Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-76-0512MIA AI. ftLOrPIOA !`1 J4-o -!Ct: ME Moi?AvcUm 7O Honorable Members of the City Commission DATE MA( 1 1376 SUBJECT. City Commission Meeting P. :Andrews City Manager ENCLOSURES DEFER ENCE.3 GeloAA PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FACT SHEET PETITION: A Change of Zoning Classification from R-4 (Medium Density Multiple) to R -3 (Low Density Multiple), for properties fronting on and adjacent to Biscayne Bay, from Osceola Canal to, but not including the Mercy Hospital property. APPLICANT: City of Miami. Planning Department, February 12, 1976. REQUEST: For Change of Zoning Classification from R-4 to R-3. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: Approval, in accordance with proposed land use from "A PLANNING STUDY FOR COCONUT GROVE." PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Denial, by 5 to 2 vote on March 10, 1976. COMMISSION ACTION: i ' ferred Mav 2,7, 1976- CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MY 71976 REMARKS: ,,,,„ i ?To:lot-able Members the City Cornmi,;si-)n. DESCRIPTIVE 8iaTcii: - • °tilt .•' I 11 - \ • \-","e" \\4,3 \ • I..."" V ,_____ 4 3 ." '•_/,''. V ' ------- - s ,,,=:--_,..;),,'"',,‘ • ,-..?: - ...., ..., N> \ .. • „.- e;\ 3 R-3 130* R 4 ‘• City a+ � ff, .o,, , •.jf �OECy+FIOa Honorable city commission Attention: Mr. P. W. Andrews City of Miami, Florida Gentlemen: tatni, tartha April 1p 1976 re: CHANGE OF ZONING - RECOMMEND DENIAL Properties fronting on and adjacent to Biscayne Bay, from Osceola Canal to but not including the Mercy Hospital property. Initiated by Planning Department The Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of March 10, 1976, Item #3, following an advertised Hearing, adopted RESOLUTION No. PAB 11-76 by a 5 to 2 vote recommending DENIAL for Change of Zoning Classification from R-4 (Medium Density Multiple) to R-3 (Low Density Multiple), for properties fronting on and adjacent to Biscayne Bay, from Osceola Canal to, but not including the Mercy Hospital property (Halissee Street, extended) all within the Coconut Grove area of Miami. Seven objections were received in the mail; 21 objectors were at the meeting. Thirty -Five written notices in favor were received in the mail; 95 in favor were at the meeting. An ORDINANCE to provide for this Change of Zoning has been prepared by the City Attorney's office and submitted for consideration of the City Commission. Si '!cerely, / Ct / R bert A. Davis, Director epartment of Administration Planning and Zoning Boards cm Z.M. 44 Attached: Minutes cc: Law Department Planning Department NOTE: Planning Department recommendatip»: APPROVAL. Tentative City Commission date: April 22, 1976. 'SUMMARY - CITY OF MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Min. Unit .. Maximum Density Min. Lot Sims ' , Min. Yard Setbacks Symbol . Mln. Lot •Unlle/Net '•'Area Width Jinni ' sta. Rear Corner !District Name Lea also 3e.,.' ., j • � Are■/Unl! Atrs • l,r. f.l Ifl.l e.f.) 01-0 Imo: :Density Any It-2 :use. Elf. 400 :e. f. • Multiple 1Su.J.!toil-2 41DR..550s,f.t rtgulatlons). 211R. 650 a.l, Apts.., nursery. 5 rrenhouse. looming house. school. Accessory WWI. Z Con. - Townhouseo a 11.4 11.5 Medium .Den. •Ity!Multiple 'lllch 'Density \Iv111p1e -e A Any lt.S..osa. SF 42F,6S0at alpis.., ,villas f. Mul1I-Fom.s 'bury atows. Ell. 400 if Condiilonsl ,usos, MR. 550 a1 holct, •ntolot, a- 24".UR, 450 ■1 pertinent .bowl. Hutol 150 :at nted. o[Ilcas,clln- • des, oduc. Y clmr- ma01r 40.4...dock.. piers. 1ccnsaory ♦150e. AnyR•3 ova. SF 0.IFi 650sf Apartment, mum -1a mlly, ararimcnt ho- 1;(1, 400 s•1. +el, ihntot. JIM.'550 c.f. motel, lour. 241111. 650 e.f. let 1.ntne, !latch 350 s.l. rnaming .house, bur.raltnv court. Accessory Seas, Carditlnna1 usew:•dock, •plor•or pet. watt club. Taunh ous leuh3. ao R-3) 1 du/1500 4.15 du•e 4 3du/900 1154duts) ldu/1500 (4.15 du'r) + 1 du/750 JIS4du'el 29.0 00' 60 20.. 15%wtd., 20 ' • min. 9 +1per 2 t•.:1 • man. 10 ovor23 + I per I.+ . Iowa 25 411.13 ;'19000 300 20 20 20 41par 2 41por2 over 25 over 25 21.7 min,1$00 min. la av0.-2000 avg. 20 29.0 6000 60 • 41500/0a.over4 ll-i5 du's) 58.01 22500, 7S0/al,I over 15 (1Styl;.'s) MF, 450 96.$ .1 Non-res. Non -rem 10,000 100 20 End Orp, 20 15 +Iper2 Dee. grpal ovor25 10+1 par 2 over 25 Max. floors/ft..• 13 2/25w/p4.1 30 30 200 mt. +1 per except con. use Over 25' In :per unit own holghtt 20 15 2/25 w/pkg.030 30 +1 per2 exempt con. use • over 23' In over 25 knight, 20 15 2/23 w/pkgt 30 30 +Iper2 'Leapt con. u.e ovar25 '20 15y wldih 20 ' 150 min.9 +lpor2 ♦Iper2 max. 1a ovar25 over 25 4 1 per (pub. o- ovor25 pen sp. crodlt) }Any 20s Non -rem Non -roe, Non -roe: 20 20 20 ilpur2 41per2 41 por2 over 25 ovnr2S over2S (pub. o• (pub. u- pon imp. pan op. crtdll) creJHl No limit MF,1Q,000MF,100 20+ Iles. ISY. 20 150 No limit (pld.11e width +1 per2 +I por2 open sp. min.9 aver25 sworn crodlt) max. 10 (pub. o- Ipub. 0- ilpor2 pen sp. pen ep. ovor25 crodlt) credit.) (pnb. o. Max, 20 pen sp. credit) In:9. 20''30 30',21 40':26 50'124 20%23 70',22 /0't2l 90.,2 n 100':19 110•:10 20%30 30' 1211 40%26 50'124 60'i23 70%21 00',21 90't20 100%19 110',10 120'117 130'.16 140'115 170':I4 150',13 200%12 22 0',11 240',10 270'19 300':0 Patio' 200 s.f. 200 mt. par unit 200 0.1. par unit FAR! 0.60 Individual lots. Group. lengths 200' man. Underjround ullllllar FAR; 1.00-1.at. *No point of `.!:t141a2 eclat to center lino t::na I/2 'totght of point k4ov! erg•'+ l'n0.. Darutup:nan( plan, de.4s review. evtn•rr.nsraa• agree* men' requiem!. 1'Alt: 2.00-2.20 -t:o point ci '• i'.'it 4 ClvatR la centrr;tne thin. 1,2 11, 04 point et,ovt grade. City of Miami. Planning Department: April, 1976 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 .31 32 33 34 35 36 i1EA 4/9/76 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO6 68710 THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE VOA THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE) TO R-3 (LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE), FOR PROPERTIES FRONTING ON AND ADJACENT TO BISCAYNE BAY FROM OSCEOLA CANAL TO, BUT NOT INCLUDING THE MERCY HOSPITAL PROPERTY (HALISSEE STREET, EXTENDED), ALL WITHIN THE COCONUT GROVE AREA OF MIAMI, AS SHOWN ON THE MAPS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, AND BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP, MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 THEREOF; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CON- FLICT INSOFAR AS THEY ARE IN CONFLICT; AND CONTAIN- ING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION. WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of March 10, 1976, Item No. 3, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 11-76 by a 5 to 2 vote recommending denial for change of zoning classification as here- inafter forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, notwithstanding the recommendation of denial of the Planning Advisory Board, 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 a change in zoning classification as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIA.MI, FLORIDA: Section 1. Ordinance No. 6871, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the City of Miami, be and the same is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification from R-4 (Medium Density Multiple) to R-3 (Low Density Multiple), for properties fronting on and adjacent to Biscayne Bay, from Osceola Canal to, but not including the Mercy Hospital property (Halissee Street, extended) all within the Coconut Grove Area of Miami as shown on the map3attached hereto and made a part hereof, and by making the necessary changes in the zoning district map made a part of Ordinance No. 6871 by reference and description in Article III Section 2 thereof, 2 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 -31 32 33 34 35 36 Section 2. All laws or parts of laws in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed insofar as they are in conflict. Section 3. Should any part or provision of this ordinance 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 day of , 1976. ONLY this ATTEST: PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE day of , 1976. CITY CLE?i. PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: MAYOR MICHEL E. ANDERSON ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FO•h AND CORRECTNESS: HN S. LLdYD ITY ATTORNEY 2. 1 • s• oot • zdi to,,r a. r• t7;0 �. ' • .frir'' OF OIdQN�a • t 1 • T T • . . t t . • 1 • • • A I,* . • T • ...... • t t . t . • • • • • • • • t +:• • t• t T t t t t t t;, t • . • • • • • • T , , • • • • T T • • • • t • t • R t t _._ • t • t t • • 1 . . • R . • • •• t t • ! 1 ! t • • t T T• • • • t/••••f •!•RSTt ••••Tt•t• •t••s • • t t • t S•• S t t J T• t t r - • ! : • ! I • t • ! t • S • L 1 HgRe0A LANE • l MAY 26, 1976 DEAR MAYOR FERRE AND COMMISSIONERS: I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY CONTINUED OPPOSITION TO THE CITY OF �1tAt.i PLANNING DEPARTMENTtS RECOMMENDATION THAT MY PROPERTIES AT 1680 AND 1698 SOUTH BAYSHORE LANE BE ROLLEDBACK FROM THE EXISTING CLASSIFICATION OF R4 TO A LESSER ZONING OF R. ON APRIL 22, 1976, I SAT WITH YOU FOR FOUR HOURS OR MORE AND HEARD• THE FAIR ISLE ISSUE DEBATED TO A CONCLUSION. I WOULD HOPE THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU NOW DOES NOT CONSUME THAT TIME. THE OPPONENT'S COMMENTS AND STAFF COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE ROLLBACK ON FAIT. ISLE AND MY PROPERTIES ARE CLOSELY SIMILAR - DENSITY AND BUILDING HEIGHT. IF WE COULD MINIATURIZE THE FAIT? ISLE REMARKS AND OVERLAY THEM TO BAYSHORE LANE, PERHAPS ALL THIS TINE AND MONEY COULD UE SAVED. BUT THIS WILL NOT BE THE CASE. SO I MUST ASK YOU FOR SUFFICIENT TIME TO DEFEND THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT INVESTMENT MADE BY MYSELF AND MY FAMILY. 3AYSHORE LANE IS MY HOME AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE ('OR THE REST OF MY LIFE. 1 LIKE WHAT I SEE HAPPENING 1N THE SPACES AROUND ME. I LIKE t•1I Ah11 . IT WAS THESE DECISIONS THAT MAKE ME DEFEND MY HOME AND MY INVESTMENTS. THE DOCUMENT THAT I PRESENT TO YOU FOP THIS HEARING SHOWS WITHOUT A SINGLE DOUBT THAT THE STAFF BASED ITS RECOMMENDATIONS ON ERRONEOUS AND INCOMPLETE INFORMATION. A COMPUTER PRINT-OUT WAS DEVELOPED FROM THE 1970 CENSUS OF THE PROPERTIES WITHIN ONE HALF MILE OF MY PROPERTY TO DETERMINE THE COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS. IF YOU EXAMINE THE GRAPHS, THEY WILL SHOW YOU A YOUNG, 50/50 MARRIED, UNMARRIED; 50/50 OWNER, RENTER PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL PERSON LIVING IN HOUSING BUILT FOR THE MOST PART 1N THE PERIOD 1950-1960. A CLOSE ANALYSIS WAS MADE OF THE FAIRVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH EXPOSES ONLY ONE TRULY PURE OWNER OCCUPIED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OUT OF 59 HOUSEHOLDS IN THE SUBDIVISION. THE REMAIN- ING ARE RESIDENCE AND OFFICE COMBINATIONS, RENTALS, OR OTHER USES. MY PROPERTY IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE NINE STORY, 100 FOOT HIGH 1600 CONDOMINIUM AND WILL NOW BE 750 FEET FROM THE FOUR, 75- ` 72- c. >l 7 �I ..� ^ cs7�cti��1J . ;i i 1, ;:` \.�_., i�i-�� .IL;1�.�I: ;I v�f;a�!.^,`�;Ir�J/.1�;11', ,14;�''l�,{7"�1:►�i;l(l:[>>� MAY 26, 1976 MAYOR FERRE AND COMMISSIONERS PAGE TWO TWENTY=FIVE STORY, 262 FOOT HIGH TOWERS OF FAIR ISLE, FROM MY BEDROOM WINDOW, I LOOK AT THE TEN STORY TOWERS OF MERCY HOSPITAL = 90U FEET AWAY, THE DENSITY DIFFERENCE ON A SINGLE SITE DOES NOT EXIST - BOTH ARE LIMITED TO 15 UNITS, THE FULL USE OF THE FOUR SITES 3, 4, 5, & 6 - TOGETHER, IS 105 UNITS AT R4 AND 90 UNITS AT R3; A DIFFERENCE OF 15 UNITS, WHICH IS A 16% DECREASE, THE TRAFFIC FROM THESE FIFTEEN UNITS, USING STAFFS FORMULA OF .55 VEHICLE TRIPS GENERATED PER PEAK HOUR, IS 8.25 CARS ON A STREET THAT CARRIES 1600 PLUS VEHICLES PER PEAK HOUR P.l1, THIS INCREASES TRAFFIC .005%. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU RE -AFFIRM YOUR POSITION OF 1968 AND SUPPORT YOUR PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD BY REJECTING AND DENYING THIS RECOMMENDATION, ONCE THIS IS DONE, IT IS THE COLLECTIVE INTENTION OF THE OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY IN A SINGLE BUILDING IN SCALE WITH OUR NEIGHBOR, THE 1600 CONDOMINIUM, AND AT A DENSITY WELL BELOW 50% OF WHAT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED. SINCERELY, tAi JAMES DEEII, A1A ARCHI ECT & PLANNER JD/PG 0 Lr) J 14 a_ 0 PROXIMITY NINE -STORY 1500 CONDOMINIUM AO THE PROPOSED TWENTY FIVE -STORY FAIR ISLE Ma yO��ON pA ^'�rpwGJ�eo �'�..� ,O ,y d� tp a� jpN n <O � p *tp P�.+ s TAll OF FLOR IDA ) COUNTY OF DADS ) Personally appeared before me the undersigned, Strique Perez-Pendas, to me well-known, who being duly sworn deposes and says that he is Advertising Manager of Diario las Americas, newspaper of general circulation, published daily except Monday, in Miami, Dade County, Florida. Affiant further says that the above named newspaper has continuously published daily except Mondays in Dade County, Florida, for more than one year immediately preceding first publication of said Legal Notice or advertisement and was during all such time and now is entered as second class mail matter in the United States Post Office in Miami, Dade County, Florida, and that the Legal Notice or Advertisement, all copy of which is here- to atta±ed, was published in DIARIO LAS AMERICAS on the following days: Signed /7. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 192L, in Miami, Dade County, Florida. day o Notary Public--;,---- fl—ct ;et "�' - fB9ei��='y��tY~ rN 7'N e~D p �m o wo A O a m p e u g s po �'?ipr ie tea. S7 ~�mW�O o1--:1;r,. ap9,ml' r'O amm- r-mme Nrp� Om A y. N � � Ot do�e'oa•'$10 a��' op�ws'��'� pOOtOMw � ay �� Op,NrOw A r'O 04 m S O r N r v, ► �,i °+ oy+ c •p � a p � pwa to 0ego � `r P 0-4 m WW g 20 Is to to 8 ta a �~t%•pCi ='OOCy1p 1 0 THIS REPORT WILL BE A REBUTTAL To T ZONING REcOtytMEt�DATlot�s or ICE PROPOSAL THAT THE CITY nP MIA,y1I PLANNING DEPARTMENTS AS NOTED nN PAGE 20 OF „A PLANNING STUDY FOR COCONUT URoVE" bE coNFtttMt b, THE P►DVISORY BOARbS OF THE CITY HAVE � TWICE TURNED THIS PROPOSAL DOWN .. ONCE IN 196a, AND AGAIN IN 1975, CITY COMMISSION SEAS ot�CC REFUSED��� THE THIS RECOMMENDATION IN 1968, THE REPORT SAYS - 13. Replace 104 zoning along the Bayfront between Osceola Canal and Mercy Hospital with R-3. The adjoining single family neighborhood to the north, which shares the same access streets with these bayfront properties requires that considerations of scale relation- ships, use and intensity temper per- mitted heights and densities of the R-4 zones. Further considerations of traffic congestion along Bayshore Drive demand restraint in future develop- ment of the bayfront. The City Plan- ning Department voiced these same con- cerns in 1968 when zoning revisions were made, but the City pursued only partial rectification of the problem in rezoning only half the R-4 properties in question to R-3, thus leaving con- flicting abutting uses. This partial approach to the problem convinced the Courts, when the rezoning was appealed, that the R-3 was unjusti- fied by virtue of the remaining precedent in adjoining R-4 properties. The City should rezone all R-4 bayfront proper- ties to R-3. but with planned develop- ment approach opportunities to encour- age highest quality developnnent at low - densities. Ait 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i . JUST1EICATIoN Fbr THIS RLGOMMENDATIoN 15 CONTAINED IN A ONE SENfiEi CE C()t4mErzT oN WAGE 1J or THE SAmE STUDY 4 lit► AVentte, St r • d Loquat u con lc ing single family neighbor •. and contrary to the need for stabili single family neighborhoods, The R =4 , 3 bayfront strip develop- ment of multi-family useCouPgBay- s al t is in shore Lane and Ray character and conflict with the use, scale of adjuining.single family neigh, h borhoods, is a burden to the cap acity of municipal streets and does not met t the needs of the immediate corm1 The R-5 zoning on Fair Isle is direct conflict with ale of s' t be obtained, • the us racter eighborhoods ss and egress must and it severely burdens e IT IS THC. CO(JCLUSIOh OF THIS STUDY THAT THIS STATEMENT IS IN ERROR AND THAT THE LUi•: I t:G AS COPJST I TUTED MEETS THE COMMUNITY GOALS AS STATED IN THE PLANNING STUDY ON WHICH THE PLANNING PROPOSAL WAS FORMULATED AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE ADOPTED COMMUNITY RENEWAL PROGRAM GOALS ESTABLISHED IN 1JGu BY THE CITY OF , +I11f11 1 1 41.119•11.1•••••MMirmoms,*•••......+ TO SHOW THIS ERROR, AN ANALYSIS HAS gEEN MADE OF THE NORTH GROVE COMMUNITYAND THEN A FOCUS ON THE FAIRVIEW SUBDIVISION NEIGOORHOODi TO FURTHER SUPPORT THE REgUTTAL, AN ANALYSIS HAS gEEN MADE OF THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED REZONING TO R3 COMPARED TO THE EXISTING ZONING R4 IMPACTS THE CONCLUSION IS FURTHEP SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTATION OF THE HISTORY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND STATEMENTS BY VARIOUS. AUTHORITIES FROM THE RECORDi IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE AUTHOR THAT THE CITY ONCE AGAIN DENY THE RECOMMENDED REZONING ON THE BASIS OE FAIPNESS TO THE OWNERS AND THE FACT THAT NO BENEFITS WOULD ACCRUE TO THE CITY BY SUCH REZONING, IT IS THE AUTOR1S BELIEF THAT THE REQUESTED ROLLBACK OF ZONING FROM MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE R4 DISTRICT TO LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE R3 DISTRICT IS ARBITRARY, NOT REASONABLE, DISCRIMINATORY, CAPRICIOUS, UNREALISTIC* AND IN VIOLATION OF THE OWNER'S RIGHTS AND HAS NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS AFFECTED. 1 f N i i r � �t 1 r•' 1 I ' 1 '�` �_ TI IL STUDY AREA I w; i LEEI CnNF I ULD TO A r,EnGE;APH I CAL COMMUNITY KNOWN AS .SILVER i;LUFF, SPECIFICALLY, A DISTANCE OF ONE-HALF MILE FROM THE BAYSHORE LANE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN SELECTED, THIS IS AN AREA ROUGHLY BOUNDED BY THE 1IAVID KENNEDY PARK ON THE !'TEST, TILE OIXIt HIGHWAY UG11 ON THE :;ORTH, THE VIZCAYA LSTATE qUSEUt•1 0IJ THE.EAST AND BISCAYNE I'AY ON THE SOUTH, THE TEPE'1INATInib nF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY I-`15 IS WITHIN -,an FELT nF THE NORTHERN ENTRANCE TO THE AREA, SEVENTEENTH AVENUE, THE OTHER MAJOR ENTRANCE FROM EAST AND WEST IS SOUTH BAYSHORE IJRIVE, goo O. "\ . ,• Li ►ii►li�����iiJ Ui�,►cw� tu,II, �► • i 9 ii 111Illl4i �lttl►lt� Iltitlr►ll��jttlltrti� '!ATCR ACCESS IS AVAILMLE To N1OST BOATS THROUGH . TIE DEEP 'JATt r t3E_-KEEN I°AI P ISLE AND .:ERCY HOSPITAL I NTn f)SCEr)LA CANALi t'M E1r RGf:tICY HELI P()PT AT THE 1'IESTEtN EDGE OF irf'CY HOSPITAL TAL PROVIDES LIMITED AIR ACCESS, THE I4E I GI lien!?! Innh AREAS OF THE , IORTH GROVE ARE GEf(RAPHICALLY DEFINED 11Y IlAYSHORE DRIVE AND SEVE ITECIITH AVENUE, THEY CAN BE IDENTIFIED AS THE !AY :EIGHTS ALATKA fiE I (,HffRlfnnll EAST OF SCVENTEENTH AVENUE" AND PJnrTH OF BAYS! InRI_ OR I VE AND THE TI(IE^TAIL NEI';(I!3nR;InOD WUT OF SEVENTEENTH AVENUE AND NORTH OF PlAYS;IORE !1r.IVE, ALONG 5ISCAYNE BAY Frnf1 '!EST Tn EAST, ARE SEVERAL LOOP STREET SYSTEMS n I CH FORM NE!'HE nRHOQDS - CRYSTAL COURT - FAIR ISLE, FAIRVIEW AND GLENCOE, EACH OF THESE I1AVE DISTINCT RESIDENTIAL J)FVI.. LnPf II.NT CHARACTERISTICS, • I ; IL SL SEVERAL i I;: I f 1 If fnrl IOniJ I,O(JMDAR I ES ARE FORMED BY f1AN1 iADE BOUIIi)AF.I ES - T:il: ROADS, THE PARKS, TIIE RAILROAD, NATURAL _;OUiI1)Af I E`, - THE BAY, THE CANAL, THE roc:: RIDGE A .i) LAME) USES AND AGE OF DEVELOPMENT, 1 1 II U I I ll;il,l_ IT Is FA(: 1)i !; . 1I^L, PU�.,LIC, :11:\r'.1 °: (:`►LOItFUL lVL .Ai!!1 1':1 PilYSiCAL C:!1i..rL� i1_•,t:Y rui;;l'I FAL :I4' ,,.u' 1.'1)11 T' I I_ I •;TI`.UCTIIi'r-, y U.:Cr_`iS FUL T!1L LAC lJCT11l6 I;Lll•i•i A STIMY A I;'_','! ..I I.: '3Tilf!Y CO:41J i. •11;1U1 i !'IAS L;\r li. I •. OF rill. FUTUF:L 'III_L ;r.�!J1l ti C:\!:• ,.1 )L ,:1 1"r� •i'; ! T:Iti C'i.l'f"•C: r1JuLIC gOURCES AND NEEDS PHYSICAL S1CA Development Patterns tap ttke South Coconut t.t.,,ve District patterns, t e, ;l rtad-North th m „[ the City. Irregula street which Parallels The el tierti the low ridge Grove, ,t uoipl ru the llay, much through along line •utpl the lack of m l helped to give the long I•i�,.,•t;�i► Avenue, • have h' 1 along whore Wive, of Miami. the j1:►y South It;ty• most the except alone,- that is distinct from all •of trait in in:Li t''1''� drove, the 'lititrict a pit Coconut lltstorlcally, the streets in the t ctm;t,nrl``t' than numbers. of Silver lllutf, have a pa r; rather of the independent town of the old Sil- ver part it was once I of Miami to Fire Stilton NO area „1wUhthe(nU ve ri was ttt n 11; utilized for v,.i• lUu[l '1'uwn Ilall �� presently dominate the land use 1 uses ed land percent of all developed pe di ric institutions 69 percent l by tt,.tiiilentiul,f district. crvcr J� 1 purposes, of the cse P uses. pattern d institutional o[ streets i, percent for t ublic an l land 6 exclusive and "t+ N,'t'cent ftY i conflict with Tine extensive r of politic and institutiothan cottif t l„• leets amount i uses rather its flirt wi extremely 1111. residential is likewise dj5tlncllve for complements slum. them. The of conunerciat inter small amount i t I•t `fir r err., �. tttt u ,TY 1r• • a THE NATURE OF T{-f _ AREA CONSISTS OF A FLOOD PLAIN DIVIDED BY ROCK 0UTCR,.)PP1 GS S[PARATIIIG THE LOW LANDS FROM TIIL IIIGHLI; f".LI:VATIfN s, A 11AJORITY or THE LANDS E,ELW THE ROCKS ARE HAN WADE AND WERE FILLED FROM ADJACENT DAY EXCAVATIONS, CONSEQUENTLY* THERE IS LITTLE SUPPORT FOR SOIL 13EARING FOOTINGS, THE SUBSOIL IS BAY ;i TTOf•1 SAND AND SOME PINNACLE ROCK Ms 1'O i,11' ►9►_L.'V,l II L. JUkFACL, REINFORCED PILING IS A SPECIAL REQUIUT FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION BELOW THE I;OCR BLUFF. I I E ELEVATION OF LIE PROPERTIES I N THE MAN MADE AREAS VARIES FROF1 A LO1 OF , ' TO A HIGH OF o,J' ABOVE .SEA LEVEL, THi: Ar.EA IS SUBJECT TO SEVERE FLOODING LLJ„Iiiu HEAVY RAIi FALL BECAUSE OF THE LOW GROUND ELEVATIONS AND LOW POROUSITY OF THE SOIL, THE I iINIMM FLOOR EL'EVATI'ON TO QUALIFY FOR FEDERALLY ASSISTED FLOOD 'INSURANCE IS 12' ABOVE SEA LEVEL — ALMOST :J' AJOVE EXISTING GRADE, ARCHITECTURAL SOLUTIONS SUOULL isE ENCOURAGED TO PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY II TULSi. AREAS, HURRICANES "BETSY" AND "INEZ" OF THE 1'.),i' S BOTH FLOODED THE AREA, WATER DEPTH AT 1L,TJ SOUTI LAYSHORLE LANE REACHED A HIGH OF 9.5' AND THE WATERS REMAINED NED SEVERAL DAYS AT A LOWER DEPTH, IT IS IOTERESTIUG THAT BOTH OF THE STORMS' CENTERS MISSED DEPARTMMfNT OF :MOUSING ANO Uf*N 0E6fEIO'i1ENT DADE GO., a MAP INDEX AAA ROOD HUARRD AOUNOARY aim so is 12 025 0000 02-55 fib ROOD INSURANCE /LATE MAPS ells S 12 025 0000 02-55 Area &o bit for i d.raMr assists/ 'Reed osurMu / e _i a !C* .�— i� :111. 2 • 0 721 4 arm = • , 1. a AIM•ei. ,-*1./r '/ �:'r:.I+�ItK iCljr iL•! .o-.;.ice �M L •, 'Si.#. 4 1M No ,at. :.ems MIL NOTE Base flood elevation Zone Al = 9 feet Zone V14=13 feet Zone V1 = 9 feet Zone A15=12 feet Zone A2 = 8 feet Zone A16=11 feet Zone A3 = 7 feet Zone A17=10 feet Zone A4 = 6 feet Zone A18= 9 feet Zone A5 = 5 feet Zone A19= 8 feet- j Zone A20=12 feet Zone V20=12 feet Zone A21=10 feet /one A22= 8 feet — Zone A23 =10 feet Zone A24 = 8 feet Zone A25 = 6 feet Zone A26=12 feet weLiolt Zone A21=10 feet Zone A28 = 8 feet Zone A29 a 6 feet Zone A6 =12 tees Zone V6 =12 feet lone Al =11 feet Zone A8 =10 feet Zone A9 = 9 feet , Zone A10= 8 feet Zone All = 7 feet Zone Al2= 6 feet Zone A13 = 5 feet Zone A14 =13 feet I 61.1 660 c Q it 11 1 1 1 1 —1 tia .1 LI_ It I 1. ...... . 7 \, e°11).aii • • I • l• • • • 1. HIGH-WATER MARKS- HuMmILANE OF t.laTi.MatH 1926 &SIM bt.1104 IslASi 111/•••• L •••••• ;Loal•• SAY nob • or 1.• Is *east ..11.11•••• 1 11.•** tut) ao•••••• ws an••••1104%. o•-••••••• • •411.14••••• 8.1•111 4WD j1I• 110WISSIIIII0 fib* • • 1.1111,904— K CY LAMA) 111.6.8 /p•A** 1•04 •, uiut. CMM 416 WIWI" •••• •• era •••• lb? ar• •• **Oft/We. 111.6.1011116%, r1•111IMIATI.•••IV 6Pgi ens. 11•• tll Cum OS IAN 611.••••••110140•4141 081( .• *own; *se 1.04 ‘%bOp • t;::•••• wow Pis into& wet HURRicilAt 61.t51, Set' 8, 1611.5 I* M." • C04•41111 Dm. Z,111•6 1,12:;YlU "tiLlT.N" 196L) THE TOTAL POPULATION WITHIN ONE HAIL MILE OF THE SITE ACCORDING TO THE 1J7:1 CENSUS AS ,Q110 PERSONS 1, 1b MALES AND 1024 FEMALES. THE VAST i AJORITY OF THESE WERE 'fl ITE. THE SECOFII) LARGEST ETHNIC GROUP WAS SPAN I SH, WITH VERY FEW NEGRO' OR OR I ENTALS. THE AGE GROUP aDIAN '!AS 37,4 YEARS OF AGE, WITH THE I COST IlUilhE16 FALLING IG IN TAAGE GROUP FROM 20 To 29 YEARS OF AGE LESS LIAN 5 J.: of THF POPULATION IS NOW HARRIED. WITH AN AUDITIoNAL ?�l) OR S(1 EACH HAVING BEEN DIVORCED OR WIIYV!GD, THE TOTAL POPULATION IS WELL EDUCATED N 1 Tl l i 10ST PERSONS AVER 25 YEARS HAVING ATTENDED SOME COLLEGE. WITH THE MEDIAN SCHOOL YEARS tEING 13.6 YEARS. n, VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE DID NOT GO TO HIGH SCHOOL, fi lL CONCLUSION F1;m Td I S I NFOF;i iAT I ON IS THAT THE i3OI'.TII ..ROVE LOilliUNITY IS MADE UP OF TWO DISTINCT GROUPS OF ABOUT Er;UAL SIZE; ONE OLDER AND MARRIED, AIU) ONE YOUNGER ANn UNMARRIED, WHICH IS TYPICAL OF CLOSE -IN HE S I BENT I AL AREA 2 NEAR A CENTRAL BUSINESS IJISTRICT. lie And -ad -Ili =gill -mil -1011 vie POPULATION WHITE .0111111.11111.11.1111111111111...1111111. SPANISH MEI NEGRO 11 INDIAN JAPANESE CHINESE FILIPINO HAWAIIAN KOREAN 0 500 ,000 II500 2000 cz3 3000, PAALE NINE MIMI FENtALE Ye. rzIR cD) EPIILM POPULATION IN HOUSEHOLDS IN INSTITUTIONS IN OTHER GROUP 1111 QUARTERS 901 WM IIIN 7 III. 0 600 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 MALE_IM NEMEIFEMALE I i 1 AGE UNDER 5 5 - 9 10 - 14 15 - 19 20-24 25-29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40- 44 45 - 49 50-54 55 -59 60-64 66 - 69 70-74 75 & OVER 0 50 MALEFEMALE MEDIAN'- 37.4 f. _tgpr y s�rtlft�+ E �L�L' IYY Yi:�CL'�.51.�was ��.. � •��V�i�.ic ..=ca.i • 100 160 ,I 200 250 _trEr-)D mil "El '1E1 =sill 101 — 11111 NNE MON MARITAL STATUS NOW MARRIED WIDOWED DIVORCED ION UM SEPARATED 11 NEVER MARRIED 0 300 600 VOM 900 1200 1500 MZEINFENtAr-e -ad .10111 -Mil IIIIII MI MINI EDUCATION 0 YEARS ELEMENTARY - 4 5 - 6 7 8 HIGH SCHOOL 9 - II 12 COLLEGE 13-15 16 17 8 OVER Ile ■NM SIM MI IN 80 YOM 160 MALE zooFEMALE MEDIAN SCHOOL YEARS-13.0 240 320 400 5, . 1.ce.I.:C.A-C__L1i:L 11iE TnTAL EMPLnYrIAIT nF PERSONS nVER 14 YEARS OLD At;,),'; THE. 3 )!I'1 rnPULATInU Is 1,:)57) JQ7 1.1ALES AND 11 GLU FEMALES, 26,2. 13 +IIJG Er1PLflYED AS PROFESSIONALS, TECHNICAL OR KIt!1WEIJ SKILLS, THE THIRD HIGHEST OCCUPATION IS t•r1•l/\flERIAL. AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXI.cOTIVE5 N1 11 I 011 CLI.I' I CAL , 11lI'LfYIlE11T ICY INDUSTRY SIV)d;S A 26 1A lh PROFESSIONAL Air) RELATED SERVICES WITH RETAIL TRAM FINANCE Aid) TRANSPORTATION FOLLOWING, THE :1EAN FAi 1I LY I I!CW E IS $1),`.:24 AND THE AVERAGE IS `•4,'.1 , J �1-I I CH I IS A MVE THE C')UI STY STANDARDS, THE ECOi,fi 1I C CnND I T I nN OF THE AI'LA IS GOOD WITH LESS THAT: 1.'_.. HAVI U IiHCOi LS c,ELfW '4:5,.i00, THESE LOW ENIO FIi,URES CAh. NE ASSIGNED TO RETIREES :0 i,U,S1LL SSL:; i ;.l.JT WITHIN THL STUDY AREA OF A CO; iLIlC I AL iaATUEt:_ T!l PRODUCE INCOME OR EiiPLOYt1ENT i:Ia2.ZPT . E1'.CY hOSPITAL, THE III (,II PROFESSIONAL AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS COULD !NE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ;:of 'ITAL, i I t EMPLOYMENT we OCCUPATION PROFESSIONAL, TEC„NICAL MANAGERS, ADMINISTRATORS SALES CLERICAL CRAFTSMEN, FOREMAN OPERATIVES EXC. TRANSPORT TRANSPORT EQUIP. OPERATIVES LABORERS EXCEPT FARM FARMERS. FARM MANAGERS FARM LABORERS. FOREMEN SERVICE EXC. PRIVATE HOUSE PRIVATE HOUSEI-IOLD OCCUPATION NOT REPORTED INNIMIMIIIMI NMI Mil El II NM MIMI - - O 100 YM=rd( cD 200 300 400 MALE MIME 110.11FEMALE ip 0=21m -- 1111 .,- "MI -1111 -MI -'�' — 71/i EMPLOYMENTBY INDUSTRY AORIC• , FORESTRY, FISHERIES MINING CONSTRUCTION MANUF. DURABLE GOODS MANUF. NON DURABLE GOODS TRANSPORTATION WHOLESALE, RETAIL TRADE FINANCE. INS., REAL ESTATE BUSINESS, RER41R SERVICE PERSONAL SERVICES ENTERTAINMENT, REC. SERVICE pFEsspNAL REL. SERVICES PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION INDUSTRY NOT REPORTED MALE FEMALE 200 300 400 INCOME UNDER 1000 1000 - 1999 2000 - 2999 3000 - 3999 4000 - 4999 5000 - 5999 6000 - 6999 7000 - 7999 9000 - 9999 9000 - 9999 10000 - 11999 12000 - 14999 16000 - 24999 26000 - 49999 SS, 0000 a OVER WI I' MN MI FAMILY— MEMUNRELATEO IN0 - a -O.i • -512NESSOMEMINEI FAMILY AvE. — 21695 — . FAM'_ MEAN — 13924 EMINGEINEEMO EMI IMMENSIMINEXIM aMTZE MII=MINI maws MIIIENENENN MENEINEEM 0 40 MO 160 E 'r--1 Cr JA.7dji dO UNIT OF GOVERNMENT EXISTS IN THE STUDY AREAJ ilO!!EVER, TWO OF THE CITY COWISSIONERS LIVE WITHIN ITS uOUi'1LAR I E , Ann ARE WELL INFORMED OF ITS CHARACTERISTICS' PROPERTIES ARE SUBJECT TO CITY AAA COUNTY TAXES, ,ERVICES PROVIDED ?3Y THE JOVENNilENTS TI POLI(JI THESE TAXES ARE AS FOLLOWS; f:1.t f.. THE LISTRICT TiiL: COCONUT :jRrVE SANITARY %UFA;, PROJECT, N I CH IS PRESENTLY COMPLETE' THE SULSoIL IN THI.; ,dl•;TNICT IS uLdERALLY A VLFY DENSE, LOL—PO)'OSI1Y LIi.L.;T►liL, ESPECIALLY ON THE RIDGE NEAR iA SCAYI rE '!AY, Ado PI NOT CniaAJC I VE TO PROPER SEPTIC TAi+K OPERATION, IIIL CITY'S PF;rGRAPI FOR SANITARY SLiiLP CONSTF;UCTI Oh HAS INCLUDED A HIGH PRIORITY FOR A PROJECT UNICif COPLETL TIIL L)ISTRICT'S SANITARY SEI;L.b SYSTEM f±Ct:!'T FOR A S; iALL AREA IN THE NOPTFU AST CORNER, ri :,c ;;\LL PERCENT OF THE I I GEftTAI L-I,ORTL1 DROVE !Il' STRI CT HAS STORA SEWERS, FUL E.Et iAI N I UG AREA IS SERVED BY LOCAL Lil',AI NAGS STF UCTUr ES WHICH OPERATE EFFECTIVELY IN THE DISTRICT'S ;IUI :T, ILRi4 END. '1i4D PROVIDE ADEQUATE SERVICE TO Tile: kI!►(ri: AREA ALOdO ,.ISCAYIJL 6AY, THE LAND ALONG THE i;AY IS SU►EJECT TO SEVERE FLOODDING DUR NG HEAVY RAINFALL JECAUSE OF Tiff LOW GROUND ELEVATION Aid) LOW— POmS I TY SD I L I I i I l: CITY'S PIct1G Ah i ron StOI I SEWERS UN; INCLUDED LUDr.I D A l I I ,,: I PRIORITY FOP STOW SEWERS ALONG SnuT} I :'AYsHfRL. ,I; I VE .) I LLT TI II. STREETS OF I I c,ERTAI L-ORTH GROVE ARE Chi4PLETELY LIGHTED. ITLD, THE ;,AY',:EIGHTS AREA IS LIGHTED ITED IN ACCORD WITH THE CITY'S CURRENT LIGHTING STANDARDS AND WITH I;Oid—l;E(UIRE:D UNDERGROUND WIPING, THE CITY'S PI;OGRA:.i FOR STREET LIGHTING SCHEDULES THE AREA TO r HAVE TIIE STREET LIGHTING UP —GRADED TO CURRENT STANDARDS, !,TATIn(1 i.'t ; :MILT IN 1'.1A, IS L(CA I 11) OUT:; I I C I I II_ ALA' ii I.AI; THE L'U S I HI..,'. DISTRICT OF I.000NUT ;l:OVtl, `)CI ,r,r,L�. ARE NO Pit:: LI C SCHOOLS I is I GERTAI L—i :ORTil DROVE, LLLI;l_IiTARY AiII) SECONDARY SCHOOLS III ADJOINING DISTRICTS SERVE ITS F'ULLI C SCi IDOL NLLI'G, AYSHORL PRIVATE SCHOOL EXISTS ON EAST FAIRVIEW (1;INDERGARTEN.THR000H SECOND GRADE) , III: AREA CniiTAIUS HO PUL'LIC LIL'RARIES, THE RESIDENTS ARE SERVED ADI=OUATELY BY THE COCONUT 'iROVE AND rl-IENANLOAN nRAIICiIES OF THE CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEi1, A STECLE PARK, A 0,3 ACftt PASSIVE PARK CONTAINING A mw SCATTEN fl BENCHES IS IN THE AREA, STRL=ETS THE AREA IS PEACHED FROM THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST BY SOUTH fAYSHnRE !)RIVE, A SECONDARY ARTERIAL 70' RIGHT-OFWAY, SOUTII BAYSIIORF PPIVE PROVIDES A HEAVILY TRAVELED PATH BETWEEN CENTRAL ;'I Af 1I AND THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF COCONUT GROVE, RESIDENTS OF CORAL GABLES AND OTHER SOUTH WESTERN RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN DADE COUNTY, THE TRAFFIC VOLUME IS OVER 11,r)00 VEHICLES DAILY, THE AREA IS REACHED FROM THE NORTHWEST BY S, W, 17TIH AVENUE, iAVID !'.HINARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION SAYS of ')AYSIIORE DRIVE: acceptable level maintain an not r,,com- ,urposes, to lays roadway:: are are planning I two- arterial streets gor transportation P arterial streets, volumes exceed surface and existing two-lane a on of service on projected .aily vehicular volumes mended for imPlcmentatiun.' txoj• that safety exceeding, recommended for widening when 1 Imply volumes 1y any way anticipated periods n two-lane does not that during peak t 10,000. 'Chic � with existing ur to intersec- tion slimly mew; are reduced due capa- bilities arterial atrcc v ,,cods and the vehicles per day. overall I accidents) • [Able ir tionU v ay average a not the Point of unacceptable sal loadings develop, conflicts � of street. and intervel�ic stem may be taxed to section occes- tion delay an entire time t at the street }y' alonC, periods of exist for Thesethe volume is excessive short P when they of street. delay be tolerable for unacceptable delay section create unaccer along 0n entire These conditions may but peak hour clonal bottlenecks, ion of the P � considerable P THE HOUSING I: i rt 1 : AREA IS CHARACTERIZED .,Y A Cr7NT I f I' U1I .; iJGiAND Ftn iii21 NUIJSItItr CAUSED 13Y Tll INCREASE It; POPULATION A 1.0 TS IE DETERIORATION OF OLD[ I STI;UCTURtiS, U; i I':UE FEATURES OF TiIE AREA, PLUS A VLRY PLEASANT VISUAL ENVI RONHENT HAVE HELPEI) TO i iA1; TAI f i PRoPE;'TY VALUES AT A VERY HIGH i LEVEL. iiL;;I I FL TM_ I:::I:i FEf LL tiE. A colw,IDERABLE dUIi.LR OF oLiiLI: STRUCTIJF:I:l; , ', TOTAL flF 1,3$U ROUSING UNITS MST T,IL uNE MILE CIRCLE, 1A, ARE OWNER OCCUPIED, 14L ,, RENTER QCCUPI LI) - ROUGHLY EQUAL SCALE, 1^,PPRoXIi LATELY T) OF THESE WERE L•'UILT r � ::I=�:n . J )J - t J,, .L LFOIL" .irt__u, IrII: :.)i:i1ANI) FOR :MIN(i IS SIIOr'!i; BY THE IHCRLASING PE CLtITAGE YEA!!LY OF OCCUPAriCY, INJ J :J-i3v, APPr'OX INATELY ; J;1 nF THE HOUSING WAS OCCUPIED BY NEW HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD, UITH //, OF THESE BEING RENTERS, 1 I IE NtJi;Z3ERS OF PERSONS OCCUPYING THE HOUSEHOLDS ARE A MEDIAN OF % , 3 , HOUSING UNITS UN ITS OCCUPIED BY OWNER BY RENTER VACANT FOR SALE 1 FOR RENT RENTED OR SOLD NOT OCCuPtED 1 FOR OCCASIONAL USE 3 SEASONAL OTHER VACANT 0 300 450 600 YEAR STRUCTURE WAS BUILT 1969 - 1970 NMI 1965 - 1969 � 1960 - 1964 1950 - 1969 1940 - 1949 1939 OR EARLIER -' 0 g0 160 240 OWNER 320 400 RENTER L_ • HOUSINGVALUE owrieR occumEo 5000 - 7499 7500 - 9999 10000 -12400 12500 - 14909 15000 - 17499 17500 - 19999 20000- 24999 25000- 34999 35000- 49999 50000 8 OVER AVERAGE - 31549 MEDIAN - 26892 2111111111111111111•11111 23111016111111111111EMMEMINNINI 0 25 50 75 i00 125 VENIPD:Ag tri-:=110 MLA. OCCUPIED UNITS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE HUSBAND -WIFE FAMILY OTHER FIT,MILY W/ MALE HEAD OTHER FAMILY W/ FEMALE HEAD MALE PRIMARY INDIVIDUAL FEMALE PRIMARY INDIVIDUAL 7gAVOE=D NMI IMINIIMMINI 0 150 450 OWNER --RENTER FE11,0 YEAR UNIT OCCUPIED ey 1969 - 1970 .1.1.1111.11. EM11..11.11111.1=1.11=1.11111.1111.111111111111 1068 IIIMINNI=.1 1967 EMMEN MEM= 1965 - 1966 MOM 1960 - 1964 11.....1=11111 1950 - 1959 1949 OR EARLIER 0 90 iES 0 240 320 YM112:ri 400 OVVNER 111111111 MIME RENTER -JL-)) L1171-1M- T NUMBER OF PERSONS IN UNIT mommionwoommimmmimmi imommommommomm Emommionou MINIM= MI MN MI I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 OR MORE 0 100 AVERAGE 2.7 MEDIAN - 2.3 200 300 400 SOO OWNER NMI NUNN RENTER UNITS IN STRUCTURE 1, DETACHED MEMENNEMEMINIMMIMIIIIMMIMI" 1, ATTACHED 2 3- 4 5 9 1. 10 19 =Ili 2049 MEM SO OR MORE MOM MOBIL HOME OR TRAILER i 0 200 400 600 BOO owNEo MIN 1111.11REN7ED C=A I 111 III -111 AB 711111 'MB IMF MONTHLY CONTRACT RENT RENTED mil ago VACANT AVERAGE.- 169 MEDIAN- 169 UNDER 30 30 - 39 • • MEN • 101.11=111.1..1 40 - 49 SO - SG 60 - 69 70 - -79 BO - 99 90 - 99 100 - 119 120 - 149 ISO - 199 200- 249 260 - 299 300 OR MORE ±73, r=3 Ve 200 1•6 In sr- W sommilmom I I )gl 100 150 EJ r:2) THE H0USEHoLD7, or THE STUDY AREA HAVI: A I1t At1 AVERAGE Or 1.4 AUTOt•1O I LI:S AVAILATILE FOR THEIR USE - A TOTAL nr T,Cx)3 AHD Tile:: HAJORtTY OF TIME TRANSPORTATION OP THESE HOUSLI IGLUS USED THE A1JTOhtOB I LE rOR MOB I LI TY i 63:� nF THESE ARE DRIVEN TO '.'OrKs THE PLACE or WORK VARIES ALL OVI r LADE COUNTY WITH THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SHDWING OIILY THE IlAY i IE I GI -ITS TI'AFFt* C SUI',VEY DEVELOPED DY TIIE DEPARTMENT OF TRAFFIC h Tr,ANSPORTATION OF 'JADE COUNTY IN 1 E3RUARY, i' / , DETLI i•' I N U THE FOLLO',I I NG MOTORIST DESTINATIONS OJ SOUTH AYSiIfflt 'DRIVE ** Daily Motorists X Infrequent Motorists X TOTAL Miami/Coconut Grove 44.1 8.3 52.4 So. Miami 18.7 3.1 • 21.8 Coral Gables 10.0 2.1 12.1 South and Other 11.9 1.8 13.7 4 84.7 15.3 1001 ANIONS �� that the AND RECOMMEND1Dtsrwiaa CONCLUSIONStraffic survey yet�saa It is evident from the Drive weekdays South Bayshoreea. It who travel on Coconut Gta� ar is majority of people the Miami/ .m• have destinations in is interviewed (84.7� few COO and 6.00 p majority of motoris that the maj route how since they use also apparent viable that South $ayslvore Drive 1s the most tbs roadway at leant three times per week. TfIL ONE MILE STUDY AREA IS SOSTANTIALLY BUILT WITH HOUSING Or sonti AGL, In HIGH i'r:rCi:MTAGt or 1tL A RS WOULD INDICATE A TRANSITION IS OCCURING IN tic1ST OP' THE WEIGHI3ot:HOOLSc Yn(JNG PEOPLE ARE. IN THE MAJORITY, OCCUPY I NC, OLDER HOMLS , MIL' 1J;,i Cn;(MUNITY 1;1:11LIAL PROGR II SET THE FoLL011EiG GOALS F=c1tz THE TIGCt;TAIL-NORTH GROVE AREA: Needs for r ►r�►vc'mente in the l,a, tm ct include: eaidPntlal imOP l ent use, of it for apartment contain redevelopment, housing that now sexpeditious for multi -family sites zoned older, substandard ubgtandar1 housing ng toi ; ►deycl►lmcnt of new residential l properties with autti- cirnt parking, 14et-backs and heigh t limitation8 to in- sure their continued high quality and to Protect wigh%uring, existing lroperties.0,cuntinucd'rcServatwnof mw NIP sound housing to ►ol ,and . 11 OCCUPIEDUNITS BY AUTOMOBILES. AVAILABLE NONE I AUTO 2 AUTOS 3 AUTOS OR MORE .11.1111111.11.11.11111 -- 0 160 460 800 MEDIAN AUTOS AVAILABLE--I.B MEAN AUTOS AVAILABLE - 1.4 OWNER --RENTER YemnJ c) cA MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION POPULATION AT wORK WORKED AT HOME DROVE CAR RODE CAR RODE BUS RODE TAXI wALKED OTHER 300 800 900 Lr Lirk 711E 111. 1200 MOO nLi-3 ,P[F[ILIE LL -III • 711i PLACE OF WORK MIAMI C.B.D. REST OF MIAMI MIAMI BEACH NORTH MIAMI NORTH MIAMI BEACH CORAL 3ABLES HIALEAH REST OF DADE LAUDERDALE HOLLYWOOD REST OF BROWARD 1 1 =122=211 A 120=2:11 0 160 300 460 600 *VS T=Lf©) FILE rAintiatr iw611 0.Ruco THE 5AIRVIEV1 NEIGHDoRHOOD WHICH CONSTITUTES A PORTION DE THE PLANNING STUDY FOR COCONUT GROVE IS DEFINED AS AN AREA BOUNDED DY SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE ON THE NORTHWEST, STEELE PARK AND CHATEAU ELIZABETH APARTMENTS ON THE NORTH- EAST, l3I SCAYNE BAY 0t4 THE SOUTHEAST* * At1D OSCEOLA CANAL ON THE SOUTHWEST, THE PPOPERTY HAS AN EARLY PLATTING DATING TO 1020, HISTORICALLY, THE AREA WAS ONCE A PART OF THE INDEPENDENT TOWN OF SILVER PLUFt= WHICH WAS MERGED WITH THE CITY OF i IIAMI Irl 1925, THE FAIRVIEW SUI3DIVISION IS LOCATED NEAR THE CENTER OF THE SECTION OF +IAMI KNOHN AS TIGERTAIL-NORTH GROVE, IT IS A DISTRICT NEIGHBORHOOD, IN THAT IT WAS AT ONE TIME DEVELOPED UNDER A SINGLE PLAT AND HAD ITS OWN ASSESSMENT SYSTEM FOR BASIC SERVICES, THE FAIRVIEW I'!EI GHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SURELY PREDATES ALL OTHER ASSOCIATIONS IN THE AREA, 1k0 NEW CONSTRUCTION 1IA^ OCCURRED IN THE AREA SINCE THE END OF WORLD 1'!AR I I . EXCEPT THE 1600 CONDOMINIUM APARTMENT TOWER AND THE COrBETT RESIDENCE FACING BAYSHORE DRIVE, L. UTILITIES TiiE EAtt;Vtl l'! NEI(1$i3ORHOOD HAS SANITARY SEWERS WHICH WERE INSTALLED IN 1 Judi. THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ARE COMPLETING THE HOOK-UPS TO THIS SYSTLI I. THE. SULD1 VI S t OU IS SERVICED WITH WATER rim THE CITY or AK!, STORM DRAINS WERE ALSO INSTALLED IN IJ6'I FOR DRAINAGE, LLtCTR1 C t TY IS SERVICED I.3Y FLORIDA PO','itiR ; LIleiIT 1'iITFI OVERHEAD WIRIUG. 2, STI'EET'LI WTIiiG LAST AND '.JEST 1'AIrVIEWAS 1.!ELL AS SOUTH 1 AYSHORE jJR I VE AND LANE ARE COI IPLETELY LIGHTED ITEi) IN ACCOf;DANCE WITH THE CI TY' S CURRENT LIGHTING STANDARDS AND WITH NON -REQUIRED UNDERGROUND WIRING, =IL.L P TLCTI^,t FIRE STATION NO, IS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE FIGERTAIL- NORTH DROVE SECTION, FIRE HYDRANTS ARE LOCATED .ALONG STREET RIGHT-OF-WAYS ON i;AYSHONE LANE THE AREA IS SERVICED BY A NWTER OS SPECIAL FACILITIES BUT IS LACKING IN NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, 'i I ZCAYA, u I NNER KEY FIARI WA, ; iUSEUM OF SCIENCE, I; I SCAYNE 1.'JAY YACHT CLUB. CORAL REEF YACHT CLUB AND OTHERS ARE NEARDY, STEELE PARK (0,3) ACRES IS DESCRIBED AS A PASSIVE PARK CONTAINING A FEW SCATTERED BENCHES. i SCIIQOLS THERE ARE 110 PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE TI GEI;TAI L'! 0RTH DROVE AREA, 13AYSl lor.E i'f I VATE SCI IooL EXISTS THE NEIGHBORNoob As A MoN-CONFORMING usE (KINDERGARTEN THI;oUGH SECOND GRADE) , IOST CHILDREN ARRIVE BY CAR, 6, STREETS. THE FAIRVIEW NEI GHDORHOOD IS REACHED FROM THE NORTH EAST ND SOUTHWEST 13Y SOUTH liAYSI1OtE DRIVE, A SECONDARY ARTERIAL AL ' ' R I G11T`0E—'.IAY . ,THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS REACHED FROM THE NORTHWEST Y ;. I. 17TiI LVENUEs INTERIOR STREETS ARE EAST AND WEST FAIRVIEW WITH 15' RIGHT—OF—WAY AND SOUTH PAYSI IOR` LANE WITH 501 RIGHT -OP -WAY. THESE STREETS WERE CURBED AND GUTTERED I3UT THE 1IISTALLATION WAS REMOVED AT THE TIME OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE SEWERS AND NEVER REPLACED HUCH TO THE DISAPPOINITMENT OF THE CITIZENS. 7, PHYSICAL CI !I! !',ACTL;' I S; T I CS THE FAIRVIEW AREA IS MiAll MADE — EXISTING BELOW THE ROCK OUTCROPPINGS ALONG SOUTH BAYSI LORE DRIVE WHICH FORMED THE SHORE LINE, THE SUBSOIL IS UNSTABLE WITH PINNACLE ROCK 2U' TO 60' BELOt: THE SURVACE. PILING IS A REQUIREMENT FOR ALL STRUCTURES, THE ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTY VARIES FROM . E ' TO a,U' ABOVE SEA LEVEL. FLOOD CRITERIA FOR THE AREA IS 12.0'. THE SUBDIVISION IS SUBJECT TO SEVERE FLOODING DURING HEAVY ttAttIFALL liECAUSE OF THE LOt•t Gfbth 1) ELEVATIONS AND LOW POROSITY SOIL' r %AIPV1EW SU8DIVistotl HAS ELEVEN STRUCTURES AND THIRTEEN VACANT LOTS, STRUCTURES RAUGE. I ti AGE FROM THE 1020' S To 1950`s. THE 1600 cotmofltiltui-t AS LUILT IN 197J, ,OTS 7-J uLOCK 2 OTC) 1 J-1 2,LOCK S 7-C LOTS 3 T5 _ LOCK j LOT 5 ., ILOCK SOT `} iiLOCK 1_OT 3 JLOCK Oci<I JSEr: RESIDENCE OFFICE i:EEP A JSE: RES I UC(ICL '1UTTI NG USE: RENTAL RESIDENCE RENTAL BOATS CONDOR USE: PROPOSED APARTMENTS uARDNEP USE: RENTAL RESIDENCE - PROPOSED APARTMENTS ...,E : RENTAL APARTMENT :EEN I;E(4TAL AF AJ THE(dT LOTS 1-2 i _(.) Connt•iINIWI BLOCK !SE: APARTMENT J STORIES. LOTS 1-3 LOCK 1 1_OT t} LlOCK 1 LOT LOCK 1 ';AYS(EOt;E rRIVATE SCHOOL S(: ,:0N-CONFORMING SCHOOL .ELLAI W LSE: VACANT SJEGEMAr (►SE: VACANT I.ot 6 Clif; ,ETT ;,L:OC1: 1 S L : RESIDENCE OFF 1 C LOTS 1-2 ;;II _ ;LncK 2 :!SE: VACANT LOT L LOCK 2 '.I SE: RESIDENCE LOT II FSPOSITO i LflCK 2 ;SE : RESIDENCE j-ELSKIS hLOTS 5-6 CALD WELL oc2 LSE: OFFICE RENTAL APARTi1Ei1T VISUAL CU:FITIC I ADJACENT TO THE ;'AI RVI E;•, NEIGHBORHOOD, APARTMENT STRUCTURES EXIST MICHI VARY IN H1EIGHT FROtI T;!O TO FOUR STORIES AND DENSITIES REACT I vL. UNITS AT THE CHATEAU ELI ZABETi i APARTMENTS, Oil SOUTH ilAYSHOR: LAIIE IS 'Hi: 15Ju CONDOMIHIU,•I, A NINE STORY FULLY OCCUPIEi) APArTi ELT i UILDIIIG ITH MEETING ROOMS, SWIi 1MI NG POOL AHD BOAT DOCi(S. THERE ARE J<< UNITS AT VARYING SIZES 1'I1;1 Tiii: TO,iLR. .LL PARKING IS SURFACE, THE DENSITY IS J3,'J UiIITS PER ACRE AND THE FLOOR AREA F:ATIO IS 1.2 - AN EXCESS, LY VARIANCE, OF .13 OVLR Tlli: I At( CODE ALLO A ICE, 1J6:J, WE READ: appeal from an adver a ;ri1n appcarc', to apI application f var— iance John A. ofTtheipp : Board on hia app �r tied to recommendation the aiaanrnF, o of 1,uJ idint; eona its e and e permit floor t�r�•a ratio of 1.25 j.il:,L'('.tld oi, p' at the .00forropoacd 9_ot,ory apartment Block 3, I con; 1dcratloh of which was dcfcY� d May e }31ock 3, of February ;.larch 13, Search 28, Apri meetirnGs of FeUruary `�, and July 11, 1968.. F „Oti THE COr;I'IISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, L 1 L 1680 RESIDENCE ADJACENT * - -lit '* 10 q �'at "��`eV3.oUa P�io�t�' ,u►rtients ttadp/at to a ii 9teet lie repeated art; in re;�+ fi ti�Iyich h� and Stated, e the o a this a t?�i atiti rce `to ht *ai't o£ the �fa'laif e e ri a� w had e,� hririti that he wool be magi' plant to the Coi�uniaeidtil subject to tricae � had exhibited to r� s cet Ito Chia type Va.riancc would haste onto with re and that Any Oi� the Cit`J' � require �eatint', of development. ;;L;,t., „u tl�� on this Kennedy made th`. f nit . ar i n► t;lrnt we have had the pre` t i Commission inthe bhese ' ��� On the many, , Mr, �ision 1i Paged on the that ht, they propose to matter, and think i.hati 1 a more build am t:� Llr�tn ghat: r grand Z move Ittlit� Lt a l.��tlb t0_ 0 into... violas cafe build many but people under t4e,,prCee1t, ;;r.;t;-up, .,aulcl c�:rt,11n1 -. cunt donee lUxur under of deVt.],,,pment L �,t�:�t and tc�v r�E, rojeeui z L't► thi:: p 111XUrioue -t cad QJl,�Cl.;t cur .z;volved in be alp ids our q �y' 3n�; , i P:::rc p„riled, and that they Units loaied arc i 1 ' I,Q1rd he over. with t the ^ �I:to the Pthis i, rk:oti i°Uc ; uildint; eh lesser move build this t��'�'c hvi ld-trrder--the-P -tt'tt'Y-wctir��e"ab It -bo' FAIH ISLE IS TONED "5 ANI) HAS A 2,UILi)IHG PEf:NIT FOR CONSTRUCT I OH OF FOU;,, STUi;Y T'7' .':if;S , ' ►I TH 1,.,F.:) APARTMENT UINITS UiitE^ SUCH ZWING, CANSTI;JCTION HAS STOPPED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF SEVEf.AL LA!'ISUITS, INE LEGAL t)EPARTfEHT OUTLIFJED FOR THE PLANIiIr:G NAN) LIOSL SUITS DRAWING NO CONCLUSION AS TO THEIR OUTCOIJL ECEPT TO SAY THAT THE PLAIDS FOR LAIR R ISLE WERE APPROVED COI;I;LCTLY AND THE 3UI LDI NG PERf iIT WAS ISSUED PROPERLY, PI;ESENT, [AIR R ISLE SEI;VES AS A SEi•iI-PU';LIC RECREATION ARLA UIT:i CONTROLLED USE, ;ERCY l +OSP I TAL AND 5J ACRES OF LAND I I iPACTS AS AN I F I1ED I ATE ADJACENT PI;OP [ARTY t l! I I Cl i IS - Ti IE PLAIN I NG STAFF IS ;'WORKING ON AN ' :Ii INSTITUTIONAL USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION, TT HAS NOT FOU1) A FORI1 YET, THE OWNERS HAVE ALL THE BENEFITS OF i"! AS TO FLOOR AREA RATIOS, HEIGHT MERCY HOSPITAL & PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDINGS OF BUILDINGS, AND DENSITIES* TILE 1: SPITAL HAS APPLIED FOR FEDEf2AL FUNDS TO HELP IN THE CO;JStnuctIoN OP A MULTI" STORY RE S t DENT t AL TML R FOP THE AGED, LIGHTING AND SERVICE. IS CoHTtHUoUS THROUGHOUT DAY AND NIGHT. OSCEOLA CANAL (GO' WIDTH) WHICH TEnI1tfiATEs INTO PELT CAN CAi•IAL (U,)' -U.)' !II DTH) . I S USED BY RESIDENCES ALONG THE CANAL FOr T IE I R 00 i BOATS AND AS LEASE DOCK SPACES COIICLUSI@ 1 111E PLANNING STUDY AS APPLIED TO THE kAI PVI Et1 SUBDIVISION UAS INADEQUATE AND ERRONEOUS AHD THE RECOM•1MENDATIONS COtISEQUEHTLY ARE BASED ON SUCH DEFICIENCIES AND ERRORS, THE GENERALIZED LAND USE STUDY (THE LAND USE MAP FACING PAGE I1) IDENTIFIES THE !_lAYSHORE LANE PROPERTIES AS SINGLE FAMILY, WHEN THEY ARE f•1ULTI-FAMILY IN USE, THE NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MAP (BACKSIDE PAGE 4) IDENTIFIES !;AYSUORE LANE PROPERTIES FROM A LOW OF 2-3.0 UNITS PER ACRE TO A HIGH OF 20-2J..) UNITS PER ACRE, 16UU CONDOMINIUM IS 35. J AND THE CHATEAU [LIZABETH APARTMENTS IS W.5 UNITS PER ACRE, IT SHOVISFAIR ISLE AS A;J OCCUPIED SITE WITH DENSITIES OVER 30 UNITS PER ACRE. THE PERCENTAGE OF OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS (MAP BACKSIDE PAGE 5) LISTS ALL PROPERTIES IN A GENERAL CLASS- IFICATI0N OF A-65,, OWNER OCCUPIED. 22 THIS tS AN ERROR t'oR I9 THAT CHATEAU ELIZAt3ETH HAS 66 RENTAL UN I TS s SWAN APARTMENTS HAS u Uf I t TS r t HAVE 9 AO SO FORTH I THE ► A t RV I EV1 NE I GHnOR iOOI) HAS ONLY 4 SOLELY OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSE'S, THERE ARE 12 HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD! 2 HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO APARTMENTS, 1 HAS BEEN COUVERTED TO A SCHOOL, 1 IS.BEING USED AS AN oFrIGE, 3 SHARE TENANCY VITH MORE THAN ONE FAMILY, 2 ARE LEASED A3 SINNGLE EMILY AND 4 ARE OWNER OCCUPIED SOLELY FOR THEIR RESIDENCES, THE PERCENTAGE OF OWNER 'CCUP I ED HOUSING WOULD BE fIORE ACCURATE IN THE U - )') OWNER OCCUPIED CLASSIFICATION, THERE IS A DUAL STREET SYST.Ni FOR TRAFFIC CIRCULATION WHICH NOT ONLY SERVICES THE EXISTIING SINGLE AND MULTI , FAMILY USES BUT AN EXISTING SCI IDOL, ALTHOUGH THE TRAVEL DEMAND ALONG %AYSHORE :'RIVE I> ;IGNIFICAMT, THERE ARE SUFFICIENT GAPS /1VAILALLE FO!', VEHICLES TO ENTER AND EXIT FROM THE FAIRVIEW STREETS, r'CCi SS TO IIAYSHORC DRIVE IS CONTROLLED BY THE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AT .'!EST FAIRVIEW. MAKING ACCESS TO THIS STREET POSSIBLE AT ALL TIMES - NO I3URDEU1 WILL EXIST WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE SITES. SETTERS ARE IN THE STr.EETS ANI) :IZED FOR THE N•1ULTI FAMILY USES, THESE WERE INSTALLED IN! ]:)r.0 AND PAID FOR BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO THOSE SERVED, THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY 1 ARE CERTAINLY BEING SERVED IN THAT NO VACANCIES ARE EVIDENT J J i J I M THE AREA r AND THE CC1t1fiUtl t TY Is U"1DEti HEAVY DEMAND POP RENTAL HoUS t NG i CERTAIN OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PLANNING STUDY ARE VOID OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING OCCUPANCY OF THE LAND NO REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS REQUIRING 12' MINIMUM FLOOR ELEVATIONS A'anVE M171,L, ALONG THE BAY. IF THE PROPOSED �S IS ACCEPTED, IT ALLOWS A HEIGHT OF ONLY Z5' /Vl(1VE GRADE - 30 FEET IF PARKING BELOW, '.!ITH THE EXISTING ELEVATIONS OF THE LAND AT 3', THE BUILDINGS WOULD BE LI M I Tt D TO TWO LEVELS NnT E;;CErn I NG A I IE IGHT OF 21' - SEVERELY LIMITING ARCHITECTURAL SOLUTIONS, THE PLAN, AS DIRECTED TO THE FAIRVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD, APPEARS TO BE REFLECTING A PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE PROPOSAL TO ROLLBACK THE ZONING ON FAIR I sLE, FAIR ISLE HAS NO BUILDING STRUCTURES, FAIRVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD HAS EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDII.IGS IN MULTI LEVELS UP TO NINE STORIES. FAIRVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD HAS APARTMENT USES AND OFFICE USES IN OLDER OUTDATED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, To STIMULATE THE C0I1MUN I TY 'RENEWAL OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, IT IS IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES, To REVERSE THIS PROCESS WILL CONTINUE ITS DETERIORATION, THE PLAN DOES NOT DIRECT ITSELF TO THESE ISSUES IN FAIRVIEW, Cr _ .• I i • 1 1 4., LI. I i 2, • WAT POPTM FAIPVIE OlICH 3LCAn UT".1". CITY '.!M HEARIHr-, ON THE HE':, zoNr;( CODE ADOPT:ii; lj J.loruc NOTICL AN HELL 3Y THE CITY Cnr'll!rInN MIR 116666. taw* 1166.6666 MaMese 11116 atel 3:= raii et a j j„LA Waft so.** 4'um O D 40 d• O 0 40 • eakxstottlio• 41k=i Ira fig Lbw PM lev.‘ LA L Ilaseeraa 40, IPIAos tomer. •r-7.11-1. Tic 144si " skia. .4 is wit Ilk I / It r"ST-61 2 10. at NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC „mit ozzo•iii Od pu666161. Mei& 6. ikerwoi !Ode ,1661 611666, 616666 166 tor et itt:166relsirlegrUdie 666 Or* eit Utz woo mm"ti .r o, sub sit__ . ii_evrIgmee suers IsrtailiWille Nr, et 12=:106 I Last 66.666 680, 6.1 .6:16.1ritar: * 606,66 kV 64 SS Margit? SI 64 SA Santa II alt, * er tit 10 - jells ti ti rr _ • so rte14/ 25 AT M I T Y } '2.l''.,111-t . 4-.I .',r'''. _.I.Ti.{t t !llN:: . J''.•i,1 q: li`il w 1 .. 1t;j�'j' ' f tih _ T , . trrLl_t14'7�iv T:'ICTI��": nr T: II!",T AU Cold •1- uTEr :I ITI'. ._ C(`. .!; :..T,I Pr11:T i' Dubbin,. iiu Mid resented judge Dubin,. Phillip i Schiff ownnrP is 1 and 9 rdp. OW of 1E' direct this p theta wds is the today was to at chat �� i Dubbin hero look to a is coming a long you adopt the t you could take 11hun y property in Nias1 your attention soy Ordinance • ot any ado ons its reensing asb before you adopted tha rezoningand application' �osPrd be pr fly well cdisposed of •ratty well "p� �i! Should be at a Minimum. abu northeast neat et piractly to three story racy its. t 1 i. uaconst uc acontainsyspa GO L° with action and this right at ur fur d ' from oy lot s the stiOin tar. presentlytoning as shoth on the � coNaructud up break the rat you ary an .taw natural butter. barrier house little to cr.,ntlnK � It t un a lot should break line at property prfo ng Ord l e t c should provide t agAinst propealarm „n with tits Strict so d R-1.,r .trout. This abuts pvtiti is tAu .Palk. the like t o► Me had enter' and that going up on be sonod that 'ill bu � In v i ut what w �ha Bard has recommended the which property. s' to that PrOP° d .Lucy building this new costal 4 e �� lot f■ thutarrtAu lot. to nt hues.. This would It you ar zoning a apartment Tract tAu ty°�i� '_tOrsit only a two, .tort' or 60-unit on Tr 1 1 a three story 'tiro you might seriously 'emit with�thur leek 1 and then you igh serf yq" i going to take that n. iKht,oar thruegh with thfi yew building.you character of l.tnr uXtended tiros to uxtuncl i t c a should b" tar at tb..atIal would consider a non-conf ur�f of R u have iow•.ital • ly itcattu h nluck 7 and by far as s would thin' the classification lnaat through hospital U down gtpciuve - that should all the or b��akfnK point „1'"11 Coll--, ' ad Cdpi �•' tha true has -'"the character of it Auld be Simpson said - Jtotad out that the Schiff P t it Utighbo said - "Mr. SO t i. what w did' Board abangdd llr. rb R Originally thoy that is no p otho B rd oaT go as ittological ot,jactishs be a continuation 1 of be a breaking the lnr e l 3 It should and Cant L! LAB© iqt. !coat the eat t.bs_ 7.nutm, St SA 1 tAti SI ttoviii 'intuiting Sei Consider soniug Ot bayttOat luta COlosiaeionOr DuMood sstd . "the e *toter ot tbe erse Proposed St-1 bal Changed and this le &snottily Oot A-1. It is adjaCent to tbs apartoeit O04100. I 010 on the Plosning SOsrd and I r0000bor . netts' toe it." stilrl_yvt. said - "I sitbt point this out that prossntly . boost conitfUmALon _s cooperative apartment butintog adjoinins tbis proorty. Those are largo baltront lots that VUA dOWO to ttla Canal alons the Say. The request troo tbo persons vho sontactod A tbo Soard sad the otttoe vas to include *II ot tbo SaytrOdi pro rty m to a logical barrier being tbs Canal and propose 9.4. W. iltegrA +AO"- Alit4 inls ePleddir ad by %he). Sffsri is* & tbs Compattoo before these spartosnts vere'orected and oil billas S-1 boosuoe bad been no IndIcation tbat tbe &portrait, would 'be constructed. The Wasting apartments oonstructod to tbOisottb -611166406 tbe'cosplesion ot tbo proporty iv are Sa . tberel:Slag abos4 soul." - , iv lbe City Commission istorsally approved S-4 Soot*, "Ctbssitioation, • -.11"1 111tHitt. In TIE HY1 C1- YnilE Fflfl 1:r-1-D pTHErs MTL!'1.%.-rT LnCAT:: AT PITTOSPI, ASCITUr;•L'i 27 IN ila;#TUI Mr4T ATThi1t1 0AS MUt TO PoLOACK THt 7H TO R3. THE THEM PLANNING ARECTOR, OUOLEY S. IIINOS. PECOMEMED AS rnLLO t • Pur suarit to the City Corrirnissiiin's request by Itesolution 30'132. requesting a study ol the area from Mercy Ilosnita4 southwesterly to Kirk Street, easterly of Dayshore Drive, the Planning Department subrnits the following recomutendation: fk5C°11,011 The existing multiple -faintly zoning districts ahnliecl in the subject area should be upgraded by changing the existing A-4 zoning classification to Ft- 3, tVr 11-5 zoning classification on Fair Isle to It- 4 and the existing areas zoned remain unchanged. AT THE r LANN I MG r,OARD HEAR I Hfl or JUNE 3, 197,flS1 OSE f.i0RDnH nADE THE rnrinH TO nr:w '1111 THESE CCIHMENTS: tire. Gordon; I do want to speak to the gentleman who made a comment that we are not so sure of wbeen hat we are doingl we feel sure of what wo are doing in the Grove and we are very reluctant to make changes in the Grove. Those who have attending those meetings regularly have noticed that. I am oter sure of this. We just don't promiscuously make changes one way or the h unless there is a defte need for a change te and it is very evie dnt that it should be done. In regards to these properlatare ore us tonight, _I Lail to_sce hneed, _Therpfore,_1, EiP.I.AP-.1.)!_o_ off .tb9.Y.-Ar.s. traLota- • dvenin . 28 the r����� also that would like to put intohave Mrs. �alt�er� t I � � teat }��rd�hip , 81` �t is a • shipo � .. the �t is, as ►w Of us know,and h taken away from us and +� emeriti;'�" r�h>�►���property samethin e o le hate , _to p e v= been done by a+wexal people � eve oilmen an or u ure ere date wou �t and _soil_ is unrea is �C any Xb�!►so�' in property _..._ 1 ar�ta .. _ It is that basis � would state objection to that _.. O for opposing 3. nR, J, L, PLUMMER ADDED HIS I.►ISAPPrnVAL (W THE PROPOSED REZONING ALSO: record that on the er: i would like to go µr. Plum land -based property lore g a be any deviation on would be on lair the only R'S in that p there may there in simply }�ecau:;e use in the area a although there is a multiplechange would bIgee one that any but I can only worth for the records. on r one that chtin e. The only that ou . x' n°- isle. I say articular area, nd i can see the be on for what it eft R-5 is THE CITY COMr1I SS I OU CONSIDERED THE RECOMMENDED ROLLBACK OF ,; MING, on JuNr. Pr•€, Comm ssl ONER nAEIr,E MADE A COMPROMISE MOTION TO r'nLLPACi: TI ii. 7ON 1 f!C IN ilk (LENCOE SUBI) I V 1 ;ION TO R3 AND RETAIN THE. ZONING AT p4 IN THE FAIRVIE" SUBDIVISION, THE P1c"TInr1 WAS SECONDED 13Y COr1r1I SS I OVER FEr.R; , WHO GAVE A VERY ACCURATE ACCOUNTING OF THE FACTS.' NIS FIRST VOTE ,aAS AGAINST THE COr•1PROMISE,) OKE tr ilit for the pfe� eight thAt since 1`�6O' the first place Mow ever, is Now' i the not be ZOned waa is The fact, been Zoned hj think it mere zoning* earej this area hag cty is that it ie. tonestabiliThere 5 or gentleman ink both tildes are reality out the matter o� from R.4 Kowever • o ntC'i area fr for the very here who here about takint. tt� t. thltfrto R-4 t► ould be against t can't lee hohias beanlegA e e to lI-II. be, ar�ainst .that, at► area that Change it Ooo I would here and all of a pudden mare reason could come we in future y t,hts same we CO nnifleation could , and say food conscicnan Ver clad' that, then how Zonf.nl n people na shed in ony, there in o B-5 happens to r that area tabli If we were to do • where, , 1. Whsit hap{ a brcause there, to � 3 areas be properties should R rnp to live ho take other r h those p We want be built there. shouldn't n't be kanci have kept you people nays we want understand have invested ? I know Y ,artmentOf this thing and and has way zoned that waytelY rthe he side hate ave look at thavetproperty that s zoned R. in my a and You eight it is eminen that eit re i onodquea- gut ybhese people whofyears, decide that 4 f or alsudden no fast t there it en be zoned II- a that should been for you to all despite espi a the zoned feet that t eproperlre see h°w ques- tion , it should be Iz toand z don'tnote in my was done, tton that that stake p-1, but that is a mistake can reverse it. Il iI1 AS KOLLOwS I THE FINAL VOTE )F THE CITY Cn:;flISSION WAS FOUR VOTES TO DEI'V ANY ROLLBACK III 7(P:'ING 111 THE FAIRVIE11 SUBDIVISION AND nIIE VOTE Fnr•'. "r AI)I Nf THI' nFCOr.C, IT IS APPARENT THAT TI-IE COMMISSION 1W/\ CONCERNED "NTH I THE E iEENCnE PROPERTIES AND CONSEQUENTLY ACCEPTED TI;: comrFnmIsE, :,AYOR CLARKE RECOGNI7ED THE PIFFEPEIICE ?rITTEr THE Tvn NEIGIIBORHOnDS - FROV THE I;ECORn t there was considerable the opinion that areas. reseed the Glencoe Mayor clack exPthe Fairview and difference between 3 • !,S r, flL' 1ILi OF TiW; CO!:{ (;n;{I;;:: crtAii;\HCL=, 1L5 '.'tRGINIA GAUSS .LI:, OYNE?S fF _', , 7 " . , •Loci; OF ..:L-L'EiC')i:: AND LE'iii: '.'A l I!'I t �! , �� liil:;'. t)E L'•1 ; iJ, r L')C ') of uLLUCfE, Iii1TIATE L) i\ LAWSUIT ;1:',AL:ST THE CITY FOR ROLL!1 h t3I\CIC THEIR ZOIUINO FRn i R4 TO R3 ,: ^, ;EHD L FIH L liECL1i ATO:'W JUDflE;i iLi.'I" ", i;ULE 0 I,: T,!::If FAVOR OH ;.OVEillll• i 17, 1'7J, ,►:Y ' ri:c7i(,i: C, UL .1 !'.rll I 1 ,IUi)GE, AS roLLO:•JS E;t3, an Ordinance amending NiRl,�:r 7� ordinance for (a) Urctin�;»cc Gvlllti�� - �Ei71. r �,uuui.5 i.oti o L l.lie City of Ordinance Number t ; �' f Miami, k�us:;u�l ley t_1i�= �� insofar as said Ordi- nance City o � rlt,ti, ��t_h day c�1 S,'1)Lclul�Cr, r ' ,r c11�r ! r tY Miami on Ow �� i 1►i..t I Ls I MEW pertains to the 1 ]. Number the City Commission of oL power o of the Said CaSC,I1JU�. 9 r ►.,,;;1. rids the use is an unreasonable nr .�l►1 , • cora- City Uf awl 1 l.11,, l,c►►,l. i-�- 1ic���l i_t►r ;;i,f:caty, Miami, the property without any lx ari l,�l on rope and .i :� void. p wo1LaL�-r fort morals and public; .011011101111111, THE ISSUES CONSIDEFILl rim: Not oNLV THAT THE PROPERTY WAS BOUNDED ON EACH SIDE WITH NIl',UT OTHER FACTS WERE SUD"' STANTIAL IN SHOWING AN ERROR IN P.EZONING, THE PLANNING STUOY FOR COCONUT CIROVE USES THE ISSUE OF PARTIAL REZONING AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR RECOMIIEHDATION, 1NE MUST LOOK AT THE EHTIRE RECORD FOR THE ISSULS$ THE RECORD SPEAKS AS FOLLOUSt lhat the proper , oat:: U'uni31i1705: °5°tCrutChteUreS n t1'.2 ca tv borue. . PlaintiffS1 FropeTty eitheerected the land or in the process of construction, Upon escntly c 1 property, and • which conform to R-4 zoning classifieL r buildings do not conform with zoiny, nrestrictions That the City of !.liami had heretofore in the year 1900 as deCined undut R-3 Lonin. changed the zoning of the property of the Plaintineffs and other continous property within the arca to R-4 zoned property; that the Plaintiffs, SAIISSPL.1.S, have owd the ir property sino: on or about the year 1947, and that the Plaintiff, VO TREESV., has owne,1property since on or about the year 101, and he purchasAt subsequent the ed to change of zoning effected in the year 1960; that the majority of the upland property owners within the Glencoe subdivision adjacent to the Plaintiffs' property purchased of the or built their homes subsequent to the enactment Ordinance rezoning the area in 1960. said and use 11 =�J L� L la; • IT CAN BE SEEN Ern:•( Ti(L PL' NNI'1n .:)Arn f IHUTES► AND CnunT RECORDS) THAT THE Is UL OF THE Pr.cPEr; USE OF THIS LAND HAS LONG AGO MIEN) SET i IT WAS NOT CONTRARY TO THE GOALS OF THE CITY t(( 1;Iosi_ PERSONS .•J(Io HAVE C URCI(ASED T E PROPERTY RELY OH THE CITY Ffin i 1AII+TAINtNG THEIR RIGHTS* THos►_ PLP1SONS 11-I0 FOLLOW AFTER Tl I(: Z:)NI NG ARE SURELY A'.lAha: OF T;11. L;- t STING l:oN;►ITItt;;S, IlIL fNLY CHANGE Iil CHARACTER OF TILL ! AIP?VILW (;LIrH:)n'.IrloH HAL: ;,i:EN THE AlDITIfl 1 OF THE �; J.i Cnti1a(i(ilidiu: ,'.PARTii(:;:T INNOVATIVE DESIG;i NAG PE R;(ITTED ';ULTI• FAMILY AND (MULTI LEVEL STRICTURES F(1 .:,LLNL INTO T; IC SAVE AREA AND ARE COMPATIBLE ''f I T N THE SURROUND I N(, ' Iri; l[:S IN NIP LEST RESIDENTIAL COf;i1U(ITIL I(it.:;l. IN NO !'LAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COf l; iiii, I TY, THE ftAN JI►+G Fo'.; CoCODUT .;MVE SETS THESE GOALS AS r-oLLvs : a plan for the 'The s been to create its zunity, that recognizeso- evo challenge has coma that accomm of this s its unity, Very evolution et sustains yervatiOn' diversity, y respects preservation. equally change yet heritage Grove is a dates a its historic Coconut Gro boost- appre conscious of its future, unabashed istr• blend f romantic historicismsocial isolation andher of active Mena °f cul Ural diversity, the number possess iconoclasts act ci Few communities or organizations ations car outspoken 1t ons a commun- ity flourish z Coconut Grove. wholes exhibits that flo urish in that, taken as a o f contrasts singular identity• ity a re 013. irr'J.i.F,."J,�L��4�L1t _odr 1 f,0 ANALYSIS HAS i;EEN MADE OF TIME EXISTING R4 ZONING AS APPLIED TO LOTS ), , > , Ur );LOCK r i ;1IC:VI ''' UF3DIVISI011, THE SITE COMPRISES Ati AI;EA OF )1.)i uU SQUARE FEET OR lnv ACRES. ITS U I NENS I OI I I S ROUGHLY 2IjJ' DEEP F"Of I MYSHOr E LANE TO A SCAYUE MY? L'jJJ' ALONG 1) I SCAYNE j:AY r AND 200' ALONG 'ISCEOLA CANAL, 1, zo i : ;'i USES DENSITY 114 APARTi ENTs ) ll, III�U//� InS , F A6DITIflNAL 1L" I G; IT CONTROL BY SE U ACK FLOOR AREA 1,0J PLUS ,.)1 BONUS TO MAX 1,1 LOT COVERAGE 1'�l� TO 1']% OPEU SPACE 2, ULSI'4 CJIi�i:I�, DENSITY FLOOD; AI'LA OPEN SPACE PARKING, 1,/t AVG , SIZE OF UNITS r'.JJ 2,F,/UU S, F, 1» 1CI f ,, ,,i •),I, u/15.Ti S, F, To _) Du - 1nUPP9 s, F-, AUD I T I OI:AL STMIES 25' ExcEPT PARKING UNDER TO )') '_' % TO 3J% F /DU THE RESULTING DESIGN SOLUTION SI IO !S LITTLE EUUCT I ON IN DLI:S I TY - 15I . :BUT A LARGE Ri_i)UCT I O0N IN FLOOR AREA - ALIIOST 50Z, THE AVERAGE SIZE OF THE UNIT BECUi 1I:S CRITICAL IN THAT A 3JL Sir, P,5 APARTt r;iT I^ t;EAR THE illutflun si7E, WHERE THE '.!''. s, E, R4 F'E'nVI IIE:A conFORTAr.LE soLUTt oN i THERE ARE OTHER t)ISAI)VANTAGES Tr) THE R5 ZONE CENTERING AROUND L' U I LD I tdG HL I i,l IT S i THE PO RESTRICTION To i, t S A «' AJOR COIdSTRA I HT IN PRODUCING THE rimm AREA ALLOA;PLC i :`. ;n_'; I N; : iUST sr. PRODUCED WHICH OCCUPJ ES 28I OF THE I Ti: i I HE WIT T LES I t,A'3LE APARTMENTS WILL DE THOSE WHICH FACE THE '..IATER, COHSEOUEUTLY. THE RESULTING DESIGN RUNS VIRTUALLY FRnri LOT LINE TO LOT LINE, (18' SIDE YARD SET3ACE: ALLO;!EU,) THIS BUILDIHG .'WALL WILL PRO;II:.IT VISUAL PENLTPATIOid TO THE .lATER BY THE RESIDENCES IN Ti IE BEAR OF THE SITE. JEORGL :,CTON, THE ;'LANK I NG I RLCTO1 , HAD THf_ ;E COMMENTS ABOUT 0 AT THE PUP.L I C ' TEAR I NG S ON THE PLANNING STUDY FOR COCONUT :TROVE AS FOLLOWS: when you go into an R-3 . � Now, but the s than allowed in R-4baa.rea.er in R-3 than it is in R-4. zoning, it allows scale which is much lei thr project is much greater sec less of the lot coverage p2 es p , you would probably an c because R-4eis r So fromttthe - pedestrian lnv'1� y we're not cievr o mrn1 than °u would df3oard was u with an Rg response t o th, that concur a unlimited height 50 our h c otr�-?c'"ln n t °u or rollbac>� given to the rezoning able to ed iti sure that R_3 L should be g___-.-- e achieve the community objectives of $ n_. _2_L additional conpr-cereal ion 'r on that sc, that wthrough the L-;land without the mass ve tin R-5 zone. have some visual ��it�,t rat ion present axis 9 amount. of bulk that i�3 P`'rnr i t t o'3 i n the P _ .. your contention is that R-3 will �,. Mr. Borjat In other words - block the view more t• n t "' R •asica y Mr. Acton:Y,. .' c,s_, b�C.tiusr. it allows the continuous, and I'm ,. projects that we have in the City of Miami, basing that on the many lot line to lot line development of R-3 to that do allow virtually out you wind up paving the entire area with to its lower intensity, little open space. —• .r TIETHE CITY OP .:I/1JII Ph +r�t,r ZONES t4J L •� ►t�I�,;tfi UNITS For r'tuLrI ' A A(.I;'I;;r, ;,OAr'D r . PAi;j LY THE SU„J,`:C7 OF' JJt�Iv:t'f 1tInY or AF►�IL, �_!;r'f, r�,J 0 I T RADE tt 1L FOLLMINS cifN1;CNfi; HMIGHT The regulations appear tube unsealr:;trc ►n placing; absolute height limitations on buildings in the 11-4, R-5, 11-5A, R-C, C-I, C-2 and C-3 Districts, These absolute restrictions have resulted in several requests for variances, and the tendency has been to grant such requests, ;.nUGLAS :ILtrS. i:C(i;:01;I37 ;lIT1 -COin ;lC ;o I C!/S Jil;i CotPLErEL AN ANALYSIS of aI,RISE DUILDIJGSIJ COCONUT ;jZOwE AND CONCLUDES: 7. Neighborhood Impact It is very important to preserve the fine image of S. Bayshore Drive in the Coconut Grove area. It is this economists opinion that property values will be higher and the neighborhood enhanced by tall. well designed and appealing hi -rise buildings with less ground coverage, rather than shorter buildings (under 10 stories) with the sauce unit densities with more lot coverage. 1i►e residents and business occupants, of structures immediately adjacent to a short building with maximum ground coverage is virtually "hemmed in" with the view of the bay and /surrounding area blocked out. Conversely, a taller building with greater setbacks takes Lilt loss land coverage and adds an openness. It seems this would be a much more desiraiole alternative. TI;APr t c t MPACTS , ALTI IfWr1 h t+ENTt rNEO AS A tlinnn TO THE CAPACITY nF THE timictPAL STREETS IN THE PLANNING STUDY ron C000NoT ' t'rVE , AI'I' CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT To IMPACT OM THI L:;t'1TttlG rTr!TT , CERTAINLY, IT Is NOT A JUSTtFICATInN FOP REZ_ntlli!G IN THAT TIIE DENSITIES ALLO!AISLE BETWEEN R4 AND R3 CLASSIFIC/1TIONS APE WITHIN 15% OF EACH OTHER, LXPEP.IENCE IN LnCAL TRAFFIC STUDIES HAS sIn''!N THAT AREAS nF }IADE I,rtNITY IN ' 11 CH THE VALUE OF HOUSING IS VERY HIGH Tr_• HP Tn GENERATE SMALLER AMOUNTS OF TRAFFIC DURING PEAK HnUr T'IATN THE LESS AFFLUENT AREAS OF THE COUNTY, IT I S ESTINATED THAT DEVELOPMENT ON TH I S SITE WOULD GENERATE .50 TRIP EilR ; PER UNIT AT A, [I, PEAK HOUR, AND ,60 TRIP ENDS PEP UNIT AT P,M, PEAK HOUR, T oUND [•!ITH THIS PAGE IS THE TRAFFIC GENEPATInN ON SOUTH BAYSHfRE DRIVE AND THE DEV!-LnPMFUT IMPACT OF T(IE FAIRVIEW SITE AT R4 nN "MAT VoLIIf1E. • L _Jr, �� L-1! r�i� ���� � ��, L, t _ L CITY OF MIAMI - BAY SHORE DRIVE HOURLY TRArFIC VAR1AT10N BETWEEN S.W.• 1711- AVE AND S.V..22r AVE JULY 3, 1975 H 0 U R L Y v 0 L U M E 2000_ 1500_ 1. •r 6 7 8 9 10 11 112 1 2 3 4 5 6< '7r 8 9 ll© A. M. P. M. THE POTTER or ZONING IS TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND t:ELFARE or THE PEOPLE, THIS Pn': IER IS GIVEN TO ZONING WY THE PEOPLE IN A COMMUNITY, YHEU A Cnf'I'UHITY TAKES IT UPON tTSELF TO OPEN ITSELF ONLY TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE SINGLE FAMILY r.ES I I'1ENCES , RAT F_R THAN MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCES, THEN NOT ONLY IS THE COMMUNITY'S MANDATE (DATE UNDERMINED, BUT THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF "FAIR PLAY" VOIDED, '.!E MUST HAVE V11SE, ADVANCED LAND USE PLANNING ,•1ITH A PALANCED CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIOUS NEEDS OF THE RES I Dt NTS OF THE CO!1MUN I TY, THIS STUDY HAs SHOWN THAT THE PLANNING STUDY IS IN ERROR - THAT DEVELfPttEtIT Of= THE FAIRVIEW PROPERTIES AT R4 PRODUCES LITTLE Ir,CACT AND CUTAINLY IMPACTS LESS THAN R3, THE COURTS HAVE PPEVIOU:'LY SAID Na ON THIS VERY ISSUE lT1IN THE AREA, ROLLBACK nF ZONING i.IAS AN UNREASONABLE EXERCISE OF PO'.•!ER, FOP PIES: rrASOrts, THE AUTHOR REBUTS THE RECOMMENDATION AND AS1 S 'ME COMMISSION TO ONCE AGAIN REAFFIRM ITS Pnr I TI ON THAT THC R4 MEDIUM i)EN stTY MULTI DI"TrICT IS APrfOrriATE Us". OF THL LAND, nAtSttottE ROMMONNtriS ASSOCiAtiON, if4C. 1140 Soutri DAtAttottg bittVk NitAM!: PLOttinA 333 0 L-te„,/t (.7..-11)L-41 liC) /) e 4,4iet 1 t: •-?n(a•llet. La C • , , -2 6 4-977 ftk-"" I r Op( t( (2.q_ (.L2 . _ce- 6(1,,,L,z),1 etu. - 7 / t1,4„4 (zi a( • te' 6-9 I c t I tatet tent to Mituti City Comnieef onere M;xy 27, 1976) Alk Mt-, Mayor, Commissioners, my name is Aieicatder , I reside at 3625 Ili Bay Borneo fir, MioinU am Pteoident of Coconut Grove awid Club (office) (association) 1 am speaking on behalf of the Coconut Grove Civic Club, The 8ayshore Homeowners Association, and the Tigertail Association, Our organizations have common cause and sentiment4, for that reason we have decided to make just one joint statement, In discussing implementation of the elements of the Master Plan Study for Coconut Grove, its history should be considered as well as the involvement of our commission. The residents of the Grove must accept as a premise that you, the Commission, believe in the merits of planning when we look back and remember that over four years ago you requested the City of Miami address itself to an in-depth planning study for a community in the City of Miami. It further follows that we must believe that the Commission was aware of and concerned about the critical growth problems that existed in Coconut Grove. . . that you placed special emphasis upon diagnosing these problems when you requested that the, planning department address itself specifically to a Master Plan Study for that community known as Coconut Grove, before all others. Why should we not believe that the Commission was sensitive to the aspirations of the Grove residents and desired their tangible expression of these aspirations, when we recall you solicited their participation in the formulation of the Master Plan Study. Next, we must accept as fact, that you, the Commission, have every confidence in the abilities and wisdom of the City of Miami Planning Department, when we remember, with great satisfaction, that you unanimously "approved in principle" their written con- clusions as presented in the Master Plan Study for Coconut Grove. 411 Ur last visible manifestation of your good iihtehtions occurred When) at long lash we saw you actively begin to bring forward for discussion and implementation, parts of the Master Plan Study, Our conclusion, by all rights, should have been to believe that the city Commission was intent upon securing for our community those goals that were necessary to enhance and preserve this unique community. In light of these past events and the precedents that you have set for us, is it difficult to understand the complete .. ` disa11u.3ionraent that has occurred as a result of the recent failure of this commission to accept the recommendation of the Planning Department to downzone Fair Isle? The downzoning of Fair Isle and the mainland (bayfront) sites are of key importance to the Planning Study. They are crucial to its success as a planning tool and crucial to the future of the Grove. The use of downzoning as a guide to achieve orderly growth and to set patterns for development is an accepted, essential ingredient in any sound planning study and is recognized by all enlightened planners. After six hours of discussion on Fair Isle, your rationale to deny the recommendation touched not at all upon the critical issues expressed brilliantly by the Planning Department, and emotionally, but wisely by the attending citizens. Your stated reasons addressed primarily the basic principle of downzoning and possible effect that downzoning might have upon property value to an owner or developer. Further, it was suggested that the Grove residents as a whole, were placing their personal interests above those of the total community of the City of Miami. That the interests of the larger ot ♦ , 1 (I **unity were of those of Coconut Grove, It was difficult to comprehend that,iith the strength of the arguments presented to substantiate the department's recommendations, your conclusions could have been drawn as they were, That it would appear that the Commission will never sanction downzoning to achieve justifiable ends. To even suggest that you would never approve of an action that might potentially devalue property values is ludicrous: In almost every public decision that you make as commissioners, either directly or indirectly affect property values. The resultant decision may be to increase or decrease. You are charged to make these decisions in the interest of the communities you serve. The legal authorization and moral obligation to make decisions are vested in what is "in the best interest of the people." In this instance, the downzoning and its resultant protections are clearly in the hest interests of, the people. It is not a question as to whether a developer can rely upon the assurance that his investment is sacred, but a question as to whether a community can rely upon the principle that the institution of government is responsive to the maintenance of the community good. It is this community good that fosters an atmosphere in which development can take place, which is both financially reliable and at harmony with community goals. We wish to maintain this principle. It is incorrect to believe that the motives of the Grove residents are purely sectional, and that you alone can sense the broader community interest. The principle that any community has the ability to determine its destiny is at issue. you • 4l a ther it can direct its growth and attempt to maintain its community character and identity is at stake, We are a testing ground for this larger community question which will become more apparent as the entire City tries to shape its future in the City of Miami Master Plan now under examination, A further attempt was made to use the Greater Miami community as a wedge against the Grove by suggesting that the city turned its back upon the purchase.of ,Fair Isle as a park, 4.. xepeatxaraimxt atmexaxaxmotxseeki34 xmox_xmwthx This parable is still illogical when one questions the alternatives: Had the City proposed to purchase the property at a reasonable price? Wasxtkexeer roux i sx©Rxtha ;xklmm ixissmax Certainly the original present purchaser of Fair Isle and the/6xeimpexsx owner who purchased the property on the Courthouse steps did not pay anywhere near what the taxpayers of the City of Miami were being asked to pay. Remembaxx :carp*xxlaexeommnxi:cxmmmdimixxxxx Was it psychologiceliy and financially opportune at that time to ask the taxpayers to sanction this purchase when the entire community was:in the throes of an economic downturn.? At that time, were there not other issues of greater community concern than spending $1.2million to purchase Fair Isle as a park? Simply, just because kthe voters of the City = par of Miami voted against this Fair Isle/proposal doesn't mean they support uncontrolled growth and we, in Coconut Grove are not seeking no growth. If you gather from the tone of bxWx our statement that we are dissappointed, you are correct► If you conclude that we have given up the fight to preserve our community and believe that you no longer have our best interests at heart, you are totally incorrect . We will continue to voice our beliefs and echo the principles of sound planning expressed by the Planning Department. We will remain attentive to the broader city'interests represented here in the crisis of Coconut Grove. The commission again has the opportunity to demonstrate its wisdom in the pending decision to approve the recommendations of the Planning Department in downzoning the bayfront sites. Additionally, the commission can still reconsider its previous decision to deny do•rnzoning of Fair Isle. We strongly urge you to do just this. Even though you may possibly correct your error, we feel as a result of your action we must proceed to accomplish the preservation of Coconut Grove as a unique community by utilizing other means. We will attempt to have Coconut Grove declared an area of critical state concern by the State of Florida. Furthermore, if it is at all possible to incorporate the Grove into a new City of Coconut Grove, we shall attempt to do so. • Mayor Ferre, two years ago you said the.following in a letter to Cleare Filer, Bayshore Homeowners Association: " Dear Mr. Filer, Thank you for your letter of September 27th. I want you to know that your kind words are greatly appreciated. The Coconut Grove area has a unique quality and if properly maintained will be a lasting asset to our community. Needless to say I will do all in my power to preserve the Grove, Thanking you again, I remain 6 tihcerely) Maurice Ferre," Mr, Mayor and commissiohers, ore you listenihgl evilAiviCe 1. .—/•ec.r7. • ItsV. .r Tttli tif Atiautt.:01oritta MAURICE A.FERRE MAroP 61.4; October 2, 1974 Mr, Cleare Filer Bayshore Homeowners Association) Inc. 1740 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr, Filer: Thank you for your letter of September 27th, 1974. I want you to know that your kind words are greatly appreciated. The Coconut Grove area has a unique quality and if properly maintained will be a lasting asset to our community. Needless to say I will do all in my power to preserve the Grove. Thanking you again, I remain MAF/s / Sincerely, Maurice A. Ferro :.'• F':4-'C"•7 . " ,„,,- 0„11..• .1 ; ,f f . ;, „ •• , ,th 4, 'Jr "i • • , ' • • • „ q, ," • , I ,,,f r ," 11(.' ;., • . ..