Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-4SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM�z-,6 ON a -i8 -o 0 4- 01,; ,. �t,t -9 C I T Y O F M I A M I PLANNING A N D % O N I N G 1) Ii P A R I M G N T PRL -APPLICATION M;SIGN RI'.VIF'W C0MMI'.NTS CLASS 11 SI kCIA1, PIc12MIT Submitted Into the public 5101 B I S C A Y N E BLVD. record in Connection with Nl.vv CONSTRUCT[ONlitem Z- Is off} -g .ay 11-25-2003 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk The following comments represent the unified vision of the Pre -Application Design Review Committee, which consist of all staff members in the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions. COMMENTS: The following comments are being made in an effort to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. Urban Design • Consider aligning the northern edge of the building with the grid of houses along NE 52 St., in order to respond to the context of this neighborhood street, as well as the diagonal alignment of Biscayne Boulevard. (The footprint of the existing building on the site adjusts to become parallel to both streets.) • The building appears out of scale within the existing context of single family homes to the east of the site. Consider reducing the height of the building to better reflect the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. • The curb cut along NE 51 St. is of an excessive dimension. Relocate the loading area to the interior of the garage and reduce this curb cut to the minimum 20' width. Garage Articulation • Modify the garage plan to incorporate residential liner program along all levels of the garage on Biscayne Boulevard. This will create a more active and attractive fa4ade, and provide eyes on the street. • 'fhe portions of the garage which are exposed need to be addressed. These sides shall be articulated so that vehicles are completely hidden from public view. Provide section drawings and or/details of louvers, or other exceptional details, illustrating how vehicles shall be concealed. Consider continuing the pattern of window and balcony openings on the rest of this fa4ade so that the garage area becomes integrated into the framework of the design. Landscaping • Comply with FDOT in regards to the intended landscaping plan for Biscayne Boulevard. Please note that shade trees shall be provided in order to provide shade for pedestrians along Biscayne Boulevard. Palm trees may be utilized periodically as an architectural accent to the architecture of the building. • Remove the existing curb cuts and driveway within the public right of way along Biscayne Boulevard and incorporate this area into the landscaping plan for the project. • Submit an existing landscape survey and tree disposition plan. It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your 1 voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. Landscaping Comply with FDOT in regards to the intended landscaping plan for Biscayne Boulevard. Please note that rbade beer shall be provided in order to provide shade for pedestrians along Biscayne Boulevard. Palm trees may be utilized periodically as an architectural accent to the architecture of the building. Remove the existing curb cuts and driveway within the public right of way along Biscayne Boulevard and incorporate this area into the landscaping plan for the project. Submit an existing landscape survey and tree disposition plan. Other In order to allow for more flexibility in the design of this project, it is recommended that the applicant apply under the new regulations. These regulations, when adopted, will relax the setback requirements, which will provide for more flexibility in design options. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ -Is on 0 -w -N Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your 2 voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. C I T Y O F M I A M I P L A N N 1 N G A N D Z O N I N G D E P A R T M E N T PRE -APPLICATION DESIGN RF.VIE%X' COMMENTS CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT 5101 BISCAYNE BLVD. NF.W CONSTRUCTION 1-13-2004 The following comments represent the unified vision of the Pre -Application Design Review Committee, which consist of all staff members in the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions. COMMENTS: The following comments are being made in an effort to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. Urban Design • Consider aligning the northern edge of the building with the grid of houses along NE 52 St., in order to respond to the context of this neighborhood street, as well as the diagonal alignment of Biscayne Boulevard. Cne footprint of the existing building on the site adjusts to become parallel to both streets.) • The building mass is out of scale with the existing context of single family homes to the east of the site. The City has developed new height regulations for this part of Biscayne Boulevard, arising out of neighborhood input in the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor Study charette. These new regulations are in the process of being adopted. The building's height should be compatible with the future height requirements, which specify an 8 -story maximum height. • Relocate the loading area berth from NE 51 Street to the interior of the garage, adjacent to the other loading berth, with access provided from NE 52 Street. Replace the curb cut for the loading berth on NE 51 St. with additional landscaping. • Liner program with a minimum of 15' of useable active habitable space shall be provided for the entire Biscayne Boulevard frontage in order to conceal the parking garage from public view. Modify the garage plan to incorporate residential liner program along all levels of the garage on Biscayne Boulevard. This will create a more active and attractive facade, and provide eyes on the street. Garage Articulation • The portions of the garage which are exposed need to be addressed. These sides shall be articulated so that vehicles are completely hidden from public view. Provide section drawings and or/details of louvers, or other exceptional details, illustrating how vehicles shall be concealed. Consider continuing the pattern of window and balcony openings on the rest of this facade so that the garage area becomes integrated into the framework of the design. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Z -i 5 - on priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your ] voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. Landscaping Comply with FDOT in regards to the intended landscaping plan for Biscayne Boulevard. Please note that shade trees shall be provided in order to provide shade for pedestrians along Biscayne Boulevard. Palm trees may be utilized periodically as an architectural accent to the architecture of the building. Remove the existing curb cuts and driveway within the public right of way along Biscayne Boulevard and incorporate this area into the landscaping plan for the project. Submit an existing landscape survey and tree disposition plan. Other In order to allow for more flexibility in the design of this project, it is recommended that the applicant apply under the new regulations. These regulations, when adopted, will relax the setback requirements, which will provide for more flexibility in design options. Submitted Into t1 ie public record in connection with item PZ -IV' on -W,09..- Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your 2 voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. C I T Y O F M I A M I P L A N N I N G A N D I O N I N G DEPARTMENT URBAN D E V E L O P M E N '1' R 1.: V 1 F-_ W BOARD R e s o LU T I o N: UD RB 3-1 7- 0 4- 4 A resolution recommending Approval with conditions for a Class II Special Permit for 5101 Biscayne Blvd. located at 5101 Biscayne Blvd.. Meeting Date: March 17, 2004 Item No.: 4 Motion to Approve: Vote: 5-0 Conditions: Revisit the faeade along the garage that are designed to appear residential in fashion. These facades shall be articulated and designed to not appear garage - like or residential -like. Attest: Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director Submitted Into the public record in Connecoith n tion w� item Priscilla A. Thompson ty Clerk Enrique Nunez — UDRB Officer "b Scott M. Crawford, Ph.D. 430 NE 52"° Street Phone: (305) 751-7447 Miami, FL 33137-3031 E-mail address: Craw 13 77@bellsouth.net March 18, 2004 Ana Gelabert Director, Planning and Zoning for the City of Miami PO BOX 330708 Miami, FL 33233-0708 Dear Ms. Gelabert I am a member of the Morningside Civic Association Board of Directors, writing with regard to the proposed development at 5101 North Biscayne Boulevard, which is currently in the application process. The development is being submitted by Zyscovich (100 North Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2700). 1) I am formally requesting the opportunity to examine any and all staff evaluations of this project. 2) I am requesting to know exactly where this building is in the application process (its status). 3) As a resident of Morningside, I have a number of objections which need to be heard regarding this project. Please inform me of each and every meeting regarding this project, so that I may attend and express the views of the neighbors abutting this proposal. 4) Please regard this letter as a formal request for intervention in the above-mentioned application process. Please notify me of upcoming actions to be taken related to the projects' application, and meetings where staff will be discussing the merits of this project. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely yours, Scott M. Crawford, Ph.D. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pz-i., on t1 -IP -04 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk CITY OF MIAMI CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT INTENDED DECISION File No. 03-0309 To: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esq. c/o Greenberg Traurig 1221 Brickell Ave Miami, FL. 33131 From: Ana Gelabert, Director Planning and Zoning Department PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT A INTENDED DECISION HAS BEEN REACHED ON THE FOLLOWING MATTER: Title: New Construction (5101 Biscayne Blvd) Address: 5101 Biscayne Blvd., Upper Eastside Final Decision: ❑ Approval 2 Approval with conditions ❑ Denial FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS The subject proposal has been reviewed for Class II Special Permit pursuant to Article 15, Section 609.3, 1512 and 923.2 of Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida. Section 609.3 states explicitly that a Class II Special Permit shall be required prior to approval of any permit affecting the location, relocation or alteration of any structure, sign, awning, landscaping, parking, area or vehicular way visible from a public street. Section 1512 states that unless otherwise required by the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, the Code of the City of Miami, as amended or the South Florida Building Code, as amended, all City of Miami Design Standards and Guidelines, incorporated herein by reference, may be waived pursuant to a Class 11 Special Permit. Section 923.2.1 states that reduction in loading stalls shall be only by Class 11 Special Permit. Pursuant to Section 1301.2. of the above cited Zoning Ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Department has made referrals to the following Departments and Boards. • Zoning Division, Planning and Zoning Department. • Upper Eastside NET Office, Neighborhood Enhancement Team. • UDRB, Urban Development Review Board. Their comments and recommendations have been duly considered and are reflected in this intended decision. In reviewing this application, pursuant to Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following findings have been made: Submitted Into the public record in connection with item on LLl &-A ' Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk FINDINGS • It is found that the proposed project is a mixed-use building consisting of residential units (89) and common areas (4,799) sq.ft with parking garage. • It is found that the proposed project was initially reviewed by the Internal Design Review Committee on November 25, 2003. The committee recommended sending it back to the architect in order to give the opportunity to respond to the committee comments. • It is found that a modified project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on January 25, 2004 but the original comments are still pending and have not been resolve. • It is found that the building mass is out of scale with the existing context of single family homes to the east, also, the building's height should be compatible with the new regulations that are in process of being adopted for this part of Biscayne Boulevard, which specify a height limit of (8) stories and ninety five (95) feet maximum height. • It is found that a liner program of active habitable space for the parking garage shall be provide for the entire Biscayne Boulevard frontage in order to conceal the parking garage from the public view and create a more active and attractive fagade appropriate for the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor. • It is found that although the landscape plan submitted with this application complies with the Miami -Dade Landscape Ordinance, an existing landscape survey with tree disposition plan shall be required. • On January 21, 2004 the Urban Development Review Board reviewed and deferred for the next meeting the subject proposal. • On March 17, 2004 the Urban Review Board reviewed and approved with conditions the subject proposal. • It is found that with regard to the criteria set forth in Sec. 1305 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance, the application has been reviewed and found sufficient except for the issues listed above and contained in the conditions. Based on the above findings and the considered advice of the officers and agencies consulted on this matter and pursuant to Section 1306 of the Zoning Ordinance, the subject proposal is hereby approved with conditions as presented in the plans and supporting materials submitted by the applicant and on file with the Department of Planning and Development and further subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The building shall have a limit of (8) stories and ninety five (95) feet maximum height. Al liner program for the parking garage shall be provided for the entire Biscayne Boulevard frontage. An existing landscape survey with tree disposition plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department in order to be able to approve the landscape plan. The applicant shall comply with the conditions addressed by the UDRB and the Internal Design Review Committee. New plans shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department for review and before issuance of any building permit. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Z - on 1L�41 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk approval NOTICE Within five (5) calendar days of receipt of this notification, the applicant may request a conference between the applicant and/or the applicant's agent and the Director of Planning and Zoning Department and such representatives of the referenced officers, agencies, or departments as the applicant desires for the purpose of presenting additional facts, arguments, information or data in support of the applicant's position. The applicant's request should be made directly to the Director of the Planning and Zoning Department in writing. For additional information, please call Edelberto Perez at (305) 416-1400. 1 Signature Date An abert/ it ctor Planning and oning Department Submitted into the public record in connection with item E2- -Is- on l (-(P - Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk `JEO PLA14141 & Z0NIUX, 1004 MAR 3 0 PM 1: IQ March 29, 2004 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ana Gelabert, Director Planning & Zoning Department City of Miami 444 S. W 2nd Avenue No. 945 Miami, FL 33130-1910 Re: Notice of Intended Decisions, 5101 and 5225 Biscayne Boulevard Dear Ms. Gelabert: The undersigned is a resident of the 600 block of Morningside. We have received copies of the Notices of Intended Decision for the above two properties, approving the projects at issue with conditions. Among other things, both notices recite a finding "that the building mass is out of scale with the existing context of single family homes to the east ...." We agree. However, it also states that "the building's height should be compatible with the new regulations that are in the process of being adopted for this part of Biscayne Boulevard which specify a height limit of (8) stories and (95) feet maximum height." The undersigned hereby intervene in this proceeding for the purpose of objecting to the intended decision and for the purpose of opposing the projects with the height conditions attached. The proposed ordinance has not been enacted, the proposed ordinance contains many flaws including a disregard of existing setback requirements and our investigation reveals that the proposed ordinance is being advanced based on what we perceive to be an unjustifiable fear of Bert Harris liability on the part of the City. The proposed projects, even with the conditions, are incompatible in their design, character and scale with the neighboring community and are contrary to the public interest generally, the protection of adjacent properties, the neighborhood and the city as a whole. As intervenors and objectors in this proceeding, we hereby request pursuant to Section 1307.1 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance and applicable law generally the right to provide additional information of a rebuttal public Submitted Into the p record in connection with itemP2_157 ons-r� o Priscilla A. C� y Clerk Ana Gelabert, Director March 29, 2004 Page 2 nature to the proposed findings of the Planning & Zoning Department. We further request the right to inspect and copy all records of any formal or informal hearing or conferences in connection with the special permits that you may have had with the applicants to date and all other materials as set forth in Section 1307.2 of the Zoning Ordinance together with reasonable notification of any additional conferences or hearings, formal and informal, that may take place in connection with these matters. Pursuant to Section 1503.2, we also request a conference with the Director for the purpose of presenting additional facts, arguments, information or data in support of our position pursuant to Section -1503.2 of the Zoning Ordinance after we have been given full opportunity to examine all reports submitted on referrals in the case as provided at Section 1307.1 of the ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Elvis Cruz # 1819815v 1 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P z --1 s on -LL.:- Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 26:Od 2004 19:22 FAX 1057580508 ANDREIf DICKIIAN,EW ?(101 Law Offices cf ANDREW DICKMAN, F.A. 9111 Pjr1c Drive Miami Shores, FL 33138 Voice: 305.758.3621 Facsimile: 305.758.0508 andrewdickman@bellsouth.net P" To: Ana Gelbe-rt, Dir. 'v Fax: 305-416-2156 From: Andrew Dickman, AICP, ESQ. Pages: 2 including cover Phone: Date: 25 -Apr -04 Re: 5101 & 5225 Biscavne Blvd CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle • Comments: Ar a, t Please see attached letter. Cordially, ANDREW DICKMAN Submitted Into the public record in connection with itemzzp___�on I LP -0q Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk the information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and c^n9dentia! in'o-oration. It is intended only for me use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any revi©uw, cimseminabon. distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohlbked. If you are not the intended reciplent, please conta'�t the sender by reply email, phone or fay and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you Zo-U4 ZU04 1y:Z6 tA.i AINI)XEIY ll1C1tb1A!`'.tSl�. ANDREW W.J. DICKMAN Attorney at Law Law Offices of ANDREW DICKMAN, P.A. 9111 Park Drive Miami Shores, FL 33138 April 26, 2004 VILA FAX 305-416-2156 Ana Gelbert, Director Flanr_ing & Zoning Department CITY OF MIAMI 444 SW 2nd Ave, Third Floor [Miami Florida 33130-1910 TeL 305.78.3621 Fax: 305.758.0508 Cell: 305.335.1303 a.ndxewdickman@belLsouth.net RE: tlew Construction @ 5101 Biscayne Bled_ and 5225 Biscayne Bled (Class Ii Special Permits) Dear 11s. Gelnert : This firm represents the Mornir!gside Civic Association, Inc. (the `Association") in ccnnectien the above referenced requested Class II Special Fermits. The As socia=ion notified you of their concerns about these specific projects via a letter frora Scott Crawford and Rod Alonsc dated March le, 2004 an -r-,' March 29, 2004. After inspecting these -les, we have 1%arned that thy_ city has already conducted a conference with the applicant regarding your ,ntended Decision dated March 25, 2C04. Once again, we are forraal_y reoues}i_:g a coh=ere- �e wit'n roi �o discuss these proji ects before ycu ssue your Final Decision. Moreover, we respectfully regi -:est rha.t_ a cope of this letter be placed yn the official application file=. for 5101 and 5225 sc that my client can be timely not -`i, --d of any further filings. Thank. you for ;your attention and consideration to this eery important matter. Very truly yours, ANDREW DICvI�A!,1, AICP, Esq. Submitted Into the public c Edelberto 11. Fere-, Planner 1 P ��_ record in connection with item n2-1� on ►-I?- oil Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk C I T Y O F M I A M I P 1, A N N 1 N G A N D % O N I N G D E_ P A R T M E N T PRE -APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CLASS 11 SPECIAL PERMIT 5101 BISCAYNE BLVD. Ni?W CONSTRUCTION 5-4-2004 The following comments represent the unified vision of the Pre .Application Design Review Committee, which consist of all staff members in the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions. COMMENTS: The following comments are being made in an effort to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. Urban Design • The committee appreciates the reduction in the height of the building from 117' to 87'-4". • Relocate the loading area berth from NE 51 Street to the interior of the garage, adjacent to the other loading berth, with access provided from NE 52 Street. Replace the curb cut for the loading berth on NE 51 St. with additional landscaping. Garage Articulation • The design solutions for the portions of the garage which are visible on all four sides of the building need to be further addressed. Consider an exceptional design solution for the garage portion which will integrate the garage into the design of the building and conceal its use as a garage. Along Biscyane Boulevard, consider the use of glass for the garage openings. • The materials proposed for the garage openings shall be designed such that vehicles are completely hidden from public view. Provide section drawings and or/details of louvers, or other proposed design elements, illustrating how vehicles shall be concealed. Landscaping The proposed landscape plan and tree mitigation plan have been reviewed and found to be sufficient. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item fLL5, o Thompson Priscilla _on City Clerk It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your j voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. C I T Y O F M I A M I P L A N N I N G A N D Z O N 1 N G D E P A R T M I- N T PIt1;-APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CLASS 11 SPECIAL PERMIT 5101 BISCAYNE BLVD. Ni -.-.w CONSTRUCTION 5-18-2004 The following comments represent the unified vision of the Pre -Application Design Review Committee, which consist of all staff members in the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions. COMMENTS: The following comments are being made in an effort to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. Urban Design • The committee appreciates the reduction in the height of the building from 117' to 87'-4". • Relocate the loading area berth from NE 51 Street to the interior of the garage, adjacent to the other loading berth, with access provided from NE 52 Street. Replace the curb cut for the loading berth on NE 51 St, with additional landscaping. Garage Articulation • The garage facade treatrnent is satisfactory, with the following exceptions: 1. the use of glass is recommended for the window openings on the third level of the garage facing Biscayne Boulevard, rather than screening or louvers, in order to better incorporate this level into the overall building elevation; 2. consider integrating the color treatment of the facade of the upper and lower (garage) portion of the building so that these two areas of the building become more unified. • The materials proposed for the garage openings shall be designed such that vehicles are completely hidden from view on all four garage elevations. Provide section drawings and or/details of louvers, or other proposed design elements, illustrating how vehicles shall be concealed. Landscaping The proposed landscape plan and tree mitigation plan have been reviewed and found to be sufficient. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ -ice on l/-� -oy Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your 1 voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. Scott M. Crawford, Ph.D. 129 430 NE 52"' Street Phone: (305) 751-7447 Viami, FL 33137-3031 E-mail address: Craw 1377@bellsouth.net June 11, 2004 Ana Gelabert Director, Planning and Zoning for the City of Miami PO BOX 330708 Miami, FL 33233-0708 Dear Ms. Gelabert 1tD PLAN*J ;u `;. -7v� 2904 JUN 14 PM 2: 4 8 I am writing to inquire about the status of the 5101 and 5225 Biscayne Blvd. developments proposed by the Zyscovich firm. At our meeting with planning and zoning staff on May 12th, we were told that the above projects would not be required to abide by the new SD9 ordinance limiting heights along the Biscayne Corridor (including a 45 degree setback angle above 25 feet). We were assured that we would be promptly informed when these projects have been approved, as we understand that there is a limited window to appeal the decision with the Planning and Zoning Board. It is our intention to do so, as we feel that these projects should abide by the new SD9 zoning ordinance. Sincerely, SO �-44gt Scott M. Crawford, Ph.D. Cc: City Commissioner Johnny L. Winton record in connection with item pLLS- onI1-i?'d Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Lavernia, Roberto From: Suria Yaffar [SURIA@zyscovich.com) Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 4:32 PM To: Lavernia, Roberto Cc: JJC25@aol.com; doughertyl@gtlaw.com; Julian Gonzalez Subject: Design Review Comments- Class II Permit 5225 and 5101 BiscayneBlvd. Mr. Lavernia, As per our meeting on Friday, please find attached response to the Internal Design Review Committee's comments dated 5-18-04: 5225 Biscayne Blvd. Urban Design We are not able to relocate the loading area -to the interior of the garage because it will reduce the number of parking spaces that have been provided to meet the parking requirements. We propose to provide an overhead door that will open at the time when loading or unloading occurs, the rest of the time it will remain closed. We have also provided additional landscape along the street to further reduce any impact on the street. Garage Articulation We are designing the garage openings so as to conceal the vehicles from view. On the first level of parking we are providing louvers and the last two floors of the parking garage will have a decorative metal mesh. (Please see previously submitted elevations) 5101 Biscayne Blvd. Urban Design We are not able to relocate the loading area to the interior of the garage because it will reduce the number of parking spaces that have been provided to meet the parking requirements. We propose to provide an overhead door that will open at the time when loading or unloading occurs, the rest of the time it will remain closed. We have also provided additional landscape along the street to further reduce any impact on the street. Garage Articulation Garage facade 1.We will provide glass in the window openings on the third level of the parking facing Biscayne Blvd. if the rest of the openings on this floor can meet the air circulation requirements for an open garage . If the open air requirements are only met by maintaining these punctured windows open, we will provide a frame similar to the window treatment with a decorative metal mesh so as to integrate this level with the overall building elevation. 2. The upper and lower (garage) portion of the building will have the same color treatment so that they are unified as requested. The retail portion of the building will have a color to define the base. Garage Articulation We are designing the garage openings so as to On the first level of parking and the rear of and the last two floors of the parking garage see previously submitted elevations) conceal the vehicles from view. the parking garage we are providing louvers will have a decorative metal mesh. (Please Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 2 -►5 on V-244- Priscilla (- j 4Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Please let us know if we have addressed your concerns in regards to the design of these buildings so that we can proceed with the completion of our clients Class II Special Permit application. Best Regards, Suria Yaffar Suria Yaffar Associate Principal Zyscovich, Inc. 100 N. Biscayne Blvd. 27th Floor Miami FL. 33132 305 372 5222 Voice x107 305 577 4521 Fax www.zyscovich.com 2 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ -15-n P, =') Priscilla A. pson City Clerk Page 1 of 1 Perez, Edelberto M. From: Rod Aionso [rodalonso@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 4:45 PM To: Perez, Edelberto M. Cc: Gelabert-Sanchez, Ana; Slazyk, Lourdes Y.; Andrew Dickman; Elvis Cruz; Jim Wing; Rob Stebbins; Scott Crawford Subject: Class II Permits for 5101 Biscayne Blvd. and 5225 Biscayne Blvd. Mr. Perez: I left you a message on your voicemail earlier this afternoon and am just following up on that: I was wondering what the status is of the two projects (at 5101 Biscayne Boulevard and 5225 Biscayne Boulevard) that are seeking Class II permits. In particular, when is a final decision expected? As an intervenor regarding the Class II permits for these projects, I am interested in this timely information and respectfully request a reply as soon as possible. Thank you, Rod Alonso 451 N.E. 53rd Street Miami, Florida 33137-3042 305.762.6287 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item2� 1- .. _on 1 I - 18 -oy Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 7/20/2004 C I T Y O F M I A M I P L A N N 1 N G A N D Z O N I N G D E P A R T M E N T PRE -APPLICATION DESIGN RE.vIFw COMMENTS CLASS 11 SPECIAL PFRMIT 5101 BISCAYNE BLVD. NF.w CONSTRUCTION 7-G-2004 The following comments represent the unified vision of the Pre -Application Design Review Committee, which consist of all staff members in the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions. COMMENTS: The following comments are being made in an effort to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. Urban Design • The committee encourages the applicant to explore options to relocate the loading area berth from NE 51 Street to the interior of the garage, adjacent to the other loading berth, with access provided from NE 52 Street. Garage Articulation • The use of glass is required for the window openings on the third level of the garage facing Biscayne Boulevard, rather than screening or louvers, in order to better incorporate this level into the overall building elevation. The glass panels may be recessed from the wall in order to allow air circulation into the garage. • Consider a different color selection than the one presented in the rendering for the base of the building, in order to better unify the appearance of the base and the upper portion of the building. • The materials proposed for the garage openings shall be designed such that vehicles are completely hidden from view on all four garage elevations. Provide section drawings and or/details of louvers, or other proposed design elements, illustrating how vehicles shall be concealed. • For the east garage elevation facing the single-family homes, consider a different appearance for the louvers in order to provide them with a more residential character. Landscaping The proposed landscape plan and tree mitigation plan have been reviewed and found to be sufficient. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item p2 -is on -if,o Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your 1 voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. CITY OF MIAMI CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT FINAL DECISION To: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esq. c/o Greenberg Traurig 1221 Brickell Ave Miami, FL. 33131 From: Ana Gelabert, Director Planning and Zoning Department PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT A INTENDED DECISION HAS BEEN REACHED ON THE FOLLOWING MATTER: Title: New Construction (5101 Biscayne Blvd) Address: 5101 Biscayne Blvd., Upper Eastside Final Decision: ❑ Approval © Approval with conditions ❑ Denial FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS The subject proposal has been reviewed for Class II Special Permit pursuant to Article 15, Section 609.3, 1512 and 923.2 of Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida. Section 609.3 states explicitly that a Class II Special Permit shall be required prior to approval of any permit affecting the location, relocation or alteration of any structure, sign, awning, landscaping, parking, area or vehicular way visible from a public street. Section 1512 states that unless otherwise required by the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, the Code of the City of Miami, as amended or the South Florida Building Code, as amended, all City of Miami Design Standards and Guidelines, incorporated herein by reference, may be waived pursuant to a Class II Special Permit. Section 923.2.1 states that reduction in loading stalls shall be only by Class II Special Permit. Pursuant to Section 1301.2. of the above cited Zoning Ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Department has made referrals to the following Departments and Boards. • Zoning Division, Planning and Zoning Department. • Upper Eastside NET Office, Neighborhood Enhancement Team. Is UDRB, Urban Development Review Board. Their comments and recommendations have been duly considered and are reflected in this intended decision. In reviewing this application, pursuant to Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following findings have been made: Submitted Into the public record in connection with t item EL:L5 on 0 -',?4 4 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk FINDINGS • It is found that the proposed project is a mixed-use building consisting of residential units (89) and common areas (4,799) sq.ft with parking garage. • It is found that the proposed project was initially reviewed by the Internal Design Review Committee on November 25, 2003. The committee recommended sending it back to the architect in order to give the opportunity to respond to the committee comments. • It is found that a modified project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on January 13, 2004 but the original comments are stili pending and have not been resolve. • It is found that an Intended Decision was issue on March 25, 2004. • It is found that a modified project that included the modifications recommended by the Internal Design Review Committee was reviewed by the committee on May 4 and May 18, 2004; finally, on July 6, 2004, the committee reviewed and approved with conditions the subject proposal. • It is found that the landscape plan submitted with this application complies with the Miami -Dade Landscape Ordinance. • On January 21, 2004 the Urban Development Review Board reviewed and deferred for the next meeting the subject proposal. • On March 17, 2004 the Urban Review Board reviewed and approved with conditions the subject proposal. • It is found that with regard to the criteria set forth in Sec. 1305 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance, the application has been reviewed and found sufficient except for the issues listed above and contained in the conditions. Based on the above findings and the considered advice of the officers and agencies consulted on this matter and pursuant to Section 1306 of the Zoning Ordinance, the subject proposal is hereby approved with conditions as presented in the plans and supporting materials submitted by the applicant and on file with the Department of Planning and Development and further subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions addressed by the UDRB and the Internal Design Review Committee. 2. New plans shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department for review and approval before issuance of any building permit. NOTICE The final decision of the Director may be appealed to the Zoning Board by any aggrieved party, within fifteen (15) days of the date of issuance by filing a written appeal and appropriate fee with the Office of Hearing Boards, located at 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 7th Floor, Miami, FI. 33139. Telephone number (305) 416-2030. Signature Date Ana'Gel'abert, D.' e�tor✓ Planning and Zoning Department Submitted Into the public record in connection With item P 2 -_L51-01' t- l o 2 Priscilla A. Thompson ity Clerk RIJ Submitted into the public record in connection with item, Priscilla A.. Thompson City Clerk PIRG" SECURITY ACTION L SCR MOD +/- - PAGE 1 03193444 BUILDING AND ZONING RECEIPT PROCESSING (21) RECEIPT NO 03193444 DATE 11/24/2003 WAIVED N ,PERMIT NO NAME JEROME J COHEN ADDRESS 11111 BISCAYNE BLVD PHONE 305 9999999 COMMENTS CLII 0308 MAINTAINED BY: TLC FEES A/C/D TYPE CLASS SUB DESCRIPTION UNIT TYPE UNITS R 140 003 CLASS II PLANNING PERMIT 3455.0000 SUBSID 000000000 CLASS II PLANNING PERMIT FEE 3455.00 SUBSID FEE SUBSID FEE SUBSID FEE SUBSID FEE SUBSID FEE ----------------- TOTAL 3455.00 NO MORE FEES FOR RECEIPT k cul, nit ed into the public with record in^cson onctl ln_ item .L'_2 -- Thompson Priscilla A. City Clerk C I T Y O F M I ' A M I 1' L A N N I N G A N D % O N I N G D 1: 1' A R T M F. N T PRIi-APPLICATION DESIGN 1ZE.VII?NV C0MAt1:NTS CLASS li SPECIAL I'ERMIT 5225 BISCAYNE BLVD. NI?W CONSTRUCTION 11-25-2003 The following comments represent the unified vision of the Pre -Application Design Review Committee, which consist of all staff members in the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions. COMMENTS: _ The following comments are being made in an effort to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. Urban Design • The building appears out of scale within the existing context of single family homes to the east of the site. Consider reducing the height of the building to better reflect the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. • The curb cut along NE 52"1I Terrace is of an excessive dimension. Relocate the loading area to the interior of the garage and reduce this curb cut to the minimum 20' width. Garage Articulation • Modify the garage plan to incorporate residential liner program along all levels of the garage on Bisca)�ne Boulevard. This will create a niore active and attractive fA4ade, and provide eyes on the street. • The portions of the garage which are exposed need to be addressed. These sides shall be articulated so that vehicles are completely hidden from public view. Provide section drawings and or/details of louvers, or other exceptional details, illustrating how vehicles shall be concealed. Consider continuing the pattern of window and balcony openings on the rest of this facade so that the garage area becomes integrated into the framework of the design. Landscaping • Comply with FDOT in regards to the intended landscaping plan for Biscayne Boulevard. Please note that shade trees shall be provided in order to provide shade for pedestrians along Biscayne Boulevard. Palm trees may be utilized periodically as an architectural accent to the architecture of the building. • Remove the existing curb cuts and driveway within the public right of way along Biscayne Boulevard and incorporate this area into the landscaping plan for the project. • Submit an existing landscape survey and tree disposition plan. Submitted Into the public record irl connection with item P2 -Ir on IL -W21 Prisciila A. Thompson City Clerk It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your j voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. C I T Y O F 1VI I A M I P L A N N 1 N G A N D L 0 N I N G D E P A R T M E N T PRE -APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS }� Uk?l�C CLASS II SPECIAL. PERMIT Submitted Into the p record in connection wiitoh�� 5225 BISCAYNE BLVD. item o,15—on !LL - NEW CONSTRUCTION Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 1-13-2004 The following comments represent the unified vision of the Pre -Application Design Review Committee, which consist of all staff members in the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions. COMMENTS: The following comments are being made in an effort to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. Urban Design • The building mass is out of scale with the existing context of single family homes to the east of the site. The City has developed new height regulations for this part of Biscayne Boulevard, arising out of neighborhood input in the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor Study charette. These new regulations are in the process of being adopted. The building's height should be compatible with the future height requirements, which specify an 8 -story maximum height. • The curb cut along NE 52nd Terrace is of an excessive dimension. Relocate the loading area to the interior of the garage and reduce this curb cut to the minimum 20' width. • Relocate the loading area berth from NE 5211d Terrace to the interior of the garage, adjacent to the other loading berth, with access provided from NE 53 Street. Replace the curb cut for the loading berth on NE 52"1 Terrace. • Liner program with a minimum of 15' of useable active habitable space shall be provided for the entire Biscayne Boulevard frontage in order to conceal the parking garage from public view. Modify the garage plan to incorporate residential liner program along all levels of the garage on Biscayne Boulevard. This will create a more active and attractive fa4ade, and provide eyes on the street. Garage Articulation • The portions of the garage which are exposed need to be addressed. These sides shall be articulated so that vehicles are completely hidden from public view. Provide section drawings and or/details of louvers, or other exceptional details, illustrating how vehicles shall be concealed. Consider continuing the pattern of window and balcony openings on the rest of this fa4ade so that the garage area becomes integrated into the framework of the design. Landscaping • Comply with FDOT in regards to the intended landscaping plan for Biscayne Boulevard. Please note that fbade tmer shall be provided in order to provide shade for pedestrians along Biscayne Boulevard. Palm trees may be utilized periodically as an architectural accent to the architecture of the building. • Remove the existing curb cuts and driveway within the public right of way along Biscayne Boulevard and incorporate this area into the landscaping plan for the project. • Submit an existing landscape survey and tree disposition plan. It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your j voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. Other In order to allow for more flexibility in the design of this project, it is recommended that the applicant apply under the new regulations. These regulations, when adopted, will relax the setback requirements, which will provide for more flexibility in design options. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ -15' on 11-►p-oq Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your 2 voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. C I T Y O F M I A M I P I. .\ N N I N G \ N l) ( () N I N G l� I. I' ;\ R T Nf 1C N T D E S I G N R F: V I E w C II E C K L I S T Project Name: Address: T ? Date: v c I. Context ConullcntS: Response to site Scale comparison Nvith buildings/rtcighborhood sryle/relationship .architectural to surrounding ucighborhood�'� II. Building Massing and Design Comments: Use of variation, good proportions and human -scale massing Check for undesirable characteristics (i.e. unarticulated blank walls, exposed parking garages or unbroken series of garage doors) Orientation and commercial activity towards pedestrian streets Minimal setbacks from public streets �? q O 4) III. Ground Level/ Pedestrian Considerations Comments: Creation of a safe, pleasant walking cnviroranlclrt a G 'b Street level features; habitahle space, windows, multiple entries, O G V balconies, arcades, etc. �; 00 G }- 13"cl,lg entrances provided from pedestrian -oriented streets, as O C V�Q opposed to interior blocks or parking lots G M IV. Tropical Architecture Conlnunts: ! , kN Continuous line of canopy trees to provide continuous shade along .a ty s." �. pedestrian walkways O E Roof overhangs O O N (D� Opel) balconies, terraces and covered outdoor areas for rccrcatlUll. A high level of transparency and cross -ventilation Illrough bulldings, High ceilings/Increased floor to floor heights. V. Parking/Garages Comments: Parking placed to the rear of buildings, or covered with a laN cr of program (how many levels?) Articulated garage along edges where lining is not possible Curb cuts and garage entrances kept to minimum size and distance, provided from secondary streets C I T Y O F M I A M I P 1. A N N I N G A N D Z O N 1 N G DEPARTMENT U R BAN D E V E 1. O P M F. N 'r REVI E w BOARD R E S O L u T 1 o N: U 1) R 13 3- 1 7- 0 4- 5 A resolution recommending Approval with conditions for a Class II Special Permit for 5225 Biscayne Blvd located at 5225 Biscayne Blvd. Meeting Date: March 17, 2004 Item No.: 5 Motion to Approve: Vote: 5-0 Conditions: Attest: The garage shall be designed with opaque material. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item .p2 -i5 on Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director Enrique Nunez — UDRB Officer CITY OF MIAMI CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT INTENDED DECISION File No. 03-0308 To: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esq. c/o Greenberg Traurig 1221 Brickell Ave Miami, FL. 33131 From: Ana Gelabert, Director Planning and Zoning Department PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT A INTENDED DECISION HAS BEEN REACHED ON THE FOLLOWING MATTER: Title: New Construction (5225 Biscayne) Address: 5225 Biscayne Blvd., Upper Eastside Final Decision: Submitted Into the PubliG record in connection with ❑ Approval PZ -1S on 11h Q Approval with conditions item El Denial Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS The subject proposal has been reviewed for Class II Special Permit pursuant to Section 609.3, 1512 and 923.2 of Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida. Section 609.3 states explicitly that a Class If Special Permit shall be required prior to approval of any permit affecting the location, relocation or alteration of any structure, sign, awning, landscaping, parking, area or vehicular way visible from a public street. Section 1512 states that unless otherwise required by the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, the Code of the City of Miami, as amended or the South Florida Building Code, as amended, all City of Miami Design Standards and Guidelines, incorporated herein by reference, may be waived pursuant to a Class II Special Permit. Section 923.2.1 states that reduction in loading stalls shall be only by Class II Special Permit. Pursuant to Section 1301.2. of the above cited Zoning Ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Department has made referrals to the following Departments and Boards. • Zoning Division, Planning and Zoning Department. • Upper Eastside NET Office, Neighborhood Enhancement Team. • UDRB, Urban Development Review Board. Their comments and recommendations have been duly considered and are reflected in this intended decision. In reviewing this application, pursuant to Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following findings have been made: FINDINGS • It is found that the proposed project is a mixed-use building consisting of residential units (90) and common areas (3,731) sq.ft with parking garage. • It is found that the proposed project was initially reviewed by the Internal Design Review Committee on November 25, 2003. The committee recommended sending it back to the architect in order to give the opportunity to respond to the committee comments. • It is found that a modified project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on January 25, 2004 but the original comments are still pending and have not been resolved. • It is found that the building mass is out of scale with the existing context of single family homes to the east, also, the building's height should be compatible with the new regulations that are in the process of being adopted for this part of Biscayne Boulevard, which specify a height limit of (8) stories and ninety five (95) feet maximum height. - It is found that a liner program of active habitable spaces for the parking garage shall be provide for the entire Biscayne Boulevard frontage in order to conceal the parking garage from the public view and create a more active and attractive fagade appropriate for the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor. • It is found that although the landscape plan submitted with this application complies with the Miami -Dade Landscape Ordinance, an existing landscape survey with tree disposition plan shall be required. • On January 21, 2004 the Urban Development Review Board reviewed and deferred for the next meeting the subject proposal. • On March 17, 2004 the Urban Review Board reviewed and approved with conditions the subject proposal. • It is found that with regard to the criteria set forth in Sec. 1305 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance, the application has been reviewed and found sufficient except for the issues listed above and contained in the conditions. Based on the above findings and the considered advice of the officers and agencies consulted on this matter and pursuant to Section 1306 of the Zoning Ordinance, the subject proposal is hereby approved with conditions as presented in the plans and supporting materials submitted by the applicant and on file with the Department of Planning and Development and further subject to the following conditions: 1. The building shall have a limit of (8) stories and ninety five (95) feet maximum height. 2. Al liner program for the parking garage shall be provided for the entire Biscayne Boulevard frontage. 3. An existing landscape survey with tree disposition plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department in order to be able to approve the landscape plan. 4. The applicant shall comply with the conditions addressed by the UDRB and the Internal Design Review Board. 5. New plans shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department for review and approval before issuance of any building permit. Submitted Ino the public record in connection with z item 22L �f on J1-sL Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk NOTICE Within five (5) calendar days of receipt of this notification, the applicant may request a conference between the applicant and/or the applicant's agent and the Director of Planning and Zoning Department and such representatives of the referenced officers, agencies, or departments as the applicant desires for the purpose of presenting additional facts, arguments, information or data in support of the applicant's position. The applicant's request should be made directly to the Director of the Planning and Zoning Department in writing. For additional information, please call Edelberto Perez at (305) 416-1400. Signature �` Date 3111 T10 Ana 6619bert, M ctor Planning and oning Department Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P.,-_,2__. - °n —I(-- tQ- v Priscilla A. City Clerk PLANfl,knl 2004 MAR s 0 PM I: I I March 29, 2004 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ana Gelabert, Director Planning & Zoning Department City of Miami 444 S. W 2nd Avenue No. 945 Miami, FL 33130-1910 Re: Notice of Intended Decisions, 5101 and 5225 Biscayne Boulevard Dear Ms. Gelabert: The undersigned are residents of the 400 block Morningside. We have received copies of the Notices Intended Decision for the above two properties, approving projects at issue with conditions. Among other things, notices recite a finding "that the building mass is ou scale with the existing context of single family homes to east We agree. However, it also states that building's height should be compatible with the regulations that are in the process of being adopted for part of Biscayne Boulevard which specify a height limit of stories and (95) feet maximum height." of of the both t of the "the new this (8) The undersigned hereby intervene in this proceeding for the purpose of objecting to the intended decision and for the purpose of opposing the projects with the height conditions attached. The proposed ordinance has not been enacted, the proposed ordinance contains many flaws including a disregard of existing setback requirements and our investigation reveals that the proposed ordinance is being advanced based on what we perceive to be an unjustifiable fear of Bert Harris liability on the part of the City. The proposed projects, even with the conditions, are incompatible in their design, character and scale with the neighboring community and are contrary to the public interest generally, the protection of adjacent properties, the neighborhood and the city as a whoSubmitted Into the public record in connection with i te rn p 2 S_on i1_-tg-- o Priscil!a A. T11ompson City Clerk Ana Gelabert, Director March 29, 2004 Page 2 As intervenors and objectors in this proceeding, we hereby request pursuant to Section 1307.1 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance and applicable law generally the right to provide additional information of a rebuttal nature to the proposed findings of the Planning & Zoning Department. We further request the right to inspect and copy all records of any formal or informal hearing or conferences in connection with the special permits that you may have had with the applicants to date and all other materials as set forth in Section 1307.2 of the Zoning Ordinance together with reasonable notification of any additional conferences or hearings, formal and informal, that may take place in connection with these matters. Pursuant to Section 1503.2, we also request a conference with the Director for the purpose of presenting additional facts, arguments, information or data in support of our position pursuant to Section 1503.2 of the Zoning Ordinance after we have been given full opportunity to examine all reports submitted on referrals in the case as provided at Section 1307.1 of the ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Robert Stebbins 410 NE 52" Terr. Miami, Fl. 33137 # 1819815V1 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item f2 -L.5- on Priscilla A. Thompson . City Clerk March 29, 2004 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ana Gelabert, Director Planning & Zoning Department City of Miami 444 S. W 2nd Avenue No. 945 Miami, FL 33130-1910 E0 PLAryI� %� $ 'OF�ffyO 2004 MAR 30 PM 1: 10 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item _on 1-1p, � a Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Re= Notice of Intended Decisions, 5101 and 5225 Biscayne Boulevard Dear Ms. Gelabert: The undersigned are residents of the 400 block of Morningside. We have received copies of the Notices of Intended Decision for the above two properties, approving the projects at issue with conditions. Among other things, both notices recite a finding "that the building mass is out of scale with the existing context of single family homes to the east ...." We agree. However, it also states that "the building's height should be compatible with the new regulations that are in the process of being adopted for this part of Biscayne Boulevard which specify a height limit of (8) stories and (95) feet maximum height." The undersigned hereby intervene in this proceeding for the purpose of objecting to the intended decision and for the purpose of opposing the projects with the height conditions attached. The proposed ordinance has not been enacted. The proposed ordinance contains many flaws including a disregard of existing setback requirements and our investigation reveals that the proposed ordinance is being advanced based on what we perceive to be an unjustifiable fear of Bert Harris liability on the part of the City. The proposed projects, even with the conditions, are incompatible in their design, character and scale with the neighboring community and are contrary to the public interest generally, the protection of adjacent properties, the neighborhood and the city as a whole. As intervenors and objectors in this proceeding, we hereby request pursuant to Section 1307.1 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance and applicable law generally the right to provide additional information of a rebuttal Ana Gelabert, Director March 29, 2004 Page 2 nature to the proposed findings of the Planning & Zoning Department. We further request the right to inspect and copy all records of any formal or informal hearing or conferences in connection with the special permits that you may have had with the applicants to date and all other materials as set forth in Section 1307.2 of the Zoning Ordinance together with reasonable notification of any additional conferences or hearings, formal and informal, that may take place in connection with these matters. Pursuant to Section 1503.2, we also request a conference with the Director for the purpose of presenting additional facts, arguments, information or data in support of our position pursuant to Section 1503.2 of the Zoning Ordinance after we have been given full opportunity to examine all reports submitted on referrals in the case as provided at Section 1307.1 of the ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Scott M. Crawford Rod Alonso # 1819815_vl Submitted Into the public record in connection with item _EZ -I,5 on t Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Ana Gelabert, Director March 29, 2004 Page 2 nature to the proposed findings of the Planning & Zoning Department. We further request the right to inspect and copy all records of any formal or informal hearing or conferences in connection with the special permits that you may have had with the applicants to date and all other materials as set forth in Section 1307.2 of the Zoning Ordinance together with reasonable notification of any additional conferences or hearings, formal and informal, that may take place in connection with these matters. Pursuant to Section 1503.2, we also request a conference with the Director for the purpose of presenting additional facts, arguments, information - or data in support of our position pursuant to Section 1503.2 of the Zoning Ordinance after we have been given full opportunity to examine all reports submitted on referrals in the case as provided at Section 1307.1 of the ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. # 1819815_0 Very truly yours, Scott R. Crawford Vim" Rod Alonso -rw A, E 3 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ -15' on 1"8' 'o Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk C I T Y O F M I A M I P t, A N N 1 N G A N D "L O N I N G D E P A It T M E N 'r PRE -APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CLASS II SPECIAL PEPMrT 5225 BISCAYNE BLVD. NEW CONS"ITUCI'ION 5-4-2004 The following comments represent the unified vision of the Pre -Application Design Review Committee, which consist of all staff members in the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions. COMMENTS: The following comments are being made in an effort to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. Urban Design • The committee appreciates the reduction in the height of the building from 117' to 97'-4". • Relocate the loading area berth from NE 52nd Terrace to the interior of the garage, adjacent to the other loading berth, with access provided from NE 53 Street, Replace the curb cut for the loading berth on NE 52"d Terrace with additional landscaped area. Garage Articulation • The design solutions for the portions of the garage which are visible on all four sides of the building need to be further addressed. Consider an exceptional design solution for the garage portion which will integrate the garage into the design of the building and conceal its use as a garage. Along Biscyane Boulevard, consider the use of glass for the garage openings. • The materials proposed for the garage openings shall be designed such that vehicles are completely hidden from public view. Provide section drawings and or/details of louvers, or other proposed design elements, illustrating how vehicles shall be concealed. Landscaping The proposed landscape plan and tree mitigation plan have been reviewed and found to be sufficient. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item FZ-1 on fl -(9,00 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your ] voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. C I T Y O F M I A M I P L A N N 1 N G A N D Z O N I N G DEPARTMFNT PRE -APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CI.ASS 11 SPECIAL PERMIT 5225 BISCAYNE BLVD. NI3W CONST'RUCT'ION 5-18-2004 The following comments represent the unified vision of the Pre -Application Design Review Committee, which consist of all staff members in the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions. COMMENTS: The following comments are being made in an effort to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. Urban Design • The committee appreciates the reduction in the height of the building from 117' to 97'-4". • Relocate the loading area berth from NE 52nd Terrace to the interior of the garage, adjacent to the other loading berth, with access provided from NE 53 Street. Replace the curb cut for the loading berth on NE 52nd Terrace with additional landscaped area. Garage Articulation • The garage fa4ade treatment is satisfactory. The materials proposed for the garage openings shall be designed such that vehicles are completely hidden from view on all four garage elevations. Provide section drawings and or/details of louvers, or other proposed design elements, illustrating how vehicles shall be concealed. Landscaping - The proposed landscape plan and tree mitigation plan have been reviewed and found to be sufficient. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 'Pz-(5_on 1L_1 -04 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your 1 voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. Scott M. Crawford, Ph.D. 430 NE 320° Street Phone: (305) 751-7447 Miami, fL 331373031 Email address: Craw 1377@bellsouth.net y June 11, 2004 Ana Gelabert Director, Planning and Zoning for the City of Miami PO BOX 330708 Miami, FL 33233-0708 2904 JUN 14 PM 2: 4 8 Dear Ms. Gelabert I am writing to inquire about the status of the 5101 and 5225 Biscayne Blvd. developments proposed by the Zyscovich firm. At our meeting with planning and zoning staff on May 12`h, we were told that the above projects would not be required to abide by the new SD9 ordinance limiting heights along the Biscayne Corridor (including a 45 degree setback angle above 25 feet). We were assured that we would be promptly informed when these projects have been approved, as we understand that there is a limited window to appeal the decision with the Planning and Zoning Board. It is our intention to do so, as we feel that these projects should abide by the new SD9 zoning ordinance. Sincerely, Scott M. Crawford, Ph.D. Cc: City Commissioner Johnny L. Winton � � r Submitted Into the public o.� Priscilla A. Thompson C'itvr" rk, CITY OF MIAMI CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT FINAL DECISION To: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esq. c/o Greenberg Traurig 1221 Brickell Ave Miami, FL. 33131 From: Ana Gelabert, Director Planning and Zoning Department PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT A INTENDED DECISION HAS BEEN REACHED ON THE FOLLOWING MATTER: Title: New Construction (Biscayne Plaza) Address: 5225 Biscayne Blvd., Upper Eastside Final Decision: ❑ Approval Q Approval with conditions Cl Denial Submitted Into the public record in connection with item on ! - _W -Oct Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS The subject proposal has been reviewed for Class II Special Permit pursuant to Article 15, Section 609.3, 1512 and 923.2 of Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida. Section 609.3 states explicitly that a Class II Special Permit shall be required prior to approval of any permit affecting the location, relocation or alteration of any structure, sign, awning, landscaping, parking, area or vehicular way visible from a public street. Section 1512 states that unless otherwise required by the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, the Code of the City of Miami, as amended or the South Florida Building Code, as amended, all City of Miami Design Standards and Guidelines, incorporated herein by reference, may be waived pursuant to a Class II Special Permit. Section 923.2.1 states that reduction in loading stalls shall be only by Class II Special Permit. Pursuant to Section 1301.2. of the above cited Zoning Ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Department has made referrals to the following Departments and Boards. • Zoning Division, Planning and Zoning Department. • Upper Eastside NET Office, Neighborhood Enhancement Team. • UDRB, Urban Development Review Board. Their comments and recommendations have been duly considered and are reflected in this intended decision. In reviewing this application, pursuant to Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following findings have been made: FINDINGS • It is found that the proposed project is a mixed-use building consisting of residential units (90) and common areas (3,731) sq.ft with parking garage. • It is found that the proposed project was initially reviewed by the Internal Design Review Committee on November 25, 2003. The committee recommended sending it back to the architect in order to give the opportunity to respond to the committee comments. • It is found that a modified project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on January 13, 2004 but the original comments are still pending and have not been resolved. • It is found that an Intended Decision was issue on March 25, 2004. • It is found that a modified project that included the modifications recommended by the Internal Design Review Committee was reviewed by the committee on May 4 and May 18, 2004; finally, on July 6, 2004, the committee reviewed and approved with conditions the subject proposal. • It is found that the landscape plan submitted with this application complies with the Miami -Dade Landscape Ordinance. • On January 21, 2004 the Urban Development Review Board reviewed and deferred for the next meeting the subject proposal. • On March 17, 2004 the Urban Review Board reviewed and approved with conditions the subject proposal. • It is found that with regard to the criteria set forth in Sec. 1305 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance, the application has been reviewed and found sufficient except for the issues listed above and contained in the conditions. Based on the above findings and the considered advice of the officers and agencies consulted on this matter and pursuant to Section 1306 of the Zoning Ordinance, the subject proposal is hereby approved with conditions as presented in the plans and supporting materials submitted by the applicant and on file with the Department of Planning and Development and further subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall comply with the conditions addressed by the UDRB and the Internal Design Review Committee. New plans shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department for review and approval before issuance of any building permit. NOTICE The final decision of the Director may be appealed to the Zoning Board by any aggrieved party, within fifteen (15) days of the date of issuance by filing a written appeal and appropriate fee with the Office of Hearing Boards, located at 444 SW 2nd Ave., 7`h Floor, Miami, FL. 33130. Telephone number (305) 416-2030. Signature Date 71,� Ana. Gealabertirecto7r `~ Planning and Zoning Department Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 1P2-i� on II -tQ-o Priscilla A. Thompson _ City Clerk C I T Y O F M I A M I P L A N N l N G A N D Z O N I N G D E P A R T M E N T PRE -APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CLASS 11 SPECIAL. PERMIT 5225 BISCAYNE BLVD. NEW CONSTRUCTION 7-6-2004 The following comments represent the unified vision of the Pre -Application Design Review Committee, which consist of all staff members in the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions. COMMENTS: The following comments are being made in an effort to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. Urban Design • The committee encourages the applicant to explore options to relocate the loading area berth from NE 51 Street to the interior of the garage, adjacent to the other loading berth, with access provided from NE 52 Street. Garage Articulation • The garage fagade treatment is satisfactory. The materials proposed for the garage openings shall be designed such that vehicles are completely hidden from view on all four garage elevations. Provide section drawings and or/details of louvers, or other proposed design elements, illustrating how vehicles shall be concealed. Landscaping The proposed landscape plan and tree mitigation plan have been reviewed and found to be sufficient. Submitted into the public record in connection with item QZ on , -"t Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your j voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ- 5 on 11-V-oq Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk ZONING § 609.3 new construction or substantial expansion of an existing building, the applicant shall construct at their sole cost all improvements of the public streetscape from the base building line to the back of the curb to meet the standards of the Design Development Plan. (Ord. No. 12124, § 1, 9-25-01) Sec. 609. SD -9 Biscayne Boulevard North Overlay District. Sec. 609.1. Intent. Biscayne Boulevard North is one (1) of the major gateways to the City of Miami. This overlay district is of special and substantial public interest because of the need to upgrade the amenities and visual qualities of the boulevard. It is intended that future public and private development shall respect and enhance this gateway role by providing well landscaped development along the boulevard; to encourage appropriate development and to assure appropriate uses along the boulevard by modifying the use regulations of underlying districts. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91; Ord. No. 11022, § 1, 11-12-92) Sec_ 609.2. Effect of SD -9 district designation. The effect of these SD: 9 regulations shall be to modify regulations within portions of other zoning districts included within the SD boundaries to the extent indicated herein. (Ord_ No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91) Sec. 609.3. Class II Special Permit. 609.3.1. When. required. A Class II Special Permit shall be required prior to approval of any permit (except special permits pursuant to article 13) affecting the height, bulk, location or exterior configuration .of any existing building; or for the erection of any new building; demolition permits; or for the location, relocation or alteration of any structure, parking area or.vehicular way visible from a public street. 609.3.2. Considerationin making Class H Special Permit determinations. The purpose of the Class II Special Permit shall be to ensure conformity of the application with the expressed intent of this district, with the general considerations listed in section 1305, and with the special considerations listed. below. In making determinations concerning construction of new principal buildings or substantial exterior alterations of existing principal buildings, the director of the planning, building and zoning. department shall obtain the recommendation of the Urban Development Review. Board and consider applicable City of Miami design standards and guidelines. (1) Along Biscayne Boulevard, the pedestrian open space at the ground floor frontage shall be so designed, improved and located to provide an attractively landscaped appearance using royal palms and other types of tropical plants suitable to its gateway role. Submitted Into the public Supp. No. 11 230.3 record ir, connection with item t? :Li_ -._.on Prisciiia A. Thompson City Clerk, § 609.3 MIAMI, FLORIDA (2) Offstreet parking shall not be placed in required yards or required open space adjacent to Biscayne Boulevard, and vehicular entrances shall be prohibited along the boule- vard when access from other public rights-of-way is available. (3) Interim landscape. Prior to demolition and removal of existing structuress pavement and vegetation from a development site, the owner or developer shall be required to obtain all demolition approvals and tree removal permits as necessary. The zoning official may require as a condition of approval for a demolition permit, that sites of demolition shall not be left in a barren, undeveloped state without commencement of vertical construction or revegetation within sixty (60) days of clearing: Revegetation shall include sodding with grasses or other ground cover to'prevent soil erosion and blowing of airborne particulate matters and debris. Owner will be required to maintain the landscape. - 609.3.3. Limitation of use of chain link fence. - Chain link fence shall not be placed in required open space adjacent to Biscayne Boulevard unless it is of a temporary nature to secure an unsafe structure prior to demolition or has been - visually screened with landscape material. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91; Ord. No. 11022, § 1, 11-12-92; Ord. No. 11258, § 1, S-1-952) Sec. 609.4. Permitted principal uses and structures. Principal uses and structures are as permitted generally or conditionally by special permit in the underlying district; except the following uses shall not be permitted:' 1. Bars, saloons and taverns. 2. Convalescent homes, nursing homes, institutions for the aged or infirm, foster homes, group homes and orphanages. 3. Hotels; residence hotels, motels, tourist homes, lodginghouses, single room occupancy facilities, guest homes and other transitory residential uses generally not evidenced by a leasehold transaction. 4. Community based residential facilities. 5. Private clubs, lodges, fraternities and sororities operated for profit. 6. Coin laundry operations. 7. Clinics, medical or dental. 8. Pool halls, billiard parlors, and game rooms. 9. -- Mortuaries and funeral homes. 10. Used car sales, enclosed or unenclosed. 11. Unenclosed sales of new cars. 12. = Automotive service and repairs. - f3 Ambulance_ service. Supp. No. 11 230._ -UbI1C Submitted into with rE,cord m cone item c�. -Thompson Priscilla A., City CIern ZONING § 609.8 1 14. Sewing shops. 15. Hiring halls or labor pools. 16. Discount membership merchandisers. 17. Public storage facilities_ 18. Vehicle rental facilities. 19. Aluminum recycling machines. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91; Ord. No. 11022, § 1, 11-12-92; Ord. No. 11258, § 1, 5-1-95; Ord. No. 11385, § 2, 7-25-96; Ord. No. 11901, § 2, 2-17-00; Ord. No. 12034, § 2, 4-26-02) Sec. 609.5. Conditional principal uses. Same as for the underlying district with the limitations contained in section 609.4; and in addition, for the C-1 district only: 1. Commercial panting lots only by special exception, and only when designed to diminish the visual appearance of cars from Biscayne Boulevard. 2. Retail establishments operating from the hours of midnight to 6:00 a.m. only by Special Exception. (Ord. No. 11022, § 1, 11-12-92; Ord. No. 11258, § 1, 5-1-95; Ord. No. 11385, § 2, 7-25-96; Ord. No. 11901, § 2, 2-17-00; Ord. No. 12034, § 2, 4-26-02) Sec. 609.6. Principal accessory uses. Same as for the underlying district with the limitations contained in section 609.4. (Ord. No. 11022, § 1, 11-12-92; Ord. No. 12034, § 2, 4-26-02) Sec. 609.7. Conditional accessory uses. Same as for the underlying district with the limitations contained in section 609.4, and including the following: 1. A- Where the underlying district is O Office, photographic studios, outdoor photog- raphy and associated stage sets, only in conjunction with photographers offices, and only by Class Il Special Permit; B. Where the underlying district is C-1, Restricted Commercial, outdoor photogra- phy and associated stage sets only in conjunction with photographers studios, and only by Class II Special Permit. (Ord. No. 11022, § 1, 11-12-92; Ord. No. 11767, § 2, 2-23-99) Sec. 609.8. Limitations on signs. See Article 10 for sign regulations and limitations. (Ord_ No. 11022, § 1, 11-12-92; Ord. No. 11258, § 1, 5-1-95; Ord. No. 11315, § 1, 9-28-95; Ord. No. 11862, § 2, 11-19-99; Ord. No. 12213, § 2, 4-11-02) Submitted Into the public Supp- No. 11 230.5 record in connection with item p2.:_6-o_n -! t o Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk ZONING' ARTICLE 13. SPECIAL PERMITS; GENERALLY Sec. 1300. Intent, generally. In addition to zoning procedures and requirements relating generally to issuance of building permits and certificates of use, a special permit system is hereby established. It is intended that this system shall assure special examination, review, and findings by appropriate agents, agencies, or bodies of the city in connection with proposed actions particularly specified -in this zoning ordinance. Special permit procedures and requirements as set out herein are intended to apply in relation to use, occupancy, location, construction, design, character, scale, or manner of oper- ation, or the necessity for making complex or unusual determinations; also to assure consid- eration of the particular circumstances of each case and the establishment'of such conditions and safeguards as are reasonably necessary for protection of the public interest generally, and protection of adjacent properties, the neighborhood, and the city as a whole. A special permit is a grant of authority under the terms of this zoning ordinance from and by a.designated agent, officer, or body of the city to an applicant for the use of property in the manner set out in the grant of special permit. (Ord. No_ 10863, § 1, 3-28-91) Sec. 1301. Classes of special permits; intent; agent, agency, or body responsible for each; referrals. Four (4) classes of special permits are hereby established, ranging from those dealing with uses, occupancies, and activities of a temporary nature or likely to have small but potentially adverse impacts on adjacent and nearby properties to those with substantial effects on neigh- borhoods and/or the city. They are ranked in the following order: Class I Special Permit, Class II Special Permit; Special Exception and Major Use Special Permit'. When more than one (1) special permit is required.to address the same issue, the highest ranking permit granted shall be considered sufficient. Classes,of special permits, their intent, and the agent, agency,- or body responsible for each, and referrals are as follows: 1301.1. Class I Special Permits; intent; administered by zoning administrator; mandatory re- ferrals., It is intended that Class I Special Permits be required where specified uses or character- istics of use are of a nature requiring mandatory technical determinations or reviews to establish special conditions and safeguards. In general, such determinations and reviews will normally be by agencies or officers other than the -department of planning; building and Submitted into the public Supp. No. 1 457 recordin connection with item P2 -Q��on (- •a Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk § 1301 MIAMI, FLORIDA zoning, and may involve matters such as design for traffic, parking and loading facilities, health and environmental considerations, and legal determinations. 1301.1.1. Administration by zoning administrator. The zoning administrator shall be solely responsible for the administration and processing of applications for Class I Special Permits, and for determinations thereon. Decisions of the zoning administrator re- garding Class I Special Permits shall be affected and limited by reports received on referrals as provided in sections 1401 and 1402 (see article 14). 1301.2. Class II Special Permits; intent; determinations by director of department of planning, building and zoning; referrals. It is intended that Class II Special Permits be required where specified uses an&or occu- pancies involve substantial technical issues relating to planning policy. The director of the department of planning, building and zoning shall be solely responsible for review for compliance and consideration of applications for Class II Special Permits. The director shall make such referrals to other officers, agencies, boards or departments as are required by regulations relating to the particular special permit and may make other referrals deemed necessary by him before arriving at his decision (see article 15, section 1502): 1301.3. Special Exceptions. 1301.3.1. Intent. Within the city generally, or within certain zoning districts, certain structures, uses, and/or occupancies specified in this ordinance are of a nature re- quiring special and intensive review to determine whether or not_ they should be permitted in specific locations, and if so, the special limitations, conditions, and safe- guards which should be applied as reasonably necessary to promote the general pur- poses of this zoning ordinance and, in particular, to protect adjoining properties and .the neighborhood from avoidable potentially adverse effects. It is further intended that the expertise and judgment of the zoning board be exercised in making such determinations, in accordance with the rules, considerations, and limitations relating to Special Exceptions (see article 16). Formal public notice and hearing are mandatory for Special Exceptions. 1301.4. Major Use Special Permits; intent; determinations by city commission; referrals. It is intended that Major Use Special Permits be required where specified uses and/or occupancies involve matters deemed to be of city-wide or area -wide importance. The city commission shall be solely responsible for determinations on applications for Major Use Special Permits (see article 17). The director of the department of planning, building and zoning shall make recommen- dations on all applications for Major Use Special Permits and for any amendments thereto and shall transmit said applications and recommendations to the planning advisory board for its Submitted Into the public' Supp. No. 1 458 record in connection with item PZ - l s on-11l._� Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk ZONING § 1303 recommendations and may make referrals to other agencies, bodies, or officers for review, analysis, and/or technical findings and determinations and reports thereon. (Ord. No. 10771, § 1, 7-26-90; Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91; Ord. No. 10976, § 1, 4-20-92) Sec. 1302. Relation of special permits to building permits or certificates of use; to initiation or maintenance of use or occupancy. - Where building permits or certificates of use are required by this zoning ordinance or other codes or ordinances of the city, no such building permit or certificate of use shall be issued where this ordinance requires special permits unless and until any and all special permits required have been obtained. Where uses or occupancies do not require building permits or certificates of use, but are otherwise subject to requirements of this zoning ordinance, no such use or occupancy shall be initiated or maintained unless and until any and all special permits required herein in relation thereto have been obtained. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91) Sec. 1303. Special permits to be issued or denied in accordance with procedures, standards, and requirements of this ordinance. Special permits relating to this zoning ordinance shall be required only where specific provision therefor is made by this zoning ordinance. No application for a special permit shall be accepted or approved unless specific provision for the particular special permit appears in this zoning ordinance. . Special permits in relation to zoning shall be issued or denied only in accordance with the procedures, standards, and requirements of this zoning ordinance. Where applications for special permits demonstrate that general and special standards and requirements for such special permits are met, the agent, agency, or body of the city herein made responsible for the grant of such special permit shall issue such permit, subject to conditions and safeguards required in the particular circumstances of the case and as authorized and limited at section 1306, Conditions and safeguards, below. Where applications for special permits indicate that actions proposed therein, or the manner in which they are proposed to be conducted, do not meet the standards and require- ments of this ordinance, and could not practically and reasonably be made to do so by attach- ment of conditions and safeguards so authorized and limited, such applications and permits shall be denied. 1303.1. Action to be taken within time limits specified. Time limitations set out herein involving actions by the zoning board, the planning advi- sory board or the city commission shall not be applicable during the thirty-one (31) days of August. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91) Submitted Into the public record in connection with Supp. No. 3 459 item P2 - j 5 on -11 1&--&q Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk, § 1304 MIAMI, FLORIDA Sec. 1304. Applications for special permits, generally. 1304.1. Applications for special permits; when filed, who may file. Except when specifically set out otherwise in this zoning ordinance, applications for spe- cial permits shall be filed with administrative officials designated by the city manager, and such designees are charged with responsibility for their receipt, fee collection, processing, and/or distribution. The property owner shall also be subject to the following disclosure requirements: (1) Applicant shall show proof of any pending code enforcement actions or municipal liens on the property. (2) Corporate applicant shall show proof at each level of public hearing that it is in good standing, qualified to do business and doing business in Florida. For special permits affecting a property, applications may be filed only by the property owner, its formally designated agent, or a lessee with formal and legally sufficient consent of the property owner, and applications may be made only for special permits specifically autho- rized and/or required by this zoning ordinance generally, or for the district involved. 1304.2. Application forms; supplementary materials. Applications for special permits shall be made on forms provided for the purpose and shall be accompanied by such plans, reports, or other information, exhibits, or documents as may be reasonably required to make the necessary findings in the case. 1304.2.1. Application forms; materials that may be required. Where applicable to the activity or development for which special permit is requested and where necessary to decision on the application for special permit, any of the following items may be required: (a) Statements of ownership and/or control of the proposed development or activity, executed and sworn to by the owner or owners of one hundred (100) percent of the property described in the application, or by tenant or tenants, with owner's writ- ten sworn -to consent, or by duly authorized agents, evidenced by a written power of attorney, if the agent is not a member of the Florida Bar. Only applications which the zoning board and the city commission are authorized to consider and act upon shall be accepted for filing. (b) Statement describing in detail the character and intended use of the development or activity. (c) -General location map, showing relation of the site or activity for which special permit is sought to major streets, schools, existing utilities, shopping areas, im- portant physical features in and adjoining the project or activity and the like. Submitted Into the public Supp. No. 3 460 record in connection with item 2 -'S on 11-10A Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk ZONING § 1304 (d) A site plan containing the title of the project and the names of the project planner and developer, date, and north arrow and based on an exact survey of the prop- erty drawn to a scale of sufficient size to show: Supp. No. 3 (1) Boundaries of .the project, any existing streets, buildings, watercourses, ease- ments, and section lines; Suh-mitted Into the public -c ord in connection with item p2-t5'ons—_ 4so.1 Priscilla A. Thompson i City Clerk § 1304 MIAMI, FLORIDA unless and until the applications shall have been completed; all plans, reports or other u information, exhibits, or documents required by this zoning ordinance or administra- tive rules adopted pursuant hereto shall have been provided; and all fees due at time of filing shall have been paid. 1304.2.3. Application forms; supplementary materials. During processing of any applica- tion, if it is determined by the designated agent, agency, or body of the city that in the particular circumstances of the case additional information is required to make nec- essary findings bearing on its approval, denial, or conditions and safeguards to be attached, such information may be requested. Failure to supply such supplementary information may be used as grounds for denial of the permit. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91; Ord. No. 10976, § 1, 4-20-92; Ord. No. 11079, § 4, 7-22-93) Sec. 1305. Considerations generally; standards; findings and determinations required. As appropriate to the nature of the special permit involved and the particular circum- stances of the case, the following considerations and standards shall apply generally, in ad- dition to any other standards and requirements set forth concerning the class or kind of permit being considered. City agents, agencies, or boards charged with decisions concerning special permits shall make, or cause to be made, written findings and determinations concerning such of the following matters as are applicable in the case, shall reflect such considerations and standards specifically in the record, and shall be guided by such considerations and standards in their decisions as to issuance of permits, with or without conditions and safeguards, or denial of applications. 1305.1. Ingress and egress. Review for adequacy shall be given to ingress and egress to the property and structure and uses thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or other emergency. 1305.2. Offstreet parking and loading. Review for adequacy shall be given to offstreet parking and loading facilities as related to adjacent streets, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and conve- nience, internal traffic flow and control, arrangement in relation to access in case of fire or other emergency, and screening and landscaping. 1305.3. Refuse and service areas. Review for adequacy shall be given to the location, scale, design, and screening of refuse and service areas; to the manner in which refuse is to be stored; and to the manner and timing of refuse collection and deliveries, shipments, or other service activities, as such matters relate to the location and nature of uses on adjoining properties and to the location and character of adjoining public ways. Submitted Into the public 1305.4. Signs and lighting. record in connection with item 11 -E on - I e-, 0 Supp. No_ 2 462 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk ZONING § 1304 (2) Exact location of all buildings and structures; "y (3) Access and traffic flow and how vehicular traffic will be separated from pedestrian and other types of traffic; (4) Offstreet parking and offstreet loading areas; (5) Recreation facilities locations; (6) All screens and buffers; (7) Refuse collection areas; and (8) Access to utilities and points of utilities hookups. (e) Tabulations of total gross acreage in the project and the percentages thereof proposed to be devoted to: (1) The various permitted uses; and (2) Ground coverage by structures. (f) Tabulation showing: (1) The derivation of numbers of offstreet parking and offstreet loading spaces shown in (d) above; and (2) Total project density in dwelling units per acre. (g) If common facilities (such as recreation areas or structures, private streets, common open space, etc.) are to be provided for the development, statements as to how such common facilities are to be provided and permanently maintained. Such statements may take the form of proposed deed restrictions, deeds of trust, ho- meowners' associations, surety arrangements, or other legal instruments pro- viding adequate guarantees to the city that such common facilities will not be- come a future liability of the city. (h) Storm drainage and sanitary sewerage plans. (i) Architectural definitions for buildings in the development; exact number of dwelling units, sizes, and types, together with typical floor plans of each type. 0) Plans for signs, if any. (k) Landscaping plan, including types, sizes and locations of vegetation and decora- tive shrubbery, and showing provisions for irrigation and future maintenance. (1) Plans for recreation facilities, if any, including location and general description of buildings for such use. (m) Such additional data, maps, plans, or statements as may be required for the particular use or activity involved. (n) Such additional data as the applicant may believe is pertinent to the proper review for compliance and consideration of the site and development plan. Items (c), (d), (k), and (i) above shall be prepared by a registered surveyor, engineer, architect, landscape architect or certified planner as may be appropriate to the par- ticular item. 1304.2.2. Application forms; completion before processing. For purposes of establishing time limitations on processing, no application shall be deemed to have been filed Submitted Into the public Supp. No. 2 461 record in connection with item 1.>L- 16 on j i - i o -o Priscilla A. Thompson; City Clerk § 1304 MIAMI, FLORIDA unless and until the applications shall have been completed; all plans, reports or other information, exhibits, or documents required by this zoning ordinance or administra- tive rules adopted pursuant hereto shall have been provided; and all fees due at time of filing shall have been paid. 1304.2.3. Application forms; supplementary materials. During processing of any applica- tion, if it is determined by the designated agent, agency, or body of the city that in the particular circumstances of the case additional information is required to make nec- essary findings bearing on its approval, denial, or conditions and safeguards to be attached, such information may be requested. Failure to supply such supplementary information may be used as grounds for denial of the permit. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91; Ord. No. 10976, § 1, 4-20.92; Ord. No. 11079, § 4, 7-22-93) Sec. 1305. Considerations generally; standards; findings and determinations required. As appropriate to the nature of the special permit involved and the particular circum- stances of the case, the following considerations and standards shall apply generally, in ad- dition to any other standards and requirements set forth concerning the class or kind of permit being considered. City agents, agencies, or boards charged with decisions concerning special permits shall make, or cause to be made, written findings and determinations concerning such of the following matters as are applicable in the case, shall reflect such considerations and standards specifically in the record, and shall be guided by such considerations and standards in their decisions as to issuance of permits, with or without conditions and safeguards, or denial of applications. 1305.1. Ingress and egress. Review for adequacy shall be given to ingress and egress to the property and structure and uses thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or other emergency. 1305.2. Offstreet parking and loading. Review for adequacy shall be given to offstreet parking and loading facilities as related to adjacent streets, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and conve- nience, internal traffic flow and control, arrangement in relation to access in case of fire or other emergency, and screening and landscaping. 1305.3. Refuse and service areas. Review for adequacy shall be given to the location, scale, design, and screening of refuse and service areas; to the manner in which refuse is to be stored; and to the manner and timing of refuse collection and deliveries, shipments, or other service activities, as such matters relate to the location and nature of uses on adjoining properties and to the location and character of adjoining public ways. 1305.4. Signs and lighting. Submitted Into the public record in connection with Supp_ No. 2 462 item X2_15 on ----- Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk; ZONING § 1306 Review for adequacy shall be given to the number, size, character, location, and orienta- tion of proposed signs, and of proposed lighting for signs and premises, with particular refer- ence to traffic safety, glare, and compatibility and harmony with adjoining and nearby prop- erty and the character of the area. 1305.5. Utilities. Review for adequacy shall be given to utilities required, with particular reference to availability and capacity of systems, location of connections, and potentially adverse appear- ance or other adverse effects on adjoining and nearby property and the character of the area. 1305.6. Drainage. Review for adequacy shall be given to provision for drainage, with particular reference to effect on adjoining and nearby properties and on general drainage systems in the area. Where major drainage volumes appear likely and capacity of available systems is found marginal or inadequate, consideration shall be given to possibilities for recharge of groundwater supply on the property, temporary retention with gradual discharge, or other remedial measures. 1305.7. Preservation of natural features. Review for appropriateness shall be given to provision for the preservation of existing vegetation and geological features whenever possible. 1305.8. Control of potentially adverse effects generally. In addition to the review of detailed items indicated above, as appropriate to the particular class or kind of special permit and the circumstances of the particular case, review for appro- priateness shall be given to potentially adverse effects generally on adjoining and nearby properties, the area, the neighborhood, or the city, of the use or occupancy as proposed, or its location, construction, design, character, scale or manner of operation. Where such potentially adverse effects are found, consideration shall be given to special remedial measures appro- priate in the particular circumstances of the case, including screening or buffering, land- scaping, control of manner or hours of operation, alteration of proposed design or construction of buildings, relocation of proposed open space or alteration of use of such space, or such other measures as are required to assure that such potential adverse effects will be eliminated or minimized to the maximum extent reasonably feasible, and that the use or occupancy will be compatible and harmonious with other development in the area to a degree which will avoid substantial depreciation of the value of nearby property. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91; Ord. No. 10976, § 1, 4-20-92) See. 1306. Conditions and safeguards. The agent, agency, or body of the city designated by this zoning ordinance as having responsibility for issuance or denial of each of the classes of special permits set out in this article 13 shall have_authority to attach to the grant of any such special permit such conditions and safeguards as may be necessary for the purposes of this zoning ordinance in the particular case. Submitted Into the public record in connection with Supp. No. 2 463 item ori jam, o Priscilla A. hompson City Clerk § 1306 MIAMI, FLORIDA Such conditions and safeguards, if attached to grant of special permit, shall be based upon and consistent with considerations and standards applicable to the class or kind of special permit involved as set out in section 1305 of this ordinance, Considerations generally; findings and determinations required, and in other provisions relating to the particular class or kind of permit. The requirement for any such conditions or safeguards shall be supported by stated reasons therefor, based upon such considerations and standards, and no such condition or safeguard shall establish special limitations and/or requirements beyond those reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose for which the condition or safeguard is attached. Failure to comply with conditions and safeguards, when attached to grant of special permit, shall be deemed a violation of this zoning ordinance. See section 2108, Action on violations; remedies for violations on Class I or Class II special permits; and section 2109, Penalties for violations on Special Exceptions. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91; Ord. No.11057, § 1, 3-25-93) Sec. 1307. Notice and hearing generally; availability of recommendations; records. It is the intent of this zoning ordinance that requirements herein set out for notice and hearing, whether formal or informal, for the several types of special permits are to be deemed sufficient for meeting the standards of due process for the specific permit for which application is made. 1307.1. Information on which decision is based to be public and available to applicant. Each agent, agency, or body of the city responsible for decision on special permits shall afford to the applicant full information on which the decision of the agent, agency, or body of the city is based; and full opportunity shall be given to the applicant, prior to reaching final adverse or conditional decision, to provide additional information of a rebuttal nature. All information on which the decision of the agent, agency, or body of the city is based in addition to the decision shall be available to the public in accordance with state law. 1307.2. Required record of formal hearings, informal conferences. Records shall be maintained of any formal or informal hearing or conference in connection with special permits, and the same shall be a public record. Such records shall include, but not be limited to, all material necessary for decisions, supporting conditions; and safeguards, if, any, attached to special permits, and to any agreements established in relation thereto, or to any disagreements and reasons therefor. On payment of any costs involved in reproduction, copies of all or portions of such records shall be made available to applicants and other interested parties on request. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91) Sec. 1308. Actions following decisions on special permits. 'Following decisions on special permits, the following actions shall be taken promptly: 1308.1. ` Notification of decisions.. Submitted Into the Public record in connection with Supp. No. 2 464 Item PZ- -"'- on ' Priscilla A. C,ty Cterk } ZONING § 1311 Where special permits are approved, with or without conditions, or denied, applicants shall be so informed in writing, with a summary of the reasons therefor and notice that complete records on the case are available in a location specified, and are public records. 1308.2. Notification of affected agencies or officials of decisions; actions following such notifi- cation. Where special permits are approved or denied, affected agencies or officials shall be informed, by copy of the permit, including any conditions and attached thereto. As appropriate to the circumstances of the case, upon such notification, such agencies or officials shall proceed to decide concerning any building permit, occupancy permit, or other action dependent upon issuance of the special permit, without further action by the applicant therefor, and/or shall make such entries or records as are necessary for efficient performance of their duties with regard to administration, inspection, or enforcement in the case. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91) Sec. 1309. Permits apply to property, not person. When granted, a special permit under any of the classes of special permits set out in section 1301. of this ordinance above, together with any conditions or safeguards attached thereto, shall apply to the land, structure, or use for which it was issued, and shall be binding upon heirs and assigns, unless abrogated or altered in the manner set forth in this ordinance. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91) Sec. 1310. Withdrawal of application for certain classes of permits; effect of with- drawal. An application for a Class I or a Class II Special Permit may be withdrawn by the applicant at any time prior to decision without limitation on resubmittal, but if withdrawn after the final decision has been issued, substantially the same application shall not be con- sidered within twelve (12) months of date of withdrawal. An application for a Special Excep- tion or a Major Use Special Permit may be withdrawn at any time, but if withdrawn after the public hearing has been convened at which it was to be considered by the city commission, substantially the same application shall not be considered within twelve (12) -months of date of withdrawal. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91) Sec. 1311. Appeals from decisions on special permits. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by the decision of any agent, agency, or body of the city in granting, granting with conditions or safeguards, or denying a special permit, or any officer, department, board, commission, or bureau of the city, may seek review of such decision in the manner set out in this ordinance and the applicable laws of Florida for the permit involved. 1311.1. Review of decisions for Class I or 11 Special Permits. Submitted Into the Public record in connection With Supp. moo: 2 465,item E� I s on Priscilla A. Thompson City clerk § 1311 MIAMI, FLORIDA Review of decisions made for Class I or II Special Permits shall be by appeal to the zoning board in the manner set out in articles 18 and 20 of this zoning ordinance. 1311.2. Review of decisions for Special Exceptions. Review of decisions made by the zoning board for Special Exceptions shall be in the manner set out in article 20 of this zoning ordinance. 1311.3. Review of decisions for Major Use Special Permits. Review of decisions made by the city commission for Major Use Special Permits shall be in the manner set out in article 20 of this zoning ordinance. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28.91) Submitted Into the public record in can€ olction with item�on - W -o Flriscilia A. Thompson City Clerk (The next page is 4811 Supp. No., 2 4661'°-- I Submitted Into the public record in con on t��n_ on item item with ... s ---Thompson Priscilla A. City Clerk City of Miami Project Development Project Report: 1996 - Present Summation Table COMPLETED PROJECTS 16 2,867 1,305 821,156 99,755 $1,130,761,144 $19,955,268 _ UNDER CONSTRUCTION 10 4,351 491 278,440 351,580 _7,961 7,847 $1,096,886,559 $31,573,325 APPROVED PROJECTS 49 15,203 486 2,068,504 1,38_9,820 30,904 $5,218,655,446 $85,514,212 APPLICATION PROJECTS 15 7,081 271 770,316 213,313 11,385 $2,433,643,268 $34,514,549 PRELIMINARY PROJECTS 68 11,560 605 183,225 528,736 21,688 $539,553,377 $16,522,004 CITY TOTALI 158 41,0621 3,158 4,121,6411 2,583,204 79,785 $10,419,499,794 $188,079,358 Units Square Footage Cost/Revenue (February 20, 2004) Z iRiversidelPLANNING & ZONNI,VGI_SharedlCURRE;VT PLANNINGICURRENT PLANNING�Status reportlMO,VTHLY REPORTSIDevelopmenr Project Report (04-0220) (Summation) Page 1 of I V L C 'Y d o -e o ... C Q c � = N Cn (L -0:3 O E (February 10, 1004) Z:IRiversideTLANNING & ZONNINU-SharedlCURRENT PLANNING ICURRENTPLANNINGLSralus reporNWONTHLY REPORTSIDevelopment Project Report (04-0710) (NET Area) Page I of l V O O N Z aU 0 1 �� .0 q 0 1d 0 C U ' N � °' L CITY OF MIAMI DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REPORT: 1996 -PRESENT Totals by NET Areas No. Res / Condo _ Hotel Office Retail Parkin Spaces Construction Ad Valoru Ilapattah 7 1,896 0 337,000 832 71,429 59,017 4,567 4,044 197,354,692 267,093,336 2,788,918 4,734,230 Coral Way 18 2,421 0 Downtown 57 22,937 2,908 _ 3,147,659 2,041,608 46,681 7,775,042,694 145,346,22 East Little Havana _ 13 1,643 0 22,000 32,318 2,241 114,091,770 6,028,56 Flagami 5 3,223 0 9,500 24,556 5,903 133,900,000 1,839,69 Little Haiti 1 20 0 _ 25,216 0 35,015 0 181 199 11,900,000 4,700,000 783,000 204,000 _ _ Model City 1 134 0 NE Coconut Grove 12 1,098 5,884 2,217 528,254,670 7,540,48 Overtown 3 --250--o 470 0 353,849 12,424 1,169 47,900,000 895,62 SW Coconut Grove 2 43 0 2,399 9,217 116 42,267,399 581,161 Upper East Side _ 6 730 0 195,582 130,200 1,833 297,452,(95 4,233,98 West Little Havana ynwood/Edgewater 8 25 1006 4,441 0 0 0 47,786 3,952 10,000,000 27.604 113,750 6,682 989,543,038 13,103,46 TOTAL 158 41,062F 3,158 4,121,641 2,583,204 79,785 $10,419,499,794 $188,079,358 (February 10, 1004) Z:IRiversideTLANNING & ZONNINU-SharedlCURRENT PLANNING ICURRENTPLANNINGLSralus reporNWONTHLY REPORTSIDevelopment Project Report (04-0710) (NET Area) Page I of l V O O N Z aU 0 1 �� .0 q 0 1d 0 C U ' N � °' L LL ♦ GLV1 Jy1L' I 1 1 1\VJL' 1. a Islel -I. a» a 1-1 Citywide Major Use Special Permits (MUSP) and applicable Class II & Special Exception Projects Completed Construction Projects (Sorted Alphabetically) Parking DRI Type of Atlas Zoning C.C. Rn/ Approval Permit Permit C.O. Name Permit Address Description Net Area Pg District(s) Dist Condo Hotel Office Retail Spaces FAR Construction Ad Valorum (Y/N) Dare Resolution Date Number C.O. Date Number American Airlines Arena MUSP 601 Biscayne Boulevard 24,000 -seat Multi -Purpose Arena for Downtown 36 PR 2 0 0 37,500 40.000 1,147 176,000,000 2464,000 Y 1998 Miami Heat NBA Basketball team & other events Barclays Financial Center (including MUSP 111 I Brickell Avenue Office & Hotel w/accessory, commercial Downtown 37 SD -5 2 0 302 540,000 27,550 1.321 172,000,000 1.078,828 Y 1994 W Marriott) uses hildren's Museum MUSP 980 McArthur Causeway (Watson Watson Island (South Side) Downtown 22 PR 2 0 0 0 0 142 13,500,000 Exempt 26 -Apr -01 Island) Cloisters on the Bay MUSP 3471-3571 Main Highway Residential: Single Family Homes NE Cownm Grove 46 R -I, SD -18 2 41 0 0 0 98 0.72 36,487,729 1,214,258 8 -Dec -98 11 -Jul -00 0-5012812 7 -Jun -02 (20%) Four Seasons (Millennium Project) MUSP 1435-1441 Brickef Avenue Mixed-use: Residential, Retail & Hotel Downtown 37 SD -5 2 190 426 '_43,656 11,716 1,171 279,000,000 8,772,969 Y 1998 0-5018094 Mandarin Hotel MUSP 500 Brickell Key Drive Hotel with accessory commercial and Down— 37 SD.5 2 0 327 0 10,060 501 Information not 680,000 2002 recreational space. given Miami Stadium .Apartments MUSP 2301 NW 10th Avenue Residential Allapattah 20 R-3 1 336 0 0 0 502 25,500,000 216,750 26 -Jul -01 ParrorJungle MUSP 901 McArthur Causeway (Watson Entertainment complex Downtown 22 PR 2 0 0 0 0 588 46,000,000 250,000 16 -Nov -00 Island) Ria Carlton in Coconut Grove MUSP 7700 S W 27 Avenue 2730 Accessory function and NB Coconut Grove 46 O, R4, SD 2 208 250 0 500 564 2.49 14R 000,000 1,300,000 28 -Apr -98 Tigenad Avenue commereiaVretail space 19 (44%) One Te questa 888 Bnckell Key Drive Residential Downtown 36 O, SD -5 2 288 1995 Two Tequesea MUSP 808 Brickeil Key Drive Residential Downtown 76 O. SD -5 2 277 0 0 0 438 Information not 500.000 1999 given Three Te questa 848 Brickell Key Drive Residential Downtown 36 O, SD -5 2 237 45.000 000 2-1u1-99 99.5010578 18-0ct-02 The Mark (Yacht Club I at Brickell MUSP 1111 Brickell Bay Drive Residemial with accessory commercial Downrown 37 O, SD -5 2 357 1948 and recreational uses The Merropolitan (Chateau Mirage) MUSP 2475 Brickell Avenue Residential Coral Way 37 R4 2 199 0 0 0 319 19 400,000 119000 224un-99 99-500982925 -May 0 1 The Mutiny C.ndanIL.. s MUSP 2951 South Bayshore Drive 2989 Mixed Use. residential & retail NE Coconut Grove 46 O, SD -2 2 383 0 0 5,384 705 132,573,415 1,959463 1998 5 -May -00 04008382 1 I -M-02 McFarlane Road Yachr Club II (Homewood) MUSP 1155 Brickeil Bay Drive Residential with accessory commercial Downtown 37 O, SD -5 2 355 0 0 4,605 465 37,300,000 1,400,000 Y 1997 99-5002172 9-0".01 and recreational uses Z. Riverside''PLANNING & ZONN/NGI_Shored'CURRENT PLANNINGIC(/RRF-NT PLANN/NG Siarus repon'MONTN/-Y RBPORTS�Deve/opmenr PrWecr Report (OJ -0220) (Completed) Page l oft •J ao c� O (renruary:u, euv E "C3 U "n C!3 N �U a Citywide Major Use Special Permits (MUSP) and applicable Class II & Special Exception Projects Projects Under Construction (Sorted Alphabetically) O CL , 0 0U O C OQ MR - •MJORSINAW Parking •N •E�� d- 03 0�� DRI Type of Adas Zoning C.C- Res/ Approval Permit Permit Name Permit Addles, Description Net Area Pg Districts) Dist Condo Hotel Office Retail spaces FAR Construction Ad Valorum (YIN) Dare Resolution Date Number Coconut Grove Courtyards 2630 SW 28th Street Residential w/accessory recreational NE Coconut Grove 45 R-1 4 60 0 0 0 63 2,003,040 information not _ uses given 7 -Mar -02 2.5004566 Th e Performing Arts Center of MUSP 1300, 1301 Biscayne Blvd. Entertainment complex w/4,880 seats Downtown 23 _ SD -6 2 _ 0 0 0 0 0 _ 163 000,000 13,700 000 Y 28 -Apr -98 Greater Miami One Miami (Parcel A) MUSP 205 South Biscayne Blvd Mixed Use: office, residential, Downtown 36 CBD 2 900 0 24,000 17,000 1,20D 274,474,625 5,407,154 Y 26 -Apr -OI _ commercial Biscayne Tower (Biscayne Class 11 1800 Biscayne Boulevard Residential & Retail _ Wyowood/ Edgewater 23 C• I, SD -20 2 175 0 0 24,136 291 Information not Information not Placa) 2003-0150 given given 11 e Cluh at Bnckell Bay MUSP 1201 Bnckell Avenue Residential w/accessory recreational Downtown 37 SD -5 2 641 0 0 13,149 786 154 770,665 2,597,772 1997 I-5007931 (Bnckell Bay Placa) and commercial & retail uses Brickell View MUSP 1200 South Miami Avenue Central Bnckell area/Mixed Use Downmwn 37 SD -7 SD -5 2 600 0 30,521 23,461 843 96,109 791 2,107,546 Y 8 -Feb -01 Espirito Sanm Plaza h1USP 1395 Bnckell Avenue Mixed Use development /accessory Downtown 37 2 144 203 223,919 22,945 970 y 106,000 000 850,000 Y 26•Apr-01 recreational uses including a health club/37 scones call 37 SD -7 Mary Bnckell Village (Bnckell MUSP 900 South Miami Avenue Mined Use retail, restaurant &hotel Downtown 2 382 288 0 197,380 1,040 I IQ328,438 1,010,853 Y 2000 Marn Street) Park Place at Bnckell MUSP ISE 15 I Road ResjdentiaVhlixed L`se development in Down— 37 SD•5 2 773 0 0 36,554 1,400 190,000 ,00 000 __. 3,308000 _ Y __-. 13 -Nov -01 3 phases / park -like setting. Modified The Jade (Bayshore Palms M-U—SP 1201 Bnckell Bay Drive Residential w/accessory recreational Downtown 37 O, SD -5 2 676 0 0 16,955 1,254 Information not 2,600 000 Y 1998 South) and commercial/retail uses /Phase 1 has given been renamed "The Jade". Z: .River de,PLANNLVG & 7.ONNlNG'_Sh,r¢dCURRENT PL4NNING'C(JRRENT PL9NN/NG'Slot— reporr!MONTHLY REPORTS:DevOopment Project Report (04-0220) (Consrrunion) Page / oJ/ (Eedruary 2U, 2U(14) VtA C O CL , 0 0U O C OQ C C N •N •E�� d- 03 0�� Citywide Major Use Special Permits (MUSP) and applicable Class II & Special Exception Projects Approved Projects (Sorted by Net Area > Alphabetical > Date) CC Type of perking FAR DRI Atlas Zoning C.C. Rest Date Reso. Permit Name Address Description Net Area Pg District(s) Dist Condo Hotel Office Retail spaces (Bonus) Construction Ad Valorum (Y/N) I -May -03 03-344 MUSP Univ. of Miami Clinical 1150 NW 14 ST Clinical Research Office Building Allapattah 24 G/I 1 0 0 336,000 60,000 1,410 157,794,692 2,424,168 Research Buidling & w/Parking Parking 264u1-01 Approved MUSP Brickell Bay Village 2101.2105 Brickell Avenue Residential tower to be located Coral Way 37 R-4 2 359 0 0 0 548 88,000,000 696,364 Modified Apartments (Skyline) along Brickell Avenue fronting Biscayne Bay/ Includes recreational facilities 13 -Nov -02 Approved Class 11 Coral Sea View 1401 Coral Way Mixed-use project w/ accessory Coral Way 38 R-4 3 62 0 0 0 92 recreational uses ]4 -Dec -00 Approved MUSP Coral View Residential _ 3000 Coral Way Residential/MixedUse Coral Way 42 C -I 4 226 0 0 16,897 429 2.20 12,915,000 479,247 (The Aston) 2960-3014 Coral Way (28%) I 2963-3019 SW 22nd Terr 23Oct03 6.3 0047 MUSP Gables Marquis 3202, 3232 Coral Way Mixed Use: Residential & Retail Coral Way 42 C-1, R-2 4 177 0 0 5,000 335 2,49 81,588,336 949,889 Coral Way 42 Bonus 25 -Sep -03 03-521 MUSP Midtown Lofts 3179, 3181, 3185 SW 22 Mixed-use residential project. C-1, R-2 4 85 0 0 2,800 131 2.21 _ 7,190,000 ___ 455,379 Terrace 3178, 3180 Coral (25%) Way SD -5 14 -Dec -00 Approved MUST P 10 Brickell Option "A" -- 1060 Brickell Avenue Mixed-use project, residential Downtown 37 2 543 0 0 25,000 1,022 7.05 243,269,493 3,628,553 Y development in two phases with (65%) accessory commercial uses. - Option "B" which was also approved included offices for the Dominican Republic Consulate to complement its 619 units, 5,000 sq. If of OtTice-, 25,000 sq, ft. of Retail and 1,207 parking spaces ($270,357,783 Construction and 54,032,929 Ad Valorem taxes) -- 2001 Approved MUSP Bay Parc PIa7a -- 1744-56 N. Bayshore Drive Mixed Use: Residential, Office Downtown --- 23 SD -6 -- 2 635 0 92,260 18,112 763 — — 217,841,3,3 43 - ,— 3,310,034 Y (Miramar Centre & Recreation (Phase II+III) ITJu1-95 Approved MUSP Brickell Bayfront Club 185 SE 14th Street Mixed Use w/ accessory Downtown 37 50.5 2 297 0 1,440 1,895 342 37,000,000 800,000 Y (Fortune House) recreational uses including a health club 0 0 23 -Mar -00 Approved MUSP Brickell Commons 750 S, Miami Avenue Mixed Use Development Project Downtown 36 SD -7 2 1,700 585,938 3,241 8.00 649,896,708 14,461,545 Y with 5,000 seat movie theater Approved MUSP Brickell Emerald (Brickell218 SE 14th Street Residential (Originally 120 -room Downtown 37 SD -5 2 142 0 0 0 183 132,573,415 1,959,463 Modified Premiere All Suite Hotel) hotel w/1,000 sq ft of accessory retail) Z:'.Riverridefl_,MV/NG&ZONNING'_SharefCURR£NTPL4NNINGCURRENTPL4,VN/NG.SramvrreparnM1lO,VTNLYREPORTS'De Ie pmenr P"),, Reporr(04-0220) (Approved) P,ge l f4 (February 20, 2004) C CLU C G O Q 'D O �n m N E la (te0mary R], R)04) Z:'R,v ,de P[-4NNIV(; & ZONNING, Shared�CURRENT Pi 4NNING CURRENT PLANNING Smrur repon:MONTHLY REPORTS'.Developmenr Pr jecl Repnrr (04.02,10) (Approved) Page 2 of 4 ac � .o C� y C � O AYYRUVRD Date CC Reso. Type of Permit Name Address Description Atlas Zoning Parking FAR DR] C.C. Res / Net Area Pg District(s) Dist Condo Hotel OfficeRetail Spaces (Bonus) Construction Ad Valorum (YIN) 17 -Feb -00 Approved MUSP Brickell Grand (Brickell 1010 South Miami Avenue Mixed-use development project Downtown 37 SD -7 2 427 0 3,787 26,669 536 435 70,246,327 1,267,564 Y Summit) 26 -Jul -01 Approved MUSP Brickell on the River 27 SE 5th Street Residential w/accessory retail & Downtown 36 SD -7 1 712 0 0 2,600 872 87,000,000 4,900,000 01-782 (Approved 1995) office (Originally 508 units+325 Modified hotel rooms w/17,426 sf office and 30,729 sf retail) 274an00 Approved DRI Bnckell Square Phase Il 851 Brickell Avenue Mixed-use: office -retail DRI Downtown 37 S0.5 2 440 0 0 16,350 644 27 -Jan -00 Approved DRI Brickell Square Phase III 901 Brickell Avenue Mixed-use: office -retail DRI Downtown 37 SD -5 2 0 0 500,000 18,650 1,101 (Option B for Phase 11 is 560 _ units with 793 parking spaces)__ 24-May-Ol Approved MUSP Bnckell Station Towers 92 SW I Ith Street Mixed Use: residential & retail Downtown 37 SD -7 2 718 0 0 17,550 1,346 254,514,604 3,790,290 01-515 Ext 9-23- 02 25 -Sep -03 Approved MUSP Coral Station at Brickell 1470 SW 1st CT, 101 SW Includes Mixed Use development Downtown 37 SD -7 3 204 186 201,400 62,333 1,267 3.17 233,583,668 3,563,984 Y Modified Way Village 15th RD, 104 SW Lith ST project, accessory recreational uses 7 -Mar -03 Approved Class II Fortune Plaza 1421 South Miami Avenue Commercial project Downtown 37 0, O, SD -5 2 0 0 10,405 0 2� 2 - y 18 -Dec -03 Approved MUSP Latitude (River Place) 615 SW 2nd Avenue Residential, Office, & Retail Downtown 36 SD -7 3 455 0 225,000 20,000 1,006 5.06 215,057,272 2,771,415 26 -Apr 03 Approved MUSP Metropolitan Miami 205 Biscayne Blvd. Mixed Use: residential, retail & Downtown 36 CBD 2 1,500 300 9,000 218,625 4,284 5.38 688,306,558 9,952,832 Y Modified (Parcels B, C, D) entertainment 18 18 -Dec -03 Approved MUSP Miami River Village 300, 312, 316, 330, 340, 350 Mixed Use' residential, retail, Downtown 36 CBD, 50.6 2 1,304 0 92,043 32,532 1,992 235,000000 3,200479 _--y- Miami Avenue office & restaurant 17 -Jul -03 03-520 MUSP Neo Vertika (Neo Loft) 690 SW I st Avenue Mixed Use: residential & retail Downtown 36 SDS 3 443_ 0 0_ 24,676 575 158,189,810 2,286,161 Y 6 -Sep -02 Approved MUSP South Bayshore Tower 1390 Brickell Bay Drive Mixed Use: Residential & Retail Downtown 37 _ R-3, SD -5 2 347 0 _ _ 0 11,888 514 6.70 102,873,438 1,494,514 Y Modified 923/03 (44 ) I S -Nov -01 Approved MUSP The Beacon Bnckell 30 SE 8" Street and 830 SE I" Residential project /with Downtown 37 SD -7 2 260 0 0 5,745 364 Village Avenue accessory recreational uses Mixed: Residential & Retail Downtown 23 SD -6 2 516 0 22,500 29,300 800 8,40 347,247,529 0403,648 y Y 23 -Oct -03 Approved MUSP The Mist 824 Biscayne Boulevard I S -Nov -02 Approved Class 11 The Sail Residential 170 SE 14th Street Residential project Downtown 37 SDS 2 152 0 0 2,262 198 DWTDRI project 25 -Apr -02 Approved MUSP Watson Island Visitor & Watson Island (South Side) Transportation Center Downtown 22 PR 2 0 0 0 0 180 0.176,400,000 Aviation Center Exempt (te0mary R], R)04) Z:'R,v ,de P[-4NNIV(; & ZONNING, Shared�CURRENT Pi 4NNING CURRENT PLANNING Smrur repon:MONTHLY REPORTS'.Developmenr Pr jecl Repnrr (04.02,10) (Approved) Page 2 of 4 ac � .o C� y C � O APPROVED i �0 U C.C. Dist Res / Condo Date CC Rcso. Type of Permit Name Address Description Net Area Atlas Pg Zoning District(s) Hotel Office Retail Parking Spaca FAR (Bonus) Construction Ad Valorum DRI (Y/N) 22 -Feb -01 Approved MUSP Brickell By The Roads 529, 537, 545, 551 SW 1 Ith Residential East Little Havana 37 R-3 3 40 0 0 0 72 1,850,000 Information (J-01-85) (BrickelI West) Street not given 25 -Nov -03 Approved MUSP Roads End Village 928 SW 10th Street Residential townhomes East Little Havana 38 R-2 3 26 0 0 0 56 0.72 22,622,270 140,000 915S 11th Street Bonus 16 -Nov -00 Approved MUSP Blue Lagoon Apartments 4909 NW 8th St. 2 phases Flagami 28 R-0 1 602 0 _ 0 0 1,004 2,48 63,900,000 1,839,694 13-Dec-02Approved Class11 Design Centre 155 NE 38' Street Mixed-use: Showroom, Retail, Little Haiti 16 C-1, SD -8 5 20 0 25,216 35,015 181 11,900,000 783,000 Modified Warehouse, Office & Residential 27 -Jan -97 Approved PUD Northwestern Estates 800 NW 69th Street Residential: Single Family Model City 12 R-3 5 134 0 0 0 199 4,700,000 204,000 Homes 22 -May -03 03-077 MUSP Grovenor (Naval Reserve 2610 Tigertail Avenue Residential project NE Coconut Grove 45 G/I 2 192 0 0 0 455 2.49 178,919,466 2,551,959 Pro erty) Bonus 15-No,01 Approved MUSP Royal Bay Estates _ South Bayshore Drive in _ Single family residential PUD _ NE Coconut Grove _ 44 _ _ _ R-1, SD -I8 2 3 _ 0 0 0 6 0.80 Coconut Grove just north of /one unit is a rehab of the existing (33%) 17th Avenue (1641 South historic structure along South PUD Bayshore Drive and 1640 Bayshore Dnve. Micanopy Avenue) 2-1999 Approved MUSP Silver BlufiHarbor 1660 South Bayshore Court Residential project NE Coconut Grove 44 R-3 2 11 0 0 0 Information not 93,500 _ given 25 -Nov -03 Approved MUSP Villaggio in the Grove W 2740-54 S 28 Terrace Residential NE Coconut Grove 42 SD -19 2 86 0 0 0 119, 30,271,020 421,309 1998 Approved MUSP Lytic Village & West side of NW 2nd Avenue Residential Overiown 23 R-3, SD -l6 5 96 0 0 0 66 5,200,000 250,000 SEOPW Lyne Oaks between NW 9th -10th Streets Condos (Village- 54 units) (Village) and NW 8th -9[h Townhomes(Oaks -42units) Streets (Oaks) _ 2002 Approved MUSP Overtown Transit Village Overtown Arena Metromil Office/Retail _ _ Overton 23 RT _ 2 0 0 353,849 12,424 588 SEOPW Station 23 -Jan -03 02-991 MUSP Grove Garden (The 3540 Main Highway Mixed -Use Project, ground Floor SW Coconut Grove 46 R -I 2 43 0 0 9,217 106 1.39 42,267,399 581,161 Taurus) restaurant and and retail. Bonus Utilizing Taurus historic _ _ __ structure, 24 -Jan -02 Approved MUSP Tuttle Street Project 3720, 3750 ,3780 Biscayne Mixed-use project Upper East Side 15 C-1, SD -8 2 0 0 168,000 115,000 664 2.45 117,214,257 1,677,668 Blvd. 399 NE 38th Street Bonus -- -- 293 NE 37th Street ------ 2003 Approved Special River Run South 2415 PIW 16th Street Road Residential .---- — West Little Havana — 25 ----- R-3 -- 0 -- 174 --- 0 - 0 -- — 0 --- 314 Information not Information Exception __ __ __ __ ___ __ __ _ given not iven 27 -Feb -03 03-f 36 MUSP Blue Condominium 501 NE 36'" Street Residential tower to be located Wynwood/ 15 R-4, SD -20 2 343 0 0 0 480 72,000,000 450,000 (Modified) (Biscayne Bay Tower) along NE 36ih Street fronting a Edgewater Ci ark alon Biscayne Ba (P'ebruary20, 2004) Z. R,v ,de.PL4NNING & ZONNING� Sharnd'Q/RRENTPIAN,VINC CURRENT PLANNING'Srarus repar MONTHLYREPORTS�Developmenr PMeu Reporr (04-0220) (Approved) Pagel of M a --- s_ 0 �c �0 U — APPROVED Date CC Reso. Type of Permit Name Address Description Net Area Atlas Pg Zoning C.C. Dishict(s) Dist Res / Condo Hotel Office Retail Parking Spaces FAR (Bonus) Construction Ad Valorum DRI (Y/IY) 24 -Jul -03 03-602 MUSP Quantum on the Bay 1900 North Bayshore Drive Mixed Use: residential, retail $ Wynwood/ 23 SD -6 2 752 0 0 8,470 845 328,532,563 4,582,839 (Metropolis at Bayshore) Restaurant Edgewater _03Z294 10 -Feb -04 Non-Subsranrial,Nodfcarion m Preliminary Stage: 698 units; /,900 sfOfce; 5,910 (Restaurant 1,057 sfRetoil; 978 perkntg space 18•15ec-03 MUSP Rosabella Lofts 421,425,447 NE 22 St.; Residential & 4,200 sq. fl. Place Wynwood/ 21 R-4, SD -20 2 258 0 0 0 470 2.49 42,000,000 1,182,140 418,442446 NE 22 Ter.; 2221 of Worship with I I parking Edgewater (44%) _t_9 NE 4 Ave spaces -Nov -02 Approved MUSP Star Lofts (Bay 25) 704-712 NE 25[h Street 19 story residential complex Wynwood/� 21 R-4, SD -20 2 55 0 0 0 75 40,744,027 57616 —Edgewater _ 23 -Dec -03 Modtf e non in Preliminary Stage 29 -Oct -02 Approved MUSP Sky Residence Project 640 NE 34th Street Residential Wynwood/ 21 SD -20 2 36 0 0 0 71 24,887,305 438,850 _ (34th Street Tower) Edgewater 16-1-1-02 Approved Class 11 The Yorker 444 NE 30th Street Residential Wynwood/ _ 21 R-4 0 62 0 0 0 71 Information not Information 11 Approved MUSP The 1800 Club 1800 North Bayshore Drive Mixed-use development project I __ Edgewater _ Wynwood/ _ 23 R-4, SD -6 2 450 0 27,604 4,872 670 _ 5.39 iven__notgiven 154,125,502 2,232,811 —4327 with accessory recreational uses Edgewater 22 -May -03 MUSP The Platinum 480 NE 30th Street Residential project w/ accessory Wvnwood/ 21 R-4, SD -20 2 —116--0 0 0 195 2,30 —5132 44 712,936 Condominium recreational uses Edgewater Bonus Z 1Rlverside`PLANNING & ZONNING'._Shared�CURR£NT PL4NNING'CURR£NT PLANNING'Statu.s reporr'MONTHLYR£PORTS�Developmeni Project Report (04-01;0) (Approved) Page 4 of 4 (February 20, 2004) TOTALS 49 15,203 1 486 12,068,504 11,389,820 1 30,904 5,218,655,446 1 85,514,21 O.1�C 3 aU ac cu•°= o4. 0 -0 0�� N C �p N CL O E �y 4) N Citywide Major Use Special Permits (MUSP) and applicable Class II & Special Exception Projects Projects in Application Stage (Sorted by Net Area > Alphabetical > Date) Description Vet Area Res/ Condo Hotel Office Retail - Date Status Type of Permit Name Address Atlas Pg Zoning District(s) CC. Dist Parking FAR 7 -Jan -04 Application MUSP Hurricane Cove 1818 & 1884 NW N. River Residential & Marina Allapattah 25 C-1, RA 1 1,036 0 Spam (Bonus) Construction Ad Valorum Drive 0 0 1,812 2.45 Information not Information 7 -Nov -03 Application MUSP _ Blue at Coral Way 3170 Coral Way, 3163, 3165, Residential & Retail Coral Way 42 C-1, R-2, 4 190 0 0 4,135 given not given _ _ 3175 SW 22nd Ter. SD -23_ 331 22,000,000 986,353 8 -Oct -03 Application MUSP Tower Twenty -Seven 2766,2730,2742,2744,2746 Residential&Retail _ _ Coral Way _ 42 C -I _ 2 181 0 SW 27th Avenue 0 6,400 307 32,001000 1,047,998 _2701 S W 27th Court 7 -pec -03 Application MUSP Columbus OfficeTower 50 Biscayne Blvd. Commercial Office , Retail, and Downtown 36 CBD 2 0 0 661,393 29,508 1,260 160,000,000Iformation ion Parking Garage 6 -Feb -04 Application MUSP _ Dupont Towers (Dupont Brickell Avenue & SE 4th Mixed Use: Residential, Retail, Downtown 36 CBD 2 1,290 62 0 __ en Plaza) Street Restaurant, Condo/Hotel 29,992 1,481 767,054,57059 5 -Jan -04 Application MUSP Everglades on the Bay 244 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use: Residential &Retail Downtown 36 CBD 2 870 0 0 65,549 1,146 376,767,00834 6 -Feb -04 Application MUSP Infinity at Brickdl (Coral 40 SW 13th Street Mixed Use: Residential, Retail, Downtown 37 SD -7 2-43-3-0 46,386 4,654 585 9.95 Way Development) —,--____Office, Restaurant 81800,000 06 3 -Feb -04 Application Class II River House Lofts I SW North River Drive _ Residential & Retail Downtown 36 C -I 5 182 0 62,537 Modified 2003-0071 22,000 513 1.72 Information notion given n12 -Jan -04 Application MUSP Villa Magna (Bayshore 1201 Brickell Bay Drive Mixed Use: Residential, Retail, Downtown 37 SD -5 2 1,208 209 0 34,975 1,474 Palms North) `_ Restaurant, & Hotel 7.24 602,766,932 6 7-Nov_03 Application MUSP __ Royal Atlantic __ 100 t NW 7th Street _ Residential &Retail Fast Little Havana 24 (f--1 3 744 0 0 9,400 1,073 82,519,500 3338,569 --_ 9 -Jan -03 Application Class [I The Tower at Grand Bay 2675 South Bayshore Drive Condo addition to Grand Bay ----- NE Coconut Grove --- 45 `— SD-- ---- 62 0 0 0 122 Hotel _ Information not Information 7 -Nov -03 Application MUSP Tuscan Place 501 NW 7th Avenue, and NW _ Residential project w/ accessory Overtown 36 C-2 5 ___ 374 0 0 __ men not given _ 5th and 6th Streets recreational uses 0 515 42,700,000 645,623 7 -Nov -03 Application M USP Kubik at Momingside 5600-5780 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use: residential, retail & Upper East Side 14 —C- 1, O, SD 2 293 0 0 6,700 476 Modified restaurant 9 L88 (07%) 180,237,938 2,556,317 2002 Application Class II Ice (Edgewater Tower) 701 NE 31st Street Residential project w/ accessory Wynw/ ood 21 SD 2 100 _ 2002-005 _ _ recreational uses _ Ed ewater -6 0 0 0 120 Information not Information iven 7_Nov-03 Application MUSP Onyx (Biscayne Bay Lofts) 665 and 721 N.E. 25th Street Residential project w/ accessory _ Wynwood/ _ 21 _ R-3, SD -20 ___ 2 _ 118 ___ 0 ___ 0 _ 0 _ 170 _ given _ _no[ _ and 720 N.E. 26th Street recreational uses _ - Edgewater 77,797,320 1,003,064 Z:'Rlverride PIANN/NG & ZONNING , Shored'C(JRRENT PLANN/NG'LURRENT P/11 NN/NC,Srarar report MONTwr REPORTS Developmew Pro/en Report (04-0220) (Applicmmn) Poge / f/ (1,ebruary 20, 2004) TOTALS 15 1 7,081 1 271 1 770,316 1 213,313_1 11,385 V1111A 52.433,643,268 I 534,514,549 L� C. � N N �3a°-U a a E�_. a _ o}. L U i L) «r C:OCO �'- - C �A (0 C'J N E C. Citywide Major Use Special Permits (MUSP) and applicable Class II & Special Exception Projects Projects in Preliminary Stage (Sorted by Net Area > Alphabetical > Date) - a Atlas Zoning C.C. Res I Type of Parlang FAR Date Status Permit Name Address Description Net Area Pg District(s) Dist. Condo Hotel Office7Rcta.1Sp— (Boom) Construction AdValorum 28 -Oct -03 Prelim, MUSP Aguaclara 1960.1970 NW 27th Avenue_ Residential, Retail, & Office Allapattah 26 C-2 1 185 0 1,000_ 2,700 374 14,060,000 148,000 25 -Nov -03 Prelim. -MU— P Allapattah Project NW 36th Street/ 37th Avenue Mixed Use: Residential & Retail Allapattah 18 C-2 1 119 0 0 8,729 213 Information not Information iven notiven 3 -Jun -03 Prelim. Class II City View Apartments N -W 14th Street and NW ISth Residential Allapattah 24 RA 1 130 0 0 0 141 Information not Information Avenue given not given 28 -Apr -03 Prelim. Class II _ _ Riverview Ap s. _ NW 25th Court/NW N. River _ Residential _ _ Allapattah 25 _ R-2 _ _ 1 90 0 0 0 115 _ Information not Information not given 27 -May -03 Prelim. Class II _Driveven Century Towers SW 17th Road & SW 2nd Court Residential Coral Way 37 C-1, 0 3 129 0 0 0 145 Information not Information given not iven Prelim. Class II Coral 17 Condominium 1726A0 Coral Way 43 C-1 4 36 0 0 0 67 4,W0,000 Information 25 -Nov -03 Residential Coral Way not wen 30.Jun-03 Prelim. MUSP-- — EI Palmar --- -- 403 SW 13th Court - t-- Residential —C - _ ---3- oral Way g -- C -I, SD -14 -. 3 20 ____ 0 ----_'-- 0 0 - 21 -- Information not Information given not given 3-Ju-MUSP----- n-03 Prelim. --- Emerald Plaza 3410—Coral-- Way - Residenti- al --_ C —oml Way 42 —- C• I, R-2 — 4 63 0 - 0 - 0 70 ` --- --- Information not Information given not given 17 -Feb -04 Prelim. Class 11 Keystone Villas of Coral 3590 Coral Way Mixed Use: residential & retail Coral Way 42 C-1, SD -23 4 60 0 832 775 110 1.69 Information not Information 2004-0003 Way given not given 17 -Feb -04 Prelim MUSP Keystone Square 3538 Coral Way Mixed Use residential & retail Coral Way 42 C-1, R-2 4 64 0 0 4,158 152 Information not Information iven 7 -Oct -03 _ Prelim. MUSP Nordica (The Sterling) 2525 SW 3rd Avenue Mixed Use: residential & retail Coral Way 38 0 3 125 0 0 5,732 248 1.72 Information not Information given not gi ven 23 -May -01 Prelim. _ MUSP The Belmont (Lofts on the Coral Way and SW 32nd Mixed Use. Residential & Retail Coral Way 42 C-1 4 182 0 0 13,120 308 Information not Information Way) Avenue given not given __ 8-Ju1-03 Prelim. MUSP The Residence at Douglas 2263 SW 37th Avenue Residential _ Coral Way 42 _ C-1 4 206 _ _ 0 0 0 329 Information not Information given not given 18 -Nov -03 Prelim. Class II The Roads Condominium SW 21st Road and SW 3rd ntial Residei Coral Way 37 0, SD -23 3 57 0 —00-- _ 102 Information not Information Avenue _ 19,645 not iven 27 -Jan -04 Prelim. MUSP 500 Brickell 500 Brickell Avenue Mixed Use' residential & retail Downtown 36 SD -5, SD -7 2 633 0 0 _ 922 8.55 —even Information not Information _ (46%)_given not iven 17 -Feb -04 Prelim. MUSP 900 Biscayne 900 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use: residentialw/accessory Downtown 23 SD -6 2 516 0 3Q000 11,900 599 Information not Information recreation, retail & office given not given I0-Feb-04TPrelim.Class1451 Brickell 1451 Brickell Avenue Commercial Building Downtown 37 SD -5 2 0 0 0 15,527 IS 325 970,000 700,000 30-Apr-02Brickell Bay ToweriRelated 170.186 SE12th Terace Residential project _ Downtown 37 RA, SD -5 2 l38 0 0 0 155 Information not Information 275 0 0 iven23-Dec-03Brickell Bay Yacht Club at 801 Brickell Bay Drive Residential :Additional Tower Downtown 37 _not SD -5 .. 8,000 458 the Four Ambassadors w/residential & retail (Originally Tower V) 1built 1968) Z:1R,ersrde'PL9NNING & ZONNING,_SlroredlCURRF.NT PL.I NNINGICURRENT PLANNI NC'Smlua reporr MONTHLY REPORTS',De�elopmenr Pm jeer Repon (04-0220) (Preliminary) Page ! of J (Pebrnory 21), 2U04) L. ^- 0 tl 0 C 0 Q Z: 0 N U .3 E �° a PRELIMINARY Typeof I Atlas Zoning C.C. Res/ Parkiog FAR Date Status Permit Name Address Description Net Area Pg District(s) Dist Condo Hotel Office Retail Spaw (Bonus) Construction Ad Valorum 17 -Feb -04 Prelim. MUSP Flagstone Island Gardens 950 MacArthur Causeway Mega -Yacht 50 -berth Manna, Downtown 22 C -I, PR 2 0 605 0 22t,000 1,740 235,000,000 11,200,000 1050 MacArthur Causeway Hotels, Residential, Retail, Restaurant 3 -Feb -04 Prelim. Class !I Florida Grand Opera 235-245 NE 14th Street Production rehearsal 527 -seat hall, Dotownwn 23 SD -6 2 22 0 16,200 4,000 304 Information not Information (Anderson Opera Center) theater, w/ retail, office, and given not given a arcment units_ 25 -Jan -01 Prelim. Class 11 Miacentralis Tower I SE 2nd Avenue at SE Ist Street Mixed Use: residential & retail Downtown 36 CBD 2 155 _ 0 _ 0 15,000 270 _ Information not Information Downtown 23 given not given 16 -Dec -03 Prelim. MUSP Office Building 27 NE 9th Street Office Building C-1 2 0 0 60,000 0 300 1.72 Information not Information SEOPW given not given 17 -Feb -04 Prelim, - MUSP Opus _ t Biscayne Blvd & NE 13th Street -- .. Residential project .. __. Downtown .. 23 _ SD -6 � 2 404 0 .. 0 - 7,750 — 543 - Information not information not iven _ 9-Ju1-03 _ Prelim. __ MUSP _ _ Ten Museum Park (Core) __ __ 1040 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use'. residential, Downtown 23 CBD, SD -6 2 200 0 13,712 10,668 395 4.72 __given Information not Information commercial & office given notgiven 28 -Oct -03 Prelim. MUSP 735 Condominium 735-745 SW 2nd Street Residential East Little Havana 35 R-3 3 22 0 _ 0 _ 0 _ _ 33 0.75 2,300,000 2,550,000 21 -Oct -03 Prelim. MUSP Bnckell Vista (Brickeli 800 SW 9th Avenue Residential Fast Little Havana 38 C -I, SD -25 3 107 0 _ 0 3,787 _ Information not Information View/Phe Astor) given not given _ 6 -Feb -03 Prelim _ Class II Bnsas del Mar`! _ 556 West Flagler Street ' _ Residential project w/ accessory _ East Little Havana 36 C-1 _ _ 3 160 _ 0 0 _ _ 0 80 _ _ Information not Information _ _ recreational uses __ __ _ — given �_ _ notgiven S 18 -Nov -03 Prelim. MUSP Chanticleer Bayview 606 West Flagler Street Residential, Retail, Restaurant, East Little Havana 36 C-1 3 233 0 22,000 11060 497 2.49 information not Information Condominium Office Bonus given not iven 30 -Sep -03 Prelim. Class IJ Havana Tower 1430 SW Ist Street _ Residential & Retail _ _ Last Little Havana 35 _ C -I, SD -14 3 66 0 _ 0 672 75 Information not Information _ _ _ . mt given Prelim. Class II La Palma _ _ _•___ 1040 SW 1st Street Residential _ East Little Havana _ _ 35 C -I _ __ 3 _ 91 0 103 _ _given [nformation not Information 3 -Jun -03 0 0 given not given _ 4 -Feb -03 Preiim. Class II Little Havana 1534 SW 3rd Street Residential East Little Havana 35 R-3, 3 20 0 0 0 31 Information not Information Condominiums_ SD -14.1 _ _ _ given not iven 31 -Dec -02 Prelim. Class II Little—Town _ 1215 S W 7th Street Mixed-use project w/ accessory East Little Havana 35 C-1, SD -14 3 42 0 0^ 6,028 67 Information not Information recreational uses given not given 13 -Nov elim.-03 Pr Class II Orson _ 420 SW 12th Avenue ___ Residential East Little Havana 35 _ _ C-1, SD -14 3 _ 60 0 0 0 112 4,800,000 Information not given 3 -Dec -02 Prelim. Class If Villa Godoy 1455-79 W. Flagler Street Mixed Use'. residential & retail East Little Havana 35 C-1, SD -14 3 32 0 0 1,431 42 Information not Information Condominiums —given not,given 17 -Feb -04 Prelim. MUSP Keystone Park NW Comer of Le Jeune Road & Mixed Use: residential & retail Flagami 32 C-1 4 298 0 9,500 14,128 687 Information not Information Condominium_ NW Ist Street not iven 10 -Feb -04 Prelim. MUSP Meditermnea 117 NW Le Jeune Road Mixed Use Residential & Retail Flagami _ 32 C-1, R-0 _ 4 _ _ 185 0 0 _ _ 8,428 _ 362 1.72 _given 18 000,000 Information notgiven 27-__ Jan -04 Prelim. MUSP Ocean Palace (Le Juene 850 N, W. Le Juene Road Residential & Retail Flagami 27 C-2 1 492 0 0 2,000 10[2 52,000,000 Information Gardens) not given 27 -Jan -04 Prelim. MUSP The Towers at Blue Lagoon 4865 NW 7th Street Residential _ Flagami 28 C-1, R-2 I 1,646 0 0 0 2,838 _ ! _ Information not Information given not given 13 -Jan -04 Prelim. Class II Grove Enclave 3024 McDonald Street Residential NE Coconut Grove 46 R-2 2 22 0 0 0 44 Information not Information 2003-334 __ _ _ _ _ _ __ given not given 19 -Mar -03 _ Prelim. Class It Lofts in the Grove 2694 Inagua Avenue Residential NE Coconut Grove 45 O, SD -13 2 20 0 0 0 21 Information not Information _ (Grovehouse)given not given 7 -Oct -03 Prelim. Class fi Oak Park Village SEComer of Oak Avenue & Residential NE Coconut Grove 46 R -I 2 10 0 0 0 20 Information not Information McDonald Avenue elven not overt Z. Riverside'PL4NN/NG & ZONN/NG. Shnred'CURRENTP[�4NN/NG'CURR£NTPUNNING'Srarusreporr'h/ONTHLYREPORTS'Deve/opmenr Pr jeer Repos (04-0220) (F,1 mry) Page 1 of 4 it•eoruary 'U, 2004) r A' W a 3 CLU CL E 0-0- =�U o c o Q c N d PRELIMINARY Date States Type of Permit Parking Sp- FAR (Boons) Construction Ad Valorum Name Address Description Net Area Atlas Pg Zoning Distriet(s) C.C. Dist Res/ Condo Hotel I Office Retail 27 -Jan -04 Prelim. Class fl 3305 Holding Company, 3305 SW 37th Avenue Office Building SW Coconut Grove 46 SD -2 2 0 0 2,399 0 10 Information not Information _ 2004-001 LLC [vee not iven 16 -Dec -03 Prelim. MUSP 4300 Biscayne Boulevard 4300 Biscayne Boulevard _ Mixed Use. residential, retail & Upper East Side 15 61, SD -9 - 2 176 0 27,582 4,000 _ 289 Information not Information _ _ _ _ office given not iven 25 -Nov -03 _ 0 _ 0 Prelim. Class fI 5101 Biscayne Boulevard S 101 Biscayne Boulevard Residential __ Upper East Side IS SD -9 2 __ _98____0 _ 12$ _ Inforation not m Information __ given not given 25 -Nov -03 Prelim, Class II 5225 Biscayne Boulevard 5225 Biscayne Boulevard Residential Upper East Side IS SD -9 2 92 0 0 0 122 Information not Information given not given 27-Jan04 Prelim. MUSP 7460 Biscayne Boulevard 7460 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use. residential & retail Upper East Side 9 C-1, R-2 2 71 0 0 4,500 158 Information not Information givennot iven 16 -Dec -03 Prelim. Class II 1800 Point 1800 SW lith Street Mixed Use: Residential & Retail West Little Havana 39 C-1, R-4 3 53 0 0 3,958 82 _ Information not Information given not iven 25 -Nov -03 Prelim, Class 11 2120 Prope ty LLC 2120 W. Fla gler Street Residential West Little Havana 34 C -I 3 13 0 __ 0 _ 0 19 Information not Information iven not given Prelim. Ayesteran Towers 700-790 SW 27th Avenue Mixed Use. Residential & Retail West Little Havana 33 C-1 4 141 0 0 14,000 334 Information not Information __ __ not given 27 -Jan -(k Prelim. MUSP Brisas Del Rio SE Comer ofNW 24th Avenue Residential West Little Havana _ 25 _C_- I, R-3, 1 831 __ 0 0 0 1,824 Information not Information & NW 16th Street Road SD -4 0 given not given 16 -Dec -03 Prelim. MUSP Renaissance Pointe 2000 SW 8th Street Mixed Use: Residential & Retail West Little Havana 39 C-1 3 374 0 {9,030 663 Information no[ Information given not given 10 -Feb -04 Prelim. Claes fI Terrazas de Miami River 1861 NW South River Drive Residential West Little Havana 25 R-4 1 324 0 0 4,800 536 information not Information Mixed Use' Residential & Retail West Little Havana 40 C -I, R-2 4 96 0 0 5,998 180 ¢iven 10,000,000 not given Information 10 -Feb -04 Prelim. _ MUSP _. Windsor at Douglas __`.__.__ 1523 SW 37th Avenue not given 10 -Dec -02 Prelim, MUSP 39th Street Project Biscayne Boulevard and 39th Residential Units w/ recreational Wynwood/ 15 SD -8 2 146 0 0 0 265 Information not Information _ amenities Edgewater _ given not wen I8 -Nov -03 Prelim. Class 11 5th Avenue Lofts (Le NE 36th Street and NE Rh Residential Wynwood/ 21 R-4, SD -20 2 32 0 0 0 52 Information not Information LDRs) Avenue L-dgewater iven notiven 27 -Jan -04 Prelim. MUSP Avant 238-274 NE 34th Street Mixed Use: residential & Wynwoodf 21 C- 1, SD -20 2 101 _ 0 0 12.000 184 10,000,000 Information commercial Edgewater not given 30 -Sep -03 Prelim. MUSP Biscayne Bay Village 1901 Biscayne Blvd Mixed Use: residential & retail Wynwood/ 23 SD -6 2 437 0 0 19,400 701 _ 122,423,377 1,764,804 (Finger Development) 2010 North Bayshore Drive_ Edgewater 8-Apr03 Prelim. N/A Biscayne B1vd.[NE 23rd 301 NE 23rd Street _ Mixed Use. Residential & Retail Wynwood/ 21 C-1, SD -20 2 63 0 0 4,800 119 _ Information not Information _ Street _ Edgewater _ _ J given not ig vee 2 -Sep -03 Prelim. Clas_sll Cynergi 2700 N. Miami Avenue Residential & Retail Wynwood/ 21 C-2 2 100 0 0 4,624 256 information not Information _ _ _ ___ _ Edgewater _ _ given not given_ 10 -Feb -04 Prelim. MUSP Gallery ArtCondominium NE comer of Biscayne Blvd. Residential Wynwood/ 21 R] 4, SD -20, 2 172 0_0 0 228 2.81 Information not Information 16 -Dec -03 and NE 24th Street _ Edpeewater C-1 R-4, SD -20 2 0 (63%) given not iven Prelim. Class [f [cc 2 630 NE 31st Street Residential Wynwood/ 21 100 0 0 219 1.69 Information not Information Edgewater 2 given not given 3 -Feb -04 Prelim. Class [I Moon Bay 500, 510, 520 NE 29th Street Residential Wynwood/ 21 R-4, SD -20 61 0 0 0 70 Information not Information Edeewater ¢iven not iven Z.:'Rivecr,d,PLtNN/NG&ZONN/NG Shured'.C(IRRENTP/ANN/NGCURRE,NTP/-INN/NGSlorusrepor(MONTHLYREPORTS)Deve/opmem Projecr Repon(04-0220) (Prelrminary) Page 3 of 4 ._ a d) r 0 c (P ebruary-10, 2004) C = 1.r_ aU E >, 000 V 0� 0 0 4C - t�3 T3 L CL PRELIMINARY Date Status Type of Permit f. Name Address Description Net Area Atlas Pg Hotel office Retail Parkin¢ Spaces FAR (Bonus) Construction Ad Valorum Zoning District(s) C.C. Dist- Res/ Condo 19 -Aug -03 Prelim. Class If New Wave 725 NE 22nd Street Residential Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 R-3 _ 2 78 _ 0 0 0 _ _ _ 90 10.000,000 Information _not iven 10 -Feb -04 Prelim. Special Exception Puerto Bahia 501 NW 36th Street Residential Wymwoodi Edgewater 21 C-2 5 199 0 0 0 397 16,000,000 159,200 17 -Feb -04 Prelim. Class II The Steps tm the Boulevard SE comer of Biscayne Mixed Use. Residential & Retail Boulevard and NE 24th Street Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 C- 1, SD- 20.1 2 120 0 0 19,320 200 Information not given Information not given 13 -Nov -03 Prelim. Crass II Two Midtown Miami (Buena Vista Phase 1I) _ NE 35th Street & Florida East Mixed Use Residential —& Retail Coast Railway Wynwood Edgewater 21 I, SD -27 2 331 0 0 16,128 403 40,000,000 Information notgiven 26 -Nov -02 Prelim. Class 11 Wynwood Lofts 256-N 23rd Street Residential _ Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 _ _ C-2 2 36 _ _ 0 _ 0 0 _ 40 Information not given Information not iven (h ebruary LU. 2004) TOTALS 68 111,560 1 605 1 183,225 1 528,736 1 21,688 $539,553,377 1 $16,522,004 -Z, CO � :3o CL Ci CO ; O, 0 0 c c a U 00 E L co N Z:'.Ri—.,,d,'PIANNING & ZONNINC Shared''CURRF-NTPIANNINC CURRENT PLANNING, Sana, repos -MONTHLY RFPORT, �Developmenr Pr jecr Repos (04-0220) (Preliminary) Page J of S Submitted Into the public record in connection with item JZ - j,57 on l Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk J-03-901 11/14/03 ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI: CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE 170NING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLES 4, a � 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, '17 17, 19, 22 AND 25, IN ORDER TO ADD, DELETE AND CLARIFY LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO d1 SPECIAL, PERMITS, USES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF USE AND CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF ZONING APPLICATIONS, DEFINITIONS AND USE � (. LIMITATIONS, AND TO MODIFY OTHER LANGUAGE r THROUGHOUT THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR CONSISTENCY; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. z ��h � a�. z WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of October 1, 2003, Item No. 2, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 61-03 by a vote of seven to zero (7-0), RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of amending Zoning Ordinance No. 11000 as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to more clearly define and augment criteria language for the City's special permits; and Submitted Into the public record in connection item 1'2 Ison priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Sec. 608.10. Minimum offstreet parking. 3. For individual restaurants which do not exceed eighteen hundred (1800) square feet of floor area, there shall be a minimum of one (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area, subject to a Glass 1 Speeial Per-fft-itT examination of the ownership or lease, and referral to the offstreet parking department. and. ann 4. For residential uses that are adaptive re- uses of existing structures only, built prior to 1985, required parking shall try be eliminated in its entirety. by Class—=z Spe__ _ _ l PPzzrcrt Sec. 609. SD -9 Biscayne Boulevard North Overlay District. Sec. 609.3. Class II Special Permit. 609.3.2. Considerations in making Class II Special Permit Determinations. The purpose of the Class II Special Permit shall be to ensure conformity of the application with the expressed intent of this district, with the applicable criteria listed in Section 1305 and any other applicable criteria specified in this ordinance, as amended. In making determinations concerning construction of new principal buildings or substantial exterior alterations of existing principal buildings, the Director of the Planning and Zoning Department shall obtain the recommendation of the Urban Development Review Board. In the event that the UDRB fails to meet within thirty (30) days or fails to make a recommendation to the Planning Director within sixty (60) days after plans have been submitted for review, the requirement for UDRB review may be waived, if the Director of the Planning and Zoning Department finds that the proposal is in compliance with all applicable criteria as Page 61 of 186 set forth in Section 1305. Sec. 609.5. Conditional principal uses. Same as for the underlying district subject to the applicable criteria in Section 1305 and with the limitations contained in Section 609.4; and in addition, for the C-1 district only: 1. Commercial parking lots only by Class II Special Permit Speeial B ^=ptie-,p, and only when designed to diminish the visual appearance of cars from Biscayne Boulevard. Sec. 609.7. Conditional Accessory Uses. Same as the underlying district subject to the applicable criteria in Section 1305 and with the limitations contained in Section 609.4; and in addition, for the C-1 district only: 2. Sales display and outdoor dining within open, or partially open space. All Sales, display of uses permitted herein above shall be contained within completely enclosed buildings except as specified below: Within open space, or partially open space, the following uses may be permitted conditionally, subject to a Class II Special Permit upon providing a minimum of one (1) parking space per vending cart and complying fully with the terms set forth in Section 605.10 of this o�9660fffi Into the public record in connection with item 2-r5 on Page 62 of 186 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 1. Outdoor dining areas. 2. Display and sale of the following items from vending carts: (a) Flowers, plants and shrubs; vegetables, produce, citrus or other unpackaged foods, not requiring refrigeration or further preparation, subject to applicable state health regulations; and (b) Arts and crafts. However, no Class II Special Permit shall be granted allowing existing uses to expand their retail activity or to display their merchandise into existing open or partially open space. All exhibits, displays and sale of items shall be conducted from vending carts subject to the criteria specified in the "Coconut Grove Vending Guides and Standards"; said criteria may be modified by the Zoning Board pursuant to a Special Exception Permit upon finding that the requested modifications are justified due to one (1) or more of the following special conditions: 1. Established pedestrian flow patterns; 2. Existing landscape features; 3. Governmental action which creates a peculiar configuration on the subject property. Sec. 610. SD -10 Jackson Memorial Hospital Medical Center Overlay District. 610. 3. 2. Gen era1 considerations in making Class II Special Permit determinations. Class II Special Permit determinations in this class of cases shall be made based on the Jackson Memorial Hospital Medical Center Master Plan. Effective September 4, 1990, the Medical Center shall continuously maintain a master plan designating: the location and number of all present and future parking spaces, together with the location and floor area of all present and proposed buildings, the location and number of access drives to public streets,nt, Strenin the public u�mo record in connection with Page 63 of 186 item`Pz •!.S on 11, W-d Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk responsibility by the terms of this zoning ordinance; such interpretations shall consist only in interpretations as to applicability of criteria and required supplementary application materials for special permits, and any other such decisions or interpretations specifically authorized by the provisions of this zoning ordinance; and (4) Preparing and submitting reports required under the terms of this zoning ordinance. ARTICLE 13. SPECIAL PERMITS; GENERALLY Sec. 1300. Intent, generally. In addition to zoning procedures and requirements relating generally to issuance of building permits and certificates of use, a special permit system is hereby established. It is intended that this system shall assure special examination, review, and findings by appropriate agents, agencies, or bodies of the City in connection with proposed actions particularly specified in this zoning ordinance. Special permit procedures and requirements as set out herein are intended to apply in relation to use, occupancy, location, construction, design, character, scale, or manner of operation, or the necessity for making complex or unusual determinations; also to assure consideration of the particular circumstances of each case and the establishment of such conditions and safeguards as are reasonably necessary for protection of the public interest generally, and protection of adjacent properties, the neighborhood, and the City as a whole. A special permit is a grant of authority under the terms of this zoning ordinance from and by a designated agent, officer, or body of the City to an applicant for the use of property in the manner set out in the grant of special permit. Sec. 1301. Classes of special permits; intent; agent, agency, or body responsible for each; referrals. Submitted Into the public record in connection with - Page 119 of 186 item on Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Four (4) classes of special permits are hereby established, ranging from those dealing with uses, occupancies, and activities of a temporary nature or likely to have small but potentially adverse impacts on adjacent and nearby properties to those with substantial effects on neighborhoods and/or the City. They are ranked in the following order: Class I Special Permit, Class II Special Permit, Special Exception and Major Use Special Permit. When more than one (1) special permit is required to address the same issue, the highest ranking permit granted shall be considered sufficient. Criteria from all applicable special permits will be utilized in the review and approval of such permits. Classes of special permits, their intent, and the agent, agency, or body responsible for each, and referrals are as follows: 1301.1. Class I Special Permits; intent; administered by zoning administrator; mandatory referrals. It is intended that Class I Special Permits be required where specified uses or characteristics of use are of a temporary nature requiring mandatory technical determinations or reviews to establish special conditions and safeguards. In general, such determinations and reviews will normally be by agencies or officers other than the Department of Planning, '- u l ,a; r,n and Zoning, and may involve matters such as design for traffic, parking and loading facilities, health and environmental considerations, and legal determinations. The zening hall be se1ely respensible fer The administration and processing of applications for Class I Special Permits, and for determinations shall be the responsibility of the zoning administrator. Decisions of the zoning administrator regarding Class I Special Permits shall be affected and limited by reports received on referrals as provided in Article 14, Sections 1401— a 1402. (see A=tiele-14)- 1301.2. Class II Special Permits; intent; determinations by Director of department of Planning, buildiiig and zoning; referrals. . � Subm,iiE'r' i"f.'.1 .{ ; Pi!b llCi record in connec on with Page 120 of 186 item -IS on l� S—L- Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk It is intended that Class II Special Permits be required where design, character and compatibility speezfted asee rd/ei= eee�dpaneies involve substantial teehnieal issues relating to planning policy and impact on surrounding area as it relates to aesthetics. The Director of the Department of Planning, '^aildii g and Zoning shall be solely responsible for review for compliance and consideration of applications for Class II Special Permits. The Director shall make such referrals to other officers, agencies, boards or departments as are required by regulations relating to the particular special permit and may make other referrals deemed necessary by him before arriving at his decision. -(see ArzieleIS, �eti-en150-� Decisions of the Director regarding Class II Special Permits shall be affected and limited by reports received on referrals as provided in Article 15, Section 1502. When a Class II Special Permit requires City Commission approval, the Planning and Zoning Director shall serve in an advisory capacity to the City Commission. 1301.3. Special Exceptions. 1301.3.1. Intent. Within the City generally, or within certain zoning districts, certain structures, uses, and/or occupancies specified in this ordinance are of a nature requiring special and intensive review to determine whether or not they should be permitted in specific locations, and if so, the special limitations, conditions, and safeguards which should be applied as reasonably necessary to promote the general purposes of this zoning ordinance and, in particular, to protect adjoining properties and the neighborhood from avoidable potentially adverse effects. It is further intended that the expertise and judgment of the Zoning Board be exercised in making such determinations, in accordance with the rules, considerations, and limitations relating to Special Exceptions as set out in Article 16 and elsewhere in this zoning ordinance and regulations. (see Artiele Page 121 of 186 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item kg, on )tom04 , Priscilla A. a n om;lson City Clerk administrative rules adopted pursuant hereto shall have been provided; and all fees due at time of filing shall have been paid. 1304.2.3. Application forms; supplementary materials. During processing of any application, if it is determined by the designated agent, agency, or body of the City that in the particular circumstances of the case additional information is required to make necessary findings bearing on its approval, denial, or conditions and safeguards to be attached, such information may be requested. Failure to supply such supplementary information may be used as grounds for denial of the permit. 1305.2. Gffst i .,e pa:24eingnd leading. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item on Priscilla A. Thompson Page 127 of 186 City Clerk Review fer adeqiziaey shall be given te—pievisien f-er adjeining and nearby pY$pei=ties and en general eli=ainage systeffis in t h , Where Ria j e r vel,dmes appear —1 kelt' ane—eapaceit of a r i _,^1 shall be given to peribil_zties €er reeharge e-f Submitted into the public Page 128 of 186 record in cOrtrEction with item?L-15 On Priscilla A. Thompson l _Av r :IArk Sec. 1305. Considerations generally; criteria; standards; findings and determinations required. The City agent, board, or commission that is charged with decisions concerning each of the special permits shall review the proposal before them and shall make, or cause to be made, written findings and determinations in accordance with the established applicable criteria set forth in this zoning ordinance and the City Code. Such findings shall be used to approve, approve with conditions, or, d,, -p , - tjUDITIIUC:U record in corgi,;co with Page 129 of 186 item ?Z_ S_on �L- t?'-�- i Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk pending application. Approvals shall be issued when such application complies with all applicable criteria. Conditional approvals, shill be issued when such applications require conditions in order to be found in compliance with all applicable criteria. Denials of applications shall be issued if after conditions and safeguards have been considered, the application still fails to comply with all applicable criteria. 1305.1. Temporary use/occupancy; criteria and mandatory referrals. Sec. 1305.1.1. Referrals. As appropriate to the nature of the temporary use and/or occupancy of the special permit involved and particular circumstances of the case, the following conditions enumerated in this sub -Section in addition to any other specific consideration(s) set forth elsewhere in the City Code, this zoning ordinance, or any other applicable regulation(s) shall apply: Referrals: The zoning administrator shall make referrals as specified herein based on the nature of the application. Zoning. Review by zoning for compliance with applicable zoning regulations. Fire. Referral to the Fire Rescue and Inspection Services department for review of fire safety controls as determined by the department. Police. Referral review of traffic traffic monitors; other life/safety department. to the Police Department for safety, including provisions of crowd control measures; and any issues as determined by the NET. Referral to the appropriate Center Office for review and operational plan, which shall include Page 130 of 186 NET Service pproval of number of item Priscilla A. ThOmpson na— ^A trash receptacles and locations, frequency of trash pick-up, name and 24-hour telephone number of contact person responsible for handling maintenance and/or emergency issues, noise control measures, and any other specific considerations that the NET Administrator deems necessary in order to make an informed recommendation based on the nature of the application. Other. Referral to other governmental agencies with the necessary expertise that the Zoning Administrator requires based on the nature of the application in order to make an informed r�ari [i nn TEMPORARY USE/OCCUPANCY Subject to permissibility as specified within the district regulations. ZONING FIRE POLICE NET OTHER Balloons X X X X X Development signs X X X Community or neighborhood bulletin boards or kiosks X X X Christmas tree sales on a vacant lot or portions of a lot X X X Sale of goods pertaining to a national legal holiday X X X Outdoor display of produce and foods. X X X Aluminum recycling machines X X Curbside delivery receptacles other than US Mail X X X Temporary special event X X X X X Temporary carnival, festival, fair or special event X X X X X Special access for emergency vehicles through private residential districts. X X X X X Pedestrian and cyclist access through private residential districts X X X X X Temporary offstreet offsite parking for construction crew X X X Offsite parking for portions of SD -2 X X X Sec. 1305.1.2. Criteria Page 131 of 186 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item on Priscilla A. Thompson' City Clerk Approvals of Class I Special Permits for temporary activities by the Zoning Administrator shall be based on the criteria utilized by the different agencies upon which referrals were made. Such criteria shall be as determined by each of the technical agencies and as regulated by other applicable laws. The Zoning Administrator shall review comments as provided by each agency to determine whether the proposed request for temporary activity complies with all of the individual criteria. A recommendation of denial by any particular agency shall be accompanied by specific findings from such agency which enumerates how the request does not comply with their individual criteria. The duration of each such temporary use/occupancy shall be clearly stated within the approved Class I Special Permit. Sec. 1305.2.Desi.an review criteria. As appropriate to the nature of the special permit involved and the particular circumstances of the case, the following considerations and design criteria as specified on the following table shall apply to issues related to design, character and compatibility of the proposed application in addition to any other specific consideration(s) set forth elsewhere in this zoning ordinance, the City Code, or any other applicable regulation(s). Special consideration shall also be given to redevelopment activity within Community Revitalization Districts and/or where a plan is in place. For the purposes of this Section a "plan" shall mean a master plan, Design Guides and Standards or special zoning district. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA INDUSTRIAL LIBERAL COMMERCIAL RESTRICTED OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL MULTIFAMILY LOW DENSITY COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL L Site & Urban Planning. (1) Respond to the physical X X X X X X contextual environment taking into consideration urban form and natural features. (2) Siting should minimize X X X X X X the impact of automobile parking and driveways on the pedestrian environment and adjacent ro ernes. Page 132 of 186 Sub-n,,u public record irs with item pz-1s on it -+k "o Pristina A. Thompson; City Clerk (3) Buildings on corner lots INDUSTRIAL X X X MULTIFAMILY LOW DENSITY should be oriented to the corner and public street fronts. RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL V. Vehicular Access IL Architecture and and Parking: (1) Desiqn for pedestrian and X X Landscape X X vehicular safety to minimize conflict voints. (2) Minimize the number and Architecture: X X X X width of driveways and curb (1) A proiect shall be X X X X X X designed to comply with all should be located behind the applicable landscape ordinances. (2) Respond to the X X X X X X nei hborhood context. (3) Create a transition in X X X X X_ bulk and scale. (4) Use architectural styles X X X X X_ and details (such as roof lines and fenestration), colors and materials derivative from surrounding area. (5) Articulate the building X X X X facade vertically and horizontally in intervals that conform to the existing structures in the vicini . 111. Pedestrian Oriented Development.: (1) Promote pedestrian X X interaction. (2) Design facades that X X_ X X_ respond primarily to the human scale. (3) Provide active, not blank X X X X X facades. Where blank walls are unavoidable, they should receive design treatment. IV. Streetscape and Open Space: (1) Provide usable open X X X space that allows for convenient and visible Pedestrian access from the public sidewalk. (2) Landscaping including X X X X X X plant material, trellises, special pavements, screen walls, planters and similar features should be appropriately incorporated to enhance the prolftct., DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA INDUSTRIAL LIBERAL COMMERCIAL RESTRICTED OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL MULTIFAMILY LOW DENSITY COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL V. Vehicular Access and Parking: (1) Desiqn for pedestrian and X X X X X vehicular safety to minimize conflict voints. (2) Minimize the number and X X X X width of driveways and curb cuts. (3) Parking adiacent to a street front should be minimized and where possible X X X X should be located behind the Page 133 of 186 Su6mitted Into the public record in connection with 11 item m -M on 11-0 64 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk buildin . (4) Use surface parking areas X X X X X as district buffer. V1. Screening: (1) Provide landscaping that X X X X screen undesirable elements such as surface parking lots, and that enhances space and architecture. (2) Building sites should locate X X X X X service elements like trash dumpster, loading docks, and mechanical equipment away from street front where possible. When elements such as dumpsters, utility meters, mechanical units and service areas cannot be located away from the street front they should be situated and screened from view to street and ad acent ro erfies. (3) Screen parking garage X X X X structures with program uses. Where program uses are not feasible soften the garage structure with trellises, landscaping, and/or other suitable design element. VIL Signe & Li htin : (1) Design signaqe appropriate for the scale and X X X X X character of the project and immediate neighborhood. (2) Provide lighting as a design feature to the building X X X X X facade, on and around landscape areas special building or site features, and/or si na e. (3) Orient outside lighting to X X X X X X minimize glare to adjacent ro erties. (4) Provide visible signage X X X X X X identifying building addresses at the entrance(s) as a functional and aesthetic consideration. Submitted Into the public' record in connection with item 'Pi -w on Il-tt-W Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Page 134 of 186 DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA INDUSTRIAL LIBERAL COMMERCIAL RESTRICTED OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL MULTIFAMILY LOW DENSITY COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL Vlll. Preservation of Natural Features: (1) Preserve existing vegetation and/or geological X X X X X X features whenever ossible. 1X. Modification of Nonconformities: See sec. 1105 of this zoning ordinance for specific regulations. In addition to the applicable criteria as set forth by the Director of the Planning and Zoning Department per sec. 1105, the following criteria shall apply in making determinations for Class II Special Permits: (1) For modifications of nonconforming structures, no X X X X X X increase in the degree of nonconformity shall be allowed. (2) Modifications that conform X X X X X X to current regulations shall be designed to conform to the scale and context of the nonconformin structure. 1305.2.1. Status of prior development and application for development. All development in existence, or any complete application for development filed prior to January 1, 2004 that does not comply with the criteria specified in Section 1305.2 shall not be considered a non -conformity for purposes of Article 11 and all other applicable Sections of this ordinance. 1305.3. Use and occupancv criteria. As appropriate to the nature of the special permit involved and the particular circumstances of the case, the following considerations and criteria as specified below shall apply to issues related to use and occupancy of the proposed application in addition to any other specific consideration(s) set forth elsewhere in this zoning ordinance, the City Code, or any other applicable regulation(s). $Ubmitted Into the public' Page 135 of 186 record in connection s an item Z15 -- Priscilla A. Tholnpson City Ct rk 1305.3.1. Manner of operation. Review for adequacy shall be given to the manner in which the proposed use will operate given its specific location and proximity to less intense uses. Particular consideration shall be given to protecting the residential areas from excessive noise, fumes, odors, commercial vehicle intrusion, traffic conflicts, and the spillover effect of light. 1305.3.2. Design. Applicable design review criteria as specified in Section 1305.2 shall apply. Sec. 1306. Conditions and safeguards. The agent, agency, or body of the City designated by this zoning ordinance as having responsibility for issuance or denial of each of the classes of special permits set out in this Article 13 shall have authority to attach to the grant of any such special permit such conditions and safeguards as may be necessary for the purposes of this zoning ordinance in the particular case. Such conditions and safeguards, if attached to grant of special permit, shall be based upon and consistent with considerations and standards applicable to the class or kind of special permit involved as set out in the applicable Section IGS of this ordinance, C-ensi er-at ens genera, , yt findings and deter-fflinatiens re -,,ire , and in other provisions relating to the particular class or kind of permit. The requirement for any such conditions or safeguards shall be supported by stated reasons, based upon such considerations and standards, and no such condition or safeguard shall establish special limitations and/or requirements beyond those reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose for which the condition or safeguard is attached. Failure to comply with conditions and safeguards, when attached to grant of special permit, shall be deemed a violation of this zoning ordinance. See Section 2108, Action on violations; remedies for violations on Class I or Sul✓i ►, ${ ' tike public record ij I curdy .octi n with Page 136 of 186 item_E2--is-on Priscilla A. Thompson ` Citv Clerk applicant and the administrator shall notify the applicant and proceed as set ordinance, Actions' permits. Secs. 1404-1419 Reserved. zoning administrator, the zoning reach a final decision and shall of such decision, with reasons, forth at Section 1308 of this following decisions on special Sec. 1420. See. 1403-. Appeals. Appeals of Class I Special Permits shall be filed pursuant to See- Article 18. ARTICLE 15. CLASS II SPECIAL PERMITS; DETAILED REQUIREMENTS Sec. 1500. Regulations applying. Issuance, issuance with conditions and safeguards attached, or denial of Class II Special Permits, is governed by regulations applying to special permits generally as set out in Article 13 of this ordinance. Class II Special Permits shall apply to issues related to design, character, and compatibility of a proposed application as specified within different Sections of this zoning ordinance and the City Code. Where a use is permissible by Class II Special Permit, the purpose of the Class II Special Permit shall be for design review. The governing criteria shall include the applicable criteria and considerations enumerated in Section 1305.2 in addition to any other specific criteria and/or considerations , r-egialat-iens applying to aiYtiei l Y uses acrd—eeeidpanci-es -that may be set out elsewhere in the City Code, this zoning ordinance, and regulations set out in this Article. Sec. 1501. Informal notice and hearinq. No formal public notice and hearing are required in connection with Class II Special Permit procedures except as follows: 1501.1. Notice required by applicant Page 145 of 186 to adjacent Submitted Into the public record in connection( with item 'P2- ' on c_ ► -_ Q Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk. property owners. At the time of initial application, the applicant shall notify in writi all abutting property owners including those across a street or alley, in approved City form, by certified mail, and shall submit with the application said certified receipt(s), except in the case of signs, where no notice is required. In the case of adjacent condominiums, only one (1) notice to the condominium association will be sent. 1501.2. Required courtesy notice to registered neighborhood and/or homeowner associations. All neighborhood and/or homeowner associations wh-& that wish to receive a courtesy notice of Class II Special Permit applications in their areas shall register with their Neighborhood Enhancement Team (NET) Office on a yearly bases. Such registration shall consist of a letter to the applicable NET office in which the association shall request such notification and shall specify the name, address and telephone number of the official representatives of the association designated to receive said notice and a list of all the officers of said association. At the time of initial application, the applicant shall obtain the list of all registered neighborhood and/or homeowner associations pertaining to the applications in question from the Department of Planning and Zoning Revit�alizatien and shall notify the official representative of all such registered associations in writing, by certified mail, of the application; the applicant shall submit with the application said certified receipts, except in the case of applications for signs, in which case no notice is required. Sec. 1502. Referrals; time limitations. Within seven (7) calendar days of receipt in the office of a complete application for package for Class II Special Permit, the Director of the Department of ________n=, -Y Planning and Zoning Y -;t l;.,t;en shall make referrals to such other officers, agencies, or departments as are Page 146 of 186 Submitted Into the public record in connection With item Pz-ls on JLIk=--41' Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk required in the case by this zoning ordinance or which are, in the Director's judgment, necessary to proper disposition of the application; all Class II Special Permit applications shall be referred to the applicable Neighborhood Enhancement Team (NET) Office. Reviews, analyses, and/or technical findings in such cases shall be returned to the office within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the Director's referral, except on referrals to any City board where referrals shall be returned to the office within seven (7) calendar days after the date of said board meeting, unless the applicant and the Director shall mutually consent to a longer time period specified in writing for good cause shown. The Director shall give full consideration to advice or information received as a result of such referrals in arriving at his decision. Sec. 1503. Time limitations; conferences; notification of decision. 1503.1. Notification concerning intended decisions; time limitations. The Director of the Department of ___.____n_t1 Planning and Zoning itali:Fatien shall notify the applicant of the intended decision within the following time limits, except where a longer period is specified by mutual agreement between the applicant and the Director, in writing and for good cause shown. 1503.1.1. Notifications concerning intended decisions; time limits with no referrals to any City board. If no referrals to any City boards are involved in connection with the application, the Director of the Department of eeff&Ranit Planning and Zoning revitalizatien shall give written notice of the intended decision, stating the reasons, to the applicant within thirty (30) calendar days of the receipt of the complete application package in the office. 1503.1.2. Notification concernir decision; time limits with referrals Page 147 of 186 intended to any Ci ty Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P2-15 on-tll - Priscilla A. Thompson; City Clerk Where referrals to any City board are made, the Director of the Department of eeffTRicknit Planning and Zoning re-,xitalizatien shall give written notice of the intended decision stating the reason, to the applicant within ten (10) calendar days after said board meeting; in cases of no quorum, the Director may waive review by said board. 1503.2. Request by applicant for conference; time limitation; applicant to have access to record. Within five (5) calendar days of receipt of such notification, the applicant may request a conference between the applicant and/or the applicant's agent and the Director of the Department of Planning, build r^ and Zoning and such representatives of the referenced officers, agencies, or departments as the applicant desires, for the purpose of presenting additional facts, arguments, information or data in support of the applicant's position. Prior to such conference, the applicant shall be given full opportunity to examine all reports submitted on referrals in the case, as provided at Section 1307.1 of this ordinance. 1503.3. Director of Department of Planning, bidila;nn and Zoning to arrange conference, secure attendance; conference to be convened; effect of failure to appear. Upon request for such a conference, the Director of the Department of Planning, buil ;rn and Zoning shall be responsible for securing attendance of representatives of those referenced officers, agencies, or departments indicated by the applicant, and for setting a mutually agreeable time for such conference. If any of the designated representatives fail to appear, the Director shall enter such fact in the record of the case and proceed, with any other designated representatives present, t h ar t Submitted Into die public record in connection with Page 148 of 186 itemtP -IS on -!p Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk applicant, unless the applicant requests a postponement. The Director shall note the fact for the record and make the record otherwise required for discussion, with the absence of the official constituting possible basis for reaching final decision. If the applicant fails to appear, the Director shall enter that fact in the record on the case, and may either arrange another conference or proceed to make the decision as though the conference had been held. 1503.4. Decision of Director of Department of Planning, bEii1 d; ^g and Zoning; time limi tations; further action on permits. Within ten (10) calendar days after such conference or, if no conference is requested, within ten (10) calendar days after the applicant receives notification of intended decision, the Director of the Department of Planning, 'wild rn and Zoning shall reach a decision, unless the applicant and the Director shall mutually consent to a longer period specified in writing for good cause shown, and shall notify the applicant of such decision in writing, with reasons, and proceed as set forth at Section 1308, Actions following decisions on special permits. All Class II Special Permits shall expire one (1) year after issuance. Sec. 1504. Time extensions. 1504 Upon a written request to the Director of the Department of e._,_e&Ra ity Planning and Zoning T;*al;zat e accompanied by the appropriate fee as specified in the Code of the City of Miami (Section 62- 61), an approved Class II Special Permit shall be permitted no more than one (1) time extension for a period not to exceed twelve (12) months. Sec. 1505. Changes in original applications after final approval. 1505.1. Requirements concerning chap applications after final approval. Page 149 of 186 s in original Submitted I nnec on w th.. he public, record in co item T Z �S Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk; Changes in an approved Class II Special Permit may be permitted after application to the Director of the Department of Planning and Zoning revitalizatien by the original applicant or successors in interest. Upon receipt of such an application, the Director of the Department of Planning and Zoning r-evitalizatienshall refer the application to the zoning administrator, who shall determine whether such changes are substantial changes, as defined in Section 2215.1 of this ordinance. If the proposed changes are determined to be substantial, the changes shall be treated as a proposed new application for Class II Special Permit. If the proposed changes are determined to be nonsubstantial, the Director of the Department of Planning and Zoning revitali: zatien shall, upon receipt of a fee for "nonsubstantial modification" of a Class II Special Permit, as specified in Section 61 of the Code of the City of Miami (S-eetien-62-6-1-), be responsible for review and approval, or denial, or approval with conditions of the amendments. Sec.1506. City Commission review and approval. When a Class II Special Permit requires City Commission review and approval, the Planning and Zoning Director shall follow the Class II Special Permit requirements set forth in this ordinance and upon completion of said process shall present the application and serve in an advisory capacity to the Citv Commission. Secs. - 1507-1509. Reserved. Sec. 1510. Class II Special Permit for preservation of natural or archaeological features. 1510.1. Intent. The preservation of natural features of land such as trees, vegetation, geological, and other characteristics and the preservation of f-egtu1i @d Into the public record in connection with ;1 Page 150 of 186 item P2-15 on _a, 1 •o Priscilla A. Thompson ("43%A ("41~4. archaeological significance are declared to be in the public interest. If the requirements set out are met, said preservation justifies the relaxation of certain otherwise applicable zoning regulations by granting a Class II Special Permit for their preservation. 1510.2. Standards. In addition to other applicable standards required to be met for the issuance of a Class II Special Permit, the Director of the Department of Planning, bi ,d ng and Zoning shall determine that the tree(s), vegetation, other natural characteristic(s), or archaeological feature(s) are in the buildable area of the site and not in yard or setback areas required for the development of the site before reaching decision to grant a Class II Special Permit for the preservation of natural or archaeological features: 1510.2.1. Limitations on types of regulations that may be relaxed. The requested Class II Special Permit will be granted only for the relaxation of zoning regulations pertaining to yards, required offstreet parking, height envelope, light plane or open space requirements only. 1510.3. Procedures. A written application shall be submitted for Class II Special Permits. In addition, the following shall also be submitted: 1510.3.1. Demonstration of justification. A written statement justifying the requested relaxation of otherwise applicable zoning regulations and providing evidence that the natural or archaeological feature sought to be preserved cannot be relocated. 1510.3.2. Notification of adjoining property owners. The applicant shall obtain from all owners of property adjacent to or abutting the subject Submitted Into the public record in connect ion with Page 151 of 186 item ---- Priscilla A.�'+�©meson City Clerk property a signed statement demonstrating that the signer knows what the applicant is requesting: In cases where the applicant is unable to obtain such signed statement, the applicant shall notify and enclose a statement for the abutting or adjoining property owner(s) by certified mail, return receipt requested. Such statements or requests for same are a part of the application for the Class II Special Permit, and the application will not be deemed complete without them. Adjacent or abutting property owners may, in addition, indicate their objection or approval of the application. Such objections or statements of approval shall be considered by the Director of the Department of Planning and Zoning in reaching decisions, but shall not be binding upon the Director of the Department of Planning, h,,; , ding and Zoning in its decision. 1510.3.3. Site plan. A site plan indicating the existing natural or archaeological feature(s) by exact size, location on the site, common and botanical name (if any) and a coded plant list (if any), and location of all proposed improvements, including yard, and setback lines. Sec. 1511. Class II Special Permit required for any development between Biscayne Bay and the first dedicated right-of-way. A Class II Special Permit shall be required for any development on property located between Biscayne Bay and the first dedicated right-of-way pursuant to any applicable criteria, provisions and standards contained in Section 1305.2 and elsewhere in Seetien 1305 of this ordinance (unless a Special Exception Permit or Major Use Special Permit ("MUSP") is issued pursuant to Article 13 of this ordinance). Sec. 1512. Class II Special Permit required for waiver of design standards and guidelines. Unless otherwise required by this zoning ordinance, as Submitted Into the public re,ord in connection with Page 152 of 186 item FZ It on J( ck-o0 Prisciiia A. Thompson Citv Clerk amended, the Code of the City of Miami, as amended, or the -Se,ath Florida Building Code, as amended; all City of Miami Design Standards and Guidelines, incorporated by reference, may be waived by the Planning and Zoning Director pursuant to a Class II Special Permit as specified below. 1512.1. Criteria to be considered in the granting of waivers of Design Standards and Guidelines. In addition to the considerations listed in Section 1305.2 and elsewhere in Seetrear-1395 mf- this ordinance, the review of Class pursuant to this following shall also apply to the II Special Permits being reviewed Section: (a) Waivers of Design Standards and Guidelines may be granted when, to do so promotes the intent of the particular district where the proposal is located; and help mitigate any potential adverse effect of a specific proposal whose implementation is found to be in compliance with the intent and findings of a commission approved Planning study or conceptual plan for the subject area. (b) Waivers of Design Standards and Guidelines may be granted when, the observance of applicable guides and standards for which the waiver is being requested would put the proposed project into a variance situation which is against the public interest. 1512.2. Specific findings required. Specific findings shall be made by the Department of Planning and Zoning Ret,Atalizatien which establish how the above criteria are met. Additionally, any conditions, restrictions and limitations deemed appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Director shall be implemented in order to ensure compliance with the considerations set forth above, as well as in Section 1305 of this ordinance. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item F7 -1s7 on 1 t -)P -04 Page 153 of 186 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Sec. 1513. Reserved. Gertifieate—e-f eempl-1anee in ' f a Glass 11 Special Pe3E7ffii-t-. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ - rs on/I-I?fa Page 154 of 186 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk. Sec. 1514. Class II Special Permit required for development on property adjacent to the Miami River. A Class II Special Permit shall be required for any development on property located between the Miami River and the first dedicated right-of-way. In cases where a right- of-way immediately abuts the Miami River, property fronting those Sections of right-of-way abutting the Miami River shall also require a Class II Special Permit for any proposed development. Class II Special Permits under this Section shall be reviewed pursuant to any applicable criteria, provisions and standards contained in Section 1305.2 1305 of this ordinance (unless a Special Exception Permit or Major Use Special Permit ("MUSP") is issued pursuant to Article 13 of this ordinance). ARTICLE 16. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS; DETAILED REQUIREMENTS Sec. 1600. Regulations applying. Issuance, issuance with conditions and safeguards attached, or denial of Special Exceptions, is governed by regulations applying to special permits generally as set out in Article 13 of this ordinance. Special Exception permits shall apply to issues related to uses or occupancies of a proposed application as specified within different Sections of this zoning ordinance and the City Code. The governing criteria shall include the applicable criteria and considerations enumerated in Section 1305.3 in addition to any other specific criteria and/or considerations that may be set out elsewhere in the City Code, this zoning ordinance, and regulations set out in this Article. It is the intent of this ordinance that a grant of Special Exception is adequate and sufficient to the particular circumstances and that no application for a variance will be accepted which would attempt to alter the terms or dimensions specified in this zoning ordinance for the use governed by a grant of Special Exception; it being understood that an application for a variance to relax other terms limited to: height, lot coverage, dimensions of yards, parking, other open spaces and/or loading Submitted Into the public' record in connection with Page 155 of 186 item PZ -IS on «- Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk institutions, auditoriums and the like for providing public notice identifying the premises and indicating nature and hours of events, names of principal officers, and the like. As employed in relation to these and other principal uses, the term is also intended to include outdoor display devices serving as Directories and giving guidance as to the location of persons or uses on the premises. Bulk. The size of buildings or structures, and their relationship to each other and to open areas and lot lines, and includes: (1) the size of a building or structure; (2) the area of the lot upon which a building or structure is located, and the number of dwelling units within such a building or structure in relation to the area of the lot; (3) the shape of a building or structure; (4) the location of exterior walls of a building or structure in relation to lot lines, to other walls of the same building or structure, to legally required windows, or to other buildings or structures; and (5) all open areas relating to a building or structure and their relationship. Change of occupancy or change of use. The terms "change of occupancy" or "change of use" shall mean a discontinuance of an existing use and the substitution of a use of a different kind or class. Change of occupancy or change of use is not intended to include a change of tenants or proprietors unless accompanied by a change in the type of use. Character. Special physical characteristics of a structure or area that set is apart from its surrounding and contribute to its individuality. F3 Community theater. An enclosed space suitable for a variety of cultural arts performances, permanently available, and managed and promoted on a nonprofit basis; principal use of the space shall be for public performing arts presentations, although incidental use for private meetings, exhibits and presentations shall be permitted. Compatibility. (1) Having harmony in design and/or appearance between two or more attributes of the structure; (2) Having harmony in design and/or appearance between two or more structures; (3) Having harmony in design and/or appearance between two or more attributes of a neighborhood; or (4) Havinq harmony in use or function Page 180 of 186 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item pz-(S on !1-19-o Priscilla A. Thompson City CtPrk between two or more attributes of a neighborhood or area. Container yards. Facilities for the outdoor storage, stacking and processing of containers intended for shipment. Context. The characteristics of the buildings, streetscape, and landscape that supports or surround a given building, site, or area. (predominance of: architectural period, building materials, architectural features, landscaping patterns, and the like). Fabrication of custom-made jewelry. See Handmade products. Fagade. Any exterior face(s) or wall(s) of a building, usually the front, distinguished from other faces by architectural embellishments. Employment office. An office, other than a hiring hall as defined, offering individual job recruitment by specification of job qualifications and conduct individual interviews by placement specialists onsite to meet those job specifications. Entertainment facilities. An establishment with or without food service that provides diversionary entertainment to the public by way of video and skill games similar to an indoor amusement center. For the purpose of this zoning ordinance this definition does not include pool halls, billiard parlors, major sports facilities and movie theaters. Miscellaneous antennas. See Antennas, miscellaneous. Mitigation. Measures taken to eliminate or minimize damages from development activity. Multifamily use; multiple -family use. For purposes of determining whether a lot is in multifamily or multiple - family use, the following considerations shall apply: (1) Multifamily uses may involve dwelling units intended to be rented and maintained under central ownership or management, or cooperative apartments and condo,,�u6m4�d Into the public record in connection with Page 181 of 186 item P2 --Is- on '/P•o� Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk considered as one (1) project for the purpose of calculating all zoning requirements. Individual phases of such projects which reach the MUSP thresholds as established in Article 17, shall also comply with all the conditions contained in Section 1701(11). A phased project must be qualified by the Director of the Planning, bidild a -g and Zoning Department, at the written request of the property owner(s). The recipient of this qualification shall be responsible for the distribution of development rights within the boundaries of the subject property, subject to the limitations of this Zoning Ordinance. Sail making. The making of nautical sails. Scale. The spatial relationship among structures along a street or block front, including height, bulk and yard relationships. Proportional relationship of the size of parts to one another and to the human figure. Schools, vocational. A secondary or higher educational facility, recognized and licensed by the state, primarily teaching usable skills that prepare students for jobs in a trade. Screening. Visually shielding or obscuring one abutting nearby structure or use from another by fencing, walls, berms, or densely planted vegetation. Stall/berth. The space within which vehicles are placed during actual loading or unloading operations. Streetscape. The visual character of a street as determined by elements such as structures, access, greenery, open space, views, and similar features. The scene as may be observed along a public street composed of natural and man-made components, including buildings, paving, planting, street furniture, and miscellaneous structures and features. Unity of title. A written agreement executed by and between a property owner and the City of Miami, Florida, whereby the property owner for a specified consideration by the City agrees that the lots and or parcels of land Submitted Into the public record in connection with Page 183 of 186 jt@rn p2 -1 S on P-��" Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Submitted Into the public record in connection with iters P2_-_-/ - on Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk SD -9 Biscayne Boulevard North Overlay District Final Report And Recommendations to City Commission for Special Meeting of April 29, 2004 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the report below, the Planning and Zoning Department respectfully recommends the following course of action to the City Commission: 1. Proceed with adoption (on second reading) of the new SD -9 Ordinance that mandates height limits of 85 and 95 feet (as written), with the following (more liberal) changes to be made on the floor at second reading: a) increase the allowable height to 120' for the two areas located along the west side of Biscayne Boulevard as described in the report below (i.e. the mega -block located on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard from NE 39th Street up to a line which runs in a westerly direction from the southerly right-of-way line of NE 50th Terrace, as extended to the west; and the 79th Street area, located along the west side of the Boulevard from 79th Street in a northerly direction to the city limits. b) allow properties with an SD -9 designation that are over 150 feet in depth (as measured from Biscayne Boulevard) a maximum height of 120 feet, even if they are adjacent to R-1 or R-2 zoning, only if such depth is sufficient to provide a maximum height of 25 feet at the rear of the property with a 45 degree angle height limitation (from a height of 25 feet at the rear and sloping towards Biscayne Boulevard - see sketch). Submitted'Into the public record in connection with item 'F2 -1-57 on t 1-,�i= Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 2. File for Planning Advisory Board consideration, an immediate amendment to consider the following (more restrictive) amendments: a) For SD -9 properties which abut an R-1 or R-2 District, institute a 25 foot height limit at the rear of the property (instead of the 40 proposed) from which buildings have to be located under a 45 degree angle height from that line. (See sketch); this will specifically reference that Biscayne Boulevard shall be considered the front. b) For SD -9 properties which abut R-3 or more liberal districts, amend the rear height limitation so that buildings have to located under a 45 degree angle height as taken from the 40 foot height limit at the rear (instead of the current approximately 60 degree requirement); this will also specifically reference that Biscayne Boulevard shall be considered the front. (See sketch). c) Amend parking requirements to institute parking reductions for adaptive reuse of existing structures and for restaurant and retail uses within mixed use structures. 3. Instruct the Planning and Zoning Department to work with a consultant to write a voluntary TDR Ordinance for the area as a pilot project with a six month period in which to come back to the City Commission with either an ordinance or a report. Background • The Committee met for the first time on March 24, 2004. General discussion about mission and parameters for making recommendations to the Planning Director were discussed. Presentations on issues involving Private Property rights Act and Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) were set up for the following meeting. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item mon LL-14—'of- Priscilla Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 2 • The Committee next met on March 30, 2004. The Committee listened to the presentations that were made and selected those portions of the Boulevard that should be looked at more closely for consideration of a 40 foot height limit with TDRs. It was agreed that higher limits were appropriate for certain segments. These segments were: the "mega -block" — i.e. west side of Biscayne Boulevard from approximately NE 39th Street to approximately NE 501h Street; and the west side of Biscayne Boulevard from the 79th Street Biscayne Shopping Center area north. The blocks identified as being candidates for lower heights were referred to an architectural subcommittee for more specific review and recommendations. • The architectural sub -committee met on April 6, 2004. A quick study was done of the block segments which were selected as the blocks to be protected because of their proximity to "R-1" and "R-2" zoning classifications (which carry with them a 25 foot height restriction). • It was determined that if a 40 foot height limit was placed on these blocks, the resulting FAR which would have to be made eligible for transfers under a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Ordinance could be approximately 1 million square feet or more. It was also found that the 40 foot height limit recommended was not as workable as 50 feet in order to accommodate required parking. • It was found that the approximately 1 million square feet of transferred development rights would no be able to be accommodated solely on Biscayne Boulevard without seriously impacting the lower density envisioned for the Boulevard by the Biscayne Corridor study. With other height limitations as maximums, there may be insufficient ability to use the 1 million square feet and this could jeopardize the ability of the TDR to be effective. • It was found that certain segments of the remaining blocks (not abutting "R-1" or "R-2" zoning — and located in areas of the Boulevard where the character was more intense) should be allowed additional height (beyond the suggested 85'- 95'). These segments were: the "mega -block" — i.e. west side of Biscayne Boulevard from approximately NE 39th Street to approximately NE 50th Street; Submitted Into the public record in connection with item -1 ,.on l -r Priscilla A 3 A. Thompson City Clerk and the west side of Biscayne Boulevard from the 79`h Street Biscayne Shopping Center area north. The proposed height was 120 feet. • It was found that rather than the 40 foot height limit at the rear of the properties, with the required step -back toward the boulevard; a 25 foot height limit with a required 45 degree step back would better protect the light and air flow to the abutting residential properties and neighborhoods. • The following alternatives were discussed as recommendations to consider; they are ranked in order: 1. Proceed with the new SD -9 Ordinance that mandates height limits of 85 and 95 feet (as written), with the following changes: 1) increase the height to 120' for the two areas described above (the mega -block and the 79`h Street area); and 2) institute a 25 foot height limit at the rear property line (instead of the 40 proposed) from which buildings have to be located under a 45 degree height from that line. (See sketch). o Enact a TDR Ordinance that limits the height of the "protected" blocks to 50 feet (5 stories), with an 85'-95' height limit for the rest of the Boulevard — except the mega -block and the 79`h Street segment described above, which should be allowed 120 feet in height — and then allow TDR's onto the 85'-95' segments (recipients) up to a maximum height of 120 feet. This option includes the 25 foot height limit at the rears with the 45 degree angle height limit. • A third option was placed on the table for discussion which was essentially the TDR option described above, however, recommends that the rest of the city be included as "recipients" of the projected TDRs. This option is not being presented for official consideration yet since it involves other Commission districts and has not yet been fully studied for impact. Submitted Into the public record ir; connection with item P2 —(S on l • The final meetings were used to discuss all of these options. Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk M O RLSMEN LAL/OFFICE = RETAIL O CIRCULATION = VEHICULAR CIRCULATION O PARKING ;e public tion with hompson city clerk CITY OF MIAMI - DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING - URBAN DESIGN DIVISION REAR HEIGHT LIMITATIONS ILLUSTRATIVE CROSS SECTIONS - 4/19/2004 100 FEET DEPTH 150 FEET DEPTH ix a x— — N w w o O z o `^ w i - I I O . too I z 1a Io' o'— to I lo' r .. w x O O � C I I � w x Q O ° w F x � H w F FLL FIS L — x C O - L c7 w � L a I w a x # Q z °( O 04 � 10' 100 50'-- FFFFF i50 0' V i H l " W N °` Into t Submitted a Q in Gonne z z record item 2-) S on ° , Priscilla A. Uz v z �, a F P4 F C C7 O a b _ z O O v a 100' 0' w 150' —50' O RLSMEN LAL/OFFICE = RETAIL O CIRCULATION = VEHICULAR CIRCULATION O PARKING ;e public tion with hompson city clerk Submitted Into the public record in connection with item F'62-)S on n-i.9-ori Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 2.pdf, 04-00108 - submittal.pdf Action HistoryVer.ReturnedActing BodyDateActionSent ToDue DateResultlCity CommissionPASSED ON FIRST READING 2/26/041 A motion was made by Johnny L. Winton, seconded by Joe Sanchez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING. A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and was passed unanimously, to call a special meeting for April 29, 2004, at 3 p.m., to consider Item PZ.21 for Second Reading; further requesting that the administration provide in writing a report on all other pending major projects. A motion was made by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, and was passed unanimously, to direct the City Manager to establish a study committee, appointed by the Manager in consultation with Commissioner Winton's office, to develop a plan to limit the height of new buildings along the SD -9 Biscayne Boulevard North Overlay District and report back to the Commission within the next 60 days; further recommending that the Manager hire a consultant for the calculations of said plan; further requiring that said committee hold publicly noticed meetings. [Note: The verbatim minutes for item PZ.21 are included following item PZ.22.] The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: S - Angel Gonzalez, Johnny L. Winton, Joe Sanchez, Tomas Regalado and Arthur E. Teele, Jr. 1City CommissionADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS 4/29/041 A motion was made by Johnny L. Winton, seconded by Joe Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS. Direction to the City Attorney by Chairman Teele to allow the attorneys involved in the SD -9 issue to review, through the City Attorney's Office, the full record on the SD -9 issue, after the Mayor's 10 -day veto period and within the next 30 days, in order to conduct an informal review. Chairman Teele: Ladies and gentlemen, we want to apologize to all of the people that have been down here so patient. We would ask you to understand the circumstances, and we would like to proceed, Commissioner Winton, and Madam Director, without further delay. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you. For the record, Lourdes Slazyk, Planning and Zoning Department. PZ.1 is a second reading ordinance proposing a series of amendments to the SD -9 Biscayne Boulevard North Overlay District. This was passed on first reading by the City Commission February 26th and continued until the special meeting in order for the Planning and Zoning Department to meet with the committee selected by Commissioner Winton and then come back to you today for second reading with a better plan. The committee which was set up to assist the Planning and Zoning Department in coming back today with recommendations was made up of homeowners, property owners, attorneys, architects, builders association and staff. The City committee met about once a week throughout late March and into April. We received information at our meetings on property rights, transfer of development ordinances ary3u��Q& th"ublic order to come up with this a 2 record in connection with item FZ-t__on it -19,04 Priscilla A. Till 1pson r��., f _lark plan. We also worked with the architects on the committee and a subcommittee to more clearly understand the transfer of development rights option and its implications for the boulevard. As the Planning and Zoning Department saw it, our mission was primarily to come back with a recommendation to the Commission as to how to improve this ordinance to better protect the low density neighborhoods that are adjacent to the boulevard while not being so restrictive as to harm the economic development and viability of the boulevard. The results have been forwarded to each of the Commissioners in the form of a report and recommendations, which I'm going to go over real briefly. In a nutshell, I think what this report does and the recommendations which I'm going to go over now, what it shows is that this is not a one -size -fits -all ordinance anymore. This ordinance recognizes the differences in different property locations along the boulevard, different sizes and proximity to the R-1 and 2 zoning. The first recommendation that we are going to make is that you proceed today with adoption on second reading of the new SD - 9 ordinance that mandates the height limits of 85 and 95 feet, which is the seven and eight stories, as written, and make several changes right here on the floor that are considered more liberal changes, and that a series of additional, more restrictive changes be sent back to the Planning Advisory Board, which we can get on June 2nd, I believe, Planning Advisory Board back here for June -- first reading at the end of June and second reading in July. The first of the more liberal changes, as I call it, is to increase the allowable height to 120 feet for the two areas on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard that were described in the reports you have. One of it is the area that we call the mega block area, which is the real long block up against the FEC (Florida East Coast). Hold on. I have an aerial. Commissioner Winton: We really do need that. Can you get someone on staff to help you with this? Andrew didn't mean for you to have to be the -- Ms. Slazyk: The mega block area is the block from -- on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard from Northeast 39th Street up to the right-of-way line at about Northeast 50th Terrace. This is an area where we already have the Ivax Building. There are already taller buildings, and it is not directly abutting R-1 or R-2 neighborhoods, so this is an area the committee agreed would be able to take some additional height. The second area would be the area on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard from 79th Street north to the City limits. That's also an area that is a retail shopping center. It's a big commercial area, it's deeper blocks and it's not directly abutting R-1 and R-2. The other recommendation is that along the boulevard, there are several properties -- not many -- I think there's only two that have depths of over 150 feet. These properties, with the additional limitations that we recommended on height limits _ at the rear of the properties when they abut R-1 and 2, the second set of recommendations in your report is that we reduce that height from 40 feet, as proposed in the ordinance, down to 25 at the rear, which protects the single-family and duplex neighborhoods behind it. Real deep properties, if they maintain that rear height limit with an angle of 45 degree, which is in your reports that we gave you, those drawings -- I have the -- these were in your report, and what these show is that there are height limitations from the rears of these buildings that we're proposing up against the single-family and duplex neighborhoods with a 45 -degree angle, which wouldp of ct li iJ�IC and air flow to the SUbmitte� Indo the 3 record in connect'10T h1ith item Pzr_or Priscilla A. Thompson .1_ neighborhood. Nothing taller than 25 feet would be up against them, and this would allow those real deep lots additional height up on the boulevard, again, not to exceed 120 feet, and then the rest of the boulevard we're proposing stay with the 85/95, but also reduce that rear height and add that 45 -degree angle. What this does -- the most important thing that this does is instead of having a 40 -foot structure with a real steep angle, as our existing code allows today, it reduces it down to 40 feet with a 45 -degree angle on R-3 or more liberal properties, and 25 feet at the rear, with a 45 -degree angle against R-1 and R-2. This way, the R-1 and 2 will never have a building taller than what their own height limits are right next to them. Now, those two changes, the changes that add the 45 -degree angle to the rear, those are more restrictive changes. That's what we're proposing go to the Planning Advisory Board immediately, so we can get it back to you before the summer break for adoption on second reading. The other change -- and I told you we talked at the committee meetings quite a bit about the transfer of development rights option. I think there was -- there was a lot of information that we were trying to gather in understanding how a transfer of development right program could work on Biscayne Boulevard. What we're recommending in this report today is that you instruct the Planning and Zoning Department to continue to work on this with a consultant, and some names were even offered at the committee meetings, in order to come back to you in a period of six months with a recommendation on a voluntary transfer of development right program. The problem with the TDR (transfer of development right) in just doing it without sufficient analysis is the details; not so much that you can tell a property owner that they can transfer their development rights to another property, but how, when, where, how much. It's a bigger undertaking than something we could do from March through now, but we believe it merits further study, and that a pilot program that could then be used in other parts of the City is worth considering, so the recommendations on the changes to make on the floor tonight, I have prepared in the ordinance, which I'm going to hand out to you now. Commissioner Winton: Lourdes, could you get somebody to help you pass out stuff? There's -- more staff. Ms. Slazyk: OK. What I just handed out is the recommendations in the report that was given to you inserted into the ordinance, so what's on these -- in this yellow draft is exactly what's in your package, which is the first reading ordinance, but with the changes as recommended in this report, so this is -- what we're asking you to adopt tonight is the yellow draft in front of you, which includes in a written form everything I just said as far as recommendations. Another very, very important thing that came out of the -- out of this, which is also in this -- in the document I just handed out is that for purposes of interpreting SD -9, Biscayne Boulevard will be considered the front of the property. That was a big discussion that came up with some of the committee members who understood how our zoning works. When you have a piece of property that's rectangular in shape, our Zoning Code says that the short side is considered the front. Therefore, when somebody owns a strip of property on the boulevard, there was no protection for the neighborhood, because that's considered a side, and the side setbacks are usually less than rears, so one very important distinction this ordinance makes is that as far as SD -9 isUNm 1h6 the public 4 record in connection, with ite, n PZ -15- ori Orie,ni117 G Thmmncnn boulevard is the front and these rear setback limitations and angle limitations, which we came up with will be taken wherever they abut that lower density residential district, and I think there are a lot of people that felt very comfortable with that particular modification, because it clarifies once and for all that the back part that fronts the -- that faces the residential is considered the rear and the boulevard is considered the front. With that, we recommend that you adopt this ordinance on second reading with the modifications that I just put into the record, which are in the drafts before you and that we proceed with the second half of this at PAB (Planning Advisory Board) and the six-month option that we continue to work on the TDR ordinance. Submitted Into the public Chairman Teele: All right. record in connection oy Commissioner Winton: Go to the public hearing? item P?-� on 11' F - Priscilla A. Thompson Chairman Teele: Commissioner Winton, should we go to the public hearing now? city Clerk Commissioner Winton: Yes, please. Chairman Teele: All right. So that we can help to move this along, could we hear from those persons who are in opposition first? And then we'll hear from those persons who are in support of the staff recommendation. Are there any persons in opposition? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Chairman Teele. Chairman Teele: All right. Before anyone comes forward, we'd ask everyone who plans to speak to please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn. The City Clerk administered required oath under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues (said oath was translated into Spanish and Creole). Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Gilberto Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Gilberto Pastoriza, 2665 South Bayshore Drive, 4th floor. Commissioner Winton: Just a minute. Excuse me. Is there a two -minute limit? 1. Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk, there's a two -minute limit on all speakers. Mr. Pastoriza: I'll be very quick about it, and I would like to offer at least one friendly amendment for this for consideration today and a friendly amendment to be considered by the Planning Board. My first friendly amendment is for the area on the east side of the boulevard north of 83rd Street. All of -- Commissioner Winton: North of what? Mr. Pastoriza: North of 83rd Street, all of that area, the abutting district is R-3, so - you have C-1 and the area immediately abutting it and for a few blocks down is all R-3. I think she has a map where it can be very well illustrated. The second friendly amendment that I have -- and I think that this would be something that would have to go to the PAB -- is that there are property owners here that have bought properties that are SD -9 and have bought properties that lie immediately either east or west of the SD -9 property, so what I am suggesting to 5 staff is that when they consider the rear setbacks for this ordinance that they go to the limit of what the property owner owns and is willing to bring in as a unified development. In other words, if you apply your setbacks to -- the rear setbacks to your Biscayne Boulevard property, sometimes those Biscayne Boulevard properties are very narrow. By buying properties that are already west where they're going to be doing -- or east -- where they're going to be doing their own mitigation, I don't think that there is anything that will be lost by extending the same philosophy that this ordinance now proposes to the rear of the property line of all the property owned by that particular developer who is bringing that entire property in as a unified development. Those are my friendly amendments to this ordinance. Thank you. Bassem Saad: My name is Bassem Saad, 801 North Venetian Drive. I'd like to speak in opposition of the proposal, because one of the things that I think the proposal is missing is the -- Biscayne Boulevard is narrow in some areas, and wider in some areas, and I think the proposal did not take that into consideration as it relates to the height on the frontage of Biscayne. That is to say that Biscayne -- the frontage of the lots that are facing on the Biscayne Boulevard can be higher in areas where the Biscayne is wider -- the Biscayne Boulevard is wider -- and lower where the Biscayne Boulevard is narrower. That's one. The second point that I'd like to make is that we are now voting for a proposal that is favoring a shorter building, but bigger, fatter buildings, closer to the houses than away from the houses. I think we can say that probably, a slimmer building, taller building may not necessarily be bad for the neighborhood versus something that is wider and fatter, and yet shorter building. There are so many lots along the Biscayne Corridor that -- or the Biscayne Boulevard from north of 36th all the way up through 86th that are abutting R-1 on the back side of it, but the sizes of the lots are not big enough to follow all the codes, meaning allowing for parking, allowing for retail, allowing for liner units and allowing for a mix of residential and office buildings. One of the comments that was brought at the beginning is that this is not a one -size -fits -all, and I feel that it is a one -size -fits -all proposal, and there are many lots along Biscayne Boulevard that do not really fall within the category that this kind of proposal would be beneficial for, especially from an architectural building, architectural point of view. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry, sir. Mr. Saad: Let me just wrap up. I think this will be forcing the developers -- and I'm one of them -- to create less interesting architectural buildings, similar to what you see along Collins, rather than creating a more interesting architecture. Thank you. Truly Burton: Truly Burton, on behalf of the Builders Association of South Florida. The address is 15225 Northwest 77th Avenue in Miami Lakes. First of all, I want to thank Commissioner Winton for convening the group. I think it was -- and I was glad to participate -- as well as the rest of the Commission that sought for -- to put the task force together. I think we got some better understanding on some of the key issues. However, I do believe that while the document is good as far as it goes with the recommendation changes that Ms. Slazyk proposed, I still think it can be better. I think it needs some fine-tuning. One of the recommendatiq1jb�tted1at4Ahe Pu bIIC 6 record in connect►cn with PJ t 5 item _ole Priscilla A. T horripson r%t•., rig%& particularly -- is positive relates to two areas, the mega block that would be a height limitation being established at 120 feet, along with the 79th Street area, but there's two pieces that are illogical to me. First, the mega block really does go to 54th Street, and it just doesn't seem to make sense to stop it at 50th Street. These lots are -- there's a tremendous distance between any single-family residential. There's also a buffer on the east side of commercial, as well, so it just doesn't strike me as logical where they would be -- Chairman Teele: Would you repeat that, please? Ms. Burton: From -- if I had a map. From 50th to 54th Street, there is a limit of 85 to 95 feet. However, when you take a look on the east side, there is commercial -- thank you. Thank you, Adrienne -- there is commercial right along here that buffers it, and it just didn't seem to make sense to me why that was a limitation of 85 to 95 feet, especially when the rest of the mega block is 120 feet, so that was just an inconsistency, at least in my mind, and the second one was mentioned by Mr. Pastoriza, east of the boulevard at 83rd Street and north to the City line, to the municipal line, also, again, an area that right now has, if I recall correctly, motels, hotels, a variety of different kinds of multi -family that probably could use some renovation and 120 feet probably would also be very appropriate there, and just -- excuse me -- so those are my two recommendations for fine-tuning. Also, just to say that for years, the City had come to so many folks. They sent a very clear message: Please come and help us fix up the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor. It's a run down street, and it could be beautiful. Get rid of the hot, cheap motels, get rid of the drug users, get rid of all that stuff, and now, we heard you. We're here, and now, we're getting what I think is a very different message that says, well, you can be here, but not quite so much here and maybe you should come back next week, so the mixed message is a concern. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry -- Ms. Burton: Also, one other thing, just to share with you something that's going on in the building industry that I have heard from my members, as well, that's a separate, broader picture issue. There are some folks that would say these buildings are going to go up very quickly. I would respectfully disagree. Folks are having serious problems with construction material. They are going up at the rate of 30 percent per year for any number of reasons. Some folks have even gone bankrupt, because they realize they cannot produce the building that they had already sold, so _ let's not count our buildings before they hatch, effectively, and let's also do a little bit more fine-tuning before we really say that this is done, so, again, thank you for -- I want to thank staff for all their hard work and all the citizens that worked on it. I think we can do a little bit better. Thanks. Chairman Teele: Are you representing any individual company or are you representing an association? Ms. Burton: No, Builders Association. Karen McGuire: Hi. My name is -- Chairman Teele: In opposition? Ms. McGuire: Oh, I'm sorry. 7 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ -1-5- on /i-,s-oy Priscilla A. Thomp onsons City Clerk Chairman Teele: How many more people are going to be in opposition? Ms. McGuire: I am. Commissioner Winton: Well, y'all that are in opposition, come stand at the microphone so that we don't have these long gaps so we could move it through. Ms. McGuire: OK. Hi. My name is Karen McGuire. I reside at 736 Northeast 76th Street, and I'm here as a resident, but I do work as a transportation planner for the State, and I have training as an urban planner, so this is a matter that really interests me. I really respect all the work that Planning and Zoning has done on this issue, but as far as I'm concerned, they haven't taken it far enough. They haven't gone down low enough, and as far as like being tired of somebody -- you know -- saying we want the developers and now they can go, how many people say that to their own husbands, you know? It's like we want you around, but it's time to go. I've lived here for two and a half -- Commissioner Winton: That's what my wives have usually said. Ms. McGuire: I've lived here for two and a half years, and -- but I have to applaud all the residents and my fellow neighbors that have lived here for like 25 years. They've put up with the crack addicts, with the prostitution, they put up with the crime, and now it's because of them the developers are coming in, so I think that they're the people that have created the economic viability of this neighborhood, and their wishes should be respected, and we have a really nice residential neighborhood there, and I think that seven stories is just too high along some portions of the boulevard, and that in 19 -- in May of 2003, the City had a charette. They came to re- establish the connection they made when they created the master plan in 1999. If you read the master plan from 1999, it said that they wanted to create a nice urban village. Well, you know, that's what I'd like to live in along Biscayne where I live, and if we have like eight, nine -story buildings in that part of the corridor, it's just going to be too much, because our infrastructure, the parking can't handle it. We can't handle the parking for the residents that live - there now, and as far as traffic on Biscayne, I don't have to tell you many portions of Biscayne are already failing, and unless we get that premium transit in 2014 -- it's a bit of a wait for that premium transit on the north corridor. Chairman Teele: All right. Thank you very much. Now, that little buzzing sound was the sound that the two minutes is up. Thank you. Nina West: Hi. I'm hard of hearing sometimes, so I don't hear the buzz. Just remind me. My name is Nina West. I'm a property owner at 176 Northeast 44th Street and 175 Northeast 43rd Street. I'm not against development at all and I think that -- but I do believe that you are not protecting the residents on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard. You talk about the mega block and how big and how small it is. It backs up across the railroad track. Maybe the little railroad track is what makes you think so far away and it doesn't exactly abut those R-1 and R-2 properties from about 40th Street north, so I'd like you to take that into consideration. Also -- Chairman Teele: Hold on just a moment. Staff, now do you all understand what she's thinking? Submitted Into the public 8 record in connection with item n-isor:./1-1,?_051 Priscilla A.1-iiompson Commissioner Winton: I know exactly what she's saying, and it -- you have -- not only do you have a deep, wide lot, then you have Federal Highway, then you have the railroad right-of-way. I mean, you've got a huge distance between R-1 -- Ms. West: But I want to know how much that huge is. How many feet? Commissioner Winton: 300. Longer. 400 feet. I mean, it's a forever distance. Anyhow, I don't want to argue the point. My -- well, her point's made and -- Ms. West: OK, well, if it's 400 -- if it's 400 feet, it's not that far. Commissioner Winton: I may not be answering the question. Ms. West: If it's 400 feet, it's not that far. I'm not too upset, but I would also like them to take into consideration -- because next is coming -- right now, we're having a lot of development on Northeast 2nd Avenue and there's no height limitation for C-1 zoning on Northeast 2nd Avenue at the moment. Chairman Teele: So what are you saying? You want -- Ms. West: Well, what I'm saying is there's been a great effort to look at planned development for Biscayne Boulevard east and west, and I'd like a planned look at development on Northeast 2nd Avenue and North Miami Avenue, the same thought in planning, so that these small neighborhoods like Buena Vista will not be walled in. Commissioner Winton: Could I respond to that? Because I think that a lot of people may be thinking about that kind of thing. If -- for those of you who didn't hear in the Mayor's State of the City address that the Commission has since adopted, we are going to do a citywide master plan that will -- that -- and completely rewrite our code, which is nuts. We're going to break it, I think, into three phases. We don't know. That hasn't been adopted by the Commission yet, but I think staff is going there, and in the first phase, which we're going to try to fast track, staff is looking at all the major corridors in the City of Miami, citywide to address development along these major corridors to answer the very question you're talking about, because the issue isn't just Biscayne Boulevard. It's Coral Way, it's 27th Avenue, it's Douglas, it's 7th Avenue, it's a lot of major corridors, so phase one, we're going to try to fast track and create a whole new code and look for all of our major corridors that abut all these residential neighborhoods. Ms. West: The only thing is if you look at -- Commissioner Winton: I don't want to debate it. I'm giving you the facts that we're coming. Ms. West: No, I'm just saying if you look at Northeast 2nd Avenue, what happens, all of the developers already have many, many plans filed. There's nothing we can do about that, right? Commissioner Winton: Absolutely not. Submitted Into the public Ms. West: So it may all be built by the time you get there. record in connection with Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Item 2-i5 on 11'19'0Lj Priscilla A. Thompson 9 City Clerk Commissioner Winton: Oh, they're not all going to be built by the time we re done. Chairman Teele: All right, sir, you're next. Gordon Willitts: OK, thank you. My name is Gordon Willitts. I'm speaking for 411 Northeast 52nd Street. One of the things that Commissioner Winton said at the last meeting was that he would take into consideration if people had bought property -- I mean had -- Commissioner Winton: Closed on property. Mr. Willitts: -- had not closed on property and they wanted -- Commissioner Winton: Had closed. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Had closed. Mr. Willitts: -- and closed, correct. OK -- Commissioner Winton: Had closed prior. Mr. Willitts: -- but if they hadn't that you would take that into consideration. I would also respectfully ask you to look at developers who came in and bought property at bargain basement prices, and then left that property to literally rot on the boulevard. Two of them were cited as unsafe structures and tore down, down on 55th, and the one that is next to my house and the adjacent building is vacant, boarded up, water in the pool. I mean, those developers get up and say that they came in and helped to redevelop the boulevard, and they haven't, and I really don't think they should be rewarded for coming in and buying property that was at a bargain basement price, and leaving the buildings there, and now that the market has come up, get up and say that they need to build up. Thank you. Commissioner Winton: We don't write our code, we will never write our code -- it's probably not even constitutional to write a code that is geared towards a developer. We can do that. Mr. City Attorney, would you help us here? Can we look at a specific developer and say, well, because you bought your site 22 years ago and now, then we think you're the bad guy and you got a new set of rules? You can't -- can you do that? The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Angel Gonzdlez, Johnny L. Winton, Joe Sanchez, Tomas Regalado and Arthur E. Teele, Jr. 1Mayor's OfficeSigned by the Mayor5/3/041Law DepartmentReviewed and Approved 6/17/04 http://egov.ci.miami.fl.us/LegistarWeb/temp/rep236A.html Submitted Into the public City of MiamiCity Hall record in connection with 3500 Pan American Drive item PL-I!r on 0-19'Uq Miami, FL 33133 Priscilla A. Thompson www.ci.miami.fl.us City Clerk Text File Report File ID:Type:Status:04-00108OrdinancePassedEnactment Date:Enactment #:12530Version:Introduced:Controlling Body:lPlanning & Zoning2/3/04AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SPECIAL DISTRICTS, IN ORDER TO AMEND SEC. 609, SD -9 10 Submitted into the public record in connection with item P2,15' on IHS, -o.4! ho Priscilla A. Tmp.:7on City Clerk Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Ordinance are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, is hereby amended by amending the text of said Ordinance as follows: ill "ARTICLE 6. Special Zoning Districts" Sec. 609. SD -9 Biscayne Boulevard North Overlay District. Sec. 609.8. Limitations on sign. Additional Limitations. For purposes of interpreting the SD -9 requirements as to building envelope and height, Biscayne Boulevard shall be considered the front, regardless of site orientation and configuration. Irrespective of the underlying zoning requirements, the following special limitations as to height, footprint and setbacks shall apply to all properties with an SD -9 Overlay designation: 609.8.1. Height Limitations. Garage Height: 40 feet Maximum. Garages are intended to be located at the back of the lot, away from public view at the Boulevard. Heights of parking structures and garages may not exceed 40 feet, measured from grade; all such structures shall also comply with additional height limitations as may apply pursuant to Sec. 609.8.2 when such properties are abutting R-1 or R-2 zoning districts. Building Height: For properties located on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard from NE 39th Street, in a northerly direction, up to a line which runs in a westerly direction from the southerly right-of-way line of NE 50th Terrace, as extended to the west: 120 feet maximum; For properties located on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard from NE 79th Street, in a northerly direction, up to the City Limits: 120 feet maximum; For properties with over 150 feet in depth as of April 29, 2004 (as measured from Biscayne Boulevard and providing for Biscayne Boulevard to be considered the front regardless of lot configuration): 120 feet maximum. Such properties shall have a maximum height limitation of 25 feet at the rear setback point from which no building height shall be allowed above a 45 degree angle line; such line shall commence at the 25 foot height and slopig sl e i a direction towards Biscayne Submittedinto the Pudic Boulevard. record in connection wil:i For all remaining properties: item Vz—ts- on fl --1 -0tl Priscilla A. Thompson Nonresidential: 85 feet (7 floors) maximum. City Clerk Residential and mixed use structures containing a residential component: 95 feet (8 floors) maximum. 609.8.2. Building Envelope Limitations. Structures located within the district shall comply with the following building envelope limitations: 1. Rear envelopes where abutting other districts. Where properties within the SD -9 District abut R-1 or R-2 zoning districts, such properties shall have a maximum height limitation of 25 feet at the rear setback point (or whatever property line abuts the R-1 or R-2 zoning district) from which no building height shall be allowed above a 45 degree angle line; such line shall commence at the 25 foot height and slope in a direction towards Biscayne Boulevard. Where properties within the SD -9 District abut R-3 or more intense zoning districts, such properties shall have a maximum height limitation of 40 feet at the rear setback point (or whatever property line abuts the R-3 or more intense zoning district) from which no building height shall be allowed above a 45 degree angle line; such line shall commence at the 40 foot height and slope in a direction towards Biscayne Boulevard. 2. Setbacks: A. BUILDING ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS FROM GRADE TO 40 feet ABOVE GRADE Boulevard Setback: 10 feet minimum; Buildings shall be setback a minimum of ten (10) feet from the Biscayne Boulevard base building line, except if an arcade is provided at the ground floor; in such cases, encroachments of usable active space (including liner uses), whether enclosed or unenclosed, may be provided up to the property line or base building line, subject to compliance with all visibility requirements. Walls constructed along Biscayne Boulevard need not be continuously located along the 10 foot setback line; additional setbacks to allow for pedestrian entranceways, cafe uses and plazas shall be permitted, however, 100% of the ground floor frontage along Biscayne Boulevard (whether enclosed or unenclosed) shall be required to consist of usable active spaces. B. BUILDING ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS FROM 40 feet ABOVE GRADE TO MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT REAR PROPERTY LINE SETBACK: minimum of 20 feet above a height of 40 feet from grade, and also subject to the requirements of Section 907.3.2 (which requires an additional setback of one foot in the horizontal for two additional feet in the vertical dimension);building walls may be placed no less than 20 feet from the rear property line. Plantings and other landscaping which serves to assist in screening the view of parking areas are encouraged, and may be placed in the rear setback. Sec. 609.9. Additional Parking Regulations. Parking requirements shall be as for the underlying district except as follows: 1. Reductions in overall nonresidential parking of up to 10% may be granted pursuant to a Class II Special Permit if metered parking is located along any street frontage adjacent to the proposed establishment. 2. 100% of nonresidential parking may be located offsite, pursuant to a Class II Special Permit, as long as such parking is located no more than one thousand (1000) feet from the subject estab slime e erved by such parking; the 1000 -foot ubmitted°ln o the public 3 record in conne(1 I c i vvith item Fz 16— a Priscilla A. 'i -►Tompson distance limitation is to be measured from the nearest point of the subject establishment to the nearest point of the property on which the parking is located. In order to locate such parking offsite as described above, a lease for such parking will be required for a minimum of three (3) years. The Class II Special Permit will run for the same time period as the lease and may be renewed upon appropriate lease extensions being granted. Such parking area may be on a surface lot or a garage structure, as long as such spaces are excess and not otherwise required for another use. 3. For restaurant/food service establishments, as adaptive re -use of an existing structure, any square footage utilized for kitchen and/or storage areas will not be counted towards parking requirements. Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances insofar as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 4. If any section, part of section, paragraph, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected. Section 5. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after final reading and adoption thereof. (2) ---------------- ---------------- http://egov.ci.miami.fl.us/LegistarWebJtemp/rep2316.html Submitted into the public record inconnection connection with City of MiamiMaster ReportCity Hall item _U_?5 on11-19-1114 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 Priscilla A. Thompson www.ci.miami.fl.us City Clerk Ordinance 12594File ID #:Enactment Date:04-00673Version:2Controlling Body: Planning & ZoningStatus:PassedTitle:AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SPECIAL DISTRICTS, IN ORDER TO AMEND SECTION 609, SD -9 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NORTH OVERLAY DISTRICT, TO MODIFY SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO HEIGHT, SETBACK AND PARKING LIMITATIONS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Reference:Introduced:6/15/04Name:Modify SD -9 Special Distrcit RequirementsRequester:Cost:Final Action:9/27/04Notes:Sections:Indexes:Attachments:04-00673 SR Fact Sheet.pdf, 04-00673 PAB Reso.PDF, 04-00673 Legislation.PDF, 04-00673 FR Fact Sheet.pdf, 04-00673 Legislation - Modif.PDF Action HistoryVer.ReturnedActing BodyDateActionSent ToDue DateResultlCity CommissionPASSED ON FIRST READING 7/22/041 A motion was made by Angel Gonzalez, seconded by Tomas Regalado, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): I'll move on to PZ.38 then. PZ.38 is a first reading ordinance amending the SD -9 Biscayne Boulevard North Overlay District. As you recall, when we did the last amendment to SD -9, establishing height limits for the boulevard, the final recommendation was that we were going to come back with the part two changes, which further lowers the height and angle where commercial properties are -- adjacent to residential, so this adds that further protection for the low-density neighborhoods. It's been recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board and we're recommending approval. 4 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is this first reading or second reading? Ms. Slazyk: This is a first reading. Vice Chairman Sanchez: First reading. It's a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to be heard on this item, please come forward. Hearing none, the public hearing is closed. We need a motion. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ.38. Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's a motion by -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- Commissioner Gonzalez. It is a second -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- by Commissioner Regalado. It is open for discussion. Hearing none, Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Deputy City Attorney. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk, roll call. Sylvia Scheider (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Scheider: Passes first reading, 4/0. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 4 - Angel Gonzalez, Johnny L. Winton, Joe Sanchez and Tomas Regalado Absent: 1 - Arthur E. Teele, Jr. 2Law DepartmentReviewed and Approved 8/16/042City CommissionADOPTED9/27/041 A motion was made by Johnny L. Winton, seconded by Tomas Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ.23 is a second reading ordinance. These -- this is the Part II of the SD -9 amendments. I was asked by some of the neighbors to just recap real quickly for the record. What this does is it institutes more strict height requirements where the rear of SD -9 properties abut R-1 or R-2 districts. Instead of starting at that 45 -foot height at the rear setback point, not at the property line, they can only go up to -- a developer may only build up to 25 feet at that point, and then they have to cut it up at a 45 -degree angle toward the boulevard. The previous section of what we amended this to read said that regardless of your configuration, your boulevard is your front, and this also says specifically, "Where properties within SD -9 abut R-1 or R-2 zoning districts, such properties shall have a maximum height limitation of 25 feet at the rear setback point or whatever property line abuts the R-1 or R-2 zoning district, from which no building height shall be allowed above a 45 -degree angle line," and I think they just wanted to make sure that that's what -- Commissioner Winton: So move. Ms. Slazyk: -- this did, and it's in the record. Chairman Sanchez: OK. It is a public hearing address this issue, please step Anyone from the public wishing to - forward and address the Commission. Seeing none, hearing none, closed. We need a motion from the Commission. 5 the public hearing is Submitted Into the public record in connection with item or, Prisciiia A. Tsermpson City Clerk Commissioner Winton: So moved again. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Sanchez: So moved by Commissioner Winton. It's an improper motion, sir. Read your book. There's a second. It is open for discussion. Hearing none -- Commissioner Winton: I stand corrected. Chairman Sanchez: -- it's a City ordinance. Mr. City Attorney, read the ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Sanchez: Madam Attorney -- I mean, Madam Clerk. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. Chairman Sanchez: Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado: Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Winton? Commissioner Winton: I just have one comment. I want to know, Commissioner Sanchez, if you read Robert's Rules of Order all weekend? Chairman Sanchez: Sir, let me tell you, it is great reading material when you're in the bathroom. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Chairman Sanchez: And it is there in my bathroom now, and every -- Commissioner Winton: My vote is yes. Chairman Sanchez: -- time that I get a chance, I read it. Ms. Thompson: And then Chairman Sanchez? Chairman Sanchez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: The -- I'm sorry. The ordinance is adopted on second reading, 3/0. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 3 - Johnny L. Winton, Joe Sanchez and Tomas Regalado Absent: 1 - Angel Gonzdlez 2Mayor's OfficeSigned by the Mayor9/30/04 �` ubmit',ed Into the public' record in connection ith item 2-tS� on 11-1 64 Priscilla A. Thompson 6 City Clerk Submitted Into the public record in connection with', item 2—t5 on -t -o4 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 15/11 2004 11:21 FAX 3057580508 ANDREW DICKMAN,ES9. Z003 ANDREW W.J. DICKMAN Attomey at Law Law Offices of 1 'ieL• 305.758.3621 ANDREW DICICMAN, P.A. Fax- 30:5.7$8.0508 9111 Park Dc • Miami Shores, FL 33138 V(andewdickmaa@beUsouth.net / July 30, 2004 l Or(e3e 1' -&2, Q-_, VIA LAND DELIVE" Teresita-L. Fernandez', Dizectvr office of the Hearing Boards CITY OF MIAMI 444 SW 2nd Ave, Seventh Floor Miami Florida 33130--1910 Re: Notice of Appeal of the Decision by the Director of the Planning and Zoning Department ("Decision") for a Class II permit at 5101 Biscayne Boulevard and a Class II permit at 5225 Biscayne Boulevard rendered July 21, 2004. Dear Mrs_ Fernandez: This firm represents the Morningside Civic Association, Inc., including four individual residents in Morningside, Rod Rlonso, Ron Stebbins, Scott Crawford, and Elvis Cruz, who all own homes and reside in near the above referenced projects. This letters serves to notify you that my clients are materially affected by the above referenced decisions_ Therefore, please consider this our formal notice of meal, and in support we allege: On or about July 21, 2004, the City issued two Class 11 special building permits to construct two multi -story residential developments at -5101 and 5225 Biscayne Boulevard abutting the low density single family neighborhood of Morningside. Section 1800 (l.) and 1800.(2) of the City's Zoning Code gives my clients standing to appeal "ANT decision" (emphasis added) of the Zoning Administrator or "director of the department of planning, building and zoning_" The decision to issue the Class 11 building permits, including zoning approval, falls within this category of decisions that can be appealed to the Zoning Board. Among the planning and zoning errors made by the City in issuing its approval of these projects are the following: The City's comprehensive plan specifically contains policies that protect existing residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and developments. Moreover, tfie Plan contains policies that direct the City to permit high density, multi -family developments near the downtown and in close proximity to metro--taxl and metro --mover. These projects are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of the City of Miami. • Section 907.3.2 of the city's Zoning Code requires additional_ setbacks for projects built higher than 40 feet when abutting residential zoning districts on the .rear. The two residential developments at 5101 and 5225t'2T�ysUng F1M��.�$ Boulevard will be well over 40 feet in height= and "�5 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P2-15 on II -18,O4 Priscilla A. Th^�inson City Clerk 15/11 2004 11:22 FAX 3057580508 ANDREW DICKMAN,ES9. Z004 I' -- abut a residential district on the rear. City of Miarai Hearing Boards Jane 29, 2004 Page 2 • Article 1305 of the Zoning Code requires that certain factors be considered before issuance of Class II special permits, including, inter ali.a, the "use, occupancy, location, design character and scale," of the proposed project. This section also requires that conditions and safeguards be established before permits are issued, including "protection of adjacent properties, the neighborhood." Because the scale and character of the projects undermines and threatens the integrity of the adjacent Morningside neighborhood, the permits were issued in error; and The appellants were denied due process in this matter because the Zoning Administrator refused to consider the additional site and neighborhood standards established by the new SD --9 ordinance thereby ignoring a clear change of zoning in progress at the time the permits were issued. Enclosed with this notice are two checks in the amount of $500 each (one for each project) required by your departmental rules and regulations. We appreciate your scheduling these matters before the Zoning Board at your earliest convenience_ Very truly you , Andr Dickman, AICD, Esq. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Z -►5 on y-te,oq Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk ftJ Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 2-I5 on Priscilla A. Thompson pson City Clerk Submitted Into the public` record in connection with item _2-1s on Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Westlaw. 2004 WL 2171906 --- So.2d --- (Cite as: 2004 WL 2171906 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.)) NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, ITIS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. WCI COMMUNITIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, successor by merger to WCI Communities Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, Appellant, V. CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS, a Florida municipal corporation, Appellee. No. 4D03-1901. Sept. 29, 2004. Background: Developer brought action against city for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that city's nine-month temporary moratorium on the processing of site plan applications for townhouse and multi -family development constituted procedural and substantive due process violations. Following bench trial, the Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Charles M. Greene, J., entered judgment for city. Developer appealed. Holding: The District Court of Appeal, Shahood, J., held that moratorium was rationally related to city's attempt to preserve status quo while it formulated regulatory land use scheme and thus did not violate due process. Affirmed. M Constitutional Law X213.1(2) 92k213.1(2) Most Cited Cases Page 1 M Constitutional Law X251.3 92k251.3 Most Cited Cases Under both substantive due process and equal protection, when the legislation being challenged does not target a protected class, the rational basis test is applied. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. 121 Constitutional Law X278.2(1) 92k278.20) Most Cited Cases Substantive due process challenges to zoning regulations are analyzed under the rational basis test. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Ll Constitutional Law X213.1(2) 92k213.1(2) Most Cited Cases Ll Constitutional Law C��251.3 92k251.3 Most Cited Cases Under the rational basis test, a court gives great deference to economic and social legislation. f4l Constitutional Law X213.1(2) 92k213.1(2) Most Cited Cases 1441 Constitutional Law X251.3 92k251.3 Most Cited Cases The first step in determining whether legislation survives the rational basis test is identifying a legitimate government purpose which the governing body could have been pursuing; the second step of the rational basis test asks whether a rational basis exists for the enacting government body to believe that the legislation would further the hypothesized purpose. L51 Constitutional Law X213.1(2) 92k213. l(2) Most Cited Cases 151 Constitutional Law X251.3 92k251.3 Most Cited Cases The proper inquiry under the rational basis test is concerned with the existence of a conceivably rational basis, not whether that basis is actually considered by the legislative body. lel Constitutional Law X213.1(2) 92k213.1(2) Most Cited Cases 161 Constitutional Law 0251.3 92k251.3 Most Cited Cases The rational basis standard is highly deferential. 1_71 Zoning and Planning X608.1 Copr. © 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item z-iY arYll- L Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 2004 WL 2171906 --- So.2d --- (Cite as: 2004 WL 2171906 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.)) 414k608.1 Most Cited Cases 171 Zoning and Planning X611 414k611 Most Cited Cases A court should not set aside the determination of public officers in land use matters unless it is clear that their action has no foundation in reason and is a mere arbitrary or irrational exercise of power having no substantial relation to the public health, the public morals, the public safety or the public welfare in its proper sense. 181 Constitutional Law X278.2(1) 92k278.2(1) Most Cited Cases When examining zoning and planning laws for substantive due process violations, the question is only whether a rational relationship exists between the ordinance and a conceivable legitimate governmental objective; if the question is at least debatable, there is no substantive due process violation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. 191 Constitutional Law C;-278.2(1) 92k278.2(1) Most Cited Cases City's nine-month moratorium on the processing of site plan applications for townhouse and multi -family developments was rationally related to city's attempt to preserve status quo while it formulated regulatory land use scheme and thus did not violate developer's substantive due process rights; city undertook comprehensive review of its regulations, and during the moratorium period, enacted changes pertaining to multi -family development relating to setbacks, building length, parking, utilities, sidewalks, right-of-way width, landscaping and other concerns. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. 191 Zoning and Planning X86 414k86 Most Cited Cases City's nine-month moratorium on the processing of site plan applications for townhouse and multi -family developments was rationally related to city's attempt to preserve status quo while it formulated regulatory land use scheme and thus did not violate developer's substantive due process rights; city undertook comprehensive review of its regulations, and during the moratorium period, enacted changes pertaining to multi -family development relating to setbacks, building length, parking, utilities, sidewalks, right-of-way width, landscaping and other concerns. U. S. C. A. Page 2 Const.Amend. 14. 1101 Zoning and Planning X25 414k25 Most Cited Cases [101 Zoning and Planning G�27 414k27 Most Cited Cases 1101 Zoning and Planning X37 414k37 Most Cited Cases [101 Zoning and Planning X39 414k39 Most Cited Cases Permissible bases for land use restrictions include concern about the effect of the proposed development on traffic, on congestion, on surrounding property values, on demand for city services, and on other aspects of the general welfare. [l 11 Zoning and Planning X27 414k27 Most Cited Cases [111 Zoning and Planning X36 414k36 Most Cited Cases It is within the power of the legislature to determine that a community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. Alvin B. Davis, Thomas M. Karr and Heather L. Gatley of Steel Hector & Davis, LLP, Miami, for appellant. Michael T. Burke and Tamara M. Scrudders of Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & McDuff, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee. SHAHOOD, J. *1 Appellant, WCI Communities, Inc. (WCI), a Delaware corporation, successor by merger to WCI Communities Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, appeals from Final Judgment entered in favor of appellee, City of Coral Springs (City). WCI filed its initial complaint against the City seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Thereafter, it filed a Supplemental Complaint asserting that the nine-month temporary moratorium enacted by the City on the processing of site plan applications for townhouse and multi -family development constituted procedural and substantive due process violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. & 1983. Copr.O' 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Submitted linto, the public record in connection with item P2.15 on 1 - i � 64 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 2004 WL 2171906 --- So.2d --- (Cite as: 2004 WL 2171906 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.)) WCI claimed that the moratorium prevented WCI from using its multi -family parcels for multi -family residential development thereby preventing it from selling these parcels to others for such development. WCI alleged that these actions by the City disrupted and interfered with its business operations, harmed its goodwill and reputation and created uncertainty regarding its continued viability. WCI alleged that during 1996 and 1997, WCI had a reasonable expectation of selling its multi -family properties to customers and that its properties were properly planned, zoned, and platted to meet all existing City requirements. It claimed that the City had knowledge that its moratorium would cause WCI damage. Based on allegations from the First Amended Complaint, WCI alleged that the City knew that WCI projected sales of its multi -family property in its financial plan necessary to meet its financial commitments to its lenders and investors so as to avoid default of its loan obligations and that the City's actions prevented WC1 from meeting its financial commitments. Further, the City's actions caused WCI to lose its ability to market and sell its multi -family parcels, and thus, lost "the time/ value of money it could have received by earlier sale" of its property. WCI further alleged that the temporary moratorium effected a regulatory taking of its property requiring payment of just compensation. Specifically, WCt claimed that the regulations enacted by the City were unnecessary and had a negative impact upon its properties. Following a five-day non -jury trial, the trial court entered a detailed final judgment finding in favor of the City. We hold the trial court did not err in its final judgment which found that that the city's use of zoning in progress and its adoption of temporary moratorium in the processing of multi -family development applications did not deprive WCI of any substantive due process rights or affect a temporary taking of WCI's multi -family zoned parcels. On the issue of substantive due process, courts have held that "[s]ubstantive due process challenges are analyzed under the rational basis test; that is, a Page 3 legislative act of the government will not be considered arbitrary and capricious if it has 'a rational relationship with a legitimate general welfare concern.' " Gardens Country Club, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 712 So.2d 398, 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). *2 [1][2][3][41(51[61 Under both substantive due process and equal protection, when the legislation being challenged does not target a protected class, the rational basis test is applied. See Restigouche, Inc. v. Jupiter, 59 F.3d 1208, 12t4 n. 6 (11th Cir. 1995); see also 219 S. Ad. Blvd, Inc. v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., 239 F.Supp.2d 1265, 1276 (S.D.F1a.2002). Substantive due process challenges to zoning regulations are analyzed under the rational basis test. See Restrgouche, 59 F.3d at 1214. Under this test, a court gives great deference to economic and social legislation. See Gan, v. City f Warner Robins, Ga., 311 F.3d 1334, 1339 (l lth Cir.2002. The first step in determining whether legislation survives the rational basis test is identifying a legitimate government purpose which the governing body could have been pursuing. See Restigouche, 59 F.3d at 1214. The second step of the rational basis test asks whether a rational basis exists for the enacting government body to believe that the legislation would further the hypothesized purpose. See id The proper inquiry is concerned with the existence of a conceivably rational basis, not whether that basis is actually considered by the legislative body. See id The rational basis standard is highly deferential. See Gary, 311 F.3d at 1339. M A court should not set aside the determination of public officers in land use matters unless it is clear that their action has no foundation in reason and is a mere arbitrary or irrational exercise of power having no substantial relation to the public health, the public morals, the public safety or the public welfare in its proper sense. See Smithrield Concerned Citizens for Fair Zoning v. Town of Smithfield 907 F.2d 239, 243 (1st Cir. 1990). The question is only whether a rational relationship exists between the ordinance and a conceivable legitimate governmental objective. See id. at 245. If the question is at least debatable, there is no substantive due process violation. See FAI Proms Operating Co. v. City ofAustin, 93 F.3d 167, 174 (5th Cir. 1996). Submitted Into the public Copr. © 2004 West, No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. record In connection With item ?_Z-15' on J [ -1 d'vy Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 2004 WL 2171906 --- So.2d --- (Cite as: 2004 WL 2171906 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.)) In this case, the trial court, in its fmal judgment, set out the bases upon which the court must determine whether there was such a deprivation of rights. In its detailed judgment, the court determined that the stated purpose of Ordinance 97-112, establishing the moratorium on multi -family development, stated a clear, legitimate government purpose. The ordinance provided in pertinent part the following language: Purpose: To enable the city to undertake a thorough analysis of the Comprehensive Plan and the residential development regulations for RC & RM zoning districts including, but not limited to the impact of said development on parks, recreation and open space, the availability of infrastructure and accessibility of emergency and public service vehicular traffic and public safety and public facilities. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Coral Springs has noted the rapid development of multiple -family residential units and the consequential growing demands upon city services; and *3 WHEREAS, although the City Commission has incorporated numerous changes to the development regulations within the past few years which impact townhouse and multiple -family residential development, a comprehensive review is required to study the impact of townhouse and multiple -family development on transportation, public safety, adequacy of public facilities; recreation and open space, the accessibility for emergency and public service vehicular traffic, the adequacy of drainage facilities, and the impact on the availability of water and wastewater facilities; and WHEREAS, the city requires time to review, consider, modify, process for adoption, and implement regulations pertaining the referenced zoning districts, and to evaluate the extent that the existing zoning laws are effectively implementing the comprehensive plan;.... The trial court held that based on the evidence adduced at trial, the City's actions were based on its discovery that WCI was operating differently than its predecessor, Coral Ridge Properties, and that unlike site plans submitted by Coral Ridge Properties, site plans being submitted by WCI for multi -family parcels were at the Page 4 very minimum of code requirements. In an effort to obtain better quality housing, the City began exploring regulatory action to replace what Coral Ridge Properties had previously done with enforcing deed restrictions. The court held that the temporary moratorium was an important land -use planning tool as a means of preserving the status quo during the planning process to ensure that the community's problems were not exacerbated during the time it takes to formulate a regulatory scheme. As such, there was a rational logical nexus between the City's conduct in adopting the regulations and the moratorium, and legitimate governmental objectives. I Off 1 I I It is well-settled that permissible bases for land use restrictions include concern about the effect of the proposed development on traffic, on congestion, on surrounding property values, on demand for city services, and on other aspects of the general welfare. See Corny. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 997 F.2d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir.1993). It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. See id. In this case, the City undertook a comprehensive review of its regulations, and during the moratorium period, enacted changes pertaining to multi -family development relating to setbacks, building length, parking, utilities, sidewalks, right-of-way width, landscaping and other concerns. The City was entitled to enact the moratorium as a land -use tool to promote effective planning and preserve the status quo during this change. See Tahoe -Sierra Pres. Council. Inc. v. Tahoe Ru'l PlanningAgency, 535 U.S. 302, 337, 122 S.Ct. 1465, 152 L.Ed,2d 517 (2002) (temporary moratoria are used widely among land -use planners to preserve the status quo while formulating a more permanent development strategy). By using this planning tool, the City prevented development inconsistent with its pending changes in development regulation. An emergency is not required to justify the use of this tool. Clearly, such a moratoria constituted a legitimate governmental purpose. *4 We affirm as to all other issues raised without further discussion. Copr. © 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Submitted Into the public record in connef""Lion with item P2,45 on 11 -1p -6k Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 2004 WL 2171906 --- So.2d --- (Cite as: 2004 WL 2171906 (F'la.App. 4 Dist.)) AFFIRMED. POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur. 2004 WL 2171906 (F1a.App. 4 Dist.), 29 Fla. L. Weekly D2196 END OF DOCUMENT Page 5 Submitted Into the public Copr. © 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. record in connection with item 'P2--15- onIt-1-P-01 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk W?stlaw. 509 So.2d 1295 509 So.2d 1295, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1722 (Cite as: 509 So.2d 1295) H District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. CITY OF POMPANO BEACH, Appellant, V. YARDARM RESTAURANT, INC., a Florida corporation, and Sunrise Savings & Loan Association of Florida, a Florida corporation, Appellees. No. 85-2821. July 15, 1987. Property owner sought to enjoin city from subsequently repealing special height exception granted to property owner for construction of building. The Circuit Court, Broward County, J. Cail Lee, J., granted permanent injunctive relief, and city appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Hersey, C.J., held that: (l) property owner made sufficient showing of "irreparable harm" by demonstrating that construction project would not be economically feasible if special height exception was repealed, but (2) city's early obstructionist tactics after exception was granted did not constitute sufficient basis for stopping city from repealing exception. Reversed and remanded. West Headnotes LU Injunction X14 212k14 Most Cited Cases To obtain injunction, it is not necessary to show that irreparable harm has already been done, but only that there is reasonable probability that harm will occur unless defendant's action is prevented. 121 Zoning and Planning 0568 414k568 Most Cited Cases Property owner which sought to enjoin zoning authority from repealing its special height exception made sufficient showing of "irreparable harm" by Page 1 demonstrating that construction project would no longer be economically feasible if exception was repealed. 131 Injunction 077(1) 212k77(l) Most Cited Cases Enactment of ordinance by municipality is "administrative action," which court should not enjoin absent fraud or gross abuse of discretion. 141 Zoning and Planning C27 4141c27 Most Cited Cases Whether enactment of zoning ordinance is unreasonable or arbitrary depends upon potential effect of ordinance on safety, health, morals, and general welfare of community. 151 Zoning and Planning (',-568 414k568 Most Cited Cases Potential effect of proposed zoning ordinance on safety, health, morals, and general welfare of community was matter which should have been weighed, in first instance, by zoning authority; accordingly, injunction which prevented zoning authority from conducting hearing on proposed ordinance was improvidently entered. 161 Zoning and Planning 0549 414k549 Most Cited Cases City's early obstructionist tactics, after property owner had been granted special height exception for construction of building, did not estop city from later repealing exception, where property owner had failed to make any real effort to construct building during the more than five-year period which followed cessation of obstructionist activity. 171 Zoning and Planning 0439.5 414k439.5 Most Cited Cases Municipality may properly delay issuance of building permit, where there is change in zoning in progress which would affect permit. 181 Zoning and Planning C=-549 414k549 Most Cited Cases Zoning authority was not equitably estopped from repealing special height exception granted to property owner for construction of building, where owner had made no real effort to construct building and did not Copr. © 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Submitted Into the public record in connecticn with item onl1-/F-a-1 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 509 So.2d 1295 509 So.2d 1295, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1722 (Cite as: 509 So.2d 1295) show that it had incurred extensive obligations such as might justify application of equitable estoppel. *1296 Donald C. Roberge, Pompano Beach, for appellant. Stewart P. Chambers of Faircloth & Chambers, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Yardarm Restaurant, Inc. James E. Tribble of Blackwell, Walker, Fascell & Hoehl, Miami, for appellee Sunrise Say. and Loan Ass'n. HERSEY, Chief Judge. Appellant, the City of Pompano Beach, in October 1973, enacted an ordinance granting appellee, Yardarm Restaurant, a special exception to the city's ten -story building height limitation. The proposed building was never constructed and appellee's building permit expired by operation of law in May of 1985. In August of 1985 the city proposed the enactment of an ordinance repealing the special height exception. Shortly thereafter appellee commenced the process of obtaining a new building permit. Because of the pending zoning change the city refused to process the application. Appellee filed suit, resulting in an order permanently enjoining the city from enacting an ordinance revoking the special exception to height limitation. * 1297 JiM Appellant makes a two-pronged attack on the injunctive order. First the city argues that, where no injury will occur until after an ordinance is passed, injunctive relief to prevent enactment of the ordinance is not appropriate. The third district has taken a somewhat contrary position, holding, in Paul's Druzs, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 175 So.2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), that it is not necessary to show that irreparable harm has already been done but only that there is a reasonable probability that harm will occur unless the action is prevented. We agree with that position and find that the test is satisfied here by the showing that if the proposed ordinance is enacted, the project will no longer be economically feasible. Further, appellee is presently suffering harm because the city will not issue the building permit. A case from Page 2 this court, Town ofPabn Beach v. Palm Beach County, 332 So.2d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), relied on as standing for a different proposition, being concerned only with a temporary injunction, is inapposite, 3 1 The city's primary position is based upon the proposition that a court should not enjoin administrative action. The enactment of an ordinance by a municipality is an exercise by an agency of its legislative function. It is reasonably well established that, in the absence of fraud or a gross abuse of discretion, a court should not enjoin administrative action. Johnson v. McNeill, 151 Fla. 606, 10 So.2d 143 (1942); Hillsborough County Aviation ,41tthori v. Taller & Cooper. Inc., 245 So.2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971. There is no suggestion of fraud on this record. The issue, then, is whether enjoining enactment of the repealing ordinance constitutes a gross abuse of discretion. ILL51 Whether enactment of a zoning ordinance is unreasonable or arbitrary depends upon the potential effect of the ordinance on the safety, health, morals, and general welfare of the community. Such factors are appropriately weighed and compared in the first instance by the legislative body governing the municipality, in this case the zoning authority of the City of Pompano Beach. See Sten el v. Crandon, 156 Fla. 592, 23 So.2d 835 (1945); Mat -ell v. Hardv, 450 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Dade Counts, v. United Resources, Inc., 374 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Because the city has been enjoined from conducting hearings, the validity of the proposed ordinance in this regard has never been determined. Twelve years having elapsed since the special exception was granted, it is particularly necessary and appropriate that the zoning authority be given the opportunity to consider anew the effect that continuation of the special exception would have on the safety, health, and general welfare of the community as it is presently constituted. Preliminarily, then, we determine that the injunction was improvidently entered. Based upon its hypothesis that without the special exception its project would no longer be viable, appellee relies on arguments grounded in estoppel and equitable estoppel to sustain the permanent injunction. Copr. © 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item p2 --i5 on li-1!R-04 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 509 So.2d 1295 509 So.2d 1295, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1722 (Cite as: 509 So.2d 1295) LkH21 As to estoppel, neither the city's early END OF DOCUMENT obstructionist tactics nor its later refusal to process the renewed application for a building permit constitutes a sufficient basis for estopping the city from repealing the special exception to the height limitation. The former is insufficient because the complained -of activities took place in 1979 and before. Appellee failed to make any real effort to construct the building during the more than five-year period that followed cessation of that activity. Appellee further submits that the city in 1985 unlawfully refused to issue a new building permit. At that time there was a change in zoning in progress which would affect the permit. See Smith v. City of' Clearwater, 383 So.2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), rev. dismissed, 403 So.2d 407 (Fla.] 981 . Under such circumstances a municipality may properly delay issuance of a building permit. Smith; City of Boynton Beach v. Carroll, 272 So.2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 279 So.2d 87 t (Fla.1973). Appellee's second basis for challenging repeal of the special exception, equitable *1298 estoppel, has no application on the facts of this case as they appear from the record on appeal. Equitable estoppel may be applied to limit the exercise of zoning power "when a property owner relying in good faith upon some act or omission of the [governmental] body has made a substantial change in position or incurred extensive obligations and expenses." United Resources, 374 So.2d at 1050. The mere existence of a present use right, however, is not a sufficient basis for application of equitable estoppel. City of Fort Pierce v. Davis 400 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Appellee has not shown that extensive obligations have been incurred or otherwise demonstrated such a change in position as to justify the application of equitable estoppel in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the order, vacate the injunction and remand for such further proceedings, if any, as may be appropriate. REVERSED and REMANDED. ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur. 509 So.2d 1295, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1722 Page 3 Copr. © 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Submitted Into the public record In connection With item Pz-15on Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 1*st1_aw. 712 So.2d 398 712 So.2d 398, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D682 (Cite as: 712 So.2d 398) H District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. GARDENS COUNTRY CLUB, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, V. PALM BEACH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee. Nos. 96-1165, 96-4189. March 11, 1998. Rehearing Denied April 16, 1998. Country club brought action against county to require it to grant club's application for rezoning and special exception in compliance with existing comprehensive plan, after county refused to consider application that did not comply with proposed plan with different density requirements. The Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Stephen A. Rapp, J., ruled for county, and on appeal the District Court of Appeal, 590 So.2d 488, reversed and remanded, determining county's failure to consider country club's application was improper. On remand, the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Thomas E. Sholts, J., ruled in favor of county, determining that there was no total temporary taking of property in question and that right to develop property was not constitutionally protected and denial was not arbitrary or capricious. County club appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Warner, J., held that: (1) case was ripe under futility exception to ripeness doctrine; (2) partial temporary taking from regulation requires compensation if it amounts to a deprivation of substantially all economically beneficial use of the property; (3) regulation did not deprive country club of substantially all economically beneficial use of property where remaining value was $3,000 per acre; (4) refusal to consider application under then -existing plan precluded substantial use of land and constituted property right subject to due process protections for § Page I 1983 purposes; but (5) under as -applied challenge, county's refusal attempting to effectuate amendment and not to allow inconsistent development satisfied rational basis test. Affirmed. West Headnotes LU Eminent Domain C�:�277 148k277 Most Cited Cases Ripeness doctrine requires, as essential prerequisite to regulatory takings claim, a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted on the subject property. M Eminent Domain X277 148k277 Most Cited Cases There is futility exception to the ripeness doctrine in regulatory takings claims that can render a case ripe for review despite failure to obtain final and authoritative determination of type and intensity of development legally permitted on subject property. f31 Eminent Domain X2.10(1) 148k2.100) Most Cited Cases (Formerly 148k2(1)) f 3f Eminent Domain X114.1 148k114.1 Most Cited Cases Taking occurs where regulation denies substantially all economically beneficial or productive use of land, and temporary deprivation may constitute a taking. 141 Eminent Domain X2.1 148k2.1 Most Cited Cases (Formerly 148k2(1)) Partial temporary taking based on regulation occurs, and requires compensation, if it amounts to a deprivation of substantially all economically beneficial use of the property. D5 Eminent Domain X2.1 148k2.1 Most Cited Cases (Formerly 148k2(1)) Factual inquiry as to whether regulation amounted to a taking includes analysis of (1) economic impact of regulation on claimant and (2) extent to which regulation has interfered with reasonable investment -backed expectations. Copr. © 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt_ Works. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ -15" on 1 - IS -o H Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 712 So.2d 398 712 So.2d 398, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D682 (Cite as: 712 So.2d 398) u Eminent Domain X2.10(6) 148k2.10(6) Most Cited Cases (Formerly 148k2(1.2)) Determination that county ordinance and county's refusal to certify development application inconsistent with proposed revised comprehensive plan that changed density requirements was not inverse condemnation, as regulation did not deprive owner of substantially all economically beneficial use of property, was supported by finding that value of land before county refusal for rezoning under former comprehensive plan was $8,000 per acre and after refusal was $3,000 per acre, as remaining value was more than negligible amount and constituted significant benefit. 17j Civil Rights X1071 78k1071 Most Cited Cases (Formerly 78kl30) To prove compensable section 1983 claim related to property, property owner must first show deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest, and secondly, court must determine that deprivation was result of abuse of governmental power such that government acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in depriving property owner of its constitutionally protected interest. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. 181 Civil Rights G--�1073 78k1073 Most Cited Cases (Formerly 78k]30.5, 78kl30) Arbitrary and capricious due process claim under section 1983 related to property may be based upon the effect legislative determinations such as zoning have upon the property. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. 191 Civil Rights X1073 78k1073 Most Cited Cases (Formerly 78k130.5, 78k130) Property owner had vested right, sufficient to bring section 1983 claim, to have county consider proposed development under then -existing comprehensive plan, and where county refused to consider any development submitted pursuant to that plan and instead would consider only plans submitted in conformance with proposed comprehensive plan that reduced density from one unit per five acres to one unit per twenty acres, county precluded a substantial use of its land. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. 1101 Civil Rights X1028 780028 Most Cited Cases Page 2 (Formerly 78k109) 1101 Civil Rights G�1453 78k1453 Most Cited Cases (Formerly 78k264) 1101 Civil Rights X1460 78k1460 Most Cited Cases (Formerly 78k269.1) Arbitrary and capricious due process claim under section 1983 can be either a facial or an as -applied challenge; on as -applied challenge, remedy is an injunction preventing unconstitutional application of regulation to plaintiffs property and/or damages resulting from the unconstitutional application. 42 U.S.C.A. 1983. f 111 Constitutional Law X251.3 921c251.3 Most Cited Cases Substantive due process challenges are analyzed under the rational basis test; that is, legislative governmental act will not be considered arbitrary and capricious if it has a rational relationship with a legitimate general welfare concern. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14. 1121 Constitutional Law X278.2(1) 92k278.2(1) Most Cited Cases 1121 Zoning and Planning X376 414k376 Most Cited Cases County's failure to consider proposed development under then -existing comprehensive plan, and instead considering it only under pending plan that changed density requirement, while a deprivation of property owner's right subject to due process protection under section 1983, was justified under rational basis test; county was undertaking general revision of comprehensive plan prior to receiving application and did not wish to permit development inconsistent with plan under consideration. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14; 42 U.S.C.A. � 1983. *399 Steven L. Robbins of DeSantis, Gaskill, Smith & Shenkman, P.A., North Palm Beach, and Edna L. Carusa of Carusa, Burlington, Bohn & Compiani, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant. Robert P. Banks, Assistant County Attorney, West Palm Beach, for appellee. WARNER, Judge. In ruling in favor of the County on Gardens Country Copr. © 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Wor'Submitted Into the pUbliC record in connection with item P2-1on — Priscilla A. Thompson`Clerk 712 So.2d 398 712 So.2d 398, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D682 (Cite as: 712 So.2d 398) Club's ("Gardens") complaint for inverse condemnation and violation of its substantive due process rights, the trial court determined that while the claims were ripe for review, there had been no total temporary taking of the property in question. The trial court also found that Gardens' vested right to develop the property in connection with the then -existing comprehensive plan did not rise to the level of a constitutionally protected property interest and, in the alternative, *400 that the County's action in denying development had not been arbitrary or capricious. We affirm on both issues. This is the second appearance of this case in this court. Gardens Country Club. Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 590 So.2d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) ("Gardens I "), provides the essential facts of the dealings between the parties leading up to the present suit: On December 14, 1988, the club contracted to purchase 734 acres of land in Palm Beach Gardens which, under the then -existing 1980 County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, authorized the property to be designated either Agricultural (AR) or Residential Estate (RE). The AR classification permitted one dwelling unit per five acres and the RE category allowed one dwelling unit per two and one-half or one unit per two acres in a planned unit development (PUD). At the time the purchase agreement was executed, the county had under consideration a revision of the 1980 Comprehensive Plan that would permit a density on the subject property of only one unit per twenty acres. The purchase contract allowed the club to avoid the transaction if the club was unable to obtain approval of satisfactory land use restrictions on the property. The club entered into negotiations with the county in an attempt to avoid application of the more severe density restrictions to the development but was unsuccessful in the endeavor. Thus, on February 27, 1989, the club filed a formal application for use of the land as a PUD with a density of one unit per two acres as required by the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. The application was reviewed for certification to the county commission, but was found insufficient because (1) the density and acreage data were omitted, (2) the operation agreement for the on-site sewer plant was not acceptable, and (3) a road access had to be changed. Those deficiencies were Page 3 corrected and the application was scheduled to come before the planning commission at its April 17, 1989, meeting. However, the application was not certified at that meeting because, in the interim, the county commission, on March 29, 1989, had directed its staff not to certify any applications that were not consistent with the density requirements of the incipient 1989 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. That directive became the subject of ordinance 89-10 on July 5, 1989. On May 8, 1989, the club filed a complaint against the county to require it to grant the club's application for use of the property in accordance with the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, to hold the county estopped from enforcing county ordinance 89-10 enacted subsequent to the club's application, and for damages for "taking" the club's property. The record further contains atrial memorandum filed by the county with the trial court which states that "[o]n April 17, 1989, the defendant's [the club] application for rezoning and special exception was in compliance with existing regulations." (Emphasis added). Id. at 489-90. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the County, but this court reversed, holding that ordinance 89-10 conflicted with section 163.3 197, Florida Statutes (1989), which provides that an existing comprehensive plan shall continue to have the same force and effect that it had on the date of its adoption until the local government adopts a new revised comprehensive plan, pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. See id. at 491. Thus, the ordinance was invalid to the extent that it conflicted with the state statute. We remanded for the trial court to reconsider Garden's application in light of the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. See id. While the appeal in Gardens I was pending, Gardens sought annexation of its property into the City of Palm Beach Gardens, which annexation occurred on March 21, 1991. The City ultimately approved Gardens's development plan, which included a density of one unit per two acres, the density Gardens had previously requested from the county. Gardens then filed a supplemental complaint after Copr. © 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Fa -is- on Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 712 So.2d 398 712 So.2d 398, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D682 (Cite as: 712 So.2d 398) remand from this court, seeking damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violation of Gardens's due process rights *401 and for inverse condemnation for a temporary taking of its property. The court granted the County's motion for summary judgment on the section 1983 claim. As to the takings claim (count II), the trial court held a non jury trial. See Department ofAgric. and Consumer Servs. v. Mid -Florida Growers, Inc., 521 So.2d 101 (F1a.1988) (in inverse condemnation suit, trial court decides whether taking has occurred and jury decides what is just compensation). The trial court concluded that Gardens's takings claim was ripe for adjudication, but it found that no taking had occurred because the County's actions, "although unlawful" pursuant to Gardens I, did not deprive Gardens of substantially all economically beneficial use of its property. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court compared the property's before and after fair market values --before the county refused to rezone the property, it had a value of $8,000/acre, and afterwards, a value of $3,000/acre. Since the property was still worth $2.2 million, the court concluded that Gardens had not been deprived of substantially all economically beneficial use of its property. The trial court also found that while Gardens had proved some investment -backed expectations, the reasonableness of these expectations was questionable. Gardens appeals from this final judgment. tM The County claims that the case was not ripe for consideration of a takings claim because Gardens did not submit a plan for development under the proposed 1989 Comprehensive Plan. The ripeness doctrine requires, as an essential prerequisite to a regulatory takings claim, a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted on the subject property. See MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County 477 U.S. 340, 348, 106 S.Ct. 2561, 2566, 91 L.Ed.2d 285 (1986); Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 186, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 3116, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 1985. However, there is a futility exception to the ripeness doctrine. See Tinnerman v. Palm Beach County, 641 Sold 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Glisson v. Alachua County, 558 So.2d 1030 (Fla. I st DCA 1990. In the instant case, the trial court found that the only application which the County would have Page 4 considered was an application consistent with the proposed 1989 comprehensive plan which allowed for densities of one unit per twenty acres, instead of the one per five density permitted in the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the County's continued refusal to certify an application under the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, together with ordinance 89-10's requirement that all developments comply with the proposed revised comprehensive plan to be certified for approval, shows the futility of applying for any other development plans consistentwith the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. Based on the futility exception, we find that the case is ripe for review. We must first address whether the County's action in enacting ordinance 89-10 and refusing to certify applications inconsistent with the proposed revised comprehensive plan amounted to a due process deprivation or to a "taking." In Tampa -Hillsborough Count� ExpressweAuthority v. A.G. W.S. Corp., 640 So.2d 54 (F1a.1994), the supreme court explained the difference, quoting from Judge Griffin's concurring opinion inDepartmentofTransportation v. Weisenfeld, 617 So.2d 1071, 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), approved, 640 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1994), as follows: The fifth amendment contains two discrete protections: "No person shall ... be deprived of... property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Const. amend. V. The first of these is commonly called the "police power;" the second is the power of eminent domain. Patrick Wiseman, When the End Justifies the Means: Understanding Takings Jurisprudence In a Legal System With Integrity, 63 St. John's L. Rev. 433, 437 (1988). Tampa -Hillsborough 640 So.2d at 57. The supreme court further explained: Thus, it is evident that while both constitutional theories involve "takings" and "police power," the analysis under due process is different from the analysis underjust compensation. Regulations found by the courts to be invalid because they deprive landowners of substantially all use of their property without compensation are not ordinarily *402 struck down as unconstitutional. The government is forced to choose between paying just compensation to keep Copr. C 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.ublic submitted Into the public, record in con on ttOn-1) � item Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 712 So.2d 398 712 So.2d 398, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D682 (Cite as: 712 So.2d 398) the regulation in effect or removing the regulation. In situations where state action is declared an improper exercise of police power under due process, the regulation is simply declared unconstitutional. Therefore, a land use regulation can be held facially unconstitutional without a finding that there was an uncompensated taking. The fact that we chose to strike down the statute in Joint Ventures (v. Department of Transportation, 563 So.2d 622 (Fla. 1990 ] clearly demonstrates that our decision was grounded upon due process considerations. Had we intended our decision to mean that the filing of the map of reservation constituted a per se taking, we would have left the statute intact. Id. In Gardens I, we invalidated ordinance 89-10 and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the application under the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. Thus, we considered the issue as a due process deprivation, rather than a just compensation taking. Otherwise, similar to Joint Ventures, we would have upheld the ordinance and considered it a per se taking of Gardens's property. tLL41 Nevertheless, Tampa -Hillsborough points out that "[a] taking occurs where regulation denies substantially all economically beneficial or productive use of land. Moreover, a temporary deprivation may constitute a taking." 640 So.2d at 58 (citing First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County o Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 107 S.Ct. 2378, 96 L.Ed.2d 250 (1987)). In First English, the county passed a moratorium prohibiting all building in a flood prone area. The Supreme Court held that even though the ordinance may subsequently be declared invalid or be withdrawn by the county, where a landowner is denied all use of his property under the ordinance, a temporary taking occurs which demands a remedy under the just compensation clause. See 482 U.S, at 318, 107 S.Ct. at 2388. Although Tampa -Hillsborough relies on First English, it actually expands its holding to cases involving the deprivation of "substantially all economically beneficial or productive use of land," instead of simply all use of property as set forth in First English. See Tampa -Hillsborough 640 So.2d at 58. We conclude, therefore, that a partial temporary taking Page 5 requires compensation under Tampa -Hillsborough if it amounts to a deprivation of substantially all economically beneficial use of the property. [UL6J It is implicit that the trial court found that the temporary deprivation claim in this case involved less than all economically beneficial or productive use of land. The court then made factual inquiry as to whether the regulation amounted to a taking. Such an inquiry includes the analysis of (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant and (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with reasonable investment -backed expectations. See Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412 (1 1th Cir. 1994), cert denied, 514 U.S. 1064, 115 S.Ct. 1693, 131 L.Ed.2d 557 1995. The trial court made an evaluation of whether Gardens was deprived of substantially all economically beneficial use of the property based upon the evidence presented at trial. The trial court found that the value of the land before the County refused the application for rezoning under the 1980 Comprehensive Plan was $8,000 per acre and after the County refused to consider the rezoning application was $3,000 per acre. As the remaining value was more than a negligible amount and constituted a significant benefit, the trial court determined that it did not constitute a taking of substantially all economic benefit. The court also reviewed the evidence as to what the investment -backed expectations of the owners were and concluded that these expectations were not reasonable. See Graham v. Estuary Properties, Inc., 399 So.2d 1374, 1380 Fla.1981 ; see also Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm'n v. Flotilla, Inc., 636 So.2d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). As there is competent substantial evidence to support the court's findings, we affirm as to the inverse condemnation claim. Gardens also sought relief in its supplemental complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging: it had a liberty or property interest in having its application *403 certified and heard; the County had directed its staff not to consider any applications for rezoning not in conformance with the 1989 Comprehensive Plan; the County's actions were arbitrary and capricious; and it had suffered resulting damages in its expenditure of fees and costs in establishing the right to have its rezoning application Copr. © 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. WorkS.SUbMitted Into the public record in connection with item 2-1'a on 1t-»- o4 - Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 712 So.2d 398 712 So.2d 398, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D682 (Cite as: 712 So.2d 398) heard. Gardens also sought costs associated with maintaining its interest in the subject property. LZffil A property owner must meet two prongs in order to prove a compensable claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. First, there must be a deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest. Second, the court must determine that the deprivation was the result of an abuse of governmental power such that the government acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in depriving the property owner of its constitutionally protected interest. See Executive 100. Inc. v. Martin County, 922 F.2d 1536, 1541 (11th Cir.1991). The Executive court noted that, as to the first prong, the plaintiffs alleged that the value of their property had diminished significantly as a result of the County Commission's action in refusing to rezone their property. The court said that, "[i]f the plaintiffs prove that this diminution was more than a simple fluctuation in value incident to governmental decisionmaking, which is a noncompensable hazard of ownership, then they will have shown a deprivation of a property right." Id. (citations omitted). Thus, an arbitrary and capricious due process claim may be based upon the effect on the value of property of legislative determinations such as zoning. The County argues that under McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994), cert. denied by McKinney v. Osceola County Bd. of County Commis, 513 U.S. 1110, 115 S.Ct. 898, 130 L.Ed.2d 783 (1995), Gardens does not have a constitutionally protected interest because its interest is one created by state law, namely a right to a zoning classification. Although the McKinney court determined that substantive due process protection did not include rights created by state law only, it specifically limited its holding to "executive acts" and found that its analysis regarding the substantive/procedural distinction would be "inappropriate" for "Legislative" acts. Id at 1557 n. 9. This is clarified in Villas ofLake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon County, 121 F.3d 610 (1 Ith Cir. 1997), in which the court considered the county's down -zoning of the landowner's property, which it assumed for purposes of the opinion was a legislative act. In considering the landowner's arbitrary and capricious due process claim, the court stated, "[a] landowner's vested rights created Page 6 by state law may indeed constitute property subject to the arbitrary and capricious substantive due process protections under the federal Constitution." Id at 614 (citations omitted). Thus, we reject the County's reliance on McKinney. [991 In granting summary judgment, the trial court determined that Gardens did not have a constitutionally protected interest. We disagree with this finding. Gardens claimed that it had been denied a lawful use of its property by the legislative act of the county in passing ordinance 89-10 and refusing to certify its application for development, a fact pattern analogous to the one in Villas of Lake Jackson. The trial court reasoned that Gardens I did not require the County to approve the development submitted by Gardens, but merely to consider the plan under the 1980 Comprehensive Plan instead of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. In reviewing the development plan, the County had the discretion to deny the application on other grounds even under the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, and it did not have to approve the maximum density allowed under the plan. See Board of County Commis of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469, 475 (Fla. 1993). While we agree that the County may have had some discretion to deny a request for rezoning under the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, the County refused to even consider any development submitted pursuant to that plan and instead would consider only plans submitted in conformance with the 1989 Comprehensive Plan which reduced density from one unit per five acres to one unit per twenty acres. Gardens challenged the County's actions in refusing to consider any rezoning application under the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. The injuries it alleges as a result of the County's action are only those which resulted from the *404 County's refusal to consider its application through its directions to staff and from the enactment of ordinance 89-10. These consist of the cost to overturn the decision in state court and the carrying costs of the property during that period. Because Gardens had made a valid application for rezoning under the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, which the County stipulated was fully in compliance with existing regulation, it had a vested right to have the County consider its development under the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. By denying Gardens this right, Copr. © 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Submitted Into the publiC record in Cori, section With itemmelon 1 I --t,'-p q Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 712 So.2d 398 712 So.2d 398, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D682 (Cite as: 712 So.2d 398) the county precluded a substantial use of its land, because the zoning on its property was reduced to no more than one unit per twenty acres of land. We consider this a property right subject to due process protections. See Villas of Lake Jackson. 1101 As to the second prong which a property owner must meet to prove a compensable claim under section 1983, in Eide v. Sarasota Countv, 908 F.2d 716 (1 lth Cir.1990), the court explained that an arbitrary and capricious due process claim could be either a facial or an as -applied challenge. "In the case of an as applied challenge, the remedy is an injunction preventing the unconstitutional application of the regulation to plaintiffs property and/or damages resulting from the unconstitutional application." Id. at 722. Gardens's initial complaint in this cause sought to prevent the application of ordinance 89-10 to its property and to prevent the County's direction to its staff not to certify any rezoning requests which were not in conformance with the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. Thus, it was an as -applied challenge to the ordinance. Its supplemental complaint under section 1983 simply requests the consequential damages which it incurred as a result of the unconstitutional application of the ordinance and directives to its property. I ]][121 The trial court determined that the action of the board was not arbitrary or capricious so as to amount to an invalid exercise of its police power. At worst, the trial court said, the board acted pursuant to a misjudgment of law that the concept of zoning in progress applied to rezonings pending the adoption of a new comprehensive plan. See Condor Corp. V. City of St. Paul, 912 F.2d 215 (8th Cir.1990). Substantive due process challenges are analyzed under the rational basis test; that is, a legislative act of the government will not be considered arbitrary and capricious if it has "a rational relationship with a legitimate general welfare concern." Restigouche, Inc. v. Town ofJupiter, 59 F.3d 1208 (11th CiT.1995) (quoting Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 997 F.2d 1369, 1388 (11th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1018, 1 14 S.Ct. 1400, 128 L.Ed.2d 73 (1994)). In the instant case, the County was undertaking a general revision of its Comprehensive Plan prior to receiving the PUD application on this property. Not wishing to permit Page 7 development inconsistent with the plan it was considering, it elected to refuse new applications, such as Gardens's. Its direction to its staff and the adoption of Ordinance 89-10 were done in furtherance of its goal of effectuating the planned amendment without allowing development inconsistent with it. Had the County been considering a zoning amendment rather than a planning decision, the rationale of "zoning in progress" may have been appropriate. See Gardens I, 590 So.2d at 491. Because there was "a plausible, arguably legitimate purpose" for the actions of the county in passing Ordinance 89-10, the rational basis testis met, and summary judgment is appropriate. See Restigouche, 59 F.3d at 1214. We distinguish City ofMargate v. Amoco Oil Co.. 546 So.2d 1091, 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), in which we held that a governmental agency acts arbitrarily when it avoids its duty by unreasonably delaying a matter so as to effectuate a change in the law adverse to the applicant. In that case, the landowner had applied for a building permit to construct and operate a service station upon a parcel which permitted that use. The city rejected the application without justification, other than the city determined that it did not want a service station at that location. After the city denied the application, and while the land owner was trying to resolve the problem, the city undertook to rezone the property so that a service station could not be permitted. This fact scenario differs substantially from the facts of the instant case. At the time Gardens applied for development *405 approval, the Countywas extensively involved in amending its Comprehensive Plan, including the downzoning of Gardens's property, a fact which the owners of Gardens knew before they even entered into the contract to purchase the property. Moreover, Margate was not decided under section 1983 and substantive due process analysis. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the summary judgment on Gardens's substantive due process claim. We also affirm the trial court's ruling granting summary judgment on the procedural due process claim. See Bello v. Walker, 840 F.2d 1 124, 1 128 (3d Cir. 1988). Affirmed. Copr. © 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 2-15- on I v -4-A Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 712 So.2d 398 712 So.2d 398, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D682 (Cite as: 712 So.2d 398) SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur. 712 So.2d 398, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D682 END OF DOCUMENT Page 8 Copr. © 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. SubMitted Into the public record 11 i ronn.ection Iw it y item . 1 � on Priscilla A. Tho Clerk City Submitted Into the public record in connection with item f�-!r on !L Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk MY SIDE OF THE STREET Opinions, letters to the editor, guest commentary The SD9 Overlay: Seven Years of Stall and Delay Dear Editor,-, drafted by the Chesapeake Group Inc for uing the Workshops- attended by Shorecrest Homeowners' The Upper Eastside Community is in a the City of Miami. The goals and objectives In October 2000, there was a public out- Association President Michael Muschett fight to preserve fts quality of life. Our of direct redevelopment as stated in the cry from the Community as plans for a and Palm Grove Neighborhood Association Neighborhood "Iviain Street" our Biscayne Master Plan is to control scale, intensity Used Car Lot were recommended by the President Eileen Bottari with Gregory Gay Boulevard is in jeopardy. and appearance of new development. The City Planning and Zoning Department The to review the height restrictions set in the For the past seven years this community City of Miami Planning and Zoning Upper Eastside Council notified the com- proposed SD9 Overlay. The City, without has attempted to implement restrictions for Department has disregarded the. requests of munity to attend the upcoming Zoning community interaction, proposed the fol - Biscayne Boulevard for zoning, design, the community as stated in the Master Plan Board Hearing to protest the request for a lowing height limits: from 62nd Street to height, lighting, noise and parking. The when making recommendations for new special exception to allow a used car lot on 77th Street - 5 stories and from 77th Street City has stalled and delayed the final corn- development in the Biscayne Boulevard Biscayne Boulevard The Upper Eastside to 87th Street - 12 stories. Palm Grove and mitment to this plan. Corridor. Council stated even then, "The Upper Shorecrest neighborhoods requested that Because there are no final zoning regula- In February, 1999, the City of Miami Eastside needs to quickly move forward to heights be limited to 3 stories from 62nd tions in place for the Biscayne Boulevard Planning Department finalized the Master complete the planning departments process Street to 87th Street with the exception of Corridor, the Commuri:6 ,was forced in Plan. Immediately following, workshops to adopt the SD9 Overlay as Zoning Code the Biscayne Shopping Plaza at 5 stories. December to attend Planning and Zoning resumed to revise the Special District 9 for the area". We defeated the Used Car Lot As these Community requests were being board meetings to protest new overwhelm- Overlay (SD9) . The Special District Zone and once again requested that the included in the final SD9 Overlay draft, ing developments planned for 58th Street contains regulations for intent and height; Workshops resume in order to complete the Planning Director Ana Gelabert stated that and Biscayne Boulevard There are addi- principal uses and structures,- off street SD9 Overlay. 3 story height limits were unacceptable and tional developments planned for 51st -52nd parking and sign limitations. The SD9 On January 3, 2001, the Palm Grove Gregory Gay was removed from the proj- Streets and Biscayne Boulevard and also at Overlay controls the East and West sides of Neighborhood Association sent a letter to ect. 52nd Terrace — 53rd Street on Biscayne Biscayne Boulevard from 39th Street to Planning Director Ana Gelabert requesting In October 2002, at a FDOT Community Boulevard. Some of these proposals are 87th Street. an immediate conclusion to the process of meeting with Commissioner Winton, the 180' high and completely out of scale with The Workshops continued through 1999. finalizing the SD9 Overlay request was once again placed before the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Our last Workshop was in January 2000 Three months later, on March 14, 2001, Planning Director Gelabert regarding the In the summer of 1997 the Upper Eastside After the January meeting, the Workshops Ms. Gelabert responded: "We are presently resumption of Workshops and the finaliza- Community attende&w.orkshops to create were abruptly discontinued The City of finalizing language for a new special dis- tion of the SD9 Overlay draft. Planning the Upper Eastside Master Miarni Planning Department Director, Ana trict for North Biscayne Boulevard - this Director Gelabert publicly acknowledged Plan/Comprehensive Economic and Gelabert, cited lack of funds and lack of one, a stand alone district that will not be that even after 5 years, the work remained Marketing Strategic Plan. This Plan was adequate staff as her reasons for discoatin- subject to changes to any underlying dis- incomplete, but that in a few more months trict. We expect to present this work to you the workshops would be resumed. The at a Community Meeting in the summer community representatives were outraged Holiday Hang over packages available and , if Community approval is granted, at the lengthy time frame and she then will proceed with adoption immediately." quickly changed her response to a few At the close of summer 2001, with no Community Meeting having taken weeks - In November 2002, the Palm Grove place, we contacted Gregory Gay, Urban Neighborhood Association filed a formal Community Planner at the City of Miami complaint with the Mayor's office regard - Planning and Zoning Department. Gregory ing Ms. Gelabert's lack of follow through in advised that the proposed final SD9 finalizing the SD9 Overlay. A meeting was ' Overlay would now be ready after the scheduled by the Mayor's office with beginning of the year 2002 for the commu- Planning Director and staff and Upper ��/ s Y AA 4FcWA nity to review. Eastside Representatives. November 22, 2002, Once again the city has stalled and At the meeting, "W x€� delayed the finalization process and now Planning Director Gelabert announced that �y * V. another year has passed On April 12, 2002, a final draft of the the Planning Department had contracted with Consulting Agency, HOK, to _ pro- provide �x.. posed zoning changes for Biscayne an analysis of Biscayne Boulevard. The r` ,m Boulevard, the new SD9, was sent to all study was to be completed at the end of community organizations in the Upper January 2003 and a Community Review xr. °yf}4 f1 st Eastside. The Planning and Zoning meeting would take place at the end of r Department stated that a Community January 2003. Once again, stall and delay & f�V*-.. as sly Meeting would be scheduled in the near tactics has allowed another year to pass future to discuss the next step for approval without the finalization of the SD9 Overlay. by the City Commission. In May 2003, the much awaited Charette In June 2002, in response to a time frame re- was held. The Planning Department pre- 6" t4�ra6"cara"vD ktt dirouse request, Gregory Gay stated that a sented the agenda, but the issue of height ' Vai #"V dli E�aaeReaeaei�at Community Meeting would be scheduled in limits was omitted. Only after the audience August 2002 to review the SD9 Overlay objected were height limits included in the _00' Final Draft and move forward with the next agenda. The Community presented a uni- steps required for approval by the City fied statement for limiting heights on Commission- Biscayne Boulevard to 3 stories. After In September 2002, after no meeting was much discussion, a compromise of 4 stories ever scheduled, Gregory Gay was once was agreed upon. again contacted- Once again, there was no On May 22, 2003, at the Charette final definitive response or scheduled meeting date seL In October 2002, a meeting was --------- ..---- ......_...._._.----------- ----- ------------_---..._.----- Continued on Page 6 4 The Biscayne Boulevard Times with January; 2004 record in connection item on / —- - Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Submitted Into the public record in connection with tem2� 15 on Power U. Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk David Thumps Goliath in the Nation's Poorest City By Lynn Roberson the economic, environmental and social of Overtown, Allapattah, Wynwood and damage that profit -driven free market Little Haiti speak?" Generating opera - They're an unlikely duo - Denise Perry, policies presage tioria['funds _is a corisFant - "we give edu- sinuous, petite, Sheila O'Farrell, forth- A "Unity Statement is at the heart `of cational seruinars:,from Belgrade to right, tall - one a Northern woman of the Report. "As poor'peopfeand as Rdp- Ctneinnath we hold ijindraisers, we write color, the other a Southern blonde. But in ple of color in South .Florida, `we liave grants " But- envitonmeutal justice - 2000, the two founded the Power united as Root Cause to 'express ';our homes and Schools built over toxic waste University Center for Social Change, a belief that everyone; no matter thew eth duiips,.watercourses-loaded with dioxin distinctly different non-profit organiza- nicity, place of birth sexual identtty _or a4d 6eaty metals S,functional rat abate - tion dedicated to tackling Dade's shame- gender has the right_to fiealfhcare, a:'fi3 ment'progiam - are -2004's central motifs. ful, unglamorous problems- rat infesta- ing wage, fair working conditions; decent 'We keep going -,by celebrating small tions, expressway noise, toxic waste, housing, equal access to- education, la victories r Ms, O=1'arrell says. "Seeing slum -standard living, F quality education someone growing -la, knowledge and ener- From their rented office on N.E. 24th gy is exciting.. Plus -I get so mad that 1 Street, Ms. Perry and Ms. O'Farrell are ` r have to chmy anger in a positive demonstrating that intelligence, stick to �OWeC I%t4Sl X'bl VICfO IS r z way, or it'll eat roe up." it-ive-ness, and a total commitment to�S dump sfr!><ng>;heag9lII - Ms. Perry adds, "Power U has a space community organization can effect sig v $aQ}QQ,d�#}QQ eiVW 4 $tate s" and a way to make a difference. The nificant improvement. pt�eCt _ efeYQll ilil� 0 3 -fl f?i more we do, the broader our base -Power U's most visible victory is Lump t*�� x tfIIC 4Jr0IIL becomes." starting the lagging $40,000,000 Metros IIbISe RS)1StIIf i « , ; Biscayne Boulevard Times will bring and State project - eleven miles of 23 ., i�� e(Ige Of i<l)QIIItO�Yi1 7 K : = you updates on the powerful projects that foot noise walls that line I-95 from the ` to Gttxtdeu GIat�es Power U undertakes. In the meantime, edge -,of- downtown to. Golden Glades t `4 for information on Power University, 212 They` formed aneighborhood activist ," ' N.E. 24th Street, call 305-576-7449. group whose trenchant prodding made the noise walls a reality after ten years of delay. The 34 -mile Root Cause People's March, that preceded the FTAA Summit, is their most recent win. How does an infant two year old organ- ization with six employees (three full- time, three part-time) and a $200,000 annual budget pack -such a Herculean wallop? According to Ms. Perry and Ms. .O'Farrell, both veterans at grassroots organizing, public relations and fundrais- ing, the secret is focus. Unlike the Community Redevelopment Agency, Power U doesn't have ten years and 30 million dollars to squander. "We identify the issues, strategies and tactics that lead to a win," Ms. Perry says. "When you take on the government, you pick your battles and develop your membership. .Think big, start small, show success." Root Cause - Global Justice from the Grassroots - "was the first time in US his- tory that people of color, farm workers, poor people joined together to protest a global issue --the 34 nation FTAA agree,- ment;" Ms. O'Farrell says. Power -U allied with the Miami Workers' Center and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers to form Root Cause, stating that the FTAA represents a world- wide corporate desireto,.exploit environ- ment, resources and people. They point out that the pain is felt right here in South Florida. Power U hosted an intensive series of meetings that led to Root Cause's Community Impact Report, Aclear, well researched document distributed••' during the FPAA-meetings and slated for present. tatioaatboth the2004 American and`the' World Social Forums. The Report details clean environment, and voice in the deci- sions that affect our lives-" In less than three months, Power U guided widely disparate groups into a cohesive organization - Root Cause. In three days, Root Cause gained interna- tional media coverage. Their win was three days of peaceful public awareness activity. To effect the Root Cause objective, food, lodging, transportation, first aid service and sanitary facilities (remember the trailer packed with Port -O -Lets?) for over 300 were organized by volunteer members- Giant puppets like the Peace Bird, bright yellow T-shirts, and provoca- tive floats pulled by Hialeah tow trucks were eye candy that added humor to the message that people need a voice in their destiny- The project was huge. "We're pleased with our FTAA efforts," Ms. Perry says. "We're traditional tar- gets - poor, Black, female, Hispanic. Despite the massive fear factor created by the police and the media, all of our -mem - hers were safe. Safety considerations drove all our planning." In the wake of Root Cause's heady. debut, Ms. Perry and Ms. O'Farrell plan debriefing sessions to further clarify the groups' goals. "Our members are pumped up not only by the success of Root Cause at the FTAA, but also by the people they met, the connections that they made, the widespread co-operation-- they forged," they say. But as 2004 peeks around- the corner, Power U proper zeros in on goals within the Miami community Membership cut- tivationis-the major priority -"how can we know what to target unless residents SD -9 Overlay Continued from page 4 presentation, the Community was assured that the final draft would be com- pleted by the end of July 2003. Next week begins the new year of 2004. In seven years of meetings, hear- ings, charettes workshops and 2 studies paid for by the taxpayers, there remains no final SD9 Overlay or Zoning Regulation for the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor. We have committed ourselves, our time and our energy. We have made our wish- es clear. We have demanded action. We want completion. We want protections in place for our neighborhood and quality of life. Patrick McCoy, the Co -Chair of the Steering Committee for the Charette, has advised the community in December 2003, that Commissioner Winton has stated that he will not support the recom- mendations of the Community but will instead support the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Department. Ms. Gelabert and her staff are recom- ineuding 8 stories throughout the Biscayne Corridor.: When Commissioner Winton made this statement-he,sold us out to the developers. It is time for the City Manager to accept responsibility for the completion of this project and after seven long years force the Planning Department Director to bring this issue to a mutually agreeable conclusion- It is time for new leadership in the Planning and Zoning Department. —Eileen M-;Bott�n Palm Gro've' 3 ' The Biscayne Boulevard Times ' January, 2004