HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Stanley Price4
Bilzin a
b
/ TTOPN EYS AT LAV1'
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
TE.S?Gi ON waliD
Stanley B. Price, Esq.
Tel 305.350.2374
Fax 305.351.2204
sprice@bilzin.com
February 23, 2010
Honorable Tomas Regalado
Mayor, City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
6• Re: Miami 21; Height Limitations for Properties Abutting
and in Proximity to National Historic Landmarks
Dear Mr. Mayor:
It was a pleasure and an honor to meet with you two weeks ago to discuss the above -
styled subject matter.
I am writing to you on behalf of our client, the Archdiocese of Miami, Inc. ("Archdiocese")
.�. which seeks the repeal of proposed Section 3.5.5 of the newly adopted Miami 21 Zoning Code
Pfor the City of Miami (copy attached). The Archdiocese, as a major property owner within the
City of Miami, was denied procedural due process by having the City enact an Ordinance which
substantially interferes with reasonable investment -backed expectations of the Archdiocese.
A brief factual history is in order.
fa For several years, the Vizcayans, a not -for -profit, fundraising arm of Vizcaya, has sought
to purchase property locateddue south of the existing Vizcaya property. The Archdiocese, as
the owner of said property, engaged in several negotiation sessions which were initiated by the
Vizcayans and rejected several offers by the Vizcayans to purchase a portion of property
contiguous to Vizcaya. Following the last negotiation, which did not prove fruitful for the
Vizcayans, the Vizcayans sought to accomplish indirectly what they could not accomplish
directly and sought the intervention of a City Commissioner to prevent the alleged negative
impact of future development upon its gardens and property. In order to address this issue, the
Vizcayans, through their legal representative, drafted an Ordinance and submitted it as part of
the Miami 21 package. (See attached letter).
MIAMI 2071713.2 7366432725
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP
200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500, Miami, FL 33131-5340 Tel 305.374.7580 Fax. 305.374.7593
Honorable Tomas Regalado
February 23, 2010
Page 2
• 0
The Ordinance was prepared without notice to the Archdiocese and, in fact, only affects
one (1) property within the City of Miami and that is the property located adjacent to Vizcaya.
There are no other properties within the City which presently have a formal designation from the
National Historic Landmark Commission which includes a design landscape element as part of
the designation. In addition, this proposed amendment was added to the agenda at the last
minute without adequate time for our client to digest is contents. In fact, through its Planning
staff and legal representatives, the City has acted in concert with the Vizcayans to seriously
impair the property rights of the Archdiocese.
We have met with the City Attorney and representatives from her office and have been
advised that her office did not work on this provision. We accept her representations. We have
serious issues whereby proposed ordinances are drafted by non -City advocates which escape
review by the City Attorney's office.
While the goals of the Vizcayans may be laudable to some, its objectives totally interfere
with the property values and the reasonable investment backed expectations, as well as
religious and ministerial plans of future development by the Archdiocese. Further, to add insult
to injury, the original draft of the Ordinance contained an Exhibit entitled "Vizcaya Six Degree
Viewshed" as an illustrative map which was totally omitted from the final submittal to the City
Commission as part of the Miami 21 process. We believe the map, as well as a list of affected
properties, was omitted to clearly disguise the fact that the only property affected by this
Ordinance is the property owned by the Archdiocese.
For your edification, I am enclosing a series of e-mails which are part of the public record
asking the pertinent questions relating to this proposed Amendment to the City of Miami's
Zoning Code. In addition to the foregoing, we have attached a Memorandum submitted to
Commissioner Marc Sarnoff by the Vizcayans dated October 31, 2008, nearly one (1) year prior
to the final enactment of the Miami 21 Ordinance. At no time during the one (1) year period this
Ordinance was proposed by the Vizcayans, did the City staff (nor the Vizcayans) ever seek to
notify the Archdiocese of this major impact upon its property values.
The Archdiocese will continue to be a good neighbor and a proud property owner within
the City of Miami, but it will not sit idly by when their property rights are sacrificed to benefit the
wishes of a small group of individuals who wish to impose their will upon the City. A decision
whether to rezone property does not involve consideration of only a particular or specific user or
only a particular or specific project. It involves the enactment of a new rule of general
applicability; a new rule that governs all persons and all projects. The provision we seek to
abolish is poorly drafted and does not advise any reasonable reader of the breadth and import it
seeks to address. We would challenge any party who reads this provision to discern the impact
it would have on neighboring properties.
MIAMI 2071713.2 7366432725
BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Honorable Tomas Regalado
February 23, 2010
Page 3
It is respectfully suggested that the City Commission be mindful of the holding of the
Third District Court of Appeal in Allapattah Community Ass'n v. City of Miami, 379 So. 2d 387,
394 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980):
"The (courts) . . . will not and cannot approve a zoning regulation or other
governmental action adversely affecting the rights of others which is based on no
more than the fact that those who support it have the power to work their will."
We strongly urge that the City Commission repeal this onerous provision and we pledge
to you to sit down with the City staff to work out a reasonable plan for future development that.
will not sacrifice the Archdiocese's property rights for the benefit of only one property owner.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Respectfully yours,
-ems
Stanleyce
SBP:cb
cc: City Commissioners, City of Miami
Pat Fitzgerald, Esq.
Suzanne Dockerty, Esq.
Julie Bru, Esq.
Maria Chiaro, Esq.
Vicky Garcia -Toledo, Esq.
MIAMI 2071713.2 7366432725
BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
•
•
MIAMI 21 ARTICLE 3. GENERAL TO ZONES
AS ADOPTED - OCTOBER 2009
A letter authorizing clearance from the Miami -Dade Aviation Department or the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) may be required by the Zoning Administrator prior to the
issuance of any Building permit.
Construction of an Educational facility within the delineated Miami International Airport
Critical Approach Area as defined by the Miami -Dade County Code shall only be granted
by Exception. Construction of such facility is subject to the approval by the Miami -Dade
County Aviation Department or any other agencies authorized by law to approve the
construction.
3.5.5 Height limitations for Properties Abutting and in Proximity to National Historic
Landmarks
a. All properties designated a National Historic Landm., '` HL) which include a
Designed Landscape that is an integral part of th • •• ented significance
i. designation r .-:�� •-` `'' i ht
_.._._sup,portng_the-NHL designat o shall be--p otecte ;. - imitations -throughout
oughout
the entire Civic Institution zoned property �, , 1� h ; NHL is a part, so as to
protect the Designed Landscape from the - eo - `y adverse effects of an
undertaking that may diminish the integri :,:; -f,; L property's location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, associ.Hh • : F, qualities that qualified it for NHL
designation. Examples of adverse a: diminish the integrity of the NHL
property include those which: us hys I `3 -struction of or damage to all or part
of the NHL property; or change Y `e er o the NHL property's use or physical
features within the NHL prope 's fling that contribute to its historic significance;
or introduce visual, atrvas he or Bible elements that diminish the integrity of
the NHL property's sigf j .i oric features; or alter the NHL property in a way
that is not consistent thh federal standards for the treatment of historic
properties and applica guidelines, as published by the United States
Department of tt nterior.
b. The hei n sties throughout the entire Civic Institution.. zoned property of
which th ,a part shall not exceed that established by a six (6) degree
vertical pl. $e which is measured beginning from the ground floor elevation of the
principal hi • ric building at the facade that overlooks the Designed Landscape,
which plane shall extend in a one hundred eighty (180) degree arc facing the
Designed Landscape and measured at grade from the midpoint of the building
facade. The ground floor elevation shall be measured according to the 1929
N.G.V.D. of Mean Sea Level supplied by the City of Miami. Structures existing on
affected properties at the time of the effective date of this Miami 21 Code shall not
be considered nonconforming structures.
c.--- -Should-the height -limitations for structures located in such Civic Institution zoned
property as of the effective date of this Miami 21 Code be more restrictive than that
created by this section, the most restrictive height shall apply. In the event of a
rezoning of all or part of the Civic Institution property, either by successional zoning
or by Special Area Plan, the height limitations specified in this Section 3.5.5 shall
be incorporated in all subsequent rezonings.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
0
MIAMI 21 ARTICLE 3. GENERAL TO ZONES
AS ADOPTED - OCTOBER 2009
d. For purposes of this Section 3.5.5., the following definitions shall apply:
1. Designed Landscape is one or more of the following:
• a landscape that has significance as a design or work of art;
• a landscape consciously designed and laid out by a master gardener,
landscape architect, architect, or horticulturalist to a design principle, or
an owner or other amateur using a recognized style or tradition in
response or reaction to a recognized style or tradition;
• a landscape having a historical association with a significant person,
trend, event, etc. in landscape gardening or landscape architecture; or
• a landscape having a significant relationship to the theory or practice of
landscape architecture.
2. National Historic Landmark is a nationally significant hi ric place designated by
the Secretary of the Interior because it possesses e . =p `:.•,al value or quality in
illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the Unit-. _ .te ``-nd defined in Title
36, Section55:3 of,tlie-Codee ofFederal-Regulat
3.5.6 See Chapter 23 of the City Code, titled HistoriLre-%ation, for regulations and
additional height requirements.
3.6 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOA e G
3.6.1 Off-street Parking Standards
a. Off-street Parking requir
forth in Article 4, Table 4.
the individual Transect Zones shall be as set
b. Off-street Parkin nsions and Shared Parking (mixed -use) reduction table shall
be as set f•rth in 'Urge , Table 5.
c. Required '`►'?' Adaptive Reuses may be reduced or exempted by Waiver for
properties to=rted in a Community Redevelopment Area, or in areas where a Parking
Trust Fund h been established, or for historic sites and contributing Structures
within designated historic districts.
d. Parking reductions shall not be cumulative except in T6-36, T6-48, T6-60 and T6-80.
Parking reductions shall not exceed fifty percent l50%) of the total Off-street Parking
required, except for Residential components of projects within one thousand (1,000)
feet of Metrorail or Metromover.
--3.-6.2off-street Parking Driveway Standards [RESERVED]
3.6.3 Additional Off-street Parking Regulations
General performance standards for Off-street Parking facilities:
111.9
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
"The intent of the view corridor designation is to establish maximum heights within view
corridors to protect significant views from specific viewpoints."
The following are the questions the Mayor has asked:
1. Who drafted the ordinance?
Lynn Lewis (representing the Vizcayans); Richard Heisenbottle FAIA (architect working pro bono
for Vizcaya, in collaboration with City's legal representative and Planning staff, developed and
drafted the language intended to protect important scenic views from adjacent construction.
The method to "measure" the extent of the view corridor, (in order to adjust buildings heights
which might intrude into that corridor), was also a collaborative effort of the Planning
Department and representatives of the Vizcayans.
Attachment "Vizcaya 6 degree Viewshed" is a map which illustrates the View Corridor.
2. How many properties qualify in the city for the provision?
The proposed language in Miami 21 restricted the "view corridor" provision to apply only to
National Historic Landmarks, and only to those landmarks that have a "designed landscape" that
was called out ,in the landmark nomination as a critical reason for the property's significance.
Further, the NHL property must be zoned Civic -Institutional (CI). Given the criteria, the only
property within the City of Miami that would qualify for the view corridor provision at this time
is the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens.
3. Has the staff drafted maps of the affected properties and the development limitations?
The "Vizcaya 6 degree Viewshed" attachment identifies the two properties (La Salle and Mercy
Hospital) with their respective height limitations.
Please let me know if we can be of further assistance or provide additional clarification.
Ana
From: Regalado, Tomas (Mayor)
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:14 PM
To: Hernandez, Pedro G. (City Manager)
Cc: Gelabert-Sanchez, Ana
Subject: Miami 21
Mr. Manager, as we prepare to further study Miami 21. I need an answer to these questions within the next 48 hours as
it pertains to the attached ordinances.
4. Who drafted the ordinance?
5. How many properties qualify in the city for the provision?
6. Has.the staff drafted maps of the affected properties and the development limitations?
2
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM .
TO: Commissioner Marc Sarnoff
City of Miami
FROM: The.Vizcayans, Inc.
RE: Proposed Miami 21 Zoning Ordinance
Date: October 31, 2008
Commissioner Sarnoff:
The Vizcayans, Inc., is a Florida not -for -profit organization,
founded over 50 years ago, whose sole mission is to protect and
preserve Vizcaya Museum and Gardens, a National Landmark .located in
the City of Miami. When Vizcaya was threatened by proposed new
development on an adjacent property, The Vizcayans become proactive
and engaged to address land use and zoning issues which could
affect, either positively or negatively, Vizcaya.
The Vizcayans respectfullyfind both the proposed Miami 21
Ordinance (April 2008 draft text) and the City's Historic
Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 23 of the Code of Miami) lacking in
their recognition of the importance of City -State -or federally -
designated historic properties and protection of such properties
from activities and development which have a demonstrable affect on
the historic property or site. Indeed it is bitterly ironic that,
when Vizcaya Museum and Gardens was faced .with imminent new
development on property adjacent to Vizcaya which had a material
and adverse impact on the villa and gardens,_ the City's HEP Board
responded that it had no jurisdiction even to .comment on the
importance of Vizcaya to the City. The HEP Board said that it
lacked jurisdiction to counsel the Commission that any new
development should be considered in light of its impact on a
National Landmark.
The Vizcayans have three (3) goals concerning any change to
the Zoning Code as it affects Vizcaya and the properties
surrounding it:
1. That Miami 21 should not alter the substance of
the current G/I use and other restrictions
including especially the NCD protections under the
current Zoning Code (Ordinance 11000) to the
property to the south of Vizcaya. It is not clear
that the "Civic" category. under Miami 21 does this;
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Commissioner Marc Sarnoff.
October 31, 2008
Page 2
2. The property to the south of Vizcaya which is
currently zoned G/I should have a height limitation so
that the maximum height does not exceed the height of
the most restrictive abutting residential district.
This is closing the loophole in the Grosvener Ordinance.
It is not clear that Section 5.7.4 of Miami 21
accomplishes this. Further, Section 5.7.2.4 of Miami 21
causes reversion to the leastintense abutting zone.
This is of concern.
3. Protection of the public view from the terrace
and from the gardens of Vizcaya, looking south -
southeasterly to Biscayne Bay, should be
implemented. This can be in the form of View
Corridor protection or the creation of a Historic
district or 'overlay district to affect Vizcaya, the
Museum of Science property (which was Vizcaya's
farm) and the balance of the currently zoned G/I
tract.
Miami 21's single reference to designated historic sites in the
City is:
"§3.11.Historic Preservation Standards. See Chapter 23'
of the City Code".
As above, The Vizcayans consider the reference to Chapter 23 as
negligible protection. Further, Miami 21 eliminates even the small
procedural steps concerning Historic Preservation Overlay Districts
which are provided in Article 7 of the current Zoning Code,
Ordinance 11000.
The Vizcayans note that at one time Miami's Zoning Code did protect
Vizcaya Museum and Gardensmore than Ordinance 11000 and more than
Miami 21 do. The former Code imposed height limitations in the
tract located to the south of Vizcaya. The Vizcayans believe that
this protection, which the City at one time acknowledged as
warranted, should be reviewed in Miami 21.
In contrast to Miami, many US cities use their zoning codes to
enhance the preservation of historic structures, sites and
districts, and as an adjunct to Historic Preservation Codes.
The Vizcayans have reviewed the codes of some 12.cities (Acme
Township, Michigan; Annapolis, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Copake,
Columbia County, New York; Fairfax County, Virginia; Oakland, California;
Palo Alto, California; Portland, Oregon; Princeton, New Jersey;
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Commissioner Marc Sarnoff
October 31, 2008
Page 3
Sacramento, California; Seattle, Washington; and Vancouver, British
Colombia). Some of these Codes are considered to be the most
progressive and most effective at facilitating protection of
historic structures and sites. From this review, The Vizcayans
have learned that there are two (2) alternate ways to protect
Vizcaya Museum and Gardens: the creation of a district or overlay
district including Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the balance of
the tract currently zoned G/I, in which certain limitations on
development would apply; or the creation of viewshed protections,
also in which certain limitations on development would apply.
Either protective scheme could, and should, be applicable not only
to Vizcaya Museum and Gardens but also to other designated historic
structures within the City of Miami.
The District or Overlay District Approach
Miami 21 could designate the tract which is currently" -zoned
G/I and which encompasses Vizcaya Museum and Gardens, the Science
Museum, LaSalle High School, the La Caridad Shrine, Mercy Hospital
and the properties owned by the Archdiocese as a Historic District,
or as an Historic Overlay District. All these properties were the.
original James Deering holdings, centered on the Vizcaya villa,
gardens, farm and stables, and including largely uncultivated
hammock -lands, south of the gardens.
District or Overlay District regulations would require that
new development or major renovation must be reviewed by the HEP
Board for impact on Vizcaya and for appropriateness. Chapter 23 of
the Miami Code already acknowledges "historic districts", but is
weak in provisions concerning those districts. This District or
Overlay District would protect the views from and of Vizcaya. The
model for this is Sacramento's view protection act which protects
the views from and of the California state capital, building.
Relevant criteria for appropriateness should include:
height limitations, preservation of existing
trees, setbacks providing additional
landscaping, screening mechanical equipment,
restricting signs, regulating outdoor light,
and possibly other factors, in addition to the
HEP Board's general determination of the
appropriateness of the new development or
major renovation.
The existing uses within the District or Overlay District, at
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Commissioner Marc Sarnoff
October 31, 2008
Page 4
the time of adoption of Miami 21, would become nonconforming but
would be entitled to remain. However, new uses, development of
accessory. uses and material alteration of existing uses (at the
time of Miami 21 adoption) would not be effectively grandfathered
and would undergo .staff and mandatory HEP Board review and
recommendations, plus Commission consideration, all in light of the
District or Overlay District regulations.
The Viewshed or View Corridor Approach
Miami 21 makes reference to View Corridors, at least in the
Definitions section. Substantive legislation concerning View
Corridors is lacking in Miami 21. The Vizcayans submit that Miami
21 could provide that the public views of historic resources,
natural resources or archeologic resources are subject to certain
specifically enumerated limitations on what future development may
occur on the properties lying within these viewsheds/view
corridors.. The enumerated limitations on new development should
include height limitations.
The view corridors can be graphically designated in Miami 21
and apply to the view of the Bay from Vizcaya's terrace and gardens
and, for consideration, to the view of the Bay from Freedom Tower,
the view of the Miami River mouth around the Miami Circle, and
other sites.
A good model for this viewshed/view corridor protection is
Portland, Oregon's Scenic Resource Code which is a part of that
City's Planning and Zoning Code.
is:
An example of viewshed/view corridor protective legislation
"View Corridors. All development and
vegetation with a view corridor designation in
the section of this Ordinance
are subject to the regulations of this
Subsection.
1. Purpose. The intent of the view corridor
designationis to establish maximum heights
and to establish setbacks within view
corridors to protect significant views from
specific viewpoints.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Commissioner Marc Sarnoff
October31, 2008
Page 5
2. Standard. All development within the
designated view corridors .are subject to the
height limits of the base zone, except when a
more restrictive height limit is established
by the view corridor. In those instances, the
view corridor height limit applies to both
development and vegetation. All development
within the designated view corridor is also
subject to setbacks as provided in the
. Public safety facilities are
exempt from the standard.
We respectfully request your consideration •of these few
clarifications and changes to Miami 21, for the protection of
Vizcaya, which is a treasure for all Miamians.
N:Vizcayans/CommSarnoff.memo
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
S
SECTION 1, VIZCAYA VIEWSHED
,T50 FT. 2;550 FT, 2,350
DLWTANCE FROM ORIGIN.- '2.650 FT:�'., 2,450 FT..; 2,250
� 4CCMfl-
M
6•' +fYpa
SECTION 2, TALLEST EXISTING BUILDING
r mi
MERCY HOSPITAL ERE
:i.
LA SALE ECM00L SITE
•f
4 wo
VIZCAYA WWI MOUSE SITE
GRAPHIC SCALE
(1) BABE FL000.ELEVATION FOR
ZONE'AE' a 13'-0' NGVO.
• Of
W•••OwM
11,01.
• i6Sm)i
.c#GuirminerspA4:ttvt;s"aiigRVa?x:ngnM• Msrrsrtmirfarziz�riar.u.,
MAXIMUM VIEWSHED HEIGHT STUDY - Allowable Height Arcs
MARCH 12, 2009
SCALE' 1- - 200• 0'
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
6.0 DEGREE LINE
.01--
_,IZAli 4r,,,P., -itsel-140.t L
g Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
• •
40.
• •
Regalado, Tomas (Mayor)
From: Hernandez, Pedro G. {City Manager)
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 8:41 AM
To: Regalado, Tomas (Mayor)
Cc: Westall, Lynn; Gelabert-Sanchez, Ana
Subject: Fwd: Miami 21
Attachments: LTR TO COMM SARNOFF-VIZCAYANS.pdf; ATT00001.htm; Vizcaya 6 degree
Viewshed.pdf; ATT00002.htm; Photo Garden 6 degrees.pdf; ATT00003.htm
Mayor, as requested, below are the responses, provided by Planning. Ana and I will be available to further
explain any effects on impacted properties. Thanks, Pete H.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Gelabert-Sanchez, Ana" <agelabertsanchez@ci.miami.fl.us>
To: "Hernandez, Pedro G. (City Manager)" <pgh@miamigov.com>
Cc: "Westall, Lynn" <lwestall@miamigov.com>
Subject: Miami 21
Mr. Manager,
The following provides background and responses to questions posed by Mayor Regalado
concerning Article 3.5.5 of the Miami 21 Code, entitled:"Height, Limitations for Properties
Abutting and In Proximity to National Historic Landmarks:
BACKGROUND
In October 2008, the not -for -profit, fund-raising arm of Vizcaya, "The Vizcayans," wrote to
Commissioner Marc Sarnoff and described their recent experience with the proposed
construction of a high-rise on the Mercy Hospital Property. They noted that had the building
been constructed, the sheer height of the building would have cast a long shadow ( at certain
times of the day) on the formal gardens on the south side of the Vizcaya Palace, and would have
a detrimental effect on the plantings themselves, as well as the visitor's experience while in the
gardens.
The letter noted that the current protections offered under Chapter 23 "Historic Preservation" of
the Miami City Code did not address adverse impacts to historic properties that result from
neighboring construction activities. The letter concluded by asking that language be created in
Miami 21 that could address this particular situation. As an attachment, the Vizcayans included
an excerpt from the Portland, Oregon Code which described the purpose of a "View Corridor" as
"The intent of the view corridor designation is to establish maximum heights within view
corridors to protect significant views from specific viewpoints."
The following are the questions the Mayor has asked:
1. Who drafted the ordinance?
Lynn Lewis (representing the Vizcayans); Richard Heisenbottle FAIA (architect working pro
bono for Vizcaya, in collaboration with City's legal representative and Planning staff, developed
•
and drafted the language intended to protect important scenic views from adjacent construction.
The method to "measure" the extent of the view corridor, (in order to adjust buildings heights
which might intrude into that corridor), was also a collaborative effort of the Planning
Department and representatives of the Vizcayans.
Attachment "Vizcaya 6 degree Viewshed" is a map which illustrates the View Corridor.
2. How many properties qualify in the city for the provision?
The proposed language in Miami 21 restricted the "view corridor" provision to apply only to
National Historic Landmarks, and only to those landmarks that have a "designed landscape" that
was called out in the landmark nomination as a critical reason for the property's significance.
Further, the NHL property must be zoned Civic -Institutional (CI). Given the criteria, the only
property within the City of Miami that would qualify for the view corridor provision at this time
is the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens.
3. Has the staff drafted maps of the affected properties and the development limitations?
The "Vizcaya 6 degree Viewshed" attachment identifies the two properties (La Salle and Mercy
Hospital) with their respective height limitations.
Please let me know if we can be of further assistance or provide additional clarification.
Ana
From: Regalado, Tomas (Mayor)
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:14 PM
To: Hernandez, Pedro G. (City Manager)
Cc: Gelabert-Sanchez, Ana
Subject: Miami 21
Mr. Manager, as we prepare to further study Miami 21. I need an answer to these questions
within the next 48 hours as it pertains to the attached ordinances.
4. Who drafted the ordinance?
5. How many properties qualify in the city for the provision?
6. Has the staff drafted maps of the affected properties and the development limitations?
2
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM .
TO: Commissioner Marc Sarnoff
City of Miami •
FROM: The.Vizcayans, Inc.
RE: Proposed Miami•21 Zoning Ordinance
Date: October 31, 2008
Commissioner Sarnoff:
The Vizcayans, Inc., is a Florida not -for -profit organization,
founded over 50 years ago, whose sole mission is to protect and
preserve Vizcaya Museum -and• -Gar -dens; -a-National Landmark.. -located in
the City of Miami. When Vizcaya was threatened by proposed new
development on an adjacent property, The Vizcayans become proactive
and engaged to address land use and zoning issueswhich could.
affect, either positively or negatively, Vizcaya.
The Vizcayans respectfully.find both the proposed Miami 21
Ordinance (April 2008 draft text) and the City's Historic
Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 23 of the Code of Miami) lacking in
their recognition of the importance of City -State -or federally -
designated historic properties and protection of such properties
from activities and development which have a demonstrable affect on
the historic property or site. Indeed it is bitterly ironic that,
when Vizcaya Museum and Gardens was faced .with imminent new
development on property adjacent to Vizcaya which had a material
and -adverse impact on .the._ villa .and__gardens,, _the City's HEP Board
responded that it had no jurisdiction even to .comment on the
importance of Vizcaya to the City. The HEP Board said that it
lacked jurisdiction to counsel the Commission that any new
development should be considered in light of its impact on a
National Landmark.
The Vizcayans have three (3) goals concerning any change to
the Zoning Code as it affects Vizcaya and the properties
surrounding it:
1. That Miami 21 should not alter the substance of
the current .G/I use and other restrictions
including especially the NCD protections under the
current Zoning Code {Ordinance 11000) to the
property to the south of Vizcaya. It is not clear
that the "Civic" category. under Miami 21 does this;
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Commissioner Marc Sarnoff
October 31, 2008
Page 2
2. The property to the south of Vizcaya which is
currently zoned G/I should have a height limitation so
that the maximum height does not exceed the height of
the most restrictive abutting residential district.
This is closing the loophole in the Grosvener Ordinance.
It is not clear that Section 5.7.4 of Miami 21
accomplishes this. Further, Section 5.7.2.4 of Miami 21
causes reversion to the least intense abutting zone.
This is of concern.
3. Protection of the public view from the terrace
and from the gardens of Vizcaya, looking south -
southeasterly to Biscayne Bay, should be
implemented- -- This__can. be_....in_ ..the . __form of, View
Corridor protection or the creation of a Historic
district or overlay district to affect Vizcaya, the
Museum of Science property (which was Vizcaya's
farm) and the balance of the currently zoned G/I
tract.
Miami 21's single reference to designated historic sites in 'the
City is:
"S3.11'Historic Preservation Standards. See Chapter 23.
of the City Code".
As above, The Vizcayans consider the reference to Chapter 23 as
negligible protection. Further, Miami 21 eliminates even the small
procedural steps concerning Historic Preservation Overlay Districts
which are- provided in Article 7 of the current Zoning Code,
Ordinance 11000.
The Vizcayans note that at one time Miami's Zoning Code did, protect
Vizcaya Museum and Gardens, more than Ordinance 11000 and more than
Miami 21 do. The former Code imposed height. limitations in the
tract located to the south of Vizcaya. The Vizcayans believe that
this protection, which the City at one time acknowledged as
warranted, should be reviewed in Miami 21.
In contrast to Miami, many US cities use their zoning codes -to
enhance the preservation of historic structures, sites and
districts, and as an adjunct to Historic Preservation Codes.
The Vizcayans have reviewed the codes of some 12 cities (Acme
Township, Michigan; Annapolis, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; •Copake,
Columbia County, New York; Fairfax County, Virginia; Oakland, California;
Palo Alto, California; Portland, Oregon; Princeton, New Jersey;
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Commissioner Marc Sarnoff
October 31, 2008
Page 3
Sacramento, California; Seattle, Washington; and Vancouver, British
Colombia). Some of these Codes are considered to be the most
progressive and most effective at facilitating protection of
historic structures and sites. From this review, The Vizcayans
have learned that there are two (2) alternate ways to protect
Vizcaya Museum and Gardens: the creation of a district or overlay
district including Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the balance of
the tract currently zoned G/I, in which certain limitations on
development would apply; or the creation of viewshed protections,
also in which certain limitations on development would apply.
Either protective scheme could, and should, be applicable not only
to Vizcaya .Museum and Gardens but also to other designated historic
-----st--r-uctures -within --t_... _-......
The District or Overlay District Approach
Miami 21 could designate the tract which is currently, -zoned
G/I and which encompasses Vizcaya Museum and Gardens, the Science
Museum, LaSalle High School, the La Ca.ridad Shrine, Mercy Hospital
and the properties owned by the Archdiocese as a Historic District,
or as an Historic Overlay District. All these properties were the.
original James Deering holdings, centered on the Vizcaya villa,
gardens, farm and stables, and including largely uncultivated
hammock -lands, south of the gardens.
District or Overlay District regulations would require that
new development or major renovation must be reviewed by the HEP
Board for impact on Vizcaya and for appropriateness. Chapter 23 of
the Miami Code already acknowledges "historic districts", but is
weak in provisions concerning those districts. This District or
Overlay District would protect the views from and of Vizcaya. The
model for this is Sacramento's view protection act which protects
the views from and of the California state capital building.
Relevant criteria for appropriateness should include:
height limitations, preservation of existing ..
trees, setbacks providing additional
landscaping, screening mechanical equipment,.
restricting signs, regulating outdoor light,
and possibly other factors, in addition to the
HEP Board's general determination of the
appropriateness of the new development or
major renovation.
The .existing uses within the District or Overlay District, at
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Commissioner Marc Sarnoff
October 31, 2008
Page 4
the time.of adoption of Miami 21, would become nonconforming but
would be entitled to remain. However, new uses, development of
accessory. uses and material alteration of existing uses (at the
time of Miami 21 adoption) would not be effectively grandfathered
and would undergo staff and mandatory HEP Board review and
recommendations, plus Commission consideration, all in light of the
District or Overlay District regulations.
The Viewshed or View Corridor Approach
Miami 21 makes reference to View Corridors, at least in the
Definitions' section. Substantive legislation concerning View
Corridors. .-Is—lacking in.Miami-21. The V:izcayans submit that Miami
21 could provide that the public views of historic resources,
natural resources or archeologic resources are subject to certain
specifically enumerated limitations on what future development may
occur on the properties lying within these viewsheds/view
corridors.. The enumerated limitations on new development should
include height limitations.
The view corridors can be graphically designated in Miami 21
and apply to the view of the Bay from Vizcaya's terrace and gardens
and, for consideration, to the view of the Bay from Freedom Tower,
the view of the Miami River mouth around the Miami Circle, and
other sites.
A good model for this viewshed/view corridor .protection is
Portland, ...._Oregon' s Scenic_ _Resource Code _..which is a part of that
City's Planning and Zoning Code.
is:
An example of viewshed/view corridor protective legislation
"View Corridors. All development and
vegetation with a view corridor designation in
the section of this Ordinance
are subject to the regulations of •this
Subsection—. _ _....._._.____
1. Purpose. The intent of the view corridor
designation is to establish maximum heights
and to establish setbacks within view
corridors to protect significant views from
specific viewpoints.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Commissioner Marc Sarnoff
October 31, 2008
Page 5
2. Standard. All development within the
designated view corridors are subject to the
height limits of the base zone, except when a
more restrictive height limit is established
by the view corridor. In those instances, the •
view corridor height limit applies to both
development and vegetation. All development
within the designated view corridor' is also
subject to setbacks as provided in the
Public safety facilities are
exempt from the standard.
We respectfully request your consideration of these few
clarifications and changes to Miami 21, for the protection of
Vizcaya, which is a treasure for all Miamians.
N:Vizcayans/CommSarnoff.memo
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
3sE J Ir4€ir tit t•e.iji 14a+
SECTION 1, VIZCAYA VIEWSHED
*PIN
SECTION 2, TALLEST EXISTING BUILDING
MZMC. MORTAL OITA
i. p 2,:sq fl't$ ti.050 Fi Y Ipyw IE
LA AA••I ACMOOL A(TA
60 FT�"e•
V•ZCATA MAIN MOAT& OTT(
• W
MIO MMMM L••i.
A•aMM•MONALI
AI
MAXIMUM VIEWSHED HEIGHT STUDY - Allowable Height Arcs
MARCH 12, 2009
MITAYLAMILIANA
AMOY
•R
ie
•
ORAPIIIC SCALE
(1) OAOE FLOOD ELEVATION FOR
ZONE 'AV 11.0' MDVD.
SCALE, V • 200••0-
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
• •
6.0 DEGREE LINE
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item SP.1 on 06-02-10
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk