Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-91-0325J=91-319 4/25/91 RESOLUTION NO. J M 325 A RESOLUTION APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE A MAaOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT+ PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 171 ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, FOR THE ST. HUGH OAKS VILLAGE HOUSING PROJECT, PROPOSED BY THE HOUSING CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3577-3601 SOUTHWEST 37TH AVENUE; 3676-3698 FRANKLIN AVENUE AND 3621-3699 MARLER AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), TO BE COMPRISED OF NOT MORE THAN 27,410 SQUARE FEET OF HABITABLE RESIDENTIAL AREA AND NOT MORE THAN 23 SINGLE FAMILY CONDOMINIUM UNITS WITH 46 PARKING SPACES, WITH EACH SINGLE FAMILY HOME BEING FREESTANDING AND DETACHED IN NATURE BUT WITH COMMON FACILITIES SUCH AS A PLAYGROUND AREA, PRIVATE ROAD, COMMON OPEN SPACE, ETC.; MAKING FINDINGS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Housing Conservation and Development Agency 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 WHEREAS, development of the St. Hugh Oaks Village Housing 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 Department of Development & Housing Conservation (c/o City of Miami) has submitted an application for a MajorUseSpecial Permit for the St. Hugh Oaks Village Housing Project; and WHEREAS, the City of Miami Commission, at its meeting of November 3, 1988, adopted Resolution No. 88-1048, APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE, the designation of the 3.16 acre City -owned St. Hugh Oaks parcel as a Category "B" project for the purpose of facilitating the planning and design of a thirty (30) single family 'residential housing development affordable by moderate income families in the CoconutGroveNeighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of March 20, 1991, following an advertised public hearing# adopted Resolution No. PAB 22-91 by a vote of 7 to 0# RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Major Use Special Permit for the St. Hugh Oaks Village Housing Project; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, during a public hearing, has considered the Application for Major Use Special Permit; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, as the result of said aforementioned Public Hearing deems it advisable for the Developer/Applicant of the subject. Project to again meet with nearby residents to address their concerns prior to this item again being considered by the City Commission for final approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this ® Section. Section 2. A Major Use Special Permit is hereby approved in principle with conditions per Article 17 of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, for the St. Hugh Oaks Village Housing Project (hereinafter -referred to as the "PROJECT") to be developed by the Department of Development & Housing Conservation (c/o City of Miami) located at approximately 3577-3601 Southwest 37th Avenue; �.` 3676-3689 --Franklin Avenue and -3621-36.99 Marler Avenue, Miami, 1 Florida, more particularly_ described as Lots 9-22 inclusive and Lots A-F inclusive,,,- Block 37V AMENDED PLAT OF FROW HOMESTEAD, Plat Book "B" at'' Page 106 of the Public Records of Dade County, s::.. Florida, to be :comprised of not more than 27,410 square feet of habitable _residential- area and not more than.23 ;single family condominium_units with 46 parking spaces, with each single family J home being,_frdestanding and detached in nature but with common .'' facilities such as, a playground area, private road, common open space, etc.. t �T iA- C Section 3. The City Commission hereby preliminarily finds that the construction of condominium single family residences in this area is consistent with R1 Zoning designation and the Single Family Residential land use designation. Section 4. The City Commission hereby preliminarily makes findings of fact, as 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; the Zoning Board having granted a variance for setbacks on March 4, 1991. (c) Pursuant to Section 1305 of Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the specific site plan aspects of the PROJECT, i.e., ingress and egress, off-street parking and loading, refuse and service areas, signs and lighting, utilities, drainage, preservation of natural features and control of potentially adverse effects generally, have been considered' and determined to be acceptable, and will be furtherconsidered administratively during the process of issuing a building permit and a a certificate of; occupancy. (d)'` The PROJECT: is 'expected to cost $3.5 million, to employ a full time equivalent of approximately 50 =, workers during construction,, and to result in, the creation of three (3) permanent new jobs. - 'SeptiQn S. The City Commission hereby further preliminarily (1) the PROJECT will have a favorable ;mpact on the economy of the City; E l3�. 91—325 t{ f_ (2) the PROJECT will efficiently use public transportation facilities; (1) the proposed parking for the PROJECT is k efficient, convenient and accessible; (4) the PROJECT will favorably affect the need for people to find adequate housing reasonably accessible to their places of employment; (5) the PROJECT will efficiently use necessary public facilities; (6) the PROJECT will have a negative impact upon the environment and natural resources of the City; (7) the PROJECT will not adversely affect public safety; H SING Pit I'C�'!'I" ON TO! HONORABLE'. MAYOR XAVIER SUAREZ AND CITY COMMISSIONERS _ W8 THE UNDERSIGNED REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDAO WISH IT TO BE KNOWN TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR SUAREZ AND COMMISSIONERS: THAT THE RESIDENTS (HOMEOWNERS AND TENANTS) OF FRANKLIN AVENUE, MARLER AVENUE, WILLIAMS AVENUE AND WEST GROVE, REQUEST �- THE BUILDING OF S'T. HUGH OAKS HOUSING PROJECT AS PLANNED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI HOUSING DEPARTMENT. 2. FUTURE DELAYS OR DETERIORATION ON THE HOUSING PROJECT WILL NO LONGER HE ALLOWED. j�- 3. CURRENT DENSITY PROPOSED WILL BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT CHANGE. - PHONE i d�/ 3 1. 4 3 / Fa 7 rI h i 1) `Y 4 f7 n. A-.. A %,,. =7 -9 --7 { �H` SING PRQ rt:CT fi'C:`t'IT1O�i TO: HONORABLE MAYOR XAVIER SUAREI AND CITY COMMISSIONERS } WE THE UNDERSIGNED REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, WIAH IT TO BE KNOWN TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR SUAREZ AND COMMISSIONERS! 1THAT THE RESIDENTS (HOMEOWNERS AND TENANTS) OF FRANKLIN AV.ENUE, MARLER AVENUE, WILLIAMS AVENUE AND WEST GROVE, REQUEST THE BUILDING OF ST. HUGH OAKS HOUSING PROJECT AS PLANNED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI HOUSING DEPARTMEN'r. 2. FUTURE DELAYS OR DETERIORATION ON THE HOUSING PROJECT WILL NO LONGER BE ALLOWED. u 3. CURRENT DENSITY PROPOSED WILL BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT CHANGE. -3 115; / 3-'4 3 �!1;r o l ... MAN om/' X.a mr/l Lilly i PHON 2 f ` D ST1,6 2 41W j. t.AU ' 3 3 2= s'64 r ' 27 5�- ©Jr-�" 31. 32. o e pur:331C . ■ ?�4 Connection Conneon with it CONSTRUPTION OF 28 SINGLE HUGHES OAKS HOUS ING PROEOT ON THE CORNER OF UOUGLAS ROAD AND FRA'NKLIN AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE. SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES WE WANT THE ORIGINAL ZONING FOR 18 SIN WITH THE REST RETAINED t SO THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE IN KEEPING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. X101, LRM i0 I in counecti n 011, Cif Clerk t. TO THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI% a WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF COCONUT GROVE, OBJECT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF 28 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES NOW PLANNED FOR THE ST • HUGHES OAKS HOUSING PROJECT ON THE CORNER OF DOUGLAS ROAD AND AF FRANKLIN AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE. WE WANT THE ORIGINAL ZONING FOR 18 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES :r RETAINED, SO THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 'G Aa f! 'RMAMW2 � r ® �r ry ,d�► .1w j - t t•1 ,�� t s g� s s DOUGLAS ROAD AND THE CORNER OF HUGHEg oAXS HOUSING PROJECT ON FRANXLIN AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE. WE WANT THE ORIGINAL ZONING FOR 18 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES RETAINED, So THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 0.— R R � • e R • • t • • • • e, e i • R \ i Y •:Psv gf , WWI MAI J%I�fI _ I ►� , �, , vool .. _. , y3,25 k. �, u �dFx 7 } � , yfi P .�, �-` f " try, �, t�� 'n 4 5 �� •*/q s � 6- a c = KYHr^t�'tw�•Y. :.��� .j..r. �Y� .. .4,? .'� j, t-,�'�ir���Z� -. a ...;.. -.. 3,. .l. �.. .n...p"�.fi��, ... .�_ FRANKLIN AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE' WE WANT THE ORIGINAL ZONING FOR 18 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES RETAINED so THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Ae IV, 54) k eA, 77777;!., set Nz`� Ta A _ cy To THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI t _ WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF COCONUT GROVE, OBJECT TO THE ' CONSTRUCTION OF 29 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES NOW PLANNED FOR THE ST • HUGHES OAKSHOUSING PROJECT ON THE CORNER OF DOUGLAS ROAD AND FRANKLIN.AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE. F ORIGINAL ZONING FOR 18 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES WE WANT THE RETAINED, SO THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE REST HUGHES OAKS HOUSIN PROJECT ON THE CORNER OF DOUGLA5 KvA%u esnu FRANKLxN AVENUE 1 COCONUT GROVE. i WE WANT TH ORIGINAL ZONING FOR 18 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES RETAINED, SO TH THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBO HOOD. ►=v Lo war #fie public; 2 S El ' � �i �rami 4 r Y'` I��rt ���'; 4�'�',«� 1� c� x i'r 4 � ,� i • °' �3� a r�3x��'c d5Rt s ,, t,,,F a �4 L-v �T_ y ���� _ �;"3,4�_ _ f s - 5,q'Y �' ,�y,•'��--- a�''��x t-�''�44� o' F�'�. S ' ie v ;its CONSTRUCTION Of Ht1GFiBS OAKS HOUSING PROJECT ON THE CORNER OF T�Ot7GLAS ROAD AND FRANKLIN AVENUE IN COCO"M GROVE. WE WANT THE ORIGINAL ZONING FOR 1S SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES RETAINED, SO THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE REST —; OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. F, /i N.� e /� Nor / 'lp 0-79,14"f Rnt f o r i A I+ 61 di 446 MCA, iai/ _ t 1 L ` it. CONSTRUCTION Vr Lo Q3lwa+aa. }itJGHE$ OAKS HOUSING PROJECT ON NE CORNER OF DOUGLAS ROAD AND NRANKLIN AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE - VA" mtix! ARI'GSNAL ZONING FOR 18 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES RETAINED, SO THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WWI Xv A it tAl ..+�► IV 71 f -9- 1 :Sugmifted io the i 914, 2 5 cx vF 1t - s TO THE CITY COMMISSION OF 141AMI: WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF COCONUT GROVE, OBJECT TO THE z i CONSTRUCTION OF 28 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES NOW PLANNED FOR THE ST. ! GHES OAKS HOUSING PROJECT ON THE CORNER OF DOUGLAS ROAD AND HU � FRANKLIN AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE. WE WANT THE ORIGINAL ZONING FOR 18 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES RETAINED, SO THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE. REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. � 3 133 Ov (a AVE3 , 97o r' . ► ui� 9 f��� iAl► 5 ` n r •� 1 Y k A s r t c '" '� - d YEKy. y�'�!7y, -4tmv COMMISSION Or MIAMI! OBJECT TO THE TS OF COCONUT GROVE, WE THE. UNDERSIGNED RES'DEN CONSTRUCTION OF 28 SINGLE FAMILYFOR THE ST, HOUSES NOW PLANNED HUGHES OAKS HOUSING PROJECT ON THE CORNER OF DOUGLAS ROAD AND FRANKLIN AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE' WE WANT THE ORIGINAL ZONING FOR 18 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES RETAINED So THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. -34- ' A----------- t .s 0 TO THE CITY COMM I85ION OF MIAMI3 _ JECT TO THE ` WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF COCONUT GROVE, OB CnNSTRUCTION OF 28 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES NOW pLANNED FOR THE ST. fIUGYES OAKS HOUSING PROJECT ON THE CORNER OF DOUGLAS ROAD AND FRANKLIN AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE. WE WANT THE ORIGINAL ZONING FOR IS SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES RETAINED, SO THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NAME S ..I ON OF NtIAMI COMMIS 4.` TO Tmg CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI: THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF COCONUT GROVE, OBJECT TO THE T WE, Y MOUSES NOW PLANNED FOR THE ST, CONSTRUCTION OF g8 SINGLE FAMIL I#UGHES OAKS HOUSING PROJECT ON THE CORNER OF DOUGLAS ROAD,ND FRMLIN AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE. g WE WANT THE ORIGINAL ZONING FOR 18 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES 3 RETAINEb, SO THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. � ADDRESS 7 4�7 D �2T �I�'.3 133 (1j,i r TO THE CITY COMMISSION Or MA 6 THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF COCONUT GROVE, OBJECT TO THE CTION OF 28 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES NOW PLANNED FOR THE ST. CONSTRU HUGHES OAKS HOUSING PROJECT ON THE CORNER OF DOUGLAS ROAD AND FRANKLIN AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE. SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES WE WANT THE ORIGINAL ZONING FOR 18 RETAINED, SO THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AMR= �6• 0.(;. 3:303 131 3 -5 13 Vol D) �7YA) "3 /* .0 I iij, Lee_- )q Vyo .4 Arj J6 0-Al .�Acol 400, 201 33 pubb; wa Y' TO THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI! WE* THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF COCONUT GROVE, OBJECT TO THE a CONSTRUCTION OF 28 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES NOW PLANNED FOR THE ST. IiUGHES OAKS HOUSING PROJECT ON THE CORNER OF DOUGLAS ROAD AND FRANKLIN AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE. s WE WANT THE ORIGINAL ZONING FOR 18 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES RETAINED, SO THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Yhm , ' ADDRESS 3 7 37 Lo17 o�ntT Avc,.w�, c�3• L 9 ±. �q AI A bli 91 j 3� � Y WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF COCONUT GROVE, OBJECT TO THE { CONSTRUCTION OF 28 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES NOW PLANNED FOR THE ST• RUGHES OAKS HOUSING PROJECT ON THE CORNER OF DO'UGLAS ROAD AND FRANKLIN AVENUE IN COCONUT GROVE. WE WANT THE ORIGINAL ZONING FOR 18 SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES RETAINED, SO THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD - EAU �jrJ rt 70 r01 M • 3 1110 _T — Z L) t/o. vya -, 44 6�iro�r/ o hi /O/ 1w -- a qoo $ k(L-0 ri ter - • r�/� ..s, 4 A L�6 '36 f. yF 11 L� f: A 10 f � _ ARM �' `i Hai a-.a'�T "�; '� .yTl' -E a �ey3-�,� •'� �i • �. r `^s••^f `y �.�F K �� F - P F J f ItAt U AtZ S NG ta(UJI� c:l t'L'I 1't 1U V i TO: HONORABLE MAYOR XAVIER SUAIIEG AND CITY COMMISSIONERS WE THE UNDERSIGNED REG]STCRCD VOTERS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, I'O14 WISH IT TO BE KNOWN TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR SUAREZ AND COMMIS OM 1. THAT THE RESIDENTS (HOMEOWNERS AND TENANTS) OF FRANKLI a p AVENUE, MARLER AVENUE, WILLIAMS AVENUE AND WEST GROVE, REQU THE BUILDING OF ST. HUGH OAKS HOUSING PROJECT AS PLANNED BY .�HEv EN CITY OF MIAMI HOUSING DEPARTMl NT6 � N t 2. FUTURE: -DELAYS OR DETERIORATION ON THE HOUSING PROJECT. 14 NO LONGER BE ALLOWED. 3. CURRENT DENSITY PROPOSED WILL BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT CHA E PHONE 2. 3 i3wa wel 54IX8 4. I /linvi 31 hz a 6 -eel- So 7- 07 t114 9 i • �• rim Association . IC?it # ['A Aft 33OM Qrwr„ Mardi 3:4133 T - 4P Submitted into the public iemrd in c ")n with - :. : -any Hirai City Clerk r• low - „ 'h "�F,: .,t., *.,'y . •e : :.iy, i z' -:,.. ,o+� � �q R t>••sSe �<kT' $F'i +- '+ K> � -, �iS�+ a. • �'• '+� .f.:. y '.�' rc.'. n .,�iy a rr '° � t,..;t^�s,•s-�y`,,, ��,�-e +v�"-�t�� Ni it�.�-.. ,$ - K� - W �: f T � a �F � -- �r'�t < _-b•t � { t � Yf ►Gd`'tI � 3; rr t ` t„�.,.p .�.j f •r � � �tq v f "0 Ss t 4 -� :: a• s.. • '' .t :h£',� f . '• }`YKC.'''x! .-miry" x [- *2' � � -.JG u a _ : ♦��qY ��#' J.,� Y � u �Ut'Y,�v�-ur d � •w 'f#' ,ri 4`- .s_ r,r a .. .v na t 9 t r • V� '� ��•. v+ >!C 'r `t tom.! F f 1 7 aly{n'!F►j3�4 ,�` y�"�. �T S `� - yF 7. ,�r.,� x i�'-^ t .d .��Jr� t. •"`! x -`f J+Ie"Fr:: • � � a � {.. 'h� 3 ,Y � f �i• t .� t �*.!'� Y• i-- � ,t-, i! 'f i i f� !.x '� KT P' 3F +.. r F t S z�. -xi ' X '" 1�►' COVEA PhGC LG_x•i'TC-": ZI h i 131.1 TIME. 'ej. fCJ P,zt QF PAGES INCLUDING COMER SHEET: ' rPEC1A? :NSTPUCTIONSz TELEPHONE E : `%(• O •S 7 y� _ u: Submitted. into u f the Public x' a record irl conIIecliott y with ' item on � 9 — 3 2 5 Matt Hirai .. Cify11 L _s - �i ?irk- W. 1?0� Avvimp - LI,:.4CjjA4-. -I (, -1, - 5 1 X, ine Yavler suoroz City of 111;&r.i a resident of the South Grove, I would like to Of fQx nY BuFT'>rt Icr the St. Rugh's Oalor Prt!jeat- There is perhaps no qrp�Ier _,_iDritjr for the city 04, mialn' than to provide affordable 11c.!5ing jam. ]I)..ely to hene! it both the black and white Cne of. the saddest cc.rar,ent&ries about life in Anerica tah.al-, nearly four dec&des after the Supreme Court nandaL:'v-d df.-Rpt- relation and nearly three decades after the passage of A.;0 l9e4 Civil Rights Act, We CMItI.V16 to live An a largely suc.P. The denarcatJons betv*ean the Black Grove and the white Life in an ec'-­)C�Tnica2l"! as ever. Wa t tn!�� ki-t! Cf r-ic:L t c r y cl iu 1-.Ind of parochial 0r?%,i­0 hildrt�n; nor ir. it. tI wmnl. then to expt*rJence growing UP. St. Hugh's Oaka is a P-. -1 tf c es together. Arn d Wh il 2 ca.n.,begin to bring our cc- 'mmunitlA tth_ . residents cs tInc, black Grove, I wou'j'd I a e wo-i;jd We.&Cot.e R plan?.­ud develt-prienz which Vould ta t z the 4.11 zit -I Middle Class. I recbgnizs that increased density can be a real and legitimato n 4p e-Nrery conmkinity. in fact, our neighborhood is pr&sently concer r--nq, Agetrj in a'lawsuit against a, profit -minded daveloper who has torn n ore home in order to build two expensive bones. But sPots Of qhc sr density can be appropriate and desirabl e vben the public V onic and racial diversity rsity and to'Ir.eet puip,ses are to insure et the desperate housing needr. of a long -ignored sagnent, of our , 0 I an told that current plans for St. oaks call f or 20 1 priced at approximately $90,000, each..' I fear that if the nu. ber cA. P"01xed bnmes is reduced, the cost per -home will nOc So -OS "o LT., Out re ach for the targeted comwinity4" I WOUI d L he C t asioil to ation of. plane r. is resist any redu homes. Submitted into the public record * ctio In connection" ith j item on ZS J. 1, atty Hirca ­tw, City Clerk: "J' i o ' t•iri#4 i ! •.�if�ar�w �� arw+r t; • CAhmwnu bAhk&A AFS'L Ito,. ME4t U1A1i.MG rt. �►xAwr-*A WrA.Ao x� TELLCGPIE�VER LETTER p:eare deliver the following pages to: i ma",'SE. Mavar Xavier tuFre! FROM: Leslie L; 13-- Total uuzbur of pages including cover letter: 3 �► • ..1 i `1���^..• .ail If ?0u do not receive all the pages included above, please .Mj 89 SCC.^. as �{3Mi`f3:NTS: TEi St. Hug:= Vak&; Praj cc-t �- -a f. 4 _?r1'z'tT' -9 ►- ti - ,.'1. S x';ev+ ,,,< into the ;x_ubmitted public f 'tir. - { record co n in n e on item - 3 on i riday Hirai - C'JY Clergy 91 325 the public ` 4t.+: L?'tiu.t ll:,.'r : ..«,:�• ,:'.mil• . M=r @cti0i1 ih 1. L_1 TI C : s t� t1 q if i wY.�" ; ;'•r ul. t�. r`i4-y Cc-•ti�,_t�iC•�, wa_ 1 6 IE ut'-it Z01 tbC- LL4-.3t►oI: of =La?-ne . i,-fv*,ii:.-p ten"tbi tr.tt :} ��it ^i�tfC3XlriidtE'��` -i%L a.:2�• alCej C)f lam.".' dCl"C`L'�` `�' .._L : "�•xT Ctt+e 'lane Mo&-morial Paris rin Road. This war the City :.T'. 14�6 :••1:'pD:i.E'd .y at 6 Crrc'%+.'Zj 3t►il:yti'3 • �`_fc _t`r eyeeS., of O!•c 1•.illion. VC1ILr3. The St::let, b deve-Ic-per, had rurnhat-etd the land for nUJ i OOC�. CU a:t.. ..a..� � rE�t�tFwly v:as Lam. �•' t L:: t_.:r:t�+>rl•� de:►eia-' o%e p.rp4.4y• fiar� ..Z •.., t.�- s:.•... -r r• C+iu. .iA �, u...... fzli t�,c, 3<.vE7dp:rrF:tit of this prcjpct. to h� ar. offort to re —Up Rc;m v= ! t,e f: GIB a prev:. ou-sly inel.t pcli tical deci ss•i on . .riEl;lo`� }?iuS tfterE been 2^.v :.sssue of nu^ral controversy wh" Cn I: S yr:rred the emotions and fostered divisiveness between the r.Figh ,'rs cf the South and West Grove. e r: crlem started on March 0 , 1991, when the t' ia.^•:: ndvisc-ry Board heard a recomnf!tzd*tion for a 14a?car Use spec —'al Pe•.lr:: t proposed by the Department of Devrlopr;e:it and Conservation to allow the e*eation of twenty-eight t:61 "atfczd- ^Die" housing units o:it?t axpzc.:ir,:ste'y :500 square feet cac^ on an ate"- n^rmally l imi t.Fd to eighteen (IS) bui..dino ict:. with 3m;lst no notice to any concerno6 part.ic-s living in the radius of thiz- in the South Grove. this neetinc too). r:any ad:c-Ln,-.^.0 _ J of tr. '. ...._t Gr�i-_r �t�•_c : 21r� art, it the We•ct. Grove who wcze present to speak in tavcz of this NotRbly the Civic f:1th was aiso represented on V�c- z- -.• ry N,.:-Tr= t :,-.e1 w b F r iT. hE-r cis:.; c £t' a •i !'act C.. i. :F.ct ived C•1 Lit 2 iC Z b Cti 2 tS a %it.lie'_ ity to t rilke a t it, L. . : r..c rit of Tjeve I C. Iiner,t ar_c• k.: asi_3 n r-,! n;•osed this ar .,•_•-,r.` nf. re st C?2 :,.nG -Lb4t m:,;cera ;'.c; iacone i'?.r;:I t., a•J- �'.r'.'•tr..; A. M3.000.00 gent Yi&' figa:•e. Was sug.7ested at. the -�•r�rcte6 sLliirq price. A ]^ttery would decide the arrlicznts w'.o wn uid thFn r:+•.e to privately quilify and zecure a rho. tme;e. Tt wnn unknown i+t than tire, that private one£ti.r,ve a,l ti keri pl Lme tc szlicit the suppn. t of West Grove but the ?�rotiect s: s r.•roposcd as rote -neutral. Cris Supporter he-weve x thared r.. r bic, rricai :everie of a fifty year retreat ry b azk bomeowre.rs f: oir Coconut Grove to the fields of Goulds and advised that this nro,ect was the answer to 50 1•aars of racial suppression. she stir rec t.=a :y by stating that persons opposirc this project tog- whzizewer reasons were lrxrpliedly racists. oti,er ine-ethers of the co.-iPun_ty a:rpre�wed their cono-erns rega,:fling taxes, Crime, lacy. of a;leurte inrhrmatior and tz laifie. Inferration regerdin_ the t.rop:—pry was sketchy and quosz+:.-ts were raised al-.1ut the gvcl.ity of '_ife of t:li:^se enjoying the fruits of tris p:-: ject due tc its When ts:e Advisory Board had coaiplcrf:d zts 6pprevai, it W L.5 n':•�nc'.a-:tly cicar that its their well in,'r,:nde 3 vote for able" housing, a general concept a: hest, no irtforrtat.icn gar a:•3wi��:�;e from Use any of he c:ti:Xerr_7:g ::his projert and the i�ei�I:bOr:+c►ads bordering iron it. _ . be C.:.y has re, in Cne Jiri e r r tb :: -proper-- . is ,ic . l.'86 %tie citti. F. :. �_': �l�t�.`.di ri . � isnCt.i21.. o: 4 , : 1 i a Iivr. i:.►....rs as a ,.v n- F: - •.4 t� •, r�man+� cl thi.. ^ar. r.=. "Q..a- a r. ... =..,z the e:.r r.e , '+► . o ac Count. :eS believed to rtl ll CQnra4r. rr: ; f t..w ti:r. :.:ri� ;•w12:-� �..� .:: Fi +r' l 4i ty �Cr- the Z-ei al t. .. F:, •t-._re;�•,='�14 br•S7► i:CU�: :M ;'-.'-:•�... � r :. =�� 9 1 -41 ram - tieii Ord ih . hection with - �:i�', t )'sl.i'.i' 4��Z..' tFl:. h C.'•'� �� r�'.12'� ST. I�i;tzfi Ur►I;':: a;c.:t►: t tit, I.'I:C_�1F:�='� POLITIC" 1 f+ t, V4X)? S-R, mtltty Hirai ...p.?•;.�tt:�Y C:�*y Co~ink sziot: �.�11 ?t--l2,rt LC'-xc,C;•;t fiat the cieatioi, cr �' '�iri%r1eC. ;•:F`,1F'iv�..11tt?rlt'. �7Z r2':tCw ;j the %'.2.iLtiOXliilcl-Q1 y 7 ..1% L aCri, �,r a!`:_►lL paxC-�l -)f 1 a l)d acl. C: -'- ., ::•t `r =Y3 of re ,laile I4omori.al Park nn Road. 'T1-,iS lar.C. wa.: k� Ly the City r 11326' arsatlY inflated ?% r.r c. n excess of Ons %illioI: IGi.lar.::;. The Seller, a dC':rf.'lcp r, the l aTld fOr $6(10 , 000. 00 d::d reperLedl y wa:,- unable s 1.1 V--'raf.i tAb1; develop the p:.'c.pryt s.y .=;or,t� cl aim the imz tivat iol'i 44 • f fv1 t�,tti :ltzvelop-mrmt of t:h.s, Project. to bP ar, eff'art t-io v:= . ue from a rtrevi ou 1 y ine ., }k. political decision. �p Fa;3 .s has there been any ivaae of controversy wh:Lch t:at. r`iz'2��k the emotions and fostered divisiveness bet:wcon the ne- i ghi?;nrs cf the South and west Grove. '.he pzvblem started on March 0, 1991, when th,= Miam P:'Lanning A.dvissry Board heard a recomxmAndation for a I-IaDor U�•P• Srecial Perir.,i t pz oposed by the Department of Dpvi:lopme-:>.t artd onservati on to allow file creation of twenty- eig':t i :'r 1 "atf o: c3� Able" housing units with a.pprcxima ::e y 1500 square feet cac.n on iln :.feel normally lim:ite(i tc eightcerl (18) bU41di:tg 1GtS. With ,,Im 4t no notice t.o any concerned parr iF-s living i n t1',P ra:iius of till:_ r�rc >✓c�t in 1A)e South Grove, t111s meeting took many aclic:inar. C l lib art �.. .. �L. bw„ers ir the ti'Nst. Grove who we re present to speak rt ta`ICY rot Notably the Civic r: iih was also represented on t "r< 4..... .r;-Z: ��r:,'? r`-c-I,-?•1 wit b F. v... mkrriber . IT%h CiV, io rJ B"ii'.";: Oi i•'LI F C Z S O : t.~, autllo--Ity to take a p,'7. `.,ai" t-io1". of L)P.v l cl'ii:tF?;i+`. ar.G ^L151riy r?"n."S, osed this n?'^' d5> ..'�_'•:tl: of restorinq Lho mc;eerate income iamzly to ry;xs•':~;,. A. S90,000.00 oe%(-tral figare- was suggested au the exvvt:�tea sel.liliq price. A lottery would. deckle the anplic:its Wrc, woula then have to privatei.y qualify and secure a mortc-lag°_. It way: unknown at that tiire, that private meetings :IiIC: tzker, rl ere to s_ licit the support. of West Grove but the project w ri proposed as race -neutral. Crue supporter however shared t.•>r. historical reverie of a fifty year retreat by black hom.evwners.' from Coconut Grove to the fields of Goulds and advised that thit' Proiect was the answer to 50 years of racial suppression. She stirred i1;.�-ny by statirm that: persons opposing this Project tor. whatever reasons went- impl.iedl.y racists. cutler members of the caitU-isunity expressed their col:cerns regazui.ng taxes, cri-roe, 'lack ;of, adequate informatior and txaff ic. Informtiar. regarding the I.ropc:s :l ,:as sketchy and questict::s were ra-ised about the quality of life of tbnse enjoying the fruits of this pr^'ject due to its when the Adv:Lsory Board had -=mplt,'tfF!d xts approval, ic_ .wa:s aL:.,Indantiy clear that in their well li �:c-nded vote for able" housing, a cioreral concept at Lest, no from t1-te prC'pC?nents, which ad'dre•'S.sed any :7f t)li: 3.$; U�'`✓. cuncernir;g this project an6 the neighborhoods. bordering apon it.,.' AI'a+1 C� fiy has ape it' in f�}C^c`4a^ of one _ YTs',t ':1-i ,:' U'{ th 41 s prol% ert i a lC-TIet. Inc t In 1:086 t.:r34 City i ..; . _ •i7ec� <; C�i:: g tiCa: kio.:. 1-sr r '? ',r., , 1 ;I corst tint .Icn3 amount o 4.2+i:i..'ioi, D'011.ors a � vc.��i g r }' C:+')+.'..^ for the ' +�'Yr°:re1�;17n:t;nt Ct th,,..,-: F.. -�1 and etnit r I''rvexl . to r.] 11 Coin lilt rt?e. �' 1�- ��• tyr:wt- fix 2.�... �.� yll'"'.••l:,. � :�; �;rnt,•,�.Ti1Cit'. � .::L l �-`::: `y,.�. ..- :i,.<.i.. I- e -•� jr4.: t1-if_ L-'f'i�.�ii?'mot:C 1.t+t�; e�Iis.'x 4nti15i�wN 1+?�Y+ aYj R « ' '.I'" T'.ii�' ^C.:�,S'8 �, f.;T . '�, C tic _..__,. z :.-pact, lega:t o7 at.hf.r Cllsts P0CP.4SAI- Ilj' toOIrie LY tlt+=- ?�'�:` or any suggesti Pfn Cf e!7�} ti C):ir7 f c`:��t� r�.yar Cal nC� !..nL nit � 'ti1trica_, street aeias or items tr► bf. borne by us:, the I C %110ents of Coconut =1• ove . i n gene r F. Ths DepartmAtrt ++140'1pe5l, this rroiect can be brought in fc�r only 2.5 Million Dollars. F�.t: The market det.;.rm; , --]ling price, not the construction cost ; or. the develop e .., r, r,�*e wet] intended the proieCt. This is a project t 26 1,5C0 square font Units each only owning *►.�, fo-mn6at:on on which it is and fa^.ing a cemetery. A11 otter homes in the heig horhood .ave a mininiLur cf 5,000 square feet of ianki. Throughout � St Grovo are nwiierous quaint hi:.cr:c homes on full.] building lots with asking pricinct of less than $4'-.1, 0Q4.00. To suggest that an An ;. ; ho:sEs on theta lots ?c an answer to West busing needs is a a Cd-ivisssive EGti r. o our pu _ic monies. Te accuse those of us wantr.n1rs about tzaffic, taxes crime cost, etc., of a%-cism is a distraction. of oucT persoi. - __ssed homes throughout the west Groset to the assistance even to the LDC for the revitaliza_:.-.):. of eo)r:nercial f acili ties along Grand Avtnue or upgradi:,c: Cr s iocatiol;s such as the corners at Grand and Douglas. _n short, the xeasc?ns we all live in toconut Crove is a unique quality of life which this project directly ignores and threatens. O^e ter appreciate the City's efforts to increaseits tax best �!.�^•.:nt '.f? G'Pie I oran l-•.n .�... of tpr.z.pa. ts, ov.t it .'r.ti. not ii.n re$S+..: _.. c: racy: .or a homeowner to feel thzeaLtenCd by an adicinin project which, by any logic, is more than likely by its concej:t ;^ r•.:�m.:�►ish this cxuAiitl� of life, and their property value:. "� Sul �. tlr t- C �. .. • a.• - i._r--:. r.._ w a rcascmably t.sli��• Hon.. ca , be iss naive. q,;ality will t::e ,rxt.pyers will, once again, finance the project. Or Dc_;AY!k hiving been already invested in land costs, »::__ "a building quality homes 17z-r $3_ .00 square ctq+� �•_a►:d. We have lots of 'rusin-ss for ;•,: but hav': I rl C.5:W`rs l lighting, l and:>cap ng, -:tc . 101 f ree ii2... Recently the Civic Club was extremely vi polio and ir: their ob ection to the CacciAmani Develnpmert. succersfu lY reducinc its density and iticrea,ing its :set tacks. Their about face, s_,acestina acceptance of a compres^c-d life envirozlnerit reoarding St. Hugh Oaks in t:ie less advantaged West Grove is strangely questionable' The Advisory hoard was told on March 20, that all' signi.iicant i= foliage on the dsve►lcpmert site would be retcAined. A memcrandum of April 3, 19S, , from the Depari-.tr+ent of vevclofinent to Public r Works, requests permits "to ccr,,a^enee the relocation of several #, large trees which have to be -umoved prioz to the start of construction". So, what is the truth and more importantly, who r art: we to believe? : in an effort to get saine of these c:-n=gins to press in a liszdted ' time, some thoughts may appear d i s: oia e i but hopefully not. :.r+accu:'GtP. However, it is clear that no c=Prehensive intorrra- t:.:n pas been available, as it does. not exist, regarding the deve?opirent of and the aims for thli s project. This hz3t+er/ skelter and poorly organized c*nQept bas alarmed and divided cur } rn...;7bbors and shovld not be allriwed. Hopeful yott will. be at the meeting on April 25 at 5:00 0.'clock F.M.. at City Hall. 71. Ai: • mayor and Convnissionere - Have you thought about a ;secuted patk with recreati. nal facilities such as basketball and tern s courts mach like Kirk Monroe Ppxk for the use and unification cif all the nc:.ghbors,' These facilities are needed, but then the , dil.er:,ma of all that nonz ey cit'C:-ng aro;�nd, *SUb into the pUbHQ Zowrd in Connection Wlth i _': , .�Yi�Ct , legal bt (7t.jt .T ..^.t7.cil �i T}P.Ct?� c•Ri- : I tit+ ` �r «'?� SLt�geG Li �+n C•f Ari�]'i ti �3Tta i c ~•r,a.c c:treet ��f`S rJ1' t.(�Itl ti i'+F: hnrnrF by ivt for t('`ZlOeT:t5 ,? Coconut in T)-part.m#::nt 1+14-)t) C11 this r roj ect tar: be br aught An f;,r on) y 5 Million Dollars. t :c Tht, market det.15:Zm, ii'Irt price, nnt the cQnstruction or t-he C?PVP�OUP , h P •Pr w01'1 intendi:d the project. Zctis is a prnj,ect t 2ts w,5►`0 .square font units each only owni.rlc of 06at C:ri nn Wtl�rh ]t r _:S and A^.'tri� r� rt✓mP"Fry. /t.�.3 C]':i'.ei' �}omes ; n t�_�:. ne ; g hlorhocd __u,•e a minimu.�n :: 5,000 square feet of ? anI . Thrcugha*ut ,est GLC%10 are: numerous quaint t:i1-1c home: on 'Hull building lots ,:.:th asking pricing ot: 2es, s then $4= , 000. 00. To _uggest: that an thenc! 18 cc� i c an answer to West Dosing ne+�u . a'..I P�C't'.3 C+n �t CiuT �3Lt 1C mollies . Tc^. e CC}5�+? t.hC�se Jf L' r drir i n,, Answers a2,.`attt txaffic, taxp.s, critre etc. , O.j :,iS►T is a divisive diT-tractaott. -at cIu percntt �r,7ul.c ^2 �«�•. _ . _� t,�,.,. __.; _ _ssc:d homes througbuut the H•:-st Grove I Ci to t e assistance c?:ven to the LIUC to.. the re.'.t.ct."L .a _. ?.. of ccm-,-."rcial fecilities along Grand A:•c,-nue or upgrAdi:-:: c:z, Locatioi," sucli ,,r the ccrrni�7rs at Grand and Douglas.. r, shot . the reasnns we all live in Coconut Grove is a unique gual.it:y of I. e which this project directly ignores and threatens. 0r!- (Pr. Arp ec icat o the City' s of f nrt r- tc+ increase its t. Ax �?�_ �•: of T`:. ,'�'. _r'r C�L:`r .` _5 Ii::t -r ray :ox a h,-)IIe Wrier to fr-P-1 threa`enc-d I.y an ad:ica i2: r,roject which, by any logic, is riorc: than, likely by its concel c 6 i rn.- nish this quality of life, and their property va l u:: Y . a reasonably qualit,- hen;_ can be is naive. T7..:.hcnr :;,.salty will -,V,•; will, once again, finance the projec` . nr:�, D,:' Ar• :- having been already invested in.. land costs, :v h il "d-ing quality homes fz.r $3= -00 . rruare stAn We.. have lots of I'•llsi.--ss for :,ii but hav, ire =-nth=_rs, IJ(;ht:irg, Iandscap--r�g, -;,tr. ;ut free a:,.. prc,t�t . Recently the Civic Club was ext:r.emeIy vi. , alic, an6 ).r: their oWection to the Cacciamani sf-sfu I reducing its density and ivcrea�inc. i is rr L 1Zack.;_ Tht� _ ahout: face, <<,aaestinq acceptance of a co.-nprP-Y.:'-c-.d life erivi.'"onJP.ent regarding 6t . Hugh Oa" in the 1es5 'Grove stra..c�:Iy questionable. The ;�dvi sort' Board was told on March 20, t hat all si gnii'icant foliage on. the d velcpmert site would be ret�i..ned.. A memcrardum of April 3, 1.9 ° , from the Depart-.rrlent o' �>Lv -- Iopment to Public Works, requests permits "to cci+1^enc:e t:h�-- relocation of several large trews which have to be :cmoved priaz to the start of conn,trtction". So, what is the truth and more impartantl.y, who art we to believe? in ar• t•ffort to get seine of tht?se c,-.n :c2 21c to press in a I imd tee time,' some thoughts may appear but hope full rO►. inaccurate. However, it is clear t , .*. n-7.: c:,;cprehensi.ve inforira- t_rn has been available, as it ci :e., ^c:, exist, regarding t21e d=-:•elopxre, nt of and the aims for tni- pxQject. This heltert ro<_ - -cr and poorly organized conc:ept. has al armed and dLivided our ri-- a al7bc;rs and should not be all -owed. n-opeful you will be at the rr,!�r_ting on April 25 at 5 tU0 at Vlow3ti P.M. at city Hall... A.:. i;ayor and CommissionevN Iiave y+,u thought about a wec.tized pack with recreati-nal facilities such ao basketball and te4tlis courLE, :each like F'-i.rf: Monroe Park- for the use and unificatisQn of all the re-- ghbors. These zap j' i.t i.es a;:c iv,rcled , but then Y the of all that :coney sift: ,-1- ar:.un�l, Omitted into the public SUSAN HILLIG DESIGNS 3806 Aveeade Avesiw Coeouat Grove, Florida 31133 448 -g334 April 22, 1991 Mayor Suarez City of Miami City Hall Pan American Drive Coconut Grove, Florida, 33133 Dear Mayor Suarez, My family moved to Coconut Grove in 1969 because of the diversity of the population, and the general ambiance. We now feel very strongly about the matter of the St. Hugh's property, and would like to address the specifics. Firstly, the "Black" community that borders d'_-the proposed developement, has been there for ages, whereas the "White" on the other side, by contrast (Loquat), is mainly rentals and therefore,transients. As for putting a so called "secured" park/playground, -----there can't possibly be such a thing! The City now, can not financially dispense what this area now needs Also, the noise and lights, etc. in the middle of a residential area would create much more problems for both communities. Stirrup Grove is a fine example of what can be achieved with careful planning, and we desperately need more affordable housing. Most of the people in the so called So. Grove Home Owner's Assoc. are beyond the 375ft. radius requirement, so I would wonder what the fuss is really all aboutl (Also, the majority 6f So. Grove homeowners were never invited to join this group, so they should not be considered representative of this community. We, in the "White's Grove, keep on shouting about what can be done to help the "Black" Grove, (in itself, most unfortunate titles), well ------- here is chance for for all of us to work together, and put our money where our mouths are! Sincerely, Member-AS.I.D., I.D.G. Submitted into the public record in connection with item,lr /3 on z� at Hirai City Cleik 91- 325 Mr, Robert A, Duvall 3623 Royal Palm Avenue Coconut Grove, FL 33133 April 24, 1991 I i The Honorable Xavier Suarez Mayor of the City of Miami and the City Commission y 3500 Pan American Drive t Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mayor Suarez and Members of the City Commission: My wife and I are residents of the South Grove and I am writing to express our concern about the manner in which a petition in opposition to the St. Hugh's Oak Development was circulated in our neighborhood. } Like many residents in the Grove, my wife and I are adamantly opposed to the ever-increasing density of development which results whenever small, quaint homes and trees are replaced with two-story, five bedroom homes that are squeezed onto 50 foot lots. Unfortunately, it has been our experience that those who were soliciting signatures for their petition in opposition to the St. Hugh's Oak Development have unfairly used this prevelant anti -development sentiment for their own questionable purposes. When the petition was presented to my wife she was told that the ; density was being increased because the City had paid too much for the property. She was also advised that the increased density would adversely affect property values. More importantly, she was left with the clear impression that the Black community also opposed the proposed increase in density. She signed the petition. A short time later, I arrived home and we discussed the petition. When I told her that it was my understanding that a majority of the Black community was in favor of increasing the density of the development she was surprised and felt that she had been misled. I walked down the street and discussed the matter with the man who had obtained my wife's signature. After informing him of my understanding that the Black community favored the increase in density and that this was the community that would be most Submitted into the public x _ directly impacted by the project, I asked the basis of his _ interest in the development. He responded that the homes to be constructed were not just for "colored", that whites could also live there. I observed that whites were also free to purchase homes anywhere else in the Black Grove. Needless to say, the purported interest of the petitioners in prospective White neighbors living in this development is less than substantial. Instead, I was left with the distinct impression that this man was spurred into civic action not so much by his concern for _ prospective White neighbors as by his concern that he would have more Black neighbors living in close proximity. While he agreed to cross out my wife's signature, I can only wonder how many of the remaining signatures on this petition were obtained under similar circumstances. In the final analysis, the decision before the City Commission is one that will most directly impact the Black community. Accordingly, in fairness it is their voice that should guide the Commission's action in this matter. RAD / f p Very truly yours, Robert A. Duvall Submitted into the public record in connection yrith itenZ /3 onAV 19 2 atty Hirai City Clerk 91- 325 CD 0 a 0 m n 0 d Neighbors oppose plan for Grove townhomes; supporters cry, racism. By CARL OOLOfARB tlWaldstaf Writer people who live there will be black. Thheere's a lot'of bigotry going on. I Coconut Grove activists are debating whether a city -sponsored to build a cluster 28 homes, resent that." The resentment goes both ways. "To plan of to sell for $90,000 apiece, would accuse those of us wanting answers about traffic, taxes, crime, create a "slum" land depress prop- cost, etc, of racism is a divisive tac. the wrote Sky Smith, a deader The homes would sit on the tradi- in a two-page tional dividing line between the , lletterddistributedpposition M neighbors. black Grove and the predominantly ' Smith, says he's worried about white Grove, where many homes quality of life, not the color of the ; sell for $250,000 or more. people who would live In the devel- City planners view the three -bed- room, three -bath hones Franklin opment. But he rubbed several peo. the off pie wrong way'when he argued Avenue as a way to help moderate. ._ against the project In a public meet- ' income people Gve In the Grove. To :,;in$ last dMth.... be eligible, a fanu7y of four would . 'I Questioned:�rrhhther it would need an income of fat least $36,400 but = : lend itself to a ghetto -like atmo- ' ' no more than $50.960.. , sphere; Smith said Monday. "To• ' About 400 residents, mostly from me that's an insult; said the more affluent neighborhood to McDonald. "If I'm going to spend, the south, have signed a petition the They $90,000 for a house. I'm going to opposing project. say-28 take care of It. They think if black homes are too many for the 3.15- acre people move in, it would be a slum." parcel. They fear the homes would be constructed to keep McDonald said her group has 150 poorly about members, all of whom are costs down. They think the develop- black. But the planned development ment would create traffic problems has not divided the neighborhood and become an eyesore. neatly along racial fines. • Project supporters claim such A key backer of the plan is the reasons are a smoke screen. Coconut Grove Civic Club, one of ' "They don't want the develop- •Miami's oldest neighborhood , ment, period," said Yvonne McDon- groups and the main voice of the ald, president of the Coconut Grove . white Grove. But several civic club Homeowners and Tenant Associa- directors who live near the project tion. "They think the majority of have formed a splinter group, the 1M a..OLE South Grove Homeowners Associa. tion, to reflect the sentiment of their neighborhood. The 3.15-acre parcel, known as the St. Hugh Oaks project, is cur. rently platted for 18 homes. The plan, which goes before commis. sioners today, would permit 28 homes. The city's original plan called for 40 homes, but the city trimmed the number because of neighborhood opposition. If the number of homes is cut more, the cost for each home will increase. "We want middle -income homes," said McDonald. "We want to make sure there will be some black people who can afford these homes." Caution: Growth ahead THE CITY of Miami should move with cautious prudence in its attempt to build affordable housing in Coconut Grove. Clearly the need is there, but cave- ats abound. Commissioners today will consider the project, known as St. Hugh Oaks. They must address the concerns of all the neigh- bors, both opponents and proponents. As it stands now, the city would develop 28 detached single-family homes on the par- cel, whose present zoning permits only 18 homes. Designed by the award -wining architect team of Elizabeth Plater.Zyberk and Andres Duany, they would sell for $90,000 to $95.000. actually a pretty penny just about anywhere else in the city. The three -acre -plus site straddles the Grove's tower -income and tonier sections. Amid charges of racism, opponents say that their major concern is the project's density. They say that the city has to pack houses onto the land in order to get a return on the $1 million that it paid for vacant land in 1986. The city says that if fewer homes are built, their price will have to go up. The city is right to want affordable hous- IN COCONUT GROVE HOUSING ing in the area. But it must be able to ensure that the services provided the area increase along with the increase in families utilizing the small area. Otherwise, it must be willing to readdress density concerns. Commissioners must also make sure — before approving such a project — that there is a mechanism in place to ensure that the affordable housing remains just that. Grove residents, whose only alternative would be to stay in inadequate housing, should be given first call on these homes. Though the city would like nothing more than to get the highest return possible, it will defeat the higher purpose if these homes are bought not by working families who would otherwise never be able to move up, but by yuppies who could afford more, or as investments by those who see dollar signs in Grove real estate but have no other commitment to the area. Either outcome would subvert efforts to help those who need affordable housing most. 325 - i { 9 April 22, 1901 ? RF: St. Hugh Oaks pomeovnership Project F i Meeting City of Miami Commise on April 25, 1991 after 5900 P.M• City of Miami Commission Chambers Dear Prospective Homebuyer: it is critical for the Department of Development and Housing Conservation to receive approval for a Major Use Special Permit for the St. Hugh Oaks Homeownership Project. Presently, the City is proposing to build m28 single crucial homes on this site. Your attendance at this 9 to showing your support for this worthwhile project, so that it Of can move forward to providing affordable housing oor$i moder t in e City Miami's Coconut Grove neighborhood families. Cordially, Cheryl F. El -Amin, R.F.S. Loan Officer *`ITl 00 WAMI, #L{ A10A INTEA-OFFICE MEMOAANOUM I Luis A. Prieto-Portar, Director p rF April 3, 1994L FILE •� Puio 'Forks Depart ent A ' A TH: Fames Ray St. Hugh Oaks Housing or 5�8JECT Projtct 9g0M @ � Aag►ilVt a t D Da ent and Housing Ippofirp reotox of Development Conservation Wtfiv4c:s Tree Disposition EvC:OSugES At the April 11, 1991 City Commission meeting, it is anticipated that this Department will secure City Commission approval of four (4) set -back variances which is required to save several large trees situated on the site, in addition to the issuance of a Major Use Special, Permit. with City Commission ratification of the above referenced items, it is further anticipated that the architect for the housing project will be able to proceed in expediting the completion of the construction documents and specifications on/or before July 1, 1991. Concurrently, while the architectural and design phase is being completed, we would like to commence the relocation of several large trees which have to be moved prior to the start of construction. Transmitted herewith please find a copy of a letter from Gary Greenan and Associates and a set of plans outlining the tree transplanting specifications for the St. Hugh Oaks project. This memorandum serves to request a meeting with the appropriate staff in your Department in order to discuss the role that the Public Works Department will play in carrying out this activity. i will give you a call early next week after you have had an opportunity to review the plans in order to schedule a meeting with you or a member of your staff and the landscape architect. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please feel free to contact me at extension 3336. JBH/jr. Attachments cc: Berbera J. Bailey, istant City Manager Jose Fabregas, HousIWb4 optortt,,CV J4ant record In connectiiatty With item on �.. Hiram City Clerk 9 1- 325 f 11 -- f 8t. Bulb development aaaiysis. 18 units per the site Ori or Descriptioa C 110000,000 Property Cost 11,1 f Capitalited Interest on PHIohot& at RY tit* R ibifa A Cost per unit Oros# Costs 1 /Y --------Y--------Y-----/ /-Y--Y---------Y-- ..------ s Project Cost in Regaining Gross Cost in gesaining Costs Project .. .Y..rww. .Y..._ww Costs Cost Project Costs iY...w 100 611111 10,000 .Y._.Y.. $1,111 ... .......... .......... 1111001000 1180.,000..,1920,000 p 0 0 RA_ An 2/.All A U it AAA AAA A &A AAA Architectural fees absorbed 95,000 5,278 0 5,278 95,000 0 95,000 °- by city, 0 0 � 0 0 Impact fees per unit 14,000 778 0 778 14,000 0 14,000 0 0 Site improvements (vater I sever) 270,000 15,000 15,000 0 270,000 270,000 0 !` 0 0 '� Construction costs 1135 0- 0 per square foot for 1500 ft. 945,000 $2,500 $2,500 0 945,000 945,000 0 0 0 - Cost to upgrade streets (est) 250,000 13,889 13,889 0 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 Legal and other costs 100,000 5,556 0 5,556 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 Nortgage costs (2 points) 51,178 2,843 0 21843 51,178 0 51,178 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 31265,178 181,399 91,389 90,010 3,265,178 1,645,000 1,620,178 Financing costs: Purchase price 91,389 91,389 91,389 -Dorn payment 0 4,5d9 9,139 Balance to finance 191,389 $86,819 $82,150 NOntbly prin. and iot. M 730 69S 657 Taxes based on 3 ails. 228 228 228 Submitted 4 Insurance• 50 50 5o into the Publi.- Bet. Condo Assn. Dues 60 60 60 x ec!orc, i ---------- -------- -------- . n oO��ectlon Total payment Qualified 11068 700 1,031 700 995 700 Item �_ it�t amount on • Monthly subsidy 368 331 295 Matt liQ1 Annual coat ....... 4,422 ... 3,918 ........ 3,546 ........ - City Clerlc - E. Total annual project subsidy $123,807 $111,375 199,279 Taxes on housing to be paid on what basis, cost or cost to owner? Ve will absorb the difference. Sub. Cost Act, Cost Diff. Annual Project Total 9 3.2 JC' Computed tat ! 31ils. -.......-- f � E� { 77 .77 i St. Hugh developaent analysis, t8 units per site Cost per unit Gross Costs - Original /.......... a --------------- 1 IY------ --................ � or Gross Project Cost in Remaining Cross Cost in aesainieg Deserlpttan Cost Costs Project Costs Cost Project Costs .......... .Y...... ........ .Y.....i ......... .......... .1...... 11,100,000 Property Cost 111100,000 139,286 110,000 129,286 $1,100,000 1280,000 18201000 0 0 0 Capitalised Interest on l Purchase. at 8% for 6 years 440,000 14,286 0 14,286 440,000 0 410,000 Architectural fees absorbed 95,000 3,393 0 3,313 95,000 0 95,000 by -city. 4 Impact fees per unit 11,000 500 0 Soo 14,000 0 14,000 Site improvements (water 1 sever) 420,000 15,000 15,000 0 420,000 no ,000 0 , Construction costs 035 per square foot for 1500 ft. 1,470,000 $2,500 $2,500 0 11470,000 11470,000 0 Cost to upgrade streets (est) 260,000 81929 81929 0 250,000 250,000 (0) Legal and other costs 100,000 30571 0 3,671 100,000 0 100,000 Kortgage costs (2 points) 11,400 1,729 0 10729 18,400 0 48,400 Totals $3,937,400 $139,193 $86,429 52,764 31937,400 2_1420,000 11517,400 Financing costs: Purchase price 86,429 86,429 86,429 Down payment 0 4,321 8,643 Balance to finance $86,429 $82,108 $77,786 - Mouthly grin. and lot. 19% 690 656 621 ASSUNS: Gross Net Taxes based on 3 ails. 216 216 216 Year Month Montb Insurance 50 50 50-------------------.......... get. Condo Assn. Dues 60 60 60 Buyers income 30,000 2,500 1,937 -------------------------- Loan qualifies for 28% 28% Total payment 11016 982 947 ...... Qualified amountg 700 700 700 Available for wort a e 700` -------------•_----•------ B =-_----- ub --- -- ? fitted f - - Monthly subsidy 316 282 247 InA.0 pgybl� Annual cost 3,796 31382 2,967 B��I• C x -------------------- 1Z --•--- r'SPI Total annual project subsidy_ $106,284 $94,689 83,063 ite,,. ,p / Wth ,.Taxep oa.,housing to be paid on what basis,. cost or cost to owner? Ve will absorb the different$ ` Sub. Cost Act. Cost Diff. Annual Project TotalIty,exk 'Computed tar ! 3dls. ---- 14 12,593 $4,176 $1,583 144,322 91- 325 pp t Fl �gg S yi f a 31a h J.2 t ' sa+ (' APPLICANT PETITION REQUEST PLANNING RECOMMENDATION BACKGROUND . 3. • ;ate F- p_ PZa13, f� FS- PLANNING FACT SHEET Owner: City of Miami Applicant: City of Miami Department of Development and Housing Conservation January 17, 1991 APPROXIMATELY 3577-3601 SW 37TH AVENUE: 3676 - 3698 FRANKLIN AVENUE AND 3621- 3699 MARLER AVENUE Lots 9-22 inclusive and lots A-F inclusive Block 37 FROW HOMESTEAD AMD (B-106) PRDC Consideration of recommending a Major Use Special Permit, per Article 17. of Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami Florida for the St. Hugh Oaks Project, composed of 28 single family residential units on a 3.16-acre site; designating the site as a Planned Development' Overlay District per Article 5 of the above Zoning Ordinance; and incorporating a variance approved by the Zoning Board. To apply a Planned Development Overlay District and issue a Major Use Special Permit for the St. Hugh Oaks project. Approval. In October 1986, the MiamiCity Commission approved the City -sponsored Scattered Site Affordable Homeownership Development ' Prooggrams. " Under the Program, the City serves as developer in the development, construction, marketing and disposition of new single family homes to low and moderate income families "at cost" in theJp City's eight (8) Community Development Target Areas. In October 1986 the City Commission also approved the issuance of approximately $4,290,000 in Special Obligation Bonds, 1986 Series A, the proceeds of which have been used to establish a revolving construction fund.for the Program. In December I9861 the. City acquired the ;threel""_' !� (3) acre parcel of land located at Douglas Road and Franklin Street, known as the St. Hugh tiaks Academy Site, for the purpose of housing for moderate income families in the Coconut Grove neighborhood in connection with this Program, S 1,1251 y{�' S x 91 ..• 'eS.. 714,E{. t 4 j r REC"ENDATION PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD 4 r �z , By Resolution No. 88-1042, November 3, 1988, the City Commission approved the designation of the 3-acre City -owned Saint Hugh Oaks parcel as a - Category "BO project. Since that time architects (Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk) have been placed under contract and have prepared the preliminary design drawings. On March 4, the Zoning Board granted a variance for setbacks. The St. Hugh Oaks Project proposes .28 single- fuily residential homies on a 3.16 acre tract,, zoned R-1. By means of Planned Development, the unit density conforms to 9 per acre as in R-1, but greater flexibility is achieved., in site design. The homes will be sold under Florida Condoimi numi law i.e., how owners will receive title to the footprintof their house plus an undivided interest in common open space. The project will mirror the surrounding single- family area in unit density and scale. h At its meting of March 20, 1991, the Planning • Advisory Board adopted Resolution Numbeir PAB 22-91: by a 7 to 0 vote, recommending approval'of the above. ,o v iuiu - -SINGLE FAMILYmini I __. - I - --i �- ��u����u_i�uu�iii�u ME .■■:�����- ■ten IN! Ow 111M11 Franklin Ave. and 3621-3699 H"Ur Avi To apply a Planned Development Overlay_ Dl Mistrict and issue . n a P for th a • . . . e t ja v E POINCIANA--- r— Hugh Oaks project. 12mmomm""Ll ISO; II• I �iitll��i,�1�.IQ zZN< RAND UE .1 1- 1. .....�FLORIGA. >~ elf W Isiii I e• a+• s. t: 1 2s 0 1� . �� N r, • A #0 21 ti it !i too. + 24 b N O 1� M 1• A NI 23 , eTve� � R A NC • •. • » •if Is N O f • 1 s •. S i 1 , •+�•�1 e . ! ! 26 ~ L( w '1 14 n 1• �t 1• 1• le it ti to i• a 11 11 14 .1 14 it 0 !0 .. .. » T M •I mvE. " • . e tl le • +?-'4 a t• !• f • f • • 3 : 1s L • • e I - Is 31• Is 61 It N 34 oil •• ll 6.- IF �. <s 9 ♦ WILLIAM AVE. ' y, 0 ! • K 11 .► f • t • s • ! t • • T e ! • i ! 1. A 1 34 N 33 r 2 . •V a .. �� •� '1 I! is Itlow 1{ i A VE ?z �sl ! tt CHAR 1-k- re be R.-w 11: 10 • • t • { ! t FA l • M R M 2 it 23 11 J O • 1• N » m = ' » It i •' •106 4 . . . • • M = • 1! Ii • )t t • • • e:1• •1 t� — .. FRANKLIN 1 It w r/ • • s rM • AT AVE. 3 = • M • • � s• fl a ie t• :t ss J V! to • � s M O !� N 1! N It 1• .� I rl,: EllFismmml.Nal 1"A"a 11011NINNIPHNNHIM NNW md.e�rudsu��3���srr_nnua� s ., n�� �aaooaF�cdmm: AVE�� , 1('214112 my C. L • Is 0 11 a T svE_ 1111115tillill� i0000 ato�eam ,1 • • 0 ONDUUNCE 11000 K.O.S.P. J Approz: 3577-3601 S. IL • f 37th Ave. 3676-3698 = I I J Franklin Ave. and ROYAL PA (, M Q 3621-3699 Kar10T Ave IJ 114 g s E •! a 11 e t i e • •971 •• 0• 1 t . •1• To apply a Planned Developmut overlay i• District and issue '1 ! ! • ! • K.O.S.P. for the St. .. .. Hugh Oaks project. -- --- •. f UINV.IANA A 91- 325 > ! ' 31 'APPLICATION FOR A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT File Number MU- - i i 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 applica- tions for major use special permits. (See Article 17) 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 1 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 1301.5.) Herbert J. Bailey I,Assistant city Manaqer hereby apply to the Director of Planning Building Zoning the City.of Miami for approval Major Use Special Permit. and of of a under the provisions of Article 17 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance. I Address of Property: see Attached I Nature of Proposed Use (Be specific): construction of single family homes for affordable income ownership 4 f k Preliminary Application I attach the following its support or explanation of the Preliminary Applica- tion: 1. Two copies of a survey of the property prepared by a State of Florida j Registered Land Surveyor. 2. Affidavit disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of interest form (attach Forms 4-83 and 4a-83 to application. 3. Certified list of owners of real estate within a 375-foot radius from the outside boundaries of property covered by this application (attach i; Form 6-83 to application). 4. Maps Ma s of: (a) existing zoning and (b) adopted comprehensivedesigna- tions for areas on and 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 i features in and adjoining the project, and the like. ,i 6. Concept Plan jai Siteplan and relevant information. Section 1304.2.1 (d through h). bRelationships to surrounding existing and proposed future uses, and activities, systems and facilities (Section 1702,3.2a). (c) Now concept affects existing zoning and adopted comprehensive plan principles and designations; tabulation of any required variances, special permits, change of zoning or exemptions (Section 1702,3.2b). 7. or approval development Developmental Impact Study (an application for develt l for � a Development of Regional Impact may substitute). i �i Page 1 of 2 9 1 -- 3 2 f� f i___ El additional information in support or explanation of APPLICATION FOR A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT (Continued) 9. other (Be specific): 9. Fee of based on Ordinance 10396. Additional fees for any required special permits changes of zoninggs or variances shall be in accord with zoning fees as listed in Section 62-b1 of the City Code and Ordinance 10396. Fee tabulations 9uildin (s): Other Specify): Final Application I attach the following the final application: Name: City, Stater Zip: , 31- A, _F F.,_L_._D_A_ V_ t __ m STATE OF FLORIDA) )SS = COUNTY OF DADE ) Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personally Herbert J. Bailey appeared Assistant City Manager , who being by me first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and saysa_ 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. 2. That all owners which he represents, if any, have given their full and complete permission for him to act in their i behalf for the change or modification of a classification or s regulation of zoning as set out in the accompanying petition. j` 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. 4. The facts as represented in the application and ; documents submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are true and correct. Further Affiant sayeth not.00 sEAL� 1 N e t Sworn to and Subscribed before me this Jday of , ��:v►:.�a 4 F1911 . 4; Notary Public, Stag of Florida at Large My Commission Expires: NoTAar ovetiC $TATE Of 40410A CpNNIS5IQM Ex Jug 19,1992 r. GONoEG Tim GENERAL INS. UIIO. . OWNER_'S LISt c/o City Owner's P1ame Department of Development & Housing Conservation of Miami Mailing Address 300 Biscayne Blvd. Way - Suite 401 - Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone Number (305) 579i3336 Legal Description: Address: 3601 S.W. 37th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33133, tots 91 10, 11, 12I i I I I I I I / I I I I I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20, 21 22 A B C D E and FI Block 37 Amended Plat of Prow Homestead, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book "B" at Page 106 of the Public Records of Dade County, Floria. 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 is listed as follows: Street Address None Street Address None Street Address None 4 1. •. ti • ® �+ 31 Legal description and street address of subject real property: See Exhibit A 2.. -Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership. Notes City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties aving a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question t2 requires disclosure of all shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested pasties, together with their addresses and proporticnate interest. The subject property is owned 100% by the City of Miami, c/o Cesar H. Odio, City Manager 3 c O"O p&*- PrYYgn '� Gam.-brtv4- raZ* ►-, 1:-:� 33l33 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. None Age Herbert J. ey Assistant City Manager STATE OF PEOPMN ) SS: CO[Tif - GF DADE ) Herbert J. Bailey Assistant Citz Manager , being duly gym, deposes and says that no is the(Owner) Agent: or Owner) of the real property described in answer to question #i, 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 an behalf of the owner. SEAL) SM0 TO AID St *7 ' be a ma this 1 day of JaZuar�( �.9. '^'ropierWatIZZY ,�.t �6. +�► �:; D, - - o Fuvida My COOMIM MIMS M= Op nUMIDA } SS I G=nY- OF DAM ) Herbert J. bailey and , being duly sworn, deposesAs et 1 14 says t no is the y appointed Agent the owner of the real property A 3=10W of The City of Mid ► in answer to questionUt Move; that he has read the foregoing answers that the same are true and cam- has the authority to execute this Disclosure Of Owf*t- pletes and that he ship fom on behalf of the owner. (SEAL) am TO AND SED before tm thist day of a1aN , r » �c► t t F4rida at Large NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA RY COMMISSION ENP JUNE 19,1992 BONDED YMU GENERAL INS» UND. my CCKUSS CH E!D nw: i M 91- 326. ■ Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, A, B, C, D, E and Ft Block 37, Amended Plat of Prow Homestead, According to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book "B" at Page 106 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. ADDRESS: 3601 Southwest 37th Avenue j; s xr� 91 ��