Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocument Submitted into the RecordBuena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Association Opposes This Public Alley Give -Away Individually and on behalf of the Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Association, we ask the Commission to: 1) Deny this official vacation and closure of a public alley (PZ10) for the Electra I project, or 2) Require a significant reduction in the height and scale of the project prior to any approval, or 3) Delay consideration of this request until all appeals to this Class II permit have been heard. SUBMITTED INTO THE 2—PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMp2.ib_ON i'-3o. rk+d Gt-cc sc We Oppose this Alley Closure for four reasons: 1 Official Vacation and Closure of this public alley is in Violation of Section 55-15(c) of the City of Miami Ordinance. 2. This project is in violation of Section 1305.2 of the City of Miami Zoning Code which requires new development to be in context with the surrounding community. • The Developer is not "within their rights" to build at Maximum FAR, Height, and Density ever, especially when taxpayer land must be forfeited to allow for the aggregation of Tots. 3. The character of the Design District, the historic town center of Buena Vista, is worth saving and will be irreparably damaged by high -scale developments like Electra I. 4. This project is in contradiction to Miami-21's Smart Growth Principles which call for appropriate transitions between C1/Urban Core and R1/Residential. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item ?? - l a on 11 3 -OS Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk eaxinat' brpuityk avid. 1. Official Vacation and Closure of this public alley is in Violation of Section 55-1 5(c) of the City of Miami Ordinance. , � na „(e (50(• 55-15(c)(1) Requires a vacation and closure to be in the public interest, or benefit the general public. Closure of this alley �� to facilitate Construction q7ob1i `S ton of Electra I does neither. Indeed, 6�' Electra I is a detriment to the surroundingresidential and (43*.VP‘cP low -scale commercial communities. 55-15(c)(4) Requires a vacation and closure to benefit pedestrian and veticular circulation in the area. Closure of this alley benefits neither. Present and planned infrastructure would be overburdened by this 30-story tower. It is NOT "In the public interest" due to the negative impacts on traffic on 36th Street and North Miami Avenue. . ?e,44VAIPA, ciNeAtiA?5- thiIP.s °r beAA4 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ . to on j t-3-o‘ 4.. Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk UJ45 SW • b MI • Aj s5 r»-r- ✓Foss 4r) 1 Cu/ plan to make North Miami Avenue a safe, pedestrian -friendly street will fail if high - density development is allowed in SD-8. 1. Vacancy and Closure of this public alley would violate Section 55-15(c) of the City of Miami Ordinance. • The City and we desire a SAFER, lower volume, and more pedestrian friendly North Miami Avenue which will never be possible if additional high density development is permitted in S D-8 . Submitted Into the public record in connection with item PZ./o on !I-3-06- Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Street Plans CHARRETTE DRAWINGS 111.26 er 1 I reO 1 y 11 moo 1 11' w[ +r 11' 1 rr r 1 µM I PMUO 1 v. I PM I North Miami Avenue NEIGHBORHOOD BUFFER PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL. R.O.W width Pavement width Traffic patern Parking Curb type Sidewalk material Sidewalk width Planter type Planter size Tree type 70' 38' Two ways, two lanes, center median 8' parallel Raised curb Concrete 11'-6" Planting strip 4' wide Royal palm with Poinciana This street plan can be used as a tool to reduce cross through traffic between residential neighborhoods. As designed, an access roll-over curb will provide access into streets for emergency vehicles and eliminate the need of neighborhoods barricading themselves. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P2. I D on Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 2. Electra I violates Section 1305.2 of su-c-h the City of Miami Zoning Code -,,A, � • Section 1305.2 requires new development to "respond to the S�� physical contextual environment". Electra I does not respond to °st'`"R" the surrounding communities in height or scale, as noted repeatedly by City staff during design review. 3-1-05 — "The building height is out of scale for the area. This site is more appropriate for a transition block in height from the higher density developments to the east and the lower scale C-2 zoned properties (maximum 120' height) to the west." 3-15-05 — "The building height is out of scale for the area. This site is more appropriate for a transition block in height from the higher density developments to the east and the lower scale C-2 zoned properties (maximum 120' height) to the west." 3-29-05 — "The building height is out of scale for the area as is the garage podium height of six stories. ... This site is more appropriate for a transition block in height from the higher density developments to the east and the lower scale C-2 zoned properties (maximum 120' height) to the west." Submitted into the public record in conncction with item PZ - it, on 1/ 3-0 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 3. The character of the Design District, the historic town center of Buena Vista, is worth saving. • The low scale "Urban Center" character of this historic town center is an asset that will set the Design District apart from Midtown and is thus worthy of preserving. • This Electra 1 project will set the bar for future development within SD-8, thus it is critical that it be properly scaled. bmitted Into the pu cord in connecti m Pz . ►a on a Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 4. This project is in contradiction to Miami- 21's Smart Growth Principles which call for appropriate transitions between Cl/Urban Core and RI/Residential. Submitted Into the public record in connection ith item 2. 2 on ft 3 or Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk MIAMI 21: APPLICATION OF SMART GROWTH AND FORM BASED CODE PRINCIPLES Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P 2. I U on t Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Miami 21: The Problem with City of Miami Today Less urban IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII More Urban R-1 missing transition C-1 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item in -ID on iI -o3- o5 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Midtown Miami Urban Center Less urban IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII More Urban Buena Vista East 4 Design District (SD-8) missing transition Midtown Miami Submitted Into the public record in connection with item on Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 4. Mayor Diaz recently said that current applications should be reviewed with Miami 21 in mind. In addition, at the September 22nd Commission meeting, Commissioner Wii tgn spoke out against developers rushing in projects to beat the deadline on Miami 21. He has also spoken out in the past against lot assemblage and our bizarre zoning code that allows FAR to use the adjoining property and the street. Submitted Into the public record in connectio with This project is an extreme exampleof item Pis ID on �/mos/os p both. Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk As we have shown, City planners repeatedly noted that this project is out of scale for the area and that this lot should be used as a transition to nearby lower density areas. The City Commission has the power to act upon these concerns to ensure that this project is truly benefiting Buena Vista and Wynwood by requiring this reduction in height and density prior to granting any alley closure and vacation. Pat C(omAiL rn0166 Prpl- D i ct Today, We ask the Commission to: 1) Deny this official vacation and closure of a public alley (PZ10) for the Electra I project, or 2) Require a significant reduction in the height and scale of the project prior to any approval, or 3) Delay consideration of this request until all appeals to this Class II permit have been heard. rA Com ?Duff" C (,(0 J(J•-- t-1 "cLe,i(LU Submitted Into the public u\ftik record in connection with -�ip(,( item Pt. I D on /i -3-05 Q UV Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk In addition, We ask the Commission to: • Enact an immediate moratorium in SD-8 on new construction exceeding 5 stories or 60 feet in height until the implementation of Miami 21's First Quadrant. • Everything we have shown you today is reason why we need a moratorium. This Commission granted Morningside such reasonable protection for SD-9, and we deserve the same protection for SD-8 today. Submitted Into the public record in connection wi item Pt. to on 1.40 03 0 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 832 Fla. 261 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES mere formality. The sant...Jns of the law for false swearing and perjury, apply to claimant's personally executed petition.' The affidavit of claimant's attorney, bas- ed• on information supplied by claimant, should not be accepted as sufficient in the absence of compelling circumstances. An obvious example allowing execution by someone other than the claimant would be physical incapacity on the part of the claimant during the requisite time. Even here, a request for extension of time for claimant to recover sufficiently to sign is preferable to the acceptance of a petition executed by someone other than claimant. In the instant case, the following testi- mony, regarding claimant's failure to sign the affidavit, appears in the record: "Q Why was it that you could not sign an affidavit in your case and ask to be relieved of the costs? "Claimant's Attorney: Judge, I think I explained that. "The Judge: We will let the claimant explain. It is supposedly his affi- davit. "Claimant: I left it in the hands of my lawyer. I gave him all the infor- mation. "Q Why did you not sign an affidavit of your own ? "Claimant's Attorney: Because it was given to me. I received the infor- mation on the last day for filing. The only alternative I have had was to present it with the informa- tion furnished me by Mr. Brad- shaw." The notice of costs was sent by certified mail and received in the office of claim- ant's attorney on July 29, 1970, but through oversight was not seen by claimant's at- torney until August 18, 1970, and the pe- tition signed by the attorney was filed on that day. If the foregoing c. amstances, amount- ing to negligent oversight, justify failure to comply with the Rules, then no petition under Rule 6(c) need henceforth be exe- cuted under oath by a claimant. The ma- jority decision effectively emasculates the Rule. I would affirm the order of the Full Commission except for its holding that Rule 6(c) is mandatory. ,j Grace RENARD, Petitioner, v. DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, et al., Respondents. No. 41388. Supreme Court of Florida. April 19, 1972. Rezoning proceeding. The zoning officals rezoned tract from industrial to multiple family residence and abutting property owners sought certiorari. The Circuit Court for Dade County, Grady L. Crawford, J., entered ruling, and abutting property owner appealed. The District Court of Appeal, 249 So.2d 500, affirmed, and writ of certiorari issued. The Supreme Court, Boyd, J., held that owners of prop- erty abutting property sought to be rezoned from industrial to multiple family residence, with increased setback restrictions differ- ent in kind from community generally, had standing to bring suit attacking rezoning ordinance as not fairly debatable. Affirmed. 1. Zoning @=)571 The aggrieved or adversely affected person having standing to sue is a person Perjury, 25 F1a.Jur. § 20 (1959). RENARD v. DADE COUN' Fla. 833 Cite as, Fla., 261 So.2d 832 who has a legally recognizable interest which is or will be affected by the action of the zoning authority in question; the inter- est may be one shared in common with a number of other members of the community as where an entire neighborhood is affect- ed, but not every resident and property own- er of municipality can, as a general rule, claim such an interest. F.S.A. §§ 176.11, 176.16. 2. Zoning Ca57I An individual having standing to chal- lenge proposed zoning action must have a definite interest exceeding the general in- terest in the community good shared in common with all citizens; so-called "spite suits" are not tolerated. F.S.A. §§ 176.11, 176.16. 3. Zoning C=i571 In determining sufficiency of a party's interest to give standing to challenge action of zoning authority, factors such as prox- imity of his property to property to be zoned or rezoned, character of the neigh- borhood, including the existence of common restrictive covenants and set -back require- ments, and the type of change proposed are considerations ; fact that a person is among those entitled to receive notice under the zoning ordinance is a factor to be consid- ered on the action of standing to challenge proposed zoning action but notice require- ments of area are not controlled on ques- tion of standing. F.S.A. §§ 176.11, 176.16. 4. Zoning C=)680 Even though a person has sufficient standing to challenge action of the zoning authority, he must still carry the burden of proving that the challenged action was not fairly debatable. 5. Zoning C=)681 To have standing to enforce a valid zoning ordinance, party seeking enforce- ment must show special damages; however, a lenient application of that rule prevails. 261 So.2d-53 6. Zoning Ca571 Persons having a legally recognizable interest, which is adversely affected by the proposed zoning action, have standing to attack a validly enacted zoning ordinance as being an unreasonable exercise of legisla- tive powers. 7. Zoning 42=)571 An affected resident, citizen or prop- erty owner of the governmental unit in question has standing to challenge a zoning ordinance as void because not properly en- acted such as where required notice has not been given. 8. Zoning C=3571 Owners of property abutting property sought to be rezoned from industrial to multiple family residence, with increased setback restrictions different in kind from community generally, had standing to bring suit attacking rezoning ordinance as not fairly debatable. 9. Zoning C=3652 Record established that rezoning of one parcel of land in unincorporated area from industrial to multiple family residence was "fairly debatable" and therefore was a valid exercise of power by the zoning authority. Eugene P. Spellman, of Law Offices of Eugene P. Spellman, Miami, for petitioner. Stuart Simon, County Atty., and St. Julien P. Rosemond, Asst. County Atty., and Paul Siegel, of Sinclair, Louis, Sand & Siegel, Miami, for respondents. BOYD, Justice. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third Dis- trict, reported at 249 So.2d 500. Jurisdic- tion is based on the certification of the District Court under Article V, § 4(2) of 834 Fla. 261 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES the Florida Constitution, r.S.A., that the decision sought to be reviewed passes upon a question of great public interest, to -wit: "The standing necessary for a plaintiff to (1) enforce a valid zoning ordinance; (2) attack a validly enacted zoning ordi- nance as not being fairly debatable and therefore an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of legislative power ; and (3) attack a void ordinance, i. e., one enacted without proper notice required under the enabling statute or authority creating the zoning power." Petitioner Renard and respondents Rich- ter, owned certain adjoining properties in the unincorporated area of Dade County zoned IU-2, industrial. The Richters ap- plied for a rezoning of their parcel. The Board of County Commissioners ultimate- ly permitted a rezoning from IU-2 to multi- ple family residence with certain exceptions relative to a nine -hole golf course and a variance for private, in lieu of public, roads. This was in accordance with the recom- mendations of the planning board as ap- proved by the zoning appeals board of the county. Petitioner was an objector in the zoning proceedings held before the Dade County Zoning Appeals Board and an objector be- fore the Board of County Commissioners. Following adverse rulings by the appeals board and County Commission, petitioner sought certiorari before the Circuit Court pursuant to applicable county ordinances.' The Circuit Court ruled that petitioner, not having alleged a special interest, had no standing to prosecute the matter in the Circuit Court and, even if she had standing, I. Metropolitan Code of Dade County, § 33-316: "No person aggrieved by any zoning resoluton, order, requirement, de- cision or determination of an administra- tion official or by any decision of the zon- ing appeals board may apply to the Court for relief unless he has first exhausted the remedies provided for herein and taken all available steps provided in this arti- cle . . . it is intended and suggested that such decision may be reviewed by the filing of a petition for writ of certio- the record adequately uemonstrated that the issue was fairly debatable and petitioner would not have been entitled to the relief sought. On appeal, the District Court held that petitioner had sufficient standing to insti- tute suit in the trial court but, that the rezoning in question was fairly debatable and therefore within the legislative discre- tion of the Board of County Commissioners. The District Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court but certified its decision as one passing on a question of great public interest. The decision of the District Court on the question certified is as follows: 2 "First, as indicated above, the appellant as an abutting property owner to the property rezoned would, in fact, suffer a special damage by virtue of the increased setback restriction different in kind from the community generally; and this would meet the test of special damage. But, even without meeting this test, we hold that these cases would not be applicable to a property owner within the area wherein actual notice was required to be sent to him prior to any rezoning hearing. Anything to the contrary said in S. A. Lynch Investment Corporation v. City of Miami, supra, is hereby specifically re- ceded from. We further note that there is a distinction in the cases relied on by the County when there is a proceeding in which a plaintiff seeks to enforce an existing zoning ordinance, such as a vio- lation of a setback requirement, special damage is necessary, and no special dam- age is necessary when a plaintiff seeks to rari in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in accordance with the procedures and within the time provided by the Flori- da Appellate Rules for the review of the rulings of any commission or board; and such time shall commence to run from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed." (Emphasis supplied.) 2. Renard v. Dade County, 249 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla.App.3rd 1971). RENARD v. DADE COIL £ Fla. 835 Cite as, Fla., 261 So.2d 832 have an act of a zoning authority de- clared void or is within the immediate area to be affected. Hartnett v. Austin, F1a.1956, 93 So.2d 86; Josephson v. Autrey, F1a.1957, 96 So.2d 784. In other words, we hold special damage must be shown when a taxpayer or property own- er seeks to enjoin the violation of an existing ordinance [i. e. Boucher v. Novotny, F1a.1958, 102 So.2d 132 ; Conrad v. Jackson, F1a.1958, 107 So.2d 369], but need not be shown if the taxpayer or property owner is within the affected range of the property which requires ac- tual notice before the rezoning made may be considered by the legislative body [Hartnett v. Austin, supra; Elwyn v. City of Miami, F1a.App.1959, 113 So.2d 849; Friedland v. City of Hollywood, F1a.App.1961, 130 So.2d 306; Vol. 3, American Law of Zoning, Anderson, § 21.05, p. 558], or when he seeks to review an alleged void act. Hartnett v. Austin, supra; Josephson v. Autrey, supra; Rhodes v. City of Homestead, F1a.App. 1971, 248 So.2d 674 (opinion filed May 25, 1971). Therefore, we find that in the instant case the appellant had the stand- ing to institute the suit in the trial court." (Emphasis supplied.) In the years following this Court's de- cision in Boucher v. Novotny,3 a split has developed between the various District Courts on the issue of standing to sue in zoning matters. The Boucher case was a suit to enjoin the violation of the setback requirements of a municipal zoning ordi- nance. The Bouchers sought to obtain mandatory injunctive relief to compel the 3. 102 So.2d 132 (F1a.1958). 4. Id. at 135. 5. Boucher v. Novotny, 102 So.2d 132, 135 (F1a.1958) ; North Dade Bar Assoc. v. Dade -Commonwealth Title Ins., 143 So. 2d 201, 205 (F1a.App.3rd 1962) : " ` * * * A public nuisance is an of- fense against the State, and as such is sub- ject to abatement or indictment on the mo- tion of the proper governmental agency. * * * Novotnys to remove allegedly illegal en- croachments constructed on their motel. The City had approved the building plans for the Novotny's motel which included the complained of encroachment. The prop- erties of the parties located in the City of Clearwater, were separated by a sixty -foot wide street. The Bouchers attempted to allege special damages by reason of proximity and by reason of being within the zoning area subject to the same setback requirements as the Novotny's property. This Court held, however, that the Bouchers did not have sufficient standing to sue and stated the following rule : 4 "We, therefore, align ourselves with the authorities which hold that one seeking redress, either preventive or corrective, against an alleged violation of a municipal zoning ordinance must allege and prove special damages peculiar to himself dif- fering in kind as distinguished from darn - ages differing in degree suffered by the community as a whole." (Emphasis supplied.) The "special damage" rule of the Bouch- er case is an outgrowth of the law of public nuisance.5 Zoning violations have historically been treated as public nuisances not subject to suit by an individual unless that individual has suffered damages dif- ferent in kind and degree from the rest of the community. The Boucher rule was not intended to be applied to zoning matters other than suits by individuals for zoning violations.6 The general rule regarding standing to contest the action of a zoning authority was ,* * * An individual cannot main- tain an action for a public nuisance as such. But when an individual suffers special damage from a public nuisance, he may maintain an action.' "This rule has been applied in Florida to suits to enjoin a zoning violation. Bouch- er v. Novotny, F1a.1958, 102 So.2d 132." 6. Boucher has been subject to criticism even as applied to zoning violations : 12 Univ. F1a.L.Rev., Third Parties in Zoning, 16, 23, 40 (1959). 836 Fla. 261 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES stated by this Court in Josephson v. Au- trey :7 "We have on numerous occasions held xhat persons adversely affected by zoning ordinances or the action of zoning agen- cies have a status as parties sufficient to entitle them to proceed in court to seek relief." To like effect is this Court's decision in Hartnett v. Austin.s In Wags Transportation System v. City of Miami Beach,9 this Court held that homeowners in a zoning district would be permitted to intervene in an appeal from a decree breaking zoning restrictions and commercializing the area where their homes were located. The District Court of Appeal, Third Dis- trict, in Elwyn v. City of Miami,1° held that abutting homeowners were entitled to main- tain a suit challenging an ordinance grant- ing a variance for a gasoline service station. On petition for rehearing, the Bouch.er case 7. 96 So.2d 784, 787 (F1a.1957). 8. 93 So.2d 86, 90 (F1a.1956) : "We en- counter no difficulty in concluding that the appellees were entitled to bring the suit. They occupied their homes immediately across the street from the proposed park- ing area. They relied on the existing zon- ing conditions when they bought their homes. They had a right to a continua- tion of those conditions in the absence of a showing that the change requisite to an amendment had taken place. They al- lege that the contemplated change would damage them and that it was contrary to the general welfare and totally unjustified by existing conditions. This gave them a status as parties entitled to come into court to seek relief. True their rights were subject to the power of the city to amend the ordinance on the basis of a proper showing. Nonetheless, they have a right to insist that the showing be made." See also, 35 FIa.Jur., Zoning Laws, § 30: "Persons adversely affected by zoning ordinances or the action of zoning agencies have a status as parties sufficient to enti- tle them to proceed in court to seek relief." 9. 88 So.2d 751, 752 (Fla.1956) : "The petition for leave to intervene alleges that was raised by the zoning authority and dis- tinguished by the District Court as follows: "That case [Boucher] was not applicable here because of material difference in the factual situations presented in the two cases. "The instant case was not one dealing with the violation of a zoning ordinance, but one which challenged the validity of an amendatory zoning ordinance, which, by granting a variance amounting to spot zoning, permitted appellees to put their property to a liberal business use (gaso- line service station), prohibited in the more restricted R-3 classification for which the area involved was zoned. The right of an adjacent or nearby home own- er directly affected by an alleged im- proper intrusion of such liberal business to challenge the validity thereof, is recog- nized." A similar case is that of Friedland v. Hol- lywood," wherein the District Court of petitioners are within the same zoning dis- trict as the property described in the com- plaints in the consolidated causes, that the decree destroys the value of their prop- erty because petitioners have homes on said property which they use for residen- tial purposes, therefore the decree of the lower court breaking these zoning restric- tions and commercializing the district ren- ders their property less suitable for resi- dential purposes. Petitioners' property was purchased on the strength of the zon- ing ordinance and in reliance upon the fact that all property within the zoning district would be maintained as residential property. * * * * * * "We think the petition to intervene showed such an interest in the res that the ends of justice require that it be grant- ed. * * * Nothing is more sacred to one than his home and the petitioners should have been permitted to come in and bring their rights in this to the atten- tion of the court." 10. 113 So.2d 849 (F1a.App.3rd) ; cert. de- nied 116 So.2d 773, (Fla.1959). I. 130 So.2d 306 (Fla.App.2d 1961). 1 c o 0.0 s cc rrx RENARD v. DADE COU. L Fla. 837 Cite as, Fla., 261 So.2d 832 Appeal, Second District, held void an ordi- will not be tolerated in this area of the law nance which would have allowed the vari- any more than in any other. ance for the construction of a service station in the vicinity of property owned by the plaintiffs. Some of the foregoing cases attacking the validity of zoning ordinances came to the Circuit Court as petitions for writ of certiorari to review actions of the zoning hoard of adjustment under Florida Statutes Chapter 176, F.S.A. ; others originated in the Circuit Court. On the question of standing to sue there is no basis for dis- tinguishing between cases reaching the courts after appeal to a zoning board, in areas where such boards exist, and those cases originating in the court system.12 Florida Statutes § 176.11, F.S.A., provides for appeals to the zoning board of adjust- ment by "any person aggrieved." Florida Statutes § 176.16, F.S.A., provides that "any person aggrieved" by the decision of the zoning board of adjustment may petition the Circuit Court for writ of certiorari. [1, 2] An aggrieved or adversely affect- ed person having standing to sue is a person who has a legally recognizable interest which is or will be affected by the action of the zoning authority in question. The interest may be one shared in common with a number of other members of the com- munity as where an entire neighborhood is affected, but not every resident and property owner of a municipality can, as a general rule, claim such an interest. An individual having standing must have a definite interest exceeding the general in- terest in community good share in common with all citizens. So-called "spite suits" 12. 2 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning, 36-1 (1971) : "Generally, any person who can show that the existence or enforcement of a zoning restriction adversely affects, or will adversely affect, a property inter- est vested in him or that the grant of a permit to another or rezoning of another's land will similarly affect him, has the requisite justiciable interest in the con- troversy, and is a proper party plaintiff. In this aspect, the right of a litigant to sue for declaratory judgment or for an [3] In determining the sufficiency of the parties' interest to give standing, fac- tors such as the proximity of his property to the property to be zoned or rezoned, the character of the neighborhood, including the existence of common restrictive cove- nants and set -back requirements, and the type of change proposed are considerations. The fact that a person is among those enti- tled to receive notice under the zoning ordinance is a factor to be considered on the question of standing to challenge the proposed zoning action. However, since the notice requirements of the many zoning laws throughout the State vary greatly, notice requirements are not controlling on the question of who has standing. Persons having sufficient interest to challenge a zoning ordinance may, or may not, be enti- tled to receive notice of the proposed action under the zoning ordinances of the com- munity. [4] It is to be remembered that even though a person has sufficient standing to challenge the action of the zoning authority, he must still carry the burden of proving that the challenged action of the zoning authority was not fairly debatable.13 [5] The question certified to this Court, set out supra, has three parts. Part (1) deals with standing to enforce a valid zon- ing ordinance. The Boucher rule requir- ing special damages still covers this type of suit. However, in the twenty years since the Boucher decision, changed conditions, including increased population growth and injunction is based upon the sane criteria as are determinative of the status of a petitioner as a 'party aggrieved' to bring certiorari to review the determination of a board of appeals or adjustment. The ,dif- ference, if any, relates only to the forum and form of the remedy." (Emphasis sup- plied.) 13. City of Miami v. Hollis, 77 So.2d 834 (F1a.1959) ; City of Jacksonville v. Imler, 235 So.2d 526 (Fla.App.lst 1970) . S38 Fla. 261 aOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES density, require a more lenient application of that rule. The facts of the Boucher case, if presented today, would probably be sufficient to show special damage. [6] Part (2) of the question certified to this Court deals with standing to attack a validly enacted zoning ordinance as being an unreasonable exercise of legislative pow- er. As indicated above, persons having a legally recognizable interest, which is ad- versely affected by the proposed zoning action, have standing to sue. [7] Part (3) of the question certified deals with standing to attack a zoning ordi- nance which is void because not properly enacted, as where required notice was not given. Any affected resident, citizen or 14. See e. g., Rhodes v. City of Homestead, 248 So.2d 674 (Fla.App.3rd 1971) ; property owner of the governmental unit in question has standing to challenge such an ordinance.14 [8, 9] The District Court found that pe- titioner Renard had sufficient standing to attack the rezoning here in question, but, on review of the record, determined that the rezoning was "fairly debatable" and so was a valid exercise of power by the zoning authority. We agree. Accordingly, and for the foregoing rea- sons, the decision of the District Court of Appeal is affirmed. It is so ordered. ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARL- TON and McCAIN, JJ., concur. Knowles v. Town of Kenneth City, 247 So.2d 748 (Fla.App.2d 1971). Submitted Into the public ' record in connection with item P7 • to on RI& 106 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 5 cee )el- ack !or- it.3 'nal mas w aris-= men} Ll_ Dadt vhiclp eer- Aentn (,.) 'sett!..." LIJ' et CO CO ;achuu- CI. rmine death Lances, rors it !n per- io, the ection- juror such ly pre - Lie case 0 0 PICHETTE v. CITY Cite as 642 So.2d 1165 where decedent was exposed to asbestos in Massachusetts but moved to Florida long before onset of his resulting illness and died a citizen of Florida. Daniel A. Brown and David M. Lipman, Miami, for appellant. Crosby, Saad, Beebe & Crump, Mobile, AL, Berger & Chafetz and Steven R. Berger, Miami, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and LEVY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Collins was exposed to asbestos in Massa- chusetts, but moved to Florida long before the onset of his resulting illness and died a citizen of this state.' We hold that the law of Florida, rather than Massachusetts, was properly applied below to determine the measure of damages for his wrongful death. See Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So.2d 999 (F1a.1980); Proprietors Ins. Co. v. Valsecchi, 435 So.2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 449 So.2d 265 (F1a.1984); Harris v. Berkowitz, 433 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Affirmed. Pierre PICHETTE, Alan Yarkin, and Gaytan Mayrand Torres, Appellants, v. CITY OF NORTH MIAMI and Perform- ing Arts Management of North Miami, Inc., Appellees. No. 94-102. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Sept. 28, 1994. In challenge to zoning ordinance, final summary judgment for defendants was 1. Collins died after recovering a personal injury verdict and judgment but before they were re- versed. See Owens—Corning Fiberglas v. Terwilli- OF NORTh MIAMI Fla. 1165 (F1a.App. 3 Dist. 1994) granted by the Circuit Court, Dade County, Harold Solomon, J., and plaintiffs appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that plain- tiffs, none of whose land was within 2,800 feet of rezoned tract, lacked standing. Affirmed. Zoning and Planning c=,571 Plaintiffs had no legally recognized in- terest which would be adversely affected by challenged zoning ordinance and thus lacked standing to challenge the ordinance where one lived in another city more than a mile across a bay from the rezoned site and the others were separated by 57—acre buffer area from rezoned tract, at distances of 3,000 and 2,800 feet, and there was no genuine issue raised by the record that any plaintiffs would be affected by noise, traffic impact, land val- ue diminution or in any other respect by the subject zoning ordinance. John G. Fletcher, South Miami, for appel- lants. Davis, Scott, Weber & Edwards and Laura Besvinick, New York City; David M. Wolpin, North Miami, for appellees. Before HUBBART and BASKIN and GREEN, JJ. PER CURIAM. The final summary judgment under review is affirmed upon a holding that the appellants herein have no legally recognized interest which will be adversely affected by the zon- ing ordinance of the City of North Miami which appellants challenged below, and therefore they lacked any standing to bring the declaratory judgment action because (1) the appellant Allan Yarkin lives in the City of Bay Harbor Islands, more than a mile across Biscayne Bay from the rezoned site under ger, 599 So.2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 613 So.2d 9 (F1a.1992). 1166 Fla. 642 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES attack, and there is no genuine issue raised by this record that he would be affected by noise, traffic impact, land value diminution, or in any other respect by the subject zoning ordinance; and (2) the appellants Pierre Pi- chette and Gaytan Torres live in the City of North Miami Beach, separated by a 57—acre buffer area from the rezoned tract of land, 3,000 and 2,800 feet, respectively, away from said tract, and there isno genuine issue raised by this record that they would be affected by noise, traffic impact, land value diminution, or in any other respect by the subject zoning ordinance, Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832 (F1a.1972); see § 163.- 3215(2), F1a.Stat. (1993); Citizens Growth Management Coalition of West Palm Beach, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach, Inc., 450 So.2d 204, 208 (F1a.1984); compare South- west Ranches Homeowner's Ass'n v. Bro- ward County, 502 So.2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA) (adjoining landowners with potential pollu- tion, flood problems had standing), rev. de- nied, 511 So.2d 999 (F1a.1987). This being so, it was entirely proper for the trial court to enter the summary judgment under re- view on the basis that there was no genuine issue of material fact and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, given the appellants' lack of standing to chal- lenge the subject zoning ordinance. See En- nis v. Warm Mineral Springs, Inc., 203 So.2d 514, 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), cert. denied, 210 So.2d 870 (F1a.1968). Affirmed. Shawn INMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 94-1967. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. Sept. 28, 1994. Defendant convicted of extortion and tampering with evidence filed a motion to correct illegal sentence. The Circuit Court, Broward County, Richard D. Eade, J., de- nied motion, and defendant appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Stevenson, J., held that remand was necessary for resentencing to determine whether sentence would be bumped up for violations of probation. Reversed and remanded for resentenc- ing. 1. Criminal Law C=.982.9(7) "Bump ups" of sentence for violation of probation are not mandatory, but are discre- tionary with judge. 2. Criminal Law a1181.5(8) Remand was necessary for resentencing to determine whether sentence would be bumped up for violations of probation where sentencing scoresheet was improperly calcu- lated and error affected guidelines range. Shawn Inmon, pro se. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Talla- hassee, and Don M. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee. STEVENSON, Judge. Appellant, Shawn Inmon, appeals the deni- al of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Proce- dure 3.800(a) alleging that he was not sen- tenced in accordance with sentencing guide- lines because of a scoresheet error. We reverse and remand for resentencing be- cause, as the state concedes and we agree, the sentencing scoresheet had been improp- erly calculated and the error affected the guidelines range. Appellant was convicted in two separate cases of extortion and tampering with evi- dence and was sentenced to two years of community control on each case to run con- currently. He subsequently violated his community control and was sentenced to new community control terms. He then violated CS Z ;3 L1 C `• a)o c C • CD c to 2 co a his ni tencec and fi evider The court mittec The s lated was a gory points appell total c up to [1] batior "bum] ted sc cerati 273 (I tiple may range ups fc tory 1 State pellar tortio with five 3 wouk [2] C0 -6 silent a score E A violat o = cannc 1— U the tr we re nity t appel e.g., DCA 1994) ty tc impo; an of Loga DCA bumf givin; cann( Lis - led ng 1p- rth ta- en u _ (�(� e- O i on J A. 0 CD lecaM &D = w )n r- ts �t. Id th it .d jn is a ►f 0 Clte as 646 So.2d 291 lager v. Veal, 601 So.2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Neal v. Meek, 591 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Levine v. Best, 595 So.2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part. ZEHMER, C.J., and KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. Richard PEACOCK, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI and Coconut Grove Civic Club, Appellees. No. 94-2742. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Dec. 5, 1994. Property owner who had been granted waiver of on -site parking requirement peti- tioned for writ of prohibition to prohibit city zoning board from entertaining appeal by a civic club. Petition was denied by the Circuit Court, Dade County, Maria Korvick, J., and owner appealed. The District Court of Ap- peal held that club, as representative associa- tion, lacked standing to challenge board's decision on any ground other than procedural irregularity. Reversed and remanded with instruc- tions. Zoning and Planning 0=571 Representative association, complaining of waiver of on -site parking requirements for certain property, lacked standing to chal- lenge decision of zoning board on any ground other than procedural irregularity, and ab- sent allegations of procedural irregularity, could not resort to administrative remedies. PEACOCK v. CITY OF M' `I Fla. 291 (Fla.App. 3 Dist... 4) Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott and Stanley Price and Anthony J. Carriuolo, Mia- mi, for appellant. W. Tucker Gibbs, Coconut Grove, for ap- pellees. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Richard Peacock appeals an order denying his petition for a writ of prohibition. We reverse. Appellant received a waiver of on -site parking requirements for his Coconut Grove property from the City of Miami [City] Act- ing Zoning Administrator. The Coconut Grove Civic Club [Club] appealed the waiver to the City's Zoning Board [Board]. Peacock filed a petition for writ of prohibition in circuit court against the City seeking to pro- hibit the City from entertaining the Club's appeal. Peacock argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the Club lacked standing to challenge the Board's waiver. The Club filed a motion to intervene in the action; the court granted the motion. The court denied the petition for writ of prohibition finding that appellant had not exhausted his administrative reme- dies. "It is clear that a representative associa- tion, such as appellee, could not sue in state courts; it would have no standing, unless it, rather than its members, had suffered some special injury." Chabau v. Dade County, 385 So.2d 129, 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The Club in this case, a representative associa- tion, lacks standing to challenge the Board's decision on any ground other than procedural irregularity. Miami Beach Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 579 So.2d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Save Brickell Ave., Inc. v. City of Miami, 395 So.2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Save Brickell Ave., Inc. v. City of Miami, 393 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Because the Club makes no allegations of any procedural irregularity, the trial court erred in concluding that the Club could resort to administrative remedies. [es, Ilp. 6s-o l o s o 292 Fla. 646 'OUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES Chabau. See Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So.2d 850 (F1a.1992). The trial court erred in denying the petition for writ of prohibition. For the reasons stated above, we reverse the order on appeal and remand with instruc- tions to grant appellant's petition. Reversed and remanded. Tzippora KALISCH, Appellant, v. Bernard KALISCH, Appellee. No. 94-31. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Dec. 7, 1994. Wife brought negligence action against husband, seeking to recover damages for in- juries she suffered in boating accident. The Circuit Court, Dade County, Robert Kaye, J., dismissed action on grounds of interspousal immunity, and wife appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Baskin, J., held that Su- preme Court's decision in Waite, abrogating interspousal immunity doctrine, could apply to cause of action accruing before Waite de- cision. Reversed and remanded. Courts € 100(1) Supreme Court's decision in Waite, ab- rogating interspousal immunity doctrine, could apply to cause of action accruing before Waite decision. Beckham & Beckham and Pamela Beck- ham, North Miami Beach, James K. Beck- ham, Miami, for appellant. Hicks, Anderson & tslum and Mark Hicks, Keller, Houck & Shinkle, Miami, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ. BASKIN, Judge. On September 2, 1993, Tzippora Kalisch filed a negligence action against Bernard Kalisch, her husband, to recover damages for injuries she suffered in a December 1991 boating accident in which her husband was driving the boat. He filed a dismissal motion based on the interspousal immunity doctrine. The court declined to apply Waite v. Waite, 618 So.2d 1360 (F1a.1993), which abrogated the doctrine, because Mrs. Kalisch's cause of action accrued before the May 27, 1993 Waite decision. The trial court ruled in favor of Mr. Kalisch. This appeal ensued. We re- verse. In Waite, 618 So.2d at 1361, the Florida Supreme Court overruled prior contrary case law and held that the doctrine was no longer a part of Florida's common law. "As a gen- eral rule, a decision of a court of last resort which overrules a prior decision is retrospec- tive as well as prospective in its application unless declared by the opinion to have pro- spective effect only." Melendez v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 515 So.2d 735, 736 (Fla. 1987). E.g., Ryter v. Brennan, 291 So.2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 297 So.2d 836 (F1a.1974); Ingerson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 272 Sold 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). A review of the Waite decision re- veals that the supreme court did not limit its application. Therefore, we hold that Mrs. Kalisch's action may proceed in accordance with the supreme court's abrogation of the interspousal immunity doctrine. Accord Sleeter v. Collins, 621 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Accordingly, the order is re- versed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. ubmitted Into the p record in connection ` dith item Pz. to on 1 -o Priscilla A. Th «' j` a son Clerk C Col free L pell C Bog tersl P1 W. miss; lee's direc ject appel In oc admit and i error. lee's a limitat The render the sul GLh JJ., co October 13, 2005 City of Miami Department of Hearing Boards 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue, 7th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Dear Department of Hearing Boards Officers: With this letter, I, Brenda Kuhns, along with Wendy Stephan, Pat Kelly and the Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Association, appeal the Class II Special Permit for the Electra I project (2005-0166). The project named "Electra I" is out of scale for the area and is in violation of Section 1305 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance. Pursuant to Section 1804 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance, 1, Brenda Kuhns; wish to be notified by certified mail of the date and time of the hearing before the Zoning Board at least fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the hearing. Under the same authority, notification must also be sent to the Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Association. The following are the addresses to which such notification should be sent: Brenda Kuhns 119 NE 43rd Street Miami, FL 33137 Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Association c/o Wendy Stephan 101 NE 43ra Street Miami, FL 33137 We anticipate review of this appeal and await notification of the hearing. Sincerely, j Brenda Kuhns/ Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Association ✓/Development Committee Chair Wendy Stephan Bue Vista East Historic Neighborhood Association C it resident t Kelly Buena Vista East Histoy c Neighborhood Association Development Commi ee Member Submitted into the Public record in connection with item t_n "s-os Priscilla A. Thompsoniork f I� no c5•-005i CITY OF MIAMI CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT FINAL DECISION To: From: Greenberg Traurig, P.A. c/o Adrienne Pardo, Esq. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL. 33131 Ana Gelabert, Director Planning Department PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT A FINAL DECISION HAS BEEN REACHED ON THE FOLLOWING MATTER: Title: New Construction (Electra) Address: 3601 North Miami Ave, Little Haiti Intended Decision: ❑ Approval Approval with conditions ❑ Denial FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS The subject proposal has been reviewed for Class II Special Permit pursuant to Section 608 and 1512 of Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, Section 605.2 states explicitly that a Class II Special Permit shall be required prior to approval of any permit affecting the location, relocation or alteration of any structure, sign, awning, landscaping, parking, area or vehicular way visible from a public street. Section 1512 states that unless otherwise required by the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, the Code of the City of Miami, as amended or the South Florida Building Code, as amended, all City of Miami Design Standards and Guidelines, incorporated herein by reference, may be waived pursuant to a Class II Special Permit. Pursuant to Section 1301.2. of the above cited Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Department has made referrals to the following Departments and Boards. • Office of Zoning, Planning Department. • Little Haiti NET Office, Neighborhood Enhancement Team. • UDRB, Urban Development Review Board. Their comments and recommendations have been duly considered and are reflected in this intended decision. In reviewing this application, pursuant to Section 1305 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following findings have been made: t Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pi. i b on ` °a"05 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk FINDINGS • It is found that the proposed project is a mixed -use building with residential units (147) and retail space (12,030 SF) on the ground floor with a parking area on ground and upper levels. • It is found that the proposed project was initially reviewed by the Internal Design Review Committee on March 1, 2005. The committee recommended sending it back to the architect in order to allow for responses to the committee's comments. • It is found that a modified project was then reviewed by the Internal Design Review Committee on March 15 and 29 and May 10, 2005 for which several comments remain and are addressed by conditions herein. • It is found that on May 16, 2005, the Urban Development Review Board reviewed and recommended approval of the proposal with conditions (see attached). • It is found that a modified project was submitted on July 22, 2005 with the intent of providing the department with a proposal that addressed the outstanding comments and conditions. The Planning Department issued a revised Intended Decision on August 17, 2005; the final plan and details submitted for the treatment of the parking area (submitted subsequent to the Intended Decision) was found to be in compliance with the design review comments. • It is found that the applicant is requesting a waiver of the required additional foot of the parking stall width when the parking stall abuts a physical obstruction; the waiver of one foot will have no adverse effects on the project or the adjoining area and will ensure that no variances are required; it is therefore appropriate. • It is found that no landscape plan has been submitted with this application; per the attached conditions, a final landscape plan (subject to review and approval by the Planning Director) shall be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. • It is found that with regard to the criteria set forth in Sec. 1305 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance, the application has been reviewed and found sufficient except for the issues listed above and contained in the conditions. Based on the above findings and the considered advice of the officers and agencies consulted on this matter and pursuant to Section 1306 of the Zoning Ordinance, the subject application is hereby recommended for approval subject to the plans .and supplementary materials submitted by the applicant and on file with the Planning Department and further subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. Provide the Planning Department with a temporary construction plan that includes the following: a temporary construction parking plan, with an enforcement policy and a construction noise management plan with an enforcement policy. 2. The applicant shall comply with conditions from the Public Work Department which includes wide sidewalks at consistent height, uniform pavers throughout the site and public accessibility to the plaza. 3. A complete landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permit. 4. The Class II approval is conditioned on a full review by the Office of Zoning, any substantial changes that arise due to zoning comments will require a new Class Il Special Permit; minor changes due to zoning comments shall be considered substantially in compliance with this approval. NOTICE The final decision of the Director may be appealed to the Zoning Board by any aggrieved party, within fifteen (15) days of the date of issuance by filing a written appeal and appropriate fee with the Office of Hearing Boards, located at 444 SW 2nd Ave., 7th Floor, Miami, FL. 33130. Telephone number (305) 416-2030. Signature Ana Gel Planni 2 Date Submitted Into the public record in connectiop with item P2.10 on Ix tbsios Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Document Name: Sessionl PIRC SECURITY ACTION L SCR MOD +/- BUILDING AND ZONING RECEIPT PROCESSING RECEIPT NO 05198179 DATE 10/13/2005 WAIVED N PERMIT NO NAME BRENDA JEAN KUHNS ADDRESS 119 NE 43 STREET PHONE 305 4798466 COMMENTS CII APPEAL FEES A/C/D TYPE CLASS SUB DESCRIPTION UNIT R 130 003 NEARING FEES - HEARING BOARD SUBSID 000000000 HEARING FEES - HEARING BOARD SUBSID SUBSID SUBSID SUBSID SUBSID RECORD ADDED...PLEASE CONTINUE TOTAL PAGE 1 (21) MAINTAINED BY: AR4 TYPE UNITS 500.0000 FEE 500.00 FEE FEE FEE FEE FEE Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pz. , o on <<10310s Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 500.00 YOUR RECFIPT THANK YOH THANK 19i�. l�.:� FALL R:_:R I N CITY OF ritAtli 44-4 9. 4. 2 A E hl r r Y r FL 33 J_ ilLl�iliT f-777(1 ; C'j i=� r7iii1 :17 COMPUTER CHECK CHECK 500 .. -.t,, pq7 [H - '1nn r Eu n 1 7 : -rc late: 10/13/2005 Time: 3:44:57 PM C 0 F M A M I PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRE -APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT ELECTRA NE 36T71 ST. & N. MIAMI AVE. 3-1-2005 The following comments represent the unified vision of the Pre -Application Design Review Committee, which consist of all staff members in the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions. COMMENTS: The following comments are being made in an effort to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. Overall This project site is a very strategic location, as it serves as a gateway to the Miami Design District, is adjacent to the Midtown Miami project currently being developed, and has a large amount of visibility from the I-195 Expressway. Given this context, the committee finds this building proposal to he inappropriate for the following reasons: 1. the building height is out of scale for the area. This site is more appropriate for a transition block in height from the higher density developments to the east and the lower scale G2 zoned properties (maximum 120' height) to the west 2 the provision of exposed garage on levels 2 through 5 on all four sides of the building is unacceptable, and not in compliance with the SD-8 Zoning District (Section 608.12.7 allows parking garages to be built up to the street front of any building only above the second floor). On this particular site, it is critical to provide liner program with a minimum of 15' of habitable living or working space on at least the entire second and third floors of the building facing NE 36th St. and N. Miami Ave. This will create more active and attractive facades, and provide eyes on the street along these important corridors. 3. the project has not provided a plaza, which is required in the Design District (see Section 608.8), although -an FAR bonus has been requested for providing such a plaza. An arcade (embayment) has been provided, but the embayment and the plaza must be separate spaces. 4. the entrance to the residential lobby of the building shall occur directly from the sidewalk or a plaza, in accordance with Section 608.12.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Other Cons iderations • In future submittals, submit a context plan portraying the building within its surrounding neighborhood, at least three blocks around the project, including the Midtown Miami project currently under development. Include the buildings' placement in plan as well as their heights. • Consider Less continuous horizontalicy in the retail and podium levels of the building, with the addition of more vertical design elements. • Provide material samples and/or photographs of the proposed brick veneer on the building in order for the committee to review the effect of this material in the proposal. • Verify the status of the billboard (labeled as to remain on the plans) pursuant to the City's settlement agreement with the billboard companies. • "Ihe portions of the garage which may remain visible (facing I-195 and NE Miami Ct. and above the third floor on the other two sides) need to be addressed with an exceptional aesthetic solution. It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. 1 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item ?'i•io on tliosioe Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Consider continuing the pattern of window and balcony openings 1,0m the rest of the building on this area so that the garage becomes integrated into the framework of the design, or propose an artistic design solution. •. Garage materials shall be selected so that vehicles are completely hidden from public view. Provide details of all proposed garage facade materials and indicate how all vehicles and mechanical systems within the garage will be concealed from public view. It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board_ 2 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P2_on 1_ os Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk I T Y 0 F MI AMI P 1. A N N I N G DEPARTMENT PRE -APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT E LECTRA NE 36TH ST. & N. MIAMI AVE. 3-29-2005 The following comments represent the unified vision of the Pre -Application Design Review Committee, which consist of all staff members in the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions. COMMENTS: The following comments are being made in an effort to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. Overall We thank you once again, for participating in the design review process, and coming to meet with the committee to present the revised drawings of the project. We recognize that the applicant's continued active participation is an indication of a shared interest to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. The revisions to the proposal represent an improvement over the previous version submitted for review. However, the committee has several suggestions and concerns about the proposal. Urban Design • This project site is a very strategic location, as it serves as a gateway to the Miami Design District, is adjacent to the Midtown Miami project currently being developed, and has a large amount of visibility from the I-195 Expressway. In order to view the project's connection to the future development, include the plans, elevations and renderings of the Midtown Miami development in this proposal. The Planning Department can provide you with copies of these drawings. • The addition of residential liner units on the second and third levels of the garage facing N Miatni Ave. and NE 36'h St. is a positive modification to the proposal. In order to enhance these units, consider making them double -height lofts. Consider proposing these units as live -work spaces. • The provision of a plaza on NE 36th St. is a positive enhancement to the project. I-Iowever, this plaza space may not be entirely desirable, as irs depth is too great too allow natural light to penetrate into it. Consider the possibility of providing two smaller plazas, one on the NE 36'h St. frontagc and another on the N. Miami Ave. frontage. Retail units on both sides of the plazas could open to the plazas, and . possible pedestrian connection between the plazas could be created. • The building height is out of scale for the area, as is the garage podium height of six stories. In addition, the building does not comply with the required zoning setback for SD-8 (Section 608.9), /(...._______) which requires a 40' maximum height on all street frontages, with a 10' height setback thereafter. This site is more appropriate for a transition block in height from the higher density developments to the east and the lower scale G2 zoned properties (maximum 120' height) to the west. Refer to the images on the following page which illustrate a project more in scale for this location and in compliance with the height setback requirement. • The pedestrian sidewalk realtn shall remain at a consistent height and paving pattern throughout the site, including the sidewalks within the public and private portion of the site, the vehicular dropoff area, and the pedestrian plaza spaces. Vehicles shall rise to the sidewalk level with ramping beginning at the outer edge of the curb, with the ramp slope being the maximum allowed by Public Works. It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. 1 Submitted Into the public record in connectia with item Pz. N. on. /,�3es Priscilla A. Thompson • City Clerk C I T Y 0 F M PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRE -APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT ELECTRA NE 36TH ST. & N. MI ANTI AVE. 3-15-2005 A M I The following comments represent the unified vision of the Pre -Application Design Review Committee, which consist of all staff members in the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions. COMMENTS: The following comments are being made in an effort to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. Overall We thank you once again, for participating in the design review process, and coming to meet with the committee to present the revised drawings of the project. We recognize that the applicant's continued active participation is an indication of a shared interest to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. The revisions to the proposal represent an improvement over the previous version submitted for review. However, the committee has several suggestions and concerns .about the proposal. Urban Design • This project site is a very strategic location, as it serves as a gateway to the Miami Design District, is adjacent to the Midtown Miami project currently being developed, and has a large amount of visibility from the I-195 Expressway. In order to view the project's connection to the future development, include the plans, elevations and renderings of the Midtown Miami development in this proposal. The Planning Department can provide you with copies of these drawings. • The addition of residential liner units on the second level of the garage facing N Miami Ave. and NE 36th St. is a positive modification to the proposal. In order to enhance these units, and conceal more of the garage, consider making these units double -height lofts. This could also allow for balcony or terrace areas within the units. The provision of a plaza on NE 36th St. is a positive enhancement to the project. However, this plaza space may not be entirely desirable, as its depth is too great too allow natural light to penetrate into it. Consider the possibility of providing two smaller plazas, one on the NE 36th St. frontage and another on the N. Miami Ave. frontage. Retail units on both sides of the plazas could open to the plazas, and a possible pedestrian connection between the plazas could be created. • The building height is out of scale for the area. This site is more appropriate for a transition block in height from the higher density developments to the east and the lower scale G2 zoned properties (maximum 120' height) to the west. • The pedestrian sidewalk realm shall remain at a consistent height and paving pattern throughout the site, including the sidewalks within the public and private portion of the site, the vehicular dropoff area, and the pedestrian plaza spaces. Vehicles shall rise to the sidewalk level with ramping beginning at the outcr edge of the curb, with the ramp slope being the maximum allowed by Public Works. It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; then by, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. 1 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pz. /e on if a as' Priscilla A. Th • m • son City Clerk Architecture • Consider less continuous horizontality in the retail and podium levels of the building, with the addition of more vertical design elements. • The tower design features a large amount of blank wall area within the center of the west elevation. It is critical to provide an exceptional design treatment for this wall, as this will be viewed from I-195, and has the opportunity to serve as a gateway element to Miami's Design District. The use of a painted stucco wall for this area is insufficient, as this area should be considered as a signature design clement for the building. Consider incorporating some of the following possibilities for this area: 1. a mural which incorporates the use of artistic materials, such as mosaic tile, colored glass, etc., 2. exposing the elevator cores by providing windows and glass elevators, 3. extending the balconies from the adjacent units to cover more of the blank wall. • Verify the status of the billboard (labeled as to remain on the plans) pursuant to the City's settlement agreement with the billboard companies. • The portions of the garage which may remain visible (facing 1-195 and NE Miami Cz. and above the third floor on the other two sides) need to be addressed with an exceptional aesthetic solution. Consider continuing the pattern of window and balcony openings from the rest of the building on this area so that the garage becomes integrated into the framework of the design, or propose an artistic design solution. • Garage materials shall be selected so that vehicles are completely hidden from public view. Provide details of all proposed garage facade materials and indicate how all vehicles and mechanical systems within the garage will be concealed from public view. It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your 2 voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 1PZL on i,..o,3 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk NiYB'b'A. K� la4. I47' kY ?1'.. t4=4Zt..k [`'. to .. .t rya- wp•- 1 It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. 2 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P?- /0 on //13105 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk • The revised loading solution, where loading bays are internalized within the garage is appropriate. I-Iowever, the spaces behind the loading bays shall be removed in order to incorporate the loading truck maneuvering. Indicate the turning radii of the trucks and confirm the loading maneuvering requirements with the Public Works Department. • Consult with FDOT regarding transportation plans which may effect the project: FDOT is in the process of improving this portion of 36'' St., and is considering making changes to the I-195 right -of way. Architecture • The revised retail level elevation involving continuous glass panels is appropriate. GIass for the retail levels shall be clear to allow transparency. • The tower design features a large amount of blank wall area within the center of the west elevation. It is critical to provide an exceptional design treatment for this wall, as this will he viewed from I-195, and has the opportunity to serve as a gateway element to Mrami's Design District. The use of a painted stucco wall for this arca is insufficient, as this area should be considered as a signature design element for the building. Consider incorporating some of the following possibilities for this area: 1. a mural which incorporates the use of artistic materials, such as mosaic tile, colored glass, etc., 2. exposing the elevator cores by providing windows and glass elevators, 3. extending the balconies from the adjacent units to cover more of the blank wall. • Verify the status of the billboard (labeled as to remain on the plans) pursuant to the City's settlement agreement with the billboard companies. • The portions of the garage which may remain visible (facing I-195 and NE Miami Ct. and above the third floor on the other two sides) need to he addressed with an exceptional aesthetic solution. Consider an artistic design solution, and/or a pattern of openings which corresponds to human scaled doors and windows, rather than continuous horizontal openings with aluminum screening. • Garage materials shall be selected so that vehicles are completely hidden from public view. Provide details of all proposed garage facade materials and indicate how all vehicles and mechanical systems within the garage will be concealed from public view. It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. 3 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P2-)y on it 3 or Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk C I T 0 F MI A MI PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRE -APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT ELECTRA NE 36m ST. & N. MIAMI AVE. 5-10-05 The following comments represent the unified vision of the Pre -Application Design Review Committee, which consist of all staff members in the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions. COMMENTS: The following comments are being made in an effort to develop projects to their highest potential and make a significant contribution to improving the quality of our built environment with great architecture and urban design. Urban Design • The configuration of the vehicular drop-off and pedestrian plaza creates a non-functional space. Additionally, the pedestrian space shall not be interrupted by the views of vehicles in the drop-off area. Reconfigure the NE 36'h St plaza to minimize the impact of the abutting vehicular drop-off and consider opening -up the views from the plaza to the street. • The pedestrian sidewalk realm shall remain at a consistent height and paving pattem throughout the site, including the sidewalks within the public and private portion of the site, the vehicular drop-off area, and the pedestrian plaza spaces. Vehicles shall rise to the sidewalk level with ramping beginning at the outer edge of the curb, with the ramp slope being the maximum allowed by Public Works. • Consult with FDOT regarding transportation plans which may effect the project: FDOT is in the process of improving this portion of 361h St-, and is considering making changes to the I-195 right -of way. • Provide liner uses along the entire parking pedestal to a height of 40-ft. Consider a maximum floor -to- floor height of 20-ft for these spaces, with a mezzanine and/or loft space in order to create two double -height levels which will cover the entire 40-ft podium height. Architecture • The tower design features a large amount of blank wall area within the center of the west elevation. It is critical to provide an exceptional design treatment for this wall, as this will be viewed from I-195, and has the opportunity to serve as a gateway element to Miami's Design District. The use of a painted stucco wall for this area is insufficient, as this area should be considered as a signature design element for the building. Consider incorporating some of the following possibilities for this area: 1. a mural which incorporates the use of artistic materials, such as mosaic tile, colored glass, etc., 2. exposing the elevator cores by providing windows and glass elevators, 3. extending the balconies from the adjacent units to cover more of the blank wall. • Verify the status of the billboard (labeled as to remain on the plans) pursuant to the City's settlement agreement with the billboard companies. • The portions of the garage above the podium pedestal and facing I-195 and NE Miami Ct. shall be addressed with an exceptional aesthetic solution. Consider an artistic design solution, and/or a pattern of openings which corresponds to human scaled doors and windows, rather than continuous horizontal openings with aluminum screening. Garage materials shall he selected so that vehicles are completely hidden from public view. Provide details of all proposed garage facade materials and indicate how all vehicles and mechanical systems within the garage will be concealed from public view. It is our intention with these comments to aid in expediting Special Permit applications with your voluntary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventable delays particularly prior to a project's submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. 1 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item P2.io on s o Priscilla A. Tho pson City Clerk C I 1 Y 0 F M A M I PLANNING AND ZONING D E P A R T M E N T URBAN DE-VELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD R E S O t U T[ o N FOR RECOMMENDATION: UDRB 3. 1 6- 0 5 Item No.: 3 A motion was made by Julio Diaz and seconded by Marina Khoury for a resolution recommending to the director of the Department of Planning app vzaI vith condition for a Class II Special Permit for the project Electra located at 366 Street and North Miami Avenue with a vote of 7 to 0. Conditions: Attest: Vote List 'Yes No Absent or Recused Todd B. Tragash, Ch. El ❑ ■ Julio Diaz, V. ch. e ■ ■ WillyBermello ❑ ■ 0 Robin Bosco ® ■ ■ Marina Khoury 0/ ■ ■ Derrick Smith 0 ■ 0 Carlos Touzet 4 ■ ■ Robert Behar ■ ■ a� Roger Fry it ■ ■ Cover the entire podium 40' with residential liner units. Reference the design review comments with exact specification on the configuration of these units. Relocate the pedestrian plaza to the comer of 36th Street and North Miami Avenue. Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director Patrick Hood -Daniel, UDRB Officer Submitted Into the public record in connection with item zIn on n 3 os Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk