Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-92-0062J-92-17 1/14/92 RESOLUTION NO. ! 2 A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS AS REQUIRED BY ZONING BOARD RESOLUTION ZB 11-91, ADOPTED FEBRUARY 11, 1991, WHICH GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR 191 OFF -SITE, OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES AND THE CONVERSION OF 33,132 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USE TO RESTAURANT USE; PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 17, ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOR THE COMPLETED COCOWALK PROJECT LOCATED AT 3015 GRAND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), DEVELOPED BY GRAND OAK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, WHICH PROJECT CONSISTS OF 61,637 SQUARE FEET (S.F.) OF RETAIL AREA; 43,132 S.F. OF RESTAURANT AREA AND 51,929 S.F. OF CINEMA AREA TOTALLING 156,698 S.F. OF FLOOR AREA (NOT INCLUDING SERVICE AND LOADING AREAS) AND SPECIFICALLY APPROVING 535 PARKING SPACES ON TWO BELOW -GRADE AND TWO ABOVE -GRADE LEVELS COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 230,000 S.F. OF GARAGE AREA; ESTABLISHING AN EXPIRATION DATE; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE DEVELOPER; PROVIDING THAT THE MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT SHALL BE BINDING ON THE APPLICANT AND SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST; PROVIDING FOR RELIANCE ON THE APPLICATION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Grand Oak Limited Partnership has filed a Major Use Special Permit application pursuant to Articles 4 and 17 of Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended; and ATTAMIj T 3 I Al T All CITY COM WSION MEETING OF JAN 23 1992 J 2 - 621 "soiurIN lte. WHEREAS, the final plans for the Cocowalk Project have been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is efficient, convenient and accessible; and WHEREAS, the Cocowalk Project requires the issuance of a Major Use Special Permit pursuant to Article 17 of Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, by Resolution ZB 11-91, adopted February 11, 1991, granted variances for 191 off-street off -site parking spaces and the conversion of 33,132 square feet of retail use to restaurant use and also required a major use special permit; and WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of December 4, 1991, Item No. 1, following an advertised public hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 63-91 by a vote of 9 to 0, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Major Use Special Permit for the Cocowalk Project; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, during a public hearing, has considered the Application for a Major Use Special Permit; and WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami to issue a Major Use Special Permit as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by referenoe thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this Section. -2- 92-- 62 x Section 2. A Major Use Special Permit, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof, is hereby approved with conditions pursuant to Article 17 of Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami Florida, as amended, for the C000walk Project (the "PROJECT") which has been developed by Grand Oak Limited Partnership at approximately 3015 Grand Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described as Tract A and Tract B less S. 10' of Tract B, COCONUT GROVE ARCADE (126-93) of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, which project consists of 61,637 square feet (s.f.) of retail area; 43,132 s.f. of restaurant area and 51,929 s.f. of cinema area totalling 156,698 s.f. of floor area (not including service and loading areas) and specifically approving 535 parking spaces on two below -grade and two above -grade levels comprising approximately 230,000 s.f. of garage area, and incorporating the grant of variance for 191 off-street, off -site parking spaces per Resolution ZB 11-91, adopted February 11, 1991. Section 3. The City Commission hereby makes these findings of fact, set forth below with respect to the subject PROJECT: a. The PROJECT is in conformity with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000, as amended. b. The PROJECT is in accord with the district zoning classification of Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended. e. Pursuant to Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the specific site plan aspects of the PROJECT, i.e., ingress and egress, off-street -3- 92- 62 parking and loading, refuse and servioe areas, signs and lighting, utilities, drainage, preservation of natural features and control of potentially adverse effects generally, have been considered and will be further considered administratively during the process of issuing a building permit and a certificate of occupancy. d. The PROJECT is expected to cost approximately $39 million, employ a full time equivalent of approximately 195 workers during construction, and to result in the creation of 633 permanent new jobs. Section 4. The City Commission further finds that: (1) the PROJECT will have a favorable impact on the economy of the City; (2) the PROJECT will effioiently use public transportation facilities; (3) the proposed parking for the PROJECT is efficient, convenient and accessible; (4) the PROJECT will favorably affect the need for people to find adequate day care services reasonably accessible to their places of employment; (S) the PROJECT will efficiently use necessary public facilities; (6) the PROJECT will not negatively impact the environment and natural resources of the City; (7) the PROJECT will not adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood; -4- .92-- 62 (8) the PROJECT will not adversely affect public safety; (9) the public welfare will be served by the PROJECT; and (10) any potentially adverse effects of the PROJECT arising from safety and security, fire protection and life safety, solid waste, trees, minority participation and employment, and minority contractor/suboontraotor participation will be mitigated through compliance with the conditions of this Major Use Special Permit. Section 8. The Major Use Special Permit, as approved herein shall be binding upon the Applicant/Permittee and any successors in interest. Section 6. The application for Major Use Special Permit which was submitted by the Applicant/Permittee on September 3, 1991, and which is on file with the Planning, Building and Zoning Department of the City of Miami, Florida, shall be relied upon for administrative interpretations and is made a part hereof by reference. Section 7. This Major Use Special Permit will expire two (2) years from its effective date. Section 8. The City Manager is directed to instruct the Planning Director to transmit a copy of this Resolution and attachment to the developers: Grand Oak Limited Partnership. Section 9. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. EM 92--- 62 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January 2, ATTES' MAT Y HIRAI City Clerk PREPAR D AND APPROVE D B 7c '�4 LINDA KELLY K A SON Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: LKK/M2701 XAVI,9R L . SUAREZ , MA);bR -s- 92-- 62 7 0 EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 91- COCOWALK MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT Let it be known that pursuant to Articles 4 and 17 of Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, the Commission of the City of Miami, Florida has considered in a public hearing, the issuance of a Major Use Special Permit to the Grand Oak Limited Partnership for the Cocwalk Project ("PROJECT"). The PROJECT will be located at approximately 3015 Grand Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described as Tract A and Tract B less s' 10 feet of Tract B COCONUT GROVE ARCADE, as recorded in Plat Book 123 Page 93 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. After due consideration of the recommendations of the Planning Advisory Board and after due consideration of the consistency of this proposed development with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, the Commission hereby takes the following actions: Approval of Application for a Major Use Special Permit subject to the fol lowing: SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SUBMITTED PLANS. FINDINGS OF FACT The PROJECT conforms to the requirements of the zoning district, as contained in Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended. The Zoning Board has granted a variance of Resolution ZB 11-91, February 11, 1991; No further zoning variances or special exceptions are -1- f 92~ 62 contemplated. The comprehensive plan future land use designation allows the proposed use. The PROJECT also contains suggestions received from the Miami Large Scale Development Committee Meeting on . The PROJECT will be constructed substantially in accordance with plans on file and prepared by D. I. Architecture INC., dated fpr bid November 29, 1988 with later as built revisions. The PROJECT, as defined above, meets the requirements for the designation and for the issuance of a Major Use Special Permit Development Order. CONDITIONS THE APPLICANT/PERMITTEE, ITS SUCCESSORS, AND/OR ASSIGNS, JOINTLY OR SEVERALLY, SHALL: 1. meet all requirements pursuant to all applicable building codes, land development regulations, ordinances and other laws; 2. provide a list of agencies from which approvals and/or permits must be obtained prior to initiation of development and the permit or approval required of each within six (6) month from the issuance of this Major Use Special Permit; 3. provide a letter from the Fire, Rescue and Inspection Services Department indicating APPLICANT/PERMITTEE'S coordination with members of the Fire Plan Review Section at the Fire Rescue and Inspection Services Department in the review of the scope of the PROJECT, owner responsibility, building development process and review procedures, as well as specific -2- 92-- 62 46 0 requirements for fire protection and life safety systems, exiting, vehicular access and water supply within six (6) months from the issuance of the Major Use Special Permit; 4. provide a letter of assurance from the Solid Waste Department within six (6) months from the issuance of the Major Use Special Permit; 5. plant and/or relocate all required trees at the APPLICANT expense and such trees shall be maintained alive and healthy for one year; 6. prepare a Minority Participation and Employment Plan which shall be submitted within ninety (90) days of the issuance of this Major Use Special Permit to the City's Director of Minority and Women Business Affairs for review and comments, it being understood that the City's Minority/Women Business Affairs and Procurement Ordinance 10538 is a guide that the APPLICANT must use its best efforts to follow; 7. prepare a Minority Contractor/Subcontractor Participation Plan within ninety (90) days of the issuance of this Major Use Special Permit to the City's Director of Minority and Women Business Affairs for review and comment, it being understood that the City's Minority/Women Business Affairs and Procurement Ordinance 10538 is a guide that the APPLICANT shall use its best efforts to follow. -3- 92 - 82 jv-� THE CITY SHALL: 1. Subject to payment of all applicable fees due, establish the effective date of this Major Use Special Permit as being the date of the City Commission approval, with said effective date constituting the commencement of the 30 day period to appeal from the provisions of this Permit. ACKNOWLEDGMENT All Conditions Accepted By Applicant By: President By: Secretary STATE OF FLORIDA) �S.S. County of Dade I hereby certify that on this day, before me, officers duly authorized in the county and state aforesaid, personally appeared and to me know to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and they acknowledged that they executed this document for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS MY HAND and official seal on this day of , 1991. Notary Public, State of Florida at Large My commission expires: -4- y2_ 62 .i APPLICATION COCOWALK . Certificate of Occupancy No. 31652 issued November 5, 1990 MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION Application required under Variance granted by the City of Miami Zoning Board Resolution ZB 11-91 Prepared by. Constructa Properties, Inc. Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, PA. D.I. Architecture, Inc. Sharpton, Brunson & Company, PA. David Plummer & Associates, Inc. Schwebke - Shiskin & Associates, Inc. August 1991 92- 69 I - 4 PROJECT INFORMATION Article I. Page A. Introduction ................................... 1 B. Application for a Major Use Special Permit ..... 2 C. Certified survey of property ....................... 4 D. Disclosure of Ownership ............................. 5 E. Ownership Affidavit and Owner's list ........... 6 F. Certified list of property owners within 375- foot radius ............................. 8 G. Directory of Project Principals ................. 9 H. Project Data Sheets ............................. 11 I. Gross Square Footage Sheet ....................... 14 J. F.A.R. Square Footage Sheet ....................... 14 K. City of Miami Zoning Atlas Map ................. 15 L. City of Miami Comprehensive Plan Designation Map ............................. 16 M. General location map ............................. 18 N. Exhibit A ......................................... 19 0. Exhibit B......................................... 20 P. Exhibit C......................................... 27 :32--• 62 August, 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT INFORMATION Page A. Introduction ................................... 1 B. Application for a Major Use Special Permit 2 C. Certified survey of property ....................... 4 D. Disclosure of Ownership ............................. 5 E. Ownership Affidavit and Owner's list ........... 6 F. Certified list of property owners within 375- foot radius ................................... 8 G. Directory of Project Principals ................. 9 H. Project Data Sheets ............................. 11 I. Gross Square Footage Sheet ....................... 14 J. F.A.R. Square Footage Sheet ................ I...... 14 K. City of Miami Zoning Atlas Map ................. 15 L. City of Miami Comprehensive Plan Designation Map ............................. 16 M. General location map ............................. 18 N. Exhibit A ......................................... 19 0. Exhibit B......................................... 20 P. Exhibit C......................................... 27 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Zoning Ordinance No. 11000 ....................... 1 1. Section 1304.2.1 Applications Forms; Supplementary Materials ....................... 1 2. Section 1702.2.1 General Report 7 3. Section 1702.2.2 Major Use Special Permit Concept Plan 8 4. Section 1702.2.3 6eivelopmental Impact Study ................. 8 III. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Minority Construction Employment Plan ........... Tab 1 Traffic Impact Analysis ....................... Tab 2 Site Utility Study ............................. Tab 3 Economic Impact Study ............................. Tab 4 Survey of Property Tab 5 Drawings Submitted Tab 6 9 62 INTRODUCTION Cocowalk is a mixed use retail development located in Coconut Grove, a zoning _Special District (SD-2) of the City of Miami, Florida. Construction of the project, which was permitted under Zoning Ordinance 9500, started in late 1988 and was completed in late 1990 with a Certificate of Occupancy issued on November 5, 1990. A variance for converting 33,132 square feet of retail to restaurant use in the project was applied for and granted in February of 1991. The conversion of use resulted in increased parking requirements for the project, from 497 to 688 parking spaces, under the zoning ordinance 11000 then in effect. The variance allows for offsite parking to be providedf for the excess spaces. A Major Use Special Permit (MUSP) was required to be applied for within six (6) months of issuance of the variance, which is the application being provided with this package. This application also includes re -striping of Cocowalk's existing parking garage to maximize its capacity by increasing it by 38 spaces, which will reduce the number of parking spaces to be provided off site. Even though Cocowalk is already built, this MUSP application has been prepared following the requirements of the Zoning ordinance 11000; however, actual data has been provided in most cases in lieu of the estimated impact of the development required by the ordinance. This package essentially consists of three Articles. Article I, Project Information, contains the application forms, detailed information of the ownership, and general information about the building and the project area. Article II, Project Description, provides detailed information about the project and its developmental impact on the project area; and Article III, Supporting Documents, contains the studies which support the developmental impact of the project. I C b"2 APPLICATION FOR A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT File Number MU - it is intended that major use special permits be required where specified uses and/or occupancies involve matters deemed to be of citywide or area -wide importance. The -City Commission shall be solely responsible for determinations on applications for major use special permits. (See Article 13 and 17, Zoning Ordinance 11000) The City Commission shall refer all applications for major use special permits to the Planning Advisory Board and to the Director of the Department of Planning, Building and Zoning for recommendations, and may make referrals to agencies, bodies, or officers, either through the Department of Planning, Building and Zoning or directly for review, analysis, and/or technical findings and determinations and reports thereon. (Section 1301.4 of Zoning Ordinance 11000) I, Lucia A. Dou hert hereby apply to the Director of Planning, Bui ding and Zoning o the City of Miami for approval of a Major Use Special Permit application under the provisions of Article 17 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 11000. Address of Property: 3015 Grand Avenue Miami, FL 33133 Nature of Proposed Use (Be specific): Cocowalk is a mixed use development comprised of three primary use groups: Parking, mercantile, and assembly. Preliminary Application I attached the following in support or explanation of the Preliminary 4pplicat icn.: 1. Two copies of a certified survey of the property no more than 1 year old prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land Surveyor. 2. Affidavit disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of interest form, '3. Certified list of owners of real estate within a 375-foot radius from the outside boundaries of property covered by this application, 4. Maps of: (a) existing zoning and (b) adopted comprehensive plan designations for the subject property and far areas around the property covered by this application. 5. General location map, showing reiation to the site or activity to major 'streets, schools, existing utilities, shopping areas, important physical features in and adjoining the project, and the like. 2 -- Page 1 of 2 92- 62 5. Concept Plan Narrative describing project, including: (a) Site plan and relevant information for Zoning evaluation. Zoning Ordinance 11000, Section 1304.2.1 (d through h). Site plan drawings (2 sets) are to be in sufficient detail so that plans examiners may evaluate the building mass with the zoning envelope in terms of FAR, setback, height, number of parking spaces etc. and indicating the existing natural or archeological features) by exact size, common and botanical name (if any) and location of all prposed landscaping improvements. Reouires sion-off from Public Works, Building and Code Enforcement Division. and Planning and Zoning Division. Certain Site plan drawings (ground level, first floor and tvpical elevation only) are to be reduced to 8!"xll". (b) Relationships to surrounding existing and proposed futures uses, and activities, systems and facilities (Section 1702.2.2a. Zoning Ordinance 11000) (c) How concept affects existing zoning and adopted comprehensive plan principles and designations; tabulation of any required variances, special permits, change of zoning or exemptions (Section 1702.2.2b Zoning Ordinance 11000) 7. Development Impact Study (an application for development approval for a Development of Regional Impact may substitute). (section 1702.2.3, Zoning Ordinance 11000). B. Other (Be specific) See Table of Contents 9. Fee of , based on Ordinance 10396. Additional fees for any required special permits, changes of zoning, or variances shall be in accord with zoning fees as listed in Section 62-61 of the City Code and Ordinance 10396. Total: Final Application I attach the following additional information in support or explanation of the final application: See Table of Contents See Attached Conies Name: City, State, Zip: Signature Owner or Authorized Agent Address: Phone: This application is [ ] approved [ ] denied in accord with City Commission Resolution Number: Other: Sergio Rodriguez, Director Planning, Building and Zoning Department Date: '92--- 69 3 Page 2 of 2 0 CERTIFIED SURVEY OF PROPERTY Copies of a certified survey of the property dated July 11, 1991 are attached to the full size drawings accompanying this application. Reduced size copies of the survey are enclosed in Tab 5 of this binder. 92-- 62 M DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property: See attached Exhibit "A" 2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership. Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question #2 requires disclosure of all shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. See attached Exhibit "B" 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question #2, and (b) located within 375 feet of the subject real property. No STATE OF FLORIDA) SS: COUNTY OF DADE ) OWNER OR ATTORNEY FOR OWNER Lucia A. Doughegty , being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the (Owner) (Attorney for Owner) of the real property described in answer to question #1, above; that he has read the foregoing answers and that the same are true and complete; and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to execute this Disclosure of Ownership form on behalf of the owner. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this day of , 1991 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: (SEAL) (Name) Notary Public, State of Florida at Large 92�_ 62 5 U AFFIDAVIT STATE OF FLORIDA) 5SS COUNTY OF DADE ) Bgfore me, the oath undersigned authority, this day personally appeared Lucia A. Dougherty , who being by me first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says: 1. That he is the owner, or the legal representative of the owner, submitting the accompanying application for a public hearing as required by Ordinance 11000 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, effecting the real property located in the City of Miami, as described and listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and made a part thereof. (See attached Owner's List) 2. That all owners which he represents, if any, have given their full and complete permission for him to a4:t Jan their behalf for the change or modification of a classification or regulation of zoning as set out in the accompanying petition. 3. That the pages attached hereto and made a part of this affidavit contain the current names, mailing addresses, phone numbers and legal descriptions for the real property which he is the owner or legal representative. (See attached Owner's List) 4. The facts as represented in the application and documents submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are true and correct. Further Affiant sayeth not. Sworn to and Subscribed before me this day 1991 Notary Public, State of Florida at Large My Commission Expires: (SEAL) (Name) 6 9 2 --- 62 OWNER'S LIST Owner's Name Grand Oak Limited Partnership Mailing Address 2665 South Bayshore Drive suite 200, Miami, FL 33133 Telephone Number (305) 858-7749 Legal Description: See Exhibit "A" Owner's Name Mailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: Owner's Name -- Mailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 375' of the subject site listed as follows: -4 Street Address Legal DescriR-tion i NO Street Address Legal Description Street Address Legal Description :�2-- 62 7 CERTIFIED LIST OF OWNERS WITHIN 375-FOOT 'RADIUS See Exhibit C 92- 62 1 0 0 DIRECTORY OF PROJECT PRINCIPALS Owner: Grand Oak Limited Partnership 2665 South Bayshore Drive Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33133 Telephone: (305) 858-7749 Fax: (305) 859-7579 Mr. Yaromir Steiner Developer: Constructa U.S./Constructa Properties 2665 South Bayshore Drive Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33133 Telephone: (305) 858-7749 Fax: (305) 859-7579 Mr. Yaromir Steiner Architect: D.I. Architecture, Inc. 20 South Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Telephone: (301) 962-0505 Fax: (301) 783-0816 Mr. John Larsen Landscape Architect: Roy Ashley & Associates, Inc. 1212 Fowler Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30318 Telephone: (404) 874-7546 Fax: (404) 872-0332 Mr. Roy Ashley Structural Engineer: Bliss & Nyitray, Inc. 51 S.W. LeJeune Road Miami, Florida 33134-1749 Telephone: (305) 442-7086 Fax: (305) 442-7092 Mr. Barton Wallis Mechanical/Electrical /Plumbing/Engineer: American Professional Engineers and Consultants, Inc. 214 High Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Telephone: (501) 663-4040 Fax: (501) 663-1112 Mr. William Prior 92- 62 V] DIRECTORY OF PROJECT PRINCIPALS Owner: Grand Oak Limited Partnership 2665 South Bayshore Drive Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33133 Telephone: (305) 858-7749 Fax: (305) 859-7579 Mr. Yaromir Steiner Developer: Constructa U.S./Constructa Properties 2665 South Bayshore Drive Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33133 Telephone: (305) 858-7749 Fax: (305) 859-7579 Mr. Yaromir Steiner Architect: D.I. Architecture, Inc. 20 South Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Telephone: (301) 962-0505 Fax: (301) 783-0816 Mr. John Larsen Landscape Architect: Roy Ashley & Associates, Inc. 1212 Fowler Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30318 Telephone: (404) 874-7546 Fax: (404) 872-0332 Mr. Roy Ashley Structural Engineer: Bliss & Nyitray, Inc. 51 S.W. LeJeune Road Miami, Florida 33134-1749 Telephone: (305) 442-7086 Fax: (305) 442-7092 Mr. Barton Wallis Mechanical/Electrical /Plumbing/Engineer: American Professional Engineers and Consultants, Inc. 214 High Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Telephone: (501) 663-4040 Fax: (501) 663-1112 Mr.. William Prior 92- 62 9 "R4 Civil Engineer: Schwebke-Shiskin & Associates, Inc 3240 Corporate Way Miramar, Florida 33025 Telephone: (305) 652-7010 Fax: (305) 652-8284 Mr. Ken Groce Lighting Consultant: Theo Kondos Associates, Inc. 13 West 36th Street New York, New York 10018 Telephone: (212) 736-5510 Fax: (212) 594-6332 Mr. Theo Kondos Traffic: David Plummer & Associates, Inc. 4225 Salzedo Street Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Telephone: (305) 444-2116 Fax: (305) 444.4986 Mr. David Plummer Economist: Sharpton, Brunson, & Company, P.A. One Southeast third Avenue Suite 2100 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-1574 Fax: (305) 372-8161 Mr. Daryl Sharpton Legal: Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen, & Quentel, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 579-0603 Fax: (305) 579-0717 Ms. Lucia Dougherty, Esq. General Contractor: Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. 15271 N.W. 60th Avenue Miami Lakes, Florida 33014 Telephone: (305) 556-0430 Fax: (305) 557-8609 Mr. Sven Nylen y2r- 62 10 ADDRESS: LEGAL: ZONING CLASS: SITE AREA: Net: Less Setbacks Gross: With Setbacks F.A.R.: PROJECT DATA 3015 Grand Avenue, Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 See legal description on exhibit "A" Special Public Interest - 2 (SPI-2), New SD-2 2.2 Acres Net 95,247 SF Net 116,400 SF Floor Area Ratio Bonuses 1. Pedestrian Open Spaces: .015 F.A.R. increase for each 1% open space provided over required open space area of 33,756 SF (.34 maximuzn increase). 2. Enclosed Parking For each 10% of required parking provided with automobiles screened from view, F.A.R. can be increased .015%. .15 increase in F.A.R. Basic .86 Enclosed Parking Bonus .15 Pedestrian Open Spaces .34 TOTAL F.A.R. 1.35 From Section 2011.1 of the Miami Zoning Ordinance (Non Residential). F.A.R. 1.35 (Rounded up to 1.39 F.A.R.) corresponds to L.U.I. Rating of 68. HEIGHT: 50' - 0" Maximum K PERMITTED PROVIDED BUILDING 157,140 SF 156,698 SF AREA: (116,400 X 1.35) OPEN SPACE: 74,496 SF 74,793 SF (116,400 X .64) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: (As Submitted for Building Permit Under Ordinance 9500) Retail Parking: 1 Space per 500 SF 94,769 SF / 500 — 190 Spaces Restaurant/Nightclub Parking: 1 Space per 100 SF 10,000 SF / 100 — 100 Spaces Total Parking Provided Retail/Restaurant: 290 Spaces Cinema Parking: Site Area — 116,400 SF G.B.A. — 156,208 SF F.A.R. (Utilized) - 1.346 F.A.R. 1.21 Corresponds to L.U.I. Sector 6* F.A.R. 1.72 Corresponds to L.U.I. Sector 7* Therefore F.A.R. 1.34 Interpolates to L.U.I. Sector 6.25 L.U.I. Sector 6 Requires 1 Space per 9 Fixed Seats.** L.U.I. Sector 7 Requires 1 Space per 10 Fixed Seats.** Therefore L.U.I. Sector 6.25 Interpolates to 1 Parking Space per 9.25 Fixed Seats. 1900 F.S./9.25 — 206 Spaces Total Required Parking: 496 Spaces Total Parking Provided: 497 Spaces * From Table 3 Standard Ratios by Land Use Intensity Sectors (Non -Residential) of the Schedule of District Regulations, Miami, Florida. ** From Minimum Offstreet Parking Requirements for Theaters of the Schedule of District Regulations, Miami, Florida. HANDICAPPED: PARKING: 2% of total Parking 497 x .02 — 10 Spaces BICYCLE PARKING: 10 Bicycle Spaces Provided 92-n 62 12 IL LOADING BERTHS: SET BACKS: 3 12' X 35' 2 122' X 55' 5 Total Berths Front (South) 5' - 0" Side (East) 0' - 0" Rear (North) 0' - 0" Side (West) 5' - 0" 13 4 92 - 62 G.B.A./F.A.R. SQUARE FOOTAGES LEVEE. D PARKING 0 SF LEVEL C PARKING 0 SF STREET LEVEL 53,276 SF SECOND LEVEL 40,106 SF 'A' LEVEL 2,391 SF THIRD LEVEL 49,932 SF MEZZANINE LEVEL 10,993 SF TOTAL ZONING G.B.A. 156,698 SF NOTE: Gross Building Area indicated, excludes parking, service, and loading areas. F.A.R. ALLOTTED: 116,400 X 1.35 j 14 157,140 SF 92- 62 �N f tt fn in -9n r!!=¢9Yf jrlia_ — ' f .�.a .w Inf1Y.+W; i k. .1. ' �-;;•, �.. r'�¢i •1x t �1a �` y � I' f •'1. �•' •�:ix�, i I���:jzl t�t�e--Sh�+) z, ei. us.;�i ' �. 1 1 ... d I min i � _• ;t' S �r:t., t�t� .i(_ � �t J {�,� 'av', ty ��Or� � �� ' •n ••'1 ',�, I � xl 1-:.:1 f� .'.y�, •t ! 0. �,'. �I . tQ,t� � V r' '! a .' - ` r: n. ta�g� I'� q��?�y i �1��G-�;� `�fiAt� \/'7?4JRJi� •�`'r�(� V t�pt r- ��t t •"' `,.� �! 1c -f f �: �.;�.' k-..ty sf. ,r�}t}el.:x!.. ;} �x}y ,, .�� ♦• QpC?i��/ .�*%. >n. zi::f. p•�•.. "i. 7d� }t4.ai :4r ' • .+1+' • i r �.'.. ' ws'�.. �S'T'�o' r�L!::• • •'xl�� `.�•' }•� r .x .Y ; "y lid% ' �� .# Fr f `•• •a•.♦C (f• 91tY99 '11} �{ •+ ��y�}rt-, .� • •• M♦1 r_ s urir�=It t11�. �I.S z•r rz rt t�. ; _ .- _ ~---i 'Y.F�. • x 'J •i=r.tilx�x'_ 'r'z:ti�'St�=Sx :�;� :s� -,fir :�: �.- r �, �Ji +V ♦Q1*' �,r'4 rIl a r :fir z.• :_ ��yy/;•: ri t'-� �� # t 6+ P•Ilk •,*+ `r� — ! i =: iiYr '. ' {'r �,�, � •. •.ram , yf• Jtia,r'r t41r e � .�t�a jar r'r�p _" �y :._ ''`�•y� (l",.•,!• \� r.r rx3;�•3 •'� r xl'; Si.`txlx , l 11�- ;L •, r R -+--,j o'1 �� •, ``�frF r �� •r :ttCt rt3 r xi'�z:alz�;�olatir - _� �I It• P � �Q'f � �jr •3: I• jr r� tiS}Str 1 •I:x�x�l'xi 1' '��'` u ! i- ..-�-2� f �ti .V' \ i �1\.•��� r, r r t rl: j:tt .'al. ,; va• "-L� :�« _ _t. • Y x r ,t." ly.}' 'mil.-Z �I .t� �..t3y.`',`v'`�".r�.lt j •� v .ke , � * ,i..: - '.: � ry. y• x . rt. ear 'rirl. �-�. �1-(H.;--1 F-`•`•.'-R �..1 3 ` r .oral t ts.Y,. �- f°x _ - - .-.' _ •-...�d F; � rtf 4 of jSll"� r• k It �`I iu f. •iJ l,v _ - - •.t • t-'� J• `r '"+�- �_•�� ;• A�ys '� '= i t' u 1^f V vl ���� k • his j. ; —{�' •��:.t"�'�1 %-!wW'- -« .-" - r �•r'f ,t ',.1 iv. k�Ht'ti k!Y�Y�R{ • •ts ew rirr♦ ''�•}i CFI v ° ! � _�� i "t' �_ a � '�• __.1' 7 di tJ !' '1rY..••.tw.w � •�.' I � •(�i 7�� J .1:3'. l=S�� :�-:f•�•"'i '^', a' �/ ,Y .��1-•� •.'-c " '� r •, r ' r�•- : \'J 1- iit4 �.f. 1('I� .. t'i ''if'!n� a �% �b :� T•��r, f1vrIlt��Rr 1 j ', �' I - �•• f i�r. 4_���jt - �� __i}���' ? •• '�d� � +� ' dtiirtiS !'1�:3I { - � i--y S� �L.-�.l-�-�; - FF-- �� i - � : _ ���k- • -,� f� - •f - tf�.Si t7n99} fAY" � n•f llf�f•r••t+YYJ•91 .42 ... 62 CITY OF MIAMI ZONING ATLAS MAP itAj 1 �; ', f �..' 1•i �� � � � w a Y FF V � IMF =I% aetstvv� low= h FUTURE -LAND USE MAC' (LEGEND) CONSERVATION RECREATION RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY Q DUPLEX MULTI -FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI -FAMILY HIGH DENSITY MAJOR PUBLIC FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES 17 FFI COMMERCIAL Q RESTRICTED GENERAL CBD INDUSTRIAL MASS TRANSIT STATION 92--- 62 9 GENERAL LOCATION MAP DULY 19, 1991 ORDER No. 163388 y' fi Vp M.4 T/[ 0.4 STREE'T r0 OZ� _ oAli: ; vIROIAII o STRecFT R/CE ST M.4RY STREET LOCATION MAP 92- SCALE: I "r 300 SCHWEBKE - SHISKIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. LAND GUNNERS ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS UND SURVEYORS 3240 CORPORATE WAY - MIRAMAR, FL. 33025 J EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tract A together with tract B; less the south 10.00 feet of said tract B, "Coconut Grove Arcade," according to the plat thereof as recorded in plat book 126 at page 93 of the public records of Dade County, Florida lying and being in section 21, township 54 south, range 41 east City of Miami,Florida. 92- b2 19 ,,i EXHIBIT B DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP Owner: _ Grand Oak Limited Partnership, a Florida Limited Partnership Partners: Partnership Partner -Ty-p—e Interest Virginia General 4.091% See Exhibit B-1 Management Partner _ Corporation Banque Worms, SA. Limited 66.114% See Exhibit B-2 Partner Cegep, Inc. Limited 19.864% See Exhibit B-3 Partner Franko Fla Limited 3.264% See Exhibit B-4 Corp. Partner Individual Limited 6.667% See Exhibit B-S Investor Partner l 20 92- 62 1 EXHIBIT B-1 Virginia Management Corporatio Address: 2665 South Bayshore Drive Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Officers: Patrice Borghetti Eric Stampfli Yaromir Steiner Patricia Curry Directors: Patrice Borghetti Eric Stampfli Jean -Jacques de Flers Philippe Dujardin Marc Pietri Shareholders: 50% Banque Worms (See Exhibit B-2) 20% Terraces Investment, Inc. Address: 300 Avenue du Prado 13008 Marseille, France Officers: Marc Pietri Jacques Mourri Directors: Jacques Mourri Christian Nicolau Shareholders: 51% Marc Pietri 49% Jacques Mourri 20% Cegep, Inc. (See Exhibit B-3) 10% KFB Conseil S.A. Address: 17, rue Caumartin Paris, France 75009 Officers: Philippe Dujardin Jean-Claude Empereur Gerard de Buyer Directors: Philippe Dujardin Jean-Claude Empereur Gerard de Buyer Ali Abdallah Al Khalif Al Sabah Shareholders: 100% Kuwaiti French Bank (See Exhibit B-4) 21 92-.- b2 e EXHIBIT B-2 Banque Worms S.A. Address: 1, Place de Degres 92059 Paris la Defense Officers: Jean Michel Bloch-Laine Marc Vuillermet Patrice Borghetti Christian Haas Francois de la Baume Loic de Rodellec Directors: Norbert Rampolla Didier Pfeiffer Desire Vincensini Jean -Michel Bernard Alain Busnel Regine Laurenzi Gerard Pelisson Didier Renaudin Francois Blanchard Philippe Dhamelincourt Patrick Harrel-Courtes Thierry Pillet-Will Marc Tessier Michel Berthezane Jeano-Michel Bloch-Laine Michel Bon Jean-Marie Canac Bertraud de Mazieres Jean Peyrelevade Shareholders: 100% Societe Centrale Union des Assurances de Paris Address: 9 place Vendome Paris, France Officers: Jean Peyrelevade Didier Pfeiffer Roland Lejart Jacques -Henri Gougerheim Jean-Louis Meunier Pierre Laversaune Jean-Pierre Ruault Directors: Jean Peyrelevade Andre Blanc Noil Chamboduc de St Pulgent Jean -Jacques Delort Michel Ferrant Jacques Franquet Nadine Garcia Francois Jourdan-Gassin Denis Kessler Jacques Lallement Pierre Le Clerc Shareholders: 100% Republic of France Francois Mitterand, President 9 2 -- 22 62 C) EXHIBIT B-3 Ceeeo. Inc. Address: 2, Civic Plaza Drive Carson, California 90745 Officers: Jean -Jacques de Flers Muriel Denis Directors: Dominque Chatillon Alain Garnier Shareholders: 86.04% Compagnie La Henin Address: 21, nue de la Ville 1'Eveque, Paris Officers: Bernard Egloff Alain Garnier Gerard Mestrallet Eric Dufoix Claude Gaillard Directors: Bernard Egloff Maurice Gontier Michel Gallot Jacques Vincent Michel Eaurand Jack Frances Patrick Ponsolle Dominque Chatillon Joseph -Camille Genton Gerard Worms Didier Pfeiffer Shareholders: Major Owners: Publicly owned at the Paris Stock Exchange 44.07% Compagnie de Suez Address: 25 Blvd Pietri Paris, France Officers: Gerard Worms Patrick Ponsolle Directors: Gerard Worms Antoine Jeancourt Jaques Vincent Jean-Louis Beffa Jacques Bourdin Viscount Etienne Darginon 9 2-- 62 i 23 j Exhibit 3 Cont'd ' Directors: Carlo de Benedetti (Cont'd) Pierre Delage Phillipe Malet Jerome Monrod Patrick Ricard Bernard Tricot Shareholders: Publicly owned at Paris Stock Exchange Major Owners: 6.40% Societe Centrale Union des Assurances de Paris, (See Exhibit B-2) No other known shareholder for over 5% 4.51% Republic of France No other known shareholders over 3% 13.96% La Henin Nord Address: 58, Boulevard du Regent Brussels, Belgium Officer: Jean -Jacques de Flers Directors: Jean -Jacques de Flers Dominque Chatillon Maurice Gontier Shareholders: 94.903% Compagnie La Henin. (See this exhibit) 5.007% Jean -Jacques de Flers Address: 20, Rue Spontini Paris, France r,\ EXHIBIT B-4 anko Fla Corporat Address: 17, rue Caumartin Paris, France Officers: Philippe Dujardin Gerard de Buyer Directors: Gerard de Buyer Philippe Dujardin Shareholders: 100% Kuwaiti French Bank Address: 17, rue Caumartin Paris, France Officers: Philippe Dujardin Gerard de Buyer Directors: Philippe Dujardin Gerard de Buyer Jean-Claude Empereur Ali Abdallah Al Khalif Al Sabah Shareholders: 50% Republic of France 50% Emirate of Koweit 9~ 25 EXHIBIT B-5 Ali Abdallah Al Khalif Al Sabah Address; 17 Rue Caumartin Paris, France y2-' 62 26 L, ek EXHIBIT C Certified -list -of Owners within 375-foot radius The attached ownership list, certified by Update Consultants, Inc. is a complete representation of the real estate properties and property owners within 375 feet from the outside boundaries of the property for which this application is filed. g2-- 62 27 -a a PROJECT DESCRIPTION Article II. Description Page A. Zoning Ordinance No. 11000 1. Section 1304.2.1 Application forms; supplementary materials .,....... 1 2. Section 1702.2.1 General Report ....................... 7 3. Section 1702.2.2 Major Use Special Permit ConceptPlan ....................... 8 4. Section 1702.2.3 Developmental Impact Study ........... 8 9 2 -- 62 A. Zoning Ordinance No. 11000 1. Section 1304.2.1 Application forms; supplementary materials (a) Statements of ownership and control of the proposed development or activity. The Disclosure of Ownership and Ownership Affidavit are provided in Article I.D and I.E. (b) Statement describing in detail the character and intended use of the development or activity. Cocowalk is a mixed use retail development located at 3015 Grand Avenue in Coconut Grove, a Special Interest Zoning District of Miami, Florida. The project is comprised of three primary use groups: parking, mercantile, and assembly. The site is located at the northwest corner of Grand Avenue and Virginia Street with a net area of 2.2 acres. The West and North property lines are bounded by private properties. The predominant pedestrian access occurs from Grand Avenue with secondary pedestrian access as well as vehicular and service access along Virginia Street. The parking structure is composed of two levels below grade. The plan roughly extends to the property line on all sides; two levels above grade confined by the property line on north, east and west sides and mercantile/assembly buildings on the south side. Auto access occurs at street level along Virginia Street. There are 497 parking spaces in an area of approximately 230,000 square feet. The mercantile/assembly structure consists of three components (north, west, and east), three levels above grade, overlooking an open plaza and interconnected by open protected covered pedestrian walkways (open exit corridors). The north component contains two levels of retail shops with an eight plex cinema on the third level. The east component is three levels of retail and restaurant tenants while the west is two levels of retail/restaurants with a night club/disco on the third and mezzanine levels. A two story mercantile structure, the central plaza building, occupies an area on the south side of the site within the plaza and is also interconnected to the other mercantile components via a pedestrian walkway (open exit corridor) at level two. The gross building area is approximately 157,000 square feet excluding parking, service, and loading areas. 1 192- 62 This project is designed to comply with the 1988 South Florida Building Code, NFPA 101 Life Safety Code 1985, American National Standard ANSI A117.1. (c) General location map, showing relation of the site or activity for which special permit is sought to major streets, schools, existing utilities, shopping areas, important physical features in and adjoining the project or activity and the like. The following exhibits are included with the Major Use Special Permit Application under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents: (1) Exhibit 1: General Location Map. (2) Exhibit 2: Area map of the surrounding street system indicating the project location. (3) Exhibit 3: Map of the project area indicating buildings that surround the site and their functions. (d) A site plan containing the title of the project and the names of the project planner and developer, date, and north arrow and, based on an exact survey of the property drawn to a scale of sufficient size to show: The site plan, sheet 1 of 1, is an as -built survey dated July 11, 1991 provided with the Major Use Special Permit Application under Tab 5 of the Supporting Documents. (1) Boundaries of the project, any existing streets, buildings, watercourses, easements and section lines; The boundaries of the project and location of existing streets and easements are shown on the Survey of Property located under Tab 5 of the Supporting Documents. (2)-, Exact location of all buildings and structures; The Survey of Property under Tab 5 of the Supporting Documents shows Cocowalk building as built in relation to property lines. Detailed elevations and plan views of the building are included in Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents. 92- 62 2 f 9 (3) Access and traffic flow and how vehicular traffic will be separated from pedestrian and other types of traffic; Sheets 30.01 through 30.08 under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents show how site access and traffic flow occur at Cocowalk. Essentially, all the vehicular access to the site is originated at the parking garage entrance located on Virginia Street. The loading dock service entrance is also located on the side of the building on Virginia Street. Three parking gates manned 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, are located at the garage entrance and constitute the control point for the parking garage. An internal circulation ramp located at the south side of the building connects the underground parking levels. Other internal circulation ramps located at the north side connect the above - street parking levels. Traffic flow in the parking garage is organized through directional signage and with the assistance of parking officers who are strategically located throughout the garage. The predominant pedestrian access to Cocowalk occurs from Grand Avenue with secondary pedestrian access from Virginia Street. A central plaza on street level is surrounded by buildings that are interconnected by pedestrian walkways at the upper levels. Stairs and elevators are conveniently located in the project for vertical communication; directional signs are posted throughout the buildings. This facilitates pedestrian circulation at Cocowalk. (4) Offstreet parking and offstreet loading areas; Offstreet parking is made up of two basement levels and two above street levels which contain a total of 497 parking spaces in approximately a - .230,000-square-foot area. Five loading berths are provided at the north- east corner of the building with street level access from Virginia Street for loading /delivery parking. (5) Recreational facilities locations; Cocowalk facilities are shown located on sheets L-1 through L-4 under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents. 3 92- 62 (6) Screens and buffers; Landscaping and buffer areas are indicated on the Landscape plans, sheets 25.01 through 25.07 under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents. (7) Refuse collection areas; Waste collection is provided by a containerized compactor system located in the service area at the north-east side of the building. (8) Access to utilities and points of utilities hookups. Access and connections to site utilities are discussed in the Site Utility Study located under Tab 3 of the Supporting Documents (e) Tabulations of total gross acreage in the project and the percentages thereof proposed to be devoted to: Site: 116,400 gross square feet (1) The various permitted uses: Land Use Parking/Service: 229,086 gross SF + 116,400 - 196% Retail/Restaurant/Theater: 156,698 gross SF + 116,400 - 134% (2) Ground coverage by structures: Underground Parking: 93,336 gross SF + 116,400 a 80% Retail/Restaurant/theater: 62,414 gross SF + 116,400 - 53% (f) Tabulation shoving: (1) The derivation of numbers of offstreet parking and offstreet loading spaces shown in (d) above; See Project Data Sheets on Article I, Section H of this application. (2) Total project density in duelling units per acre. Not applicable for this project. 4 y 2 -. 62 (g) If common facilities (such as recreation areas or structures, private streets, common open space, etc.) are to be provided for the development, statements as to how such common facilities are to be provided and permanently maintained. Common facilities provided include a central plaza, terraces, a service area in the rear of the property, public restrooms. The common areas are maintained by the management through the assessment of maintenance fees. (h) Storm drainage and sanitary sewerage plans. Storm drainage, water distribution, waste water and solid waste generation provisions are discussed in the Site Utility Study located under Tab 3 of the Supporting Documents. M Architectural definitions for the buildings in the development; exact number of dwelling units, sizes, and types, together with typical floor plans of each type. See Sheets L-1 through L-4 under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents. (j) Plans for signs, if any. Virginia Street has parking directional signs, both free standing and suspended (the suspended sign is internally lit). Back lit channel letters of the theater logo are attached to the Virginia Street facing wall of the parking structure. Metal letters forming the project's name are attached to the metal grill of the tower on Virginia Street which is also a pedestrian entrance to the project. The tower also has flags with the project logo. Decorative tiles forming the project's name are located on the central building at the entrance to the project. Two decorative metal directories are also located at the Grand Avenue entrance to the project. Neon forming the theater's logo is attached to the cinema marquee located on the third level at the north end of the plaza. Two mosaics forming the project's name are located in the paving at the Grand Avenue entrance to the project. Two additional mosaics forming the street names are located at the corners of Virginia Street and Grand Avenue. 92 - 5 (k) Landscaping plan, including types, sizes and locations of vegetation and decorative shrubbery, and showing provisions for irrigation and future maintenance. The landscaping plan, Sheets 25.01 through 25.07 under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents, specify the plant types, sizes and locations, as well as, indications that all planted areas are fully irrigated and maintained by the owner. (1) Plans for recreational facilities, if any, including location and general description of buildings for such use. See Sheets L-1 through L-4 under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents. (m) Such additional data, maps, plans, or statements as may be required for the particular use or activity involved. The drawings submitted with this application are located under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents. (n) Such additional data as the applicant may believe is pertinent to the proper consideration of the site and development plan. None. 6 9 2 - 62 2. Section 1702.2.1 General Report. (1) Property ownership or ownerships and beneficial interest within the boundaries of the area proposed for Major Use Special Permit. Statement of Ownership and beneficial interest within the boundaries of the area proposed for Major Use Special Permit are provided in Articles I.D. and I.E. (2) The nature of the unified interest or control. The nature of unified interest or control is indicated in Articles I.D. and I.E. (3) Survey of Proposed area showing property lines and ownership. A copy of the site Survey of Property is included under Tab 5 of the Supporting Documents. (4) Map of existing features, including streets, alleys, easements, utility lines, existing land use, general topography, and physical features. The existing site features and utility lines are shown on the site Survey of Property plans located under Tab 5 and the Site Utility Study, located under Tab 3 of the Supporting Documents. In addition, the following exhibits are included with the Major Use Special Permit Application under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents: (1) Exhibit 1: General Location Map (2) Exhibit 2: Area Map of the surrounding street system indicating the project location. (3) Exhibit 3: Map of the project area indicating buildings that surround the site.and their functions. (5) Materials to demonstrate the relationship of the elements listed in (4) preceding to surrounding area characteristics. The Drawings Submitted with this Application are located under Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents. (6) Existing zoning and adopted comprehensive plan designations for the area on and around the lands proposed for Major Use Special Permit. 92- 62 The existing zoning designation for the property pursuant to City of Miami Ordinance # 11000 is Special District SD-2, Coconut Grove Central Commercial District. The Zoning Atlas Map,' located in Article I.K, indicates the existing and surrounding zoning. The comprehensive plan future land use designation for the property is Restricted Commercial. The zoning and the comprehensive plan designation are consistent. The City of Miami Comprehensive Plan Designation Map is located in Article 3. Section 1702.2.2 Major Use Special Permit Concept Plan. a. Relationship of the concept plan to surrounding existing and proposed future uses. Article II.A.1 contains a written narrative of this project outlining existing use, activities and architectural character. This narrative also contains descriptions of the project's relationship to traffic, pedestrian movements, and transportation access. Maps located on exhibits 2 and 3 under Tab 6 indicate the project's relationship to surrounding streets, land uses and functions. Building elevations, sections and perspectives showing the materials used in the project, vertical profile and height, and orientation to streets are included in the Drawings Submitted with this Application. The list of Drawings Submitted is found under e Tab 6 of the Supporting Documents. b. Existing zoning and adopted comprehensive plan principles and designations. This project conforms to the SD-2 zoning for this property. The comprehensive plan future land use designation conforms with the land use designation currently in effect for this property. 4. Section 1702.2.3 Developmental Impact Study. The development impact study shall demonstrate whether the impact of the proposed development is favorable, adverse, or neutral on the economy, public services, environment. and housing supply of the City. J a. Minority Construction Employment Impact. Tab 1 of the Supporting Documents includes records of minority employment generated during construction. It also includes the Minority Construction Employment Plan followed by Archer - Western Contractors, Ltd., the general contractor that built Cocowalk. 8 92-- 62 b. Traffic Impact The Traffic Impact Analysis is included under Tab 2 of the Supporting Documents. C. Impact on Public Services A site Utility Study is included under Tab 3 of the Supporting Documents. d. Economic Impact The Economic Impact Study is included under Tab 4 of the Supporting Documents. e. Energy Conservation Architecturally the building envelope is comprised of insulated walls and roof. The building meets all energy conservation requirements. See attached Florida Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction, Form # 500-86, which was submitted with the building permit application of Cocowalk when it was permitted and built (August 1988) f. Environmental Zone Cocowalk is located in Flood Zone "X", which is not a flood zone, as determined by the Federal Environmental Management Agency (FEMA) and regulated by Metro -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM). The average elevation of Cocowalk site is Approximately +19.00 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL), which is one of the highest elevation points in Dade County. 9 92- 62 h :. FLOHiDA ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION S SECTION 5 e BUILDING DESIGN BY COMPONENT PERFORMANCE APPROACH FORM 500-8 6 a°eerssTtao ar n'E oea►rrnecrrr Of err urAets STATISTICS: RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS SEE S. SM-1 PROJECT NAME: vc.OWQT 6nir1 qc. ("t.�fK� i�M1e: F;.'� ZONE: tp ADDRESS: d2}►IO )+-QI5 0E 1�ID If7(a�1A t�M1£Er BUILDING CLASSIFICATION S CITY ZIP CODE: IAM1 BUILDING PERMIT NO.: BUILDER: PERMITTING OFFICE: OWNER: Rw O 044L umtTso SHIP JURISDICTION NO.: /LS144::10 BUILDING INFORMATION COMPONENT U-VALUE NET AREA (Total) (Square Feet) Concrete Block Structure (CBS) LIU E Wood frame/ Other, (S �� G.�11 J t,�e ! U° U. _ . Other_ Under Attic Cavity �� (o uM Single Assembty U` Other U` Total Conditioned Floor Area Concrete Over Unconditioned Space Wood Over Unconditioned Space Um Slab on Grade Clear Single Glaze U` Clear Dovbis Glaze U. Tint Single Glaze U` c Tint Double Glaze U. Wight$ U' Other UM e Wood U. i Metal U' Insulated / U e Other l S CAL (9L U= w i •I Total Lighting Wattage .................................... > g Total Conditioned Floor _ wattslsq.lt. i E Area (sq.ft.)........................................... .�--- w o Lighting Budget Maximum ` �XE>tit F� 'P'r2 � �;.�� SOS* 1 wanysa. n. SYSTEMS INFORMATION AIR CONDITIONER EFFICIENCY LEER gr 4 ) or (SEER "� ) or (COP HEATING SYSTEM TYPE STRIP ❑ HEATPUMPV GAS ❑ OIL ❑ SOLAR ❑ HEATING SYSTEM EFFICIENCY COP 3 o l or EFFICIENCY • % (Steady-state) HOT WATER SY;. TEM TYPE ELESMICY HEAT RECOVERY Q GAS ❑ OIL ❑ SOLAR ❑ Ua wall Allowable G. Uo wall Actual O• OLD tl ootttptying under the provisions of S. 502.1. enter the Combined U. Ue roolicextxnglAllowable 0' 1 O Uo rooueeiling Actual vows for the entire envabpe in tiffs section. — Uo floor Allowable O. 3 a U. floor Actual Uvenveloos Allowable — — U, mmiope Actual OTTV wall Allowable OTTV wall Aqua! •G OTTV rooficesting Alowable elror OTTV rooliceiling Actual j In aoe n"Limi a VM seamn sw.OtT Ea.. 1 tweby oww Hal the pure and .o.arcanom covered by fts / n He Flores Energy coda I OWNEWAGENT.G ■ DATE. Revtwr d He dune erd apserlkaoons wmrsd by Hie r axcuunon naeete curt* plian- wm He Fbnda ErwQr Code. Ilelore ooweucwn re aaroraea. ttvs bruxldmp te6 ba erpeoed for Wff0 noe n e000roanoe enth section SSiooe FF S. BUILDING OFFIGAL: n PERMIT NO. CHECKED by SECTION 5 WORKSHEET FOR ENERGY CALCULATIONS BUILDING DESIGN BY COMPONENT PERFORMANCE APPROACH FOF 500-86 Stat. of F1wWa Energy Code I.4MW"JMALL AREAS A) WALL TYPE: sq ry. B) WALL TYPE: sq n C) WALL TYPE: • sq ft O) WALL TYPE: sq ft. TOTAL4ASS& WALL AREA • 22 . eq ft. NET 2. GLASS AREAS (Includes areas of windows. sliding glass doors, glass entrance doom) GLASS TYPE AND AREA BY ORIENTATION • I COSHADING �) • ,Km ACV 'Zvi 3 son \ TOTAL GLASS 3. DOORS (EXCLUDING GLASS DOORS) Door area in emenor building envelope.................................................................... �^ sq. ft. Interior door area separating AIC from non NC spaces ...................................................... = ^� sq. ft. TOTAL OPAQUE DOOR AREA - sq. tt• 4. NET OPAQUE WALL AREAS _ ALL TYPE GROSS WALL (sq. ft.) GLASS AREA - (sq. ft.) DOOR AREA - OUE WALL AREA (sq. ft.) A. C. .. D. S. ROOFICEILING AREA y 1 _ ROORCEILING TYPE I AREA TOTAL GROSS ROOF/CEILING AREA G 00 SKYLIGHT (SHADING COEFFICENT M ) - •^"'� eq. ft. TOTAL NET ROOF/CEILING AREA (, c� %-1 -j��C++ Osq. ft. 6. AIR FILMS (LIST AIR FILMS W USED TO DETERMINE U. VALUES) 9 2 -- V 2 COMPONENT XValue Outside Air Flbn halde Air Film wan 0,1 IS MrH D,fo ,�-.CJw *IRL Ceiling p, 1 C bQ� Floor D, b , 5-33 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Article III. Page Minority Construction Employment Plan ..... Tab 1 Traffic Impact Analysis ....................... Tab 2 Site Utility Study ....................... Tab 3 Economic Impact Study ....................... Tab 4 Survey of Property ....................... Tab 5 Drawings Submitted ....................... Tab 6 w W COCOWALK MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT MINORITY CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT PLAN PREPARED BY: ARCHER -WESTERN CONTRACTORS, LTD. 15271 N.W. 60TH AVENUE MIAMI LAKES, FLORIDA 33014 (305)556-0430 92- 62 s C. C Employment During Construction Cocowalk 1) Monthly average number of employees during construction (including subcontractors): 195 employees 2) Monthly oeak number of employees during construction (including subcontractors): 280 employees 3) Minority Construction Employment Plan See attached "Affirmative Action Plan." 4) Minority employment during peak construction period: 132 Minority employees (out of 280 total) 92- 62 )OTANY4 Archer -Western Contractors. Ltd. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ARCHER -WESTERN CONTRACTORS, LTD. .Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. hereby reaffirms that its officers and employees are committed to, and shall diligently apply, all the terms and provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 11246 (as amended by Executive Order 11375) in establishing and carrying out its Affirmative Action Program. To implement this Program, Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. will adhere to the following: 1.) All superintendents, foremen, office managers and other supervisory personnel employed by the Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. and having the authority to hire, discharge, promote, lay off, or discipline employees, will read and be familiar with this Affirmative Action Plan. 2.) The discharge of an employee for cause, including (but not limited to) ability of work performance, as well as the lay off of an employee for lack of work, his recall or demotion of an employee, shall not be based upon that employee's handicap, race, color, religion, sex, or by reason of national origin. Further, Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. shall maintain such documentation as may be necessary to effectuate this policy. 3.) Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. will post conspicuously such announcements with respect to nondiscrimination and equal employment opportunity as required by law and Executive Order 11246, rules and regulations of agencies concerned, including the United States Department of Labor, and require that all subcontractors shall do likewise. 4.) Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. will make its hiring policy and Affirmative Action Program known to all subcontractors, and shall include as a condition of the subcontract that the subcontractor shall observe the provisions of Executive Order 11246. 5.) In requesting workers from hiring sources, Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. will ask for qualified workers, white and non -white. Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. will ask for written assurances from hiring sources that admission to their referral facilities is open on equal terms to all qualified persons, without discrimination based on handicap, race, color, religion, sex or national origin. J2--- 62 W Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd 15271 N.W. 60th Avenue Miami Lakes, Florida 33014 Dade (305) 556-0430 Broward (305) 522-5884 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY ARCHER -WESTERN CONTRACTORS. LTD. TWAU Irl", Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. recognizes and acknowledges that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 11246 (as amended by Executive Order 11375) prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of handicap, race, color, religion, sex or national origin, by any Federal contractor. Accordingly, it is the policy of Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. that equal employment shall be afforded all qualified persons without regard to handicap, race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This shall be applied to all matters relating to hiring, promotion, transfer or termination of all employees, and shall cover all salaried and hourly paid positions in the office headquarters, shops, and in the field, as well as all job classifications within the respective trades. It is also the policy of Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. to cooperate with all governmental agencies with the responsibility of administering equal employment opportunity programs. Archer - Western Contractors, Ltd. has established an Affirmative Action Program which has as its objective the employment of minority and women to achieve an employment profile consistent with the distribution of minorities and women in the population of the geographic areas in which it operates. ARCHER -WESTERN CONTRACTORS, LTD. Sven T. Nylen III Vice President STN/mw �2_ 62 Archer -western Contractors. Ltd. 6.) Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. will cooperate with governmental agencies (federal, state or local) who have the responsibility to observe our actual compliance with various laws -relating to employment by furnishing such reports, records and other matters as requested, in order to foster the Equal Employment Opportunity Program for all persons, regardless of handicap, race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, including statistical data on the total work force on a monthly basis during the duration of the contract. This data will include the number or percentages of minorities and women employed in various crafts and skills utilized on the project. 7.) All supervisory personnel will be fair, considerate and firm with all employees, and shall expect and receive a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, without favoritism or consideration of an employee's handicap, race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 8.) In all Company advertisements for employees, such advertisements shall contain the phrase, "An Equal Opportunity Employer," and publications of special interest to minority groups will be given such advertisements when feasible. 9.) Job superintendents shall have the overall responsibility of carrying our Company policies and this Affirmative Action Program on their respective jobs. 10.) In the event that a cooperative type training program in coordination with the school systems is established, Archer - Western Contractors, Ltd. will make such training available to minority group and female students. 11.) Placement, promotion and transfer activities at all levels will be monitored to insure that full consideration, as required by the Company policy, has been given to qualified minority group and female employees. Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. will review job categories where a few minority groups and. female persons are presently employed, and seek to determine the cause for such situations. When necessary, remedial*efforts may include such actions as the following: a.) More vigorous recruitment:of qualified minority groups and female candidates. b.) Special discussions with appropriate management, supervisory, or other personnel, regarding the Company's policy and its desire to insure the utilization of qualified minority group and female personnel at all job levels. 82- 62 Archer -Western contractors. Ltd c.) Re-evaluate qualifications of the lower echelon of minority*group and female employees to determine whether their skills and capabilities may be more fully utilized at higher job levels or would warrant their transfer to other types of jobs more readily leading to advancement. d.) on-the-job training programs, as well as all other training and educational programs, to which Archer - Western Contractors, Ltd. gives support or sponsorship, will be regularly reviewed to insure that minority group and female candidates, as well as all other employees, are given equal opportunity to participate. e.) Steps will be taken to give active encouragement to minority group and female employees to increase their skills and job potential through participation in available training and educational programs. f.) Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. will insure that qualified minority group and female employees are included in supervisory training classes sponsored or supported by the Company. g.) Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. will seek the inclusion of qualified minority group and female employees in all crafts and skills utilized during the performance of the contract. 12.) Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. will seek the active support of the local Associated General Contractors and Underground Contractors Association in providing implementation of the Company's Affirmative Action Program. 13.) Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. will insure that all services and Company sponsored activities are made available to employees, regardless of handicap, race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 14.) There will be no segregated facilities sponsored by, nor the use of such accepted by, Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. for employee utilization. 15.) Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. will seek and make known to qualified minority group subcontractors what work can be sublet so that they will have an opportunity to bid. 16.) Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. will designate an equal employment opportunity officer on the jobsites maintains a general equal employment opportunity officer in the main office. The names of such officers will be posted at all times, and any complaint will be channeled to the job's equal employment opportunity officer for handling. j2-- 62 IC .i\.i__1!_ STUDY Project #91144 Prepared by. JUL91/91144R01 David Plummer & Associates, Inc. 4225 Salzedo Street July 30, 1991 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 ��A� Archer -Western Contractors. Ltd. 17.) Archer -Western Contractors, Ltd. will advise and make known in writing to all sources from which it obtains employees of this Affirmative Action Program for Equal Employment opportunity. In this connection, the Company will work cooperatively with affected unions in reviewing construction action on apprenticeship programs, apprenticeship training and union referral practices. Whenever the Company may, under a ,union referral plan or contract, solicit applicants from other sources, it will seek to obtain qualified minority group and female applicants, including contacting representatives of local civic and community organizations to fill such job openings, and through advertisements in news media predominantly used by minority group communities. ARCHER -WESTERN CONTRACTORS, LTD. Sven T. Nylen III Vice President STN/mw 2— 62 0 The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relative impact of the potential traffic volume increases as a result of expanding the parking garage. This analysis is based on the hours typically analyzed for development projects in Dade County and the City of Miami. This information will allow the City to evaluate the parking garage expansion as a Major Use Special Permit application. The general approach in this study was to establish project trip generation rates based on the number of existing parking spaces. This information was developed from field data in as much as national trip generation rates based on parking spaces are not available for retail establishments of this nature. Information from the Urban Land Institute Shared Parking publication was available to adjust the field information to annual average conditions. This methodology suggests that the increase in the number of parking spaces has a potential for an increase in traffic during the analysis hours. 4. DATA COLLECTION Access to the parking garage occurs at a single location. The main project driveway and garage entrance is located on Virginia Street, aligned with Florida Avenue. Traffic volume for all inbound and outbound movements were counted during the typical PM -2- �2�- sz d� Cocowalk is a retail complex with stores, restaurants and movie theaters in Downtown Coconut Grove (Exhibit 1). The project is located on the northwest corner of Grand Avenue and Virginia Street (see Exhibit 2). The development consists of a multi -level structure and parking garage. The project has been in operation for several months. The on -site parking garage is presently operating with 497 parking spaces. Re -striping of the facility, however, has the potential for increasing parking capacity by 38 spaces. A Major Use Special Permit (MUSP) application was required as one of the conditions for the variance granted to Cocowalk by the City of Miami Zoning Board on February 11, 1991 under resolution ZB 11-91. This variance allows Cocowalk to provide additional parking spaces off -site. In order to reduce the number of off -site spaces provided, this application for MUSP includes re -stripping of Cocowalk on -site parking garage to provide 38 additional parking spaces on -site. The traffic impact created by the additional 38 spaces is analyzed in this study. Typically, traffic analysis for the expansion of traffic generators is based on the analysis of roadway conditions during the peak period of the adjacent streets. High traffic volume conditions are present in the area Monday thru Friday between 4 and 6 PM due to the influence of significant amounts of commuter through traffic. This is taken into consideration in this study for- the traffic impact generated by the 38 space expansion of Cocowalk parking garage. -1- parking garage expansion has the potential for increasing project traffic volume by 8 vehicles per hour during the PM peak period • •MIKK•N The potential increase in project traffic as a result of the parking garage expansion is appro)amately 8 vehicles per hour. This number of trips, of course, is distributed directionally (52% inbound and 48% outbound) and then distributed to different areas (34% to north and 54% to the south and 12% to the east). Therefore, the number of trips likely to reach any one intersection approach in the area is negligible. Traffic impacts associated with these increases in traffic volumes will also be negligible. -4- 0 �, E w peak period (4-6 PM). This information was summarized every 15 minutes (see Appendix A). This data provided the highest hourly volume, cardinal directional distribution, as well as inbound/outbound split (see Exhibit 3). S. TRIP GENERATION RATE The peak period was established between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The PM peak period volumes were converted to annual average peak period values using data from the Urban Land Institute. The subject data from the publication Shared Parking provides variations for each month of the year (Appendix B). An average factor of 900/c seasonal variation in July was interpolated between the 100% factor for restaurants and movie theaters and 75% factor for retail. This intermediate factor is based on the mix of uses at the site. Once these adjustment factors were applied to the field data, an hourly peak period trip generation rate per parking space was developed based on the existing number parking spaces (497 spaces). A summary of the trip generation calculation is provided in Exhibit 4. 6 ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACT The trip generation rate developed in this study was then applied to the proposed number of parking spaces (see Exhibit 5). The potential increase in traffic volumes as a result of expanding the parking garage, therefore, was established. The proposed -3- - J 2 -- 62 ••a • r1� y O►NM �Ut� /ut ttw.�► • W�I�d au PROJECT LOCATION N.T.S. BISCAYNE BAY 4kw -�'-"�- EXHIBIT 1 O COCOWALK P� pppKING GARAGE LOCATION MAP EXPANSION #91144 1 07/18/91 EXHIBIT 3 14:51:17 91144 DISTRIB COCOWALK PARKING GARAGE EXPANSION TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION(1) PM PEAK PERIOD (WEEKDAY, 4-6 PM) IN/OUT NORTH EAST SOUTH TOTAL PERCENT INBOUND 34 10 55 99 52% OUTBOUND 31 12 49 92 48% TOTAL 65 22 104 191 100% PERCENT NOTES (1) BASED ON FIELD DATA 30 12% 54% 100% 92-- 62 10 dPe CUCUNU I GROVE COCOWALK PARKING GARAGE EXPANSION EXHIBIT 2 AREA MAP 9 2 - #91144 (&07/30/% 11:16:10 91144 TRIPOEM EXHIBIT 5 COCOWALK PARKING GARAGE EXPANSION POTENTIAL NEW TRAFFIC GENERATION (HOLOLY) PM PEAK PERIOD (WEEKDAY, 4-6 PM) COMPONENT INBOUND OUTBOUND TOTAL TRIP RATE(1) 0.112 0.103 0.215 EXISTING GENERATION(2) 56 51 107 POTENTIAL GENERATION(3) 60 SS 115 NEW GENERATION A 4 a NEW TRIPS NORTHBOUND um 1 1 2 NEW TRIPS EASTBOUND 15% 1 1 2 NEW TRIPS SOUTHBOUND 47% 2 2 < NOTES (1) VTE/S • VEHICLE TRIP ENDS PER PARKING SPACE 32- 62 07/30/91 11:22:39 911" TRIPRATE EXHIBIT i C00011ALK PARKING GARAGE EXPANSION HOURLY TRIP GENERATION RATE (1) PM PEAK PERIOD (WEEKDAY, 4.6 PH) FIELD AVERAGE TRIP DIRECTION DATA(2) DAY/MONTH(3) RATE(3) 1.000 0.9 (VTE/S) INBOUND SO 56 0.112 OUTBOUND 46 51 0.103 TOTAL % 107 0.215 NOTES (1) VTE/S • VEHICLE TRIP ENDS PER PARKING SPACE, BASED ON 497 EXISTING PARKING SPACES. (2) SOURCE: DAVID PLUIMER AND ASSOCIATES (3) SOURCE: URBAN LAND INSTITUTE, SHARED PARKING A o 62 '1 APPENDIX A e. 18-Jul-91 14:06:42 DAVID PLUMMER & ASSOCIATES COCODAY2 SUMMARY OF VEHICLE MOVEMENTS #91144 +-------------------------------------------------------------+ (LOCATION: COCOWALK PARKING GARAGE ENTRANCE (VIRGINI ST.) (COUNTY DADE CITYOBSERVER: DPA DATE: 7/16/91 ( I FAIR REMARKS t i (TIME --------------- IINBOUND------------- l0UTBOUND------------ I iBEGIN END I L T R Total) L T R Totall -------------------� 07:00 AM 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 08:00 AM 08:'00 AM 08:15 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM 08:45 AM 09:00 AM .--------------------+--------------------+ 0 0 0 0( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0{ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 8 0 4 12 ( 3 1 9 13 04:15 PM 04:30 PM ( 3 1 2 6 { 6 0 10 16 ( 04:30 PM 04:45 PM { 6 1 3 10 ( 2 0 5 7 1 ( 04:45 PM 05:00 PM ( 4 2 2 8 1 2 1 8 11 { 05:00 PM 05:15 PM ( 5 1 6 12 { 5 3 6 14 ( 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 1 6 4 7 17 ( 4 3 6 13 { 105:30 PM 05:45 PM ( 5 0 5 10 1 4 1 1 6 1 1 05:45 PM 06:00 PM I 18 1 5 24 1 5 3 4 12 I I I i +-------------------+--------------------+--------------------+ 18-Jul-91 14:06:42 DAVID PLUMMER & ASSOCIATES PEAK PERIOD CALCULATIONS +-------------------------------------------------------------+ ILOCATION: COCOWALK PARKING GARAGE ENTRANCE (VIRGINIA ST.) 1 1COUNTY DADE CITY: MIAMI (OBSERVER: DPA DATE: 7/16/91 { (WEATHER : FAIR REMARKS IROAD CONDITION: +-------------------+--------------------+--------------------+ (PEAK HOUR IINBOUND------------- (OUTBOUND ------------I IFROM TO I L T R Totall L T R Totall ------------------------------------- ----+--------------------+ 107:00 AM 08:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0( 0 0 0 0 I i 08:00 AM 09:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 (PEAK PERIOD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 104:00 PM 05:00 PM ( 21 4 11 36 = 13 2 32 47 { 05:00 PM 06:00 PM i 34 6 23 63 i 18 10 17 45 IPEAK PERIOD ( 28 5 17 50 1 16 6 25 46 1 I I I 1 --------------------------------------------------------------- 62 a"';. �r:-^�' .m' x-A APPENDICES 92- 62 E "COCOWALK" Major Use Special Permit Site Utility Study PREPARED BY: Schwebke - Shiskin & Associates, Inc. 3240 Corporate Way Miramar, Florida 33025 J2-- 62 APPENDIX 8 EXHIBIT 27 REPRESENTATIVE MONTHLY VARIATIONS AS PERCENTAGE OF PEAK MONTH Month Office Retail Restaurant Cinema Residential Hotel Hotel Rooms Rooms Hotel Weekday Saturday Conference Hotel Convention January 100% 65% 800,10 900,0 10090 90010 65% 100°0 2000 Februan, 100 65 75 70 100 90 70 100 40 March 100 70 90 50 100 95 80 100 80 Aor,. 100 70 90 70 100 9z 85 100 80 Mai• 100 70 95 70 100 95 85 100 100 June 100 75 100 100 100 100 90 100 100 July 100 75 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 August 100 75 85 70 100 100 100 100 50 September 100 75 80 80 100 95 90 100 70 October 100 75 80 70 100 95 90 100 70 Nm-ember -100 80 80 50 100 85 80 100 40 December 100 100 90 50 100 85 65 100 20 SOURCE: ULI-URBAN LAND INSTITUTE, SHARED PARKING WASHINGTON, DC. 1983 EXHIBIT 27 REPRESENTATIVE MONTHLY VARIATIONS AS PERCENTAGE OF PEAK MONTH ' ADJUSTED FOR SOUTH FLORIDA Month Office Retail Restaurant Cinema Hotel Rooms Residential Weekday Hotel Rooms Saturday Hotel Hotel Conference Convention January 100% 65% $85% 90% 100% 90% 65% 100% 20% February 100 65 '100 70 100 90 70 100 40 March 100 70 '100 $70 100 95 80 100 80 April 100 70 90 - 70 100 95 85 100 80 May 100 70 95 70 100 95 85 100 100 June 100 75 990 100 100 100 90 100 100 July 100 75 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 August 100 75 85 70 100 100 100 100 50 September 100 75 80 80 100 95 90 100 70 October 100 75 80 70 100 95 90 100 70 November 100 80 80 50 100 85 80 100 40 December 100 100 '85 50 100 85 65 100 20 9 2 --- 62 I 0 (percolate) a portion of the storm water runoff. The excess storm water runoff over flowed into the drainage system serving Virginia Street and Grand Avenue. The existing drainage system serving Grand Avenue and Virginia Street consists of curb and gutter, conveying the storm water to a series of inlets, pipes and underground drainage trenches. The drainage systems of these two roadways are interconnected to the City of Miami overall drainage system for this area. See Exhibit One for existing drainage along Grand Avenue and Virginia Street. C. Proposed Drainage System & Post -Development Drainage Patterns 1. On -Site The entire 2.2 acre site is covered by roof area and concrete walkways. The runoff from these areas conveyed through an interior plumbing system to on -site drainage wells. The plumbing system divides the building area into four sub -drainage areas, each being 0.55 acres. Each of these sub -drainage areas is serviced by one 2500 gallon per minute drainage well. The storm water calculations addressing the capacities of these wells can be found in Exhibit Two. As an integral part of the well system, the site has incorporated detention structures. These structures will serve as collection points for the storm water system and pollution retardant structures. The baffle wall and size of the structure will keep oils and other pollutants from entering the 92- 62 rM SITE UTILITY STUDY ' "Cocowalk" I. DRAINAGE A. Drainage Area The site is approximately 2.2 acres in area, located at the Northwest corner of Grand Avenue and Virginia Street in Coconut Grove. The site prior to development, consisted in its majority of vacant property, mostly covered with asphaltic concrete (parking lot). A small building existed on the property and was located along the Grand Avenue frontage. The site is covered by a single structure with the above grade building envelope being constructed to all four sides of the subject property. A portion of the building's center core at street level is open to Grand Avenue. Storm water discharge from the site will be generated by the storm water runoff from the roof areas and concrete surfaces of the patio areas in the center core, with the site being 100 percent impervious. B. Existing Drainage System and Pre -Development Drainage Patterns Prior to development, the existing site was primarily covered with asphalt. This asphalt area -was being used for car parking. The asphalt area was interrupted by small landscape areas. The on -site drainage patterns primarily consisted of surface runoff from the asphalt areas, to the small landscape areas. The landscape areas absorbed 92- 62 III. SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN The average and peak daily flows that are generated by the project have been calculated based on the Miami Dade Water and Sewer Authority Department's Standards, see Exhibit rive. The existing sanitary systems located in Grand Avenue and Virginia Street have been shown along with the new sewer service on Exhibit Eight. Note that no other off -site sewer improvements were required by the Utility Company or the City of Miami. In addition, all existing utilities along Grand Avenue and Virginia Street are shown on Exhibit Nine. IV. SOLID WASTE GENERATION The projected solid waste that is generated by the various tenants of Cocowalk have been summarized in Exhibit rive. The generation rates were calculated based on information collected from the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Solid Waste. Solid waste that is generated at this site will be placed in standardized on - site containers, per Chapter 22 of the City of Miami's Code, for regular pick-up by either a private solid waste handling company or the City of Miami's Solid Waste Department. The solid waste will then be transported to a dade county disposal facility, with the solid waste pick-up areas being incorporated within the project. 92 62 1 .4 drainage wells. See Exhibit Three for details of the detention structures and Exhibit One for the location of these structures and drainage wells. In regards to the drainage well, please refer to Exhibit Four for further detail. 2.Off-Site The construction of Cocowalk has impacted the drainage system of Virginia Street and Grand Avenue. All of the storm water runoff has been disposed of on site. The construction has eliminated the excess storm water runoff which was entering the drainage system serving Virginia Street and Grand Avenue under pre -development conditions. II. WATER DISTRIBUTION MASTER PLAN The average and peak daily flows required to serve this site have been calculated based on the Miami Dade Water and Sewer Authority Department's Standards, see Exhibit Five. The existing distribution system has been researched and shown along with the new water services (on -site) in Exhibit Six. In addition to the new on -site facilities, an off -site main was constructed as part of a system betterment, see Exhibit Seven. The comments and recommendations from the Miami Dade Water and Sewer Authority Department and the City of Miami Fire Department were incorporated into the Water Distribution Master Plan. Note that the project's water source comes from the existing water mains located in Grand Avenue and Virginia Street, see Exhibit Six. In addition, all existing utilities along Grand Avenue and Virginia Street have been shown on Exhibit Nine. 92- 62 SUMMARY OF CUMULATED INFLOWS AND OUTFLOWS TIME (MINUTES) CUMULATED RUN-OFF (C.F. X 1000) CUMULATED EXFILTRATION (C.F. X 1000) EXCESS WELL CAPACITY (C.F. X 1000) 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 1.10 1.67 0.57 10 2.05 3.34 1.29 15 2.70 5.01 2.31 20 3.43 6.68 3.25 25 3.88 8.36 4.48 30 4.36 10.03 5.67 40 5.02 13.37 8.35 50 5.78 16.71 10.98 60 6.44 20.05 13.61 90 7.13 30.08 22.95 120 8.72 40.10 31.38 150 8.91 50.13 41.22 180 9.50 60.16 50.66 Page 3 of 4 Pages 92 - 62 CUMULATED WELL DISCHARGE DURING L YEAR STORNI 1 WELL DISCHARGING 2500 GALLONS PER MINUTE = 5.57 C.F.S. TIME (MINUTES) WELL DISCHARGE (C.F.S.) CUMULATED (TOTAL) EXFILTRATION (C.F. X 1000) 0 0.00 0.00 5 5.57 1.67 10 5.57 3.34 15 5.57 5.01 20 5.57 6.68 25 5.57 8.36 30 5.57 10.03 40 5.57 13.37 50 5.57 16.71 60 5.57 20.05 90 5.57 30.08 120 5.57 40.10 150 5.57 50.13 180 5.57 60.16 Page 2 of 4 Pages €) -- 62 'A IN EXHIBIT 3 M—/,V/'ZOW I • � • IIIII111111I I I � •T� I Ilililllll � � /NFL OK// ►-}J PLAN IV. r. S. 12.0' I CROSS- SECTION My r. 5 A" 0- TYPICAL DETENTION STRUCTURE DETAIL FOR THE COCONUT GROVE PROJECT SCHWESKE - SHISKIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. LAND SURVEYORS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • 16600 NW 2nd AVE. • MIAMI, FL 33169 ORDER N. IS8 SG Z PREPANIOeO.EA MY SUPERVISION: DATE % a �� Wes Plers. LfON50 C. r-" 7� THIS IS NOT A •LANO SURVEY' FLA PROF LAND SURVEYOR NO..fi fR7f. EdG. M. 9?0G8 ANALYSIS OF DETENTION TINME FOR WELL RETENTION BOXES [1] Drainage Area Input Rate Per Well = 3.69 C.F.S. [2] Total Volume of Tank Up to Top of Well V = 2.5' x 12' x 4' V = 120.00 Cubic Feet [3] Time to Fill Available Volume T = V Q T = 120.00 Cubic Feet = 32.5 Seconds ----------------------- 3.69 C.F.S. Page 4 of 4 Pages 92�= 8 • D, EXHIBIT FOUR "Cocowalk" DRAINAGE WELL CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 1. Drainage Well shall be drilled to an estimated total depth of 80 feet to discharge runoff to an aquifer having a minimum salinity of 1500 PPM. 2. Well shall have an upper casing of a minimum of 24 inches in diameter, with drive shoe, and shall be driven to a firm seat and grout sealed at least 3 feet below the cap of the uppermost rock formation to be developed. Casing ends shall be square to the axis of the section and shall be welded together as driving progresses. 3. Well shall be as plumb and true to line as good workmanship will provide. 4. Completed well shall be thoroughly agitated and developed. 5. The completed well shall be pumped at a rate of 2500 GPM, and shall meet Dade County requirements for allowable drawdown and test duration. 6. The Contractor shall provide all necessary equipment for conducting the well test and satisfactorily disposing of the water pumped from the well. The Contractor shall also provide a minimum of 48 hours notice to the owner and Engineer prior to the start of the test. 7. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to secure the necessary D.E.R. well drilling permits and comply with all the provisions thereof. c92-- 62 EXHIBIT FIVE "Cocowalk" WATER DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES Required Daily Flows [1] Bars/Cocktail Lounges: 25 GPCD [2] Movie Theaters: 3 GPD per seat [3] Restaurants: 50 GPD per seat [4] Retail Space: 10 GPD per Sq. Ft. NOTE: Peak Flows: Equal to 2.5 times average flow GPD: Gallons Per Day GPCD: Gallons Per Day Per Capita Sq. Ft.: Square Feet Source: Miami Dade Water and Sewer Authority Department [1] 25 GPCD x 139 People = 3,475 GPD [2] 3 GPD per seat x 1,536 Seats = 4,608 GPD [3] 50 GPD per seat x 2,625 Seats = 131,250 GPD [4] 10 GPD per sq. ft. x 52,100 sq. ft. = 521,000 GPD Totfil Average Daily Flow = 660,333 GPD Peak Daily Flow = 1,650,830 GPD ± Page 1 of 2 Pages 9 2- 62 SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES Generated Daily Flows NOTE: See Water Distribution Facilities for Flow Rates. (1] 25 GPCD x 139 People = 3,475 GPD (2] 3 GPD per seat x 1,536 Seats = 4,608 GPD (3] 50 GPD per seat x 2,625 Seats = 131,250 GPD (4] 10 GPD per sq. ft. x 52,100 sq. ft. = 521,000 GPD Total Average Daily Flow = 660,333 GPD Peak Daily Flow = 1,650,830 GPD ± SOLID WASTE GENERATION The average solid waste generated by a person living and working in Dade County is 8 pounds per day. This was calculated by taking the total waste generated in Dade County and dividing it by the total population of Dade County. Therefore, by taking the square foot of retail space and establishing an estimated number of people frequenting this space and adding the seating capacity of the remaining businesses, we were able to determine an approximate quantity of solid waste being generated by this site. This number reflects an assumption that a person will generate a minimum of 3 pounds per day outside the household, with the 3 pounds being a portion of the 8 pounds per day that an individual would produce. RETAIL: 52,100 Sq. Ft. x 1 Person per 100 Sq. Ft x 3 Lbs./Person = 1,563 Pounds OTHER: 4,300 People x- 3 Lbs./Person = 12, 900 Pounds TOTAL: 14,463 Pounds per Day (. Page 2 or 2 Pages 9 2 - 62 c GRAND AVE. 92-- 62 MASTER PLAN ON -SITE WATER FACILITIES t � o F + t w GRAND I AVE .. t. t . �a � . t .i +1 N I Ij .j it .11 t .t .1 •: '� •r.l NEW►6' 01. Ft tv ht ._it� itl. "__��'' ...., _ - it `I '� !� ii�: it�l--- - _� .i11Ei ti''! li `t'��l---= - - � ---- S 1 I I ! \1\ •� ~�-t NEW 16 " 01 P. W hf � C 1�-32w0 AVE.. j (MAC ••OMALD I STREET) NEW a" LATERAL BLDG. OurLINEJ I � CO CO WALK I 3 3� W I tN � 1 I Z N W � I � � ? BLDG. OUTLINE I t7 2 9' cc j RL. wI w\L•w. NEW 8" V.C.P"' R a. Y R `• V ' - LATERAL 41 NEW 12" uC.P ..�.... 1 L.Y R/ W � LATERAL ` i 3 ; ...►.., ��� EXISTING 12SAN. SEWER r' ast..w GRAND AVE. 2' 62 MASTER 'PLAN SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES EXHIBIT 8 dr 1• '• J I l �:�i • y x a io i +I i a• r � ra • t ,,Qti�j•,Le ��V- A I � Yw: ,Y • owrr// r' � . 3.OM AP n `: Ra�.i.i.�•ir� 'c b .�/�' Q � .i. .r r�r .rf,. t�i__.� — mnrrr=n.qrr£.:iwri_�i'.L'."•_":�_.-1-=..u�•._....:+� _."�.. .N^•��T=MWIA-11t�__•_=Yid t I EXHIBIT 9 EXISTING UTILITIES 92- 62 COCOWALK REPORT ON THE ECONOMIC AND TAX BENEFITS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI Prepared for Constructa Properties by SHARPTON, BRUNSON & COMPANY, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue Suite 2100 Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 374-1574 August 21 1991 COCOWALK ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS 1 II. INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVE AND DEFINITIONS Introduction 3 Objectives 3 Definitions of Economic and Tax Impact 4 Measu=es of Economic Impact 6 Description of Results 6 III. THE PROJECT OVERVIEW 8 IV. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Impact Indicators 9 Results of Indicators 9 Impact of Construction 11 Impact of Store operations and Management 12 Impact on Local Tax Revenues 12 V. RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS BY INDICATORS Employment 13 Wages 15 Output 15 Taxes 18 Other 20 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 22 i VII. MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF VISITOR EXPENDITURES 24 i VIII. EXHIBITS 29 62 _ _----- -..___----__.__ t _ SUMMARY OF BENEFITS "92- t2 u SUMMARY OF BENEFITS COCOWALK Significant Community Benefits: Jobs Wages Taxes Economic Activity Resident and visitor spending impact to Local Businesses: Food Recreation/Entertainment Transportation Retail The following table summarizes the economic impact of the Cocowalk development: 1 92 62 V COCOWALK SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACT (BENEFITS) Construction Period Annual Impact Impact Economic Activity stimulated (Output) $ 60,264,000 $ 47,080,000 Taxes 481,000 1,218,000 Wages 10,140,000 8,592,000 Total• $ 70,885,000 $ 56,890,000 Jobs created 195 633 J 2 V 2* • V 2 INTRODUCTION. OBJECTIVES AND DEFINITIONS INTRODUCTION, OBJECTIVES AND_DEFINITIONS INTRODUCTION This document represents an in-depth economic and tax benefits analysis of the development and operation of Cocowalk (the Project). The Project is a 2.2 acre site on Grand Avenue which incorporates a specialty retail and entertainment center. The Project is composed of retail outlets including an eight-plex cinema, numerous size and style restaurants, a nightclub and more. This analysis encompasses the entire Project and estimates the economic and tax benefits for both the development and operational phases of the Project. OBJECTIVES The objective of this analysis is to provide information on the various benefits created by the Project and to prepare an estimate of such benefits to Miami, Florida (the City). our analysis is based on an economic model which estimates economic and tax impacts of various projects on a designated area. The model is specifically tailored to the economy of Greater Miami. 3 92-- 62 0 DEFINITION OF ECONOMIC AND TAX IMPACT The construction and subsequent operation of the Project will create important benefits within Greater Miami. These benefits include new income, new jobs, new tax revenues and new economic activity impacting upon every sector of the local economy. Moreover, through the multiplier effect of respending and reinvesting, indirect and induced economic benefits are added to the direct benefits brought about by initial construction expenditures, the expenditures from the operations of the retail and entertainment businesses as well as the cost of the on -going management and maintenance of the Project. Direct and Indirect Effects The total economic impact of public and private projects and policies on a region do not end with the impact from the initial construction expenditures; the continued benefits to the local economy must also be considered. Salaries to firms furnishing construction materials and services is subsequently converted into employee salaries, material purchases, investment in plant and equipment, savings, profits, purchases of services, and a variety of other economic activities. Income to labors is subsequently respent for purchases of food, housing, transportation, entertainment, education, medical and dental services, clothing, personal services, and a wide variety of other goods and services. Income to governmental units is respent as salaries, purchases, and support of a variety of programs, including education, transportation, and social services. In turn, individuals, firms, and governments furnishing these goods and services again respend their income for more purchases, salaries, investments, and savings. In this manner, indirect benefits result each time the initial sum is respent, and the additional sum available in the local economy induces further job creation, business development and savings. 4 92~. 62 Quantification of these indirect and induced benefits has been the object of considerable economic study. Because economic relationships are so complex in our modern industrial society, no single area or political_ unit is a completely self-contained economic unit. Therefore, purchases from other areas and political units are necessary, and goods and services are exported in return. As purchases are made from other units, some of the benefits of economic respending are lost to other local economies. Ultimately, a smaller and smaller portion of the initial sum would remain, until, after several rounds of respending, an insignificant sum is left. The indirect effects can be viewed as a set of "ripples" in the economy. Indirect, like direct, resources require labor, materials, equipment and services for their production to induce further job creation and spending of wages. The "ripple" impact of the indirect effect multiplies the original impact of the purchase. The common measure of the magnitude of the "ripple" effect is called a multiplier. A multiplier measures the total macnitude of the impact on each particular economic indicator as a multiple of the initial, direct effect. For instance, a multiplier of "1" would signify no "ripple" effect as the total impact was 1 times the initial impact, while a multiplier of 112" would imply that the total impact was 2 times the direct effect. The actual magnitude of a multiplier depends on the likelihood the goods and services purchased in a region would be produced in, or provided from the region. 92- 62 The model we used to estimate the total economic impact incorporates a multiplier developed by utilizing past consumption and production patterns in Greater Miami. Measures of Economic Impact various measures can be used to indicate the impact of a policy or project on a region. specifically, for this study, they are the chancres (increases) in local employment, wages, tax revenue and output that result. Definitions of these measures are as follows: Employment is measured in full -time -equivalent jobs. Wages include wages, salaries, and proprietors income. They may include non -wage compensation, such as pensions, insurance, and health benefits. Wages are expended by households at their place of residence. Local Taxes include additional revenues from both ad valorem and non ad valorem assessments. - Output describes total economic activity, and is essentially equivalent to the sum of direct, indirect, and induced expenditures (exclusive of wages and taxes). Description of Results For the purpose of describing the total economic benefits of the Project, the related expenditures have been broken into two categories: 1) Development 2) Operational 6 �92- 62 Developmental expenditures are expenditures related to the design and construction phase of the Project and related amenities. Operational expenditures are those expenditures incurred in connection -with the operation of the Project and also include the effects of: Management operating expenditures (maintenance, sales and marketing); and Retail and entertainment business outlet's operating expenses. 7 y y-• 62 THE PROJECT OVERVIEW 92- 62 COCOWALK The Project CocoWalk is a mediterranean style specialty retail and entertainment center creatively designed with an open air flair to serve as the dynamic new social, entertainment and commercial hub of Coconut Grove - South Florida's village -by -the -bay. CocoWalk offers expansive terraces, walkways and a large street level plaza where patrons and visitors can easily watch street and professional performers, shop in an open-air market, or simply see and be seen. CocoWalk includes an on -site, multi -level parking garage which encourages and facilitates patronage of this unique center. CocoWalk is within a leisurely bike ride from Brickell Avenue and Coral Gables. The University of Miami, with almost 10,000 students, is just 5 miles away. What's more, CocoWalk is within easy walking distance of the affluent residential population of Coconut Grove and 15 minutes from the thriving residential sections of South Miami, Kendall and South Dade. Best of all, CocoWalk's 2.2 acres are positioned in the heart of Coconut Grove, which makes it an ideal site for a mix of specialty retail and entertainment establishments. CocoWalk's 146,000 square feet includes an A.M.C. eight-plex cinema, numerous eating and drinking establishments and a diverse range of stores featuring quality fashions apparel, gift and sundry items, service goods, and much more. 8 92 . 62 CocoWalk is situated at the point of highest visibility in Coconut Grove, the intersection of Main Highway, McFarlane Road and Grand Avenue. It provides an absolutely "can't miss" location at the very center of Coconut Grove's daytime and nighttime shopping, social and"entertainment-oriented activities. CocoWalk fills a gap in the South Florida marketplace as a convenient, popular new destination that combines both retail and entertainment activities in a unique fashion, at a key location that is attracting people in growing numbers from throughout the community, the city, the state and the world. 9 92-- 62 DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC AND TAX BENEFITS ANALYSIS 92-- 62 1 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS OF THE ECONOMIC AND TAX BENEFITS ANALYSIS IMPACT INDICATORS We measured the Project's impact on four commonly -used indicators of economic activity. Those indicators are: Employment Wages Total output Local taxes RESULTS OF INDICATORS The construction and operations of the retail and entertainment center will provide significant benefits to Greater Miami. These benefits include new jobs, new income, new tax revenues and new economic activity impacting every sector of the local economy. Moreover, through the multiplier effect of resperiding and reinvesting, indirect and induced economic benefits are added to the direct benefits brought about by initial site development and construction expenditures and the expenditures from the Project's operations and related resident and visitors spending. The economic indicator most commonly measured, and publicly reported on, to gauge -the economic impact of a public project is output. The impact of a.Project on the indicator output is often referred to as the Project's economic impact. 10 92-- 62 ............. 4 Exhibits I - III detail the Project's direct and indirect impact on the above economic indicators for Greater Miami. A summary of the results of our analysis is as follows: Development" (One - Time) Direct Indirect Induced Total Impact Operational - _(Annual) Direct Indirect Induced Total Impact Employment 195 195 Wacres 10,140,000 10,140,000 633 8,592,000 633 Impact of construction: 8,592,000 Output 28,860,000 24,395,000 7,009,000 60,264,000 29,280,000 11,861,000 5,939,000 47,080,000 Taxes 481,000 481,000 1,218,000 1,218,000 The approximately $40 million spent for site preparation and construction expenditures within Greater Miami would create approximately 195 new full time equivalent jobs with the maximum number of 280 workers.employed during peak periods. The workers will earn approximately $10 million in wages. These jobs will primarily be in the construction, transportation and related service industries. 11 92- 62 spending for site preparation and project construction would result in a total estimated impact of $71 million dollars which includes wages, output and taxes. This impact consists of the effects of both the direct site preparation and project construction expenditures and the multiplied effects of resulting indirect benefits. Impact of Store Operations and Mall Management As a result of the on -going operations of the various stores and the management of the Project, Greater Miami will gain approximately 633 new, permanent full-time equivalent jobs. The workers who obtain these positions will earn approximately $8.6 million annually. The total expenditures for the Project's operations and from resident and visitors' spending will provide a new, permanent impact of $47 million annually to the City's economy. This impact consists of the effects of the direct expenditures from the management of the center, the direct operating expenditures of the retail outlets at the Project, and resident, visitors and employee's spending. Impact on Local Tax Revenues As a result of the construction and operation of the Project, Dade County would gain an estimated annual tax benefit of $1.2 million. The City of Miami will gain an estimated annual tax benefit of $400,000., During the 24 month construction period, Dade County would assess an ad valorem tax on the land which would generate total tax revenues of $481,000. 12 y2-- 62 m RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS BY INDICATORS y2 62 fi) DISCUSSION OF RESULTS BY INDICATORS Our analysis of the economic and tax benefits of the Project was done by. each major phase of the Project. We identified the major phases to be development and operational phases. This analysis determines the economic benefits to Greater Miami by identifying such benefits for each of the phases. The effect on economic indicators used to measure benefits (employment, wages, output and taxes) were computed for each phases. Employment Employment is one of the most important economic benefits of the development. It is one of the most accessible and direct - benefits for Greater Miami residents and is a primary means by which development, operations and maintenance expenditures generate indirect economic benefits. A portion of this employment occurs from the development and marketing activity, and a portion is longer term employment derived from on -going operations of the . management company and the retail outlets. Short-term employment is for project development and marketing. This development was completed in twenty-four months and the related employment spanned a two to four year period. Additional employment will result from the on -going operations (maintenance) of the management company and the related sales, marketing and administrative efforts as well as the on -going operations of the retail and entertainment outlets. 13 92- 62 As can be seen in Exhibit 1, total short term (Developmental) employment will average 195 employees over a two year period and the total on -going employment will average 633. The total on going positions can be summarized as follows: Retail Stores 550 Leasing/Marketing/Administration 4 Management 11 Security/Police 34 Parking 16 Maintenance & Clean-up 18 633 Additional employment will be created by business owners' and employees spending within the Greater Miami area. Examples of such businesses include restaurants, retail and wholesale sales, service stations, recreation businesses, etc. Since businesses serve residents and visitors alike, and generate only a portion of their income from the above type of expenditures, the portion of employment that can be attributed to the above type of expenditures can only be estimated. This is done by investigating the pattern of these expenditures and relating such figures to business receipts and employment in Greater'Miami. From statistical data obtained from the Tourism Department, residents spending in Greater Miami is classified into various expenditure categories. These include: Eating/Drinking Grocery Auto Rental Retail 14 Other Transportation Service station Recreation y2-- 62 These expenditures are then used to compute the impact of the spending by new residents to the Greater Miami area. Wacies The computation of wages are a direct by-product of employment. As discussed in the above section, both on -site and off -site jobs are created. These jobs are both temporary and permanent in nature. To compute the wages associated with the new employment we started with actual and budgeted data directly related to the development and operations of the Project. Employment created, such as construction related employment, was obtained directly from the general contractor. These numbers were tested for reasonableness. No wages were computed for off -site employment created by spending in the Greater Miami area of new employees, business owners and the management company as well as visitors attracted to the area by the Project. It was estimated that approximately 20% of patrons to the Project are visitors to the Greater Miami area. Output Total output generated as a result of the development and operations of Cocowalk is caused by the following type of expenditures. Developer cost expended in Miami Annual operational expenditures of the Management Company is 92— 62 New spending in Greater Miami by employees and business owners Annual operational expenditures entertainment stores residents, visitors, of the retail and Exhibit V shows a summary of development cost expended in Greater Miami. Exhibit VI shows a summary of operational expenditures made in relation to the on -going maintenance of the Project.. To incorporate the impact of dollars being respent and/or reinvested in Greater Miami, a multiplier was applied to total direct output created by patron spending. A multiplier of 1.8453 was used to determine total direct and indirect output created by the Project. The multiplier was obtained from the Dade County Planning Department. We tested the reasonableness of the multiplier used by comparing it to other recent studies done in the County by both economist and the South Florida Regional Planning Council. Direct output from the development phase of the Project is primarily a result of developer costs. This cost consist of land acquisition and site preparation, soft cost and hard cost which includes construction. To determine the total direct output we determined what development cost specifically had been spent in. Greater Miami. 16 9� 62, To incorporate the effect of respending and reinvesting in Greater Miami we applied a multiplier to the total direct output. This created total output from the development phase of the Project. A multiplier of 1.8453 was also used for `:Ci»s purpose. = This multiplier indicates that for every $100 speri- in Greater f Miami another $84.53 will be respent or reinvested in Greater Miami before the $100 eventually leaks to areas outside of Greater Miami. Total direct output exclusive of wages during the development phase is $28,860,000. Total indirect and induced output created by the direct respending in Greater Miami is $31,404,000. Thus total Greater. Miami Output from the development of Cocowalk is $60,264,000. Another component of output results from the direct operating expenditures of the management company and the indirect and induced benefits created as a result of the multiplier effect on direct output. The final component of output results from the direct operating expenditures of the businesses located at Cocowalk and the indirect and induced benefits created as a result of the multiplier effect on direct output. To determine the management company's direct operating expenditures we used, as a basis, annual operating proformas for the management of the Project. An overall assumption was made that all management expenditures would be spent initially in Miami. The total operating expenditures incorporate all estimated expenses for the management of the Project, except for wages. The impact on wages was measured separately as an economic indicator. Such expenses include maintenance, marketing, administration, security, insurance, etc. 17 62 To determine the direct output resulting from the actual operations of the businesses at the Project, we computed the annual operational expenditures of the businesses expected to be spent in Miami as a percentage of actual revenue generated. To incorporate the potential respending and reinvesting in Greater Miami, the multiplier effect was measured. By applying a multiplier of 1.8453 to the total direct output from operating expenditures, we determined total output (direct and indirect) from on -going operating expenditures. To. compute induced impact created by the respending by employees working at the Project, we applied a spending multiplier of .6912 to the annual wages paid as a result of the on -going operations of the Project and the businesses housed there. Total direct output created from operating expenditures is $29,280,000. Total indirect output created _ from operating expenditures is $11,861,000. Total induced output created from employee spending is $5,939,000. Local Taxes A key and significant benefit generated from the development and operation of Cocowalk is taxes. Several types of tax revenue will be generated from this project including both ad valorem and non -ad valorem taxes. Specific ad valorem taxes include real and personal property taxes. Specific non -ad valorem taxes include occupational taxes, community development taxes and various impact fees. New real property taxes will be assessed on the Project as a whole. The assessment is based on a predetermined millage rate being applied to the taxable value of the real property. We computed real property taxes based on the cost of the development of the Project. This assessment base is very conservative since tax on real property typically is assessed on adjusted appraised values and not cost. Cost was used in the place of an estimated appraisal for conservatism. The millage rate was obtained from the County Tax Collectors office relative to the Project's location. Exhibit VII shows a summary of the computed taxes. The total real property taxes, expected to be generated annually are $1,218,000. Total ad valorem taxes assessed by Dade County are allocated based on millage rates to certain cost centers. Listed below is the allocation of projected annual tax revenue to the County. County Schools $ 337,974 South Florida Water 21,333 Florida Inland Navigation 21145 County Operating 287,352 Debt Service - County 47,190 Special District 42,939 City Operating 374,381 Debt Service - City 91,186 School Debt Service. 13,065 Total $1,217,564 omacaa���ps 19 92-- 62 .TAN-1 S-42 WED . 9 :50 Although not quantified, Greater Miami, through its receipt of allocated state sales taxes will receive an additional benefit as a result of -the development and operation of the Project. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Public Sector Costs Given that a community has embarked on economic development which involves increases in visitors and traffic, a major concern is the proper balance between the public sector revenues and the cost associated with the various forms this development may take. Public policy might seek to enhance development with beneficial net effects on the public sector, or at least avoid development having clearly adverse effects. Some of the costs that must be considered are required increases in the following: Public Safety (police and fire) Highways Health and Environmental Services Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements (Infra structure) Schools The objective of this report is not to measure the potential increases in public- sector costs that may result from the development and operations of this project. Nor was this report's objectives to compare the fiscal benefits with cost that may result from this project. Therefore we will not attempt to quantify such factors. We did feel it was necessary to make mention of certain potential fiscal costs that must be considered. 20 92 - 62 J A N— 1 5— 9 2 W E D C04 TPI,It. TA 7•9M 1 a: P02 ..r ■1M RFCf�sv� , JIN 15 3 43 p f:f''T. OF �j � UNIHIT 0-1 CITY OF M Af•�, Y.1x&LWLa . Loon .Qm r)r- Au=Dt.isw Address: 2665 south Dayshore Drive Coco uL Grovo, FL 33133 Of'ficoze: Patr ce Borghetti Eric Stampfli Yarm it Stainer PAeri,oia Gurry Directors: Patrice Borg}►etti Eric f tompfli JeanKcyjjea OUPhtlpe DUaIkvdin MereLetri Shareholdera: 50% Batiquo Worms (See F.xbibit B•2) 20% Toreacas Invastment, Inc. ddress: 300 Avenue du $rado 11008 Marseille, France )fficers: Marc Vietri Jacques Hourri irgctors: Jacques Hourri 01it istian Nicolau Shareholders: 51 % dare 111etri 49% Jacques Hourri 20X "egep, Inc, (Sae Exhibit a-3) 10% >:B Conseil S.A. ddresa: 17. rue Gawitartin Pariat France 75009 fficers: Philippe Duaardin Jean-Claude Bmpereur Gerard do Buyer tractors: Philippe Dujdrdin Jeen-olaudo Einpareur Oarard du buyer Ali Abdallah Al Khalif Al Sabah hareholdors: 100% Kuwaiti French Sank (Soo Exhibit S-4) - . 21 92- 62 C E 2 As a result of our survey, we have compiled the following: Construction Period Peak Employees On -Going Operations Management Tenants Security Maintenance Parking Total Minority As A Total Black Other Total of Total 280 N/A 132 132 47% 7 0 2 2 29% 673 132 205 337 50% 14 3 9 12 86% 12 5 7 12 100% 16 4 11 15 94% 722 144 234 378 52% It Should be noted that the employment figures for the on- going operation of CocoWalk represent actual employees and is not stated in terms of full-time equivalent jobs and therefore will be greater than that previously referred to in this report. N/A - Not Available 22 92-- 62 As a result of our survey, we have compiled the following: Minority As A Total Black Other Total % of Total Construction Period Peak Employees 280 N/A 132 132 47% On -Going Operations Management 7 0 2 2 29% Tenants 673 132 205 337 50% Security 14 3 9 12 86% Maintenance 12 5 7 12 100% Parking 16 4 11 15 94% Total ---- 722 ---- 144 ---- 234 ---- 378 ---- 52% It Should be noted that the employment figures for the on- going operation of CocoWalk represent actual employees and is not stated in terms of full-time equivalent jobs and therefore will be greater than that previously referred to in this report. N/A - Not Available 22 92- 62 r SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 92- 62 KX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Based upon the preceding in-depth analysis of The Cocowalk Project, it appears evident that such a development can clearly bring significant economic benefits to Greater Miami. This final section reviews the results of the employment opportunities, public sector revenues and total economic benefits in Greater Miami as a result of the development. Employment Employment considerations include Cocowalk direct employment and employment created in the surrounding community through new residents spending. Total development phase employment was approximately 195 and on -going annual employment resulting from the maintenance of the Project and operation of retail stores is approximately 633. Wages associated with such employment can be summarized as follows: Development Annual $ 10,140,000 $ 8,592,000 Tax Revenue The analysis of public sector revenues associated with the development includes taxes and other revenues generated directly by the Project. Although public sector cost is a important element in measuring fiscal impact, for purposes of this project such cost have not been quantified.. This analysis only measured the benefits derived from the Project. Total tax revenues expected to be created are as follows: Annual Total $1,218,000 23 City $ 400,000 Output The analysis of total economic impact is measured by total output. This analysis measures the economic impact of development cost, operational expenditures, residents spending and employee spending. To determine the effect of respending within Greater Miami, we utilized a multiplier to compute total direct, indirect and induced benefits. Total output expected to be generated as a result of the development and operation of the Project will approximate: One Time $ 60,264,000 Annual $ 47,080,000 24 9 - 62 MULTIPLIER EFFECT OF VISITOR EXPENDITURES 9 2 - 82 MULTIPLIER EFFECTS OF PATRON EXPENDITURES Patron_ expenditures in business establishments constitute the primary and most direct economic benefits. These direct expenditures represent receipts to businesses from which employment and tax payments to state and local governments are derived, and from which business owners and proprietors earn a livelihood. Direct expenditures of patrons produce additional economic benefits as those businesses receiving them purchase supplies and services locally and elsewhere, creating an additional round of demand for other firms in the area. Similar new demands for goods and services are generated by the expenditures of employees in those firms receiving patron expenditures, and similarly employees in those firms which respond to successive rounds of demand. Output of goods and services generated after direct patron expenditures is called indirect output, and direct plus indirect output is called total output. Indirect output can be seen in terms of two components: secondary output, that which relates directly to the indirect demand created as each firm purchases the good and services which it needs to operate; and induced output, which is the indirect output generated by employee purchases of good and services. 25 92- 62 The ratio of total output to direct expenditures can be represented by a multiplier, a value typically between 1.5 and 2.5. A ratio of 1.8 means that for every dollar expended in the local economy by a visitor, an additional $.80 of output (additional sales) in the local economy is ultimately created by the indirect purchases of businesses and employees. The magnitude of a multiplier relates to: (1) the extent of economic leakage that characterizes a community or region; and (2) the nature of the firms that receive the direct expenditures. The effect of leakage shows the magnitude of successive rounds of expenditures in a local economy as each firm or employee spends the funds received. Looking at the first round of expenditure, each initial dollar of patron expenditure is diluted by purchases for goods or services made outside the local area (called "imports"). Such purchases do not create any additional output for firms or individuals in the local economy. If 60 percent of such purchases are made outside the area, $.40 of the original dollar to create additional demand in the local economy would be left. During the second round of expenditures an additional 60 percent leaks out of the area leaving $.16 to create additional local output. This process continues until no significant new output is created by the additional expenditures. Each successive round of expenditures have been called turnover, and the number of rounds before total dilution is the number of times a dollar "turns over" in an economy. The multiplier representing the economy represented here would be calculated by adding all of the output created by each successive round of expenditures and dividing that amount by $1, the initial expenditure. This multiplier amounts to 1.66. 26 9 .. 62 Actual multiplier values are calculated by large research studies of transactions among all sectors of an economy using complex mathematical models which account for interactions among all sectors, leakages, the effects of household demand, payments to local and other government, and changes in inventories. Each such analysis represents a particular economy at a specific point in time. As an economy evolves, in particular as the patterns of trade change during periods of growth, inter -industry transactions alter, and multipliers and other representations of economic structure also change. For this reason these models are periodically updated using current transactions data. Multiplier values relate to the nature of an economy and to the particular sector under consideration. Relatively undeveloped economies which provide only limited offerings of goods and services tend to exhibit low multipliers. Examples are rural areas, communities and sta-es with highly specialized economies. Much of the indirect demand for goods aC,. services leaks out of these economies to large and/or more diverse areas nearby that have better selections of goods and services. Sectors of the economy with relatively low multipliers are those that import a high proportion of the supplies and services they need from surrounding areas, since the purchase of such imports constitutes a leakage out of the local economy. Examples of types of firms that often exhibit high leakage and low multipliers are gasoline stations, automobile dealers, and manufacturing firms that import a large proportion of their raw materials. Sectors with lower .leakages and higher multipliers include those which are relatively labor intensive, such as food or beverage services, accommodations, farming and a variety of other small-scale activities. I 27 92- 62 i Sections characterized by relatively high wages also can exhibit large multipliers due to the large induced demand that these wages create in the local economy. Indir6ct economic effects are particularly important for the visitor industry because of the relatively low wages and seasonal employment that characterizes many visitor industry firms. While this direct employment may be appropriate primarily for those who are young and seeking entry-level positions or who want only part-time and/or seasonal work, the employment created by indirect effects is higher paying, more stable, spread throughout the economy, and does not differ substantially from the indirect employment created by any other economic activity. 28 y 2 ... 62 Exhibit I Summary of all Economic Benefits Exhibit II . Summary of all Direct Economic Benefits Exhibit III Summary of all indirect Economic Benefits Exhibit IV Computation of Indirect Economic Benefits Exhibit V Schedule of project Development Cost Exhibit VI Schedule of project operational Expenditures Exhibit VII Schedule of Ad Valorem Taxes Exhibit VIll Allocation of Ad Valorem Taxes Exhibit IX operating Assumptions 92- 62 COCOWALK EXHIBIT I ECONOMIC BENEFITS STUDY SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OUTPUT WAGES EMPLOYMENT TAXES DIRECT DEVELOPMENTAL 28,860,000 10,140,000 195 481,142 OPERATIONAL 29,279,571 ----------------------------------------------------------- 8,592,000 633 1,217,564 58,139,571 18,732,000 828 1,698,706 INDIRECT DEVELOPMENTAL 24, 395, 358 OPERATIONAL 11,861,274 ----------------------------------------------------------- 36,256,632 0 0 0 INDUCED DEVELOPMENTAL 7,008,768 OPERATIONAL ----------------------------------------------------------- 5,938,790 0 12,947,558 - 0 0 TOTAL 94,396,203 31,679,558 828 1,698,706 • axa3a3aaaxss=aa3aa3aaaaamaa3:aaaaa=3aaaaaaaaa=aaaxxasaa.aaaa 92- 62 • COCOWALK SUMMARY OF DIRECT ECONOMIC BENEFITS 1991-2006 EXHIBIT I: TAXES PHASE # OF EMPLOYEE WAGES DIRECT COST AD VALORUM =a====va�aaxaoa�a==-oa.aa3=3aa=a=aaaaa=acaaaa=a�a=�;aaaaaaaaa==n=o�==�=.a.no: DEVELOPMENT PHASE LAND 8,000,000 481,142 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 195 10,140,000 20,860,000 0 SUB-TOTAL ---------------------------------------------------- 195 ---------------------------------------------------- 10,140,000 28,860,000 481,142 - OPERATIONS PHASE MALL MANAGEMENT 67 1,608,000 1,251,000 0 STORE OPERATIONS 550 6,600,000 0 0 PATRON SPENDING 0 0 27,428,571 0 REAL PROPERTY 0 0 0 1,217,564 PARKING OPERATIONS 16 384,000 0 0 PARKING REVENUE 0 0 600,000 0 SUB-TOTAL ---------------------------------------------------- 633 8,592,000 29,279,571 1,217,564 TOTAL DIRECT BENEFITS ---------------------------------------------------- 828 18,732'9000 58,139,571 1,698,706 aaaaas3�aaaaaaaaaaaaaa�asaaaa=a=3a�a=aaacaaaxe==a�a= 92-- 62 6 COCOWALK EXHIBIT III SUMMARY OF THE MULTIPLIED IMPACT OF RESPENDING DEVELOPMENT OPERATING DESCRIPTION PHASE PHASE TOTAL aaas=aa=oaaanam==aaaa==== amaassaaeaa=saoxa=asaaaeazmanaa=sa=sa=a.aaazas DIRECT COST (INDIRECT) 24,395,358 11,861,274 36,256,632 EMPLOYEE SPENDING(INDUCED) 7,008,768 5,938,790 12,947,558 TOTAL ----------------------------------------------- 31,404,126 17,800,064 49,204,190 zaaz=sa:zamzam�azs3:azsaasaaaeaaaoaaza=sz=zae=oa 9262 _ r • 0009 rx E Emrr r: CUfMl7ICN OF INDIRDC.T BWFTPS 1991-2006 1,251,000 12,589,029 192,000 14,032,029 42,892,029 i MIN v®r, 0.8453 1,057,470 1,584,000 0.8453 10,641,506 6,600,000 0.8453 162,298 408,000 11,861,274 8,592,000 36,256,632 18,732,000 0.6912 1,094,86: 0.6912 4,561,92C 0.6912 282,01C 5,938,79C 12,947,558 92_ 62 a•• • t : a is r fm •.ia4y t1►1�u 7a • r t r •,• a � r • • a a• r a raio•• r a r.r. a►/ 11: seaU IN OCSr ATl=TION DADE • • DADE W/OUr r•r 00 . ••• ••• 16,000,000 • •r • - •••. 6,000,0006,000,000 • • •: • - • ••• ••• ••• ••• • 9 -- 62 COCOWALK EXHIBIT VI ECONOMIC BENEFITS STUDY OPERATIONAL EXPENSES - DESCRIPTION aaaaaaaa=aasaassaaaa=meaa RETAIL STORES EMPLOYMENT MANAGEMENT EMPLOYMENT OPERATIONS # OF EMPLOYEES EXPENSE sassaaaaaaasasssaaasaasasa 550 6,600,000 83 1,992,000 1,251,000 --------------- 633 9,843,000 ssaaa:aaaasaassaaaaaasaasa 92- 62 COCOWALR COMPUTATION OF AD VALORUM TAXES 1990-2006 DESCRIPTION REAL PROPERTY ------------------------- DEVELOPED PROJECT VALUE MILLAGE TAX RATE COMPUTED R/9 TAX LAND VALUE MILLAGE TAX RATE COMPUTED R/E TAX TOTAL EXHIBIT VII DEVELOPMENT PHASE ANNUAL YEAR 1 YEAR 2 REOCCURING ea.aaaasaaaaaa=nasaxxaa�aa.-as=annna====caa=== 31,000,000 3.12% --------------- 967,808 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 2.97% 3.04% 3.12% 237,793 243,349 249,757 237,793 243,349 1,217,564 • saaaaaa:sasasassaga=:saaa3asaasaaa=a.aaaaa=a= 9 2 --• 62 El COCOWALK EXHIBIT VIII ALLOCATION OF AD VALORUM TAXES 1992-2006 APPLICABLE COMPUTED DESCRIPTION BASIS MILLAGE TAXES acaaxaxa=aaaaaaaa=axaaaa3a=aasaaa==aaaeaaamaaaasanaaaxma=aaama SCHOOLS 39,000,000 0.008666 337,974 SOUTH FLA. WATE 39,000,000 0.000547 21,333 FLORIDA INLAND 39,000,000 0.000055 2,145 COUNTY OPERATIN 39,000,000 0.007368 287,352 DEBT SERVICE - 39,000,000 0.001210 47,190 SPECIAL DISTRIC 39,000,000 0.001101 42,939 CITY OPERATING 39,000,000 0.009600 374,381 SCHOOL DEBT SER 39,000,000 0.000335 13,065 CITY DEBT SERVI 39,000,000 0.0023381 --------------------------- 91,186 0.031220 1,217,564 aas:sasaaa:aasaamaamaamazacm:amaa 92- 62 COCOWALK EXHIBIT IX ECONOMIC BENEFITS STUDY OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ------------------ -------------------------- AVG LEASABLE SQ. FT. / UNIT 4,047 NUMBER OF UNITS 36 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD / MO. 24 MONTHS CONSTRUCTION LOAN 35,000,000 GROSS SQUARE FT. 156,698 LEASEABLE SQ. FT. 145,684 CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT 195 CONSTRUCTION WAGES 10,140,000 SPENDING MULTIPLIER 1.8453 WAGES MULTIPLIER 0.6912 EMPLOYMENT MULTIPLIER 51.00 ANNUAL WORK HOURS 2,000 AVG. ANNUAL SALARY - ADMIN 24,000 MAINTENANCE COST 542,000 ADMINISTRATION COST 30,000 SECURITY COST 250,000 MARKETING COST 667,000 MANAGEMENT COST 365,000 LEASING COST 56,000 OTHER 85,000 RETAIL EMPLOYEES 550 LEASING OFFICE EMPLOYEES 1 ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES 1 MARKETING EMPLOYEES 2 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES 11 MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES 2 SECURITY EMPLOYEES 14 CLEAN-UP CREW 15 POLICE 20 PARKING EMPLOYEES 17 RETAIL HOURLY RATE 6.00 RETAIL REVENUE - -16,000,000 MONTHS OPEN 7 PROJECTED REVENUE 27,428,571 NET PROFIT RATIO 8.00% PROJECTED OPERATING EXP 25,234,286 MANAGEMENT SALARIES 250,000 PARKING REVENUE 600,000 PROJ. OPER. EXP. W/OUT MIAMI 6,045,257 9 2 - 62 :1 11 COCOWALK ECONOMIC BENEFITS STUDY OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS DESCRIPTION -------------------------------------------- AMOUNT AVG LEASABLE SQ. FT. / UNIT 4,047 NUMBER OF UNITS 36 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD / MO. 24 MONTHS CONSTRUCTION LOAN 35,000,000 GROSS SQUARE FT. 156,698 LEASEABL•E SQ. FT. 145,684 CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT 195 CONSTRUCTION WAGES 10,140,000 SPENDING MULTIPLIER 1.8453 WAGES MULTIPLIER 0.6912 EMPLOYMENT MULTIPLIER 51.00 ANNUAL WORK HOURS 2,000 AVG. ANNUAL SALARY - ADMIN 24,000 MAINTENANCE COST 542,000 ADMINISTRATION COST 30,000 SECURITY COST 250,000 MARKETING COST 667,000 MANAGEMENT COST 365,000. LEASING COST 56,000 OTHER 85,000 RETAIL EMPLOYEES 550 LEASING OFFICE EMPLOYEES 1 ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES 1 MARKETING EMPLOYEES 2 MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES 11 MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES 2 SECURITY EMPLOYEES 14 CLEAN-UP CREW 16 POLICE 20 PARKING EMPLOYEES 16 RETAIL HOURLY RATE _ 6.00 RETAIL REVENUE 16,000,000 MONTHS OPEN 7 PROJECTED REVENUE 27,428,571 NET PROFIT RATIO 8.00% PROJECTED OPERATING EXP 25,234,286 MANAGEMENT SALARIES 250,000 PARKING REVENUE 600,000 32-- 62 EXHIBIT 010 i0 Av is AY e •ri.s 41 N/s�iCi/�a/• d,M►l.�r..y �yrrl+/.wry.., •�. wr. o.,s sr.wA�r Isy ✓.wr• iy.�. e.vn�..y as vwswAW —001, ..y ifsv✓Aftw .Y ooiwrdgwr ,r 4+0.b.AW s rs.s.r .r.+.s.n.. a.► aerwfMr Irr�f ,.fie W4-yI �r w� db/AfIdU s ����� •.M••Mrrr�v�2yditY• M�wA��I �� � �j. ✓AAr.✓ OVA... ✓A/ wsM o•R J�iM.f/�ys mow!/r t (fr ���+ ��rr �• AY /.....ice .ir��r�/��s f .•r.�1M ..+o rraild �.�rr.✓a,•]f.•,y — + — I%pft.4w ASy Mr.rrts.s o� /isr4�s yrlryr' f wir As�sivsi�.i.rr+/Y4w'rw►.�r •a.•r Awl &alid Auz*ja emda Aadwr/fir - teala�a�sltniyLand.Sv� � :"` Oil �p FED DRAWING LIST SHEET TITLE Exhibit 1 General Location Map Exhibit 2 Project Area Map/Street System Exhibit 3 Project Area Map/Surrounding Buildings L-1 Tenant Mix Plan - Level 1 t-2 Tenant Mix Plan - Level 2 L-3 Tenant. Mix Plan - Level 3 L-4 Tenant Mix Plan - Level 4 10.01 Legend Index 20.01 Site Plan/Building Information 25.01 Landscape Development - Level 1 25.02 Landscape Development - Level 2 25.03 Landscape Development - Level 3 25.04 Landscape Development - Level 4 25.05 Landscape Details 25.06 Landscape Details 25.07 Landscape Details 30.01 D-Level Parking Plan 30.01R D-Level Parking Plan/Proposed Re -Striping 30.02 C-Level Parking Plan 30.02R C-Level Parking Plan/Proposed Re -Striping 30.03 Street Level Plan 30.04 B-Level Parking Plan 30.04R B-Level Parking Plan/Proposed Re -Striping 30.05 A -Level Parking Plan 30.05R A -Level Parking Plan/Proposed Re -Striping 30.06 Mezzanine Level Plan 30.08 Roof Plan 34.01 Exterior Building Elevations/Virginia Street 34.02 Exterior Building Elevations/Grand Avenue 34.03 Exterior Building Elevations/East & West Arcades 34.04 Exterior Building Elevations/North Arcade 34.05 Exterior Building Elevations/West Property Line 34.06 Exterior Building Elevations/North Property Line 37.01 Building Sections/North-South 37.02 Building Sections/East-West 37.03 Building Sections/Parking Garage �� � Y•VJ.` y'!r�. ' � iIs � �r.1� I I � I:r.: •f I I At.'9 t�:' I +w ^I I ru• I 1. •...,■ �O I ©� ,rl• D �I' N.T.S. ,_( ,+.• • .^_1C�-'7i� r zl 3 Irt�. i� I r `'••. :'.r L f I tl—� � t..i. �c.. J.. 836 11 o a ^J y 1'S I t� Z. t' Y. wl wl �•d• ;I • SI w.. I LIw . t • ' W v i�Cwwrdi� a hit » 0....r•ba I�1> 2�:� �.�: 1 •, i �1WtpI ( A•d.la..•.• t t^•1 `r.'r'w I. �f ••IIr.M 1 I 1.. {+� W . llriprli L1 I et I L 1!f (t�r'-�� '�� wia . > i �Y-/..�. r, � 1 - •I t t�I � � w i a ' ��!'I. ICiI _ aJl _- � rg� � A •�..i L i it �0 i La. w. JtID •• w••1 ' I mn `1� il• .1 IW r 1 •[w -t 1 f •Tw �41 •• . •. i /L �• I ID1 Y••. 4a Iw j/1 or.. TRAI w T M r w.lZ I I .I • •T • 1 C.tr.w.M ^ T I of Y •J loTW �rAO11aA*'• •Yt �. •JOaCA ♦ 0 SOawawtrwfA 93� �r'a ��'iM i I A•a. Ir A.Oa CA f•;r ,I i r•r/ i • i r1 11. ` M14 .1 }—SHENANOOAH — 972 yr..a.. wiI• 0 3 h' � 't 1•.w Ir• r wr � J In, w rl..•.. 1� ►ar �i p w I • • 1 ww...r4 -. ►«a t .•. •. r.>. Da•pr � �. • V•Jlara TOIL r J 1 Art r.• j — 1 I � a yy` natrtai • au 8 /, '�► `'�'~" BISCAYNE SI . •� � I L y � � .—low MOM �1 . 1 j :� City mu'r* ,p.AMD BAY — J ell « •` v ••f A► 164 I It•.•w w I.rl r w C.— M. /arr •� O' ( I I/a= (SI. Or. I •a--C-000NUT— .� a I al.vo. :• ..GROVE � a � M•..a• II I _ PROJECT �•a ( LOCATION oa. - _ toatwATaw -moo■, '92- 62 COCOWALK EXHIBIT 1 IONMAP m DAY AVE. 2 T • O t LE OAK AVE.000 a 3 N ' FLORIDA AVE. PROJECT COCOWALK .: ENTRANCE j MAYFAIR GRAND AVE. COCONU 1 GROVE i N.T.S. BISCAYNE BAY COCOwAL K BAP 92-- 62 E 4 JULY 19, 1991 ORDER No. 163388 SURROUNDING BUILDINGS 4 pZ� ry g c" ('11,z a �I L c�, a � R �► ,vfQ,e?' s7RE,67- ►vl �G LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT 3 SCALE: 1 "s 300 .4 2 ` 6 SCHWEBKE - SHISKIH & ASSOCIATES, IN UND FUNNERS ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS LAND SURVEYORS 3240 CORPORATE WAY - MIRAMAR, FL. 33025 9 E4 IIIII� •��'iii� JIM IVAI N DAO ..... .. .... ..... nj iFla"T nj iFla"T M.,. IAO m % um MUM -- M■■n Munn Munn ..A mm�Wm ABBREVIATIONS I • IN IY •.•rr IY �. Mw IN M.. iiZ= GRAPHIC SYMBOLS YCIP w...• F.!-I.a .M...• a .n Zw ir.'Iw~ '.�...... tom. � 1 { 1 '7 I • 1 9 DRAWING INDEX rn• Y.► t...-.__ .•�...� ... nr. _.... ... DIATERIAl. SYMBOLS r.w •..... �L. � —.vim I V t-m IR . f, N s AREA CALCULATIONS ZONING INFORMATION FLOOUPROOFING INFORMATION LOCATION MAI' :JF] COCOWAIII AEtAA. UkANI SUYYAnT _� == * —....,.. `_— SITE .. � ..._..`..^.ice .... _.. ..._, �/ ,[. __ —�. •_• _ r ._ r ._r ..r SITE PLAN NOTES COCO.AtII ENIENTAI►MENt I NESTAINIANT �"`� l BaM CRAM—EWO SUMS N _TENANT SUYYANf i.1 L i I . COCOWAtN THEATERS SIlW1ANT r�z _ 1 ( a _ \T Cu) W) T � �.., , .•+.. , ice-' COCOIIOAEn COMEMI) TOTALS-^— G N A N 0 A V E N U E C77 E 111 A N I BiJ11.i►INI: , ORMATION g -- 'Pov u.tt..•Ywti� 1 ak-h ICCC-kaj GIO, E. 0; .9 f Fir jp!ylYfLL Oi)�` 1 t 77"- ,It ll—� f 6 F I., P OND LEVEL RKING PLAN 250:1 ® 4 1� m . RD LEVEL Al I * E'vy.l. XINt. PLAN I N ;4-.iZAN1NV LEVEL & CINEMA LFVEL PLATY 1 S.ttlm-►I.n1t..1 i• i...t. put. 13OS '.char P1.111a of }d 1." * Vb&" 31. S OS ...usw 1 � � - �—� 1•IwfML I 1•..•L nW --_ _ H1. ,I i i s'wlw . . • •' 'Y7 taM..L I ! � 1• I I _ 1 '• tinwls•.• rL s � 1 1 I �' ^n ....eL PI.^ Pl.t. 1r.0 W.. 75 OS S O! Iv 1 a 1 •1 I 1 2 1 a I a 1 S 1 _ ... ..e »* 64 w/ 12 wP ♦! all-leW/22t'A'' •/ o • wl 70 wP &-1. a » w/ 2e *P •a a ie wI is wr •a 2W2e w/ 23 WF 1.6 l-11w/10wP. MW I f 1 Y'aV Rff .: _ •ar /n+x wltwfan r,..a alr.It — • bMbr Tyd�t1 /1WM 2w0 � ]r• L/.t/t .� !•Clltrr Pbwfw •1 2wO wt/ hG.6 of �/'. f awr' TtOkt1 ►e1 r,/ trlptf/en a e.pr-Pl.tfw N are ill some t ti.o�r * p.•..r 1 t.\/ _. wlt Mob NA /s..owl 1 i�^wi�w.�'i1� :.'�•w..�.. �..✓ • www.r�. w• 1 �, � .K M.w./ sr �5�t . r• . i +. w: ,ate—�� �... r.�. �s^....��� ��%. �i'�.i NV r•j1�.•. w+.�.� �• T..... Rt•IMY -_.. ... N•. �•1•tlt twT\ , ^ �F.rw V..�•w�� � ..r...r. f .s i►.� . rnn. r,ft . ,.•., ow.r�w _ 7• -A. 1 ... W ..,..b........�.....� ....�. I. tr♦na+•. �. ".''..•`�.'. It. yf__ w rl.... I R'p .+..�. .. +.. �,�d•4....w I••�WA wlt/ T! i•� 1 m1 IIII "I i III I 'I 9 ",� III' I IIII 1 11 1 ill ligl of p NI I ill • Pot Sched Ae PFard U31 --` •.: ww' r �• _. _ _ " - ;,,,,,.. a !.. r •.,. r' •Li � IW .wip✓, i.r...:i _ _ _'�•'� _ ___ �� - F-1 �w�• n.�r•..�. v.^w....r..�•.I.r .+w•• 7 :.. ... ___ _ �M-�•+�"�!!I•t_IM� _ tVR '.' .��_�__-- •.� • ,7) I •J M. .nrw...•I`•rV. M.'s• t• •.�!• wr r rol♦ •.u.w• •nwi •.r.• I•rN w,1ur. I» !. -' .y •.+-•ws.•• w i �r.•M ._ ._ _ _ • ief i - .. �M _ _ _ • gcrM• ^ •r•• rr r.r• .rrN.l • iMl•r\•rO w.•• ItN•r\•.'r`f .�•� 7•I :\Y•11•II J\K ur• • •O.1►r•• I IIr rl utl.w...• •it. �yuY w -�» e..►��•.r• _ IArf.•-�- �f�T�'_ ._- � M•Y..N •�•. M Ir.'_.I Ww • .•r...• .. r...M w.. r... w.. ...... -•�� __ MN• H W ~ ��- rr �•.Ilwrt.• _ -- 7R_ • �M. •I �._IIV•• fww M^�i • - •.•r..0 .• « "i1 .ry tiryyr�J% •.ffY t 1••1\•.•J• -__ __.. T+ M ^rt. •V'•Iv .I. . •f r.•••r .w •.w.-• ...«. «r..» �•�,w �M. _ _•�� I' •r r+.• N.r•.• • rr•• ..... ••. ••• ..•• r• w •"rr'•• _..• ••. f I s I r f /' » �'r •.IM.N•K•M 'LMnr.Y+ •••VwWM __�- • _. -- �✓ •w• s1r_ � IV• r.l I•w_.n.i•.� rMM•.. W rn.rw/r.• Ir•...r+�M+.s___ ««.r« •rw.... •... «.w••••• •......... ...«.«• r ... .r«.. �.. .. .. ... «..� -p w•Nn..t•.•I.•'••11.••✓ 11� I\ww,+Vofn ,�.•rY•.f.W fr.••r_ Y.r WILL /r•Nf .•r .•r•f•« 'µ r•Irw•.n_• � M✓i.f.• 17� •7• Ir _ • • -_ �r••t .W •V•;;Krw!!•wr 1 v`/r•/F __. ••/••«. 1•.r•� w• •� •« trt••••�i• «•�«w..r •.•«.• r.. r ...rw• _«• rM..N W r••II«••« I«•• Y 1 7v ryr.•••uY •r• yr•r.••Y ,A___ i G Mwr .... s...s W.Yr•rrw rrur• - •fn I�sNw •'•rl/1•M Mr Iff i �• 1!+• ..w.to•n n.l•u..H - � _ I.. rN•• Nr.. w r« ••�_...••• •• rr. r _ .. r..•. _.«..... .....�.. _... 1M �wY• ti.•.b• .r. b •Mf •.��N.• r:l.• � �.•Oyw/ _ » M•_�"w•Nf•N .. Y•t•Mrt wl•. N •M\M.LM .�/np/•M MfyO IYr Iwt•4• �� •\f aW .••• r w_•••• Y . Y•O•_••1� ra••{IM 1►�1=• � ! V • I••yVI - M�•rrr..«rrw ......•...« r .r Iw..• «•r• r«. •!W t.�.Z Y•••W.` ft IWI✓Ir.•.• w••••s•.• wr.lr. J••`r r 1_ Ilww w•••C ww.w.r • .. .« /7E4•w A•1► •fro Il• If• !.'I••1 ry• Yw1J•f •ty.-. • ««•« «.••. •. rNr r... �.». \f rwr. YN•r•wrr rr•r.r �. ._». _ _. _ __—_ _ _ N ..•.• .• •: 1 .... r ...•«r. •. _ ..w...• 1-� IMYVt- •wli �F\MIVw. W �_ , � _ ._. _. .--_ _-- .rn_ r•_ •• w•... �.rr»rr ►•...�r=...... - � I'tl'�r'. M14r 'wlfwH+11' (_Livw•� �,;, ,.,.r •w. rr.s. -....a J+•: I •�.•.Y r .....•.: ..: .._ _ ... r.. ..:. u .«.«_ r....»._ •. r.« ...... _.{ �•/• MnD• l.J.I•� �. O✓••ti.•w•'1 YNlfrlJt _� _l•J_ r{ ✓ ; .1' �� Ir'1•r' 1i r• �. ^M4fV 4 44MI U1K M•f Ow - �-.- r Y••r ••rJ• If_ ••• r�r.•� .VH••IrW •ytIV111••.•I -- _ •r•f_ M • r r « o -- nJww rwf•Y .. ti*1'IR u'••'n'w � ru•w/ n n+t. w�u .tnr. I••.•..•w• rK Id in w..a«w1w1) »...N .. ...�....r I •r...w 7... �,r� •..1... •« r r Ftvwr it IWq -w• ff lam~ ..... « ..... r r _.r. _•.._ «.... .......» .. «• ..r_.« b' • r.17 I•N•r • f r..•N«r r........ ............«.. K p. ♦• 1 .'.�.—. VL►.V LNIFuc AI7Y r.� l L.o.; , 1 �� raw N •^.1_•.'c•' .. 4• . / . _ _ /lti, •` w'• . t�.r7r-.►. Mug 7.wu5T��p 9. � � � ,. :r..r, r� � �3[� '4 i • .�' I r- t 1 - i i �- - I 1: rirrhr rn••r, .1.1�'IIf.!"r.' rn c*on r.�t• ri q -- 1. t m I I1 '1 1y IIIIIIIIiII Ili III PiIIII 'I'l IIIIIIIpull{ IIIIIIIII - I IIIIIIS . I III IIII al �A m . (A) AIX 9) (c (0) IE) IF) (G) )IM I I I ��I i �)I� I.._ I l� I l .3. . )/31 I � I I ��1 .1, I I I I__k1 ' — T I I I I I I.;��:.'a:.� i�i I Ilk .1-11; 1t_j_ ��'I_11_:L.=tt�1f�•� �.�I�1 I I d - If A I �I "--I-_.I_ ,. �� )LIJI_....LJ1._I._.I. _ T1 1* 11 ill ,:.III ._: _. -. I I I I I��I_ I_' ' �.. � 7 1 rk (F 6) (FO 1ENERAL TESII . 1. E, v El 1. MINI: I'VAN ).1 l r/ 2 O t 1 S b 7' e A TAl B) lC/ L0 E� F.1 - 16/ M. l h t,M. I�d-r . I i�;il _ 1 yea raa se r+r=_ --- j --- :ter.— ---�� � ,vlll � Iu�J��ii.l,l���•f~I_i�l��l 1 I,I I L��I• - IT /�\ 1 , -- ilk. a�< • • .!�! !f_ --- 1Il1�%II � IJ IrJ � I .I•� � I ,, I .. �a � •tea � .w. .+r a-_ . _— I,. - - ---- ~.'I1,1.1 II I �..,;•��� !.; t-;I_I�i I I II I I �� =- -- IO .i. I I • LI i - •�I.`__�i.; � ' I� I I•I I I I.i I I�� ' .-� � -' ; �� - 1� •!f •K ••f 'l' t III f -- -- -Z-= •� I 1 - �� ! ' 'I r'f''"'-`,' _ I _IT-c; 1 ; q1�r Eb. I 1 it u ,' 1 ,'. 1 , � I ww •n I I _. PLANNOTES "D" LEVEL YAKKING PLAN PROPOSED PARKIN(. STRIPING M)tR M 177111 I 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 . I . IEI F I (G) H) DS � 1' � _.I. i_I I�I� i Li�} i l i IT I F Fil I .I _ ,s, _ I I" I.) Q J 11. 14 �l w A-1 fit') III I I �..�� >�f�l I I �17f. FOR I . L Oit i'lAN NOTES (,C ) ol C) II j XI I(NI ( K r x ip 4D 0 0 21 -- rt: +0 ivol 1 i 1�r1 l 1- I l)1 "' i - i '__per-;_�-._.1__ _ ' � "' n --� tt �_��--.I�=� Qly I old N'd _474 KEY NOTES PLAN NOTES -C�71XVEL PARKING PLAN PROPOSED PARKMo STRVItNG MINE J 11,111h CA) 'a) (0) (E) f F j (X)IL 9 M) PAVING SYSTEMS 4 1, 13 to I F MA gnu line U )I), WNG/PLANFER SYSITM :7 I[,, sisol -431 C.A!.1 Sit" l"fal SVP16411 3filka3l * ri fv- t -E 6) -PLAN NOTES zt S1,11F.F1, LEVEL PLAN a a /A) (8) �CII (ID) IEI (FI (G) (N) (JI fit lll) •+...+a. � � 1.1. ' � PAVING SYSIEMS_� •. w.- 1 w� ` .. � .. � .. � �� 1� Sr511w Ir.•f �c.� pf ._Z-1 i�,tl (•yt•.tY ►IYLy .j-.- ,� �1.itFw I,1f f , ���' 1 FF l.-f WI „► -. � •� -- - - i .. i - �. .D -� (O 0 I O l O I O I O I 0 l 0 I o I (r1 I Qf l O IJII al l a. l f•f .q` ' — -- •• �._. m RA114G/PUWiFA SYSTEM /yI NO $ISII M71 so �i1 i 1 f `' �„� rua i.J lrStl wf]I PtAKIEW Y`i�rli\- •{' � _ f �•% t1yNn 3tltf wt9) KEY NOTES 77 �. 1. • L[riL: _I � . IE61�"'� (fJI . - JPIAyNOTES -- 11. (A) 10. (C 1UI t_ '~ 1 PAVING SYSfEMSY• r- r ----- - __ - - ' Sr51EM IYYE � --� , I � � 1 5r5TEw Ir✓t y iSrSItY IrYE 1: \r � - -• ( 1jt — tS i NrSfEw IrVE U E 1 l j'_ _ �_ —��� ' _-_� � ' :•J i f ijI /� ]rS(IM f rYt t - --�>_— 3 Y>:—.� ..-•r ems.....__ L !.._ a ar �:�e•, t... _• �aL � .1.J. _ __. ..... .��+,1 SrS ff lw 17F'E F In �.n _. I ti •�..:i..4• ��- � � _ RAING A_gaM SYSTEM S (� , l �grw /y�•. rJ .7 .�1. ' 1 " ` .- -- RM&MG 545nI .._ .— (1 i — ���� j ■1 r cwsr SITU* Ft^i _��+.+ 1 .I:• ... �:f •.) I I J1. - f! ] (�i ld)5Y5fE]/51 �00 �-£\,l:�i/yam-,'Z-:-� -- - � --•--- - ..-_ �t _ ,... T -_- - -- -- - , "'_ - 1 ! ! '1'•'1 1 - -ice+ ID KEY NOTES ram`-1 • ~• _ PLAN •NOTES 1. i , ! I "?klil I1II1IIII'I III III I IIIiIlI IIIIIIII I 6D Cro 1\:) W� (A) (0) C- (0) (E) IF I PAVING SYSTEMS— %,%it" llpf C 511li'm rvpt U (D __ _ , �- __._ I I I ;_- � i I� I I II L• I� II I I I - . ... . . . . . . SYSTEM w I'LL 11.4 "a systt&asj 1w Svstlhqtl :4Aftj(#jj "I sysj*lm% -KEY-NOTES IE CROVI _LAN A- LEVEL VARKING PLAN 4 M JII'; 1I 11 1 101 I'll I 11 11 pill , I I I I I Ir e cc c IND - PAVING_SYSTEMS Tsltu tivt A ,rstt" nvt It L� nSltu IrPE c ` rsltu Irvt U l�J TS IEt. I,vt E TS IEu tTYE F '�t '�� RAII,CAtANTEA SYSTEM pN N::ir51wS1 CwSt SIUh! ___ f4ll-G STSTtl.3/ N ANIEIU KEY NOTES PLAN NOTES • -_ �-_ �� �� THIRD LEVEL �.� "A' LEVEL PARKING PLAN PROPOSED PARItIN.. STRWIRG IIIIII' li 111 11 u I 7 ut...00 PAVPIG SYSTEMS -- -- It " I'M A I- - 1,91FN I,rl R �� 1rS11N Irl`I 11 I I •irSlfN Ir/'1 t _`� •SIIN Irvl I I�Ir ��T• I P-4&jNQrLANTM SYSIEM "7 Rya MI STSIE/4L 4 CAST RMff: C64E 131 A.rtIEW "AllN.SY-=1t►r31 CT.) lei �1 . PLAN NOTES _ ,:tip: _ :1 �.••:s— I � , � 1 s t s F'■ 1 1 1 1 l 1 c � s IA� (B� tE� ��) IEI �F� �G� �H) �1� (N I�L� __^._� _ —•.•...•_- jtMS I I fi00FIF/G SYSTE J wi wt ` wi Nt ` rI I w: ■�. f V w,�,t ` f r it ROOF r' •• ,•!,', e .A 4.0 JAI.. I• ew 44 •r. I / To ,t ,•. f l � I I f I I I I I �,► ( ti 1 II KEY NOTES = i 1 1111111 V 1 IN O 1 Is r 1 11 . 1 m� (nl hl) (u) 1Mr• •.• ••aw— 1 a 1 s 1 e (11) (10) (9) Ie1 (71 Ibl ( (� 04 I 111. i (r• imr �� .� .;:. ?�!�-II`�11I��1_ ''�I'I•� I I I I 1 11, t; - l ij d 114 1 :�' I — raaaaa aaaa aaa•ra raa fa I 1 iI MINI , uuwJ �/ (}1MDALEIiY`AflC�D�Y1i4N�A.$iNEEl p ;--- (a)-- � a. � 11111111-• �.•i. ....�.,SaI � ...mow IE, � tllWtl— __- 11 it t_ 5 ti• ..�..� L 7 w� �:.lrnr±ru� E(tv vwwu_ srN(E r_ ..• � •, (� 1 /l eta o •ai.s.i�— —!•1 e Y Y Ir-- j I'I IE Gift Z1 ; • o • EXTERIOR BUILDING F:LEVA'1'IuN1.S) I I I I � I �1.=••_J i� �`4:3 f __. l I I �_! � 1I Ll I ( � � 1 1l T. 1 . t .tilt• 71Z�_�"I �. ��� _ YIII - '--II, a=::= .-�L_ ^-��� y�, ��IrI��.�.y� _ - �• _ i["�'� 'j i1�M/ jua.- all ot 2 EtEVA119N.-GRAND OWE"M I,1 I (ill (a) (u} (G) �E 0% (�u (/ 1 (rQ Irl (ll [1 1, (( ."• girt;.•;5-• i��lllll"-.��. �''� 1 .:.�..— ....>•.4 ... uw-n =� �' '3-' 1 7 1 G _ - _ / s.r.�n - - - _ 1. �•ii "�_ : • 1 f" tr _ F ����� 11 r''- ��n( w' h������1�I nll'"•� I '' rpy'�' �... i � ��� -- -- ' ��911f1IR�"� " � � -- - - _, ''-T ' � 1,1_ _ ''°Ir .. �y1 •,Tr , ,M SI IItV PAVRKM DIMMING IEASI �IWIARI �,'•I •_,rllylt It EtEv IYWIIiW1 Il.tivai •. •-- •. EX'l'F:Ululi f U1 BUILDING FLF.V ATIUN1.S1 (� )PARDAL ELEV OEWOR tanlr .►4.+i 67 11 1.0 ICC77- 4 visa riLAL.ELEV EAST ARCAOE19L5.f9W-N"15) mn EMMIL.- ��l 0 of kc I (C) r IF (a.) It rA( i4 Wi� it r tt we j A911A1 ELft- MW!li AfiCA I'll -it if II_ ". kV FAAPAA ELEY — ORQ 11111LI )IN(. ELFVA,nON1.S) Im W 1 .1� 1 4 , S ..nill ! t tl 1 1 C�_ uw. yr rn fit 1 ELEY, WES{_ FRWERIT, LINE_ OWIL% 1 f Q� J� I I I I • ' 9 • , r 1 ' ico y I II trl� I I .. � I 111a of • TV _ �.r� W MIS. • � Y✓ Jv I 0FM PIELEV— WE51, PROP HIT LrE II 11, 1101 N - ------------ • 7 ci (F) II I6i� I ,_� l i I I,=,J-w 7.'-f-a nEVATIM. HQR I" PQDPER1t lam_ we F a G.) rot- )PARTIAL ELEV MAIN ARCADE, mum — II IS tt (17) 12 �1) (q) (9) (!) (1O (6) (jS) (a) (l) (7) (t!) 4L.-I fn lui Inn Ohl I I V... is TT (12) to I-) (7 (>f > (i) 5 48.7.rm 4r.;j 44- 1 Al 1 4 Scum Al Gtw F (6, (S-) ...�__ , I I ( I I .t. .tl f l l f Za rl 40t" 1'"S's lot, cc 4AW7, Gm ;ND 46", 1 CDT�-�Vl- �11011- GIUS N t I I � I , +:,= - - . +a,41,4, 9n,.e rM, ♦Nw'1 ,i+n I (Ak;I)(a-) (� (C) (0) \t) (Fi k.0 (Mi �)� (K-X L- M) I f rU!IIUd►�arl.. I I � I ► I I I(� I ► I r ��auldr.0 5«11an a.l..v.n 6rldt 11 t 1JS«elan a.t.g.� f�las 11 t u A Al B 1, `J limcbbl lm� 1. -T J Bu+ianq Srtlan 6rt."n G1As 9t10 �• IA) (s� 1 � rw.o r..•w I I �,arlelry 5[\i[lll wha.wl frW[ �a5 62 EXHIBIT TWO "Cocowalk" DRAINAGE WELL CALCULATIONS Total Drainage Area = 2.2 Acres C Factor for Impervious Areas = 1.0 Acres of Impervious Area = 2.2 (0.55 area per drainage well) �VIASS DIAGRAM FOR 5 YEAR STORM TIME (MINUTES) INTENSITY (INCHES/HOUR) RUN-OFF (C.F.S.) CUM -RUN (C.F. X 1000) 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 6.70 3.69 1.10 10 6.20 3.41 2.05 15 5.55 3.05 2.70 20 5.20 2.86 3.43 25 4.70 2.59 3.88 30 4.40 2.42 4.36 40 3.80 2.09 5.02 50 3.50 1.93 5.78 60 3.25 1.79 6.44 90 2.40 1.32 7.13 120 2.20 1.21 8.72 150 1.80 0.99 8.91 180 1.60 0.88 9.50 Page 1 of 4 Pages 92- 62 i IV .e+�---ter=r �i"iru•r.) _.—.—• a I pr lMl.�r A�YMr ' `+rr OWN I..Mr �.M_• Mr r �) j WELL AND DETENTION UCTUREJ _ ` bL- WELL AND I " :,o DETENTION STRUCTURE It 4/Yl 4Y WELL AND DETENTION RUCTURE ti (WELL AND DETENTION STRUCTURE a -s[ry[r a,-r aN0+u►r' J."r-- t y �*..• Ot?Q'Q/^V. • � ...<� 7aWTaJGs.TT',c- �-,�7d/d"8—�' �►--r+av «�•-r•'1-" - .r � :v tY�-�� � fir\ w.y�_. ..... T�_�iT.r ♦'�•._a.`- r.-� _ - a � ',.. .i�:_ _ •_�—� AST ••�._, .�� �� N �`*--ViRO�iV�sl-- _.� _i�.rfa <rr.�r� � �J/IfK�w''—`� � II {� �r•e..�..:.�•. DRAINAGE TRENCH EXISTING OFFSITE DRAINAGE JULY 19, 1991 AND WELL LOCATION ORDER No.163388 HIS; & ASSOCIATES, INC. SCHWEBKE - S UND MAKERS ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS LAND SURVEYORS 3240 CORPORATE WAY — MIRAMAR, FL. 33025 2 PLANNING FACT SHEET APPLICANT Owner: Grand Oak Limited Partnership Attorney: Lucia A. Dougherty September 3, 1991 PETITION 1. APPROXIMATELY 3015 GRAND AVENUE Tract A and Tract 6 less s 10' of Tract B COCONUT GROVE ARCADE (126-93) PRDC Consideration of recommending approval of a Major Use Special Permit, per Article 17 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, for the completed Cocowalk project, sponsored by Grand Oak Limited Partnership, which project consists of 61,E-37 square feet (s.f.) of retail area; 43,132 s.f. of restaurant area and 51,929 s.f. of cinema area totalling 156,698 s.f. of floor area (not including sevice and loading areas) and specifically approving 535 parking spaces on two below -grade and two above -grade levels comprising approximately 230,000 s.f. of garage area, which application was required by Zoning Board Resolution ZB 11-91, February 11, 1991, a grant of variance for 191 off -site off-street parking spaces and the conversion of 33,132 s.f. of retail use to restaurant use. REQUEST To approve a Major Use Special Permit for the Cocowalk project. PLANNING RECOMMENDATION Approval. BACKGROUND This project was constructed and completed following City procedures and permits. Following a request from this applicant, the Zoning Board by Resolution ZB 11-91, February 11, 1991 granted variance for 191 off -site, off- street parking spaces and the conversion of 33,132 s.f. of retail use to restaurant use, including a requirement to apply for a Major Use Special Permit in order to make use of 35 on site parking spaces, above the 500 parking space criteria for Major Use Special Permits. 62 PAB 12/4/91 _--- --- Item #1 2 ANALYSIS This completed project is comprised of 156,698 square feet of building floor area in interconnected structures on three levels (plus mezzanine) with a two -level structure in the plaza. Parking is located on two levels above grade along the north property line and two levels below grade occupying the entire 2.2 acre site. Five loading berths are provided at the northeast corner of the building. Element Area (s.f.) Parking Space Area (s.f.) Retail 61,637 Restaurant 43,132 Cinema 51 929 1 6�6,698 Parking 535 230,000 (4 levels on site) The off-street parking space requirement is 688 spaces; 535 are being provided on -site, and 153 spaces are being provided at locations more than 600 feet from Cocowalk and therefore do not qualify. However, the applicant has already been granted a variance for 191 spaces by the Zoning Board. The Cocowalk Parking Garage Expansion Traffic Study (July, 1991), supplied by the applicant, shows that approximately 115 vehicles will enter or exit the parking structure during the peak period (4-6 p.m.) to/from Virginia Street. Trip origin/destination at the Virginia Street entrance is 344 to the north, 54% to the south and 12% to the east. The increased traffic to/from the parking garage does not reduce the levels of service below acceptable levels for Grand Avenue and Virginia Street. All stormwater is retained on site in four 2,500 gallon per minute drainage wells with storm water retention/pollution retardant structures. An on -site water supply main has been extended from mains in Grand Avenue and Virginia Street, with a capacity of 1.65 million gallons per day. The sanitary sewer system has been constructed to accommodate equivalent flows to the existing system in Virginia Street and Grand Avenue. Solid waste generation has been estimated at 14,463 pounds per day. C�J 22 PAB 12/4/91 Item w1 the economic impact of the project is considerable. The project cost approximately S39 million consisting of land, site preparation, construction, improvements, furniture and fixtures and soft costs; creating 195 new full time equivalent jobs with a maximum of 280 workers employed during peak periods. Once in operation, there are approximately 633 new permanent full time equivalent jobs created at Cocowalk earning 58.6 million annually. The total economic impact of Cocowalk is S47 million annually, comprised of expenditures of management and retail outlets, and resident, visitor's and employee's spending. The project is estimated to return 51.2 million in taxes to Oade County, of which the City of Miami receives b400,000. PLANNING ADVISORY 60ARD At its aeeting of December 4, 1991, the Planning Advisory Board adopted Resolution PAB 63-91, bq a 9-0 vote, recommending approval of the above. Two PROPONENTS were present at the aeeting. Twenty-nine replies AGAINST were received by mail. �2. -- ±;� PAB 12/4/91 Item +�1 ---- - Dann Z n f i .�...�� •t r 31 cc u 3: 1 4C� Q — 35r2- 3T 30 >s Is 14 a aEl rk Il AMB ORANS ST. Us r � T • 2! tE 1T � s 2 1 ! : 1• _ ee 1• � � M T ]e lee h DAY A V E . ._...� _ - i -!tsl d It? I�GgAA�� 10 QIA I I7rIAr GROVE, 1 ' ' I t s • ! _ t LIME CTC) tD ` LE M N ' , TR VILLAGE ' It 1 • N � , 11 2 "2 10 ] e _ ,4 10 1 • j � 3 -3d • �IT7 30 !! 34 is s: ] 31 ' ,e f •ti � 'p ■ ■ sI �0 JAµECEgT ER Jos + G,• . � .A WE sus ' D Je •+ : o ` . �q t SAILROAT Q� I ifi S A7 ` CAPITAL eey • Spa �0 ♦` p Q - e 1 2 �6, ♦ - F� Q `p� 26 27 4 10 t� �V �P . / 9 � '` oti *° II 1 0*,Ol • � ' Zr y) , Y� 5 w _ d � •'ya c' as ih : a.: k. ? .. /�Qf. 1%, 0* 4 APPLICATION FOR A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT File Number MU - It is intended that major use special permits be required where specified uses and/or occupancies involve matters deemed to be of citywide or area -wide importance. The City Commission shall be solely responsible for determinations on applications for major use special permits. (See Article 13 and 17, Zoning Ordinance 11000) The City Commission shall refer all applications for major use special permits to the Planning Advisory Board and to the Director of the Department of Planning, Building and Zoning for recommendations, and may make referrals to agencies, bodies, or officers, either through the Department of Planning, Building and Zoning or directly for review, analysis, and/or technical findings and determinations and reports thereon. (Section 1301.4 of Zoning Ordinance 11000) ,, I, Lucia A. Dougherty _ hereby apply to the Director of Planning, Buy ding and Zoning of the City of Miami for approval of a Major Use Special Permit application under the provisions of Article 17 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 11000. Address of Property: 3015 Grand Avenue J Miami, FL 33133 Nature of Proposed Use (Be specific): Cocowalk is a mixed use development comprised of three primary use groups: Parking, mercantile, and assembly. Preliminary Application I attached the following in support or explanation of the Preliminary Application: 1. Two copies of a certified survey of the property no more than 1•.yeler old prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land Surveyor. 2. Affidavit disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of interest form. '3. Certified list of owners of real estate within a 375-foot radius from the outside boundaries of property covered by this application, 4. Maps of: (a) existing zoning and (b) adopted comprehensive plan designations for the subject property and far areas around the property covered by this application. 5. General location map, showing relation to the site or activity to major 'streets, schools, existing utilities, shopping areas, important physical features in and adjoining the project, and the like. �, y, _. 62 5. Concept PI Narrative .ribing project, including: (a) Site plan and relevant information for Zoning evaluation. Zoning Ordinance 11000, Section 1304.2.1 (d through h). Site plan drawings (2 sets) are to be in sufficient detail so that plans examiners may evaluate the building mass with the zoning envelope in _ terms of FAR, setback, height, number of parking spaces etc. and indicating the existing natural or archeological feature(s) by exact size, common and botanical name (if any) and location of all prposed landscaping improvements. Reguires sign -off ^from Public Works Division, Certain Site plan drawings (ground level, first floor and typical elevation only) are to be reduced to 8�"xll". (b) Relationships to surrounding existing and proposed futures uses, and activities, systems and facilities (Section 1702.2.2a. Zoning Ordinance 11000) (c) How concept affects existing zoning and adopted comprehensive plan principles and designations; tabulation of any required variances, special permits, change of zoning or exemptions (Section 1702.2.2b Zoning Ordinance 11000) 7. Development Impact Study (an application for development approval for a Development of Regional Impact may substitute). (section 1702.2.3, Zoning Ordinance 11000). 8. Other (Be specific) See Table of Contents 9. Fee of based on Ordinance 10396. Additional fees for any required special permits, changes of zoning, or variances shall be in accord with zoning fees as listed in Section 62-61 of the City Code and Ordinance 10396. Total: Final Application I attach the following additional information in support or explanation of the final application: See Table of Contents See Attached Copies Signature Owne iorized Agent Name: Address: City, State, Zip: Phone: This application is [ ] approved [ ] denied in accord with City Commission Resolution Number: Other: Sergio Rodriguez, Director Planning, Building and Zoning Department Date: 1 -9 `) 12 0 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF FLORIDA) )SS COUNTY OF DADE ) Before me, the oath undersigned authority, this day personally appeared Lucia A. Dougherty , who being by me first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says: 1. That he is the owner, or the legal representative of the owner, submitting the accompanying application for a public hearing as required by Ordinance 11000 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, effecting the real property located in the City of Miami, as described and listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and made a part thereof. (See attached Owner's List) 2. That all owners which he represents, if any, have given their _ full and complete permission for him to act in their behalf for the change or modification of a classification or regulation of zoning as set out in the accompanying petition. 3. That the pages attached hereto and made a part of this affidavit contain the current names, mailing addresses, phone numbers and legal descriptions for the real property which he is the owner or legal representative. (See attached Owner's List) 4. The facts as represented in the application and documents submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are true and correct. Further Affiant sayeth not. Sworn t9j&nd Subseri d before me this day , 1991 �1 ary-Public, State of Florida at Large My Commission Expires: ,Z1 (SEAL) (N e) 9 :9- 6 6 OWNER'S LIST Owner's Name Grand Oak Limited Partnership Mailing Address 2665 South Bayshore Drive. suite 200. Miami. FL 33133 Telephone Number (305) 858-7749 Legal Description: See Exhibit "A" Owner's Name Mailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: Owner's Name Mailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 375' of the subject site listed as follows: Street Address Legal Descrifltion NO Legal Descrifltion 0 DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP. 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property: See attached Exhibit "A" 2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership. Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question #2 requires disclosure of all shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. " See attached Exhibit "B" 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question #2, and (b) located within 375 feet of the subject real property. No STATE OF FLORIDA) SS: COUNTY OF DADE ) OWNLI '-eit ATTORNEY FOR OWNER _Lucia A. Dougherty , being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the (Owner) (Attorney for Owner) of the real property described in answer to question # 1, above; that he has read the foregoing answers and that the same are true and complete; and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to execute this Disclosure of Ownership form on behalf of the owner. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRPED before this 1 - day of 1991 MY C0MMISSION EXPIRES: '(SEAL) (Name) Aotary Public, State of Florida at Large J2� 62 5 �G EXHIBIT COCONUT GROVE CIVIC CLUB POST OFFICE SOX 381 COCONUT GROVE. MORIDA 8211211 13051 A45.4559 November 25, 1990 Sergio Rodrigues Director of Planning, Building and Zoning Department City of Miami. 275 NM Second St. Miami, 1Z 33128 Re: Cocd Milk Project, 3015 Grand Ave., Coconut Grove. Dear M= W riyuez: - Representatives of the Coconut Grove Civic Club have examined files of the Miami Planning, Building and Zoning Department regarding the above referenced project as well as a recent request for a Class II permit for parking under Ordinance 11000. Our review has raised some serious questions about the description of Coco Walk as a mixed -use project; the amount of off-street parking provided on -site and off -site and its relationship to requirements for a Major Use Special Permit; and the height of certain portions of the project. Here is h chronology, as we have pieced it together:, 1. As of Aug. 26, 1988 - Ordinance 9500 is the effective zoning law for the City of Miami. The requirement for a Major Use Special Permit for "any combination of uses requiring or proposing to provide in excess of 500 off-street parking spaces" is set out in Section 2801 (5) of that ordinance. 2. Aug. 26, 1988 - The city's planning director approved an application for Class C Permit No..C-88-1013 for the project subject to plans dated June 15, 1988. These plans show y` off-street parking for 497 cars in the project's garage. There is no reference on the permit application or tha plans to any additional off-street parking that would raise the off-street parking requirement above the 500-space threshold for a Major Use Special Permit. 3. Oct. 14, 1988 - The Building Department issued Building Permit No. 88-9735 for the foundation of Coco Walk. According to the permit, on -site parking would include a total of 496 spaces ("489 required under the code"). 4. April 5, 1989 - The Building Department issued Building Permit No. 89-3018 for "new construction for the project." According to the permit, on -site parking would include a total of 497 spaces ("497 spaces required under the code"). f 5. Sept. 4, 1990 - Ordinance 11000 becomes the effective zoning law for the city of Miami. The requirement for a Major Use Special Permit for "any single use or combination of uses requiring or proposing to provide in excess of 500 off-street parking spaces" is set out in Section 1701 (7) of that ordinance. 6. Oct..19, 1990 - Building Permit No. 89-3018 was revised. The off-street parking was not specified and the amended permit stated "no structural enlargement, no change in use." 7. Oct. 23, 1990 - Yaromir Stainer, a representative of the developer.of Coco Walk, submitted an application for a Class Ii permit under Ordinance 11000. The application was for "mixed use development to credit parking requirements for theater per Section 602.10 (2) [of Ordinance 110001." Section 602.10 (2) allows in a mixed -use development "including a theater [that] spaces required for other nonresidential uses may be credited toward meeting requirements for the theater to the extent justified by timing of peak demands, by Class II special permits." Ordinance 11000 in Section 2502 defines mixed use as "a development in which more than one type of use is provided such as residential and retail, retail and office, residential and office, etc." The application was accompanied by a letter that said, "Our project requires a total of 555 parking spaces according to the city of Miami Zoning Ordinance 11000..." It further stated, "We currently have on site 538 spaces (17 spaces less than required) as shown on the parking layout also enclosed..." 8. Nov. 7, 1990 - The deputy director of the Planning, Building and Zoning Department asked the zoning administrator for an interpretation of Section 602.10 (2) as it applies to "a possible Major Use Special Permit in addition to Class II Special Permit Application No. 90-1221 to credit parking requirements for a theater in a mixed -use development" for this project. 9. Nov. 8, 1990 - A board member of the Civic Club discovers the developer's Oct. 23 letter and begins to ask planning, building and zoning officials questions about the parking requirements and the Major Use Special Permit issue. 10. Nov. 16, 1990 - In a handwritten letter to the deputy director of the Planning, Building and Zoning Department, Ricardo Ruiz, another representative of the developer, amended Class II Application No. 90-1621 "in order to utilize our original parking layout composed of 497 parking spaces. And we will continue with our request justified by our parking analysis (ULI) where our parking requires a total of 555 parking spaces. The difference, which goes beyond the parking allowed on site, will be furnished off site at a distance not greater than 660 feet from our site.' 11. Nov. 19, 1990 - At a Zoning Board meeting board members of the Civic Club spoke with the deputy director of the Planning, Building and Zoning Department about the parking at Coco Walk. Specifically, they asked whether the project Baas a mixed use as defined by Ordinance 11000 and why the project had not been subject to the Major Use Special Permit process if, according to the developer's Oct. 23 letter, the project contained 538 off-street parking spaces. The threshold requirement of a Major Use Special Permit is 500 off-street parking spaces. 12. Nov.•Z0, 1990 - In another handwritten letter, this time by zoning consultant Virgilio Perez, the developer clarified the Nov. 16 letter by stating that the amended request was based on the original plans approved through Clkss C Permit Nos. C-88-1013 and C-88-1014, both dated Aug. 26, 1988. The letter further stated, "This request is with the 496 parking spaces and the consideration of Section 602.10 (2) of Zoning Ordinance 11000." 13. Nov. 21, 1990 - In a conversation with a Civic Club board member, the deputy director of the Planning, Building and Zoning Department stated that "an intended decision" on this Class II Permit application would likely be issued on that date or on Nov. 26. - Based on this lengthy chronology, we have several concerns and questions: 1. The developer contends that this is a mixed -use project under Ordinance 11000. The definition of mixed use not forth in Section 2502 of that ordinance is clear: Unless there are offices or residential uses included with the proposed retail uses (including the theater), this is not a mixed use. If this is determined to be a mixed use by appropriate city officials, please provide the Civic Club with a written statement on the legal basis for that determination. 2. (a) The original plans, submitted in August 1988, show 497 parking spaces. But revised plans included in the developer's Oct. 23 letter show 538 spaces. However, in a Nov. 16, 1990, letter, the developer stated there are only 497 spaces. And in a Nov. 20 letter the developer listed 496 spaces. On Nov. 23, Civic Club representatives counted at least 516 parking spaces, a number high enough to require the development to receive a Major Use Special Permit before occupancy. The Civic Club found 494 "striped" spaces and additional room - that was not "striped" - for at least 22 more cars. We noticed that cars were parked iri some of those 22 spaces. Because of the apparent discrepancy in the number of parking spaces, we request that a code enforcement officer be directed to inspect the project site, determine the actual number of parking spaces and take whatever action is appropriate under the law. (b) As you know, Ordinances 9500 and 11000 both call for a Major Use Special Permit if off-street parking exceeds 500 spaces. There is nothing in either of those ordinances that allows a developer to avoid the Major Use Special Permit process - which includes public .. .+ ;,.•ram :... ... hearings - by providing less than 500 required off-street parking spaces (perhaps 497) on site and the remainder of the required off-street parking (maybe 75) on another site. Given the clear definitions in both ordinances that establish 500 off-street parking spaces as a threshold figure, is such a manipulation allowed? (c) _It is clear that the plans for on -site, off-street parking for more than 500 spaces were drawn after the original plans were submitted to the city as part of Class C Permit Nos. C-88-1013 and C-88-1014, since the plans for the more than 500 spaces were part of Class II Permit Application No. C-90-1621. What is not clear is whether these new plans were approved by the city. If they were approved, how did they meet code requirements? If they were not approved, how was the developer permitted to build the parking garage with a capacity for more than 500 parking spaces without meeting the Major Use Special Use requirements in Ordinance 9500? - - (d) If there are less than 500 off-street parking'spaces on site and the developer needs additional spaces, where will these new spaces be located? An inspection by Civic Club representatives showed there are fewer than 68 parking spaces at the Meyers parking lot within one block of Coco Walk. It is our understanding that Calloway's restaurant uses that lot for required off-street parking, as do several other retail businesses in the Village Center .* Pursuant to Chag er- 119 of the Floridat e of city records showing wh t buss msses in Coconut Grove use the Meyers varking Q,=street parkinrer$ments„ including the number or acesg each business uses as well as the total number of available parkins spaces. Can the Byers lot also accommodate the Coco Walk overflow? If so, please provide the Civic Club with a list of all Grove retailers using the Meyers lot to meet off-street parking requirements and show how Coco Walk can utilize it as well. If off-street parking for Coco Walk is found at the Meyers lot or elsewhere and meets code requirements, is there any guarantee that those spaces will be available in perpetuity or as long as the use for which the parking is required exists at Coco Walk? What happens to required off-street parking that in leased off site when that off -site parking lot can no longer be used for parking? Is there any mechanism by which the developer is required to insure that required off-street parking spaces will always be available? As it relates to Coco Walk, even if the developer can find additional spaces in a neighboring parking lot.and the total off-street parking exceeds 500 spaces, will the developer not need a Major Use Special Permit under Section 1701 (7) of Ordinance 11000? If 9 . t S 1 b� 3. Undor Ordinance 9500, Section 1527: "Height within this district [SPI-2] shall be limited to 50 feet." According to plans submitted to and approved by the city of Miami, one tower is some 28 feet above the 49-foot 11 1/2-inch-high roof and portions of the western roof line of the project extend higher than the 49-foot 11 1/2-inch-high roof line drawn on the plans. On what basis was this tower and roof approved without a zoning variance? If the tower and roof are merely decorative shields for air conditioning units or other rooftop machinery, is the size of the tower and roof related to the objects they seek to shield? 4. Does the city have "as built" plans for this project on file? If so, I would like to schedule an appointment to review those plans at the earliest possible time. If not, we would like to know, in writing, why such "as built" plans are not on file. We appreciate your review of our lengthy request and look forward to a written response as soon as possible. If you have any questions or concerns about our letter, please contact Tucker Gibbs by telephone or fax: Office 1-344-1013. Office fax 1-344-5930. His home telephone and fax number is 442-2958. Please call before sending a fax to the house. Sincerely, lao'000" Mary Weber President cc: Mayor Xavier Suarez Miami Commissioners City Manager Cesar Odio Deputy Planning Director Guillermo Olmedillo Y - L EXHIBIT e �jfLt of cffiialnt Lo e �4 7 -_ L� Y Op SERGIO RODRIGUEZ r'" ��= CESAR H. ODIO Director December 12, 1990 Ms. Mary Weber, President - Coconut Grove Civic Club Post Office Box 381 Miami, FL 33131 RE: Coco Walk Project 3015 Grand Avenue Dear Ms. Weber: f- r p •.cec. euno O • u ono` F�o°�dr City Manager We are in receipt of your letter dated November 25, 1990, indicating concern for the current application for a Class II Special Permit for the Coco Walk Project from this Department. Please note that several of your concerns predate this application. We are responding in the same sequence as your questions, starting on page 3 of your letter. 1. The project meets the definition of mixed use as interpreted by the Zoning Administrator (see attachment A). 2. (a) The number of "striped" spaces in the current application is the same as the 496 approved by the August 26, 1988 Class C Special Permit #88-1013. An inspector visited the job last week and determined that 497 spaces were striped. Other unused spaces were blocked off; no further action is necessary. (b) The 500 parking spaces threshold is, in effect, part of the Zoning Ordinance. In the current application, the plans submitted were the same as for the Class Special Permit #88-1013, with 496 parking spaces. Other plans showing a different figure were withdrawn from this application. (c) Class C Special Permit #88-1013 shows 496 spaces, unless there is an amendment to that permit; the developer can only use 496 parking spaces. Page 1 of 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT/275 N.W. 2nd Street/Miami, Florida 33125/(305) 579.6066 tJ 2 -- 62 ' Mailing Addreu - P.O.Sax 330709 / Miami, Florida 332334M* / s e r (d) The Zoning Ordinance has clear stipulations as to how off - site parking may be used to meet requirements. e Applications for development permits must meet such t requiremens. _ �M Elimination of required off-street parking spaces is — prohibited by Section 917.13. A violation of this section will be processed accordingly. (See Attachment B.) The Meyers parking lot has assigned 62 parking spaces for Galloways. (See copy attached.) 3. Per Section 2015.1 of Zoning Ordinance 9500 up to 20% of the roofed area may be higher than the height limit for the particular zoning district, subject to limitations (Attachment C). At the time of the application, the Building and Zoning Department approved the submitted plans as conforming to Zoning Ordinance 9500. 4. The Planning, Building and Zoning Department keeps the constructions plans on file. As the inspections are conducted through the building process, the different inspectors review on -site changes; if they are relevant, then the developer is required to submit new plans, otherwise the original plans are the only ones on file. Please contact Maria Merritt in microfilm of the Planning, Building and Zoning Department to review the building plans on file. By copy of this letter, I Administrator on your Major interpretations are issued by )A ere y, , - i% Sergio Ro riguez, e to Planning Building and Zoning epartment SR/rj Attachments am requesting an interpretation of the Zoning Use Special Permit questions. As you well know, him. cc: Joseph Genuardi, Zoning Administrator Planning, Building and Zoning Department Maria Merritt Planning, Building and Zoning Department Planning and Zoning Division Planning, Building and Zoning Department Page 2 of 2 62 HMENT A CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM Guillermo E. Olmedillo Deputy Director IOM. os A. Genuardi, P.E. Z ni Administrator DATE: November 299 1990 FILE, SUBJECTt Mixed Use, Coeowalk Project at 3050 Grand Avenue REFERENCES1 ENCLOSURESt This is in response to your request for a clarification on the acceptance of a Class II Permit application for the Cocowalk Project at 3050 Grand Avenue, under- See- 602.10.2, which allows crediting of parking spaces on a mixed use development toward meeting parking requirements for a theater. - Sec. 602.10. Minimum Offstreet Parking, 602.10.29 "In any mixed I use development including a theater, spaces required for other non-residential uses may be credited toward meeting requirements for the theater to the extent justified by timing of peak demands, by a Class II Special Permit". This does not state that one of the uses has to be residential. ! The definition of mixed use under See. 2501 states "A development in which more than one type of use is provided..." It then proceeds to give examples, "such as residential and retail, retail and office, residential and office, etc." The "etc." indicates that there may be other combinations not listed. Sec. 602 SD-2, Coconut Grove Central Commercial District, under subsection 602.4 and 602.4.1, lists all permitted principal uses as follows: 1. Retail establishments... 2. Service establishments... 3. Production of handicrafts... 4. Restaurants... 5. Bars... 6. Commercial recreational... 7. Theaters... The C-1 district, to which the SD-2 district refers, lists permitted principal uses as follows:' 1 Banks... 2. Conversions or additions to create dwelling... 3. Offices... 4. Private clubs... "5. Residence hotels... 6. Restaurants ... 9 2 " 62 l 0 7. Retail establishments... etc. / e I "� Guillermo Olmedillo November 29, 1990 Page 2 As can be seen from the list of uses, service establishments and restaurant use are considered different uses from a retail use. In fact, the requirements are different for restaurants, i including but not limited to the parking requirements. The Cocowalk complex is providing retail establishments, service establishments, restaurants and theater uses, and therefore is considered a mixed use development. JAGljg cc: Sergio Rodriguez, Director G. Miriam Maer, Assistant City Attorney File ATTACHMENT B issuance of any special permit or variance shall be reviewed specifically for parking requirements in addition to the standards established in section 1305 of this ordinance. Assigned and visitor parking areas for residential uses shall be designated. 917.11. Chlculatien of parking requi)wo is related to nu?&r of seats. Where parking requirements relate to number of seats and seating is in the form of undivided pews, benches, or the like, twenty (20) lineal inches shall be construed to be equal to one (1) seat. where parking requirements relate to movable seating in auditoriums and other assembly rooms, ten (10) square feet of net floor area shall be construed to be equal to one (1) seat except where otherwise specified. Net floor area shall be the actual area occupied by _ seating and related aisles, and shall not include accessory unoccupied areas or the thickness of walls. 917.12. Urdtat icru of use of offs treef 'parking and loading areas; restrictions cn storage of uehieies not in operating oarsdition. No required offstreet parking or loading area shall be used for the sale, major repair, or dismantling of any vehicle or equipment, or for storage of materials or supplies, and no other area on a lot shall be used for such purposes unless permitted under regulations applying within the district. No vehicle not in operating condition shall occupy unenciosed parking space or any loading space on any lot for more than seventy-two (72) hours, except as permitted under regulations applying to the permitted principal use within the district. 917.13. Reuctian of required offstreet pw*irlg or offstreet loading space prohibited No offstreet parking or offstreet loading space now existing or hereafter provided which meets all or part of the requirements of this zoning ordinance for such space shall be reduced or eliminated by private action, or unless no longer required by these regulations, except where approved alternative offstreet parking or offstreet loading space meeting such requirements is provided. Sec. 918. Offsite parking. It is the general intent of these regulations that required offstreet parking be provided on the same lot with the principal use or structure it serves, except as otherwise specifically authorized. Offsite parking shall be permitted only by Special Exception and only for non. residential uses and up to 254 of the required number of spaces and as authorized by the provisions of this section in districts more or equally permissive as where the principal use to be served is located, or as otherwise specifically permitted under the terms of this zoning ordinance, and in any event only where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships involved in providing required parking on the site. 918.1. Mnch7urzdistance lorsitatiou. Unless otherwise specifically provided for the following types of parking facilities, the maximum distance from a principal entrance of any parking facility permitted to provide required or excess offsite parking to the principal entrance of the use served shall not exceed six hundred (600) feet, with distance measured by normal pedestrian routes: (a) Self-service parking for visitors, clients, or customers of the principal use. (b) Self-service parking for officers or employees of the principal use, reserved for and used only by such officers or employees. (c) Facilities approved for and maintained with attendant parking only. 918.2. 11esenrei. 918.3. Offsite porhing uhcm Bvuermaantal action elirrsnates prior or prouides new offstreet parking; $oeaial Fcepticn pemit reequlred uith City dmissicn cgproual. Where governmental land acquisition or construction programs eliminate areas* previously used for offstreet parking (required or other), or make such areas inaccessible to uses previously served, offsite parking may be allowed by Special Exception permit even though such parking is not to be on adjoining or abutting' lots. Through governmental action, offsite (but not required) parking may be allowed within elevated expressway right-of-way including 1-95, 1-195, 1.395. 511-836, SR.112 and the Rickenbacker Causeway Flyover by Special Exception permit. owl OoRKING ; S. TEL n915 P02 . taI 0y:16 iD:PEYEFS MfJACT,,r d� + r��t �'C�ie►f '.�i`JGi 1 �NdJ. OATV D r 1 Pd ys-a:�'.pv;E�v�Cds INC FROM.. — Tq TT AL �iJ /y / L'SS r- �' !j � 1 4 !if/�i f • .: .✓r t 4 � �s Poe' ,�' S" 1 0 9. 62 D- 19NSEP 14 AM II=47 R333733 ---- ' Fe 13M2054 - Mr.Richard Peacock and Kinney -System of Fla. •t}+c c::,Krs of "he ty .i_rty, t-,wit: 1'IL} c:FL As 2983 Mc.F-�r•irnd Rd..,Coconut Grove,Fla. , -Lots 5.6 and Charles John Peacock.Plat Book 6,Page 3Z Tract Albert v.Peacock PARCEL B: 1. 3043 Grand Avenue,Coconut Grove.Fla. - Kinney System%of Fla. (62 Parking Spaces ) k�iF.AS, it is the intention of the said Owners of Parcel A 1 to erect a Restaurant on the property. described above as Parcel "A•, and in conjunction therewith, nse the property described above as Parcel "B" for the purposes of a parking lot for the use and benefit of Parcel "A"; and, WOREAS, the City of Aiami, Florida, as a condition for the issuance of a building permit for the erection of a Restaurant on Parcel "A" has requested that a perpetual easement for parking facilities be granted in favor of Par•cal "1 • on Parcel "Jr.' The said (Owners) }1erMth hake the followinj apreemant as a covenant to run with the lands 'Abet in consideration of the issuance of a building permit for the erection of a Restaurant -on the above described property, a ,perpetual casement binding upon all future owners of this property is herewith Lrantud in favor of the present and future owners of. Parcel "A"; this easement td run with the land and to be binding upon the respective heirs and assiens of the parties hereto for ho'.:ever long said building.sholl exist. Should•this agrem=. t ba tonrdnated, the City Of :.i.:ai A -Pt. of Firo, M-:;1:112 i Tir.:i:.:L4n sl'- vl vs imist. two iv:Mfiod. AlteirmLe P.41-ri), .:,.st i*2 secured, a vxrianoe rbtaincd or the I>,>sJi s mast close. 11 t:Z7t.F5StUUUWP, the unc3ersi(gxd havo hereunto set their harr'.s ��3 sc�ls this drf of Mus ti, 19 88 - , ...... - RIZWZJEACOCK 17r.Parcel A)^ 1 89: / STATE OF iIDt�ah SS C]OIAdN OF DrYLE i Before rye personally appeared to pm well krom and ):ruwn to me to be the individuals described in and 40 eft— cuted the foregoing in>.stmTent, and acknowledged before me that they executer] L the same for the purposes therein e)qressed. mnnS ny hand and official seal in the Co arty and State last aforesaid this day of ...l v NTlfl ftRn flirt • FLOW ' � `1`L O• ��y f1 CMMIN M. As f.11N C 'r �: • ' � �� y Term Kama 906 i fo�u ftl. No Public, State''of } ,' .mod.;: •w ' � eteaefo M owxuu teoaw eoe�. ♦ OF aot em", PM" Roam vamO ' RICH= P. BRINIER CIM CIRCUIT COAT � • M • � .. wli.'.^ . •.f. 1. 1(. f''I:.- �.A�,. 1:3�,'•:��� .?I� l�. ,.f ...t` � ' ice. ,�.1�i•LC• • � ` ''�:. ._. •'i''-=vit ...0 .•:,f��7Mii�► .,li''AIR�+f'Y'��='.^'�^.� . Rom' s riiir.+�.��ti_5+.:. •y � �.- ^. _ d 99..• 62 023 a �y t �� 62 ATTACHMENT C 4 2014 MIAMI, FLORIDA 2014.2.5. Agreement between parties involved All parties in such transfers of develop• ment rights between noncontiguous properties shall bind themselves and their suc- cessors in title to the terms of such transfer, and enforcement of such agreement shall include the city. No such agreement shall be accepted without the approval of the department of law as to the legal sufficiency of the documents involved; and no such major use special permit shall be issued prior to such approval. 2014.2.6. Recording agreement At the time of assignment of any development rights transferred hereunder, the agreement or portion of agreement affecting properties from and to which rights have been transferred shall be filed with the department of planning, the zoning administrator, and the clerk of the circuit court for Dade County, Florida, and notations shall be made on the official zoning map, for future guidance in administration and as a public record. 2014.2.7. Changes in development pattern or agreement No change shall be made in _ agreements between parties or in conditions affecting such major use special permits except by the issuance of new major use special permits in the manner herein set out. 2914.3. Transfer of development rights (noncontiguous property across street or alley), special exception. Where lots in the same district are separated only by a street or alley, development rights may be transferred across such street or alley by special exception, subject to the following requirements: 2014.3.1. Relationship of lots. Where it is proposed to transfer development rights from one lot to another across a street or alley, such lots shall be directly opposed across the street or alley for a distance of at least twenty-five (25) percent of the common street or alley frontage. 2014.3.2. Application; findings, recording agreement Application for special exception to accomplish transfer of development rights shall follow applicable procedural and substantive requirements of section 2014.2.4, inclusive. r—"In addition, (1) not more than seventy-five (75) percent of development rights may be transferred under this section where lots are in different ownerships. (2) Where such lots are in the same ownership, all development rights may be transferred from one lot to another, provided that a ninety-nine (99) year covenant, with enforcement running to the city, is filed on the lot from which rights are taken, with the clerk of the circuit court of Dade County stipulating that the lot shall be maintained with landscaping, ground and/or below ground parking, or ground level active or passive recreation uses during the time the covenant A in effect. Sec. 2015. Height regulation, generally. 2015.1. Excluded portions of structures. Except as specifically provided herein, the height limitations of this ordinance shall not apply to any roof structures for housing elevators, stairways, tanks, ventilating fans, solar 202 9 2 --- 62 rip X ZONING § 2016 energy collectors, or similar equipment required to operate and maintain the building, (pro. vided that such structures shall not cover more than twenty (20) percent of roof area), nor to church spires, steeples, belfries, monuments, water towers, flagpoles, vents, or similar struc. tures, which may be erected above the height limit, nor to fire or parapet walls, provided however that such walls shall not extend more than five (5) feet above the roof. 2015.2. Aviation hazards. No building or other structure (regardless of exclusions set forth at section 2015.1, above) shall be located in a manner or built to a height which constitutes a hazard to aviation or creates hazards to persons or property by reason of unusual exposure to aviation hazards. In any area within the city, in addition to height limitations established by this ordinance, limitations established by the Miami International Airport Zoning, Metropolitan Dade Coun. ty, Florida, or by any ordinance amending or replacing such ordinance, shall apply to heights of buildings, structures, or natural vegetation. In addition, when the zoning administrator shall find, in relation to a particular applica- tion, that there is reasonable doubt concerning aviation hazards with regard to a proposed use or structure, a Class B special permit shall be required, with clearance from appropriate authorities. 2015.3. Broadcasting towers. Broadcasting towers and other antenna support structures shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet in height above grade except in central business district classifications and in those districts where they are specifically permitted or permissible by special permit at greater heights. (Ord. No. 9722, § 1, 10-27-83; Ord. No. 9817, § 1, 3.19-84) Sec. 2016. Height control envelopes. In certain districts, and in transitional areas of others, a system of height regulation by enveloping planes is established, as described below. In such cases, formulas in the official schedule of district regulations prescribe maximum height at outer edges of buildable areas, inclination of light planes leaning inward over such areas, and in some instances maximum height over the center of the lot. Except as provided at section 2015.1, "Excluded portions of structures," or as may otherwise be specifically provided in particular districts or in relation to particular classes of cases, no portion of any structure shall extend through any portion of such height envelopes. Such height envelopes shall be constructed as indicated below. 2016.1. Base plane (Plane A. %� 2016.1.1. Generally. To provide a plan from which heights over the buildable area shall be measured, establish the base plane (Plane 1). Where the ground surface is regular and horizontal, it shall be considered the base plane. Where the ground surface is irregular or sloping, a base plane shall be constructed parallel to its general surface 203 92-- 62 VZO Dec. 11 '90 11 47 0000 1:0(- qpK TEL 444-9ba---------- P, 1 ��• COCOWALK 3317 Virginia Street Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 444-0777 Fax: (305) 444-9645 Date: g. �� v To • Cliy 0f/ifT7 Att : 5i4W#A5r0 KCW MXA Fax: �9-4�52 Re : Coco VJ4% - From: _J0S_L V/ �11VA It the following pagest received in poor condition, or gender immediately. Time: including this cover sheet, are are not complete, please notify message: _ SAWV*"0 , LAlelos c jb %5 Tilt' Z1r: . . AfCe- y%�J L4 _T !iS-t3Vi�T 100iA)7 rim= yed- 7- ,80e�= c. c--,�nF/ v A Rile AV ss i o A41. l tx/b s 1/ R ve Yo2 V a 0 i,� u csTE-b riti s P rze 5: c U ,may A/zj:r77 o7yS 92-- 62 CC: 0� P \ 11 ' 90 11: 48 0000 COC4K X TEL J44-95--------- P. 2 .;S'c�waG�E-�Gis�tin �' c�ssociaEss, J12C. *.r•, amaa P. Shikkln, P.E.. P.L.S. Theodore P. Shhkln. Arch. ,onakt E. Burns, P.L.S, LAND SURVEYORS - ENGINEERS - LAND PLANNERS Plarre E. Calvet. P.L.S. obert F. Jackson. P.L.S, Eduardo P. lberra, P.L.S. Monao C, Tello, P.E.. P.L.S. ARCHITECTS • SOILS ENGINEERS R/ul E. Baneto, P.L.S. obeli L. Vaught P.L.S. Oattand L. Harman, Jr., P.L.S. .Tonto T, Raynor, P.L.S. 32e0 CORPORATE WAY - MIRAMAR, FLORIDA 33025 Txomin M. Ibarlutaa, P.L.S. 1. Daryl Friddle, P.L.S. Brett V. Da Falco. PL,S, onald A. PrItt, P.L.S. DADE COUNTY TELEPHONE: 552.7010 Vladimir Chomlak, P.L.S. obert C. Mulder, P.L.S, BROWARO COUNTY TELEPHONE: 435.7010 FAX No. (305) 652-8284 December 10, 1990 Mr. Santiago Jorge -Ventura, R.A. Assistant Director/Building Official City of Miami Building and Zoning Department 274 Northwest Second Street Miami, Florida 33233-0708 RE: Cocowalk (3015 Grand Avenue) - Maximum Building Height Dear Mr. Jorge -Ventura: Please be advised that this firm surveyed the roof elevation of the above referenced building. The surveying procedure used in the determination of this roof elevation is shown on the attached drawing. Based in our calculations, we found the roof elevation to be 68.71 feet. Please note that this particular elevation is below the 68.91 foot elevation required by Mr. Joseph A. Genuaidi on August 10, 1989, as indicated in Mr. Kayden Wood's letter of August 8, 1989. A copy of this letter is enclosed herewith for your information. Sincerely, SCHWEBKE-SHISKIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Vice President ACT/tp Enclosures -•-cc:. • Jass Viana via ,facsimile �O 62 TEL a;a-96.-------- P. 3 sec. li '90 11:48 ! 017H .M. FU[NTES nirp tur 0000 CO►< August. 9, 1989 (4it�r LT D.I. Architecture, Inc. 3317 Virginia Street Coconut Gr6ve, FL 33133 Attn: R. Kayden Wood, A.I.A. RE: 3015 Grand Avenue - COCOWALK PROJECT Dear Mr. Wood: CESAR H. OOIn r, ity Manager This is in response to your letter dated August 8, 1989 regarding the above referenced project. On Thursday, August 39 1989, Roberto Ramirez, Chiej� of the Plumbing Section, Jose Hevia, Building Inspector I (y10ructural Plans Examiner) and myself met with you and explU ned our interpretation of the height of the proposed building :according to the South Florida Building Code. Due to the fact that this proposed project is located at lone X, the , height Q the building erected on the ground should be the vertical distance from the highest center line/crown of ,&.fie_ treet orSaayt-nue ),` or the highest e] evatron lus four (!t ) g top o the flat__reo inches to the highest point at the -- f. The above 'is our interpretation based upon the South Florida Building Code; however, you need to meet with Joseph A. Genuardi or Juan Gonzalez, Zoning Administrator and Chief of the Zoning Section, respectively, to obtain their opinion based upon zoning requirements (Ordinance 9500). If you require any further information., please contact me at 350- 7959, weekdays from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Very truly yours, _.mot_-� Santiago Jorge -Ventura, A.I.a. Assistant Director and Building Official SJV/djs PC: Edith M. Fuentes, Director Joseph A. Genuardi y Daniel Gl,ennon Roberto Ramirez Central file 9 62 �J ' 90 11 : 49 0000 '-Oct K "-..'�" '- T I ONAI_ 04 ' 90 16 t ,181 t'fS 1Jti S1 Coconut Greyws. ftotide 33153 PhorN. (W$) 444.0777 Fax, (3N) 441. M% Aattirm e P Ms&N 6 Ynrwtto • London 8 Augutlt 1989 TEL -_____--- P. a P.2/4 . i e ''li •i.�11,� . w r, � � Mr. Santiago Jorge -Ventura, R.A Assistant Director/Building official Building and Zoning Department City of Miami 274 N.W. 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33233-0708 89 AUG -� 1jp.13; s 9 SUBJECT: CocoWalk (3015 Grand Avenue) -- Maximum Building Height Dear Mr. Jorge -Ventura: AS follow-up to our meting of 3 August 1989 regarding the subject project, please b* advised that the existing permitted structure's maximum roof elevation of $8'-4" above Mean $ee Level (M-S.L.) was established by our office by computing the "average" of spot elevations at the center -line of the portion& of Virginia Street and Grand Avenue which Occur adjacent to the subject property. The recorded spot elevations as surveyed and certified by,Schwebke-Shiskin & Associates, Inc,, the highest center-line/crown elevation (18. 91 Feet above M.S.L.) occurs at station point 1+0Y';oS on Virginia Street. Therefore, in compliance with the City of Miami's , Building and Zoning Department regulations and the South Florida suiZding Code regarding the maximum elevation of a flat -roof structure, we propose that the highest roof elevation for the subject project will not exceed an elevation of 68.91 feet (68'-1111) above M.S.L. In working to this elevation we do understand that at the conclusion of construction, the roof elevation is aub,ject.to verification to the city by a Professional Land Surveyor. .32--• 62 �e 11 '_0 11:50 0000 COC a'a�--^` q TEL �_--------- P. 5 • DEC 04 190 16 : 4Et`bnu1V YPt NATIONAL Santiago Jorge -Ventura, R,A. 8 August 2989 Page 2 P . 3/4 If you concur/approve the M&Ximum allowable building roof elevation of the subjet project as being 68'-1.1" above M.S.L., please sign below where indioated and'return a copy to this office. Sincerely yours, D.I. ARCHITECTURE, INC. LKW/ck CC: Tom Guar Grand Oak Limited Partnership Jose Viana Terremark Construction Services .Bart Wallis - Bliss b Nyitray, Inc. Dan Gregory - AMC Theatres Mike Alston D.Y. Architecture, Inc. Scott retterhoff - Fullerton, Carey, Oman a Alexander Juan C. Gonsatas - Chief Zoning tnspactor p City of .?iiami Acknowledged and approved: ant ago orgy -Ventura, R.A. Date Assistant Director/Building Officer ,/ a.*'d a� 'CAM •y ,�lwk-fir. ,�. �� • .k a 10 ` 1 .v 4 .v C li ....�ei«•a. ��%il�� ! e�'.5►! 'w^''►`ei. d off' 6 8. qe/' epl ► �/ _ Da e Zoniri dm atrator �------------- - 0 nec7lum S rzeg r 11 W 4� 2 y; S 0 Q ` ys ti %4o Q � fll� uV W 'Q k11 .r �0 Ot W ►. Q W4141 Q � Q W ~ 05 t. ?it iq Q $ W QW tr 14 O SCHWESKE - SH19KIN st ASSOCIATES, INC. I AND SURVEYORS • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • 32AO CORPORATE WAY • MIRAMAR. FL 33025 •nnf n Ni.I//O-q %I� PREPARED UNDER My SuP A 1 riA, Tµ►� tf 1► tirtiGl}•It3 fLltrPp}t SL VLV P'u!luAJIT "AL SGA0 /jp„8 TD CNApTave oil mm.&. VLOltlbl► ApM1l11STWATIVEAM; FLA PROF IANnR11RV0VMQN- January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu 1y ub tt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: ( ] I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE CXI I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: 1 CU a c;UA/0 0)4-- 4i anature (of Owner Apt. No. /() F 62qq A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (305) 442-2900 0�� January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. lctfu ly ub tt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: ( ) I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE [r] I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: J I Signature of'6wlrr Apt. No. 2 13 62 3� A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK J ' 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (305) 442-2900 January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly Ma R. ububit , in, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: ( J I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE OVOf I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: I I r SR. Apt.' P � 92- 62 A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (303) 442.2900 1 January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly ubitt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ ] I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE NZ] I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: r.... na Apt. No. A72...44c— 3� A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (305) 442-2900 jo 7r-1=32- January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. Z ctfu ly ub tt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE [.)(] I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: i A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUT)i BAYSHORE DRIVE. COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (305) 442-2900 '� January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly ubi t , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ ) I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE [' I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE O NTS: Signature of Owner Apt. No. 62 3 A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK '� 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, COCONUT GROVE. FLORIDA 33133 (305) 442-2WO 7 January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether:we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. ly,Mubz4tte1d, MaM R. jtubin; President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ J I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE C MMENTS: N, A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (305) 442-2900 ��j DEB January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. Dear Unit Owner: 1 Pull I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would Pike to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R cfifu ly ubitt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: �► , t, AxI AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: Signature of O r Apt. No. 1� L y?... 62 yo A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (305) 442-2900 G f January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu iv ,, -rub 'tt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: ( ) I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: �6D^�',/ 'Oo9 -;-�v -4, - Al-cp�' � - Apt. c�i� re of Owner No. ~" r A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK `7 6 2 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (303) 442.2900 1 January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly ubVtt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of J>ikectors i Ple check (X) one: rI AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE j I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: 9 ,9., --• 6 q 2j- A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUTH AAYSHORE DRIVE, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (305) 442.2900 January 290 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions,.I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly ub tt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: oI AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE [Xj I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: -MWA W 0 92--• 62 A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE,'COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 1)13) (305),442.2900 ■ January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would Pike to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly ub tt , �Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE [ ] I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: Tc�olc/v 62 ' A CONDOMINIUM.ON THE PARK 290+ SOUTH SAYSHORE DRIVE, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133.0 .2900 5) 442 January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu 1vilsub Jf) Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ ] I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE QQ] I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: Signature of Owner Apt. No. R A. CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (305) 442.2900 -9�s Fdr January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly ub it , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ ] I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE [V] I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: P��uc�►S Signature of owner Apt. No. a A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK `'� 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (3051) 442.2900 jp JAN 3 _ REn January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly ub tt L Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ ), I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE f0;4ENTS: Apt. No. (414 A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUTH RAYSHORE DRIVE; COCONUT GROVE. FLORIDA 33133 (305) 442.29M January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly ub tt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ J I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE v ITS: AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMM Signature of Own Apt. No. A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK UT GROVEFLORIDA1 0 42.2900 2901 SOUTH 9AYSHORE DRIVE, COCON . FLORI )3 33.(3 S) 4 106, January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly ub 'tt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ ] I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE (� ] I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE t COMMENTS: Signature f Owner Apt. No. A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK �f 2901 SOUTH BAYSHOAE DRIVE, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (305) 442-2900 !' q 4 January 29, 1991 �1 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT \ HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION- Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from trredu7c6 of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions,.I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly ub tt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ J I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE [ I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: Signature of Owner Apt. No. O A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUTH SAYSHORE DRIVE. COCONUT GROVE. FLORIDA 33133 (305) 442.2900 f ..�� �, • f If1lC January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly ub tt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ ] I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE [}C] I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: Signature of Owner Apt No. 62 & CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUTH 9AYSHOR&DRIVE,'COCONUT GROVE,.FLORIDA 33133 (303) 442.2900 a January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear unit owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly ub tt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ ] I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE [t,-rI AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: Signa re of owner Apt. NO. 12- A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK t901MSOtUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, COCONUT.GROVE. FLORIDA 33133.()0,3) _441.1900 ...J January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce . their required parking spaces from 606*to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions,.I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THXS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly ub tt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ ] I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE. COCONUT GROVE. FLORIDA 33133 003) 442.2900 � �1 January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu lr ub tt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ ] I AM IN FAVOR OF THE'COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE [j I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: -' Apt. No. q'r A CONDOMINIUM ON -THE PARK 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, COCONUT`GROVE, FLORIDA 33133, (303) f42.2900 January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly ub tt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ ] I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE [� I AM OPPOSED TO THE.COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: 0 A CONDOMINIUM: ON THE PARK 2901' SOUTH BAYSHORE'DRIVE COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (305) 442-2900 M January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. ZR ctfu ly ub tt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ ] I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE IX1 I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE; COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (303) .442.2900 {O Jq /V January 29, 1991 - To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. ZR ub tt , in, PMresident taR. Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ ] I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE [1eK] I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: "A"CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE'DRIVE COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA. 33133 005) 442-2M January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. ZR ctfu ly ubVt t, Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ j I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE JIP44W4 M6404-4 1� ('71. e--Vwtn�) [�] I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCdWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: A .,.. A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK V -29(10 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (305) 442 `'� January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly ub 'tt , Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ j I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING.VARIANCE I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: �I a A CONDOMINIUM ON,THE PARK - 2901'SOUTH BAYSHORE'DRIVE COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (303) 442-2900 IPA January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions,,I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ly Ma R. ububitt , in, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ ] I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE ,4[ ] I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 00 2901 SOUTH AAYSHOAB`DRIVl:, COCONUT,GROVE. FLORIDA 33133 0Os) 441.2900 7���� C�� - I 'IJ January 29, 1991 To: ALL UNIT OWNERS OF YACHT HARBOUR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Dear Unit Owner: I am sure that each of you has received a letter from the owners of Cocowalk pertaining to their request for a variance to reduce their required parking spaces from 606 to 497. Although I may have my own personal opinions, I would like to hear from the other owners their views on this subject in order to decide whether we should make a presentation to the Zoning Board either in favor of or opposed to the variance request. A PROMPT REPLY ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE APPRECIATED. R ctfu ub lyvttL Ma R. ubin, President Board of Directors Please check (X) one: [ ] I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE [�) I AM OPPOSED TO THE COCOWALK PARKING VARIANCE COMMENTS: S gnatureofb Owner I Apt. No. I ✓ ..92- 62 A CONDOMINIUM ON THE PARK 2901 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE. COCONUT GROVE. FLORIDA 33133 (305) 442.2M