Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAnalysis and MapsCity of Miami Planning Department Division of Land Development Staff Analysis PZ-18-313 Location 240 SE 14 Street Folio Number 0141390950001 Transect Zone "T6-8-R" Urban Core Transect MCNP Designation Restricted Commercial MCNP Overlays Brickell Residential Density Increase Area (RDIA) and Urban Central Business District (UCBD) Commission District 2 (Ken Russell) NET District Downtown-Brickell Planner E. Sue Trone, AICP, Chief of Comprehensive Planning Jacqueline Ellis, Chief of Land Development Applicant and Property Owner Babylon International, Inc. Project Representative Melissa Tapanes Llahues A. REQUEST Pursuant to Miami 21 Code, Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8. c.2(g) of Ordinance 13114 ("Miami 21"), as amended, Babylon International, Inc., the "Applicant" requests a change to zoning at 240 SE 14 Street (the "Property"), Miami, Florida. The Applicant proposes to change the zoning of the property from "T6-8-R" Urban Core — Restricted Transect Zone to "T6- 48A-O" Urban Core — Open Transect Zone. The underlying Future Land Use (FLU) designation is Restricted Commercial; therefore, the proposed change to the Zoning Atlas does not require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP). Below: Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations for Subject Property ' T8-48A-O yap ill i i gins ?�_ II�J ) Above: Subject Property with existing zoning at T6-8-R. Above: Subject Proeprty with proposed zoning at T6-48-AO. The Property is an interior lot of approximately 15,977 Sq. Ft. (.367 acres) of land on the south side of SE 14 Street. The Property is on a block bounded by SE 14 Street (north), Brickell Bay Drive (east), Brickell Avenue (west), and by SE 14 Terrace (south) and was developed with a 13-unit structure currently undergoing demolition. The Property is located within the Downtown-Brickell Net Area. According to the Letter of Intent dated November 14, 2018, "[A]pproval of this application will encourage appropriately scaled development in a mixed -use, walkable area where existing public facilities, including high frequency local and Miami -Dade County bus routes and Metromover services, meet or exceed the minimum standards." To support the current request, the Applicant references the change of zoning from Office (0) under Zoning Ordinance 11000 to T6-8-R (Urban Core Zone — Restricted) under Miami 21 and a staff analysis for an identical proposal in 2014 in which staff concluded the current zoning (T6- 8R) had been given to the Subject Property erroneously in 2010. In 2014, staff supported the request, concluding that the T6-8-R designation with Miami 21 was an error. Close examination into the history of this site since the early 1980s reveals that very careful contemplation of the property's zoning designation and its attendant intensity and density was at the base of the Planning analysis that accompanied the 1983 change of zoning (Ord. 9758) which was, to some degree, made more amenable to the 1983 City Commissioners due to restrictions voluntarily proffered by the applicant at that time (See Declaration of Restrictions adopted with Ord. 9758, Attachment 1). The adoption of new Zoning Ordinances (Ord. 11000 and Ord. 13114 [Miami 21]) have necessitated the reinterpretation of the 1983 zoning designation of this property. The rapid pace of change in the City of Miami over the past century and the unique configuration created by the plat in this part of the City established circumstances for this Property that warrant a close review of the origin and intent of the Property's current entitlements. History: 20th Century Settlement The Subject Property was platted in 1914 as part of the Amended Plat of Point View, recorded in the Official Records of Miami - Dade County in Plat Book 2, Page 93. This area of Miami, originally referred to as Miami's Gold Coast, was originally developed with spacious single- family homes for capitalists of the Gilded Age. The aerial photo below is of the Point View area in the 1920s. mage 1: Aerial photograph of the Point View Plat circa 1920. Source, Miami History Blog, http://miami- history.com/point-view-subdivision-in-brickell/, accessed: January 17, 2019. File ID: 18-313 Page 2 With the passage of time, the urban fabric of Miami's Gold Coast changed. Around the 1960s, properties in this area were redeveloping as high-rise condominiums. By the time Zoning Ordinance 9500 was adopted in 1982, it was recognized that the City was mostly built out and that "future City development would, in almost all instances, be redevelopment (from the Introduction of Ordinance 9500—Attachment 2). The Subject Property —"the Babylon" —was last rezoned on November 18, 1983. The application presented to the City Commission for that change to the Zoning Atlas under the Zoning Ordinance of that time —Zoning Ordinance 9500—involved five other lots' in addition to that of the Babylon. The entitlements for the Babylon today are contemporary reinterpretations of the entitlements eventually adopted by the City Commission under the 1983 zoning regulations in Miami. To analyze the current request and provide a recommendation that is appropriate for the City of Miami in 2019, the following analysis first examines how the current entitlements were arrived at in 1983 and how those entitlements have evolved over the intervening decades and Zoning Ordinances. With this analysis, we examine the following: 1) How did the City arrive at the entitlements that it did for the Subject Parcel in 1983? 2) How did Zoning Ordinance 11000 reinterpret the 1983 entitlements for the Subject Parcel? 3) What circumstances changed the local context under the 11000 Zoning Ordinance? a. To this end, the analysis reviews changes to the Zoning Atlas to the five parcels that joined the Subject Property in the 1983 application; and b. The analysis reviews the adoption and updates to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan which occurred during the life of Ord. 11000. 4) How did Zoning Ordinance 13114 (Miami 21) reinterpret the entitlements to the Subject Parcel? A review of the Study Area Prior to 1983: Individual Lots and Context The owners of the Subject Property requested a change to the zoning of the Property in the early 1980s. In doing this, they joined with three other property owners to submit an application to change the zoning for a total of six lots: Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 30. Lot 4, the easternmost parcel, faces Biscayne Bay; the remaining lots do not face the Bay. This lot configuration is critical to understanding a significant finding in the planning analysis for the public hearings. The image below shows the lots in the Point View Amended Plat that were involved in the application to change the Zoning Atlas in 1983-1984. 1 For the purpose of this analysis, Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 30 form the basis of a study area. Occasionally, surrounding properties are also analyzed for context or to compare nearby zoning districts or land uses. File ID: 18-313 Page 3 The Lots Involved in the 1983-1984 Change of Zoning The Important Role of Context The six lots depicted in the image to the left are those that were involved in the 1983-84 application for the change of zoning. Lot 5 is the Babylon, or the lot which is the subject of the current application. Lots 6, 7, 8, and 30 were owned by a single applicant with a contract for purchase, and Lot 4 was owned by another applicant. Understanding the Subject Parcel in context is essential to understanding how the 1983 City Commission voted to change the Zoning Atlas at the time. Image 2: Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 30 in the Point View Amended Plat. The Study Area Prior to the 1983 Change to the Zoning Atlas At the time the applicants were preparing their application, the Zoning Ordinance 6871 was the law of the land in Miami. The Zoning Atlas that survives from that ordinance is useful to review because it helps to understand the context at that time. Below, is an excerpt, showing the study area, as it was zoned under Zoning Ordinance 6871. Excerpt of Zoning Atlas 6871 Understanding the Study Area: A Coherently Zoned Residential District The portion of the Zoning Atlas, to the left, designated R-5, all had a coherent zoning designation when the City converted from Zoning Ordinance 6871 into Zoning Ordinance 9500. All properties in this image showing an R-5 designation were re -designated to RG-3/7 (General Residential) on July 29, 1982 when the City adopted Zoning Ordinance 9500. Thus, when the applicants presented their proposal to change the Zoning Atlas, it represented a break from this somewhat large, cohesive district, characterized as having residential development throughout. Image 3: The excerpted atlas image shows the six lots reviewed in the Point View area, making a study area for purposes of this analysis. Change of Zoning in 1983: Background of Subject Property and adjoining Lots In 1983, the then -owner (Cucusa, Inc.) of the Subject Property (Lot 5, the Babylon) applied for a change of zoning with three other owners, for a total of six lots to be considered. The General File ID: 18-313 Page 4 Residential designation (R/G-3/7) is fundamentally a high -density residential zoning category for densities of up to 80 dwelling units per acre and buildings of up to 16 stories. These applicants requested a change in zoning to "SPI-5" (Brickell-Miami River Residential -Office District) —a high density, high intensity zoning designation in the Brickell area under that Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Department supplied an analysis that recommended denial for the initial request. The Planning Department's analysis reasoned the following: (1) the change represented an encroachment into the stable, high density, multifamily residential area; (2) the change created a precedent for further changes to the zoning; (3) the change would conflict with the comprehensive plan; (4) the change would adversely influence living conditions —namely, stressing the sewer system; and (5) the change was out of scale. However, as the applicants prepared for First Reading, their representatives had engaged with the attorney retained by the Point View Association —the neighborhood association representing the homeowners in the Point View area. By First Reading, some agreement was beginning to form that the "RO" (Residential Office) zoning designation would be a more tolerable designation for the applicants facing SE 14 ST by neighbors in Point View. City Commission First Reading: October 27, 1983 At First Reading, the City Commission voted to approve the proposed zoning change to SPI-5 despite that the Commissioners did not support the application. This was done for procedural purposes to allow the applicants time to negotiate further with the local Point View Association. According to Minutes from the hearing (See Attachment 3), the attorney representing the Babylon, Mr. Bob Traurig, stated, "We don't need on Lot 5 the SPI-5 ... excess development potential which would have been inimical to the interests of the residential condominium owners along the Bayshore Drive corridor, so we urge you to rezone this property to the RO-3.7."2 City Commission Second Reading (A): November 18, 1983 Change of Zoning for Lot 5 ONLY from RG-3/7 to RO-3/6 By the time the application returned to City Commission for Second Reading, the owner of the Babylon (Lot 5) voluntarily offered to modify the request for the zoning change from SPI-5 to a less intense Residential Office, "RO-3/6", with an FAR of 1.21. (See the Schedule of Regulations from 9500, with FAR details, in Attachment 4) In addition, the owner voluntarily proffered a covenant restricting certain uses and granting certain community benefits in response to concerns from the Point View Association (See Attachment 1). With regard to use restrictions, the covenant states: The property and building may be used only for the following uses: residential, offices (not selling merchandise on the premises), banks and savings and loan associations, subject to the additional restrictions contained herein: 3. The top floor of the building shall be used for residential uses only... . 2 From page 99 of the minutes from City Commission public hearing on 10/27/1983, the abridged version of which is contained in Attachment 3. File ID: 18-313 Page 5 (From the Declaration of Restrictions adopted with Ordinance 9758). The overall effect of the zoning change was to give the property ability to be mixed -use as a mostly office building with residential uses on the top floor. As such, there was an explicit recognition of this Property as being a transition between the residential character found in lots facing Biscayne Bay and the lots facing SE 14 Street. Mr. Whipple, representing the Planning Department stated during this hearing: The Planning Department, for many years, along with this Commission and the City Board has maintained and recommended that the water front lot[s] in the Point View area be maintained in a high density residential classification. On the other hand, we have likewise recommended, in the Brickell area, Brickell frontage, and the office district, that highrise, high intensity office development take place. (Minutes from City Commission, 10/27/83-Attachment 3) Planning Analysis The Zoning Fact Sheet provided with Ordinance No. 9758 offers the Planning Department's recommendation for the request. In its recommendation, the Department states that the majority of the lots face SE 14 ST and property zoned SPI-5, justifying a request for a change to a zoning designation with higher intensity for Lots 5, 6, and 7. The Analysis recommends denial for Lot 4 because it: ... is the first lot facing the water and should be maintained residential with the rest of the sites facing the water along South Bayshore Drive [now, Brickell Bay Drive]). It is understood that the structure on Lot 5 [the Babylon] will be retained with residential use in the upper portion and this will serve as a buffer between the residential and non- residential zoning districts. The existing residential area should be preserved to retain the concept of needed housing close into the downtown area. (Page 3 of Ord. 9758 packet, See Attachment 5) As Lot 5 fronts SE 14 Street, Ms. Cooper (representing Point View Association) expressed support for the Commission to approve a change to zoning for similarly positioned Lots 6, 7, 8, and 30 to RO-3/6. This zoning designation for these lots was not contentious; however, the City Commission was reluctant to vote without further review from the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) relative to the newly proposed zoning designation for procedural reasons. City Commission Second Reading (B): January 26, 1984 Consideration of Lots 4, 6, 7, 8, and 30 Having changed the 9500 Zoning Atlas for Lot 5 from RG-3/7 to RO-3/6, the application had, in effect, been "splintered." At this meeting of the City Commission, the zoning designation for Lots 6, 7, 8, and 30 were changed to RO-3/6 (Ord. 9791). When the owner of Lot 4 approached the Commission with his request to have his zoning changed, the Commission expressed the concern that, because Lot 4 faces the Bay, the uses and intensity were inappropriate for that area. However, if that Applicant wished to make a voluntary proffer of restrictions similar to that of Lot 5, the Babylon, the Commission was willing to entertain the request. During this meeting, no proffer was made. The Applicant for Lot 4 was referred back to the PAB; however, the zoning for Lot 4 was never changed to RO-3/6. File ID: 18-313 Page 6 Discussion Based on the above, it is clear that the entitlements for the current Subject Property were actually bestowed upon Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 30, though only Lot 5 (the Subject Property) received a change to its zoning with a restrictive covenant. Thus, the zoning district of RO-3/6 was established under the 9500 Zoning Ordinance within the study area. It is important to note that on February 9, 1989, the City of Miami adopted Ordinance 10544, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, in compliance with the Growth Management Act of 1985, Section 163, Florida Statutes. A component of the comprehensive plan is the Future Land Use Map, future modifications of which take on importance to the current application, under Zoning Ordinance 11000. Adoption of Zoning Ordinance 11000 Reinterpretation of RO-3/6 to 0, Office Designation On March 3, 1990, the Commissioners of the City of Miami adopted Zoning Ordinance 11000. This ordinance repealed Ordinance 9500, including the Zoning Atlas in effect at that time. The new Zoning Atlas adopted with Ordinance 11000 reinterpreted the RO-3/6 zoning designation in the study area as "0", Office. Below is a comparison of the two atlases: Side -by -Side Comparison of the 9500 Zoning Atlas and the 11000 Zoning Atlas (at Adoption) I11j Y ,c 1 i1 14011 'a �i r �` FA. '�'��,�' - , i, I .} ' IRO-3/6 mj�� o -mac,{ . a, VY , i $j O�� i 1 , fl' .d i \�, 1 , l ) ISue ;9 A�g�,eta _ , srg . !lam r V ice' Illl�;� RG-3i7�!*\ ilkijr: 161 .1 , i � -Iv 4 ..i ^<' Above: The zoning designations in the Point View area under Ordinance 9500. Above: The reinterpretation of the zoning designations from Ordinance 9500 to Ordinance 11000 in the Point View area. From the side -by -side comparisons, it is discernable that the City of Miami re -designated lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 30 from RO-3/6 to "0," or Office. Water -facing lots that had been designated RG-3/7 under Zoning Ordinance 9500 were re -designated to "R-4", or Multi -Family High Density Residential. File ID: 18-313 Page 7 For a period of time, the lots that were adopted as RO-3/6 under the previous Zoning Ordinance remained intact as a small district of residential -office property. However, over time, the City received two separate private applications to amend the Zoning Atlas for property within this 0 district. With the adoption of the zoning amendments due to these applications, the Zoning Atlas that existed at the end of the life of the 11000 Zoning Ordinance looked different for the study area. Private Application #1: Rezoning of 185 SE 14 TER from 0 to SD-5 On October 3, 1994, the Zoning Atlas was changed for property at 185 SE 14 Terrace from 0, Office to SD-5, Brickell Avenue Area Residential -Office District. The Intent section of the 11000 Zoning Ordinance says this about the SD-5 Zoning designation, which encompassed the most intense and most dense parts of the Brickell area: [The SD-5] district is of special . . . interest because of its prime location on Brickell Avenue along the bayfront and the Miami River, close to and visible from the CBD and Biscayne Bay, and its importance to the economic well-being of the City as a prestigious high-rise office district housing banking, finance, international trade, and other professional office uses. In the interest of reduction of travel and traffic ... conservation of energy, maintenance of principal views ... it is intended that development at appropriately high intensity, shall be so designed as to assure open character, attractive and secure open space available to the general public at ground level, and appropriately located recreation space serving residential uses. It is intended that multifamily residential occupancy in this area is to be promoted and encouraged... . Excerpt of the 11000 Zoning Atlas after Ordinance 11202 at 185NE14TER , a; ,o it ,1 ill ;;... ak di .. �, 11V A 1. ‘i '11 : ioi a k.f ! J A. COSTA BELL SU'B, Image Image 4: The City Commission approved a request to change the zoning for Lot 30 to SD-5 in 1994. In the application, the applicant made the case that the single lot on SE 14 Terrace with 0 zoning was a challenge to develop due to the fact that, under the 11000 Zoning Ordinance, it was substandard —it was less than 20,000 square feet and it lacked the minimum 100 feet street frontage required for development. However, abutting the parcel to the west were parcels designated as SD-5 and to the east were parcels designated as R-4. The Planning Department was supportive of the application and the Zoning Board voted to recommend approval of the request unanimously by a vote of 7-0 on September 12, 1994. The City Commission approved the change to the Zoning Atlas on October 3, 1994, Ord. 11202 (See Attachment 6). The amendment to the atlas is shown in the image above. Private Application # 2: Rezoning of 218 SE 14 ST and 170 SE 14 ST from 0 to SD-5 In 1998, Bayhaven Investments requested a change of zoning for Lots 6, 7, and 8. This application for a change to the Zoning Atlas under Ordinance 11000 was adopted by the City Commission on June 23, 1998. The address for the site was 194-218 SE 14 ST. The File ID: 18-313 Page 8 Department of Planning and Development offered the following findings (See "Analysis for Zoning Change," included in Ordinance 11668, found in Attachment 7): - It is found that the subject properties are adjacent north and west to the SD-5 zoning designation. - It is found that the requested change to SD-5 "Brickell Avenue Area Office -Residential District" on the subject property is a logical extension of the adjacent parcels and will unify the designations and therefore allow for a more unified development proposal to serve the Brickell core. - It is found that the requested zoning designation change is consistent with the underlying land use designation and therefore does not require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Atlas change that resulted from Ordinance 11668 shows clearly that Lots 6, 7, 8 were effectively zoned away from the 0 zoning designation, and absorbed into the SD-5 designation. This left Lot 5 (the Subject Parcel of this application) as a remnant designation in the 0 designation. Discussion Zoning Ordinance 11000 existed from 1990 through Excerpt of the 11000 Zoning Atlas after Ordinance 11668 was adopted Image 5: Selection of the Zoning Atlas under Ordinance 11000 illustrating that Lots 6, 7, and 8 were zoned away from 0 to SD-5 under Ordinance 11668 on June 23, 1998. 2010. During the life of this Zoning Ordinance, the lots examined for this analysis encountered the following: - The zoning designation for Lot 30 was changed from 0 to SD-5 in 1994; - The zoning designations for Lots 6, 7, and 8 were changed from 0 to SD-5 in 1998; - The zoning for Lot 4 was R-4 and remained as such for the entire life cycle of the Zoning Ordinance; and - The zoning for Lot 5 (the Subject Parcel) was 0 and remained as such for the entire life cycle of the Zoning Ordinance. In the midst of these changes to the Zoning Ordinances, the City amended the Future Land Use Map of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan on January 24, 1991 through Ord. 10832 to include Residential Increase Areas (RDIAs). One of the City's RDIAs is located in the study area —the Brickell RDIA and it establishes that density is 500 dwelling units an acre. While the analysis here focuses primarily on densities allowed by zoning, there is great merit to contemplating the underlying density allowed through the comprehensive plan. With the establishment of the Brickell RDIA in 1991, the two private applications detailed above followed in succession to implement the FLUM in 1994 and again in 1998. The Planning Department notes that Lot 5, the Subject Property, was (and remains) the easternmost lot of the RDIA, where the FLUM allows density of up to 500 du/ac. File ID: 18-313 Page 9 Future Land Use Map of the Study Area High Density Multifamily Residential //7/10 MOH gnal Application Rezone Lots (9500) { Subject Parcel Brickell RDIA FLU Designations in Study Area _ _ High Density Muth -Family Residential i Reztrrcted Commercial 0.01 0005 0 0.01 Mlles ti Image 6: The map above shows the FLU designations and RDIA for the study area. Notably, Lot 5—the Subject Property —was included in the RDIA as early as 1991, with a base density of 500 dwelling units per acre, a density that stands in stark contrast with the 150 units per acre for the abutting properties outside the RDIA with only 150 units per acre. Adoption of Miami 21, in 2010 and the T6-8-R Transect Zone Designation Zoning Ordinance 13114, also known as Miami 21, was adopted on April 22, 2010. As was done with the previous zoning ordinance, the new zoning code reinterpreted the Zoning Atlas; the entitlements of properties throughout the City were reinterpreted from the old zoning designations into the new zoning designations of Miami 21. Miami 21, being form -based, uses transect zoning, an approach to zoning that delineates zoning designations through transitions from Natural Zone Transects (T1) to Urban Core Transects (T6). Within each of these Transects, there are sub -categories, Restricted, Limited, and Open. These subcategories indicate how intense each Transect is with regard to uses. With the adoption of Miami 21, the lots in the study area previously designated as SD-5 (Lots 6, 7, 8, and 30) were reinterpreted into Miami 21 as "T6-48A-O," Urban Core — Open. This Transect is very dense (in this part of the city, it is as dense as 500 du/ac) and allows nearly the most liberal non-residential uses in the City. Lots 4 and 5, previously designated R-4 and 0 under the 11000 Zoning Ordinance, were reinterpreted under Miami 21 as "T6-8R," Urban Core — Restricted. This allows very dense development with tight restrictions against non-residential uses. In fact, T6-8R prohibits office uses —a curious observation for Lot 5 given that it had long File ID: 18-313 Page 10 been entitled to that use since Ordinance 9758 and the covenant executed when it was rezoned in 1983 anticipated mostly office uses. Understanding the evolution of the zoning entitlements of the lots within the study area from 1983 to present guides the planning analysis and recommendation. The table below summarizes this evolution. Table 1: Summary of Zoning Changes in Study Area, 1983-Present Changes to Zoning Designations of the Lots in the Study Area, 1983-Present Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 30 Zoning Ordinance* Date 9500 1983 RG-3/7 RG-3/7 RG-3/7 RG-3/7 RG-3/7 RG-3/7 9758 1983 x RO-3/6 x x x x 9791 1984 x x RO-3/6 RO-3/6 RO-3/6 RO-3/6 11000 Adoption 1990 R-4 0 0 0 0 0 11202 1994 x x x x x SD-5 11668 1998 x x SD-5 SD-5 SD-5 x End of 11000** 2010 R-4 0 SD-5 ■ SD-5 SD-5 SD-5 Miami 21 PRESENT ZONING 2010 T6-8R T6-8R T6-48A-O T6-48A-O T6-48A-O T6-48A-O Planning Dept. Recommendation 2019 x T6-12-0 x x x x *This table lists the zoning designation given for each lot by each ordinance examined in this report at the time of the adoption of each ordinance. **This column lists the zoning designation for all lots at the time Zoning Ordinance 11000 was rescinded ad Miami 21 was adopted. This information is provided so as to summarize the evolution of all entitlements over time, through all ordinances, up through 2010. The intention is to provide a convenience for the reader, so that they can easily understand the zoning for each lot when Miami 21 was adopted, at a glance. T6-8-R Transect Zone designation Under Miami 21, Lot 5 was zoned with the same designation as all the parcels facing the water: T6-8 R. This designation has high density (150 dwelling units per acre, plus density from the fact that this is within the RDIA, hence 500 du per acre —the parcels facing water are not in the RDIA). The non-residential uses are relatively restrictive. Below is a copy of Article 4, Table 3, as attached to Ordinance 13114, reflecting uses allowed by Transects, when the ordinance was adopted. File ID: 18-313 Page 11 Below: Reproduced Image of Article 4. Table 3 from Miami 21, as Adopted by the City Commission THIS DOCUMENT IS A SUBSTITUTION TO ORIGINAL. BACKUP ORIGINAL CAN BE MIAMI 21 SEEN AT THE END of THIS DocuMENr. ARTICLE 4. TABLE 3 BUILDING FUNCTION: USES AS ADOPTED - OCTOBER 2009 T3 DITO SUB -URBAN URBAN GENERAL URBAN CENTER Ti URBAN L D :ORE CIVIC DISTRICTS ® R L 0 DENSITY(UNNS PERACREI 6 6 15 ffi ffi T6 65 65 65 15L• 150 150` NIA AZ^ 150• 1B WA NIA RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE R R R R R R R R R R R R CO MMUNITY RESIDENCE R R R R R R R R R R R R R ANCILLARY UNIT R R R R TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE R R R R R R R R R R MULTI FAMILY HOUSING R R R R R R R R R R DGRMTURV E E R R R R E R HOME OFFICE R R R R R R R R R R R R R LIVE -WORN R R R R R R R WORK -EVE R R LODGING r BED&BREAKFAST W R R ER R E R R INN R R R E R R HOTEL R R R OFFICE OFFCE R R R R R4 ill E R R R W CONNEROAL AUTO -RELATED CONNERCIALESTA9. w 1© W R R ENTERTAINMENTESTABUSHMENT R W R R R R ENTERTAINMENTESTAB. -ADULT R FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT R R R * R R WE R R R W ALCOHOLDEVERAGE SERVICE ESTAB. R R R 1 R R R R R W GENERAL COMMERCIAL R ROn W R R EER R R WRELATEDRETAIL CUMhSERCMLESTAB. ww , W W R R R OPEN AIR RETAIL W W WER R R W PLACE OF ASSEMBLY R E R R E E R R W RECREATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT R R R R ER R R W CMG COMA/MIT FACLLm' W W W W WEW R R RECREATIONAL FACILITY E E E E E R R E R R WEW R R RELIGIOUS FACIDY E E L ER R ER R ER R WER R R W CML SUPPORT COMMUNHY SUPPORT FACILITY / W W W W W W E E R R W INFRASTRUCTURE ANDUT1LI11ES W W W W W W W W YI W W E W W R W MAJOR FACILDY ¥ E R E E E MARNA W W E W W E W IN R E R R R PUBLIC PARKING W W E W W E W W E R R R W RESCUE MISSION E R E W W TRANSITFACILIT1E5 W W EINW E W W E R R R W EDUCATIONAL CHILDCARE E W W E W W W W W E R E COLLEGEIUNWERSITY W W W W E R E ELEMENTARY SCHOOL E E E E E E EWW E W W E R E LEARNING CENTER E E R R R R E E R E MIDDLES HIGH SCHOOL EEE E E E EWW E W W E R E PRESCHOOL E E E E E E ER R E R R E R E RESEARCH FACNHY R R R R R R E R R R VI SPECIAL TRAINING VOCATIONAL E W W W W E R R R W INDUSTRIAL AUTO -RELATED INDUSTRIAL ESTER_ R R W MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING R R W MARNE RELATED INDUSTRIAL ESTBL R R R PRODUCTS ANDSERWCES R R W STORAGE/ DISTRIBUTION FACILITY R R W R Aimed By Right Uses may be further notified by Suppbema,bl Regulatims, Slate Regulakn, or other payasons of WAIb dBy Ware.: Adoo A31re Process- CRC(Cawirated Renw Committee) Ihs Code. E AIbd By Easepibn. Pubis Hew.- granted by FMB IRk.n.R,Zm.ne B Appeals Bond) ` Addnonal denstes n some T6 aorso are llbstamd inD gram9. Bopeswddl no d,ognaten agndy Use prohbded. .AL DensM1y of Invest Abuldrg Zone IV 6 Image 7: Article 4. Table 3, as it was originally adopted on October 22, 2009 by the City Commission. Miami21 Reinterpretation Here is the exact reproduction of the "use table" in Miami 21. Through the adoption of Miami 21, the City converted its zoning philosophy from a use -based approach to a form -based approach. The nature of a form -based code is such that the urban fabric dictates policy; however, externalities being what they are, some regulation of uses cannot be avoided. One of the ways Miami 21 addresses this necessity is through Article 4, Table 3. The T6-R Transect is highlighted with red outline. A red arrow points to the empty cell for "Office" uses. This empty cell indicates that office uses are prohibited in T6-R Transects. Designating this property as T6-8-R prohibited the major use contemplated at the time of the zoning adopted to this property in 1983 with the covenant. Furthermore, the previous zoning designation allowed office use. Rezone application in 2014 In 2014 the current owner of the Subject Property filed an application to amend the zoning atlas for this site from T6-8-R to T6-8-48-AO. Staff analysis for that application found that the FLUM for the area is Restricted Commercial with the RDIA, allowing 500 dwelling units per acre for the site. The Restricted Commercial designation was found to exist on abutting properties to the north, east, and west, but High Density Multifamily Residential (with a density limit of 150 units File ID: 18-313 Page 12 per acre and tight restrictions on non-residential uses) was found on abutting property to the south. With this finding, liberal commercial uses are permitted in all directions abutting the property except to the south. The application for the change to the zoning atlas was submitted to the City and the Planning Department undertook its initial analysis of the request. The Planning Department made the following findings about the Subject Property in the course of its review: 1. It is zoned T6-8-R. 2. The FLUM designation for it is Restricted Commercial, granting it extremely liberal residential and non-residential uses, densities, and intensities. 3. It is located within the Brickell Residential Density Increase Area (RDIA). Due to this, the density for the property is actually 500 dwelling units per acre. With the square footage for the site, it could conceptually achieve a density of 183 dwelling units. 4. Under the prior zoning code, it was designated O. The entitlements for that designation are more liberal, especially with regard to non-residential uses, than the Miami 21 reinterpretation of T6-8-R. Chief among the restrictions among Miami 21 is that of the Office Use. 5. The property abuts a T6-48A-O district. Having made these findings, the Planning Department concluded that a scrivener's error had been made with the Miami 21 reinterpretation of the 0 designation under Zoning Ordinance 11000 for Lot 5. As a result, the 2014 application to amend the Zoning Atlas for the Subject Parcel was amended so that the City co be a co -applicant. This application to change the zoning for the Subject Parcel proceeded as far as First Reading to City Commission, but the item was continued on February 25, 2016, and indefinitely deferred in March 2016 and again in September of 2016. Ultimately, the Applicant decided to withdraw the application in February of 2017. Historic Designation and Appeal As the Applicant attempted to change the zoning for Lot 5 with its 2014 application, the City's Unsafe Structures Board found the Babylon unsafe on October 28, 2015. This order gave the owner 300 days to repair or demolish the building. On March 9, 2016, the Applicant applied for a demolition permit. In response to this, the City's Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB) mailed notices of intent to consider a preliminary evaluation of the structure for historic designation on April 6, 2016. This mailing had the effect of prohibiting the issuance of the demolition permit pursuant to Section 23-4 of the City of Miami Code. Ultimately, the building was designated as historic through the HEPB. This determination was appealed by the owner. On January 25, 2018, the City Commission appealed the HEPB designation through Resolution R-18-0034 finding that the property was not "exceptionally important." C. ANALYSIS Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) The Future Land Use (FLU) designation for the subject Property is Restricted Commercial. Interpretations of the City's FLU designations follow the pyramid concept, meaning that, in File ID: 18-313 Page 13 general, as each FLU designation is listed in the Interpretation of the 2020 Future Land Use Map in the MCNP, these designations are cumulatively inclusive. Thus, within the High Density Multifamily Residential FLU designation, the MCNP establishes the Residential Density Increase Areas (RDIA). The Brickell (RDIA) is established within this FLU designation. The Brickell RDIA is an overlay that increases the maximum density for this area of the city to 500 dwelling units per acre. The property is located within the Urban Central Business District (UCBD)overlay on the FLUM which allows it an FLR of 37.0 by the MCNP—the most liberal FLR in all of the City. Based on these observations, this property is located within an area of the FLUM which is nearly the densest and most intense within the City. Image 8: An excerpt of the Future Land Use map for the study area and beyond, showing the Brickell Area RDIA outlined in blue hatch. D. PROJECT DATA A review of project data is intended to bring to the fore current regulations in an applied fashion. In this way, the following analysis reviews the Miami 21 regulations for the subject Property and the surrounding context in a general sense. Then the analysis reviews the specific regulations applied toward the Subject Property when the Property's zoning designation was modified in 1983 under Ordinance 9758, then when those entitlements were reinterpreted with the adoption of Zoning Code 11000 in 1990, and then again, with the reinterpretation of those entitlements with the adoption of Zoning Code 13114 (Miami 21). Having reviewed the succession of entitlements under the zoning codes over time, staff analysis considers the merits of the request based on Miami 21 criteria. File ID: 18-313 Page 14 Neighborhood Context First, an analysis of neighborhood context provides some insight to the general area and how it relates to surrounding properties. The general area is characterized as having a high density, though the uses permitted vary greatly. The table below summarizes the characteristics found in the area. Table 2: Neighborhood Context Miami 21 Zoning North T6-48A-O South T6-8-R East T6-8-R West T6-48A-O MCNP / Density Restricted Commercial with the Brickell Residential Density Increase Area (RDIA)and Urban Central Business District (UCBD) FLUM Overlay High Density Multifamily Residential, UCBD FLUM Overlay High Density Multifamily Residential UCBD FLUM Overlay Restricted Commercial with the Brickell RDIA and UCBD FLUM Overlay Existing Use Multi -family, Mixed -Use Hotel, Office, Mixed -Use and Commercial Multi -Family Residential Residential, Office, Mixed -Use and Commercial Evolution of Entitlements Once the zoning designation for the Subject Property was established in 1982, what was the nature of the reinterpreted zoning designations? How did the changing designations address such things as density, floor area ratio (or floor lot ratio), height limits, and related allowances under the respective Zoning Ordinances? The table below summarizes these details for each relevant Zoning Ordinance for the Subject Property. Table 3: Evolution of development capacity and standards under Zoning Ordinances 9500, 11000, and 13114 (Miami 21) for Lot 5, located at 240 SE 14 Street (the Babylon) 9500 Zoning Ordinance (adopted in 1982) RO-3/6 (covenant applied) Density 50-80 LUI 21-30 du/ac Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Gross Land Area 1.21 X 23,680 sq. ft. = 28,652.8 sq. Ft. FAR calculated to the street centerlines Height By Right 16-stories 11000 Zoning Ordinance (adopted in March 1990) 0 (Office) Density 150 du/acre 55 dwelling units Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Gross Land Area 1.72 X 23,680 = 40,729.6 sq. Ft. FAR calculated to the street centerlines In the 11000 Zoning Ordinance: Floor area, nonresidential. Nonresidential floor area is the sum of areas for nonresidential use on all floors of buildings, measured from the outside File ID: 18-313 Page 15 faces of the exterior walls, including interior and exterior halls, lobbies, enclosed porches and balconies used for nonresidential uses. Not countable as nonresidential floor area are: (a)Parking and loading areas within buildings; (b)Open terraces, patios, atriums or balconies; (c)Stairways, elevator shafts, mechanical rooms; or (d)Floor areas specifically excluded from floor area limitations by special provisions of these regulations. Height By Right Unlimited stories MIAMI 21 Zoning Ordinance (adopted in 2010) T6-8-R Density 500 du/ac 183 dwelling units Floor Lot Ratio (FLR of 5) 5 x 15,977 sq. Ft. =79,885 sq. Ft. FLR is the Multiplier applied to the Lot Area that determine Max Floor Area above grade Miami 21 defines Floor Area as : The floor area within the inside perimeter of the outside walls of the Building including hallways, stairs, closets, thickness of walls, columns and other features, and parking and loading areas, and excluding only interior Atria and open-air spaces such as exterior corridors, Porches, balconies and roof areas. Also means Building or Development Capacity. Public Benefit FLR 25% 79,885 sq. ft x .25 = 19,971 sq. Ft. Max floor area w/Public Benefits 79, 885 sq. Ft +19,971 sq. Ft = 99,856 sq. Ft. Height By Right 8-stories Height w/ Public Bonus 12-stories MIAMI 21 Zoning Ordinance (adopted in 2010) T6-12-0 Density 500 du/ac 183 dwelling units Floor Lot Ratio (FLR of 8) 8 x 15,977 sq. Ft. =127,816 sq. ft. FLR is the Multiplier applied to the Lot Area that determine Max Floor Area above grade Public Benefit FLR 30% 127,816 sq. ft x .30= 38,344.8 sq. Ft. Max floor area w/Public Benefits 127,816 sq. Ft +38,344.8 sq. ft = 166,161 sq. ft. Height By Right 12-stories Height w/ Public Bonus 20-stories Having reviewed the evolution of the entitlements for the Subject Property through three Zoning Ordinances, the analysis turns its focus on the current Zoning Ordinance. The prevailing concern is what is the best zoning designation for the Subject Property for the health, welfare, safety, and morals of the City, with an eye toward the rights of the property owner. Having File ID: 18-313 Page 16 already reviewed the local context, the table below reviews the existing zoning, proposed zoning, and the zoning recommended by the Planning Department. Table 4: Existing, Successional, and proposed Zoning and Development Capacit MIAMI 21 Existing Zoning T6-8-R Successional Zoning T6-12-0 Proposed Change of Zoning Transect Zones T6-8-R (5 FLR / 25 % Public Benefit) T6-12-0 (8 FLR / 30% Public Benefit) T6-48-AO (11 FLR / 50% Public Benefit) FLR 79,885 sq. ft. 127,816 sq. ft. 175,747 sq. ft. Public Benefit 19,971 sq. ft. 38,344.8 sq. ft 87,873.5 sq. ft. FLR + Public Benefit 99,856 sq. ft. 166,161 sq. ft. 263,620.5 sq. ft. Density 500 du/ac (MCNP Brickell RDIA) 183 dwelling units 183 dwelling units 183 dwelling units By Right Height 8-stories 12-stories 48-stories Additional Floors permitted via Public Benefits 4-stories 8- stories 32-stories E. CRITERIA FOR CHANGE OF ZONING The following is a review of the request of change of zoning from T6-8-R to T6-48-A-O pursuant to the criteria in Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8 (a)(3) & (f)(2) of Miami 21. Sections A through D of this report are hereby incorporated into the analysis and its corresponding criteria by reference. In accordance with Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8.a., a change may be made to a Transect Zone in a manner which maintains the goals of Miami 21. In the recommendation, staff must show that it considered and studied the request with regard to the three criteria identified in Miami 21 Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8.f. The criteria and staffs findings are provided below. Criteria 7.1.2.8.f.1.a The relationship of the proposed amendment to the goals, objectives 1.a and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, with appropriate consideration as to whether the proposed change will further the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; the Miami 21 Code; and other city regulations. Analysis Land Use Policy LU-1.1.7: Land development regulations and policies that will 1.a allow for the development and redevelopment of well -designed mixed -use neighborhoods that provide for the full range of residential, office, live/work spaces, File ID: 18-313 Page 17 neighborhood retail, and community facilities in a walkable area and that are amenable to a variety of transportation modes, including pedestrianism, bicycles, automobiles, and mass transit. The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) has assigned this property a Future Land Use (FLU) designation of Restricted Commercial. The Restricted Commercial designation allows for and envisions the development of residential, general office and commercial uses that generally serve the daily retailing and service needs of the public. Miami 21 code is a form -based code and the Transect sub -categories of Restricted, Limited, and Open regulate uses within forms. The Property has a zoning designation of "T6-8-R" Urban Core -Restricted. The "R" Restricted Transect prevents the establishment of many Uses that generally serve the daily retailing and service needs of the public garnered form the Restricted Commercial FLU. Additionally, the Property is included within the Brickell RDIA and it can be reasoned that the development capacity and Uses allowed on this Property were anticipated to be greater than those properties with the T6-8-R designation to the east. The Restricted Commercial FLU designation is not incompatible to the property, the FLU may exceed the Transect Zone for a site it is located on. Because the FLU is already compatible with the proposed "0" Open Use category there is an opportunity change the Transect Zone to further the tenets of the MCNP. This area has changed since the T6-8-R designation was placed on the property with the adoption of Miami 21 in 2010. Abutting three sides of the Property (240 SE 14 Street) are properties that have the MCNP Restricted Commercial FLU designation with a T6-48-A-O Transect Zone designation. The "0" Open Transect is an important component of the request as it allows an array of non-residential Uses that the "R" Restricted Transect excludes; Uses and activities that supported by the existing FLU designation. To the east, the Property abuts properties with frontage on Brickell Bay Drive, which is high density residential in nature. The proposal to change the zoning of the 15,977 square feet Property from T6-8-R to T6-48-0 would eliminate buffering provided by this Property from the heights and intensity of Uses established on properties found along SE 14 S from the stable residential neighborhood to the east. The Change of Zone as proposed by the Applicant increases the Floor Lot Ratio (FLR), Height, and increases the variety of Uses permitted on the property. The residential density allowed By Right on the Property remains the same with or without the Change of Zoning. However, the change of the zoning increases the FLR, increased the mix of uses allowed and provides a greater opportunity to achieve the residential density already allowed. A Change in Zoning designation from "T6-8-R" to a higher T6- "Open" Transect Zone will help to achieve the goals of Policy LU-1.1.7. However, a Change of zoning to T6-48-AO is not successional and does not provide a gradual transition. File ID: 18-313 Page 18 The extension of the T6-48-AO Transect Zone, as proposed, allows development capacity that is incompatible with the abutting T6-8-R properties to the east. Planning recommends that the property be rezoned to T6-12-0 which creates a gradual transition of development capacity and heights that fit in the immediate neighborhood context. Finding 1.a The proposed change of zoning from T6-8-R to an "0" Open Transect is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8.f 1.a. of Miami 21 Code. The "0" Open Transect will help provide a mix of uses is a walkable neighborhood. The better fit for the proposed rezone is not the Applicant's request to change the zoning from T6-8-R to T6-48-A-O, but a successional Change of Zoning from T6-8- R to T6-12-0. The "0" designation will allow a variety of uses on site as anticipated for the site as per the Change of Zoning under Zoning Ordinances 9500 and 11000, and as anticipated in the Covenant. Criteria 1.b 7.1.2.8.f.1.b. The need and justification for the proposed change, including changed or changing conditions that make the passage of the proposed change necessary. Analysis 1.b The request to change the zoning from T6-8-R to an "0" open Transect is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8.f.1.b. of Miami 21 Code. The growth, development and redevelopment within the of the City area support the requested rezoning at 240 SE 14 Street to an "0" Open Transect, which can continue to be a buffer and transition from the higher T6-48-AO sites to the west to the residentially zoned T6-8R sites that are abutting the site to the east. The neighborhood context, history of the development capacity and heights under the previous 9500, 11000 Zoning Ordinances, and the Miami 21 Code. The best fit for the proposed change of zoning is not the Applicant's request to change from T6-8- R to T6-48-0, but the successional Change of Zoning from T6-8-R to T6-12-0 which is successional to the T6-8 zoning transect and allows a full array of Uses on the site. Criteria 2 Section 7.1.2.8.f.2. 'A change may be made only to the next intensity Transect Zone or by a Special Area Plan, and in a manner which maintains the goals of this Miami 21 Code to preserve Neighborhoods and to provide transitions in intensity and Building Height." Analysis 2 Section 7.1.2.8.2. establishes that changes shall occur in succession, in which the change of zoning may be made only to a lesser Transect Zone; within the same Transect Zone to a greater or lesser intensity; or to the next higher Transect Zone, or through a Special Area Plan. The request to rezone from property from T6-8-R is an extension of the abutting T6-48-0 Transect Zone; however, the request is not successional pursuant to Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8(a)3. of Miami 21. What is successional and supportable is a rezone to T6-12-0. File ID: 18-313 Page 19 Above: Existing T6-8-R Transect Zoning with by right height shown in white and public benefit height shown in yellow. Above: Successional to the T6-8-R , the above T6-12-0 Transect Zoning with by right height shown in white and public benefit height shown in yellow. The proposed change of zone as requested by the applicant for the property at 240 SE 14 Street is an encroachment of the abutting T6-48-AO Transect Zone within an established T6-8-R Transect Zone. This particular site with its T6-8-R designation has historically acted as a buffer between the T6-48 properties to the west on SE 14 Street and the T6-8-R properties that front Brickell Bay Drive to the East. Under the former Zoning Ordinance 11000, the properties along Brickell Avenue were zoned "R-4" Multifamily High -Density Residential and the properties along SE 14 Street were zoned "0" Office and Restricted Commercial. While the 11000 Ordinance was not a form -based code, the "0" Office Zoning was applied to this site and it remained as a buffer area between the residential and File ID: 18-313 Page 20 nonresidential district as originally conceptualized under Ordinance 9758. Although this "0" Office zoning allowed for greater flexibility in development of the land, nonresidential development in this district was subject to the residential standards of the "0" Office zoning district in addition to specific development standards of the R-4 zoning district related to minimum lot size, setbacks, site accessibility, and landscape buffer requirements, among others. These standards ensured proper transition and buffering between adjacent residential uses. The transitional development pattern that existed under the 11000 Ordinance and that currently exists along SE 14 Street to Brickell Bay Drive demonstrates a guiding principal of the Miami 21 Code (Section 2.1.2.a.2.) which aims to create a harmonious relationship "between low Density Residential neighborhoods and adjacent Commercial Corridors with appropriate transitions of Density and Height following the theory of the Transect." The proposed zoning change would permit a maximum Height and Density that are incompatible with the existing context and the goals of the Miami 21 Code. The than T6-48-AO—is to T6-12-0. appropriate change of zoning —rather Finding The request to change the zoning from T6-8-R to an "0" open Transect is 2 consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8.f.1.b. of Miami 21 Code. Based on the neighborhood context, history of the development capacity and heights under the previous 9500, 11000 Zoning Ordinances, and the Miami 21 Code. The better fit for the proposed rezone is not the Applicant's request to change the zoning from T6-8-R to T6-48-0, but the successional Change of Zoning from T6-8-R to T6-12-0. F. CONCLUSION Staff recommends Denial of the applicants request to change the zoning of the property located at 240 SE 14 Street from T6-8-R to T6-48-AO, this zoning is not successional and does not create a transition of the heights, intensity, and capacity on the site and intensity that are permitted in the T6-48-A-0 transect zone. However, based on analysis of the history of zoning of the site and neighborhood context, staff recommends approval for a successional change of zoning from T6-8-R to T6-12-0 Transect Zone. The T6-12-0 Transect Zone will provide appropriate transitions and capacity in line with being a bridge between the higher T6-48-AO west of the site to the lower capacity T6-8-R properties to the east. File ID: 18-313 Page 21 Pursuant to Miami 21 Code, Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8. c.2(g) of Ordinance 13114 ("Miami 21"), as amended, the Department of Planning recommends denial of the Applicant's non -successional request to Change the Zoning from T6-8-R to T6-48-A-O and recommends approval for a Change of Zoning to T6- 12-0 based upon the facts and findings in this staff report. The Comparison of these designations is found in the images, right. Jacqueline El is Chief of Land Development Exhibit A: Legal Description Attachments Comparison of Existing Zoning, Applicant's Proposal, and Planning Department's Recommendation Existing Zoning: T6-8-R Planning Dept. Proposed Zoning: T6-48-AO Recommendation: T6-12-0 Images, L-R: Exising, proposed, and recommended zoning designations for the nearly 16,000 SF parcel that exists between the stable, T6-8-R district, facing Biscayne Bay, that is predominantly high -density residential, and the more intense, mixed -use T6-48-AO district that is characteristic to the north, west, and south of the parcel. File ID: 18-313 Page 22 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 2 and the South 1/2 of Out Lot 5, Block 2, according to the AMENDED PLAT OF POINT VIEW, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93 of the public records of Miami —bode County, Florida, LESS the Northerly 10 feet borders on and runs parallel to the public right of way of South Bayshore Drive. Attachment A (Declaration of Restrictions with Ord. 9758 in 1983) 3,35rfl95 RI; I200.0 Pc246 D8CLARA1ION OP RESTRICTIONS KNOW ALL MBN BY NUB PREBBNTS that the undersigned, being the owner of the following described property, lying, being WI situated in Dade County, Florida, to -wit, Lot 5, Blook 2, Point View, aoaording to Plat Rook 2, Page 93, of the public Reaorde of Dade County ("the. •property"), in order Ito assure the City 'Commission of the City o£ Miami, P.lorida, that,the representations made to it by the.owner will be abided .by, volunterily makes .the following Declaration of Restriotions oovering 4nd running with the property, Notwithstanding the zoning olassifioation of the property: 1, The building presently existing on the property shall be preserved and shall not be structurally modified estoept as is necessary both internally and externally to oonvert said struc- ture into a building with a oombination of office and residential uses, or to improve the landaoaping or parking thereon► however, in all instanoes any modifioation must comply with all restric- tions set forbid in.this Deolaration, .2. The property and the building may be used only for the following uses: residential,• offices (not selling merchandise on the premises), banks and 'savings and loan assoaiationa, subjeat to the additional restrictions contained herein, 3. The top floor of the building shall be used for residential uses only.`•' 4. The first (ground) floor of the'building shall be used for parking only. No medical or dental offioes or clinics shall be per- , 5. mitted. 6. Only that portion of the building may be 000upied for whioh there is adequate parking as required or permitted by the PO 3/7 zoning olassification as determined by the respective uses within the building, v4 tNAo tr)' ' 7. There stall be a maximum of one (1) bank teller on the property, whioh shall be located within the building. 0. There shall be no drive-in tellers, automatic or meohaniaal teller bt2 our al aFs, a,1�}tat jko i,t�ti1,t, . 9. There ha11 be no signs on the South fayshore Drive ti side of the building or on the south side of the building, Signs and lights therefrom shall be limited to the s,E. 14th street side of the building or property. 10. A11 exterior modifioations of the building, including structural, changes and signs, must be approved by IRV KORACE9, as a representative of Point View Assooiation, Ino,, or, in the event of his inability to serve in suoh oapaoity, another person to be deeignated by the Point View Association, Inc. No'exterior modifioat.ions•of the building may be made unless approved in writing in advance. Iry Koraoh or his sucoessor ma yteuirkrea tROI . he color of the exterior of the more in SN Wieetr-ePi't�"�"o rd'��d' ii `?+` vavi'1roly d 2"1§'U75 e When the preliminary and final designs for ▪ the Exhibit A ��aaa; 24ro exterior modifications have been submitted to MR. KORACH, or his suocsasok,,they .'Anus! ,..be..._commentad..0 on ..and approved - 004./..p) . :d.isaiiproved.. within:....14,2day.n•-:.thareaftev.:- ••Failure tb make•. nuoh. oommente within such.period, at011'eetablish a ccinclusive presump- tion of approval of•suoh proposals by the Point View Assooiation, lnb. 11, The landsoaping of the property along South HayghOte Drive shall. be improved and maintained at a level at least oon- sistent with the landsoaping at the existing Point View area •residential buildings. 12. • The - owners of the property will oontribute the sum bf $10,000 fOr: a neighborhood traffic •study to be performed by professional traffic* engineers. to be,;'ohbsen by the Pdiht 'V,ibw ' • Assooiation,. Inc. y° •"which sum may 'also be utilized to implement the recommendations of such study. •The owners shall also oo erate with Point View Association,' Inc. by providing,ti'nt:ormat; .relating to• the :uses at the property and will 000petate seeking to••aocomplieh the reoommendations of the study,w specific underetanding% however, that the owners shall have' no additional expenses in connection therewith. rtur thermore t r A.•. It is Understood and agreed by the undersigned' that any official inspector of the City of Miami Building De�sf�x lment or Zoning Department, or any agents duly authorized by; @.he Director of. those Departments may have the privilege at'any ;time during normal•working,hours of entering and investigating the'use of the premises -to determine whether or not the requirements of the building and zoning regulations and the conditions herein agreed to are being fulfilled. • . B. These restriotione during their lifetime shall be a restriotion••and limitation upon, all present and future owners of the aboVe-described real property and for the public welfare and shall be enforoeabl:e• by property owners' within 375 feet of the sub eot property, property owners on South Bayshore Dkiue between South East 14th Street and South East 15th Road, Miami, F3,oeisda, specifically including those who may be farther than 375 feat* of the subjeot property! any condominium association in the above -- described areas;. the Point View Assooiation, Inc., 'a' riot;111br- profit Florida Corporation or its successor, or by the City of Miami. • Th�.e 'Agreetitent shall .constitute 'a .covenant, running with the land, shall be recorded in the public Records of Dade County, rlorida, and shall remain in full force' and effect and be binding upon the•undere•igned, its successors and' assigns until such time ,as it is modified or released in the manner provided herein. D. These covenants• are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them for a period of 30 years from•the date of reoordation, after which time they shall be extended automatically for successive periods of ten years, unless an instrument signed by a majority of the then owner(e) of the property has been recorded whioh changes or releases the covenants in whole, or in part, provided that the covenants have been released or the ohanges approved by the Ciit of Miami Commission after a publio hearing. If the zoning district or the regulations applicable to all the properties on South Oayshore Drive between S. H. 14th Street and S. E. 15th Road should change to permit any structure Within such area to be used totally for offices, banks or commercial uses, or combina'- tione thereof, or if the permitted VAR applicable to such area aim= szFapiatimmaggas REMEMIE • 2000 ;Garr indreasen above that _presently lermittpdt.thg„ ,gpjegt property s ;a_73; tLe'.r': � av'e .: ha_ ��mikad Yctba aanka�nstt_.bszein which are mor @_ restriotive than the new distriot;. og • regulations. The recordation among, the Publio Reoords..of pade County, Florida, of an'Affid'avit or Certificate from the City Attorney of the City of Miami that such changes in the City of Miami Ordinances have been made will be.euffiaient.to plane all persons on notice that such changes have, modified these oovenante. 'B. This Declaration of Restrictive Covenants may be Modified, amended or released es to the land herein described, or any portion thereof, by a written instrument executed by the then ,,.owne% . of , the .fee simple title to ,the• ..lands <. to be.•af£eoted by suoh.modi'fioation, amendment or relettee, provided that the dame hkg fifst been approved by;. the Point.. VI-ewAssooiation, Inc., and ,then by tha City Commission after.publio hearing. • e. • Sti„' Should this beolaration bf Reeteiotive•Covenants be eo • modified'; amended or released,.the Airebtor of the City of Miami Building & 2oning,Department, or his eucoeeeor, shall for thwith exeoute a written instrument effectuating and aoknow].edging suoh modification, amendment or release. 0. . Enforoement shall be by notion at law or in equity against any, .parties or..,•pereons violating, or attempting to P.I.olhte any oovenantg, either to restrain violation or to recover d'ainages. . Xf ' any suit ., bg,,. brought• for such. enforoement the enforoitig' party, if euaoessful,, shall be entitled .to r eoover,•in addition to ooets and disbursements allowed by law, such cum as the' Court'may adjudge to be reasonable for the services of his attorney.AV • B. Tnvalidation of any "One bf these oovenantg, by judgment or Court, in no.wise shall affect any•of the other provisions which shall remain in full foroe and efEeot. INA4I"PNSSS'mionSor, the owner has caused tcheae presents to be executed and signed in its name by its proper officers, •and '3.tis, nor)orate Beal to be affixed hereto;gnd,atteeted to by its Seorbtary'.the day and year net forth. vt OAT$ • • • dent , •r J STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) •eS COUNTY OF OAb% X HERESY CERTIFY that On this ] day of ► 3.983, before me personally appeared RAY CORORA and C o0 CORONA, ?resident and Secretary, respeotively, of CUCUSA, INC., a aorpo" ration undbr the Jaws of the State of Florida, to me known to be the persons who signed the foregoing instrument as such officers and severally acknowledged the exeoution thereof to be their free act and deed as such officers for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and that they affixed thereto the offioial seal of said corporation, and that the said instrument is the act and deed of said corporation, WITNE88,my hand and official seal the rday andyear last aforesaid. My Commission expires; ;r RtiCTNESS 1 per, Attorney MET L.• COOPER 020 Is ;••P'1agler Street 1''P' .or i d a 131.31 r r Attachment 2: Introduction to Zoning Ordinance 9500 PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE City of Miami, Florida May 7 1981 PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI) FLORIDA MAY 7, 1981 CITY COMMISSION Maurice A. Ferrel Mayor Theodore R. Gibson, Vice -Mayor Joe Corolla Armando Lacasa J. L. Plummer, Jr. CITY MANAGER Howard V. Gary Jim Reid, Acting Assistant City Manager CITY CLERK Ralph G. Ongi This book contains the Text and the Schedule of District Regulations of the pro- posed Zoning Ordinance. They were prepared by Dr. Ernest R. Bartley and Fred H. Bair, Jr., zoning consultants, with the assistance of the City of Miami Planning Department. Both documents were the subject of a series of public meetings and hearings held by the Miami Planning Advisory Board. Following is a list of persons who participated in the final preparation and/or review and modification of the proposed Zoning Ordinance: PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD Grace Rockafellar, Chairperson Lorenzo Luaces, Vice -Chairman Eduardo Cali I Jose Correa Aaron J. Manes Arsenio Milian Cyril Smith Patricia M. Kolski, Alternate *Mary Lichtenstein *Richard Rosichan PLANNING DEPARTMENT Joseph W. McManus, Acting Director George Acton, Jr., Project Coordinator Richard 0. Whipple, Chief, Current Planning Jack Luft, Planner III Matthew Schwartz, Planner III Jose Casanova, Planner II Fred Fernandez, Planner I Laurence Martinez, Planner I Richard Butler, Planning Illustrator II Debra Ann Ragin, Secretary DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDS Aurelio E. Perez-Lugones, Director Gloria Fox, Assistant Director Nancy Mills, Secretary LAW DEPARTMENT George E, Knox, Jr., City Attorney Terry Percy, Deputy City Attorney Mark Valentine, Assistant City Atto BUILDING DEPARTMENT Gerardo Salmon, Director Laura Howell, Chief Zoning Inspector Richard Weisberg, Zoning Inspector I ey PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Donald W. Cather, Director George Campbell, Assistant Design Engineer *No Longer With the City of Miarni Special acknowledgement is accorded the following committees who worked dil gently in reviewing and making recommendations on the proposed ordinance: ARCHITECTS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS Mr. Louis A. Jamil Mr. Raul Alvarez Mr. Roy Barden Mr. Willie Bermelo Mr. James Deen Mr. Roger Fry Mr. H. Samuel Kruse, Chairman Mr. Walter Martinez Mr. Lester Pancoast Mr. Paul Stutsman Mr. Robert West CONSUMERS AND USERS Mr. Aaron J. Manes, Chairman Ms. Aurelio Maer, Vice -Chairwoman Ms. Ruth Bartoli Ms. Janet Waldman Ms. Sarah West DEVELOPERS, LAWYERS AND INVESTORS Mr. Irvin Adler Mr. Michel Anderson Mr. Hernando Carillo Mr. Sidney Fagin Mr. John Forte, Co -Chairman Mr. Brian J. Giller Mr. Tibor Hollo, Co-Chairrnan Mr. Robert Korner Mr. Jess Lawhorn Ms. G. Miriam Maer Mr. Herbert Simon Mr. Robert Traurig INTRODUCTION Over the past five years, the City of Miami has been engaged in a concert, trated planning program, designed to provide a meaningful, efficient, and economical framework for future growth and development. A great deal has been accomplished in that time, but several important ingredients vital to the program remain. The planning process carries with it not only the setting of comprehensive goals and objectives to guide future growth but includes the utilization of a variety of means for implementation of those goals. Early in the present planning program, it was recognized that one of the important means of implementation would be necessary land use controls, and particularly zoning. To that end, the City commissioned its zoning consultants, Ernest R. Bartley and Frederick 1-1. Bair, Jr., to analyze and evaluate the present zoning ordinance. Their report clearly demonstrated that the present zoning ordinance would not meet the requirements of the comprehensive planning program of the City. Their report made a number of major, and numerous minor recommendations. Those major recommendations indicated that: 1. The present Miami zoning ordinance should be completely reorganized and rewritten to reflect the fact that future City development would, in almost all instances, be redevelopment. 2. The present physical format should be changed to incorporate a Schedule of District Regulations approach, removing from the text of the ordinance most regulations applicable to specific zoning classifications and presenting them in columnar form for easier citizen use and administration. 3. Reeevaluation of intensities of various types of uses - commercial, industrial, and residential, throughout the City would be necessary. 4. As a basis for residential land use intensities the City should adopt a modi- fied version of the Land Use Intensity System (LUI) of the Federal Housing Administration. This internally consistent system provides a sound basis for regulation by coordinating lot coverage, height, bulk, building spacing, and related controls based on gross (rather than, at present, net) land acreage. Present inconsistent and uneven controls would thus be supplanted. 5. A new ordinance must be related more closely, than is presently the case, to an understanding of the consequences of regulation of architectural form. 6. A limited form of transfer of development rights should be included. IAn Analysis and Evaluation of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, May, 1976, pp.i-xxvii, 534 7. A new ordinance should distinguish between and make provision for Planned Development and Special Public Interest districts. Greater use should be made of these modern techniques than at present under carefully drawn standards guiding exercise of administrative discretion. 8. Reconsideration of the present numbers of "special approvals" should result in the establishment of a logical special permit system, with the officer or agent for each type of special permit operating under meaningful standards. 9. Certain regulations now found in the present zoning ordinance are not properly zoning in character and should be placed in other parts of the City Code of Ordinances. 10. Some parts of the present zoning ordinance are not enforced, or are enforced only upon citizen complaint. Regulations that are a part of a new ordinance should be put there with a commitment to enforce them - or they should be dropped altogether. The proposed new zoning ordinance, which consists of three major parts, incorporates the above listed recommendations. The t are: ree parts of the ordinance a. The Text sets out general provisions on procedures and administration, regulations applying generally to several or all zoning districts or classifica- tions, definitions, standards necessary for the exercise of discretion by those charged with the administration of the ordinance, and provisions for specialized treatment of particular types of development. b. The Schedule of District Regulations Iists the regulations applying zoning districts. n most c. The Zoning Atlas outlines the boundaries of the proposed districts and shows the Land Use Intensity sector for each district. The book, which includes the proposed Text and the Schedule of District Regulations as approved and recommended to the City Commission by the Miami Planning Advisory Board, represents over three years of intensive effort on the part of the Planning Advisory Board, the Planning Department, and the consultants. The first draft of the ordinance was considered by the Planning Advisory Board in a long series of workshops extending from December, 1977 to November, 1978. Sitting in on those sessions and serving critical and advice giving functions were members of the Zoning Board and affected City personnel. During the course of those workshops, numerous changes, additions, and deletions were made to original draft as submitted by the consultants. The ordinance was revised and by January, 1980, it was ready for public review. To insure an in depth public review, notices were sent to 88,000 Miami property owners informing them of six public meetings to be held in six different neighborhoods from March to June, 1980. At these meetings, all public comment was recorded for future Planning Advisory Board consideration. In addition three citizen review committees were formed: The Consumers and Users; the Architects, Landscape Architects, Engineers, and Planners; and the Developers, Lawyers, and Investors. The committees commenced work on the proposed zoning ordinance in April and submitted their reports to the Planning Advisory Board Mayor Ferre: All ri8xx, how about 10:00 o'clock in morning? Mr. Plummer' afternoon. I No, no. Make /t 2`00 o'clock in don't plan on being sober that early! the the Mayor Ferre: Okay, 2,0V o'clock on the 17th. Bring all the drawings, plans. We will have on open discussion. Mr. oarollo: Commissioner Dawkins can check Mr. Suarez' records to see if he can be here at that time also. Mayor Fprre: we shall see what happens. 44. FIRST READING oBnIN&0oE - CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 185 S.C. 14?8 TERRACE AND APPROXIMATELY 200 D.E. 14TH STREET FROM RG-3/7 TO SPI-5. Mayor Ferre: All right, k@=nua item 31. Are you ready? oucuoa, Inc., Seaplace Realty Investments NV 7 Curacao, Inc. This has the Planning Department's recommendation for approval. The Zoning Board on a 3 to 2 vote voted denial. There were 2 in favor, la against. Proponents present at the meeting, 2 - opponents, 20. All right, we will hear the Department first, and then we shell hear from the Applicant, who is appealing the denial of the Board. Okay, from the Department, first. Mr, Whipple: Mr, Mayor and members of the Commission, the Planning Department recommended approval of a portion of this item and denial of the other portion. Mayor Ferre: I don't understand that. You are approving a portion, and now you are approving the other portion tnnY Mr. Whipple: No. air, The Planning Department recommended approval of a portion of the request, and denial of the remainder of the request. Mayor Ferre: I see. Mr. Whipple: Specifically, in referring to the illustration of the Zoning mop, we recommend approval of Lots 5, b, ? and 8, which are the westerly four lnto, but recommend exclusion of Lot 4, Mr. Plummer: What about 30? Mr. Whipple: And 30 we recommended also, yes. Mr. Plummer; You are recommending for that? Mr. Whipple: For that ~ yes, sir. Mr. Plummer; What nlauoiy1outtnnY Mr, Whipple: SPI~5, from the existing BG~3.7 The map reflects the old zoning that is before you on the hosrd. The basis for this recommendation is the way the lots are situated. The Planning Department, for many years, along with this Commission and the city Board has maintained and recommended that the waterfront lot in the Point View area he maintained in o high density residential nlomoificetiwn, On the other hand, we have likewise recommended, in the Briokell area. Briokell frontage, and the office district, that highrime, high intensity office development take p1ane. We had a request come before you, or the request before you ao zo/u7/a3 Attachment ��ummd�nn����nnu .�: Minutes �^� ��. n�n���UUu�� � Commission � . . Meeting ��������U��%���� n�n��x�u���� ��� —^^^^^^^~~ —^^ — ^^xm ~^^ ��v�)�x�/��� nw��, Excerpted �� Hearing �� u.����� ���u n��� n n��� � ��n First Reading � ���� n ���u nn����v� U� u�� ��nv�. ���� �«�� today is prompted by the suggestion that the existing apartment structure known as the Babylon, which is located on Lot 5, which has not been occupied since its completion, that there is a desire to utilize that property for development of office and per our recommendation - combination of office and residential. It is because of this commitment that will be set forth before you today to maintain that structure as it is today as office usage with residential development on the top and by the exclusion of Lot 4 from consideration of the change of zoning which is the old Commodore Club, we believe these two facilities provide a buffer area between the intended SPI-5 potential development and the RG-3 high density residential development. You will also note that Lot 5, 6, 7 and 8 actually do not directly face the water to the extent that Lot 4 does. That has merit in our estimation. that property actually faces 14th - it actually faces the site known as Helmsly Center. Now, we felt therefore, that this property should be treated in a similar manner to the property that existed to the northwest and to the southwest, and for those reasons we recommend approval of Lots 5, 6, 7 and 30. Mr. Plummer: And your recommendation further is that Lot 4 stay as it is. Mr. Whipple: Lot 4 stay as it is, yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Is there a building on Lot 4? Mr. Whipple: Lot 4 is the old Commodore Club, yes, sir. It is a significantly historic structure that could be brought back to its natural state. Mayor Ferre: But the Babylon.. Mr. Plummer: You have got to be kidding me to make it... Mayor Ferre: Hey, listen to me, would you? The Babylon, which is 5, 6, 7 and 8... Mr. Plummer: No, no, the Babylon is only on 5. Mayor Ferre: How could it only be on 5? Mr. Plummer: That's what I said, it is only on 5. 6, 7 and 8 are vacant. It is nothing but a vacant lot. Mayor Ferre: Babylon is only on 5? Mr. Plummer: Only on 5! Mayor Ferre: That building sits on that little piece of property? Mr. Plummer: Maurice, if you walked it as I did, you have about this much space to get a car down what they call a driveway. It is incredible! Mr. Whipple: It has less than 50 feet of frontage ves width in the back, even though it has 100 feet of diagonal on the front, it probably only averages about 60 feet. Mr. Plummer: I want to disagree with Mr. Whipple's statement about...maybe Alan Bliss' buildings, the Commodore Club does have historic, but I want to tell you that any fool that went in there to try to restore that to its historic value - is there such a fool here? I am sorry if he is. I've got to tell you, that place is an accident looking for a place to happen. 90 10/27J83 Mr. Whipple: The interior is not been changed to that great an extent. The porches were added which could be renovated back to their original state. Mr. Plummer: The whole back was added. Mr. Blake! rrom historic standpoint. without commenting on the technicalities of it, if the front facade was restored to its original facade, and the back facade was restored to its original facade, it then would qualify. Mr. Plummer: Tim, let me tell you - I am not a construction man, but I've got to tell you it would take five times the amount of value that that building is worth for somebody to restore it to its original...I mean, a man that did that, only Alan Bliss and his love for that building would pour that money into that building, No one else could financially pour that kind of money into it. Mayor Ferre: All right, Counselor. Mr. Robert Traurig: Mr. Mayor, for the record, Robert H. Traurig, 1401 Brickell Avenue. I am here only to talk about the Babylon. The other parcels that are within this application are represented by others. Mr. Bliss will represent himself with regards to Lot 4. I am representing Babylon regarding Lot 5, and I believe Mr. Friend is representing the owners of Lots 6, 7 and 8. Mr. Plummer: Mr. who is representing them? Mr. Traurig: This gentlemen, Mr. Friend. Mr. Plummer: Okay, for the record, the owner of Lot 4 - you are not representing? Mr. Traurig: No, Mr. Bliss will represent himself. Mr. Plummer: Alan, you are representing yourself? Mr. Traurig: Right. Mr. Plummer: You, for the record, the disclosure form that is put forth, who does it show as the owner of record of Lot 4? I want to get that clear, because there was some court action in here, and I want to know as the day of the hearing, who is the owner of record of Lot 4. Ms. Janet Cooper: While Mr. Perez is looking for that...Mr. Mayor, Janet Cooper, attorney, with offices at 169 East Flagler Street, representing the homeowners in the Point View area. This has become one of the most complicated zoning applications I have seen in the seven years I have been here because of all the various interested parties, and because of the diverse interests. We have been working very diligently to come up with something that would be suitable and pleasing to the various people involved, and I believe that we are well on the way. Earlier this morning, Mr. Bliss, Mr. Traurig, Mr. Friend and I agreed that we would come before you and ask you to vote yes on the item without hearing any discussion on it in an attempt to give us an opportunity before the Second Reading on November 18th to further resolve matter and to work on it without having to stand here and sling mud, which unfortunately, if we get down to it, it may turn into it - very likely will turn into it. In an effort to preserve the congenial atmosphere which now exists between these parties, we wanted to avoid that. This afternoon I learned that Senator McKnight has an interest in this and wanted to have his say, and even wanted to have an opportunity to look at it and wanted a deferral. 91 10/27/83 �� n� The people of Point View are not really concerned about whether it is o deferral, or whether we don't get into the matter, and just have a yes vote on First Reading with certain understandings and conditions. Mayor Ferre: Nelz, what are those understandings and conditions? Mo. Cooper: Okay, the understanding and the conditions were that the objectors would not raise any objections that they would he entitled to raise today, and that in the event'.. Mayor Ferre: Is that acceptable? All right, into the record, your name and each person - I'm talking about the property owners now. Is that acceptable, Counselor? Your name, and is it acceptable. Mr, Richard Friend' For the record, my name is Richard Friend. I am on attorney with offices at BnO oricxelI Avenue. I am here to represent the owners of Lots O. ?, 8 and ]O, and that is acceptable to me. Mr. Plummer: Who are the owners of Lots 6, 7, 8 and 307 Mr, Friend: Point View Towers, if I might then further disclose, l am representing three parties. There are two owners and o perspective contract purchaser. The gentlemen's name is Mr. Larry Silverotpin, Mr, Plummer: That is not a par: of the application. Mr. Friend/ Okay, I am here on his behalf as on ubaer"er. The actual name of the two owners is Point View Towers m� Curacao, and Seaploce Realty Investments NV, and Point View Towers of Curacao, NV. Mr, Plummer; For the record, are both the sole owners of that Manuel ? Mr. Friend: On information and belief, that is correct. Mr. Plummer: No. oir, I am not asking that. Is he present? Mr. Friend: Oh, no. He is not present, he is in Switzerland. Mr, Plummer: According to this application, he is the sole owner. Mr, Friend: That is correct. Mr, Plummer: That is correct? Mr. Friend: As far as I understand, yes, air. Since be in not ... I have not spoken with him and that was confirmed by his counsel to me, that is the extant of my knowledge. Mr, Plummer: Is that Mr. West? Mr, Friend: No, it is Mr. Comnwl ~ Cleon Caasel, Mr. Plummer; According to document, on record it looks like an R. C. West. Mr. Friend: That is the gentlemen who signed on his behalf. He is being represented by Broad and Cassel in connection with the sale of his property to my client, Mayor Ferre; I asked you to stand and answer m specific question, because Ms. Cooper made a statement J want to 92 zo/z,/u3 make sure that the two attorneys and the owner of record of all these properties make a statement into the record. Now, the question is, is this acceptable to you? Mr. Friend: The answer was and continues to be yes. It is acceptable. Mayor Ferre: Let me explain to you what it is - I can't to speak for anybody else, but it is my intention to vote for this today on First Reading, as I see it at this time. All right now, but I want to make sure we get these stipulations in. Ms. Cooper: There is one more after that. Mayor Ferre: You say it is...wait a moment! You say that is acceptable? Mr. Friend: That is correct. Mayor Ferre: All right now... Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a preparatory statement. We filed the application for SPI-5. Before this Board, we were asked, first by Janet and a number of others whether or not we would compromise and accept less than SPI- 5. Ms.Cooper: That was part of my second point, if I may address it as a whole. Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute. Janet, look, so we don't get confusion around here, you stipulate, you said...so we don't get into a long drawn out thing, you said "Vote on it on First Reading, on Second Reading we will discuss it, but there are two points I want to make". Now, you made your first point. I want to get it into the record, do they accept your first point? Ms. Cooper: Fine. Mr. Traurig: The point that I want to make is that we indicated that we would preserve the existing building and in order to do that, we would reduce the request from SPI-5 to RO-3.7, and we indicated that we thought that that was a fair solution for the neighborhood, in view of the fact that we wanted offices. We didn't want to build a larger structure. I just want that record to be clear on Mr. behalf, because we want this Commission to know that we are not going to back off what we have already committed to this Commission. With regards to whether... Mayor Ferre: Is that acceptable? Ms. Cooper: We would like to have the opportunity to negotiate. The second condition, if I may directly relate it to this, is that if you approve it on First Reading for SPI-5, none of the property owners will object after the Second Reading, if at the Second Reading you decide to give them, for example, R0-3.7, or something less. They would waive any objection to that down...it is not down -zoning, because it is really an increase in zoning, but less than SPI-5 on only one reading, and they all previously indicated to me that they would agree to that. Mayor Ferre: Into the record, mr. Traurig, to your client. Mr. Traurig: Well, my client has just advised me that he feels that if there are going to be issues raised, he would prefer those issues to be raised now, so that everyone understands the issues, rather than at a later date, and 93 10/27/83 �� x� that is o little different than my original discussion with Janet, out l would like her and this Commission to know that ..,. Mayor rerre: yine, z hove.., Mr. TrauriG' the client has just reached that conclusion. Mo. Cooper: In response to that, I would say that all the 1snveo are on the table in our negotiations that are not before You. There is nothing that is being held uo,k and I am merely asking for this solution in order to preserve the atmosphere in which some sort of settlement and agreement can be reached. Mayor Ferr=: Janet, I can only request - I can't force these three property owners, ov I am asking on the record now, whether those two stipulations are acceptable. As I understood Mr. Traurig' he said they are not. Mr. Trurig: We would have no objection whatsoever to the action 'which she seeks this Commission to taxe. If she would say on the record that failing the solution that she wants, she won't object to the solution that she originally proposed to us, which was the Ro-3.7. for Lot Number 5, Mo. Cooper: The reason why our discussions have not culminated a this point in a firm agreement regarding Lot 5, is because what happens on Lot 5 affects the other property, and we are trying very bard to resolve it between all the par:ies. Nho: makes this so complicated is so many parties. The people at Point View are inclined to 8o along with what we have diuousopd. Mr. 3rouri8. on Lot 5, however, since it does affect the rest of the properties, we cannot make a firm commitment at this point until we at least understand our position with regard to the other properties, specifically, 6. 7, 8 and 30. We were contacted only o few weeks ago by Mr. Friend regarding 0, ?, 8 and 30. We have worked dili0ently. I was with a representative of Mr. Silverstein until after 11:00 o'clock last night and on the phone with Mr. Friend for a good portion of that time. we have done everything we possibly can to work it out. we just need more time, and that is all I am asking for. Whether you grant it in the form of o deferrol, or vote yes on First Reading today is immaterial to me, I just don't want to have to get into mud slinging. Mr. Traurig: We can't have a deferral, because if we have a deferral, it will result in the application being dismissed, because we will have extended beyond the permitted time. Ms, Cooper: Not if you hear the First Reading on November 16th and the Second on the 18tb,. You have until Thanksgiving or the day after, Mayor Ferre: No, no, look.,. Ma. Cooper: Su I don't care which wuy. I really just don't wont to have to get into the issue. Mayor Ferrw: We have already deferred this thing unco, and at this point I think it is time for this to proceed one way or the other, Now, I don't mind doing it without too much diwouoeiun, She is got two questions ~ you have onowerw*. J don't see that you are that for apart. Mr. Treurig; We are not far apart at all. We have talked often and we have, I think reached a meetings of the mind. The only difference between us is that J was hopeful that she would acknowledge that the UD~].7 is an appropriate use 94 10/27/83 for this parcel, which will be more or less the buffer between the existing residential development and Point View and anything that occurs to the west of us, Janet has already indicated that she is not prepared to make that kind of a commitment to us. We don't have any objection to an approval of the SPI-5 of course, but that is more than what we wanted. Mayor Ferre: All right. Ms. Cooper: You see why I am saying it is so confusing, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Ferre: Go ahead. Make your statement into the record, now. Mr. Alan Bliss: My name is Alan Bliss, I reside at 1402 S. E. Bayshore Drive. I am willing to have the yes vote and discuss it later on, and Commissioner Plummer, you are wrong, that building is still solid and the balconies are self standing, they can be taken right off. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Bliss, we are... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, for the record, Mr. Bliss, I have to tell you sir, that this application that is presently before us is incorrect. I will ask the City Attorney who the owner of record and the disclosure form is, and their reference to Lot Number 4. Mr. Bliss: I signed an affidavit. Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, who is the owner of Lot 4. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: According to the Disclosure of Ownership form, Vice -Mayor Plummer, which is dated June 10, 1983, the owner of Lots 4 and 5 is Cucusa, Inc., whose sole share holder is Ray Corona. Mr. Plummer: All right sir, so then Mr. Bliss has no standing before this Commission today. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Not according to this disclosure form, no, sir. Mr. Plummer: Thank you, sir. Okay, where are we? Mr. Traurig: That disclosure form was the original disclosure form that was filed subsequent to which new disclosure forms were filed on Lot 5 and then another one on Lot 6, 7, and 8. No additional disclosure form was filed by me on behalf of 4, and I don't know whether or not Mr. Bliss did. Mr. Plummer: I asked the Department for the clarification. These are the documents that were given to me. If the Department is wrong, I will stand corrected in their behalf, but as it stands before us now, the owner of Lots 4 and 5, according to the disclosure form are incorporation, not Mr. Bliss. I am clarifying the record. I know what this real matter is, but I don't want this thing coming back on a technicality. Ms. Cooper: Mr. Vice -Mayor. Mr. Plummer: Ms. Cooper. Ms. Cooper: If my memory serves me correctly, and I have not seen it since the time of your Commission meeting in July, I believe that in July Mr. Bliss also filed a new 95 10/27/83 disclosure form. That is my memory, however, the record, in Mr. Perez' office is incomplete in that it does not contain that. It also does not contain the original recommendation of the Planning Department, which recommended denial of the entire application, and uzU so in quite strong language. That recommendation for denial has, in feot, been removed from that folder. For what reason, I do not know, but if we are looking for a complete record, we do not have it, and z think that is crucial. Mr. Plummer: well, I think that at this particular point. I am trying to clarify the dioclooure, and as such, if this matter is heard today, Mr. Bliss has no standing before this Commission. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PuaLzc RECORD.) Mr' Plummer; No. I am just saying that our files say that the owner of record is someone other than youroelf, and as such, you cannot speak on behalf of that piece of property. Mr. Bliss: My memory was that I signed an affidavit - Mr. Trauri8, had me sign it, and he brought it over and gave it to the Clerk that evening - early evening. I know I signed it that evening, M^. Cooper: Mr. Vice -Mayor, I believe that the ordinance does not read that he does not have standing , but it reads that the request or petition shall not he considered to be complete, or in proper form for consideration by the City Commission, or any City Dvard, and therefore, it is not that Mr. Bliss doesn't have otanoing, but that this matter cannot he heard today. Mr. Plummer: Not as a property owner, is what I was getting at, He has a right - anybody has a right to speak before the Commission, but as far as o property owner, he cannot speak. Mr. Cooper: I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. I believe that the language used, that the entire application in then improper and cannot he considered by the Commission today. Mr. Plummer: Okay! All I wont to do is get the legalities straightened out. Mr. City Attorney, I ask for your ruling on the matter, air. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The question is whether the Gentlemen could speak? Mr. Plummer: No, is this application properly before us? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: There is a disclosure form, and it is on record, and you can proceed on this application, based upon the foot that there is a disclosure form. Now, if that disclosure form is... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Bliss has indicated that the disclosure form that is there is not norrwnt. He is the owner of Lot 4. Mr. Dawkins: You know, let me ask the City Attorney a question. I went through this for five months with Jmmarol, and *vwrytime it was because the form was not correct, and they didn't know who owned it, and un it had to go hank. Now, you know, like I soy. this Commission, it bas...I don't know, we are so wishy-washy - flip-flop, flip~flop. Now that time, if the disclosure form was not accurate and on lu 96 10/27/83 time, it could not he heard. And now, Mr. City Attorney, you tell me, that if it is in the folder, whether it is incorrect or not. it can be heord| Now, which is correct? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Commissioner, I don't hnnv if there is on acknowledgment by the cacu»u. Inc. representative, if that is the case. In the Jocarol case, there was that acknowledgment by the property owner that the form was incorrect, and what I don't wont to do is put the Commission in o position, in essence to have a evidentiary hearing on the matter. So, if there is a recognition, or an acknowledgment that the form is wrong, than I think you are right, we cannot consider it. Mayor Ferre: Look, it is either or or, okay? If it isn't Bliss, it is Corona, is that right? And if it is not Corona, it is 8liau, So, whet are we talking about? Mr. Dawkins: Because we said up h=re, that if it was not filed correctly, and the ownership was not spelled out, we would not hear it. You all took me through that for five montha| This Commission took me and the Jacarol through this kind of thing for five months. Mayor Fprre/ Okay, now Miller, I understand, and I respect your position, but the difference here is that in Jacarol, we never had o clarification as to who owned the property. Nov, in this particular issue, there is no question that either Bliss or Corona, either/or own the property. Mr. Dawkins: I respectfully respect you and Mr. Traurig and all, but I guarantee you that if Jacmrol had had Mr. Truurig, they wovldn^t have had a problem. Mr. Traurig: May I clarify something, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Bliss advises me that the ownership of Lot 4 is just in his personal name. If it is, he doesn't have to file a disclosure form. Mr. Plummer; Yea, he does, as sole owner. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That is true. Mayor Ferre: See, the whole question of Jaoarml was the question of ownership, as to who owned the property, which was never clorified. Here, that problem doesn't exist. Mr. Plummer: Bob, let me tell you something, and Alan, okay? I know whet the story is, but I know the record in wrung, and I am not going to sit through this hearing and have somebody pull o technicality later and have to go through this hearing again, and that is *hot happened. All I am saying to you is, before we proceed, if we are going to proceed, let's get the record right1 Mayor Fmrr*: Okay, 8n sign the document, wherever it is. He has to have o document umying...where is this form? Does anybody have a copy of the form? Go sign the document, Ms. Cooper: Mr, Mayor, if we cannot delay the project any by having the first hearing on the 16th and the second on the 18th and have the time to straighten this out, can we conclude the matter that way and have the opportunity to not mud sling and try to resolve this matter in a fair and easy solution. Mayor yerre: That is fine, if the three owners are willing to do that. If they are not, then we proceed. 97 10/27/83 Ms. Cooper: I will caution the owners that this is not the only technical difficulty with the application, and... Mayor Ferre: Hold on Janet, because you are not listening. Bob, I want to you listen to what Janet is saying. She wants to continue this to hear on the 16th on the 18th. Now, if everybody is in unanimous agreement to do that, I've got no problems. But, other wise, we are going to hear it now. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Corona wants it neara today, sir: Mayor Ferre: I am for that, unless we can get unanimity..if you can get everybody together, than fine, otherwise we will have to go through the whole process. Mr. Traurig: So that this Commission will understand about the original disclosure form, Mr. Corona has again advised me that what happened is that subsequent to the original disclosure form, the Court entered an order which changed the ownership. There wasn't a transfer of ownership. It was not a voluntary thing on his behalf, and what happened is, that Mr. Bliss became the owner as a result of those court rulings and he has...did you just sign a form? Mr. Dawkins: No, it is no problem. Just like you say, he can go right over there and sign it, but let the record speak - be up to date and correct. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Bliss, have you gone over and sign the paper so we can see it? Mr. Dawkins: They have gone over to get one. They have to produce one. Mayor Ferre: Okay, in the meantime, Janet I guess you may as well get going with the presentations, so do you want to start? Ms. Cooper: No, sir. I am going to do everything I can to keep my presentation as minimal as possible in an effort to retain the opportunity to solve this on an amicable basis, because if I make my full presentation, the feelings between the parties will not be the same and the attitude of the Commission, I expect will be different and the legal position will certainly be different on technical issues. I am really trying hard and I am asking all the parties here to please make the minimum presentation that they can to preserve their rights, so that we can retain the atmosphere necessary in order to solve this problem, because this problem will not end at this Commission if it 1s not solved to the satisfaction of the people. Mayor Ferre: All right, who wishes to make the next statement? Mr. Carollo: Do we have the ownership question clear? Mayor Ferre: Yes. Mr. Carollo: Is it clear for you, Janet? Ms. Cooper: With regard to those issues that have already been raised. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Bliss is going to sign the proper document stating that he is the owner of record this time. What occured was is that the courts entered - it started out one way and it ended up the other because of court action and Mr. Bliss ended up again being the owner. 98 10/27/83 Mr. Plummer; And Mr, Corona stipulates that is true. Mayor Ferre; Mr. Corona and Mr. Trauri8, for your client, did Mr. Corona stipulate that what Mr. Bliss is saying is so? Mr. Trwurig: That he is the present owner of the property, as m result of that court action? Mayor Fnrre: Yea, Mr. TrauriQ` The answer is yes. Mayor Ferre: All right, now, are we ready to proceed? Go right ahead. Mr. Trouri8: Mr. Mayor, you have heard this matter tviue. We made a presentation which acknowledged that the property which was the subject of this hearing really fell into more than one locational cote8ory. We acknowledge that the property that was fronting on 14tn Street really was a bit different than the property fronting on Bayshore orive, that being Mr. Bliss' property. The presentation that was mode said to you basically that all we wont to do with the Babylon property is to convert so that it is partially residential and partially office. In view of the fact that it is not really marketable as a residential building, and because the Sunshine State Bank and its affiliates wanted to use the second floor of the building for some banking operations, floors above that for some executive offices and the top floor for residential purpooea, it was suggested in these chambers that that was a proper utilization of the property) however, there were some concerns on the port of Ma. cooper and others regarding traffic and water and sewer, etc. We would like this Commission to know that in the event you approve this application, there will he e lower demand for water and sewer service in this area, because offices require less utilization of those utilities and the consumption rates are lover. With regards to the traffic, we indicated that we would control the traffic through signage, etc,, and that we would direct our traffic onto 14tb Street and westward on 14th Street, and not through the Bayaoorp Drive community. We pointed out also, and this is as to Lot 5, that we were prepared to give to this Commission, and we have a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant in which we confirmed everything that we said,d that is, that the building presently on the property shall be preserved and not be structurally modified, except as is necessary, both internally, and externally to convert the structure into a building with a combination of office and residential usage. and that building may be used for any use permitted in the SPI-5 classification, except that the top floor shall contain residential uses only. By doing that, what we were saying basically, is that if you rezone this property from the RG-3.7 to RO-3.7, we would utilize it partially for residential, and partially for offices, but not exceed the development potential of an RG-3.7 site, and that we would preserve it in that manner. That was suggested by members of this Commission, I believe. It was confirmed by private conversation and by some public statements made by Ms. Cooper and others, and we proceeded to try to work out the RO- 3. 7. 1 have had a number of discussions with both public officials and with the private individuals involved, and we submit to you that that is a reasonable solution. We don't need on Lot 5, the SPI-5, which I think Janet rightly pointed out, would give us an excess development potential which would have been inimical to the interests of the residential condominium owners along the Bayshore Drive corridor, so we urge you to rezone this property to the RO-3.7, the result of which would be, that 99 10/27/83 we will not be doing anything other than changing the uses of the property so that a portion of the building could be used for offices, primarily for a banking headquarters. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, statements by Mr. Bliss? All right, Counselor, you are next. Mr. Richard Friend: For the record, my name is Richard Friend, Attorney, with offices at 800 Brickell Avenue. I concur with what Mr. Traurig has said concerning his client's Lot 5, and I wish the record to be clear that his remarks are confined to Lot 5. I think there is very little that we need add to what Mr. Whipple informed us about earlier. I think that if you note from some of the aerial photographs that we have over here, you can see that the area itself is not, in terms of the property that we are concerned with, is not residential, clearly. Also, if you note from the colored maps, this is the blue area, with the exception of this, which is the Babylon, is the existing SPI-5 zoning area. This area in here is the area in which there was a confirmation this morning, as Item 6, that it is not SPI-5. The results of what we have asked for in terms of SPI-5 for the lots in which I am concerned, would, I believe, create a more natural demarcation between the SPI-5 and the RG-3.7, because of the fact that the entire area over here is all SPI-5. The leaving the area in which we are concerned in anything less than that creates a pocket, which in inappropriate for the uses that are natural for this area and given the way developments are now, being put on the drawing board, I think it is a natural that this area be SPI-5. I think you can see also with this aerial photograph, the yellow dotted lines, with the exception of this area, which is the property of which I speak. This is all SPI-5. By putting this diagonal line through here, to smooth out and create a more natural demarcation, I believe that the property will be more appropriately utilized for its best usage. Any questions? Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Bliss? Mr. Alan Bliss: My name is Alan Bliss. I reside at 1402 S. E. Bayshore Drive. The picture that shows the property there shows the Commodore Club facing Mr. Helmsly's large property of five to seven acres, I believe, and as far as waterfront, it is this small section of water between the two properties, but we, as much as anybody else are no more waterfront than Mr. Helmsly's property is, which is commercial. What I have left on your desk is a letter from Paul Thompson of Dade Heritage. They haven't had time to really have a board meeting. He explains that he thinks that the building is a very important building, and it should be saved. Last Sunday I spent less than an hour and got a petition signed by the ten units next store in Brickell Bay Towers, which is the building that most concerns our property, as their building is 300 foot long and 130 foot high, and anything on the other side of it doesn't have much view of the club or anything else. The traffic is another story. We have less than half an acre, approximately one-half an acre, and the traffic that is going to be developed by Mr. Helmsly's 6,000 or 7,000 square feet, and the property on Lots 6, 7, and 8 is going to be so massive compared to what we would generate that the traffic is not a problem with the club. What I hope to do, if it is rezoned office, and the SPI-5 is way higher than what can possibly be built on a half acre, I think the number three is higher than we can get on that land with the odd shape lot, is to preserve the facade of the club, the back section of the club be removed, and office building built where that the entrance of the Club is the entrance into the 100 10/27/83 office building. The short drawing I have there is not apropos to height. We have no idea what we can get until we can get a much smaller building on the last half of the lot with a narrow lot and we obviously can 1f we had the full lot, which a condo developer would do and take the club down. There is also a letter from the gentlemen that came the last meeting and spent all day and was here this morning that had to leave. He wanted me to read it. It is from Kenneth Pagano. He says: "My concern in writing this is that we must save some of the old buildings in Miami's past that are being torn down to make ways for high-rise monstrosities. The present Commodore Club, built by on Point View and fondly called Millionaire's Row is the last of the homes built on that plot and should be saved if possible. There was a woman in New Orleans............ that fought the powers that be to save the French Quarter and won. If she had lost, there would be no French Quarter, and that would be a tragic loss. Think for the future, and not just today. Most everything gives way. The Douglas Entrance in Coral Gables was saved by the skin of its teeth because of a few concerned people who fought for it. The Commodore has gotten awards from the Dade Heritage Trust at the same time as did Viscaya and the Douglas Entrance in Coral Gables. When we lose touch with the past, we lose our sense of direction. Once lost is lost forever."....Kenneth Pagano. If that remains high-rise condo, there is no question that a developer will move to the front of the lot for several reasons. One, the lot is wider there. He can get a bigger project on there. Right now, Brickell Bay Towers, at 10:00 o'clock the other morning, the shadow cast by Brickell Bay Towers covered the entire back two-thirds of the Commodore property. Nobody is going to want to build with the Commodore - a residential area where there is going to be shade all during the winter months, cool for even a residential area. I don't believe that that half acre can possibly over -shadow an area that is as I say, is 300 foot long, and 130 feet high, and that towers over the small Commodore Club there. But offices...right now, the only way...if we could get a party in there that would keep it as a private club, we would do so, but I think that right now our only change of saving the building is as office and club combination. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: For the record, Mr. Mayor, I am handed a disclosure form that has been filed previously by Mr. Bliss. Unfortunately, it was filed with the Clerk and there was no copy made available to the Department. Obviously that is where the faux pas was. There is a disclosure form showing Mr. Bliss as the owner, so let the record stand corrected. Mr. McKnight. Mr. Robert McKnight: Thank you, Mr. Vice -Mayor and members of the Commission. My name, for the record, is Robert McKnight. I am an office of Planned Development Corporation. We own property immediately adjacent to the property before you. Mr. Vice -Mayor, I would like to start out by going back to a point, I believe Commissioner Carollo brought up in discussions with Ms. Cooper. You may recall Ms. Cooper, in addition to raising the question regarding the ownership, also raised the question that frankly I didn't know about until she brought it up, and I would like a ruling, if the Chair is willing to seek it, on the asser- tion that the file is incomplete, in that Ms. Cooper indicated that a critique by the Planning Department, a ld 101 10/27/83 orrice building. The mhort drawing I have there is not apropos to height. We have no idea what we can get until we can get a much smaller building on the last half of the lot with a narrow lot and we obviously can if we had the full lot, which o condo developer would do and take the club down. There is also a letter from the gentlemen that came the last meeting and spent all day and was here this morning that had to leave. He wanted me to read it. It is from Kenneth Pagano. He says: "My concern in writing this is that we must uo"e some of the old buildings in Miami's pout that are being torn un*n to make ways for high-rise monstrosities. The present Commodore Club, built by on Point View and fondly called Millionaire's now is the lest of the homes built on that plot and should be saved if possible. There was a woman in New Orleans that fought the powers that be to save the French Quarter and won' If she had lost, there would be no French Quarter, and that would be a tragic loss. Think for the future, and not just today. Most everything gives way. The Douglas Entrance in Coral Gables was saved by the skin of its teeth because of a few concerned people who fought for it. The Commodore has gotten awards from the Dade Heritage Trust at the same time as did Viocoya and the Douglas Entrance in Coral Gables. When we lose touch with the past, we lose our sense of direction. Once loot is loot fnrever.".... Kenneth Pagano. If that remains high-rise ,ondu, there is no question that a developer will move to the front of the lot for several reasons. One, the lot is wider ther*. He can get o bigger project on there. Right now, Brickell Bay Towers, at 10:00 o'clock the other morning, the obaunv cast by Brzokell Bay Towers covered the entire back two-thirds of the Commodore property. Nobody is going to want to build with the Commodore - a residential area where there is going to be shade all during the winter months, cool for even a residential area. I don't believe that that half acre can possibly over -shadow on area that is as I say, is 300 foot long, and 130 feet high, and that towers over the small Commodore Club there. But ofCioeo...right now, the only way ... if we could Bet oparty in there that would keep it as o private club, we would do so, but I think that right now our only change of saving the building is as office and club combination. Thank you. Mr, Plummer: For the record, Mr. Moyor, I am handed e disclosure form that has been filed previously by Mr, Bliss. Unfortunately, it was filed with the Clerk and there was no copy made available to the Department. Obviously that is where the faux pas was. Iborw is a disclosure form showing Mr. Bliss as the owner, no let the record stand corrected. Mr. McKnight. Mr. Robert McKnight: Thank you, oz' Vice -Mayor and members of the Cpmm1saion. My name, for the record, is Robert McKnight. I am an office of Planned Development Corporation. We own property immediately adjacent to the property before you. Mr, Vice -Mayor, I would like to start out by going hmnk to m point, I believe Commissioner Carollo brought up in discussions with Ms. Cooper. You may recall Ms. Cuopwr, in addition to raising the question regarding the ownership, also raised the question that frankly I didn't know about until she brought it up, and l would like m ruling, if the Chair is willing to week it, on the asser- tion that the file is incomplete, in that Ms. Cooper indicated that o critique by the Planning Department, a ld 101 10/27/83 review of this application, is in fact, missing. Once again, Mr. Traurig made it clear that this has been before us before and my question, respectfully, Mr. Vice -Mayor, is if in fact, you can have this before you for consideration, if some of the file is incomplete. Perhaps the Planning Department can confirm the incompleteness - a suggestion. Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney is asked for a ruling. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, Mr. Vice -Mayor, I don't know that the file is incomplete, but I think the answer to the question is yes. Normally, you don't get the Planning Department file anyway. It is available, but it is not fully reproduced in the package. You could not possibly have everything the Planning Department gets, or you would have a packet that reaches to that ceiling on some of these applications. Mr. Plummer: Then you are ruling that it is legally before us. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Does that answer your question? Mr. McKnight: A11 right, Mr. Vice -Mayor, just following...yes, it does, and I thank you, and Mr. City Attorney, I thank you for your ruling. Mr. Vice -Mayor, again for clarification before my remarks... Mr. Plummer: Excuse, me. I am sorry, were you asking a question? Mr. McKnight: Yes, sir, I am. Mr. Plummer: And that question ag Mr. McKnight: Okay, I will repeat it. I really did not have a chance to place it. Again, on this same point, which I think is fairly serious, before I get to my remarks - Ms. Cooper made the point the application you have in front of you, if you will look at once again what the staff has provided you, and Mr. Whipple made a very appropriate presentation, suggesting now that the Planning Department is suggesting concurrence. Mr. Plummer: Partially. Mr.. McKnight: Partially, thank you. Ms. Cooper made the point on a previous occasion...the Planning Department, in fact, proposed totally, and that consideration of this application is missing, and I would just like to ask the Planning Department if they might take the microphone and either confirm or correct that particular assertion. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Whipple? For the record. Mr. Whipple: What has been indicated is correct. The Department did have a recommendation for denial going into the hearing probably back in December when the application was first filed. In between that time, certain information came to our attention, and we reviewed our posture on it, and rethought our position, and did change our recommendation for the later hearings I believe, on into July, whenever it came up at that point. There is about a six month gap. During that gap, we had discussed with the applicant the ability to save the building and to find out a little more what was intended to be done with the property, which we had not been privy to that information earlier. So yes, there was that change. ld 102 10/27/83 Ms. Cooper: If I may address that issue briefly. That is correct, as far as the fact that there was a change in the recommendation. I think that when such a situation occurs, that it is only fair that the fact sheet that is presented to the Commission should indicate the initial recommendation and then the change with perhaps an explanation for the change. That was not done. In addition, I would like to certify that within the last...that this week I inspected the files in the Planning Department Administration office, that it did not contain the recommendation of denial on the fact sheet or in anything separate, any separate documents that... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: This is a recommendation that was dated... Ms. Cooper:...this creates an incomplete application in which if Mr. McKnight or someone else had gone to look at the application would not be fully apprised of it and I believe that it is significant that it is out of the file. I believe that it is significant that it was not presented to you. Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, I am just going for clarification to ask you once again. Ms. Cooper has indicated she feels there is a significant omission. Does it have a bearing on this application as it stands before us today? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, it does not make it improper for you, for the Commission, that is, to consider and decide this matter, if that is responsive to your question. Mr. Plummer: I think it is. Mr. Whipple, did you want to say something, sir? Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir, just from memory, Mr. Vice -Mayor, the procedure that we usually use, if in fact it has been subject to a public hearing and to scrutiny, then fine, it is part of the file. To my recollection, because of having this pulled off the agenda for short Board, it would be normal for us to just replace it. Otherwise, we would do as Ms. Cooper has suggested, we would revise a fact sheet if it had been subject to that public hearing. Mr. Plummer: Senator McKnight? Mr. McKnight: Yes, Mr. Vice -Mayor, that clarifies it. I think as long as the Commission is aware that the data that you have before you, at least at this time, 1s in fact somewhat incomplete. Once again, I respect the wisdom of the Commission. Mr. Vice -Mayor and members of the Commission, let me make comments and remarks very brief. First of all, I would like to say, as an adjacent property owner, we were not noticed regarding this consideration. I have checked with the Clerk. It does reflect a mailing to us, and I will therefore assume that there was some kind of an administrative error, but I will repeat again, a very substantial property owner was not noticed on this matter, nor have we been consulted regarding this entire matter until yesterday, as a matter of fact. Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission, let me remark as follows - first of all, I would remind you, if you review the data in front of you, this very same application that Mr. Traurig indicated to you, was opposed to, and as a matter of fact, as the Mayor read in the record, there was 32 opponents to this consideration at the time; only 4 proponents. The Zoning Board also denied it. I would want to remind you of Mr. Traurig's remarks and I believe if I understood Mr. Bliss correctly, both of those applicants, Mr. Bliss, and ld 103 10/27/83 Mr. Travr/g, representing his client, are suggesting o more moderate floor area ratio than that being suggested by Mr. rriend. For some reason, I have the impression that you in turn might have the impression that all the parties are u»xin0 for the same thing. In fact, that is not the case and in fact, a o minimum, we would vigorously oppose the application of Mr. Friend to triple the zoning in a residential area, and then open it up for commercial development, and I will continue my remarks in just a second on that point. I am repeating again, least you think all of the these applicants in front of you are all in agreement asking for the same xhing, they are not! There is only one asking for a tripling of the zvning, and at a minimum. I certainly would vigorously oppose that for the reasons I would like to identify in just a second. First of all, this area, identified in, as Mr. Whipple did, has clearly been residential. I found a remarks of Mr. Friend curious, and perhaps almost comical, suggesting that the boundary line, a more natural demarcation point, would just curiously curve right around the property that apparently his client is seeking to acquire under an option. Gentlemen of the Comm1ssion, this boundary has been in place for some time/ and I would invite your consideration to your local government comprehensive plan. I had something to do originally with drafting this in the Legislature in 1975. If you look at that guideline. and I want to again refresh your memory' because in the times I have been down here working with your Planning Department, and a fine one, I might odd, they have been very consistent in trying to stay within this boundary, that you, the distinguished members of the Commission originally set up. I you look at the bounda- ries, it doesn't curiously circumvent around the property that Mr. Friend's client is seeking a rezoning of, but in fact, it is the same residential zoning that has been there for some time. I would read to you and invite your consideration of the actual language of the comprehensive plan, which once again has been adopted by this Commiaainn. The purpose of the comprehensive plon, which has identified all that area as residential zoning, is to provide on official guide to future development in the City of Miami, and I quote the State Comprehensive planning Act of 1975 regards the plan be adopted by July l, 1971, and quote "No public or private development shall be permitted except in conformity with comprehensive plans or elements or portions thereof" ... and Hr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I realize this is not sacrosanct. I realize there are circumstances and instances where you might want to consider alternatives to the requirements of the comprehensive plan and in turn, your zoning. But, I will remind you ogain, you have got one applicant of these three before you that are simply seeking to triple the zoning and convert it essentially to a commercial area. Again, it seems that Mr. Bliss and Mr. Corona are suggesting ult=rnativ=, or compromise, which perhaps would he acceptable and as adjacent property owners, we would be very happy to work with them. I would remind you. Mr. Mayor, and Commisaioners, that there has got to be a line where you finally draw the line and establish o zoning criteria. For you to propose today to triple the zoning... Mayor Ferre; Does that mean, Senator, once you get yours, you want to null the ladder out behind you? Mr, McKnight: Mr. Mayor, I spent a great deal or time working with you, your colleagues and the members of your Department on trying to come up with a compromise on the original zoning for Brickell Avenue and although it wasn't everything we wanted, we.. Mayor Ferre: That was meant in jest, Swnato'r. ld 104 10/27/83 Mr. McKnight: Okay, well, I appreciate your comment, but I feel very strongly about the point - I am not so sure what Mr. Traurig and Mr. Bliss are proposing to you is that incompatible. We have a favored a more realistic density, but I think really that sandwiched right in the middle of a residential area, a tripling of the zoning, the floor area ratio, is a bit out of the question. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: All right, sir. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, for the record, I did make an incorrect statement earlier, which was pointed out to me. In fact, the previous recommendation was subject to a review by the Zoning Board prior to its deferral. Mayor Ferre: All right. Mr. Whipple: I stand corrected on that. Mayor Ferre: All right, Janet, now it is your turn at bat, Ms. Cooper: I am going to bunt! Is that the right word? Mayor Ferre: Yes, that's the right word. Ms. Cooper: First of all, I would like to remind this Commission that I represent the Point View Association, which consists of approximately 1,000 residential units in this area, many of which have been there over 20 years. There are probably some 1,500 people. Great numbers of them were here in July. I think you remember them sitting in the audience with little yellow signs saying that they should keep Point View residential and you see only one gentlemen here today - Bernard Kopel, who is the acting president of the Point View Association... Mayor Ferre: Mr. Kopel can represent 1,000 of them very well. Ms. Cooper: We asked him not to be here because we thought everything was resolved. Also, in July I presented to you a number of pages containing 246 signatures of residents of this area who were opposed to any office or commercial intrusion into the residential area. Today I submit to Mr. 0ngie for inclusion in the record 7 additional pages containing an additional 98 signatures. There are more that were not brought here today because we did not think we would be going to be making this presentation. You should be aware that the original recommendation of the Planning Department was for denial and I am quoting from the Zoning fact sheet which is missing from the official files, but which luckily, I had in my file, which says their recommendation for denial of the entire application was based on the following reasons: 1. That change would constitute an encroachment into the stable high density multiple residential area, creating a precedent for further rezoning. 2. The change would be in conflict with the adopted City Comprehensive Plans for the Brickell area which was what Mr. McKnight was emphasizing. 3. The change would adversely influence living conditions in the residential neighborhood, since the intensity of development is higher and the traffic congestion will increase even more along S. E. 14th Street, and we would like to add that it would also increase significantly on South Bayshore Drive. 4. The change is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood and the City, since there is ld 105 10/27/83 sufficient lend all along Brickell Avenue zoned RCB, now SPI-5 5. With regard to the traffic, Mr. Campbell didn't have his opportunity to make the Planning Department's recommendation before you and I would ask that you ask him to do so. Would you like him to do so now? Mr. Campbell? Mr. George Campbell: When this came up before the Zoning Board, we made certain recommendations and I will read from the recommendations that we made. This, by the way, was for a full SPI-5 on this on that whole property. "This will contribute to a portion of our sewer system, which is already designated "overloaded" by the SPI-5. This change will further overload this system. It may have a detrimental effect on downstream trunk mains, which have survived the initial SPI district impact." They go on to say "If this is considered as a trend spreading south along Bayshore Drive, it will have an overloading effect on the 18 inch interceptor on Bayshore. We have since this time requested that the Department of Water and Sewers investigate both by visually by pulling manhole covers at various times of day, and installing flow meters to check and see just where this is. When we say it is designated overloaded, this is based on design criteria for the size of pipes and the size of buildings and the contributions from the various buildings. As we have stated before, we are quite concerned and we are of the considered opinion that when we achieve buildout in the area generally, this SPI-5, that we will have a situation on our hands which will require rebuilding of all the sewers, at least north of 14th Street in order to accommodate the zoning. Mayor Ferre: Okay, Janet, do you want to... Ms. Cooper: At a previous meeting, Mr. Campbell also referred to traffic being...well, he said that it would have a seriously adverse impact on traffic in this residential neighborhood. Basically, at this hearing, I am going to reserve the right to raise many of the issues that I am not going to raise now. It is important for you to know that the people in Point View are opposed to commercial and office use in their area for valid and significant reasons because we didn't have a very strong presentation and in the effort to preserve the opportunity to resolve this in a manner that is satisfactory to everybody. I am going to leave it at that. I am going to attempt to resolve the matter and come back to you at the next hearing with a solution that pleases everyone. If we can't do that, we will be here for a little longer next time. Mayor Ferre: I want to say into the record, so that the 3 different groups will be so advised, that I plan to follow the good advice and offices of Janet Cooper, and I think I speak mostly, sir, to you, because I don't think there is any problem with either or Mr. Bliss, even though the problem with Bliss is with the Department, and I don't think there is any problem with Mr. Traurig, because since he has an existing building, he could live with a little bit less. The problem is with your clients in the tripling of the size and their I subscribe to what Senator McKnight, so I just want to say that I realize the direction this is taking, I know what Janet is talking about, and I am just on the record implying to you where I stand as of right now. Now that doesn't mean that...this can all change as we move along, but that is just one man's opinion. Mr. Friend: If I may address your last remark. ld 106 10/27/83 Mayor Ferre' Yes, air. Mr. Friend: Friar to our discussion this afternoon, and based upon our conversations of last evening, we had (3 or us) had expected todav's hearing today to be rather brief and we would have all rpnurotpu a favorable vote pending our working out a solution, if that would be acceptable to all parties, prior to the Second Reading. It is still my expectation on behalf of my client, that we will continue to attempt to work out some type of compromise, which will accommodate the needs of Ma. Cooper's clients. From my viewpoint, the rwmapn that we got into some detail over this was the unexpected opposition or Senator McKnight. That come an a surprise, I think, to the three of us. I would like to request that the petition be voted upon favorably, pending our working out o compromise prior to the Second Reading reading, and we will be working in that period to accomplish that compromise. Mayor Ferrw: All right, Mr. McKnight, and I think this gentlemen wanted to say something. Mr. McKnight: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, for the record, I appreciate the willingness of Mr. Friend to try to work something out. For the record, he approached me before this meeting d asking me not to object to this, so it was not actually o surprise until I found out about it yesterday, but in any event, Mr. Mayor, I would aoB8eot in the interest of fairnesa, and a compromise, I believe all the applicants, except for Mr. Friend, are proponents, of RO-3.7, if I have the designation correctly. That is a more modest zoning, that is one I believe Mr. Bliss and Mr' TrauriO favor, and Mr. Mayor, I believe that is where you are angzing..' Mayor Ferre: Oo... what? Mr. McKnight, Mr' Traurig, help me with the designation. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENT) Mr. McKnight: no-3.7and I think we could probably work together as adjacent property owners, on I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Mayor, that the application before you be amended to reflect that, and then if Mr. Friend has a',. Mayor Ferre/ On First Reading, can ... All right, Mr, Attorney. Department - who is listening from the Department? Mr. McManus, are you going to answer for us? Mn, Copper: While you are waiting for them... Mayor Ferro; No, wait a moment. Will somebody from the Department listen, please? Can we, on First Rending of m matter that was voted down three to two, recommended denial by a Zoning Board, change, under Ordinance 9500. Atlas Change from RG-3^7, instead of going into SPI-5. to 0n to R0-3.7. That is a question. Mr. Joe McManus: I think the interpretation would be that you are then Doing to more restrictive zoning district, ou that would be within the bounds of what the Commission could do, Mayor Ferrw: In other words, the answer is that this Commission can legally do that on First Reading. Nr, Mcmanuu: Yes. lu 107 10/27/83 Mayor rerre: Is that correct? Kr. City Attorney, you have already said into the record the answer is yea. T assume you subscribe to that/ Hr. Garcia-pedrosa; Yes, sir. l think you could do that on Second Reading. Mr. McKnight: That leaves all the options open. Mr. Mayor, and I think... Mayor Perre. wait a minute. You said on Second Reading. Noy can't we do it on First Reading? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I am saying you can do it on bvth. It is a less restrictive form of re8ulotion, so there is no problem with it legally. Mr. McKnight: I think... Mayor Fwrr=: wait a minute, because you are not an applicant, Mr. Bliss, you don't have any problems with that, because that covers you. All rig»t, into the record, Mr. Bliss. Mr. Bliss: I have no problem with that. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Traurig, you have no problem with that, because that covers your client, Mr, Traurig, That is what we ourselves have indicated we would accept. Mayor Ferre: Okay, Mr, Friend, you do have a problem with that, because that doesn't cover what your clients wont, Mr. Friend: That is correct. l do have o problem with that. Mayor Ferro; Okay. just want to get it into the record, Mr, Friend: If I might add one additional po1nt. I believe that if you vote in favor at the First Reading for the downgraded zoning, it would preclude that anything better, at o higher zoning density at the Second Reading. Mayor Ferre: That is correct. Is that right, Hr. City Attorney? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: l am sorry Mr, Mayor? Mayor Ferre; Mr, Friend said if you vote now for RO~3.7. you cannot on Second Reading then go back to SPI-5. You can go down, but you can't go up, Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, it is u matter of mdvertinioQ. That would he true, but if you were to advertise as DPI~5,.. Mayor Ferre; Now that the motion is made.,. Mr. Plummer: What was the motion? Mayor Ferre: There hasn't been any y*t,,,ao nO-3,7, which to what J think is what Janet wants. Mr. Cooper: Mr. Mayor, I know that you are going to be awfully ohnoxwd, and I am really shocked, and I don't believe it when I hear it coming out of my own mouth, but in order to preserve the flexibility that we need to try to resolve this matter in the manner which I think will be pleasing to everyone, and because Mr. 3rmurig and because Id 108 10/27/83 Mr. ezin, have agreed that the would at the Second Reading as well as the First Reading accept Ro-].7 on their property, give us the flexiuility, approve it on First Reading for the purposes of giving us the time to try to negotiate this out as best as possible with an 3PI-5 on all of the property. I know it is shocking and I am having pains in my chest as I stand here saying this, but it is necessary, and let me give you a brief 1nuiaht, we are trying to work out something where the cnmmodore.., Mayor Ferre: Now, Janet, you are talking now for the 1,000 members of the Association. Ma. Cooper/ Yes, air. Mayor Ferre: I just want to make sure I heard that one right. Ma. Cooper: We are attempting to work out a solution which will involve preservation of the Commodore Club, and in order to do that in the best way possible, we need some flexibility, so I am asking you Just to give us the flexibility. Mayor Ferr=: All right, is there a motion? oh. I am sorry, sir. Mr. Eduardo Chamorro: My name is Eduardo Chamnrro, 151 Crandon Boulevard. I am a registered architect in Florida. I wont to express my strong opposition to the zoning or that property as 3PI-5. I think it will he very obtrusive of the whole conformity of the area there. % represent the property owners on the half circle that was approved on second reading today. I Just want to express my opinion. Mayor Ferre: What half circle? What is he talking about? *r. Chamorro: Lots in Point view. 19 up to 23' Mayor Fwrre: Okay. Everybody wants to 8o to heaven, but nobody wants to die. All right, are we ready now to vote? Mr, Plummer: Excuse me, would you re -read the motion? Mayor Ferre: Nobody has mode the motion, but if nobody will, I will make the motion that Item 31 be approved on First Reading, SPI-5. for Lots 5, O. 7 and of 4. And what ... Y (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mayor Ferrw: Is that right? Mr. Plummer; 4, 5, 6, 7 8 and 30. Mayor Fwrre: Are we in agreement with that? ... 5, 6. ? 8 and 30? Mr. Plummer: There is o motion made. Mayor Ferre; Janet? 5, 6, ?, O and 30? How did 30 get into this? Mr. Plummer: 90 is the back lot, Mr. Mayor, Ms. Cooper: What I am asking is what I originally asked for, in o "yes" vote on the whole thing in order that we may have the flexibility to negotiate. 1V/2?/83 Mayor Ferre: 0kay, 4, 5, O, T, 8 and 30. That is the motion. Mr, Plummer: In there n second to the motion? Mr. Perez; Second. Mr' Plummer: Seconded by Commissioner Perez. Is there further discussion? Hearing none, read the ordinance. Now, Mr. City Attorney, you heard the motion? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: It is as the motion reads, not as reduced. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That is right. Mr. Plummer: Okay. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY Or MlAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 185 SOUTHEAST 14TH TERRACE AND APPROXIMATELY 200 SOUTHEAST 14TH STREET, wIAHI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM Rs-3/7 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO SPI-5 BRICKELL-MIAMI RIVER RESIDENTIAL OFFICE DISTRICT; MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 37 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300. THEREOF, CONTAINING & REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEYEn4BILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by Commissioner F*rr= and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Fmrr* NOES: Commissioner Joe Carnllo Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr, The City Attorney rwou the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the members of the public. ON ROLL CALL: Mayor ywrre; In voting, let me say into the record, that it is my full intention to vote "no" on Second Reading on the basis of SpI-5 and it is my intention to vote in favor of n0-3.7 and only that. I am doing this nm that there will be full ability to negotiate between the parties to see if something can come out that will soothe all of the different portieo, but it is my clear intention, and I want to repeat it, that I will not vote for, on Second Reading, SPI-5, but rather will vote for RO-3'7 for some, or all of these properties, and % reserve that right on Second Hearing, and I vote "yen". Mr, Dawkins: I am going to vote "yes" and reserve the right to change my mind for any reason. lu 110 10/27/83 Mr. On8ie' For the record, Mr. Carolln votes "no". Mr. Plummer: I vote "no". We will see you bark on the 18th. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Sp it is three to two? Mr. Plummer: Let me make the record clear. I voted "no" for the simple reason that I don't concur with the higher density and back out later. I could have voted for a different motion today, and l definitely will on the Second Reading, but I am not... Mayor yerr=: You are talking about Rn-3.7? Mr. Plummer: I'm in that nei8huorhund, correct, okay? All I wont to say is that the *ov it was presented today, I could not vote for it. That puts them inside looking out. I want to he inside and let them look in. Mayor Ferre: Okay, so this keeps this whole thing alive until you come bock then with a proposal on 18th for the 8rickell Avenue Association. Ma. Cooper: Now, I would respectfully ... this is for Point View Association - I would respectfully request that in order that the people who are working can attend that hearing, that this hearing be set for some time after b:Dn P.M. Is that possible :o do on the 18thY Thank you. Mayor Ferre: That is agreed. Mr. Manager's office at b:oO P.M. Mn. Cooper' Thank you sir. \� \ Id 111 10/27/83 Attachment 4: Schedule of Regulations from Ord. 9500, Excerpted to the RO District. SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS MIAMI, FLORIDA See Also Regulations in Ordinance Text, Particularly Article 20, General And Supplementary Regulations And Articles Or Sections Identified Below. DIEEIGNATION AND INTENT 01.11.1rarlIMAITHIS 11.ix Scso:Not PRINCIPAL USES MVP £STRUCTURES PEEWEE.. GENERALLY OR PERMISSIBLE BE SPECIAL PERMIT ror laws not apecined, Eee fiectioo EVE ro+ pan,. Eve 28. 11.11. 81.11,1MIAL•011r1111 RO 118611HISTIAGOMM ntArY1,13(RE.BaVE0, '''''''fbtet:"glete:7:7;!=r2 741'4 0.1 ealior opar..4 namet* fua au....Mds. lar. beta =Iran yarAry,M. USES AND STRUCTURES ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES PEEWEE° GENERALLY OA FEMME. EV SPECIAL EEEEErr 2009, rot EKE.. PEtEEEE ow articles 23-28. 80-4 y pE9xpniTIALOrn. trow „ „rn 222,32:2322.2— "22222' For SPI Districts See Article 15 ACCESSORY USES — LIMITATIONS ON MGM NEI SIGNS INTENDED TO OE RE. FROM OFP1103 MEN.. SHALL BE PERMITTED EXCEPT AS eliCE VIDEO BEL. See sEctio.2023, lirSIDEMIALOPFK8 0 t OilICEANSTTIVIIONAL 22,,,r2:..2132,2227m—o.."'2222. • " „ TRANSITIONAL USES, STRUCTURES AND REQUIREMENTS USES PEREETEED GENERALLY OR PERMISSIBLE EY SPECIAL PEANUT. For 9Ecvial permitai NE Elates 19-28. ErtErcruwErtre E,EnEErE EEEEµ. "2.32.2222,2212222.=,7, Of41064.1111ITIONAL 393 MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS AREA AND WIDTH SEE ...Ens WOE— NOE FLOOR AREA LIMITATIONS "WOE< AREA RATIOS Sea sections 201E3, 200E1 ZprervItryi.,4 "4", ntiat.a ,441=1ESF:nrti SOAK, 118.0610,1,... N. X.. 0.711-INTMOTIONAL "0 MINIMUM OREN SPACE REQUIREMENTS DEPTH OR 'MUM OF VAR/MIS. election. 2006-200. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE (E. sac,. 2003.I0E MINIMUM LIVABILITY SPACE OR PEDEETNIAN OPEN SPACE (Se tection 2012 St HUILOVIO SPAC ING (SrE elevtion EOM Sea nEo City Char., Section EMU yk,EK.,01(....VKALOVVECE Ment,0,15 TAMS, EIGHT ENVMONE.V.LAND1.180 WM., SEROUS C..11.111.M. 2222,222 MAXIMUM 110001111 See Endions 2016, EOM SE, MEI EWEN od Ef. ZEIEE 20142020. For ado. loading requiremEEE wee auction. 2022. EVE 774 OPPIC.ItIMMTIONAL Pap 3 et J-83-651 11/30/63 ORDINANCE NO.` 9 7 5 8 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 2, POINT VIEW (2-93) MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM RG-3/7 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO RO-3/6 BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 37 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Attachment 5: Ordinance 9758, Rezoning tot 5 in 1983 WHEREAS, the Motion of the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of July 11, 1983, Item No. 5, following an advertised hearing, to RECOMMEND DENIAL of a change of zoning classifica- tion, as hereinafter set forth, failed by a 3 to 2 vote, therefore constituting a RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL; and WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of this matter deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to grant 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 Zoning Atlas of Ordinance No. 9500, the zoning ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification of Lot 5, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93) of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, from RG-3/7 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL to RO-3/6 RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE. Section 2. It is hereby found that this zoning classi- fication 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) Would not materially alter the population density pattern or increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.; November (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; (i) Will not create a drainage problem; (j) Will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent area: (k) Will not adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; (1) Will not be a deterrent to the improvement or develop- ment of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations; (m) Will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with protection of the public welfare; Section 3. Page No. 37 of the Zoning Atlas, made a part of Ordinance No. 9500 by reference and description in Article 3, Section 300 of said Ordinance, is hereby amended to reflect the changes made necessary by these amendments. Section 4. All ordinances, code sections, all parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed insofar as they are in conflict. Section 5. Should any part or provision of this Ordi- nance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole. PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 27th day of October , 1983. PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this 18th day of T. G. ONGIE City Clerk , 1983. PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: stant City Attorney GMM/wpc/096 Maurice A. Ferre MAURICE A. FERRE, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS. CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Howard V. Gary City Manager p.='�urelio E. Perez-Lugones • Director Planning and Zoning Boards Administration Department DAYS: SUBJECT: REFERENCES: ENCLOSURES: July 15, 1983 FILE: ORDINANCE - RECOMMENDED DENIAL CHANGE OF ZONING - ORD 9500 APPROX 185 SE 14 TERRACE AND APPROX 200 SE 14 STREET COMMISSION AGENDA - JULY 28, 1983 PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS It is recommended that a request for a Change of Zoning from RG-3/7 GENERAL Rf:5i0TNTIAC to SPI-5 BRICKELL- MIAMI RIVER RESIDENTIAL OFFICE.DIS- TRICT in the Zoning Atlas of Zoning Ordinance 9500 for the property located at approximately 185 5E 14 Terrace and approximately 200 SE 14 street be denied. The Zoning Board, at its meeting of July 11, 1983, Item 5, following an advertised hearing, made a motion recommending denial of a change of zoning classification from RG-3/7 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL to SDI-5 BRICKELL-MIAMI RIVER RESIDENTIAL 'OFFICE DISTRICT in the Zoning Atlas of Zoning Ordinance 9500, for the property located at approximately 185 SE 14 Terrace and approximately 200 SE 14 Street, also de- scribed as lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30 less the E5' of Lot 30, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93), which failed by a 3 to 2 vote, therefore constituting a recommendation of denial. Twelve objections received in the mail; twenty opponents present at the meeting. Two replies in favor received in the mail; two proponents present at the meeting. Backup information is included for your review. An ORDINANCE to provide for the above has been prepared by the City Attorney's Office and submitted for consideration of the City Commission. GF;111 cc: LAW Department NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: APPROVAL of Lots 5, 6 and 7 DENIAL of Lot 4 �d . ` ZONING FACT SHEET LOCATlONA[0& Approximatelyl85 SE 14th Terrace and Approximately 200 SE l«tn street Lot 4`5,6,7.8 and 30 less theE S' of lot 30 Block 2 POINT Yl[u (2'93) OWNER/APPLICANT 3eaplace Realty Investments, H.Y. c/o A.R. Scott lOU North Biscayne Blvd. ' Miami, Florida Cocusa. Inc' /o Ray C President ozoo Sunset Drive, .Miami, Florida 33143 ZONING REQUEST REC0NM[mVAJlVMS 'PLANNING DEPT. pointview Towers -of Curacao, Inc. c/o A.R. Scott lVV North Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida Gary Held (Attorney for Applicants) 1401 8rickell Avenue Miami, Florida Phone #371-3692 Phone # 666-6874 Phone 037l-3592 Phone #579-0609 R-5 (High Density Multiple)/ RG-3/7 (Residential General) Change of Zoning Classification to / R-[8 (Residential -nffice)./ 3Pl-6 (8rnkell-Miami River Residential -Office District). ' APPROVAL OF LOTS 6, 6, 7 AND DENIAL OF LOT 4' /»e majority o* the lots ,ace b.L' |4th Street and property which is zoned SPl-5. Lot 4 is the first lot facing the water and should be maintained residential with the rest of the sites facing the water along South Bayshore Vrivp, It is understood that the structure on Lot 5 will be retained with residential use in the upper portion and this will serve as a buffer between the residential and non- residential zoning districts' The existing residential area should he preserved to retain the concept of needed housing close into the downtown area. � ' ^ PUBLIC WORKS ZONING BOARD ' This will contribute to a portion of our sewer system already designated "overloaded" by (SPl-S)' It will further overload this system. It may have a detrimental effect on downstream trunk mains which survived the initial SPl District. If this is considered as a trend spreading south along Buyshore it will have an overloading effect on lR" Intercept in Bayshnre. At its meeting of July /|/ 1983, made a motion to recommend venial which failed by a 3 to 2 vote, there- fore constituting a recommendation of denial. (Ord 6e71) At its meeting of July ll, 1983, made a motion to ' recommend denial which failed by s 3 to 2 vote, there- fore constituting u recommendation of denial. (Ord 9500) , ^ 4. APPROX.185 S.E. 14 TERR AND APPROX. 200 S.E . 14 ST. CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT ` � ^ . �4 ZONING FACT SHEET � LOCATION/LEGAL Approximately 186 SE 14th Terrace and Approximately 200 SE 14th Street Lot 4,5,6,7,8 and 30 less the [ 5' of lot 30 Block 2 POINT VIEW (2-93) PWNER/APPLlCANT Seaplace Realty Investments, N.V. o/o A.R. Scott ' lVW North Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida Andresix, N.V. c/o Ribero 51 SW 9th Street Miami, Florida Rdntview Towers of Curacao, Inc. c/o A.R. Scott 100 North Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida Phone # Florence Robbins (Attorney for Applicants) 1401 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida Phone 0578-0809 ZONING R-5 (High Density Multiple) REQUEST Change of Zoning Classification to R-CD (Residential -Office). �* RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNlNra DEPT. DENIAL. Based on the following reasons: l) the change would constitute an encroachment into the stable high density multiple residential area, creating w precmWwnt for further rezoning; %) The nhunBw would be i* cnnflict'with adopted City Comprehensive plans for the BrickeVl area, 3) The change will adversely influence living conditions in the residential neighborhood, since the intensity of development is higher and the traffic congestion will increase even ~ more u1vnq 5[ 14th Street; ` ' 4) The change is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood and the city, since there is sufficient land all along Brickell Avenue toned R-CB. PUBLIC WORKS No dedication is requested. * SEE REVISED FACT SHEET SHOWING REVISED LIST OF OWNER/APPLICANTS ** SEE REVISED FACT SHEET SHOWING REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS AND ZONING BOARD ACTION. • R-CB APPROX.185 S.E. 14 TERR AND APPROX. 200 S.E . 14 ST. CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPART/4NT August 2, 1983 Mr. Ralph Ongie Clerk, City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Re: LAW OFFICES 1070 DUPONT BUILDING 169 EAST FLAGLER STREET MIAMI. FLORIDA 331314204 ,.,,, ., F,. 2: ti4 City Commission Meeting, July 28, 1983 Agenda Item Number 11: Ordinance - First Reading Application by Cucusa, Inc., Seaplace Realty Investments, N. V. and Point View Towers of Curacao, Inc. to Change the Zoning of approximately 185 S. E. 14 Terrace and approximately 200 S. E. 14 Street from RG-3/7 to SPI-5 in the Zoning Atlas of Zoning Ordinance 9500 of the City of Miami. TELEPHONE (305)379.1661 Dear Mr. Ongle: During the public hearing on the above referenced item, I started to list the names and addresses of those persons on whose behalf I was speaking. Mayor Ferre asked me to submit the list, rather than take the time of the Commission to read all the names and addresses into the record. In accordance with the Mayor's request, I am submitting below the names and addresses of those persons I represented at that hearing. Bernard Kopel 3uliet Hananlan, M. D. Ruth Elsasser Hellen Corwin Elsie Nolan Anna M. Marshall William 3. Scandella Elizabeth Welsh Marion Bevard Ruth Hershberg Gina Graham Evelyn Fellows Ma ri+ C. Freeman 1450 South Bayshore Drive 1450 South Bayshore Drive 1450 South Bayshore Drive 1430 South East Bayshore Drive 1430 South East Bayshore Drive 1430 South East Bayshore Drive 1420 South Bayshore Drive 1430 South Bayshore Drive 1430 South Bayshore Drive 1430 South Bayshore Drive 1430 South Bayshore Drive 1408 South Bayshore Drive 1408 South Bayshore Drive • • • tirei ?Ai* ' Mr. Ralph Ongie August 2, 1983 Page Two Evelyn La Touretta Howard Bush Dr. and Mrs. Phillip Galitz 1430 South Bayshore Drive 1430 South Bayshore Drive 1430 South Bayshore Drive It is important that this list become a part of the official record of.this item. I will very much appreciate your being sure that it is included with the other papers submitted at the hearing. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely yours, LAW OFFICES OF ANET L. COOPER JANET L. COOPER JLC:cmm cc: Bernard Kopel LINDA KOOSRICK ADLER MICHAEL O. ALB ERTINE CESAR L. ALVAREZ RUDOLPH F. ARAGON REUSIN O 0. ASKEW JAMES L, SACCHUS NILARIE SASS NORMAN J. SENFORD MARK D. BLOOM OUR? SRUTON ROBERT K. SURUNGTON ALBERT G. CARUANA ALAN R. CHASE SUE M. COSS KENDALL S. COFFEY MARK S. DAVIS ALAN T. DIMOND CHARLES W. EDOAR, IQ GARY M. EPSTEIN THOMAS K. EOUELS RICHARD O. GARRETT LAWRENCE OODOFSKY ALAN S. GOLD HARVEY A. GOLDMAN STEVEN E, GOLDMAN STEVEN M. DOLDSMITH GREENBERO,TRAURI 6RMAN K. OOODKIND MATTHEW S. OORSON MELVIN N. GREENBERG MARILYN D. GREENBLATT ROBERT L. GROSSMAN GARY M. HELD LARRY J. HOFFMAN 6ARRY D. HUNTER ARNOLD M. JA£FEE SETH P. JOSEPH MARTIN KALB TIMOTHY L. KISH STEVEN J. KRAVITZ STEVEN A, LARDY STEVEN B. LAPIDUS ALAN 6. LEDERMAN WALLACE L. LEWIS, JR. NORMAN H. LIPOFF QARY D. LIPSON CARLOS E. LOUMtE7 JUAN P. LOUMIET OESSIE RUTH MALINSKY GREGORY A. MARTIN PEDRO A. MARTIN ALAN M. MITCHEL LOUIS NOSTRO PLAS:3 OF MIAiA MI LAW OFFICES e4L.,"ii..1 7.!:: r.I.i P1)t,N) ASKEW, HOFFMAN, LIPOFF & OUENTEL, P, A. '83 OCT 13 pi 57 ANTHONY J. 0 DONNELL, JR. ROGER 0. OSSURN BYRON 0. PETERSEN VICTOR M. POLK, JR. ALBERT D OUENTEL RONALD S. RAVIKOFF FLORENCE T. ROSBINS NICHOLAS ROCKWELL DAVID L. ROSS ROBERT M. RUBENSTEIN CLIFFORD A, SCHULMAN MARK SCNWIMMER MARTIN B. SHAPIRO EUGENE SHY, JR. MARL£NE K. SILVERMAN TIMOTHY A. SMITH DARLENE STOSIK HERBERT M. RUSKIN LILLIANA TORREH-SAYOUTN ROSERT H. TRAURIO YOLANDA 1. VILLAMIL STANLEY N. WAKSNLAG JONATHAN H. WARNER DAVID M. WELLS JULIE A. S. WILLIAMSON JERROLD A. WISH Mr. Aurelio E. Perez-Lugones Director, City of Miami Planning 6 Zoning Boards Administrative Department 275 N. W. Second Street Miami, Florida 33133 Attention: Betty Re: Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, Point View, Plat Dear Betty: October 13, 1983 8 and 30, Block 2, Book 2 at Page 93 AM6LER H. MOBS, JR. ZACHARY N. WOLFF OF COUNSEL BRICKELL CONCOURS 1401 BRICKELL AVENUE MIAMI, FLORID* 33131 TELEPHONE■ MIAMI 13051 579 -0500 600WARD 13051 523-8111 TELEX ISO .3124 TELECOPY 13051 575-0715 WRITER'S OIRECT HO:. Enclosed please find a second revised Disclosure of Ownership form with regard to the above zoning application. If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please don't hesitate to call. S i ddere ly , GMH/bwp cc: Robert HIr Traurig, Esq. Hnclvaure ••• • D/SCLOSUSE OF OPNERSHIP 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property: Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 6 and 30, less the East 5 feet of . Lot 30, Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2, Page 93, Public Records of Dade County Approximately 1135 S. E. 14th Terrace and 200 S. E. 14th Street 2. Owner(s) of sultt real pro?Z:Trand—percentage of ownership.' Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question 42 requires disclosure of all shareholdersof corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. As to Lots 6, 7 hnd B: Seaplace Realty Investments, N.V. Sole Ownership - Manuel Etter R. Grafenmatt 3706 Aeschi, Switzerland As to Lot 30: Point View Towers of Curacao, Inc. Sole Ownership - Manuel Etter R. Grafenmatt 3706 Aeschi, Switzerland 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question #2,"and (b)-located within 375 feet of the subject real property. STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS: COUNT T OF DADE ) SEAPLACE REALTY INVESTMENTS N.V. All-ZURNEY 1N FACT POINTVIEW TOWERS OF CURACMD4 INC. in fact, R. C. West , being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the (Commw) (Actorne r Owner) of the real property described in answer to question #1, ibove; that he has read the foregoing answers and that the same are true and corrplete; and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to execute this Disclosure of Ownership form on behalf of the owner. SWORN TO AND SUESCRIBED before me this 13th day of October .'"7-10 111cc.24 NOTARY MIX STATE oF ROOM TRrc. 6AV CONXISSION Wilf5 X451954 &CARLO ihit4 cf.N0A1. INS . UNPUWIUaS • t•oo....11••••••• • t • OF CHIP 1. Legal description and Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and Lot 30, Block 2, Point Public Records of Dade Approximately ,.185 S. E street address of subject real property: 30, less the East 5 feet of . View, Plat Book 2, Page 93, County . 14th Terrace and 200 S. E. 14th Street 2. Owner(s) of sui7Ptt real proeL-nrr-and-percentage of ownership. Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 5419 requires disclosure of all parties having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject ratter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question 42 requires disclosure of all shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. As to Dots 6, 7 Sole Ownership As to Lot 30: Sole Ownership "and 8: Seaplace Realty Investments, N.V. - Manuel Etter R. Grafenmatt 3706 Aeschi, Switzerland Point View Towers of Curacao, Inc. - Manuel Etter R. Grafenmatt 3706 Aeschi, Switzerland 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question 2, and (b) located within 375 feet of the subject real property. SEAPLACE REALTY INVESTMENTS N.V. Y IN FACT POINTVIEW TOWERS OF CURACAO, INC. STATE OF FLO SS: COUNTY OF DADE in fact, R. C. West , being duly sworn, deposes and says that ne is the (Gommr) (Attorne for Owner) of the real property described in answer to question #1, above: that he has read the foregoing answers and that the same are true and complete: and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to execute this Disclosure of Ownership form on behalf of the owner. SWORN TO AND SOESCRIBED before me this day of October 98 A.A? State of Florida e. Large NOTARY PALK STATE OF FLORIDA AT PAM MY Cg/MKISSICN WIRES' MY C°MMISS444 WIIIS PC:5 19" $ONWD DUD C.WiRAL INS . UNDUNRITEIS • a • to, STATE OF MAMA ) SS: COUNTY OF DADE ) R. C. West , being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the auly appointed Attorney in Fact of Pointview Towerp Of Curadac the owner Of the real property described in answer to question tl, above; itic. that he has read the foregoing answers; that the same are true and cot- piete; and that he ha& the authority to execute this Disclosure of Owner- ship form on behalf of the owner. (SEAL) (Name SNORN 70 AND SUBSCRIBED before me this 13th day of October ,.198 . c, S Florida at Large _ mi commIssIcm EXPIRES: i..,INLY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LAM MY COMMISSION EXPIRSS DEC 5 1984 LONDED. IHRLI GENERAL INS A UNDERWRITERS Wi/wpc/p.b/025 DISCLOSUEE OF OWNERSHIP 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property: Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30, less the East 5'feet of Lot 30, Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2, Page 93, Public Reocrds of Dade County. Approximately 185 S. E. 14th Terrace and 200 S. E. 14th Street. 2. Owner(s) of sui.5)t real prop:7-and-percentage of ownership. Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties nqing a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question 12 requires disclosure of all shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and ptopotLionate interest. As to lots 4 fi 5: Cucusa, Inc., (sole shareholder, Ray Corona, President) 3. Legaldescription and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question #2, and (b)•located within 375 feet of the subject real property. None Ray C ona, President STATE OP PLOIUDA ) SS: ODUNIT OFDADE ) Ray Corona, President . , being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the (Owner) (Attorney for Owner) of the real property described in answer to question #2, above; that he'has read the foregoing answers and that the same are true and oomplete; and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to execute this Disclosure of Ownership form on behalf of the owner. SWORN 10 AND SUBSCRIBED before ne this / day Of 8 Kt COMMISSION E7TIRES: NOTARY PUBUC STAIR OF FLORIDA MY ‘1361MISMON EOM; MC 23 litio JQDPJIALI GENERAL INSVIANCt LINO 00 41 614, • c, State of Florida' / STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS: EMMY OF DADE ) Ray Corona , being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the duly appointed President of Cucusa Inc. the owner of the real property described in answer to que that he has read the foregoing answers; that the same are true an plete; and that he has the authority to execute this Disclosure of ship form on behalf of the owner. SWORN TO .ND SUBSCRIBED before m this /04EZ day of . --Tr98 . NY CCOMISSICU EXPIRES: NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF 'FLORIDA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC 23 1986 IONDED TEIDJ GENERAL INSUEANCE UND GIM/wpc/ab/023 1'), State of i e- • t%) "911illit00° A FT 0 ; STATPLCF FiC2ICA) SS. COTY OF DADS ) Before re, the vndaroicned authority, this, day perzono appeari Robert H. Trauril , who being by me firstthxly :or upon oath, deposes and says: 1. That he is the owner, or the legal representative of the owner, submitting the accompanying application for a public hearing as required by Ordinance No. 6871 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, effecting the real property located in the City of Miami as described and listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and rade a part thereof. 2. That all owners which he represents, if any, have given their full aryl complete permission for him to act in their behalf for the cnge or modification of a classification or regulation of zoning as set out in 'the accompanying petition. 3. That the pages attached hereto and rade a pact of this to' affid.avi. contain the"current names, ssei, phone numbers legal descriptions for the real property which he is the.owner or legal • representative. 4. The facts -as represented in the application and do=ents su:bmitted in conjunctionwith this affidavit are true and correct. Further Affiant sayeth not. Sworn to and Subscribe before me 19S3 c, State of Florida at Large MY**Carrission Expires: TROTY PUBLIC STATE OF RONDA Kisco 1141U CENRAL INSUitANCX UPIR gneintissioN EMUS JULY 16 i9oe • • • • (SEAL) 9 Ots'nerl Neale 1r4::ZR'S LTST Cucusa, Inc. c/o Ray.Corona, President Mailing Address" 6240 Sunset Drive, Miami, Florida 33143 Telephone Number 666-6874 Legal Description: Owner's Name Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2, Page 93, Public Records of Dade County. Seaplace Realty Investments, N.V. c/O Mr. A. R. Scott Mailing Address Telephone Number 100 No. Biscayne Boulevard, 13th Floor, Miami, Florida 371-3592 Legal Description: Owner's Name Mailing Address • Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 2, Point View Plat Book 2, Page 93, Public Records of Dade County , Point View Towers of Curacao, Inc. c/o Mr. A. R. Sott 100 No. Biscayne Boulevard, 13th Floor, Miami, Florida Telephone Number 371-3592 Legal Description: Lot 30, less the East 5 feet thereof, Block 2, Poilit View, Plat Book 2, Page 93, Public Records of Dade County Any otner real estate propert, lwned individually,_jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership privately) within.375' of the subject . site is listed as follows: :Street Address Legal Description Street Address Legal Description... Street Address Legal Description CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING & ?ON(,YG LAW OFFICES AOMI!!!z • GREENBERG, TRAURIG, ASKEW, HOFFMAN, LIPOFF & QUENTEL, P.A. ■RICKELL CONCOURS 1401 NRICKELL AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIOA 33131 MIwMI (ao5)1572.0500 •ROw.,Ro (305) 523-8111 TELd So -alga TELECORI 1305) 579-0718 '83 NOV -9 A 4 26 November 8, 1983 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Betty Malver Office of Aurelio Perez-Lugones City of Miami Planning & Zoning Boards 275 N. W. 2nd Street, 2nd Floor Miami, Florida Re: Lots 4 thru 8 and 30, Blk. 2, PB 2/93 Point View, Dear Betty: As per your request of this morning,'enclosed please find an original and one copy of an Affidavit prepared and exe- cuted by Gary M. Held of this office, in connection with the captioned matter. Very truly yours, H. Tr o sure • AFFIDAVIT STATE OF EIMIDA) SS. COUNTY OF DOE ) Before .e, the undersiGned authority, this day personnllY appeared GARY M. HELD , who being by me first d upon oath, deposes and says: 1. That he is the owner, or the legal representative of the oWner, submitting the acccmparry-ing application for a public hearing as . required by Ordinance No. S500 of the. Code of the City of Miami, Florida, effecting the real property located in the City of Miami as described and listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and made a part thereof. 2. That all owners which he represents, if any, have given their full and complete permission for him to act in their behalf for the change or modification of a classification or regulation of zoning as Set out in the acccpa.yir.g petition. 3. That the page attached hereto and made a part of this affidavit contain the current names, mailir add. -asses, phone numbers and legal descriptions for the real property which he is the owner or legal representative. 4. The fats .as represented in the application and documents submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are true and correct. FU,her Alfiant sayeth not. -Sworn to and Subscribed before me t No ?ublic, State of Florida at My Commission Expires: NOTARY ruBuc STATE Of FLC-NDA AT LAC{ /AY COASMIS:IC.4J F.CPIi.IS JAN , 28 'PBS EIONOED DiRIJ bENEkk,IuS . U14:411WRITRS Owner's name OWNER'S LIST SEAPLACE REALTY INVESTMENTS Mailing Address Telephone Number c/o Robert H. Traurig 1401 Brickell Avenue 579-0500 Legal Description: Owner's Name Mailing Address Telephone:Number Xots 6, 7, 8, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93) POINT VIEW TOWER OF CURACA02_ INC. cfuRobert-H. Traurig 1401 Brickell Ave. 579-0500 Legal, Description: Owner's Name Lot 30, less the east 5 feet thereof, B10ck 2, POINT VIEW 12-93) CUCUSA, INC. Mailing Address c/o Robert H. Traurig 1401 Brickell Ave. Telephone Number 579-0500 Legal Description: Lot 5, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93) ALLEN BLISS c/o Robert H. Traurig 1401 Brickell Ave. Lot 4, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93) Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 375of the subject site is listed as follows: Street Address Street Address Street Address • Legal Description Legal Description Legal Description DISCLDS(!EB OF OwiER58LP 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property: Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30, less the East 5'feet of Lot 30, Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2, Page 93, Public Eeocrde of Dade County.' Approximately 185 S. E. 14t8 Terrace and 200 S. E. 14th Street. 2. Owner(s) of sujart real 'pr and' percentage of ownership. Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties suing a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. •Accordingly, question 12 requires disclosure of all shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and pk..t.yLtionate interest. . R As to lots 4 Imp 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question 12, and (b}'Located within 375 feet of the subject real property. None s t tt LEVI IS L 1 S S " . '. • • , being duly sworn, deposes and says that ne is the (Owner) (Attorney for Owner) of the real property • described in answer to question 12, above; that he has read the foregoing ' answers' and that the same are true and mrtplete; and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to execute this Diwrl.osure of Ownership • fors an behalf of the owner. .. c1s PN210 o`r 12000 PC2469 DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned, being the owner of the following described property, lying, being and situated in Dade County, Florida, to -wit: Lot 5, Block 2, Point View, according to Plat Book 2, Page 93, of the Public Records of Dade County ("the property"). in order to assure the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, thatthe representations made to it by the owner will be abided by, voluntarily makes the following Declaration of Restrictions covering and running with the property. Notwithstanding the zoning classification of the property: 1. The building presently existing on the property shall be preserved and shall not be structurally modified except as is necessary both internally and externally to convert said struc- ture into a building with a combination of office and residential uses, or to improve the landscaping or parking thereon; however, in all instances any modification must comply with all restric- tions set forth in this Declaration. 2. The property and the building may be used only for the following uses: residential, offices (not selling merchandise on the premises), banks and savings and loan associations, subject to the additional restrictions contained herein. 3. The top floor of the building shall be used for residential uses only. 4. The first (ground) floor of the building shall be used for parking only. 5. No medical or dental offices or clinics shall be per- mitted. 6. Only that portion of the building may be occupied for which there is adequate parking as required or permitted by the PO 3/7 zoning classification as determined by the respective u;es within the building. W flabri r.1 7. There shall be a maximum of one (1) bank teller on the property, which shall be located within the building. 8. There shall be no drive-in tellers, automatic or mechanical teller ,tU4 qur tel ers. 9. There tshall be no signs on the South Bayshore Drive side of the building or on the south side of the building. Signs and lights therefrom shall be limited to the S.E. 14th Street side of the building or property. 10. All exterior modifications of the building, including structural changes and signs, must be approved by IRV KORACH, as a representative of Point View Association, Inc., or, in the event of his inability to serve in such capacity, another person to be designated by the Point View Association, Inc. No exterior modifications of the building may be made unless approved in writing in advance. Iry Korach or his successor may require a change in the color of the exterior of the building to a color more in harmony with the colors of buildings in the Point View neighborhood. Approvals required hereunder may not be unreason- ably withheld. When the preliminary and final designs for the (9'7q 12000 PC24TO exterior modifications have been submitted to MR. RORACH, or his successor, they must be commented upon and approved and/or disapproved within 14 days thereafter. Failure to make such comments within such period shall establish a conclusive presump- tion of approval of such proposals by the Point View Association, Inc. 11. The landscaping of the property along South Bayshore Drive shallbe improved and maintained at a level at least con- sistent with the landscaping at the existing Point View area residential buildings. 12. The owners of the property will contribute the sum of $10,000 for a neighborhood traffic study to be performed by professional traffic engineers to be chosen by the Point View Association, Inc., which sum may also be utilized to implement the recommendations of such study. The owners shall also co erate with Point View Association,' Inc. by providing -information sy� 114. relating to the uses at the property and will cooperate in seeking to accomplish the recommendations of the study! with t e specific understanding, however, that the owners shall have no additional expenses in connection therewith. Furthermore: A. It is understood and agreed by the undersigned that any official inspector of the City of Miami Building Department or Zoning Department, or any agents duly authorized by the Director of those Departments may have the privilege at any time during normal working hours of entering and investigating the use of the premises to determine whether or not the requirements of the building and zoning regulations and the conditions herein agreed to are being fulfilled. B. These restrictions during their lifetime shall be a restriction and limitation upon, all present and future owners of the above -described real property and for the public welfare, and shall be enforceable by property owners within 375 feet of the subject property, property owners on South Bayshore Drive between South East 14th Street and South East l5th Road, Miami, Florida, specifically including those who may be farther than 375 feet of the subject property; any condominium association in the above - described areas, the Point View Association, Inc., a not -for - profit Florida Corporation or its successor, or by the City of Miami. C. This Agreement shall .constitute a covenant running with the land, shall be recorded in the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, and shall remain in full force and effect and be binding upon the undersigned, its successors and assigns until such time as it is modified or released in the manner provided herein. D. These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them for a period of 30 years from the date .of recordation, after which time they shall be extended automatically for successive periods of ten years, unless an instrument signed by a majority of the then owner(s) of the property has been recorded which changes or releases the covenants in whole, or in part, provided that the covenants have been released or the changes approved by the City of Miami Commission after a public hearing. If the zoning district or the regulations applicable to all the properties on South Bayshore Drive between S. E. 14th Street and S. E. 15th Road should change to permit any structure within such area to be used totally for offices, banks, or commercial uses, or combina- tions thereof, or if the permitted FAR applicable to such area "`` 12000 Pc24TI' increases above that presently permitted, the subject property shall be relieved of the limitations contained herein which are more restrictive than the new district or regulations. The recordation among the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, of an Affidavit or Certificate from the City Attorney of the City of Miami that such changes in the City of Miami Ordinances have been made will be sufficient to place all persons on notice that such changes have modified these covenants. E. This Declaration of Restrictive Covenants may be modified, amended or released as to the land herein described, or any portion thereof, by a written instrument executed by the then owners of the fee simple title to the lands to be affected by such modification, amendment or release, provided that the same has first been approved by the Point View Association, Inc., and then by the City Commission after public hearing. F. Should this Declaration of Restrictive Covenants be so modified, amended or released, the Director of the City of Miami Building & Zoning Department, or his successor, shall forthwith execute a written instrument effectuating and acknowledging such modification, amendment or release. G. Enforcement shall be by action at law or in equity against any parties or persons violating, or attempting to violate any covenants, either to restrain violation or to recover damages. If any suit be brought for such enforcement the enforcing party, if successful, shall be entitled to recover, in addition to costs and disbursements allowed by law, such sum as the Court may adjudge to be reasonable for the services of his attorney. H. Invalidation of any one of these covenants, by judgment or Court, in no wise shall affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the owner has caused these presents to be executed and signed in its name by its proper officers, and its corporate seal to be affixed hereto and attested to by its Secretary the day and year set forth. WITNESSES: DATE CUCUSA, By: RA C• �: A, Presi•en ATTES R c= •'.rona Secretary (Co •orate Seal) 12000 ;2472 STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF DADE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this V day of N C 4. , 1983, before me personally appeared RAY CORONA and RICARDO CORONA, President and Secretary, respectively, of CUCUSA, INC., a corpo- ration under the laws of the State of Florida, to me known to be the persons who signed the foregoing instrument as such officers and severally acknowledged the execution thereof to be their free act and deed as such officers for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and that they affixed thereto the official seal of said corporation, and that the said instrument is the act and deed of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year last aforesaid. My Co s5 on Expires: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: Prepared by: OTARY PUBLIC STATE 04 ORIDA AT LAR Janet Lenore Cooper, Attorney LAW OFFICES OF JANET L. COOPER Suite 1020 169 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131 4 MIAMI REVIEW AND DAILY NEColtD Published Doily extcpt Saturday. Sunday sod Lapel Holidays wan, Dods County, Florida. • STATE Of FLORIDA COUNTY OF OADL Mims the aMrtlin0 bshall m b 01sas dirt, ate as oath soya that Rho" dnItY * Milllrlar al tan Minimph istssdny, Stodgy and `O lisilimpp rr+mer, In Pods CST. Madan IIr1 it aNarud copy of 0AaiiwsrK Wes o Ls. Alroricosr111 or Noioo Mr ea motor M CITY OF MIAMI Re: ORDINANCE NO. 9756 MNa......... X.X.X Court. ass psionsisni Pe and rrarggar 4 Mr Issues of Dec.6, 1983 ytarri Y .1~ pssr ••r 1to1 i..1n.. g Duly r MUNI M and Ossit Cm*.PIMP% and Mai so said boss osioNsosatt tans Is y 0�� amine b boon SaalordcFiaoorM raa_,oi aw�M1.�r ..wd ri MIAMI REVIEW AND DAILY RECORD Pubilshed Daily except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays Miami, Dads county, Florida STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DAN: Solonthe undersigned euthostty pereenally appeared DIMON SiWM, ‘160 or with says thet she Is the Assistant to the PubtOhm of the Mend Re,Iswand Daily Record, a dilly hissept Satutday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, publiehed el Miens In Dade County, Florida Met the alladied Dopy of advertleeseent, being 5 Lepel Admitiesinent Of Modes In the matter of CITY OF MIAMI ORDINANCE NO. In the XXX VISO pltfillhOd In said nwlescreper In the Issues ot Nov. 8 , 198 3 Cool, Want WARN solis dud the slid mere Rados sod Deily mood is a nompsper published • Mani In said Dade County, Fatale, and that the saki Res heretofore Wren oononsouery Pub010126 IIII sPid Riakte, wok day wow Sebaday„ filirelal mid mid hem been entered se date wee poet Off10. in • period cd ono yew mho.: Mil 102 has Weatielt, this 0.15 83 110,10111 OP POOP09 NOTICE IS HErtestY ulVEN that the City Cornrbiesion el lhtu CIly of Mitni, Florida, on November 18, unia, commencole 119:00 A.1.141,11 the City Commission Chamber at 3500 POO 4fri01iOnfl,PfIfft HMI ...if, Florida, will corielder the following Ordlnektet4) a/MOO 1111511PO'llos the adoption 1henbot. - ORDINANCE NO, • , AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EGNING *Sr Of OINANC NO. 9E00, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF HE CITY 131111A9411•,4 FLORIDA, OT AMENDING ARTICLE 110,0F„-8A10 0 ,119INANCE ENTITLED "0 ENERAL AND SUPPLEMENT 01901 BY AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 2938.5 „9.TO HANG NITION OF WATERFRONT TRACI -SASR WIDTH OF THE ADJACENT W11TER1NAY • TO THAT ALL DEVELOPMENTIN WAT PERMISSIBLE BY CLASS C SPECIAL PERMI1S_ „REGUIREMENT‘LIMITATIONS AND EXCEP PROVIDE A MINIMUM 10 FOOT MEAGGREMEN'e eAst aulLOING LINE ALONG ON EIDE or A. - TRIANGLE, 2012.3.1 AND 2912,32. TO PROVIDE M • FROM EXTERIOR WINDOWS, 2017.1.1 TO PROVIDE Tt4At OACK- MG A VEHICLE INTO A PUBLIC ALLEY IS PERMISSI LE`AY CLASS C SPECIAL PERMIT SUBJECT TO RE0AAREMEN1S,'9029.1 TO PROVIDE 1-NAt MOBILE HOMES MAY ErAtniLltEcr_Ar' TEMPORARY OFFICES OR OTHER PURPOSES SUIIJECIT TO, A CLASS 8 SPECIAL PERMit, 2034.3. TO PROVIDEgAy, PERTAINING TO A CERTIFICATE OF USE, NEW OWNE HIP SHALL BE APPROVED BY CLASS B SPECIAL PERMIT; BY 'AMENDING ARTICLE 21 ENTITLED "NONCONFOFIMITIES" BY AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 2103.3 AND 2104:8 10 SIMPLIFY THE TIME PERIOD PERTAINING tO,biScoNliNUANCE OF A NONCONFORMING USE; BY AMENDINGARTICLE'kE EN11 • TLED "SPECIAL PERMITS; 'GENERALLY" BY AMENDING SUB,. • SECTION 23019 TO CLARIFY PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS FOR VARIANCES PROCESSED UNDER A MAJOR US SPECIAL PERMIT; FURTHER, AMENDING SAID ORDINANCE NO;..WE BY AMENDING THEOFFICIAL SCHEDULE or INSTRICY•REGII-, CATIONS MADE A PART OF SAlbORDINANCE BY REPERENo - AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3 SY AMENDING PAGE 3.80 PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES BY ADDING. FA REFERENCE LABORATORIES AND TRAVEL AGENTS TO USI PERMITTEDGENERALLY; BY AMENDING PAGE 5, CBD. P8124. CIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES,'BY DELETING CG-1 AND SOD- STITAITING IN LIEU:TN EREOf CR-3 AS•THCBEFERE1404. DISTRICT. DELETING, 'REPAIR GARAGE'S, 43PORTS, ARENA$,S FRONTONS. RACE TRACKS, VETERINARY.OAciurE0 PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES OR Ass, ENIEWANE. , UST OF USES NOT PERMIIIED IN THE DISTRi "JOB PRINTING LITHOGRAPHY, PUBLISHING AND AS BEING PERMITTED GENERALLY„AND,DELATON3 INSERTING IN-uw-iplEAEo04.-.OR,AE,Th TACT FOR UMITArot* ON (*ES; Flo 6, PR, PRINCIPAL USES STFIL FOR "ACTIVITIESiWIMCR FUFRIIIRIM AND WF-FL.EFIINOIPAL USESANCVS , • -RETAIL. SPECIALITY:SHOP4ASAil° CONTAININGA;REPEALER,PROVISION AND'A -CLAUSE. 7 ; - ORDINANCE • AN ORDINANCE ALIENDINGI DECEMBER 9, 1982, THE EXAM APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE; AS A ; • - - APPROPRIATIONS FOR CThkPROM ECTS AND FVQA TAL- impliovemeNT PREJEcns TO BEGIN iDURINEPANSCA,W • YEAR 198344; CONTAINING ,AREPEALEN2110I4„ SEVERABIUT/ oRoiNANcE No - AN Ap,N, DWG ORDINANCE ORD OF RirCirr OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; THE FIGTIle•DOM' MERIN/My-AREA_ HERITAGEa, 0YERLAY-DIOTRIOT,50 THE -'41/413/ATIONARIAX - LOCATEDATAPPOLAINIATELY4SE/0 MORE PARTICULARLY DEEPRIBED •-AND ST JAAKINQAWIRLE NO. 35 OF THE ZONJMGAUA NARDENc),*4004Pfssf CLE- SECITIONAK.THERL-PF: PROVISION MPS etsveassourx 911010A.NP‘,4°' N09P)'J Ttig ioNING NANCS, 04(11.1040; 7.(ROPO3 ()SPOOKS NAPA 0,0,1106-,, XNANOING MON OF APPROX TEIXI181 27374031 WARN,R. MJ TIPUIA ,RLY OMNI GiNTIALACKV4. CONIIIIN(TY:and VIDING FOR CIPAE USES A USES AND arru "1UfES;'C'fIAP LIMITATIONS, MINIMUM LOT R_ umfrA-ootak MINIMUM OPEN #FA PROV16iON HEIGHT LIMITATI SIGNS; CONTAINING A REPEALER ASIUTY'CLAUSE. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ,ORDI- NANCE NO.6500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAML.PLORIDA BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICA• TION OF APPROXIMATELY 67-85 NORTHEAST 52N0 TERRACE, APPROXIMATELY 54.70 NORTHEAST 53RD•STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 70.112 NORTHEAST 52ND STREET MIAML FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RG-1/3 (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL (ONE AND TWO FAMILY)(: TO RG-315 (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL); OFAPPROXIMATELY69.115 NORTHEAST.51ST STREET AND 125.131 NORTHEAST 51ST STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE P4RTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN (FROM RS-212 (ONE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL) TO RG316 "GENERAL RESIDENTIAL$. BY MAKING; FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY,CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 18 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVI• SION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. ORDINANCE NO: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDI- NANCE NO.8500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING 'CLASSIFICA- TION OF APPROXIMATELY 3225.27.29 DARWIN`S)Hebl FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREINiFROM RG2I& GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO R0315: RESIDENTIAL' OFFICE; BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY' MAKING ALL' THE'NECES- SARY CHANGES ON PAGE N0: 45 OF SAID ZONING.ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. ^9500 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3; SECTION' 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING'A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE,. ' , ` ORDINANCE NO: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING' ATLAS OF ORDI- NANCE NO-9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICA- TION OF APPROXIMATELY 2815-2851 SOUTHWEST'22ND ,+ TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED b HEREIN) FROM RG-1/3: GENERAL RESIDENTIAL -(ONE AND TWO FAMILY) TO CR-217: COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (COMMUNITY) BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESS %RY.CHANGES ON PAGE NO.42 OF SAID ZONING ; ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500 BY REFER- ENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY ([ CLAUSE, ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS -OF ORDI. NANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICA- TION OF APPROXIMATELY 185 SOUTHEAST -14TH TERRACE AND APPROXIMATELY 200 SOUTHEAST 14TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RG3f7 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO SPI-5 BRICKELLMIAMI RIVER RESIDENTIAL OFFICE DISTRICT; MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO.37 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO.9500, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A -SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. - ORDINANCE NO, . AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ,ZONING ATLAS OF ORDI- NANCE NO.8500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE -OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICA- TION OF APPROXIMATELY 2230.206 SOUTHWEST 2TTH AYE- NUE AND APPROXIMATELY 2700.2754.SOUTHWEST. 22ND TERRACE; MIAML. FLORIDA, (MORE PAR[ICLMIi.I�LLY. DAD HEREIN) FROM PD•F(C 7 PLANNEQ DEVELOPMISNT•HWHWAY COMMERCIAL 79 QR.217 CoMMRRCIAL•HERIDRNT1A1.' (COMMUNITY); MAKlNQFINDING$; AND ETIMAIUN13°"QLI,':THE NECESSARY. CHANGES ON PAOE NQ.42 QF:SAKI ZONIIRVQ ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9800. Y. REFE1►', ENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; ' CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISIONA})I� A @ERA®141TY, CLAUSE. ORDINANCE NO. ANORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THSE CITF YOF Di- MANGE NP 9 ; .a,eul".Ftepltul;'6Y. QHANGING THE ZONING CIASSIFlCA CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. • - ORDINANCE NO. yt• .0 - AN ORDINANCE' AMENDING THE ZONING AIL.A8 or,fbnbl: NANCE NO. VAS, THE ZONING ORDINANCE or /14t CITY OF A BY CHANGING THE ZONING..CLAEftIPICA- AY ANb FIDJAVENUEi; NEREINY, 0 E V E 10 P M EN. W.AYs.•0..0 •cOMMEACALRESDEN11AL AND BY 'NE Nb..62 OF SAID Z�NING ATLASATLAS MAbEA 9500,',ty:REPOEN0E,AND.DES SECTION 300. THREOF;:CON110.411$1f1 SION AND 4.stvpV03firrY CIA �NANCE No. AN ORDINAN,CE THE-40NI NANCE NOA.. G:ORDINANCEDF:T MiAMt ko -12* ;to 0 tO 51,0 J-94-948 10/3/94 ORDINANCE NO. 11202 Attachment 6: Ord. 11202, Rezoning Lot 30 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 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 O-OFFICE TO SD-5 BRICKELL AVENUE AREA RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 185 SOUTHEAST 14TH TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 37 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting of September 12, 1994, Item No. 10, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 89-94, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a change of zoning classification, as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, after careful consideration of this matter, deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to grant 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 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, 11202 is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification from 0- Office to SD-5 Brickell Avenue Area Residential -Office District for the property located at 185 Southeast 14th Terrace, Miami, Florida, also described as Lot 30, less the Southerly 5 feet, Block 2, AMENDED PLAT OF POINTVIEW, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 93 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Section 2. It is hereby 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; (i) will not create a drainage problem; (j) will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent area; (k) will not adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; (1) 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 3. Page 37 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 hereby amended to reflect the changes made necessary by this Amendment. Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances insofar as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 5. 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 6. This Ordinance shall become effective after final reading and adoption thereof pursuant to Section 163.3189, Fla. Stat. (1993). PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 27th day of October , 1994. 11202 -3- PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this 17th day of November , 1994. ATTEST: TTY RA CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: MEPHEN P. 'LARK, MAYOR G. MIRIAM MAER CHIEF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: 11202 -4- ZONING FACT SHEET PZI 6 LOCATION/LEGAL 185 SE 14 Terrace Lot 30 less the Southerly 5 feet, Block 2, of AMENDED PLAT OF POINT VIEW (2-93) PRDC. APPLICANT/OWNER Pointview Towers of Curacao, N.V., Owner St. James Development, Inc., Buyer 1414 NW 107 Ave., 1205 230 Palm Avenue Miami, Florida Miami Beach, FL 33139 673-5909 673-5909 ZONING 0 Office. REQUEST Change of Zoning as listed in the Zoning Atlas of Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Article 4, Section 401, Schedule of District Regulations, from 0 Office to SD-5 Brickell Avenue Area Residential -Office District. RECOMMENDATIONS: PLANNING, BLDG & ZONING Approval. PUBLIC WORKS No comments. PLAT AND STREET The Tent. Plat 1464 was approved subj.to rezoning. DADE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION No comments. ENFORCEMENT HISTORY, IF ANY C.E.B. Case No: N/A Last Hearing Date: N/A Violation(s) Cited: NJA Found: N/A Ticketing Action: N/A Affidavit of Non -Compliance issued on: N/A Daily Fine: $0.00 Lien Recorded 0n: NJA Total Fines To Date: N/A CEB Action: N/A HISTORY Zoning Board recommended for approval to City Commission on 9/12/94 by Res. ZB 89-94. Two (2) proponents and zero (0) opponents. ANALYSIS The zoning clasification of the property is currently Office (0), and the Land Use designation is also Office. The property is located immediately to the east of an SD-5 district,. which also has a Land Use designation of Office. The purpose of this zoning change petition is to extend the SD-5 designation easterly by one lot. The Planning, Building and Zoning Department is recommending approval finding that the one lot extension of the SD-5 district will have little, if any impact in the area and that the change is consistent with the Downtown Master Plan. ZONING BOARD APPELLANT CITY COMMISSION Recommended for approval to City Commission. (Res. No. 89-94) Passed on First Reading on CC 10/27/94. APPLICATION NUMBER 94- 301 Page 1 September 12, 1994 1.1.202 ,,- ---------- .-- „,\ <b <</ 11202 Mr. Gary M. Carman offered the following Resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION ZB 89-94 AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, THE ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CHANGE OF ZONING IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000. ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, FROM 0 OFFICE TO SD-5 BRICKELL AVENUE AREA RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 185 SE 14 TERRACE LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 30.LESS THE SOUTHERLY 5 FEET, BLOCK 2, OF AMENDED PLAT OF POINT VIEW (2-93) PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY; ZONED 0 OFFICE. Upon being seconded by Mr. Lorenzo Luaces the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mses. Basila, Morales and Hernandez. Messers. Carman, Luaces, Milian and Sands NAYES: None. ABSENT: Messers. Barket, Crespo & Moran-Ribeaux. Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 7-0. September 12, 1994 Item# 10 Zoning Board 1.12A2 7 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO /ONING ATLAS File Humber 92- 1, A n. lc,"Ae.. wee of/ Cie rR c s , hereby apply to the City Commission of the City of Miami for an amendment to the Zoning Atlas of the City of Miami as more particularly described herein and, in support of that request, furnish the following information: �^ //1 1. Address of property: f i} pI Sx, ! 7' / evef t e C 2. Two surveys, prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land Surveyor. 3. Affidavit disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of interest. (See attached form.) 4. Certified list of owner of real estate within a 375-foot radius of the outside boundaries of property covered by -this application. (See attached form.) 5. At least two photographs thatshow the entire property (land and improvements.) 6. Atlas sheet(s) on which property appears: l4ff 7. Present zoning designation(s): ^ O - • 8. Proposed zoning designation(s): SD -4- 9. Statement explaining why present zoning designation is inappropriate. (See attached form.) 10. Statement as to why proposed zoning designation is appropriate. (See attached form.) 11. Other (Specify) 12. Filing fee of $.di1Y' ccording to following schedule: tag x 02/ . /ry ? $ •ce /pe 174 Change of zoning classification to: % La %-A� p �' CS, PR, R-1, R-2, per square foot of net lot area Minimum R-3, R-4, 0, Gil, per square foot of net lot area Minimum C-1, C-2, 1, per square foot of net lot area Minimum CBD and all SD's, per square foot of net lot area $ 0.12 $550.00 $ 0.16 S650.00 $ 0.20 $750.00 0.22 Minimum $850.00 N)ni c�2+c 11'0.1� (1. Signature: tr (�CdAI ! Name: . e o aka. . "1-. Address: 1 t ) �v t 0.—'St re 1--oiT Phone: 30S -S9 3'` 7-, 3 STATE OF FLORIDA } SS: COUNTY OF DADE } R. x r , being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the (oil )(Authorized Aanrt Mgr weer) of the real property described in answer to question 1 above; that he has read the foregoing answers and that the same are true and complete; and (if acting as agent or own r) that he has authority to execute this petition on behalf of the owner. (SEAL) 1120 SWORN TO AND SU14RIBED before aethis = day of I1(.y , 19 . NY COMMISSION EXPIRES: C- -9ii AFF t a A r X T STATE Of FORMA } MATT Of pAQt } bafOre he. the uadarai*»d authority, this day personally appear A. R. Scott , who baths by es first duly aura, Upon oath, deposes and 101: I. That bah tine talharI or it, legal reprssaltativa of tilt aasrs suimittIng Oa accompanying spoliation far a public• hearing as .rogyired by Ordinance IQOQ of the Cede of the City of Miami. Florida. affecting the real property located in the city of magi, es dauribW sad listed on the pages aittachad to this affidavit and made ■ part thereof. 1t� That all carers which ha represents, if any, have given their tvll and caplets peraisston far his to act in their behalf for the change or sodifica. thin of a elatsifieation or regulation of toning a sat oat it the accompanying astittan. 3. That the apt attached haritto and made a part of this affidavit contain the currant narq, mailing addresses, photo rnwhers and legal Rtteriptians for the the teal property of which to is the owner or legal rlprasentetive. 4. The facts as raprnapted %n the sppllcltion and Wawa tuteitted in non wection with this affidavit ara.frue and aerial. further AffisM saytth net. • Poiuracao, N. V. hewn ta! Irei b'idnteriled infer* ma thin L of T'9J , ley No try tki k. State of Mori at Lary* MY t trlssican Sapient £WQ WActy kdow N Vice President OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL RICHARD. C WEST NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO. CC373386 MY COMMISSION EXP. RUNE 6,1996 11202 DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property: j See Attached Exhibit 2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership. Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question !2 requires disclosure of shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. Property Owner: Pointview Towers of Curacao, N. V. (100%) 1414 N. W. 107 Avenue - Suite 205 Miami, Florida 33172-2741 Stockholder: Invrepa Holding AG (100%) Dufourstr 60 8702 Zollikon-Zurich, Switzerland Invrepa Owner: Paul Etter, Sr. Dufourstr 60 8702 Zollikpn-Zurich. Switzerland 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party See attaches listed in answer to question i2, and (b) located within 375 feet of the subject exhibit re: real property. St. James (buyer) See Attached Exhibit PointTow h)s`oi1C9racao, N. V. By : STATE OF FLORIDA } SS: COUNTY OF DADE } OWNER ORrATTObNEY FOR OW ER Vice President A. R. Scott , being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the (Owner) (Attorney for Owner) of the real property described in answer to question ►l, above; that he has read the foregoing answers and that the same are true and complete; and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to execute the Disclosure of Ownership fors on behalf of the owner.. fg QstScwmfit Y k imusm. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this 2 1st day of Jaw , 19,E NY CONNISSION EXPIRES: 1 (SEAL) (Name) Notary Public, State of Florida at Large OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL. RICHARD C WEST NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORID coMMNRON NO. CC3733118 IV emARAIWTC)N IMMUNE 6,19$ 11202 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO ZONING ATLAS File Number 92- t , �` - Ziost 22PU '(c9,�Gt Pam, f .s a e,, , hereby apply to the City Commission of the Cj'ty7of Miami for an amendment to the Zoning Aties of the City of Miami as more particularly described herein and, in support of that request, furnish the following information: 1. Address of property: / 0 -s- ! 7- f 7err•ee lr' 2. Two surveys, prepared by a State of Florida Registered land Surveyor. 3. Affidavit disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of interest. (Sea attached form.) 4. Certified list of owner of real estate within a 375-foot radius of the outside boundaries of property covered by.this application. (See attached form.) 5. At least two photographs that show the entire property (land and improvements.) 6. Atlas sheet(s) an which property appears: D'% Ar 7. Present zoning designation(s): — O — 8. Proposed zoning designation(s); 9. Statement explaining why present zoning designation is inappropriate. (See attached form.) 10. Statement as to why proposed zoning designation is appropriate. (Set attached form.) 11. Other (Specify 12. Filing fee of flUirtriccording to following schedule: Change of zoning classification to: CS, PR, R-1, R-2, per square foot of net lot area $ 0.12. Minimum $550.00 R-3, R-4, 0, 6/I, per square foot of net lot area $ 0.16 Minimum $650.00 C-1, C-2, I, per square foot of net lot area $ 0.20 Minimum $750.00 COD and all SD's, per square foot of net lot area $ 0.22 j:r.•ePr '' W ',%%:r.I C. Signature:i�.' Name; jn u . `r " s& 44.2.rto . � Address: 2.i'd e/4/. "c.. st f A Rm.'. ,:1,{tar.?/37 r Phone: • J© '- ‘73-..r3e, Minimum STATE OF FLORIDA } SS: COUNTY OF DADE } Touts At ANgtrt5 , being duly sworn, deposes and says that hills the Owner) of the real property. described in answer to question 1 above; that he has read the foregoing answers and that the same are true and complete; and (if acting as agent owners that he has authority to execute this petition on behalf of the owner. (SEAL) SWORN TO ANO SURMISED RICHARD C WEST before me this day of�)G L'( 19»' 1 2 0 2 Ntri'ARYPUBLIC STATE OFFLORIDA COMMISSION NO. CC 7 385 my A„a.wteetnm evntnee. /.._L_Q ' rA,..... 0.414 mite ;"i "'.a.,.:m�.'�8„m- ROSr.v6lur c ' AcknfPR 14 STATE OF FLORIDA } • } SS COUNTY OF DADE } .1 .AFFIDAVIT /� Before /me, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared rrCv x cis / /T/ra►t.! , who being by me first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says: / arP�1afeei 1. That he is the he legal representative of the owner, submitting the accompanying application for a public 'hearing as required by Ordinance 11000 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, affecting the real property located in the City of Miami, as described and listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and made a part thereof. 2. That all owners which he represents, if any, have given their full and complete permission for him to act in their behalf for the change or modifica- tion of a classification or regulation of toning as sat out in the accompanying petition. 3. That the pages attached hereto and made a part of this affidavit contain the current names, mailing addresses, phone numbers end legal descriptions for the the real property of which he is the owner or legal representative. 4. The facts as represented in the application and documents submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are,true and correct. Further Affiant ssyeth not. Sworn to and Subscribed before me thlst day of 1,'y , le wry Public, State of lorlda at large OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL RICHARD C WEST NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORID COMMISSION NO. CC3723116 ,.v ryvaurmikt EXP. TUNE 4.199S • 11202 DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP 1. Legal description and street a ddress of subject real property: L ,.See Gc'Val i eD , a (v. �c•j ,!/ .f c4 sa/' P 12 ate e r �! 2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership. Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question 12 requires disclosure of shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, Lo yier.wi theirdresses and proportionate interest. .Set C/C/ ,se eSare t9OCe4.4. ♦.17( 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question 12, and (b)�l)ocatedd within 375 feet of the subject ra �e Pea /�. ,/ ,fl, se(osu rr• ,f/o t t* w.r., ER STATE OF FLORIDA } SS: COUNTY OF DADE, �( 1,+c � 4 • S /7- / 'i 1 Jr, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the fe s• x o ( of the real property described in answer to question 11, rage s s4' r above; that he has reed the foregoing answers and that the same are true and complete; and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authorit execute the Disclosure of Ownership for on behalf of the owner.. ' � • SWORN TO MO SUiscRI D before me th day of ciTA Ly/ NY COMMISSION EXPIRES: SF, (la.oirs ace4-440,.•: RICHARD C WEST NOTARY PU3UC STAIR OP COMMISSION NO. C :373383 MY CO>,a+t19 eoN EXP. 19011 . (SEAL) 15 11202 OWNER'S LIST Owner's Name / r. 7Z c - / p e T O7— C K/'Q eQd if/ G! , Mailing Address /'/' /f/: ll/_ A ,1ve4ae.-.S,„/e2d.r%%l',anr(' ,C/ 2,2/ ,,R r l Telephone Number 3es--.r-% i - ,24"*F !� Legal Description: /./ O /es5 7L/ , .Sl oaf/ /J6 Oii••e".r16'/y /a7` o/do,^ i/G:'ra, Qlro,•,',.fi 44,ff4/1,72/e,foe e.C'o e�A - /Pia/,,Peed a e91 ae /,'tAi/,'elee1,4. limec."ce""?'>', F/ee•:�al type, e.. n•:l'.0 A(//`"'?'1or44 ..per;' r.+''o ol�,r ?r p P1., '✓a/r ,4V/i d.etwrr- e $,' f Name I. • dA P'S ,K/ecr'P�p�i.�t /0�/' AO Mailing Address 02..f 0 / i dt.,vp,,/ ,o /',,,' ie�, �// $?/4 Telephone Number 7 of - 67 `X / Legal Description:.�•►t. r as..cZeee. Owner's Name Mailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 376 feet of the subject site is listed as follows: Street Address tSZ/6Str,if 5T , /9d %'er,'ec f• 0:1 A.! F/o0.`vr' Street Address /J d' /IO .S ,tom. /4' '522 '.'k,n./ f1e9/`.' b� Street Address % L,eggal Description J 4 ol/fi'•r a r 44;y4/ 1,, 1 %�^ .2 p�'t�.�a•,%. /�/A e� tl::l fr e . ,ee . ,. p1.7' 64,,/(•2 �e�t e o ti 7ef &,� 'e !Zees# • 4, e 6... <r R. I Legal Description 7f'E .C.Y'// -d/ e?,L+TS /24R,sl /3 4„r Me. . i7o eet.ir.. o 5/i� �B �.lsti(0 ue piel<►ee. /fa e f Z'7 r/.v re" t c /Y!e'S,rc .gen /° `,.fit a° cr(i't"1oBnrck 2 04 foots edi -11202- Attachment to Application for Amendment to Zoning Atlas For 185 S.E. 14th Terrace 10. Statement explaining why present zoning is inappropriate. The owners of the property have owned this since approximately 1974. In the comprehensive plan, the zoning line was drawn without owners knowledge to isolate this one lot in a different zoning (0) from the contiguous parcels under the same ownership (SD-5). This isolated lot does not meet the minimum standard for a lot in the 0 zoning, since it is less than 20,000 square feet and since it has less then 100 feet of frontage. The contiguous property that the owner has is all zoned SD-5 and when this lot is combined with the other SD 5 it meets the minimum requirements. Without the rezoning this is a sub standard lot and•is of no use to the owners and creates a significant hardship and a loss of use of the property by owner. The subject lot is the only lot South of the private alley which is zoned "0". The subject lot is the only lot in a development site different than the others and this makes the entire site difficult to develop as one site. 11. Statement as to why proposed zoning designation is appropriate. The SD-5 zoning is appropriate because it is the zoning of the adjacent land which is owned by the same owner. There is no other way to rezone this lot to make it comply with the minimum standards. Most of if not all of the uses allowed under the SD-5 zoning are also allowed under the 0 zoning. Every other lot South of the private alley, both to the East and the West of Subject site,. is zoned either R4 or SD-5. 2a,t 17 Attachment to Disclosure of Ownership Form For Rezoning of 185 S.E. 14th Terrace 1. Legal Description and Street address of subject property: • 185 S.E. 14th Terrace • Lot 30 less the Southeasterly 5' of Lot 30, Block 2 AMENDED PLAT OF POINT VIEW according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, together with that certain Southern 5 feet of the 10' private alley between Lots 30 and Lots 7,8, and 9, all in Block 2. 2. In addition to the ownership interest of Pointview Towers of Curacao, N.V. disclosed in the affidavit, Sr. JAMES DEVELOPMENT, INc, has a financial interest in the property by virtue of a purchase contract on the subject.property as well as the property identified in question 3 as well as 151 14th Terrace and 152 14th Street. • St. James Development, Inc. - has the property under contract to be purchased Address: ST. JAMES DEVELOPMENT, INC. 230 Palm Avenue Miami Beach, Florida 33139 • Ownership of ST. JAMES DEVELOPMENT, INC. - 75 % of the stock of St. James Development, Inc. is owned by Jan Barwick Adams, 230 Palm Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 33139 and 25 % is owned by T.C. Metzner, 701 South Broad Street, Thomasville, Georgia 31792 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer #2, and (b) located within 375 feet of the subject real property, • Present Pr9perty Owners - Pointview Towers of Curacao, N.V. own the following property contiguous to the subject property: 11202n the West 10' of Lot 11 all of Lot 12 , and all of Lots 27 through 29 inc. , together with the portion of that certain 10' private alley between Lots 12, 13, 26, and 27 and between the West 10' of Lot 11 and the West 10' of Lot 28, and together with the Southerly 1/2 of the portion of that certain 10' private alley which lies adjacent to the North line of Lots 28 less the West 10' feet and adjacent to Lot 29 and Lot 30 less the Southeasterly 5 feet, all in Block 2 of AMENDED PLAT OF POINT VIEW according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, is owned by Pointview • Towers of Curacao, N.V. The street addresses are : 157 and 165 S.E. 14th Terrace and 160 S.E. 14th Street • St. James Development, Inc. has the following parcels under contract to purchase: the West 10' of Lot 11 all Lots 12 and 13, Lots 27 through 30 inc. less the Southeasterly 5' of Lot 30, together with the portion of that certain 10' private alley between Lots 12, 13, 26, and 27 and between the West 10' of Lot 11 and the West 10' of Lot 28, and together with the Southerly 1/2 of the portion of that certain 10' private alley which lies adjacent to the North line of Lots 28 less the West 10' feet and adjacent to Lot 29 and Lot 30 less the Southeasterly 5 feet, all in Block 2 of AMENDED PLAT OF POINT VIEW according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Lot 26, in Block 2, of POINT VIEW, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book s Page 25, of the Public Records of Dade 11202 Rer.Rezonel.sazn County, Florida, also known as Lot 26, Block 2, of POINT VIEW amended, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. the Street addresses are: 157,165,185, and 151 S.E. 14th Terrace and 152 and 160 S.E. 14th Street, Miami, Florida 11202 ai Minutes of Special Meeting of Shareholders and Directors of St. James Development, Inc. to approve the application for Amendment to the Zoning Atlas of the City of Miami, Florida At a special lneeting of Shareholders and Directors held at 2:15 P.M. on July 27, 1994, held at 230 Palm Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, the shareholders and Director approved by Motion duly made and seconded that they hereby authorize the joint application of Pointview Towers of Curacao, N.V. and St. James Development, Inc. to amend the Zoning Atlas of Miami, Florida and authorize Louis A. Adams as President of St. James Development, Inc. to execute any and all documents necessary to complete said application and any other documents necessary to achieve the zoning amendment. The motion was made by Jan Adams and passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. I hereby cerrtify that this is a true and correct copy of the minutes. Louis A. Adams President and Secretary 1Y202022 :J STATE COUN1. Bet;' Octelrl Super Review'+ and Le County` being CI OR In the. was p No Aft Revle Count been c each d has be office I one ye copy o neithe any di- of sec newap: 30 day (SEAL) Oclelme CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ...'- n • LEGAL NOTICE All intereeted persons will take notice that on the 17th day of No - ember; d994, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, adopted the iflowing titled ordinances: ORDINANCE NO.11197 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING INITIAL • RESOURCES AND INITIAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR A SPECIAL. REVENUE FUND .' ENTITLED VIOLENT STREET CRIMES, TASK FORCE' AND "AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF. 517,843 FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, AND TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS NECES- SARY TO ACCEPT SAID GRANT; CONTAINING A RE- PEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, • ORDINANCE NO.11108 N •£MERSENCY " ORDINANCE AMENDING "ORDI- NANCE;,NO. 11059,,ADOPTED'ON APRIL 15, 1993,` WHICH;' ESTABLISHED .INITIAL RESOURCES AND INITIAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR A -SPECIAL REVENUE ." FUND ENTITLED: 'DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION',: TO PROVIDE • FOR AN INCREASE IN , THE; AMOUNT OF $70,217 AS THE RESULT OF A SUCCESSFUL, GRANT APPLICATION FROM METRO POLITAN;DADE' COUNTY, AND "AUTHORIZING. THE CITY' MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY, DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVI- •SION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.;,. ORDINANCE NO. 11199 AN ORDINANCE' AMENDING SECTION 40-2t9OF THE' .CODE "OF THE : CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY` PROVIDING FOR CHANGES 'IN IN- VESTMENT GUIDELINES AND TYPES•' OF ,FUNDS •WHERE INVESTMENT MAY BE MADE FOR MEMBERS OF;,CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES' .AND SANITATION EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT : TRUST; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEV- ERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE ORDINANCE NO. 11200 • ORDINANCE; RELATED TO `HISTORIC PRESER- VATION:''AMENDING THE : REQUIREMENTS ,: FOR ,TERMS`OF OFFICE AND REMOVAL OF MEMBERS OF THE HISTORIC "AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVA- TION BOAHD TO, CONFORM WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11130, ADOPTED MARCH'24, 1994; ESTABLISHING FEES FOR APPEALS OF DES- IGNATIONS AND:, CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATE- NESS; MORE PARTICULARLY, BY AMENDING -SEC TIONS 62-71, 23.1-4 AND 23.1-5 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF, MIAMI, FLORIDA; AS AMENDED; CON- TAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVER - ABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFEC TIVE DATE. ORDINANCE NO 11201 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TERMS OF OFFICE AND REMOVAL. OF MEM .BERS OF THE URBAN: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD TO CONFORM WITH THE PROVISIONS OF... ORDINANCE NO. .11130,:'ADOPTED MARCH 24,-1934; MORE, PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 62-84 OF THE,CODE OF THE,CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDpED;-CONTAINING-A REPEALER PROVISION' ND•>:A?.SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING r, FOR AN. EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCENQ..14- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS 0 ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE,OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AR- TICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE 'CONING CLAS- SIFICATION FROM O-OFFICE TO SD-5 •BRICKELL AVENUE AREA RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 185 SOUTHEAST 14TH TERRACE, MIAMI,- FLORIDA"(MORE PARTICULARLY `'` DESCRIBED HEREIN);AND Y MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 37 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVI- SION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. '. ORDINANCE NO.11203 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO..11000 AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: BY' AMENDING SECTION 401, `SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT.REGULATIONS`,;'TO ALLOW `DISCOUNT MEMBERSHIP MERCHANDIS- ERS' AS A CONDITIONAL PRINCIPAL USE IN THE C1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION ONLY, AND ESTABLISHING MINIMUM PARKING "REQUIREMENT; BY ADDING TWO NEW . . 'RESERVED' .SECTIONS:, BY' ADDING :SECTION. 944, 'DISCOUNT MEMBERSHIP MERCHANDISERS`, +ES- TABLISHING APPLICABLE` REGULATIONS FOR SAID'' USE; AND BY AMENDING SECTION 2502, 'SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS;.; TO 'PROVIDE ' -A ,DEFINITION 'DISCOUNT MEMBERSHIP MERCHANDISER'; :CON TAINING 'A" REPEALER PROVISION AND 'A SEVER ABILITY CLAUSE; AND, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFEC • ORDINANCE NO.11204 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE; NO. 11000 AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE, CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: BY AMENDING ARTICLE 9, SECTION 928 'SIGNS; SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS; BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION 928.9. ENTITLED "'SIGNS OF''HISTORIC '•SIGNIFI- CANCE; AND PROVIDING PROCEDURES FOR EX- EMPTING DESIGNATED SIGNS OF HISTORIC SIG NIFICANCE FROM USUAL SIGN -LIMITATIONS; CON- TAINING "A REPEALER PROVISION AND A'SEVER- •"ABILITY ' CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFEC- . ORDINANCE NO 11205 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS FOR CITY •OF MIAMI CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; CONTINUING AND REVISING PREVIOUSLY r AP- PROVED SCHEDULED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS; ESTABLISHING,' NEW': CAPITAL';IM- PROVEMENT PROJECTS TO BEGIN DURING -FISCAL' YEAR 1994-95; REPEALING PROVISIONS OF :ORDI- NANCE NO. 11139, AS AMENDED, THE -FISCAL sYEAR, 1993;1994` CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS APPROPRIA- -,,' TIONS,ORDINANCE,;WHICH MAY. BE, IN CONFLICT WITH THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING CONDITIONS AUTHORIZATIONS AND DIRECTIONS TO THE "CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK; CONTAINING A ;RE • PEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE Said ordinances may inspected by the Public at the Office of` the City Clerk, 3500 Pan American Drive; Miaml, Flonda,:Monday.; -through Friday;`iexcluding holidays, between the hours of 8 "a.m.: ,and,5 p.m, MATTY HIRAI CITY CLERK CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA " ' 94-4-113045M to _. MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays Miami, Dade County, Florida. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE: Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Octelma V. Ferbeyre, who on oath says that she Is the Supervisor, Legal Notices of the Miami Daily Business Review f/k/a Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Dade County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice In the matter of CITY OF MIAMI ORDINANCE NO. 11202 In the DfXltt•}EX°X was published In said newspaper In the Issues of Nov 30, 1994 Court, Affiant further says that the said Miami Daily Business Review is a newspaper published at Miami in said Dade County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Dade County, Florida, each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as second class mall matter at the post office In Miami In said Dade County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of. advertisement; and etflant further says that she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any dlscoun rebate, commission • d for the purpose of secur • r this advertis mm: ••' • • , ation In the said news • • er. e,r/ - • , Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30 November �4 day of A.D. 19 1 s y Octelma V. Farbeyre personal xkno O. r OFFICIAL NOTARY SYUAL ChARYL H MARMUR COMMiSStON NO. CC191642 MY COMMISSION AYCP. APR. 12,19119 (SEAL) An, ,r .+LZ wa: •�, , ItiGES, 14FWfld� °28 dti' P4411,04.0.0 PIifltlbn to } N CSl l Hage*ilI ;a &n t u �vr n as confessed,- TEb t6ls ; day;; of J4 V HARVEY RUVIN CL6Rk OF CIRCUIT COUI3 Iy 'ir. Aillj " 'DOA 'BD.. NOTl C` IF ACTION µ 1 �+ IleeliCTIVE?SEaeVrlCE 'IPROPERTY); ,ar HEicuir COURT OF THE:. ; JUDICIAL§ CIRCUIT' FLORIDA, IN AND FOR! DE COUNTY, VIL ACTION NO.94-25103 MILY?DIVISION;yI �? E THE MARRIAGE OFy CTOR HUGO RODRIGUEZ, tlt�lo��n+®ydHuaband, ` � al"+" r r Y�7i vxTid »ry BY RAMOS DE • DRIGUEZ, t , ' apo}ldentM►rte NO CE FOR > I fa SSOLUT OFjR ARRIAGE RUBY.RAM S,DERO e� . IGUE Is r(Oii " alt ii tie} pU40._ 1- eabll ,j+(oe �O four can • secu 6* i DAILY BUST RE}(1&kV TNESR my handtand theAoai eld coot* `at. Miami Florida on sulYd2e2 r r."�n k ax, Cara) Gab* Florida 33134 HbiS ` 00 d81 1110 ' �v a1 , �14 ' g4-5-1123511h�: 11 LERK QF;,9IRCUI (CUcuit Court Soal) r Oy: DEBRA01 DeOiAk0Biiklq, 71 sn.i9n 067M':i J-98-521 5/25/98 ORDINANCE NO. 11668 AN ORDINANCE, WITH ATTACHMENT, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND PAGE. NO. 37 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM 0 OFFICE TO SD-.5 BRICKELL AVENUE AREA RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 194-218 SOUTHEAST 14TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Attachment 7: Ord. 11668, Rezoning Lots 6,7,8 WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of March 30, 1998, Item No. 2, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 1998-0042,1 by a eight to zero (8-0) vote, I RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a change of zoning classification, as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, after careful consideration of this matter, deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to grant 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 Zoning Atlas of Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, IT CH ENT (S) YAWED 11668 Page 37, Article 4, Section 401, Schedule of District Regulations, is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification from 0 Office to SD-5 Brickell Avenue Area Residential -Office District for the property located at 194-218 Southeast 14th Street, Miami, Florida, more particularly legally described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 93, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Section 2. It is hereby 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; (i) will not create a drainage problem; 11668 (j) will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent area; (k) will not adversely affect property value in the adjacent area; (1) 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 3. Page No. 37 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 hereby amended to reflect the changes made necessary by this Amendment. Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances insofar as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 5. 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 6. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty 11668 • (30) days after final reading and adoption thereof.1 PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 26th day of May , 1998. PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this 23rd day of June , 1998. ATTEST: JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR In accordance with Miami Code Sec. 2-36, since the Mayor did not indicate approur' ^{ this legislation by signing it in the designated place provided, said legislation becomes effective with the elapse of ten (10) days from the date of Commission regarding same, without the Mayor exer ' ,u a -to. Walter WALTER J. FOEMAN CITY CLERK APPROV AS AND CORRE 0 VILARELLO TORNEY W498:YMT:dsl ity Clerk l 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. 11668 02/12/98 THU 17:52 FAX 305 374 1156 FREEMAN . BCTTERAAN , HABER J 003 • MI! REC. 1(L94 r467Z EXHIBIT "A" • LEGAL DESCRIPTION HARVEY RII'IIN 'Lot .6, in;!Block 2, and also the part of Lot 7 in Block 24 ;described as follows: Beginning at a point 50 feat East of the ' i)iorthwest Corner of Lot 7; thence Easterly along Kathryn Avenue! e distance i of i 25 . feet; thence Southwesterly to the ' southeast •' corner of tihidiLot 7; thence westerly along an alley to:a point '24 feet 6 inches from the southwest corner of said Lot 7i thence to place ot:beginning; All of above being located in POINT VIEW, 'a subdivision of part of Lot'27 and Lots 28 to 36 of Block 105 !South, City' of i Miami. ' Florida ; also That portion of Lot 7, in Block 2, of Amended plat of POINT VIEW, !.according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 2, `,at Paqe ;9i, Of the Public Records of Dada county, Florida, which is i bdunded and desscribed as follows: r Commencing at the NCrthVeAt corner of isaid Lot 7; theatre run Easterly on the Northerly ; bilundany line of said Lot 7, a distance of 50 feet; then run 'Southwesterly to.an intersection with the southerly boundary line 'of said Lot•7 at a point which is 24 1/2 feat Easterly from the !Southwest corner of said Lot 7; thence ran Westerly'on the :Southerly thundery lina of said Lot to tha Southwesterly corner ;thereof; thence run Northeasterly on the westerly boundary line :of said Lot 7 to the Placa of Beginning; also I • • All of Lot 6, in Block 2, of Amended Plat of POINT 9IEW, :according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93, !of the Public Records.of Dada County,.Plorida ' 'The above described property is also known as Lots 6, 7•and 8, Block '2, of Amended Plat of POINT VIEW according to the plat. thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93 of the Public Records ;of Dade cotintyj Florida. • ! ;+LSO ' !A strip o!'•land having a frontage.ot.25 feet by a depth of 15 ;feet more or 1*se, at the foot of Kathryn Avenue described as follows: Beginning at a point in that Center of Xathryn Avenue ;trontinj on: the say; 'thence Northwardly a distance of 25 feet 'following the`Bay lino, thence Westwardly a distance of 15 feet ,more of less, thence Southwardly a distance of 25 feet sore or !less, thence 1 feet more or lass to the Point.of Beginning. The above description being the North 25 feet of out -Lot 5 in POINT 'VIEW, a suddivimsion of part of Lot 27 and Lots 28 to 36 of Block '105 South,:City of Miami, Florida; all recorded.in the Amended 'Plat of POINT VIEW', according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 2, at Page 93, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida: • • 11668 ZONING FACT SHEET Case Number: 1998-0096 30-Mar-98 PZ-6 SECOND READING Item No: 2 Location: 194-218 SE 14 Street Legal: (Complete legal description on file with the Office of Hearing Boards) Applicant: Bayhaven Investments, Inc. Lucia A. Dougherty, Esq. 1414 NW 107 Ave., #215 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33172 App. Ph: (305) 593-2584 Zoning: 0 Office Miami, FL 33131 ' Rep. Ph: (305) 579-0603 ext Rep. Fa ( ) = ext Request: Change of Zoning as listed in Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Article 4, Section 401, Schedule of District Regulations from 0 Office to SD-5 Brickell Avenue Area Residential -Office District. Recommendations: Planning and Development: Approval Public Works: No comments Plat and Street Committee: N/A Dade County Transportation: No comments Enforcement History, If any C.E.B. Case No: N/A Last Hearing Date: Found: N/A Violation(s) Cited: N/A Ticketing Action: N/A Daily Fine: $0.00 Affidavit Non -Compliance Issued on: Warning Letter sent on: Total Fines to Date: $0.00 Lien Recorded on: Comply Order by: CEB Action: History: Analysis: Please see attached. Zoning Board Resolution No: ZB 1998-0042 Zoning Board: Approval Vote: 8-0 Appellant: N/A City Commission: Passed First Reading on May 26, 1998. 11668 • ANALYSIS FOR ZONING CHANGE Approximately 194-218 SE 14th Street. CASE NO: 1998-0096 Pursuant to Article 4, Section 401 and Article 22 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: A parcel which consists of three lots, from 0 "Office" to SD-5 "Brickell Avenue Area Office -Residential District". (Complete legal description on file with the Hearing Boards Office). The following findings have been made: • It is found that the subject properties are adjacent north and west to the SD-5 zoning designation. • It is found that the requested change to SD-5 "Brickell Avenue Area Office - Residential District" on the subject property is a logical extension of the adjacent parcels and will unify the designations and therefore allow for a more unified development proposal to serve the Brickell core. • It is found that the requested zoning designation change is consistent with the underlying land use designation and therefore does not require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Based on these findings, the Department of Planning and Development is recommending approval of the application as presented. 11668 Add/Update a Case Zoning Board Resolution Zoning Board Analysis .. Hearing Boards Supporting Materials Reports Enforcement History YesNoN/A a In harmony with Comp Plan does not regeamendment... e} . In harmony with:e tabh hed land use. • • Is related to'adjacent andPearby-distticts Is within scale With needs;of City ` , _? Maintains srmtar population density pattern. s !L` Existing district boundaries are 4 J Chan9es or changing conditions, that make change necessi •a Positively infkrences living conditions in nerghborhood - 1 as simian impact op-traffic:.does notaffeet public safety; _ Has similar impact: on drainage • Has similar impact on light and airto adlacent•areas 4) — Has similar impact on property values sr adiacerit ? Contributes to improvernent or development of adiacentpra C▪ onveys same trentasto owners within '.same class ca e Property:is unfairly &nited under existing zoning; Diifficult to finder adequate sites"in'suiounding area -Zoning Board: History Set Up Change Anatyri:. ,; Case U 1998 0096''` Update?, Cancel. Return', 11668 ST. 'S 13 0 1. -13 t.S tP�� ►`��+ PPS 0� w 1 S,W • ST S.E. -9 ST R000000000000, 0000oa-01:1000oy` aftdr m it i. 74 r, 20 21 22 f. 3 2C s4 .: . :-f z. ; SWTHSIDE ELEM. y SCHOOL S%.•�' >/ U/!!i/ i • 7 %/ 7 LEGEN D MIAMI CITY LIMITS RAILROADS SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST HISTORIC PRESERVATION /• • L I/ _. _. a. 11868 11668 • 0. Miami Zoning Board Resolution: ZB 1998-0042 Monday, March 30,1998 Mr. Juvenal Pina offered the following Resolution and move its adoption Resolution: AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, THE ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CHANGE OF ZONING IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, PAGE 37, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, FROM 0 OFFICE TO SD-5 BRICKELL AVENUE AREA RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 194-218 SE 14TH STREET LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A" HEREBY ATTACHED; ZONED 0 OFFICE. Upon being seconded by Ms. Christine Morales, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: Mr. George Barket Yes Ms. Gloria M. Basila Yes Mr. Tucker Gibbs Yes Ms. Ileana Hernandez -Acosta Yes Ms. Christine Morales Yes Mr. Osvaldo Moran-Ribeaux Yes Mr. Paris A. Obregon Yes Mr. Humberto J. Pellon Away Mr. Juvenal Pina Yes 8 Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 8-0 AYE: NAY: ABSTENTIONS: NO VOTES: ABSENTS: 0 0 0 1 Teresita L. Fernandez, Chief Office of Hearing Boards Case No.: 1998-0096 item Nbr: 1.1668 • EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 6, 7 and 8 as One, Block 2, Amended Plat of Point View, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 93 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. 11668 SECTION 2210. NATURE AND REQUIREMENTS OF ZONING BOARD • REPORT TO CITY COMMISSION • (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CONDMONS) When pertaining to the rezoning of land under application made under Article 22, the report and recommendation of the Zoning Board shall show that the Zoning Board has studied and considered, where applicable, whether or not: (a) The proposed change conforms with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and does not require a plan amendment; (b) The proposed change is in harmony with the established land use pattern; (c) The proposed change is related to adjacent and nearby districts; (d) The change suggested is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the city; (e) The proposed change maintains the same or similar population density pattern and thereby does not increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.; (f) Existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change; (g) Changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed change necessary; (h) The proposed change positively influences living conditions in the neighborhood; (i) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on traffic and does not affect public safety to a greater extent than the existing classification; (j) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on drainage as the existing classification; (k) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on light and air to adjacent areas as the existing classification; (1) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on property values in the adjacent area as the existing classification; (m) The proposed change will contribute to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations; (n) The proposed change conveys the same treatment to the individual owner as to owners within the same classification and the immediate area and furthers the protection of the public welfare; (o) There are substantial reasons why the use of the property is unfairly limited under existing zoning; (p) It is difficult to find other adequate sites in the surrounding area for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. (MOTION) After considering the factors set forth in Section 2210 of Ordinance 11000, I move that the request be recommended to the City Commission for (APPROVAL) (DENIAL). Si Agenda Item 130 58 Date 11668 r CITY OF MI • OFFICE OF HEARING •ARDS APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO ZONING ATLAS AND/OR OVERLAY DISTRICT ************************************************************************************************ SECTION 2-653 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, GENERALLY REQUIRES ANY PERSON WHO RECEIVES COMPENSATION, REMUNERATION OR EXPENSES FOR CONDUCTING LOBBYING ACTIVITIES TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST WITH THE CITY CLERK,, PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES BEFORE CITY STAFF, BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION. A COPY OF SAID ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK (MIAMI CITY HALL), LOCATED AT 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33133. NOTE: THIS APPLICATION MUST BE TYPEWRITTEN AND SIGNED IN BLACK INK. Marco E. Rojas, as Lucia A. Dougherty, on behalf of Bayhaven Investments, Inc. -and trustee and/orssig hereby apply to the City Commission of the, City of Miami for an amendment to the Zoning Atlas of the City of Miami as more particularly described herein and, in support of that request, furnish the following information (se,. Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance): x 1. Address of property: e 194-218 S.E. 14th Street P 01-0210-050-2250 x 2. Folio number: 01-0210-050-2260 x 3. Two original surveys, prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land Surveyor within one year from the date of application. X 4. Affidavit disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of interest (see attached X form). 5. Certified list of owners of real estate within a 375-foot radius of the outside boundaries of property covered by this application. x 6. At least two (2) photographs that : hew -:ntire property (land and improvements). X 7. Present zoning designation(s): office SD-5 x 8. Future zoning designation(s): X 9. Other (Specify and attach cover letters explaining why any document you are attaching is pertinent to this application). 11668 10. Statement ex laininpresent zoningdesignation is ina P �Y g pproike. Currently there are only four lots with the office designation which is out of character with the surrounding area: X I l . Statement as to why proposed zoning designation is appropriate. The property is surrounded on three sides by properties which are also designated SD-5. Thus the SD-5 regulations are more compatible for the area and give greater flexibility for development. x 12. Recorded warranty deed and tax forms for the most current yearavailable that show the present owner(s) of the property. 13. Other (specify): x 14. Filing fee of $ 9 , 983.70 according to Section 62-156 of the Zoning Ordinance: Change of zoning classification: CS, PR, R-1, R-2, per square foot of net lot area $ .15 Minimum $ 635.00 R-3, R-4, 0, G/I, HP per square foot of net lot area $ .20 Minimum $ 750.00 C- 1, C-2, I, per square foot of net lot area $ .25 Minimum $ 900.00 CBD and all SD's, per square foot of net lot area $ .30 Minimum $1,000.00 Public hearing mail notice fees, including cost of handling and mailing per notice $ 3.50 Signature I Name Lucia . Doughtery Address 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone (305) 579-0603 Date February 13, 1998 11668 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADS • 19 98 by Lucia A. Dougherty The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 _ day of February who is personally known to me or -who -has pr$dooed n and who did (did not) take an oath. Name: Notary Public -State of Florida Commission Ns.: OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL My Commissi1aE ISOL R GONZALEZ Y PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO. CC403667 MY COMMISSION EXP. SEPT 17,1998 ************************ ***************,t,►, ********************oat************ ********• STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 19_ , by of a corporation, on behalf of the corporation. He/She is personally known to me or has produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. Name: Notary Public -State of Florida Commission No.: My Commission Expires: ************************************************************************************************ STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 19 , by partner (or agent) on behalf of , a partnership. He/She is personally known to me or who has produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. Name: Notary Public -State of Florida Commission No.: My Commission Expires: 11668 AFFIDAVIT STATE OF FLORIDA } } SS COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE } Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared Lucia A. Dougherty who being by me first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says: 1. That he/she is the owner, or the legal representative of the owner, submitting the accompanying application for a public hearing as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, affecting the real property located in the City of Miami; as described and listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and made a part thereof. 2. That all owners which he/she represents, if any, have given their full and complete permission for him/her to act in his/her behalf for the change or modification of a classification or regulation of zoning as set out in the accompanying petition. 3. That the pages attached hereto and made a part of this affidavit contain the current names, mailing addresses, telephone numbers and legal descriptions for the real property of which he/she is the owner or legal representative. 4. The facts as represented in the application and documents submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are true and correct. Further Affiant sayeth not. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE Applicant's Signature Lucia A. Dougherty The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 19 98 ,by T,ir i a A. Dou hertY produced d y of February who is personally known to me or -who -hag -as identif cation and who did (did not) take an oath. idiAt4-ece-i2 Name: Notary Public -State o Commission No.: My Commission Exp r lOr1 L NOTARY SEAL MARL R GONZALEZ ...T TARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA S: COMMISSION NO. CC403667 MY COMMISSION EXP. SEI T 17,1998 11668 OWNER'S LIST Owner's Name Bayhaven Investments, Inc., a Florida corporation Mailing Address c/o Arthur Scott 1414 N.W. 107th Avenue, #215, Miami, Fl 33172 Zip Code Telephone Number (305) 593-2584 Legal Description: See attached Exhibit "A" Owner's Name N/A Mailing Address Zip Code Telephone Number Legal Description: Owner's Name N/A Mailing Address Zip Code Telephone Number Legal Description: Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 375 feet of the subject site is listed as follows: NIA Street Address N/A Legal Description Street Address Legal Description N/A Street Address Legal Description 11668 DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP 0 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property: See Attached Exhibit "A" 2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership. Note: Section 2-618 of the Code of the City of Miami requires disclosure of all parties having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question #2 requires disclosure of shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. Marco E. Rojas, as trustee and/or assigns is the trustee for Key Real Estate Development II Corp., a Florida corporation- 100% shares owned by Neyda E. Avila. 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question #2, and (b) located within 375 feet of the subject real property. None STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 19 98 , by Lucia R. Dougherty Owner or Afforne 1 r owner Lucia A. Doug erty -3 day of February who is personally known to me or w prodtteed as4dent4luation and who did (did not) take an oath. Name: Notary Publi Commission My Commiss -� OFFICIAL N�' +�� e44449•��ON� a.. ATE OF'Ft.* .0A �10N NO. CC4036E+7 .ONIM ON EXP. SIFT 17.19gs 11668 DISCLOSURE OF OWNERS/40 1, Legal description and street address of subject real party; 3 See attached Exhibit "A'° attached hereto and made a part hereof. Owner of subject real propr • and percentage of ownership.. Note: Section 2-61 S of the Coin of the City of Maui roqu izes disclosure of all parties having a financial ingest, either di: act or inui.urc t, in the subject matter of a pte a ttatien, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question #2 requires disclosure of shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together-withtheir addresses and T,ollortionate intemSt. Shareholder Address Interest Dover Corp. Inc. 1414 N. TX'. 107 Ave. - Suite 215, Miami, Fla 45% CChristel & Cesar Payan 1414 N. W. 107 Ave. - Suite 215, Miami, Fla 30> Antonio & Francesca Pacini 1414 N. W. 107 Ave. - Suite 215, Miami, Fla 10% Invrepa Holding SA 1414 N. W. 107 Ave. - Suite 215, Miami, Fla 15% Legs i description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any pasty listed in answer to question #2, and (b) located within 375 feet ofthc subject real property. N 0 N E 8ayh� nve tment,�, By: Owner cfnortailetscfatOmio President SirA'I'E OF FLORIDA )§ OOUNTY OF NEANII-DADS) 44- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this/ 3 day of February, 1998 b A 5f 6T-t who is personally brown to me or Who bas produced as identification and who did -Bidet) take an oath. lily Commission Expires: iwy Public -State of Florida Commissioallos : _ NOTAR RICHARD C WFSF NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORID COMMISSION NO. CC373385 MY COMMISSION E i'.. UNE 6,1998 11668 • EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 6, 7 and 8 as One, Block 2, Amended Plat of Point View, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 93 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. 11668 IrE:1729 e4€71 • IN TEX CIRCUIT COURT OP THE ;yZVI T11 JVDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND 70A DADE COUNTY, PLDRIDA GENERAL JURISTICTION DIVISION CIVIL ACTION N0. 96. 6262 SEC. 27 DOVMA CORP., INC., a 1i.p.I. corporation, canzsTiL S. PAYAN, CWiR PA3:A11, A$T0EIO PACIAI. FRANCESCA. CIURLO DI PACINI and INVREPA NOLQINQ. B.A., a Swiss corporation, Plaintiff(.)/Pstitiansrle) vs. • RINO5TAR INTIMATION:M. INC.. a British Virgia'ialand cospaay, Defendant(.)/Respondant(a) 9 6 R 3 3 4 2 5 7 1996 JUL 39 11:08 DOCSTFDEE 64456.00 SURTX 4,842.00 NARVEY RUVIN, CLERK DADE COUNTY, FL • cZATIFICATE OF TITLE Chapter 45 THE URDEASI :D CUM OY this Court certifies that a Certificate of sale was executed and filed in this action on July 17, 1996 , fOt the property described herein and that objections to the sale have either not boon filed within the time alloyed by statutory ler or, it filed, haw be. heard by the court. Tba property in Dade County, Florida and described es follows: ATTACUZD COPT) was sold to, 6AYHAVEN INVESTMENTS INC., a Flo2.ida Cofipotat.Lon, c/o Bernstein A Berger, 100 N. Biscayne Boulevard, #100. Niami, Florida 33132.. AITNESs my hand and the Seal of this Court on July 30, 1996 Harvey Ruvin. C1Kk By: 'ICI LCA-,^ Y D■puty Clerk 11668 02/12/98 THU 17:52 FAX 305 374 1156 • FREEMAN. BuTrERMAN , HABER • I003 OREF.. 1129gr46t 'LC ....,Wr. EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 6, in;IBloCk 2, and also the part of Lot 7 in Block 2,,; :described as follows: Beginning at a point 50 feet East of tha ; 'Northwest Corner of Lot 7; thence Easterly along Kathryn Avenue 1 :a distance !of. 25 fest: thence Southwesterly to the southeast i.Cornsr of aaidiLot 7: thence westerly along an alley to:a point '24 feet 6 inches from the Southwest corner of said Lot 7; thence to place ot:beginning; All of above being located in POINT VIEW, a subdivision of part of Lot'27 and Lots 28 to 36 of Block 105 South, City' ofj Milani, 'Florida; also That portion of Lot 7, in B1Cck 2, of Amended Plat -of POINT VIEW, 'According to tie Plat thereat, recorded in Plat Book 2.'at Pace I9., of the'Public Records of Dada county, Florida, which is i bded and described as follows: , Commencing at the NorthweAt coqrner of said Lot 7; theollce--run Easterly on the Northerly i biundary line of said Lot 7, a distance of 50 feet: thenc:a 'tun • southwesterly to' an intersection with the Southerly boundary line `of said Lot•7 at a paint which is 74 1/2 feat Easterly from the southwest wormer of said Lot 7; thence run Westerly •on the :southerly 'boundary ling of said Lot to the Southwesterly corner 'thereof; thence rur, Northeasterly on the Westerly boundary line :of said Lot7 to the Place of Begiunirig; also Atl of .Lot`. 8 in Block 2, of Amended Plat of POINT.VIEW, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93,• !of the, Public Rscords.of Dada County,.Florida ' • 'The above decc?ihed property is also ]mown as Lots 6, 7• and 8, Block 4, of Amended Plat of POINT VIEW according to the plat - thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93 of the Public Records :of Dade county] Florida. • . 1 !A strip of! land having a frontage:of.25 teat by a depth of 15 feat more or 141sa, at the foot of'Kethryn Avenue described as !follows: Beginning at a point in the Center of Kathryn Avenue ifrontin4 on the Bay: thence Northwardly a distance of 25 feet 'following thi`Bay line, thence Westwardly a distance of 1s feet ,more.of lesa, thence Southvardly a: distance of 25 feet more or 'less, thence 1 feet or or less to the Point of Beginning. The above descript1on being the North 25 feet of Out-Lot5 in POINT 'VIEW, a subdivilsion oC part of Lot 27 and Lots 28 to 36 of Block '••105 South,;City of Miami, Florida; All recorded in the. Amended tPlat of POINT VIEW, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 2, at Page 93, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. • • HARVEY R!J'!IN CtfRW ColCur, a„.0 11668 (SEAL) Sookle Williams RECE VEf '98 JUL -8 R10 :41 y..5 Ai_T::. R ¢ r O'EP1AN Cl? Y CLERK CITY r�; - �51, FL., A. MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays Miami, Dade County, Florida. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE: Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Sookle Williams, who on oath says that she 1s the Vice President of Legal Advertising of the Miami Daily Business Review f/kla Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Mlaml In Dade County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice In the matter of CITY OF MIAMI ORDINANCE NO. 11668 in the XXXXXXX Court, was published Irnid uwspaper In the Issues of Afflant further says that the said Miami Daily Business Review Is a newspaper published at Mlaml In said Dade County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published In said Dade County, Florida, each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as second class mall matter at the post office In Mlaml In said Dade County, Florida, for a period o1 one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy dvertisement; and affiant further says that she has neat -:Id nor promised any person, firm or corporation any unt, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of - ng this ad =rtlsement for publication in the said ne 's�J per. 6 da o and sub crib/ me this 19 je Z.. .4.0.11.., 7,4111111rAirefr ' .';'"..#40, O�P(2Y • F r NO AR S L JANE.TT LLERENA s . o1p 1 to it VMAMON NUMBER cel 2�'V� c CC566004 Tr �Mr �,, MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 'OF F'-O JUNE 23,2000 . CITY OF MIAMI; FLORIDA -LEGAL .NOTICE 'All interested persorrsrwilltakenotice'th'at on ,the 23tht'day-of`9une '1998; the -City Commission of Miami,Florida, adopted the following ti- tled ordinances: ORDINANCE NO. 11666 AN ORDINANCE -AMENDING CHAPTER 40, ARTICLE III, OF THE l CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTI-• TLED "PERSONNEUCIVIL"SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS°, ! 'TO PROVIDE THAT SUBJECT TO ANY PROVISION IN AN EXIST- ING, LABOR AGREEMENT, 'REAPPOINTED EMPLOYEES SHALL ONLY' RECEIVE • CREDIT FOR SERVICE RENDERED: PRIOR TO RE-EMPLOYMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEETING THE TIME - IN -GRADE REQUIREMENT NECESSARY FOR TAKING A PROMO- TIONAL' EXAMINATION;- MORE • PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING.. SECTION 40-119(b). of SAID CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN. EFFECTIVE' DATE.` ORDINANCE NO. 11667 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 40, ARTICLE III, OF THE j . CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTI- TLED: "PERSONNEJCIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS", ' TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO BE CERTIFIED AS CANDIDATES FOR POLICE OFFICER ON OPEN COMPETITIVE REGISTERS; MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SUBSECTION ' 40-88(a)(1) AND REPEALING SUBSECTION 40-88(a)(2); CONTAIN- , ING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR'AN EFFECTIVE:DATE. ORDINANCE NO. 116 AN ORDINANCE, WITH ATTACHM NG THE ZONING j ORDINANCE -AND PAGE NO. 37 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,-FLORIDA; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSI- FICATION FROM 0 OFFICE TO SD5 'BRICKELL AVENUE AREA • RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE DISTRICT -,FOR THE -PROPERTY LOCATED -AT APPROXIMATELY-194-218 SOUTHEAST 14TH STREET, MIAMI;-' ' FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; ; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING. A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN_EFFECTIVE,. DATE. ORDINANCE:NO. 11669 AN 'ORDINANCE 'AMENDING" THE 'FUTURE LAND USE MAP' OF THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3615 NW 23RD COURT, FROM MEDIUM DEN- SITY.•RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL; MAKING FIND- ; INGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS. TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION -AND .A SEVERABILITY.,' ' CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE NO. 11670 AN'ORDINANCE, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 34 OF THE' ZONING ATLAS -OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-3 MULTIFAM= ILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO C-2 LIBERAL COMMER- CIAL FOR THE PROPERTY -LOCATED- AT APPROXIMATELY 3615 .' NORTHWEST 23" COURT MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; , CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. . ORDINANCE NO. 11671 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF ' THE -COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE: LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED• .- AT APPROXIMATELY 3188 SOUTHWEST 18TH:STREET AND 1801 • SOUTHWEST 32ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA FROM DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL TO RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL; MAKING FIND- INGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO' AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION' AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE -DATE. - ORDINANCE NO. 11672 ' • AN ORDINANCE AMENDING. PAGE NO. 40 OF THE ZONING ATS., LAS OF THE CITY_ OF MIAMI,.-FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING. CLASSIFICATION FROM R-2TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL I TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LO- CATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3188 SOUTHWEST 18TH STREET AND 1801 SOUTHWEST 32ND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING. FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER; PROVISION AND A SEV- ERABILITY CLAUSE;AND PROVIDING FOR: AN EFFECTIVE DATE. eN ORDINANCE, WITH. ATTACHMENT, NO. 11673 . ATTACHMENT, AMENDING FUTURE ' LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN -BY CHANGING. THELAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 900 SOUTHWEST 1ST STREET (MANUEL ARTIME AUDITORIUM) FROM MAJOR IN- STITUTIONAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES, TO RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CON- TAINING A REPEALER : PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.. - ORDINANCE -NO. 11674 • AN ORDINANCE, WITH ATTACHMENT, AMENDING PAGE 'NO..35 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY OF .MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM Gil GOVERN MENT AND- INSTITUTIONAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 900 SOUTH- WEST 1ST STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MANUEL ARTIME AUDI- TORIUM); MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PRO- VISION AND A SEVERABILITY_ CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. - ORDINANCE NO. 11675 AN. ORDINANCE AMENDING PAGE NO. 20 OF,THE ZONING AT- LAS 'OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM G/1 GOVERNMENT AND INSTI- TUTIONAL TO R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI -FAMILY RESIDEN- TIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2301 NORTHWEST 10TH AVENUE,. MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FIND= INGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABIL- ITY-CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. - ' ORDINANCE NO. 11676 • AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING -ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 4; •SECTION 401 SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT (-REGULATIONS, IN .ORDER TO ALLOW CERTAIN PROCESSING C AND WHOLESALING USES . (INCLUDING CUSTOMARY ACCES --1 D, • SORY USES) OF SEAFOOD PRODUCTS BY CLASS II SPECIAL -< r-- PERMIT WITHIN C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL ZONING DIS-(—i .TRICTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A. SEVER- --t rei ABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. a3 • '. ORDINANCE NO. 11677 AN ORDINANCE:. AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000;:.. AS2'.r�' AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY'OF MIAMI, BY'`-,; AMENDING ARTICLE 9, SECTION 926 TO ALLOW A CLASS Pi -� SPECIAL. PERMIT, WITH CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL, FO SIGNS WHICH HAVE ARTISTIC OR GRAPHIC VALUE, PROVIDIN • FOR THE LOCATION,. REGULATION AND CONDITION.FOR THE APPROVAL OF SUCH SIGNS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVI .. SION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EF- • FECTIVE DATE. , . • - ORDINANCE NO.11678 AN ORDINANCE: -AMENDING. CHAPTER 35, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC" OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE VIII ENTITLED "VALET PARK- ING" PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF VALET PARKING' IN THE SD-5, SD-6 AND SD-7 ZONING DISTRICTS, AS DEFINED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE . OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A .REPEALER PROVISION AND. A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE NO. 11679 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, OF THE CODE ,OF„THE , CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES", BY ADDING NEW SECTION 4-13, -ENTITLED "CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS", TO PERMIT SALE OF LIQUOR IN RESTAURANTS, CAFES, CAFETE-, RIA AND DELICATESSENS WITH SEATING FOR 50 OR MORE- CUSTOMERS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A • SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE- ' DATE. Said ordinances may be inspected by the public at the Office of the City Clerk,-3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, between the hours of 8 a.m. and-5 p.m.• WALTER J. FOEMAN CITY CLERK . (#4814) 7/6 . 98-4-070621M MIAMI 21 (EXISTING) FILE ID: PZ-18-313 REZONE N 0 125 250 500 Feet 111111111 ADDRESS: 240 SE 14 ST .--•—•- Established Setbacks SUBJECT PROPERTY N 0 125 250 MIAMI 21 (PROPOSED) FILE ID: PZ-18-313 REZONE 500 Feet ADDRESS: 240 SE 14 ST •--•• Established Setbacks SUBJECT PROPERTY 111111111 AERIAL FILE ID: PZ-18-313 N 0 125 250 500 Feet 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 ADDRESS: 240 SE 14 ST