Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-09758a-83-651 11/30/83 ORDINANCE NO." 9758 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 2, POINT VIEW (2-93) MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM RG-3/7 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO RO-3/6 BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 37 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. WHEREAS, the Motion of the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of July 11, 1983, Item No. 5, following an advertised hearing, to RECOMMEND DENIAL of a change of zoning classifica- tion, as hereinafter set forth, failed by a 3 to 2 vote, therefore constituting a RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL; and WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of this matter deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to grant this change of zoning classification as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Zoning Atlas of Ordinance No. 95001 the zoning ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification of Lot 5, Block 21 POINT VIEW (2-93) of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, from RG-3/7 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL to RO-3/6 RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE. Section 2. It is hereby found that this zoning classi- fication change: (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) Would 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 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. PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 72 th day of October , 1983. PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this lath day of November , 1983. ST: /J E? Maurice A. Ferre MAURICE A. FERRE, Mayor � RAL G. ONGIE City Clerk PREPARED AND APPROVED BY; IRIAM MA Assistant City Attorney GMM/wpc/096 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS .4014; 44011, - lv� IJaSE ARCIA-P DR VIty Attorney f <<a CITY OF `AIAMI. FLORIDA 31 INTER -OFFICE MEMORANOUM TO: Howard V. Gary DATE: July 15, 1983 FILE: City Manager r SUBJECT: ORDINANCE - RECOMMENDED DENIAL CHANGE OF ZONING - ORD 9500 APPROX 185 SE 14 TERRACE AND `- FRO Aurelio E. Perez-Lugones - REFERENCES: APPROX 200 SE 14 STREET S 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-3/7 GENERA1711= UMAL 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-713 3E 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:III cc: Law Department NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: APPROVAL. of lots 58 b and 7 DENIAL of Lot 4 41 LOCATION/LEGAL OWNER/APPLICANT ZONING REQUEST RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING DEPT. r,, 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.V. c/o A.R. Scott 100 North Biscayne Blvd. • Mi-ami, Florida Phone # 371-3592 Cucusa, Inc. c/o Ray Corona, President 6240 Sunset Drive, ,Miami, Florida 33143 Phone # 666-6874 Pointview Towers -of Curacao, Inc. c/o A.R. Scott ' 100 North Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida Phone # 371-3592 Gary Held (Attorney for Applicants) • 1401 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida Phone #579-0609 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). APPROVAL OF LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND DENIAL OF LOT 4. e majority of the IoUs face reet 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 housing close into the downtown area. u�t PUBLIC WORKS ZONING BOARD This will contribute 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. At its meeting of July 11, 1983, made a motion to recommend aeniai 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 a 3 to 2 vote, there- fore constituting a recommendation of denial. (Ord 9500) F Jr wit 1 3 J APPROX.185 S.E.14 TERR AND APPROX . 200 S.E. 14 ST. jt\t R-CB 0- i -] /¢ m o �S R-CB % 1 I t CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4, I a ���i�"s;'��''rz,ttr:.r�s�a,`: c:�,q�+'`?;�'�L'.''., ,. - � _ , �'stY:�+,t�=.�c.✓„��#i�s:-=i4+, ����..�, y,aN r -. yY • t�,.y lit i1• :�: .». .. ...: . ♦. .n •... AEI .-h .. ..• - I 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 #579-0609 ZONING R-5 (High Density Multiple) REQUEST Change of Zoning Classification to R-CB (Residential -Office). RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING DEPT. M DENIAL. 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; Z) The change would be irs conflictwith adopted City Comprehensive plans for the Bricked 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; 4) The change is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood and the city, since there is sufficient land all along Brickell Avenue zoned R-CB. PUBLIC WORKS No dedication is requested. ' til * SEE REVISED FACT SHEET SHOWING REVISED LIST OF OWNER/APPLICANTS * * SEE REVISED FACT SHEET SHOWING REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS AND ZONING BOARD ACTION. APPROX.185 S.E. 14 TERR AND APPROX . 200 S.E. 14 ST. 1= J^ �''.�SA'�'f �k 3�.::S".3+i�s•'.,IY 4s.•.C?:W;�.iiiti i; lii�'y .tit ciw. `{•.;is4l. �'i�i�7Gi1Yi'dYfw''�J•J�'�-BaT'i1�1Y�1:iI.'�r „� �;N`y1.r4`.w�s+•t►M!YO..iVC iIR r'Y?'V�A�'tt.•Ya '• fe-..Yy �:alta. J r A, • is 11 , W LAW OFFICES 1020 DUPONT BUILDING 169 EAST FLAGLER STREET MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131-1204 August 2, 1993 Mr. Ralph Ongie Clerk, City of Miami 3300 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 7:� Y_., i•1- n r." f�4 _. ,3 1.-*0 '.. 1,Y 2• TELEPHONE (305) 379.1681 Re: City Commission Meeting, July 28, 1983 Agenda Item Number 11: 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 185 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: 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 3ullet Hananian, M. D. Ruth Elsasser Hellen Corwin Elsie Nolan Anna M. Marshall William 3. Scandella Elizabeth Welsh Marion Bevard Ruth Hershberg Gina Graham Evelyn Fellows Mary C. Freeman 0. . 1450 South Bayshore Drive 1430 South Bayshore Drive 1450 South Bayshore Drive . 1430 South bast 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 . . M'e..a-��.rg..:a►;rtF:t.� .. rr'+tf+F'+t�i.'4',A�"S.'"M%��f�`+,.. -..•�r++aw:.�!awww+wM�-....}.a..r,y+w�..., ws,... ,.. , ,, j � • 3. r�_t w� .. .. _ . .,c , ., lr*u^-��[T: �.�.-.M., . „! •.�hih, ` .Iti'4+6YJ�wii Mr. Ralph Ongie August 2, 1993 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 OF JANET L. COOPER W'0 .s JANET L. COOPER JLC:cmm cc: Bernard Kopel A. f 0 f ' f { R 4 z. ri ■ �"t'JO"i�a�N, yY'a-148;�f'•�i!�7;�%'r•s LS•+•.`;�a�y'.y:,.;:.i?":'-�::'J;.�..;i�.tf�L`rL �J'�C' i c <s •..'�i ;. i:.�`t "!' L7�� 4�.ia• nt: . • 1r1• LINDA KOOBRICK ADI.ER MICHAEL O. ALBERTINE CESAR L. ALVAREZ RUDOLPH F.ARAGON REUSIN O D. ASKEW JAMES L. BACCHUS HILARIE BASS NORMAN J. BENFORD MARK D. BLOOM BURT BRUTON ROBERT K. BURLINGTON ALBERT 0.CARUANA ALAN R. CHASE SUE M. COBS KENDALL B. COFFEY MARK B. DAVIS ALAN T. DIMOND CHARLES W. EDGAR, IM GARY M. EPSTEIN THOMAS K. EOUELS RICHARD O. GARRETT LAWRENCE GOOOFSKY ALAN S. GOLD HARVEY A. GOLDMAN STEVEN E. GOLDMAN STEVEN M. GOLDSMITH CITY OF MIAMI PLA%,'Jt:,:G R 7014ING LAW OFFICES t )A,.Q GREENBERG,TRAURIG.. ASKEW, HOPFMAN, UPOFF & OUENTEL, P. A. '83 OCT 13 P 1 .57 BRIAN K. OOODKINO ANTHONY J. O DONNELL, JR. MATTHEW B. GORSON ROGER O. OSSURN MELVIN N. GREENBERG BYRON G. PETERSEN MARILYN O. GREENBLATT VICTOR M. POLK, JR. ROBERT L. GROSSMAN ALBERT D.OUENTEL GARY M. MELD RONALD B. RAVIKOFF LARRY J. HOFFMAN FLORENCE T. ROBBINS BARRY O. HUNTER NICHOLAS ROCKWELL AMBLER H. MOSS, JR. ZACHARY H. WOLFF OF COUNSEL ARNOLD M. JAFFEE DAVID L. ROSS BRICKELL CONCOURS SETH P. JOSEPH ROBERT M. RUBENSTEIN MARTIN KALB CLIFFORD A. SCHULMAN 1401 BRICKELL AVENUE TIMOTHY E. "ISM MARK SCHWIMHER MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 STEVEN J. KRAVITZ MARTIN B. SHAPIRO STEVEN A. LANOY EUGENE SHY, JR. STEVEN S. LAPIOUS MARLENE K. SILVERMAN TELEPHONES ALAN S. LEDERMAN TIMOTHY A. SMITH MIAMI (305) 579-0500 WALLACE L. LEWIS, JR. DARLENE STOSIK ■ROWARD (30E) 523-8111 NORMAN H. LtPOFF GARY O. LIPSON HERBERT M. BUSKIN LILLIA14A TORREN-BAYOUTH _ TELEX 90-3124 CARLOS E. LOUMIET ROBERT H. TRAURIG TELECOPY (305) 578-0716 JUAN P. LOUMIET YOLANDA 1. VILLAMIL WRITER'3 DIRECT NO:. DEBBIE RUTH MALINSKY STANLEY H. WAKSHLAG GREGORY A. MARTIN JONATHAN H. WARNER PEORO A. MARTIN DAVID M. WELLS ALAN M. MITCHEL JULIE A. S. WILLIAMSON LOUTS 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. IkUQerely , HELD GASH/bwp cc: Hobert He Traurig, Esq. Enclosure 11 D15CLLSURE OF C;.'N:-:P-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. Owner(s) of suL;�Ztt real pro:.�L�� d' percentage of ownership.* • Note: City of Miami Ordinance Itio. 9419 rewires disclosure of all parties Faving 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 6, 7 land 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 listen in answer to question ; 2, "and (b) • located within 375 feet of the subject real property. SEAPLACE REALTY INVESTMENTS N.V. A RNEY IN FACT POINTVIEW TOWERS OF CURACAO, INC. ATTOVNEY IN FACT SM CE OF FLORIDA ) SS: COUNTY OF DADE ) in fact, ' R. C. west , being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the (*=W) (Attorney o_ 0uner) of the real property described in answer to question 'r1, above; that he has reed the foregoing answers and that the same are true and corrplete; and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to execste this Disclosure of Ownership form on behalf of the owner. =94 TO PIM SUBSCRIBED before The this 13th day of October -"�, 98 3 . �L dr Flcrida at urge ' NOTARY FUJUC 9ATE CF R=9)A AT LA M 1:' :`• �. 3�.' t � S • !NY 5 1944 8t?NPs� THOU O: CiAI, INS. 1UNWWLITERS 4 t DISCIL'SU;Z OF rl.'.ti:-F�HIP 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. Owner(s) of suu'�ett real pro,..�L�z d'percentage of ownership.* Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 5419 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 Comission. 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 1&nd 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 F2,"and (b) located within 375 feet of the subject real property. SEAPLACE REALTY INVESTMENTS N.V. A�i3RNEY IN FACT POINTVIEW TOWERS OF CURACAO, INC. ATTd1WEY IN FACT ST-A= OF FYARIDA ) SS: COtTICY OF DADE ) in fact, R. C. West being duly sworn, deposes and says that ne is the (G+*wr) (Attorney o. Owner) of the real property described in answer to question '1, above; that he has reed the foregoing answers and that the same are true and conplete; and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to exec -ate this Disclosure of Ownership fo--m on behalf of the owner. SW0911 TO PIM SUESCRIBED before me this 13th day of October g8 3Flor-ida at Large ,.. t , 44 • ',.'�"'y . t�.:.C, S ALE Or NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MORiDA AT .LARGE VV C3.''�'.1SrI�i ���.��� bOMNDc'DDJJJA JSG° ON 1N$ N RS 1XC W11TM: . r— STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS: COUN=- OF DARE ) R. C. west , being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the duly a=ointed Attorney in Fact of Pointview TOWer.9 of Curacao the owner Of the real X rt described in answer to auestio� , die; P Y the 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 Own er- ship form on behalf of the owner. (Sahz) (Name) Sl "DiN 'IU PIS SUBSCPSBED � i� : ,, P„ _ before m_ this 13th day of October , T98 3. �' r ► , Notary P=Iic, State Ot Florida at Large W M-tMSSSIC" MIRES: PU%UC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LAWA MY CON,NjSSION EXPIMS DEC � 1984 JONDER IHRU GENERAL INS , UNDERWRITERS I w�. ro J DISCLOSUf.E OF CWNEPSSHIP 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, Bloch 2, Point View, Plat Book 2, Page 93, public Reocrds of Dade County." Approximately 185 S. E. 14th Terrace and 200 S. E. 14th Street. 2. Owner(s) of suuj�ct real proL.. and percentage of ownership. Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties axing 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 oorporations, 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) 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 Cdrona, President STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS: COUILM OF DARE ) Ray Corona, President , being duly sworn, deposes and says UR he is the Owner (Attorney f5r Owner) of the real property described in answer to question #2, above; that he'has read. the foregoing answers and that the same are true and oonplete; and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to execute this Disclosure of Ownership foam on behalf of the owner. SWOM TO AMID SUBSCRIBED before meCAI,, is stay of •w• * W CO SSION WIRES: NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA MY CoMMissION EXPIM MC 23 1956 Wf D JH&V (INERMI. INSURANQ UNO SEAL) thao- Notary Public, StAte O Florida at Large i , STATE OF MORIDA ) SS - MUM OF DADS � Ray Corona I, being duly sworn, deposes and saes Mat a is Mg au y appointed r idept - � _ of Cucusa __inc, , the owner of the real property described in answer to question ► , ve; 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. r //A Name SV RN TO AM SUBSCRIBED before this 10•a day of ; ;T983 . ,,,, ZALf (Ail" Public, i,'y� ; ire '�� .•� Notary rubli /� r, State of � i , � ,fl 1 11, , Florida at LargeO r.> MY r%rW1kiI1=SICIA L-{PIRES: ►'� 1111Mm►,►IW NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC 23 1986 BONDED TNRU GENERAL INSUK-Wa UaID f f Gr1Nl/wpc,/Ab/025 I 5S. CLL� Or DnD", � Before me. the=nd.: yiG:cd author i:y, this day p=r:,o~�ll'I appeared Robert H. Trauricg who baix-q by me fir tt dull solor'.19 upon oath, deposes and Says: 1. That he is the murner, or the legal representative of the opener, sub:.uttino the accc:-panyir4; application for a public hearing as req.dred by Ordinance No. 6871 of the Code of the City of t4ia=, Florida, effecting the real property located in the City of Miami as described and listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and rlade a part thereof. 2. That all a.-mers %•rhich he represents,. if arry, have given their full ar.d caTplete per ussion for him to act in their behalf for the charge or :rcdification of a classification or regulation of zoning as set out in the accc-a_n ,_:^,g petition. 3. That the pages attac red hereto and mde a paxt of this affidavit cmital n the cu_. ent nwries, ma , addresses, phone =..hers a. legal descr —pt io ns for the reel property which he is the avner or leg=i representative. 4. The facts -as represented in the application a*t do=ents s.:l=* tted in conju- czion ::nth this affidavit are tme and co:: ect. Ftr-•thl er Afflia LN sayeth not. (Name1 - Sworn to and Subscribed before me day of 1993 . . !' 'iota.- f Pu}lic, State of Florida at Large %ry •CaTr.•15sion Dvpires: T itoTAky POBLIC STATE OF FWKIhA PNDED THRU GENERAL INSURANCE WO mX gohAmIsSION EXPIRES JULY 16 1956 S L i ST Ot�nerI s Name Cucusa, Inc. c/o Ray' Corona, President Failing Address' ' 6240 Sunset Drive, Miami, Florida 33143 'telephone Number 666-6874 Legal Description: Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2, Pagc 93, Public Records of Dade County. Owner 'S Nam; e Seaplace Realty Investments, N.V. c/o Mr. A. R. Scott Mailing 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, Florida Telephone Number 371-3592 • Legal Description: Lot 30, less the East 5 feet thereof, Block 2, Poirit View, Plat Book 2, Page 93, Public Records of Dade County • e Any o,.ner real estate propert. •n:ned individually,. jointly, or severally (by cor-oration, partnership privately) within.375' of the subject site is listed as follows: Street Address Lecal Description Street Address - r Street Address a Legal Description •• •a Legal Descriotion w:. ��iA1,i'fJ`+tM1'��•�ii'�`iiMt!..RCS?e?�1':�i:as�',!.fiffd't �Y`:4N?itea.SO"'M�WNd+:�,"'J•1A1�. _ �'�'�?'° l ��:s3i�..rl.'l�t-�:'7�-ytti.��.�!�r �`�,�•r,t�'fr + :. .. 4'fr'•_. - % , , w p.. /. v. ,+•.P '' ^.'73. r,. / l �, wN,s JtI":- - Vk ._ .. :>L`• x.•—'r•'�..�....-.>`.F..:.:cy :,.:;.-: '�;�y:',. 'ryfA...:..:.>.;; '�,�.�t.:;.. `a.�w!iau:t�•.. .... • !: y.::i.. ` —.. ';•i: '..:•..�;,�:. '.•ti.�yT•'•W»� �?Ss-i.+S., e. r.• c��ti�... .J y\•. ...ry ..r ✓9L".�v.•w ..1 • • f L :rare ... - .. - " i s ":•✓ . �:I ���s..�. ���=...+'.Y,w+::^pL` .tr.1,y�• �`Y`It�C,t�'r�.. • .,:u�.. .. ._ s'. -_ 7u• j,•r::•?: .�w:en?./:i.r i::;..i (ti~'aXt"'SA^+•i•' ;.nl. R... � . ��. 3n..r^,.��•,•,i.;'!..-.I +C.. +'� ,._ .. ,�''.,"lit.. :i.'� ,'r.�• =`-.t aa". �. �: ai.,.,.�i:....i=', ''fir "ate' •-i �.. .iJL'�''',� .ti• t <>r'%'''.t,• t�•. mot!_stJ.,.,•Sfa)•'{..ow:..::�.:J.4S.�. ;t;tie•:r�. «N::�r•::.� .. ��%,• - - 'ty:' •fit r• ,r,•..•.5: ;.. •'.'...� ,+�+U�� '.{`•' 4: r. %i• • • .Y•YF���,.•-. :.. : �::>:::h'.;y•,. y 1 p i•Yri` :!•-•�•.'r••'+.�,i• t.�yy`'4'- • _ - .._ -.. .. •- 'V - :,yes.. ._. - - -., .«. .. .. .. CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING' & ZONING LAW OFFICES GREENBERG, TRAURIG, ASKEW, HOFFMAN, LIPOFF 8t QUENTEL, P.A. ®RICKELL CONCOURS 1,601 ORICKELL AVENUE 83 NOV -9 A4 .26 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 MIAMI (305) 87sa-0300 •R0~40 (305) 523-8111 TCLtX 80-3134 •rn.&COPY (305) 579-07I8 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, tBAG-BARMA ROMBR Secretary to Robert H. Trourig br ftclosure i A F F I D A V t T STATE OF IFURJtDA) SS. COMn OF DOE ? Before me, the .Lnd•e=ig* cd authority, this day persowlly appeared GARY M. HELD who being by me first duly S'WOrl !, upon oath, deposes and says: 1. That he is the a.mer, or the legal representative of the diner, submutting the accc.,:panying application for a public hearLna as required by Ordinance No. 9500 of the Code of the City of Miami., Florida, effecting the real property located in the City of Miami as described and listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and made a part thereof. 2. That all mmers which he represents,. if any, have given their full and coTplete permission for rim to act in their behalf for the chawnge or mcdification of a classification or regulation of zc:drZ as set out in the acce..� ^.S2.o petition. 3. That the pages attached hereto and made a Far` of this affidavit contain the cu*, ent m-nes, rraili^.g adcresses, phone n=.Ibers and legal descriptions for the real property which he is the miner or legal representative. 4. The facts -as represented in the application and doci.:. Dnts snuml.tted in conjunction with this affidavit are true and correct. Rzr her A.ffiant sayeth not. ZI ; r��/ Hamel . GAARY' M . HELD Sworn to and Subscribed before me this D day, ofA�&g&19 Boo. Notary Public, State of Florida at fiq Cocrrsssion Expires: NOTARY FUBUC STATE OF FLONDA AT IAIQ MY tQ,:1,Y115�IGJ�! F:�PSrt5 1,yN , 28 1985 $ONDID THRU bENDtAL It4s . UN.r,ERWRIUM �s 011i1ER 5 LISP Owner's name SEAPLACE REALTY INVESTMENTS c o Robert H. Traurig f .ai 1 ing Address 1401 Brickell Avenue telephone Number 579-0500 Legal Description: Pots 6, 7, 8, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93) Owner's Nane POINT VIEW TOWER OF CURACAO INC c o er - . Traurig Mailing Address 1401 Brickell Ave . telephone' Number 579-0 500 Legal, Description: Lot 30, less the east 5 feet thereof, Block 2, POINT VIEW 12-93) Owner's Name CUCUSA, INC. C/O ROF5ert 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 owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 375' of the subject site is listed as follows: Street Address Legal Description Street Address Street Address r Legal Description „ lift DISCtWIJECE OF Owh1mflu 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 91, Public Reocrds • of Dade County.' Approximately 185 S. E. 14th Terrace and ' 200 S. E. 14th Street. 2. Owner(s) of suv34ct real prok,,6—.rr'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 sharehold6rs of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, _ together with their addresses and proportionate interest. As to lots 4 poet L N - 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) ' owned by any Ply listed in answer to question #2, and (bl-Iocated within 375 feet of the subject real property. , None IZ40:00 STATE OF FMR= ) SS: , OOLRM OF DARE ) . s M s _ .• .�.�1J - 1.1 sS "} '� • : • 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 same are true and =plete= and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to execute this Dir-r•I.osure of Ownership foam on behalf of the owner. - ` (SEAL) Nam, e _ SWORN TO AND5V BED - before me thisILS � day of , r9L DA A110 TWA" "buz r. 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 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-Miami 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.zonirig as it relates to the property that does not front on the water, that is primarily lot 4. We suggest to you that lot 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 tar 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, that being 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, 1.9830 Item 4 Zoning Board t= I 1 s 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 an 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- tional 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 where 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 .. -2- July 11, 1983, Items 4 Zoning Board R M! 0 �% 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 anattorney 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 , Zoning Board 1� !s 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: to speak in favor? Thank you, Mr. Traurig. Anyone else 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's and 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 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. s They are saying though that if we could get office July 11, 1983, Items 4 & 5 Zoning Board -4- 9 7- �r 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. as -.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 parcel 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 take 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 discussion today, was requested to -be rezoned for offices and at that time, the people from our area including some d# July 11, 1983, Items 4 & 5 Zoning Board -5- rf"IMWI 1 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. Am 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,iGloria. 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. July 11, 1983, Items 4 & t. Zoning Board -6- ' 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 chance 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 rezonings 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 in 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 $� Zoning Board -" - D R 1) F` 'Y 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- 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 offices have residential on them or should they have the same kind of zoning which exist around them. The Planning Department suggests to you that 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. We 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 becausb on that crescent, on that South Bayshore Drive, there is no room for expansion of these office uses, so we're not gaing to have a detrimental effect upon the future development of that area; it is already fully developed. July 119 1983, Iterss 4 & 5 Zoning Board .h CA) 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? question? Mr. Gort: No. Ms. Baro: Would someone ask Mr. Bliss a Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: Yes,I will. Go right ahead, sir. t 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 go 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, thepeople 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 littlo bit confused. Do you need --does he need a change to July 11, 1983, Items 4 & 5 Zoning Board -9- `6! +J 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? 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 that we have a little difficulty sometimes. Mr. Bliss: I'm sorry, yes. Excuse me. Is it on now? Ms. Baro: Yes. j Mr. Bliss: I have talked to untold number of developers because for one thing because the property was in j 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, 1 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 1 on the south blocks quitee-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? .t Mr. Gort: Thank you. Ms. Baro: Any other question? L 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 + . Zoning Board _10- 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. e 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. Baro: ...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 study of the property. It was also changed because July 11, 1983, Items 4 a S Zoning Board -i1- v, is, j 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, 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. So 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: 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 L 0 get an occupational license within an apartment, am I correct? Mr. Whipple: That's referred to as home occupa- tion. Yes, sir. Mr. Gott: Right. 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. Gott: Home occupations in any residential. t 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: Ms. Baro: Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: here? Ms. Baro: like to listen to them. a question? Ms. Basila: Yes, let me have a second here,.please. Don't you want to share it with us? I can't talk to staff privately over No, no. If you have any doubts, I'd Oh, Gloria, will you ask the gentleman 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? Mrj Hershberg: I'd just like to ask a question of Mr. Campbell. July Us 1983, Items 4 6 5 Zoning Board 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 to 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 time. 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 I admire 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, 3• 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 hats 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 f 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. Air. 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. Moran-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 y' number 4. The motion has been made by Mr. Doran and seconded by July 11, 1983, Items & +� � Zoning Board. —15- =a 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. 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. r Ms. Baro: Ms. Basila, do you second it? Ms. Basila: Sure. Ms. Baro: All right, seconded by Ms. Basila. s;yk� Air. Perez-Lugones: We have a motion on item 5 to recommend `. denial to the City Commission. The motion has been made by Mr. Mvran and seconded by Ms. Basila. I`11 call roll on the motion. AYES: Ms. Baro and Basila bra Messrs. Moran-Ribeaux ;3 NAYES; Messrs. Gort and Romero ABSENT: None, Mr. Perez--Lugones: Motion to recommend denial fails again which means that the item is... -.,.N July 11, 1983, Item 4 6 5 Zoning Board 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. Mr. Perez-Lugones: Gloria, do you giant 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 4tto 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 cases 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. k = July 11, 1983, Items 4 � 5 Zoning Board -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 ) July 11, 1983, Items 4 5 Zoning Board t -I$- ONEC IS PH J oFr 12000 ;t2469 DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS 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 5, Block 2, Point View, according to Plat Book 2, Page 93, of the Public Records of Dade County ("the property"). 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, voluntarily makes the following Declaration of Restrictions covering and running with the property. Notwithstanding the zoning classification of the property: 1. The building presently existing on the property shall be preserved and shall not be structurally modified except as is necessary both internally and externally to convert said struc- ture into a building with a combination of office and residential uses, or to improve the landscaping or parking thereon; however, in all instances any modification must comply with all restric- tions set forth in this Declaration. .2. The property and the building may be used only for the following uses: residential, offices (not selling merchandise on the premises), banks and savings and loan associations, subject to the additional restrictions contained herein. 3. The top floor of the building shall be used for • residential uses only. 4. The first (ground) floor of the building shall be used for parking only. 5. No medical or dental offices or clinics shall be per- mitted. 6. Only that portion of the building may be occupied for which there is adequate parking as required or permitted by the AO 3/7 zoning classification as determined by the respective uses within the building. 7. There shall be a maximum of one (1) bank teller on the property, which shall be located within the building.16 8. There shall be no drive-in tellers, automatic or mechanical teller ,#Q4 h ur tel erso 9. There shall be no signs on the South Bayshore Drive side of the building or on the south side of the building. Signs and lights therefrom shall be limited to the S.E. 14th Street side of the building or property. 10. All exterior modifications of the building, including structural changes and signs, must be approved by IRV RORACH, as a representative of Point View Association, Inc., or, in the event of his inability to serve in such capacity, another person to be designated by the Point View Association, Inc. No exterior modifications of the building may be made unless approved in writing in advance. Iry Korach or his successor may require a change in the color of the exterior of the building to a color more in harmony with the colors of buildings in the Point View neighborhood. Approvals required hereunder may not be unreason- ably withheld. When the preliminary and final designs for the gr7q/ w Ri. I2O00 PC2470 exterior modifications have been submitted to MR. KCRACH, or his successor, they must be commented upon and approved and/or disapproved within 14 days thereafter. failure to make such comments within such period shall establish a conclusive presume- tion of approval of such proposals by the Point View Association, Inc. 11. The landscaping of the property along South Bayshore Drive shall. be improved and maintained at a level at least con- sistent with the landscaping at the existing Point View area residential buildings. 12. The owners of the property will contribute the sum of $10,000 for a neighborhood traffic study to be performed by professional traffic engineers to be chosen by the Point View Association, Inc., which sum may also be utilized to implement the recommendations of such study. The owners shall also coo- erate with Point View Association, *Inc. by providing -information relating to the uses at the property and will cooperate in seeking to accomplish the recommendations of the study, wwit`Fi`t e specific understanding, however, that the owners shall have no additional expenses in connection therewith. 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 to 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 South East 14th Street and South East 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, the Point View Association, Inc., a not -for - profit Florida Corporation or its successor, or 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. 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 automatically for successive periods of ten years, unless an instrument signed by a majority of the then owner(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 applicable to all the properties on South Bayshore Drive between S. E. 14th Street and S. E. 15th Road should change to permit any structure within such area to be used totally for offices, banks, or commercial uses, or combina- tions thereof, or if the permitted FAR applicable to such area - 2 - WITNESSES: DATE - 3 - M � +►� t 12000 PC G4T i� increases above that presently permitted, the subject property shall be relieved of the limitations contained herein 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 owners of the fee simple title to the lands to be affected by such modification, amendment or release, provided that the same has first been approved by the Point view Association, Inc., and then by 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 & 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 covenants, 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 by law, such sum as the Court may adjudge to be reasonable for the services of his attorney. H. Invalidation of any one of these covenants, by judgment or Court, in no. wise shall affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the owner has caused these presents to be executed and signed in its name by its proper officers, and its corporate seal to be affixed hereto and attested to by its Secretary the day and year set forth. CUCUSA, el" C.D By. Yresiaen ATTEST,✓ ca-ram%-eorona Secretary (Corl5orate Seal) 4 n STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS COUNTY OF DADE ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this jt5 day of (�„1Q•. 1983r before me personally appeared RAY CORONA and RICARDO CORONA, President and Secretary, respectively, of CUCUSA, INC., a corpo- ration und6r the laws of the State of Florida, to me known to be the persons who signed the foregoing instrument as such officers and severally acknowledged the execution thereof to be their free act and deed as such officers for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and that they affixed thereto the official seal of said corporation, and that the said instrument is the act and deed of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year last aforesaid. My Commission Expires: STATE 04 &RIDA AT APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: Ilk C y Attorney Prepared by: Janet Lenore Cooper, Attorney LAW OFFICES OF JANET L. COOPER Suite 1020 169 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131 4 on" MIAMI REVIEW AND DAILY RECORD Publialft0d Dilly j*Wt Saturday, Sunday and L"w Miami, abde County, Florida. STATE OF FLONDA COUNTY OF OADS: so#" to wwwasoned mom" p"60PA" wd Dboa SUM, VAND an Ga* a@" OW do Is go ASSIB-11 — so pubmw of so Miami ftvww ow oft NsOW4 a "I SMardalh SWNW WW Leo Hold"s) rA"O@W- I In Dom CwA"' Florida; l=qra atgahad H b*q a LOW Ado a lle M I n I Of 0 In fle watter of CITY OF MIAMI Re: ORDINANCE NO. 9758 loom......... K.X.X ........................ Court, .4pWAdWMacid w - paper indwlawns Ot Dec. 6, 1983 I RIM— N6�fCN fyP PNDIN�t;llf� tiMIf31Nllf�i� NOTIE6IS ii.dlvtN that the city Comfhigsion of thb City of MISMi, Florida, on November 19,_1983, 00&1100160 At:9,(Ii+1A,I<Artf1: the City Commission Chamber at 3500 Pan AMMdarf,IM14ii, MIA I ; Florida, will aotialder the following a�dtnsitod(8 blw IFInril Ai�I i rl :. the adoption thereof. 7 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE' NIN O NO 96it1), .THE CONING ORDI1i 6# THE CI"t`Y OF MfAM4- - FLORIDA, 11Y AMENDING. ARTICLE-!* 6+g� ID! ORDINANCtr ENTITLED 110ENtAALAOSUPPLI:iNfE�i'I�1 t '�fO ` BY AMENDING SUBSE(;TIONS 2bDt3.53. C. - E,T b NITION OF WATEAPRO _ T V/1F-6 AE(SUt;Eb WIDTH OF THE ADJAC1ENT VYATERWAY, 2l'_l;fib FtllYrl MIAMI REVIEW AND DAILY RECORD Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and LggW Holidays Miami, Dade County, Florida. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADS: Dianna 8tuwr, wtwsays i s dw Assistant the Publisher of this Miami Rewww and Dairy Rsa w4 a daily (ex*W Saturday, Sunday and Lood HoBdaysi newlPi pw*dw at MI MM in Dada C:otmfy, F1oddM that the attached copy 01 behq a LMO Adrwossnwd or Notate In the matter of CITY OF MIAMI ORDINANCE NO. X X X Caurt, inthe .................... l"" -" Mrp pubilsMd in said newspapa► in the issues 01 Nov. 8, 1983 Alra t turifru $"a go tM said Mianrl Re low and Daily apapaf at sltenrl In Bald Wde County, Fi0rlda, a11d that tlNl sold 1MwaPW h twowtafa been (&KO yoga publl Su d N sand Dade " 0 wW Mtwid M eeOonds TAN nfetlar N post airm M Mlenri M saW DAds CorMrty, FlorldA,ttaol d of ��� Mrs! further says that she tm "law paid nor prsnrtaed Any PerAA hen or oorpsraM my d rsbAMaboundawan or refund 01 sald� mwePAP adrertlAsrrrsnt far peb8aatbn ��P c betwe Te this 8th A.D. 1Y. ..83 ....... ... . ,D Fe at Law q Notary Publ r t 000 MyyCommt PERMISSIBLE, BY: ,CLASS .0 SPECIAL: PER! �t *UIREM1WMt L1MftAT ONS AN6 EXDO 'PHOVift A MiNIMU14 ,1) FZICST MSMIU00 BASE BUILOINO LINE, ALONG ONE SIDE TRIANGLE, 2612AA.A114152$012.3.2. TO PROM[ FROM EXTERIOR WINDOWS, 2017.1.1 TO PRi INd A VEHICLE INTO A PUBLIC ALLEY 1S LE BY CLASS ENTITLED` BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL SCHEDULE;OF DISTRICT REC LATIONSMADEAPARTOft'SAI6bF16i A.NCB8YREFERW4t AND DISC AIPTION IN ARTICLE.3 BY A ENDINTG'pAOE�;�6 PAiNCIPAL USES AND STRUaTUOIES 8Y :AbDINO,ISMEDI1ba REFERENCE LABORATORIES, AND TRAVEL AdENTS .td U81 PERMITTEDGENF ALLY; BY AMENDiNa.EAG`Ir 5, C13b-flEil CIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES,bY bELET1NG CC31 AND S>! $TJTUTING IN 1,1E11 .THEREQF GAw -A iTt4 j!151l t Di_STRiCi,.pELEi7NG.REPAIR GARAGES SI, AR A FROND QNS, RACE TRACKS, i/ETERiNARR,I> F`ACIitl PAS§ENGgR AUTOMOBILES OR PASSENt3_F , /AIy1�,3, wl UST OF.USES NOT PERMITTED 1N THE biSTRIOi 1 "JOB.PRINTING LITHOGRAPHY, PtIBLISHiNC>� ANQ 7HE t fKI AS BEING PERMITTED GENOF 6LLY. AND QE'Oil, 1, AN INSERTING 1N LIEU, MEREOP R AS�TIE REF Lit TRICT FOR U`MlTAn(*0 ON USES; FURMEN PAC 6, PR, PRINr,4PAlLjVSE$ V41)tlSIT11 FOR "ACTIVITIES=WHICH FttR �f�fIDfPAIA E AND YVF R, PFtINCfPA USES3WQ:5Tf 3 OF 5' E D IA ..'•RETAIL;=SPECIA4IT.Y'�SHOP�i��A�S',,,I��P,�LyI, 'gO$ CONTAINING &REPEAL^ I,PROVI$I.bNC ANO A t3i C {ry 4y ORDINANCEfVO; 'AN ORDINANCE IIMENDIN60WNANL3Et0; i DECEMBER 9, 102, THE'EXIS'L'11NWCAp1TAL fNt . N! APPROPRIATION - ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED, aN EAI,h APPROPRIATIONSFOR,SELEGTEt�XONGOit 3 CA1 RL''PA() f ECTS, Ayp. I=STAEL POHING APPISOPRIATIQH$ IN 7AL` fMRROWNW. P ECTS TO BEQIN,IDURiI+Ii#�€�IS(3A YEAR 191i3 i CON'FAINiN(3 A REPEgt,ER RFLi3VLilIOAN,; $EVERAt}II,ITx �,tAUSE, t eF i p, ORDINANCENO, '. ! AN.V"q . #yR(?IINANCE to D E N I OtDINAt�F 7iE V Y0F MIAM6 F4.flFIl!?,G T.,fiE. ti"' 4*..4EACiAi 'AREA HERITAGE 31,, 1It18, O +QYE ILAY #31S�RICfi A_ THE %A1 ►ATONs1 l LOCATED1 APPi I�AATE48► (MORE PARTICULARVY DE r t ;1tIF9El .. -At�b SY;MAIUNG�Ai�,;�:T#� 1+t�ESt�ARiCi�tB► +rr ta6art + iM1r.. r+ ��fe�,7► i YW V MIN N $: 11+IANCE hhp ,_f AN ORRIIIIANCt Na `rHE';I:(9Ni RIAA1 tADI H I+IND 4°MINAN'C f Y 1; MR 102 5 A bADINANCE NO. . AN ORdtNANCI `AMEWINC# THE ZONING ATLAS OF OAt ,Y FLORIDA NO. 16 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE. A PART OF,OROINANCE NO. NW BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION 114 ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVI• , SION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDI- NANCE NOr$50D, THEZONING'ORDINANCE,OF THE.CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGINGTHE ZONING#"CLA9SIFICA- T10N OF APPROXIMATELY 3225.27.29 DARW(N'STRerTM!4ml, , FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN)FROM ; RG.2& GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO Rdit RESIDENTIAL*bFFICE; BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND. BY'MAKING ALL'•THE'NEdES- i SARY CHANGES .ON PAGE NO 45 OF -SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF. ORDINANCE NO.'$5MBY�REFERs NCB AND , DESCRlPTION,AN .ARTICLE 3;. SECTIOW,3W THEREOF; CONTAINING'A, REPEALER, PROVISION AND A SEVERABItITY CLAUSE; E ORDINANCE NO: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE°ZONING'ATLAS OF ORQI-' NANCE NO. M, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ; MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICA- TION OF APPROXIMATELY 2815-2851SOUTHWEST '22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED_ r� HEREIN) FROM RG-113:.GENERAL RESIDENTIAL' (ONE AND. TWO FAMILY) TO CR-217: COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL 1� (COMMUNITY) BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE N0.42 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE -NO.' M-SY REFER- ENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300;,THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABIL'ITY CLAUSE. ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS.OF ORDI- NANCE NO.9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,- BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICA- TION OF APPROXIMATELY 185 SOUTHEAST 14TH TERRACE AND APPROXIMATELY 200 SOUTHEAST 14TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RG-317 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO SPI5 BRICKELL-MIAMI RIVER RESIDENTIAL OFFICE DISTRICT; MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO.37 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO.9500, ` BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300; THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A s -SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. ..,, °.� 4 ,-©RpINANCENO:= .. .. _ _•.-�" AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE,ZONINQ ATLAS. OF ORDI- NANCE NO.9=,'THE ZONING ORDINANCE'OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA. BY CHANGING THE ZONING'CLASSIFICA- ATLAS MADE A PART` OF ORDINANCE NO.. QW. 15Y. RE159m J ENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, $WON 36Q, THEREfOF; i CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISIONYA I4A S�1fERAeI�1TY F j CLAUSE.. 1 ' � 1 ORDINANCE NO. ! AN'+CfRQjtjMCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDI- �JANCE NDt: SfDIY'THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF rnfaMt P#OFtIDA,`.RY.CiHANGING THE ZONING CLASSI`FACA CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SVERABILLI-ry,, CLAUSE.