HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal Letter. TUCKER GIB.BS, PA
A"r'T(i z .Y AT LAW
215C R.ANDA` H'Fi.
P.O. Box 1050
COCONUT GROVE.FLOMM. 331.33
TziLE€'i-ION
1'Ac;)1Mij,1,-; € 4-0.
May 2?, 2007 VIA HAND DELIVERY
Pedro G. 1-;errlandez, Cit Manager
City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
Re: Appeal of Determination of Non -Substantial
Modification of Major Use Special Permit for Bayview
Market (Resolution 05-0350)
Dear Mr. Hernandez:
I represent Jerin, Inc., which owns property at 35 and
41 N.E. 17th Terrace in the City of Miami. This property is
immediately to the west and adjacent to the Bayview Market
property that is subject to the referenced major use
special permit ("MUSP") approval.
The city commission approved the MUSP on May 26, 2005
and the applicant on April 12, 2007 sought a modification
of the city commission -approved plans. On May 11, 2007 the
planning director approved the proposed modification as a
"'de minirus' non -substantial substantial change" to the MUSP pursuant
to a February 21, 2007 memorandum from the zoning
administrator.
Let this letter serve as the notice of aropeal pursuant
to section 1801 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance of
the issuance by the planning director of the approval of
the modification of the approved MUSP plans for the Bayview
Market.
The grounds for this appeal include the following:
1. The basis for this approval is a February 21, 2007
memorandum from the zoning administrator. Yet the
approval is for a proposal presented to the planning
director on April 12, 2007. In fact the plans
presented to the planning director on April 12 are
dated April. 2, 2007 and April 11, 2007. This shows
that ? admin s v titer could no :a e reviewed
these Dian 22, 2007. Thus the hesis f m-
the plannr.;a director's �p�r�v i _'`e= m
ebr,ari 21a
2007 memorandum ---- is not relevant to the April 12,
2007 application on and -ts included Air_! 2 and 11, 2007
plans because the memorandum did not address those
plans.
2. The changes deputed on the plans are substaerial
changes as defined it section 2215.1 of the Miami
Zoning Code warranting full review of applicable
advisory boards and, the city commission, including:
Certain of the requested changes exceed zoning
code requirements:
i. Each of the ten narking levels is described
as 12'2" in height. This adds up to 121'8"
in height exceeding the zoning code's 120'
height limit. Yet the elevation drawings
show the 10tb parking level height at 120'0".
ii. The 10th level parapet along N.E. 2d Avenue
is shown at 130'0" in height violating
section 915.1.1 of the zoning code. That
section states that a parapet wall may not
extend more than five feet above the roof.
This 10-foot high parapet exceeds zoning
requirements by five feet.
iii The atrium canopy is a hard roof structure
over habitable floor areas that also may
contain almost 14,882 square -feet in retail
sales uses. As such it is not an excluded
structure from height measurement, and at
140'0" in height it exceeds the city's
zoning code requirements by 20
Furthermore, it adds additional retail space
not contemplated in the MUSP.
b. The building footprint is proved more than 10 feet
horizontally:
i. The west wall of the first level big box
space is approximately 75 feet further east
than shown in the plans approved by the city
commission in the original MUSP.
ii
Y . This change includes a loading/receiving
area not included in the MUSP.
2
The t ch,es result d._...__.e_ __
project and reyou lance i the
criteria and fridngs in the aria nal MUSP
approval b t he clew
i . The use and area changes, together w th the
replacement of the residential lofts with
office units produce change s in traffic trip
generation that impacts the city
commission's original approval. The current
submittal produces 1,348 net vehicular trips
without internal capture in the PM peak. The
original submittal produced 1,186 net PM
trips. The current submittal causes an
increase of 180 PM peak vehicular trips " an
increase of 15.4%.
i The design change allowing big box uses
instead of small retail uses fronting what
was to be an urban, pedestrian environment
along N.E. 17 Street changes the project and
shows it to be incompatible with the design
philosophy that underpins the street -front
design of the project approved by the city
commission. This is different and
incompatible with the approved MUSP.
iii. The location of outdoor materials storage
and idling trucks facing the residential
units of the Parc Lofts condominium, along
with the reduction of landscaping along N.E.
Miami Place are changes to the commission -
approved MUSP that directly impact the
residents of Parc Lofts and my client -- the
adjacent property owner -- and render these
proposed changes as incompatible with the
original MUUSP a pro v'^ l arc the surrounding
neighborhood.
The impact of the changes proposed in the
submitted revisions produces 16% more PM peak
vehicular trips, changes the design philosophy of
the project and shifts the more .intense and
negative impacts of the project to the side
abutting its only residential neighbors. This was
not the project approved by the city
commissioners when they voted for this MUSP. end
this calls into question the validity of the
planning director's determination that these
changes are "de minimus" and are not a
by
:DM `.x- MUST' CY'= i-.--roved ...x.:
w v -..ommi
3. Ps argued before the city commission and in the
c»rc ' t and appellate courts, the applicant argued,
and the city agreed, that a critical basis for he
f]US ' approval was the 20' height of each parking
level. The applicant agued the necessity of these
heights for safety reasons, particularly for access o
emergency vehicles. The proposed changes reduce the
parking height on each level to 12' (an eight -foot
reduction per floor). This creates a safety issue and
is contrary to the representations made to the city
commission, the circuit court and the Third District
Court of Appeal.
4. The City of Miami failed to provide affected or
aggrieved parties notice of this decision to approve
these modifications.
For those reasons, appellant Jerin, Inc., through its
undersigned attorney, hereby appeals to the City of Miami
Zoning Board the approved modifications to the Bayview
Market MUSP.
Furthermore, appellant reserves its right to supplement
this appeal letter with briefs or memoranda prior to Zoning
Board (and city commission, if necessary) consideration of
this appeal.
Sincerely,
Aoaddtga-i
W. Tucker Gibbs
cc: Jerin, Inc.
Priscilla Thompson, City Clerk
Jorge Fernandez, City Attorney
Terecita Fernandez, Executive Secretary, Hearing
Boards Department
4