HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-94-0711J-94-633(a)
9/22/94
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM AND
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD
PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED,
THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, (THE "ZONING ORDINANCE") ARTICLE 18,
SECTION 1800, WHICH AFFIRMED THE ISSUANCE OF
CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
NO. 94-2623, WITH CONDITIONS (THE "PERMIT"),
BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING, BUILDING AND
ZONING DEPARTMENT, FOR THE EXTERIOR
CONFIGURATION OF A COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL
ESTABLISHMENT, PURSUANT TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 13 AND ARTICLE 15, FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2898 MCFARLANE ROAD,
MIAMI FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN) (THE "PREMISES"); ZONED SD-2 COCONUT
GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO
THE RECORDATION OF A COVENANT, PROVIDING THAT
THERE SHALL BE A UNIFORMED SECURITY GUARD
EMPLOYED AT THE PREMISES FROM 8 P.M. UNTIL
CLOSING AND THE PREMISES SHALL CLOSE NO LATER
THAN MIDNIGHT ON WEEKDAYS AND 2 A.M. ON
WEEKENDS AND ON THE EVE OF HOLIDAYS.
WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of July 18,
1994, Item No. 10, adopted Resolution No. ZB 74-94 by a nine to
zero (9-0) vote, denying the appeal whioh was duly before said
Board; and
WHEREAS, C000nut Grove residents have filed an appeal of the
Zoning Board's decision; and
CITY COMUSSION ,
MEETING OF
SEP 2 2 1994
Reowution No.
WHEREAS, the City Commission, after careful consideration of
this matter, finds that the Director of the Department of
Planning, Building and Zoning correctly issued Class II Special
Permit Application No. 94-2523 and therefore deems it advisable
and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of
Miami and its inhabitants to deny the herein appeal from the
Planning Director's decision and to affirm the decision of the
Zoning Board;
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. The Zoning Board's decision to deny the
appeal, pursuant to Ordinance No. 11000, as amended,• the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida (the "Zoning Ordinance"),
Article 18, Section 1800, of the issuance of Class II Special
Permit No. 94-2523, with conditions (the "Permit"), by the
Director of the Planning, Building and Zoning Department, for the
exterior configuration of a commercial recreational
establishment, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 13 and
Article 15, for the property located at 2895 McFarlane Road,
Miami, Florida, legally described as Lot No. 2, CHARLES JOHN
PEACOCK SUBDIVISION, as recorded in Plat Book 6 at Page 32 of the
Public Records of Dade County, Florida (the "Premises"); zoned
SD-2 Coconut Grove Central Commercial District, is hereby
94- 711
-2-
affirmed and the appeal is hereby denied, subjeot to the
recordation of a oovenant, providing that there shall be a
uniformed seourity guard employed at the Premises from 8 P.M.
until olosing and the Premises shall olose no later than midnight
on weekdays and 2 A.M. on weekends and on the eve of holidays.
Seotion 3. This Resolution shall beoome effeotive
immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of September , 1994.
1?rtp
A, • "tee
ATTE STE HEN P. CLARK, MAYOR
MAT Y HIRAI
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
G. MIRIAM MAER
CHIEF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
Mj( W L641
CITY AT
GMM/ms/
/M4511
94- 711
-3-
-l��1i-11-1d�4 10:45 --iJM NlJHULa & H55U,. 1J
FOX, INCORPORATED
dba LUIGI'S P'IZZARIA
2006 Brookwood Medical Center Drive,
Birmingham, Alabama 95209
205-877-2667
March 15, 1994
ABC Properties
c/o Richard DuBose
Dear Richard,
1d'G1c'obb�'db P. L14
Suite 210
As per our recent telephone conversation, I would just like to drop a note to you
concerning the positive response that Luigi's Pizzaria has had since the opening of the
Q-ZAR facility in Wildwood Center. Luigi's had a record month of gross sales since
its opening. Obviously this was not totally as a result of the Q-ZAR, but secondary to
some tracking techniques that we are doing with our present marketing, there is a
significant amount of Q-ZAR patrons coming to my restaurant. I have also gone one
step fWr, thsr, to see how surrounding businesses are doing at other Q-ZAR
corporations, and similar effects have been experienced I feel that Q-ZAR will
continue to be a positive factor in the Wildwood Center, and T truly believe that it
would be a positive factor in the entertainment and food area of the new Brook
Highland Plaza Center.
Sincerely,
--red A CVA�- b,
Ted R Cox, M.D.
TRC:cnp
Submitted into the public
record in co nec ,"- n wfih
item PZ
):fatly 11irai
City Clerk
94- '710
94-..'711
TOTAL P.04
AJG--11-1334 10:44 rRD:11 NIICH7�-3 � a»0c. T> 180125e5206 0.02
Baskin RObbills" `.
6,RM { jv". r _- 'FrancIbised Store..,... , .... 271 laksk a f 4i0q, ft 203
pfx; btnnt,SY w tia"M SirnQ i dl0A9Jf1C 9S2e1Q
6J9►194
To: OvMfs aqd Managars odQ-M
X waufd Blot W c-vCU my $in=* app Vc.Wio" for your pre VM at valdgw 5boxing caatcr.
Sinoc your arras-W rq saki bm sipqvcSccW duc to the significant u=casc in U9ft catW by ym
atom. i wish you Ikk and coiWmd success in dk fntm and I hope you Will as hahrU to call a+ my
Miss "if yna WW good a tcuazof rccOT"Wndau0n,
siact�t9
Susan & Rasp Mver
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item Z,7 + on �3 .c: 2
Matty Hirai
City Clerk
Ice Cream • Yegart • CustOM Desserts 9 4 — 710
AS Is
94— 711
RJO-11-1334 10:45 FROM NICHOt-S & g35JC. TO 19012566206 P.03
Alabmw N'u''�,�trlll,MI Pmd' i& taa,
�.J &NsC.
Gcnaral Nutae = C T*T
273 L*%bm ft&%V
Viite 0 205
h]irnftlham, Al35209
To: gZAR ow=5 and "089mcM.
] aat �vritting � opm�dir>u�RY� Since yeatr arrh�h tEte amanat of trai!'ic has itcr�xadcOranastkaily.
'y'his hftx of busies has cattsod mY sahcs tHargirts to k twpket duc to ft iraPOWYAMM of thew
b*W3, My hLqaw appon to'bo isn MiAg scow that yam are bm, For that i arora you axy thaak$-
Sil a y,
1't►sv►ht �k'k
Submitted, into the Public
record in connection with
item -7t 8 on.�.'=� r9 -
battyixai
City Clerk
94- 710
94- 711
ZONING FACT SHEET Pz
LOCATION/LEGAL 2895 McFarlane Road
Lot 2, CHARLES JOHN PEACOCK (6.32) PRDC.
APPLICANT/OWNER T.S.T. Florida Partners Stephen J. Helfman, Appellant
405 Park Avenue, N.E. #902 W. Tucker Gibbs, Appellant
New York, N.Y. 10022
212-874-6400
ZONING SO-2 Coconut Grove Central Commercial District.
REQUEST Appeal of the Class II Special Permit Application No. 94-2523 approved with
conditions by the Planning, Building and Zoning Director on June 9, 1994 for the
exterior configuration of a recreational establishment, per Article 18, Section 1800
of Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
PLANNING, BLDG & ZONING Denial of appeal; upholding of Class II Permit
PUBLIC WORKS No comments.
PLAT AND STREET N/A.
DADE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
ENFORCEMENT HISTORY, IF ANY C.E.B. Case No: N/A Last Hearing Date: N/A Found: N/A
Violation(s) Cited: NIA
Ticketing Action: N/A
Affidavit of Non -Compliance issued on: N/A Daily Fine: $0.00 Lien Recorded On: N/A
Total Fines To Date: NIA
CEB Action: N/A
HISTORY
ANALYSIS On June 9, 1994, the Director of the Planning, Building and Zoning issued Class II #94-2523 for
exterior modifications to a proposed recreation center. The decision to grant the permit was
based on findings that the proposed work was consistent with all applicable criteria as set
forth in Section 1305 and Section 602 of Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Miami.
ZONING BOARD
APPELLANT
CITY COMMISSION
APPLICATION NUMBER
Denied the appeal and upheld the Class II Special Permit subject to a covenant
with conditions. (Res. No. 74-94)
Stephen J. Helfman and W. Tucker Gibbs, Appellant s
94- 295
Page 1 July 18, 1994 9 4- 711
5T. x e a tt
•t wf ; St W � I• r y.{rslal Ir t y �� " }� t tt � r t
.o
I�r�•{ 1lIIM S• 17 U it
• IN w • . lij �a t a la 1 Sa t
IItI.tslVY�.s^'i !� i. to n t # �•
�f r :
• .. ,- �'(FAR
t) 1. S 2 1 W r N tR tr ri ��� rri'� , s +.�. ..nw• �� �� �� s
1 �' a t . s ♦oc Z � 'tia�2�IL �# , 'I ( Q 1 is M I e,./�
to to saI• t st E it s, 10 49,
"R• ��' r � 71 't 1 . I ` S, y; L� Ct7 (�f'/'T'�
r« w rt u 1.LIME CT.� V ' t /'
A
a 2 ♦ • • to :, • i • r VILLAGE a t 3• + J
is '.t.#weC c �. :o
u� ° s ... �.�..�.....�....� cs n = !r1
a �.?I t 'I atOuw #st/i R • • • a r a �` � � 1
n r M
Sir♦ Q !
II • r .... 0 A K ' GROVE c
- � „" MCk1HTAIN x
+ ` ~ M TRACT'A' +T.
' • • • ar � • n r • • f • e ....
at+at'tat
p_ K C tr s• r w u to Wac
, ,• —t
a INS
a • t t � FL V tt„ ••• ♦ tin
rK.4�+
UVi8t01Y PLAZA z i2 w a• *A
� t4tr1i2R
w tl le o ° • r ,t • • :o a • � iF Z I � f �,
N A A 3 i• a[ 11 a• +1Nrr 4 t
• a. �t�7�'_LR
iA11MORL f
2Y• t • • a a t r , t ♦ b R' i,� $ 7R A [ LU�,O ' 'Pi4 O
w .
• AVE19
a }.� a' '%� ♦ ; L Fti
.AYtR
a t• to 4 .p "\' +.' .�`� t /
SANK • `
f G
o� if
ar °
• * CAMP ttirlt
✓�t '� " BISCAYNE to 13 q4 � Q�
1�`! aasue.
S�G� 4
r an
23
• ° >: 10 /
o to ICJ Al .i L.
it
lQQ,
« f
711
1 (9/�/P,0( opt
W. TUCKER GIBBS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
GRAND BAY PLAZA
SUITE 603
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
COCONUT GROVE, F LoRTDA 33133
TELEPHONE (305) 856.2711
FACSIMILE (305) 864.6093
August 2, 1994
Teresita Fernandez
Hearing Boards Office
City of Miami Planning,
Building and Zoning
Department
275 NW Second Street
Miami, FL 33128
RE: City Commission Appeal of Class II Permit for 2895
McFarlane Road
Dear Ms. Fernandez:
The Coconut Grove Civic Club has authorized me to appeal to
the City Commission on its behalf the above -referenced grant
of a Class II permit.
The Civic Club contends that the issuance of this Class II
Permit violates the provision of the Zoning Ordinance
relating to standards for the issuance of Class II Permits.
We requested in our appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
determination to permit this use in the SD-2 District a stay
of all proceedings pursuant to Section 1803 of the City of
Miami Zoning Ordinance.
The Class II permit that we are appealing was issued on June
9, 1994, after the appeal of the decision of the Zoning
Administrator was filed. This grant of a Class II permit
during the pendency of the appeal on the determination of
the Zoning Administrator was in violation of Section 1803 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
We also contend that the Class II permit was issued
improperly since the issuance of the Class II did not
conform to the standards set forth in Article 13 of the
Zoning Ordinance. In particular, the Planning Department had
the obligation to look at how this use affects neighboring
property. It failed to consider adding on the permit 5
remedial measures, such as conditions, controlling the hours
94- 711
Ms. Teresita F zandez
August 2, 1994
Page 2
of operation, requiring buffering or requiring such other
measures to assure the elimination of potential adverse
effects, per Section 1305.8.
This permit should never have been issued, and the City
Commission should rescind its approval. The applicant should
reapply only after the decision of the Zoning Administrator
has been decided by the City Commission and only after the
Planning Department has made a thorough analysis of
applicable remedial measures as set forth in Section 1305.8
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Enclosed please find a check for $400 for this appeal. If
you have any questions regarding this item, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
W. Tucker Gibbs
Cc: Joyce Nelson, President, Coconut Grove Civic Club
Christina Abrams, Coconut Grove NET Administrator
Lourdes Slazyk, Planner, City of Miami
Stephen J. Helfman, Esq.
s
94- 711
W. TUCKER GIBBS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
GRAND BAY PLAZA
SUITE 603
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
COCONUT GROVE, FLoRiDA 33133
TELEPHONE (305) 856.2711
FACSIMILE (305) 854.6093
August 2, 1994
Teresita Fernandez
Hearing Boards Office
City of Miami Planning,
Building and Zoning
Department
275 NW Second Street
Miami, FL 33128
RE: City Commission Appeal of Class II Permi,t,. for 2895
McFarlane Road
Dear Ms. Fernandez:
The Coconut Grove Civic Club has authorized me to appeal to
the City Commission on its behalf the above -referenced grant
of a Class II permit.
The Civic Club contends that the issuance of this Class II
Permit violates the provision of the Zoning Ordinance
relating to standards for the issuance of Class II Permits.
We requested in our appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
determination to permit this use in the SD-2 District a stay
of all proceedings pursuant to Section 1803 of the City of
Miami Zoning Ordinance.
The Class II permit that we are appealing was issued on June
9, 1994, after the appeal of the decision of the Zoning
Administrator was filed. This grant of a Class II permit
during the pendency of the appeal on the determination of
the Zoning Administrator was in violation of Section 1803 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
We also contend that the Class II permit was issued
improperly since the issuance of the Class II did not
conform to the standards set forth in Article 13 of the
Zoning Ordinance. In particular, the Planning Department had
the obligation to look at how this use affects neighboring
property. It failed to consider adding on the permit
remedial measures, such as conditions, controlling the hours
94- 711
Ms. Teresita F `iandez
August 2, 1994
s
Page 2
of operation, requiring buffering or requiring such other
measures to assure the elimination of potential adverse
effects, per Section 1305.8.
This permit should never have been issued, and the City
Commission should rescind its approval. The applicant should
reapply only after the decision of the Zoning Administrator
has been decided by the City Commission and only after the
Planning Department has made a thorough analysis of
applicable remedial measures as set forth in Section 1305.8
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Enclosed please find a check for $400 for this appeal. If
you have any questions regarding this item, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
41
W. Tucker Gibbs
.Cc: Joyce Nelson, President, Coconut Grove Civic Club
Christina Abrams, Coconut Grove NET Administrator
Lourdes Slazyk, Planner, City of Miami
Stephen J. Helfman, Esq.
94- 711
WL_SS SEROTA & HELFMA-., P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
SUITE 204
LILLIAN ARANGO DE LA HOZ
EDWARD G. GUEDES
STEPHEN J HELFMAN
GILBERTO PASTORIZA
BARBARA J. RIESBERG
ELLEN NOLEN SAUL
GAIL D. SEROTA
JOSEPH H. SEROTA
RICHARD JAY WEISS
VIA HAND DELIVERY
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133
TELEPHONE (305) 854-0800
TELECOPIER (305) 854-2323
July 29, 1994
Ms.Teresita Fernandez
City of Miami Planning
Building and Zoning Department
Zoning Hearing Section
275 N.W. Second Street
Miami, Florida 33128
Re: Appeal of Resolution No. ZB-74-94
Dear Ms. Fernandez:
BROWARD OFFICE
888 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD
SUITE 710
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33301
TELEPHONE (305) 763-1189
Our firm represents American Equities Site Developer's, Inc.,
the owner of the property located at 2977 McFarland Road, Miami,
Florida.
On July 18, 1994, the City c,' Miami Zoning Board passed and
adopted ResolutioT B-74-94 (th[- "Resolution"), see attached
Exhibit "A". The R -,;elution affirmed the June 9, 1994'decision of
the Planning, Building and Zoning Director to issue a Class II
Special Permit No. 94-2523 for the exterior configuration of the
property located at 2895 McFarlane Road, Miami, Florida (the
"Permit Property").
The purpose of this letter is to appeal the Resolution.
The Zoning Board in approving the Resolution and the issuance
of the Class II Special Permit acted in an arbitrary and capricious
manner without any substantial competent evidence to support their
decision and in contravention of the guidelines set forth in the
City's Code, in that
1. The description of the use as a Recreational Establish-
ment is wrong. This facility as advertised will be used as an
Amusement Center, which is not a permitted use within the SD-2
Zoning District.
94- 711
Ms. Teresita Fernandez
July 29, 1994
Page 2
2. The Class II Permit did not include the required
f submittal for the exterior design of the building. The exterior of
1 the building located on the Permit Property has been substantially
i modified to incorporate what appears to be a handicapped ramp
facility which was not submitted for approval under the Class II
Application. The Permit Property owner's failure to submit
drawings for that improvement and the City's failure to insist upon
the submittal is a basis alone for the reversal of the approval of
the Class II Permit.
3. The color and the material submitted for the building and
signage is inappropriate and inconsistent with the aesthetic
quality of design which the Planning, Building & Zoning Department
and the members of the public expect and deserve within the Coconut
Grove area.
4. The proposed Amusement Center as it is designed and
approved pursuant to the Class II Permit will have material adverse
impact on the surrounding property, in particular the properties
i adjacent to the facility.
Enclosed is the $400 appeal fee. Please advise when this
hearing is scheduled for hearing before the City Commission.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Please call me
if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Stephen J. Helfman
SJH\cf
217:001
Enclosure
�c
1
94- 7=
* WF.T.qC gFR(1TA Rc HF.T.TrMAN. P.A.
14 r,i lJ fJ 1 1 c y 1
ZB 07/21/94
Mr. Lorenzo Luaces offered the following Resolution
and moved its adoption.
RESOLUTION ZB 74-94
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE JUNE 9,
1994 DECISION OF THE PLANNING, BUILDING AND ZONING
DIRECTOR PERTAINING TO THE CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT NO.
94-2523 FOR THE EXTERIOR CONFIGURATION OF A RECREATIONAL
ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED AT 2895 MCFARLANE ROAD MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, CHARLES JOHN PEACOCK
SUBDIVISION (6-32) PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY; ZONED
SD-2 COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, DENIAL
OF THE APPEAL WAS BASED ON THE CLASS II PERMIT"
APPLICATION AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED'AT THE ZONING BOARD
HEARING. CONDITIONS WERE IMPOSED ON THE CLASS 11 SPECIAL
PERMIT AS FOLLOWS: A COVENANT IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE BY THE
CITY ATTORNEY WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THIS DECISION
INCLUDING SECURITY PROCEDURES AND ESTABLISHING HOURS OF
OPERATION.
Upon being seconded by Mr. Gary M. Carman
the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mses. Basila and Morales. Messers.
Barket, Carman, Crespo, Luaces, Milian,
Moran-Ribeaux and Sands.
NAYES: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Hernandez.
Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 9-0.
July 18, 1994
Zoning Board
Item# 10
�7
94- 711
ZB 07/21/94
Mr. Lorenzo Luaces offered the following Resolution
and moved its adoption.
RESOLUTION ZB 74-94
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE JUNE 9,
1994 DECISION OF THE PLANNING, BUILDING AND ZONING
DIRECTOR PERTAINING TO THE CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT NO.
94-2523 FOR THE EXTERIOR CONFIGURATION OF A RECREATIONAL
ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED AT 2895 MCFARLANE ROAD MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, CHARLES JOHN PEACOCK
SUBDIVISION (6-32) PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY; ZONED
SD-2 COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. DENIAL
OF THE APPEAL WAS BASED ON THE CLASS II PERMIT
APPLICATION AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE ZONING BOARD
HEARING. CONDITIONS WERE IMPOSED ON THE CLASS II SPECIAL
PERMIT AS FOLLOWS: A COVENANT IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE BY THE
CITY ATTORNEY WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THIS DECISION
INCLUDING SECURITY PROCEDURES AND ESTABLISHING HOURS OF
OPERATION.
1lpon being seconded by Mr. Gary M. Carman
the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mses. Basila and Morales. Messers.
Barket, Carman, Crespo, Luaces, Milian,
Moran-Ribeaux and Sands.
NAYES: None.
ABSENT: Ms. Hernandez.
Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 9-0.
July 18, 1994 Item# 10 1
Zoning Board
94- 711
M
ZONING BOARD ACTION ON APPEALS T7 7ZE DIRECTOR OF
THE PLANNING, ?UILDING AND ZCIQING
I move that the request on agenda itemy i be (denied))
(granted) in that the requirements oL Section 1305 (were) (were
not) satisfied by relevant evidence in the record of the public
• hearing.
(a) s stated in the City's findings of fact, or
"b) as demonstrated by the petitioner, or
c) on the basis of the following:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Zoning Board, in its decision to (grant) (deny) the appeal,
shall make written findings that the applicable requirements of
this Zoning Ordinance, Section 1305, (have) (have not) been met.
Circle avorovriate conditions:
1305.1 Ingress and Egress. -
Due consideration shall be given to adequacy of ingress and
egress to the property and structure and uses thereon, with
particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and
convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire
and emergency.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1305.2 Offstreet Parking and Loading
Due consideration shall be given to offstreet parking and loading
facilities as related to adjacent streets, with particular
reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
internal traffic flow and control, arrangement in relation to
access in case of fire or other emergency, and screening and
landscaping.
- 1305.3 Refuse andservice areas
Due consideration shall be given to the location, scale, design,
and screening of refuse and service areas to the manner in which
refuse is to be stored; and to the manner and timing of refuse
collection and deliveries; shipments, or other service
activities, as such matters relate to the location and nature of
uses on adjoining properties and to the location and character of
adjoining public ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------
1305.4 Signs and lighting.
Due consideration shall be given to the number, size, character,
location and orientation of proposed signs, and of proposed
lighting for signs and premises, with particular reference to
traffic safety, glare, and compatibility and harmony with
adjoining and nearby property and the character of the area.
13
94- 711
1305.5 Utilities.
Due consideration shall be given to utilities required, with
particular reference to availability and capacity of systems,
location of connections, and potentially adverse appearance or
other adverse effects on adjoining and nearby property and the
character of the area.
1303.6 Drainage
Due consideration shall be given for drainage, with particular
reference to effect on adjoining and nearby properties and on
general drainage systems in the area. Where major drainage
volumes appear likely and capacity of available systems is found
marginal or inadequate, consideration shall be given to
possibilities for recharge of groundwater supply on the property,
temporary retention with gradual discharge, or other remedial
measures.
----------------------------------------
1305.7 Preservation of natural features
Due consideration shall be given to provision for the
preservation of existing vegetation and geological features
whenever possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------
1305.8 Control of potentially adverse effects generally.
In addition to consideration of detailed elements indicated
above, as appropriate to the particular class or kind of special
permit and the circumstances of the particular case, due
consideration shall be given to potentially adverse effects
generally on adjoining and nearby properties, the area, the
neighborhood, or the City, of the use or occupancy as proposed,
or its location, construction, design, character, scale or manner
of operation. Where such potentially adverse effects are found,
consideration shall be given to special remedial measures
appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case,
including screening or buffering, landscaping, control of manner
or hours of operation, alteration of use of such space, or such
other measures as are required to assure that such potential
adverse effects will be eliminated or minimized to the maximum
extent reasonably feasible, and that the use of occupancy will be
compatible and harmonious with other development in the area to a
degree which will avoid substantial depreciation of t val a of
nearby property.
�gnat�re
Date
ro
Item
94-- 711
W. TUCKER GIBBS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
GRAND BAY PLAZA
SUITE 603
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133
TELEPHONE (305) 856.2711
FACSIMILE (306) 864.6093
Y
June 23, 1994
Teresita Fernandez
Hearing Boards Office
City of Miami Planning,
Building and Zoning
Department
275 NW Second Street
Miami, FL 33128
RE: Appeal of Class II Permit for 2895 McFarlane Road
Dear Ms. Fernandez:
The Coconut Grove Civic Club has authorized me to appeal the
above -referenced grant of a Class II permit on its behalf.
The Civic Club contends that the issuance of this Class II
Permit violates the provision of the Zoning Ordinance
relating to standards for the issuance of Class II Permits.
As was stated in our appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
determination that this use is permitted in the SD2
District, we request a stay of all proceedings pursuant to
sec 1803 of the City of Miami Zoning Code.
Enclosed please find a check for $400
you have -any questions regarding this
know.
Sincerely,
W. Tuck Gibbs
for this appeal. If
item, please let me
L
Cc: Joyce Nelson, President, Coconut Grove Civic Club
Christina Abrams, Coconut Grove NET Administrator
Lourdes Slazyk, planner, City of Miami
Stephen J. Helfman, Esq.
1
5
94- 711
W.L�s SEBOTA & HELFM.A..., P.A.
LILLIAN ARANGO DE LA HOZ
EDWARD G. GUEDES
STEPHEN J, HELFMAN
GILBERTO PASTORIZA
BARBARA J. RIESBERG
ELLEN NOLEN SAUL
GAIL M SCROTA
JOSEPH H. SCROTA
ROBERT TISCHENKEL
RICHARD JAY WEIRS
HAND DELIVERED
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2665 SOUTH SAYSHORE DRIVE
SUITE 204
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133
TELEPHONE (305) 854-0800
TELECOPIER (305) 854-2323
June 21, 1994
BROWARD OFFICE
868 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD
SUITE 710
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33301
TELEPHONE (305) 783-1189
Teresita Fernandez
City of Miami Planning
Building and Zoning Department
Zoning Hearing Section
275 N.W. Second Street
Miami, Florida 33128
RE: Appeal of Class II Permit for 2895 McFarlane _Road
Dear Mrs. Fernandez:
Our firm represents American Equities Site Developers. This
letter will serve as a Notice of Appeal of the June 9, 1994
approval of the Class II Permit for the above -referenced property.
Enclosed with this Notice of Appeal is a check in the amount of
$400 for the required filing fee.
There are numerous reasons for the appeal, including but not
limited to the following:
1. The applicant's description of the use as a Recreational
Establishment is wrong. This facility as advertised by the
applicant will be used as an Amusement Center, which is not a
permitted use within the SD-2 Zoning District.
2. The Class II Permit did not include the required
submittal for the exterior design of the building. In particular,
the applicant has substantially modified the exterior of the
building to incorporate what appears to be a handicapped ramp
facility which was not submitted for approval under the Class II
Application. The applicant's failure to submit drawings for that
improvement and the City's failure to insist upon the submittal is
a basis alone for the reversal of the approval of the Class II
Permit.
3. The color and the material submitted for the building and
signage is inappropriate and inconsistent with the aesthetic
94- 711 17
Mrs. Teresita Fernandez
June 21, 1994
Page 2
quality of design which the Planning, Building & Zoning Department
and the members of the public expect and deserve within the Coconut
Grove area.
4. The proposed Amusement Center as it is designed and
approved pursuant to the Class II Permit will have material adverse
impact on the surrounding property, in particular the properties
adjacent to the facility.
The issuance of the Class II Permit is improper and in
violation of the standards provided for in the City's regulations
and contrary to the interest of the affected property owners.
Furthermore, the applicant's activities in commencing exterior
modifications to the building prior to issuance of the Class II
Permit is a blatant disregard for the process and the rights of the
public. In light of this action, our client insists that the City
immediately stay the effectiveness of the Class II Permit and all
permits with respect to this site in accordance with Section 1803
of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Please advise me the date on which this matter will be heard
by the Zoning Board and kindly provide me with any departmental
recommendations in connection with the item. I'f you have any
questions or need further information regarding this appeal, please
do not hesitate to contact me immediately.
Very truly yours, r
Stephen11 J. Helfman
SJH/sk
cc: Ms. Lourdes Slazyk
Ms. C}tristina Abrams
Tucker Gibbs, Esq.
WEISS SEROTA 8c HELFMAN. P.A.
op
z
`J
r ,
94- 711
F,. L-1
u3.ulrN1 U7.31 791 3U1: FIRST GENL SERF 002
APPLICATION FOP CLASS it SPEMAL PEAXIT 12 originals) 94. 2521
READ ARTICLES 13 &" 15 OF EONIMO ORDINANCE 11000 NBC ATTACNE D DTAGRM
I, DR. iaARY MAi+DER , apply to tt,e d.i.rector at the
t•epart:nent >f planning, Building and Eouinq for approval of a Claso II
9,�-Lai Permit under the provisions of Article 13 and 15 o! ::A City of
Miami iuninq Urdinai-.cv.
Address of Property 2895 KCTARLANB RD
Nature of Pmposed Use RECREATION ESTABLISFIMSNT
zontn7 60-2 Atlas Sheet 46
Natural of AtPIAC4tion (Be specific)
ARTICLE 602.;
1 attich the following in support or explanation of this applications
Lr:4tlon Map, propgsty survey, tree survey and pianting plan
zcninq tact$, srchitect'c goal (u:,lesA owner a built)
Fully d1mo nstonal plane with rights of way
One se_ of plant shall Le Eu'DmItted in addition to the two required acts
for the building permit. This sot of plans will be in r.he Plarninq
blvfalcn Tile and @hall have no amendments on the print.
•�PFRNiT FS65 1�ta NGN-R6f'UNDASLt•�
Fee of $100.00
Signs, fencer, CU..up:vs, ;ai :1: sppvmenances, and ninor
xejairs to by reviewed av required by the Schedule of
District Requlationss............ .. ..................S50.00
CS, PR. R-1. R-2, R-3, R-4, 0, G/I, G-1, C-2, CSD, 1 per
¢ are foot of gross building araa, based upon the definit zii
o building (Section 2302)...................................... $0 015
Tiiniml:;.. ..... ... ... .............. 000 00
FUD: per oTaare foot of net lot area................... .SO.1S
h1nimum....................................... ......$750.00
Lvmolitiun..................................... ... ............$100.00
All other epplication8 as required by the text or the
Sihodule of District Re7ulations (Article 4;................... SIOD.00
Property Owner: APTMR LEEDS Ph One
AQent's Address# P.O. BOX 995 pA m BCm yL Phone: 407-671-OOLOV
C. State, Zi�, PAL.'1 BCN, FL
in case of an appeal, the owner kgreta to full disrl u of Ina ship.
Irw art J 1A Signature
r bt
Sa8 pas y Ov r
. eoe�w Z o tv Yv\.
.D s permit shall wxpi_e one year from the date of its approval.
Any project requiring a Class 1I 5pecla: Permit must filet be reviewed Oy
the Building and Zoninq Division (2nd Floor) to insure that each project
conforms to all toning reguirevents. Therefore, this form must be signed
by the Chief Zoning t:ispoctor before the project will be considered for
!Intl approval by the olrector of the Planning, Building and Zoning
Depattm&n ust be completed prior to granting of a permit.
This project r iswed by the Building and Zoning Division ar.d
Nis and to ba in co v th all Zoning requ om nt9."
..- Zoning Flar x 1T.@r0 at
19
Page 1 of 2
94-- 711
*FOR OFFICE USE ONLY•
Number 94-2523
it is intended that Class II Special Permits be required where specified
uses and/or occupancies involve substantial technical issues relating to
planning policy.
The Director of the Department of Planning, Building and Zoning shall be
solely responsible for consideration of applications for Class II Permits.
The Director shall make such referrals to other officers or departments as
are required by regulations to the particular special permit and may make
other referrals deemed necessary by him before arriving at his decision.
NOTICE: The final decision of the Director may be appealed to the Zoning
Board, by any aggrieved party, within fifteen (15) days of the date of
issuance by filing a written appeal and appropriate fee with the Hearing
Boards Division, Planning, Building and Zoning Department, 275 N.W. 2nd
Street, Miami, FL 33128 (Ordinance 11000s Article 18).
Referrals: Yes [XJ No [ ): LOURDES SLAZYK
CHRISTINA ABRAMS, NET
Conditions: Yes [X) No [ I
Conditions and/or Findings:
Approval per revised plans on file which modifies the original paint
and signage proposal of the facade to a more appropriate scheme for
this location within the SD-2 district; this approval is based on
findings that the proposed work is in conformance with the guides and
standards as listed in Articles 13 and 15, and Section 602 of Ordinance
11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Miami .-------------------
( 1 Approved
0 0driquez, Direct r
[X] Approved With Conditions Plann g, Building and Zoning Departmon+
( J Denied
ate
ti
W
,ANALYSIS OF CONSIDERATIONS GENERALLY;
STANDARDS; FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
FOR CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT NUMBER
94-2523
As appropriate to the nature of the special permit involved and the
particular circumstances of the case, the following considerations and
standards shall apply generally, in addition to any other standards and
requirements set forth concerning the class or kind of permit being
considered.
City agents, agencies, or boards charged with decisions concerning
special permits shall make, or cause to be made, written findings and
determinations concerning such of the following matters as are applicable in
the 'case, shall reflect such considerations and standards specifically in the
record, and shall be guided by such considerations and standards in their
decisions as to issuance of permits, with or without conditions and
safeguards, or denial of applications.
YES NO N/A
X. Ingress and egress.
Review for adequacy shall be given to ingress and
egress to the property and structure and uses
thereon, with particular reference to automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and
control, and access in case of fire or other
emergency.
Offstreet parking and loading.
Review for adequacy shall be given to offstreet
parking and loading facilities as related to
adjacent streets, with particular reference to
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
internal traffic flow and control, arrangement in
relation to access in case of fire or other
emergency, and screening and landscaping.
Refuse and service areas.
Review for adequacy shall be given to the location,
scale, design, and screening of refuse and service
areas; to the manner in which refuse is to be
stored; and to the manner and timing of refuse
collection and deliveries, shipments, or other
service activities, as such matters relate to the
location and nature of uses on adjoining properties
and to the location and character of adjoining
public ways.
94- 711 21
M
ANALYSIS OF CONSIDERATIONS GENERALLY;
STANDARDS; FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
FOR CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT NUMBER
94-2523
YES NO N/A
X
Signs and Lighting.
Review for adequacy shall be given to the number,
size, character, location, and orientation of
proposed signs, and of proposed lighting for signs
and premises, with particular reference to traffic
safety, glare, and compatibility and harmony with
adjoining and nearby property and the character of
the area.
i
f X
Utilities
(
Review for adequacy shall be given to utilities
`
required, "with particular reference to availability
and capacity of systems, location of connections,
and potentially adverse appearance or other adverse
effects on adjoining and nearby property and the
character of the area.
X
Drainage.
Review for adequacy shall be given to provision for
drainage, with particular reference to effect on
adjoining and nearby properties and on general
drainage systems in the area. Where major drainage
volumes appear likely and capacity of available
systems is found marginal or inadequate,
consideration shall be given to possibilities for
recharge of ground water supply on the property,
temporary retention with gradual discharge, or other
remedial measures.
X Preservation of natural features.
Review for appropriateness shall be given to
provision for the preservation of existing
vegetation and geological features whenever
possible.
.272
94- '711
1 -4 1
aw
YES NO N/A
X
ANALYSIS OF CONSIDERATIONS GENERALLY;
STANDARDS; FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
FOR CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT NUMBER
94-2523
Control of potentially adverse effects generally.
In addition to the review of detailed items
indicated above, as appropriate to the particular
class or kind of special permit and the
circumstances of the particular case, review for
appropriateness shall be given to potentially
adverse effects generally on adjoining and nearby
properties, the area, the neighborhood, or the city,
of the use or occupancy as proposed, or its
location, construction, design, character, scale or
manner of operation. Where such potentially adverse
effects are found, consideration shall be given to
special remedial measures appropriate in the
particular circumstances of the case, including
screening or buffering, landscaping, control of
manner or hours of operation, alteration of proposed
design or construction of buildings, relocation of
proposed open space or alteration of use of such
space, or such other measures as are required to
assure that such potential adverse effects will be
eliminated or minimized to the maximum extent
reasonably feasible, and that the use or occupancy
will be compatible and harmonious with other
development in the area to a degree which will avoid
substantial depreciation of the value of nearby
property.
23
r
94- 711
CITY OF MIAMI
NOTICE OF INTENDED DECISION
File # Class II-94-2523
Date: �Iulffr
To: (Name) DR. GARY MARDER
(Address) P.O. BOX 995 PALM BCH FL
PALM BCH, FL
From: (Name) Sergio Rodriguez, Director
Planning, Building and zoning Department
Please take notice that I have reached an intended decision on the
following matter:
Title: 2895 MCFARLANE RD
File M Class II-94-2523
My intended decision is:
Approval X Approval with Conditions Denial
Conditions and/or Findings:
Approval with the following conditions: 1) the submitted color sample
for the front facade is too dark and inapproprite for this structure at
this location within the SD-2 district; the submitted color sample
would be more appropriate as a highlight color with a more subdued
color, or white on the primary facade; a revised facade plan must be
submitted and approved prior to the issuance of this Class II Permit;
2) the proposed signage, depicted as a box sign, is also inappropriate
and should be replaced with individually mounted letters. All new
specifications and color samples must be submitted for review and
approval prior to issuance of final decision -----------------------
Within five (5) calendar days of receipt of this notification, the
applicant may request a conference between the applicant and/or the
applicant's agent and the Director of Planning, Building and Zoning and
such representatives of the referenced officers, agencies, or depart-
ments as the applicant desires for the purpose of presenting additional
facts, argument, information or data in support of the applicant's
position. The applicant's request should be made directly to the
Director of Planning, Building and Zon g in writing.
Signature
Dir r Planning, Building d oning
25
94- 711