Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Applicant & Misc DocsWEISS SEROTA HELFMAN PASTORIZA GUEDES COLE & BONISKE, P.A. MITCHELL A. BIERMAN NINA L. BONISKE JAMIE ALAN COLE EDWARD G. GUEDES $TEPHEN J. HELFMAN JOHN R. HERIN, JR. G €LBERTO PASTORIZA GARY I. RESNICK JOSEPH H. SEROTA NANCY E. STROUD RICHARD JAY WEISS DAVID M. WOLPIN STEVEN W. ZELKOWITZ THOMAS J. ANSBRO• LILLIAN ARANGO DE LA HOZ• ALISON 5. BIELER MITCHELL J. BURNSTEIN ELAINE M. COHEN STEPHANIE DEUTSCH• VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Francisco Garcia Zoning Administrator City of Miami Fourth Floor 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33130 ATTORNEYS AT LAW MIAMI-DADE OFFICE 2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SUITE 420 MIAM1, FLORIDA 33133 TELEPHONE (305) 854-0800 TELECOPIER (305) 854-2323 WWW.WSH-FLALAW.COM BROWARD OFFICE 3107 STIRLING ROAD • SUITE 300 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 333E2 TELEPHONE (9$4) 763-4242 • TELECOPIER (954) 764-7770 •OF COUNSEL August 22, 2003 JENNIFER A. GOLDBERG DOUGLAS R. GONZALES MARK B. KRAVITZ CHRISTOPHER F. KURTZ HARRIET R. LEWIS. PETER A. LICHTMAN KAREN LIEBERMAN• MATTHEW H. MANDEL BERNARD S. HANDLER. MICHAEL J. MARRERO ALEXANDER L. PALENZUELA-MAURI MICHAEL S. POPOK. ANTHONY L. RECIO MARK A. ROTHENBERG SCOTT A. ROBIN DANA J. SCHINDLER GAIL D. SEROTA• JEFFREY P. SHEFFEL MIA M. SINGH JOSE 5. TALAVERA SUSAN L. TREVARTHEN Re: Application for Class II Special Permit No. 2003-0009, Grand Bay Residence Tower Dear Mr. Garcia: Thank you for meeting with us on Monday morning regarding the captioned matter. As you may recall, there is one issue that you asked us to consider and address. The issue is whether the public can continue to be served in the existing restaurant within the Grand Bay Hotel. At our meeting, your staff stated that continued service to the public was not permitted under the City Zoning Ordinance and it was suggested that if the restaurant wanted to continue to serve the public, it would have to conform with the general regulations governing "stand-alone" restaurants. It was also suggested that the provisions contained in Section 906.7 of the City Zoning Ordinance (which governs "Accessory Convenience Establishments") may apply to the restaurant. Initially, we need to address the decision that the hotel restaurant may not continue to serve the public if the proposed development is commenced. We do not believe that there is any basis for this determination. In fact, after several days of research, we cannot identify any Mr. Francisco Garcia August 22, 2003 Page 2 provision of the City Charter, City Code, City Zoning Ordinance or even a Zoning Administrator determination which would prohibit the restaurant at the Grand Bay from continuing to operate as it has for more than twenty years, including service to the public. The hotel (including the restaurant) was approved by the City Commission in 1980. The restaurant is located on the second level of the hotel and is the only restaurant in the hotel. It provides food to guests and members of the general public, room service to hotel rooms, and food service for the meeting rooms in the hotel. No change to the restaurant or its operation is proposed by the applicants. The City's Zoning Ordinance defines a hotel as "a facility of eleven (11) or more lodging units offering transient lodging to the general public and providing accessory services such as dining rooms, restaurants, meeting rooms, and recreational facilities." See Section 2502. Clearly the Grand Bay Hotel is a "hotel" by the City definition. It contains more than 11 lodging units; it is open to the general public; and it provides accessory services, including dining rooms, meeting rooms, a restaurant, and recreational facilities. The right to operate a restaurant in the Grand Bay Hotel is indisputable. More importantly, there is no prohibition or limitation on the public eating in a hotel restaurant nor is there any suggestion that where a hotel restaurant serves members of the public it is subject to different zoning criteria than those regulations applicable to hotels generally. To the best of our knowledge, prohibiting the public from dining in a hotel restaurant is contrary to the operations of every full -service hotel approved in the City of Miami, including the new Ritz Carlton Hotel directly across the street, and the Doubletree Hotel on the same block, both of which serve the general public in their restaurants and both of which are subject to the same Office zoning regulations as the Grand Bay Hotel. It was suggested that the hotel restaurant would need to comply with zoning regulations governing "stand alone" restaurants if the public were going to be served. The concept of a stand-alone restaurant has no applicability to the Grand Bay Hotel, which is an integrated use within a hotel located on the second floor. This suggestion is quite curious because "stand- alone" restaurants are not permitted in the Office zoning district and therefore there are no regulations that would apply. Moreover, even if the Office district permitted restaurants, there are no uniform zoning criteria for restaurants. For example, parking for restaurants in the CBD is 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. and in the SD-5 (Brickell) they are 1 space per 800 sq. ft. Finally, the suggestion that Section 906.7, "Accessory Convenience Establishments" applies to the Grand Bay Hotel restaurant is without any basis or support. The restaurant at the Grand Bay Hotel is not an Accessory Convenience Establishment as defined and described in Section 906.7 of the Zoning Code. The public is not permitted to use such facilities. They can only be used by building occupants and their accompanied guests. Frankly, we are at a loss to WE I S S SEBOTA HELFMAN PASTORIZA GUEDES COLE & BoNISKE, P.A. Mr. Francisco Garcia August 22, 2003 Page 3 explain why your staff believe that these regulations have any application to the Grand Bay Hotel restaurant, which is open to the general public. As you should be aware, this project has already been reviewed twice by the Zoning Administrator and each time found to confoiiu to the Zoning Ordinance; in fact, the second time it was reviewed, the Deputy City Attorney, Mr. Maxwell, was in attendance to make sure the decisions regarding the hotel component of the Project were properly handled. While we understand that you have been asked to re-examine the Project by the Planning Department, Ms. Slazyk told us she simply wanted your input on the issue of FAR. Instead, we have spent what seems to be unnecessary time on a totally unrelated issue. We would respectfully ask you to favorably dispose of the issues addressed in this letter, review the enclosed plans, and sign -off and return the copy of the enclosed new zoning referral to us at your earliest possible convenience. If I can provide you with any additional information or answer any questions, please call me. Very truly yours, Tony Recio TR/ms 880.00I Enclosures cc: Lourdes Slazyk Joel Maxwell, Esq. WEISS SEROTA HELFMAN PASTORIZA GUEDES COLE & BONISKE, P.A. AFFIDAVIT Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared MAN. auoiesR , who being by me first deposes and says: ti� 6.4 1.((�� ThatAA- he/she �1�, d5is fthe � (owner, or �the legal representative of the owner, the vole e?L . l?G✓T 1'GQ•S,'*�4 i?D'''' A 7'li C'? S PSI E� 3, T� , accomparrping application f -Florida; affecting the real property located in the City of Miami, as described and listed on the foregoing pages of this affidavit and made a part thereof. 2. That all owners which he/she represents, if any, have given their full and complete 1.sq -11 i,t 4F (, Pi 1 i permission for him/her to act in his/her behalf on ncluding responding to day to day staff inquires; 0 not including responding to day to day staff inquiries in which case he/she should be contacted at 3. That the foregoing pages are made a part of this affidavit contain the current names, mailing addresses, telephone numbers and legal descriptions for the real property of which he/she is the owner or legal representative. 4. The facts as represented in the application and documents submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are true and correct. Further Affiant f eTsayett``h��not. NY OGGfo j G Signature m a .a- nsav s9 ,? 6Prif STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The fore ing ins ment was acknowledged before me this / day of Gaftscib-te- 200 by t) who is a(n) individual/partner! cen corporation of a(n) individual/pa nership/corporation. He/She is personally known to Fie or who has produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. (Stamp) Signature Rev. 09/23/03 MAR LYN SOMODEV1LLA * MY COMMISSION 0 DD 222204 EXPIRES: September 13, 2007 snF «oe`Oc Horded T€srii Kept !dairy Services DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP 1, Legal description and street address of subject real property: See attached Exhibit "A" 2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership. Note: The Code of the City of Miami requires disclosure of all parties having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question #2 requires disclosure of shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. PAH Grand Bay Miami, LP a Delaware Limited Partnership: 1% General Partner: PAH-GBM LLC 99% Limited Partner: Patriot American Hospitality Partnership, L.P. 1% General Partner: PAH GP, Inc. 99% Limited Partner: PAH LP, Inc. PAH GP, Inc. and PAH LP, Inc. are owned entirely by Patriot American Hospitality, Inc. which in turn is owned entirely by Wyndham International, Inc., a publicly traded company 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question #2, and (b) located within 500 feet of the subject real property. None Tony Recio, Esq. Owner or Attorney for Owner Name Owner or Attorney for Owner Signature STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of October 20 , by Tony Recio, Esq. agent on behalf of PAH-Grand Bay Miami, LP , a partnership. He/She is personally known tn,.te or who has produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. (Stamp) a Lira FlILYN SOMODEVIL A * MY COMMISSION # DD 222204 EXPIRES: September 13, 2007 Bonded That 8uget Notary Services LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT "A" Lot 9 through 15 both inclusive and Lots 28 through 40, both inclusive of Block 41, SAMUEL RHODES AMENDED MAP OF NEW BISCAYNE, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book B, Page 16 of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County, Florida. LESS AND EXCEPT the West 5 feet of Lots 28 through 40, BLOCK 41, of SAMUEL RHODES AMENDED PLAT OF NEW BISCAYNE, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book B, Page 16 which has been dedicated to the County to be used for street, sidewalk, and highway purposes, by deed of dedication recorded in Deed Book 722, at Page 34, of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County, Florida, AND: Lot 16, 17, 41, and 42, and parts of Lots, 18, 19, 43, and 44, in Block 41, of SAMUEL RHODES AMENDED MAP OF NEW BISCAYNE, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book "B", at Page 16, of the Public Records of Miami --Dade County, Florida, described as follows: Beginning at northwest corner of Lot 41; thence run South 50 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 42; thence East along the South Boundary of Lot 42, 90 feet, thence Southeasterly 51 FEET, MORE OR LESS, to the Southeast corner of Lot 44, thence South 29°50'00" East 152 feet to the Boulevard, thence North 38'40'00" East along the Boulevard 100 feet to the South end of the boundary line between Lots 15 and 16 of said Block 41. Thence Northwesterly along the boundary line between Lots 15 and 16, 195 feet MORE OR LESS, to a point in the East boundary of Lot 41 about 13 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot 41, said point being as nearly as can be approximated at the North end of the boundary between Lots 15 and 16 as shown on said Amended Plat of NEW BISCAYNE from said point run North 13 feet MORE OR LESS, to the Northeast corner of Lot 15; thence West 125 feet to the Place of Beginning; the irregular strip of land above described extending from MacDonald Avenue to the Boulevard and being at no point less 50 feet wide. GROSS LAND AREA (GLA) 173,912 square feet NET LAND AREA 121,149 square feet