The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-88-0666J-88-619 6/30/88 RESOLUTION NO. PIR--96V A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING BOARD'S AFFIRMATION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE CLASS B SPECIAL PERMIT, FILE, NO. 8-86-0060, FOR THE VALET PARKING FOR THE PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT 2701 DAY AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND ADOPTING AND INCORPORATING THE FINDINGS OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting of June 6, 1988, Item #2, adopted Resolution ZB 76-88 by a seven to two (7-2) vote, denying the appeal and affirming the Zoning Administrator's issuance of a Class B Special Permit, File No. B-86-0060; and WHEREAS, concerned residents have taken an appeal to the City Commission from the Zoning Board's decision; and WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of this matter, deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to confirm the issuance of said Class B Special Permit, File No. B-86-0060; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The preamble of this Resolution is incorporated and made a part hereof as though restated and set forth herein. Section 2. The findings of the Zoning Administrator set forth in the Class B Special Permit, under File No. B-86-0060, are adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. The appeal from the decision of the Zoninq Board to uphold the Zoning Administrator's issuance of the Class B Special Permit, File No. B-86-0060, for the valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue, CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUL 14a19U LSOLUTION No. 9AARKS: MiaMif Ploridat is hereby denied and the issuance of the Class a Special PerMitt File No. C-88-848 is hereby affirmed. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th clay of July , lg88. ATT XAVIER L SUAREZ, MAYO; MAITT HIRA I City Clerk PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: 40t. G. MIRIAM MAER Assistant City Attorney APPRJVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: JORIE L. "FERN7NDEZ Cit Attorney/ GMM/rcl/M743 - 2 - 88 -666 0 CITY OF MIAMI, F_ORIDA INTMOFFICE MEMORANDUM Gloria Fox, Chief Hearing Boards Division G. iriam Maer Assistant Citv Attorney August 17, 1988 =L=_ R`` Notice of Appeal - Tiger Bay Condominium Assn. et al 2701 Day Avenue =E�cEs City Commission Meeting of 7/14/88 Resolution No. 88-666 "jclOsupES and 88-667 Attached hereto, is a copy of a Notice of Appeal dated August 10, 1988, which has been filed by the aggrieved party in the subject matter. This item appeared before the City Commission as Agenda Item PZ-151 and PZ-153 on July 14, 1988. Also attached are Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, sections 9.110 and 9.200 . I direct your attention to subsection (e) of §9.110 entitled, "Record," and subsections (a) and (d) of §9.200. The Record should include transcripts of the City Commission and pertinent Zoning Board meetings, as well as, any and all exhibits, letters, or other information received into evidence or tendered for review by the Planninq Department, Public Works Department, or any other City department, the Zoninq Board, or City Commission. Please keep this office apprised of the status of all Record preparation. We stand ready to answer any cauestions you may have. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. GMM/rcl/P335 enclosures cc: Mattv_ Hirai City Clerk r if GIT1' Off' MIAMI. FLORIDA INTtftd PPjC;t MCM014ANDWM juc 11 ' 1' *o KO�tT P. Ct.ARK carE uguat it, lose rlLt Chief Deputy City Attorney (� Su6JECT CJT';' rotoM i:t�titEWtES TTY MIIRAI City Clerk EMCLOWAts. SUBJECT: NOTICE OF ------------------------ ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL ' ----------------------- Tiger Bay Condominium Association Apogee II Condominium Association Apogee Condominium Association Townscape Homeowners Association and Centerview Townhouse Association Enclosed herein please find Notice of Administrative Appeal in the above- referenced case. By copy of this memorandum we also are sending a copy of said Notice to Gloria Fox, Building and Zoning Department, Hearing Boards. MH:smm cc Gloria Fox, Building and Zoning Department, Hearing Boards Miriam Maer, Assistant City Attorney ^ � M• h r:. � J IN T11E COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. FLORIDA BAR NO. 355739 TIGER BAY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, APOGEE II CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, APOGEE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, T014NSCAPE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION and CENTERVIEW TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION, Petitioners/Appellants, v. HERNANDO A. CARRILLO Respondent/Appellee. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL NOTICE IS GIVEN that TIGER BAY CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, APOGEE II CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, APOGEE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, TOWNSCAPE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION and CENTERVIEW TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION, Appellants, appeal to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial District in and for Dade County, Florida, Resolution 88-666 and Resolution 88-667 of this Commission of the City of Miami rendered July 14, 1988. The nature of the resolutions are the denial of the appeal of the City of Miami Zoning Board's decision to Uphold the Zoning Administrator and Grant the Class B Special Permit, File No. B-86-0060, and the denial of the appeal of the City of Miami Zoning Board's decision to Uphold the Planning Director and Grant the Class C Special Permit, File No. C-88-848, for the proposed office building at 2701 Day Avenue, Miami, Florida. 10 CERTIFICAT'S__OF'_ -SWVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Administrative Appeal was mailed this lt.- day of August, 1988 to Hernando A. Carrillo, 3460 South Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida 33133 and Alberto R. Cardenas, Esq., 1221 Brickell Avenue, 22nd Floor, Miami, Florida 33131. ROBERT V. FITZSIMMONS, P.A. The Courvoisier Centre, Suite 505 501 Brickell Key Drive Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 358-7707 Robert V. Fitzsimmons i� I I• 2 • i RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE ,loner to file a brief. Any argument or citauons )f authority which the petitioner desires to place before the court must be contained in the petition. This change in procedure to intended to eliminate the wasteful current practxv of filing repetitive peutions and briefs. Under section (gi no record .s required to be filed unless the court so orders. but under section (e) the petitioner must file an appendix to the petition containing conformed copies of the order to he reviewed and other relevant material, including portions of the record, if a record exists. The appendix should also contain any documents which support the allegations of fact contained in the petition. A lack of supporting documents may, of course. be considered by the court in exercising its discretion not to issue an order to show cause. Under Section (f), (h) and (i), if the allegations of the petition, if true, would constitute grounds for relief. the court may exercise its discretion to issue an order requiring the respondent to show cause why the requested relief should not be graated. A amsle responsive pleading (without • brief) my then be served, accompanied by a supplemental appendix, within the time period set by the court in its order to show cause. The petitioner u then allowed 20 days to serve a reply and supplemental appendix, unless the court sets another time. It should be noted that the times for response and reply am computed by reference to service rather than filing. This practice is consistent throughout these rules except for ini- tial, jurisdictional filings. The emphasis on ser- vice. of course, does not relieve counsel of the responsibility for filing original documents wish *he court as required by Rule 9.420(b): it merely affects the time measurements. Except as provided automatically under section R a stay pending resolution of the original pro- ceeding may be obtained under Rule 9.310. T rawnuttal of the record pursuant to order of the court under section (g) shall be in accordance with the instructions and times set forth in the order. 1980 Amendment (381 So.2d 1370). The rule was amended by deleting its reference to former Rule 9.030(aN2XB) to reflect the 1980 revisions to Article V. Section 3(b) of the Florida Constitution that eliminated Supreme Court review by certiora- ri of non -final orders that would have been ap- pealable if they had been final orders. The proce- cures applicable to discretionary Supreme Court review of distort court decisions pursuant to Rule 9 030(aN2NA) are governed by Rule 9.120. The procedures applicable to Supreme Court discre- tionary review of teal court orders and ludg• ments certified by the district courts pursuant to Rule 9.030(&X201 are set forth in Rule 9.125. 1990 Committee Note (387 So.2d 920). Section tdi was amended to delete references to the dis• tnct courts of appeal as the proper court for review of orders excluding the press and public, since the appropriate court could also be a circuit court or the Supreme Court Rule 9.110 Rule 9.110. Appeal Proceedings to Review Final Orders of Lower Tribu- nals and Orders Granting New Trial in Jury and Non -Jury Gases i a i Applicability. This rule applies to those pro- ceedings which: il) invoke the appeal jurisdiction of the courts described in Rule 9.030(aNl); (bXlXA) and (cKlXA); (2) seek review of administrative action do- scnbed in Rule 9.030(bXIXC) and (cNINC); and 0 seek review of orders granting new trial in jury and non -jury civil and criminal cases de- scribed in Rules 9.130(a)(4) and 9.14001K). (b) Commencement. Jurisdiction of the court under this rule shall be invoked by filing two copies of a notice. accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the lower tribunal within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. (c) Exception: Administrative Action. In ap- peal of administrative action, the appellant shall pay the fee and file the second copy of the notice with the court. (d) Notice of Appeal. The notice of appeal shall be substantially in the form prescribed by Rule 9.900(a). The caption shall contain the name of the ,lower tribunal, the name and designation of at least one party on each side, and the case number in the lower tribunal. The notice shall contain the name of the court to which the appeal is taken. the date of rendition and the nature of the order to be re- viewed. (e) Record. Within 50 days of filing the notice, the clerk shall prepare the record prescribed by Rule 9.200 and serve copies of the index on all parties. Within 110 days of filing the notice, the clerk shall transmit the record to the court. (f) Briefs. Appellant's initial brief shall be served within 70 days of filing the notice. Addition- al briefs shall be served as prescribed by Rule 9.210. (g) Cross Appeal. An appellee may cross appeal by serving a notice within 10 days of service of the appellant's notice or within the time prescribed in section (bi of this rule, whichever is later. No filing fee shall be required for a cross appeal. (h) Scope of Review. The court may review any ruling or matter occurring prior to filing of the notice. Multiple final orders may be reviewed by a single nonce, if the notice is timely filed as to each such oraer. (i ► Exception: Bond Validation Proceedings. Where the appeal is from an order in a proceeding to validate bonds or certificates of indebtedness. the recoro shall not be transmitted unless ordered by 507 Rule 9.110 RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE the Supreme Court_ Appellant's initial brief. accom- pamed by an appendix as prescribed by Rule 9.220, shall be served within 20 days of filing the notice. Additional briefs shall be served as prescribed by Rule 9.210. Q) Exception: Appeal Proceedings from Dis- trict Courts of Appeal. Where the appeal is from an order of a district court of appeal, the clerk shall transmit the record to the court within 60 days of filing the nonce. Appellant's initial brief shall be served within 20 days of filing the notice. Addition- al briefs shall be served as prescribed by Rule 9.210. M Except as otherwise provided herein, partial final judgments are reviewable either on appeal from the partial final judgment or on appeal from the final judgment in the entire case. If a partial final judgment totally disposes of an entire case as to any party, it must be appealed within thirty days of rendition. Amended )larch 27. 1980. effective April 1. 1980 (381 So.2d 1370h Nov. 26. 1980, effective Jan. 1, 1981 (391 So.2d 203k Sept. 13, 1984, effective Jan. 1, 1985 (463 So.2d 1114). Committee Notes 1977 Revision: This rule replaces former Rules 3.1. 3.5. 4.1, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.7. It applies where (1) a foul order has been entered by a court or administrative agency; (2) a motion for a new trial in a jury case is granted; or 13) a motion for rehearing in a non.jury case is granted and the lower tribunal orders new testimony. It should be noted that certain other non -final orders en- tered after final order are reviewable under the procedure set forth in Rule 9.130. This rule does not apply to review proceedings in such cases. t Except to the extent of conflict with Rule 9.140 governing appeal, in criminal cues, this rule gov- erns: 11) appeal, as of right to the Supreme Court; (2) certiorari proceedings before the Su. preme Court seeking direct review of administra- uve action (for example, Industrial Relations Commission and Public Service Commission); (3) w appeals as of right to a district court of appeal, including petitions for review of administrative action under the Administrative Procedure Act. Section 120.68, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976); 14) appeals as of right to a circuit court, including review of administrative action when provided by Law. This rule is intended to clarify the procedure for review of orders granting a new teal. Rules 9.130(aM and 9.140(cXIXC) authorize the appeal of orders granting a motion for new trial. Those rules supersede Clement v. Aztec Sales. Inc., 297 So.2d 1 (F1a.1974), and are consistent with the decision there. Under section th) of this rule the scope of review of the court is not necessarily limited to the order granting a new teal. The Supreme Court has held that "appeals taken from new trial orders shall be treated as appeals from final judgments to the extent possible 508 Bowen v. Willard. 340 So.2d 110. 112 (F1a.1976). This rule implements that decmron. Sections (b) and (c( establish the procedure for commencing an appeal proceeding. Within 30 days of the rendition of the final order the app6 iant must file two copies of the nonce of appeal, accompanied by the appropriate fees. with the clerk of the lower tribunal: except that where review of administrative action is sought, our copy of the notice and the applicable fees must be filed in the court Failure to file any notice within the 30 day period constrtutes an u emodko. ble jurisdictional defect. but the second copy atud fees may be filed after the 30 day period. subject to sanctions imposed by the court. See FLa.IA App.P. 9.040(h), and Williams v. State. 324 So.2d 4 (F1a.1975). Section (d) sets forth the contents of the noties, and eliminates the requirement of the former rain that the nova show the place of recordation of the order to be reviewed. The rule requires sub• stantial compliance with the form approved by the Supreme Court. The date of rendition of the order for which review ut sought must appear on the face of the notice. See the definition of "rendition" in Florida Rule of Appellate Proes- dare 9,020, and see the judicial construction cot "rendition" for an administrative Wile in Florida Admin. Comm'n v. Judges of the District Coow% 351 So.2d 712, Case No. 50.232 (Fla. Oct 14, 1977), on review of Riley -Field Co. v. Askew, SM So.2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). This requiremeaa is intended to allow the clerk of the court to determine the timeliness of the notice from ib face. The Advisory Committee intended that dw feces in the notice would not be jurisdictional or grounds for disposition unless the compLainft. party was substantially prejudiced. This rule works significant changes in the ra. view of final administrative action. The former - rules required that a traditional petition fix tie-, writ of certiorari be filed when Supreme Court review was appropriate and the practise under tl)o Administrative Procedure .Act, Section 120W Florida Statutes (Supp.1976), has been for the "petition for review" to be substantially simiLr to .a petition for the writ of certiorari. See Yamahw International Corp. v. Ehrman, 318 So.2d 196 (M1 Ist DCA 1975). This rule eliminates the need for true petitions in such cases. Instead, a simpW notice is filed, to be followed Later by briefs. It lot) intended that the notice constitute the required in Section 120.68(2), Florida S (Supp.1976). There is no conflict with the statom since the substance of the review proceeding mains controlled by the statute and the LegiaM ture directed review be pursuant to the peoeed dures set forth in these rules. Since it is 40 requirement of rendition that an order be writtli and filed, this rule supersedes Shevin ex rel. StM. v. Public Service Comm n. 333 So.2d 9 (F1a.1910 and School Bd. of Lee County v. Malbon, 34% So.2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). to the extent tbmb those decisions assume that reduction of an ortko to writing is unnecessary for judicial review. ci •n te ll at �.,r RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Thsa rule is not intended to affect the dtscre- 'ionary nature of direct Supreme Court review of administrative salon taken pursuant to the cerno- rare jurmdwtxm of that Court set forth in Article V Section 3(bX3) of the Florida Constitution. Such proceedings remain in certiorari with the only change being to replace wasteful, repetitive petittonit for the writ of certiorari with concise noires followed at a later date by briefs. The parties to such actions should be designated as "petitioner" and "respondent" despite the use of the terms "appellant" and "appellee" in this rule. gee Commentary, Fia.R.App.P. 9.020. Section (el, (f) and (g) set the times for prepara- tion of the record. serving copies of the index on the parties, servmg briefs and serving notion of cross appeal. Provision for sass appeal notices has been made to replace the cross assignments of error eliminated by these rules. In certiorari pegs governed by this rule the term "cross appeal" should be read as equivalent to "cross petition". It should be noted that where time is measured by service. Rule 9.420(b) requires filing to be made before service or immediately there- after. Section (h) permits a party to file a single notice of appeal where a single proceeding in the lower tribunal, whether criminal or civil, results in more than one final judgment and an appeal of more than one is sought This rule is intended to further the policies underlying the decisions of the Supreme Court to Scheel v. Advance Market- ing Consultants. Inc.. 277 So.2d 773 (FIa.1973), and Hollimon v. State, 232 So.2d 394 (Fla.1970). This rule does not authorize the appeal of multi - pie final judgments unless otherwise proper as to eacn. Where a prematurely filed notice is held in abeyance in accordance with Williams v. State. 324 So.2d 74 (F1a.1975). the date of filing is in- tended to be the date the nonce becomes effec- tive. Section (i) provides an expedited procedure in appeals as of right to the Supreme Court in bond validation proceedings. An appendix w mandato- ry Section (j) provides for an expedited procedure in appeals as of right to the Supreme Court from an order of a distract court of appeal. 1990 Amendment (381 So.2d 1370). The rule has peen amended to incorporate changes in Rule 9.030 and to reflect the abolition of Supreme Court jurisdiction to review, when provided by general law, final orders of trial courts imposing sentences of life imprisonment. 1980 Amendment (391 So.2d 203). The refer- ence indicated (2) in the second paragraph of this Committee Note for 1977 Revision should be dis- regarded. See Amended Rule 9.030(a)(100) and accompanying committee note. 1984 Amendment. Subsection (k) was added to remedy a pitfall in the application of case law under Mendez v. West Flag(er Family Aasocta- tion, 303 So.2d 1 (F1a.1974). Appeals may now be Rule 9.120 aken immeduteiv or delaved until the end of the enure cage, under the rationale of Mendez Rule 9.120. Discretionary Proceedings to Re- view Decisions of District Courts of Appeal ( a I Applicability. This rule applies to those pro- ceedings which invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court descnbed to Rule 9.030(aN2XA). i b I Commencement. The iunsdictlon of the Su- preme Court desenbed in Rule 9.030(aN2NAI shill be invoked by filing two copies of a notice, accompa- nied by the filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the district court of appeal within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. (c) Notice. The notice shall be substantially in the form prescribed by Rule 9.900. The caption shall contain the name of the lower tribunal, the name and designation of at least one party on each side, and the case number in the lower tribunal. The notice shall contain the date of rendition of the order to be reviewed and the basis for invoking the jurisdiction of the court. (d) Briefs on Jurisdiction. Petitioners brief, limited solely to the issue of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and accompanied by an appendix cot. raining a conformed copy of the decision of the district court of appeal, shall be served within 10 days of filing the notice. Respondent's brief on jurisdiction shall be served within 20 days after service of petitioner's brief. No reply brief shall be permitted. When jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to Rule 9.030(aX2XAXv) or (aX2XAXvi) (certifications by the district courts to the Supreme Court), no briefs on juriadiebon shall be ,filed. (e) Accepting or Postponing Decision on Juris- diction: Record. If the Supreme Court accepts or postpones decision on jurisdiction. the Court shall so order and advise the parties and the clerk of the district court of appeal. Within 60 days thereafter or such other time set by the Court, the clerk shall t-mnamit the record. (f) Briefs on Merits. Within 20 days of rendition of the order accepting or postponing decision on jurisdiction, the petitioner shall serve the initial brief on the merits. Additional briefs shall be served as prescribed by Rule 9.210. Amended March 27. 1980, effective April 1. 1990 01 So.2d 1370); Nov. ''26, 1980, effective Jan. 1, 1981 (391 So.2d 203). For the effective Gate and application of the amendments to the Rules of Appellate Proceaure of March 27. 1980 (Ml So.2d 1370), see the note followtnq Rule 9.030. 509 Committee Notes 1977 Revision. This rule replaces former Rule 4.5(cl and governs all certioran proceedings to U' t Rule 9.160 RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDt'RE `4.140. 9.210. and 9.220, depending upon the nature of the appeal. (i) Cross•Appeal. Cross -appeals shall be permit- ted according to the applicable rules only in those cases in which a cross -appeal would have been au- thonzed if the appeal had been taken to circuit court_ (j) Applicability of Other Rules. All other mat- ters pertaining to the appeal shall be governed by the rules which would be applicable if the appeal had been taken to circuit court. Added Sept 13, 1994. effective Oct 1, 1984 (4W So.2d 1114). Amended Feb. 14, 1995, effective March 1, 1995 (463 So.2d 1124). The Florida Supreme Court opinion of September 13. 1984. effective October 1. 1994 1463 So.2d 1114). provides in part: 'Rules 9.080(b)(41. 9.160, and 9.166 (deleted by order at 463 So.2d 1124) have been added to provide for the discretionary furudhcuon of the discuss courts of appeal to hear questions earufied by the county eoares. The rule eta the Wrialatil" ensetiaent of chapter s4-M aseOaas a sad 4. Laws of Florida which provide for district court review of eerafrd orders or judgments from sty courts ,. Committee Notes 1984 AnieliWnwnt (463 So.2d 1124). This rule was added in order to implement the amendments to sections 26.012 and 924.08 and the adoption of section 34.195 by the 1984 legislature. Section 34.195 authorises only the certification of foul judgments, but section 924.08 authorizes the certi- fication of nonfinal orders in criminal cases. Therefore, this rule does not provide for appeals from nonfinal orders in civil uses. Under the rationale of State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1972). the authority to provide for appeals from nonfinal orders may rest in the supreme court rather than in the legislature. However, in keep- ing with the spirit of the legislation, the rule was drafted to permit certification of those nonfinal Orden in criminal cases which would otherwise be appealable to the circuit court Sections 26.012 and 924.08 authorize only the certification of orders deemed to be of great public importance. However, section 34.195 re- fers to the certification of questions in final judg- ments if the question may have statewide applica- uon and is of great public importance or affects the uniform administration of justice. The com- mittee concluded that any order which is certified to be of great public importance might have state- wide application and that any order which would affect the uniform administration of justice would also be of great public importance. Therefore. the additional statutory language was deemed to be surplusage, and the rule refers only to the requirement of certifying the order to be of great public importance. The distract court of appeal may, in its discre- tion, decline to accept the appeal, in which event it shall be transferred to the appropriate circuit court for disposition in the ordinary manner. Ex- cept as stated in the rule, the procedure shall be the same as would be followed if the appeal was being taken to circuit court The rule does not authorise review of certified orders b_v common law cernorsn. it is recommended that in those cases involving issues of great public importance, parties should file suggestions for certification prior to the entry of the order from which the appeal may be taken. However. parties are not precluded from suggest, ing certification followtng the entry of the order except that such suggestion, by itself, will not postpone rendition as defined in Rule 9.020(g). Rule 9.165. Repealed February 14, 1985, et• fective March 1, 1995 (443 So.2d 1124) The Florida Suprerne Court order of Sept 13, 1964, (463 So.d 1114) effective Jan. 1. 1985. adding Uus rule was wpensds, ti rehearing order of Feb. 14. 1985. effective hare► 1, 19e6, (411110 So.2d 1124) repeating name. The sub)eet matter of ruia 9.19111 is subsumed under rule 9.160 as amended in the talveso dig OP% , Rule 9.200. The Record 518 (a) Contents. (1) The record shall consist of the original boo- uments, exhibits, and transcript of proceedings, it any, filed in the lower tribunal, except summons es, praecipea, subpoenas, returns, notices, deposi- tions, other discovery and physical evidence. (2) Within 10 days of filing the notice of appeal, an appellant may direct the clerk to include or exclude other documents or exhibits tiled in tbe' lower tribunal. The directions shall be substaar. tially in the form prescribed by Rule 9.900(f). If the clerk is directed to transmit less than the entire record or less than the transcript of s1i testimony in a proceeding, the appellant shag serve with such direction a statement of the jimlH cial acts to be reviewed. Within 20 days of f19hW the notice, an appellee may direct the cleric to include additional documents and exit 'bib. fl (3) Stipulated Staament. The parties maj prepare a stipulated statement showing how the issues to be presented arose and were decided in the lower tribunal, attaching a copy of the order to be reviewed and as much of the rem in tbs lower tribunal as is necessary to a determinatioe of the issues to be presented. The parties aW advise the clerk of their intention to rely upon a stipulated statement in lieu of the record as earn in advance of filing as possible. The stipulated statement shall be filed by the parties and tram mitted to the court by the clerk of the lowee tribunal within the time prescribed for transmittal of the record. (b) Transcript of Proceedings. (1) Within 10 days of filing the notice, the ap pellant shall designate those portions of the tram RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE script of proceedings not on file deemed neces- sary for inclusion in the record. Within 20 days of filing the notice, an appellee may designate additional portions of the proceedings. Copies of dessgnahons shall be served on the court reporter. Costs of the original and all copies of the tran- script of proceedings shall be borne initially by the designating party, subject to appropriate taxa- tion of costs as prescribed by Rule 9.400. (2) Within 30 days of service of a designation. the court reporter shall transcribe and deliver to the clerk of the lower tribunal the designated proceedings and shall furnish copses to the par- ties. The transcript of proceedings shall be se- curely bound in volumes not to exceed 200 pages each. Each volume shall be prefaced by an index containing the names of the witnesses, a list of all exhibits offered and introduced in evidence, and the pages where each may be found. (3) If no report of the proceedings was made, or if a transcript is unavailable, the appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceed- ings from the best available means, including his recollection. The statement shall be served on the appellee, who may serve objections or pro- posed amendments thereto within 10 days of ser- vice. Thereafter, the statement and any objec- tions or proposed amendments shall be submitted to the lower tribunal for settlement and approval. As settled and approved, the statement shall be included by the clerk of the lower tribunal in the record. ic) Cross Appeab. Within 20 days of filing the notice, a cross appellant may direct that additional documents, exhibits, or portions of the transcript of proceedings be included in the record. If less than the entire record is designated, the cross appellant shall serve, with the directions, a statement of the judicial acts to be reviewed. The cross appellee shall have 10 days after such service to direct further additions. The time for preparation and transrruttal of the record shall be extended by 10 days. t d) Duties of Clerk: Preparation and Transmit- tal of Record. (1) The clerk of the lower tribunal shall prepare the record as follows: (A) Upon receipt of the transcript of proceed- ings from the court reporterisl. each page shall be consecutively numbered. The tmnscnpt of proceedings shall be securely bound in consecu- tively numbered volumes not to exceed 200 pages each. The clerk of the lower tribunal shall not be required to verify and shall not charge for the incorporation of the transcript of proceedings into the record. Rule 9.200 (B) The remainder of the record, including all supplements, shall be prepared as designated. Each page shall be consecutively numbered. The record shall be securely bound in consecu- tively numbered volumes not to exceed 200 pages each. The cover sheet of each volume shall contain the name of the lower tribunal and the style and number of the case. (2) The clerk of the lower tribunal shall prepare a complete index to the record. 0 The clerk of the lower tribunal shall certify and transmit the record to the court as prescribed by these rules: provided that when the patties stipulate or the lower tribunal orders that the original record be retained, the clerk shall prepam and tra.nsnut a certified copy. ie) Duty of Appellant or Petitioner. The bur- den to ensure that the record is prepared and umns- mitted in accordance with these rules shall be on the petitioner or appellant. Any party may enforce the provisions of this rule by motion. (f) Correcting and Supplementing Record. (1) If there is an error or omission in the record, the parties by stipulation, the lower tribu- nal before the record is transmitted, or the court may correct the record. (2) If the court finds the record is incomplete, it shall direct a party to supply the omitted parts of the record. No proceeding shall be determined because the record is incomplete until an opportu- nity to supplement the record has been given. (g) Return of Record. In civil cases the record shall be returned to the lower tribunal after final disposition by the court. Amended July 3. 1980. effective Jan. 1. 1981 (387 So.2d 9201; Nov. 26. 1980, effective Jan. 1. 1981 (391 So.2d 203). 519 Committee Notes 1977 Revision. This rule replaces former Rule 3.6 and- represents a complete revision of the matters perwrung to the record for an appellate proceeding. References in this rule to "appel- lant" and "appellee" should be treated as egwva- lent to "petitioner" and "respondent", respective- ly. See Commentary, Fla.R.App.P. 9.020. This rule is based in pan on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b). Subsection (01) establishes the content of the record unless an appellant within 10 days of filing the notice directs the clerk to exclude portions of the record or to include additional portions, or the appellee within 20 days of the notice being filed directs inclusion of additional portions. In lieu of a record, the parues may prepare a stipulated statement, attaching a ropy of the order which is sought to be reviewed and essential portions of the record. When a stipulated statement is pre- pared, the parties must advise the clerk not to prepare the record. The stipulated statement is T1 Rule 9.200 RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE to be filed and trananutted within the time pre- Subsection (bM3) provides the procedures to be scribed for transmittal of the record. Where less followed where no transcript is available. than a full record is to be used. the initiating Section ic► provides the procedures to be fol- party must serve a statement of the judicial acts lowed where there is a crone appeal or cross to be reviewed so that the opposing party may petition. determine whether additional portions of the Section (d) sets forth the manner in which the record are required. Such a statement is not clerk of the lower tribunal is to prepare the intended to be the equivalent of assignments of record. The original record is to be transmitted error under former Rule 3.5. Any inadequacy in unless the parties stipulate or the lower court the statement may be cured by motion to supple- orders the original be retained, except that nndsr merit the record under Section (f) of this rule. Rule 9.140(d) (governing criminal cases) the oeiR Section (W interacts with Section (b) so that as nil is to be retained unless the court ordse soon as the notice is filed the clerk of the lower tribunal will prepare and transmit the complete °therwise• Section ie) places the burden of enforcement of record of the case as described by the rule. In this rule on the appellant or petitioner, but any party may move for an order requiring adherence ; order to include in the record any of the items to the rule. automatically omitted, a party must designate the items desired. A transcript of the proceedings Section If) replaces former Rule 301►. no before the lower tribunal will not be prepared or new rule is intended to assure that appdkm transmitted unless already filed. or the parties proceedings will be decided upon their merits and designate the "ram of the transcript desired to that no showing of good cause. negligence or be transmitted. Subsection (bi(2) imposes an af- accident be required before the lower tribunal or firmative duty to prepare the transcript on the the court orders the completion of the record reporter of the proceedings as soon as designated. This rule u intended to assure that any portion of It is intended that to complete the preparation of the record before the lower tribunal whichs all official papers to be filed with the court, the material to a decision by the court will be avail - appellant need only file the notice, designate onuc- ted portions of the record which are desired and able to the court It is specifically intended to avoid those situations which have occurred in the designate the desired portions of the transcript. past where an order his been affirmed beesatas It therefore will be unnecessary to file directions appellate counsel failed to bring up the portions with the clerk of the lower tribunal in most cases. of the record necessary to determine whether or Subsection (b)(1) replaces former Rule 3.600, not there was an error. See Pan America Netai Products Go. v. Healy, 138 So.2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA and specifically requires service of the designs- 1962). The rule is not intended to cure inadegsw tion upon the court reporter. This is intended to cies w the record which result from the failure of avoid delays which sometimes occur when a party a parry to properly make a record during the files his designation, but fails to notify the court reporter that a transcript is needed. The rule pules in the lower tribunal. The purpose also establishes the responsibility of the designat- of the rule isto a give the parties an opportunity he - have the appellate proceedings leaded rise ing party to initially bear the cost of the tran- record before the lower tribunal. This ruleie script. not impose on the lower tribunal or the court a Subsection (b)12) replaces former Rule SAW. duty to review on their own the adequacy of the o This rule provides for the form of the transcript. preparation of the record. A failure to suppir and imposes on the reporter the affirmative duty merit the record after notice by the court may be of delivering copies of the transcript to the order- held against the party at fault i ing patties upon request. Such a request may be Section (g) requires that the record in civil cases included in the designation. Under Section (e), be returned to the lower tribunal after final dWW however, the responsibility for ensuring perform- sition by the court regardless of whether the ance remaitu with the parties. The requirement original record or a copy was used. The eoott that pages be consecutively numbered is new and may retain or return the record in criminal ease s+. is deemed necessary to assure continuity and ease according to its internal administration potida, of reference for the convenience of the court 1980 Amendment (287 So.2d M). Sections This requirement applies even where two or more (b)(1) and (2) were amended to specify that the . parties designate portions of the proceedings for party designating portions of the transcript for transcription. It is intended that the transcript inclusion in the record on appeal shall pay for the portions trar►srriitted to the court constitute a cost of transcription and shall pay for and furninke single consecutively numbered document in one or a copy of the portions designated for all opposing more volumes not exceeding 200 pages each. parties. See Rule 9.420(b) and 1980 Amendment Where there is more than one court reporter. the thereto relating to limitations of number of cop- , clerk will renumber the pages of the transcript ies copies so that they are sequential. The require- ment of a complete index at the begmmg of each Rule 9.210. Briefs volume is new, and is necessary to standardize the format and for the guidance of those prepar- ia) Generally. In addition to briefs on j mg transcripts. Lion under Rule 9.120(d), the only briefs pe 520 I ZZtNlLIMIL 270i Day A%w= Lot 1, Locs 13 and 14 and the S 1/2 of Lct 12 M. DAY (3-16) P.R.D.C. AFPLIC=/Cwb= Hezz A. Carr l.Lo 338 Mi C rca Avenue Coral Gables. Fl= rt% M 2.1/6 Rerdentia -Office 1 w-1, vs r Appeal by an aggrieved party of he Z 1 's docz== tb allow the Class B Special Partmt for valet Farkirg - `..:s the psopased cf4-4 oe building to be located at 27M Day Avenue. CL15 Zmmr.2 FM aW.AL OF AFPM. Class B Per= for valet pam q, • Permit no. 8-86- OM O was appstiv+ed and issued after review by staff and found to ua*t t`w i.mt= and z gire,,.w= of the City of Miamt Ordinance 95M is effect at the time of appu=t=. . PLAbID= & VJM.IC This was referred to the Depar *+w= of Pla=i W M M2AIMMM and Public Works. Their response is included in mwos dated December :5 and 9, 1987. GADS CzMay FVBUC wMUM No aaaCfiMts . ZCU= BOARD At its meezi=9 of Febru=y 22. 1988, hA Zaz- Board adopted Res. WZB 88-17 by a 7-0 vate defpry this item. At its meeting of Maras 21. 1988. :he 7-nn-ing Board adopted Res. TZB 86-27 by a 7-0 vote c.=ss:uirg this -,um to May 2. 1988, far clarificat= and at the request of the appellee. At its meeting of May 2, 1988, the Zoning Board adopted Res. #ZB 66-88, by a 9-0 vote, continuing this item to June 6, 1988. At its meeting of June 6, 1988, the Zoning Board adopted Res. 76-88, by a 7-2 vote, denying the .appeal and upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Sixteen proponents and one opponent present at meetino. APPEAL Letter from Lucia Anton, Don Gruber, Brooks Brierlex, Ralph Rubin, and Estelle Roth dated June 17, 1988. A 'Rol i ,6 3 • z CKS N AVE. F , z1 2 3 F' -2 � S `Ii fly 6 7 5 g 60 .. So I�p� , 50 li5o 8 OJET GEM j.;:,- SHIPPING AVE. :to r 1�" far•/�� Q. a. ! 8 1 � J g I cz cn z � 23 za ' I ` 24 = 7 \\ • I� om doom PIM2. N I �{;• '. �� •y +�.. . i� `' ... .mot .. � ... i Ui . Q r N ' N W i 1 i i DAY AVE . •±Ri••� i•�i •:'rill • f::��a�lk'•,. i j • I •Y .;."+`•' .. ��.�!r•., •; �•Il•''i. �),.� �� •�!�t•• , • .. •'R• v •4 701 Day Avenue i op ccL j� RC7-6FiET /� C111y HEAR '88 JUN 17 P 2 :24 June 17,1988 CITY OF MIAMI Hearing Boards Division Building & Zoning Department 275 N.W. 2nd Street, Room 230 Miami, Florida 33128 "HAND DELIVERED" Attn: Ms. Gloria Fox Hearing Board Div. Chief Re: Appeal of Special Class B Permit #86-0060 for Valet Parking at 2701 Day Avenue; and Appeal of Class C Permit #C-88-848 also for 2701 Day, Miami, Florida ------------------------------------------------ Dear Ms. Fox: Pleacc be advised that the undersigned condominium associations listed below and their respective members hereby submit the $800 in filing fees required for the two appeals, of the above reference, to the Commission of the City Of Miami. 1%le kindly request that our appeal be scheduled for after 6:00 p.m. so that,the members of our neighborhood may all attend after work. Sinc P ly, Mr. Do G uber, President TIGER BAY CONDOMINIUM ASSO. 2715 Tigertail Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Mr. Brooks Brierley for APOGEE CONDOMINIUM ASSO. 3126 Center Street Miami, Florida 33133 i Mrs. Lucia Anton, Vice Pres. CENTERVIEW TOWNHOUSE ASSO. 3165 Center St. #3 Miami, Florida 33133 Mr. fRal Rubin, President APOGEE II CONDOMINIUM ASSO. 3166 Center Street Miami, Florida 33133 � ,�,�.1.�-� �.��' mil.• Mrs. Estelle Roth of TOWNSCAPE HOMEOWNERS ASSO. 2778 Day Avenue #2 Miami, Florida 33133 IRS-C,fjfj . * 4 C4i#u of C�Iittmi EDITH M. FUENTES Director CERTIFIED MAIL Ms. Jane McGeary 3165 Center Street, #3 Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Ms. McGeary: CESAR H. ODIO City Manager June 29, 1988 Re: Appeals of Zoning Board's Decision Regarding the Class B Special Permit - 2701 Day On Thursday, July 14, 1988, the City Commission Hearing after 5:00 PM in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, will consider the following: Review of the Zoning Board's decision of June 6, 1988, to deny the appeal of the Class B Special Permit, B-86- 0060 and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the Class B Special Permit for valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue. Please be advised that the City Commission required that, both the appellant and petitioner, if different, be present at the meeting. GDF:nl Sincerely, oriiaajFox BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Rs+661 �I 27S N.W. 2nd Street/P.O.Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233.0708/130SI 350-79S7 �'Q � , C�it� �f c�Tii �zm EDITH M. FUENTES c��y �F�•. CESAR H. ODIO Director ; /�'" "ram 7i City Manager June 29, 1988 CERTIFIED MAIL Alberto R. Cardenas, Esq. Re: Appeals of Zoning Board's Greenberg, Traurig, et. al. Decision Regarding the 1221 Brickell Avenue Class B Special Permit - Miami, Florida 2701 Day Dear Mr. Cardenas : On Thursday, July 14, 1988, the City Commission Hearing after 5:00 PM in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, will consider the following: Review of the Zoning Board's decision of June 6, 1988, to deny the appeal of the Class B Special Permit, B-86- 0060 and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the Class B Special Permit for valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue. Please be advised that the City Commission required that both the appellant and petitioner, if different, be present a* the meeting. GDF:nl Sin //erreely,,, OGYoria Fox BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 275 N.W. 2nd Street/P.O.Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233-0708/13051 350-7957 C4itu of ��ittmi EDITH M. FUENTES Director CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Richard J. Heisenbottle 2778 Day Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. Heisenbottle: CESAR H. ODIO Citv Manager June 29, 1988 Re: Appeals of Zoning Board's Decision Regarding the Class B Special Permit - 2701 Day On Thursday, July 14, 1988, the City Commission Hearing after 5:00 PM in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, will consider the following: Review of the Zoning Board's decision of June 6, 1988, to deny the appeal of the Class B Special Permit, B-86- 0060 and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the Class B Special Permit for valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue. Please be advised that the City Commission required that both the appellant and petitioner, if different, be present at the meeting. GOF:nl Sin erely, oria Fox BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 275 N.W. 2nd Street/P.O.Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233-0708/(305) 350-7957 C)V �L`L•F af Iffiann* EDITH M. FUENTES Director CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Lewis Jamieson 3165 Center Street, #2 Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. Jamieson: CESAR H. ODIO City Manager June 29, 1988 Re: Appeals of Zoning Board's Decision Regarding the Class B Special Permit - 2701 Day On Thursday, July 14, 1988, the City Commission Hearing after 5:00 PM in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, will consider the following: Review of the Zoning Board's decision of June 6, 1988, to deny the appeal of the Class B Special Permit, B-86- 0060 and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the Class B Special Permit for valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue. Please be advised that the City Commission requir:d that both the appellant and petitioner, if different, be present at the meeting. GOF:nl Sincerely, (—;�74 Iria Fox BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT r)R�4f T 275 N.W. 2nd Street/P.O.8ox 330708/Miami, FL 33233-0708/(3051 350-7957 ( J f CW R t izt i EDITH M. FUENTES c�� oPtij Director = June 29, 1988 CERTIFIED MAIL CESAR H. ODIO City Manager Re: Appeals of Zoning Board's Mr. Tim Kelsey Decision Regarding the 3165 Center Street, #2 Class B Special Permit - Miami, Florida 33133 2701 Day Dear Mr. Kel sey: On Thursday, July 14, 1988, the City Commission Hearing after 5:00 PM in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, will consider the following: Review of the Zoning Board's decision of June 6, 1988, to deny the appeal of the Class B Special Permit, B-86- 0060 and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the Class B Special Permit for valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue. Please be advised that the City Commission required that both the appellant and petitioner, if different, be present at the meeting. GDF:nl Sin erely, govria Fox BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 275 N.W. Ind Street/P.O.Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233-0708/13051 350-7957 C4itLT of C�.Ri�zmi EDITH M. FUENTES Director CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Michael J. Freeman, P.A. 153 Sevilla Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dear Mr. Freeman: CESAR H. ODIO City Manager June 29, 1988 Re: Appeals of Zoning Board's Decision Regarding the Class B Special Permit 2701 Day On Thursday, July 14, 1988, the City Commission Hearing after 5:00 PM in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, will consider the following: Review of the Zoning Board's decision of June 6, 1988, to deny the appeal of the Class B Special Permit, B-86- 0060 and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the Class B Special Permit for valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue. Please be advised that the City commission required that both the appellant and petitioner, if different, be present at the meeting. GDF:nl 4or erely, ia Fox BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT R8`6V6, 275 N.W. 2nd Street/P.O.Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233-0708/13051 350.7957 4 C4i#u of ��Iittmi EDITH M. FUENTES Director CERTIFIED MAIL or CO f June 29, 1988 CESAR H. ODIO City Manager Mrs. Estelle Roth Re: Appeals of Zoning Board's Townscape Homeowners Assoc. Decision Regarding the 2778 Day Avenue Class B Special Permit - Miami, Florida 33133 2701 Day Dear Mrs. Roth: On Thursday, July 14, 1988, the City Commission Hearing after 5:00 PM in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, will consider the following: Review of the Zoning Board's decision of June 6, 1988, to deny the appeal of the Class B Special Permit, B-86- 0060 and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the Class B Special Permit for valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue. Ple-se be advised that the City Commission required that both the appellant and petitioner, if different, be present at the meeting. GDF:nl 4Sin erely, G on a Fox BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT RNA" 66 275 N.W. 2nd Street/P.O.Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233-0708/13051 350-7957 G ►�itLT of ��Ti.ami EDITH M. FUENTES Director CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Ralph Rubin, President Apogee II Condominium Assoc. 3166 Center Street Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. Rubin: r op gp�ccF O CESAR H. ODIO City Manager June 29, 1988 Re: Appeals of Zoning Board's Decision Regarding the Class B Special Permit - 2701 Day On Thursday, July 14, 1988, the City Commission Hearing after 5:00 PM in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, will consider the following: Review of the Zoning Board's decision of June 6, 1988, to deny the appeal of the Class B Special Permit, 8-86- 0060 and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the Class B Special Permit for valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue. Please be advised that the City Commission required that both the appellant and petitioner, if different, be present at the meeting. GDF:nl 4Sin erely, 4!�a- G on a Fox BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT c7c7�••�6f` I V / 275 N.W. 2nd StreevP.O.Box 330708/Mums. FL 33233-0709/(305) 350-7957 � t# " �f e~ t nti EDITH M. FUENTES Director CERTIFIED MAIL Mrs. Lucia Anton, Vice Pres. Centerview Townhouse Assoc. 3165 Center Street, #3 Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mrs. Anton: CESAR H. ODIO City Manager June 29, 1988 Re: Appeals of Zoning Board's Decision Regarding the Class B Special Permit - 2701 Day On Thursday, July 14, 1988, the City Commission Hearing after 5:00 PM in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, will consider the following: Review of the Zoning Board's decision of June 6, 1988, to deny the appeal of the Class B Special Permit, B-86- 0060 and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the Class B Special Permit for valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue. Please be advised that the City Commission required that both the appellant and petitioner, if different, be present at the meeting. GDF:nl S i ny erely, WGo n a Fox BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT cam+ 275 N.W. 2nd Street/P.O.Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233-0708/(305) 350-7957 66�• EDITH M. FUENTES Director CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Brooks Brierley Apogee Condominium Assoc. 3126 Center Street Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. Brierley: CESAR H. ODIO City Manager June 29, 1988 Re: Appeals of Zoning Board's Decision Regarding the Class B Special Permit - 2701 Day On Thursday, July 14, 1988, the City Commission Hearing after 5:00 PM in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, will consider the following: Review of the Zoning Board's decision of June 6, 1988, to deny the appeal of the Class B Special Permit, 8-86- 0060 and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the Class B Special Permit for valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue. Please be advised that the City Commission required that both the appellant and petitioner, if different, be present at the meeting. ,Vnia Fox GDF:nl RA-ssF� T C4itu of fffia t* EDITH M. FUENTES Director CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Don Gruber, President Tiger Bay Condominium Assoc. 2715 Tigertail Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. Gruber: CESAR H. ODIO City Manager June 29, 1988 Re: Appeals of Zoning Board's Decision Regarding the Class B Special Permit - 2701 Day On Thursday, July 14, 1988, the City Commission Hearing after 5:00 PM in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, will consider the following: Review of the Zoning Board's decision of June 6, 1988, to deny the appeal of the Class B Special Permit, B-86- 0060 and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the Class B Special Permit for valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue. Please be advised that the City Commission required that both the appellant and petitioner, if different, be present at the meeting. GDF:nl Sincerely, oria Fox FjA-66C BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 275 N.W. 2nd Street/P.O.Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233-0708/(3051 350-7957 4K C4i#Li of fffian-ti EDITH M. FUENTES ,I oR�. Director F'" Q.. u•... = P•;q �EC-�4\0 June 29, 1988 CERTIFIED MAIL CESAR H. ODIO City Manager Re: Appeals of Zoning Board`s Mr. Hernando A. Carillo Decision Regarding the 338 Minorca Avenue Class B Special Permit - Coral Gables, Florida 2701 Day Dear Mr. Carillo: On Thursday, July 14, 1988, the City Commission Hearing after 5:00 PM in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, will consider the following: Review of the Zoning Board's decision of June 6, 1988, to deny the appeal of the Class B Special Permit, B-86- 0060 and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the Class B Special Permit for valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue. Please be advised that the City Commission required that both the appellant and petitioner, if different, be present at the meeting. GDF:nl Sin erely, ,troria Fox BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 275 N.W. 2nd Street/P.O.Box 330708/Miami, FL 33233-0708/(305) 350-7957 f314$61i4 C4tt� of �Rtttritt EDITH M. FUENTES 1( °F4. CESAR H. ODIO Director F'" "'�. ^ ems. City Manager GfCOFLDa June 29, 1988 CERTIFIED MAIL Mrs. Marien Spinrad Re: Appeals of Zoning Board's Apogee Condominium Assoc. Decision Regarding the 3138 Center Street Class B Special.Permit - Miami, Florida 33133 2701 Day Dear Mrs. Spinrad: On Thursday, July 14, 1988, the City Commission Hearing after 5:00 PM in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, will consider the following: Review of the Zoning Board's decision of June 6, 1988, to deny the appeal of the Class B Special Permit, B-86- 0060 and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the Class B Special Permit for valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue. Please be advised that the City Commission required that both the appellant and petitioner, if different, be present at the meeting. GOF:nl Sincerely, oria Fox 9R-66C BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT a M 275 N.W. 2nd Street/P.O.Box 330708/Miami. FL 33233 0708/1305) 350-7957 � % C4i#U of ��Ttami EDITH M. FUENTES vt't 0 CESAR H. ODIC) Director ='r "� += Citv Manager ' CC F�OP\O June 29, 1988 CERTIFIED MAIL Re: Appeals of Zoning Board's Mr. Jim McMaster Decision Regarding the 2940 S.W. 30 Court Class 8 Special Permit Miami, Florida 33133 2701 Day Dear Mr. McMaster: On Thursday, July 14, 1988, the City Commission Hearing after 5:00 PM in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, will consider the following: Review of the Zoning Board's decision of June 6, 1988, to deny the appeal of the Class B Special Permit, B-86- 0060 and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the Class B Special Permit for valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue. Please be advised that the City Commission required that both the appellant and petitioner, if different, be present at the meeting. GDF:nI Si cerely, on a Fox BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 275 N.W. 2nd Street/P.O.Box 330708/Miami• FL 33233-0708/13051 350.7957 4N ' LUC1A A. DOUGHERTY City Attornev Marcn 31, 1988 Alberto R. Cardenas, Esq. Greenberg, ':raurig, askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, ?.A. 1401 3rickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 3051 579-6700 Teletooter 13051 374-A730 Re: Application :or Class 3 Special Permit File No. B870060 2701 Day Avenue, Miami, Florida Dear Mr. Cardenas: I am in receipt of your letter dated M arcn 24, 1988. I believe your ;uestio*n snould ae addressed to Ms. Gloria Fox, Chief Hearing Boards Division, Department of Auilding and Zoning. In addition you _may wish to consider the provisions of Article 30, entitled Appals From Decisions of Zoning Administrator and Director of the Department of Planning. Sincerely, "I-10�/X 1JI1114 '�ZL' G. Mir.am 4aer Assistant City Attorney GMM/rcl/P012 enclosure _c: luillerno Clmedillo Planning Department Gloria Fox, Chief Hearing Boards Division Department of Building & Zoning 1 _AW Orr,CES GRttNBERG, UU,9,110, ASKEW, HOFFMAN. LIPOFF, ROSEN 81 COUENTEL. p A. •OI BRICAEL4 AVENUE MIAMI. FLORIOA 331311 _ - TIA� �, �u>btavdl9� CBCC Swe"ARo 1081 523 5k,- - - Ij W -ELEx 80 - 312e 0 EF T. -CLCCCR•,3C51 :79 •C718 - !79 -C7I7 T 1 . . P*EST RALIA GLACr, Crr,CEC1 • '� .J' 9ROWAAO Crr,CE CALSN00 CRGL CO AUSTRALIA" AVENUE SOO EAST BROWARO BOULEVAWO a NOATIr ORANGE AVENUE SUITE 201 SUIT[ 1330 SUITE '»O «EST OAL,.1 BEACH. rLCOIOA 33400 r0R'T LAUOCOOALE. rLOR10A 33394 CRLANOO. rLOR10A 32801 3051 683.661I 3051 766-C's00 3081 6a1.2222 -r.E.CP, 3C81683.e4A7 'CL[CCrI'3C617E5 'A77-CLECCP'3C_;A22 Z�Qa A6@LIRTO R. CAROLNAS oLLA3[ R[PL� 70' 3061 579.0501 rIAr1I O►rICL March 24, 1988 Lucia A. Dougherty, 7-sq. City Attcrney City_ of :Miami One 3rd Avenue Suite 1100 Miami, ?L 331311 Re: Aoclication for Class B Special Permit No. B-87-0060 2701 Day Avenue, :Miami, FL Dear Ms. Douc:.erty : I am in receipt cf a copy of a letter from Mr. Richard :. Heisenbcttle +o us. Gloria Fox dated March 17, 1988. I am enclosing a cc-,; of that letter for your :.n-or=aticn. The curtose of this 'letter :s to ascertain the Following `_rpm you: 1. �.n _=Deal was reauested 'v letter dated .;anuary 7, 1988 of _: e _rc•:e = renced _-ass �cec� ._ ?e^;i_. As a result of that appeal our clients, in good faith, proceeded to enter -^to an agreement regarding the croDect :n question. Subsequent to that _me, a number of additional lndividuais have surfaced expressing an _merest on the ongoing appeal. 2. = have reviewed the crcposed lyst of appellants r-%:_ded to :Ms. :cx :,y :Mr. Heinsenbctt'_e i, iris letter of Marc^ _7, 1988. It is my _nderstardinc that _dditional appellants cannot -e added to an cngoing appeal ty an assigrr.:ent of t::e former appellant of his rights and interest 1n the acceal to a third Carty. This may well fall with:.r. the 'coundaries of certair. state 'laws :nvolvirg cnampertr•; etc. - AR-66fr Lucia A. 'Woughert7, Zsq. :larch 24, 1988 Page two 3. Accordingly, kindly advise me of the names and addresses of the rightful appellants of the above referenced Class 3 Special Permit. Thank you. = look forward to ::earing from you' as early as ;racticable. AC/ef Enclosure �� ::i•J routs , --~-- 8A-66C. 1 tur of iaianh,, NA EDITH M FLENTES Wt.. Ditecior !larch 24, 1988 Fernando A. Carrillo c/o C.F.C. International 338 - c-• c Coral Cables, Fla. 33134 CE5AR H. ODIO City Manager Re: 2701 Day Ave. Class B Special Permit B-86-0060 for Valet Parking Dear `".r. Carrillo: As I requested from the city of Miami Law Department, I have received a legal interpretation of paragraph 3(c) of the Declaration of Restrictions for 2701 Day Avenue. 4, interpretation is that a ten (10) foot landscape buffer area is required along tie entire northern edge of the property. Your Mans submitted for valet parking shows the ten foot ianascaped azea onl;i along the edge at lot 121 and not along the no rt ne rn edge 3 f lot '.. :'herefore, you rust suomit Sv c"ridgy, March 35, 1988, 5:00 P.K. revised Glans showing a'.1 the landscaped buffer areas required by the restrictive covenant. -ail-,;re t? submit --"e revised -fans '^v Friday will result in a revocation tre .lass . Special ?ern_t If you require any further information please contact me. Very truly yours, `set A. t,enuardi 7.Jdin Aamit:istrstor Jr1G:ga cc: Sergio Rodri;.ie7 Edich Fuentes ;uillermo 11.1eal ;loria "ox ✓ :uan ;onzaizz 12 it M)ING 1,D 10,NING DEP4RTh1ENT '•� • +irnwI PION(- till, 8 %Uami. rt.33:J3.O7O8/f3O5l 350.7957 88-ssG , - A Mr. George Barxet offered the :ollowina Reaolutibn and moved its adoction. RESOLUTION ZB 2`-66 RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE TO MAY I, 1988, FOR CLARIFICATION AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLEE, THE APPEAL BY AN AGGRIEVED PARTY OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO ALLOW THE CLASS 3 SPECIAL PERMIT FOR VALET PARKING FOR THE PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2701 DAY AVENUE ALSO DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, LOTS 13 AND 14 AND THE S1/ 2 OF LOT 12, CORNELIA M. DAY (3-16 ) P.R.D.C., ZONED RO-2.1/6 RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE. Upon being seconded by ,Ms. Gloria Basila, the :notion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Ms. Morales, Basila and Skubish Messrs. Barkec, Dunn, Sands and Alonso-Poch NAYES: :lone ABSENT: Koran, Luaces and Mayor Ms. Fox: Motion carries 7 to 0. Ix CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIOA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM F11e `March :3, _?88 �aTE rILE. �701A _3it^ M. Fuentes :)irector 3ui14"1ng & Zoning Ze SUOJECT REFERENCES 1` ent ENCLOSURES. Zoning 3oard Resolution "' 88-18 Pursuant to Zoning Board Resolution Z 88-18 which deferred i--em 3 of the Zoning Board agenda of February 22, 1988 and further directed staff `.a investigate and report on various questions posed by 'Ms Lucia Anton, the attached are my findings: EmF/1s cc: Sergio Rodriguez Chairman s Members of the Zoning 2oard 31orta Fox Joseph A. Genuardi Lucia Anton 31_55 Center Street 'Miami, Florida (apt 1) f3f3-b4i� 01T`r CF MIAMI. ='_OR10A INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM edit:: :d. ?uentes =aTe Director ` SUOJECr 'os A. senuardi i n =�^ l •' QE CqG ='A .. ra_..i5 Add-m s ra'.... F_ !vCES °uilding v_, Zoning :ecar:me.n.t ENCLCSURES warcz 13, '?88 C,LE Response to letter dated February 25, ....c_a An tzn.I s •:: Prior to the approval of the Class 3 permit the requirement of the Declaration of Restrictions, items 3c, was discussed wit:: the Planning Department. The question was whether the 10 foot landscaped buffer area was required along the entire northern boundary of the property, along lot 12 and lot 1. The Planning Department. indicated that the intent was to place a buffer only along the northerly side abutting residentially zoned property (RG-2.1/3.3). Since the property abutting lot is zoned SPI-13, which per-aits not only commercial .;ses tut also building to the property line, the buffer would not oe needed along that boundary. l therefore approved the Class 3 permit indicating the 10 Foot landzcapped buffer only along the northerly boundary abutting lot 12. At this time since the question has come up again 1 requested an opinion from the law epartme.n.t. l have been gl•.ren an opinion that the ,rordin3 of the 3eclaraticn of Restrictions is such that .he :C foot _a ccape buf.lrpn Should :e required along tLe entire n or rn' etn cound any of t^e property whicn includes the portion at lot 1. law 2epart;ment suggests t::at we allow the applicant the opportunity to seek modificaticns at the City Commission on Thursday ani that "hey would 'support suc:: :-.odiflcation since the ten (10) foot lands- ^a^e^ area d,es n^ Zan..c any til^^osa __o.g :.e add' -- -'t as it acute ,..1-_3 Conln3 and includes a wall along .`.:e nort:: : roper^: lire ?ending :01n.al isp.s` i_on C'e :.aw '-aCart'IIent would re -c mand Je fer" l of the appeal at t::e Zoning Board on Xonday evening Xarcn -4 1988 and Kitt holding any action on my part relating to the Class 2 permit. HS-661C Richard Heisenbottle 2778 Day avenue -= Miami, ?'_orida 1-3133 Marc:: 17 , � 9 8 8 Ms. "iorLa .cx Cit'f of ".lami Planning Department 275- N.W. Znd Street Miami, Florida 1-3128 Re: Application for Class 8 Special Permit File No.B-87-0060' 701 Day Avenue, Miami Dear Gloria, As I stated to you in my original letter of January 7th, 1988, requesting an appeal of the Crass-3 per- mit on the above reference property, : representing both myself, :'ownscape Homeowners Association Inc. of which. : am president, and host of other resi- dents of the neighborhood and their respective con- dominium association. Since that time : have nad ongoing dialogue with the developer of the oroo- erty, Hernando A. Corillo. As a result of -nese discussions some members of the original homeowners grouW have reach an agreement with the developer, wnile others :^.ave not. Accordingly, since the group as a hole cannot reach a unanimous consensus and :n order to prctect the rights of appeal by each of the p.-rt:es and home- owners assoc-at-,on involved, am cy :n:s letter request_. - -na: 7te riant ._ _pcea_ grunted ne a, representative _ 7!.tj fir, ce ex- tended to each and every person :n theVor%ainal grout indiv-dual -I rhis _,St s:lould nc' .ice ! e following: Centerview Townhouse Assoc. Lucia Antcn 3165 Center Street Miami, Lewis amieson 3165 Center Street, :2 Miami , yr -ane "McGeory rr P U TIGER BAY CCNDCM:NIUM ASSOC. c/o Mr. :on Gruber, ?resident 2715 T_gertail Avenue - = Miami, FT - APOGEE =NDOMINIUM ASSOC. 3128 Center Street Miami, FL 23133 AT'.N: Mrs. mar --en Spinrad C NTERV::n :CWNSHOUSE ASSCC, c/o ,r. :.ewis Jamieson 3165 Center Street, 43 APOGiE :i CONDOMINIUM ASSOC. c/o Mr. Ralph Rubin, President 3166 Center Street Miam:, FL 33133 Tim Kelsey 3165 Center Street, 42 Miami, FL 33133 Brooks Brierly 3129 Center Street Miami, FL 33133 Mr. y Mrs. Rubin Roth 2778 Day Avenue Miami, FL 33133 Upon receipt of this letter, please make the appro- priate notat-ons _n your file. By copy of _.lis letter, I am note:yino eacn of tne-ndividuals sted that :hev -may cont-nue the-, appeal id, - vzdual_y by contact-na your office. :'hanr, you aga-n, fbr .,our _ont-nuud coocerat-_ . ve -ruiv : rs , Ri6,and J , He_sen�ottle RJH/en cc: Hernanav ccriiio Joe Genuarc- 25; METROF71. -. 'N DADE =='NTV C;,C;RiCA T V. - L'!' July 16, 1985 ur.=zrnando A. Carrillo 3460 S. Dixie Highwav Coccn,.,r grove, Florida 33133 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Re: Day Avenue between S. W. 27 Avenue and Center Street Dear Mr. Carrillo: 'his is in response to your -uly 3, 1985 letter to cur office with reference to traffic improvements at the above subject location. For the convenience of the tenants and visitors to the office building to be constructed at 2701 and 3191 Day Avenue, you requested that Jay Avenue be converted to a two-way street between Center Street and S. ,. 27 Avenue. Current-;:, Day Avenue has a paved width of 19 1;2 feet, which is too rarr=w for two-way usage. .e concur with your proposal to have Day Avenue converted to a tiro -way street between -Center Street and S. 4. 27 avenue, with the following stipulations: 1. Dav avenue must be widened to 24 feet between Center Street and S. W. Z7 Avenue. 2. All eastbound traffic cn 0ay Avenue must cu rn right at _. ', . =7 Avenue. 3. All additional pavement, signing, and pavement markings must be providea the developers. 4. Plans for the above work must be provided by the developers for our review and approval. .f ..ou ha•.e any questions resarding this matter, ;lease contact !1r. ;aff 'hen of this office at 379-3896. Very tr ly •ours . r^ 7. C r ies Chief, Highway 0,dAsion :;:ol.:C,'a: 8A-6f C, CITY OF MIAMI. PLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM -� Gloria Fox, Chief 2ATE March :S, :988 VILE Rearing Boards Division susJEC- 2701 Day Avenue - Anton Class B Permit 86-0060 -40 `64 =dita y. Fuentes, Direct 4EFERENCES Building S Zoning Depart= I ENCLOSURES Regarding a custodian for all the files/records on this property, please be informed that Z have designated you, as Chief of Hearing Boards Division to act in this capacity. Please note the request that all items in the file be tagged, cept intact and available :or research by interested parties. cc: Sergio Rodriguez, Assistant City Manager Joe Genuarzi, Zoning Administrator Central File EMF:=c 88-66 i - C11-f OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM it d -o Sergio Rodriguez MATt: !larch 1 S , .988 ME. Assistant City !!anager SUDJECT 2701 Day Ave - Anton Class 3 Permit 86-0060 cgO,M. 1 1 REFERENCES Edith :".. :'uentes Building S Zoning .ec.t:,r 1, ENCLOSURES. Attached please rind a memorandum from Joe Genuardi, Zoning Administrator, addressing the various questions raised by Mrs. Lucia Anton in reference to the Class 3 permit application for 2701 Day Avenue. Regardidg a custodian for all the files/records on this same property, please be informed that I have designated Gloria Fox, Chief of Hearing Boards Division to act in this capacity. If you need a -iv other information or rant us to do anything further, please 'eel free to contact me. cc: Joe Genuardi, Zoning administrator (,ertoria Fox, Chief of Hearing Boards Central File EXF : me RR-666 CITY ^.F MIAMI. F>_ORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM Edith '�. =uen-:es Director l = 4 � use ;. :enuardi ..onln.g Administrator 'Marc- 1 ?88 . �A7E rILE Response to :enters from '"°jEC! Lucia Anton. to Sergio Rodriguez dated February - f =EFERENCES- ENCLCSURES :. ernando A. Carrillo submitted notarized application and has indicated that he is one of the owners of may Center Corporation and as such is authorized to sign the application for a Class 3 Permit. 2. Subsection 221,01.3 mandates referrals of Class 9 permits only as required --y t:i1s Zoning Crdinan.ce. _here is no mandatory referral required under subsection 2017.: for a class 3 per -nit for attendent parking. Therefor, the referral within five ? working ..ays toes not apply and any - referral is discretionary on the part of the ?oning Administrator who decides whether, he requires input From other departments, agencies or -officer :ade ra-fere^..ce ..,J_.^. my memo 4ated :enem--er :M 1987 for .ontlnuing to process the appll_-at;iJn for .::e Class 3 CQrm!.. the fact ^A^7aI::s t::a. :,.6 submitted in November ^f 1?86 was a complete application and was in a continous process from that time Anti= the time _t was issued. l had reviewed the a l PP--•- catioc, and plans and -a en tentatpe^d-^z the additior.a: -oni^'_ _.._ 1�.. ^on••: =� ^e �.a� s row=ssor. _he -1-0 11Wi:aticr. on� the p er'_cd :' time �rithin whian application :^.as to be processed was valved by mutual agreement between the 3ppllcan : and t^e :it; .f '•1_ani throng^ :':e Zon ng Administrator. -s indicated under no. 2 referrals were not mandatory. ;11 the _C72Me .:u-_:^1tted ^.sidered and .^es0_';ea to my . ati:J''raC_r 1`3n. _7oe ...^.a.nges m were made, Such as tJ the loading spaces to accomodate Some :f the :dncerns _nd12ated owever, t^e aut'narity to :eternlne wnet.^.er t::e proposal meets the intent �f the Zoning :rdinance and wn ether :r not in light of ccmments made. _t. violates. :r _s contrary to any terms, requirements or purposes of the ordin nce is with t^e Zoni.^.g administrator. Some .: the :omme.^.ts lade ty ubl1., worir.s were cutsiidde cf ?age 2 Edith M. ?uentes March 13, 19188 The possibility of -raking -ay avenue `wo way was added as.an additional point .resented ty t..e app16 1--ant, in the event .•..at a vehicle has to exit and re-enter parking area. however, the .;gain point is that an attendent who knows his/her ob will not waste his/her time taking cars around several blocks but will zoordinate it so that the hew spaces in question :13 :ut -3 Oril1, ce u-.:1ioed :ri^3 -he slow ^eri.d. As : ar ;s when i`, is lime to 'eave there would be noproblem since .here would be no cars stacked waiting to be parked. The Zoning urainance aces not require tnat proper;, owners within 375' have to be advised of a Class B or a Class C permit. Notification however, is being done by the Planning Department out of courtesy, for class C permits and only to adjacent property owners. in this particular situation the neighborhood association was aware of the pending Class B and were kept informed through Mr. Jim McMaster. R8-66�r l4 ?age Edith '4. 'Fuentes Marcn :988 � . :he possi._y of makin; -ay Avenue two way was added as ;n additional point presented ty .::e applicant, in t:.e eve ..`.at a vehicle :as :a exit and re-enter parking area. However, .he main toint is t:;at an attendent 'who knows his/her ob will not waste his/her -,:.me taking cars around several blocks but ;+ill coordinate it so that the few spaces In question (13 out "1) will to utilie^: �'ur_^ t e per' t :'a =s ne^ s time .o :eavey :ere would to nor, ronlem since there wou-.. _e no cars stacked waiting .o to parked. :he Toning Ordinance toes not require :hat property owners within 3iShtive to me advised of a Class B or a Class C permit. Notification however, is being done by the Planning Department out of courtesy, for class C permits and only _ to ad4acent property owners. T_n :his particular situation the neighborhood association was aware of the pending Class 3 and were kept informed through Mr. jim McMaster. Letter to Ms. Ed' -': u. 7,1e^.tes Prior to the approval of :he ;:ass 3 permit the requirernent :of the :Declaration of Restriztions, items 33, was discussed with .he Plannin3 Department. 7he question was whether the :0 foot landscaped buffer area was required along the entire northern toundary of, -.lie property, along Dot 12 and lot 1. The ?'_anning :;ecarsment _ndicatet that the _ntent was to place a buffer only _long .he northerly side aoutting residentially zoned property (RG-2.1/3.3). Since the property abutting lot 1 is zoned CPT_-:3, wnich permits not only 2cmmerclal .13es but also tuildi.^.g .o -he property :ink', the bu1,fa.^ would not be needed along .nat toundar;; . `.herefzre approved the .lass 3 per^�J t indicating .he 12 foot �andscapped buffer :n'_y along t~� nort.".erly boundary abut V _Jt 12. At : on his time since .he questi^.as come :p a'^ :ne law ..?par:7,e.' .. _ n1aVe ::-en V T' :a. -.re wor__. _f .ne T_ec.aration cf =estr_....itr.s _3 suc.n -:at ..e :J root landscape :Duffer should be required along the entire nor".:ern coundar;; -Df the prone.rt whiC : :nci;' es .he portion at lot 1. nave _nformed .he applicant .hat, .:nless -_ receive a revised winz snowing .-e_re: 3_0. -"ie records and minutes JL -e . , actual intent of .:.e :ec:ar_titn as profttered at :he ^earings. :hey ^.ave .nformea me, .oday %!arcn _y, 1988, that they �+il: iave revised p'.ans this weeK. HS-66F March 9, 1988 Ms. Lucia Dougherty City Attorney CITY OF MIAMI One S.E. 3rd Avenue Suite 1100 "HAND DELIVERED" Miami, Florida 33131 Re: Lot 1, Lot 13, Lot 14 and the southern 1/2 of Lot 12, all within the CORNELIA M. DAY SUBDIVISION, recorded in Plat Book 3, at Page 16 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. ------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Ms. Dougherty: As neighbors adjacent to the above referenced property, we are presently in the midst of an appeal to the Zoning Board for a Special Class B Permit for valet parking for the subject property. While reviewing the drawings submitted by the Developer, we noted that the landscape buffer indicated on said drawings is not in agreement with what was offered by the Developer at the City_cf Miami Commission meetings held on both June 20, 1985 and Auly 25, 1985 for change of zoning at 2701-03 Day Avenue & 2191 Center Street from RG-2/5 & SPI-3 Overlay to RO-2.1/6 etc. We have gotten from the City Clerk's office photocopies of the minutes to both hearings and would like to call your attention to paces 59 5 59 of the June 20th hearing and paces 156- & 157 of the ju1y Mth nearing (copies attached) . We realize that the Ceveloper also offered a draft of the Declaration of Restrictions at said hearings, but the members of the public (representing our neighborhood) and the Commissioners did not hear this draft of covenants read in its entirety; we simply heard the statements by Mr. Cardenas, the attorney representing the Developer. Subsequently, we have checked tte Declaration of Restric- tions, recorded in Official Records Book 13181 at Pages 376 to 378 on February 13, 1987 (copy also attached); and we find that what is stated in Item 2 does not contain what was offered by Mr. Cardenas at the hearings. You will note that said item 42 the document refers to lots 12, 13 and 14; cut nownere ices it refer to lot ;I. %� Ms.Lucia Dougherty March 8, 1988 Page Two This is in gross contradiction to the whole idea of the buffer offered at the hearings. The change of zonin a was for the entire property, not just the lots bordering on Center Street. Why was lot 1 ommitted? The. idea of the buffer was to separate the subject property from the adjacent residential lots. As this particular property is bordered on three sides by streets (Center Street, Day Avenue and 27th Avenue) the only major concern was its northern boundary where there are adjacent residential units. We are also enclosing a rough drawing of the property to demonstrate what was offered at the hearings; and what was, in reality, finally recorded. We address ourselves to you, as you were -legal counsel for the City of Miami in both said hearings. It would appear to us that it is the responsab�lity and duty of the Legal Department of the City of Miami to insure that what is offered -by Developers at these hearings be carried through in word .and fact .to.: the final recorded -doc=ent, in this case the Declaration of Restrictions. We strongly protest that the Declaration of Restrictions that was recorded is incorrect because of this ommission. Lot 11 is part of the property and, as so, also must have the boundary lines mentioned in Item 2 and the 10 foot landscape buffer of Item 3, paragraph c of the Declaration. We urge you please to investigate this matter and advise us as to your findings. This property has been, and still is, involved in controversy with the neighborhood. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, �� .71 LUCIA ANTON 3165 Center Street $1 Miami, Florida 33133 LOUrSE RUSIN 3166 Center Street Miami, Florida 33133 cc Xavier Suarez Miller Ji. Dawkins J.L. Plummer, Jr. Rosario Kennedy Sergio Rodriguez Gloria Fox Miriam Maer Victor De Yurre 9R-6f(;. ;resen:at__.. to ;our _f Sou recall., we planned ..t out that this parti tier intersect_:= is rc1.ct, ':he _ntersecticn a,l -�.;con-at ;:ova that :om rises _he greatest dertree cf lens=tJ and e greatest e buildir.,a etractures = tie vhole area c: :coast 3rcve. At that =e, explained :o you :hat tut :f :he .line tallest b Lldi:gs :- :he-cccnut :,rove area, six were either at the intersection or `_: the :=ediate v:c_..z:y :f _t and as such, _rented an atmosphere which vas appropriate f:r the use intended. further ore at that time explained to you that dijrect_'7 across the street on the east side of 2^th Avenue, this Commission had as recently as s.zt; days ago, approved a change vnich would rermit more square footage Of the office :ocmerc:a: tyre of apace that we were seeking, than the prozec: that we have before you this evening. : have an aerial shot which ; will snow you now of the i.:.tersection :: question. : am going to cut my rresen:ation relatively short because you heard most of these comments earlier, but : will tell you as intersection of _ h show you the intersection that it is obviously an -..:.. •=�g. density. :t has got fire co:-ners and the proposed building wilt :e by far :he shortest structure this intersection. At the time that we made our presentation and durt:ig the discussion when this Coca fission voted three to two to approve the required "hange, there were tv,i areas of great concern expressed by this Co =mission. Cne area of concern was expressed by Mayor ?erre and that was a traffic pattern that would be established :he pro:ect. :be second area of concern was by Commiasioner Carollo who wanted to see more parking on this particular facil-ty to make sure that the concern about the parking expressed by the neighbors in the area was addressed. :f you will recall, a: that time ; proffered a declaration of restricted covezam:s r:^.ic.. had teen ::1.:tar_ -rcff earlier li ,._d r :.y � erect ea. e �oy our c ea 3, whi^ s :e ..rings. -.=a, a provided a boundary line- to stay 3-G.1/3 along the =ortherr Sounds.-y of the property to prevent others in the future from, getting involved in a domino effect and maki:g sure that there were no tranaitional use arg=enta involved and that others had to appeal before this Commission, zust as we did to present their case without any automatic gimmicks. :'hat had been done last time. :,ant time we also told you that there would be no ingress or egress into or from Center Street and that, of course, was proffered i s the Declaration. : also mentioned last time that there would be an appropriate buffer on Center Street. Since we made our last presentation, and since we heat-: from the neighbors and we heard from the Coax fission, we went back and did a considerable arount of word with Dade County ?ublic Yorks Depart=en:. ; presented earlier yesterday to the City of Miami's public works a letter. :'ve given each of you a copy of that letter which addresses the traffic issue. Ybat that letter sets fort_, Mr. Mayor, if you recall, the concern was, that neighbors did not want traffic into and from Center Street and of course we had resolved that last time with the voluntary proffer --mg that we !id at no access onto and from Center Street, so that wonderful and beautiful pro; ects :here would not have additional rehicular traffic f ma�cr significance. At that time the neighbors on Day Avenue who came and testified before you also expressed ccncer3 about what appears to be a mandatory :=gress to `ay Avenue amd exi:i=g the facility, which would call for vehicular traffic ... addi:ic: l increased vehicular traffic vestwarfcr a few blocks :hrough Day Avenue, and they expressed concern about that issue, and you, Mr. Mayor, pigZy bacred on that concern and wanted to get a better idea as to what we plan to do about the traffic, so we have cone with a letter before you this evening and brought this to meetings, a n,=ber of =eetingb which we had with Dade County Public Yorks, where Dade County endorses the i.aea of a two-way Day Avenue c._y Canter Street ... o�,y ,..•il Center _Street, so .t s: __ effect, the only neig 'ccrs using the two way avenue would be those wco live in the sixth story apartment building i=ediately acrosa the street on Day, and :he aaers of :his particular pro,`,ect, my clients. :a effect, what we will be doi g is, we will be leaeenisg the traffic going westward on :ay Avenue because we will be providing the neighbors across the street, that apartment :ui:d:ng, with access onto 27th Avenue that they now don't have! : think you will recall a neighbor st that time said that he often :i=es did some:.._ng ne a:ou:4n . lave :y cutting from :ay onto 4--th Avenue. ':e will remedy t::st roc:em. 'Sot only will we do that, but as you can see from the Dade County letter, --at two way from 27 th through Center Street will be widened by e-Z. seven, fee: :o comply with the County requirements azd that will be at our expenee, so that the City will. benefit by it, the neighbors in the area w:11 benefit by it and the traffic flow of our protect will be confined to the area of Day Avenue .:p to ;eater Street only and Z-t:: Avenue, which _ t"-Ink is a ;erfect answer to that situation which you had expressed. At any rate, Mr. yayor and =enters of .ne :m.:ass:cn, at .::at ._=e : ^ad expla:zea that the amount of traffic could Increase by the •use of this pro;;ect would act aven be :onsidered moderate - .-sffirs. ex.'a-ned that the mop' `hat we _ ex^er :culd have r. this particular pro; ect You!! -era total --' oars. 'ie nave mow of :curse, agreed to _..crease that =-=ber tased on Coaissioner -'are-:o'e auggeati:a, through cur Ceclarat:on. where we proffered to add C% Wore parxi :g than is required. •ie also at that t,Ae stated that if we developed it as :t is presently toned, we could have twenty some cars there parked a: times which would be different from commercial times and would •-ecc=e =ore conflictive to the residents of the area, so the traffic was minimal :o begr. with. tie have gone cut of our way to go to the County Public Yorks and :-.me up with the answer that you requested. We also satisfied ^.o=miss_c=er ^aroll:'s request to provide additional Parking by the voluntary Declaration which we have also proffered and three, and this we did because of Ynat we thought were some of the neighbors's cc^ents. We have voluntarily agreed also to provide a ten foot buffer on the northern boundary of the property, and a five foot buffer onto Center Street. And we agreed that we will Provide landscaping buffer tone and a ten foot buffer zone, of course, to allow us to plant tall and fast graving trees which will be amenable to the neighborhood, : am sure. So, basically, let me rat the back the project in perspective, again. :t is a total tot area of about 27,C00 square feet; gross lot area of about 1,-0,000 square feet. he max-J-= buildout will approximately between 32,000, 34,000 square. feet. We will provide ample parking. We will Provide landscaping, additional then required. We will provide for the widening of Day Avenue onto Center Street only We will minimise the traffic impact. We will be good neighbors, and =ore importantly, land uae wise will be '.: 'seeping with that _mtersectio=. As you reme=ber, the east side of D"th. faci=g cur property has been rezoned to pe:-i: =ore square f:otage cf :ffice space aid we are requesting where the entrance to the business area of :ocenu: 4rove - it is a well balanced entrance, having the usage on the east and the vest aide and we respect:l.y request therefore that based on what we presented cast time, based on the additional profferings that have been made today, that this Co=:scion approve the requested zoning change. have here with me, and : failed to introduce her, 'cast time as you mow, my client, part time developer, ^all tine football player, William Judson was here. !Unfortunately, he is now under the rigors and requirements of Don Shula, and he is not here, but his wife Casandra is here and she is here with us this evening, so : apologize for mot having i=troduced her earlier, and of course will be more than happy to answer any questions or comments. Mayor ?erne: Ali right, yr. '"nipple. Mr. 'e'hipYle: yr. Mayor, j;st one thing that really pops out and perhaps Mr. Cazpbell would like to co.=eat further. But, as we know, when you travel Day Avenue, it is one way fr:= 27th Avenue over to ?+ary Street, at '._tie :t becomes two way. _ don't profess to be a traffic engineer, but it becomes difficult for me to accept 3X feet of tvo-ray traffic for 27t1., to Cen:er; 3(;0 :ore feet of one-way traffic from Center to Mary and then two-way traffic fro= Mary :a. :'his, to me, does not Ware good pla=:.ng sense, let alone tr of f is sense. : don't believe the solution being proposed is one that would suggest that it would =are this a better development and have lees impact on the t` im?. the confusion result" from this type of pattern com.:..uti.y because, : .._ a,3 yr would be core confusing to the area than it would be a benefit.. yr. --ardema8: Mr. Xayor, let me put I -.this way. 'is would be wl-li=g t: :save of the :curse the situation alone, It is =ore convenient f:r cur client - : was under the impression that the City was exploring different traffic possibilities and opportunities and : merely showed the letter to Indicate to the City that those opportunities are available, if it intends to maxe use of them. :, of course, will abide by what Public Yorks in the City of wlam: feels more appropriate and by what the City Ccm:aisaioa feels more appropriate. We are here to do the beet 'ob we can and to `ollcw your c i_rectl'ee and if Mr. ■'pp_e and misataff, .me Cc.._.._ss.ca feels that it is mot the beet solution, why of course, we won't take it into consideration. Mr. :&=pcell: Mr. Mayor, if : may add to what Mr. Whipple said. The letter from Dade County, addressed to Mr. Aurelio says that Day Avenue must be widened to 24 "set between Center and 27th. That would be seem to be a little strange too in that you go from 24 feet 4,own to narrower width, west bound. The provis:om for east bound traffic on ".ay Avenue turning right on 27th Avenue, it also means that _t would t•.:rr .:g^t c=to Tigertail because there is Mavor Ferre: So, the seventy-four would be cn site? Mr. Cardenas: ':es, sir. Mayor Ferre: Would the entrance to the property be limited to Zo"th Avenue? Mr. Cardenas: T. don't know honestly the answer to that and... Mayor Ferre: Or would you have to ingress through either Day or Center? Mr. Cardenas: The answer to that is I don't know until Dade County finishes with this intersection which will be in a couple of months. Mayor Ferre: Is the five foot buffer zone along Center? Mr. Cardenas: Yes, si:. It's right along... well, no, it's right along here. Center we feel it's natural buffer. So, you don't need it to differentiate zoning categories. However, here there might have been an argument legally as to adjoining property owners. So, this is... The line goes parallel to 27th Avenue and parallel Day Avenue. I have no objection including it as to Center, but there is no legal value to it. Mayor Ferre: Ingress, egress. Mr. Cardenas: We have restricted ingress and earAaa. WA prohibited it in the declaration which we have proffered to the City. Mayor Ferre: Are there any other restrictions that you .have proffered? Mr. Cardenas: We have proffered the buffer and we have proffered the ingress and egress into and from Center Avenue. Mayor Ferre: All right, other questions? Commissioner Carollo. Mr. Carollo: I dust can't see any kind of ingress or egress on Center Street. There is one observation that I would ;ust like to point out in... Mayor Ferre: Would a buffer there... Mr. Whipple are you paying attention? 'L Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre:' Would a buffer along the property line that comes up against Center assure us that there would never be any penetration through there of automobiles? How can you guarantee that there not be any... Mr. Whipple: Depending upon the utilization of the property under the zoning being requested. In other words if under the RO-2.1 they elect to do residential development then the abutting five feet which he is. suggesting is not be rezoned could be utilized for that residential penetration who is to be used for... Mayor Ferre: : guess you didn't listen to my question. Let me :epeat it again. We are trying to find out different things and •ie are asking questions. That doesn't mean and I hope nobody assumes that anybody here has decided which way to vote on this matter. What we are trying to do is to find out... what I'm trying to do is if it goes through, if it were to be voted what the maximum safeguards are on a fall back position. Now, my question deals with how do we assure and what was does Mr. f i s_66 6 Cardenas's client as the property owner Naive toproffer voluntarily to assure that there :s never any vehicular ingress or egress into Center Street. And my cuest:on is if they proffer a five foot buffer cr ten foot bu::er whatever alma the property line would that assure that that would be Kent greenery and vegetation and that :t could :.ct penetrate. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mavor, as indicated that :foes not give complete assurance if the property is 'Developed residentially. If it is developed in office that would prohibit crossing over that residential portion. Mayor :erne: If the property owners proffer voluntarily a covenant that goes with the land that they will not ingress or egress on Center. Ok. And if they agree and if they also give a five foot buffer, so that there is a hedge or green area that would be grown there, is that an assurance or could that be an assurance that there would be no ingress or egress through Center Street. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, with the first part of your question with regards to the covenant I would yield to the Law Department as to strength of the covenant. Mayor Terre: please. Ms. r-loucherty: enforceable in Center Street. Will the Law Department... Lucia answer that Yes, sir Mr. Mavor. A covenant would be a court of law to prohibit ingress and egress on Mayor :erre: Now, the question then comes regarding Day Avenue and what you are saying Mr. Cardenas is that you don't know whether you would be entering the property through Day Avenue or 27th Avenue because that depends on what the Traffic Department of Metropolitan Dade is going to conclude. Is that what you are saying. Mr. Cardenas: That's correct. But we will obviouslv design it Mr. Mayor, in a way that's as compatible as possible with the City's intentions. Mavor :erre: All right, Jay Avenue at the present time is one way at that point, right and it coes that away which would be from west to east, not from east to west. It goes from east to west. So, from 27th you turn in and that's a one way going down it. So, if the property were to be vacated through Day it would necessarily ztherefore, be a turn, a west turn onto Day Avenue which is into the residential community. Now, well, let me finish wy question. If it gets to Mary... when you get to Mary Street, then that person could turn South or North to ;et... that person is going in an easterly direction to get on Tigertail and then come back and then either go up 27th or go up Tigertail or that person could do what and I won't name who 4t is that viclates the law everyday, whourns and coes twenty feet aaai-.st Jk• :'m :ust trying to get my bearings ca this. - Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, if I can add... assuming that traffic flog where ever you posed this would be the same whether, as you know, whether it's a residential or commercial development in terms of traffic flow. Assuming you have this apartment'building here which is a six structure building. Ae you see -t ^as ::.gress and egress to and from cay Avenue. :t also ^as ::.to and from Tigertail, but so would this side probably have :t onto and from 27th. My comment to you also, :f I may add. I think the amount of traffic, the impact that I mentioned to you is I think what the key is because whether you employ this for other land uses, residential or office you have the same traffic flow unless you decide later on to change the traffic flow. My comment to you and : think it's a germane one is what a real f7�—FjFj4r OFF REE 13 18 1 � 376 DEC:.e*% R AT: Z'N OF ES•::�:C ::N. S KNOW ALL MEN SY •:::ESE =RESE:J S: THAT the ,nders.c;,ed. :AY :ZNTE. CORPCRA':_ON, ce.,nc bile cane: of the fee s.;tple ...tle to the prcpert., legally descr.rea as: Lot " Lot Lot l4 and the southern _/2 of Lot 12, all within the CORNEL2A 4. DAY SUEDIV:S:ON, :eccrded in Plat Hook 3, at Pace 16 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. .naE.e the following voluntary Declaration of Restrictions hereby covering and runnInc with the above referenced property, specify- ing that this Declaration shall constitute a covenant running with the land and shall be minding upon the undersigned and all parties deriving title through them. These Restrictions durina their lifetime shall be a limitation up: on all present and fsture owners of t::e subject :ea! property °othe cenef it of the City of Miami, Florida, and tne owners of ail property within 300 feet of the subject property. 1. The owners were applicants before the City Commission of the City of Miami, r1orida to rezone the subject property from RG-i/3 and RC-2/5 (with SPI-3 overlay) to RO-2.1/6 (without SPI-3 overlay). 2. The owners agree that the zoning boundary lines bay lie ��on the said property but no pore than five (5) feet (in addition to required dedication) from the westerly boundary line of said property (said westerly boundary line also being the westerly boundary line of :lots 12, 13 and 14 of the aforesaid C�RNEL:A M, DAY SUBDIVISION) and no -:ore than ten ( 10 ) feet -from t:;e ncrther:=ost boundary fine of said property, said northernmost boundary line being a line ;bisecting Lat 12 of the aforesaid CORNEL:A M. DAY SJBOi'I:S:ON _nto north and south half -sections. 3. The follow.nc covenant and restriction shal_ be applicable to the property: a) T:Rre will not be anv motcr vehicle ingress sr egress onto Center Street =:cm the subject property. The manner ;,I wnicn sucn ingress or egress small be pre- cluded shall be sncwn on the clan for the first building permit applied for cr approved after execution of this covenant and suet clan for precludine _ncress z egress shall ce =pmrz ed zv _-e Clt•: Manacer cr „_s des:cnee; b) Ten percent ;101) :lore parking shall be provLded, than is required by Ordinance. The 1oc•at.on and size cr such additional space small be deter:n:ned by the Zoning Ordinance as is the additional spaces were required parking; c) A landscape t;;ffer area ten 110) -feet :n width small me provided on the nortnerly Side of bile crone:ty and five (:) feet on the 'enter street side. A landscace — plan for such areas small be submitted with the :first applicatocn for a building permit applied for or this' approved after execution of covenant and sucn plan shall be approved cy tle CityManager or his designee. C:JDO 6.D EC 1 J 13181 377 - r 3. ':his=ecla:a:_cr: zest:. .ions -av e cdifred, amended ... :eleased as _= any tcr__cn cc _ne _ands covered nereov tee •: no -der r -elders _-e ov wr.tten _nst:u.:.e^t executed t.1 lr.�y :hy lam:opert as:.�:aie ___le _ne sue�ect �. Zr is autncr:zed :epresen:a- •:e, r;rcv:ded that no such mcdif_ca- icn, atiendment o. :elease _na-1ce made without _.:st ::e.nc acprsved at sr after a pum-_ near_:nc held by the C' t. Miam., ;. .";is �ecla:at_cn s+nall :pure :o _ne c :.:.` -tee ownerZ t':e C:t• `"iam:, and all ^rcpe:t __:aners._�,0Il— feet and may be enforced by t:,e City of Miami and by such owners of property wit::in a 1.00 foot :adios of the subject property my a suit in equity against the then owners of the subject property violating these restrictions, after a determination that a viola - ticn exists is ;Wade my the City Manager of the City cf Miami or his desicnee. 5. This Declaration of :estri--tions sna11 become effective on t^e earliest sf the fcllcwirg: _) thirty-one (21) days after final approval by the Clty Commission of the City cf Miami, Florida of all requested rezoning, provided that a lawsuit has not been ._led cnal-ene:nc tine requested zon:nc chance; 2) the .:ate t^e ace --cant ..is successor(s) cr assica(s) _s issued a bu:ldinc cermiz to cecin=;,nst..:ct_cn of a bui1dinc on the suo;ect property devoted :otally or in par_ to office use; or s) the date cn :�nich all :ecal challenges to the subject rezoning !taut been concluded .4ithout naving successfully c:tailerged the rezoning change. Notwithstanding the above effective date, should the subject rezoning at any time be* successfully challenged so as to preclude the construction of a building devoted totally or in part to office use, or should the requested zoning be changed so as to preclude the development of a building devoted totally or in :art to office use prior to the owner or his successors) or assign(s) having obtained a vested tight to construct sue:^ an office building, then all restrictions contained in this declaration of :est:ictior.s shall cease to tun wit^ t::e -and and sna-- to void and cf no e:fect. W117N,ESS 'WHEIR__CF� ^.e _,dersigned has set its -and and seal this %/ j'day of -S f _987. '417NESSES : r I ::MESSES . OA': CENTER CCRP RAT.CN �eS�L3rrc nt rA Sherry, Cariecretary/ 'treasurer -`i:)O6"EG: IlEt :1 STA Z CC FtOR:tA i SS: ��GNTY OF ^ADE i 7'ne "- rewind :nstv;.:,en: was acxnow:edced 'Wefcre ,r,e _nis day cf�u,,h,.f— ?87, by :iERNANDO A. `AARl.ra.O, as =resident cE SAY : NTER C-CUCRAT:ON, a '_crida _crporaticn, to said Ccr;crat:.-n. Notary Public ' ` '• State of Florida at :.argQ• `_ My Commission Expires: Stiff .• ,. • ' „t [tl :iC ::IEIII 3S. AD. STATE OF FLORZ:A TE COUNTY OF DADE ) .,, The `zreccinc .nst. ;:.gent was acxncwledced tefore :-ne this dav c= %., a�,�i' " , 987, oy SHFrRRY CARRiLLO, as Secretary/ ":reasurer�cc :;AY CENTER CORPORaT:CN, a Florida corporation, za benal: of the Corporat.: n. -�' i . ^ Notary Public State of Florida at Lar#e� -. My Commission Expires: �'igTZ "...,,• 141ART • 'L:: '.!it, .:A .. ' �. ,..1ss•1. tip. -::. .... !rc. —ARAL :is. W. AP? ROIt, V .ORRE�':'cSS v W CUCLA'A. OOUGriERjY ::'. Y A'^J a%; EY • :::0O6CE,CI RR-fift'• ay A�Etvag 4— CONE w dqv� LU 1 a / 9A-66f <" (.JHi3z DONALD W. CATHER. P.E. ; ��'��+1 ) CFSAR-K-0010' Dlreccor e, co t ?/i/!r < ��.. .y,�..♦ -.a .`.. -..: K.J: = M. �.}r /- .i)�. +'st•' . �.;�y.�.�ow - .rat March 3, 1988. Go7ut�j Ms. 1 Lucia Anton 3165 Center Street #1 Miami, =1 on da 33133 APPEAL SPECIAL CLASS 3 PERMIT - VALET PARKING AT 2701 DAY AVENUE Dear Ms. Anton: This is in response to your February 25, 1988 letter requesting - information concerning the Special Class 3 Permit for Yalet Parking at 2701 Day Avenue. I have rev*ewed the sketch which you enclosed with your letter - showing the proposed closure of Day Avenue at Center Street. Since there is no scale to the drawing and there are no dimensions shown anywhere on the drawing, it is virtually impossible to make a valid assessment of its feasibility. However, : efore any such closure could take place, it would be necessary for a large majority of the property owners within 1,000 feet of the affected intersection to submit a petition to the Department of Public Works. Only after a prooerly advertised public hearing can the Commission close access to a street if it is found to be in the best interest of the public. The City Commission has also established a policy of temporary closure of rights of way at intersections in order to assess the impact in the neighborhood. This is usually fora period of 90 days, after which the neighborhood is polled for their reaction before final installation of a permanent closure. As you can already see this process could take up to six months to accomolish. Ms. Lucia Anton March 3, 1988 This department has had no direct-otification of a request or application to return that portion Day Avenue between S.W. 27 Avenue and Center Street to two-way operation. The one-way designation for this portion of Day Avenue was originally established for purposes of vehicular safety. Nothing has �� changed in ,the - area which would allow Day Avenue to 'return to• a two-way operation. We certainly would be opposed to any such proposal. I f you nave any further ..aues.ti ons , please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, '0i eorge ' . Campbel Design Engineer GYC:mw cc: Joe McManus, Assistant Director of Planning - 2 C4tfu ofWaft �Eti�xn� EDITH N. FLENTES Director February 26, 1.988 CERTIFIED MAIL Lucia Anton 3165 Center Street, # 1 Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mrs. Anton: On Tuesday morning, February 23rd you telephoned me requesting certain information on the Class B Appeal for property at 2701 Day Avenue. The same afternoon I responded by telephone to you, explaining that clarification of those individuals referred to by Mr.Heisenbottle in his original letter of appeal dated January 1, 1988 could only be accomplished by a letter signed by Mr. Heisencottle listing the names of those he. referred to. This letter is merely a confirmation of our discussion. If you need additional information regarding this matter, please contact this office at 579-6082. Sincerely, Gloria Fox GDF:pas cc: Central Me CESAR H. 0010 Cicr Monseer February 25, :988 Mr. George V. Campbell, Jr. Design Engineer, 2ubli_ works ="6Y CF MIAMI 275 N.W. 2 Street, 3rd Floor Miami, Florida 33128 'Hand Delivered" Re: Appeal Special Class B Permit for valet parking at 2701 Day Avenue, Miami ------------------------------ Dear Mr. Campbell: In reference to the above appeal, I would likes to know if you ever received a response From Building and Zoning (Mr. Joseph Genuardi) to the observations and comments of your memo dated December 15, 1987? Did you ever see the revised final drawings. prior to the approval of the permit by Mr. Genuardi? Is is usual for these permits to be approved without your comments being responded to and without your department seeing final revised drawings? I would very much appreciate your response to my questions as moon as possible, as there will be a hearing on this mat.:er soon. ':hank you for your assistance. Cordially, LUCIA ANTON 3165 Center Street ;1 Miami, Florida 33133 ee Sereio RoarJ_zuez `3R-s6F - j February 25, 1988 Ms. Edith Fuentes Director, Building and Zoning CITY OF MIAMI 275 N.W. 2 Street 2rd Floor Miami, Florida 33128 "Hand Delivered" Re: Appeal Special Class B Per- mit #86-0060 for valet par- king at 2701 Day Avenue -------------------------------- Dear Ms. Fuentes: In reference to the above appeal and investigation, I would like to point out that the Declaration of Restrictions, re- corded in Official Records Book 13181 at Pages 376 to 378 on February 13, 1987, reads: Item 3., ;Mragraph c.: "A landscape buffer area of ten (10) feet in width shall be provided on the northerly side of the property and five (5) feet on the Center Street side." As pointed out to Mr. Genuardi by Mr. Campbell in his memo of December 15, 1987, this 10 foot buffer is not provided on northernly boundary of the Lot '_ portion of the subject prop- erty-; _:.e tuffer is provided only along the Lot 12 portion. The subject property is bounded by three streets (Center, 27th Avenue, and Day Avenue) and only has one property boundary, which is its north boundary. The spirit of the restriction (as requested by the neighbors and offered by the developer at the hearings for change of zoning) was to provide a 10 foot buffer between the subject property and the adjoining properties. This buffer was also intended for Lot 1 and not only t-e boundary along the Lot 12 portion of the subject property. They even indicated a 5 foot buffer along Center Street. Mr. Genuardi did not have the drawings revised to correct this ommission and, in fact, approved the permit along with this violation cf the deed restriction quoted above. Please be coos enouan to look 4.^.to this matter as part of the Qj�) . s Sri.► •'ia Ms. Edith Fuentes February 25, 1988 Page Two Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, G uc�t� LOCIA ANTON 3165 Center St. 711 Miami, Florida 33133 cc Sergio Rodriguez Gloria Fox ✓ Joseph Genuardi George -Campbell, Jr. AW February 24, 1988 Ms. Gloria Fox Chief, Hearing Board Division CITY OF MIAMI 275 N.W. 2nd Street, Room 230 Miami, Florida 33128 Re: Investigation of Special Class B Permit #86-0060 for valet parking at 2701 Day Avenue ----------------------------------- Dear Ms. Fox: Please find enclosed your copy of my letter hand delivered this date to Mr. Sergio Rodriguez as to the above referenced investigation. I am also enclosing, pursuant to our telephone converstion this morning, ten additional copies of the same letter; and, indicated on -the last page of each copy, are the names of all the Zoning Board members to whom I am sending these copies through you as you so kindly offered to deliver these for me. Thank yoLf again for all your assistance in this matter. Cordially, LUCIA ANTON 3165 Center Street 01 Miami, Florida 33133 -ncls. 98-6sC February 24, 1988 Mr. Sergio Rodriguez Assistant City Manager CITY OF MIAMI 3500 Pan Amer -can Drive Miami, Florida 33133 :r.vestigation of Special Class 8 Permit 186-0060 for valet parking at 2701 Day Avenue ----------------------------------- Dear Mr. Rodriguez: "HAND DELIVERED" As one of the appellants in the appeal of the above refer- enced permit, in accordance with my request for an investi- gation to the Zoning Board at the hearing on February 22nd, and pursuant to our telephone conversation yesterday, : will herein attempt to make a list of the disputed items to be re- viewed by you and your staff regarding t2Tis investigation. Please bear in mind that 1 am basing this letter on the in- formation derived from the file held by Gloria Fox. It is my understanding that this file contains all the material, in- cluding but notli.mited to, all correspondence, internal and external regarding the application of this permit. If my as- sumption is incorrect, and there are other materials regard- ing this operation, I would appreciate you forwarding them to me. Further, my references will all be to the Zoning Ordi- nance as enacted and irdained by the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida. 1. - Section 2304.1 clearly requires in the second paragraph that: "For special permits affecting a property, applications may be filed only by the property owner, his formally desig- nated agent,...". The owner of the subject property, according to Declaration of Restrictions recorded February 13, 1987 in Official Re- cords' Book 13131 Paces 3-6 to 378, is DAY CENTER CCRPORATICN; however, the application for this permit, dated November 24, 1986, is signed and notarized HERNANDO A. CARRILLO as owner. ':here is no documentation in the file formally designate..^.g him as agent, as required by this section. 2. Section 2401.3 states: "Within five'(5) working days of receipt of applications for Class S special permits in the office, the zoning administrator shall make the referrals to fiR- 66C Sergio Rodriguez - cebruary 25, 1988 ?age 1%7o other officers, agencies, or departments required by this zoning ordinance...". The application presented by Mr. Carrillo, 186-0060, was filed as per date on the City receipt for the $80 fee re- quired, on November 24, 1986. However, the first referral requested by Mr. Josepn A. .Genuardi to Guillermo Olmedi'_lo is dated November ?, 1987 -- practically one year later. If the application received by Mr. Genuardi on November 24, 1986 was timely and complete, Mr. Genuardi violated this sec- tion by not requesting the referrals within the five working days required in this section. Therefore, the granting of the special permit is invalid. If the application was incomplete, which would explain Mr. Genuardi's delay in requesting the referrals, then the application would be void when the ordinance was amended as per section 2017.1.2 of Zoning Ordinance #10193 signed on December 11, 1986. 3. Ordinance #10313, signed July 23, 1987 and effective Janaury 1, 1987-, provides in section 3405.3 (first paragraph) "has properly filed a complete application for a development permit(s) with the appropriate city department...". Further along it defines COMPLETE APPLICATION as: "Application, Com- plete. An application for approval sought pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, as amended, shall be deemed complete if it is on a form approved by the City, and all applicable information requested on said form is provided by the applicant on the form, or attachment(s), as necessary, at the time of its filing and it has been reviewed and signed b, the Zoning Administrator." Mr. Genuardi states his memo of December 29, 1987 that this Ordinance 410313 allowed him to process the complete ap- plication. However, the appplication was not "reviewed and signed by the Zoning Administrator" until 11/5/87 in direct violation of the definition for a "complete application". Therefore, Mr. Genuardi should not have utilized this ordin- ance to approve this Class B special permit since, by its definition, the application was not complete. 4. 1 would state for the record that all referrals alluded to in this letter are mandatory as per section 2402.1. Section 2402.2 states " Where a report based on required review, analysis, and/or technical determination indicates that ;ranting the special permit in accord with the applica- tion, with or without conditions and safeguards, would be contrary to the terms, requirements, or purposes of this or- Sergio Rodriguez February 24, !988 Page 7%ree dinance, the zoning administrator shall deny the applica- tion." As per memo dated December 9, 1987 from Guillermo E. Olmedillo and memo dated December 15, 1987 from George V. Campbell, Jr. both the Jose::n A. Genuardi, the special permit would be contrary to the terms, requirements, cr purroses•=� this ordinance; therefore, the zoning administrator should have denied the application. It is Further stated in section 2303 (last paragraph): "Where applications for special permits indicate that actions pro- posed therein, or the manner in which they are proposed to be conducted, do not meet the standards and requirements of this ordinance, and could not practically and reasonably be made to do so by attachment of conditions and safeguards so auth- orized and limited, such applications and permits shall be denied." 5. As part of Mr. Genuardi's memo dated December 29, 1987 to the File and as justification of his approval of the Class B special permit, Mr. Genuardi states that "the County has indicated that Day Avenue will be made a two way street from Center Street to S.W. 27 Avenue". I find this to be without merit, in as much as nowhere in the file is this substantia- ted. I would venture to say that no one from either the City of the County, familiar with this intersection, would ever approve cars exiting onto 27 Avenue from Day Avenue, particu- larly with the proximity of ':igertai'_ Avenue. This would oe both hazardous and complicated because it is a main intersec- tion where three streets converge of which two are major ar- teries for the Grove. fort:: As er ,ustification of his =_pprcval ...: this pe=yt, Mr. Genuard_ exo.a_ns _n _.._s same memo t at ":•alet will _cor nate parking cars so that spaces 51 and 73 will be utilized during slow periods and therefor can turn cars around inter- nally without driving around adjacent residential neighbor- hood". However, he does not explain how the valet will deal with this problem during rush hour periods when turning of cars will not to feasible within the parking area. As indi- cated by Mr. Campbell in his December 'S, 1987 memo opposing this permit, _he parking attendant will to obliged to drive West on Day Avenue to Mary Street and then loop around on surrounding streets back to the parking_ot entrance for a distance of approximately .40 miles. This with all the other tenants waitina for their cars; as in most office buildings, everyone leaves fcr ^.ome at about the same time. I would like tc point out that neichbors within 375' of the sub. Act nrccer,:y were , .•�: sac - ;e :'-ass permit, but not qN-F;6( Sergio Rodriguez February 24, 1988 Page :our of the Class B special permit. I feel this was in direct violation of the customary procedures of the City of Miami, particularly with a property long involved in controversy with the neighborhood. Lastly, I must point gut t. at Mr. Genuardi's department apparently does not :lave mucn regard for the City's custe;-.1 c_ clock -stamping and dating all documents and letters receivea. I believe this causes much confusion and leaves open the Donci hi 1 i*v of _contrTversy and doubt.. I hope my letter will assist in this investigation and 1 am at your disposition for any questions or meetings with your staff. I take this opportunity of thanking and attention and most.particularly of the Zoning Board who supported me Sincerely, LUCIA ANTON 3165 Center Street 41 Miami, Florida 33133 cc Gloria Fox V Edith Fuen*es George V. Campbell zoning Boar, Memmers : Reynaldo Mayor George Barket Osvaldo Moran-Ribeaux George Sands Patricia Skubish you for your cooperation my thanks go the members in my request. Lucia Dougherty Guillermo Olmedillo Joseph A. Genuardi Lorenzo Luaces Gloria Basila Elba Morales Richard Dunn Manuel Alonso-Poch February 24, 1988 Ms. Gloria Fox Chief, :-searing Boar✓ ..iviSicn CITY OF MIAMI 275 N.W. end Street, Room 230 Miami, Florida 33128 Re: Appeal of Special Class S Permit 486-0060 for valet parking at 2701 Day Avenue ----------------------------------- Dear Ms. Fox: I am writing this letter at the request of CENTERVIEW TOWNSHOUSE ASSOCIATION, and as further explanation to my letters to you of January 7, 1988 and February 19, 1988. The individual -members of CENTERVIEW TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION, as listed below, were contributors to the fee for the above referenced appeal and their names should be added to mine as appellants. Lewis Jamieson Lucia Anton 3165 Center St. 43 3165 Center St.41 Miami, F1. 33133 Miami, F1. 33133 Thank you for your attention. sincerely, qRICHARD J. .EISENBOTTLE 2778 Day Avenue Miami, Florida 23123 Tim Kelsey Jane McGeary 3165 Center St.42 Miami, F1. 33133 9S-s66 CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTER-OFFIC= MEMORANDUM -D DATE. •ALE. Edith M. Fuentes February 24, 1988 Director SWiJEC- Building 8 Zoning Department Request of Lucia Anton �^ 2701 Day Avenue •nOM �, l J jC� aEFERENCE5 r1a Fox Hearing Boards Chief ENCtOSUIIES. Letter dated /_7i /AA _ At the Zoning Board meeting of February 22, 1988 Ms.Lucia Anton submitted a letter regarding concerns over the Class 8 Special Permit Application for the property located at 2701 Day Avenue. Since the appeal of the Class B Special permit scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Board on that date was being continued to its meeting of Marcn 21, 1988, the Board requested that you review this request and provide them with your determination at the March 21s*t meeting. GF:ps 98- 666 February 23, 1988 Mr. Cesar Odio, City Manager CITY OF MIAMI 3500 Pan American Drive .Miami, Florida 1-3133 "u.AND DELIC'R�D" Re: Appeal of Special Crass B Permit 086-0060 for valet Parking at 2701 Day Avenue Dear Mr. Odio: At last night's Zoning Board Hearing, I addressed the board and requested that an investigation be conducted as to the validity of the Special Class B Permit of the above reference (my letter presented to the Board as part of the record is attached). Since the Board acceeded to my request and stated that "Staff" shouia 7onduct -ne investigation, T am addressing myself to you so :hat you may indicate to me who you will designate to corauct this investigation so that I can get in contact with t7em to explain my questions in this regard. I would also like to request that the "domplate file", tic: was at the Hearing last night and is still, presumably, in the hands of the Hearing Board Division, be held by the person you designate 'or tnis investigation and that the :terns presently i n the file be tagged and i::er.tified to sure that notninq will be either added or r-,moved from this file. My home phone number is 448-4720 and my offie number is 443- 346E i from, 1C a.m. Thank you for your e-nnnorarion. Sincerely, rJCA. A.iTori 3165 Center S;reet =1 Miami, ?lorida 13133 cc Sergio RoariQuez Edith Fuentes Gloria Fos:"*" Guillermo Olmedi'.lo Miriam Maer George Campce;l �R—EiFif� February 23, 1988 Ms. Gloria Fox Chief, Hearing Hoard Division CITY OF MIAMI 275 N.W. 2nd Street, Room 230 Miami, Florida 33128 Re: Appeal of Special Class H Permit #86-0060 for valet parking at 2701 Day Avenue, Miami, Florida ------------------------------------- Dear Ms. Fox: Pursuant to our telephone conversation this morning, I would like to request that you advise me as to the proper manner in which all the members of the condominiums listed in Richard Heisenbottle's letter to you dated February 19th, may be in- cluded individually as appellants for the above referenced appeal. As I explained the $300 fee was collected amongst the neigh- bors and we have not empowered anyone to act in our stead. It Please be good enough to specify the City's requirements so that all our names may be entered in your file. Thank you for your patience and continued cooperation. Sincerely, LUCIA ANTON 3165 Center Street 41 Miami, Florida 1.3133 cc --esar Cdio, City Manager Certified TP631 800 060 :,uc,a Dougnerty, City Atty. Return Receipt Requested Richard Heisenbottle 2zc' � LA I cia February 2_, :?88 Zoning Board C IT"i O F "ILA.MI Miami, F lcrida MEMBERS OF :HE OOAPL : In reviewing the various pertinent City files, we have found several discrepancies which lead us to believe that the Application for Special Class B Permit was incomplete when submitted. Furthermore, a whole year elapsed before the application was even approved for process and referrals were requested from Planning and ?-ublic Works. Also, the files are incomplete with plans and correspondence missing. Therefore, we respectfully request that full advantage be taken of this postponement on the 'nearing of our appeal, and that a fall investigation be conducted into determining the validity of the application for this special class B permit. Ar Thank you. CENTE VIEW oTer"41FOUSE ASSO. 3165 Center Street Miami, Florida 113133 APOGEE COND0:•'.Z"T!': iSSO. 3138 Center Street Miami, Florida 33133 qs-f 6c-x L� February 19, 1988 CITY OF MIAMI Hearing Boards Division Building & Zonina Department 275 N.W. 2nd Street, Room 230 Miami, Florida 33123 Attn: Ms. Gloria Fox Hearing Board Div. Chief "BAND DELIVERED" Re: Appeal of Class B Special Permit #86-0060 for valet parking at 2701 Day, Miami, Florida ---------------------------------------------------- Dear Ms. Fox: Please be advised that the condominium associations listed belcw were all contributors to the above referenced appeal for Class B Special Permit. This appeal was entered in my name as I offered myself as emissary for the group. Therefore, I kindly request that all the associations listed be advised of all hearings, postponements, decisions, etc. regarding this appeal. Mr. Don Gruber, President TIGER BAY CONDOMINIUM ASSO. 2715 Tigertail Avenue Miami, Florida 23133 Mrs. Marien Spinrad APOGEE CONDOMINIUM ASSO. 3138 Center Street Miami, Florida 33133 Mr. Lewis Jamieson CENTERVIEW TOWNHOUSE ASSO. 3165 Center St. 143 Miami, Florida ?3133 Mr. Ralph Rubin, President APOGEE II CONDOMINIUM ASSO. 3166 Center Street Miami, Florida 33133 Mr. Richard Heisen:.ettle TOWNSCAPE HOMEOWNERS ASSO. 2778 Day Avenue Miami, Florida 1.3133 Thank you for -:our continued cooperation. Sincerely, RIC,HARD /J. EISENBOT':�:, qR-66f - Day/Center Ccrporaticn 300 Aragon Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, .1. 23134 i o %; February 18, 1988 Ms. Gloria Fax City of :liana Building and Zoning Dept. 27S N.W. Zrd Street .Miami, F1. 33128 Dear Ms. Fox: I have in hand a copy of the letter that Mr. Richard Heisenoottle wrote you re?uesti^g a continuance of Class "B" Special Permit 86.0060. Please be aware t.'at I concur with Mr. Heisencctt3e's recuest _'cr postpcneent. Conseauently, will not be at the Zoning Board hearing, and =ust t.I-at it will be rescre uled for Marc!,. 21, :988 , as Mr. Hleisenbcttle requested. 'unit you for your attention to this matter. Cord ia'_Iv, c..rrai._0 President, Day/Center Corp. fm February 15, 1988 R.J. Heisenbottle 2778 Day Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Ms. 31oria Fox CITY OF MIAMI Building and Zoning Dcpa -.Went 275 Y.W. 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33128 _:uI r7I Re: appeal -Class 3 Special Permit 86-0060 Dear Gloria, To confirm our verbal discussion of Friday, February 12, 1988, I am hereby requesting a continuance of the Zoning 3oard Hearing relative to the above mentioned special permit application until '.larch Zl , 1988. This continuance is being requested in an attempt to provide myself, and the other surrounding property owners, with the adequate time to pursue negotiations with the developer. This request shall not be considered as waiver of our rights to appeal tihe Class B permit and is being made with the full concurrence of the developer. Please advise me if there are any problems, or additional information, that ?ou may require in order :o properly conti^ue this matter. Yours icnard eisenbottle RJH;'ad cc: "ernando Carrillo Li..u"A ) S:A:E Cr SS. C JPr' Cg tArE ) Before ,.e, the and ersizied authority, t:'.::s day rersoraily Ha2uavoo A.Coe2TLeo. r2E.stoENT a=eared - V a.-'" /G E tiTc e, o IC IF' . who being try i e fis st dul- upon oath, deposes and says: 1. 7at 1,e is the :caner, cr the legal representative of the tt tl�± c , owner, �.�z;^.��,,.,:.g ,,..e ac..�...,T, ....5 3/r�ri::.a.,�cn for a -public c hear ^.5 as require-4 by Cztdinance No. 95C0 of the Ccde of the City of lVdami, . _crida. effe=_:.s the real rr opery lccatea in the City of Aix= as desc.- ced and listed or. the pages attached to this affidavit and :2de a part t::erecf. 2. 7hat all owners ;sticr he represents, i+ w:y, , i,ave their full and c=lete per-,_4 zsicn for nim to act in t.:eir 1--ekz2S Tor the -=r.ge or codification of a classificaticn or regalaticn of YVni^.g as set cut in w e accc=panyi:ig retitic... • 3. the pages at`.ac:.A..^.:c madeereto made 3 par. of - th - affidavit c=ta:.^. the C'."'re.'lt names, ma l ' g addresses, Alone rnz-'errs ark legal desc. _Y ions for the real proge:�y w.. he is the eNrier or legal representative. 4. The facts as represe=ed 4 - tha a=piicaticn and do �:.e.•:ts sibcdtted i:l ccn,,.Y,cticn With tills affidavit are =ue and correct. 11Y r: " r; Sworn to and S:i: scrid°r cefcre me this day of re 19 Y . rlz/a� :•rt ke, . -te : �crf -Ii a at I - .ice arg%- e .. .;4CE: --u .;4E?AL :SS. .4:. 1r7�6p�i - OWNER'S ST Owner' s ',ame ,�je► ''%= -;F-1Z ode 'LAD C � Y mod. o +..� �/ t IX 'Sal 1 i no Address � -' �� 2,m� � ate LLS •; J�il 'el eoncne Yumoer 2 "Z Lega t :escr,, of ; on: 2', 01-03 ::av ave*:ue, Cxcrut ;3rc%-e, :1. , :.rt " C=eii.a K. Dav,s Subdivisicn, Plat Bock 3, Pace 15, :ade Counts, Fl. 3191 :ay avenue, ..e Scut:. x or lct 12 and lcts 13 s 14, C: s:^.el_: M. Cav, s Subci:,sicn , Plat Bock 2, ?ace i 6 Owner's lame Mailing address ielepnone lumber Legal Description: Owner's game Mailing Address 7elearcre Numoer Legal Cescription: Ally QLner reai estate proper-y owned individuaily, jointly, or severally (by cerperation, partnersnip or privately) within 1,75' or the subject site is listed as follows: Street Address Legal Oescr-;otion nt Address Street Address Legal Cescricticn Legal Cescrioti-,n �A-ssf-i Lj uISCjLZL7 Z --F 1. Legal descri;tion and street address of suc,ect real prcaerrv- Z O1-03 Cav Ati-enue , .:ter: ';.t - -,,:z=%e. Subdivisim, Ptat Bock , Pace _6 , Zade Ccun= , .'1. 3191 Day Avenue, z�,.e Scut^. :t :_ C== la s �:,t5 ._ s �� , �.., e� .4. Dav,s Subdivisicr., Plat Boex Pace D, Cade Z. Owner ts) of subject real m. rt.J and percentage of ewnerzhip. Note: City of Miami Ordinance zio. 4419 requires disclosure of all parties Paving a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City CC=Ission. Accordingly, question 42 requires disclosure of all shareholders of cm. rat:crs, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any otter interested parties, together with their addresses and proaorticnate interest. Dav Cent,- " Ccrxra== - 3GP drQO G'o'`J .dam! CoiL6C- C�a.f3C65 :iezrardc y Srer_-: Carr' o, Ccaiers, i.00 3. desc irticn arxi st reet aoc:: Pis_ of any : gal mope: owned by anv party listen in answer to question 12, arxi (b) : ()cateu s• i :a.Ln 375 feet of - e subject real property. Dav Center Corporaticn Hem Precident- G4rld6Fd �Si' ,vTic STATE CF F'*.1JRIDA ) SS : CO(NrY CF DAZE ) _„= Cep*o,- Ccrxraric:: .being duly sworn, deposes and says t.^.at ne is the kC;wner; (Attor,, ey for Owner) of the real property descrited in answer to auestion vl, aaove: that he has read the foregoing amTwers and teat the sa-ne are trse and c=mlete; and (if actt^q as attcr::ev for owner) that he has autnor.ty to execste this Cisclosure cf 0.nership fcan on cehalf of the owner. SMR4 TO A= SL'bSCRIM oefore me this / day of /c b- , 199 J(. Jav_ Cent--- Corporaticn (SEAL) (Nave) ue_Yr.anco y. ^..arp'_11c , President Irctar State or orida at Large f�R+Fi6fk 1 REt J .i STA.E'OF �'LdR�bA ) ` SS: COUNTY OF DADE ) The instrument was acknowledged before me t.".is �regoinc day of 1987, ty H---RNANDO A. CARR:LLO, as President of JAY CENTER C PORATZON, a Florida corporat:on, --n benalf of said corporation. Notary Public le d' State of Florida at My Commission Expires: :IA[/Al cis. U10. STATE OF FLORIDA SS: Sr4tE ' COUNTY OF DADE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledced before me this 4-av cf /I'- 1987, by SaERAY=ARRILLO, as Secretary/ Treasurer, of SAY CENTER CORPORA':ON, a Florida corporation, 4a behalf of the Corporation. �i' '• •` its �. . •� 'r %J Notary Public "; s •� State of Florida at Large✓ - • •: My Commission Expires: ,V 1I113Vri EID. ... .'.. . APPROV A TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: LUCI V A. DOUCHERlY CITY ATTORNEY C` 006DEC. CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANOUM Gloria Fox, Division Head P lic :fearing and 0ffi;�ei -mom % ;Juan C. Jonzalez /✓// / ✓' chief Zoning inspect GATE: February 5, 1988 VILE. SUBJECT List of Lnterested Parties for Class "3" Permit `to. 96—;-`60 MEFERENCES ENCLOSURES As per ;.,our request, please be advised that research of our files reveals -no correspondence or any letters and/or notification of interested parties regarding the above mentioned Class "3" for valet parking except for the enclosed copy of the letter from Mr. Heisenbottle. Research was also conducted on zoning administ_ator's Joseoh Genuardi files and to the best :Knowledge of our search, except for the mentioned letter above no letters and or correspondence were found pertaining to the aforementioned permit from other interested parties. ?lease be advised that losevh Genuardi is on vacation as of this date and will not return until 'Monday, February 8, 1988. Two different neighbors called me on February 3, 1988 and 4, i988, and : informed them to :nail is their names and addresses so thev can be notified of the date and time of the hearing for the appeal of the Class "3" permit. ?lease advise if further information is requirea. JCG:ga cc: ;ose�h Cenuardi Zoning file Central file c�Z14 or EDITH tit. FUENTES W "�*' -0 Director • ' C'OfCO Flo0.\Or. February 5, 1988 CERTIFIED MAIL Richard J. Heisenbottle 2778 Day Avenue Miami, FL 33133 RE: Appeal of Class B Special Permit 86-0060 Dear Mr. Heisenoottle: CESAR H. 0010 City manager On Monday, February 22, 1988, a Zoning Board Hearing commencing at 7:00 PM in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida will consider the following: 2701 Day Avenue Lot 1, Lots 13 and 14 CORNELIA M. CAY (3-16) P.R.O.C. Appeal by an aggrieved party of the Zoning Administrator's decision to allow the Class B Special Permit for valet parking for the proposed office building to be located at 2701 Day Avenue; zoned RO 2.1/6 Residential -Office. T`c cetit4oner cr peti.ioner's legal representative must be present at this Hearing. The petition and supporting papers are available for review at the offices of the Hearing Boards Division, Building and Zoning Department, 275 NW 2 Street, 2nd Floor, Room 226, Miami, Florida. If I can be of any assistance, please contact me at 579-5082. Sincerely, Gloria Fox GDF : oas �"fffifi cc: Central File ti Hernando A. Carrillo February 4, 1988 City of Miami t- Public Hearing Board's Office 75 N.W.-2nd Street + Miami, Florida 33128 Re: Class B Permit for Valet Parking on Center & Day ------------------------------ Dear Sir: We :"ereby request that, as neighbors adjacent to the subject property, we be informed of any public hearings as related to the above appeal. Our respective addresses are as follow: LUCIA ANTON LEWIS JAMIESON 3165 Center St.#1 3165 Center St.42 Miami, F1%r 33133 Miami, Fl. 33133 Thank you for your attention. CENTERVIEW TOWNHOUSE ASSO, INC. Lucia Anton for .,e Association Certified 4P667 252 774 Return Receipt Requested JANE McGEARY 3165 Center St.#3 Miami, F1. 33133 i i J I v ., �F F 18 I 3T6 ;EC I DECLARATZCN OF RES•TRIC'T:CNS KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: v THAT the undersigned, DAY _ENTER CORPORAT.CN, being the owner of the fee slmule __tle to the prcoerty .ecaliy described as: Lot I, Lot 12, riot _4 and the southern :; 2 cf Lot 12, all within the CORNELIA 14 DAY SUBDIVISION, recorded in Plat BOOK 3, at Page 16 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. .naKe the following voluntary Declaration of Restrictions herebv covering and runninc with the aoove referenced property, specify- -inc that this Declaration shall constitute a covenant running with the land and shall be zirding upon the undersigned and all parties -deriving tit:e through them. These Restrictions during their lifetime shall be a limitation upon all present and future owners of the suo-ect :ea: p-cper- _cr the benef__ cf the City of Miami, Florida, and lire owners ct all prcoerty wiznln :GO feet of the subject propert•. 1. The owners were applicants before the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida to rezone the subjei__t urcpeit! fzcii RG-1/3 and RC-2/5 (with IPI-3 overlay) to RO-2.1/6 (without SPI-3 overlay). 2. The owners agree that the zoning boundary lines may lie on the said property but no more than five (5) feet (in addition to :equired dedication) from the westerly boundary line of said property (said westerly boundary lire also being the westerly boundary 'line of riots 12, 13 and 14 of the aforesaid CORNELIA M. DAY SUBDIVISION) and no more than ten (10) feet from the northernmost boundary _ine•tf said property, said northernmost boundary line being a :ine bisecting riot :2 of the aforesaid CORNELIA M. DAY SUBDIVISION into north and south half -sections. 3. The followinc covenant and restriction shall be applicable to the prcoerty: a) There will not be any :rotor vehicle ingress or egress onto Center Street trcm the subject property. The ;Wanner in which such ingress or egress shad be pre- cluded shall- he shown cn the plan For the first building permit applied for or approved after execution of this covenant and such plan fir precluding incress or egrets shall be approved by the City Manager cr his desicnee; b) :'en cercent 10%) more parK4 nq seal: ze provided, than is required by Ordinance. The location and size of such additional space shall be determined by the Zoning Ordinance as if the additional spaces were requirea parking; c) A landscape buffer area cf ten (10) feet in width shall ne provided :n _ne ncrtherl�y side _ne property and __ve (5) feet cn _ne Center street side. A :anascape plan For Zucn areas snail ce submitted with the first application for a building cermit applied For or approved after executicn of this covenant ana such plan shall be approved by the Ci--/ Manager cr his desicnee. 0 0 f r 3EF 13181 g. 37. 4. :'his Zec:araticn :f Rest::cticns nav ce modified, amended or released as to any corticn of to a lands covered herebv by written instv.;ment executed by :he `:older cr !solders cf the fee simple title the sue'4ect zrocerty and by the C:ty of Miami or its authorizea representative, c:cv:ded that no such .�n�cdifica- :ion, amendment or release snail ze made without first being approved at or after a ouei:c nearing ::eld by the City of Miami. 5. This Zecla:ation snail inure :o the benefit cf the owners, the City of Miami, and all property owners within 300 feet and ,may be enforced by the City of Miami and by such owners of prcperty within a 300 foot radius of the subject property by a suit in equity against the then cwners of the subject property violating these restrictions, after a determination that a viola- tion exists is :Wade by the City Manager of the City of Miami or his designee. 6. This Declaration of rest:ictions. shall become effective on the earliest of the follcwina: l) thirty-one (31) days after final approval by the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida of all requested rezoning, provided that a 'lawsuit has not been filed challenging the requested zoning chance; 2) the date the applicant cr his successor(s) cr assign(s) :s issued a buiidina_ oerm.t to cecin, constr.:ct_cn of a bu.:dinc on the suoject property devoted totally or in part to office use; or 3) the date on wnich all fecal challenges to the subject rezoning have been concluded without :raving successfully challenged the :-z-ni:.y Change. ,�otwitilstandir.g the above effective date, should the subject rezoning at any time be successfully challenged so as to preclude the construction of a building devoted totally or in part to office use, or should the requested zoning be changed so as to preclude the development of a building devoted totally or in part to office use prior to the owner or his successor(s) or assicn(s) having obtained a vested right to construct such an office building, then all restrictions contained in this declaration of restrictions shall cease to run with the land and shall be void and of no effect. IN,ii'IZAI:IESS HE':E Z-O , the undersigned has set its hand and seal this / /'day of WITNESSES: DAY CENT j CORP�AT.ON /Wil) Y'I� za. LC�- e nt WI ::MESSES : C Sherry,Car:Illo, Secretary/ Treasurer N0060EC_ 2 ��-fyFif,t C F G INTERNATIONAL 338 MINORCA CORAL GABLES. FLORIDA 33134 TELEPHONE 446.0223 January 7, 1987 Xr. ;,osech Genuardi Zonina administrator Building and Zoning Department 275 N.W. 2nd Street(2nd Floor) Miami, Florida 33128 Dear Mr. Genuardi: r___ By way of this letter Z wish to inform you that on November 24, 1986, we submitted for a Class "B" permit for a proposed building located at 2701 Day Avenue. Your staff has now reviewed the drawings ana returned them to my architect Roger Fry on December 16, 1987. We are incorporating the chances requested. Due to the Holiday Season we are experiencing some delays within the office. However, it is our intent to finalize all the drawings and re -submit them as soon as possible. if you should have any questions regarding this matter please do`not hesitate to call. rye HAC/Mnk /Vf-.0 ') (�� S/ e -14 wo7 _�_ Cordiali riilo Y+' Is M E M 8 E R A M E R I G A N I IN ` s055 Dcrce Ce Lecn Bcuievdr0 �crc1 Eccles. ;�cncc 146 05..u6- 77? 7 V A7 A41101v E fie sT F A0 D i� �Y E ZCGLrr.Sr OF' My p.Nt wt2� r�N(r -rug 5 t�-2 To (N=0rz)v% yc� TNaT CFG NkS p� �� sGuSS�aNs Vv ITN T'�+� t7A�� GaUNr`( pj-� T-AAr ? cam CDuury kA5 1&)VtcATrr:) TO CFv TRX"- DAY �11�NU P2GN' GEt�;2 Sr;z�i✓ To S.I.t�. 2?�`Avg LL)ru.. �EGcmrr- Tq 6CMPI,C,r'cAj TUrtr �R OC'OSE� p P Fj C c J P1130UCV Sc N cr-�znL-� IN r ZONING 12017 FRONT OR REAR OF LOT SIDE OF LOT (Ord. No. 9722, 1 1, 10.27-83) Sec. 2017. Offstreet parking requirements, general provisions. The following general requirements, limitations, and standards shall apply to offstreet parking: 2017.1. General performance standards for and intent concxrning offstreet parking facilities. Empt in the case of facilities approved by Class B special permit for and maintained with attendant parking only, parking facilities shall be so located, designed, improved, con- structed, and -maintained as to provide safe and convenient access to and from public streets and alleys without driving through any other parking space. Entrances and exits shall be located and designed for minimal marginal friction with passing traffic, and turnout or merging lanes and/or lane dividers may be required where appropriate for this purpose. In addition, the following objectives shall be a.tained: 2017.1.1. Parking maneuvers on public streets or sidewalks prohibited• backing into alley by Class C special permit; esceptwns r.xcept in the case of single-family or two-family detached or semidetached dwellings, in RS-1, RS•1.1, R&2 and RG•1 districts otl'st wt parking spaces shall be provided with room for safe and convenient parking or unpacking without infringing on any public street or sidewalk, and without backing into any street or alley. Backing into a public alley from offstreet parking spaces in multifamily, commercial. and industrial districts shall be permissible only by Class C special permit subject to the requirements of section 2017.3. 2017.1.2. Conitderattons governing required width and length of stall& esceptwns. Except in the case of facilities approved by Class B special permit for and maintained with attendant parking only, an gtTstreet parking space shall consist of a stall of sufficient width to permit safe and convenient parking of automobiles of dimensions for which the stall is designed, with room for opening doors and entering or leaving the vehicle comfortably on either side from the front or rear. Length of stall shall be sufficient to. 12017 MIAMI, FLORMA allow for parking the entire vehicle outside required aisles. with such clearance as may be required for safety at the inner end. 2017.1.3. Parking requiring movement of more than one car prohibited exceptions Except in the case of facilities approved by Class B special permit for and maintained with attendant parking only, spaces shall be so arranged that any automobile may be parked or unparxed without moving another. 2017.1.4. Select= of dimenswnal requirements from ranges established Where ranges are established for the purpose of relating aisle width to stall width in connection with these and ui.her regulation applying -to design aLd improvement cf .a r� parking facilities in the City of Miami, selection of specific dimensional requirements shall be made on the basis of consideration of the nature and location of the parking facility or portion thereof and characteristics of probable oxupancy. Thus, for es.ara• ple, in outlying low intensity locations and/or where there is likely to be rapid parking turnover, or substantial loading of merchandise into automobiles in such facilities, or where spaces are likely to be used extensively by the elderly or handi- capped, wider stall widths may be required (with narrower aisles permissible) than in antral or other locations in areas of high intensity of activity, or where parking turnover is low, or where there is little loading of merchandise into cars while panted, or where use by the elderly or handicapped is limited. 2017.2. Offstreet parking for compact automobi" In any offstreet parking facility providing four (4) or more offstreet parking spaces, not to exceed thirty-five (35) percent in parking for residential uses and not to exceed forty (40) percent for office and commercial uses may be used for compact automobiles.. Such spaces shall be marlsed and reserved for use by such compact cars and shall not be occupied by automobiles of greater length or width. No reduction in aisle width shall be permitted except where ai^les serve compact spaces only. 2017.3. Application of City of .ifiami Guides and S&..idards to location, improvement, and Landscaping of offstreet parking facilities. Location, design, construction, surfacing, drainage, lighting, landscaping, screening, and maintenance of offstreet parking facilities and access thereto, whether or not such parking facilities are required by this ordinance, shall be in accordance with City of Miami Guides and Standards. 2017.4. Cass B special permits required for substantial modification of existing facilitW including ten or more spaces. Where it is proposed to make substantial modification of existing facilities including ten f10) or more spaces. required or otherwise. a Class B special permit shail be required - "Substantial modification' shall be construed for purposes of this regulation as including changes in number, location, dimensions, or arrangement of spaces or aisles, entrances or exits, or character, type, or amount of landscaping.) 206 IV Cl7Y CF &AIAMt. FLCRICA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM - Edith Fuentes, Director Z^*c. Decenber 15, 1987 •�c, Building and Zoning Oe artment Attn: J. Genu Class Valet "3" Parking Review for at 2701 Day Avenue .EFE „ / AENCES: George V.�Camoo el 1 , 7Ji,'. Oes1 gn Engi neer rKC1.03uAE:: Public Works Department Plans and Application As you requested. in your memo of December 10, 1987, the plans and application were reviewed for Class "3" 86-0060 for valet parking at 2701 Day Avenue. The following comments are provided: 1. The proposed dimensions of the access aisles and stall widths for the valet parking lot are substantially less than the City's minimum stanaards for required parking. The proposed dimensions are also less than the minimums recommended for valet parking by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2. Parking in stalls 61 through 73 will require the parking attendant to drive west on Day Avenue to Mary Street and then loop arouna on surrounding streets to the parking lot entrance. The shortest of these routes is approximately 0.40 miles. The alternative to this long circuitous route is a much shorter illegal ana potentially hazardous route. The attendants, at least some times, will probably drive 125' east on—Oay Avenue (one-way west bouna street) to the parking lot entrance. t 3. There i s i n s u f fi ci e n t maneu verabi 1 i ty provided for the loaning stall. The :lans s�pmit^en for :lass "3" 36-0060 apparently conflict with item 3c of the Declaration of Restrictions. Item 3c states "A I a n a s c a p e Suffer area of r.en (10) feet in width shall be providea on the northerly side of the property'. The required puffer is not shown on the plans on the northerly sine of Lot 1. .Alt.. S. Section 2017.i.2 of the Z o n i n a Ordinance stipulates valet parking facilities ^tay be ailowea only after ni offStreet parKi no requi rernents nave peen providea. The do not i nai cate that any requi rea parking has oeen provi dots R jr" Please contact 9il1 '4ackey, highway Engineer, at 6865 to rer these comments in more aetail. 'AAM: rwrAls � oc: +i?nways 3 entry i �! i- x, Vp CITY OF MIAM1. FI_ORIDA • INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM Bill Mackey December 10, 1987 �0 Highway Engineer of DATE: �Lt+ ublic Works De artment sU8JECT Class "B" Review for Valet Parking se A. ;enuar.4 2701 Day Avenue •4oM 1. C, dministrator 4EFERENCEf. Building & Zoning Cepartment. ENCLOSURES E t= Please review at your convenience the attached Class "B" 86-0060 for the above mentioned address for a proposed attendant parking facility for seventy three required off-street parking spaces. Please return the attached site plan with the original class "B" with your comments. JAG/'ls cc: Juan C . Gonzalez Rafael Rodriguez Central file CITY CF MIAMi. FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM �'-� Joseon A. Genuardi ZATU December 9, 1987 A istrator 9uildin nd Zoning Oeo rtment SUGJCCT Class 090 Review for Valet Parking 2701 Day Avenue roots REFEncaccs Guiller (,/� Chief 0 sand Deveiordment Division ENCLOSURCS, Planni Department This is regarding a Class "3' 86-0060 Special Permit application for a ` ornoosed office facility with offstreet parking for seventy three (73) required spaces to be maintained with attendant parking. only at 2701 Day Avenue. My comments are the following; Circulation oattern is too comolicated. Day Avenue is a one-way street, therefore in the event that narking spaces 1 to 60 are occuoied, in order to fill in soaces 61 to 73, the attendant will have to leave the subject prnoerty and go west two blocks (Center Street is a dead end street) in order to go around the area to come back to the site. This wi11 create a negative imoact on the adjacent residential neighborhood which wilt be affected by excessive traffic. Additional comments will be made at the time of the required Class C Special permit application. jf you have additional auestions, please advise. GEO/TLF/tIf .i_ E ` —66 c 4V CITY Or MIAMI. FLORIOA INTER -OFFICE MtMORANCUM *o Guillermo Olnedillo oA.s. November 9, 1987 nts Planning Department Class "3" Review for Valet king 2 701 Dayay Avenue oe(s�p b A. Genuard room,Adalaiatrator �dolarless Building i Zoning Department EPICLosullcs. Plans i Class "S" Please review at your convenience the attached Class "3" 86-0060 for the above mentioned address for a proposed attendant parking facility for seventy three required off-street parking spaces. Please return the attached site plan with the original Class "I" with your comments so we may continue to process for further information from the Department of Public Works. JAG:ga CC. Juan C. Gonzalez Rafael Rodriguez Central file '/ '-ft 1 M1 I CITY OF MIAM1. FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANOUM e i Y � File OATE December 29, 1987 �. nllG 1 �, / / Class B Permit for L,�(-A SUBJECT Valet Parking at Joseph A. Genuardi 2701 Day Avenue BiLil4Lng & Zoning Department /RO.. acrERENCES ntw ENCLOSURES: I Response to Planning Departments comments dated December 9, 1987. Valet will coordinate parking cars so that spaces 61 to 73 will be utilized during slow periods and therefor can turn cars around internally without driving around adjacent residential neighborhood. Also, county has indicated that Day Avenue, will be made a two-way street from Center Street to SW 27 Avenue. 1T Respcnse to Public Works comments dated December 15, 1987. 1. Dimensions of valet parking do not have to meet the City of Miami Guides and Standards. The proposed does meet the limitations of subsection 2017.1.2 and 2017.1.3. The spaces are of sufficient width and depth for attendant parking. 2. Same as for Planning Department comment. ;. loading stall nas been redesigned to provide sufficient maneuverability and ::as been accepted by Public Works. it. The 101 'landscape buffer area is provided in accordance with the L-declaratior. cf 'Restrictions. application and plans were submitted prior to the change for valet parking. Complete application was submitted '7ovember 24, :986. a) Ordinance amended by Ordinance "lo. 10193, effective January il, 1987. Ordinance No. _�?13 cerni.ts as to rrbcess when complete application 13 submitted prior 10 a change in regulations. CITY CF MIAM1. FLORIOA 'O q c .p INTER -OFFICE MEMORANOUM uloria Fox, Division Chief 'earin:..g.aoards V iv ision bse.A. senuardi 4 Jn 'Vminis«.,.c,% 3u4'3ing & Zoning :.epartment January _ , 1?88 DATE: ellt. Appeal of lass 3 su°�Ec- Special ?ermit 96-0060 aEFERENCES ENCLOSURES. Attached are copies of all material which constitute the record upon which the decision was ;.lade to approve the Class B Perlmit. However, the set of plans showing the layout of the parking area and which entered priMari'_y into the decision to approve the Class B is not included but is on file in the Zoning Division. I am not aware of any parties expressing interest in this :ratter, other t::an the applicants for the Class B and the apellant. JAG/13 Zoning cc: :.on�..g .'Ile Ai..e , a ,%I,— ; - � 6 -� ``3 -- S" -.le :s intended :nzz Class Soec.a: ?er-:its ce required ..here a_ec:.;ec uses c'aractarlstics 1-5c ire a nature requiring-:anaator u _ec:,nlcl ceter— ..naticns or reviews tc estaziisn s;.ecia! cor.c:t:ons anc saie¢uaros. :n general, such ceter-ninations and reviews .ill nernaily be b:• agencies or atficers otner :man the Dcnartnent cf Planning, and may involve -:attars such as ocsicn for .raffic, ,arkinc; :nd ;quoin; facilities, ,ealt!% ana environmental cansiccratio�ns, and lcaai aetL-r inations. The Ccninc Administrator. shall '.:e responsible .or the administration and pro- cessing of applicar:uns fir Class 3 Soee:al Permits, and for ceter-iinations thereon. Decisions of t^e Zoning Administrator -regarding C:ass 3 Special permits shall be affected and limited by reports received on mandatory reierrals as provided in Section 2402. iS(zction 2301.2) :, "g, uAmj( "0 A - CALPei , X , ;ierecy apply to the Zoning Administrator of the City of Miami for approvai of a Class B Special Per -nit under the provi- sions of Article 23 and 24 of the City of Miami Zoning 9rdinance. Zoning District: 20 Z• �lp Address of Property 'nature of Pro osed Use N oil.0 (� (be specific) i attach the following in support or explanation of this application: a) Legal oescription of property and/or survey, and/or floor plan b) Site plan, showing (as required) property ooundaries, existing and proposes structure(s), parking, lancscaping, screening, etc., with dimensions and comnutation of lot area, floor area ratio, lot coverage, etc. See Section 2304.2.l.(c). c) Fee o f S80 `00o' d) Affidavit ✓ el Ocher ;specify) �iU��`� (`rp�(�Q(� yr f=j,C:a ��•44J, tJ Signature W.,_ +--+_ <c n c or 4.. Name ��U��00 +• ,��efelLGD 3389106 GCA MJE Address Cit:, S;ace, Zi;.Phone — -- - — =— ror- A,/ y %%R,�j•It��Y , V J ^y I r" 0 a ati�S ..Utllllt; inspector S `CCutnmenuatlon: `• Alk 5 G 4oning Adasinist:ator's Findings: I hereby certify that I amand I am applying for an Special Class B per -nit and I will be sub)ect to re- quirements and limitations of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 9500 as amended. I • Sign t re Before me, the undersigned authority, authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, personally appeared. who, after being . irst duly sworn uoon oath aeposes ano says that he is the applicant for a Special pemit and that he has made and read the foregoing application and that the statements therein contained are true and correct. i Swornandsubscribed to before me this I day of. 19 _ ;Notary Public Stute of Florida at Large ��PubM Slate M Pa at LAW ;: ,long IIL 1= C..:.:'. 1 !' 1 Ut1 F:.:^ I T 5 BWKIW M Meynem Bormq AQWy qf3-66fi 61, 0 CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIOA Sergio Rodriguez, Director Ta. Planning Department INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: January 13, 1988 , nL.E: Joseph Genuardi SUVECT Class B Special Permit o ng,Qdminist or B-86-0060 COMM , or i a Fox, -01v � on Chief REFERENCES. Letter from Richard J . Hiei senoott le Hearing Boards Division dated January 7, 1988 Building and Zoning Department ENCLOSURES: Attached is a copy of the appeal received of the above mentioned Class B Special.Permit. Please submit all materials which constitute the record upon which the decision was taken. Also, please include the names and mailing addresses of all parties who have expressed interest or opposition in this matter. GDF:pas 9R-(FiF 70 Richard J. Heisenbottle 2778 Day Avenue Miami, FL 33133 January 7, 1988 Ms. Gloria Fox . • CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT 275 N.W. 2nd Street Miami, FL 33123 Re: Application for Class B Special Permit File No. 3-86-0060 2701 Day Avenue, Miami Dear Gloria, Pursuant to Article 30, Section 3000 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 9500, I hereby appeal the decision of the Zoning Adminis- trator approving the Class B permit 86-0060 for the property at Z701 Day avenue. The plans submitted for the Class B permit 86-0060 are not in accordance with the Declaration of Restrictions and did not meet the intent or the requirements of Ordinance 9500. On behalf of myself, Townscape Homeowners Association, Inc. of which I am President, and a host of other residents of the neighborhood and their respective condominium associations, I request a special hearing on the matter and I awa-t ;your advisement as to the date an-1 time. er-, _. yours Richard J. Heisenbottle RJH/ad encl. Check S300.00 cc: oe Genuardi a a ?L.,CAT1Z;; "fi C_;SS File is :ntenoec .nat .:lasa _- ::-,ec.al -e renuireti %lnere !i.ec:, led uses or c-aracter.stics of use are of a nature requiring .mandatory teciinicai deter- .natlons or reviews cc escabiish sreciai conaitions and safeRuarns. :I _eneral, such aecerminat:cns and reviews will nermaily be b�-i agencies er afficcrs other _nan .na :.enart-ent cf .:annin2, and may involve matters such as dosicri for .Taff ic. ; arkinc ..nd ;naair.g :acilitaes, ieaith and environmental ccnsidurations, „na legal :ett:rninacions. :`.;e Zc,ninc Administrator shall ae resflonsible .or the administration and pro- cessing of applicariuns for Class 3 Special Fer-nits, and for determinations thereon. Decisions of the Zoning Admini:;trator*regarding Class 3 Soec.al permits shall be affectca and limited by reports received on mandatory referrals as provided in Section 2402. (SL-ction 2301.2) 14 (>0 A - CAei_1_UiV apply to the Zoning Administrator Of the Cirl of Miami for approval of a Class 3 Special ?ermit under the provi- sions cf Article ZZ ana of the City of Miami Zoning 9rdinance. Zoning Distract: 20 2- 6 L ' Address of Property 2 7G7 Nat\urre c f F r oRosea Use (be specific) P kcP%SC- i attach the following in support or explanation of this application: a) Legal aescription of property and/or survey, and/or floor plan b) Site plan, showing (as required) property boundaries, existing ana pr000sea strucrure(s), parking ,`lanuscaping, screening, etc., with dimensions and comcu;ation of apt area, floor area ratio, lot coverage, etc. Sue Section 2204._.1.(c). c) Fee of 580 ,� d) A fidavit e) Other (specify) �Y,fVI&A(I Lt��AN Signature r L� :lame ��U��11�0 74- G�2�1liG0 Address3�8�tV_OIGCA �t City, hate, �0Ae 6AIBLE6 FVA- Phone 41-46 -D Z,2.I :r- 3 0 ,:fining inspattor's Recc m;mendation: %oning ndR-itiStrator's Findings: ri �0f I hereby certify that I am 4F.%zj*xic),o A and I am applying for an Special Class B permit and i will be subject to re- quirements and limitations of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 9500 as amended. 41re Sig Before me, the undersigned authority, authorized to .administer oaths and take acknowledgment;, personally appeared. who, after being 7irst duly sworn upon oath deposes and says that he is the applicant for a Special permit and that he has made and read the foreEoing application and that the statements therein contained are true ana correct Sworn and subscribed to before me this �I '� day of 74YIiP_0-4 19 to Notary Public Stare of Florida at Large Notary Puw= Slate of Florkis at taps My Ccxnrrr%=m Ewres ,Inns 18. 12W _..._ .ram._„ ... eonaeo tnru Mavrwo Baacnq AQency .-irr:s 5 February 25, 1988 Mr. George V. Campbell, Jr. Desicn Dncineer, Pub-l_c rior!cs CITY GF MIAMI 275 N.W. Z Street, 2rd Floor Miami, Florida 1-3128 "Hand Delivered" Re: Appeal Special Class B Permit for valet parking at 2701 Day Avenue, Miami ------------------------------ Dear Mr. Camptell: I am one of the appellants in the above referenced appeal. Our neighborhood has been meeting with the developer in an attempt to negotiate before the our hearing with the Zoning Board. Basically, the Developer is offering the closure of Day Avenue at the intersection of Center Street and Day Avenue, calling it a permanent/landscaped closure; and, if this is obtained tior to the ^earinc, we would be expected to withdraw our appeal. That is the basis of the negotiation. The developer's architect, Roger Fry, has developed a sketch of the proposed closure and an accompanying petition has been attached to this sketch and is being circulated amongst the neighbors for sicnatures. 'I am enclosine a copy of the sket;= anc pet___zn.; I would like to request your opinion as Design Engineer for Public Works as to the likelihood of Day Avenue's being closed, as to the likelihood of Day Avenue becoming a two-way street, and as to the amount of time either of these two ac- tions would take to accomplish. Than,. you so very much fcr .:our _ontinued cooperation. ;zincerely, LUCIA ANTCN cL ' 165 --enter .0'R��Fi�' Miami, 1i2 �%/� CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To Donaid W. Cather, Director DATE: larch 4, 1988 VILE Public Works Department SUSJEC. appeal of Class 3 Permi t No. 36-0060, for Valet An Parking at 2701 Day Ave. cgpM Edith M. Fuentes, Directo \ gEiERENCi:S. Building and Zoning Depart t \ ENCLOSURES In an effort to put together the necessary documents needed for the Bearing of March 21, 1988, please forward me any written correspondence or advise me of any other communications from your department to Mrs. Lucia Anton, Richard J. iieisenbottle, Mr. Jiln Masters or any other appellant in this matter, including but nut limited to responses to letters to SIr. Geor;e. V. Campbell, Jr. frorn Mrs. Anton dated February 25, 1988. This information is vital to our presentation since this matter is to be heard again before the Zoning Board on March 21. EMF:e. cc: Sergio Rodriguez Gloria Fox Joseph G"Venuardi f Miriam ,V1aer �tR-6fifi / O IV .': d dregs `toning 0istr:ct Z.I %/ Ad'acent 2.:ni;ig i _c?0IyC0 1.J0 ;;C i-1a Cema per=ic : equired I LOOS `•_ Survey �BL Yi 3ite_P_.an ✓/ Floor ?tan Ll S) - Parking ?!an ✓ _Requested Use fii�? :ransitional -e se TV_j4j ':nits 'ses/S003)� ` cessory tructures (: coeeial ?.ecui.ements: A61Ij� Resolution C.0 d Ceveloprent PlanReview VAL r � '��' ---►Sperial Permits A 3 C 0 Special Exception _ DRL „alor use Special Permit Covenant r'S� G� 'w�c� tij M Gu aG-�..1 '64`variance Alcoholic Beverage Survey � i f'ti�f k•f';'r''" �� '::zc Lac Size Yec Lot Are=(2006.2. 1), `, :may•' Cross Lot Size Cross Lot Area(2006.2.2) _ ir I - FAR: ?eraittad(2012.3) �•Z Provided r X_.Contra I znve love (Sched. 'abler 1 S G - 2016) 1 Interior Side Yard(Reg rans Interior Rear Yard(Reg./ rans,� Sched. Yards (2005.7-2006.5) "runt aide -- Inc:'.'.aar' . Side St. ,water'. cn: ?lane ?lane -II �-- USA � D 'rT• ,6 r�l� X .3 n e °lane .:I `44n. Bldg. Spacing (2013) He. cny. Provided -41 Czurt (2005.2.-2013.11) _ Building Height 'ro. Stories He. each Scary -'-en _pace (_ched. tables i S 3 -=012.4) f.. ^f� 7')<•�f��1S•�✓Ji-_-..,�it.�."'r+l•�..�.i-aii� .�- .r�ti•/i C A :ace es A •-'.'�"'rt^,t• ?ecreat:an Scaee � Sc:�ed. cab:es 1 S 3 - �012. 5) '! Cis �, � i i �••_rx!5 p ►„� ___-- Rom- 0(f-5treet ?arkin7 !G S S - Sched. - 2017-2018 affsi:e) r,� Total No. Requd Provided µ CoWracts Permitte ded Size H JC?_ ?equir ed \\ ?rovQded Size Regular / /� 2 v ed Size .. r:. aAisle' -Size rivevay {; �".1leel Stops ✓ OHLE Str'aes �i! .�L r� b�nC Vi - •�#�i I�1-.SJ��'1 I J�V ��'i'le•C, R _ LIS Periphery (Rea.,li=k•' Interior y'��'! Y Off -Street Loading 'PI%,' Private =aad CBS :all. V/C (2008.9) "h lJ1J 3�•, Encroachments (2008-2005.7) Signs (Sched) ,Li S . rPer-L:,Required�'dater Avail 1 Land Use Review wee r J � Linear Ft. Hedges _ Sq. FC. Ground Cover G'S No. :gees Com=ents: -SUof T'rN NE T«�T�Po►.�ac_ 2,, �ATf� OP W OeT , onspec.cr (6Nj4 �1 t e Ok 0 j-87-406 5/22/87 ORDINANCE NO. 1a313 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION =405 ENTITLED "STATUS OF BUILDING PERMITS OR CERTIFICATES OF USE ISSUED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OR AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE," BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION 3405.3 ENTITLED "STATUS OF APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMITS"; PROVIDING FOR THE ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING OF ALL APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMITS PROPERLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY ON OR BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ANY LEGISLATION REPEALING OR MODIFYING REGULATIONS WHICH ALLOW THE REQUESTED ACTIVITY; PROVIDING GUIDELINES AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR RETROACTIVE EFFECTIVE DATE; AND, CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERAAILITY CLAUSE. WHEREAS, the City cf u:am: Commission adopted ordinance No. 10194 on Decemcer 11, 1986; repealing portions of Ordinance no. 9500, Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami,'wnic-.. allowed the construction of "cluster houses" within the City of Miami; and WHEREAS, it became apparent during subsequent public hearings, that, at the time of the effective date of Ordinance No. 10194, several properly filed applications for such cluster housing ("applicants") were pending and had been left hangina in "limtoo"; and - WHEREAS, the City Commission was informed by Staff that several of said- applicants had properly paid all necessary fees for review of their applications before the authorizing legislation expired, but had subsequently been informed that :he aut::or:ty sf tte City to issue such permits woul3 term nate on the last jay that the ordinance allowing cluster housing development was in effect, thus., not allowing sufficient time for Staff review; and WHEREAS, it has 'long been the policy of the City to avoid inequities and injustice :,y allowing timely, properly filed applications for development review to proceed througn the review and appeal processes (where applicaole), notwithstanding the fact A 0 that subsequent pertihent repealing provisions might have taken effect; and WHEREAS, the City Commission was informed by the `ity Attornev that said past policy had been undergirded, in specific instances, by ordinances which allowed for the extended life of such applications; and WHEREAS, the City Commission was informed that Ordinance No. 10194 did not contain a provision which would have allowed pending applications for cluster housing special permits to proceed through the review process; and WHEREAS, the desire of the City Commission was that, all special permit applications be treated alike, and that timely filed requests be allowed to conditionally proceed through the review process and suoseque.n.t issuance, where proper, of especial .permits, notwithstanding the later :effective repeal of the undergirding authority; and WHEREAS, it is also the intent of the City Commission that all proper, timely filed applications for development permits be treated equitably, and not be rejected simply because of the effective date of subsequent amendatory regulatory language, unless otherwise decreed; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 1987, the City Commission adopted Motion No. 87-80 directina the -preparation of curative legislation; and WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of May 20, 1987, Item No. 3, following an advertised hearing adopted Resolution PAB 37-87 by a vote of 8 to 1, RECOMME"'DING APPROVAL of amendina Ordinance `7o. ?500, as hereinafter set -rtn; and WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration �f this :natter deems it advisable and in the best interest of the ?eneral welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to ainenl Ordinance No. 9500 as hereinafter set forth; NOW, 'THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: 9S-66c 06 Ob Section 1. Ordinance No. ?500, the zoning Crdinance cf. •.he '.ity cf Miami, 'lorlda :s . ereov amended :n t -ie following respects:` 'ARTICLE 34. ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT, VIOLATION, AND PENALT:ES Sec. 3405. Status of buildina permits 43*, certificates of use, or :evelocment Permits issued prior to adoption or amendment of ordinance. 3405.3 Status of anolication_s for development permits. Anv orooert,� owner or lawful representative thereof, who, prior to the _effective date of anv legislation repealing or -nod if71na regulations which allow the reauestea activity, has oronerly filed a complete applicaticn_ for a development permit s ) wit' ^e amo_ rocr;ate (:.tv ceoartment, _ hereov author -zed to orcceea with =_ucn aonlicationt s ) regardless of -the suoseouent repeal or regulations relevant to such reauestea activity, unless the __ contrary Is cr)Pclficall decreed. All such applications shall be reviewed in accordance with orovisions of Ordinance No. 9500 in effect on the date the application is filed, or in accordance with adopted, but nendina regulations, at the discretion of the applicant. An application snall be reviewed totallv under the old regulations or totally under the new, but not under both. In no case snail an application ne accepted suoseouent to the effective gate of an ordinance wnicn orecludes the aouroval or action ;polled for. Applicants for said development cer-nits shay_ be allowed to make chances in their aoolication(s) only when so required by the Citv as a result of its review of the acolication(s). The necessary buildina nerrnit( s) or certificate(s) of use, whichever is first required, wnen reviewed under exvired regulations, snall be ootained within one hundred and e.ahty (180) days _rom the :ate f special ner--..t puol.c near.na approval, as the case may be. In the event an aooeal is taken to the courts, said buiidino permits) or certificate(s) shall oe obtained within one hundred and a.gnty '180) dz1vs from the date -ne final •:ourt Jec.sion :s renaerea Words and/or figures stricken «hrouan shay_ oe deleted. Underscored words and/or figures ;hall re added. The remaining provisions are not in effect and remain uncnanced. Asterisks indicate omitted and uncnanded material. Pk 0 t u "n:; ICLE 36. OEFINITIONS Sec-. 3602. Specific. t * • Apartment hotel. . . . Application, Comolete. An application for aooroval souant cursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, as amended, snail be deemed complete if it is on a form approved by the Cite, and all aoolicaole information requested on said form is provided by the acolicant on the form, or attacnment(s), as necessary, at the time of is filina and it has been reviewed and sianed by the Zonina Administrator. Day Care Center. See "Child care center." Development permit. The term "development permit" includes anv buildina permit, zoning permit, subdivision aoproval, rezoning, certification, special exception, variance, or any other official action of the Citv of Miami havina the effect of peermittina the development of land. Section 2. The effective date of this Ordinance shall be retroactive to January 1, 1987. Section 3. All ordinances or parts of. ordinances insofar as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 4.. If any section, part of section, paragraph, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions of t.iis Ordinance shall not be affected. PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this aday of Xa• 1937. PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE this I3rd day of .;ulv 1987. // XAVIER L. SUAF MAYOR ATTEST MAT:'Y HIRAI CITY CLERK F Ok PREPARED AND APPROM SY : j OEL it . MAXWELL / �AS$IS+ANT CITY ATTORNEY JEM/db/MI67 APPROY6—AS TO FORM AND COARi�'OTl9ESS iLjJ CIA A. DOUGHERTY 'irITY ATTORNEY 1. Matty Hirni. Clerk of the City of Miami. Flarid.i. hereby certify tbnt on the 1 3 *tLiy of A. 1). 191 :11. ;r:r: and correct cmy of the a)1Ale nncl f .:: ;yin=; orciinnn; c wis p isted it the South Door of tic Ou.;c Count::rt II•.u.cc ut tht: place prmided for maic:s and p.:i,:i .,t, -its b;r Attachiu" said copy to the pLtce t',:....,r. Wi'l'NiL..$ my h.titti and the official senl of said Citt taw .:ay ui C�: 3. J. 19!r, l'it% l.;rrk 9N—(;Gc . -, 7.1 P P v CC Q 5 • , ... �'� OFtiD:?.nNC:. �0. •i G i .. � AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, THE 20NING ORDINANCE OF THE C.TY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA BY AMENDING SECT:CN Z017 ENTITLED 'OFFSTREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, GENERAL PROVISIONS" BY PROVIDING NEW REGULATIONS AND CORRECTING CERTAIN LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO OFFSTREET VALET PARKING; AND SECTION 3602 BY PROVIDING FOR THE DEFINITION OF 'OFFSiTE PARKING"; AND BY AMENDING HHE OFFICIAL SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, PAGES 1-6, BY ELIMINATING PLANE II AND LIGHT PLANES IN SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; IN THE TRANSITIONAL AREA OF ABUTTING DISTRICTS, THE LIGHT PLANE IS ELIMINATED EXCEPT IN COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW PLANE :: IN COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. WHEREAS the !'iamn ?Iann:^g Advisory Board, at .ts -eet_. of October 1, 1986, :te.,n No. 2, following an advertised shearing, adopted ResoluLiun PAS 32•-86 by a vo.e of 9 to C,, REC:711:;di:iu:ivv APPROVAL, as amended, of amending Ordinance No. 9500 as hereinafter sec forth; and WHEREAS, the City Conmission after careful cons iderat:.cn of this natter deems it advisanle and i:: zhe !test interest cf the general we! --"are of t::e City of Miami and its inhabitants to amend Ordinance No. )500 G5 heri.inafter set fortr.; NOW, 7HEREFOKE, BE :. ORDAY.NFO 5Y THE COMMISSION ;)F T"t :::Ty OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 2. Ordinance 9500, the zoning ar.iinar.::. of. t::e City of Miau,.i, i lorida is ►ter_ n amended in the foliowira ,-espect: 1 �i 7: • Sec. 2017. GENERAL ;NO, RF_GC:.n'f:0NS Offstreet gacxJ%g requirements, general provisions. The following general requirements, limitations, and standards snall apply to offstreet parking: 1 words and/or figures stricken through shall be deleted. Underscored words and/or figures shall be added. The remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. Asterisks indicate omitted and uncnanged material. Ok General r' .ce intent concert: i• _ facilities. v�fstrnet �.a rxina Offstreet parking facil i t i es shall to ^rpvided satisfy the minimum offstreet parxi requirement - --•c total car ratios of t F is ordinance Guides and Stancares. Except in the case oz f"aciiities approved my Cass B special permit fir and maintained with valet parking only, after t^eet ina t' e aforementioned minimum off-street parkina requirements, parking taci-lities snali e so locatea, desizneo, improved, constructed, and maintained as to provide safe and convenient access' to and from public streets and alleys without driving through any other parking space; parkina spaces shall be so arranged that any automobile •nav be marked or ;nnarked wit~out moving anotner. Entrances and exits snali me located and designed for minimal marginal friction with passing traffic, and turnout or tneroing lanes and/or lane dividers may be required where appropriate for this purpose. In addition, the following objectives shall be attained: 201''.1.1. Parking maneuvers on public streets er sidewalks pronibitea; backing into allev by Class C special permit; exceptions. Except in the case of single-family or two-family detacned or zemi-detacne.d dwellings in RS-1, RS- 1.1, RS-2 and RG-1 districts, (except for cluster developments) when not abutt inc a maior street, offstreet parking spaces snall be provided with room for safe and convenient parking or unparking without infringing on any public street or sidewalk, and without backing into any street or alley. Hacking into a public alley from offstreet parking spaces in multifamily, commercial, and industrial districts shall be permissible only by Class C special -permit saoiect to the requirements of section 2017.3. r en and _end%h—a€ aEaI:r! I4__:. � � fie•e�pt _ . _ . e•--e'es�—�� :.sue-=�- e►f--a•e�►� � e ! C 3�=-�—.i } rt! �Y�! 6 } eyi�h 3 _ ? !�—•+!-. - _ . . E1�—•tz E a s b �!: } ri f! T i f e m—_ e A e- 9 F 9 FAw�Eil--�y�C Sat* aAasi se et gto-ienE Ee a=:'E-ate teed-&-F e e a e►e n Q ki-�E+i9 a hl E e e t' W E-$+ice—e•ArrEE i a i ; . i r7T�+S essF-rFrre�r-r.6r Ok P - - - - li.e ii e ref 1Y—+ r IPl a L, -. '.. d i e -wide" n e a p e e r— ParAt w e e rt4-Y fie while P atera eideriy.!e.46 f 2017.1.2. valet oarkina, generally. Offstreet parking facilities maintained with valet parking only, may ce acoroveo ov Class 8 special permit orovioea tnat the minimum offstreet patK:n= requirements and total car ratios cf this ordinance and City of Miami Guides and Standards are sat.sfiea; that valet .parxina tacilities represent parKina .n excess of tne-aforementicnea min:mu.- off-street parkins requirements and provided also that an attendant snail. remain on duty during nusiness hours or as Iona as the orinczoal building :s occupies. An aclreement .rill oe recuirea, aocroveo in form ov one Deeartment of Law, filed wit.n the zonin-1 administrator and recorded wit - the C:erK of the Circuit Court of uace Countv. The aareement snail state that, in the event disc�nt ante valet parK _ne n,— treet parKinc facilities snail conform to the reauirements of tnis ordinance and the City of Miami Gjides and Stanoaros. 2017.4. Class 3 Special ?er^;.ts required =or substantial modification of existing facilities incl::ding ten or more spaces. Where it is proposed to make substantial modification of existing facilities :ncludina ten (10) or more spaces, required or otherwise, a Class S `IA-66Ci . 7�1 r OU special permit shall to red.ire'. ('SubstCn _ -st- d f- .:rP�ses -c modifizat:c;." shall to c�, .::� -r �' ..� _.._= regulation as inc' __:na -nanc=_s nuTcer, lor'..t_-n. dimensions, or arrangement :�f spaces 3r aisles, entrances or exists, or character, type cr amount :f landscaping.) Where existing offstreet parking facilities are nonconforming to the requirements of t:ese regulations or any standards of the City of Miami relating thereto, no modifications may be permitted wnich increase the degree of nonconformity, and the permit :gay require oy the use of conditions or safeguards such lessening of the degree of nonconformity as is reasonably feasible in the circumstances of the case. - - 2017.6. Reduction in housing for individuals. • parking requirements for low income families and Except in one -and two-family .:istricts and :n districts where residential uses are not permitted, reduction of generally applicable offstreet parking requirements in connection with housing for low incume families and individuals may be allowed by special exception to an amount not less than three-quarters (3/4) of the spaces generally required. The remainina one -quarter (1/4) of land area which would_ otherwise cv used for oarkina snail be set aside and maintained as open space or utilized for recreational purmose=_.T::e of owing requirements and .::nitations snal.l apply: (a) The project shall otherwise conform to the requirements of state and/or federal procramns for this purpose. (b) The zoning board in it-s consideration of the application for special exception snal: determine and :Hake a f inding that the reduction in offstreet parking requirements is justified in view of the nature and type `of prospective occupancy, the economic circumstances involved, and that traffic and parking problems resulting from such reduction will not unduly burden traffic facilities in the neighborhood. V,iazi v2 e'►2e yeie3e �Fi6 ii,��fFba:fief 3b--+r��F� F a E i s a e 4 F ae—r-e_eF e& E i a Ra; R d F_ - The zoning board snail, as part of its grant of special exception, soecify that the city, upon notice and :nearing as for special exception, may later require that the one quarter (1/4) of land area sec aside ee"" r" ce convertea ana cevotea to offstreet parking, :f it is demonstrated that traffic and parking conditions togetner with impact on the neighbornood require such conversion. (d) This reduction of aenerally aomlicaole offstreet carkina reau;r3ments anal'_ ,ease r tie c-inci^al tuil'ir- use :s c!�ancP6 --- ind iv i-,::a_ s . r r r 2017.8. Deferral of portions of total required parking improvements, by Class D special permit for initial period; control of extensions. By Class D special permit, the zoning board may allow deferral of construction, surfacing, drainace, marking, and other improvements incidental to preparation for actual use of portions of required parking, upon findings that such portions are not reasonably likely to be required because of the type of occupancy of the premises, the character of the• neighborhood, joint use of facilities by uses with differing peaks of parking demands, or for otr;er reasons assuring that deferral of such improvements will not result in parking shortages on the premises, or increase on street parking demands in the vicinity.' 2017.8.1. Deferral period; revocation of permit; .notice of revocation. Sucn deferral may be =tie an—�r�e+��---=-�T. f o r a specified period of not less than one (1) nor more than five ( 5 ) years without provisions for renewal except upon application for a new Class D special permit, or for such specified initial period with provision for renewal for not less than one (1) nor more than five (5) years .by either of the methods set forth in section 2017.8.2., below. * • r ARTICLE 36. DEFINITIONS. Sec. 3602. Specific. Offsi-te Parking. Seaces provided for vehicles and located outside of tie zoundar es of the 'lots to ce served. • Section 2. r" Page 1 of The Official Schedule of District Regulations made a part of Ordinance 9500 by refer:nce, :s herein amended in the following respects: • RS-1; RS-2. "MAXIMUM HEIGHT ONE -FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL qN-66(i . �7 Section 3. SAID Official Schedule of District Regulations, page 2, is herein amended in the following respects: 'USES AND STRUCTURES RG-2, RG-2.1, RG-2.2, RG-2.30 RG-3 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL r • t Rear Transition Other Transitional Requirements and Limitations Except where the use in these districts is permissible within the adjoining RS district, where lots in these districts directly adjoin lots in RS-1, RS-2 and RG-1 districts at the side or rear: 1. Yard and height envelope requirements along such lot lines shall be as for adjoining RS- 1, RS-2 or RG-1 districts except the __ _ _ ig iespoesPlane III shall be as established in Table 2 for sectors therein." Section 4. Said Official Schedu-le of District Regulations, page 3, is herein amended in the following respects: 'USES AND STRUCTURES r TRANSITIONAL USES, STRUCTURES AND REQUIREMENTS • r r RO-1, RO-2, RO-2.1, RO-3, RO-4. RES:0`7TI:.L OFFICZ f • ; Rear Transition * * t Other Transitional Requirements and Limitations Except where the use in these districts is permissible within the adjoining IRS-r and RG-1 districts, where lots in these districts airectly adjoin lots in RS-1, RS-2 and RG-1 districts at the side or rear: 903-666 , . A, 1. Yard and height envelope requirements along such lc::nes snail be as f�r ac'c..:r.c c5- 1. RS-2 or RG-i districts except _ Plane i:i shall be as established :n Table L for sectcrs therein. : tw Section 5. Said Official Schedule of District Regulations, page 4, is herein amended in the following respects: 'USES AND STRUCTURES TRANSITIONAL USES, STRUCTURES AND REQUIREMENTS CR. COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL (GENERALLY) Transitional Requirements and Limitations Except where the use in these districts is permissible within the adjoining district: 1. Where lots in -these districts directly adjoin lots in RS-1, RS-2 and RG-1 districts at the side or rear: a. Yard and height envelope requirements along such lot lines shall be as for adjoining RS or RG-1 lots except Plane II shall be 12 feet, the light plane snail oe 63 degrees and Plane III snail not apply. -Section 6. Said Official Schedule of District Regulations, page 5, is herein amended in the following respects: 'USES AND STRUCTURES TRANSITIONAL USES, STRUCTURES AND REQUIREMENTS CG-l. GENERAL COMMERCIAL Transitional Requirements and Limitations Except where the use in these districts is permissible within the adjoining district: 1. Where lots in these districts directly adjoin lots in RS-1, RS-2 and RG-1 districts at the side or rear: a. Yard and height envelope requirements along such lot lines shall be as for adjoining RS and R3-1 lots, except Plan- i_ _ t"aII tte the li-l", ' anes:: _e b_ a zees a~3 Plane iii snail not appl,:. Section 7. All ordinances or parts of ordinances insofar as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 8. If any section, part of section, raraa:apr., clause, phrase or word of this ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions of this ordinance shall not be affected. PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY ',his `pgt�, day of November 1986. PASSED AND ADOPTSO ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this llth day of December 1986. ATTE j MA Y HIRAI 1 AVIER L. SUAREZ,,,�.XAYOR City Clerk PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: CHRIS:C3Fk- G. KORGE Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: -- L CIA A. 0CU G -HE RT' City Attorney CGK/wpc/pb/M075 9S-66C T SERGIO RODRIGUEZ Director March 21, 1988 Mrs. Lucia Anton 3161 Center Street, =1 Miami, FL 33133 CESAR H. ODIO City Manager Re: Cidss o Perini 48w=0u60 Dear Mrs. Anton: Thank you .for your letters dated February 23, 1988, and February 24, 1988, addressed to Cesar Odio, City Manager, and to me correspondingly. The following comments respond to the questions raised in both letters: Edith Fuentes, Director of the Building and Zoning Department has reviewed the complete process that the Class B Special Permit =86- 0060 has undergone. ' By Memo dated March 15, 1988, from -Edith Fuentes, Building and Zoning Director, to Gloria 0. Fox, Chief of the Hearing Boaras Division, the latter is recognized as the custodian of the official records. The enclosed cooies of correspondence in the file constitute the comaiete file and address each one of your expressed concerns in your letter of February 24, 1988. A detailed response to your questions on the Class B process is co^strued in the attacned memoranda dated Marcn 14, 1988 and March 18, 1988, from Joseph A. Genuarai, Coning .,-.dministrator, to Edith M. Fuentes, 301 ding .:no Coning Director, nnich address: - The applicant Referrals Completeness of application Meeting the intent of the Zoning Ordinance Traffic flow on Day Avenue 11otification to owners -within 375 feet from the subject property Page 1 or 2 1 �� Your letter dated February 25' 1988, to Edith Fuentes addresses your question as to the landscape buffer. Again, in the above mentioned memo of March 14; 1988, on the second page, there is an explanation of the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator. Your letter dated February 25, 1988, addressed to George Y. Camooell, Design Engineer of the Public Works Department, was responded directly through Mr. Campbell's letter to you, dated March 3, 1988 (attached). In your second letter to George Campbell also dated February 20, 1988, you raised the question of a second review of the plan. Mr. Campbell verbally informed me that he, personally, had not reviewed the final drawings. We hope we have provided you with all of the information that you requested. Sincerely, io odriguez ssistant City Manager _ Planning Department Director Attacnments cc: Cesar H. Odio, City Manager Edith Fuentes, Director Building and Zoning Department Joe Genuardi, Zoning Administrator Bu:lding and Zoning Department Donald W. Cather, Director Public Works Department A77N: George V. Camooell Design Engineer Gloria Fox, Chief Hearing Boards Division Building and Zoning Department Page 2 of 2 Ph Mr, George Harket offered t1he following Resolution and moved i.2 adobtlon. RESOLUTION Za 27-88 RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE TO MAY " 1988, FOR CLARIFICATION AND AT THE REQUEST OF Tim APPELLEE, THE APPEAL BY AN AGGRIEVED PARTY OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO ALLOW THE CLASS B SPECIAL PERMIT FOR VALET PARKING FOR THE PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2701 DAY AVENUE ALSO DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, LOTS 13 AND 14 AND THE S1/2 OF LOT 12, CORNELIA M. DAY (3-16) P.R.D.C., ZONED RO-2.1/6 RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE. Upon being seconded by Ms. Gloria Basila, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Ms. ,Morales, Basila and Skubish Messrs. Barket, Dunn, Sands and Alonso-Poch NAYES: Gone ABSENT: Moran. Luaces and Mayor Ms. Fox:_ Notion carries 7 to 0. nR-�sC �' E01TH M FUENTES Oirector �•- /'�+ s' March 24, 1988 Hernando A. Carrillo c/o C.F.G. International 338 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Fla. 33134 -% CESAR H. 0010 Citv Manager Re: 2701 Day Ave. Class B Special Permit 8-86-0060 for Valet Parking Dear `Ir. Carrillo: As I requested from the c:ity of 4iami Law Department, I have received a legal interpretation of paragraph 3(c) or the Declaration of Restrictions for 1701 Day Avenue. :he interpretation is that a ten (19) foot landscape buffer area is required along :lie entire northern edge of the property. Your plans submitted for valet parking shows the ten foot landscaped area only along the edge at lot 12 and not along the northern edge of :.)t 1. Therefore, you must submit by Friday, March 25, 1988, 5:00 P.?i. revised ;Mans shoving ail the landscaped buffer areas required by the rescricci:e covenant. ?ai:ure :o submit _ne .avised -:Tans cridav will result in a revocation o: the :.ass 3 Special Per -nit 3—nh—?050. If you require any further information please contact me. Very truly yours, seo A. i,enuard i Zin Aaminiscracor JAG:ga cc: Sergio Rodri4,.jez Edith Fuentes Guillermo ilmea :11�� .uan -.;,)nzalez j , 31:I1:�1 vt, �,.ti0 lOt�INI; OEP4RTMENT c � 1 _Aw Crr CES GREENBERG, ` U�71ca.ASKEW, HOFF%4^m. L.POFF. ROSEN a C uENTEL. P A � �aol ePtCKELL AVENUE HIAM1. FLORID^ 3313, l7AR CJ (�1A4o1��4?s c-_co aP0WA4O*3CVSZ3 alit �• +v -tL.Lx 80 • 3 24 O EF i . ELECCP"'3c51 e79-C7'8 . 2_79.07:- CtT,HEST PALM �EACN CrrIC£ J : 1 500WA40 CrriC£ CRLANoO CrrICE 00 AUSTPAL.AN AVENUE $CC EAST eROW&RO SCULEVARO 1 NORTM CPANGE AVENUE SUITE 201 SUITE 1350 SUITE 740 NEST PALM •EACH. rLORICA 33406 rORT LANOCROALE. FI.CRIOA 33394 CR4N00• rL0111110A 32D01 3051 ea3.66u 3051 7e5•0500 3051 Sal-em "C_CCCP3 5:883-84A7 -c tCCP. 3C_1.4" •ELECCP•'3C614ZZ Z'ee A6e9RTO R CJ.ROLNA-S '3C51 379•C6Ct Lucia A. Oougr ert: , -7sq . City attorney City of Miami OneS.Z'. Ord Avenue Suite ..10 0 .dla- , : L .S 13 4. Re: Appiicat-on for Class B File No. 3-87-0060 2701 Day Avenue, Miami, Dear :.Is. rougher•-.: March 24, 1988 Special ?emit FL PLCAsc RCP�� •0: �1Atr1 OrrtCi I am in receipt of a copy of a letter from Mr. Richard �. Heisendettle to Ms. Gloria Fox dated March 17, 1988. I am enclosing a copy cf that letter for :our _. fc=aticn. The purpose of this 'letter is to ascertain the following from you: 1. =.n appeal was requested :y letter dated January 1988 of _ne �co•: r=Jere.^.ced _-ass = Z=ecin! As a result of that appeal our clients, in good faith, proceeded to enter into an agreement regarding the project in question. Subseauent to that ti..••ie, a number cf additional individuals have surfaced expressing an interest on the ongoing appeal. 2. have reviewed the proposed list ::f appellants =rovided to .4s. Zlor-a Fox cv fir. einsenbottle in his letter of S'.arc^ It -s ^•,rt_,nderstandina that additional appellants cannot be added Co an cngoing appeal by an assignment of the former appellant of ^.is richts and interest in the appeal to a third warty. This may well fall wLthin the courdaries of certain state laws involving champertry, etc. r o Lucia A. Dougherty, t% march 24, 1988 Page two • 3. accordingly, kindly advise me of the names and addresses of t.".e rightful appellants of the above referenced Class B Special Permit. Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you as early as ;racticable. �r;:i•y -.,ours, si S aC/ef :Enclosure 9R-1sf; . C� �'. �s ll.'CIA A. OOl.C1iERT'Y City Attorney- �h r. Marcn 31, ;988 .Alberto R. Cardenas, Esq. Greenberg, Traurig, askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A. 1401 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 3051 579-41#00 "eleeooier 31051374-A730 Re: Application for Class B Special Permit File No. B870060 2701 Day Avenue, :Miami, Florida Dear Mr. Cardenas: I am in receipt of your letter dated 'Marc:i 24, :988. I believe your ;uestion should be addressed to Ms. Gloria Fox, Chief Hearing Boards Division, Department of Building and Zoning. In addition you .may wish to consider the provisions of Article 30, entitled ApFSeals crom Decisions of Zoning Administrator and Director of the Department of Planning. Sincerely, i� G. Miriam Maer Assistant City Attorney GMM/rc'_!P012 enclosure IC: !aillerno Olmedillo Planning Department Gloria cox, Chief Hearing Boards Division Department of 9uildirig & Zoning :STY CF "IAMI. = _CRICA INTER -OFFICE .IEMORA�ICUM Joseph A. Genuardi toning Administrator =M G. Miriam Maer Assistant C:ty Mtttr^.ey .ATE Marcn 23, 1988 itre.A Class B Permit - (2701 Day Avenue) of Restrictions - etFEeE•.--iS Buf`_er Lines rnctoSt. RES TI-E. No. 36-0060 Declaration Landscape You requested a legal interpretation of Paragraph 3(c) of referenced Declaration. Paragraph 3(c) requires a landscape buffer of ten feet on the northeriv side of the property and five feet on the Center Street side. It is our interpretation that this language requires a landscape buffer area of ten feet along the entire northern edge of the property - that is, along the northern portion of the southern half of Lot 12 and along the northern edge of Lot 1. GMM/rcl/P985 cc: gonorable Mayor and Memeers of the Cite Commission Sergio Rodriguez Assistant City Manager Edith Fuentes, Director Building and Zoning Oepartment Guillermo Olmedillo Planning Department Gloria Fox, Zhief Hearing Boards Division V L LUCIA A DOUCHERTY Citv Attomev March 23, 1988 Ms. Louise Rubin 3166 Center Street Miami, 'Florida 33133 Re: Class 8 Permit - No. 36-0060 (2701 Day Avenue) Dear Ms. Rubin: 3051 579.5700 7eiecooier. 1305) 374-r7 30 This will confirm our telephone conversation of ,4arcn 23, 1988 in which I explained to you that the referenced Class B permit has in fact beerr issued and the appeal to the Zoning Board is from sucn issuance. Your letter to me dated Marcn 9, 1988 addresses two issues, the location of zoning boundary lines (42 of Oeclar,.tion) and the location of the 'landscape buffer zone ( 4 3 ( c) ) of Declaration) in the Declaration of Restrictions Covenant recorded in Official Records '?ock 13181 at ?age 1-76, Oade Count•i ?ublic Records encxnZer.na _ne :,at Lot _3, 1ot 14 and the southern one nalf of Lot 12 all within the Cornelia M. Day Subdivision recorded in ?!at Zook 3 at ?age 16 of the Public Records of Dade County, 'Florida (hereinafter "Covenant"`. As to the issue )f zoning boundary lines, it is our interpretation :hat Paragrao_n 2 applies -)nly to the westerly ooundary line of the ocooert•i and the nocthern-nost toundary line :)f _ne property :said nortnernmost toundary :.ne being `-irtner defined .n the covenant as a line oisect_ng Lot 12 into nort:i and south half sections), and does not apply _o mot I. I have attached a copy )f :ne atlas sheet and aerial for your convenience in visualizing these areas. Ms. Louise Rubin Marcn 23, 1988 Page 2 With regard to the landscape setback requirement, I believe he attacted :memorandum to Mr. .;oseon Gznuard:, Zoning Administrator, dated *iarcn 23, 1988 is disposi:ive of this issue. Sincerely, bucia A. Ddugnerty city Attorney GZ4M/LAD/rcl/P984 enclosures (3) cc: Honorable Mayor and 'Members of the City Commission Sergio Rodriguez Assistant City Manager Edith Fuentes, Director Building and Zoning Department Josepn A: Genuardi Zoning Administrator Guillermo Olmedillo Planning Department Gloria Fox, Chief Hear.ng Boards Di•-rision edit : %1. Fuentes Director Josep A. Genuardi :ooM -'boninb n3min_s,.rato. Euiidir.g & Zoning CITY OF MIAM1, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE:April 1, 1989 ' rILE SUBJECT 2701 Day Ave ass :, r_r"1 t Response to REFERENCES itm McMaster s nquir✓ ENCLOSURES The City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 9500, as amended, does not provide a .time limitation for processing a Class B permit. The time constraints are indicated in subsection 2401.3 and 2401.5 only when the Zoning Administrator finds it necessary to make referrals. This is to assure the applicant that the application is processed in a timely manner. The application for Class 3 Permit No. 36-0060 for valet permit, was not referred at the time of initial submittal and therefor the time restraints did not take effect. i verbally agreed to a delay in processing with the applicant, which was conf l.-med by his letter dated January 7, 1987 and June lit 1987. JAG/ is cc: ienuardi - Jonzalez Zoning file Miriam Maer (316aa. APR 0 1 1588 Offlan of the Dimr! ,;r qR—(of. F.. .' • i. .oseph Cznuardi ":,)niag Administrator CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIOA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANOUM Aith K. Fuentes, Dire 1 •QJM ;,1L:.:1:1g i Zoning Depa t OATS: '4a r c h 2 5, 1988 RILE: SUS.IECT. Section 2401.3 of the Zoning Code Z'Jo1 Aa REFERENCES: ENCLOSURES. :ir. Jim KcMaster requested that he be given a response regarding Section 2401.3 of our Zoning Code •with a specific explanation as to why the mutual agreement for an extension of time with the applicant was not put in writing. 7.4F • ac cc: Jim Kc.4aster 2940 S.W. 30th Court Xiami; Florida 33133 Central file l � � , wtttd tilirnhinj �,� ,'..?'.-tI,(7t (',lt)elr, t_,1 rMxt(4-ehd of Centrr gfreef 3138 0o d x a a d} O � O N C/3 M •�+ n s-66 G qw 4kk Award Winnrn� (.��•� �,�., ,rfr�! E',►��,tr} ' ,,cf-re-end of Center `Street 3138 � dx •o f � U O q � "' TS O C4 H q S-66 (z . V ' '- An Appeds " taf ore City o f muwnt u )uty 14, 1980 Presentation Mmle 6y Louise L. R, d" R,e wmnd " A Neig Wrhood WaUtiOn I'm Louise Rubin, 6 Center Street, Coconut Grove, of those selected to speak for myself, and other affected members of our neighborhood, at meetings nerd by the rive concominiums, and the inalvlaual nome-owners in the notification area. Their signatures are all on file, and in the record We are the fortunate ones 1 feel for, and commiserate with, our adjacent neighborhood They already have a Carillo-Freixas office development, twin to what they have planned for us. We have, we hope, a more experienced City Commission to protect us from a repeat performance. I enter into the record this morning's article from the Coconut Grove Neighbors section of The Miami Herald, Page 3, headlined Parking _Scarcity Infuriates Workers / Office Building Short On Spaces. (Article is attached, as last page, to all copies of this presentation.) We were next in line to chain our lawns, while at the same time we are helping to pay the transportation costs of city workers, doomed to shuttle back and forth from "elsewhere" parking to their jobs. A very neat modus operandi but, like the mathematics of a chain letter, if allowed to continue there would soon be no "ci5ewhere" parking. We've come full circle, back to you, the City Commission, to whom the unkept promises by this developer were first made on June 20, 1985. Much as we would like to reverse the happenings of that day, that is not what we are here for. We are only asking that the neighborhood protections he offered you, in order to get his zoning variance, be lived up to! Commissioner Plummer understood then the tremendous adverse impact, as well as bad precedent, this invasion, in reality spot -zoning, would have on the character of yet another piece of residential Grove and, backed up by then Mayor Ferre, spoke and voted against it. Unfortunately that was the minority vote. Ex -Commissioner Carollo, realizing the gravity of parking impact on this limited cul-de-sac area, proposed an amendment, accepted by Commissioner Dawkins, to increase the parking requirements by 109, and we quote Commissioner Carollo: "to protect a little more the fact you are not going to have neonle parking on the outside of the building," Now, July 1988, what has happened to the protective 10% increase in parking requirements that was to decrease the impact on this neighborhood's very limited parking? It's protective intent has not only been wiped out, but the normal protections have been invalidated, by the currently illegal, improperly approved, unwarranted Valet Parking. That sounds like hyperbole, but let's take it item by item: 1. Currently illegal - The City last year finally banned this Class "B" Valet Parking, without an applicant first fulfilling minimum offstreet parking requirements. It was so often used as a ruse to build larger buildings with lesser parking. In this case minimum offstreet parking area was supposed to be 107. greater, to meet the Commissions' special requirement for granting the zoning variance. But, and we quote Mr. Campbell, former Design Engineer of the City's Public Works Department, his Inter -Office Memo of December 15, 1987, subject Class B Review for Valet Parking at 2701 Day Avenue, to Mr, Genuardi of the Building and Zoning Department, item 5: "Section 2017.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that valet parking facilities may be allowed only after minimum offstreet narking requirements have been Rrovided. The plans do not indicate that any NO required parki-nK ► I-, been provided.", close quote, atos of this memo, and several other'Wat will be referred to, are attaot ed, as an appendix to all copies of this presentation ) 2 Unwarranted - This beneficiary of zoning variance has not shown good faith, to the contrary he has schemed to by-pass the obligation he assumed in order to get his variance. Despite the Sunshine Law we have been unable to establish proper datings for his by-passing the above ban, but he hangs himself with the argument that he applied early enough to avoid the new regulation, for if he did so then his offer of 107 above the minimum offstreet parking requirement was tongue-in-cheek, knowing Class "B" status would offset the Commission's stated purpose of greater in-house parking area, not less. Compression for valet parking completely frustrates the protective intent. Most tenants, and many visitors, will first use up every vacant parking spot in the neighborhood before submitting cars to the valet who, as interviewees in today's previously mentioned article point out, services the needs of management rather than everyone, there is no way all could be promptly served at rush hour times. 3. lmnrotierly approved - We again quote Mr. Campbell's Inter -Office Memo of December 15, 1987: "The proposed dimensions of the access aisles and stall widths for the valet parking lot are substantially (may I repeat. substantially), less than the City's minimum standards for required parking. The proposed dimensions are also less than the minimums Engineers. " Mr. Genuardi, who granted the permit, responded with: "Dimensions of valet parking do not have to meet the City of Miami Guides and Standards. - - - The spaces are of sufficient width and depth for attendant parking." But they do not meet the minimums of the National Institute of Transportation Engineers who, we are sure, do not set those standards lightly. Or, even if there was some question in Mr. Genuardi's mind about the professional opinions as to spacing, what about the City's own Mr. Olmedillo, Chief of the Land Development Divison who, in an Inter -Office Memo dated December 9, 1987 wrote Mr. Genuardi as follows: " regarding a Class "B" 86-0060 Special Permit application for a proposed office facility with offstreet parking for 73 required spaces to be maintained with attendant parking only at 2701 Day Avenue: Circulation pattern is too complicated. Day Avenue is a one-way street, therefore in the event that parking spaces 1 to 60 are occupied, in order to fill in spaces 61 to 73, the attendant will have to leave the subject property and go west two blocks (Center Street is a dead end street) in order to go around the area to come back to the site. This will create a negative impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood which will be affected by excessive traffic." Or, the Public Works Department again, Item 2 on the same topic, quote: "Parking in Stalls 61 through 73 will require the parking attendant to drive west on Day Avenue to Mary Street and then loop around on surrounding streets to the parking lot entrance. The shortest of these routes is approximately four -tenths of a mile. The alternative to this long circuitous route is a much shorter illegal and potentially hazardous route. The attendants, at least sometimes, will probably drive 125 feet east on Day Avenue (one-way0est bound street) to the parki4k lot entrance. "(close quote) I hate to subject you to this redundency, and only do so to show that Mr. Genuardi was subjected to it, and at his own request for professional opinions. What we don't understand is that despite these extremely negative, unanimous, reports on every aspect of the application, he nevertheless granted it, leaving us no recourse but to appeal his unilateral approval. (Photos of the originals of all above references are attached to your individual copies of this presentation.) Mr. Genuardi, on 12/29/87, made response to the above, and 1 quote it slowly: "Valet will coordinate parking cars so that spaces 61 to 73 will be utilized during slow periods and therefore can turn cars around internally without driving around adjacent residential neighborhood." As best we can make out, after long debate, this statement can only be saying that when they need it most they'll have 13 valet spaces less than the count given to satisfy the valet parking requirement, because during rush periods spaces 61 to 73 will be used for internal turn-arounds. It also becomes logical to add that during slow periods they will also be open because they wouldn't then be needed. Which comes to the reality conclusion that they cannot be counted as real parking spaces at all! - - A miscount that massively violates code requirements, even with Class B! Mr. Genuardi's answer continues with: "Also, county has indicated that Day Avenue, will be made a two-way street from Center Street to SW 27th Avenue. " We have contacted all controlling agencies and uniformly they have replied: " No way - - not at that f ive-way intersection!" So that seems to be the developer's wishful thinking. We quote the written response of the Public Works Department, 3/3/88: "This department has had no direct notification of a request or application to return that portion of Day Avenue between S.W. 27th Avenue and Center Street to two-way operation. The one-way designation for this portion of Day Avenue was originally established for purposes of vehicular safety. Nothing has changed in the area which would allow Day Avenue to return to a two-way operation. We certainly would be opposed to any such proposal. " (Photocopy in appendix.) To recapitulate, we have ten solid grounds to have our anveal 1. The improper concealment of the fact that the building would be built around valet parking when obtaining the zoning variance. 2. The non-compliance with Section 2017.1.2 requiring that valet parking may only be allowed after minimum offstreet parking requirements have been provided. 3. The aisle and stall dimensions that do not meet the minimum requirements for valet parking of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 4. The 13 counted spaces that cannot really be utilized. 5. The too complicated circulation pattern. 0 6. The two-way ;,treet that doesn't exist. 7. The peak hour congestion of a major artery as valet parked cars are transferred on to Day Avenue, at the very time 27th Avenue and Tigertail feed their rush hour traffic into one-way, two-lane, Day. 8. The fact that no satisfactory answers were provided to the quoted objections from Mr. Olmedillo of the Planning- Department. 9. The fact that no satisfactory answers were provided to the quoted objections from Mr. Campbell of the Public Works Department, 10. The non -theoretical impact on the neighborhood. witness today's newspaper headlines. Beyond parking, from Page 62 of 6/20/85's minutes, we quote Commissioner Dawkins: I make the motion that this zoning request be approved . . . . if you stay below three levels.. . . . that is my motion, Mr. Mayor." "I will certainly proffer a declaration . to include the items" quoth Mr. Cardenas, the developer's attorney (Page 64). - - Above voted on and passed. Now, July 1988, despite your proper concern Commissioner Dawkins, the plans are somehow approved for four levels. We are pleased that this hearing gives you, Commissioner Dawkins, the opportunity to see how your protection for us, was implemented! Whatever the subterfuge, four levels is not three! We applaud this Commission for whatever steps it can take to withhold the special privileges, somehow obtained by this developer, over and above that which the previous Commission originally granted. As for impact on the developer, the first spade of earth has yet to be turned on this project. They can still build in a responsible manner, properly fulfilling the zoning requirements without subterfuge, and equalizing their profit margin with that of other responsible developers who do. Thank you. �r CITY OF MIAMI. rLORIDA ' w INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM ' Edith Fuentes, Director GATE December 15, 1987 .IL[: Building and Zonin De artment Attn: J. Genu /'� SUOJEC- Class "B" Review for Valet Parking at 2701 Day Avenue 'AO►" �� REFERENCES George Y. Campbell, Design Engineer ENCLOSURtS Public Works Department Plans and Application As you requested in your memo of December 10, 1987, the plans and application were reviewed for Class "B" 86-0060 for valet parking at 2701 Day Avenue. The following comments are provided: 1. The proposed dimensions of the access aisles and stall widths for the valet parking lot are substantially less than the City's minimum standards for required parking. The proposed dimensions are also less than the minimums recommended for valet parking by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2. Parking in stalls 61 through 73 will require the parking attendant to drive west on Day Avenue to Mary Street and then loop around on surrounding streets to the parking lot entrance. The shortest of these routes is approximately 0.40 miles. The alternative to this long circuitous route is a much shorter illegal and potentially hazardous route. The attendants, at least some times, will probably drive 125' east on Day Avenue (one-way west bound street) to the parking lot entrance. 3. There is insufficient maneuverability provided for the to loading stall. 4. The plans submitted for Class "B" 86-0060 apparently conflict with item 3c of the Declaration of Restrictions. Itea 3r tJ states "A landscape buffer area of ten (10) feet in width shall be provided on the northerly side of the property'. The required buffer is not shown on the plans on the northerly side of Lot 1. _.twL- 5. Section 2017.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance stipulates valet parking facilities may be allowed only after mi offstreet parking requirements have been provided. The p "lite. do not indicate that any required parking has been provided. Please contact Bill Mackey, Highway Engineer, at 6865 to review these comments in more detail. , J PS" WAM: mw t. bc: Highways rc� Central I a1 FROM CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDID INTER•OFFiCE MEMORANDUM Joseph A. Genuardi DATE December g, 1987 A i istrator Buildin nd Zoning DeD rtment SUBJECT Class "B" Review for Valet Parking 2701 Day Avenue REFERENCES Guiller Chief o Land Develd men Division ENCLOSURES Planni DeDartment TILE This is regarding a Class "B" 86-0066 Special Permit application for a proposed office facility with offstreet parking for seventy three (73) required spaces to be maintained with attendant parking only at 2701 Day Avenue. My comments are the following: Circulation pattern is too complicated. Day Avenue is a one-way street, therefore in the event that parking spaces 1 to 60 are occupied, in order to fill in spaces 61 to 73, the attendant will have to leave the subject property and go west two blocks (Center Street is a dead end street) in order to go around the area to come back to the site. This will create a negative impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood which will be affected by excessive traffic. Additional comments will be made at the time of the required Class C Special Permit application. If•you have additional questions, please advise. GEO/TLF/tlf • Ms. Lucia Anton �3 March 3, 1988 This department has had no direct notification of a request or application to return that portion of bay Avenue between S.W. 27 Avenue ana Center Street to two-way operation. the one-way designation for this portion of Day Avenue was originally established for purposes of vehicular safety. Nothing has changed i n • the area which would allow Day Avenue to return two-way operation. We certainly would be opposed to any such proposal. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, eo ge Campbel Design Engineer GVC:mw cc: Joe McManus, Assistant Director of Planning - 2 - Parking scarcity infuriates workers Office building short on spaces By DAVID HANCOCK Herald Staff Wrir.. The city of lliaini's newest office building in Coconut Grove has 97 employees and only 53 parking spaces. The workers without parking spaces don't like the situation. They're being bused every morning and afternoon from a parking lot a mile away. Or they're parking in the residential neighborhood around the build- ing, irking homeowners. But developer Hernando Carrillo, who built the orange stucco office at 3006 Avia- tion Ave., says he provided the required number of parking spaces for his four-story office building. Carrillo wants to build a similar -sized of- fice building nearby. To do it, he will have to use a special city permit — under a program discontinued by the city in 1987 — that al- lowed him to use a valet parking attendant to squeeze the cars into a smaller space. The proposed office building is at 2701 Day Ave. Neighbors opposing the project will have their final appeal before the city commission today. Carrillo's two office buildings have sparked controversy in Coconut Grove. Both projects required variances from the city to be built in residential areas. Both projects use valet parking. which allows the developer to provide fewer parking space if he uses a valet to park the cars closely to- gether. Carrillo said the city gets a good deal since he paysfur electricity, landscaping, va- Driver Craig Breakenridge stands beside his shuttle vat, waiting to take passengers to their V Coconut Grove offices. let parking and maintenance. "My con- science is clear in terms of dialogue with the neighbors. It's not an intrusive building. It's a lovely building that really is in harmony with the arcFttecture of the Grove." The city began busing its workers from City Hall last month, when the city's Finance Department and part of the Management and Budget Department finished moving in. A valet parking attendant supplied by Carrillo parks the cars of the city supervi- sors. Secretaries, clerks and other city workers are parking a mile away at Miami City Hall. They're picked up by a shuttle bus run- ning between the two locations. The two drivers are paid $6 an hour to be on call from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. It's not a pleasing situation. "I get a hundred complaints a day," said driver Craig Breakenridge. Workers riding the bus this week complained about the lack of parking, but declined to give their names. Rather than take the mini -commute from City Hall, some city workers have been parking in front of homes around the office building, prompting homeowners like Ed- ythe Quart in to chain off their lawn;. The building on Aviation Avenue was built by Carrillo and former Miami Zoning Board member Guillermo Freixas. The de- velopers were Riven a variance in 1981 to build the office building in the mostly resi- dential neighborhood. The developers alto got a valet parking permit to pack the required number of park- ing spaces into less space. The Miami City Commission approved a three-year lease for the property in June 1987. The city started paying rent of :Ell: 293 in October. months before any city de- partments moved in. The rent increased to $24,401 on i4f3y 18, after the btnldinQ wa; Qaven it; certifi- cate of occupancy. Al Armada, director of the city's property and lease management division, said Carrillo was the only one to re.p and to a public re- quest for office space from the city. Armada said the lark of parking was not a major problem, since the building was near a Metrorail station and restaurants on nearby Bird Road. "It's not the worst thing in the Orla." Armada said. IAW 11F F'll'F:F MICHAEL.1.FREEMAN. I' A. 15:�Si\III \A\I.mI ('�qtV 1�\lil.l� 1'IulilU\:;:�1:i1 r.1n:,1 112.1567 July 6, 1988 Ms. Gloria Fox City of Miami 275 N.W. 2nd Street P.O. Box 330708 coo t= Miami, Florida 33233-0708 N Re: Appeals of Zoning Board's Decision Regard*ng the Class B Special Permit_.2701 Day and Class C Special Permit 2701 Day Dear Ms. Fox: Ielev 52271A Wrm-man ('6111.1 '1't.Iw4jpl4m M0.11442.1227 I am in receipt of your two certified letters dated June 29, 1988. I have had the opportunity to meet with the developer and discuss the issues. I am satisfied that the proposed development will meet my expectations for the area. I am writing you to inform you of my decision to drop the appeals in both these cases. Thank you for your courtesies in this matter. Very truly yours, A N MICHAEL J. FREE MJF/mg '1 S