HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal AppealCITY COMMISSION OF THE CASE NO. 2005-00014
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA 5301 and 5501 Biscayne Boulevard
APPEAL OF CLASS II SPECIAL
PERMIT
MORNINGSIDE CIVIC ASSOCIATION,
ROD ALONSO, RON STEBBINS, SCOTT
CRAWFORD, ELVIS CRUZ,
Petitioners,
VS.
CITY OF MIAMI ZONING BOARD,
MORNINGSIDE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Respondents.
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEMON1ao.
<<o),y
APPEAL AND MOTION TO VACATE AND REMAND WITH
INSTRUCTIONS CITY OF MIAMI ZONING BOARD DECISIONS
APPROVING CERTAIN PROJECTS AT 5301 AND 5501 BISCAYNE
BOULEVARD
The MORNINGSIDE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC., ROD ALONSO,
ROB STEBBINS, SCOTT CRAWFORD and ELVIS CRUZ, by and through
undersigned counsel, appeal the decision of the City of Miami Zoning Board and
request that this Commission do the following:
1) Grant the appeal and approve the proposals only on the condition that
they comply with appropriate site and neighborhood compatibility
standards as expressed in Section 1305's Design Review Criteria;
Or, in the alternative,
Submitted Into the public
record in connection ith
item PZ . 3r on ? L o
Priscilla A. Th• mpson
City Clerk
2) Remand this matter to the Zoning Board with instructions to hold a de
novo public hearing.
1. This case is back before the City Commission on appeal of the Zoning
Board's grant of a Class II Special Permit to a developer who proposes to erect
two condominium towers that exceed ninety feet on lots that directly abut the
historic Morningside single-family neighborhood.
2. Although this Commission previously determined the projects were
incompatible with the existing neighborhood and denied the permits, the
developer successfully appealed the procedures used by the Commission in
denying the permit.
3. The Circuit Court gave the Commission two instructions in considering
this case. First, Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the agency
deciding a special permit must make "written findings and determinations in
accordance with the established applicable criteria set forth in this zoning
ordinance." Second, the Commission is to hear this matter as an appellate body
and is prohibited from holding its own public hearing on the matter.
4. The Commission remanded the appeal to the Zoning Board in January
for an appropriate hearing and written findings and determination. Instead of
holding a de novo public hearing, the Zoning Board refused to take any
2
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item 2.35 on
Priscilla A. Thompson
evidence, did not weigh the evidence, and adopted the proposed resolutiY Clerk
drafted by the developer's attorneys without considering the underlying merits of
the appeal. In fact, the attorney for the Zoning Board instructed the Board that it
had no discretion to consider the merits of the appeal, or to reach any decision
other than to deny the appeal.
5. Appellants now request that this Commission, acting as the appeals
tribunal, find that (1) the Zoning Board denied appellants procedural due
process, (2) the Zoning Board did not follow the essential requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance, and (3) the Zoning Board's findings are not supported by
competent substantial evidence. Dusseau v. Metropolitan Dade County Board of
County Commissioners, 794 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2001).
I. THE ZONING BOARD'S DECISION DID NOT FOLLOW
THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW BECAUSE
THE PROJECTS VIOLATE SITE AND NEIGHBORHOOD
COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS.
6. The record before this Commission, previously before the
Zoning Board, clearly shows that the two projects as presently proposed
do not comply with the Design Review Criteria ("DRC") set forth in tables
in Section 1305.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, attached hereto as Exhibit A:
A. Non -Compliance with DRC I(1) and II(2) and (3).
DRC I(1) and II(2) and (3) require that the Zoning Board must find
substantial competent evidence that the proposed projects "respond to the
3
physical contextual environment taking into consideration urban form and
natural features," "respond to the neighborhood context," and "create a transition
in bulk and scale," before granting the Class II Special Permit. The contextual
renderings — Color Context Elevation, Color Context Birdseye Rendering, and
Color Context Perspective, along with the Context Photos, all show that the
presently existing urban form and neighborhood context are single family one or
two-story homes or small commercial structures.' The Specific Purpose Survey,
Boundary Survey, Location Map and the UDRB Submittal, combined with the
elevations all show that the proposed 95' and 92' buildings will be adjacent to
single family homes in the Morningside neighborhood with a rear set back of
only five feet. This fails to respond to the physical contextual environment and
the neighborhood context and fails to create a transition in bulk and scale as
required by DRC I(1) and II(2) and (3). The Zoning Board therefore failed to
follow the essential requirements of law in permitting the structures.
B. Non -Compliance with DRC I(3).
DRC I(3) requires that "Buildings on corner lots should be oriented to the
corner and public street fronts." The Color Context Elevation, Color Context
Birdseye Rendering, and Color Context Perspective, along with the elevations all
show that the project plans two large buildings on two prominent corner lots.
1 The developer has inserted buildings that are neither permitted nor built into the Color Context
Elevation, Color Context Birdseye Rendering, and Color Context Perspective.
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item. 35 on 'A1.�1 �oG
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
4
Submitted ;rfit) ; 1e pubuc
record in connection wilt
item Pz. 36 on `i tgl 05
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
The two buildings are not oriented to the corner and public street fronts in
violation of DRC I(3). The Zoning Board failed to follow the essential
requirements of law.
C. Non -Compliance with DRC I(2).
DRC I(2) requires that "Siting should minimize the impact of automobile
parking and driveways on the pedestrian environment and adjacent properties."
The siting of these projects does not minimize the impact of automobile parking
and driveways on the pedestrian environment and adjacent properties as shown
by both the submitted drawings and the fact that the applicant is "requesting a
reduction in dimensions of the offstreet loading stalls and also to allow the
loading spaces backing into the public right-of-way." Zoning Director's
findings, October 27, 2004, attached hereto as Exhibit B. This violates DRC
I(2), and the Zoning Board failed to follow the essential requirements of law.
D. Non -Compliance with DRC III(1) and (2) and DRC IV(1).
DRC III(1) and (2) require that development "Promote pedestrian
interaction [and d]esign facades that respond primarily to the human scale." The
elevation drawings show there are no pedestrian, human proportional entrances,
nor are there pedestrian friendly elevations and entrances on all four sides.
Instead, there are long expanses of repetitive walls with no residential design
5
Submil:ted Y;,,o . C public
record in conncicfl with
item F2.3 b on 4•A1-1 lot,
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
elements this violates DRC III(1) and (2). The Zoning Board failed to follow the
essential requirements of law.
E. Non -Compliance with DRC V(4).
DRC V(4) requires that proposed projects "Use surface parking areas as
district buffer." The drawings submitted by the developer in this case show there
is no surface parking whatsoever in this development, and therefore no buffer
between the large buildings and the single family homes they seek to abut.
Instead, with only a five foot set back, the project garages will rise 40 feet into
the air against the single family home lots, in violation of DRC V(4). This
clearly shows that the essential requirements of law were not observed by the
Zoning Board.
F. Failure to Consider and Comply with 1305.3.1.
In addition to the Zoning Board's failure to comply with the essential
requirements of law with respect to the DRC, the Zoning Board also failed to
apply Section 1305.3.1 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 11,000 to the
proposed projects. This section requires the Zoning Board to consider "the
manner in which the proposed use will operate given its specific location and
proximity to less intense uses. Particular consideration shall be given to
protecting the residential areas from excessive noise, fumes, odors commercial
vehicle intrusion, traffic conflicts, and the spillover effect of light." There is
6
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item F7•35 on alaiIor,
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
competent, substantial evidence contained in the developer's submission that this
project will be immediately adjacent to a single family neighborhood with a far
less intense use and that it has the potential to burden the adjacent residential
area with excessive noise, fumes, odors, commercial vehicle intrusion, traffic
conflicts, and to deprive the adjacent single family homes of the spillover effect
of light. In addition, we note that the Planning and Zoning Department has
previously found, with respect to this same neighborhood, that "rather than the
40 foot height limit at the rear of the properties, with the required step -back
toward the boulevard; a 25 foot height limit with a required 45 degree step back
would better protect the light and air flow to the abutting residential properties
and neighborhoods." SD-9 Biscayne Boulevard North Overlay District Final
Report and Recommendations to City Commission for Special Meeting of April
29, 2004, attached hereto as Exhibit C.
The Commission should grant this appeal on the basis that the Zoning
Board's decision fails to comply with the essential requirements of law. The
proposed developments should be permitted, if at all, only when they comply
with the requirements of Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance. As the Fourth
District Court of Appeals has held, it is perfectly appropriate to restrict the height
of a project to make it compatible with the existing adjacent neighborhood. Las
7
Submitted � t- <<r; puxic
record in connection ith
item `P .. 3 5 on ti a��o v.
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Olas Tower Company v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 742 So.2d 308, 313-314 (4t
DCA 1999).
II. THE ZONING BOARD'S DECISION IS NOT SUPPORTED
BY SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE.
For the reasons stated above, the Zoning Board's decision is not supported
by substantial competent evidence. In fact, the substantial competent evidence
in this case overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the proposals do not
comply with existing law and the appeal should be granted.
III. THE ZONING BOARD DID NOT AFFORD APPELLANTS
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.
The Zoning Board failed to afford appellants due process in two ways. In
failing to permit appellants to argue and introduce evidence on remand (i.e., hold
a de novo public hearing) and by failing to even consider the merits of the appeal
on remand, the Zoning Board violated procedural due process, this
Commission's intentions, and basic principles of fair play.
As this Commission is well -aware, prior to the Circuit Court's decision
quashing the City Commission's decision in this appeal, de novo hearings on
appeals of Class II Special Permits were routinely held before the City
Commission. The appellants below relied on existing City practice in making a
short argument before the Zoning Board and presenting the bulk of their
evidence to the City Commission. As a result, the Board's failure to conduct a
8
Submitted into the public
record in connection w th
item `PZ.35 on tt 2,1 (0b
Priscilla A. Thompson
de novo hearing on the appeal precluded appellants from introducing amity Clerk
evidence in their appeal, in violation of their right to due process.
"In quasi-judicial zoning proceedings, the parties must be able to present
evidence and cross-examine witnesses." Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So.2d
1337, 1340 (3rd DCA 1991) (emphasis supplied). The opportunity to be heard
must be meaningful, full and fair, and not merely colorable or illusive.
Metropolitan Dade County v. Sokolowski, 439 So.2d 932, 934 (3rd DCA 1983).
Because of the Court's order quashing the City Commission's customary de
novo review of Class II Special Permit appeals, the Zoning Board hearing is the
only opportunity that appellants have for a full and fair public hearing on this
matter. Effectively prohibiting the appellants from introducing any evidence in
support of their appeal in this matter violates these fundamental due process
principles.
Furthermore, failure to afford appellants a full and fair de novo hearing
before the Zoning Board departed from the essential requirements of law.
Section 1806 of the Zoning Ordinance clearly states that:
"The zoning board shall conduct the public hearing on the appeal....
"New materials may be received by the zoning board where such materials are
pertinent to the determination of the appeal."
9
Submitted Into the public
record in connectio .th
item PZ. 36- on 04
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Second, the refusal of the Zoning Board to even consider the merits of the
appeal, irrespective of whether there was a hearing, violated the most
fundamental principles of due process and fairness.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal should be granted.
Respectfully Submitted,
C
(tf VCCA,AA A
JoN J4'4ewman
Florida Bar No. 0112320
University of Miami School of Law
Center for Ethics & Public Service
P.O. Box 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124
(305) 284-4125
(305) 284-1588 (fax)
jnewman@law.miami.edu
law.miami..edu
Donald J. Hayden
Baker & McKenzie
1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1700
Miami, FL 33131
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by
hand delivery this
1
day of
, 2006, to:
Douglas M. Halsey
Evan M. Goldenberg
White & Case, LLP
Wachovia Financial Center, Suite 4900
200 S. Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33131
10
Rafael Suarez -Rivas
Assistant City Attorney
City of Miami
444 S. W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 945
Miami, FL 33130
By:
JoNel Newman
Florida Bar No. 0112320
Submitted Into the public
record in connection wjth
item P2.3S on
Priscilla A. Thump
City Clerk
•
041,
11
SECTION 1305
Submitted !nto the public
record in connection with
item PZ • 35' on 10j,�-1 �oc
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Sec. 1305. Considerations generally; criteria; standards; findings and determinations required.
The City agent, board, or commission that is charged with decisions concerning each of the special
permits shall review the proposal before them and shall make, or cause to be made, written findings and
determinations in accordance with the established applicable criteria set forth in this zoning ordinance
and the City Code. Such findings shall be used to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the pending
application.
Approvals shall be issued when such application complies with all applicable criteria.
Conditional approvals, shall be issued when such applications require conditions in order to be found in
compliance with all applicable criteria.
Denials of applications shall be issued if after conditions and safeguards have been considered, the
application still fails to comply with all applicable criteria.
1305.1. Temporary use/occupancy: criteria and mandatory referrals.
1305.1.1. Referrals.
As appropriate to the nature of the temporary use and/or occupancy of the special permit involved and
particular circumstances of the case, the following conditions enumerated in this sub -section in addition
to any other specific consideration(s) set forth elsewhere in the City Code, this zoning ordinance, or any
other applicable regulation(s) shall apply:
Referrals: The zoning administrator shall make referrals as specified herein based on the nature of the
application.
Zoning. Review by zoning for compliance with applicable zoning regulations.
Fire. Referral to the Fire Rescue and Inspection Services department for review of fire safety controls
as determined by the department.
Police. Referral to the Police Department for review of traffic safety, including provisions of traffic
monitors; crowd control measures; and any other life/safety issues as determined by the department.
NET. Referral to the appropriate NET Service Center Office for review and approval of operational
plan, which shall include: number of trash receptacles and locations, frequency of trash pick-up, name
and 24-hour telephone number of contact person responsible for handling maintenance and/or
emergency issues, noise control measures, and any other specific considerations that the NET
Administrator deems necessary in order to make an informed recommendation based on the nature of
the application.
Other. Referral to other governmental agencies with the necessary expertise that the Zoning
Administrator requires based on the nature of the application in order to make an informed decision.
TABLE INSET:
1-11-14,,bif A
(': Document. and Selling. Jnew'man Local Bening, %emparan• lnwrnei I•)le ULKKI) Sec•rran 1305 Mee Ix 2003) lr
Page I of 7
S+►tij eel ttt Or, :041 It its s yeti wt f1 t dlstntt reg*Ailliris
FOIE.
POLICE
NET
C�'ll'HER
alloons
X
X
X
X
X
Development signs
X
X
X
Community or neighborhood bulletin boards or kiosks
X
X
X
Christmas tree sales on a vacant lot or portions of a lot
X
X
X
Sale of goods pertaining to a national legal holiday
X
X
X
Outdoor display of produce and foods.
X
X
X
Aluminum recycling machines
X
X
Curbside delivery receptacles other than US Mall
X
X
X
Temporary special event
X
X
X
X
X
Temporary carnival, festival, fair or special event
X
X
X'
X
X
Special access for emergency vehicles through private residential districts.
X
X
X
X
X
Pedestrian and cyclist access through private residential districts
X
X
X
X
X
Temporary offstreet offsite parking for construction crew
X
X
X
Offsite parking for portions of SD-2
X
X
X
Submitted into the public
record in corencth:iri with
item P2. 36 on 419'l1 0(4
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
1305.1.2. Criteria.
Approvals of Class I Special Permits for temporary activities by the Zoning Administrator shall be based
on the criteria utilized by the different agencies upon which referrals were made. Such criteria shall be
as determined by each of the technical agencies and as regulated by other applicable laws. The Zoning
Administrator shall review comments as provided by each agency to determine whether the proposed
request for temporary activity complies with all of the individual criteria. A recommendation of denial
by any particular agency shall be accompanied by specific findings from such agency which enumerates
how the request does not comply with their individual criteria. The duration of each such temporary
use/occupancy shall be clearly stated within the approved Class I Special Permit.
1305.2. Design review criteria.
As appropriate to the nature of the special permit involved and the particular circumstances of the case,
the following considerations and design criteria as specified on the following table shall apply to issues
related to design, character and compatibility of the proposed application in addition to any other
specific consideration(s) set forth elsewhere in this zoning ordinance, the City Code, or any other
C: Documents and Settings /newman Local .Settings Temporary Internet Filet OJ.K81) Section 1305 (!)er Iri 2003).floe
Page 2 of 7
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item P2•35 on -- oc.
Priscilla A. Thomson
applicable regulation(s). Special consideration shall also be given to redevelopment activity within
City Clerk
Community Revitalization Districts and/or where a plan is in place. For the purposes of this Section a
"plan" shall mean a master plan, Design Guides and Standards or special zoning district.
TABLE INSET:
AICTED
C.010101s<AL
•
OFFICE AND
Th1SflTtrTIONA.
1. Site & Urban Planning:
MULTIFAMILY
Rt SIDENTIAL
•LOW fiENsrrY.:
[ ESIDEN171At'
(1) Respond to the
physical contextual
environment taking into
consideration urban form
and natural features.
x
(2) Siting should minimize
the impact of automobile
parking and driveways on
the pedestrian
environment and adjacent
properties.
X
(3) Buildings on corner
lots should be oriented to
the corner and public
street fronts.
X
11. Architecture and Landscape Architecture:
(1) A project shall he
designed to comply with
all applicable landscape
ordinances.
(2) Respond to the
neighborhood context.
(3) Create a transition in
bulk and scale.
(4) Use architectural styles
and details (such as roof
lines and fenestration),
colors and materials
derivative from
surrounding area.
(5) Articulate the building
facade vertically and
X
(: Documents and &rungs./newsman l,ncnl Seuing% Temporary Internee hies (1/.0I) Section 1305 (Dec IN 2003) Jot
Page 3 of 7
horizontally in intervals
that conform to the
existing structures in the
vicinity.
I11. Pedestrian Oriented Development:
(1) Promote pedestrian
interaction.
X
X
1(2) Design facades that
respond primarily to the
human scale.
X
X
X
X
(3) Provide active, not
blank facades. Where
blank walls are
unavoidable, they should
receive design treatment.
X
X
X
X
X
IV. Streetscape and Open Space:
(1) Provide usable open
space that allows for
convenient and visible
pedestrian access from the
public sidewalk.
X
X
X
(2) Landscaping, including
plant material, trellises,
special pavements, screen
walls, planters and similar
features should be
appropriately incorporated
to enhance the project.
X
X
X
X
X
X
V. Vehicular Access and Parking:
(1) Design for pedestrian
and vehicular safety to
minimize conflict points.
X
X
X
X
X
(2) Minimize the number
and width of driveways
and curb cuts.
X
X
X
X
(3) Parking adjacent to a
street front should be
minimized and where
possible should be located
behind the building.
X
X
X
X
(4) Use surface parking
areas as district buffer.
x
X
X
X
X
(' Documents and Settings lnewman Local Settings '!'empnrar V Internet Piles (1LK!) Section 1305 Il )ec !X 2003) dnc
Submitted Into the public
record in connection w'th
item ??-35 on y `a-, oe
Priscilla A. Thompson
ty Clerk
Page 4 qf 7
Submitted Into the public
record in connection wi h
item P2-55" on s- ob
Priscilla A. Thamps n
City Clerk
VI. Screening:
(1) Provide landscaping
that screen undesirable
elements. such as surface
parking lots. and that
enhances space and
architecture.
X
X
X
X
(2) Building sites should
locate service elements
Like trash dumpster,
loading docks, and
mechanical equipment
away from street front
where possible. When
elements such as
dumpsters, utility meters,
mechanical units and
service areas cannot be
located away from the
street front they should be
situated and screened from
view to street and adjacent
properties.
X
X
X
X
X
(3) Screen parking garage
structures with program
uses. Where program uses
are not feasible soften the
garage structure with
trellises, landscaping,
land/or other suitable
design element.
X
X
X
X
VII. Signage and Lighting:
(1) Design signage
appropriate for the scale
and character of the
project and immediate
neighborhood.
X
X
X
X
X
(2) Provide lighting as a
design feature to the
building facade, on and
around landscape areas,
special building or site
features, and/or signage.
X
X
X
X
X
(3) Orient outside lighting
to minimize glare to
adjacent properties.
X
X
X
X
X
X
(4) Provide visible signage
identifying building
addresses at the
X
X
X
X
X
X
C: Documents and Settings jnewman local Settings Temporary infernel Ides O1.KND Section 1305 (Dec 1 N 2003).doc
Page 5 of 7
entrance(s) as a functional
and aesthetic
consideration.
VIII. Preservation of Natural Features:
(1) Preserve existing
vegetation and/or
geological features
whenever possible.
X
X
X
X
X
X
IX. Modification of
i /onconformities:
See sec. 1105 of this
zoning ordinance for
specific regulations.
In addition to the
applicable criteria as set
forth by the Director of the
Planning and Zoning
Department per sec. 1105,
the following criteria shall
apply in making
determinations for Class 11
Special Permits:
(1) For modifications of
nonconforming structures,
no increase in the degree
of nonconformity shall be
allowed.
X
X
X
X
X
X
K2) Modifications that
conform to current
regulations shall be
designed to conform to the
scale and context of the
nonconforming structure.
X
X
X
X
X
X
1305. 2.1. Status of prior development and application, for development.
All development in existence, or any complete application for development filed prior to January 1,
2004 that does not comply with the criteria specified in Section 1305.2 shall not be considered a non-
conformity for purposes of Article 11 and all other applicable Sections of this ordinance.
1305.3. Use and occupancy criteria.
As appropriate to the nature of the special permit involved and the particular circumstances of the case,
the following considerations and criteria as specified below shall apply to issues related to use and
occupancy of the proposed application in addition to any other specific consideration(s) set forth
elsewhere in this zoning ordinance, the City Code, or any other applicable regulation(s).
1305.3.1. Manner of operation.
Review for adequacy shall be given to the manner in which the proposed use will operate given its
specific location and proximity to less intense uses. Particular consideration shall be given to protecting
(': Documents and Settings jnewman Local Settings Temporary 1fernet tiles OLKXD ,Section 13115 (Dec IX 200$1.doc
Submitted lr:c the public
record in connection wi h
item pz.35 on rrl 04,
Priscilla A. Th mpsbn
ity Clerk
Page 6 of 7
the residential areas from excessive noise, fumes, odors, commercial vehicle intrusion, traffic conflicts,
and the spillover effect of light.
1305.3.2. Design.
Applicable design review criteria as specified in Section 1305.2 shall apply.
(Ord. No. 12467, § 2, 12-18-03)
(': Documents and Settings jnewman Local ,'eriingc nemporarp !mermri l ilec (ILK?I) .'ec1ion 105 Om l.' 2003).clnc
Submitted Into the public
record in connecti n 'th
item rP2. 35" on y o e
Priscilla A. Tho pson
City Clerk
Page 7 of 7
CITY OF MIAMI
CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT.
FINAL DECISION
Submitted Into the public
record in connecti n with
item ?Z -35 on z_ a_
Priscilla A. Th mpson
- City Clerk
File No. 04-0198
To:
From:
Lucia A. Dougherty, Esq.
1221 Brickef Avenue
Miaini, FL 33131
Ana Getabert, Director
Planning and Zoning Department
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT A INTENDED DECISION HAS DEEM REACHED ON THE FOLLOWING MATTER:.
Title: New Construction (5301 & 5501 Biscayne)
Address: 5301 & 5501 Biscayne Blvd., Upper Eastside
Final Decision:
. ❑ Approval
Q Approval with conditions
❑ Denial.
.FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
The subject proposal has. been reviewed for Class iI Special Permit pursuant to Article. 45, Section.
609.3, 1512. 903.1 and- 9232 of Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of.the City of
Miami, Florida. Section 609.3 states explicitly that a Class ti Special Permit shalt' be required prior to
approval of any permit affecting the location, relocation or alteration of any structure, sign, awning,
landscaping, parking, area or vehicular way visible from a public street Section 1512 states -that unless
otherwise required by the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, the Code of the City of -Miami, as amended
or the South Florida Building Code, as amended, all City of Miami Design Standards and Guidelines,
incorporated herein by reference, may be waived pursuant to a Class iI Special Permit. Section 9232.1
states that reduction in loading stalls shall be only by Class 11 Special Pennit. A section 903.1 state that
a Class 11 Special Permit shall be required where a project is designed as a single -site and it is
occupies lots divided by a street 922.4 states that loading spaces backing into the public rights -of -way
may be approve by Class II Special Permit.
-Pursuant to Section 13012. of the above cited Zoning Ordinance, the -Planning and Zoning
Department has made referrals to the following Departments and Boards.
• Zoning Division, Planning and Zoning Department
• Upper Eastside NET Office, Neighborhood Enhancement Team.
• UDRB, Urban Development Review Board.
Their comments and recommendations have been duly considered and are reflected in this intended
decision. In reviewing this application, pursuant to Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following
findings have been made:
E"\Of (`A-
1
FINDINGS
Submitted Into the public:
record in connect' n ith
item P2.. 35 on N » ov
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
• it is found that the proposed project is comprised -of two mixed -use .buildings, developed as a
single project these buildings consist of residential units (105) and office area (18,783sq.ft) with
parking garages: This project was originally submitted on May 3. 2004 but it was referred back -to
Zoning because the application did not comply with certain zoning regulations.
• It is found that the project was initially reviewed by the Internal Design Review Committee on June
8, 2004. The committee recommended sending it back to- the architect in order to give them the
opportunity to respond to the committee comments.
• It is found that a modified project was reviewed by the Internal Design Review Committee on
August 3, 2004 but some of the -original comments were still pending and had not been resolved.
• It is found that on October 19. 2004, a "modified project based on the Internal Design Review
Committee's -conditions, was presented and approved with conditions by the Internal Design
Review Committee. "
• It is found that the applicant is requesting a reduction in dimensions of the offstreet loading stalls
and also to allow the loading spaces backing into the public right-of-way
• It is found that although the landscape plan submitted with this application complies with the
Miami -Dade landscape Ordinance, some.changes shall be required to further enhance buffering.
• On July 17, 2004 the Urban _Development Review Board reviewed and recommended approval the
subject proposal.
• It is found -that with regard to the criteria set forth in Sec. 1305 of the City of Miami Zoning
Ordinance, the application has been reviewed and found sufficient except for the issues listed
above and contained in the conditions.
Based on the above findings and the considered advice of the officers and agencies consulted on this
matter and pursuant to Section 1306 of the Zoning Ordinance, the subject proposal is hereby
approved with conditions as presented in the plans and supporting materials submitted by the
applicant and on file with the Department of Planning and Development and further subject to the
following conditions:
-
1. The proposed 5511' St. Plaza shall keep the existing pedestrian access to the neighborhood and
maintain the existing shaped curb.
2. The applicant shall confirm all proposed improvements for the public right-of-way area with the
Public works Department. "
3. A final fully specified landscape plan shall be- submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Director, prior to the issuance of a building permit, which increases the amount and sizes of
landscaped materials to create more substantial buffering.
-4. The turning radius for loading in 5501 Biscayne Building is insufficient as per Public Works
comments; new solution shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works Department.
NOTICE
The final decisionofthe Director may be appealed to the Zoning Board by any aggrieved party,
within fifteen (15) days of the date of issuance by filing a written appeal and appropriate fee
with the Office of Hearing Boards, located at 444 S.W. 2n° Avenue, r Floor, Miami, Fl. 33139. •
Telephone number (305) 416-2030. . -
Signature
Planning a
or
Zoning Department
2
Date /od ?/Oy.
SD-9 Biscayne Boulevard North Overlay District
Final Report And Recommendations to City Commission
for Special Meeting of April 29, 2004
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the report below, the Planning and Zoning Department respectfully
recommends the following course of action to the City Commission:
1. Proceed with adoption (on second reading) of the new SD-9 Ordinance that
mandates height limits of 85 and 95 feet (as written), with the following (more
liberal) changes to be made on the floor at second reading:
a) increase the allowable height to 120' for the two areas located along the
west side of Biscayne Boulevard as described in the report below (Le. the
mega -block located on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard from NE 39th
Street up to a line which runs in a westerly direction from the southerly
right-of-way line of NE 50th Terrace, as extended to the west; and the 79th
Street area, located along the west side of the Boulevard from 79`h Street
in a northerly direction to the city limits.
b) allow properties with an SD-9 designation that are over 150 feet in depth
(as measured from Biscayne Boulevard) a maximum height of 120 feet,
even if they are adjacent to R-1 or R-2 zoning, only if such depth is
sufficient to provide a maximum height of 25 feet at the rear of the
property with a 45 degree angle height limitation (from a height of 25 feet
at the rear and sloping towards Biscayne Boulevard - see sketch).
Submitted ln,.-) the public
record in connection ith
stem PZ _3 5 on
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
2. File for Planning Advisory Board consideration, an immediate amendment to
consider the following (more restrictive) amendments:
a) For SD-9 properties which abut an R-1 or R-2 District, institute a 25 foot
height limit at the rear of the property (instead of the 40 proposed) from
which buildings have to be located under a 45 degree angle height from
that line. (See sketch); this will specifically reference that Biscayne
Boulevard shall be considered the front.
b) For SD-9 properties which abut R-3 or more liberal districts, amend the
rear height limitation so that buildings have to located under a 45 degree
angle height as taken from the 40 foot height limit at the rear (instead of
the current approximately 60 degree requirement); this will also
specifically reference that Biscayne Boulevard shall be considered the
front. (See sketch).
c) Amend parking requirements to institute parking reductions for adaptive
reuse of existing structures and for restaurant and retail uses within mixed
use structures.
3. Instruct the Planning and Zoning Department to work with a consultant to write a
voluntary TDR Ordinance for the area as a pilot project with a six month period in
which to come back to the City Commission with either an ordinance or a report.
Background
• The Committee met for the first time on March 24, 2004. General discussion
about mission and parameters for making recommendations to the Planning
Director were discussed. Presentations on issues involving Private Property rights
Act and Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) were set up for the following
meeting.
Submitted Into the public
record in connecticin with
item pZ. 35- on 04.
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
• The Committee next met on March 30, 2004. The Committee listened to the
presentations that were made and selected those portions of the Boulevard that
should be looked at more closely for consideration of a 40 foot height limit with
TDRs. It was agreed that higher limits were appropriate for certain segments.
These segments were: the "mega -block" — i.e. west side of Biscayne Boulevard
from approximately NE 39th Street to approximately NE 50th Street; and the west
side of Biscayne Boulevard from the 79th Street Biscayne Shopping Center area
north. The blocks identified as being candidates for lower heights were referred
to an architectural subcommittee for more specific review and recommendations.
• The architectural sub -committee met on April 6, 2004. A quick study was done
of the block segments which were selected as the blocks to be protected because
of their proximity to "R-1" and "R-2" zoning classifications (which carry with
them a 25 foot height restriction).
• It was determined that if a 40 foot height limit was placed on these blocks, the
resulting FAR which would have to be made eligible for transfers under a
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Ordinance could be approximately 1
million square feet or more. It was also found that the 40 foot height limit
recommended was not as workable as 50 feet in order to accommodate required
parking.
• It was found that the approximately 1 million square feet of transferred
development rights would no be able to be accommodated solely on Biscayne
Boulevard without seriously impacting the lower density envisioned for the
Boulevard by the Biscayne Corridor study. With other height limitations as
maximums, there may be insufficient ability to use the 1 million square feet and
this could jeopardize the ability of the TDR to be effective.
• It was found that certain segments of the remaining blocks (not abutting "R-1" or
"R-2" zoning — and located in areas of the Boulevard where the character was
more intense) should be allowed additional height (beyond the suggested 85'-
95'). These segments were: the "mega -block" — i.e. west side of Biscayne
Boulevard from approximately NE 39th Street to approximately NE 50th Street;
Submitted Into the public
record in connect' n with
item 2.35 and
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clem
and the west side of Biscayne Boulevard from the 79th Street Biscayne Shopping
Center area north. The proposed height was 120 feet.
• It was found that rather than the 40 foot height limit at the rear of the properties,
with the required step -back toward the boulevard; a 25 foot height limit with a
required 45 degree step back would better protect the light and air flow to the
abutting residential properties and neighborhoods.
• The following alternatives were discussed as recommendations to consider; they
are ranked in order:
1. Proceed with the new SD-9 Ordinance that mandates height limits of 85
and 95 feet (as written), with the following changes: 1) increase the height
to 120' for the two areas described above (the mega -block and the 79th
Street area); and 2) institute a 25 foot height limit at the rear property line
(instead of the 40 proposed) from which buildings have to be located
under a 45 degree height from that line. (See sketch).
o Enact a TDR Ordinance that limits the height of the "protected" blocks to
50 feet (5 stories), with an 85'-95' height limit for the rest of the
Boulevard — except the mega -block and the 79th Street segment described
above, which should be allowed 120 feet in height — and then allow TDR's
onto the 85'-95' segments (recipients) up to a maximum height of 120
feet. This option includes the 25 foot height limit at the rears with the 45
degree angle height limit.
• A third option was placed on the table for discussion which was essentially the
TDR option described above, however, recommends that the rest of the city be
included as "recipients" of the projected TDRs. This option is not being
presented for official consideration yet since it involves other Commission
districts and has not yet been fully studied for impact.
• The final meetings were used to discuss all of these options.
Submitted Into the public
record in connecti9n with
item PZ- 3 6" on
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
CITY OF MIAMI • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING - URBAN DESIGN DIVISION
REAR HEIGHT LIMITATIONS
ILLUSTRATIVE CROSS SECTIONS - 4/19/2004
100 FEET DEPTH
150 FEET DEPTH
Submitted 1n-c
record in conn
item 1'2.35 t
AND 10 FEET SETBACK
ISTING REGULATIONS
Priscilla A.
I
t ,
I — 1
n'
1 1•-•
J VA
•
I
I
.;
I I I
I
! I I
I
!
Y
1•
xa I
I
L
I I I
H
Z
}
lO
a ta�
so'
to lsa to
FOR REAR OF BUILD'
100
•
SO'
1TBACKS
J
Z
<
n
�`•.
IT LIMITATION
Lm
srl
OR ABUTTING I
to
\
\Lt1
1
\
=
1 J
1
\
1
-1
!
CI
I \
II
h
Z
j
1
1
1
X \
V
I
I
I
I I
m
Y<
I I_
I
7 I
x
n
I !
I I I
I
7t
I ---•-•Z
Z
o..
I
l
la S
SETBACKS
100'
5p_r
ISO,
• AND HEIGHT REDUCTION IN REAR
OFOSAL FOR ABUTTING R-I AND R•2
1
t
1
0.1
I
1 1 I
I I
I I I-
1[
I._
I
I
I.
-.
� 1 I (
1
I I` =-1
I
Tin.
i
v+
v
d
a
+11{I
la {
`
WO' + Sa
ISO, SO'
RFSIDENIIAVOFPICE a RETAIL
=I OSCULATION
VE-HIC 1lAR CIRCUSA1 •T1ON
O PARKING
the public
ection wi h
!� ,7 a`
Thompson
City Clerk