HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Appl. for Amdmt. to MUSPW. TUCKER GIBBS
ATDDRRNEY AT LAW
215 GRAND AVENUE
P.O. Box 1050
COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133
TELEPHONE (305) 448-8486
FACSIMILE (305) 448-0773
July 19, 2004 VIA RAND DELIVERY
Joel Maxwell
Deputy City Attorney
City of Miami
4444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 9th Floor
Miami, Florida 33130
Re: Application for Amendment to Bayshore Palms MUSP
(Villa Magna)
Dear Joel,
As you know, I represent Tomas Hoffman, Topeka Holdings and
others who object to the referenced application.
Upon review of the municipal file in this matter I found that
the Bayshore Palms Major Use Special Permit (MUSP) was
approved on April 28, 1998 and set to expire on May 28, 2002.
Most significantly, I found no evidence that this MUSP is
still in effect as it relates to the referenced application.
This is what I have found:
1. On April 28, 1998 the Miami City Commission approved the
Bayshore Palms MUSP. According to paragraph 9 of
Resolution 98-450, the expiration date of the MUSP was
May 28, 2000. (Exhibit "A")
2. The MUSP was for a two-phase project that delineated the
southern parcel as Phase I and the northern parcel as
Phase II.
Page 1 of 6
tienCr ,'.
SUBM1TTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
"17"e ITEM Pz. 33 ON ito=.ae- q
3.On June 25, 1999, the Third District Court of Appeal
rejected a challenge of the MUSP approval by a
neighboring property owner.
4. On December 15, 1999, the Director of the Miami Planning
Department issued a memorandum, pursuant to Section 1706
of the City of Miami's zoning ordinance, that modified
the MUSP by extending its expiration date to April 28,
2002. (Exhibit "B") This modification was made at the
request of the property owner, Brickellinvest Joint
Venture, which sought additional time because of delays
caused by the neighbor's lawsuit.
5.On October 20, 2000, Brickellinvest sold the Phase II
portion of the property (the northern parcel) to
Excel.com LLC, and retained ownership of Phase I (the
southern parcel).
6. On January 25, 2001, the Miami planning director issued
another memorandum, this time modifying the MUSP to
reduce the number of units and parking spaces. (Exhibit
7.On February 1, 2001, Brickellinvest, through its
attorney, wrote to the assistant planning director about
a possible revision to the planning director's January
25 modification memorandum. (Exhibit "D") In that
letter, the attorney suggested that "it might be better
on a going forward basis to separate the two phases"
because the two phases are separately platted tracts and
would be developed by different developers.
8. On March 26, 2001, Brickellinvest conveyed the
or southern parcel to Suttonwood Holdings, LC.
Page 2 of 6
Phase I
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item P2_.� _ --
Priscilla A. Thompson lerk
9.About four months later, on August 1, 2001, Suttonwood
requested modifications to the MUSP because, it said,
the "development criteria was calculated separately for
each of the two phases," and the two phases were now two
separately platted properties under two separate and
distinct owners. (Exhibit "E")
10. On October 17, 2001 in another memorandum, the
planning director modified the MUSP by separating the
two phases, among other changes. (Exhibit "F")
11. On March 28, 2002 -- because Suttonwood had applied
for foundation and building permits (on December 17,
2001) for their Phase I property but had not yet
received those permits and because the April 28, 2002
MUSP expiration dated was fast -approaching --
Suttonwood's attorney requested a one-year extension to
the April 28, 2002 expiration date for Phase I. (Exhibit
"G")
12. On April 24, 2002 in a memorandum modifying the MUSP,
the planning director agreed to extend the expiration
date for the Phase I property to April 28, 2004 as
requested by owner Suttonwood. (Exhibit "H")
13. On January 12, 2004, the new owner of Phase II or
northern property, Tibor Hollo -- who is listed in a
January 12, 2004 application as "a member of Excel.com,
LLC as general partner of TWJ, Ltd." -- applied for a
modification to the Bayshore Palms MUSP. This
application did not include any request for an extension
of the apparently assumed MUSP expiration date of April
28, 2004. (Exhibit "I")
Page 3 of 6
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item p2- 3 3 on /alN oV
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
14. As of April 28, 2004, the Phase II property owner had
not made any application or request for an extension of
this MUSP expiration date of April 28, 2004.
The MUSP it is as applied to the Phase II property actually
expired on April 24, 2002 because the time extension granted
on April 24, 2002 was for the Phase I property only.
The MUSP was effectively bifurcated after ownership of the
property was split on October 26, 2000. This would insure
that requests by the owner of one phase to extend the MUSP,
or to make other changes to its property, would not have a
negative impact on the other phase.
The Phase I owner's request to separate the phases was
critical because the separation protected the Phase I owner
from any accusations by the Phase II owner that the Phase I
owner's requested changes would negatively impact the Phase
II property. Further, the city protected itself from the same
charges when it correctly determined that Phase I and Phase
II were two separate and distinct projects.
Clearly, the owner of Phase I could not direct what could or
could not be built on the Phase II property by virtue of
being the first to request modifications for increases or
decreases in the number of units on Phase I. Just as clearly,
one property owner should not request MUSP time extensions
regarding a property it does not even own. Therefore, the
requests for modifications (including the time extension)
made by Suttonwood were for the Phase I tract that it owned
and not the Phase II property that it did not own. Suttonwood
had no authority to speak for or bind the owner of the Phase
II property.
Page 4 of 6
Submitted Into the public
record in connection wi
item P2-33 on /o,�iy
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
The extension of time requested by Suttonwood on March 28,
2002 and recommended for approval by the city's zoning
administrator ("pursuant to" the Suttonwood request) and
granted by the planning director on April 24, 2002 was for
only the property owned and controlled by Suttonwood and no
other property. There is no evidence that Suttonwood in its
modification requests represented the Phase II property
owner. Nor is there any evidence that the Phase II property
owner agreed with any of the requests made by Suttonwood.
The MUSP, as applied to the Phase I property, expired on
April 28, 2004. The MUSP, as applied to the Phase II
property, expired on April 28, 2002.
If the time extension to April 28, 2004 applied to the Phase
II tract, the Bayshore Palms MUSP expired on April 28, 2004
because the Phase II property owner had failed to request,
and the city had failed to grant, such an extension prior to
April 28, 2004.
Even if Suttonwood had had the authority to make the requests
for modification as to density and extension of time on
behalf of the Phase II property owner, the MUSP expired on
April 28, 2004.
Section 1704 of the zoning code states: "Major Use Special
Permits shall be issued for a period of two (2) years,
subject to renewal for subsequent two-year periods."
The owner of the Phase II property never requested a renewal
of the MUSP for an additional two-year period prior to April
28, 2002, nor did the Phase II owner request an extension of
the expiration date of April 28, 2004.
In the Application for Major Use Special Permit signed on
January 25, 2004, the owner of the Phase II tract stated that
Page 5 of 6 Submitted Into the public
record in connection w h
i'• ,: Pa-33 on io /y
Priscilla A. Thompson
.;i., tL,...l.
the purpose of the application was "a modification of the
approved Bayshore Palms MUSP." Nowhere in the MUSP
application, the application package or in any correspondence
from the Phase II property owner prior to April 28, 2004, is
any request made for a renewal of the MUSP or an extension of
the MUSP expiration date. And the planning director has not
made such a determination, as was done on December 15, 1999
and April 24, 2002.
Based on this information, on behalf of my clients, I request
that this MUSP application be deemed as legally insufficient
because it seeks to modify a MUSP that expired, at the
latest, on April 28, 2004 and for which no request to renew
was made prior to that date.
Sincerely,
RYA&
W. Tucker Gibbs
Page 6 of 6
Submitted into the public
record in connection wit
item pz-33 on /o Ire ay
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
J-98-280
4/20/98
FXHIBII "p
RESOLUTION No. 98— 450
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH
CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING
ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE BAYSHORE PALMS
PROJECT, TO B8 LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1201
BRICKBLL BAY DRIVE (F/K/A SOUTH BAYSHORB
DRIVE) , MIAMI, FLORIDA; TO B8 COMPRISED OF NOT
MORE THAN 749 UNITS, ACCESSORY AND CCI4MERCIAL
SPACE AND 1,254 PARKING SPACES (INCLUDING
VALET SPACES); DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE
RERUN RBSOLUTIOMI; HAZING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR
BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVBRABILITY
CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on November 7. 1997, the applicant, Judith A.
Burke, for Multiplan USA Corp., a Florida Corporation, submitted
a complete Application for Major Use Special Permit tor the
Bayshore Palms Project pursuant to Articles 5, 13 and 17 of
Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, for the property located at
approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive (f/k/a South Bayshore
Drive). Miami, Florida, as legally described on "Exhibit B",
attached hereto and in "Exhibit A", the Development Order
attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, development of the Bayshore Palms Project requires
the issuance of a Major Use Special. Permit pursuant to Article 17
of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, the Zoning Ordinance of the City
of Miami, Florida, as amended; and
ATTACHMENT (5)1
CONTAINED
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
APR 2 8 1998
ems.
98- 450
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item QZ- on
Priscilla A. Thompson
't Clerk lerk
1
t
WHEREAS, the Large Scale Development Committee met on
July 25, 1997 to consider the proposed project and offer its
input; and
WHEREAS, the APPLICANT has modified the proposed project to
address the expressed technical concerns raised at said Large
Scale Development Committee meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Development Review Board (°UDRB") met on
November 13, 1997 to consider the proposed project and
recommended approval of the project, with conditions as specified
on the attached Development Order herein; and
WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting held on
January 12, 1998, Item No. 12, following an advertised public
hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 1998-0010 by a vote of seven
to zero (7-0), RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the Special Exception
component of the Major Use Special Permit Development Order as
attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting
held on February 18, 1998, Item No. 1, following an advertised
public hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 14-98 by a vote of six
to zero (6-0), RBCOM'MBNDING APPROVAL of the Major Use Special
Permit Development Order as attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it advisable and in the
best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami to
issue a Major Use Special Permit Development Order as hereinafter
set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BB IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
- 2 -
L_ Submitted Into the public) 8 _ 4 . t�
record in connection w'th
item i'2 -33 on !° %rti y
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
r
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference
thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this
Section.
Section 2. A Major Use Special Permit Development Order,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof, is hereby
approved subject to the conditions specified in said Development
Order, per Article 17 of Zoning Ordinance NO. 11000, for the
Bayshore Palms Project (hereinafter referred to as the "PROJECT")
to be developed by Multiplan USA Corp., ("APPLICANT"), at
approximately 1201 Brickell Bay Drive (f/k/a South Bayshore
Drive), Miami, Florida, more particularly described on
"Exhibit B", attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 3. The PROJECT is hereby .approved for the
construction of up to seven hundred forty nine (749) residential
units, accessory commercial and recreational space and one
thousand two hundred and fifty-four (1,254) parking spaces
(including valet spaces).
Section 4. The Major Use Special Permit Application for
the Bayshore Palms Project also encompasses the lower ranking
Special Permits as set forth in the Development Order, attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein.
Section S. The findings of fact sec forth below are
hereby made with respect to the subject PROJECT:
a. The PROJECT is in conformity with the adopted
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000,
as amended.
- 3 -
98- 450
Submitted Into the public
record in connection wjth
item P2� on ),
Priscilla A. o CI
ti
Th
1
b. The PROJECT is in accord with the SD-5 Zoning
classification of Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as
amended.
c. Pursuant to Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Miami, Florida, the specific site
plan aspects of the PROJECT, i.e., ingress and
egress, parking, signs and lighting, utilities,
drainage, preservation of natural features and
control of potentially adverse effects generally,
have been considered and will be further
considered administratively during the process of
issuing a building permit and a certificate of
occupancy.
d. The PROJECT is expected to cost approximately $246
million (with an additional approximately $158
million in construction period economic benefits),
and to employ approximately 325 workers during
construction (FTE); the PROJECT will also result
in the creation of approximately 105 permanent new
jobs. The PROJECT will generate approximately
$9.5 million annually in tax revenues to local
units of government (1997 dollars).
e. The City Commission further finds that:
(1) the PROJECT will have a favorable impact on
the economy of the City;
- 4 -
98- 450
Submitted Into the pubs
record in connection
item P 2 3 n ? D '►
Priscilla A. Thornpson
City Clerk
(2) the PROJECT will efficiently use public
transportation facilities;
(3) any potentially adverse effects of the
PROJECT will be mitigated through compliance
with the conditions of this Major Use Special
Permit;
(4) the PROJECT will favorably affect the need
for people to find adequate housing
reasonably accessible to their places of
employment;
(5) the PROJECT will efficiently use necessary
public facilities;
(6) the PROJECT will not negatively impact the
environment and natural resources of the
City;
(7) the PROJECT will not adversely affect living
conditions in the neighborhood;
(8) the PROJECT will not adversely affect public
safety;
(9) based on the record presented and evidence
presented, the public welfare will be served
by the PROJECT; and
(10) any potentially adverse effects of the
PROJECT arising from safety and security.
fire protection and life safety. solid waste,
heritage conservation, trees, shoreline
development, minority participation and
- 5 -
98- 4 O
into the pub Q- I
SubrecoNM
s
item p? on Thy son
prisc�ila A City Cleric
Section 7.
eaployaent. and minority
contractor/subcontractor participation will
be mitigated through compliance with the
conditions of this Major Use Special Permit.
The Major Use Special Permit, as approved and
amended, shall be binding upon the APPLICANTS and any successors
in interest.
Section 8. The application for Major Use Special Permit,
which was submitted on November 7, 1997, and on file with the
Department of Planning and Development of the City Of Miami,
Florida, shall be relied upon generally for administrative
interpretations and is made a part hereof by reference.
Section 9. This Major Use Special Permit will expire two
(2) years from its effective date which is thirty (30) days after
the adoption of the herein Resolution.
Section 10. The City Manager is hereby directed to
instruct the Director of the Department of Planning and
Development to transmit a copy of this Resolution and attachment
to the developers: Multiplan USA Corp., 2 South Biscayne
Boulevard, Suite 1800, Miami, Fl. 33131.
Section 11. The Findings of Pact and Conclusions of Law
are made with respect to the Project as described in the
Development Order for the Bayshore Palms Project, which is
attached hereto as Exhibit ^A° and made a part hereof by
reference thereto.
6
98- 450
Submitted into the pubU
record in connection wi«r,
item z- s on 1 a 04
Priscilla A. ThompsonCity Clerk
Section 12. The Major One Special Permit Development
Order for the Dayshore Palms Project (Exhibit "A") is hereby
granted and issued.
Section 13. In the event that any portion or section of
this Resolution or the Development Order (Exhibit "A") is
determined to be invalid, illegal, or unconstitutional by a court
or agency of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall in no
manner affect the remaining portions of this Resolution or
Development Order (Exhibit "A") which shall remain in full force
and effect.
Section 14. This Resolution shall become effective thirty
(30) days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day Of April , 1998.
JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR
in accordance with Miami Code Sec. 2 , since the Mayor did not trtdtate approval of
Otis trislation by signing it in the designated -'"c-e provided, said legisleti n now
effective with the elapse of ten (10) d• Ti the date of G::rimi °cn action
regarding same, without the Mayor ex
ATTEST:
WALTER J. FORMAN, CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
GEORGRVE. WYSONE, I
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
W2349
7
_ sit-40
;To! CA rk
9 g- 4 5 Q
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item P,_,.L:P.L: on I D 't °i
Priscilla A. Ci{y C rk
Distribution Below
December 15,1999
Modifications for.
t-C'L ` J - , •.... �£"L Bayshore Palms MUSP
Gelabert-Sanchez, D.
Planning Department Resolution No. 98-450
Adopted April 28, 1998
Pursuant to Section 1706, Zoning Ordinance 11000, it is hereby directed that this memorandum modifies
the development order for the Bayshore Palms Major Use Special Permit, by approving the time extension
described in the attached letter from Judith Burke on behalf of Brickellinvest Joint Venture, dated
November 1, 1999.
This approval is based on findings that the proposed modification is a "de minimus" nonsubstantial change
to the Major Use Special Permit issued by Resolution 98-450, adopted April 28, 1998.
Resolution 98-450 is hereby amended as follows:
*
RESOLUTION NO. 98-450
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE
SPECIAL PERMIT, PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13
AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE 11000, FOR
THE BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT, TO BE
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1201
BRICKELL BAY DRIVE (F/K/A SOUTH
BAYSHORE DRIVE), MIAMI, FLORIDA; TO BE
COMPRISED OF NOT MORE THAN 749 UNITS,
ACCESSORY AND COMMERCIAL SPACE AND
1,254 PARKING SPACES (INCLUDING VALET
SPACES); DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE
HEREIN RESOLUTION; MAKING FINDINGS OF
FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT;
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item P2- 33 on ip ).141oy
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Section 9. This Major Use Special Permit will expire
on April 28, 2002, pursuant to an approved.
time extension as zranted on December 15, 1999..
Attachments
Distribution with attachments:
Lourdes Slazyk, Assistant Director
Planning Department
Frank Rollason, Director
Building and Zoning Department
Juan Gonzalez, Acting Zoning Administrator
Zoning Division
Teresita L. Fernandez, Chief
Office of Hearing Boards
Judith Burke, Esq.
Attorney for applicant
Bayshore Palms Major Use Special Permit File
•
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item 2- 33 on !D -moo
Priscilla A. CiClerk
CITY OF M4"i.I "=
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
NMI "
Distribution Below
0 I J3 95,121,10 :
Modifications for.
Bayshore Palms MUSP
Resolution No. 98-450
Adopted: April 28, 1998
Pursuant to Section 1706, Zoning Ordinance 11000, it is hereby directed that this memorandum modifies
the development order for the Bayshore Palms Major Use Special Permit, by approving the changes
described in the attached letter from Judith Burke on behalf of Brickellinvest Joint Venture, dated
December 20, 2000. This modification is approved as specified below and as detailed in the attached letter
(referenced herein and made a part hereof).
This approval is based on findings that the proposed modification is a "de minimus" nonsubstantial change
to the Major Use Special Permit issued by Resolution 98-450, adopted April 28, 1998 per the attached
memorandum from Juan Gonzalez dated January 5, 2001.
Resolution 98-450 is hereby amended as follows:
•
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 98-450
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE
SPECIAL PERMIT, PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13
AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE 11000, FOR
THE BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT, TO BE
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1201
BRICKELL BAY DRIVE (F/K/A SOUTH
BAYSHORE DRIVE), MIAMI, FLORIDA; TO BE
COMPRISED OF NOT MORE THAN 74 680
UNITS, ACCESSORY AND COMMERCIAL
SPACE AND 1254 1,133 PARKING SPACES
(INCLUDING VALET SPACES); DIRECTING
TRANSMITTAL OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION;
MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR
BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
•
•
Submitted Into the public'
record in connection ith •
item P2-33 on to /i'4
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
*
*
EXHIBIT "A"
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
*
*
The PROJECT shall be constructed substantially in accordance with plans and design schematics
on file prepared by Luis Revuelta, P.A., dated November 1997 (as modified by Memorandum of
Nonsubstantial Modification dated 6/24/99 and further modified on 5/5/00; and on 1t25/01); ...
*
Attachments
Distribution with attachments:
Lourdes Slazyk, Assistant Director
Planning and Zoning Department
Hector Lima, Director
Building Department
Juan Gonzalez, Acting Zoning Administrator
Zoning Division
Teresita L. Fernandez, Chief
Office of Hearing Boards
Judith Burke, Esq.
Attorney for applicant
Bayshore Patens Major Use Special Permit File
* *„
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item P2-33 on 0-N'-o4
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Lourdes Slazyk
February 1, 2001
Page 2
After you've had an opportunity to review the enclosed, please call me so that we can discuss
this matter in greater detail. As always my client and I appreciate all of your help in connection with
this project.
Very truly yours,
Judith A. Burke
cc: Mr. Juan Gonzalez
Mr. Manuel de Zarraga
Mr. Alex Garcia
Mr. Luis Revuelta
MIADOCS 395448.1 LXC
•
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item P2 -s3 on /d fay/ay
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
SH 1"1'S
BOWEN
LLP
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
JUDITH A. BURKE
DIRECT LINE (305) 379-9187
E-Maik jbu-iaw.aom
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Lourdes Slazyk, Assistant Director
City of Miami Planning Department
444 S.W. rd Avenue/Third Floor
Miami, Florida 33130
Re: Jade Residences at Brickell Bay
Modification to MUSP
Dear Lourdes:
pile* .1 O.,
1811 "E o,
August 1, 2001
Submitted Into the public
record in connection wijh
item
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
This firm represents Suttonwood Holdings, LC, a Florida limited liability company
("Suttonwood"), the owner of the southern half of the property previously approved for the
development of a project referred to as Bayshore Palms and/or Villaggio on the Bay. As you may
recall, the subject property had initially been platted as one tract of land. The Major Use Special
Permit ("MUSP") approved the development of the project in two phases. The development criteria
was calculated separately for each of the two phases. Last year the entire property was replatted
pursuant to the Bayshore Palms Replat, recorded in Plat Book 155, Page 100, which provides for two
separate tracts (i.e., Tract B and Tract C). Brickellinvest Joint Venture ("Brickellinvest"), the prior
owner of the entire property conveyed Tract B (the northern half of the property) to TWJ, Ltd. on
October 20, 2000. On March 26, 2001, Brickellinvest conveyed Tract C (the southern half of the
property) to Suttonwood.
Suttonwood is planning to begin development of Tract C in the very near future. The project
will be called "Jade Residences at Brickell Bay" (the "Project"). The final plans for the development
of the Project show certain minor changes to the development outlined in the Resolution and the
Development Order. Therefore, this letter constitutes our official request for a determination by the
Administrator that these changes to the MUSP are non substantial.
I have attached a copy of City of Miami Commission Resolution No. 98-450, adopted on
April 28, 1998 (the "Resolution'), together with a copy of the Development Order. As you know,
the Development Order was previously modified on four separate occasions, i.e., June 24, 1999,
December 15,1999, May 5, 2000 and January 25, 2001. All of the modifications were found by the
Director of the Planning Department to be a "de minims" non substantial change. Please note that
the December 15,1999 modification extended the expiration date of the MUSP until April 28, 2002.
Attached to this letter is a chart which provides a comparison between the original MUSP
approved pursuant to the Resolution for Tract C and this proposed fifth modification. As you can
1500 MIAMI CENTER • 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD • MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131 • MIAMI (305) 358.6300 • FACSIMILE (305) 381-9992 • WEBSITE: www.shutb-law.com
MIAMI
FORT LAUDERDALE WEST PALM BEACH
ORLANDO TAtWIASSEE
AMSTERDAM LONDON
Lourdes Slazyk
August 1, 2001
Page 2
see, the changes are minor and are in conformance with the criteria applicable to non substantial
change determinations. As such, none of the requested changes exceed the zoning regulations. The
footprint of the building is not proposed to be moved more than ten (10) feet in any horizontal
direction. The height of the building is not proposed to be increased by more than five (5) feet or
five (5%) percent of the height of the building. As a matter of fact, the height of the building has
been reduced. In addition, the number of residential units has also been decreased from the
originally approved 375 units to 326 units. Please note that, although the number of panting spaces
provided has been decreased in line with the scaled down project, the number is still in compliance
with the Code. The requested modification to the Project is "de minimus" as shown on the site plan
entitled Jade Residences at Brickell Bay, prepared by Luis Revuelta, P.A., dated July 31, 2001 (the
"Revised Site Plan"). Therefore, no portion of the proposed modification could have a serious effect
on the Project. If this proposed modification is approved, it is our desire to abandon the first, third
and fourth modifications. Of course, we request that the second modification remain in effect.
I hope that the information contained in this letter and the attached documentation is
sufficient to issue a determination that the Revised Site Plan for the Project is in substantial
compliance with the previously approved development and constitutes a "de minimus" non
substantial change to a Major Use Special Permit. In order to avoid confusion in the future, when
you issue your amendment to Resolution No. 98-450, please change the name of the Project on the
face of the Resolution from Bayshore Palms to Jade Residences at Brickell Bay.
You will find enclosed with this letter our check in the amount of $3,000.00 to cover the
administrative review fee and three (3) copies of the Revised Site Plan. If you have any questions
or require additional information regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanking
you in advance for all of your courtesy and cooperation in connection with this matter.
cc: Mr. Juan Gonzalez
Mr. Miguel A. Barbagallo
Mr. Edgardo De Fortuna
Mr. Jorge Brugo
Mr. Ron Choron
Mr. Luis Revuelta
Raul Sanchez de Varona, Esq.
MIADOCS 443909.1 LXC
Very truly yours,
Judith A. Burke
Submitted Into the public
record in connection ith
item jZ-33 on io )4f04
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
—.•y-..:.!.t• - �i.t..
MEMORANDUM
EXHIBft"F"
Distribution Below
chez, D ar' U 11 " '
Planning Department 4'
October 17, 2001
Modifications for.
Bayshore Palms MUSP
Resolution No. 98-450
Adopted: April 28, 1998
Pursuant to Section 1706, Zoning Ordinance 11000, it is hereby directed that this memorandum modifies
the development order for the Bayshore Palms Major Use Special Permit, by approving the changes
descnbed in the attached letter from Judith Burke on behalf of Suttonwood Holdongs, LC, dated August 1,
2001. This modification is approved as specified below and as detailed in the attached letter (referenced
herein and made a part hereof).
This approval is based on findings that the proposed modification is a "de minimus" nonsubstantial change
to the Major Use Special Permit issued by Resolution 98-450, adopted April 28, 1998 per the attached
memorandum from Juan Gonzalez dated October 15, 2001.
Resolution 98-450 is hereby amended as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 98-450
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE
SPECIAL PERMIT, PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13
AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE 11000, FOR
THE BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT, TO BE
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1201
BRICKELL BAY DRIVE (F/K/A SOUTH
BAYSHORE DRIVE), MIAMI, FLORIDA; TO BE
COMPRISED AS FOLLOWS: PHASE I (AKA JADE
JADE RESIDENCES AT BRICKELL BAY) SHALL
CONSIST OF NO MORE THAN 326 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS. WITH ACCESSORY COMMERCIAL AND
RECREATION SPACE. AND A_ TOTAL OF 465
PARKING SPACES: PHASE II SHALL CONSIST
OF NO MORE THAN 350 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
WITH ACCESSORY COMMERCIAL AND
RECREATION SPACE. AND A TOTAL OF 533
PARKING SPACES AF NOT MORE TH 1749 1
VALET —SPACES); DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL
OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION; MAKING
Submitted Into the public
record in connection wi
item P2-33 on /o , y
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR
BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
$
$
EXHIBIT "A"
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
$
$
The PROJECT shall be constructed substantially in accordance with plans and design schematics
on file prepared by Luis Revuelta, P.A., dated November 1997 (as modified by Memorandum of
Nonsubstantial Modification dated 6/24/99 and further modified on 5/5/00,1/25/01, and August, 2001); ...
$
Attachments
Distribution with attachments:
Lourdes Slazyk, Assistant Director
Planning and Zoning Department
Hector Lima, Director
Building Department
Juan Gonzalez, Acting Zoning Administrator
Zoning Division
Teresita L. Fernandez, Chief /
Office of Hearing Boards r
Judith Burke, Esq.
Attorney for applicant
Bayshore Palms Major Use Special Permit File
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item pZ -33 On 4f ys%y
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
BOWEN
LLP
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
PARTNER
NEA. BURKE
DIRECT Lu4E f3051379-9187
E-MaiI jeuekdshutts law.com
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Lourdes Slazyk, Assistant Director
City of Miami Planning Department
444 S.W. 2`d Avenue/Third Floor
Miami, Florida 33130
Re: Jade Residences at Brickell Bay
Modification to MUSP
Dear Lourdes:
1B1
March 28, 2002
Submitted into 1blic
record in connection on �
item;
Priscilla A. C � Clerk
This firm represents Suttonwood Holdings, LC, a Florida limited liability company
("Suttonwood"), the owner of the southern half of the property previously approved for the
development of a project formerly referred to as Bayshore Palms and/or Villaggio on the Bay. As
you may recall. the subject property had initially been platted as one tract of land. The Major Use
Special Permit ("NIUSP") approved the development of the project in two phases. The development
criteria was calculated separately for each of the two phases. In 2000, the entire property was
replatted pursuant to the Bayshore Palms Replat, recorded in Plat Book 155, Page 100, which
provides for two separate tracts (i.e., Tract B and Tract C). Brickellinvest Joint Venture
("Brickellinvest"), the prior owner of the entire property conveyed Tract B (the northern half o f the
property) to TWJ, Ltd. on October 20, 2000. On March 26, 2001, Brickellinvest conveyed Tract C
(the southern half of the property) to Suttonwood.
Suttonwood is planning to begin construction of the project now known as "Jade Residences
at Brickell Bay" (the "Project") on Tract C in the very near future. The final plans for the
development of the Project show certain minor changes to the development outlined in the
Resolution. Therefore, this letter constitutes our official request for a determination by the Zoning
Administrator that these changes to the MUSP are non substantial.
I have attached a copy of City of Miami Commission Resolution No. 98-450, adopted on
April 28, 1998 (the "Resolution"), together with a copy of the Development Order. As you know,
the Development Order was previously modified on five separate occasions, i.e., June 24, 1999,
December 15, 1 999, May 5.2000, January 25, 2001 and October 17, 2001. All o f the modifications
were found by the Director of the Planning Department to be a "de minimis" non substantial change.
Please note that the December 15,1999 modification extended the expiration date ofthe MUSP until
April 28, 2002.
1500 MIAMI CENTER • 201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD • MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131 • MIAMI (305) 358.8300 • FACSIMILE (305) 381-9982 • WE$SITE: wwwshutts-law.com
MIAMI
FORT [AUDERDALE WEST PALM REACH
ORLANDO TAUAHASSEE
AMSTERDAM LONDON
Lourdes Slazyk
March 28. 2002
Page 2
Attached to this letter is a chart which provides a comparison between the original MUSP
approved pursuant to the Resolution for Tract C and this proposed sixth modification. As you can
see, the changes are minor and are in conformance with the criteria applicable to non substantial
change determinations. As such, none of the requested changes exceed the zoning regulations. The
footprint of the building is not proposed to be moved more than ten (10) feet in any horizontal
direction. The height of the building is not proposed to be increased by more than five (5) feet or
five (5%) percent of the height of the building. As a matter of fact, the height of the building has
been reduced. In addition, the number of residential units has also been decreased from the
originally approved 375 units to 336 units. Please note that, although the number of parking spaces
provided has been decreased in line with the scaled down project, the number is still in compliance
with the Code. The requested modifications to the Project are "de minimis" as shown on the
enclosed plan entitled Jade Residences at Brickell Bay, consisting of 5 pages including a site plan
and north/south/east/west elevations, prepared by Revuelta Vega Leon, P.A., dated last revised
March 20, 2002 (the "Revised Site Plan"). If this proposed modification is approved. it is our desire
to abandon the first, third, fourth and fifth modifications. Of course, we request that the second
modification remain in effect.
The information contained above, as well as the attached chart, outline the modifications as
they relate to the original MUSP approval in 1998. I thought it might be helpful to highlight the
minor differences between this development plan and the non substantial modification approved on
October 17, 2001 (the "October Modification"). In most respects the development plan remains the
same. There was a slight adjustment from the decrease in residential units that appeared on the
October Modification. Ten (10) of those units were added back. However, the Project is being
developed with thirty-nine (39) fewer units than the original approval. The parking, of course, was
adjusted accordingly. In order to accommodate that parking, the pedestal height was also adjusted.
The pedestal on the October Modification was 58' 4", whereas the Revised Site Plan shows the
pedestal at 68'. You will note, however, that the original pedestal was approved for a height of 102'.
Further, the building height was not increased. The October Modification provided for a height of
500' 8"; whereas the building on the Revised Site Plan is now proposed at 482' 10". Finally, there
was a slight adjustment to the total FAR on account of the new units from 662,109 square feet in the
October Modification to 679,205 square feet under the Revised Site Plan. The building footprint,
however. stayed exactly the same.
Suttonwood plans to begin actual construction in the very near future. Suttonwood filed
applications for both the foundation and building permits on December 17, 2001. They expect to
obtain the foundation permit in the next few weeks. However, it is possible that the building permit
for the balance of the structure will not be obtained before April 28, 2002. Therefore, we are
requesting an extension of the expiration date of the MUSP for a period of one (1) year, until April
28, 2003. Although it is highly unlikely that we will need that much additional time to obtain our
permit, we make this request in an abundance of caution.
I hope that the information contained in this letter and the attached documentation is
Submitted Into the public'
record in connection bin
item P2- s, on _o m_
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Lourdes Slazyk
March 28.2002
Page 3
sufficient to issue a determination that the Revised Site Plan for the Project is in substantial
compliance with the previously approved development and constitutes a "de minimis" non
substantial change to a Major Use Special Permit.
You will find enclosed with this letter our check in the amount of S3,000.00 to cover the
administrative review fee and two (2) copies of the Revised Site Plan. If you have any questions or
require additional information regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanking
you in advance for all of your courtesy and cooperation in connection with this matter.
Very truly yours,
Judith A. Burke
cc: Mr. Juan Gonzalez
Mr. Edgardo De Fortuna
Mr. Ron Choron
Mr. Roy Hall
Mr. Chris Gandolfo
Adrienne Pardo, Esq.
Mr. Nestor Vega
MIADOCS 497579.1 LXC
Submitted Into the public
record in connection with
item Pv33 on Aqofftii
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
EHI8ff"H
Distribution Below
April 24, 2002
Modifications for:
/�WlJ Bayshore Palms MUSP
chez, Director
anning ► • artment Resolution No. 98-450
Adopted: April 28, 1998
Pursuant to Section 1706, Zoning Ordinance 11000, it is hereby directed that this memorandum modifies
the development order for the Bayshore Palms Major Use Special Permit, by approving the time extension
described in the attached letter from Judith Burke on behalf of Suttonwood Holdings LC, dated March 28.
2002.
This approval is based on findings that the proposed modification is a "de minimus" nonsubstantial change
to the Major Use Special Permit issued by Resolution 98-450, adopted April 28, 1998.
Resolution 98-450 is hereby amended as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 98-450
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE
SPECIAL PERMIT, PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13
AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE 11000. FOR
THE BAYSHORE PALMS PROJECT. TO BE
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1201
BRICKELL BAY DRIVE (F/K'A SOUTH
BAYSHORE DRIVE), MIAMI, FLORIDA: TO BE
COMPRISED AS FOLLOWS: PHASE I (AKA JADE
RESIDENCES AT BRICKELL BAY) SHALL
CONSIST OF NO MORE THAN 3266,
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WITH ACCESSORY
COMMERCIAL AND RECREATION SPACE. AND
A TOTAL OF 465 4PARKING SPACES: PHASE
11 SHALL CONSIST OF NO MORE THAN 350
RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH ACCESSORY
COMMERCIAL AND RECREATION SPACE. AND
A TOTAL OF 533 PARKING SPACESDIRECTING
TRANSMITTAL OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION:
MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: PROVIDING FOR
BINDING EFFECT: CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Submitted Into the public
record in connection wit.
item 2-3s on to ,y
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Section 9. This Major Use Special Permit will expire
on April 28.2004, pursuant to an approved time
extension as granted on April 24, 2002.
•
•
•
EXHIBIT "A"
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
•
•
The PROJECT shall be constructed substantially in accordance with plans and design schematics
on file prepared by Luis Revuelta, P.A., dated November 1997 (as modified by Memorandum of
Nonsubstantial Modification dated 6/24/99 and further modified on 5/5/00, 1/25/01, and August, 2001: and
April of 2002); ...
Attachments
Distribution with attachments:
Lourdes Slazyk, Assistant Director
Planning Department
Frank Rollason, Director
Building and Zoning Department
Juan Gonzalez, Acting Zoning Administrator
Zoning Division
Teresita L. Fernandez, Chief
Office of Hearing Boards
Judith Burke, Esq.
Attorney for applicant
Bayshore Palms Major Use Special Permit File
•
Submitted into the public
record in connection wi`�
item on to
Priscilla A. Thompson
,ItCierk
Y
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
HEARING BOARDS DIVISION
444 SW 2nd Avenue, 7f Floor • Miami, Florida 33130
Telephone 305-416-1480 • Fax 305-416-2035
APPUCATION FOR
MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
&IT If
IT IS INTENDED THAT MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMITS BE REQUIRED WHERE SPECIFIED USES AND/OR OCCUPANCIES INVOLVE MATTEF
DEEMED TO BE OF CITYWIDE OR AREA -WIDE IMPORTANCE
THE CITY COMMISSION SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINATIONS ON APPLICATIONS FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
(SEEAR7ICLE 17 OF ORDINANCE 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA.)
THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING SHALL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALL APPLICATIONS FOR MAJC
USE SPECIAL PERMITS AND FOR ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO AND SHALL TRANSMIT SAID APPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS T
THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR ITS RECOMMENDATIONS AND MAY MAKE REFERRALS TO OTHER AGENCIES. BODIES, OR OFFICEF
FOR REVIEW, ANALYSIS, AND/OR TECHNICAL FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS AND REPORTS THEREON. (SEE SECTION 1301.4 C
ORDINANCE 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA.)
ANY PERSON WHO RECEIVES COMPENSATION, REMUNERA.T'CN DR EXPENSES FOR CONDUCTING LOBBYING ACTMTIES TO REGISTER P
A LOBBYIST WITH THE CITY CLERK, PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES BEFORE CITY STAFF, BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND TF
CITY COMMISSION. A COPY OF SAID ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK (MIAMI CITY HALL), LOCATED AT 35I
PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33133.
APPLICANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE, IF NEEDED, TO BRING AN INTERPRETER FOR THE ENGUSH LANGUAGE TO ANY PRESENTATION BEFOF
CITY BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION. POWER OF ATTORNEY WILL BE REQUIRED IF NEITHER APPLICANT OR LEW
COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT EXECUTE THE APPUCATION OR DESIRE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION BEFORE CITY BOARD
COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION.
1
I, Tibor Hollo , hereby apply to the Director of the Planning and Zoning Department of the City of
Miami for approval of a Major Use Special Permit under the provisions of Article 17 of the City of
Miami Zoning Ordinance.
Property Address: 1201 Brickell Bay Drive. Miami. Florida 33131
Nature of proposed use (be specific): Modification of MUSP approved for Bayshore Palms, A
Residential proiect with ancillary retail and commercial.
1. Two 11x17' original surveys and one 24x36' original survey, prepared by a State of Florida
Registered Land Surveyor within one year from the date of application.
2. Two 11 x17' original plans and one 24x36' original plan, signed and sealed by a State of Florida
Registered Architect or Engineer showing property boundaries, existing (if any) and proposed
structure(s), parking, landscaping, etc.; building elevations and dimensions and computations of lot
area and building spacing.
3. Plans need to be stamped by the Hearing Boards Division first and then signed by Public Works,
Zoning and Planning prior to submission of application.
4. Affidavit and disclosure of ownership of subject property and disdosure of interest (see attached
forms).
5. Certified list of owners of real estate within a 500-feet radius from the outside boundary of property
(see pages 5 and 6).
Rev. 12/06/01
Submitted Intoublic-
ith
record in connection
item IN-' on +a
Priscilla A. Thompsonil
6. At least two photographs that show the entire property (land and improvements).
7. Maps showing the existing zoning designation and the adopted comprehensive plan designation for
areas on and around the property.
8. General location map showing relation to the site or activity to major streets, schools, existing utilities,
shopping areas, important physical features in and adjoining the project, and the like.
9. Concept Plan:
a) Site plan and relevant information per Section 1304.2.1d-h in Zoning Ordinance 11000, as
amended.
b) Relationships to surrounding existing and proposed uses and activities, systems and facilities,
per Section 1702.2.2a in Zoning Ordinance 11000, as amended.
c) How concept affects existing zoning and adopted comprehensive plan principles and
designations; tabulation of any required variances, special permits, changes of zoning or
exemptions, per Section 1702.2.2b in Zoning Ordinance 11000, as amended.
10. Developmental Impact Study (an application for development approval foj a • Development of fi
Regional Impact may substitute).
11. Other (specify and attach cover letter explaining why any document you are attaching is pertinent to
this application).
12. An 8 IA x 11" copy of all exhibits that will be presented at the hearing.
13. Twenty-five (25) °Major Use Special Permit" books containing the above information. If this project
requires Zoning Board approval, a total of thirty-five (35) books will be required.
14. Cost of processing according to the City Code:
a) $ 'a6, IZI .35 , for the Major Use Special Permit — ' s1)li$. t.t 1401)►rF►G01100
b) Additional fee of $ , for any required special permits, changes of
zoning or variances.
c) Total Fee: $ 3o1 iz1. 35
CO
17. What is the purpose of this Major Use Special Permit? A residerdliel high- se with
accessory retail use. The application is a modification of the aparoved_Bhor ' alms MUSP.
-
Rev.12/06/01
•
Signature
Tibor Hollo. Member. Excel.com LLC
as General Partner of TWJ. Ltd. A
Florida Limited Partnership
c/o Vicky Garcia -Toledo. Esq.
Address Bilzin Sumberg Dunn et. al.
200 So. Biscayne Blvd. Ste. 2500
Miami. FL 33131
Telephone • 305 374-2409
Date J t4p u A K. y 141 ad 0y
Submitted Into the public
2 record in connection with
item P233 on /oI>s'DN
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk