The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDocument Submitted into the Record"Exhibit A" A...e6A..w. tl F11 1i Ii razar-:-eperc. -1siii ii..e.crt� � Fea'.,.;,L,,! - S9!€9i171i6@?Y pp a=,?Is.11l=i Ii8@I^ q 9ffiJ��I"_�iseAra.,a3 iieFlAosaffas i+i se3aaaaiti tleelikw:Onit d i ll 61( aI Y gvpi � nryun� $ qliF�RB'.'. ppq loqgo.75gg� .4E'Fi re- 11�••} �. qiq ss,,:L e:.n. ¢ tlliiier AAA EmlisAg156i? :Air,. !.. IPL 5�P.A 1. Ur ➢;Ipo �pp4 asaaosc lum 6 ;:rr� �9 4%?:d.5AAA as xr: a :a� , a.. ,i�au� II138a AIONeihiAi �€";'�6a1;. ie.@ �ri:9gl As, a1A 1r1 r�: e. a. "Exhibit B" ELEMENTS OF CARIBBEAN ARCHITECTURE TYPOLOGIES ROOFS EXTERNAL BUILDING WALL MATERIAL FENCES STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS t A gio.I .40 II WWII NW r ..��'i... s FII I,,. 1 1 IIf ■sue i•■ ill MIN IIIl111111 Il;ll:ll�l�:;l� ■ "Exhibit C" ELEMENTS OF CARIBBEAN ARCHITECTURE I INGS DOORS WINDOWS SHUTTERS ARCHED TRANSOM WINDOWS A ■■I. MINN MINN E■ o1, 1 a 11Illlll 11 'I L PLANNING FACT SHEET APPLICANT HEARING DATE REQUEST/LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION PETITION PLANNING RECOMMENDATION BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS LEGISTAR FILE NUMBER PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD CITY COMMISSION APPLICATION NUMBER Planning Department November 3, 2004 Consideration of amending Article 628 and Article 802 for the Village West Island District (West Grove) . N/A. Consideration of amending ordinance 11000 as amended, the zoning ordinance of the City of Miami, by amending article 6 and 8, in order to add Sec. 628. Village West Island Special Overlay District in order to modify regulations for properties and within the district; and to modify section 802 to rename the NCD from "Grand Avenue Corridor Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District" to "Charles Avenue Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District" adding an intent statement and district regulations. Approval. See supporting documentation. 04-01279 Recommended approval (as VOTE: 7-0 modified) to City Commission. Passed First Reading on December 9, 2004. 2004-092 Item # 1 CITY OF MIAMI • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 444 SW 2ND AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR • MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33130 PHONE (305) 416-1400 Date: 1/13/2005 Page 1 City of Miami Legislation Ordinance City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.ci.miami.fl.us File Number: 04-01279 Final Action Date: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLES 6 AND 8, IN ORDER TO ADD SECTION 628 VILLAGE WEST ISLAND SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT, IN ORDER TO MODIFY REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DISTRICT; REPEALING THE NCD-2 GRAND AVENUE CORRIDOR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT FROM SECTION 802 AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 802 PROVIDING FOR "CHARLES AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT"; EFFECT OF NCD-2 DISTRICT DESIGNATION AND CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT IN SUCH DISTRICT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in February 2003, the Town Planning/Urban Design consulting team Center for Urban and Community Design held a three day long design workshop in which residents and other stakeholders of the community participated with the Planning and Zoning Department to produce the " Vision Plan for Coconut Grove - Village West Island District"; and WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of November 3, 2004, Item No. 1, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 124-04 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 after careful consideration of this matter deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to amend Ordinance No. 11000 as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORI DA: 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: {1} "ARTICLE 6. sd SPECIAL DISTRICTS GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 600 Intent. * City of Miami Page 1 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 Rio Number. 04-01279 Sec. 628. Village West Island Special Overlav District. Sec. 628.1. Intent Village West Island District is of special and substantial public interest due to the unique role of Grand Avenue and Douglas Road as the "Main Street" for the surrounding Village West Island District Community and the unique Caribbean and Bahamian character and heritage of the Village West Island District in general. For the purposes of this section, "Mainstreet" shall be defined as a principal corridor of community activity. In order to promote its successful revitalization and restoration, this Special Overlay District is enacted. See Map as "Exhibit A (For codification purposes, this exhibit will be inserted into this section. The Clerk and/or Codifier will implement this instruction.) The SD-28 District shall generally apply to properties bounded by the following: On the north, Bird Road and US1; on the east, 32nd Ave, south alleyway at the rear of Commodore Plaza, and Main Highway; on the south, Franklin Avenue (including the block south of Franklin between Hibiscus and Plaza, and Charles Terrace; On the west, the city limits. (See official zoning atlas). Within these boundaries, there shall be three (3) special sub districts as follows: • Market District Overlay for properties fronting on Grand Avenue and located between McDonald and Commodore Plaza to the east and Elizabeth Street to the west. • Mixed Use Cultural District Overlay located on Grand Avenue between Elizabeth Street on the east and City Limits on the west and on Douglas Road between Grand Avenue on the south and Day Avenue on the north; • Residential Cultural District Overlay located within the SD-28 boundaries on properties designated as R-1, R-2, and R-3 with exception to all R-2 lots fronting on Grand Avenue; and The purpose of this Special District Overlay is to: • Revitalize and restore Grand Avenue and Douglas Road as successful "Main surrounding Village West Island District community. • Reinforce the community's historic and cultural identity as a Caribbean island the South Florida region. • Revise zoning to ensure an attractive pedestrian friendly environment, diverse in use and activity. ■ Utilize the architectural and urban design guidelines established to promote an active and pleasant pedestrian environment while accommodating the needs of development and respecting the scale of the residential community. ■ Nurture the development of locally owned businesses by providing choice and flexibility in the range of available retail and commercial space, Streets" for the district, unique to City of Miami Page 2 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 ■ Attract and retain a diverse and balanced mix of residents by providing a range of housing` options that is both competitive with other choices in the market and compatible with Douglas Road and Grand Avenue's "Main Street" character and Caribbean style. ■ To promote pocket parks within a three minute walking distance to insure the usability and accessibility for all residents. In addition, Special Events and Services should be encouraged. Special events and services should be undertaken to help market and promote the Market District. While some events may be geared more towards tourists, a concerted effort should be made to bring residents back to the Village West Island District Area. Residents embody a sustained clientele important in maintaining the consistent viability of any retail establishment. Significant free public parking should be provided in the rear of buildings. On special market days the Market District may be closed to vehicular traffic and street front kiosks encouraged. Trolley service to and from surrounding residential areas onmarket days may help to draw residents. Other thematically related street festivals similar to Goombay should be considered. Description: The Village West Island District is comprised primarily of R-1 Single Family Residential, R-2 Two Family Residential and R-3 Multifamily Medium Density Residential with other non residential designations along certain commercial corridors. Elizabeth Virrick Park, zoned PR is located between Day and Oak streets west of Douglas Avenue. Grand Avenue, the principal commercial corridor is zoned 0 Office, and SD-2 (Coconut Grove Central Commercial District). The south side of Grand Avenue from the intersection of Douglas Road, west is zoned R-2 with Armbrister Park and the Carver School bordering the city limit of Coral Gables. Douglas Road, the north/south corridor, ranges from C-1 Restricted Commercial with some R-2 and R- 3 from U.S. 1 south through the intersection of Grand Avenue. From Grand Avenue, south density reduces to R-2 and R-1 interspersed with churches and schools. Sec. 628.2. Effect of SD-28 district designation. The effect of these SD-28 regulations shall be to modify regulations within portions of other zoning districts included within the Special District boundaries to the extent indicated. Sec. 628.3. Class 11 Special Permit 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; or for the location, relocation or alteration of any structure, sign, awning, landscapingtparking area or vehicular way visible from a public street except for properties with an underlying zoning classification of R-1 or R-2, unless adjacent or fronting on Grand Avenue, complying with the regulations specified within this district and with careful consideration given to 0 and 0. Class 11 Special Permits for modifications and/or waivers of design guides and standards as specified herein shall not be required for properties zoned R-1 or R-2, unless adjacent or fronting on Grand Avenue; such design guides and standards for R-1 and R-2 zoned properties are intended only as a guide. City of Miami Page 3 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 The purpose of the Class 1l Special Permit shall be to ensure conformity of the application with the expressed intent of this district, with the general considerations listed below and listed in section 1305, with the special considerations in 0 and 0 and with the special considerations fisted below, In making determinations concerning construction of new principal buildings or substantial exterior alteration of existing principal buildings, the planning director may obtain the advice and recommendations of the Urban Development Review Board. 1. Except for portions authorized by special permit for vehicular access, all required setbacks adjacent to Grand Avenue and Douglas Road shall be designed to create a continuous pedestrian space suitably landscaped and developed to be pedestrian oriented, 2. Offstreet parking and loading on the other street fronts shall generally be located to the rear of the subject properties; however, if it is not feasible, such parking shall be designed to provide a minimal visual impact. Unenclosed vehicular parking and loading in any location visible from a public street shall be appropriately screened. 3. Notwithstanding the underlyingzoning designations, all structures and improvements on Tots abutting Grand Avenue, designated as a "primary pedestrian pathway" (with the exception of those properties with an underlying R-2 Duplex zoning designation) in the official zoning atlas, shall be designed in accord with the standards in the Primary Pedestrian Pathway Design Guides and Standards and the Grand Avenue Corridor Appearance Code. 4. For those R-2 zoned properties which have dual frontages on Grand Avenue and Washington Avenue, vehicular access shall be limited to Washington Avenue. The Grand Avenue frontages shall be considered the primary frontage for design considerations including appropriate pedestrian access. Sec. 628.4. Special Limitations within the Mixed Use Cultural District Overlay or the Market District Overlay Sec. 628.4.1. Setbacks and Building footprint Sec. 628.4.1.1. Setbacks for "0" or "SD-2" properties The following setbacks shall apply to all properties with an underlying zoning classification of either "O" or "SD-2": Front: Five (5) feet minimum and maximum Side: Zero (0) feet minimum Rear (Above Ground Floor): Ten (10) feet minimum Sec. 628.4.1.2. Setbacks for "R-1" and "R-2" Properties The following setbacks shall apply to all properties with an underlying zoning classification of "R-1" and "R-2": Front: Five (5) feet minimum and maximum; however, at the second level front setback may be City of Miami Page 4 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 reduced to Zero (0) feet if an unenclosed porch is provided on the ground floor fronting on Grand Avenue. Side: Five (5) feet minimum Rear (Above Ground Floor): Ten (10) feet minimum In addition, there shall be no maximum building footprint: however, all structures shall comply with the setback limitations specified above. Sec, 628.4.2. Height In order to ensure appropriate scale of infill development along Grand Avenue and Douglas Road, irrespective of the underlying zoning limitations, new structures dedicated to single use to be developed on those properties fronting on Grand Avenue with an underlying "O" Office designation shall be limited to a maximum of fifty (50) feet; mixed use structures shall be permitted a maximum of five stories in height, where the maximum floor to ceiling height of the first story shall not exceed 14 feet, and the maximum height of the four remaining stories shall not exceed 12 feet (for a total maximum height of 62 feet to be accommodated in no more than 5 stories); such measurement shall be taken from flood level or average sidewalk elevation, whichever is higher. Sec. 628.4.3. Permissible Uses: As for the underlying district, except for those properties with an underlying "O" Office designation, which will be permitted ground floor commercial uses open to the pubic as per those uses permitted within ground floor locations within the SD-2 zoning district. For the "R-2" underlying district along Grand Avenue between Jefferson Street and Douglas Road, Home Occupations permitted as set forth in Section 906.5 shall be allowed up to a maximum of fifty ( 50) percent of the floor area of the residence. Sec. 628.4.4. Offstreet Parking Requirements: In general: As per the underlying district except for the following: Residential dwelling units shall not be sold or leased without the right to utilize at least one (1) onsite parking space. 1. Tandem parking shall be allowed on properties.with an underlying R-1, R-2 and R-3 zoning designation; said tandem parking shall be deemed to comply with parking requirements of two ( 2) or more spaces and shall be limited to no more than two (2) tandem spaces per unit in one row. 2. Adaptive reuses of existing buildings with parking deficiencies, for any permitted use, shall not be required to provide additional parking. Sec. 628.5. Market District Overlay Sec. 628.5.1. Intent The Market District Overlay is a restrictive use overlay intended to give a distinctive Caribbean retail and commercial character to a portion of Grand Avenue. The intent is to enhance these streets as City of Miami Page 5 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 tourist destinations, provide more service related retail for residents, establish a critical mass of related retail and provide a retail "bridge" connecting Commodore Plaza to Grand Avenue. It is intended to encourage a scenic retail area dedicated primarily to consumable and perishable goods and services similar to the scenic market districts that exist in the Caribbean and Europe. Sec. 628.5.2. Boundaries The Market District Overlay runs along Grand Avenue from Commodore Plaza west to Elizabeth Street Sec. 628.5.3. Special Reputations and limitations on permissible uses Irrespective of the underlying zoning classifications, the following special regulations and limitations shall apply to the Market District Overlay: The Market District Overlay area shall permit the following uses, in addition to that which is. permitted in the underlying districts: 1. Farmer's markets and Caribbean crafts and food markets that specialize in the sale of crafts and fresh fruits and vegetables are permitted within this district, subject to a Class II Special Permit with a mandatory referral to the district NET Administrator only, and further subject to the following limitations: a. Any outdoor market must be located on a parcel of no Tess than 15,000 square feet of lot area. b. An outdoor market shall be limited to no more than 65% of the area of the subject parcel in display area. c. An outdoor market may not include any permanent structures. All display tables and other such material must be removed at the end of the permitted time of operation. d. The outdoor market display area shall be located along the Grand Avenue frontage and be set back no Tess than 25 feet from any abutting residentially zoned property. e. Outdoor markets may operate only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays or Sundays only. f. No outdoor market may be located closer than 1,500 feet from another outdoor market. g. Only handmade crafts, fresh fruits and vegetables, prepared raw foods and drinks derived from fresh fruits and vegetables may be sold in an outdoor market within this district. Sec. 628.6. Mixed Use Cultural District Overlay Sec. 628.6.1. Intent The Mixed Use Cultural District Overlay is a restrictive use overlay intended to give a distinctive City of Miami Page 6 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 cultural character to retail and commercial uses on Grand Avenue and Douglas Road. The intent is to enhance these corridors as a tourist destination, encourage heritage retail and cultural/historic businesses, support current resident -owned businesses, promote a cultural facade, provide more culturally themed businesses, establish a critical mass of retail and provide a culturally themed bridge to all other parts of the District by promoting the culture of the community in this short corridor and entranceway to the commercial main street. To this end, the district is dedicated primarily to culturally themed boutiques, Gift shops and book stores, hair salons, apparel, restaurants and cafes, music shops and outdoor plazas, straw markets, cultural facilities, art and upscale cultural entertainment that reflect a Caribbean culture. Sec. 628.6.2. Boundaries: Boundaries: the Mixed Use Cultural District Overlay shall apply to non -residentially zoned properties located along Grand Avenue from the city limits to Elizabeth Street: and along Douglas Road between Grand Avenue on the south and Day Avenue on the north. Sec. 628.6.3. Special Regulations and limitations on permissible uses: Irrespective of the underlying zoning classifications, the following special regulations and limitations shall apply to uses permissible within the Mixed Use Cultural District Overlay; The Mixed Use Cultural District Overlay shall permit the following uses, in addition to that which is permitted in the underlying districts: 1. Permanent structures providing for a Straw Market with Caribbean crafts, foods, apparel, souvenirs, and other goods attractive to tourists, subject to a Class II permit with a mandatory referral to the district NET Administrator only; items for sale within such markets shall be limited to the following: Heritage retail: foods, apparel, souvenirs; Bookstores and gift shops with cultural themes; Hair salons, including outdoor hair braiding; and Music and entertainment reflective of that found in the Caribbean. Other permissible uses along ground floor locations shall be as per uses permitted within ground floor locations in the SD-2 Zoning district and the following: 1. Arts and cultural establishments, including art galleries, dance galleries, and places of instruction for such uses. 2. Street based cultural/heritage businesses, subject to a Class II Special permit with appropriate referrals; such may include kiosks, and cultural entertainment that replicate street based businesses found in the Caribbean (Steel Pan bands, fruit sales, jewelry sales, crafts and carvings). Sec. 628.7. Additional regulations. In addition, existing businesses shall be allowed to remain in the Mixed Use Cultural and Market Districts regardless of their cultural theme without being considered nonconformities. All establishments and businesses in the Mixed Use Cultural and Market District Overlays shall City of Miami Page 7 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 conform to 0 Architectural and Urban Design Guidelines and shall maintain a facade that is consistent with Caribbean architectural facades (examples are shown in 0 and 0). Sec. 628.8. Residential Cultural District Overlay Sec. 628.8.1. Intent This district is of special and substantial public interest to preserve, conserve and protect the beauty and heritage of the Village West Island District and to improve the quality of its environment through identification, conservation and maintenance of neighborhoods, areas, sites and structures which constitute or reflect distinctive features of the Caribbean and Bahamian architectural, cultural, or social history of the Village West Island District. Sec. 628.2. Building Envelope Sec. 628.2.1. Island District R-1 In the Village West Island District, R-1 areas shall be referred to as SD-28 R-1 Island District. This district shall remain as single family with no more than one unit per platted lot to protect the density of this area. If any such requirements conflict, the more restrictive shall apply. Sec. 628.2.1.1. Setbacks Sec. 628.2.1.1.1. Principal Building Setbacks are variable to allow for a variety in architecture and placement of the building footprint. Projections of buildings into required setbacks shall be permitted subject to the criteria and requirements specified herein. Minimum Front Setbacks • The minimum front setback shall be thirty (30) feet. • The structure may project a maximum of ten (10) feet into the minimum required setback of thirty (30) feet provided said projection does not exceed thirty (30) feet in width along the front of the building. • Unenclosed porches, entries, or loggias may project a maximum of fifteen (15) feet into the minimum required setback of thirty (30) feet. • On corner Tots the structure may project a maximum of fifteen (15) feet into the minimum required setback of thirty (30) feet, Minimum Side Setbacks • The minimum side setbacks to be distributed in total shall be as established in the following table: City of Miami Page 8 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 Building Site Size in Square Feet Less than 7, 500 7, 500 - 10, 000 More than 10, 000 Interior Lots First Story of Structure 10 feet 15 feet 25 feet Interior Lots Second Story of Structure 15 feet 25 feet 35 feet Corner Lots First Story of Structure 15 feet 15 feet 25 feet Corner Lots Second Story of Structure 20 feet 25 feet 35 feet • The minimum side setback shall be five (5) feet, except for corner lots where the minimum side setback adjacent to the street shall be ten (10) feet. Minimum Rear Setbacks • The minimum rear setback shall be twenty (20) feet. Sec. 628.8.2.1.1.2. Accessory Buildings • The minimum side setbacks shall be ten (10) feet. • The minimum rear setback shall be ten (10) feet. • All other minimum setbacks shall be as for the principal building except as modified in 0. Accessory structures may be connected to principal structures. The maximum width of said connection shall be ten (10) feet. No garage structure shall be located along the same front setback line as the front wall of a residential structure; garage structures shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the front wall of the primary residential structure. On corner Tots, garaqe structures shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from any portion of the primary residential structure. Tandem parking shall be allowed. Side setbacks shall be a minimum of 5 feet. Rear setback of an accessory building shall be a minimum of 5 feet. Sec. 628.8.2.1.1.3. Height In addition to the maximum height of twenty-five (25) feet, chimneys, cupolas or other non -habitable architectural features of twenty-five (25) square feet or less may reach a maximum height of thirty (30) feet from flood level. For lots with less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area, the height limitation for accessory structures shall be thirteen (13) feet. Sec. 628.8.2.1.1.4. Green Space The minimum green space requirement shall be three tenths (0.3) times the gross lot area. The use of permeable material for surfaces in the required yard may allow a .025 reduction in the required green space. Sec. 628.8.2.1.1.5. Garage and Driveway On new construction of residential structures with garages or driveways or garage additions, no garage shall be located along the same front setback line as the front wall of a residential structure unless the garage door(s) does not face the street. City of Miami Page 9 of 23 Primed On:.11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 Garage structures with access openings that face the street shall be setback a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the front wall of the primary residential structure. Garage structures with access openings that face the street on corner lots which have a maximum depth of less than sixty (60) feet, may be setback a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the front wall of the primary residential structure. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 908.2, driveways shall have a maximum width of ten (10) feet within the first five (5) feet of all street -front required setbacks. Driveways within a single building site shall not be located closer than twenty-five (25) feet to each other. Except as required for the driveway approach, no portion of any driveway in a required yard adjacent to a street shall be within five (5) feet of any property line other than as may be required to allow for turnaround maneuver, in which case said driveway shall be constructed of permeable material in its entirety. Tandem parking shall be allowed. Garage doors which are more than nine (9) feet wide shall not be allowed. Sec. 628.8.2.2. Island District R-2 and R-3 In the Village West Island District, R-2 and R-3 areas shall be referred to as SD-28 R-2 Island District and SD-28 R-3 Island District. This district shall conform to the requirements of the underlying district. Sec. 628.9. Architecture and Urban Design Guidelines The Architectural Regulations specify the materials and configurations encouraged for walls, roofs, Qpenings, and other elements. The Architectural Regulations are intended to produce visual compatibility among disparate building traditions of South Florida and the Caribbean, thus inheriting a suitable response to the climate. Because urban quality is enhanced by architectural coherence but is not dependent on it, the provisions of the Architectural Regulations range from liberal to strictly deterministic. The guidelines contained herein may be waived or modified by Class Il Special Permit if through the Class II Special Permit process the Planning Director finds that the requested modifications result in a praiect that is consistent with the intent of this section. In a R-1 or R-2 District the Guidelines are voluntary no waiver shall be required in a R-1 or R-2 District if the Guidelines are not followed. Sec. 628.9.1. General (CommerciallMixed Use and Residential Districts) Sec. 628.9.1.1. Style To protect and reinforce the Village West Island District's unique aesthetic character, new building and rebuilding design should be compatible with Caribbean vernacular styles. Sec. 628.9.1.2. Openings Sec. 628.9.1.2.1. Material City of Miami Page 10 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 Windows should be made of wood or aluminum and should be glazed with clear Bass. Non -transparent portions of doors should be painted wood, flush steel or fiberglass with wood veneer, Shutters should be made of wood, metal or fiberglass. Sec. 628.9.1.2.2. Window Configuration Windows should be rectangular single, double, triple -hung, operable casements types. Windows should be of a vertical or square proportion, except that transoms may be oriented horizontally. Multiple windows in the same rough opening should be separated by a 3" minimum post. The centerline of the window sash should align with the centerline of the wall section. Window Muntins should be simulated or true divided lite, or should be profiled to match traditional wood muntins. Lites should be of square or vertical proportion. Shutters should be casement or Bahamian type and sized and shaped to match the associated openings. Shutters should be operable with all associated hardware. Colors of windows, doors and shutters should be of a combined color palette that conforms to the Caribbean Style and should be approved by Department of Planning and Zoning. Sec. 628.9.1.3. Walls Sec. 628.9.1.3.1. Material Walls should be finished in smooth stucco, wood clapboard, board and batten or other natural stones. Clapboard and siding should be painted or stained. Arches and piers should be stucco on masonry or wood. Wood, if visible should be painted or stained with an opaque or semiolid stain. Se. 628.9.1.3.2. Wall Configuration Walls should be built of no more than two materials and should chang material only along a horizontal lin, ith the heavier material below the lighter. Stucco should be a smooth sand -finish. Trim should be of ighest-radlumber, and should be 3.5" to 6" in width around openings, except at the front door, which may be any size of configuration. Masonry buildings may use small trim. Arches and Piers of masonry should be no less than 12" x 12" in plan. Post of wood or metal should be no less than 6" x 6". Colors should be of a combined color palette that conforms to the Caribbean Style and should be City of Miami Page 11 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: D4-01279 approved by the Department of Planning and Zoning. Sec. 628.9.1.4. Elements Sec. 628.9.1.4.1. Material Porches and Railings should have their columns, post, spindles and balusters made of wood, stucco on masonry or metal. Awnings should have a metal armature covered with canvas or synthetic canvas. Equipment including HVAC, utility meters and satellite dishes should not be permitted to face streets. Paving for front walks should be brick or concrete. Sec. 628.9.1.4.2. Porches and Railings Configuration Porches should have vertically proportioned openings. Railings should have horizontal top and bottom rails centered on the spindles or balusters. The openings between balusters and spindles should not exceed 4". Bottom rails should be above the level of the porch floor. Balconies, which cantilever, should be visibly supported by structural brackets. Sec. 628.9.1.5. Roofs Sec. 628.9.1.5.1. Material Roofs, (gable or hip), should be clad in 3/4" low profile standing seam metal, wood shingle, or fiberglass architectural grade and diamond tab shingles. Gutters, downspouts and projecting drainpipes should be made of galvanized metal or copper. Flashing should be galvanized metal or cooper. Sec. 628.9.1.5.2. Configuration: Principal Roofs should have a symmetrical gable or hip with a slope between 4:12 and 12:12, or if flat, should have a horizontal parapet wall no less than 24" Tall. Ancillary Roofs (attached to walls of the principal Building) may be flat with parapet or maybe sheds sloped no less than 2:12. Eaves should be continuous. Eaves which overhang less than 8" should have a closed soffit. Eaves which overhang more than 16" should have exposed rafters. Eaves which overhang between 8" and 16" should have either a closed soffit or exposed rafters. Rafter Trails should not exceed 6" in depth at the tip. City of Miami Page 12 af 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 Gutters should be included within the roof or half -round at exposed caves. Downspouts should be round. Roof penetrations, including vent stacks, should not be placed on the slope of the roof facing the street. Roof penetrations should be finished to match the color of the roof. Skylights should be flat and mounted only to the rear slope of the roof. Sec. 628.9.1.6. Energy Conservation Building design should promote self shading, natural ventilation, outdoor circulation, and reduced independence on artificial lighting and air conditioning. Sec. 628.9.2. Mixed Use or Commercial Sec. 628.9.2.1. Style The method of construction, building configuration, scale and materials should be designed to promote streetwall continuity and architectural harmony along Grand Avenue and Douglas Road. Sec. 628.9.2.2. Energy Conservation Reflective and highly tinted glass should not be allowed on surfaces facing Public Pedestrian Spaces. Sec. 628.9.2.3. Openings Sec. 628.9,2.3.1. Material Windows and storefronts should be made of wood or aluminum and should be glazed with fully transparent glass. All sash divisions should be true divided. Sec. 628.9.2.3.2. Configuration Security Screens, when dosed must provide visibility into interior space. Sec. 628.9.2.4. Streetwalls Sec. 628.9.2.4.1. Habitable Space Streetwalls should have continuous Habitable Space for a minimum 80% of facade width for each building, at least 20 feet deep and two stories high, for residential and commercial uses. Sec.628.9.2.4.2. Entrances Principal pedestrian entrances to buildings should be along street frontages with major vehicular traffic volumes. City of Miami Page 13 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 Streetwalls should have pedestrian entrances at maximum intervals of 75 feet. Sec. 628.9.2.4.3. Retail Facades: On retail frontages, 75% of the facade at the sidewalk level should be assigned permanently to retail use with a minimum depth of 20 feet. Sec. 628.9.2.4.4. Glazing Streetwalls surfaces should be a minimum of 30% glazed except Retail Frontage should be glazed a minjmum of 70% of its area. Sec. 628.9.2.4.5. Bulkhead The minimum bulkhead height at pedestrian levels should be 12 inches above the sidewalk, except for entrance doors. The maximum bulkhead should be 3.5 feet. Sec. 628.9.2.5. Awnings Awnings are recommended and should be placed as follows: Awnings should be attached to a solid wall no higher than one foot above an upper window edge, exposing the transom and/or wall above. Awnings should extend a minimum of 4 feet from the building face and may extend to trees or two feet shy of the curb. Awnings should have a metal structure covered with canvas or synthetic canvas. Awnings should be rectangular in shape with straight edges even when associated with arched openings. Awnings should not have side panels or a bottom soffit panel. Awnings should not be backlit. Valances may have signage. Sec. 628.9.2.6. Parking Sec. 628.9.2.6.1. Surface Parking Lots Surface parking lots should be permitted up to a maximum of 100 feet in width and any visual impacts associated with visibility of cars should be buffered from the right-of-way. The frontage for such lots should be developed with uses. Where it is not possible to develop uses, the frontage should be landscaped with hedges, canopy trees, and a three (3) foot high garden wall. Vehicular entries should have a maximum width of 23 feet and provide for pedestrian safety with a sufficient angle of view. Sec. 628.9.2.6.2. Loading, Service and vehicular Entries if at all possible, vehicular entrances should be along streets less intensively used for through traffic, both to separate pedestrian from vehicular circulation and to minimize marginal vehicular friction along major streets. In addition, these entrances should not be located along residential City of Miami Page 14 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 streets except for Washington Avenue between Jefferson Street and Douglas Road. Along,,. abutting properties, the building should be articulated to hide these elements from public view. Loading and service entries should occur where possible at non-residential side streets, from rear access ways, and within parking lots and structures. For those properties with frontages only on streets and pedestrian public space, loading and servicing should be allowed on the frontage. The location of such entries should have a maximum width of 23 feet and minimum height to provide for clearance. Sec. 628.9.2.6.3. Parking Garage Pedestrian entries to parking garages should be directly from the street or Public Pedestrian Spaces as well as from the contiguous building. Pedestrian entries or garages should be linked to cross -block Pedestrian Passages wherever possible. Vehicular entries to garages should be allowed from streets and alleys and should be coordinated with the Department of Planning and Zoning. Vehicular entries from streets should have a maximum width of 23 feet with a minimum separation of 75 feet between entries. Parking garages should be completely lined with habitable living or working space along Grand Avenue and Douglas Road. Along the remaining sides of the garage, the facades should be articulated to minimize the impact of the parking garage and to hide the vehicles and other undesirable internal garage elements (piping, lighting, unfinished surfaces, etc.) from public view. Sec. 628.9.2.6.4. Parking Garage Roofs The roofs of parking structures should have landscaped shade structures of a minimum 50% coverage of the total area. Offstreet parking and loading should generally be within enclosed structures which should either be underground or, if aboveground, should be to the rear of the lot designed to provide a minimal visual impact with significant habitable space along the street. Unenclosed vehicular parking and loading in any location visible from a public street, or abutting properties should be appropriately screened from exterior views. Sec. 628.9.2.7. Merchandising All lighting should be in a warm spectrum. The storefront display should be illuminated with halogen lighting. Lighting emphasis should be on the window display and on the back wall of the shop. The window display should have no backdrop, providing views into the store. The displays of the entire store should be designed to be seen through the storefront. Name brands should be promoted with interior signs. Merchandise on the storefront and the back wall should be displayed in a course -grain - repetition rather than variety - to increase legibility. Shelves should be full but not crowded. City of Miami Page 15 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 The cash register should be as far to the rear of the store as feasible. After closing, display lights should be kept on at approximately 60% power until 1:00 am. Sec. 628.9.2.8. Walls Sec. 628.9.2.8.1. Configuration Arcades should have vertically proportioned openings. Garden Walls should be minimum of 8 inches in thickness with a proiectinp capes, Sec. 628.9.2.9. Elements Sec. 628.9.2.9.1. Material Signs should be made of painted wood or metal. Sec. 628.9.2.10. Roofs Sec. 628.9.2.10.1. Material Roofs, (gable or hip), should be clad in 3/4" low profile standing seam metal, wood shingle, or fiberglass architectural grade and diamond tab shingles. Sec. 628.9.2.11. Streetscape Street furniture should be provided which may include benches, trash receptacles, pedestrian walkway lighting, bus shelters, sculpture, and kiosks. These may be located in the pedestrian areas as long as pedestrian flow patterns are continuous. Sec. 628.10. Landscape Guidelines Trees, palms, ground cover, grass and other living landscape plants should be provided in required or provided yard areas in accordance with'an approved overall landscape plan for the development. Sec. 628.11. Examples of Architectural Elements and Materials See "Exhibit B. (For codification purposes, this exhibit will be inserted into this section.) Sec. 628.12. Examples of Architectural Elements and Materials See "Exhibit C". (For codification purposes, this exhibit will be inserted into this section.) "ARTICLE 8. neighborhood conservation DISTRICTS City of Miami Page 16 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 Sen 802.1. In`eenv . The Grand ict is enacted. 1-7 it Grove community. activity. t • Avg "Main St eet„ nharactcr_ City of Miami Page 17 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 residential area 1, street shall be appropriately rnreened. ee in the Primary Appearancee. "0" or "SD 2": City of Miami Page 18 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 Side: Zero (0) feet minimum - Rear: Ten (10) feet minimum - Side: Five (5) feet minimum Rear: Ten (10) fcct minimum ih tbarj limitations -spec c� b 809 A 9 Hoighf f fifty (50) feet; therefore, in - - _ i _t_�_ n.........4 A.........., rre5cyrticn�io onsite parking space. City of Miami Page 19 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 #: 97 specialize in the sale of 0 display area. Saturday& only. Sec. 802.6. Grand Avenue Cultural Distriot Overlay 802.6.1ntent City of Miami Page 20 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 /historic businesses, B ert current resident owned b +cine. ses, promote a cultural facade, 3 f f , raw- _ f ,,poeial regulations and- !Fe:sP!elicaitatie=4,14;444141""fers+RF-61+1‘gitilimr—twittiJ-ii",;€:-Fictt ; .a.;., �.i r......,......,., themes; inment reflective of -that - found in the Caribbean. • es. Sec. 802. Charles Avenue Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District City of Miami Page 21 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number: 04-01279 Sec. 802.1. Intent Charles Avenue is of special and substantial public interest due to its historic identity and historic structures; to identify and recognize the historical significance, to promote gateways, gathering places and activities corresponding to its culture and heritage, and to compliment the character of the entire community and promote the history of the Island District. in order to promote its successful revitalization and restoration, this Neighborhood Conservation District is enacted. The purpose of the Charles Avenue Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District is to recognize and identify the historic significance of Charles Avenue, originally "Evangelist Street", in Coconut Grove. As the community establishes the importance of its historic contributions as one of Miami's first settlements, and as a historical Bahamian community, the Historic Preservation corridor will serve as a public reminder and preserver of that distinction. The Charles Avenue Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District will help define the uses and designs of buildings and help maintain the scale and character of the existing neighborhood. The Corridor will identify and encourage preservation of historic sites on Charles Avenue, including: the Mariah Brown House, home of the first Bahamian settler; The Historic Black Cemetery; The E. F. Stirrup House, home of the first Black doctor; historical churches, and several historical homes. The Charles Avenue Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District is intended to compliment the character of the entire community and promote the history of the Island District. The Charles Avenue Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Overlay is located along Charles Avenue between Douglas Road and Main Highway. Sec. 802.2. Effect of NCD-2 district designation. The effect of these NCD-2 regulations shall be to modify regulations within portions of other zoning districts included within the NCD boundaries to the extent indicated. Sec. 802.3. Class II Special Permit 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 demolition of any existing building; or far the erection of any new building; or for the location, relocation or alteration of any structure, sign, awning, landscaping, parking area or vehicular way visible from a public street. 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 below and listed in section 1305. * * Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances insofar as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are 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. City of Miami Page 22 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 File Number. 04-01279 Section 5. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after final reading and adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: JORGE L. FERNANDEZ CITY ATTORNEY Footnotes: {1} Words and/or figures stricken through shall be deleted. Underscored words and/or figures shall be added. The remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. Asterisks indicate omitted and unchanged material. {2} This Ordinance shall become effective as specified herein unless vetoed by the Mayor within ten days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Ordinance, it shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission or upon the effective date stated herein, whichever is later. City of Miami Page 23 of 23 Printed On: 11/18/2004 RESOLUTION PAB - 124-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDING APPROVAL (AS MODIFIED) TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLES 6 AND 8, IN ORDER TO ADD SECTION 628 - VILLAGE WEST ISLAND SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT, IN ORDER TO MODIFY REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DISTRICT; AND TO MODIFY SECTION 802 TO RENAME THE NCD-2 OVERLAY DISTRICT FROM "GRAND AVENUE CORRIDOR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT" TO "CHARLES AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT"; ADDING AN INTENT STATEMENT AND DISTRICT REGULATIONS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. HEARING DATE: November 3, 2004 ITEM NO.: 1 VOTE: 7-0 ATTEST: h .Gea anchez, Director Panning and Zoning Department COMBINAT, N SIDEYARD AND REAR. ARD TYPE < - • - ' • 11. t..S% <4. ce5- 5°1 .ts* 42. *-c* - •.< ' - . . , . 49- - . -1-. ,.. ... ---42.- . -.4.. EXAMPLES c 7r, —e - ?et" r:12 O DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING - URBAN DESIGN DIVISION - I /8/ 2003 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING - URBAN DESIGN DIVISION - 1 / 8/ 2 0 0 3 COURT YARD TYPE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING - URBAN DESIGN DIVISION - 1 / 8/ 2 0 0 3 R E A R Y A P T) TYPE WITH DETACHED GARAGE P. mod -'qF - . \ • 4 -b' , >.:� O. "ram v' , -if- c5 447 ti a EXAMPLES b c . . . v i DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING URBAN DESIGN DIVISION - I / B/ 2 0 0 3 ONE STORY ED EYARD TYPE WITH ATTHED GARAGE bs g3t3' -v., 5 / i ,`F . / .af ct -40 44 �3' Q' 1'' EXAMPLES IIIIIIII111 IIlllui sill I >' �; Illllillip / %- a b c DEPARTMENT OP PLANNING AND ZONING • URBAN DESIGN DIVISION - I / 8/ 2 0 0 3 E D G E Y A R n TYPE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE A i .. " ��" EXAMPLES a c� c O C O c c U p • N SUE co DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING URBAN DESIGN DIVISION 1 / 8/ 2 0 0 J CITY OF M-I .A'M • a -- --DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING URBAN DESIGN DIVISION NCD-3 SIZE RANGE DISTRIBUTION FOR R-1 PARCELS - 3/18/04 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P2-50 on 0 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk MN 14;0 • ,wa a ,�. AVM / CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING - URBAN DESIGN DIVISION COCONUT GROVE - NELG}f'BO.RI-IOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT - 3 - TEST PROCESS MARCH 29, 2004 SITE MASSING SETBACKS 30' MAX. FRONTAGE PARKING Submitted into the public record in connection with item P2 -Jo on /a - 7-ay Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk CITY -OFI_o :rAM I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING URBANDESIGNDIVISION NCD-3 SIZE RANGE DISTRIBUTION FOR R-1 PARCELS - 3/18/04 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pz-30 Old /"s t-o✓ Priscilla A. Thompson ---- City Clerk IMUE COCONUT GROVE 50' x• 100' LOT EXAMPLES ' ' SINGLE CAR SINGLE CAR - -SINGLE CAR ATTACHED ATTACHED DETACHED GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE TWO CAR ATTACHED TWO CAR TWO CAR TWO CAR GARAGE (NOT IN ATTACHED DETACHED DETACHED CODE YET) GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE INTERIOR LOT ��: /7j ss ''% ,/ / ,/ /%: _ / >j� a .' /% BF-2000,E G5-2250,E 30 - _ BP- 1500 e1: GS-2050,E BF-1618.5 of GS-1900,E ' _217_._. BF• 1600,f. GS. 22000 _. _30 -__ 30 __ _30 BF-1200,E GS-2150 of BP-1350,1 GS-19000 'BP-900 of. GS • 2550,E LOT ENTRANCE ON SHORT SIDE CORNER LOT ENTRANCE ON LONG SIDE 55' 35 6P r ,% ",. :.. ; / sr �� / / /CORNER % /// 5 / 7 9 a BP-1640,t ,5_ 65-2575 of BF-1190,E �_ GS- 21250 BF• 1315.5 u GS. 2350 If _..... BP 11fI00 1s GS- 2525,f BF- 1000 of 2r GS 2500,f... BF-11250. 2S GS-2213,f BF- 350 of. (.5-2725 of "° /' r / / w /% / /� ss. `° /� ' /�//45 / / s ss r,.... sr .. ss 1Bsn� tiie public BF ( z,f. G5 2625d �F - 1877,E Gs-26n,f ... _-- _ —_-- >s r...e sr IV BF-1652,f. GS- nx.f aF-us2 .f Gs-zss ,f BF_ur, ,f Gs-z?z5 ,f '-wineeuon7 z-3d on /A-f o" I ulia A. Thompson f _inrtr OE PLANNING AND ZONING URBAN DESIGN DIVISION MARCH 10 2 0 0 4 AREAS 4 AND 6 / NORTH GROVE Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pe-.o on oy Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk AREA 1/ NORTH GROVE AREA 2, 7 / SOUTH GROVE AREA 3, 6 / NORTH GROVE 1700Z `6Z HD IVNI z r� 1 x rzs 0 0 on do 00 zz r iPzi CC) .10 Ot z Submitted Into the public record in connection with item p.. 2 YD on ix,------- Priscilla A. Thompson i y e1er k AREA 2/NORTH GROVE b00Z '6Z HD IVL4 z rn 0 0 On d0 nn 00 zz C/3c tra c0 ax ao Orn z a n a 0 V a O z - C I T V hp M IJA M I - DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING - URBAN DESIGN DIVISION "raCf1NU, GRQV.E - NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT - 3 - 10,000 + PARCEL TESTS 002 001 003 Submitted Into the public record in connection wilh tem PZ-3o Priscilla A. rho A n City Clerk MARCH 29, 2004 COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT 'NCD-3) R-1 GENERAL CODE Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District R-1 Single Family Residential Regulations: These regulations are to establish the following results: to preserve and maximize the tree canopy and landscape; to preserve and enhance the variety of the architectural character and form; and reestablish and secure neighborhood identities destabilized by inappropriate development. To achieve an appropriate building form that will yield these results, the following four considerations must be met 1. The use of a specific side setback is determined by a combination of building height and lot size to allow for landscape, tree canopy and natural light between buildings. 2. To minimize the negative visual impact and retain space for landscaping, garage is setback 20' from the building facades. 3. To establish outdoor rooms and spaces that have a strong relationship from the interior spaces, and to insure natural light penetration within the building and outdoor spaces, the requirement of open space is necessary. 4. Build to lines and maximum building width are required: to promote more landscape; to prevent the development of Mcmansions; and provide better articulation for the front facade. 1 - t - - Accessory Building Line Rear Building line t -2nd Build -to -Line - 1st n Build -to -tine- . - I - Allowable Attachment Line Front PARKING On corner lots, all garages shall be placed near the abutting properties and aceess to parking garages shall only be perrnititecl.on secondary sheets.; Neither the driveway nor tht garage shall beplacedwithin the zt ininium-5' side setbacks. Tandem parking its allowed. Circular driveways shall not be permitted. Attached garage shall be setback 20' measured perpendicular from the street to the bade of the lot, starting from the part of the building to which it is attached. Detached garige'$hall'be place at the rear of the lot. Accessory Building Line Corner Lot Specification Primary Swett - Short Side Total Side Setback to be Du,nbutcd Lut Area 10,000 s.f. and above 25' 35' 7500 s.f. to 9999 a.f. 15' 25' < 7500 s, f. Irurnor 1V 1 S' < 7500 s. f. Corner 15' 15' - Reat Building Line - - - - - -2nd Build -to -line---- - - -1st Build-to-Linc-- Allowable Attachment Iine- 4 Front COURT This required space (courtyard, forecourt, rearyard, sideyard, etc.) is to be located within the full setback requirements. Parts of the court that extend into the setback areas shall not be used in determining the size of the court. On lots with less than 60' of linear frontage along the primary street, the width of the court in all directions shall be a minimum of 12'. On lots 60' or greater linear frontage along the primary street, the court width shall be greater in all directions than the building height defining the court, and fully open from the ground floor to the sky. From BUILDING PLACEMENT MY Min 1 = 10' Min 10' Min 20' Min Interior Lot 15' Min Comer L. 1 1 Between the 2nd build -to -line and rear building line, the shortest dimension of any part of the building shall be a maximum of 40' from outside wall to outside wall Between the 1st build -to -line and 2nd build -to -line, frontage width shall be 30' maximum DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING - URBAN DESIGN DIVISION - 1 / 1 5/ 2 0 0 3 GRAND BAHAMAS DEVELOPMENT OF VILLAGE WEST CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, JARRETTE BAY INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, COMBINED INVESTORS, INC., a Florida Corporation, MUSKAT BROTHERS, INC., a Florida Corporation, ORLANDO BENITEZ, an Individual, and ROSA BENITEZ, an Individual, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF MIAMI, a Florida municipal corporation, Defendant. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 11 2 2 0 6 5 CA 15 THE OPAL HUED ON OCT 1 9 2004 IN THE OFFICE O-F CIRCUIT COURT DADECOF. CIVIL DIVISION COMPLAINT The Plaintiffs, GRAND BAHAMAS DEVELOPMENT OF VTILAGE WEST CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, JARRETTE BAY INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, COMBINED INVESTORS, INC., a Florida Corporation, MUSKAT BROTHERS, INC., a Florida Corporation, ORLANDO BENITEZ, an Individual, and ROSA BENITEZ, an Individual, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby sue the Defendant, THE CITY OF MIAMI, a Florida municipal corporation, and as grounds therefor, allege the following: \75756 \ 19567\ # 696693 v I 10/19/04 I I 44 AM BILZIN BOMBERG SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR BAENA. PRICE & AX[TFEMLP 121 oN c, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SLITS 2500 FLORIDA 3313 Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City of Miami, etc. I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE 1 This is an action for, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief and for money damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($15,000.00), exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. 2. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, GRAND BAHAMAS DEVELOPMENT OF VILLAGE WEST CORPORATION ("GRAND BAHAMAS"), was and is a Florida Corporation authorized to do and doing business in Miami -Dade County, Florida. 3. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, JARRETTE BAY INVESTMENTS CORPORATION ("JARRETTE BAY"), was and is a Florida Corporation authorized to do and doing business in Miami -Dade County, Florida. 4. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, COMBINED INVESTORS, INC. ("COMBINED"), was and is a Florida Corporation authorized to do and doing business in Miami -Dade County, Florida. 5. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, MUSKAT BROTHERS, INC ("MUSKAT"), was and is a Florida Corporation authorized to do and doing business in Miami - Dade County, Florida. 6. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, ORLANDO BENITEZ ("Mr. Benitez"), was and is a resident of Miami -Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. 7. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, ROSA BENITEZ ("Mrs. Benitez was and is a resident of Miami -Dade County, Florida, and is otherwise suijuris. 8. At all times material hereto, the Defendant, THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), was and is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, located in Miami -Dade County, Florida. 2 \75756119567\#696693v I 10/19/04 11:44 AM BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2500 • MIAMI, ,LORIDA 3313i-5340 Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City of Miami, etc. 9. Venue is proper in Miami -Dade County, Florida as the causes of action and injury alleged herein arose in Miami -Dade County, Florida. 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute in that the question of whether or not a municipal ordinance is valid is a judicial question. 11. All named Plaintiffs have standing to maintain this action because they are aggrieved parties that have been specially and injuriously affected by the application of the Ordinance at issue to their property and business interests. 12. All named Plaintiffs have perfoil ied all conditions precedent to the institution of this action, or the conditions have been excused or otherwise waived. 13. All named Plaintiffs have engaged the law firm of Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP to represent them in this action and have agreed to pay Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP a reasonable fee for its services. II. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs' Properties and the Original Zoning. 14. In or around May, 2002, and into 2003, Plaintiff GRAND BAHAMAS and PlaintiffJA_RETTE BAY purchased parcels of real property located at 3301 Grand Avenue, 3355 Grand Avenue, 3375 Grand Avenue, and 3395 Grand Avenue, all within the city of Miami, in Miami -Dade County, Florida. 15. In or around July 2003, Plaintiffs COMBINED, MUSKAT, Mr. Benitez and Mrs. Benitez purchased parcels of real property located at 3432 Grand Avenue, 3440 Grand Avenue, 3456 Grand Avenue, and 3396 Grand Avenue, all within the city of Miami, in Miami -Dade County, Florida. 3 \75756 \ 19567 # 69669? v 1 10/19/04 1144 AM BILZ1N BUM BERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE E3OULEVARD, SUITE 0500 • M!A•41, FLORIDA. 33131-5240 Grand Bahamas Development of Villa& West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City, of Miami, etc. 16. For purposes of this Complaint, the parcels of real property identified in paragraphs 14 and 15, all located on Grand Avenue within the city of Miami in Miami -Dade County, Florida, will be referred to herein as "the Property". Additionally, Plaintiffs GRAND BAHAMAS, JARRETTE BAY, COMBINED, MUSKAT, Mrs. Benitez, and Mr. Benitez will be collectively referred to herein as "the Plaintiffs." 17. At the time the Plaintiffs purchased the Property, it was zoned (R-2) Duplex Residential, (0) Office and SD-2, and potential building's heights were "unlimited" (hereinafter, the "Original Zoning"). 18. In accordance with the Original Zoning, the Plaintiffs purchased the Property for the purpose of developing and building residential condominium units. At all times material, it was always the Plaintiffs' intention to develop and build twelve -story condominium buildings on the Property in accordance with the Original Zoning. 19. Thereafter, in order to begin the building and construction process, the Plaintiffs hired architects and all appropriate personnel and began working on plans in reliance on the parameters of the Original Zoning. Specifically, the Plaintiffs spent considerable monies in developing comprehensive building plans that were created for submission to the CITY for approval. 20. However, not long thereafter, as the Plaintiffs were finalizing their building plans and building permit applications for the Property, the Plaintiffs became aware of a potential effort by the CITY to change the Property's Original Zoning to a new zoning classification. The new proposal would change the Original Zoning to (R-2) Duplex Residential, (0) Office, and SD-2 with an NCD-2 Overlay for a proposed "Grand Avenue Coiiidor Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District" (hereinafter, the "Proposed Zoning" or "Ordinance No. 12418"). 4 75756\19567\ # 696693 v I 10/19/04 I 1:44 AM BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP zoo SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2500 • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33I3,5340 Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City of Miami, etc. 21. For the Plaintiffs, the practical effect of a zoning change from Original Zoning to Proposed Zoning would be catastrophic. Such a change would prevent the Plaintiffs from developing the condominium project as designed and planned. Indeed, under the parameters of the Proposed Zoning, the Plaintiffs would be limited to developing five story condominium buildings instead of twelve story buildings as designed. This change would materially effect the Plaintiffs' investment and significantly reduce the amount of revenue that the Plaintiffs could realize from the Property by over seventy -percent (70%). 22. Accordingly, and immediately thereafter, on or around July 15, 2003, the Plaintiffs sought confirmation from the CITY that its project, which would be submitted for building permits prior to the effective date of the zoning change from Original Zoning to Proposed Zoning, would be 'grand -fathered in" under the Original Zoning. 23. Specifically, on or around July 15, 2003, Mr. Mark Wallace of Wallace & Perdomo, Inc., the Plaintiffs' consultant submitted a letter to Joyce McFee, Zoning Administrator for the CITY. In his letter, Mr. Wallace requested written confiuiiiation from Ms. McFee that the projects, which would be submitted prior to the effective date of the change to Proposed Zoning, would be "grand -fathered in" under the Original Zoning. 24. In response to Mr. Wallace's correspondence, Ms. McFee countersigned the letter and indicated that, indeed, the Plaintiffs' project would be "grand -fathered in" under the Original Zoning. A true and correct copy of Mr. Wallace's letter to Ms. McFee is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". Importantly, Ms. McFee's letter did not state that there were any time limits that might become applicable to the processing of the plans or the issuance of the building peiuiits. 5 175756\19567\ # 696693 v 1 10/19/04 11:44 AM BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE E., AXELROD LLP 00 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SJITE ZSOC • NBA,M111, FLORIDA 3313H5340 Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City of Miami, etc. 25. In reliance on the Original Zoning as confirmed by this letter, the Plaintiffs continued to spend substantial amounts of money and time revising and processing plans for the Project. 26. At or around the same time, the CITY planned to hold public hearings on its potential zoning change to Proposed Zoning. As a prerequisite of same, the CITY purportedly provided notice of the hearing by advertising the title of its Proposed Zoning ordinance. Specifically, the CITY advertised that the Proposed Zoning ordinance would Amend Pages No. 46 and 47 of the zoning atlas of zoning ordinance No. 11000, as amended, by changing the zoning classification from Original Zoning ((R-2) Duplex Residential, (0) Office and SD-2) to Proposed Zoning ((R-2) Duplex Residential, (0) Office, and SD-2 with an NCD-2 Overlay for a proposed "Grand Avenue Corridor Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District"). 27. Thereafter, the CITY held public hearings on the proposed ordinance and zoning change. The first reading before the City Commissioner was on July 24, 2003, and the second and final reading was on September 25, 2003. 28. After the public hearings were completed, the Proposed Zoning was enacted as Ordinance No. 12418. Ordinance No. 12418 attempted to change the zoning for the Property to, among other changes, limit buildings in the area to be no more five (5) stories high. The Plaintiffs planned to develop 12-story mixed -use projects. 29. Thereafter, on or about September 25, 2003, the Plaintiffs submitted their plans to the CITY in accordance with the Original Zoning and pursuant to the CITY's countersigned letter indicating that the Plaintiffs would be "grand -fathered in" under the Original Zoning ordinance. 1757561195671#696693v1 10/19/04 11 :44 AM 6 BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2500 • MIANAl, FLORIDA 33131-5340 Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City ofMiami, etc. 30. Inexplicably, and despite the CITY having countersigned Mr. Wallace's July 13, 2003 letter, as a result of the CITY passing Ordinance No. 12418, the CITY refused to grant the Plaintiffs' building permits to begin construction of its condominium project. Incredibly, the CITY continued to take this position even though it gladly accepted thousands of dollars from the Plaintiffs for line and grade and other pertinent permits. The Defective Proposed Zoning_ Ordinance. 31. However, even though the CITY is now refusing to issue to the Plaintiffs building permits under the Original Zoning, in reality, the zoning for the Property has not changed and is still the Original Zoning. Indeed, the CITY's Ordinance No. 12418, which purportedly changed the zoning for the Property from the Original Zoning to the Proposed Zoning, has a title which suggests that it changed the zoning classification from . . . "(R-2) Duplex Residential (0) Office and SD-2 to R-2 (R-2) Duplex Residential (0) Office and SD-2 with an NCD-2 overlay for a proposed Grand Avenue Corridor or Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District located in Coconut Grove." 32. However, the Ordinance, in Section 2, actually made the following change . . "Schedule District Regulations is amended by changing the zoning classification from (0) Office and SD-2 to (0) Office and SD-2 with an SD-26 Overlay to allow a "Coconut Grove Fanners Market Special District" located in the Coconut Grove area .. .", not NCD-2. 33. Therefore, while the CITY may have tried to rezone the Property to the Proposed Zoning, the body of the Ordinance did not apply that zoning category to the Property. 34. Accordingly, not only did Ordinance No. 12418 not rezone the Property, but it is in fact an invalid ordinance as a result of the inconsistency and confusion between the title of the Ordinance and the actual operative language in the body of the Ordinance. Moreover, since the 7 V75756119567\#696693v I 10/19/04 1144 AM BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP ZOO SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SL,IrE 2500 • rotAml, FLOR,DA 33131•5340 Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City of Miami, etc. title of the Ordinance was inconsistent with the body of the Ordinance, any notice given as a result of CITY's distribution of the title was defective. 35. However, despite the invalidity and non -applicability of Ordinance No. 12418 to the Property, and coupled with Ms. McFee's letter, the CITY continues to refuse to approve the Plaintiffs' building permits, plans and applications that have been previously submitted by the Plaintiffs under the parameters of the Original Zoning ordinance. 36. To make matters worse, CITY continues to delay and refuse to process the Plaintiffs' Plans while contemporaneously trying to remedy its defective ordinance by issuing a new ordinance. 37. The Plaintiffs has been financially damaged as a result of the CITY's zoning change as the developmental value of the Property will be considerably affected if Ordinance No. 12418 takes effect. 38. Judicial relief is appropriate in the instant case against the CITY's zoning ordinance since Ordinance No. 12418 is clearly unreasonable, facially invalid, and unconstitutional. COUNT I (Declaratory Relief) 39. The Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 38 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 40. This is a cause of action for declaratory relief 41. The validity, meaning or application of a zoning ordinance may be determined in a proceeding for declaratory relief The Plaintiffs bring this cause of action to challenge the validity of Ordinance No. 12418 that threatens the Plaintiffs' rights. 8 \75756\19567\#696693v1 10/19/04 1144 AM BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 250C • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33$ 31-5340 Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City of Miami, etc. 42. Based on the facts as more fully described above, the Plaintiffs and the CITY have an actual, present, adverse and antagonistic interest in the enforcement and validity of Ordinance No. 12418 either in fact or in law. 43. The Plaintiffs believe that Ordinance No. 12418 is facially invalid for two reasons, both of which violate section 166.041, Florida Statutes, pertaining to the creation of municipal ordinances. 44. First, Section 166.041(2), Florida Statutes, sets forth the single -subject requirement of the Florida Constitution and mandates that a title of an ordinance must be consistent with the body of same. Specifically, Section 166.041(2), Florida Statutes, states as follows: 166.041 Procedures for adoption of Ordinances and Resolutions— (2) Each ordinance or resolution shall be introduced in writing and shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith. The subject shall be clearly stated in the title. No ordinance shall be Proposed or amended by reference to its title only. Ordinances to revise or amend shall set out in full the Proposed or amended act or section or subsection or paragraph of a section of subsection. See § 166.041 (2), Florida Statutes (emphasis added). 45. Herein, the Plaintiffs believe that Ordinance No. 12418 is invalid because its title is inconsistent with the body of same. Again, as mentioned above, the CITY's Ordinance No. 12418, which purportedly changed the zoning for the Property, has a title which suggested that it changed the zoning classification from . . "(R-2) Duplex Residential (0) Office and SD-2 to R- 9 \757561195671#696693 v 1 10/19/04 11:44 AM BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2500 • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33;3I-5340 Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City of Miami, etc. 2 (R-2) Duplex Residential (0) Office and SD-2 with an NCD-2 overlay for a proposed Grand Avenue corridor or neighborhood conservation overlay district located in Coconut Grove,'' 46. However, the body of this Ordinance did not make this change to the zoning plans. On the contrary, a different and new change was made. 47. Therefore, while the CITY may have tried to rezone the property to 0 or SD-2 and NCD-2 overlay for the Grand Avenue Corridor Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, the body of the Ordinance did not apply that zoning category to the Property. 48. Accordingly, not only did this Ordinance not rezone the Property, but it is in fact an invalid ordinance as a result of the inconsistency, confusion and sheer contradiction between the title of the Ordinance and the actual operative language in the body of the Ordinance. Under the requirement of unity of subject of an ordinance expressed in its title, the provisions of an ordinance must involve no plurality of subjects, and they must not be inconsistent or discordant with its title. Indeed, the title of the Ordinance is misleading in that it was not sufficiently full and specific to lead to an inquiry into the body of the ordinance. In fact, the title of the Ordinance cited a specific zoning change, but that change was not what the CITY enacted. 49. Ordinance No. 12418 also violates the statutory notice requirements of municipal ordinances as codified in Section 166.041(3), Florida Statutes. Specifically, this section states as follows: 166.41 Procedures for adoption of Ordinances and Resolutions— (3)(C)(2) In cases in which the proposed ordinance changes the actual list of pelinitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a zoning category, or changes the actual zoning map designation of parcel or parcels of land involving 10 contiguous acres or more, the governing body shall provide for public notice and hearings as follows: 10 \75756\19567\ # 696693 v 1 10/19/04 I I :44 AM BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2500 • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-5340 Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City of Miami, etc. (a) The local governing body shall hold two advertised public hearings on the proposed ordinance.... (b) The required advertisements shall be no less than 2 columns wide by 10 inches long in a standard size or a tabloid size newspaper.....The advertisement shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF (TYPE OF) CHANGE The (name of local governmental unit) proposes to adopt the following ordinance: (title of ordinance). A public hearing on the ordinance will be held on (date and times) at (meeting place). (c) In lieu of publishing the advertisement set out in the paragraph, the municipality may mail a notice to each person owning real property within the area covered by the ordinance. Such notice shall clearly explain the proposed ordinance, and shall notify the person of the time, place, and location of any public hearing on the proposed ordinance. See § 166.041(3), Florida Statutes. 50. The Plaintiffs maintain that Ordinance No. 12418 is invalid because proper notice of same was not provided to the public. Notice of a zoning ordinance must be given and an ordinance is invalid for failure to give the required notice. 51. Herein, the CITY allegedly provided notice of its proposed Ordinance No. 12418 by advertising its title. Indeed, as Ordinance No. 12418 makes clear, it was only the title that was read at the two readings of same prior to enactment. However, the CITY's notice did not adequately inform the public as to what changes were proposed in that the actual change did not conform to the proposed change in the notice. Indeed, there was a substantial difference between the ordinance as enacted and the description in the notice. 11 \75756\19567\ # 696693 v 1 10/19/04 11.44 AM BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2500 • MIAMI, FLORIDA 3313I-5340 Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City of Miami, etc. 52. The practical effects of same are that the CITY's notice did not give the average reader reasonable warning that property in which the reader had an interest may be affected by the proposed zoning change. In fact, many people may have been misled by the CITY's notice. By way of example and not limitation, CITY's notice failed to even mention the simple fact that the proposed zoning change would affect permissible height requirements. In essence, by not enacting that which was provided for in the notice, the CITY deprived interested persons from the opportunity to learn of the proposed ordinance, study the proposal for any negative or positive effects they might have if enacted, and give notice so that all interested persons can attend the hearings and speak out to inform the city commissioner prior to the ordinance's enactment. 53. Under Florida law, strict compliance with the notice requirements of ordinances is jurisdictional and a mandatory perquisite to the valid enactment of a zoning measure wherein the failure to follow the statutory notice requirements renders a zoning ordinance void. 54. Based on the foregoing, there is a bona fide, actual, present and practical need for a resolution of these interests and a declaration of the respective rights of the parties pursuant to the Ordinance at question, such declaration deals with a present, ascertained or ascertainable state of facts andlor present controversy as to a state of facts; the rights of the parties are dependent upon the facts or the law applicable to the facts; and the antagonistic and adverse interests are all before the Court by proper process or class representation. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order adjudicating the respective rights of the Plaintiffs and CITY in connection with the Ordinance at issue, and specifically, deteiiiiine as follows: 12 \75756\19567\ # 696693 v 1 10/19/04 I 1:44 AN1 BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2500 • MI4,11, FLORIDA 33131-534C Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City of Miami, etc. A. That Ordinance No. 12418's title and body are inconsistent and thereby flawed, invalid and unenforceable; B. That Ordinance No. 12418 was passed in violation of the notice and advertisement requirements of Florida law in that proper notice was not provided before the enactment of same and therefore Ordinance No. 12418 is invalid; C. That the Plaintiffs are entitled to all other relief that this Honorable Court deems just, appropriate, and fair. COUNT II (Declaratory Relief) 55. The Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 38 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 56. This is a cause of action for declaratory relief. 57. The Plaintiffs bring this cause of action to challenge the validity of Ordinance No. 12418 that threatens the Plaintiffs' rights. 58. Based on the facts as more fully described above, the Plaintiffs and the CITY have an actual, present, adverse, and antagonistic interest in the enforcement and validity of Ordinance No. 12418 either in fact or in law. 59. As more fully described above, the Plaintiffs believe that Ordinance No. 12418 is facially invalid. However, even if somehow found valid, the Plaintiffs believe that Ordinance No. 12418 is not applicable to them by virtue of the CITY's letter confirming that the Plaintiffs could construct their project in accordance with the Original Zoning. 60. The CITY has refused to issue the Plaintiffs' plans and permits under the Original Zoning. 13 \75756\19567`,#696693v 1 10/19/04 I 144 AM BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2500 • MiAML, FLORIDA 33131-5340 Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City of Miami, etc. 61. Based on the foregoing, there is a bona fide, actual, present, and practical need for a resolution of these interests and a declaration of the respective rights of the parties pursuant to the Ordinance at question, such declaration deals with a present, ascertained or ascertainable state of facts and/or present controversy as to a state of facts; the rights of the parties are dependent upon the facts or the law applicable to the facts; and the antagonistic and adverse interests are all before the Court by proper process or class representation. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order adjudicating the respective rights of the Plaintiffs and CITY in connection with the CITY's confiimation letter as outlined herein, and specifically, deteimine as follows: A. That the Plaintiffs are not bound by Ordinance No. 12418 and, instead, are "grand -fathered in" under the Original Zoning by virtue of Ms. Mcfee's response to Mr. Wallace's letter dated July 13, 2003; and B. That the Plaintiffs are entitled to all other relief that the Honorable Court deems just, appropriative, and fair. COUNT III (Temporary and Permanent Injunctive Relief) 62, The Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 38 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 63. This is a claim for temporary and permanent injunctive relief. The validity of an ordinance is determinable in an injunctive suit to restrain its enforcement. The Plaintiffs bring this remedy to restrain the enforcement of Ordinance No. 12418 that is both invalid and unconstitutional. 64. As more fully described above, Ordinance No. 12418 is fatally defective in at least two major respects. \75756\19567 696693 v 1 I 0/19/04 11 :44 AM 14 BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 20C SOUTH BISCAYNE 5CtiLEVARD, SUITE 2500 • FLORIDA 3313.-534c Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al, v. The City of Miami, etc. 65. First, Ordinance No. 12418s title and body are inconsistent. This deficiency renders Ordinance No. 12418 invalid. Herein, the title of the Ordinance cited a specific zoning change, but that change was not what the CITY enacted. 66. Secondly, the CITY rendered defective notice by advertising the title of Ordinance No. 12418, which is not what was ultimately enacted by the CITY. This defective notification also renders Ordinance No. 12418 defective, flawed, and unenforceable. 67. Based on the deficiencies and flaws of Ordinance No. 12418 which render it defective, the CITY should be enjoined from enforcing this Ordinance against the Property owned by the Plaintiffs. 68. The Plaintiffs also have no adequate remedy at law for the CITY's wrongful conduct because it is well established that real property is unique, making monetary damages difficult, if not impossible to deteimine. Based on the Plaintiffs' review of the market, the amount of time that has passed, and the present state of the economy, no reasonably alternate plan exists, other than the Property, for the Plaintiffs to implement these plans. 69. The Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claim for injunctive relief and have a clear right to injunctive relief under these circumstances. As detailed above, the relief that the Plaintiffs seek is predicated on the Ordinance at issue being unenforceable and facially invalid. The Plaintiffs will also prevail on the merits of this case by showing that they detrimentally relied on the confiuiiiation letter from the CITY's zoning department to their detriment. 70. Considerations of public interest also favor granting preliminary and peinianent injunctive relief in the instant case. The CITY's threatened and existing conduct will frustrate the Plaintiffs' plans to develop their project, which were all in place and should have been 15 \75756\19567\ 4 696693 v 1 10/19/04 11:44 AM BILZIN BUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 200 SOUTH a,SCA,INE BOL.LEvARD. SuITE 2500 • •.•Wami, ,LORIOA 33,31-5340 Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City of Miami, etc. "grand -fathered in" under the predecessor zoning code pursuant to the CITY's confirmation of the Plaintiffs' July 13, 2003 letter. Judicial tolerance or inaction with respect to the CITY's blatant attempts to change its zoning notwithstanding the Plaintiffs' rights would put into question a city's right to simply change its zoning without following the law. At stake are the constitutional rights of real property owners to rely upon existing zoning ordinances, pursuant to which the Plaintiffs relied to their detriment. 71. It is in the interest of the public and the State of Florida to support the property rights of individuals and entities, and insure that all people are provided fair and accurate notice of any zoning changes. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order against the CITY and grant the following relief: A. Prohibit the CITY from enforcing Ordinance No. 12418 in its entirety; B. Prohibit the CITY from enforcing Ordinance No. 12418 against the Plaintiffs; C. Compel the CITY to adhere to its obligation enacted by its zoning department's confirmation letter, thereby enjoining the CITY from applying Ordinance No. 12418 to the Property owned by the Plaintiffs; D. Enjoin the CITY from applying any successor ordinances to Ordinance No. 12418 to Plaintiffs' Property; E. Find that the Plaintiffs' building plans and peiniits shall all be "grand -fathered in" under the Original Zoning ordinance; F. Compel the CITY to process the Plaintiffs' Plans pursuant to the Original Zoning; and 16 1,75756\19567%# 696693 v 1 10/19/04 11:44 AM BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 200 SOUTH SCAME BOULEVARD, SUITE 2500 • MIAMI, FLORIDA :33131-5340 proper. Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City of Miami, etc. G. Award the Plaintiffs such other relief as deteimined by the Court to be just and COUNT IV (Equitable Estoppel) 72. The Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 38 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 73. As more fully described above, and based on the CITY's letter from its Zoning Department, the CITY made a material representation to the Plaintiffs that it would be "grand - fathered in" under the Original Zoning and that the Plaintiffs could build condominium project in conformance with the Original Zoning. 74. This misrepresentation is contrary to the CITY's later asserted positions and representations regarding the Plaintiffs' right to develop the Property in accordance with the Original Zoning.. The CITY now maintains that the Plaintiffs can only develop their project in strict compliance with the Proposed Zoning Ordinance No. 12418. 75 However, when the CITY countersigned a letter to the Plaintiffs which indicated that the Plaintiffs could build and develop their project in compliance with the Original Zoning ordinance, the Plaintiffs relied upon the CITY's representations to their detriment by incurring significant expenses to hire appropriate personnel, and design and submit all appropriate building permits and plans to the CITY. 76. The Plaintiffs relied on the representations of the CITY to their detriment and the CITY should be equitably estopped to deny the Plaintiffs to develop and build their project pursuant to the Original Zoning. 77. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs have acquired a vested right to develop and build their project pursuant to the Original Zoning. 17 05756\19567\ 4 696693 v 1 I 0/ I 9/04 11:44 AM BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 5500 • MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131-5340 Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City of Miami, etc. 78. Accordingly, if this Ordinance is enforced against the Property owned by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs will be irreparably haiiiied by not being able to develop their project in accordance with the original plans. 79. The CITY's threatened and existing conduct will frustrate the Plaintiffs' plans to develop their project, which were all in place and should have been "grand -fathered in" under the predecessor zoning code pursuant to the CITY's confirmation of the Plaintiffs' July 13, 2003 letter. Judicial tolerance or inaction with respect to the CITY's blatant attempts to change its zoning notwithstanding the Plaintiffs' rights would put into question a city's right to simply change its zoning without following the law. At stake are the constitutional rights of real property owners to rely upon existing zoning ordinances, pursuant to which the Plaintiffs relied to their detriment. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order against the CITY and find that the CITY is equitably estopped from denying the Plaintiffs the ability to develop their project in accordance with the Original Zoning, find that the Plaintiffs have a vested right to build their project in accordance with the Original Zoning, award monetary damages in excess of $15,000.00, together with any such other and further relief that this Honorable Court deems just, fair, and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL The Plaintiffs hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues contained herein that are so triable. DATED: 18 \75756\19567\# 696693 v I 10/19/04 I I :44 AM BILZI N BUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUITE 2500 • MIAMI, FLORIDA 3313I-S34C', \75756\19567\ # 696693 v 1 10/19/04 11:22 AM Grand Bahamas Development of Village West Corporation, etc., et al. v. The City of Miami, etc. Respectfully submitted, BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2500 Miami, Florida 33131-5340 305-374-7580 (Office) 305-374-7593 (Fax) BY: Carter N. McDowell Fla. Bar No. 603236 ADAM F. HAIMO Fla. Bar No. 0502731 19 BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE cSi AXELROD LLP 200 SOLTH BISCAYNE BOLLEvARD, SUITE 2500 • WANII, FLORIDA 3_3131-5340 EXHIBIT "A" wallet• + perdom,o, inc. 1257 modina wenue Donal gables, II 33134 July 15, 2003 Ms_ Joyce Melee Zoning Adrnki or •^in, of Miami Zoning Division ,1 SW id Avenue, ao' Floor " urni, FL 33130 Gran i 11FIhIt of Zarina Merle itanitgioro Proposed NCD-2 Overton, Mania Grand Avenue Corridor Neighborhood Conservation District MGzrnW, FL Dear Ms. McFee, aware, the Planning Department is sponsor a wthldt would apply the NCD-2 overlay district to ng Grand Avenue between Commodore Plaza and am writing to request written con>irrnafiorl that a project which is submitted for Pudding Pernti prkhr to the effedtve date of th proposed NCO-2 Ordinance wie be evaluated by the Zoning Department based on the current Zvtring clasaifrcation (Le., the permit Application wilt be-grandfathered' under the current zoning). If you are in agreemernt, please indicate by your signature below and return via fax and mall to my Dille•, if you have any caarlfrabcrra or corrections, please indicate by separate fetter addressed to my attention. Very truly yours, wallace + perdomo, inc. Mark Wallace Vice President w»!� �.,�ya•,:i A .,..p,r�,. •.0 11 ,� .,,.