to a public hearing. These records were submitted two days prior to the public hearing. Also, in violation of the code, which provides that you cannot make any revisions to the public record once they have been submitted. Therefore, as a matter of right, I would request that this matter be deferred to allow the public an opportunity, quote, "A full opportunity under the zoning JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 450 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ordinance to examine these records." I make this request with the full understanding and knowledge that the applicant has prepared and brought in a number of expert witnesses and teams to make this presentation. However, I would remind this board that the public has also appeared before you at great inconvenience and expense with members of the public coming to testify and appear. We have brought our exhibits. And the applicant at the last meeting of the Planning Advisory Board asked, as a matter of right, for a deferral as a result of a short board. And while we appreciate the inconvenience that this deferral might cause the applicant, we would ask the Board to be in consideration of the inconvenience to the public. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Okay. We understand. Who is speaking for the applicant? Do you have any objection to a deferral? JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORppIDA 98- 4bO 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. BURKE: We would prefer to go forward this evening. I would like -- for the record, my name is Judy Burke with law offices at 201 South Biscayne Boulevard in Miami. I represent the applicant, Brickell Invest Joint Venture. I would like to state that what we're talking about here, the exhibits, are renderings which are just further depictions of all of the material that was part of our Major Use Special Permit and which was enclosed within the booklet and has been public record and been at the city offices since we first filed it. We were not asked at the end of the UDRB meeting to leave the renderings there. I know this board often makes that request, but we were not requested to do so at that time, and so that we took them back with us. If Mr. Yaffa had called us and asked to see them, we would have brought -- as a matter of fact, all of these renderings were in Mr. Yaffa's office, because months JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 8 - COW 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 before we appeared before this board, we went to meet with him, we understood he had objections, and we brought all of our boards to his office so he could have them in his conference room and review them and we could explain the project to him. So I can't imagine what possible prejudice there could be by pictures, further depictions of everything that is enclosed within the book that this board is going to utilize to make their decision this evening. We would like to go forward. We took a deferral last time because of the short board, and now time might become critical. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Let me clarify the issues for a second. The documentation that was -- that is required by law, Lourdes, was it available and could this information have been available to the public if they'd wanted to see it where it's supposed to be at Planning? MS. SLAZYK: There's a couple of questions in there. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 45O I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 First of all, the documentation that is required to be in the public record is the application and the books that are before you, and those have been in our office the entire time. The other question, the information that was taken to the UDRB -- first of all, the UDRB is a public meeting, not a public hearing, and I believe that the section that refers to application materials being available for public review applies to public hearings, and that was a public meeting. So, I mean, I may defer to the Law Department on that one, but it's not the same thing as a public hearing. A public meeting is not advertised, it isn't -- you know, the Chair doesn't even have to recognize anybody other than the applicant to speak. Again, the rest of this information that they presented to the UDRB was not in our office, but when they called, we called the applicant to get it over there, and I understand it was short on time, but they JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98-- 400 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are, as the applicant said, further depictions of plans that were on file. And an expert witness should probably be able to take those plans and do as much of an analysis as we do, because we didn't have these to do our analysis. We did it off the plans that are on file and what are in your books. CHAIRMAN BLACK: With regard to the issue of the public having access to the information, do you think that the public has been damaged in any way in not being able to get access to this material? In other words, has the public been served in this process? MS. SLAZYK: That's a tough one. If you mean has the public had access to the plans, definitely. These books and the plans have been on file for -- I don't know. When was it filed -- several months already. Whether the applicant or Mr. Yaffa needed some particular piece of information from some of the boards -- some of the boards go into orientation analysis, and if JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 450 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 he wanted to refute the information that they're going to present on analysis of orientation, perhaps it would have been helpful for him to have that further in advance. But the plans -- and again, if he's hiring an expert witness or an expert consultant to take a look at the plans and the elevations and orientation, they should be able to speak off of what's in the record as well as this information. I can't -- I mean, it depends on what they consider valuable. MR. YAFFA: Mr. Chairman, if I -- CHAIRMAN BLACK: Mr. Yaffa, one moment, please. MS. SLAZYK: It depends. CHAIRMAN BLACK: George, it always comes down to you then. Our board's legal position at this point is? Have you been able to formulate anything or do you have an opinion? MR. WYSONG: Well, the first thing that I would say procedurally is that the Board should get over this question first JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA QQ- Af= 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and then decide. So the first question is essentially the question of the request for a continuance. I believe the section that has been referred to regarding review and recommendation by the Planning, Building and Zoning Department has a section that says, "Applications will not be permitted to be revised within the ten-day period prior to the public hearing unless the revision is made in public hearing with a full disclosure." So I would agree with Lourdes Slazyk in that the UDRB meeting was a public meeting and not a public hearing, so that requirement does not apply. I think also this is somewhat treacherous ground to be walking on because there has been an allegation of a misdemeanor. That is the remedy in my opinion, in that if there has been some problem with the proper tendering or not tendering of public records, which these are alleged to JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 410 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have been, then that's a violation of the public records law, and the remedy for that is a misdemeanor, which is a criminal offense. However, I don't think there's anything in the code that would preclude you from hearing this item, although I believe the rules of procedure say when there's a short board, they have the right to ask for a continuance. They're asking for a continuance. It's really up to the discretion of the Board. You're not asking for a continuance? MS. BURKE: Absolutely not. MR. WYSONG: I'm sorry. I got a little mixed up there. You're not asking for a continuance at all. I don't think the code precludes the item from going forward, either the zoning code or the city code. So there may be some other ramifications down the road relating to the public records law, but I think those are separate issues entirely. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Okay. Mr. Yaffa. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 4100 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. YAFFA: May I have a rebuttal? CHAIRMAN BLACK: Sure. MR. YAFFA: Thank you very much. I think I would like the city attorney just to respond to: Are these submittals that were introduced at the Urban Design Review Board part of the public record, did the applicant remove these boards from the public record, and when requested to give us ample opportunity to review the boards, they returned them at 5:00 o'clock on Friday before a long holiday weekend? I'm telling you that the issue of orientations of these buildings are what we are here to discuss tonight, that they introduced evidence of boards and had testimony on that were not in the public record and did not give us an opportunity to have our experts review them. There was nothing in the MUSP application that's before you that is part of the orientation of the building that they presented at the UDRB. Indeed if you look through your book JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 8 - 410 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tonight, I would ask you to find where this board is or that board is or that board is or that board is. As a member of the public, I tell you I feel that I have been deprived of my opportunity to present our position, a very important position to the neighborhood, a position that will have ramifications for the next 50 years. The applicant asked for a deferral the last time, as was her right, because there was a short board. I do not believe that since there are two meetings in March, I would have no objection to deferring this till the first meeting in March asking you for an opportunity to have our expert witness comment on the very important issue of orientation. My final thought, that if in fact you do decide to proceed tonight, I would ask you to preclude them from discussing or bringing into issue any materials that they used at the UDRB Board that they removed from the hearing from the public record. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Okay. Ms. Burke. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 450 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. BURKE: The public record is made up of the plans, all the required plans for the building. What you see here are aids that we are going to use to make our argument tonight, to describe to you the project. We have pictorial aids to make it easier for the Board to see what we're saying. It has nothing to do with the public record. Every single developer who's ever appeared before this board has come here with charts and graphs and whatever schematics they thought were necessary to illustrate their point. In fact, when Mr. Yaffa presented his project to this board a month ago, he did the same thing. We were not asked to leave any of our boards. It was not required that any of our boards be made part of the public record. The public record was complete when we completed our application. And as soon as we got word that Mr. Yaffa wanted to see -- and he knows how cooperative we have been any time he's wanted to see JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 450 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 anything. As a matter of fact, most of the studies that we've done that we want to show you tonight, are in response to Mr. Yaffa's concerns, nothing that was required to be done for this project, none of the required plans, floor plans, elevation. We're just talking about studies that we did so that all of us could have a better understanding how the orientation of these buildings affects our neighbors, and not just Mr. Yaffa's building, but all of our neighbors, and that's why we did the studies. It has nothing to do with the public record. He's bringing in a point that is totally extraneous to this issue. MR. YAFFA: Ms. Burke, once you introduce it into the public record, once you have utilized it, it is part of the public record. MS. BURKE: It wasn't the public record. It was an aid of presentation. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Ms. Burke, that's JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA '8- 4 b 0 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it. No more. I think that what the Chair would like to do is entertain discussion among the Board and a vote as to whether we proceed or we defer the item. So could we have some discussion on that among the board members? MS. TABARES-FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, I understand that our counsel has said that there is no -- nothing against having for us the presentation in fron of us and discuss, that these are accessory information, it's more pictorial than technical, and I see no reason why not keep going on. That's the way I see it. MR. GARCIA: I just want to clear something up. What we're seeing here, is this in the package or the file for the public records? MS. SLAZYK: Not the exact pictorials. The plans -- MR. GARCIA: Do they need to be? MS. SLAZYK: No, they don't. The application that was filed was a JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 8 - 450 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 complete application. This is further elaborations and renderings and, you know, information that is a depiction of what's in your application, but they didn't change their application. MR. GARCIA: So, Mr. City Attorney, in your opinion we're not in any violation going forward on this? MR. WYSONG: No. And in fact, that's a crucial point that Ms. Slazyk mentioned, is that really you're examining the application, which everybody has had, and while these are visual aids, et cetera, you're really determining whether or not the package, that huge binder that you have in front of you, is sufficient. There has been no modifications to the packets as far as I know; there are no substantial modifications for which the public needed to be placed on notice. So once again, I believe based on the fact that you've had all the information, the public has had all the information for quite some time now, there is nothing to JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FIDA4 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 preclude you from hearing this matter in the code or the zoning ordinance. MR. GARCIA: I'd say we move on in this issue. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Any further discussion? The Chair will entertain a motion to proceed. MS. LOCICERO: Second. CHAIRMAN BLACK: It's been moved by? MS. LOCICERO: I'll move it. MS. SCHEER: Second. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Moved by Ms. Locicero, seconded by Ms Scheer. I don't think we need to call the roll. We'll just have a voice vote. All in favor? (Ayes) Opposed? (None) THE CLERK: Should I proceed to read Item Number One? CHAIRMAN BLACK: Yes. MR. YAFFA: Thank you. THE CLERK: Item Number One is JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 4 5- 0 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Application Number 97-059 at 1201 Brickell Bay Drive, and it's for the Major Use Special Permit of the Bayshore Palms Project. MS. SLAZYK: Okay. The Department of Planning and Development is recommending approval with conditions of this project. This is a Major Use Special Permit, again, for the Bayshore Palms Project, to allow a planned unit residential development project consisting of 749 residential units to be accommodated within two high-rise towers, accessory commercial space, and 1,254 parking spaces total. The Department has referred this project to our Large Scale Development Committee, to our Urban Development Review Board, and it has also -- at both of those boards they were recommended for approval with conditions, which are a part of your package. Some of the conditions, the more pertinent conditions were from the Downtown Net Office, that the applicant submit a parking plan for the construction employees JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 450 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and temporary parking arrangements for the -- while the building is under construction. The plan has to be submitted to the Department of Planning and Development prior to the issuance of a building permit. Pursuant to Public Works, the applicant shall provide plans for proposed sidewalk and swale area improvements, including the construction of a cul-de-sac turnaround at the easterly end of Southwest 12th Street prior to the issuance of a building permit. They have to build their side of it. If you remember the Yacht Club Two project that were here several months ago, they're building they're side. So once both projects get going, we're going to have a nice cul-de-sac at the end of the street where it meets the water. The UDRB recommended approval with certain design related conditions, and we also had put a condition on here that the project had to go before the Shoreline Development Review Committee of Dade County JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA .8 - 4. 0 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 prior to the issuance of a building permit. I received a letter from Dade County saying that they have gone before that committee and were also recommended approval with conditions. So we would add here on the record that they comply with all of the conditions of the Shoreline Development Review Committee. And the rest of the conditions are pretty much the standard conditions that are in all of our development orders, and they're in your package. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer or after the applicant makes the presentation. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Thank you. Okay. Ms. Burke. MS. BURKE: Good evening again and thank for you hearing us this evening. The applicant for this Major Use Special Permit, the Bayshore Palms Project, is Brickell Invest Joint Venture. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Excuse me. You see having been the new chairman here, there JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 45O 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are a lot of slipups that I do. One of them is that everybody that wants to speak on these issues has to be sworn. Just a slight formality. Anybody that wants to speak tonight, would you just stand up? And we'll do this in one flail swoop. If you want to speak on anything coming before the Board, stand on up and raise your right hand? (Thereupon, all speakers were duly sworn by the Clerk of the Board) CHAIRMAN BLACK: Thank you very much. Sorry. MS. BURKE: The principal of Brickell Invest is Jose Issac Perez, and Dr. Perez is one of the largest developers of shopping centers and residential communities in Brazil, and he's also the developer of the I1 Villagio condominium project which is currently under construction on Ocean Drive in Miami Beach. And as you might have heard, the I1 Villagio project has been extremely successful, so successful that Dr. Perez JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 8 - 400 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 began a search for a site in the City of Miami that would offer similar opportunity to develop a world class project. He assembled the same development team that created I1 Villagio and instructed them to design a project that would require absolutely no variances and would be in complete compliance with the zoning code. With those marching orders, the development team designed two elegant high-rise residential towers containing a total of 749 units. Now, the project also contains certain accessory commercial areas, including a restaurant which is located on the northeast corner of the property along the bay walk which is open to the public. The parcel contains approximately 5.05 acres, and that site could easily accommodate 2500 residential units. And as you know, a lot of the projects that have come before this board recently in the area, and which have been approved, have had very high densities up JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FL DA 45 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at that level. For example, the project that is located on 12th Street to our west of Brickell Bay Drive, which is the project that Mr. Yaffa represents, had a density of 390 units per acre that was just approved by this board, but Brickell Invest decided to develop this property with only a density of 148 units per acre. Before we begin our presentation of the project, I would like to specifically, but very briefly, address the issue which I believe will be the primary focus of Mr. Yaffa's presentation this evening. And it all stems from Section 605.3.2 of the city code which provides, and I quote, "Along the waterfront, buildings shall be orientated and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at the ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." I think that the presentation this evening will show you that our project is in complete compliance with that provision. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 4b'O 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The provision says "Impediments to water views from higher portions of nearby buildings." It does not restrict us only to consider the properties directly behind us, but it mandates that we consider all of the views that will be impacted by our development. And because of the way that the property is shaped, you know how the bay right around 12th and 14th kind of curves in and out, there are a lot more properties that are impacted by the development of this property, and most of the properties that are impacted happen to be residential. As a matter of fact, the project directly north of us, which was just approved by this board, the Yacht Club, is one of those. And I think that our presentation will show you that the orientation of our buildings will create the least possible impediment to those existing views. And that fact is even more clearly demonstrated by a letter of support that we received from Tory Jacobs on behalf of JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 450 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approximately 5,000 members of the Brickell Homeowners Association. And that letter was put in part of the public record at the Zoning Board meeting, but I have extra copies if anyone on the board would like to see it. Our presentation will also show you how the principal public views at ground level are clearly enhanced by the proposed orientation of the buildings. As you know from the comments that were made by Lourdes at the beginning of the hearing, the staff, the city staff is in complete agreement that the current orientation of the buildings is in compliance with the wording, the spirit and the intent of the provision of the code. Rather than go into this issue in greater detail right at the moment, I would like to reserve some additional time to offer additional evidence of our compliance with this section of the code after we've had an opportunity to present the project to you and after Mr. Yaffa has had an JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9840 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opportunity to state his objections for the record. So I'd like to now just introduce the members of the development team that are with us this evening. As developer's representative, Manny De Zarraga of Sonnenblick Goldman and Company is with us along with his associate Tia Hines. The traffic impact analysis was prepared by the firm of Carr Smith Corradino, and their representative Mr. Imada is here to answer any questions about traffic. The landscaping for the project was designed by the firm of Bradshaw, Gill and Associates, and Walter Taft Bradshaw will be here tonight to show us those plans. And last but not least, I would like to introduce the architect of this fantastic project, Luis Revuelta, who will begin our presentation. Thank you. MR. WYSONG: Mr. Chair, could I ask Ms. Burke a question real quick? JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 4bO 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I need to clarify who the owner of the property is. MS. BURKE: The owner of the property is Brickell Invest Joint Venture. We sent you in a letter -- originally when we filed the application, there was -- the contract purchaser was Multiplan, and we sent a letter showing you the assignment of the contract. They closed in the name of Brickell Invest, and we changed the record quite some time ago. I can get you a copy of that letter. MR. WYSONG: I just wanted to clarify for the record. MS. BURKE: By the way, all the same people, just a different entity, so it's on record. MR. REVUELTA: Good evening. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Everybody that wants to speak, just state your name and where you live, please. MR. REVUELTA: My name is Luis Revuelta with Luis R. Revuelta, P.A., the architects for the project and with offices at 4260 Southwest 73rd Avenue. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 450 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thank you very much for hearing our project tonight. When we were commissioned for this project, our client asked us to design a functional and economical building, structurally viable, that they could build on time and on budget and create a signature building with workable floor plans with unobstructed views to the water. We also, as you know, had to deal with many code issues and all the requirements of the submittal, which we have, and I've met with all of the departments which have looked at this plan and have approved it. And the biggest challenge we got on this project, obviously, was to meet this program, meet the code requirements and address all the vehicular and pedestrian issues that are in a project of this nature and this magnitude in downtown, and any project of this magnitude will affect some people and will create areas that are important, and we all need to be sensitive about that as the architects and the JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 4100 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 development team. The project consists of a pedestal and a tower. The pedestal has a ground level which is parking. By certain regulations of FEMA, we cannot put any retail, although we wanted to do that, as well as the Planning Department. On top of that ground level there's also a mezzanine level that was created, and then on top of the mezzanine is where we have the second level which has the lobby. On top of the lobby there are a few levels of parking that take us all the way up to the tenth level, and at the tenth level, which you'll see here in another pictorial, is where we have the amenity plaza for the building. On top of the pedestal we have 56 levels of residential levels, and on top we'll have an amenity, a wellness and meditation center for all of the residents to be able to enjoy and use. Going back to the pedestal, another requirement that our client gave us was to JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 450 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 design a building, as of right, without variances, a building that would be elegant by the nature of the product that he felt was needed after talking to the experts. It should be an elegant and private building, and at the same time we had to deal with making these buildings as open as possible and to attract and encourage pedestrian activity in this area, which is mainly on the north -south access. The biggest pedestrian activity that we found in this area is coming from the south, from the Condominiums and the beautiful bay walk that exists there, and they now turn when they get here, either turn back or continue to walk. On our building we are providing, as required by the zoning setbacks charter amendment and Shoreline Review Committee, a 50-foot setback to the pedestal. Of that 50-foot setback, 20 feet that will be linked in terms of design, materials, aesthetics to the existing bay walk. It will connect to 12th and a cul-de-sac. That's we're being required to develop JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA - 45 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 jointly with our neighbors to the north. And they in turn will also provide that boardwalk. So in essence the people now that live or walk in this area are going to be able to have a much longer, nicer walk along the bay than they have now. In addition to that, we're providing the required setbacks on the north and the south and in the middle of the property to meet the view corridor requirements of the charter amendment and the Shoreline Review Committee. We are making those areas very pedestrian friendly. The setbacks on the south and the north will be landscaped, and Taft will speak about the landscaping a little later in the presentation about what we're doing with the landscaping. So in terms of pedestrian activity, we're trying to encourage and we're trying to make it as friendly as possible. On our project we're providing service retail for the building and in a certain way for the area, that will be JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 4r0 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 accessible for the area, at the first available level that the FEMA regulations allow us to do that. In terms of vehicular traffic, it was a big challenge, because by code and by function we need a substantial amount of service trucks for these buildings, for any kind of building, as a matter of fact, that will be developed on this site, whether it is a rental or a hotel or an office building. By choice we selected to bury all that service area under our building instead of having those service areas facing 12th or facing Bayshore, which again we're trying to make as pedestrian friendly as possible. We chose to bury that into our building and to access it from 12th and 14th and try to maintain the pedestrian character along Bayshore Drive. So we're minimizing the entrance and exit of vehicular service traffic in these two areas. When we did that, obviously, we had to raise our building, by choice and by JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 43 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 necessity, and when we did that, we added the mezzanine which allowed us to shrink our pedestal. Once we made that decision, our lobby then was established at about 20 feet, 24 feet above the sidewalk. That meant we had to create a vehicular ramp that had to go from the sidewalk all the way to a drop-off area, and that had to be, again, open, nice, and pedestrian friendly and well landscaped. The options that we had was to either place it on 12th, on Bayshore or on the view corridor. Anything that we placed on 12th on or on Bayshore created vehicular traffic from the corner, which we felt had to be pedestrian in nature for functional, urban and aesthetic reasons. At that point the best location for that ramp and that drop -of plaza turned out to be flanking the view corridor which we established in the center of the site to give relief again and by requirement. By placing those ramps there, what it's actually done is increased the amount JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 45"0 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the view corridor at pedestrian level. So we now have 107 in the center at grade; level. Again, by requirement and by choice. We have the ramps that are approximately an initial of 60 to 75 feet which open much more, and we have a pictorial that will show that a little bit better. We'll show that later, how that opens up the view corridor in the center and makes it again very pedestrian friendly and less massive. In terms of the siting of the towers, I'm going to go into that, and I guess in rebuttal we'll explain more, but it was extremely important to me as the architect to not only provide my clients with whatever requirements he had of unobstructed views and pleasant views to the bay but figure out how we're going to impact our neighbors. As I said before, the main pedestrian activity in this area is north and south along the bay. This property is to the south, bulges a little bit to the east as you go south of our property, and JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 41-0 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 immediately north of us we have a substantial development of residential. By placing the towers the way we've placed them, pushing them back away from the water, we've created what we feel is a non -massive, as much as we can, because we have to have a pedestal for parking and any building in this area would have to have that which we have cluttered with residential units in that area. And I forgot to say, also, that we've chosen to define the corner of the pedestal, the northeast corner of the pedestal for a restaurant. Again, to try to create this activity in this area that is now really nonexistent. And we are clouded with condominium units the side of the pedestal that faces the water, so we're trying to make this pedestrian walk and this bay walk as friendly as possible. By pushing our building back towards the west, we not only created an amenity plaza that was well lit facing the bay that JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 400 W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 could be enjoyed by the residents of this building, but it can be enjoyed by residents of other buildings, which is the item that Judith referred to in the code awhile ago. Residents of other buildings will be able to, again to the north and to the South, which is again where we have the major link and chain of residential development that occurs typically on the shore and the bay of every city, will be able to enjoy this plaza as well as the residents of this building. So in terms of creating that amenity for people to look at, creating -- allowing the people to the north and the south to maintain the views that they now have of the bay, the perpendicular buildings that we have to the water that we have to the north and the ones that we have to the south depend a lot because of their nature on the north south from the inside. By twisting the buildings, you can see how the impact on the pedestrian walking north on the bay walk. This is the buildings the way we have JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 O - ` b' O 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 them and the way they're proposed. Again, open to the north. These would be the buildings if they were twisted as some people have proposed that we do. The same thing happens with buildings -- with the pedestrian activity walking south on Bayshore. These are the buildings the way we're proposing them now. These be the buildings if we were to twist them on their axis. Not only this works for the pedestrian activity at grade level, but it works very well for our neighbors to the north and the south. Again, to maintain those important views that they have from inside their apartments south and north, which are the views that they have to the bay. So this worked out pretty well, we feel, as a compromise for us and for the neighbors around us. THE CLERK: I believe once you plug in the other one, this one gets unplugged. MR. REVUELTA: The other issue that JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 4bO 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we were trying to avoid which we were faced in another building that we designed in south beach was the canning effect. On 12th right now there's a building approved that is parallel to 12th, which is again one of the major pedestrian gateways that we have to the water. If we placed our building perpendicular to the water and parallel to this building, we would have created a major canning effect, that I remember that in the City of Miami Beach, the planning department and most of the people we were working with, Miami Design Preservation League, local groups, were trying to avoid and I was trying to avoid myself. So for the pedestrian now walking towards the water on 12th and on 14th, the effect of the canning effect he would have had, had developers put buildings parallel to the water, would have been pretty oppressing in terms of the pedestrian activity. The sites behind those are fairly narrow in nature. So had those sites been wider and buildings were put JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 410 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this way, it would have created also a canning effect on Bayshore. We've tried to minimize that. So architecturally that's essentially the guts of the building. I briefly want to mention tht the tower is divided into apartments -- into floors that have six units per floor, four units per floor, and then a couple of floors of two units per floor all with views to the water and to the city. In the back of our building we have some floor plans that I'll briefly show you. We have -- towards the water we have units in predominantly glass and stucco and block and to the west we have -- practically two thirds of the building will be glass because we have units that are facing -- bedrooms and areas that are facing the city and then one-third of our mass of the building will be elevator cores and stairs which normally you place in this building in this kind of nature. This is a single -loaded building that has all the JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 8 - COW 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 units facing the water. I would like to introduce Taft so he talks a little bit about the philosophy of the landscaping and the materials, and then we'll try to make our presentation as brief as possible. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Thank you. MR. BRADSHAW: For the record, my name is Taft Bradshaw with offices at 4337 Sea Grape Drive, Florida By the Sea. Good evening. As the landscape architect for this project, it was a combination of enhancing very fine architecture but also enhancing the perimeter edges with relationship primarily to the bay. I've worked for many years in Miami and Dade County as well as all over the country on different projects related to water. And once you establish the philosophy of the location of the structures, then the remaining space is equal of importance as the mass of the building. It's the void or JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 8 - 4'50 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's the negative space that is not covered that takes on as much importance as the volume of the building themselves. That was the original intent. And I sat through many, many hours of the original discussion and volunteered time years back when Mr. Powell was getting the ordinances to establish that spirit. What has been said so far, as Mrs. Burke indicated, was the spirit. Have we violated the spirit, have we enhanced the spirit, and is this an element or a result of what the code was intended to be? I think it enhances, answers all of those in a very positive, in a resounding yes. The open space, which I'll address, became, as we often say, pedestrian friendly. Pedestrian friendly is a nice phrase, and it will be pedestrian friendly. But is it pedestrian oriented, is it pedestrian spaces that people can enjoy and also experience the neighborhood as well as the influence of just the residents of the JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 4hO 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 building itself? The west edge of the street is primarily -- and we have met, went before the different review boards, went to the Shoreline Review, and you have in your records there the approvals on that. They made certain recommendations, which we wholeheartedly agreed. There was some discrepancy from the Urban Review Board primarily on plant materials, but we said we can make that happen, which we have. But it's the scale on the west side where they have the tall vertical buildings and podiums with it's friendly edge, because of the fenestrations of the building should be open, that area we have as a bosk of palms going along the street. In front of the palms they wanted shade. Now, a good example of that is as you go down Brickell Avenue. And Brickell is a wonderful street from the point of view that you have the shade in the building and you have the shade on the edge of the sidewalks and then you have the palms JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 4NO 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 behind it. It's been that way for many, many years. So we really didn't do anything unique. We just copied something that was in the neighborhood that was good, and we think that that element, and I believe it was the board members which suggested it to us, we already enhanced it. From that point of view we have certainly created a wonderful edge to the property. When we come to the bay side, and my plan is -- maybe it will be a little easier for me to hold it this way. What is a promenade, what is an edge what is a walkway and what is a plaza? A plaza from a historical point of view is a collection or space surrounded by architecture, or it can be a historical point of view from a position of a defined edge. We take the edge of, the bulkhead edge, the bay edge. The bay edge is a marina promenade. It is a linear urban plaza that satisfies both the circulation, the sitting and orientation for the visitors as well as the residents and JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 8 - 45`0 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 people in the neighborhood can go and enjoy. And then above that, which is separated by a different level, about three and a half feet high is this terrace. So you have a double promenade plants cascading over it and a very organized vegetation pattern that's reflective of the architecture with it's openings and fenestrations and view corridors framing the individual views. It's a very enhanced edge, the whole length of the property. The floor scape or the materials that we would use as a surface to walk on would be very soft, tropical colored concrete appearance and uses of material, which is one of the objectives of this whole area, to introduce more tropical looking materials both in planting forms, of course, but also in paving patterns. The main opening or the vista or the corridor, as it's referred to, is the connecting horizontal negative space between the two structures would be enhanced and encouraged with a very linear JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 409 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 water feature, like a fountain, that's very low terminating at the -- I mean, the eastern end with a fountain flanked by matched date palms. The original application, just for the record, we have mahogany trees in there. The Shoreline Review said, would you consider palms. We said yes, because we like that from the point of view it opens the views more open from edge to edge. The edges of the property that stagger down on either side of the corridor that goes up to the arrival space underneath will have cascading plants, primarily the vining type of plants, so the edges are very soft as it comes down. These areas right here is the private residential space located on the tenth floor. It's a roof garden similar to many of the well designed projects that we've been responsible for such as the Bristol and Santa Maria and Williams Island and Fisher Island and projects of that nature. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 8 - 400 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So have we answered the intent and the questions that have arrived from a point of view of an urban edge, the landscape, and the pedestrian concern? We most definitely have. The architecture is certainly a superb piece of architecture, and this project in no way will take away from the economics or the economics or the character of this community. It can only enhance it. And we encourage your support. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Thank you, Mr. Bradshaw. MS. BURKE: We would like to give Mr. Yaffa an opportunity to speak now but reserve time for rebuttal. CHAIRMAN BLACK: All right. Ms. Burke, is there anyone else that wants to speak or make any presentation, any further detailed presentation? MS. BURKE: No, only if we need to have people speak in rebuttal to Mr. Yaffa's comments. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Okay. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 4150 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. BURKE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Mr. Yaffa. MR. YAFFA: Good evening, again. I'll use this microphone for the moment because I'm going to be walking in front of you to show us our model. First, for the record -- CHAIRMAN BLACK: I think we need a fund raiser to improve this system here. We've had nothing but problems. So I don't know. Maybe we'll work on contributions for that. MR. YAFFA: Thank you, Mr. Black. For the record, my name Phillip Yaffa with offices at 100 South Biscayne Boulevard. I want it clear from the outset of my presentation that we are not opposed to the development of this project, we are not opposed to the development scale, we are not opposed to the development's density; we are not opposed to the development's height. What we are opposed to is the development's orientation to the community. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 08- 410 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It is the fact of the importance of Biscayne Bay and water views to this community that results, in fact, and the orientation of these buildings and the way that they maximize that orientation for the residents that will live here. If I may take a moment to wheel in front of you a scale model of the neighborhood that we have prepared. Our objections to this project are based on three principal arguments: One, that the buildings orientations are insensitive to the Brickell Avenue area; two, that the orientation is detrimental to the well being of the city in general, and three, that they are not in conformity or compliance with the expressed intent or provisions of the city's zoning ordinance. So with that, let's examine those three statements. If I may just for an aside, I have representatives of the 1221 Brickell Avenue building here and the 1200 Brickell Avenue building here and other representatives. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 400 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In view of the time constraints, I have been elected to speak on their behalf. I would, however, like also to request, instead of having everyone come up here to speak, that I allowed to give my presentation now and that I also be allowed to have a counter rebuttal to information that I believe the applicant is going to be submitting, which again our experts didn't have a chance to review. Thank you. First, I have said that the buildings are insensitive to the neighborhood. The orientation of this building prevents views of the water from literally thousands of workers and hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space and residential space. Also, I want to disclose to you right now that I certainly have a particular parochial interest in this orientation. My company owns the property directly behind, to the west of this property, at 1201 Brickell Avenue, and we also own the property on 14th Street directly behind the JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98-- 450 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other tower. And so clearly we have a personal, parochial interest in the orientations of these buildings. This project which has received its application, its MUSP application and is scheduled to break ground this summer consists 671 apartments and has a projected cost of 75 million dollars. The other tower on 14th Street, a block away directly behind the second tower or their south tower mis scheduled to have approximately 350 residential apartments. Both buildings are rental apartment buildings; will be directed towards moderate income levels of the city. We have a number of renderings that they've shown you. They took a great deal of time talking about the orientation. But there's one thing that I would ask you to look, either in your book and all of the renderings that you have before you, all of the renderings show this building as if we were in the water looking at its east facade. I'd like to orient this building so JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA ik- 410 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you can see how it would look from the way the vast majority of the city will see these buildings. This is how everyone in the Brickell community will view these buildings. Just for some technical information, the site is 650 feet long, the pedestal is 100 feet high, to the top of this tower is 666 feet, and to the top of the architectural feature is 708 feet. The distance of this 650-foot site, the distance between the pedestals is a hundred -- I heard tonight 107 feet. I believe there's drawing items of 105 feet, but let's not quibble over a foot or two. It's a little more than a hundred foot distance between these two structures. The west facade of the building, each tower, is 230 feet in width. The buildings mass then covers more than 70 percent of the linear footage of the entire site. On this side what we're looking at here, which surprisingly it's not visible in any of the renderings, is in this section of the building we have two solid JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 413A 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 spires. Mr. Revuelta mentioned to you that the elevator cores and the staircases are on this side of the building. Those cores are 45 feet in width. So out of this 230 feet, there is 90 feet that is solid wall extending from the base of the pedestal at a hundred feet, going up to 666 feet, and that condition repeats itself over here. So the city will be looking at two solid walls -- four solid walls, each wall 45 feet in length. The site covers -- 40 percent of the building is then solid wall. I want you to know I think this is a terrific building, and I think they've done a yeoman's job in their attempt to make it pedestrian friendly, but let's not be deceived. When Mr. Revuelta says that there will be retail available for the pedestrian traffic, he clearly said that in accordance with FEMA standards. FEMA standards require that retail to be 14 feet in the air. In this case the sidewalks are about JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 8 - 450 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 five feet. So the retail, it's not like you'll be walking down the street and going into the shops and stores. Indeed we are attempting right now through the offices of the city to change the FEMA standards for this neighborhood because we want to bring our building down to grade. We want our retail down at street level and not in the air. This plaza between the buildings is a vehicular court, and I believe if we ask Mr. Revuelta it will not be open to the general population to be walking through it. It's the entrance to the garage. Let's talk about what I mean about reorienting these buildings. This is the site the way the buildings sit right now. What if we did this? The same site plan; the same foot plan. My, oh my, what a different orientation we have now. What light, what air, what views. Do you think that people at 1201 JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 8 - 450 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Brickell Avenue have a little better access point to the water? This is 1221. I'm sorry. Do you think the people at 1201 Brickell Avenue will have more access? These neighbors to the north, it doesn't really matter too much, because the scale of these buildings is the same scale as the pedestal, so regardless of the orientation, they won't be accessed too much. The new condominium building at the Fortune House, the Fortune 01 Building, which by the way I'm authorized to say they object to the orientation of these buildings. Let me just do that again. The way the buildings are presented to you, and the way the buildings could be presented to you. You all have lived in this city for a long time. I ask you to mentally take a tour of the waterfront from the Omni to the Rickenbacker Causeway. Every single building with few exceptions is oriented at JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9$ 400 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 an east -west access, so that the view corridors are opened up, the space, the light, the air, and most important, the view to the water is maximized. So when I say these buildings are insensitive to the neighborhood, regardless of the renderings, this is an exact scale model. They are great advocates of their cause, and if I was in his position, I would do the same thing. But when they say by reorienting the buildings, it has an impact, I ask you: This is the orientation they're showing you. Would you as a developer orient your building so that you're view is to the west as they've showed it in this rendering, or would you orient your building so that you're view was to the east and to the south? I think when they look at your rebuttal materials, I would ask you, when look at site lines, I would ask you to say where do they place the buildings on the site in order to determine these site JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 410 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lines. So that's my first objection. I think that they're very insensitive to the Brickell area. My second objection was that they will ultimately hurt the economic base of this city. And what do I base that on. It is no secret that views of the water command higher rents, higher sales prices. The office buildings that are impacted, today enjoy beautiful water views. When those water views are blocked, those landlords will not be able to attain the same rents that they received with views of the water. Our apartment building over here clearly will be adjusted if this project goes ahead. If my residents are looking into the solid wall over here, I will clearly not be able to attain the same rent that I would be if this building was oriented along my JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA N- a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 access and my residents had a clear, open view of the water. Ultimately lower rents will lead to lower assessed valuations. Lower assessed valuations will ultimately lead to less ad valorem taxes, and less ad valorem taxes will lead to a lessening of the tax base of the city. I think it's clear that in general when a building that's 660 feet high will cast a shadow, that we believe, and I'm goinig to state that I have not had the ability to have my expert witnesses testify to this, but we believe the morning hours Brickell Avenue will be shadowed to Miami Avenue until the sun rises to a height above the buildings. I think that when you look why historically are all the buildings oriented -- go mentally down Brickell Avenue. They're all oriented this way. They all provide views of the water to all of the residents. I think that if we have a developer who in fact has historically looked at the JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA AC Atl:A 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 views in the city, you will see that the views to the north and the south are the more dramatic views and that he is under a misconception by thinking that the water view directly is the more dramatic view. In fact, at night the water view is relatively dull. What is exciting is the view of the lights and the skyline of the city both to the north and the south. The third point that I've made was that the buildings are not in conformity with the laws of the City of Miami. Ms. Burke has in fact read you a section of one of the ordinances that we look to. There's two laws that I want to bring to your attention: One, is the intent -- CHAIRMAN BLACK: Excuse me just a second. (Thereupon the hearing was recessed briefly and was thereafter resumed) CHAIRMAN BLACK: Okay. I apologize to those, to the presenters tonight, but we had some citizens here that needed some JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 91 C1 A f" (1 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 consideration. So you go ahead. MR. YAFFA: Mr. Black, I really thank you for this, and I want you to know that my presentation will be wrapped up within five minutes. I have passed out to you two sections of the code. The first has to do with the intent of this particular district. This district is known as SD-5, and I read you specifically from the code: "The district is of special and substantial public interest because of its prime location on Brickell Avenue, along the bay front and the Miami River, close to and visible from the CBD and Biscayne Bay, and the importance to the economic well being of the city as a prestigious high-rise office district." Going on, I've highlighted these areas: "In the interest of maintenance of principal views from within the district and adjoining areas, it is intended the JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 development shall be so designed so as to assure open character. Uses and designs should recognize the proximity to the areas of great natural beauty which are historically significant to the city. Water views should be made available to the public." That now, keep in mind, is the intent of the SD-5 district. This building requires a Special Class Two permit. The second paper that I've passed out to you, Section 605.3.1, which Ms. Burke referred to earlier, states the following considerations in granting such a permit: "The purpose of the Class Two Special permit shall be to insure conformity of the application with the expressed intent of this district, and with the special considerations listed below." The special considerations listed below, we have number one on that list, "Along waterfronts, buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 450 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 building of 671 units. Now, Sandy orient the buildings. Do we need to hire experts to say that this orientation meets the intent of the district and that their orientation is insensitive to the district? It is based on these two provisions that I believe these buildings do not meet the expressed intent and the specific provisions of the code. We have an extremely talented group of individuals on this team. I think the city should be very, very proud that we have a developer who was willing to spend the dollars and make the investment to assemble a team as they have assembled. I just ask you when you review this project and make to make the important decision to grant approval or not, ask yourselves: Are these buildings sensitive to the entire Brickell area or do they capture the water view for the 700 privileged residents that will live there, is the approval of this project at this orientation as proposed in the best JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98 - 4���� 16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 long-term economic interest of this community, and do you feel that this orientation meets the planing language and expressed intent of the code? This decision is yours. This group of individuals, as talented as they are, I know can go back and do a better job than they have. I would ask you to express that feeling and have them go back and come up with a plan that's good for them and good for this community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Thank you. Now, from this point forward it's -- this is a very large project involving millions and millions and millions of dollars, so we want to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to express themselves and to make it clear what's going on here. We don't want to -- we want to make sure that everybody gets their opportunity to discuss the features of this so that we can make the right decision, hopefully. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 8 - 410 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Therefore -- but in the interest of time and in fairness to the other people on the agenda, what we'd like to do from this point forward is to limit the rebuttal time, say, to ten minutes. MS. BURKE: We won't need anywhere near that time. CHAIRMAN BLACK: You won't need that much time. MS. BURKE: Unless -- CHAIRMAN BLACK: Well, let's say that you have it. And, Mr. Yaffa, you have ten minutes. And let's try to conclude this at 9:00 o'clock, okay, the public portion. MS. BURKE: By the way, talking about the millions and millions of dollars, the Brickell Invest Project will be 240 million dollar investment in the City of Miami. I would like to ask -- I would like to have our model. Mr. Yaffa, if you could remove your model? We didn't have an opportunity to check the scale on this model because when JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 8 - 4J0 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 he brought it to the UDRB last time, he took it back with him and didn't leave it; so I would like to have our model up there. CHAIRMAN BLACK: All right. MS. BURKE: As to the issues that Mr. Yaffa raised in his presentation, in the first place as to the technical issues, as to the reading of the code, I believe that your very capable staff of your Planning and Development Department has looked after your interest in that regard and has made sure that each and every aspect of this application was in compliance with the code before they recommended to you that you approve the application. And I also think that tonight Luis has described to you our rationale in positioning the buildings in the way that we did. Now, we all have to understand this is one of the few vacant parcels left in this area. This is a very built-up area, and this is one little vacant parcel, so obviously any development on this vacant JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA �8 - 410 Pan. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 parcel is going to impact the views of a lot of surrounding property, and we are truly sorry that our good friend and neighbor T Bore Hollow (sic) believes that our proposed project will have a negative impact, a negative economic impact on his proposed project, but we firmly believe that the existing location of the buildings will have the least impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. And our view is shared by many experts both outside and within the city of Miami administration. And talking about experts -- and both Francisco and Lourdes can confirm to you, that Jack Luft was very much in favor of the existing orientation of our buildings. And we worked with Jack a great deal before we brought it to the UDRB, and I would like to read into the record several very short excerpts from Jack Luft's presentation to the Urban Design Review Board at our November 13th meeting. What I'm reading from is contained in the minutes of the meeting, and this was prepared by the court reporter Jack JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 40 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bessoner and Associates. To set the stage, Jack told the board, and I'm reading from the transcript, "What I did is I actually went down to Brickell and I went up in some of the buildings and I went up in a number of condominium buildings all the way down from the Imperial to the 15th Road and to the Four Ambassadors and north to the river. I went back of Brickell, along Brickell Avenue itself, and I tried to get a sense of what were the more complex relationships between the buildings and view corridors and the environments that were surrounding them." Jack then asserted that "The views were of primary importance to the residential buildings," and I quote, "not a critical factor in the office market." He then stated, reading from the transcript, "My greater responsibility was to try to find the balance of all the view impacts and the value of those view impacts concerned in the large community and make a weighted decision, and once I experienced JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 450 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the 180-degree-rotated kind of view experience, I was persuaded that, not that it's in the project's best interest, but in the interest of all the players involved in the Brickell area." To then sum up, Jack stated, "I would have to say that I'm persuaded that I think the answer to Mr. Judson's question is, we are on balance, comfortable with the orientation that they had at the beginning and still have, and because I think it has the least impact to the most people. Now, we have a great deal of respect for Jack Luft's opinion, and I hope the Board shares Jack's view. I think that we can just sum up our presentation. We have other experts we could bring, and then Mr. Yaffa can have other experts contest. I think that you see what the problem is. We're building two buildings. If we turn them this way, they impact on the Yacht Club and all the condominiums all along the water. If we turn them that way, JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 4b0 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they impact on his property because it's vacant land and it will have an economic impact as all buildings will have. But we think this is a wonderful project. We think the orientation is proper, is in compliance. I think this is going to be a world class development, and we really would like to have your support of it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Thank you. Mr. Yaffa. MR. YAFFA: Thank you. THE CLERK: Can you hold on for a second while we change the tape? Thank you. MS. BURKE: We are, of course, available for questions if Mr. Yaffa wants to speak more, and then we'll answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Are you all set? Can he proceed? Okay. Thank you. MR. YAFFA: The first time this matter came up before the UDRB, the vote JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98-- 450 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was eight to zero against approval of the project. We were present. The second time this matter came up to the UDRB no one informed us, we were not there, and there was no one to speak on behalf of the neighborhood. There's no one in this community that respects Jack Luft more, but I would question his statement that the views are, quote, "not a critical factor to the office building market." I would like him to ask Mr. Kominsky who spent a couple of million dollars buying and refurbishing the 1221 building, I'd like him to ask the Ibex group that just spent in excess of 20 million dollars buying the 1201 building, I'd like him to ask us who are prepared to spend 125 million dollars building our buildings and in fact just spent eight million dollars buying the former Mutual of Omaha building, to think that views of the water are not critical to the success of an office building? I would ask you to look at the First JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA �- 450 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Union Financial Center with dramatic views of the water and the corresponding commanding of rents in excess of 25 to 30; in fact, recently a 40-dollar lease was signed. If you put that building behind a solid wall of concrete, do you think that they would attain the same kind of rents? There's an issue of not only view, but of shadow, of perspective, of the way the entire community will see these buildings and not just the 700 plus residents that will live in them. I don't think I have to say -- do but one thing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Thank you very much. That will close the public hearing portion of the meeting tonight. Now, for some discussion from the board members. MS. SLAZYK: I have one, just one correction for the record. I was just told by Francisco Garcia, who's our secretary to the UDRB, that the JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 8 - 459 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 first vote was not for a denial of the project. It was a continuance by an eight to zero vote for the project to go back through the department to further study the orientation arguments that were made that day. And that's why it came back on November 13th with Jack Luft, the excerpts that were read tonight into the record from Jack after we restudied the orientation issue. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Maybe if I can ask for some clarification from the architect. Why not turn the buildings around? MR. REVUELTA: As I stated before, we had not only concerns in terms of the financial viability of this project but our neighbors. We had to deal with what the items of the code have been quoted here today. In terms of the viability, also, of the project, the decision was made to go to a high -end luxury condominium. CHAIRMAN BLACK: May I follow that up just a bit? JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 450 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Am I hearing you saying that, look, you know, we've got two hundred -- we've got a quarter of a billion dollars in this project, we got to sell these units, and it's tough for us to sell a unit that's facing where somebody walks out of their living room or whatever and they're looking right into another building. That's not going to get it. MR. REVUELTA: You're right. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Am I right? MR. REVUELTA: You're absolutely right. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Is that the issue? MR. REVUELTA: You've said it. CHAIRMAN BLACK: The comment was except in Manhattan, but fortunately we don't have to do that. So the views from these individual apartments, one faces the ocean and one faces west. MR. REVUELTA: The city. CHAIRMAN BLACK: The city. And the ones on the end face up and down, correct? JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 4050 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. REVUELTA: Both the city and bay and north or south. CHAIRMAN BLACK: So from the city's point of view, these are going to sell for an awful lot of money. They're going to be condominiums, right? MR. REVUELTA: Correct. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Okay. So that's basically -- that's the economic reason why you want to orient the buildings this way? MR. REVUELTA: Correct. CHAIRMAN BLACK: The building will sell out more successfully and you'll be able to get a higher price for the building, correct? MR. REVUELTA: Plus the fact that Mr. Yaffa said if he was the developer, he'd probably do the same thing that we're doing. CHAIRMAN BLACK: I'm sure he would. MS. BURKE: Can I just add something? Because of the very high price of the land on the water here, if we were going to build a lesser priced unit, we would have JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 99- CiO 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to put up three buildings to get the density for the land value, and then nobody would have a view of anything. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Is there any other reason to not turn these buildings the way Mr. Yaffa is suggesting? MR. REVUELTA: Other than the ones we stated, and you so eloquently stated, this building has to be feasible. Structurally, it would be a major problem if we started to twist this building around the pedestal. Buildings of this height necessitate major sheered walls to take the wind. The efficiency of this building will be aggravated substantially when you twist the building on it's axis. So as you twist the building, the efficiency of the parking decreases, the parking pedestal would have to increase; the cost of the building, therefore, become greater. So as I said at the beginning of my presentation, we were given a challenging program to design a building that was feasible, structurally sound, that could be JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 4b0 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 built within a budget and could be sold. And as you mentioned, if you were to turn these buildings around, condominiums would be looking at each other, and it would be a major problem for this project to be sold. MS. BURKE: Also, may I add one other? If we turned them around, we would have a major problem with the Yacht Club, George Perez would be a worthy adversary of ours if we changed that orientation, and we would lose the support of the 5,000 members of the Brickell Homeowners Association, because it's their views that would be impacted if we changed our view to accommodate Mr. Yaffa. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Okay. Thank you. Dorren. MS. LOCICERO: I have a question. There's been a lot of reference to the changing of the orientation of the building. Was there a different orientation than what's there now? JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 450 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Okay. This is the original orientation. Is there any possibility to change it slightly so that it's more like at an angle rather than -- MR. REVUELTA: We have tried that with the building department, and what happens is when you turn them slightly, you start blocking the views of the corner units, and the corner units, as Mr. Chairman pointed out, are units that have very good views and they would be blocking each other. Structurally, it's a problem when you start turning this building on the axis. The major sheered walls that we have create an inefficiency in the structure of the parking lot. It not only increases the cost but increases the mass of the building. MS. LOCICERO: Are the apartments going straight through so that they have a view of both the bay and the city? I mean, one apartment, let's say one unit. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA C P 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Or are there units specific to just the east side and apartments specific to just the west side? Because I've been in several apartments and office buildings in the area and some do that, some have both views where you can look out the kitchen and you're looking in the city and you look out the living room and you're looking in the bay. Others have a unique view, either city or bay. MR. REVUELTA: As you can see in the book that you all have, these units are there. And they're not colored but they're there. The center units are flow through units. We have master bedroom and living room looking towards the water, and then you have secondary bedrooms looking towards the city, the center unit between those two units has water views, and then the corner units has both water views and city views as well as north views, and then the opposite holds the same for the opposite side of the building. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA JO— 4bO 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This is the major bulk of the floor plan of the building. As it goes up, it changes to four units per floor, and then those four units have through views. They're flow through units so you can see both the city and water. And then when you have two units per floor, they have flow through units. As you asked before and as Mr. Yaffa said, he himself said that the views to the north and south are very important views. By placing these buildings this way, our neighbors, the Yacht Club and the condominiums to the south, we are preserving those north and south views of these buildings around us by doing what we're doing in terms of the placement of our building. MS. TABARES-FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Mr. Garcia. MR. GARCIA: She can go first. Ladies first. CHAIRMAN BLACK: You yield. MR. GARCIA: I yield. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA q R - Cr o 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN BLACK: All right. MS. TABARES-FERNANDEZ: Yes. My question is to our lawyer. In any way is this project not fulfilling the consideration of Class Two Special permit determinations because of the orientation of the building? Because of the orientation of the building, are we in a position to make recommendation to change it because it is against the designation or the explanation of what the Class Two Special permit should accomplish? MR. WYSONG: Actually, I'll say I believe the answer to your first question is no. Regarding may you change it, you're reviewing the application as submitted, so I would highly dissuade you from that, but let me defer to Lourdes Slazyk. MS. TABARES-FERNANDEZ: Because my point is: I mean, in the sense that financial consideration of the building is not in the purview in my opinion of our board. I mean, I don't mind if they become three times millionaire or not millionaire. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9k- 4bO 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This is not the point. If they are doing something because of the orientation that is against the purpose of the Class Two Special Permit, then that is a different situation. That's what I'm asking. Because of the orientation, is the applicant, I mean, doing something against the provision of Class Two, which is what they are asking? They are not discussing any other thing here tonight. That's our only charge tonight, to decide on the acceptance or non -acceptance of the Special Permit Class Two. MS. SLAZYK: Right. What you're hearing tonight is a Major Use Special Permit that encompasses all the subordinate lower ranking permits, and there are several class two's and a special exception all rolled into this application. The department's recommendation is a consideration of this language, and the department has recommended that approval because we feel that it does comply with this. What it doesn't say in here and what il JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA Cl4_ AC:A 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was in, you know, very well read from the transcripts that, you know, Jack Luft the director at the time put into the record at the UDRB, it says, "Along waterfronts buildings shall be so oriented and designed as to minimize impediments to water views from principal public view points at ground level and from higher portions of nearby buildings." Okay. That doesn't say in what direction. If you look at the impact of the orientation to views as it's oriented here or turned the other way, there is a greater effect on a greater number of people with the orientation the other way. This is actually the minimal -- minimizing the impact. In the other direction there is a lot more impact to a lot more people. This is a tremendous impact to the properties immediately behind it, but it's a lot more open to everybody else. To turn it the other way would block all of the other waterfront views of the JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 4bO 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 full waterfront. Our decision was not based on the economics of this, it was not based on the economics of this. We understand the economics are a reality in a project like this, we understand that in order to make the numbers work, they would have to do a much higher density project than 749 units if they couldn't command the prices they need to command, and we saw several versions of, you know, alternate B, C and D for this project. We saw a version of three towers, we saw a version of two L-shaped towers, which would have blocked all the views, not only to the parcels right behind, but all up and down the waterfront. Remember this is a 600-foot long parcel on the water. They could divide this into three, 200-foot parcels and have three development sites. That means three towers. And if you looked at any of the view studies that were presented tonight, in JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 99- 411A 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 order to make it feasible -- nobody is going to build something that is not financially feasible. They're not going to do it. Okay. In order to make the numbers work at a different orientation, because it commands a different price, they have to increase the number of units almost double, maybe up to about 1200 units to make those numbers work. 1200 units don't fit in two towers like this the other way. They have to make the towers bigger or more of them. If these had been two square towers, we probably wouldn't even be discussing this tonight because squares don't have a thin side versus a long side, but because the applicant chose to chip away at the squares and create a project with a lot more architectural integrity, they're being penalized by even discussing orientation. And you know, that is where the Planning Department's analysis came in, and the greater effect of the impact on views would be the other way, not this way. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 450 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. TABARES-FERNANDEZ: Thank you Lourdes, you helped me to vote the way I'm going to vote. MR. GARCIA: I think she pretty much answered my question, but I just want to go straight to the point. So it's the Planning Department's opinion that this is the best possible design for this building or for this project? MS. SLAZYK: Yes, it is the most responsive to our waterfront both at the ground level and on views. MS. LOCICERO: Mr. Chairman, are we ready for a motion? CHAIRMAN BLACK: Yes. MS. LOCICERO: I'd like to move for approval with the conditions recommended by the Planning Department. MS. SCHEER: I second. MS. SLAZYK: I'm sorry. I have one more condition. I totally forgot at the beginning. MS. TABARES-FERNANDEZ: Yes. MS. SLAZYK: You all know we've come JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9$- 41j0 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 before you with DRI amendments before and you know there's a set amount of credits in our downtown DRI. At the present moment there are insufficient credits for the number of residential units to do both of these towers. There's enough for one, not both. So I would add a condition that the tower number two be ---the building permits be contingent of the availability of residential credits in the DRI. We're planning an amendment to increase that number, but it's not there yet, and until it's there, I want to clear I didn't put it in any draft. I forgot that, you know, that had to be addressed So there is no assumed rights by the applicant that they can build both towers right away. They cannot. And I wanted I want it to be clear in their development order. MS. BURKE: That's absolutely acceptable to us. CHAIRMAN BLACK: With the amendment to the resolution, you will accept that, 0 JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Locicero? MS. LOCICERO: Yes. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Okay. MS. TABARES-FERNANDEZ: Second. CHAIRMAN BLACK: Okay. It's been moved by Ms. Locicero and seconded by Mrs. Scheer. Is there any further discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, Mrs. Fernandez, will you do the roll? THE CLERK: Thank you. Ms. Locicero? MS. LOCICERO: Yes. THE CLERK: Ms.' Scheer? MS'. SCHEER: Yes. THE CLERK: Ms. Tabares? MS. TABARES-FERNANDEZ: Yes. THE CLERK: Mr. Casanova? MR. CASANOVA: Yes. THE CLERK: Mr. Garcia? MR. GARCIA: Yes. THE CLERK: And Mr. Black? CHAIRMAN BLACK: Yes. THE CLERK: Motion passes JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA q'k-- 4 10 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 unanimously. CHAIRMAN BLACK: I'd like to make a statement to those of you -- I don't know. Are there any principals here from the developers? MS. BURKE: Manny De Zarraga. CHAIRMAN BLACK: I wanted to express to you on behalf of this board and the city our enthusiasm for your investment, your willingness to invest in the city. We would also like to have you to keep in mind, because you guys have so much talent, a lot of money, and we have a very big city, and we have parts of the city that aren't at fortunate as the folks that are living in these two buildings, so I hope that when time permits and money permits that maybe there might be a little focus into some of those other areas and bring that talent financial wherewithal to bear and do something equally as important somewhere else in the City of Miami that maybe is a little less fortunate. MR. DE ZARRAGA: We thank you for those comments. JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 98- 4f10 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thank you. MR. GARCIA: I'd like to add something to that. Mr. Black always eloquently states the fact that we need help in other areas, and I always bring up that we have a lot of capable people here locally to do a lot of the work here. I hope you keep as much in the city as possible. MR. DE ZARRAGA: We're an all -local team, so we greatly appreciate it. CHAIRMAN BLACK: And, Mr. Yaffa, to you, we appreciate you coming down we hope that you feel that you've had a fair hearing before the board, and I thank you for your input. MR. YAFFA: Mr. Chairman, I absolutely do feel that I've had a fair time for presentation, and I appreciate your consideration in giving us the opportunity to speak. CHAIRMAN BLACK: The orientation of the building, the fact that that is going to be a very important part of this growing community down in Brickell, and that JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 8 - 4'0 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pedestrian walkway around the bay that Mr. Bradshaw was talking about, I hope that those restaurants or cafes are something that might be developed, just speaking personally, so that people that walk up and down that pedestrian walkway can stop and have a drink or have coffee or a meal or whatever overlooking the water, because we have very, very, very few places in the City of Miami where you can do that. Thank you all for coming. (Thereupon, the hearing on this item was concluded) JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 450 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY STATE OF FLORIDA ) . ss. COUNTY OF DADE ) I, AMAR KREDI, Registered Professional Reporter, Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that I reported the foregoing meeting of the City of Miami Planning Advisory Board at the time and place aforesaid, and that the foregoing pages, numbered from 1 to 93, inclusive, constitute a true record of an excerpt from said meeting as stenographically recorded by me; and that this computer -assisted transcript was prepared under my supervision. I further certify that I am not an attorney or counsel of any of the parties herein, nor a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor financially interested in the action. I further state that I do not certify as to the authenticity of any copies not personally signed and sealed by me. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the City of Miami, County of Dade, State of Florida, this 6th day of March, 1998. AMAR KREDI Registered Professional Reporter Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida At Large My Notary Commission Expires: May 16, 2000 ARY SEALF"O'FFICIAL"7E�Y PU6eAMAR KREDICOIAM�N NUMBER CC5S3651 MY GONIN �enee ES JOHN J. BLUE & ASSOCIATES - MIAMI, FLORIDA 9 8 - 45'Q