Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBack-Up DocumentsVia E-mail (vmendez@niamigov com) and Certified Mail May 5, 2021 Victoria Mendez, Esq. City Attorney Office of City Attorney City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 952 Miami, Florida 33130 Re: Folio No. 01-3230-013-0022 Dear Ms. Mendez, We are legal counsel to BMIP Holdings, Inc., a Florida corporation ("BMIP"). BMIP is the legal and record owner of that certain real property having the above -referenced property folio number and having the legal description identified on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Subject Property"). BMIP has been damaged as a result of an unlawful restrictive covenant recorded against the Subject Property, which, if in effect, serves as an unreasonable restraint on alienation of the Subject Property, and constitutes a cloud on title. Prior to filing an action for quiet title and for damages, BMIP desires to discuss with the City of Miami (the "City") the elimination of this cloud on title, which was never finally approved by the City, as detailed below, and should be considered non- existent. Specifically, we are referencing that instrument titled "Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants" as recorded on June 10, 1992, in Book 15547, Page 2657, of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County (the "Restrictive Covenant"). This Restrictive Covenant is attached hereto as Exhibit B. To provide background, on September 26, 1985, 3101 Associates Ltd., a Florida limited partnership ("Granting Owner"), then the owner of, and/or having the option to purchase, certain land, including the Subject Property (collectively the "Project Land"), executed a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants in favor of the City of Miami ("Original Covenant"). This Original Covenant is attached hereto as Exhibit C. In short, in this Original Covenant, the Granting Owner expressly agreed that the Project Land would be replatted as one developable parcel and provided for construction of an office tower according to a site plan attached thereto (the "Original Site Plan"). There was no other material obligation of the Granting Owner in the Original Covenant. Of note, only 2 of the 5 lots forming part of the Subject Property were subject to this Original Covenant. In the Original Covenant, reference is made to an application to change the zoning of the Project Land from RG-3/6, General Residential, to CR-3/7, Commercial Residential (General). In the minutes of the City of Miami Commission Meeting of November 26, 1985 (the "1985 Minutes"), SANCHEZ-MEDINA, GONZALEZ, QUESADA, LAGE, GOMEZ MACHADO LLP 201 ALHAMBRA CIRCLE, SUITE 1205, CORAL GABLES, FL 331 34-5107 TEL: 305.377. 1000 FAX: 855. 327.0391 Victoria Mendez, Esq. May 5, 2021 Page 2 Ordinance No. 10057 changing the zoning classification was approved and thereafter signed on November 26,1985 (the "1985 Ordinance"). A copy of the 1985 Minutes and the 1985 Ordinance are attached hereto as Exhibit D and EXHIBIT E, respectively. The Ordinance acknowledged that the Miami Zoning Board on July 15, 1985, and prior to the Original Covenant, had unanimously approved the change in zoning classification. Importantly, it was acknowledged that such zoning change would be favorable to the City of Miami, including being in conformance with the City's comprehensive neighborhood plan, that the zoning would not deter improvement or development of adjacent property, and would not grant a special privilege to the individual owner. Clearly, the improvement and development of adjacent property was an important factor for the City. Although the 1985 Minutes approved the 1985 Ordinance (i.e., the change in zoning classification), they do not contain any express approval or acceptance of the Original Covenant. Moreover, in the 1985 Minutes, the Granting Owner did proffer to open and construct a roadway and for the creation of a minipark on the Subject Land (perhaps these formed part of the Original Site Plan), but there was no express covenant imposing any obligation for the construction or creation of these items. Even though these items were proffered by the Granting Owner, the City Commission advised the roadway was for the benefit of the Granting Owner, because of its office tower, and insisted the Granting Owner proffer something of value to the City. The Granting Owner conceded and agreed to provide $2,500 for park equipment for the nearest City of Miami park (Clemente Park). But again, from the 1985 Minutes and the 1985 Ordinance, there was no acceptance of the Original Covenant, much less of the proffer of the roadway, the maintenance of a minipark or even the $2,500 contribution for park equipment. Fast forward to April 25, 1991, the Granting Owner again appeared before the City Commission. In the minutes of this Commission Meeting (the "1991 Minutes") it is stated that the City Commission had accepted a covenant (i.e., the Original Covenant) and that a 200,000 square foot building was to be erected on the Project Land. The 1991 Minutes are attached hereto as Exhibit F. However, there is nothing of record approving the Original Covenant and the Original Covenant was never recorded. Nonetheless, the Granting Owner sought to eliminate the supposed requirement that it develop the Project Land according to the Original Site Plan. In its place, the Granting Owner sought to develop a mixed -use retail center consisting of 25,000 square feet. In essence, the entire purpose of the Restrictive Covenant was to modify the development plan from a 200,000 square foot office tower to a 25,000 square foot retail center and served no other meaningful purpose. Apparently, having no immediate use for the lots not forming part of the retail center, at the April 25, 1991 Commission meeting, the Granting Owner sought to convey the Subject Property (3 of the 5 lots not being part of the Original Covenant) to the City of Miami for zero consideration. In response, the City, after repeatedly acknowledging that it had no purpose for the Subject Property, rejected the Granting Owner's offer to convey the Subject Property to the City. The City's lack of legitimate City or zoning purpose for the Property went so far as to compel the Vice Mayor to say that the City could even "turn around and sell the property for three home sites and take the money...." Victoria Mendez, Esq. May 5, 2021 Page 3 The City did not want to accept the conveyance of the Subject Property because it wanted an even better deal — one not requiring the City to pay taxes, insurance, and other maintenance costs on the Property. The Vice Mayor reluctantly acknowledged that "I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth...", meaning the City knew it was overreaching in conditioning the proposed conveyance from the Granting Owner, but nevertheless wanted to both try to accept the conveyance of the Subject Property and delay its obligation to pay taxes, insurance and maintenance for the Subject Property. Thus, during the April 25, 1991 City Commission Meeting, the City Commission focused on how to try to accept the conveyance of the Subject Property, without being responsible for the maintenance, insurance or real property taxes --- "Is it possible that we don't take possession of the land that will be donated until we are ready?"...."whenever the administration is ready." As the discussion continued, the City Commission asked, "Did the Law Department understand that?" Based on the response, the City Attorney at the time was not focused, "I am sorry. I was checking on the legal description." When again asked "What kind of legal document can we put in place that really guarantees that at the time that the City is ready they will do so?" In response, the City Attorney said, "We can have a covenant running with the land...." When asked about a time frame, and without confirmation from legal counsel, the Vice Mayor remarked "Ninety-nine years is enough...." The City proceeded to pass Resolution No 91-321 ("1991 Resolution"), same found within the 1991 Minutes, which eliminated the requirement that the Granting Owner develop the Project Land according to the Original Site Plan. Because the office tower was no longer being built, it also eliminated the need for the roadway, minipark and $2,500 for park equipment (none of which were expressly part of the Original Covenant). In its place, the Granting Owner agreed the Project Land would be developed as mixed -use retail center with maximum m F.A.R. limitation of 25,000 square feet. Again, the sole purpose of this 1991 Resolution and of the Restrictive Covenant was to change the development of the Project Land from an office tower to a substantially smaller retail center. In an effort to accommodate such conditional conveyance of the Property to the City, one that served no public or zoning purpose, the 1991 Resolution required that the Subject Property "be dedicated to the City in fee simple with no restrictions or conditions attached to said dedication upon written requirement by the City made to the owner within ninety-nine (99) years of date of this Resolution and until such request, Owner shall not construct or build upon the Property but in all other respects shall retain all rights and obligations of ownership thereof including but not limited to payment of all taxes assessed thereon and maintenance of the Property in accordance with all applicable codes..." Importantly, however, the 1991 Resolution further necessitated the execution of a covenant running with the land, in' a form acceptable to the then City Attorney, and recordation of said covenant. The proposed covenant contained a signature section for both the City and the City Attorney, in conformance with the 1991 Resolution. However, both such signatures are missing from the recorded Restrictive Covenant. Therefore, not only is the Restrictive Covenant unlawful, but the express conditions to their final approval were never satisfied. In fact, it was not until January 1992, nearly nine months after the 1991 Commission meeting, that the Granting Owner Victoria Mendez, Esq. May 5, 2021 Page 4 executed the Restrictive Covenant and until June 1992, nearly 15 months after the 1991 Commission meeting, that the Restrictive Covenant was recorded. This is important because on November 1, 1991, more than six (6) months prior to the recording of the Restrictive Covenant, the City Attorney had advised the Granting Owner that it was City policy that "this executed covenant must be delivered to this office in recordable form immediately, ". Thus, it is our position that the Restrictive Covenant failed to comply with City policy, that it never satisfied the conditions to final approval, and even if the Restrictive Covenant had been duly and validly approved, it is unlawful as a matter of Florida law as an unreasonable restraint on alienation of property. The City, by looking a gift horse in the mouth and refusing the outright conveyance of the Property, and instead formulating, on the fly and without a proper legal basis, a 99-year option, for no value, created an unreasonable restraint on alienation in violation of Florida law and placed a cloud on the Subject Property's title. A. Unlawful Restrictive Covenant The Restrictive Covenant, nothing more than a 99-year option to the City, for no value and for no legitimate City or zoning purpose, to acquire the Subject Property, at no cost, clearly results in an unreasonable restraint on alienation of property in violation of Florida law. "The rule against unreasonable restraints on the use of property concerns restraints of such duration that they prevent the free alienation of property." Iglehart v. Phillips, 383 So. 2d 610, 614 (Fla. 1980). "[T]he rule against unreasonable restraints is principally concerned with the duration of a restraint on the property." Id. "The test which should be applied with respect to restraints on alienation is the test of reasonableness." Id. "The validity or invalidity of a restraint depends upon its long-term effect on the improvement and marketability of the property." Id. "Once that effect is determined, common sense should dictate whether it is reasonable or unreasonable." Id. In Iglehart, 383 So.2d at 614-16, the Florida Supreme Court held that a purchase option, consisting of a right of first refusal for an unlimited period and for a fixed purchase price, was invalid and unenforceable, as an unreasonable restraint on alienation. See also Krez v. Sun Bank/S. Florida, N.A., 608 So. 2d 892, 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ("the right of first refusal in the case at bar contained no duration period, and made no adjustment for either inflation or market value, the right is invalid under Iglehart"). The Restrictive Covenant improperly placed upon the Subject Property by the City clearly violates the rule against unreasonable restraints on the use of property, as recognized by Florida law. Here, the Restrictive Covenant cannot pass the test of reasonableness. The long-term limiting effect -- 99 years -- of the Restrictive Covenant has been to prevent the improvement of the Subject Property and to damage the marketability of the Subject Property. See generally Iglehart, 383 So. 2d at 614; Krez, 608 So. 2d at 893. That the City, in fact, created an invalid restraint on alienability is without doubt. The City has ensured that the Property is incapable of being developed or put to beneficial use and disallows the owner from constructing or building upon the Subject Property. The Restrictive Covenant by its terms has prevented any development of the Subject Property. This is further evidenced by the past 30 years, where the Subject Property has remained undeveloped amidst the development of most surrounding properties and the Restrictive Covenant will continue to unreasonably restrict its use for decades to come, in violation of Florida law. Victoria Mendez, Esq. May 5, 2021 Page 5 "When determining the validity of restraints on alienation, courts must measure such restraints in terms of their duration, type of alienation precluded, or the size of the class precluded from taking." Camino Gardens Ass'n, Inc. v. McKim, 612 So. 2d 636, 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The same analysis to determine the validity of restraints on alienation of property is applied to a governmental entity. See Metro. Dade County v. Sunlink Corp., 642 So. 2d 551, 555-56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), on reh'g (Feb. 2, 1993). "[T]he law is clear that a repurchase option at market or appraised value for unlimited duration is not an unreasonable restraint, [however] the situation changes substantially when the price is fixed in the option." Camino Gardens, 612 So. 2d at 641 (citing Iglehart, 383 So.2d at 616). "It is the generally accepted rule that a fixed price repurchase option of unlimited duration, independent of the lease, is an unreasonable restraint." Camino Gardens, 612 So. 2d at 641 (citing Iglehart, 383 So.2d at 616). "While a right of first refusal is reasonable if based on market price or appraised value, such an option is unreasonable if based on a fixed price." Camino Gardens, 612 So. 2d at 641 (citing Iglehart, 383 So.2d at 616). In all three instances, the courts in Iglehart, Krez, and Camino Gardens invalidated and held unenforceable purchase options that consisted a right of first refusal at a fixed purchase price for an unlimited duration. See generally Iglehart, 383 So.2d at 614-16; Krez, 608 So. 2d at 893; Camino Gardens, 612 So. 2d at 639-42. In this case, the City's Restrictive Covenant violates every principle established in Iglehart and the other cases cited herein. The City obtained a 99-year option, for which it paid no consideration, and such option requires that BMIP convey to the City the Subject Property upon demand and for zero consideration. Each of these conditions are substantially worse than the baseline considerations established by Florida law. To add insult to injury, BMIP is responsible for maintenance and taxes on the Subject Property, as well as any other liability arising from the Subject Property. As stated, the Restrictive Covenant is for a period of 99 years which is the equivalent of an unlimited period of time and the size of the class being precluded is everyone since it is only the City that can exercise this option. See generally Iglehart, 383 So.2d at 614-16; Krez, 608 So. 2d at 893; Camino Gardens, 612 So. 2d at 639-42. Again, the Restrictive Covenant is fatally flawed and invalid under Florida law, as it is significantly worse than a right of first refusal at a fixed purchase price for an unlimited duration, which itself is unlawful, and the Restrictive Covenant has prevented the improvement of the Subject Property and harmed the marketability of the affected parcel. See generally Iglehart, 383 So.2d at 614-16; Krez, 608 So. 2d at 893; Camino Gardens, 612 So. 2d at 639-42. Today, the City must remedy a mistake it made long ago by individuals who are no longer with or accountable to the City and should promptly release the Restrictive Covenant that has wrongfully encumbered the Subject Property and thereby caused substantial damages to the Subject Property and its owners. Here, the City having no purpose for the Subject Property, with there being no public use or reasonable connection to the anticipated needs of the community, it has unreasonably restrained the Subject Property's alienation for 99 years in direct violation of Florida law. When looking at the facts of this egregious situation, the City has caused the Subject Property to remain undeveloped for 30 plus years and it has otherwise disregarded the needs of its community. Victoria Mendez, Esq. May 5, 2021 Page 6 B. The Restrictive Covenant was Not Approved The Resolution adopted by the City on April 25, 1991 required that the Restrictive Covenant be executed by the City in a form approved by the City Attorney. The Restrictive Covenant itself contained a signature block for the City to execute and for the City Attorney to sign as having approved of the form of the Restrictive Covenant, such signatures required in accordance with the terms of the 1991 Resolution. However, the Restrictive Covenant was never executed by the City or by the City Attorney. There was no clear, satisfactory, or unequivocal acceptance by the City. Instead, more than six (6) months prior to the recording of the Restrictive Covenant by the Granting Owner, the City Attorney had advised the Granting Owner that City policy required that the executed covenant be delivered to its office in recordable form immediately. Yet, there is no evidence that the Restrictive Covenant was ever presented to the City or the City Attorney, and the Granting Owner, itself, failed to execute the Restricted Covenant after nearly nine months following the 1991 Commission meeting and failed to record the Restricted Covenant, until 15 months following that Commission meeting and, even then, without any signature from the City or City Attorney, both of which were express conditions for final approval of the Restricted Covenant. Accordingly, the Restrictive Covenant is, on its face, ineffective and is illegal under Florida law. Demand Based on the foregoing, we request a meeting with the City, for the week of May 10, 2021, to discuss the Restrictive Covenant, with a view toward avoiding BMIP filing an action for quiet title and to recover from the City all damages resulting from the City's slander and unlawful cloud on title of BMIP's property. See generally Colen v. Patterson, 436 So. 2d 182, 182-83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We await the City's response and look forward to resolving this matter without delay. Sincerely, Pablo S. Quesada, Esq. For the Firm cc: Commissioner Ken Russell Roland Sanchez -Medina, Esq. Carlos M. Machado, Esq., General Counsel, BMI Companies EXIT A SUBJECT PROPERTY Lot 2 and 3, Lot 4 less the West 10 feet thereof, in Block 1, of BROADMOOR, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 37, of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County, Florida. AND Lot 6 and the West 45 feet of Lot 7, all in Block 3, of ELWOOD COURT, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 181, of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County, Florida. EXHIBIT B RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OFF. 1554! 1 657 REC. 92R220920 1992 JUN 10 11102 • AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION Qy RE tICTIYE COTENANTS TS .THIS AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS by 3101 Associates, Ltd., a Florida .limited partnership, the fee - simple owner of the subject property (the "Owner"), in favor of the City of Miami, Florida, .(the "City") a municipality of the State of Florida. NIZNEARN2 11: WHEREAS, the Owner controls fee -simple title to certain property (the "Property") in the City of Miami, Florida (the "City") situated along the main thoroughfare of Biscayne Boulevard between 31st and.32nd Streets: Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and the East 14 feet of Lot 11, in Block 1, BROADMOOR, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, at Page 37, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. AND The East 24 feet of Lot 1, and all of Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, in Block 3, ELWOOD COURT, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 9, at Page 181, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. AND The East 1/2 of Lot 6 and the West 45 feet of Lot 7, in Block 3, of ELWOOD COURT, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 9, at Page 181, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Pr pared bys Lucia A. Dougherty, Esq. Oraeaberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Roman & Quantal, P.A. 1221 Bricks11 Amoco* Miami, Florida 33131 '2 k�C. OFF. 15547112658 WHEREAS, the Property is zoned C-1; however, the Owner seeks to provide assurances to the City that, the Property will be developed in a manner that will limit the impacts upon adjacent residential uses; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 1985, the City Commission accepted a Declaration of Restrictions (the "Covenant") which, among other covenants, requires street dedication, which would be an extension of Northeast 4th Avenue; the dedication of property -to the east of said street dedication for a mini -park; maintenance of said mini park; extension; a sign at the mini -park; and $2,500 to be paid to the City improvement Fund (for Clemente Park), a copy of construction of the 4th Avenue of Miami Parks such unrecorded Covenant is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (the "Covenants); and WHEREAS, the Covenant provided that it may be released, modified or amended by written instrument upon approval at a public hearing before the City Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Commission determined on April 25, 1991 that it is in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miatni and its inhabitants to substitute and supercede the Covenant with this agreement (the "Substitute Covenant"). NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner voluntarily agrees and covenants that the Property shall be subject to the following restrictions that are intended and shall be deemed to be covenants running with the land and binding upon the Owner of the Property, its succes- sors and assigns, as follows: 2 • , • a 15547?i2659 A. Use Limitations. The Property shall -be developed as a mixed use retail shopping center with no more than 25,000 square feet of leasable space. A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning, Building°and Zoning Department upon the issuance of a building permit for the property. B. Property Contribution. Upon written request by the City, made within ninety-nine (99) years of the date of. this Covenant, the Owner shall deed to the City the following described property (the "Additional. Property"): . West 45 feet of Lot 7, Block 3, ELWOOD•COURT, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 9 at Page 181 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; and Lots 2 and 3.and Lot 4 less the west 10 feet, Block 1, BROADMOOR, ac- cording to the Plat thereof as reco- rded in. Plat Book 2 at .Page 37 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Until such a request is made by the City, Owner shall not con- struct or build upon the Additional Property but in all -other respects, shall maintain all aspects of rights and obligations of ownership thereof including but not limited to payment of all tax as assessed thereon and maintain all of the property in accordance with all applicable codes. C. Effective Date. This instrument shall constitute a covenant running with the title to the Property and Additional Property, respectively, and be binding upon the Owner, its successors and assigns. These restrictions shall be for the 3 `%1%r t VirntytOUR 1 nuU.]c I VpLfl �E E MICROFILMED 0 LOCATION A OPERA DEPUTY CLERK. CIRCUIT COURT :< • • IR: 15547117660 benefit and limitation upon all present and future owners of the Property and Additional Property, respectively, and for the public welfare. D. Amendment and Modifigation. This instrument may be modified, amended or released as to any portion of the Property or Additional Property, upon the approval by the City Commission after a public hearing. E. Term of Covenant. This voluntary covenant on the part of the Owner shall remain in full force and effect and shall be binding upon the Owner of the Property and Additional Property for 99 years. F. Inspection ispcl Enforcement. It is understood and agreed that any official inspector of the City of Miami may have the right at any time during normal working hours, to determine whether the conditions of this Declaration are being complied with. An enforcement action may be brought by the City and shall be by action at law or in equity against any party or person violating or attempting to violate any covenants, either to restrain violations or to recover damages. The prevailing party in the action or suit shall be entitled to recover costs and reasonable attorneys fees. This enforcement provision shall be in addition to any other remedies available under the law. G. Recording. This Declaration shall be filed of record among the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, at the cost of the Owner. 4 ICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE FOR PERMANENT MICROPNOTOORAPNIC p IONS. - E MICROFI ED OURTHOUSE TOWER LOCATION CAMERA OPERATOR .DEPUTY CLERK, CIRCUIT COURT - i FEE: 15547PGZ661. REC. H. This Substitute Covenant supercedas in its entirety and renders null and void and of no further force or effect the Coven- ant and all of the provisions thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, tandd signed have set their hands and -.� . iUAK/ seals this /5- day of 1992. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM CITY ATTORNEY 5 3101 ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Florida Limited Pa• nership BY: Ian K g -r, General Partner and Au .rized Signatory CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA BY CITY MANAGER R • r r • • OFF. 15547P62662 ItEC. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADS ) ) SS: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before day of/24%Iu"t4 , 1992 on behalf of the Owner, 3101 me this 7t.k Associates, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, by Alan Kluger, General Partner, who acknowledged that he has the authority to execute • ' the foregoing instrument for the purposes expressed therein.. personally known to me. and did not tam an oath. My Commission expires: r NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OE rLORIDA NY CCA+HISSIO4 EXP. NAY 10.1995 BONDED THRU GENERAL INS. UrW. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF.FLORIDA-AT -LARGE ) SS: ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1992 on behalf of the City of Miami by Cesar Odio, City Manager, and Matty Hirai, acknowledged that they have the authority instrument on behalf of the City for therein. My Commission Expires: City Clerk, and they to execute the foregoing the purposes expressed NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA-AT-LARGE 6 • • • °F15547N2663 NEC. MEDIA The undersigned, United National Bank, a national banking association, Mortgagee under that certain Mortgage and 'Security Agreement recorded in Official Records Book 14840, Page 5190, re- recorded in Official Records Book 14937, Page 102, both of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, and the mortgages, as modified, consolidated thereby (the "Mortgage"), encumbering lands which include the land covered by the, foregoing Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the "Agreement"), hereby -joins in the foregoing Agreement for the purpose of binding the lands encumbered by its Mortgage to the effects of such Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned h s caused this instrument to be executed as of the (" day of uo,r , United National Bank, a national banking association (CORP. PByr � [ F:AL) Prin Nam Tit e: St. STATE OF -Abrtc-& ) SS. COUNTY OF41)4.e ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Q 0% day of n ►+asu�4 , 199a, . by knukci M AL ter+ , as f United National Bank, a national banking association, on behalf of said association. My Commission Expires: . Sign Name:�.,�: L Print Name: Notary Public (NOTARIAL S NOTARY °t:t : rr: 7' ,.... BROEll 1rikt: WORM M 01,1104 RAG ION o►DAM COUNTY. IioHCA. Rltaro VEVFrm Clerk 01 Circuit & county Court y r S �; r tiZ'�X•�r"'atir...:�,+�St._r R ``. ._ sx � �J✓,E�M'S�L.!S =�. v��"-'1v S:3 f�!?Cfdi,�s. `'TAT + •'. EXFIIBIT C ORIGINAL COVENANT Pik DBCLAMTION or RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS This Declaration cf Restrictive Covenants by 3101 ASSOCIATES LTD., a Florida limited partnership, ("Owner"), in favor of CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, (the "City"); W ITMESSET Hs WHEREAS, the Owner holds fee -simple title to Certain pro- perty in the City of Miami which is situated along the main thoroughfare of Biscayne Boulevard between 31st and 32nd Streets and is zoned CR-3/7, Commercial -Residential (General), and con- sists of approximately one acre, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Owner is the option holder on certain property which is contiguous to the property described in Exhibit "A", consisting of approximately .85 acres, legally described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Owner has applied to the City of Miami Zoning Board and the City of Miami Commission for a zoning district boundary change for the property described in Exhibit "B" from RG-3/6, General Residential to CR-3/7, Commercial Residential (General); and WHEREAS, the option agreements entered into by the Owner condition the sale of the property described in Exhibit "B" on the grant of a district boundary change by the City of Miami Commission from RG-3/6 to CR-3/7; and ' WHEREAS, the Owner, is desirous of giving assurances that the property -described in both Exhibits "A" and "8" (the "Property"), legally described in Exhibit "C", will be -developed in accordance with the provisions of this Declaration; NOW, TBL"REFORE, the Owner voluntarily covenants and agrees .that.the Property shall be subject to the following restrictions This Instrument Prepered. 8y: ROBERTA. KAPL,AN, ESQ. Greenberg, Treurig, Askew, aoffinen, Xipoff, Rosen 6 Quentel, P.A. 1401 Briekel1 Avenue Muni, Florida 93131 1 which are intended and shall be deemed to be covenants running with the land and binding upon the Owner, its successors and assigns as follows: 1. Development 2n Accordance With Site Plan. The Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the site plan entitled "3101 Associates Ltd.", prepared by BKV Architects, consisting of pages A-1 to A-10, last revised March 27, 1985 (the "Site Plan"). The Site Plan is on file with the City of Miami Zoning Department. 2. Property To Be Replatted. The Property will be replatted according to the City 'of Miami platting process to create one developable parcel. During the platting process, the Owner will dedicate sufficient land east of the Property to extend Northeast 4th Court as described in the Site Plan. 3. Inspections. As part of this Covenant, it is under- stood and agreed that any official inspector of the City of Miami Building and Zoning Department or its agents duly authorized, 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 regu- lations and restrictions herein agreed to are being complied with. 4. Benefit of Restrictions. These restrictions during their lifetime shall be for the benefit of, and a limitation upon, all present and future owners of the Property and for the public welfare. 5. Time Period of Covenant. This Covenant is to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming 'under it for a period of thirty years from the date this Covenant is recorded, after which time it may be extended auto- matically for successive periods of ten years, unless an instru- ment signed by the majority of the then owners of the Property has been recorded agreeing to change the Covenant in whole, or in .pet, provided that the Covenant has first been released by the City. b. Modification, Amendment or Release. This Declaration of Restrictions may be modified, amended or released as to the land herein described, or any portion thereof, by a written in+ strument executed by the then owner of the fee -simple title to the lands to be effected by such modification, amendment or re- lease, provided that the same is also permitted by the City of Miami Commission after a public hearing. 7. Acknowledgment of Modification, Amendment or Release. Should this Covenant be so modified, amended or released, the Director of the City of Miami Planning Department, or his successor, shall forthwith execute a written instrument effectuating and acknowledging such modification, amendment or release. 8. Enforcement. 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. The prevailing party in the action or suit shall be entitled to recover, in addition to costs and disburse- ments allowed by law, such sum as the court may judge to be reasonable for the services of his attorney. 9. Invalidation. Invalidation of any one of these cove- nants, by judgment or court, shall not effect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand and seal this_ day of .5riD74`, , 1985. Witnesses; 3101 Assoc kes/Ltd By ° - 3 - 91- 321 STATE OP FLORIDA ) ) SS COUNTY or DADS this day of 198S. by The. foregoi74rutent was ack edgeb Ore MO 0 ARY PUBLIC ATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE My Commission ExpiresI 9/.241,9 91- :32 LX$IBIT "A" East.24 feet of Lot 1, and all of Lots 2, 3 and 4, fllock 3, Elwood Court Subdivision, Plat Book 9, Page 181 and the east 14 feet of Lot 11,. and all of Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 1, eroadmoot Subdivision, Plat gook 2, Page 37, according tb the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. • • xaz , "g" Lota 5 and 6, Block 3. Elwood Court Subdivision, Plat Book 9, Page 181 and the east 14 feet of Lot 11, and Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 1, Btoadmoor Subdivision, Plat Book 2, Page 37, according to the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. IMPENOMMIMINFP EXHIBIT "C" East 24 feet of Lot 1, and all of Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 3, Elwood Court Subdivision, Plat Book 9, Page l81 and the east 14 feet of Lot 11, and all of Lots 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5 and 4, Block 1, Eroadaoor Subdivision, Plat Book 2, Page 37, according to the Public Records of Dade County, Piorida. _7- EXIT D 1985 MINUTES Mr. Carollo: The few times that we didn't follow the rule that Commissioner Plummer explained that this Commission followed were at times when we had an item, let's say, that had 80 -100 people here and Chambers were so crowded that it was practical to bring it ahead to alleviate the crowds that we had here before us. Those were the only very few times that we did that, otherwise we followed the rule that this Commission had previously established as Commissioner Plummer explained. Mrs. Kennedy: Mr. Mayor, could we find out how many people are here on this item? Mayor Suarez: On item 15 is S. E. Overtown Park West Community Development plan, I believe it is an inclusion of additional property In that project. Mr. Herbert Bailey: Mr. Mayor, if I may speak. Members of the Commission, I did respectfully make this request due to the nature of this transaction, and due to the heavy commitment that we will be indicating this private sector person will be making in terms of financing our over all project, and because they have indicated that they have been notified that the Item would appear about 10:30 A.M., and that they had other engagements and would perhaps not be here at the time this item would come up, and 1 thought for the convenience of this Commission, that if there were any questions as to the commitment. that is being made in terms of the millions of dollars that will be spent as a result of this item and this extension to the project area, that you should be afforded to hear from them to the extent that they are committing to get involved in this process. Mr. Plummer; There is only one problem, Mr. Bailey. We have 13 other items in which all of these public are sitting here waiting to be heard. When you start deviating one, unless there is a true emergency, then there is no reason when you set the precedent, that you don't deviate on every one and I think these people have the right to be heard in an orderly fashion. Listen, I am for the item. If there is an emergency I will vote to have the item brought up now! Mr. Martin Fine: Mr. Mayor, if I may, for the record, my name is Martin Fine, 2401 Douglas Road. In an effort to move this meeting along, we will just withdraw that emergency. We had one, we will just sit here and wait. The only thing we request is if it is not going to heard by 12:00 noon, could you tell us as the morning goes on, and we will come back some time soon. Mayor Suarez: I believe that it will be, particularly if we don't get involved in any more procedural entanglements and too much history of past City Commission meetings. Mr. Fine: This item is too important to the City and to us not to ... Mayor Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Fine. Thank you, Martin. 26. AMEND 9500 BY CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 340- 352 N.B. 32 STREET AND 335-415 N.E. 31 STREET FROM RG-3/6 TO CR-3/7. Mayor Suarez: All right, let's proceed then, on item 2. Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: For the record, my name is Sergio Rodriguez, Planning Department. This item is for second reading also. It is for change of zoning from RG-3/6 to CR-3/7 in approximately 340-352 N. E. 32nd Street and approximately 335-415 N. E. 31st Street. The Planning Department recommended approval of this item. The Zoning Board recommended approval unanimously, and the Commission, on first reading also passed it unanimously. There were some issues that were still a little bit unresolved in relation to the covenant. We have reviewed the covenant and they incorporate all of the concernsthat we had that dealt with the construction of the street, the maintenance of the mini -park, and the dedication of the area for the road construction. Mr. Plummer: Tell me more about the covenant. What did they volunteer? ld 34 November 26, 1985 Mr. Rodriguez: Let me get a copy from our attorney, the latest copy. Mr. Plummer: You know what I am looking for. What did they volunteer? Mr. Rodriguez: They are building a street in the back - they are dedicating the land. Mr. Plummer: That is fine. That is to their benefit. What are they volunteering for the City's benefit? Mr. Rodriguez: Commissioner Plummer, in the previous meeting ... Mr. Plummer: Sergio, you know what I am looking fort Mr. Rodriguez: There has been no dedication of any funds to improve any parks for the City ... Mr. Plummer: Thank you, sir. Mr. Rodriguez: ... other than they improved a park in the back of this site that they are building and maintaining. Mr. Plummer: That is adjacent to their property. Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Which will primarily be used by their building. Mr. Rodriguez: It will be open to the public. Mr. Plummer: But it is primarily to be used by their building. Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: That is fine. I think that is great. Mr. Carollo: Bob, I guess you didn't have the opportunity to speak to the planning Department and volunteer what ... Mr. Plummer: Bob doesn't have to speak to the Planning Department. Mr. Robert Traurig: May I introduce myself - Robert H. Traurig, 1401 Brickell Avenue. I would like to respond to Commissioner Plummer. We have not, as in some applications, requested a closure of a road, or special consideration from the City. What we are in fact doing, is opening up a road, creating a new N. E. 4th Avenue from 31st to 32nd Street, building it at our expense; and in addition, we are creating a small mini -park on the N. E. corner of our property, which is open to and accessible to the public. We did not negate Mayor Suarez: Bob, if I may interrupt you. How will we know that it will be open and accessible to the public? Will there be a sign posted to that effect, or ...? Mr. Traurig: Well, we would be happy to do that. The covenant that we have given to the City has said that it will be constructed at our expense and open to and accessible to the public. We have not made a dollar contribution. It had never been suggested to us by any of our consultants that we make a dollar contribution, but we have in fact, made a very substantial contribution to the City in the form of both the road, and the little park. Mr. Plummer: That is great. I think that is super. Is there anything else that you wanted to say before we defer the item? Mr. Traurig: And in addition, we would like to amend our covenant and voluntarily proffer an additional $2,500 for park equipment at the nearest public park to this property. Mr. Plummer: Which is the nearest park, Commissioner Dawkins? Mr. Dawkins: The nearest park? Clemente Park. ld 35 November 26, 1985 7 1• 4 • Mr. Rodriguez: Commissioner Plummer, if they are going to proffer a covenant... Mayor Suarez: Couldn't we take it as a general contribution so it would be apportioned by our Parks Department? Mr. Rodriguez: Park Improvement Trust Fund. Mr. Plummer: Well, it has to be a volunteer, of course. Mayor Suarez: I understand that. You did that very well. Mr. Rodriguez: The covenant proffering the contribution should be made to the Park Improvement Trust Fund. Mr. Traurig: That is what my intention was, yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: I am glad you clarified that, for Mr. Traurig, and of course, Commissioner Dawkins has said - what park is the need? Mr. Dawkins: Clemente. Mr. Plummer: Clemente Park. Mayor Suarez: I will certainly second that concern. It has nothing to do with the presenter's item, but that park really needs improvement. Any further discussion? Mr. Plummer: I move item 2. Mr. Carollo: I second the motion. Mr. Traurig: Before the vote is taken, may I call one thing to your attention? There are two small, little out parcels that have to still be acquired by the applicant. They are part of this application, but our site plan has not actually taken them into consideration with regard to the magnitude of the project. We may, in the future, come back for a slight modification of the project. We only want to call that to your attention. Mr. Plummer: Always like to see you, Mr. Traurig. Mr. Traurig: ... future come back for a slight modification of the project. We only want to call that to your attention. Mr. Suarez: Read the ordinance please. Madam City Attorney before you take the vote clarification on potential conflict. I don't think it is, but just to be sure to have it on the record. Does the fact that my brother works for the architect in this project and I presume the architect has no financial interest other than as a consultant is that correct Mr. Bermello. Does that pose any conflict for me in voting. Mr. Dougherty: No, sir, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Suarez: Thank you. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, I protect that. How come you don't ask him the same question you ask me? Me. Dougherty: Because he answered the question before I asked it. Mr. Plummer: What's your name? Mr. Suarez: Call the roll. ld 36 November 26, 1985 AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - 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 APPROXIMATELY 340-352 NORTHEAST 32ND STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 335-415 NORTHEAST 31ST STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RG- 3/6 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO CR-3/7 COMMERCIAL - RESIDENTIAL (GENERAL) MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 21 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. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of October 24, 1985, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10057. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 27. AMEND 9500 BY CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2490 N. W. 14TH STREET FROM RG-1/3 TO RC-2/5. Mayor Suarez: Item 3. Mr. Rodriguez: Item 93 is also a second reading. It's for a change of zoning from RG-1/3 to RG-2/5 on a property located in 2490 Northwest 14th Street. The Planning Department recommended approval. The Zoning Board recommended approval and this item was before you and moved on first reading on October 24th of 1985. Mayor Suarez: The applicants present, could you introduce yourselves? Mr. Luis Iglesias: Luis Iglesias, 2490 Northwest 14th Street. Mr. Manuel Iglesias: Manuel Iglesias, 2490 Northwest 14th Street. Mr. Robert Chisolm: My name is Robert Chisolm, architect, 265 Aragon . will translate whenever it's necessary. Mayor Suarez: Is there any opposition or anyone who wants to speak on behalf or against this item? Mr. Plummer: I move Item 3. Me. Carollo: Second. Mayor. Suarez: Any further discussion, call the roll. ld 37 November 26, 1985 EXHIBIT E 1985 ORDINANCE J►85-813 8/7/85 ORDINANCE NO. Q Q 5 7 d 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 APPROXIMATELY 340-352 NORTHEAST 32ND STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 335-415 NORTHEAST 31ST STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RG-3/6 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO CR-3/7 COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL (GENERAL) MAKING FINDINGS= AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 21 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. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of July 15, 1985, Item No. 8, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 97-85, by a 7 to 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 Boning 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 approximately 340-352 Northeast 32nd Street and approximately 335-415 Northeast 31st Street, Miami, Florida, more particularly described as Lots 5 and 6, Block 3, ELWOOD COURT (9-181) and Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 1, BROADMOOR (2-37) of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, from RG-3/6 General Residential to CR-3/7 Commercial -Residential (General). Section 2. It is hereby found that this zoning classifi- cation change' (a) Is in conformity with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plant (b) Is not contrary to the established land use pattern, (C) Wil'1 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 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. 21 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 24th day of • October , 1985. PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING 8Y TITLE ONLY this 26th 2 91- 10057- day of NOVEMBER PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: MAER Assistant City Attorney GMM/wpc/ab/508 + 1985. APPROVED FORM AND CORRECTNESS: LucfA A. DOUGH RTY City Attorney Ierk of the City of I1'ami. Flgride. hereby certif that on the.d.... day of A. D. 19./4P a full, true and correct coof the above and foregoing ordinance was posted at the South Door of the D•aJ. County Court house at the place prti k1. d for tunics and pub-Ica:ions by attaching sold coin, to the place provided therefor. WITNESS my hand d the o(idol seal of :iid City this_ .....day of,— D. ly ..A.fif. y Clerk EXHIBIT F 1991 MINUTES The following motion was introduced by Vice Mayor Plummer, who moved its adoptions MOTION NO. 91-320 A MOTION TO .CONTINUE AGENDA ITEM P2•8 (PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO CLOSE PORTIONS: OF N.N. 37 AND 38 STREETS BETWEEN N.W. 17 AND 18 AVENUES) TO THE COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 23, 1991, PENDING RESPONSE FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD AS TO WHETHER THEY ACCEPT THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSAL THAT THEY PICK UP THEIR OBLIGATION TO FUND AND ADMINISTER THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS PROGRAM. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Alonso, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Conmissloner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Miriam Alonso Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL: Commissioner Dawkins: I'm going to vote yes, and I would have liked for J.L. P1.ummer•.to have said that my Sanitation Department, pick up the garbage there also, when the contract runs out, what they have, but since he didn't, I vote yes: Vi,ce;Mayor Plummer: You want to include its Mayor.Suarez:.•No, I can't vote to defer that item. ..23.•:::APPROVE:7AMENDMENT TO ,UNRECORDED DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS . - RUNNING WITH THE LAND (DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 1985), FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY -410.1ASSOCIATES,-LTD. AT 340-352 N.E. 32 STREET AND 335-450 N.E:" 31 STREET.- 'MODIFY COVENANT WHICH REQUIRES DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE.WITH 4 AECIFIC:-..:SITE PLAN .- ELIMINATE : REQUIREMENTS,:CONCERNING STREET. DEDICATION DEDICATE PROPERTY EAST OF STREET FOR A MINI -PARK ``-- :'CONSTRUCT: 4TH AVENUE EXTENSION. Suarez; PZ-9 d44m PZ-9 is;•an amendment _.to-an•.existing covenant on pro pert between 31set and 32nd Streets, east of Biscayne Boulevard. You. maot y. ier thWback:In '85:, the Commissioner accepted a covenant in a zoning 4 ggp > ase,j 1, the . particulor..piece of property. The amendment to: the covenant includes 'conveyance -.of property to the City,_ fencing to _ a. . cpntttbtjon. f1vik Qpsand do.l.tare :($5,000)..and•.on.,an:FAR :•.limitetion. The ;or18 nal buliding that was to be erected there, was two hundred thousand sQuars et. Thta... it.sza :twenty thousand -.square foot retail space.. to be built on the; property. The property which has been accepted OY the... which ;, f n11d. be Accepted AyAhe.-Ctty. if the: cov...enent.:I accepted, :mould Include _three : s�reeh. o#`land.betwaen 32nd Street and 3lst Strs. eet, northeast. Ias1oner Atonso..' So they are donating what is In... what is the color of. Opt' 100,404 how.0 .the blue propertt.eP, , Is Property that :.tt'e the 1pp11cent, iot 7, if you look in page 12 of.your packet,,: gr ►t ►hf h .1s.peens prapoaed;conveyance. to, the City. he south,lote 2, 3, and 4. 114 April 214 ;t A5Yas 'an 111u5trat1on, Vide Mayor Plus What I have in black is what I... would appear to be 7 -4, 1. 46 Rodriguez* We don't have a copy of that. Vice PlumMer: I'm sorry. Mrt Redriguezt We dOn't'have 1 copy of that. Vice Mayor PluMMer: Well, am I to assume that that in black is what Is being: donated? Ms. Lucia Dougherty: It's in black as well As the little sliver, I think it's let 3, to the east of the black. Commissioner Alonso: Three, four, and this too, right? Ms. Dougherty: The property that is being dedicated is lots 7, block 3, lots 2 and 3, and a portion of lot 4. Vice Mayor Plummer: This is confusing. Lucia, looking at this map here, the Map you gave me. Ms.• Dougherty: Yes, sir. Vice Mayor Plummer: Are you saying, lots... on the top row, what lots? Ms. Dougherty: All the black. Vice Mayor Plummer: That here? Ms. Dougherty: The black. Vice Mayor Plummer: Only one lot on the top? Ms.,Dougherty: Correct. Vice,Mayor Plummer: All right•. Ms. DmithertY% And the bottom. )40 Maier Plummer: On the bottom? this is the Ms. Dougherty: The black. CiMai4iUMMSW:,ie in other words, AP400144ark? �ugherty: tlo. . That's the area we are donating in case you want buUd. itreetti)W;Chni do anything you Want- witlf-it. We •are'giiting-:it.to.:.'yelf;; FOrty -five•feet of lot Dog" lot... - yes, the west, fOrty- li OttlisM.Of: let:,4.• : 'lti SAUtit the black area? 2, 3:and portion of 4? • , , -,;•„ five feet of lot 7, 2, •-: ItSa1VOf•the b1ackyou see on that picture. r :4nteeie obi.-- iieipiack. --. --: - - , • , • - -:. .-- --•- • 'ugherty'--,;.j000001;ii.*he-;,.$,-*;; -.Including that -3. We own taat•PrOpertyl•-... • ... ,.. . ..., seiner OWOnat ;..Fi•-ittlonotlilliCkitlieUgh.•-,.• .•:'.'•' ,-.:-',:' - ! ••-. ''. ''',:'''.; '':.:;4) '-;.;:"'',..1---;':.•:':,-:':':."'‘-- . _ •,•••• •4 . .!-*I.::::::: ''''..,.':- :...''': ..;:i..' ...-; - . . 1.. ' .-.:: . ' ' .: 1 ,:' .1:- . • . : . . .- . - '. ' - - ' - ' ' :-.7:'''- ''...--.::':-!--...:;''' . ..: ...._.,„., , 0. *401: '_' 44.09tAlrp140c.... . • :. - , - -... , . -. - ..._ • • ...., ".. •• . area that you are donatin0 osloth rd • nty givitivyou .04 • • - • : • • 2 :4- • : • Mt. RodriQUett I dOn't tee. Vice: MaYor..P) tinier: Here, I'M sorry. .Show me on your map. On the'liaP,on-Ihe--.. Wik11.;• • . . . • • , Mr.:01fnidillo: Lot 1. lot 7. Vice Mayor Plumner: OK. aontnissiOner Dawkins: OK. Mr. Olmadillo: To the south, this is 2, 3 and 4. CoinmissiOnet Dawkins; Two, three and four? Mr. Olmedi 1 lo: Right:. CpmrsisSioner Alonso: But four Is only portions of... Mt.'-Doughetty: It's only a portion of ot 4. Coiesii ail crier Alonso: ... of lot 4. Ms. Dougherty: Correct. Oimedi 1 10: . Right. . OOkri ssi toner Alonso: OK. Mr. Rodriguez:. • I• believe that the map that you:have, Lucia,.might: not ,inclUde '..thiS:tone.,.:1-,don't know if it -is on purpose. on not. . • 'MS* Dougherty am not 'sure, But we have. . a .1 legal description",Ahat does • Sboi*, • - • liner Alonso: The problem Is... . Ms. Dougherty: In- the covenant itself, tot 2, and 3 and 7. . . . V • • --• -.:`.44.0•.AtielitifisiP1 tinier OK.•...:.BUt.Jromslyhat. I .am looking at up here, the,.blue at 1.5 what you lire-, talking three 1 ots :thatcortect?.:' lio,'•only a •portion of 6.• - . . pell9tierty.t,,A11-1:of the ;Out at the least end, plus lot 4; which. is portlon e'.fbroWkpatt,: • .. or.::.pterener;;;.. But that does not' give us, if we were to build mini park, • .1s4000-etreet1# :-street? Djighirtyi,:::'•:;14:-: Willhave the access . from street to. street. Yes, you • 4091.00410iiitLe",lip,4-.... • it wlfl. Because from that leti you w111 have • -• • • . • : • D ' .1 • 0.4 r . • ;09911.7:*911;07,0.11.01*he has the pen. ough.ettyly, . • Stralght through. • can 09---sr.oigh, troy:one Side. to : 0020.Weikt.i.4.7c.:161.41$7i1000-AV-:.1V, 011.401W1 ...'..IliatfV.bettley,(41 VW!sen5to be 2-3k1,4444.00141111;04.00 -,-*10100-04f40.04W40 •: • • t Vice Mayor P1unmer: All right. Question. Mr. Dougherty: I also want -to point one thing out on the record, because:MsA Jones Is here. We do not own the west portion of lot 6, and it appears+.: it!s white on that.map that I have given you that has the black part on it,:we do not own the west half of lot 6, and that is excluded from our covenant. Mrs. Jones is here, and she quite rightly called us and said, hey, I am part Of this agenda item. I am shown as the entire lot 6, and I own the west half, and we are not including her on our covenant. Conmissloner Alonso: I see. COmmissioner Dawkins: OK. Let me ask a question, Mr. Mayor. The last line of page, whatever this Is, of PZ-9, it says, it is requested that the mini park maintenance construction of 4th Avenue, and the two thousand five hundred dollar contribution be eliminated. What is that? What does that say? Why... where are we In...? Mr. Olmedillo: That was the original proposal when the application was filed. However, the latest version of the covenant reads that there is a contribution of five thousand dollars ($5,000), the conveyance of the property, and an FAR limitation. Ms. Dougherty: We have a FAR limitation of twenty-five thousand square feet. Commissioner Dawkins, when this project was originally zoned, we were required to build... this project, Commissioner Dawkins. Commissioner Dawkins: Um hum. Ms. Dougherty: Which Is fifteen stories high, and had a hundred and fifty- eight thousand square feet. Right now, we are proposing to build the project of only `one story retell center, with only twenty-two thousand square feet. And that's all we are building, that's all we are asking for. ` We are not asking to build this large building. We have the support of all the neighborhood association. Jan Grisby, who happens to be In North Dakota because of a death of her family. The northeasttask force,: ,every neighborhood -association; 1s totally supportive, and enthusiastic about this project.- And... Conmissloner:Dawkins: How much property is vacant around where they are? - around where we are getting ready to do? How much is vacant? Mr. Rodriguez: About twenty-five percent on Biscayne Boulevard. Commissioner Dawkins: Thirty-five percent? r. Rodriguez: Twenty-five. Commissioner Dawkins: About twenty-five percent is vacant. How many parcels. lreracentAhat are; adjacent to=what: we are doing? - three, four, five, two? slr.Rodriguez. Besides•sthe applicaation, you mean; Commissioner? Com0ssloner4Dawkins: Yes. rRodriguez=.`I'm.not 'really sure, really. S 3 CoMissionerDawkins: OK. Thank you. Vice ;Mayor Plummer: I have one problem. I want one add on. Are your owners -- ~4Dougherty-Yes, sir: ce 14ayer lPl#mmer- .-OK , Voting favorably, I wi11 'ask' that your owners will 1lnteln the cutting of the_grase, and the landscaping, until such time es the 10ldes what. it's goings to do with that property,- They- have got to.; ` 1E4he1r own i• er y:' e54 w0 have`•'to naintsin our own, but we' do • not 'went the - :"of'malntaining that property. 117 April 29,_ 1991. ti i Vice Mayor P1unrher: I'm just talking about cutting the grass. Ms. Dougherty: Then, we have liability for the maintenance. If somebody falls because the maintenance isn't proper, we have the liability. That's precisely why we asked to give you the five thousand dollars ($5,000). You can spend it any way you want to. You can maintain it with five thousand dollars ($5,000). That's precisely the issue that... Viee Mayor Plummer: 1 guess we can cut a lot of grass for five thousand dollars ($5,000). I just don't want to accept property, and then have it fail into a state of disrepair, which is a disgrace to them as well as to us. And we are assuming another liability of maintenance, and we're having a tough time keeping the grass cut in our parks. Commissioner Dawkins: And the Manager said he has got no money now. Vice Mayor Plummer: Well, that's my problem. I mean, I don't want to look a gift horse In the mouth, but I don't want later on down the road, somebody to come backand say, hey, look at this eyesore that the City of Miami owns. Commissioner Alonso: Is It important for us to...? Commissioner. Dawkins: And it's obvious that it's expensive to do, because they don't want it. Ms. Dougherty: No. It's not the expense, Commissioner. Vice Mayor Plummer: No, their liability. Commissioner Alonso: The liability. Ms. Dougherty: It's the liability. That's why... we could cut a lot of grass for a thousand dollars year, believe me, but it's the liability that we don't want. Mr. Rodriguez: Is It possible that we don't take possession of the land that will .be .donated until we are ready? I mean, 1n the covenant that you are proposing,that we take over the actual ownership of the land that is proffered, whenever the administration is ready, and we can wait until we are ready to do something with it. Vice Mayor:Plummer:. It doesn't take it off tax rolls for him. Mr:. Rodriguez: ::That's what I am saying. Ms.. Dougherty,. It's OK. }• Mr: Rodriguez: Instead of keeping the tax roll. Ms Dougherty We::will ^do' .it that way. Mr Rodriguez: •.Until we take it, .at.the time we are ready something with it, we either,.: through: a street or a park... ConmiesionerAlonso: Then we take possession. r. Rodriguez. then at that point, we exercise our option. Vice NayV r Plummer: That's fine. + Dougherty.: We;'wi11 do that. ce M yor Rieman That's_: fine. Did the Law Department understand that? zilielom Naar: a_ am sorry, I was checking on the legal description. or Phu merl. OK. What he has proffered, is acceptable to Inc. Is the L they offer the -lend, anal they wl l:keep ownership of the lend until ' the :-Ci y ask for It, they will deed it over, But until that ey, 111 a alotaili. the lend and of course, you're going to have to pay Mss boughertyt We Will pay taxes. But we don't have to fence it, I assume, unleetwe need to ar want:to, for ourse1ves. Vlce'Mayer.Ptum1►ert, Huh? . Ms. Mier: In other words, it would be their land with a requirement that. they convey the title to the City at such time as the City should so indicate by written instruction to their counsel? Vide• Mayor PI Winer: That's correct. .Ms. Dougherty: That's fine. MS. Haar: That'$.fihe. And until such time, they are not only continuing to :own,it; but•.assumingall 1iabi11ty and responsibility for it. ',COMM ssloner. Alonso: It's' their land. Ms,•:Doughertyt ::Absolutely. We understand. that.• YicefMayor :Plunrner::, OK,- but I think there should be one other condition :there,;and that. is- that they cannot. use the parcel... excuse me, they can use pit; I.:don'.t: care about that, but they can't build on it. Dougherty: Understood. Commissioner- Alonso: What kind of legal document can we put in place that ,.iee�lly>.guarantees that. at the' time that the City Is ready they will do so? • •a Maer• . We can: have:: a.Covenant running with the land that- they will: continue to;:own, and it can contain that requirement 1n it. We can also se that .requl:rement.;by an additional : recorded document on• the land that �, ;intend 'to deed to us so ,that anyone being given any,. other interest or. rhb%ps it being offered <as security :_.for .some. other obl lgation, ..would be • on itice that4e,y In:,fact.:have ,the first right to it, er�`il;No;: no, •no; not first. right. i fact, ;it would be deeded;io us,' yes. , let me :.ask this question. Are:_ there a s coVehant-that says what the City: can -do with•,it? enant that I have seen does not indicate :that,.no i In other words, the City. could turn around and sell the A:ome,.sltes and tekb the money and put.:1t -1n ;,the genera Ygr1 you. 100riguers Ails is -again voluntary, proffer, because - -this wal ntng'cafe #.aatosc thty are prof feririg this voluntarily pn:the r 1 Sr , fn:=just asking. Fine. !?! s ionar► do your Want to Put,tl -time limit' upan` ._ porty7 11nety n1hs years . i s enough. Mayor Suarezt •Should walk. Ms. Irene Jones: Can I make a statement here? Mayor Suarez: Ma'em, yes, give 'us name and address and 1 don't know that you were sworn in. Would you mind, please. Ms. Jones: No, I wasn't. Do I need to be sworn in? Mayor Suarez: Could you please raise your right hand and be sworn in? Over here. Vice Mayor Plummet: There's no cost. AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES. Mayor Suarez: OK. Let's hear from you. Ms. Jones: My name is Irene Jones. and I live at 13500 S.W. 72 Avenue, Miami. And 1 had a couple of comments here, and really a protest In a way because according to this amendment that was presented before the City Commission, my property Is being represented as belonging to this partnership group. Mayor Suarez: OK, we got to clarify that. Is It... Vice Mayor Plummer: It's been clarified. Ms. Dougherty: We have clarified it. We have ex.... Ms. Jones: All right, and I want to go on re... Mayor Suarez: All right, anything further? Ms. Jones: Thank you. And I want to go on record as saying that I want to be excluded from this amendment. Mayor Suarez Is that taken care of? Ms. Dougherty: Well, she wasn't a part of the first one either, so... Colmiissioner.Alonso: She was not. stDougherty ...she's excluded. Mayor Suarez All right. ;Ms..`:Maera::::. We'11 make sure :that the language in the legal is corrected to refteett that; -that land is not. in fact; part of this covenant. for `Suarez:.. OK -;,beautiful:, Thank you for .your comments: and... Tones:.; --`Thank you or`5uarez: ..:fairly made request. Any further discussion? If not; entertain s motion en'the;item. .ssloner:A onso: Yes, I. so move. xt or";Suarezeo moved :on PZ-'9. 10ner4J►onso Nine.• ;or::Plunner .$econd. uarezWSetonded d1 cussTan? f'not,=,pt=ese:call• the roll, 120 April 25, 101 !! s'x?=.f6,z..r..;� The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Alonso, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91-321 A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNRECORDED DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LAND, DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 1985, FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY 3101 ASSOCIATES LTD., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 340-352 NORTHEAST 32N0 STREET AND 335-450 NORTHEAST 31ST STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), TO MODIFY SECTION 1 OF THE COVENANT WHICH REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN (LAST REVISED MARCH 27, 1985) ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING, BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT AND TO THEREBY ELIMINATE THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING: (A) STREET DEDICATION, WHICH WOULD BE AN EXTENSION OF NORTHEAST 4TH AVENUE; (B) DEDICATION OF PROPERTY TO THE EAST OF (C) MAINTENANCEET OF 5 CATION AID MINI -PARK: (D) CONSTRUC ION;OF THE 4TH AVENUE EXTENSION; (E) A SIGN AT THE MINI -PARK; AND TO THE CITY OF MIAMI PARKS IMPROVEMENTF) PAYMENT FUND OFS(FORO CLEMENTE PARK); SAID APPROVAL BEING SUBJECT TO EXECUTION AND RECORDATION AT OWNER'S EXPENSE OF A COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Miriam Alonso Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Xavier L..Suarez NOES:. ABSENT: None. None. Mayor Suarez: We have a two minute recess. I love to happen very often. Vice Mayor Plumper: 6oyl Mayor Suarez: We're actually ahead of schedule. Mr...,Assistant_.C1ty Manager? Mr..r;Rodriguez: 'No. do that. It doesn't Anything we should resolve, Mayor; Suarez:., Let's do this, let's take a five minute recess. THEREUPON THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 4:58 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 5:15 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE 'CITY COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT EXCEPT COMMISSIONERS DE YURRE AND DAWKINS. ILY BOTE; CPOINT,T MI5 ELTY G�ION NGPOGEM OSIDERATION OF PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS_:TO CONSIDER REGULAR NON -AGENDA ITEMS.] 121 Aril 25. 1991