HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-84-0344J-B4-244
ORDINANCE NO.
AN OR INANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF
ORDINA CENO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF
THE CIT OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE
ZONING C SSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY
1402 SO\ANDA
T BAYSHORE DRIVE (A/K/A 1402
SOUTH BAE DRIVE) MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE
PARTICULESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RG-3/7
GENERAL ENTIAL TO SPI-5 BRICKELL-MIAMI
RIVER REIAL OFFICE DISTRICT; BY MAKING
FINDINGBY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY
CHANGES NO. 37 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS
MADE AOF ORDINANCE NO. 9500 BY
REFERENDESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3,
SECTIONTH REOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISIOA S VERABILITY CLAUSE.
WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning\Board, at its meeting of
March 5, 1984, Item No. 1, folio ing an advertised
hearing, adopted Resolution No. Z 18-84, by a 7 to 0
vote, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a ch nge of zoning classification,
as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission, aft Aar careful consideration of
this matter deems it advisable and in t1te best interest of the
general welfare of the City of Miami and i s inhabitants to grant
this change of zoning classification as her .inafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CUVMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Zoning Atlas of OrdinAce No. 9500, the
zoning ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, i hereby amended
by changing the zoning classification of approxima ely
1402 SOUTHEAST BAYSHORE DRIVE (A/K/A 1402 SOUTH BAYS RE DRIVE)
Miami, Florida, more particularly described as
LOT 4, BLOCK 2, POINTVIEW (2-93)
DEN % E D
By
MO-r'ioty
At
4=
84--344.
'•
of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, from RG-3/7
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL to SPI-5 Brickell-Miami River Residential
Office District.
Section 2. It is hereby found that this zoning classi-
fication changes
(a) Is in conformity with the adopted Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan;
(b) Is not contrary to the established land use pattern;
(c) Will not create an isolated district unrelated to
adjacent and nearby districts;
(d) Is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood
or the City;
(e) Will not materially alter the population density
pattern or increase or overtax the load on public
facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.;
(f) Is necessary due to changed or changing conditions;
(g) Will not adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
(h) Will not create or excessively increase traffic
congestion or otherwise affect public safety;
(i) Will not create a drainage problem;
(j) Will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent
area;
(k) Will not adversely affect property values in the
adjacent area;
(1) Will not be a deterrent to the improvement or develop-
ment of adjacent property in accord with existing
regulations;
(m) Will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with protection of the
public welfare;
Section 3. Page No. 37 of the Zoning Atlas, made
a part of Ordinance No. 9500 by reference and description in
Article 3, Section 300 of said Ordinance, is hereby amended to
reflect the changes made necessary by these amendments.
Section 4. All ordinances, code sections, all parts
thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed insofar as they
-2-
84-344'
u
•
St�
are in conflict.
Section 5. Should any part or provision of this Ordi-
nance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the ordinance
as a whole.
d
PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this day of
1984.
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this
day of , 1984.
MAURICE A. FERRt, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
A I - A
(fily Attorney
GMM/wpc/ga/244
Wn
84-344
ri
are in conflict.
Section 5. Should any part or provision of this Ordi-
6.
nance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the ordinance
as a whole. i
PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this day of
1984.
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this
day of , 1984.
MAURICE A. FERRE, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
I G.' M
_= Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
_ J ARC A-P 0 A
y At
GMM/wpc/ga/244
-3-
T
d�
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
13 -
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO; Howard V. Gary DATE: July 15, 1983 FILE: -
City Manager
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE - RECOMMENDED DENIAL
CHANGE OF ZONING - ORO 9500
'.APPROX 185 SE 14 TERRACE AND
APPROX 200 SE 14 STREET
FRO Aurelio E. Perez-Lugones- REFERENCES:
001
Director COMMISSION AGENDA - JULY 28, 1983
Planning.and Zoning Boards ENCLOSURES: PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
Administration Department
It is recommended.that a request
for a Change of Zoning from RG-317
GENERAL KLbiULN11AL to SPI-5 BRICKELL-
MIAMI RIVER RESIDENTIAL OFFICE DIS-
TRICT in the Zoning Atlas of Zoning
Ordinance 9500 for the property
located at approximately 185'SE 14
Terrace and approximately ZOU 5L
TT reet be denied..
The 'Zoning Board; -at its meeting of July 11, 1983, Item 5, following an advertised
hearing, made a=motion recommending denial of a change 'of zoning classification
from RG-3/7 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL to SPI-5 BRICKELL-MIAMI RIVER RESIDENTIAL OFFICE
DISTRICT in the Zoning Atlas of Zoning Ordinance 9500, for the property located
at approximately 185 SE 14 Terrace and approximately 200 SE'14 Street, also de-
scribed as lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30 less the E5' of Lot 30, Block 2, POINT
VIEW (2-93), which failed by a 3 to 2 vote, therefore constituting a recommendation
of denial.
Twelve objections received in the mail; twenty opponents present at the meeting.
Two replies in -favor received in the mail; two proponents present at the meeting.
Backup information is included for your review.
An ORDINANCE to provide for the above has been prepared by the City Attorney's
Office and submitted for consideration of the City Commission.
GF:111
cc: Law Department
NOTE: Planning Department recommendation:
APPROVAL of Lots 5, 6 and 7
DENIAL of Lot 4
84-344-
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
14 INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
I
To. Howard V. Gary DATE: December 8, 1983
City Manager
SUBJECT: City Commission Agenda:
December 15, 1983
FROM: ergio Rodriguez REFERENCES: Lots 4, 6, 79 8 & Pt Of 30
_ Executive Secretary Block 2, POINTVIEW (2-93)
Planning Advisory Board ENCLOSURES:
1
The Planning Advisory Board on a motion of 4-0, 3 members absent,
December 7, 1983, recommended approval of rezoning from RG-3/7 to
RO-3/6 for lots 6, 71 8 and 30 less the E 5' of lot 30 and denial
of rezoning for lot 4, Block 2, POINTVIEW (2-93).
Per City Commission Motions 83-1091, and 83-1092; November 18,
1983, consideration of rezoning the subject property located at
approximately 185 SE 14 Terrace and approximately 200 SW
14 Street from RG-3/7 General Residential to SPI-5 Brickell Miami
River Residential Office District or a lesser designation, -had
been referred to the Planning Advisory Board.
The Planning Adviso-y Board, per the referral from the
Commission, considered this item in public meeting.
Appropriate material is attached.
SR/JWM/vb
Attachment
f
84--344'
* Taw
�pwlMis����dC1%+tliN1N:.�C,'7�' 1�I,t�SN9tY.Al'�CI�tQi'.a0rti3il�Vi�i" t1Nt�E-.�'�•r'��`�,4�?. i�
APPLICANT.. •
PLANNING FACT SHEET
City of Miami Planning Department: November 22, 1983.
PETITION: Per City Commission Motions 83-1091, and 83-1092; November 18,
1983 consideration of rezoning lots 4,6,7,8,30 less the E 5'
of lot 30, Block 2, POINTVIEW (2-93) located at approximately
185 SE 14 Terrace and approximately 200 SW 14 Street from
RG-3/7 General Residential to SPI-5 Brickell Miami River Resi-
dential Office District or a lesser designation.
REQUEST: To make recommendations regarding 'rezoning from RG-3/7 to
SPI-5 or a lesser zoning designation.
BACKGROUND: A rezoning application from RG-3/7 to SPI-5 was filed jointly
by three adjacent property owners in the Point View subdivision.
The three tracts are as follows:
a. Lots 6,7,8, and 30 less the E 5' of Lot 30
existing use: vacant
b. Lot 5
existing use: "The Babylon" condominium (unoccupied)
c. Lot 4
existing use: The Commodore Club (unoccupied)
During the most recent application process the Planning Depart-
ment recommended approval of SPI-5 for Lot 5 and for Lots 6,7,8
and 30 and denial of rezoning for Lot 4. (See attached Zoning
Fact Sheets). The Zoning Board recommended denial of the entire
application. The City Commission approved a lesser zoning,
RO-3/6, for Lot 5 and referred the remaining two parcels to the
PAB for further study, to be returned to the Commission Dec. 15.
ANALYSIS: The action of the City Commission in rezoning Lot 5 to RO-3/6
changes the situation regarding the vacant tract to the east
(Lots 0',7,8, and 30). Lot 5 individually does not meet the
square footage or lot frontage intended as a Minimum for a
separate zoning district. Lots 6,7,8, and 3C1, therefore, should
be given the same zoning designation as Lot 5, creating a com-
bined RO-3/6 district which does meet the minimum Size criteria
for a zoning, district. This is consistent with the vrevious
Planning Department recommendation which supported rezoning of
Lots 5,6,7,8, and 30 from residential to office/residential
use Sue to their physical relationship to adjacent office
zoning. The situation has not changed regarding Lot 4. This
property, unlike Lots 5,6,7,8, and 30, has frontage on SE
Bayshore Drive and Biscayne Bay. It is the last remaining lot
on the crescent of residential development known as Point View.
Page 1 of 2 '
. 84-344
■:
is�`i}7Y�7�.+Iai=sys�37�'oil rM:°s i.�.• `f•/ta S:
.w..{:.•:g••4+ .y J: •A..�. :.l It �. - ..
ow
The new zoning and restrictive covenants on the adjacent Lot 5
will ensure that the Babylon provides a permanent buffer
„ between the bayfront residential and the SE 14 Street office
district. Lot 4 should be developed with residential uses
similar to those existing in the Point View 5:-a; the SPI-5
district is too high in land use and intensity.
RECOMMENDATION:
PLANNING DEPT.: a. Approval of rezoning from RG-3/7 to RO-3/6 for lots
6,7,8, and 30 less the E 5' of Lot 30.
b. Denial of rezoning for lot 4.
PLANKIIIG
ADVISORY BOARD: APPROVAL of rezoning from RG-3/7 to RO-3/6 for lots 6,7,
8, and 30 less the E. 5' of Lot 30 and DENIAL of rezoning
for Lot 4.
• a
Page 2 of 2
84-344
�;,�. y,,.�.�/f�%{� y,�.�1��,y[y!` r:r�'R�,�%.�r-ctv<:::y:K;�ex?�'�;vwer+'rrs'+Y�•�i-rr:�:-�.-.•. ... - - -
'• �� :...
*....... s. . :i. W
•-�-w� .,,. ��•"�'��-'�--aryl -
• :•Ir. i:v.�t•.�: t••.' •.:.':'1 •-; • . . -mot •.. ,.. .. .. �. .. .. � .`:4: ��L):�+�..d :.:i�. is ,�s::A�W� 1:� �� TT*'1_w...� . - v
N
LOCATION/LEGAL
OWNER/APPLICANT
ZONING
• REQUEST
.RECO114ENDATI OttS
'PLANNING DEPT.
REVISED
ZONING FACT SHEET
• Approximately 185 SE•14th Terrace and
Approximately 200 SE 14th Street
,Lot 4,5,6,7,8 and 30 less-the'E 5'
of lot 30
Block 2
POINT VIEW (2-93)
•Seaplace Realty Investments, N.Y.
c10 A.R, Scott --
100 North Biscayne Blvd. "
Miami, Florida Phone z371-3592
Allen Bliss
1402 S. Bayshore Drive
Miami, F1 33131 Phone 1358-2589
C•ucusa, Inc.
c/o Ray Corona, President -
6240 Sunset Drive,
.Miami, Florida 33143 Phone e 666-6874
Pointview Towers -of Curacao, Inc.
c/o A.R. Scott '
100 North Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, Florida :Phone 1 371-3E92
Gary Held
.(Attorney for Applicants)
1401 Brickell Avenue '
Miami, Florida Phone F579-0609
R-5 (High Density Multiple)/ RG-3/7 (Residential General)
Change of Zoning Classification to
R-CB (Residential -Office). / •SPI-5 (Brickell-Miami River
Residential -Office District).
l. r .
APPROVAL OF LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND DENIAL OF LOT 4.
e majority o t e lots face S.L. 14tb Streit
and property which is zoned SPI-5. Lot 4 is the
first lot facing the water and should be maintained
residential with the rest of the sites facing the
water along South Bayshore Drive. It is understood
that the structure on Lot 5 will be retained with
residential use in the upper portion and this* will
serve as a buffer between the residential and non-
residential zoning districts. The existing residential
area should be preserved to retain the concept of
needed ho 1 in to the dow t
using c ase n own area. 84+344
Y.,+�,R•ir};iLZ'i!d'�.+1.'Y"sr!'e'r: .•ar+eacv a.�.�N •r_•.;
3tt
• -J
.• .. •� . ._. ..�. • . .. .w.3��\�My1KIYLA�'7j.i\�.y ��L4.. ... .. ... _. .. .. .. .... „"„�-�'�'i�i•%:^
PUBLIC WORKS This will c•mtribute to a portion of our sewer
system already designated "overloaded" by (SPI-5).
it -will further overload this system. It may
have a detrimental effect on downstream trunk
mains which survived the initial SPI District.
If this is considered as a trend spreading south
along Bayshore it will have an overloading effect
on 18" Intercept in Bayshore.
ZONING BOARD At its meeting of July 11, 1983, made a motion to
recommend denial which failed by a 3 to 2 vote, there-
fore constituting a recommendation of denial. (Ord 6871)
At its meeting of July 11, 1983, made a motion to -
recommend denial which failed by 3 3.to 2 vote, there-
fore constituting a recommendation of denial. (Ord 9500)
CITY COMMISSION Granted Change of Zoning on*11/18/83 on Lot 5, Block 2
only -by Ordinance 9758.
PLANNING ADVISORY
BOARD At a public meeting on December 7, 1983, the Planning
Advisory Board recommended approval of a change of zoning
request from RG-3/7 to RO-3/6 on Lots 6, 7, 8 and 30 less
the E 5' of Lot 30 and denial of Lot 4 by a 4 to 0 vote.
CITY•COMMISSION, This item was referred to the Zoning Board for further
study and report by Motion 83-1173, adopted by the City
Commission on December 15, 19.83. This case will be
considered at the City Commission meeting of
January 26, 1984 after 6:00 pm. (Ordinance 9500,
Section 3513).
ZONING BOARD At its meeting of January 16, 1984, the Zoning Board
heard additional testimony but took no action on
the item. A transcript is available which states
each members thoughts and feelings.
CITY COMMISSION Passed on second reading Lots 6, 7, 8 and 30 less the
East 5' of 30 to RO-3/6 and referred Lot 4 back to the Zoning
• Board for further review on January 26, 1984.
ZONING BOARD At its meeting of March 5, 1984, the Zoning Board
adopted Resolution ZB 18-84 reaffirming their
previous recommendation of denial.
84-344
#.+i�ip;R�`i}S�Y`. s:....,�ilWt�.t':�k''►.'�69'�'`'wi�"4'riM
y
f
t,'i�'.�f'.'�`�iFi��i bi''-Kt/ ��X >,:Ri'Y', , ,'•�t..'�t .�.laL!`
:({,.r..•:%i'�J•i•'�•1�.•��L 1r.1�N1{L�x:Y'Y�'..�M'T.i't<t�.ii�RwLNrJr'�i41:,
1
..�.i'.1i1�{�-iw•�iJ.�R; .. -.
ZONING FACT SHEET
` LOCATION/LEGAL
Approximately 185 SE 14th Terrace and
Approximately 200 SE 14th Street
Lot 4,5,6,7,8 and 30 less the E 5'
of lot 30
'
Block 2
POINT VIEW (2-93)
* OWNER/APPLICANT
Seaplace Realty Investments, N.V.
c/o•A.R. Scott
'
100 North Biscayne Blvd.
.
Miami, Florida Phone #
•
Andresix, N.V.
=
c/o Ribero
'51 SW 9th Street .
Miami, Florida, Phone #
•Pointview Towers -of Curacao, Inc.
c/o A.R. Scott
100 North Biscayne Blvd.
.
Miami, Florida Phone #
Florence Robbins
•
(Attorney for Applicants)
1401 Brickell Avenue
Miami, Florida Phone 1579-0609
• ZONING
R-5 (High Density Multiple)
REQUEST
Change of Zoning Classification to
R-CB (Residential -Office).
* * RECOliMENDATIONS
PLANNING_ DEPT.
DEN IAL.• Based on the following reasons:
1) the change would constitute an encroachment
into the stable high density multiple
residential area, creating a precedent for
further rezoning; .._:.
2) The change would be in conflictwith adopted
City Comprehensive plans for the Brickell area; '
•3) The change will adversely influence living
conditions in the residential neighborhood,
since the intensity of development is higher
and the traffic congestion will increase- even '
more along SE 14th Street;
84-344
6
•��ry••J,�.!ll�1 r•'�'i/•'♦��'15��-J �• lrW-.lv •�n•�i�.:�•IY' _ • • • •. • •' _��-��R•,.,' .�. ,��ij—F
} 1 L
1
I �•wH�+a.sw `N/II•h�yi. :..... _. �'.••'••V T. •7 �• f. .. .. . • —1'fnifl�w•1-P•1�...i.s-ilY♦
- .. .. �/:. •. .'I,•%•. f•- .rJ ..... .• • .. .. • .. .. • .. ..Yir•i.•.•. ..• •. ••: i•��f.:.�..•l�.•T .:S i1IV r..�iT:�=•.i �fr ♦•t•I• • ..
ill .01,101W
1
4) The change is out of scale with the needs r
of the neighborhood and the city, since
there is sufficient land all along
Brickell Avenue Zoned R-CB.
�. PUBLIC WORKS No dedication is requested.
* SEE REVISED FACT SHEET SHOWING REVISED LIST OF OWNER/APPLICANTS
I
* * SEE REVISED FACT SHEET SHOWING REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS AND ZONING BOARD
ACTION.
f I
•
1 •84-344
iA
a A•,t;!�i++Y'r+i�zJU"Att�►l�.v�t�C.411!'d'!'vr�tfi%;!!i.`'?ro�•;.-:K�`:$v'�,c�'�i:;.•• 4-/"�T�,r�r:l�:��
iiNR9t�t '9t�•iC!+M+.t/f/1y, •t4�.d�•f Vi'�'p'A34�•y6M!►K ���'� - .:'•-
i
rw-w..�vav�.-.�w..s•.►.f+_i'Ay«k�`✓il:YwNiaim%twYd.'`�rti"i..S�.iatiWliAil�%.4w+ATifil2l►-
i;
t ,c, LIFO
pan
J.IS TRgC•f'1^HA S84" sr
ST 'w w
0 `\
�2
Sue `L•k a e� FRp
RACT.A E so q, I'
�f�' I J
e� 6 8 V� 3 M os '! .
1
N . ,•o 1C t /
f ` N �� ••h Jo SOO to `/oq30
�.
,,OH' fo " 3p 7
s° J �o ;off C� --3/6
° 6 ° e
0 affIfflo
•
} %Fso
0 too f
f I r so
/ 3 �2 It Ip 9 s A I
ZA
:! M / A O S
f eT s3 _i �,TE so
s RR v� ` ► _
/o a' 2 3 • 2S 32 Ml 21" �k ,
2 c
X • 2 33 � / o =.
- Co 1
I2 Ig
/so I6 2/
�. •s / /e 20 Q!
m:
2 �J
c A _ (�
E
cT e 7-0 1. BELL <0
SUB. COSTA 8 �f
" SUB.
m9
TRACT A o ,
� Tr
-
'� / 84-344
PA3 December 7, 1983 AS-37
4•pprox. 1P5 SG 14 Terrance
�.tk�4:J►ti:1r.+tl�• �•.l:t�j�gMi+,t1�W�. �.l�i'�1''A W f+!�Ci�S=�!5i1�!M'f�lli�t��'.�lrtliP•'�!!•�1.
.. .. - ....+�,'i�`Y!Yt;�.i�...�T��'t►�!•.�f���.rt� �:�!��vi�;�« • �. nw'^:}•,'-1►1i•i�!!"1: .
�.... _�'•.... ..mot.... ... .. � '� .. ^:i.• •if"' • � � ..� . .- ... 'I:' .. .. .. ..
IIiN•�.t.r w..: y1l. tom.
APPROX.185 S.E. 14 TERR AND
APPROX. 200 S.E . 14 ST.
• p
SPI. -
.Q
poo
0 00
Ci
Ae
84-344
A
Jul
4U
vr
I
Y
..... . . . . . .
'A
ti - C
A%.
foe
7.
Mike-,
tV
Aj
2
4-
i,. Vj-
T
Yv
!L; ^1 tr L16
Ava
IV
-
Approx. <<F
j, ZB 1-16-84 185 SE 14 Terr. &
'am 7 Approx.
�`. �` '.i. d`:: ` �y 200 SE 14 Street
-i.�.11s%is+Rol-':Y,.''iA".:y�'izierertili=Y.:y.t�'J+!~:
+.i'i i�'-•• 't•.TiL•-Y..i�p 4}rY;'�Y �:
.S'�S'i{�•� ...fY?y`!.itp`:;a:X'w+I�:1Fx.7�yegYq:{•".�!%a'yc
1 -�"
`t
-�}mo�w##
r���yiµ�•i}'�•.IVKf���irilY.�iM1�.�M��^T.^'"'S•"..•-��`...rt
�f{itiaY l%iY T�1141�Y�:t1}tr.l\j••%.. • •
.. .. .. r �i1.��
r
A:
.� .�\r / t r ter.►..•J •.I
January 18, 1984
Certified 'Mail
Mr. Richard Friend, Esq.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges
800 Brickell Avenue
Miami, Fl 33131
1 Dear Sir:
At a recent City Commission meeting it was stated that you
represent the owners of Lots 5, 7, 8 and 30 less the E 5' of
Lot 30, Block 2, POINTVIEVI (2-03).
Our records show Mr. Robert H. Traurig as legal representative
for abov^ property. However, if Mr. Traurig is no longer the
legal representative, you dust come to this office and complete
the proper forms so that our records will show the proper
representative.
a The City Zoning Code requires that only an owner or his legal
representative can plead a case in front of Boards or
Commission. See enclosed copy of Section 3502.3 of Ordinance
9500.
Sincerely,
urelio E. Perez- ne
Director
AEPL:bpm
Enc.
HOWARD V. GAFY
City Manapt
84--3 4
PLAMNING & ZONING BOARDS AD-MU1tSIRAWN DEPARTMENT/275 ti tt 2nd Street/f.iomi. ft 105% 5i9-F.:•:?
� :;d�K'iMf7�idCS+lfs+
IN
•" . :.�.'i�::.t:13"r .r•wy+ A ���y ,�yi�'�i�. �;u�'!r-t.✓�iV�:%i•h�;l.:�i:..z'..S,t�',�:.'�"�j'�' _
C
G
u
ARTICLE 35. Al�AENDMENTS
SECTION 3501. INTENT.
This Zoning Ordinance, and the Official Zoning Atlas and Official Schedule of
District Regulations which are a part thereof, may from time to time be amended,
supplemented, changed, or repealed. It is the intent of this Article that the Planning
Advisory Board and the Zoning Board will each serve as advisory and recommendatory
instruments to the City Commission for the specific categories of amendments for
which each is responsible and in the manner herein set out.
SECTION 3502. INITIATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENT.
3502.1. Who May Aooly.
Except as otherwise limited by this Zoning ordinance, applications for zoning
amendments may be made by.
(a) City Commission
(b) Planning Advisory Board
(c) Zoning Board
.(d) Any other department or agency of the City
(e) Any person other than those listed in (a-d) above; provided, no person in
..this category (e) shall apply for an amendment for the rezoning of property except an
owner or agent or attorney for an owner.
• 3502.2. • Consiat�rotion by Boards.
A:l applications for zoning amendments shall be considered either by the
Planning Advisory Eoard or the Zoning Board, as may herein be required, in the
manner herein set oui.
3502.3. Submission of Applications for Amendment.
All appiications for zoning amendments, whether required to be heard first by
the F Tanning Advisory Board or first by the Zoning Board, shall be submitted in
writing to the officer or agent designated by the City Manager. Applications under
Section 3502.1 (e) shall contain a notarized statement by the owner of the property or
his attorney that the facts as represented in the application are true and correct to
the best of the owner's knowledge or that of his attorney or agent. All applications
L shall be accompanied by all pertinent information required by this Zoning Ordinance
and which may be required for proper consideration of the matter, along with the
payment of all required fees and charges.
SECTION 3503. AMENDMENTS TO BE HEARD BY PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.
The Planning Advisory Board shall have responsibility for holding public hearings
and making recommendations thereon to City Commission where the proposed
amendments are initiated by agencies in Section 3502.1 (a) through (d).
SECTION 3504. AMENDMENTS TO BE HEARD BY ZONING BOARD.
The Zoning Board shall have responsibility for holding public hearings and
making recommendations thereon to City Commission where the proposed amend-
ments are initiated by persons under Section 3502.1 (e). The Zoning Board shall hear
35-1
84-344
+vW: vt' �. .r•z.t:'x.ISa+.... ,.t's:+L'.'..:(�a. •`'pM�`tliw�t,W.i
M+C.'9+4..T .!• N!a : :.lyt+►-ii r:.i►'Y+i3•:W' i
•'�'0{,!"1::,3`�i.�Yi,�,r.,.:j:3S..'a:4.'1•��wi,�y�{tA4:�K�fM�T:rfr)i':IMi i'ML � -
t+' x'.c�, e!t1A11!�ii�•L !w.�:drti:rw•a+,r+a •.R r•+,vN »•.•.... �„-.
a
LAW OFFICES
/Om/ Z. wm;e-7�
1020 DUPON'T BUILDING
169 EAST FLAGLEA STREET
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33I3t -1204
August 2, 1983
Mr. Ralph Ongie
Clerk, City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
t,. I I
i..? a.., �.. 2=
�.i 1�� tr• �t.
Re: City Commission Meeting, July 28, 1983
Agenda Item Number I I: Ordinance - First Reading
Application by Cucusa, Inc:, Seaplace Realty Investments, N. V.
and Point View Towers of Curacao, Inc. to Change the Zoning of
approximately 195 S. E. 14 Terrace and approximately
200 S. E. 14 Street from RG-3/7 to SPI-5 in the Zoning
Atlas of Zoning Ordinance 9500 of the City of Miami.
Dear Mr. Ongie:
TELEPHONE
(305) 379.1681
During the public hearing on the above referenced item, I started to list the names and
addresses of those persons on whose behalf I was speaking. Mayor Ferre asked me to
submit the list, rather than take the time of the Commission to read all the names and
addresses into the record.
In accordance with the Mayor's request, I am submitting below the names and addresses
of those persons I represented at that hearing.
Bernard Kopel
Juliet Hananian, M. D.
Ruth Elsasser
Hellen Corwin
Elsie Nolan
Anna M. Marshall
William J. Scandella
Elizabeth Welsh
Marion Bevard
Ruth Hershberg
Gina Graham
Evelyn Fellows
Mary C. Freeman
1450 South Bayshore Drive
1450 South Bayshore Drive
1450 South Bayshore Drive
1430 South East Bayshore Drive
1430 South East Bayshore Drive
1430 South East Bayshore Drive
1420 South Bayshore Drive
1430 South Bayshore Drive
1430 South Bayshore Drive
1430 South Bayshore Drive
1430 South Bayshore Drive
1408 South Bayshore Drive
1408 South Bayshore Drive
Continued ...
-j - 84-344
M
.•r�'+n.�4�•.w�.�sg.^;i!AY',�.�;��Ml;-':Xi�v:�%R►�1�•'lwi''�'!��.t,{,��•��qq i� _
'e.wrv'.+!K!'�..\i►'.a!L.t1•-.}'•'+�.+.r.�+i►w... ..\r ..�: ;•a1• \...w •at.2„•� � �'a
..- .. ,•.z:+'i?�'...'•�.'1i.'7'�?•.•Sl,�''i�J`l.'1'i'ti.•Ir'��•S^•�'�1�.f+1'�ir. r..1�i�vA�.n4\Ri.� �'�•`.
f kJ
M.
Mr. Ralph Ongie
August 2, 1983
Page Two
Evelyn La Touretta 1430 South Bayshore Drive
Howard Bush 1430 South Bayshore Drive
Dr. and Mrs. Phillip Galitz 1430 South Bayshore Drive
It is important that this list become a part of the official record of this item. I will
very much appreciate your being sure that it is included with the other papers submitted
at the hearing. If you have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely yours,
LAW OFFICES OFcJJAANET L. COOPER
JANET. L. COOPER
JLC:cmm
cc: Bernard Kopel
Ll
0
84--344
A i5 V T
STt*%—L;:o C. 7LC._UC';)
es.
C= OF z
Bercre me, t.he authority, t o day
.1 per-cor..-Ily
Rcbert H. Traurij
who being by me first duly zworn,
upon oath, deposes and azys:
1. That he is the awner, or the legal representative of the
J
to
owner, subnit.iq; the accc-7,nn)-ina. application for a public hear-ing as
req!aired by Ordinnance No. 6871 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida,
efrect:Lqgr the real property located in the City of Miami as described and
listed on the pagges attached to this affidavit and glade a part thereof.
2. That all a.-:rners %4hich he represents, if arrj, have -given their
•
full and co-mml e*te perm&ssion for him to act in their behaf for the c:---&e
or mr-odi-ficat-Len of a classification or regulation of zoni.-G- as set out in
• the patiticn.
3. 7rat the --,gas attached hereto and made a pazt of this
affids,-'it cc-itain the c=-.ant names, rrail-in,- add_reEse's', phone rn_-7:cers
1e,,=_1 desc.-ivtics for the real property which he is the _cr.Nmer or 1 e g
representative.
4. The facts -as represented in the application and s
s,_-=-ittsd in cc-..jt:n:ticn %-Ith this affidaAt are true and co.—. act.
R,_Cher Affiant sayeth not.
Mame I
S--torn to and Subscribed before me
day of
Public, State of Florida at Large
mri "Cra.-r-Liss ion Erpires:
T jjOY-kRT POBLIC STATE OF FLORMA
JONDED THkU GENM',L INSURANCE 1AM
M% go,'AMISSION EXPI,,ES JULY 16 1906
See new affidavit dated November 8, 1983
84-344
k
• �"'. r� •
•i1:::::�' S LIST
Owner's tame Cucusa, Inc. c/o Ray' Corona, President
Failing Address' ' 6240 Sunset Drive, Miami, Florida 33143
Telephone `;umber 666-6874=
Legal Description:
Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2,
Pagel 93, Public Records of Dade County.
Owner S Mane Seaplace Realty Investments, N.V. c/O Mr. A. R. Scott
mai 1 i ng Address 100 No. Biscayne Boulevard, 13th Floor, Miami, Florida
Telephone Number 371- 3592
Legal Description: .
Lots 6, 7, and' 8, Block 2, Point View
Plat Book 2, Page 93, Public Records of Dade County
Owner's Name Point View Towers of Curacao, Tnc. c/o Mr. A. R. Stott
* Mailing Address 100 No.' Biscayne Boulevard, 13th Floor., Miami, Floxida
-�
Telephone Number 371-3592
Legal Description: ,
j Lot 30, less the East 5 feet thereof, Block 2, Poirit View,
Plat Book 2, Page 93, Public Records of Dade County
Any other real estate propIrt• •yarned individually, jointly, or severally
(by ccrroration, partnership privately) within.375' of the su:j=_ct
site is listed as folloars:
Street Address _ Legal Descriot;on -
• Street Address Legal Description .,
•Street, address Lecal Descr.iotion
i
84-344.
i. 'v
DISCLOSURE OF C7rTiL"�_qHIP
1. Legal description and street address of subject real property:
Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30, less the East 5 feet of
Lot 30,Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2, Page 93,
Public Records of Dade County
Approximately 185 S. E. 14th Terrace and 200 S. E. 14th Street.
2. Nmer(s) of sui;;elt real proms... and' percentage of ownership.
Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 rewires disclosure of all parties
having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject
matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission.
Accordingly, question 42 requires disclosure of all shareholders of
corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties,
together with their addresses and proportionate interest.
As to Lots 6, 7 and 8: Seaplace Realty -Investments, N.V.
Mr. A. R. Scott and Mr. Richard West, Attorneys in Fact & Agents
As to Lot 30: Point View Towers of Curacao, Inc. '
Mr. A. R. Scott and Mr. Richard West, Attorneys in Fact and Agents
3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a)
owned by any party listed in answer to question 172, and (b)-located within
375 feet of the subject real property.
— SEAPLACE Y_INVESTMENTS N.V.
t
ATTORNEY IN FACT
,POINTVIEW TOWS OF CAO, NC.
ATTORNEY IN FACT _.
STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS: '
COLTIM OF DPDE
A.R. Scott •-bei d lv .aorn� dec-s d
says that ne is the Attorney in act of SeaplaceTea r,� yesttn rs. Va the owner
�'e real property
described in answer to question F2, 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) .
SWOFN M Piz SUBSCRIBED
before me this
day of
Nctary Puolic, State or
4
Florida at Large A-
NOTARY PUBLIC 51M OF FLORIDA • '.f \� '
EX_FIR:- S: fAy C0-'%MISSloa t
---- 10i Z'L� 1N;U C:rJy`tL 1•45 L'\:::..:YZITcR$ _� 84AM3
A
,• •►+!.ir�.".n'wra�l.'!�J i' • ..M� ?!'s t� -24• . •• r•� � .'�-T �i •'�r,• 06
..?I�i!vAi'!riwRAry:+t►,�'LYt«i►tMM.AVt+•iX }'•tiyi: �i::sJ'kYri.:K�•r' Ol�r 1.11je1;+.•1,a',�SCTa�r,:ar�:i•�s.}i't:�?�.:�. Y..r ?,Lt•; �:
r"�:f.YC�•NQ:`�2L:11CY�da1�l� � is Mi ;•'•Li74 ` •iw.:..�•�'•.,rtiti.'!�'7A:.S:•.jer([fs•+:rr•.':'.rn.-�':..T -• - -•.- - - • - .. _ .. .. _ _ .. -
A-- �
•. ' . .. .. .+Jp:: 4.1'rF. .. ,.;.y,wr`tr'.. �•ir •-ti..; K r^•~„h �.::,1'.�. '
.77
. .I•..r.. ..t-� �..�.1.. •r.Y:• „-,•�•-_ �.;-;:...:.'i•r•^�!'..i:��.�C�i+.�w.!:'r.'Ye `•�S. - ,T•'�w�'..�.
•f. .. �.� ... ..:W•�a.a:�r• ,:•r 1•.+�tinr ...K.��-`.w.rr�-ti:,.�'n. - :""Yr�'� •. Y..'J••>..
. -.... .s: � ..1��1r• •.�.5"'.\jt,•y�fb'-i�l.�ri'� .rtl►'..�t: T+�'^�h+i.:.�:'!•: �tiT".i-:u...f::Y.�
_ ,i,- :{-• .`.• ..r .r'^:�.'?.:•t..h •.►c•. JCL '•'.'�'a.:: z::r.'
- t' - �.•.�•�•.•. .v •,•�,..Ltl �•.y:..1h 1y .•.� �ti�.. ..13 Y'_"%- -./•r • Mom,
- i
_ '�.•'�• . :t. _. ... .•. Sri-'•'�.
t
>J� • — " �., - :ix'w.� 1t:— � � — _ v P.., .. .. — �. . j . ' s' . 1• ��, r,' r+R•ws�i>�"{'�--
... '� "+!C-= '�!F;,ty-vr .}s.�_1.�i;••;•.:•.•...�'?t.Trot,�r,R!!'y:�•�XlM�y�pfli'v��`Fq�E`-i¢q .- .. . Z►`+ii/.?f! ��'i,!y�►a�R...rs?.-`tt�rb L '
CITY OF MIAMI
PL 47;,141elr , nN,;`G
r LAW OFFICES A011I1
GREENBERG,TRAURIG,ASKEW, HOFFMAN, UPOFF 8t OUENTEL, P.A.
9RICKELL CONCOURS �G'1 f�
' 1401 13RICKELL AVENUE QJ NoY -9 A 4 :26
MIAM1, FLORIDA 33131
MtAml (305) 579-0500 -
awowAno (305) 523-8111 —•
• -�- TELEX 80-3124
7ELECOPr (305) 579-0718
November 8, 1983
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Betty Malver
Office of Aurelio Perez-Lugones
City of Miami Planning & Zoning Boards
275 N. W. 2nd Street, 2nd Floor
Miami, Florida
Re: Lots 4 thru 8 and 30, Blk. 2, Point View,
PB 2/93
Dear Betty: `
As per -your request of this morning, enclosed please find
an original and one copy of an Affidavit prepared and exe-
cuted by Gary M. Held of this office, in connection with
the captioned matter.
Very truly yours,
fB
•�-�
ARA ROMER , Secretary
to Robert H. Traurig
br
Enclosure 84-344
t
STnTL OF :UMDA)
SS.
COuiTY OF DADG )
Before me he ,,��.�.�.-c c authority, ..._, t,._ .._. ice: d aL'tito l�.ry, phis day grrsow_lly
app n. E3 GARY M. HELD who being by me first duly s:orn,
upon oath,,deposes and says:
1. That he is the owner, or the legal representative of the
miner, sub.•u.tting the accc-panyin& application for a public hearLng as
required by Ordinance No. 9500 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florid; -a-,
effecting the real property located in the City of trdaurni as described arA
listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and made a part thereof.
2. That all a.-aners which he represents,. if any, have given their
full aund ca•�lete per. cession for him to act in their behalf for the c ` ze
or modification of a classification or r°ogulation of zc:LirZ as set out in
the acce.....a_ry 9 vtition.
3. TrLt ,.he %...ons Mttacned hereto and rrade a part of this
affiC.rti'7 t c.cntai_'1 the cu_ . ent names, mai L^g- adre-Sses, phone
lessl desc= iv ions for the real prcre: ry w.Zch he is the c;,rer or leg-'
representative.
4. Tee facts .as represented in the ap-licatio *^'
sicm tted in ccn jv-ncticn 47ith this affidavit are true and correct.
R-- ther Affia*:t sayeth not.
-1
GARY' M. HELD
Sv:o:n to and Subscribed before me
this 8 day of /7�:cz19.
Notary Public, Slate of Florida at
Illy Cwrlisslon Ex—pi.'es:
t:Gii,'rl' fJ6!< S .Ti
�l OP it vivII,i�. /�T V1f./s:
J N . 15 1y95
BONDED THFU G:i:is;1. It:$ . U:4DEiPWkITE�S
84-344.
Owner's tiame SEAPLACE REALTY INVESTMENTS
c/o Robert H. Traurig
11ai 1 ing Address 1401 Brickell Avenue - --
'telephone `:umber 579-0500
Legal Description: Kuts 6, 7, 8, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93)
Owner's Nane POINT VIEW TOWER OF CURACAO INC.
c overt• . Traurig
hSai 1 i ng Address 1401 Brickell Ave.
Telephone•Number 579-0500
Legal. Description: Lot 30,• less the east 5 feet thereof, Block 2,
POINT •VIEW 12-93)
• s
Owner's Name CUCUSA, INC.
c/o Robert H. Traurig
Mailing Address 1401 Brickell Ave.
Telephone Number. 579-0500
Legal Description: Lot 5, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93)
ALLEN BLISS
c/o Robert H. Traurig
1401 Brickell Ave.
Lot 4, -Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93)
Any other real estate property oti•rned individually, jointly, or severally
(by corroration, partnership or privately) within 375' of the suL,ject
site is listed as follo:is:
Street Address Legal Description
--------------
Street Address Legal Description .
Street Address Lecal Description
r.
.
•••C-:r.'E'.`'.i-i�:i�iJl�T jry:ti+: - Ir. :�'+T•••'i•'•V�1/:•i'vA5-1':�rrliif•�t}!4\4.>t7-.F.•n i��.�'. ..1�i�tii�.;=i�✓<L•.�.•�"1.
t�+,.j+'.•�I•.Iw
�..r� r�:�rl�w+•�; fy.^M1i1+1�2'1i.•w1i•� �
-
_
.�,;..
;:�
..:w•'^~if ��3. mil.
...=
l_ '. 14
.i�'i�i.OY^•l".^•�Z�.1y,.
.. :.• r•t•n _',?'!'�-M�, ..y=`r,�
,_ ..... , .. .....►./!�'MYf+Www�i4y�.�i:: .y,•I1^� tirM'.�i•��. ��14\r•�IMr.... r4�Wi 1GN
CITY OF MIAMI
R.70
APLA%;1:NG W;NG
�1L„1. ..) 1 1 j' .1 Di�lP rip,
LAW OFFICES
GREENBERG,
TRAURIG, ASKEW, HOFFMAN, LIPOFF & OUENTEL, P. A.
'83 OCT 13 p 1 .57
LINO^ KOOBRICK ADLER BRIAN K. GOOOKINO ANTHONY J. O DONNELL, JR.
MICHAEL O. ALBERTINE
MATTHEW B. OORSON
ROGER D. OSBURN
CESAR L. ALVAREZ
MELVIN N. GREENBERG
BYRON O. PETERSEN
RUDOLPH F. ARAGON
MARILYN D. GREENBLATT
VICTOR H. POLK, JR.
AMBLER H. MOSS, JR.
REUBIN O•D. ASKEW
ROBERT L.OROSSMAN
ALBERT D OUENTEL
ZACHARY H. WOLFF
JAMES L. BACCHUS
GARY M. HELD
RONALD B. RAVIKOF/
HILARIE BASS
LARMY J. HOFFMAN
FLORENCE T. ROBBINS
O/ COUNSEL
NOR MAN J. SENFORO
BARRY D. HUNTER
NICH OLAS ROCKWELL
MARK O. BLOOM
ARNOLD M. JAFFEE
DAVID L. ROSS
BRICKELL CONCOURS
BURT BRUTON
BETM P. JOSEPH
ROBERT M. RUBENSTEIN
1401 BRICKELL AVENUE
ROBERT It. BURLINGTON
MARTIN KALB
CLIFFORD A. SCHULMAN
ALBERT O. CARUANA
TIMOTHY E. KISH
MARK SCHWIMHER
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
ALAN R. CHASE
BTEVEN J. KRAVITZ
MARTIN B. SHAPIRO
Sur.M. COBB
BTEVEN A. LANOY
EUGENE SHY, JR.
TELEPHONES
KENDALL B. COFFEY
BTEVEN B. LAPIDUS
MARLENE K. SILVERMAN
MARK B. DAVIS
ALAN S. LEDERMAN
TIMOTHY A. SMITH
MIAMI (305) B79-0500
ALAN T. DIMOND
WALLACE L. LEWIS, JR.
DARLENE STOSIK
BROWARO (305) 523-8111
CHARLES W. EDGAR.
NORMAN H. LIPOFF
HERBERT M. SUSKIN
TELEX 60-3124
CARY M. EPSTEIN
CARY O. LIPSON
LILLIAN^ TORREH-BAYOUTH
THOMAS K. EOUELS
CARLOS E. LOUMIET
ROBERT H. TRAURIO
TELECOPY (305) 579-071S
RICHARD G. GARRETT
JUAN P. LOUMIET
YOLANDA 1. VILLAMIL
WRITERS DIRER NO:.
LAWRENCE OODOFSKY
DEBBIE RUTH MALINSKY
STANLEY H. WAKSHLAG
ALAN S. COLO
GREGORY A. MARTIN
JONATHAN H. WARNER
,
HARVEY A. GOLDMAN
PEDRO A. MARTIN
DAVID M. WELLS
STEVEN E. GOLOMAN
ALAN M. MITCHEL
JULIE A. S. WILLIAMSON
BTEVEN M. GOLDSMITH
LOUIS NOSTRO
JERROLD A. WISH
October 13, 1983
Mr. Aurelio E. Perez-Lugones
Director, City of Miami
Planning & Zoning Boards
Administrative Department
275 N. W. Second Street
Miami, Florida 33133
Attention: Betty
Re: Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30, Block 2,
Point View, Plat Book 2 at Page 93
Dear Betty:
Enclosed please find a second revised Disclosure of
Ownership form with regard to the above zoning application.
If you have any questions concerning any of the above,
please don't hesitate to call.
Sisi2erely, ,
HELD
GMH/bwp
cc: Robert H ;.- Traurig, Esq .
Enclosure
54--344
DISCLQS(JFE OF mmpsHIP
1. Legal description and street address of subject real property:
Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30, less the East 5 feet of Lot 30,
Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2, Page 9730 Public Reocrds
of Dade County.' Approximately 185 S. E. 14th Terrace and
200 S. E. 14th Street.
2. Owner(s) of suO3ect real proms and' percentage of ownership.
Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties
aving a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject
matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission.
Accordingly, question #2 requires disclosure of all shareholders of
corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties,
together with their addresses and proportionate interest.
As to lots 4 .& 5:
Cucusa, Inc., (sole shareholder, Ray Corona, President)
(see disclosure of ownership showing Allen Bliss as owner
of Lot 4)
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.
None
Ray
STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS:
COQiV'TY OF DADE )
F14 EY FOR 0AN- :R
ona, President
Ray Corona, President , being duly sworn, deposes and
says that ne is the (Owner) (Attorney for Owner) of the real property
described in answer to question #2, above; that he has read the foregoing
answers and that the sane 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. �1
3F.AL )
SW R4 TO AIM SUESCi2IBE:D
before me this /1)
day, of
Notary Public, State o
Florida at Large , t'� • �'
• MY COMMISSION EUIRES:
NOTARY FUSK STATE OF FLOWA
ANY CC!-W-%1$51CN E,P!kE5 DEC 23 licb
84~~344
rA$.
STATE OF FWRIDh SS:
Ca3h= OF DADE
Ray Corona being duly sworn, deposes and
says that he is the duly appointed President of Cucusa, Inc.
the owner of the real propetty described in answer to question#1,, above';
that he has read the foregoing answers; that the same are true and com-
plete; and that he has: the authority to execute this Disclosure of Owner-
ship form on behalf of the owner.
Z4 z/41
SMEN M AM SUBSCRIBED
before this /041.
day of 1,111 —T183.
W MmMISSION' EXPIRES:
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF 'FLORIDA
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC 23 1986
• IONDED THKU GENERAL INSURANCE U-11D
G*Vupc/ab/G23
taAPublic, State of
it. j
Florida at Large
0
84-344
DISCU:SURE OF CM'.S F?IP
1. Legal description and street address of subject real property:
Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30, less the East 5 feet of
Lot 30, Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2, Page 93,
Public Records of Dade County
Approximately ,185 S. E. 14th Terrace and 200 S. E. 14th Street
2. Cwner(s) of sui,!e1=t real d'percentage of ow-nership.
w'
Note: Citv of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 reires disclosure of all parties
aving a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject
ratter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission.
Accordingly, question 42 requires disclosure of all shareholders of
corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, .nd/or any other interested parties,
together with their addresses and proportianate interest.
As to Lots 6, 7 and 8: Seaplace Realty Investments, N.V.
Sole Ownership - Manuel Etter R.
Grafenmatt 3706
Aeschi, Switzerland
As to Lot 30: Point View Towers of Curacao, Inc.
Sole Ownership - Manuel Etter R.
Grafenmatt 3706
Aeschi, Switzerland
3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a)
owned by any party listed in answer to question s2,'an3 (b)-located Within
375 feet of the subject real property.
SEAPLACE REALTY INVESTMENTS N.V.
AT76RNEY IN FACT
POINTVIEW TOWERS OF CURACAO, INC.
A2
• '. ATTOtNEY IN FACT
STF? r OF FLORIDA ) SS:
COJnZ'Y OF D;Zr- )
in fact, '
R. C. west , being duly sworn, deposes an
says that ne is the (Cup=w) (Attorney for Owner) of the real property
described in answer to question I, a)ove; that he has rear the forefloing
answers and that Lhe sarTne are true and coapiete; an4 (if actino as atto:-nev
' for owner) that he has author itv to execste this Disclosure of 0.,•nersh;?
four, on behalf of the owner.
/ 74
s (Ni rne)
S'v F:: TO FM SU"r.SCRI? ED
before me this
13th
GeV Of October , 194 3 ,
• I�•c:.=-y ?u::c, State o_
C '
• Florida at Lame
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE � N_'' COn;.Tcc_a_c,TC EC D JCfhz�S�10y E`PI'f' Du ;4
1984 'S 84-344
-__ K ___.__._ __._ - — __ --. _ - __. _--- - .•ice ��__
STATE OF FLORMA ) SS:-
COJ: IVY OF DADE )
1 R, C. west being duly sworn, 6eposes an3__
says that he is ttne duly appointed Attorney in Fact Of Pointview Towers of Curataw =:=
the owner of the real property described in answer to Question = , a ove; In= .s
that he has read the foregoing answers; that the same are true and corn- '
plete; and that he has the authority to execute this Disclosure of OwTez-
ship fo:r,� on behalf of the owner.
(Name)
SVOFN M PND SUPS: PSBED ",, ,►,,
before me this 13th :;1� �,+• • • .
day Of October , T98 3 . ��• �' r,i•
• e'
11Otcry PLL711C, �7-
State Ot
Florida at Large_ 'lot#:
Mv M=TSS1CV EG•IRES:
_ tviAxY PUBLK STA.1E OF FLOMDA AT VWR
MY CO!:SIr:ISSION E,,TIMS DEC � 1984
IONDED IFxU G-NERAL INS , UNDERWRITERS
r
n
84-344
•
DISCUMUM OF CRiEMIMP O
-- �P
j 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property:
Lots 4# 5# 6 7t 8 and 30, less the East 5'feet of Lot 30,
Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2, Page 930 Public Reocrds 'l�v
of Dade County. Approximately 185 S. E. 14th Terrace and '
200 S. E. 14th Street.
2. Owner(s) of sW;3ect real •pror.;:.Td• percentage of ownership. '
Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties
aving a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject
matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission.
• •Accordingly, question 12 requires disclosure of all shareholders of
corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties,
together 'With their addresses and proportionate interest.
As to lots 4
i�'► 1
sa
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.
None
STATE OF FMRMA ) SS:
r:WUPY OF DADE ) .
p►�.1,�.1 1 s s +• • . , being duly sworn, deposes and • •. .
i
says that ne is the (Owner) (Attorney for Owner) of the real property
described in answer to question #2,.above; that he has read the foregoing
answers and that the sane are true and cocrplete; and (if acting as attorney
for 'owner) that he has authority to execute this Dis-losure of Ownership
foam on behalf of the owner.
(Name)
SWOR4 TO PIM 57FaSCtZIBM
before me,this '
day of , -i9Q.1.
7� P"RA A
�y 0,...4 jam. 3 k-
1 84-344
r K�
At
a
Approximately 185 SE 14 Terrace and
Approximately 200 SE 14 Street
Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30 less the E 5' of -Lot 30
Block 2 T.
POINT VIEW (2-93)
Change of Zoning Classification from R-5 (High Density Multiple)
to R-CB (Residential -Office) -_
-and-
Approximately 185 SE 14 Terrace and
Approximately 200 SE 14 Street
Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30 less the D 5' of Lot 30
Block 2
POINT VIEW (2-93)
In 1983, a new Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 9500) will take
effect, and this application for a change of zoning district
classification under the new Ordinance shall be as follows:
Change of Zoning Classification from RG-3/7 (Residential General)
to SPI-5 (Brickell-Siami River Residential -Office District).
Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal Notice of Hearing
and administered oath to all persons testifying at this meeting.
PROPONENTS: 2 -
OPPONENTS: 20
Ms. Baro: Okay. Mr. Whipple, we're ready
for you.
Mr. Whipple.' Thank you, Madam Chairman. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the majority of the
request before you this evening and I note in our written
recommendation that we did leave one of the lots out. Also, the
main objective, perhaps we could have the map just for a moment,
is that we concur: -with the change of zoning as it relates to the
property that does not front on the water, that is primarily
lot 4. We suggest to you that tot 4 not be included in the
request for a change of zoning but lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 and out
of our written recommendation we forgot lot 30, should be, we
recommend changing that to Residential -Office. The basic _
reasoning for this, as I started to elude to-,, is that the 4, 5, 6,
or 5, 6, 7 and 8 face directly onto R-CB zoning lying in property
which is on the other side of 14th Street and as the other lots
to the south on 14th Terrace, there, lot 30 abuts the parking
structure for the residential development that occurs on Bayshore
in the form of the lots 30, 31--31, 32 and 33. We believe this
is a reasonable request based upon certain suggestions that the
applicant has made in relation to the discussions that the
Department has had on numerous occasions with them, thatbein�
that the maintaing of the structure on lot 5 which is commonly
referred to as the Babylon Apartments in the department being
a tiered apartment structure that has never been occupied, be
retained as sort of an additional buffer between the office `
development, which we expect to occur to the northwest and the
residential development to the southeast, that structure being a
structure only three or four stories high and with a submitted
commitment to providing residential development at least on the
top floor of the structure, we believe this provides a physical
and boundary type buffer of the two uses that exist in the area.
So on that basis we recommended approval with those understandings
and with all except lot 4.
July 11, 1983, Item 4 & 5
Zonin; Board
_1_ 84-344
3
Ms. Baro: Mr. Campbell, I believe you have
something here.
Mr. Campbell: Oh, yes. At the risk of sounding
like we don't talk to each other, which we do, Mr. Whipple and I
have differing opinions on this and I would like to put forth
those opinions, not just opinions but based on a technical basis.
Right now, we have an 18"--where am I --interceptor,
main sanitary main in South Bayshore Drive which heavily flows
northward and on up around the curve and then on up to the north.
At the present time, with the, particularly with the change in
zoning that has been wrought under the R-CB and under the SPI-5,
we're concerned about the loading on that sewer. It's pretty
close to its upper limits now. Concerted development or redevelop-
ment of the area could have a detrimental effect on it and it
says here it might have a detrimental effect particularly on the
downstream trunk mains which are to the north there, which survived
the initial impact of the SPI district. If this is considered
as a trend spreading south along Bayshore, now that's along the
curve, it will have an overloading effect on the interceptor in
'Bayshore, definitely. We are looking at that from the stand-
point also of the traffic. When you have the R-5 district, you
have a given amount of traffic, residents, service vehicles, etc.
When with the SPI-5 you have the potential for intensive office
development which increases the traffic load significantly in
there or it can increase it significantly. Now, we're concerned
that this then becomes a domino effect to use a much overworked
cliche proceeding southward along Bayshore Drive. We recently
rebuilt that street but we rebuilt it to allow for the present
day -and projected traffic for the residential development along
there. As you know, we put in landscaping, there's, sidewalks
are in, drainage curb and gutters, the whole thing but mainly,
we tried to keep the quality of.that street reflective of the
residential area to the west. We feel that if this trend con-
tinues, then we're gonna end up with a traffic situation in
there which will be totally untenable and it might be necessary
to go back and not only try to redo those sewers which are a
real pain in that area because of the proximity to the bay, but
we may•have (word unintelligible) then to go back in and make some,
adjustments to that street which we don't want to do. We don't
want to have to go back in on a fairly new street and possibly have
to widen it, adjust the grade or whatever to accommodate the addi-
�ional traffic that would be generated by a continued office-
.development.in the area. So our opinion is negative on this parti-
cular request for the change.in zoning in there.
.Ms. Baro: Thank you, George. Okay, we're
ready for you Mr. Traurig.
Mr. Traurig: Thank you. Is it possible to put
the light back on the exhibit (overhead projector).
Ms. Fox: Briefly, it's starting to overheat.
Mr. Traurig: Well if it's going to overheat then
we don't need it. That's okay. I'll just call your attention
to it quickly so Gloria can'turn off the alumination but you'll
note that the lots that we're talking about, the ones that are
in yellow, are the only undeveloped lots in the area because you
will notice as you swing to the south along Bayshore Drive cohere
you see the 5/215 etc., that demonstrates that there were some
objectors within that building and all those are buildings all
the way around and then you see Bella Rella Boehia and the
Costa Bella and the East Brickell Tower and so forth, so that
when Mr. Campbell talks about the proliferation of these uses,
when he talks about becoming the catalyst for other similar
development which would have an adverse effect along South
Bayshore Drive, he ignores the fact that South Bayshore Drive is
.,
July 11, 1983, Items 4 & 5
Zoning Board
-2-
84-344
E
fully developed and so this can't have that kind of effect.
Now, let me show you the neighborhood that, in which we
operate. First of all, I'd like to introduce myself, my name is
Robert H. Traurig. I'm an attorney with offices at 1401 Brickell
Avenue.
Mr. Gort: Boy, you didn't want to let that one
go.
Mr. Traurig: And the property which we're talking
about is this property on SE 14 Street. Everything you're looking
at here is in the old R-CB district and it's now the SPI-5 dis-
trict. Unfortunately, since this is July and we'll be talking
about a new nomenclator because we won't be talking about R-CB
anymore and we won't be talking about this being R-5 since
those designations have changed and that's now RG-3/7 but for
the purpose of easy identification, I may sometimes refer to
R-5 and sometimes to R-CB because you've heard those designations
so often but at any rate, this area from 14th Street northward to
the river, from the bay all the way to the centerline of Miami
Avenue is a district which is called SPI-5 and it was formerly
R-CB and everything to the south of here on a line that extends
from where my arm is here, is also in the R-CB district, goes
from Brickell all the way to the Point View curve. As a matter of
fact, only that small area on the curve at Bayshore Drive is in
the R-5 district, the old R-5 district, the new RG-3/7. What we
are asking you to consider, and we did ask you to consider the
same thing several months ago and you asked us to go back and to
work with staff, to talk to neighbors and we've done both, although
I see a lot of neighbors who are here and obviously we couldn't
speak to all of them but we thought we were getting the word out.
What we have tried to do is to demonstrate how reasonable this
request is in relationship to the total district. I think it's
important though, not only to recognize that this property on
14th Street is the only property on that street that isn't zoned
SPI-5 up to the curve but also to recognize that most of the
properties that are involved here are not only along a street
which has as its basic characteristic this SPI-5, right across
the street from SPI-5, backs up to SPI-5 and is totally within
the influence of the SPI-5 district. When we went to the Planning
Department to discuss this, several things emerged. The issue
was not just what is the zoning but how do we maintain the basic
character of the neighborhood. There was a very quick recognition
that the properties that are the furthest west are in fact,
totally surrounded by the R-CB, the SPI-5 district but the two
buildings that are closest to the existing condominiums are the
buildings that are the most critical because these nice folks
who live here are concerned about retaining the basic character-
istics of the neighborhood. The distinction between what we're
asking and what they have is that we can have residential -just
the way they have residential but in addition, our district permits
offices. So these three lots that were on the western end, are
logically the SPI-5 lots. Then this building, which is the Babylon
building, poses a unique problem because it's a structure that's
already there and then Mr. Bliss's property and Mr. Bliss is here,
which is the Commodore, is a parcel that lies between the Babylon
building and the existing condominiums and what do we do with each
of those buildings. We went to the Planning Department and said,
"We have tested the market with this condominium, residential
condominium, and the market has rejected it and we can't sell
apartments and we would Like to use the building and it's really
on 14th Street and not on the Point View curve and wouldn't it
be reasonable if we gave you an agreement not to take advantage of
the SPI-5 ordinance in order to build a big building but just to
get the uses that SPI-5 permits if we limited those uses to a
combination of residential at the top, with offices at the bottom,"
and we agreed and we have a covenant to submit that says,"We will
not change the structure at all and we will limit the building to
the three residential units on the top floor and the rest of the
July 11, 1983, Items 4 & 5
Zoning Board
-3-
84-344
building will be, could be used for offices if we desire." In
the recommendation that you have received, makes reference to
that. I think that because the recommendation is so clear, I
ought not be addressing it, I ought to be addressing only the
things that Mr. Campbell talked about but I think Mr. Campbell's
arguments, they come from the Public Works Department not the
Planning Department, are so easily refuted. He's talking about
our imposing a very great burden upon the infrastructure of the
City in this area. When you look at this Helmsley project and
you look at all these new projects within this SPI-5 district
and you compare these very small lots and this building won't
be any different whether it's residential or a combination of
residential and office, not any different whatsoever; as a matter
of fact, the office use, insofar as water and sewer consumption
is concerned, creates less of a demand on the City and we will
create very, very little demand with regard to the traffic
flows within this area. So for the Public Works Department to
suggest, number one that we will create a very substantial demand
and two that it will result in a proliferation of uses, I think
is wrong.
We urge you to consider favorably the recommendations
of staff with regard to all of the lots to the west of the
Commodore. Mr. Bliss is here to'speak, himself, on the Commodore.
I specifically represent the Babylon. We think that the action
that we requests is consistent with action which you took
immediately to the south of the units that we're asking you'to
rezone because on the curve immediately to the south you rezoned
that property, recently, to the R-CB district and we are in
direct line with that. We don't think that the living environ-
ment on South Bayshore Drive will be disturbed at all. We think
that South Bayshore Drive has a basic character that has to be
protected, but that it will be protected by this very gradual
transitional zoning where you go from their residential gradually
by having our building, meaning the Babylon building, in a joint
use, a mixed -use and then to the office use immediately to the
west of that. You will be keeping faith with the people who live
within this basically residential district. I'd like the oppor-
tunity to speak to you again after others have had the opportunity
to discuss the application but basically we concur with the
recommendations of your staff and urge your approval of this
application.
• Ms. Baro: Thank you, Mr. Traurig. Anyone else
to speak in•favor?
Mr. Bliss: My name is Alan Bliss. I'm repre-
senting the Commodore's property that I own. I reside at that
address, 1402 SE Bayshore Drive.
Ms. Baro: All right.
Mr. Bliss: I have tried to preserve a beautiful
old building, the Commodore's rowing and sailing club that was originally
a one -family home. It's again being used as a one -family home.
I'm staying there myself, more or less to protect the property.
I don't have a lot of --these little photographs show the club,
the area around it. I feel,.like on the Commodore'sand perhaps
the Babylon, is being given to get the other area and I think
the Commodore's privately owned piece of land has got a right to r
get its highest and best use as well as any other property within
reason. I have been trying to sell the property and have found,
the same as the Babylon found, that nobody is buying residential
today. there's foreclosure but there's no buying. I have come
up with an idea that I'm trying to promote to keep the Commodore
as a restaurant. I have several restauranteurs interested in the
property and no one has been willing to build residential behind
it. I was going to build residential, small residential area
behind it. They are saying though that if we could get office
July 11, 1983, Items 4 & 5
Zoning Board
-4- 84-344
behind there because of the difference in the value of office
space, right now, in the next two or three years evidently, it's
going to be that way, they can see a way where a small office
building could be built behind the club that way it would pre-
serve the club. The club is set well back. You've got green
in front of it, you've got a good view. If it is knocked
down because we can't do anything else and a developer comes in,
they will obviously move as far forward as they can move to
put the residential building up. For one thing, the place to
the south of us, Brickell Towers,. what used to be Point View
North, is 13 stories high, covers most of the 300' depth and
really to consider us a buffer with a half an acre for a huge
property like that is just, is just not proper. We certainly
aren't going to affect their rights to air and sunlight and
wind and everything else and they have been close to us with a
big parking lot at the back and all.
Another thing that was brought up was the fact that
we're on the water. If you can see the property, we face the
corner of Mr. Helmsley's property. We've got a little bit
of water in there and that wouldn't be there if myself and some
of the people from Point View North hadn't fought the City when
they tried to fill this whole area in and take part of the bay
out. So from the time I had the property in 1971, I have shown,
not as a developer but as to try to preserve and keep that area
as nice a's it could be and a half an acre of land is not going to
build an office building or residential either that is going to
affect the property but residential would be so small it wouldn't
be room for the amenities of the swimming pools and things that
are needed in a nice property and in the winter time with the sun
moving further south, the Commodores is shaded by the building
to the south so we have that if we think of residential, with -
office it wouldn't make any difference. Further to the west,
where they were speaking, is over an acre in the next pparcel
beyond the Babylon. The back of the Babylon is only 35' from
my boundary line and the Babylon through the variances they
got is about 12 to 15 feet away from my building. The buildings
are that close together. To make us, keep us residential with
the office 12 or 15 feet on one side, when you got on the south
side a buffer of 100' parking lot from Point View North or
Brickell Bay which well separates the two properties but if you
do building to the west and you combine some of those pieces of
property, you're not going to have us as a buffer but you're _
really gonna end up is, we'll be in a vice, we've. got Point View
to the south of us and we'll have a huge high-rise to the north,
I mean to the west,and across the street, we'll have the 500,000
square feet or let me see, 500,000 sqare feet of apartments and
100,000 square feet of offices that's going to be built on this
area across from us diagonally. I'd like to speak later, if there's
anything, too.
Ms. Baro: Thank you, Mr. Bliss. Anyone else?
Anyone else in favor? All right, we'll now go to the opposition.
Right, come right up, sir.
Mr. Korach: May I use the other one because I
would like to refer to...(inaudible)
Ms. Baro: Surely.
Mr. Korach: My name is Irvin Korach. I live at
1430 South Bayshore in the apartment known as Point View which
you're probably all familiar with. I would like to rake a couple
of minutes to go back quite some number of years and what's
developed there. Our building was built in 1960, the first
occupancy in 1961. we've seen it grow and we're very proud of
that whole area. Some years ago, "this same property that
is under discussi.on today, was requested to be rezoned for
offices and at that time, the people from our area including some
July 11, 1983, Items 4 & 5
Zoning Board
-5- 84--344
A91 '
of the later apartments came down, we opposed it and we showed
a traffic study that had been made showing what would happen to
that little area if offices were there. We realize there were
already offices on South Bayshore to the north but the traffic
was being diverted generally to Biscayne, I mean to Brickell on
14th Street. At that time, the Zoning, Board refused to grant the
request. Now, shortly thereafter; I believe Mr. Whipple presented
to you or the board that was then in session a plan for this
whole Brickell area going from the river actually to the 15th Road.
An I correct, Mr. Whipple?
Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir.
Mr. Korach: This was carefully studied by I
think everybody in the area and it was a very complete study and
if I could have this on for a moment.
Ms. Baro: Okay, Gloria. George, okay. You'll
have to speak into the mike, sir.
Mr. Korach: Oh, okay.
Mr. Campbell: I'll point out the property for you..
Mr. Korach: All right. If I'm not mistaken, the
Brickell properties were then zoned for business.or offices and a
certain amount of space, I think it was approximately 200 feet to
the east behind, for instance the alley which is between 14th
Terrace and 15th Road. (George Campbell pointed out the property on
the overhead transparency) No the one further to -the west and then
three or four lots to the east of that and those were specifically
designated to allow any large office buildings to build parking,
multi -story parking which was done. Forte Plaza did that. And
everything then to the east was to be residential. I believe
we all concurred, it made sense to us all. Also, at the same time,
we were presented, you see the dotted line that starts in the
corner of 14th Street and comes down and then is intersected by
another line --that's it, no, no, out in the water, out in the water,
yes --that we were given to understand, the City of Miami requested
that this would all be bulkheaded. It comes approximately three
feet beyond the eastern point. We have to give up riparian rights
to the City which we all agreed to. We all thought at the
time and I have no objection to what Mr. Bliss said but at that time,
in those corners there was a tremendous lot of debris coming in
from the bay which would just gather there; the odors were terrible.
Then they went ahead and made Bayshore as you see it today and
that was not done. Now, we're not complaining what was done. I _
think in Miami today, it's probably the longest stretch where
anybody can drive, directly on the bay, see the water, see the
islands behind. I haven't seen any other that is that long. There
is some in the Shores and maybe down in South Miami, I'm not sure..
But we're very proud of it; it's turned out very, very good.
Now, we feel that the property in question would still lend
itself to residential property. Directly behind or where is the
EAST BRICKELL TOWER SUB, Tract A that is shown, no, down here on
15th Road, yes, now there is a very beautiful 27 story building
that is being built. I think it was originally 26; they asked for
one more floor. That is not'on the water and it's certainly
expensive apartments. So I think the argument of the fact that
that other property is on 14th Street is sort of negated by the
fact that somebody would spend this kind of money for a large building.
I think I more or less gave you all of the arguments that
have been brought before me or I have thought of rather because I
just came in town but I've, as I said, I've lived there for 20 years
and I'm very much interested in all that. I agree that mixed
occupancy, as broughtup before, is good in many, many areas but we
do not have it in ours now and to suddenly change it, I think would
be a detriment. Thank you.
N
July 11, 1983, Items 4 & 5
Zoning Board
-6-
84-344
Ms. Baro: Thank you, sir. Anyone else?
Yes, ma'am.
.Ms. Ryder: Thank you. My name is Jean Ryder and
I live at 1408 South Bayshore Drive and I'd like to appeal to you
to not change this neighborhood to a partial office space area.
It is not geared for that this little half-moon section of Brickell,
of Bayshore, pardon me, is a beautiful residential area and it
doesn't lend itself to offices. It has no services for offices
and I would submit that there's plenty of office space downtown.
I'd like you to keep it the way it is.
I have to believe what Mr. Campbell's protecting. about
sewerage and traffic problems as opposed to what Mr. Traurig
is suggesting as an interested party. Furthermore, I really don't,
again quote Mr. Traurig, I really don't think that you can .test the
market, the realty market, with a building like the Babylon. I
think you're testing what people consider a livable building. It
is unfortunate and I'm sure they, both the builders and the lenders,
are suffering financially from what they put up there.
One more comment. I don't think that a buffer residential
office and building in the area is going to protect us at all. I
think it's going to be more of a matter of infiltrating the area and
I hope it won't happen.
Ms. Baro: Thank you, Ms. Ryder. Anyone else?
Yes, sir.
Mr. Galitz: Hello, my name is Earl Galitz. I
live at 1430 South Bayshore Drive. I'm very much opposed to the
opposed rezonI and I'd like to point out to the Board that
Bayshore Drive between 14th Street and 15th Terrace is now
completely residential. The area is a relatively isolated,
quiet neighborhood, pleasant to live in, people now come to
fish and to shrimp in the City's new esplanade. The area is accessed
only by 15th Road and 14th Street, both two-lane. The Bayshore
Drive in that area is two-lane. It's not going to go anywhere
except into the bay. I'doubt it could handle any more traffic
than it has now. I doubt that the people who now live in that
small area would appreciate seeing more traffic than Bayshore now
carries.
Mr. Traurig has brought his lovely picture which is
taken from the south and faces north; however, the affected people,'
who I see in about.three or four rows here, all seem to live to
the area that is shown south of the most southerly effected lot,
that is the Commodore Club and I'm sure that if we were to have
a photo of the area view from the north, we would get a different
impression of the nature of the neighborhood granted everything
north of 14th Street is now primarily commercial or office but that
is the area that --here comes another picture perhaps --but that is,
thank you, but that is an area that, from which the traffic now
drains out onto Biscayne from 14th Street and not down along
Bayshore to 15th Road. I think that people come here and tell
us they appreciate the benefits of residential zoning, we should
keep residential zoning. I'm sorry that if Mr. Bliss has trouble
in these difficult times getting what he considers to be the
very best_ use of his property, that he remember that there are
many other people that do not get the very best use in dollar
terms of their property and I Feel that what is needed the least
in this neighborhood is a restaurant on that property. The area
does not have the parking and a restaurant would only increase
the traffic on South Bayshore and it would especially increase
the late night traffic and I would further notice that all the
neighbors or I imagine 99% of them that have come today have
raised their hands in opposition to the motion to alter the
zoning in this area. I'd like to thank you very much for your
consideration.
Ms. Baro: Thank you, sir. All right, anyone
else? Yes, did I see a hand? No one? Mr. Traurig you have a
few minutes for rebuttal.
July 11, 1983, Item 4 & 5
Zoning Board
-7- 84-344
4.
Mr. Traurig: Thank you. Mr. Galitz asked that
you have the opportunity to see the neighborhood from a different
vantage point.
Mr. Gort: There you go.
Mr. Traurig: Here's an aerial photograph looking
east and you can very easily distinguish the entire Point View
area which is this area westward on South Bayshore Drive and 'you
can see that there are two different areas here. This is an old
photograph. I'm sure that those of you who are very familiar
with the church will recognize that there hasn't been any devel-
opment that surrounds the church so you can date this photograph
from the day that the Palace began.
Prior to the change in designations, this R-5 neigh-
Cp
borhood was limited just to this what I think someone called a
crescent. It was a neighborhood dominated exclusively used
for high-rise residential buildings and it swings around south-
ward to 15th Road and .the property which was recently mentioned
by Mr. Korach as East Brickell Tower and the property that others
have talked about which are on 15th and therefore utilized to .
demonstrate that residential ought to be built on 14th are
really within a neighborhood which is totally residential and the
"difference between what we are asking you to consider and what
exists on the south side, that is 15th Road, is 15th Road is a
residential street exclusively, whereas 14th Street, if you'will
recall from looking at this photograph, is a totally office
building street. Now the objective when the City zoned the R-5
which is now the RG-3/7 is that properties facing the bay which
have an easterly bayward orientation should be residential to
take advantage of that bay view and I think that that was sound
and I think that it ought to remain and I don't think that any-
one ought to disturb it, but we face north on 14th Street and we
face the existing SPI-5 and there is a planning axiom and that is
like should face like. We are not only facing SPI-5 but we're
backing up to SPI-5 and, we're asking you to recognize that that's
a realistic zoning for our property because of the proximity of
similarly zoned properties to ours. Now, is SPI-5 going to have
a great'adverse effect upon this neighborhood. These are small
lots. They can't build very much on these individual lots but
the issue'is what should they be permitted to build. Should the
properties that are totally surrounded by properties zoned for_
• o'ffices have residential on them or should they have the same
kind of zoning which exist around them. The Planning Department
suggests toryouthat it should be similar to the zoning that
presently exists and if SPI-5 exists, I want you to know that it's
got to go through the Urban Development Review Board and in that
ordinance there is a mandatory amenity requirement and the buildings
have to be oriented in order to avoid shadows and it would be
very interesting to 'see what do we back up to. These are big
parking garages, not big parking garages, but they're multideck
parking spaces, so that we're not backing up to their residences,
we're backing up to their parking garages. Now what they have
asked that we do, that is the Planning Department, is that Mr.
Bliss's property not be changed but that the other properties be
changed but in degrees that this existing building and some
people don't like it and some people think it's terrific and
Beth Dunlop- wrote an article for the Herald saying we ought to
retain it because its got special characteristics and it's unique.
We're willing to keep it. At first we came to you and said
we'll tear it down. Now everybody want us to keep it. The Planning
Department in particular. Ve said, "Okay, we'll keep it." We're
not going to enlarge the property; we're not going to use the
property for uses that are detrimental to the neighborhood. We'll
just put offices on the ground floor and the residential units on
the upper floor. Is this a precedent for further rezoning?
Obviously not because on that crescent, on that South Bayshore
Drive, there is no room for expansion of these office uses, so
we're not going to have a detrimental effect upon the future
development of that area; it is already fully developed.
July 11, 1983, Items 4 & 5
Zoning Board 84-344
I do think that Ms. Ryder, and maybe I misunderstood,
I think she was talking, about the reason that these units didn't
sell is that they're unliveable. If I heard her right, if she
means that, then obviously 'she would concur that perhaps if we
retained the building, we ought to change the use of the building
so that the building would be used for offices that we have re-
quested.
Basically then, I'm saying to you that this is an office
neighborhood. You have the opportunity to transition. You have
the opportunity to rezone properties that back up to R-CB in the
same, or back up to SPI-5, with the same classification and not
only back up to it but they face it. Then you have the oppor-
tunity to transition with the Babylon by having the existing
building retained with a slight change in use and an increase in
landscaping and so forth and then you have to deal with the problem
that Mr. Bliss described. We urge you to at least support the
Planning Department's recommendations which are reasonable recom-
mendations and give protection to this neighborhood. Thank you.
Ms. Baro: Thank you, Mr. Traurig. Okay, we're
now ready for questions...
Mr. Bliss: May I have a few more minutes? May
I return also?
Ms. Baro: Yeah, just a second. What do you mean?
What do you mean, Willie? Did you ask a question?
Mr. Gort: No.
Ms. Baro: Would someone ask Mr. Bliss a
question?
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: Yes, I will. Go right ahead, sir.
Ms. Baro: All right, Mr. Bliss.
Mr. Bliss: One thing I would want to say, when
Mr. Traurig was representing my property, he thought it should go
the same as the others. He's changed now. I have to represent
my own property but it is a 1916 mansion. It's the last one
that's left there. My idea is to try to preserve that mansion.
.It can ao residential and it can go just as high and cause just
as much sewer problems as residential as it could if it was
offices behind it. The intent of the City, according to the Brickell
Bay, the Brickell book that was put out and all I heard was they
are trying to make the City not all residential in one area and all
offices in another but a mix and match and use the whole area on
a 24 hour period. Certainly a restaurant in the area is going to
help make it a more useful and a safer place at night, I should think,
being used than it would be the way it is now. On that half acre,
you could have the same amount of residential as you could office.
Brickell Bay to the south right now has no guest parking. If it
was an office building there, it could be very easily where the
guest parking might be allowed on the weekends for the people or
maybe in the evenings because the restaurant is not a big building;
it can't take care of that many people. At the lunchtime when it
was running, most of the people walked down from the office building
and that's really all I got. That explanade that's out there is
for all the people in Miami. The restaurant would give them a
chance, the people that use it, to also sit, look at the bay and
eat the same as the people on the residential high-rises are doing
to the south. Thank you.
Ms. Baro: Thank you, sir. Okay, are we ready
now to close the public hearing?
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: I'd like to ask you a question. Now
I am a little bit confused. Do you need --does he need a change to
July 11, 1983, Items 4 & 5
Zoning Board
-9- 84-344
operate the restaurant or not?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: No, he has a restaurant already.
Mr. Traurig: He has a non -conforming use at the
present time which is the restaurant.
Mr. Gort: I have a question. Do you have any
specific plan of --you say you were going to add some office in
back of it, do you have any specific plans?
u
Mr. Bliss: I have had two or three people;
they haven't made plans up yet. Each one of them have talked
about 50,000 square feet or even less of office space and I had
considered knocking the last 20' off the back of the club that
was put on after the club was originally built.
Ms. Baro: Mr.'Bliss, would you get nearer to
the mike. I think thdt we have a little difficulty sometimes.
Mr. Bliss: I'm sorry, yes. Excuse me. Is it
on now?
Ms. Baro: Yes.
Mr. Bliss: I have talked to untold number of
developers because for one thing because the property was in
litigation for so many years. It is going to be, I've agreed to
a foreclosure as of January. So now I can still.deal and try
.to keep the club, the building, and put an office building up;
otherwise, I have to sell to whoever will buy and whatever they're
gonna do and anybody residential, everyone residential, so far,
the building has got to go, we're going to move another 50'
closer to the street or whatever they're allowed to go because it
gives them a little bit more of a view where the Point View North
on the south blocks quite a bit of it and I've talked --the people in
offices say it's possible that they could put a small office up
if someone would be willing to run a restaurant. The restaurteurs,
I•find more of them. They are definitely interested in a res-
taurant but they want to lease and there isn't enough money from
their lease to take care of that property. The taxes were $29,000
alone last year and it's a half an acre. So we can't hurt any-
-body whether it's residential or office but we can put about the
same number of either up so we're not really doing other than--
I'm trying to save the building, if I can, if I can't, it will be
decided by -the City Commission and you people. Anything else?
Mr. Gort: Thank you.
Ms. Baro: Any other question?
Mr. Bliss: One thing I'd like to show you. (Photos)
That's the way it was before any of them were down there. •
Ms. Baro: That's pretty. Those are nice
looking. Okay, let's have 'some discussion. This is item 4 and
item 5.
Mr. Gort: There the same, 4 and 5.
Ms. Baro: There the same thing. I don't know
why they say one is related to the...
Mr. Gort: One is under the old ordinance and
the other one is in the new ordinance.
Ms. Baro: Okay. Do we have any questions or
any problem&, is something, that you're not sure of? Why don't
we talk it out. Why don't we talk it out.
July 11, 1983, Items 4 & 5
Zoning Board
-In- 84-344
Mr. Gort: I don't have any problem with this.
The biggest problem that the neighbors have and I don't blame them,
would be the traffic going.into a residential area, into the
circle. I've been there myself many times and I love that area
and I have friends of mine that live in one of the buildings right
here which I visit quite often but I will have to agree with
Mr. Traurig. You've got the 14th Street, you also have Bayshore.
If I was to come in the building, right on 14th Street, I'll go back
the same way or take Bayshore Drive. I would not go all the way
around the circle so the traffic doesn't bother me. I don't think
the traffic will be problem in that area and like I said before,
the mixed use of the residential and the office building, I find
that to be a very reasonable use.
Ms. Basila: Well I disagree with Mr. Traurig,
myself. It's my opinion that property shouldn't be touched at
all. I think it should remain residential. I think there
is sufficient office space in the surrounding areas to accommodate
the mixed use that we're talking about. I am in favor of
mixed use but I really think that that should remain just as it
is. That's my opinion.
Ms. Baro: All right. Anyone else?
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: Don't look at me now!
Ms. Baro: Anyone else have an opinion?
Mr. Romero? Why do we have any doubts or we want to go ahead
with the motion?
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux; I have some mixed feelings in this
case. Originally, I was totally opposed to this project. Yester-
day, I see staff recommendation that it should be changed and
this is what really through me off.
Ms. Baro: Except for lot 4.
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: Which is the one that if everyone
wants changed, I would actually request that to be changed
because to preserve that I think it's worth it but I am totally
confused with the staff recommendation because this was changed
from the original recommendation. Mr. Whipple? _
Ms. Baro: Because of the fact that lot is
still on the water and the others face 14th Street.
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: No, no. On the original recommendation
when this came up when we had a full Board, I remember this particular
case, I remember all of the neighbors coming in and the recommendation
at that point was...
Ms. Baro: The whole tract.
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: ...that to remain it residential.
Ms. Baro: Do you want to ask Mr. Whipple
anything? Mr. Whipple, where are you? Can you explain the...
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: The change.
Ms. Haro: ...reasoning for this change.
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: Because now you got me all confused .
here.
Mr. Whipple: Well, number one, yes, the recommen-
dation was changed. It was changed pursuant to further discussions
and insight and sCudy of the property. It was also changed because
July 11, 1983, Items 4 & S
Zonin- Board
-11-
84-344
410
there's a democratic process. There are three people involved
and the director has three votes so Planning Department...
Now there was quite a bit of discussion --the recommendation,
�-m
recognizing the principles of axioms, as Mr. Traurig referred
to them tonight, and some basic principles of zoning we recon-
sidered on that basis and there was a particular interest in -
trying to do something that might encourage the - preservation of
the club building and yet still not have an undo or harsh encroach-
ment for the --from the office development toward the Point View
area and we felt with the special relationship with maintenance of
the club and the physical being of the Babylon that this would
- lessen the impact upon the residential and then from that point it
was a matter of deciding that the office development to that point
would be all right. I was not directly involved in many of the
conversations that did take place on this but several other staff
members were and this was a conclusion.
Mr. Traurig: May I supplement Mr. Whipple's remarks?
Mr. Gort: Yes, sir.
Mr. Traurig: The declaration or restrictions that
have been offered to the City say, unless approval of other action
is granted by the City of Miami Commission as a result of public
hearing, the building presently existing," this is the Babylon,
"on the above described property, shall be preserved and shall not
be structurally modified except that is necessary both internally
and externally to convert said structure into a building with a
combination of office and residential use." It was never a question,
really, a strong question on the part of the Planning Director, as -to
the use. He was concerned about scale; he was concerned about the
magnitude of the building that could be built under the new SPI-5
ordinance but when we offered to keep the building in its present
form and to create the mixed use and mearly to upgrade the building
_ so that it would more compatible with the basic neighborhood, then
the Planning Director felt that since it was on 14th Street and not
water oriented and since it was contiguous and across the street
from other properties that are presently in office use or can be
developed into offices, that it would be compatible with the neigh-
borhood. -go we presented the declaration of restrictive covenants
in order to.confirm that we would keep the building in its current
condition, upgraded but current physical status.
Ms'..Baro: w Okay, does that help you, Mr. Moran?
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: Yes.
Ms. Baro: Mr. Whipple, did you have...
Mr. Whipple: May I just add another comment,
suggest to be made here. As I indicated, we were interested in
preserving the older building and to encourage its preservation.
As Mr. Traurig indicated, we have a commercial use that has a
_ non -conforming status at this point. There's also opportunities,
should they be sloughed out and agreed with and I'm not sure that
they're agreeable or that the owners agreeable with now, with
respect to historical conservation, there are some benefits to be
achieved and some alternative usage of the property if it's main-
tained and restored to its original character, so all is not
lost with respect to excluding this property. There are other
alternatives, perhaps not the greatest alternatives that one
might visualize if were to storm in there with an SPI-5 but there
are ample opportunities that we think are beneficial to the
property owner for the historical conservation of that building.
Mr. Gort: Don't sit down. Let me ask you
question while you're there and correct me if I'm wrong and does
this change that much but my understanding is that certain pro-
fessions, right now, are sustained is you have an apartment and
you dedicate 25% of the total space you can practice or you can
July 11, 1983, Items 4 & 5
Zoning Board
-12- 84•-344
get an occupational license within an apartment, am I correct?
Mr. Whipple:
That's referred to as home occupd-
tion. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gort:
Fight. Okay, thank you, sir.
Ms. Baro:
What does that --yes? Mr. Moran,
will you ask her a question please?
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux:
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Ryder:
Thank you very much. I was
wondering if it was out of order for me to speak again. Please,
' you can argue just as well to
the point that the Babylon is
off the water. You can just
as easily say it's on the water.
It is on the curve. Yes, you
are going to have to make modi-
fications in that building to
use it as an office, as a resi-
dential building to use it.
For heaven sakes, please make the
modifications and use it as a
residential building. Thank you.
Ms. Baro:
Okay. Okay, any other comment
before we --we're ready?
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux:
Yes, sir?
Mr. Bliss: I'd like to bring just one question
up and that is the SPC-5 or whatever it is called,'is certainly
not going to go tearing through and damage, we're gonna use a
half an acre of land. If it does damage, it's gonna be when you
get down where you got an acre or two acres or three acres combined.
Then the SPC is going where you can go 10 times as much when
you've got an acre as you can with a half an acre, that's where
you're going to have the huge buildings and we've already got them.
(Discussion among Board - portion inaudible)
Mr. Gort: Home occupations in any residential.
Ms. Basila: That's permitted in any residential.
You can use 25% of your home for office.
Ms. Baro;. Like real estate office. We do -
that all the time.
Ms.' Basila: That's right.
Ms. Baro: I didn't understand what the...
Okay, oh, Mr. Moran, you need a little time?
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: Yes, let me have a second here, pLlease.
Ms. Baro: Don't you want to share it with rs?
Mr. Y.oran-Ribeaux: I can't talk to staff privately mer
here?
Ms. Baro: No, no. If you have any doubts,tt'd
like to listen to then. Oh, Gloria, will you ask the gentleman
a question?
Ms. Basila: Sure, go ahead.
Ms. Baro: Were you sworn in, sir? I don't
remember now whether you were one of the persons that stood up..
Did you stand up at the time when they were asking if you were
against it or in favor?
Mr.; Hershberg: I'd just like to ask a question
of Mr. Campbell.
.July 11, 1983, Items 4 &'S
Zoning Board 84--344
-13-
im
0.
a
.
Ms. Baro:
All right.
Mr. Hershberg: My name is M. A. Hershberg. I live
at 1430 South Bayshore Drive. I was not sworn in.
Ms. Baro: Okay, one question. That's what
I thought.
(Secretary administered oath to Mr. Hershberg)
Mr. Hershberg: I believe at the time when the
plans were made to convert South Bayshore Drive into the status
of which it is now, that the plans were held up for a long time
because we couldn't get permission and the owners of the property
in question, they wouldn't give us permission unless we agreed
that they be allowed to build on that small piece of property
the building that they have present. Isn't that correct, Mr.
Campbell? Do you know that to be.correct?
Mr. Campbell: You're talking about the Babylon?
Mr. Hershberg: I'm talking about the Babylon. They
wouldn't see the bulkhead rights at the time.
Mr. Campbell: As I remember, the Babylon did not
have rights to the bulkhead at all. The...
Mr. Hershberg: Does the Commodore have the rights?
Mr. Campbell: I don't remember the exact dimension
but my recollection....
Mr. Hershberg: You were the last one to see the
bulkhead right, if I remember right. This is not a new problem.
This problem came up in 1970, it's been coming up ever since and
our South Bayshore Drive, which is the showplace of Miami, we
want it to be residential and we were promised it would be resi-
dential and at that time, it was decided that business buildings
were not xo be built more than 300 feet from Brickell Avenue.
I don't know why (a) hardship case should be allowed to convert
this building in order to make a business proposition out of it.
We do not have the same parking facilities that we had at that
t-i-me . They're much. worse. In those days, in 1970 when one developer
wanted to build on the spot where the Babylon now stands, there
was a lot of commotion, a lot of adverse publicity about it and
the developer withdrew the petition. Since that time, any
developer who has asked about it, found out that there's a lot of
adverse publicity about it. Today, there's much more traffic
because of the fact that you have three more large buildings that
have been built and which now occupy the total space on South
Bayshore Drive. Mr. Traurig, who Iadmire very much, who occupies
an office on 14th Street, every time I pass his office, I have to
walk out into the roadway because cars have to park in the drive-
way to his office, on the street. There's absolutely no room
for another car to come in there. You haven't --if you have an
office building in the Babylon, doctors, lawyers, don't see their
patients immediately, they're going to be parked somewhere there.
They're going to parked on the street, the way the parking is now.
Parking in back of our house is absolutely complete today and it
ranges from vertical parking to horizontal parking, every little
space is used up. We ask you to do what the other Zoning Boards
have done in the past, refuse this application. Thank you.
Ms. Baro: Thank you, sir. Okay. All right, '
we're ready now. Did you want to share with us what you discussed?
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: No, Madam Chairman, I was trying to
make my, you know, put my head straight because I feel very much,
I mean I hate to go five times on the one night, the first five
items against the staff recommendations. I think this place
July 11, 1983, Items 4 & 5
Zoning Board 84-344
-16-
should stay what it is right now, residential. I, you know,
these people have the right, it's a beautiful area and I happen
to share that with Basila and I'm sorry, Mr. Traurig, I happen
to like you a lot but I really think it should stay residential.
Ms. Baro: Are we ready for a motion then?
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: I make it a motion.
Ms. Baro: Are we ready for a motion?
Mr.
Traurig:
Could
you ask me
one last question first?
Mr.
Moran-Ribeaux:
Yes I
will, sir.
I withdraw the motion.
Mr. Traurig: That gives me an opportunity just to
call your attention to the fact that when you talk about their
residential neighborhood, you're talking about a distinct resi-
dential neighborhood that's well defined by this semicircle and
it doesn't come up to our property, it comes up to here and we're
on 14th Street, we are not a part of this. We are in here and
if what you want to do is preserve that unique neighborhood, we
concur with you but we are in the neighborhood which is exclusively
R-CB or SPI-5 and so if you want to deal with 14th Street as a
neighborhood where offices will be the predominant and singular
use, then you ought to rezone this property and if you want to
make sure that South Bayshore Drive is not affected by inclusion
of offices, the only structure that's involved on the curve of
South Bayshore is Mr. Bliss's. Now, I'm not asking you to
deny that portion relating to Mr. Bliss and approve everything
else but I'm calling; to your attention everything else fronts
14th Street and everything on 14th Street is R-CB/SPI-5. '
Thank you.
Ms. Baro: Thank you. Okay, we are now ready
for that motion. -
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: I guess the City Commission will
have the last word on this.
Ms. Baro: Well, a motion to recommend to the
City Commission. Remember it's a zoning change.
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: No, I didn't make that motion.
Ms. Baro: No, I'm saying when we move, we
don't move for approval, we move for recommending to our City
fathers.
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: I still think it should stay
residential and I'd like to make a motion that it stays resi-
dential if somebody likes to back it up.
Ms. Baro: That you recommend that it not be
approved.
Mr. 14oran-Ribeaux: And that it is not approved. I
think it should stay the way it is which is beautiful.
Ms.
Baro:
All
right.
Anybody second that?
Ms.
Basila:
I'll
second
that.
Ms.
Baro:
Ms.
Basila
has seconded it.
Ms.
Basila:
I'll
second
that.
Ms. Baro: We're ready Mr. Perez.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Madam Chairman, we have a motion to
recommend denial of this application to the City Commission on item
number 4. The motion has been made by Mr. Moran and seconded by
July 11, 1981, Items 4 & 5
Zoning IIo^rcl 84-344
e
Ms. Basila. I'll call roll on the motion.
w
AYES: Ms. Baro and Basila
Messrs. Moran-Ribeaux
•
NAPES: Messrs. Dort and Romero
ABSENT. None.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Motion to recommend denial fails.
It fails. It needs four votes, therefore it is as if it were
denial anyway.
• Ms.-Baro: Yeah, because we only have five people.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: I need a motion on five just to keep
it on the level.
Ms. Baro: Mr. Romero, why don't you move.
Mr. Romero moves to recommend approval.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: He moves to recommend approval.
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: No, it's failed.' It's failed.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: No, no, no. I'm talking about
item number 5 which is the next over.
Ms. Baro: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: No, I recommend the same thing.
Ms. Baro: Oh, I see. I see. Did you come
up with that motion? Did you come up on item 5?
Ms. Basila: It needs four votes, is what it needs.
Is that correct?
_Mr. Perez-Lugones: You need four votes.
Ms. Basila: Will you explain that to the audience.
Mr. Gort: It's automatically denial.
Ms. Baro: Yes, but we're on item 5 now. We're
on item 5 now which is related to item 4. So it's Mr. Moran
again.
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: Right.
Ms. Baro: Ms. Basila, do you second it?
Ms. Basila: Sure.
Ms. Baro: All right, seconded by Ms. Basila.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: We have a motion on item 5 to recommend
denial to the City Commission. The motion has been made by Mr. Moran
and seconded by Ms. Basila. I'll call roll on the motion.
AYES: Ms. Baro and Basila
Messrs. Moran-Ribeaux
NAYES: Messrs. Gort and Romero
ABSENT: None.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Motion to recommend denial fails
again which means that the item is...
July 11, 1983, Item 4 & 5
Zoning Board
84-344
Ms. Baro: With two people voting one way,
you can't get four. Mr. Perry never showed up.
Ms. Basila: I wish he would explain that to the
audience. I want them to know.
11Mr. Perez-Lugones: Gloria, do you want explained to
the public that the motion failed; therefore, the recommendation
stands for denial and that is the way it is going to get to the
City Commission.
Ms. Baro: In other words, we need four votes.
The motion needs, we need four votes to approve or deny a motion,
To approve a motion, I'm saying and therefore, with a 3 to 2 vote
even if it is in favor, in other words, a 3 to 2 vote is not valid
if we need four votes to approve a motion. We don't have four
votes right now so therefore, it is automatically a denial. You
know what I'm saying. Even though three people voted in favor
of denying it, we need four.
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: It's technically denied.
Ms. Baro: • We don't have --we can't use a 3 to 2
vote, it's got to be a four. One vote for a 4.to 2 vote.
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: Yeah, but it's technically denied.
But it's denied.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: It is technically denied.
Ms. Baro: It's denied. Yes.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: I mean it is not denied in the sense
that it is going to die here. Nothing dies here because it needs
an ordinance and only the City Commission can pass an ordinance so
the recommendation that the Zoning Board makes in the zoning case4
is to the City Commission and this recommendation is for denial
because of the technicality of the vote, didn't have the majority.
It's neither approval nor denial.
Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: But it's a technical denial.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: It's a technical denial.
Ms. Basila: Now remember it does go to the City
Commission so look out for your...
Mr. Perez-Lugones: The decision is for the City Commission
in all cases.
Ms. Basila: ...notices.
Ms. Baro: It comes up again before the City
Commission so that if you want to be heard, you better be there.
�i
July 11, 1983, Items 4 & 5
Zoning Board
84-344
-17-
RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL TO THE CITY
COMMISSION OF A CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFI-
CATION FROM R-5 (HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE)
TO R-CB (RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE) FOR THE PROP-
ERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 185 SE 14
TERRACE AND APPROXIMATELY 200 SE 14 STREET
ALSO DESCRIBED AS LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 AND
30 LESS THE E5' OF LOT 30, BLOCK 2, POINT
VIEW (2-93). "
RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL TO THE CITY
COMMISSION OF A CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFI-
CATION FROM RG-3/7 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO
SPI-5 BRICKELL-MIAMI RIVER RESIDENTIAL -
OFFICE DISTRICT IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS
OF ZONING ORDINANCE 9500 FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 185 SE 14 TERRACE
AND APPROXIMATELY 200 SE 14 STREET, ALSO
DESCRIBED AS LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 AND 30
less the E5' OF LOT 30, BLOCK 2, POINT
VIEW (2-93).
14
July 11, 1983, Items 4 & 5
Zoning Board
84-344
Approximately 185 SE 14 Terrace &
Approximately 200 SE 14 Street
Lots 4, 6, 7, 8 and 30 less the
E 5' of Lot 30
Block 2
POINT VIEW (2-93)
Change of Zoning Classification in the Official Zoning Atlas of
Zoning Ordinance 9500 from RG-3/7 General Residential to SPI-5
Brickell-Miami River Residential Office District or a lesser
classification.
This item was referred to the Zoning Board for further study and
report by Motion 83-1173, adopted.by the City Commission on
December 15, 1983. This case will be considered at the City
Commission meeting of January 26, 1984 after 6:00 pm.
(Ord 9500, Section 3513). ,
Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal Notice of this
hearing and administered oath.to all persons testifying at this
meeting.
Ms. Basila: What is it that the City
Commission expects us to do tonight, just listen?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Just listen and if you have
anything that --after listening to the parties involved that you
can recommend to them...
Ms. Basila: What you're saying is the vote has
already been taken, is that correct?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: The vote has already been taken.
-Mr. Gort: What are we here for?
Ms. Basila: Well, see that confuses me a little
bit as to why it's really back before this Board.
' Mr.'.Perez-Lugones: The vote by the Zoning Board has
been taken but the Commission hasn't taken final action on this
and what you're doing --what you're going to do is just to
contribute your input towards that final action this time as your
view rather than a formal resolution by this Board which already
exists.
Mr. Gort:
Ms. Baro:
Mr. Gort:
hard for me to...
Mr..Perez-Lugones:
Ms. Maer:
I'm sorry...
Okay, let's go with it.
,, it's Monday and it's kind of
I'll refer this to our attorney.
To clarify this, when...
Mr. Gort: I'd like to get this because we
already have our input in here. I think everyone of us spoke
about it when this item was in front of us and voted and everyone
of us expressed how we felt about it.
Ms. Baro:
little more.
Well, they want us to listen a
1 January 16, 1984, Item 2
Zoning Board
84°-344
Ms. Maer: What the Commission has done is
they have referred it back to the Zoning Hoard for further study
and report. The way that I see it, the Zoning Board has already
acted on the formal application; at this point in time, the
Zoning Board may listen to the presentation and the comments by
the Department and make whatever comments or reaction the Board
would like to make. It's not a rehearing of the original
application in that the Board has already taken formal action on
that application.
Mr. Gort: You're telling me that the formal
action that was taken by this Board can not be rescinded or
changed or...
Ms. Maer: Well it could be changed if that
were the Board's wishes. I believe when the Commission sent it
back here it was for further comment by the Board as opposed to
the Commission rejecting your decision for some insufficiency and
telling you that you had to rehear the matter on the original
application.
Mr. Gort: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Baro: Does that mean that we don't hear
any comments from the public, we just listen to staff?
Ms. Maer: No, not I'm sorry if I gave that
impression. It's really the, if anything, the opposite. The
Commission has decided that they would like additional input and
reaction on this item...
Ms. Baro: All right.
Ms. Maer: ...for that reason sent it to the
Zoning Board for additional study and comments.
Ms. Baro: So we really listen to it all over
again...
Ms. Maer: 1 Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Baro: ...in the hopes that new ideas or
new information comes forth and we may have additional,
something, additional statements to the City Commission?
Ms. Maer: If this Board has such, yes, that's
true.
Ms. Baro: So it desires, yes, all right.
We're ready!
Mr. Gort: One last question, this action can
only be taken by command or order of the City Commission?
Mr. Perez-Lugones:
Ms. Baro:
Mr. Gort:
Ms. Baro:
to be you, Mr. Whipple?
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay, we're ready!
Is that going
Mr. Whipple: Yes, Madam Chairman. For the
record, Richard Whipple, Planning Department. I'd like to make a
couple of comments which perhaps will bring it a little further
into perspective.
2 January 16, 1984, Item 2
Zoning Board
84-344
Number one, we had a petition some time ago, this Board
may remember, it was for a change of zoning on the blue and
yellow lots projected before you from an R-5 High Density
Multiple to an RC-B Residential Office District and of course by
those designations you understand it was before Ordinance 9500.
At that time, we had recommended denial of the item and before it
could go very much further, we had Ordinance No. 9500. At that
time, we had additional input and the reason the new ordinance
went into effect was that there were numerous deferrals because
of short board and for various reasons so that by the time we
really got down to it, we had to go under ordinance or at least --
no, I'm sorry, not under Ordinance 9500 yet, but at least to an
RC-B and to an SPI-5, a combination. At that time, the Planning
Department, and what I'm trying to do is to put our viewpoints in
perspective to show you where the Commission is, at that point in
time we changed our recommendation as being opposed to the RC-B
and recommended•a portion of the rezoning to SPI-5. That portion
was the three lots to the left at the top and the one immediately
underneath and the blue lot and we had recommended denial of the
southerly or bottom lot which is the lot commonly referred to as
the Commodore Club. Subsequent to that recommendation, this item
continued on to the City Commission and after much deliberation
and harangue, the City Commission elected to change the zoning on
lot 5 which is the lot in blue to permit with certain voluntary
covenants proferred, the use of that property for office use at
the bottom level and residential use at the top level in it's
present configuration.
Now, the problem with that change of zoning as approved
And adopted by the City Commission is that in, at least in the
Department's opinion, however, not substantiated through the
other administrative channels, is that is --could potentially be
thought of as spot zoning. When this was brought to the City
Commission, they.said well, let's refer it back to the Planning
Advisory Board, and I skipped one step there which I'll correct
in a minute, let's refer it back to the Planning Advisory Board.
What was being recommended when it'went back to the Planning
Advisory Board was not the SPI-5 but an RO-3/6. In other words,
this has a similar type intensity but not as great as the SPI-5
-and that was the recommendation or suggestion going back to the
Planning Advisory Board. Now then, I think I corrected or I'm
correcting.it. When the Planning Advisory Board recommended
approval, in accord with our recommendation, our changed
recommendation at that time which was for those upper most four
yellow lots and the blue lot to an RO-3/6 that was Department
recommendation, and that's the recommendation that came out of
the Planning Advisory Board. We did not recommend lot 4 to be
changed at all which is consistent with our previous
recommendation. Now when that did get back to the City
Commission, they did adopt the RO-3/6 on the blue lot and that's
where our concern came in about the spot zoning. •I missed a step
in the process there.
So now again we point this out to the City Commission
that this is a problem and we recommend that they rezone those
other four lots to the RO-3/6 designation to be consistent and to
be a proper zoning application so there's not one lot but that it
would be five lots still excluding lot 4. That's what we think
is the necessary action and that's the action we recommended and
that's the action we would suggest to this Board this evening
although it is not as you viewed it originally for the RC-B and
for the SPI-5. This was a compromise position worked out in part
by the neighborhood and the community and there's only one
disagreement and they will speak before it tonight and that's the
lot 4 because they have not been included and I think what I
could suggest to this Board, seeing how the City Commission has
wrestled and wrestled with this, if you feel that's a compromise
or a proper zoning, you might recommend that and you could
include or exclude lot 4 in your suggestions for reconsideration.
I know that's very confusing but that's the way the
whole thing has been down the line. Bottom line from the
Department, we recommend the four lots to go to the RO-3/6 just
as the lot in blue is presently zoned by the City Commission and
we have not recommended the inclusion of lot 4 at this point in
time.
3 January 16, 1984, Item 2
Zoning Board
Ms.
Baro:
Those
four lots are numbers —what
are the numbers
of those four
lots?
Five, six, seven...
Mr.
Perez-Lugones:
Six,
seven, eight and thirty.
Mr.
Whipple:
Six,
seven, eight and thirty.
Ms.
Baro:
Oh, because
five was taken care of
by the City Commission.
Mr.
Whipple:
Six',
seven, eight, thirty...
Ms.
Baro:
Six,
seven, eight and thirty.
Mr.
Whipple:
...the
blue lot is five. The one
to the south
or bottom end is
lot 4,
that's --the bottom lot is
the Commodore
Club, the blue
lot's
the Babylon building.
Ms.
Baro:
Yeah,
well that I know the blue.
(Small discussion between
Board members discussing
which lots are in question)
Ms.
Baro:
Lot five they already approved, I
see that.
" Ms.
Basila:
What
is the present zoning on those
lots?
Ms. Baro:
one...
Ms. Basila:
is it?
Ms. Baro:
lot 5.
They approved it. Lot 4 is the
What is it as it stands today, what
I know that. I'm not worried about
Ms. Basila: SPI. Okay, it's all a part of SPI.
Ms. Baro: SPI and --six, seven, eight and
thirty. Okay, those are those four, SPI, so it stands right now.
The Commission has approved 5,•right? Yes. Lot 5, Block 2, that
was changed'by the City Commission. (End of discussion)
.Okay...
• Mr. Perez-Lugones: Madam Chairman, before we...
Ms: Baro: Yes.
Mr. Perez-Lugones:**...move into listening to those
interested parties, I'd like to have for the record whether we
have either the owners or the legal representative of lot 4 and
6, 71 8 and 30 here tonight?
Mr. Bliss: Lot 4.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: We have lot 4. Do we have anybody
representing lots 6, 70, 8 and 30?
Ms. Baro: No?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: We don't have anybody representing
6, 8--7, 8 and 30.
Ms. Maer:
Chairman?
Ms. Baro:
For the record, if I may, Madam
Yes.
4 January 16, 1984, Item 2
Zoning Board
84-344
■
Ms. Maer: For the record, would you inspect
your file and tell the Zoning Board who, at the time the
application was made, represented those property owners who made
the application.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: For the record, Madam Chairman, the
file shows that Robert H. Traurig was the person...
Ms. Baro: He was here.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: who,'according to the
affidavits, represented all the interested parties which are the
basis of this application.
Ms. Maer: Can you tell us what those lots
were that Mr. Traurig represented the owners in?
'Mr. Perez-Lugones: Those lots were 4...
Ms. Maer: No, is four Allen Bliss's?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: ...which later on Allen Bliss
assumed the responsibility and filed papers to the effect that he
was going to represent himself but at the time of the application
those lots were 4, 5, 61 7, 8 and 30.
Ms. Maer: Okay. -If I may, I would like the
record to reflect that upon the secretary requesting the
applicants or their attorneys to stand up, Mr. Bliss stood up as
the owner of lot 4, is that correct, Mr. Bliss?
Ms. Baro: Yes.
Mr. Bliss: That's correct.
Ms. Maer: Okay, and no one else has made an
appearance as the owner or the representative for the owner for
the other lots involved in the application. I just want the
record to be clear on that.
•.14r. Perez-Lugones: However, the record...
Ms. Baro: Mr. Traurig...
Ms.. Basila: You're saying that Mr. Traurig is
no longer representing?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: ...we want to also the record to
reflect that there has been- no changes in the applications as
filed or any of the affidavits as to who the legal representative
for lots 6, 7, 8 and 30 is. At this point, Mr. Traurig remains
in the records that we have as the legal representative of those
lots.
Ms. Baro: He was just here a few minutes ago.
Did he leave? He was just here.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: *I -don't know. I saw him but I
don't know whether he left or not.
Ms. Maer: It's my understanding that Mr.
Traurig advised me, in fact a few moments before the meeting
began, that he no longer represents those other lot owners and is
no longer involved in this application. I think it's important
for the record to show that this recent change has occurred since
looking at the file one would understand that each lot owner had
retained counsel to assist in making the application.
- Ms. Baro: According to our fact sheets, we
have Gary Held and Florence Robbins.
5 January 16, 1984, Item 2
Zoning Board
84--344
5a
W
. Mr. Perez-Lugones: Gary Held...
Ms. Maer: Gary Held is an attorney for...
Ms. Baro: They both are from the Brickell---
fro►h Traurig's office aren't they?
Mr.
Perez-Lugones:
That
is
correct.
Ms.
Baro:
None
of
them are here. Okay.
Ms. Cooper: Madam Chairman, Janet Cooper,
attorney with law offices at 169 East Flagler Street. Perhaps I
can help clear this up. At one of the earlier Commission
meetings, an attorney representing the owners of lots 6, 7, 8 and
30 stood up and. identified himself orally on the record. I don't
believe he did it in writing but it was known to the Commission
and too staff at that time, that he was representing those lots
and Mr. Traurig was no longer representing those lots. At the
last City Commission meeting, no representative from that firm or
from the owners of those lots appeared and that was one of the
reasons why the Commission decided not to take their final
action. I spoke to Edie Laquer who is a real estate broker
involved in the properties on 6, 7, 8 and 30. I spoke to her.
today. She informed me that both she and a•man named Arthur
Miller who was involved with the developer on that property were
aware of the hearing tonight and that they have decided to take
the position that they are no longer concerned about what happens
on that property and that is why I believe you are not seeing
them represented tonight but I know that they are aware of the
hearing and that this is the second time they have chosen
voluntarily not to appear. They were also aware of that
Commission meeting that they didn't appear at.
Ms.'Baro: Okay.
Ms. Maer: Let me ask one more question, if I
may?
Ms. Baro: I don't hear you, Miriam.
Ms. Maer: I'm sorry, I'd like to ask one more
question. then just to make sure that all of this information is
in,fact clear in the record. To Aurelio Perez-Lugones, was
notice -mailed out of this meeting tonight and that this item
would be on.the agenda?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Notice was mailed out to those
persons that we have in our files as being involved with the
application. This person who showed up at the hearing, if he
did, is not a part of what I have in the file so even though they
may have been aware as...
Ms. Baro: They're not there.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: ...Ms. Cooper was saying, they have
not been officially notified for this hearing and they will not
be officially notified for the*.Commission hearing because we
don't have their whereabouts,."
Ms. Cooper: Okay, I went into your office
earlier today...
Ms. Baro: Okay, very good, that's it because
we can't keep... Okay, let's go on then, we'll listen to the
owner of lot 4.
6 January 16, 1984, Item 2
Zoning Board
84-344
Mr. Bliss: All right. My name is Allen Bliss.
I'm presently residing at 1402 SE Bayshore Drive which is the
location of the Commodore's property. This is a hard subject to
bring up, we have --when the original plan was made, I wasn't in
control of the property, it was owned by the people next door
with the blue spot, the blue lines there, and it reverted to me
through action of the appellate court but whatever the objections
were originally, which is over a year ago now, they're no longer
valid. The red area that's directly behind the condos -where the
objectors live has been turned into SPI-5 from highrise
residential. The blue area has been turned to RO-6 (Mr. Bliss
stated the new zoning change incorrectly. It is RO-3/6) from
residential. It was built as a condominium and they couldn't
make it as a condominium and they were allowed to change to
office. We are presently zoned RG-7(Mr. Bliss stated the zoning
wrong. it is presently zoned RG-3/7) and we are willing to drop
to the RO-6 (RO-3/6) a lowering in density to get the same office
as what's nextdoor on the Babylon.
The only objections that'seem to be are traffic and the
fact that there's office buildings on the area. Right now the
condos have the highest zoning of office directly behind them.
They have the blue building which is less then 70 ft. from the
first of the condos at the back area of it. The Commodore's area
is only 23,330 sq. ft. altogether. It's a very small piece and
,the City by their Comprehensive Zoning had said they wanted to
turn that Brickell area into an area that is used 24 hours a day
or at least a lot more than the 8 hours a day, have a day group
and a night group. If the Commodore's was office, it would not
increase the density. The office people, in a small office
building, would be coming in the morning when the condominium
people have left, would leaving in the evening when the
condominium people need the outside parking areas. At the most,
we're talking about 30 to 40 automobiles probably, when
diagonally across the street is an area where there's going to be
600,000 sq. ft. of building going.up with residential and office
on the same Bayshore Drive only at 13th rather than 14th, the
corner of 13th and 14th.
Furthermore, the current zoning of the Commodore's
allows hotel. There is no question that with a hotel there would
be greatex.•-density, greater automobile traffic. So there's no
real legitimate reason why the Commodore shouldn't be included as
the Babylon is in the office zoning.
Another thing, the building to the south and the
building to,the north have both affected keeping the Commodore's
as residential. The building to the south, Brickell Bay Towers,
'has a parking lot of 65 cars directly to the south of it. The
building is 300 ft. long and 130 ft. high. You have no view to
the south and the building -being so high blocks the sun off
during the entire winter for most of the area and nobody wants a
condo that's in the shade in the winter time. To the north,
you've allowed Brickell--well, it's been allowed that the Babylon
go to RO-3/6 office zoning which puts an office building less
than 10 ft., the building itself, from the line of the
Commodore's. So as far as any buffer, we don't have one and we
should have as much right to a buffer as anybody else does.
There is a buffer to the south though with that huge parking lot
and I would say the building, to the south is about 120 ft. away
from the lot line of the Commodore's.
That's the main thing I have right now is the fact
that...traffic? we're not going to be a problem with traffic and
the highrises are not single family homes, they create as much
action with trash pickup and deliveries as an office building
would do, certainly a small office building like the
Commordore's.
I'd like a few minutes for rebuttal if I need it, thank
you ... or any questions.
Ms. Baro: Anyone else that is going to sneak
on this item?
7 January 16, 1984, Item 2
Zoning Board
84-344
ON
U
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Madam Chairman, we have Mr.
Campbell from staff that would like to address the Board.
Ms. Baro: Okay, Public Works.
Mr. Campbell: If I may?
Ms. Baro: Yes.
Mr. Campbell: • For the record, George Campbell,
representing the Department of Public works. We have, in the
past and in the previous fact sheets, indicated our concern about
the potential, and this was in general when the entire, everyone
was considering the whole group of lots there and a matter of
fact, I think we raised this concern several times before in
similar situations in this area, in that, at present the sanitary
facilities were designed for the zoning which existed some time
ago. It has been gradually upgraded and we have been gradually -
and continually waiving a flag, sort of speak, to caution the
Board against this type of zoning. Unfortunately, we do not
prevail against cooler'heads and is now, generally the area is
what SPI-7, I think?
Mr. Bliss: Five.
Mr. Campbell: Five, I can't keep track of them,
which is a fairly high density designation. The RO-3/6 is, I
believe, actually less dense than the RG-3/7. It allows for a
lesser development which is not too bad. We are presently, as
the Board and the Commission both have asked, we are presently
working on or in the throws of, if you will, a study of the area
from 15th Road to SE 8th Street primarily because of our concerns
with the sanitary facilities and the sanitary sewers. We have
made a preliminary analysis from 15th Road north to the river,
there are, and east of Brickell, primarily there are some areas
that are undeveloped. There's some areas that are underdeveloped
at this time, but we have a lot of things that are coming on line
either where there have been variances granted or zoning has been
changed, where --we have gotten some kind of preliminary things
through development of regional impact and our projection is that
in the next, I think three years, assuming that those things that
are on line -now come to fruition, we're gonna have a problem.
Not just, we, the Department, but the City is going to have a
serious problem. We are catagorically, let's say, opposed to
raising the -standard or raising the zoning in this area. We,
because of .khe nature of the piece, we have no great problem with
the RO-3/6 zoning; however, to exceed that would merely bring the
ultimate problem a little closer. Mr. Bliss has mentioned the
traffic and the 600,000 or`whatever it was square feet of office
and apartment space to the north and east of him or northerly of
him. This is true, because of --because of the zoning, we, the
Department, we are not involved in the development of this, by
the way. When that comes on line, when something concrete or
something viable, I should say, is proposed for that area, we've
seen all kinds of interesting things, then we will really have to
take a very hard look and it might be that we would request that
there be some sort of a delay .in issueing permits, a moratorium,
until we can begin to upgrade the sanitary or get the County to
upgrade the sanitary system in that area. Let's say we're in the
midst of a survey, we have checked it physically in the field and
while it's not at a dangerous level, we're getting kind of full
in the pipes and digressing back to the traffic, I don't know
what, for instance, that area to the north and east will bring
forth. I don't know how many vehicles because we have no
proposal for it. We can possibly handle the RO-3/6, that will
not materially affect our traffic situation in there because of
the, partly because of the time frame involved, partly because of
the density involved and partly because of the fact that we can
no doubt negotiate, these areas would be, let's say, one business
occupant of a building because the buildings would be smaller so
that might be it and we can work a time-sharing, let's say,
staggered hours or something so that we're not impacting the
traffic so heavily.
8 January 16, 1984, Item 2
Zoning Board
84-3411
We would recommend that the RO-3/6 be continued
westerly of lot 5 and that the lot to the east remain zoned
approximately what it is now.
Ms. Baro: Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Okay,
anyone else to speak? Janet.
Ms. Cooper: Attorney Janet Cooper. I'm here
tonight representing a group of homeowners called the Pointview
Association, Inc. These are the homeowners in this Pointview
area. I'm going to point to the areas that they live in. (Ms.
Cooper pointed to the areas on the projected map) .When this
application first came up over a year ago, the people felt very
strongly that the area should remain residential and the people
have continued to feel that way through numerous hearings,
numerous presentations by the various property owners. They have
been down here in force to Zoning Board meetings and Commission
meetings and the ones who live here who were not out of the
country at the time, over three hundred of them signed petition
forms and I will pass these twenty'sheets around to you so you
can see just how many were able to sign there names in opposition
to any change of zoning. (Ms. Cooper handed the petitions to the
Board)
We had a very difficult situation with this application
because it became very complex with three different property'
pwners and everyone wanting something different. We were able to
resolve the issue of the Babylon which was an existing structure,
through some very serious negotiation with the owner of that
property, and what we were able to accomplish on that property
was a wonderful opportunity to provide a very good transition
from residential to office. The SPI-5, as you know, is a very
high density office use and which occurs to the west of the
properties that are being applied for and the property RG-3/7 is
strictly residential. It continues the residential area of
Brickell Avenue and is a wholly residential character. There's
only two ways to get to this property, that's on 14th Street and
15th Street and on the 15th Street side, except for the corner
which faces right on Brickell Avenue, it's all residential. It's
really a residential character. We're very opposed to putting
any.form of office in that area. The Babylon will have some
office use -but it will be restricted as to how much of the
building can be used. We have restrictions such as: parking
restriction's; restrictions on where the signs can be, there can
be no signs placed on the South Bayshore side of that property or
even visible.from that side of the property.
Ms. Basila: You're talking about lot 5?
Ms. Cooper: ..I'm talking about lot 5.
Ms. Basila: Thank you.
Ms. Cooper: We put a lot of conditions on there
which have been encompassed in a restrictive covenant which has
been recorded in the Dade County records and which are record and
binding for thirty years minimum and we feel that even more than
the RO-3/6 being a transition type of zoning, the agreement that
we have reached on that property makes it an even better
transition. If we were to see office going on the -residential
side of that transition, it'would defeat the entire purpose of
everything that we've worked for and that the Commission approved
of in giving the RO-3/6 zoning on that property and approving of
the restrictive covenants as part of that approval of the change
of zoning.
We have no problem and we definitely support both the
Planning Department and the Public Works Department in their
recommendation of changing the four lots to the west to RO-3/6 in
order to avoid any spot zoning problem that the City might have
but we strongly oppose any intrusion of office use with its
traffic and bringing strangers into the neighborhood and all
9 January 16, 1984, Item 2
Zoning Board
84-344
kinds of other problems that we see with office use into this
residential area. One of the most important things is the
traffic and one of the conditions that we were able to work out
with the Babylon people is that they would be paying for a
traffic study to be done and any improvements that would be
necessary in order to prevent office traffic from coming on to
South Bayshore Drive and as you can see, the area between lots 5
and 6 and I'm going to point to it in.just a second, provides a
natural break between 14th Street which will be developed in an
office fashion because of the zoning already on that street and
South Bayshore Drive which is residential. I'm going to point to
that now. This is residential and this is office and we think
that it makes perfect sense because of the structure and the
location of the property to retain the residential character of
lot 4 and to allow the other properties to be used for offices.
If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them
but I'm trying to keep it brief and to the point tonight.
Ms. Baro: Do you have any questions before
Mr. Bliss has the chance to rebutt? Anyone else speaking on this
issue? Okay, do you hAve any questions before we have Mr. Bliss?
No? All right, we'll hear from you now, sir.
Mr. Bliss: Thank you. One I want to point
out, there's several things, one is that Bayshore Drive, as you
know, goes all the way from 15th Road up to beyond the Four
Ambassadors, and diagonally across the street is the area that I
was talking about where 500,000 sq. ft. of building is going to
be put. Cars drive down Bayshore Drive from the Four Ambassadors
all the time and swing around that curve just as easily as they
can take a right to 14th Street, but we're talking about a little
piece of property, about a half -acre, and how that is going to
damage the whole area there. If it does damage it then what
right has anybody to put an office building up aside of mine
where I am completely trapped between a huge condominium on one
side and an office building on the other. She said that the
building will be both residential and office. Eighty percent of
it is going to be office. They're even hoping to increase the
density by 5,000 approximately square feet by enclosing their
hal.nnniPR_ I've been anuroached to lease them seventeen extra
parking spaces. So I mea
_ done. where they're trying
Commodore's to satisfy of
proper. When those three
there, were started, was
• of 831, I didn't have cor
first meeting in June of
Traurig was.representing
section that you see then
the highest office zoninc
than 100 ft. from all of
�
us and that area, as you
least twice the size of t
yellow section to the not
is two or three times lai
streets. They're city st
area, they call that resi
certainly, than a lot of
patting four -five hundrec
that area right now ever)
forty cars when you've gc
out the sunlight, blocks
building 10 ft. to the nc
variances and this same c
now, went down and voted
Babylon could be built w;
years ago with a very dei
we couldn't build a larg(
combining the two pieces
a, it is an improper UA.tng that's being
to sacrifice the property of the
her interests and I don't think it is
hundred names or however they have
in January or December of 82' or January
trol of the property. I went to the
this last summer. Before that, Mr.
our property and before that; the red
e'was residential. Now.that section is
going and that red area there is less
the condominiums that are objecting to
can see, is probably three times, at
he Commodore's area. The same with the
th, northwest of the Babylon, that area
ger. People are going to go on the
reefs. The residential people in that
denti.al but they cause more density,
small'.office buildings. They are
cars, at least three hundred cars in
day. We're talking about objecting to
t a huge building, as I say, that blocks
out the view to the south and an office
rth that was built with all kinds of
rganization that is opposing my place
for all those variances so that the
th those variances back three or four
finite purpose in mind, to make sure that
r condominium on our property by
They aren't coming with clean hands
10 January 16, 1984, Item 2
Zoning Board
84-344
.
when they're trying to do this kind of stuff and there's a lot of
other things that we're doing involved with it too, but I just
want you to treat it as a small piece of property that, if it's
unfair and they need buffer, you've got a buffer to the south of
the of a 65 ft. parking lot, 120 ft. from the building and a huge
building. To the north of me you've got an office building.
There's no reason why we shouldn't have the same zoning as that
of the Babylon. Thank you.
Ms. Baro: Thank you, Mr. Bliss. Okay, any
comments on the part of the Board? Any questions? You need any
information from staff? We have to make some sort of
recommendation one way or the other. Staff has changed its...
Well?
Mr. Gort: One more time for the record...
Ms. Baro: One more time, are we going to... .
Mr. Gort: I said it the first time it was in
front of us in here....
Ms. Basila: Can't hear you, Willy.
Ms. Baro: Turn on your.mike.
Mr. Gort: The first it was here, if we're
gonna do this, I think it should be uniform. I think if we stop.
at 5, allow 4 to remain would be unfair for this gentleman to
develop his property there. If you're talking about buffer zone,
the existing building that is in there has got plenty of land,
and the parking structure on the north of it and west of it to
maintain as a buffer zone. I'd be in favor of changing the whole
thing to RO-3/6.
Mr. Romero: Is that a motion?
Ms. Baro: No.
Mr. Gort: It's my thought. If they want it a
motion, I.111 make it a motion.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: A transcript of this will be given
to the Commission for them, you know...
Ms:.B4ro: Yeah. Any other comments? Gloria?
Ms. Basila: No, I consistently at the very
beginning voted against this.. I feel that none of it should have
been changed to start with but since they have changed it, I
don't think that it should go any further myself, because I feel
it's a beautiful residential area and that it doesn't need to be
intruded upon further. That's just my opinion.
Ms. Baro: Well I think only the lot 5 was
changed. As a result, I think the staff is recommending that the
others be changed now, 6, 7, 8 and 30.
Ms. Basila: .I,'ve stated how I feel about it.
Ms. Baro: Okay. Anyone else? Well I believe
I was one of the ones that voted with Gloria and Mr. Moran, who
is not here, against changing any of it at all and that's the way
I feel. So what do we do now, Mr. Perez? Do we go on with --do
we just simply repeat and have a transcript of this given to the
Commission for them to make the final decision or do we have to
come up with another recommendation?
Ms. Maer: (Not speaking into mike) I think
they need a recommendation to the City Commission.
11 January 16, 1984, Item 2
Zoning Board
84-344'
I
Ms. Baro: Miriam.
Ms. Maer: I'm sorry, I believe the Commission
would prefer a recommendation from this Board.
Ms. Baro: They would prefer a recommendation?
Because the way we stand right now, well, I haven't heard from
Mr. Romero.
Mr. Romero: I have the same feeling as Mr.
Gort.
Ms. Baro: Oh, he votes with Mr. Gort, or that
is how he feels and what about Mr. DeYurre?
Mr. DeYurre:
Ms. Baro:
Mr. Perez-Lugones:
Ms. Baro:
(Mumbled a few words. Inaudible.)
What did you say?
Madam Chairman?
Yes?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: The Board could make a motion,.in
this case, that the feeling of --in the view of the members
present, you know, whatever...
Ms. Baro: All right, do you want a motion?
Do you want this in form of a motion?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Well, it is not a --let me put it
this way. As you're going to be speaking...
Ms. Baro: Or do you want a statement made to
the effect how the Board feels?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Individually, you have already
expressed your views...
Ms. Baro: Yes.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: ...and the record is going to
reflect.that in the transcript that is going to be given to the
City Commission but if you want to go one step further, it is not
a.motion that will supersede your previous one, that action is
_final, but if -you want to makea recommendation to the Commission
in form of a'motion which will not supersede the previous one...
Ms. Baro: .•I don't understand because if we
make a recommendation...
Mr. Gort:
There's no way you...
Ms. Baro: ...How can you make a
recommendation that will not change our original motion?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: I don't, I don't...
Ms. Maer: I'm sorry, but are you confirming
what you did before?
Ms. Baro: No, we want to know exactly what
action to take. At this point, we feel the same way we felt the
last time...
Ms. Maer: Then I would suggest...
Ms. Baro: ...Gloria and I feel the same way
we felt the last time, Willy and Romero do, too. Now, one of our
members is not here and the other member, Mr. DeYurre--I'm sorry
if I can't pronounce it--DeYurre...
12 January 16, 1984, Item 2
Zoning Board
84-344
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Victor.
Ms. Baro: ...was not here and he feels that
perhaps we should vote on --maybe you should express your opinion
because we do need to hear from the whole Board, not just from
the four of us.
Mr. DeYurre: Well, the thing is, are we going to
put this into a vote or not? Does my opinion...
Ms. Baro: No.
Mr. DeYurre: ...alter a vote?
Ms. Baro: Let me explain that this came to us
before and we went through, we've listened to the --and we put a
motion denying, recommending denial, that's how it went through
to the City Commission. So we already voted on this. Now it's
come back to us for us to listen to more testimony...
'' Mr. Gort: And give our comments how we feel
about it.
Ms. Baro: ...and for us to come back and give
them* our thoughts on the matter. That's what the City wants.
Mr. DeYurre: Okay, well if I'm the only one
left, I'd be in favor of changing it. I don't see any reason why
not. There's a lot of office buildings all around that area to
begin with and I really don't see any reason why it shouldn't be
changed, so I go along with Willy and Romero that it should be
changed.
Ms. 'Baro: So the consensus of the Board is
that Mr. Moran -"I mean, Mr. Gort, Mr. Romero and Mr. DeYurre feel
that there's no reason why the whole thing can't be --in other
words, they stand the way they stood before.
Ms. Maer: Okay.
Ms. Baro: You remember at the last meeting.
They have the same opinion and Gloria and I stand pat on what the
opinion was the last time.
Mq. -Maer: .1 think that...
Ms. Basila: I feel that none of it should have
ever been changed.
Ms. Baro: In other words, the...
Mr. Gort: No motion, move it...
Ms. Baro: • ...Department is recommending that
we go ahead and make these changes except for lot 4, that's what
the Department is recommending.. The City Commission already took
action on lot 5. We stand, Gloria and I stand on the same --what
is it? --idea, well, you know..:
Ms. Maer: Right, right. I understand.
Ms. Baro: ...the same thought that none of it
should have --should be changed at all.
13 January 16, 1984, Item 2
Zoning Board
84-344
■
0
r:
Ms. Maer: Right, okay. I think that what the
Board has the option of doing is rescinding its prior action if
that's what the Board desires and making a new motion
recommending approval or recommending denial or if the Board did
not wish to rescind its prior action and would make a motion that
was not inconsistent with its prior resolution which was sent to
the City Commission in the form of a recommendation, then the
Board could pass such a motion. On the other hand...
Mr. Gort: Madam Chairperson, let me save you
some time. I'm not going to make any motions. I think to make
motion right now with a split Board and five members being here
only it's not going to pass, so what we're doing is expressing
our comments, the Commission's got our comments so I hope they
could stand on it.
Ms. Maer: That's the third option that you
have.
Ms. Baro: . , Well, that's what we're doing.
Ms. Maer: If you don't wish to rescind you
prior action and start over again and you don't wish to make
another motion, then you just state your comments for the record
and the transcript is forwarded to the City Commission.
Ms. Baro: Well we have. We have stated our
comments. Even if we were to rescind and go back, we'd come out
the same way, it would be 3 to 2 which be constituting denial
again...
Ms. Maer: Right.
Ms. Baro: ...so therefore, it's really
useless to do it.all. So they'll have to read the minutes from
this meeting and take it from there. Okay? Can we go on to
item --what is it, three? four?
14
January 16, 1984, Item 2
Zoning Board
84-344
HISTORY
Zoning Board
12/13/82
Item 6
Deferred.
Zoning Board
7/11/83
Items 4 & 5
Recommend DENIAL.
City Commission
7/28/83
Item 11
First Reading continued until 9/29/83.
City Commission
9/29183
Item 13
First Reading continued until 10/27/83.
City Commission
10/27/83
Item 31
Passed on First Reading.
City Commission
11 /18/83
Item 27
Referred Item back to Planning Advisory
Board re lots 4, 6, 7, 8, & 30. Lot 5
changed to RO - 3/6 on Second Reading.
Planning Advisory
Board
12/ 7/83
Item 4
Recommend approval to RO- 3/6 on Lots
6,7,8, & 30 & denial of Lot 4.
- City Commission
12/15/83
Item 14
Referred to Zoning Board.
Zoning Board
1/16/84
Item 2
Took no action.
City Commission
1/26/84
Item 20
Changed lots 6,7,8, & 30 to RO-3/6 Second
Reading - Lot 4 referred to Zoning Board.
Zoning Board
2/13/84
Item
Deferred due to improper notice.
Zoning Board
3/5/84
Item
Recommended denial by 7-0 vote.
84-344
+ LAW OFFICES
lewel 2' Wo
�: r
1020 DUPONT BUILDING
189 EAST FLAGLER STREET
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131.1204
TELEPHONE. (3o4#- -{s99
February 29, 1984
Jose Garcia -Pedrosa, City Attorney
City of Miami
Eleventh floor, Alfred I. Dupont Bldg.
169 East Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33129
RE: Comodores Club
Dear Jose:
At the February 13, 1984, Zoning Board hearing, Assistant City Attorney Miriam
Maer ruled that the matter of the Comodores Club request for rezoning could not
be properly heard by the Zoning Board that night due to an error in the address
used for legal advertisements and other forms of required notice. See enclosed
transcript.
Upon review of the file, I find that the matter has never been correctly advertised
or noticed using the correct street address.
Therefore, it is my position that any and all actions taken by the Zoning Board,
Planning Advisory Board, and the City Commission, including continuances,
deferrals, referrals to the Planning Advisory Board and the Zoning Board were
invalid because they were actions taken at meetings for which no proper notice was
given.
As a result, this item must be deemed to be denied because the required acts of the
various boards were not undertaken within the time periods required by the code. I
specifically refer you to Sections 3508.1 and 3513 of Ordinance 9500, and Article
XXX Sections 8 and 13 of Ordinance 6971 for those provisions of the code which
would require that this matter be denied.
I have received a certified letter notifying me that the matter has been
rescheduled before the Zoning Board for Monday, March 5, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. The
item is also scheduled to re'tirn to the City Commission on Thursday, March 22,
1984, at 6:00 p.m. If it is possible to have a ruling from your office before the
Zoning Board meeting, I believe that all parties would benefit from the savings in
time and effort which would be required to attend hearings )n a matter which is
technically dead.
84-344
-L._..- - I- - - mot. - - A--- --. ! - 3 . & - . . . . . - - _ . - .. .
Jose Garcia Pedrosa
Page 2
February 299 1994
I would be pleased to meet with you to discuss this matter in more detail. Please
call upon me at your convenience.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response at
your earliest convenience.
Very truly yours,
LAN OFFICES OF JANET L. COOPER
JMET L
JANET L. COOPER
JLC:vs
9-122-1
cc: Miriam Maer, Assistant City Attorney
Ralph Ongie, City Clerk
Aurelio Perez-Lugones
Department of Administration, Planning, and Zoning Boards
Bernard Kopel, President
Point View Association, Inc.,
84--344
— ••••• .,^WVN.aw ^V rnw tl 1a
I
Ms. Cooper: ...with offices at 169 East Flagler
Street. ;apt„
Mr. Gort: Uh huh. �.�AF��,p
Ms. Cooper: We --I'm here representing the Point '� ��l/�
View Association, homeowners in the area. y
Mr. Gort: Right.
Ms. Cooper: We're not aware of any irregularity
in the advertising and we...
_ Mr. Gort: Well, Ms. Cooper, I was just
informed ... Ms. Maer, will you inform the Board and Ms. Cooper
what you just told me.
Ms. Maer: The atlas indicates that the proper
address is Southeast Bayshore Drive. Mr. Bliss represented that
his property is located at Southeast Bayshore Drive and the
advertising was done for South Bayshore Drive.
Ms. Cooper: Well, if I may add to that. There
is some confusion as to what the actual name of that street is
but it has commonly been referred to by both names. The
advertisements since the beginning of this item which were well
over a year have been consistent and everyone in the
neighborhood, I believe, well all the people I represent, are
aware of this item being here tonight...
Mr. Gort: Ms. Cooper, I appreciate...
Ms. Cooper: ...we will not object as a matter
of notice.
_ Mr. Gort: ...I appreciate you trying to
enlighten us but I would like to get the ... our attorney's opinion
and we have to abide by that.
Ms. Cooper: Oh, I'm not...
Ms. Maer: Mr. Chairman, if you give me a
moment, I just want to check the application out again.
Mr. Gort: Please do so because I'd hate to
have this come back in front of us.
Ms. Cooper: I could just promise you that we
would not raise any irregularities in notice for tonight's
hearing at any time.
might.
client.
Mr. Gort:
Ms. Cooper:
Mr. Gort:
You might not but somebody else
I can only speak for myself and my
We understand.
Ms. Maer: Mr. Chairman, my review of the file
shows that the advertising for this hearing was as South Bayshore
Drive and although common usage may show that it's known under
both South and Southeast, we have to go by the zoning atlas sheet
which indicates that it's Southeast Bayshore Drive; therefore, I
would have to suggest that this matter be deferred because if in
fact we go ahead and hear this matter and someone challenges it,
the action of this Board would be voidable.
3 February 13, 1984, Item 3
Zoning Board
F3
k
84--344
Mr. Gort:
Mr. Freixas:
Mr. Gort:
We need a motion to defer.
I move it.
It's been moved...
Mr. Freixas: Second by Romero.
Mr. Gort: ...second by Romero. Call the
question.
Ms. Cooper: For the record, if I may make a
brief statement before the vote. While we would not have
challenged the notice for tonight's hearing alone, we will
reserve the right to challenge the notice if it has been
improperly stated from the beginning of the application and
therefore, would state the position that it is our belief that
the application must be deemed denied due to improper notice from
the inception.
Mr. Gort: Call the question.
Ms. Fox: All right. Motion to defer...
• Ms. Cooper: I'm just making that statement for
the record.
41
(Secretary called the roll)
AYES: Ms. Basila
Messrs. Gort, Romero, Channing, Sands,
Freixas and Moran-Ribeaux
NAYES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Ms. Fox: Motion carries 7 to 0.
RESOLUTION ZB 16-84
RESOLUTION TO DEFER TO THE MEETING OF
MARCH 5, 1984 THE CHANGE OF ZONING REQUEST IN
THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF ZONING ORDINANCE
9500, AS AMENDED, FROM RG-3/7 GENERAL
RESIDENTIAL TO SPI-5 BRICKELL-MIAMI RIVER
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE DISTRICT OR A LESSER
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1402 SOUTHEAST BAYSHORE DRIVE (A/K/A 1402
SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE), ALSO DESCRIBED AS LOT
41 BLOCK 2, POINT VIEW (2-93).
4 February 13, 1984, Item 3
Zoning Board
84-344
LEO NEIWIRTH•
•N.J. EAR ONLY
RONALD 0. NEIWIRTH
Ell]
LAW OTTIOt@
NEIWIRTH & Nr.- MRM, P. A.
1025 ALTMM L DUPONT DVILI)MG
16O NAST TLAOLNR ISTREET
t[IAkt. MORMA 8E181
(805) $74-E606
March 29, 1984
Janet L. Cooper, Esq,
1020 DuPont Building
169 East Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33131-1204
e0 PARK MACE
NEWARK. NEW JERSEY 07101
(2011 e42-nose
r J4
r
Re: F. Alan Bliss
Dear Ms. Cooper:
You have asked us to search the bankruptcy files a d to
furnish you with our opinion regarding the present status
of the affairs of F. Alan Bliss, a/k/a Alan Bliss, formerly
doing business as the Commodore's Rowing and Sailing Club.
We searched the files of the bankruptcy court this morning,
March 29, and this is what we found:
On January 3, 1984, at approximately 4 p.m., the subject
filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11 Relief in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, under
case number 84-00006-BKC-JAG. He lists his address at
1402 Southeast Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida 33131. He
has six secured creditors and no unsecured creditors.
There are 17 documents in the Bankruptcy file as of today.
Included among them are Motion to the Court to eliminate
the requirement for filing of bi-weekly receipts and dis-
bursements records with the court. As reasons for his
lack of need to file the same, the debtor indicates that
he has no income whatsoever, no business, and no expenses
whatsoever, and that he resides in the subject property.
There being no cash flow, there should be no necessity
to open accounts. There are further representations in
the papers that he has had no business since approximately
1980, when the club closed.
Enclosed is a copy of the bankruptcy schedules and state-
ment of financial affairs for your reference.
You have inquired of us as to whether or not, in our opinion,
a Debtor In Possession may voluntarily offer to the appro-
priate governmental authorities, during the process of rezoning
the property, to attach restrictive covenants to the real
property owned by the Debtor In Possession. We answer
your question with a qualified negative.
.RnrpP15_r :V enn 1 1 r)l,l• r.._ �r
a M�-'1r.3? ^•ltr.5c. This is not
r•ractil-^ ;r s nPiical doctor or
-)r the nr�i4hhorhnod.
84-344
intcnded to deny the private
a denRi st serving the needs
84-344.
Z T►. '►
Janet L. Coo �pehr r Esq.
March 29 , S
Under the Bankruptcy Code, the trustee has a statutory
right to use, sell, or lease property of the estate outside
the ordinary course of business. 11 U.S.C. 5363. The
Debtor In Possession stands in the shoes of the trustee,
with the same powers and approximately the same responsi-
bilities. 11 U.S.C. 51107. Under Bankruptcy Rule 2002,
if a trustee wants to use, sell, or lease property outside
the ordinary course of business, he must furnish 20 days'
prior notice to all creditors and parties in interest,
in writing. If any objection is filed by a Party In Interest,
the Bankruptcy Court holds a hearing and must enter an
order. See 11 U.S.C. 5102.
We are unable to find a case on point, but in our opinion,
dealing with the governmental authorities and creating
an encumbrance on the property in the form of restrictive
covenants, in the process of rezoning, would constitute
such an exercise of dominion over the property as to consti-
tute, "use or sale" within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 9363.
Therefore, we must conclude that Mr. Bliss, in his present
capacity as a Debtor in Possession, lacks the present author-
ity to enter into such a covenant without following the
appropriate notice procedures under the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code of 1978.
We will be happy to furnish more detailed research and
explanation upon request.
Very truly yours,
RONALD G. NEIWIRTH
RGN:vs
Enclosure
84r-344
f�.
The nropprty shall not hR uso-ti r(,r etther n or as
a f"r'!r.al nllnfc. This is not intcn-led to don.), the privatA
r-racti )" a-nedical doctor or a denAint sPrwing the needs
-)r the nniLyhborhnod.
84-344.
U 9rED STATER BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SM-L-fM-1 DISTRICT OF FIORMh
re
ti F. ALLEN BLISS
a/k/a ALLEN BLISS
"/a THE OCY ODORE IS ?OPTING & SAILING CLUB
Include here all names used by debtor within last 6 years.
Debtor
I,
CASE NO. 84-00006-Se-JAG
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL
AFFAIRS FOR DEBTOR
ENGAGED IN BUSINESS
Path question should be answered or the failure to answer explained. d the answer is "noes." this should be stated. U additional space is needed for the answw to any questim a separate abeet, peopeety
Identified, and made part hereof, should be used and attwhed.
If the debtor is a partnerahip or s corporation, the questions shall bar deemed to be addressed to, and shall be answered on behalf of, the pL4mrship orcorpontion; and the statement shall be
ewMed by a member of the partnership or by a duly authorised officer of the corporation.
The term, "ariginai petition," as used to the following questions, shall mean the petition filed under Rule 1002, 1003, or 1004.
1. Nature, location, and name of business.
s. Under what name and where do you carry on your
business?
b. In what business are you engaged? (u business opets"s h.w
been wrains . live the date of such terrahutlan)
c. when did you commence such business?
A Where else, and under what other names, have you carried
on business within the 6 years immediately preceding the filing
of the original petition herein? (rive street sddroses. the nam of any
soon )ohm advent rers, mother associates, the rrtwv of the business and the
period# for whkb It wee carried ot►)
e. What is your employer identification number at social
security number?
2. Books and records.
a. By whom, or under whose supervision, have your books of
account and records been kept during the 2 years immediately
preceding the filing of the original petition herein? (ave ernes,
addresses. and periods of thee.)
b. By whom have your books of account and records been
audited during the 2 years immediately preceding the filing of
the original petition herein? lane na te. addromm sad daus of su")
c. In whose possession are your books of account and
records? Icive naw" sad addreeseel
d If any of these books or records are not available, explain
e. Have any books of account or records relating to your
affairs been destroyed, lost, or otherwise disposed of within the
2 years immediately preceding the filing of the original petition
herein? (if so, lire pwikv)sr►, inci%4ng date of desuvc6m Ims. or disposition
and reason therefor.1
3. Financial statements.
Have you issued any written financial statements within the 2
years immediately preceding the filing of the original petition
herein? (Give dates, and the was and sddrroas of tbs persons to whom issued.
inckA nit seercendie and trade gencies)
4. inventories.
a. When was the last inventory of your property taken?
b. By whom, or under whose supervision, was this inventory
taken?
a what woo the amount, in dollars, of the inventory? (state
wbedw tin inventory was taken et oust, warket. or aherwis.)
A When was the next prior inventory of your property taken?
e. By whom, or under whose supervision, wait this inventory
taken?
E What was the amount, in dollars, of the inventory? (state
wirUrr tin inentory was taken at cost. market. or abnrria#.)
g. In whose possession are the records of the 2 inventories
above referred to? (Give ruse and eddesews.)
5. Income other than from operation of business.
What amount of income, other than from operation of your
business, have you received during each of the 2 years immedi-
ately preceding the filing of the original petition herein? (Give
particulars, including tech source. ael the *mum received ehemrrow)
6. Tax returns and refunds.
a. In whose possession ate copies of your federal and state
income tax returns for the 3 years immediately preceding the
filing of the original petition herein?
b. What tax refunds (income or other) have you received
during the 2 years immediately preceding the fling of the
original petition herein?
c. To what tars refunds (income or other), if any, are yott, or
may you be, entitled? (Give particulam including tnformatkmsatoanyeetund
psysb t )oindy to you and your apoust at any otter penal)
FORM 6: STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS: ENGAGED IN BUSINESS PA13E t
lea. F. ALIEN BLISS, a/k/a/ ALLOT BLISS, d/b/a THE
=MWIM t S WK NG & SAIIaIlVG CLUB.
b. Terminated. Was a private dining and social club.
Terminated In 1980.
c. 1971.
d. Not Applicable.
e. 59-1457-108
2.a. Not Applicable, however, Nate Sara at Rand Accounting
Service, Inc., 3800 W. Flagler St., Miami, FL.
handled the accounting for the Club.
b. Not Applicable.
c. Debtor and Nate
d. Not Applicable.
e. No.
3. No.
t!A W 2 n 19&4
C.I,KRK, L"NITE LT'97ES
CANKRUr-T::Y CUt."
so. f.1-11. . Ur 1 •.t.tii it►!�
4. Not Applicable (a - g) .
5. Nome.
6.a. Since the business has not operated during the
last three years, no returns have been filed.
b. Not Applicable.
c. Not Applicable.
Iwa
SEMINOLE - MIAMI
M
The oroporty shall not. ho usof! rr,r t? 1 ther n dj�ntnl or its
a P4e!!1r.3l ^link. This Ss not intcnded
;..3rtirr+ .;� A-iP�iic.31 doctor car dnnA�"� deny the private
,)r the n�ie;hhorh�od, '- .. 't sPr`in(; the raped
.a;M#
7. Bank accounts and We deposit boxes.
a. What bank accounts have you maintained, alone or
together with any other person, and in your own or any other
name, within the 2 years immediately preceding the filing of
the original petition herein? ffaty due rtaner and adders of talk bank Ne
renew in whkh tlk depettl was wAb daWA end date rarm and address of eorryperson
a thoefsed to RN& wah&%Wok tMn Math aeeetwt)
b. What safe deposit box or boxes or other depository or
depositories have you kept or used for your securities cash, or
other valuables within the 2 years immediately preceding the
filing of the original petition herein )(citrtrreonrwdaddeassefow bone
or odor ekperibrX ohs rarer in which roch box s►ether drpositorywas kept Ne namw
and address of#wryprnat a"had ON *ht of octets Niereso, a drsrr(pdm of ow
eonanu Neff, and. V die box has ben norendend ontr when swrerndered or. if
Imufrrrnd when eansferred and Nat now and eddms of At awn ferea)
8. Property held for another person.
What property do you hold for any other person? Give tame and
address of each persotL and describe the property. the amount or vdua Mered and
sa ,nitirw relatirt thereta)
9. Prior bankruptcy proceedings.
What cases under the Bankruptcy Act, or Title 11, united
States Code have previously been brought by or against you?
(Batt the locetion d the bankrup-ty taut, the nature and number of the case, and
whedw a discharge eras panted ortetused, the aw wes dismissed. or s composition
anarrgemeat or plan wall conAnard.)
10. Receiverships, general ass4nment% and other modes
of liquidation.
a. Was any of your property, at the time of the filing of the
origiml petition herein, in the hands of a receiver, trustee, or
other liquidating agent? (H so, give a brlet description of that property and
the name and address of the receiver, truetes, or other agent, and if the agent was
appointed in a court proceeding, the name and location of the eomm !le title and
number of the case. and the mu" thereof.
b. Have you made any assignment of your property for the
benefit of your creditors, or any general settlement with your
creditors, within the 2 years immediately preceding the filing
of the original petition herein? Ili as give dales, the name and address of
tie assigree, sated a brief statement of the terms of alignment or settlement)
11. Property in hands of third person.
Is any other person holding anything of value in which you
have an interest? (Give name and address. (oation and description of the
property, and lucumstantw d the holdirv.)
12. Suits lexecutions, and attachments.
a. Were you a party to any suit pending at the time of the
Wing of thennginal petition herein?(if w give the rant ow batkmof
the emn and the flee and nature of the proceeding.)
b. Were you a party to any suit terminated within the year
immediately preceding the riling of the original petition
herein?(if mghvthensmetadbationoIthercurttheekeandnatureoftlapro
o red ing, and the reoult)
c. Has any of your property been attached, garnished, or
seised under any, legal or equitable process within the year
immediately preceding the riling of the original petition
herein?(Ifm describe the property seized arpersonprnished.and at whose suit)
13. Payments on loans and installment purchases.
What repayments on loans in whole or in part, and what
payments on installment purchases of goods and services,
have you made during the year immediately preceding the
filing of the original petition herein? (Give the,axee. and address.s of
the persons rrceiving payment the swounte d the bane and of the purchase price of
the goads sad services, the dewsof the origiral aarwacfiar, the amamu said dates
or psymeMa and. Y any of he payees are your ntadves. or i aidem the relstlonsldpc
rthe debtor to a psttaerehip said any of the payees is or was a pwuar or a relative are
psruar, sate the relsborahip. Y the debtor is a corporation and s y of the payees is
or was an o(ncar. director. or stockholder. or a reistive of an officer, 4L-~, or
awkhotder, sate the nlsdoeship.)
14. Transfers of properly.
a. Have you made any gifua, other then ordinary and usual
presents to family members and charitable donations, during
the year immediately preceding the filing of the original
petition herein? (1r sue give abases and addresses of donees srd datft
dtwnpwft sad value of gift.)
b. Have you made any other transfer, absolute or for the
purpose of security, or any other disposition which was not in
the ordinary course of business during the year immediately
preceding the riling of the original petition herein? (Give a
description of the property, the date of the tnnater or disposition, to whom taw
ferred or tow disposed of, and title whether the tnntene Is a relative, pwuar.
shareholder, officer, director, or iraider, the comideratim v any rtcriwd for dw
property. and the disposluos M such conalderstim)
FORM a: STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS: ENGAGED IN BUSINESS: PAGE 2
7.ae
Nat Applicable.
b.
None
6.
Nome.
9.
None.
10.a.
No.
b.
No.
11.
No.
12.a.
See attached Schedule.
b.
No.
c.
no.
13.
None.
14.a. No.
b. No.
84-344
The oroporty shall not hat )tgq-(? for either n d,e nt,ni or ns
R Mrsa4n,3t n1tn!c. This is not intended to Bien}► the
`'nCti�r' )r e '�er3iCa1 doctor or 3 tien+:t_; Private
it the n�it_yhborhnoda t serving, the needs
SEMINOLE - MIAMI
84-344.
0
12.a. PEWM DCh VOM NATICNAL HANK v. F. AUEN BLISS, et al.
Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial. Circuit, Dade County,
Case No. 80-19564 (CA 23)
Plaintiff's Attorneys: Quinton, Lummus, DUnw0dY & Adaans, P.A.,
Attorneys for PAN AME acM BANK CF MINU, N.A. , formerly PEOPLES
DmJI'om NATIaol BANK, 186 S.W. 13th Street, Miami, Florida 33130.
ANDRESIX COR]?0M=CNV. F. ALLM BLISS
Circuit Court of the llth Judicial Circuit, Dade County,
Case No. 83-3073 CA 02
Plaintiff's Attorney: Jertme H. Shevin, Esq., Sparber, Shevin,
Rosen, Mwpo & Heilbronner, 30th Floor AmeriFirst Building, One
S.E. Third Avenue, Miami, FL' 33131 and Co -Colin 1 Paul C. Huck, Esq.,
Fleming & Huck, 620 Ingrahsan Building, 25 S.E. Second Avenue, Miaaaf,
FL 33131.
F. ALIEN BLISS, DEEITICNM v. OSCAR CARMNA► PLAINTIFF/
PESPMENT.
District Court of Appeal, Third District, Case No. 81-1676
Plaintiff's Attorney: Jercrw H. Shevin, Esq., Surber, Shevin, Rosen►
Shapo & Heilbronner, for Andresix Corporation, Oscar C xmona's
Assignee, 30th Floor AmeriFirst Building, One S.E. Third Avenue,
Miami, FL 33131.
84-344
The oroporty shall not he, uso-r', r!,r either n d�no;nl or as
a Mc,!! In l n1 kni c. This Is not intc.n-!ed +c% deny the private
r�cttr^ )f a ne31cal doctor or rt dnn,irzt serving the need
it the neiLYhhorhnod.
84-344
Is. Accounts oared other r>eceimbles,
Have you aesighe4 elther absolutely or as eecterity, any of
your accannts or other reeetwbles dtetlhg the year immediately
preceding the fllint of the origift! petition herein?
I awe haora snd a" set of aaatpnW
16. Repossessions and reftims.
Has any property been returned to, or repossessed by, the
Wier or by a seeurad patty during the year immediately
precC saeding the tWrtg of the original petition herein?
( sue+ pe tirviere, teetst the same and address of the party put" the
peepirty and Na ascilpuen rid sews.)
17. Business leases.
If you are a tenant of business property, what is the name and
address of your landlord, the amount of your rental, the date to
which rent had been paid at the time of the filing of the original
petition herein, and the amount of security held by the
landlord?
18. Losses.
a. Have you suffered any losses from fire, theft, or gambling
daring the year immediately preceding the filing of the original
C: herein? (V am III" wocul.n, inehrdin dtates, sam and plaets. and
We aneomnts of Mooney or value and central denueription of property rat)
b. Was the loss covered in whole or part by Insurance?
W ea, It- psefieW00
19. Withdrawals.
a. U you are an individual proprietor of your business, what
personal withdrawals of any kind have you made from the
business during the year immediately preceding the filing of
the original petition herein?
b. If the debtor is a partnership or corporation, what with-
drawals, in any form (including compensation, bonuses or
bane), have been made or received by any member of the
partnership, or by any officer, director, insider, managing
executive, or shareholder of the corporation, during the year
immediately preceding the filing of the original petition herein?
(tart the name and dtsignatlon or rebtionahip of the debtor of each person, the
dotes and amounts of withdrsoale, urea the nature or purposs thereat)
20. Payments or transfers t4 attorneys.
a. Have you consulted an attorney during the year imme-
diately preceding or since the filing of the original petition
herein? (Give date. name and addrees.)
b. Have you during the year immediately preceding or since
the filing of the original petition herein paid any money or
transferred any property to the attorney, or to any other person
on hi a behalf? (U so, give particulam including amount paid or value of property
tranoferred and date of psyment or tromfer.)
C. Have you, either during the year immediately preceding
or since the filing of the original petition herein, agreed to pay
any money or transfer any property to an attorney at law, or to
any other person on his behalf? (Uso, give pwtkulom including Omount
and terns of obliptionl
(!f the debtor is a partnership or corporation, the following
additional question should be answered)
21. Members of partnership; officers, directors, mana-
gers, and principal stockholders of corporatiom
a. what is the name and address of each member of the
partnership, or the name, title and address of each officer,
director, insider, and managing executive, and of each stock-
holder holding 20 per cent or more of the issued and out-
standing stock, of the corporation?
b. During the year immediately preceding the filing of the
original petition herein, has any member withdrawn from the
partnership, or any officer, director, insider, or managing
executive of the corporation terminated his relationship, or any
stockholder holding 20 per cent or more of the issued stock
disposed of more than 50 per cent of his holdings?
(If me. rim oust end address and reason for sithdrowd termination. adlepooklm
if
to w")
c. Has any person acquired or disposed of 20 per cent or
more of the stock of the corporation during the year immedi-
ately preceding the filing of the petition?
(U w, sr» nooe end Oddness end por iculoM►)
15. No.
16. No.
17. Not Applicable.
18.a. None.
b. Not Applicable.
19.a. None.
b. Not Applicable.
11
20.a. Allen Raman of Therrel, Baisden, Stanton, et al.
has handled the Pan American Bank foreclosure
suit as well as the Andresix Corporation suit.
Appeals fran the Andresix Corporation suit have
been handled by Mark Hicks of Daniels and Hicks,
1414 DuPont Building, 169 East Flagler Street,
Miami, FL 33131. C. Peter Buhler was consulted
for filing the instant Chapter 11 proceeding.
b. The Debtor paid C. Peter Buhler directly the sum
of $1,200, a $1,000 retainer and $200 filing fee,
.for filing the Chapter 11. An additional $4,000
was paid to Buhler by Ronald Thi.bideau as a
retainer to file the case. Therrel, Baisden,
et al. and Daniels and Hicks have a lmrtgage
against the subject property which was acquired
in July, 1982.
c. No.
21.a. Not Applicable.
b. Not Applicable.
c. Not Applicable.
V F. ALLEN BLISS , certify under penalty of perjury that I
have read the answers contained in the foregoing statement of affairs and that they were true and correc to 7 the best of my knowledge, information,
and belief.
q r
Executed on----- J311tk3LY--� r ------------------ Signature;----- -- -- -- ------ — —• t
'Person certifyins for partnership or corporation should indicate position or relationship to deblor. 84-344
FORM a: STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS: ENGAGED IN SUSSINESS: PAGE 9 SEMINOLE - MIAMI
The oropPrty shn 11 not hr- wspr° fr,r elther n d,�ntnl Or a
a Mc -!!Ina) n11ni-. This is not intended to deny the private
Cncti�n )f' a Medical doctor or a denO'Ust spr-ing the need 3
-)r the n^ighbnrhnod.
84-344.
0
V%fTED SPATES 13A.NKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHff'1M Ibf3T ICI OF
In re F. AUM IIZ M
Wa AUM BLISS
d%b/a TM 0"y0 = IS ROWING & SAILING cum
CASE NO. 84-00006-BIB-OM
(CHI PIER 11)
Schedule A - STATEMENT OF
ALL LIABILITIES OF DEBTOR
Debtor (set forth here all names including trade names used by Debtor within the last 6 years).
social Security No. 039-16-3493
and Debtor's Etnployer'+s tax ldentirwation No. - 59 1457 108
lkheduia A.I. A•7, and A•3 muat include all the claim* spirist the debtor of his propertaf as of date of the fuing of the petition by oredainat him.
SCHEDULE A•1 — CREDITORS HAVING PRIORITY
steel d Caen
Santa a aasbr aid tienlptetS nriktD * 9 t1p
OOIb
swift wtuh Win wes Inewred and wo eon*idwenon r4tebr. when ebim Is
Wbiocl N fat0lt. wkencaa 1r f WdpnMM. AoOlfaEh iMtew"ft M ~
rat1M. N Mldiptt. aMC�fr n*me of
M Na ka pM11 s pan ev 011jdiMny debt.
iri tab H claim is
w
kno a Will
s
tat
WWI. planMs.. wd s.
m wat . �taeao •aatbn•
I��
�YCCDe
Mrwarice and sick babe
Mr awtrp to ttn er«s net
pr"dd Inntw 10 days botore
N
Ha (11 ""W
spoctly dab).
Callrbirlons So a _
boa Om
taoeeyee.' n
Nave
erg a
=r=Oil
dMOr
am
to
awaft wI 1 °�soo hpAuk Is Sam bar
pwdmt bmlvaro sttorp roil at
Ntane
1r+rr, a k, ' d w ht
VAN roc dabold or prartlSd
at go aWsaty')'4eaDade
County Tax Collector
Real Estate Taxes for '81, 182
100,000
00
(1) to a U%W stare
73 W. Flagler Street
and 183
M To wry aaae
Miami, FL 33130
p) to am Ww tadap
�r
Total
S100, 000
00
Schedule A•2 -- Creditors Holding Security
No" d veetes tmiaeb
vae ammo 90A" 0
Omipt on a wwlly and date
at" atarw M Dow
$will Iehen claim Vol incurred and the comider•
ehon lhertor, when Win is or subject to *atoll.
erderead by a judom". "tilt" 1ruln"t. w
SOW wnimp, w enttnMl as tWtner el joint
twdretiw. N illdtcate: SWWY MISS Of an pennw
w joint contractor, on am debt.
adnb d Wm b
aaditpwt toapia0al*d
ar atoeaed
maw flab
Man of claim de►
Sul daactlon a
eabe a waxily
s
s
SEE ATZACHM SCHED=
TOW
IS 624,54
72
The nrorprty shill nrt. ho uSs-I4, rc,r either n 't�'n`.n] or ns a �"••,,(r�l nitnic. This Is not intonded to deny the e-
a ""Beal doctor or rt denAi;;t serwin Prieed3
7r the neighhorhnod. (; the need•
-r
84-344.
, m is'A;
M D4
Pan American Hank of MiMi-r N•A•
c% Jams D. ALiamOr Esq-
Qainton, Lvnrus r Day & Adams
186 S.W• 13th Stet
Miami, rL 33130
A. N. GLH=1 TINA GLEM,
MC GfB= and LIPIDA B0MW
1062 meadowlark Avem"
Miami Springs, FL 33166
LAW FIM of
TES+r BAISDEN, SnW=r
W D & SETLIN
moral ParU*r5hiP
and a Florida
MIEE,S & IUM r
General Partnersly-P Stanton,C/oTherrel► Baisden,
Wood & Setlin, Suite 600
11.11 Lincoln Beach, FL �33119 Ma1.1
Mimi
AMMSIX Corporation
(Oscar na' mis Assignee)
c/o Spar, Swint Shspo
& Heilbronner
Amerif irst Building
1 S.E. Third Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
El
Ma wet
Va1.UB
4-29-83 Final l.5 11 + a Months5
1st & 2nd Mtge. Jet Interest
3rd image
4th Mortgage
4-29-83 Final
judgment
2.5 Million 3.36,700.37
+ 8 Months
Interest
7-6-82
Mortgage secures
present and
future legal
servioes perf=d
by both law
firms.
Incwbrance Debtor may have
it
consisting of counter claims
either a mortgage to set off the
or jmlcpmt which Debt listed and
is the subject to be adjudicated
matter of certain
by the circuit
Ping litigation
judgeISPUTED)
in the Thirds
trict court of
Appeals
n
150,000.00
42,000.00
TAL $624,543.72
84-344
— The nrOpprty sh,'1 I1 not. hn »spij fr,r either r iil=ntnl or r+s
e Mac', j e31 ^.11r.i c . This is not intc.nded�tn de-Y the rthe ri► ate
--)f a "�edical doctor car a den ._.�t sPr in(;
)r the n^i&horhnod.
84-344.
to
M brtlAa tadlrl� b!1 bIrN1 hlde� ml
aft mkomm ad
WAMI P-A a Kv ON
two ins WXL- d nA nt 11004 %1—, c1Mn a
Owm a pm Comm. fe rM ft OMWI ft" 0 aw WOW & P" ep"m rn aM OM
�nAfebte d t�a+n y eee•
AA." a *No
PwAld W. Thibideau
11052 Fargo Drive
Sun City, Arizona 85351
Lonna to preserve Debtor's Property
ToW
80,000
00
S 8,000
00
FORM 6. SCHEDULE k3
The prop-rty shall not hn 1lspr° rc,r hither n rtmt�l or as
a Me,,'ir.nl ^.11nic. This is not intcnded to deny the private
)r n nelicel doctor or 3 dnn►Ist serving the needs
-)r the nnighhorhnod.
N4-344
84-344.
M
0
SCHEDULE B STATEMENT OF ALL PROPERTY OF DEBTOR
Schedules B•1, 8•2, B-3, and B-4 must include all property of the debtor as of the date of the rdin` of the petition'by or against him. .
Schedule B•1— Real Property
IMlen a ldenat t+daew w ease: ald wwriw vebet a aleAari tlasaa +woad
ntlletaltendMd/fp�eoatrb+ibiehdebterlrsMsea(bdidMC 4ndlbbrtrMMilttYprp[tinaMlMEr r1A�fen 1a tllewld tliw+s 0MA M
w� Y p Y. aI1 btu AnN4tll Im IgMs a�Q ON 0 V Ni "" ww" 1MIIMR irtwmft go" Isom ji M M
1402 S.E. Bayshore Drive, Miami► Florida Fee Simple Ownexship t 2.5 Mill on
Lot 4, Block 2, Anver�ded Plat of Pointview,
P.B. 2, Page 93, Public Records, Dade County,
Florida
Type d F wetT
- a tam antwd
b Deter d "my ►0 OMkM,
Msirm'VK. N"npf Mid loin
A"Witim. brekerape homes.
Chad V"ns, pwc Yt,Ay
"Moto", landlores. a Diners
` t elausd " voertz %#PON Md
krgoMrSp
t aoika vCwft and Ww an @Ww
Kass mn and oeeer odtaalaia
a wwmq flora- OW&Y. a,rala
» sae w1k sad Mar paraeaw
reuMetrK
e telsia trIN ad w
V*Mw
a b , No eaa sco"dwo
a tiraaeeck pax wd erw arWaar
i fw" Mpp s and ens eelleiras
t OR" as w"K wM*O% sad
!tom
' b Yitn *(Fet# ft thou
krAaM
� jsM " 0 UM4 M irMwis
I
Total Is
Schedule W2 -- Personal Property
keMlat van d ad" I tnewaA MenA
d UC*n ber tiara0 Cftk bmd M
sdo&Ae A•2 a asnptfon[ CW Wd M
1chiAM !-�
a. None
b. None
C.
10,000 00
d. See Item c. above
e. 1 -0-
f . 1 - - -0-
9-
-o-
h.
-0-
i.
-0-
k. see Item e. above • TOW is 100,000 100
The nropprty shn 11 not hn T;s-(41 fr%r either n or sts
n Mc:!!.inn) n11nic. This is not intonded to der
y► the private
rnrtirA ;" a -nedical doctor or � den,"Ust st-rving the needs
it the neizhborhnod.
_- 84-344.
—f
tv" is ow"
wt t vow" d am ow
n ►aten+s, topYtights. ereenses.
Iraruhrses ar+a othtt perKrat
waano. tks Ispecr+Y all docurnerrts
and errdmis reNhnq eherllol
ard
e 8a+enWar+" e^+rr0of � mantle
a:ahWo"
0 ov. lgoasad awl w" dtpta
01
rattm "An
edi each
(rot+*+�
Intrests fn msunnce pol:cres(POKY
a+surarra cofnp$"Y oftecOrM M
and rtemrtt surrender of
values of each)
(llemrtt and hanN each
t �wcwwvwo Women" ►
fse eparaeet+A
a M� � Oa11tiet�
ak
t Eii+ma Vol hl" � pMrs
Yaett+ vtAre � s Oq 0 �
s rMfaOtelrs ct '"
-0-
—0-
-0-
"
mm
52
-o-
-V—
:,Na aldW t sp d w Total s on
6+� )milni prfMal .
-:: h� uspr'. for either n i1^n`,rt] or �S
The nropprt:v shall not r� ,aP
a Me-air.3� ^.ltnic. This is not in.,n.Ad�to df�-J' rhthprnpeds
I
cal doctor or a den ._st ser ng
�r the ne1�;h*)c)rhnod.
is
t.
84-344.
k
1 ' 44�
��► riot Oth Scheduledd � �M s.
Sc6edvle �-8 — dim
Typ1 d PWM
dw wir"" I
a tAwnrrr""n %fMito
by
I
Powtv d ON wd we WOOM
Total S
—�
�' �
11 U.S.C. §522 (d)
Debtor selects the foUowinB pcoPertY as exempt Pursuant to
[or the laws of the s+;ate of •
— Prn'Pe�Y Claimed as Ezempt
Schedule B-4 _
ar d es�0- SpeN�y
VAtopgyr,p ne awro w
�vw dan+e
bn ad a 4< a "WAM 10 data
pwmd UN d rwo"
Type d OoPMy
Not Applicable
-o-
Total S
r or as
The nrnp-rty shall ant• h� ��s�'Ih�faA *0 deny the private
a Me!'.j^•,,j n jnjC_ This is not in c-n ed
a "di cal doctor car a den0list sere ing the need
�r the n^i j h`horhnod.
84-344.
§ 363 BANKRUPTCY CODE 138
hearing is commenced pursuant to section 362(e)(2) unless within
that :30 day period the court denies the motion made under subdivi-
sion (a), above. (Section :362(e) requires a final hearing on a motion
for relief to be commenced within :30 days after the preliminary
hearing, but is silent as to when the final hearing must be concluded.
The rule imposes a :30 day deadline for resolution of the dispute.)
Subdivision (e) provides for ea parte relief from the stay only if it
clearly appears from specific facts (affidavit or verified motion)
that iimnediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to
movant before the adverse party or his attorney can be heard in
opposition, and if the moyant's attorney certifies in writing the ef-
forts, if any, that have been made to give notice and the reasons why
notice should not he required. The party obtaining ex. parte relief
must inunediately give oral notice thereof to the trustee or debtor in
possession and to the debtor, and must forthwith mail or transmit to
such person(s) a copy of the order granting relief. On 2 days notice,
or shorter notice as the court may prescribe, the adverse party may
appear and move to reinstate the stay, and the court is required to
expeditiously hear and determine the motion. (This subdivision im-
plements section :362(f).)
References
2 Cbllicr on Bankruptcy Ch.:362 (15th ed. 1982).
1 C'ollicr Bankruptcy 1lanuaI 0h.:362 (3rd ed. 1982).
s 2 Collier Bankruptcy Practicc Guide Ch. 38 (1982).
Iioltkamp v. Littlefield (In the Matter of lioltkanip), 669 F.2d
ra 05, 5 C.B.C.2d 1412 (7th Cir. 1982); In re Kovacs.
681 F.2d 454, 6 C.B.C.2d 951 (6th Cir. 1982); The First
National Bank of Anchorage y. Roach (In the Matter of
Roach), 660 F.2d 1:316, 5 C.B.C.2d 680 (9th Cir. 1981); Ohio
v. Mansfield Tire and Rubber Co. (In re Mansfield Tire and
Rubber Co.), 660 F.2d 1108, 5 C.B.C.2d 204 (6th Cir. 1982);
Missouri v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the E.D. of
Arkansas, 647 F.2d 768, 4 C.B.C.2d 306 (8th Cir. 1981) cert.
denied —U.S.— (1982).
Martin, Creditor Alternatives to Obtain Relief from Automatic
Stays in Bankruptcy, 87 Coin. L.J. 22 (1982)
SECTION 363 (11 U.S.C. § 363)
§ 363 Use, sale, or lease of property.
(a) In this section, "earl► collateral" means cash, negotiable
instruments, documents of title, securities, deposit accounts,
i
r
;rA nrnrnrty shall nnt" t >>s-,' rr'r elt),Pr n ri,'n4;-,Q or ,I--
n 1 t r± c This is not. intc.n,]erl t o deny t.hn pri rritn
..r, rtlr a -erlical doctor or -3 den, i!-.t spr-ing, the need.;
-)r the nnii7hhorhnod.
�4—J ��
139 CASE ADMINISTRATION § 363
or other cash equivalents in which the estate and an entity
other than the estate have an interest.
(b) The trustee, after notice and a hearing, may use, sell, or
lease, other than in the ordinary course of business, property
of the estate.
(c)(1) If the business of the debtor is authorized to be oper-
ated under section 721, 1108, or 1304 of this title and unless the
court orders otherwise, the trustee may enter into transac-
tions, including the sale or lease of property of the estate, in
the ordinary course of business, without notice or a hearing,
and may use property of the estate in the ordinary course of
business without notice or a hearing.
(2) The trustee may not use, sell, or lease cash collateral
under paragraph (1) of this subsection unless —
(A) each entity that has an interest in such cash col-
lateral consent-,; or
(B) the court, after notice and a hearing, authorizes
such use, sale, or lease in accordance with the provision. -
of this section.
(3) Any hearing under paragraph (2)(13) of this subsec-
tion may be a preliminary hearing or may be consolidated
with a hearing under subsection (e) of this section, but
shall be scheduled in accordance with the needs of the
debtor. If the hearing under paragraph (2)(B) of this
subsection is a preliminary hearing, the court may autho-
rize such use, sale, or lease only if there is a reasonable
likelihood that the trustee will prevail at the final hearing
under subsection (e) of this section. The court shall act
promptly on any request for auth9j;ization under para-
graph (2)(B) of this subsection.
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsec-
tion, the trustee shall segregate and account for any cash
collateral in the trustee's possession, custody, or control.
(d) The trustee may use, sell, or lease property under subsec-
tion (b) or (c) of this section only to ti►e extent not inconsistent
with any relief granted under section :362(c), 362(d), :36`3(e), or
362(f)of this title.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this soction, at
any time, on request of an entity that has all interest in proper-
S4-344
� �r•'"- nr^rorty This Sll%]l� nit }�� us,! rr
1 1 n i C, r n l thPr n 'J�n~.'!a Or
%i �• 1�;,1 n �S ys 11pt tr.
deny the
tho npriv.ut�
'iicnl doctor or rinnpirt sprbing the npPd;
�r �ic.-hhrrh�od.
S4-3.1,1
§ 363 BANKRUPTCY CODE 140
ty used, sold, or leased, or proposed to be used, sold, or leased,
by the trustee, the court shall prohibit, or condition such use,
sale, or lease as is necessary to provide adequate protection of
such interest. In any hearing under this section, the trustee
has the burden of proof on the issue of adequate protection.
(f) The trustee may sell property under subsection (b) or (c)
of this section free and clear of any interest in such property
of an entity other than the estate, only if—
(1) applicable nonbankruptey law permits sale of such
property free and clear of such interest;
(2) such entity consents;
(:I) such interest is a lien and the price at which such
property is to be sold is greater than file aggregate i-alue
of sliell interest;
(4) sueh interest is ill bona fide dispute; or
(5) such entity could be compelled, in a legal n► equitable
proceeding, to accept a money satisfaction of sueh inter-
est.
(g) Notwithstanding subsection (f) of this sectioll, the trust-
ee may sell property under subsection (b) or (c) of this section
free and clear of any Nested or contingent right in the nature
of dower or curtesy.
(h) Notwithstanding subsection (f) of this section, the trust-
ee may sell both tile. estate's interest, under subsection (b) or
(e) of this section, and the interest of any co-owner in property
in which the debtor had, immediately before the commence-
ment of the case, an undivided interest as a tenant in common,
joint tenant, or tenant by the entirety, only if —
(I) partition in kind of such property among the estate
and such co -owners is impracticable;
(2) sale of the estate's undivided interest in such prop-
erty would realize significantly less for the estate than sale
of such property free of the interests of such co -owners;
(:3) the benefit to the estate of a sale of Stich property
free of the interests of co -openers olitweights the detri-
illent, if any, to such eo-owners; and
(4) Stich property is nut used in the prottiction, trall,-
illissin►1, )I. (listrlbiltlol), for' sale, of electric ellergy ul' of
natural or s\1111hetie gas for heat, light, or power.
/op
f
44-3.14
-----^},P nrnrnrt,V shall not hr, usnt rr`r n1tl^e.r n rinntnl or as
;t ?t 7t r1 c. This is not intcn,jed tc deny' t.hp. private
?�t.i�^ ,`' a --lelical doctor or den, ir-.t sPr-Ing the needs
-)r tho n^ i-hhorhnod.
84-31.111
■
141 CASE ADMINISTRATION § 363
(i) Before the consummation of a Gale of property to which
subsection (g) or (h) of this section applies, or of property of
the estate that was community property of the debtor and the
debtor's spouse immediately before the commencement of the
case, the debtor's spouse, or a co-owner of such property, as the
case may be, may purchase such property at the price atwhich
such sale is to be consummated.
(j) !'After a sale of property to which subsection (g) or (h) of
this section applies, the trustee shall distribute to the debtor's
spouse or the co -owners of such property, as the case may be,
and to the estate, the proceeds of such sale, less the costs and
expenses, not including any compensation of the trustee, of
such sale, according to the interests of such spouse or co -own-
ers, and of the estate.
(k) At a sale under subsection (b) of this section of property
that is subject to a lien that secures an allowed claim, if the
holder of such claim purchases such property, such holder may
offset such claim against the purchase price of such property-
(1) The trustee may use, sell, or lease property under subsec-
tion (b) or (c) of this section, or a plan under chapter 11 or 1:3
of this title may provide for the use, sale, or lease of property,
notwithstanding any provision in a contract, a lease, or appli-
cable law thatis conditioned on the insolvency or financial
condition of the debtor, on the commencement of a case under
this title concerning the debtor, or on the appointment of a
taking" posession by a trustee in a case under this title or a
custodian, and that effects, or gives an option to effect, a for-
feiture, modification, or termination of the debtor's interests
in such property.
(m) The reversal or modification on appeal of an authoriza-
tion under subsection (b) or (e) of this section of a sale or lease
of property does not affect the validity of a sale or lease under
such authorization to an entity that purchased or leased such
property in good faith, whether or not such entity knew of the
pendency of the appeal, unless such authorization and such
sale or lease were stayed pending appeal.
[Ed. Note: `As enacted.]
84-344
nr^rnrty shnl]
nrr. Itin i/snr',
ThIs Ss fa rr,T. l t}`P.
cal doctor or f n , n_Ar1� .,n dpn
it the n� - �i�n J the pri vrjt �
i hhrrhnod. t sore inf; the need
84 —3.1,1
§ 363 BANKRUPTCY CODE 142
(n) The trustee may void a sale under this section if the sale
price was controlled by an agreement among potential bidders
at such sale, or may recover from a party to such agreement
any amount by which the value of the property sold exceeds the
price at which such sale was consummated, and may recover
any costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses incurred in voiding such
sale or recovering such amount. The court may grant judg-
ment in favor of the estate and against any such party that
entered into such agreement in willful disregard of this subsec-
tion for punitive damages in addition to any recovery under
the preceding sentence.
Legislative History
This section defines the rights and powers of the trustee with
respect to the use, sale, or lease of property and the rights of other
parties that have interests in the property involved. It applies in both
liquidation and reorganization cases. [Ed. Note: Subsections (b), (d)-
(f ), (1) app]} in chapter 1:3 cases: see section 1303.]
[Douse Report No. 95-595; 95th C'onq.. 1st Sess. 344 (1977); Senate Re-
port No. 95-98.9, ,9al h Cong.. 2d Srss..55 (1978).]
Subsection (a) defines "soft collateral" [Ed. Note: As enacted the
Code adopts the Senate version with respect to cash collateral. The
"soft collateral" concept in the house version was deleted.] as inven-
tory, accounts, contract rights, general intangibles, cash, negotiable
instrutnents, documents of title, securities, or chattel paper in which
t the estate and an entity other than the estate have an interest, such as
a lien or a co -ownership interest. The definition is not restricted to
property of the estate that is soft collateral on the date of the filing
of the petition. Thus, if "hard" collateral is sold, and the proceeds
come within the definition of this subsection, then the proceeds would
be soft collateral if they remained subject to the original lien on the
"hard" collateral under proposed 11 U.S.C. § 552(b).
[Ifouse Report No. 95-595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 344-5 (1977).]
Subsection (a) defines "cash collateral" as cash, negotiable instru-
' tnenis, documents of title, securities, deposit accounts, or other cash
equivalents in iyhich the estate and an entity other than the estate
have an interest, such as a lien or a co -ownership interest. The defini-
tion is not restricted to property of the estate that is cash collateral
on the date of the filing of the petition. Thus, if "non -cash" collateral
is disposed of and the proceeds come within the definition of "cash
a collateral" as set forth in this subsection, the proceeds would be cash
Collateral as long as they remain subject to the original lien on the
"non -each" collateral under section 552(b). To illustrate, rents re-
!s eeived from real property before or after the commencement of the
{ case Would be. cash collateral to the extent that they are subject to a
ti lien.
[Senate Report No. 95-989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 55 (1978).]
84-311.1
The nrr t y !7 n r1^n"1J or 'tc
^.11ric. This Is not, intc•nduri tc% dery the prig.itn
a -)edic.nl doctor or dnnAir.t spr-ing the needs
�r the n^iL-h` orhnod.
84-3-14
§ 1107 BANKRUPTCY CODE 470
SECTION 1107 (11 U.S.C. § 1107)
§ 1107 Rights, powers, and duties of debtor in possession.
(a) Subject to any limitations on a trustee under this chap-
ter, and to such limitations or conditions as the court pre-
cribes, a debtor in possession shall have all the rights, other
than the right to Compensation under section 330 of this title,
and pourers, and shall perform all the functions and duties,
except the duties specified in sections 1106(a)(2), (3), and (4)
of this title, of a trustee serving in a case under this chapter.
(b) Notwithstanding section :327(a) of this title, a person is
not disqualified for employment under section :327 of this title
by a debtor in possession solely because of such person's em-
ployment by or representation of the debtor before the com-
mencement of the case.
Legislative History
This section places a debtor in possession in the shoes of a trustee
in every way.1'he debtor is given the rights and powers of a chapter
11 trustee. Ile is required to perform the functions and duties of a
chapter 11 trustee (except the investigative duties). He is also sub-
ject to any limitations on a chapter 11 trustee, and to such other
limitations and conditions as the court prescribes cf. Wolf v. Wein-
stein, :372 U.S. 6:33, 649-650 (1963).
[Senate Report No. 95-989, 95th Conq., 2d Scss. 116 (1.978); Sec also
House Report No. 9.5-595, 95f h Conq., 1st Scss. 404 (1977).]
The house amendment adopts section 1107(b) of the Senate
amendment whieh clarifies a point not covered by the house bill. The
lloitse amendment adopts section 1108 of the House bill in preference
to the style of an identical substantive provision contained in the
Senate amendment. Throughout title 11 references to a "trustee" is
read to include other parties under various sections of the bill. For
example, section 1107 applies to give the debtor in possession all the
rights and powers of a trustee in a case under chapter 11; this in -
chides the power of the trustee to operate the debtor's business under
section 1108.
[124 Conq. Rcc. 11 11,102 (Sept. 28, 1978), S 17,419 (Oct. 6, 1978).]
Comment
Under for►ner liankruptc}• Rule 10-208(b) the debtor eontinued in
possession had the duty to file a plan or report why a plan could not
i►e formulated and performed "such other duties" specified in for-
nter Rule 10-308(a), "as the court may direct."
Under section 1107 of the Code, the debt -or in possession is re-
(Iitired to perform all the duties specified for a trustee pursuant to
section 11060) except to (1) file the list, schedule and statement
'; hA me p-rt,y shn l l -not. h- U s-t' ro,r n t thPr n 7,•'t) or ris
^.ltric. This Is not, intcrnjed `r� deny the prly!ite
n -edical doctor or denA+r.t st'r-inf; the need•^,
�r t:hc n�i�Thhorhnod.
R2002 RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 48
Code, or they are inconsistent with § 701 of the Code. Similarly, the
provisions in Rule 201(d) relating to a debtor's counterbond are not
included because of their presence in § 303(g).
Subdivision (a) makes it clear that the court may not on its own
motion order the appointment of an interim trustee before an order
for relief is entered. Appointment may be ordered only on motion of
a party in interest.
Subdivision (b) requires those seeking the appointment of an inter-
im trustee to furnish a bond. The bond may be the same one required
of petitioning creditors under § 303(e) of the Code to indemnify the
debtor for damages allowed by the court under § 303(i).
Subdivision (c) requires that the order specify which duties enu-
merated in § 303(g) shall be performed by the interim trustee. Refer-
ence should be made to Rule 2015 for additional duties required of an
interim trustee including keeping records and filing periodic reports
with the court.
Subdivision (d) requires turnover of records and property to the
trustee selected under § 702 of the Code, after qualification. That,
trustee may be the interim trustee who becomes the trustee because
of the failure of creditors to elect one under § 702(d) or the trustee
elected by creditors under § 702(b), (c).
Bankruptcy Code —Comment
This rule complements § 303 of the Code. That section permits the
appointment of an interim trustee after an involuntary petition has
been filed but before the hearing has been held and the petition deter-
mined. The rule establishes the procedure vzth respect to the pro-
ceeding to appoint such an interim trustee.
Rule 2002.
NOTICES TO CREDITORS, EQUITY SECURITY HOLDERS,
AND UNITED STATES
(a) Tiuenty-Day Notices to Parties in Interest. Except as pro-
vided in subdivisions (h), (i) and (k) of this rule, the clerk, or
some other person as the court may direct, shall give the debt-
or, the trustee, all creditors and indenture trustees not less
than 20 days notice by mail of
(1) the meeting of creditors pursuant to § 341 of the
Code;
(2) a proposed use, sale, or lease of property other than
in the ordinary course of business unless the court for
mrA nr0p-rty Fhn 11 nrt � t us-t, ' r`r t� t 1►.t-j- r, �..i� .,t.j vi
t ^ltric. This 9s not int^rn�ed `c, deny t.ht? prlynte
-iPdical doctor or fi dent ir.t serein(; the need
Ir the n^ii•,hhorhnod.
49 PART II RULES R2002
cause shown shortens the time or directs another method
of giving notice;
(3) the hearing on approval of a compromise or settle-
ment of a controversy, unless the court for cause shown
directs that notice not be sent;
(4) the date fixed for the filing of claims against a sur-
plus in an estate as provided in Rule 3002(c)(6);
(5) in a chapter 7 liquidation and a chapter 11 reorgani-
zation case, the hearing on the dismissal or conversion of a
case to another chapter;
i (6) the time fixed to accept or reject a proposed modifi-
cation of a plan;
1 (7) hearings on all applications for compensation or
reimbursement of expenses totalling in excess of $100; and
(8) the time fixed for filing proofs of claims pursuant to
Rule 3003(c).
! (b) Twenty -five-day Notices to Parties in Interest. Except as
provided in subdivisions (h), (i) and (k) of this rule, the clerk,
or some other person as the court may direct, shall give the
debtor, the trustee, all creditors and indenture trustees not less
than 25 days notice by mail of (1) the time fixed for filing
objections to and the hearing to consider approval of a disclo-
sure statement; and (2) the time fixed for filing objections to
and the hearing to consider confirmation of a plan.
(c) Content of Notice.
(1) Proposed Use, Sale, or Lease of Property. Subject to
Rule 6004 the notice of a proposed use, sale, or lease of
property required by subdivision (a)(2) of this rule shall
include the time and place of any public sale, the terms
and conditions of any private sale and the time fixed for
filing objections. The notice of a proposed use, sale, or
lease of property, including real estate, is sufficient if it
generally describes the property.
(2) Notice of Hearing on Compensation. The notice of a
hearing on an application for compensation or reimburse-
ment of expenses required by subdivision (a)(7) of this
rule shall identify the applicant and the amounts request-
ed.
S4-344
a „ThP� nror-rty rn:i i
This is not ,lntcnded to
de
-'?dical doctor or ,3 do;;�rdinrhp priyatn
�r the n�i lThhr,rhnod, t, th . nfz
84-33 a,1
R
(d) Notice to Equity Security Holders. In a chapter 11 reor-
ganization case, unless otherwise ordered by the court, the
clerk, or some other person as the court may direct, shall in the
manner and form directed by the court give notice to all equity
security holders of (1) the order for relief; (2) any meeting of
equity security holders ordered by the court pursuant to § 341
of the Code; (3) the hearing on the dismissal or conversion of a
case to another chapter; (4) the time fixed for filing objections
to and the hearing to consider approval of a disclosure state-
ment; (5) the time fixed for filing objections to and the hearing
to consider confirmation of a plan; and (6) the time fired to
accept or reject a proposed modification of a plan.
(e) Notice of No Dividend. In a chapter 7 liquidation case, if it
appears from the sehedules that there are no assets from "Much
a dividend can be paid, the notice of the meeting of creditors
may include a statement to that effect; that it is unnecessary to
file claims; and that if sufficient assets become available for
the payment of a dividend, further notice will be given for the
filing of claims.
(f) Other Notices. Except as provided in subdivision (k) of
this rule, the clerk shall give the debtor, all creditors and in-
denture trustees notice by mail of (1) the order for relief; (2)
dismissal of the case; (3) the time allowed for filing claims
pursuant to Rule 3002; (4) the entry of an order directing that
the case be converted to a case under a different chapter; (5)
the time fixed for filing a complaint objecting to the debtor's
discharge pursuant to § 727 of the Code as provided in Rule
4004; (6) the time fixed for filing a complaint to determine the
disehargeability of a debt pursuant to § 523 of the Code as
provided in Rule 4007; (7) the order of discharge as provided
in Rule 4004(g); (8) the waiver denial, or revocation of a dis-
charge as provided in Rule 4006; (9) entry of an order confirm-
ing a chapter 9 or 11 plan; and (10) a summary of the trustee's
final report and account in a chapter 7 case if the net proceeds
realized exceed $250. Notice of the time fixed for accepting or
rejecting a plan pursuant to Rule 3017(c) shall be given in
accordance with Rule 3017(d).
(,g) Addresses of Notices. All notices required to be mailed
under this rule to a creditor, equity security holder, or inden-
ture trustee shall be addressed as lie or his authorized agent
s
r�rt ice^ ^11n: V. This is not intc.n,jed to de
ny t.hP prir3tr�~
�• '�piic,�l doctor or dpnA { rt spro inl, the need^,
7r thcn�i �.*h'�r,rh�od.
84-- 3441
J
51 PART II RULES R2002
may direct in a request filed with the court; otherwise, to the
address shown in the list of creditors or the schedule whichever
is filed later, but if a different address is stated in a proof of
claim duly filed, that address shall be used.
(h) Notices to Creditors Those Claims Are Filed. In a chapter
7 case, the court may, after 90 days following the first date set
for the meeting of creditors pursuant to § 341 of the Code,
direct that all notices required by subdivision (a) of this rule,
except clause (4) thereof, be mailed only to creditors whose
claims have been filed and creditors, if any, who are still per-
mitted to file claims by reason of an extension granted under
Rule 3002(c)(6).
(i) Notices to Committees. Copies of all notices required to be
mailed under this rule shall be mailed to the committees ap-
pointed pursuant to the Code or to their authorized agents.
Notwithstanding the foregoing subdivisions, the court may or-
der that notices required by subdivision (a) (2), (3) and (7) of
{ this rule be mailed only to the committees or to their autho-
rized agents and to the creditors and equity security holders
1 ! who file with the court a request that all notices be mailed to
` them.
(j) Notices to the United States. Copies of notices required to
be mailed to all creditors under this rule shall be mailed (1) in
a chapter 11 reorganization case to the Securities and Ex-
change Commission at Washington, D.C., and at any other
place the Commission designates in writing filed with the court
if the Commission has filed a notice of appearance in the case
or has made a request in writing filed with the court; (2) in a
commodity broker case, to the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission at Washington, D.C.; (3) in a chapter 11 case to
the District Director of Internal Revenue for the district in
which the case is pending; (4) if the papers in the case disclose
a debt to the United States other than for taxes, to the United
States attorney for the district in which the case is pending
and to the department, agency, or instrumentality of the Unit-
ed States through which the debtor became indebted; or if the
filed papers disclose a stock interest of the United States, to
the Secretary of the Treasury at Washington, D.C.
(k) Notice by Publication. The court may order notice by
publication if it finds that notice by mail as provided in this
ih? nror-rtv shill not. us-f' f,,,r cItrPr-
;, ;�c +aril 7tliric. This Is not. intc•ndAfl to deny the prirrate
.�,;rt,irr• ,'' a medical doctor or % dnn,?ir.t spr-ing the needs
�r the n^iffhhorhnod.
84 344
J
R2002 RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 52
rule is impracticable or that it is desirable to supplement the
notice.
(1) Orders Designating Matter of Notices. The court may from
time to time enter orders designating the matters in respect to
which, the person to whom, and the form and manner in which
notices shall be sent except as otherwise provided by these
rules.
(m) Caption. The caption of every notice given under this
rule shall comply with Rule 1005.
Advisory Committee Note
Some of the notices required by this rule may be given either by
the clerk or as the court may otherwise direct. For example, the court
may order the trustee or debtor in possession to transmit one or more
of the notices required by this rule, such as, notice of a proposed sale
of property. See § 363(1;) of the Code. When publication of notices is
required or desirable, reference should be made to Rule 9008.
Notice of the order for relief is required to be given by § 342 of the
Code and by subdivision (f)(1) of this rule. That notice may be com-
bined with the notice of the meeting of creditors as indicated in
Official Form No. 16, the notice and order of the meeting of credi-
tors.
Stibdit, sion (a) sets forth the requirement that 20 days notice be
given of the significant, events in a case under the Bankruptcy Code.
The former Act and Rules provided a ten day notice in bankruptcy
and Chapter fiI cases, and a 20 day notice in a Chapter T case. This
rule generally makes uniform the 20 day notice provision except that
subdivision (b) contains a 25 day period for certain events in a chap-
ter 9, 11, or 13 case. Generally, Rule 9006 permits reduction of time
periods. Since notice by mail is complete on mailing, the requirement
of subdivision (a) is satisfied if the notices are deposited in the mail
at least 20 days before the event. See Rule 9006(e). The exceptions
referred to in the introductory phrase include the modifications in
the notice procedure permitted by subdivision (h) as to non -filing
creditors, subdivision (i) as to cases where a committee is function-
ing, and subdivision (k) where compliance with subdivision (a) is
impracticable.
The notice of a proposed sale affords creditors an opportunity to
object to the sale and raise a dispute for the court's attention. Section
363(b) of the Code permits the trustee or debtor in possession to sell
property, other than in the ordinary course of business, only after
notice and hearing. If no objection is raised after notice, § 102(1)
provides that there need not be an actual hearing. Thus, absent objec-
tion, there would be no court involvement with respect to a trustee's
sale. Once an objection is raised, only the court may pass on it.
Prior to the Code the court could shorten the notice period for a
proposed sale of property or dispense with notice. This subdivision
- 84-344
The nropprty shn l l not. hr, a s-tt f (,r P i thPr n ri,'nt.,O or as,
Me,! I.-r: i ni i r± c, This is not intcnded to deny thP private
.��rt ire •,`' a 'Iedical doctor or rinnAict sprvin(; the needs
�r the n^i,,hv)orhnod.
84-344
23 GENERAL PROVISIONS § 102
set aside as a preferential "transfer" but will be subject to special
rules.
Section 1(30) of the Act defined transfer as follows:
"(:30) `Transfer' shall include the sale and every other and
different mode, direct or indirect, of disposing of or of parting
with property or with an interest therein or with the possession
thereof or of fixing a lien upon property or upon an interest
therein, absolutely or conditionally, voluntarily or involuntarily,
by or without judicial proceedings, as a conveyance, sale, assign-
ment, payment, pledge, mortgage, lien, encumbrance, gift, secu-
rity, or otherwise; the retention of a security title to property
delivered to a debtor shall be deemed a transfer suffered by such
debtor."
By simplifying the definition, section 101(40) [redesignated 101(41)]
of the Code is intended to define transfer as broadly as possible to
include any disposition of property or an interest in property.
References
2 Collier on Bankruptcy Ch. 101 (151li ed. 1982).
1 Collier Ban kruptcy.lfanual Ch. 101 (3rd ed. 1982).
1 Collicr Bankruptcy Practice Guide Ch. 1 (1982).
Flourney v. City Finance of Columbus, Inc. 679 F.2d 821, 6
C.B.C.2d 965 (llth Cir. 1982); In re Ashe, 669 F.2d 105. 5
C.B.C.2d 1:369 (3rd Cir. 1982). In the Matter of Marhoefer
Packing Co., 674 F.2d 11:39, 6 C.B.C.2d 11 (7th Cir. 1982).
Chatz, Costello and (cross, An Ovemieu, of the Bankruptcy Code,
84 Comm. L.J. 259 (1979).
Seidman and Seigal, The New Bankruptcy Code —..!I Primer for
the General Practitioner, Conn. Law Trib., May 14 — July 9,
1979.
SECTION 102 (11 U.S.C. § 102)
§ 102 Rules of construction. In this title—
(1) "after notice and a hearing", or a similar phrase —
(A) means after such notice as is appropriate in the
partieular circumstances, and such opportunity for a
hearing as is appropriate in the particular circumstances;
but
(B) authorizes an act without an actual hearing if such
notice is given properly and if—
i
►
or ,
— Thy 0r(DrrtY shall nr,t h� �►s'`t� �� !n deny t.hp prly�tn
I 11nic. This is not, in._n.Adr st'roin(; tho need,
a P9ica1 doctor car
-)r the n^ i LThhorhnod -
V4-3• l4
§ 102 BANKRUPTCY CODE 24
(i) such a hearing is not requested timely by a party
in interest; or
(ii) there is insufficient time for a hearing to be com-
menced before such act must be done, and the court,
authorizes such act.;
(2) "claim against the debtor" includes claim against prop-
erty of the debtor;
(3) "includes" and "including" are not. limiting;
(4) "may not." is prohibitive, and not permissive;
(5) "or" is not. exclusive;
(6) "order for relief" means entry of an order for relief;
(7) the singular includes the plural; and
(8) a definition, continued" in a section of this title that
refers to another section of this title, does not, for the purpose
of such reference, affect the meaning of a term used in such
other section.
['Ed. I'Votc: As enacted. Should be "contained."]
Legislative History
Section 102 provides seven rules of construction. Soule ate derived
from current law; others are derived from 1 U.S.C. << 1; a fcv- are
new. The} apply generally throughout proposed title- 11. 'These are
terms that are not appropriate for definition, but that require an
explanation.
Paragraph (1) defines the concept of "after notice and a hearing;."
The concept is central to the bill and to the separation of the adtninis-
trative and jmlicial functions of bankruptcy judges. 'flip phrase
menus after such notice as appropriate in the particular circum-
stances (to be prescribed b%• either the Miles of Bankruptcy Proce-
dure or bc• the court in individual circumstances that the Rules Ilo
not cover. In many eases, the Rules will provide for combined motiee
of several proceedings), and such opportunity for a hearing as is
appropriate in the particular eiremnstanees. Tiros, a hearing will not
be necessary in ever -y instance. If there is no objection to the pro-
posed action, the action nlay go ,ahead without court actiom. This is a
significant change from present lacy, a•ltich requires the affirmative
approval of the harlkrttptcy judge for almost e\'etN action. The
change will permit the bankruptcy judge to stay remioved froth the
administration of the haillct•tlptc}• or reorganization ease, and to be-
c0111e im-olvell umly tt•lten there is a dispute about a proposed action,
that is, only tyhen there is an ohjeetion.'I'he phrase "such opportuni-
tv for a hearing as is appropriate in the particular cirem nstanees" is
designed to permit the Mules and the courts to expedite or dispense
with hearings when speed is essential. The language "or similar
phrase" is intended to cover the few instances in the bill where "after
S4"a3'14
}?e nrcl,nrt,v shn i l nnt. 0- us-tt rnr e l thar n ri--'ntn) or ris
^ l i p i c . This i s not rote-nd,�d to dentin t.hp pri vnt Q
r.,ct.ir^ �)' a medical doctor or % dvn,?Irt srreing the needs
-)r the n-i t.•hbr,rhnod.
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS
00%�
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned being the owner
of the following described property, lying, being and situated in
Dade County, Florida, to -wit:
Lot 4, Block 2, Point View, according to Plat
Book 2 Page 93, of the Public Records of Dade
County.
in order to assure the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida,
that the representations made to it by the owner will be abided by,
by-4ba--owner_wi4-V-be-abided by,
voluntary makes the following declarations of restrictions covering
and running with the property:
i
1. The owner will make an intensive study as to the financial feasabiiity
of preserving and restoring the 1916 structure presently on the property
and incorporating it with the proposed office building.
2. While retaining the rights and uses presently allowed for the property,
voluntarily covenants that if the zoning requested results in a change to
Office Residential ( R. 0. ), that the owner will construct in accordance
with a density of 3/6 rather than the presently allowed 3/7, in order to
reduce the density on the plot and the lowering of use of traffic, polution,
parking during peV evening hours.
3. The design and construction of the building planned will be of equal
or of higher quality than those presently in the area.
4. Any signs placed on the property will be done with the same taste as
_ those already in the developed area and no sign will be placed on the
South side of the lot or the South side of the structure to be built.
5. In the event a traffice light is placed at Brickell and S. E. 14th Street
coorev>>'ir To
the owner willkdi\ert traffic from the property toward that thoroughfare.
The oror-rty shall not. hr Uso"' for elther n il,�ntnl or as
a Mn-' l r.3 ) nl i r.i c . This Is not, intended to don.), the private
medical doctor or 3 den►:i:'t SPry ink the aped
is
-)r the neiLrhborhnod.
t�
I
_ 84-344.
6. The landscaping of the property along South Bayshore Drive
shall be improved and maintained at a level at least consistent
with the landscaping at the existing Point View area residential
buildings.
FURTHERMORE:
A. It is understood and agreed by the undersigned that any official
inspector of the City of Miami Building Department or Zoning Department,
or any agents duly authorized by the Director of those Departments may have
the privilege at any time during normal working hours of entering and
investigating the use of the premises to determine whether or not the
requirements of the building and zoning regulations and the conditions
herein agreed are being fulfilled.
B. These restrictions during their lifetime shall be a restriction and
limitation upon, all present and future owners of the above -described real
property and for the public welfare and shall be enforceable by property
owners within 375 feet of the subject property, property owners on South
Bayshore Drive between Southeast 14th Street and Southeast 15th Road, Miami,
Florida, specifically including those who may be farther than 375 feet of
the subject property; any condominium association in the above described
areas of by the City of Miami.
C. This Agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land, shall
be recorded in the Public Records of Dade County, Florida and shall remain in
full force and effect and be binding upon the undersigned, its successors
and assigns until such time as it is modified or released in the manner
provided herein.
- 2 -
K
84--344-
D. These covenants are to run with
the land and shall be binding on
all parties and all persons claiming
under them for a period of 30 years
from the date of recordation, after which time they shall be extended auto-
Jt
matically for successive periods of
ten years, unless an instrument signed
$
by a majority of the then owners(s)
of the property has been recorded which
changes or releases the covenants in
whole, or in part, provided that the
covenants have been released or the
changes approved by the City of Miami
Commission after a public hearing.
If the zoning district or the regulations
_7.
applicable to all the properties on
South Bayshore Drive between Southeast_
14th Street and Southeast 15th Road
should change to permit any structure
within such area to used totally for
offices, banks or commercial uses, or
oombinations thereof, or if the permitted FAR applicable to such area increases
above that presently permitted, the
subject property shall be relieved of the
limitations contained terein which are more restrictive than the new district or
regulations. The recordation among the Public Records of Dade County, Florida,
of an Affidavit or Certificate from the City Attorney of the City of Miami
that such changes in the City of Miami Ordinances have been made will be
sufficient to place all persons on notice that such changes have modified
these covenants.
E. This Declaration of Restrictive Covenants may be modified, amended or
released as to the land herein described or any portion thereof, by a written
instrument executed by the then such owners of the fee simple title to the
lands to be affected by such modification, amendment or release and the City
Commission after public hearing.
F. Should this Declaration of Restrictive Covenants be so modified, amended
or released, the Director of the City of. Miami Building and Zoning Department
or his successor, shall forthwith execute a written instrument effectuating
and acknowledging such modification, amendment or release.
G. Enforcement shall be by action at law or in equity against any parties
or persons violating or attempting to violate any convenants either to
restrain violation or to recover damages. If any suit be brought for such
enforcement the enforcing party, if successful, shall be entitled to recover,
in addition to costs and disbursements allowed for by law, such sum as the
1
Court may adjudge to be reasonable for the services of his attorney.
3-
84-344.
N. 'Invalidation of any one of these covenants, by Judgement or Court,
in no wide shall affect any of the other provisions which shall remain
in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Qwner•has caused these presents to be executed
and signed this QL Q day of M , 1984.
WITNESSES:
$(Y, [✓'� /)J�
DATE
8y:
Allen 8TTss, Owner
i
84-344
i