HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-89-1083- - -
4 '
,pticri? 3
, led-41
„a Ac.. Aji ,/-44,Aih ,e
n &goy&
*333 gnaguel Avenue
Coconut grove, gioricla 33133
/ 4
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item 9 1 A on. II 30 v7
•
Matty
City C
CriA tAc.,e1.0t
e .•72 - tei36-,
•
TP /10 30.
I f
7t4
b.i"7 at 774 -7 Pt
-14 3 42 • • )e-te...-
/dtwetevA4Z-.1
0 ergoyce
2535 gnagua ‘Xvenue
Coconut grove, Arida 33133
A jeWeovte,4 , /, c - 2, ) /
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item 9 2 fX on
Matty
City C erk
01.1 „
2:tee,36.
/
-
.,. •
od 9 774
c%,..41 7,4 zL
• ,)
r. " .3 3a` L
1.1.17--60/ vt4./6,- ;ti. 2:1 AL,
1 r
RECEIVED
1989N0V 27
MATTY HIRAI
CITY CLERK
CITY OF NIAMI FLA.
-
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item P2 - a on II- 30 -g
Matty Hira.
City Clerk
crh "tom' - c-c' ..
t 'Z
fi
: )64
ea-- Oa" d-t
j z-zree..- 7t/Z
. - A -7- de,„v-e4
A. 6 1-x `
j « _�L•tt/
APPLICANT
PETITION
REQUEST
RECOPMEMNITION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ANALYSIS
•••••■• •■■
PLANNING FACT SHEET
. . '1Z4 • • .
• fi"1.: S....Wv• • .,
Pod IOW a Jih LIE .zurirc
John B. Cantisano Jr., President
American Realty International, Inc.:
August 31, 1989
1. APPROXIMATELY 3230 VIRGINIA STREET.
Lots 1 and 2 .
Block 11
EDWARD W. PENT HOMESTEAD (A-45) P.R.D.C.
Consideration of amending Ordinance- 10544, as
amended, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood
Plan. 19894000, Future Land Use -Plan 'MOP,. by
changing the land use designation •ofthip.itithject
property. from Duplex .Residentiat.
Density - _ ReSidential and trimillitti
.this. : amendment to the Florida DepirtTo
Community Affairs as part of the City's , 1990
biannual submission. " •
To change the plan: designation' ,of the 1
property - to . High Density leilti$0011
Residential.
• • • ", • - • •
• %Doi a)
This 1.17 currsut
CcidoMat Grove Baptist .Churc
bdldings with
th sout .
is cheractrized.., by. spgI�.,
rnldrces except for the three
et, 0
"tielt
°gibe
vicinity.
Directly to the east, across -- V
the land use designstiOv.1
*dime Density Multifallilf-
• • -•
":••
•
I'iq ADVISORY BOAR
.:....:.:.
Planning ' A+dvitt¢
r ay ` a 6 to 1 :vot
WLtl1 u
r
The "Residential -- Duplex" land use allows the
present uses {:school and butusnot f tthe r proposed
permissible land us e
•
residential use at . the higher density. In
addition, the request to designate the property
as "Residential -- High Density Multifamily" cly is
contrary to comprehensive p policies
advocate protection of existing
neighborhoods, as well as, future land use
patterns. "Residential - -. Medium Density
Multifamily" is provided only on the major
arterials in Coconut Grove (Bird Road. South
Dixie and S.W. 27th Avenue). There are ne'
"Residential -- High Density Multifamily" land
use areas in Coconut Grove. •
Of greatest concern i5 he pre en 9 s e ttin
nature of allowing this particular The
low density residential neighborhood currently
located between -the subject•parcel and the Grove --- r . F • ; > -3 .,:
Center would be severely iepacted'were this :
`imi ' . � ' q
use change'- permitted. ° The 'change would initiate
a redeVelomment Process that would . destroy the
stable character of this low density
neighborhood..'
The . attached "Arai ysi s of, P po e d Comprehensive
ence that
the
Plane: Amt provides .. to ...ham- ,.,..b..;
'.proposed Wit- is :contras l-�. the
policies of the Coep!rei ensive,r Plan - r. and
existing land use „Patterns ifl Coconut {Grove.
In terms of -concurrency, . •••this proposed chan
would 'reduce, but not exceed, available leve
of :: service for 'iro _ads and parks. io
At its meeting of; ber 9 t
Board adopted Resolution
recon vends ng ° leaid Hof thex above
gi ght ProPOCents were present - tfie
tS were resent - at�-th0 ee
ma sec "e1'v
Five �ep�:�'es in f vor --ere
`t�ecei+v
-d
twangs -six against- yrere , .'
two opponen
•
s�—
lot
UPPING
DAY
•
DUPLEX
TRESIDENTIAL
1 1 1
• ORANGE
• , •
REPREAT
1
\. 1,,
1,,
RECREATION.
I I
• RUTH St
•
MEDIUM
.•, • • •._
. DEN
VE.
••■•■•••■•=.
AVE 1
••:.;;;
eitt; ,
1
- • •
is sit dO -41
4
• • 11
r 4
7 too Doe a
— SHIPPING
IS
, .00
24 I
_ a3 21
t le0r /I 3 1
2:
‘
6
- 1 11V1 - 1 7
— • 17
N),
is)
4 12. 11 10
= • • se
— .
DAY
30 29 211 V VS
yo E v ... 4 a
U " I "
24 25 23 27 23
ORANGE
e
1- ME CT.0
•
4
11 33
1 10.
LOT 1 3Z fi
LOT 2 sIX RUTH _S
30 Z • .r so so
40
7 6. 34553s 36
so 14 10• 37
A
ST. J
44
I
t
t•
tisnryt
{
'o. A f w 0- M U1
Approximately
3230 Virginia St;tl'
From: Duplex
`," Resident.
TO: High Density
r. Multi +may
I PAS )0/4/69
Ordinance 10544
MCNP• 1989 --2000 1
Plan. Amendment
•
- .1
•
RA"
) nod 2
CITY OFMLAMI
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
235 NA. 2 STREET
MUNI, FLORIDA 33128
• ,• ' . . • I -
Applitation #
• Oates
.,,,,,.,-., - ,,, , , i1 '-', .,,.- ,-■ , . , r ,,,,,,,,..,-.:', V3,• p ....IN.,. ''''''- ' 4......'".•,ry..",',.,,,,,....“.-44,.... ,,....0.4.,......,'
•
The si b it
i s , s p e rsy i l at • e -. COMA. DXT:&VENCE
. •
' ,,,,..1• , .., , 4 ,,,.. . ..,.... , ..,,,, ,,,,. ... • ., ,,,,,„.v, , "." ,..P ...4: ■`,-,..4...4.4;4444, ' ' ' ' '. ''.40
f . ordlatildpia . NH _
. - , - •
. • •
. .
, , ..,"-*-4 -,-,:v.4., ..-•,',..,, ,t,-- ih ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,e,...c. ,...,..,.,■,,,,,,i4,,,:tM.,f ',k,.''.',".'''.,.'',af.t^,'AS/O'•...r.Nt.FM:','AW*,. . ..if ,
. . . .
. . .
.. . .
. . .
-.• --, City.tommissiost
PlanniehOzartment
....- • •.,,,Zonisaj,... .,..•••....., .,....—, ....: ei, ,-,.....,,,,,,,.... '.■ ' , , •rr 52. .,,,-,.• ' . .
Othar & Please Specify$ • _
. .. ....., ..
LAE .11 In lema
II
•
a
I
APPLICATION TO AMEND THE MIAMI SIVE NE PLAN,
_m
Section 6247 of the Coda of the City of Hiami,..Periodic review, additions and
- I amodments to the adopted comprehensive plan, reads as.follows$
-
o b
, Periodically; et not less , often than ece in
A
m • five (S) years or sore often than once io
(2) years, adopted comprehensive plans or a
portion thereeof . shall be reviewed :
planning advisory board to •deteasine __
eh in the mist, kind or direction of
• datropment and growth- . of._ the city .or.. area •• ..
thereof, or other reasons, make it necessary or
. .
beneficial to . make additions_ or amendoot* to
- the comprehensive plans, or portion thereof. -11* . ,. ...,
_. .,
— no the city comoissica desires- Is
--It- addition it may, on its own matios, direct the
. , planning department _to...m*1m su .air
ch. estors0 _
. . for samoission to and review by the plamoieg
.. • •,
advisory ,board._:- _ _---lbe-planning advisory „board
..... shall asks a recomodation on the ;reposed
-_-- -. ....,...waarlisat..._ to-. the-
— ....
—
reasonable tin as established.*by .tho OW issi. The
0 ▪ - . -formoisios „Still*
,„ .„ ...
—
to or mi nding anoweheesive plans or port .• . .• •.•..•:••_-.,-
._._
-' original 'aditiow,:::v. ';-•,.• ,•.- ,•"(_:,,•;...,,, - ,, ,. • - 7• .-1=-.q.::,%y-tv.:':?•:: t,..?,..,-....:•,;;„.-,...,4:: vi1/4# it
thereof shall be the sans as the for
--__ -
.. m ..
m . . . .. ...:
- . •
_-- This
P etitien 1111-0"901111111. art-- ----- -,- --,"--,,----,”-,,............• .,,.....—„_,,,„,,,,,,,,,,_„,,,,,,...„,„„„
. . ..
.7. ,
,. _ . 1. ,, ,,V.•
. ••
-.. t•-i.- `
•
-
a
a
•
a
—n
—
•
•
Mal
The th
signed %din the owner 'or the represen *et roial f the owner y , Of
subject � a (es) respectfully request the Pis
prop arty �ndeent(s) to the Masi CooProbative Neighborhood
for the follow ng ibed property as 1�ated in the Land Ute Plant _- •
for the .
FROM:
TO:
RESIDENTIAL - DUPLEX
•
RESIDENTIAL -HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY
•
Plea:• sap
' py 1 a stata:int indicating whY you think the existing pi designation 1s inappropriate. ._.....
PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHED STATEMENT "A."
Please supply a statement
ate ylanidesignation. ••
T .A TTAC�D:. STATE °'B"
PLEASE REFER. Q. -- - ,
•
..
91=
—41
61M
MAE
-6
ME
•
•
1
Has the designation of this property Peen cnangeo tne last 'earl
Oa you own any other prOlierty within 200 of the Subject property? VI If
yes, has this other property been granted a change in plan"designaVon r2thin
the last 12 months? I .frU., • • . •
Have you made a ganion application for a change of zoning for the suilect
promiqwith the Planning and Zoning Boards Administration OepartmeNVI,Jig..‘
Have you filed with the Planning and Zoning Boards 'Ministration Departments
Affidwit of worship? 3 List of owners of property within 3W of
the subject properts. If
ta. • — Disclosure of ownership fore nst, not, please supply
SIGNATURE 0ATE
• & .
um / 4 01 4 14 12.6.-rfAliT! fit ti 0 .1Bar
AOORESS,, • Ave- '6114 334
•
PHONE r3e6) tar So vs •
STATE OF FLORIDA) SS:
COUNTY rif OWE )
°
• •
•••• •
•••• • IIIIII=116 • ••••••■•• • f• • =OM=
—
• • • t •••• rilf: ••••• • •,, • " •
• • 1
• •• .6 • • ••••..
0 • 40••• ••• 110 .1••••T :• • • • 0 • •
`r•pgrAt.
• .
•
—V=
a
. .:.
Jetort Sk i'ese6NITA-5444 0* 41Z f beteg dulr 110101,1e
lit!,. is Us, Aaraperf . tAttliel tee Agent itor
*bores that hie rind the foregOiliq •aniesors*,:aat
:
completat and „tit IaCtinf_isi,agent fer onner) VIOL...
-this- petition On...bahalf of the °liner . c': • - . -*•" ' ',. - " .-4 "•'• ‘•:' ••.•':-;
. .. .
4
7- : ■ ••••
bet :00.:this 25...;
of •
seem TO AllO
•••••• •••
ci
• , •
JiCtlititublicads Rosidit r: .4; .-i-,
;ON
„ , , • • "
- ,
=•
, • , • t.:44 • •;i• , V, • = , ,, 1 , .,,, • •••
.. • ' • • t ,!•-•
• ..
.,
,• . •
• , , •
:,rv ---. ,.‘,,,:••• r .F.:,,,,...)1.:;,..:::,:•,,,,.:i_r_..1.,:.,:i.0§t-.,,•..,,,,,,..i v.i.r.,.
. ..
. . - .. . .. „
: - ; • , • - .tri,-4.-11-i..1-44.,it-„,,,, ,,,, t -.;,,,,.*: t,,,,i,,t, : -..,... 4 t.,..7 1 •..• ,...,..,... ., -„, -. . .. . ......• - 1 . •",:#••■ , 4'
.
•
(0,1)
•
' In
The present land use designation for the property on the "Future Land Use Plan
Map" is "RESIDENTIAL-DUPLEX".
The current zoning is "RESIDENTIAL RG-1/3- EXCEPTION CHURCH".
..:.::;
While the ,RG-1 zoning properly suggests the "DUPLEX" land use designation, three '-
basic factors Would seem to indicate that this designation is inappropriate:
I.' The size of the church and school which currently occupy the 'property ,(with
- ' a capacity of abnut 800) cannot be perceived as a "supporting servici
- .serves the immediatly surrounding neighborhood..". It clearly represents a
"scale of activity" substantially beyond that "equivalent to a facility
serving the aurroUnding., neighborhond...". if Such neighborhood were in fact
a neighborhood of predOminentiY "DUPLEX" units or 'less:
-,
It should-be:noted parenthetically . that current zoning ,would require
13461616:6f A acres of land (compared t6 the property's 147 acres) 41,t, well •:',.-::..
as off street parking of - 04:01 - there is One 0 Al: sUnii**St 11 pliAtiii.
allowed and exists on the proParty . ii"inConalitant with Plan's lint 'us. •;-.' I "
clial igniii6ii:', - '-'-''' • '" ' — • ' ' - - ' " - -: -'" - '-' '- .'-' ' '' '" ':'' '-', . 4 .''''. - l'itK9,
. ; :': y'; , , „ • ',, , . : ": - ,' ', :- 7 .; ','::, - , - .;,,T=i,10'. -i.; , :j: tZ,r i%'i" .
2. We believe ftirdiarilliro - that the "lame holds true for the '':s •
Ei4tas 'neighborhood, in :that it ' *fii:::-
'-'
iiiw*iii4.* 'a* 61:ctiOiaiii4 Ow* *10.044*(es :4
• a*taetit with 'the Vajgetal* -O4041414-* 6
41,0**4 0.,44fit, j'0,e44/1414, 'fiiiiy4.010
to' the tail extent 4titOtie4 'ti. iiining'ini4SPOilii. Slicing *tar Pinto*
osiSting property, value!. More specifically, the Plan's land. uii,e: :e.
- !--of.Vitil-blndt-limipidiatly:,,-t6,,thse,:East: of the property, Adros,a yi
ii tOiOiiiii* be *RitiportiOttdittiii lip supittmin.rt iiiiet
iiipett is surrounded on all - 4cteitiii: multifamily rental an
i e
i ,, , k ,.: ; ,. ? p. , ,4 „1 :. . . ,', ‘ 4 _;.: , )-'7,,,C.A.V.;', ,0 14TM:A
:LIfT,' : W:-4,:g 'c%01 ' i4.**4* dit -
3. The tairoat '4 rowing -irdootaiaok-of.aun -4
0 1 '
- — , (1'0 , , ;; Y, /..!. r ., ,
., A e. : - --,,, • -,-, - - - „ - 11 Vi 4 , ; f-,....,,,..-
duplex, V I ' e:„. „ the l s .:Ttat
ii4zeti to the tilki' Business!tisigiut . 21 -.
ns ,, - . dist
t fll., th l'.• ;1" 6
tro ,,,..
,
PP ii f the Plittf:' 0 4
c L.,
ittik
' — ' t4iii qk As
'etWciTI,
ottt . ?.. ,,,ffik
mmolt (c 'bra ,,,,,..
)m Ap,1,1,,,fii4:4.440-At., - . cz- 1. -1 - 00, UM ti
tb. pr lend : WOO, 40i,
_ . '''• 0 ' W
o . 4.
'.-- r‘- -,-'• t .. „Li:
rt ‘, ,1 • 4, 4 . , ; ,, ,
1%
' ,.,a,c,+'
• I NA Nal
111A1111
STATEMENT INDICATING WHY
THE EXISTING PLAN DESIGNATION.
IS INAPPROPRIATE.
NIN
STATEMENT JUSTIFYING REQUEST TO
CHANGE THE PLAN FROM "RESIDENTIAL
DUPLEX" TO "RESIDENTIAL -HIGH DENSITY
MULTIFAMILY. ".
•
Like other downtowns, the commercial core of Coconut Grove is surrounded by
residential areas that have transitioned from a predominance of single family
and duplex homes to one of condominium and rental apartments: Near the water
this transition is often expressed as high rise luxury buildings. Away from
the water the pattern is taking the form of smaller clusters of two to eight
story rental and condominium complexes, interspersed with, and replacing usually
single family detached houses and other loser density uses in various stages of
neglect or decline. The net result is an overall increase in density within a
two block ring surrounding the center of the Grove,..and a corresponding increase
in property values.
Our`;view.;is . that this _trend is compatible with at least four of the six , items
cited'in` "GOAL 1" of the "LAND USE 'ELEMENT" of the Comprehensive' Plan.`Nasely:
! of ` 10 eD 9r '. it ° .
,, ate' . that' I r' densities , era *was.,
tsu h hn rsiei' trill° tend .to . $4. -'on outs
imint� i, :.security, l#4sdaapmni ►
I rN;_or_ occup ts...of t iv (
1 Qua!ity of Life '
is The the high level of activity gen from ''the center -of the
Grove on te immediatly surrounding residential will not be
`aiitigeted by freezing these neighborhoods into a 'single =-family `or `duplex
laid` use development pattern: from the standpoint of 'lifestyle and 'quality.;
of'life:''we believe that well - planned' apartment compleaes'i are fir better
equipped to 'cope" with the problems of noise; security+," traffic; =ai # uali
d' } i
. which' inevitably Spill F'over' from' a' high activity': center ' line Cliei iie :
f "
oCocon ve; ut Cra into its is idiate frame areas ' Moreover a-to = +the aexte it.'
that higher density residential developSients occur_'within suci 'fr s ea, .
"` ' these can be planned` to` perform as`'buffers` for thak iiit at i t ' `°
density; areas, , one' layer removed from the: center core ''areae _ { . ,. '' ' '
Revi 'of Bliehted`oeDeclininii'Areas'. -
As Downtown real estate increases in value, so doe the underlying I.
iee the' frami .' areal+ : imIidiat y surrounding Doitlt a, rcreatib ;''pri x
`} : -' for higher 'densiti+es" 'The` Grovel is no etxceptioa' ese' fore a :a'� .
:.- „6'' ",::` a tent' that `lOngkrange''`ptanniaedoes `not'aeCiiiiidite :prilsul
:•'; : developed land will remain fallow and underdeveloped'.properties; v l:
As security .other problems characteristic of downtown !AM*** °; the . qual it ° of . .l ife ii i th , the vill'Ile `btl t +d ...
:
_' :,r > , innin r
'`f ° adual i i c ase p . ' t ' ` cox lag t� th ° stro .. x -, r
a t'y F �...
" 't 'J.> S' 4' rei ens
v: ' ",4 � N. 3 , .s 3- ki �y ..r. ...
i4:44 sad a>rchite�ctu04 w pro a 1 "''s uId a
ti cvea by :t �econom c ` ress ts i. forshi ed
to
�ly{ y t" ra Fa n o ': 's r » _ %q'�' s i i T ' 'K e d s . ,� i . _._ t .
..* '^ itif ti o mnf 44 area "i i , , ,,, , ill ,,, T
ec r v� �' r. . ' . ". :ri t :` `? > „$a�^�"'$'$�_e;� �. x, 3"t
patrol ed Winer. .. '
STATEMENT "B" CONTINUED
Page 2
4. Efficient use of land. capita
In terms of delivery of municipal services, transportation, p er ca P
impact on the capacity of public facilities and tax income to cost -of-
service ratios, it is almost axiomatic that a higher density of development
will, (up to a point) far outweigh a lower density pattern of land use,
when it comes to a comparison of land use efficiency. Moreover, as density
is allowed to increase in a controlled manner, structured or even under -
derground parking parking, alternative forms of transportation and superior
use of open space become possible. Basically, public facilities, amenities
and services become shared instead of duplicated.
The property -in Coconut Grove at.Virginia Street and Day Avenuevfor which we
have requested a Plan Land Use redesignationf "RES tTIAL- DDPU„viow, can
« falls ENTIAL -DENSITY DENSITY
be characterized as "the frame" in its rela Downtown
Mayfair Complex; Coc ,
Coconut
er
within a one block walking distance of the
major commercial developments. Moreover, the church which currently occupies the
far
propsr[y itaerepiesents �-lida�� '�di P1ex�tdensities.alnifact the,,
above that compatible with s n g le family" o
value of the property is:,substantially;-above even. "multifamily medium density"
ranges. As a case in point, we have to - date investBd approximatl one:e►i11q':. nt .
dollars in the propperty including its purchase price, - holding costs and :pre'.
development expenses. Assuming a generally accepted land, coitfvf3 between $10,0p0w,-
the deals th t� 4 usttZY tt
sod. $15, OOQ per apartment in the area, R ,� �. �, *anga' ,.le „ ..::.- � ��� „,�
ea
development of the site, (given its 1.17 acrt shou1.d la l,. , .ieve , •
85 units per net acre. In other words,, short being ab7.* to ach a develO
fent within this density range, there is no choice than to rely on the only
currently available alternative for the Use of the property, and that 1440:
a
it. t.lisat f,. . n- pro or . nofi,t,..tea, exempt church and school purposes-
•
o
x be in our best interest nor in that.. of
tie dq� � b+eliggR - , that tb s ,;� nor dove believe than' Ibis . g,�±� o
i.aaeediattY 5urroundia $h borhood `, .
:status quo will serve to advance the goals and objectives of the , Co'epre
?4. :. ; x -4, .• fro. _ .,f
respect for `?ti
To . x... Fri open !And �s licit s. iliag t f o r t
v4 are �tt'iag hereto foe iaformeetioaa�` 'purposes, the .
. ...
u pct joiniai ` t . pieta '- ich formed the b i s fo?
a ad our �saa �Y� � :e
to� � ” 6 vb theyr'w te d.:tb 4liscuss A A* fixture of - 1ths.: p ;
boat
prepared, of course to continua cur efforts to . c icate'',:w
404thbothoOd .end wi.th time civic .groups • inteer*stfd .4 ,t* futures ,
asst Qf Coconut Grove, To - .the process we vilt :.aiso. coati. :; to s o
_ds ,fit :as possible sad respond, thereto ig our. plans true' fig
f
b"IA O' FDA)
COUNTY .. S"3
OF1 )
AFFIDAVIT
Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personally
apps John R. Cantisano, Jr. for , who being by me first duly sworn,
American Realty International, Inc.
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 No. 9500 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
fu1l 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 acc..... ...,+:ng petition.
3. That the pages attached hereto and made a part of this
affidavit contain the ..+... ,:;..L names, tnai 1 i ng addresses, Phone numbers and
legal descriptions for the real r• e Ls which he is the owner or legal
.. •
4. The facts las represented tithe 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 of ►. 4193L.
Nary public; State of Florida at Large
Macy Milo Stab of Florid
My Collision .des: My Commission Expires Jan. 4, 1992
(Name) P 'nt
t &AL)
AMERICAN REALTY 7NTrR39.T'.OP1P.t,., IP!C.
•
OWNER'S LIST
Owner's Name ft R1CANRSA!TY _ 1NT ,ATt!1NAl.., "1r
Mailing Address
Telephone Number
Legal Description:
Owner's Name
Mailing Address .
Telephone Number
Legal Description:
Street Address
at C
Ikc
Street Address Legal Description
Mailing Address
Telephone Number, j305) 261 -5045
Legal Description: 3230 Virginia Street, Coconut drove, Florida 33114
Lots 1 and 2, Block 11, EMAR1 P 'NT HOMESTEA!, according to the Plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Cook A, Page 45 of the Public Pecords of
Dade County, Florida, less the West 100 feet, the }north 5 feet and
the East 5 feet thereof.
Owner's Name
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: M
�
Street Address . rO N Legal Description
Ci
1. . Legal description and street address of subject real
3230 Virginia Street /Coconut Grove, Florida
Lots 1 and 2, Block 11, SfWARD PrNT HOMESTEAD, according to the Plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book A, Page 45 of the Public Records
of Dade County, Florida, less the West 101 feet, the North 5 feet
and the East 5 feet thereof.
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 412 requires disclosure of all shareholders of
r...� beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, a
together with their addresses and r ...r r ..A. Lianate interest. o v 4.5;
Property owned by American Realty International, Inc.' /t a
John B. Cantisano, Jr„ President -33.3% Ownership
11072 Monfero /Coral Gables, Florida
John B. Cantisano, III, 33.3% Ownership e ft 0
Route 2. /Stowe, Vermont 05672 �dc
/4.`s
D. Scot & 1 nde: +ety, (Vice- President & Secretary) -28M% Ownership
6420 S.Vi. 145th St / m itts r . vwN�'�s''��'' ��le /P
4EL /A/4a 7/1 L-CeR n1 /./A►� F �ir7AA j3ir
GAW S. a/: /ys _ S R
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 r��riLLY• r
AEI
AM
MEM
STATE OF FWRIDh ) . SS:
COUNT OF DADS )
S 1 W MD euet►.traowr
before see this -`�
day of
DYSCtt16cmRE `Or ettisiskil
g-
AMER I CAP! REALTY I PSm ATInrAL , I NC .
R 14a.aG00d Z
President
of American Realty International, Inc.
. John B. Cantisano, Jr., President, being duly sworn, depoees and
says that ne is the (Owner) (Attorney tor Owner) of the real property
described in answer to question i)1, above; that he has reed 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
fora on behalf of the owner. AMERICAN REALTY INTfS? ATIOPAL, INC.
bids 4t T,4
ktir COMISt i WM' WY P Of lid `.
Cominion EON An.+4189e
044. ii;;;;;;1
, (S,)
Preside
STA'L'E OF PLOttDA ) SS:
COUNTY OF DADE )
•
'aety - __ ..:.. being dolly , d e . s
saye
that he has read the foregoing owner of the real a P ry ae in a to question �i, aoaRTe
oing answers; that the same are true and oom
plate; and that he has the authority to execute this Disclosure of Owner-
. ship form on behalf of the owner.
SIGH; TO AND 0
before this
day of , 1989.
aNVIIMO
NY agar.ssux t3rfClt{Ci.7:
MITAOT MISLIC STATE Of FLUIDS
IT COIMISESOI EXP. NOV. S.15%
Public, St- of
ida at Lame
r
QUESTIONNAIRE
NAME: EDWARD J. KOLESAR
3044 Orange Street
ADDRESS:. Coconut Grove,Fla. 33:33
TELEPHONE: 447/1054 or 292/7997
I. DID YOU READ ENCLOSED L .a a r.it '
TH LETTER AND ATTACHMENTS i d
NO
2. DID YOU READ BO YES NO
3. PLEASE R A T E EACH A L T E R N A T I V E ( L o w man. m a w & mon D E)
• °l
BOMEWOOD SUITES PROPOSAL ' V I 1
0 1 2
is APARTMENT COMPLEX ' 1
0 1 2'
c RE=V$ CHURC . ! OR C4 IPARAB 'E _ 1 �
F. x
2.
a. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON PROPOSALS:
SEE ATTACHED.
•
pArk, op*
6
Edward J. Kolesar
3044 Orange Street
Coconut Grove, Fla. 33133
July 11,1989-
American Realty International, Inc.
2320 S.W. 57th Ave.
Suite 202
Miami, Fla. 33155
RECEIVED JUL 1 2
•
ills 'Redevelopment
of the SauthNewt corn*. w f.,Igvenue& D Vtrg n a
Street, Coconut Grove, Fla.
ToWhom it may concern:
As the property owner of the above noted return
rad andive
coming from a community which has been forced OS n r ur project he e '. a t i
end results of over development i strongly oppose
e
eith � The t lital w ilad°` c'b`nagss'`iU zoning , elabo rate „ .atrch t�Mc,tUr,&
presentations and unfulfilled developer promi7sea"f . afl I.ada tot F
destruction of residential neighborhoods IS_t,saP 404.10hd,p1 �«
fo
traffic `'
4vk . hi=h'kr: the .lack 44 , 1,03 . p.. aym nt
cost of increased infrastructure, Etc.,Etc. ,lf te), o
seen acme, than it's shore of these scenarios:
•-‘
:f °, ur TWO °iii. a then = for
�:� �,: ,�„ �4.. t oj 4 11 L'd
adversity affect this neighborhood. Bays 0 4 - 4 s?: ”„ 0
the residents of this neighborhood or are�the usual forces
opts again at work in Coconut Grove ? ??
P o=rs
n 4 ; .�f ��niK
-t
_ ...,,,_
NAME: et P i . . :,,.----
ADDRESS: ____f IN (H. Sr . /q111.41 t rc • 33031
, .
TELEPHONE: 5 5"i3* - 96 30 ;. .
, -
, .
TESTIONNAIRE
gO
.= 4
1. DI YOU READ ENCLOSED Lt' .
2. DID you READ BOTH crag% AND ATTACHMENTS
YES NO
3. PLEASE RATE EACH ALTERNATIVE (Low Diarr. tayyarrs, morrapossum
11 91 41 .Fq 00 r! SUrrES PROPOSAL
APAR'IMENT COMI'LEX
•„ , ,
el R..uszAs�uRcR OR COW?
" 1/4 ,•••
• - A'
•
•
o I 23 457T6"7
•
Uir
0, i,( 4 f
.0 0 0,•
1 2 31 4 S 66
•
NO
, I
...„,,,„.„.„,,,„.„.,,,4-
. .
I 41
, . • '' - • .'.
, .
. .
•, ,
. . .
. .
NAME: et.
ADDRESS: 0 11 AlArt fr( f R. 33W
TELEPHONE: 130.5\ g.53 - 96 30
I. DID YOU READ ENCLOSED Li i .0:
2. DID YOUREADBOTHLI!.L AND -ATTACHMENTS
NO
3. PLEASE RAT4 EACH ALTERNATIVE (Low Dun. zasoAnvs.mag
a. upiiFvFoot! SUITES PROPOSAL,
b. APARTMENT COMPLEX 1 . 1 7 ,' Irc:21'
oi,€ 34 56 sli $
ctiWcusE As araPP! C9MPARAB1A
'`,„- • '
••
•
TUTIONNAIRE
•
• A ';;F
4. CO QUESTI9 0N PR
NO
2'5. - 3F - 4,-;: -- 5,7 1 F:: • '
IA 4,1: 5e
■ ,,. I , 11011.111.11/MIIIIIN
I (r]
QUE$TWNAIRE
NativiE: 'q1,6442.0
ADDREs: 1t545 zgifPms RtIK
TELEPHONE44 .-104-7
3. PLEASE RATE EACH ALTERNATIVE 0.0w mom. tammuon MAUI :y
a. HOMEWOOD SWISS PROPOSAL
1. DID YOU READ ENCLOSED LETTER
2. DID YOU READ BOTH L. & a r..R AND ATTACHMENTS
b. APARTMENT COMPLEX
REASE AS CHURCH OR COMPARABLE
1 'A(2.1 4, ( Viksstii
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON PR POS143;
, .
4
_ .
NO
0
NO
I11,11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6. ,-
I I 1 VI I
01 2
I i
t t
raa
MEM
•
t y../ w .•�rM� .yr{M' 1 :n4 , >M'F`'< %nt�§:k 0•11 Y:
, .... S .
4 { , -S 6
s
Sima
b. APARTMENT COMPLEX
c.,IUSE
Qt JE$I IQNNAIRE
NAME: {mot C d' v";4
' ►
ADDRESS:. ',, a .Q 4 s . / i en: , i . f 4 gr.
. TELEPHONE:
CCI. Ot
9N fl•1
1. DID YOU READ ENCLOSED Lra , e sl C 0
2. DID YOU READ BOTH Lam, i,r,,c AND ATTACH MENTS L 0
, YES NO
3.PLEASE RATE EACH ALTERNATIVE caw atom NEGATivs. azorroosraym
a. IHOMEWOOD, SUMPS :PROPOSAL ; � .... . ,.:. .,. 1
11 1111111,11 111 I III 1 1111 I I I`i j
I, •
111 I 11 11111 1 1 1 1 1 I
NAME:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
L DID YOU READ ENCLOSED Lt.
st.:11OME*OOD SUlTEi PROPOSAL
1E4T CO
. ,
•
QUESTIONNAIRE
(Lt CtrA-4c-..
3! 2 "V •
8
2. DID YOU READ BOTH Li. tri t. AND ATTACHMENTS
,.4_ •
AMM 4k - c REUSE AS CHURCH OR COMPARABLE
, •
AM -
Jm•
M • 1 t . • • ;:i`
ami -
COMMgivib VES7IONSON PROPOS
v.
RECEIVED iUL 1 1
3. PLEASE RATE EACH ALTERNATIVE OW MIT. NEONIIVIL arr
0 1" 2 3' 4' 5 6'' - 7 - 11 9 -
0' 1" 2 3 4 5
o I2 5 69.:
•
- t
". •
c . r
NAME: — 7"' /6Ya/m1 / /11"00 - 61- 1 -
ADDRESS: 5C3 6734d
TELEPHONE: ill *- -371)
L DID YOU. READ ENCLOSED LZ 1 1 MIR Er 0
-11
4, pin_YOUREAD BOTH LETTER AND ATTACHMENTS ' 1... : 0
. , -YES : NO
: 4..pLEAsE-RATE EACH ALTERNATIVE. caw DFar.tacparia.aum oximposinvm
;1
•
TMENT-COMPLEX
. 4 , , ,.
..c.wm44,5,91,u4c4.94tpxylpARozg :ALA
O1 ;2 :0 $ , fi • .17
,st. HOMEWOOD SUITES PROPOSAL
b.,AP
0
QUESTIONNAIRE
' RECEIVED JUL 1 4
IVIWNTS
O SO$PR OPOS ALS: XOPOSALS:
• ' te"ii 444 `tit t -
41 -, 'f, t '• '
, . - -.- - O.. .0., - ''-' .. - - 4' ''' .41,: • '-, , ,J14 -, .. :.- ,
,-4,.....,..4.-4.,,,., 4 .,....,,,, 4 4,44.- ,.. ,,,: --.4 ..:•-: -4,-, ----, . •- _-,..,---:, -- - -44, ,44,,,,-. , /a, 4,,,,,,, ,,,,
, . .
. , . .
. .
. .. . .
. . , „,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 4,...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,e.,, f...4.1.. ,,,,, ,..• ,',... ,-,-,-,- ,-, ,' ,,,- .,".• '• ?" ,,,-;,!. • 1 .1' ' " '' .. r 7.1 ." ''',, '
. . . . .. .
- .., .. - ' ••■-. . - "' ,'• -:' ' ' '.., ''' '' ..■ .-
- ., .., ..—,.- • . , , . ,
, . . . . . . . . . . -'' ' .,' ,-,. 1 .,,,,,,- .,, , ' . ,,,,, ..' L'.!,:■,.. ..q:
. .
. . .
, .
• 4,,,,,,I.,,,,,,,, , ,"1, . ,..','". 4.-.- , 0-t'''` , - , s" , "'"'''' , 7' , _': - .. , ‘ , .... ,, ..? , ■ .. . ,, r , .., ,,,,,, ,i; , -, 4, 4
. - . •
. . _ . . . •
- • ,
, •
, I71 . 1111111 III
- •
Oi
NAME: Cl 11/A. t a4LI aker"P.
ADDRESS: F, 22 14.1
•
•
TELEPHONE: 1 4 4 L i C C
4. CO
it■ " • II,
111111EINION IL .1.7
, , _-. ',„- '' - .' _ --".. - ,.. , ;;;I • '-'-'; -.' ' ...., : r , :' , , ].:;.: , ,,I.;!;:',. • , 41 ' 4. : ''...
, ,i„, • ' - , ,-.:. ..''', s .".•:, ' 4
-: ::. ' '.., I;--- =:". ., i ','! 4..i'Aii1; '..'s.,7.?:-‘","; , ,
ORALIESTIONS °NPR. OPOSALS:.
__
,..,...... - 4,,,,.,:' . ' ..,.„ : i.-.. ,.. ....;',!-..1; , z ,,. .--, , .= , .: r...41 -.=,.. .
gomargoD SIJITES.PROPOSAL 1 1 1 1:I1j
. • , _0
APARTMI.NrCOMPLEr: - • ' - •
• . _ , _
•
c.-.RFAsE AS CHURCH OR COMPARABLE J . t
0 12 3 4 5 6 1 ;
I DID YOU -READ ENCLOSED 1410..L 44. • -
YES NO
2. DID YOU READ BOTH L ii AND ATTACHMENTS
NO
3. PLEASE RATE EACH ALTERNAIVE oiovi in. town% kin imarnoosniim
American Realty International, Inc.
RAHN Properties, Inc. - IBS Development Assoc. Inc.
ARK Associates
Dear Property owner and neighbor.
We are the owners of the property at the Southwest corner of Day Avenue and
Virginia Street.
We would like to develop this property in a manner that is economically viable and
in keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood.
We believe that the continued use of the property as an empty church. school and
playgronind cannot be in the best interest to either the community or us.
We` hope you will agree.
An y ` workable development however. will require a change in the present zoning.
We, propose, to � file an application { lication for such a change. but only after there has been an 'opportunity to `share our ideas and alternative proposals with you and some of
Coconut Grove's civic leaders.
TO this end we have scheduled an Open House in the church on July 10th. between
5:00''M' and 10:00$M: We will be there with data and exhibits to answer
questions, acquaint you with our plans and ideas and to discuss areas of mutual
d be addressed in our application for the zone change. 0 you
concern �r_ltoul .:. thoughts with us by
cannot : visit with us i n person. you may communicate your
` `the 'metaled questionnaire ».preferably after reviewing the content . of
this le
tom e t tter er its ittacbment.
`
Basically we are exploring two alternative developments of comparable scale and
impact on the neighborhood:
• The scheme we strongly prefer involves the development of a 104
unit "Hotaewood Suites" .complex providing bomc.ltke accomodidons
in fly In:lashed and ac ccssorized. one and two bedr+oorn apanttnests
for corporate or other guests who require' s longer testy (ia:: two
weeks to six months) than is normally experienced is t "..."•"..., .t
bbl... yet not a stay of such duration as to warcmtt leasing and
lr $ conventionil apartment (le: one year or snore).
• The ; altttrnstivc to the "Ho aaawood Suites' Is a taetsl, among
considox :involving 70 one and two bedroom uallsralsbed ' its , of
- - -- -s --
lusor sirs designed for one year Wallowa
J; Pw/ � . — •
•
As a consequence of these differences. the trade-off for the somewhat more
transient nature of the "Homewood Suites" occupancies. will be a more luxurious
product with richer landscaping and amenities (available for sharing with
immediate neighbors), and an extensive 24 hour on -site management presence.
The net result, we believe, is that the "Homewood Suites" scheme wad increase
security greater potential for enhancing the value of surrounding properti
security in the neighborhood without impacting neighborhood traffic. packing and
other resources any more that either an active church or an apartment complex of
some 70 units.
Thank you for your interests and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely yours.
ARK Assoc.
A.
president
ericsn Realty International. Inc.
• .�.cti..... ... -. -r
fohn Anderson, Principle
DESCRIPTION OF' "HOMEWAOD SUITES" PROPOSAL
T'h� n hnne d nt'ei t is no of e1:
It has no restaurants, coffee shop, meeting facilities, or any other co...Y.. —;Al uses: It caters
to 1O ger term occupancies where over -night stays are the exception and stays of one or more
weeks is the rule. The suites consist of one and two b. 1 4 u. apartments with living room, full
kitchen, balcony or patios. The one bedroom units measure 436 square feet and the two
beddrooms measure 776 square feet.
It Ls more like a full service anartment building;
The units are fully furnished and accessorired including linens, dishes, appliances etc... . .t
Services include telephone, maid service, van u'ansportation• grocery shopping, laundry/dry
cleaning service, 24 hour wanted desk andSs cudty, as well as minor business service such as
is " club- like space including asmall
copier, 4.. �, IIIIY � ' Y �� M., typewriter, fax, em..'fhe lobby W a "honacl► --
kitchen for self - service continental,bseakfast, and a pantry supplying rafi geratetkmiccowavable
foods,personal hygiene items,. Wines and sundries. Amenities include pool, exercisesn,
and deck games. `
Caterjng to persons reauiring an "extended stay":
(see attached Wall Street Journal article) Typical occupants are expected to be managers,
professionals, technical/field personnel requiring extended stays for such purpOses as field
assignments and project • work sales and management training; and executive relocations. The
objective is to provide the residents with a quiet "home-away-from-home" living environment
insulated from, yet within walling distance, of a service and leisure activity center.
BAsiggigno to minimize ithysico Impact on neighbors;
by extensive avaitabilides of van
"walk -to" access to coup n ercial services; and a wide range !Oat site mss.
• will the rate of 1.4 spaces per occupied
occupancy). Al drop -will be off the street and cwt will be parked t4IY M.y1Vi
the street and the adjoining properties, reads as a group of three to four story buildings. That
establishing the second floor as the dominant level for
reduced visually .
height is then further redo Y by and 3.4 stories from
the project, uldmately conveying a 2-3 story 'i r ACC from the perimeter,
the center of the site. This latter effect
is achieved by elevating the pool level to meet the second
floor at the canto, and by creating a combination of betms,Waterfalls, heavy tropical planting
and multi-level decking fetes at the perimeter.
The overall investment
laced will be about $10 Million. As a condominium, the
units would have to sell at $182.00 per square foot to break even! As it is, the daily rate is
projected at about $100.00 or $3,000.00 per 'month. These rates are substantially above market
prof
for that locati on and can only be achieved by offe ring a distinguishes) residential environment
coupled with first class service. The investmentis justified mostly by an expectation that the
value of the surrounding properties will ultimately appreciate as well. Beyond these basic
economic expectations, and related
thereto: the operation of "Homewood Suites" will enhance
.i. ,........:n.*„c:�.. 24 hou* maflntd FAY
the "Homewood s " Oproviding p a a nd management is expected to become and active part of
the "Hamevrrood sties and otherwise participating in long term civic efforts toward
the t���,������w��,��.�,itS► by sharing
its improvement.
•
•
„ • „
w
5
cr)
1.,11 Li.
.•
'
,••••• ••.•
.. •
•”-
•...
4
cc
a
- • •
.• • • • ,
, 4S;
••0
' .
"Of
, "Th
•
..111.,.
mourtommile
riNIMONIIIII
" 11
,""
TETI . • • t ; 4,
-.
"Z"
_ „-.. ....”
4••■• -
4, ........ .,,.. ,--:,,,, -i..... W. ,,,,',,,,,,---”•
= . • 'AV- , , , tr:',,.: , - '...a. ,s ,. ---- ,..,--..• :, , ,i . „..,--., .
,,M• , '4. 4„- , t T. : f.: v... Y ' i'' :. -.:',„!,:-.., 1„.:S; -
SU. ; -1 ''!, S •.`:. ,..,. „:". =
0,144 et
• . , .
gl-,- -
---. • i_, ,,, . ,, ",
•
_
itu
• •••••• ■•••••• • •••10.•
•■•••• • ••••••
• •••160 • . ■••••••■ • •••••••
4
;W.
••••
• •
' . - • 4 ` 1 • 411443 ,
- • • •
• .
. s _ sr •
, •
, t •• • t, •
,
004 1,4
• „ ` •
•
•
• ; v •
•-ss.• • .
• .
•••••• • • awill • - • - 4 onirooli
; -
. t.
f
, -
t
•
4
•
..� I I. � I' !1ftI1 ps
- � 1 1.4 1) 11 10
tea .. H
" !Dm 4 q
_,
1 _. 1 _ 31
imp' i iiii .pq limit lip' 4 l i k e -1 1041_,! li g lii d
: _ii i $1 1 1
'h I f qpim ig u il
pitiiiiii 1 olokiliNsiNig ii
Arligi.toiil iiiiftip iiwihiaiii Dilitis hai p
niiiminaniquillii 110.1 ilidiad diniiiiim a I
7 ,3 .2 I. ii 4 i PI 1 1 ;I 1 1 :: :Pi; ;1 11- I I
Pi 1 IS fi
a '4 li f is i' tail hip 1 pi V`Mili 'Piro
z 8 pii- 1114 11 Mow! i ii
diu 1; J :1 ; 11ltl iiiii
v3 o _
1 9PJf'1
t9 ›N to DipittOolipigreliqrfilpil#11111ittt �lliopipedlifotai i i 3 i 2 11 1 114111 1 •--I Vl I 1;p 1., I
arommemiri
a ittithi l lai 1 Mit 1 11 TA P1 A
k__ _he Allihritit
4 4 Mg brat il
y sa osi A in ! II! ft! iJijj J IJ! !i A . .r R ! H iJ 1 Ji JIJ iL I U I " .., 01 i
" II!u II 11 1 !I � mn llil� IlAilI� I� III in 9 �I II I II l l U i'�'
AM
•
P
DESCRTPTION OF APARTMENT PROTECT,
The alternative to the "Homewood Suites" is a Immrv-rental anartnient comniez,
The project would consist of 35 one bedroom units measuring about 675 square feet and 35
• two bedroom, 2 bath units, tonsuring about 900 square feet. The units will have fully equipped
kitchens including washers/driers and generous balconies or terraces.
Services and &Miler
Parking will consist of 84 spaces, (1.2 per occupied unit at 95% occupaney)
underground with ramp access and egress from Day Avenue. One at-grade; off-street loading
bay properly screened from view will be provided to acconmiodate general deliveries and
moving vans. Security will be achieved through landscaped Wonsan:I:buzzer entry system or
equivalent. No formal or manned lobby is contemplated. Amenities will include a pooi
surrounded by a deck, and a small clubroom.
Dude Design contents
The apartments will be arranged in a "U" shape, open to Virginia Street, and will be a
uniform three stories in height All halls will be open.and'inostly "single-loiiied", endowing the
apartments with a tropical townhouse character. The pool and ,dick occupy the center of the "U"
performing as the social and recreation core of the complex. The bottom of the "U" is a
rectangular mews-like coati' Yin& taxiing to•thiniiin 'entry on Day Avenue, which will act
as an open "lobby" for the project.
geqnomie imnactt
The investment contemplated under this alternative is about five million dollars,
a breakeven price of $90.00 per square foot if the project were developed at a condominium.
Roots are projected about $950.00 per month, ie an average of $120 per square foot Per mon
ranging from about $700.00 to $1,300,00 per month. Such rents fall in the luxury Wising..
category and imply the need for a high level of quality in design, amenities, landscaping and
finishing. As such, die projcst shank! be an asset for its nei
.01," • WetAi
f • /IA f
11111 11111111111 I III I
. , 4 ^
ip • o ... '• il • 0 ittl• .., 4. 1; I
.... 4,4 ■ . AI . 4 14 4. 14.4,•,. , i 4:1■.,
..,,, .
,,,,, .:.1 1,-. 14 ..• 4 '1,4 14,.
,S....1-'. k4...' 47
. ... 1,11,1, 4 ,, 44.,,' J. I 4 i; 1 11' 1..441,1. •14 . t• 4, 4 1
4•41 Ri;.4 ''' . 6,,....,,...4
. J
- . f
i!)
111' . -.,.:.
*
.411,1o.
J.411414, 4..„'
ihI
1 11 • J'• It 1
• . (
••
t
1
1 jLj j
• • 1 : • • •'
, • 0,4 ""
• '• ••••• • •
t '
, - „
•.• i...
. c; • 1
, .
4. 4 1
. .
. .. ,
A.„
*6.
cc
0
0
cc
0
1—
g
•
' 1 1 I 11
• •
- , • • • .
. .
• -1 • 1 ,. •
f• 11. "A,An ,
111111.111112111111111111111111111 1111 1111110 11111111,11111111111
I
2
•
„ „ , ,1•■••• -
fttl
One Bedroom Unite
Two Bedroom Unite
Total UnitszannitloteMee
, • • .
Goss Building Area (OSF)
FAR Gross La':
Max allowli
Densky-Net Liz (.17 se) (
Site Covaage(50.994 SF) (5)
.,' 4" i.. ,--:,. •
Off Street 1.011/1
04 .-:- ,--. :: ....... : . . ::,...,., --- - ...-/. -, ., , - . , ,. - . - ..:.., . -„ •
.. '•.; ..5'., ..., : • ,Ir '''. '' • ,- - ,, ,,,,.. • - ,.• , . • . ,.' ". -
- -
•,- 1"'=';' :*••
( 0) , • - •• -
.• Toad btriannetit'- ''" - ." • 1:
•" 4,4 4 ,.' , r:
•
Site Imlttosener, ••.• -;••
**Proem (PA time Equi4) (12)
AvIl• 8Idg- lielltat/ (6)
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS,
HOMEEDOILSIMES.
No. Sf/Unit Total
76 436 NSF
776 NSF
518 NSF
28
104
+23%.67.500 GSF
■•■
89Dtt/acre
42%
35 employees
r ikezref.
cpt4o
33.136NSF
21,7211NSP,
54.864NSF,
1.07 FAR
•
87,431 4:3SP.1.39 FAR
•
•
• 2 bays undergroond,_,
,.: • ---, :
41400.000
No.
3S
35
70
3/3-5Th.
• - -
Avg. Pop./Net Lot(1.7 tc)' • • (7) 32perionsiacre
•
675 NSF
MI NSF
7i18 14ESP
- 117,431tCISF:139 FAR ,
•
Pkg. Totil Nornoonieno/pop (8) 11&1.13/unic122/PoP 84space12.$4I$p ../.:
-.• , • i•.
' • kt: ,
• On Site .
1 ,V4..„1‘1V-.",,Zri,`4 •
44 1 'A
. ,•
....,., .•
•• .
.
-..
000 ?DR Sector 6
43% -
_ -
-
BINTAL A PARTWINITS
Si/Unit Tad
33.136NSP-- -
31,SOONSF j••
5150 NSF
+18%065.000 OSP
•-• 1.03 FAR '
1
1 1'
4 11 L „
1
afj
Uzi
(1) Gross Bldg. Area:
• 23% add-on for "Homewood" compared to 18% for "Apartments" reflect 3.500 sq, ft. of
lobby and on -site management necessary for higher service levels.
(2) FAR:
Ratio of Gross Building area to gross site area (ie: net site area plus 50% adjoining street area)
(3) Maximum FAR allowed:
FrOpoSed zoning is PDH-6 (please see note (14) for explanation.) The fact that both
proposals an well below the maximum, implies the developer's consent to accept Wait
(4) & r(7):Density: "unit for "Homewood ,the actual
The tic shows that while the unit density is higher "
"population density" is about the same for both schemes. "Homewood" population was
on the basis of 77% occupancy and an average of 12 persons per unit, while the
"a Pte' Lion will based on 13 persons per unit it 95% occupancy, reflecting the
Aga term occupancies and size of the apartments in the latter case.
•
(5) Sibs - agni ; ' r: L ,; _. - ,r::r: -,.
., Bated diiiiiCa of buikling "F t.i" divided by'net lot ;area. Asccani'be seen rot
.40Mpitrable;:fle.-the:samoilicof building occupies the site, with.mo e 4 s
4 .� :. _ 5a. f 6L. fit
yt �''::�� "``.'a''`a.;s i .' ::' a; .::?' .. r`r,r �;, -... �:y ?. ,:. .. _ .k.:
ohs!' ,, 3> `g :.':; G;; - :.u.'.",tZ.. = _::` ;:`S ii:ix :' -:` `; :` : ? i #.,..
aptrr difference In belghtbeiwccn the schemeifieflectspore , v '1l
. Ando. : b rildings_:of c with the "umfoatn "
implicit is the "A t ", design, than a difference in the bulk or scale of als o
. (Only 10 out of.the 10411omeivood Suites" would be'on the fifth level, acid only )6 on tl '
font* level).
=,•
(10) & (11) Investment
The total "Homewood" investment is roughly twice that of the" Apartment" reflecting the
furnishing and equipping of the suites, more extensive amenities and landscaping, a more coin-
plex design for the basic buildings and greater soft costs for designs, marketing, and working
capital The higher site improvment costs reflect a larger und.. r..ncl garage, the more elabo-
rate landscaping schemes (eg: ponds and water fall) and raising of the main pool and deck levels
to the second floor.
(12) Employment:
"Homewood" employment is low compared to a full service hotel were employment will
range between .60 employees per room to as high as 2 per room in super luxury facilities. The
.37 employees per suite which has been estimated involves maids, management, maintenance,
van drivers, security and clerical personnel The 3 full time equivalent employees for dm "Apart-
ments! covers pan time managanent and maintenance personel with the possibility of one on-
site live-in manager.
(13) Taxes:
Includes property taxes and about $300,00 in state and local mom taxes.
(14) Proposed Zoning:
After technical discuss' ions with City Planning staff, the developers have opted, subject to
a pply for a PlaimidDistrict
( : a Cto 6" ° L:i er U s se Intensity groups to Ic rhis type of
the city with discretionary control over what is built and boi k it designed within the WI
almtop. As both schemes are generally identical in character and use; and as the scale f
development is also very dmiliar, both can be developed under the same zonusg. The
differences are discussed above. They deal less with zoning issues than with the Islay,
• •
•
•
• •
•
• ,
•
. - - , • .. '
•r
Ai
a
3
- 3
- e
•
NAME:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
DIJESTIoNNAIRE
. _
L DID YOU READ ENCLOSED LLL i r.R El 0
•
,• , - • ,
YES
2. DID YOU READ BOTH Lg.', ii. AND ATTACHMENT , ,
YES NO
3. PLEASE ATE ALTERNATIVE (unirearniNacuaiva.man rairit
a. HOME'WOOD surrss PROPOSAL II I I 1 1.1 1 1
.. 5 -6 7 8 9'
- • • ,• - • .,_
' • 4
J. _ I • .
b. APARTME COMPLEx
0 1 2 345 •:• 7 •
'OR COMPARABLE- .
•
- • . .
4 5 6 7 .
1 . C1 k
•
_.„ • ,
- - -' .
4. COMMENTS ORAWESTIONS ON PROPOSALS: "'•
7
.,(
•4 —0,,,, . ti ,,,,: ..,;',..`", - . , , ,, , ,,i.'',": • ..
4 :1 •
. .. . . ,
.
4
1'
5
a
I
I
I
I
I
Lemon Tree Villa E Inc.
3240V4Irds Skeet - Grove, Florida 33133
City Of Miami
Planning and Zoning Boards
Administration Department
P.O. Box 330708
Miami, Florida 33133
Subject: Proposed Rezoning of 3230 Virginia Street (Approx)
Lots 1 & 2
Block 11
Edward W. Pent Homestead A-45 PRDC
Hearing; City Hall: October 4, 1989
To: Chairman; City of Miami Planning & Zoning Board
Dear Sir:
The Lemontree Condominium Association which immediately adjoins
to the south and to the west of 3230 VIRGINIA 04^..* (the Church)
have received the notice concerning the Consideration 'of Mending
Ordinance 10544 to change the zoning from Duplex Residential to
High Density Multi-family Residential.
The Lemontree Condominium Association Inc. consists of
following addresses which immediately adjoin the site:
(which is a Church at the Present time)1
3238i:. VIRGINIA 4,..0.44***, . 3240
3242 VIRGINIA � I flPd 44 3244
3246 VIRGINIA 4,...**. 3248
3250 VIRGINIA 3252
- 3254 VIRGINIA a.g.41.4.‘ 3256
_3020 DAY 44.444... 3022
DAy
. 3026
3028r..DAY
• 2030
DAT.. if6 3034
3036 Y 3038
*A11 members of the Association have discussed the matter 0
rem resoning effort as early as our first 19,9 Association-
Tsbrua 39U -.;.The-Beard of Directors have been advised.
•
Lemontree Residents to firmly 'oppose this. rezoning. cons,
vithin,ourCCOOnut Grove commun and do so !with th suP. appqj ''th il s o l o aP roit t uss uae li Ere: Iiii to a
reside n% NIT! MULTI - FAMILY IONNTIAL sone! .
; T
4
I I.
September 27, 1989
VIRGINIA ' I 44 korai. d.
VIRGINIA Nii41
VIRGINIA a■ J 64 •I •i
vyRantia 4,16
, TIRGINTA
DAY go diaD •
DAY
DAY
DAY 111141.0146,41.*
DAY
, s Lementree.Ondmainimi Association is notiummor
any use of the saawar property that will., on
Coconut Gym Conennity planning and
lent OW. or nes et the p
son
•
A