Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-08-0101City of Miami Legislation Resolution: R-08-0101 City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com File Number: 04-01208 Final Action Date: 2/28/2008 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING THE APPEAL BY MORNINGSIDE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. AND ROD ALONSO, RON STEBBINS, SCOTT CRAWFORD AND ELVIS CRUZ; AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY APPROVING THE CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 03-0309, ISSUED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ON JULY 21, 2004, TO ALLOW NEW CONSTRUCTION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND SAFEGUARDS AS ARE PROVIDED HEREIN, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5101 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting on July 9, 2007, Item No. 7, adopted Resolution No. ZB 07-0069 by a vote of five to zero (5-0), to allow the City Commission to consider the decision issued on Class II Special Permit Application No. 03-0309 by the Planning Director on July 21, 2004, and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Zoning Board decision was filed by the Morningside Civic Association, Inc. and Rod Alonso, Ron Stebbins, Scott Crawford and Elvis Cruz; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, after careful consideration of this matter, including, without limitation, legal argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the evidence presented, finds the application for Class II Special Permit does meet the applicable requirements of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, and deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to affirm, subject to certain conditions and safeguards provided herein, the decision of the Zoning Board and the Planning Director and deny the appeal of Class II Special Permit as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission has made certain written findings and determinations based on the provisions of §1305 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, which provide, in part, that conditional approvals may be made when certain conditions are required in order for special permits to be found in compliance with all applicable criteria, and they have been used to approve the Class II Special Permit for this new construction, subject to the conditions and safeguards set forth in Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City Commission charged with the ultimate responsibility for the issuance or denial of this special permit based on the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance has the authority to attach to the grant of any such special permit such conditions and safeguards as may be necessary for the purposes of this zoning ordinance in the particular case; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: City of Miami Page 1 of 7 Printed On: 4/24/2008 File Number: 04-01208 Enactment Number: R-08-0101 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. The decision of the Zoning Board to deny the appeal by Morningside Civic Association, Inc. and Rod Alonso, Ron Stebbins, Scott Crawford and Elvis Cruz, of Class II Special Permit application no. 03-0309 issued by the Planning Director on July 21, 2004, to allow new construction for the property located at approximately 5101 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida, as legally described in attached "Exhibit A," is affirmed, and the Class II Special Permit is affirmed and approved, as modified, however subject to the conditions and safeguards set forth herein. The findings and determinations made herein address the denial of the appeal but the imposition of a condition that the project must be reduced from a 90' height to a 35' height. Section 3. The findings of fact and determinations set forth below are made with respect to the subject property: a. 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 City staff or others) to adhere or not adhere, as applicable, to the following Design Review Criteria subject to the applicable conditions herein: (I) Site and Urban Planning: Design Review Criteria Applicability (1) Respond to the physical Yes. contextual environment taking into consideration urban form and natural features; Compliance *No, except with condition of 35' ft. height limit. (2) Sitting should minimize the Yes. *No, except with condition of 35' ft. height limit. impact of automobile parking and driveways on the pedestrian environment and adjacent properties; (3) Buildings on corner Yes. *No, except with condition of 35' ft. height limit. lots should be oriented to the corner and public street fronts. The Application as presented does not minimize its impact or its parking on adjacent properties. The Application as presented is not oriented to the corner structure towards the corner and the public streets fronts. The impact of the parking lot is not buffered as against the adjacent single family residential ("R-1 ") properties -there is an inadequate parking setback under this section, and §907.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The final or revised plans, drawings and diagrams ("revised plans") submitted by the Applicant on or about 6/30/04, notably #A-01-01 of the revised plans do not show the required setbacks. These findings can be gleamed from the hearing before City of Miami Page 2 of 7 Printed On: 4/24/2008 File Number: 04-01208 Enactment Number: R-08-0101 the City Commission on February 28, 2008 and from the October 4, 2004 Zoning Board hearing. (II) Architecture and Landscape Architecture: Design Review Criteria Applicability (1) A project shall be Yes. designed to comply with all applicable landscape ordinances; Compliance *No, except with condition of 35' ft. height limit. (2) Respond to the Yes. *No, except with condition of 35' ft. height limit. neighborhood context; (3) Create a transition in Yes. *No, except with condition of 35' ft. height limit. bulk and scale; (4) Use architectural styles Yes. *No, except with condition of 35' ft. height limit. and details (such as roof lines and fenestration), colors and materials derivative from surrounding area; (5) Articulate the building Yes. *Yes. facade vertically and horizontally in intervals that conform to the existing structures in the vicinity. There is an insufficient landscape buffer for the parking planned for the project and the single family homes that will be abutted. There is merely a 10' setback between the two and it is insufficient. Considering the neighborhood context including Morningside, a single family residential area, and the nearby upper east side Biscayne Boulevard area the project does not respond to this neighborhood context in that, among other findings, the revised plans show it is grossly out of scale with this neighborhood context. There is no response to the neighborhood which complies with this section of the Zoning Ordinance. The Project as shown on the revised plans would rise 90' over the adjacent single family neighborhood. The project does not (absent the height limitation) respond to the residential single family home (R-1) historic Morningside District it abuts - it is out of scale with the height, character and context of the Morningside neighborhood to respond to the neighborhood context it is important that the project be less intensive and its height is accordingly reduced to '35. The Project does not create a transition in bulk and scale. This can only be addressed by the reduction of the project height from 90' to 35'. The revised plans, including the elevation and section drawings, show the project going from 90' to the adjacent single family neighborhood, which is in very close proximity, without an adequate buffer or any transition in bulk and scale. There is a lack of a transition between the project and the adjacent properties, including single family homes. There is no incline, sloping or scaling back of the project reflected in the revised plans for this project. The proposed project is adjacent to a far less intense use and does not at 90' create a transition in bulk City of Miami Page 3 of 7 Printed On: 4/24/2008 File Number: 04-01208 Enactment Number: R-08-0101 and scale between the two. §907.3.2 of the zoning ordinance has not been complied with in that the height setback for buildings over 40' is not included in the revised plans which do not comply with this section. There is no additional height setback as required by this section which must include a vertical setback of the building over 40' as specified in this section. In light of the neighborhood context it is appropriate to restrict the height to 35.' At 90' in the proposed height it cannot be stated that the architectural styles, colors and materials are derivative from the surrounding area - Morningside or the upper east side corridor. (III) Pedestrian Oriented Development: Design Review Criteria Applicability (1) Promote pedestrian Yes. interaction; Compliance *No, except with condition of 35' ft. height limit. (2) Design facades that Yes. *No, except with condition of 35' ft. height limit. respond primarily to the human scale; (3) Provide active, not Yes. *Yes. blank facades. Where blank walls are unavoidable, they should receive design treatment. The project as shown on the revised plans does not promote pedestrian interaction or respond primarily to the human scale because the facade must be open and visible to pedestrians but at the 90' height it is not. The design scale in the revised plans is too massive to respond to the human scale as envisioned by this section. The project when re -submitted with the 35' height should be more open and visible to pedestrians from the public sidewalk as well as for users of vehicular parking. (IV) Streetscape and Open Space: Design Review Criteria Applicability (1) Provide usable open Yes. space that allows for convenient and visible pedestrian access from the public sidewalk; Compliance *No, except with condition of 35' ft. height limit. (2) Landscaping, including Yes. *Yes. plant material, trellises, special pavements, screen walls, planters and similar features should be appropriately incorporated to enhance the project. City of Miami Page 4 of 7 Printed On: 4/24/2008 File Number: 04-01208 Enactment Number: R-08-0101 There are insufficient visible and open spaces shown on the revised plans to fulfill this condition. The plans when re -submitted should reflect more open and visible space allowing greater public access from the public sidewalks. (V) Vehicular Access and Parking: Design Review Criteria Applicability Compliance (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. *No, except with condition of 35' ft. height limit. as district buffer. There is an insufficient buffer between the surface parking lot and the abutting residences. There is merely a 10' setback between the surface parking lot and the abutting residences which is insufficient to comply with this design review criteria. The impact of the surface parking lot on the abutting residences is not minimized - the impact is clearly visible on the revised plans. The plans when re -submitted must better address this design review criteria to minimize the impact of the parking on this project to abutting residences / properties. The revised plans lack any significant district buffer. (VI) Screening: Design Review Criteria Applicability (1) Provide landscaping that Yes. screen undesirable elements, such as surface parking lots, and that enhances space and architecture; Compliance *No, except with condition of 35' ft. height limit. (2) Building sites should locate Yes. *Yes. 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 City of Miami Page 5 of 7 Printed On: 4/24/2008 File Number: 04-01208 Enactment Number: R-08-0101 from the street front they should 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. The surface parking lot is inadequately screened, and only divided by a 10' setback from the adjacent single family homes. The surface parking area as shown on the revised plans is not sufficiently screened as an undesirable element and does not comply with this section, particularly for a building that would be 90' high as was originally proposed. (VII) Signage and Lighting: Design Review Criteria Applicability Compliance (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 consideration. (VIII) Preservation of Natural Features: Design Review Criteria Applicability Compliance (1) Preserve existing vegetation Yes. *Yes. and/or geological features whenever possible. City of Miami Page 6 of 7 Printed On: 4/24/2008 File Number: 04-01208 Enactment Number: R-08-0101 (IX) Modification of Nonconformities: Design Review Criteria Applicability Compliance (1) For modifications of Yes. *Yes. nonconforming structures, no increase in the degree of nonconformity shall be allowed; (2) Modifications that Yes. *Yes. conform 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. Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor. {1} Footnotes: {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. City of Miami Page 7 of 7 Printed On: 4/24/2008