HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-80-0579RESOLUTION NO. 8 0- 5 7 9
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM
ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE X-1, SECTIONS
3(2) (c), 5 & 6, AND ARTICLE IV, SECTION
19(7), TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 162-
UNIT APARTMENT STRUCTURE Oil LOT 45 ;
BLOCK B; WILLIAM & MARY BRICKELL (B-96)
AND LOT 46; BLOCK B; FLAGLER MARY BRICKELL
(5-44) INCLUDING SUBMERGED LANDS TO
BULKHEAD LINE BEING APPROXIMATELY
1617-27 BRICKELL AVENUE, AS PER PLANS ON
FILE, WITH THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES;(1)
FOR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE; (a)
SIDE YARDS; 80.5' N'LY and 82.17'
S'LY SIDE YARDS PROPOSED (134' REQUIRED
FOR EACH); (b) LOT COVERAGE: 10.1%
PROPOSED (9'; ALLOWED) ; (c) FLOOR
AREA RATIO (FAR): 2.384 REQUESTED WITH
BONUSES (2.2 PERMITTED WITH BONUSES);
(2) FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: (a)
LOT COVERAGE: 23/1% PROPOSED (20%
ALLOWED); (b) SIDE YARDS; 20' NE'LY
& 59.83' SW'LY PROPOSED (67' REQUIRED);
ZONED R-5A (HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE).
WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting of
July 7, 1980, Item No. 5, following an advertised hearing,
adopted Resolution No. 140-80 by a 4 to 3 vote denying variance
as hereinafter set forth; and
VIHEREAS, the applicant has taken an appeal from the
denial of the variance to the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission notwithstanding the
denial of the Zoning, Board, 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 M.IAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The request for a variance as per Ordinance
No. 6871, Article X-1, Sections 3(2) (c), 5 & 6 and Article IV,
Section 19 (7), to permit construction of a 162-unit apartment
structure on Lot 45; Block B, U'ILI.IAM & MARY BRICKELL (B-96)
and Lot 46, Block B; FLAGLER MARY BRICKELL (5-44) including submerged
"DOCUMENT INDEX
1 of CITY COMMISSION
g �jQj MEETING OF
r
�` I,� r �`�� c JUL 2 4 19t�t`
[)0Cj J 8 0- 5 9
FOLLOW .................
::::::::........
i
lands to bulkhead line being approximately 1617-27 Brickell
Avenue, as per plans on file, with the following variances:
(1) FOR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE: (a) Side Yards: 80.5'
N'ly and 82.17' S'ly side yards proposed (134' required for
each); (b) Lot Coverage; 10.1% proposed (9% allowed); (c)
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 2.384 requested with bonuses (2.2
permitted with bonuses); (2) FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE:
(a) Lot Coverage: 23.1% proposed (20% allowed); (b) Side Yards:
20' NE'ly & 59.83' SW'ly proposed (67' required); zoned R-5A
(High Density Multiple), be and the same is hereby granted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24 day of July , 1980.
_ MAURICE A. FERRE
MAURICE A. FERRE,
ATTEST:
RALPIrG. ONGIE
TY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
UA441
�)QAC.,
V�
TERRY V. PITRY
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO F&M ANII. CORRECTNESS :
MT—RGE FM
KNOX,
R.
'
CITY ATTORNEY
-2- "SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
80-5'79
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS DATE July 22, 1980 FILE
OF THE CITY COMMISSION
•UNJECT Letter from Ms. Janet Lenore
Waldman, President of SAVE
BRICKELL AVENUE, INC.
ti Ralph G. Ongie
City Clerk
By:
REFERENCES
Deputy C1ei1CO5URE5
Enclosed herewith please find letter from Ms. Janet Lenore
Waldman, President of SANE BRICKELL AVENUE, INC., which is
self-explanatory.
RGO:smm
Enclosure
C.C. Aurelio Perez-Lugones, Director of
Planning and Zoning Administration
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
i
V._
,Avr• r.:,1( .:l,t, ,�vri:vr;, T,ic, RECEIVEt)
70-C ('
1'>��1 I',ricicell Avenue
AwA, Florida 33129 72
ry
��r• �:a7.l�i: � On ;ice City ..:r;;
'i ty Cler,. City of Miami, r=ia.
C i
3t �n ran ;%rieric,i:I drive
i',e: C.it�r �O!iill`:(ij.i)il .�'B`111 , 1�r1�L!l7 £lilt] :',nn1n', on(la
',eni i (,,'' vxiaricc"
Avenuc
Pc:.r ; r. (_?nie :
11
:%.vcilue,
Inc• i_,
F-,ii i-: t.ert�.;te,I .:`�" i-ll the alo.���
-it)
Lh , L it:
r:e!....ei'._ z,.re
roe er L
ill
L(Ic. 1.
vllcillii,y Ui Gi((?
-I.1b.'ec,
11
.tVonl_.le,
Inc • i:.S .,i
U:, Je.ctor l'rilo 'i. S resei)t
c, L tilP iii,i
o n r '. ; i
c n Lj.ii,
1C%iti0ll•
Ave-tue, Inc. '-),]1 1 :.L:, li•ce to iiL:ve ti,e o,); ortunity
to 1)e ,�re_;slit -md to ol;•ject to tilc A: ,:e:i]. <A the City Com.dtiti•iorl
etill„• Iiowever, l)ec ul.;e <A_l of the re, rc,cntative:, of ;'ave
ricl,ell Avenue, _Inc • .''ho are ca,l �&.iil.e (t __ iVfi:;lll ti1C t-,I-o of ,presentation
tti2t is re Mire', h. i;i:13 GL ti.Cr mill_ l)o un.avoi(lablJ forced to 1-)e in
._-,nobler , t(rt of the co(ilitr'-, noone hill l,e able to I)e ;,resent on
Jul;;- 740 1 ;�ti') to rt,::rc_:etlt .,ave :]ric:;ell Averlue, Inc., an interestecl
ilrt�. i"n t' e ,utter.
Therefure, 1:!e respectfully" re ,uest that thi: natter he leferred until
t:te next, i'tP.E'tln, 01' tilt' ('ltj" LIC1eIi we ::1ay be ;;resent t0
v.)ice our o!!cera.: v t,, a ...i :_i )n Sri l otricr.�i(; a2 t,l ;e Li the
.1 ,_.rii1, ; :;r UC ,Ctt_LCl;
I :oul z ;oLA gat ci:a L ac -i.e ti; le tii:� Zoni:i ; i:oar(1 d—iied the a�> ,lication,
the City Corlrtis:,iorl !:cetiii,; ..<.� :,c:te(lule� riot ,'or the 24th, but for the
:'1st, 71:1,en I cculcl I�Live been ._re:.ent, an(l further, I had Teen
inforir:c�l i.y Aurelio _ crc..-Lu �ae�, T)ircctor of 'larmin;_ and Z/onin,-
otu'c' A(I..dld:�trtation, that the Jul; Cu;nmis:ion a,,enda iZaci lt3,!n clo: ed
arl,:i that .Z�( o, .; e.: 1 tt k( rl 1. y are; party ."ro:.i thaat evcniti ' L; meetin;-
o,Il.i not :-,c 3cnecu1ed !_iatil file ; ei)t,ei„;)cr
plank yoo for �,OUI` CUC1U1(t3r-= tion and ,-assist mce in this :latter.
`;incr,rcl;,- ;,•our:,
4T,
t„SUPPORTIVE
T,:il)i ? .- DOCUMENTS
>:;ice!it FOLLOW„
It
19 )1 7ri--',,.ell Avo!nde
'liaml, F lori la 33129
Jnne
City Commission
City of eliami
itiami, Florida
Re: application for a Planned Area 7ev=^lo;,:,.ent
1581-97 3rickell Avenue
Lots 42, 43, and 44 Block "A"
IIARY z WILLlald BRICKELL SUB (3-96)
Mr. i•4ayor, :•:r. Vice-elayor, and Commissioners:
For myself, for the local community or-aniaation of which I am the
President, Save 3rickell Avenue, Inc., %,!hich consists of property
o:mers in the area of the ten resi:ientictl :.locks of 3r16kell Avenge,
being between 1'-)th !load and 25th :load, for other property o-wriers in
t; e area and in the "i ty, for other ersons .•:ho are interested or
ot:-,erwise affect -ad o; t;:e actions of the City in regards -to the above
referenced application, I wish to :pare tine followin,i objections:
The application as submitted by the a,_plicant is incomplete and
insufficient in that it lacks the followin;;:
1. evidence of unified control, statement of all o%•mership and
beneficial interest pursuant to Art XXI-I Section 5 (2)(a)
2. a survey of the tract shoain;; existin;; piers, docks, etc.,
pursuant to Art XXI-I Section 5(2)(b) and Art XXXII, AND Art.
Art IV Section 23
3. Site development plans containinu location and arrangement of all
existin'z structures, proposed traffic circulation pattern within
the development, the relationship of abutting land uses and
zonin- districts, statement of anticipated residential or
other corr.mercial or industrial uses, an ecological survey,
pursuant to Art :::CI -I Sec do n (5) (2) ( c )
4. A statement lescribin,; the ;provision that is to be made for the
care and !�:aintenance of such oren space or recreational facilities.
'atisfactory :;rovision tinat non-Putlic areas and facilities for
t'.ne :ommon use cf occuii ants of a but riot in individual o•,rner-
snii; of ):cupants, snall to ::ai:ntained in satisfactor;, manner
:ithot_tt e1:pP. to t�:e taY; avers of the �:it., :)' .?iami. ; ursuant to
Art. ::=:I -I (5)(2)(f )
5. Copies of any restrictive covenants that :'.re to �,e recorded with
respect to _.roperty included inthe r .A.i pursuant to Art. XXI-I
(5)(2)(,�)
�. Information re,lar_linC; the parkirg required for the adjacent marina
facility a :eiiuired by Art IV Section 23(7), and (8)
7. Information re;_•ardin" the parkin,; facilities required for the
l-l.hnned re_:tRurant or coffee shop (that has only been mentioned
orally), lursuant to Art. :'XIII.
S. Ir:orm.ttion reL:ae(lin� the parkin- required for any other public
an„ / or coi,imercial are -as :)ursuant to Art. XXIII.
�. Tn,-lusion of the adjacent submerged land in the application, although
�ihe •,lans on file lepict it in detail, and the ;presentation before
the 7onin? 7oarri dealt :::ore with the ;r.arina and submer3ed land
the .:laid structures.
10. '1"con-.,.ndations of the Plannin - "o. artr.ent as set out in Art. XXI-I
:)Octior` (')(S) U "SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
'Bari, Florida 33129 .
June ' .,, 111--
City Commission
City of :Miami
Miami, Florida
Re: application for a Planned Area evelo;,:,..ent
1581-97 3rickell Avenue
Lots 42, 43, and 44 Block "R"
, ARY & WILLIA:i ?r3ICKELL SUn (:3-96)
Mr. ISayor, :•Ir. Vice-Z-iayor, and Corinisjioners:
For myself, for the local community or.-anization of :;hich I am the
President, Save 3rickell Avenue, Inc., :iich consists of property
o:mers in the area of the ten residential Mocks of 3rickell Avenue,
being between 15th i�oad and 25th Road, for other property o•,•rners in
the _:rca an(.l in the 'ity, for otiner :ersons :.,ho are interested or
otr,erwise affecced c,• t::a actiono o�^ ti:e ity in regards, to the above
referenced application, I wish to ma,:e tine following objections:
The application as submitted by the a_)Iicant is incomplete and
insufficient in that it lacks the following;:
1. evidence of unified control, statement of all oi,mership and
beneficial interest pursuant to Art ::XI -I Section 5 (2)(a)
2. a survey of the tract sho-ain� existing; piers, docks, etc.,
pursuant to Art XXI-I Section 5(2)(b) and Art XXXII, AND Art.
Art IV Section 23
3. Site development plans containin3 location and arrangement of all
existing structures, proposed traffic circulation pattern within
the development, the relationship of abutting land uses and
zoninZ districts, statement of anticipated residential or
other cornlnercial or industrial uses, an ecological survey,
pursuant to Art XXI-I Sectio n (5)(2)( c)
4. A state:^ent lescricin� the provision that is to be :Wade for the
care and -::aintenance of such o;en space or recreational facilities.
Iatisf_3ctory :;r,-)vi.3iori t;.at non-t)utli., areas and facilities for
t::e Qom on use �f occuil ants of a :��, but :lot in indiviaual o:rner-
s:.ii; of .c:: �:cni;anzs, snall be :ai:�tained in satisfactor; man. -per
i tt�OL1t .?::YPr ^a t_:� tt;e tam avers J) the (:it_ of .'iami. pursuant to
Art. XXI-I
5. Copies of any restrictive coverants that :�.re to '�je recorded with
respect to ;.roi arty included inthe P.A.:. rursuant to Art. XXI-I
;. Information re,;ar Una, tine parking required for the adjacent marina
facility a3 .er:uired by Art IV Section 23(7), and (8)
7. I iorr: ation recarc:invthe ;�arnin,; facilities required for the
1 .lnned re.,ta.urantor coffee shop ( that has only been mentioned
orally), i)ur�uant to Art. ':'UII.
8. Ir.f,-)r-n.Ltion redai� (;ink the parkin- re(,uirecl for any other public
cc, ., rcial areas ;)ursuant to Art. XXIII.
3. T:L,,lusion of the adjacent oubii;erred la.-.d in the application, althour;h
•.lans on file L:epict it in letail, and the ;-)resentation before
the _ )nin 7oar i dealt ,ore Frith the ::.arina and submer3ed land
"::an tiie .,land :,tructure�3.
1�. Z".o a .an�lations of the Pl.annin-, "a, art::ent as set out in Art. XXI-I
U "SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
0
11. Application for'Conditional Use approval for the marina and
restaurant facilities, as required by Art. X-I Section 1 (2-A).
12. The application fails to state the proper zoning district, particularly
for the submerged land.
Further the notice for both the Zoning 3oard and Commission hearings were
and are inadequate in that:
1. It states nowhere the details of leviation from the zoning district
requirements or limits, as required by City charter 172 (o)(1),
and as practiced in the past, in at least the applications for
the Palace and Tiffany House.
2. There were in insufficient number of notices, and the time of publication
was not in compliance with Florida Statutes 163.170 and 163.165
(particularly (2) and (3)).
3. It is insufficient in that it fails to accurately list the property --
it omits the submerged land and the appropriate zoning district
thereof. The submerged land, although not part of the application
is calculated in the computations, is shown in the plans and
other exhibits, and was a ❑.ain topic of the applicant's presentation
before the Zoning Board.
4. No notice for Conditional Use of the Marina or the restaurant
:pas riven. See for some support, Art X-I Section 1-(2-A)(a).
5. No notice for rezoning the submerged land from R-1 to R-5A was
uiven.
6. The notices state legal code and ordinance sections, thus providing
no actual notice to the recipients, tvho from the notices provided
can tell nothing.
7• TUM UPM AO pub14%441 AO bled A ions h~iW►
In no instance is the correct Bulkhead line considered, thus causing
gross distortions in the zoning districts, permissible docks (both as
to size)and placement and number of slips).
This should serve to clarify some of the concerns of Save Brickell Avenue,
Inc. and myself in re and to the application. This is not a complete
statement of our objections, but is intended to highlight some of them.
Sincerely yours,
J,%iT.T L:.:;JR7- -ALi)'.iAi;
as President of 7AVE '3RICXELL Alr-,*1UE, IiiC.
and for herself
P.S. TtW UPA 8 AZPVAr 16 i8#5&T o,v o4 o Pe 4Ns• meyy #EPWR.
S 4W , D 15 Cu s 5 Ev oQ t>4- X2 v 15 t-b A4a Ns ,
lei kS IS # 5 /G'OV /F/ C- 11r e 114 NG E ,B Elul 616N /Z4&M *ACiF C11N6
PR !NC i pAt. 6Uic DiA.J6 c o r �p vERAG E� �Cl�LD�•v6 ffFi6ff T
YA-d D 5frACKS / 4:s we7c(. +5
11SU1D`) Jf?Tl%1E
DO CU '\Ji ENTS
FOLLOW" .
DEVI i4 T/O N^ JeCou ESTS_
NE
OF WLI h R66/A1 h PU POSAL
--.a ALL F la u AA s A" 6*Sfb u A W #Vtr-
six UNCess 07"ItWISC /pb/C14?'b
Lor eovE R W6 E - PR IOC / PAC s rk& c l
MA4 AAvA (ea V)
tfs PR.o Poseb s //. $9s 79
Cor COVLr4AGE' — P*RKIA0% S7"CTUt* (ARr. W
mme/mu m pe-oem/R3, 68i seQ. Fr.
As PRO PosEb = qz, 99 3 so, Fr,
Lo r Coy cA A# E — ra rI+ c ( Aar..7r 8 vie
M AXI J* u 0 PCA r7Lv'D • Z.� . 86 6 `ye
*5 KaPosev = y . 3 99 %
sI bt y,4kbs — PR /NcI PAC, SrAacruJw
Mw1muM ozou/ax-a, +rAcN s/or : /418..r Fr.
AS PR.o Po s" sour* SIDE m y7. r P-r
NOXrm S/De " 6.3 (V7) Fr.
FLooR ARZA RPrTro
MAX/Mum PER M/ r/ rb (INc6 U bl Nd 80 A0c/s$5 )=,t. zoa
hs P Rio Po s E' D : 314103
FL.00R A•"A RA-T70 MCCublA16
AAN D
sue I1?C""
w1 rM UPLAND RSIF -4ub suBMCA4" R-/
GNAW M u Of PEAMi rrrb (iNc4,u bitjG eommses/.d6 o
bs PR o Pose-b PO . `
"SU �P� ���TIVE ' 4' 6 79
DOCUMENTS
"spfcrFULC y su8d"ir7e By opiavcroileS WOO
/LuccuoE s4vE Bg/cmeze: ,4vE., iovc. A*vD
j-A NE r i. e-Ajoxe wA4 D/h A Al J xog rAwmsez Oes
g,vo ALI. O rOCies
0
5USMirrE :FOR VILLA 9b"6/A IA OP90POs41.
by
OdTLorCTORS S/gVe 8of /CK,eLG Wcrivi .E /NC. #A.1 D 9AWWr A. WAe tom"
j�.ip'M6/GA►T
�
FL.00Q 4904 R*T70 "MoOkAlSON
ALL FAR's 8RSED ON 14PL09AJD Da pay L/4ND S/HE ONLY
-T1 �- % C=
p
C4eeurcy dElNi
R .94 e#*L&FMseO iN e."ar,
r C--
,2.34,�
s�ten,va�to �Atio�
- --�
2,�,�gl,vewo:
Q.36
n I I �'a3`
" * *Ifajpff 1640146W S/ d5/: ew j9 • S4 N & ii " 19� it w -?*%W w"
phcAcE w«A iA LA J*,VT1 yrD eR lu�cE« 84 It ketL emu- a MOD�! Kara« �,IC1titGL
aQc�NA �M. MAC / � R PI.AGQ L h.IMce a R � t e�w ivlrew
e"
BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
RESOLTUION NO. 80-579
SAVE BRICKELL AVENUE, INC.,
a corporation not for profit
under the laws of the State
of Florida on its own behalf
and on behalf of its members
and on behalf of all others
similarly situated
Appellants
ve
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
a municipal corporation and
political subdivision of the :
State of Florida and KIONA, :
N.V., owner and applicant ;
Appellees
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that SAVE BRICKELL AVENUE, INC.,
a corporation not for profit under thelaws of the State of Florida
on its own behalf and on behalf of its members and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, appeal to the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in andfor Dade County, Florida, Appellate
Division, the Resolution of The City of M�ami, Florida, by its City
Commission dated July 24, 1980 designated August 22, 1980, by Ralph
G. Ongie, City Clerk as Resolution No. 80-579. The nature of the
Resolution is one granting an application for various types of
zoning relief on certain real property located in the'City of Miami#, Florida.
I CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was this
25th day of August, 1980 furnished by hand to Mr. Ralph Ongie, Clerk,
City of Miami, City Hall, 3500 Pan American Prive, Miami, Florida
33133, George Knox, Jr., Esq., City Attorney, City of Miami, 174
East Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33131 and by mail to Martin
Fine, Esq. 2401 Douglas Road, Miami, Florida 33145.
-A. �,/ � %
WILLIATIS, SALOMON, KANNER,
DAMIAN, WEISSLER & BROOKS
Attorneys for Appellants
1000 DuPont Building
Miami, Floi;4cla 33131
By
ry
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
w
y,
R E S O L tJ `P I O 11
P
SAVE BRICKELL AVEI411E I 1M . a corporation not for profit
under the laws of the State of Florida, at a properly called meeting
of i;,s Board of Directors, this tenth day of July, 1980, does hereby
resolve that:
AFTER REVIEWING THE Application for Variance on the
Property located at Approximately 1617-27 Brickell Avenue, Niami,
Flori.da, dated June 2, 1980, and all the records pertinent thereto;
including the recommendation for Denial of the City of Miami Planning
Department, SAVE PRICKELL AVENUE, INC. is OPPOSED to the granting
of any and all the variances requested therein. The grounds for
opposition include, but are not limited to those presented to the
City of Iiiami Zoning Board on July 7, 1980, by President and Director
of SAVE DRICKELL AVENUE, IiIC. Janet Lenore Waldman.
DONE AND RESOLVED, in Niami, Florida, this tenth day
of July, 1980.
4 �waz4l*��
E LDIIAH, President and Director
LA . AH) . , Vice,,ePresident and Director
LEVITT, Secretary Treasurer and Director
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW" i
i
R E S O L U T I O N
SAVE BRICKELL AVENUE, INC., a corporation not for profit
under the laws of the State of Florida, at a properly called meeting
of its Board of Directors, this tenth day of July, 1980, does hereby
resolve that:
EACH AND EVERY Director and/or Officer of SAVE BRICKELL
AVENUE, INC. is authorized to speak and write on behalf of SAVE
BRICKELL AVENUE, INC. on matters concerning the object and scope
of SAVE BRICKELL AVENUE, INC., as set out in its Articles of
Incorporation, that being to preserve the status of and improve
Brickell Avenue in Lliami, Florida, and all other purposes allowed
by law.
THE DIRECTORS ANT) OFFICERS of Save Brickell Avenue,
Inc. as of this date, and until they shall resign, or otherwise
be removed from office are:
President and Director: Janet Lenore 11aldman
Vice -President and Director: Luis de la Guardia
Secretary/reasurer and Director: Nat Levitt
DONE AND RESOLVED, in Hiami, Florida, this tenth day
of July, 1980. a'W,
JAiIFi LEI IOi' . ,,'ALDi-IAII, President and Director
sident and Director
T, See retary/Treasurer and virecror
"SUPPORTIVE,
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
■u u u u1
SIrE BUICDI�u6,'
FiooR LAT GovcA"y
&or_ CovE�AGF_
SIDE XRQDs
lwni+r
Compictrr.,
&AS77 v I MO~,P
�O`�'�i-
IVkAIE
AfirA' AReA�
—'
RREA PM Nl.l PA-C
'r", rR MSCID
�JXCD ifeoatsc
�Irtta
RAr/o
t
1
i
PE..A(' E
�09,Y� 4' Ia"D 12.3Y?
i
1
I Iz•l ?'0 1 9.9%
b.sd69r'fi11 •VST
w•fy'
178.0.).' iS•78''
�E-2=
.
J36 f
372
1ftRF6�ta.A1
umm-0 Lo
,
v1r.L/4 R.E6a1fA
0 S3.'
I'iF � 7
y 79, OOO
03
y i
/I.89S•SGbz��/is/o/
8 % �
/yd.5' s y7s
, dv
Z84 7
�
C!a C DI" ALr)
13
�
_
91�774
'-�8/79�f
3,36y
9% j1y.219%
Z3.t39Z �y3.52�f/
day OS•82.17
�S?
Pas*/. D/so
t
�
'
� oFR /RC.
9?y
ooas7
i�ie 1'f
1�aoveo
t
Zl•p7x�t .30y
Int•80.s'
.17'
s
IG4'
ii
Y�91,
_
1.Ji S�wTq
PIAR/A
167,9S'1,
y43,453
a.9Sf
__._ 1 - - - . --
870 1 ?.S7%
- ` -
�b-�45r yG.G%
� �r• tie, •
�?•s' (s•t3o'
�
CIN
1 • b 1!2
UTD TDWEQ
i
fie'
?66'
8R ICKELL
1.3 6
t
PLACa
t 1v- 76•7s'
AVLLAA !AS
79,472
l4o,6G8
-•399
14 % j 13 q9 7,
OV.A}1% 48.8?t�
8T.05 js•Bs vT
It
U)
3o`E3T.
Say Vat. Aa r
EST.4Ttr
BRicweLL Mkk
—
I
W
30'Est
_
twl& ZZ4
2. 36
1
1
p�, J
aaso.S'
may/ Gt"
69/d Y.CGG
1.48
I
=
l
0 L .
,��1
1�cet�t!/fOusCr
T
1
i
tea' T
8R 1 cKE
L RV
IVUE F! EC
S — Ul L Nb
o.vc ..
Rrmy
4.4
VI
61911CKE7l �IFvr'N
TJIiS ca
RT, C
1
_�. . miss.
KE
Ilk E&OL-
�
BCE �'D
cA�Q
a su WVCA G O
�n��uativ ove�„�.L
,�.s C� t �roSCa
E
ENPR
AN r��sr0
t LL
eaa+,r�
't'oTAv F TE RAGA �, , Oi r. ,act
P+�Np AAA Sol.� S �
k�E 33 .z7� yg3'tS �
658
1`7)qsa r !0.07SZ
s•3a 4�% � �
.jq, t57e '
41j l7'i
7 � �
N?q QpO s.b8 �
l78`?fib
st.zsl� '
3?,q4�
zI-
Irv.
iRRT, 4a&Tesy
or-
I
If - f
;lll.l 1 ,"`11111.1 of t hr'�n w.-Il 1 illy` l,:lT l::Ilr_•
r•+ i ttt „1 •• (•,In alt(1 •:hr,ttici hr I1tt� hr•rl 1'-1(•l; 1'
f, ,`! I I(! -iti ftrdl 1..). 1 l frrt snuthw.lr(l ill
of-rin1' i r, nwvt. i:he rvcltlircrl
(1l mr. l.()T COVIII1 GY', FOP '1.HE A(*(,1:,;
.!1OPY :••1•lW('T1ll)l7 11N1) Poi; 't'Itr rTZT*,JC1l'l,f; A*:')
ACCi'f'''',1"1• ,�•IIWCITPYS COMP-1141:1) ()a ar1'1 3,1) .
t,1r'ir (•1 i�-, of frrinct 1009, rr,vcr(`cl h')Tl:in(t, 1;:I,ich
1•o icy rnroIIra(tns. lllln to t.hv rlr•:,Itia)n
(,f ilw •,1i(• and to floo(1 (-ritrria rnalulatirn•:,
t.tt i •• r .u1(1,11 �5 that the strurt.urr• rr•.-Ir-11-
i or 7. 31)' in front. and 1 I' ('n t h,
it no way t.o roasonnhl\. prc1 •i ?r` 1n0° —
r'n r Y,' ! t�•1 rk i n(I wit hr,ut tlrl t hr all
l c0 r ••.- ra(ic l nr(` any st r11rt ttrr` which
tr"`1 in hr•irill t is incluclr'cl in r..,l-
(7ul:lt 1r,1,,, ttihilr` it is true that: ihrrr• t:•r)ulrl l)r-
I)- I`l ('1-1r•1.1 with l(It covornriv .l f t.hr• llppr'r
( ),,-)11:1n(I ]`; lrft, r,IinIi, t_IIr• hat tr'`r clrnirin tl-
t,•r11at iv,, i!• t.o c•ov(•r thr• l) iII•kinrl• —
Ms. Susan Groves, Planning Department: Mr. Chairman, It -]embers of the
hoard], T think the hest way to handle this Item is to no through our
orioinal recommendationn first, then discuss with you the change^ which the
applicant riade after :I rteetinrT with us this mornin(7. And then state what
our revised recommendaltions are.
Our first feelin,t for the application as it was submitted] was to
recommend denial of five of the seven reauested variances . YMat
WWWW t'91W, d itir
vole rnwu.' in tact, at these var ance! 0obld imaose lla aidship on
0PRW9EjWa_. 911* particular concern is, or war., the front set!).lc 1. for the
accen sory lluilclinct which would he the parking (tarage. They wcr.n_ 1)r.oljosinq
a 10' setback. No felt that in light of the heictht of thin huilrlinq, it
Was (toinq to h,� 7' at this point. V would create an unattractive site from
Itr.ir_kell Avrtltio. d•le w-re_ also concernerl with the sidle vard setbacks for
the principle structure. Isle felt that perhaps a reduction in the height of
Ole builrlin,t could eliminate such required variances for tho setbacks. 'oe
were concerned with tho! Lot. Coveraqe for the principle structure. We were
recommcndin(i that the hui ldinri he reduced] by 4' to 5' in lenrlth in order to
altogether eliminate the Lot Coverage for ttie principle structure.
We were not no r.r)nrr,rnc�rl with the Lot Coverar7e for the accessory
structuro. We rrali e• f_hv dilemma the applicant was fac-d (•!itli. :ic
essentially had LWO choirr!;: hither to open up t--he toll parl:.inr1 cic_,.1: and
prOvi.dr at 1.O:1r.t 1)0•? of open parking which we did not feel c:"is i viable
desi'nl alternative or (• i sra h(! critilo hltild the st.ructltrr• Lit) to vary l,r,tween
7' t() over 13' . we fc)lt. that. this offered a better de si(tn alternative.
The 'leek area (,r( top cold-1 b0 landscaped] so that it would not appeair to he `
a oarkinat garaoe. it c(.)ul(i he used, and the applicant is r,rnno since to use -
tlll ;I),ic(` an rrcrociLion il).lce:^ an "n -wry did not -have problems
with the Lot ('overa,le l or f.he accessory structure and for tho sx-ic reason,
we di(! it. with the combined l.ot Coverage for the principle ant: accussory
strU tures.
;low an 1 :;a>I i(i , uic� appl i c•ant met with tT , this i r.nin,l to in over our
ol,t,n ; i t iun and they cant(, h.lok this afternoon with nome rar; i :;ion'; t.,h i ch we
hr.(rtily :1r1r((• v.ith. The", have eliminated two of the varirinr.n reluor.ts:
(?ne 1 or the ;Cthalck , front snthack of the ace(�ssory park i n'T !;tr. ucture.
-,17- Janu.iry :'I, 1() ,'o Item R
L'
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"I U - "
op " f
connection with this proinc•t. ,;o while we are very dolictlltt (l ,arlcl nlcased
with the :;taff'r cooperation, we simply want to !,ay the fnctr, of life are
that this apnlicant has, as all other applicants there on I.�ric.kell., have
been deprived of their riciht to use 30,800 square feet of huildinq and to
lose the use of 14,000 r.quare feet of land. We helieve that thin is a
rea .onabl(: refliu :t• for a variance and tracks very clot;r1V with 'ghat you
have clone on Isrickel.l A,.,(-nlrc` wi.thi.n a short neri.od of time probably two or
three months afro, for exannile,nn the 'Tiffany nrnnerty where you at)uroved a
floor area ratio of 2..4. V.e think that was npproprinte. We think this re-
quest, altholloh we're nnl inn for slightly hinTaer, 2..447 in arn)ronriate.
dome of you may he hettr'r c-quinned than I to ficlure in your held what these
fractions of ,-I percentat-to amount to, but I'm not and so we computed it today.
For example, tho difforonc" between 2.18 and 2.40 is lens than 1900 square
feet. We're tal%ino ahout one apartment approximately. and r;n what we're
really sayincr is that the difference between 2.16 which your r'lanninn Staff _
has recomrnctIded, that you consider nranti.na, and what we're asr:inq for is _T
not what it sounds like, but substantially less.
I sai.cl it is late an(! we could no on for a loner time. T 'aonrier if you
woulri -lust permit us to mention a few things and then we would reserve the
rinht to come hark and rlai,orate and would cncourane you to ask the archi-
tect to answer any nuo stions yore may have; the landscape architect - they
are intimately familiar with this site. Please hear in mind that this owner_
owns, has title to, fee sinmle title to, the suhmerved land adjacent to
this property unlike many other owners on Ilri.ckell Avenue. 13ut that land is
not beinn used; that land is not being computed in connection with ascertain-
incT the amount of property that can be developed on this property. Please
hear in mind that thin: owner because of previous actions taken h}' previous
owners, could in our or)inion, he entitled to a marina permit on that site
and huild nut into the Ilan. This owner has said, 'If you will permit me to
develop this propert; in the manner that I have reasonably requested you to
do, we will not do that.' Iwo arc± not: aski.nct for that.' ".-Je will waive that.'
't•1e wi 1 l cri vrr that. irp - a l t hounh you know and we know that that is a very
imnortant asset potentially.'
The 1111". or perhal,!; rlory of the parkin(r will be oneP)-1.ev1. ;,- ur:nn
Pointed oat, thorn will only h^ somewhere hetween 0 and It oar'; :hic►1 may be
used to park and 1 hat. would really he for crue st parkinct. T ll'-1d an
npportitnit-: to work with these architects on several occ,1';ic,n an,1 T and ah-
solutcly convirloed that they are superior arch i.torts: i think they're very
sen-itive to the area; 1 think they're very sensitive to the total community;
the'%• are h,a!;ical ly r,ary or the requirements that your 5tal f !ra; and you
have, and thev have tried to respond to them.
In cloning, !nav T that we believe that this property is a reasonable
use as a proposed (Ivvelopmnnt for this site, and 1)anical1v 'Athin a very
^nil fraction, is in kc'epi no with what you have al ready .lone in connection
with floor area ratio and other variances in that area. '!'Ilan): you very much.
.tr. rkort: 1 r that concludes your ;)resentation, wo •;;i.II hC,ir rom the
ooj)o : l t i on .
ftr.. Waldman: "',y ivire, is .Janpt Waldman. I live at fell) ixjcC (Al Avenue.
I'm president of Nave Ilrivlll Avenue, Inc., which is a (rrorin of property
owners consistino of approximately 100 property owners in th- inme_di.at:e area.
It ha n hven my tirivi lv,ir, to speak to you on numerous othr:r occasion:: and I
wools) rc•r�ri nd ynir t:llat r�'; arena i not: a nrrnrn that does not favor hirlhrise
dove lopment. In iac.l., the last two times that I was
von, I ';poke
in favor c,f a r)rupo:;v,1 I1rc)'Ir•c•t. Wn like to encouracie (rood development along
'Irickvll hv-rule an-1 it ir. ant. our purpose to try to clan•;' that ri'rllt to
prooert" (liners. tllc're are a niinher of that .re see with
thin pro lost hero tod,iv. 1'i r::t , a 1 i the hacl•-(rrourlc3 nr, ho-,., T came to ile• here.
pus, t.n that fart. that: 1 wa-; salt of town lint. wr-c•l:, T did not: r:r.ei'": notice t
of tlll.`: Ilntl.l 7:01 1',;1. , ;'c'nt�'r la'1. I'm now :r'orkin(r dllrin,i Ul^ I .., an(! was
-49- •tanlrary :' 1 ,
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
q
0
ask that as the proposal is presented to you tonihht, that you deny it.
Thank you.
Mr. Cort: 'Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Alrirlht, we're
hack to you for a few minutes rebuttal.
Mr. fine: fir. Chairman, Members of the hoard, firntly T think it's
appropriat^ for mo to rommrnt on a very fine presentation that i1n. I•'aldmnn
made. I admire_ her tenacity and I assure her and I .insure you that I try
never to be rude. T think it is inappropriate for u, to consent to a
deferral. 'life issues are very clearly stated. We've had an opportunity to
chat a little hit tonihht and I really don't think we'd rain anythincz . . .
but I woulc; lik^ to r(tnhond to several of the points which she: has made
and which T believe are anpropriate. l.et'i cic'.+ar un the bit ahout thc-
island . The i,;land is a small Niece of land about 21,00 to 2.R00 souare feet
owned in fee^,i.nmlc• f-it In by this applicant. And thn island mill be, con-
nected - it .in at,out 10 fret awav from the mainland - it will be connected --
with a wooden bridov - (live access to these. tenants, pardon men, owners and
tltev will. he ahle to une it. It is an interaral uart of it. it is part of
what happened when the tilanning process, went on and is r-,arryinq that out in
a manner which is satisfactory and appropriate and elioible to be included.
111r.ar,e beep in mind as you look at that property there and you look at
the shoreline, that there is a tremendous amount of snhmerged land which is —
not included. And frankly, should not be included. But the one area that
I think you worald have to artrce that is redly a very serious one is the
one that 'Mr. Carner asked shout in the beginnin(1, and that is the 14,000
s(luare feet which thr! city in it's own wisdom says 'We arr, not (mina to permit
you to build on it, we aro not uoina to permit you to n:,e it, we arc not
(toin(l to t)crmit you to count it in any calculation that talk about.'
Now that's it l+rc tt:; heavy problem. I would not call that confiscation, but
I think it, r-ome!; very close. And I think the way to mare un for that is at
lvi:;t to (live very serioun c-onsidvration, as I hope you will, to these other
varianc_rs. 1 an, guru. that. Ms. Waldman (lid not mean to imply to you that
thi r; firm or th i, a;»fl icant or T, are showinn you .a renrlerinct that is in-
correct. Hernardo ha^ asstir.rd me. that this is correct; that it was (done in
conformity with ill mechanical annarratun to see to it that it truly reflects
the plan, ancd.I would :;ingest to you that that is correct.
I think one of the prohlemr. that one has in termi of architecture, is
individual tastes . ttf; . Waldman .asked me earl i cr thin eveni n(, ahout a
slanting roof. You know, one of the ctre.at, great, cireat, huildinas in New
York City is the nr,w Ci Licorn Ituilding that lluah SLubbi.ns designed and it
has a slanting roof ten t.imw.s the scale of this. So I really think that when
it frets clown to that sort of thing, we ought to leave that to the architects
within reason and vr,ur Plannina staff dicl not comment adversely on that. I
would he wi.l li.nn to anntrme that if you asked . them about it, they would say
that it adds a measure of interest rather than - it t)robably cost more to
do it that way.
i01 of thr are som-what confuninrt at least to r:e. And Ilist
in �.,►se thev are c-onftr:;in.t to you, may I finish my taresentzition otl;er than
ans-,wvrind any you may have, by tel.linct you that thr. 51.1ildino as
presently submitted to vou, contains 22f1,0(11, square feet; 222,077,. Tf you
4rere to u!:(! tho i'lannin(t ntaf ('s recommendation of 2. Y, that would allow us
to bui Id ](I,Y,I ,curare feet. Mind you now, we're still not including the
14,000 r:(tuaru fort: the ('ity in rome.what near close to tnl:in(t .array from us.
The only difference of 11,500 feet but if you permit this applicant to go -
sav - .ohat: Ti f f an•; Ilour:c is, 2.40 which is substantial l•; less than he's
askin(r for in it :gay, thin atplicant could httild 220,264 ,(luare feet. So we
are here this: ili,r'rt on a tnrrlt i-mi.11ion dollar nrojeot., a very :;nbstantial
ir;:lrovc mr.nt to the, r'.i ty of Miami , a very suhntanLial im;,rovement to this
nei(rlrborhond, a non-xv-zo of ^.ul-mer(Ted land, a non -rise of a m.-irina, arot)er use
of tar(, littler i::lin(d and really the thrust of what we'rc a;kinn for is
-52- .January 21, 1130 ftcm 3
ZI,
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
r^i iI ^1Alt1
4A
Mr. Cartier: could 1 hreak away from where we're: ioinfi for a minute
and ask a question: In the course of reviewinct this thine, we've clot an
incredible . . . area here. I've never seen a huildin,t as hide a, it is to
narrow and t a:sumc that very competent engineers have stressed this thing
for an overturn motion?
Mr. fine: fir. Romney is anxiou, for me to respond to that and say
they absolutely, Lhorouctlrly, comnletel.y did assume all. rcnponnibility for
it; they relieve the City of any; he also point, out to ric that the require-
ment in tho way the hui ldincl is set, 11r. Rolle, is onl%! S) feet from the
flay - i.e'rc ,ittinq hacl: 67 -- it's only required to he 21 feet from the
setback off of I.rickell and it's 25 - so in many ways we have cx.ceedcd what
the panic regiii r•,ment!; are.
'1r. Cort: Puny other qucstions?
Mr. Carncr: I'm having a problem on the floor area ratio. '•:e're not
talking I)i(a numbers, we're talking I guess 48on - not even -
'tr. fine: ri ' s almost like the millacte in the list tax election.
I'm not sure w(! all know what we're talking about. It's a very little
amount of square footage relatively speaking.
fir. Carnc>r: l'm t:ilk.inrr basically really about six apar.tm`nts in the
overall and I'm having a urrnt deal of trouble losing siciht frankly of. that
14,000 feat utn front. The way it's coming into my head is that we land of
owe flip; somr!thin(j. I realize that that's not a binding consideration and
everythinel but lopping 70 feet off a valuable piece of property and then
hitting him for it is a reel Catch-22.
fis. Waldman: 1 woilld remind the tloard that every developer who ')uvs
on lirickell i, aware of thi^ and has that fi.nured into his plan and that
the maximum pr-rm.itted includinq bonuses is 2.2. Save Prickell Avenue would
not be adverse to even a 2.4 which is the maximum that ha^ already occurred
on Prickell Avenue but o,^ do not want to see it act hifther and higher and
hicther with each and every building that's proposed. Thank, you.
Ms. Las i la: 11s . 1•la l dman , what kind of a recommendation can you advise
in this case? What would you want us to do?
Waldman: The iflertl thing in my personal ot)inion wollid ije to
rc:c.orimencl a deferral .,ri t h an attempt to work. with the architect, and ctet it
Mown to a 2. 4. If the F.A.R. could he brought down to a 2.4 I believe
cave Brickell Avenue could come in with a recommendation for approval. ilut
we cannot recornmc:nd ativ hui lclin(t on ilrickell Avenue hicther than that.
Mr. fine: 't;. 1�a::ila, may I rest)ond to your nut^tion please.
Ar. ;tulle: r' 1.1 ask the question 11r. chairman.
rlr. fine: Nnt: otily hr.c.j�tr,e it's late but t)ecause I think we're all
rcachina for the riflht result, and in the spirit of connc.ration and with-
out asl:inq my client who's sitting on the other side of the room who might
shoot me, if this hoard tonight is willinq to grant it on the basis of 2.40
and ti ? other variances that are slight in nature, and Save l.rickell Avenue
will not anpeal, .Intl wo would know we were finished tonictht, I would re-
spectflil ly request that,you feel free to make a 2.40 floor area ratio with
the other variances, and that. %4v no from thcro. I think that':, a spirit of
eornnrnmi net in,l we would I)e willinq to do that. i f he fires e:e I'll tell
you about it on the.- next: trio.
Vaf;.il.i: tlhaL do you think about that, ju..t out of curio^ity?
'1r.. ::.11dwan: :ol 1 , 1 think there are: otlier r>robl�_,nn l)ut I t`iink the
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
"SUPPORTlVE
DOCU Ni EIVTS FOLLOW.'-
F
I
I
Pudliswed
'"-
, �
�• i if
i. !
, �!
11
� � � i. '`f ..� 1. .. ., I'+� ),_.r_ i 1; 1�i
_ _. �'l
,.it,.
i`i'i(;, f r " i OGc':AC'41i
-
f
F C L CtnJ
f .4
.'.' 1 � j. � .t � ... L,:%, � - ,.'.1.;•.1�� t i'.:�1 1. t� .:. �1iZ �i ir:?.� t17�.
iC..i:,;l.c
a
"SUPPOPTI''V` E
DOr V l.A 1� 1 S
FOLLOW"
34
y
i
�1
V'-`.r� �.r i
,'. ., i � �
• . • r• • "- �'1C.±.�:.1 t.;l;.:ti:::.:ll� Ull j,`!n
'1
� .'.I
.�1 ') ._ • ;7 ` •_
r_ .. '1 ,'i •.il-."_li,lll'"� il;il
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCU fit, I ENTS
FOLLOW"
Cit.- P,—o Four
'Irc, Uln Yi
uro_
ot' nVier (IevcaD--i,ici,*L:-•
on -'rj.c',:eI1, andt thc).;e in Lhe
'o ;.;ilw' Ue
iiei JA "tfl(l 1 oi,
i,cc:
ii.,(, on-
ill
1
T
loge
,.t 1)o Lh 1,c:'antrl
o i
iet I
0 1 L t,--' S t 0 ill
j c r
I;. o
I
[10
'L o
T
i -(-a Rio
o a.!!' o.
a
(Y
0111. o
lItIor, all
i:t -v
.02
L L . C'. L i
iU C o 1C)(D a
i
L I 't �
-
ou t a t
L I
unly Oil
(;-L*--(,i`I0IIc-.
C.)
t hu L J.
jl' ltec; iuc'ri t-iore
'-Laii oii a Jar_(.! oil(--
j,
t, "ja
I L11 I10 C 0, tat-, le
-,a.
Lii L:k-� 2.4,)
;ilroadty can 15-i-ii1cl, t:.,e
.,ri
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
m, Five
un wa n 1 nopic i w Ok win Lt: , ilcutioA 1._ tho lot coveraje of tho
winsi,al "cpuctqr , nSPU L"s :"Iacp
ww, un�llcr it:, allowed Lot
cowea,O, w 1 1.1 wIR"; '
i�L; to covora:,O.,
L,dLu a,,,.jicnwt iA re posoin, K A i
Alm id.. to WK N 77.9&! more
1j. cnvcrw,, Lwm inIIIwAn:, 7q.9 T L.
rli:,e
p V-"
L!.Cv-iatioll
4w- .OK!
wi L.A.; V--
:n
-W)JI L-O will.
nnkiuo W.c 11,,np jl-, cwp.7apL
nil vain: OY tne npi Khon-,I cn
O
rTi
TI,O
M
do no t
1,ol u i
it i t 1 1, ari a.
C;l t:" c 0 i i o I i !"a-C Six
r
i, L. llowevi-r
- i if 1 -11 1 i i c, j � i �!Vuil lncludirl_' U10
I c—D "ri 1(�: -, " C,):. I I , L i i il -, a a;, 4� -,;�c e c d �3 i i i u vo r y cat t , ,
i i_u 1'j
axll iu.,, LIC IL! dll� - 1:
,rlwA,al
v -i--, IlLo t; 1
P
c; j
L
c•
I LC ;i la I I 1 .0 t,
i:
irt
1c
0
c c;
7 i
L; 1 0 l' i la
11 J
l(A on !lrLcl-,cll.
lot
1 f yo I ',a cl•11 -11!0� L
-,at. -Llt tli�
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
'p -tw
city Tla,-c ",even
L. 44
Vic necon] thiii c,;-icL:L- Lilt' jr-,,jt, he (Adin' t create
c iju, a(-Licm. 'FirsL of
—avo
i, Llic a,,,,19c;,a1lt ::110ws of tile
-w rar- L Lnei,
n
CYJ 3
LL I
VEL C)
L
2
4A&+ hsAY- 4. hardsk;o any "ojolf
V
-1 Lilll'd
It
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW
reasol I:. L 1,, t:,.. r� n, a t
L
c
"SUPPORTIVE
DO C1 J �-A IL7-INTS
ro, c
n tile
I crin't ilse
v
a, Ic the
a, Ic the
T}t
i.i'
1. >.
1. 1
i, l.,,iv,, t' -11;
�Xqtve
L,Ir, 1,_l.,l
'144
_,;,iA, 211. 11
?�40
". ,r J.
_
...1' 1 I
. �. 1�
.. i
I` l I
., 1 V• l .. li i 1. 1 i L.
..,1.
.. .,..����
�. �
_ .... it ..i
.. � _�.. �
., � .. „.. _..•, ,i. '�,
impl,
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW??
a..0
ZONING FACT SHEET
LOCATION/LEGAL Approximately 1617-27 Brickell Avenue
Lot 45, Block B; WILLIAM & MARY BRICKELL (B-96)
Lot 46, Block B; FLAGLER MARY BRICKELL (5-44)
INCLUDING SUBMERGED LANDS TO BULKHEAD LINE
OWNER/APPLICANT Kiona, N.V.
C/O Martin Fine
2401 Douglas Road,
Miami, Florida 33145 Phone #446-2200
ZONING R-SA (High Density Multiple Dwelling).
REQUEST Variance to permit construction of a 162-unit
apartment structure on above site, as per plans
on file, with the following variances: (1) FOR
THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE: (a) Side Yards: 80.5'
N'ly and 82.17' S'ly side yards proposed (134'
required for each); (b) Lot Coverage: 10.1%
proposed (9% allowed); (c) Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
2.384 requested with bonuses (2.2 permitted with
bonuses); (Resolution ZB 22-80 granted a 2.4 FAR
with bonuses excluding the submerged land area).
(2) FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: (a) Lot Coverage:
23.1% proposed (20% allowed), (b) Side Yards: 20'
NE'ly & 59.83' SW'ly proposed (67' required).
RECOMMENDATIONS
PLANNING DEPT. DENIAL. There is no hardship nor any unusual
feature of the site which justifies granting
the requested variances. The site has adequate
area and dimensions to permit reasonable
development which conforms to zoning regulations.
On January 21st of this year the Zoning Board
reviewed a similar but less intense project for
this site. At that time submerged land could
not be used for the area calculations, therefore
the project was requesting lot coverage, setback
and FAR variances based on the unpland area only.
Even with this less intense development the Board
granted less than was being requested, or as is
reflected in the following variances:
- a 2.4 FAR or 220,264.2 sq.ft. of floor area
(which translates into a 1.7 FAR using
submerged land).
80.5 N'ly and 80..751, where 88.5' were required
j 34.1% lot coverage for the accessory structure,
i�SU f ( �RTI /C where 20$ is permitted
D ��� lrri-�,� - 20' side yard for the accessory structure
,U,.,��� ITS
FOLLOW" r 80-579
- 43.5% lot coverage for principal and accessory
structures combined.
Now that it has been determined that submerged
land can be included in the area calculations,
the original plans approved by the Zoning Board
on January 21st, have been modified by adding
eight stories (7 Residential floors and one
parking level) to the building. This modification
raises the total floor area by 89,525.8 sq.ft.
to total 380,790 sq.ft. and puts the project out
of scale with its site and with past development
in the Brickell area. This lack of scale is also
evidenced by the other new variances which are
being requested:
- Side yard setbacks which are only 60% of the
required yards (80.5' and 82.167' where 134'
are required);
- Lot coverage for the principal structure which
exceeds that allowed for a building which has
at least four stories less.
The plans should be modified to reduce or eliminate
all of the requested variances. Even though the
development is eligible for a .2 FAR bonus (to
total a 2.2 FAR), since the project was not designed
with the submerged land in mind the other variances
would not be brought to within an acceptable level
with this much floor area. A 2.2 FAR would only
reduce the floor area by 23,830 sq. ft. or
approximately two floors or 14 units. Although
a 10% lot coverage would be permitted, the
building would still require a much larger setback
than is being provided (125.4' required, 80.5
provided).
Unless the project is completely redesigned, the
best alternative would be to develop the site in
accordance with the plans which were approved by
the Board on January 21, 1980.
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT The dedication of the Northwesterly 70' of Lots
45 & 46 is requested for an access road.
ZONING BOARD DENIED by a 4 to 3 vote on July 7, 1980.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
i COMMI:N'r
A, fhe exit lane into the 70 ft. t*','�ication should be a
minimum of 14 [L. In width.
13. The cul-de-sac should have a minimum of 25 ft. radius.
C. Wail placement adjacent to driver's side of numerous
lurking stalls inhibits driver access to and from the
parked vehicles.
ll. Support columns should not encroach in parking stalls.
i:. Parallel Stalls should be 22 ft. minimum in length and
not have wheel stops.
F. Driving aisle location on west side of the third floor
parking has virtually no sight distance at the access
driveway and, therefore, is hazardous.
METRO UAUE, o.o."1'."1'. � June 30, 1980
l.uL�ue L. Simm, Director
LLS :111.11: anh
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
N
SUFof ovi VE
�,,��S
acv�E
D �p1N
fO
Mayor and City Commission
Att;ent.ion: Mr. Joseph R.
City of Miami, Florida
Gentlemen:
JUy 10, 1980
Grassie
re: VARIANCE - DFNIED BY 'PHI': ZONING
BOARD APPF.ALFI) 'PO C-TTY�C6MMT-S-S_ ON
BY 'PIIE— PPT.(CANT iCIONN -N. V.
Approximately f617-2-'7-9 -cell
Avenue, Lot 45; Block B; WILLIAM
& MARY BRICKELL (B-96) and Lot 46;
Block B; FLAGLER MARY BRICKELL
(5-44) including submerged lands
to bulkhead line.
The Miami Zoning Board, at its mect.ing of July 7, 1980, Item #5,
following an advertised Ilearing, adopted Resolution No. 140-80 by
a 4 to 3 vote Denying Variance from Ordinance 6871, ARTICLE%, X-1,
Section:, 3(2)(c), 5 & 6, and ARTICLE IV, Section 19(7), to permit
construction of a 162-uni.t apartment structure on Lot 45; Block B;
WILL 1 AM & MARY 13R I CK FI J, (B-96) and Lot 46 ; Block I3 ; F LAGLI..R MARY
BRICKELL (544) i nc l ud i nth :.ubmergud lands to bulkhead line being
approximately 1617-27 Brickel.l. Avenue, as per plans on file, with
the following variances: (1) FOR THE PRINCIPAL, STRUCTURE: (a)
Side Yards: 80.5' N'ty and 82.17' S'ly side yards proposed (134'
required fir each); (b) Lot Coverage: 10.1% proposed (9l allowed);
(c) Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 2.381, requested with bonuses (2.2
permitted with bonu:.es) ; (Resolution `LB 22-80 granted a 2.4 PAR
with bonuses. excluding tlic :.ubmerged land area) ; (2) FOR THE
ACCESSORY 1TRUCTURI; e : (a) Lot Covrage : 23.1% proposed (20%
allowed); (b) Side Yards: 20' NE'ly & 59.83' SW'ly proposed
(67' required); zoned H-5A (111gh Density Multiple).
One objection received in mail; one favoring petition received
in mail.
A RED: SOLUTION to provide i'or this: Variance has been prepared by
the -C Ly AL-Cor•ney':, office and submitted for consideration of
the City Commission,
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
Si ere yy,
u . .O-1 Perez Lugo s
Director
Department of Administration
Planning; and Zoning
A1)L: mo
cc: Law Department,
Tentative City Commlt;.niun date: July 214, 1980.
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCU 1V" ENTS
FOLLOW"
f
5. AI`I'ji0XI1`VyI'I:I,Y 11,17-27 IMICKE1.1, AVENUE
I.OL �15; nioc:k 11; wII,I,IAM & MARY BRICKE.W. (11-96) and
Iaot 40; Block 11, FLAGLL•'R MAIIY BRICKELL (5-44) including
siibmercled lands to bulkhead lines.
Var.'•from Ord. 6871., AICV. X-1,- Sec.3(2) (c)5 & 6, & ART. 1V, Sec.
11I(7), to Kermit construction of a 162-uni.t apartment
st.rurture on above site, as per plans on file, with the
foll.owincl variances: (1) FOR THE PRINCIPAL S11'ItUC`l'UI1E: (a)
i dro Yards: Mi., 51 N' ly and 142.17' S' ly side yards proposed
(1.341 re(ltt i r.ed for each),- (b) Lot- Coverage: 10.1;o proposed
('.►';; al lowod) . (c) floor Area Ratio (Mit) : 2.304 requested
with brmusr's (2.2 permitted with bonnsc+s) ; (Resolution
7,13 2 2-130 ({ranted a 2.4 I'AR with bona^en excludinq the sub -
me rgod land area) : (2) FOR THE ACCr: SSOltY STRUCTURE: (a)
Lot Coverage: 23.1';0 l')roposed (20;; allowed) . (h) Side Yards:
201 N1;' ly F. 51t. fl.1' Stiff' ly proposed (67' required) ; roncd .R-5A
Oligh Dons ity Multiple).
Secretary filed proof of public,at.ion of Legal. Notice of Hearinf,
and administered oath to ail persons testifying at.this Hearing.
PROPONKNT S CO T11.1S ITEM WERE PRESENT
1 OPPONENT TO THIS ITEM WAS PRESENT
PLANNING DCPAUMLNT RECOMMENDATION:
01111 AI.. 'I'liere i q no hardship nnr any unu seal
feature of rite site which •lusti.fies granti.nry
t.hr recluent.od variances. The site. has adequate
,-Y coa and dimension:, to hermit: reasonable
development which conforms to zoning regulations.
on -lantiary 21 ,t of this yeah the 7oni.nrl Board
reviewed a similar but less intense project for
this rite. Al- that time stthm6rged land could
riot: ho used for tho area calculations, therefore
the project: wa , realuestinct lot covernoe, setback
anal FAR variances hasnd can the unplaind area only.
Evrn with this: less intense development the Board
qranl-rd less, than was being r.erluested, or as is
reflected in the following variances:
- a 2.4 FAlt or 220,204.2 cq.ff ,
. of floor area
(which t:r.annIates into a 1.7 FAR using
submerged land)
- 80.5 N'ly and 80.75', where 88.5' were required
- 34.17, lot cnverngO for the accessory structure,
where 20% is permitted
- 20' ,ide yard for the accesr.ory structure
(continued on next page)
July 7, 1980 Item 5
ZB
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
f
- 41.',2 lot cvorrrcin for principal and accessory
:;Li:ucLures cumbinud.
NOW thirl. .i t ha , I,0611_clrter111ined that: submercled
Lend can L,r. inc l oiled i n 1-ho wren calculations,
1.11e orillinal plans ;ipproved by Hi(- '/,oninq Uoard
on January 21st, have hovii modified by adding
eiclhL r;Lor.ien (7 kosicic,nt.ial floors and one
P;11-P in(j lr.vel) 1.0 till(, hili.ldincl. 'Thin modification
rai :es tho total. floor area by 110,525.8 sd.ft.
t.n t.ol..,1 380,790 sq.ft. acid buts the pl-ojcct out
or (7110 Wit-h it, si tic and with past development
ill the Itric:kel 1. area.• This lack of scale is also
vvi rln(.d by the other new variances which are
being requcpted:
Sido yard net:bacl;:; which arr, only 00% of the
r-qui.rc,d yards (00.�' arid 82.10' where; 134'
arc required) ;
I.,)I- cc;veracie for tho principal structure which
rxcoodn tliat. al Jowod for a buildiny which has
aL least four sLories less.
,i,iv. plan, should he mo(ii rind to roduce or eliminate
_ all of Lhr rccl ur�, t.cd variances. liven tltouc�h the
d-vo l opmon t i r; n l i,i i h l (• for a. 2 FAR bonus (to
t(il.il a 2.2. FAR) , sine( the project was not desicined
with Lhu submorq,:cd land in mind 1.h(, other. variances
%--r—i 1 d not be brou(Iht to within an acceptable level
w.i.lh Lhirc much floor area. 11 2..2. FAR would only
r, llwo the floor aroa by 23,83U sq. ft. or
api>rnxim.iLoly Lwc) floor, or 1.4 units. Although
a lii'i, lot coveracp! would he pe-rmiLLed, the
I,161 d i nq would r,t: i 1 1 reclu i re a much larger setback
t thin i , being provided (125.4' required, 80.5
provided).
linlrss tho t)roiect in complr!Loly re(le,iclned, the
l,cr; t a 1 ternat i ve wo u I d bn to (Involop the site in
a,-(.-orrlanc-e with the p9 ans which were approved by
Lho Board on January 21, 1980.
Mr. Terry Percy, Law Department: Mr. Chairman, this item is very
simmer to an r_tem t at this Board considered n January and it
was called to my attention today by Miss Waldman that this item
may not be properly before you this evening. I inquired and looked
into the application after she pointed this out and found that
her concern was not well-founded in that the application you're
considering now, is drastically different from the item considered
in January in that a new legal description is included. Susan will,
In her presentation, point out the other differences in what the
applicant is seeking; vis-a-vis the structure itself and the depar-
tures from the code.
Mrs. i3anila: Are you saying; we should look at this thing as a
whole new project?
Mr. Percy: Yes, that's what it is.
Ms. Susan Groves, Planning Department: Mr. Chairman, Members of
July 7, 1980 Item 5
"SUPPORTIVE ZD
DOCUMENTS
FCLLOW_
r,
V t
the Board. I think I should add, in' addition, the project was
approved by this Board almost as requested on January 21st, 1980,
that's of this year. At that time, the request was for a 2.485
floor area ratio. A 2.4 was granted, or 220,257 square feet of
floor area was granted. In addition four other variances were out
and out granted and two variances.were deleted or essentially were
withdrawn by the applicant since they agreed to conform to the
zoning ordinance. So there was no part of the petition which was
out and out denied. It is my understanding that another of Miss
Waldman's arguments was that part or all of the application had
been denied and therefore it could not be heard again for a year.
Essentially, what has transpired since the other approval, was
that the applicants are now asking for 8 additional floors; 7 of
these floors are to be residential in nature and 1 is to be a parking
garage. What this does, it increases the variance requests for the
side yards for the principal structure. What was approved in Janu-
ary was a variance providing the same setbacks, a little bit better
than 80' setbacks but based on the building height at the beginning
of this year, only an 88.5' setback was required. Now, with the
additional 8 stories, 134' are required. On top of that it adds
a lot coverage variance for the principal structure in spite of the
fact that the submerged land is now included in the area of calcu-
lations. This is because as the height of the building is increased,
you are permitted to cover less of the land area and we're going up
8 more stories. It adds 40% to the floor area or 88,500 plus, square
feet and it would still require a variance for the floor area ratio.
That's a variance on top of .2 bonus if the bonus were to be granted.
'And this is attain even though over 37 almost 38,000 square feet of
submerged land were added to the area of calculations.
There in one good note, the lot coverage for the accessory
structure has been reduced even though the accessory structure of
the garage has riot actually been reduced in size but since we are
now including the submerged land in the area of calculations, that
effectively reducer, the actual lot coverage figure. It increases
the variance request, for the side yards for the accessory structure.
In the original application, 29.99' were required for the accessory
structn re; a 20' side yard variance was granted. However, over
twice that is now required or a 67' side yard is required for the
accessory structure.
The Planning Department is recommending a denial of this project
of both the .2 F.A.R. bonus and any variances being requested. We
can find no hardship which justifies granting a variance. There is
more than substantial land area and dimensions to permit reasonable
development of this site. We feel that the proposed development
would not be in keeping with past development in the Brickell area
and we feel that it will overdevelop the site and be detrimental to
adjacent properties. We feel that t•he project has not been designed
with the submerged land in mind. Therefore, we see all of the
problems that have been created with the lot coverage and the
setbacks. So the Planning Department has taken the position that we
are in opposition to this project. What we recommend is that either
the project be completely redesigned to keep in mind the submerged
land or the other alternative is to develop the site with the approved
plans, the plans that were presented January 21st of this year by
this Board.
Mr. Gort: Mr. Campbell?
Mr.George Campbell, Department of Public Works: Mr. Chairman,
once again we request that the Board reiterate their request for
the granting of the dedication of the northwesterly 70' of these
lots. 'l'he applicant is, of course, aware of this and the Department,
after the last resolution that was passed on January 21st, forwarded
July 7, 1980 Item 5
"SUPPORTIVE ZB
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW?
17,
it to the applicant - the deed of dedication - and to my knowledge
this has not been returned to the Department. However, there have
been several in here and these have been going back and forth so
that for the record, we make the request.
Mr. Gort: Will the applicant please state name and address for
the record.
Mr. Fine: For the record my name is Martin Fine, 2401 Douglas
Road, Miami. I represent the applicant here tonight and I think
it's appropriate to make this presentation very brief unless you
have a lot of questions because this very same type of project has
been before you for the last several meetings on Brickell Avenue.
Going from left to right, we'll show you some of the work which has
been done and very dramatically portrays what has happened on
Brickell. And by the way, in the recommendations of the Department
you know we have a great deal of respect for the Department, we work
with them but they talked about this request as not in keeping with
past developments in the area. That may have been five, tea or
fifteen years ago. Current developments far exceed what we're
talking about here tonight. For example, one project you recently
granted a 2.63 floor area ratio; here we're asking for substantially
less.
Number one, this project has been redesigned to take into con-
sideration the submerged land and treat it all as one project with
a total amount of land. The hardship here is the dedication of the
_ _70' which is not used in the calculations of the square footage of
the land and the shape of this lot, being, a long narrow lot. And
so, we don't have the luxury of having 400' or 350' or whatever as
some of the other projects have and that's a very serious hardship
in which to work and we come before you on that basis also. I
think in order to put this project in perspective, I might point
out, to you that we're requesting 162 units whereas you previously
approved, without the submerged land, 135 units. So when you get
down to the bottom line, what we're really asking for is an addi-
tional 27 units as a result of calculating the submerged land there.
(Henderings are displayed)
This building on the far left is the Villa Regina project and
the building on the far right is the Villa Maria project and this
proposed project is in the center.' You see it is relatively small
and minor compared to that; is somewhat overwhelmed by those
projects but most importantly is in keeping with what is happening
there in terms of scale. The developer of this property thinks
that if it did not add the $ stories.,
to its project, it would be
too miniscule and be dwarfed by these other buildings which this
Board has already approved and which the City Commission has like-
wise approved.
The side yard setbacks appear to be very reasonable and very
adequate for this property. I think frankly, what happens is, your
ordinance was drafted many, many years ago and has never been
changed. At least not in the last fifteen or twenty years, to the
best of my knowledge to require a certain number of square feet
for each floor that you go up. And what has really happened is,
that the nature of development in this community has changed but
the ordinance hann't changed. We think to impose a literal defini-
tion of that setback, you couldn't build a building here at all
within the kind of economic reason that makes sense for this type
of property.
The parking structure meets basic requirements. The side yard
setback for that extra structure is only 8' less than you require
July 7, 1980 Item 5
"SUPPORTIVE zB
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW--
and basically, we think that this building will be a very substantial
addition and a very attractive one to that area.
Mr. Mervin Romney, the architect who designed that very elegant
building, is here tonight. lie has designed other very elegant
buildings along Brickell Avenue and -you can see that it takes ad-
vantage of the site in the sense that it has a lean, narrow building;
37' wide, which is I am told by Mr. Romney, quite an architectural
and engineering achievement. I think it has a certain degree of
elegance to it. I think the height adds to that elegance. I think
it is a very substantial improvement to the buildings which exist
and which are now being built on Brickell Avenue. Some of us wer-
chatting out in the hallway earlier - to speculate - and hopefully
will be here five or ten years from now to look back and we might
say that we were very, very timid in asking for and granting such
little increases in the floor area ratio whereas these properties
really are the same type of properties in the middle of Manhattan,
for example, where maybe the floor area ratio is anywhere from 5 to
15.
So the building in the center (away from microphone); a walk that
is used to extend the building and really give it view and scale.
The mangroves are preserved. Mr. O'Leary is here although I'm sure
that you've seen his work before and you know the quality of it. I
think that; he has done an exceptionally fine job in preserving the
vegetation. Ile has been before you before to do the same thing, in
other projects. This is in keeping with all the other projects and
we think the requests are very nominal and very reasonable. We
.think there are reasons to grant them. We'll be happy to answer any
questions you may have if in fact you do have any. We're only asking
for 27 additional apartments.
Mr. Gort: Does that conclude your presentation, Mr. Fine?
Mr. Fine: Yes it does.
Mr. Gort: Alright, we'll get back to you. Those in opposition?
Ms. Waldman: My name is Janet Waldman. I live at 1901 Brickell
Avenue. I'm president of Save Brickell Avenue, a non-profit corpo-
ration of property owners, home owners in the Brickell Avenue area.
We're interested primarily in the R-5A zone in which this project
falls. ,
The first thing, I would like to deal with since everybody seems
so concerned about my concerns is perhaps a proper explanation.
First I'd like to mention that the notice for this item was deficient
in that it didn't meet the statutory requirements as required by
Florida Statute 163.170 and 163.165 that requires notice 15 days and
then 5 days before the hearing.
The second item that I'd like -to mention to you deals with the
issue that I raised with Mr. Percy -
Mr. Carner: Ms. Waldman, may I interrupt for just a moment?
Ms. Waldman: Surely.
Mr. Carner: Mr. Chairman, we had seven Members a moment ago.
(Inaudible comment)
Mr. Carner: Yes well, how does he hear testimony out of the room?
Mr. Gort: There are mikes and he can hear.
July 7. 1980 Item 5
`LB
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
Mr. Cruz: We've got Alicia coming in.
Mr. Cort: There are mikes all over.
presentation.
They can hear the
Ms. Waldman: The section with which I was concerned, and I'd
like to explain why since everyone -was answering it without hearing
properly the question raised is Article XXXI which is the Variance
section, Section 3, sub -section 3, it's titled Conditions and
Safeguards and it reads:
'Whenever action has been taken to deny a petition
for variance on any property the Zoning, Board
shall not thereafter consider a petition for the
same type of variance on all or any part of the
same property for a period of one year from the
date of denial'.
My position on that, ,just to clear it up, is that you have this
same item before you with some minor changes on January 21st of
this year. When you had that petition before you, you did not
grant it as it was before you. You saw fit to not grant it. You
didn't use the word 'deny' because you came up with a compromise.
You did approve something but it was something smaller than what
was requested. At least the portion between what was approved and
what was requested was very clearly denied. So there was a denial.
There is the same type of variance in that they're asking for the
same type of variances. They're asking for floor area variance;
-they're asking for greater variance but it's the same type; they're
asking for lot coverage variance - it's the same type. They're
asking for side yard setback variances - here they're asking for
more than they asked before. But it is, in fact, the same type of
variance. And as far as it being with the same property, in con-
versation with Mr. Percy earlier today, he said because the submerged
land was added that makes it different property but I submit to you
that the Name two lots that were before you January 21st are again
before you today. And.hy virtue of this section, you are really
precluded from hearing this. I will pass out now some information
regarding that and some other information that I'll discuss as
soon as I get it out to you.
The item before you tonight is a variance request. It's not a
P.A.D., it's not a conditional use, it's a variance request and the
ordinance is very clear about what'conditions under which a variance
can be granted. I've reproduced for you the entire intent of the
variance ordinance which you can see. The underlinings are my
additions of emphasis:
'A mean, of relief which is available only when
some peculiar circumstance as to size, shape or
natural. features of the parcel of land and some-
times its location, is such that literal appli-
cation of the provisions of the ordinance would
impair the owner's right to some reasonable use
of the property'.
It doesn't say to the best use, to the highest use, the use
that's point; to make the developer the most money, it merely
say, 'to some reasonable use'. And that's only when there are
peculiar circumstances as to size, shape, natural features, or
sometimes location. Down below the typing you can see that I've
itemized these. I show you the size of the lot. There's no
hardship on the size of the lot. We're dealing with a gross area
of over 143,000 square feet. There's no irregularity in the shape
of the lot. All the lots on Brickell Avenue are long and narrow.
July 7, 1980 Item 5
"SU PPORTIVtB
DOC U Ni ENTS
FELLOW" 80-579
W t
That's the nature of waterfront property. They have, in fact, put
two lots together. They have a width of 200 front feet. There are
a number of other projects on Brickell Avenue that have front foot-
age of 200 front feet. There's nothing irregular whatsoever about
the shape of the property. There's no irregular natural features.
The location is a terrific location: lie certainly wouldn't claim
any hardship on location. The fifth item, literal application
impairs some reasonable use. We discussed that. There's more than
reasonable use that can be made of the property under the strict
R-5A zoning.
Mr. Fine said to you that dedication of the 70' is a hardship
but if you'll look back to the typing under section 2, sub -section 1,
a(1), you'll notice the underlined portion - the only special condi-
tions and circumstances that can be.considered are those which are
peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are
not applicable to other land, structures or buildings in the same
zoning district. Every piece of property on Brickell Avenue in the
R-5A zone has to dedicate the 70'. By statute, by ordinance•it is
very clear that you cannot consider the dedication of the 70' as a
hardship.
What we're faced with is the situation where the applicant is
asking you for a variance which must, be based on hardship yet he has
shown you no hardship. The applicant has the duty, when he comes
before you, to present the proof and the evidence that is sufficient
to convince you that he's entitled to a variance; that he, in fact,
:has a hardship. In fact, he doesn't.
Further, sub -section 5 of that last, section I was talking to you
about says that if you should find a hardship and that a variance is
suitable then you must grant as a variance the minimum variance that
will make possible reasonable use of the land. This applicant is not
asking for any minimum. Ile's not asking for any reasonable use of
the land. lie had been before you; asked for something and you thought
that was too much and unreasonable. You didn't grant what he asked
of you before. Now lie is back and asks for more. I don't understand
the logic.
Mr. Fine said you previously approved 135 units. I don't think
that's what, you approved. You approved a floor area ratio of 2.40
which, at the time that it was granted in January, was the highest
floor area ratio to be granted on Brickell Avenue in the R-5A zoning;
absolutely the highest. And if you'll remember, that was a com-
promise that Save Brickell Avenue by virtue of myself, suggested as
a compromise because the applicant wanted more and the Planning
Department wanted less. But you didn't approve any particular number
of units. tie could have shifted it ar6und; made it more, made it
less and he's not here before you asking for 162 units. He's asking
for a building that's much bigger in height and much greater in floor
area ratio. He's asking, to be relieved of having to stay within
those limits without having a hardship.
As far as the previous projects that are not in the range of
2.40 if you just count the uplands, the first project that was
approved was Santa Maria. That project is being contested in Court
by my organization. And the other project, Villa Regina, was rec-
cently approved and is being, considered for a Court case at this
time. 'Therefore. the only projects that are definitely viable and
definitely approved are ones that have been approved prior to these
two, and in fact. this project as it was approved in January, still
has the highest floor area ratio of any that is final and definitely
approved.
Mr. Fine said if they had to follow the side yard setback require-
ments, that they couldn't make it financially. The Courts in Florida
July 7. 1980 Item 5
"SUPPORTIVE"
DOCUMENTS -
FOLLOW"
r
and in many other States have held that economic factors are not to
be considered in hardship. And if it were true that he couldn't
make it, financially, if he didn't have variances from the side yard
setbacks, especially these great variances, I suggest to you that
the application that he had before you wouldn't have been financially
feasible.' But you know that it ware. That application was suitable
for the project. Mr. Fine was comparing the small, quote small,
floor area ratio of Brickell Avenue to the middle of Manhattan. We
the people, who live on Brickell. Avenue recognize that this City is
bound to be increasing its development and becoming a larger City
but this is a residential area. True, Lt.'s a residential area that
is near downtown but it's more than a mile -and -a -half from downtown.
It's halfway to Coconut Grove from downtown. And it shouldn't be
treated like mid -town Manhattan. We don't want buildings where you
open the window and what you see right next door is a brick wall.
And by doing away with the side yard variances, you may not have
that brick wall 3' in front of your window like they do in Manhattan.
But you will have big buildings much closer to your window than you
would have if you've complied with the side yard variances. Those
of us who live on Brickell Avenue, as you know because you've seen
our persistent representation here, we're very proud of our neighbor-
hood. We try our best at great personal effort not only of myself
but of many other members of my organization to try to maintain
before you and in every other way possible including working with
developers, a r-iasonable, enjoyable residential area where we could
enjoy the sunlight; where we can enjoy the breezes; where we can
enjoy a view; where the people driving by will not be deprived be-
.ciuse of unnecessarily large buildings of the view that is possible
of the Day. We want to preserve that type of area.
There are many fine things about this project. It is, in fact,
designed by some of the finest people in this City. As you know, my
organization stood before you and recommended approval of The Palace
and of the final plans for the Aquarius, both of which were designed
by Hervin Romney and I believe both of which were landscaped by Mr.
O'Leary, bot.h very fine people, and in concept there are very fine
qual.it.ies, to this projoct but i.t is just. plain too big. When it
came before you before, asking for a 2.1,$5, you said no, that was
too much. You cut, it down to 2.40. And as this sheet I'm going to
pass out t,o you now will show, what this applicant is asking for is
not a 2.38 when we're talking about the figures that we all under-
stand, he', asking for a 3.364. I'll pass these before you so you
can see the figures.
As you can see, 29.15% of this site as it stands before you
today, is submerged land.: And that's the only difference in the
site before you from the time that it was before you in January.
There is no structural change; there 19 no physical change; there is
no real addition to the property now than there was before you then
because there has been no change, contrary to what Mr. Fine has said,
in the plans of development. There has been nothing that has been
changed to incorporate the submerged land any better into the project
than it, was before. There are only two differences between the pro-
ject then and the project now. The first difference is in the figures
which In not a real difference but they are now calculating in the
submerged land to which we object and incorporate by reference all
the objections we made to inclusion of submerged land in hearings on
Santa Maria.
The second difference is that thoy have increased the height of
the building by 8 stories. They've added 7 floors of apartments and
1 additional floor for parking. The size, the shape of the building
are identical. The side yard setbacks are identical. The footprint
of the building is identical. There is absolutely no change other
than the addition of the height. The side yards have been pointed
July 7, 1980 Item 5
"SUPPORTIVEZB
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
u
out to you, the Concern, you see the figures. The lot coverage as
presented to you, the maximum permitted is 9% if you consider only
the usable land, the uplands, they're asking for 14.219% lot cover-
age for the principal structure alone. They're asking for 29.3%
coverage of the accessory building, where 20% is permitted. And the
floor area ratio, If you consider the uplands only, which is how all
the projecLs have been at least predented to you so that you can
understand how the building will relate to the land, we're talking
about 3.364. Now down below, I said including, submerged land. If
you want to consider the submerged land, you'd have to consider the
submerged land in its proper zoning, category. And as I've shown you
a number of times before, the submerged land is zoned R-1 calculating,
as the ordinance requires, the percentage requirements for the
different zones, the 11-5A and the R-1, the maximum permitted if you
include submerged land, is 1.7336,including submerged land it would
be asking for 2.3839. It's a significant difference. You've seen
this affidavit before so I won't pass it around, I'll merely leave
a copy with the clerk for the record that, supports the Dade County
bulkhead line which indicates that the submerged land is, in fact,
R-1 and not R-5A.
To sum up, the applicant before you is asking; for a variance
which requires a hardship. I don't believe they've shown you any
hardship at all. I don't believe they're entitled to any variance.
I think that the developer should be thrilled with the highest floor
area ratio that is finally approved on Brickell Avenue as was ap-
proved In January of 2.40. 1 think the neighbors will be satisfied
with that. We'll be happy to have a good neighbor that has at least
- criose to the required side yard setbacks. I think this application
for variance requiring hardship should be denied. Thank you.
Mr. Cort: Thank you Janet. Now we'll get back to you for a.
few minutes of rebuttal.
Mr. Fine: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, I have a very
difficult position at the moment because I really want to make some
remarks to rebut this in the most pleasant and friendly manner with-
out in any manner derogating Miss Waldman who I think has very good
motives and intentions but really makes some statements which are
basically incorrect and we ought to get them straightened out once
and for all.
First of all, my opinion is that she is here speaking for herself
as one owner of one unit in one building,. She did not file anything
with this clerk or with this Board indicating to the best of my
knowledge, or I haven't been furnished with it, that her association
studied this proposal, reviewed this proposal, voted on this proposal,
acted on this proposal or did anyt-hing.else with it. So I think
everything that she said you ought to consider as one individual
owning one unit in one building. I,don't think you have anything on
record which shows what the association did or didn't do, do you?
Mr. Cort: Mr. Fine, she could be here, it's a public hearing
representing, herself or some other people. Let's stay with the
issues please.
Mr. Fine: Alright. One of the issues here it seems to me is,
a quick definition that I heard recently on a trip to Colorado that
a conservationist is somebody who built their house out there last
year and .a developer is one who wants to build a house this year.
Before tho;;e buildings were built on Brickell Avenue, all of that
land was zoned R-1. 1 remember very well when Brickell Townhouse
was the first, piece of property that was zoned for apartment houses.
I have some very dear friends who live on Miami Avenue, that have
lived there for some thirty-five years. who feel that all those high-
rises including, the, on(: that Miss Waldman l i vn.:: In t.hf:i r
July 7. 1980 Item 5
ZB
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS 7 9
FOLLOW" _
Li
t
view. But, we live in a community which has to grow and we live in
a community in which that kind of property and the property that
we're talking about this evening and asking for this request, is in
keeping with the overall plan for the City of Miami.
There -is also one very, very significant item that I think we
ought to address ourselves to and that is, in my opinion, this area,
all of Brickell Avenue from 25t.h Road on down to 36th Street on the
north on Biscayne Boulevard and the Bay in my humble opinion is down-
town Miami. It is center core, urban area and should be highly,
highly developed so that the rest of the community can scale down
from there. Now I have really been active and interested in housing
for many, many years and I've travelled in many cities in the country,
a few abroad, and I have never seen where intensive development of a
downtown or immediately adjacent or,close to the downtown area, has
done anything but help a community. And we have started from a posi-
tion where we think these same variances and same setback requirements
that, we've had for twenty-five years, or twenty years, are as good
today as they were then and it is my opinion that we're not. -
In conclusion. I believe that we are properly before the Board.
I believe the size and shape of this property gives us the right to
come before you and ask for this variance. I think the requests are
reasonable. I think it, would be a great credit to this community to
have this building* built and I don't think any of the neighbors in-
cluding; Miss Waldman, will suffer if it is built just the way it's
designed.
Mr. Gort: Thank you Mr. Fine. Is there anyone else in opposition?
Miss Waldman: May I make a brief response?
Mr. Gort: No, if we're going, to respond, then he's going to be
wanting to respond to you and we'll spend the evening here responding
to each other.
Miss Waldman: I kept this as short as I've ever kept it.
Mr. Gort: Thank you. I appreciate it very much. We'll close
the public hearing now and have comments among Board Members.
Mr. Rolle: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know the justification for
the additional units from Mr. Fine after having received approval
for 134 on January 21st?
Mr. Fine: May I respond,Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Gort: Please, yes.
Mr. Fine: Mr. Rolle, very frankly when we first filed this
application I was of the opinion that submerged land should be
included. When we went to the administrative folks, at that time,
they said no, they did not follow the policy at that time of including
submerged land. Shortly hereafter, several months thereafter, there
was an administrative ruling saying that submerged land should indeed
be included in computing, the amount of land required. Therefore, we
felt it appropriate to come back to this Board and say to you, because
of the additional land, we believe that it would be equitable to
permit us to build these additional number of units.
Mr. Rolle: I think part of the problem, Mr. Fine, is that we're
not all. in agreement that. submerged land is indeed included unless
and until you come forth with deed in hand.
Mr. Fine: We did that sir and submitted it to your Department.
July 7, 1980 Item 5
"SUPPORTIVtB
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
A.
Mr. Rolle: Saying that that particular land is owned by the
upland land owner.
Mr. Fine: Mr. Rolle, let me say this, I've been practicing law
here thirty-one years. I'm under oath. I tell you as counsel for
thin, owner -that this deed was submitted; that this owner owns the
land submerged there that is adjacent to the upland land and it is,
in effect, just what you asked that it is.
Mr. Rolle: Are you saying sir, that the information came by
this Board?
Mr. Fine: Yes sir. I would not for anything or anyone mis-
represent to this Board -
Mr. Rolle: I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just simply
raising the question as to who owns the land.
Mr. Fine: We delivered a copy of the deed.
Mr. Rolle: Yes, and the interpretation at that time for the
134 units versus the interpretation that I believe you have in hand,
for 162 units. What would have precluded you from maintaining your
same position seeking relief by some other means?
Mr. Fine: At that time, the administrative ruling was that the
land was not to be included notwithstanding the fact that we owned it.
And since you can't fight with City Hall too often and win admini-
stratively, we said, if that's what the rules are we'll play by the
rules. When the rules were changed, we'd like to play by the new rules.
We don't want to do anything, that anyone else hasn't done, so to.speak
and we're really here on that basis.
Mr. Rolle: Let, me ask another question. I think when the previous
application was submitted and I think it was heard, I think you
included the accessory structure and, of course, the lot coverage and
I think the front yard. ,I believe there was some question about the
front yard, am I correct?
Mr. Fine: I don't think so, sir. Not that I recall.
Ms. Groves: Perhaps I could clarify this. In the original
application, there was originally a variance request for the front
yard for the accessory structure.- 26' were required, 10' was being
proposed, the applicant agreed to move it back and therefore the
necessity for variance wap eliminated.
Mr. Rolle: And we would assume, at -this point, that moving back
has taken place and also I think there was a question as to how it
would be determined a reduction of 6V I think the last time around
if you'll recall.
Mr. Fine: You have an excellent memory.
Mr. Rolle: And I think I had some questions, visibly to be able
to look over there and say (several people speak at once).
Mr. Fine: Your memory is correct and I thank you for reminding me.
Mr. Gort: Any other questions?
Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman, is Mrs. Alicia Baro going to vote on
this item?
Mr. (sort: No, my understanding sir i s, she got here late, and
she was not, able to listen to the applicant.
July 7, 1980 Item 5
"SUPP^RTIVE L13
DOCU I'� , r,iVTS
FOLLOW" .
171
C�
Mr. Alfonso: T wish to express my feelings on this item. I
want to quote Commissioner Corollo's statement 'Thank God we live in
America and we can be fair to each other'. Even you can come here
and contradict yourself. Miss Waldman, when she was in favor of the
variance on 401 B rickell, it took me by surprise to see her in favor
of a variance. So she's entitled to her opinion tonight, and we have
to respect, her. It's a nice project. In comparison with others that
were passed before, I think this is going to do good to the community.
Thank you.
Mr. Gort: Would anyone like to ask Janct Waldman a question?
Mr. Rolle: I'll ask her a question.
Miss Waldman: First of all., I'd like to point out that were the
applicant to ask for only a floor area ratio of 2.2 including the
submerged land, he would still be getting - to which he would be
entitled including; the bonuses and the maximum permitted, he would
be getting, the equivalent of a 3.10 in floor area ratio. So he's
asking for more than he would be permitted under the R-5A even in-
cluding the submerged land.
The second thing; I'll point out and then I'll. sit down is that
It's not a question of whether you think this building is pretty, or
whether there are good things about it. It's here on a variance. A
variance requires hardship, quoting to you from the ordinance:
'A variance from the term of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance shall not be granted by the
Zoning, Hoard unless and until a written petition
for variance submitted demonstrating that
special conditions and circumstances exist
which are peculiar to the land, structure or
buildings involved and which are not appli-
cable to to other land, structures or buildings
in the same zoning district. The special
conditions and circumstances do not result
from the actions of the applicant. Literal
interpretation of the provisions of these
zoning, regulations would deprive the appli-
cant of rights commonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same zoning district under
the terms of these zonipg, regulations and
would work unnecessary and undue hardship on
the applicant. Granting the variance requested
will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by these zoning
regulations to other lands, buildings, or
structures in the same zoning, district. The
variance, if granted,i� the minimum variance
that will make possible the reasonable use of
the Iand, building or structure. The grant
of the variance will be in harmony'.
And I Suggest to you that this applicant has not met one of these
six requirements that, are absolutely mandatory; that all of them
be met before you grant- it. He hasn't even met one. So I suggest
to you that. the Issue is that you're not entitled - you just couldn't
if you wanted to, grant a variance. Thank you.
Mr. Gorr: Thank you Miss Waldman. Any other questions?
You were saying, Steve?
Mr. Carner: I. think my comments might be more appropriate after
a motion I:; made.
July 7, 1980 Item 5
ZB
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
tr•n 1 I fN► lki+r
i
Mr. Gort:
Mr. Rolle:
Mr. GorL:
the motion?
Mr. Carner:
Mr. Gort:
the motion?
Is anyone ready for a7motion?
I move for denial.
It has been moved for denial. Is there a second to
I'll second it.
It has been moved and seconded. Any discussion on
Mr. Carner: I'd like to say that in my judgment, I think Mr.
Fine's position that the submerged land should be used in the
computations is appropriate under the new ruling. However, it
appears to me while this grants additional area for purposes of
computation, it does not solve the problem that that area affects
the width of the property, not the length. And that therefore,
while it grants and entitles certain benefits, those benefits.inure
in the wrong direction where they, in the width, so that the set-
backs would increase along; with the height and so forth, I would
have no objection to considering this favorably. As it stands, I
cannot because the objectionable portion of this is in the side yards
and the side yards only become more onerous with the computation
increase.
Ms. Basiln: Steve, what do you suggest is a halfway solution
or remedy? This project is going to go one way or another. I'd like
t.o see if we could help these people. Can we make some kind of
adjustment here? What's your opinion of that?
Mr. Carner: Well frankly, to the extent that we have already
approved the project in one form, I have no qualms about taking the
position that I've taken. Again, only because to me, in my viewpoint,
the problem is the side yard problem. There is nothing we could do
unless we cold split the property apart and give them another lot
in the middle somehow. There is no solution because what's being
asked under an interpretation area -wise affects width which is not
increased by the submerged land. If the property lay the other way,
there would be no problem at all. It doesn't. It is and we have.
1 see no solution except, to say that they have an approved site; an
approved building with 27 less units in it. I'm not imaginative
enough frankly, I think the gentleman who made the proposition, the
architect,, are much more qualified to come up with solutions than I
am. I just feel that what we have before us is not viable and is a
tremendous intrusion on the community. That's why I seconded the
motion.
Mr. Gort: Any further discussion on the motion? Call the
question.
Ms. Fox: Motion made by Mr. Rolle to deny the request and
seconded by Mr. Carner.
1 Return Notice favoring petition was received in the
mail from a property owner of record.
1 Return Notice opposing petition was received in the
mail from a property owner of record.
(PLEASE 'TURN PAGE FOR RESOLUTION)
July 7, 1980 Item 5
'L D
"SUPPORTIVE
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
1 0
Mr. Wol I i nrl,on Rolle offered '.he fni 1 nwi nr re :oliiti on ar-
il„- rI'll .
RESOLUTION ZB-140-80
RESOLUTION TO DENY REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
FROM ORDINANCE 6871, ARTICLE X-1,
SECTION 3(2)(c) 5 AND 6, AND ARTICLE IV,
SECTION 19(7) TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF
A 162-UNIT APARTMENT STRUCTURE ON LOT /5;
BLOCK B; WILLIAM AND MARY BRICKELL (B-96)
AND LOT 46; BLOCK B; FLAGLER MARY BRICKELL
(5-44) INCLUDING SUBMERGED LANDS TO BULK-
HEAD LINE BEING APPROXIMATELY 1617-27
BRICKELL AVENUE AS PER PLANS ON FILE WITH
THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: (1) FOR THE
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE: (a) SIDE YARDS: 80.5
FEET NORTHERLY AND 82.17 FEET SOUTHERLY
SIDE YARDS PROPOSED (134 FEET REQUIRED FOR
EACH); (b) LOT COVERAGE: 10.1 PERCENT
PROPOSED (9 PERCENT ALLOWED); (c) FLOOR
AREA RATIO (FAR): 2.384 REQUESTED WITH
BONUSES (2.2 PERMIT`1'ED WITH BONUSES);
(RESOLUTION NUMBER ZB-22-80 GRANTED A 2.4
FLOOR AREA RATIO WITH BONUSES EXCLUDING
_ THE SUBMERGED LAND AREA); (2) FOR THE
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: (a) LOT COVERAGE: 23.1
PERCENT PROPOSED (20 PERCENT ALLOWED);
(b) SIDE YARDS: 20 FEET NORTHEASTERLY AND
59.83 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY PROPOSED (67 FEET
REQUIRED) WITH A VOLUNTARY DEDICATION OF
THE, NORTHWESTERLY 70 FEET OF LOTS 45 AND 46
FOR AN ACCESS ROAD; ZONED R-5A (HIGH
DENSITY MULTIPLE).
Upon being* seconded by Mr. Stephen Carner, this resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES': Messrs. Carner, Garcia, Rolle. Gort
NAYS: Ms. Basila
Messrs. Alfonso, Cruz
Absent: Mrs. Baro*
Ms. Fox: The motion to'deny carries 4 - 3• You have the
right to appeal this decision. You have 15 days to file an appeal.
If you would like further information, please come to our office.
"Mrs. Baro arrived later.
July 7. 1980 Item 5
'LB
togp-1571