HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-82-0068C
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE
NO. 6871, ARTICLE X, SECTIONS 3(1) (a), 3(2) (c),
3 (2) (d) , 3 (3) (a) , 5 AND 6, AND ARTICLE IV,
SECTIONS 19 (7) (a), 19 (7) (c), TO PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI -STORY 553-ROOM HOTEL/
PARKING GARAGE STRUCTURE ON LOTS 5, 8, 9 AND
12; BLOCK 8; MIRAMAR (5-4), BEING APPROXIMATELY
1744-1756 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, AS PER SITE
PLANS STAMPED 8-24-81 ON FILE WITH THE PLANNING
AND ZONING BOARDS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,
WITH THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES:
FOR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE (HOTEL TOWER):
a) FRONT YARD: 68' PROPOSED (130' REQUIRED)
b) INTERIOR SIDE YARD: 145' PROPOSED (147.5'
REQUIRED)
c) REAR YARD: 30' PROPOSED (102.5' REQUIRED)
d) FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR): 3.98 PROPOSED
(2.0 ALLOWED)
FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (PARY.ING GARAGE):
a) INTERIOR SIDE YARD: 23' PROPOSED (35' REQUIRED)
b) REAR YARD: 25' PROPOSED (35' REQUIRED)
c) HEIGHT: 55' PROPOSED (12' ALLOWED)
d) LOT AREA REMAINING AFTER SUBTRACTING LOT COVERAGE
OF PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: 29.44%
PROPOSED (20% ALLOWED)
COMBINED PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES:
a) ADJUSTED LOT COVERAGE: 23.312% - 21,057 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED (14.67% - 13,250.99 SO. FT. ALLOWED)
b) COMBINED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE: 52.756% - 47,653 SQ. FT.
REQUESTED (35% - 31,614.506 SQ. FT. PERMITTED)
ZONED R-5 (IiIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE)
WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting of
September 21, 1981, Item No. 3, following an advertised hearing,
adopted Resolution No. ZB-165-81 by a 6 to 0 vote GRANTING variance
as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, an objector has taken an appeal from the
granting of the variance to the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission notwithstanding the appeal
of the objector, and after careful consideration of this matter
finds that due to peculiar circumstances affecting this parcel of
land, practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships would impair
the owner's right to the reasonable use of the property without the
variance granted as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The request for a variance as per Ordinance
No. 6871, Article X, Sections 3(1) (a), 3(2) (c), 3(2) (d), 3(3) (a),
5 and 6, and Article IV, Sections 19 (7) (a), 19 (7) (c), to permit
construction of a multi -story 553-room hotel/ ar ing garage structure
\ .,. 2 6 8 8 2- 6 9
f
U
on Lots 5, 8, 9, and 12; Block 8; MIRAMAR (5-4), being approximately
1744-1756 North Bayshore Drive, as per site plans stamped 8-24-81 on
file with the Planning and Zoning Boards Administration Department,
with the following variances:
FOR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE (HOTEL TOWER):
a) Front Yard: 68' Proposed (130' required)
b) Interior Side Yard: 145' Proposed
(147.5' required)
c) Rear Yard: 30' Proposed (102.5' required)
d) Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 3.98 Proposed
(2.0' allowed)
FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (PARKING GARAGE)
a) Interior Side Yard: 23' Proposed (35' required)
b) Rear Yard: 25' Proposed (35' required)
c) Height: 55' Proposed (12' allowed)
d) Lot Area Remaining After Subtracting Lot Coverage
of Principal and Accessory Structures: 29.44%
Proposed (20% allowed)
COMBINED PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES:
a) Adjusted Lot Coverage: 23.312% - 21,057 sq. ft.
Proposed (14.67% - 13,250.99 sq. ft. allowed)
b) Combined Total Lot Coverage: 52.756% - 47,653 sq. ft.
Zoned R-5 (High Density Multiple)
be and the same is hereby granted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of
MAURICE A. FERRE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RALF1 G. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
ItLA,�,5L
TERRY V. FIERCY
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORN Y
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
c1 n s
GEOPAT F. KNOX,
CIT ATTORN_Y _
1981.
Z0NING FACT SHEET
LOCATION/LEGAL Approximately 1744-1756 North Bayshore Drive
Lots 5, 8, 9 and 12;
Block 8;
MIRAMAR (5-4)
0WNER/APPLICANT Florida East Coast Properties, Inc.
C/o Lester M. Gershen
Vice President
444 Brickell Avenue
Suite 530
Miami, Fla. 33131 Phone #358-7710
ZONMG R-5 (High Density Multiple).
REQUEST Variance to permit construction of a multi -story
553-room hotel/parking garage structure on above
site, as per site plans stamped 8-24-81 on file
with the Planning and Zoning Boards Administration
Department, with the following variances:
FOR THE PRINCIPAL STURCTURE (Hotel Tower):
(a) Front yard: 63' proposed (130' required);
(b) Interior side yard: 145' proposed (147.5'
required);
(c) Rear yard: 30' proposed (102.5' required);
(d) Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 3.98 proposed
(2.3 allowed).
FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (Parking Garage);
(a) Interior side yard: 23' proposed (35' required);
(b) Rear yard: 25' proposed (35' required);
(c) Height: 55' proposed 12' (allowed);
(d) Lot Area remaining after subf-racting lot
coverage of Principal and Accessory structures:
29.44 proposed (2000 allowed).
COi13T!JED PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES:
(a) Adjusted Lot Coverage 23.312"0-.21,057 sq.f;.
proposed (14.67 - 13,250.99 sq.ft. allo-;:�:-:;;
(b) Combined Total Lot Coverage: 52.755'0 - 47,553
sq.ft. requested 3570 - 31,514.505 sq.ft.
permitted).
Any subsequent plan revisions shall b2 -0=;1ed with
the Planning and Zoning Boards Administr a"J on
Department.
' "U8
8 2 - 6.9
RECOMMENDATIONS
PLANNING DEPT. DENIAL. There is no hardship that justifies the
requested variances. The floor area ratio request-
ed is approximately twice what is permitted which
indicates there is no hardship that denies a
reasonable use of the property. The yard areas and
lot coverage would substantially comply with the
zoning requirements if the intensity of the develop-
ment was reduced to that permitted by the R-5
zoning. There have been no significant changes
from the previous submission in April other than
the architectural style.
Recent rezoning and proposals made by the
department suggested rezonings in the subject
area but was not deemed appropriate northerly
of 17th Street.
PUBLIC WORKS Review of the parking is suggested since some
stalls and aisle widths do not conform to
city standards.
D.O.T.T. The Department of Traffic and Transportation
agrees with the City of Miami Public Work's
comments as indicated on plans; however, in
addition, it is recommended that counter-
clockwise traffic circulation be considered
for the garage since most drivers tend to drive
on the right side of the parking aisles, thereby
increasing turning radii.
ZONING BOARD GRANTED on 9/21/81 by a 6-0 vote.
APPEALED TO THE CITY COiMMISSION BY AN OBJECTOR: Trinity Episcopal Church.
CITY
COMMISSION 11-19-81 CONTINUED to next meeting.
12-15-81 CONTINUED to 1/28/82.
L7r�fN/
�W
Howard Gary a October 15,, 1981 -:LE
Z�Mana.ger
APPEAL - VARIANCE -GRANTED BY ZONING
BOARD-1744-56 No. Bayshore Drive
Appealed by objector -TRINITY EPIS. CHURCH
io Ez- u es COMMISSION AGENDA -November 19,1981
Director PLANNING & ZONING ITEMS
Planning and Zoning Boards
Administration
The Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting cif September 21, 1981, Item #3,
following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 165-81 by a G
to 0 vote GRANTING Variance from Ordinance 6871, as per the attached,
on Lots 5, 8, 9 and 12, Block 8, MIRAMAR (5-4), being located at approxi-
mately 1744-1756 North Bayshore Drive.
Thirteen proponents present at the meeting.
A RESOLUTION to provide for this Variance has been prepared by the City
At orney s office and submitted for consideration of the City Commission.
AEPL:cm
cc: Law Department
' NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: DENIAL.
82-68
TRINITY CATHEDRAL
AREA CODE 3305
74-3374
464 N.E. 16th STREET 374-0659
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
October 6, 1981
City of Miami Zoning Board Administration
275 N.W. 2nd Street - Room 230
Miami, FI 33128
Re: Approx. 1744-1756 N. Bayshore Drive
Lots 5, 8, 9 and 12; Block 8
MIRAMAR (5-4)
Granted on September 21, 1981
Resolution No. ZB 165-81
We respectfully request a hearing before the City of Miami
Commission to appeal Resolution No. ZB 165-81, which was
granted on September 21, 1981.
Attached is our check in the amount of five hundred
dollars.
This letter and check constitute our petition to appeal.
Si��cerelx;l i
The Very Reverend George McCormick,
Dean of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral
47 �
3. APPROXIMATELY 1744-1756 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
LOTS 5.8,9 A14D 12; BLOCK 8;
MIRAMAR ( 5-4 )
VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE 6871, ARTICLE X, SECTIONS
3(1)(a), 3(2)(c), 3(2)(d), 3(3)(a), 5 AND 6,
AND ARTICLE IV, SECTIONS 19(7)(a), 19(7)(c), TO
PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI -STORY 553-ROOM
HOTEUPARKING GARAGE STRUCTURE ON ABOVE SITE, AS
PER SITE PLANS STAMPED8-24-81 ON FILE WITH THE
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDS ADMINISTRATION DEPART-
MENT, WITH THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: FOR THE PRIN-
CIPAL STRUCTURE (HOTEL TOWER): (a) FRONT YARD: 68,
PROPOSED (130' REQUIRED); (b) INTERIOR SIDE YARD:
145' PROPOSED (147.5' REQUIRED); (c) REAR YARD:
30' PROPOSED (102.5' REQUIRED); (d) FLOOR AREA
RATIO (FAR): 3.98 PROPOSED (2.0 ALLOWED). FOR THE
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (PARKING GARAGE): (a) INTERIOR
SIDE YARD: 23' PROPOSED (35' REQUIRED); (b) REAR
YARD: 25' PROPOSED (35' REQUIRED); (c) HEIGHT:
55' PROPOSED (12' ALLOWED); (d) LOT AREA REMAINING
AFTER SUBTRACTING LOT COVERAGE OF PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES: 29.44% PROPOSED (20% ALLOWED). COMBINED
PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: (a) ADJUSTED
LOT COVERAGE: 23.312% - 21.057 SQ.FT. PROPOSED
(14.67% - 13,250.99 SQ.FT. ALLOWED); (b) COMBINED
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE: 52.756% - 47,653 SQ.FT.
REQUESTED (35% - 31,614.506 SQ.FT. PERMITTED).
ZONDED R-5 (HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE). ANY SUBSEQUENT
PLAN REVISIONS SHALL BE FILED WITH THE PLANNING AND
ZONING BOARDS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT.
Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal Notice of Hearing
and administered oath to all persons testifying at this Hearing.
Proponents: 13
Opponents: 0
Mr. Gort: Mr. Whipple.
Mr. Whipple: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, the
Planning Department recommends denial of this item. There is no
hardship that justifies the requested variances. The floor area
ratio requested is approximately twice what is permitted, which
indicates there is no hardship that denies a reasonable use of
the property. The yard and lot coverage would substantially
comply with the zoning requirements if the intensity of the
development was reduced to that permitted by the R-5 zoning.
There have been no significant changes from the previous sub-
mission in April other than the architectual style, and I might
add, some minor adjustments.
Recent rezoning and proposals made by the department
suggested rezonings in the subject area but was not deemed appro-
priate northerly of 17th Street which would reach 17th Terrace.
Mr. Gort: Okay, thank you. Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, once
again for the record, George Campbell representing Department of
Public Works. You will note in your recommendations that we have
made some comments concerning the parking, along with the Department
of Traffic and Transportation
Since these comments were added to the recommendations,
I have met with the developer and with his architect, and we have
pretty much resolved these. So, we have no objection.
September 21, 3,981 Item 3
Zoning Board
8"�-69
Mr. Gort: Thank you, Sir. Okay.
Mr. Watson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name
is Jack Watson. My address is 12670 Old Cutler, Miami, Florida.
I'm an attorney, and I represent the applicant, Florida East Coast
Properties and its president, Tibor Hollo. I'm sure that the
Board will recall this application is back to you this evening for
further consideration. At our last meeting there were some in-
consistencies with our plan. They have been changed. I am sure
that the inconsistencies have been worked out. The Department
of Public Works no longer has any objections.
In my opinion, ladies and gentlemen, the actual shape
of this property and its location really does impair the owner's
right to use of this property without the requested variances
being granted. The location here is right next to your C-3 pro-
perty. You can look at the map of Omni, you are all familiar with
that. And, it is of irregular shape; it is not a square. And,
it makes the design a little bit harder. With all the high rise
and high density in the area, to me it is unreasonable to unduly
restrict the size of this building, which would happen if the re-
quested variances were not granted.
No we didn't ask for a change of zoning because, quite
frankly, the C-3 zoning does permit other uses that might be
objectionable to the people in the neighborhood. And, we decided
to go with what is on the property right now, and that is a hotel.
And so, consequently, that we feel that as far as a hardship is
concerned, we have a double one; one as to location and one as to
the shape of the property.
We have a very long presentation. We are going to try
to keep -it as short as possible, but we have a number of figures.
So, at this time I would like to introduce Mr. Ted Hollo who is
the developer, the president of Florida East Coast Properties; who
is going'to say a few words to you and then we will get right into
the meat of the thing with a presentation by the architect and the
engineer. Thank you.
Mr. Hollo: Chairman Gort, Honorable Members of the Board,
my name is Ted Hollo, 444 Brickell Avenue. I'm in front of you
here, once again, with this project. We heeded the recommendations
earlier of this Board and you, Chairman Gort; whereby we have
modified the number of units on it and have tried to come up with
a plan that eliminated all objections from the neighborhood. We
did a great and honest effort. Our entire neighborhood is here in
support of this project. Everybody, who is totally surrounding
this project; they all came down, they all like this project, they
all are desirous to have this project with your concurrence.
I'd like to point out just a couple of items that I
think is very important for you to know. In the first place,
there was the C-3 zoning and the newly erected CBD-2 zoning -really
we are jumping into the 17th Street area, as you -see. So portions
of it is in that particular area.
Secondly, it is very important for me to point out to
you that resolution was made by the Board, here, requesting the
Planning Department - Mr. Whipple and his associates - to enter
upon the examination of the area between 17th and 19th, and to re-
work that area to something like a CBD-2 or a modified CBD-2 area.
This would permit anywhere between 8.0 to 12.0 FAR in this parti-
cular area. We are not asking for that. We have a very beauti-
fully designed plan, and we can live with a 3.9 FAR as we are
requesting it. We are not asking for any heavy commercial type of
zoning. We are asking for the very type of zoning and variance
September 21, 1981 Item 3
Zoning Board
I
that permits us to put the hotel type of building and the resi-
dential type of building; on this property, as it was requested by
the City Commission earlier.
Thirdly, - and it will be pointed out to you in the
presentation ensuing, my request to you - that I think of paramount
importance in connection with the CBD-2 zoning, the property owners
have engaged the services of Barton Ashchman, one of the finest
consultants in traffic patterns in the country, together with our,
Mr. Joe Rice. They have come up with a very, very thorough and
comprehensive report,. In the report, as it was indicated to you,
they have involved this particular property - not only those pro-
perties that were in the CBD-2 district that was currently passed,
but also the subject property was accounted for in that report -
and we are able to handle all the traffic patterns.
I would not like to interrupt your time too long. I
would ask our architect, and then after that, Barton Ashchman to
lead the presentation. And, a few very fine folks - the neighbors -
who are in the area will want to say a few words. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Gort: Thank you, Sir.
Mr. Watson: Would the architects please come forward
and identify themselves.
Mr. Symons: My name is Keith Symons. I'm with Harwood
K. Smith Architects, Dallas, Texas.
Mr. Hogue: My name is Carey Hogue. I'm with Harwood K.
Smith Architects, Dallas, Texas.
Mr. Symons: The project we have before you, we have
some additional information we would like to share with you, thanks.
(unidentified voice): Speak into the mike, please.
Mr. Gort: Do you have any copies of this? You only
have one copy of this...
Mr. Symons: We, like everybody else, when we start a
project have trouble visualizing numbers. So what we have tried
to do here is to graphically portray for you all the zoning cone
allowable for this site. If we look at the back of the site, on
the alley, we have a 2 to 1 slope off the alley, with a 25' maximum
height at the alley. As we go toward N.E. 18th Street, we see a
20' setback with a 25' max. height. As we go to North Bayshore
Drive, we're at 37.5' back, and as you can see, the cone fades to
a point at 9$.5' back, and at that point it rises at a 2 to 1
slope in the center of the site.
If you'll turn to the second page, which looks like a
pyramid, you can see graphically portrayed what this represents in
an isometric form or an expanded drawing on the site. What we are
trying to do with our building, is to do really three things to
work as closely as we can with the zoning cone and with the
height limitations set up on the site. We have also tried to work
the adjustments to the building height and the cone of the building
height so that the building configures itself at the top, to try
to adjust again to those cones. If we look at those items there,
you can see that at the back of the site we can be 25' and at a
2 to 1 slope we can go to 112'. At the top of the cone we're at
329'; at the break line of the cone at the top we're at 222', and
that brings some 25' on the near side and 112' on the side near
the Omni. That will help you visually portray what we have here
September 21, 1981 Item 3
Zoning Board
82-68
in the way of the existing cone.
The building, itself - if you will notice over here - we
have e building of 19 actual floors, with a lounge on the top.
To tr-: to collapse into a class five-star hotel, we have tried to
unite -.he areas of ballrooms and function space on the ground floor.
We e cress to the top of the function area, with ramps and steps
down -from ramps to parking. This particular area here resides over
the ground floor functions and the ballroom functions, as we can
see in this section as he points to those areas. The area - in
plan - over the ballroom we have the express ramps up adjacent on
each side (if you will just show where they go, Carey) and then
into^e parking garage. Above the ballroom and above the ground
fluor function space, we have diningrooms, resturants, employee
lounges, kitchen facilities, which serve our hotel.
In trying to meet the height of the building, we have
reduce the room count from the last time we were here, or the
last architect was here; we've reduced that from 582 rooms to 553
rooms. We are 650 square foot gross per room in the hotel. In
this particular study, in trying to adjust to the cone, we have
evolved a unique situation, conceptually, in the building which
allows us to accomodate the parking functions, the ballroom func-
tions cn the ground floor and the room modules above, comfortably
I believe that you will see in this section here, that we have
been acle to accomplish that. The slope areas on the top - as you
see in silver in the model - these are the stairs that take you
from to rooftop lounge down to the grade level.
The building, itself, - as we look at the functions that
are contained within the building the parking requirements for
the building, trying to adjust the function space, which really
deserve to be at the ground floor for both convenience and safety
for t:.e people in the hotel and the service to get the truck in
and out of the project comfortably, the people to the ballroom,
separate entrance from the main entry, and to also get the conven-
ience for valet parking; all of these functions have been totally
separated so that they don't interface with one another in the site.
This leads to two optimium situations for the City: Number one,
you don't have the traffic congestion at the enter point and exit
points of the hotel; and secondly, is when your big functions do
occur, those points are spread so that you don't have traffic
builduz on the street.
We have a number of plans that relate to the building
functions as we go through, and we would be glad to spend as much
time as you would like explaining the building and its functions
down to the last detail. If you all would, I would briefly go
through those functions. I don't want to spend too much time with
those, we have a number of boards - about 40 boards - that we can
go through. But, probably the best thing to do will be to touch
on the points that you all are most particularly interested in.
If we can, may we use the screen?
Mr. Rolle: I have a question while you're waiting. I
think that you indicated that you have 19 floors.
Mr. Symons: That's right.
Mr. Rolle: Is that a total, or is that the gross number
that we are talking about?
Mr. Symons: That's the maximum number of floors we have.
We have the roof of the lounge on top of that, and we have a
time -board marquee which screens the cooling towers on the roof.
September 21, 1981 Item 3
Zoning Board
47 1
I
Mr. Rolle: But counting he o_arkin?, the mechanical
and the meeting roans, and those on the bottom - so we are talking
about 23, really 2L .
Mr. Symons: We have twen`,y.. (lone pause) ..I believe
what we are tali:ing about - you can see here in this picture - we
have the coolingto�rers on the roof; on the 19th floor we have the
lounge, the 19th floor istop active floor. Vie have totally in-
tegrate.d the parking and the back of the house functions on the
lower level.
Mr. Gort: Excuse me, before you go on, let me ask you
a question. Mr. Perez, when this was in front of us ...
Mr. Perez-Lugones: It was a different application.
Mr. Gort: It was a change of zoning application at
that time, right?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: There were variances involved, they
increased ... It was a complete set of variances that they came
up with this time.
Mr. Gort: Thank you.
(Undiscernible talk among Board Members and laughs)
Mr. Hollo: If you would like to ask any questions to
our architects on any othe details, we are prepared totally to
answer any questions that you may have; such as was the case with
Mr. Rolle. We have brought all our boards on the presentation and
we can answer any questions. Otherwise, we'll have our traffic
study, N1r.Wentzel brought up to you.
Ms. Basila: Before you do that, Sir, I wonder if you
would turn this around and give us a brief explanation of the
buildings there.
(Mr. Hollo proceeds to speak away from the mike. Words
are inaudible)
Hr. Hollo: Alright, in front of you you will see the
new building (ofcourse, with the silver edges) which is our current
project that we would like to start. In front of it, we are in-
stalling a very beautiful fountain in the park: This should be
a very focal point in the park. Immediately to my left, or further
away from you, is the exact model of the Omni: The tall building
is the hotel portion of the Omni, the lower building is the com-
mercial portion of it. In the front, and closest to you, there
are two smaller apartment buildings. The owners of these apartments
are here, present, corroborating or requesting. They will want
to say a few words about it. To the left of it, for you to the
right of it, is an apartment house. Also, the gentleman who is
the owner of it is also here; and he is very much in favor of this
particular project.
Mr. Hogue: I notice that you all had one of our grey
books with you. In those grey books are photographs of the model
shot from the street level so that you can see the relationship
of the garage and the back of the house functions of the hotel, as
they relate to the surrounding buildings.
Ms. Basila: Is that a pool on top of your garage?
Mr. Hogue: Yes, it is.
Mr. Freixas: Mr Hollo, I see the gentleman here from
the DDA*. I also would like to hear from the DDA. I would like
*Downtown Development Authority
September 21, 1981 Item 3
Zoning Board
°1 I
him, when he has a chance, to address this Board.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Mr. Chairman, I will address the
Board at this time. I will not allow any comments, from any
agenc-r of the City, -which is not in accord with the zoning
ordinance.
Mr. Freixas: I didn't get that, Mr. Perez.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: I am saying that I will not permit
any agency of the Ci'v. to comment on something which is not in
accord with the zoning ordinance. It is tantamount to recommmen-
dation, which contradicts the Planning Department. I will not
allow that.
Mr. Percy: What he is saying is that the DDA, being a
City boarded agency - representative of a Boarded agency - should
not make presentation before this Board on behalf of that depart-
ment.
Mr. Freixas: Wait a minute! I didn't know that he was
representing Mr. Hollo in this. If he comes in here as DDA saying
_ that they are in favor of this application, as they have come in
here may times before, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't
address any audience of the City. Now, as a matter of the
Department and Mayor of the City, to tell them that they cannot
come before the Board, when on numerous ocassions the DDA have come
in here ...I don't understand what the problem is today?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: The position of the Department is as
follows: An agency of the City - which is to represent the rules
and regulations of the City - I don't want that agency to officially
come in here to give an opinion on something in which the proper
agency of the City is rendering an opinion, and that opinion may
be contrary...
Mr. Gort: Well - Mr. Freixas asked a very good question.
Why in the past was this allowed? Is this something new?
Mr. Perez-Lugones: That is correct. It has happened in
the past, but that doesn't mean that we have to perpetuate some-
thing that has been happening.
Mr. Gort: But here I have to give to Mr. Freixas, I'm
sorry. I always try to keep calm in here; try to keep order. So
what is this, we can use the agency when we want to but then when
we don't want to we don't use it? We need to have a guideline by
someone of higher authority. Have somebody.write me a memo, and
you let me know where it stands Mr. Attorney. But I think that if
we, in the past, have heard comments from this here department
concerning anything - I'd like this to be clarified.
(Several voices talking at once - inaudible)
Mr. Gort: There is a lack of communication.
Mr. Percy: I think that if any member of this Board
would like to have any input from the DDA as to what impact this
might have on the Downtown Area, from their point of view, that's
one matter. But if an applicant brought a representative from any
City Boarded agency as part of a presentation, as Mr. Perez is
alluding to, that would be a violation of the ordinance.
Mr. Gort: So the question here is if he is representing
this applicant or representing the DDA, right?
Mr. Percy: Or if he is representing himself as a citizen.
September 21, 1981 Item 3
Zoning Board
�J
88
Ir t
"ir. Perez-Lu4,ones: He is not in here at your request
for you to kn--w the opinion of the DDA because you have not, prior
to this meeting, expressed that you want DDA to give an opinion.
Mr. Gort: 1,,ie have DDA come in before use all the time
without request.in.- them...
Mr. Perez-Lugones: ...doesn't mean that we have to
perpetuate something ...
Mr. Ciort: ...I understand, but my understanding is that
a public hearin_, - anyone is en`it)ed to come here as an individual..
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Excuse me, Sir .... of the citizen.
if he has the right, as a Board or as a representative of an
organization...
Mr. Percy: Yes, we would be happy to give you something
definitive on this in writing.
Mr. Freixas: But tonight I want to hear from the DDA.
Mr. Rolle: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Whipple is trying
to get your attention.
Mr. Gort: I am sorry, Mr. Whipple. Go ahead..
Mr. Whipple: I just wanted to point out - if you will
review the records - the last time this item came before
you, the Planning Department did object to the representation.
We thought that they were not appropriate - that they had not been
submitted and discussed with us,nor was it in writing as other
recommendations of other staff and agencies of the City and County
has been in the past.
Mr. Gort: I understand that, Mr. Whipple. But, I want
you to understand the problems of some of the Members of the Board
here.
You bring this to us right now, and you have brought this
in the past.,okay, but then in.theL past anytime a project has taken
place in downtown or any place near downtown, these people have
come before the Board - and I have never seen anything written
before, and I have never seen a change in attitude before. And,
they were allowed to go ahead and say whatever they had to say.
Mr. Whipple: That's precisely our problem. (Several
voices talking over each other -inaudible).: I am only suggesting
that the procedure - and it has occurred in the past - has been a
problem with respect to staff and administration, in my opinion,
and therefore, pursuant to the last time they came before you on
this item, I did voice that objection and it is being pursued
this time.
Ms. Cooper: Mr. Chairman, Janet Cooper. I support
Mr. Perez-Lugones and Mr. Whipple on this.
Mr. Gort: Janet, you'll get a chance in a while and
you can say anything you want. We are trying to follow procedure.
You are not part of the presentation. When objection -comes, you'll
get a chance to do it.
Mr. Rolle: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gort: Yes, Mr. Rolle.
September 21, 1981 Item 3
Zoning Board
P62-68
1
-47
�1r. Rolle: I waz hopinc- - I don't know if Nlr. Hollo and
the applicant have made the presentation because I see that there
ar at least eleven variances that they are as:ing for, and I don't
know if they are goin to continue going on or if they are waiting
on questions. I would like to hear the presentation.
Mir. Hollo: We are ready, with your permission, unless
there are any more questions of the architect. We would like to
ask Bart Ashchman...
Mr. Gort: Okay, Sir. Does that conclude your presenta-
tion up to now?
Mr. Hollo: Up to the architect's point, yes Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gort: Does anybody have any questions up to this
point?
Mr. Rolle: I just need a further clarification on the
number of floors from ground level. I understood the answer in
terms of nineteen floors, but I am talking about from ground level
as I look at the pictures here in the grey book. I_think, Mr. Hollo,
-)that his ans.ler was 23, I believe. Am I correct?
Mr. Hollo: There are 19 floor; yes, Mr. Rolle.
Mr. Rolle: I understand there are other floors, I just
wanted to get a number.
Mr. Symons: There are 19 floors, a lounge and a marquee
on the roof.
Mr. Rolle: We've got to change that answer, Sir because
of my question. I understood about the 19 floors, but I'm talking
about from the ground, the first time that you step into the
property of the hotel; including the garage or whatever else you
have.
Mr. Symons: There are 23 levels.
Mr. Rolle: Okay, 23 levels that we are talking about.
Mr. Symons: Yes.
Mr. Rolle: Thank you, Sir.
Mr. Hollo: Above the ground level, 23 levels.
Mr. Rolle: Yes Sir, thank you.
Mr. Gort: Is there any further questions on this? Okay,
Ted, you may proceed.
Mr. Hollo: Thank you, Chairman Gort. Honorable Board,
we would like to present to you the representative of Barton
Ashchman, who has done a very premiere traffic study in the area.
They would like to corroborate the fact that, in fact, in the
evaluation of the CBD-2 District that's immediately south of 17th
Street and abutting our property, they have included the calcu-
lations - the traffic calculations - the patterns and the parking
requirements to our building as well. I would like to present to
you, from Chicago, Mr. Jerry Wentzel of that firm.
Mr. Wentzel: Good evening. My name is Jerry Wentze'l.
I am a-. principle wi-th-the'firm of Barton Ashchman and Associates;
their headquarters in Evanston, Illinois.
September 21, 1981 Item 3
Zoning Board
82-68
It I
'.Ile were retained by the Ne-:i '4orld Cen:er Foundation to
conduct a transportation stud-; for the entire development program
expected to occur in the Omni area; which incorporated an area, as
shown on this exhibit here. You can look at the large area in the
boundaries. This is the area that we covered in our study, looking
at what the possible development could be in that entire area.
The darkened area, the smallest area, was in that - is, in fact the
.area which was mapped for the CBD-2 Zoning District. And there is
another boundary outside of that which pertains to the development
olanning area, which encompasses the CUD-2- Zoning Area, which we
also consider that the CBD-2 zoning could apply to that area.
The procedure that we followed, as we worked in con-
junction with the Downtown Area Development Authority - they
provided us a development program anticipated to occur in that area
over a period of time - we looked at 1985, we looked at the year
2000 and we looked at possible built out conditions. In these
analysis - what we did is that we plugged in the development
program, determined the traffic conditions that would result, and
prepared a transportation improvement program to accomodate that
level of development. In all cases, evaluated whether develop-
ment could occur without seriously impacting the transportation
system.
As it pertains to the project before you tonight, you
will note that this project site is within our study area. In a
1985 development scenario, we plugged in this development project,
the number of rooms proposed for the hotel and the amount of
traffic we expect it to generate; and assigned it to the street
system, along with all the other development traffic and also all
the through traffic that is anticipated throughout this area. We
determined that the transportation system could be modified to
accomodd-te the total level of traffic that's expected.
We have a series of recommendations. I won't get into
great detail tonight. I think that it is important for you to
know that the transportation can be made to work with the level of
development expected in 1985.
When we look at the year 2000 - the Downtown Development
Authority projected the development in the CBD-2 Zoning Area to
occur in much the same way that it is occurring now; with an
increased intensity corresponding to the allowable floor area
ratios under the CBD-2 zoning. Plus, they incorporated in this
area that's north of 17th - which is outside of the CBD-2 Zoning
District - but incorporated in here a level of development con-
sistent with the type of development being discussed tonight;
something in the area of 3.0 to 4.0 in terms of floor area ratio
to incorporate that into our year 2000 analysis. And also, to
determine that with the improvement we recommended for 1985, with
the proposed improvements to the street system and the transit
system by the year 2000, we would also (say) that the transpor-
tation system works very efficiently.
Now we get to the more interesting part, which is what
happens if the CBD-2 Zoning District goes out to the maximum
floor area ratio permitted; really kind of a worst case scenario.
We look at this for the entire planning area boundaries, the one
that is in the small dot lines on the exhibit. And we found that,
with that, if the area is built up to maximum intensity, certain
things had to happen that weren't planned for at this time. First
of all, we had encouraged a mixed use development as opposed to
having all of one type of development. We found that if the area
went all office, this would cause transportation problems to be
very difficult to solve. So if the area developed, in fact
developed with more residential units, more hotel units - the
types of development- that don't generate as significant traffic
as office and retail - and those types of developments generate
more internal shift, walking between residential units,
September 21, 1981 Item 3
Zoning Board
A
and the co=.��ercial facilities.
on the transportation system.
That, in fact, reduces the problems
the secon.i part was that we needed a better transit
syst� : if this area was to develop out to the maximnum floor area
ratio. Ne needed a transit system more consi:3tent with the type
of tr f fic that you are goin:-, to get downtown with the Metrorail
service. So, we looked at the possibility of extending the Metro -
rail service through this area, and extending the Downtown People
Mover system, that is going to service this area after 1985, out
to meei that other station alon,; 15th Street. With that type of
imrDro• _men, , we fell, and determined that this area could develop
With .naximum allowable floor area ratios and a street system and
transperta:.ion system which could still effectively serve the area.
The report that we prepared - I've got a copy, I don't
know if that was just passed out to you - we will be presenting
this in total on Thursday night before the City Commission, and
we've already presented this to the Planning Advisory Board.
Any questions that you might have on the specifics here.,I
would be glad to answer. I think the important things regarding
this project; it was included in our study, we have analyzed the
traffic impact, we feel that it does not cause serious problems in
the transportation system. In fact, the type of development that
is proposed here is the type of development that we would like to
see in the CBD-2 Zoning Area because it does foster the internal
syste-7, we are hoping to achieve.
Mr. Rolle: Mr. Wentzel, the kind of tenants that you
are tal',:ing about if the property were to go all office versus
residential, - the occupants of an all residential unit - are we
talking about people working in the area; are we talking about
retirees; are we talking about people in a different lifestyle -
what are we talking about if you think that it is going to impact
upon the transportation system?
Mr. Wentzel: When we look at an area going primarily
residential, either being hotel units or residential units, the
type of trip it generates, particularly being at peak hours (which
is the period of time which we are most concerned about) are the
trips that are going from home to work, home to shopping, work to
shopping; those kinds of things. When you develop a mixed use
development - like is occurring in the Omni area -, where you have
a lot of commercial opportunities -you have the office opportunities
and you have the residential and hotel - the trip circ becomingi:ter-
nal circ outdde of the area where there tends to be more walking -
particulariy where there is goingto bea restriction on parking and
it is going to be difficult to take your car out of a parking spot,
move it two or three blocks, and park again. You are going to
walk that distance, instead. And, particularly after 1985, when
there's a downtown component of Metrorail system here, the type of
trip that might occur - let's say within a three or four block
period - if they're not walking, they might be on this system.
So this type of development is very consistent in reducing trans-
portation demands on the system.
Mr. Rolle: It might be helpful, Mr.
some update information as to what may happen
system in the downtown area - I think that the
ambitious, at best.
Wentzel, to have
to the Metrorail
plan might be
Mr. Gort: Any other questions? Okay, Sir.
Mr. Hollo: Thank you very much. We also have - we don't
want to usurp your time - we also have Mr. Rice here, who actually
is the author of the total parking layout; and his explanations.
He was working in conjunction with Barton Ashchman group. However,
September 21, 1981 Item 3
Zoning Board
I have here, very anxious to speak to you, a few of our very
immediate neighbors and property owners in the area who are very
suppor!1--ive of the project. Immediately to the north of us - as
you can see - right above the property, I believe it is
Mr. Gur•rtitch, who is th? owner. And, he would like to say a few
words.
Mr. Guraitch: My name is Harry Guraitch, and I want to
correct that now. I am not the owner, I am a representative of
the owner. It is the Bayshore Towers Apartments. I reside at 2525
Sunset Drive in Miami Beach.
The Board may note that the property, which we represent,
is immediately north of the property being asked for a variance.
The first building is the Bayshore Towers, and behind the Bayshore
Towers is the Park Bay Apartments. We strongly feel that the
neighborhood has changed considerably in the last few years, and
strongly support., Florida East Coast Properties' endeavor to further
improve the property. And we, obviously, will be beneficiarij of
the improvement of the property. We, again, support it whole-
heartedly. Thank you.
Mr. Hollo: I think that the gentlemen who is sitting
to my left is the property owner immediately in back of that
property - Pelican Apartments.
Mr. Lear: My name is Stanley Lear. I own the%property
at 1799 N.E. Fourth Avenue - the two lots in the corner with the
improvements thereon.
I am in favor of this project. It will be a big help
to the area because as long as it's a vacant lot, we are going to
have undesirable people hanging around the lot. So, this will be
a help for the community and a help for everybody.
Mr. Gort: Thank you. Next.
Mr. Hollo: Mr. William Ader, who is the property owner
:to the north of their property. I believe he's here.
Mr. Ader: Good evening. My name is William Ader. I
reside at 1800 North Bayshore Drive, and Iown lot 8, 9 and 12,
immediately north, right across 18th Street.
I think that the project is excellent, and it is kind
of what I was trying to get across before. I believe that we
should have large projects, and I think that this works perfectly.
I definitely feel that this is an asset to the area. Thank you,
ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. Hollo: If you have the time, I would like to present
Mr. Pepe Currai of Les Violins, who is immediately to the west of
us, to say a few words. He is also one of our neighbors.
Mr. Currai: I am Jose Currai. I live in 9317 S.W. 130th
Street. I am the President of Zaragozana 1830, who is the owner
of the property; and I am also the president of Les Violins, Inc.;
who is the owner of the nightclub and supperclub that is near to
the Miramar Hotel and Omni.
I am in favor because we think that for the City of
Miami what we need is to have a lot of bedroom and a lot of hotel
to help us in all these situations that we have now in the City of
Miami. That some people are thinking that we are not the city that
we are, and that we have to be bigger and bigger every day. And,
what we need is not only one hotel more, we need ten or fifteen
or twenty hotels more. For that, we are in favor of all of this.
September 21, 1981 Item 3
Zoning Board
1. 7
iMr. Watson: ','r. Ch:airman and iJ1emr:mr3 of the Board,
thi-3 will conclude our initial presentation unless that some of the
Boar: :Members have some questions. We come back here toniLsht, at
your oli vesLion. We've done our plans, and I know that if you, in
you :iisdom, see fit to ---rant us th,-2 required variances, that
buildin'T you see before you will be a wonderful benefit to the
City of ?Miami. And we -:could certainly approciat` your favorable
consideration on it. Thank you.
Mr. Gorr: Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Freixaa: i•lr. Gort, I would like to hear from the
gentle an from the DDA.
Mr. Gort: Okay, Sir.
_Mr. Varki: My name is George Varki, Director of Planning
of the Downtown Development Authority. As Terry indicated,
I am not sure precisely what the terms under which we are allowed
to speak: on the issue. But, I think that the chief thing is that
if the Board so desires, we are always available...
Mr. Freixas: What is your role in DDA? What is the DDA
suppose to do?
Mr. Varki: As - would you like a general answer?
Mr. Freixas: Yes, a general answer.
Mr. Varki: The Downtown Development Authority was
created specifically to encourage and promote the development of
do:intown.
Mr. Freixas: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Carner: I have a question of this gentleman. Does
this project meet with the aims and goals of your department?
Mr. Varki: This particular project is outside the
jurisdictional boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority.
It does infringe upon the boundaries.
Mr. Gort: Any other questions. Mr. Freixas, any other
questions?
Mr. Freixas: Not a thing.
Mr. Gort: Okay, anyone else. Okay, anyone in opposition?
Anyone in opposition to this item? Close the public hearing and
have discussion among the Board Members. Mr. Carner.
Mr. Carner: I move it.
Mr. Freixas: I second it.
Mr. Gort: It has been moved by Mr. Carner and seconded
by Mr. Freixas. Any discussion on this motion? Call the question.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion to
grant. This motion has been made by Mr. Carner and seconded by
Mr. Freixas.
(Over for resolution)
September 21, 1981 Item 3
Zoning Board
c;2 — 6 8
c"7 CITY OF M!AMIPLI
�
s_ __.....
1J . .'
i1 1 _ J J �. . _ • `. ... J _ .J . I .J l [7 ) 'a I I 3 ( 2 . 3 '.T ^
+� . A:7 t� [LT _ � u'7 1 ^S a � � 1 y 10 ( 7 ) 1 a
i . l ?_.:4I•� �J'J11.J iiL�.i �.i��'J l l 'JI A '.11JL7"i-J 1rDa
5:;—=.0 i {:�....;'; 1:it:_i;iG G�,R:.1L ST;'' ON LOT" 5.
•Q J
• viJ'J v •11.:: ..'i r.7 5-4; B,J_.,G t.:.b-
i1:..: ✓cIC:?' :i B�i'�S:iJ7' 7 DF. E AS PE;'. SITE
PL:,:i;, 3 T '4 F 1 0 1 F LE `,II I T'E PLA,:i1I:IG Ai1D
L(,f„::i0 tiD i_,I7 I't:t'i1Ll: L)E7, ,.E.�. , 'iII.•. THE
FCD? THE PRAL S'rP""T'TRE (HOTEL TOWER)
I. �1D.1.." 1L5 PR- ,(1-.7.5
YAH:: 30' P Or'OSED (102. 5' RE n�U IRED) .
(d) FLCCR ARD': RATIO (FAR): 3•.98 PROPOSED (2.0 ALLO14ED)
F07� THE ACCES ORY STRUCTURE (FARnI IG G1,RAGE) :
(a) Ii,1ER1CR SIDE YARD: 23' PROPOSED (35' REQUIRED).
(b) RE" Y 3il. 25' PROPOSED (35' RE^y,U7RED) .
(c) HE 13:: T : 5 5 ' PR0.00JuD (12' ALLO'r1ED )
(d) LOT ARE:. REiAAI11I11G AFTER SUBTRACTIPIG LOT COVERAGE
OF PP.I:iC_PAL ANZ ACCESZJORY STRUCTURES:
29 . LL•5"� P-::OPOSED (20;'o ALL0'.1ED) .
CC: BIi1?Jy PRT';CIPAL 0D ACCT n /ORy STRUCTURES:
(a) ADJUSTED LOT COVERAGE: 23.312;� - 21,057 SQ..FT. PROPOSED
(I L . 67`,, - 13 , 2 50.99 SQ . FT . ALL0'r1ED )
(b) CC:•1_= iN:. ; TOTAL LOT COVERAGE: 52.7 56i. - 47,653 SQ. FT .
REQUESTED (35°' - 31,614.506 SO. FT. PERMITTED)
ZO:iED R-5 (HIGii DENSITY). ANY SUBSEQUENT PLAN REVISIONS
SHALL BE FILED WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDS
AD,'4111ISTRATIO11 DEPARTMEDIT.
Up:^ bei^g sec=ded by 1,1r. Guillermo Freixas, this Resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Msess. Baro* and Basila
Miessrs. Carner, Rolle, Gort* and Freixas*.
NAiES: None
Mr. Peres-Lu^ones: Motion carries 6-0.
* Discussion during vote:
Mr. Freixas: Before I vote, I want to congratulate,
again, Mr. Hollo for a beautiful and well designed project.
Ms. Baro: I hope that I am around to see it.
Mr. Gort: I am going to vote, but at this time I would
like to have a question; this might be of relevance ... my vote is
yes. My question is this: I am very optimistic about the number
of tourists coming do,. -in along with all these buildings; do you
have a plan to do pre:^ction attracting tourism into the area?
Mr. Hollo: Yes, I am very happy to tell you here that
we have engaged, actually, two outfits. One is domestic corpor-
ation and the other one is a Spanish corporation. The domestic
corporation is the Inns of America, headed by Mr. ..(inaudible),
who is doing a tremendous amount of ..(inaudible) in South America;
promotion to bring people into the area. The other one is the
Melia Corporation, who is a professional Spanish hotel chain.
Mr. Gort: Thank you.
Mr. Hollo: Thank you very much for your consideration.
September 21, 1981 Item 3
Zoning Board
82-6A,;:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE
NO. 6871, ARTICLE X, SECTIONS 3(1) (a), 3(2) (c),
3(2) (d), 3(3) (a), 5 AND 6, AND ARTICLE IV,
SECTIONS 19 (7) (a), 19 (7) (c), TO PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI -STORY 553-ROOM HOTEL/
PARKING GARAGE STRUCTURE ON LOTS 5, 8, 9 AND
12; BLOCK 8; MIRAMAR (5-4), BEING APPROXIMATELY
1744-1756 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, AS PER SITE
PLANS STAMPED 8-24-81 ON FILE WITH THE PLANNING
AND ZONING BOARDS ADMIIIISTRATION DEPARTMENT,
WITH THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES:
FOR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE (HOTEL TOWER):
a) FRONT YARD: 68' PROPOSED (130' REQUIRED)
b) INTERIOR SIDE YARD: 145' PROPOSED (147.5'
REQUIRED)
c) REAR YARD: 30' PROPOSED (102.5' REQUIRED)
d) FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR): 3.98 PROPOSED
(2.0 ALLOWED)
FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (PARKING GARAGE):
a) INTERIOR SIDE YARD: 23' PROPOSED (35' REQUIRED)
b) REAR YARD: 25' PROPOSED (35' REQUIRED)
c) HEIGHT: 55' PROPOSED (12' ALLOWED)
d) LOT AREA REMAINING AFTER SUBTRACIING LOT COVERAGE
OF PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: 29.44%
PROPOSED (20% ALLOWED)
COMBINED PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES:
a) ADJUSTED LOT COVERAGE: 23.312% - 21,057 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED (14.67% - 13,250.99 SO. FT. ALLOWED)
b) COMBINED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE: 52.756% - 47,653 SQ.
REQUESTED (35% - 31,614.506 SO. FT. PERMITTED)
ZONED R-5 (NIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE)
WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting of
September 21, 1981, Item No. 3, following an advertised hearing,
FT.
adopted Resolution No. ZB-165-81 by a 6 to 0 vote GRANTING variance
as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, an objector has taken an appeal from the
granting of the variance to the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission notwithstanding the appeal
of the objector, and after careful consideration of this matter
finds that due to peculiar circumstances affecting this parcel of
land, practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships would impair
the owner's right to the reasonable use of the property without the
variance granted as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The request for a variance as per Ordinance
No. 6871, Article X, Sections 3(1) (a), 3(2) (c), 3(2) (d), 3(3) (a),
5 and 6, and Article IV, Sections 19 (7) (a), 19 (7) (c), to permit
construction of a multi -story 553-room hotel/parking garage structure
$2•-68
1 ►-j
on Lots 5, 8, 9, and 12; Block 8; MIRAI-1AR (5-4), being approximately
1744-1756 North Bayshore Drive, as per site plans stamped 8-24-81 on
file with the Planning and Zoning Boards Administration Department,
with the following variances:
FOR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE (HOTEL. TOWER):
a) Front Yard: 68' Proposed (130' required)
b) Interior Side Yard: 145' Proposed
(147.5' required)
c) Rear Yard: 30' Proposed (102.5' required)
d) Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 3.98 Proposed
(2.0' allowed)
FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (PARKING GARAGE)
a) Interior Side Yard: 23' Proposed (35' required)
b) Rear Yard: 25' Proposed (35' required)
c) Height: 55' Proposed (12' allowed)
d) Lot Area Remaining After Subtracting Lot Coverage
of Principal and Accessory Structures: 29.44%
Proposed (20% allowed)
COr^.BINED PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES:
a) Adjusted Lot Coverage: 23.312% - 21,057'sq. ft.
Proposed (14.67% - 13,250.99 sq. ft. allowed)
b) Combined Total Lot Coverage: 52.756% - 47,653 sq. ft.
Zoned R-5 (High Density Multiple)
be and the same is hereby granted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of
MAURICE A. FERRE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RALFH G. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
PREPARED A14D APPROVED BY:
{ I
TERRY V. PERCY
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORN Y
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
GEO F. KNOX,—J ,
CIT - ATTORNEY
, 1981.
-2-
I=
i4e Aliami Doman's Club
NORTH BAYSMORE DRIVC AT 17TH TEARAC[
Mismi. Flrriba 33132
October 6,1981
City of Miami Zoning Board Administration
275 North West Second Street
Room 230
Miami, Florida
Dear Sirs:
The Miami Woman's Club respectfully appeals the
Resolution of the City of P4iami ZB 165-21 granted.
on September 21,1981.
The Miami Woman's Club endorses the appeal of
Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, Inc.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Luis D4. Cubi lies
President
LI''IC /y cn
1w