HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #47 - Discussion ItemZONING FACT SHEET
Case Number. 2001-0437 23 -Apr -01 Item No: 7
Location: Approx. 2640 S. Beyshore Drive
Legal: (Complete legal description on file with the Office of Hearing Boards)
Applicant:
Zoning:
City of Miami, owner
444 SW 2 Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
App. Ph: (305) 416-1025
PR Parks & Recreation
Felix Lima for Grove Harbour
Marina B Caribbean Mktplace, Leasee
9758 SW 24 Street
Miami, FL 33165
Rep. Ph: (305) 554-0982 ext
Rep. Fa (__j _- ext
Request: Appeal by W. Tucker Gibbs, Esq. on behalf of Gerald J. Tobins of the Decision of
the Zoning Administrator dated March 19, 2001, regarding a determination of a non -
substantial change from approved Special Exceptions.
Purpose: This will uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator.
Recommendations:
Planning Department:
Public Works:
Plat and Street Committee:
Dade County Transportation:
Enforcement History H any C.E.B. Case No: 9911185 Last Hearing Date:
Found: N/A
Violation(s) Cited: Improper maintenance of building.
Ticketing Action: NIA
Daily Fine: $0.00 Affidavit Non -Compliance fssued on:
Waming Letter sent on:
Total Fines to Data: $0.00 Lien Recorded on: Comply Order by:
CEB Action:
History: The Special Exceptions were recommended for approval by the Zoning Board to
the City Commission on December 4, 2000, by Resolution No. ZB 2000-387, by a
vote of 8-0.
Analysis:
Zoning Board Resolution No: ZB 2001-0434
Zoning Board: Denial of appeal.
City Cams sion: N/A
Appellant: W. Tucker Gibbs, Esq.
PZ -1
Vote: 8--0 CU
r " r
0 •
Miami Zoning Board
Resolution: ZB 2001-0434
Monday, April 23, 2001
Mr. Angel Urquiola offered the following Resolution and moved
its adoption
Resolution:
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL BY W. TUCKER GIBBS, ESQUIRE, ON BEHALF OF
GERALD J. TOBINS, AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DATED
MARCH 19, 2001, REGARDING A DETERMINATION OF A NONSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE FROM
APPROVED SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2840
SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A" (HEREBY ATTACHED),
PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI•DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; ZONED PR PARKS AND RECREATION.
Upon being seconded by Mr. Charles J. Flowers,
the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote:
Mr. Rodolro De La Guardia
Away
Mr. Charles J. Flowers
Yea
Mr. Joseph H. Ganguzsa
Yes
Ms. lleane Hernandez-Aoosta
Yea
Mr. Humberto J. Pellon
Yes
Mr. Juvenal Pins
Yes
Mr. Allan Shulman
Yes
Mr, Angel Urquiols
Yes
Mr. Georges Williams
Yes
AYE:
S
NAY:
0
ABSTENTIONS:
0
NO VOTES:
0
ABSENTS:
1
Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 8-0
oresita L. Femandez, Chief
Office of Hearing Boards
Case No.: 2001-0437 Item Nbr: 7
CA-PPC61 64;-t►WrPC'&V
rAWLE1. A UPLAND: '
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHIREST ONE-OkMTER
IS W 14 OF SECTION 22. TOWNSHIP 54 SOUTH.
RANGE 41 EAST, DADE COUNTY. FLORIDA. BEND
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMIIENC111G AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CRY
MOM LENT LINES OF 'SMV 2T" AVENUE' WRIT
'SOUTH BAYSIIORE DRIVE' AS STIWN ON THAT
CERTAIN PLAT OF VIINrER KEY, AS RECORDED N
PIAT BOOK 34 AT PACE 2 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF DADE COUNTY. FLORIDA.
11%"CE. ALONG 1HE CITU MONUMENT LINE OF SAID
'SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE' NORTH 3830 03EAST
11 It 18 FEE T TO A PONT BEND 2.27 FEET
SOU"4WESTERLY FROM THE NTERSECTION OF
THE CITY MONUMENT LINES OF UIIRWM Stomer
WITH SAID SOUTH RAYSHORE CROW.
THENCE. COWNUING ALONG THE CITY MONUMENT
t LIVE OF SAID *SOUTH BAYSHORE ORIVE': NORTH
St S2 al' EAST 3142 FEET;
THENCE. SOUfTH 1r25'Sr EAST 8012 FEET TO THE
PONT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN AFTER
DE SCRIBEO PARCEL.
THENCE. CONTNNING ALONG THE LAST BEARING:
SOUTH 767537 EAST 542.16 FEET TO THE LINE OF
OEIAARCATION BETWEEN UPLAND AND SUBMERGED
tAND OF 'BISCAYNE BAY.
THENCE, ALONG SAID DEMARCATION TINE: SOUTH
167101 EAST 552 25 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY
R1GHT -0F -WAY LINE OF 'CW WT HOUSE ROAD' AS
SHOIIMI ON THE SKETCH OF SURVEY, DATED
JANLIART 14. I"i. REFERRED FILE Ns. MISC 61-130
REV AND PREPARED BY'SCHWEBKE t SHISKIN AND
ASSOCIA /E S
THENCE. ALONG SAID RAW LINE. FOR THE
FOLLOMMNG EK M A COURSES:
I NORTH TS'4T04' WEST 240.15 FEET
7 THENCE. NORTH 30r63W WEST 10.16 WEST
3 THENCE. NORTH T6'1S'ST' WEST s3 covEET
4 THENCE. NORTH 54'0170• WEST ".11111 FEET
5 THENCE. NORTH 7r25'S7WEST 215.00 FEET
6 THENCE. SOUTH 71YrrW WEST 41.B0FEET
1 THENCE. NORTH 74r2S'S7•WEsT 74.00 FEET
1 THENCE, NORTH 31'4411' WEST 231.20 FEET
TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 22.22 FEET
SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID'SOUTH
GAYSHORE DROVE. -
THENCE. ALONG SAND PARALLEL LINE:
NORTH3113003 EAST 245.49FEET:
THENCE. SOUTH 1.61!1'12' EAST S.25 FEET;
THENCE. NDRTH IYt1'03' EAST 11.80 FEET;
THENCE. NORTH 5152'03' EAST 8.30 FEET; TO
THE POINT OF BEGNNNO.
CONTAINING 302.081 SOWLRE FEET. MORE OR
LESS OR 6.0027 ACRES. MORE OR LESS.
PARCEL A SUBrEROED LAND
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-OUARTER
IS.W M OF SECTION 22. W MSHIP 54 SOUTH.
RANGE 41 EAST. DADE COUNTY. , LORIDA1,
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NTERESECRON OF THE
CITY MONUMENT LINES OF 'SW 27"AVEME'
AND *SOUTH BAYSINORE DRIVE• AS SHORN ON
THAT CERTAIN PLAT OF'DBRNER KEG.' AS
RECORDED N PLAT BOOK 34. AT PAGE 2 OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY.
FLORIDA.
THENCE, ALONG THE CRY MONUMENT LINE OF
SAID'SOUIH BAYSNORE DRIVE': NORTH
38'3"4 EAST 1131.31 FEET TO A POINT BEND
2.27 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE
INTERSECTION OF THE CITY MONUMENT LINES
OF `DARWIN STREET' AND SAID'SOUTH
BAVSHORE DRIVE'
THENCE. CONTINUING ALONG THE CITY
MONUMENT LINE OF M W= JKYSHORE
ORIVE': NORTH 51'5203' EMT 31.42 FEET: '
THENCE. SOUTH ?WNW EAST $4.20 FEET TO
THE LINE OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN UPLAND
AND SUBMERGED LAND OFF INSCAYNE BAr
AND THE �R�FBfWWq OF THE
FTER
HEREINADE PARCEL:
THENCE. CONTINUNO ALONG THE LAST
BEARING: SOUTH 7675'17 EAST 024.00 FEET;
THENCE. SOUTH 40' rw EAST 101.61 FEET;
THENCE. SOUTH tr34W WEST 372.00 FEET;
THENCE. NORTH 7675'SI WEST 207.61 FEET; TO
ITS NTERSECTTON rMITH SAID DEMARCATION
UNE BETWEEN UPLAND AND SUBWFIGED LAND OF
'BNSCAYNE BAY',
THENCE. ALONG SAID DEMARCATION LINE NORTH
10'23'03' WEST M0.44 FEET 10 THE POINI OF
BEGINNING
CONTAINING 110.010 SOUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS
OR 4.12 ACRES. MORE OR LESS.
PARCEL B SUBMERGED LAND:
A PORTION OF THE SOUTWEST ONE-OWIER IS W
Y.I OF SECTION 22. TOWNSHIP S1 SOUTH_ RANGE i1
EAST, Mal COUNTY. FLORIDA. BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESIJMBED AS FOLLOWS.
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CITY
MONUMENT LINES OF 'SW 21" AVENUE- AND
'SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE' AS S►10wW ON THAT
CERTAIN PLAT OF •GINNER KEY' AS RCC m
PLAT BOOK 34. AT PAGE 2 OF THE PUBLIC RE.. OS
OF DADE COUNTY. FLORIDA
THENCE. ALONG THE CITY MONUMENT LINE OF SAID
'SOUTH BAYSHORE Dw4E" NORTH 36'7003' EAST
1131.38 FEET TO A PONT BEING 121 FEE T
SOUTHWESTERLY FROM THE NTERSECTON OF INE
CRY MONUME141 LINES OF 'DARWIN STREE T' ANO
SAIO'Som OAYSHORE
THENCE. CONTINUING ALONG THE CITY 140"U11EN1
LINE OF SAID •SOUTH BAYSHORE D"' NORM
5112'01' EAST 31 41 FEET.
THENCE. SOUTH 76"2S37' EAST 610 IS FEE I TO THE
LINE OF OEMARCATION BETWEEN UPLAND AND
SUBMEROED LAND OF •IIISCAYNE BAY -
THENCE. COHTINUItfO ALONG THE IAST OESCFA*D
LINE: SOUTH 78'2S'S7' EAST 424 00 FEE 1.
THENCE. SOUTH 40'51'19' EAST 186 44 FEET.
THENCE. SOUTH 1334VTVVEST M WFEET. TARE
PONT OF SE(IINMNOOF THE 14EMERAFIER
DESCRIBED PARCEL
THENCE. SOUTH TWITS? EAST )SI 00 FEE I
THENCE. SOUTH t 1')401' WEST 10) 00 FEE T.
THENCE. NORTH 76'15'51' WEST 251 00 FEF T.
THENCE NORTH 11'34'03'EAST 11100 FEET TO IN[
PONT OF BEGINNING. _
th
X
CONTAINING M.313 SOUARE FEET. MORE OR LESS
OR 1.20 ACRES. MORE OR LESS
M
H
W. TucBER GIBBS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P O. BOX 1050
Cocoh,ur GRovE, FLORIDA 33133
TELEPHONE (305) 856.2711
r-ACSMLE (305) 8$4.6093
May B, 2001
Terecita Fernandez,
Director, Hearing Boards Office
City of Miami
444 S.W. 2"c Avenue, Seventh Floor
Miami, Florida 33130-1910
VIA HMD DZLXWRY
Re: Appeal of Decision of Zoning Board on April 23, 2001
regarding 2640 S. Sayshore Drive, Grove Harbour Marina a
Caribbean Marketplace.
Dear Ms Fernandez:
I represent Gerald J. Tobin, who lives at and owns property
at 2575 South Bayshore Drive and whose office is at 2701
South Bayshore Drive and the Coconut Grove Civic Club, Inc.
Mr. Tobin is aggrieved by the referenced decision as his home
and workplace will be substantially affected by the
development of the Grove Harbour Marina & Caribbean
Marketplace as interpreted in that decision. The Civic Club
is aggrieved as its members, many of whom live along South
Bayshore Drive and in the surrounding neighborhood will be
adversely affected by the Zoning Administrator's decision
regarding this project in their neighborhood.
Let this letter serve as the notice of appeal on behalf'of my
clients pursuant to Articles 16 and 20 of the Zoning Code of
the City of Miami of the decision of the Zoning Board on
April 2.3, 2001 to uphold the determination of the Zoning
Administrator on March 19, 2001. In that decision the Zoning
Board agreed with the determination the Zoning Administrator
that the changes to the application for Special Exception for
the referenced property dated August 7, 2000 as approved by
the City of Miami Zoning Board on December 4, 2000 do not
constitute a substantial change defined and regulated under
Section 2215.1 of the Zoning Code.
The City and Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace
LLC ("Grove Harbour") entered into a Lease Agreement
("Lease") for the property located at approximately located
at 2600/2640 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, Flprida
("Agreement") on March 12, 1999. Under that Lease Grove
611ams
May B, 2001 •
Terecita Fernandez
Page 2
u
Harbour is permitted to develop the property pursuant to
"Conceptual Development Plans" contained as Exhibit "C"
therein. Additionally in Section 4.6, the Lease established a
procedure under which the "Development Plans" of the project
be approved by the city. According to Section 4.6(a):
Development Plans shall be subject to an
application for a Special Exception Permit
and Certificate of Appropriateness. For the
purposes of this Lease, `Development Plans'
(commonly referred to as Schematic Design
Documents) shall consist of all application
materials required pursuant to a complete
Special Exception Permit application and
Complete Certificate of Appropriateness
application.
To underscore the site plan/ project plan approval nature of
this Special Exception, the Lease provides for a rapid
approval process for the project's construction documents
once the Special Exception is approved by the city
commission. The Lease calls for those construction plans to
be submitted to the City Manager within 90 days of commission
approval of the Special Exception. Within 15 days of their
submittal, the manager must approve or reject the plans. If
the manager rejects the construction plans then Grove Harbour
must revise and resubmit plans within 30 days. If he does not
comment then the plans are automatically approved.
The Lease is clear: This Special Exception process is the
final opportunity for public input and comment on the
development plans for this project on public property.
Once the Special Exception is approved by the City
Commission, the development parameters for this project are
established. There is no going back. It is for this reason
that the opportunity for public review and comment on the
development project is critical at both the Zoning Board and
the City Commission. Neither the public interest nor the
City's ordinances are served by making one application at the
Zoning Board level and then substantially retooling that
application ten days prior to the City Commission's
consideration of that application.
Please note the Zoning Board failed to consider, in its
decision, the timing of the review of the revised plans that
were the subject of the Zoning Administrator's review in the
context of Section 2215(d) of the Zoning Code. The plans and
other documents showing substantial changes involving changed
May S, 2001 • •
Terecita Fernandez
Page 3
square footage calculations affecting parking calculations
and other site plan revisions were presented to staff on
Friday March :6, 2001 and the Zoning Administrator's decision
was rendered or. Monday March 19, 2001. Staff evaluation of
the changes in the site plan, including referral to other
departments regarding fire issues, public works impacts,
historic preservation matters was limited or non existent
given this short review period. Further, the Zoning
Administrator had neither the time nor expertise to properly
evaluate the most important component of the submittal, the
parking calculations prepared by the applicant's consultant.
The Zoning Administrator undertook no independent review of
these parking assumptions included in the final submitta=.
Thus, the submitted parking calculations were accepted as
fact.
Based on the forgoing, the grounds for this appeal are as
follows. The Zoning Board erroneously made its determination
that the Zoning Administrator's decision was correct because:
1. What is described in the determination memo as a
confirmation of a "minimal" shift of the rear setback
from the bulkhead to the new building from 40 to 50 feet
is a substantial alteration of the zoning board's
approved special exception. This was shown on the plans
approved by the Zoning Board as a 40 -foot setback from
bulkhead to new building. In the city commission
submittal it is shown as a 50 -foot setback. This is a
substantial movement of the footprint of the new
building.
2. What is described in the determination memo as a
"clarification of allowed uses" is nothing more than a
flat out change in uses, substantially altering the
zoning board's approved special exception. Not only does
the city commission submittal include changes in uses,
it also includes changes in the design and use of the
project and related changes in the provided parking.
3. What is described in the determination memo as an
increase in parking from 267 to 344 spaces is just that,
an increase of 77 spaces. This corrects a blatant
violation of the city's parking regulations approved as
part of the Special Exception by the Zoning Board. The
Zoning Board approved a plan and a set of uses that did
not comply with the city's parking ordinances. This is
why the development plan submitted to the city ap%a'Gl
-"- 5000 1 -
May 8, 2001 • •
Terecita Fernandez
Page 4
commission has been substantially changed from the one
approved by the Zoning Board.
4. What is described in the determination memo as a
decrease of width of pedestrian promenade to accommodate
more parking on the site is more than that. It
underscores the substantial nature of this change. This
is the crux of the issue. To correct the misinformation
regarding the parking requirements the Zoning Board
approved plans were based upon, and provide an
alternative parking count to the city commission, the
applicant had to redesign the project to reflect the
additional parking he neglected to provide in the plans
approved by the Zoning Board. As the applicant(s)
scrambled to obscure the fact that the Zoning Board
approved plans were based on inadequate parking, they
changed the plans and reduced the square footage of
uses, changed uses, decreased landscaping, decreased
buffer areas, and misrepresented measurements/sizes on
the plans themselves. These changes show a project
substantially different from that approved by the Zoning
Board.
5. What is described in the determination memo as a
revision of the parking calculations to reflect parks
and recreation designation reflects the admission by the
applicant and the zoning Administrator that the Zoning
Board approved plans were in violation of the zoning
code. This admission and the subsequent substantial
alteration of the plans engendered by this admission as
set forth above warrants a determination that these
plans be set back to the Zoning Board for a real review
based on real parking calculations.
Clearly a submittal to the city commission that changes from
the Zoning Board approved plans the parking by 77 spaces,
that decreases the retail component, that reduces landscaped
buffers, that changes the uses approved by the Zoning Board
is a substantial deviation from that plan approved by the
Zoning Board. These substantial changes merit Zoning Board
review prior to submittal to the City Commission.
For those reasons appellants, Gerald J. Tobin and the Coconut
Grove Civic Club, Inc., through their undersigned attorney,
hereby appeal the decision of the Zoning Board that the
determination of the Zoning Administrator that the changes to
the approved Special Exception of Grove Harbour Marina and
4�liJ
&.Of Yirra&-)
1101/140110
May 8, 2001 •
Terecita Fernandez
Page 5
Marketplace are not substantial. Furthermore, Gerald L....
Tobin, and the Coconut Grove Civic Club reserve their right
to supplement this appeal letter with briefs or memorandA'
prior to zoning board consideration of this appeal.
Sincerely, u`.. .
i�t$
W. Tuck Gibbs ,r•a c5�,a;;
< 2 =..,. x N t..§aqs{aflbt '' asp x_-
r r �` S• r f 6u�` ,
Ca: Gerald J. Tobin, Esq•
Frank Balzebre, President, Coconut :Grove; Civic c .
Carlos Gimenez, City Manager
Alex Vilarello, City Attorney p
Walter Foeman, City Clerk
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Planning Director
Juan Gonzalez, Zoning Administrator
py
sLL,i s7 di xr;�i'J x�tk K"i,w+`ao'rr
Ili
'Y a.�is',�t...,k"s'�taa'°�`i'•1`$ sti3�* }i� s
?'Y
cr • a+dl'>5''ti,� �p,1�'akt,.,(�sC� tit'"' X1'"'4' v�Z- 440,
��'.,'
rA
�y�'i�td .;.���'+-�`•!i'>'r �4���. ..�.��4 y,•Y,�4f �r.�S �F' t�`f. ks, rZ���t "'��,Exxt```.�
2 ;,,v"'�'
�'`i,•r,xt'wday'�k4.Q.4'z5pn' da"kt
x $ e r ���
+. i , I i"a a,r r :,,tmr}a .erf Rpt 's
'
i � 7�� } r :: «£r � wt*,�',PF �'" s z- t r ^.s" t � J ?* a� `'` f Lyk � �� -� '`� � � s k .� L '' 6 z tu` ✓ y r �.u�'S ai,��t s.
«�.1 ,rt t s
s Y i y t 4 M t w a x 4 X42 ccs t`
ae y ty�>t,'r..<st15—T,.'°4x�''kS'�yhsSs'�: R .SS"i t,�3 �. 4<"
WT
' r .y qu
xr
te
r^t� cert r ti a ¢ nS 1 3f tiers } t�9 d ka
l 7 i
• 1'` �.x �} S" aPY, tt`ax KFie"t i .4 � n hfY �S.„'�` !{`: � h{r� x�r. a '� �'"'s, •pS�s`t i r ti"�' a% �df =�i' x
1 � y4� k 'r '�2 .��''•!"t t.' Y F. h S 4.,3 2s � Yh f4 `y, of
� W. TUCKER GIBBS
ATTORNEY AT LAK'
P.O. BOX 1050
CoCOM M GROVE, FLORFDA 33133 p I MAR 28 PM 10
TELhPHONE (305) 856-2711
FACSRAME (305)154.6093
March 28, 2001
Terecita Fernandez,
Director, Hearing Boards Office
City of Miami
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Seventh Floor
Miami, Florida 33130-1910
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Dear Ms Fernandez:
I represent Gerald J. Tobin, who lives at and owns property
at 2575 South Bayshore Drive and whose office is at 2701
South Bayshore Drive and the Coconut Grove Civic Club, Inc.
Mr. Tobin is aggrieved by the referenced decision of the
Zoning Administrator as his home and workplace will be
substantially affected by the development of the Grove
Harbour Marina & Caribbean Marketplace as interpreted in that
decision. The Civic Club is aggrieved as its members, many of
whom live along South Bayshore Drive and in the surrounding
neighborhood will be adversely affected by the Zoning
Administrator's decision regarding this project in their
neighborhood.
Let this letter serve as the notice of appeal on behalf of my
clients pursuant to Article 18 of the Zoning Code of the City
of Miami of the determination of the Zoning Administrator on
March 19, 2001 ("Determination Memo", Exhibit "A"). In that
determination the Zoning Administrator found that the changes
to the application for Special Exception for the referenced
property dated August 7, 2000 as approved by the City of
Miami Zoning Board on December 4, 2000 do not constitute a
substantial change defined and regulated under Section 2215.1_
of the Zoning Code.
The City and Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace
LLC ("Grove Harbour") entered into a Lease Agreement
("Lease") for the property located at approximately located
at 2600/2640 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida
("Agreement") on March 12, 1999. Under that Lease Grove
G.P,vrGl
0 -Mc a .&I
e -4r• l�-
(1161611
March 28, 2001 • •
Terecita Fernandez
Page 2
Harbour is permitted to develop the property pursuant to
"Conceptual Development Plans" contained as Exhibit "C"
therein. Additionally in Section 4.6, the Lease established a
procedure under which the "Development Plans" of the project
be approved by the city. According to Section 4.6(a):
Development Plans shall be subject to an
application for a Special Exception Permit
and Certificate of Appropriateness. For the
purposes of this Lease, `Development Plans'
(commonly referred to as Schematic Design
Documents) shall consist of all application
materials required pursuant to a complete
Special. Exception Permit application and
Complete Certificate of Appropriateness
application.
To underscore the site plan/ project plan approval nature of
this Special Exception, the Lease provides for a rapid
approval process for the project's construction documents
once the Special Exception is approved by the city
commission. The Lease calls for those construction plans to
be submitted to the City Manager within 90 days of commission
approval of the Special Exception. Within 15 days of their
submittal, the manager must approve or reject the plans. If
the manager rejects the construction plans then Grove Harbour
must revise and resubmit plans within 30 days. If he does not
comment then the plans are automatically approved.
The Lease is clear: This Special Exception process is the
final opportunity for public input and comment on the
development plans for this project on public property.
Once the Special Exception is approved by the City
Commission, the development parameters for this project are
established. There is no going back. It is for this reason
that the opportunity for public review and comment on the
development project is critical at both the Zoning Board and
the City Commission. Neither the public interest nor the
City's ordinances are served by making one application at the
Zoning Board level and then substantially retooling that
application ten days prior td the City Commission's
consideration of that application.
Please note the timing of the review of the revised plans
that were the subject of the Zoning Administrator's review in
the context of Section 2215(d) of the Zoning Code. The plans
and other documents showing substantial changes involving
changed square footage calculations affecting parking
G,f2lka/
(„��+�c�rA►ca•
filmar
March 28, 2001 • •
Terecita Fernandez
Page 3
calculations and other site plan revisions were presented to
staff on Friday March 16, 2001 and the Zoning Administrator's
decision was rendered on Monday March 19, 2001. Staff
evaluation of the changes in the site plan, including
referral to other departments regarding fire issues, public
works impacts, historic preservation matters was limited or
non existent given this short review period. Further, the
Zoning Administrator had neither the time nor expertise to
properly evaluate the most important component of the
submittal, the parking calculations prepared by the
applicant's consultant. The Zoning Administrator undertook no
independent review of these parking assumptions included in
the final submittal. Thus, the submitted parking calculations
were accepted as fact.
Based on the forgoing, the grounds for this appeal are as
follows. The Zoning Administrator erroneousy made his
determination because:
1. What is described in the determination memo as a
confirmation of a "minimal" shift of the rear setback
from the bulkhead to the new building from 40 to 50 feet
is a substantial alteration of the zoning board's
approved special exception. This was shown on the plans
approved by the Zoning Board as a 40 -foot setback from
bulkhead to new building. In the city commission
submittal it is shown as a 50 -foot setback. This is a
substantial movement of the footprint of the new
building.
2. What is described in the determination memo as a
"clarification of allowed uses" is nothing more than a
flat out change in uses, substantially altering the
zoning board's approved special exception. Not only does
the city commission submittal include changes in uses,
it also includes changes in the design and use of the
project and related changes in the provided parking.
3. What is described in the determination memo as an
increase in parking from 267 to 344 spaces is just that,
an increase of 77 spaces. This corrects a blatant
violation of the ,city's parking regulations approved as
part of the Special Exception by the 'Zoning Board. The
Zoning Board approved a plan and a set of uses that did
not comply with the city's parking ordinances. This is
why the development plan submitted to the city
449 ^" 1
n�,✓rw,u�r.�+
March 28, 2001 • •
Terecita Fernandez
Page 4
commission has been substantially changed from the one
approved by the Zoning Board.
4. What is described in the determination memo as a
decrease of width of pedestrian promenade to accommodate
more parking on the site is more than that. It
underscores the substantial nature of this change. This
is the crux of the issue. To correct the misinformation
regarding the parking requirements the Zoning Board
approved plans were based upon, and provide an
alternative parking count to the city commission, the
applicant had to redesign the project to reflect the
additional parking he neglected to provide in the plans
approved by the Zoning Board. As the applicant(s)
scrambled to obscure the fact that the Zoning Board
approved plans were based on inadequate parking, they
changed the plans and reduced the square footage of
uses, changed uses, decreased landscaping, decreased
buffer areas, and misrepresented measurements/sizes on
the plans themselves. These changes snow a project
substantially different from that approved by the Zoning
Board.
5. What is described in the determination memo as a
revision of the parking calculations to reflect parks
and recreation designation reflects the admission by the
applicant and the Zoning Administrator that the Zoning
Board approved plans were in violation of the zoning
code. This admission and the subsequent substantial
alteration of the plans engendered by this admission as
set forth above warrants a determination that these
plans be set back to the Zoning Board for a real review
based on real parking calculations.
Clearly a submittal to the city commission that changes from
the zoning Board approved plans the parking by 77 spaces,
that decreases the retail component, that reduces landscaped
buffers, that changes the uses approved by the 'Zoning Board
is a substantial deviation from that plan approved by the
Zoning Board. These substantial changes merit Zoning Board
review prior to submittal to the City Commission.
For those reasons appellants, Gerald J. Tobin and the Coconut
Grove Civic Club, 1nc., through their undersigned attorney,
hereby appeal the determination of the Zoning Administrator
that the changes to the approved Special Exception of Grove
Harbour Marina and Marketplace are not substantial.A,G�
March 28 2001
Terecita Fernandez
Page 5
f iti t t.
S � fti F
�
`urxh rmaras, Gerard . T �# # 4� 1 CQ v� ja
r "
.xaserve their rib nb�► y��
with. briefs or memoranda psi or to ;a+�s� � bc�a►r��ran�,���a�y m � �
o! this appeal.t
(A" r ma
J � A
tix t � 4,r.;.
cerely/ ',F6, 5�t"tom
L�°d7*"x. C, r,'�. �,g+'3 �•o.}e,� K�+;D <� t�
'}� + ,
Cc: Gerald J. Tobin,+ Esq.
r3'r 34 J k 5Y'it'MM k;
Frank Balzebre, President,
Carlos Gimenez, City Manager
k,4 b Y
Alex Va.larello, .City Attorney
Walter Foeman, City Clerk
V. �
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Planning Direcfibx
JU�n Gonzalez, Zoning Administ�at�r.
a���"+�� � }� x�'
t tit 1}en:spa '`"' y* "
�ttx��`tk}sett
}
f
.,+ [' �#t *�k-Fr. � R i"S �,£' S. Ft*k'�+� M1 �,�}� ��� Y y� , f .• K' [ i i� �✓..i {�7`
v; �� � �� ��� F'��9 � ���- 4 C � ,ri N-`�f�� ' `} �'� {,J . +'�• +� S ;..�c�'a� �`'� # Yx y s k '#� � � a � t i
"
INTER -OFFICE MENIORANDUM
Lourdes Slazyk, March 19, 2001
A Istant Director
P ing and Zoni ment Determination of
Non -substantial change
In an approved
Special Exceptions
1 an C. Gonzalez, 2640 S Bayshore Drive
Acting Zoning Administrp�" "- Grove Harbour Marina &
Pursuant to a request from Felix Lima of the- firm of Grove Harbour Marina &
Caribbean Marketplace, LLC. concerning a determination of a non -substantial change
from air approved Special Exceptions, please be advised of the following.
The applicants are proposing a change to the Special Exceptions in the following manner.
A) Confirmation of the verified 50' rear setback from the bulkhead to the
new building which was previously estimated and noted on the plans
as 40'. The shift after the verification is minimal.
B) Clarification of allocated uses and areas for the boatyard and marina
components located at the existing main hanger and new building.
C) Increase parking area from 267 spaces to 344 spaces.
D) Decrease width of pedestrian promenade to accommodate parking
modification.
E) Revise parking calculations to reflect a Parks and Recreation
designation calculations as pursuant to The Schedule of District
Regulations of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance.
F) A list of Summary of Modifications labeling and clarifying certain
areas.
Section 2215.1 regulates whether changes to a Special Exception are non -substantial. The
criteria referenced are:
EXHIBIT Uii'n
Ila
amw-I
6'04-i�rywn
--VU i ,.�_
i
Lourdes Slazyk .' •
March 19, 2001
Page 2 of 2
A) The requested change exceeds the zoning regulations;
H) The footprint of the building is proposed to be moved by more than ten
(10) feet in any horizontal direction.
C) The height of the building or any portion thereof is proposed to be
increased by more than (5) feet or five (5) percent of the height of the
• • building; whichever is greater, in a vertical direction;
D) Any other change which, in the evaluation of the zoning administrator,
has not been part of the prior application, has not been reviewed and
evaluated by staff, and has a serious effect on the project proposed by
the application.
Therefore, after review of the proposed changes, it is my opinion that the changes do not
constitute a substantial change as defined and regulated under Section 2215.1 of Zoning
Ordinance 11000 as amended.
JCG: tc