Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-96-0793[i i J-96-512 7/09/96 RESOLUTION N0.) 6 . - 7 9 A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 94-453, ADOPTED JUNE 30, 1994, IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SUBSTITUTING IN LIEU THEREOF, THE HEREIN RESOLUTION, THEREBY APPROVING THE PLAT ENTITLED: "OAK SHADOW", A 3 SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS 4 SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING f THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD; OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. E WHEREAS, the Coconut Grove Civic Club, Inc., { E. W. Cullipher, John Duvall and Jeffrey Degen, petitioned the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in Case No. 94-261 AP for a Writ of Certiorari directing the City of Miami to quash a Resolution No. 94-453; and WHEREAS, on February 9, 1996, the Appellate Division of Circuit Court, Case No. 94-261 AP, granted the petition and quashed the decision of the Commission of the City of Miami and remanded the matter to the City Commission for further j { proceedings consistent with its opinion; and WHEREAS, upon remand, the City Manager reiterates the t findings and recommendations of the Plat and Street Committee and { f CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF ®C T 2 4 !996 Resolution N. hereby advises the City Commission, that all legal and technical requirements have been met, and recommends approval of the final plat; and WHEREAS, the City Commission having reviewed the record and the findings of the Plat and Street Committee and the City Manager, having heard from members of the public at a duly scheduled City Commission meeting, and being otherwise fully advised; 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 hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. Resolution No. 94-453, adopted June 30, 1994, is hereby rescinded in its entirety. Section 3. The plat entitled "Oak Shadow" is a resubdivision of Lot 23, Block C, Biscayne Park Terrace, Plat Book 2, Page 36, lying in Section 15, Township 54 South, Range 41 East, City of Miami, Dade County, Florida, which plat by reference is made a part hereof as if fully incorporated herein, and, subject to all of the conditions required by the Plat and Street Committee as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, is hereby accepted. The dedications shown on the plat together with the dedications to the perpetual use of the public of all existing and future planting, trees and shrubbery on said - 2 - 96- 793 property, are also hereby accepted and confirmed by the City of Miami, Florida. Section 4. The City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the plat and cause the same to be recorded in the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Section 5. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of October 1996. ATTEST: CAROLLO, MAYOR WALTE OEMAN CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: G. IRIAM MA CHIEF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO /FORM AND CORRECTNESS: A./ QUI CITY TT W910/GMM 1 CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO : Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission FROM A. inn Jone , I City Attorne DATE FILE July 12, 1996 A-vzntas; SUBJECT Oak Shadow Plat - Coconut Grove Civic Club v. City of REFERENCES: Miami; Case No. 94-261 AP ENCLOSURES, proposed Resolution In accordance with the order of the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, the attached Resolution is being brought to your attention for consideration and approval. _ EXHIBIT 2 Cat t�rtt F WALDEMAR E. LEE _CESAR H. ODiO Director •••• : City Manager November 3, 1993 Mr. & Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla 2311 Emathla Street ?Ai ami , F1 orida 33133 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kuryla: OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISION - TENTATIVE PLAT #1456 The City of Miami Plat and Street Committee, at its meeting of November 4, 1993, deferred the above tentative plat subject to the following revisions being made to the tentative plat, additional information being provided and/or variances being granted. Please be advised that the processing of your tentative plat cannot proceed until these conditions have been satisfied. Clearances from Miami -Dade Water & Sewer Authority Department and an allocation letter from the Department of Environmental Resources Management will be required. Contact Rafael Ballesteros, P.E., Miami -Dade Water & Sewer Authority Department at 665-7471. Remove the existing pavement on Tract "B". Contact f' Marcos Fernandez, Planning, Building and Zoning Dept. at 579-6800. Show the proposed name of the plat at the location sketch. Provide a fractional description at the location sketch. Indicate zoning designation of property to be platted in the location sketch. Correct the label of the quarter section which is shown incorrectly in the main sketch. Label the two tracts as lots 1 and 2. Indicate the basis of bearings shown on this plat. Elevations shall be based on City of Miami datum. 5 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/275 N.W. end Street/Miami, Florida 33128/(3051 579-6856 9 793 Mr. & Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla November 9, 1993 Oak Shadow Subdivision - You have made an official request for a waiver of dedication of the 2 5 - f o o t corner radius at the intersection of Secoffee Street and Emathla Street and for a 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip along Secoffee Street. Please be advised that the Plat and Street Committee by consensus vote has recommended to the Supervisor of Plats that the request for waiver of dedication be denied. A decision regarding this request shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 54.5 of the City Code and forwarded to you in the near future. - An observation was made by the Planning Dept. representative that the configuration of the lots may be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. - Provide a statement in the Surveyor's notes that the streets shown hereon were designated as avenues in the underlying plat. Add the name of the overlay zoning district in Surveyor's Notes No. 2. In addition to the above requirements, you should be aware of the following: 1. State and local laws require the installation of various physical improvements in the public rights -of -way when property is platted. These subdivision improvements include paving, drainage, landscaping, sidewalks, etc. In some cases this could represent a substantial investment on your part. 2. The alteration, relocation or installation of utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, electric, telephone, water, etc., caused by this plat will be at the property owner's expense. Also, utility easements may be required on the property being platted. 3. A building permit will not be issued on the property being platted until the final plat is recorded. Also, the Certificate of Occupancy for any building construction will be issued only after all the required subdivision improvements have been completed. 4. Approval for fire flow requirements must be obtained from the Fire, Rescue and Inspection Services Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. & Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla "lov'ember 8, 1993 Oak Shadow Subdivision 5. Additional items must be provided to the City of Miami Department of Public Works before the final plat is submitted to the City Commission For approval. You will be notified in writing as to what these items are a°ter the amount of the bond has been determined for the necessary subdivision improvements. 6. Tentative plat approval is only valid for one (1) year from the date of the Plat and Street Committee Meeting at which time it was approved. If you have any questions concerning these requirements, please refer to the attached sheet for the appropriate person to contact. Sincerely, James Ka P. E. Chairman, Plat & Street Committee JJK:mw Enclosure: Contact Sheet cc: Biscayne Engineering Company Plat and Street Committee Members E File r j 1 1 t i • t j t taint . � EXHIBIT 3 j WALDEMAR E. LEES r' CESAR H. ODIO 1 Director City Manager `Coo\ December 8, 1993 Mr. and Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla 2811 Emathla Street Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kuryla: OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISION - TENTATIVE PLAT #1456 1 On November 8, 1993 you were informed by letter that the tentative plat of Oak Shadow Subdivision had been deferred by the Plat and Street Committee pending resolution of your request for a waiver of dedication of the 25-foot corner radius at the intersection of Secoffee Street and EYnathla Street and a 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip of land along the southerly side of Secoffee Street. In lieu of this requirement for dedication you have offered to grant a pedestrian easement over the same area of land. The Miami City Code and Florida Statutes 177.081 require that all plats filed for record must contain the required dedications. City of Miami Subdivision Regulations require a rounded corner radius dedication of 25 feet at street intersections, except where existing buildings or structures occupy all or a portion of the external area of the 25-foot radius. When this condition occurs, the requirements for a rounded corner may be reduced or eliminated by the Supervisor of Plats. Similarly, the regulations provide for the dedication of a street width less than the zoned street width when a wall is determined to have significant historical value as found by the Heritage and Environmental Preservation Board of the City and occupies a portion of the undedicated right of way in question. In this case the Supervisor of Plats may require only a portion of the required dedication so that the existing wall can remain. None of the above conditions are known to exist on the plat application of the Oak Shadow Subdivision as provided under Sections 54.5-12(A), (B) & (6) & (7) of the City Code and therefore a waiver cannot be granted. c i i DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/275 N.W. 2nd Street/Miami Florida 33128/ 305 579-6856 9 6 — 791 ( 1 i Mr. and Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla December 8, 1993 The Supervisor of Plats may also authorize an adjustment to the design standards when in his opinion undue hardship may result from strict compliance with such standards. Based upon the criteria set forth in Section 54.5-12 (F) of the City Code for adjustments to standards (copy attached), the lack of supporting documentation identifying the hardship and the requirement that all conditions of said code section must exist in regard to the land concerned before an adjustment can be granted, T must deny your request for waiver of the required dedication and substitution of a pedestrian easement. Please be advised that should you not agree with these findings and those of the Plat and Street Committee, you may request, in writing, a review of these findings by special committee composed of the directors, or their designees, of the departments represented on the Plat and Street Committee. At that time you would have an opportunity to discuss these findings with the committee members and present any additional information in your behalf. Sincerely, Waldemar E. Lee Director of Public Works and { Supervisor of Plats JJK:mw cc: James J. Kay, P.E., Chairman, Plat and Street Committee G. Miriam Maer, Chief Assistant City Attorney L • 2 - 10, 793 [i § 54.5-12 MIAMI CODE pavement width to fifteen (15) feet will be allowed for no more than ten (10) percent of the overall length of the roadway in order to preserve archeological and land- scaping features. (iii) Curved rights -of -way shall have a minimum inside pavement radius of thirty (30) feet. (iv) No parking will be permitted within the eighteen (18) feet of ded- icated right-of-way. (v) A site plan and stoma drainage plan shall be submitted with the tentative plat wherein said storm drainage plan design shall be con- firmed through the submission of calculations to accommodate the runoff of a storm event with a one in five (5) year design return fre- quency without ponding. Said storm drahutge plan and calcula- tions shall be signed and sealed by an engineer of profestiional registry in the State of Florida. (5) Side lot lines shall, where possible, be sub- stantially at right angles or radial to street right-of-way lines. (6) No lots shall be established which do not provide safe, convenient access for public service, police, fire and rescue vehicles. (7) Double frontage or through lots shall be avoided. (8) No plat be so designed as to create a parcel, or lot, which is "landlocked," i.e., one that has no direct access to and frontage on a publicly dedicated street or private road. (9) No plat shall be so designed as to create a remainder of a previously platted lot, or an unplatted tract of land, which is a substan- dard building site in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 9500. (E) Acceptance of dedication. The dedication of public spaces shall not constitute an acceptance of the dedication by the city. The acceptance of the dedication shall be indicated by a resolution of Supp. No. 42 § 54.5.13 the city commission and by an indication on the plat of such acceptance. (F) Adjustments to design standards. The su- pervisor of plats may authorize an adjustment to the design standards when in his opinion undue hardship may result from strict compliance with such standards. The standards may be adjusted to prevent hardship; provided, such adjustment will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the overall community plan. In granting an adjustment, the supervisor of plats inay pre- scribe any conditions that he deems necessary and desirable in the public interest. In making his findings the supervisor of plats shall take into account, among other factors, (i) the nature of the proposed use of the land and the existing use of the land and buildings, and (ii) the number of per- sons to reside or work in the proposed subdivision and the probable effect- of the proposed subdivi. sion upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. No adjustments may be granted unless the super. visor of plats finds that all four of the following conditions exist in regard to the land concerned: (1) That there are special circumstances or con- ditions affecting the property and that strict compliance of the design standards would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his land; (2) That the adjustment is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substan- tial property right of the applicant; (3) That the granting of an adjustment will not be detrimental to the public welfare or in. jurious to the other property in the vicinity in which the property is situated; and (4) That the adjustment will not unreasonably burden city services, including adjacent streets. (Ord. No. 9584, § 1, 3-24-83; Ord. No. 9961, § 1, 2-14-85; Ord. No. 10330, § 1, 10.22.87; Ord. No. 10704, § 1, 2-7-90; Ord. No. 10730, § 1, 5.24.90; Ord. No. 10742, § 1, 6-28-90) City code crew references —Street names and numbering, § 54.75 et seq.; standard street widths, § 54-101. 3674 Sec. 54.5.13. Required improvements. Prior to the granting of the final approval by the city commission, the subdivider shall have in. 96- j ! _ EXHIBIT 5 CITY OF `AlAkll, FtOR!OA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM ! TO Waldemar E. Lee °` = December 17, 1993 FEE Assistant City Manager SUBJECT Tentative P1 at of "Oak Shadow Subdivision" Meeting Pursuant to FROREFERENCES Sec. 5 4. 5- 7 (D) (2) with Supervisor of Plats M James J . Kay ENCLOSURES Deputy Director of Public Works I l . The applicant icant for the tentative plat of "Oak ShadowSubdivision" pp p has requested a review of the findings by the Plat and Street Committee set forth in its meeting of November 4, 1993. This request is being made pursuant to Section 54.5-7(D)(2) of the City Code and is described more specifically in the attached letter from Mr. Michael Kuryla dated December 9, 1993. The specific request is for a waiver of the dedication of the 25-foot corner radius at the intersection of Secoffee'Street and Emathia Street and a 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip of land along the southerly side of Secoffee Street. The applicant has, in lieu of this dedication, offered to grant a pedestrian easement over this same area. Accordingly, a meeting will be convened in the City Manager's Conference Room, Second Floor of the Miami City Nall, 3500 Pan American Drive, at 2 : 0 0 p.m. on Friday, December 17, 1993, to discuss the Plat and Street Committee's findings with the subdivider with regard to the above stated issue. All directors, or their designees, of the departments represented on the Plat and Street Committee are requested to attend this meeting. JJK:mw j 4 cc: Joseph McManus, Deputy Director, Planning, Building & Zoning Dept. i Lt. Joseph Longueira, Miami Police Dept. Capt. Walter Moon, Assistant Fire Marshall, Dept. of Fire, Rescue & Inspection Services Adrienne M. MacBeth, Deputy Director, GSA I G. Miriam Maer, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Law Dept. i i f . r 9G- 7933 EXHIBIT 6 CITY OF MIAMI, ": ORICA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM _° James J. Kay DATE December 23, 1993 ``E j Chairman, Plat and Street Committee SUBJECT OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISION - Appeal of Plat & Street Committee Findings c room REFERENCES Waldemar E. Lee Director of Public Works ENCL°SURESLetter, memorandum - attendance lists On December 17, 1993, a meeting was convened in the City Manager's Conference Room to hear an appeal from Mr. Michael Kuryla, applicant, concerning the Plat & Street Committee's findings and conditions set forth in the tentative plat of "Oak Shadow Subdivision" held on December 4, 1993. Specifically, Mr. Kuryla requested relief from the required 25-foot corner radius dedication at the intersection of Secoffee Street and Emathla Street and a 0.5 foot x 175 soot strip of land along the southerly side of Secoffee Street in order to meet certain requirements of the R - 1 , SD-18 overlay zoning district, i.e., 10,000 square feet per lot. The property to be platted as shown on the tentative plat, #1455, is exactly 20,000 square feet in area prior to any dedications. Mr. Kuryla wishes to subdivide the property into two (2) lots of 10,000 square feet each. Mr. Kuryla further stated that the property immediately to the west of t'ne Oak Shadow Subdivision site on the westerly side of Emathla Street was platted in 1979 as Maranatha Subdivision (113- 74), which plat included a 25-foot corner radius dedication on a 100 foot x 100 foot tract of land resulting in a platted tract with an area less than 10,000 square feet. The net area requirements of a lot at that time ;were defined as the total area within the property lines prior to any required dedications. The net area of a lot as defined under the current zoning ordinance, 11000, is the total area within the lot lines excluding any street rights -of -way or other required dedications. Mr. Kuryla stated that he only desires to have the same opportunity to replat his property as did his neighbor across the street. The applicant has, in lieu of this dedication, offered to grant a pedestrian easement over the same area of land described to be dedicated. The meeting was convened with the Supervisor of Plats iIn accordance with Section 54.5-7(D)(2) of the Miami City Code. The purpose ,was to hear the appeal of the applicant and then to reject or uphold the findings of the Plat and Street Committee. A listing of those in attendance at this meeting is attached to this memorandum. 14 g - 793 �i James J. Kay December 23, 1993 Chairman, Plat and Street Committee It was the consensus of the committee that the applicant's request to eliminate the required 2 5 - f o o t corner radius dedication at the intersection of Secoffee Street and Emathla Street and the dedication of a 0.5 foot x 175-foot strip of land on the southerly side of Secoffee Street should be granted under the 'provisions of City Code Section 54.5-12(F) (adjustment to design standards). In granting the owner's request the committee considered the following criteria: 1. The underlying plat of the property in question was platted in 1912 as Lot 23, Block C, "Plat of Biscayne Park Terrace Subdivision" (2-36) in which dedications were made for Secoffee and Emathla Streets. To require the owner to make further dedications and at the same time sustain a loss in net lot area for the lots considered was not an equitable situation, notwithstanding the requirements of Miami Zoning Ordinance 11000, Article 25, definitions, "lot area, net." The Deputy Director of the Planning, Building and Zoning Department, Joseph McManus, agreed that the present definition of net lot area creates an inconsistency in how the City has dealt with platting requirements in the past. He agreed to recommend that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to re fl ect a new def i ni ti on of net 1 of area that woul d be inclusive of street right of way dedications. The amendment process, however, could take five to six months before such an ordinance became effective. It was felt by the committee that this time frame was inordinately long and that decisive action should be taken at this time. 2. The property in question (exterior of radius and 0.5 foot strip of land) is under private ownership by the applicant which allows for private use - a substantial property right of the appl icant. 3. The applicant has proffered to dedicate a pedestrian easement over the area in question. This would allow for the construction of sidewalk and other public uses associated with public access. 4. The request of the applicant does not burden City services. In addition to the granting of a platted pedestrian easement by the applicant, the committee, as a condition of granting the request to waive the aforementioned dedication, has required the applicant to execute a covenant to run with the land which shall make mandatory the dedication of the 25-foot corner radius and the 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip of land should a building permit be issued on either of the proposed lots described in the Oak Shadow Subdivision. - 2 - 96- '79315 t ^ 0 �ill/b�1 Q,4 D/ �. Gtl 111 //jo , .i500 qm�)a ol EXHIBIT 7, CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM ' i TO J.L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner DATE January 27, 1994 �iL:A9 3 -10 5 3 SUBJECT "Oakshadow" - Tentative Plat #1456 G. Miriam Maer FROM Chief Assistant City Attorney REFERENCES. ENCLOSURES In connection with the referenced tentative plat, I have reviewed the file and researched the relevant code provisions. This memorandum will be divided as follows: I - Chronology of Events and II - Applicable Law and Discussion. T At the November 4, 1993 meeting of the City of Miami Plat and Street Committee, the referenced tentative plat was deferred subject to the resolution of several issues. (A copy of the November 8, 1993 letter from the Plat and Street Committee is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".) As you will note therein, the Plat and Street Committee recommended to the Supervisor of Plats that a requested waiver of dedication of the 25--foot corner radius at the intersection of Secoffee Street and Emathala Street and of 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip along Secoffee Street be denied. The applicant was advised that the requested waiver would be decided by the Supervisor of Plats in accordance with ' Chapter 54.5 of the City Code. On December 8, 1993, Waldemar Lee, Director of Public Works and Supervisor of Plats, advised the property owners that the requirements for waiver, as set forth in Section 54.5-12 of the City Code, had not been met and therefore the requested waiver E could not be granted. (A copy of this December 8, 1993 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "B".) On December 17, 1993, a meeting of a committee composed of the directors, or their designees, of the departmeats represented on the Plat and Street Committee was convened at the request of Mr. Kuryla, the applicant in the referenced matter, to appeal the findings and conditions imposed by the Plat and Street Committee at its November 4, 1993 meeting (hereinafter, the '"Review Committee"). A copy of Mr. Kuryla's written request for review i by the Review Committee and of the Deputy Director of Public Works' memorandum dated December 17, 1993 notifying Mr. Lee of the scheduling of this meeting are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "C". 9 6 - 79�g �i Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. January 27, 1994 Page 2 On December 23, 1993, Mr. Lee, Director of Public works, issued a memorandum to Jim Kay, Chairman of the Plat and Street Committee, setting forth the findings of the Review Committee. A copy of this memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit "D", (including all the attachments thereto). The December 23, 1993 Memorandum indicates that Mr. Kuryla requested that the Review Committee waive the required radius dedication and the dedication along the southerly side of Secoffee Street in order that his property could meet the minimum lot size requirements for that zoning district. The memorandum provides that the Review Committee was convened in accordance with Section 54.5-7(D)(2) of the City Code, and that its purpose was to hear the appeal of the applicant and to reject or uphold the findings of the Plat and Street Committee. The Review Committee discussed the technical requirements concerning the dedication and the minimum lot size for lots in that zoning district and development under a -epealed zoning ordinance, Ordinance No. 9500, compared to development under the current zoning ordinance, Ordinance No. 11000. Mr. Kuryla's property is located in an R-1. single family residential zoning district with an SD-18 overlay. This zoning designation requires a minimum of ten thousand square feet per lot. The memorandum indicates that after hearing from Mr. Kuryla and discussion among its members, the Review Committee waived the dedication requirements for the corner radius and for the dedication on the southerly side of Secoffee Street. The resubmittal of the tentative plat was heard by the Plat and Street Committee on January 14, 1994. At that time, additional comments and issues were raised by persons in attendance. Among those comments, were the following: A. The N.E.T. Administrator representing the Coconut Grove neighborhood indicated that dedications must be uniformly applied. B. Mr. Tucker Gibbs, an attorney and Coconut Grove resident, representing the Coconut Grove Civic Club, raised several legal issues as follows: 1. Does the Public Works Director have the authority to grant a waiver where the waiver would result in creation of a lot with less than the minimum number of square feet required for that zoning district by. Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, our current Zoning Ordinance? 2. Does the Public Works Director's action, by granting the waivers, in effect reduce the minimum lot size requirements in this zoning district? 20 A Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. January 27, 1994 Page 3 3. Is this another way to allow substandard lots, in violation of the City Code and the Zoning Ordinance? In other words, by discussing the "unfairness" of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, compared to the earlier and now repealed Zoning Ordinance No. 9500, (the previous Zoning Ordinance allowed the square footage to be calculated prior to dedication), and granting relief by virtue of the waiver, is the Supervisor of Plats or the Review Committee in effect amending the current Zoning Ordinance to re-enact language from Zoning Ordinance No. 9500 which the Committee deemed more equitable, notwithstanding the repeal of Zoning Ordinance No. 9500 by the City Commission without going through the appropriate process (i.e., a public hearing before the Planning Advisory Board and two public hearings in front of the City Commission)? 4. Are there standards governing the waiver procedure or does the Supervisor of Plats have unfettered discretion to grant these waivers? The Plat and Street Committee deferred action on this tentative plat until resolution of these new legal issues by the City Attorney. By letter dated January 14, 1994 addressed to Jim Kay as Chairman of the Plat and Street Committee, Mr. Kuryla has questioned the decision of the Plat and Street Committee expressing his dissatisfaction with the proceedings. A copy of this letter and its attachments is enclosed herewith as Exhibit „E II As set forth in Exhibit "F", the Review Committee provided for in Section 54.5-7(D) "Review of Tentative Plat" has authority to review the findings of the Plat and Street Committee only. Thus, the attempt by the Review Committee at its meeting of December 17, 1993 to waive the mandatory dedications, an authority reserved to the Supervisor of Plats, was invalid, as it was outside the scope of its authority. Section 54.5-12(F) "Adjustments to Design Standards" provides that the Supervisor of Plats may authorize an adjustment to the design standards when, in his opinion, undue hardship may result from strict compliance with such standard. This section further provides that no adjustments may be granted unless the Supervisor of Plats finds that all four of the listed conditions 96- 793 21 Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. January 27, 1994 Page 4 exist. Those four conditions, as set forth in said Subsection, are attached hereto as Exhibit "G". Thus, the standards which govern the Supervisor of Plats in reviewing applications for waivers are clearly set forth. Section 54.5-12(D)(2), also set forth in said Exhibit "G", provides that lot dimensions, after dedication of necessary rights -of -way, shall conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. (Emphasis supplied) The attempted waiver was conditioned upon subsequent dedication at time of development. The effect of the requested waiver would violate this section of the City Code as well as the requirements of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, which require, in an RS-1 Zoning District with an SD-18 overlay, a minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet per lot, in effect authorizing the creation of sub -standard lots. The Public Works Director cannot de facto amend the Zoning Ordinance. The following alternatives should be considered: 1. The Supervisor of Plats could rescind his previous denial of the waiver (Exhibit "B") if he finds all of the standards in Section 54.5-12(F) have been met. 2. The waiver, if granted, should not be conditioned upon subsequent dedication at time of issuance of a development permit. 3. The City Code could be amended to eliminate the dedication requirements or the Zoning Ordinance could be amended to reduce the minimum lot size for that zoning district. 4. The applicant advised the Plat and Street Committee he owns the adjacent property, and thus owns a total of 42,000 square feet. This amount of land would seem to offer, collectively, development opportunities that would not require a waiver or code amendments. GMM/tg/M685 22 793 EXHIBIT 8 T/ 14- /ED. 104 FEB ;.4 414 10: 37 THE CITY OF 14- C _4 I ors d_ Q/ 17.4 /11�lf 14, 7 41,4ii-l- /* 7 19 oleu„r�. h-71er *'4 AJ& W4,uZ,-, 96— 79P EXHIBIT 9 AT t of �R_.UM4, WALDEMAR E. LEE\/=`t CESAR H. ODIO Director ,,,,,� ,,,, _ City ,Manager a February 10, 1994 { - I Mr. & Mrs. Michael A. Kuryl a 2811 Emathla Street Miami, Florida 3:3133 r Dear Mr, and Mrs. Kuryla: OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISION - TENTATIVE PLAT #1456-B This department has received your request to reconsider the decision of the Supervisor of Plats in his letter of December 8, 19.93, wherein your request for an adjustment to the design standards for the subject tentative plat was - denied• You have based this request on your providing additional information which establishes an undue hardship'which would result if the waiver of dedication were not granted. We have reviewed your letter of February 4, 1994 which responds to the four (4) conditions of the Miami City Code, -Sec. 54.5- 12(F) which supports your request. Additionally, City staff has !. field surveyed the area in question and confirms your assessment of the number of mature fan palms that would be in the path of any new sidewalk constructed on Secoffee Street. The following ,. shall constitute the Supervisor of Plats' response to each of the conditions set forth in your February 4, 1994 letter and which correspond to the four (4) conditions of Miami City Code Sec. 54.5-12(F): i (1) The estimated cost of $35 per lineal foot for removal and 1 reconstruction of the six foot high wooden fence appears to be in line with the prices established by the industry and trades at this time. The total estimated cost, then, for 175 feet of fence is $6,125. To determine if the cost of this relocation is an undue hardship for the applicant, the F cost of the land under consideration should be calculated and compared with the fence relocation cost. Our records, based on recent property sales, place the cost of the 1 and at approximately $15.00 per square foot. Therefore, the strip of land in. question (175'x0.5') is worth approximately $1,312.50. The applicant would be required to expend funds in an amount over four times the value of the land. This relocation, for six inches of additional right of way, appears to be an unreasonable requirement for the applicant, resulting in an undue hardship. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/275 N.W. 2nd Street/Miami, Florida 33126/(305) 579-6856 r Mr. & Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla February 10, 1994 With regard to the issue of the trees in the line of proposed sidewalk construction, the City does not always require the owner/applicant to construct sidewalk adjacent to the sita. In this case a covenant can be required postponing sidewalk improvements. However, if sidewalk construction were a requirement, then in all likelihood the City would act to preserve the trees and establish a new sidewalk alignment outside the row of trees and not at the base building line. The existence or removal of the trees does not necessarily work a hardship on the applicant as the trees are presently located in the public right of way. However, since this department would require a realignment of the sidewalk several feet from the base building line, the issue of tree preservation supports the idea that the dedication of right of way is not necessary. These trees are also located within the external area of the 25-foot corner radius base building line. (2) The department concurs with the applicant's assessment that the property in question (land exterior, of radius and 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip) is under private ownership by the applicant which allows for* private use. This is a substantial property right of the applicant. (3) Again, the department concurs that the waiver of•dedication will in no way be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property. Vegetation and mature trees prevent the public from using the area in question. (4) This department confirms that all departmental representatives who were present at the special review committee of December 17, 1993 concerning th3 subject request made statements in the affirmative that the waiver of dedication would not burden City services. Therefore, having found that all four conditions sat forth in Miami City Code Sec. 54.5-12(F) have been met in regard to your request for waiver of dedication in connection with the tentative plat of "Oak Shadow Subdivision", I hereby grant an unconditional waiver of dedication in accordance with your request. Sincerely, r Waldemar E. Lee Director of Public Works and Supervisor of Plats JJK:mw cc: G. Miriam Maer, Chief Assistant City Attfrey�-.-.:: Frank McMahon, Surveyor rCP_� `a 28 James J. Kay, Chairman, Plat and Street Uommitee - 2 - EXHIBIT 10 (IT t iLif WALDEMAR E. LEE Director �CESAR H t_tr?!%r, March 17, 1994 Mr. & Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla 2811 Emathla Street Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kuryla: B OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISION - TENTATIVE PLAT #1456.�V The City of Miami Plat and Street Committee, at its meeting of March 10, 1994, approved the above. tentative. plat subject to the following revisions being made to the tentative plat, additional information being provided and/or variances being granted. Please be advised that the processing of your tentative plat cannot proceed until these -conditions have been satisfied. - Obtain status availability of water and sewermain capable of providing domestic service from Miami -Dade Water & Sewer Authority. - Delete reference to proposed pedestrian easement on plat and in note No. 7. - Provide for parking on proposed lot No. 1. - Show asphalt area and accessory structure on lot 2 as deleted. - Indicate height and spread of trees shown on tentative plat. In addition to the above requirements, you should be aware of the following: 1. State and local laws require the installation of various physical improvements in the public rights -of -way when property is platted. These subdivision improvements include paving, drainage, landscaping, sidewalks, etc. In some cases this could represent a substantial investment on your part. 96- 79P j DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/275 N.W. 2nd Street/Miami. Florida 33128'(303) j79-61t56 r c� Mr. & Mrs. Michael Kuryla Oak Shadow Subdivision 2. The alteration, relocation or installation of utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, electric, telephone, water, etc., caused by this plat wi11 be .at the property owner's expense. Also, utility easements may be required on the property being platted. 3. A building permit will not be issued on the property being platted until the final plat is recorded. Also, the Certificate of Occupancy for any building construction will be issued only after all the required subdivision improvements have been completed. 4. Approval for fire flow requirements must be obtained from the Fire, Rescue and Inspection Services Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Additional items must be provided to the City of Miami Department of Public Works before the final plat is submitted to the City Commission for approval. You will be notified in writing as to what these items are after the amount of the bond has been determined for the necessary subdivision improvements. 6. Tentative plat approval is only valid for one (1) year from the date of the Plat and Street Committee Meeting at which time it was approved. If you have any questions concerning these requirements, please refer to the attached sheet for.the appropriate person to contact. Sincerely, James Ka P.E. Chairman, Pl-at & Street Committee JJK:mw Enclosure: Contact Sheet cc: Biscayne Engineering Company Plat and Street Committee Members File 2 - bc: Civil Eng. Surveys J-94-403 5/13/94 EXHIBIT 11 RESOLUTION NO. 453 A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED OAK SHADOW, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the City Department of Public Works recommends the acceptance of the plat; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The plat entitled Oak Shadow is a resubdivision of Lot 23, Block C, Biscayne Park Terrace, Plat Book 2, Page 36, lying in Section 15, Township 54 South, Range 41 East, City of Miami, Dade County, Florida, which plat by reference is made a part hereof as if fully incorporated herein, and, subject to all of the conditions required by the Plat and Street Committee as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, is hereby accepted. The dedications shown on the plat together with the dedications to the perpetual use of the public of all existing and future planting, trees and shrubbery on said property, are also hereby accepted and confirmed by the City of Miami, Florida. e � CkJA d3 t 96-- 71 93 CITY caTdMss103F M EETi:K G OF J U N 3 n 1094 Rseoluwa Na 4— 4,15'3 i 31 i i Section 2. The City Manager and City Clerk are hereby " authorized and directed to execute the plat and cause the some to be recorded in the Public Records of Dade Couuty, Florida. Section 5. This Resolution shall become effective immediately ' upon.its adoption. ^ PASSED AND ADOPTED tbis_~~20th� day of jujae 1994, - ` .. , . Uanu, MAYOR PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: CHIEF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY 2 i WALOEMAR E. LEE March 17, 1 9 9 4 tor. & Mrs. Mi chael A. Kuryl a 2811 Emathla Street Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kuryla: OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISION - TENTATIVE PLAT #1456-' The City of Miami Plat and Street Committee, at its meeting of March 10, 1994, approved the above tentative pl at subject to the following revisions being made to the. tentative plat, additional information being provided and/or variances being granted. Please be advised that the processing of your tentative plat cannot proceed until these conditions have been satisfied. - 0 b t a i n status availability of water and sewer main capable of providing domestic service from Miami -Dade Water & Sewer Authority. - Delete reference to proposed pedestrian easement on { plat and in note No. 7. i - Provide for parking on proposed lot No. 1. i - Show asphalt area and accessory structure on lot 2 as deleted, l - Indicate height and spread of trees shown on tentative ' plat. In addition to the above requirements, you should be aware of the following: 1. State and local laws require the installation of various physical improvements in the public rights -of -way when property is platted. These subdivision improvements include paving, drainage, landscaping, sidewalks, etc. In some cases this could represent a substantial investment on your part. 3= DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/275 N.W. Ind Sveer/Miami, Florida )3128.'1305) 79-6nx; I 34 Mr. & Mrs. Michael Kuryla Oak Shadow Subdivision 2. The alteration, relocation or installation of utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, electric, telephone, water, etc., caused by this plat will be at the property owner's expense. Also, utility easements may be required on the property being platted. 3. A building permit will not be issued on the property being platted until the final plat is recorded. also, the Certificate of Occupancy for any building construction will be issued only after all the required subdivision , improvements have been completed. 4. Approval for fire flow requirements must be obtained from the Fire, Rescue and Inspection Services Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Additional items must be provided to the City of Miami Department of Public Works before the final plat is submitted to the City Commission -for approval. You will be notified in writing as to what these items are after the amount of the bond has been determined for the necessary subdivision improvements. 6. Tentative plat approval is only valid for one (1) year from the date of the Plat and Street Committee Meeting at which time it was approved. If you have any questions concerning these requirements, please refer to the attached sheet for the appropriate person to contact. Sincerely, James Ka P.E. Chairman, Plat & Street Committee JJK:mw Enclosure: Contact Sheet cc: Biscayne Engineering Company Plat and Street Committee Members File 2 - bc: Civil Eng. Surveys THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS April 25, 1994 REPORT OF PROPOSED RECORD PLAT OF OAK SHADOW LOCATED AT EMATHLA STREET AND SECOFFEE STREET A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA The accompanying Plat entitled OAK SHADOW was prepared by Biscayne Engineering Company, Inc. It is in correct form for submission to the City Commission and is forwarded with a recommendation that it be approved. PERTINENT INFORMATION REGARDING THE PLAT: 1. The property platted is a resubdivision of Lot 23, Block C, Biscayne Park Terrace, Plat Book 2, Page 36, lying in Section 15, Township 54 South, Range 41 East, City of Miami, Dade County, Florida. The area platted consists of two (2) lots containing 0.46+ of an acre. It is zoned R-1; SD--18. 2. The location of the streets and the widths conform with the standards of the Department of Public Works of the City of Miami, Florida. ! 3. As certified to by Marc L. Gaiqui, Registered Land Surveyor, i this Plat complies with the plat filing Laws of the State of Florida. ' 9f - 793 S� CA- 45335 4. The Certificate of Title Examination dated March 23, 1994, signed by Richard M. Zelman, Attorney, indicates that the fee simple title to the property platted is correctly vested in Michael Kuryla and Happy Kuryla, his wife, and the Plat has heen correctly executed. .5. The area platted is not encumbered by mortgages. 6. Michael Kuryla and Happy Kuryla, owners, were granted a waiver of right--of-way dedication in connection with the tentative plat of Oak Shadow under Section 54.5-12(F) of the City of Miami Code. 7. As a result of a field investigation by this Department, it has been determined that no improvements shall be required at this time. Therefore, this Plat is forwarded to the City Commission of Miami, Florida, without the usual formality of a Contract and Bond being provided. $. The attached Resolution has been prepared for the acceptance of the Plat by the City Commission of Miami, Florida. rank R. Mc ahon, r. City Surveyor FM:au Is OPINION OF TITLE To: CITY OF MIAMI a corporation municipal oration P P With the understanding that this Opinion of Title is furnished f to the CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, in compliance with Section 54.5-8 of the Miami City Code and as an inducement for acceptance of a proposed final subdivision plat covering the real property hereinafter described, it is hereby certified that we have examined the complete Abstract of Title completely covering the period from the beginning to August 10, 1993 at 5:00 p.m., inclusive, and certified computer search updates from said date to March 23, 1994 at 11:00 p.m., inclusive, of the following described real property: Lot 23, Block "C", of BISCAYNE PARK TERRACE, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, at Page 36, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Basing our opinion on said complete abstract and updates covering said period we are of the opinion that on the last mentioned date the fee simple title to the above described real property was vested in: Michael Kuryla and Happy Kuryla, his wife Subject to the following encumbrances, liens, and other exceptions: GENERAL EXCEPTIONS: I. All taxes for the year in which this opinion is rendered and subsequent years. 2. Rights of parties in possession other than the above owner. i { 3. Facts that would be disclosed by an accurate survey. { 4. Any unrecorded labor, mechanics or materialmen's liens. 5. Zoning and other restrictions imposed by governmental authority. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 1 1. All matters shown on the Plat of BISCAYNE PARR TERRACE, recorded in Plat Book 2, at Page 36, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. I s - 793 `� 4- 4 3 37 ALYRLK INTL CORP FAX 305-656-9677 'Qa0, rd 2606 - - - - "'H S 2 A S PAGE 02 �A02 This Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the "Deolaration" ) mad® this,y of ems, 1994, by Michael A. Xuryla and SaPPY Ru.tyla, his wife ( jointly the mer") , the fee simple CnMGZ8 of the subject property, iss in favor of the City of Hi&Vir Florida, a municipality of the State of Florida (the "City")- .. , the der holds fee -simile title to certain !property in the s"Lty, ,located at 2001 xmthla Street® Miami., Florida 33133, and legally d000ribed as Lzt 23, Block C, FLAT OF alsm s rmmlaca SUBDIVISICU, according to tho Flat ezeofd U3c recordod in Plat Book 2 ® Page No in the Pablic Records of Dade C6unty, Florida ('she WEREA-03, the der to presently an applicant hoforca the City Co=ission requeoting the acceptance by resolution of approve4. repl.at of the property pursuant to tentative plat 190- 1656; which Plat shall ba called Oak Shadow (the "plat")and MMRWXO, the owner seeks to provide assurances to. the City that, when the plat of the Property is accept®do the Property will be developed in such m&=er that no more than tVo (2) single family rQUidences will be built an the Pro"rty; one on eaah lot of the Plat; and OORSAS, the Owner is dsssirouss of makinq a binding coMitssseat to assure that the Property shall be developed in accordance with Q� the provisions of this Declaration. 9 4 — 453 I NOW, TSERNFORR, the Owner voluntazil,y covenants and agrees _ 39 CT� that the Property shall be subject to the following restrictions oe/i4i9A- 18:19!l303 aft 2605 —— — — ---- S---------- - -- - -- -003� that are intended and oh.all be deemed to he covenants running with the land binding upon the owner of the Property and its successors and assigns as followst 1. orat oc at sec tali. The recitals and findings set forth in the preamble of this Declaration aro hereby adopted by reference thereto and Incorporated herein as it fully eet forth in this section. 2. DV_9129=nt Of Pr929=. Owner agrees that if and when the Flat of the Property is approved by. the City ccamission, the Property ohall be developed at a density no highog the tz,� (2 ) i single family xTesidences to bo located ono i1, an each lot of the 30 t, v ate. Zf the City Commission approves the Plat and after the Plat of Oak Shadow hay boon duly recorded in tho Public Records of Dade county, this inert ant shall, oonatitute a covenant running with the title to the Property and be binding upon the mere its successors and assigns. These restrictions shall be for the benafit of and limitation Capon all present aaid future i aarnare of the Property and for the publics welfare. �.A galf Igati.04 This Declaration may be modified, a=nded or released as to any portion of the Property by a written instrument execrated by the then owner of the fee -simple title to they land to be affected by such modification, amaeadment or release providing that same has been approved by the City Comai9sion, at a public hearing which public hearing shall be 40 applied for and at the expense of the dwne;�,, 3 Should this o _ 94— 453 . .. — txtended F'ago - - - 00/14/94 16:20 12408 374 2005 - - - - -H S Z • S . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Zook- iustrument be Sao modif Led. mended or releaseda the Director of the public Works Department of the City or his successorr shall execute a written inatrument in recordable foray effectuating and acknowledging such modificati.ouf amndment or re,leas®. g. Tgm of Qy na�.t,. This voluntary cov®sit cm the part of the, Owner shall remain in full fa=e and effect and eball bind the Omer of the Praqcrty, its successors and aeniqua for an initial period of thirty (30 ) years from tho dato thin Lnotrument. ie recorded in tho public records and shal1 be automatically eatunded for stagcooGiva porioda of ton (10) years thor agtor unless =di gi ed, araended or r leaoad prior to tho exp1ration theroof . 6. n€�p coon : at is undaratood and agreed that any official inspector of the City of mLami may have the right any tics during normal working hours of ontering and in stigating the use of the Property to dets=ine whether the conditione of this Declarefiion and the requirements of the City -'a building and coning regulations are being complies! with. An enforcement action nay be brought by the City by action in law or in eq uity against any party or arson P violatin or g attempting emp't�.ugi to violate �y covenant of this DecL tration or provisioaa of the building and ginning regulation.sr either to restrain violations or to recover damages. The prevailing party in the action or suit shall be entitled to recover u� costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. This enforcement provision 414 small be in addition to any other remedies available undor the law•41 7. Se -arability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants . L A t , ..:: .. , J by order r judW-.It of the COurt ®hall not af.f®ct any of 4-he other - 3 - - - - os�i;i�4 - ie o so --�aoe a78 reds - - - - - s s z �► s - - - - - - - . -. .. �' - - - boos - 42 provisions of this Declaration which shall raamnia is full force and affect* 6. ordina. This Declaration shall be filed of record smonq the Public Records of Dade County, Florida at the expense of the owner. IN WITNESS MOREOF,, the undera igned have aet their hands and seals on tho day, month and year firat. above -mitten .l PT ene T. S STATE OF FLORIDA I �Rs COUNTY of W03 p The foregoing i.nstr=omt was acknowledged before me this :�k d�a� . of June, 1994, by Michael A. Kuryla and Happy Xuryla, his A` e W-Who are personally known to me or G who have produced _ as identification. c�a WITUSSO my band and offiolal sea `Y�1. r } r� NY ARY PUBLIC IL is OF F° �+ 1 ML EXHIBIT 12 METROPOLITAN DAD' ,,,jUNTY, FLORIDA Mft METRO•DADE its� STEPHEN P. CLARK CENTER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUITE 1610 111 N.W. 1st STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33128.1970 July 11, 1994 Jim Kay Assistant Director Chairman Plat & Street Committee City of Miami Public Works 275 NW Second Avenue i Miami, FL 33128 Dear Mr. Kay: This is to advise you that the following listed plat was recorded in the Public Records of Dade County, Florida: OAK SHADOW F-18790 on July 8, 1994 in Plat Book 145 at Page 36. Respect lly yours, r ussell C. Kelly, Chairman { Plat Committee RCK:AAT:aI f lY f: l.itVlVlldfllt I i pc: Frank McMahon, Jr. I W. TUCKER GIBBS ATTORNEY AT UAW GRAND BAY PLAZA SUITE 603 2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE Coco1VLJT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 TELEPHONE (305) 856.2711 FACSIMILE (305) 854.6093 September 23, 1996 Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Miami Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 RE: OAR SHADOW PLAT: AGENDA ITEM 16, SEPT. 26, 1996, CITY COMMISSION MEETING Dear Mayor Carollo and City Commissioners: I have been retained by neighbors in the Secoffee and Emathla streets area of Coconut Grove, the Coconut Grove Civic Club and the Tigertail Association to represent them in opposition to the above -referenced plat -approval request before you. This is the second time the Miami Commission will consider this matter. The first consideration was on June 30, 1994 when most of you were not yet members of the City Commission. Unfortunately, the City Attorney's July 12,1996, memo on this important and complicated matter only included one sentence in background information, and failed to provide a copy of the Court's Opinion for your review. I am writing this letter to provide you with background information so that you have a better opportunity to make an informed decision and thereby serve the best interests of the residents of Miami. After the City Commission approved the plat on June 30, 1994, my clients, who opposed the approval, appealed that decision in Dade Circuit Court. An appellate panel then determined that the City Commission had incorrectly approved the plat because the approval was based on the City Attorney's erroneous advice that the Commission could not vote to reject the plat. The Appeals Court remanded the case back to the Commission and ordered the City Commission to reconsider it and make a determination on whether the plat met the subdivision requirements set forth in the Municipal Code and Florida Statutes. (Please see the attached Opinion.) What is before you now is the reconsideration ordered by the Appeals Court. The issue before you is basic: Does this plat comply with the minimum requirements set forth in the City Code? It is my clients' position that this plat does not comply with the City -Code requirements because: SkAtomifte(f 1)lc(-, N10 pu"z )i+c, w9cr)'rd with otj Walter Fceman 9 6 - 7 9 3 City Clerk !6 r2 Mayor Carollo and t__ty Commissioners Oak Shadow Plat —Item 16 of the Sept.26, 1996, City Commission Agenda September 23, 1996 Page 2 For the plat to comply with the City's Zoning Code, each lot must be no smaller than 10,000 square feet. City Code Section 54.5-12(D)(2) states that lot size after dedication of necessary rights -of -way must meet those requirements of the Zoning Code. In the plat: request before you if required dedications are made, the lots do not meet the 10,000-square-foot minimum of the Zoning Code. To comply with this requirement, the owner applied for a waiver of the dedication requirements as provided for in Section 54.5-12(F) of the City Code. That Section allows the Supervisor of Plats to waive dedication requirements "when in his opinion undue hardship may result from strict compliance with such standards." Once that threshold has been met the Supervisor of Plats must make a determination that all of the following have been met: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property and that strict compliance with the design standards would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his land; 2. The adjustment [waiver] is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; 3. The granting of the adjustment [waiver] will not be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the other property in the vicinity of the property; 4. The adjustment will not unreasonably burden city services, including adjacent streets. The Supervisor of Plats granted the waiver on February 10, 1994 stating that all the requirements were met. No public notice was provided and, therefore, the affected neighbors had no opportunity to be heard on the matter and to appeal this decision. It is my clients' position that no legal hardship has been presented here and, further, that all four of these requirements have not been met as follows: 1. Reasonable use. Courts have ruled that a deprivation of reasonable use means that the property owner cannot use the property for the use for which it is zoned. Here the property before platting included a single-family residence. Therefore, there was no need to re -plat the property to allow a reasonable use (i.e. a single-family house) on the property because one already existed there. 2. Enjoyment of substantial property right. Rejection of the plat does not deprive the owner of a substantial property right. 96- 793 Mayor Carollo and �__cy Commissioners Oak Shadow Plat —Item 16 of the Sept.26, 1996, City Commission Agenda September 23, 1996 Page 3 The existing property permitted and included a single-family house. Denying the plat and the owner's attempt to put two houses on what was one lot does not rise to the level of denying him a substantial property right. 3. No injury to adjoining property. Granting this plat will injure the surrounding area. Setbacks from and adjoining property to the east will be substantially decreased. 4. Burden city services. This requirement is met. The waiver must meet all four requirements, plus the hardship threshold. It is our position that these conditions were not met and, therefore, the waiver was granted improperly. Since the waiver is the basis of the plat approval (without the waiver the plat does not meet the 10,000 square -foot code requirement), the plat fails to meet all lawful requirements and the City Commission must reject it. On behalf of my clients I am asking you to consider their position in this matter. For your convenience I have filed with the City Clerk a copy of the Petition to the Court and Appendix. Included in the Appendix are all documents relating to this decision. I also have enclosed a copy of the Court's Opinion and sketches of the property with this letter. If you have any questions or would like additional information, I would be very happy to discuss this matter with you or members of your staff consistent with legal guidelines as to quasi-judicial proceedings. Sincerely, W. Tucker Gibbs cc: John Duval. E.W. Cullipher & Jeffrey Degen Michael Goldstein, president, Coconut Grove Civic Club Thelma Altshuler, president, Tigertail Association Acting City Manager Merrett Stierheim City Attorney A. Quinn Jones III City Clerk Walter Foeman enclosures 96 - 793 SELOFFE.E SE OFFS STp22E� c ,;�.���, •,;� �,�_� RE-HEARINC 1' ,3 IF FILED, ��ir'U• THE COCONUT GROVE CIVIC CLUB, INC., E. W. CULLIPHER, JOHN DUVALL AND JEFFREY DEGEN, Petitioners, vs. CITY OF ry AMI, a Florida Municipal Corporation, and WALDEMAR E. LEE in his official capacity as Supervisor of Plats for the City of Miami, Respondents. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 1 1TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION CASE NO.: 94-261-AP ' k.0 . Cn C1 t3 v. Opinion filed. F F S R U A R Y 09, 1996. A Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida W. Tucker Gibbs, P.A., for Pethigners A. Quinn Jones, III, City Attorne' City of Miami, for Respondent Before BARR., KREEGER, and PLAT2;ER, JJ Opinion as written by KREEGER, J. This is a Petition for Writ of Certiorari from -the action of the Miami City Commission and the Supervisor of Plats of the City of Miami of the Oak Shadow Subdivision plat. Property owners Kuryla sought approval by the City of a plat to subdivide their 20,000 square foot residential property into two 10,000 square foot lots. In accordance with the City of Miami Code, the tentative plat was COPIES FURNISHED TO 1 COUNSEL OF RECORD AND TO ANY PARTY NOT REPRES! +WfFa BY COUNSEL 96- 793 Ii submitted to the City Plat and Street Committee, which required dedication of a rounded corner at the street intersection and a six-inch strip along one side of the property. The Committee granted the property owner's request to waive that dedication based on hardship and deprivation of a substantial property right, and the City Commission ultimately approved the new plat. If the dedication had been required,the effect would have been that the subdivided lots would be less than 10,000 square feet each and thus they would not comply with zoning requirements for the district. The individual petitioners are neighbors, and the Coconut Grove Civic Club is a neighborhood homeowners group, who claira that the procedure by which the Oak. Shadow Subdivision plat was approved is fatally flawed. Specifically, they claim 1. The City Commission unlawfully delegated to the Plat and Street Committee the power to waive provisions of the municipal code; 2. Petitioners were deprived of notice, an opportunity to be heard, to present evidence, and to appeal, thus depriving them of due process; 3. The City Commission abused its discretion when it failed to evaluate whether the tentative plat met aU applicable legal requirements; 4. The City Commission failed to make specific findings of fact based on the evidence, in approving the plat. is We hold that the City Commission did not follow essential requirements of law when it failed' to i determine whether the proposed plat complied with subdivision requirements established by the City F code, and therefore grant the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. f During the course of the Commission meeting on June 30, 1994, one of the Commissioners; k fit 'based on the advice of its counsel f 2 C 9� 793 Ii sought legal advice as to whether the Commission had a,qy discretion to deny the application: MR. PLUMNIER: Mr. City Attorney, refresh my memory a plat is a matter of right. MR JONES: This is purely an administeral act that's before you to approve. 'Kou re a y aogt h ve any discretion to deny it.... MR PLUMY ER: Again, for the record, 1 or my colleagues cannot vote to deny? MR. JONES: Absolutely. It is clear from the record that the City Commission relied on the advice of its counsel when it did not determine whether the proposed plat complied with all requirements of law. That advice was erroneous. The Commission must first determine whether the property owner has fulffUed all legal requirements to entitle the owner to recordation of the proposed plat. AS that iiongl, any discretion in the Commission vanishes. Broward County .359 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The City of Miami Commission, based on the erroneous advice of its counsel, never determined, and it should have determined, whether this property owner fulfilled all legal requirements for final approval of the plat.' On remand, it will not be necessary for the Commission to make findings of fact (although they might be useful for future proceedings). lid, of Ctv. Com'rs of Brevard v Snyyder 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993).' Because of our holding on this issue, it is not necessary to reach the other issues asserted by Petitioner. We grant the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, quash the decision of the City Commission 'See also Southern Cooperative DevelojIMent Eund v. Dzigg= 696 F. 2d 1347 (1 lth Cir. 1983) 'See also Hernando County v. S.A. W Uia c .orb , 630 So. 2d 1 l55 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) 3 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, [lPPr,f�LATE DIVISION OF '7'HE ELEVENFIF JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA THE CG'CONUT GROVE CIVIC CLUY' , INC . , ® 0. N. CULLIPHER, jOHN DUVALL AND a TEF REY r, EGEN, Petitiotr.ers, i ® CASE 1-0. CITY OZ MIAMI, a Floric3a Municipal Co-paratio.-i , and WALDF,MF.", E . LEF in h ;_ u `ficial capacity as r'izner-isor of Plats for the City Or Miami, Respondents. ® PETITION FOR TARIT OF CERTIORARI TO T'.iE CITY COM -7. S.S1011 OT THE CTY OF MTt16I, FbORIDA W. `1'uc):er Giobs Florida Par DJ( 705217 W. TUCT�:CP. (,!PES, P.A. '665 South Bayshor.e Drive, :quite vU;� Ct-)conuL Grove, I;Lorin; 33133 (3W))8;6-� =� 793 CONTENTS r INTRODUCTION .................................... ........ ....4' BASIS FOR JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT ............................6 ISSUES................................. ..... .... 7' FACTS UPON WHICH PETITIONERS RELY...............................8 j A. THE APPLICATION ................................... ....9 B. LIMITED STAFF REVIEW — RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL AND DENIAL OF WAIVER ........................ ...11 C. FIRST APPEAL — INCORRECT GRANT OF WAIVER...............13 D. JANUARY PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE MEETING: i DEFERRED DECISION, POLITICAL PRESSURE..................15 E. GRANT OF WAIVER AND PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE APPROVAL ............................. ......19 F. APPROVAL OF PLAT BY CITY COMMISSION ....................22 NATURE OF RELIEF SOUGHT........................................29 ' ARGUMENT.......................................................30 I. THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION FAILED TO OBSERVE THE i ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW WHEN IT APPROVED THE OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISION PLAT WITHOUT REVIEWING THE SUPERVISOR OF PLATS' IMPROPER WAIVER OF REQUIRED RIGHT- i OF -WAY DEDICATIONS AND THEREBY ALLOWED A VIOLATION OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE ..........................30 t A. The City of Miami Commission abused its discretion when it refused to evaluate whether the plat met all applicable legal requirements...............30 2 96- 793 It i j B. The City Commission was required to reject the plat because the decision of the Supervisor of y Plats to grant a waiver of required right-of-way dedications was in violation of applicable law and due process.....................................34 1. The procedure followed by the Supervisor of Plats to approve the waiver of the required right-of-way was quasi-judicial, yet it failed to provide affected parties with notice and opportunity to be heard and an opportunity to appeal his decision ....... 34 2. The Supervisor of Plats improperly granted the waiver of the required dedication because the request failed to satisfy the requirement of a legal hardship .......... 36 3. The Supervisor of Plats failed to assess properly the impact of the proposed waiver on nearby affected property owners ....... 40 4. The Supervisor of Plats failed to make findings of fact supporting his decision, contrary to applicable law...............41 ' II.THE CITY COMMISSION FAILED TO MAKE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT IN ITS ARBITRARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT, THUS PROVIDING NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR ITS DECISION ......... 43 III. THE CITY COMMISSION FAILED TO PROVIDE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISION PLAT WITH NOTICE, ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, THEREBY DENYING THEM DUEPROCESS..........................................46 CONCLUSION.....................................................49 f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.........................................50 i V k t _3 9 6 - 793 ,, r,') INTRODUCTION Petitioners, the Coconut Grove Civic Club, Inc., E. W. Cullipher, John Duvall and Jeffrey Degen, pursuant to Rule 9.030(c)(3), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, respectfully request that this Court issue an Order directing the City Commission of the City of Miami. (hereinafter "City") to show cause why- this Court should not grant certiorari in this case and, thereafter, grant the following relief: Quash the decision of the City Commission of the City of Miami that approved the Oak Shadow Subdivision plat. The City Commission approval of the Oak Shadow Subdivision plat was the culmination of a fatally -flawed process that failed to comport with basic principles of administrative legal procedure or guarantee to affected parties due process of law. The failure of this process began with delegation by ordinance of sole authority to the Supervisor of Plats to waive required right-of-way dedications. It was exacerbated by his misapplication of those standards and his failure to make the clear and adequate findings of fact required by the Municipal Code of the City of Miami (hereinafter "Municipal Code"). The lack of any appeal process from this decision by affected property owners further underscored the flawed nature of the process. City Commission review of the plat was an obvious opportunity to correct the flaws in the process. Because its plat consideration is quasi-judicial, the Commission had the An L' 96- 793 discretion to reject the plat if it did not meet the legal requirements of plat approval as set out in the Municipal Code. But the Commission refused to recognize the administrative errors in the grant of waiver, and again the process broke down as the City Attorney erroneously instructed the City Commission that it had absolutelyno discretion to reject the j plat. Several Commissioners noted at the time that the necessity of Commission consideration of plat approval makes no sense if plat approval is completely technical and ministerial. City Commission consideration of this plat was without adequate opportunity for affected parties to be heard and to present evidence — basic due process rights recognized in quasi- judicial proceedings. Capping this error -filled, legally -flawed, .r closed and insular process was the City Commission's failure to make the specific findings of fact required in its quasi-judicial consideration of this plat. Instead the information contained in the apparent final order, Resolution 94-453, is merely conclusory and provides no way for a court to know on judicial review whether the evaluation made of the legal requirements and the j III related decision to approve the plat have any basis in fact. � . s f I 5 96- 793 BASIS FOR JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Rule 9.030(c)(3), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The rule provides this Court with original jurisdiction to review and issue writs of certiorari on final orders of administrators or administrative bodies, such as the Miami City Commission. This review is appropriate to determine whether these administrators A or administrative bodies in their decision making accorded procedural due process, observed the essential requirements of law and supported their findings by substantial evidence. r Cherokee Crushed Stone v. City of Miramar, 421 So.2d 684, 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The individual Petitioners are owners of property and residents of the neighborhood surrounding the Oak Shadow Subdivision plat. The Coconut Grove. Civic Club, Inc. includes in its membership property owners and "`residents of that same ' neighborhood. A purpose of the Civic' Club is to preserve the existing character of the area of the City of Miami known as Coconut Grove. t i i r ISSUES j-� j 1 The issues for determination by this Court are: i I.Whether the City of Miami Commission failed to observe i j the essential requirements of law when it approved a '> plat based on a waiver of required right-of-way j dedication, where such waiver was made without the requisites of due process and violated the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. Whether the City of Miami Commission's approval of a plat — a final development order — was improper because { it was not supported by specific findings of fact based on substantial, competent evidence. 3. Whether the City of Miami Commission failed to afford affected property owners procedural due process in its j platting process, culminating in its improper approval of a defective and legally insufficient plat. } i f 1 793 - A FACTS UPON WHICH PETITIONERS RELY' A lush tree canopy and large lot sizes typify the Biscayne Park Terrace subdivision, platted in 1912 and located in North Coconut Grove within the City of Miami. Most, if not all, of the lots within the subdivision's boundaries are approximately 20,000 square feet in size. After years of fighting to protect the spaciousness and natural beauty of Coconut Grove against the City's practice of allowing residential lots to be replatted into smaller lots with oversize houses, various Grove civic and neighborhood groups convinced the City of Miami in 1991 to amend its Zoning Ordinance and create the SD-18 Overlay District: to restrict minimum lot size to ten thousand (10,000) square feet and the minimum lot width to one hundred (100) feet in order to preserve the character of certain neighborhoods in the city. City of Miami Zoning Ordinance, Section 618.1 (hereinafter "Zoning Ordinance"). The City also further protected against inappropriate reductions of lot size by redefining "net lot size" or "area" as } "[t]he total area within the lot lines excluding any street rights of way or other required dedications." Zoning Ordinance, Section 2502, (emphasis added). Therefore, an SD-18 overlay on ;a the R-1 (single family) district, required lots in the Biscayne Park Terrace subdivision to have a minimum ten- thousand- square- References to the Appendix in this Petition are indicated parenthetically by the letters "App.,, followed by the tab letter and page number of the cited references, e.g., (App. D-2). to g 96 - 793 foot lot size, not including required dedications of right-of- way. I i THE APPLICATION i It was against this backdrop that longtime residents of the Biscayne Park Terrace neighborhood, Mr. And Mrs. Michael Kuryla, on August 4, 1993 purchased property next door to them: a 20,000- I square -foot lot with a house on it. (App. A-4) (The purchase was � of Lot 23, Block C in the Biscayne Park subdivision at the corner of Emathla Street and Secoffee Street.) Two months later they filed an application for tentative plat approval to the City of '1 Miami, (App. A-3), asking to split the new lot into two parcels, each purportedly 10,000-square-foot in size. This "Oak Shadow Subdivision" plat proposed to include the existing house on one parcel and use the remainder of the lot as a new, vacant parcel. (App. A-7). However, the proposed plat could only split the existing 20,000 square -foot lot into two 10,000 square -foot lots if required right-of-way dedications were waived from the plat. Pursuant to Section 54.5-7 of the Muncipal Code, the plat was scheduled for code compliance review at the November 4, 1993, I meeting of the City of Miami Plat and Street Committee. r For a plat to be approved, it must meet, among other things, Zoning Ordinance minimum lot size requirements: Dimensions after dedication of necessary rights of way must conform to the requirements of [the Zoning Ordinance], as amended, for regular or irregular J conforming lots. Muncipal Code, section 54.5-12(D)(2) (emphasis added). 1 i 9 96- 793 G i i In making the determination as to whether right-of-way dedications should be a condition of plat approval, the Public Works Departments and the Plat and Street Committee typically look at minimum right-of-way widths set forth in the Municipal Code. If the land required to meet these requirements has not been dedicated to the City, the Department then makes such dedication a requirement of plat approval. The Municipal Code also provides that: [p]roperty lines at street intersections shall be rounded with a radius of twenty-five (25) feet, except where existing buildings or structures occupy all or a portion of the external area of the twenty -five-foot radius, the Supervisor of Plats may reduce or eliminate the requirements for a rounded corner radius. Muncipal Code, Section 54.5-12(A)(6). The Municipal Code requires the Secoffee Street right-of-way along the applicants' property to be fifty feet wide. Section 54- 101, Municipal Code. Because so far only forty-nine and one-half feet had been dedicated, the Kurylas should have been required to dedicate one half a foot along Lot 23's 175=foot frontage on Secoffee Street, as well as make a required 25-foot radius dedication. If the applicants had to make these dedications, they would not have been able to subdivide the lot because the resulting new plat would have consisted of two substandard lots — less than 10,000-square-foot each. 10 793 El INITIAL STAFF REVIEW — RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL AND DENIAL OF WAIVER The Kurlyas only recourse was to pursue an adjustment or variance of the right-of-way design standards to waive the required dedications. Authority to grant waivers is delegated to the Supervisor of Plats, who "may authorize an adjustment to the design standards when in his opinion undue hardship may result from strict compliance with such standards. ." Municipal Code, Section 54.5-12(F). In order to grant the waiver, however, the Supervisor of Plats must also make four findings of fact: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property and that strict compliance of the design standards would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his land; 2. That the adjustment is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; 3. That the granting of an adjustment will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property in the vicinity in which the property is situated; and 4. That the adjustment will not unreasonably burden city services, including adjacent streets. [D]imensions after dedication of necessary rights of way must conform to the requirements of [the zoning ordinance], as amended, for regular or irregular conforming lots. Muncipal Code, Section 54.5-12(D)(2), (emphasis added). (App. E- 23). The Plat and Street Committee, on November 3, 1993, deferred a decision on the plat and recommended to the Supervisor of 11 60;� 793 "1 Plats' that the Kurylas' requested waiver of dedication of the I I � 25-foot corner radius and the .5-foot by 175-foot strip along Secoffee Street be denied. On November 8, 1993, in a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Kurlya, James Kay, chairman of the Plat and Street Committee, explained that his Committee "by consensus vote" had recommended to the Supervisor of Plats that their requested waiver of the required w right-of-way dedication be denied. The letter also stated that a representative of the Miami Planning, Building and Zoning Department had observed at the November 4, 1993, meeting that the configuration of the lots "may be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood." (App. E-6). The applicants, in an effort to avoid the dedication of right -of --way, had offered instead to grant a pedestrian easement over the same area of land. (App. E-8) However, the City Attorney's Office eventually determined that the grant of such an easement would not eliminate the need for the dedication. (App. E-4). On December 8, 1993, Waldemar E. Lee, in his capacity as Supervisor of Plats, officially advised the Kurylas via letter I that he could not grant a waiver under Section 54.5- 12 (A) , (B) , (6) and (7) of the Municipal Code. Mr. Lee noted in the letter that the application and proposed plat did not Presently the Supervisor of Plats of the City of Miami, Mr. Waldemar E. Lee, also serves as Director of the Public Works Department. He also is an assistant city manager. 0 12 96- 793 1 comply with the waiver under Section 54.5-12(F) because there was lack of supporting documentation identifying the hardships and the requirement that all conditions of said code section must exist in regard to the land concerned before an adjustment is granted. (App. E-8). Mr. Lee also advised Mr. and Mrs. Kuryla that they could request an appeal of this determination to a special committee that included directors (or their designees) of the City of Miami 4 departments represented on the Plat and Street Committee. (App. 1 E-9) . { FIRST APPEAL — INCORRECT GRANT OF WAIVER iJ On December 9, 1993, Mr. Kurlya requested this appeal. (App. E-11). The directors discussed the request on December 17, 1993. i On December_ 23, 1993, the Supervisor of Plats, Mr. Lee, issued a memo to the chairman of the Plat and Street Committee, informing him that that the directors had granted the requested waiver. (App. E-12). y This memo is a bizarre, convoluted attempt to justify — and at the same time avoid responsibility for — a grant of waiver pursuant to Section 54.5-12(F) of the Municipal Code. The Supervisor of Plats has the sole authority to grant the waiver but, according to the memo, the special committee reached a "consensus" to grant the waiver based on its review of the four conditions set out in that section. This ap proval had as one of Elm 13 99w- 793 Ei its bases an alleged hardship arising from the equitable enforcement of the City's Zoning Ordinance provision relating to minimum lot -size measurement. On the hardship the memo stated: To require the owner to make further dedic�3tions and at the same time sustain a loss in net lot area for the lots considered was not an equitable situation, notwithstanding the requirements of the Miami Zoning Ordinance 11000, Article 25, definitions, `lot area, net.' The Deputy Director of the Planning, Building and Zoning Department, Joseph McManus, agreed that the present definition of net lot area creates an inconsistency in how the City has dealt with platting requirements in the past. He agreed to recommend that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to reflect a new definition. of net lot area that would be inclusive of street right-of-way dedication. The amendment process, however, could take five to six months before such an ordinance became effective. It was felt by the committee that this time frame was inordinately long and that decisive action should be taken at this time. (App. E-13) (emphasis added). The Supervisor of Plats contended that the application of the Zoning Ordinance (which could-hdt..;be,;waived through Section 7777--7 54.5-12(F)) was a hardship. However, he had no'authority to grant a zoning variance. The grant of a var"iance from the terms of the Zoning Ordinance is the exclusive province of the City of Miami Zoning Board, and the City Commission on appeal. Article 19, Zoning Ordinance. The amendment of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the measurement of lot area is the exclusive province of the City of Miami Planning Advisory Board and the City Commission. Article 22, Zoning Ordinance. 14 f -) r,4 To avoid the lot -area -measurement issue, the specia: committee decided that the City would accept an easement over th4 subject area instead of the required dedication of right-of-way The applicant was required to execute a covenant that would: make mandatory the dedication of the 25-foot corner radius and 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip of land should a building permit be issued on either of the proposed lots described in the Oak Shadow Subdivision. (App. E-13). The December 23, 1993 memo concluded: Based on the consensus of the committee's findings in the above, and my authority as Supervisor of Plats, I am directing you [James Kay] to eliminate the requirements for a 25- foot corner radius at the intersection of Secoffee Street and Emathla Street and the 0.5- foot by 175-foot strip of land on the southerly side of Secoffee Street in connection with the plat of 'Oak Shadow Subdivision'. (App. E-14). The grant of the waiver by this process was made without public notice to affected property owners and no affected property owners were present at the special committee meeting at whit] this land use decision was being made. JANUARY PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE MEETING: DEFERRED DECISION; POLITICAL PRESSURE On January 14, 1994, the Plat and Street Committee agaii reviewed the tentative plat. At that meeting the City of Miam. N.E.T. Administrator for Coconut Grove expressed her objection; 4 The Neighborhood Enhancement Team, or N.E.T., administrators are the City Manager's representatives in the neighborhoods of the City of Miami. Each administrator is 00 15 to plat approval, stating that the right-of-way dedication requirement should be applied here as it had been applied Ii { elsewhere by the City of Miami. A representative of the Coconut II Grove Civic Club (hereinafter referred to as "Civic Club") raised many legal issues-5 The chairman of the Plat and Street Committee referred the many questions raised to the Assistant City Attorney present at the meeting, who properly requested time to review them. (App. E- responsible for monitoring all neighborhood issues, reporting to the City Manager on those issues and acting as a liaison between the City Manager and the community s The Civic Club representative raised the following issues: 1. Does the Public Works Director have the authority to waive this code requirement when the waiver would create a violation of another non- "waivable" provision (the provision in the Zoning Ordinance relating to minimum lot size)? 2. Does the Public Works Director have the authority to waive this code requirement temporarily and require a covenant that would require the grant of the land at issue at the determination of the Public Works Director at a later date? Wouldn't this waiver subvert the code in that it would allow the platting of the property (even though it does not meet the code) through the waiver; then the owner could dedicate the required 25-foot radius after approval of the plat, thus creating a substandard lot? 3. Does the Plat and Street Committee have the authority to state that no covenant is necessary and that the City will never require the dedication of the 25-foot radius (absent a decision by the City Commission that the right-of-way will never be widened on Secoffee or Emathla streets)? 4. What are the standards for the use of the waiver by the Public Works Director? Where are they in the code? How has the City applied this waiver provision in the past? S. Does the Public Works Director have the authority to waive this dedication requirement merely because in the opinion of the Deputy Director of Building, Planning and Zoning the current ordinance has a more restrictive definition of net lot area than the previous i) ordinance. Is this not more the province of the legislative process with public input through public hearings? Can the Public Works Director waive a requirement because he believes it is inconsistent with past practices under a previous ordinance even though the current ordinance is clear? Does this no usurp the legislative role that belongs to the City coirunission? Is this not an unlawful delegation of legislative powers to an administrative official? (App. D-2). 16 96" 793 17, C-4). Pending that review, the Plat and Street Committee deferred the matter to a future meeting.(App. E-3). After the meeting Mr. Kuryla wrote to Mr. Kay, chairman of the Plat and Street Committee, complaining about the deferral. This letter generated many inquiries into staff's review of this plat through copies to officials at the highest levels of city government.6 The response to Mr. Kury.la's letter was a lengthy January 27, 1994 memorandum from Chief Assistant City Attorney G. Miriam Maer to Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. on January 27, 1994. (App. E-1). The memo sought to address the pending legal questions raised by the Civic Club, (App. E-2), as well as provide a detailed overview of the review of the proposed plat. It also included an analysis of the actions taken by the special committee on December 17, 1993, the Supervisor of Plats on ;J 6 Copies of this letter were forwarded by Mr. Kuryla to Miami Mayor Stephen P. Clark, City Commissioner J.L. Plummer, City Manager Cesar odio and Supervisor of Plats, Mr. Lee. (App. E-17). In response to this letter, on January 20, 1994, Mayor Clark directed the City Manager to "investigate this matter fully." (App. C-1). Mayor Clark on that same date wrote the Kurylas to assure them that he shared their concerns: It troubles me that apparently the City Attorney was not adequately prepared for your case. . Please be advised that I have forwarded your letter to the City Manager and to the City Attorney for a full investigation in this matter. . . (App. C-2). The City Manager directed Mr. Lee to follow up on the complaint on January 24, 1994. (App. C-1). The next day Mr. Lee directed Mr. Kay, chairman of the Plat and a Street Committee, to prepare a reply to the letter for the City Manager's signature by February 7, 1994. (App. C-3). Mr. Kay, through the Coconut Grove N.E.T. Administrator requested from the Civic Club a written list of the questions and concerns it presented at the Plat and Street Committee meeting of January 17, 1994. (App. A- ). on January 27, 1994, this information was provided to the City. (App. D- 1). The City Attorney, copied on the Mayor's letter to the Kurylas', felt the necessity to write the Mayor a memo explaining that this issue was being handled properly. (App. C--4). Commissioner. Plummer also was stirred to action by the letter from the Kurylas. He requested from the City Attorney's Office an analysis of the consideration of the Oak Shadow Subdivision plat. 0 17 9 6 - 79, f December 23, 1993 and the Plat and Street Committee on January 14, 1994. Ms. Maer made several startling legal determinations: i 1. The review committee acted outside the scope of its authority when it agreed to waive the required right- of-way dedication because only the Supervisor of Plats has that authority. The committee only had the power to review the findings of the Plat and Street Committee i under Section 54.5-7(D) of the Muncipal Code. (App.E- 3). 2. The Supervisor of Plats has the authority to "adjust" design standards, such as required right -of --way dedication, when in his opinion undue hardship may result from the strict application of the requirement. Before such an adjustment can be made all four conditions listed in the ordinance also must be met. (APP. E-3). 3. The Muncipal Code, Section 54.5-12(D)(2) requires that lot dimensions after dedication of necessary right-of- way must meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The waiver "was conditioned upon subsequent dedication at the time of development. The effect of the. .waiver would violate this section of the City Code as well as the requirements of Zoning Ordinance 11000. .in effect authorizing the creation of substandard lots. (App. E-4). 4. The Public Works Director has no authority to amend the Zoning Ordinance. (App. E-4). s Thus, the City Attorney's Office concluded that the i requested waiver of plat dedication requirements, as granted on December 17, 1993, and explained in Mr. Lee's memo of December 23, 1993, was illegal and improper. Ms. Maer provided four i alternatives to ensure compliance with the Municipal Code: i 1. The Supervisor of Plats could rescind his previous denial of the requested waiver. . .if he finds all of the standards in Section 54.5-12(F) have been met. 1 18 !� 793 i 2. The waiver, if granted, should not be conditioned upon subsequent dedication at time of issuance of a development permit. 3. The City Code could be amended to eliminate the dedication requirements or the Zoning Ordinance could be amended to reduce the minimum lot size for that zoning district. 4. The applicant advised the Plat and Street Committee [that] he owns the adjacent property, and thus owns a total of 42,000 square feet. This amount of land would seem to offer, collectively, development opportunities j that would not require a waiver or code amendments. (App. E-4). GRANT OF WAIVER AND PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE APPROVAL In the wake of the Chief Assistant City Attorney's conclusions, on February 4, 1994 Mr. Kuryla again requested, in a letter to the Supervisor of Plats, the waiver of plat dedication requirements pursuant to Section 54.5-12(F) of the Municipal Code. Expressly using alternative number one of the Chief Assistant City Attorney's memorandum, Mr. Kuryla contended the required right-of-way dedication "results in an undue hardship in this particular application. (App. F-1). He referenced the +� standards of Section54.5-12'(F)'of the Muncipal Code in his letter. 1. The required right-of-way dedication would force the removal of the existing six-foot high fence and its J relocation at a cost of $6,500 to the applicant.' 2. The property required to be dedicated is owned by the applicant "which allows for private use — this is a substantial property right of the applicant." What- the applicant failed to tell the City was that the fence was built without building permits — a violation of the Municipal Code. 96- 793 3. The grant of the waiver is not detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. j 4. City services will not be burdened by this request. j (App. F-1). Ignoring the recommendations of the Plat and Street Committee on November 4, 1993, his own denial of the waiver on December 8, 1993, and. the declared illegality of the grant of the requested waiver pursuant to his December 23, 1993, memorandum, the Supervisor of Plats on February 10, 1994 again granted the requested waiver of the required right-of-way dedication. In the letter to the applicants granting the waiver, Mr. Lee stated that all conditions of Section 54.5(F) of the "j Municipal Code were met. The Supervisor of Plats concurred with each point of the applicants' letter. He agreed that the threshold condition of an undue hardship was met because it would cost the applicants $6,500 to move the fence if the dedication was made. Incredulously, the Supervisor`of;Plats went beyond this rationale. Noting the value of the land required to be dedicated was $1,312.50, he determined that moving the fence would cost the applicant more than the value of the land being dedicated to the City. (App. G-1). However, Mr. Lee failed to explain the relevance of these facts to the undue hardship required to be shown by Section 54.5-12(F) of the Municipal Code (universally interpreted as not self-created but relating to the land itself). The Supervisor of Plats merely accepted this as a hardship 96- 793 rs1 resulting from strict compliance with the required right-of-way dedication. He also agreed with the applicants' contention that the required right-of-way dedication requirement deprived the applicants of a substantial property right because the property to be dedicated was owned by them. (App. G-2). But he made no mention of any special circumstances or conditions affecting the property and how strict compliance with the design standards would deprive the applicants of reasonable use of their land. The Supervisor of Plats further stated that the waiver of dedication will in no way be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property. Vegetation and mature trees prevent the public from using the property in question. (App. G-2). Yet, he failed to provide information on how neighboring properties would be affected by this waiver of the required right-of-way. Section 54.5-12(F)(3), Municipal Code. For neighbors, in contrast, the waiver:`had`a real effect on their property because setbacks would be substantially changed on the newly -split Lot 23 (the Oak ,Shadow,Subdivision plat). What used to be front setbacks of twenty'feet-on Emathla Street would become side setbacks of five feet, and what used to be rear setbacks of twenty feet to an adjoining owner would become side setbacks of five feet. To other neighbors, this waiver and resulting plat approval suggested a dangerous precedent of future waivers of required H` dedications and the resulting creation of de facto nonconforming lots below the required ten thousand square -foot minimum lot size 21 00 '— 793 j in other areas of the Biscayne Park Terrace Subdivision. Such a change in character to their neighborhood was a concern of not only the neighbors immediately abutting the proposed Oak Shadow plat, but also others living in the subdivision, as well as the Coconut Grove Civic Club. That group was concerned with the effect of this grant of waiver of required right-of-way dedication on its members in the immediate area and the implications of the illegal process by which the waiver was granted. To the Civic Club the process was flawed because, among other reasons, it placed too much power in the hands of the Supervisor of Plats to grant the waiver with no notice to the public or affected property owners, no opportunity to be heard by the public or affected property owners and, most important, no `a opportunity for an appeal to the City Commission. The City Commission delegated its power to waive provisions of the Municipal Code to an appointed official, and there was no opportunity for any affected party to appeal his decision. On March 10, 1994, the Plat and Stree t`Committee, after the second waiver of the required right-of-way dedication by the Supervisor of Plats, approved the tentative plat. APPROVAL OF PLAT BY CITY COMMISSION The final plat of the Oak Shadow Subdivision was placed on the May 23, 1994, City Commission agenda for approval. Because a public hearing is not part of the procedures for plat approval by v the Miami City Commission, the neighbors had to request 22 96- 793 r permission to speak to the City Commission on that same agenda about their concerns with and objections to the proposed plat, and its effect on their property. On May 23, 1994, the legal representative of objecting neighbors and neighborhood organizations, including petitioners, the Coconut Grove Civic Club, Inc., E. W. Cullipher, John Duvall, and Jeffrey Degen, appeared to speak to the Commission in opposition to the plat and how its approval would affect them. The presentation of the neighbors and the Civic Club at their personal appearance, began auspiciously with the Mayor remarking: "Just give us the issue. I think I have counted the votes up here of what is going to happen."" (App. N-10). The discussion continued with the Supervisor of Plats, Mr. Lee, and Chairman of the Plat and Street Committee, Mr. Kay, explaining that without the waiver the applicant could not meet the 10,000- i square -foot -minimum lot size of the neighborhood. (App. N-12). i The Civic Club and concerned neighbors through legal counsel presented their concerns with the plattingprocess, particularly the waiver process, its application to the Oak Shadow Subdivision plat and effect on their property. The concerns were that: 1. The waiver provisions in Section 54.5-12(F) of the Municipal Code create a flawed quasi-judicial process (since Supervisor of Plats uses certain standards in making his decision to grant the waiver as to specific parcels of property). There is neither notice nor opportunity to be heard, no opportunity to present to How the Mayor knew is anybody's guess. See Section 286.011, Florida Statutes (1993)(The sunshine Law). 23 96- 793 0 evidence and no appeal from the decision by affected parties.9 (App. N-17). 2.The Supervisor_ of Plats incorrectly applied the standards set forth in Section 54.5-12(F) of the Municipal Code since no hardship or loss of reasonable use of the property existed because of the required right-of-way dedication. (App. N-17). 3. The requisite dedications of right-of-way were made for other properties on the north side of Secoffee Street. Therefore, this applicant should be treated the same as others in his position had been treated in the past. (App. N-20). 4. The City Commission has the discretion to reject a plat and should reject this one because the plat was approved subject to an improper waiver of required right-of-way dedication. (App. N-25). Mr. Jim McMaster, a member of the Civic Club, spoke about the effect of this waiver on larger development issues in the City of Miami. This grant of waiver, he asserted, would gut the Municipal Code "so badly that. .[the City will] never. . .get a dedication again on a major ,'thoroughfare. .Give it to this gentleman, and you won't any more from anyone else.!'._(App. N-28). Is was during Mr. McMaster's presentation. that :the:City Manager, through Commissioner Plummer, withdrew.the.propo'sed plat from the City Commission agenda so that staff could review it again. (App. N-29). Commissioner Plummer directed that objections to the proposed plat be presented to the City Manager in his review. The attorney for the opponents responded in a June 3, 1994 letter Indeed, Mr. Lee was specifically asked to inform the representative of the Civic Club of decisions made in this case.(App. D-4). He failed to do so, thereby insuring that any opportunity to appeal this waiver decision directly into court was lost. 1,4 24 793 that reiterated their presentation made at the meeting. (App. 0- Discussion on the proposed plat and the personal appearances of the neighbors were rescheduled for the City Commission meeting of June 30, 1994. At that time the applicants' presentation to the City Commission focused on their contention that the procedure established in the Municipal Code was followed. Representatives of the Civic Club and the neighbors disagreed and pointed out the inequity of waiving the required right-of-way dedication in this instance when virtually every other required right-of-way dedication in the area had been made. The neighbors' effort was stymied, however, by the Mayor's decision to halt the public discussion. (App. P-18)." Despite the abrupt conclusion of the discussion, the attorney for the Civic Club 'and .neighbors were able to bring up two issues e relating to th ta-rdship and reasonable -use conclusions reached in the waiver deliberations. One was whether an illegally -built fence should be, -, accorded such important status 10 As the Plat and Street Committee Chai'rman.responded to a question about the number of waivers granted based on financial hardship, the following exchange took place: Mr. Clark: All right, now listen Now we're getting a little t far afield. This is not the Circuit Court, Mr. Gibbs: No, I understand that, but I need to put that on the record Mr. Clark: Let's wind this up right quickly. Try this in court. (App. 25 that its removal as a result of required right-of-way dedications would create a hardship that deprived the owner of the reasonable use of his property. (App. P-19). The other was whether or not the applicants' hardship even existed since they had the ability to move their southern lot line to make up for the loss of square footage from the required dedication. They could do this because they own Lot 22, which adjoins Lot 23, the lot being subdivided. Lot 22 is 22,000 square feet and the existing structure on that property is set back ten feet from the lot line, where a five foot set back is required (thus he had an extra five feet in which to move the lot line). (App. P-20). This fact was addressed in the Chief Assistant City Attorney's memo of January 27, 1994. (App. E-4). Finally, the City Attorney instructed the City Commission that despite all information put in the ;re co 'rd and ;presented at the meeting showing the incorrect application of law in this matter, the Commissioners had absolutely no discretion to reject the plat.li This is purely a ministerial act that's before you to approve. You really don't have any discretion to deny it. This was already approved by the Plat and Street Committee. . . Commissioner Plummer asked: "Again, for the record, I or my colleagues cannot vote to deny?" The City Attorney responded: "Absolutely." Commissioner Plummer later stated, "Even if we agree with you, we do not have the legal right to deny. (App. P-22) The attorney for the opponents asked the Mayor: "(I]f the City fails to apply the law correctly in their granting of a waiver, is the act- of approving the plat containing the waiver ministerial?" The City Attorney responded: "Mr. Gibbs, that's a question that you have to answer. I'm not going to answer it for you. The Mayor added: "I can't answer that question." (App. P-22). 00 26 96- 793 ra (App. P-22). In Neighbors opposing the plat objected that the applicant was being treated differently than other area property owners who had 12 to dedicate right-of-way and corners to the City. The applicant's attorney countered that the plat was submitted pursuant to and consistent with the City's platting requirements. But the City Commission's discussion of the matter focused on why the City Commission had to consider any plat when it had no discretion. After the discussion, the commissioners voted: The [City] Clerk: Mr. Plummer. Commissioner Plummer. Mr. Plummer: I vote yes according to the City Attorney's rule that that's the only way that I can vote. The Clerk: Commissioner,.Gort,. Commissioner 49#,!�E. understand it but according to the attorneyI. have to vote yes. I don't know what the- -T,)ur'T;)o se.. 12 Ms. Norma Post, a property owner in the subdivision for more than 35 years objected that one property owner is being permitted to do something that no ti other property owner in this area has been able to do for twenty years. . . Mr. Clark: Thank you, ma'am. Mrs. Post: And that is to have. . .not be required on a corner lot to make a 25-foot dedication to the city. Everyone else had to do this. Mr. Clark: Thank you, ma'am. You've made your point. Mrs. Post: And I'd like to ask the commission if you vote on this, which reason you can give me why an exception is made for this one place. (App. P-25). Mrs. Charlotte Duvall, who owns property at the corner of Secoffee and Natoma streets, one block east of the Oak Shadow Subdivision plat, also questioned the City's review of the plat. She reminded the city commission that the City's chief administrator for Coconut Grove, Christina Abrams, of the N.E.T. Office, had objected to the plat's approval. Mrs. Duvall also objected to the way the property was divided, not with a straight line splitting the lot but in a "jigsaw puzzle" pattern around the existing house on Lot 22. (App. 11-26), ((Al-.)p. A-7). I. 27 96- 793 The Clerk: Vice Mayor Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: I know we are heading to court so let the court decide. I vote yes. I The Clerk: Commissioner DeYurre. Mr. DeYurre: No. The Clerk: Votes no. Mayor Clark Mayor Clark: I vote no. Before the vote was final, Commissioner Dawkins asked what the effect of the "no" votes would be on this action. The City Attorney restated his position: [T]he City Code requires that [the plat] come to you for approval. It's simply a ministerial act for which you have no discretion. It's been passed by the Plat and Street Committee, which is empowered with. . .the authority to test. (App. P-30. The City Attorney continued: I'm telling you that the act before you is merely a ministerial act. You have no discretion to disapproval, that's what I'm telling you. (App. P-30). After the Oak Shadow Subdivision plat was approved by a 3-2 vote of the City Commission, it was certified by the City Manager and City Clerk and reviewed and approved by the appropriate agencies of Dade County. The Oak Shadow Subdivision plat ;3 subsequently was recorded in the public records of Dade County. This appeal timely followed the Commission's action. i NATURE OF RELIEF SOUGHT Petitioners respectfully request that this Court issue a Cause why this Petition should not be granted. Rule to Show I Petitioners respectfully submit that this Court j Thereafter, I should quash the decision of roved the City that approved the Oak Shadow Subdivision plat. l G i i m i S q 29 t i 793 r W ARGUMENT I. THE CITY COMMISSION FAILED TO OBSERVE THE ESSENTI] REQUIREMENTS OF LAW WHEN IT APPROVED THE OAK SHAD( SUBDIVISION PLAT WITHOUT REVIEWING THE SUPERVISOR ( PLATS' IMPROPER WAIVER OF REQUIRED RIGHT -OF -WI DEDICATIONS AND THEREBY ALLOWED A VIOLATION OF TF CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE. A. The City Commission abused its discretion when it refused to evaluate whether the plat met all applicable legal requirements. The City Commission has the responsibility in its judicial capacity when reviewing a plat for approval to E the plat and make a finding that it meets all legal requiz set forth in the Muncipal Code. Florida courts have declarE both plat and site plan approvals are quasi-judicial in because both involve the application of specific requiremer out in statute or ordinance to a specific plat or site plar of Commerce Associates v. City of Delray Beach, 606 So.2 634-35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (citing City National Bank of M� City of Coral Springs, 475 So.2d 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)). In making a determination on whether an action is judicial one must examine at the character of the proceE Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyde So.2d 469 (Fla. 1993) (citing Coral Reef Nurseries, I Babcock Co., 410 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1982)); also see DeGr Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912, 915 (Fla. 1957). With regard to plats in the City of Miami, Chapter the Municipal Code establishes standards that must be me we] condition of plat approval. Clearly, where the City Commission in I -, its legislative capacity has adopted standards to be met in the plat -approval process, and when that same body reviews the plat and applies the adopted standards in that review, the determination, and the decision, is quasi-judicial. Park of Commerce, at 0'34-635. In this quasi-judicial proceeding the importance of an even- handed application of these standards is important. All persons similarly situated should be able to obtain plat approval upon meeting uniform standards. Otherwise the official. approval of a plat application would depend upon the whim or caprice of the public body involved. I� Broward County v. Narco Realty, 359 So.2d 509, 510 (Fla. 4th DCA I 1978). However, this even-handedness does not mean the City Commission abdicates its discretion to examine a plat and apply those standards, which determine the legality of the plat. While administrative staff initially reviews a plat for technical compliance, the final decision rests with the City Commission. a Muncipal Code Section 54.5-8(E). If all legal platting requirements are met, the City Commission must approve the plat. The Fourth District Court of Appeal has determined where the -.+ parties in a legal action have agreed that all lawful requirements have been met in the creation of a plat, the approval of that plat by a city commission becomes ministerial. Narco Realty , at 510. "l 31 96- 793 The question of discretion in a later case was clarified: I -•, "[where) the property owner has done all. the law required of him i to entitle his plat to be recorded" then mandamus was an appropriate remedy because nothing remained to be done which -� would permit or require an exercise of discretion. Broward County v. Coral Ridge Properties, 408 So.2d 625, 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (quoting from Narco Realty). Broward County involved a plat that was approved by the City of Fort Lauderdale but rejected by the Broward County Commission because it failed to meet all applicable legal requirements. While the court did not examine the issue of whether applicable legal requirements were or were not met, it did acknowledge that plat review in this context involves the exercise of some discretion." This case initially presents the question whether this plat complied with Muncipal Code sections 54.5-12(6) and (7), which require that "[p]roperty lines at street intersections shall be rounded with a radius of twenty;=five'(25) feet. and that "[m]inimum required right-of-way'.widths shall be as designated in Chapter 54 of the Code of the city. Both streets abutting this plat have a required right-of-way width of fifty feet. J " This was in accord with that court's prior decision in State ex ref. Zuckerman - Vernon Corp. v. City of Miramar, 306 So.2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). There the court determined that plat approval involved such complete discretion by the approving governmental body that mandamus was not applicable in an action to implement the plat. However, wliila Narco Realty receded from this broad discretion, it did not stand for the idea that platting was purely ministerial and that there was now absolutely no discretion in municipal plat approval. In Narco Realty there was no k,j discretion to refuse approval of the plat because the IP p partial had stipulated that all legal requirements had been inet. Therefore, the governing body had no discretion remaining under the facts of the case, 0 32 96- 793 r Dedications of right-of-way to conform with these requirements were necessary for the plat to be approved. And the Zoning Ordinance's SD-18 overlay district required at minimum, 10,000 square foot lots, excluding dedicated rights -of -way. The applicants' request for a waiver — the review of which was characterized by denials, appeals and then approval — was reviewed and approved by the Supervisor of Plats via a flawed process that improperly created defacto non -conforming lots contrary to the Zoning Ordinance. This waiver cried out for reversal by the City Commission in its quasi judicial review of this plat. Not only did the City Commission not review the plat, it did not consider the improper waiver of the right-of-way because it refused to recognize its role as an administrative, quasi- judicial body in this plat -review process. The Chief Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Commission's consideration of plat approval is not quasi-judicial. (App. N-24). The City Attorney informed the City Commission that plat approval was "purely a ministerial act. . .you don't have any discretion to deny it. . . ." (App. P-22). Given this erroneous advice, the City Commission refused to recognize that plat approval is quasi- judicial in character and that it has discretion to reject the plat. The result was the failure of the City Commission to consider the specific legal requirements for plat approval and its failure to make an evaluation of the legal standards in its 33 96- 793 FW review of this plat. The City Commissioners themselves recognized this. As they voted on the approval of the plat, one commissioner asked the question, "If we have no choice of yes or no, why bring it here? I mean, it's like asking us to be a rubber stamp." (App. P-28). The City Commission in its quasi-judicial capacity, applying standards to the application for plat approval, had the discretion to approve or reject the plat based on its own review of the plat and the applicable standards. Unfortunately for residents of the City of Miami and the neighbors affected by this plat, the Commission failed to do its job. And the question of the legality of the plat remains unanswered. B. The City Commission was required to reject the plat because the decision of the Supervisor of Plats to grant a waiver of required right-of- way dedications was in violation of applicable law and due process 1. The procedure followed by the Supervisor of Plats to approve the waiver of the required right-of-way was quasi-judicial, yet it failed to provide affected parties with notice and opportunity to be heard and an opportunity to appeal his decision. The City Commission is the final municipal authority in plat j review. As such, it must make the final determination on whether the plat that has been recommended to it for approval is in accord with all lawful municipal requirements. If the staff recommendation for approval is based on unlawful acts, the City Commission has an obligation to reject the plat. 01! 96- 793 Approval of the Oak Shadow Subdivision plat hinged upon the } Supervisor of Plats' waiver of design standards requiring right- of-way dedications by the owner of the property to be platted. The application of the requirements, standards and "? conditions to this plat in the waiver process was quasi-judicial, as it is in a zoning board of adjustment's application of similar standards to a piece of property for which an applicant is requesting a zoning variance.14 Albright v. Hensley, 492 So.2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). This quasi-judicial decision making by the Supervisor of Plats did not comport with the basics of due process. At a minimum, this waiver —the application of specific standards to a particular piece of land with a direct impact on adjoining properties and the neighborhood - must provide the applicant and other affected property owners notice, opportunity to be heard and present evidence and the right to appeal the decision. Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So.2d 1337, 1340-1341 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1991). ✓� The Supervisor of Plats approved the waiver without any opportunity for the affected neighboring property owners to be heard and present evidence on the issue. There was absolutely no appeal process available for the affected neighboring property 14 According to Brian May, the Miami Mayor's Chief of Staff, this process was considered a zoning matter by the City Attorney's office and, thus, under law the Mayor could not have any contact with affected neighbors on this issue outside a City Commission meeting. Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1991). (App. K-1). 35 96- 793 011i �r;j 00 M owners. Even the route of a petition for Writ of Certiorari was unavailable because no notice of the decision to grant the waiver was provided. This is even more shocking when the Chairman of the Plat and Streets Committee (with a copy to the Supervisor of Plats) was specifically asked and failed to provide the Civic Club, with notice of all meetings relating to this plat. (App. D- 4). This failure on the part of the Supervisor of Plats to even abide by the most basic tenets of due process in his grant of the waiver is a failure to apply the law correctly and warranted City Commission reversal of that grant of waiver. 2. The Supervisor of Plats improperly granted the waiver of the required dedication because the request failed to satisfy the requirement of a legal hardship. As a condition precedent to the grant of waiver, the Muncipal Code requires a finding by the Supervisor of Plats that undue hardship may result from strict compliance with [the right-of-way dedication]. The standards [right-of-way dedication] may be adjusted to prevent hardships; provided such adjustment will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the overall community plan. Muncipal Code, Section 54.5-12(F). Hardship is not defined within this chapter of the Muncipal Code, but is defined in the context of land -development regulations and land use issues. The conditions for the grant of a waiver in this chapter are very similar to those established for granting a variance. Zoning Ordinance, Section 1903.2. This 0 36 r N waiver process is nothing more than a variance process absent the I �.� quasi-judicial zoning board or board of adjustment. Few issues in land use law are more immovable than the fact that a hardship f must be related to the condition of the land, its shape or some other physical characteristic. City of Coral Gables v. Geary, 383 So.2d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980). The Supervisor of Plats found that a hardship existed because the cost of moving an illegal wooden fence from the land required to be dedicated cost more than the value of that land. (App. G-1 ) He referenced no authority for this definition of "1 hardship in the Muncipal Code, the Zoning Ordinance or anywhere else. That is because there is no authority for this definition which was created by the applicants and embellished by the Supervisor of Plats. Florida courts have held that a legal hardship will be found to exist only in those cases where the property is virtually unusable or incapable of yielding a reasonable return when used pursuant to applicable zoning regulations, Maturo v. City of Coral Gables, 619 So.2d 455, 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993 ) (quoting Herrera v. City of Miami, 600 So.2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)). Consideration of financial issues in the grant of a variance or waiver from land -development regulations is limited in that a hardship "must be such that it renders it virtually impossible to use the land for the purpose for which it is zoned." Town of Indialantic v. Nance, 485 So.2d 1318, 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) 37 96- 793 i i (citing Hemisphere Equity Realty Company v. Key Biscayne Property Taxpayers Association, 369 So.2d 996 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979)). Neither the applicant nor the City contended that the requirement of the right-of-way dedication would render the Oak "1 Shadow property impossible to use as it is zoned. The property is zoned R-1 and an existing house remains on the site. The applicant's inability to split his lot into two smaller parcels if he complies with the required dedication does not rise to the i level of any hardship recognizable in law. Neither does the law ' lrecognize as a hardship that it would cost the applicant more money than the property required to be dedicated is worth to move the illegal fence off that parcel. To grant the waiver the Supervisor of Plats also must find [t]hat there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property and that strict compliance would deprive the applicant of reasonable use of his land. ;•j Section 54.5-12(F)(1), Muncipal Code. In the Supervisor of Plats' response to the waiver request, there is no specific finding that i the required dedications deprive the owner of the reasonable use of his land. The letter he wrote to the applicant merely states that "[T]his relocation [of the illegal fence], for six inches of i additional right-of-way [required by city code] appears to be an } unreasonable requirement for the applicant, resulting in an undue hardship." (App. G-1) (emphasis added). There is no language in E the Supervisor of Plats' letter showing that without this waiver it would be impossible to use the platted property as it is i s 38 96- 793 l i ( currently zoned. Herrera, at 562-563. Without the waiver the fact remains that the property still can be used as it is zoned. That he could not divide his R-1 lot into two R-1 lots without the waiver falls far short of a deprivation of the reasonable use of his land. The next condition or standard that must be found by the Supervisor of Plats is that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Muncipal Code, Section 54.5-12(F)(2). Again, the Supervisor of Plats failed to make the requisite finding: The department25 concurs with the applicant's assessment that the property in question (land exterior of radius and 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip) is under private ownership by the applicant which allows for private use. This is a substantial property right of the applicant. (App. G-2). There is no definition of substantial property right in the Muncipal Code. This statement by the Supervisor of Plats does not explain how the grant of waiver preserves this undefined j substantial property right. I It is not sufficient that the cited findings t merely be general conclusions in the language E of the statute or ordinance because such conclusions provide no way for the court to know on judicial review whether the conclusions have sufficient foundation in findings of fact. } The Supervisor of Plats makes the requisite findings under Section 54.5-12(F), not the Department of Public Works. Each of the four findings in the February 10, 1994, + letter relate to departmental and not Supervisor of Plats findings. This. illustrates yet another failure of this waiver process as applied to this plat approval. i i 39 i OTO 96- 793 FJM City of Apopka v. Orange County, 299 So.2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). Here there was no detail, no factual basis and certainly i 4 no analysis of any evidence — just an unsubstantiated conclusion that does not relate to the standard being applied. I ^� 3. The Supervisor of Plats failed to assess properly the impact of the proposed waiver on nearby affected property owners. Without seeking input from affected property owners on the effect of the grant of this waiver on other property in the I vicinity of the plat, the Supervisor of Plats accepted the position of the applicants and made the following P PP o g finding pursuant to Section 54.5-12(F)(3) of the Muncipal Code: Again the department concurs that the waiver of dedication will in no way be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to private property. Vegetation and mature trees prevent the public from using the area in question. Similar to other findings made by the Supervisor of Plats, this is nothing more or less than a conclusion copied from the applicants' letter of February 4, 1994. (App. F-1). However, the Supervisor of Plats in his reliance on the wording of the applicants' letter missed an important point. He was supposed to find that the grant of the waiver is not "injurious to other property in the vicinity. of the proposed plat. Muncipal J Code, Section 54.5-12(F)(3) (emphasis added). But he failed to address that issue in his findings of fact. Furthermore, he neglected to afford affected property owners notice and an opportunity to be heard and present evidence on whether this f j i j t C 99w- 793 _ . waiver would be injurious to their property. Again, the Supervisor of Plats failed to follow the Muncipal Code If the City Commission had reviewed the record of this plat's approval, as a quasi-judicial. body is required to do, it would have realized that the Supervisor of Plats completely failed to apply the standards that the Commission established as conditions precedent to the grant of the waiver. But the City Commission refused even to consider whether the incorrect application of the standards made the approval of the Oak Shadow Subdivision plat unlawful. In fact, the City Attorney refused to respond when asked: "[I]f the City fails to apply the law correctly in their granting of a waiver, is the act of approving the plat containing the waiver ministerial?" The Mayor responded: "I can't answer the question." (App. P-22-23). 4. The Supervisor of Plats failed to make findings of fact supporting his decision, contrary to applicable law. Another fatal flaw was the decision by the Supervisor of Plats to grant the waiver without the detailed findings of fact required by Section 54.5-12(F) of the Muncipal Code and applicable law. The Muncipal Code states that no adjustment or waiver may be granted unless the Supervisor of Plats finds that all four of the listed conditions are met. To meet due process requirements, it is necessary that the agency set out detailed facts found from the evidence so that a court authorized to review the matter on certiorari can first determine whether or not the facts found by the agency constitute lawful grounds 41 94" 793 \ .....� tom\ d i for its action and, then, determine whether the evidence supports the finding. Irvine v. Dual Planning Commission, 504 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA i I i 1986)(adopting the dissent of Judge Zehmer, at 466 So.2d 357, I( 366) . Here, no detailed findings of fact were made by the Supervisor of Plats, only conclusory statements virtually copying statements made by the applicants in their request for waiver that were not supported by any evidence whatsoever. The failure to make adequate findings of fact based on substantial competent evidence is a departure from the essential requirements of law. Higgs v. Property Appraisal Adjustment Board of Monroe County, 411 So.2d 307 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982). i The City Commission's refusal to review and consider the failure of the Supervisor of,, Plats to apply the standards required under Section '54 5-12.(F)'of',the Muncipal Code as well as the Commission's failure to :consider his completely inadequate findings of fact highlights its utter failure to apply correct law in its approval of this; proposed plat. I i f } I 42 9� '793 II. THE CITY COMMISSION FAILED TO MAKE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT IN ITS ARBITRARY APPROVAL OF THE PLAT, THUS PROVIDING NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR ITS DECISION. Quasi-judicial decisions must be based on specific findings of fact that provide a solid basis for a reviewing court to adequately review the decision. Irvine (adopting the dissent of i Judge Zehmer, at 466 So.2d 357, 365). The cornerstone of administrative law is the equitable adjudication of rights based on detailed findings of fact. « It has been repeatedly held by the courts of this state that in order to assure due process and equal protection of the laws, every final order entered by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions must contain specific findings of fact upon which its ultimate action is taken. An administrative order which fails to contain such findings is ineffectual as a predicate for the order sought to be enforced. Gentry v. Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, State Board of Medical Examiners, 283 So.2d 386, 387 (Fla. lst DCA 1973). d 3 The final order, Resolution 94-453 of the City of Miami, contains no specific findings of fact based on any evidence. There is absolutely no way that a court authorized to review this matter on certiorari can determine if the facts and evidence support its final decision. Laney v. Holbrook, 8 So.2d 465, 468 s (Fla. 1942). The absolute absence of any findings of fact based 7 I on any evidence on the record shows there are no facts that support the conclusions in Resolution 94-453. 43 r Even though the grant of the waiver allowed the applicant to meet the minimum lot -size requirement for the plat, the factual basis of this critical determination was not included in the I' resolution, nor was it presented to the City Commission for i consideration.16 The waiver of the required right-of-way dedication, as noted in the City Surveyor's Report, is merely an unfounded conclusion. (App. Q-7). There is no written application of facts to the standards set forth in Section 54.-512(F) of the Muncipal Code to show the basis for the grant of this waiver by the Supervisor of Plats. Ironically, the issue of the waiver never would have been brought to the attention of the City Commission but for the action of the affected property owners in the neighborhood who requested a special appearance before the City Commission on this issue (because the plat consideration was not a public hearing). The adopted resolution includes as exhibits, conditions required for plat approval by the Plat and Street Committee as well as the City Surveyor's Report of Proposed Record Plat of Oak ;i Shadow dated April 25, 1994. (App. Q-5). Neither of those documents comports with the requirement that findings of fact should be specific so as to provide a rational basis for the .j conclusion reached. Hickey v. Wells, 91 So.2d 206, 210 (Fla. 1957). Nor do those documents show that the City Commission s, An exhibit to the plat resolution, the City Surveyor's Report, merely stated that the waiver was granted. rhat is the only mention of this action in the final order. 44 96- 793 actually considered them in their decision making. There is no reference in the resolution to Muncipal Code standards and how the plat meets those requirements. The conditions imposed on the plat are not linked to or explained in the context of any specific requirements in the Muncipal Code or applicable law. (App. Q`1� Thus, detailed findings of fact relating to specific standards set forth in the Municipal Code are conspicuously absent from the final development order. Without [detailed findings], the reviewing court would be compelled to grope in the dark and to resort to guess work as to what facts the Board had found to be true and what facts were not found to be true. Laney, at 468 quoted in Irvine (adopting the dissent of Judge i Zehmer at 466 So.2d 357, 366). Now that this matter is before a reviewing court, there are no findings of fact in the final development order — the plat resolution — that explain City Commission approval of the Oak Shadow Subdivision plat. In their absence, such approval must be reversed. C III.THE CITY COMMISSION FAILED TO PROVIDE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISION PLAT WITH NOTICE, ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, THEREBY DENYING THEM DUE PROCESS. In making a quasi-judicial determination affecting the use of property, the City Commission has a duty to provide affected property owners with notice of the meeting in which a decision will be made, adequate opportunities to be heard regarding the decision to be made and to present evidence relating to the issue at hand. A quasi-judicial hearing generally meets basic due process requirements if the parties are provided notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard. In quasi-judicial zoning decisions the parties must be able to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses and be informed of all the facts upon which the commission acts. Jennings v. Dade County, 589 So.2d 1337, 1340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The City's platting ordinance does not provide affected property owners with notice and.' op rtunity to be heard by and present evidence to the City Commission in its quasi-judicial role reviewing the plat. The subdivision or resubdivision of property affects adjoining and neighboring property owners. That is because the configuration of lots in the a new subdivision creates setback changes not contemplated prior to the resubdivision. This factual situation is similar to a rezoning, whose results change uses or setbacks on adjacent property. Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832, 837 (Fla. 1971. Approval of the Oak Shadow Subdivision plat had a specific effect on M 96- 793 adjoining properties. For example, what used to be a rear set -. back of twenty feet on Lot 23 of the Biscayne Park Terrace Subdivision is changed by this platting action into a side i setback of five feet on Lot 1 of the Oak Shadow Subdivision. Adjoining property owners and owners of similarly -situated property in the area also are affected by this platting action. Id., Town of Bay Harbor Islands v. Driggs 522 So.2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Further, the change of one lot of 20,000 square feet � � to two lots of 10 000 square feet each could have the effect of doubling the density of the area along Secoffee Street, thus affecting the well -established character of the neighborhood. Affected property owners are entitled to notice, opportunity to be heard and to present evidence at a public hearing before the governmental body that will take action affecting their t 1 property. Jennings at 1351. In the City of Miami ,the City Commission rules on plat i approvals — a process the City Attorney contends is ministerial despite the understanding by the Mayor's'Chief'of Staff, who was s- told by the Attorney's Office, that this action is a zoning action and, therefore, quasi-judicial. (App. H-1). The implication of such a contention is that the Commission decides i „j plat approvals without the input of a public hearing. Any comments regarding the Oak Shadow Subdivision plat made at the Commission meeting by the applicant or, affected property owners were made because those affected parties had asked the City 47 c 96— 793 s Manager for the opportunity to speak and were gratuitiously granted that privilege by him. The approval of this subdivision is a final development order that permits development of land.17 Unfortunately, the platting process created by the City in Chapter 54.5 of the Muncipal Code is fatally flawed in that virtually all decisions made relating to the plat are made without the opportunity of affected parties to participate. Whether it is the decision to waive the required right-of-way dedication, which creates illegal defacto nonconforming lots, or the final plat approval by the City Commission, decisions are made that affect property of people who have no formal opportunity to comment on those decisions. 17 subdivision approval by the city Commission is a development order according to f, the Growth Management Act, Chapter 163.3164(7) and (8) of the Florida statutes. 48 96- 793 CONCLUSION Petitioners, the Coconu t Grove Civic Club, Inc. her, John Duvall and Jeffrey Degen, respectfully request Cullip why this Petition for urt issue a Rule this Coto Show Cause that Thereafter, based upon f Certiorari should not be granted. Writ o ash the decision of oxegoi.ng arguments, this Court should qu the f that approved the Oak the City Commission of the City oL Miami Shadow Subdivision plat. Respectfully submitted, I F .> P.A. j W. TUCKER GIBBS,705217 Florida Bar N°shore Drive, Suite 603 { 2665 South Bay I Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 (305) 856-2'711 s 4 i l i 49 1 APPENDI'L ON, PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO TUS CITY COMMISSION OF THE clvy. OF MIAMI, buo`•yam W. Tur.xer Gibbs FL,'.',RIDA BAR NO. 7 0 54217 W . TUCKER CEBBS , P . A . 2665 _:oucl: Payshore Suit:.e 6'�i Coc trout- Grove, 331 '13 305) 855-2711. r. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA THE COCONUT GROVE CIVIC CLUB, INC., -� E. W. CULLIPHER, JOHN DUVALL, AND JEFFREY DEGEN Petitioners, CASE NO. V. CITY OF MIAMI, a Florida Municipal Corporation, and WALDEMAR E. LEE in his official capacity as Supervisor of Plats for the City of Miami Respondent. i a � i ,w1 l APPENDIX ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA W. Tucker Gibbs j FLORIDA BAR NO. 705217 W. TUCKER GIBBS, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 603 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 305)856-2711 3 99- 793 l { APPENDIX Application for Tentative Plat Approval and sketches of subdivision ................................ ...A-1 Letter to James Kay, Chairman, Plat and Street Committee from Michael Kuryla, November 4, 1993.................B-1 Memo to Cesar Odio, City Manager, from Mayor Stephen P. Clark, January 20, 1994, (with memo to Wally Lee from City Manager Cesar Odio, January 24, 1994)............................. .........C-1 Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Kuryla from Mayor Stephen P. Clark, January 20, 1994.................. C-2 Memo to James Kay from Wally Lee, January 25, 1994..............C-3 Memo to James Kay, Deputy Director of Public Works Department, from G. Miriam Maer, Chief Asst. City Attorney, January 25, 1994.................................. ...D-1 Letter to James Kay, Chairman Plat and Street Committee from W. Tucker Gibbs, January 27, 1994-1 ..... . .....D-2 Memo to Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. from G. Miriam Maer, Chief Assistant City Attorney, January 27, 1994..................................... E-1 Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Michael Kuryla from James Kay, Chairman, Plat and Street Committee, November 8, 1994................................................E-5 Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Michael Kuryla from Waldemar E. Lee, Director of Public Works and Supervisor of Plats, December 8, 1994................. ........E-8 Memo to Waldemar E. Lee, Assistant City Manager from James Kay, Deputy Director of Public Works, December 17, 1994................................E-10 Letter to Waldemar E. Lee, Director of Public Works and Supervisor of Plats, from Michael Kuryla, December 9, 1994 .............................. .......E-11 Memo to James Kay, Chairman Plat and Street Committee, from Waldemar E. Lee, Director of Public Works, December 23, 1994................... ...........E-12 Attendance List-12,-i7;93-Review of Findings by Plat and Street Committee, November 4, 1993....... .............. E-1 Letter to Cesar Odio, City Manager, from Michael Kuryla, January 18, 1994................... ....... ..E-16 Letter to James Fa,,- from Michael Kuryla, January 14, 1994....................................... ......E-16 Letter to James Kay, Chairman of Plat and Street Committee, from Michael Kuryla, January 14, 1994...........................................................E-17 Miami Code Chapter 54.5, Section 54.5 (7) (D), Section 54.5 (12)................................E-20 Letter to Waldemar E. Lee, Supervisor of Plats and Director of Public Works, from Michael Kuryla, February 4, 1994................ ... ........F-1 Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Michael Kuryla from Waldemar E. Lee, Director of Public Works and Supervisor of Plats, February 10, 1994. ............G-1 Letter to Pair. and Mrs. Michael Kuryla from James Kay, Chairman Plat and Street Committee, February 23, 1994...................... .............. .......H-1 Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Michael Kuryla from James Kay, Chairman Plat and Street Committee, March 17, 1994.......................................I-1 Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Michael Kuryla from James Kay, Chairman of Plat and Street Committee, March 18, 1994............................... ...J-1 Letter to Jeffrey B. Degen from Brian E. May, Chief of Staff, Mayor's office, April 11, 1994.............................................. .. .........K-1 Letter to Cesar Odic, City Manager, from W. Tucker Gibbs, April 14, 1994........................ ......L-1 City Commission Agenda Item 32, May 5, 1994.............. ......M-1 City Commission Agenda Items 10, 11, and 12, May 23, 1994................................... ....N-1 Back-up Items for City Commission Items 10, 11, 12, May 23, 1994........................... ............N-3 Transcript City of Miami City Commission Meeting, May 23, 1994........................... .............N-8 � = 793 A� i i Letter to City Manager Cesar Odio from .....0-1 -,, w. Tucker Gibbs, June 3,1994......... Citv Commission :agenda Items 25, 26, P-1 and 27, June 30, 1994................................. Back-up items for City Commission 30, 1994 P-3 Items 65, 26 and 27, June ................. Transcript City of Miami City Commission P-5 Meeting, June 30, 1994 ............................ Resolution 94-453 of the City of Miami Q-1 accepting Oak Shadow Subdivision plat......... .... 1 a i i � f , i _ s >> 96- 793 I "1 I CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS AND SURVEYORS Engineering Cnmpnny►, Inc. SINCE 1898 i SM October 18, 1993 City of Miami Surveyor Department of Public Works 275 N.W. 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33128 ATTN: Mr. Frank McMahon Professional Land Surveyor RE: TENTATIVE PLAT OF "OAK SHADOW", being a Replat of Lot 23, Block c, (Plat Book 2, Page 36, PRDQ Property Address: 2801 Emathla Street Miami, Florida Dear Mr. McMahon: i On behalf of our client, Mr. Michael A. Kuryla, we are submitting to you herewith the I following items for consideration and approval by the City of Miami Plat and Street Committee at their scheduled meeting of November 5, 1993: i i O Application for Tentative Plat Approval; 0 Check in the amount of $300.00 made payable to the City of Miami for the processing fee; 0 Copy of the Warranty Deed from Edward F. James to Michael A. Kuryla and Happy Kuryla, his wife; 0 Twenty (20) copies of the subject Tentative Plat. 9 APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE PLAT 20VAL CITY OF MIAMI I, NAME OF PROPOSED SIJODIYISIOW Qa ;i�,�DOW Z, AREA IN ACRES 0.459 NUKIER OF LOTS OR TRACTS TWO (2) i 1. IS THE PROPOSED SLMDIVISIOiI IN AN ENYIRMHTAL MSERYATION OISTRICTt ( )YES (X )NO 4, LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY I.OT 23, BUX:K C, PlAT OF BISCAYNE_PARK TERRACE SUBDIVISION (PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 36, P.R.D.C.) 5, STREET BOUNDARIES SECOFFEE STREET CM THE NORTH) DIATHIA STREET' (V THE WEST) 6. OWNER MICHALL_A._ KURYLA AND HAPPY KURYLA, HIS WIFE TUjEPifM. 8�6-6Q43 ADDRESS FEryMIAMI (CACONn GRO•dG) ZIP CODE nRTny 33,E ] �z ), DEVELOPER SAME AS A13OVE TELEPIMK ADDRESS ZIP CODE 8. ENGINEER-SURYEYON BISCAYNE RCINFERUN COMPANY INC. TELEPN04IEI%-767� i ADDRESS 529WEST nAGER STRLU MIAMI, FLORIDA ZIP COO[ jiL a o 9. ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SU8IECT PROPERTY�R-1/SD-18 Si�nRle Family Residential/Over1a3 Distric 10. PROPOSED USE OF SLMJECT PRQ RTY, STNCIR 1 F ADDITIONAL .DbCUM ATION REQUIRED POR TER T SUBMITTAL -�L'G",jw/T.rt;wd RATE; � ��zy(zo) d colal os of tho tentative plot shatl b* rztmttod to the Depart,- nt of Public Uoft of V,,z Citr a? glr 6 accoapanied frith tho a propriato fc-0. P10060 aloe vntQ thOt (Za gcop iaa 0? a ;ito. PIan A b6 r ;iimd. .R-,) € 100 and application bunt bo t , d into M. pzpar�oat of lie Works at least 10 calendar days ahead of a Flat GO2rti^Qt Meeting cdrich usually occurs a3•a Ma firatFriday of LF:� month. Aql ett� FIRST =ITTAL...aoee......... y a0. 6,9 K-SWITTAL (S O: mr)...... 150-(M (° RE-SUM11ITTAL (fl Okmar)....... 190. RE-SUM111TAL (� Boundary).... 150.00 % The tentative plat mill be rQviWod by the Plat and S t C�ittdo of tM City of Miami. Their approval will b® required before tho Clay Ca 6218" will consider the i term. The tentative plat approval will note W valid after an (1) year fr= the initial action before the City of MWO Plat and Street CoWitt*@. Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presenee of: / ra •% (WA) MICHAEL KURYLA SEX) HAPPY KURYLA ec ro ry (Corporate Seal) STATE COUNTY OFFLORIDA) )922 . The foregoing Instrument was ecknowlsd d before a th1o/9 ( of� 19 93, by ROSA S RODRIGUEZ my Coseissio�q�'`a �TE OF FLORIDA 4;`- i orrvn Exp3%12/g ..��. COMM NBR CC186fi5 at Large M.3 95- 793 F. E 6014r%03 93R395594 1993 AUG 10 13:1- Mturn toy property Appraiser's a STANTDN, PApazosl ID so. 01-411s-oz�-arao NMI, FL 33131 ffi i. lastru�at .►m pr>sparsd by t Cr,mtes a a 6am 3*7— snits 406 246E satth Rtys6o" Arita C0000at armm, Flori" 33133 ONSTPM 21010.00 SMTX 0.0: AARRAIo'd'Y ,1233 HARVEY RUVINP CLERK DAOE CDUNTYr F This Indenture, made this �? day of August, 1993, between EDWARD F. JAMES, a single man, whose post office address is: Post Office Bone 133, Coconut Grove, Florida 33233, GRANTOR, and XICHMM KURyLA and iL4pPy auRyLA,, his -wife, whose pgst office address is: 2811 Emathla Street, Coconut Grove, Florida_33133, GRANTEES. WitnecoGth that said GRANTOR, for and in coneidoration of the sum of Tern ($10.00) Dollars, and other good and valuable con- sideration to said GRANTOR in hand paid by said GRANTEES, the re- ceipt whereof ita horeby acknowledged, ham granted, bargained and sold to the said GRANTEES, and GRANTEES' heirs and a coigns forever, the following doocribed hand, situate, lying and being in Dde County, Florida, to Grit: Lot 23, in Block C, of BISCAYYNE PARK TERRACE, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, at Paige 36, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. THIS DEED IS GIVEN SUBJECT TOs (1) Restrictions, limitations and conditions of record, it not being the intention to reimpose any of same hereby; (2) Easements of Record; (3) Applicable governmental building and zoning restrictions; and (4) Taxes for the year 1993 and all subsequent yearn. And said GRANTOR does fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. - Page 1 of 2 - Samuel Spencer Blum, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW GRAND BAY PLAZA, 2W5 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE. SUITE 406. COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 3313.3 TELEPHONE: (705) Q54.1 EES TELEFAX: (305) E54-3314 96- 793 I November 4, 1993 E7 o .c V, n T Mr. James J. Kay, P.E. — Chairman, Plat and Street Committee Department of Public Works C7* ro -- .; City of Miami Cn vj 275 N.W. 2nd Street i Miami, Florida 33128 RIF: Tentative Plat #1456; meeting November 4, 1993 Dear Jim: Thank you for the opportunity to present this Tentative Plat for consideration to your committee. As I read into the record, a few minutes after you left the conference room, at 2:06 P.M., Mr. L. Helmers turned to Mr. F. McMahon and made the following comments, while he was viewing the drawing of the Tentative Plat #1456, and which I immediately transcribed: "why don't we just give [the streets back] [back the streets] to the people in the Grove and that way, everybody can get an extra lot." I was shocked and dismayed that such a prejudiced comment was uttered by a member of the Plat and Street Committee to.other members, before you opened the meeting. s I trust, in fairness, that you will be the person to request the waiver to the director, Mr. Lee, and that he give favorable consideration to the request for waiver for this Tentative Plat to then be approved. Thank you, 1 j Michael A. Kuryla 2811 Emathla Street S Coconut Grove, Florida 33133-3246 ? (305) 856-6983 i 1 W CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ,ter INTFA-+C"Wdi'ktMORANDUiM Cesar Odio January 20, 1993(Y) To City Manager DATE Complaint i sua,Ecr i -, KRom Stephen P . C1 REFERENCES Plat & Street Mayor Committee ENCLOSURES �.--� Please review the attached correspondence regarding the above captioned subject and investigate this matter fully. I would appreciate your referring your findings to Stephanie Gibbs of my office. I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. SPC:sg From: CESAR M. OD10, City Manager Date: j0, ❑ Herb Bailey ❑ Aurelio Perez•Lugones ❑ Sue Weller ❑ Angela Bellamy ❑ Frank May ❑ Ron Williams E ❑ Christina Cuervo ❑ Sergio Rodriguez ❑ Karen Wilson ❑ Carlos Garcia ❑ Duet Ross ❑ other I ❑ Chet Gimenez ❑ Carlos Smith 5ity Lee ❑ Marwhar Surana Mean: ollaw Up ❑ Reply ❑ See me on this issue ❑ Review and Recommend! ❑ Prepare for my Signature ❑ F.Y.I. .;? ❑ other _---- Remxka: t I. rI Control Number: _1 L� V Due Date: .L�L t i C '�`— S 9 1i I '- "i - A 1 i of �Riarai, 4j1ariba ,`vvv of y Tip P O BOX 330708 STEPHEN P. CLARK MIAMI, FLORIDA 33233•0708 MAYOR ��� o-� (305) 250.5300 Cq F'o FAX (305) 054.4001 Mr. and Mrs. Kuryla 2811 Emathla Street Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Dear Mike and Happy: Thank you for your letter dated January 14, 1994 regarding the Plat and Street Committee meeting. Please be advised that I share your concerns. It troubles me that apparently the City Attorney was not adequately prepared for your case. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience you have experienced. Please be advised that I have forwarded your letter to the City Manager and to the City Attorney for a full investigation into this matter. If I may be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me. SPC:sg j o � Data/25/94 FRI�AAWal� 1_ y ee L TO Ka 094-8489 DUE: 2/7/94 give me Y our comments note and see me __._,_Please ____Please Please note and return to m® `.For your information review and aPProval `Immediate action desired _,,.,_,._For your answer, with COPY _Please pfepare reply for my —Please to me signature your signature Please follow through ____.For fRemarks: Clark - Plat & Street Committee Mayor 1 /20/94 Letter from Mr. Michael Kuryla regarding Street Committee. action taken by Plat & Please prepare reply - ASAP - for City Manager's signature. l 7 o� f GSA-6 06/88 j i � 9�_ 793 1i CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM � 4 TO Stephen P. Clark, Mayor DATE January 27, 1994 FILA93-1053 SUBJECT "Oakshadow" - 1456 Tentative Plat A. FROM City Att nn �7oeyes, III REFERENCES: ENCLOSURES: This is in response to a copy of a letter received by this office from you to Mr. and Mrs. Kuryla concerning the January 14, 1994 Plat and Street Committee Meeting. Attached please find a memo directed to Commissioner J.L. Plummer wherein this very complex matter is explained and, further, offering recommendations and alternatives. Please note that this matter is being handled by Chief Assistant City Attorney G. Miriam Maer. Pia. Maer was out of town on previously scheduled City businesses at the time of this meeting. Thus, it was necessary to have another assistant City Attorney attend the meeting. You should be aware that the legal issues raised for the first time at the meeting by Coconut Grove residents would of themselves have required a deferral of the item for legal research and response prior to action by the Plat and Street Committee. AQJ/tg/M686 Enclosure i CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO James J. Kay, P.E. DATE January 25, 1993 F,LA93-1053 Deputy Director Public Works Dept. SUBJECT G. Miriam Ma r FROM REFERENCES Chief Assistant City Attorney ENCLOSURES -� As we discussed, there were certain legal issues raised by Tucker Gibbs at the January 14, 1994 Plat and Street Committee Meeting. Please send these to me in writing so I may include them in my response to a commissioner's inquiry. J i i GMM/tg/M681 7 rn 3 m ar .n < -n o v% M �y O { i N;7 _ ' F E t { f • 96- �93 i t W. TUCKER GIBBS ATTORNEY AT LAW GRAND BAY PLAZA SUITE 603 2885 SOUTH BAV3HORE DRIVE COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 LTELEPHONE (305) 856.271 t FACSIMILE (305) 854.6023 1 January 27, 1994 ! Mr. James Kay Chairman Plat & Street Committee -�� Miami Public Works Department NW Second Avenue Miami, FL 33128 Dear Mr. Kay: -. Pursuant to your request made through Christina Abrams, Coconut Grove NET Administrator, I am writing this letter to restate the questions I raised at the Plat and Street Committee meeting of Thursday, January 13, 1994, .regarding the proposed Oak Shadow subdivision. At the meeting I raised the following issues relating to the grant by the Public Works Director, of a waiver of the requirements for a 25-foot corner radius dedication at the corner of Secoffee and Emathla streets and the dedication of an 0.5-foot by 175-foot strip of land on the southern side of Secoffee Street pursuant to Miami Municipal Code Section 54.5-12 (f) . 1. Does the Public Works Director have the authority to waive this code requirement when the waiver would create a violation of another non "waivable" provision (the provision in the Zoning Code relating to minimum lot i size)? 2. Does the Public Works Director have the authority to waive this code requirement temporarily and require a convenant that would require the grant of the land at I issue at the determination of the Public Works Director i at a later date? i a) Wouldn't this waiver subvert the code in that it would allow the platting of the property (even though '. 96- 793 f 1i it does not meet the code) through the waiver; then the owner could dedicate the required 25-foot radius after approval of the plat, thus creating a substandard lot? 3) Does the Plat and Street Committee have the authority to state that no covenant is necessary and that the City will never require the dedication of the 25-foot radius (absent a decision by the City Commission that the right of way will never be widened on Secoffee or Emathla)? 4) What are the standards for the use of the waiver by the Public Works Director? Where are they in the code? How has the City applied this waiver provision in the past? 5) Does the Public Works Director have the authority to waive this dedication requirement merely because in the opinion of the Deputy Director of Building, Planning and Zoning the current ordinance has a more restrictive definition of net lot area than the previous ordinance. Is this not more the province of the legislative process with public input through public hearings? Can the Public Works Director waive a requirement because he believes it is inconsistent with past practices under a previous ordinance even though the current ordinance is clear? Does this not usurp the legislative role that belongs to the City Commission? Is this not an unlawful delegation of legislative powers to an administrative official? The basis for these questions is the rationale set forth in a memorandum dated Dec. 23, 1993, by Waldemar E. Lee, Director of Public Works Director, to you, as Chairman of the Plat and Street Committee, concerning the property owner's appeal of the Plat and Street Committee's findings and conditions of Dec. 4, 1993, and granting his request for the waiver, as well as statements made at the Plat and Street Committee on Jan. 13, 1994. It is my understanding that these issues are being reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and that the Plat and Street Mr. James Kay January 27, 1999 Page - 3 Committee will review this plat upon completion of that review. Please notify me if any future meetings (including those of the Plat and Street Committee) i regarding this item. Sincerely, r W. Tucke AJGib bs I WTGlmag j cc; Cesar Odic, City Manager II Sergio Rodriguez, Assistant City Manager Joseph McManus, Deputy f Director of Planning, Building & Zoning Waldemar E. Lee, Public Works Director Christina Abrams, NET Administrator for Coconut Grove Irma Abella, Assistant City Attorney )I� Joyce Nelson, President, Coconut Grove Civic Club i { 14 ._ ..... `.' 6 w 793, V3 SETT BY: �- 3-84 ; 8:40AM LAW pEf" 865461JU3; # 2/ 5 CITY OF MIA—,FLORIDA -� INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM i i (' ro J.L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner GATE. January 27, 1994 rMA93-1053 I *ONIECT "Oakshadow" - Tentative plat 01456 G. Miriam Maer FRnM Chief Assistant City Attorney Rt:FERENCES ENCLOSURES IN In connection with the referenced tentative plat, I have reviewed the file and researched the relevant code provisions. This memorandum will be divided as follows: I - Chronology of Events and II - Applicable Law and Discussion. J� I I At the November 4, 1993 meeting of the City of Miami Plat and Street Committee, the referenced tentative plat was deferred subject to the resolution of several issues. (A copy of the November 8, 1993 letter from the Plat and Street Committee is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".) As you will note therein, the Plat and Street Committee recommended to the Supervisor of Plate that a requested waiver of dedication of the 25-Moot corner radius at the intersection of Secoffee Street and Emathala Street and of 0,5 foot x 175 foot strip along Secoffee Street be denied. The applicant was advised that the requested waiver would be decided by the Supervisor of Plats in accordance with Chapter 54.5 of the City Code, On December 8, 1993, Waldemar Lee, Director of Public Works and Supervisor of Plats, advised the property owners that the requirements for waiver, as set forth in Section 54.5-12 of the City Code, had not been met and therefore the requested waiver j could not be granted. (A copy of.this December 8, 1993 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "B".) On December 17, 1993, a meeting of --a- committee composed of the directors, or their designees, of the departments represented on the Plat and Street Committee was convened at the request of Mr. Kuryla, the applicant in the referenced matter, to appeal the v1 findings and conditions imposed by the Plat and Street Committee at its November 4, 1993 meeting (hereinafter, the "Review Committee"). A copy of Mr. Kuryla's written request for review by the Review Committee and of the Deputy Director of Public Works' memorandum dated December 17, 1993 notifying Mr. Lee of the scheduling of this meeting are attached hereto as Composite r.} Exhibit "C" . i/ _ k 793 SEV'r BY ! �- Jd a . t r1.h ; L Ati Utr 1 ;x)o w uUJJ J, •� Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. January 27, 1994 I Page 2 f i On December 23, 1993, Mr. Lee, Director of Public Works, issued a memorandum to Jim Kay, Chairman of the Plat and Street Committee, setting forth the Findings of the Review Committee. A copy of this memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit "D", (including all the attachnents thereto). The December 23, 1993 Memorandum indicates that Mr. Kuryla requested that the Review I Committee waive the required radius dedication and the dedication along the southerly side of Secoffee Street in order that his I property could meet the minimum lot size requirements for that zoning district. The memorandum provides that the Review Committee was convened in accordance with Section 54.5-7(D)(2) of the City Code, and that its purpose was to hear the appeal of the applicant. and to reject or uphold the findings of the Plat and Street Committee. The Review Committee discussed the technical requirements concerning the dedication and the minimum lot size for lots in that zoning district and development under a repealed zoning ordinance, Ordinance No. 9500, compared to development under the current zoning ordinance, ordinance No. 11000. Mr. Kuryla's property is located in an R-1 single family residential zoning district with an SD-18 overlay. This zoning designation requires a rainimum of ten thousand square feet per lot. The memorandum indicates that after hearing from Mr. Kuryla and discussion among its members, the Review Committee waived the dedication requirements for the corner radius and for the dedication on the southerly side of Secoffee Street. The resubmittal of the tentative plat was heard by the Plat and Street Committee on January 14, 1994. At that time, additional comments and issues were raised by persons in attendance. Among those comments, were the following: A. The N.E.T. Administrator representing the Coconut Grove neighborhood indicated that dedications must be uniformly „•:a applied. B. Mr. Tucker Gibbs, an attorney and Coconut Grove resident, representing the Coconut Grove Civic Club, raised several legal issues as follows: } 1. Does the public Works Director have the authority to grant a waiver where the waiver would result in creation of a lot with less than the minimum number of square feet required for that zoning district by Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, our current Zoning Ordinance? 2. Does the Public Works Director's action, by granting the waivers, in effect reduce the minimum lot size requirements in this zoning district? 20 IIt F I � F t 96- '7 3 SENT BY: 3-94 ; 8:42AM LAW DEP' 98546093:# 4/ 5 Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. January 27, 1994 Page 3 3. Is this another way to allow substandard lots, in violation of the City Code and the Zoning Ordinance? In other words, by discussing the "unfairness" of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, compared to the earlier and now repealed Zoning Ordinance No. 9500, (the previous Zoning Ordinance allowed the square footage to be calculated prior to dedication), and granting relief by virtue of the waiver., is the Supervisor of Plats or the Review Committee in effect amending the current Zoning ordinance to re-enact language from Zoning Ordinance No. 9500 which the Committee deemed more equitable, notwithstanding the repeal of Zoning Ordinance No. 9500 by the City Commission without going through the appropriate process (i.e., a public hearing before 7 the Planning Advisory Board and two public hearings in front of the City Commission)? 4. Are there standards governing the waiver procedure or does the Supervisor of Plats have unfettered discretion to grant these waivers? The Plat and Street Committee deferred action on this tentative plat until resolution of these new legal issues by the City Attorney. By letter dated January 14, 1994 addressed to Jim .Kay as Chairman of the Plat and Street Committee, Mr. Kuryla has =j questioned the decision of the Plat and Street Committee expressing his dissatisfaction with the proceedings. A copy of this letter and its attachments is enclosed herewith as Exhibit , E II j As set forth in Exhibit "F"', the Review Committee provided for in Section 54.5-7(D) "Review of Tentative Plat" has authority to review the findings of the Plat and Street Committee only. Thus, the attempt by the Review Committee at its meeting of December 17, 1993 to waive the mandatory dedications, an authority reserved to the Supervisor of Plata, was invalid, as it was outside the scope of its authority. Section 54.5-12(F) "Adjustments to Design Standards" provides that the Supervisor of Plats may authorize an adjustment to the design standards when, in his opinion, undue hardship may result from strict compliance with such standard. This section further provides that no adjustments may be granted unless the Supervisor of Plats finds that all four of the listed conditions 96- 793 Staffl tiT: J-cH + U,44AM LO Uu JVJiuVJJ.M Jt 0 Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. January 27, 1994 Page 4 exist. Those four conditions, as set forth in said Subsection, are attached hereto as Exhibit "G". Thus, the standards which govern the Supervisor of Plats in reviewing applications for waivers are clearly set forth. Section 54.5-12(D)(2), also set forth in said Exhibit "G", provides that lot dimensions, after dedication of necessary rights -of -way, shall conform to the requirements of the Zoning ordinance. (Emphasis supplied) The attempted waiver was conditioned upon subsequent dedication at time of development. The effect of the requested waiver would violate this section of the City Code as well as the requirements of Zoning ordinance No. 11000, which require, in an RS-1 Zoning District with an SD-18 overlay, a minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet per lot, in effect authorizing the Creation of sub -standard lots. The Public Works Director cannot de facto amend the Zoning ordinance. - Tho following alternatives should be considered: 1. The Supervisor of Plats could rescind his previous denial of the waiver !Exhibit "B") if he finds all of the standards in Section 54.5-12(F) have been met. 2. The waiver, if granted, should not be conditioned upon subsequent dedication at, time of issuance of a development permit. 3. The City Code could be amended to eliminate the dedication requirements or the Zoning Ordinance could be amended to reduce the minimum lot size for that zoning district. 4. The applicant advised the Plat and Street Committee he owns the adjacent property, and thus owns a total of 42,000 square feet. This amount of land would seem to offer, collectively, development opportunities that would not require a waiver or code amendments. GMM/tg/M685 4j 96- -7�i3 �A br0 SE\T BY: 3-16-94 : 3:20PM : LAW DES' :'EC-15•-g3 WED I M S PUBLIC WORT' rn i45871 Q1.11-tv of irzmi WACDW.AR E. ifE Y� •b IM ,r �/ / November 8, 1993 98546093:# 2/20 P, 04 CESAR M. 0010 Cny Mans r Mr. & Mrs. i4IChael A. Kuryla 2811 EMathla Street Miami, Florida 33133 Dear yr. & Mrs. Kuryla; OAK SHADOW SUBDIVIS104 - TENTATIVE PLAT #1456 The City of filamt Plat and Street Cooamittee, at its m a e t I n 9 of November 4, 1993, deforred the above tentative plat subject to the following reviglons being made to the tentative plat. additional information being provided and/or variances being granted. Please be advised that the processing of ,your tentative plat cannot prodeed until theca c®rrditiona have boon natisfiud. Clearances front fliami-Dade hater 5 Seri ar Authority Department and an allocation letter f'rori the Department of Eoylronnental Resources N4nagement; will be reQvired, Contact Rafael Ilallesteros, P.E. , Pfiaraf --Dade lAater & $ewer Authority Department at. 665-7471. Remove the existing pavement on Tract •B". Contact Marcos Fernandez, Planning, 9uiIdimg and Zan fng Dept. at 579-6000. Shoed the proposed name of the plat at the location sketch. Provide a fractional description at the location sketch. Indicate zoning designation of property to be platted in the location sketch. Correct the label of the quarttr section which is shown incorrectly in the main sketch. Label the two tracts as lots 1 and 2. Indicate the basis of bearings shown on this plat. Elevations shall be based on City of Miami daturm. O!/ARTMENT p EXHIBIT "A" d • 96- 793.5 -- 5 SENT BY: _ 3-16-94 : 3:21PM LAW DEf 98546093:g 3/20 DEC-15-J3 VED ;0:13 PUBLIC WORKS r„e. �Idoe r.uu Mr. b Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla 4ovember 9, 1993 Oak Shadow Subdivision You have made an official request for a waiver of dedication of the 2 5 - f o o t corner radius at the intersection of Secoffee Street and Emathia Street and for a 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip along 5ecoffee Street. Pleaso be advised that the Plat and Street Committee by consensus vote has recommended to the Supervisor of Plats that the request for waiver of dedication be denied. A decision ragardinq this request s h a I I be made 1n accordance with the provisions of Chapter 54.5 of the City Code and forwarded to you in the near future. - An observation was made by the Planning Dept. representative that the configuration of the lots may be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Provide a statement in the Surv.eyor's notes that the streets shown hereon acre designated as avenuas in the underlying plat. Add the namo of the overlay zoning district in Surveyor's Notes lio. 2. In addition to the above regviremants, you should be 'dware of the following: 1. State and local laws require the installation of various physical iragrovements In t h a public rights -of -way when property is platted. These subdivision improvements include paving, drainage, landscaping, sidedalks. etc. In sOtee cases this Could represent a substantial investment on your part. 2. The alteration, relocation or installation of utilities suchA storm and sanitary sewers, electric, telephone, water, etc., c8u3ed by this plat ,mill be at the property owner's expense. Also, utility easements may be required an the property being platted. 3. A building permit will not be issued on the property Deing platted until the final plat is .recorded. Also, the Certificate of Occupancy for any building Construction will be issued only after all the required subdivision improvements have been completed. 4. Approval for fire flow requlremants must be 'obtained from the Fire, Rescue and Inspection Services Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. . 2 - 9 6 - 793- SENT BY: �3-16-94 ; 3:21PM LAW DES' 9&946093;# 4/20 DEC-16-93 WED 10:14 PUBLIC NOR" FAX tv0, 0790871 P. U6 f� 1 j Mr, 6 Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla November 6, 1993 Oak Shadow Subdivision 5, Additional items must be provided to the City of Miami gepartm$nt of Public Works before the final plat is SvyrAtttao to the City Commission for approval. You will be notified in writing a to who these items are aFttr the amount of the bond has been determines for the neeess#ry subdivision improveaaents. b. Tentative plat approval is only valid for onre (1) year from the date of the Plat and Street Committee !!eating at which tirn4 it was approved. If you have any questions concerning these requirements, please refer to the attached sheet for the appropriate person to contact. ' sy Sincera1y JameI Ka P. E. Chairman, Plat Street Committee JJK:mw Enclosure; Contact Shoat E cc, Biscayne Engineering Company Plat and Street Committee Members t ;) File i t r . 3 . bc: Civil Eng Surveys Central I 1 SENT BY: ��-16-94 ; 3:22PN : LAW DQ Q�.t'fv of irzmi WALULMAR E. UE Director Y December 8, 1993 W46093 4 5/20 r/ r � Ir 2 G 4 / r," RAHi 0010 Mr. and Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla 2811 Emathla Street Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kuryla: OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISION - TENTATIVE PLAT $1456 On November 8, 1993 you were informed by letter that the tentative plat of Oak Shadow Subdivision had been deferred by the Plat and Street Committee pending resolution of your request for a waiver of dedication of the 25-foot corner radius at the intersection of Secoffee Street and Emathla Street and a 0.5 foot x 175 Moot atrip of land along the southerly side of Secoffee Street. In lieu of this requirement for dedication you have offered to grant a pedestrian easement over the tame area of land. > The Miami City Coda and r1ori.da Statutes 177.001 require that all plats filed for record must contain the roquirod dedications. City of Hiami Subdivision Regulations require a rounded corner radians dedication of 25 foot at street intersections, except where exiting buildings or structures occupy all or a portion of the external area of the 25-foot radius. When this condition occurs, the requiremnts for a rounded corner may be reduced or ra eliminated by the Supervisor of plats. Similarly, the regulations provide for the dedication of a street width less than the zoned street width when a wall is determined to have ; significant historical value as found by the Heritage and Environmental Preservation Board of the City and occupies as portion of the undedicated right of way in question. In this case the Supervisor of Plats may require only a portion of the { required dedication so that the existing gall can remain. None of the above conditions are known to exist on the plat application of the Oak Shadow Subdivision as provided under Sections 54.5-121A), (B) & (6) & (7) of the City Code and therefore a waiver cannot be granted. y. 1 im Nil DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT "B" r, i 9 6� ' SENT BY: ;-16-94 3:23PM ; LAW DEP' 98546093;9 6/20 i , Mr. and Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla December 8, 1993 The Supervisor of Plate may also authorize an adjustment to the design standards when in his opinion undue hardship may result from strict compliance with such standards. Based upon the criteria set forth in Section 54.5-12 (F) of the City Code for adjustments to standards (copy attached), the lack of supporting documentation identifying the hardship and the requirement that all conditions of said code section must exist in regard to the land concerned before an adjustment can be granted, I must deny your request for waiver of the required dedication and substitution of a pedestrian easement. Please be advised that should you not agree With these findings I and those of the Place and Street Committee, you may request, in writing, a review of these findings by special committee composed of the directors, or their designees, of the departments represented on the Plat and Street Committee. At that time you would have an opportunity to discuas these £indLngs with the committee members and present any additional information in your behalf. Sincerely, Waldemar E. Lee Director of Public works and i� Supervisor of Plata JJKrmw CC,. James J. Kay, P.E., Chairman, Plat and Street Committee ;) G. Miriam Maer, Chief Assistant City Attorney , i 2 t i �i SETT BY: -- -16-94 ; 3:23PM ; LAW DEP Sa5460941-4 7120 CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM I TO Waldemar E. Lee OVE December 17, 1993 F'LE Assistant City Manager SUEJECT Tentative Plat of "Oak Shadow Subdivision" Meeting Pursuant to FaciM REFERENCESS e c, 5 4. 5- 7( 0) (2 ) with Supervisor of Plats James J. Kay EyCLOSORES Deputy Director of Public Works kFd the applicant for the tentative plat of "Oak Shadow Subdivision" has requested a review of the findings by the Plat and Street Committee set forth in its meeting of November 4, 1993. This request is being made pursuant to Section 54,5-7(0)(2) of the City Code and is described more specifically in the attached letter from Mr. Michael Kuryla dated December 9, 1993. The specific request is for a waiver of the dedication of the 25-foot corner radius at the intersection of Secoffee Street and Emathla Street and a 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip of land along the southerly side of Secoffee Street. The applicant has, in lieu of this dedication, offered to grant a pedestrian easement over this same area. Accordingly, a meeting 011 be convened in the City Manager's Conference Room, Second Floor of the Miami City hall, 3500 Pan American orive, at 2:00 p.m, on Friday, December 17, 1993, to discuss the Plat and Street Committee's findings with the subdivider with regard to the above stated issue. All directors, or their designees, of the departments represented on the Plat and Street Committee are requested to attend this meeting. JJK;mw cc: Joseph McManus, Deputy Director, Planning, Building & Zoning Dept. Lt. Joseph Longueira, Miami Police Dept. Capt. Walter Moon, Assistant Fire Marshall, Dept. of Fire,, Rescue b Inspection Services Adrienne N. MacBeth, Deputy Director, GSA G. Miriam Maer, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Lari Dept. CUMPOSITE EXHIBIT •C• -� qr= " a3 �i SENT BY: 3-16-94 : 3:24PM LAW Dff 98946093;# 8/20 93 DIEC - 9 Pli 9'. 37 THE CITI OF %lV'lll. F'.A ya Qp 4-'T 31 oks A ZUT- Its auA bdA�AO- i-lc 0-+ i . SENT BY: �3-16-94 : 3:24PM LAW D0= 98546093:# 9/20 CITY OF WAV;.=LORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM PE'Cr�`,,, �} EC � Lr c_3 1 y 'O James J. Kay C,ATF December 23, 1993� Chairman, Plat and Street Committee ��t.r �. •';: , S WECT OAK SHADOW $31 Appeal of Plat & Str�'�''11''ti� Committee Findings - FROM REFERENCES. Waldemar E. Lee Director of Public Works ENCLo5uREJ-etter, memorandum attendance lists On December 17, 1993, a meeting was convened in the City Manager's Conference Room to hear an appeal from Mr. Michael Kuryla, applicant, concerning the Piat & Street Committee's findings and conditions set forth in the tentative plat of "Oak Shadow Subdivision" held on December 4, 1993. Specifically, Mr. Kuryla requested relief from the required 25-foot corner radius dedication at the intersection of Secoffee Street and Emathla Street and a 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip of land along the southerly side of Secoffee Street in order to meet certain requirements of the R-1, SO-18 overlay Zoning district, i.e., 10,000 square feet per lot. The property to be platted as shown on the tentative plat, 01455, 1s exactly 20,000 square feet in area prior to any dedications. for. Kuryla wishes to subdivide the property into two (2) lots of 10,000 square feet each. Mr. Kuryla further stated that the property immediately to the west of the Oak Shadow Subdivision site on the westerly side of Emathla Street was platted in 1979 as Maranatha Subdivision (113- 74). which plat included a 25-foot corner radius dedication on a 100 foot x 100 foot tract of land resulting In a platted tract with an area less than 10,000 square feet, The net area requirements of a lot at that time were defined as the total area within the property lines prior to any required dedications. The net area of a lot as defined under the current zoning ordinance, 11000, is the total area within the lot lines excluding any street rights -of -way or other required dedications. Mr. Kuryla stated that he only desires to have the same opportunity to replat his property as did his neighbor across the street. The applicant has, in lieu of this dedication, offered'to grant a pedestrian easement over the same area of land described to be dedicated. The meeting was convened with the Supervisor of Plats in accordance with Section 54.5-7(0)(2) of the Miami City Code. The purpose was to hear the appeal of the applicant and then to rejector uphold the findings of the Plat and Street Committee. A listing of those in attendance at this meeting is attached to 1 this memorandum. -- COMPOSITE EXHIBIT "D" 96- 793 -/ L FA SnT BY UW DEP' 985460994I0/20 James J. Kay December 23, 1993 Chairman, Plat and Street Committee i I I It was the consensus of t h a committee that the applicant's i request to eli.;iinate :he required 2 5 - f o o t corner ra,dlus dedication at the intersection of Secoffee Street and Emathla Street dnd the dedication of a 0.5 foot x ;,15-111oot strip of land on the southerly side of Secoffee Street should be granted under the provisions of City Code Section S4.5-12(E) (adjustment to design standards). In granting the owner's request the committee iconsidered the following criteria: 1. The underlying plat of the property in question was platted in 1912 as Lot 23, 81ock C, "Plat of 81scayne Park Terrace Subdivision" ( 2 -36) in which dedications were made for Secoffee and Emathla Streets. To require the owner to mdke further dedications and at the same time sustain a loss in net tot area for the lots considered was not an equitable situation, notwithstanding the requirements of Miami Zoning Ordinance 11000, Article 25, definitions, "lot area, net." 'he Deputy Director of the Planning, 9uiIding and zoning Oepartment, JoseFh Mr -Manus, agreed that the present definition of net lot area creates an inconsistency in how the City has dealt with platting requirements in the past. He agreed to recommend that the zoning Ordinance be amended to reflect a new definition of n a t lot area that would be inclusive of street right of way dedications. The amendment process, however, could take five to six months before such an ordinance became ef4ective. It eras felt by the committee that this tine frame was inordinately long and that decisive action should be taken at this time. >> 2. The property in question (exterior of radius and 0.5 foot strip. of land) is under private ownership by the applicant which allows for private use - a substantial property right of the appl icant. 3. The applicant has proffered to dedicate a pedestrian easement over the area in question. This would allow for the construction of sidewalk and other public uses associated with public access. 4. The request of the applicant does not burden City",services. In addition to the granting of a platted pedestrian easement by the applicant, committee, as a condition of granting the the co request to waive the aforementioned dedication, has required tte I applicant to execute a covenant to run with the land which shall make mandatory the dedication of the 25-root corner radius and the 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip of land should a building permit be issued on either of the proposed lots described in the Oak Shadow Subdivision. 2 - 96- '793 Ii I7) f -) James J. Kay December 23, 1993 Chairman, Plat and Street Committee Based upon the consensus of the committee's findings in the above and my authority as Supervisor of Plats, I am directing you to eliminate the requirements for a 2 5 - f o o t corner radius at the intersection of Secoffee Street and "mathIa Street and the 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip of land on the southerly side of Secoffee Street in connection with the plat of "Oak Shadow Subdivision." WEL:JJK:mw cc: Frank McMahon, P,L.S., Surveyor G. Miriam Maer, Chief Assistant City Attorney Committee Members Michael Kuryla, Applicant r f . E. f - 3 SENT BY: s I IJ I= lim [A SENT BY: J �N- L" 3&W093:#13/2C P. 05 ,3-16-94 ; 3:27PM E 17; 01 PUBLIC ...RKS i�i q A�a. LAW OE' FAX NO. 57.c68• � aA.,,d-Z& SENT BY: _-)-16-94 : 3: 27F"►i FU8L IU NUKK. , January 14, 1994 Mr. aumas J. Kay, P.E. Chairman, Plat 6 Street Committee Department of Public works City of Miami Miami, Florida 33128 LAN' DEF FAX NC, 57e6r-� REF: oak Shadow subdivision - Tentative plat # 1456-A Dear Mr. Kay: 98546093:#14i20 ?. 02 -, what happened today at the Plat and Street Committee meeting was not right. It was not right for a number of reasons, the most important of which is that certain property rights ara being denied to my wife and me. As I mentioned in my opening comments at today's meeting, we try to live under the rule and reapect for the law. After the j first Plat Committee meeting on November 4, 1993, my wife and I undertook to meet every observation and other legal requirement that wart; Dias -ad on us in order to proceed with the platting of our property. We adhered to tha directives of Miami's Code to the full lattor of the law. Wooka and montha went by and, step by atop at oubsta.ntial oxp anso, we met all the requireaman"6 a of the Code and Committee. Today, the Plat Committee decision to once again defer the approval of the plat of Oak Shadow was wrong. It was wrong ethically and, T believe, legal maistakas were made. These are my reanono for making thin ptsoortion: Tha Vole substantivo roaason for the Plat Committon to defer a favorable docicion on November 4, 1993, was the is ouo of our request for a waiver of dedleation of the 25 foot corner radius at the intersection of Secoffoo Street and Zmathla street and for a 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip along S®Coffee Street. I had to make thic request because of a city error, since corrected in my presence, on the city chap. We followed the prccodures to appeal the denial recommendation by consensus vote of the Plat Committee to the Supervisor of Plato who has legal and administrative authority, under the City Code, to review these matters. Acting in full and complete compliance under the provisions of the City of Miami Code, Section 54,5-7 (D)(2), a meeting to hear our appeal suds hold on December 17, 1993. As a result of this meeting, a dociaion was rendered: by a vote of 5 in favor and 1 against, the consensus vote was to grant our request to waive the dedication and accept a platted Pedestrian easement. The requirement for a 25 foot corner radLuss at the intersection 1 4 • SEtiT,S BY: 3-16-94 3:28RM LAW DE 3&546033;v15/20 CO P•UBLI, r r�S FAX NO. �796c i Paget 2 �j Mr. James J, Nay, P.t. of Secoffee Street and Zmathla Street and the 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip of land an the southerly side of 5ecoffee Street was, thereby, eliminated. The last sentence of 54.5-7 (b) (2) : Any determinations or agreements reached during this meeting shall be binding on both the subdivider and the city." At the January 14, 1994, plat Committee meeting, one of the citizens present, ,'fir. Tucker Gibbs, expressed his view and opinion that the decision reached at the meeting on December 17, 1993, was not valid nor legal and, as a consequanco of his statement to this affect, you, the Chairman of the Plat Committee, quite properly, asked the attorney on the City's legal staff to comment on Mr. Gibbs' point of view. To my regret and, I auspect, to Irma'®, she was not prepared to opine in Support of the legality of thu meatinq and action taken on December 17 because, by her own admission to cue, she had not had an opportunity to "review the file" which consisted, in ' essence, of a memo dated December 23, 1993, 2 1 pages in length, pent by Mr. Lee to your this notwiEhgtanding the fact that the meeting had taken place on December 17, 1993, and the January 14 Plat meeting had been noticed before the end of naceraber. I suggeat that: Mr. Gibbo' statements unsettled and frightened the attorney an the Plat Comaeittee. 5ho was unprepared for the m"ting to such an extent, that eha chase to defor any rQsponse or action on the iusuoa until Mo. C. 111riam Maer, Chief Assiatant City Attornoy, raturne;d to tho offico. So, tronLho of diligent effort and cxponse to ma,3ko our presentation were instantly weatead because the attorney slid not or was net prapared to addrams the validity of the apociao mooting of Decembor 17,. 1493. Mr. <l� Key, this io not right and wo, a8 good citizena, dnaarvo better, In this respect, it would seem that had these boon oven the most remote, ®vOn a mi.niaculo queo tion regarding the legality Of the pracOdure and outcome of the Deacember 17 meeting, that Ms. Meer would have brought the patter to your attention via ,internal memo, throe filed, well bofore toc7ay's plat Committee meeting. After all, less. Maer had boon sent a copy, weeks ago, of Mr. Lee's memo to YOU of December 23, 1993, which outlined the process and the decisions reached. My wife and I, at all timers, have acted and procaaded in completa � compliance with that which has been required of us. In this respect, section 54.5-7 (D)(2) is unambiguous; Any determinations or agreement@ re•achad during thin reacting shall be binding on tooth the subdivider and the City." i F 96- 793 5 SENT BY: -16-94 ; 3 2", : LAW DEP 98546093:#16/20 JAS-25-94 7UE 17:00 PUSS,..FAX NO. 57196P` Fr, A Page 3 Kr. James J. Kay, P.C. My wife and 1, "the subdivider", agreed to be bound by the detorminstions of tha meeting held an December 17, 1993. The result was to grant our request; the result could have denied our request. Bither way, we were bound to accept the result -se is the city. Would Mr. Gibbs think the result of the meeting Invalid and not legal if our request had been deemed? We think not. May we re®pectfally ask you to seek ass. Maser's opinion in validation of the lagality of Section 54.5-7 (D)(2) and the decision reached at the December 17 meeting so we can, in just cause, proceed to obt&in a favorable review and approval by they Street and Plat Comwl.ttee without further delay. 2n addition we have boon asked by our attorney, Mr. Richard Zelman at Hornsby, Sacher, Zalman and Stanton, P.A., to obtain a Copy of tha transcript ot the recorded proceedirrge of the Plat meeting hold on January 14, 1994, RB; that portion dealing with the Oak Shadow Subdivison Tentative Plat # 1456-A. Thank yov, Sincerely, M.A./" IEuryla 2811 r6mathla Street Coconut Grove, FL. ' 33133-3246 Q, H.M. uryla 2811 mathla treet Coconut Grove, FL. 33133-3246 cc: Mr. Stephen P. Clark. Mayor, City of Miami Mr. J.L. Plummer, City Commissioner Mr. Cesar Ddio, City Manager Mr. Waldemar E. Lea, Assistant City Manager Le961 Pile, x,S,S & S, P.A. �i y ;D SENT BY 1-16-94 ; 3:28PM LAW DEF 98546093;#17/20 6 b4.b.7 NU MI CODE 1 b/.b•7 the official map. Permanent drainage samments shall also be shown. lo) Where the tentative plat submitted covers only a part of the subdivider's entire holding, a sketch of the prospec- tive future street nyltem of the unsub- divided part may be required, where justified because of unusual circum- stances, and the street system of the unsubmitted part will be considered in the light of adjustments and connec- tions with the street system of the part submitted. (p) A location map at the saxlo of one (1) inch equals three hundred (3100) feet showing adjacent subdivisions and ex- isting and proposed strWj. (q) A plat application signed by the owner and notarized on the form prescribed by the supervisor of plats. (r) All dimensions affecting public rights - of -way and proposed dedication of the public r•ighte-of way shall be shown as eatablished by the supernaor of plats. (2) The following information shall be oub- mitted in addition to the tentaativo plat if requested by the ouporvimr of plats, or by the plat and street committers: (a) Any propocaod chcanays in the use, height, ama fuid density districts or other mgulaations under Ordinance No, 9500, comprehensive zoning ordinance for the city, applicable to the ,area to be subdivided. (b) A preliminary site development plan. (C) 1p Ung copies of tentative plat and plat appli- cation. At least fifteen (15) days in advance of a plat and street committee meeting, the subdi- vider shall file such copies of the tentative plat as may be required by the supervisor of plate, to- gether with the plat application. The subdivider shall also psi► aura feces as may be required by the City Code for Ming the tentative plat. Copies of the tentative plat shall be distributed by the su- pervisor of plats to members of the plat and street committee. �ej(4. *-7) (D) ft iew of tentative plat. (1) All tentative plus filed &hall be reviewed for compliance with the provieimu of this chapter at the naxt available regular meeting of the plat and street committee. Notification of the committee's findings shall be sent to the subdivider. (2) if the subdivider does not agree with the R findings of the plat and street committee, he may request, in writing, from the super- visor of plats, a review of the findings of the plat and street committee. The supervisor of plats shall then convene a meeting of a u` committee composed of the directors, or C their deaignees, of the departments repre-sented on the plat and street committee to discuss the findings with the subdivider. Any determinations or agreements reached I this meeting shall be binding on both the subdivider and the city. Approval of tentative plat. Approval and rec• mmendation of the tentative plat by the plat and street committee shall be valid for a period of one (1) year under the terms and conditions stipulated by the committee for said approval, except for gov- ernmental entities and agencies, for which the approval and recommendation of the plat and street eommittep, subject to the terms and condi- tions otipulated therein, shall be valid for a period of two (2) yeara. In the event that the subdivider does, not submit a final plat and receive commis - *ion approval within tho above ®pacified Lima limit, the tentative plat shall be deemed abandoned and to obtain commission approval of a final plat the subdivider shall resubmit the tentative plat or a new tentative plat with a new application and payment of the required fees. A subdivider may request an extension of time in which to rile a f nal plat by submitting a written request, prior to the expiration of the tentative plat, to the di - erector of the public works department, stating that the subdivision is located in a "critical sewer area" as designated by made County Department of En- vironmental Resources Management and, due to the sanitary sewer connection moratorium in of feet in the "critical sewer arew," that the subdi- vider cannot obtain required water and sewer agreements. from the Dade County VVatur and Sewer Authority Department. Any -extension granted pursuant to this section shall be for the duration of the sanitary sewer connection mora- torium plus ninety (90) drays. (Ord. No. 9594, 4 1, 344.83; Ord. No. 10981, $ 2, 4-30-92; Ord. No. 11047, § 2, 3-11.93) 8upp. No, 44 3668.2 .o EXHIBIT "F' -- 96- 793 -w �i SENT BY: 3-16-94 : 3:30PV 1 54.5•12 MIAIG CODE Sec. 54Z.12. Aesilp standards. (A) Strefex (1) Confornwnce All streets shall conform to those standards established by the department of public works. 1,2) Relation to adjoining street systern. New streets in any subdivision shall continue the estab- lished grid system and shall be contiguous and coterminous. (3) Sheet jags prohibited Street jogs shall be pro- hibited unless, because of unusual conditions, the supervisor of plate determines that a cen- ter line offset is justified. 4) Dead-end streets or cut -&-saes Dead-end streets or cul-de-sacs designed to be w permanently, shall nut be longer than six hundred (600) feet, and at On rinsed end, a turnaround hav- ing an outside roadway diameter of at )esst eighty-four (84) feet, and a street property line diameter of at, least one hundred (100) feet, shall be required. A "T" type turning, area may be allowed on existing dead-end streets, if recommended by the supervisor of plats and approvod by the plat and street committee, subject to compliance with land- scaping requirements to be determined by city planning department. if a dead-end street is of a temporarf nature, a similar turnaround may be required; and provision made for fu- ture extension of street into adjoining prop. erty, as may be required by the supervisor of plats. (5) [Angle of intersection.] Streets shall be laid out so as to intorseet as nearly as possible at right angles. (6)lRoundingofcorrters.lPrapertylinesststreet intersections shall be rounded with a radius of twenty-five (25) Beet, except, where existing buildings or structures occupy all or a portion of the external area of the twenty -five-foot radius, the supervisor of plats may reduce or eliminate the requirements for a rounded cornor radius in which case the property owner shall proffer a covenant to run with the land in accordance with the requirements in section M 48 of the City Code. Where the Supp. No. 39 LAW DE 98546093:#18/20 i 54,6.12 angle of the intersecting roadways is less than eighty-seven (87) degrees, the supervisur of plats may reduce the required corner radius. A greater radius may be prescribed by the supervisor of plats in special cases. The su- pervisor of plats may permit comparable cut- offs or chords in place of rounded corners. 71 [Afinimurn widrh.j Minimum required right• of -way widths shall be as designated in chapter 54, "Streets and Sidewalks," of the Code of the city. In the event the: heritage conservation board finds that an cxistingwall located within the undeuivated portion of the zoned street width has significant historical value and recommends that said wall be pre- served, the tuperviaor of plats may waive all or a portion of the required dedication to .allow the existing wall to remain, in which case the property owner shall proffer a covenant to run with the land in accordance with the require- ments in section 54-48 of the City Code. (8) [Malt streets.] Creation of half streets shall be prohibited, except where owontial to the rea• oonable development of the aubdividort in con. formity, with other requiavrnerim of these regu- lations, and where the oupnrvirmr of plats finds it will bo prnettcW to inquire tho•dodication of the Almr half whon adjoining property is subdivided. Whenever a half atmot ire adja• cent to ra tract to bo oubdivid*d, the other half stroot shall be planted within such tracts, (9) [Nayno and nxambo-aj No atr0at masses or numban shall be used which will be confused with or duplicate the name of existing st mts. Stroot names shall be sub*t to approval of the supervisor of plats, in accordance with chapter 54 of the Code of the city. (9) Aldeya. (1) Alleys shall be dedicated in commercial and induatrial districts, except that the plat and street committee may waive this requirement where other definite and assured provision is made for security and service access, such as off tireat los*w. unloading, and parking con• sistent and admgus,te for the uses proposed. 3872 NMI ft LVMFOSITE EXHIBIT 'Go 96- 793 SENT BY: _)-16-94 3:31 P'N ; LAW DEE 98546093 ; # 19/ 20 i 1� 164.5.12 SL'BUNI5)ON REGULA71ON'S g 54.5.12 (2) The width of any alley shell not be lose than twenty (20) feet, �C) Easern.ents. 'I) Easements sha11 be provided for utilities where necessary. (2) Where a subdivision is traversed by a wa• tercourse, drainagew ay or canal, there shall be provided a canal maintenance easement or right-of-way conforming substantially with the lines of such watercourse, and of such width as shall be required by the county public works department. (1) The lot, depth, shape and orientation, sad the minimum building setback lines shall be appropriate for the location of the sub- division and the type of development and use contemplated. >� (2) let dimensions, affer dedication of neces- sary rights-uf•way, shall conform to the re- quirements of Ordinance 9500 [the compre- hensive zoning ordinance], as amended, for �ggules or irregular conforming lots. The proviuionu of subsection 2102.2, Ordinance 9500, ea aunonded, shall not apply to plats which znibdivide unplatted land, or a com- bination of platted lots and unplatted land. M) Each lot within a subdivision shall be pro- vided with satisfactory access to and frontage on an existing, or newly dedicated public street or private road. (4) Where lots are crest d, each lot may be pro- vided with perpetual right cf acccss by pri- vate street or roadway, intersecting with an existing public street, as aet forth below; (a) A minimum width of twenty-five (25) "set shall be dedicated to the abutting property owners by plat. (b) A minimum pavement width of eigh- teen (18) feet, with a three-wid-one half - foot Swale area on each side, (c) A minimum pavement width of twenty-two (22) feet is required at fire hydrant locations, for a distance of twenty (20} feet on each side of the by Sapp. No. 42 3673 drant, with a thece-and•one-half.foot. wide swale area on each side. d) A minimum radius of forty-five (451 feet on cuts-do•sac. (e) On private rends, are hundred .100) feet or less in iength from the public right-of-way to the end ref the private street, rr roadway, a ' "' tvpe turning area may be substituted fur the re• quizzed cuI•dc•sac, sufficient for the me. neuvcring of fire or other emergency vehicles. (A The right•or-way may be divided to pro• i.ect nawral features. The minimum right of wny for each section of divided road uhall be fiats t (15) feet, with a miniznurn te-)-foot pavement width and with a three -and -one -half -foot -wide ,wale area on each outer edge. (g) Curved rights-ol-way shall have a min. imum iniide pavement radius of thirty (30) feet.. (h) A twenty -five-foot radius shall be pro• vided at the intersection of private roads and publicly dedicated rights -of. way. (i) A znin2nzum vertical clearance of six- teen (16) feet shall be provided for the entire right-of-way. (j) Drainage shall be provided according to accepted engineering standards. (k) All construction shall meet tho city minimurn standards, 11) A restriction will be required on the record plat to the effect that: (z) The private road will be main- uained by the subdivider and/or abutting property owners in per. petuity, and di) No attempt shall be made to dedi- cate theprivate right-of-way to the public. (m) A one-way private street may be uti- lized for a single family platted subdi- vision under the following conditions: U) A minimum dedicated right-of-way width of eightton (18) feat. (ii) A minimum pavement width of seventeen (17) feet. A reduction of 96 - 793 �7 SENT BY: � 3-16-84 : 3:32PM LAW Df " %546093: #20/20 0 54.5.12 MI -341 CUUE 1 54"5.13 paverent width to fifteen (16) feet the city commission and by an indication on the will be allowed for no more than plot of such acceptance. ten (10) percent of the overall (F) Adjustments to drscgn standards. The su- of the roadway in order to pervisor of plats may authorize an adjustment to pervisor preserve archeological and land- the design statndard6 when in his opinion undue limrdship may result from strict compliance with (iii) Curved rights -of -way shall have a 9ach :standards. The standards may be adjusted to minimum inside pavement radius prevent hardship; provided, such adjustment well of thirty (30) feet. not have the effect of nullifying the intent and Gv) No parking will be permitted purpose, of the overall community plan. In granting within the eighteen (18) feet of ded- an 4ustment, the Kupen•isor of plats may pre- icated righWf way. scribe any conditions that he deems necessary and (v) A site plan and storm drainage desirable in the public interest. In making his plan shall be submitted with the findings the supervisor of plats shall take into tentative plat wherein said storm aunt, among other factors, (i) the nature of the drainage plan design shall be can. proposed use of the land and the exiisdng use of firmed through the submission of the land and buildings, and (d) the number of per- calettlations to accommodate the sorts to reside or work in the proposed subdivision runoff of a storm event with a one and the probable effect of the proposed subdivi- in free (5) year design return fre- lion upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. No quency without pending. Said adjustments may be granted unless+ the super - storm dratinage plats and calcula- visor of plats finds that all four of the follovving tions &.hall bra signcd and sealed by conditions exit in regard to the land concerned: an engineer of profmionrd registry * (1) That there amspzcial circumstances or con - in the State of Florida. ditiona oilecp p y the ro art and that strict (5) Side lot line shall, vvllere possible, bo sub• compliance of the design standards would stantially at right angles or radial to street deprive the applicant of reaarsorable use of right-of-way lines. his land; (6) No lots shall be established which do not (2) That the adjustment is necessary for the provide safe, convenient acme for public preservation and enjoyment of a substan• wrvice, police, fu•e and rescue vehicles, tial property right of the applicant; (7) Double frontages or through lots shall be (3) That the granting of are adjustment will not avoided, he detrimental to the public welfare or in- jurious to the other property in the vicinity (8) No plat be so designed as to create a parcel, in which the property is situated; and or lot, which is "Iandloked9." i.e., one that has no direct areas to and frontage on a (4) Thut the adjustment will not unreasonably publicly dedia%ted street or private road, burden city services, including adjacent (9) No plat shall be so designed we to create a etrerd. No. 584, § 1, 3.24433; Ord. No, 9961, ¢ i, (Q9ts remainder of a previously platted lot, or au 2.14.85; Ord, No. 10330, § r, 10.22-87; Ord. No. unplatted trait of land, which is a subs3tan- 10704, S 1, 2.7-90; Ord. No 10730, § 1, 5-24.90; dard building site ir. accordance with the Ord. No. 10742, 9 1, 6-28.90) provisions of Ordinance No. 9500. City code omnrdoderana"-atrwtnwnevand numberin& 4 54.76 et #*q.; sinndard .tract widths, 1 64.101. (E) Acceptance of dedication. The dedication of public spa shall not constitute an acceptance of Sec.5'j �' Requdred improvements.aace the dedication by the city. The acceptamce of the Prior to the granting of the final approval by dedication shall be indicated by a resolution of the city Commission, the subdivider shall have in- Sapp. No. 42 3674 96-- 793 z3 FEB -b Ail 10: 37 TNt CITY t.,r m'0!,;" FLA, 4r" r�tJBuV'104<5 r'F, Q�� Sil,/DKr .S'ud�iis�atil— 47%�1- rac�T J5"(c AA r7fgst �u r� h-`.././y'••�' s. � _ JYj,�c�r.<.cc. �,e:C��` / �c�/1 �i S4�s {��Y C rT{7` laers 1 - ux• �7.l,iici'�.r u.�.u1L �t1s'�a��� / ,r`���k�, /9S tcrt4L• �2t�'sJ, -a ,�Lif-iL il'lczcll GG �� ,•� w�. �i:+�'r c�lL. cue. n�t57: Sys, - /et-rrt7r, cz�< en,� 7�-o1Jz /�,,� / T `� 1,��,! /�- �" 9�`0�-� ,,,Jla �' .1 cam-• crirX,r dew a W"' ' "'a A /L 1 fuc o`ecf� eaia+c , /t1��cx'O �, 1 r-, c�kz�t`a-ids �'d t;'c /N c L cfict 9t9tJ 4 r /a Lai c f r� c�` CGc %4 t 4 va t ,l Sri/�2C J� �T Ct,,,e Ql&t-rlhl,c a2u fccellm— 41k z5' /oo�' Cal rix,' ,lac /Z)� 9�t rnt�� S►4ecr t+iN��r�a /s`r�1ee ._r/ `taur dt&rm. a144 ��racee, ��/ s Zwe?zYrr 9'�iacrk� AY, c,-"N447— Giy7 a dtc< Guca c2 t� r��t L z's � c GJ' '✓ ��3 7l& av r 4Cu2cGsc rk y EXi ig,9" i/rJC�. V11�1.4%' Lc"�tc�dZ 7wf CL����'� at lar as k4, z/ cam. /� dd� �C�'c, 9�,t C, � /C4s Made Alo. qv� _ to -Za/^,d �Qrc�u�tZ, e� fC,j�A/ t4u��t G+. Y'Cw 04,1gF ,V Vice Ac1h; 9�cra 2 tia °,l� Q,6Q,g ! fur lytr? DI ^ 7 e¢s G Sa{ P ` 4kC VT b3MN . :Z-/ 67c c� d4+.curGS `r ca �c. 1� fU i�t ft�L Ja.T Wtcue e Wi c fs;de ,deco u !,o�2, `�kru. cz 70 Ma4w;; f L, 96793 f-� 4144- 3 7 hedo z vi lK-,d ot'(',na&us Lc' e� o r*c (7u/• �t��r s. C Sc cc/Ati. Z-rv,1d, /it , uezF C A- S.a s, 4 o f�- �►' c .�o-s .) 74 Yes .� d u 7jta-&—" Y4a4,w O • S/co?` VQ V&a4tZ, �•/ � �j/L � � lv�� � �P r (.�''L1$ K.G N.D � � c�Q fii,vra�c �w.� �o ,�cl ur�c ,c n /. ur►.uus o /, is /Lai. -Iiu �v #a AdAl�,aquw- as ,ail anq, 17e1' > MS Cuter v;Lw Yel�e vT khc9- a". Q-' Ct fir- Aagtd.� y *U dou �40-1— Ldut, cl� k tita s,. 74 a ,a & I'�u cl,�.F`� W AT M ct d.4., 04L m uu to d� -7/� 31 -5,t iAd- At,, q h vL CL 7 ( 96- 793 CITit of iamt WALDEMAR E. LEE _'�r CESAR H. ODIO Director ,,,, ,,,,,, '_ City Manager I February 10, 1994 ` Mr. & Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla 2811 Emathla Street Miami, Florida 33133 and Mrs K r Dear Mr. a la: u y OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISIOM - TENTATIVE PLAT #1456-B t This department has received your request to reconsider the decision of the Supervisor of Plats in his letter of December 8, ,:•-ti 1993, wherein your request for an adjustment to the design standards for the subject tentative plat was denied. You have based this request on your pr viding additional information which establishes an undue hardshizwhich would result if the waiver of dedication were not granted. We have reviewed your letter of February 4, 1994 which responds to the four (4) conditions of the Miami City Code, Sec. 54.5- 12(F) which supports your request. Additionally, City staff has field surveyed the area in question and confirms your assessment of the number of mature fan palms that would be in the path of any new sidewalk constructed on Secof fee Street. The following ( shall constitute the Supervisor of Plats' response to each of the i a conditions set forth in your February 4, 1994 letter and which correspond to the four (4) conditions of Miami City Code Sec. 54.5-12(F): (1) The estimated cost of $35 per lineal foot for removal and reconstruction of the six foot high wooden fence appears to be in 1 ine wi th the prices establ ished by the industry and trades at this time. The total estimated cost, then, for 175 feet of fence is $6,125. To determine if the cost of this relocation is an undue hardship for the applicant, the cost of the land under consideration should be calculated and compared with the fence relocation cost. Our records, a based on recent property sales, place the cost of the land at approximately $15.00 per square foot. Therefore, the strip of land in. question (175'x0.5') is worth approximately $1,312.50. The applicant would be required to expend funds in an amount over four times the value of the land. This relocation, for six inches of additional right of way, appears to be an unreasonable requirement for the applicant, resulting in an undue hardship. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/275 N.W. 2nd Street/Miami, Florida 33128/(305) 5794856 ���- 793 1i ' ' - , � ^^ Mr. & Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla February lO^ 1994 With regard to the issue of the trees in the line of � proposed sidewalh construction, the City does not always reqVire the nwner/applicant to construct sidewalk adjacent to the site, In this case a covenant c an be required postponing Sidewalk improvements. HOwgver, if sidewalk construction were a requirement, then in all lihel1hood the City would act to preserve the trees and establish a new sidewalk al i gnme n t outsidethe row of trees and not at the � base building line. The existence or removal of the trees does not necessarily work a hardship on the a ppl i can t as the trees u re presently located i n th e publ i c r i g h t n f way . However, since this department would require a realignment of the sidewalk several feet from the base bu i l d i ng l i n e , the issue of tree preservation supports the idea that the - dedication of right o[ way is not necessary. These trees ' are alsu located within the external area of the 25-fout corner radius base building ling. /2\ The department concurs with the applicant's assessment that the property in question /}and exterior of radius and 0.5 fuot x l 7 5 fnot s tr i p \ i � un der private v a t� ownership i p b� the ' | applicant which allows for private use. This is a substantial property right of the applicant. � ^ (3) Again, the department concurs that the waiver of dedication � wfll iD no way b8 detrimental tV th8 public 'welfare or | iO'uri0uS tO uther property. Vegetation 8Dd mature tr2Es prevent the public from using the area in question. (4) This department confirms that all departmental | representatives whn were present at the special review / committee of December 17, 1993 concerning the subieot ' request made statements in the affirmative that the waiver of dedication would not burden City servicei. � __-- . ' Therefore, having found that all four conditions set forth in Miami City Code Sec. 54.5-12(F) have been met in regard to your ' request for waiver of dedication in connection with the tentative | plat of "Oak Shadow Subdivision", l hereby grant an unconditional waiver of dedication in accordance with your request. 5incer8lyv ' Waldemar E. Lee Director of Public Works and 3Vpervi sur of Plats ` ` JJK: mw ~ cc: G. Miriam Maer, Chief Assistant City At Frank McMahon, SurveyorFOR James J. Kay, Chairman` Plat and Street ~~-~ ' ~^~ -2~ � ~ r �� ��-- 793 ; "a :� | ��n � ' - ` . ! | ° ���� �Hiamt &�8�-~' ^ � .� wmLoEmAncLEE CBAn,+Om�} " o,�p o,�w^�, February 23, 11.994 � �� Mr. & Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla 2811 Emathla Street M1ami, Florida 33I33 � Dear Mr. & Mrs. KWryla: OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISION - TENTATIVE PLAT 01456-8 .` '^ The City of Miami P 1 a t and Street Committee at itS m���in� of ` � January 'l4. 1994, deferred the above tentative plat subject to the the follawing revisions being made to the tentative plat, additional information being provided and/or variances being granted. PI ease be advised that the processing of your tentative plat cannot proceed until these conditions have been satisfied. { - Obtain status availability of water and sewer main i capable of providing domestic service from the Miami- � Dade Water & Sewer Authority Department. ' ~ Specify tree canopy and height. � . � - Provide heavier lines on zoning boundaries of adjacent ' subdiviSions . ' ^� � ^ - A unity of title will be required in order for the accessory structure to remain on lot 2. This will be provided after reordering. i - Provide 10-f0ot rear setback for shed on lot 2° Either relocate or remove portions of shed or obtain variance after recording. ' ` - The Supervisor of Plats has rescinded his decision of December G, 1994 denying a grant of waiver for dedication of the 0.5 foot u 175 foot strip on Seooffee � ^ Street and the external area of 2 5-foot radius ` dedication at the intersection of Secoffee Street and Emathla Street. Based upon new evidence presented by the applicant which establishes a hardship if ` dedication is required the Supervisor of Pla tS has granted an unconditional waiver of dedication in accordance with provisions of the Miami City Code. In addition to the above requirements, you should be aware of the following; \ 1i Mr. & Mrs. Michael A, Kuryia February 28, 1994 Oak Shadow Subdivision 1. State and local laws require the installation of various physical improvements in the public rights - of -waywhen property is platted. These subdivision improvements include paving, drainage, landscaping, sidewalks, etc. In some cases this could represent a substantial investment on your part. 2. The alteration, relocation or installation of utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, electric, telephone, water, etc., caused by thi s pl at wi 11 be at the property owner's expense. Also, utility easements may be required on the property being platted. t 3. A building permit will not be issued on the property being platted until the final plat is recorded. Also, the Certificate of Occupancy for any building construction will be issued only after all the required subdivision improvements have been completed, 4. Approval fo r fire flow requ i rements mu st be obta i ned from the Fire, Rescue and Inspection Services Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Additional items must be provided to the City of Miami Department of Public Works before the final plat is submitted to the City Commission for approval. You will be notified in writing as to what these items are after the amount of the bond has been determined for the necessary subdivision improvements. 6. Tentative plat approval is only valid for one (1) year from i. the date of the Plat and Street Committee Meeting at which time it was approved. If you have any questions concerning these requirements, please s refer to the attached sheet for the appropriate person to contact. f; Sincerely, s t James Kay P.E. Chairman, Plat & Street Committee JJK:mw Enclosure: Contact Sheet i cc: Biscayne Engineering Company Plat and Street Committee Members File 2 bc: Civil Eng, Surveys Central C�t of ttxrtt WALEWOAR E. LEE Director . 1 — March 17, 1994 Mr. & Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla 2811 Emathla Street Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kuryla: OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISION - TENTATIVE PLAT #1456-C The City of Miami Plat and Street Committee, at its meeting of March 10, 1994, approved the above tentative plat subject to the following revisions being made to the tentative plat, additional information being provided and/or variances being granted. Please be advised that the processing of your tentative plat cannot proceed until these conditions have been satisfied. - Obtain status availability of water and sewer main capable of providing domestic service from Miami -Dade Water & Sewer Authority. - Delete reference to proposed pedestrian easement on plat and in note No. 7. Provide for parking on proposed lot No. 1. - Show asphalt area and accessory structure on lot 2 as deleted. - Indicate height and spread of trees shown on tentative plat. In addition to the above requirements, you should be aware of the following: 1. State and local laws require the installation of various physical improvements in the public rights -of -way when property is platted. These subdivision improvements include paving, drainage, landscaping, sidewalks, etc. In some cases this could represent a substantial investment on your part. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/275 N.W. end Street/Miami, Florida 33128/(303) ,79-6b56 =—� Mr. & Mrs. Michael Kuryla March 17, 1994 Oak Shadow Subdivision 2. The alteration, relocation or installation of utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, electric, telephone, water, etc., caused by this plat will be at the property owner's expense. Also, utility easements may be required on the property being platted. 3. A building permit will not be issued on the property being platted until the final plat is recorded. Also, the Certificate of Occupancy for any building construction will be issued only after all the required subdivision improvements have been completed. 4. Approval for fire flow requirements must be obtained from the Fire, Rescue and Inspection Services Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Additional items must be provided to the City of Miami Department of Public Works before the final plat is submitted to the City Commission for approval. You will be notified in writing as to what these items are after the amount of the bond has been determined for the necessary subdivision improvements. 6. Tentative plat approval is only valid for one (I)year from the date of the Plat and Street Committee Meeting at which time it was approved. If you have any questions concerning these requirements, please refer to the attached sheet for the appropriate person to contact. Sincerely, James Ka P.E. Chairman, Plat & Street Committee JJK:mw Enclosure: Contact Sheet cc: Biscayne Engineering Company Plat and Street Committee Members Fi 1 e �,- bc: Civil Eng. 2 Surveys 1 "-N 117 t Ct of i�ixltt W.ALDEM4R E. LEE =j nitector March 18, 1994 Mr. & Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla 2811 Emathla Street Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kuryla: OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISION - TENTATIVE PLAT #1456-C Your tentative plat entitled Oak Shadow Subdivision is now being processed. As stated in our March 17, 1994 letter, State and City laws require that the owners) of land being platted or replatted enter into an agreement with the City to construct certain improvements. As a result of a field investigation by this Department, it has been determined that no improvements shall be required at this t ime. Water service requirements are not included in the improvements listed above. For information concerning water mains and appurtenances, contact Miami -Dade Water & Sewer Authority at 665-7471. When the final plat has been prepared by your surveyor, it is to be submitted to the Department of Public Works (Survey Section) for checking and processing. The following items are to accompany the linen or mylar tracing of the final plat and are to be received by our Survey Section no later than 6 weeks prior to ! the Commission meeting at which your plat is scheduled for City Commission approval. t 1. Final plat original (inked), 2. Three prints of final plat. 3. $350 check for platting fee. ' 4. Paid tax receipts for property being platted. 5. Approval letters from utility companies concerning easements and services. 6. A recent opinion of title, in triplicate, from an attorney. ' (Forms provided by Public Works). 7. Proof that all liens on property have been paid. i i DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/275 N.W. 2nd Street/Miami, Florida 33126/(303) j79-05% t 9�- 793 Qlitu of rUialIti.'Ylartli'a OP i,'FZ'�' \y�, • P 0. Box 330708 MIAM1, FLORIDA 33233 • 0708 STEPHEN P. CL.ARK ` : / (305) 250•5300 MAYOR FAX (305) 854.4001 i April 11, 1994 _.� Jeffrey B. Degen Degen-Majka Associates, Inc. 3841 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33137 Dear Mr. Degen: ' Thank you for your letter to Mayor Stephen P. Clark regarding the split Lot 23 of Block C, 2801 Emathla Street. In the normal course of business, the Mayor would have responded to you with his views on this matter. Unfortunately, the entire Board of City Commissioners has been advised j by the City Attorney that pursuant to a recent court decision, private communications pertaining to zoning -related matter, such as this one, are prohibited by law. In essence, this means that the Mayor cannot respond, orally or in writing, to your concerns on this particular matter outside of a public hearing. Please be advised that Mayor Clark disagrees with this Court decision and vehemently argued against it because of his belief that, as your elected official, you have a sacred right to contact him and express your views. In fact, Mayor Clark is a strong advocate of your right to access him at anytime. However, the Mayor is bound by the law as it now stands. 1.. .r Accordingly, I am transmitting your letter to the Clerk of the Courts for inclusion in the t official hearing file. If you choose to make your views known to the Commissioners . before the scheduled hearing, you may do so, but only in the presence of all interested parties. I encourage you to attend the public hearing on this item in order to fully and publicly express your views at that time. Mayor Clark will have a copy of your letter for his consideration as well as for the consideration of the entire Board of City Commissioners and interested parties. j 1 i 1 4 96- 793 On behalf of Mayor Clark, I thank you for taking an interest in the activities of your City Commission. It is only through the involvement of concerned citizens like yourself that the local government may function effectively. Please note that the Court decision described above only applies to zoning related matters, so please do not hesitate to ` rn„tar.t „s directly if we may be of assistance on any other matter. W. TUCKER GIBBS ATTORNEY AT LAW i GRAND SAY PLAZA SUITE 603 2665 SOUTH SAYS14ORE DRIVE I COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 TELEPHONE (305) 856.2711 FACSIMILE (305) 854.6093 i--) April 14, 1994 City Manager Cesar Odio City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 Dear Mr. Odio: I represent certain property owners living adjacent to the property known as "Oak Shadow," a proposed plat located at Lot 22 Block C, Biscayne Park Terrace subdivision, at the corner of Secoffee and Emathla streets in Coconut Grove. The Public Works Director in his capacity as Supervisor.of Plats pursuant to section 54.5-12(F) of the Municipal Code granted a waiver of certain previously required right of way dedications for the proposed plat. It is our contention that this waiver was granted erroneously. Unfortunately, there is no process in the Municipal Code by which adjacent property owners in particular or citizens in general may appeal this decision. In the absence of an appeal process, my clients wish to make an appearance before the City Commission at the -' next available meeting to request that the City Commission reject that decision of the Supervisor of Plats. On a related issue, I wish to express my displeasure and concern with the failure of - the Public Works Director to respond to my request of January 27, 1994, to be notified of "any future meetings (including those of the Plat and Street regarding this item." I was never notified of any meetings regarding this plat, and thus was not afforded the opportunity to respond to Mr. Kurlya's request for a waiver. Nor was I told of the Plat and Street Committee meeting of 4 March 10, 1994, at which the tentative plat was approved. I was not provided a response to my letter until after several verbal requests to the Public Works Department. I was faxed a copy of the Chief Assistant City Attorney's memo to 96- 793 j ! City Manager Cesu- Odio 4/19/94 Request for an appearance before the City Commission Page - 2 7" Commissioner J.L. Plummer on March 3, 1994. Even then I was not informed of the grant of the waiver despite my keen interest in this issue. At best this was an inexcusable mistake. At worst, it is a clumsy (but effective) attempt to limit public access to the platting process. These issues and others will be brought to the City Commission's attention during this requested appearance. I look forward to a prompt response to this request for an appearance before the City Commission. Sincerely, W. Tucker Gibbs i cc:Mr. and Mrs. John Duvall Coconut Grove Civic Club Tigertail Association ' S 3 } s t i j jI! } I l { E i �W 793 �i MAYOR STEPHEN P. RK `�w of �- CITY MP DER CESAR H. 0010 VICE MAYOR MILLER J. DAWKINS '` y COMMISSIONER VICTOR DE YURRE 1)+� JIM? COMMISSIONER WIFREDO (WILLY) GORT z COMMISSIONER J.L. PLUMMER JR. "l mm 19 M I MW A&I�Y dmLOO Anna mOOSSIm"N AGENN"A MEETING DATE: MAY 5, 1994 CITY HALL 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 10087, ADOPTED MARCH 18, 1986, AS AMENDED, GENERALLY REQUIRES ALL PERSONS APPEARING IN A PAID_ CAR REMUNERATED REPRE;S NTATIV , CAPACITY BEFORE_ CITY STAFF, BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION TO REGISTER WITH THE CITY CLERK BEFORE: ENGAGING IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES. A COPY OF SAID AMENDED ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, CITY HALL. REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING * * THIS MEETING SHALL CONVENE AT 8:00 AM THIS PRINTED AGENDA IS DISTRIBUTED AT LEAST FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING AND THE s MATERIAL IN CONNECTION WITH EACH ITEM APPEARING ON THE AGENDA IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION DURING BUSINESS HOURS AT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK IN CITY HALL. ANY PERSON WHO SEEKS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COKMISSION ON ANY ITE14 APPEARING IN THC FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THIS AGENDA: "CONSENT AGENDA", PUBLIC HEARINGS", OR "PUBLIC DISCUSSION" IS INVITED TO DO SO AND SHALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE INFORM THE CITY CLERK OF HIS/HER DESIRE TO SPEAK, GIVING THE CITY CLERK HIS/HER NAME. AT THE TIME THE ITEM IS HEARD, THAT PERSON SHOULD APPROACH THE MICROPHONE AND WAIT TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE MAYOR WHO PRESIDES OVER THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING. Should any person desire to appeal any decision of the Miami City Commission with respect to any matter to be considered at this meeting, that person shall ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made including all testimony and evidence upon which any appeal may he based. ' The City Commission has established a policy that the lunch recess will begin at the conclusion of deliberations of the agenda item being considered at Noon; further, •that Commission meetings will adjourn at the conclusion of deliberations on the agenda item being considered, at 9:00 PM. (Resolution No. 87-115) 1 I .. E PAGE 19 MAY 5, 1994 PERSONAL APPEARANCES NOTE: Legislation may result from City Commission consideration of any Personal Appearance. 30. ' REQUEST, AS PER MAYOR CLARK S MR. RUBEN KING-SHAW TO PRESENT A STATUS REPORT OP' THE CITY OF MIAMI CENTENNIAL COMMITTEE. 31. AS PER COMMISSIONER GORT'S REQUEST, MR. JOHN R. W. PARSONS AND THE MORNINGSIDE CIVIC ASSOCIATION TO EXPRESS THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST OF TWO MORNINGSIDE RESIDENTS TO ERECT A 6 FT. CONCRETE BLOCK WALL ACROSS THE END OF NORTHEAST 5 TH STREET, WHICH WOULD BLOCK THE VIEW OF BISCAYNE BAY. 32. MR. JEFFREY B. DEGEN TO DISCUSS THE LOT SPLIT ON 2801 EMATHLA ST. IN COCONUT GROVE. i =33, MR. LIBRATO 0. LUCANESE TO DISCUSS AN ISSUE OF HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM BEING REFUNDED BY THE CITY. 34. MR. MICHAEL J. SAMUELS TO DISCUSS THE SUBJECT OF 4 -� THE NET OFFICE. i 35. MR. CALVIN REED TO PRESENT A PROPOSAL REGARDING i-. THE CHANGE OF NEGATIVE IMAGEIMAGE9 OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AND DADE COUNTY. 36. WITHDRAWN t _ t p END OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE 04 MAYOR STEPHEN F, .BARK �Y O� ts� VICE MAYOR MILLER J, DAWKINS E COMMISSIONER VICTOR DE YURRE COMMISSIONER WIFREDO (WILLY) GORT COMMISSIONER I.L. PLUMMER JR. CITY N AGER CESAR H. ODIC) 1-+ 1 r i ��K ..y '� •1 � �'. v iw - MEETING DATE: MAY 23, 1994 CITY HALL 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 10087, ADOPTED MARCH 18, 1986, AS AMENDED, GENERALLY REQUIRES ALL PERSONS APPEARING IN A PAID OR } FtFMtaN��gTED REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY BEFORE CITY STAFF, BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION TO REGISTER WITH THE CITY CLERK BEFORE ENGAGING IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES. A COPY OF SAID 1 AMENDED ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, CITY HALL. PLANNING A ZONING CITY COMMISSION MEETING * * THIS MEETING SHALL CONVENE AT 3:00 PEA ' THIS PRINTED AGENDA IS DISTRIBUTED AT LEAST FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING AND THE MATERIAL IN CONNECTION WITH EACH ITE14 APPEARING ON THE AGENDA IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION DURING BUSINESS HOURS AT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK IN CITY HALL. ANY PERSON WHO SEEKS TO ADDRESS THE CITY CM21ISSION ON ANY ITE34 APPEARING IN THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THIS AGE14DA: "CONSENT AGENDA", "PUBLIC HEARINGS", OR ' "PUBLIC DISCUSSION" IS INVITED TO DO SO AMID SHALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE INFOR14 THE CITY CLERK OF HIS/HER DESIRE TO SPEAK, GIVING THE CITY CLERK HIS/HER RAME. AT THE TIME THE ITEAM IS HEARD, THAT PERSON SHOULD APPROACH THE MICROPHONE AND WAIT TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE MAYOR WHO PRESIDES OVER THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING. Should any person desire to appeal any decision of the Miami City Commission with respect to any matter to be considered at this meting, that person shall ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made including all testimony and evidence upon which any appeal may be based. The City Commission has established a policy that Comission meetings will adjourn at the conclusion of deliberations on the agenda item being considered at 9:00 PM. (Resolution No. 87-115) tJ an s N-1 96— 793 1 #1 RESOLUTIONS CONT-0 10. RESOLUTION - (J-94-403) - (ACCEPTING PLAT) ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED OAK SHADOW, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT ' AND STREET COMMITTEE, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. NOTE: Item 10 is related to Items 11 and 12. 11. MR. W. TUCKER GIBBS TO DISCUSS THE OAI LOCATED AT EMATHLA STREET AND SECOFF NOTE: Item 11 is related to Items 10 and 12. PLAT 12. MR. JEFFREY B. DEGEN TO DISCUSS THE LOT SPLIT ON NOTE: Item 12 is related to Items 10 and 11. i i Mrs. John E. Duvall 1900 Secoffee Street Miami, Florida 33133 5 April 1994 Submitted into the public Mr. Cesar Odio record in connection with City Manager of Miami item 10 on _ S f 9 U , 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Nutty Hirai Dear Mr. Odio, City Clerk Every night i cannot sleek, since I have heard about the re -platting that has taken place io Lot 23, Block C of Biscayne Park Terrace. We reside on Lot 1, Block B Biscayne Park Terrace, and I cannot believe$( that your Plat Department has approved such an outrageous change in this neighborhood. We moved into our house on 18 December 1950 and we have always understood that the lots in this neighborhood could not be changed from our 100 by 200 foot dimension. As far back as 1958, there was a builder, who requested a lot division, but -the neighbors quickly got up a petition, which was submitted to the City of Miami Planning board on 2 December 1958. It was assured then that the city would never permit a division of thse lots and the builder quickly dropped this idea of dividing one of our lots. As you probably recall, we also disapproved of the PUD development, when the lots facing 22nd Avenue were allowed to change. The city determined that since this was a commercial street, they would allow this PUD as a buffer to protect any further invasion into our residential streets . We were assured that our lot sizes would never be permitted to change. Mow can it be, that one man, whom I understand to be Waldimer Lee, can disregar all the precedents for this neighborhood and issue an adjustment to the owner of Lot 23. There must be some recourse for this horrible situation, it truly must be stopped, for such a division is a cancer that will invade and destroy our entire neighborhood. All the neighborh are opposed to this change and want you to do whatever is necessary to reverse this change on Lot 23. Please, Plea do whatever is necessary to have the approval recinded, we cannot allow our beautiful neighborhood to be destroyed by this obvious error on the part of you platting department. Thank you for your assistance, we desperately need your help , already the beautiful oaks on Lot 23 have been butchered because of this mistake, it must n be allowed to go any further. Yours truly, Mrs. John E. Duvall cc: Mayor Steve Clark, Matty Hirai, City Clerk ,'Mr. J. L. glummer d i se, j r l of At 3 NOT Included: Letter to Mr. And Mrs. Kuryla from Waldemar E. Lee i February 10, 1994 (see App. G-1) Letter to Waldemar E. Lee from Mr. Michael Kuryla February 4, 1994 (see App. H-1) Memo to Commissioner J.L. Plummer from G. Miriam Maer January 27, 1994 (see App. E-1) Memo to James Kay from Waldemar E. Lee December 23, 1993 (see App. E-12) s Attendance List Meeting of December 17, 1993 re: Review of i Findings of Plat and Street Committee (see App. E-15) -Y� } i ) F I �V 793 r D G E N -MAJKA I N T E R 1 0 R D E S I G N A N D S P A C E P L A N N I N G Submitted into t'." p --C M A Y 23, 1994 record in ccr CC. icn with item j% on Sb: 9 a . HONORABLE MAYOR, CITY COMMISSIONER AND CITY MA�A US: P1 Q,ty Aral City Clerk THE ISSUE BEFORE THIS BODY IS WHETHER OR NOT MR. KURYLA IS ENTITLED 10 AN ADJUSTMENT OR VARIANCE. OBVIOUSLY, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO THIS ADJUSTMENT OR VARIANCE. 1T IS A PRIVILEGE WHICH ONLY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CAN BESTOW. YOU AS OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS SHOULD DECIDE WHETHER THIS ADJUSTMENI/VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED. YOU NEED 10 DETERMINE WHETHER THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CORRECTLY APPLIED THE STANDARDS ' AND GUIDELINES SET OUT IN YOUR MUNICIPAL CODE WHEN HE GRANTED THIS ADJUSTMENT/VARIANCE. THEREFORE. WE MUST FIRST LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE ADJUSTMENT OR VARIANCE, WHICH MEANS TO DEVIATE FROM THE NORM; 10 DO DIFFERENI THAN WHAT PRESENTLY EXISTS. THIS IN ITSELF IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHAT PLACES THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN ITS SELECIIVE POSIIION. IS THE UNIFORMITY OF LOT ? SIZES. THE VALUE OF THE HOMES THEREON. THE ECONOMIC STABILITY. BY REASON OF THE CERTAINTY OF MAINTAINING THESE VALUES. CERTAINLY THESE ARE THE VERY VALUES MR. KURYLA SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE WHEN HE MOVED INTO THE HOME. HE OWNS ADJACENT TO SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND HE HAS ENJOYED THE BENEFITS OF THESE CRITERIA IN MANY MAYS BUT MOST DRAMATICALLY IN THE ECONOMIC, GAIN HE HAS ACHIEVED IN AS MUCH AS THE HOUSE HE OWNS AT 2811 EMATHLA STREET 9439!,'6 DEGEN•MAJKA ASSOCIATES, INC. 3841 NORTHEAST 2nd AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33137 TELEPHONE 305.573.0400 LICENSE I Ill COMO 1 96- 793 D E G E N - M A J K A I N T E R I O R D E S I G N A S1lh&itied ihtek tlZe ; :SAC L A N N I N G record in conn.e&ion with WAS PURCHASED FOR UNDER S150J00 AND HE NOW LISTS IT FUR SALE item 11 on S /,a 1 FROM $835,000.00 fir':xllc.y HiICli City Clerk THEREFORE AN ADJUSTMENT OR VARIANCE FOR ANY REASON IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE WELL BEING OF THE AREA. HOWEVER. JUST A REQUEST FOR AN ADJUSTMENT OR VARIANCE IS NOT THE TRUE ISSUE —WHICH IS A REQUEST FOR THIS ADJUSTMENT OR VARIANCE BASED ON HARDSHIP. ACCORDING 10 YOUR MUNICIPAL CODE WITHOUT A CLEAR AND CONVINCING SHOWING 1HAf THE APPLICANT WOULD SUFFER AN IRREVERSIBLE HARDSHIP HERE AN ADJUSTMENT OR VARIANCE CANNOT BE OBTAINED. 11 IS IMPORTANT TO EXAMINE THIS SO CALLED HARDSHIP. WHEN YOU LOOK AT if FROM EVERY CORNER THE ONLY HARDSHIP EXISTING IS THAT MR. KURYLA CANNOT MILK OUT OF THIS PROPERTY THE HIGHEST DOLLAR VALUE CONCEIVABLE. THAT. MR. MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS. IS NOT THE TYPE OF CIRCUMSTANCE THA1 YOU. THE LAW. AND THE COURTS HAVE CHARACTERIZED AS A HARDSHIP. FURTHER THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT A HARDSHIP -VARIANCE WHEN THE HARDSHIP IS SELF—IMPOSED. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS. MR. KURYLA KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN AT THE TIME HE MADE THIS RECENT PURCHASE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THAT IT DID NOT QUALIFY TO BE SPLIT INTO TWO LOTS WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF A TRUE HARDSHIP. us- 3�s DEGEN-MAJKA ASSOCIATES, INC. 3841 NORTHEAST 2nd AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33137 TELEPHONE 305-573.OAOO LICENSE RI® C000150� j -MAJ KA D E G E N I N T E R I O R D E S I G N A N D S P A C E P L A N N I N G i UNDER LAND USE LAN A TRUE HARDSHIP EXISTS ONLY IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNDULY OPPRESSIVE. ARBITRARY AND/OR CONFISCATORY, NONE OF WHICH APPLIES TO THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ONLY HARDSHIP EXISTING 1S THAT MR. KURYLA CANNOT ACHIEVE THE LEVEL OF GREED AND AVARICE THAT HE SOUGHT WHEN HE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY. 1HE MERE FACT THAT HE CANNOT MAKE A "KILLING" IS NOT THE BASIS FOR A VARIANCE AS THAT IS NOT A HARDSHIP. TRULY THE ONLY HARDSHIP THAI WOULD EXIST IS THE ONE THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD SUFFER IF THIS IS GRANTED. MR. KURYLA HAS ALREADY ABUSED THE NEIGHBORHOODS STANDARD OF ZONING LAW BY BUILDING ADDTIONS 10 THE 2811 EMATHLA PROPERTY WHICH VIOLATE ZONING SET BACKS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS. PLUS WHICH ]HEY WERE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF BUILDING PERMITS AND ACCOMPANING INSPECTIONS. Submitted into the pudic record inconnection with item on a 3 CC: HONORABLE STEPHEN CLERK, MAYOR J�_Cli{ TiliYG' HONORABLE MILLER DAWKINS, VICE MAYOR Ciq Cla&-i HONORABLE VICTOR DEYURRE, COMMISSIONER HONORABLE HILLY GORT, COMMISSIONER HONORABLE J.L. PLUMMER, COMMISSIONER CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK 94- 356 DEGEN-MAIKA ASSOCIATES, INC. 3841 NORTHEAST 2nd AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33137 TELEPHONE 305.573-0400 LICENSE M IB CW0150 / - fw �. 9�� "� . 1i 1 12I\A j I. G E IN...air / j j I N T E R 1 A R D E S I G N A N D S P A C E P L A N N I N G 4 4 i April 4, 1994 st City manager 6.'el3�iG. Odic. 35®0 Pan American Drive ' Miaui , rL 33133 M Dear Mr. odic, We recently leashed of the request by our neighbor Mr. XUryla to split Lot 33 of Block C (corner of decoffee h Reathlo) who's address is 2061 saathle at. based an ®hardship by awnero. we are ®tronely against this lot split and Qind it hard to Imoviha why ho would ba grwtod as 04justoont based an ®hardohipo. Ng. Rurlvno is addition to 2001 OnathlO 6t., owns tho hcmo0 H02t 6000 at 2011 800MIQ 09. Uftl@ 3 waa aavogtlead recently 90T oaaa at i3079 0000.00. Sou to bordohAp 602100d by ccdc? UG goal zhnz thlo doutolon to without baai0 d crGOtsc an Unwantad prao0dant. whin to a nni hbaghoaa 09 1/2 azgo Iota and should renaln no. To allow lot Uplittlno UOU16 00 U00 the value of all hoOOa in t& 0 aroa cand croato a burdon goo U099160 schoolo and local pratection aarVieGG. i we would lie thlo natter to be board at the most aoaminsion ace ti Pbe se 11mae this issue an your calendar' >Is Y • l 1 � � '•. J 3 I Is. AU ve Clafto Mayes ty Mimi. CUT Clerk i r Y 4. e i t V 94- 356`%, "Comes CMIN 9 ' 1 1 2 3 it 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ' 19 20 21 22 23 24 I 25 ! CITY OF MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MEETING MAY 23, 1994 CITY HALL 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE MI?1MI, FLORIDA MAYOR STEPHEN P. CLARK VICE MAYOR MILLER J. DAWKINS COMMISSIONER VICTOR De YURRE COMMISSIONER J.L. PLUMMER, JR. COMMISSIONER WIFREDO GORT CESAR ODIO, CITY MANAGER A. QUINN JONES, III, CITY ATTORNEY I4ATTY HIRSI, CITY CLARK WALDMAR LEE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 1 + 2 i 3 iI 5 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 t. 79 20 21 +Z) 22 23 24 25 ITEM 10 - RESOLUTION - (j-94-403) - (ACCEPTING PLAT) ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED OAK SHADOW, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF ^IIAMI, SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT and STREET COMMITTEE, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SH01d11 ON SAID PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. ITEM 11 — MR. W. TUCKER GIBBS TO DISCUSS THE OAK SHADOW PLAT LOCATED AT EMATHLA STREET AND SECOFFEE STREET IN COCONUT GROVE. ITEM 12 — MR. JEFFREY B. DEGEN TO DISCUSS THE LOT SPLIT ON 2801 EMATHLA STREET IN COCONUT GROVE. LORI E. SOBEL COURT REPORTING, INC. 7 96- 793 �i I ': 1 2 3 4 5 r, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lr 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thereupon: The following proceedings were had: hiR. PLUMMER: 11 and 12 should be taken up before 10. MAYOR CLARu: Did you want to take all three together? MAYOR CLARu : All right-., 11 and 12. Okay. Mr.. Tucker Gibbs come up here.. ID you want to discuss something on this agenda? t1R. GIBBS: Yes. I am here today representing the -- my name is Tucker Gibbs, my address is 2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 603, and today I am representing the Ti.gertail Association, the Coconut Grove Civic Club and several residents in the Secoffee. and Emathla Street. in Coconut Grove, and I am here to speak on the Oak Shadow plat that has been recommended for your approval as Item No. 10. Thank you. Initially what I would like to do is I would like to introduce our issue and ask some of the neighbors to come up and speak very briefly, very br. iefly. MAYOR CLARK: Just give us the issue. I think I have counted the votes up here of what is going to happen. .,) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R g 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GIBBS: Well, I appreciate but I think the neighbors would still like t.n give you some insight as to what is happening in their neighborhood on this particular issue.. The issue before you is threefold. As you will all pr.nbably know from your backup material, t•.he public. works dir.rctor granted a waiver from certain design criteria standards that were established in lour code. That waiver on this plat, that waiver allowed the Plat. and Streets Committee to approve this plat, which cre-ates two substandard lots. What I mean by substandard, the Ints are less than 10,000 square feet. That: is the municipal lot. size in that particular. neighborhood. MAYOR CLARK: Is not the lot considered being to the center of the street? Is the property considered, lot size to the center of the street? MR. GIBBS: No. MR. KAY: No. sir. The lot size is considered the existing property lines and they are exactly 10,000 square feet, both of them. MR. GIBBS: With the waiver, is that correct, Mr.. Kay, with the waiver.? MR. KAY: With the waiver they are exactly LORI E. SOBEL COURT REPORTING, INC. 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10,000 square feet. MR. GIBBS: Right. And without the waiver they are not. They are under. 10,000 feet; is that correct. MR. KAY: That is correct. MR. PLUMMER: Can I ask a simple question for. clarification? MR. GIBBS: Sure. MAYOR CZAR:;: Please, go ahead. MR. PLUMMER: My understanding is the reason they fall under. the 10,000 is for the turning radius on the corner; is that correct? MR. KAY: There is a six inch dedication. MR. PLUMMER: Six inches? MR. KAY: Yes. The Secoffee Street was platted 49 feet in width which means to dedicate two 50-foot right-of-ways would take six inches off of Secoffee Street. So there are six inches for a distance of 175 feet on Secoffee Street plus the external area of a 25 foot radius. MR. PLUMMER: Okay. Thank you. But that is basically the probably is the turning radius of -- MR. KAY: it is both. 14R. PLUMMER: Yeah. Okay. 3 i-) 1 2 1 4 5 r 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lr, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GIBBS: Two iarnblems: The turning radius as' well as the right-of-way nn Secoffee. They cquesti_nn is: Does the public works directnr have the, authority to waive, and if he has that authnr.it%, to waive under the law, did he apple that ordinance cnr.r.ectly. MAYOR CLARK: Let's find nut right nnw. MR. GIBBS: I understand. MAYOR CLARK: Mr.. Attorney, does he have the right to waive? MR. MAER: The Cite code sets forth the standards pursuant to which the supervisor of plats, if he finds that there is a hardship, has the right to waive certain design critrmria; yes, sir.. MR. CLARK: Mr. Lee, did you find a hardship there? MR. LEE: Yes. I did Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. MAYOR CLARK: All right. He had the right to waive. Go ahead. MR. GIBBS: Okay. I would like to state for the recnr.d, hnwever, Mr.. Mayor, that. I do not believe that he did have the right to waive, and I would like to state for the recnr.d, Mr.. Mayor, because this is a legal issue as I have been retained by these LORI E. SOBEL COURT REPORTING, INC. ..) j 1 2 3 A 5 ti 7 8 n 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 n1 i people to rc-present, them as their. attorney and there_ may be li't.igatinn on this issue -- MAYOR CLARK: There pr.obabl�- will be. MR. GIBBS: I feel I have a right to present to you the 1egal arguments while this may not be appropriate. MR. PLUMMER: Well, Tucker., may I strongly suggest if are you going to -- are you repr.esentinq them for a fee? MR. GIBBS: I represent them for a fee and I'm registered as a lobb•ist. MR. PLUMMER: All right, sir. But. you also stated as heard at the beginning of your presentation that you know that. you were representing a group, a civic gr.nup? MR. GIBBS: I am prepresenting the Tigertail Association, yes. MR. PLUMMER: Is that not a conflict at. best? MR. GIBBS: On what -- MR. PLUMMER: You are r.epr.esentinq them for a fee as a client and also speaking as the head of a civic group? MR. GIBBS: I am not. I stated when I spoke that I am representing the Tigertail Association, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ft 10 11 12 13 la 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 M. the Coconut Grove Civic Club and several neighbors. I am not sp'eaking as a repre-sentative of the civic club, I am speak as an attorney. MAYOR CLARK: How do they feel about that? MR. GIBBS: Joyce Nelson is t.hP president. of the civic. club. I have been authnr.i-zed by the Civic Club, and Thelma OHshure is the president of they Tigertail Association. MAYOR CLARK: Okay. Go ahead. MR. PLUMMER: Okay. I am just. -- MAYOR CLARTC : That is a good question, J.L. MR. GIBBS: That is also all right. I understand the issue of whether or not he had the authority to grant the waiver. as Miriam Maer has said, yes, he has under the code. The code creates a process. Is it is our contention that this process is fatally flawed. It is a quasi-judicial process because it allows Mr. Lee using certain standards that are set forth in that code* to grant a waiver or a variance or an adjustment or however you want to describe it. mow, he has these rights and he is doing it according to the code. Unfortunately, within the code, there is no opportunity for any notice to the neighborhood, any opportunity for a hearing on Mr.. i V.00 , 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 9 a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Lee's waiver.. There is no opportunity to present evidence'on the issue to Mr. Lee bmfor.e he makes his decision. Indlyed, Mr.. Lme make-s hi.s decision totally and separately away from t-.he public or away from any input. And I think that. creates a flaw in the process. There is no appeal. Mr.. Lee can make his decision. in my case, when I specifically asked Mr.. Lee to inform me as to any decision made on this issue in January, the decision in this matter was made in February, I did not hear about it. until I questioned, and called Miriam Maer and asked her what was happening. She fasted me a copy of a letter that she had written to Commissioner Plummer.. And I also got a cope of Mr. Len's determination letter on this issue. There was no publication of the notice. So even if we could appeal from this decision that was made by Mr. Lee, we didn't know when it was made. If we hadn't paid attention, we might- not have heard about it for a year. later.. So that creates a problem. It is not checked by the City Commission. You all have no way to determine whether. Mr. Lee applied the standards correctly. With the Zoning Board when they applied virtually the same standard on the variance you get an LORI F. SOBEL COURT REPORTING, INC. �'��" 793 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 la 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 appeal, penple qo t-.o you and you all determine if that was done'corr.ectly. This process does not provide for. that:. It. is made totally• and utter.l\- alone by the public works director. Now the second question is, if the process is flawed, then, nbvinusly, the decision that comes out of that process is flawed. But, let's say, that your City Attnr.ne�* is cnr.re-ct and there is no problem with the ordinance. We still feel if he did have the authority to grant this, that he! did so incorrectly, that he didn't apply the standards that were presented in the order. correctly. And those standards specifically deal with hardship and the reasonable use of the property. No hardship is spelled out. Now, the hardship that -- Mr. :Kay and Mr.. Lee will tell. you what the hardship was and you may want to ask them as you did before. Do �,ou went to ask them what the hardship was? MAYOR CLARK: We will. fine] out. They will respond to you. MR. GIBBS: Okay. I would like to find out, if I could, from their mouths what they feel. the har.dshin was for the record. MR. KAY: For the record, the dedication of six inches on Secoffee• Street would have required !V-1 LORI E. SOBEL COURT REPORTING, INC. ��- 793 � I 1 3 n n r, 7 8 a 10 lI 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 a 19 20 21 22 24 25 the applicant tc take an existing wnodon fence which was locafed nn thcs or.np(!rty line and moves it back six inches. We felt that to move the fence back six inches, which would have cost abnut $6,500 as opposed to the value of the .land, was nut of .line. Thm value of the land was a little over a $1,000, I think atbnut. $1,200. MAYOR CLARK: I think that you have answered, the question. ,o ahead. MR. GIBBS: The quest inn that I have and I pnse to the City Commission, when you all grant zoning variances, and T give you an example, when �,ou have a square lot and a person who is applying for a zoning variance wants to csncr.oach into the setback on that square Int and he says tn(,! reason I want this variance, it is too expensive for me to build a second story on my existing structure, I want to build out now, Commissioner. Plummer, here may remember. Mr.. Lind at the corner. of Aviation and Tigertail because Mr. Lind essentially made that argument and the,. City Commission said, no, the law says a financial hardship is not a legally recognized hardship, and you denied that variance. And what I am asking to you do is to say no to this because when has a financial hardship ever been the basis? LORI E. SOBEL COURT REPORTING, INC. 1 gr-r 793.1 i 2 3 4 5 r 7 F 10 11 12 13 In 15 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 If it is tnn expensive for me to dP-]icate five feet.' or five inches in front of my pr.nper.ty, do vnu automatically- say, .Jell, then gnu don't have to do it? it, c]nPsnIt make, any sense. So, thA question then becomes was it. applied pr.oper.ly, we contend thatit was not applied properly. Hn also claims in this argument that there was no reasonable use because one of the requirements - is that to grant this waiver that there are special cir.cumstanc�,6s or conditions that affect the property and that strict appliance of these design standards deprives the applicant of reasonable use of his prnper.ty. Now, I would like to know how a City mandated dedication requirement can deprive this particular applicant of reasonable use of his property, remembering as you look at that map that this piece of property is a plated piece of property at. 20,000 square feet in a single family R-1 neighborhood with an existing house on it. It is already a single family house in a single family neighborhood. How does the making --- of this person -- applying the design standards to this person, how does that keep him from using his property reasonably. Iv' LORI E. SOBEL COURT REPORTING, INC. 96- 793 1 3 n 6 7 0 C) 10 11 12 13 1 it 15 1G 17 13 19 20 21 �7 23 24 25 And a reminder in terms of the dedication, if you 10'nk to thA nnr.th silo- of gecnffee Via will nnte that. the north side• every pr.nper.t�" owner fr.nm Natome over. t.n 22nd Avenue* has made the r.ecuisit.p dedicat-inn. And that is very important. Wca are asking you to treat this applicant and we ask the public works director if he considered that when he granted this waiver in terms of treating this applicant, treated others in his position, treated other applicants in the past. MAYOR CLARK: Okay. Do you have other people who want t.n speak? MR. 13IBBS: i wanted to finish up, if I might.. There are more standards in here that the public works director apparently failed to deal with. The second standard is that the adjustment necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. I want to know how waiving this adjustment gives the applicant a substantial or preserves a substantial property right. Can I ask the public works director how does it. pr.eser.ve a substantial property night.. MAYOR CLARK: I think that you have to make your. ar.qument. If you have any rebuttal, fine. You are going to court anyway, so -- P 1 i 3 d (11 5 I 1 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 J 16 17 18 19 J 20 f 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GIBBS: Nn. You all may agree Niith us. MAYOR CLARIi: Bid you want to respond, F-,iall�•? Snmebnciy? MR. GIBBS: I would like it on the r.ecnr.d. MR. PLUMMER: You are building his case for. him. MR. KAY: It. is under private ownership of the applicant allows for his private use and we feel that this isa substantial property right of the applicant. MR. GIBBS: So how does denying -- how does -- how does denying the. waiver. -- MAYOR CLARK: Well, now, don't argue with him now, Tucker. Just -- MR. GIBBS: I am not. arguing. MAYOR CLARP: He answered you. MR. GIBBS: I think I have right to ask him a question, do I not? MAYOR CLARI{: Go ahead, do it. MR. GIBBS: How does the denial deprive him, the denial of a waiver., deprive him of substantial property rights? That was the question I asked. I understand that. you say that he has one. How does denying it. -- what. you are saying is essentially the LORI E. SOBEL COURT REPORTING, ITIC. '- 793 r 1 2 1 a 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 lA 15 15 17 is 19 20 21 22 i 23 i 24 125 i division of thA lets is substantial prnper.ty right. Is it? MAYOR. CLARM: It-, is a right. You can divide a lot, if you get. -- MR. GIBBS: Is it? I don't know. Is the division nf- a 1nt into two substandard lots a right.? MR. PLUMMER: Excuse me. For the record, it is my understanding this lot presently is 20,000 square feet. MR. GIBBS: That's right. 14R.. PLUMMER: And if it could be legally split into two of 10,000 each one of them would qualify for that subdivision -- MR. GIBBS: That's right. MR. PLUMMER -- as legitimate lot sizes. MR. GIBBS: That's right. MAYOR CLARK: That's the right you have. MR. PLUMMER: Now, where ? got involved, and this gentleman came to see me, first and for.emnst., was to eliminat•.e a -- what do you call it? How can I say it. without slandering myself? -- an undesirable from the neighborhood, okay? That was where that thing first started, through the police department. Then it finally got the undesirable from the neighborhood MR. GIBBS: But how does that deal with LORI E. SOBE'L COURT REPORTING, INC. s r l 2 3 4 F 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 A 15 'a 16 17 1S 19 20 21 22 23 24 dy.W� 25 the plat issu(`? MR. PLUMMER: Exc11se me. MR. GTBBS: How dnPs that deal with the platting issue? MR. PLUMMER: If you listen to me, I will tell You. MR. GIBBS: Okay. Okay. MR. PLUMMER: Then he! came and spoke about it the only thing that i knew was in effect the corner. The nuPstion that. I asked was about the corner., that because of the corner of nne lot, it. did 'bring it down under. the 10,000 square feet and did not allow him to use as a reasonable property right.. Nnw, that is the answer. that I would dive you because that is the assumption that I traveled under.. MR. GIBBS: Let me ask a gUestion because what. Commissioner. Plummer has basically said is he has spoken with the applicant. I made the assertion that this is a quasi-judicial. decision. I want to put to Commissioner. Plummer on the spot, but I think it goes directly -- MR. PLUMMER: Excuse me, sir. Let's don't put, words in each other's mouth. MR. GIBBS: Yeah. I -- LORI F. SOBEL COURT REPORTING, INC. J N 1 3 A 5 r, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 la 15 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR.. PLUMMER: Let under, stand when Commissinner. Plummebr spoke to this individual it was not: relatinq to znninq, it was r.elatinq to the confiscation of the pr.np(-rt.y by the- onIice depart.ment.. MR. GIBBS: So how did the corner. -- Flow did the cnr.ner cnn,e into it in terms of the Police Department.? MR. PLUMMER: The cnrner came up with the idea from the department who said that the only reason it was cut nff was because the corner and the turning radius was where the problem was. MR. GIBBS: [That. I am talking about is the platting issue itself, and my question is, is the platting decision, is that quasi-judicial? MR. PLUMMER: Well, I can't answer. that. I don't know MS. MAER: No. It is not. MR. GIBBS: It is not quasi-judicial. Ok ay. MR. PLUMMER: He's a better attorney than -- MR. GIBBS: We will see. The other question is, does t.hr_ City, in terms of having this particular item approved and considered by you as a plat., do you have the authority to deny the plat? And N. LORI E. SOBEL COURT REPORTING, IMC. �,�;- 753 1 i 2 i i 3 4 5 i I 6 i 7 9 10 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 2.5 our position is that the law is clear, and I think your City Attorney on this matter would agree with nee, that. the City Commission has no discretion to deny a plat if the plat meets all legal requirements. And our contention is and our position is that because this plat was approved subject to the waiver, such waiver that. was presented in a situation that provided no notice, no comments, no opportunity to appeal and was essPnt.ially in itself a quasi-judicial decision, that. you all have- the right. to de.ter.mine that it was not lawfully made. I will wait until the commissioner -- T understand that you all may not want to hear this, but I would like to be able to tell my clients that you listened. MAYOR CLARK: Well, you are building a court case here. Tell us the truth, right? MR. GIBBS: Well, I just. want -- yeah. I just want to to get, the point across. MAYOR LCARK: All right. MR. GIBBS: And I would like some attention at. least from the City Commission on this issue. MAYOR CLARK: All right. Go ahead. MR. GIBBS: I will wait until the LORI E. SOBEL COURT REPORTING,, .r.NC. T 96-- 793 1 I -; I 1 2 3 d 5 6 7 8 g 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1g 20 21 22 23 24 25 i a Commission --- MAYOR CLARK: There are other people. Go ahead, please, now. We are not. goinq to -- MR. GIBBS: Well, no, I will wait because -- the situation here is that the City- Commission has the authority to disapprove this plat. based on the decision to made by mr.. Lee not being in conformance with the code in that his application of hardship is not correct, his application, his consideration of reasonable use of the property is not appropriate. MAYOR CLARK: All right. That is your contention and you are ent.itlted to it.. MR. GIBBS: That. is our contention and what we are going to say. But would I like members of the audience who are here on this issue who would like to speak, and if they can't speak at least you should recognize them and have them stand up. MAYOR CLARI:: Have them stand up and be recognized. MR. GIBBS: All those who would like to -- who oppose this plat's approval. MAYOR CLARP: Well, those that are in opposition, do you have a spokesperson? This lady will speak for. you? Fine, thank you, folks. Please have a seat. LORI E. SOBEL COURT REPORTING, INC. 96- 793 ri 1 ") 6 1 2 3 j� i 4 5 ., t; 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 n MP. G.IBBS: I think -- again, the myaor is the perscin who determines whether the public is allowed to speak. MAYOR CLARK: They are allowed speak but they are not all going to speak, I hope not., 14R. PLUMMER: May I ask a question, Mr.. i4ayor.? MAYOR CLARK: Yes, sir.. MR. PLUMMER: To the department by virtue of the turning radius cutting down, what would the remaining square footage be? You spoke of six inches off. How much 1Pss than 10,000 square feet would this be? I mean, is it. a major thing or is it. not Look, I understand the concern of the neighbors. if you give an inch today, you might give a mile tomorrow. And I understand that, okay. But. what I would like to know for my edification is what. less than 10,000 square feet would it be. I think to me that is important. Hello? MR. LEE: Excuse me, Commissioner. Plummer., I am trying to get the exact square footage. MR. PLUMMER: All right. Go ahead, I will get it. MR. McMASTER: Jim McMaster., 2940 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 n 10 11 12 13 1 �- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ')A 25 Southwest. 3r.d Court.. The next time some, Brazilian or. German comes to the civic club to discuss some project. the\- have in Coconut Grove and we know there, is a zone right -of --way line, 27th Avenue, Bird Road, whatever major thorouglhfare it, is, I am sure thatthey will hire Lucia Dougherty and they will get out of the dedication because if you can't take a half a fontdedication on a residential street. in the middle of nowhere, the bigwigs are --- the minute you grant this to this gentleman, the bigwigs are all going to come in here. You qutted this cnJe so badly that you are never fining to get a dedication again on any major thoroughfare. Lucia will be here to make sure of that. Give it. to this gentleman and you won't get any more from anyone else. MAYOR CLARK: I voted against it the last time. You are talking to the chair right here, buddy. I am saying when Tucker qnt up here, well, Tucker, we have already counted the votes and you have lost. MR. McMASTER: Well, I am just saying when Tucker qot up here you said, "Well, Tucker,we have already counted the votes and you know you have lost. " TAJell, let.'s add up the land here. M1, understanding is that the applicant also owns the LORI E. SOBEL COURT REPORTING, INC. 9 �- 793 l A 5 6 7 8 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 2^ 25 adjacent. lot. If: you were- sreakinrl to him, it would haave been aobuh the house on the corner, which is under discussion, which was a problem, which is his adjacent house. MR. PLUMMER: For the record, Mr.. Mayor, if they allow the waiver of the corner, he losses 234 square feet. Am I correct.? MR. KAY: That is for. the Pntir.e 20,000 square feet being plated, it is 234 square feet. MR. PLUMMER: Okay. Thank you. MR. t1cMASTER: You know my question, J.L., is apparently if I understand correctly, this gentleman lives next door.. He owns t.h(! property next door. Let us do it, simply. He owns 2601 Emathla house. It contains 20,000 square feet. He owns the adjacent lot, 2811 Emathla that. contains 22,000 square feet. HP has a total. of 42,000 square feet minus two hundred and -- MR. PLUMMER: James, James, can I stop you? lots. I moment. MR. Mc.MASTER: He has enough for four I4R. PLUMMER: Can I stop you? MAYOR CLARK: Hold it, please. Just: a LORI E. SOBEL COURT REPORTING, INC. 96- 793 1i , Ih 00 r� 1 MR. PLUMMER: For whatever. reason 2 unbeknownst. to me the manager has asked that that Z matter bt- sent bark to him for recnnsideration, so that n is my motion whether you want do it now or at the time 5 oP your. presentation -- C MAYOR CLARK : I think you made some good 7 points that may need further. consideration. All right. Q. Its going to bee sent back ma'am, so -- 9 MR. PLUMMER: Quit when you are ahead. 10 MAYOR CLARX: I think you are going to ii win. 12 MR. PLUMMER: I make. a motion at this 13 time, Mr.. Mayor, as requested by the City Manager, that 111 this matter be reverted back to him and to he back on 15 the 23r.d meetinq of June. 15 I so move. 17 MAYOR CLARK: All right. Second? Is 18 there a second? Do you second it? 19 MR. PLUMMER: I would suggest., Mr.. Mayor., 2Q that all questions that we have be sur.re,-nder.ed to the 21 manager so that they can, in fact, take into 22 consideration all aspects of this case. 23 MAYOR CLAR:'.: Tucker., see the manager. and 24 you also, sir. All right. Cast a unamimous -- 25 MR. PLUMMER: Likewise, the applicant. has LORI E. SOBEL COURT REPORTING, INC. 96- 793 1 2 3 n 5 F 7 g 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ?0 21 22 23 24 25 the same rights. MAYOR CLARK: Please, now let's not spend all afternoon discussinq t-he defer.ment-. now. Call the roll. THE CLERK: Commissioner Girt? MR. GORT: Yes. THE CLERK: Commisioner De Yurre? MR. DE YURRE: Yes. THE CLERK: Commissioner Plummer.? MR. PLUMMER: Yes. THE CLERK: mice Mayor Dawkins? MR. DAWKINS: Yes. THE CLERK: Mayor Clark? MAYOR CLARK: Yes. THE CLERK: Mayor Clark votes yrs. MAYOR CLARK.: What date is the date again? MR. PLUMMER: June 23r.d. MAYOR CLARK: The motion on Item 10 also. MR. PLUMMER: That would 10, 11 and 1.2. All of them are, together. MR. ZELHAIN: Excuse me, Mr.. Mayor, before you take the vote --- MAYOR CLARK: We have taken a vote. MR. ZELMAN: I would like to make, if I can make, a statement on the record if that. is LORI E. SOBEL COURT REPORTING, INC. f 96- '793 61A 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 allowable. MAYOR CLARK: You are the owner of the - property? MR. 7FLMAN: No, sir.. 1 am an attnr.npy and I represent the owner of the property. HAYOR CLARK: well, if you -- MR. ZELMAN: The owner, of the property is I here with me. MAYOR CLARK: Yes. MR. ZELMAN: If you would rather hear from him -- MAYOR CLARK: That, is his -- the people have left here now. There is no sense to give testimony now when the motion has already been deferred. MR. ZELMAN: I asked the City Manager. if I could have an opportunity to speak with him. He asked me to speak on the record. MAYOR CLARK: Sir., the Mayor runs this meeting. MR. ZELMAN: Yes, Mr.. Mayor. MAYOR CLARK: And your thoughts will be edited properly at the, date of the next hearinq, not, at today's hearing. MR. ZELMAN: Yes, sir, Mr.. Mayor.. 1i 1 go 1 3 5 r, 7 8 q 10 11 12 13 15 15 1.7 18 1q 20 21 22 23 2? 25 MAYOR CLAR`C: Thank t-nu. All right-. MR. KURYLA: Mr.. Maynr, excuse me. My name is Mike Muryla. I suspected that-. I might have had an oppnr.t.unity t-n address this body considering that. Mr. Gibbs spoke for 20 or. 25 minutes. I wanted fivr_ minutes. MAYOR CLARK: W,-11, you are going to be considered, sir; in time but not today, please. MR. KURYLA: All right. MAYOR CLARK: Please bear with us. We are not: trying to -- you will have ample opportunity, as much time as hr, spoke, you will have that time at the final hearing. MR. FURYLA: Very well, Thank you, sir.. MAYOR CLARK: Thank you. MR. PLUMMER: For the re -cord, let me just say this is very unusual where the manager himself requests that something be sent back to him, that is why I didn't hesitate to (In it.. (Whereupon the hearing was concluded at a:25 p.m.) /V -is I i 1 2 1, 3 C 7 Z in ]1 12 13 15 a 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A4 ... 25 CEPTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that. the foregoing transcript, pages 1 thrnugh 27, inc.1uSive, i s a tri.,t+ and cnrrPct transcription of my st.enngrarahic notms of the pr.ncet-dings had befnr.e the CITY OF MIAMI CITY COMMISSION on flay 23, 1994. 1994. DATED this 18th day of July, 27 ,.,,..1 ' � "' � .. --•�' ter,... W. TUCKER GIBBS ATTORNEY AT LAW GRAND BAY PLAZA SUITE 603 2N5 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE COCONUT GROVE, FLORir)w 33133 TELEPHONE (305) 656.271 t FACSIMILE (305) 854.6093 June 3rd, 1994 Cesar Odio, City Manager City of Miami, City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL. 33133 i Re: Proposed Oak Shadow Subdivision/Secoffee & Emathla Streets Dear Mr. Odio: Thank you for your response to my clients' concerns about, and objections to the proposed Oak Shadow Plat. In our telephone conversation you talked of a "settlement offer" by the applicant. My clients have informed me that they will prepare a response to - this offer when it is presented to them in writing. a Commissioner Plummer at the City Commissioner meeting of May 23, 1994, directed my clients to present their concerns regarding this plat to you. I thought I did so at the City Commission meeting, but the following outline of our concerns and objections is presented for your furthur review: 1. Municipal Code section 54.5-12(F) "Adjustment to Design Standards" is legally flawed in that it creates a quasi-judical process that includes no public notice and opportunity to be heard, and does not provide an appeal process from the decision made by the Supervisor of Plats. Further, this provision's terms: "hardship," "reasonable use," "substantial property right," for example, are not defined - virtually insuring the unequal application of this code section. j 2. Even if this code section is deemed to be consistent with the law, the Supervisor of Plats incorrectly applied the provision in making his determination to grant the "adjustment": a. Hardship was determined using a financial standard. 4. f b. Reasonable use was viewed in the context of the applicants right to receive the adjustment 00 i p _1' ( (i.e. his right to split his lot - even though he did not meet the minimum lot size set forth in the Zoning Ordinance). C. There was no explanation how this determination was neccessary to preserve a substanirial property right of the applicant. The area residents who object to this lot split do so with the knowledge that it will forever alter the character of their neighborhood. They also object because the approval of this plat clearly illustrates that the City's laws are unevenly and inequitably enforced. What they ask is for the City to treat this plat just the way the law requires. The dedication should be made to the City and the applicant should comply with the law. I look forward to receiving the writen proposal we spoke of to resolve this matter. My clients will review and will respond to it immediately upon receipt. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, W. Tucker Gibbs cc: Charlotte Duvall ;9 Norma Post Thelma Altshuler, President Tigertail Association Joyce Nelson, President Coconut Grove Civic Club j f 1i ,-; MAYOR STEPHEN P. CLARK VICE MAYOR MILLER J, DAWKINS COMMISSIONER VICTOR DE YURRE g COMMISSIONER WIFREDO (WILLY) GORT COMMISSIONER J.L. PLUMMER iR. 1 CITY MANAGER CESAR H. ODIO ttj MEETING DATE: JUNE 30, 1994 CITY HALL 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 10087, ADOPTED MARCH 18, 1986, AS AMENDED, GENERALLY REQUIRES ALL PERSONS APPEARING IN A PAID OR REMUNERATED REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY BEFORE CITY STAFF, BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION TO REGISTER WITH THE CITY CLERK BEFORE ENGAGING IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES. A COPY OF SAID AMENDED ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, CITY HALL. PLANNING & ZONING C I T Y C 0 M M 1 S S 1 0 N M E E T I N G * * THIS MEETING SHALL CONVENE AT 9:00 AM THIS PRINTED AGENDA IS DISTRIBUTED AT LEAST FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING AND THE MATERIAL IN CONNECTION WITH EACH ITEM APPEARING ON THE AGENDA IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION DURING BUSINESS HOURS AT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK IN CITY HALL. ANY PERSON WHO SEEKS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM APPEARING IN THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THIS AGENDA: "CONSENT AGENDA", "PUBLIC HEARINGS", OR "PUBLIC DISCUSSION" IS INVITED TO DO SO AND SHALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE INFORM THE CITY CLERK OF HIS/HER DESIRE TO SPEAK, GIVING THE CITY CLERK HIS/HER NAME. AT THE TIME THE ITEM IS HEARD, THAT PERSON SHOULD APPROACH THE MICROPHONE AND WAIT TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE MAYOR WHO PRESIDES OVER THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING. * * * * * * * * * * * * Should any person desire to appeal any decision of the Miami City Commission with respect to any matter to be considered at this meeting, that person shall ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made including all testimony and evidence upon which any appeal may be based. * * * * * * * * * * * * The City Commission has established a policy that the lunch recess will begin at the conclusion of deliberations of the agenda item being considered at Noon; further, that Commission meetings will adjourn at the conclusion of deliberations on the agenda item being considered at 9:00 Pal. (Resolution No. 87-115) * * * * * * * * * * * * i r i I F r E f I f i r I t i i 1 .......... RESOLUTIONS CONT'D Department of Public Works .25. RESOLUTION - (J-94-403) - (ACCEPTING PLAT) ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED OAK SHADOW, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. (This item was deferred from the meeting of May 23, 1994) NOTE: Item 25 is related to Items 26 and 27. 26. MR. W. TUCKER GIBBS TO DISCUSS THE OAK SHADOW PLAT LOCATED AT EMATHLA STREET AND SECOFFEE STREET IN COCONUT GROVE. This item was deferred from the meeting of May 23, 1994) NOTE: Item 26 is related to Items 25 and 27. 27. MR. JEFFREY B. DEGEN TO DISCUSS THE LOT SPLIT ON 2801 EMATHLA ST. IN COCONUT GROVE. This item was deferred from the meeting of May 23, 1994) i NOTE: Item 27 is related to Items 26 and 25. .J i - .J I I "I 0 ME INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM 1 W4 Honorable Mayor and Members DATE MAY 1FILE of the City Commission SUBJECT OAK SHADOW Resolution Accepting Proposed Record Plat Located at Emathl� REFERENCES. Street and Secoffee Street Loe sa alter o ENCLOSURES City ager RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully re,:ommended that the City Commission adopt a resolution accepting tie plat Oak Shadow and approving recording the same in the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. BACKGROUND: The Department of Public Works has reviewed this plat, and has determined that it is now in order for acceptance by the City Commission. The proposed record plat entitled Oak Shadow is a resubdivision of Lot 23, Block C, Biscayne Par -it Terrace, Plat Book 2, Page 36, lying in Section 15, Township 54 South, Range 41 East, City of Miami, Dade County, Florida. The area platted consists of two (2) lots, containing 0.46+ of an acre. It is zoned R-1 ; SD-18. Also attached are the following documents necessary for the City Commission to consider In making their decision: (1) Resolution accepting the Plat (2) Engineering Report (3) Plat and Street letter (4) Print of proposed Record Plat 94- 453 P3 �i Mrs. John E. Duvall 1900 Secoffee Street Naml, Florida 33133 i f 7 July 1994 Dear ° The residents of the neighborhood known as Biscayne Park T'erraeg , are outraged that the City of Miami Flatting Department has -permitted the intrusion of an new plat known as Oak Shadows. We care very much about the quality of -life in our neighborhood.and we grant to make sure that there are; no other distructive re -platting of our one hundred by two hundred foot lots: On March 31 a petition, signed by owners of the lots, as well as concerned neighbors, was delivered to Assistant City Manager, Sergio Rodriquez, requesting a minimum lot Rise overlay, to correspond with the platted lot size we alraady have, be put in -place. To my knowledge, such an ordinance has not yet been drafted , nor has it been €scheduled for hearing before the Planning Advisory Board. We are eager to have this protection put in place before any further deteriotation can take place and I am writing to ask.that you use your power and influence to ace that this requese will be expedited. We want our ordinance before the Planning Board, no later than September and before your commission for first reading in October and a second reading in November. " Our neighborhood wants and need your protection and your inmediate attention to assist us in protecting our property will be greatly appreciated. Yours truly. :G Mrs. John E. Duvall71 r Un c. 96- 793 9Z'/ 1 1. f a { f i 7 4 1.4 1_ 14 1.6 i 1• 7 18 �n �1. 24 25 1.nRT SnPPT. COURT iRFPORTYNGr TMCI (305) 159-444A 9 -- 793 7 in 1.4 1.6 17 I 19 10 ?i 2.3 2.4 I-ORY F. SOPFJ- COURT RXPORTYNG, TNC. (305) 358-4447 793 z 4 7 12 1.3 15 1.7 1. Ft 1-9 20 S (The fr)ljnw-i ...' nnP#=rrj,-; li,nWere h;Rd- I �. q I' -r- -nr- " MR, rl-ARTC: Ttem N1imber 25,, MR, OPTO: Mr, M;;vnr, yoii -,,-nt, i. i- hark i- n 7 n,nA. T. qjet wit-h the nwnpr of the nrnnPrtv, T al Sn referred it to the attorney that WaS OPPO-5i.ng thi.S for and whit- T agreed to rin with the prp-5pnt owner is to have a covenant in njar!e, Yr)li have -qP,-n A (-c)nv of i MR, GTRBST Yes, T bavet MR., nnTO: Rased on the covenant that T have been provided T recommend that we accept the Public Works d3rector' s '1.1.CTCJ e c; t i, 0 r. , MR, Cj-ARK; All right. For the record your name, MR , r, T R AS MY name As T!Icker Gibbs, 'Y have of f i cec a t 905155 So1.11-h 1;.qvl.-,hc)re T)ri.v#- i.n Mi.;qmi. Yes, Y have reviewers the covenant b1jt the covenant all the '70venant Seem-S to -SaY i.S that on i:hi.,q pmrti.omlar lot, t h i-9 OnP lot that the property wi I I never he llsee.j for more than two holases and that's what the Zoning allowq, Tha covenantnant somewhat stiperf3iio1is Y wo-II) -tilspect, Why is it- not? MR., MCKAY; There was an i-ssme rai.sed at the I..qqt Commission Meeting when thiq Ijbipri- wag di ccl,iccPrs anri one of the i.qsu,-q -- the m.le,, that were r ai.sed by one of the opponents was that this property might be kised for as- many as fomr houses si.mi.l.; to a piirj (si-e-) or a rmn W47) and that WaS P. SOPPY- COURT RP.PDXT:rNG, TNI7. (305) 358-4447 96- 793 I -) ME 1. Fi 7 fi 12 1.3 14 1.96 16% 1.7 19 1 19 21) 21 1 22 913 24 215 the reason why this covenant Was drawn I.I.P, MR', GTBFRSz Mr, Mayor, MR. (7.TIA.RK,, yes i MR, !;TAPS; That Was dorp in the DPXt contpXt of both pi,e-ces of property that the ;FkpplJ4-ant own Roth 1.nt--- totaJ, T think,. it's 4?.00 -- 42,000 grmqrp feat, A9nn? What is it? 42;000 square feet, And the con(7ern was that i.t- capon looking -- and T spoke to Mr. MoMaStpr who T think was the person who made that comment afterwards. T,noki.nq at the 7x)ni.n4g Code it is (-!ear that A planar (sit-) dP-vPlnnTnP-nt cannot fit on that h m si.7,e of the Int- Those .e,7ailse i.t doesn' t have the mi.nAmlAT two jots combined, So you can't p�.it fcvur. Yoii can put, as the City knows; three on the C7oTn.bi.n,-(,. Lots, MR: (77-ARK: You're not for this than apparently. MR. GTBBs: We are not for i.t and the l7one7ern we had. -- and the item was withdrawn before we could complete olir presentation. What T'd I.i.ke to do Wi.thoiif rPn,=aH.nrr everything that was said at the last meeting would he to ask, .4r. Mayor, that ;70.1 the comments- that Were made at the meeting on the 23rd, of May regarding there items be included in this remcorrl. And that all. fi.nal.c= correspondence, vi.dpr)tapes, all.di-o tapes and memos about this partil-1.0ar issile that's in the Citv's be pl.;Fk47ed i.Ti the record at this time, MR, C-i-ARK: No rrob3em. Put them in there. MR, GTBBS: Okay, Great. l-ORT F. SOBFT. COURT RFPORTTNG, YNC, (305) 358-4442 �-i k1d MR, (7T.A.Rlv.* Y01.1. 'r-an h;Rve them, MR, CTBBs! r.rhAnk yrm y know they' re ni'ibl i (7 rprnr(iq, MR, PT.TTMMP.R Mr, (7.i.hh--, are yoii r7oi.n.ey to r a y I.Is for doing yokir work? MR: C-T);F%S! mn. T'Tn not asking You to make cori--- Or anythi.nq Pl.qe, T,Tn illst acki.nryr i.t- to ha pi.nred i.n the record. Fmt- ii-I.-- al ready in the recnrrl as a of mi-nv.v.t.-.q an what Ih---:ive yoI.I., Fverythi.n.vi that yn.1. .t ,asked for is already in the record. MR, GTBB5!. Ri.rrh-t- , MR, DA.WKTN.5! Co what's the point of your wanting me to prat i_t i.n the recOrcIS!, ;A(j;Ri.n? MR, GTBI;S! No, all T wanted is- the acknowledgement that i.i- i.s hei.nq pi..qred i.n the record- Now i.t's i.r the rprord so we're fin?, MR, pAWKyNS7 ytIs in the records already, .411 Vni-I have to do i.s jr -?k o to the clerk and reqilpst that mot'i.on nd that itpTp anti it's in the record, MR. GTBBS: Okay. MR. pAwKyNs7 So what are you asking for? MR. GTABs: T think i.t '-- compl.etp. T think Mayor Cl.ork accepted it so it- fine, Y think we ran rio on. MR. DAWKTNS: Has the Comypi.ssi.on at7cepted i.t? Tt s already there, y don't 11nderstand where yoWre going, And T wish you wo"Id tel.l, me what's the object, J-ORT F. SOPFJ- COURT RRPORTYNG, TNC. (305) 96- 798" ILO fi 7 9 in i i 1.1 1.4 15 1.6 17 1 A 19 21 ?I -9. 21 2.3 914 R MR, GTBASI T want i t o f f i. (- i..q 1. 1. v t n hp n 1. m r 0. i. n the r.ecorrI, that's right, TbAt-',- Pvprflv. it, T -.-:%nt to M;Ftkp -.Ira th re470-rd i.c rrl.ar; that's Ana T'm mInd th4? MAvnr DAWKTNS: nb; so like Plummer say-- yoll wAnt, it - to ,7oTnpij,- al.1, t-hi.,q t-nrpRf-hpr an whpn vol.l. rjet- rear.3.v MR, T)AWKI:N.S to go to (70I.Irt you. romp to (70-Y of Miami mi and ask for the record. MR, GTIRB-S: No, Not at al.l., Not at What T'M asking is an anknnwlpr3gpmpnt that these are offirimllY part of the rer7ord ;Rnd yoWup ;;�lnnwl.pdged, the Mayor's and T think MR, CI -ARK: Mr, (7-i'hh.cz; know when to hold ;FY)rl when to I fr) 1. d . MR , G-T B); S ; Thank yoli- MR, PT-TYMMF-R, Mr. Gibbs, are Y011_ here pro be)no? MR, GTBF4S7 Today 7 am here Pro bODO, blit T am regi.stered with the City Cl.prk as a I.obbyi.st on thi,q i.g- MR. Pj,UMMF-R: 'yRq Will ;;nnrpri;.jte that, MR. GTBBS! TIm siirF they mayor Clark, T'd also, like to know if T would have the opportlln--.ty for a one -mi.nilt-e rebui-i'Al, at the of the comments made by the applicants, MIR. CTIARK-. Who's the appl.i.41ant? Right hero? MR, (7-TBFk-5* -?list a rebuttal F. SOBFT, COURT RPPQRTTNG, TNC, (305) 358-4441 Nq Ii I 4A J 7 in 1.1. 1.3 1 d 1.9 16 1.7 18 19 71 77 2.4 215 MR, (7T,ARK- Let the nnnlit-Ant nrorppH than., My. (:TARS; nh_ nnp 1,;czt- rv.jpcHnn.. if T Tn.;;v, Will T have the opport-lArAt-Y to MR, PAWKYNS! No, this jr- not ;F! cr.,urf- of law, MR, GTBB-S : Tt i.-- -- MR, PAWKTNST City attorney MR, C T, A. RY ; Mr Attorney, MR, jONFSt Mr, Mayor, it's m.n to yoil, MR,, I?T.TTMMIZ.R - Wahl., noryn nroe7ediirp T hope yoiA wijI, follow ii-, Yoki will Ask Yol.ir rn.iestions thromuh the Chair, The Chai.r wi.l.l. answer ye-s or no whether yol., ran MR, CT,ARK; Tf yoll Want to CrOSS-pXaMinp.. rm Ahead, MR, GTBBI5 Thank Yom, T appre<7i.a.te that. T'l.l. wai.1- iint-il my rehmtt;.:0 than and let the applicant have the floor. MR, C.T,ARK: Be ready for I? il. t n n. Your s0 t- of armor , ye's , Six, MR. MCKAYz We are here to J11st bear Mr. Gibbs' presentation and any other presentations and we are really here for Ttem gm-mber .75 whi.(7h i-s apprr)val. of the plat Tf yoll. wnl.'.I.(! like MR. CY-ARK; Do you want to cross-examine bin now? MR, GTBBS: No, my Poi.rkt Waus T tholl.ght that ;AIA three of these items were going to be considered as one item and i.n.mtearl of, yo» know, handl.i.ng i,t i.ndi.vi.dmall.y.yol.' ;0-1. wol.I.I.d. 1.ORT F. SOPFj- COURT RPPORTYNG, TNC, (105) 158-4442 7 9'3 1. 4 7 9 1.4 15 17 38 1.9 2-0 71. 2.2 ?1 3 24 715 want to illst handl..? t-hi..-, together, That's what T. t hoi.vih t- bappened at`tbe last Meeting, Co that's -by T was goi.nn to --)it- until the end, Tf yoii Id l.i.k,- T ' I.I. he h;;nnv to peak . n. i.... n this g issue yet again. MR, (71-ARF- Yoti better. You're rtinni nct otit of ti.n.jpr T' 1 1. 1- 1 1 vni i that MR GTP);S - We!), T J)ist wanted the opportlinifY to speak after the appljrmnt, Tf T had that opportimi.tv, T. ri.nn ' t need to speak now, My rIiPnt-- Tnay want to speak tbotigb, MR, (7.T,ARK-. no i.t ri-MTh t n.nw, MR, CTBBS-, WPI11- T'd like to bear what the applicant has to say that's the reason why T want the opp-ortmni.ty for rebuttal Fkut T py cliante may want to speak , MR , rT,ARTr- Go ahea(l. Gi.ve us volir name f or the record. 14)? . 7.r%j-MAN; Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr, vi riz mayor and My name i.5 Ri.Ck ZPIMan. Vm. an attorney, T'm here on beh-?O f of the app.1 i rant My address- J% 1110 Brirkp3l Axenu-,:?, Mi.ami., We are perfectly content to let Mr. Gibbs, have, one ypinilte to rebut if he'd I.ike to, of course, we'd IJAP to reh'At hi-s rehmttal if You would let iis dr-, tbit. MR, GTBBS; That's fi.ne with me, MR, 7-FT-MAN: T have -imst a few qWck com—ments, T don't want to take too -murh of your time, The arrli.,(7ant, Mi.4?hael. I-ORT F, SOBFI- COURT RFPORTTNG, TN('. (305) 358-444P 96- 798' I -) I -) cm 3 4 fi 9 q 12 14 1.5 16 1.7 21. 23 914 25 xilryl-;.i i.-, here tr)d-9Y, He anpq have �—mp remarks a.nrl askr.-4 n rn i f vni, wmil a ni I ow hi m A makes i f lmw rn. Tnpntc:z, We were not Rljnw-ri to qn,-;;k l.act Tqortb When thi.-, i.hayn wi-n on t-hp ,qrTpnri;.i mind to:�rrihly we wnill(i and deferred. R.n if yni'i wnil I din' t a c7onnl.,- of Tni.ni.it-,-.q of yoilr fi.Me iii-zt7 to make -Ilrp VnIl. i ne A.lierstand the Positions that are beinci adVoCated here today and, of r7ojjrqp, beincy - ej City ,uprr�rted by the (7i.t'y M�kna er, the Ci y Attorney and the Chairman of the Plat COM-Mittee, the .5upervisor of the n.l.ats a7.cn, Thank you, 14R , CI.ARK Al 1 right MR, (7.ORRI:T.T.A yoiir 14nnor, CoiMMi.mxxi.nner,-q My name i.s Mike FlAryl;F!. Now do you do? T'm here with my family tods�y' We 1 i v4z J3 1. 1. FT a t h 1,;; Ctreot, i.n Mi..;RTni. Ad JACent to the We have )ivP(j in the arnvp fnr 2rN years, Y've raised a f aTni.l.v i.rl the h that We hiii.l.t on F.m;Rthl.,q Street and We have paid rl nee to $100f000 in nrnnprty tax es we are responsible <7iti_7enS and Cari.nq nPi.rthbor5 for those Who have needed 01.1.v h.Pl.n from time to time, The reel at before you today is the Prel resu3t of some unmstial. 4--ixclans-tanres bri-)'.'(Jht about by Me. Some three and a half years ago T aC(-JAPntly Witnessed a. series of events at ?801 gmathla Street whi.4?h i.nvol.vs-d the former 4.)Wrler dealAng Arug'5. At that time 7 resolved to, have this person removed from my nei.ghbt-)rhoc)d and with the ;R'.qqi-';tan47e of P1.1-unmer and now Attorney General Reno the person was arrested and his A-1 ltORT F, S013MTs COURT RFPORTTNG, TNC. (305) 158-4441 96- 793 I 044 Ad 7 11 1-4 1.5 16 17 1.9 ;) 0 23 P4 ?1 5 property was Czs:'i7ed by the City of Mi.ami.' :rt was 'subseqiipnt3y disrnvered that this person wokild 11sp the premises to dri.I.CIT boye and them Th i.,q intensified my resolve to be certain he never raTMe rN back t My npi_nhhorhoor� even i.f i -ha,- per from he t meant pure. .. ni.ng the property City of Miami, I Mnc-i- lqqn T havp rt-P( 5i1nnni I . - - - - the Cit-Ys, effort-- to nerf ti.1-1.P i.n nr(i.er to he ahl,p to ;Fol.i-ti.nn. t'h.t- property onl.v to see these Pffnrts thwartpr.j by orinin S of the Florida SiipremfF, Coiirt. The une-1.1mbered ti.t-I.s-% was retilrnpei to the fpl.nn. After deterMininct that 7oning Sn 18 nvprl;;v nPrT mi i- i- Pr.j a. rep) at of tb i s, I.And my wife and T at7qiji.rimel the nrop-rty by pijrChaoe i.'P. Tni,,d The process of rep)atting to obtain one Additinnal home cite heq;Rn i,n l.qq;, Wnrkinry with the n1dest and perhaps most rennet-ted firm in Irnwn, Ri.-,rAvnp Fnninpprinry, the prP)iMinary t4znf-ati.v4= n1at was presented to the Street and ?1.At Comni.ttpP and anyone else who chose to attend this Meeting, These are open to the pi.ibl.i.4'. The first meeting on November 4 deferred. the tentative plat S'Abje47t tr) revi.mi.-n-s and i.nforM, Iti.on. Thi-s Was done in the i-nsiling two months, And the second meet3ng of the Street and 1?1.ni- CoTnMij:tee took n1ace on January the 1.4th of thi.s. year. On this occasion regretfiilly of tar months of diligent effort and S'Abstanti_al- by Tny wi.f,- and ime-the tentative SOART- COURT RSPORTYNG, YNC. (305) 358-4442 793 51 I -" I "', -1 I k "d Fi 7 12 1.3 14 1.7 i 8 14 22 213 24 15 nipt wAq ArrAi.n apfPr-rpd, Thi.-- time -r,:?gretf1AIJy hnOAIIcP A mpTnhpr of the ComTO ttee si t- H my i n for the rhi Pf Aq,-7st.-:0nt (7i t-v attorney Was 'Rot prepArpa to Aaarp.,czq the The third Ana final mpptinry of the gtrppt Ana PlAt rnmmittpa at Whi.i-h by rnn---n-.ii-- fAvorahl.p vot-P ind ne) ri,Pcren,ti.nn vote registered the rl;Fqt was approved, This approval is dated March the 1.0i-h" l.qqA, Thr4zp And q half months arjo, The approval by the Street and Plat Committee involved meeti.nrg every qi.n—rT1P r.p.rIm--i.ra.Ment recli.v.i.r.e. a.. by m iin i. - inn 1retie anti 6 thereby approval from member representative-c of the Planning Department; the Zoni.ng Department, the T)epartm.ent of PiAbl.i.r Wnrkcz. the rity PlAi-t-inry ITnit-. frilInwing ths:, c::ijgUec%tic)n.-' to the .. . . .. - . .— .. .1 - - - . . 1. - .... . I . . . . . ... .. - the - . . .— . . . Tizbttpr of the To-q;;'I. npnRrtqent eAprp-zeby thph i P f A-q t-an t city attorney, Miss Miriam Mapr, nhi-.qininrt Annrov,.jjS from the .. . ... ... .. - "I. " fi.rp denartTnert; the r0l.i.— fi.,-PA,rtment, the NFT offi.roz, Fl.ori.41;4 Power :and j-i r-Tht , Southern Rai 1 ; WASA (si r I , Ppnnl ea i (lac n .. requi-r-empnt for rei7r�rdi.nq- the pl.aj-, Finally, the City Manager has, that the City CoMmi.qsi.on adopt a resol.iiti.-n mr-renti.nei the pl..qi- Oak Shadow, The resolution b.,:ic.z been prepared and approved by the Chief AssiSt;!knt C.i.tv Attorney and approved Tq oved as to foro 47 .1 .. . I - . and c rrp tnpss by the City Attorney. All of the above have approved the plat of Oak Shadow for your -Acrpnfani7e today an d favorah)e vote, MR, CI -ARK: Thank Yrvil. Thank yoii, s-3 r- I-OR7 F, SOAM- COURT RRPORT.TNG, YNC, (305) 359-4442 9 - 793 6 li C14 MR, C-TBR-Sl T'd IjkP to; i.f T then. Aqk the -I.np)irant I t7t?j)pje of qi.IF.--,tinnq whi rh relate to the hard _hi r MR, rT-ARK-, Ask the -i1e5tion, MR , r.TASS: T rPrtAi,nj.v As we spoke on the 23rd.. we have several poi.nts ji-ist want to rei.tterate very ql.li.r.'kl.V, MR , r. J,A RK - Yoii spoke to wbom.? MR, GTBBS: Spoke to the ci.tv rnTnTni,--ri.nn at ;Fk PiAblij• meeti ncT nn the 23rd, MR r-J,ARK- All riffht-, Te fhmt, !?key, MR G T TQRS The proce5s by which the P1.0703c Works di.rector i.n hi-s rannri.ty ar., Streets the pl.at and �,3t (7.haj.rman or T fnrrrPt wbPthp-e- it's plat Adminstrator is the rnrrinkrt title, Qkay , idi.g prr)(7e--.g to -- the q r, that all.ows- hi.yn tt qni the waiver is f3awed procediirally Rn.cl there was no ;.;.n.c.1 onpe)rtil..n.i.ty for the PlAhli-41 try he heard within this proc-ess, MR, (7j-ARK', Please, Please, P)ease. Now Mr, Attorney, doeS he have the administrator ability to do that? MR, JONFS Yes, he does. MR, Cj-ARK- All right, rnnj-3njjp with ymir m1pr. . . ...' � - - - - .1. , t j ons , JAR, (7-TBBS Okay, Rveln i.f this as the (7i'-Iv Attorney has stated, the owner failed to meet the .-Kan0ards that wers? met e)iit* i.n the Ordj.nanf7e, 1,3pp j.fj,r.j.j.y th 47 . a e 17 1.3 3 4 1.7 i 8 1.9 71 �2 23 24 2.15 I?ikjb1-i.t7 Works di.rimrt-nr hm.,,gi.raljv cai,ri, that the ;3VpIJrq.n.t- h;ifil .1 f j n, himrmi.1c.ze the property t)7,?t was to bp dp(ii contRi-ned a fenf7e ;Rnd if wnul.d he more PXAY,IPnCI,vAto rpTn..nvP the fpnop than the fp.nrp was worth, TS t-b;;i- -- the nrnnPri-v wag worth, Ts that rorrect , Mr. Ka.y? MR. (71-ARK- Can you respond to that? MR. KNYi That w?-- one of the -- MR, GTBBS: R J, r1h t , MR, KAY: -- one of reasons listed and that is correct, ab011t three times the yal»p of the property, MR, GTBBS Ri.elht And the other remSonq i.n.vol.ved, the fact that al)Owi-ng tbi..-- dediomt3on would deprive the property owner of the reasonabl.p use of hi.s 1.mnfi. anti, R.Cjai.n, aG T sai.d, on the 23rd Y don't think- that allowing somebody -- not allowing Somebody to di,vi.dp hi..q Tot or srl.i.t- hi.,s 1. .n t- i,n termsz a waiver is denial of that, MR, CT,ARK, Tn hi.q determi-nati.oti, That Wits hi.s prerogative. MR. C-TBBS-. T understand that MR. C!-ARK: -- to, make that stateynent, MR. G-TI3135. T i1nderst-ind that ;And we di.sclis ... sera, that, yn addi ti.nn, We Contend the City has the discretion to revert the n-1;Rt he47-:k7ASe of the f4Fki.I.I.Ire of the Pmhl.i.4- Works Aixa,ct;r)r to apply the Cnde directly, However, we feel that in this -- approval of this plat and SOBFT. COURT XFPORTTNG, TNC, (305) 359-4442 793 �i m F; 7 in 15 16 17 j 8 1.9 20 21 14 75 the . e wai,vpr that the ri t-y i..-z treati.nry thim nwns-r fIi.ff,-rPnf-1.y than )-;;.is treated others in this npi ryhhnrhnnA, Other people in the in qij ijqr have had -n -ti i -iirni nry radii as well as land to the rify qn that the city ran have a proper 7oned riaht of way Whi.oh i.c i.n ynirr Tt- 7nnP6 riqht of T have exlmrl PS of way here T think is 50 feet, i r7h t- rip(ji.oati.nn-, in t-hp lq.qt- tan years that Were reqj.ti.red. T n. the (7.i i-v in i-hp ri Vy T Ann ' t hPI i PvP there Pvpr has been a . .. ... . . . .1 . ... .. . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .... wAivPr of thpse rer.pH.r4-ment,..Q, these safety reqlAi.r.-ment.9 baqPd C),R finmnc,i;.=0 hardship, And T'd like to ask M.r, . financial .. I ... , KIY if there ever has hppn a wAivpr haS,.:%d on fi.nanri.al. haraq MR, RAY; Tbere's a mimber of waivers. based on some of whi.,-h warp finAne-iml MR, aTRRS; And those were statedi, And which ones were I thrice? MR. KAY: Thinking back they were waivers given for the radi.i_ nn rhinat-oWn Whi4-h were ac7tjAajjv at both corners, one Wa,s MR, CIPARK; All right, now listen. Now we're getting a li-ttle far afield, Thi.q i.-.q not the Ci.r-ru.i.t (7.oil.rt, 14R GY BB .5 No, :r i inderst;.ind that, hilt y need to pjIt that On the rP470rd. MR, (7j.ARK,. i-et's wind. this tip right q"irkly, Try thi ct i.n 7omrt MR, GTBBS., Okay. Finally the covenant itself, as TIve SOBET, COURT RRPORTTNG, TNC. (305) 358-4441 '3 96- 79 4 sai.-I before hef7all.-.e i.t- Merel.y reaffirms. that the piatt-A property —.11d he iiqs--d in accordance with the 7.oninrl Code a's i.'- exi-stx' now, MR, CT -ARK: Mr, Attorney, is the rmvpn.art proper? MR , JONRS -, The <-ovf-nant: i..q proper . MR, GTBBST (7.prt ai nI v it's nrnnpr, Tt-'-- nrnnomr in all legal. form, T ' n iiI-Rt -ayi.nj that ti. t-liner A ber7R S P ,states soypetbi nry cz that 1 Al ready i n vmiir (7.j tv r.o(.Jp MR . C-i-ARK: We! 1 , mayN- you Wou 1 rl 1 i ke to have j t say ..jethincy di.fferent fhAt 'q the ,-ayi.ntj i.t f 11-1 ous, MR, No, No, T'm not in favor of these MR . CLARK: Okay, MR, rTBPSz Tn addition, the final thirry 3-,-- this fence that everybrjdy' S t—1 ki nr-T about- wR.--- hi-ii 3 t wi thomt permi t s, We have re-pe;Fkr,7hed the fi.1.6mr, i.n the ri.ty of Mi..qmi. and, have foiln.d no btlildinq permits for this particoil mr fpTicP. For this fence bUiAt wi.thf)'At bmi.l.di.nq re-rini.ts to be ;Rt7,70rded -S.,Ome ilqrOrtant7l? by this Commission nr the Pub)ic Works director when the fence i t.el.f wan i1.=galv ni"ti.m.wi.thoiAt iji.l.i.nj. r i. — , tink creates a problem. T dcm't know about this h;F!rdsbiP but if the hardehi-p. i-9 based on an i-11-esal. ferkce, T thi.n.k. the Ci.ty may have chef endinq MR. (7j.ARK-, All rirrht, Fine. Ts there anything 1.()R:r F. SO BST. COURT RP-PORTYNG, YNC. (305) 3 58-4441 79-3 A F; 7 11 17 1. R 1 q 20 21 1 2? 23 74 75 k4 I fl.lrther? MR; CTBBS: Yp.q.. T baup A rnilinlp of qi.1pcztjone rp.1;90-i.ng to -- i f vni.i I.nnk at the nrnnprt-v, Tf vnii Innk At thp nI Mr, TCiirvIi nwnq the nroppy-tv nPXt P h;;.q A hmiFp nr) that . .... ... . I - - � - - - - .. . door, nrnn,--rf-v, That nrnnPrtv rnnfAi.nS not 9,n;()Oo qllq rp feet, wh i.oh i F, what .t evo-ry other niprp of property jimi- Rhm.jt in the nei.ghborhood contai.n.q; i.t e-nntni.n,-n 22,000 qnliqr,- feet, Oiir nI n-ciii- nn i-- very -J. -nl-, The dedi ra.f.- J on czhnilll d be marjp, Mr Ki.jryja doe.9 hava- An niit- He ran mnvo- the ni-ciperty 1.i.nP hi-t-wppn hi-- hmirze that be oT.Fn.r- an d the pronerty whirh be )7'o}jgbt 3 a a t A. u. g- I is t a n d t h e t i. n n. T have to M r , I.c I.I. r v I..q. A.D. d. hi,c a t t 0 r n e v in,5te.9d of rminrr thrmirth this eT)tiri= nrnrimqc why he iij,-.t diAn't move hi.s I.nt I.i.np: T.R.A . 9 i nria .. .. .. That' 9 h. - cz I - - - nrPr- — ti up, MR, aTRRS: T iindpr-- tand that, bi.lt- i.f this i.q hei n(T based on a hard5:bin th;ti- Mr, Kiirvl;;. hA-- nn nthpi- alternative when he'-q I.nt- hilt to rJet thi.-; dedij-Ati.nri waiver, hilt- he does have ancitber a3terrative. And the qIlemtinn iS why di.An't he exerci.se that aI.t-4-rnAJ-i.vP? MR.. CT -ARK: Why r.jian't you Wear a red fit tor jav? T f- '.q your de-ci-qi.rin' MR, GTBBS JUSt Want to know, MR, (7T!ARIK,, Yoii qai.rl yr)ii had an aT er, T'iM mni.n.n 1-0 bring thir- to. a. clos.p right rptirk t-bpn, Go ahead, MR., PT.T.IMMFR Mr. Map7vr, may T 14 I-ORT F. qOF%Fj- COURT XIrPORTTNG, YNC. (105) 358-4442 96- 793 : 4.1 I-) 4,1) 2. fi 1.1 13 1.4 15 i6 17 19 20 21 22 2 � 24 25 MR: (7T,A.RK,, Yes . MR\ P T.T.TMMP.R Mr, (7,i t-V At; t-nrnPv, ref rash my mpmnry a ;R matter of ri.ght MR , JONF-S This i-- purely an adpliniczt-priathat' .. . .... .. . . . . . 1 .4 . before you to a:pprove, 'Yo14 renljv (inn't- hnu,- Any di,-,orptinn t-n de"Y it, This was already alp.prmved by the Plat and Street Committee, as yo3.1 Tnep.ti.onpd, Mr, Pl.iimmer -- PI lummer. MR Pj.tTMMIZ.R Again, for the recorcl, T or my l7olleagiiecz. cannot vote to deny? MR, JONFS' Abso)kitely. MR, GTBBS: Mr, Mayor. MR, pj.t7MMF.R: Mmkp the rprord very clear. That tbat'n not a ptirvi.pw that We have. Yolt can r-tand here and artjil.p ;;.1.1. day long, MR. GTFkN5-, Okay, MR. Pi.tTMMFR 7 We TnirTbt agree, with yoI! or disarfri-o-, F,ven i.f we fr ee g .ree with you, we do not have thr-? I.e al. ri.cThl- to deny. Twant that understood, MR. GTBBS: Mr. Mayor, may T as1c a MR. (71 -A R K Yes, Sir, MR, C-TBBS: The rjil.pSti.on T h.a.vi.m to the Chai.r i.Q i.f the City fails to apply the law correctly in their granting of a Waivpr, i.,q th e art of an rnui.nq the pl.at rontai.ni.ng the waiver a(iyn3 n3 steri al li L _j 4 1 7 11 16 17 2 2.2 21 3 74 MR, JONRS Mr, r.i.hhr,, thAt',q .9 rtii,aati,nn that VnIl llqvp to answer, 'T'r .q not rininri to nn.-.wp-r it fnr vnii MR, rTARS: No; T a.-zkpo the Mayor, T asked the MaYnr that qjje5tinn, MR , CT -ARK; T can't answer that qj1pstinn, MR, GTBBS: okay, An4l T diAn't know i.f. Voll• Wnill.f9, ask the City Attorney that qtleFtJOT), MR, I?T.I.TMMFR F.y.47iAme me MR, (7T.ARK Yes ;. si r. MIR, PTJ.TMM9F.R -, I:f T may, the poi.nt T am tryi.ng to make Is we can sit here and listen all day -- MR. CLARV; We're not tjoi.n.q to di7i i.t-, MR, PT.UMMP.R*, -- to )-.)oth sides milt we don't b,-:ive the ri rTh t .. I to act negati.vi-l-v -.n you keep talki.rkg, qi.r, b,-�-call.qe T'M not going to listen; all ri "'ht MR, C.T.ARK: kl.l• ri ryht- That'5 MR, GTBBS; Mr, Mayor my c3ients, woo like the oppnrtiAnAty -:.ome of them wouAd lAke the opVf:lrtl.1n_i.flV to at least make MR. (7j.ARK-, Sir, T think we've had two Shots at tb'---, 'Et's up to the Commi.--si.on i.f! they Want to hear from them. -MR, GTBRS ', These are neir-ThbOr.5 Who liv" in the neighborhood who Would I.i-kz to speak on i.t, Tt's yomr 4,ee7i.six)n. MR. pj.UMM . come down here to FR,. People took the tim e to he heard. T think they Shol.11A have a one mi-nlAtP Say '40 ;Ruq 1-Ong t-Z3 TORT F. SOBFJ- COURT RKPORTYNG, YNC, (305) 358-444.2 96- 79631 t�,) r�. r�-,Jllt T -IS john P1.1val.l. (Joe. n, t q , 7001. with i.t Tf he gets the rih-ht, Y r.iowt want to bear MR, (7. T. A-F. T< - Fveryhody i-n.e MR. CTBBS: Tbank you for yollr (7onsiripration, MIR. CT,AAK, Ye-- r qi,r MR, pTJ.lMMRR, One minlltP 'Y MR (7.TIARIK One 'Mi.nllte a. Pi.4-17e, MR, 7-Pi-MAN, Mr, Mayor, at the cont7illSiOn Of tbesP remarks wi.l.l, we have one mi.n.l.ltp also? MR. (7 j -AR K : yeab; you can. MR , ZFTNAN Thank yoiA very -miioh. mR, r. i, AR K ye-,-, m, (7-ive lis ymir name. MIS , POST: My name i--- No-rM;R Post, T 1-i-ve at 9,061. Tinsari-ail Avenue whir-h i;% iii--i- at the -ne.j of thP6 b3oo.k of that flame Street where Mr, Kiiryl.;; owns two properti.sas now, T Wanted to say first of all that this is a very unique Pe3ghtorboori, The three }storks are al.l. 70,000 .jilare foot lots. Tt'- lAp.i.qlAp and 7 think it's imlnn?-i-ant to the (7itlY Of Wa-m' a'S i t i cto ;-I city -- to every i7i.ty, be;Riiiri.ful, f-i.ty i.n the world to preserve one section of their cirty that 's different frnTR the rest. They've done that and they do that '.n. Cor-70-rahl,ec,They've (ione 3.1- in Paris, in Be)grafle, throiiqh(.mt the wt.,r)rT where yogi can See trees where i.t i.s not all, rop.47-rete the way the main Vert of the (7.jty of Miami is which js st.03ri concrete. So T think Ws important to the City to nrp . serve this area Rn(i this is One Trom F,, SOBRY, COURT R17,?()RTTN(7-, TN(7. (305) 358-4441 i n r oa d i. n i- n i- h e area whi,nh was m;Rde f i.rqt On IlInd Aveniia i,n 1978 MR (71-ARK Yoiir ynimit-p i-, im, Thank ypl! MS POST; May 7: liiml- czav 1-hi.-, think the rerord T ghat t h Yl onf- 93 ili� t i on i n whi ch M ex,f7epti.on, one property owner l,s bei-ng permi-t-t—d. to do -.4-)rQethi.nn that no c*,tber property owner in this area has, been ah)p to do for 9,0 years -- MR C. T -A R 7, Thank y e7vii ant MS POST: -- and that i..,q to have -- not: be req,Ared on a corner jot to mike, a 75 foot dedication to the City. FverYone else has had to do MR C.j,ARK! Thank yotii; ma' ayn, Yoti've -m-lde yoIlr point, MS POST i And T ' d li.k.- to ask the Commi.ssi.on i.f yoll. unti:L on thig. what rPA-- .on you ran rtive me why an exc-ertion is Tnade for this One nl.noo, MR , r.T.ARK Thank yo.i, ma' am. One minute has p.xr-tired two -mi.n1li-es ago. MS. POST' This is not democracy. MR, (7T.ARK-, Thank you, ma'am, yoix marle yoiAr poi.nt-. VPS r ma' am M.S. NFj.SON*, My name JR Joyce Nelson, pres3dent of the coconmt Grove fi.yi.fr (7.1.lAb, my address i.s 2535 Tn;.:ktjl:k;k Avenue, T . J 1 i ki?6 to point Hitt- fin c to yothat this is not on-Ostent wit the C-i.fVl Of Mi.ATfli.'S 47OMPrehen--i.ve master nl..qr--ni. n.-:- t. T h ts T-ORT F. SOAFJ- COURT RFPORTYNG, YNC, (105) 15A-444?. 96- 793 I ") 7 11 16 17 1-8 19 ;>3 1>1 4 25 yolir plan, And i.f vnii qnnrnv.- this ynii'rcm caning against the rll an for 0l_jj- 70r p.ppl"i t-y a T) (d wp are very mi.je7h ;F!q;.0nst this , MR, CLARK: rrhq n k v n i i ma' a Tn ma'am, M113, T)T.TVA.T.T.- My "am,- i.-z rharlotte rlliva)! T live at 1900 se47nffep Street T'd ill-i- lij-.e to Say that Mr. Filryl.n. ,stated that NF-T arrroved this in the prpqpnce of the city Manager, Chriqtinp AhrAm gtAted that she voted jFkg;Fki.n-- till S a n d i f waC r);; cz S e r .1 a (j;F! i n.ca t- h P r v n i- P and against her approval. , T wr)iAl-cl nASo I.i.k.p to State that when ppopl.p refer to .Split-tinrs A lot T think in vniir Tninr.j y0j) have it- will he clivided Straight ijnwn, Th;Fkt'S not the c7ase, The hollse that's cl.urrerktl.y on this lot toil(7he% the b1indred foot line co, therefore, to divicip thi.-, Ini- it- has. to The 1. t- mimhp-r one has to nrni-riiAp into lot nllmk�er two in the Midd3s?, and then Int- rmn.ber two On eij-her SiJi.e Of the (70TRPS beyond the hundred foot 3inp So very strange, jiniqj1p way of (ii vi rji nri Ini- whir-h not (7cinsi.s tent with the nei.ghhorhood, MR. CT -ARK; Think yoii, ma'am, AIA right, Y<)jj'lj have a Mi.mitp , That's all, Mr. (7,i.hh-, All right, Go ahead, MR, 7.r%!.MAN*, Jklst one Irinlite, Thank yoii, Mr. Mayor, There's been an awful lot of hysteria and misinformation that fear has been promul.gated to 41.1. of yr)m i.n thi.m Pnti.re p-rnress, Mr. XurYI;.m, has tried on seven different occasions, to, meet with TIORT R, SOBRTI COURT RRPORTTNG, TNC. (309) 358-444� r 06- 703 L. 7 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 1 Ft 1.9 2 2 1 2.2 21 4 75 the nei.ghhorS, eXpl.ai.n What the PI.an i--7. P-K.pI.;qJn that thersm'-, 2.00 feet n.f' rco;.j(.j frnntmnp nn this shim. R himrIrptj feet fnr Pa(-h home Whi4-h i,-- nnnotn nrnhlpm, WA warp dt-fprr#-(i T-q-,t. Tnnn t. .-h which was fine; Wp went hark tri the ri vv M;4n;;rpmr. we mat with him, We r7ovenant to make S'ArP th.,Rf these i7oncerns were addressed as to What was going to be hi -Olt there, Those i gqiip.c4 Were not ejoi.ncy to he a pr�,hl.PM, We Were happy 170 f7r)MV1,V, We are consiqtpnt with the platting rpnilirements. The law i-s there. Tt'-- Tpgal.. We are rorsi.-tent with the 7,)ni.n..g (7oje The Ci t-IY Attorney 1.5 al r e;.j d y passed on i f We very mich appreci.ate your Support, We have done everythi.n.rj we 47an do to be in roy.p)ianri- with I - . .. . ..p . .... . . ... . the law, Thank yclu very mm'7h, MR, (71-ARK: Thank you, sir. 'Ys there a motion on this? C, 1741- me a T MR, GORT; Mr, Mayor. MR, (7.1,A.RIK: You. movi.nu? MR, GORT: Y have a question, MR. CTARIK; What i.-, i-t? MR. . GORT :r f we cann ot vote for this wby is i t in of ms? MR. CT -ARK; What is it? MR. KAY: Thi.q i.-- approval, of a PI -at, i.t',-- Ttem Number 25, of Oak Shadcjw. MR . PI-tWIF-R ijis qUestion is the same T've risked for IiOIR.I: R. SOBVJI COURT RRPORTTNG, TNC. I -) In 1. 12 1.3 14 15 16 1-7 18 19 20 911. 2.2. 23 24 75 years. Tf we have no (7hoi-4-e Of YeS or no, why bring i.t h.pr,-? T meane it's like asking kiss to be -:1 rilbber stamp, to find olAt how Voll vote, Anything e35,-? MR , pj.TIMMF.R you can't vote no, Mr, Mayor, MR, CLARK: --how you how yoll, af) i.t. Ca0.1. the THE CI-FRK: Mr, P) mmmer, Commissioner P3rummer . MR, I?T.TTMMPR Wel.j., hey, I:IT n Wi.I.I.i.pry to learn after 2.4 years. T vote yes according to the City Attorney's ru3e that that'-- the onl—v way that T can vote, THE Cj-FRK-. C O.M.Tq s 5% n n r, n r t , MR, GORT; T don't il.nder--tand i.t but a(7f.-Ordi.nrj to the attornev T hmvp to vote Yes, T don't know what the purpose, THE CTIERV: Vi.rp M;;vor T);.:kWki.nq MR., PAWKYNST T know w(FOre heading to court so )et the ,CO;.Irt deci.dp, T vote yes, THS C. j,r%R K : Coruni-Ssioner Pe Yiirre. MR, D9 YURRF; No, THE CJ.RRK; Votes no. Mayor C)a.rk. MR. (7.T,ARK: T vote no, MR. PAWK7NS; Okay, Hold it now, MIR. (711ARK: T vote no, MR. DAWKTNSi Mr. City Attorney, you've stated that there waR only One vote that coi.ilti be par-sed fm thi.s i.tem, di.A. J-ORY F. SOAFT- COURT RAPORTYNG, YNC. (305) 35A-4442 9 793 6 ,d 7 1- A 15 1.6 17 910 ?.I i 21 21 2-3 2A 2.5 You not state that? MR', jONFS7 That's rorret7t, MR. T)AWKTNS 7 Now we have two member-- of this commission Who untPd in thsm nPrrqtivP. nkay, MnW, what does that MR, jONFS: What does it do? MR, DNWKTNS; Yes, Becalise i.f yoll have three members who voted accordi ng to What you told kis and Yoll have two commissioners who voted and What you did not say then the first peopl.p that 4go to the -court i.,q the Ci.t-ly Co-mmi-ssi-on to find which three -- wbit-h of tis tip here is right And which one is, wrong. MR, JONFIS! rommi.s- . What wi- 1. 1. happen i.f yoi.1 hjFkVe one further vote to approve tbist ynFi need one more vista to approve thts, Tn the event that yoil. -- for whatever reason -- Ai--Anny-nvs= this itpyn, then the anal icant woi0d ),:�e entitler-I to CIO .. - - ..' 1. . . . -... . tent; - ... . .. .— —1. - - to 47oiirf* and get a writ of Tn andaiiiii- e7oTn n tj e .pe c-ompej)inry yo1j, the City Comm3ssion -- MR. DAWKTNS; Yoll diAn't say that, MR. LTONr%Lq*, to perform whit is an administaria) act. MR nAWKTNS: You rii.A not say that before the vote, yotl tc%-34 us the only and if 'Y'.m in error now somehr"iy correct the only vote i.t cr)iil. maks .nP . yoij tnI.d. this r-nMMi.ssi.nn that t was iry the positive to llph':Orl it. MR. JONES That 's -corre47t. MR, DAWKTNSz Now you're te))i-nell me TjORT R. SOBFTI C(ATRT RRPORTTNG, TNC. (305) 358-4442 96- 793 t'-) MR,, JONFG; Th? f'i.f•y -- no, that's not what T am II t?1 ling yott , T' m telling vnlv that the City Code reqtll reR that this r7nme before ynii. for Approval., Tt' fii,mpI.y an a(9.mi,ni.gteri,a,1, aot for whi rh vmi haves no di. crratinn, Tt' c hs?en naccp by the Plat and $treat committee which, i,c empowered with the -- the atithori ty to tact -- MR, PAWKYNS ; T (7a)1 to rerongi der ind when yott rPnonsi.rlar, T'm going to vote nothing, T'm 'JninLr to a1?8tain, Tf you're going to do this -- MR , 7ClTJFC ; voti ran' t abet: i n , MR; DA,WKTNC; Yntt jtict told me, six --- MR. , JONRS ; Ynti ran' t 'Ibst ai n , MR., PAWKTN,S; Yoll told me that T r4)111,An't vote no, MR, JnNFG ; T' m telling you that the aot before volt i c merely an admi_ni_Cteri,al_ a.('t That yolt have no (ii,Crreti,nn to Ai cannrnval that's what T' m telling yotl , MR, C'T,ARK; A1.1_ ri.yht , Let's move forward. MR, PT.TiMMFR; Mr, Mayor, if T mtsy, MR, CLAR.K : A.I.I. ri.,gh t . T,e t Is move f ryrt?aT d , MR, Pj.UMMFR ; Mr, City .Attorney and Mr. C? ty Manager, MR. r_.T,ARK ; ,7P1„c , MR , PT.TIMMFR ; T think that i n the ftittlre the (statement that was dust made by the City Attorney shoail_d be to every homeowner, T' Tn Sure that all of these neon a -- T know most of them by first name -- r'ame clown here with a thought that K E they c C) 1., 1. ci rn;.=# y b P make? a '7 ha nfj e ;kl.l. right, And here we Are saying that 'we rmnnni- lincler anyri rcumstances vote for that 'change whether we want to or not T wolijrl, h..n. n1.p. i .n the? h.it-tire -- MR, GTBF%ST T Warned My 17) J,-ntS of that Don't worry, MR, PTITIMMF.R-, T am -,ayi.nm i n the hit-m-i- T thi.nk i t- s.bo"Id be known to the nPnnism, this it- gy) administeri'll art, The Commis i,nn I n has no ChOi.rP hilt totoVO f-P f 17ra v , Maybe they won' t W-IF-5te the J r t i me l7o.mj net down here i f they di An t feel they ­13.11A make a 47hange. T hope i.n the flit-i;rp on il.l, nl.;;t,.q i.t- wniil4i h,- so inc.jirated to the pijb3ir, it's strict)y Idm.inisteria! The Commi.--si.on has no MR. PAWKTNS', Tt's not. You had two peopie vote the way they Say yogi rani Voi-P, WhAf'q the need of piltti.n.g i.t i.n. wri t-i ng? MR., PT.I.TMMRR. - The way T read that, Mr. Vire MF!yor, it'S a unanimous vote, The penpll.o who untpai no are non -vote, MR , CT -ARK: Mr, Gort , MR. GORT The ctiyryrecti.on. T thi.nk we shotiI.A 4-hqneje the r.nAp. T b; .jte to have anything in front of me which T cannot vote OTI Wokil.d. lAke see i.f that ran be 'chanced i.n the fl).til.rp, MR. Cl-ARK: Good idea, T!et'-- Move forward. Number ;,6, MR, Pj-VMMF.R . 25j. 2.6, 2.7 are R3.1 the same tjr_)ps_-_ yoIl want to hear them agai.n. MR. jONFS: 26, 27 virl-lially Yc',II've alrecidy heard fj()Rl F. 45013FTs COURT RFPQRTTNq, TNC. (305) 158-4449, 96- 79'3 q. 12 14 15 1 A 17 214 P1.1blAc MIR (71-ARK-, SaTqe Vote, (7,o ahe;Ad, Lpt j,? to Ttem Nilmher (Thp, proceer .Iinng wprfm rnnrliltied I t approximkt el y 11 10 SOPF1. COURT Rr%PORTTNI7., YNCI. 96- 793 L -j I-) 44 - A 7 1.n 1.1. 12. 1.3 1 A 1. 17 18 19 20 911 91 2 23 7 A .2 5 STATF OF FY-ORTDA 1 COUNTY OF nAT)R T; PFRF`ITF HODGRS c (7.01irt Rpnnrt-pr. rin hprphv rpri-i f y that the foregoing heari.nq was taken before me at the time and. nl.A.rp therein designated; that my shorthand notes were thprenT. t pr tranSCri.hpri. i.n.tn thi.q tranS(7-ri.ni- il.n.fi.pr my .511pprVic4inn- nnrl that the foregoing pm-PF, numbered from 1 throiinh 27- rnnq.ti.i-iii-e a tri.p- rp4-n-rri th,-ronf, T PITRTRRR rRRTTRY that T Fm not of rnilngpl ; T am not related to nor eppl.nvpd by anv attorney to this cause; and T am not finnnriAlIv int-4--rpc%t-prl in the niIt(7omoF% thereof, nA.T7,T) at Mi.;.;.Tn.i., T.);.;.r3.r- rnil.nty, Fl.nri,rl.a., t-h.i.q, 1 Rt-h ,Till v DEBBIE HODGE MY C()MMISSION I CC EXPIRES: MY 25, 1590 Rpnnrtpr ided Pn NOWY PvuDk T)F-BFkTF HOPGFlr CotiTy Sworn to and subscrihpd, before me this 18th day of ,Tiilv_, 1.144A, by Debbi.,q Hodges, who i.q personally known to me, /7 Ci ci ry 1, t 1. PL IA NJ pri.nted N .met�zr,)-e I— �M�otary -uhlie- - �-<t"ltp of F)orida my colquOss3on N(YrAW PUT= STATE or. noviDA MY CC-%54T"S!0*,I"7,v.crr 2p lgg_; WNDHDr&l7Zuc=-.'E:L!,j" *' [INS. UND. LORT F. SOBFJ- COURT RAPORTTNG, TNC, (105) 359-4447 r 96- 79'3 5/13/943 --, RESOLUTION NO. 9 4— 453 j A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED OAK SHADOW, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the City Department of Public Works recommends the acceptance of the plat; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The plat entitled Oak Shadow is a resubdivision of Lot 23, Block C, Biscayne Park Terrace, Plat Book 2, Page 36, lying in Section 15, Township 54 South, Range 41 East, City of Miami, Dade County, Florida, which plat by reference is made a part hereof :a as if fully incorporated herein, and, subject to all of the conditions required by the Plat and Street Committee as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, is hereby accepted. The dedications shown on the plat together with the dedications to the perpetual use of the public of all existing and future planting, trees and shrubbery on said property, are also hereby accepted and 'd confirmed by the City of Miami, Florida. ATTkCHMEi"cT 6 ' E h A G CM COIUSSION MEMIG OF JU N 3 n 'e94 As�oiubi7a Na `,4— 4 ;3 96— 793 M WALDEMAR E. LEE Dnlc10, March 17, 1994 Mr. & Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla 2811 Emathla Street Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kuryl a: 8 OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISION - TENTATIVE PLAT N1456 V The City of Miami Plat and Street Committee, at its meeting of March 10, 1994, approved the above tentative plat subject to the following revisions being made to the tentative plat, additional information being provided and/or variances being granted. Please be advised that the processing of your tentative plat cannot proceed until these• conditions have been satisfied. Obtain status availability of water and sewer main capable of providing domestic service from Miami -Dade Water & Sewer Authority. Delete reference to proposed pedestrian easement on plat and in note No. 7. Provide for parking on proposed lot No. 1. Show asphalt area and accessory structure on lot 2 as deleted. Indicate height and spread of trees shown on tentative plat. In addition to the above requirements, you should be aware of the following: 1. State and local laws require the installation of various physical improvements in the public rights -of -way when property is platted. These subdivision improvements include paving, drainage, landscaping, sidewalks, etc. In some cases this could represent a substantial investment on your part. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS/275 N.W. 2nd Street/Miam,. Florida 1)12BJ(30S( jM6056 M A- 453 96- 793 Mr. 3 Mrs. Michael Kuryla Oak Shadow Subdivision March 17, 1994 2. The alteration, relocation or installation of utilities such as storm and sanitary sewers, electric, telephone, water, etc., caused by this pl at wi 11 be at the property owner's expense. Also, utility easements may be required on the property being platted. 3. A building permit will not be issued on the property being platted until the final plat is recorded. Also, the Certificate of Occupancy for any building construction will be issued only after all the required subdivision improvements have been completed. 4. Approval for fire flow requirements must be obtained from the Fire, Rescue and Inspection Services Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Additional items must be provided to the City of Miami Department of Public Works before the final plat is submitted to the City Commission for approval. You will be notified in writing as to what these items are after the amount of the bond has been determined for the necessary subdivision improvements. 6. Tentative plat approval is only valid for one (1) year from the date of the Plat and Street Committee Meeting at which time it was approved. If you have any questions concerning these requirements, please refer to the attached sheet for.the appropriate person to contact. Sincerely, James . Ka , P.E. Chairman, Plat 6 Street Committee JJK:mw Enclosure: Contact Sheet cc: Biscayne Engineering Company Plat and Street Committee Members File bc: Civil Eng. Surveys j Central f 4- 453 �-y 96- 793 l , i i THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS April 25, 1994 REPORT OF PROPOSED RECORD PLAT OF OAK SHADOW LOCATED AT EMATHLA STREET AND SECOFFEE STREET A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA The accompanying Plat entitled OAK SHADOW was prepared by Biscayne Engineering Company, Inc. It is in correct form for submission to the City Commission and is forwarded with a recommendation that it be approved. PERTINENT INFORMATION REGARDING THE PLAT: 1. The property platted is a resubdivision of Lot 23, Block C, Biscayne Park Terrace, Plat Book 2, Page 36, lying in Section 15, Township 54 South, Range 41 East, City of Miami, Dade County, Florida. The area platted consists of two (2) lots containing 0.46+ of an acre. It is zoned R-1; SD-18. 2. The location of the streets and the widths conform with the standards of the Department of Public Works of the City of Miami, Florida. 3. As certified to by Marc L. Gaiqui, Registered Land Surveyor, this Plat complies with the plat filing Laws of the State of Florida. i 4. The Certificate of Title Examination dated March 23, 1994, signed by Richard M. Zelman, Attorney, indicates that the fee simple title to the property platted is correctly vested in Michael Kuryla and Happy Kuryla; his wife, and the Plat has been correctly executed. The area platted is not encumbered by mortgages. Michael Kuryla and Happy Kuryla, owners, were granted a waiver of right-of-way dedication in connection with the tentative plat of Oak Shadow under Section 54.5-12(F) of the City of Miami Code, 7. As a result of a field investigation by this Department, it has been determined that no improvements shall be required at this time. Therefore, this Plat is forwarded to the City Commission of Miami, Florida, without the usual formality of a Contract and Bond being provided. 8. The attached Resolution has been prepared for the acceptance of the Plat by the City Commission of Miami, Florida. �i I � I 1%4 4 V= U OPINION OF TITLE To: CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation With the understanding that this Opinion of Title is furnished to the CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, in compliance with Section 54.5-8 of the Miami City Code and as an inducement for acceptance of a proposed final subdivision plat covering the real property hereinafter described, it is hereby certified that we have examined the complete Abstract of Title completely covering the period from the beginning to August 10, 1993 at 5:00 p.m., inclusive, and certified computer search updates from said date to March 23, 1994 at 11:00 p.m., inclusive, of the following described real property: Lot 23, Block "C", of BISCAYNE PARR TERRACE, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, at Page 36, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Basing our opinion on said complete abstract and updates covering said period we are of the opinion that on the last mentioned date the fee dimple title to the above described real property was vested in: Michael Kuryls and Happy Kuryla, his wife Subject to the following encumbrances, liens, and other exceptions: GENERAL EXCEPTIONS: 1. All taxes for the year in which this opinion is rendered and subsequent years. 2. Rights of parties in possession other than the above owner. 3. Facts that would be disclosed by an accurate survey. 4. Any unrecorded labor, mechanics or materialmen's liens. 5. Zoning and other restrictions imposed by governmental authority. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 1. All matters shown on the Plat of BISCAYNE PARR TERRACE, recorded in Plat Book 2, at Page 36, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. 1 94- 453 Q" 96- 7903 �i i AL.YRLI( ' L. CORP FAX 3e5-858-9577 PAGE 02 . _ _ - 06�11/90 - - - _ man' aT� 2d0� - - - - -H S Z .� _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ®002~ This ]Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (th® "De©1aration" ) snide thin y of fie, 1994, by Michael A. lvxyla wid nappy suryla, his wife (jointly the " er"), the fee side oemers of the subject property, is in favor of the City of Kiw4l Florida, a municipality of the State of Florida (the City"). WS S, the Owner holde$ fee -sill® ti.tlO to cs ?property in the City, located at 2801 mmathia Street, Miami: Florida 33133, and leVally daccrlbod as &at 33, Block o, FLAT or BISCME MMDXVXGIOV,o amording to tho, Plat t7hezoofe Sao` xecordod ist plea Back 2 ® Pogo No An tho Public Records of Dade Cduaty, Vlarida (the "property°') 9 and MOREM, thm Chmarr is presently an applicaLnt bef®re th® City e COMLOGLOU raqueating the acceptance by re®olut.ion of an approved. replat of the property pursnant to tentative plat Igo. 14561 Which plat rhall be called Qalt Shadow (the "plat*)g and WUPJM,, the der seeks to provide assurances to. the City that, when, the Plat of the Property is accepted, the Fraparty will be developed in such ma=er that no more than tr4o (3) *Lngle family residences will be built an the property; one on each lot of the Plata and MMRIASP the Omer is desirous of ffi&Mzg a binding co=nitment to assure that the property ®hail be developed in accordance with the provisions of this Declaration. 9 Q— 453 NOW, THERNPORN, the Owner voluntarily covenants aad agrees that the Property shall be subject to the following restrictions 96- 7J3 ,.:y) Extended 11rir OA/1`/S4 — 16.19 _ IM303 374 29AS _ _ _ _ _ g 3 z & 8 0003 that area intended and mlWl be deemed to be covenants running with the lewd binding upon the Owner of the Property and its successors and assigns as follows# lr jUaCg&gX&tjM gj ilea ta1s. The recitdas and findings sect forth in the preamble of this Declaration are bmreby adopted by reference thereto and Incorporatod herein an if fully met forth in this section. a. yel nt of Prcn rtv. der agrees that if and when the Plat of the Property is approvad by the Oity CominaLonj the Property chill be devealopod at a dancity no highog thorn t€m (a) viaagle family ly goolde ncoo to ba located @no (1) an ouch lot of the replatted proportya 3. X?. rho City 001mirJoicM app-"Q0 the Plat and aftor the Plat of flak @hodaw bw boon duly m, oosded in the e Public Records ®f Daft County, thin inatrawnt €shall conutitute a awvanant r=ning with the titla to the Property and be binding upon the Owner# its muccassors md assigns. These reotrictiona shall be for the benefit of and limitation upon all present and future owners of the Property and for the public welfare. 4. This Declaration may be modified, a nded or released as to any portion of the Property by a written inetrumut executed by the then owner of the3 too -simple titlo to the land to be affel;acted by gush modification, amendment or release providiug that same has been approved by the City Comatasion, at a public hearing which public hearing aba►ll be applied for and at the expenses of they Own0z- should this to ,4- 453 - 96- '7�3 FJM j " 1= ME 71M E M E hxt&nded PaWe - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00/14/04 10:20 12308 374 2400 B S z 6 S - jubtrumut be so modif Led r amended or released# the Director of the Publics Works Dejp&rtmzt of the City or bin successorr, shall execute a written instrument in recordable form effectuating &Ad acknovlodging ouch modificatim, MO-ndmoUt or rcica0c- S. o This voluntary ccman=t cm tho part Of the owftax- ohn,11 vomin in full :ZoK@o and offoot and ohall bind the Omer @� tho VroUorty, its Onaco-GOWMI a,,ftd auOU100 9OF Ian WtW period of thirty (30) ycr-iva, :9rTia tba data thin LRotMv-,=,t. is recorded in tho publio racorda and ahall b3 autam- tically excLanded for mucc000Lve poriodo of twn (10) years thazon-9tor unless =dlfied, amended or released prior to tho axpiratim tharsaf. 6. tin and MMMO. it LB urAarstoad and agreed that any official inspector of the City of Ujaa may ha" the right any time during no=zl working houra of entering and invunigating the use of the Property to determine whether the condition® of this Doclaration and the reqairmarate of the City's ceding and soning regulations am being complied with. An saftweement action nay be brought by the City by action in lax or in equiiy agaLnot any party or person violating or attempting to violate any covenant of thin Declaration or Ipmovioicas of the building and coning requiatims, either to restrain violatioas or to recover damages. The prevailing party in the action or suit shall be entitled to reeover costa and reasonable attorneyso fees. This enforcement provision shall be in addition to any other rezndies available under the law. 7. SyrarabilLty. Invalidation of any one of these covenants Ii Extended Page by order or judo of the Coux•t Shall not af' t any of the other 3 - aiIiAioi ie:lo �ooe 9'4 !®O a s Z A s coca I:'1 provisions of this declaration wUch ehAll r0saia in full force and r effect. ®. rdjaia. This Declaration shall be filed of -record among the Public Racords of Dade County# Florida at the expense of the Owner. ZR HI SS MOREOP, the underaiqnsd have net their hand® &rA seals can, the day, month and year first above -written. Pr t sA Pr t 0amo., amene z r, 4 g s .� i"ri.S�t 19=0 �. Pr nt name: iC ) �a COUM OP D=) The foregoing inotrazent vas acknowledged before as this U day of June # 1994, by Michael A. Kuryla rand Rappy Kuryla, his a�i o r ". O are personally known to me or G who have produced as identification. WITY385 my hnd and official e 12. A