The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM-86-0238r J-86-239 3/12/86 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE IGHBORHOOD PLAN (1976-1986) BY CHANGING THE D IGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT AP ROXIMATELY 3471 MAIN HIGHWAY (MORE PAR ICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), FROM A COMB NATION OF MIXED - USE AND LOW DENSITY RESI NTIAL USE TO MIXED - USE; MAKING FINDI GS; AND CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A EVERABILITY CLAUSE. WHEREAS, Resol tion No. 85-1248, adopted by this Commission on December 19, 1985, directed the transmission of this proposed amendment of the Miam Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan to the Florida Department of Co unity Affairs for comments; and WHEREAS, this Commiss\on has taken into consideration, prior to adoption of this Ordinlgnce, any comments which have been consequently transmitted to t Community Affairs on the pro forth; City by the Florida Department of ed :unendment, as hereinafter set WHEREAS, the Miami Planning )�dvisory Board, at its meeting of December 4, 1985, Item No. 2, foAowing an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 67-85, by a vote of 8 to 1, RECOMMENDING DENIAL, of a proposed amendment to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (1976-1 6), as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, after ca ful consideration of this matter, deems it advisable and in the b\Nighborhood nterest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its tants to grant this amendment to the Miami Comprehensive Plan (1976-1986), as hereinafter set forth, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSIOV OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA. Section 1. The Miami Comprehensive NeighborhNod Plan, (1976-1986), is hereby amended by changing the designati n under said Plan for the property located at approximately 34 Main Highway, Miami, Florida, more particularly described as begi ning at the point of intersection of the southerly boundary lin of 3>4%-moEP 6y M 0 7. 86-23S.- Tract "A" and the U.S. Harbor line of Biscayne Bay as shown on the plat thereof entitled "THE C.W. EMERSON TRACT IN COCONUT GROVE, CITY OF MIAMI, DADE COUNTY, FLA." (35-61); thence north 34°59'44" east along said U.S. Harbor line for a distance of 66.75' to a point, thence north 46°25'53" west along the northerly boundary line of said Tract "A" for a distance of 846.10' to a point; thence south 43134'07" west for a distance of 66.0' to a point on the southerly boundary line of said Tract "A", thence south 46°25'53" east along the southerly boundary line of said Tract "A" for a distance of approximately 856.05' to the point of beginning and containing 56,170 square feet more or less; and Lot 7, Monroe Plat, as shown on the plat recorded in Deed Book (D-253), lying and being in the southeast quarter of fractional Section 21, Township 54 south, Range 41 east, Dade County, Florida, excepting therefrom the following: beginning at the point in the northeast boundary line of Lot 7, of the subdivision of Lot 1, in Section 21, Township 54 south, Range 41 east, in Dade County, Florida, as shown on the plat recorded in Deed Book (D-253), where said line intersects the center line of the County Road leading from Miami to Cutler; thence south 45° east along said line, which is also the southwest boundary of a Lot formerly owned by Charles Montgomery, 467' to a point 25' beyond the corner between the said Montgomery Lot and the Lot heretofore conveyed by J.W. Frow to Frank H. Kanen and Evelyn M. Kanen, his wife; thence south 45° west 10'; thence north 450 west 467' to the center line of above road; thence north 45° east along said center line 10' to point of beginning. Also except, that part of Lot 7, Monroe Plat as recorded in Deed Book (D-253) , lying northwest of the county road, the said parcel of land being also described as follows: beginning at a pipe set in cement marking the location of the lightwood stake set as marking the most northwesterly corner of said Lot 7; thence south 45° east 6341, more or less, to the center line of County Road (Dixie Highway) which line is marked by a pipe set in cement 35' from center line of said road; thence northeasterly along the said -2- 8 236.- center line of said County Road 178.871; thence north 45° west, paralleling the southwesterly line of said Lot 7, 4601, more or less, to a pipe set in cement in the south line of Grand Avenue which point is east of the point of beginning; thence west 253', more or less to point of beginning; also except that portion of Lot 7, Monroe Plat, as recorded in Deed Book (D-253), conveyed by Jack R. Gardner, et al., to the City of Miami, a municipal corporation, by Deed dated August 8, 1947, recorded in Deed Book (2913-237) from a combination of mixed use and low density residential use to mixed use. Section 2. It is hereby found that this Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan amendment: a. is not contrary to evolving land use patterns in the surrounding area; b. is necessary due to changing conditions in the subject neighborhood; co will not create an isolated designation unrelated to adjacent and nearby designation; do is not out scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City; e. would not materially alter the population density pattern or increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc. f. will not adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; go will not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations; and h. will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrast with the protection of the public welfare. Section 3. The Planning Department staff is hereby directed to make the necessary changes reflecting the herein action on the map which is a part of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (1976-1986). i 86-236,, - 3- & 0 Section 4. All ordinancest code sections, all parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed insofar as they are in conflict. Section 5. Should any part or provision of this ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid the same shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole. PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this ::...�... day of 1986. PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this day of , 1986. XAVIER L. SUAREZ MAYOR MATTY HIRAI CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: jJOJ% E. MAXWEL ISTANT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED,AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: LUCIA A. DOUG ERTY CITY ATTORNEY' JEM/wpc/ab/pb/P010 i CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission FROM. Cesar H. Odio City Manager DATE SUBJECT: REFERENCES ENCLOSURES PZw6 March 17, 1986 FILE: ORDINANCE - RECOMMEND DENIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 3471 MAIN HIGHWAY COMMISSION AGENDA - MARCH 27, 1986 PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS It is recommended by the Planning Advisory Board that a proposed amendment to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1976-1986 for property located at 3471 Main Hi hwa from a combination of mixed use an low density residential to mixed use be denied. The Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of December 4, 1985, Item 2, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution PAB 67-85 by an 8 to 1 vote, recommending denial of a proposed amendment to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1976-1986 for the property located at 3471 Main highway, also described as UNPLATTED and a portion of Tract "A", THE C. W. EMERSON TRACT IN COCONUT GROVE (35-61) P .R .D .0 . and a portion of Lot 7, MONROE PLAT DB (D-253) P.R.D.C., complete legal description on file with the Planning and Zoning Boards Administration Department, changing the designation of the subject property from a combination of mixed use and low density residential to mixed use. Nine objections received in the mail; twenty-seven opponents present at the meeting. Five proponents present at the meeting. Backup information is included for your review. An ORDINANCE to provide for the above has been prepared by the City Attorney's Office and submitted for consideration by the City Commission. AEPL :111 cc: Law Department NOTE: Planning Department recommends: DENIAL SG--238.— f_� w PLANNING FACT SHEET APPLICANT Howard R. Sharlin, for Howard R. Sharlin, Ken Treister and Gerald Katcher October 4, 1985 PETITION 2. APPROXIMATELY 3471 MAIN HIGHWAY UNPLATTED and Portion of Tract "A" THE C.W. EMERSON TRACT IN COCONUT GROVE (35-61) P.R.D.C. and Portion of Lot 7 of MONROE PLAT DB (D-153) (C(xmplete legal description on file with the Planning and Zoning Boards Administration Department) Consideration of -recommending approval of intent to amend the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan by changing the designation of the subject property from a combination of mixed use and low density residential to mixed use. REQUEST To amend the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan at this site to mixed use designation. BACKGROUND Refer to supplemental History of Previous Actions. ANALYSIS The proposed plan amendment is a condition requiring action prior to a change of zoning. The proposed amendment to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1976-1986 is not appropriate for the following reasons: A. The proposed change would be in conflict with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan which recommended mixed use only on the approximately first one hundred feet fronting on Main Highway, and which recommended low density residential (7 units per net acre) for the remainder of the site. B. The current proposal would permit a very high intensity intrusion of commercial or mixed uses on the Bay side of Main Highway, an area which now contains only low density residential, church, and school uses from Peacock Park south to the City limits. The previous Planned Development -Mixed Use 8(,-23_ 6, Ptemi2/4/85 Page 1 application, with major reductions in intensity, was recommended by thi s department, but only in conjunction with a recordable site and development plan. The current application would provide 'no limitations on intensity other than that required by the applicable zoning district regulations. C. The proposed amendment is contrary to the established land use pattern of low density residential from Peacock Park south to the City Limits. Only on the narrow side of the property facing Main Highway and on a portion of the northern boundary would the proposed amendment abut mixed use designation. D. The proposed change is out of scale with needs of the neighborhood or the City. Preliminary estimates indicate that the current proposal could generate at least 500,000 square feet of either commercial or high density office use, ranging up to approximately 670,000 square feet of office or commercial uses, and up to approximately 820,000 square feet of mixed uses. There is ample mixed use designation for commercial or office development within the Coconut Grove Village Center area. E. This proposal could materially alter the traffic movement patterns within Coconut Grove Commercial area, worsening the current level of service. F. The high density of this proposal is not Justified by demand estimates for additional office or commercial uses in the immediate area or for additional zoning for those - types of uses. G. This proposal would adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The granting of the petitioned plan amendments t would unnecessarily extend the potential for exclusively commercial use into a viable residential area. The proposed change to . r mixed use permits a broad range of uses, `?= primarily high density office or commercial_ uses. { RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Denial PA8 12/4/88 item #2 Page 2!` t PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD This item was deferred prior to the Planning Advisory Board meeting of November 6, 1985 at the applicants' request. At its meeting of December 4, 1985, the Planning Advisory Board adopted Resoltuion PAB 67-85 by an 8 to 1 vote, recommending denial of a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. At its meeting of December 4, 1985, the Planning Advisory Board adopted Resolution PAB 68-85 by an 8 to 0 vote, requesting the City Commission to waive time limits and establish dates certain to consider the ordinance for a proposed amendment to the Miami Comprehensive Plan. CITY COMMISSION At its meeting of December 19, 1985, the City Commission adopted Resolution 85-1248, as amended, establishing March 27, 1986 after 5:00 PM as the date for First Reading and April 10, 1986 after 5:00 PM for Second Reading and further directing the City Clerk to transmit a proposed amendment to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for comments. r i COMMnDORE BAY HISTORY Of PREVI(1tLS ACTIONS 9/20/82 - Zoning Board Request Change of Zoning from R-18 (Single Family Dwelling) to R-1 (Single Family Dwelling) ; and Petition for a Planned Area Development (PAD) consisting of eleven (11) detached single family - residences and thirty five (35) attached single family residences in seven (7) structures. Planning Department Approval of Zoning Change. Denial of petition for PAD. y Action Deferred. Resolution ZB 58-82 11/1/82 - Zoning Board } Action Deferred. Resolution ZB 202-82 and :". ZB 203-82. application on 5%21/84nby letterrew 6/19/84 Heritage Conservation Board— Action "R Approval Resolution 84-22 ;a 6/20/84 - Planning Advisory Boar Request To review the Preliminary Application :z for Major Use Special Permit and F recommend that the applicant be permitted to file a Final Applicationt for Major Use Special Permit... Planning Department Approval f Acton Approval. Resolution PAB 59.84� pp x . - C Cori ssi on MS- 4ti on Approval Resolution 04496 Of CommnDORE BAY HISTORY OF P EvintisACTION 9/20/82 Zoning Board Request Change of Zoning from R-1B (Single Family Dwelling) to R-1 (Single Family Dwelling); and Petition for a Planned Area Development (PAD) consisting of eleven (11) detached single family residences and thirty five (35) attached single family residences in seven (7) structures. Planning Department Approval of Zoning Change. Denial of peti ti on for PAD. Action Deferred. Resolution ZB 58-82 11/1/82 Zoning Board Action Deferred. Resolution ZB 202-82 and 6/19/84 - Heritage Conservation Board- - Action 6/20/84 PI anni ng Adv! sory Board R@40est Planning Department ZB 203-82. Applicant withdrew application on 5/21/84 by letter. Approval Resolution 84-22 To.. review the Preliminanp App 1ic5 0V sF for Major Use SpecialPermit ind, recommend that the applicant -be' permitted to file a Final for Major Use Special Permit., Approval Approval Resolution PAS 59_84 VFW 749 I ro A, 414 An �'iiA J V s 7/18/84- Planning Advisory a oara Request To recommend a Final Application for Major Use Special Permit for the Commodore Bay project, including a deviation from the Waterfront Charter Amendment, permission for tree removal and development within Environmental Preservation District 46-5, change in sector number from RS-1/1 to RS-1/4 One -Family Detached Residential and change in zoning classification from RS-1/4 to PD-MU/4 Planned Development - Mixed Use. Action Continued 9/12/84 - Planning Advisory Board Action Denied: 1) Major Use Special Permit 2) Zoning Change to RS-1/4 3) Zoning Change to PD-MU/4 9/20/84 - City. Commission Request 1) Major Use Special Permit: Continued 2) Zoning Change to RS-1/4 First Reading: Passed 3) Zoning Change to PO-MU/4 Action Passed: First Reading. 10/25/85 - City Commission Continued both the change of zonings and the Major Use Special Pei7pit request. X 5 11/16/84 City Commission Continued to special meetinq` of: " �... 12/12/84. a s- Z 12/12/84 - City Commission Denied }` 12/19/$5 Planning Advi so DOUG Removed 0y Admi ni strati one ts N y �Y. 7 2/14/85 - City Commission 2/28/85 - City Commission 5/21/85 - Heritage Conservation oar Request Action 5/28/85 - Heritage Conservation Board Action 7/15/85 - Zoning Board Request Personal appearance of applicant. To waive time limits to allow an application for rezoning and Major Use Special Permit to be filed within the 18 month peri od from the date of the City Commission's last action on this property. Continued to 2/28/85. Applicant granted waiver of time limits. Motion 85-214. Preliminary application for a Certificate of Approval involving tree removal and relocation. Continued Denied Resolution HC 85-16 A. Change of Zoning (sector number only) from RS-1/1 to RS-1/4 One -Family Detached Residential. B. Request for a waiver of time limitations between rezonings. C. Change of Zoning from RS-1/4 . to PD-MU Planned Development Mixed' Use, as per plans on file; 'with modi f i cats ons. 1. Al l oW elevation + 6.3: 25 at : `thd penthouse structures (+ 54Q' permitted), and side 1lght ptsnes penetration for 18.Q' ori.4ontal and u,0' vuu�o 41 hn ' north , in s�t�h Rr e r 1 i nes (no 11 giit p1 penetration owed). f f Planning Department 2. Allow 8.6' side yards along the north and south property lines (10.0' required). 3. Allow external yards varying from 8.51 to 16.0' along the north and south property lines (25.0' required). 4. Eliminate the external the required 10.0' landscaped area along the Main Highway. S. Allow a 16.0' yard adjacent to St. Stephens Church site (20.0' required). 6. Allow the northern and southern apartment buildings to project 5.01 vertically and 8.0' hori zontal ly. 7. Allow a 8.5' landscaped area (10.0' required) along the north. and south side property lines. D. Modification from the Waterfront Charter Amendment with reduction of waterfront setback of 16.0' to 46.0 (50.0' required),, and reduction of aggregate side yards to 7% or 17.0' for 245' wide lot (25% or 61.25' 1. Denial. No exceptions to the''.` - plane III height limit$" Variations to the light Plane, requirements should be d4nioc except to the extent that first and second level structures - wintsin a 16' setback and third livil structures maintain a 401 ;k from side p rop r, Y, lines. ponia-1. A 101 1 T1 should be Pr9yoAs open porch structure could occupy the 10' setback in lieu of landscaping. S. Denial. 6. Denial. 7. Denial. D. Denial of the proposed reduction of Me 50' required setback. �Approval of the proposed reduction of the 25% required side yard setbacks. The project provided a 35% total view corridor through the property to the bay. The project is not in conformance with Dade County Waterfront Charter Amendment and must go before County review boards for consideration and recommendations. Zoning Board' A. Denied �y I w B. Denied F C. Denied { 1. Denied u x} 2. Denied 3 Denied�' 4. Denied 1 S. Denied "G4, r' 4 6. Denied 7. Denied D. Denied 7/17/86 Planning Advisory Board REQUEST: To recommend a Major Use Special Permit; an amendment to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan by changing the designation to residential commercial, and incorporating recommendations of the HC Board and Zoning Board. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: A. Approval of the Major Use Special Permit,, with modifications. B. Approval of the plan amendment. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Denial. Resolution PAB 48-85. 9/12/85 City Commission Applicant withdrew application by letter dated 9/11/85. ty- a U; K4 A U� A W•v d 1 /!n_J� • ar .% i.r .. •:.� 4` ! . r { { 2ji2222 S . �22 { .Z222«�� « ..•ASS .~:i Vim; i {c{ , • i2 u j .Tiil '2�?{2i•+?�IY�S•{2�{.{22�•2iI'$2?ISM?��1�� t. 1 3�f" : ? • • :��;�{:iii:Ii.:: •i ............Iis iiiI:rJii s ' + • / } ,p •ate'{ • s V + • h-_� �:�• u ; ..ice-'. }'.'�fr. S Z' :1Y tiny A .. i ..y,, ,ai •.'��I` h',._ j.1 1Ma��•t•+"^�^�' yam•... s_Sa. yip It- ovp 4*4 kc . �;� . ,'�;' •!�+' ;,,mow � .-.^S.�• :x;�.: ,; ��`eV ~ "'y+ 'ice Y t '•` �. Y i CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIbA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission Cesar H. Odio City Manager 0 DATE• March 20, 1986 FILE SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM-6 CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 27, 1986 REFERENCES 3471 MAIN HIGHWAY (AKA COMMODORE BAY) ENCLOSURES The Commission should be aware that approval of this plan amendment may "use up" one of the two opportunities during a calendar year when the City may amend its comprehensive plan. State Legislation (Section 163.3187.FS) limits amendments to comprehensive plans to not more than two times during any calendar year. Ordinance plan amendments require two hearings separated by approximately 2 weeks (Section 163.3184(15)(b)). The Administration has tentatively scheduled these two times for two hearings each as April 22-May 8, and November 27-December 11, 1986. Attached, for your information and consideration, is a letter from the Florida Department of Community Affairs dated March 1, 1986, pertaining to property at 3471 Main Highway, indicating that the proposed plan amendment "would create an incompatible land use situation". Attachments to the letter include comments from the South Florida Regional Planning Council, Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department and the Metro Dade County Shoreline Development Review Committee, which are also uniformly negative. CHO/SR Attachments 0 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2571 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 BOB GRAHAM March 7, 1986 TOM LEWIS, IR. Govemor Secretary Mr. Sergio Rodriguez, Director City of Miami Planning Department Post Office Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-0708 Dear Mr. Rodriguez, Pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, the Department of Community Affairs has conducted a review of Resolution 85-1248 as an amendment to Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1976-1986 for the City of Miami. Our review indicated that the proposed amendment would create an incompatible land use situation which is not consistent with statutory requirements indicated in s.163.3177(6)(a), F.S., in that the amendment is not "in accord with the principles and standards of the comprehensive plan and this act". Additional comments from the South Florida Regional Planning Council, Metropolitan Dade County, and others are attached for your consideration and possible use. Once the adoption process is complete, we request a copy of the comprehensive plan as required by s.163.3178(2), F.S. If we can be of further assistance regarding these comments contact Mr. Ralph hook at (904) 487-4545. If you need technical assistance concerning implementation of the revised Chapter 163, F.S., please contact Mr. Dale Eacker at the same number. Sincerely, Robert F. Kessler, Chief Bureau of Local Resource Planning RFK/rhh Enclosure cc: South Florida Regional Planning Council Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT south florida regional planning council 3440 hol"ood bled, suire 140, hollywood. Hondo 33021 broword (305) 961.2999 dode (305") 620.4266 January 16, 1986 Ra I ph K. Hook Department of Community Affairs Bureau of Local Resource Planning 2571 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Re: Resolution #85-1248 of the Commission of the City of Miami Dear Mr. Hook, Pursuant to Chapter 163.3191, Florida Statutes, please receive the South Florida Regional Planning Council's comments on the proposed amendment to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The SFRPC Urban Systems Policy Guide states that "Activity centers should be located where appropriate support services and transportation facilities already exist or are programmed, and their development should be timed according to the existing or programmed capacity of the service system." The proposed change from mixed use and residential to mixed use may unduly impact the area facilities. Main Highway is already operating at a daily level of service (LOS) "D", below the Transportation Policy Guide recommended minimum LOS "C". The addition of high -volume commercial traffic will further strain an already overloaded road system. The proposed change will also insert high -density commercial uses into a low -density residential area, an inappropriate intrusion in scale and character. if you have any questions please contact Elizabeth Ledet of council staff. Sincerely, Ana Delster Interim Executive Director AD/el 86"'80. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA METRO ADE January 21, 1986 Mr. Ralph K. Hook Department of Community Affairs Bureau of Local Resource Planning 2571 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dear Mr. Hook: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUITE 1220 111 N.W. 1 STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33128-1972 (305) 375-2800 Re: Resolution 85-1248, Proposed Amendment to Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Planning Department staff have reviewed the subject request and provide the following comments for your consideration: The existing RS-1 zoning district, in general, permits one -family detached dwelling on individual lots in the City of Miami. This use predominates in the general area located southeast of Main High- way and southwest of Peacock Park to the city limits. Other uses include historic conservation sites, churches, schools and park lands.• Both the Metro -Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan and the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan for the City of Miami show low density residential uses for the bay front area in question. Considering the firmly established low density uses noted above, the change to SPI-2 would be incongruous and totally out of character with the low density/low profile community image. The SPI-2 dis- trict was conceived to encourage the "unique historic and cultural character" of the established commercial center of Coconut Grove. This commercial district also permits additional height to 50 feet, floor area ratio of 1.21 and non -shore or marina related uses such as: service stations, parking garages, mortuary or funeral home, banks, offices, coin operated laundry, wearing apparel. The proposed change in use and intensity could be detrimental to the historic Barnacle site, existing low intensity uses and change the aesthetic view of this property from Biscayne Bay. In reviewing this project you should be aware that not only has this proposed amendment received recommendations for denial from all applicable city boards, as described in the city's planning fact sheet, it also was subject to review by the Biscayne Bay Shore- line Development Review Committee on December 6, 1985. At that meeting the committee voted unanimously to recommend that the 19.014 • 11 METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA January 21, 1986 Mr. Ralph K. Hook Department of Community Affairs Bureau of Local Resource Planning 2571 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dear Mr. Hook: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUITE 1220 111 N.W. 1 STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33128-1972 (305) 375-2800 Re: Resolution 85-1248, Proposed Amendment to Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Planning Department staff have reviewed the subject request and provide the following comments for your consideration: The existing RS-1 zoning district, in general, permits one -family detached dwelling on individual lots in the City of Miami. This use predominates in the general area located southeast of Main High- way and southwest of Peacock Park to the city limits. Other uses include historic conservation sites, churches, schools and park lands.- Both the Metro -Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan and the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan for the City of Miami show low density residential uses for the bay front area in question. Considering the firmly established low density uses noted above, the change to SPI-2 would be incongruous and totally out of character with the low density/low profile community image. The SPI-2 dis- trict was conceived to encourage the "unique historic and cultural character" of the established commercial center of Coconut Grove. This commercial district also permits additional height to 50 feet, floor area ratio of 1.21 and non -shore or marina related uses such as: service stations, parking garages, mortuary or funeral home, banks, offices, coin operated laundry, wearing apparel. The proposed change in use and intensity could be detrimental to the historic Barnacle site, existing low intensity uses and change the aesthetic view of this property from Biscayne Bay. In reviewing this project you should be aware that not only has this proposed amendment received recommendations for denial from all applicable city boards, as described in the city's planning fact sheet, it also was subject to review by the Biscayne Bay Shore- line Development Review Committee on December 6, .1985. At that meeting the committee voted unanimously to recommend that the 13014 _ _ _ .rRR!4!#AlWOl1ICSID ! NlIP9RIW -. 6 Mr. Ralph K. Hook Department of Community Affairs Page 2 proposed amendment and rezoning from RS1/1 to SPI-2 be denied (see attached resolution). It should further be noted that this action should have been included within the city's enumeration of official actions on this proposed amendment and rezoning. Section 33-D of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County specifies that "the Report of the committee's recommendations shall become a part of all hearing or permit records on the proposed developmet action. Sincerely, � ;,l�zr� ll � l � � �• l Reginali R. Walters, AICP Planning Director RRW:JE:na Enclosure cc: Mr. Sergio Pereira County Manager Mr. Sergio Rodriguez, Director City of Miami Planning Department ID8 1281/na 'J:�ii t f t t x Y , -� a h y,� W t�e . SHORELUZ DEVELORU'IIrA" R.,. Call -a= RESOL11rI011 NO. 85-4 WHEREAS, Ken Treister, Howard Scharlin and Gerald Kratcher have applied for approval of a development action as filed with the City of Miami and fully described in the attached recommendation, and WHEREAS, the subject parcel contains 6.25 acres with 247 feet frontage on Biscayne Bay located southeasterly of Main Higbway at Commodore Plaza in the City of Miami, Florida, and WKWAS, the Shoreline Development Review Coamittee considered 1. whether and the extent to which the application as presented conformed to the Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan, the applicable Municipal Master Plan, and the. Biscayne Bay Management Plan, and WHEREAS, the Shoreline Development Review Committee of Dade County � has as one of its primary responsibilities, the duty to determine the extent to which any plan or developem t action, as proposed, is in conformance with Dade County Ordinance 85-14 and the mnum m+ standards set forth in Dade County Resolution 85-257, and WEBS, the requested development action provides no restrictions or assurances with regard to proposed uses or site design guidelines that would be in conformance with the legislative intent of Ordinance 85-14, and WHEREAS, the Committee considered the recommendations of the City of Miami and. Dade Count y, and WHEREAS, a public meeting of the Shoreline Development Review - Committee of Dade County, Florida, was advertised and held, as required by law, and all interested parties in the matter were heard, and upon dice and proper consideration having been given to the matter; NOW ARE BE IT RESOLVED that the application as proposed is not in accord with the objectives as emmmrated in Section I Paragraph 2 of Dade County Ordinance 85-14 for the following reason: 1. Those potential uses and their allowable densities permitted I nder the Master Plan amendment and zone change are incompatible and inconsistent with adjacent in -water and developed shoreline areas. `-1 86-238-� BR IT FURTfiER RESOLVED, that at its advertised meeting of December 6. 1985, the Biscayne Bay Shoreline Development Review Cactnittee moved by M-nald Frazier, seconded by Edward Wright, to recommend denial of the retest to amend the City of Miami CoQrehensive Plan and zone c e from RS-1/1 to SPI-2 as presented and enumerated in the atf-arhed staff report. The dote on. the motion was as follows: William O1Leary Aye John Thomas Regan Absent Sergio Bakers Aye Ronald Frazier Aye Franklin Grau Aye T. Glean Jobnston Absent Jose Feito (City of Miami.) Aye Edward Wright (City of Miami.) Aye��a.•.�, Motion to Deny Passed 7-0 2 Absent This resolution constitutes the report of the Shoreline Development Review Ccmmittee together with all exhibits attached hereto submitted to the City of Miami, Florida pursuant to Dade County Ordinance 85-14 which shall become a part of all bearings and/or permit records on the proposed development action. Respectfully submitted, Shoreline Development R I I E in _view ttee ^i Y4F �x Sy, r 0 0 F_ I L_ 11 LAW OFk►CES HvH$R R. PARSONS, JR., P. A. SUITE 601 BRICKELL CENTRE 766 BRICKELL PLAZA MIAmi, FLORIDA, amot TELEVNONE 13051 374-4550 January 17, 1986 The State of Florida c/o Department of Community Affairs 2571 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Attn: Mr. James L. Quinn Chief, Bureau of State Resource Planning Division of Resource Planning and Management Re: Review of Proposed Change in City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan by the Department of Community Affairs Pursuant to Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; Property located at c. 3471 Main Hiqhway, Coconut Grove, Miami, Florida; "Commodore Bay" Property (the "Property"); Application(s) (the "Application") (1) for Change in City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and (2) for Change of Zoning to SPI-2 Dear Mr. Quinn: It is my understanding that the City of Miami has transmitted or is transmitting the above -referenced Application to the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") in order for DCA to review and comment upon the same pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act since the Application is, inter alia, for a (proposed by owner) change in the City of Mid Comp er hensive Neighborhood Plan. I am writing you this letter in order to urge that the DCA carefully consider this matter and bring to the attention of, the City of Miami certain and various of the rea6ons which strongly indicate that the proposed plan change should not be made and that the change of zoning should not be granted. a The State of Florida c/o Department of Community Affairs January 17, 1966 Page 2 In order to commence massive development, the owners of the Property have been engaged in an attempt to have the Property rezoned for approximately one and one-half years. Shortly following the outset of the initial re -zoning attempt and in analyzing the proposal(s), the community, through many of its multi -faceted parts acting independently, came to the clear and strong conclusion that the proposal(s) was not at all appropriate as to the particular Property involved. Consequently, numerous citizens and citizen organizations have banded together in a coalition in opposition to the proposal(s) and the Application. In fact, there are now more than a score of citizen organizations - representing in excess of 35,000 people opposed to the proposal(s) and the Application. These organizations consist of business, civic, educational, environmental, historic preservation, home owner, and other groups. Several governmental departments have,. as a matter of staff analysis, made recommendations to the Commission of the City of Miami: 1. The Parks Department of the City of Miami has recommended denial of the Application; and 2. The Planning Department of the City of Miami has recommended denial of the Application; and 3. The Public Works Department of the City of Miami has recommended denial of the Application; and 4. Metropolitan -Dade County Staff (the Development Impact Committee and the Planning Department) has recommended denial of the Application (vis-a-vis the review process apropos of the Metropolitan -Dade County Shoreline Development Review Ordinance). The Application has now been heard by several boards which have made the following recommendations to the Commission of the City of Miami: 1. The Zoning Board of the City of Miami has recommended denial,of the Applications and The State of Florida c/o Department of Community Affairs January 17, 1986 Page 3 2. The Planning Advisory Board of the City of Miami has recommended denial of the Applications and 3. The Shoreline Development Review Committee of Metropolitan -Dade County has recommended denial of the Application. The Property has always been used for residential purposes. The Property has always been zoned for residential uses. The Property has always appeared in the City of Miami's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan as one for residential use. The Property is an elongated 6+ acre site located, essentially, between two parks: the City's Peacock Park on its northerly side and the State's The Barnacle State Historic Site on its southerly side. On its narrow easterly end, the Property abuts Biscayne Bay. On its narrow westerly end, the Property fronts on Main Highway in the Village of Coconut Grove. The Application would, if granted, allow for one of the densest developments in the City of Miami. The Planning Department of the City of Miami estimates that the Application, if granted, would permit up to approximately 820,000 square feet of mixed uses space -- and this estimate does not include building area for, for example, driving and parking areas. The -Application is, in effect, outrageous. The City of Miami has never allowed commercial zoning on private bayfront property south of the Rickenbacker Causeway; the commercial zoning sought would be incompatible with and ruinous of the abutting City and State Parks, i.e., Peacock Park and The Barnacle State Historic Site; the commercial zoning classification sought would be incompatible with and ruinous of the central portion of the "Village of Coconut Grove"; and the commercial zoning classification sought would allow and generate substantially increased traffic on one of the most (currently level "E") busy and congested roadways in town, i.e., Main Highway. Additionally, a portion of the westerly end of the site consists of a designated Environmental Preservation MOO) district and is a tropical hardwood hammock. HVRER R. PARSO'Ns, JR., IR A, C c 0 The State of Florida c/o Department of Community Affairs January 17, 1986 Page 4 In short, when the Application (and sought re -zoning and Plan change) is analyzed and considered based on good planning and zoning principles, community and neighborhood desires and wishes, and a simple sense of what is appropriate and right, it is obvious in the extreme that the same is most objectionable. We trust that the DCA will for stated reasons and in plain and unambiguous language clearly comment and recommend to the Commission of the City of Miami that it should not allow or make the proposed change to the City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. Thanking you in general for your work in connection with our State's planning process, I remain, Very truly yours, Huber R. Parso s, Jr. HRP/st cc: Mr. Dale Eacker See attached list TB/6 U act Rachae1 Bleckman, Esq. Janet L. Cooper, Esq. Ms. Linda Dann Ms. Marjory Stoneman Douglas Mr. Bernardo Fort -Brescia, A.I.A. Ms. Peggy Hancock Ms. Sallye Jude David B. McCrea, Esq. Ms. Mary Munroe Karl Muench, M.D. Timothy S. Murphy, Esq. Ms. Margaret Neale Ms. Arva Moore Parks - Jack R. Rice, Jr., Esq.. Kenneth L. Ryskamp, Esq. The Right Reverend Calvin O. Schofield, Jr., S.T.D. N. Fraser Schuh, III, Esq. Mr. Michael Simonhoff, A.I.A. Ms. Laurinda Spear, A.I.A. i Mr. David Sweatland Mr. Lawrence Terry, Jr. ..' American Association of University Women Attn: Ms. Barbara Miller Beaudry Central Grove Homeowners fi Attnt Mr. Michael L. Smyser IV t Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce Attn: Mr. Ed Boen s T + Y, rh rt�fM1 - Coconut Grove Civic Club ` Attu: Mr. Jim McMaster ' r' Ms. Carol Knisely g vig Ar 1 11 VA S R. FAItSONS, JR}9 F. A} { i Coconut Grove Parent/Teacher Association Attn: Ms. Susan McGrath The Cousteau Society Attn: Ms. Lili Neale Dade Heritage Trust, Inc. Attn: Donald D. Slesnick, II, Esq. Mr. John Ward Clark Democratic Club of Greater Miami Florida Historical Society Attn: Mr. Randy Nimnicht Florida Trust for Historic Preservation Attn: E. L. Roy Hunt, Esq. Ms. Tavia Copenhaver McCuean Friends of the Everglades Attn: Ms. Marilyn Reed Grove Park Homeowners Association Attn: Ms. Theodora Long Historical Association of Southern Florida Attn: Ms. Marsha Kanner .Mr. Randy Nimnicht Junior League -of Miami Attn: Ms. Becky Roper Matkov Ms. Jeannett Slesnick Key Biscayne Taxpayers Association Attn: Ms. Dorothy M. Cohen Miami Civic League Attn: Mr. Bob Worsham National Trust for Historic Preservation Attn: J. Jackson Walter, Esq. David Doheny, Esq. The Sierra Club Attn: Ms. Mary Therese Delate Mr. George Fedorko Tigertail Association Attn: Ms. Thelma Altshuler Tropical Audubon Society, Inc. Attn: Dr. Robert Kelley The Villagers Attn: Ms. Patricia B. Godard Huumt R. PAnsoxs, Jja., P. AI ,_ 1 A&%UATION January 30, 1986 Mr. James L. Quinn, Chief Bureau of State Resource Planning Division of Resource Planning and Management Department of Community Affairs 2571 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Plorida 32301 Dear Sir; The Tigertail Association adds its whole -hearted support to the use as a park of the property adjoining the Barnacle. To make this beautiful tract of land a continuation of the Barnacle would be in the public interest. To allow the developer to turn it into one of his many pro- posals --parking garage, restaurants, offices, apartments, miniature amusement park --would be the opposite. The crowding of an already overcrowded area is one reason to oppose it. The precedent set by commercial use of this bayfront property i$ another. Please consider the wishes of residents and visitors as you make your important decision. Very truly yours, Thelma Altshuler President 3100 Jefferson Street Miami, Florida 33133 I FED a logo iFr BUREAU OF IAND K ANNiNG 4 y 1+ NOTARIZED STATEMENT The facts as represented in the attached application are true anti correct to the best of my knowledge. Alberto R. Cardenas, Esq. Attorney for the Owner STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF DADE ) BEFORE ME, personally appeared Alberto R. Cardenas to me well known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that he executed said instrument under oath, and for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal this 4th day of October, 1985. State �Nr ida at Large My Commission Expires: y�:t3r!� it►I�n fl�•tA IS� {1.r7•Iw ��,.�ra• 1 Cc� � �� 1 MIIyY�VII Cnr��6a NYI� i,i, 0J.,1 RECEIVED CNJ04MS3 CONTROL No. a • F • �- �. �;,T; t . fir p Le ra • RECE10V19f) 1,I PLICATION FOR AME 'do.._ . File Number ZA-83- it owar . Scharlin hereby apply to the City Commis- sion of the City o Miami or an amendment to a cZg Atlas of the City of Miami as more particularly described herein and, in support of that request, furnish the following informations I. Address of property 3471 Main Highway, Coconut Grove, Florida 2. Two surveys, prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land Surveyor. (Attach to application) 3. Affidavit disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of interest form (Form 4-83 and attach to applications). ,_ 4. Certified list of owners of real estate within 375' radius from the outside boundaries of property covered by this application. (See Form 6-83 and attach to X application) 5. At least two photographs that show the entire property (land and improvements). ,_ 6. Atlas sheet(s) on which #46 Pr�ffY appears X_ 7. Present Zoning Designation RS-1 / 1 r�� ..ter -rirrrr�r.-rrrrr.r�r ,- S. Proposed Zoning Designation SPI-2 X_r 9. Statement explaining why present zoning designation is inappropriate. (Attach to application) ,_10. Statement as to why proposed zoning designation is appropriate. (Attach to appli- cation) a) Request for change in City of Miami X 11. Other (specify)Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; b) Statement long., X ,12. IF Fee of $ 27.212.50 according to following schedules Peacock P;rk. (a) Tot RS-I, RS-I.I, RS-29 .04 per sq.ft. of net lot area, minimum RG- I, PD-H, PD-HC, $300.00 (b) TO RG-2 RG-2.1 06 s RG•2.3, RO-I, � r350.00 r sq•ft. of net lot area, minimum - , RO-2.1 r{' (a) Tas RG-2.2 RG-3t $0.08 J R0�3•00 r sq.ft. of net lot area, minimum x .. fib. .. � rRRR 4 (d) TO: CR-1, CR-2,O.iO per sq.ft. of net lot area, minimum CR-39 0-I9 CG-1, 500.00 CG-29 WF-I, WF-R, I- I91-2; SPI-1,2,5,7, %9,11,12 (e) To: CBD-I, SPI-6 0.12 per sq.ft. of net lot area, minimum 1600-00 (f) For any change in a sector number only, for a particular district Classifica- tion, the fee shall be the same as for a change in its district classification, as shown in (b) through (e) above. (g) Surcharge equal 'to applicable fee from (a)-(c) above, not to exceed $500.00; to be refunded if there is no appeal. (City Code - Section 62-61) - Signature Name Howard R. Scharlin • Address 1399 S.W. 1st Avenue, Miami, FL 3 31: .Phone 358-4222 STATE OF FLORIDA) SS: 'COUNTY OF DADE ) Howard R. Scharlin , being duly swam, deposes and says that he is t(Owner) ut r gent forOwner) 07 the real property described in cinswer to question q 1, above; that he has read the foregoing answers and that the some are - true and complete; and (if acting as agent for owner) that he has authority to execute this petition on behalf of the owner. (SEAL) SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this C3 day of fin►, 8 S. A;. tart' Publicp 5t&b of Frida at Large MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: '':r;�r �.9�:. state s• ��t F y t J= r gp,, r Y "• ! „c�'t�',G..?1kx ra.,i_:A::kIF.F .r...-a::.. �`ix, c`?s; %..:a�C•ef`�,Y:e�x..a'.�xie•t�.�,.. i -- -- - — -- - - - --- t i APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA- TION: The proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan is appropri- ate because of changed circumstances within the surrounding area. Specifically, the proposed Comprehensive Plan change allows a concentrated development of mixed uses in a spatial arrangement offering continuous retail uses and a positive pedes- trian experience. The proposed comprehensive plan designation enhances the economic vitality of the Coconut Grove Village Center and the existing policies reflected in the Village Center's present SPI-2 zoning classification which was recently adopted as part of the Zoning Ordinance rewrite. Land use changes within the surrounding area make the proposed Comprehen- sive Plan designation the highest and best use of the subject property. The public interest and objectives of the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment are the same as that set forth under the existing SPI-2 zoning regulations -Sec. 1520-1529. X fht„� AW� ti Y ib �1 dn ti to 4'?sAaY1 '. C INAPPROPRIATENESS OF THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIG- NATION: The existing comprehensive plan designation is inappro- priate because of changed circumstances within the surrounding area. Specifically, the present comprehensive plan designation does not provide for mixed land uses and does not enhance the economic vitality of the Coconut Grove Village Center. Addition- ally, the present comprehensive plan designation does not contri- bute to a broadening of the pedestrian experience within the Coconut Grove Village Center. Changed circumstances within the surrounding area cause the present comprehensive plan designation to not be the highest and best use of the land. a S 1 Ai v o t•T1' YX4 At T 4 � .onrsc ra..,� a.a ,U .x�-•,es��p.ya,aw n�, y_ r � d,' A AC AUM ,t ... ...4.a.. rt ,... ..� e .... .. ... .. .. 4.:... .. ,6,. i. .,. ��.,. r n ..-.. ,.ice AFFIDAVIT STATE OF F RIDA) - SS. COLJN''I'Y OF DADE ) Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared Howard R. Scharlin who being by me first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says: 1. That he is the owner, or the legal representative of the owner, submitting the accompanying application for a public hearing as required by Ordinance No. 9500 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, effecting the real property located in the City of Miami as described and listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and made a part thereof. 2. That all owners which he represents, if any, have given their full and complete permission for him to act in their behalf for the change or modification of a classification or regulation of zoning as set out in the accompanying petition. 3. That the pages attached hereto and made a part of this affidavit contain the current names, Railing addresses, phone numbers and legal descriptions for the real property which he is the owner or legal representative. 4. The facts as represented in the application and docuseats submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are true and correct. Further Affiant sayeth not. Sworn to and Subscribed before me this day of &ct-_19FS- • Notary Public, State Flo at Imse t1,TRF.Y PCBM STATE Cr rt"?IeA My Camnissioa F�cpires. ;r :•y�t:s:-� •. , , �aa (SEAL) (Name) RECEIVED By CONTROL Na. Fs-!S9 86-2384. P e.. ' OWNrR'S LIST Owner's Name Ken Treister Nailing Address 2699 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 1000n, Miami, FL 33133 Telephone Number (305) 858-2416 _ Legal ".ascription: (see Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made -a part hereof) Owner's Name Howard R. Scharlin Mailing Address 1399 S.W. lst Avenue, 4th floor, Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone Number (305) 358-4222 Legal Description: (see Exhibit "A".attached hereto and made a part hereof) Owner's Name Gerald Katcher Mailing Address 1399 S.W. 1st Avenue, 4th floor, Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone Number (305) 358-4333 _ Legal Description: (see Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof) Any ot:. • real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 375' of the subject site is listed as follows: None: Street Address Street Address Street Address Legal Description Legal Description Legal Description 8C---238... 3.; Beginning at the point of interscctioR Of the Southerly boundary li.e ,e of Tract "!A" and.thr, U. S. Harbor line of 81Scay112 Bay as shown on tr•e plat th0r .�eX� entitled "THE C. M,•EMERSON TRACT IN COCONUT GROVE, CITY OF MIAMI, CIA UECOUNTY FLA." as recorded in the Public Records•of Dade County, Finrida in Prac Book 35 at Page Gh-Ahrnce N 34""144" E alOrg Said V. S. H,�rUur Line for a dis- tance of 66.75 feet to a point, thence N 46 25'53 W ,vong the flortherly hotindCry line of said Tract "A" for a distance of,846.10 feet to a point; thence S 43' 34'07" W for a distance of 66.0' to a ppocint on the Southerly bour,dary line of said Tract "A"; thence S 46"25'53" E along the Southerly boundary line of Laid; Tract "A" for a distance of approxinote iy,856.05, to' the Point of Beginning; \ b containing 56.170 sq. ft. stare or Iessi `Y]• ANV 'Lot 7, MONROE PLAT, as recorded in Deed -took 110 at Page 253 of the' PuWIic 'Records of Dade County, Florida, lying and being in the Southeast Quarter of ;Fractional -Section 21, Township S4 Sou4tL.- Range 41 East. Dade County, Florida,, EXCEPTIN,; THEREFROM THE FOLLOWIM: An91n" vg at the point In the Northeast°boundary Ilhe of Lot 7, of the`Subdivi- Sion of Lot 1, in Section 21, Township--;4 3outh. Range 41 East, in Dade: County. 41oridae as shown on the Plat, recorded to 0^•:d Bo*k "0". on Page 2S3, of the ,records of said County, where said.line'in:ersects the center line of the County .Road leading from Miatcti to Cutler; thence South 4S' East along said line, which is also the Southwest boundary of a lot'form& ly owned by-4harles Montgaiiery,' ' ' 467 feet to a 'point 25 'feet beyond :he•'c orner ,petrieen the said Montgomery lot ,and the' lot hereto.fore conveyed by. J. W. Frow to Frank M. Konen and Evelyn M. '.'Konen. ni s .wife; thence South 45e' Wcs't ,10 feet: thence North 4S' West 467 feet .:to the center line of above Road. thenc: North 45' East along said center lire 10 feet to Point of Beginning, jALSO EXCEPT, that part of Lot 7 of MONROE PLAT as per Plat thereof recorded in r,, 'Deed Book "D", at Page 253,,,of the Pub.lid Records of Dade County, Florida, lying, Northwest of the County Road, the•said parcel of.land being also described as follows: Beginning at a pipe set in cement marking the location of the lightwood. .stake set as •marking the .most Northwesterly corner of said Lot is thence South •45' East 634 feet, more or less, to this centef line of County Road (Dixie High- -way) which line is marked by a pipe set' j n coLmenc 35 feet fro -it center line of .said Road; thence Northeasterly aloe , the said -center I ine of ::+'cii Councy Road . 178.81 feet; thence North 45' West,•oarallei Iing the Southwesterly fine of said Lot 7, 460 feet, more or less, to a pipe set in cement in the South line of Grand Avenue which point is East of the Point of Beginning; thence West 253 feet, lore or less, to Point of Re•ginnincr; r `ALSO EXCEPT, that portion of Lot 7�of MONROE PLeT. as Ner Plat thereof recorded ;in Deed book "D", at Page 253, Public Records of Dade County, Florida. :onveyed (by Jack R. Gardner et al, to THE 'ITY OF MIAMI a municipal corporation, by deed dated August A, 1947. recorded in Deed Book 2913. Page 237. of the Public 1Records of Dade County, Florida: ALSO EXCEPT, A portion of Lot 7 of the Subdivision of lot 1 of Section 21, ITownshia 54 South Range 41 East. as shown by plat recorded in Book "0" of ;Deeds at Page 253, of the Public.Recordit of Uacle County. Florida, .gore parti- scularly described as follows: 'cc at the point in the Northeast boundary line of Lot 7. of the subdivi 'sion of tot I in Section 21. Township 54 South, Range 41 East. in Dade County, . as shown •3n the plat recorded in Deed Book "0" on Page 253, of the :Florida,records of said Councy. wh,:re said line intersects the center line of the County Road leadin.l fro+s Mia-6 to Cutler. Theme South 46°33'43" East along 'Othe sane•Mortheas.t, boundary '! inL of. Lot 7. a distance of 764.41 feet to an �exjsting.pipe: thence continue an last describe+! course being along the Norch- east•boundary line of said Lot 7 a further distance of 6.07 feet to a point. (Thence run -South 43.26617■' West a distance of 43.13' to the point of beginning., .Thence r.,neS 46*52,281, E o distance of 73.81 feet to a point: thence run S 43011'37" W a diatom;v of 77.74 fu2L eo a point; •he:nee; run N 46*471231, W a ldic.3n:e of 74.05 feet to J point; thence run N 43'c'•'57" E a distance of I77.63 feet to the point of beginning. ALL OF THE FOREGOING SUBJECT TO any dedications, .1;a6 tations, restrictions, reservations or easaisencs of r-mord. 8E-23 E .. 31V s . rre.a.+d.=nr7SiKCG�rI+i;+Si��s: _.. DISCMSM OF C7AT1MHIP 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property; SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IDENTIFIED AS EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. 3471 MAIN HIGHWAY, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 2. Owner(s) of smiject real prob.... and' percentage of ownership. Notes City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties aving a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question #2 requires disclosure of all shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. 1. Ken Treister, 2699 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 1000D, Miami, Florida 33133 (305) 858-2416 (50%) 2. Howard R. Scharlin, 1399 S.W. 1st Avenue, 4th floor, Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 358-4222 (25%) 3. • Gerald Katcher, 1399 S.W. 1st Avenue, 4th floor, Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 358-4222 (25%) 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in anraer to question #2, and (b).located withi:. 375 feet of the subject real property. NONE IT OR ATMENEY MR CWNER STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS: COLD= OF DADE ) Howard Scharlin , being duly sworn, deposes and says that no is the Owner Attorney or Owner) of the real property described in answer to question Us. above= that he -has read the foregoing answers and that the same are true and complete; and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to execute this Disclosure of Ownership focn an behalf of the owner. (SAL) ame SWORI TO AND Sg68CRIDED before me this _,e.W day of �� , 8.5 v1 tary Public,cBtate W �./�� /�1 L.1/� �Q Florida at Large m CCv'1KISSION EelWAi R:F�� :T!�. :� •:r�..^ (oven - .......�,D-. n I\1. ,ll'.,)UkiCi 1U" 4 Beginning at the point of intersectivr! of the Southerly boundary line of Tract '!A" and.thq U. S. Harbor Line of Biscayne Bay as shown on tre plat thereof SKI entitled "THE C.- W.• EMERSON TRACT IN COLONJT GROVE, CITY OF MIAMI, DAUE COUNTY FLA." as recorded in the Public Records -of Dade County, Florida in Plat Book 35 at Paqe (5I;-•thence N E alorg said L'. S. H.,)rb.r Line for a dis- tance of 66.75 feet to a point, thence K 46025,53 W .-O ong the northerly hotindcry line of said Tract "A" for a distance pf;846.f0 fret to a point; thence S 43" " 34'07" 14 for a distance of 66.0' to a point on the Southerly boundary line of said Tract "A"; thence S 46°25'53" E aleng the Southerly boundary line of said Tract "A" for a distance of approximatel,r.856.05' tz the Point of Beginning; 6 containing 56,170 sq. ft: pore or lest: ; ANC! Lot 7, MONROE PLAT, as recorded in Deed -Book "D", at Page 253 of the'Pub'lic 'Records of Dade County, Florida, lying and being in the Southeast Quarter of :Fractional -Section 21, Township 54 South;' Range 41 East, Dade County, Florlda,� 'EXCEPTINj THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING: - Aeglnn,rg at the point In the Northeast -boundary line of Lot 7, of the Subdivi- sion of Lot 1, in Section 21, Township!!4'South, Range 41 East, in Dads: County,. ;Florida as shown on the Plat, recorded in Dr-d Bork "D", on Page 253, of the .records of said County, where said.line'interSectS the center line of the County ;Tioad leading fror Miami to Cutler; thenie Sotith 45° East along said line, which is also the Southwest boundary of a lot' for•ncrly owned by--Gharles Montgomery,' ' 1467 feet to a 'po•int 25 feet beyond :he"corner•OetWeen the said Montgomery lot and the' lot her.eto.fore conveyed by. J. W. Frow to Frank H. Kamen and Evelyn M. :'Kanen, nis'wife; thence South 45° West A feet; thence North 45° West 461 feet .:to the center line of above Road; thenc: North 45° East along said center lire -10 feet to Point of Beginning. � (ALSO EXCEPT, that part of Lot 7 of MONROE PLAT as per Prat thereof recorded in r, '-Deed Book "D", at Page 253,.,9f the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, lying. J 'Northwest of the County Road, the -said parcel of.land being also described as follows: Beginning at a pipe set in cement marking the location of the Iightwoud stake set as •otarking the .host Northwesterly corner of said Lot 7; thence South :45° East 634 feet, more or less, to the centef line of County Road (Dixie High- way) which line is marked by a 0ipe.segjn ceLnent 35 feet fro•ir center line of ,said Road; thence' Northeasterly alof ,-the said•'cent'er line of Sat County Road . 178.81 feet; thence North 45° West, -parallelling the Southwesterly fine of said 'Lot 7, 460 feet, more or less, to a pipe sec in cement in the South line of Grand Avenue which point is East of the Point of Beginning; thence West 253 feat, lore or less, to Point of Reginnin4l; tALSO EXCEPT, that portion of Lot 7^of MONROE PLAT, as per Plat thereof recorded !in Deed 600k "D", at Page 253, Public Records of Dade County, Florida, :onveyed. kby Jack K. Gardner et al, to THE 'ITY OF MIAMI a municipal corporation, by 1'deed dated August 6, 1947, recorded in need Bool; 2913, Page 237. of the Public (Records of Dade County, Florida: 'ALSO EXCEPT, A portion of Lot 7 of the Subdivision of lot I of Section 21, lTo•mshi.o 54 South, Range 41 East, as sha.n by plat recorded in Book "D" of Deeds at Page 253. of the Public.Records of Uacle County, Florida, -pore parti- cularly described as follows: i 'Comr►ence at the point in the Northeast boundary line of Lot 7, of the �ubdivi 'sion of tot I. in Section 21, Township 54 South, Range 41 East, in Dade County, Florida. as shown .)n the N13t recorded in Deed Book "D', on Page 253, of the records of said County. where said line intersects the center line of the County Road leading froii Mi0•iii to Cutler. Thence South 46*33,431, East along ,the sa ne'Mortheas.t. boundary lint of. Lot 7, a distance of 764.41 feet to an IIexjsting,pipe; thence continue con last described course being along the North- feast'boundary line of said Lot '! a further distance of 6.07 feet to a point. (Thence run -South 43026117•' West a distance of 4?.13' to the point of beginning., .Thence r,ino5 46°52128" E a distance of 73.81 feet to a point: thence run S 43011,371, W a distvncv of 77.74 feeL to a point: •hence run N 46°47'23" W a Idict3rize of 74.05 feet to a point; thence run N 43°c"'S7" E a distance of 77.63 feet to the point of beginning. ALL OF THE FOREGOING SUBJECT TO any dedications,.Ii.iiications, restrictions, reservations or ease-ilents of record. SG --238�, -3G A'TC tE t. �C LA iLIv A1vD LANEETTA ATtOANEYS AT LAW UNITED NATIONAL SANK sUILOING 13f0to S. W. 1'I01st AvtNUt MIAMI, FLORIDA Gni30 (=tOAL0 RAtewts 940*AAb A. b$NANUM db11N A. LANIOU October 241198E t4to"6Nt 2%6-4292 Af►tA tbbt 30+3 NAND -DELIVERED City of Miami Planning and Zoning Administrative Department 275 N. W. 2 Street, Room 226 Miami, Florida 1 Attention: Ms. Betty Malver Re: COMMODORE BAY/Zoning Application Gentlemen: I In connection with the subject Application, enclosed please find Agreement tendered by the Developer concerning a disputed parcel. t Yours truly, ` Howard R. Scharlin Tl '.M HRS/ev ,V Enc. i' ,, l i § I r 71 f • ; � 'Tln �tia{' x fti i'y3f... e.Y ✓•'✓3.F'...47. i. t.. i%...: k}'F. AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT, concerning the property shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, is made and entered into this 4an day of198S by KENNETH TREISTER, HOWARD R. SCHARLIN GERALD KATCHER ("Owners") with the CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, a municipal corpo- ration of the State of Florida ("City"); W I T N E S S E T Hs WHEREAS, based on the survey of the subject property b Alfred Mohr of Biscayne Engineering Company (the Owner's Surveyor) which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "A", there exists at the northeasetern boundary of the subject property a small sliver of land which the Owner's surveyor describes as an encroachment of Peacock Park onto the subject property. This is shown under Detail "A" of the attached Exhibit "Aw WHEREAS, this encroachment has been disputed by the City of Miami Public Works Department, which maintains that according to City records, the land is a part of Peacock Park. The Owners, based on the Biscayne Engineering survey, contend that the property is owned by them. The area of this land in question is approximately 1500 square feet (more or less). NOW, THEREFORE, to resolve this issue and to minimize potential confusion, the Owners agree to voluntarily donate this area of land, labeled as "Encroachment" under Detail "A" of Exhibit "A", to the City of Miami by a Quit Claim Deed if and when this application for Amendment to Zoning Atlas, submitted on October 4•, 1985, along with any other accompanying changes is both approved by the Miami City Commission and at such time as a building permit for construction is issued by the City to the Owners for development of the subject property. FURTHERMORE, while the Owners believe that the land is now rightfully theirs, to avoid potential future conflict, the area of the land in dispute is not counted as part of the net lot area and will not be used in F.A.R. calculations. CNJI7AGT1 IN WITNESS W#ERSOyP the undersigned has set their hands this , , day of ..fit-._t 1955. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence oft � ( ..1 1. � � l � � � � A` � • � �.' GZ , l �� ' r 01 STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS: COUNTY OF DADE ) NNETH TREISTER -'HOWAIM R. SCHARLIN was The foregoing acknowledged before me this _ day of er.._f ► 1985 by KENNETH TREISTER. NOTARY PUBLIC. Itate •P lor i a My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FL0104 NY COIINISSILN EAP. ,',EC .7.:',?8 BONDED INNU GE%:aAL Ih 6NJ. CNJ17AGTI 2 STATE OF FLORIDA } ) SS: COUNTY OF DADE } The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day 1985 by HOWARD R. SCHARLIN. NOTARY PUBLICLt�srA 3 o va My commission Expires: NOTARY POOIIC STATE Or rttf;OA MT VORISSI :I Sr5.:E4. STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS: COUNTY OF DADE } The foregoing &a=:�was acknowledged before me this Z� day of , 1985 by GERALD KATCHER. NOTARY PUBLIC�Iyr. ou or ida — My Commission Expires: MTAAY PUBLIC STATE Of fLOAI.A NY VXIC5S::4 ElA. "7c '•.2d C:hE: roc; .:'iE�c.:�:. SRO• Beginning at the point of interscctioR Of the Southerly boundary lime of Tr.,ct and .thq U. S. Harbor Line o+ Biseayfie Bay as shown on tr.c plat thereof entitled "THE C.• w.• EMERSON TRACT IN COCONUT GROVE, CITY OF I1IAMI, DAUE COUNTy, SKI FLA." as recorded in the Public Records•of Dade County, Florida in Plat Book 35 at Page f.I;-4h-nce N 34*rn'',4" E alorg saidL'. S. Hlrbur Line for a dis- tance of 66.75 feet to a point, thence N 46 25'53 W n!ong the Northerly hotindcry line of said Tract "A" for a distance 'ol;846. 10 Net to a point; thence S 43- ; 34'07" W for a distance of 66.0' to a Qcont on the Southerly boundary line of said Tract "A"; thence S 46'25'53" E along the Southerly boundary line of said Tract "A" for a distance of approximotety.856.05' ti the Point of Beginning; ` 6 containing 56,170 sq. ft. are or less I, ANp, '.Lot 7, MONROE PLAT, as recorded in Deed took "D at Page 253 of the'Pu01ic 'Records of Cade County, Florida, lying and being in the Southeast Quarter of :Fractional -Section 21, Township 54 Sou4t4•Range 41 East, Dade County, Florlda,, :EXCEPTINd THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING: - .ARglnn n g at the point In the Northeast boundary Ilre of Lot 7, of the -Subdivi- sion of Lot 1, in Section 21, Township-+6"South, Range 41 East, in Dads County, ;Floridan as shown on the Plat.recorded to Ortd Boak "0", on Page 253, of the ,records of said County, where said.line'in:erseccs the center line of the County :Road leading fron Miami to Cutler: then(; South 45' East Tong said line, which : is also the Southwest boundary of a lot' formerly owned by 4harles Montgo•iiery,' ' �467 feet to a 'point 25 4eet beyond :he'i orner •Oetrteen the said Montgomery lot ,and the' lot 1�er.eto.fore conveyed by. J. W. Firow to Frank H. Konen and Evelyn M. :'Kanen, nis'wife; thenci South 45" went,10 feet: thence North 45' west 461 feet :to the center line of above Ro6d; thenc: North 45' East along said center lire _10 feet to Point of Beginning. y jALSO EXCEPT, that part of Lot 7 of MONROE PLAT as per Prat thereof recorded in r, '.Deed Book "D", at Page 253,..9f the Pub.tiC Records of Dade County, Florida, lying. J'Northwest of the County Road, the -said parcel of.land being also described as follows: Beginning at a pipe set in cement marking the location of the lightwoud- .stake set as •narking the most Northwesterly corner of said Lot 7: thence South .45• East 634 feet, more or less, to the centef line of County Road (Dixie Hiyh- •way) which line is marked by a pipe.ses�.jn cgnent 35 feet fro-ti center line of .said Road- thence Northeasterly alof the said•'cdnter line of S3"t;PCouncy Road . 178.61 feet; thence North 450 West,•parallelIing.the Southwesterly fine of said 'Lot 7, 460 feet, more or less, to a pipe set in cement in the South line of Grand Avenue which point is East of the Point of Beginning; thence West 253 feet, liort or less, to Point of Reginninil; , ALSO EXCEPT, that portion of Lot 7-of MONROE PL&T, as Ner Plat thereof recorded !in Deed book "D", at Page 253, Public Records of Dade County, Florida, :onveyed by rby Jack R. Gardner et al, to THE -ITY OF MIAMI a municipal corporation. blic deed dated August ,, 1947, recorded in Deed Bool: 2913, g (Records of Dade County. Florida; ALSO EXCEPT, A portiotf of Lot 7 of the Subdivision of tot 1 of Section 21, Mwinshio 54 South, Range 41 East, as shown by flat recorded in Book "D" of Deeds at Page 253, of the Public.Records of Uacle County, Florida, -tare parti- cularly described as follows: i ICan.wnce at the point in the Northeast boundary line of Lot 7. of the subdivi 'sion of tot ) in Ssction 21, Township 54 South, Range 41 East, in Dade County, Florida, as shown •3n the pIst recorded in Deed Book "D" on Page 253, of the records of said Count •jh�re said line intersects the center line of the County Road leadin-t fron Mi a•ni to Cutler. Theme South 46*33,43" East along ,the sane-Mortheas.t, boundary . — of. Lot 7, a distance of 764.41 feet to an exjsting•pips: thence continue con last described course being along the North- �east'boundory line of said Lot 7 a further distance of �.07 feet to a point. (Thence run -South 430261170, West a distance of 43.13' to the point of beginning., .Thence i•.sn.S 460521281, E a distance of 73.81 feet to a point; thence run S 43.11'37" W a distoncv of 77.74 feet to a point; •hence run N 46*47,23" W a Idiet3mce of 74.05 feet to .3 :point; thence run N 43`17"'57" E a distance of 77.63 feet to the point of beginning. ALL OF THE FOREGOING SUBJECT To) any dedications,,liasitations, restrictions, reservations or easaiients of r-scord. 44l(#�. *Z P�. A NZ ow December 2, 1985 Moore Parks - 1oo6 So. Greenway Dr. • Coral Gables, FL - 3.3134 (..305)448_14738 The Planning Board City of Miami Dear Members of the Planning Board: I am sorry that I am unable to be here tonight to appear before you to oppose the re -zoning of the property next to Barnacle historic site. The Barnacle is a unique remnant of the "Era of the Bay" when Coconut Grove was the only settlment on Biscayne Bay. It offers Miamians an opportunity to almost re-enter the past and to share the special philosophy and life of Ralph M. Munroe. In 1973 the Munroe Family chose to forego a higher financial return in order to sell the Barnacle to the State of Florida so it could be preserved for the people. We are hopeful that the State of Florida will help us acquire the property before you tonight so that the Barnacle site may be extended to include acreage that once belonged to Ralph Munroe. But this is not the issue here. The issue here is whether or not intensive development should be allowed on the bayfront next to this singular historic site. There are many places in Miami where the proposed development would be both welcome and appropriate. There is only one Barnacle, how- ever$ and it deserves the highest public concern to preserve its integrity for the people who are alive today and those who will come after us. Sincerely Arva t�. Parks Historian 0 �IFd; IiiSai.!15P2 E �d►. Z6 The Cousteau Society Novwber 27th, 1985 The City of Miami city Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FlARIOA 33133 USA re: Situs located at circa 3471 Main Highway, p000nut Grove, Miami, Florida, U.S.A. Indies and Gentlemen: I am writing to you an behalf of Jemv+U hel Cousteau regarding the above noted site. On a recent visit to Miami both he and I be=m acquainted with the inportance of the "Barnacle" and its adjacent hardwood hermock. The Cousteau Society is dedicated to the preservation and protection of all life on this water planet. Of primary importance, from our standpoint, is the oondition of the environmental legacy we hand down to future generations, StmVfore, we feel it is vitally important, for both environmental and historical reasons, that the above site be spared from the encroiwft ent of a growing urban Miami. In our opinion, this area contains many valuable plant species as well as hardwoods that are becoming increasingly rare in South Florida. Of equal importance is the need to maintain the integrity of Florida's natural shoreline. All of us living today two a responsibility to provide future generations with a healthy natural world, filled ask the with the same bounties that we have enjoyed• We t most careful consideration be given to the preservation of the "Barnacle" and the adjacent natural coastal N hardwood • Thank you for yaw oonoern regarding this issue. 1 Florida Tnist P.O. Box 11206 December 4, 2985 2 JL N-ZfJA for Historic Preservation Inca Tallahasseeg Florida 32302 (904) 214.8128 The Planning Board City of Miami Miami, Florida Dear Member: As President of the Florida Trust for Historic Preservatdion, I wish to request a denial of a use change in the Commo ore Bay property. The value of the Barnacle is significant and commercial development is not appropriate abutting it. Sincerely, Sallys Jude President 200 Edgewater Drive - Coral Gables, Florida 33133 ✓^'Y'r”. g .f. r a - •ye fi S 4 J is � '> fi `fr• .y, p.. v,,M2 '�:�: ji-' .Y`*,i; �i, �{c'S .� �r° x-rr a�:. ,�'•;,:r:' t� - _.t': . s , T -'r : -' •t.�. ; .�.�„cr.� lii�x, ::�' .�1 R§•iy�'e^,S'ly. t -A Gf,7 ''."•I''.,F"' +S'�it'4tG J. r4 'M4,.."fF{',i' :'-�r�, f ,��• n,x..: K.d; }v,�'',•i` � ,j+ M a-r ' r Y �t 1'. f y .. i ;r C' .� yr 4y n kfi _ ,� .: .'z ... , i "i'','",'.. g.. Jy:.3, fix'?% Fu'• t tJ %rFd u .,� . i t• `�1=• t�' r y,� r •s 'ria 15.v;,:1„„'i:.+<y:,o-„ .r,,: .;fi.' :•J•, f'' r7. ':, •;:. ,F_ ;,Y 1i��'2 »_ r,�,,j�'�Y CAI., !...C'i`.rS.• � 1 "a.r �F 1'� dC r � r, 'C_�,'F=v.P.�. F.� 4p d' � ��'�•,t�`r'ai '�t�_�'��'SS:v'rr�.3'f �-2,.` •�a; ,b,;. � '' _ T' s' '.t�+. ;r i":•`,,t'xk'x`": i � � t +.''i'ti'r�*iM1 l+a'. ,,.c�83.ri*r::S a` k•'�', X'g :d'-•.' - •�'�yr 4�} p y�Y s4 ^y yy rK.. ~ia _V 4i:• aw,d+• E_ �� et*�rry,,.'lF°�.. £ $' i ..! •: _ f Mu•�. ,r . �;�W�ffacr_�e �k .�.5. e� r, 3; +- T.. •r � ..::., >..,,1 .. a ,.a,,.✓ -•<c., .. - . r_ ;r .. K-: .�' t., ,.;'r•,.., .'z.,..t.: ,:...;::•=.ire Ti'•�":: •+.x,.'' .- _ L � �-.d.�=ii`:n'�H' - "1r,,-'�.�:a•Sr,',aa•S',G�`s .�'�{Sx3ii:"•�l:e.�win a=-yoi':frk'.$:R�v✓�..a�•,.:'Y�` ai�i::d �_... _. '2 '�5 f _.�' 'tr.-.:•� - - r.7•,•. a •,�,.S,t.'S$r�4�l�ri�,'•�`Yh' ...s.�''�. __ _. ._. ..-..- <- r for Historic Preservation c. Flodda asses, Florida 32302 (904) 2N-8128 P.O. Box 11206 Tai I ah December 4, 1985 The Planning Board City of Miami Miami, Florida Dear Member: As President of the Florida fausechangein rsoocthe eCommodore, I wish, to request a denial Bay property. The value of the Barnacle is significant and commercial development is not appropriate abutting it. sincerely, Sallye Jude President 200 Edgewater Drive Coral Gables, Florida 33133 C 9RIM F 4M <a * zA a WA • P 2. .4 &A 4C�. 6 A rrC /4/8 5 9:29pm. %4 .The Division of Recreation and Parks, l;c•,x•rtmunt of Naturu! 11VC,ources, marat;c• The Ntrn.ivlo SL.th- 1ii:-;1-01'ir .Site in On-o:itit. 61-ti •c•, Tilis pl-o u-t'ly liac•k to 111(- "Exa of the Bay" when early families h0111e5LC.1dcd the, ridge. As we have stated previously, we want to express our concurn for development that may have a considerable impact -Jon U)e quiet atmosplivro tho park presently enjoys which is in character with the historic past of The Barnacle. We feel that to endure as a community, the Grove must continue to kc,ep its own di:;tinct personality —based on its mast.. In addition to hotviil.ial increase in noise and traffic. we are vitally concerned with visual impacts, since structures Laller than two stories would inLrudc, can the hi-,Lorieal vi,.%%- frunt The Barnacle. Additionally, removal of any tropical hardwood trees should be minimized. Since we have not 1}ad 1.110 0111-1o1•t.urlitNI to rrviow :iny nVw prol,osals, uur Lhoti-g it.a ;trr ijuvestiuril- gc:nt�r;11 in naLury and are basod on C;1r1 is-z• applications." wo thank you fur aunsider ing our thoul;lil-i and continue it) i1PP1'CCi:11e the c:iLixens of Datie CuullL.%' for their stippurt `o , and involvement. in, The Barnacle State Historic Site. ,a a le a �i of eAablkw4g wol ITS 4 (e) The proposed change would materially alter the population dvultY Pattern and thereby increase or overtax the load an public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.; (f) Existing district boundaries are Illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions an the property proposed for change; (g) Changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed change necessary; (h) The proposed change will adversely Influence living conditions in the (I) The proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety; The proposed change will create a drainage problem; (k) The proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas-, (1), The proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent (m) The proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property In accord with existing regulations; (n) The proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with protection of the public welfare; (a) There are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accord with existing zoning; (p) It is Irnp=Iblo to find other adequate sites In the City for the proposed use In districts already permitting such use. SECTION3SIO. NATURE AND REQUIREMENTS OF PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD RhFQKT TO CITY COMMISION. For hearings rewired to be hold by the Planning Advisory Board, the report and recommendation of the Planning Advisory Board to City Commission "I show:. -(a) When pertaining to, the rezoning of land where application has been Initiated under categories (a) through (d), Section 350LI, that the Planning Advisory Board has considered such of the factors set out in Section 3509 dove as may be applicable In the case; (b) Where pertaining to other proposed amendments of this zoning ardirmce that the Planning Advisory Board considered and studied: 1. the relationship of the pro" am rAftent to the purposes and objectives of the MI arni ZrNateegttborhood Plan, or to portion or portloportiontheroolEttw=1thappr aw4lderation a whether the proposed change will further the purposes of the this Zoning Ordincincog X- ve planning program, and otherCity exoWdoest ngulatlons, and actions dogWod to implement the comprehensive planning program and the adopted awwoliensive PIWq and L the need and Justification for the proposed dm". =10 3511. STATUS OF BOARD -REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The reports and reconnnnendations of the Planning Advisory Board or the Zoning Board rewired by Sections 3508, 3509, or 3510 above, a the me may be, shall be advisory only and shall not be binding upon the City Commialan. In Its deliberations --4n the reports ornmaeommendations In the actions that It my t*W In mgord,to thwn the City lconsider such of the roWiremonts of $octlonsluou.- I . IN! wo N Cocoqut gzave - Chamber of C OHMICme 3437 MAIN HIGHWAY COCONUT ��70A33133 December 2, 1985 City of Miami Planning Board Miami, Florida 33133 Tb Whom It May Concern: The Hoard of Direceor�Andthe nwbers ng ofthe landf adjacent to The Grove garn��known r of Cam�erce oppose as Comm adore Bay. We prefer to see the land acquired and used as a park or other public land. It is our feeling that this action will protect and enhance The Barnacle and Peacock Park. We believe that generations to cane will laud this decision to preserve this bayfront land and the natural hamnock on the ridge. O000nut Grove has a delicate charm that could forever be upset by uInnecessary rezoning and indiscriminate development. I 9—QLq-�az ZUBoen president t � x, 5 Of� r_j ' 40 caadu,eD 1MS Molotataro CSilla 287, i/at Fnpwased c3s(�� . f N lam,. van p wrtbaa tyo .f ieo a g.wraaoat msgrlaa••r •r iawa dositot reek She devoted ..1 K low weaken a gnst.daa•aen may M oambaand on tM•r e.6r6001 em a se.ees eenenrat burns as the $lead doVNgoean .ad&$ of the yoNWansoml (3}1e1 a dowlop�mrn_t ardor or land w}apmsnt rrwl•tam opr11 M coa�rfUat, vote tea carte»Mnrtw.plr� It ikred or idow�iti�r 011,ntr�ult, }sue orMS pewctr of dw�i+.e/OOarat r/Ntted b�•a�,�i_gidor of ra�V}.SSURAgg comortibla tee Oed tafta.f tea eoL etv.a DwttriOa. to ueof sad ,resit g ens }, .Lcrll�ltle� I�2M�.uyr�MnNw p}ao mod /r 1t rota •lt atMc crit•,£},�,�a11ms{•t•6 by t1M�}�Ca} gowllrruc Lt • dowlo rut Mror•d or O_ manes by a local L6r�rrMllt .�Ai11 b•COnsiRNlt Il1tA [A• GOmpf•Mns ran e}p 1 ty tea toad .... denpttiar or 1nLM�1tIH, c\r\cl ty or ate t10Pan [I�tn�„anl} oilswr \ap•c[a O 2M.tZ•Yrionmrnt er• corpatibtf • A f Y' /� p.tn �� ta�tA.r tea ob„�rc_tJrL�p?1 c ro end uo•b, and MrMli}yr ar fn[artta�n tea c__,pa raMn�lw odes •nd t� �[ rwtLall otlt�( eriurla �rarar�t�br lr�?rye eovsram�nt. a•ctles 13. Seder 163.3197. rwids Statatoo, to rate am•adad to rood. r 9_� te3.3197 MOOT KOtao of prior cwpnMnotwO plena." Imrtr, prior to t.r, adoption at \ raVl•ed elan parweot to_�, �) Oddrasw "as •d "" non. O total goVaryrsot e{iy/r add adopted a coeprob•rtvs piss or element or portion thereof. back OdaptOd plan or slasOnt Or port'" thereof oball lrvs arch force ed oftoct ao it bad at the data Of adoptlen wed —tit oppapoaetr •.rest do Oak— no od•p a now } comprOMntlw pies or slwnr_or porter thereof is a0..,p1L.d_ by Or wr.W n• t ra"Fat [o tea proYirl One a as al CODING: words in wit ... k aMaao► typ. ar. dol.tlona grow esistlag tow; wamd& wZ.Oavr!t°S9 ar• addltsona. `.Y 1MOUAD is" L"Islatrrs CS/M 307, 2" C"Mood r.gaered by We eft. 7218 prior adopted plan K almost or Parties three! My M the basis lK Metlmp tea COW'""" 1 i Of comproW►tw plan a 140 Kt Out la tote Kt. provided *It rogulcod to ed this Out We ant. auction is. soctled 1s3.fi01. RKide Statatm. to amended to rood, 163.3201 aelattesNlp of oaeprahenetw plan to mrKims at lad development fagulateq antarNty.—It to the latest OR tMe Oct teat adopted sowebensive plans K .1mnate tborsof Mau be lopieaosted. Is pact. by tea Sdmptien Odd anfoccomant e1 .ppopriate Intel regulations as the dawtopmast of tam" end waters withln an area. It to tea latest of thin Oct that the odmptian led enforcement by a savoraiag body at cogutmtiens for tea di -topmost me land K tar adapting sad enforcement by a geuOrstwg eddy Of a lard d.veloprent cod" ms dofamed to ti A6N44"tditb►y got as arms Melt be bowed em. tainted to. ad a some ►f Impimaanbuso get an adopted comprehensive plan an ro ,aired by this act. sectfes 1e. Section 163.3i02. stared& statatso, to cfeeted to food. 163.320 Laud d v lapmmt regulations.— tit within t resat after aabmims/me wf its ravtead cooprabromlw plan for rOVIOa pKSOegt to ►. 143.316701, once county. mocie -mteipailty required to lscled& O emsseoI msmsgarat eltmaat is its romorshenetve plan purowant to o. 163.31774elt9l. one such other municipality is run women suit Wept or owed Od enforce lad davotOpdast oesalatlaso teat era consistent with and Implodes& thuds adopted comprehensive plan. - t2I focal lead dewl•pmtst rOgalOttoso dball msnssan specific and detaltod prerlalass ow""Iy me d&strabla to N tome .misting CODIDO: Words in Nrenb *heeotb =y�t wtatreas lwwr wards u ftrA wed . CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO. Aurelio E. Perez-Lugones Director Planning a Zoning Boards Admijiistrajtion FROM: Caffrl Kern, Director Parks and Recreation Department OATS: October 30, 1985 "LE: SUBJECT:Update on Proposed State Acquisition of Barnacle Extension REFERENCES: ENCLOSURES: This memorandum serves to update the status of the proposed acquisition of the Barnacle Extension site. On October 14, 1985, the State Land Acquisition on Selection Committee met to decide the "first cut" of projects eligible for Conservation and Recreation Lands (C.A.R.L.) funding. The Committee voted unanimously to move the project to the next phase of selection, which consists of a full-scale review of the site and assessment. The State's Department of Community Affairs was assigned the preparation of this report, and will present their findings to the Committee some time in December. The agreement between the State Board of Trustees (of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund) and the City of Miami was executed October 21. This is the agreement in which: 1) The State releases the deed restrictions on lands adjacent to Bayfront Park, 2) the City establishes a trust fund (from the Bayside Specialty Center revenue) to procure property on Biscayne Bay and the Miami River, and 3) the City places the Barnacle Addition site as the top priority of such lands to be acquired (with the state's assistance). This agreement was a subject of discussion at the October 25, 1985 meeting of the Selection Committee. The purpose of this later meeting was to present the findings of the Department of Natural Resources on projects requesting Save Our Coast (S.O.C.) funds and Land Acquisition Trust Funds (L.A.T.F.). The Barnacle Addition is being considered under the latter program. Selection Committee members were provided copies of the agreement and will vote on the final L.A.T.F. project list on November Be 1985. If further information is needed, please contact my office. LAW ORFICtS HuMEn P. PARSONS, JR., P. A. qUIfit sot DRICKELL CtNTNt 700 SRICKM PLAZA r4tAxt, FLossDA 00W1 ttLtomoNt 130S1 374-48SO October 25, 1985 Mr. Gerald Katcher Mr. Kenneth Treister Howard R. Scharlin, Esq. c/o Howard R. Scharlin, Esq. Katcher, Scharlin and Lanzetta 1399 S.W. First Avenue - Fourth Miami, Florida 33131 CERTIFIED MAIL #P 634 996 590 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Floor Re: Real Property located at c. 3471 Main Highway, Coconut Grove, Miami, Florida; "Commodore Bay" Property (the "Property"); Application for Amendment to Zoning Atlas [and Request for Change in City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan) (collectively the "Application") filed October 4, 1985 Dear Messrs. Katcher, Treister and Scharlin: It has come 'to our attention that you have filed the above -referenced Application for a change of zoning to SPI-2 and for a change in the City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The Application appears to contain no specific information whatsoever as to whether this massive proposed re -zoning and change does or does not contemplate any particular development upon the Property. Request is hereby made that you the applicants indicate that this massive proposed re -zoning and change in the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan contemplates no particular development or, if to the contrary, the nature and specifics of and justification for the development contemplated. Your early, specific, and written reply and response shall be received with great interest by the community. Very truly yours, Huber R. Parsons Jr. HRP/st cc: (see attached list) ,_, . IOOA Oteenbergi Traurigt Asknewr HOffI&N Upofft Qusntel & Molfft P.A. Attns Robert H. Traurigt Esq. k1lan Cold # Esq. Alberto R. Cardenast Esq. The Honorable Maurice Forte Mayor The Honorable Joe Carollo Vice Mayor The Honorable Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner The Honorable Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner The Honorable J. L. Plummer Commissioner Mr. Ralph G. Ongiet City Clerk City of Miami (for inclusion into files) Mr. Sergio Pereira City Manager Mr, Walter Pierce Assistant City Manager Lucia Allen Dougherty, Esq. City Attorney Joel Maxwell, Esq. Assistant City Attorney Mr. Sergio Rodriguez, AICP Director, Planning Department Mr. Aurelio E. Perez-Lugonest Director Planning i Zoning Boards Aministration Dept. a Janet L. Cooper# Esq. Ms. Linda Dann David Doheny, Esq. Ms. Marjory Stoneman Douglas Mr. Bernardo Fort -Brescia# A.I.A. Ms. Sallye Jude T >I � r ; n " F r+ Thfay�',4 3,1 r J4 Or f t 7 t 1 F i Y s. r-s �y�"� Me. Mary Munroe Marl Muench# M.D. Ms. Arva Moore parka Jack R. Rice, Jr.# Esq. Kenneth L. Ryskamp, Esq. The Right Reverend Calvin 8. Schofield# Jr.j S.T.D. N. Fraser Schuh, iil, Esq. Ms. Laurinda Spear, A.I.A. American Association of University Women Attn: Ms. Barbara Miller Beaudry Central Grove Homeowners Attn: Mr. Michael L. Smyser IV Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce Attn: Mr. Ed Boen Coconut Grove Civic Club Attn: Mr. Jim McMaster Ms. Carol Knisely Coconut Grove Parent/Teacher Association Attn: Ms. Susan McGrath The Cousteau Society Y Dade Heritage Trust, Inc. ' Attn: Donald D. Slesnick, II, Esq. Mr. John Ward Clark Democratic Club of Greater Miami Florida Historical Society - Attn: Mr. Randy Nimnicht Florida Trust for Historic Preservation Attn: E. L. Roy Hunt, Esq. Friends of the Everglades Attn: Ms, Marilyn Reed Grove Park Homeowners Association Attn: Ms. Theodora Long'' ;yS xa r 7n. xx - : . ;:.-. - . ,''? v7 R34�.'. ��- �vt�". p' '�2 t• t tst-6t'Y575 �5 t� Yrf r rx zY t� k+n*ii� (r '� r riF t K �; 5 r 5�r, ��.,�,�.�f�'h :, � �k• �o+c"_ftx `� iY I 4k �tg°,{�''.� '} ' �a. s � .�� r r r t. ': � f}x4� •t'$ .i��f. :, 1 �i ter`; rT(r rS.t'�Sv +r # +; c 'r r✓' wP r 7�s �+�t d6a1-1A t}� �'? �q.•"''xrf, r. ,� s t e Y 't s7 ft "u.v!£ 0 Historical Association Of Southern Florida Attnt Mao Maraha K&ftftGt Mrs Randy Nianicht Junior League 6f Miami Attnt Me. Becky Roper MAtkOv Me. jeannett Slesnick Key Biscayne Taxpayers Association Attnt Ms. Dorothy M. Cohen Miami Civic League Attnt Mr. Bob Worsham National Trust for Historic ProserV&tibft Attnt J. Jackson Walter, Esq. The Sierra Club Attnt No. Mary Therese Delete Mr. George redorko Tigertail Association Attnt Ms. Thelma Altshuler Tropical Audubon Society, Inc. Attn: Dr. Robert Kelley The Villagers Attn: Ms. Patricia B. Godard 3 4 74 'Nr t -A- . . . . . . . . . . 4" jj�. �"y *3 44 'p, T" k� v X ryry s. In, It,