HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-86-0163AIW
04
J-86-51(b)
1/6/86
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE
ZONING BOARD AND THEREBY DENYING THE SPECIAL
EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE 9500, AS
AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, ARTICLE 20, SECTION 2018, SUBSECTION
2018.2.1 TO PERMIT A PROPOSED PARKING
STRUCTURE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED
COMMERCIAL,,/RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, SAID
PARKING STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED AT 3174-90-92
AND APPROXIMATELY 3198 FLORIDA AVENUE, ALSO
DESCRIBED AS LOTS 9 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE
LESS PORTIONS FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY, BLOCK 2,
CHARLES H. FROW SUBDIVISION (13-53) P.R.D.C.,
AS PER PLANS ON FILE; ZONED RS-2/2 ONE -FAMILY
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL. THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION
PETITION IS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A VARIANCE
APPLICATION FOR A LIGHT PLANE PENETRATION AND
OFF-STREET LOADING SPACES. THIS SPECIAL
EXCEPTION HAS A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE
(12) MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST
BE OBTAINED.
WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting of
December 16, 1985, Item 3, following an advertised hearing,
adopted Resolution ZB 168-85 by a five to three vote, granting
the Special Exception as listed in Zoning Ordinance 9500, as
amended, Article 20, Section 2018, Subsection 2018.2.1, to permit
a proposed parking structure in conjunction with a proposed
commercial/residential structure (Post Office Plaza), said
parking structure to be located at 3174-90-92 and approximately
3198 Florida Avenue, more particularly described herein, subject
to certain enumerated conditions; and
WHEREAS, concerned property owners and neighbors have taken
an appeal to the City Commission from the granting of the Special
Exception; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of
this matter noth withstanding the decision of the Zoning Board,
finds the proposed construction as approved by the Zoning Board
fails to meet the requirements of Zoning Ordinance 9500, as
amended, pertaining to the granting of Special Exceptions;
t crr COhit:zl `;IQIt
FES 27 1986
LJ
0
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The decision of the Zoning Board in (granting
a Special Exception as listed in Ordinance 9500, as amended, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Article 20, Section 2018,
Subsection 2018.2.1, to permit a proposed parking structure in
conjunction with a proposed commercial/residential structure
(Post Office Plaza), said parking structure to be located at
3174-90-92 and approximately 3198 Florida Avenue, also described
as Lots 9 through 12 inclusive less portions for right-of-way,
Block 2, Charles H. Frow Subdivision (13-53) P. R. D. C., is
hereby reversed and the application for a Special Exception is
hereby denied.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of
ATTEST:
Aa ,
MA TY HIRAI
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
G. MIRIAM MAER
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
AND CORRECTNESS:
LUCIA A. DOUGHE
CITY ATTORNEY
GMM:bss:P055
FEBRUARY , 1986.
•L�GfiW'
AVIER L. SUAR4Z, MAYOR
(.0C0nut trove, I'lUriva Sit JS
Fehruary 27, 1980
To: The Mayor, Vice Mayor and llonorable
Members of the Ci.tV of "1ir1mi Commission
RE: ]lost c)f f ice Plaza
Northe2ist Corner of
!,1cDonald Ave., Grand Ave.
and Commodore Plaza
I am unable to attend the Ilea -
ling this evening at the scheduled hearing
Lime because I have to attend a previouslV scheduled business engagement; but,
I am in support of the Post office Plaza project, and if 1 did not have this
scheduling conflict, I would he there to personally speak in support of the
Post office Plaza project.
Certain citizens of our community have publicly stated that cars and
trucks will enter and leave the project to and from Florida Avenue. I have
personally seen the project plans filed with the City and approved by the Zoning
Board, and those plans have a solid, decorative landscaped wall all along Florida
Avenue, making it physically impossible for any vehicles to enter or leave the
project from Florida Avenue. All entrances and exits for cars and trucks are on
McDonald Avenue, and none are on Florida Avenue; and, therefore, the Florida
Avenue neighborhood has complete privac%.
In addition, I support this Post office Plaza project because it could
substantially help accelerate the future growth and development on Grand Avenue,
west of Post Office Plaza.
Also, Mr. Fine has owned the Post office property for a long period of
time and our community needs a new and larger Post Office for better service to
our community, which his project will give to us, along with the many other
benefits to our area and our people.
If the Commission does not support and uphold the favorable decision of
the 'Zoning Board for this project, the Commission could hurt the future of the
rest of Grand Avenue, and I would hate to see this happen to our community.
Therefore, I urge all concerned to support the Post Office Plaza
project.
Sincerer,
BILLY R011:f.1:
ro Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
FRCM Cesar H. Odio ���
City Manager
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
AGENL- ITLMS 14 S 15
CITY OF- MIAMI. FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
February 25, 1986
Interpretation: Plan Amendment;
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood
Plan
Transitional Uses
Attached herewith is the Planning Department response to a Commission request at
the Commission Meeting of January 23, 1936 pertaining to a zoning item. The
Commission had requested an interpretation as the whether transitional uses
triggered amendments to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The response
is negative; a Law Department legal opinion is also attached for your information.
CHO/SR
Attachments
• 8G-10'2 -
8f -16M .
CITY OF MIAMI• FLORIOA
TO, Cesar H. Odi o
City Manager
FROM
Sergio Rodriguez, Director
Planning Department
INTER-CFFICZ MSMCRANCUM
o.; February 24, 1986 FIL,
Interpretation: Plan Amendment
to Comprehensive Plan - Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
oF:cac•1i.�5
Transitional Uses
E`�__JiUQF:S
At the hearing of January 23, 1986, and in relation to a
zoning item, this Department was asked if transitional
uses trigger amendments to the comprehensive plan: the
response is negative. This memorandum is intended to
complement the Law Department legal opinion of February
19, 1986 on this issue (attached).
A comprehensive land use plan is a general guide to land uses, intensities and
densities and is not a zoning ordinance, which has precise zoning district
boundaries and specific zoning categories for each parcel of land within the
City. A land use plan is described in Section 163.3177 (6)(a) FS (1985), as
follows:
' (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future
general distribution, location, and extent of- the uses of land for
residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture,
recreation, conservation, education, public buildings and grounds,
other public facilities, and other cat2.gories of the public and
private uses of land. The future land use plan shall include
standards to be followed in the control and distribution of
population densities and building and structure intensities. The
proposed distribution, location, and extent of the various
categories of land use shall be shown on a land use map or map
3
series which shall be supplemented by measurable goals, objectives,
and policies. Each land use category shall be defined in terms of
the types of uses included and specific standards for the density or..
intensity of use. The future land use -plan shall be based upon
surveys, studies, and data regarding the area including the amount
of land required to accommodate anticipated growth, the projected
-
3
?
{
t
i
Page 1 of 4
i
M
t
R
,•
SC-1b2 .
86-103 .
mop
,ON "ON
h -
population of the area, the character of undeveloped land, the
availability of public services, and the need for redevelopment
including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of
nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the
community. The future land use plan may designate areas for future
planned development use involving combinations of types of uses for
which special regulations may be necessary to ensure development in
accord with the principles and standards of the comprehensive plan
and this act. The land use maps or map series shall generally
identify and depict historic district boundaries and shall designate
historically significant properties meriting protection."
A comprehensive plan is Idifferent and distinct from a zoning ordinance; an
authoritative publication comments, as follows:
"Particularly troublesome has been confusion between the zoning
ordinance and the section of the comprehensive plan dealing with the
private uses of land. Both deal with the ways in which
privately -owned land will be used, but the plan indicates only broad
categories for general areas of the city, whereas the zoning
ordinance delineates the exact boundaries of districts and specifies
the detailed regulations which shall apply within them.
Furthermore, the plan has a long-range perspective, while the zoning
ordinance is generally meant to provide for a time span of only five
to ten years."
"...Admittedly, the comprehensive plan will not answer all the small
questions which come before the legislative body. It is not
supposed to; it is not intended to be a zoning map or a blueprint."
Recent amendments to Florida Statutes, Section 163.3194 (3)(a) provide a
standard by which to compare consistency between the comprehensive plan and
locally -adopted land development regulations (zoning ordinances) and locally -
issued development orders (building permits), as follows:
"(3)(a) A development order or land development regulation shall be
consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities
or intensities, and other aspects of development permitted by such
order or regulation are compatible with and further the objectives,
policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the
comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by
the local government."
The term "consistent" is defined (American Heritage Dictionary) as "1. agreeing;
compatible; not contradictory. 2. Conforming to the same principles or course
of action." The term "compatible" is defined as "1. capable of living or
performing in harmonious, agreeable, or congenial combinations with another or
others. 2. Capable of orderly, efficient integration and operation with other
elements in a system." Therefore, the standard of comparison is not that of
being identical.
17 -------------------------------
=.Principles and Practice of Urban Planning, International City Managers
Association, pp. 350 and 362.
Page 2 of 4
s
SC- 1163
r
ON
To attempt to use a land use plan to
is erroneous. The land use plan for
of land and 19 square miles of water
whereas the zoning atlas shows the
least. If land use plans were meant
land use plan would be identical to
atlas.
the degree of precision of a zoning atlas
the City of Miami depicts 35 square miles
area at a scale of 1 inch = 2,200 feet,
area at a scale of 1 inch = 409 feet at
to be as specific as the zoning atlas; the
and could be substituted by, the zoning
The purpose of transitional uses per Zoning Ordinance 9500 is to provide a
gradation of uses at zoning district boundaries under certain specific
conditions, as follows:
"Transitional regulations are controls established at or adjoining
district boundaries to mitigate potential frictions between uses
or characteristics of use. Such regulations, applying generally
to buildings and uses within the area described as transitional
and thus in effect creating subdistricts, may have the effect of
altering primary district regulations by increasing or decreasing
requirements or limitations on uses, yards, height, off -Street
parking,2 lighting, signs, buffering and screening or other
matters.
Transitional uses
are permissible up to
125
feet immediately outside of
commercial and industrial
zoning districts;
the
surrounding zoning districts
may be commercial,
industrial or even residential.
Conversely, transitional
uses are regulated
immediately outside of
residential
zoning districts; the
surrounding zoning
district may be commercial,
industrial or residential.
Transitional uses
have been a feature of City
of Miami Zonina Ordinances at
least since 1961.
Transitional uses, permissible or permitted in the Zoning Ordinance do not
trigger amendments to the zoning atlas; It would therefore be inconsistent to
state that transitional uses trigger plan amendments.
The argument may be made that the land use plan could carry some notation
pertaining to transitional uses. Consider by way of illustration just what
this notation could possibly say, for example, "On both sides of all land use
designation changes, extending up to 125 feet, various uses may be
interchanged;" or "A variety of uses, as specified in the zoning ordinance may
be introduced into transitional areas, abutting and extending up to 125 feet on
either side of any land use designation change;" or "A transitional area
straddles all land use designation changes, extending out to up to 125 feet on
either side, within which the land uses may be interchanged. Obviously in
each of the illustrative examples, whatever language is used creates more
confusion than clarity, may invite protracted -litigation and detracts from the
stance of the land use pTan as a general guide.
17Zoning Ordinance 9500, Article 36 Definitions
SG-102
8f -1e�
1 To attempt to use a land use plan to
is erroneous. The land use plan for
of land and 19 square miles of water
whereas the zoning atlas shows the
least. If land use plans were meant
land use plan would be identical to,
-atl as .
the degree of precision of a zoning atlas
the City of Miami depicts 35 square miles
area at a scale of 1 inch = 2,200 feet,
area at a scale of 1 inch = 400 feet at
to be as specific as the zoning atlas; the
and could be substituted by, the zoning
The purpose of transitional uses per Zoning Ordinance 9500 is to provide a
gradation of uses at zoning district boundaries under certain specific
conditions, as follows:
"Transitional regulations are controls established at or adjoining
district boundaries to mitigate potential frictions between uses
or characteristics of use. Such regulations, applying generally
to buildings and uses within the area described as transitional
and thus in effect creating subdistricts, may have the effect of
altering primary district regulations by increasing or decreasing
requirements or limitations on uses, yards, height, off- street
parking,2 lighting, signs, buffering and screening or other
matters.
Transitional uses are permissible up to 125 feet immediately outside of
commercial and industrial zonino districts; the surrounding zoning districts
may be commercial, industrial or even residential. Conversely, transitional
uses are regulated immediately outside of residential zoning districts; the
surrounding zoning district may be commercial, industrial or residential.
Transitional uses have been a feature of City of Miami Zoning Ordinances at
least since 1961.
Transitional uses, permissible or permitted in the Zoning Ordinance do not
trigger amendments to the zoning atlas; It would therefore be inconsistent to
state that transitional uses trigger plan amendments.
The argument may be made that the land use plan could carry some notation
pertaining to transitional uses. Consider by way of illustration just what
this notation could possibly say, for example, "On both sides of all land use
designation changes, extending up to 125 feet, various uses may be
interchanged;" or "A variety of uses, as specified in the zoning ordinance may
be introduced into transitional areas, abutting and extending up to 125 feet on
either side of any land use designation change;" or "A transitional area
straddles all land use designation changes, extending out to up to 125 feet on
either side, within which the land uses may be interchanged. Obviously in
each of the illustrative examples, whatever language is used creates more
confusion than clarity, may invite protracted -litigation and detracts from the
stance of the land use plan as a general guide.
PZoning Ordinance 9500, Article 36 Definitions p. 335
Page 3 of 4
t
I
00"� 10"S
In the particular instance at hand, a mixed use building is proposed at the
corner of Grand Avenue and McDonald, as permitted by the zoning district (SPI-
2). A transitional area extends to the north of the zoning district boundary
which, by special permit, could allow parking garages in the adjacent RS-2/2
Low Density Residential Zoning District. The special permit (special exception
in this case) procedure requires a public hearing in which specific findings
must be made as to the effect on the surrounding neighborhood. These findings
oust address ingress and egress, off-street parking and loading, refuse and
service areas, signs and lighting, utilities, drainage, and control of adverse
effects generally. Therefore, while we find that permissible transitional
uses are consistent with the comprehensive plan in evaluating a specific
project, such as this, we may find that the project is incompatible or
inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods; otherwise a grant of special
exception is a pro -forma exercise.
The Planning Department finds that the land use plan is a guide; that there are
adequate relationships established - with the land use plan as guide - in the
Zoning Ordinance and atlas to control and direct development within constraints
of the laws incorporated in. the Zoning Ordinance; that details of the
specificity of transitional uses are not appropriate for incorporation in the
land use plan and indeed could confuse an understanding of the plan; that a
plan amendment is not required for transitional uses permissible by special
permit, and that the item in question should continue to be processed under the
procedures of Zoning Ordinance 9500 without referral to the Florida Department
of Community Affairs.
SR/JWM/rj% .
Attachment
cc: Walter L. Pierce, Assistant City Manager
Aurelio Perez-Lugones, Director, Planning and
Zoning Boards Administration
Lucia A. Dougherty, City Attorney, Law Department
/Zoning Ordinance 9500, Article
8f-10�
8f —lo3
612
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIOA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Honorable "br Xavier L. Suarez DATE February 19, 19861"LE
and e City Commission
SUBJECTLegal Opinion:
/1 Post Office Plaza
A-86-13
FROM- Lucia A. Doughey REFERENCES.
City Attorney /J
E4C:.OSURES.
At the City Commission meeting of January 23, 1986, you
deferred the appeal by residents of Coconut Grove of certain
variances and a Special Exception for the property known as Post
Office Plaza. You requested an opinion on the following issue:
WHERE THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD
- PLAN 1976-1986 ("COMPREHENSIVE PLAN")
INDICATES CERTAIN PROPERTY IS ZONED RS-2/2
(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND WHERE THE
CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE PROVIDES IN THE
SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, THAT SUCH
cam: PROPERTY, LOCATED IN A TRANSITIONAL ZONE, MAY
BE USED AS A PARKING GARAGE FOR A PROPOSED
: COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE SUBJECT TO
OBTAINING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FRCM THE ZONING
:= BOARD, AND IF SUCH A USE CONSTITUTES A CFiA,JGE
C.Li IN, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IS THE GOVERNING
BODY (THE CITY. COMMISSION) REQUIRED TO SEND
THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE STATE LAND
PLANNING AGENCY (DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS (DCA)) FOR REVIEW?
The initial question of whether such approval constitutes an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must be determined by the
Planning Department. If the Special Exception is not considered
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, then the proposed
approval is not required to be sent to DCA.
The Planning Department should be guided by the following:
5163.3194, F.S. (1985) entitled "Legal Status
of comprehensive plan," provides that all
actions taken'in regard to development orders
by governmental agencies shall be consistent
with its comprehensive plan. Furthermore,
8F--163
..... . _•�..'"':+u,�+:Ks,�;�i"a`G�i4�+riEs;?a�."Qi���i.•'�'a�nsr..;�;,�
rr�men nrWW
Honorable Mayor Xavier
and Members of the City
L. Suarez
Commission
,A—'
February 19, 1986
Page 2
all land development regulations enacted or
amended subsequent to the adoption of the
comprehensive plan must be consistent with
the comprehensive plan. It also provides
that a development order or land development
regulation shall be consistent with the
comprehensive plan if the land uses,
densities or intensities, and other aspects
of development permitted by the development
order or regulation are comoatible with and
further the objectives, policies, land uses,
and densities or intensities in the
comprehensive plan and if it meets ail other
criteria enumerated by the local government.
Hence, if the Planning Department finds that the special
exception (the development order) meets the above criteria for
compatability, then the special exception would not constitute an
amendment to the comprehensive plan.
However, if the Planning Department finds that the approval
would•• require a change in the comprehensive plan, then
§163.3184(1) F.S. (1985) would apply. It provides as follows:
"5163.3184, F.S. Adoption of comprehensive'
plan, or element or portion thereof. -
(1) At least 90 days before the adoption by
a governing body of a comprehensive plan or
element or portion thereof, or before the
adoption of an amendment to a previously
adopted comprehensive plan, or element or
portion thereof, the governing body shall:
(a) Transmit five copies of the proposed
comprehensive plan, or element or portion
thereof, to the state land planning agency
for written comment.
(b) Transmit, a copy of the proposed
comprehensive plan, or .element or portion -
thereof, to any other unit of local
government or governmental agency in the
state that has filed with the governing body
a request for copies of all proposed
comprehensive plans, or elements or portions
thereof.
f -'1tiA.
86 '1b3
d Honorable Mayor Xavier L. Suarez February 19, 1986
and Members of the City Commission Page 3
(c) Determine that the local planning agency
has held a public hearing on the proposed
plan, or element or portion thereof, with due
public notice."
Thus, at least 90 days before adoption at second reading by
the Commission of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the
Commission must act to transmit copies of the proposed amendments
to DCA and must ascertain that a public hearing has been held on
the proposed change by the Local Planning Agency - our Planning
Advisory Board.
you should know that Mr. Alfred Aronovitz, an attornev for
Ron Fine, has offered the following opinion: §163.3134, F.S. as
amended in 1985, is not effective until after July 1; 1987. He
may be relying on §16 3 .316 7 (2) , F.S. which requires each county,
beginning on July 1, 1987, and on or before December 1, 1987,
to prepare a Comprehensive Plan or amend an existing plan to meet
the requirements of the Act, and each municipality to do the same
beginning on Januar- 1, 1988, or January 1, 1989, depending on
whether the municipality is required to include a coastal
management element in its Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Aronovitz further stated that since DCA is not required
to adopt minimum criteria by which to review Local Government
Comprehensive Plans to determine compliance until
February 15, 1986, and further that such rules shall not become
effective until after they have ,d been submitted to the
legislature, there are no standards by which the DCA can review
the plans and therefore no requirement to send any proposed
s changes to DCA.
He further argued that the Comprehensive Plan referred to in
§163.3177, F.S. (entitled "Required and Optional Elements of
Comprehensive Plan; Studies and Surveys.") is referring to a new
and separate Comprehensive Plan and that the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan 1976-1986 is not subject to that Section.
He also argued that our Comprehensive Plan is a "Land
Development Regulation" under §163.3213, F.S. which is not
subject to review by DCA until after February 15, 1987, the date
by which DCA must adopt rules for review of Land Development
Regulations pursuant to §163.3202(5), F.S.
Chapter 85-55, of the 1985 First Regular Legislative Session
known as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act, provides for an
i,2
Lf-1n3
Honorable Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
and Members of the City Commission
February 19, 1986
Page 4
effective date of October 1, 1985,_ except for certain specified
sections, none which are relevant to this discussion.
( Section 51 of Chapter 85-5 5 . ) Therefore, the City must comply
with the Act.
5163.3187(2), F.S. requires each governing body to transmit
a current copy of its Comprehensive Plan to DCA no later than
December 1, 1985. The City has complied with this deadline. At
this time, since the DCA does . not have rules or standards with
which to evaluate the proposed amendments or Comprehensive Plans
it will provide comments to the City which are not binding and
are not enforceable against the City. In the future, after
adoption of rules by the DCA and review by the legislature,
proposed plans or amendments that are not "in compliance" will be
returned to the local government with recommendations by DCA.
Adopted revised plans that are still not in compliance will be
referred by DCA to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH)
for -.a hearing and then to the Administration Commission (IA)
(Government and Cabinet) for final action.
With regard to our Comprehensive Plan being a Land
Development Regulation as defined in 5163.3213(2)(b), F.S. that
definition provides as follows:
"An ordinance enacted by a - local governing
body for the regulation of any aspect of
development including a subdivision, building
construction, landscaping, tree protection,
or sign regulation or any other regulation
concerning the development of land."
The City adopted the Comprehensive Plan and refers to it as
its Comprehensive Plan and, in fact, the Plan contains those.
elements referred to in §163.3177, F.S. (1985) and §163.3178,
F.S. (1985) governing Comprehensive Plans.
_ If, in fact, this was a Land Development Regulation then the
DCA is required to adopt rules by February 15, 1987, for review
of Land Development Regulations pursuant to 5163.3202, F.S.
(1985). However, this is not applicable, since we are dealing
with a Comprehensive Plan and not • a Land Development Regulation.
In 5163.3202(1); F.S. each municipality is required to adopt or
amend and enforce Land Development Regulations that
11�11®111
�IRR
Honorable Mayor Xavier L. Suarez February 19, 1986
and Members of the City Commission Page 4
effective date of October 1, 1985,_ except for certain specified
sections, none which are relevant to this discussion.
(Section 51 of Chapter 85-55.) Therefore, the City must comply
with the Act.
9163.3187(2), F.S. requires each governing body to transmit
a current copy of its Comprehensive Plan to DCA no later than
December 1, 1985. The City has complied with this deadline. At
this time, since the DCA does • not have rules or standards with
which to evaluate the proposed amendments or Comprehensive Plans
it will provide comments to the City which ar^ not binding and
are not enforceable against the City. In c:ze future, after
adoption of rules by the DCA and review by the legislature,
proposed plans or amendments that are not "in compliance" will be
returned to the local government with recommendations by DCA.
Adopted revised plans that are still not in compliance will be
referred by DCA to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH)
for -,a hearing and then to the Administration Commission (IA)
(Government and Cabinet) for final action.
With regard to our Comprehensive Plan being a Land
Development Regulation as defined in 5163.3213(2)(b), F.S. that
definition provides as follows:
"P.n ordinance enacted by' a local governing
body for the regulation of any aspect of
development including a subdivision, building
construction, landscapiftg, tree protection,
or sign regulation or any other regulation
concerning the development of land."
The City adopted the Comprehensive Plan and refers to it as
its Comprehensive Plan and, in fact, the Plan contains those.
elements referred to in §163.3177, F.S. (1985) and §163.3178,
F.S. (1985) governing Comprehensive Plans.
If, in fact, this was a Land Development Regulation then the
DCA is required to adopt rules by February 15, 1987, for review
of Land Development Regulations pursuant to §163.3202, F.S.
(1985). However, this is not applicable, since we are dealing
with a Comprehensive Plan and not • a Land Development Regulation.
In §163.3202(1); F.S. each municipality is required to adopt or
amend and enforce Land Development Regulations that
Honorable Mayor Xavier L.
Suarez
February 19, 1986
a
and Members of the City Commission
Page S
a
x
are consistent withand
implement.-
their adopted Comprehensive
3
Plans. This must be done
within one
year after submission of its
revised Comprehensive Plan for review pursuant to 5163.3167(2)
F.S.
r
Prepared and approved by:
"
G . Miriam Maer
Assistant City Attorney
GMM/wpc/md/bss/P018
cc: Cesar H. Odi o, City
Manager
p LAW OFFICES
Suite 211, Roosevelt Building
4014 Chase avenue
Miami Beach, Florida 33140-3421
February 24, 19136
COPY
1
538-4131
TELEPHONE: (305) OM 0699
David H. Teems, Deputy Chief
Fire, Rescue & Inspection Services Department
City of Miami
275 North West 2nd Street
Miami, Florida 33233-0708 HAND DELIVERED
Re: 3195 Grand Avenue a/k/a Post Office Plaza Proposal
Dear Chief Teems:
Thank you for meeting with me to discuss the numerous
irregularities in the processing and approval of this
a op 1 i cat i orl. As you requested, I am putting my comments in
writing.
After reviewing the application, plans, and the zoning code, I am
convinced that, despite the apparent approval of the zoning
department, the proposed plan violates the cede in several ways.
In addition, I have several more questions which I am unable to
verify, but which may be violations of the cede or errors in
computation.
The specific violations that I have beer, able to identify are as
follows:
1. The Flair- Area Ratio stated as permitted is excessive.
Developer claims, and zoning signed off on total FAR of 2.38
permitted. This allows for the 1.21 FAR (maximum for mixed use
buidings) plus maximum bonuses for all categories of bonuses,
including 0.30 bonus for "split level uses at general level".
The proposal does not qualify for this split level use bonus.
Please see attached letter of George J. Acton, Jr. for
explanation. See also Section 1526.2. The proposed FAR exceeds
the actual permitted FAR (no more than 2.08) . This results in an
invalid application because no variance for FAR is permitted.
See section 3101.1.
2. The yard between the proposed building and the adjoining RS-:'
district is incorrectly stated as requiring only 5 feet. The
requirement is, in my opinion, 20 feet. See Section 1525, which
refers to transitional requirements of the CR district, which in
W46
t
'1-"rn r pfprs to the yard recuirements of the R5-0 Histrirt, RS-1_'
;l
vcal d reou l t'FPmert % for no n-res i dent 1 a l Uses (an arp yr a ` osed here)
arm ?o fePt. See schedule of district rem"lations. Mr. Actor,
believes tnat the reouirement is fop a setbacu. of W feet. HT
concludes that bac_puse the adjolnlrp i G-2 l_lss in r asi(_entlal. th(?
VaTidentla.l setbacks sooty to the YID;?nregidenticai '-Ices in the
01"-P district. See nis attac_hat letter. in either cease. the
stated renuirement of 5 feet and the promosed "i feet are
inadenuAtp. In addition, the setback reauirement oetermines the
rAlcueation of the light planes. This error In the r^E?cuire6 yarc:
setback results In an error (and increase) in the light plane
inty sion which is the subject of a variance renuest. ne
Anolaration for variance understates the variance n(_eopo to
anprcve the plans. In addition, ca variance for failure to
^-n`.%ibr t hp renuired setbrck. has not been r'^eo"e^ eH.
2. Fne nromoseal does not privice, sari& the ,' La -.eh ret- UJ r'r,4er,tr;
ignore the reauired minimum open space recuirements In the ''S-._
district. See Schedule of District Reaul.ations. oaae 1 of Fes,
rarty l t 1 ona 1 Uses, Structures and Reo u i re(i exits. Wh ] rn States:
but ldlnus containing Offices or clinics seal i have the same
minimum open space reoulrements (yards, lot coverage, livability
TnacP or ❑edestrian space) and height enveiome recuirements an
•'POU3rPd in there districts." See Schedule of District
cage 1 of E, Mimiflium Omen Space Renulement= lot,
R j-&. wKich requires 20 foot yards for non --residential uses, ca.
wnxirlll.m lot cnverage of 0.43, and ca miflrlfiil_m livaaiiity or o_Jert
pedestrian nonce of 0.36. In addition, the 20 foot yard setbacks
;.arc_' r'eauir'ed by Section 2018. `. 1 (c), as exvlaineo 1n Mr. i-1L,ton c.
ptter. Not only does this Dromosal crossly fall to (feet these
reUl.11T^en Qrr:F, but the plans were
"signed off" by t ne zoning
nemartment without notation of the failure to ci �mmly. l nerefore.
tni Dr'coosal. is invalid.
4. Uses wroDosed for the RS--2 district are not mermit en. ;JETe
3
SWeOUle Of t1 strict Reaulatlons. Pape 1 of 6. •'r-ansitional Lses.
St,-uc'turrs end K( nuirewents, whien state- "in any re5icentiai
u ls'; r1 ct. where lots adloln at the side, lot': in any
z
[=0WWercc:Ia cistrict, such residential iots. or the first
100 feet in widt`l thereof adjacent to such common bounraries
where wiorn exceeds 100 feet, may be occuoiec nv uses Der mirtnc!
up-er"ally. or nermissible by snecla.l permit Only, as s:7E.cifiec
bpi Dw under the heading "Side transition.''
,a, Tht? pr:pcSed Dai^k1nC St}^llctl_tr^e, which :5 perm15s14i1?
by ,oeclai permit Qnly, extends well beyond tie 100 foot
i :wit. avk1 nn beyond 100 feet from the common bouncar'y
therefore violates the use regulations. Use vcarlarces may not "P
c rrranteo. Spe Section 3101.1.
h. 1n addition, the promomai :snows the major C: ortlon of
thm on-t office to be located in the RS-2 cistrict. !"Is in not
a ','Prmitted transitional use. See Iransitional uses in Sc7sculP
ane Mr. Wton's Setter.
C. The pr000 ed loading cooks are proLinn ev tQ be i ocsar ec:_
in ton RS-2 01s•trict! but are not a remitted traY,W.`Wnal USe.
8C-16)
sc-163
5r, r"e FF1'rncFv above an& Mr. Acton' s 1 E?'tter.
NpCA'. pn use variances are not a L J.� mowed. Section t"i r;
nr-r1:_yaj is in violation of the code and cannot un forward a's
5. he hejant of tree Ur000sed structure in tree qG a mistr ict
pxremds t"e height limitations. See `schedule of District
RE?'7uistions, pacle I of E, Transitional Uses, etc., resivential
districts generally, last sentence, which states. "Aside from use
regulations and other exceptions or reouisments sopcified.
*-paylations anolyinp generally in the residential restrict shall
anoly On lots or oort i� ins of lots in side or rear transitional
areas." See Maximum Height for PS which .limits Plane III to
So feet. The or000sed parking structure exceeds ``, Beet in
heimht, and as s1.IC:h violates the code. .zonlns "s1Oned off, Can
the clans without mention of this violation of the cafe.
t',, i he cc;mments of George Campbell, of the Public Works
Deaartment, indicate three additionat violation., As foilows:
a. driveway is 10 feet from the base buiic,ing line:
n minimum of 13 feet is recauired.
b. dron-cuff area of the sidewalk is _ feat into the
vubl lc right-of-way violat inq the minimum stanuard a! & feet.
C. the 35 feet renuired minimum cistance from the
wenterle.ne of 32 Avenue_ to the base huilinp line is not OrOv3ce_d-
Unly 0 feet 3 inches is orovidea. thin reduciop the setback
f-nm 5 *eta~ to 2 feet G inches.
see attached summary y Miniutes fo " comments Of Mr-. C.amOhel1.
7. ?he Reouired parking is understated ante the rrGmesed orovideo
carping is therefore inadequate. Parking reouirements are stated
in Section 1528, which refers to the schedule or Distwict
Reryl at ions for RG--c ( Pape 2 of Fes) and CR (paee 4 of 6) . I will
indicate my calculations below:
USE?
Qetai.
cost Office
in SP1--2
Cost Office
in
office
I heater"
Residential
"Dther,'
No. So. Ft.
Code NO. S aces
1/100 so. ft.
1/510 Wa ft.
1/550 sQ . f t .
1/550 sq. ft.
1/550 so. ft.
1/100 sq.ft.
1. 1/unit
1/550 sq. ft.
'10"I'PL_ PARI,ING SPACES REQUIRED
Ti•r u s credit for mixed use Section E017. 7
minus f:axi.m= credit for theater section 1556(2)
!commuted as remaining office requiement of 10
i�
-nacrn. f-it_is Si Spaces for post office reculrement)
it is Nv ouininn, though, that no credit for trleate-
shr"Id 5e Given because theaters in shoominp centers
0-n W.11;PU use 1 uildinas pener'`ally have d7vt3mp =.vow
3Ji
Note: Tie above f iqur es are comouted based on a oerrtlittPO APR of
00, which cops not allow the split-level bonus, To recompute
''a ,e_d on &.._V MR. change each 1/550 so. ft. t0 1/600 S (_. Ft. in
t"a . case the number of rer?t.l.ired spaces. In truer. are 66.
ti7, S. 21, `_0. 70, 90, `8. for a total renuireci of 410 soaces min=
wi.mac '. -e credit of 45 and maximum theater crecit of 32
tr•emaining office requirement of 5 spaces, nit_is 27 for past
of Fice) , leaving 341 saaces rent.lired.
1"P Pavf'i onor claimed, and .^•onit'g amuroved. a Sca"Enent F i:_'69
our e— rectlired and 312 DrOvided. As you can see from the
f i u"r ps anove, the vropoSal dates not meet the renuireyvnts of tale
C -Ke .
in add3 t iOn to t the above matters dF_'rtrCnBtrat inn C.ta j'P t n in the
no nl icat ion and the amproval thereof, my review � �)' the plans and
file ra1St_n the following questions wiich I have not been able to
answer. Per'hcaps t_lnon examination by your department, these
issues will shQw additional defects.
1. fare the net iot area and gross lot area groner.ly r•Ctrtlot_lted?
is the bonus for theater (Section I526.2.2Q) ), w'aicn is
• stated in terms of gross square 'Fee•L- rather than VPq. r r^o per l y
C'ofo muted. :,iv`n the gross lot area''
3. is the r 1. _ or^ Area nr`merly computed? Were roaf top uses
included? Were residential elevators ct'mouted as -exicPntial
floor area?
4. were the loadinQ -oacL requirements proovr_`/ c';•;t;vucPd'�
5. Wan the 1 iGht plane intrusion properly commuted? Was it
OaSeb On the WaxlrtrUM intrusion ( extended halcort p, _, the toL;
oor ) rather than on the minimum intrusion or 1vP_race
intrusion?
G. is a laundry a permitted roofl•.00 use?
In adc'ition to the above comments and auestions, tier( in another
lr^rEUU1xrlty in the orocessinp of this sorlicati=tn. As you
rerall from our conversation, apnarent..l y these n l anS Were not
r eviewse ov the people normally cnarpea wit" "evlewirs Vlans. t
C•_ ri"t t�rv_-w wheat caused this apolicrl.tion to receiva sDF_rial
_ppotypnt. Put believe that it dio soy,
TI,
I C-,- 14 V F-n rA00VE. if v AVE, iip F= : Ar:e
�_n I l a 0 Unt,-tLt roe_ 1 w.1 t f "I'a r? o v t r. ro v
V I'D 1.1 :y'OUCAPS]. Y,.r,
Fj Y, cj T ti m r r, 1 11 C'h .1 U rl r e C% I jRt r, t r i r:,, ? r! tie t, F., rl 1-1 V
t -4
y, C4 a t t L zt, a _ fF L j ccirif i a e ro j 7r3t v,-#, i vj I l i r t- I' V C t ak rl V
v -- -.1 f 1 rid ro 7 y h_l,/L:*
Wl i -1 V I'l 13
F_,�v truly
LO',,.l OF JPNF-_T ;-. COOPER
JANET L. COOPER
Doucher-tv. C i t v Pt t orney
t I pitL I t y Clerk ( rc,r i ric: i u s i o r, in tnc? f p
welter +e y - r-- r.? . PrisistArit City Marlacer
p u a o c' o t - I L, u e 1) i t - E? u t :., r , Plartn2rim Departri-ent
6f:Iyl,:,Ale,.. Chief Zonino insper-tC.1r,
Jnv, T. t,I,eLt�rj
Gf-,:,rr.,e J. potoyll jr.
George J. Acton, Jr., A. L A., A.1. C. P., Consultant
Architecture, Urban Manning anti Design, 7,oning
9605 Southwest 120 Street, Nliarni, Florida 33176 (305) 233 40
February 4, 1986
Ms. Janet Cooper
Attorney at Law
4014 Chase Avenue
Suite 211
Miami heath, Florida 33140
Re: Post Office Plaza
Dear Janet:
In accordance with your request of February 3, the following is a summary
of my zoning analysis of the Post Office Plaza which is located in two
Zoning District Classifications -- SPI-2 and RS-2/2.
1. In SPI-2:
a. The allowable increase in floor area for split level uses at ground
level should not be granted since they do not meet the criteria set forth in
Section 1526.2.2, 4. This section states "...where by reason of a vertical
split level arrangement of uses (above and below ground level), directly
accessible and visible from the adjacent public sidewalk, ...".
The upper ground level uses for the Post Office Plaza are not visible from
ground level, nor are they directly accessible.
b. The yard between the building and the rear lot line of the RS-2/2
district is not in accord with the SPI-2 transitional requirements (Section 1525),
which refer to the CR district, items I and 2, which state:
"l. Where lots in these districts directly adjoin lots
in RS-1, RS-2 and RG-1 districts at the side or rear:
a. Yard and height envelope requirements along
such lot lines shall be as for adjoining RS or RG-1 lots
1 except the light plane shall be 63 degrees and Plane III
shall not apply."
Since this SPI-2 lot adjoins the rear of an RS-2 lot, and since the RS-2
minimum interior rear yard is 10 feet, the Post Office Plaza building does
not meet this requirement.
2. In RS-2/2:
a. The parking garage in the RS-2 district requires a special ex-
ception. Special Exceptions are governed by Article 26. Class D Special
Permits and Special Exceptions; Detailed Requirements. Under Section 2606.1,
Findings, it states:
SC—JLb2
8C -163)
I
Ms. Janet Cooper
Page Two
February 4, 1986
"In its decision to grant an application for Class D
Special Permit or special exception, to grant with conditions
or safeguards, or to deny the application, the zoning board shall ...
and the board shall act in accordance with Section 2303, "Special
Permits to be issued or denied in accordance with procedures,
standards, and requirements of this ordinance."
Section 2303 contains the following language:
"Special permits in relation to zoning shall be issued or denied
only in accordance with the procedures, standards, and require-
ments of this zoning ordinance...
Where applications for special permits indicate that actions
proposed therein, or the manner in which they are proposed to
be conducted, do not meet the standards and requirements of this
ordinance, and could not practically and reasonably be made to
do so by attachments and safeguards so authorized and limited,
such applications and permits shall be denied."
b. The special exception request in based on Section 2018.2.1 which,
among other requirements, states:
...(c) Yards adjacent to streets shall be dimensioned as
generally required within the district, and a yard equivalent in
width to the required side yard shall be provided along any re-
maining edges of the lot not adjacent to streets except..."
The requested parking garage is a non residential use and under RS-2, non
residential uses require a side yard of 20 feet, a Plane III dimension of
20 feet, maximum lot coverage of .43, and minimum livability space of .36.
The parking garage does not meet any of these standards, and should have
been denied by the zoning board.
Further, under the Transitional Uses, Structures, and Requirements of RS-2,
it states that a side transition allows the first 100 feet to be occupied by
uses permitted generally, or permissible by special permit only, as specified
below under the heading "Side Transition." Under Side Transitions, it states:
"The following uses are permissible only by Class C special permit:
...2. Office not selling merchandise on the premises.
...4. Offsite parking, permissible only by special permit,
as provided in Section 2018.
SC -Ib3
Ms. Janet Cooper
Page Three
February 4, 1986
The proposed parking garage exceeds the 100 foot requirement, and contains
(1) part of a post office which does not meet the standard of not selling
merchandise on the premises, and (2) offstreet loading docks which are not a
permissible use in the transitional area of a single family district.
If you need additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
G
Geor?J �Z4Acton4J.
A.I.A., A.I.C.P.
A
Mr. Jon Channing, a board member, stated for the record
that his corporation does have interest with another corporation
which owns land in Broward County. One of the applicants for the
item before the Board does own stock in the corporation but he,
himself, has no financial interest nor any other involvements
with the applicant. Furthermore, he stated that this
relationship would not affect his independent judgement on the
items.
Ms. Miriam Maer, the board attorney, advised, based on
what Mr. Channing stated, that there would be no conflict of
interest and Mr. Channing could vote on the item.
Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo of the Planning Department
first described a brief scenario of the area by stating that the
north four lots of the project are zoned RS-2/2, single family,
and the remaining lots are zoned SPI-2, mixed use. A park is
located northeast of the property and an elementary school east
of the property.
In reference to the requests, the Planning Department
feels the reduction in the number of loading stalls by 50
percent, that is, from 8 loading stalls to 4 is significant. One
reason for this is that the post office is proposed to be located
in this project and they would require 2 loading stalls for their
exclusive use leaving only 2 stalls for the rest of the project
to share. The intrusion of the light plane is unnecessary, it is
only because the architect wanted to create a better design by
introducing an atrium. And the last request for a parking
structure on the residential lots in the rear would create a
hardship for the neighbors who live on Florida Avenue.
Mr. George Campbell of the Public Works Department
stated that if the Board should decide to grant the items, the
Public Works Department is requesting the dedication of the
westerly 12.5' of Lots 12 and 13, the northerly 5' of Lots 9-12,
a 25' radius at the southeasterly corner of McDonald and Florida
Avenue and a 25' radius at the corner of McDonald and Grand
Avenue.
Furthermore, Mr. Campbell pointed out that the plans
indicate the driveway to be located 10' away from the base
building line -but the code requires that the driveway be located
a minimum of 13' from the base building line.
In regards to the reduction in the number of loading
stalls, the Public Works Department agrees with the feelings of
the Planning Department. Since the post office is requiring at
least two loading stalls for their exclusive use, most likely the
delivery trucks for the rest of the building would stop along
Grand Avenue rather than going around and trying to get into a
loading stall.
The sidewalk area along 32 Avenue and Grand Avenue must
be done according to Public Work's standards. In addition, the
plans indicate the drop-off area of the sidewalk to be 2 feet
into the public right-of-way which is 3' shy of the required
minimum standard which is 5' along the public right-of-way.
Last point Mr. Campbell made was that the Code requires
a 35' distance from the center line of 32 Avenue to the base
building line; however, the plans indicate a distance of only
32'3", thereby reducing the setback from 5' to approximately
2'3". If this was to happen the end result would be the
structures would encroach into the public right-of-way which is
not permitted according to code.
Mr. Ronald Fine, one of the applicants and attorney for
the project, began by saying the project, known as Post Office
Plaza, is proposed to be located at 3195 Grand Avenue. -He has
submitted packets to the Board members which included a letter
dated December 8, 1983 from Sergio Rodriguez, Director of the
Planning Department, and Mr. Fine stated that this letter
supports and encourages this project and its design including the
location of the parking on Florida Avenue.
of —
1 h a`3
2 December 16, 1985, Items 2 & 3
Zoning Board G
z 1
MWOFFICES
49P9� (� FAN�9H4l�MtFr
Suite 211, Roosevelt Building
4014 Chase Avenue
Miami Beach, Florida 33140-3'+21
t
,.� /*
Z-V
IUE
1986
B
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIOA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM 15
To Honorable Mayor and Members DATE January 14, 1986 FILE
of the City Commission
SUBJECT RESOLUTION - APPEAL BY OBJECTORS
SPECIAL EXCEPTION GRANTED BY
ZONING BOARD - 3174-90-92 &
FROM Cesar H. Odio APPROXIMATELY 3198 FLORIDA AVENUE
City Manager REFERENCES
COMMISSION AGENDA - J ANUARY 23, 1986
ENc�osuREs PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
It is recommended that a review be
made of the Special Exception
granted by the Zoning Board
permitting a proposed parking
structure in conjunction with a
proposed commercial/residential
structure (Post Office Plaza), said
parking structure to be located at
3174-90-92 and approximately 3198
orlaa Avenue.
The Zoning Board, at its meeting of December 16, 1985, Item 3, following an
advertised hearing, adopted Resolution ZB 168-85 by a 5 to 3 vote, granting
the Special Exception as listed in Zoning Ordinance 9500, as amended, Article
20, Section 2018, Subsection 2018.2.1 to permit a proposed parking structure
in conjunction with a proposed commercial/residential structure (Post Office
Plaza), said parking structure to be located at 3174-90-92 and approximately
3198 Florida Avenue, also described as Lots 9 through 12 inclusive less
portions for right-of-way, Block 2, CHARLES H. FROW SUBDIVISION (13-53)
P.R.D.C., as per plans on file; zoned RS-2/2 One -Family Detached Residential.
This Special Exception petition is in conjunction with a Variance application
for light plane penetration and off-street loading spaces. This Special
Exception was also granted a time limitation of twelve (12) months in which a
building permit must be obtained.
Twenty-six objections received; thirty-six opponents present at the meeting.
Two replies in favor received in the mail; seventeen proponents present at the
meeting.
Backup information is included for your review.
A RESOLUTION to provide for the above' has been prepared by the City Attorney's
Office and submitted for consideration of the City Commission.
AEPL:III
cc:
i )
/ NOTE:
Law Department
Planning Department recommends: DENIAL
SC-16
ZONING FACT SHEET
LOCATION/LEGAL
3174-90-92 and
Approximately 3198 Florida Avenue
.
Lots 9 through 12 inclusive less portions
for right-of-way
Block 2
r
CHARLES H. FROW SUB. (13-53) P.R.D.C.
APPLICANT/OWNER
Michael D. Kinerk
3174 Florida Avenue
Miami, FL 33133 Phone # 448-7361
Dennis W. Wilhelm
3174 Florida Avenue
Miami, FL 33133 Phone # 448-7361
Commodore Plaza Square, Inc.
P.O. Box 110110
Miami, FL 33111-0110 Phone # 358-0375
Ronald L. Fine (Attorney for Applicant)
'
50 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 300
'
Miami, FL 33132 Phone # 358-0375
ZONING
RS-2/2 One -Family Detached Residential
REQUEST
Special Exception as listed in Ordinance 9500,
as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Miami, Article 20, Section 2018, Subsection
2018.2.1 to permit a proposed parking structure
in conjunction with a proposed commercial/
residential structure (Post Office Plaza), said
parking structure to be located on above site,
as per plans on file. This Special Exception
petition is in conjunction with a Variance
application for light plane penetration and off-
street loading spaces.
RECOMMENDATIONS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DENIAL. The special exception parking
structure, as requested, is not in keeping with
the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed bulk of this structure represents
an unwarranted intrusion into the residential
neighborhood to the north.
3
t
Z
0
r
ZONING FACT SHEET
LOCATION/LEGAL 3174-90-92 and
Approximately 3198 Florida Avenue
Lots 9 through 12 inclusive less portions
for right-of-way
Block 2
CHARLES H. FROW SUB. (13-53) P.R.D.C.
APPLICANT/OWNER Michael D. Kinerk
3174 Florida Avenue
Miami, FL 33133 Phone # 448-7361
Dennis W. Wilhelm
3174 Florida Avenue
Miami, FL 33133 Phone # 448-7361
Commodore Plaza Square, Inc.
P.O. Box 110110
Miami, FL 33111-0110 Phone # 358-0375
Ronald L. Fine (Attorney for Applicant)
50 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 300
Miami, FL 33132 Phone # 358-0375 '
ZONING
RS-2/2 One -Family Detached Residential
REQUEST
Special Exception as listed in Ordinance 9500,
as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Miami, Article 20, Section 2018, Subsection
2018.2.1 to permit a proposed parking structure
in conjunction with a proposed commercial/
residential structure (Post Office Plaza), said
parking structure to be located on above site,
as per plans on file. This Special Exception
petition is in conjunction with a Variance
application for light plane penetration and off-
street loading spaces.
RECOMMENDATI DNS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DENIAL. The special exception parking
structure, as requested, is not in keeping with
the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed bulk of this structure represents
an unwarranted intrusion into the residential
neighborhood to the north.
0
PUBLIC WORKS
Require the dedication of the west 12.5' of Lot
12, the north 5' of Lots 9 through 12 and a 25'
radius return at the southeast corner of the
intersection of McDonald Street & Florida
Avenue.
• DADE COUNTY TRAFFIC
& TRANSPORTATION
No comment.
ZONING BOARD
At its meeting of December 16, 1985, the Zoning
Board adopted Resolution ZB 168-85 by a 5 to 3
vote, granting the above with a time limitation
of twelve (12) months in which a building
permit must be obtained.
APPEAL
.-etLer dated December 24, 1985
CITY COMMISSION
At its meeting of January 23, 1986, the City
Commission deferred action on the above.
L
Z
Q
J
3. LAM
to (�
�VI AT it-, o
GROVE
SOS 049
s a
s
10 i 0 3
A 6 S
K 11 7
AVE.
- AS 46
ZB 11118185SE.---
t) L
Item # 4 AP J-V
� J-29
3174-90-92 and
..,� Approx. 3128. Florida Avenue
a
I
W-7
LAMB CT.
A
46
Pw".
.4
.4
'WIT
AVE
KIRK MUNROE
J4
L
-.4
MARUP;
AN
AdM
S�' 7
%ak
& �
L4
or
ZB 11/18/85 AS 46
MAND for. AVE AP J-27
item #2
J-29
3174-90-9
2 and
Approx. 3198 Florida Avenue
L]
Ll
CITY OF MIAM1. FLORIDA
INTEM-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
MIA-86=1
To Honorable r Xavier L. Suarez °AT`' February 19, 1986"�� A-86-13
and m r of a City commission
s"'.J"T: Legal Opinion:
Post Office Plaza
FROM. cia A. Doughe y REIERENCES:
City Attorney
ENCLOSURM
At the City Commission meeting of January 23, 1986, you
deferred the appeal by residents of Coconut Grove of certain
variances and a Special Exception for the property known as Post
Office Plaza.-- You requested an opinion on the following issue:
WHERE THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD
PLAN 1976-1986 ("COMPREHENSIVE PLAN")
INDICATES CERTAIN PROPERTY IS ZONED RS-2/2
(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND WHERE THE
CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE PROVIDES IN THE
SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, THAT SUCH
PROPERTY, LOCATED IN A TRANSITIONAL ZONE, MAY
BE USED AS A PARKING GARAGE FOR A PROPOSED
COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE SUBJECT TO
OBTAINING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM THE ZONING
BOARD, AND IF SUCH A USE CONSTITUTES A CHANGE
IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IS THE GOVERNING
BODY (THE CITY COMMISSION) REQUIRED TO SEND
THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE STATE LAND
PLANNING AGENCY (DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS (DCA)) FOR REVIEW?
The initial question of whether such approval constitutes an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must be determined by the
Planning Department. If the Special Exception is not considered
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, then the proposed
approval is not required to be sent to DCA.
The Planning Department should be guided by the following:
5163.3194, F.S. (1985) entitled "Legal Status
of comprehensive plan," provides that all
actions taken in regard to development orders
by governmental agencies shall be consistent
with its comprehensive plan. Furthermore,
8C-16'
qq
t
. 9 V
Honorable Mayor
Xavier
L. Suarez
February 19, 1986
and Members of
the City
Commission
Page 2
all land development regulations enacted or
amended subsequent to the adoption of the
comprehensive plan must be consistent with
the comprehensive plan. It also provides
that a development order or land development
regulation shall be consistent with the
comprehensive plan if the land uses,
densities or intensities, and other aspects
of development permitted by the development
order or regulation are compatible with and
further the objectives, policies, land uses,
and densities or intensities in the
comprehensive plan and if it meets all other
r
R
t.
Hence, if the Planning Department finds that the special
exception (the development order) meets the above criteria for
compatability, then the special exception would not constitute an
amendment to the comprehensive plan.
However, if the Planning Department finds that the approval
would require a change in the comprehensive plan, then
S163.3184(1) F.S. (1985) would apply. It provides as follows:
"S163.3184, F.S. Adoption of comprehensive
plan, or element or portion thereof. -
(1) At least 90 days before the adoption by
a governing body of a comprehensive plan or
element or portion thereof, or before the
adoption of an amendment to a previously
adopted comprehensive plan, or element or
portion thereof, the governing body shall:
(a) Transmit five copies of the proposed
comprehensive plan, or element or portion
thereof, to the state. land planning agency
for written comment.
(b) Transmit a copy of the proposed
comprehensive plan, or element or portion
thereof, to any other unit of local
government or governmental agency in the
state that has filed with the governing body
a request for copies of all proposed
comprehensive plans, or elements or portions
thereof.
qb
Honorable Mayor Xavier L. Suarez February 19, 1986
and Members of the City Commission Page 3
(c) Determine that
has held a public
plan, or element or
public notice."
the local planning agency
hearing on the proposed
portion thereof, with due
Thus, at least 90 days before adoption at second reading by
the Commission of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the
Commission must act to transmit copies of the proposed amendments
to DCA and must ascertain that a public hearing has been held on
the proposed change by the Local Planning Agency - our Planning
Advisory Board.
You should know that Mr. Alfred Aronovitz, an attorney for
Ron Fine, has offered the following opinion: 5163.3184, F.S. as
amended in 1985, is not effective until after July 1, 1987. He
may be relying on 5163.3167(2), F.S. which requires each county,
beginning on July 1, 1987, and on or before December 1, 1987,
to prepare a Comprehensive Plan or amend an existing plan to meet
the requirements of the Act, and each municipality to do the same
beginning on January 1, 1988, or January 1, 1989, depending on
whether the municipality is required to include a coastal
management element in its Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Aronovitz further stated that since DCA is not required
to adopt minimum criteria by which to review Local Government
Comprehensive Plans to determine compliance until
February 15, 1986, and further that such rules shall not become
effective until after they have been submitted to the
legislature, there are no standards by which the DCA can review
the plans and therefore no requirement to send any proposed
changes to DCA.
He further argued that the Comprehensive Plan referred to in
5163.3177, F.S. (entitled "Required and Optional Elements of
Comprehensive Plan; Studies and Surveys.") is referring to a new
and separate Comprehensive Plan and that the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan 1976-1986 is not subject to that Section.
He also argued that our Comprehensive Plan is a "Land
Development Regulation" under 5163.3213, F.S. which is not
subject to review by DCA until after February 151 1987, the date
by which DCA must adopt rules for review of Land Development
Regulations pursuant to 5163.3202(5), F.S.
Chapter 85-55; of the 1985 First Regular Legislative Session
known as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act, provides for an
s f� JL-1
ZJn
Honorable Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
and Members of the City Commission
February 19, 1986
Page 4
effective date of October 1, 19851,, except for certain specified
sections, none which are relevant to this discussion.
(Section 51 of Chapter 85-55.) Therefore, the City must comply
with the Act.
S163.3187(2), F.S. requires each governing body to transmit
a current copy of its Comprehensive Plan to DCA no later than
December 1, 1985. The City has complied with this deadline. At
this time, since the DCA does not have rules or standards with
which to evaluate the proposed amendments or Comprehensive Plans
it will provide comments to the City which are not binding and
are not enforceable against the City. In the future, after
adoption of rules by the DCA and review by the legislature,
proposed plans or amendments that are not "in compliance" will be
returned to the local government with recommendations by DCA.
Adopted revised plans that are still not in compliance will be
referred by DCA to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH)
for a hearing and then to the Administration Commission (IA)
(Government and Cabinet) for final action.
With regard to our Comprehensive Plan being a Land
Development Regulation as defined in S163.3213(2)(b), F.S. that
definition provides as follows:
"An ordinance enacted by a local governing
body for the regulation of any aspect of
development including a subdivision, building
construction, landscaping, tree protection,
or sign regulation or any other regulation
concerning the development of land."
The City adopted the Comprehensive Plan and refers to it as
its Comprehensive Plan and, in fact, the Plan contains those
elements referred to in 5163.3177, F.S. (1985) and 5163.3178,
F.S. (1985) governing Comprehensive Plans.
If, in fact, this was a Land Development Regulation then the
DCA is required to adopt rules by February 15, 1987, for review
of Land Development Regulations pursuant to S163.3202, F.S.
(1985). However, this is not applicable, since we are dealing
with a Comprehensive Plan and not a Land Development Regulation.
In 5163.3202(1), F.S. each municipality is required to adopt or
amend and enforce Land Development Regulations that
1
Honorable Mayor Xavier L. Suarez February 19, 1986
and Members of the City Commission Page 5
,n
are consistent withand implement.. their adopted Comprehensive
Plans. This must be done within.one year after submission of its
revised Comprehensive Plan for review pursuant to 5163.3167(2)
F.S.
Prepared and approved by:
G. Miriam Maer
Assistant City Attorney
GMM/wpc/md/bss/P018
Cesar H. Odio, City Manager
8C-I���
December 24, 1985
Ivor. Aurelio Perez-Lusones
Director, Planning & Zoning Boards Admin. Dept.
City of Miami
275 NW 2nd Street
Iviiami, F1. 33128
Re: Request for review by the City Commission of the Zonina Board decision
on Items 2 and 3 of the Miami Zoninq Board agenda of Monday, December
16, 1985, as follows:
Item 2: 3195 Grand Avenue. [Lots 9 through 20 inclusive less
portions for right-of-way, Block 2, CHARLES H. FROW SUB. (13-53)
P .R .D .0 .] Variance from Ordinance 9500, as amended the Zonincr
Ordinance of the City of Miami, Schedule of District Regulations, pane
4 of 6, CR Commercial -Residential (General) , Transitional Uses,
Structures and Requirements and Article 20, Section 2023, Subsection
2023.4 to permit construction of a proposed commercial/residential
structure (Post Office Plaza) on above site, as per plans on file,
with a +/- 9.0' maximum light plane penetration at +/- 50.01'
height above grade along the SPI-2/RS-2 district boundary line and
providing 4 of 8 required off-street loadina spaces;. . . and
Item 3: 3174-90-92 and Approximately 3198 Florida Avenue.[Lots 9
through 12 inclusive less portions for right-of-way, Block 2,
CHARLES H. FROW SUB. (13-53) P.R.D.C.] Special Exception
as listed in Ordinance 9500, as amended, the Zonina Ordinance of
the City of Miami, Article 20, Section 2018, Subsection 2018.2.1
to permit a proposed parking structure in conjunction with a proposed
commercial/residential structure (Post Office Plaza) , said parkins
structure to be located on above site, as per plans on file; zoned
RS-2/2 One -Family Detached Residential....
We, the undersigned, are aggrieved by the approval of the variances and
special exception in that the structures, if built as per the plans on file, will
seriously jeopardize the stability and tranquility of our residential neighborhood.
We do not believe that all of the requirements and standards of section 3103.1
have been demonstrated. In addition, the applications and petition do not
address properly the requirements and limitations of the Zoning Ordinance
applicable to the SPI-2 and RS-2 districts separately or in transition to
each other.
We request that the review be scheduled at approximately 7 p.m. to permit
those of us who are employed during the day to attend.
.01
Mr. Aurelio Perez-Luciones
December 24, 1985
Paae 2
We strongly urge your favorable review of this appeal, and that the
decision of the Zoning Board be reversed.
Respectfully submitted,
John T. Green
3158 Florida Avenue
Miami, Fl. 33133 Tel: 443-0359
.% � �'L�' � •J Ivy j ..�..t � Z 1
G rady Lee Dinkins
3201 Florida Avenue
Miami, 3133
Michael Marmesh
3200 errand Avenue
Miami, Fl. 33133
1
Carl R. Boehm
3150 Florida Avenue
Miami, Fl. 331
e o tte
3104 Florida Avenu Miami , F1. 33133
I
oldie Clarit
3197 Florida Avenue
Miami, Fl. 33133
V
Lawrence E . Sokol
3124 Florida Avenue
Miami, F1. 33133 Tel: 442-4726
BetsY Ross Kramer
31 rida Avenue
is F1. 33133
Elishama Withers
3200 Frow & 3340 McDonald
Miami, F1. 33133
La Tanya De naid
3221 Frow
Miami,F 1. 33133
U
V
= Y-
_ A N - r r --ES
RONALD L. FINE
3C S,SCA• jE SCvLE"A*0 S, 'E JC:
MIAMI, FLORIOA 33132
'ESE=-CwE 3C5) 358 ^--3713
January 6, 1986
OCCL' -y
-CST opnCE SC■ :1 O
"IAMi, rL."oICA 3311 0 10
City of Miami
Miami, Florida
Attention: Planning Department
Gentlemen:
I have signed the Applications for:
1. Special Exception to use Lots 9-12, inclusive,
Block 2, Charles H. Frow Subdivision, PB 13-53; and
2. Variance to reduce the required number of loading
spaces from 8 spaces to 4 spaces; and
3. Variance to allow building to penetrate into the
required light plane.
This is to certify that I signed these applications and/or petitions,
together with supporting documentation thereto in my capacity as
attorney for the owners of Lots 9-20, inclusive, Block 2, Charles H.
Frow Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 13 at Page 53 of the public
records ,e Dade County, Florida.
Very truly ybur ,
�' �' Z r 21 C�
onald L. e
ttorney at Law
RONALD L. FINE
MIAMI, rl.ORIOA 33132
-ESE=-CNE 3C51 359 =3-5
oce . -_
=CS- Jcn ZE SOX .C, 0
"'AM,, c.-Ca-Qe 331'.. 0 10
January 6, 1986
City of Miami
Miami, Florida
Attention: Planning Department
Gentlemen:
I have signed the Applications for:
1. Special Exception to use Lots 9 -12, inclusive,
Block 2, Charles H. Frow Subdivision, PB 13-53; and
2. Variance to reduce the required number of loading
spaces from 8 spaces to 4 spaces; and
3. Variance to allow building to penetrate into the
required light plane.
This is to certify that I signed these applications and/or petitions,
together with supporting documentation thereto in my capacity as
attorney for the owners of Lots 9-20, inclusive, Block 2, Charles H.
Frow Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 13 at Page 53 of the public
records ,e Dade County, Florida.
Very truly ybur ,
i Ile
V-
a
REff
VED
By
CONTROL
F:YrPPT10NJ
File Number DSE-83-
Within the City generally, or within certain zoning districts, certain structures, uses,
and/or occupancies specified in this ordinance are of a nature requiring special and
intensive review to determine whether or not they should be permitted in specific
locations, and if so, the special limitations, conditions, and safeguards which should
be applied as reasonably necessary to promote the general purposes of this Zoning
Ordinance, and, in particular, to protect adjoining properties and the neighborhood
from avoidable potentially adverse effects. It is further intended that the expertise
and judgement of the Zoning Board be exercised in making such determinations, in
accordance with the rules, considerations and limitations relating to Class D Special
Permits and Special Exceptions. (See Article 26.)
Formal public notice and hearing is not mandatory for Class D Special Permits, but is
mandatory for Special Exceptions. In other respects, these classes of special permits
are the same.
The Zoning Board shall be solely responsible for determinations on applications for
Class D Special Permits and Special Exceptions. ALL applications in these classes of
special permits shall be referred to the director of the Department of Planning for his
recommendations and the director shall make any further referrals required by these
regulations.
I, Ronald L. Fine , hereby apply to the City of
Miami Zoning Board for approval of, check one:
_ Class D Special Permit
Special Exception
for property located at 3192 Florida Avenue
Miami.
Nature of Proposed Use (Be specific) Special Exception for offsite parking
„ nerO_nan_.ce 9500, Schedule of District Regularions, og 1,
Transitional Uses, Structures and Requirements and per Sect iot)
2018
q
Form 10-83
Page I of 3
I
-17
I attach the following in support or explanation of this application:
I. Two surveys of the property prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land
Surveyor.
2. Four copies of: site plan showing (as required) property boundaries, existing and
proposed structure(s), parking, landscaping, screening, etc; building elevations (if
required) with dimensions and computations of lot area (gross and net), LUI ratios
(open space, floor area, parking, etc.), building spacing and height envelope.
See Section 2304.2.1(c).
3. Affidavit disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of
interest form (Form 4-83 and attach to application.).
4. Certified list of owners of realestate within 375' radious from the outside
boundaries of property covered by this application. (See Form 6-83 and attach to
application).
S. At least two photographs that show the entire property (land and improvements).
6. Other (Specify)
7. Fee of $ 80o.00 , based on following:
(a) Class D 00.00
0.00
(b) Special Exception
(c) Surcharge equal to applicable fee from (a) or (b) above not to exceed $400; to
be refunded if there is no appeal (City Code Sect' -6 ).
Signature
Owner or Authorized Agent
Name Ronald L. Fine
Address 50 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 300
City, State, Zip Miami, Florida 33132
Phone (305) 358-0375
STATE OF FLORIDA) SS:
COUNTY OF DADE )
Ronald L. Fine being duly sworn,
deposes and says that he is the wner (authorized agent of the —real property described
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 application form on
behalf of the owner.
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED
before me this 8th day
of AuQt1Gt + �8�,•
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
•
(SEAL)
(Name)
Ronald L. Fine
f
tary ublic, tote of loridc at Large
Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personally _
appeared Ronald L. Fine 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, sub„ sitting the accomp;=�nying 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 per^tission 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, mailing addresses, phone rn:nbers and
legal descriptions for the real property which he is the owner or legal
representative.
4. The facts as represented in the applicaticn and docu:..ents
submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are true and correct.
Further Affiant sayeth not.
(SEAL)
(Name1
Ronald L. Fine
Sworn to and Subscribed before me
this 8th day of August 19 85
Nota-Y ?u lic, State of Florida at Large
My, 0=. dssion Expires:
RE
BY
CONTROL
0
0WNER'S LIST
* Owner's dame Uichael D. Kinerk (50% Interest)
Hailing Address 3174 Florida Avenue, Miami, FL .33133,
Telephone Number (305) 448-7361
Legal Description: Lots 9 & 10, Block 2, Charles H. Frow Sub divis on
Plat Book 13, page 53 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida
* Owner's Nane Dennis W. Wilhelm (50% interest)
Mailing Address 3174 Florida Avenue, Miami, FL 33133
Telephone Number (305) 448-7361
Legal Description:
Lots 9 & 10, Block 2, Charles H. Frow subdivision, Plat Book 13, page 53
of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida
Owner's Name Commodore Plaza Square, Inc.
Mailing Address P.O. Box 110110, Miami, FL 33111-0110
Telephone Number 305 358-0375
Legal Description:
Lots 11 & 12, less the West 2.5 feet thereof, Block 2, Charles H. Frow
Subdivision, Plat Book 13, page 53 of the Public Records of Dade County,
Florida.
Any other real estate property owned individual)
(by corporation, partnership or privately) within �3751 ofythersubjectlly
site is listed*as follows:
Street Address
Miami, Florida 33133
Commodore Plaza Square, nc'.
is Lessee under long term
leases with options to Purchase
Street Address
Street Address
* Commodore Plaza Square,
Mr. Kinerk and Mr. Wilhelm.
Legal Description
Lots 13-20, less the West 2.5 feet thereof
and less t e out Block 2
Charles H. Frow Subdivision, PB 13-53
Legal Description
Legal Description
Inc. also holds contracts to purchase Lots 9 & 10 from
12
0
DISCIL6M OF CAOIEFLSHIP
1. Legal description and street address of subject real property:
Lots 9-12, less the West 2.5 thereof, Block 2, Charles H. Frow Subdivision,
Plat Book 13, page 53, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
3174-3192 Florida Avenue, Miami, Florida
2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership.
Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties
Faving a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the suoject
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.
a. Lots 9 6 10, Block 2, Charles H. Frow Subdivision, PB 13-53, are owned as follow
Mr. Michael D. Kinerk 50% 3174 Florida Avenue, Miami, FL 33133
Mr. Dennis W. Wilhelm 50% 3174 Florida Avenue, Miami, FL 33133
TOTAL 100%
b. Lots 11 S 12, less the West 2.5 faet thereof, Block 2, Charles H. Frow Subdiviti
PB 13-53 are owned by Commodore Plaza Square, Inc.
c. Ronald L. Fine owns 100% of the stock of Commodore Plaza Square, Inc.
50 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 300, Miami, FL 33132
3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a)
owned by any party listed in answer to question #2, and (b) located within
375 feet of the subject real property.
a. Commodore Plaza Square, Inc. is the lessee on long term leases with options
to purchase Lots 13-20, less the West 2.5 feet thereof and less the South 15 thereof
Block 2, Charles H. Frow Subdivision, PB 13-53. The street address is 3195-3199
Grand Avenue.
b. Ronald L. Fine owns 100% of the stock of Commodore Plaza Square, Inc.
STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS:
CWL41Y OF DADE )
OWNER OR A7WF44LY FOR OWNER
Ronald L. Fine
ne , being duly sworn, deposes and
says that he is the caner) Attorney for Owner) of the real property
described in answer to question Olt above; that he has read the foregoing
answers and that the same are true and complete; and (if acting as attorney
for owner) that he has authority to execute this Disclosure of Ownership
form on behalf of the owner.
SWORI 70 AND SC18W IBED
before me this 8th
day of August _t98 5 .
MY M- MISSI?4 EUM:S;
( SEAL)
(Name)
Ronald L. Fine
wta , lkllief Stote o
Florida at Large
sc--16, .
13
V�
{
' s
C. Commodore Plaza Squre, Inc. is the lessee under long term leases,
with options to purchase Lots 13-20, less the West 2.5 Feet thereof
and less the South 15 feet thereof.
D. Ronald L. Fine owns 100% of the stock of Commodore Plaza Square, Inc.
RE, ED
By
WNTROL
No.
f
DISCUSURE OF CrhNERSHIP
1. Legal description and street address of subject real property:
Lots 9 & 10, Block 2, Charles H. Frow Subdivision, as recorded in
Plat Book 13 at Page 53 of the public records of Dade County, Florida.
2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership.
Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties
iaaving 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.
A. Michael D. Kinerk,3174 Florida Avenue, Miami, Florida, owns an undivided
50% interest in both lots.
B. Dennis W. Wilhelm, 3174 Florida Avenue, Miami, Florida, owns an undivided
50% interest in both lots..
C. Commodore Plaza Square, Inc. holds contracts to purchase both Lot 9 and
Lot 10.
3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a)
owned by any party listed in answer to question #2, and (b) located within
375 feet of the subject real property.
Commodore Plaza Square, Inc. (f/k/a Venture Twenty -One, Inc.):
A. Owns Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, Charles H. Frow Subdivision, PB 13-53.
B. Is the Lessee under a long term ground lease on Lots 13-18, inclusive,
Block 2, Charles H. Frow Subdivision, PB 13-53. Such Lease contains an
option for Lessee to purchase the fee estate.
C. Is the Lessee under a long term ground lease on Lots 19 & 20, Block 2,
Charles H. Frow Subdivision, PB 13-153. Such lease contains an option
for the Lessee to purchase the fee estate.
TIO JEY FOR 0nNER
STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS:
COUiV'I'Y OF DADE )
Ronald L. Fine , being duly sworn, deposes and
says that he is the (Attorney for Owner) of the real property
described in answer to question #10 above; that he has read the foregoing
answers and that the same are true and complete; and •(if acting as attorney
for owner) that he has authority to execute this Disclosure of Ownership
form on behalf of the owner.
. (SEAL)
rMM
SWOR4 TO AND SMCRIBED
before me this 6th
day of January- , I996 .
MY COWSSION EXPIRES:
. "�*� A J)l -
to4at
, 'State o
Florirge
(over)
1-5
LAW or/Ices
ALFREO ARONOVITZ
I 1117 CIT♦ NATIONAL BANK 04J46OINO
06 WCST /LA12LCIR BTNCCT
MIAM1, FL0/110A 33130
l3051 373-7?44
December 18, 1985
Therrel, Baisden, Meyer, Weiss
1111 Lincoln Road
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Re: Sale Kinerk and Wilhelm
to Venture Twenty -One, Inc.
Attention: Fred Stanton, Esquire
Dear Fred:
As you know, I represent Venture Twenty -One, Inc. I have been advised by
my client that their negotiations to extend their contracts with your
clients covering Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Charles H. Frow Subdivision,
Plat Book 13, Page 53, Public Records, Dade County, Florida, have now
been terminated.
My client advises that they believed they had worked out a mutually satis-
factory extension agreement but that Messrs. Kinerk and Wilhelm yesterday
advised them,that to accept the extension requested, they would insist upon
an increase of price on the two parcels of approximately As this
is not satisfactory to Venture Twenty -One, Inc., they authorized and directed
me yesterday to contact you and to notify you -that they were ready, willing
and able to close on Lots 9 and 10 aforedescribed.
In our phone conversation of yesterday's date, you advised me that you were
not in possession of the figures relating to taxes or the present mortgage
balances and per diem interest charges, and you further advised me that you
were going to be out of town next week. I agreed, on behalf of my client,
to close as soon as we can obtain the figures setting out the cash balances
to close, and I look forward to working with you to close this transaction
as rapidly as possible.
Warm personal regards.
Very truly yours,
�LT
ALFRED AROMOVITZ
MAN
Hand Delivered
8C-163 . 1 L
r
V VI• . t l/'tV 1 1 V . . •.lies.✓ � r1. ■V . V .. V. ,/•'.V
PARTING: loch"" D- Kinl,, aIg-k. Wilhelm
Of 112Plarida, Avenue.. Miami. Florida 33133 (Phan• 448-7361 1
elw n turf Twenty-Onlx Inc., its nominee Qr_ ansioD3_ M
of IM City Natinnal_ Binh Ruilding,- N Araie F)nridgot 1111n tPhone _158-0175
1.
Hier, am MI go I" shell sell onig silver Wall buy the following property upon the following terms and conditions r11H1cN INCLUDE the stenoNds For
,Aber JIM"T/M"gtrtM w1 Sold /trees hossef IN, foormhM hereto, hereinafter r•farrod toss "ltend000fo '
or. 01110C HT10111 Dade
Ills Lao tlgstflptbatf of ma safer Natter In county, Flat.":
Lot 9; Block 2. CHARLES H. FROW SUBDIVISION, according to the
Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 13 at Page 53, of the
Public Records of Dade County, Florida
10 sties otwra & If env, of th•proowtr being t:onVIRya l• 3174 Florida Avenue, Miami, Florida
lab ►W§WM UrMMty lncluded:
11. PURCN"o PRICE:. S
►A'y1gSf/T:
(ffl Deposits.shall be glupin T1.e.1: �� rtrnvf�lad -�,n the r�untgr
esF tisn Ili err n!!�C ,
IN awl..f to ANO eSwmpt10n at Marlow its teltur of Eluti".Fiudera 1AsSonelefgInn � Sam 1 n +s�•v_ (..��n ,
OMrong interest •1 . q .. .. % YN shnum onN psysble U to Nrmc,pal Ono
itfNnlw a pet month, having a1 approasmat• pre"nt principal b•1•nce al S
Its Plefelsolga MMay ntet'tgap end nafa bearing Interest at M an terms set loft" hereon below, .n the
Ise OfAW ----- S -- NjA
(r sawmat to close• lu.S cash. unified of ca hoot's theca I sutile.t to adjustments Ono proration% S
rorAt S
it
• "Cahfrear'. Is logit"tNnad upon the surer 00161011ne a firm cunjmltlhent for said Iwn w.l fIT11 .•• ,aja nos to a■cetu
ts,fftn of • r _... _ .... _ BYv•r arrr«s Ill ...w• apul.Latlon r,,, -I to eyes ruson•nle Oily
IV. TITLE sV,,I INCE. Within days from date at COnlra.l. Seller snail. at nu aepense. nel#vm 10 9uym or h.s 011orney .n •ccatuatjce wjljj St no7O/U A
elute (CHECK) (1) or 0 (2) Its abstract, or 121 title Insurafto .otlurlltment wtln lee owner-e title policy ptem,urn to be paid by seller at .lollne.
V. TIME PON ACCEPTANCE ANO EFFECTIVE OATS It this Olff.t I/ not executed by been of the parties nfrelo on at before
ter afetwMfl gaPoams) Shall be. at the operon of Euyer, returned to him and less offer shall thereafter be nun and yoto The date of Contract shall b• the date
vahah dial IMt oft of the Seller end louver hair Signed this after
VI. CLOSING DATE: This transaction Shell be Closed Ono In uetw n o lost Ios.ngYOs.eradol rY0 on to 120th day A fill IpwinS�t_the Buye
obCCtainNog" the ne�c{es{srlapry permlcs zoning cTianRes variances
Vol. RESTRICTIONS. EASEMlNTE. LIMITATIONS TheBeiLs7litl a1�Y t�fF.o�lidg4 2D"n,t1 aFrlSlr`bFr ZIP* ��,�a� hrA R4d�,r «p�
a • .h u e .t auw•n..en , • aids r
owwmn"lsl evenwlty. 111"trl.t.o11/ slid matlars Oppearmot On the filar air ufhprw.sa. urt ur.an to Ins suna,v,l.or1
Teats lot Vast of 106,n9 a..d subseYuan/ years. offiffiallogooll purena.e money ,nortgegas .1 env
eleelne, 11N feet aM to • thereat Snail be stated hereon, ono ins tonantl&I snail be disclosed pursuant Ill �Isn oen,v o Y•au•Ity
of towns, of glassing unto" otnerw." spec Midis "flow If u.uumd.s• + yet cssumes allf.la at loss 10 Ill sun I t,o... dare of Otu.
Panay, shell be r ontorn ta.0 .Jet* enu snail tie ufemea lu nev.• •,..Owen Ina woUerly •ea. a1,.I I,r-%O it .n .r{.•. tt.np
Ix. ASSIONAMLITY: ICHECK OfyEl Suver Immay aalgts j.7 may .jot as.ly.l. Convect
X. TYPEWRITTEN OR HANDWRITTEN PROVISIONS Tyslswrl"als ur hanowrlll•n poov.s.ons .nsatuu n•.f.n or all•cnerl nerylu aj ,,.j,t..n,ja snail . umrol
all gim"d al'otfIWIN in sMflkf .therawtth.
xl. MSCIALCLAUSES: Seiler shall deliver suhject property untenanted, and with nu party having a
right to possession thereto, other than Buyer, except as provided in Paragraph 10 of the Rider
attached hereto.
Sa RIDER ATTACHED HERETO
THIS IS INTENDED TO BE A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT.
IF NOT FULLY UNOERST000, SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY PRIOR TO SIGNING
THIS FORM HAS eStN APPROVED SY THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS ANO THE FWAWA JAR
cap yrghf 197E by The 16I6foda 9er and the Florida Association of RE ALTORS
r
���iL•S/-
If Hownoa9*W
E■•culao by EurN on _.,SeQ[em6rr 10ij„�,�_-_--_,
Venture T- lit -One. In.:, ISEALI
ISEALI
President lawyer)C�
Eteeytel% by Safer
Is
•11
i ISEALI
11 Id MOGWO: If fldl ". &A*01 M OWWOMa• (Se11wI
lewtwl�lew�9
own@"A M1 Me M1o1111t of S of Prow Purchase price for nib sNytces In elfa.tong in ►eta air hlohl. YurcneM puquon#
f9 of f edes q Claavul. IR ter taast suyw foil, to Perform a" u•
u nil eeCeeding the ar0•H's IN adore cOnjpulel0, t1+N1 Os,
Pltf9 te1 %Parer. sow fYN c ,Oast •apendeas by aIoff of. end Ing balance shell 0e Marts to SNIer 11 late lld#lwKtlon shell not
SEE RIDER ATTACHED HERETO
ISEALI ISEALI
I..A ■I.a I 1■ I ■ 1 __
INwno Of afMlw) ! • --- (Se111j1
:A-
oft-1 IS
ISNIerI
saw rear after date Seller signs Contract ("Execution Date")$ whichever first occurs.
STANDARDS FOR REAL ESTATE TRANSACT,ONS
A EVIOENCE OF TITLE ul,f raom t,.o.
a • afi r
@xoffrng film) Ola/pOrtlnO to Le aap w+r•., ova Orn v„~, , i
-.
+ ,r,e
a.naretn one land ,s situated, mrouon Jilt it ,_,..tract an au+ ,a,' tn�, r aan,et . . s•. v au,•, also, to,. „ • .. „
uunty wherein the tend is situatou Seller small Ium-ev a nalael,,nlr r. „ , .o:una• 1... n, ',nr :Id, •.a„lt . ,,,,•..• `0 rill a to "t
' - '+ !,-.• +.,lase
u Mly 10 linee. ancuRtbranees. exCept10ns or auellhcaltonl sat curet .n th.+ Co„I/sIl ar,U !riot• wh.cn mall or J1•+.^a, le I t,v Sooist at
Of this transaction such abstract shall uecomlo the V,Ouelty of 9vvu, wolocl Io ,n• , 4111 .01 •a,ent,On ,na,vu, !,v • '%, ^vr,gayso .rat. r , v Jt,ng
MC&.COmmllmant Iafled by S uual,l,e0 hila tntVror agreeing to .tl.,! t0 Buyer uOn ,e, 01,J,ng of •he !ter, {...er ton .weer
amount o ten pureness often. ,nsur,no title of the Buyer to the rear w1upartr 1nu,eat only 'O ,,.,,, oral !,,,�, ct , ,. •u•.ont tur„o•,..•1 „r, „t '-,•.n
nit
COntratl end th0a Wraith Stall be doschatged by Seller at at hofor! -'ntlny 8 over Shall nave JO •lavt t cant"err Jet..
cawing evidence Of till• to examine farms. If title 11 IOum,l lefet•t,ve "Visa, snarl. w,tm,n J Jav, 'ner xalter rapt tv Seflar n ,„n, ,.0 ,uea ly,ny U01"tlll
II Iota defeettil tender title unmerketl0le. Seller shall have I6Qlayl from rocolut of nonce within sun,+n •0 toe•, a Solid 'letecl,. v ,n,l r 3e11c, •, .� w.crlll,l ton
rem011fng tlgm within gatd time. Buyer shell hove the dot,-un of eother I 11 aaeounrlg the ,,nu at 0 often s u, ,t••,d,.,t,no a;el, ,, 11 ,,� „. , nereu,,,ter
which small forlhwllh be returned to Buyer and institution duvdr an,l �e,Irr ,man '.r •rI, sills Jt u,
evol, Seller We" that he will II tills to found 10 lee un,,,atkrr.tuic ^yvnt . #")" ,U ,Jr..., tor„ ... ,n,., .. t.,, .r.. Lng
fnearongingatn*cessgrwsuits If money can cure, then Buver may pay and deduct cost from cash to C1use.
B EXISTING MORTGAGES Seller Shall furnlM a ststco„eni efO'n the ••,cartysyer,tl tat•,••a •Ur•n 11. ,.a, ., a •'n0 , - t ,I I
ine mort0agsisl.J,) to good standing 11 a „•Orfgdge teaurea .ouuruval •iI !it. dt.ter , trait ofhinit,r .I ,C. a• je a„r �,r +,1 ..o t' •, r J' ,•, t
.norlgop. and LIJ the morlyautro Jues nul Jutrr Ova the cl"VL•t ,t,+ d V. , r " ,w 'tie �Unt,Jr• „,+t r + ~lei a 'we
tar any requan in SeeH$ of S 100 00. the Buyer ,nay ,e%L-,nil !tit Lu, „oval „ .. ., "c, • ,c, ,t ,u r..., .. ... • „',tn.• ,^ . U. „ !u
=50 00 Buver Wall use rea►omoule *,i,gance to Obtain a&)utuvai the an U..... a, v csa — lituu, :+ ni,.t "r , IVJ4. r t,f r.,, x c,
first martgga and a 16 day grace u•riorl A a seeOno mortgage Shall 1n uy,dr to, r•gMl of J,euav , ,•nf
accelerstion M event Of regal• of ine uroeseriv. and small h! a i silt•, , J owe.e, Svne, ,•av O,nV re
,Jules Coalition customarily found ,n uluotgafles limit tnortgaga nOfnl p•... •.il • „Ist,r„t,u, 'itr. ,:c niv Vmo f,,n Uric 11 .•,ry ,, 1,11 atoll
Said rn Or ,gags shall re0uo@ the owner qt ern .0 „tiul lion, ail,, en,„•.t run, .•+ , . , •,,, ,. •,n ,m1 ,,. ,,, ,n. ,,,p
n..w Item a u car! our MaH unUa, u^u, _�urry.IVw ., All t,ef%OnJI , ,Otiy,lr , , 1 �,,, , ,c•' ••
so Su11VEr The Buyer. within titre allowed for *@Uvvey Of ev,Uen. a no !illy end oreminsellnn •rat• pr0u ,S �e
survey. Cartified by a registered Fic pus surveyor Mows any e:,a,JaCMll ellt nu IJ,d OrOberty Or Ihrj ......, UvIN, Vn •, .. , Jem 10 fly IOlatell ran ,h.-
fact encroach on lenOs Of Other►. Or voOi&te limy at one Contract IOVL•...... t ,t„• '.e•,,y dials ill t.edle.l as a title .tvle, V ♦ut%wv 11,yVara•,1 1 .. u .y,ln . Jt a
consequence of this trgnsoCteon ... ay ,nCluue it daseflullom at ine Nutiel ty ,n..1. I in@ Flotilla C.Onfdln.lft• 5rtfr,,, ,. Ir.,.,,•,I .,, C h.,t,t.•• 1 I i 1 .,,, .!-
occurs occurs IMt, mow hey the fmproved,ents imwoctod of tluy@r s exuansat by a Ceft,hwl Mast Contrut Uuerator to civic....,na wltall.er th a, rove tHonofe
intmatbn or visible existing dams" from tefrnsto infestation ,n the unprovsments of Buyer is m1ormen -. e oregodog Ej„vee w,il nave A uay-s
from date of written notice thereof or 2 days after ►election of a contractor sun, wlin.m wri,Gn t0 nave all dernagge. wnelhet v,%-Or* Of mat..n
spee elf and Otlmaad by a lietoneed building at general con pay valid costs of treatment and repair of ail OSniage up to 1 . �- Of a .,crass Price.
Should Such come Yee" that am we Into option of cancetlong Contract within 5 days alter racelest o1 contractor f repair a/n,note uv giving
written no yet mow elect to OrocooJ with the trangaCfrO11 1n wntch event Buyer snail receive a credit at closing of an amount euuri to 1 ,ti of
F. INGRESS AND EGRESS: Seiler COv lments and werranta that there ,s tnollOSS and ggte►S 10 the property
we Is 6 Of
nature and duration Of ssld ttontont's Occupancy. rental rates gnu edvarlCen Ifni .end •it@r is unable to balloon such
nt letters from each tenant the r O uygr within Said torn• period in the room Of a Sslier l afflUwll, and Buy Or may
N. LIENS: Sailer shall, both as to the reeltir and personality Doing sold naeiundsr, furnish to Buyer Ct Ilma of closinn an Of-davol attesting to the 40uence unlNs
oth*rwise provided far herein, of env financing statements. Claims Of Ilan of patenloal lfonarl it mown to Seiler sold further attesting that -mere nave beam no .rtlOfOvO
mu ento the property for 90 dove ommedestely Oreebing date of closing It ?Me P,OoortV hat been Improved within said rime Seller small ae,,ver relsafes or essiverl
of all malchenic's lien•, sescutOd by general contractors. SubCOnitectors, wuglonrs, and rnstvtefinen. on addition to Sellers lien aff.davot setting lortm the names Of
NI such georleral Contractors, subcOntractOrs, Suppliers and onotsftgrfnen and further reciting that in fact all tiroll for wort t0 the Su Dlecl D,Uur,ty wh.f m could serve
as a Deese for a mechanic's lion hove boom paid Of will lea Yalu at Closing
1. PLACE OF CLOSING. Closing Shall be hold 1n county wheru.n urousrly •r IOLdit"J, at the Olf,ac Of atturnety cat Othef Closing dguo.1 Jes,yndouJ uy Seller
J. TIME: Time Is of the •agents of into Contract. Any reference heroin io time oer-00% of lose then 6 care snail ,n the Computation investor e■c!uos Saturday► Sun
dove and Is" and any time Period provided for heroin wnich small inn un a Saturday. Sun,lay or legal noti(fav shall extend to 5 00 u.m Of Ins mast full
posthaste day.
K. OOCUMINITS FOR CLOSING Seller Snell furnish dead, mochanoc s civil dfhuavol assignimsents of losses. Jnd any a0rrective melrumenis inat m,av rip teQuirstd .n
confeeotbn with part Sing the title. Buyer Wall furnish closing stateerlant mnrtgag0. mortgage not•. gnu financing statements
L. EXPENSES; State wrtgx and documanta(y Stamps whten are rtoqulrsn to be affi■toe to trio instrument of conveyance, intenoibl• to■ on and recording or our
chow mortals mortgage to Seiler. and Cost of recording any corrective instrurnanlS shall be polo uw Seiler Uocumenlary ttgmUs to oe aff.sed to Ire note or notes
sscured try ale pYrltheto money mortgage. Cott Of recording rho Coed and lonanceng statements Mall be Paid by Buyer
M. PRORATION OF TAXES (HEAL AND PERSONAL) Taxes Mail role &)totaled haged on Into current year's into with due ellowenCO made for mati.m"m allOweel•
discount and hernoneod or other oner"ot1OnS if SllOwlea for uelu yes, If closing occurs at a lost• when the Current veer s mmolget is not forted. and current vase s
some font le Mailable, netee will be D/0►ated Cased upon such assessment. and ins prior veer 1 orscllage. if current year a assessment to not evallsoie. then taxes will
"a C"Grat" on the prior vgar'S &Ms, provided, however. if there we completed ilnproww"ents on trio Pr000rty by January lit of veer of closing, which improvements
wane not In saleton" on Janumv sat of the prior year, than taxes Mail be prorated *sued upon the prior veer's milloge end of an equitable assessment to as agreed
upon between Mgt parties. falling whleh, requetot will be made to ten County Property Appraiser for an ,mforr"ai agseument taking into conswittatiun momeslead
aagmpllon. If any. Mewever, any tea proration Dowd on an satlrnate mow at requese of *liner party t0 trio transaction, to suDgaquently @adjusted upon rccetpt of
tax bill on Condition that a msternent to Mat offeCt It ees fors" In M* CfGwng statement.
N. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIENSCartifeS;d, confirmed and ratified Special assa ement lions as of date of closing Iona not as of date of Contr&Lt) nry tow treed
by Seller. Periling liens as of date of closing shell be Ogaumed by Buyer. provided. however, tnsf where trio .murovement has been substantislty Completed as of em•
data of COntrWL wan pending lien Shall be COnSldler" a Certified. confirmed or ratified and Seller shall, ar closing, coo Charged an amount Squsl to the lost estimate
^y trio pubile body. of the assessment for the smarovarnent.
working condition oo Of fl days Pilot 10 C10aing. BYY&r may. at his expense. more inspections mega 01 n the repair and main
tonaehce thereof. and shall report in veriting to Seller Such On proof 10 taking Of possession thereof. Or 6 nays prior to Closing,
whiehnver is WR 22460 perlOd, My Moll be uearmed to hove warted Seller's warranty as t0 failures not reported. Valid reported
Valuation of the lenwovermerlts t0 damaged. Cost of restoration Mall Do an ODl,gation Of tn• Sailor an • laema al Contract
w� I�tO�to �therOfOf Sec/OweO at Closing In ih• event the c O t • asuesued valuation of the om Pravemortts so damaged. Buyer
Well hesre th g. togstner with •liner trio said 3% or any insurance Proceeds clavable by virtue Of sucm loss Or dantaga. Or OI
mow*-aeM
R. PROCEEDS OF SALE AND CLOSING PROCEDURE The deals Sh.su Ito #e..ut419el upon taSar&ner 01 ►usion and wlntoncg of till@ Continued al Buyer S •■oonse.
to Mew title In Buyer, without any wwumbrancog Or Chang@ wneLn would follower Sallip's tide unrmareetactle. Irani the date of the lost evidence and lh* Cssh pf0
coo" Of agile &Soil 0* held In esereW by Se110I'S attorney or by Sucn other OSCrOw distant as mow us mutually agreed upon for a psreou oI not lunger tnon S -laws
from and efser gloMM dote. It "for'$ Utha 1s rondwed unnlerhetsOhe. Buyer Mail within said S day oerouu. notify Seller in writing of Into *elect and Seller shall
have 70 days front date of receipt of wen notification to ewe said defect In trio event Seller fails to timely cure soul defect, all monies Delft nor@unller snail, upon
wristan der"and therefor and within aJ days thMoolfN. be returned to Buyer coffee, soonultenedusly with Steen t*uavinlenl. Buyer snail vacate the premises and recap.
v*y ten toreperty In question t0 the SHIM by sp*Cigf wwrentlr deed In thg uvent Buyer falls to m&ke tuneiy demand for refund, he shall toes fill@ of Is, wassring 611
rlgh tt egOlnm $*IM as to aNCh Intervening defect *accept as mew be available 10 Buy*r by virtue Of warranties. of any, contained in died lit ins went a portion of Ine
purchase price le to be OOrilred from Institutional financing of to financing, the rsdusremonts Of th* lending institution ss to of"@. time mid procedures for Closing,
and for diabenreel"e"t Of mortgage PFOCNOO. shall control, anything in ems Contract t0 the contrary notwithstanding. Provided, however, toot the Sell*# shall nave
the right to rMYlre from such lending institution at Closing a Commitment that at will not withnOld di$bY/samtonl Of en0►tgage proceeds es a result Of any toil@ Qafect
eftrlbutem" to Silvan• mortgepr.
S. ESCROW: Any =raw agent recetsrong funds is wthoruw Ono o r@" be acceptance thereof to PlOmplly deposit and to Motu gam• in sslrOw gnu 10 disburse
Some elabiNt to ileMMee therwl in secorclante with terms and conditions of Contract Failure of clearance Of funus shall not #scuwerds
pl0fonce caw In@ Buys#
In We Seems of debbt a 10 his duties or le*billlles under the ptOiroSIOros Of into, Canor m. t. trio OSerOw Stiffest In;ly in ins 6018 discretion. COntnlue to hold one mOmen
which We Use ewleat Of this OCr*w until the partSe mutually #Won, t0 Illy lie W.or Wrrtdnl tnsroot Or until a 1wigcriont of a Court of competent Itrr.NasCifon Mall
doltOrmlM Ian rlgh0 of tie parties thereto. Or he may deposit all the #nano*e than rigid pursuant 10 this Contract witls trio Clark Of trio Circuit Court Of in* County
moving iwriedietlerl Of ten olsoute. end YPOO nOtllyong all parties concaNssto lot wen section, all loguitity on Ian pert of one #Screw agent Wei$ fully t@im.note. *.epf
t0 ten •atMst of "counting for any monies theresOtele delivered OuI Of e1grOlst If a licensad real estate broker, trio es.rowoo will Comply with provisions of Section
476.26 Ill lei. P.S., a ammo". In the event of any Wit between Bueat anti Seiler wherein Ing escrow sti#nl is Ted@ a potty ov virtue of acting as such elerdw
"ant hereellder. Or In the event of any evil wh#reMt ewtOVV Ogent mtefplaad$ less subject metier of the$ @*Crow, the #*crow &e"I Mall tit ant,lgall 10 fastOvaf a
r00011@00 eROfliessi Ian and costs orlcifrred, said false &tie COM t0 0@ chgfgau and aslesssd as court Cost$ in favor of the prgveiling party All parties We$ tngi ins
sere,, oWl Mess Mt be liable IS any panty or person Mlllefnsoeven for rmisdslersfy to Buyer or Sailer of monies sucileCt to this mrOW, unless such rnasdelovere, Mall
be due a will" beeoeb of then Conforse, or grits flgllgamce on ens pars of ine #escrow agent.
T. ATTORNEr PEES AND COSTS In ConOagtien with any blogal,o.f 111clurnf.9 duuellals proCeertings arising alit of lens Convact trio prevair,ny party anill tie
entitld no MOM reaono0le etlWMy's toe and Costa.
U. DEFAULT: 11 Beflser fails to perform this Contract within the rime specified, tn@ deposit($) used bw the Buyer aforesaid maw to r,trden@n ray or for trio account
of Boller as Iiquidowd dam ssea. Conelawalion for the execution Of this Contract gnu on lull Settlement of env claims .whereupon all Parties small of ralsevea Of
ail oWlgetleM under ten Cont/act. If for any reason oth#f
than failure Of Sailer 10 tender his tstle marketable &tier tlohganl ..Ifut" sullus fade. n.rylacls Of refuses to paflOftn fnis Contract the S,ivwr n...y le -us suet.lu Il@f
IOlnsence or alalel to receive Ihu rutuesl 01 pis deywNlal wectious Ihalrbv w.uwng .thy a, lists lot .laonigrs .osullniti Ilion Seller's elf ran h
V CONTRACT NOT RECOIIoAOLf. PLNSUNS UUUNU ANU Nut 1C1 Noolht•I lit,% LunjreLj nut title, #mote for uierrul pool. tie r@euldwLI o, cloy soul.. ev+uttle.
This Contract Mall Doing end mule 10 Me Dangles of the parties halwlu ena floc,# lull, @stare In interest Wnenevel In@ ctinlost pgftnitS Singular Mill dicliJdO ulural and
One gander shell In6IYM ell NOIsCe given by of to the alternew our *.that perry Sh.lil hr as @ff&ctivg &a If given nor Or to seed party
W ►RORATIONS AND INSURANCE Tones, assessmentssent onlre Wr ,m•oonflS &nu olhgr aspen$" stood raven„@ of N/el WOp@rly %$idol ua trt Ol ait•tf ,N Ol.tatg
at CIOMng, SbyM &5011 have the Opsign Of taking Owlr any gsiSteng pslleL.ea ul aotueNrecr fill Ilia Property it aSgumabig. so wnoch went pro, must ,t snail ua ptorted
The coo as aleoNlg Shelf be oncreeaou as dogreloW as may Od ispuired by •eru pfotel.ons All tolerances ,n Cunitact t0 praiStsonS dt cat note ni Ltbs.nil will tie
doo mad "Odle Of 099UP&MV" of Occupslntw occurs prior to cineeng, ul.lage olh#:.w.sD pouv,lfed to. ner#in
X CONWEVANCE' ,teller shall convey titq to the oluf@laW twat osuVt'ffy ..v seal.esury nertante, tIurJ Soif.sy.l only 10 ,11dif--ftr031-fasn,•11 Met_.yr..oh Vol ngfwt
Pareonel torewily Melt. of the reeueal Of SuyM. be Convolved Low act dtlsciula licit cal file wile wNteltly of cities '.Uj11#Ll t0 ah loans of ,tiny us; ull,so -%.vr pluve]wl
for bores".
V . OTHER AameauENTS: No prior Or present agrownents or resuesentat#ons snail at bending upon any of one parties hafelo can eS$ ,nc tpOtatee on
line$ ControcL NO rn"ofbgaliOn Or chorego in this Connect Shall Dg vslid pr Closeting upon Ina parties write$$ pit writing, execut#d Ow the pa/tees t e 00 Sri
OW
AER TO CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PtAASE BETWEEN
MICHAEL D. KINERK AND DENNIS W. WILHELM, AS SELLER,
AND VENTURE TWENTY-ONE, INC., ITS NOMINEE OR ASSIGNS,
AS BUYER EXECUTED BY BUYER ON THE loth D
SEP'TEMBER, 1984, AND BY SELLER ON THE OF
SEP'TE"ER, 1984.
1. This Contract contemplates a simultaneous sale and purchase of
Lot 10, of said Block 2 between the same parties hereto. All rights and
obligations hereunder are contingent and conditioned upon such simultaneous
sale and purchase.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, if
Buyer defaults, Seller's sole remedy is to retain the Depceit(s) made under
this Contract as Liquidated Damages, and all parties hereto will be relieved
and released from any and all obligations hereunder.
3. Buyer, its employees and/or agents may enter the subject
property for purposes of testing soil and/or sub -soil conditions and for
malting core drillings. Buyer shall hold Seller harmless for damages arising
from such testing and/or drilling
4. Brokerage. The parties agree that Venture Development Corporation
is the only real estate broker, salesman and/or agent involved in this trans-
action. Venture Development Corporation hereby waives any claim for real
estate brokerage commission that it might otherwise be entitled to, with
respect to the Sellers, Michael D. Kinerk and Dennis W. Wilhelm.
5. This contract For Sale and Purchase, and Buyer's obligation to
purchase the subject property, are not conditioned and contigent upon Buyer's
receipt of all necessary permits, zoning changes, special exceptions,
variances, etc., from appropriate governmental agencies to allow the subject
property to be used in a unified development in connection with contiguous
property which is presently zoned for business use. Buyer shall pay all cost
and expense arising from such efforts to securing all necessary permits, zoning
changes, special exceptions, variances, etc., and agrees to hold Seller harmless
from all such costs and expenses. However, Seller agrees to cooperate with
Buyer in such efforts and to sign all documents which Buyer reasonably requires
Seller to execute.
6. Buyer shall deliver
to Seller upon eyscution of this Contract, and another
,4..41• (; ' to Seller on or before March 1, 1985, or date of Closing,
wbuft aver tiLst occurs.
7. Options To Extend Closing Date: If Buyer has not obtained the
necessary permits, zoning changes, etc., as more fully described in Paragraph
S herainabove, within one (1) year after Execution Date, Buyer, at its sole
option, may extend the Closing Date for up to three (3) periods of one month
each, by giving written notice to Seller ten (10) days prior to the scheduled
Closing Date, and delivering to Seller for each such one (1) month
extension period. If this transaction fails to Close, Seller shall retain
the Extension Pee or Fees as liquidated damages. If this transaction does
Close, the suet of the Extension Fee or Fees paid to Seller shall be credited
against the Purchase Price and balance of cash due to Seller at Closing.
S. Buyer accepts property in its "as In" condition as of time of
Closing. Seller makes no representations as to the condition of the property
includings but not limited to, roof, termites, etc.
9. Seller may remove any personal property and/or building improvements
from the subject property, including but not limited to, light fixtures, and
air conditioning equipment, without any reduction in the Purchase Price to be paid
by Buyer.
si
. 10. At sing, Buyer shall deliver to S.#Aer a License, without
Cbarlet terminable with sixty (60) days written notice, deliverable at 3174
Florida Avenua, Miami, Florida 33133, for Seller to continue to occupy the
subject property without any payment to Buyer. However, Seller shall maintain
public liability insurance on the subject property insuring Buyer's interest
in amounts not less than $100,000.00 level average for bodily injury and
$50*000.00 for property damage,
11. Buyer has the right, but not the obligation, to modify the
terms and conditions of this Contract for Sale and Purchase, as follows, by
givin Seller written notice of its election to so modify not less than sixty
(60) days prior to the date of Closing:
Witnesses:
A. Increase the Purchase Price from to
B. The balance to close, as provided in Paragraph 11 (e)
of the basic Contract, shall be reduced from
to
C. Seller to take back a second purchase money mortgage in
the amount of , Principal to be paid in five
(S) equal annual payments of each. The first
payment shall be due and payable one (1) year after
Closing. Interest is to be paid at the rate of ten
percent (10%) per annum on the unpaid principal balance
remaining from time to time. Interest will be paid
simultaneously with principal payments.
D. The mortgage and note shall provide that there shall be
no personal liability in the event of a default and that
the mortgage and note holder's sole and single remedy
shall be to recover the security provided by the mortgage.
E. Improvements on the subject property may not be demolished
until the purchase money mortgage is satisfied.
F. Buyer agrees to pay all costs 6 expo Fsa ng
from such purchase mortgage b note.' I)isi
— V RMS61im
Buyer:
VENTURE TWENTY—ONE, INC.
': , //// -// " C
•Ronald L. Fine, President
Attest:
Kathie S. Reiter, SecrviRev
Sel rs: j
Mcae Knerk'
Ddnnis Wilhelm
TURE DEVELO ENT CORPORATION
By:.
a c M. Moo Gi Vice - Pr sident
Attest: `�
Kathil S. Reiter, rotary
2 C)
1 _. td td Its t 1 I I"1 �/ 1 1 V 1 1 J I'1 V V r't l tl y 1 V t t ..+.
PARTIE6: a,,wjr'b"t fl_ Kinwrk W. Willelm
+a��� �� _ as Salle."•
of .��....ria ZA sgXJ ar11.ab+- MIA. Flo i a 11133 - - (Phone—448-1361
IMI/ .�a..VM40re `> lm" +U nia, Tnr.,• i n ninminpa Or gtaaiQnd
gf 1211 P_11' mA 4nnal Rink Ruf ldina,a_Miami_Fintida 11110 one
M Guyer",
faelogglip WU 00 1110 Sealer ,hell 001 end SuyM NMI buy the I011Ow.ng pro"fty upon the tollowln0 then• and tonOltlOnt WMICM IN 1,
CLUOE rnfl Sundaros for
Red I/wG T'GRG "Wood 60 Me rtfr«N Flatfeet at attached herald, neternefler refNrerl 10 It "Standsrdls)
t.' 06"PI TIafft
Id L� glut I'Ptlatt of real ttMto located In Dade __, county, Florida:
Lot 10a Block 2s CHARLES H. FROW SUBDIVISION, according to the
Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 13 at Page 53, of the
Public Records of Dade County, Florida
1b1 8~ aeldmm if env, of the ofooerly beong conveyed a 3) 90 Florida Avenue, Miami, Florida
I&$ pops*" prtyrttr Included:
I1. ►UfICHAIG ►RICE:. .. S
PAYMENT:
(d Depcsits to be given d rectly to Sellers as provided .inParagrapi 8
of he Rider attached ou
re o. _ _ _
ibl WIyMt to ANO ocwrnotten of Mortgage in Ivor of PPn { no t 1 A FPdc+ra l �9A3jinas b Loan
bearing interest at 12.66 . % pot snnum ens oayeble ee to princtp li end
Mwlm s per month, having an soarOeemets present ofinClOal balance of S
(a) PwWoese rhepato mottgege end note Dearing into/eat el % On terms flat fOrth hot sin below. .n the
prwAi" untount of S *( /A
14 Otlar S NIA _
(d 0414FaQ a ofll & (U.S. cash, eortuled or ear+ter'i cheek) tuDlecl 10 adlustntents and prorstiens S
TOTAL S
"C 101 MI ', I$ aOMIt10Mf1 moon the Guy« obtaining a firm commitment lot te.0 loan n interest rate not to sacom
r ��1♦: tetnt of ear 'n Buyer agrees to .t.tlae eooliceteon far enA to use reasonable alto
IV. TITLE IVI INCI: Within i from fists of Contract. Seller shall, et nu swoonw• deliver to duyer of hit ottotngy, ,n sccoraence wttn Stone«a A,
either (CHICK) jl (o Ot Q 121: 111 sowset, or 12l title inunanre t.ommilment with Is* owner's fill@ policy premium tow oars by Seller of closing.
V. TIMI FOR ACCEPTANCE ANO EFFECTIVE OATS It this ulflre is not ealKuled by hoth Of the Yefte" hereto On or before ,
tea OIOtg ow e10 , al Mall be, at the option of Guyer. returned to nim anti this offer Mall tilereaflar be nuu end wood The dais of Contract visit as the date
"an Ilia IMI eft Of tea 60OW and Guyer he* signed this olfor,
VI. CLOSING OAT@: This transaction .poll be cloated and the devil and urher closing Dopers dsl.vatetl on the
f^,._ R120thdav of fo r1lowing—the
'Buyer
obtaining e a permits z�ini hiances
b r�t�Vol. R@STRICTIONS. EASEMENTS. LIMITATIONS aAtpi Aua q 7 GerM"flose1taf dat~tr: Raedtetions and matters appearing on toes Wills fit uther+w.ee.:Olnrnon 10 Ina subu•+lease
Taxes for Vast of closing and suosamuent years and ourcnesa rhonew mortgages, r�000sqfs
clown ti HM feet ow te/me thereof Meal be stated nor om, and the Isnentls) Wall be OlscloNO pursuant t0 ceupeney Ot ytOYerty
of time Of e1MMG mtNses otltNwese 60"lfeed below If Occu en fill over aUurhes oil red of lost to proYNfy ,rum date of *CCU
PWM,. Well be r p ram 1. dale. and Wall be aeOmatt 10 have eeeepted tea OfOoNlV reel and paft4nel in ns eatat.ng
III. ASSIGNAGILITII: ICHECK ONEI Guvef j3mey Moon 1 _1 "say not assign. Contrast
X. TrP@MIRITTEN OR MANOWRITTEN PROVISIONS Tyus"I'lten of etartU,wrilten yfo+.lions ,nearlru he's.n or allacnw.t halflu at o.titwtt is than . Wr.r.ot
all proud iff"Milm in eOnlltst Iherewtth.
7t1. GPICIALCLAU@ES' Seller shall deliver subject property untenanted, and with no party having
a right to possession thereto, other than Buyer.
SEE RIDER ATTACHED HERETO
THIS IS INTENDED TO BE A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT.
IF NOT FULLY UNOERST000, SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY PRIOR TO SIGNING
flga PORN H" SEEN AMROVED Gr THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS AND THE FLORiOA Sill
CO Ve4i ll I978 art, The Florida G« ono the Florida Association of REALTORS
----------------
ft-1 W01 Fall,[— W, _T
Vw/iw 11141 "weir". If sMca, Noblest to cloverleaf
By;
Easeutsd by Guy« on _ September 10, 1984
ISLALI
IGuyNf --
a__ _ _ —_ ISEAL!
Pres dent C ? __
EeKut ey Sell« on T t
ll _ L�✓t �r.' 1l / i / = / ,SEAL/
w t L I. l '�ISEAII
V
1 Seller 1
PewMIMA Ise 00 OIhOYQt Of � X Of DON pmtCh"s pnsa Igo his aarwtt O ul 61106161.11 Ina sets Of on..t.n Duo► ose yuesuant
w GIN /NAGIIIG COM/MI In Me event Sutter fool le peflortu •ittl tee i not 1
M fbG a/ObM. as IYII eat.Nhfig Ise GtuaN • N NtOra t.mniyulwl. shell w
ng 99616 eayenHad bV aloaer. ante the NalerKe snail De ysoa t0 Seller it the transaction 1flell not
ISEA�I ISEALI
(Noise OI Sreeetl � A IS«l 1
SEAL!
Is 1«I
*1010e yea[ after dote Seiler signs Contract ("Execution Date'r), whichever first occurs
i. -
ti
- MPP STANDARDS FOR REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS
A E'/IOENCE Of TITLE L An aDltuct Of vs o,fua,on 31-;10,1" -lily. ' n, a '1.u.'ac a anti e• 11,ng don 1, 1
.n earowl; firm? purporttn+ to wan •cc ,la, agile of the n$v,,nevti a'ec' no illy a to Iulo,e al*, plunfsr•v •ecotdMam . a ^e^ .e•' , e at O••r Ov
nwero,n W@ tested it fitusiod. vmroull uJts JI 10laCt An sU%tr act to a'' 1'•' ^e„ie w.rn sties esr„e\ olio' c •et drill �1 •na iounfy
CJMrstV VOWO" the stand It Situated Seller shelf cony*v a' ar■eUDle brie � ,i,.lancv N'Ih T,f,15U. S ,Karat oar turn a t0 ?one ota py T^a Fe •'till".ary „trigs
n Nan Outeo Om "M
*my 10 flerso, owu#4twww@s, eacopUont Of cluduf,cat'ons Srl forth ,n th.t Conira,; gold •hale «n-ch that' 0e J,Mmar Or'ne 9ai tv0lme
of tell* fr nwitiOn such dooffect Utah become me Stoaugsf'v of 8uvy, tuo,oct 10 'nor , Yn' JI alfsnl o„ ,n t 1- by Seuer n Jr Oefore ua1,ng auon closing
I 1" 11 If1•uad by a Qualified 1,tle ,nwroi agrvaing la stue 10 Buyer ,lion 'g1arding of me Ieeu 10 9uve1 an 7wmar 1001"s, Of r.a ,nsu encfse n "hgs
aM~t O k purChaea prices. ,resuring f,fre of flood Buyer to the real property sulo,ect only fa sane on•'•nf8nC1S h,e131'uns or Jua,'f,cst,ons lit lorrh ,n 1m,1
Cowtratt and 9*0 which shelf be dtsensrw by Seller at or before closing Buyer I11e'1 nave 30 asyt ,f sesrract Or , ,lays .f aria comm,,menr t.lo.n eau or ,a,
eel W Mide to of titles to emamine seine It title IS fouma defective Buyer Nall w.tn,n J oWa ineNartlr nal.ry Seller n Ari,,ng suacify.ng defected.
If Herd dof and f$nrw reties Yrnmer&egWe. Seller Shell nave 16014yt train rvcsiot of not,ca toll «n'ch .a 'kn,o,ot t•Ia datectiu an,1 ,1 Seller ♦ n
fOtldtslhg OW" 'Within OW tines. Guyer ah011 have the Ootfon Of affrur 1 1) OLcslrnng the tills at ,1 feet' , at . it uvtra,Id,ng a fetunu of ail „on'101 W•,d ne'sunoar
$%"Wh shade f6fMw4th be returned IO Guyer and thereupon Buyer &ties Sauer shall us 1e14alefi H to one ano—oo, if an tu,ther ob,,got,ont .,nde, the cJnt,sct mow•
ever. Seller awom that no will, If title of found to be unmaike(sbto sea du'genr chop? to drlvt, •tie tote,., s) n 1'ne w'M,n rna ,.me D'O"Clo0 'hore'o, ,ncfud'nf
lh@bfinglns Of nte@Mory Mitts. If money can cure,then Buyer may pay and deduct cost from cash to Close.
S. EXISTING MORTGAGES. Softer shell furnish a statemant from trio mortoagtatt) setting forth ur,nciues dalally. method of oavment ,near#$( ,arts antl «nfsener
tho fwe►trgaI In pod standing. If a mottos" requires 600ravet Of the Buyer by trio mortgagee In ordj• to avoid delouse, or tot auumot,on ov tees Buyer of te,d
meltg@ge, all♦ �J ter mortOSON goer not aoDfow the Buver. the Buyer -my rescind the Contract. or -Z requires an 'nereee's In one 'reforest tare or charges a fee lw
tot any f""O In Set@= Of 6100 00, the Buyer may IesClnd the Contract unless Seiler atsctt to pay such increase at esCmts Sauer that, pay 50% of turn 'al* uo to !-
0&00. Stover shell use reasonable diligence to Obtain s orcval The amount of tiny aserow asDOS,ts help by mortgagee Imait be Cfed,tsa 10 Seller —
fleet Meftgegai Mil o 16 door free• oN10d It a Second morigage than orov,ae for right of prspavinent ,n wnule or in Dart r"tno
oecar
thowe c to 1e stern li ►eendstfours I the rtgeon a and Mall be notes
,n loom t.Iq content rdqufred dwsver, Seller nay only fS•
dull@ norgo afaMOmYgy round in owner
oeQN and mortgage notes pallet InmtftutlOnt ,n the county wherein the property i1 located.
Said MMftefo Mall ftgW/t the owner f oo sit field. i.en% and tncurhbremc@t In 9000 stanaing and forb,a the owner of trio at*.
party train uro odvoncaf undat prior 'nortgaYalal A1, partOn@I rOOarfy toeing LOnveved well at option of Salle, br iun,ecl to the
O. SURVEY: The Ouver, within film@ allowed for delivery of evidence of title and examination thareo►, ve the prop ,1
survey, cwtifled by a registered Fletido surveyor. shOwis env encrOeceir"ent On said orcoorty, or mat tenorovements intended to be located on one subl@cI Ot000tty in
feet watomh on 1014e of others. or violate any Of the Contract covenants, Iha same Snsll be treated as a title defect Any survey Orepared ,n connection wit" or as a
C"--- dnta Of this ttonaaCtbn may Include a dissertation of trio 0100erty under Me Florida Coordinate SVIISM as dNfnad .n Chapter 177. Florida Stetules
Occurs loaf. may he" the IfntHovements onaDetted N Buyer t expanse by a Cort.hed Pest Control operator t0 determine whether r - - - --- _c fve tormlte
lnfa$tat#Gn Cost ill#"* man ning damaaia from ferrhir@ tnf@tslition In the improveinentf If Buyer is informed a a Oregotmg. Buyer will have 4 dove
from deft of written notice thereof at i days motor selection of a contractor Mich
Daft In Whfth t0 heve all domorg ss. whathar of is Or not. In.
spotted MW aNif" by a licensed building or gin irsl con �qvent
of treatment and repair of all derhtsge up to 1'.s,. of Purcnats Price.
Should Such c*M decade that. am ve the Option Of cancitnin 5 days after recsfpt of contractor I reua,r estimate ov giving
written n0 Of may slKl t0 OrOeeed with the transaction uyer stall receive & Credit nit closing of an amount epual t0 1',, St Of
F. INGRESS AND EGRESS Seller covenants and warrants trial treat*'a more&$ and "rots t0 ale property
nature Ono duration Of said tenant's occucency, rental totes one advanced rent anrf - - --- ----- _ _- - -- _ _ - -, er rf uneble t0 Obtain such
Ietfwo from each tMamt th oiler O Buyer within Safe Umt Dariod in rna torn Of s Sal leer I affidavit, one Buyer may
N. LIENS: Salter shade, both n to the realty and P*faOnelty 041111111 Said heroumdlr furnish to Buyer at lima of closing an affidavit attesl,rog to trio absence unless
otherwise provided for herein, Of any financing staleryrents, claims Of Ilan Or potential ItsnOrt known t0 Seller aria furiner attesting that fnsro nave been no imorove
mists a MO Oraperty for 90 cities 1MMedostely preceding Aare of Closing. It the 0,000r1or has Dean fmoroved within Said time. Sailor snail deliver releases or we,vars
of all mwhanlC't Ilona, executed by general contractors. subcontrectors, tuomosts. and matereetmen, in addition to Seller a lion offiaav,t lotlfng forin Ins memo$ Of
MI Mach "FArad COntfOttOft. SYDCOntreCfOff. su001tdre and rnotehNTan and further lecltlng that In fact Sit Dili% for work TO the Subject ptopetty rvflech could Solve
7a bash for 0 netehanls'$ llen hove been Palo or will be amid at closing.
PLACE OF CLOSING: Closing Shell DO held on county wherein property 'S lecatad, at the office Of attorney Or Other closing agent Jes,gnaled OY Seiler
J. TIME: Time la of thooeoome of this Contract. Amy reforanceherein t0 time penOdt Of fast share 6 days #nail in the cam Dutatien tneNOf e.ciuce SevurDalrs. Sun
cloys end Is" hellday$, and any terra period Provtoed for margin which Oaf, end on a Saturday. Sunday Of legal holinsy snail extend to 5 OU p in of the nest full
bfaalneme day.
K. DOCUMENT! FOR CLOSING Seiler small furnish deed. merhan.c s its(, ,ff.(t.ltf.# assignn.frnts at ipatug Jsots any , utrecllve .n Sll,,maIlls lnat n.av tie iaou'fed 'n
cone ttoon with pal tong the tills. Buyer snail furnion closing slatetnant. onnttgafav, ,net,gdve nots. Ono# Itnenuny stalunienfi
L. EXPENSES: State surtax and documentary slamess wnlcn are rsuuortil to be alflm@a to the Instrument of coinvelsmf.ce ,n Nngsoit tax on anu tecoruing or uur
chow mOnOy tneregq@ to Seller, and cost Of rKOl,iing Any COffOCtly@ ,nitlurrlerets Shall be peed My Sailer 00cutn.enlary Stamus lu us allotted to the pilots or notes
secured by the Purcha@@ monesy mortgage. Coll of recording the dead spoof Isnanc,ng Statements shell be Staid uy Buyer
M. PRORATION OF TAXES (REAL ANO PERSONAL) Taxes snail be prorated Dosed on time customs year'& tam -.In oust allowance Militia lot ma..mum alfoweol•
discount and h0ntsettagd Or other tsompUons If allowed for Yid year 11 clOsing occurs at a Oslo when the current year 1 rtldtag@ is not ,..eU anu current offset S
""Mment Is availesbN, talk" will as pfOret o bated upon selectee awsament. and the prior wool s re"ilage. It current veal I Assessment ,s not eveasois. then tales Alit
De WOtOtOd On the prior vow is six. Pravooed, however, if trials are completed improvements on trio prOOerty uV January tat of order OI closing, whlcn ,rnprovesmant&
were not in ealst@nfao On JenuMv lot of fh@ pnor year, than Name Shall tit Orcorated tidsed upon ins prior yeaT 1 m.11age ano at an fpu.table assessment to 0@ agreeu
upon botwwn the path, failing written. request will be MOOS to Ins County Pt01-fi v Apuratsee for art "•Iq, n. a' i%jVSSm ent tsx,ng .ntv ;u•.s,Ucrat.un mom Ntsau
"wnpison, It any. Irlaiis@fer. any ter pedestrian based On am emtrM@le maw @I request Of either patty so the transaction Os slousecluently leaulu%trd uyon raceiat at
tax bill On Condition %hot a st&IW"amt to that effect Is set forth In ins closing stotwntnt.
N. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIENS Coresf.ed. confirmed end testified 10e46.e1 atw►amenr items is at date of c'uting land no, tie of aaie Of Coml,a.0 alv to Us wood
by Sadler. PW4W4 Iodine se Of data Of CIOSInf shall DO SseuMSO by Buyer. provided. nowsver, that where Ihm Im W,Ove'nent has Deem sunttantlaely compl@lW a$ of Into
dote 01 contract. Mesh pending lien shall be Considered se certified, confitened or ratified one Sailer thair, ar closing, use cna/gmD an amount actual to Ines lest estimate
bV the OWNIB 6aisy, of the s"ow"ont for the entptoverfianl.
WWSllsg CotldltlOR toll Of 6 dove prior to Closing. Suyw may, at his expense. navy •ntueclfons m so- --- f,n t e ,mOA1r lino main,
tameness ti,41 II, deed shell fopert in writing to Seller such . I on prior TO taking of tluSaesslOn $"great or 6 nays Sorter to Closing,
#VI4 for ill f Mies period, "a small Its ttevfmaO to hays wtlivou Settler S vvais•iltte as to feslurN not I,Ilturted. Val.,l reported
vashavollefors Of the imMevMnessets so damaged, cost Of restoration Mali be an 0011061.0m Of ma, Seller an,l - -----_ a terms o Contract
w t C thereter *"rowed at element In foods event The c O I a Uf= valuation Of the improvemenh so uaeneged. Buys,
Nadi have th as .1. togatner WWII" mother inm sold ]% or env Insurance proceeds psveble by v'rt„m Of such loss O, de.nsgd. Of at
it il-
R. PROCEIOO OF SALE AND CLOSING PROCEDURE The aeon snail tit recuruall upon clearance of funds mnu ev,aenct at $•Ire coni,nuett at Buver is e.oense
to IROw title 10 !favor. without env erlcefrhbrsencoo, Or Change which would tyruser Seiler S title unrn@raseave@. from' from date OI ins lest rv.0ance and the COSA are
cede of we shell be Aoki In Ostrow by Sel1eMe attorney o/ OV such othe► escrow moon, N M@y be mutuslsv agreed toll tar a osfood of not longer %mom S •love
from and esht@ 016" d@ta, If Seller'• redo is rendered unmMastaOle, Suisse shell within said S day Period. notify Seller in writing Of the nefect ono Sailor these
net 70 do" holm dew of /ltlaelpt at Mien notification to Cure fora *@feet In the event $Sit*# falls IS timely curs %toil detect. all monist Pala mereunreer Shell ,.pon
written d*MWW WANOlOf Ono within 6 dove tlnmteaft@r, Om returned t0 Surer and, sirmultoneouMV with Such reeavonent. Buyer Shall VOCa1@ Ins Wrelrl.M$ ano recall•
Vey on* amowty In Of 1*0 to the Smidw by spatial warr@nty do" In trio event Buyer falls to me&@ timely d@man* for refund. no stseil take till@ at ,S, wesv,ng sit
rights ag@WM SSHW oe to such Uta,vameng d@foot a&COat N mew be evallsol@ to Buyer by virtue Of werlSmti@S, It amyl Contain@* on Go" in the event a WOrtion 01 trio
gumhO ON@ai I@ to Sig derhretd from Institutional flnenemil or n financing, the raqufrom@nts of the lending institution as to Piece, time end procedural for closing,
and fair ditwnWhent of neortg@g@ prOC000s. sholl Control, anything in nits ConlrmC, to trio Contrary natwcthatannong. Provided, horfore- or. that lime Sailor $mail nave
IIN fight m fMfaom If am such lending Institution Of Claiming 0 COnnlmeornent that it will not withhold disbursement of mortgage p/Oc@ent as a result of any food Os,ect
ontltwt"m to Guyer. thoRggtr.
S ESCROW: ARV MFOw agent r@coiring tunas of outhafolow antl agrirme I)v as [eyed/K@ thereof to pr*in011se d@WOSf1 ann to hold \corms set vois.i0xv, anu fo u,su.erle
Usee1@ 816N)tt N ONorSllts thereof in accordance with tarns deed LOrksotsOny it Cunumf,t Fsolure of o.Ip/efoCr tit I,intIS Shall not @.rugs firrourro•arl uy trio Pulse,
In one event Of dooM M 10 file duties or #facilities unease real provlgioott O, [tile Conll wl The escrow dgiritt m,.v • no$ Sale n.Kovlfore Cum'nuf 1u hole in* •1.On.dl
wh$Ch er@ telai M$NNt Of this Sserew until the part$*$ rhullaaiev assets to tole .1.6oursepndnt InereOf or until a I,o.s,pr,anl of ,f co,.rt of co,nutlenl l•,r.w'J•LI.QA small
dOtOfMWW pre flotilla Of the pettifog the/st0, tole lie may uatYOs.i all Inc „Infovt stun bps., In,Nlaant to Ines Contract .v,ti, the CI@ra of offer Col. r11 Court no nits C,.•,nfv
having lurladletio n of SIN al*fause. and wWOre notifying all Wdihlos I W,L,-n o.s ..I —, I. .w Iulil. all mdu.l.iv'It. Ill.Will of to".'•w-Inv. 41J.)ns tr.... f.,,., I nil,
10 the 6AWnt Of KCOUnting for dny offensive theretofore uelivered Iy41 off ••K 1J,s of ,, i.L o.seiu real,ralalr Iteda tl In, t• oO.V" --,ill Lun,i,ly . to ,dnv.u.u•\ „I oriel r,en
413-25 411 ICI, F.S., 0e amended In the event of any suit beswvelr tluver anus Su11Tir wnestelve the vlerOw A,1enl ,l n.melt a y,ullr tier o.,.. AI y 1., . ,, .,,rh sons. Iaw
agar tWSO W. Or In tees event of env Suit wnvreon @screw agent onfrryntatis one suDrtLl inallut we Ines VoLlso . Inc vK1uA revel so,a,l I a .-po"11, 11 to lecuvief •
r"wno 10 attai n"*$ flags and C0410 incurred. said Sues ano 1 Dots in I.i: I o.orgNo anti 3SwufgSd do LO.1rt .Otis .n fdol of Itte isrevao,n0 moil I lit, .vine 1.101 f"r
set►ow OWS shelf rift 40 IkWo to any party or W@rsure whumsitevut f..1 .nfV).,l.vv/ls fu Isuyrf Of 1vll.•t of • oln,o•► .11en1ul 1 1.1 111.6 ..to Ia'w I..,:, or %hail
00 400 a wbltW Israeli Of this Connect of grow nogirgence on iota tilde to seer Ties .,e•v agent
T ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS in connsetiolt wetn any ilhiV.u..... .,1c1'.si....4 A.Volimid prop./Willi,,.. ,r•sl—J n •f Qr in', cu"(ra• I lose , 'a. rr row Worry Snail Ot
Ontitlod 10 IMSVW t ~W@ attorney a fears and coat•
U. DEFAULT: If Guyer foil$ to pertote" this Contract w.d'.n lots I .... v tu.•• .1_1 tni, r,duool't1$1 Wa'•, toy 11 n .oriel ,ln,I "..I .nay fogs I, I,,,,,... I y .,, to., -no, ., , went
of Sailor M Ilssfandotod dominated, consweNTlun too Inc @A Of.I'"O'e off In'$ Curllf,l.i Jn.l .11 lull .d111 1•1.•1.4 ,,
Oil Obli"%$Ghl #A"W tell* COntre;I y r"r Ir.,, t n.•.• ,I•••• ,u nr'.1 1$ .. till „•o11% Ol ail
" 'ail r„y ,tayun 0flat
ner
then lallfa/@ OI SMIor t0 /Ma@f he► Miss marketable stltOr fed, Ju'Is ' Ilorl •W1.,1 Lniw n.•gluo f. If1 .,•lu1r. IO lira lu.,f• Ihfs (;unu1, f 1hr s. •,,,•, •rls %.loll ', •eK o., I,gi
larstione@ ee elect t0 receive, the fultrlrl of (116Ilelp*sflia) #111110.11 111.•u•Ay w.i,v snq .Ihy .0 tunl Ina .Lu,•ryo••. Ii Slflffnll If•nn seers . i•,ea tI
V CONTRACT NOT RECONOAULf, , PIHfiUNS UUUNU rnN11 IY4#1ILt lwu,inl, U1,, LuitNfr I nut If, or lull„ r no.•ani No.,il ,,• err ui'inn •.. s„v o.,.i,i•• rl.,n.q
The$ C011sraitl shell bond amel inure to ter twists, O, the five ''US heeelu dmY Ihe.r Islas, n.wrl in ,nigessi Whrnwtst fees. , ._IV&, WTiorslu& Slnyuld, %n off ..1CIu.so ,.hind/ gst1A
tan@ Sondes, shelf Infatuates all. Neglects given by of to the attorney #af, voinge par TV shifts no is efftscttvf me if giver by or so Sao(, Way rt
W. PRORATION! AND INSURANCE!Tom".Ms@ealr/ent$. rent. interestmautor►1;@ and other @Ap@nWg and revenue ut ta.,t Weow,iv tf.a,l for u•0,21ns as of Jails
of alOoing. Guyer shell haves the option Of taking Over eny existing pul,cles at insurance On ing property. 11 es$u 4 Clt. u, when event pro^, to Snort us $secreted.
That gUb tst C#ftW4 shtall be rlle/oe@tsd as 44ese,0~ as may no rtlaui,eu t.y SboIsl wearsUons Ati letorances 'n Cunlfoo4a to Wror.il/Jnt dt off 'Idle its . 14.016.119 *.it be
SODWM' at/ Of DSOMPYroy" if Occupancy occur$ Prior to Closing, writes$ ulhcfw,Su louvoten to, hvfe'n
X. CONVIVANCS' bailor Mali Conwp title so rho ofot@aelo real property uy statutory wasf@poly der* sumleLt only to nralh•r$ LOntaulpfl ,n Pargsgt•q►h VII herpf
P@ra0M1 Ono" Maier• N pre 100Yfaest el $favor, 00 Conveyed Dill on apsOluts D.,r Of lair fi@rfa1R• WI@ with wortenty OI Iql@, tunlKt t0 fucn wens Af myy sits u1llxrw'SO prlafsseald
y OTNlR AGOtEEMAMrs: No prior Of prsssent ogt* n+onlg er rape-Gorllesson& shell Do Olnoing upo„ any of ,"@ cart. f ha,el0 line ,ticOryOfaleU In
NM CMltrfafay NO wsaiefl/flptgn Or af1Mg@ in thits Contract shell O0 seats* or teaiamg upon the parties unless on writing, @xrf:useu Oy Partin t bo n* lh
8C-r
W
W DER TO CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PHASE BETWEEN
MICHAEL D. KINERK AND DENNIS W. HELM, AS SELLER
AND VENTURE TWENTY-ONE, INC., ITS NOMINEE OR ASSIGNS,
AS BUYER EXECUTED BY BUYER ON THE loth Di6y OF
SEPTEMBER, 1984, AND BY SELLER ON THE `o\ DAY OF
SEPTEMBER, 1984.
1. This Contract contemplates a simultaneous sale and purchase
of Lot 9, of said Block 2 between the same parties hereto. All rights and c
obligations hereunder are contingent and conditioned upon such simultaneous
ads and purchase.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, if
Buyer defaults, Seller's sole remedy is to retain the Deposit(s) made under
this Contract as Liquidated Damages, and all parties hereto will be relieved
and released from any and all obligations hereunder.
3. Buyer, its employees and/or agents may enter the subject _
property for purposes of testing soil and/or sub -soil conditions and for
making core drillings.
4. Brokerage. The parties agree that Venture Development
Corporation is the only real estate broker, salesman and/or agent involved
in this transaction. Venture Development Corporation hereby waives any
claim for real estate brokerage commission that it might otherwise be
entitled to, with respect to the Sellers, Michael D. Kinerk and Dennis W.
5. This contract For Sale and Purchase, and Buyer's obligation to
purchase the subject property, are not conditioned and contigent upon Buyer's
receipt of all necessary permits, zoning changes, special exceptions,
variances, etc., from appropriate governmental agencies to allow the subject
property to be used in a unified development in connection with contiguous
property which is presently zoned for business use. Buyer shall pay all cost
and expense arising from such efforts to securing all necessary permits, zoning
ckangeat special exceptions, variances, etc., and agrees to hold Seller harmless
from all such costs and expenses. However, Seller agrees to cooperate with
Bayer in such efforts and to sign all documents which Buyer reasonably requires
Seller to execute.
6. Options To Extend Closing Date: If Buyer has not obtained the
_ necessary permits, zoning changes, etc., as more fully described in Paragraph 5,
hereiaabove, within one (1) year after Execution Date, Buyer, at its sole
options nay extend the Closing Date for up to three (3) periods of one month
each. by giving written notice to Seller ten (10) days prior to the scheduled
Closing Date. and delivering to Seller for each such one (1) month
extension period. If this transaction fails to Close. Seller shall retain the
luteasion Fee or Fees as liquidated damages. If this transaction does Close,
the sea• of the Extension Fee or Fees paid to Seller shall be credited against
the Purchase Price and balance of cash due to Seller at Closing.
7. Buyer accepts property in its "as is" condition as of time of
Closing. Seller makes no representations as the condition of the property
imelWings but not limited to, roof, termites, etc.
S. Buyer shall deliver
to Seller upon execution of this Contract, and another
dollars to Seller on or before !larch 1. 1985.
fails to close for any reason other than a default on the or,
or
Teller's inability to deliver title as pro agraph A of Standards For
Real Estate Transactions. retain such deposit or deposits already
study by B e4 damages, and all parties hereto will be released and
or on date of Closing, whichever
first occurs.
-2-
9. Buyer ray give present Tenants of the subject property notice to
vaUta prmises as of date of Closing this transaction. Such written notice
Shall be given not loss than sixty (60) days prior to date of Closing. If
?aaaatS vacate premises as a result of having received such notice from Buyer,
Ba„r &gross to pay Seller for each day after premises
arm So vacated (if any) until date of Closing to relmourse Seller for lose of
ramUd income during such period.
10. Seller may remove any personal property and/or building improvements
frame the subject property, including, but not limited to, light fixtures, and
air conditioning equipment, without any reduction in the Purchase Price to be paid
by Buyer.
QkIMDA uw&—
(Tto-gollers)
AW
Buyer:
Venture Twen -One. Inc.
By:
RoAldvL. Fine, President
Attest:
,.(at ie S. Rai kor, secretary
1
Sells 1 /
Michael D. Kinerk
Dennis ilhelm
Venture Devel ment Corporation
By :
s er M oore,Vice rem dent
Attest:
KathIA �. Reiter, Sectecpry
8 \.. 6 1
I
'' 4
V
Commodoze" ":Plaza 8quafe, Inc.
50 Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 300 Teleohone (305) 358.0375
P 0. Box 110110 - Telex 51.9534
Miami Florida 33111.0110
January 8, 1986
Planning and Zoning Boards
Administrative Department
City of Miami
275 N.W. 2nd Street
Miami, Florida 33128
Gentlemen:
In furtherance of a telephone conversation with your
department earlier today, please find enclosed a photocopy
of letters from Jorge J. Rodriguez, General Manager, Field
Real Estate & Buildings Office, United States Postal Service
to Ronald L. Fine, President of Commodore Square Plaza, Inc.
regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Coconut Grove
Station dated September 3, 1985, and October 10, 1985,
respectively.
The business terms of these two letters have been
blanked out.
Very truly yours,
I.COMMODO E PLAZA SQUARE, INC.
Jasper Moore
Vice President
JMM/kr
enclosures
HAND DELIVERED
IP
SERCIO PEREIRA
Gry Manager
;j
December 24, 1985
..r
John T. Green
3158 Florida Avenue
Coconut Grove
Miami, F1 33133
Re: Letters of December 6,
December 9, December 10 5
December 14, 1985, requesting
interpretation
Dear Mr. Green:
This is in response to your numerous letters to me requesting
interpretations on various sections of the Zoning Ordinance as
applying to the proposed Post Office Plaza at 3195 Grand Avenue.
The conclusion in your letter of December 14, 1985 that my
not replying to you within the short period of time you
requested implies that there are "very serious ommissions"
is false.
I explained in my letter of December 12 the reason for not
responding immediately.
In more thouroughly reading your letters I find that you are
requesting explanations of various sections of the Zoning
Ordinance. The application of these sections can be explained
to you by any of my Zoning personnel or any person knowledgable
in the Zoning Ordinance. A Zoning Interpretation is not required.
If you require any further information feel free to call and
make an appointment to meet with me in my office.
,Yours t'uly,2 -
os h A. Genuardi P.E.,
n1 Administrator
JAG/lc
cc: Walter Pierce
Chief Teems
G. Miriam Maur
Juan Gonzalez Aurelio Perez-LugonesV Zoning file
FIRE, RESCUE & INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
t TECHNICAL SERVICES / 27S N.W. 2nd Street / P.O.Box 330708 / Miami, FL 33233-0700 / (305) 350-7957
Chief K.E. McCullough, Director / Deputy Chiefs: C.D. Fabyan, D.H. Teems, F. Jordan
r ,-
I�
_6
POST OFFICE PLAZA INDEX
Post Office Plaza press release
Crime Statistics in the area
Wilbur Smith Traffic Study report �G
Coconut Grove parking study
Correspondence with the Planning Department:
(a) 12/83 letter expressing continuing support for
the project.
(b) Letter to Planning Dept. from Venture Development
expressing concern of the Dept.'s recommendations.
(c) 12/4/85 response letter from Planning Dept. to
Venture Development.
(d) Letter of response from the Zoning Dept. to the
Planning Dept. regarding objections to light plane.
Color Rendering
Aerial photograph/plat
Letters of support from area neighbors
Photo of area map
Letter of support from Coconut Grove Local Development
Corporation dated December 16, 1985.
12/13/85
0
'Z7
/ l
Mass
qqw
MillUP. Aw
as-
41111
M
Pill
It
�s
i
November 14, 1985
City of Miami Zoning Board
275 N.W. lst Street
Miami, Florida 33128
RE: Zoning: Post Office Plaza
N.E. Corner, Grand Avenue
and McDonald Street
Dear Board Members:
As a (resident)(adjacent property owner)(local businessman/
merchant) I would like to express my support for the proposed
development and requested special exception and variances for the
project known as Post Office Plaza that will be presented before
the City of Miami Zoning Board on Monday evening, November 18, 1985.
I believe that this project is very important to all of
Coconut Grove including those of us who -live or do business in the
immediate area. This uniquely designed project can be the catalyst
for the implementation of the "Grand Avenue Plan" that will
eventually redevelop the businesses and shops from McDonald Street
west to Dixie Highway/U.S. 1.
a"t
y
r
Y
The Plaza area, with its public seating and food experiences
at the entrance to a new expanded postal facility, along with
enclosed secured parking with retail shops, office space and
apartment/hotel units, will create new jobs, increase tax revenues
and enhance property values. The items being requested appear to
be minor and necessary for this much needed project which will
be a showcase development for all of us who are concerned with
maintaining the aesthetic integrity of Coconut Grove.
Thank you.
I14vvti)
OJ 7
&-Ol�s it/,* 9-e•�
,' .
8E"1Oa =,�1
21�
i
s--
GEORGS A. SIMPSON, M.D., P.A.C.S.
PEDRO G. VELEZ, M.D.
SURGERY
1001 NOMTHWas♦ 54TH aTRCKT
MIAM1. FL01110A 33127
PMONL 754.3431
November 20, 1985
City of Miami.Zoning Board
275 N.W. let Street
Miami, Florida 33128
RE: Zoning: Post Office Plaza
N.E. Corner. Grand Avenue
and* McDon-ald Street
Dear Board Members:
As a ' resident and as . property owner in Coconut
prove, I would like to express my support for the proposed
development and requested special exception and variances for the
project known as Post Office Plaza that will be presented before
the City of Miami Zoning Board on Monday evening. November 18, 1985.
I believe that this project is very important to all of
Coconut Grove including those of us who live or do business in the
immediate area. This uniquely designed project can be the catalyst
for the implementation of the "Grand Avenue Plan" that will
eventually redevelop the businesses and shops from McDonald Street
west to Dixie Highway/V.S. 1.
The Plaza area. with its public seating and food experiences
at the entrance to a new expanded postal facility, along with
enclosed secured parking with retail shops. office space and
apartment/hotel units. will create new jobs, increase tax revenues
and enhance property values. The items being requested appear to
be minor and necessary for this much needed project which will
be a showcase development for all of us who are concerned with
maintaining the aesthetic integrity of Coconut Grove.
Thank you.
Gocrge A. ' Simpson, M. 0.
3619 Percival Ave.
Miami, Florida 33133
W
GEORGB A. 51MPSON, M.D., F.A.C.S.
PEDRO G. VELEZ, M.D.
SURGERY
1001 NOMTMWCBT 54TH STRtaT
MIAMI. PL01110A 33127
PNONz 754.3431
November Zp, 1985
City of Miami.Zoning Board
275 N.W. 1st Street
Miami, Florida 33128
RE: Zoning: Pust Office Plaza
N.E. Corner. Grand Avenue
and'McDonald Street
Dear Board Members:
As a ' resident and as . property owner in Coconut
,rove, I would like to express my support for the proposed
development and requested special exception and variances for the
project known as Post Office Plaza chat will be presented before
the City of Miami Zoning Board on Monday evening, November 18, 1985.
I believe that this project is very important to all of
Coconut Grove including those of us who live or do business in the
immediate area. This uniquely designed project can be the catalyst
for the implementation of the "Grand Avenue Plan" that will
eventually redevelop the businesses and shops from McDonald Street
west to Dixie Highway/U.S. 1.
The Plaza area, with its public seating and food experiences
at the entrance to a new expanded postal facility, along with
enclosed secured packing with retail shops. office space and
apartment/hotel units, will create new jobs. increase tax revenues
and enhance property values. The items being requested appear to
be minor and necessary for this much needed project which will
be a showcase development for all of us who are concerned with
maintainin= the aesthetic integrity of Coconut Grove.
Thank you.
George A.'Simpson, M. D.
3619 Percival Ave.
Miami. Florida 33133
A
4
FROM: HANK MEYER ASSOCIATES, INC.
Jill Pollack/Phyllis Shapiro
P.O. Box 218
2990 Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33137
(305) 576-5700 IMMEDIATE RELEASE
"POST OFFICE PLAZA" TO ADD LIFE TO GROVE
Miami developer Ron Fine has filed plans with the City
of Miami to build a $25 million, five -story retail, office and
apartment/hotel complex on the northeast corner of Grand Avenue
and McDonald Street (32nd Avenue) in Coconut Grove.
Modeled after a Mediterranean coastal village, the
mixed -use building will feature a large open plaza highlighted by
an atrium and clock tower that faces onto Commodore Plaza. The
plaza will be rimmed by outdoor cafes and two levels of retail
and service shops totaling 90,000 square feet. The middle level
of the building will have 40,000 square feet of office space.
The top two floors have been designed for an 85-unit
apartment/hotel reminiscent of the bed -and -breakfast inns of
Europe. The top three floors will be centered around a lushly
landscaped, naturally -lit atrium, while the roof will be used for
open-air dining. r
The branch post office and the theater currently
occupying the corner will both be relocated and expanded within
the complex. In honor of the post office, the development will
be called "Post Office Plaza," Fine said.
"This project will provide a new gateway for Coconut
Grove, offering a beautiful vista for all those traveling west on
-more-
31
y
-2-
Commodore Plaza, and serving as a link between Central Grove and
West Grove," Fine said. "We are creating a place where people
are encouraged to enter and enjoy."
The extensive landscaping, creative architecture and two
years of planning the mixed -use project reflect the developers'
and the city's sensitivity to the neighborhood and Coconut Grove.
"With Miami's new emphasis on intense planning prior to
the approval, this project represents one of the most conscien-
tious plans currently on the drawing boards in this city," Fine
said.
Fine, 54, is president of Venture Development Corp., a
real estate and hotel development management firm. Chairman of
the Board of the Miami Marlins baseball team, Fine has been an
instrumental figure in efforts to redevelop downtown Miami, in
particular, the Park West and Overtown areas and Bayfront Park.
Fine is the managing general partner of the Freedom Tower and
President of the Columbus Hotel.
Fine has owned the Coconut Grove property since 1958,
i
and has considered several projects for the site.. During a trip
to Europe two years ago to research mixed -use developments, Fine
was impressed by Puerto Banuse, a waterfront village near Malaga,
Spain. It is one of the most popular attractions in southern
Spain, Fine said, with tourists lining their cars up to get into
the village.
-more-
t
• - - - - - -
W.
-3-
"We wanted something different, yet designed for the
Grove, so we went looking in Europe, where the concept of mixed-
' use is more customary," Fine said.
The architect for Post Office Plaza is Kober/Belluschi
Associates, of Coral Gables and Chicago. A division of the Kober
Group, an award -winning, international architectural firm,
Kober/Belluschi specializes in mixed -use buildings. The firm's
Florida projects include renovation of the 163rd Street Mall in
North Miami Beach, detailed working documents for the Chinese and
German pavilions at Epcot Center in Orlando, and planning and
design for the Kendall Town and Country development.
Typical of the architect's style, Post Office Plaza will
include such details as open-air or fabric roofs to maximize the
amount of natural light, landscaped courtyards, skylit corridors,
rooftop dining and recreational areas, and expansive views.
Those with offices or apartments on the south side of the
building will enjoy views of Biscayne Bay, while those on the
north side of the building can view the dramatic Miami skyline.
The project's abundant landscaping has been designed by
Sasaki Associates Inc. of Coral Gables, the nationally renowned
landscape architects who have been responsible for the landscape
designs of Miracle Mile in Coral Gables, Plaza Venetia on
Biscayne Bay, and the Metro -Dade Cultural Center in downtown
Miami, among other projects.'
-more- 4
i CX
SCI_JL
33
E
-4-
Plans for Post Office Plaza call for landscaping the
entire northern face of the project, and preserving all the
mature shade trees currently on the property and relocating them
elsewhere in the project or off -site.
Construction of Post Office Plaza is expected to begin
in the fall of 1986 pending approval of plans filed with the
City of Miami.
L
"With this project, we're creating a traditional city
atmosphere for Miami, where people shop, work, eat and live all
in one area," Fine said.
JP/Sc`
VEN 5.1-.4
t
G
4798
3 `l
0
0
G c-', f • %. C. I-t .�s, K-,, &
1 141%3 1 1,90 1 al, 1 1
y
t
NO
�o
} 1 �� • �.
� o
ti z7
;i•�� .y
�.o
t
t'>•..-.�.,�.� { t o.'b
j lsc.
��z► 9
1 1 oq
tom`
i-3�.y
itlet .IN
'L31,
It 4 .`I
'. "Ca°�`�Cs''.►....; ` %4 tO��
i t•zi• I
3�, Z
y 33
.+t 3 •y
j
t
bag t3t..y
� ''((���- �:.:.•�' :+� � r.:j �"- - a:;' -1-.\�pwy\ `O\kRw.-- �++si r-fir_'+'f
^•', �-•4 . ..,, 3ri��a%��-�..r }2 .Y'�,Ct_ � ��'!S k M 4.� �1k�, � ��;` �� - `� � r i
- •Qd . P `y.7.
� ..••r. ''+fit .`Y�`''" * %-'�1"„a ;i.4:s 'S..r " ,,Cyy.1.�''` ' L t -t . • .
--•try t� � Y .�iJ -^.'^i. �._•k.• q'Yi.�f... „��_,,.�•>w.wi •4-��•iTr ��r^'? 4�': {�' �,����Ci � �- ` �� .
1.
0 0
96-4ut YmA and Jnc.
8675 vw 53rs STREET, SWTE 210 CABLE MILSmirh
E.YECL,rlVECEvrER DRIVE r£L£x 57.3=J5
WIAMI, FLORIDA 33166-4579
PHONE (305) 592.0637
November 22, 1985
Mr. Jasper M. Moore
Senior Vice President
Venture Development Corporation
50 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 300
P.O. Box 110110
Miami, Florida 33111-0110
Re: Post Office Plaza
Dear Mr. Moore:
#190050
Enclosed is a tabulation of vehicular trips estimated to be generated for each
of the land uses within the proposed Post Office Plaza. The tabulation includes
an identification of the land uses, total number of trip -ends, entering trips,
exiting trips, and the ratio of in's and out's. This tabulation is for the
critical -hour volume which will occur during the afternoon or P.M. period.
Also enclosed is a listing of the assigned directional distribution of the trips
to and from the proposed development along with a flow diagram which depicts the
number of vehicles which are forecast to enter and leave the parking garage dur-
ing the critical -hour.
The flow diagram readily illustrates the low level of vehicular volumes attracted
to and from the site during the critical peak hour. This situation is a direct
result of the mix of land uses proposed for the site. The major turning move-
ments occur at the entrance to the parking garage. If congestion were to occur
it would be within the parking facility itself and not out on the street.
In response to your question in this regard, I would expect the additional traffic
using Florida Avenue to be less than one percent of the traffic to be generated by
Post Office Plaza or less than five vehicles during the critical'street peak -hour.
continue......
0 0
A4"NY. NY - ALLIAMCL. OM - COLUMSK SC - CA184 t6YPr . FALLS CM &M VA - MONG KOW - M=/ 3% rX • KUALA LUAMR. MALAMA
KNOXVILLL. rN . Mr. SUBS MC. KY . NIA411, ft - M[r MAv4w Cr - X9W VON$. MY - PHOENIX. Al - OVMOHRGK PA - FROYIOENCC. Ito
_...•.• .�•�. W,nr.*n*r . MftWF 1 f 42MAOA • rASMIMGMM.O[
8C':b
2-1
E
Mr. Jasper M. Moore
November 22, 1985
Post Office Plaza
Page 2
I will see you at the meeting scheduled for 7:00 P.M. on Monday, November 25,
1985. In the meantime if I can be of further assistance to you or if you have
any questions, please let me know.
A.R. n 1 , Jr P.E.
Princ pal AssocWe
ARD/c
Encl: 1) Trip Generation Forecast
2) Trip Generation Assignment and Flow Diagram
PEAK -HOUR (P.M.)
TRIP GENERATION
FORECAST
FOR
PROPOSED
POST OFFICE PLAZA
Proposed Use
P.M. Peak -Hour
Ingress
Egress
In/Out Ratio
Restaurant
12
12
0
100/0
Retail
303
212
91
70/30
Post Office
40
20
20
50/50
Office
85
8
77
10/90
Theatre
0
0
0
-
Residential
34
27
7
80/20
Totals
474
279
195
59/41
�. ,��" �: i�ilil fir"
~� �`� • � t� • �^t�• i
• t•
i• d ��� it � • i ; �� � •,.
�!I'C'��''rr:�K
. ... A�
L
•�. •�',
:� 1'
-. �...
�
�
�il%4 �wai�i a�d.�le4o�a�N• �
p`rr ,,,.
3
PEAK -HOUR (P.M.) TRIP GENERATION FORECAST
FOR
PROPOSED POST OFFICE PLAZA
Proposed Use
P.M. Peak -Hour
Ingress
Egress,
In/Out Ratio
12
12
0
100/0
Restaurant
Retail
303
212
91
70/30
Post Office
40
20
20
50/50
85
8
77
10/90
Office
Theatre
0
0
0
Residential
34
27
7
80/ 20
474
279
195
59/41
Totals
11
r
:� •.;' ;: - �" - � .
�'i� �wai dOOoda
s avid
7 -
�w
TRIP GENERATION ASSIGNMENT
30% to and from McDonald Street
30% to and from West Grand Avenue
40% to and from East Grand Avenue
P.M. PEAK-HR. TRAFFIC FLOW DIAGRAM
.' L .:� `tea •
.�•
��
'�e�
YL.•+.
��+�.�...�-+4: ��^
4�..^yam �•..•wt" -
C
0
.� •M.w-
0
...
Coconut Grove Business Center
Public Parking Facilities Feasibility Study January, 19.80
FOR CITY OF MIAMI
CITY COMMISSION
Maurice A. Ferre, Mayor
Armando-Lacasa, Vice Mayor
Joe Carollo
Theodore R. Gibson
J. L. Plummer Jr.
PLA%NIVG ADVISORY BOARD
Grace Rockafellar, Chairzerson
Lorenzo L. Luaces, Vice Chairrerson
Eduardo A. Calil
Jose Correa
Mary Lichtenstein
Arsenio Milian
C vril Smith
Richard Rosithan, Alternate
Jim Reid, Executive Secretary
CITY MANAGER
Joseph R. Grassie
Richard L. Fosmoen, Assistant City Manager
for Community Development
PLA► KING DEPARTMENT
Jim Reid, Director
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Joseph W. McManus, Assistant Director, Planninq Department
Donald W. Cattier, Director, Department of Public Works
Richard LaBaw, Director. Denartment of Off Street Parking
PREPARED BY:
Josenh F. Rice, PE Russell, Martinez b Holt, Architects, Inc.
First Research Forti Engineering Systems
Tad Dooney, AIP
This study was funded from the third Year Community Development
Block Grant
temporary basis should be considered. Long term use of the
pros�erty should include consideration of providing a site for a
supermarket to replace the present store when it is redeveloped
by further expansion of Mayfair. The Grove has lost one of its
food markets, and a su nermarket food store is important to the
area. In this area an opportunity to construct a food market having
a roof ton Barking facility, perhaps on the Farmers Market site
with its proximity to the older section of the commercial area,
would permit dual'use of the parking facilities.
Anthony Arcade - Foremost of the development opportunities
is the Anthony Arcade bounded by Grand Avenue, Fuller Street,Main
Highway and the Alley. This older shopping plaza and parking lot
(number 17 and 18 on the inventory) probably provides the lar-
gest single opportunity for redevelopment in the Commodore -Grand -
Main area. It was also shown in the original Planning Study as a
potential narking site. It is important that its design be linked
with Commodore Plaza and Fuller Street for better land utilization.
0'
,�{Aa 1 Post _offi_,e - This site provides the largest, free
off-,,
street parking area in Coconut Grove. Its parking is limited du-
ring business hours to patrons and to 30 minutes. .With the
Coconut Grove Cinema, this site represents one of the finest op-
Portunities for a private garage site because of its location near
Commodore Plaza and'its access to McDonald St. and to Grand
39.
Avenue. Its size is adequate for such development. It, too,
was defined in the planning report as a potential off-street
parking site. � ,
Players State Theater - Perhaps the Grove's most
valuable asset, the Theater and its associated land holdings
between Thomas Avenue. Charles avenue, Main Highway and
Williams Avenue represent the southern anchor of the business -
entertainment area. However, a low parker utilization of the
off-street lots, except during some matinees, indicate a lack
of awareness of their presence or a fear of using the lots
because of inadequate security and the length of walk to shopping
areas. The theater holdings remain unexploited. It is
recommended that the City consider assisting in providing means
to improve the parking at the Theater. This could include
advancing funds pending receipt of the State funds, for upgrading
the main lot, number 3, improved signing, striping, access,
fence repair and even lighting and landscaping, all to be repaid
upon receipt of state funds. In addition, an effort. should be
initiated by the City and. the local Chamber to provide a concourse ,
Beall, or aresisahopping area(s) that would connect this parking (alley)
area with Commodore Plaza. Also, closure of Thomas Avenue
except for off-peak commercial deliveries and orientation of
business to that frontage should be considered. This type
1
1
40.
sc- 0.o, '? ,3
w
so
December 8, 1983
Mr. Ronald L. Fine, President
Venture Development Corporation
1212 City National Bank Building
Miami, Florida 33130
RE: Proposed Grand Plaza
NEC Grand Avenue and
McDonald Avenue
Coconut Grove, Florida
Dear Mr. Fine:
We have preliminarily reviewed your plans dated December 7.
1983, as prepared by Loyd Frank Vann, AIA, for a commercial development
of approximately 124,000 square feet on the above -captioned site. rlease
be advised that we find the basic calculations for site development
specifications as listed within your plan statistics to be in accord
with the SPI-2 zoning district.
As you are aware, the zoning requires that the parking lot on
Florida Avenue have a public hearing and the granting of a special exception
by the Zoning Board in order for the project to proceed as planned.
You have advised us that the front and rear facades of the proposed
building will be the subject of additional architectural refinement which
will be submitted to us. along with your landscape improvement plan.
At such time as- you proceed with building plans, they will be
submitted to other City departments for their review and consideration to
confirm that the glans meat their rcgsircwznta.
We are pleased that this substantial improvement of*a key property
is contemplated and we remain supportive of your efforts.
Rodriguez. Director
,g Department
PLANI%JNG OJeAR UNF / 275 `. LV 2nd 5turel / hl,inu fiw.J., :11a
�l5
TO. Sergio Rodriguez
Director of Planning Department
FROM: Ronald L. Fine
Venture Development Corporation
1N RF:: Project Planning History
Post Office Plaza
3195 Grand Avenue
Coconut Grove, Florida
DATZ: November 21, 1985
During the past two years of working with the City of Miami
PLanning Department staff, the project has been re -designed three (3) times.
At the beginning of the planning review process, the Department designated
Jack Luft as its primary representative. Based upon these instructions, the
developer worked with and took guidance from the Planning Department by and
through Jack Luft which resulted in many major modifications in the project
which caused substantial increased developer costs and which changes and
extra costs were accepted by the developer as reflected in the plans currently
on file with the City and before the City of Miami Zoning Board next Monday
evening, November 25, 1985.
Notwithstanding internal reorganization with the Planning
Department, we were advised to continue working with Jack Luft in order that
there be planning contim►ity and Coconur Grove expertise applied to this
project by the Planning Department. Guillermo Olredillo, who joinsd the
Department since the Summer, stated that it was also his desire to have Jack
Luft continue throughout the review and approval process because of his
experience and knowledge of the Coconut Grove neighborhood as well as this
project.
The Special Exception and two Variances on the Zoning Board
Agenda result from completing a mixed use project design by being responsive
to the City's recommendations and needs, including giving to the. City, at no
cost, the projectowner's prop3rty for future possible Right -of -flay use by
the City. It should also be noted that the project cneets all other major and
primary zoning requiremRnts of the City; has not used an additional available
18,000 sq«are feet of floor area which is permitted under the Code, and has
in a%cess of 40-car parking above the City's Code requirements, all of which
reinforce the developer's sensitivity to incorporate the Planning Departr_ant's
recommendations over a two-year period and provide a well -designed and wall -
planned project for the Coconut Grove community.
In light of this two-year planning history, it was %hocking and
surprising to receive at the end of the day before the originally scheduled
Zoning Hearing the Department'3 recu:wwend3tion of denial of our request for
Special Exception and two Variances. We assert that this unprofessional
happening could only have resulted from the lack of information and
participation In your decision making process from those people who
continued.
8 C - �tS
1��
PAJ
U
were primarily involved in the two-year planning process and who.e guidance
and support were essential in achieving the final project design. I would like. -
therefore, to review certain technical information and previous planning and
zoning interpretations which support and reinforce our request for Special
Exception and two Variances.
1. The Planning Department recommendation to locate parking
on the RS-2/2 portion of the site meets the spirit of the
SPI-2 district regulations as contained in Section 1521. "Intent"
and Section 1528. "Minimum Off Street Parking", with its reference
to Section 2018. (copies of Sections referenced are attached hereto).
The parking area walls facing adjoining residential properties
were solidly'and completely enclosed to eliminate any possibility
of vision, light or sound penetration, and these walls were also
designed with exterior decorative architectural features and extensive
landscaping to enhance and improve the visual appearance of the
parking structure, even above its current residential appearance.
2. The Variance for required off-street loading stalls is in
furtherance of Section 2022.6.and anticipates the reduced need
for loading space in joint use facilities where the separate
street requirements of the Ordinance results in excessive loading
requirements. However, it wa- determined that in order to have
a permanency of this loading space reduction in a permanent
building, it was necessary to request a Variance rather than a
Special Exception because once the building is completed, it is
impossible to change these physical requirements.
3. The light plane Variance is within the intent of the Ordinance
as to the mixture of residential and non-residential uses by having
the building provide interior as well as exterior open space
amenities.
Ordinance 9500, Article 20, Section 2016. provides for
exclusion of encroachments into the height envelope which results
from demands due to specific requirements by staff in particular
districts. Article 15. Section 1521., specifies the intent of the
SPI-2 district as including innovative site planning, architectural
design and creative opportunities for a combined residential and
non-residential use in a pattern minimizing popential adverse
effects of such combinations. In addition to plazas, atriums and
balconies, the Planning Department has properly requested certain
architectural features be added to the Post Office Plaza building
facing tht residential neighborhood which minimally -penetrate the
light plane adjacent to the RS'2/2 lots. The benefits of these
Planning Department required architectural features under the
ordinance do not violate the intent of the height envelope
requirements, by their penetration into the height envelope/light
plane, and should have resulted in a supportive, positive
recommendation for the Variance, particularly in the context of
the Plapaing Department's requests and requirements during the
two-year project design period.
q
This memo is intended to supplement our applications of the
subject matters present before the Zoning Board, and are in furtherance
of our requested meeting with you and your associates tomorrow at 10:30 a.m.
in your Conference Room.
It is our intention to urge you to give new consideration to this
factual information arising over a two-year period of working with your
Planning Department with the purpose of having your Department withdraw its
r denial of our request for Special Exception and two Variances and, in fact,
support us in completing those items which your Department encouraged and
required in the planning process.
onald L. Fine, Presiden
cc: Walter Pierce, Assistant City Manager
Jack Luft, Planning Department
Guillermo Olmedillo, Plat,nirg Department
Joseph A. Genuardi, Zoning Administrator
2111--
dr A0PP
ZONING 11522
3. Such offaite parking shall be permissible only by Class C special permit.
Sec. 151& Limitation on signs.
. Limitations on signs shall be s, for CR districts.
Sec. 1519. Reserved.
See. 1520. SPI.2 Coconut Grove central commercial district.
See. 1521. Intent.
Within the commercial center of Coconut Grove, it is of special and substantial public
interest to strengthen unique historic and cultural character by regulations encouraging
retail and service development with strong pedestrian orientation, uninterrupted along prime
ground level pedestrian frontages by uses which are not pedestrian -oriented. It is further
intended to encourage activities, arrangements, and amenities generating pedestrian street
life, cultural arts facilities appropriate to the area, innovative site planning and architectural
design. and to create opportunities for combining residential and nonresidential uses in a
pattern minimizing potential adverse effects of such combinations.
Sec. 1522. Special permits.
1522.1. When required
No building permit shall be issued within the boundaries of the SPI.2 district affecting
the height, bulk, location or exterior corXiguration of any existing principal structure, or for
the erection of any new principal structure, or for the location. relocation or enlargement of
any vehicular way providing access to private property from pedestrian streets, until a special
permit has been issued. Except as otherwise indicated in connection with specified uses, a
Gass C special permit shall be required.
15.912. Materials to be submitted with applications
Materials to be submitted with applications for special permits within this district shall
be as required generally at section 2304. In applications involving pedestrian.strect frontages,
site and building plans and related reports shall be in such detail, and of such a nature, as to
facilitate the making of determinations in the particular can as to conformity with the
principles established below.
I=.& Considerations generally, and on pedestrian street /frontages '
1522AL Considerptions generally. The general purpose of such special permit considera-
tions &W be to determine conformity of the application as submitted, or with such
conditions and safeguards as may reasonably be attached to assure such conformity.
with the requirements and expressed intent of these regulations as applying gener-
ally throughout the district, ar well as to any conditions, limitations or requirements
`� speoiAed for particular uses or locations.
j
ZONING 11528
Yards adjacent to pedestrian streets may be crossed by driveways equal in maximum
width to twenty-five (25) percent of the width of the lot (or depth where such streets
adjoin at the side), provided that in no case shall any such driveway exceed eighteen
(18) feet in total width (aside from flares).
1526.31 Transfer of development rights affecting side or rear yards or building spacing.
Transfer of development rights affecting side or rear yards or building spacing shall
be permissible only by Class C special permit.
(Ord. No. 9735. f 1. 10.27-83)
See. 1527. Maximum height.
Height within this district shall be limited to fifty (50) feet.
See. 152& rdinimum offstreet parking.
Except as established for particular uses in the schedule of district regulations for RG-2
and CR districts, minimum offstreet parking shall be as indicated for the particular land use
intensity rating derived for the property from the tables in section 2011.1.1. In addition, the
following provisions or limitations shall apply:
1. Since it is intended that automotive traffic related to nonresidential uses shall be
minimized on pedestrian streets, location of nonresidential offsite parking shall be
• permissible as provided at section 2018, but without any demonstration or required
finding as to practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in providing required
parking on the site. Offsite required parking for residential uses shall require such
demonstration and finding.
2 In addition to the reductions in offstreet parking requirements, provisions for defer•
ral of part of parking improvements, and arrangement for provision of joint parking
facilities authorized in section 2017, in any mixed use development including a
theater. spaces required for other nonresidential uses may be credited toward meet-
ing requirements for the theater to the extent justified by timing of peak demands.
3. When outdoor areas are regularly used for display and sales, or as dining areas. the
floor area shall be exempt from offstreet parking requirements. $
C . Bicycle spaces shall be provided in a number equal to the number automotive park
ing spaces required. except that not more than ten (10) such bicycle spaces shall be
required. Spacei. &hall be located and improved to promote security an& tie comfort
and eonvenienc. of both pedestrians and cyclists, and shall generally be onsito, but
maybe provided jointly undo: the provisions of section 2017.9, "Joint parking facili-
tiee for contiguous use," where such joint facilities are found to be in the public
intersat Storage apparatus shall be so designed as to permit locking bicycles to it
eeeat''e1g'•
8C "��/•{�
06" l
0
L
ZONING
12018
2017.10. Required offstreet parkins restrictions on lease or rental; exception.
Required offstreet parking shall not be leased or rented to residents, officials, or employ-
ees for whom such parking is required, to visitors to the premises, or to other persons;
provided, offstreet parking space may be sold to the buyer of a condominium unit as a part of
the purchase price of the specific unit.
2017.11. Calculation of parking requirements related to number of seats
Where parking requirements relate to number of seats and seating is in the form of
undivided pews, benches, or the like, twenty (20) lineal inches shall be construed to be equal to
one (1) seat. Where parking requirements relate to movable seating in auditoriums and other
assembly rooms, ten (10) square feet of net floor area shall be construed to be equal to one (1)
seat except where otherwise specified. Net floor area shall be the actual area occupied by
seating and related aisles, and shall not include accessory unoccupied areas or the thickness
of walls.
2017.12. Limitations of use of offstreet parking and loading areas; restrictions on storage of
vehicles not in operating condition.
No required offstreet parking or loading area shall be used for the sale, major repair, or
dismantling of any vehicle or equipment, or for storage of materials or supplies, and no other
area on a lot shall be used for such purposes unless permitted under regulations applying
within the district. No vehicle not in operating condition shall occupy unenclosed parking
space or any loading space on any lot for more than seventy-two (72) hours, except as
permitted under regulations applying to the permitted principal use within the district.
(Ord. No. 9630, $ 1. 5.31.63; Ord. No. 9757, 4 1. 11.18.83. Ord. No. 9816, if 1. 3-29.84)
Sec. 2018. Ofisite parking.
It is the general intent of these regulations that required offstreet parking be provided on
the same lot with the principal use or structure it serves, except as otherwise specifically
authorized. Offsite parking shall be permitted only as provided at section 2017.9, "Joint
parking facilities fe► contiguous uses," or as authorized by the provisions of this section, or as
otherwise specifically permitted under the terms of this zoning ordinance, and in any event
only where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships involved in providing
required parking on the site, or in joint facilities as indicated at section 2617.9.
20Z8.1. Maximum distance limitations f
Unless otherwise specifically provided for the following types of parking facilities, the
maximum distance from a principal entrance of any parking facility permitted to provide
required offsite parking to a principal entrance of the use served shall not exceed six hundred
(600) feet, with distarxs measured by normal pedestrian routes:
(a) Self-service parking for visitors, Cllen* or customers of the principal use. or for
residents.
(b) SelfsQrvia parking fine mars or Qmployees of the principal uw. reserved for and
` wed =1q by oMwa a Qmpl4yoft
2U •
BE:tl-1ei�
50
t�
a
§ 2018
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(c) Facilities approved for and maintained with attendant parking only.
2013.2. Offsite parking on adjoining or abutting lots
• Except as provided at section 2017.9, "Joint parking facilities for contiguous use," offsite
parking on lots in separate ownership or abutting lots containing principal uses served, in the
same frontage without an intervening street, but with or without an intervening alley, shall
require permits and be subject to requirements and limitations as follows:
2018.2.1. Special exception required inhere lots are in transitional or other areas of resi-
dential districts and parking is for rises other than residential within the same residen-
tial district A special exception shall be required where such adjoining or abutting
lots are in the traniitional or other areas of residential districts and the proposed
parking facility is to serve uses other than residential within the same residential
district. In connection with such exception, the following particular limitations and
requirements shall apply:
(a) Except where in structures, such facilities shall be for the parking of private
passenger vehicles only.
(b) Except as required for and restricted to emergency and service vehicles, access to
such lots shall be only from within the district in which the principal use is
located, or from alleys within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of such
districts, unless such lots have direct access to adjacent major streets.
(c) Yards adjacent to streets shall be dimensioned as generally required within the
district, and a yard equivalent in width to the required side yard shall be
provided along any remaining edges of the lot not adjacent to streets except
where such edges adjoin nonresidential district boundaries or alleys containing
nonresidential district boundaries.
(d) Such parking may be permitted only upon findings demonstrating assurance of
the continuing availability of the land to be used for such offstreet parking, or
that approved alternative facilities will be provided.
(See section 2018.5.-Provisions for continuation or replacement of required offsite
parking.")
2018.2.2. Class C special permit required where lots are in transitional or other areas of
residential districts and parking is for residential uses within the same district or the
adjoining district. A Class C special permit shall be required where such adjoining or
abutting lots are in the transitional or other areas of a residential district and the
proposed parking.is to serve residential uses within the same district or the adjoining
district. In such cases. the same special limitations shall apply asset forth in section
2018.2.1, except that access to such lots may be from within the residential district.
2018.2.3. Class *C special permit required where lots are not in residential districts A
Class C special permit shall be required where such adjoining or abutting lots are not
• in residential districts, but are im any district id which the principal use or uses
served are permitted, or in less restricted districts. Except as required for and
restricted to emergency or service vehicles vshiculaur access to arch facilities shall
212 dab
12022 MIAMI, FLORIDA
Where such special permits are required, no use shall be made of the offstreet Ioading
facility or of the principal use to which such facility is accessory except in accordance with the
terms thereof.
2022.5. Reduction in offstreet truth and trailer loading requirements where rait marine, or air
freight services are directly available; by special exception.
Where rail. marine, or air freight services are directly available at the site of a use, or are
so located that trucking on public streets is not required in moving materials to or from the
site, requirements for offstreet truck and trailer loading spaces may be reduced correspond.
ingly by special exception, but in no case shall the reduction be more than one-half (%) of full
requirements.
Any such special exception granted shall specify that in the event of change in manner of
operation or cessation of alternative freight service. required spaces shall be provided or that
the use shall cease or be diminished to the extent required to reduce offstreet loading
requirements to equal availability of such spaces.
2022.6 Deferral of portions of total required offstreet 17ading improvement; by special excep-
tion for initial periods; control of extension.
By special exception, the zoning board may allow deferral of construction, surfacing.
drainage, marking. and other improvements incidental to preparation for actual use of por-
tions of required offstreet loading spaces, upon findings that such portions are not reasonably
likely to be used because of the type of occupancy of the premises, jCjUt use of facilities by uses
with differing peaks of loading demand. or for other reasons assuring that deferral of such
improvements will not result in shortages of offstreet loading space on the premises, or lead to
use of public streets for !oading and unloading.
Provisions concerning deferral periods. notice of revocation, and extensions shall be as set
out in relation to offstreet parking in section 2017.8.
2022.7. Maintenance and use of areas on which offstreet loading improvements are deferred
Areas on the lot on which offstreet loading improvements are deferred by special excep•
tion may be improved and maintained as pedestrian open space or as offstreet parking space.
No such area shall be included as meeting part of any requirements concerning amount of
pedestrian open space or parking space to be provided on the lot, since oteferrat of improve.
ments is not intended as a waiver of offstreet loading requirements.
20224 Joint loading facilities for contiguous uses, Class C special permit required
Where there are multiple uses or buildings on one (1) tract, or where uses on adjoining
g
lots propose to combine offstreet loading facilities for trucks and trailers, including acceasways%
such joint offatreet loading facilities shall require a Class C special permit. Except where
number of offstreet loading spaces has been reduced. or improvement requirements deferred
under the terms of sections 2022.5 or 2022.6. the total number of offstreet spaces provided and
improved "required by these regulations shill not be lose than the sum of those required by
: • the ia&vid%W uses.
—1e�� 5z
`eR
.4
ZONING
62016
energy collectors, or similar Equipment required to operate and maintain the building. (pro•
vided that such structures shall not cover more than twenty (20) percent of roof area), nor to
church spires, steeples, belfries, monuments, water towers, flagpoles, vents. or similar struc-
tures, which may be erected above the height limit, nor to fire or parapet walls, provided
however that such walls shall not extend more than five (5) feet above the roof.
2015.2. Aviation hazards
No building or other structure (regardless of exclusions set forth at section 2015.1. above)
shall be located in a manner or built to a height which constitutes a hazard to aviation or
creates hazards to persons or property by reason of unusual exposure to aviation hazards. In
any area within the city, in addition to height limitations established by this ordinance,
limitations established by the Miami International Airport Zoning, Metropolitan Dade Coun-
ty, Florida, or by any ordinance amending or replacing such ordinance, shall apply to heights
of buildings, structures, or natural vegetation.
In addition, when the zoning administrator shall find, in relation to a particular applica-
tion, that there is reasonable doubt concerning aviation hazards with regard to a proposed use
or structure, a Class B special permit shall be required, with clearance from appropriate
authorities.
20Z5.3. Broadcasting towers.
Broadcasting towers and other antenna support structures shall not exceed one hundred
fifty (150) feet in height above grade except in central business district classifications and in
those districts where they are specifically permitted or permissible by special permit at
greater heights.
(Ord. No. 9722, 11. 10.27.83; Ord. No. 9817, 11. 3-19.84)
Sec. 20I6. Height control envelopes.
In certain districts, and in transitional arras of others, a system of height regulation by
enveloping planes is established, as described below. In such cases, formulas in the official
schedule f district regulations prescribe maximum height at outer edges of buildable areas,
inclination of light planes leaning inward over such areas, and in some instances maximum
height over the center of the lot.
Except as provided at section 2015.1, "Excluded portions of structures," or as may
otherwise be specifically provided in particular districts or in relation to particular classes of
cases, no portion of any structure shall extend through any portion of such height envelopes.
Such height envelopes shall be constructed as indicated below.
2016. L Base plans (Plane A
20M.l. Generally. To provide a plan from which height ever the buildable area shall
be measured. establish the base plane (Plane 4 Where the ground surface is regular
and horizontal. it shall be considered the base plane. Whom the ground surface is
irregular or sloping. l base plane shall be constructed pu%Ust to its general surface
_e
M
SC-lo3 53
Ilk
DEC
11 V85
R>
December 4, 1985
Mr. Ronald L. Fine
Venture Development Corporation
25 W. Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33125
RE: POST OFFICE PLAZA
3195 GRAND AVENUE COCONUT GROVE
Dear Mr.. Fine:
I was extremely disturbed by your memorandum of November 21, 1985 as
supplemented by our meeting of November 25, 1985, because of the long-standing
good relationship you have always had with this Department.
Your memorandum addressed two issues: 1) the position of the Planning
Department in reviewing and advising developers on their projects; and 2) the
substance of the Planning Department recommendations on the above -reference
project.
The Planning Department's objective in working with developers is to assure
that the city will benefit from a welt -planned project and that developers can
benefit from our experience in reviewing several hundred projects annually. I
have always cautioned my staff to alert developers when the project may have
problems with interpretations, variances, conditional uses and/or re -toning.
Obviously the staff cannot speak for the Director, who is responsible for the
department decision. In questioning my staff, particularly Mr. Luft and Mr.
Olmedillo, I find that they have never said or implied to you or your
representatives that conformity with Planning Department reviews and guidance
was a quid -pro -quo for a Planning Department recommendation for approval for
variances and special exceptions.
As to the substance of the Planning Department recommendations, while there
are numerous excellent planning features of the project, on balance, we
recommended denied of the requests, as follows:
1. The special exception request to locate project.parking in the
RS-2/2 district would seriously jeopardize the stability and
tranquility of the residential district.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT / 27S N.W, 2nd Street / Miami, Florid# 33126 / (30S) ST' .GWA
Mailine AddrMs - P n Rns 11071A / *1iami. Flnnds 11211•07ft
E�
U
T--
2. The request to vary the number of truck loading bays from 8 to 4
is excessive, especially in view of the Post Office need for 3
dedicated spaces.
3. Variance from the light plane regulations is unnecessary, the
upper level atrium can still be accomodated while observing the
light planes.
In summary, while I regret that you may feel that you were misled, I
find that the conduct of my staff has been consistent with the Planning
Department's obligation to be fair and impartial and to render our best
professional judgement so that both the citizens of Miami and the
development community are well -served.
I trust that this experience will not deter you from considering further
development ventures within the City of Miami.
Sincerely,
o Rodriguez
rector
SR /JWM/td
bc: Walter Pierce, Assistant City Manager
Jack tuft, Planning Department
Guillermo Olmedillo, Planning Department
Joseph Genuardi, Zoning Administration
Building and Zoning Division
Fire,. Rescue and Inspection Services
11
fir''....
j
i
'' -7 r
rALA a
November 19, 1985
Ms. Laura Tindall -Howell
2481 Trapp Avenue
Coconut Grove, P1 33133
Dear Ms. Tindall -Howell:
1 ( V
Re: 3195 Grand Avenue
Post Office Plaza
SERGIO PERE'R A
Ordinance 9500, Article 20, Section 2016 provides for exclusion
of encroachments into the height envelope which result from
demands due to specific requirements by staff in particular
districts.
Article 15, Section 1521 specifies the intent of the SPI-2
District as including innovative site planning, architectural
design and creation of opportunities for combining residential
and non-residential uses in a pattern minimizing potential
adverse effects of such combinations.
The Planning Department has requested that certain architectural
features be added to the Post Office Plaza Development which
penetrate the light plane adjacent to the AS-2/2.
It is our determination that the architectural features required
by Planning do not violate the height envelope requirements and
that no variance is needed for their penetration into the height
envelope/light plane.
ery trul yo rs,
ks e A. Genuardi PE
i Administrator
JAG/lc
cc: Jack Luft
Juan Gonzalez
Zoning Division?
t
FIRE, RESCUE 6 INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TECHNICAL SERVICES / 275 N.W. 2nd Street / P.O.Bo: 330706 / Miami, FL 33233-07081(305) 350.7957
rhirf it F h•trt imm,vh nirprtnr or nonuty f hipft• C O. Fahvan. D H. Teems. F. lordan
:.
Qr. *W0 MOM
3582 Grand Avenue. P.O. Box 75, Coconut Grove, FL 33133. (3051 446-309516
December 16, 1985
Chairman and Members of the Board
City of Miami Zoning Board
275 N.W. 2nd Street
Miami, Florida 33128
Dear Board Members,
This is a letter of support on behalf of Venture Development Corpo-
ration for an exception and two variances for the property known as the
Coconut Grove Post Office at 3195 Grand Avenue.
Coconut Grove Local Development Corporation is a community -based,
non-profit Corporation for the economic development of the C.D. Coco-
nut Grove target area. Under grants from the City of Miami and the
State of Florida, we are contracted to promote the expansion of jobs and
businesses for this community.
The commercial artery of C,rand Avenue is the focus of our efforts
and this particular property is crucial to the growth of our business
district. It is located at the actual borderline between what is per-
cieved as the "black" section of Coconut Grove.
The developer has requested that CGLDC work with his firm in the
implementation of this project. He has committed to include minorities
on his development and management team, and minority tenants in the
commercial, office and residential portions of his projece. He has also
consented to develop, in consultation with CGLDC, a crimerprevention
project effecting the immediate vicinity of his project.
The CGLDC board has adopted a resolution in support of the project
and the developer's requests for an exemption for parking and variances
for off-street loading and light plane penetration, as long as the pro-
ject is built substantially in the form presented to the community.
One of the major factors of the CGLDC Board's decision to support
this project is the ability of this project to enhance property values
along brand avenue and stimulate development of adjacent parcels in the
"black grove" which will otherwise remain undeveloped for the forseeable
future.
A NonWront Corporation tot Economic Devslopm9nt
Eva
Unless and until there is a viable mixed -use development bridge, then
the black community will remain locked into the cycle of failing businesses
and blighted buildings which now drastically affect this area.
CGLDC has already initiated development at Grand Avenue and Douglas
Road through the Tiki Club redevelopment by Grovites United to Survive
(G.U.T.S), a black investor -owned, for profit development group. In order
to stimulate development westward on Grand avenue and to protect the signi-
ficant investments necessary for redevelopment, we urge that your Board
approve these applications.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
David J. exander
Executive Director
December 14, 1985
Mr. Joseph A. uenuardi
Chief, Code Enforcement Division
& Inspection Services
City of Miami
275 NW 2nd Street
Miami, F1. 33128
Re: Letters of Dec. 6, 9 & 10, 1985, requestine interpretation
Thank you for your prompt response to my recent requests for interpretations
of the Miami Zoning Ordinance. As you are aware, the requests relate to the
application of the ordinance to the plans for the "Post Office Plaza" on which
the Zoning Board is scheduled to hear two variance requests and petition for a
special exception parking facility in the residential district.
I regret that your busy schedule has not permitted time to address my inquiries.
As I am no expert on zoning law, I sought your interpretations as the City's
official expert.
I have very high regard for laws because they are written agreements between
and among members of society which outline how we may act without harming
others. The Zoning Ordinances are the rules to which we all have acreed
regarding the reasonable use of our property.
With the knowledge acquired during a short period, without the guidance I
have requested from you, I am forced to conclude that very serious ommissions
have been made in applying the law when you reviewed the plans for "Post
Office Plaza. "
As I understand the law, the planned structure is larger than permitted (no
variance is permitted for F .A . R. , Section 3101.1.) , it intrudes ; nto required yards
and light planes, exceeds maximumlot coverage in the residential district and
dumps its vehicular traffic on a residential street.
Zoning laws permit reasonable use of our property. Requirements and limitations
of use are for the general welfare of the public. All of us are a part of that public.
I wait for the interpretations that I requested.
Sincerely,
;hen T. Green
3158 Florida Avenue
Coconut grove
Miami, F1. 33133
cc: Walter Pi-rce
Miriam Maer
Chief Teems
Aurelio Perez-Lugones
Sergio Rodriquez
Juan Gonzalez
Mayor Zavier Suarez
Zonine Board Members
C7f .""�ba3• 5 +
Iq
December 14, 1985
WC It. AH'l894'�.
Mr. Joseph A. -aenuardi
Chief, Code, Enforcement Division
& Inspection Services
City of Miami
275 NW 2nd Street
Miami, F1. 33128
Re: Letters of Dec. 6, 9 & 10, 1985, requesting interpretation
Thank you for your prompt response to my recent requests for interpretations
of the Miami Zoning Ordinance. As you are aware, the requests relate to the
application of the ordinance to the plans for the "Post Office Plaza" on which
the Zoning Board is scheduled to hear two variance requests and petition for a
special exception parking facility in the residential district.
I regret that your busy schedule has not permitted time to address my inquiries.
As I am no expert on' zoning law, I sought your interpretations as the City's
official expert.
I have very high regard for laws because they are written agreements between
and among members of society which outline how we may act without harming
others. The Zoning Ordinances are the rules to which we all have agreed
regarding the reasonable use of our property.
With the knowledge acquired during a short period, without the guidance I
have requested from you, I am forced to conclude that very serious ommissions
have been made in applying the law when you reviewed the plans for "Post
Office Plaza. "
As I understand the law, the planned structure is larger than permitted (no
variance is permitted for F.A.R., Section 3101.1.), it intrudes into required yards
and light planes, exceeds maximum lot coverage in the residential district and
dumps its vehicular traffic on a residential street.
Zoning laws permit reasonable use of our property. Requirements and limitations
of use are for the general welfare of the public. All of us are a part of that public.
I wait for the interpretations that I requested.
Sincerely, cc: Walter Pierce
Miriam Maer
Chief Teems
Jahn T. Green Aurelio Perez-Lugones
3158 Florida Avenue Sergio Rodriguez
Coconut grove Juan Gonzalez
Miami, F1. 33133 Mayor Zavier Suarez
Zoning Board Members
8C
-'lo
L,G
December 12, 1985
John T. Green
3158 Florida Avenue
Coconut Grove
Miami, F1 33133
SERGIO PEREIRA
City Manager
Re: Letters of December 6, 1985
and December 9, 1985 requesting
interpretation
Dear Mr. Green,
This is to inform you that I have received your letters requesting
my interpretations. Unfortunately due to my very busy schedule I
am unable to give you a response on the date you requested, but
be assured I will address it as soon as possible.
In briefly scanning your letters it seems to me that in most of
them what you are asking for is not an interpretation but an
explanation of what the Zoning Ordinance says and a definition of
terms. Interpretations are given when there is an ambiguity in
a certain part of the Ordinance and/or question of application of a
certain section to a particular situation.
Therefore, it is important that I review your request carefully
before I respond.
ours
os Genuardi .E.,
i Administrator
JAG/lc
cc: Walter Pierce
Miriam Maer
Chief Teems
Aurelio Perez-Lugones
Juan Gonzalez
Zoning Division file
FIRE, RESCUE 6 INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TECHNICAL SERVICES / 275 N.W. 2nd Street / P.O.Boa 33070B / Miami, FL 33233-070B / (305) 350-7957
Chief K.E. McCullough, Director / Deputy Chiefs: C.D. Fabyen, O.N. Teems, F. Jordan �'
i
Decem. -r 10, 1985
Mr. Joseph A. uenuardi
Chief, Code Enforcement Division
6 Inspection Services
City of Miami
275 NW 2nd Street
Miami, F1. 33128
Dear Mr. venuardi:
Subsection 1526.2.2. Allowable Increase in Floor Area for Buildings Providina Certain
Supoortina Uses: Limitations. of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance, 1.
Underaround and/or Enclosed Parkina: states: "For each 10 percent of required
onsite parking provided in an underground parking structure (the roof of the
underground structure shall not exceed 3.5 feet above adjacent public sidewalks)
or in an enclosed above grade parking structure (with automobiles screened from
view) the floor area shall be increased .015 times the gross lot area. "
The plans on file in the Planning and Zoning Boards Administration Department,
file # 85-109, with regard to two (2) variance petitions indicate that the floor
area ratio has been increased the maximum allowable when only 99 (37%) of
269 required parking spaces are provided onsite.
I would like your interpretation with regard to what qualifies as Onsite parking.
I will appreciate your reply by Friday, December 13, 1985, and would like to
pick it up in person. Please let me know when it is ready. You can reach me
at443-0359.
Sincerely,
Sohn T. Green
3158 Florida Avenue
Coconut urove
Miami, Fl. 33133
SC -1603: I '�i
a'
4r•
{
Mr. Joseph A. uenuardi
Chief, Code Enforcement Division
6 Inspection Services
City of Miami
275 NW 2nd Street
Miami, F1. 33128
Dear Mr. uenuardi:
December . _
Subsection 1526.2.2. Allowable Increase in Floor Area for Buildings Providing
Certain Suoportino Uses; Limitations. of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance,
4. Split Level Uses at General Level : states: "For each ten (l0) lineal feet
of ground level uses permissable under Section 1523.1, where by reason of a verticle
split level arrangement of uses (above and below ground level), directly
accessible and visible from the adjacent public sidewalk, the floor area ratio
shall be ir=L;;:sed by .025 times the gross lot area not t-N exceed a total of .30."
I would We-- to know your interpretation, in vertical di
ground l�� ', wh-4t constitutes "directly accessible a -
public side -walk?"
I will eppieuiate your reply by Friday, D•-,;embec
pig;=• ;'4 up in person. please let nee know whP:-
at i . ' •0359 .
]bhn T . Green
3158 Florida Avenue
Coconut vrove
Miami, Fl. 33133
above and below
" in from the adjacent
1985. .•nd would like to
,ar;y ': can reach me
A
December 9, 1955
Mr. Joseph A..2enuardi
Chief, Code Enforcement Division
& Inspection Services
City of Miami
275 NW 2nd Street
Miami, F1. 33128
Dear Mr, venuardi:
Subsection 1526.2.2. Allowable Increase in Floor Area for Buildings Providing
Certain L'ses; Limitations . , of the City of Miami Zoninq Ordinance, 3. Theaters;
states: "For each one cross sq . ft. that a building provides for a theater for the
performing arts or for a community theater the floor area shall be increased by
four sq. ft-. A community theater is defined as an enclosed space suitable for a
variety of cultural arts performances, permanently available, and manaced and
promoted on a non profit basis; principal use of the space shall be for public
performing arts presentations, although incidental use for private meetings,
exhibits and presentations shall be permitted. "
I would like your interpretation of the above in general and specifically with
rega rd to:
May a for profit motion picture theater have a lease on the theater
space designated in the above subsection, and if so, for what period
of time ?
What is the definition of "incidental use" as measured in hours per
month or year and as a percent of "principal use ?"
Would performances of questionable moral character, whether presented
for profit or not for profit, be permitted to qualify for the allowable
increase in floor area?
I will appreciate your reply by Friday, December 13, 1985, and would like to
pick it up in person. Please let me know when it is ready. You can reach me
at 443-0359.
Sincerely,
,- -N .
`John T. Green
3158 Florida Avenue
Coconut grove
Miami, Fl. 33133
Sul--1633 � V
�1
Z..,
To: Mr. Joseph A. Genuardi
Chief, Code Enforcement Division
& Inspection Services
City of Miami
275 NW.' 2nd Street
Miami, Fl. 33128
From: John T. vreen
3158 Florida Avenue
Coconut grove
Miami, F1. 33133
Subject: Request for Official Interpretation by the Zonince Administrator
regarding a parking structure on lots in the RS-2 district,
specifically that property located at 3174-90-92 and Approximately
3198 Florida Avenue (Charles H. Frow Sub. (13-53) P.R.D.C.,
Block 2, Lots 9 through 12 inclusive less portions for right-of-way) ,
which adjoins directly lots in the SPI-2: Coconut Grove Central
Commercial District.
Considerations for the Zoning Administrator
Based on the Petition for a Special Exception (file #85-109), and
information and plans on file in the Planning and Zoning Boards
Administration Department with regard thereto, "as listed in Ordinance
9500, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Article
20, Section 2018, Subsection 2018.2.1. to permit a proposed parking
structure... as per plans on file," please consider the following:
SECTION 2018. OFFSITE PARKING .
Subsection 2018.2.1. (c) provides; "Yards adjacent to streets shall be
dimensioned as generally required within the district, and a yard
equivalent in width to the required side yard shall be provided along
any remaining edges of the lot not adjacent to street... "
SECTION 2019. LIMITATIONS ON PARKING UARAUES AS PRINCIPAL USE,
Except as otherwise provided in specific regulations for individual
districts, where the principal use of a building is a parking garage, the
floor area of the building shall not exceed the floor area limitations
established for nonresidential uses within the district.
The Schedule of District Regulations for RS districts (page 1 of 6),
Minimum Open Space Requirements provides:
MINIMUM YARDS (for other than residential uses): Front,
interior sYde and rear is twenty (20) feet.
i
De^e ,er 9, 1985
Mr. Joseph A. venuardi
Page 2
hIAXIMUIV LOT COVERAGE. Maximum net lot coverage by all
buildings shall not exceed net lot area multiplied by .43.
MINIMUM LIVABILITY SPACE. Minimum livability space (or
pedestrian open space for non-residential uses) provided on
the lot shall be at around level and shall not be less than net
lot area multiplied by .36.
The Schedule of District Regulations for RS districts (page 1 of 6),
Maximurn Heiaht provides:
Plane II: 12 feet
Licht Planes, side and rear: RS-2: 60 degrees
Plane 1II: 25 feet for flat roofs. . .
Based on the Sections of the Zoning Ordinance cited above, the parking structure
proposed to be located in the RS-2 district exceeds limitations on height and
maximum lot coverage and does not meet the minimum requirements as to yards and
livability space. Being no expert in the zoning law, I may have missed some
Section(s) pertinent to parking structures in this situation. I have the following
concerns:
While the top floor (roof ?) of the structure is 25 feet above grade, what
permits a permanent wall at the perimeter to be approximately 8 feet above
the floor (roof ?), and what permits a lattice and awning type covering to
exceed Plane III?
What permits the lot coverage of a parking stricture to exceed the
maximum lot coverage allowed any other structure in the RS-2 district?
What permits a parking structure to be placed within the 20 foot yards
required of any structure other than a residence in the RS-2 district?
What permits an Offsite parking structure located in the RS-2 district
which directly adjoins the SPI-2 district to directly adjoin, for it entire
height and width, the building located within the SPI-2 district?
How can pedestrian open space required in the RS-2 district (as planned:
9, 924.1 sq . ft. required, 4, 483 sq. ft. provided) not be provided ?
I would like to know yojr interpretation of the City of Miami .Zoning Ordinance
as regards the requirements and limitations on a parking structure located in the
RS-2 district which adjoins directly the SPI-2 district.
BF..-10 3
Decerr-... 9 , 1965
Mr. Joseph A. Genuardi
Pa-3e 3
• i will appreciate your reply by Friday, December 13, 1985, and would like to
pick it up in person. Please let me know when it is ready. You can reach me
at443-0359.
Sincerely,
/John�T T. Green
SC -103•
December 6, ..,85
To: Mr. Joseph A. venuardi
Chief, Code Enforcement Division
& Inspection Services
City of Miami
275 NW 2nd Street
Miami, Fl. 33128
From: John T. green
3158 Florida Avenue
Coconut urove
Miami, Fl. 33133
Subject: Request for Official Interpretation by the Zoning Administrator
regarding yard and height envelope requirements applicable to
lots in SPI-2: Coconut Grove Central Commercial District,
specifically that property located at 3195 errand Avenue (Charles
H. Frow Sub. (13-53) P .R.D.0 . , Block 2, Lots 9 through 20
inclusive less portions for right-of-way], which adjoins directly
lots in the RS-2 District.
Considerations for the Zoninc Administrator
Based on the Petition for Variance #85-109 , and information and plans
on file in the Planning and Zoning Boards Administration Department with
regard thereto, requesting relief from the provisions of Section 1525 of
the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance as follows: "Penetration of Building
into required light plane," please consider the following:
SECTION 1525. TRANSITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS
Transitional requirements and limitations shall be as for CR districts,
items 1.. .
The Schedule of District Regulations for CR districts (page 4 of 6),
Transitional Requirements and Limitations, Item 1: "Where lots in
these districts directly adjoin lots in RS-I, RS-2... districts at the
side or rear: a. Yard and height envelope requirements along such
lot lines shall be as for adjoining RS ... lots except the light plane
shall be 63 degrees...
SECTION 3602. TRANSITIONAL REGULATIONS
Transitional regulations are controls established at or adjoining
district boundaries to mitigate potential frictions between uses or
characteristics of use. Such regulations, applying generally to
buildings and uses within the area described as transitional and thus
in effect creating sub -districts, may have the effect of altering primary
district regulations by increasing or decreasing requirements or
limitations on uses, yards, height, off-street parking, lighting, signs,
buffering or screening, or other matters.
86 -1e3: -
December 6, .985
Mr. Joseph A. Genuardi
Page 2
Lots on Florida Avenue (RS-2) and Grand Avenue (SPI-2) are
adjoining and are subject to transitional regulations.
The Schedule of District Regulations for RS districts (page 1 of 6) ,
Minimum Open Space Requirements, for uses other than residential
the minimum yard, interior side or rear, is twenty (20) feet.
SECTION 3701. PROVISIONS OF ZONING ORDINANCE DECLARED TO
BE MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM REQUIREMENTS,
In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Zoning
Ordinance shall be held to be minimum requirements or maximum
limitations, as the case may be, adopted for the promotion of the
public health, safety, morals or general welfare.
Lots on Grand Avenue which adjoin lots on Florida Avenue
must have a twenty (20) foot yard adjacent to the shared
lot line.
Why hasn't the Zoning Department required that a variance be obtained when
the plans on file clearly indicate that the building is less than twenty (20)
feet from the lot line shared with the RS-2 property and that the origin of the
light plane angle is not twenty (20) feet from the same lot line?
Please reply with your Official Interpretation by Tuesday, December 10, 1985.
5ohn T. Green
8C -1r3 i b
"P'Tes rosT4
M � M
o w -
W �
r
FIELD REAL ESTATE 3 BUILDINGS OFFICE
Post Office Box 22725
Tampa, F L 33622 2725
October 10, 1985
Mr. Ronald L. Fine, President
Commodore Plaza Square, Inc.
P 0 Bo: 110110
Miami, FL 33111-0110
Dear Mr. Fine:
Subject: Miami, FL - Coconut Grove Station
This letter is in furtherment of our continued discussions and our letter
dated September 3, 1985. The following is in supplement to that letter.
1.
2. 'Item 4 of that letter is amended to include the following sentence
with no dele Lions to the original statement: `There would also be an
additional loading dock to accommodate a vehicle shorter than a
smi—trailer.'
3.;
4.�
5.
6.
sc -1e3 �0
Miami, FL CucuuuC Gruve SLdti.uu -2- October 10, 1985
7.
Sincerely,
F�Jo#ge JRodriguez, Generar *tanager
eal Estate a Buildings Office
T S
S:JR4:R:DeHainaut: mp
I'D 3
,�tis ro�
.1
0 l
W �
FIELD REAL ESTATE 3 BUILDINGS OFFICE
Post Office Box 22725
Tampa, FL 33622.2725
September 3, 1985
M,r..Ronald L. Fine, President
Commodore Plaza Square, Inc.
P 0 Box 110110
Miami, FL 33111-0110
Dear Mr. Fine:
Subject: Miami, FL -Coconut Grove Station
Proposed Redevelopment
4his letter is in confiratioa of the recent and continuing discussion between
our office and Mr. Jack Moore of Commodore Plaza Square, Inc. (formerly known
as Venture Twenty -One, Irc.) regarding your proposed plans to redevelop the
present Coconut 4rove postal station site. In summary, the Postal Service
agrees in concept with the proposals to date and we are currently awaiting the
plans and specifications that are being prepared by Kober/Belluschi &
Associates, Inc., Architects and Planners. Subject to the review and approval
of these plans, etc., and the phased construction schedule, the Postal Service
would be agreeable to entering into a lease that is in substantial conformance
with the followiaR provisions:
1.
2.
3.
I�
u>.
Miami, FL Cocoaut Grove Station -2- September 3, 1985
4. There would also be a loadio; dock to accommodate two (2) semi -trailers ae
grade level.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
n
Bf.:--3.0" ? .
vt�
Miami, FL Coconut Grove Station
15.
16.
17 .
Si�cer*
,
Jot a E guez� General Manager
Fie d Re Estate b buildings Office
gad=�eBaioaut:ap
-3-
September 39 1985
■w�
SUMMARY MINUTES FOR ITEMS 2 AND 3 OF THE ZONING BOARD ~MEETING OF
DECEMBER 16, 1985
2. 3195 Grand Avenue
Lots 9 through 20 inclusive less portions
for right-of-way
Block 2
CHARLES H. FROW SUB. (13-53) P.R.D.C.
Variance from Ordinance 9500, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Miami, Schedule of District Regulations, page 4 of 6,
CR Commercial -Residential (General), Transitional Uses,
Structures and Requirements and Article 20, Section 2023,
Subsection 2023.4 to permit construction of a proposed
commercial/residential structure (Post Office Plaza) on above
site, as per plans on file, with a + 9.0' maximum light plane
penetration at + 50.01' height above grade along the SPI-2/RS-2
district boundary line and providing 4 of 8 required off-street
loading spaces; Lots 13 through 20 are zoned SPI-2 Coconut Grove
Central Commercial District and Lots 9 through 12 are zoned RS-
2/2 One -Family Detached Residential. This Variance petition is
in conjunction with a Special Exception application for a parking
structure.
NOTE: This item was deferred prior to the Zoning Board meeting
of September 9, 1985 at the applicant's request,
continued from the Zoning Board meeting of November 18,
1985, and deferred from the Zoning Board meeting of
November 25, 1985 due to a short board. This is a
companion item to item #3.
-AND-
3. 3174-90-92 and
Approximately 3198 Florida Avenue
Lots 9 through 12 inclusive less portions
for right-of-way
Block 2
CHARLES H. FROW SUB. (13-53) P.R.D.C.
Special Exception as listed in Ordinance 9500, as amended, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Article 20, Section 2018,
Subsection 2018.2.1 to permit a proposed parking structure in
conjunction with a proposed commercial/residential structure
(Post Office Plaza), said parking structure to be located on
above site, as per plans on file; zoned RS-2/2 One -Family
Detached Residential. This Special Exception petition is in
conjunction with a Variance application for light plane
penetration and off-street loading spaces.
NOTE: This item was deferred prior to the Zoning Board meeting
of September 9, 1985 at the applicant's request,
continued from the Zoning Board meeting of November 18,
1985, and deferred from the Zon-ng Board meeting of
November 25, 1985 due to a short board. This is a
companion item to item #2.
PROPONENTS present at meeting: 17
OPPONENTS present at meeting : 36
The Executive Secretary administered oath to all
persons wishing to testify on this item and filed proof of
publication of legal notice.
December 16, 1985, Items 2 & 3
Zoning Board ,.
I
Mr. Jon Channing, a board member, stated for the record
that his corporation does have interest with another corporation
which owns land in Broward County. One of the applicants for the
item before the Board does own stock in the corporation but he,
himself, has no financial interest nor any other involvements
with the applicant. Furthermore, he stated that this
relationship would not affect his independent judgement on the —
items.
Ms. Miriam Maer, the board attorney, advised, based on
what Mr. Channing stated, that there would be no conflict of
interest and Mr. Channing could vote on the item.
Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo of the Planning Department
first described a brief scenario of the area by stating that the
north four lots of the project are zoned RS-2/2, single family,
and the remaining lots are zoned SPI-2, mixed use. A park is
located northeast of the property and an elementary school east
of the property.
In reference to the requests, the Planning Department
feels the reduction in the number of loading stalls by 50
percent, that is, from 8 loading stalls to 4 is significant. One
reason for this is that the post office is proposed to be located
in this project and they would require 2 loading stalls for their
exclusive use leaving only 2 stalls for the rest of the project
to share. The intrusion of the light plane is unnecessary, it is
only because the architect wanted to create a better design by
introducing an atrium. And the last request for a parking
structure on the residential lots in the rear would create a
hardship for the neighbors who live on Florida Avenue.
Mr. George Campbell of the Public Works Department
stated that if the Board should decide to grant the items, the
Public Works Department is requesting the dedication of the
westerly 12.5' of Lots 12 and 13, the northerly 5' of Lots 9-12,
a 25' radius at the southeasterly corner of McDonald and Florida
Avenue and a 25' radius at the corner of McDonald and Grand
Avenue.
Furthermore, Mr. Campbell pointed out that the plans
indicate the driveway to be located 10' away from the base
building line but the code requires that the driveway be located
a minimum of 13' from the base building line.
In regards to the reduction in the number of loading
stalls, the Public Works Department agrees with the feelings of
the Planning Department. Since the post office is requiring at
least two loading stalls for their exclusive use, most likely the
delivery trucks for the rest of the building would stop along
Grand Avenue rather than going around and trying to get into a
loading stall.
The sidewalk area along 32 Avenue and Grand Avenue must
be done according to Public Work's standards. In addition, the
plans indicate the drop-off area of the sidewalk to be 2 feet
into the public right-of-way which is 3' shy of the required
minimum standard which is 5' along the public right-of-way.
Last point Mr. Campbell made was that the Code requires
a 35' distance from the center line of 32 Avenue to the base
building line; however, the plans indicate a distance of only
3213", thereby reducing the setback from 5' to approximately
2'3". if this was to happen the end result would be the
structures would encroach into the public right-of-way which is
not permitted according to code.
Mr. Ronald Fine, one of the applicants and attorney for
the project, began by saying the project, known as Post Office
Plaza, is proposed to be located at 3195 Grand Avenue. He has
submitted packets to the Board members which included a letter
dated December 8, 1963 from Sergio Rodriguez, Director of the
Planning Department, and Mr. Fine stated that this letter
supports and encourages this project and its design including the
location of the parking on Florida Avenue.
2 December 16, 1985, Items 2 & 3
Zoning Board
now
t
in reference to the comments made by Mr. George
Campbell, the project was designed in accordance with the Code
requirements except for the items which are before the Board. in
fact, the Public Works Department reviewed and signed -off on the
plans along with the Planning Department and Zoning Division. in
regards to the loading stalls, Grand Avenue has been used in the
past for ingress and egress of delivery trucks along with being
used for parking.
This project as designed does not use 18,000 ft. of the
FAR permitted and is also providing 40 more parking spaces than
what is required. The building is composed of one level of
underground parking, two levels of retail, one level of office
and two levels of residential and/or hotel use. An atrium has
been designed in the middle of the building permitting natural
light to the office floor and also allowing for landscaping. In
addition, a landscape plan has been filed along with the
application. The roof top has been designed for public use such
as for dining.
Two attributes of this building include the relocation
and expansion of the post office and the expansion of the theatre
from 1 screen to 3 screens.
The main entrance to the post office will be located on
McDonald. There will also be 24 hour security on Grand and McDonald.
The walls proposed to be located along Florida Avenue
are solid in order to avoid penetration of light and sound.
Furthermore, these walls are well landscaped.
The top two floors of the building are recessed with
balconies. The parking garage has an entrance to the building on
the second floor which is retail. The building also has a clock
tower and a plaza dining area. The sidewalk on Grand Avenue is
20' wide including the 5' setback which allows for walking and
seating space. As stated before, the next floor, the office
area, has a skylight. The two residential floors each have 41
units and there is a jacuzzi and pool on the top of the building
for the use of the residents.
This project meets the intent of mixed use, that is, a
mix of residential and commercial. There is currently "an
absence of the kinds of things the people within the community
need itself that one has to travel to other shopping areas and
other shopping malls, and so because this project is totally
street oriented, we hope to bring that to the Grove so that we
can complete the shopping experience for the Grove itself."
The variance being requested for the light plane is the
result of an architectural request from the Planning Department
because they did not want to see a flat wall along Florida
Avenue.
In regards to the loading stalls, traffic and parking
engineers have made studies and determined that the amount of
stalls being requested is sufficient for a mixed use of this
nature. The reason is that a large number of the commercial uses
will have deliveries which will arrive in vans, station wagons
and small trucks which will be able to park in the below level
parking area and not on the street. Furthermore, the leases will
provide scheduling times for the people in the building in order
to avoid having everyone having deliveries at the same time. Mr.
Fine continued by saying that the traffic study he had prepared
indicates that there will be a very minimal impact on the
surrounding area with almost no impact at all on Florida Avenue.
This traffic study estimates that there will be, at most, only an
addition of four or five cars during peak hours on Florida Avenue
due to this project.
In closing, he stated the traffic engineers and the
architects were present and he or they would be happy to answer
any questions.
Mr. Jim McMaster, an opponent, stated he would like Mr.
Fine to produce a letter of agreement with the Post Office which
specifies the number of loading bays the Post Office will receive
and the square footage of those bays. Mr. McMaster feels the
residents of the Grove along with the Board should be entitled to
this information since it could affect the decision of the Board.
3 December 16, 1985, Items 2 3
Zoning Board
W.
If Mr. Fine will not produce the letter, Mr. McMaster asked if
Mr. Fine would state under oath in the record that the Post
Office does not have sole, exclusive, 24-hour use of two bays and
the use of a third when necessary.
Mr. Fine had appeared before the Coconut Grove Civic
Club the Wednesday before this meeting and the board of the Club
voted against the reduction of the number of loading bays and the
special exception parking structure. One member, however, did
feel the light plane penetration was acceptable.
This Special Exception could set a precedent for other
parking structures along Florida Avenue. Furthermore, contrary to
what Mr. Fine said, Mr. McMaster feels if the wall is built on Florida
and landscaped with deep foliage, it could be a haven for crime.
Mr. McMaster stated that he has been assured by Mr.
Woodrow Connor, Postmaster for the area, one of his assistants,
and by Mr. Jorge Rodriguez, Manager of Real Estate for the post
office in Tampa, that the post office will have exclusive, 24-
hour use of two loading bays with the use of a third when
necessary. Seeing that the post office will be receiving two
bays exclusively for their use, rather than having a reduction
from 8 loading bays to 4 loading bays there will be a reduction
from 6 bays to 2 bays which is a 66 percent reduction of loading
bays. The main structure of this project is 150,000 sq. ft.
which does not include most of the post office and the parking
structure. Furthermore, Mr. McMaster said he has been told by
members of the post office that the agreement includes the right
to freeze traffic at the intersection of Grand Avenue and
McDonald Street so that the post office trucks can back into the
loading bays.
In conclusion, Mr. McMaster asked again that Mr. Fine
make the letter of agreement with the post office available to
the public. In addition, Mr. McMaster has asked Mr. Fine to
submit a voluntary covenant stating that the top two floors,
proposed to be residential, will always remain residential
because the zoning ordinance does not require any percentage of a
mixed use project to be residential.
Mr. John Green, an opponent, stated he believes the
items before the Board should not be heard or if heard, denied.
According to Mr. Green, the light plane encroachment is not 9 ft.
as claimed by the applicant but is at least 22 ft. As per
Section 1525 of Zoning Ordinance 9500, and the Schedule of
District Regulations the yard and height envelope requirements in
the SPI-2 district "shall be as for the adjoining RS district and
the light plane shall be 63 degrees. Yard requirements in the
residential district for uses other than residential are 20' for
the front, side and rear". Furthermore, this building exceeds
the height limits. The proposed building is 50 ft. from the
ground at the east end and 54 ft. at the west end. The laundry
facility located on the roof is 8 ft. above the height permitted.
Such structures are permitted only for equipment necessary to
operate and maintain the building such as air conditioning
equipment and elevator equipment.
This building, according to Mr. Green, is 11,000 sq.
ft. larger than what is allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. The
FAR bonuses for the building have been computed improperly. In
addition, only 99 or 30 percent of the required offstreet parking
has been provided, not 100 percent as stated by Mr. Fine. The
bonus allowed for "split level" uses should not be permitted in
this project because the plans do not meet the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Green has requested from Mr. Joseph
Genuardi a zoning interpretation on the matter and he feels once
the interpretation has been made that this bonus will not be
permitted.
The parking structure has many problems. The structure
intrudes into the 20 ft. yard requirements, it exceeds maximum
lot coverage permitted, it does not provide the minimum
livability space, it intrudes into both the height and light
plane envelopes and lastly, the parapet on the roof is 8 ft.
above the maximum height, only 5 ft. is permitted. Mr. Green
feels more variances are needed in this application.
4 December 16, 1985, Items 2 & 3
Zoning Board st; 3
00'
+� s
The applicant claims hardship because his land is
transitional property and he is not able to enjoy the same
privileges as permitted in the rest of the SPI-2 zoning district.
If the applicant wanted full benefit of the SPI-2 zoning then Mr.
Green feels he should have bought property in the village center.
Granting this application will set a precedent for other property
owners who own transitional property. This property can be
developed under the SPI-2 zoning. The Special Exception is not
in harmony with the SPI-2 zoning and Mr. Green feels allowing a
parking structure on the residential lot will destroy the
residential neighborhoods both to the north and west of the
building.
Due to a reminder from Ms. JoAnn Holshauser, Mr. Gort
apologized for going straight to the opposition and not letting
the proponents speak, and then asked if anyone in favor would
like to speak.
Mr. Vincent Pastori, a proponent, informed the Board
that he has reviewed the plans extensively and feels this is one
of the better designed buildings in the Grove. He feels the
relocation and expansion of the post office along with the
expansion of the theatre are both positive aspects. The
additional parking being provided is also very positive. The
18,000 sq. ft. of building which is not being used is a plus
because then it is that much less density in the area. Contrary
to what a large number of residents in the Grove believe, there
are very few retail establishments vacant. This project will be
able to provide retail uses that are currently not offered in the
Grove which will help benefit the residents in the Grove.
In conclusion, Mr. Pastori believes this project is an
asset to the Grove and feels the three minor variations should be
approved.
Mr. Mike Kinerk, a proponent, reminded the Board that
this is not a quiet, residential neighborhood but this
neighborhood is in fact quite noisy and traffic ridden. Mr.
Kinerk feels this project will help alleviate some of the traffic
problems rather than add to it. Overall, this project is, in Mr.
Kinerk's opinion, a very desirable project and hopes the board
will approve it.
Mr. David Alexander, a proponent and Executive Director
of the Coconut Grove Local Development Corporation feels this
property and the property located just west of it are two key
properties that will help determine the development for the rest
of west Grove, also known as black Grove. Due to the slum and
blight removal, the west Grove has lost approximately 40 percent
of its residents. It is his job to attract new business for west
Grove and he feels this project will be an asset to the area. If
Mr. Fine is not allowed to build this project, it is possible
that a less desirable project may be built. Hopefully, this
project will encourage adjacent property owners to improve their
sites. It is the understanding of the board of the Coconut Grove
Local Development Corporation that this project will not increase
the traffic on Florida Avenue. Instead the ingress and egress to
the project will be located on McDonald Street.
This project is very important because it opens up to
the black Grove. Three requests he made to the developer are 1)
that he hire minorities for his development staff and management
staff; 2) he set aside space for minority vendors; and 3) he pay
special attention to the possibility of crime because crime
affects the way people feel and keeps them from shopping in the
black Grove. Mr. Alexander stated that he has acted as a kind of
consultant to the developer and will implement the things the
developer has signed his name to.
5 December 16, 1985, Items 2 & 3
Zoning Board sc-160 --? o,
WP_
-It
Mr. Stephen Parr, a proponent, thinks the building is a
very attractive building. This project will be serving not only
as a gateway to the Grove seeing that people do come to the Grove
from 32 Avenue, it will also be a gateway between the black and
white portions of the Grove. Having an attractive building at
this cornerstone is very important and he supports the project.
Mr. Jose Gonzalez, a proponent, feels this project will
offer the opportunity of extending the Grove as a whole and not
just benefit the white or black section. This project will
enhance that section of Grand Avenue and will be a benefit to the
entire Grove.
Ms. Rita Sander who owns property next door to the
project on Florida Avenue stated she at first was very opposed to
this project being built. Currently she rents out the property
she owns and uses that money to pay her mortgage, however, if
this building is built, she feels no one will want to live there
because they would be looking directly into a four story parking
garage and a five story building. Ms. Sander then raised this
issue of a financial hardship to Mr. Fine and according to Ms.
Sander, Mr. Fine agreed to buy her property and use it as a
buffer zone. This buffer would include things such as fountains
and landscaping in order to protect the area. Ms. Sander
continued by stating that Mr. Fine also agreed that this property
would not be used for parking or any other part of his building
but as a buffer only.
Mr. Steven Cooke -Yarborough, an opponent, speaking on
behalf of the Issues Research Committee of the Tigertail
Association, asks that the Board deny the requested variances and
special exception. The Zoning Ordinance sets out six conditions
which are to be considered when granting a variance; Mr. Cooke -
Yarborough feels that none of these six conditions have been met.
The granting of the requests would only enrich the developer at
the expense of the residents of Coconut Grove. The violation of
the light plane would increase shadows on neighboring houses
especially during the winter months. Such a violation is unfair
and homeowners should not be deprived sunlight and air
circulation.
In regards to the reduction of the number of required
loading bays, there are no unusual features to justify this
request. The last point is in regards to the multi -story parking
garage. Mr. Cooke -Yarborough suggests that allowing a parking
garage to intrude into the residential neighborhood constitutes a
benefit to the developer and opens the door to further
destruction of a stable residential neighborhood.
Mr. Stahl, an opponent who owns property on Commodore
Plaza and also a house in Coconut Grove, complained that his
taxes have doubled in the past three years and is currently
paying a total of $12,000 in taxes for both his house and his
business.
Mr. Stahl continued by saying Mr. Fine said that a
traffic study had been done. Mr. Stahl, however, does not
believe a traffic study can be conducted on a street until the
problems are there. Furthermore, Mr. Stahl argued that there is
an overabundance of office space in the Grove and can not
understand how the City Commission approved a five -story building
on Commodore Plaza with a parking facility which can not even
handle the amount of parking needed for the tenants of the
building. Currently, that building is 55 percent empty. In
addition to that, when the Commission approved the project, they
approved it with the idea that the top two floors would be
residential but in less than two years, the top floor has been
sold to a fashion designer for use as an office.
6 December 16, 1985, Items 2 & 3
Zoning Board
8E:-163; �9 v
o.
Though these points are not totally relevant to the
items before the Board, Mr. Stahl claims he is just trying to
make a point. Mr. Stahl just received that night a copy of a
letter addressed to the Zoning Board from the gentleman he had
purchased his property from just three years ago. The letter
states "To the Zoning Board of Coconut Grove, Sirs: I protest to
the fullest. You've done enough to finish the Grove. Enough is
enough. Either put a building moratorium on the Grove or
continue with bulldozers to clear the land. I owned property in
the Grove for 15 years and have moved out."
Mr. Stahl says if Mr. Fine wants to build on the
commercial property, that's fine, but he should not be entitled
to encroach into the residential neighborhood. There is no way
Florida Avenue can handle two-lane traffic. Furthermore, the
trucks will not be able to back into the truck bays because there
is just too much traffic on McDonald Street.
Mr. Jack Serig, Safety Director of the Dade County
Public School System asks that the Board in their decision
consider the safety of the children who attend Coconut Grove
Elementary as this project will increase traffic in the area and
make it more difficult for children to cross streets and get to
school safely. If the Board should grant this request, Mr. S erig
asks that the Public Works Department, traffic engineers and Dade
County Traffic and Transportation work in making this area as
safe as possible for the sake of the children.
Mr. Bill Hart, an opponent, claims that there is no way
this project will reduce traffic impact. The trucks will cause a
large problem because during school hours, Matilda Street between
Oak and Grand Avenue is closed causing the trucks to turn right
on to Florida Avenue, go down to Matilda, make another right,
then turn on Grand and keep circling until there is a vacant
loading space.
Mr. Hart then showed slides of the area and how nice it
looks now and then showed slides of houses which would affected
by this building. In conclusion, Mr. Hart suggested that a
building moratorium be placed on Coconut Grove.
Ms. Grady Dinkins, an opponent, complained that the
parking structure entrance would be located right across from her
bedroom window and she would end up with lights flashing inside
her bedroom all night. She feels the noise will be unbearable
and feels it is unfair that the developers should benefit at the
expense of the neighbors.
Ms. Esther Mae Armbrister, an opponent, informed the
Board that for a long time, the neighbors have been fighting to
keep Florida Avenue a residential street. Allowing this
developer to build on the residential lot will set a precedent.
This building will in no way enhance the black neighborhood as
the blacks are on the wets side of McDonald and the whites are on
the east. This project is only meant to enhance the white
section. Furthermore, parking will be a problem because as it is
now, people are too cheap to pay for parking and instead they
park in people's yards and in the streets.
Mr. Carl Prime, an opponent and president of the CAA
Advisory Board, is speaking on behalf of many of the members of
the CAA and many of them are against the project. Contrary to
what Mr. Fine has stated, Mr. Prime feels this project will
create a lot of traffic. This project will especially cause
problems during the Christmas season when the post office has
more trucks. This project will also create more noise pollution
and from the cars, additional carbon monoxide in the air. In
conclusion, Mr. Prime said he is also against the long shadows
which will be cast due to the large building and asks that the
Board deny the request.
7 December 16, 1985, Items 2 & 3
Zoning Board
Ms. Marilyn Reed, an owner of property on McDonald and
Day Avenue, informed the Board that for the last seven years she
has tried to get something done with McDonald in reference to a
traffic signal. After talking with Dade County Traffic and
Transportation, she found that there is a yearly average of e7
vehicular wrecks and 5 vehicular homicides on her corner alone
and the statistics on Oak Avenue are just as high. These figures
makes this area a high priority area for a traffic signal but we
can't get one because it cost approximately $85,000. After being
turned down for a traffic signal, Ms. Reed then asked for four-
way stop signs with blinker lights. Four-way stop signs were
finally put in but it took months. In addition to trying to get
a traffic signal, Ms. Reed talked to Commissioner Plummer who in
turn wrote Charles Baldwin requesting that signs be posted on
McDonald saying "NO THRU TRUCKS, LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY" but Mr.
Baldwin wrote back saying the area did not qualify even though
Ms. Reed had the figures of accidents saying otherwise.
The people who live in the area can no longer stand
living there. The noise is unbearable. Ms. Reed had talked with
Mr. Fine and explained to him the items which she feels will help
alleviate the problems on McDonald and he said he would do what
he could but none of the items were addressed in his
presentation. If the Board should approve this, she asks they
include as conditions the items she has requested which will help
alleviate some of the traffic problems on McDonald.
In conclusion, Ms. Reed asks that the Board consider
the items she has mentioned and suggested that a traffic study
for the entire Grove be conducted.
Mr. Billy Rolle, an opponent, did not want to reiterate
what had already been said so he stated briefly that this project
will not help the area of Grand west. If, however, Mr. Fine
wants to help the black Grove, Mr. Rolle suggests that Mr. Fine
talk to the citizens about building a project at Grand and
Douglas where he feels the project is needed. Mr. Rolle feels
this project is not needed at the proposed location and asks the
Board to deny the request.
Ms. JoAnne Holshauser, an opponent, feels that it's
about time a decision is made as to whether or not this is going
to be a commercial and residential area. The people of the Grove
have been fighting project after project trying to keep the
Village Center and the citizens have had enough. It is unfair
that the developers are being allowed to move into the
residential neighborhoods. She personally likes some of the
features of the project but can not see the parking garage being
located in the residential neighborhood.
Mr. Carl Boehm, an opponent, stated he is against the
project and incorporates all testimony made by all others who
have spoken in opposition.
Mr. Lee Goldsmith, an opponent, added that most
children who attend Coconut Grove Elementary do not come by bus
or car but they walk. The children are already fighting traffic
and if you make them fight even more traffic, they may get hurt
or killed.
During rebuttal, Mr. Fine stated that the issue is
value and merit of the development. This property has been zoned
commercial and has been used commercial for many, many years and
the homeowners who live on Florida Avenue were aware of that when
they bought their property. Furthermore, Mr. Fine stated that
Florida Avenue is no longer a residential street. If the Board
were to talk to homeowners on Florida Avenue, they would find
that the use is primarily commercial, that is, it is used for
renting, offices and business.
This project did not create the problems of the Grove
and it will not solve them but it will contribute to creating
more jobs and tax revenue for the City.
8 December 16, 1985, Items 2 & 3
Zoning Board
cr
ON -
Currently the post office does not serve the needs of
the community because it does not have the proper facilities
including enough parking. This project provide 40 more parking
spaces that what is required by the zoning ordinance.
In regards to loading bays, Mr. Fine read a portion of
a letter of agreement with the post office and in summary he said
that the post office will need loading docks to accommodate two
semi -trailers at grade level. In addition, a loading dock to
accommodate a vehicle shorter than a semi -trailer. There is no
mention in the agreement that the post office will be allowed
exclusive use of loading bays. Presently the post office has two
semi -trailer deliveries a day both of which usually stay no
longer than a half an hour.
Mr. Fine believes he has made sure that all the
necessary professional studies have been made to insure that
there is abundant parking and adequate loading. Four loading
stalls is sufficient even if the post office has exclusive use of
two loading bays because the businesses which will be located in
this project are not department stores or grocery stores and they
don't have the need for large delivery trucks.
Mr. Fine agreed that there are problems with traffic on
McDonald Street, Grand and 27th Avenues and those problems need
to be dealt with but the problem is that the governmental
agencies do not have the funds to take care of the problems.
Mr. Fine continued by informing the Board "that under
code, without any of this today" he has the "right to build on
the Grand Avenue property a five -story building with permission
from nobody."
The children are a concern to a lot of people and the
safety of the children should be a community responsibility.
However, a large number of the people who say there should be
sidewalks for the children to use fight sidewalks because they
don't want to be assessed for it.
Mr. Fine argued that if people did not want to work and
shop in the Grove there would be no development in the Grove.
Coconut Grove belongs to the community and to the City and the
City must support it if it's to survive. Mr. Fine informed the
Board that he has worked for a long time in trying to provide the
things that will make the community proud of the finished
product.
In conclusion, Mr. Fine asked that the Board allow the
use of the transitional area for parking, allow the reduction of
the number of required loading bays in order to take advantage of
the mixed use and allow the penetration into the light plane in
order to provide for the architectural amenities which would be a
plus to the Grove and to the neighbors.
Mr. Gort, Chairman, closed the public hearing.
Mr. Perez-Lugones, Executive Secretary, stated that the
City needs a copy of the letter of agreement with the post office
for the record.
Mr. Fine argued that the document was a private
document and he did not want to submit it for the record because
it contains private lease terms and he has stated under oath and
read verbatim from that agreement.
Ms. Maer reminded the Board that in the past all
documents that are used in support of the applicants' and
opponents' arguments are submitted for the record for each
application.
Mr. Fine stated he will submit the letter of agreement
if he is allowed to remove all the nonrelated information.
Ms. Maer determined that that would be satisfactory.
9 December 16, 1985, Items 2 & 3
Zoning Board
8k'.--1e3 3
NE
After being recognized by Mr. Gort, Mr. McMaster stated
that he spoke to the building official in Tampa and he spoke to
Tim Green from Florida Avenue who both said several times that
the post office would be allowed exclusive use of two of the
loading bays.
After being asked a question from Mr. Freixas, Ms.
Holshauser stated she feels it is totally wrong and legally
indefensible to allow anyone to submit only part of a document after
these documents have been presented as a part of the public record.
Mr. Gort informed Ms. Holshauser that the Zoning Board
listens to the interpretation of the Board Attorney and she has
determined that it is satisfactory.
Ms. Holshauser continued by saying this is a serious
matter and she'll see immediately about filing the proper papers
because she feels it's a violation of the Florida Sunshine Law.
Mr. Freixas, a board member, stated that there are "very
few projects of this magnitude that have come in front of us that
meet the criteria of exactly what area it sets forth. I think this
building meets the total criteria of the SPI-2 to have the mixed use.
By being on the corner of Grand and McDonald, it will create no other
thing than a walking plaza between all of those buildings on
Commodore, and flow into that building". Mr. Freixas then
congratulated the architects for a beaufitul design and added that he
feels the project will help open up the whole Grove.
Mr. George Sands, a board member, expressed his concern
as being the traffic and what will be done with the intersections
of Grand, McDonald and Commodore Plaza.
Mr. Freixas informed Mr. Sands that he drives through
that area every day and he understands there is a traffic problem
in the Grove but he does not see how this project will create
more of a traffic problem when they are providing more than
enough parking. In addition to that, they are providing what Mr.
Freixas' believes is a must in the Village Center and that is
residential units and mixed use.
Mr. Sands argued that the ingress and egress will be on
McDonald where the traffic already backs up all the way to
Florida Avenue. other than the problem with traffic, Mr. Sands
said he likes the project.
In discussing Mr. Sands problem, Mr. Freixas asked Mr.
Fine if it is possible to place the ingress and egress in a
different place.
Mr. Gort read into the record that Dade County Traffic
and Transportation feels the driveway is too close to Florida
Avenue and says it should be moved.
Mr. Fine informed the Board that the project is
designed with adequate access to the parking garage with
restriping of McDonald. It is so designed that if there is any
backup it will be within the garage itself and not on the street.
McDonald Avenue, with its restriping, is capable of handling the
capacity. There is no traffic increase on Florida because there
is no demand for movement through Florida Avenue. It improves
some of the problem on Commodore and Grand because there is no
ingress or egress from Grand allowing pedestrians to walk
completely around the project. The problem on Grand and
Commodore is the people moving in and out of the existing parking
lot and that gets solved in this process and in turn, making it a
safer, easier intersection.
In response to a question from Mr. Sands, Mr. Fine
replied that the driveway to the garage is 180' away from the
intersection of Grand and McDonald.
10 December 16, 1985, Items 2 & 3
Zoning Board
Mr. Freixas made a motion to grant item 2 with a time
limitation of twelve (12) months in which a building permit must
be obtained.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Romero and passed by a 5
to 3 vote. (Messrs. Freixas, Romero, Ludces, Channing, and G ort
voted in favor of the motion; Ms. Basila and Messrs. Sands and
Milian voted against the motion.)
Mr. Freixas made a motion to grant item 3 with a time
limitation of twelve (12) months in which a building permit must
be obtained.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Romero and passed by a 5
to 3 vote. (Messrs. Freixas, Romero, Luaces, Channing, and Gort
voted in favor of the motion; Ms. Basila and Messrs. Sands and
Milian voted against the motion.)
11 December 16, 1985, Items 2 & 3
Zoning Board SC-1633
h
13 (3' X 2') DRAWINGS OF
POST OFFICE PLAZA
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD ON FEBRUARY
27, 1986, ITEMS
14 AND 15, R-86-162 AND
R-86-163, ARE BEING KEPT
IN THE DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING ANn ZONING
BOARDS ADMINISTRATION FOR
STORAGE.
ur io Perez-Lugones
Director of Planning and
Zoning Boards Administration
Mat y Hirai, City Clerk
f
M
cr7
R-86-162 and R-86-163
86-/GOOOL
86-1e�