Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-03-0615J-03-077 SE 05/22/03 RESOLUTION NO. 0 3+ 6 155 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 9, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE GROVENOR PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2610 TIGERTAIL AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO BE COMPRISED OF A RESIDENTIAL TOWER, WITH NOT MORE THAN 151 UNITS, WITH ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL SPACE AND APPROXIMATELY 409 PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION; 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 August 7, 2002, Lucia A. Dougherty, Esq. on behalf of Grovenor House, LLC, (hereinafter referred to as the "APPLICANT"), submitted a complete application for a Major Use Special Permit for the Grovenor Project pursuant to Articles 5, 9, 13 and 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, (the "Zoning Ordinance") to approve a specific project (hereinafter referred to as the "PROJECT") for the property located at approximately 2610 Tigertail Avenue, Miami, Florida, as legally described in "Exhibit B"; and em Y U it lru b - 3M COWWSSION KEETING OF, MAY e 2 2P03 Resolution No. WHEREAS, a substantial modification to said plans were filed by the Applicant that modified the plans on file; said plans now being the official application on file; and WHEREAS, development of the PROJECT requires the issuance of a Major Use Special Permit pursuant to Articles 5, 9, 13 and 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, in order to develop the property pursuant to the application submitted and on file with the Planning and Zoning Department; and WHEREAS, the Large Scale Development Committee met on June 4, 2002, to consider the proposed PROJECT and offer its input; and WHEREAS, the APPLICANT has modified the proposed PROJECT to address the expressed technical concerns raised at said Large Scale Development Committee meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Department reviewed the project for design appropriateness throughout the pre -application phase and, upon compliance with conditions imposed in the Development Order, recommend approval of the final design solution to the Planning and Zoning Director; and WHEREAS, the Urban Development Review Board met on December 18, 2002, to consider the proposed modified PROJECT and recommended approval of the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting held on December 16, 2002, Item No. 1, following an advertised public Page 2 of 8 03— 615 hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 2002-0644 by a vote of six to zero (6-0), RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Special Exception component of the Major Use Special Permit Development Order as attached and incorporated; and WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting held on December 18, 2002, Item No. 2, following an advertised public hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 94-02 by a vote of three to three (3-3), RECOMMENDING DENIAL of the Major Use Special Permit Development Order as attached and incorporated, due to failure to obtain the required majority of favorable votes. Pursuant to the Miami Planning Advisory Board's bylaws a tie vote automatically results in a denial; 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 Page 3 of 8 03— 615 the APPLICANT, at approximately 2610 Tigertail Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described in "Exhibit B," attached and incorporated. Section 3. The PROJECT is approved as a residential use tower consisting of 151 residential units with accessory recreational space, and approximately 409 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 attached and incorporated as "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 1989-2000, as amended. b. The PROJECT is in accord with the G/I Government and Institutional Zoning classification of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of 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 plan aspects of the PROJECT, i.e., ingress and egress, parking, signs and lighting, utilities, drainage, preservation of natural features and control of potentially adverse effects generally, Page 4 of 8 03— 615 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 $177 million, and to employ approximately 227 workers during construction (FTE-Full Time Employees); the PROJECT will also result in the creation of approximately 30 permanent new jobs. The PROJECT will generate approximately $1.69 million annually in tax revenues to local units of government (2002 dollars). e. 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 0 3 r 6 1 J (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 and amended, shall be binding upon the APPLICANT and any successors in interest. Page 6 of 8 63- 615 Section 7. The application for the Major Use Special Permit, which was submitted on August 7, 2002, and is 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 developers: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esq. on behalf of Grovenor House LLC, 1221 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131. Section 9. 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. 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 11. The provisions approved for this Major Use Special Permit, as approved, shall commence and become operative thirty (30) days after the adoption of this Resolution. Page 7 of 8 G Section 12. This Major Use Special Permit, as approved, shall expire two (2) years from its commencement and operative date. Section 13. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.'/ PASSED AND Ma ATTEST: ADOPTED 2003. this 22nd day of 1 19 PRI ILLA THOMPSON CIT CLERK APPROWD AS TO/FORM AND ERECTNESS :GK1 W,EJANDW VILARELLO CITY A ORNEY 46:GKW:et �i 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. Page 8 of 8 03— 615 "EXHIBIT A" ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 03 - DATE , 2003 GROVENOR PROJECT MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT DEVELOPMENT ORDER Let it be known that pursuant to Articles 5, 9, 13 and 17 of Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, (the "Zoning Ordinance"), the Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, has considered in a public hearing, the issuance of a Major Use Special Permit for the Grovenor Project (hereinafter referred to as the "PROJECT") to be located at approximately 2610 Tigertail Avenue, Miami, Florida (see legal description in "Exhibit B," attached and incorporated), 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: Page A-1 of 11 03- FINDINGS OF FACT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed PROJECT is a residential development to be located at approximately 2610 Tigertail Avenue, Miami, Florida. The PROJECT is located on a gross lot area of approximately 4.23 acres and a net lot area of approximately 3.27 acres of land (more specifically described in "Exhibit B," incorporated herein by reference). The remainder of the PROJECT's Data Sheet is attached and incorporated as "Exhibit C." The proposed PROJECT will consist of a residential complex, with no more than 151 residential units with accessory recreational space and approximately 409 parking spaces. The ownership, operation and maintenance of common areas and facilities will be by the property owner or (in the case of the property being. converted to condominiums) a mandatory property owner association in perpetuity pursuant to a recorded Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. The Major Use Special Permit Application for the PROJECT also encompasses the following lower ranking Special Permits: CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 906.6, for active recreational facilities (including swimming pools); Page A-2 of 11 03..- AV4 CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Section 915.2 for FAA clearance letter; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 920.1. to allow construction trailer and other temporary office uses such as leasing and sales. CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 925.3.8, to allow development/construction/ rental signage; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 918.2 for parking and staging of construction during construction; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 917.2.1. to allow valet parking for residential and other uses; CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT as per Section 908.2, for access from a public street or roadway width greater than 25 feet; CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 15, Section 1512. to request a waiver of City of Miami Parking Guides and Standards for five feet driveway from property line. CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT as per City of Miami Parking Guides and Standards to request a waiver or modify backup from loading. SPECIAL EXCEPTION, as per City of Miami Zoning Ordinance NO. 11000, as amended, Article 4, Section 401, any change to introduce a new principal use or any additions over twenty (20) percent of any existing use shall be allowed by Special Exception only. Page A-3 of 11 03— 611 MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 914, a development bonus to permit a residential use of 79,158 square feet of floor area x $6.67 = $527,983.86, by contribution to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund administered by the City of Miami for every one square foot of increase up to a maximum increase of one (1) square foot times the gross lot area; MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 5, Section 502, PUD districts; minimum area, maximum densities and maximum floor area ratios permitted, to increase by twenty (20%) percent (63,327 square feet) of additional floor area; MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 17 Section 1701 (7) for a parking structure of 409 parking spaces. REQUEST WAIVER BY CITY COMMISSION FROM CHAPTER 36 of the Miami City Code, the Noise Ordinance, to allow continuous concrete pours while under construction. REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL, pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Miami City Code, for property located on a Scenic Transportation Corridor. REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, per Miami City Code Chapter 23-5(a), for ground disturbing activity in an Archaeological Conservation Area. REQUEST that the following MUSP conditions be required at the time of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Final Page A-4 of 11 3- 615 Certificate of Occupancy instead of at issuance of foundation permit: a. the requirement to record in the Public Records a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions providing that the ownership, operation and maintenance of all common areas and facilities will be by the property owner or a mandatory property owner association; and b. the requirement to record in the Public Records a unity of title or covenant in lieu of unity of title. Pursuant to Articles 13 and 17 of the Zoning Ordinance, approval of the requested Major Use Special Permit shall be considered sufficient for the subordinate permits requested and referenced above as well as any other special approvals required by the City which may be required to carry out the requested plans. The PROJECT shall be constructed substantially in accordance with plans and design schematics on file prepared by Revuelta Vega Leon P.A., dated November 27, 2002; the landscape plan shall be implemented substantially in accordance with plans and design schematics on file prepared by Bradshaw, Gill & Associates, dated November 27, 2002; said design and landscape plans may be permitted to be modified only to the extent necessary to comply with the conditions for approval imposed Page A-5 of 11 0 3— 6JIL 5 herein; all modifications shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of the Department of Planning and Zoning prior to the issuance of any building permits. The PROJECT conforms to the requirements of the G/I Government and Institutional Zoning District, as contained in Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida. The existing comprehensive plan future land use designation on the subject property allows the proposed mix of commercial and residential 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, Page A-6 of 11t, 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. 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 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, egress, vehicular access and egress 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) 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. 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, Page A-7 of 11 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 the condominium documents have been filed with the State of Florida; or (b) 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. 9. Provide the Department of Public Works with plans for proposed sidewalk and Swale area improvements for its review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. Provide the Department of Planning and Zoning with a construction plan that includes a temporary parking plan, including an operational plan, which addresses construction employee parking during the construction period, and a barrier and traffic plan, hours of operation and a hurricane plan; said plan shall include an enforcement 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. 11. The Applicant shall address the following design concerns prior to the issuance of a building permit; final plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director: Page A-8 of 11 03— V 1 5 12. 13 a) Pedestrian Circulation: The existing designed configuration for pedestrian access to and from South Bayshore Drive is in need of improvement. With the existing designed configuration, a pedestrian would have to mix within the vehicular circulation. The applicant should consider designing a pedestrian walkway from the main entrance of the project to South Bayshore Drive with reduced conflict with vehicles; and b) Landscape: The tree disposition plan depicts the transplantation of two mature oaks to make way for the driveway. This action is not acceptable and another option to design the driveway so that these oaks are retained and kept healthy shall be considered. The plans on file shall be modified to: a) increase the side setback adjacent to Grove Hill from 10 feet to 20 feet; and b) reduce the height by eliminating two levels. The landscape plan on file shall be modified as follows: a) tree #'s 16, 17, 56 and 57 shall be saved and remain on site; and b) the applicant shall attempt to retain tree #'s 18, 19 and 20 on site (relocated), however, if they must be removed, the canopy replacement shall comply with the Dade County Landscape Ordinance; and c) final revised Landscape Plan shall be subject to review and approval by Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit or a tree removal permit. THE CITY SHALL: 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 Page A-9 of 11 U«-3 — 6 1 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 1989-2000, is consistent with the orderly development and goals of the City of Miami, and complies with local land development regulations and further, pursuant to Section 1703 of the Zoning Ordinance: (1) the PROJECT will have a favorable impact on the economy of the City; and (2) the PROJECT will efficiently use public transportation facilities; and (3) the PROJECT will favorably affect the need for people to find adequate housing reasonably accessible to their places of employment; and (4) the PROJECT will efficiently use necessary public facilities; and (5) the PROJECT will not negatively impact the environment and natural resources of the City; and (6) the PROJECT will not adversely affect public safety; and (7) the public welfare will be served by the PROJECT; and Page A-10 of 11 3- 615 (8) any potentially adverse effects of the PROJECT will be mitigated through conditions of this Major Use Special Permit. The proposed development does not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the City of Miami. Pursuant to Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance, the specific site plan aspects of the PROJECT i.e., ingress and egress, offstreet parking and loading, refuse and service areas, signs and lighting, utilities, drainage and control of potentially adverse effects generally have been considered and will be further considered administratively during the process of issuing individual building permits and certificates of occupancy. Page A-11 of 11 Exhibit "B" Legal Description That • certain real.estate located in Miami -Dade County, Florida, more particularly described as follows, to wit-: Lying in and' being iti (Dinner Key) Miami, County of Miasnii-Dade, stake of iIot; beginning at a point in the Northwesterly vide.of South Baysha—1?rive, whkh poin'C�is. distant 200 feet Northeastwardly fmm the intersection of the Nortwesterly side.•of South Bayshore Drive with tate 11io Bate ly sideof DarMn Road, said point beh* the $outheasterly corner of Lot NoA in Blbck 40; running dwweo 'In'a. NqvtkWe9twwift direction along •the Noftheasterly side.of said. Lot No.3, a.tiistuut:af trly 57 5 feet to a point.itz the Southeasterly side df fiig�ertail Avenue, biw rly corner of said Lot No.3; thence in a N ••di +metier ,�o tsfttiy' side of 1"sgertgil Avenue a ditxmc of P�'eY fart to a batt b+tge Northwesterly corner of Lot No.4 in $truck M; 42=60.i a.$cr�ifl along. the Scm�hwespterly side of Lot%No.4,•.a tae o + point in: the Northwest * side of South Systi mt .fie, bow. Ot��+ corner of said iwt 4; thence in a •SouthwestwWTft' direction .8k •siile o#' South Bay, shore Drive a &starve of appi awy 250 -feet to t1k }fit 0l 'p of be&ning, being all of Lots.5 and 6, Block 39; and Lots 1 and 2, Bbook !40, and .that xoction of Blaine Street extending freed the. Southeasterly sine of Tigertaal Avenue in a 'outheastwwcQy direction between the Sou l�steriy side of Let No.5'in Block 39, and. ..ne. Northeasterly . side of Lot No. i in Blanc .40 to .the Northu►as%* • sick .of Smth . Bayshore th ive,• as shown on Samuel Rhodes Arisended Map .of New Biw ayne, recorded -in -Plat Book W, at Page 16, of the Public'Records- of Miainit-Dade County, Florida, together with the. improvements thereon.. ffiIBIT "CF' PROIECT DATA M A M= 6 W =M MV5W GAME ft WE I U rAW MW M' N= MME 111 0000M =4 Wn f WAQ 0P.a01!$TON f0{lfH MY11iWEORM = f ff ON T(01l:YAA. AVENUE w mr w ArlRO)(N n DEF(N UM D=FnM SM AYTAOWD SURVEY MLOTe low CITY OF MIAMI ZONING ( 0/1 - USE R-4 At TIAL > MAW ZONE FLOW IONS 'X' / FLOOD ZONE 'AE' FIRM WP NUMBER/2025001/11 OE"rf 130 UNITS/ACRE LGlT.AM NET LOT AREA 142,215 S.F. ( 3.27 ACRES ) GROSS LOT AREA 164.009 SJ. ` wrSH RE DISK - (250.62' x Sol 1041 if. 1AYWCIK PARK - (!50.12' X 7O') /7.567 SF. TGERTAL AMOAK - (269.11' X 30') 7.423 Sf. SUAVE STREET - (/0' OLO•W.) X 70') Or EAL IMS a MIM ALLOWED, 319.433 Y. - 1.72 ( WITHOUT SONUS ) PROVIOEN L41 ( waix NO P.U.O. t A.N.T.F. BONUS ) ALLOR'AOLE FLOOR AREA INCREAV- 1,272 S.F. P.UA, BOM/S - 209 a 318537 S.F. - 63.327 S.F. AFFORDABLE HOLISM TRUST 23X 1 At (>ES41963.56 CONiRIB11T10Nj�� X 16. 1(f.. 79.155 S.F. MAXIMUM F.A.R. (W/ BONUS): 459.116 S.F. 1171 NIX IMS a MIM KAL29 TM SAL NO11271E ANC LEY. 1 1 1,272 S.F. 1,272 Sl. 0 ARK LEv. 2 1 1,272 S.F. 1.272 S.F. 0 CBBr 1 a 2 4.470 S.F. 4,470 S.F. 2 Oat 7,310 1f. 7, 0 SJ. Z 2f 20 a 5 A MA 120 23 V2224- 2 a 4 16.070 S.r. 32,140 S.F.2S 3x3 1 S. 39.214 Lf.29 3 ■ 2 9.170 LF. 29,310 LF. 4 31 2 a 2 1,401 . 22,211 1.F. 4 4E10 U. IV MA)OMUM ALLOSEO - 40% CROSS LOT AREA 73,536 S.F. PROMDE'D - 30 S 70.505 SF. MR6RMA WOIMED ■ 15X GROSS LOT AREA 27,517 S.F. PROAM - 24 X 44.120 51. AEQU11EQ l44Y� SOUTN BAYom ON% ( SOUTH) 111-0' 137'-Y W ERTAL A%VW ( NORTH) 20'-01 125'-9' SIDES ( INTERIOR i IW -0' Id -0' wilpm ALLOWABLE: 2M' FROM BASE SULDNO LINE - FOR ADDITIONAL NKIOHT /3 09023E ANGLE FOM SAID POINT MAX HEIGHT AT PROIA3M SETBACK (LIE - 415'-0- (NOW) PRONGED HEIGHT t MAN NOW - 348-0- (NOW) PAIRIUNG DATA �R�Q6L 2 1PAM$ FOR EACH iWO t THREE BEDROOM UNITS 3 SPACES FOR UNITS W/ FOUR OR MORE BEDROOMS 1 SPACE PER 10 UNITS FOR MSITORS T5 UNITS X 2 SPACES PER UNIT 152 SPACES 75 UNITS X 3 SPACES PER UNIT 225 SPACES MSTORS If SPACES TOTAL 363 SPACES TOTAL NUMBER OF SPACES PRO%VW - 409 SPA= NUMBER OF HANDICAP PARKIN* SPACES REQUIRED 10 SPACES PIRM.00F 10Tµ.456 SIONDW, 10 AS Qmw LOADING BERTHS REQUIRED ((1)) 2' % 55' t 3(3) I0 % 20 LOADING SERTNS PROYAED (1) �l' X SS' t /0' X 20' 03- 615 W[WH A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Lucie A. Dougherty .k305)579-0603 E -Mail: doughcrtylCctig?law.com April 29, 2003 Via Facsimile The Honorable .iohnny L. Winton Miami City Commission 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33 13 11 Re: PZ Item 15. The Grovenor House MUSP Approval for 2610 Tigertail Avenue Dear Commissioner Winton: .5'=1—G3 3:1Ge-M- As the attorney for the above referenced project. I write this letter to advise you that I will be requesting a continuance of the above -referenced matter to the May 22, 2003 City Commission meeting. The reason for this request is that several of our neighbors, including the President of the Grove Hill Condominium Association are not able to attend this meeting. I have spoken with Mr. Tucker Gibbs about this matter and he has no objection to it. Sincerely, Lucia A. Dougherty LAD:Iml cc: Lenoard L. Rosenberg (Via Facsimile) Tucker Gibbs (Via Facsimile) MAY - 1 2003 GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 1221 BRICKELL AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 305-579-0500 FAX 305-579-0717 www.gtlaw.com e D _ IN. MIAMI NEW PORK WASHINGTON, D.C. ATLANTA PHILADELPHIA TYSONS CORNER CHICAGO BOSTON PHOENIX WILMINGTON LOS ANGELES DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE BOCA RATON WEST PALM BEACH ORLANDO TALLAHASSEE CITY OF MIAMI CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk FROM: George . Wyson , III Assistant City Attorney DATE: June 20, 2003 RE: Corrected Scrivener's Error Resolution No. 03-615, adopted May 22, 2003. The City Attorney's Office has determined that Resolution No. 03-615, adopted May 22, 2003, contains a scrivener's error, as the attachment to the Resolution identified as "Exhibit A" (the Development Order) does not reflect the modification made by the City Commission when the legislation was adopted. A review of the record indicates that the City Commission imposed two additional conditions to the Development Order. The first additional condition, number 12 in the Development Order, increases the side setback adjacent to Grove Hill from 10 feet to 20 feet and reduces the height of the structure by eliminating two levels. The second additional condition, number 13 of the Development Order, modifies the Landscape Plan. Please substitute the herein original attachment marked "Exhibit A" to the document you presently possess as Resolution No. 03-615 and forward a copy of the Resolution and its attachments to this Office and to Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director, Planning and Zoning. This memorandum may be attached to Resolution No. 03-615 so that any concern regarding the substitution of said "Exhibit A" is clarified. AV:GKW:et Attachments C: Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney Joel Edward Maxwell, Deputy City Attorney Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director, Planning and Zoning Lourdes Slayzk, Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning J-03 077 1/09/ RESOLUTION NO. 03— V 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WI ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A JOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTI ES 5, 9, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11 00, FOR THE GROVENOR PROJECT/6GER TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2GERTA AVENUE, AMI, FLORIDA, TO BE D 0 A RESIDENTIA TOWER, WITH NOT AN 151 UNITS, WITH CCESSORY RECREATIAND APPROXIMATELY 409 PARKING SPAECTINGTRANSMITTAL OF THE HEREIN RESOMAKINGFINDINGS OF FAC AND STATING ONS OFLAW; PROVIDING FO BINDING EFFETAININGA SEVERABILITY CLA SE AND PROFOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on August 7, 200 behalf of Gr/Hese, LLC "APPLICANT"), a mpl Special Permovenor 9, 13 and 17Ordinance of the Citmi, FloriOrdinance") a specifto as the "Pfor the 1D: L cia A. Dougherty, Esq. on erein fter referred to as the applic tion for a Major Use loject purs ant to Articles 5, o. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance as amended, (the "Zoning project (hereinaf r referred )erty located at annr imatelv 2610 Tige ail Avenue, Miami, Florida, as legally descri ed in "Exhibi B"; and ray CONKMO) Resolution No. SUPERSEDED "EXHIBIT A" ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 03A2003 DATE GROVENOR PROJECT MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT DEVELOPMENT ORDER Let it be known hat pursuant to Article 5, 9, 13 and 17 of Ordinance No. 11000, s amended, the Zon' g Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, (t "Zoning Ordi ance"), the Commission of the City of Miami, Flo 'da, has considered in a public hearing, the issuance of a Ma'or se Special Permit for the Grovenor Project (hereinafter ref red to as the "PROJECT") to be located at approximately 2610 Tigertail Avenue, Miami, Florida (see legal descrip ion in " xhibit B," attached and incorporated), subject to any dedi ations, limitations, restrictions, reservati s or easements of r cord. After due cons deration of the recom ndations of the Planning Advisory Board and after due consi ration of the consistency of this proposed development wit the Miami Comprehensiv Neighborhood Plan, the City Commission has approved e PROJECT, and subject to the following c nditions approve the Major Use Special Permit and issues this Perm t: Page A-1 of 11 03- 615 SUPERSEDED FINDINGS OF FACT PROJECT DES IPTION: The propo ed PROJECT is a residential development o be located at appro 'mately 2610 Tigertail Avenue, Miami, lorida. The PROJECT is loca d on a gross lot area of approxi ately 4.23 acres and a net lot rea of approximately 3.27 cres of land (more specifically descri ed in "Exhibit B," i orporated herein by reference). The remain er of the PROD CT's Data Sheet is attached and incorporated as " hibit C." The proposed PROJECT will c sist of a residential complex, with no more than 151 reside ial units with accessory recreational space and approxima ly 4 parking spaces. The ownership, operatio and main t nance of common areas and facilities will be by he property own or (in the case of the property being c nverted to condomini ms) a mandatory property owner association in perpetuity pursua to a recorded Declaration of Cc nants and Restrictions. The Maj r Use Special Permit Application for th PROJECT also enco asses the following lower ranking Special Permi s: LASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 906.6, r active recreational facilities (including swimming pools); Page A-2 of 11 03— 6 1 5 SUPERSEDED V e� c SS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Section 915.2 for le ance letter; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 92 .1. to allow con truction trailer and other temporary of ce uses such as lea 'ng and sales. CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, /Setion 925.3.8, to allow developme t/construction/ rental sge; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIas per Article , Section 918.2 for parking and staging of\c nstruction d ing construction; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT asr Ar icle 9, Section 917.2.1. to allow valet parking for res ntial and other uses; CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT as per ction 908.2, for access from a public street or ro dway widt greater than 25 feet; CLASS II SPECIAL PERMI as per Article 1 Section 1512. to request a waiver City of Miami Pa ing Guides and Standards for five feet driveway from proper line. CLASS II SPECI L PERMIT as per City of Miami Pa\bakup Guides and Standar to request a waiver or modify from loading. SPECIA EXCEPTION, as per City of Miami Zoning Ordina ce NO. 000, as amended, Article 4, Section 401, any chan to introduce a new principal use or any additions over enty (20) percent of any existing use shall be allowed by Special Exception only. Page A-3 of 11 SUPERSEDED 03— 615 MA\EA1PECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 914, debonus to permit a residential use of 79, 8 sqof floor area x $6.67 = $527,983.86 by coto the Affordable Housing Trust Fundadby the City of Miami for every one sq re footofup to a maximum increase of one (1) uare foottioss of area; MAJOR USE SPECIAL PE IT as per Article 5, ection 502, PUD districts; minimum a a, maximum densi ies and maximum floor area ratios permi ed, to incre e by twenty (20%) percent (63,327 square feet of additi nal floor area; MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT as per A icle 17 Section 1701 (7) for a parking structure of 409 p ing spaces. REQUEST WAIVER BY CITY/COMSSION FR M CHAPTER 36 of the Miami City Code, the Nordinance, o allow continuous concrete pours while andstruction. REQUEST FOR A CERTIF CATE OF APPROVAL, pursua t to Chapter 17 of the Miami Ci Code, for property located n a Scenic Transportation C ridor. REQUEST 7aeological CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, per \amyiCity Codter 23-5(a), for ground disturbing act in an Arc Conservation Area. REQUE T that the following MUSP conditions be required at the time of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Final Page A-4 of 11 SUPERSEDED 03- 615 Certificate of Occupancy instead of at issuance 'koundation permit: a. t requirement to record in the/nena ecords a Decl ration of Covenants and Restrov' ing that e ownership, operation aa ce of all com n areas and facilitiesby the property caner or a mandatory owner association; nd b. the requirement to record in theecords a unity of title covenant in nity of title. Pursuant to Articles 13 a d 17 of the Zoning Ordinance, approval of the requested Major se Special Permit shall be considered sufficient for the s ordi ate permits requested and referenced above as well as a other sp ial approvals required by the City which may be equired to car out the requested plans. The PROJECT s 11 be constructed sub tantially in accordance with pla s and design schematics on file repared by Revuelta Vega Le P.A., dated November 27, 2002; the andscape plan shall be mplemented substantially in accordance with lans and design schematics on file prepared by Bradshaw, Gill & Associate , dated November 27, 2002; said design and landscape plans ay be permitted to be modified only to the extent necee nary to comply with the conditions for approval imposed Page A-5 of 11 0 3- 615 SUPERSEDED herNn; all modifications shall be subject to the review and approv\and rector of the Department of /nceof d Zoningissuance of any building permits Tonforms to the requirements I Governitutional Zoning District, as n Ordina as amended, the Zoning Ordie City of Miami, Flori The existing comprehl�-nsive plan future larl use designation on the subject property al ows the propose mix of commercial and residential uses. CONDITION THE APPLICANT, ITS SUCCESSO , AND\RASSIGNS, JOINTLY OR SEVERALLY, PRIOR TO THE ISSUAN OF ANYG PERMITS, SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING: 1. Meet all applica71ces building codes, lan development regulations, ordina and other laws. 2. Pay all applic le fees due prior to the issuan of a building perm' 3. Allow the Miami Police Department to conduct a securitN survey, at the option of the Department, and to make recom ndations concerning security measures and systems; fur er submit a report to the Department of Planning and Zo: ./prior to commencement of construction, Page A-6 of 11 SUPERSEDED 03- 615 emonstrating how the Police Department recommendations, f an have been incorporated into the PROJECT security and cons uction plans, or demonstrate to the Director f the Depart nt of Planning and Zoning why such recomme dations are impr tical. 4. Obtain appr al from, or pro/hee lett r from the Department Fire-Rescuein APPLICANT'S coordination wit members of thn Review Section at the Department Fire-Rescueeview of the scope of the PROJECT, owne responsibilding development process and review rocedureell as specific requirements for fire p tectioe safety systems, egress, vehicular access an egreter supply. 5. Obtain approval from, or p: the Department of Solid addressed all concernsJm/i obtainment of a shell =ov a letter of assurance from Wast that the PROJECT has the sai Department prior to the t. 6. Comply with the M/iractor/ rity Participation \Aca t Plan (includi/of Subcontractor PPlan) submitteCity as part of thon for Developmval, with the undert the APPLICANse its best effortw the provisioCity's Minority/WomeAffairs and Procogram as a guide. 7./Recod the following in the Public Records of Dade Coun�da, prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificatcupancy or Certificate of Occupancy, a Declaration of ants and Restrictions providing that the ownership, Page A-7 of 11 SUPERSEDED 03- 615 ope ation and maintenance of all common areas and facil'ties will be by the property owner or a mandator propert owner association in perpetuity. 7 8. Prior to t\recordale e of a shell permit, demonstrate to the City that minium documents have been f' ed with the Stateda; or (b) provide the Ci y with an executed, unity of title or covena t in -lieu of unity of ement for the subject property; said agreement bject to the revie and approval of the City Aff'ce. e� 9. Provide the Department o Public//Works with plans for proposed sidewalk and swal aria improvements for its review and approval prior to 'he issuance of a building permit. 10. Provide the Department Of Plannin and Zoning with a construction plan that includes a tem orary parking plan, including an operati0 al plan, which add sses construction employee parking wring the construction period, and a barrier and trae!�fic plan, hours of ope ation and a J hurricane plan;, said plan shall include an enf cement plan and shall bV/ subject to the review and appro 1 by the Department/Of Planning and Zoning prior to the is ance of any building permits and shall be enforced during constri,action activity. 11. Thi Applicant shall address the following design concernN Prior to the issuance of a building permit; final plans /shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director: Page A-8 of 1103— C 5 SUPERSEDED Pedestrian Circulation: The existing designe onfiguration for pedestrian access to and from So h Ba shore Drive is in need of improvement. With the exi ing designed configuration, a pedestrian wou have to mi within the vehicular circulation. The pplicant should onsider designing a pedestrian walkw from the main entr ce of the project to South Baysho e Drive with reduced con ict with vehicles; and b) Landscape: e tree disposition pl n depicts the transplantation of two mature oaks t make way for the driveway. This action is not ac eptable and another option to design e driveway s that these oaks are retained and kept hea thy shall e considered. THE CITY SHALL: Establish the operativr6 Nate of this Permit as being thirty (30) days from/ the dale of its issuance; the issuance date shall /constitute tNe commencement of the thirty (30) day period to appeal from\�he provisions of the Permit. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The PROy"ECT, proposed by the APPLICANT, compli�,s with the Miami ComXrehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000, is cVsistent with t1.14 orderly development and goals of the City of Mia m', and comp ies with local land development regulations and furt er, suant to Section 1703 of the Zoning Ordinance: Page A-9 of 11 SUPERSEDED C, '" 6 15 the PROJECT will have a favorable impact on e economy of the City; and (2) th PROJECT will efficiently use public trans rtation faci _ties; and (3) the PROD CT will favorably affect the n d for people to find a equate housing reasonably accessible to their places f employment; and (4) the PROJECT wil\notne ently e necessary public facilities; and (5) the PROJECT will ti ely impact the environment and natural resources of t e City; and (6) the PROJECT will not dverseaffect public safety; and (7) the public welfar will be served by he PROJECT; and (8) any potential y adverse effects of the P\JECT will be mitigated t rough conditions of this Maje Special Permit. The /ah rod development does not unreasonably inte fere with ment of the objectives of the adopted State La d Develapplicable to the City of Miami. o Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance, the specilan aspects of the PROJECT i.e., ingress and Page A-10 of 11 SUPERSEDED 03— 615 Page A-11 of 11 00 3= 6 15 SUPERSEDED ITEM PZ 15 PLANNING FACT SHEET APPLICANT Lucia Dougherty, Esquire, on behalf of Grovenor House, LLC HEARING DATE December 18, 2002 REQUEST/LOCATION Approximately 2610 Tigertail Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION Complete legal description on file with the Department of Hearing Boards. PETITION Consideration of approving with conditions, a Major Use Special Permit pursuant to Articles 5, 9, 13 and 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, for the Grovenor Project, to be located at approximately 2610 Tigertail Avenue, Miami, Florida, to be comprised of a residential complex, with not more than 151 residential units with accessory recreational space and approximately 409 parking spaces. PLANNING RECOMMENDATION Approval with conditions. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS See supporting documentation. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD Recommended denial of a VOTE: 3-3 motion, which failed (due to failure to obtain a majority of favorable votes), constituting a denial. CITY COMMISSION Continued from City Commission of January 23, 2003, February 27, 2003 and May 1, 2003. APPLICATION NUMBER 2002-061 Item #2 CITY OF MIAMI - PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 444 SW 2ND AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR - MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33130 PHONE (305) 416-1400 uate: oit5iluu6 Page 1 1-3- 615 Analysis for Major Use Special Permit for the Grovenor Project located at approximately 2610 Tigertail Avenue. CASE NO. 2002-0061 Pursuant to Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the subject proposal for the Grovenor Project has been reviewed to allow a Major Use Special Permit. This Permit also includes the following requests: CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 906.6, for active recrea- tional facilities (including swimming pools); CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Section 915.2 for FAA clearance letter; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 920.1. to allow construc- tion trailer and other temporary office uses such as leasing and sales. CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 925.3.8, to allow develop- ment/construction/ rental signage; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 918.2 for parking and stag- ing of construction during construction; CLASS I SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 917.2.1. to allow valet parking for residential and other uses; CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT as per Section 908.2, for access from a public street or roadway width greater than 25 feet; 03- 615 CLASS H SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 15, Section 1512. to request a waiver of City of Miami Parking Guides and Standards for five feet driveway from prop- erty line. CLASS H SPECIAL PERMIT as per City of Miami Parking Guides and Standards a request a waive or modify backup from loading. SPECIAL EXCEPTION, as per City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 11000, as amended, Article 4, Section 401, any change to introduce a new principal use or any additions over twenty (20) percent of any existing use shall be allowed by Special Exception only. MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 9, Section 914, a development bonus to permit additional FAR by contribution to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund administered by the City of Miami; MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 5, Section 502, PUD districts; minimum area, maximum densities and maximum floor area ratios permitted, to increase by twenty (20%) percent. MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT as per Article 17 Section 1701 (7) for a parking structure of 409 parking spaces. PER CITY CODE, Chapter 36, Construction Equipment, request for waiver from the City Commission of waiver of noise ordinance while under construction for continuous pours; PER CITY CODE, Chapter 17, Request for a Certificate of Approval for property located on a Scenic Transportation Corridor. 03- 615 PER CITY CODE, Chapter 23-5a, Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property located in an Archeological Conservation Area. REQUEST that the following MUSP conditions be required at the time of Tempo- rary Certificate of Occupancy or Final Certificate of Occupancy instead of at issu- ance of foundation permit: a. the requirement to record in the Public Records a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions providing that the ownership, operation and maintenance of all common areas and facilities will be by the property owner or a mandatory property owner association; and b. the requirement to record in the Public Records a unity of title or covenant in lieu of unity of title. Pursuant to Articles 13 and 17 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, approval of the requested Major Use Special Permit shall be considered sufficient for the subordinate permits requested and referenced above as well as any other special approvals required by the City which may be required to carry out the requested plans. The requested Special Permit is for the purpose of allowing a residential development project to consist of no more than 151 residential units. The PROJECT will also provide a total of 409 parking spaces. Approval of the project will allow a development bonus of 79,158 square feet of development in conjunction with a contribution of $527,983.86 to the City of Miami's Affordable Housing Trust Fund. In determining the appropriateness of the proposed project, the Planning and Zoning Department has referred this project to the Large Scale Development Committee (LSDC) and the Urban Development Review Board (DDRB) for additional input and recommendations; the following findings have been made: • It is found that the proposed residential development project will benefit the Coconut Grove area by creating new housing opportunities. • It is found that the subject property has convenient access to the downtown area that makes it ideally suited for residential use. • It is found that the project was reviewed by the Large Scale Development Committee and has been modified to address the expressed technical concerns raised at said Large Scale Development Committee meeting; F1► • It is found that the proposed project was reviewed for design appropriateness by the Urban Development Review Board and the Planning and Zoning Department; the staff review resulted in design modifications which were then recommended for approval to the Planning and Zoning Director; the modified plans will be heard by the UDRB for additional comments on December 18, 2002 • It is found that the Planning and Zoning Department have the following additional concerns with respect to the modified plans: Pedestrian Circulation ■ The pedestrian access to and from South Bayshore Drive is very weak. With the existing designed configuration, the pedestrian would have to mix within the vehicular circulation. The applicant should consider designing a pedes- trian walkway from the main entrance of the project to South Bayshore Drive with reduced conflict with vehicles. Landscape ■ The tree disposition plan depicts two mature oaks will be transplanted to make way for the driveway. This action will not be acceptable and another option to design the driveway so that these oaks are retained and kept healthy should be considered. • It is found that with respect to all additional criteria as specified in Section 1305 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, the proposal has been reviewed and found to be adequate. Based on these findings, the Planning and Zoning Department is recommending approval of the requested Development Project with the following conditions: 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 rec- ommendations, 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. 4. Obtain approval from, or provide a letter from the Department of Fire -Rescue in- dicating APPLICANT'S coordination with members of the Fire Plan Review Sec- tion at the Department of Fire -Rescue in the review of the scope of the PROJECT, 03-- 615 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. 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 Con- tractor/Subcontractor Participation Plan) submitted to the City as part of the Ap- plication for Development Approval, with the understanding that the APPLICANT must use its best efforts to follow the provisions of the City's Mi- nority/Women Business Affairs and Procurement Program as a guide. 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. Prior to the issuance of a shell permit, demonstrate to the City that the condomin- ium documents have been filed with the State of Florida; or (b) 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. 9. Provide the Department of Public Works with plans for proposed sidewalk and swale area for its review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. Provide the Department of Planning and Zoning with a temporary parking plan, including an operational plan, which addresses construction employee parking during the construction period, said plan shall include an enforcement 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. 11. The Applicant shall address the following design concerns prior to the issuance of a building permit; final plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Plan- ning Director: a) Pedestrian Circulation; The pedestrian access to and from South Bayshore Drive is very weak. With the existing designed configuration, the pedestrian would have to mix within the vehicular circulation. The applicant should con- 03�1 05 sider designing a pedestrian walkway from the main entrance of the project to South Bayshore Drive with reduced conflict with vehicles; and b) Landscape; The tree disposition plan depicts two mature oaks will be trans- planted to make way for the driveway. This action will not be acceptable and another option to design the driveway so that these oaks are retained and kept healthy should be considered. 03- GOO 11 m Nw 4444,1z,or kil &s, Wet". M lu AL I 0 %.%Ilk Z q4 -v 17.ti 03- 615 yc' yCj. UG J.U--40 t71CCLIVDMr-1U 1Mr•7VT%4U 7JYJ�41b.144J Dbvd F:gw (305) 961568.9 E.IA:ir. dMkWWKftQ1aw.Con-T December 4, 2002 BAND DELIVERY Ms. Ana Gelabert-Sanchez Director. City of Miami Planning Department 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue Third Floor Miami, FL 33130 Re: Grovenor. LLC Dear Ana "Ll. G41 L Ot^G Enclosed please find a revised set of plans for Grovenor. The revisad pians reduce the number of residential units from 182 to 151. We are including a comparison chart between the project being proposed at this time versus the pro ad which was originally submitted with the MUSP application ir, August 7,2002- it ,2002. it is our understanding that this item will be on the Zoning Board agenda of December 16, 2002 and the Pianning Advisory Board on December 18, 2002. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Please call me at (305) 579.0603 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, aa6� � Lucia A. Dougherty cc: Mr. Art Murphy Ms. Lourdes Slazyk Mr. Juan Gonzalez Mr_ Luis Revuelta f Ms. Tereaft Fernandez tuw4�SRVOI TARMA%14160"VCIX'ACr44Ol f.D=17JatO2 GREzxR61c TIAVjUG, P.A. 1221 BRICEZLL AVENGE MIAMI, FORMA. 33131 305-579.4800 Fax 905.519-011" WWW.tt1&W.C*:= I KIAKI NET YORK TAWNCTON, D.C. ATLANTA ]PHI, Ab6tMi TT8GX2 COENZ■ CKICACO $O@TON Psop•NT%. WILMINGTON Lw AACELza DexvFl 0--- T .....•........' 0.— V..,.nu 'Oar. Da, r TtO.PO ATtt Afenn TAIA AOA41rM 03' 615 12/10/N 10:49 URE—E�BER kHUKi[a 53u_47.b:.��� NIUSP COMPARISON . -- December 4, 2002 - N1:1. 2e `. MUSP PLANS SVBbffMD MUSP PLANS REVISED , COMPARISON BETWEEN AUGUST 2902 NOVEMBER 27,2M PLANS 1- Name ofptaject - Same Same Grovenor 2.- Owaorship - Same Same , Grovenor House LLC 3: Address of Owner - Same Saa�c 701 Brickell Av., Suite 3150 MiamL Fl. 3.3131 4.- Architect - Sam Same RmWta Vega Leon PA. 5: Zoning District- Saum Same City ofMiarmi, Zoning Gil 6: Net Lot Area - Same Same 142,298 S.F. 317 Acres 7.- Net Lot Dimensions - Noah 574-2" Same Same West 249'A7(Tigert00) Same Saint South 563'-4" Same Same j East 250'-10"(S, Baysbore Same same R% --We S.- Gross Loot Area - Same Sam 184,089 S.F. 4.23 ASM 9- Open Space - Same Saint 44,120 S.F. 249/6 10.- Building Footprint Same Same 70,366S . 11- Total FAIL - Same Sams 459,118 S.F. 12.- Building Height - 341'-0" Samr, same 13 - Pedestal Height - SA= Same 27'-4" 14.- Setbacks South Bayshore Drive (129') 137'-1" Additional 9'-1" Tigertail Avenue (160) 126'-6" Less 331-6" Sides 10' Same Stupe 15: Total Residential Units 192 UEits 151 Units LesS 41 16.- Paddag Spaces - 455 Spaces 409 Spaces Less 46 Prtpered by MMR Revuelta Vega Lean P.A. Printed 12-04-02 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT HEARING BOARDS DIVISION -. 444 SW 2n4 Avenue, 7'' Floor • Miami, Florida 33130 Telephone 305-416-1480 Fax 305416-2035 APPLICATION FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT IT 1S INTENDED THAT MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMITS BE REQUIRED WHERE SPECIFIED USES AND/OR OCCUPANCIES INVOLVE MATTERS DEEMED TO BE OF CITYWIDE OR AREA WIDE IMPORTANCE. THE CITY COMMISSION SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINATIONS ON APPLICATIONS FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMITS. (SEE AR77CLE 17 OF ORDINANCE 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA.) THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING SHALL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALL APPLICATIONS FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMITS AND FOR ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO AND SHALL TRANSMIT SAID APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR ITS RECOMMENDATIONS AND MAY MAKE REFERRALS TO OTHER AGENCIES, BODIES, OR OFFICERS FOR REVIEW, ANALYSIS, AND/OR TECHNICAL FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS AND REPORTS THEREON. (SEE SECTION 1301.4 OF ORDINANCE 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA.) ANY PERSON WHO RECEIVES COMPENSATION, REMUNERATION OR EXPENSES FOR CONDUCTING LOBBYING ACTIVITIES TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST WITH THE CITY CLERK, PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES BEFORE CITY STAFF, BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION. A COPY OF SAID ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK (MIAMI CITY HALL), LOCATED AT 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33133. APPLICANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE, IF NEEDED, TO BRING AN INTERPRETER FOR THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO ANY PRESENTATION BEFORE CITY BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION. POWER OF ATTORNEY WILL BE REQUIRED IF NEITHER APPLICANT OR LEGAL COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT EXECUTE THE APPLICATION OR DESIRE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION BEFORE CITY BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION. I, Lucia A. Dougherty, on behalf of Grovenor House, LLC hereby apply to the Director of the Planning and Zoning Department of the City of Miami for approval of a Major Use Special Permit under the provisions of Article 17 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance. Property Address: 2610 Ti4ertail Avenue, Miami, Florida Nature of proposed use (be specific): A Maior Use Special Permit for approval of a residential development pursuant to Article 5 entitled "Planned Unit Development" and per Section 514, for approval of additional floor area. Two 11 x17" original current surveys and one 24x36" original survey, prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land Surveyor within six months from the date of application. 2. Two 11x17" original plans and one 24x36° original plan, signed and sealed by a State of Florida Registered Architect or Engineer showing property boundaries, existing (if any) and proposed structure(s), parking, landscaping, etc.; building elevations and dimensions and computations of lot area and building spacing. 3. Plans need to be stamped by the Hearing Boards Division first and then signed by Public Works, Zoning and Planning prior to submission of application. Rev. 06/04/02 03— 615 4. Affidavit and disclosure of ownership of subject property and disclosure of interest (see attached forms). - 5. Certified list of owners of real estate within a 500 -feet radius from the outside boundary of property (see pages 5 and 6). 6. At least two photographs that show the entire property (land and improvements). 7. Maps showing the existing zoning designation and the adopted comprehensive plan _ designation for areas on and around the property. 8. General location map showing relation to the site or activity to major streets, schools, existing utilities, shopping areas, important physical features in and adjoining the project, and the like. 9. Concept Plan: a) Site plan and relevant information per Section 1304.2.1d -h in Zoning Ordinance 11000, as amended. b) Relationships to surrounding existing and proposed uses and activities, systems and facilities, per Section 1702.2.2a in Zoning Ordinance 11000, as amended. c) How concept affects existing zoning and adopted comprehensive plan -principles and designations; tabulation of any required variances, special permits, changes of zoning or exemptions, per Section 1702.2.2b in Zoning Ordinance 11000, as amended. 10. Developmental Impact Study (an application for development approval for a Development of Regional Impact may substitute). 11. Other (specify and attach cover letter explaining why any document you are attaching is pertinent to this application). 12. An 8 % x 11" copy of all exhibits that will be presented at the hearing. 13. Twenty-five (25) "Major Use Special Permit" books containing the above information. If this project requires Zoning Board approval, a total of thirty-five (35) books will be required. 14. Cost of processing according to the City Code: a) $ 30.000 , for the Major Use Special Permit b) Additional fee of $ -0- , for any required special permits, changes of zoning or variances. c) -Advertising Surcharge $ 1.150 d) Mailing Notices $ 2.583.00 e) Total Fee: $ 33.733.00 15. Is the property, within the boundaries of a historic site, historic district or archeological zone designated pursuant to Chapter 23 of the Miami City Code? The property is located on a Scenic Transportation Corridor. 16. Is the property within the boundaries of an Environmental Preservation District designated pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Miami City Code? Yes Rev. 06/04/02 2 17. What is the purpose of this Major Use Special Permit? Approval of a Maior Use Scecial Permit for Article 5 and Section 914. Signature Name Address 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, FI 33131 Telephone (305)579-0603 Ac -'"5+ Date 4W7,2002 Rev. 06/04/02 3 03- AFFIDAVIT Before me, the.undersigned authority, this day personally appeared Lucia A. Dougherty , who being by me first deposes and says: 1. That he/she is the owner, or the legal representative of the owner, submitting the accompanying application for a public hearing as required by the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, affecting the real property located in the City of Miami, as described and listed on the foregoing pages of this affidavit and made a part thereof. 2. That all owners which he/she represents, if any, have given their full and complete permission for him/her to act in his/her behalf for the street closure as set out in the accompanying petition, ❑ including responding to day to day staff inquires; ❑ not including responding to day to day staff inquiries in which case he/she should be contacted at 3. That the foregoing pages are made a part of this affidavit contain the current names, mailing addresses, telephone numbers and legal descriptions for the real property of which he/she is the owner or legal representative. 4. The facts as represented in the application and documents submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are true and correct. Further Affiant sayeth not. Applicant Name Applicant Signature STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this t.— day of 2002, by Lucia A. Dougherty He/She is personal) kn or who has produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. (Stamp) _ Wit.: ooti2u �ttmn 7. ,? �;� STATE OF F1 C, 71V. Rev. 06/04/02 6 Signature • 03- 61_* OWNER'S LIST Owner's Name Grovenor House LLC Mailing Address 701 Brickell Avenue, Miami, FI Zip Code 33131 Telephone Number (305) 372-0552 Legal Description: See attached Exhibit "A" Owner's Name Mailing Address Zip Code Telephone Number Legal Description: Owner's Name Mailing Address Zip Code Telephone Number Legal Description: Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 500 feet of the subject site is listed as follows: Street Address Legal Description None Street Address Street Address — Rev. 06/04/02 5 Legal Description Legal Description DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property: 2610 Tigertail Avenue See attached Exhibit °A" 2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership. Note: The Code of the City of Miami requires disclosure of all parties having a financial interest, either direct a indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question #2 requires disclosure of shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. Grovenor House, LLC is owned by: Lester Miller, individually Bruce Weiner, individually Grove Development, LLC individually 100% 45% 10% 45% - which is personally owned by Ugo Columbo, 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question #2, and (b) located within 500 feet of the subject real property. None Owner or Attorney for Owner Name Owner or Att6mey for Owner Signature STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this tZ day of JUI�d 2002, by Lucia A. Dougherty He he J is personally known to me or who has produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. (Stamp) _ ._ _• _ Rev. 06/04/02 .7ol, "'Oze 11000%, V9 Signature L111 61 = p3- 7 Exhibit "A" r- Legsl Description That - certain real estate located in Miami -Dade County, Florida, more particularly described. as follows, to wit-: Lying in and* being iv (Dinner Key) Miami, County of Miami -Dade, Static of fj otic; beginning at a point in the Northwesterly sid+e.of South $ayshore• Drive, which point -is, distant 200 feet Northeastwardlly from the intersection of the Northwesterly side --of - ' South Bayshore Drive with the K6rthcasterly side,of Darwin Road, sold point being tjhe Southeasterly corner of L*t. No:3 in Bibck 40; running thence in a. Atqr*westw iy direction along the Northeasterly side.of said. Lat No.3,.a dist". t,�=.ft=erIY 575 feet to a point.in,the Sou#lxasterty sate cif'1`iigreerfail Avenue, b iri corner of said Lot No.3; thence in a N i etiart s g.#�e s y'' side of r- Wortail Avenue a dWt and of • fit to ar point bar. ng the Northv t6rly corner of W No.4 in $eek 39; .i a: along. the Southwegter`ly side of Lot'• Xo.4,-. a dos = o 515 *.a. point 'in: the Noi; thwksteriy side of South iioyshae * . �i�t, , : f)at, cornier of said lot 4; thence in a •S'outhwestwatdlg directic3n � �� side of South Bay, shore Drive a distance of approdmaWy 250 -feet t tbi:; }fit oeP of liegiaxiing, being all of Lots .5 arid- 6, Block 39., and Lots I end 2, Bback 40; and .that wti:on of Blaine Street extending_ from'.thi Southeasterly siae of Tsgatag Avenge, in a Southeast direction between the Southwesterly side of Lot hlo k �in Block 39, 'aril . the. Northeasterly side of Lot No. i in Block .SFO to • the Northwestm ly - side . of South Bayshare Drive,- as shown on Samuel Rhodes Arhended .Map .of blew Biscayne, recorded -in -Plat Book ."B", at Page 16, of the .Public'Records- of Miaini-Dade County, Plorida, together with the- improvements thereon... 03- 6 ZONING FACT SHEET Case Number: 2002-0595 16 -Dec -02 Item 1 Location: Approximately 2610 Tigertail Avenue Legal: (Complete legal description on file with the Department of Hearing Boards) Applicant: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire on behalf of Grovenor House, LLC 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 (305) 579-0603 Zoning: G/I Government & Institutional Request: Special Exception as part of a Major Use Special Permit for Grovenor, as listed in Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Article 4, Section 401, any change to introduce to a new principal use or any additions over twenty percent of any existing use shall be allowed by Special Exception only. Purpose: This will allow development of a new construction of a multifamily residential development. Recommendations: Planning & Zoning Dept.: Approval with conditions. Public Works: No comments. Plat and Street Committee: N/A. Dade County No comments. Enforcement History, If any Case No: N/A. Last Hearing Found N/A. Violation(s) N/A. Ticketing Action: N/A. Daily $0.00 Affidavit Non -Compliance Issued Warning Letter sent Total Fines to $0.00 Lien Recorded Comply Order CEB Action: History: Continued from Zoning Board hearings of 9/23/02, 10/07/02 and 12/02/02. Analysis: See supporting documentation. Zoning Board Resolution: ZB 2002-621 Zoning Board: Granted the Special Exception as part of the Major Use Special Permit. Vote: 6-0 03... Gt5 Miami Zoning Board Resolution No.: 2002-0644 Monday, December 16, 2002 Mr. Joseph H. Ganguzza offered the following resolution and moved its adoption Resolution: AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1305 OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, THE ZONING BOARD GRANTED THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS PART OF A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE GROVENOR PROJECT, AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, ANY CHANGE TO INTRODUCE TO A NEW PRINCIPAL USE OR ANY ADDITIONS OVER TWENTY PERCENT OF ANY EXISTING USE SHALL BE ALLOWED BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION ONLY FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2610 TIGERTAIL AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A" (HEREBY ATTACHED), PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; ZONED G/I GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL. THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION WAS GRANTED WITH A TIME LIMITATION OF TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AS STATED IN THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER. Upon being seconded by Mr. Georges Williams, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: Mr. Fredric B. Bums Away Mr. Charles J. Flowers Away Mr. Joseph H. Ganguzza Yes Mr. Charles A. Garavaglia Yes Ms. Ileana Hemandez-Acosta Away Mr. Humberto J. Pellon Yes Mr. Juvenal A. Pina Yes Mr. Allan Shulman Yes Mr. Angel Urquiola Away Mr. Georges Williams Yes AYE: 6 NAY: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 0 NO VOTES: 0 ABSENT: 4 Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 6-0 Teresita L. Fernandez, Executive Secr Hearing Boards Case No. 2002-0595 Item Nbr: 013— 615 Miami Zoning Board Resolution: ZB 2002-0644 Monday, December 16, 2002 STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, Teresita L. Fernandez, Clerk of the Zoning Board of the City of Miami, Florida, and acknowledges that she executed the foregoing Resolution for a Special Exception request. -1n SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF JOnlACIrT , 2003. far 110 Print Notary Name Personally know V or Produced I.D. Type and number of I.D. produced Did take an oath or Did not take an oath Case No.: 2002-0595 iiLna a U& Notary Public 8tate of Florida My Commission Expires: **0' N Vanessa casft '19* My Commission CC853181 .7/ Expires July 11, 2003 03- 615, Item Nbr: 1 MMIBIT "A" Legal Description that • certain real estate located in Miami -Dade County, Florida, more particularly described as follows, to wit.: Lying in and -being ifi (Dinner Key) Miami; County of Miami -Dade, stats of -Flora• beginning at a point in the Northwesterly* sW.of South Bayshore• Drive, whkh poitvis. distant 200 feet Northeastwardly tram the intersection of the Norttwesterly side. -of South Bayshore Drive with the W.asterly sideof DaKwin Road, said point being the Southeasterly corner of Loot No:3 in Blbck 40; running tlhewx Ai a. Ngv*westwordly direction along -the Notthesrsterly side of said. Lot NoA, a -dist anile aif telt' 57c5 feet to a point .irl the- Southeasterly side df tgertsii Avenue, - ftbquterly corner of said lot No.3; thence in a Nor#h •di�+e+Cti�n eCtba�ts�t�iy side of TWcttgil Avenue a di betake of �gtia r ?. feet to a io rt beghm dw Northwesterly comer of Lot No.4 in Black 3 a.8 alOAg. the S4ut lvfie�"CCrly Side iAt" N6.4, .A Ge of a p 5`. ipA. - point in: the Northwesterly side of South 9ayshom . G, .S�fft�a�► corner of said loot 4; thence in a •Southwestm&dlg direttkm .' .side of SOU th Bayshore Drive a distance of approadnwely 250 -feet to ` ft pmt of of begging, being all of Lots .5 arid- 6, Block 3% and Lots 1 and 2, B000k 40; anci .that xwdon of Blaine SOL -et extending. from '.thi Southeasterly side of T Avenue in a Southeastwardly direction between the Sout)Tweeteriy side of Lc4 No.b•in block 39, "arw. the. Northeasterly side of Lot No. i in Blocic .40 to -the Northwesterly. - side .of South Bayshorc T}rive,- as shown on �amue;l Rhodes map .of New Biscayne, recorded -in •Plat Book "Bk, at Page 16, of the Public' Records- of Mjaini-Dade County, Plorida, together with the -improvements thereon.. _ PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT HEARING BOARDS DIVISION 444 SW 2"d Avenue, 7t' Floor • Miami, Florida 33130 Telephone 305-416-1480 • Fax 305-416-2035 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION ANY PERSON WHO RECEIVES COMPENSATION, REMUNERATION OR EXPENSES FOR CONDUCTING LOBBYING ACTIVITIES TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST WITH THE CITY CLERK, PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES BEFORE CITY STAFF, BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION. A COPY OF SAID ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK (MIAMI CITY HALL), LOCATED AT 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33133. APPLICANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE, IF NEEDED, TO BRING AN INTERPRETER FOR THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO ANY PRESENTATION BEFORE CITY BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION. POWER OF ATTORNEY WILL BE REQUIRED IF NEITHER APPLICANT OR LEGAL COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT EXECUTE THE APPLICATION OR DESIRE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION BEFORE CITY BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE TYPEWRITTEN AND SIGNED IN BLACK INK. IT WILL BE ACCEPTED BY THIS DIVISION ONLY THE FIRST SEVEN (7) DAYS OF THE MONTH FROM 8:00 AM UNTIL 3:30 PM. RECORDATION COST FOR THE RESOLUTION IS $6.00 FOR THE FIRST PAGE AND $4.50 FOR ADDITIONAL PAGES. ALL FEES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. Within the City generally, or within certain zoning districts, certain structures, uses, and/or occupancies specified in this ordinance are of a nature requiring special and intensive review to determine whether or not they should be permitted in specific locations, and if so, the special limitations, conditions, and safeguards which should be applied as reasonably necessary to promote the general purposes of this Zoning Ordinance and, in particular, to protect adjoining properties and the neighborhood from avoidable potentially adverse effects. It is further intended that the expertise and judgment of the Zoning Board be exercised in making such determinations, in accordance with the rules, considerations and limitations relating to Special Exceptions (see Article 16 of the Zoning Ordinance). Formal public notice and hearing is mandatory for Special Exceptions. The Zoning Board shall be solely responsible for determinations on applications for Special Exceptions except when otherwise provided for in the City Code. All applications shall be referred to the Director of the Planning and Zoning Department for his/her recommendations and the Director shall make any further referrals required by these regulations. I, Grovenor House, LLC , hereby apply to the City of Miami Zoning Board for approval of a Special Exception for the property located at 2610 Tigertail Avenue , folio number 01-4122-001-1350 Nature of proposed use (please be specific): Special Exception for development of new construction within the G/I District for a residential building Rev. 06/04/02 03— 615 1. Three original current surveys of the property prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land Surveyor within 6 months from the date of application. 2. Two 11x17" original plans and one 24x36" original plan, signed and sealed by a State of Florida Registered Architect or Engineer showing property boundaries, existing (if any) and proposed structure(s), parking, landscaping, etc.; building elevations and dimensions and computations of lot area and building spacing. 3. Plans need to be stamped by the Hearing Boards Division first and then signed by Public Works, Zoning and Planning prior to submission of application. 4. An 8 %2 x 11" copy of the signed plans attached to this application. 5. An 8 %2 x11" copy of all exhibits that will be presented at the hearing shall be attached to this application. 6. Affidavit and disclosure of ownership of subject property and disclosure of interest (see attached forms). 7. Certified list of owners of real estate within a 500 -foot radius of the outside boundary of property covered by the application (see pages 5 and 6). 8. At least two photographs that show the entire property (land and improvements). 9. Recorded warranty deed and tax forms of the most current year available that show the present owner(s) of the property. 10. Other (specify and attach cover letters explaining why any document you are attaching is pertinent to this application). 11. Is the property within the boundaries of a historic site, historic district or archeological zone designated pursuant to Chapter 23 of the Miami City Code? 12. Is the property within the boundaries of an Environmental Preservation District designated pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Miami City Code? 13. What is the purpose of this Special Exception? Special Exception for development of new construction within the G/I District for a residential building. 14. Cost of processing according to the City Code: Special exception Special exception requiring automatic city commission review Extension of time for special exception Public hearing and public meeting mail notice fees, including cost of handling and mailing per notice Rev. 06/04/02 2 $ 800.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 500.00 $ 3.50 61.5 Surcharge equal to applicable fee from item above, not to exceed eight hundred dollars ($800.00) except from agencies of the city; such surcharge to be refunded to the applicant if there is no appeal from the applicant or a property owner within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property. Signature Name Lucia A. Dougherty Address 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone (305) 579-0603 Date Rev. 06/04/02 3 03- 615 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2002, by Lucia A. Dougherty an individual to me or who has produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. (Stamp) o.K_.�,,��,;„C3i�.�� s::.�• S gnature f `y 9 00.11 kLEZ' STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 20 , by day of of is a corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/She is personally known to me or has produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. (Stamp) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE Signature The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 , by partner (or agent) on behalf of partnership. He/She is personally known to me or who has produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. (Stamp) Rev. 06/04/02 4 Signature a 03— 61.5 THE GROVENOR G I-GOVERNMENTANSTITUTIONAL Per CITY CODE, Chapter 23-5a, Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for ground disturbing activity in an Archeological Conservation Area. Per City Code, Chapter 36. Construction Equipment Request for waiver of noise ordinance while under construction for continuous pours. Per City Code, Chapter 23-5a, Request for a Certificate of Approval for property located on a Scenic Transportation Corridor. MUSP, per Article 9, Section 914, a development bonus to permit a residential use of 79, 158 square feet of floor area x $6.67 = $527, 983.86, by contribution of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. MUSP, per Article 5, Section 502 ©, PUD districts; minimum area, maximum densities and maximum floor area ratios permitted to increase by twenty percent (63,327 square feet) of additional floor area. MUSP, per Article 17, Section 1701 (7) for a parking structure of 409 parking spaces. The Major Use encompasses the following special permit: SPECIAL EXCEPTION, as per City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 11000 as amended, Article 4, Section 401, any change to introduce to a new principal use or any additions over twenty percent of any existing use shall be allowed by Special Exception only. Class H Special Permit as per Article 9, Section 908.2, for access from a public street roadway width greater than 25 feet. Class H Special Permit as per Article 15, Section 1512, to request a waiver of City of Miami Parking Guides and Standards for five feet driveway from property line. Class H Special Permit as per Article 9, Section 922.1 and 923.2, a request to waive and modify backup and dimensions of loading. Class I Special Permit as per Article 9, Section 915.2, for FAA clearance letter. Class I Special Permit as per Article 9, Section 925.3.8, to allow development/construction/rental signage. go Class I Permit as per Article 9, Section 918.2, for parking and staging of construction during construction. Class I Permit 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 Special Permit as per Article 9, Section 906.6, for pool/outdoor recreation area. Class I Special Permit as Article 9, Section 917.1.2, to allow valet parking for residential and other uses. following MUSP conditions to be required at time of shell permit instead of at issuance of foundation permit: b. 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 c. The requirement to record in the Public Records a unity of title or covenant in lieu of unity of title. �Syfe McPhee Date ,Zoning Inspector II GROVENOR S O U T H BAYSHORE D R I V E COOONUP GROVE, FIARWA ARCHITECT R E V U E L T A V E G A L E O N P. A. ARC H ITECTURE INTERIOR DESIGN PLANNING s W VWAv WAA Ra m aw s MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT NOVEMBER 27, 2002 INDEX OF DRAWINGS A -M COVER A-000 SURVEY A-01 CONTEXTUAL SITE PLAN A-02 SITE PLAN A-03 PARKING LEVEL 1 A-04 PARKING LEVEL 2 A-05 PARKING LEVEL 3 - L.OBBY LEVEL A-06 MEZZANINE LEVEL - PIAZA LEVEL A-07 LEVELS 2 - 21 A-08 A -W LEVELS 22 - 23 LEVEL 24 - 26 C, 7z. ,a ` , i C `� J �s Ins A-10 LEVEL 27 - 29 � ¢..rtai 4 a: �l�teo i►l A -Il LEVEL 30 - 31 P!tblic: u�0lit3 - D le � Q� A-12 MECHANICAL ROOM LEVEL A-13 ROOF PLAN By. A-14 CONTEXTUAL FAST ELEVATION Zuni - Date A-15 FAST ELEVATION A-16 NORTH ELEVATION By: A-17 WEST ELEVATION Plannii, g _ . pa;;l �a L9 Z A-18 SOUTH ELEVATION A-19 SCHEMATIC SECTION by: _ Signature abov ' a not imply 2 p;j,la1 MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT NOVEMBER 27, 2002 SKET a OF BOUNDARY US RVEY SCALE: 17-J0 y •.` la- N N Ir I•+rsc w<C M ,a - I - ,�y�si �"" !\ , �•�y � _\ B �b \` ` i ML1M1 0 ?/ \\ II PR \\ Ilii •II - /r I -LOCATION MAP' - ___- RS)•n1')awlr'xoliTTI s)a.N'Inrollul ssno'IBI _--____ d� F�T'.,� i SCALE: 1.300 Ir >-. oZ c o k f- I sk • i I r upm h 1 M IT - 'IA n. '. a 1 1 `Aa 0 JI W f dI A.T I N M --MhA IµA. 1 T h 1 A 2W h In IRIS U y e O 1 Lor N BI k T9 h i eo Is Ny dr n E it. .--ay iiji& M Inl N l di M W pWrnrl l C.a' 575 k< • l 1 i« = k) p°mc Inc N h ter1Y 'de M Po h B•r+lro IN—,hrµ nr & I,' y c a w c a `fit � N f a•A m Nr v 1 r ordp durtun.l<ry Mar MI+ wrA) =Lot I A tM Po' l n II I'nck TI.,M =Lot, laM4 Bock 10 Wln:u IIi I' I m •r pt MDL e N 1 UN CouUrralµNv ode M T'N 11 A— m c j • h� so M1 la 1 Ir I b hve ,d, side of Lot N Bk:rk 39 ,nd r a 1 n 4- I r d f L N 1 A IIt 'k 1U ru the NoM.eatery alar M BauN ��"'. 1'i - ! J tlnha AmeM<d Mnp M Nct Hum%u, .dn .- b 1 r P' Ifo k Il 1 R Int 1 n 1%Ibbc Ia of Miaml D,dt v-11.41 rdx Iu ...tois all rn.n Ro I• 536'S90]E IpB I1YPb 601 56331 IMI 5i5G0'101• c C1 k F s� �.'. N31. 20Q IBoI l63.M (PA01 sf311 p6N5tc 601 Cas = !f O 1pre eBUItVGYOR6 NOTG6. j f rs Ifj Y.= Ther anJ/nr mh<r k p - as n AcA in -11e le B -1t nl me j N h, x ':WM) III 1 11.0 - d- G-., fk< T- - h n N Z?ZT1.01111lu rhetriolro hn 'M1 , ^ w w r Aa P^ ion of ni 11ore .In n k<ul 1 A k T ( Ad A 11 1 II A a Inn U V6YUR8 CGRTIFICATIOY A R Rap I i i i. 1• {c 1'_ F rM) Y M Fl xN Ln AF : F Ii , I 'J - rh' 1 A t - ascd tv<rt moN Tit' I) L d fo 0111 C _U[cl V.I 4 U T/Vs -_� R :Ia:rcnsnnd )II MS SN' I. f TIl. 3. Undrrartund Infunnalwn maw on tM1< b<sr vaiin Ac ur.r t n IA -- ---- j ,sl / . 1 bl' hM d by d 1 ALTA and AGSM :n d 1 cn1 (il crit<d h) myna o; nD aRcnt Pnr A a ,r U A eT S m1a.Na rca Mop.at L ALTA anal Al SM d 4far Ar hcn Ianka n bjc p pc 1 1 II ul ' I tnc non °I th. f 1 of an 'Jrmn S. Funhcr Usu & da F vr) ma<b� 1 <x n t n< DARWIN STREET I Sundaraa ,. %enMx.ta xr u.M, / uu_ h ot m - t TI ) m 1 J R 1 T' :n twsr <rd<nr dq _ _" _ w F 7do ne rl: CM<Pr:nnNm to Chap,rra72Orr drin rk,na q %u s. 5:s'bk pp r a. M1 RipJ - 1 yJ 1 V h m aro l 01 f Iso buI A iuM Is 1A//11f kkk rri0rd wiN rbc Cuv rd Mian: Punlw Worta Dep,nmem prior sn an or Ihokaawn,l Surveyor No l)i5 r6onss Mrion re rased ° n syarem sh<re tM1e SnulM1cly lin<ol sad InI ? IIrn1R IM1c s-, or IA. Nor11:_111 nc o(M 145 PRb)) is aasumrd to t- S 36'5907' E. xa v.w unku mleoa.+.I ..:E rasa .ru Ekvalions er< rcf<rrcd Io Ciy of Miam: Mcan Iws B•y Darum Ekraeons •rr ..- mxd °n, Ciry nl MNmi PuWr Worta Denrh Mark Wcakd in Ih<conrrrrc s:d<valk a: els � urM1rau: JY :iAr u1 Il.r aubjxr propcnY. Ekv,rwn • 5.1x3 L'MMIDU �—'-- - h. T1,r xmmly 1- °f In< .wblrt. pnyren> is mord en me n°rm Ira° nl u•` 3ai< I '' •"' •° '°` BOUNDARY SURVEY em,Plra ana p.I a .M M1L .. d N In< promm� M uN rw are Nr�r m b ka w W pl,r< A C r murK and Meet Ne 9. The aubNct pope y ­­d.is -I:nif y sooner stmt I�, NAVAL REBERV6.CENTER NorUsaarcrly ,M SwN y pnrP< nota m Wrcd the Arte _ a�mrnak,^•,a rc<<a M1 nd+A p 1 Im,��•n' °°° E.R. Brownell & Assoc.,Inc. enol axm°Rn me d an a aomr dmrrrna. ,ll a Iona Inrar w°r+<a an• m .. ��rayyt ppclI��u Yr <aJrra ,.bran B pakemeonndo:rvid•mcncpNli°nasofrttreocwordW emaMnr,rseuabMrMVul<anntldys ,!f ! a_ r)i. /y - r� r7n - u - •- •a- -�a't"�' CNOIN[[BS Yl ms SURVEYORS S2.c.0 TrcAcmr De - RS �urvrY<d wnh°ul acfcsncy r Plu+ � ) son) v 4avay +tan <o—••r<.• • r.e1•a+on� l° -3_1 __" _ 1 _ __ _ I �� I • III3 0 Ila ----I— }Pao 4 ! .µ-era r :a.... Ir•ren •neI [�_ ll• r iDr _ C � '. �f1_I __ y� Ill � 1— 0 in •--q Co I- --- -, — -- — -- — -- — -- — -- — -- T- - ------------- ---- --- - ------- 7 -------- -- Altj I- -FITFI-171.1-1-1-1-1-TIT 71 J-1 J f OWER UCR ON AREA 9 ------------------------------------------ ----- ------- ��k - -------- ca CD ----------- -- Public wofto . C By: - Zoninv ) D FLOOR PLAN BY: PARKING LEVEL 1 pja D 30 KGVD. By. - dl --------------------- --------------------------------------- - -- — -- — -- — -- FLOOR PLAN PARKING LEVEL 2 04 W V. Rl public vmeks D�e By: honing - D %e VMia4 - Me by: —7,g—nature ,hwd dM W] -- A-0 w V� FLOOR PLAN PARKING LEVEL 3 - PLAN Public wodks Dal( By: Zoning,,") Dah I ME riannifig- , By: Signature above ;CbPA-�( ------------------------------- ------ ------ ------------- 11 rg'-. Ns. 17,F ro Public Molt, Date By: FLOOR PLAN rpn Date MEZZANINE LEVEMPI nif - Dato - �tgnatune alM Z 0 W. J FIN A I - --------- ------------------------------- ------ ------ ------------- 11 rg'-. Ns. 17,F ro Public Molt, Date By: FLOOR PLAN rpn Date MEZZANINE LEVEMPI nif - Dato - �tgnatune alM Z 0 W. J FIN A I 0- l.n 4-� TYPICAL FLOOR PLAL. NO 3uMmm , Planninlf 13y: Signature E on rl�l 70111111mil. 1 Village West HOME OWNERS AND TENANTS ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 331389, MIAMI, FL 33233 E-MAIL: wjj38@hotmail.com • PHONE: (305) 443-9926 • FAX: (305) 567-3403 / (305) 476-8505 Officers: President, Mr. Will Johnson 1 st Vice President, Ms. Lottie Person 2nd Vice President, Ms. Yvonne McDonald Secretary, Ms. Renita Samuels -Dixon Financial Secretary, Ms. Roslyn Sparks Treasurer, Ms. Carolyn Curry Asst. Treasurer, Deacon Gentle Hamilton Parliamentarian/Political Action Officer, Mr. Danny Couch Chaplain, Rev. Portia Jacobs President Emeritus, Dr. David White Chaplain Emeritus, Rev. Bert McCray THE GKOVENOR PROJECT A RESOLUTION OF THE COCONUT GROVE VILLAGE WEST HOMEOWNERS AND TENANTS ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDING TO TETE CM COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE GROVENOR PROJECT. WHEREAS the developers of the Grovenor Project and certain citizens opposed to the project made a presentation to the Coconut Grove Village West Homeowners and Tenant Association Board of Directors on May 12, 2003; and WHEREAS the Grovenor Project is a low density development that preserves the views of its neighbors; preserves many trees and eliminates access onto Tigertail Road; and WHEREAS the project proponents will create jobs/job opportunities and training, contribute money into the Affordable .Housing Trust fund and will create a foundation to support West Grove projects; NOW THEREFORE be it resolved by the Coconut Grove Village West Homeowners and Tenants Association to recommend to the City Commission to approve the Major Use Special Permit for the Govenor Project. COCONUT GROVE VILLAGE WEST HOMEOWNERS AND TENANTS ASSOCIATION By. Date: 2��0 President SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ' T f: hA PZ-l.5'ON A Non -Profit 501.C.3, Corporation -State of Florida Department of Revenue-Consunwj;&�o Exe Is is To Residents of the 2575 So. Bayshore Dr.: Dear Neighbors: URGENT ISSUEM On May 22, 2003, the Miami City Commission will be voting on the approval of the new luxury condominium, the "Grovenor," one door down from us at the former Naval Reserve Center property. Many citizens from the community have been working to secure the least amount of detrimental impact possible. Negotiations by the Civic Club have gained some very significant concessions, which so far include: 1. The reduction of units from 192 to 150 due to the elimination of two floors to satisfy immediate neighbors in terms of height of the surrounding buildings; 2. Overall radical building design changes from a straight (typical flat fronted structure) to an angular building (via two costly redesigns) to a chevron shaped building that now preserves all views of the neighbors; 3. Increase of setbacks in front and rear to enhance the aesthetics from the ground level view; 4. Reduction of underground parking garage footprint and increased setback from Tigertail (at a much higher cost of construction and engineering) to preserve all significant oak trees near Tigertail; 5. Completely redesigned driveways to preserve two additional oak trees on Bayshore; 6. Increased setback by an additional 10 feet on Grove Hill side; 7. Preservation of most Oaks and Banyan Trees. The developer has stated that if the luxury condominium project in its current design is appealed after a positive city commission vote, they will change to a rental apartment building which will require less financial risk to the developer, and be doable under R-4 and/or SD -17 zoning. They have also stated that at that point developer Ugo Columbo would not participate in the project. The benefits of the luxury condominium project presented by Ugo Colombo (Bristol Towers, Santa Maria, Porto Vita), over the cheaper alternative projects, are numerous: 2 4 N. 7 The luxury condominium option provides no vehicular access to or from Tigertail. A rental option building with more units would require access to Tigertail and Bayshore due to the huge increase in the volume of cars due to the additional number of units, thus filling our streets with bumper -to -bumper traffic at both rush hours in addition to regular traffic patterns. 150 luxury condominium units, with an average price of $1,2 million each, versus a relatively low rental price for an 800 sq.ft. two-bedroom apartment. As we know, homeowners respect their surroundings more than transient apartment dwellers. The luxury condominium project is offered by a known entity; a highly respected well-known developer versus an unknown developer, which is probable if the luxury project as proposed, is not accepted. Quality architecture and architect to further enhance our community and our relative property values. Underground parking with only a portion above ground (18 feet in height --this is shorter than a typical single family home) and the rest is underground, hidden from view. This maintains a nice feel to the neighborhood side of the project. The apartment option has either a 5 story parking garage or a 5 level row of dwelling units directly on the front of Tigertail and kills all of the trees in the back including the oaks. Partial year round occupancy for 150 units versus up to 490 high density apartments which will have an occupancy rate of well over 95% and 2 cars per unit times 490 units. The difference will be staggering in terms of the increase in traffic. Almost 3 to 1 unit to parking ratio in the luxury condominium option, eliminating need for on - street parking. SUBMITTED INTO THS PUBLIC RECORD FOR 03- 615 ITEMPz-15ON5—dd-63 8. Water views preserved for adjacent buildings on both sides by the luxury condominium project but not by the apartment option. 9. The luxury condominium option results in the preservation of the oak and banyan trees, but the apartment option saves only some of the banyans ---all of the oak trees will be killed by the apartment option. 10. 20 foot setback on Grove Hill side (twice as much as required) and 10 foot setback on the SBS side with the luxury condominium option, but no additional setbacks will result from the apartment option. 11. No variances will be requested for the luxury condominium. 12. Garage setback 125 feet from Tigertail Avenue, and 325 from the residential structure in the luxury condominium option but no such setback from Tigertail will occur in the apartment option. 13. Taxes paid on 150 luxury units are more than that of a 350 -unit moderate price condominium or apartment project. I intend to make a personal presentation to the Miami City Commission at this Thursday, in support of the proposed luxury condominium project. It is unthinkable the damage to our property values, the onslaught of traffic, and the overall damage to our quality of life which would arise out of a cheap rental apartment complex next door. I am asking for your support in this important issue. It is imperative that I be able to speak for as many of you as possible if you agree with this position. Please e-mail me (evcarpenterO-aol.com) or sign this letter and return it to me, or the letter in the parking garage or at the security desk. I need your names and apt. numbers by Wednesday at midnight. Thank you for your participation. You may not always be able to beat city hall but if we work with them we can have a positive impact on our community, our neighborhood and our property va s. SUBMITTED INTO THE fEna V. ,�•t_r PUBLIC RECORD, FOR AName A 6rr�" C147 LA-- To Residents of the 2575 So. Bayshore Dr.: Dear Neighbors: ITEM -.s ON Unit Number sa URGENT ISSUEM On May 22, 2003, the Miami City Commission will be voting on the approval of the new luxury 03- 615 To Residents of the 2575 So. Bayshore Dr.: URGENT ISSUEM Dear Neighbors: On May 22, 2003, the Miami City Commission will be voting on the approval of the new luxury condominium, the "Grovenor," one door down from us at the former Naval Reserve Center property. Many citizens from the community have been working to secure the least amount of detrimental impact possible. Negotiations by the Civic Club have gained some very significant concessions, which so far include: 1. The reduction of units from 192 to 150 due to the elimination of two floors to satisfy immediate neighbors in terms of height of the surrounding buildings; 2. Overall radical building design changes from a straight (typical flat fronted structure) to an angular building (via two costly redesigns) to a chevron shaped building that now preserves all views of the neighbors; 3. Increase of setbacks in front and rear to enhance the aesthetics from the ground level view; 4. Reduction of underground parking garage footprint and increased setback from Tigertail (at a much higher cost of construction and engineering) to preserve all significant oak trees near Tigertail; 5. Completely redesigned driveways to preserve two additional oak trees on Bayshore; 6. Increased setback by an additional 10 feet on Grove Hill side; 7. Preservation of most Oaks and Banyan Trees. The developer has stated that if the luxury condominium project in its current design is appealed, after a positive city commission vote, they will change to a rental apartment building which will require less financial risk to the developer, and be doable under R-4 and/or SD -17 zoning. They have also stated that at that point developer Ugo Columbo would not participate in the project. The benefits of the luxury condominium project presented by Ugo Colombo (Bristol Towers, Santa Maria, Porto Vita), over the cheaper alternative projects, are numerous: 1. The luxury condominium option provides no vehicular access to or from Tigertail. A rental option building with more units would require access to Tigertail and Bayshore due to the huge increase in the volume of cars due to the additional number of units, thus filling our streets with bumper -to -bumper traffic at both rush hours in addition to regular traffic patterns. 2. 150 luxury condominium units, with an average price of $1,2 million each, versus a relatively low rental price for an 800 sq.ft. two-bedroom apartment. As we know, homeowners respect their surroundings more than transient apartment dwellers. 3. The luxury condominium project is offered by a known entity; a highly respected well-known developer versus an unknown developer, which is probable if the luxury project as proposed, is not accepted. 4. Quality architecture and architect to further enhance our community and our relative property values. 5. Underground parking with only a portion above ground (18 feet in height --this is shorter than a typical single family home) and the rest is underground, hidden from view. This maintains a nice feel to the neighborhood side of the project. The apartment option has either a 5 story parking garage or a 5 level row of dwelling units directly on the front of Tigertail and kills all of the trees in the back including the oaks. 6. Partial year round occupancy for 150 units versus up to 490 high density apartments which will have an occupancy rate of well over 95% and 2 cars per unit times 490 units. The difference will be staggering in terms of the increase in traffic. 7. Almost 3 to 1 unit to parking ratio in the luxury condominium option, eliminating need for on - Street parking. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR TEM pz-,6- ON s -_` 4.3, 8. Water views preserved for adjacent buildings on both sides by the luxury condominium project but not by the apartment option. 9. The luxury condominium option results in the preservation of the oak and banyan trees, but the apartment option saves only some of the banyans ---all of the oak trees will be killed by the apartment option. 10. 20 foot setback on Grove Hill side (twice as much as required) and 10 foot setback on the SBS side with the luxury condominium option, but no additional setbacks will result from the apartment option. 11. No variances will be requested for the luxury condominium. 12. Garage setback 125 feet from Tigertail Avenue, and 325 from the residential structure in the luxury condominium option but no such setback from Tigertail will occur in the apartment option. 13. Taxes paid on 150 luxury units are more than that of a 350 -unit moderate price condominium or apartment project. I intend to make a personal presentation to the Miami City Commission at this Thursday, in support of the proposed luxury condominium project. It is unthinkable the damage to our property values, the onslaught of traffic, and the overall damage to our quality of life which would arise out of a cheap rental apartment complex next door. I am asking for your support in this important issue. It is imperative that I be able to speak for as many of you as possible if you agree with this position. Please e-mail me (evcarpente[@aol.com) or sign this letter and return it to me, or the letter in the parking garage or at the security desk. I need your names and apt. numbers by Wednesday at midnight. Thank you for your participation. You may not always be able to beat city hall but if we work with the we can have a positive impact on our community, our neighborhood and our property fEIna l Submitted Into the -public- record ublic record in ccnnectic esti h item -14,' on 6- � � c V. Carpenter Priscilla A. TIBC p n City Clerk Name Unit Number 63- 615• To Residents of the 2575 So. Bayshore Dr.: URGENT ISSUEM Dear Neighbors: On May 22, 2003, the Miami City Commission will be voting on the approval of the new luxury condominium, the "Grovenor," one door down from us at the former Naval Reserve Center property. Many citizens from the community have been working to secure the least amount of detrimental impact possible. Negotiations by the Civic Club have gained some very significant concessions, which so far include: 1. The reduction of units from 192 to 150 due to the elimination of two floors to satisfy immediate neighbors in terms of height of the surrounding buildings; 2. Overall radical building design changes from a straight (typical flat fronted structure) to an angular building (via two costly redesigns) to a chevron shaped building that now preserves all views of the neighbors; 3. Increase of setbacks in front and rear to enhance the aesthetics from the ground level view; 4. Reduction of underground parking garage footprint and increased setback from Tigertail (at a much higher cost of construction and engineering) to preserve all significant oak trees near Tigertail; 5. Completely redesigned driveways to preserve two additional oak trees on Bayshore; 6. Increased setback by an additional 10 feet on Grove Hill side; 7. Preservation of most Oaks and Banyan Trees. The developer has stated that if the luxury condominium project in its current design is appealed after a positive city commission vote, they will change to a rental apartment building which will require less financial risk to the developer, and be doable under R-4 and/or SD -17 zoning. They have also stated that at that point developer Ugo Columbo would not participate in the project. The benefits of the luxury condominium project presented by Ugo Colombo (Bristol Towers, Santa Maria, Porto Vita), over the cheaper alternative projects, are numerous: 1. The luxury condominium option provides no vehicular access to or from Tigertail. A rental option building with more units would require access to Tigertail and Bayshore due to the huge increase in the volume of cars due to the additional number of units, thus filling our streets with bumper -to -bumper traffic at both rush hours in addition to regular traffic patterns. 2. 150 luxury condominium units, with an average price of $1,2 million each, versus a relatively low rental price for an 800 sq.ft. two-bedroom apartment. As we know, homeowners respect their surroundings more than transient apartment dwellers. 3. The luxury condominium project is offered by a known entity; a highly respected well-known developer versus an unknown developer, which is probable if the luxury project as proposed, is not accepted. 4. Quality architecture and architect to further enhance our community and our relative property values. 5. Underground parking with only a portion above ground (18 feet in height --this is shorter than a typical single family home) and the rest is underground, hidden from view. This maintains a nice feel to the neighborhood side of the project. The apartment option has either a 5 story parking garage or a 5 level row of dwelling units directly on the front of Tigertail and kills all of the trees in the back including the oaks. 6. Partial year round occupancy for 150 units versus up to 490 high density apartments which will have an occupancy rate of well over 95% and 2 cars per unit times 490 units. The difference will be staggering in terms of the increase in traffic. 7. Almost 3 to 1 unit to parking ratio in the luxury condominium option, eliminating need for on - street parking. Submitted into the public record in connecti0 vv h item F?'__JS car _s 3 Priscilla A. Tho y .bn 03- 615 City Clerk 8. Water views preserved for adjacent buildings on both sides by the luxury condominium project but not by the apartment option. 9. The luxury condominium option results in the preservation of the oak and banyan trees, but the apartment option saves only some of the banyans ---all of the oak trees will be killed by the apartment option. 10. 20 foot setback on Grove Hill side (twice as much as required) and 10 foot setback on the SBS side with the luxury condominium option, but no additional setbacks will result from the apartment option. 11. No variances will be requested for the luxury condominium. 12. Garage setback 125 feet from Tigertail Avenue, and 325 from the residential structure in the luxury condominium option but no such setback from Tigertail will occur in the apartment option. 13. Taxes paid on 150 luxury units are more than that of a 350 -unit moderate price condominium or apartment project. I intend to make a personal presentation to the Miami City Commission at this Thursday, in support of the proposed luxury condominium project. It is unthinkable the damage to our property values, the onslaught of traffic, and the overall damage to our quality of life which would arise out of a cheap rental apartment complex next door. I am asking for your support in this important issue. It is imperative that I be able to speak for as many of you as possible if you agree with this position. Please e-mail me (evcarpenterC-aol.com) or sign this letter and return it to me, or the letter in the parking garage or at the security desk. I need your names and apt. numbers by Wednesday at midnight. Thank you for your participation. You may not always be able to beat city hall but if we work with them wq� can have a positive impact on our community, our neighborhood and our property Elena V. Carpenter Name IA14_ct� Unit Number S �� m ; l ld 9{ '-ie public re�� iia � 6, w'L 1 i9pifir C+.Ero 4sn item Tz- l s c ,� 3 Prise it a A.1,1 io . City Clerk 03-- 610 To Residents of the 2575 So. Bayshore Dr.: URGENT ISSUEM Dear Neighbors: On May 22, 2003, the Miami City Commission will be voting on the approval of the new luxury condominium, the "Grovenor," one door down from us at the former Naval Reserve Center property. Many citizens from the community have been working to secure the least amount of detrimental impact possible. Negotiations by the Civic Club have gained some very significant concessions, which so far include: 1. The reduction of units from 192 to 150 due to the elimination of two floors to satisfy immediate neighbors in terms of height of the surrounding buildings; 2. Overall radical building design changes from a straight (typical flat fronted structure) to an angular building (via two costly redesigns) to a chevron shaped building that now preserves all views of the neighbors; 3. Increase of setbacks in front and rear to enhance the aesthetics from the ground level view; 4. Reduction of underground parking garage footprint and increased setback from Tigertail (at a much higher cost of cunsiruction and engineering) to preserve all significant oak trees near Tigertail; 5. Completely redesigned driveways to preserve two additional oak trees on Bayshore; 6. Increased setback by an additional 10 feet on Grove Hill side; 7. Preservation of most Oaks and Banyan Trees. The developer has stated that if the luxury condominium project in its current design is appealed after a positive city commission vote, they will change to a rental apartment building which will require less financial risk to the developer, and be doable under R-4 and/or SD -17 zoning. They have also stated that at that point developer Ugo Columbo would not participate in the project. The benefits of the luxury condominium project presented by Ugo Colombo (Bristol Towers, Santa Maria, Porto Vita), over the cheaper alternative projects, are numerous: 1. The luxury condominium option provides no vehicular access to or from Tigertail. A rental option building with more units would require access to Tigertail and Bayshore due to the huge increase in the volume of cars due to the additional number of units, thus filling our streets with bumper -to -bumper traffic at both rush hours in addition to regular traffic patterns. 2. 150 luxury condominium units, with an average price of $1,2 million each, versus a relatively low rc^:ai price for an 800 sq.ft. two-bedroom apartment. As we know, home ....... =rs respect their surroundings more than transient apartment dwellers. 3. The luxury condominium project is offered by a known entity; a highly respected well-known developer versus an unknown developer, which is probable if the luxury project as proposed, is not accepted. 4. Quality architecture and architect to further enhance our community and our relative property values. 5. Underground parking with only a portion above ground (18 feet in height --this is shorter than a typical single family home) and the rest is underground, hidden from view. This maintains a nice feel to the neighborhood side of the project. The apartment option has either a 5 story parking garage or a 5 level row of dwelling units directly on the front of Tigertail and kills all of the trees in the back including the oaks. 6. Partial year round occupancy for 150 units versus up to 490 high density apartments which will have an occupancy rate of well over 95% and 2 cars per unit times 490 units. The difference will be staggering in terms of the increase in traffic. 7. Almost 3 to 1 unit to parking ratio in the luxury condominium option, eliminating need for on - street parking. Submitted IintY®p the public rCCoSd isi IY co eC, kk.c Vw� lh item Prisciiliat A. wy nn city Clerk 8. Water views preserved for adjacent buildings on both sides by the luxury condominium project but not by the apartment option. 9. The luxury condominium option results in the preservation of the oak and banyan trees, but the apartment option saves only some of the banyans ---all of the oak trees will be killed by the apartment option. 10. 20 foot setback on Grove Hill side (twice as much as required) and 10 foot setback on the SBS side with the luxury condominium option, but no additional setbacks will result from the apartment option. 11. No variances will be requested for the luxury condominium. 12. Garage setback 125 feet from Tigertail Avenue, and 325 from the residential structure in the luxury condominium option but no such setback from Tigertail will occur in the apartment option. 13. Taxes paid on 150 luxury units are more than that of a 350 -unit moderate price condominium or apartment project. I intend to make a personal presentation to the Miami City Commission at this Thursday, in support of the proposed luxury condominium project. It is unthinkable the damage to our property values, the onslaught of traffic, and the overall damage to our quality of life which would arise out of a cheap rental apartment complex next door. I am asking for your support in this important issue. It is imperative that I be able to speak for as many of you as possible if you agree with this position. Please e-mail me (evcarpenterO-aol.com) or sign this letter and return it to me, or the letter in the parking garage or at the security desk. I need your names and apt. numbers by Wednesday at midnight. Thank you for your participation. You may not always be able to beat city hall but if we work with them wcan have a positive impact on our community, our neighborhood and our property values. / Elena V. Carpenter Name Unit Number /6 -14 Submitted into the public, F�-Flu � 5,(a A. Thompson 03— 615 pity Clerk To Residents of the 2575 So. Bayshore Dr.: URGENT ISSUEM Dear Neighbors: On May 22, 2003, the Miami City Commission will be voting on the approval of the new luxury condominium, the "Grovenor," one door down from us at the former Naval Reserve Center property. Many citizens from the community have been working to secure the least amount of detrimental impact possible. Negotiations by the Civic Club have gained some very significant concessions, which so far include: 1. The reduction of units from 192 to 150 due to the elimination of two floors to satisfy immediate neighbors in terms of height of the surrounding buildings; 2. Overall radical building design changes from a straight (typical flat fronted structure) to an angular building (via two costly redesigns) to a chevron shaped building that now preserves all views of the neighbors; 3. Increase of setbacks in front and rear to enhance the aesthetics from the ground level view; 4. Reduction of underground parking garage footprint and increased setback from Tigertail (at a much higher cost of construction and engineering) to preserve all significant oak trees near Tigertail; 5. Completely redesigned driveways to preserve two additional oak trees on Bayshore; 6. Increased setback by an additional 10 feet on Grove Hill side; 7. Preservation of most Oaks and Banyan Trees. The developer has stated that if the luxury condominium project in its current design is appealed after a positive city commission vote, they will change to a rental apartment building which will require less financial risk to the developer, and be doable under R-4 and/or SD -17 zoning. They have also stated that at that point developer Ugo Columbo would not participate in the project. The benefits of the luxury condominium project presented by Ugo Colombo (Bristol Towers, Santa Maria, Porto Vita), over the cheaper alternative projects, are numerous: 1. The luxury condominium option provides no vehicular access to or from Tigertail. A rental option building with more units would require access to Tigertail and Bayshore due to the huge increase in the volume of cars due to the additional number of units, thus filling our streets with bumper -to -bumper traffic at both rush hours in addition to regular traffic patterns. 2. 150 luxury condominium units, with an average price of $1,2 million each, versus a relatively low rental price for an 800 sq.ft. two-bedroom apartment. As we know, homeowners respect their surroundings more than transient apartment dwellers. 3. The luxury condominium project is offered by a known entity; a highly respected well-known developer versus an unknown developer, which is probable if the luxury project as proposed, is not accepted. 4. Quality architecture and architect to further enhance our community and our relative property values. 5. Underground parking with only a portion above ground (18 feet in height --this is shorter than a typical single family home) and the rest is underground, hidden from view. This maintains a nice feel to the neighborhood side of the project. The apartment option has either a 5 story parking garage or a 5 level row of dwelling units directly on the front of Tigertail and kills all of the trees in the back including the oaks. 6. Partial year round occupancy for 150 units versus up to 490 high density apartments which will have an occupancy rate of well over 95% and 2 cars per unit times 490 units. The difference will be staggering in terms of the increase in traffic. 7. Almost 3 to 1 unit to parking ratio in the luxury condominium option, eliminating need for on - street parking. Submitted Into the public record <n conncc,�1- d' h item P?_- 1,9- on 5� i 1 0 3 Pris�:.ille A. T Jcrnp On 03— S 15 City Clerk 8. Water views preserved for adjacent buildings on both sides by the luxury condominium project but not by the apartment option. 9. The luxury condominium option results in the preservation of the oak and banyan trees, but the apartment option saves only some of the banyans ---all of the oak trees will be killed by the apartment option. 10. 20 foot setback on Grove Hill side (twice as much as required) and 10 foot setback on the SBS side with the luxury condominium option, but no additional setbacks will result from the apartment option. 11. No variances will be requested for the luxury condominium. 12. Garage setback 125 feet from Tigertail Avenue, and 325 from the residential structure in the luxury condominium option but no such setback from Tigertail will occur in the apartment option. 13. Taxes paid on 150 luxury units are more than that of a 350 -unit moderate price condominium or apartment project. I intend to make a personal presentation to the Miami City Commission at this Thursday, in support of the proposed luxury condominium project. It is unthinkable the damage to our property values, the onslaught of traffic, and the overall damage to our quality of life which would arise out of a cheap rental apartment complex next door. I am asking for your support in this important issue. It is imperative that I be able to speak for as many of you as possible if you agree with this position. Please e-mail me (evcaryentercW-aol.com) or sign this letter and return it to me, or the letter in the parking garage or at the security desk. I need your names and apt. numbers by Wednesday at midnight. Thank you for your participation. You may not always be able to beat city hall but if we work with them we can have a positive impact on our community, our neighborhood and our property valu Ele a V. Carpenter PH -A Unit Number Submitted ln ,o the public itelra2- 5 e4.i1 _6' u� City Clerk 03- 615 To Residents of the 2575 So. Bayshore Dr.: URGENT ISSUEM Dear Neighbors: On May 22, 2003, the Miami City Commission will be voting on the approval of the new luxury condominium, the "Grovenor," one door down from us at the former Naval Reserve Center property. Many citizens from the community have been working to secure the least amount of detrimental impact possible. Negotiations by the Civic Club have gained some very significant concessions, which so far include: 1. The reduction of units from 192 to 150 due to the elimination of two floors to satisfy immediate neighbors in terms of height of the surrounding buildings; 2. Overall radical building design changes from a straight (typical flat fronted structure) to an angular building (via two costly redesigns) to a chevron shaped building that now preserves all views of the neighbors; 3. Increase of setbacks in front and rear to enhance the aesthetics from the ground level view; 4. Reduction of underground parking garage footprint and increased setback from Tigertail (at a much higher cost of construction and engineering) to preserve all significant oak trees near Tigertail; 5. Completely redesigned driveways to preserve two additional oak trees on Bayshore; 6. Increased setback by an additional 10 feet on Grove Hill side; 7. Preservation of most Oaks and Banyan Trees. The developer has stated that if the luxury condominium project in its current design is appealed after a positive city commission vote, they will change to a rental apartment building which will require less financial risk to the developer, and be doable under R-4 and/or SD -17 zoning. They have also stated that at that point developer Ugo Columbo would not participate in the project. The benefits of the luxury condominium project presented by Ugo Colombo (Bristol Towers, Santa Maria, Porto Vita), over the cheaper alternative projects, are numerous: 1. The luxury condominium option provides no vehicular access to or from Tigertail. A rental option building with more units would require access to Tigertail and Bayshore due to the huge increase in the volume of cars due to the additional number of units, thus filling our streets with bumper -to -bumper traffic at both rush hours in addition to regular traffic patterns. 2. 150 luxury condominium units, with an average price of $1,2 million each, versus a relatively low rental price for an 800 sq.ft. two-bedroom apartment. As we know, homeowners respect their surroundings more than transient apartment dwellers. 3. The luxury condominium project is offered by a known entity; a highly respected well-known developer versus an unknown developer, which is probable if the luxury project as proposed, is not accepted. 4. Quality architecture and architect to further enhance our community and our relative property values. 5. Underground parking with only a portion above ground (18 feet in height --this is shorter than a typical single family home) and the rest is underground, hidden from view. This maintains a nice feel to the neighborhood side of the project. The apartment option has either a 5 story parking garage or a 5 level row of dwelling units directly on the front of Tigertail and kills all of the trees in the back including the oaks. 6. Partial year round occupancy for 150 units versus up to 490 high density apartments which will have an occupancy rate of well over 95% and 2 cars per unit times 490 units. The difference will be staggering in terms of the increase in traffic. 7. Almost 3 to 1 unit to parking ratio in the luxury condominium option, eliminating need for on - street parking. Submitted Into the public record is � conneldlio vagi item -__ora rpt "Son 3 — 61 Fits Clerk 8. Water views preserved for adjacent buildings on both sides by the luxury condominium project but not by the apartment option. 9. The luxury condominium option results in the preservation of the oak and banyan trees, but the apartment option saves only some of the banyans ---all of the oak trees will be killed by the apartment option. 10. 20 foot setback on Grove Hill side (twice as much as required) and 10 foot setback on the SBS side with the luxury condominium option, but no additional setbacks will result from the apartment option. 11. No variances will be requested for the luxury condominium. 12. Garage setback 125 feet from Tigertail Avenue, and 325 from the residential structure in the luxury condominium option but no such setback from Tigertail will occur in the apartment option. 13. Taxes paid on 150 luxury units are more than that of a 350 -unit moderate price condominium or apartment project. I intend to make a personal presentation to the Miami City Commission at this Thursday, in support of the proposed luxury condominium project. It is unthinkable the damage to our property values, the onslaught of traffic, and the overall damage to our quality of life which would arise out of a cheap rental apartment complex next door. I am asking for your support in this important issue. It is imperative that I be able to speak for as many of you as possible if you agree with this position. Please e-mail me (evcarpenterO_aol.com) or sign this letter and return it to me, or the letter in the parking garage or at the security desk. 1 need your names and apt. numbers by Wednesday at midnight. Thank you for your participation them we can have a positive valuo. r- 44�� Eler a V. Carpenter PH - Name . You may not always be able to beat city hall but if we work with impact on our community, our neighborhood and our property Unit Number Submitted into the public re. -,,,rd i ; oonnetion vi'th item �i l5 �; s �-�- b 3 Priscilla A. Tg o p on 03_ 615 City Clerk To Residents of the 2575 So. Bayshore Dr.: Dear Neighbors: URGENT ISSUEM On May 22, 2003, the Miami City Commission will be voting on the approval of the new luxury condominium, the "Grovenor," one door down from us at the former Naval Reserve Center property. Many citizens from the community have been working to secure the least amount of detrimental impact possible. Negotiations by the Civic Club have gained some very significant concessions, which so far include: 1. The reduction of units from 192 to 150 due to the elimination of two floors to satisfy immediate neighbors in terms of height of the surrounding buildings; 2. Overall radical building design changes from a straight (typical flat fronted structure) to an angular building (via two costly redesigns) to a chevron shaped building that now preserves all views of the neighbors; 3. Increase of setbacks in front and rear to enhance the aesthetics from the ground level view; 4. Reduction of underground parking garage footprint and increased setback from Tigertail (at a much higher cost of construction and engineering) to preserve all significant oak trees near Tigertail; 5. Completely redesigned driveways to preserve two additional oak trees on Bayshore; 6. Increased setback by an additional 10 feet on Grove Hill side; 7. Preservation of most Oaks and Banyan Trees. The developer has stated that if the luxury condominium project in its current design is appealed after a positive city commission vote, they will change to a rental apartment building which will require less financial risk to the developer, and be doable under R-4 and/or SD -17 zoning. They have also stated that at that point developer Ugo Columbo would not participate in the project. The benefits of the luxury condominium project presented by Ugo Colombo (Bristol Towers, P1rt7 V'a .!12 Ct;E)�np' t i'. ;iVP rrol:-�C's. , riumero:is: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. option building with more units would require access to Tigunlail and Bayshore due to the huge increase in the volume of cars due to the additional number of units, thus filling our streets with bumper -to -bumper traffic at both rush hours in addition to regular traffic patterns. 150 luxury condominium units, with an average price of $1,2 million each, versus a relatively low rental price for an 800 sq.ft: two-bedroom apartment. As we know, homeowners respect their surroundings more than transient apartment dwellers. The luxury condominium project is offered by a known entity; a highly respected well-known developer versus an unknown developer, which is probable if the luxury project as proposed, is not accepted. Quality architecture and architect to further enhance our community and our relative property values. Underground parking with only a portion above ground (18 feet in height --this is shorter than a typical single family home) and the rest is underground, hidden from view. This maintains a nice feel to the neighborhood side of the project. The apartment option has either a 5 story parking garage or a 5 level row of dwelling units directly on the front of Tigertail and kills all of the trees in the back including the oaks. Partial year round occupancy for 150 units versus up to 490 high density apartments which will have an occupancy rate of well over 95% and 2 cars per unit times 490 units. The difference will be staggering in terms of the increase in traffic. Almost 3 to 1 unit to parking ratio in the luxury condominium option, eliminating need for on - street parking. Submitted Into the re cord in ccnne ctiz iter fZ- ?S on 6 -/G3 8. Water views preserved for adjacent buildings on both sides by the luxury condominium project but not by the apartment option. 9. The luxury condominium option results in the preservation of the oak and banyan trees, but the apartment option saves only some of the banyans ---all of the oak trees will be killed by the apartment option. 10. 20 foot setback on Grove Hill side (twice as much as required) and 10 foot setback on the SBS side with the luxury condominium option, but no additional setbacks will result from the apartment option. 11. No variances will be requested for the luxury condominium. 12. Garage setback 125 feet from Tigertail Avenue, and 325 from the residential structure in the luxury condominium option but no such setback from Tigertail will occur in the apartment option. 13. Taxes paid on 150 luxury units are more than that of a 350 -unit moderate price condominium or apartment project. I intend to make a personal presentation to the Miami City Commission at this Thursday, in support of the proposed luxury condominium project. It is unthinkable the damage to our property values, the onslaught of traffic, and the overall damage to our quality of life which would arise out of a cheap rental apartment complex next door. I am asking for your support in this important issue. It is imperative that I be able to speak for as many of you as possible if you agree with this position. Please e-mail me (evcarpenter[Daol.com) or sign this letter and return it to me, or the letter in the parking garage or at the security desk. I need your names and apt. numbers by Wednesday at midnight. Thank you for your participation. You may not always be able to beat city hall but if we work with themj- ve can have a positive impact on our community, our neighborhood and our property PH -A V. Carpenter e Unit Number SUbimitted Into the public re c, d in conneCt�41., itCl "s Z _�_�_ 0n Priscilla A. in 0 3 — 615 City Clerk To Residents of the 2575 So. Bayshore Dr.: URGENT ISSUEM Dear Neighbors: On May 22, 2003, the Miami City Commission will be voting on the approval of the new luxury condominium, the "Grovenor," one door down from us at the former Naval Reserve Center property. Many citizens from the community have been working to secure the least amount of detrimental impact possible. Negotiations by the Civic Club have gained some very significant concessions, which so far include: 1. The reduction of units from 192 to 150 due to the elimination of two floors to satisfy immediate neighbors in terms of height of the surrounding buildings; 2. Overall radical building design changes from a straight (typical flat fronted structure) to an angular building (via two costly redesigns) to a chevron shaped building that now preserves all views of the neighbors; 3. Increase of setbacks in front and rear to enhance the aesthetics from the ground level view; 4. Reduction of underground parking garage footprint and increased setback from Tigertail (at a much higher cost of construction and engineering) to preserve all significant oak trees near Tigertail; 5. Completely redesigned driveways to preserve two additional oak trees on Bayshore; 6. Increased setback by an additional 10 feet on Grove Hill side; 7. Preservation of most Oaks and Banyan Trees. The developer has stated that if the luxury condominium project in its current design is appealed after a positive city commission vote, they will change to a rental apartment building which will require less financial risk to the developer, and be doable under R-4 and/or SD -17 zoning. They have also stated that at that point developer Ugo Columbo would not participate in the project. The benefits of the luxury condominium project presented by Ugo Colombo (Bristol Towers, C,-, . c Pihir, _-\'. 2. 4 5 N. 7 option building with more units would require access to Tigertaii and Bayshore due to the huge increase in the volume of cars due to the additional number of units, thus filling our streets with bumper -to -bumper traffic at both rush hours in addition to regular traffic patterns. 150 luxury condominium units, with an average price of $1,2 million each, versus a relatively low rental price for an 800 sq.ft: two-bedroom -apartment As we know, homeowners respect their surroundings more than transient apartment dwellers. The luxury condominium project is offered by a known entity; a highly respected well-known developer versus an unknown developer, which is probable if the luxury project as proposed, is not accepted. Quality architecture and architect to further enhance our community and our relative property values. Underground parking with only a portion above ground (18 feet in height --this is shorter than a typical single family home) and the rest is underground, hidden from view. This maintains a nice feel to the neighborhood side of the project. The apartment option has either a 5 story parking garage or a 5 level row of dwelling units directly on the front of Tigertail and kills all of the trees in the back including the oaks. Partial year round occupancy for 150 units versus up to 490 high density apartments which will have an occupancy rate of well over 95% and 2 cars per unit times 490 units. The difference will be staggering in terms of the increase in traffic. Almost 3 to 1 unit to parking ratio in the luxury condominium option, eliminating need for on - street parking. Submil ed Into the public record in crnne item Rz. on i . _ _ _.-tom �=�•�==-,�.._�-. 8. Water views preserved for adjacent buildings on both sides by the luxury condominium project but not by the apartment option. 9. The luxury condominium option results in the preservation of the oak and banyan trees, but the apartment option saves only some of the banyans ---all of the oak trees will be killed by the apartment option. 10. 20 foot setback on Grove Hill side (twice as much as required) and 10 foot setback on the SBS side with the luxury condominium option, but no additional setbacks will result from the apartment option. 11. No variances will be requested for the luxury condominium. 12. Garage setback 125 feet from Tigertail Avenue, and 325 from the residential structure in the luxury condominium option but no such setback from Tigertail will occur in the apartment option. 13. Taxes paid on 150 luxury units are more than that of a 350 -unit moderate price condominium or apartment project. I intend to make a personal presentation to the Miami City Commission at this Thursday, in support of the proposed luxury condominium project. It is unthinkable the damage to our property values, the onslaught of traffic, and the overall damage to our quality of life which would arise out of a cheap rental apartment complex next door. I am asking for your support in this important issue. It is imperative that I be able to speak for as many of you as possible if you agree with this position. Please e-mail me (evcarpenter(CD-aol.com) or sign this letter and return it to me, or the letter in the parking garage or at the security desk. I need your names and apt. numbers by Wednesday at midnight. Thank you for your participation. You may not always be able to beat city hall but if we work with them, a can have a positive impact on our community, our neighborhood and our property valudsl V. Carpenter Name Unit Number ,���� G� C`1�Ji ✓ly �( � � Submla a ante the public r4{.>4,•'N c' iv C✓c �,.Ye i; :1 �.."'A* ru �%i u Item 2 15 __v s Y PriscidIa _i_i � `op on 03- 6-15 5 "°` City Clerk To Residents of the 2575 So. Bayshore Dr.: URGENT ISSUEM Dear Neighbors: On May 22, 2003, the Miami City Commission will be voting on the approval of the new luxury condominium, the "Grovenor," one door down from us at the former Naval Reserve Center property. Many citizens from the community have been working to secure the least amount of detrimental impact possible. Negotiations by the Civic Club have gained some very significant concessions, which so far include: 1. The reduction of units from 192 to 150 due to the elimination of two floors to satisfy immediate neighbors in terms of height of the surrounding buildings; 2. Overall radical building design changes from a straight (typical flat fronted structure) to an angular building (via two costly redesigns) to a chevron shaped building that now preserves all views of the neighbors; 3. Increase of setbacks in front and rear to enhance the aesthetics from the ground level view; 4. Reduction of underground parking garage footprint and increased setback from Tigertail (at a much higher cost of construction and engineering) to preserve all significant oak trees near Tigertail; 5. Completely redesigned driveways to preserve two additional oak trees on Bayshore; 6. Increased setback by an additional 10 feet on Grove Hill side; 7. Preservation of most Oaks and Banyan Trees. The developer has stated that if the luxury condominium project in its current design is appealed after a positive city commission vote, they will change to a rental apartment building which will require less financial risk to the developer, and be doable under R-4 and/or SD -17 zoning. They have also stated that at that point developer Ugo Columbo would not participate in the project. The benefits of the luxury condominium project presented by Ugo Colombo (Bristol Towers, Santa Maria, Porto Vita), over the cheaper alternative projects, are numerous: 1. The luxury condominium option provides no vehicular access to or from Tigertail. A rental option building with more units would require access to Tigertail and Bayshore due to the huge increase in the volume of cars due to the additional number of units, thus filling our streets with bumper -to -bumper traffic at both rush hours in addition to regular traffic patterns. 2. 150 luxury condominium units, with an average price of $1,2 million each, versus a relatively low rental price for an 800 sq.ft. two-bedroom apartment. As we know, homeowners respect their surroundings more than transient apartment dwellers. 3. The luxury condominium project is offered by a known entity; a highly respected well-known developer versus an unknown developer, which is probable if the luxury project as proposed, is not accepted. 4. Quality architecture and architect to further enhance our community and our relative property values. 5. Underground parking with only a portion above ground (18 feet in height --this is shorter than a typical single family home) and the rest is underground, hidden from view. This maintains a nice feel to the neighborhood side of the project. The apartment option has either a 5 story parking garage or a 5 level row of dwelling units directly on the front of Tigertail and kills all of the trees in the back including the oaks. 6. Partial year round occupancy for 150 units versus up to 490 high density apartments which will have an occupancy rate of well over 95% and 2 cars per unit times 490 units. The difference will be staggering in terms of the increase in traffic. 7. Almost 3 to 1 unit to parking ratio in the luxury condominium option, eliminating need for on - street parking. Submitted into the public record in cannec:ticri F.leith iter?'Z-)5 o,-),-,-- Priscilla -,-,--Priscilla A. _n_h. , ,',,, son 03 - 615 Ci -[Y Clerk 8. Water views preserved for adjacent buildings on both sides by the luxury condominium project but not by the apartment option. 9. The luxury condominium option results in the preservation of the oak and banyan trees, but the apartment option saves only some of the banyans ---all of the oak trees will be killed by the apartment option. 10. 20 foot setback on Grove Hill side (twice as much as required) and 10 foot setback on the SBS side with the luxury condominium option, but no additional setbacks will result from the apartment option. 11. No variances will be requested for the luxury condominium. 12. Garage setback 125 feet from Tigertail Avenue, and 325 from the residential structure in the luxury condominium option but no such setback from Tigertail will occur in the apartment option. 13. Taxes paid on 150 luxury units are more than that of a 350 -unit moderate price condominium or apartment project. I intend to make a personal presentation to the Miami City Commission at this Thursday, in support of the proposed luxury condominium project. It is unthinkable the damage to our property values, the onslaught of traffic, and the overall damage to our quality of life which would arise out of a cheap rental apartment complex next door. I am asking for your support in this important issue. It is imperative that I be able to speak for as many of you as possible if you agree with this position. Please e-mail me (evcarDenter@aol.com) or sign this letter and return it to me, or the letter in the parking garage or at the security desk. I need your names and apt. numbers by Wednesday at midnight. Thank you for your participation. You may not always be able to beat city hall but if we work with them we can have a positive impact on our community, our neighborhood and our property val s.L Ele ia V. Carpenter PH A Unit Number 8ubntiged Into the Public r y� . j[C i _ 2 �i Ca i 9 - L r 5 as �. n 03- 615 Citi. Clerk To Residents of 2575 So. Bayshore Dr.: URGENT ISSUEM Dear Neighbors: On May 22, 2003, the Miami City Commission will be voting on the approval of the new luxury condominium, the °Grovenor,' one door down from us at the former Naval Reserve Center property. Many citizens from the community have been working to secure the least amount of detrimental impact possible. Negotiations by the Civic Club have gained some very significant concessions, which so far include: 1. The reduction of units from 192 to 150 due to the elimination of two floors to satisfy immediate neighbors in terms of height of the surrounding buildings; 2. Overall radical building design changes from a straight (typical flat fronted structure) to an angular building (via two costly redesigns) to a chevron shaped building that now preserves all views of the neighbors; 3. Increase of setbacks in front and rear to enhance the aesthetics from the ground level view; 4. Reduction of underground parking garage footprint and increased setback from Tigertail (at a much higher cost of construction and engineering) to preserve all significant oak trees near Tigertail; 5. Completely redesigned driveways to preserve two additional oak trees on Bayshore; 6. Increased setback by an additional 10 feet on Grove Hill side; 7. Preservation of most Oaks and Banyan Trees. The developer has stated that if the luxury condominium project in its current design is appealed after a positive city commission vote, they will change to a rental apartment building which will require less financial risk to -the developer, and be doable under R-4 and/or SDA 7 zoning. They have also stated that at that point developer Ugo Columbo would not participate in the project. The benefits of the luxury condominium project presented by Ugo Colombo (Bristol Towers, Santa Maria, Porto Vita), over the cheaper alternative projects, are numerous: 1. The luxury condominium option provides no vehicular access to or from Tigertail. A rental option building with more units would require access to Tigertail and Bayshore due to the huge increase in the volume of cars due to the additional number of units, thus filling our streets with bumper -to -bumper traffic at both rush hours in addition to regular traffic patterns. 2. 150 luxury condominium units, with an average price of $1,2 million each, versus a relatively low rental price for an 800 sq.ft. two-bedroom apartment. As we know, homeowners respect their surroundings more than transient apartment dwellers. 3. The luxury condominium project is offered by a known entity; a highly respected well-known developer versus an unknown developer, which is probable if the luxury project as proposed, is not accepted. 4. Quality architecture and architect to further enhance our community and our relative property values. 5. Underground parking with only a portion above ground (18 feet in height --this is shorter than a typical single family home) and the rest is underground, hidden from view. This maintains a nice feel to the neighborhood side of the project. The apartment option has either a 5 story parking garage or a 5 level row of dwelling units directly on the front of Tigertail and kills all of the trees in the back including the oaks. 6. Partial year round occupancy for 150 units versus up to 490 high density apartments which will have an occupancy rate of well over 95% and 2 cars per unit times 490 units. The difference will be staggering in terms of the increase in traffic. 7. Almost 3 to 1 unit to parking ratio in the luxury condominium option, eliminating need for on - street parking. Submitted Into the public rew,d iri connectia n with item Ile -� on 5 a> 3 Pris' il?S A. "� i of � p erg 0 3 - 615 City Cleric 8. Water views preserved for adjacent buildings on both sides by the luxury condominium project but not by the apartment option. 9. The luxury condominium option results in the preservation of the oak and banyan trees, but the apartment option saves only some of the banyans ---all of the oak trees will be killed by the apartment option. 10. 20 foot setback on Grove Hill side (twice as much as required) and 10 foot setback on the SBS side with the luxury condominium option, but no additional setbacks will result from the apartment option. 11. No variances will be requested for the luxury condominium. 12. Garage setback 125 feet from Tigertail Avenue, and 325 from the residential structure in the luxury condominium option but no such setback from Tigertail will occur in the apartment option. 13. Taxes paid on 150 luxury units are more than that of a 350 -unit moderate price condominium or apartment project. I intend to make a personal presentation to the Miami City Commission at this Thursday, in support of the proposed luxury condominium project. It is unthinkable the damage to our property values, the onslaught of traffic, and the overall damage to our quality of life which would arise out of a cheap rental apartment complex next door. I am asking for your support in this important issue. It is imperative that I be able to speak for as many of you as possible if you agree with this position. Please e-mail me (evcaroentertM-aol.com) or sign this letter and return it to me, or the letter in the parking garage or at the security desk. 1 need your names and apt. numbers by Wednesday at midnight. Thank you for your participation. You may not always be able to beat city hall but if we work with them we can have a positive impact on our community, our neighborhood and our property values. Elen V. Carpenter PH -A Name Unit Number Submitted into the public recoT,-d i item PnsGil'ia ,F . 3 - 615 City *ierk To Residents of the 2575 So. Bayshore Dr.: URGENT ISSUEM Dear Neighbors: On May 22, 2003, the Miami City Commission will be voting on the approval of the new luxury condominium, the "Grovenor," one door down from us at the former Naval Reserve Center property. Many citizens from the community have been working to secure the least amount of detrimental impact possible. Negotiations by the Civic Club have gained some very significant concessions, which so far include: 1. The reduction of units from 192 to 150 due to the elimination of two floors to satisfy immediate neighbors in terms of height of the surrounding buildings; 2. Overall radical building design changes from a straight (typical flat fronted structure) to an angular building (via two costly redesigns) to a chevron shaped building that now preserves all views of the neighbors; 3. Increase of setbacks in front and rear to enhance the aesthetics from the ground level view; 4. Reduction of underground parking garage footprint and increased setback from Tigertail (at a much higher cost of construction and engineering) to preserve all significant oak trees near Tigertail; 5. Completely redesigned driveways to preserve two additional oak trees on Bayshore; 6. Increased setback by an additional 10 feet on Grove Hill side; 7. Preservation of most Oaks and Banyan Trees. The developer has stated that if the luxury condominium project in its current design is appealed after a positive city commission vote, they will change to a rental apartment building which will require less financial risk to the developer, and be doable under R-4 and/or SD -17 zoning. They have also stated that at that point developer Ugo Columbo would not participate in the project. The benefits of the luxury condominium project presented by Ugo Colombo (Bristol Towers, Santa Maria, Porto Vita), over the cheaper alternative projects, are numerous: 1. The luxury condominium option provides no vehicular access to or from Tigertail. A rental option building with more units would require access to Tigertail and Bayshore due to the huge increase in the volume of cars due to the additional number of units, thus filling our streets with bumper -to -bumper traffic at both rush hours in addition to regular traffic patterns. 2. 150 luxury condominium units, with an average price of $1,2 million each, versus a relatively low rental price for an 800 sq.ft. two-bedroom apartment. As we know, homeowners respect their surroundings more than transient apartment dwellers. 3. The luxury condominium project is offered by a known entity; a highly respected well-known developer versus an unknown developer, which is probable if the luxury project as proposed, is not accepted. 4. Quality architecture and architect to further enhance our community and our relative property values. 5. Underground parking with only a portion above ground (18 feet in height --this is shorter than a typical single family home) and the rest is underground, hidden from view. This maintains a nice feel to the neighborhood side of the project. The apartment option has either a 5 story parking garage or a 5 level row of dwelling units directly on the front of Tigertail and kills all of the trees in the back including the oaks. 6. Partial year round occupancy for 150 units versus up to 490 high density apartments which will have an occupancy rate of well over 95% and 2 cars per unit times 490 units. The difference will be staggering in terms of the increase in traffic. 7. Almost 3 to 1 unit to parking ratio in the luxury condominium option, eliminating need for on - street parking. Submitted Into the public F I i record a � .,",. er,e�; i 'it item PrtscIra A. I I ao E?poon 03— 6 15 City Clerk 8. Water views preserved for adjacent buildings on both sides by the luxury condominium project but not by the apartment option. 9. The luxury condominium option results in the preservation of the oak and banyan trees, but the apartment option saves only some of the banyans ---all of the oak trees will be killed by the apartment option. 10. 20 foot setback on Grove Hill side (twice as much as required) and 10 foot setback on the SBS side with the luxury condominium option, but no additional setbacks will result from the apartment option. 11. No variances will be requested for the luxury condominium. 12. Garage setback 125 feet from Tigertail Avenue, and 325 from the residential structure in the luxury condominium option but no such setback from Tigertail will occur in the apartment option. 13. Taxes paid on 150 luxury units are more than that of a 350 -unit moderate price condominium or apartment project. I intend to make a personal presentation to the Miami City Commission at this Thursday, in support of the proposed luxury condominium project. It is unthinkable the damage to our property values, the onslaught of traffic, and the overall damage to our quality of life which would arise out of a cheap rental apartment complex next door. I am asking for your support in this important issue. It is imperative that I be able to speak for as many of you as possible if you agree with this position. Please e-mail me (evcarpenterg-)aol.com) or sign this letter and return it to me, or the letter in the parking garage or at the security desk. I need your names and apt. numbers by Wednesday at midnight. Thank you for your participation. You may not always be able to beat city hall but if we work with the we can have a positive impact on our community, our neighborhood and our property valu Ele a V. Carpenter d PH-A Name Unit Number n�5 Submitted Into the public reser;-17 r q ccnne-tion r'th It=ate _�Z-15 oil .s A. p ty t r i� 3 - 615 City Clerk Wt. Support the Grove. _or As residents in the Grove Hill Condominium, located at 2645 S. Bayshore Drive in Coconut Grove, we are the persons most affected by the development of the former Naval Reserve site. For many reasons we support the Grovenor project as proposed by Ugo Colombo. We are particularly interested in a low density development that preserves all of the views from every unit. We also support the developer's efforts to preserve the trees between our properties and the elimination of any vehicular access onto Tigertail. We hereby request that the Miami City Commission approve the Major Use Special Permit for the Grovenor project. I I SNI PZ--1,-UN S=ay -off 6 TELEPHONE it I VIP IRA'. MINE W-mv! - M -016F EM A. �►� .: Mx ON " 'sem► 'aMW0014 . ' - Me, 0� ffl_� M Apo� nA/J I I SNI PZ--1,-UN S=ay -off 6 We jupport the Grovel rr As residents in the Grove Hill Condominium, located at 2645 S. Bayshore Drive in Coconut Grove, we are the persons most affected by the development of the former Naval Reserve site. For many reasons we support the Grovenor project as proposed by Ugo Colombo. We are particularly interested in a low density development that preserves all of the views from every unit. We also support the developer's efforts to preserve the trees between our properties and the elimination of any vehicular access onto Tigertail. We hereby request that the Miami City Commission approve the Major Use Special Permit for the Grovenor project. NAME APT. NO. SIGNATURE TELEPHONE 0/(--7-0 42- X J �fiktr 6 PItC s � 30-v- e4c) If�,?z - Y V R069R J. MA66W 14103 30.E 95-7-076 o S�s61� X s pjbilic 036 � 6 i1r2: A.- {.. gt��'3 WE. Support the Grove. )r As residents in the Grove Hill Condominium, located at 2645 S. Bayshore Drive in Coconut Grove, we are the persons most affected by the development of the former Naval Reserve site. For many reasons we support the Grovenor project as proposed by Ugo Colombo. We are particularly interested in a low density development that preserves all of the views from every unit. We also support the developer's efforts to preserve the trees between our properties and the elimination of any vehicular access onto Tigertail. We hereby request that the Miami City Commission approve the Major Use Special Permit for the Grovenor project. NAME APT. NO. SIGNATURE TELEPHONE 3 6V g�o b O ti y GuC� �o A4 c4tie-LO) ft7witc- 7,9& 3QS IT? uhmitled into the public G-1ty Clerk 03- 6 E5 O 05/22,'03 TUT 13:30 FAX 787 724 6050 MERCADO & SOTO 05!17`2003 02:47 FAX - _Z 002 We Support,the Grovenor As residents In the Grove Hill Condominium, located at 2645 S. Bayshore Drive i Coconut drove.. we are the persons most affected by the development of the former Naval Reserve site. For many reasons we support the Grovenor project i proposed by Ugo Colombo. We are particularly interested in a Iow density dewelopment that preserves all of the views from every unit. We also support ti developer"s efforts to preserve the trees between our properties snd the elimination of any vehicular access onto Tigertail. We hereby request that the Miami City Commission approve the Major Use Special Permit for the Girovenot project. NAME 4 APT. No. c'kRo tie ciao i \11(3t I , � ".1 TELEPHONE abrtlJitted Into the pub ; . 9 l 9 ftn GV b' y ` Z '.��__�y C= tv C11 03-- 615 LISA H. HAMMER May 19, 2003 Mr. Jim McMaster Grove Tree Man Trust 2238 S.W. 27 Terrace Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Dear Jim: P.O. Box 1551 Homestead, FL 33090 Phone (305) 248-0785 Fax (305) 247-3430 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMIL:L5, ON 5 -aa -o3. On October 31, 2002 I sent you a report in regard to tree evaluations at the Grovenor (Naval Reserve Center) site in Coconut Grove. In that report I listed all existing trees on- site and made recommendations regarding their preservation. On March 27, 2003, I presented this information at the Miami City Commission meeting. On April 3 we met at the site with the developer, architect, landscape architect and other interested parties including area residents and Grove Tree Man Trust board members. The architect presented some proposed construction plans and we discussed how they would affect the existing trees. I recommended preservation of the following nine trees: 6 live oaks (#s 11, 16, 17, 18, 56, 57) 1 gumbo limbo (#24) 2 lofty figs (#s 37 and 40). I also recommended retention (without the option of mitigation) of live oak #51, as it is a large, old tree in fairly good condition, except for some old lightning injury stress. It is clearly visible from Bayshore Drive, which is a designated scenic corridor. Upon review of the proposed construction plans, I have the following concerns: 1) Tree #s 56 and 57 are two very large live oaks (Quercus virginiana) near the front of the property. As currently proposed, a ramped driveway will be constructed around these two trees, leaving them at their current grade. However, the height. of the ramp and the adjacent porte cochere would require extensive canopy pruning of both trees for clearance. Tree #56 would be significantly affected, as at least 50% of its canopy would need to be removed, including some very large diameter limbs. This would cause irreparable harm to the tree by exceeding accepted limits (20% to 30%) for foliage removal. Also, the removal of large- 03- 615 Mr. Jim McMaster Grovenor Site Tree Preservation Page 2 diameter limbs would ultimately result in significant wood decay in the main trunks and branches, which could lead to structural instability, eventually making the trees. prone to failure. In my professional opinion, the proposed pruning of tree #56 would constitute "effective destruction" as defined in the Miami -Dade County tree ordinance. We discussed various options to preserve the trees including changing the driveway configuration, moving the building back, or lowering the driveway. To my knowledge, no changes have been made. 2) Tree #37 is a very large lofty fig (Ficus altissima), for which I recommended preservation due to its size, condition, and proximity/contribution to a designated scenic corridor (Bayshore Drive). Construction plans called for the building wall to pass within close proximity to this tree. While it would be closer than I would usually recommend for tree preservation, we discussed root pruning and canopy pruning options which would allow the tree to remain. Being a Ficus species, this tree would be capable of tolerating more than an average amount of construction damage. Current plans call for removal of this tree and retention of adjacent tree #38, a strangler fig (Ficus aurea) which is in extremely poor condition. Large branches of this tree have previously failed, and its trunk is severely decayed. It is at risk of additional failures, and for this reason, I have recommended removal. 3) Tree #s 16, 17, and 18 are live oaks in the rear area of the property. As currently proposed, a parking garage would be constructed within close proximity to them. Tree #18 is located where the 18 -foot wall is planned. Tree #17 is growing in very close proximity to tree #18, and tree #16 is several feet behind. Tree #18's canopy leans out over the proposed parking garage; canopies of tree #s 16 and 17 lean away from it. It appears that tree #18 was previously growing adjacent to a wall and, consequently, its root system is already restricted on that side. The proposed parking garage could be constructed as planned while preserving tree #s 16 and 17 with little to no root or canopy damage. We discussed the possibility of creating a cut-out area in the garage wall to accommodate tree #18. Instead, the proposed plans call for removal of tree #s 16, 17, and 18. 4) Tree #s 11, 24, and 40 would be preserved as currently proposed. Tree #51, for which retention was recommended, will be removed. Su. mit ed Into the t;ublgc Mr. Tim McMaster Grovenor Site Tree Preservation Page 3 In conclusion, out of the 9 trees for which I recommended preservation, the proposed plans call for removal of 4, and preservation of 5, including 1 live oak which would be, in my opinion, "effectively destroyed". Tree #51 will not be retained, as was recommended. As currently proposed, construction on this site will require removal of more than half of those trees for which I recommended preservation. Sincerely, Lisa H. Hammer Horticultural Consultant Submitted Into the public record in connectiop w h item on 5 a�- Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 03- 615 �J/ �`?� Analysis for Major Use Special Permit for the Grovenor Project located at approximately 2610 Tigertail Avenue. CASE NO. 2002-0061 Pursuant to Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami. Florida, the subject proposal for the Grovenor Project has been reviewed to allow a Major Use Special Permit. This Permit also includes the following requests: • It is found that the Planning and Zoning Department have the following additional concerns with respect to the modified plans: N ■ The pe stri access to m South Bays a Dn Vhavet thea sting dVigne gura n,the ped trian woolxw nthe ehicular. The licant ould considea pedetri walkwaymain en ce o e project to Sre Drive reduced cth vehicles. Landscape ■ The tree disposition plan depicts two mature oaks will be transplanted to make way for the driveway. This action will not be acceptable and another option to design the driveway so that these oaks are retained and kept healthy should be considered. b) Landscape; The tree disposition plan depicts two mature oaks will be trans- planted to make way for the driveway. This action will not be acceptable and another option to design the driveway so that these oaks are retained and kept healthy should be considered. CLASS �S ECIAL PE Ve ion 17.2.1. to low val t park' for sident' and othe CLASS II ECIAL PERMITor ac s from a public street ofroadway dth greater than 03- 615 u 17 V Ca 82) 0 28 0 18 0 L Ao 2 Now 7 A- — 5 -T 020 1027 216k //*25 Vhe public itern �6�0 Priscilla A. �141�pso3n City Clerk 051 03 - IV *21 Ae 61.a T Submitted into the is p record in canner ti n w h 09 Orn On �s 0 Priscilla hong son i p �J r-e-rk I 39 I 0 37 I 8 1 JI I r ! NTEGRARealty Resources FLORIDA Re: COMPATIBLE USE AND ECONOMIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS (Page one of two) Integra Realty Resources — South Florida has conducted a Compatible Use Analysis and Economic Benefit Analysis relating to the proposed Grovenor Condominium site. Task One - Compatible Use Analysis To provide a professional opinion to aid the approval process for a Major Use Special Permit by the City of Miami as to the compatibility of use of the proposed development designed by Revuelta Vega Leon R.A., Architects. Scope Integra — South Florida has reviewed the contextual site plan reflecting front setbacks of 137± feet on South Bayshore Drive and 126± feet on Tigertail Avenue, and side setbacks of 10 feet, project data, landscape plan, schematic section and elevation drawings, floor plans, parking and ingress/egress from South Bayshore Drive. Integra — South Florida surveyed and compared representative high-rise buildings in Coconut Grove (see attached). Factors taken into consideration for comparison in this Compatible Use Analysis included: building size, setbacks, coverage, accessibility, building height/skyline, streetscape, parking, building design, features, architectural style, attractiveness and suitability for the site. Findings. Conclusion and Opinion That the proposed Grovenor Condominium meets the test of Functional Utility and represents, at a minimum, a Financially Feasible development of not less than 150 luxury condominium units with below -surface parking of 409 spaces. That if greater setbacks were provided, approximately 30 units would be affected reducing the total number of units down to 120 condominium units. This would negatively impact the development's financial feasibility, resulting in a non-viable development. Applicable Economic Principles of Balance, Contribution and Conformity (as defined) were considered in formulating this opinion. SUBMITTED INTO THE LOCAL EXPERTISE ... NAT10NAL PUBLIC RECORD FOR M 9400 S. Dadeland Blvd. - Penthouse One ■ Miami, Florida 133669ftl71 ` will Phone: 305-670-0001 ■ Commercial Fax: 305-670-2276 ■ Residential Fax: 305-670-2275■ Email: miami@irr.com 63- 615 Re: COMPATIBLE USE AND ECONOMIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS (Page two of two) Task Two — Economic Benefit Analysis To provide an opinion as to the Economic Benefit the community would receive at such time that the Grovenor Condominium was developed and sold as a luxury condominium, contrasting to an alternative development concept of a 490 unit moderately -priced rental apartment complex with above -ground parking approximating 1,078 spaces, 10 -foot side setbacks and 20 -foot setbacks from South Bayshore Drive and Tigertail Avenue. scope Integra — South Florida has reviewed and compared project data and development concepts of the proposed luxury Grovenor (150 unit) Condominium against an alternative moderately -designed 490 rental -unit development option. Findings, Conclusion and Opinion Based upon the comparison of the Grovenor Condominium development concept to an alternative development concept, it is apparent that the impact of an alternative development concept would compare unfavorably to the Grovenor Development. Traffic along South Bayshore Drive and Tigertail Avenue would be negatively impacted, and the economic value difference would be reflected in a lower ad valorem assessment and tax loss to the City and County in the amount of $2,400,000±. We trust that this Compatible Use and Economic Benefit Analysis provides a professional opinion for the decision-making process. Respectfully submitted, Integra Realty Resourc — H ael Y. , Managing Director State Certified General Appraiser Certificate No. RZ684 Attachments Submitted Into the public' •Representative Photos recordin connection th • Applicable Definitions�,Ite�n-- i� PZ-ls on s �� a • Qualifications prisciala A. Thonip on City Clerk M Integra Reafty Resources South Florida 03- 615 APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS Architecture The art and science of building design and construction. Formal Architecture Submitted Into the public race.%d i3: conne t ori 'th 5i R r2-15 e1 sqqnrl so n �sz City Clerk Architecture identified by its conformity to aesthetic and functional criteria recognized by persons trained in architectural history. Vernacular Architecture Architecture designed by built by individuals according to custom and for its adaptive response to the environment and contemporary lifestyles. Functional Utility The ability of a property or building to be useful and to perform the function for which it is intended according to current market tastes and standards; the efficiency of a building's use in terms of architectural style, design and layout, traffic patterns, and the size and type of rooms. General standards of functional utility that are considered include: • Compatibility • Accessibility • Suitability or appropriateness • Ease of Cost and Maintenance • Comfort • Market Standards • Efficiency • Attractiveness • Safety • Economic Productivity • Security The concept that a building is in harmony with its uses and its environment. Compatibility falls into the defined market of functional utility. Good architectural style, as it relates to functional utility, relates to preferences to Market Value. • Functions well — fitness of intended use • Looks good — appeals to aesthetic sense • Feel good — carries meaning, recreates feeling from another time or period • Balance — sense of correct proportion, compatibility • Affordable — consistent with market expectations for price range Style and functional utility are necessarily interrelated because form and function work with design and construction to create a successful product. Social and economic issues have the greatest impact on residential design. Governmental issues have a larger impact through zoning and building codes. Environmental issues affect the site more than the improvements, although topography and other factors may impact the placement of the improvements on the site. Source: The Appraisal of Real Estate, le Edition and The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal published by the Appraisal Institute, as reviewed by Integra Realty Resources — South Florida Integl.l�L\hyResources ,!) V South Florida 1 -I r-71 l F-1 r-3 1..7J r r--1 F-1 r--1 r--1 F -1 r-1 l ■ r-1 r-_--] L l PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM Integl.lra \ItyResources South Florida Street View looking North, Grovenor Site, SBS Tower & Coconut Grove Bayshore at Left r: --% (n e C� C) Cr cr% t N � CSD N o Q 0 p nCD C) 0 K Photos taken 4/20/03 F-1 m r-1 r -a r-1 r-1 r-1 r� ---1 r- A, r-1 F-1 r --t r� r--� r-1 1W Integra Realty Resources South Florida PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM Street View South Bayshore Dr -Grove Towers, Yacht Harbour, & The Mutiny at Right Ku CDCn a3. 0 ' :' m � o CL � 0 CD S Cr Photos taken 4/20/03 r� F-1 r r� r-- 1 r r r --t °--� r n n r r--1 c-1 r--� PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM im Integra Realty Resources South Florida SNE Photos taken 4/20/03 ID I 3-,) Cn,Z(D 00 � 0 CD m <: H o x= w Photos taken 4/20/03 TR Integra Realty Resources South Florida PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM Street View Looking North from Blaine St & Tigertail Ave n Photos taken 4/20/03 0 �0 v a� C N -• N S17 V'(O � O O �::I CD^` c) N 3 Z c tD® ci x�— =3, Photos taken 4/20/03 m Integra Realty Resources South Florida n � " I r� " I "I r-7 t--- r--1 r-1 r--1 r-i i-1 PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM O M( CL N : N Q. O � O 0 � 0 g n (D m0 Photos taken 4/20/03 r r:' � 6 � q. i"�t, i "'fir �'SS 1' , 5r� a � ,. s`: _.Cr h ��".. � r � 4 r .� Ati.. .t'':• ���.*c� i :f "y.� _ it r �.' i .. � r't ' � . Y4 a ,'J''ff . `� �� � �d v 4 ,L, R � �� :��� yU* �" r -� _ � , `� � 4 .tea ✓ lig " , t "`'7�l .:' � , + � � ,. _ � / � 4• � .'lig � � � : �; - f t . -. � _ ' • t � �` � � ,. �— , — _ � .� �- - • -- _ t _ _- -�,- . _ ,,,o., _ �... _. �,„«. w I Fes* UT IPR Integra Realty Resources South Florida I [ r--� r77) r-1 r'"] PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM View of SBS Tower from South Bayshore Dr r---1 "- " 0 @T 0 _30cr a o D opo 0 -� oCD vRo n �C n cr o ? C1 Photos taken 4/20/03 M Integra Realty Resources South Florida r-7 r l I .) r-) " l._ -J " Co ) l_ _J r l s PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM View of Grove Hill Condominium form South Bayshore Dr Ee . ,CCD ®(� n=r .c ®Uj 0 0�v�- F ® 77 p. Photos taken 4/20/03 r -i r -i PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM 1FR Integra Realty Resources South Florida CD 0 C-) c: cr Vt 0 cx. a. =0; a- 0 0 i CD !a 5 0,co R c, - za All x Photos taken 4/20/03 F& Mayor wally wnourcas South Florida PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM View of Grove Towers Condominium Al Photos taken 4/20/03 ocr0 M. 3. 'Q �- :°° 0 0 CD °70 n3 cD 0 W � xz =rn Photos taken 4/20/03 H& Integra Realty Resources South Florida r--1 f`l f '""1 ! ` r-7 .-- -) r --,i (--i (--i PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM View of Yacht Harbour Condominium 101 ��� .a 4 ii Q-11 (D �0 ( O �NLAva, ON CO Cr 0 -0C: Photos taken 4/20/03 C _1 r- -� C"1 t" n C"7 1 I r f"_'"J C_','3 U r7j f "l [`� F-1 PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM Integra Realty Resources South Florida View of Ritz Carlton from 27th Ave & Tlgertail Photos taken 4/20/03 0 6@(p 3 00 cc- 'v CQ N 0 0 2. 0 CD � n b zi ,!v =" 0 Photos taken 4/20/03 :*.` _ to , •`. --ter.... ,._ 1[& Integra Realty Resources South Florida [_'_l PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM Skyline View from Lincolin Ave & Blaine St 0 Photos taken 4/20/03 CDro� 3®c- co N ®. !"�� 52, O N CD Q O • O-17 0 O 0 O `4 CD op O- ;7 iw �- Photos taken 4/20/03 co H& Integra Realty Resources South Florida (71 f PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM Ee 0 CDC 0 C) cr T 0tai CD CL V1 :03 0 =T, 1-911 C:D3 C=Dr 0 5 w C) 77 D W CC Photos taken 4/20/03 0 w M Integra Realty Resources South Florida PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM - 00 R' �" t -� ✓ Skyline View of Coconut Grove from Bay m ,Q 3 o v- cpN� �. ► _ (D r^ o a >® '.3 O CD C? n I<CD C, c ((D ) o Photos taken 4/20/03 H& wow p4ski Reswrces Flcri& PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM X 0 0 3c 0 cr aL . cn CL 0 ul >r= 0 5 L-�i =0 C=D 0 - 0 r-1. T V� a (=Dr :3 'D Photos taken 4/20/03 w c" m Integra Realty Resources South Florida r-71 r7l r-77 Ir "7n r7l r-73 f-0773 PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM E0 Photos taken 4/20/03 ®cr CD n Q � o ®moo 0 CD cr ��� X, Photos taken 4/20/03 T Integra Realty Resources South Florida F-1 PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM Skyline View of Brickell Ave from Bay 0 Photos taken 4/20/03 0cr 61 a� LO. : CD CL 0 ,.. C) 3 -- 6a � C /e )C C p �Cf IvTD + .J+ � I Photos taken 4/20/03 W m CP H& Integra Realty Resources South Florida PROPOSED GROVENOR CONDOMINIUM Skyline View of Brickell Ave from Bay Al Al (roC -0300& �n' N �? N YJ n Q >= N O 0 74 Ift� a CD- 0'C 0 C (� v� Q fid.' Photos taken 4/20/03 APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS (Continued) Highest and Best Use Submitted Into the public oonnec.tPon ith i Market forces create market value, so the analysis of market forces that have a bearing on the determination of Highest and Best Use is crucial to the valuation process. Highest and Best Use analysis identifies the most profitable, competitive use to which the property can be put. The Highest and Best Use of a speck parcel of land is not determined through subjective analysis; rather, Highest and Best Use is shaped by the competitive forces within the market where the property is located. Therefore, the analysis and interpretation of Highest and Best Use is an economic study and a financial analysis focused on the property. The Highest and Best Use of a property provides the foundation for a thorough investigation of the competitive position of the property in the minds of market participants. Consequently, Highest and Best Use can be described as the foundation on which market value rests. Highest and Best Use (as Defined) Highest and Best Use may be defined as follows: The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property that is physically possible, appropriately supported, and financially feasible and that results in the highest value. Highest and Best Use Fundamentals Fundamentally, the concept of Highest and Best Use applies to land alone because the value of the improvements is considered to be the value they contribute to the land. Land is said to have value, while improvements contribute to the value of the property as a whole. The theoretical emphasis of Highest and Best Use analysis is on the potential uses of the land as though vacant. In practice, thought, the contribution of value of the existing improvements and any possible alteration of those improvements must be recognized, so the Highest and Best Use of the property as improved is equally important in developing an opinion of market value of the property. R& Integra Realty Resources South Florida Uj" JL e) APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS (Continued) Highest and Best Use Testing Criteria Analysis ia. LIFZ3,rnifted Into the public Y�tI 1 p2 In addition to being reasonably probable, the Highest and Best Use of both the land as though vacant and the property as improved must meet four implicit criteria. That is, the highest and best use must be: • Physically possible • Legally permissible • Financial feasible • Maximally productive These criteria are often considered sequentially.(') The tests of physical possibility and legal permissibility must be applied before the remaining tests of financial feasibility and maximum productivity. A use may be financially feasible, but this is irrelevant if it is legally prohibited or physically impossible. ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES In the analysis of real estate, the following basic fundamental Economic Principles and Concepts are considered. Principle of Anticipation is the perception that value is created by the expectation of benefits to be derived in the future. Principle of Change is the result of the relationship between cause and effect that affects real property value. Principle of Supply and Demand in its economic theory states that the price of a commodity, good or service varies directly, but not necessarily proportionately, with demand, and inversely, but not necessarily proportionately, with supply. In real estate, the appraisal principal of supply and demand states that the price of real property varies directly, but not necessarily proportionately, with demand and inversely, but not necessarily proportionately, with supply. Principle of Competition (as related to the Principal of Supply and Demand) between buyers or tenants is the interactive efforts of two or more potential purchasers or tenants to secure a purchase or lease. Between sellers or landlords, competition is the interactive efforts of two or more potential sellers or landlords to effectuate a sale or lease. Principle of Substitution states that when several similar or commensurate commodities, goods, or services are available, the one with the lowest price attracts the greatest demand and widest distribution. (1) Although the criteria are considered sequentially, it does not matter whether legal permissibility or physical possibility is addressed first, provided both are considered prior to the test of financial feasibility. It should be noted that the four criteria are interactive and may be considered in concert. M Integra Realty Resources South Florida 03— 615 Into the public 4biia-9orj with APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS i a p2 R (Continued) ` "° .' Principle of Opportunity Cost is the cost of options foregone or the opportunities not chosen. Principle of Balance holds that real property value is created and sustained when contrasting, opposing, or interacting elements are in a state of equilibrium. Principle of Contribution states that the value of a particular component is measured in terms of its contribution to the value of the whole property, or as the amount that absence would detract from the value of the whole. Principle of Surplus Productivity is the net income that remains after the cost of labor, capital, and coordination have been paid. Principle of Conformity holds that real property value is created and sustained when the characteristics of a property conform to the demands of its market. Principle of Externalties states that economies or diseconomies outside a property may have a positive or negative effect on its value. Source: Definitions per Revised Edition of Real Estate Appraisal Terminology and The Appraisal of Real Estate, published by The Appraisal Institute, as reviewed by Integra Realty Resources — South Florida M Integra Realty Resources South Florida 03- f 15 eROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Or MICHAEL Y. CANNON, MAI, SRA, ASA, CRE ^�?.me�1q ��A^*�1 ✓� ,, (R 1"+ ot r10�- 1b -3- EXPERIENCE: Managing Director of Integra Realty Resources — South Florida, formerly known as Appraisal and Real Estate Economics Associates, Inc./AREEA, which was established in 1973. Specializes in real estate and business counseling and analysis. Performs market/marketability and feasibility studies; investment analysis; partial interest appraisals relating to real estate developments and business. Consultant to various government agencies on real estate matters. President of AREEA Investment Advisory and Management Services, Inc., which provides advisory services relating to asset, portfolio, property management/leasing and administration; and is engaged in advising lease structures and negotiations of commercial leases for landlords and tenants. AREEA Assessment Consultants performs Ad Valorem Tax Appeals. PROFESSIONAL Member: Appraisal Institute [AI] - (MAI No. 8734); Past Chapter President, Board of ACTIVITIES: Directors, Member/Chairman of several committees Senior Residential Appraiser (SRA) Counselors of Real Estate (CRE Cert. No. 1058) Society of Mortgage Consultants of the National Association of Mortgage Brokers (SMC) American Society of Appraisers (ASA No. 008888) Founding Member of the National Association of Corporate Real Estate Executives (NACORE) National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Builder's Association of S. Florida (BASF); Life Directors, Hall of Fame Member, and Past Vice President Urban Land Institute (ULI); Exec. Committee Member S. Florida Council International Council of Shopping Centers International Association of Assessing Office (IAAO) Beacon Council; Member of Economic Roundtable Forum American Association of Arbitrators; Appointed to Panel of Arbitrators Licenses: State of Florida Real Estate Broker (1961), Lic. #0182553 State of Florida Certified General Appraiser, #RZ684 Instructor/ Adjunct Instructor -University of Miami, Finance Department Lecturer: Florida International Univ; Market Analysis/Florida R.E. Commission Lecturer at Law relating to Value Theory & Valuation Theory in Estate Tax Planning and legal matters - Univ. of Miami School of Law Publisher of the AREEA Report for South Florida; Miami Herald Weekly Columnist; Editorial Advisor to various real estate journals and magazines; quoted in local/state/national media; authored papers and articles. Author of Market Analysis in the Valuation Process (AI) and Role of the Appraiser and Assessor in Ad Valorem Tax Matters IAAO EDUCATION: Majored in Business Administration, University of Miami Successfully completed numerous real estate related courses and seminars sponsored by the Al, accredited universities and others Currently certified by the Al, ASA, and State of Florida's continuing education QUALIFIED AS Circuit Court of Miami -Dade, Broward, Lee, Charlotte, Palm Beach, Indian River Counties EXPERT U.S. District Court for the Northern and Southern District of Florida WITNESS: U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division Testified before U.S. Senate Banking Committee, Washington, DC Rev. 03/03 03` 6� Integra Realty Resources