Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBack-Up DocumentsThis instrument was prepared by: Office of the City Attorney City of Miami 444 SW 2"d Avenue, 9th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 After Recordation Return to: Carlos L. Diaz, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 333 SE 2 Avenue, 41st Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Parcel Identification No. 01-3125-031-0110 QUIT CLAIM DEED (For Recorder's Use Only) THIS QUIT CLAIM DEED is made this day of , 2022, by THE CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, whose address is 444 SW 2"d Ave, Miami, Florida 33130, ("Grantor" or "City"), to 2775 MANDARINE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, whose address is 8 NE 27 Street, Miami, Florida 33137 ("Grantee"). (Whenever used herein the terms "Grantor" and "Grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, legal representatives, and assigns of individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations, trusts and trustees, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as required by context.) WITNESSETH, that Grantor, for and in consideration of $10.00 and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, hereby remises, releases and quitclaims unto the Grantee, without warranty or representation by or recourse against Grantor, all of Grantor's right, title and interest, if any, in and to that certain land situate in Miami -Dade County, Florida (the "Property"), more fully described as follows: THE SOUTH 20.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 35.00 FEET OF LOTS 12 AND 13, MARION PLACE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 57, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THEREFROM THE WEST 25.00 FEET AND THE EXTERNAL AREA OF A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND TANGENTS WHICH ARE 15.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF LOTS 12 AND 13 AND 25.00 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF LOT 13 OF SAID MARION PLACE. On , through Resolution No. 22- , attached as Exhibit "A", the City Commission found it in the best interest of the City to authorize the conveyance of the Property to the Grantee, in order to facilitate redevelopment and divest the City of unnecessary right-of-way; and The City Commission further authorized the City Manager to execute this Deed; and This Quit Claim Deed conveys only the interests of the Grantor in the Property described herein and shall not warrant title thereto. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same together with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest, lien, equity and claim whatsoever of the said Grantor, if any, in and to such Property, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behalf of the said Grantee forever. [SIGNATURE APPEARS ON FOLLOWING PAGE] above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this Quit Claim Deed as of the date first set forth Signed, sealed and delivered THE CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation in the presence of: of the State of Florida By: Arthur Noriega V Print Name: City Manager Print Name: STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS: COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of ( ) physical presence or ( ) online notarization, this day of , 2022, by Arthur Noriega V, as City Manager of The City of Miami, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, on behalf of said municipal corporation. He is ( ) personally known to me or has ( ) produced a State of Florida driver's license as identification. My Commission Expires: Sign Name: Print Name: NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA [NOTARIAL SEAL] My commission expires: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND CORRECTNESS: Victoria Mendez City Attorney APPROVED AS TO LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Juvenal Santana, P.E., C.F.M. Director of Resilience and Public Works EXHIBIT A GT GreenbergTraurig Iris V. Escarra Tel. 305-579-0737 Fax 305-961-5737 escarrai@gtlaw.com August 19, 2021 Via Email Juvenal Santana, Jr., P.E., CFM Director, Department of Resilience and Public Works City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 8th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Re: 2775 NW 3rd Avenue, Miami, Florida (Folio No. 01-3125-031-0110) / Reconveyance of land pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 255.22 Dear Mr. Santana, We represent 2775 Mandarine, LLC (the "Owner"), owner of the property located at 2775 NW 3rd Avenue, Miami, Florida (the "Property"). On behalf of the Owner, please accept this correspondence as our request for the reconveyance of the land legally described in the enclosed sketch and legal description prepared by J. Hernandez & Associates and attached as Exhibit 1 (the "Unused Land"), pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 255.22, attached as Exhibit 2. As further detailed below, the Unused Land was abandoned by the City of Miami (the "City") and never utilized for the specific purposed for which it was dedicated and therefore should be conveyed to the Owner. I. BACKGROUND On January 29, 1937, the Miami City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 1682 designating a zoned right-of-way width of 70 feet for NW 28th Street (from North Miami Avenue to the west city limits) effectively requiring a 35 foot dedication for all lots located south of the center line of NW 28th Street, including the Property. Shortly thereafter, the Owner's predecessor in title conveyed the north 35 feet of the Property (the "Dedicated Land") to the City, pursuant to the deed dated March 13, 1950, as recorded in Deed Book 3252, Page 219 of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County Florida and attached as Exhibit 3 (the "Original Deed"), as required by Ordinance No. 1682. The Owner's predecessor retained a reversionary interest on the Dedicated Land.' Please refer to the sketch below for a general depiction of the relevant portions of land. t The Dedicated Land Deed contains a reversionary interest limiting the use of the Dedicated Land to sidewalk or street purposes. This reversionary interest is further evinced by that certain deed for the Property, dated July 7, 1956 as recorded in Official Records Book 63, Page 387 of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County Florida and attached as Exhibit 4 (the "1956 Deed"). The 1956 Deed provides that the north 35 feet of the Property were conveyed to the City for sidewalk or street purposes. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. I Attorneys at Law 333 Southeast Second Avenue I Suite 4400 I Miami, FL 33131 I T +1 305.579.0500 I F +1 305.579.0717 www.gtlaw.com Juvenal Santana, Jr , P E , CFM 2775 NW 3rd Avenue August 18, 2021 Page 2 of 4 25' CORNER RAMIS CRY OF OF 0w54WICFS «r t.-s"(e1 F 714E WEST 250' OF LOT t3 250' 4 N. W. 28th STREET (6P' P4AL8' emir PF IIPIYf 989'5955'E85.00' ''',-CENTERLINE PR CRY OF WON COX g g SECRQ4 54-187 589°59'55 E 60.00' NORTH LINE OF LOTS 12813 BASE MUM LINE rRY 61' 6000 Coo' O aRINAM73 SEC LOT 12, MARION PLACE (P B. 3, PG. 57) SOUTH LINE OF LOTS 128 13 NSP•51275W MOP' N59'595511185.00' N L[/ . 7Fh 7F77A.A /''F` -R Dedicated Land -07 0 Property The City never utilized all of the Dedicated Land to create a 70 feet wide right-of-way along NW 28th Street. A portion of the Dedicated Land was used for sidewalk and street purposes.2 However, the rest of the Dedicated Land (here referred to as the Unused Land) was never utilized for the purposes for which it was dedicated. In fact, on April 28, 2016, the Miami City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 13600, attached as Exhibit 5, reducing the zoned width of NW 28th Street between NW 2nd Avenue and NW 3rd Avenue from 70 feet to 50 feet, thereby abandoning the Unused Land. Additionally, on October 23, 2017, your office issued a determination, attached as Exhibit 6, which shifted the centerline of NW 28th Street 10 feet to the north of the existing centerline effectively requiring a only a 15 foot right-of-way dedication (instead of the 35 feet dedicated by the Original Deed) for properties located along the south side of NW 28th Street including the Property. II. REQUEST FOR CONVEYANCE We are respectfully requesting that the Unused Land (which was never utilized by the City for the intended purpose and was officially abandoned via Ordinance No. 13600) be conveyed to the Owner via a quit claim deed under the provisions of Florida Statutes, Section 255.22. This statute "authorizes and requires" a municipality to reconvey real property conveyed to it without consideration for a specific purpose or use, when such property is not used for such purpose or use 2 Please note that the Owner is NOT requesting that this portion of land be conveyed. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. I Attorneys at Law www.gtlaw.com Juvenal Santana, Jr , P E , CFM 2775 NW 3rd Avenue August 18, 2021 Page 3 of 4 for 60 consecutive months and written demand for such reconveyance is made by a party who owns land adjoining such property on at least one side. See Op. Att'y. Gen. Fla. 71-387 (1971), attached as Exhibit 7. Pursuant to Section 255.22, the requested conveyance of the Unused Lad must be approved because (1) the Owner is the party that owns the adjoining land; (2) its predecessor conveyed the Dedicated Land including the Unused Land to the City without receipt of valuable consideration; and (3) the City has not used the Unused Land for the specific purpose dedicated (street or sidewalk) for a period of 60 consecutive months. 1. The Unused Land was conveyed to the City without receipt of valuable consideration. The Owner's predecessor did not convey the Dedicated Land to the City in exchange for valuable consideration. Instead, Ordinance No. 1682 required that the Owner's predecessor convey the Dedicated Land. More importantly, pursuant to the terms of the Dedicated Land Deed, the Owner's predecessor in interest retained a reversionary interest in the Dedicated Land which requires that the Unused Land be conveyed to the Owner.3 2. The City failed to use the Unused Land for the specific purpose dedicated for a period of 60 consecutive months. The City never used the Unused Land for the street or sidewalk purpose for which it was conveyed. In fact, the City officially abandoned the Unused Land in 2016 when it adopted Ordinance No. 13600. According to the staff report prepared in connection with Ordinance No. 13600, attached as Exhibit 8, the relevant section of NW 28th Street (from NW 2nd Avenue to NW 3rd Avenue) "has not been constructed to the full 70 feet width." As such, it is evident that the City has abandoned the Unused Land which has not been used for right-of-way purposes since being dedicated more than 70 years ago. Accordingly, because the Unused Land has never been used for the right-of-way purposes for which it was conveyed, the Owner kindly requests that the City reconvey said land to permit proper development of the Property. III. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION As you are aware, we have been working on this request for more than two years. On April 10, 2018, you issued a letter responding to our initial request and requesting additional information. The below is a summary of the additional information requested and our responses. • Paragraph 3: "The Boundary Survey must include the recent re -zoning of NW 28 Street to a 50-foot wide right of way and the shifting of the street centerline 10 feet to the North." 3 See Woodlawn Park Cemetery Co. v. City of Miami, 104 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958) (holding that an owner who dedicated a 35 foot strip of land to the City for right-of-way purposes was entitled to the portion of said land which was abandoned by the City when it, by ordinance, established the street as a 50 foot right of way, and only a 25 foot strip of the dedicated land was used by the City for street purposes), attached as Exhibit 9. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. I Attorneys at Law www.gtlaw.com Juvenal Santana, Jr , P E , CFM 2775 NW 3rd Avenue August 18, 2021 Page 4 of 4 o Please see enclosed Boundary Survey reflecting the current location of the centerline and the 50-foot right of way width. • Paragraph 5: "The conveyed land has been used for street purposes." o As explained in this correspondence, the Owner is only requesting conveyance of the Unused Land which is the portion of the Dedicated Land that has NOT been used for street purposes and was abandoned by the City via Ordinance No. 13600. The rest of the Dedicated Land will remain as right-of-way. • Paragraph 6: "There are currently exist parking spaces within the conveyed land. Angle parking spaces and their maneuvering are not permitted within the City's right of way." o At your request, the Owner removed these parking spaces and constructed a new sidewalk with curb and gutter around the area pursuant to Permit No. PW20000344RW. • Paragraph 7: Additionally, right of way line at the street intersection of NW 3 Av and NW 28 St adjacent to Lot 13 shall be rounded with a radius of 25 feet. The area external to the 25-foot radius is to be reserved as fully dedicated right away area for street purposes." o This area was part of the Dedicated Land and will remain as right of away, as depicted in the provided sketch and legal description. We look forward to finalizing this reconveyance as soon as possible. Should you require additional information or have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (305) 579-0737. Sincerely, eaAlote- for Iris V. Escarra Enclosures cc: Nzeribe Ihekwaba, Ph.D., P.E., Assistant City Manager J. Gigi Soliman, Assistant City Attorney Greenberg Traurig, P.A. I Attorneys at Law www.gtlaw.com EXHIBIT 'A" SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPT/ON 5.0' i Al t NW. 28th STREET (50' PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY) CENTERLINE PER CITY OF MIAMI CODE SECTION 54-187 S89°59'55"E 85.00' NORTH LINE OF N.E. 1/4 OF S.W. 1/4 OF SECTION 25-53-4 o0 S89°59'55"E 60.00' 25' CORNER RADIUS PER CITY OF MIAMI ODE OF ORDINANCES SEC. 54-58(a) M F THE WEST 2 W w N '� W M Q I ~ OJ OI Z j GRAPHIC SCALE 0 10 20 I W 1 INCH = 20 FEET h 25.0' N00°10'20"E 110.00' 7 NORTH LINE OF LOTS 12 & 13 BASE BUILDING LINE CITY OF MIAMI CODE OF ORDINANCES SEC. 54-187 R=25.00' THE SOUTH 20' OF THE NORTH 35' OF LOT 12 & 13 LOT 12, MARION PLACE (P.B. 3, PG. 57) 1 SOUTH LINE OF LOTS 12 & 13 N89 °59 55"W 60.00' S00 ° 10'20"W 110.00' (34' PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY) N89 °59 55"W 85.00' N. W. 27th TERRACE 0 N ZONED _ R/W �•, W ti EXISTING R/W J J. Hernandez & Associates Inc LAND SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS' CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION No. LB8092 4805 NW 79th AVE. SUITE 9, DORAL, FL 33166 (P) 305-526-0606 (E) info®jhasurveys.com SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND DIRECTION: BY JOSE" G. /4ERNANDEZ, PRESIDENT PROFESS/OVAL LAND SURVEYOR No. 6952 STATE OF FLORIDA. DRAWN BY• M.J.M. \CZATE: 12/17/21 CHECKED BY• J.G.H. SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS JOB NUM.: 151298 F.B. N/A J EXHIBIT 'A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO ACCOMPANY SKETCH THE SOUTH 20.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 35.00 FEET OF LOTS' 12 AND 13, MARION PLACE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 57, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THEREFROM THE WEST 25.00 FEET OF LOT 13 AND THE EXTERNAL AREA OF A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND TANGENTS WHICH ARE 15.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF LOST 12 & 13 AND 25.00 EAST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF LOT 13 OF SAID MARION PLACE. SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING 1,068 SQUARE FEET. LYING AND BEING IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 53 SOUTH, RANGE 41 EAST, CITY OF MIAMI, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. NOTES: 1. PREPARED FOR: BLOCK CAPITAL GROUP. 2. BEARINGS BASED ON AN ASSUMED BEARING OF S89"59'55 "E, ALONG THE MONUMENT LINE OF N. W. 28TH STREET. 3. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY 4. THE ELECTRONIC SEAL AND SIGNATURE APPEARING ON THIS SURVEY WAS AUTHORIZED BY JOSE G. HERNANDEZ, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR NO. 6952 OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ON DECEMBER 17, 2021. r LEGEND DENOTES PROPERTY LINE - DENOTES CENTER LINE — R/W — DENOTES RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE P.B. DENOTES PLAT BOOK PG. DENOTES PAGE J. Hernandez & Associates Inc LAND SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION No. LB8092 4805 NW 79th AVE. SUITE 9, DORAL, FL 33166 (P) 305-526-0606 (E) info®jhasurveys.com SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND DIRECTION: BY. JOSE G. HERNANDEZ, PRESIDENT PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR No. 6952 STATE OF FLORIDA. DRAWN BY.• M.J.M. \12.ATE: 12/17/21 CHECKED BY.• J.G.H. SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS JOB NUM.: 151298 F.B. N/A J 8/18/2021 Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine Select Year: 2020 v Go The 2020 Florida Statutes Title XVIII PUBLIC LANDS AND PROPERTY Chapter255 PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLICLY OWNED BUILDINGS View Entire Chapter 255.22 Reconveyance of lands not used for purpose specified.— (1) In the event any party owning adjoining land conveys real property, without receipt of valuable consideration, to any municipality or county for a specific purpose or use and if such county or municipality fails to use such property for such purpose for a period of 60 consecutive months or, with respect to property conveyed on or after October 1, 1984, fails to use such property for such purpose for a period of 60 consecutive months or identify during the 60-month period the proposed use of such property in a comprehensive plan or other public facilities plan, then, upon written demand of the grantor, or grantor's successors in title owning such adjoining land, the municipality or county may execute and deliver a quitclaim deed to the party making such demand provided such party is the owner of land adjoining such property on at least one side. No such quitclaim deed shall be delivered hereunder unless the specific purpose or use to be made of the property was disclosed to the grantee at the time of delivery of the conveyance or appeared in the conveyance or in an official record of the county; provided, however, that as to any such conveyance after July 1, 1967, the specific purpose or use must appear of record. (2) In the event the purpose for which the property was conveyed required physical improvement or construction on such property or the maintenance thereof, any such municipality or county that fails to construct, improve, or maintain such property for the period specified in subsection (1) shall be conclusively deemed to have abandoned the property for the purpose for which it was conveyed, unless, with respect to property conveyed on or after October 1, 1984, the proposed use of such property has been identified in a comprehensive plan or other public facilities plan of the municipality or county during the 60-month period specified in subsection (1). History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 67-383; ss. 1, 2, 3, ch. 84-366; s. 42, ch. 93-164; s. 3, ch. 94-175; s. 3, ch. 95-297; s. 16, ch. 95-310. Note. —Consolidation of s. 255.22 and former s. 255.23. Copyright © 1995-2021 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0200-0299/0255/Sections/0255.22.html. 1/1 Ott Ar'l .�l. ffl.i ifb mum OSCAR PET RSO2: a 'UMW»- - - - pr ttie City of aiebeo • Arl so:>s of the Camay 1 $ _ .. fs ie Stale of :poet__ of the filet pat, and alb of the County of �" a . in the State of Theis* part..;_.of the eseuad past, WITNESSETII. Thai the mid part of the first part, for and in ooauideratien of the nos Of �, t10lleri is in hand paid by the Wr't_---+'of the eeoond part, the receipt whereof is hereby afire ewledgart granted, bargefned and 'sold to the said par* ; • of the•oeeed pert, br and sedges, forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in the County of ■ and State of Florida, tomtit: • . .. 1 .- , ' Also; i;oii ti THI.:TY-FIVE (35) FF.:.;Tof Lot 12. LARIUL 1,LACE according to the plat thereof as recorded in Flat Bock 3, at iage 57, of the Public Records of Dade Count;,, Florida. APPROVED AS TO RORP' DATE 7.astre1/2GZ BY APP;O EO AS, fC) C SCRIPTION e CttV ertroeNt:V /1F MIAMI_?�'�{�_L11�/ ' A5 O CTOe o1 Lr:Grr.t:4INO • " And the said part of the filet pat de..11.1. hereby folly warrant the title t0 add land, and will deiced the snare again the Lwfu1 defers of all parsons wheinsener, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the add peat. of the flee set h / S baud_.= end a.at + the day and year above Sigeedlr deliwsad ii'p.osanes of s: °n cs..f► Order CYPRESS CREEK Doc: FLDADE:RDED 3252-00219 ".41..': 1 fl.J . . Page 1 of 2 Requested By: lowder.ashley, Printed: 1/11/2018 4:34 PM r WY. 1�_YY S STATE OF - Len a • cotrr-rtf of C,...13 I HEREBY CEIMFY that ea this day petsonahty appeared before tie, an officer duly authorised mad and take !_ace- gt to me we kno n to be a peron�. described in and who executed the foregoing d'eel, am! ae!,nowl. edced before me that e,._ezccuted the same freely and voluntarily for the purpo.e therein e%. pre •:•d. i'r .i:SS n!4 hand and &Deia] real at_ — - • Crnnty of Q-lCY_✓5 __aud State of__ e1Let1:/ Z<i -- , tea: 423 d: i ef`.L et.mmiotioh expires: A. D. 19 67 r � g 1PPROVED AS TO F:ifs .?ha a ..Si'gar '"NY OR MIAMf to A 1 F. r Order: CYPRESS CREEK Doc: FLDADE:RDED 3252-00219 Page 2 of 2 Requested By: lowder.ashley, Printed: 1 /11 /2018 4:34 PM ,t» Bgz9 N Q E PPET-PP 6CN2 so m - ,ho City ..Bisbee - - Ari aorta of tl►e County of— I $ , ha the State et • i (part_ of the; first part, lea ZI. CITY 01 1 _ail I, - I':ti11 a �J^' t�or )t rrtt".on of the County of �isi� _, in the State of Florida; part of the end part: WITNESSETH, 'Chat the said part of the first part, for and in consideration of the ours of Ones (r1.0Q) } ;111ar and o the -sod :Ind v,,Lluabl"c) 30 ;mil °':1E,'i`'i ts',1-nyin T)dlt[r a hand paid by the prirt_y_-__of the second part, tho receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, granted, bargained and Bold to the sold part ; of the -second part, t" ned:l'a' and aseignn, forever, the following described • land, situate, lying and being in the County of and State of(Florida, to -wit: •',`OR ,': TITL-:' r'. \ J ) o -,n .. 1_3 , tAli TON a-. ,01' t;n ! " c' 1_'11 roo ' a:3 iL'clo:1 in 'Zfli. _'o- : f ? 5'7, oi„i, • is Pu 1:I.c Roc:or.'.:1 0;. '_c_€o c• +; 01_1 :1 i..Y , 1711 o r a - "'. Ale o ; THE NORTH THI 7,'Y-FIVE (35) Fi i Pof Lot 12, MARION PLACE according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, at Page 57, of the Public Records of Dude County, Florida. - APPROVED AS TO FORD' DATt.2/Gt.ri` ... . • 11.... DY ....T O. y COY ATTORNEY OF MIAMI 11.,; - _.) AG ) 'tJ tlza trtl_o. sc .,r. '. ) O ^,Ot3 for ,J' ..`:-.:Jo �; in 'tho rev'mt-;1-.at3 said land ronwoyoa1)^. i .n1tc?c' !.a1::' c':' :3i. _ .a- -i/or 3idow.a.13C 1t1. :3ha11. .1'QV3r.'t t c '.;1 ,1 U . _;1 _)_ L't o:. a 3 ;�I1J D SCRIPTION Ft OF EI' GI[3t[ItING �•E;n t'it_1.t the __rn(1 o!ii.y, *1?l,.' olt4ci aricl dot' d_.: o::a:3, ;l,.t . t10 ItXDA And the Raid part _ of the first part do.- i hereby fully warrant the title to said Iand, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all percone whomsoever. IN WITNESS WKEREOF, the said p of the [first path 0 hereunto set h 3 1.____ hanc_and seals the day and year above Signed, delivered iegrenauee of truloM 03ul littnOHI arranit Bub 45100 lindgutart. Mode, this 7th day of July BETWEEN N. k E.,INC. existing under the laws of the State of Florida A. D. 19 56 • , a corporation , having its principal place of business in the County of Ddde and State of Florida and lawfully authorized to transact business in the State of Florida. party of the first part and S.T. BENEDICT and C.W. JORDAN yY 3 (o nl, t.J. M, i9-At t Cd' JIeT of the County of part lean/ the second part WITNESSETH: Dade and State of Florida That the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the nuts of Ten Dollars and Other Good and Valuable Considerations Dollars. to it in hand paid by the said panle8of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged ha. granted, bargained and sold to the said part iesof the second part. their heirs and assigns forever, the following described land situate. lying and being in the County of Dade end State of Florida, to -wit: Lots 12 and 13, (less the North 35' thereof and the west 25' of Lot 13, heretofore conveyed or dedicated to the City of Miami, Florida, Ibr sidewalk of street purposes) of MARION PLACE, according tothe Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 3, page 57, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Subject to conditions, restrictions, easements and limitations of record. Subject to taxes for the year 1956 and subsequent years. And the said party of the first part does hereby frilly warrant the title to said land, and will defend the some against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. Sign.vf... IN ll'ITNESS (WHEREOF. the said party of the firs, part has caused these pres- ents t.. he signed in ib tsaune its proper officers, and its rnrporate seal to be by attested by its s.r►warv. the day and veer abort. .rritt.•n. Secretary Iwf and deli:_ vr,vl in t.res.•n.isa: .• of R. k E. INC. Hy Richard J. Hays Vice-Peer/dens Book63/Page387 CFN#19570022301 Page 1 of 2 eool 63 PAU3B8 Olga of adore& DADR • tliauttt tl • it 3 )irredg fertifg, that ,m tkis 7th day of July O. U.' t 4 56. before me pe►rwally app erect RICHARD J . HAYS and C.W. JORDAN Vice— President end Secretary respectively H . R E . , INC . . a corporation wader the laws of the State of Florida . iv me known Iv be the persona who signed the fore- going instrument as such officers and severally acknowledged the esarution thereof to be their free act and deed as such officers for the uses and purposes therein mentioned and that they affixed thereto the ofi• riat seat of said corporation. and thta: the mid itutrwiteut is the ars awl died of said rorpora►ion. Nftnru my signature and official teat at in the County of Dade the day and year last afsnesabl. Mimi and State of Florida Notary Public State of Flori My commission expires: • a s .a At .-,h..f i"ol1} `_ +-t 441 • 8fsa �, 1•V wro/1 :71 1.0 Book63/Page388 CFN#19570022301 Page 2 of 2 City of Miami Legislation Ordinance City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www,miamigov.com File Number: 16-00230 Final Action Date: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 54/ARTICLE V/SECTION 54-190 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "STREETS AND SIDEWALKS/BASE BUILDING LINES/NONSTANDARD STREET WIDTHS", BY MODIFYING THE WIDTH OF NORTHWEST 28TH STREET BETWEEN NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE AND NORTHWEST 3RD AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Article V of Chapter 54 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended ("City Code"), establishes base building line locations for all public streets within the City of Miami ("City"); and WHEREAS, in February, 1912, the Northern Boulevard Tract subdivision was recorded that dedicated the north portion, 25 feet, of Northwest 28th Street, a quarter section line roadway, from Northwest 2nd Avenue to Northwest 3rd Avenue; and WHEREAS, although the northern boundary of the Marion Place subdivision recorded in September, 1913abutted the same quarter section line, that subdivision did not dedicate any of the south portion of Northwest 28th Street from Northwest 2nd Avenue to Northwest 3rd Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 1682 on January 29, 1937 officially establishing the section line as the centerline of Northwest 28th Street and designating a zoned right of way width of 70 feet from North Miami Avenue to the west City limits, thereby, locating the base building line 35 feet north and 35 feet south of the centerline (section line) of the right of way; and WHEREAS, in the 1960's, the State Highway Department assembled the right of way and constructed the Interstate 95 expressway causing Northwest 28th Street to "dead end" at the expressway; and WHEREAS, Northwest 28th Street no longer serves as a primary east/west connecting roadway through the Wynwood neighborhood; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 1986, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 10077 reducing the zoned width of Northwest 28th Street from North Miami Avenue to Northwest 2nd Avenue from 70 feet to the original 50 feet; and WHEREAS, the section of Northwest 28th Street from Northwest 2nd Avenue to Northwest 3rd Avenue has not been constructed to the full 70 foot width and, at their September 28, 2015 meeting, the Board of the Wynwood Business Improvement District adopted a Resolution supporting the reduction of the zoned right of way width of this section of Northwest 28th Street from 70 feet to 50 feet; and City of Miami Page 1 of 3 File Id: 16-00230 (Version: 1) Printed On: 3/7/2016 File Number: 16-00230 WHEREAS, the City Administration's review of this transportation corridor reveals that a 50 foot wide right of way will provide for sufficient space between the street fronts of buildings and structures, and enhance the safety, amenity and general welfare of the surrounding areas by encouraging the efficient use and development of lots and improving the pedestrian experience; and WHEREAS, when a section of a street is deleted from the non-standard street widths Code Section, it automatically reverts, per City Code Section 54-187, to the "default" standard street width of 50 feet, 25 feet from the centerline of the street to the base building line; and WHEREAS, the City's Police Department, Fire -Rescue Department and Solid Waste Department have evaluated the effect of the modification of the zoned street width of this roadway on their operations and have no substantial objections; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Ordinance are adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. Chapter 54/Article 1 of the City Code, entitled "Streets and Sidewalks/In General", is amended in the following particulars: {1} "CHAPTER 54 STREETS AND SIDEWALKS ARTICLE V. BASE BUILDING LINES Sec. 54-190. Nonstandard street widths. Base Building lines shall be located from the centerline as specified for each of the following streets: Streets, Avenues, Roads, Etc., In Alphabetical Order * Distance in feet from Centerline to Base Base Building Line (70) 28th Street, N.W., N.W. 2nd-3rd Avenue to west city limits 35 Section 3. If any section, part of section, paragraph, clause, phrase or word of the Ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately after final reading and adoption City of Miami Page 2 of 3 File Id: 16-00230 (Version: 1) Printed On: 3/7/2016 File Number: 16-00230 thereof. {2} APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: V VYORIA MENDEZ C ATTORNEY Footnotes: {1} Words and /or figures stricken through shall be deleted. Underscored words and/or figures shall be added. The remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. Asterisks indicate omitted and unchanged material. {2} This Ordinance shall become effective as specified herein unless vetoed by the Mayor within ten (10) calendar 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. City of Miami Page 3 of 3 File Id: 16-00230 (Version: 1) Printed On.: 3/7/2016 Qttp of ftltamt October 23, 2017 Steven J. Wernick Akerman LLP Three I3rickell City Centre 98 SE 7 St., Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33131 merle.'NIthzfs% DANIEL J. ALFONSO City Manager RE: NW 28 St between NW 2 Av and NW 3 Av — Shifting of Street Centerline Dear Mr. Wernick: I have received your letter along with a signed/sealed right of way survey as I requested in my previous response letter in regards to the same subject matter. I have made the following determination. Current and existing encroachments into a fully dedicated right of way area along South side of NW 28 St adjacent to Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 ,10, 11 are to be removed in conjunction with the final submittal of tentative plat applications for the corresponding lots. The current and existing encroachment adjacent to lots that are not being re -platted are to be referred to the Code Enforcement office. Current and existing encroachments into a fully dedicated right of way area along North side of NW 28 St are to be removed in conjunction with the ongoing development at the corresponding lots. [ approve your request to shift the official street centerline 10 (ten) feet to the North of the current centerline. Pursuant to the provisions of the City of Miami Code Section 54-187, I am determining and establishing a new centerline for NW 28 St between NW 2 Av and NW 3 Av to be located at 10 (ten) feet to the North of the current centerline. Following this determination, Public Works must receive within 30 days of this letter, a signed/sealed Permanent Reference Monument (PRM) Certification by a Professional Land Surveyor/Mapper for review and approval. Survey Monuments at street intersection are to be reset and relocated to correspond with the new centerline location. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call Mr. Abraham Bachtiar, P.E., Professional Engineer III, at (305) 416-1759. Sin.erely, JuvZ Santa 1, P.E., CFM Di .r Department of Public Works JS/AB/ab ' tb(2o t4' C: Development and Roadway Plans Central Survey DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 444 SW 2.,1 Avenue, 8th Floor / Miami, FL 33130 / (305) 416-1200 / Fax: (305) 416-1278 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 330708 Miami, FL 33233-0708 536 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL the above -quoted definition and is entitled to the exemptions provided by §790.051, supra. 071-387—December 6, 1971 COUNTIES RECON'VEYANCE OF GRATUITOUS DRAI.NAGE EASEMENT TO DONOR To: Joan Odell, County Attorney, West Palm Beach Prepared by: Rebecca Bowles Hawkins, Assistant Attorney General QUESTION: Is a gratuitous drainage easement "real property" within the pur- view of §255.22, F. S., requiring the reconveyance of real property to the donor when the property is not used for the purpose for which it was donated for sixty consecutive months? SUMMARY: A drainage easement is "real property" within the purview of §255.22, F. S., requiring a county to reconvey donated real property when not used for the specific purpose for which it was donated for sixty consecutive months. As noted by you, §255.22, F. S., authorizes and requires a county, or a city, to reconvey "real property" conveyed to the county without consideration for a specific purpose or use, when such property is not used for such purpose for sixty consecutive months and written demand for such reconveyance is made by a party who owns land adjoining such property on at least one side. The real question here, then, is whether a drainage easement is "real prop- erty" within the purview of §255.22, supra. It is well settled that an easement is an interest in land. See Burdine v. Sewell, Fla. 1925, 109 So. 658; J. C. Vereen & Sons v. Houser, Fla. 1936, 167 So. 45; and Winthrop v. Wadsworth, Fla. 1949, 42 So.2d 541. Accord: Attorney General Opinion 055-236, holding that a right-of-way easement is an interest in real estate, a conveyance of which must bear the name and address of the grantee as required by §695.21, F. S. It has been held also, in AGO 049-431, Sept. 8, 1949, Biennial Report of the Attorney General, 1949-1950, p. 175, that §125.35, id., authorizing a county to sell "any property, real or personal," applied to and authorized the sale of an interest in land as well as the fee simple title. These decisions and opinions are in accord with the general rule, as stated in 73 C.J.S., Property, §7, p. 157, that "f g]enerally, the terms `real property' and `real estate' embrace lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and all rights thereto and interests there- in." Accordingly, unless and until this question should be legislatively or judi- cially clarified, your question must be answered in the affirmative. 071-388—December 7, 1971 MUNICIPALITIES EXTRATERRITORIAL ZONING —PROPERTY TAX WAIVER F To: Philip D. Lewis, Senator, 33rd District, Riviera Beach Prepared by: Rebecca Bowles Hawkins, Assistant Attorney General a r t J ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 537 QUESTIONS: 1. May the legislature validly authorize a municipality to pro- vide for planning and zoning in an area outside its corporate limits? 2. May a municipality waive property taxes for a group of land- owners for a given period of time, or until the land is put to use? SUMMARY: The legislature may authorize municipalities to adopt zoning and planning regulations for areas outside the corporate limits. In the ab- sence of constitutional authority, a city may not "waive" the taxes of a group of landowners. While no decision of an appellate court of this state on this question has been found, it is generally held that a municipality may exercise zoning and planning powers extraterritorially when expressly authorized to do so by stat- ute. See 58 Am. Jur., Zoning, §14, p. 947; 101 C.J.S., Zoning, §17, p. 717; 62 C.J.S., Municipal Corporations, §141, p. 283; Yokley, Zoning Law and Prac- tice, §11-3(b), p. 4 and id., Supp., §2-17.1, p. 21; Butler v. City of Little Rock, Ark. 1960, 332 S.W.2d 812; State v. Eckhardt, Mo. 1959, 322 S.W.2d 903; Wal- worth Co. v. Elkhorn, Wis. 1965, 133 N.W.2d 257; Schlientz v. North Platte, Neb. 1961, 110 N.W.2d 58; and Grand Island v. Ehlers, Neb. 1966, 142 N.W. 2d 770. It has been held that a statute granting to a planning commission extra- territorial authority does not include the power to zone beyond the city limits. See Roberson v. Montgomery, Ala. 1970, 233 So.2d 69, in which the court de- clined to decide the question of whether a statute expressly providing for ex- traterritorial zoning would be valid. However, the Wisconsin and Nebraska cases referred to above did consider and uphold the validity of statutes { authorizing extraterritorial zoning as against the contention that such statutes !� were violative of equal protection and due process of law. I I find nothing in the 1968 Florida Constitution that would appear to pro- hibit the legislature from authorizing a municipality to adopt a planning and zoning ordinance effective extra territorially within a reasonable distance of its corporate limits. On the contrary, §2(c) of Art. VIII thereof expressly provides that: "Municipal annexation of unincorporated territory, merger of municipal- ities, and exercise of extraterritorial powers by municipalities shall be as pro- vided by general or special law." (Emphasis supplied.) Nor do I find anything in the decisions of our courts to indicate that such a statute would be struck down on equal -protection or due -process grounds. The general principles respecting zoning laws are stated at length in Watson v. Mayflower Property, Inc., Fla. 4 D.C.A. 1969, 223 So.2d 368, cert. dis- charged, 233 So.2d 390. The court reaffirmed the general principle that a zoning ordinance that has a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, t morals and welfare will be sustained and noted that zoning involves "the con- sideration of future growth and development, adequacy of drainage and storm sewers, public streets, pedestrian walkways, density of population, and many other factors that are peculiarly within the legislative competence," quoting from City of Miami Beach v. Weiss, Fla. 1969, 217 So.2d 836, 837. Many of these factors would seem to be applicable to areas contiguous to a municipality that may reasonably be expected to be taken into the city limits at some point in the future. The "reserve annexation area" of the City of Boca Raton might be such an area. ' Thus, in the absence of any constitutional provision that may be inter- preted as delegating to the governing body of a county the exclusive jurisdic- 1 tion of zoning matters in the unincorporated area of the county, I am inclined to the view that the legislature may validly authorize the municipalities of this state in general, and the City of Boca Raton in particular, to provide reason- able zoning and planning regulations extraterritorially. L_ 538 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL It should be noted that the counties of this state are expressly authorized by §125.01(1)(g), (h), and (i), F. S., to adopt comprehensive zoning and plan- ning ordinances; and any statute providing for extraterritorial zoning by a mu- nicipality should take into account the possibility that the area in question may already have been zoned by the county in accordance with a comprehensive zoning plan, so that the statute should provide the manner in which existing uses will either be superseded by or coordinated with the municipality's zoning plan. You have inquired also as to whether the city could "waive" the taxes of landowners "for a given period of time, or until the land is put to use." Until the area is brought within the city limits, the city would, of course, have no jurisdiction to tax the property located therein. After the territory is incorpo- rated, it must bear its fair share of municipal taxes. See City of Naples v. Conboy, Fla. 1965, 182 So.2d 412, in which the Florida Supreme Court held that an ordinance of the city purporting to extend certain tax advantages to subdivision developers violated Art. IX, §1, State Const., 1885, requiring the legislature to ". . . provide for a uniform and equal rate of taxation . . .." Article VII, §2, State Const., 1968, contains a substantially similar provision. I find nothing in the 1968 Constitution that may be interpreted as authorizing municipalities of this state to grant tax exemptions; and, in the absence of such authority, I know of no way that a municipality may "waive" an ad valorem tax against certain real property, thereby exempting it from the tax that other real property in the city must bear. 071-389—December 7, 1971 SUNSHINE LAW APPLICABILITY TO DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD INTERVIEWING APPLICANTS FOR POSITION OF SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT To: James F. Lang, Attorney, School Board, Gainesville Prepared by: Herbert T. Schwartz, Deputy Attorney General QUESTION: May a district school board interview applicants for employment as district school superintendent in secret without violating the Sun- shine Law, §286.011, F. S.? SUMMARY: A district school board conducting employment interviews for district school superintendent applicants would violate the Sunshine Law if such interviews were held in secret. It must be deemed to be the settled law of this state that a public body such as a district school board may not "by-pass" the open -meeting require- ment of the Sunshine Law by holding a secret informal session limited to dis- cussion and deliberation of an official matter with the formal official action to be taken later at an open meeting. In one of the first decisions on this question rendered by the Florida Supreme Court, Board of Public Instruction of Broward County v. Doran, Fla. 1969, 224 So.2d 693, 699, it was said that the right of the public "to be present and to be heard during all phases of enactments by boards and commissions" is a source of strength in this country and that such boards and commissions "should not be allowed to deprive the public of this inalienable right to be present and to be heard at all delibera- tions wherein decisions affecting the public are being made." (Emphasis sup- plied.) Accord: City of Miami Beach v. Berns, Fla. 1971, 245 So.2d 38, in which the court said: CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA TO INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM Maurice L. Kemp, Fire Chief DATE: January 20, 2016 FILE Fire -Rescue Department SUBJECT Modification of zoned street Width — NW 28 Street Eduardo (Ed) Santamaria, P.E., CGC REFERENCES: Director of Public Works ENCLOSURES: Location Map The Public Works Department is recommending that the City Commission adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 54 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, entitled "Streets and Sidewalks" by amending Section 54-190 entitled "Nonstandard Street Widths" to modify the zoned street right of way width of NW 28 Street in the Wynwood neighborhood. In February, 1912, the Northern Boulevard Tract subdivision (Plat Book 2, Page 29) was recorded that dedicated the north portion, 25 feet, of NW 28 Street, a quarter section line roadway, from NW 2 Avenue to NW 3 Avenue. Although the northern boundary of the Marion Place subdivision (Plat Book 3, Page 57) recorded in September, 1913 abutted the same quarter section line, that subdivision did not dedicate any of the south portion of NW 28 Street from NW 2 Avenue to NW 3 Avenue. The City of Miami Commission adopted Ordinance No. 1682 on January 29, 1937 officially establishing the section line as the centerline of NW 28 Street and designating a zoned right of way width of 70 feet from North Miami Avenue to the west city limits, thereby, locating the base building line 35 feet north and 35 feet south of the centerline (section line) of the right of way. In the 1960's the State Highway Department assembled the right of way and constructed the I-95 expressway causing NW 28 Street to "dead end" at the expressway. NW 28 Street no longer serves as a primary east/west connecting roadway through the Wynwood neighborhood. On February 13, 1986, the City of Miami Commission adopted Ordinance No. 10077 reducing the zoned width of NW 28 Street from North Miami Avenue to NW 2 Avenue from 70 feet to the original 50 feet. The section of NW 28 Street from NW 2 Avenue to NW 3 Avenue has not been constructed to the full 70 foot width and, at their September 28, 2015 meeting, the Board of the Wynwood Business Improvement District adopted a Resolution supporting the reduction of the zoned right of way width of this section of NW 28 Street from 70 feet to 50 feet. Based on these findings, the Public Works Department has determined that a reduction in the zoned right of way width of NW 28 Street from NW 2 Avenue to NW 3 Avenue from 70 feet to the City's standard 50 feet, 25 feet from the centerline to the base building line, is warranted. A public hearing has been scheduled for the March 24, 2016 Commission meeting to consider this base building line width modification. Please be prepared to present your comments concerning these modifications to the zoned street width to the City Commission at this meeting. CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mario F. Nunez, Director Solid Waste Department Eduardo (Ed) Santamaria, P.E., CGC Director of Public Works DATE: January 20, 2016 SUBJECT: Modification of zoned street Width —NW 28 Street REFERENCES: ENCLOSURES: Location Map FILE: The Public Works Department is recommending that the City Commission adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 54 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, entitled "Streets and Sidewalks" by amending Section 54-190 entitled "Nonstandard Street Widths" to modify the zoned street right of way width of NW 28 Street in the Wynwood neighborhood. In February, 1912, the Northern Boulevard Tract subdivision (Plat Book 2, Page 29) was recorded that dedicated the north portion, 25 feet, of NW 28 Street, a quarter section line roadway, from NW 2 Avenue to NW 3 Avenue. Although the northern boundary of the Marion Place subdivision (Plat Book 3, Page 57) recorded in September, 1913 abutted the same quarter section line, that subdivision did not dedicate any of the south portion of NW 28 Street from NW 2 Avenue to NW 3 Avenue. The City of Miami Commission adopted Ordinance No. 1682 on January 29, 1937 officially establishing the section line as the centerline of NW 28 Street and designating a zoned right of way width of 70 feet from North Miami Avenue to the west city limits, thereby, locating the base building line 35 feet north and 35 feet south of the centerline (section line) of the right of way. In the 1960's the State Highway Department assembled the right of way and constructed the I-95 expressway causing NW 28 Street to "dead end at the expressway. NW 28 Street no longer serves as a primary east/west connecting roadway through the Wynwood neighborhood. On February 13, 1986, the City of Miami Commission adopted Ordinance No. 10077 reducing the zoned width of NW 28 Street from North Miami Avenue to NW 2 Avenue from 70 feet to the original 50 feet. The section of NW 28 Street from NW 2 Avenue to NW 3 Avenue has not been constructed to the full 70 foot width and, at their September 28, 2015 meeting, the Board of the Wynwood Business Improvement District adopted a Resolution supporting the reduction of the zoned right of way width of this section of NW 28 Street from 70 feet to 50 feet. Based on these findings, the Public Works Department has determined that a reduction in the zoned right of way width of NW 28 Street from NW 2 Avenue to NW 3 Avenue from 70 feet to the City's standard 50 feet, 25 feet from the centerline to the base building line, is warranted. A public hearing has been scheduled for the March 24, 2016 Commission meeting to consider this base building line width modification. Please be prepared to present your comments concerning these modifications to the zoned street width to the City Commission at this meeting. CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA TO INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM Rodolfo Llanes, Chief of Police DATE: January 20, 2016 Miami Police Department Eduardo (Ed) Santamaria, P.E., CGC Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Modification of zoned street Width — NW 28 Street REFERENCES: ENCLOSURES: Location Map FILE: The Public Works Department is recommending that the City Commission adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 54 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, entitled "Streets and Sidewalks" by amending Section 54-190 entitled "Nonstandard Street Widths" to modify the zoned street right of way width of NW 28 Street in the Wynwood neighborhood. In February, 1912, the Northern Boulevard Tract subdivision (Plat Book 2, Page 29) was recorded that dedicated the north portion, 25 feet, of NW 28 Street, a quarter section line roadway, from NW 2 Avenue to NW 3 Avenue. Although the northern boundary of the Marion Place subdivision (Plat Book 3, Page 57) recorded in September, 1913 abutted the same quarter section line, that subdivision did not dedicate any of the south portion of NW 28 Street from NW 2 Avenue to NW 3 Avenue. The City of Miami Commission adopted Ordinance No. 1682 on January 29, 1937 officially establishing the section line as the centerline of NW 28 Street and designating a zoned right of way width of 70 feet from North Miami Avenue to the west city limits, thereby, locating the base building line 35 feet north and 35 feet south of the centerline (section line) of the right of way. In the 1960's the State Highway Department assembled the right of way and constructed the I-95 expressway causing NW 28 Street to "dead end" at the expressway. NW 28 Street no longer serves as a primary east/west connecting roadway through the Wynwood neighborhood. On February 13, 1986, the City of Miami Commission adopted Ordinance No. 10077 reducing the zoned width of NW 28 Street from North Miami Avenue to NW 2 Avenue from 70 feet to the original 50 feet. The section of NW 28 Street from NW 2 Avenue to NW 3 Avenue has not been constructed to the full 70 foot width and, at their September 28, 2015 meeting, the Board of the Wynwood Business Improvement District adopted a Resolution supporting the reduction of the zoned right of way width of this section of NW 28 Street from 70 feet to 50 feet. Based on these findings, the Public Works Department has determined that a reduction in the zoned right of way width of NW 28 Street from NW 2 Avenue to NW 3 Avenue from 70 feet to the City's standard 50 feet, 25 feet from the centerline to the base building line, is warranted. A public hearing has been scheduled for the March 24, 2016 Commission meeting to consider this base building line width modification. Please be prepared to present your comments concerning these modifications to the zoned street width to the City Commission at this meeting. 3AV i /VXN 3AV Z AAN a uj 20, 3AV £ MN (D ! z oo0 3AV 9 MN i u 0 ®LU uj �. rq o�z �- z 0 o LU 00 0 z Woodlawn Park Cemetery Co. v. City of Miami, 104 So.2d 851 (1958) KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Distinguished by J. C. Vereen & Sons, Inc. v. City of Miami, Fla.App. 3 Dist., April 21, 1981 104 So.2d 851 District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. WOODLAWN PARK CEMETERY CO., Appellant, V. CITY OF MIAMI, a Municipal Corporation, Appellee. No. 58-53. 1 July 30, 1958. Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 1958. The Circuit Court for Dade County, Vincent C. Giblin, J., entered a final declaratory decree finding and declaring that cemetery company was not vested with title by reversion to 10 foot strip of city street previously dedicated by recorded plats, and the cemetery company appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Horton, J., held that where city by appropriate action had identified particular street as a 70 foot right of way, and therefore cemetery company dedicated 35 feet on one side of its property for street and proper purposes, and subsequently city by ordinance established the street as a 50 foot right of way, and only a 50 foot strip was used by city for street purpose, there was an abandonment by city of 10 feet of the strip of 35 feet dedicated by cemetery company, and title to the 10 foot strip reverted to cemetery company under provision of the dedication for a reversion whenever use was discontinued by law. Decree reversed with directions to enter decree in accordance with opinion. West Headnotes (2) try Municipal Corporations Power to Vacate or Discontinue 268Municipal Corporations 268XIUse and Regulation of Public Places, Property, and Works 268XI(A)Streets and Other Public Ways 268k657Vacation or Abandonment 268k657(2)Power to Vacate or Discontinue Principle that public places of a municipality are held in trust by municipal authorities for the benefit of the people does not prevent vacation of streets or portions thereof when done in interest of general welfare, and fact that, when abandoned, title to street or public place or portion thereof reverts to adjacent owner is of no consequence, if power to vacate is present and if such power is lawfully exercised. F.S.A. § 167.09. 5 Cases that cite this headnote [21 Municipal Corporations 4—Abandonment or Nonuser Municipal Corporations Q—Operation and Effect 268Municipal Corporations 268XIUse and Regulation of Public Places, Property, and Works 268XI(A)Streets and Other Public Ways 268k657Vacation or Abandonment 268k657(3)Abandonment or Nonuser 268Municipal Corporations 268XIUse and Regulation of Public Places, Property, and Works 268XI(A)Streets and Other Public Ways 268k657Vacation or Abandonment 268k657(7)Operation and Effect Where city by appropriate action had identified particular street as a 70 foot right of way, and therefore cemetery company dedicated 35 feet on one side of its property for street and proper purposes, and subsequently city by ordinance established the street as a 50 foot right of way, and only a 50 foot strip was used by city for street purpose, there was an abandonment by city of 10 feet of the strip of 35 feet dedicated by cemetery company, and title to the 10 foot strip reverted to cemetery company under provision of the dedication for a reversion whenever use WE'STLAW © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Woodlawn Park Cemetery Co. v. City of Miami, 104 So.2d 851 (1958) was discontinued by law. F.S.A. § 167.09 6 Cases that cite this headnote Attorneys and Law Firms *852 Charles & Watson, Miami, for appellant. William L. Pallot, City Atty., and Edward J. Fitzpatrick, Asst. City Atty., Miami, for appellee. Opinion HORTON, Judge. This is an appeal from a final declaratory decree finding and declaring that the appellant -cemetery company was not vested with title by reversion of a 10 foot strip of a city street previously dedicated by a recorded plat. The court below found and decreed that there had been no abandonment of the 10 foot strip. The facts, briefly, are that the appellant, in platting its property, was required to dedicate certain portions thereof for street purposes, and, in 1945, submitted a plat which was subsequently accepted by the City of Miami and recorded, dedicating 35 feet on the south side of appellant's property for street purposes. Prior to 1945, the City of Miami, had, by appropriate action, identified the particular street in question as a 70 foot right of way. Consequently the appellant's dedication, in 1945, of 35 feet was to the center of the right of way. In 1951, the City of Miami, by resolution No. 4367, ordanied and established the street in question as a fifty foot street, or 25 feet on each side of the center line No. 4367, ordained and established the ordinance No. 4707, passed in 1953 by the City Commission of Miami, establishing the area in front of appellant's property as a 50 foot right of way `to provide for uniform street width of fifty feet'. The appellant contended in the court below that only the 50 foot strip, or 25 feet from the center line north, had been used by the City of Miami for street purposes and that in view of ordinance No. 4367, of 1951, and ordinance No. 4707, in 1953, together with the city's non-use, constituted an abandonment of 10 feet of the dedicated strip and therefore, under the dedication, said 10 foot strip would and should revert to the appellant. The trial judge concluded *853 that the dedication, which contained the following: `The avenues and streets as shown together with all existing and future planting, trees and shrubbery thereon, are hereby dedicated to the perpetual use of the public for proper purposes reserving to said Woodlawn Park Cemetery Company, its successors or assigns, the reversion or reversions thereof, whenever discontinumed by law.' (Emphasis supplied.) was such that proper public purposes other than streets could be made of the property and therefore there was not an abandonment under the law. The principal questions posed on appeal is whether or not the city's actions constituted an abandonment under the law. We conclude that they did. The trial judge, by his comments at the time of the entry of a declaratory decree, appears to have been influenced to some extent by the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida in Dade County v. City of North Miami Beach, F1a.1953, 69 So.2d 780. That case involved an allegation of non-use as evidence of abandonment, and the Supreme Court held that 17 years' non-use of property dedicated for park purposes is not an unreasonable length of time and that non-use alone is evidence that may or may not point to abandonment. The Court also found that the non-use of 17 years was not sufficient to constitute such abandonment. The case does not appear to be in point with the instant case. There was obviously a dedication and acceptance under the plat filed in 1945 of a 35 foot strip of land lying adjacent to the southern boundary of appellant's property. This is so because there could be no abandonment without a prior acceptance. The dedication, as well as the acceptance, in addition to use for street purposes, was for the perpetual use of the public `* * * for proper purposes * * *' with the appellant reserving to itself `* * * the reversion or reversions thereof whenever discontinued by law'. The mere fact of non-use by appellee -city would not of itself constitute an abandonment and particularly so in this instance where the dedication was not only for streets but `proper purposes'. See 16 F1a.Jur., Highways, Streets & Bridges, s 81, p. 97; Earle v. McCarty, Fla.1954, 70 So.2d 314. Further, the fact of non-use of a portion of the dedicated strip would not warrant the conclusion of non -acceptance of the unused portion. See Indian Rocks WE'STLAW © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Woodlawn Park Cemetery Co. v. City of Miami, 104 So.2d 851 (1958) Beach South Shore v. Ewell, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 647, 652; 16 Am.Jur., Dedication, s 38, p. 387. Here, however, the dedication and acceptance thereof was subject to a reversion whenever discontinued by law. The acts of the appellee -city as evidence by ordinances No. 4367 and No. 4707 show a clear affirmative intent to abandon a portion of the dedicated strip. See 16 Am. Jur., Dedication, s 65, p. 412; Town of Chouteau v. Blankenship, 194 Okl. 401, 152 P.2 379, 382, 383. M Public places of a municipality are held in trust by the authorities for the benefit of the people, but this principle does not prevent the vacation of the streets or portions thereof when done in the interest of the general welfare. The fact that, when abandoned, the title to the street or public place or portion thereof reverts to the adjacent owner is of no consequence if the power to vacate is present and if such power is lawfully exercised. Loeffler v. Roe, F1a.1953, 69 So.2d 331, 339; Henry L. Doherty & Co., Inc., v. Joachim, 146 Fla. 50, 200 So. 238; s 167.09, F1a.Stat., F.S.A., and McLeod v. Carr, F1a.1956, 90 So.2d 112. P] We conclude that the appellee -city, by the enactment, pursuant to its authority to do so, of the aforementioned End of Document ordinances, together with evidence of non-use, abandoned the north 10 feet of the dedicated *854 strip and pursuant to the terms of the dedication, title to said 10 foot strip reverted to appellant. We do not conclude, nor do we intend by inference to hold, that the appellee -city did not accept the original dedication in its entirety, but only that by affirmative lawful act intended to and did abandon the 10 foot portion of said dedication. Accordingly, the decree appealed is reversed with directions to the court below to enter a decree consistent with the opinions expressed herein. Reversed with directions. CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur. All Citations 104 So.2d 851 © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. WESTLAW ©2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.