Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal Opposition MemoIN RE: AMENDING FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND ZONING ATLAS FOR "300 GROVE BAY RESIDENCES" FILED ON BEHALF OF TRGMH VENTURE, LTD. BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA 6 File No�U9MITfED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMONj5Z. MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION CONSTANCE STEEN, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits to the Miami City Commission her memorandum in opposition to the above -referenced application and requests that the members of the Commission give it their due and thoughtful consideration. Initial Objection Object to the extent that the applicant seeks to enter evidence, argue for, or seek approval of the Major Use Special Permit application (the "MUSP"). Grounds: The public notice refers only to up -zoning and amending the City zoning atlas. [TAB 1]. In addition, it is not the Commission's practice not to entertain MUSP's unless and until the Commission has acted on the underlying zoning change. Exception: this objection does not apply to the discussion of "scale" under Sec. 2210 of the Zoning Code. Summary The proposed change would violate the Grosvenor ordinance. The proposed change does not meet the requirements in the zoning code. The proposed change would constitute spot zoning. The proposed change violates the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The proposed change would allow the tallest building in Coconut Grove. The proposed change would allow a building that is twice as high as any building within a one mile radius of the project site. The zoning board recommended that this application be denied, and the planning advisory board recommended that this application be denied. The Commission should deny this application. 6L 1/&6t' G a. File No. 06-01060zc L The Proposed Zoning Change violates the "Grosvenor Ordinance" By its terms, the "Grosvenor Ordinance" prohibits this zoning change. (File no. 04-00672) [TAB 2] Under this ordinance, when a developer seeks to change a property zoned governmental and institutional to a residential (ancillary) use, the only use allowed is for the "least intense abutting zoning district." The proposed change to R-4 violates the 2004 ordinance. Under the zoning code, there is no residential use more intensive than R-4. The proposed change would allow the most intensive use on the property. The developer claims that the least intensive abutting use is R-3. That is incorrect. The subject property is surrounded by property that is zoned governmental and institutional, and therefore, under the ordinance, one must look to the entire Mercy parcel, zoned governmental and institutional, to determine which is the least intensive abutting district. The least intensive abutting use to the Mercy parcel is R-1. The subject property abuts Halissee Street, which is a private road, owned by the applicant, Mercy Hospital, Inc. [TAB 3] The Halissee Street parcel is zoned governmental and institutional. Unlike road easements, which are zoned up to the middle of the easement, a private road parcel has its own legal description, and its own zoning classification. Because Halissee Street is a separate parcel, zoned government and institutional, and it abuts the subject property, the subject property abuts only other government and institutional properties. Again, because the subject property is surrounded with governmental and institutional properties, one must look to the entire Mercy parcel to determine the least intensive abutting use. That use is R-1. [TAB 4]. On April 4, 2006, the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions of the City Planning Department concurred that the relevant property classification is R-1, and went on to find that the proposed change is out of scale with the area and that the subject property should be zoned R-1. [TAB 5] Any restrictive covenant or other device where the subject property would revert to governmental and institutional use after the project is completed would be illegal contract zoning, and would constitute a legal fiction to subvert the intent of the zoning code, and should not be sanctioned by this Commission. 2 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item on 10 riscilla A. Thompson City Clerk File No. 06-01060zc The closest residential parcel to the subject property is Bay Colony Condominium property, which is zoned R-3. The Halissee Street parcel sits between the subject parcel and the Bay Colony parcel. The subject property does not abut the Bay Colony Condominium parcel.' The importance of this distinction is that the developer asserts that the proposed change would actually result is less density than would be allowed under existing zoning. This is incorrect. The developer asserts that, as of right, they could build 425 units under an R-3 classification. Under the correct R-1 classification, the developer could build far fewer than the 300 units that are proposed to follow this change in zoning. The applicant is asking for more de $ mltted Into the public record in connection witt item p2. 3"1 cn 1-. 5 • o 1 Priscilla A. Thompso II. The Proposed Zoning Change Does Not Meet The Requirements of Sec. 2210 City Cler The Planning Advisory Board recommended denial of this application, so they did not submit the report required by Sec. 2210 of the Zoning Code. So the applicant, on its own, proposes that the Commission make findings that are contrary to every recommendation made on the project to date, and these proposed findings are unsupported by substantial competent evidence. As more fully set forth below, the proposed ordinance in this matter is legally insufficient. [TAB 6]. • Comprehensive Plan. The proposed change does not conform with the adopted Miiami Comprehensive Neighborhood plan, and it does require a plan amendment. In fact, this finding was explicitly made by planning department staff in its recommendations. [TAB 712 The zoning map says the subject property should be zoned governmental and institutional, the Commission should stick to it, or the R-1 use allowed by the Grosvenor Ordinance. • Land Use Patterns. The proposed change is not in harmony with the established land use pattern. The established land use pattern is low density residential, not R-4. The proposed ordinance says that the proposed change is "not contrary" to established use patterns. This is legally insufficient. The Commission must find that the use is "in harmony" with established use patterns. The Commission, though, cannot make either finding, as this would be the only R-4 property within a mile of the subject property. ' To the extent that the Halisse Street parcel is part of the application, the least intensive abutting use to the Halissee Street parcel are the R-1 properties located on E. Glencoe Street. 2 The Planning Departments finding that the proposed change would provide the applicant with "greater flexibility" and use of that finding as a (actually the) basis for its recommendation for approval, is legally and factually insufficient. Nowhere in the code does the term "greater flexibility" appear as a basis to approve a zoning change. 3 File No. 06-01060zc • Nearby Districts. The proposed change is not related to adjacent and nearby districts. Nearby districts are predominantly R-1, R 3, and G/I. There is no R-4 in Coconut Grove. There should never be R-4 in Coconut Grove - that classification is meant for downtown. The proposed ordinance makes a finding that the proposed use "will not create an isolated district" in relation to nearby districts. In fact, an isolated district is exactly what the proposed change 'creates. There is no substantial competent evidence to support this finding. • Scale. The proposed change is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood and the city. What the neighborhood needs is more health care, not more condominiums. For purposes of the discussion under Sec. 2210, "scale" means "height" and the overall massing of any allowed use under the R-4 classification. In this context, it is appropriate to consider the proposed project, which must be approved in the MUSP. The proposed change would lead to a project would be completely out of scale - twice the size of the tallest existing building in the neighborhood. In fact, the project would contain the tallest building in Coconut Grove. The applicant's materials notably omit any rendering that demonstrate the scale of the project they propose in comparison to the existing community. The developer has represented that the building will not be visible from South Bayshore Drive. That is incorrect. The computer renderings attached to this memorandum demonstrate that the proposed project would be visible from South Bayshore Drive, and are out of scale for Coconut Grove. [TAB 8] • Density Patterns. The proposed change does not maintain the same or similar density patterns. Again, there is no R-4 in Coconut Grove. The proposed ordinance has a finding that the proposed change will not "materially alter" population density patterns. Sec. 2210 requires that the proposed change has "the same or similar" population density patterns. The proposed finding is legally insufficient to support the proposed change. • Existing Boundaries. Existing district boundaries are logically drawn in relation to the subject property. The subject property is governmental and institutional. The neighboring uses are low density residential. There is nothing illogical about the existing boundaries, and there is no substantial competent evidence that would demonstrate that existing boundaries are illogical. In fact, the proposed change is itself illogical. Placing an R-4 property in the middle of governmental, institutional and low density residential uses would be illogical in the extreme. Section 2210 requires that the Commission find that existing boundaries are Submitted Into the public record in connection with 4 item PZ • 37 on 1-33-01 Priscilla A. Thompson Wes= City Clerk File No. 06-01060zc illogical, yet the proposed ordinance omits that necessary and relevant finding. Again, the proposed ordinance is legally insufficient. • Changed Conditions. There are no changed or changing conditions which make the passage of the proposed change necessary. The applicant has given no substantial competent evidence before the Commission on this point, because there is none. What has changed is the applicant's audacity, and it's willingness to forever alter the character of the neighborhood. For money. • Living Conditi9ns. The proposed change will not positively influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The existing use allows for healthcare services in a neighborhood where the need for such services is critical. The proposed change will leave less space for health care, not more, in a growing neighborhood which over time will have more need for healthcare services, not less. • Traffic. The proposed change will not have the same or similar impact on traffic. The applicant bases its traffic studies on comparisons to hypothetical alternate uses for the subject property for which there is no substantial credible evidence that these alternate uses would or could ever be developed. There are governmental and institutional uses that would have less of an impact on traffic, such as a park or a library. The applicant does not discuss these uses. The proposed ordinance contains a finding that the proposed change will not "excessively increase" traffic, while Sec. 2210 requires a finding that the proposed change has the "same or similar" impact on traffic. The proposed finding is legally insufficient. There are similar legal deficiencies with respect to the proposed findings on drainage, light and air, property values, and development of adjacent properties. • Disparate Treatment. The proposed change conveys a disparate treatment to the applicant as to owners within the same classification and the immediate area. In fact, as more fully set forth below, the proposed change, if adopted, would constitute spot zoning. • Existing Zoning. The applicant has provided no substantial competent evidence supporting the notion that the use of the subject property is unfairly limited under existing zoning.3 In 3 In fact, the applicant has not actively explored alternate uses for the subject property, inchiding uses consistent with the existing governmental and institutional zoning. Further, the applicant has not even completed a master facilities plan. Both are basic business activities that should take place before selling off property. The applicant would be better served by using the subject property for a recurring source of income eth ( feYfie public 5 record in connection with item PO n Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk File No. 06-01060zc fact, the applicant's own literature indicates that the subject property could be used for an assisted living facility, an allowed use under the existing classification. [TAB 9]. If the proposed change is approved, our local hospital will have less capacity to expand to meet our future healthcare needs. The proposed ordinance omits this necessary finding under Sec. 2210, which is certainly relevant, if not critical, to the proposed change. • Other Sites. It is simple to find other adequate sites in the surrounding area for the proposed use, in districts already permitting such use. High rises such as these are meant for downtown, and there is available land downtown for this type of development. In fact, the developer's stated rationale for selecting the subject property is that they would not make enough money on sites already approved for this use. This should not be a basis for granting a zoning change. III. The Proposed Zoning Change Constitutes Spot Zoning. The proposed change constitutes spot zoning, which is prohibited by law. Spot zoning is defined as: "Piecemeal rezoning of small parcels of land to a greater density, leading to disharmony with the surrounding area. Spot zoning is usually thought of as giving preferential treatment to one parcel at the expense of the zoning scheme as a whole." Bird -Kendall Homeowners Ass'n v. Metropolitan Dade, 695 So.2d 908 (F1a.App. 3 Dist.,1997). [TAB 10]. The proposed change is spot zoning and should not be given the Commission's approval. Here, a single parcel would be granted privileges which are not granted or extended to other land in the vicinity, in the same use district. The proposed change focuses on the single parcel without considering the broader context, and if approved, would be the antithesis of planned zoning. The purpose for the proposed change, according to sta{i s findings, is that it would provide "greater flexibility" to the developer. This is an individual benefit, not a public benefit. There is no consideration of the public benefit in these findings, or the findings of the proposed ordinance. Because the proposed change is not supported by a public purpose, approving this application would be arbitrary and would be subject to invalidation as unlawful spot zoning. Submit" cd arid-, the public record inconncf3n with item Pe•5i 00-.25*61 Priscilla A. Thompsor City Cleri windfall it expects from this transaction, which would amortize out in 10 or 20 years, leaving them with the choice of having to sell off even more property to meet its expenses. 6 File No. 06-01060zc IV. The Proposed Change Would Violate the Goals Of The Comprehensive Plan The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and Chapter 163, Florida Statues, speak very clearly about fiiture land use, and the proposed change would violate each and every one of the plan's stated goals. The six stated goals for future land use in the city are set forth in Goal LU-1, and the proposed change does nothing to promote even one of them: • Protect Quality of Life. The proposed change would endanger, not protect, the quality of life in Coconut Grove, one the city' s flagship residential neighborhoods. The neighborhood is predominantly low density residential. If the application is approved, the camel's nose is in the tent, leading the way to fiiture high density projects in Coconut Grove. Approval would have precedential value for other governmental institutional and low density residential properties on South Bayshore Drive and the Brickell extension, that might also wish to obtain R-4 zoning. If this application is approved, in time, South Bayshore Drive could become another Brickell Avenue. In the City, we do not want our hospitals, schools, and libraries to be turned into high rise condominiums. The comprehensive plan requires that future uses "protect[] and enhance[] the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods." If this application is approved, in the long term, the value of the single family residential property in the north Grove, and anywhere in the city near a governmental or institutional property, would plummet. • Foster Redevelopment. The proposed change does nothing to foster redevelopment and revitalization of blighted or declining areas in the city. Revitalization is taking place in neighborhoods like the Design District. Coconut Grove is hardly blighted or declining, and is not in need of redevelopment or revitalization. • Facilitate Economic Development. The proposed change does not promote or facilitate economic development or the growth of job opportunities in the city. The existing governmental and institutional use provides more jobs than a residential use. The subject parcel should remain governmental and institutional. • Foster Downtown Growth and Development. The proposed change does nothing to foster the growth and development of downtown as a regional center of domestic and international commerce, culture and entertainment. In fact, the proposed change takes away from the predominance of downtown and, in effect, begins "condo sprawl" which, taken to its logical Submitted 'n`o the public 7 record in connection with item PZ..Yrl on 1-ems -o'l Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk File No. 06-01060zc conclusion, would line Biscayne Bay with high density residential development. As a result, the efforts to revitalize downtown Miami would suffer. • Efficiency. Minimize Conflicts. The proposed change does nothing to promote the efficient use of land and minimize land use conflicts. In fact, the proposed use creates a conflict, by creating a high density residential zone within a low density residential neighborhood. • Conserve Coastal Resources. The proposed change does nothing to protect and conserve the city's significant natural and coastal resources. Again, "condo sprawl", taken to its logical conclusion, would create a visual canyon along Biscayne Bay, blocking the view for everyone, except those privileged enough to afford these condominiums. Conclusion The proposed change violates every tenet of planned development. There are no changed conditions necessitating this change. What has changed is the applicant's audacity, and willingness to forever alter the character of the neighborhood. For money. Taken to its logical conclusion, the "condo sprawl" that lies behind the application would line Biscayne Bay with a canyon of concrete and glass, in violation of the city's own plan, which is to keep high rise development downtown. The petitioner urges the Commission to deny the proposed change. Respectfully submitted, PATRICK J. GOGGINS, P.A. Sun Trust Building, Suite 850 777 Brickell Avenue Mi: FL 33 t 1-2811 (3i5)5.e ;500 0-8557 Patrick J. Fla. Bar. No. 997129 8 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item - 3'l on 1-as-67 Priscilo A. Thompson City Clerk File No. 06-01060zc Exhibits: 1. Public Notice 2. Grosvenor Ordinance 3. Halissee Parcel 4. Mercy Parcel 5. 4/4/2006 Planning Staff Report b. Proposed Ordinance 7. Planning Staff Recommendation 8. Site Pictures 9. Applicant Promotional Literature 10. Bird -Kendall Homeowners Ass'n v. Metropolitan Dade Submitted r: o the public record in connection with item . ' . cf FLavzsa Priscilla A. TC pson � Clerk 9 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TAB 1 Submitted Into the public record in connco ;on with item p2.3'? on i-,s_o, Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 51t19/2e07 05:01 305-373-5611 COUNTY ATTORNEY PACE D1/01 CITY OF MIAMI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice to the Pubic, Subject Property Owner(s) and Particularly to Owners at Real Estate Within 500 Feet A public hearing will be held before ire VIy Comm goon as follows: Date: Thursday, January 25. 2007 Time: After 6:00 PM Place: City Hal. 3500 Pen American Drive PeUUon: Re ID 06.O1011 hi AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY LION. WITH ATTACI NT'(s), MEWING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS MEWED. THE FUTURE t.AND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE 14801030RHOOD PLAN SY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY S66Z; SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM 9AAJOR NNSTIM1ONAL, PUSUC • FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITES" TO 'HIGH DENSITY MIATFAMILY RESIDENTIAL.'; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES: CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERARLITY CUWSE: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. File ID 064/4101Mac AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAMA CITY COMM SSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS), AMENDING PAGE NO. 44, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED. THE ZONING ORDNANCE OF THE CRY OF MMAMI. FLORIDA. ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM 'Yale' GOVERNMENT AND INSTIM tAL TO 'R-4' MULTIFAMILY HIGH -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 311113 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIA S. FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT 'A." CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILrTY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. • Submitted into the pubiid recn7c1 a c3 nccthon with item 'pz. 31 On t -?'S- bl Priscilla A. Thompson �-: City Clerk The PETmCNRR er the poymortow$ mot. RtoNEAR ITATNI Must be Prss..i d this howls& de teenealed nd Walt anws are Invited to maw Ui* Nevin TM MMI:On and arpeediny papers sew this pubis No&MO and-tnrpWM. MOW deetrltlsn tar dos sheet am ore fl. vtlN the OaPertnnM or iMENMd . Mt s11 Morm,ea lamer, esn i. Plod M, i74111 and are ovolleble tar meow doing week hews. Phew rase ale4s3 . b eoourdenoe with the Ibrreribene Ois•Milks Ad el ts-er. se percent who mph* -peel- easommodelkew M order to pertlolpel. In dds muds, OMAR WSW me alike or No ad awk at peR2 11at least lime Gering, dew prior to the Pwaedri o. Should any preen desire to tipped way dedtiou et the OW Coenebdon booed eseo tilt notwomandatton or bdeeer p moldered el Ids mesa* Mat yentas arrelr ammo One a verbellm head.1 iln preeeedinoe r reeds lrwhdns i l etenarn aid ar+bwr.o wen noon eery sppeoe aNl!► be Wed (* 1R.S111ai. ANY PERSON VINO RRcsNu CoupesSA'nON. NO iYlURAt1ON OR 11119616611FOR CONR3C1Mui LOINIVI is ACTRAT Ile II pbQtIS160 TO RIBRISTINt AR A UOnVIs1' W*1W Tla CDT CLEAR PRIOR 1D N I1ARIII M LANYSIe sC1wmmmus MOM CUT DOW. IQMD$, comma 1fl OR 11E NTT catimmissod. A sort or M►APPUCAlLE ORDIVMOR N AVAILABLE tel 111E OFF= OP IIIR «TY CLElet IMPANCITY NA11). LOOM AT *N PAN AMID RN ORP4R. MA FLORIDA, 7i1IR MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TAB 2 Submitted Into the public record in connectIon with item V:11:—.) on t->5- Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk City of Miami Legislation Ordinance City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.ci.miami.fl.us File Number: 04-00672 Final Action Date: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 401 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITILED, "SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS" RELATING TO THE G/I GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT BY PERMITTING NON GOVERNMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES ONLY IF ANCILLARY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES PERMITTED, AND TO THE EXTENT OF LESS INTENSE PERMITTED USE OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTY ONLY, CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Gil Government and Institutional Zoning District is designed to allow the development of facilities for federal, state and local govemment activities and for institutional uses such as major public and private health, recreational, religious, educational and cultural facilities; and WHEREAS, the G/I zoning district also permits uses ancillary to these government and institutional uses; and WHEREAS, the GII zoning district allows uses as set forth in the 0 Office zoning district, many of which are not related to government and Institutional uses; and WHEREAS, the GA zoning district allows uses with intensities set forth in the R-4 Multifamily High Density and 0 Office zoning districts, said intensities which could be more than what is permitted on abutting property; and WHEREAS, The G/I zoning district is established to permit government and institutional uses only and that any ancillary uses should be limited to the uses and intensities permitted on the least intense abutting land; and WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of June 2, 2004, Item No. 7, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 69-04 by a vote of eight to zero (8-0), RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of amending Zoning Ordinance No. 10544 as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Board has reviewed this ordinance and, after hearing and considering the staff report and recommendation as well as public testimony has determined that this ordinance is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Miami and therefore recommended that this ordinance be approved by the City Commission of the City of Miami; and WHEREAS, the City Commission at a duly noticed public hearing has reviewed this ordinance and, after considering the staff recommendation as well as the public's testimony, has determined that this ordinance is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Miami; Citq of Miami Page, of Subrnittea Into the publlci,tedo,,,; 6/3e/2004 record in connection with item P?.3r1 on 1--a6-6-1 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk File Number. 04-00672 THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Recitals to this Ordinance are hereby adopted and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. Article 4 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, is hereby amended as follows: (1) ARTICLE 4. ZONING DISTRICTS Sec. 401 _ Schedule of District Regulations. G/I Government and Institutional. Intent and Scale: Submitted Into the public • record in connection with item era Y1 on 5'-o'i Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk The government/institutional category allows the development of facilities for federal, state and local govemment activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious or educational activities, major transportation facilities, public utilities, and public and private cemeteries. ResideRtiat- facilities Uses ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density and intensity equivalent to t� least intense abutting zoning district R-4, subject to the same limiting conditions. Intensity: For residential uses: As for the least intense abuttina zoning district R-4. For government and Institutional Uses: As for Office For all other non -institutional uses: As for the least intense abutting zoning district Office. Permitted Principal Uses: Same✓as-fer-0 Governmental ang institutional uses as described in tog City of Miami Comprehensive Development Plan desjgggj pn ofivlaior Institutional. Ping Fes. Transoortation and to jties". and as set forth below. however for accessory non -governmental yrr institytional uses -only such uses as may be permitted as principal uses in the least intense abuttina zoning district and In addition: (With the exception of adult and child daycare centers, any change to introduce a new principal use or any additions over twenty (20) percent of any existing use shall be allowed by Special Exception only.) 1. Auditoriums, libraries, museums and galleries related to the fine arts; neighborhood or community centers. 2 Financial inetitu City of Masan Page 2 of 5 Printed On: 6/30/2004 File Number. 04-00672 3_ Adult and child daycare centers, subject to the requirements of sections 935 and 936. 4. Hospitals. b: , fether-than 6. Places of worship. 7. Schools, post -secondary public or private educational facilities, colleges and universities, public and private, including business colleges, trade schools (except those having extemal evidence of activities of an industrial nature), conservatories, dancing schools. Structures and uses other than those listed above required for performance of a governmental function, except as specified below. 8. Structures and uses other than those listed above required for performance of alovernmental function, except as specified below. 9. Structures and uses relating to operation of public utilities and requiring locations within the district (other than aboveground lift stations, electrical substations, Tine -of -sight relay devices for telephonic, radio or television communication, and the like, which shall require special permits as indicated below); railway rights -of -way and tracks, but not railroad yards, storage or warehousing, switching or shops; provided that no such public utility use shall involve extensive storage or have storage as its primary purpose. 10. Foster care homes. 11. Group homes 12. Cemeteries. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 7'z.51 on t--.s-o1 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 13. Convalescent homes, nursing homes, institutions for the aged or infirm and orphanages. 44- Permitted Accessory Uses: Uses and structures which are customarily incidental and subordinate to permitted principal uses and structures. In existing structures. orofessionat, school and govemmental administrative offices. clinics (other than veterinary): studios: and mgclical 9r pharmaceutical igboratories: only in coniunctkin with agovernment or institutional use directly associated with and furthering these functions: in no case will such uses be permitted beyond what is a customary accessory use to the principal oovemmgntal or institutional use. Conditional Principal Uses: City of Miami Page 3 of 5 Printed On: 6/3O1904 File Number. 04-00672 1. Jails, detention facilities, work camps by Special Exception with city commission approval. 2. Public incinerators (except for forensic incinerators), solid waste facilities of any type by Special Exception with city commission approval. 3. Community based residential facilities only by Special Exception with City Commission approval, subject to the requirements and limitations and criteria of section 934 and spiv if associated with a governmental or institutional use. 4. Commercial parking lots or parking garages only by Class 11 Special Exception Permit and 9JdV if assgciated with a governmental or institutional use. 5. Convenience commercial and service facilities, including restaurants, as principal or accessory uses only by Class II Special Permit, and only when located, oriented and scaled to serve needs within the district and only if associated wit ► a Governmental or institutional use. 8. Facilities privately owned and used for garden, service, civic or private clubs or lodges (not for profit) only by Special Exception. 7. In connection with public utilities, aboveground lift stations, electrical substations, tine -of -sight relay devices for telephonic, radio or television communication and the like shall be permitted only by Class II Special Permit. 8. Local stations for mass transit facilities (other than bus stops) only by Special Exception. 9. Mausoleums, either alone or in conjunction with a cemetery, only by Special Exception with city commission approval. 10. Major sports facilities by Major Use Special Permit only. 1 .... In new structure. by Special Exception onlv. professional. school and aovemmenta( administrative offices. clinics* (other than veterinary): studios: an medical orpbermaceutical jaboratories: only in conjunction with a opvemment or institutional use directly jaseociated with and furthering these functions: in no case will sugji uses be permitted beyond what is a customer! $sore use to the principal governmental or institutional use. Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances insofar as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 4. If any section, part of section, paragraph, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected. Section 5. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after final reading and adoption thereof. (2) APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: Submitted Into the public record in connection with item p2.3n on k-15-b1 Priscilla A. Thompson' City Clerk Cary of Miami Page 4 of 5 Printed On: 6/302004 File Number. 04-00672 ALEJANDRO VILARELLO CITY ATTORNEY Footnotes: {1} Words and/or figures stricken through shall be deleted. Underscored words and/or figures shall be added. The remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. Asterisks indicate omitted and unchanged material. {2} This Ordinance shall become effective as specified herein unless vetoed by the Mayor within ten days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Ordinance, it shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by the'City Commission or -upon the effective date stated herein, whichever is later. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item ri. 3r1 on 1-�5-67 Priscilla A. Thompson ----- City Clerk City of Miami Poge 5 of 5 Printed On: 6 30/2004 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TAB 3 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item T2.3*1 on %--15-0f Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Property Information Map Page 1 of 1 My Home Miami -Dade County, Florida !!?7! ade. .. Property Information Map Digital Orthophotography - 2006 0 This map was created on 1/22/2007 4:31:28 PM for reference purposes only. Web Site © 2002 Miami -Dade County. All rights reserved. Clow 296 ft MIDADS RI NM Summary Details: Folio No.: - ...- Properly: . ailing MER :.V HOSPITAL INC tress: PROFESSIONAL BLDG 3663 S t!.11AMI AVE Pala,!.' FL I ----I 33133-4253 Property Information: !c:rimary -=one: '3. i•)GOVERNMENT& rf'i ,TITUTIONS CLUC: )064 RIGHT-OF-WAY Beds/Baths: 0/0 Floors: 0 Living Units: 0 Adj Sq Footage: 0 Lot Size: 46,261 SQ FT Year Built: 0 •, JF. ;CY HOSPITAL PB 148- 1 5 i i -1 t371 TR r: A/K/A Description: MERi;Y RD LOT SIZE 1.062 AC MIL F/A/U 01-4114-46L. - 0062 Sale Information: Sale O/R: Sale Date: p/0 Sale Amount: Assessment Information: Year: 2006 2005 Land Value: $231,305 $231,305 Building Value: $0 $0 Market Value: $231,305 $231,305 -ised Value: $231,305 $231,305 Total Exemptions: $231,305 $231,305 Taxable Value: $0 $0 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item j72.3"1 on 1'z5 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk http://gisims2.: ttiamidade.gov/myhome/printmap.asp?mapurl=http://gisims2. miamidade. go... 1/22/2007 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TAB 4 Submitted Into the public record in COflf^ction with item ??.3 on 1-35 -01. PIM4;:;iiio, A. a alcnpson City Cleric Property Information Map Page 1 of 1 My Horne Miami -Dade County, Florida Property Information Map Digital Orthophotography - 2006 0 This map was created on 1/24/2007 4:26;22 PM for reference purposes only. Web Site © 2002 Miami -Dade County. All rights reserved. 296 ft Summary Details: Folio No.: f ,..., .. , Property: 3oB3 S MIAMI AVE Maili'.o MERCY HOSPITAL INC Address: 38 3 S MIAMI AVE MIAMI FL 33133-4253 Property Information: Primary Zone: 8000 GOVERNMENT & iNSTfTUTIONS CLUC: 0043 HEALTH CARE Beds/Baths: 0/0 floors: 8 Living Units: 0 Ad} Sq Footage: 1,206,413 Lot Size: 1,384 684 SO FT Year Built: 1947 MERCY HOSPITAL PB 148- 51 T-19371 TR A LESS BEG Legal 50FT NELY OF MOST SLY escr pt on: COR TR B AS PER PB 148- 51 TH S 37 DEG E 301.74FT N 52 DEG E 364.98FT N 37 DEG W 86.74E7 NWLY Sale Information: Sale OUR: Sate Date: F9/2000 Sale Amount: 1$0 Assessment Information: Year: 2006 2005 Land Value: $62,175,780 $55,267,360 Building Value: $97,090,884 $88,088,524 Market Value: $159,266,644$143,355,884 Assessed Value: 5159,266,6444143,355,884 Total Exemptions: $159,266,644$143,355,884 Taxable Value: $0 $0 Subniaci Ir. 4% y 2ubrtc records u1 c3nnu0-7 Priscilla item 'i.3� on Priscilla A. Thompson �-; City Clerk http://gisims2.miamidade.gov/myhome/printmap. Lr:: n?mapur1=http://gisims2.miamidade.go... 1/24/2007 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TAB 5 Subrnilted Into the pubs c rec.. - ten�`Z • 3Y1 l- a 5- a�} City Clerk, C T Y 0 F M I A PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRE -APPLICATION DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT 300 GROVE BAY RESIDENCES 3663 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE NET DISTRICT: NORTH/EAST COCONUT GROVE 04-04-06 M I Submitted Into the public record item PZ•31 Priscilla A. Thompson = City Clerk City of Mianti Vision Statement. '"To Be an International City which Embodies Diversity, Economic Opportunity, Effective Customer Service and a Highly Rated Quality of life" COMMENTS: The following comments represent the unified vision of the Pre -Application Design Review Committee, which consists of all staff members in die Urban Design and Land Development Divisions. The City of Miami strives to achieve diverse, pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods, prornotc transit connections, and provide safe and comfortable buildings, streets, and parks that contribute to a prosperous city for all residents to enjoy. Zoning • The change of zoning of this property from G/I to R-4, combined additional FAR gained from bay frontage and adjacent roads, results in a project density that is inappropriate for the existing conditions of this area. The FAR bonuses in the application further exacerbate this situation. The Planiting Department feel, dun this pt o ect is out of ands wad the area, and that if the applicant chooses to mow the pm t. it should be to a, land use that is consistent with the sit neighborhoot which is R t ironing. • Please indicate how this project relates to the Macy Hospital Master Plan. • Contact the Zoning Department to confirm the use of Perimeter Road Ares in the FAR calculations for this project. • It is critical that the applicant conduct a traffic study and meet with Mary Conway, Transportation Director for the City of Mami regarding traffic cita:lation and access to the site- She may be contacted at 305-416-1027. Urban Design • The north and west facades of the parking base front the Perimeter Road with a two-story blank wall, which is an unacceptable pedestrian environment • The committee appreciates the integration of a baywalk into the site plan of this project. Ensure public access to this baywalk. Furthermore, provide section details of the baywalk with dimensions. Consider referring to the City of Muni Baywalk/Rivcrwalk Design Guidelines for ideas on further developing this area. Architecture • Pleaseinclude a clear indication of what type of materials arc being proposed for all four elevations of the building, including windows, balconies, and garage screening materials. This informationcan be submitted as a labeled color rendering. Material samples and precedent photographs are encouraged. • Provide additional details of all garage entrances and openings, including screening materials, and entrance dimensions. • Provide elevation drawing details, showing all of the building's elevations at the street level, at a scale no less than 1 /8"=1', in order for the committee to review the building's impact on the pedestrian realm. In particular, present the north and western facades of the parking base, and provide enlarged ckvation details of the public baywalk. It is our intention with these comments to aid in expedidng Special Permit applications with your vohintary efforts in making the necessary changes; thereby, avoiding any preventabk delays particularly prior to a projects submission to the Large Scale Development Committee or the Urban Development Review Board. Pare I of I MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TAB 6 Submitted Into the public'. record in connection with item P2 • Y? on 1- Prisciiia A. Thompson City Clerk NO in 411. City of Miami Legislation Ordinance City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Ft. 33133 www.miamigov.com File Number. 06-01060zc Final Action Date: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 44, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "Gil" GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL TO "R-4" MULTIFAMILY H1GH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3663 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting on September 11, 2006, Item No. 2.3, following' an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. 06-1222, by vote of five to two (5-2), RECOMMENDING DENIAL of a change of zoning classification, as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, after careful consideration of this matter and notwithstanding the recommendation of the Zoning Board, deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to approve this change of zoning classification as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Ordinance are adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. The Zoning Atlas of Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, Article 4, Section 401, Schedule of District Regulations, is amended by changing the zoning classification from "G/1" Government and Institutional to "R-4" Multifamily High -Density Residential, for the property located at approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described in "Exhibit A." Section 3. It is found that this zoning classification change: (a) is in conformity with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; (b) is not contrary to the established land use pattern; (c) will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; (d) is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City; (e) will not materially alter the population density pattern or increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.; (f) is necessary due to changed or changing conditions; (g) will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; (h) will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety; City of Miami Page 1 of2 Printed On: 10/5/2006 Submitted Into the public record in cvnric J ' �cn with item ?Z-bri on 1—'5-61 Priscilla A. Thompson ---- City Clerk File Number. 06-01060zc 0) will not create a drainage problem; 0) will not seriously reduce Tight and air to adjacent area; (k) will not adversely affect property value in the adjacent area; (I) will not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations; and (m)will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner so as to compromise the protection of the public welfare. Section 4. Page No. 44 of the Zoning Atlas, made a part of Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, by reference and description in said Ordinance, is amended to reflect the changes made necessary by this Amendment. Section 5. All ordinances or parts of ordinances insofar as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are repealed. Section 6. If any section, part of section, paragraph, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected. Section 7. This Ordinance shaft become effective thirty-one (31) days after second reading and adoption pursuant and subject to § 163.3187(3)(c). (1) APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: JORGE L. FERNANDEZ t?K'A+ CITY ATTORNEY ffootnotes: {1} This Ordinance shall become effective as specified unless vetoed by the Mayor within ten days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Ordinance, it shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission or upon the effective date stated, whichever is later. Submitted Into the public1 record in connection with item'Pa.3r7 on 1-46- 67 Priscilla A. Thompson pson City Clerk .tiny of Miami Page 2 of 2 Printed On: 10/5/2006 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TAB 7 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 'PZ. Y1 on 1-?5- b1 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk ANALYSIS FOR ZONING CHANGE 3663 South Miami Avenue FILE NOt. 06=01060uc Pursuant to Article 4, Section 401 of Ordinance. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the subject proposal has been reviewed for an amendment to the Zoning Atlas as follows: • The request is to change the Zoning designation as follows: The subject property is a parcel located at.3363 S. Miami Avenue (complete leg . description on file with they Hearing 'Boards Office), from G/1 "Government and Institutional" to R-4 "Multifamily High -Density Residential. The following findings have been made: • It is found th*the proposed zoning change encompasses the Southwestern boundary of the Mercy spitai property, currently being used as a surface parking lot for employees, and is also found that it is designated G/I "Government and Institutional". It is found that this change of zoning is in order to develop three residential towers consisting of (300) residential units and 642 parking spaces project known as 300 Grove Bay Residences Major Use Special Permit ("MUSP"). • It is found that the requested change to R-4 "Multifamily High -Density Residential" designation will allow greater flexibility in developing the proposed residential use at the above described location and therefore should be changed as part of the MUSP. • It is found that the requested zoning designation change is not consistent with the underlying land use designation and therefore does require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. ' Based on these findings, the Planning Department is recommending approval of the change of zoning as a component of a Major Use Special Permit application. Submitted Into the public reco°- in cefnCct on with item pz- Yi an (—. 5- 0'1 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TAB 8 Submitted Into the public` record in connection with item p2.5r1 on 1-.;11-o7 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk View from South Bayshore Drive Submitted Into the public' record in connoctiLn with item ¶z-5l on 6,1(3.51ei Priscilla A. i ilo np:-ef G y Clerk View from the water MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TAB Submitted Into the public record in cone 1 4"\+ Item , 5,ron pr c ila A. Thompson City Cier4;, The project will include a public Day Welk and park areas that would meld excellently with the Mercy campus, in essence providing added amenities to our community, patients and staff. The Related Group and Ocean Land Equities have developed a web site explaining the project. It is easy to navigate and contains answers to many commonly asked questions. We encourage you to visit www.reiateciatthegrove.com. Submitted Info tine public record it c3rinectbn v.'i'th item pj• 3.1 on 1 -.5-01 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk eyair[tierFan. y W,drtiaw NW ■ il5p.m a-Eaua��.i woik...y...:• N f"In, M. rmd cf a't'[alfFr via N.Dahtwrkeutl Should the option for a high -end condominium project not materialize, the development team has an alternative plan to utilize the parcel's existing G/I zoning designation to develop an assisted living facility, medical facility or some combination of both. Interestingly, re -zoning to R-4 (residential) and construction needed for this condominium development will actually translate into a project of lesser density than a medical facility. We believe the community dearly should, and does have a voice as to what is built on that parcel. Choosing a low - density residential project seems to be a prudent course of action, but we are neutral on how Related and Ocean Land choose to develop the property. MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TAB 10 Sul:, -Ili 7 -. he publld • with n13n City Clerk rage i or .) 695 So.2d 908 695 So.2d 908, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1536 (Cite as: 695 So.2d 908) 141 District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District. BIRD-KENDALL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION and Richard Still, Petitioners, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Respondent. No. 97-321. June 25, 1997. Homeowners association sought review of decision by county commissioners which rezoned 0.23 acre tract in neighborhood from agricultural use to business use so that owner could operate feed store. The Circuit Court, Dade County, Donner, Ramirez, and Miller, JJ., affirmed. On petition for writ of certiorari, the District Court of Appeal, Schwartz, C.J., held that rezoning Constituted impermissible spot zoning. Certiorari granted and cause remanded. West Headnotes Zoning and Planning 414 €167.1 414 Zoning and Planning 414111 Modification or Amendment 414III(A) In General 414k167 Particular Uses or Restrictions 414k167.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases Rezoning of 0.23 acre tract in neighborhood from agricultural use to business use, so that owner could operate feed store, constituted impermissible spot zoning. *909 Shabin & Bass and Jeffrey S. Bass, Miaow, for petitioners. Robert A. Ginsburg, County Attorney and John McInnis, Assistant County Attorney, for respondent. Submitted Into the public record in co ncc3€cn with item 'PZ.31 on 1-)5•07 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Page 1 Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and LEVY, JJ. SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge. The Dade County Commission rezoned a tiny, 0.23 acre tract in the middle of a West Dade area known as "Horse Country" from AU (Agricultural Use) to BU-3 (Business Use-3) solely and admittedly so the owner could operate a feed store -which is forbidden in an AU zone, but permitted (along with many other uses) in BU-3. No other BU zoning is anywhere close. On the face of it, the rezoning resolution embodies, to the nth degree, all the evils of spot zoning, FN1 Parking Facilities, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 88 So.2d 141 (F1a.1956); Dade County v. Frohme, 489 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); see Debes v. City of Key West, 690 So.2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(reverse spot zoning), specific -use -oriented zoning, Debes, 690 So.2d at 700; see ABG Real Estate Dev. Co. v. St. Johns County, 608 So.2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), cause dismissed, 613 So.2d 8 (F1a.1993), and power -imposed zoning, Debes; Allapattah Community Ass'n v. City of Miami, 379 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 635 (Fla.1980), which have been universally proscribed. The circuit court's affirmance FN2 of that decision, which is *910 now under review, thus represents a fundamental departure from the controlling law resulting in a miscarriage of justice, and is therefore quashed. See Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (F1a.1995); Debes. 'N1. The extent of the violation of this principle is so pronounced in this case that the term "spot zoning" does not do it justice. Perhaps "melanoma zoning" or, for short, "melazoning" would be more appropriate. FN2. The court's decision came only on rehearing granted after it had first reversed © 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw. com/print/printstream. aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split... 9/27/2006 1 UA -, 695 So.2d 908 695 So.2d 908, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1536 (Cite as: 695 So.2d 908) the resolution. The initial opinion by Judge Miller correctly states: Appellants, BIRD KENDALL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and RICHARD STILL, contend that the METRO DADE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, the Appellee, permitted illegal spot zoning and that its decision constituted unlawful contract zoning. We agree. This court's standard of review for zoning cases requires us to determine whether the Appellee accorded the appellants due process, observed the essential requirements of the law and supported its decision with substantial competent evidence. Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469 (F1a.1993). In Snyder, the Supreme Court adopted a sit scrutiny standard for quasi-judicial review of rezoning orders to determine whether the requested rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive development master plan and complies with all the procedural requirements of the zoning ordinance. Turning now to the central issue on appeal, we address whether appellees' actions constituted spot zoning. The definition of spot zoning is well established: Spar sombag. is the name given to the piecemeal rezoning of small parcels of land to a greater density, leading. to disharmony with the surrounding area. 9lost zoning is usually thought of as giving preferential treatment to one parcel at the expense of the zoning sdieme as a whole. Southwest Ranches Homeowners Assoc. v. Broward County, 502 So.2d 931, 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Further, the Third District Court of Appeal detailed spot zoning as: [A] rezoning which creates a small island of property with restrictions on its use different from that of surrounding properties -solely for the benefit of a particular property owner. City Commission of the City of Miami v. Submitted Into the public record in cOnnECtof Page 2 item PZ. 31 on t -.5 - 01 Pri�c a". ,, i son City clerk Woodlawn Park Cemetery Co., 553 So.2d 1227, 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In characterizing the elements of spot zoning , a spot zoning challenge typically involves the examination of the following: 1) the size of the spot; 2) the compatibility with the surrounding area; 3) the benefit to the owner and 4) the detriment to the immediate neighborhood. Parking Facilities, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 88 So.2d 141 (FIa.1956) and Dade County v. Inversions Rafamar S.A., 360 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). This case involves a 4.24 acre parcel of land zoned AU which is smaller than the 5 acre gross area minimum required in an AU zone. Appellee rezoned .23 acres of the property or five percent of the property to a BU-3 classification permitting the operation of an animal feed supply business. Moreover, expert testimony confirmed that no other land in all of Horse Country is zoned BU-3. This would be the only BU-3 zoning in this two square mile area.... Not only would this zoning change have the effect of changing the AU zoning character of this entire neighborhood, but the only benefit that would arise from this change would inure solely to the owner.... This change would in turn hurt the rest of the residents and the essential nature of this two square mile area. Based on the evidence, it is clear that the changed zoning ... does not comply with established zoning law. Snyder at 475. Appellees' granting of Resolution 2-230-94 which permits commercial development in a residential community will lead only to the future disintegration of this area. The cause is remanded for the circuit court to reverse the resolution in question. Certiorari granted. F1a.App. 3 Dist.,1997. Bird -Kendall Homeowners Ass'n v. Metropolitan Dade County Bd. of County Com'rs C 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw. com/print/printstream. aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split... 9/27/2006 rage -I IA " 695 So.2d 908 695 So.2d 908, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1536 (Cite as: 695 So.2d 908) 695 So.2d 908, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1536 END OF DOCUMENT Page 3 Submitted Into the public: record in connection with 0'1 item .?Z_3=°n Priscilla A. Thompson _ City Clerk C 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw. com/print/printstream. aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Split... 9/27/2006