Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal presented by GogginsSUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM/12c-,30N 3-a9-02 . IN RE: APPLICATION FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 300 GROVE BAY RESIDENCES FILED ON BEHALF OF TRG MR VENTURE, LTD. BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA File No. 06-01060mu MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION (1305 Hearing) CONSTANCE STEEN, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits to the Miami City Commission her memorandum in opposition to the above -referenced application and requests that the members of the Commission give it their due and thoughtful consideration. Motions CONSTANCE STEEN, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby requests the following: 1. That the first reading on this matter be declared a nullity as Commissioner Gonzalez, who was the presiding officer at that hearing, discussed and voted on the matter, in violation of Sec. 2-34 of the City Charter. 2. That Commissioner Sanchez recuse himself on this reading, and withdraw his vote on the first reading, because of the appearance of impropriety created by sitting on this matter, in which the developer is represented by Greenberg Traurig, the law firm that employs Commissioner Sanchez's wife. 3. That any Commissioner who has had ex parte contact on this matter, in violation of Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 3`d DCA 1991), submit to examination under oath regarding the extent and nature of such contact. 4. That, because the gross lot area of the proposed project is over 10 acres, the second reading be continued so that the application can be submitted to the Department of Community Affairs with the City's biennial review of its comprehensive plan. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM `� ON s-01. Objections File No. 06-01060zc 1. Object to the extent that the applicant presents and the Commission considers a different project at the second reading than the project contained in the MUSP. Any amendment to the project on the dias would violate the code, would void the proposed ordinance, and would violate the due process rights of the opposition. Any changes to the project are not contained in the public notice of the second reading. The planning process, including the planning department study and recommendations, and the presentations and vote by the zoning board and planning advisory board, has progressed for nearly a year on the project that is contained in the MUSP. To change the proposed project at the eleventh hour, as suggested might happen in the Miami Herald this morning, would violate the due process rights of the opposition, and would violate the planning and zoning process set forth in the City Code. [TAB 1]. It would also void the proposed ordinance. The MUSP is incorporated by reference in Section 7 of the proposed ordinance, and the zoning code has specific provisions for amendments to a MUSP. The proposed development order requires that the proposed project be constructed substantially in accordance with the plans submitted on May 23, 2006. [TAB 2]. 2. Object to the restrictive covenant that was supposedly proffered at the first reading on this matter. To the extent that Commissioners were aware of the restrictive covenant before it was supposedly proffered, it is indicative of a Jennings violation. To the extent that the opposition was not provided with a copy of the restrictive covenant prior to the first reading or made a part of the public notice on the first reading, and to the extent that the restrictive covenant was not part of the application, vetted through the City's planning process, the purported proffer violates the due process rights of the opposition. Notice to Applicant and Developer The applicant and the developer are hereby put on notice that, should the proposed project be approved by the City Commission, and a development order and/or a building permit is issued, Ms. Steen will appeal the final action of the Commission. The relief requested in an appeal will include an injunction against the issuance of a building permit, construction under a building 2 File No. 06-01060zc permit and/or development order, as well as demolition of any improvements built on the subject property under the building permit and/or development order while the appeal is pending. Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel, 795 So.2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), rev. den., 821 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2002). Argument The proposed project would violate Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The proposed project does not meet the requirements of the zoning code. The zoning board recommended that this application be denied, and the planning advisory board recommended that this application be denied. The Commission should deny this application. I. The Proposed Project Is Not Consistent the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan The proposed project is not consistent with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP), to the detriment of Constance Steen, and other adjoining property owners. The MCNP was enacted pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and is the governing document that regulates planning and zoning in the City of Miami, including the proposed project. According to the MCNP, high rise condominiums such as the proposed project do not belong in north Coconut Grove. The zoning ordinances passed pursuant to the MNCP consistently recognize and are enacted to protect the unique character of north Coconut Grove. The proposed project violates each and every tenet of both the MCNP, and the ordinances passed under it. The MCNP does not provide for high rise condominiums in north Coconut Grove. High rise condominiums such as those proposed in the present application are inconsistent with the MCNP. As previously stated, the proposed project would include the tallest building in Coconut Grove. The proposed project would include a building that is twice as high as any building within a one mile radius of the project site. The MCNP does provide for high rise residential development, in three defined areas in the City of Miami: (a) Little Havana Target Area; (b) Southeast Overtown/Park West; and (c) Brickell, Omni, and River Quadrant. MCNP, pp. 20- 21 [TAB 3]. North Coconut Grove is not one of these areas. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR 3 ITEMf ON 3-›/-0 , File No. 06-01060zc The zoning schema enacted by ordinance under the MCNP similarly reflects a respect to the low- rise character of north Coconut Grove. The proposed project defies the carefully laid out land use scheme, developed over years, and would create a dangerous precedent that would change the character of north Coconut Grove from a low-rise, low -density neighborhood to what would be, in effect, an extension of Brickell Avenue. All of these changes would be in violation of the MCNP. See Section 803 (Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District); Section 602, SD-2 CG (Central Commercial District); Section 613, SD-13 (S.W. 27th Avenue Gateway District); Section 617, SD-17 (South Bayshore Drive Overlay District); Section 622, SD-22 (Florida Avenue Special District); Section 603, SD-3 (Coconut Grove Major Streets Overlay District) (protect against inappropriate height, discordant or incongruent design, and encourage development appropriate to preservation of Coconut Grove's unique physical, cultural, and historic heritage. The relationship of new structures to surrounding buildings shall be compatible as to form, size and spacing, and architectural character shall conform to Coconut Grove's architectural heritage). II. The Proposed Project Does Not Meet The Requirements of Sec. 1305 The proposed project, with the accompanying zoning change and change to the future use map, materially alters the use and density and intensity of use of the subject property. Section 1305 of the code mandates that: "Denials of applications shall be issued if after conditions and safeguards have been considered, the application still fails to comply with all applicable criteria." (emphasis added). As set forth below, the proposed project does not meet the applicable criteria and therefore the application must be denied. • [Site & Urban Planning] Respond to the physical contextual environment taking into consideration urban form and natural features. The physical context of north Coconut Grove is low-rise single family and medium rise multifamily residential. The proposed project is high rise multifamily residential. The physical context is 18 stories and below. The predominant physical context is single family residential. The proposed project would physically be twice as high as any building within a mile. It does not respond to the physical context of north Coconut Grove. It ignores the physical context of north Coconut Grove. 4 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR File No. 06-01060zc • [Architecture] Respond to the neighborhood context. The architecture in north Coconut Grove is predominately single family homes, with a variety of architectural styles. The multifamily architecture in north Coconut Grove is variegated, medium rise, and reflects the quiet, insular nature of the neighborhood. With its towering height, the proposed project does not respond to the neighborhood context, it ignores and would forever materially alter the neighborhood context. See Miami Herald Editorial, March 27, 2007 [TAB 3]. • [Architecture] Create a transition in bulk and scale. The proposed project would have more bulk and scale than any project in north Coconut Grove. There is no transition. The only transition would be for more high rises on the Mercy property in the future. If the Mercy property is developed into a Brickell-Key-type island of high rise condominiums, which the proposed project would be a precedent, the impact on traffic and the City's infrastructure would be enormous. [Architecture] Use architectural styles and details (such as roof lines and fenestration), colors and materials derivative from surrounding area. With its white stucco and blue glass towers, architecturally the proposed project belongs on Brickell Avenue. [Architecture] Articulate the building facade vertically and horizontally in intervals that conform to the existing structures in the vicinity. Vertically, the proposed project would literally tower over existing structures in the vicinity. The proposed towers would not conform to existing structures — they would dwarf existing structures. [Vehicular Access and Parking] Use surface parking areas as district buffer. The developer would have the Commission believe that the proposed project would serve as a "buffer" between the residential and governmental/institutional uses. To the extent that the Berlin Wall was a buffer between east and west Berlin, this may be accurate, but as set forth above, the code requires a transition in bulk and scale, and that the project respond to the physical context of the neighborhood. The proposed project does none of these. The proposed ordinance contains conclusory statements, without referring to record evidence, finding that the above criteria have been met. These findings are unsupported by substantial competent record evidence. As a matter of law, the proposed ordinance is insufficient. It states 5 File No. 06-01060zc that the findings are based on "facts and reports prepared or submitted by staff or others". There is no substantial competent record evidence to suggest that the proposed project is consistent with the MCNP, or meets the requirements of the zoning code. Notably, in the development order, the proposed ordinance, as a condition of issuance of a building permit, states that "The project is out of scale with the area, and the rezoning of the property should be consistent with the adjacent neighborhood, which is R-1 zoning." By its terms, no building permit shall be issued until the project is brought down to R-1, single family residential, scale. Conclusion The proposed project is inconsistent with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, and it does not meet the criteria of the zoning code. The petitioner urges the Commission to deny the proposed project. Certificate of Service I certify that a copy hereof has been furnished by 0 USPS 0 facsimile Lf hand delivery 0 overnight courier, to the persons on the service list either attached or appearing below, on the following date: March 27, 2007. SUBMTTEDMTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR TEM�3 ON3�°`'. Respectfully submitted, PATRICK J. GOGGINS, P.A. Sun Trust Building, Suite 850 777 Brickell Avenue M . . FL 3313 .►.11 el: (30 Fax: 500 8557 Patric , J. Goggi s Fla. Bar. No. 997129 6 File No. 06-01060zc Lucia Dougherty Greenberg Traurig P A 1221 Brickell Ave Miami Florida 33131-3224 Phone: (305) 579-0603 Fax: (305) 579-0717 Service List SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM 1,zA'> ON 3-ari-0-7. 7 File No. 06-01060zc Exhibits: 1. Miami Herald article (March 27, 2007) 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (excerpt) 4. Miami Herald editorial (March 27, 2007). SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM ?a ; ON s-yr-o, . 8 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM°.2;&'s ONE->q-o,. Memorandum in Opposition Tab 1 Miami commission will seal Vizcaya skyline's fate - 03/27/2007 - MiamiHeraid.com Page 1 of 2 Posted on Tue, Mar. 27, 2007 SUBMITTED INTO THE MiamiHerald.comE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMt? ON 3- -0r Miami commission will seal Vizcaya skyline's fate BY MICHAEL VASQUEZ One of South Florida's most influential developers will go head -to -head today with Miami's only National Historic Landmark, Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. The outcome of that battle, to be decided by a fmal vote of Miami city commissioners, could forever alter the view from Vizcaya, which draws roughly 185,000 visitors annually and is a popular location for wedding parties and quinceafiera photo shoots. Less than 2,000 feet away from Vizcaya's famed gardens, Jorge Perez's Related Group development company wants to build three luxury condo towers. Miami city commissioners in January tentatively approved the condo proposal by a 3-2 vote, despite objections from District 2 Commissioner Marc Sarnoff, who represents the area and calls the project outsized. "I expect each of my commissioners to respect what the District 2 Commissioner has to say in his neighborhood," Sarnoff said Monday. Related Group executive Bill Thompson, meanwhile, has tried to reassure the public that the condos' impact on Vizcaya would be minimal. In recent days, the company has offered to significantly reduce the height of its condos to try to appease the museum. Until now, the tallest tower was set to be 410 feet. Now all three towers would be roughly 318 feet tall. The number of units -- previously chopped from 1000 to 300 -- would fall further to 270. But the height reductions have not swayed opponents. The developer also promised to add trees to the museum land that would screen some -- but not all -- of its project, known as 300 Grove Bay Residences. "Over time things change, and the old blends with the new," Thompson said. "We are trying to make our best effort to blend the new with Vizcaya." Museum visitors would still see the towers, but Thompson notes that tall buildings are part of life in the big city. An example: New York City's leafy Central Park, surrounded on all sides by skyscrapers. One Vizcaya backer, landscape architect Laurie Olin, wrote in a letter to the museum that comparing the museum to Central Park is "a foolish and ignorant statement." Olin, who co-authored the 2006 book Vizcaya, An American Villa and its Makers, wrote that Vizcaya was not built to be a public park, but rather a private "tropical refuge." "Vizcaya now provides visitors an opportunity to transport themselves back in time and to another place," said Vizcaya Executive Director Joel Hoffman. Stick condos smack in the middle of Vizcaya's http://www.miamiherald.com/460/v-print/story/53943.html 3/27/2007 Miami commission will seal Vizcaya skyline's fate - 03/27/2007 - MiamiHerald.com Page 2 of 2 views, he said, and those time -travel days are over. A recent study by Miami -Dade County, which owns the museum, also criticized the proposed condos. County leaders are expected to visit City Hall today to oppose the development. © 2007 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved. http://www.miamiherald.com SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMLL>_ON 3-)1/.0,. http://www.miamiherald.com/460/v-print/story/53943.html 3/27/2007 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM ,,;!; ONE-arl �. Memorandum in Opposition Tab 2 I.Ntl 0111 I. City of Miami Legislation Resolution City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com File Number: 06-01060mu Final Action Date: A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 9, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE 300 GROVE BAY RESIDENCES PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3663 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, CONSTRUCT AN A THREE BUILDING MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT RANGING IN HEIGHT FROM APPROXIMATELY 311 FEET TO 417 FEET TO BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 300 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; AND APPROXIMATELY 642 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; 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 June 9, 2006, Iris V. Escarra, Esquire, on behalf of TRG MH Venture. Ltd., Contract Purchaser, and Mercy Hospital, Inc., Owner (referred to as "APPLICANT"), submitted a complete Application for Major Use Special Permit for 300 Grove Bay Residences (referred to as "PROJECT") pursuant to Articles 5, 9, 13 and 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, for the properties located at approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, as legally described in "Exhibit A", attached and incorporated; and WHEREAS, development of the 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 WHEREAS, the Large Scale Development Committee met on May 17, 2005 to consider the proposed project and offer its input; and WHEREAS, the Urban Development Review Board met on May 17, 2006, to consider the proposed project and recommended APPROVAL; and WHEREAS, the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board met on June 6, 2006, to consider the proposed project and offer its input; and WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting held on September 11, 2006, Item No. 3, following an advertised public hearing, recommendation of DENIAL of a Change of Zoning passed (Reso. ZB-06-1222), by a vote of five to two (5-2); and WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting held on September 20, 2006 Item No. 2, following an advertised public hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB *= by a vote of — to -- (=*), recommending --- with conditions as City of Miami Page 1 of 13 Printed On: 9/13/2006 File Number. 06-01060mu presented in the Major Use Special Permit Development Order as attached and incorporated; 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: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. A Major Use Special Permit Development Order, incorporated within, is approved subject to the conditions specified in the Development Order, per Article 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, for the project to be developed by the APPLICANT, located at approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described on "Exhibit A," attached and incorporated. Section 3. The PROJECT is approved for the construction of a three building mixed use development ranging in height from approximately 304 feet to 411 feet to be comprised of approximately 300 total multifamily residential units with recreational amenities; and approximately 642 total parking spaces; providing for certain floor area ratio ("FAR") bonuses. Section 4. The Major Use Special Permit Application for the Project also encompasses the lower ranking Special Permits as set forth in the Development Order. Section 5. The findings of fact set forth below are made with respect to the subject PROJECT: a. The PROJECT is in conformity with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, as amended. b. The PROJECT is in accord with the proposed R-4 (Multifamily High -Density Residential) zoning classifications of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended. c. Pursuant to Section 1305.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the specific site plan aspects of the PROJECT that have been found by the City Commission (based upon facts and reports prepared or submitted by staff or others) to adhere to the following Design Review Criteria subject to the any applicable conditions in the Development Order herein: DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA APPLICABILITY COMPLIANCE I) Site and Urban Planning: (1) Respond to the physical Yes *Yes contextual environment taking into consideration urban form and natural features; (2) Siting should minimize the Yes *Yes City of Miami Page 2 of 13 Printed On: 9/13/2006 o o I- Li- CL III) Pedestrian Oriented Development: 0 Q ;l 1) Promote pedestrian Yes *Yes I-- W en nteraction; 0 Z 2) Design facades that Yes *yes respond primarily to the al () 0 human scale; j 3) Provide active, not blank Yes *Yes LA_"n acades. Where blank walls re unavoidable, they should eceive design treatment. CO W IV) Streetscape and Open Space: c I-- (1) Provide usable open space Yes *Yes that allows for convenient and visible pedestrian access from the public sidewalk; (2) Landscaping, including plant Yes *Yes File Number. 06-01060mu impact of automobile parking and driveways on the pedestrian environment and adjacent properties; (3) Buildings on corner lots Yes *Yes should be oriented to the corner and public street fronts. II) Architecture and Landscape Architecture: (1) A project shall be designed Yes *Yes to comply with all applicable landscape ordinances; (2) Respond to the neighborhood Yes *yes context; (3) Create a transition in bulk Yes *Yes and scale; (4) Use architectural styles Yes *Yes and details (such as roof lines and fenestration), colors and materials derivative from surrounding area; (5) Articulate the building facade Yes *Yes vertically and horizontally in intervals that conform to the existing structures in the vicinity. material, trellises, special pavements, screen walls, planters and similar features should be City of Miami Page 3 of 13 Printed On: 9/13/2006 File Number: 06-01060mu appropriately incorporated to enhance the project. V) Vehicular Access and Parking: (1) Design for pedestrian and Yes *Yes vehicular safety to minimize conflict points; (2) Minimize the number and Yes *Yes width of driveways and curb cuts; (3) Parking adjacent to a street Yes *Yes front should be minimized and where possible should be located behind the building; (4) Use surface parking areas Yes *Yes as district buffer. VI) Screening: (1) Provide landscaping that Yes *Yes screen undesirable elements, such as surface parking Tots, and that enhances space and architecture; (2) Building sites should locate Yes *Yes service elements like trash dumpster, loading docks, and mechanical equipment away SUBMITTED INTO THE from street front where possible. When elements such as PUBLIC RECORD FOR dumpsters, utility meters, mechanical units and service areas cannot located away ITEM > ON 3 � from the streett front they should 7'1 D7 be situated and screened from view to street and adjacent properties; (3) Screen parking garage Yes *Yes structures with program uses. Where program uses are not feasible soften the garage structure with trellises, landscaping, and/or other suitable design element. VII) Signage and Lighting: City of Miami Page 4 of 13 Printed On: 9/13/2006 File Number: 06-01060mu (1) Design signage appropriate Yes *Yes for the scale and character of the project and immediate neighborhood; (2) Provide lighting as a design Yes *Yes feature to the building facade, on and around landscape areas, special building or site features, and/or signage; (3) Orient outside lighting to Yes *Yes minimize glare to adjacent properties; (4) Provide visible signage Yes *Yes identifying building addresses at the entrance(s) as a functional and aesthetic LLJ 71 consideration. r VIII) PtN Natural t Z reserva ion ofaura Features: CO CI rit (1) Preserve existing vegetation Yes *Yes re !Y) and/or geological features ® whenever possible. CI IX) Modification of Nonconformities: t1 Cr (1) For modifications of n/a *n/a C) NA nonconforming structures, CD CO M no increase in the degree of nonconformity shall be Lll allowed; CO a— (2) Modifications that conform n/a *n/a to current regulations shall be designed to conform to the scale and context of the nonconforming structure. *Compliance is subject to conditions. These findings have been made by the City Commission to approve this project with conditions. d. The PROJECT is expected to cost approximately $549,326,985, and to employ approximately 258 workers during construction (FTE-Full Time Employees); The project will also result in the creation of approximately 100 permanent new jobs (FTE) for building operations and will generate approximately $5,024,387 annually in tax revenues to the City (2006 dollars). e. The City Commission further finds that: City of Miami Page 3 of 13 Printed On. 9/13/2006 File Number: 06-01060mu (1) the PROJECT will have a favorable impact on the economy of the City; (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 (L r, neighborhood; (8) the PROJECT will not adversely affect public safety; (9) based on the record presented and evidence presented, the public V-- t 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 employment, and minority contractor/subcontractor participation will be mitigated through compliance with the conditions of this Major Use Special Permit. Section 6. The Major Use Special Permit, as approved and amended, shall be binding upon the APPLICANT and any successors in interest. Section 7. The application for Major Use Special Permit, which was submitted on June 9, 2006, and on file with the Planning Department of the City of Miami, Florida, shall be relied upon generally for administrative interpretations and is incorporated by reference. Section 8. The City Manager is directed to instruct the Planning Director to transmit a copy of this Resolution and attachment to the APPLICANT. Section 9. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are made with respect to the Project as described in the Development Order for the PROJECT, incorporated within. Section 10. The Major Use Special Permit Development Order for the PROJECT is granted and issued. Section 11. In the event that any portion or section of this Resolution or the Development Order 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 which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 12. The provisions approved for this Major Use Special Permit, as approved, shall commence and become operative thirty (30) days after the adoption of the Resolution. Section 13. This Major Use Special Permit, as approved, shall expire two (2) years from its commencement and operative date. city of Miami Page 6 of 13 Printed On: 9/13/2006 File Number. 06-01060mu Section 14. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor. {1} DEVELOPMENT ORDER Let it be known that pursuant to Articles 5, 9, 13 and 17 of Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended (the "Zoning Ordinance"), the Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, has considered in a public hearing, the issuance of a Major Use Special Permit for 300 Grove Bay Residences (hereinafter referred to as the "PROJECT') to be located at approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida (see legal description on "Exhibit A", attached and incorporated), is subject to any dedications, limitations, restrictions, reservations or easements of record. After due consideration of the recommendations of the 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 tS V BMI �M�*gi�iD INTO THE Permit and issues this Permit: tV'�� �� PUBLIC RECORD FOR FINDINGS OF FACT ITEM G,.41'3 ON 3 -99 - 01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed PROJECT is a mixed use development to be located at approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. The PROJECT is located on a gross lot area of approximately 11.44± acres and a net lot area of approximately 6.72± acres of land (more specifically described on "Exhibit A", incorporated herein by reference). The remainder of the PROJECTs Data Sheet is attached and incorporated as "Exhibit B". The proposed PROJECT will be an a three building mixed use development ranging in height from approximately 304 feet to 411 feet to be comprised of approximately 300 total multifamily residential units with recreational amenities; and approximately 642 total parking spaces; providing for certain floor area ratio ("FAR") bonuses. The Major Use Special Permit Application for the PROJECT also encompasses the following lower ranking Special Permits: MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMITS MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 17, Section 1701, Definition (9) and Article 5, Sect. 502. PUD districts; minimum area, maximum densities and maximum floor area ratios permitted (a)(c), to allow up to 20 % increase of floor area ratio, for an increase of approximately 171,433 square feet of floor area; MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 17, Section 1701. Definition (8) and Article 9, Section 914, Sub -Section 914.1 Dwelling unit, square footage, and off - City of Miami Page 7 of 13 Printed On: 9/13/2006 File Number: 06-01060mu street parking bonuses for contribution to Affordable Housing Trust Fund; exceptions, to allow an increase up to twenty (25) percent of additional floor area as a development bonus of approximately 214,292 square feet, the user shall make a non-refundable bonus developer contribution of an amount of $2,657,220.80 to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund administered by the City of Miami; CLASS II SPECIAL PERMITS CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 9, Section 923, Sub -Section 923.2, Sub - Section 923.2.1. Reduction in stall dimensions by Class II Special Permit; criteria and limitations on reductions, to allow reduction of two (2) loading berth dimensions as follows: Request to be reduced Proposed Total Proposed Two (2) 12 feet wide x 55 feet long x 15 feet high Two (2) 12 feet wide x 35 feet long x 15 feet high Six (6) 12 feet wide x 35 feet long x 15 feet high CLASS I SPECIAL PERMITS CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 9, Section 927. Temporary structures, occupancies, and uses during construction, criteria for special permits, to allow temporary structures, occupancies, and uses reasonably necessary for construction such as construction fence, covered walkway and if encroaching public property must be approved by other city departments; L,L 0 W W CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 9, Section 906, Sub -Section 906.9. m W f r Q Temporary special events; special permits; criteria, to allow temporary carnival, festival, fair or similar type event on privately owned or City -owned land such as a ground breaking ceremony; C) a- CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 9, Section 916, Sub -Section 916.2.1. Temporary special event parking, to allow parking for temporary special event such as ground breaking ceremonies; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 9, Section 918, Sub -Section 918.2. Temporary off-street offsite parking for construction crews, criteria, to allow temporary off-street offsite parking for construction crews working on a residential project under construction; CLASS 1 SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 9, Section 920, Sub -Section 920.1.2. Limitations on occupancy of mobile homes, to allow parking of mobile homes, trailers or manufactured homes, when authorized for security or other purposes in connection with land development such as construction trailer(s) and other temporary construction offices such as watchman's quarters, leasing and sales centers; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT, as per Article 10, Section 10.5, Sub -Section 10.5.4.3, R-4 Multifamily High -Density Residential, Temporary Signs (3), to allow temporary development signs; City of Miami Page 8 of 13 Printed On: 9/13/2006 File Number. 06-01060mu REQUEST, for waiver of Chapter 36 Noise, Section 36-6 Construction Equipment (a) permitting the operation of construction equipment exceeding the sound level of a reading of 0.79 weighted average dBA at any time and/or day subject to the City Manager Exception pursuant to Section 36-6 (c) and all the applicable criteria; REQUEST for applicable PHASED PROJECT, subject to qualifications by the Director of the Planning Department, at the written request of the property owner (s) REQUEST for applicable MUSP conditions to be satisfied at the time of Shell Permit instead of at issuance of Foundation Permit: a) The requirement to record in the Public Records 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; and b) The requirement to record in the Public Records a unity of title or covenant in lieu of unity of title. Pursuant to Articles 5, 9, 13 and 17 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, approval of the requested Major Use Special Permit shall be considered sufficient for the subordinate permits requested and referenced above as well as any other special approvals required by the City which may be required to carry out the requested plans. The PROJECT shall be constructed substantially in accordance with plans and design schematics on file prepared by Arquitectonica, signed and dated May 23, 2006; the landscape plan shall be implemented substantially in accordance with plans and design schematics on file prepared by EDAW, signed and dated May 24, 2006; 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 Planning Director prior to the issuance of any building permits; and The PROJECT conforms to the requirements of the proposed R-4 (Multifamily High -Density Residential) zoning classification, as contained in the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended. The proposed comprehensive plan future land use designation on the subject property allows the proposed uses. CONDITIONS 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 and pay all applicable fees due prior to the issuance of a building permit including the required Affordable Housing Trust fund contribution of $12.40 per square foot for any applicable FAR increase sought under those provisions. City of Miami Page 9 of 13 Printed On: 9/13/2006 File Number: 06-01060mu 2) 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 Planning Department, 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. 3) Obtain approval from, or 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. 4) Obtain approval from, or provide a letter of assurance from the Department of W Solid Waste that the PROJECT has addressed all concerns of the said Department prior= r- to the obtainment of a shell permit. L Q o i_ 4 5) Comply with the Minority Participation and Employment Plan (including a co Q tr1 Contractor/Subcontractor Participation Plan) submitted to the City as part of the fr Application for Development Approval, with the understanding that the APPLICANT muses use its best efforts to follow the provisions of the City's Minority/Women Business Affairs--- Q LLJ --3"- MI6) Record the following in the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, prior to i w .,a9 the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy, a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions providing that the ownership, operation and — C.)N1 maintenance of all common areas and facilities will be by the property owner or a c mandatory property owner association in perpetuity. CO l3 W 7) Prior to the issuance of a shell permit, provide the City with a recorded copy ci_1...— the MUSP permit resolution and development order, and further, an executed, record able unity of 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 Attomey's Office. and Procurement Program as a guide. 8) Provide the Planning Department with a temporary construction plan that includes the following: a temporary construction parking plan, with an enforcement policy; a construction noise management plan with an enforcement policy; and a maintenance plan for the temporary construction site; said plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permits and shall be enforced during construction activity. All construction activity shall remain in full compliance with the provisions of the submitted construction plan; failure to comply may lead to a suspension or revocation of this Major Use Special Permit. 9) In so far as this Major Use Special Permit includes the subordinate approval of a series of Class I Special Permits for which specific details have not yet been developed or provided, the applicant shall provide the Planning Department with all subordinate Class I Special Permit plans and detailed requirements for final review and approval of each one prior to the issuance of any of the subordinate approvals required in order to carry out any of the requested activities and/or improvements listed in this development order or captioned in the plans approved by it. City of Miami Page 10 of 13 Printed On: 9/13/2006 File Number. 06-01060mu 10) If the project is to be developed in phases, the Applicant shall submit an interim plan, including a landscape plan, which addresses design details for the land occupying future phases of this Project in the event that the future phases are not developed, said plan shall include a proposed timetable and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 11) Pursuant to design related comments received by the Planning Director, the applicant shall meet the following conditions: (a) The project is out of scale with the area, and the rezoning of the property should be consistent with the adjacent neighborhood, which is R-1 zoning; (b) Remove the FAR bonuses requested from the application; (c) Indicate how this project relates to the Mercy Hospital Master Plan; (d) Ensure public access to the proposed baywaik; (d) Applicant shall obtain approval of non -substantial modification to the Mercy Hospital MUSP (Res. 93-608) prior to approval of this MUSP application; (e) The proposed Mercy Hospital parking garage (Class II permit) shall be constructed prior to issuance of any construction permit of the subject proposed project; so as to accommodate the parking previously required for Mercy Hospital. 12) Pursuant to comments by the City of Miami Public Works Department, the following shall be required: (a) Platting is required to create new divisions of Tracts "A" and "C" of the Mercy Hospital subdivision. (b) The traffic circulation plan for this development must consider the limited access to the proposed development site, the impact on the narrow private road on the southerly end of the Mercy Hospital complex that serves as both a Miami -Dade Transit (MDT) bus route and an emergency hospital entrance; and the ungainly intersection of the private road at South Bayshore Drive/South Miami Avenue; (c) Applicant shall consult with the City's Capital Improvement/ Transportation Office, Miami -Dade County Public Works Department and the Natoma Manor/Bay Heights Homeowner's Associations concerning traffic impacts caused by the proposed project and the relocated Mercy Hospital traffic on the local neighborhood streets. 13) Pursuant to comments by the City of Miami Transportation Department, the following conditions shall be required of the applicant: (a) Install a new traffic signal at the intersection of Halissee Street (Mercy Hospital emergency access road) and South Miami Avenue (South Bayshore Drive), and coordinate with the Miami -Dade County Public Works Department on the traffic signal; (b) Add a southwest bound left turn lane on South Miami Avenue and realign northeast bound through lane; (c) Coordinate with the County and the City on the future project for the reconstruction of South Bayshore Drive, the segment from Darwin Street to Mercy Way; (d) SW 17th Avenue — Add a right turn arrow to the existing traffic signal and modify signal timing; (e) East Fairview — Add existing traffic signal to coordinated signal system; (f) Mercy Way — Re -stripe existing northbound right turn lane for left and right turns; (g) The Class II permit for the proposed Mercy Hospital parking garage, the structure to replace the surface parking lot at the Grove Bay site, will need to be approved before this project's Development Order is finalized. 14) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a letter of approval of the proposed height from the Miami -Dade County Aviation Department. If no such approvals are granted, the height of the proposed project shall be reduced to those City of Miami Page 11 of 13 Printed On: 9/13/2006 File Number: 06-01060mu heights referenced in the letter from Miami -Dade Aviation to the Planning Department dated May 2, 2006. 15) A development bonus to permit a mixed use of 214,292 square feet of floor area shall require a non-refundable payment to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund of an amount of $12.40 per square foot for a total of $2,657,220.80. 16) Pursuant to HEPB Resolution 2006-54, the applicant shall meet the following conditions: (a) Submit monthly reports to the City of Miami during any archeological testing and monitoring activities to document the results of any finds; (b) Submit two (2) final reports to the City of Miami within 90 days of completion of the archeological investigations and monitoring; (c) Submit a detailed archeological management or mitigation plan to the City of Miami prior to the commencement of any further archeological investigations or construction activities if significant archeological material is identified; (d) The approval of the application shall in no way be construed as an endorsement by the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB) of the actual project. 17) That the requested accompanying applications for Land Use Change (File ID 06-010601u) and Change of Zoning (File ID 06-01060zc) on this property are approved by the City Commission. 18) The applicant shall record a covenant, subject to review and approval by the city attorney, within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this resolution, which states W 11 that in the event that this Major Use Special Permit expires or is abandoned, any future = 0 development of the subject properties shall require design review and approval by the (--- Planning Director, utilizing the same criteria as the original Major Use Special Permit. O CI 19) Within 90 days of the effective date of this Development Order, record Cr certified copy of the Development Order specifying that the Development Order run O with the land and is binding on the Applicant, its successors, and assigns, jointly or severally. W W THE CITY SHALL: Establish the operative date of this Permit as being thirty (30) days from the dateM --I a CD CA 2,/ of its issuance; the issuance date shall constitute the commencement of the thirty (30) m m C day period to appeal from the provisions of the Permit. ILI m CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The PROJECT, proposed by the APPLICANT, complies with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, as amended, 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 the Zoning Ordinance: (1) (2) the PROJECT will have a favorable impact on the economy of the City; and the PROJECT will efficiently use public transportation facilities; and City of Miami Page /2 of 13 Primed On: 9/13/2006 File Number. 06-01060mu (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. 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. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: JORGE L. FERNANDEZ CITY ATTORNEY ..Footnote {1} If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at the end of ten calendar days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM_tON3.?1, City of Miami Page 13 of 13 Printed On: 9/13/2006 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM',' ON s->7-e1. Memorandum in Opposition Tab 3 Volume 1 of the MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN GOALS OBJECTIVES POLICIES SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMONJ1 City of Miami Planning Department 444 SW 2nd Avenue • Miami, FL 33130 June 2006 The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan was adopted as Ordinance 10544 on February 9, 1989 and has been amended by the City Commission through March 23, 2006, of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. Community based residential facilities (14 clients or less, not including drug, alcohol or correctional rehabilitation facilities) also will be allowed pursuant to applicable state law. Places of worship, primary and secondary schools, child day care centers and adult day care centers are permissible in suitable locations within duplex residential areas. Professional offices, tourist and guest homes, museums, and private clubs or lodges are allowed only in contributing structures within historic sites or historic districts that have been designated by the Historical and Environmental Preservation Board and are in suitable locations within duplex residential areas, pursuant to applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for such uses. Density and intensity limitations for said uses shall be restricted to those of the contributing structure(s). Medium Density Multifamily Residential: Areas designated as "Medium Density Multifamily Residential' allow residential structures to a maximum density of 65 dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. Supporting services such as community -based residential facilities (14 clients or less, not including drug, alcohol or correctional rehabilitation facilities) will be allowed pursuant to applicable state law; community -based residential facilities (15-50 clients) and day care centers for children and adults may be permissible in suitable locations. Permissible uses within medium density multifamily areas also include commercial activities that are intended to serve the retailing and personal services needs of the building or building complex, small scale limited commercial uses as accessory uses, subject to the detailed provisions of applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for such uses, places of worship, primary and secondary schools, and accessory post -secondary educational facilities. Professional offices, tourist and guest homes, museums, and private clubs or lodges are allowed only in contributing structures within historic sites or historic districts that have been designated by the Historical and Environmental Preservation Board and are in suitable locations within medium density multifamily residential areas, pursuant to applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for such uses. Density and intensity limitations for said uses shall be restricted to those of the contributing structure(s). High Density Multifamily Residential: Areas designated as "High Density Multifamily Residential" allow residential structures to a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. Higher densities may be allowed as shown for these specially -designated areas: Little Havana Target Area 200 units per acre Southeast Overtown/Park West 300 units per acre Brickell, Omni, and River Quadrant 500 units per acre Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Goals Objectives Policies June 2006 20 Supporting services such as offices and commercial services and other accessory activities that are clearly incidental to principal uses are permitted; community -based residential facilities (14 clients or Tess, not including drug, alcohol or correctional rehabilitation facilities) will be allowed pursuant to applicable state law; community -based residential facilities (15+ clients), places of worship, primary and secondary schools, and day care centers for children and adults may be permissible in suitable locations. Office: Areas designated as 'Office" allow residential uses to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions; transitory residential facilities such as hotels and motels; general office use; clinics and laboratories; and limited commercial activities incidental to principal activities in designated areas. Supporting facilities such as auditoriums, libraries, convention facilities, places of worship, and primary and secondary schools may be allowed with the 'Office" designation. Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities: Areas designated as "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities" allow facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious or educational activities, and major transportation facilities and public utilities. Residential facilities ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions. Restricted Commercial: Areas designated as "Restricted Commercial" allow residential uses (excepting rescue missions) to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions; any activity included in the "Office" designation as well as commercial activities that generally serve the daily retailing and service needs of the public, typically requiring easy access by personal auto, and often located along arterial or collector roadways, which include: general retailing, personal and professional services, real estate, banking and other financial services, restaurants, saloons and cafes, general entertainment facilities, private clubs and recreation facilities, major sports and exhibition or entertainment facilities and other commercial activities whose scale and land use impacts are similar in nature to those uses described above, places of worship, and primary and secondary schools. This category also includes commercial marinas and living quarters on vessels as permissible. Central Business District (CBD): The area designated as "Central Business District (CBD) is intended to apply to the central commercial, financial and office core of the metropolitan region, and allows all activities included in the "Office," "Restricted Commercial,' and "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities" designations. Residential facilities (except for rescue missions) alone or in combination with other uses are allowable to a maximum density of 1,000 dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. Also permitted is a mix of uses ranging from high density multifamily residential to high intensity office uses with retail uses on the lower floors of structures. Intensity of uses within the CBD land use designation are generally higher than those allowed in other areas of the city. SUBMITTED INTO THE Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood PU B L I C R E C O R D FO R Goals Objectives Policies June 2006 ITEM '� ON 3- 911 -61 . Memorandum in Opposition Tab 4 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR Tall towers aren't neighbor -friendly - 03/27/2007 - MiamiHerald.com Page 1 of 1 SUBMITTED INTO THE MiamiHerald.comr�! PUBLIC RECORD FOR Posted on Tue, Mar. 27, 2007 QZ.1� Tall towers aren't neighbor -friendly ITEM a...�l - ON 3-ari,01 The Miami City Commission today should tell the developers of 300 Grove Bay Residences to scale back the project before it will approve the zoning variance they seek. As proposed, the three condo towers to be built behind Mercy Hospital on Biscayne Bay could rise as high as 410 feet. That's way out of proportion for the Coconut Grove neighborhood, which includes the nationally designated historic Vizcaya villa museum and grounds. Too many stories Mercy Hospital two years ago agreed to sell 6.7 acres for high-rise development for $98 million to finance improvements to its facility. Trouble is, the only other nearby high-rises are on Grove Isle, and they are roughly half the height proposed for the Grove Bay towers. The project has been scaled back to 300 units from the original 1,000 units. And the height of two towers has been reduced some. But that's still too many stories in a neighborhood with no high-rises. The proposal violates a rule that the commission approved in 2004 to prevent projects like this one from being built in neighborhoods where they wouldn't fit in. Two years ago, during zoning hearings for a high- rise being built on former U.S. Naval Reserve property in the Grove, the commission approved a rule that limits the height of buildings on land once zoned as "government -institutional" -- such as hospitals, schools and museums -- if that land is sold for private development. The rule says that the highest allowable height on such sites is that of the least -dense abutting property. Citing this rule, the city's zoning board last year voted 5-2 to recommend that the commission restrict Grove Bay's towers to 50 feet in height, which would make them less obtrusive. Miami's planning advisory board also recommended against the project as proposed. Traffic concerns on two-lane Bayshore Drive were cited by both boards' members, and rightly so. The developers say that the condos, priced between $3 million and $15 million, will be marketed as second homes, and therefore won't have much impact on Bayshore Drive. But the road is already congested during commute hours, and the commission should be trying to reduce congestion, not foster it. Historic jewel Finally, another reason the towers should be lower is the impact that the project would have on sightlines from Vizcaya's garden. Vizcaya is the county's premiere showcase. It hosts U.S. presidents and heads of state, and is considered a historic crown jewel in a community with precious little regard for the past. City commissioners like to entertain and be entertained at Vizcaya. They can show their appreciation for its uniqueness by protecting it from towers that are too tall for the neighborhood. 2007 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved. http://www.miamiherald.com http://www.miamiherald.com/454/v-print/story/53980.html 3/27/2007