“Major deficiencies”: Miami Beach responds to Clevelander proposal 

The city of Miami Beach identified what it called “major deficiencies” in the site plan application for a new development on the site of the Clevelander and Essex House hotels. 

On Monday, Jesta Group filed its first set of plans for the Clevelander redevelopment under the state’s new affordable housing law called the Live Local Act. The legislation, passed this year, preempts local height and density regulations, allowing developers to construct buildings as tall as buildings within a mile of the proposed projects and with the highest density allowed in the city. To do that, the developers have to include a certain percentage of affordable or workforce housing. 

Jesta’s proposal is considered a test case for others that plan developments under the law, attorneys say. Live Local applications have started to trickle in in other cities across South Florida. 

Montreal-based Jesta, led by Senior Managing Director Anthony O’Brien, announced in September that it planned to develop a building of up to 30 stories tall on the Clevelander and Essex sites at 1020 and 1001 Ocean Drive, which sparked criticism from Miami Beach politicians and elected officials. 

The developer filed its first set of plans last Monday afternoon, capping the height at 18 stories. 

The proposal includes a 137-unit residential tower, with 82 luxury condos and 55 of the units set aside for affordable housing. The ground floor of the 200-foot building would be leased to a high-end restaurant.

Tom Mooney, the city’s planning director, wrote in an email to Jesta’s attorney, Alexander Tachmes of Shutts & Bowen, that city staff found the proposal conflicts with the city’s land development regulations, including floor area ratio (FAR) regulations. 

“These deficiencies will require the developer to make significant revisions to the proposal, if the developer is serious about proceeding under the Live Local Act,” Mooney wrote in the email obtained by The Real Deal.

Mooney said in his email that the proposal is “devoid” of adequate details and dimensions. He highlights that for the project to be considered a unified development site, it can’t be separated by an alley, suggesting that the proposal would require an alley vacation. 

Mooney also points out that the developer is seeking FAR of 6.95 on the Clevelander property, while the maximum allowed FAR in the city is 3.5, and 2.0 in the district where the hotels are located.

The Clevelander and Essex are in a historic district, which means that demolitions of any structure would require approval from the Historic Preservation Board. 

“Although the Live Local Act provides for administrative review of a new development, the Live Local Act does not preempt the Land Development Regulations with regard to the demolition of existing historic buildings,” Mooney wrote. 

The city and the developer already disagree on key points, which could set the stage for litigation. Jesta previously sued the city over an alcohol rollback during Spring Break and won. 

Tachmes, Jesta’s attorney, said in a statement to TRD that Mooney’s email included comments “based on incorrect statements of law.” 

Regarding FAR, Tachmes said that the state’s statutes supersede local law in the event of a conflict. “For the City to defeat a claim of state preemption, it must prove that its existing and proposed ordinances do not conflict with the Live Local Act,” he wrote. 

In his email, Mooney also referenced the planning board’s vote this week to move two ordinances to the city commission. The day after Jesta filed its site plan application, the board voted for an ordinance that would create a review process for Live Local projects and an ordinance amending height, setback and lot aggregation rules. The commission will likely vote on the ordinances in December. 

Tachmes wrote that because the application was filed before the planning board meeting, it would be exempt from those ordinances. He also argued that the developer’s plan meets the criteria to block the city from applying the new ordinances under the city’s zoning code. 

Mooney said that city staff can complete a more formal review of a revised application once the developer addresses the city’s concerns. He closed out his email by writing that planning staff and the city attorney’s office advised Jesta that any FAR increase “would require legislative action” by the city commission. 

“In short, the proposal submitted by the Clevelander invoking the Live Local Act cannot move forward until the above noted threshold issues have been addressed,” Mooney wrote. 

Read more

South Florida

Doral, developer reach height compromise on Live Local project

South Florida

Miami Beach plans to challenge Clevelander affordable housing proposal