HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Michael SastreCITY COMMISSION ZONING FILE NO. 2003-0415
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA Re: Kubik MUSP
CESAR A. HERNANDEZ-CANTON,
ELVIS CRUZ, WILLIAM HOPPER,
JACK WOLFE, and AL SASIADEK,
Objectors,
and,
KUBIK, LLC, and BISCAYNE
PREMIER INVESTMENTS, INC.
Respondents/Developers.
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO KUBIK, LLC MUSP PERMIT
COME NOW, CESAR A. HERNANDEZ-CANTON, ELVIS CRUZ,
WILLIAM HOPPER, JACK WOLFE, and AL SASIADEK, by and through
undersigned counsel, and hereby file this Memorandum in Opposition to Kubik,
LLC MUSP Permit, and as grounds in support thereof, state as follows:
L Objectors' Request for Elimination/Refusal of PUD Bonus under Section
503(c), based on Constitutional Vagueness, Interpretation, and non-
compliance with Section 1305 Criteria, as amended.
Section 502(c) of the City of Miami Zoning Code is the standard under
which the City Commission previously granted Kubik's sizeable (20%) increase
in overall height of the project. On the two previous occasions that this matter
268069.1
came before the Commission, and over the objections of the Objectors herein,
the City Commission granted the subject PUD bonus — which effectively allows
for a much larger building and density — 20% larger in fact than would otherwise
be permitted. Both of those prior decisions from the Commission have since
been vacated in their entirety, leaving the parties at status quo as existed prior to
any hearing taking place.
Objectors would submit that the PUB bonus in this case is not permitted
under the law, and is expressly contrary to directives from the Planning and
Zoning Department as reflected in their April 2004 Kubik Staffing analysis. At
that time, and as remains the case today, Planning and Zoning found, in 2004,
that Kubik did not satisfy the standards for a PUD bonus:
It is found that the requested PUD approval represents a bonus
increase in Floor Area Ratio; this bonus, in conjunction with
the fact that this is a very large site, has a cumulative effect of
allowing an extremely large amount of potential development
on this site. In a recent study of the Biscayne Boulevard
corridor, recommendations were made that limitations be
placed on height of development; the requested bonus results
in a potentially taller structure that does not contextually fit
on this specific property. Therefore, it is found that with
respect to these recommendations, the subject proposal should
be modified to eliminate the requested PUD bonus. The
reduction will result in a more compatible amount of
development capacity on the subject property.
12. The applicant shall modify the plans on file, as
submitted for the proposed project, to eliminate any Floor Area
2
268069.1
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Ratio bonuses requested pursuant to Article 5 of the Zoning
Ordinance for a planned unit development.
13. The applicant shall continue to work with the Planning
and Zoning Department to reduce the proposed building height along
Biscayne Boulevard; such modification shall be subject to the final
review and approval of the Planning and Zoning Director. (See:
Exhibit 1, Kubik MUSP Staffing Analysis from April 2004).
Objectors would submit that this is more than competent substantial
evidence that a PUD bonus of 20% should not be granted in this case to the
Kubik development. Indeed, P and Z specifically recommended rejection
of the PUD bonus under Article 5, specifically, Section 502.
As a second basis for requesting denial of the PUD bonus, objectors argue
that Section 502(c) does not contain any real standards at all, but merely contains
incomprehensible (and therefore unconstitutional) vagaries that are susceptible to
capricious and arbitrary application— which is precisely what occurred in this
case on the two previous occasions where a PUD bonus was allowed.
The zoning code in Section 502 establishes minimum area, maximum
densities and maximum floor area ratios for planned unit developments within
the City. That provision states:
a Planned unit developments shall have a minimum gross lot
area of fifty thousand (50,000) square feet
b. Densities for the planned unit development in residential
districts are as follows:
R 1 See Section 508. R-2 Eighteen (18) dwelling units per
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
268069.1 item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
3
net acre. R-3 Sixty-five (65) dwelling units per net acre. R-4
One hundred fifty (150) dwelling units per net acre.
c. Except in R-1, an increase in floor area ratio of up to twenty
(20) percent over that allowed by the underlying district, when
allowed under the limitations of the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan in effect at time of application.
Section 502(c) of the Miami Zoning Code purports to grant to a MUSP
applicant that claims to be a planned unit development ("PUD") a bonus of a
twenty percent (20%) increase in floor area. Yet that language does not grant
anything_ In fact, unlike sections 502 (a) and (b), section 502(c) is not even a
sentence, but rather a fragment. This vague language renders this provision
unconstinaionally vague and leading to arbitrary application. Section 502 shows
no relationship or nexus between a PUD and the award of this twenty percent
(20%) floor area bonus. This bonus is nothing more than a gift of additional
square footage to a project, allowing it to dramatically exceed the zoned floor
area ratio — .something which Planning and Zoning in this case thought was
improper,
Florida law clearly disapproves legislative pronouncements that are "so
lacking innslards and guidelines" that it is impossible to determine whether
decisions under them are actually implementing the legislative intent. Southeast
Volusia Hosp. Dist. v. State, Dept. of Ins. 432 So.2d 592, 601 (lst DCA 1983).
Application of this unconstitutional standard in the PUD bonus process that
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
268069.1 item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
4
Petitioners opposed departed from essential requirements of law and deprived
them of due process.
Additionally, it is well settled that legislation, which is arbitrary,
unreasonable, and not rationally related to a reasonable government objective,
constitutes fundamental error. Goodyear Tire & Rubber v. Jones, 929 So.2d
1081, 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Conversely, a statute is constitutional if it bears
a reasonable relationship to a legitimate public purpose and is not discriminatory,
arbitrary, or oppressive. See Haire v. Florida Dep't. of Agric. & Consumer
Sevrs., 870 So.2d 774, 782 (Fla. 2004). In granting the PUD bonus in this case
previously, the Commission exercised standardless discretion in an arbitrary and
capricious manner, and objectors would request that the Commission not commit
this error a third time.
As Florida courts have articulated "countless times" judicial decisions
cannot be arbitrary or capricious. McGlade v. State, 941 So.2d 1185, 1188 (2nd
DCA 2006). The request for a PUD bonus must be denied.
H. Substantive Legal and Factual Arguments as to Why This Project Does
Not Satisfy the Criteria of Section 1305, and Must be Denied, or in the
Alternative, only Approved with Conditions Limiting Height
On its face, the amended Section 1305 speaks directly to the preservation
of existing neighborhood character. Section 1305 protects the single-family
neighborhoods surrounding the Kubik project against exactly what is proposed
Submitted into the public
5 record in connection with
268069.1
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
here: the construction of a huge, modernistic structure, immediately adjacent to
single-family homes. Indeed, this proposed Special Permit would have a
h iilding essentially sitting in the backyards of single story houses.
To protect surrounding neighborhoods, Section 1305 of the Code requires
factual Endings concerning design appropriateness, including findings relating to
the "bulk and scale" of a project and its compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood.
The Ordinance specifically requires:
The City agent, board or commission that is charged with decision
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
Endings 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.
Section 1305, City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 11,000.
It is apparent from the existing record (even without considering the
anticipated expert opinion of Arthur Marcus, or the evidence anticipated to be
presented by Powerpoint) that the proposed projects fail to satisfy numerous
criteria set forth in Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance.
6
268069.1
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
First, the project fails to satisfy the following portions of the Design
Review Criteria set forth in tables in Section 1305.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
requiring that projects must:
L Site & Urban Planning:
(1)Respond to the physical contextual environment taking into
consideration urban form and natural features.
(2) Citing should minimize the impact of automobile parking and
driveways on the pedestrian environment and adjacent
properties.
(3)Buildings on corner lots should be oriented to the corner and
public street fronts.
IL Architecture and Landscape Architecture:
(2) Respond to the neighborhood context.
(3) Create a transition in bulk and scale.
IIL Pedestrian Oriented Development:
(1) Promote pedestrian interaction.
(2) Design facades that respond primarily to the human scale.
IV. Streetscape and Open Space:
(1) Provide usable open space that allows for convenient and visible
pedestrian access from the public sidewalk.
V. Vehicular Access and Parking:
(4) Use surface parking areas as district buffer.
7
2G9 2
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Proper review of the project also shows that they fail to satisfy Section
13053.1 of the Ordinance, which requires that:
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 the residential areas from excessive noise, fumes, odors
commercial vehicle intrusion, traffic conflicts, and the spillover
effect of light.
Each of these criteria and failures will be discussed in turn below.
Violation of Design Review Criteria I(1) and II(2) and (3):
The contextual rendering (See Zoning Board File), along with the context
photographs show that the project fails utterly to "respond to the physical
contextual environment taking into consideration urban form and natural
features," "respond to the neighborhood context," and "create a transition in bulk
and scale," as required by DRC I(1) and II(2) and (3), respectively. As is shown
by the photographs and contextual renderings, the presently existing urban form
and neighborhood context are single family one or two-story homes or small
commercial structures. The Specific Purpose Survey, the Location Map, and the
UDRB Submittal shows the proximity these huge buildings will have to existing
single family homes — they will be adjacent with hardly a "transition in bulk and
scale."
8
268069.1
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Violation of DRC III(1) and (2) and DRC IV(1):
The project as proposed fails to respond to the human, pedestrian scale.
The elevation drawings clearly 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 elements.
Violation of 1305.3.1. As is obvious from all of the above, the proposed
project is immediately adjacent to far less intense uses — single story homes!
Any reasonable interpretation of this ordinance coupled with the proposals'
extreme proximity to this single family neighborhood dictates a less intense use.
M. Zoning Provisions under Section 2301 of the Miami Zoning Code shall
be held to be minimum requirements or maximum limitations, as the case
may be, adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, or
general welfare.
Maximum height and density of a project within the existing zoning is just
what it says, a maximum and not an entitlement. It is imperative that this body
ensure that the proposals satisfy the other criteria expressed in the City's Zoning
Ordinance before approving a project. Importantly, it is appropriate to restrict
the height of a project based on the existing neighborhood scale and
compatibility. Las Olas Tower Company v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 742 So.2d
308, 313-314 (4 ' DCA 1999). Surely it is then also appropriate to deny a PUD
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
9
2680691
bonus of IPA were a municipality's own Planning and Zoning Department
recommends against same.
In this regard, Section 2301 of Article 23 of the City of Miami Zoning
Code, "Provisions of Zoning Ordinance Declared to be Minimum or Maximum
Requirements", provides as follows:
In 'heir interpretation and application, the provisions of this
ordinance shall be held to be minimum requirements or
waren= limitations, as the case may be, adopted for the
promotion of the public health, safety, morals, or general
weV (Emphasis added)
In layman's terms, what this "catch-all" code provision means is that
simply bye one section of the code allows one to build up to a certain height
or density that does not mean it is appropriate to do so. The limitations are
"maximum?, not entitlements, as developers always argue. Their simply is no
"entitlement" 'under our zoning laws to build the maximum allowable building,
even if one section of the code otherwise permits it. The public welfare should
always prevail, as Section 2301 clearly states.
Because the proposal here fails to satisfy the criteria of Chapter 13 of the
Zoning O:dina ce, and are incompatible with the existing neighborhood, if the
project is to be approved at all, they should be required to comply, at a
minuet, with the standards set forth above.
10
268O1/89.1
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Finally, the objectors would submit that it is not their argument that the
project fails to satisfy any of the design criterion; indeed, there are some which it
may satisfy. Rather, it is their contention that the project does not satisfy aucial requirements concerning bulk and scale, density, transition in the
neighborhood context, etc., as discussed above.
'WHEREFORE, CESAR A. HERNANDEZ-CANTON, ELVIS CRUZ,
WILLIAM HOPPER, JACK WOLFE, and AL SASIADEK, hereby request that
the City Commission, render written findings supporting the denial of the Major
Use Special Permit 03-0415, and enter a resolution indicating in detail, pursuant
to the 1305 criteria, the reasons for the denial of the proposed project. In the
alterative, the Petitioners/Objectors request that the subject project be approved
with the specific condition that it does not exceed (3) three stories or 35 feet in
height.
Respectfully Submitted,
ae1 A. Sastre
lorida Bar No. 0 335
100 SE 2nd St. uite 3800
Miami, FL 33131
(305) 374-4400
(305) 579-0261 (fax)
11
268869_1
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by
band delivery this 22nd day of May, 2008, to:
All City of Miami Commissioners
Dougherty
Greenbag Traurig, PA
I31 Bricke11 Avenue
Via, FL 33131
JufteOBru
City Attorney
City ofMiami
444S, W 2 Avenue, Suite 945
Miami, FL 3313 0
T Fernandez
City of Miami Hearing Boards
444 ,So W- 2 Avenue, Suite 945
FL33130
12
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
1
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Page 1 of 8
Rodriguez, An&
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Rodriguez, Anel
Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:02 PM
Walford, Kevin C
Suarez -Rivas, Rafael; Rodriguez, Monica U
Subject: RE: Kubik to CC
Tracking: Recipient Read
Walford, Kevin C
Suarez -Rivas, Rafael
Rodriguez, Monica U Read: 5/24/2006 1:06 PM
Kevin, I do not need it because it is in Legistar already.
MR. ANEL RODRIGUEZ
Administrative Assistant II
305.416.2037 - 305.416.2035
axrodriguez@miamigov.com
www.miamigov.com/hearing_boards/
From: Watford, Kevin C
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:59 PM
To: Suarez -Rivas, Rafael; Rodriguez, Anel; Rodriguez, Monica U; Slazyk, Lourdes Y
Subject: RE: Kubik to CC
Done.
Anel, see attached revised Word Version of the legislation
Kevin C. Walford
Planner 11
City of Miami Planning Department
E-Mail: kwalford@miamigov.com + www.miamigov:corn
t 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor, Miami, Florida 33130
Phone: 305.416.1473 Fax: 305.416.1443
From: Suarez -Rivas, Rafael
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:47 AM
To: Walford, Kevin C; Rodriguez, Anel; Rodriguez, Monica U; Slazyk, Lourdes Y
Cc: DoughertyL@gtlaw.com
Subject: RE: Kubik to CC
Yes please.Thanks.
Rafael Suarez -Rivas
Assistant City Attorney
(305) 416-18o0.
Si'a/')nnA
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
• Page 2 of 8
Monica Rodriguez
Litigation Assistant
From: Walford, Kevin C
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:46 AM
To: Rodriguez, Anel; Suarez -Rivas, Rafael; Rodriguez, Monica U; Slazyk, Lourdes Y
Subject: RE: Kubik to CC
So, do I now go ahead to "Version 3" and make the revisions per Rafael's 6:46pm e-mail
yesterday?
• Kevin C. Walford
Planner 1I
City of Miami Planning Department
LslE-Mail: kwalford@miamigov.com +www.miamigov.corn
ri-7 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor, Miami, Florida 33130
Phone: 305.416.1473 i Fax: 305.416.1443
From: Rodriguez, Anel
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:42 AM
To: Suarez -Rivas, Rafael; Rodriguez, Monica U; Slazyk, Lourdes Y; Walford, Kevin C
Subject: RE: Kubik to CC
Importance: High
Correction to the below; it is Version 3, not Version 2. Please remember that Version 1 is
the "current version," Version 2 is the one the CC approved with modifications on June 10,
2004, and Version 3 is the one Kevin updated.
MR. ANEL RODRIGUEZ
Administrative Assistant II
305.416.2037 - 305.416.2035
axrodriguez@miamigov.com
www.miamigov.com/hearing_boards/
From: Rodriguez, Anel
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 2:31 PM
To: Walford, Kevin C
Cc: Suarez -Rivas, Rafael; Rodriguez, Monica U; Slazyk, Lourdes Y
Subject: RE: Kubik to CC
Importance: HighFmo
Kevin, the File ID is 03-0415 and please change it to. Version 2. Thanks. • 3 N E
MR. ANEL RODRIGUEZ v = U
Administrative Assistant II S a c
305.416.2037 - 305.416.2035 .w
axrodriguez@miamigov.com ^a u
www.miamigov.com/hearing_boards/ +' ▪ • d.
▪ � a
From: Walford, Kevin C - E
Sent Tuesday, May 23, 2006 2:22 PM ri is
To: Suarez -Rivas, Rafael; Rodriguez, Anel
Cc: Bru, Julie; Rodriguez, Monica U; Slazyk, Lourdes Y; Fernandez, Teresita; Castillo, Vanessa;
'DoughertyL@gtiaw.com'
5/24/2006
Page 3 of 8
Subject: RE: Kubik to CC
Okay then, I will create the new Legislation/Development Order and transmit it to the City
Attomey's office as soon as it's complete.
Kevin C. Walford
Planner 11
City of Miami Planning Department
`E-Mail: kwalford@miamigov.com 4 www.miarriigov.com
Li 444.SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor, Miami, Florida 33130 •
2 Phone: 305.416.1473 M Fax:: 305.416.1443 .
From: Suarez -Rivas, Rafael
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 2:08 PM
To: Walford, Kevin C; Rodriguez, Anel
Cc: Bru, Julie; Rodriguez, Monica U; Slazyk, Lourdes Y; Fernandez, Teresita; Castillo, Vanessa;
'Doug hertyL@gtlaw.com'
Subject: RE: Kubik to CC
Planning needs to have the form resolution for this item with the current §
1305 matrix given to the City Cornmission as a handout. Ms. Dougherty
told me she e mailed you her proposed version for us to adapt or use
awhile ago. if you cannot locate it please tell me. The point of the appeal
is that the City Commission must make the § 1305 written findings so the
legislation must reflect that. The 2004 legislation is merely their for record
purposes.
Rafael Suarez -Rivas
Assistant City Attorney
(305) 416-18o0
Monica Rodriguez
Litigation Assistant
From: Walford, Kevin C
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:16 AM
To: Rodriguez, Anei; Suarez -Rivas, Rafael
Cc: Bru, Julie; Rodriguez, Monica U; Slazyk, Lourdes Y; Fernandez, Teresita; Castillo, Vanessa
Subject: RE: Kubik to CC
Importance: High
Rafael
First off, I don't recall being sent by anyone a new resolution with the § 1305 matrix included,
but that is neither here or there at this point.
If the materials have been submitted and scanned into Legistar as part of the record of a 2-year
old resolution, do I need to find and locate the ol.dword versions of the Resolution and
Development Order (separate -documents at the time) and revise it to the new format?
on 05-22-08
St7.4t7nnF
Page 4 of 8
Please let me know, because as time is short for all involved, I don't want to spend half an
hour or so creating a document if it is not needed when other current documents from the May
17th PAB, etc. that need to be done by today.
Thanks.
Kevin C. Walford
Planner 11
City of Miami Planning Department
13E-Mail: kwalford@miamigov.com www.miamigov.com
LY 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor, Miami, Florida 33130
Phone: 305.416.1473 i Fax: 305.416.1443
From: Rodriguez, Anel
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:53 AM
To: Suarez -Rivas, Rafael
Cc: 'DoughertyL@gtlaw.com'; Bru, Julie; Rodriguez, Monica U; Slazyk, Lourdes Y; Walford, Kevin C;
Fernandez, Teresita; Castillo, Vanessa
Subject: RE: Kubik to CC
Rafael, I personally delivered a copy of the book to the receptionist on Friday.
MR. ANEL RODRIGUEZ
Administrative Assistant II
305.416.2037 - 305.416.2035
axrodriguez@miamigov.com
www.miamigov.com/hearing_boards/
From: Suarez -Rivas, Rafael
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:51 AM
To: Rodriguez, Anel; 'DoughertyL@gtlaw.com'
Cc: Bru, Julie; Rodriguez, Monica U; Slazyk, Lourdes Y; Walford, Kevin C; Fernandez, Teresita; Castillo
Vanessa
Subject: RE: Kubik to CC
Once Ms. Dougherty confirms it is included the City Attorney and/or
Deputy City Attorney need a copy of the booklet as well.
Rafael Suarez -Rivas
Assistant City Attorney
(305) 416-1800
Monica Rodriguez
Litigation Assistant
From: Rodriguez, Anel
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:50 AM
To: Suarez -Rivas, Rafael; 'DoughertyL@gtlaw.com'
Cc: Bru, Julie; Rodriguez, Monica U; Slazyk, Lourdes Y; Watford, Kevin C; Fernandez, Teresita; Castillo,
Vanessa
Subject: RE: Kubik to CC
Page 5 of 8
Importance: High
Rafael, Lucia submitted copies of a booklet, which I scanned and placed in Legistar and
delivered to each commissioner last Friday.
Lucia, is the resolution Rafael is referring to included in the booklet?
MR. ANEL RODRIGUEZ
Administrative Assistant II
305.416.2037 - 305.416.2035
axrodriguez@miamigov.com
www.miamigov.com/hearing_boards/,
From: Suarez -Rivas, Rafael
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:47 AM
To: Rodriguez, Anel; Walford, Kevin C; Castillo, Vanessa; Bru, Julie; 'DoughertyL@gtlaw.com'
Cc: Rodriguez, Monica U; Slazyk, Lourdes Y; Fernandez, Teresita
Subject: RE: CC Item PZ.5 Corrections
Please note on PZ 30 (KUBIK APPEAL) scheduled for this Thursday.
Where is the resolution submitted to Kevin Walford by counsel with the
§1305 matrix included? The City Commission needs to have the
legislation before them when they consider/ decide this matter. This was
furnished to Kevin and must be handed out by Planning or hearing
boards tomorrow.
Rafael Suarez -Rivas
Assistant City Attorney
(305) 416-1800
Monica Rodriguez
Litigation Assistant
From: Rodriguez, Anel
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:18 AM
To: Walford, Kevin C; Castillo, Vanessa
Cc: Suarez -Rivas, Rafael; Rodriguez, Monica U; Slazyk, Lourdes Y; Fernandez, Teresita
Subject: RE: CC Item PZ.5 Corrections
Importance: High
Thanks, Kevin. (Please call me regarding another item.)
Vanessa, please change the PAB reso so the changes are reflected in Legistar. Thanks.
MR. ANEL RODRIGUEZ
Administrative Assistant II
305.416.2037 - 305.416.2035
axrodriguez@miamigov.com fl„
www.miamigov.com/hearing_boards!
From: Walford, Kevin C
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:12 AM
To: Rodriguez, Anel
Cc: Suarez -Rivas, Rafael; Slazyk, Lourdes Y; Fernandez, Teresita; Castillo, Vanessa
Subject: RE: CC Item PZ.5 Corrections
0
u
0
b
0
z
f) A
Page6of8
Changes need to be made to the Analysis, Development Order and the PAB Resolution. In
my original e-mail I attached the newly revised Analysis & Development Order. Hearing
Boards has to revise the PAB Resolution.
• Kevin C. Walford
Planner II
City of Miami Planning Department
.0 E-Mail: kwalford@miamigov.com. www. mami og v. com
0 444 SW 2nd_Avenue, 3rd Floor, Miami, Florida 33130
tee Phone: 3.05.•4161473 a Fax: 305.416.1443
From: Rodrigues, Anel
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 7:41 AM
To: Walford, Kevin C
Cc: Suarez -Rivas, Rafael; Slazyk, Lourdes Y; Fernandez, Teresita; Castillo, Vanessa
Subject: RE: CC$tem PZ.5 Corrections
Importance: thigh
OK, thechanges need to take place on which docs, the PAB reso, legislation, etc? Please
advise. Thanks.
MR. ANEL RODRIGUEZ
Administrative Assistant II
305.416.2037-305.416.2035
axrodriguez@miarnigov.com
www.miamigov-com/hearing_boards/
From: Walford, Kann C
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 4:09 PM
To: Rodriguez,.Anel
Cc: Suarez -Rivas, Rafael; Slazyk, Lourdes Y; Fernandez, Teresita; Castillo, Vanessa
Subject: RE: CCItern PZ.5 Corrections
Anel, these arethe changes that need to be done due to the error(s) in the CC documents for
this week's Agenda being brought to the attention of staff by the applicant, etc., as was the
case with a complcother items. My e-mail was a review of the error and the suggested best
way to fix it.
Kevin C. Watford .
Planner II
City of Miarri.lLu dng Department
0E-Mail: kwaVard@miamigov.com + w w. miamigov. com a z, o
0444 SW grad ds+enue, 3rd Floor, Miami, Florida 33130 0. N
ri' Phone: 301416.1473 a Fax: 305.416.1443 u ,o • kn
,o
G
From: Rodriguez, Anel . .2 a o
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 4:04 PM •z o
To: Walford, ruin C
Cc: Suarez -Rivas, RRafael; Slazyk, Lourdes Y; Fernandez, Teresita; Castillo, Vanessa • a
Subject: RE: CE ltem PZ.5 Corrections E c
• 6,
Page 7 of 8
Importance: High
Kevin, you have confused me! Are these changes supposed to have been done before the
distribution of the packet or after the CCM?
MR. ANEL RODRIGUEZ
Administrative Assistant II
305.416.2037 - 305.416.2035
axrodriguez@miamigov.com
www.miamigov.com/hearing_boards/
From: Walford, Kevin C
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 3:41 PM : a
To: Rodriguez, Anel; Fernandez, Teresita; Suarez -Rivas, Rafael : asV ; 0 _6,
Cc: Slazyk, Lourdes Y a N
Subject: CC Item PZ.5 Corrections c. c ,�, o Lam'
Importance: High w E~ U
cu
o
Corrections needed for Aja On The Bay (PZ, 5).
CI)q u
Upon review of the materials. E .a a a
0
'fanning Department Development Order Conditions . z E
11) Pursuant to design related comments received by the Planning Director, the
applicant shall meet the following conditions: (a) The project shall be brought down to scale to
the maximum allowable by the current base zoning without the requested PUD and AHTF
Bonuses; (b) Internalize the drop off and loading areas by providing a service pa= thru
oonnceting NE 26 Terrace and NE 26 Strcct; fe -(b) Revise the proposed Baywalk to meet
the City of Miami BaywalklRiverwalk Design Guidelines.
First off, the PAB agreed with the applicant (and disagreed with Staff) that Condition 11(a)
should be removed. Staff, on the floor, removed condition 11(b) as that condition was met.
Therefore, for the Development Order, the two remaining Staff conditions should be 11(a) and
11(b), with the old 11(c) becoming the new 11(b).
PAB Resolution 06-043
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED BY STAFF (EXCLUDING
CONDITION 4443 11a AS SPECIFIED IN THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER), OF A
MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 9, 13 AND 17 OF
ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE AJA ON THE BAY
(FKA ELECTRA ON THE BAY) PROJECT (MU-2006-014), TO BE LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 709 AND 721 NORTHEAST 26 STREET, AND 700 NORTHEAST
26 TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATE 439-FOOT, 41-
STORY HIGH RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO BE COMPRISED OF
APPROXIMATELY 129. TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH
RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; AND APPROXIMATELY 150 TOTAL PARKING
SPACES; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN FLOOR AREA RATIO ("FAR") BONUSES;
DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING
n
•
Page 8 of 8
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
. The PAB Resolution should reflect the Board's agreement with the applicant that Condition
11(a) should be removed. As condition 11(b) was removed on the floor by Staff in agreement
with all parties, it in effect was not part of the Development Order, Therefore, for the PAB
Resolution; the resolution should state the removal of 11(a) instead of 11(b).
I hopefuls solves the confusion... or maybe it adds to it.
I have also provided copies of the revised Analysis and Development order that reflect that
original condition 11(b) was deleted.
Kevin C. Watford
Planner 11
City of Miami Planning Department
E-Mail: kwalford@miamigov.com +www.miamigov.com
0444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor, Miami, Florida 33130
Phone: 305.416.1473 N,Fax: 305.416.1443
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.l..__on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
5Y)dl')MI
Message Page 1 of 2
Rodriguez, Anel
From: Rodriguez, Anel
Sent: Tuesday, 'May 23, 2006 12:31 PM
To: Doughedyb@gtlaw.com'
Cc: Suarez, Rafael; Rodriguez, Monica U; Walford, Kevin C
Subject Rf= KUBEEXHIBITA_v4.DOC
Importance: fie -
Tracking: Recipient Read
- 'Doughertyk@giaw.com'
Suarez -Rivas, Rafael Read: 5/23/2006 1:54 PM
f,IMoram U Read: 5/23/2006 12:36 PM
Correct; however. it is not part of the record because the "old", June 10, 2004, DO is part of the
record for May 25.
MR. ANEL RODRIGIJEZ
Administrative Assistat]
305.416.2037 - 305.41F ms
axrodriguez@ niamigov.com
www.miamigov.comilwaring_boards/
From: DoughertyLt?i.tDm [mailto:DoughertyL@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000611:59 AM
To: Rodriguez, .Anel; -Suarez-Rivas, Rafael
Cc: Walford, Kevin C; Rodriguez, Monica U
Subject: RE: KUBIi: ECHI3IT A_v4.DOC
It is what the law dept drafts for every MUSP approval. We just embellished it.
Tax Advice Dim. fro ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we
inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless
otherwise specifically state, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties uraderthe Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any matters addressed herein.
The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is
intended only for the used the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you are not the intendedrrecipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to postmaster@gtlaw.com.
From: Rodriguez, And jmailto:AxRodriguez@ci.miami.f.us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:47 AM
5/24/2006
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Message Page 2 of 2
To: Dougherty, Lucia (Shld-Mia-Env); Suarez -Rivas, Rafael
Cc: Walford, Kevin C; Rodriguez, Monica U
Subject: FW: KUBIK EXHIBIT A_v4.0OC
Importance: High
This is the first time I see this document; therefore, it is not part of the record. Also, 1
remember I was instructed by both of you to include the documents originally included in the
commissioner's packet in June 2004.
MR. ANEL RODRIGUEZ
Administrative Assistant II
305.416.2037 - 305.416.2035
axrodriguez@miamigov.com
www.miamigov.com/hearing_boards/.
—Original Message --
From: Watford, Kevin C
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:38 AM
To: Suarez -Rivas, Rafael; Rodriguez, Anel; Rodriguez, Monica U
Cc: 'Doughertyl@gtlaw.com'
Subject: FW: KUBIK EXHIBIT A_v4.DOC
Here is the proposed revised Development Order for Kubik as drawn up by Lucia
Kevin C. Walford
Planner II
City of Miami Planning Department
* E-Mail: kwalford@miamigov.com Q www.miamigov.com
+ 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor, Miami, Florida 33130
* Phone:.305.416.1473 2 Fax: 305.416.1443
--Original Message —
From: DoughertyL@gtlaw.com [mailto:DoughertyL@gtlaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:13 AM
To: Walford, Kevin C
Subject: KUBIK EXHIBIT A_v4.DOC
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under
Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication
(including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue
Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein.
The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential
information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Toreply to our
email administrator directly, please send an email to postmaster@gtlaw.com.
5/24/2006
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
2
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
,PLANNING FACT SHEET
APPLICANT
HEARING DATE
REQUEST/LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PETITION
PLANNING
RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND AND
ANALYSIS
PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD
CITY COMMISSION
APPLICATION NUMBER
Lucia A. Dougherty, on behalf of Kubik, LLC and
Biscayne Premier Investments, Inc.
April 7, 2004
Consideration of a substantial modification to a Major
Use Special Permit for the Kubik Project located at
approximately 5600-5780 Biscayne Boulevard.
See supporting documentation.
'Consideration of a Resolution approving with conditions
a Substantial Modification to a Major Use Special Permit
application pursuant to Articles 5, 13, and 17 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, for the Kubik at
Momingside Project located at approximately 5600-5780
Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida, to be .proposed as
two 14-story buildings with two design options with the
primary option comprised of 293 multifamily residential
units, 41,745 square feet of retail/restaurant space, and
approximately 422 total parking spaces; or. the
"Alternative" option which is comprised of 293 multifamily
residential units, 33,046 square feet of retail/restaurant
space, and approximately 362 total parking spaces. •
Approval with conditions.
See supporting documentation.
2004-025
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Item # 3
CITY OF MIAMI • PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
444 SW 2ND AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR • MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33130 • PHONE (305) 416-1400
Date: 4/2/2004
Page 1
Analysis for Substantial Modification to a Major Use Special Permit
Application for the Kubik at Morningside Project
Located at approximately
5600-5780 Biscayne Boulevard
CASE NO. 2004-025
Consideration of a Resolution approving with conditions.. a Substantial Modification to a
Major Use Special Permit application pursuant to Articles 5, 13, and 17 of Zoning Ordi-
nance No. 11000, as amended, for the Kubik at Morningside Project located at approxi-
mately 5600-5780 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida, to be proposed as two 14-story
buildings with two design options with the primary option comprised of 293 multifamily
residential units, 41,745 square feet of retail/restaurant space, and approximately 422 total
parking spaces; or the "Alternative" option which is comprised of 293 multifamily resi-
dential units, 33,046 square feet of retail/restaurant space, and approximately 362 total
parking spaces.
This Permit also includes the following requests:'
SUBSTANTIAL . MODIFICATION TO A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
application, per Article 17, Section 1701, and Article 22 of City of Miami Zoning
Ordinance 11000, as amended, to allow a change in the previously reviewed
application (Planning Advisory Board of December 17, 2003);
MUSP, as per Article 17 for development of 293 residential units;
MUSP, as per Article 5, Section 502, PUD districts; to increase the floor area by
twenty percent (20%), 55,735.09 square feet;
CLASS II, as per Article 6, Section 609.3.1, for a construction fence within the
SD-9 overlay district;
CLASS II, as per Article 6, Section 609.3.1, for development of new construction
within the SD-9 overlay district;
CLASS II, as per Article 9, Section 927, to allow temporary off -site parking
during construction;
CLASS 11, as per Article 9, Section 906.7.3, to permit a restaurant as an accessory
convenience establishment;
„ CLASS II, as per resolution number 12331, to allow parking lifts located within a
garage structure.
CLASS If, as per Article 9, Section.908.2, for access from a public street roadway.
width greater than twenty- five feet.
CLASS I, as per Article 9, Section 925.3.8, to allow
development/construction/rental signage.
CLASS I, as per Article 9, Section 918.2, for parking and staging of construction
during construction.
CLASS I, as per Article 9, Section 918.2, for parking and staging of offsite
parking for construction crews. ..
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08 Page 1 of6
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
CLASS I, as per Article 9, Section 906.6, for active recreational facilities
(including swimming pools).
CLASS I, as per Section 915.2 for FAA clearance letter.
CLASS I, as per Article 9, Section 917.12, to allow valet parking for commercial
and residential use.
CLASS I, as .per Article 9, Section 920.1, to allow a construction trailer and
watchman's quarters.
CLASS I, as per Article 9, Section 920.1, to allow a trailer for construction and
othertemporary office uses such as leasing and sales.
CLASS I, as per Article 9; Section 90.6.9, to allow for. a special event namely a
ground breaking ceremony.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION, as per City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 11000 as
amended, Article 9, Section 917.7.1, reduction in parking requirements for
combination of commercial and office uses on the same premises.
REQUEST that the following MUSP conditions be required at the time of Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy or .Final Certificate of Occupancy instead of at t the 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 Article 13 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, approval of the requested a
Substantial Modification to a Major Use Special Permit application 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.
In determining the appropriateness of the proposed project, the Planning and
Zoning Department has referred this •project to the Large Scale Development
Committee (LSDC), the Urban Development Review Board (UDRB) and the
Planning & Zoning's Internal Design Review Committee for additional input and
recommendations; the following findings have been made:
• It is found that the proposed development project will benefit the area by creating new
housing opportunities in the Upper East Side NET District, on Biscayne Boulevard.
• It is found that the subject property is located in C-1 (Restricted Commercial District)
and 0 (Office) Zoning District with an SD-9 (Biscayne Boulevard North Overlay
District) in the Bayshore Unit No..4 Subdivision.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Page 2 of 6
• It is found that the project has convenient access to the Metro Mover system, with
connections to the Metrorail Station, .located 2 1/2 miles (Omni Outer -Loop) south of
the subject property, for efficient use of existing mass transit systems.
• It is found that the project was reviewed by the Large Scale Development Committee
on October 1, 2003 and has been modified to address the expressed technical
concerns raised at said Large Scale Development Committee meeting;
• It is found that the proposed.project was reviewed for design appropriateness by the
Urban Development Review Board on October 15, 2003, which. recommended
approval with the following conditions: remove shrubs by following the FDOT plan;
relocate all vehicular driveways to N.E. 4th Court; reduce the driveway to the
minimum allowable standards of 20'-24'; reduce the amount of driveways and
configure the circulation within the building site; provide a continuous canopy of
shade trees along the edge of curb; see the latest FDOT construction plans for the
"Biscayne Boulevard Improvement Plan" regarding landscaping. The Planning and
Zoning Department's review resulted in design modifications which were then
recommended for approval with conditions to the Planning and Zoning Director.
• It is found that the project as originally proposed (two 16-story buildings consisting of
293 multifamily residential units,- 4,106 square feet of quality restaurant, 35,350
_ square feet of specialty retail, approximately 452 total parking spaces, with the
- southern building cantilevered over the existing Andiano Pizza building) was heard
by the Planning Advisory Board on December 17, 2003, which recommended that the
applicant make revisions to its site plan. The applicant then modified the proposal
and requested a modification in order to return to the Board.
• It is found that the applicant has submitted two revised proposals for the Kubik
project. The "Primary'.' option is comprised of 293 multifamily residential units,
41,745 square feet of retail/restaurant space,and approximately 422 total parking
spaces.
• It is found that the "Alternative" option is comprised of 293 multifamily residential
units, 33,046 square feet of retail/restaurant space, and approximately 362 total
parking spaces.
• It is found that in both options, the height of the proposed project has been decreased
by two stories (from 16 to 14); and decreased by 13'-1" (from the original 163 feet tb
149'-11").
• It is found that in both options, that the design of the south building . being
cantilevered over the existing Andiano Pizza building has been eliminated. 3
0, C
• It is found that both new proposals generate fewer trips; the Primary generating 204 u w
trips; . and the Alternative generating 160 trips); this is . a reduction of the original c a
proposal which -generated 234 trips; therefore, as modified; the project will have less - c
of an adverse effect on the mobility system of the surrounding area.- - a
w
1 • Page 3 of 6 . . ^d
41
00
ir
E
• It is found that access to the site will only be provided off. of NE 4th Court in response
to neighborhood concerns. - . • ..
• It is found that the revised Traffic Impact Study has been reviewed (January 22, 2004)
by URS Corp., the City's Transportation Consultant, and that the concerns raised
during in the original review regarding signal timing have been adequately addressed.
Potential problems with site access, circulation, and .insufficient parking, however,
remain a concern. •
• It is found that the requested PUD approval represents a bonus increase in Floor Area
Ratio; this bonus, in conjunction with the fact that this is a very large site, has a cu-
mulative effect of allowing an extremely large amount of potential development on
this site. In a recent study of the Biscayne Boulevard corridor, recommendations were
made that limitations be placed on height of development; the requested bonus results
in a potentially taller structure that. does not contextually fit on this specific property.
Therefore, it is found that with respect to these recommendations, the subject proposal
should be modified to eliminate the requested PUD bonus. The reduction will result
in a more compatible amount of development capacity on the subject property.
• It is found that since the completion of .the recent Biscayne Boulevard corridor study,
concern has arisen .over the potential negative effect of building height immediately
adjacent to Biscayne Boulevard; the subject proposal should be modified with respect
to height in order toproduce a project that is more in character with the context of
Biscayne Boulevard as it relates to height.
• It is found that with respect to all additional criteria as specified in Section 1305 of
Zoning Ordinance 11.000, the proposal has been reviewed and found to be adequate;
subject to compliance with the conditions in the • Development Order; failure to
comply with these conditions will result in a proposal that does not comply with the
criteria of Sec. 1305 and should not be approved.
Based on . these findings, the Planning and Zoning Department is recommending
approval of the requested Development Project with the following conditions:
• 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.
2. Allow the Miami Police Department to conduct a security survey, atthe option of
the Department, and to make recommendations concerning security measures and
systems; .further submit a report to the Department of Planning and Zoning, 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 Director of the Department of, Planning
and Zoning why such recommendations are impractical.
Page4of6
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.
Obtain approval from, or. provide a letter of assurance from the Department of
Solid Waste that the PROJECT has addressed all concerns of the said Department
prior to the obtainment of a shell permit.
5. Comply with the Minority Participation and Employment Plan (including a
Contractor/Subcontractor Participation Plan) submitted to the City as part of the
Application for Development Approval, with the understanding that the
APPLICANT must use its best efforts to follow the provisions of the City's
Minority/Women Business Affairs and Procurement Program as a guide..
5. Pursuant to the Department of Public Works, replatting shall be required; the
Applicant shall also provide Public Works with plans, for the proposed closure of
"reserved" easements located throughout the property, for its review and approval
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7. Prior to the issuance of a shell permit, provide the City with an executed,
recordable unity of title agreement or covenant in -lieu of unity of title agreement
for the subject property; said agreement shall be subject to the review and
approval of the City Attorney's Office.
8. Provide the Department of Planning and Zoningwith a temporary construction
plan that includes the following: a temporary construction parking plan, with an
enforcement policy; a construction noise rnanagement 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 Department of Planning and Zoning
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.
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 de-
veloped or provided, the applicant shall provide the Department of Planning and
Zoning with all subordinate Class I Special Permit plans and detailed require-
ments 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 captionedin the plans
approved by it. •
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Page 5 of 6
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 oc-
cupying future phases of this Project in the evenrthat the future phases are not de-
veloped, said plan shall include a proposed timetable and shall be subject to re-
view and approval by the Director of Planning and Zoning. •
11.. Pursuant to the UDRB's and the Planning and Zoning Department's reviews, the
applicant shall remove shrubs by following the FDOT plan; relocate all vehicular.
driveways to N.E..4`1! Court; reduce the driveway to the minimum allowable stan-
dards of 20'-24'; reduce the amount of driveways and configure the circulation
within the building .site; provide a continuous canopy of shade trees along the
edge of curb; see the latest FDOT construction plans for the "Biscayne Boulevard
Improvement Plan" regarding landscaping.
12. The applicant shall modify the plans on file, as submitted for the proposed project
to eliminate any Floor Area Ratio bonuses requested pursuant to Article 5 of the
Zoning Ordinance for a Planned Unit Development.
13. The applicant shall continue to work with the Planning and Zoning Department to
reduce the proposed building height along Biscayne Boulevard; such modifica-
-
tions shall be subject to the final review and approval of the Planning and Zoning
Director.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Page 6 of 6
J-04-
04/07/04
RESOLUTION NO.
DRAFT
A -RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION,
WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS,
A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT -PURSUANT TO.
ARTICLES 5, 13, AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE
NO. 11000-, FOR THE KUBIK AT MORNINGSIDE
PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5600-
5780 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO.
BE -PROPOSED AS TWO 14-STORY BUILDINGS WITH
TWO. DESIGN OPTIONS WITH THE - PRIMARY OPTION
COMPRISED OF 293 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
UNITS, H11,745 SQUARE FEET OF
RETAIL/RESTAURANT SPACE, AND APPROXIMATELY
422 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; OR THE
"ALTERNATIVE" OPTION WHICH IS' COMPRISED OF.
293 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 33,046
SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/RESTAURANT SPACE, AND
APPROXIMATELY 362 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 December 17, 2003,-the-Planning Advisory Board
reviewed the.Master Development Program for the prdpe.rty located
at 5600-5780 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida and recommended
u.
denial of the application; and- " '= °O °
: N s U
WHEREAS, on February 10 , 2 0 0 4 ; Lucia A. Dougherty on behalf a.o v�'
u �E0U
. of-Kubik,•LLC and Biscayne Premier Investments, Inc., referred to ,S a o d
-as "APPLICANT"), submitted a complete Application for, a • a N u
Substantial Modification of the previously reviewed Major Use 2 c e a'
f i • .,
";Special Permit application for the KubikatMorningside (referred
to as "PROJECT") pursuant to Articles 5, 13, 17 and 22 of Zoning
Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami,
as amended (the "Zoning Ordinance"), to approve a modification to.
construct two 14-story buildings with either of two design
options with the primary option comprised of 293 multifamily_
residential units, 41,745 square feet of retail/restaurant space,
and approximately 422 total parking spaces; or the "Alternative"
option which •is comprised of 293 multifamily residential units,
33,.046 square feet of retail/restaurant space, and. approximately
362 total parking spaces, as legally described in "Exhibit B",
attached and incorporated; and
WHEREAS, the change to the proposed development of the
PROJECT requires the issuance of a Substantial Modification to a
Major Use Special Permit application pursuant to Article 22 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
October 1, 2003 to consider the proposed PROJECT and offer its
input; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Design Review Board met on October 15,
2003, to consider the proposed PROJECT. and recommended approval
"with the following 'conditions; remove shrubs by following the
FDOT plan; relocate all vehicular driveways to N.E. 4 t' Court;.
reduce the driveway to the minimum allowable standards of 20'-
24'; reduce the .amount of driveways and configure the
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Page 2 of 8
circulation. within the building site; provide a continuous
canopy of shade trees along the edge of curb; see the latest
FDOT construction.plans for the "Biscayne Boulevard Improvement -
Plan" regarding landscaping; and
WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting
held on April 7,.2004, 2004 Item No. 3, following an advertised
public hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB --- by a vote of -- to
--- (---), RECOMMENDING ---- of the Substantial Modification of a
Major Use' Special Permit application and 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,.
attached and incorporated as "Exhibit A, 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, at 5600-5780 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida,
Page 3 of 8
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
•more particularly described on "Exhibit B," attached and
incorporated.
Section 3. The PROJECT is approved for- the construction
of two 14-story buildings with either of two design options with
the primary option comprised of 293 multifamily residential
units, 41,745 square feet of retail/restaurant space, and
approximately 422 total parking spaces; or the "Alternative"
option which is comprised of 293 multifamily residential units;
33,046 square feet of retail/restaurant space, and approximately
362 total parking spaces.
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 ("Exhibit A").
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 conforms to the requirements of the C-
1 _(Restricted Commercial) and 0 (Office) zoning
classifications, with and SD-9 Biscayne Boulevard
North Overlay designation, as. contained in_ the
Zoning Ordinanceof the City of Miami,' Florida, as
amended.
c. Pursuant to Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Miami, Florida, the specific 'site •
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Page 4 of 8
plan aspects of the PROJECT., have been considered
• and will be further considered administratively
,during the process of issuing a building permit
and a certificate of occupancy.
- d. The. PROJECT is expected to cost approximately
$180,237,938, and to employ approximately 325
workers during construction (FTE-Full Time
Employees);.the PROJECT will, also. .result in the.
creation of approximately 2.6 permanent new jobs.
The PROJECT will•generate approximately $959,601
annually in tax revenues to the City (2003
dollars) .
The City Commission further finds that:
(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;
,Page 5 of 8
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
(5) the PROJECT will .efficiently use necessary
public facilities;
• (6) the PROJECT will not negatively impact the
environment and natural resources of the
City;
(7) .the PROJECT will not adversely affect living
conditions in the neighborhood;
(8) the PROJECT will not adversely affect public
safety;
(9) based on the record presented and evidence
presented, the public welfare will be served
by the PROJECT; and
(10) any potentially adverse effects of the
-PROJECT arising from safety .and security,
fire protection and.life safety, solid waste,
heritage conservation, trees, shoreline
development, minority participation and
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
shall be binding upon .the APPLICANT and any successors in
interest.
Page'6 of 8
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Section 7., The .application for a Major Use 'Special
Permit, which was submitted on. February 10, 2004, and'on file
with the Department of Planning and Zoning 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
Director of the Department of Planning and Zoning.to transmit a
copy of this Resolution and attachment to the APPLICANT.
Section S. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
are made with respect to the PROJECT as described in the
.Development Order ("Exhibit A") for the PROJECT, attached and
incorporated.
Section 10. The Major Use Special Permit Development
Order for the PROJECT ("Exhibit A") is granted and issued.
Section 11. In the event that any. portion or -section of
this .Resolution or .the Development Order ("Exhibit A") is.
determined to be invalid, illegal, or unconstitutional by a court
or agency of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall in no
manner affect the remaining ,portions of this Resolution or
Development Order ("Exhibit A") 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.
Page 7 of -8
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
. item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Section 13. This Major Use Special. Permit, .as approved,
shall expire two (2) years from, its commencement and operative
date'.
Section 14. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.!'
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
PRISCILLA A. THOMPSON
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
ALEJANDRO VILARELLO
CITY ATTORNEY
zi
day of ; 2004.
MANUEL A. DIAZ, MAYOR
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 in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Page 8 of 8.
".EXHIBIT A"
'ATTACHMENT TO
RESOLUTION NO.
DATE:
• . THE KUBIK AT MORINGSIDE PROJECT
SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION TO A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
.DEVELOPMENT ORDER
,Let it be known that pursuant to Articles 5, 13, 17 and 22 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 Substantial Modification to a Major Use Special Permit
application for the Kubik at Morningside (hereinafter referred to
as the "PROJECT") to be located at 5600-5780 Biscayne Boulevard,
Miami, Florida (see legal description on "Exhibit B", 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 the
Major Use Special Permit and issues this Permit:
. FINDINGS OF FACT
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
i
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:'
The proposed PROJECT is a' mixed -use' development to be
located at 5600-5780 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida.
The
PROJECT is a to approve a modification to construct two 14-story
buildings with either of two design options with the primary
option comprised of 293 multifamily residential units, 41,745
square feet of retail/restaurant space, and approximately 422
.total parking spaces; or the "Alternative" option which is
comprised of 293 multifamily residential units, 33,046`.square
feet of retail/restaurant:.space, and approximately 362 total
parking spaces
This Permit also includes the following requests:
SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION TO A .MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
application, per Article 17, Section 1701, and Article 22 of City
of Miami Zoning Ordinance 11000, as amended, to allow a change in
.the originally reviewed project;;.
The Major Use Special Permit Application for the PROJECT
also encompasses the following lower ranking Special Permits:
MUSP, as per Article 17 for development of 293 residential
units;
MUSP, as per Article 5, Section 50.2, PUD districts; to
increase the floor area by twenty percent (200), 55,735.09
square feet;
CLASS II, as per Article 6, Section 609.3.1, for a
:construction fence within the SD-9 overlay district;
CLASS II, as per. Article 6, Section 609.3".1, for development
of new construction within the SD-9 overlay
Page A-2 of 9
district;
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
CLASS II, as per Article 9, Section 927, to allow temporary
off -site parking during construction;
CLASS II, as per Article 9, Section 906.7.3, to permit a
restaurant as an accessory convenience establishment;
CLASS II, as per resolution number 12331, to allow parking
lifts located within a garage structure.
CLASS II, as per Article 9, Section 908.2, for access from a
public street roadway width greater than twenty- five feet.
CLASS I, as per Article 9, Section '925.3.8, to allow
development/construction/rental signage.
CLASS I, as per Article 9, Section 918.2, for parking and
staging of constructionduring construction.
CLASS.I;'as per Article 9, Section 918.2; for parking and
staging of offsite parking for construction crews.
_CLASS I, as per Article 9, Section 906.6, for active
recreational facilities (includingswimming pools).
CLASS I, as per Section 915.2 for FAA clearance letter.
CLASS I, as per Article 9, Section 917.12, to allow valet
parking for commercial and residential use.
CLASS I, as per Article 9, Section 920.1, to allow a
construction trailer and watchman's quarters.
CLASS I, as per Article 9, Section 920.1, to allow a trailer
for. construction and other temporary office uses such as
leasing and sales.
CLASS I', as per Article 9, Section 906.9, to allow for a
.special event namely:a ground breaking ceremony.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION, as per. City of Miami Zoning Ordinance
11000 as amended, Article 9, Section 917.7.1, reduction in
parking requirements for combination of commercial, and
office uses on the same premises.
Designation as a phased project, pursuant to Section 2.502 of
Zoning Ordinance 11000, as amended.
Page A-3 of 9
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
REQUEST that the following MUSP conditions be required at the
time. of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or .Final Certificate
.of Occupancy instead of at the 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 lieu of unity of title.
Pursuant to Article 13, of Zoning Ordinance 11000, approval of
the requested Substantial Modification to a Major Use Special
Permit application 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 Oppenheim
Architecture & Design, LLC; dated February 9, 2004; said design
and landscape plans may be permitted to be modified only to the
extent necessary to comply with the conditions for approval
.imposed herein; all modifications shall be subject to the review
• and approval of the Director of the Planning. Department prior. to
the issuance of any building permits.
and
Page A-4 of 9
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
The PROJECT conforms to the requirements of the C-1
(Restricted Commercial) and 0 (Office) zoning classifications;
with and SD-9 Biscayne Boulevard North Overlay designation, as
contained_in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida,
as amended. The existing 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.
2. Pay all applicable fees due prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
3. Allow the Miami Police Department to conduct a security.
survey, at the option of the Department, and. to make
recommendations concerning security measures and, systems;
further submit a report to the Department of Planning and
Zoning, prior to commencement of construction, demonstrating
how the Police Department recommendations, if any, have been
incbxporated into the Project security and construction
plans, ordemonstrate to the Director of the Department of
Planning and Zoning why such recommendations are
impractical.
4. .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
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
Page A-S of 9 4 item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
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 projection and life safety systems,
exiting, vehicular access, and water supply.
5. Obtain approval from, or provide a letter of assurance from
the Department of Solid Waste that the Project has addressed
all concerns of the said Department prior to the obtainment
of a shell permit.
6. Comply with the Minority Participation and Employment Plan
.(including a Contractor/Subcontractor Participation Plan) as
submitted to the City's Planning & Zoning Department.
7. Record the following in the Public Records of Dade County,
Florida,. prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy, a Declaration. of
Covenants and Restrictions providing that the ownership,
operation and maintenance of all common areas and facilities
will be by the property owner or -a mandatory property -owner
association in perpetuity. "
•8. -Prior to the issuance of:a shell permit, demonstrate to the
City that (a) the condominium documents have been filed with
the State of Florida; or (bY provide the .City with an
.executed, recordable. 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 Attorney's Office.
c. . oo
.Q •
D N
9. Provide the Department of Planning and Zoning with a „ o vn
., p
temporary .parking plan, including an operational plan, which S c o
addresses. construction employee parking during the •-, u
o-
construction period, said plan shall include an enforcement b a
E a.
.c u E
Page A- 6. of 9
plan and shall be subject to the -review and approval by the
Department of Planning and Zoning prior to .the issuance of
any building-- permits -and shall be enforced during
• construction activity. -
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
Director ofthe Department of Planning and Zoning.,.
11. Pursuant to the UDRB's and the Planning and Zoning
Department's reviews, the applicant shall remove shrubs by
following the FDOT plan; relocate all vehicular driveways to
N.E. 4th Court; reduce the driveway to the minimum allowable
standards of 20'-24'; reduce the amount of driveways and
configure the circulation within the building site; provide
a continuous canopy of shade trees along the edge of curb;
see the latest FDOT construction plans for the "Biscayne
.Boulevard Improvement Plan" regarding landscaping.
12. The applicant shall modify the plans on file, as siihmitted
for the proposed project to eliminate any Floor Area Ratio -
bonuses requested pursuant td Article 5 .of the Zoning
Ordinance for a Planned Unit Development.
13. The applicant shall continue to work with the Planning:and
Zoning Department, to reduce the proposed building height
along. Biscayne. Boulevard; such modifications shall be
subject to the final review and approval of the Planning and
Zoning Director.
. THE CITY. SHALL :
Page A-7 of 9
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Establish the operative .date of this Permit as'being
thirty (30) days from the date of its issuance; the issuance
date shall constitute the commencement of the thirty (30)
day period to appeal from the provisions of the Permit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
-The PROJECT, proposed by. the APPLICANT, complies with the
Miami .Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, is consistent with.. the
orderlydevelopment 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)
the PROJECT will have a favorable impact on the economy
of the City; and
the PROJECT will efficiently use public transportation
facilities; and
the PROJECT will favorably affect the need for people
to find adequate housing reasonably accessible
places of employment; and
the PROJECT will efficiently use necessary
facilities; and
'(5) the PROuLCT 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 Substantial
Modification to a Major Use Special Permit application.
to their
public
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.
Page A-8 of 9
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.1 on 05-22-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Pursuant
specific site plan aspects of. the PROJECT have- been considered
and will be further considered administratively during the
process of issuing individual building permits and certificates
of occupancy.
to Section. 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance, the.
Page .A-9 of • 9