Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-87-0817t: RESOLUTION No. A RESOLUTION AUTHORTEINO AND PERMTTTINO CORAL WAY ASSOCIATES LIMITED AND DECORATIVE ARTS PLAZA INC �� DEVELOPERS OF THE PROPOSED MIRACLE CENTER PROJECT, TO RESTRICT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO StUt 33 AVENUE FROM S.V, 21 STREET FOR A 1--YEAR TRIAL PERIOD BY CCNSTRUCTINA TEMPORARY BARRICADES ACROSS S,W; 33 AVENUE AT APPROXIMATELY THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY 'LINE CAP THE MIRACLE CENTER PROJECT, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS RESOLUTION: WHEREAS, Coral Way Associates Limited and Decorative Arts Plaza Inc., developers of the proposed Miracle Center Project and hereinafter referred to as PETITIONER, have requested permission from the City to restrict vehicular access to S.W. 33 Avenue from S.W. 21 Street; and WHEREAS, Section 54-17 of the Code of the City of Miami, ( Florida, gives the City Commission the power, after a properly advertised public hearing, to require that vehicular access to a F particular street be prohibited where such prohibition is found ri k to be in the best interest of the public; and z WHEREAS, the City Commission has requested that the Department of PublicWorks initiate the process to prohibit vehicular access from S.W. 21 Street to S.W. 33 Avenue at s. approximately the easterly extension of the northerly property line of the Miracle Center project; and WHEREAS, the Police Department, Fire, Rescue & Inspection Service Department and Solid Waste Department have made z f recommendations on the proposed prohibition of vehicular access }' and have expressed no objections; and { t CITY CQXMSSION XE9TIIYQ OF Y SEP 19�7 77 R€MARKSc. i MAW$ pursuant to fte Public notice, -a public shearing vat bald before the City tosmissiofi on September 8, 1187, At to any objeoti ons to the prohibition of vbhi eol ar accttt from S, i 21 Street to S.U. 33 Avenue at approximately the easterly exthnsion of the northerly property line of the Miracle Center project, and no objections were sustained by the Commigsion; and 'WHEREAS, the City Commission finds that the herein prohibition should be instituted for a '-year trial period to determine if said prohibition is in the best interest of the i public; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA Section 1. The recitals and findings set forth in the preamble to this resolution are hereby incorporated by reference t and adopted. Section 2. The PETITIONER is hereby granted permission,, subject to the following provisions of this resolution, to construct and maintain for a 1-year trial period, temporary_ barricades across S.W. 33 Avenue at approximately the easterly extension of the northerly 'property line of the Miracle Center project, said ,project more particularly described as the east 625 feet of Tract B, Coral Gate Section D, Plat Book 50, Page 34 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Section 3. Said barricades shall prevent vehicular access but not restrict pedestrian access and shall be constructed according to plans prepared and sealed by a registered professional engineer and Subject to the approval of the City of Miami Department of Public Works. Section 4. Said PETITIONERshall prepare and obtain approval from Metropolitan Dade County Public Works Department, Traffic Division, of a traffic signage and/or traffic striping plan for the area affected by the herein traffic prohibition. g S L � Section 38 if said PETITIONER Bills to properly rsalntai said barrioaides, iijas and Striping, or, if the barritados for any reason become a haeard to the health, welfare and safety of the general public as determined by the Direttor of Public VOrks, the City may remove or require the PETITIONER to remove the barricades, signs andjor striping Section G. Said PETITIONER shall provide the City with a performance bond acceptable to the City in the amount of five hundred dollars to insure that the barricades, signs and striping are removed, if so ordered by the City, and the public right of way restored to the condition that existed prior to the construction of the barricades Section 7. The 1-year trial period shall begin after construction of the barricades has been accepted by the City's Public Works Department and after all required traffic signage and striping has been installed and has been officially accepted in writing by the Dade County Public Works Department. Section 8. After 9 months of the 1-year 'trial period has elapsed, said PETITIONER shall send certified letters to all f property owners in the Coral Gate neighborhood bounded by S.W. 16 Street, S.W. 22 Street, S.W. 32 Avenueand S.W. 37 Avenue, soliciting their approval or disapproval for construction of permanent barricades. The property owners shall respond directly to the City's Public Works Department utilizing postage paid postcards supplied by PETITIONER and included with the certified letters. Property owner response will be evaluated by City staff and the _herein vehicular access prohibition shall be made permanent only upon approval of the City Commission by resolution. ':Y t :4'.: Vk �11�•t3i="ie1�� iiAE�iti�l�te�i't�i�ll Honorable Mayor` -and MelbergBPI, of the city Commission AUG 3 1 1$ fi�es�l�t#on �'estricting Vehicular Attest to Lies 33 Aveniue from 94V* 21 street `R Cesar 1i. Odi© a � � � : RetoIUtion A Location Sketth City Manager t. RECOMMENDATION. It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached resolution authorizing and permitting the developers of the Miracle Center Project to restrict vehicular access to S-W'. 33 Avenue from S.W. 21 Street for a 1-year trial period. BACKGROUND: The Department of Public Works, after studying the Coral Cate area and considering the wishes of its residents, and in a continuing effort to serve all residents of the City of Miami, is recommending the restriction of vehicular access to S.W. 33 Avenue from S.W. 21 Street for a one-year trial period. t On October 239 1986 the City Commission adopted resolution ' No. 86-834 issuing a Major Use Special Permit and thereby approving, with conditions, the Miracle Center Project proposed by Coral Way Associates, Ltd.and Decorative Arts Plaza, Inc. +' located at approximately 3301-3501- Coral Way. One of the conditions of the Major Use Special Permit is that the applicant shall file a petition to temporarily prohibit;` vehicular access from 'SOW. 21st'Street to S.W. 33rd Avenue for a period of one year. Section 54-17 of the City Code gives the City Commission the power, after' a properly advertised public hearing, to prohibit vehicular access to a particular street where such prohibition .is found to.be in the best interest of the public. The applicant t and the City Commission have requested that the Department of Public Works initiate the process to prohibit said vehicular access. The Police Department, Fire, Rescue b Inspection Service Department and Solid Waste Department have made recommendations on the proposed prohibition and have expressed n0 objections. A 'public hearing will be held on September -8', 1987 as to an objections to the prohibition of vehicular access from S.W. 21 Street to S.W. 33 Avenue at approximately the easterly extension of the northerly property line of the Miracle Center Project for a 1-year trial period. j r. r 4.6 } Paget. } Table of CitAti0fts issue Involvedt The City Commission erred in • denying the subject zoningre quests for special use permits as all criteria were met. Statement of the Cana and of the PaCtA . 4 Summary of Argument Argument: 12 ;.' Conclusion: { Certificate of Service: 13 - Following [ Index to Appendix: Page 13 f �y rt I I fi A N e A t f t a y,r Palest Drexel v. city of Miami Ileachf 64 90K2� 317 Mast ISO) S f 7 Duval county Planning Commit- SoM 167 M aftn, AO # 1986� Metropolitan Dada COuntY v.. PLtllerp 497 Sci 2d 132 (Fla., sird I9lii 3 t r 4 i fi a.. 87-817 r i � W i ok } ?y N 2,x , ;f Y .�sfi ►'1' t fi ` "t CASE the "llaet Mardet*),# writ pro - *transition zone' of the City of Miami, ftfeh abuts -ct ►ereially zoned property it retains a single family zoning cate- t meets criteria be used for office 'City Bade provisions eardet regueeted its for'"transitional offices not selling z: -2/2 zone next to Cat-3/7 zone" perty abutting nand adjoining) Cardet's =tt • �i A- P%1 �.. �L _..teIL- _ye .3 a fifteen,(15) story highrise office structure pursuant to the "Major Use Special Permit"_ provisions of the city code (Commission Transcript, pages 1-2, Nov. 25, 1986). The map on the following page reflects Cardet's properties in yellow. The properties in pink are the abutting CR-3/7 commercial zones. on the pink site labeled "Miracle Center t=, Project" the City Commission, just prior to denying Cardet's i �- three story office building requests here involved, approved } the Miracle Center Project. This is the major use which includes the 15-story highrise office structure. in denying Cardet and approving Miracle Center the CityCommission utilized the identical code provisions which contain the .,` criteria to be considered. j } j t #, 46 pbf we u--------10 S .1A1. 33 AVE:cl 1 x - 001 s r i f � tf n� .i 4"d ammai to tram the city Comissions, dental of thetw+o special use parmito; each tar a three story office ,LL • - - - .i, buildiag CIS requested Cardet.s t _t yy 1 �r i Kv MOR a { o-s ? 1 4: 8"7 8117 ' 777777 � x !•i; � k � $ A 3Sf �y 1 T cardatit applications for two office structures three= t stories high# Filet the various criteria af the ity at Miami• thus it was improper to teeny him the requested special lobe permits. 'as the City failed toy prove t�'ieroposais are adverse to the public interest the City lacks, discretion for such a denial particularly where based on the same criteria, on 'abutting property, a fifteen US) story office building was Approved during the same time period �P ¢ r 87, t' q i r t � n. goy The city,comission erred in denying the subject toning requests _ for specia l r use permits as all criteria veto mote i in order to obtain his special use permits for his proposed 3-story office buildings Cardet was required b code to meet the criteria of Section 2305, Miami Zoning Ordinance tA.1-3y. Paralleling this, in order for tb+e developers of the proposed 15-story office building (Miracle Center Project) on the abutting and adjoining property to receive their major use special permit they had to meet the same criteria of the said Section 2305, Miami Zoning Ordinance. The City Commission concluded that the 15-story highrise structure met the criteria, but that Cardet's proposals did not. The Cardet denials took place on November -. 25, 1986. The Miracle Center approval took place on October f 23, 1986. What follows is a review of the ordinance criteria, including a parallel look at the two proposals, Cardet's r' • s and the Miracle Center Project, for if the latter met the i criteria, it will be seen that the former also did. In approving the one use and denying the other the City ig- '' nored the mandate of its own ordinances and of Drexel v. City of Miami Beach, 64 So.2d 317 (Fla.,'1953) that such z criteria must be uniformly applied between citizens. Section 2305.1, Miami Zoning Ordinance provides (A.2): -" "Due consideration shall be given to adequacy of ingress and egress _.r 5 x .. a.'.,• .: is f , S to this property and structure and gees there*n# with partieuiar re= forenes to automotive and pedestrian r h safety and eanvainieneef traffic flow and contrai, and acesss'in case of firs or other emergency* i his the Prat criterion of the ordinance. 'The Section criterion is found in Section 230M Ms g ) 'Due consideration shall be given to offetreet parking and loading facilities as related to adjacent streetsr with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and conveniences internal traffic flow and control arrangement in relation to access in case of fire or other emergency and screening and landscaping, i+ In .relation to those criteria the Manning Director stated in his recommendation (A.4 A 8) which recommendation was adopted by the city commission as its own findings (A.12) An adverse effect would be created on a residentialstreet, there is no adequate ingress and egress to the property as related to pedes- trian safety and convenience, and in addition an overflow of traffic would disrupt existing conditions in the area as a result of the -pro- posed office structure." 3 � ;. One must wonder how it can be that a three-story office building on property abutting S.W. 33rd Avenue will cause ` a traffic overflow into a residential neighborhood ( lying north of the properties and reached by S.W. 33rd Avenue) z ' when'a 15-story office on S.W. 33rd Avenue will not do the same. A review of the record reveals (Comm. Transcript of November 25, 1986, page 40) that one of the provisions of approval for the Miracle Center Project was to close off, or barricade, S.W. 33rd Avenue (where the pink meets a 6 p w f v a s9 t r , the yellow an the imp, supra p_ 2) to physically preclude the traffic from utilising the :residential streets to the north$ This provision was Imposed pursuant to Bastion 2306, Ord,, which calls for "Conditions and Safeguards' which are (As3) Oreatacmably necessary* tar the approval at the projects Simply put, in order to have approval of the Miracle Center project S.W. 33rd Avenue had to be blockaded. This identical provision could tand should? have been applied to the subject properties by blockading S.W. 33ra Avenue not at the northern property line of the miracle center property, but at the northern property line of the Cardet properties, and access to the Cardet pro- perties should have been permitted only through S.W. 33rd Avenue. This simple condition would have put the two pro= perties on a parity and, as was done with the Miracle Center Project, eliminates the Director's concerns. Notwithstanding this simple, fair, and equitable solution, the equal treat- ment mandate of Drexel v. City of Miami Beach, supra, was violated. yr . Section 2305.3 - 2305.6 relate to refuse and service ' areas; signs and lighting;utilities; and drainage. There was no dispute regarding these items. The Planning Director a had no negative comments concerning them nor the testimony r of the architect for Cardet relating to them.' In addition to the traffic issues previously addressed herein, the only negative comments by the Planning Director .. were to the effect that the three story office building r r tn Xy t tr' a L 1,. y r r °aka♦ 3 i. .' .' .:y ii, ..: , . a:: ,. ..1 ,. •_, ` shy . ` ,__r.u..tnt.. _.} .... . , L..., _<_ •- ,.. , Lv ,.a4 .4...,.f:di L:iJ4_ =!'• would b@ cut Of SCA16 With the Aelghberhood. (SA-3) s Opel— ficAlly these rGCOMndaticht Of the Planning Director i.e (other than traffic as discusseal were (A41 AgI Ags SAID), 'Proposed transitional Office would Create aft adverse effect generally at adjoining and nearby properties and the neighborhoods The type of occupancy as proposed would net blend harmoniously with the existing eharae- ter of the area and would not be Compatible with other development in the neighborhood, Proposed office building also out of scale with other buildings in the single family residential adjacent neigh - The absolute brags bf this position ("proposals are out of scale and out of character with the neighborhood") would be laughable were it not for the terrible harm that has been done to Cardet. When a "professional" states that a 15 story office building abutting and adjacent to k^.. single family property is in character and compatible with abutting and adjacent single family homes, but that three n, story office buildings are out of character and incompatible =. ., :y with the said residential neighborhood, it is an affront f. to reason. Following this page is a graph reflecting the 15 story Miracle Center Project in pink, the Cardet offices as pro- posed in yellow and the single family across the residential street in green. It is assumed that the single family home is one story, although the zoning code of the City of Miami permits three stories. The heights are drawn � a to scale, although the horizontal distances including the x � f rsir. { S y SINGLE RESIDENTIAL CARDET MIRACLE FAMILY STREET OFFICE CENTER 4. (1-STORY) AS - PROJECT PROPOSED SIL �f fir• ' f 't jj ii y( t residential street are tot. A review of the graph �������s the absurdity of suggesting that a it -story building is , suitable next to single family homes whereas a three-story office building as proposed by Cardet .is unsuitabias The owner of the single family home to the North across the residential str@et, when he looks out his front door, will see the IS -story Miracle Center Project as the bulk# net the Cardet proposal/ These positions relative to compatibility and scale as set forth by the Director in his recommendation are ostensibly from Section 2305.7# which reads (A.3): ,4 "In addition to consideration of de- tailed elements indicated above, as appropriate to the particular class or kind of special permit and the circumstances of the particular case♦ due consideration shall be given to potentially adverse effects generally on adjoining and nearby properties, the area` the neighborhood, -� or the City, of the use or occupancy` as proposed, or its location, construction, �. design, character,'scale `or manner n,°' ,n of operation. Where such potentially g#= adverse effects are found, consideration shall be given to special remedial measures appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case, including' screening or buffering, landscap- ing, control of manner or hours of operation,`alteration of proposed ±• design or construction of buildings, relocation of proposed open space or alteration of use of such space, . F or such other measures as are required to assure that such potential adverse effects will be eliminated or minimized I, ' to the maximum extent reasonably r.z feasible, and that the use or occupancy will be compatible and harmonious with other development in the area f ,= pp aa(( ryrkta• i az r• k it .r to A degree Which Vill avoid subtUattAl. - q.,.I•r,. depreciations Of the value of near by As can be seen# this section entitled "control or poten_ tialiy Adverse Effects Generally* is to be applied -after consideration of the detailed criteria. mere the burden of proof falls an the city to demonstrate, as the detailed elements of the criteria have been mat, that the approval a of Cardet's proposal mould be adverse to the public interest. n I ihe , Duval l'r�W��v Pita li�illwl �o.W��DOY.��W�;�. 495 So,. 2d 167 Ma.# 1986), Metroeolitan bade County V. Puller, 497 go.26 1322 (Pla.t 3rd DCA, 1986). As the Florida Supreme ;. Court stated in Irvine V. Duva_l._County_Planning Commission, at page 1674. once the petitioner. met the initial burden of showing that his application met the statutory cri- { teria granting such exceptions, f, t 'the burden was upon the Planning , ' Commission to demonstrate, by com- petent substantial evidence presented at the hearing and made a part of :t 3' the record, that the [special] ex- ception requested by Petitioner did not meet such standards and was, .. in fact, adverse to the public in- 4 terest'." Thus the City of Miami had the burden of demonstrating, 1 all criteria being met, why Cardet's proposals are adverse ' { to the public interest by beingincompatible and out of r 1 scale. This burden it did not carry, _nor could it have, ti. as the City's approval of the 15-story office building y totally belies any such ostensible adverse effect. 8'7 x t yyq ICY 5 n• r,_ y ,txXn.3 $f t`,i i uu Y i The City's resolution no, 86-948 (A%12) denying Cardet's two special peralta should be reversed and the City should be directed to approve fiaid permits, Job, letahar Att r e- for Appellant Su 0 7 0 Re d Road uth Miam # braids 3314 (305) 665-7521 14 ti Y�12 J�� f ZR 11 1 t *5 i WY dMA to I MIS of surfflalont sin to liew (1)'loundarift at tistitl� #trust ilruildi+ water esf Mer"W its and jection llMst one loWlem of all bulldinp albsinatural tit semis ark truffle flow od hew VaNeulat fraffia will be SaWated IMM OWUirlan Wd o1hr tym of traffic W offiltteet 96 k1rw tend offstrttet tar ddl g ; t teeteotitm foalllties locatl�snsl all weepsad and buffers Mule eall"Mon Freest and access to utilitle e d "Intl of utllltito) 'l' laths Of total gross offealle In tl a V4 and the sw thereof proceed to be *vated to (1) fM 4arlous ;eOmMed we and t Iraund l overage ls� structures. tf) Tallatlon` showing (1) the derivation of timbets of offstreet parking and offstreet loading spaces shown In td) dbovel and Q) total pr®'eet density In twelling , units pet acres (g) if common facilities (such as recreation areas or structures, private streets, common open space, etas) ate to be provided for the development, statements as to how such common facilities are to be provided amd perfianently� rnbintbined. ,.i...1 .�:t;. ..._ Horne owners associations, surety orrangementss or other legal instruments providing adequate guarantees to the City that such common facilities will not become a future liability for the City. (h) Storms, drainage and sanitary sewerage plans. ; (1) Architectural definitions for buildings In the development; exact number of dwelling units, sixest and types, together with typical floor plans of each type. (�) Mans for signs; It any. (k) Landscaping plan, Including types, sizes and locations of vegetation and decorative shrubbery, and showing provisions for irrigation and future rnaintenance. (I) Plans for recreation facilities, if any, including location and general description of buildings for such use. (m) Such additional dots,', maps, plans, or statements as may be required for the particular use ar activity involved. (n) Such additional` data as the applicant may believe is pp y pertinent to the ; proper coruid -ration of the site and development plan. Items (c) (d), (k), and 00 above shall be prepared by a registered surveyor, engineer, architect, landscape architect or certified planner as may be appropriate to - the particular item. 2304.2.2. Application Forms: Completion before Processing. For purposes of establishing time limitations on processing, no application shall be deemed to have been filed unless and until the applications shall have been A completed; all plans, reports or other information, exhibits, or documents required by this Zoning Ordinance or administrative rules adopted pursuant hereto shall have been �. provided; and all fees due at time of filing shall have been paid. 2304.2.3. Application Fors: Supplementary Materials. During processing of any application, if ` it is determined by the designated agent, agency, or body of the City, that in the particular circumstances of the case additional information is required to make' necessary findings bearing on its approval, denial, or conditions and safeguards to be attached, such information may be requested. Failure to supply such supplementary information may be used as grounds for denial of the permit. SECTION 2305. CONSIDERATIONS GENERALLY; STANDARDS; FINDINGS AND REQUIRED.DETERMINATIONS _ As appropriate to the nature of the special permit involved and the particular 23-5 A-1 87�-81! 1 i f hM 9� 1 7 a• I i r Yv C+Y. a t eltemsta eft of ft. +uses tt following CM41deratlem and Standards "li Mly r Werollys in tlddition to my ether stanidords and requirements set forth emeetwing the aloes w kind of 1errnit being emIdereds City agents, ageneles, er bwds dw—d -_ Frith der�4116M eMiWhIng s>sl.►oial permits ahoil'moke, at ea se to he modes Wei on f Rdif* and deterrninoatian 'vn nifl► g s of the following ftilittet as ore apll"e In the emej the record and ��dtd by s dstandards hh consideratIons anin ti*ir specifically ftel oins l asto ssunee of per its. with ar �withoui ftnditior�s and safeguards at denial of a�plicettiar�� ': 2��s.1� Inar►ess a�nd'garess� Due consideration shall be given to +ade+tuaey of ingress and egress to the property and structure and uses thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flaw and control, and access in case of fire or other emergency. 2365.. t ffstrre I fitltin+� ohd. Loading. Due consideration shall be given to offstreet parking and loading facilities as related to adjacent streets, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian ; safety and convenience, internal traffic flow and control, arrangement in relation to access in case of fire or other emergency, and screening and landscaping. - r 2305.3 Refuse and Service Areas., . rv- Due consideration shall be given to the location, scale, design, and screening of k, Y., refuse and service areas;, to the manner in which refuse is to be stored; and to the manner and timing of refuse collection and deliveries, shipments, or other service activities, as such matters ,relate to the location and nature of uses on adjoining,,, properties and to the location and character of adjoining public ways. .; 2305.4. Signs and Lightina. Due consideration shall be given to the number, size, character, location, and orientation of proposed signs, of proposed lighting for signs and premises, with particular reference to traffic safety, glare, and compatibility and harmony -with t � ; Pa _ Yr 9 � Pa tY adjoining and nearby property and the character of the area. 2305.5. Utilities. ' Due consideration shall be given to utilities required, with particular reference to availability and cit of systems, location of connections and potentially :. Y Calmcity YS � � ` Po y , adverse appearance or; other adverse effects on adjoining and nearby property and the s' character of the area. 4 2305.6. Drainage - r Due consideration shall be given to _ provision for drainage, with particular reference- to effect on adjoining and .nearby properties and on general drainage F y . systems In the area. Where major drainage volumes appear likely and capacity of } $ available systems is found marginal or inadequate, consideration shall be given to possibilities for recharge of ground water supply on the property, temporary retention with gradual discharge, or other remedial measures. 23-6 87-81:� f A is u i Qy..- 3 a� 'A � In addiflen to weldete lain at detd led thments Ittfloated ebm, a awrowlete to the pI+lar +dlass w kind of speclelt and ft oltnnstangEs of the,= pertImAir efte, due a Idere lan *41 bE f vm to potEmlaliir adverse affects +Rant► an adjaining tad MWWYpropErtl,hE arttr, the oibj the t ty, of the toe or tieriwai a ptoWedg at Its locotlen, l afatfulaiool design, timoder, scate of ffmmer lot opEte do +. �1hEtE l .l" i pptentiolly verses ElEfeats t9f E found, consideration shall be 12iv" to spatial re"emal the sure aWoplate In the pB"Iftlar citcurnstaneft sf the tatat Including screening or buffering, landscaping, control of ftwner' ar hears of opEtatlon,eltetat'Ion of prapoled design or construction of buildingst relocation of primed open space or 161teration of 4Ae 0 such spore, at such other measures as are malted to assure that such pe�tentit�l adverse effects Vill be eliminated or minimized to the rnaximunw extent reamobly feaelble, and that the r use or accuponcy will be compatible and harmonious with other development in the area to a degree which will avoid substantial depreciation of the value of nearby property. SEC'iION 230_6. C0ITIONS AND SAFF.CUARDS. i I The agent, agency, or body of the City designated by his Zoning Ordimmee as having responsibility for Issuance' or denial of each of the classes of special permits set out in this Article 23 shall have authority to attach to the grant of any such special permit such conditions and safeguards as may be necessary forr the purposes of this Zoning ordinance In the particular case. - Such conditions and safeguards, If attached to grant of special permit, shall be based upon and consistent with considerations and standards applicable to the class or. kind of special permit involved as set out in Section 23050 Considerations Generally; f Findings and Determinations Required, and In other provisions relating to the !; particular class .or kind of ''permit. The requirement for any such conditions or safeguards shall be supported by stated "reasons therefor, based upon such considers-' tions and standards, and no such condition or safeguard shall establish special limitations` and/or requirements beyond those reasonably necessary for the accom- plishment of the purpose for which attached. 2.306.1. Failure to Comply with Conditions and Safeguards to be Deemed Violation t1: x o r anance. Failure to comply with conditions and safeguards, when attached to grant of a special permit, shall be deemed a violation of this zoning' ordinance. ` SECTION 2307. NOTICE AND HEARING GENERALLY• AVAILABILITY OF RECOM It is the intent of this Zoning Ordinance that, in the administration of special permits, requirements of notice and hearing, whether formal or informal, shall be observed as herein set out. The requirements for notice and hearing herein set out, whether formal or informal, for the several types of special permits are designed to insure fairness and expedition in the administrative process and to protect the public interest. it is further the intent of this Zoning Ordinance that reuirements hrein } set out for notice and hearing,` whether formal and informal, for the several types of special permits are to be deemed sufficient for meeting the standards of due process for the specific permit for which application is mode. 23-7 s u 14 -3 LY .i. "�;l M a r � 4i s Its �y�,,ppJJ Y 6� t i r fee lot bates tse fallsofill tta kof "44 lit*** Apt# AIAUA%Vl%ftrka + &A W� , 46 aa, ' f P i��f T file lu�efi ct-1160 tt is intended that, 'Mall tecial limits fieguired efie speiiified uses end or occupancies `involve substantial -technipdi issues relating to �` planning �blioy Any project fie4u rring a Class t Special 'Permit must first be rev�ieeed by the wilding and Zoning Department'ttnd floor) to %%Ufe that each project conforms to all Zoning reguirementst Therefores this form must be signed by the thief toning Inspector bed the project will be considered by the Director of the planning Department. t,,J "This project has been reviewed 'by the Building and Zoning Department and has been found to be in conformances th ally oning r uire mentJ010! 0,6101te. Ai 7 rfz _.- Cnie oning Inspe o ate The director of 43 pirtment of Planning shall be solely responsible for Consideration 'otappl'cations for Class C Special permits. ' The director shell make such referrals to other officersordepartments as are required by regulations to the particularspecial permit and may make Other referrals deemed necessary by him before arriving at his decison. (Section 2301.-)� s hereby apply to the director. of the Department of Planning or -approvalof a Class C Special Permit under f the provisions of Articles 23 and 25 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance. Address of Property Nature of Proposed Use (Be specific) vi W46., I attach the following in support or explanation of this application: y a) Survey of the property prepared by State of Florida Registered Land ;. Surveyor. J b) Three copies of: site plan showing (as required)' property boundaries and proposed structure(s), ' parking, landscaping, screening, etc; building elevations '(if'required),_with dimensions and computation of lot area (gross and net), building spacing height envelope, LUI '. ratios (open space, floor area, parking, etc.) See Section 2301.2.1(c). 5w V c) Other (Specify) MI, bUld IM tide #e11lev1flo; t0 SIS.00 per dwelling "I RS�I l aslo . -Do RG-241 pot 43 IRO-9411 144 211 1 „1 1�1 ;Rii ;0,02 per sR;ft, at net Area, minimum $200,00 $0.01 per 3q�ft, of flt treat minimum $00,0 All other appliutions a required by the text or Schedule of District Regulations Signature ' Ow r Of AutnOM M Ag( Name r Address �+ 1NOW i1 `4 - s file liar b11r 10*46 � intendId t1hat MASS act t 0dfil Fermi tt tie reo�r i rot Where Specified viet and otevotAt et ifivel re Subitantipl technical issues relating to 0lannint� pe i Any project requiring a Gast it Special permit must first be reviewed by 0e Building and Zoning Department 'tend flour) to insure Slut eatii project tdnfOrms to all coning reQuirements, Therefore, this form must be Signed by the Chief Zoning Iritpatttr bifora the project *ill be considered by the Director of the planning Departm $This project has been reviewed the Building and -oning Department and has been found to be in to ormafi ewith ill on n r Ch f Zoning Insp t r ate The directoF of a be artment of planning shall be solely responsible for consideration of app Yeations for Mass C Special permits. The director shall make such referrals to other officers or departments asei are required by regulations to the particular special permit and may make other referrals deemed necessary by him before arriving at his decison. (Sectio 2301.3) I, ..i?/�J hereby apply to the director J of the Department of Planning for approvalof a Class C Special Permit under the provisions of Articles 23 and 25 of the City of MiamiZoningOrdinance.. �%4ddress of Property % Nature of Proposed Use (Be specific) `��� 4 `# I atyach the following in support or explanation of this application: a) Survey of the property prepared by State of Florida Registered Land s. Surveyor. `. b) Three copies of: site plan showing (as required) property boundaries r and proposed structure(s), parking,' landscaping, screening, et;, building elevations (if required),' with dimensions and computation of lot area (gross and net), building spacing height envelope,;LUI` ratios (open space, floor area, parking, etc.) See Section 2301.2.1(c). .. c) Other (Specify) iii 3 Y T j 111 ' b t � i j vt a T n _ _ _ ,,:�..4. a "s vt moo* �"li gss C emit Umbert`g6!' Fdings: Cart. } as result of the primed office structure pis d off ire b d is also cut of scale with other buildinst in the single f&,filly residential adjacent neighborhood* Eight (a) adiacent pme Omert ware notified and signed off the attached � x pste acknowledging t tmy have seen the plans for rmosed transitional office. 'its of them presertttobjections to the Ling artnt. �s. 4"- S+ �t r s f . ♦ ` yJia�l' yy � � t r Woo bW � MUNNbutt � MUD��� �:k� �ro � Polk ' b ABL'1bNi fi tiP. T'RAND°ITIONA1, UAt OPPICIS Mot StLtI140 REACHAND189 am "t fiit'M1818 At 2100 AND 2101 ADOPTIN AND 111NOORPOPAITING SHE FINDINGS OP WHEREASs the Miami toning board at fts meeting of October 20# 1966, item No. �, S��o1u�i�n No, 2D 120-86# by a 0 to 1 vote, upheld the Manning Director is Decision of e.Y a August 26, 1966, denying Class C Special Permits, as hereinafter set forth= and WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of T this matter, deems it advisable and in the best interest of they general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to. confirm the denial of said Class C Special Permits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY x OF MIAM,I, FLORIDA: . +}5I . Section-1. The decision of the Zoning Board to unhold ` the Planning Director's de cision eclsion to deny Class C Special Permits, File Nos. C-86-516 and C-86-517, respectively, for the establishments of transitional use offices not selling merchandise on the premises at 2100 and 2101 Southwest 33rd Avenue, Miami, Florida, is hereby affirmed. Section 2. - The findings of the Planning Director are 1A, at hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. r PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 1986. .. j A-1z iu is a F.q `r 7 4. ti