Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Analysis and Maps
us.` k"yr City of Miami ►`i ince iiro Planning Department Division of Land Development Staff Analysis PZ -18-313 Location 240 SE 14 Street Folio Number 0141390950001 Transect Zone 76-8-R" Urban Core Transect MCNP Designation Restricted Commercial MCNP Overlays Brickell Residential Density Increase Area (RDIA) and Urban Central Business District (UCBD) Commission District 2 (Ken Russell) NET District Downtown- BrickelI Planner E. Sue Trone, AICP, Chief of Comprehensive Planning Jacqueline Ellis, Chief of Land Development Applicant and Property Babylon International, Inc. Owner Project Representative Melissa Tapanes Llahues A. REQUEST Pursuant to Miami 21 Code, Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8. c.2(g) of Ordinance 13114 ("Miami 21"), as amended, Babylon International, Inc., the "Applicant" requests a change to zoning at 240 SE 14 Street (the "Property"), Miami, Florida. The Applicant proposes to change the zoning of the property from 76-8-R" Urban Core — Restricted Transect Zone to 76- 48A-0" Urban Core — Open Transect Zone. The underlying Future Land Use (FLU) designation is Restricted Commercial; therefore, the proposed change to the Zoning Atlas does not require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP). Below: Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations for Subject Property Above: Subject Property with existing zoning at T6 -8-R. Above: Subject Proeprty with proposed zoning at T6 -48 -AO. The Property is an interior lot of approximately 15,977 Sq. Ft. (.367 acres) of land on the south side of SE 14 Street. The Property is on a block bounded by SE 14 Street (north), Brickell Bay Drive (east), Brickell Avenue (west), and by SE 14 Terrace (south) and was developed with a 13 -unit structure currently undergoing demolition. The Property is located within the Downtown-Brickell Net Area. According to the Letter of Intent dated November 14, 2018, "[A]pproval of this application will encourage appropriately scaled development in a mixed-use, walkable area where existing public facilities, including high frequency local and Miami -Dade County bus routes and Metromover services, meet or exceed the minimum standards." To support the current request, the Applicant references the change of zoning from Office (0) under Zoning Ordinance 11000 to T6 -8-R (Urban Core Zone — Restricted) under Miami 21 and a staff analysis for an identical proposal in 2014 in which staff concluded the current zoning (T6 - 8R) had been given to the Subject Property erroneously in 2010. In 2014, staff supported the request, concluding that the T6 -8-R designation with Miami 21 was an error. Close examination into the history of this site since the early 1980s reveals that very careful contemplation of the property's zoning designation and its attendant intensity and density was at the base of the Planning analysis that accompanied the 1983 change of zoning (Ord. 9758) which was, to some degree, made more amenable to the 1983 City Commissioners due to restrictions voluntarily proffered by the applicant at that time (See Declaration of Restrictions adopted with Ord. 9758, Attachment 1). The adoption of new Zoning Ordinances (Ord. 11000 and Ord. 13114 [Miami 21]) have necessitated the reinterpretation of the 1983 zoning designation of this property. The rapid pace of change in the City of Miami over the past century and the unique configuration created by the plat in this part of the City established circumstances for this Property that warrant a close review of the origin and intent of the Property's current entitlements. History: 20th Century Settlement The Subject Property was platted in 1914 as part of the Amended Plat of Point View, recorded in the Official Records of Miami - Dade County in Plat Book 2, Page 93. This area of Miami, originally referred to as Miami's Gold Coast, was originally developed with spacious single- family homes for capitalists of the Gilded Age. The aerial photo below is of the Point View area in the 1920s. Image 1: Aerial photograph of the Point View Plat circa 1920. Source, Miami History Blog, htto://miami- historv.com/point-view-subdivision-in-brickell/. accessed: January 17, 2019. File ID: 18-313 Page 2 With the passage of time, the urban fabric of Miami's Gold Coast changed. Around the 1960s, properties in this area were redeveloping as high-rise condominiums. By the time Zoning Ordinance 9500 was adopted in 1982, it was recognized that the City was mostly built out and that "future City development would, in almost all instances, be redevelopment (from the Introduction of Ordinance 9500—Attachment 2). The Subject Property—"the Babylon"—was last rezoned on November 18, 1983. The application presented to the City Commission for that change to the Zoning Atlas under the Zoning Ordinance of that time—Zoning Ordinance 9500—involved five other lots' in addition to that of the Babylon. The entitlements for the Babylon today are contemporary reinterpretations of the entitlements eventually adopted by the City Commission under the 1983 zoning regulations in Miami. To analyze the current request and provide a recommendation that is appropriate for the City of Miami in 2019, the following analysis first examines how the current entitlements were arrived at in 1983 and how those entitlements have evolved over the intervening decades and Zoning Ordinances. With this analysis, we examine the following: 1) How did the City arrive at the entitlements that it did for the Subject Parcel in 1983? 2) How did Zoning Ordinance 11000 reinterpret the 1983 entitlements for the Subject Parcel? 3) What circumstances changed the local context under the 11000 Zoning Ordinance? a. To this end, the analysis reviews changes to the Zoning Atlas to the five parcels that joined the Subject Property in the 1983 application; and b. The analysis reviews the adoption and updates to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan which occurred during the life of Ord. 11000. 4) How did Zoning Ordinance 13114 (Miami 21) reinterpret the entitlements to the Subject Parcel? A review of the Study Area Prior to 1983: Individual Lots and Context The owners of the Subject Property requested a change to the zoning of the Property in the early 1980s. In doing this, they joined with three other property owners to submit an application to change the zoning for a total of six lots: Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 30. Lot 4, the easternmost parcel, faces Biscayne Bay; the remaining lots do not face the Bay. This lot configuration is critical to understanding a significant finding in the planning analysis for the public hearings. The image below shows the lots in the Point View Amended Plat that were involved in the application to change the Zoning Atlas in 1983-1984. 1 For the purpose of this analysis, Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 30 form the basis of a study area. Occasionally, surrounding properties are also analyzed for context or to compare nearby zoning districts or land uses. File ID: 18-313 Page 3 The Lots Involved in the 1983-1984 Change of Zoning Image 2: Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 30 in the Point View Amended Plat. The Important Role of Context The six lots depicted in the image to the left are those that were involved in the 1983-84 application for the change of zoning. Lot 5 is the Babylon, or the lot which is the subject of the current application. Lots 6, 7, 8, and 30 were owned by a single applicant with a contract for purchase, and Lot 4 was owned by another applicant. Understanding the Subject Parcel in context is essential to understanding how the 1983 City Commission voted to change the Zoning Atlas at the time. The Study Area Prior to the 1983 Change to the Zoning Atlas At the time the applicants were preparing their application, the Zoning Ordinance 6871 was the law of the land in Miami. The Zoning Atlas that survives from that ordinance is useful to review because it helps to understand the context at that time. Below, is an excerpt, showing the study area, as it was zoned under Zoning Ordinance 6871. Excerpt of Zoning Atlas 6871 Understanding the Study Area: A Coherently Zoned N Residential District The portion of the Zoning Atlas, to the left, designated R-5, all had a coherent zoning designation when the City converted from Zoning Ordinance 6871 into Zoning Ordinance 9500. All properties in this image showing an R-5 designation were re -designated to RG -3/7 (General Residential) on July 29, 1982 when the City adopted Zoning Ordinance 9500. Thus, when the applicants presented their proposal to change the Zoning Atlas, it represented a break from this somewhat large, cohesive district, characterized as having residential development throughout. Image 3: The excerpted atlas image shows the six lots reviewed in the Point View area, making a study area for purposes of this analysis. Change of Zoning in 1983: Background of Subject Property and adjoining Lots In 1983, the then -owner (Cucusa, Inc.) of the Subject Property (Lot 5, the Babylon) applied for a change of zoning with three other owners, for a total of six lots to be considered. The General File ID: 18-313 Page 4 Residential designation (R/G-3/7) is fundamentally a high-density residential zoning category for densities of up to 80 dwelling units per acre and buildings of up to 16 stories. These applicants requested a change in zoning to "SPI -5" (Brickell-Miami River Residential -Office District)—a high density, high intensity zoning designation in the Brickell area under that Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Department supplied an analysis that recommended denial for the initial request. The Planning Department's analysis reasoned the following: (1) the change represented an encroachment into the stable, high density, multifamily residential area; (2) the change created a precedent for further changes to the zoning; (3) the change would conflict with the comprehensive plan; (4) the change would adversely influence living conditions—namely, stressing the sewer system; and (5) the change was out of scale. However, as the applicants prepared for First Reading, their representatives had engaged with the attorney retained by the Point View Association—the neighborhood association representing the homeowners in the Point View area. By First Reading, some agreement was beginning to form that the "RO" (Residential Office) zoning designation would be a more tolerable designation for the applicants facing SE 14 ST by neighbors in Point View. City Commission First Reading: October 27, 1983 At First Reading, the City Commission voted to approve the proposed zoning change to SPI -5 despite that the Commissioners did not support the application. This was done for procedural purposes to allow the applicants time to negotiate further with the local Point View Association. According to Minutes from the hearing (See Attachment 3), the attorney representing the Babylon, Mr. Bob Traurig, stated, "We don't need on Lot 5 the SPI -5 ... excess development potential which would have been inimical to the interests of the residential condominium owners along the Bayshore Drive corridor, so we urge you to rezone this property to the RO-3.7.112 City Commission Second Reading (A): November 18, 1983 Change of Zoning for Lot 5 ONLY from RG -3/7 to RO-3/6 By the time the application returned to City Commission for Second Reading, the owner of the Babylon (Lot 5) voluntarily offered to modify the request for the zoning change from SPI -5 to a less intense Residential Office, "RO-3/6", with an FAR of 1.21. (See the Schedule of Regulations from 9500, with FAR details, in Attachment 4) In addition, the owner voluntarily proffered a covenant restricting certain uses and granting certain community benefits in response to concerns from the Point View Association (See Attachment 1). With regard to use restrictions, the covenant states: The property and building may be used only for the following uses: residential, offices (not selling merchandise on the premises), banks and savings and loan associations, subject to the additional restrictions contained herein: 3. The top floor of the building shall be used for residential uses only... . Z From page 99 of the minutes from City Commission public hearing on 10/27/1983, the abridged version of which is contained in Attachment 3. File ID: 18-313 Page 5 (From the Declaration of Restrictions adopted with Ordinance 9758). The overall effect of the zoning change was to give the property ability to be mixed-use as a mostly office building with residential uses on the top floor. As such, there was an explicit recognition of this Property as being a transition between the residential character found in lots facing Biscayne Bay and the lots facing SE 14 Street. Mr. Whipple, representing the Planning Department stated during this hearing: The Planning Department, for many years, along with this Commission and the City Board has maintained and recommended that the water front lot[s] in the Point View area be maintained in a high density residential classification. On the other hand, we have likewise recommended, in the Brickell area, Brickell frontage, and the office district, that highrise, high intensity office development take place. (Minutes from City Commission, 10/27/83 -Attachment 3) Planning Analysis The Zoning Fact Sheet provided with Ordinance No. 9758 offers the Planning Department's recommendation for the request. In its recommendation, the Department states that the majority of the lots face SE 14 ST and property zoned SPI -5, justifying a request for a change to a zoning designation with higher intensity for Lots 5, 6, and 7. The Analysis recommends denial for Lot 4 because it: ... is the first lot facing the water and should be maintained residential with the rest of the sites facing the water along South Bayshore Drive [now, Brickell Bay Drive]). It is understood that the structure on Lot 5 [the Babylon] will be retained with residential use in the upper portion and this will serve as a buffer between the residential and non- residential zoning districts. The existing residential area should be preserved to retain the concept of needed housing close into the downtown area. (Page 3 of Ord. 9758 packet, See Attachment 5) As Lot 5 fronts SE 14 Street, Ms. Cooper (representing Point View Association) expressed support for the Commission to approve a change to zoning for similarly positioned Lots 6, 7, 8, and 30 to RO-3/6. This zoning designation for these lots was not contentious; however, the City Commission was reluctant to vote without further review from the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) relative to the newly proposed zoning designation for procedural reasons. City Commission Second Reading (B): January 26, 1984 Consideration of Lots 4, 6, 7, 8, and 30 Having changed the 9500 Zoning Atlas for Lot 5 from RG -3/7 to RO-3/6, the application had, in effect, been "splintered." At this meeting of the City Commission, the zoning designation for Lots 6, 7, 8, and 30 were changed to RO-3/6 (Ord. 9791). When the owner of Lot 4 approached the Commission with his request to have his zoning changed, the Commission expressed the concern that, because Lot 4 faces the Bay, the uses and intensity were inappropriate for that area. However, if that Applicant wished to make a voluntary proffer of restrictions similar to that of Lot 5, the Babylon, the Commission was willing to entertain the request. During this meeting, no proffer was made. The Applicant for Lot 4 was referred back to the PAB; however, the zoning for Lot 4 was never changed to RO-3/6. File ID: 18-313 Page 6 Discussion Based on the above, it is clear that the entitlements for the current Subject Property were actually bestowed upon Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 30, though only Lot 5 (the Subject Property) received a change to its zoning with a restrictive covenant. Thus, the zoning district of RO-3/6 was established under the 9500 Zoning Ordinance within the study area. It is important to note that on February 9, 1989, the City of Miami adopted Ordinance 10544, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, in compliance with the Growth Management Act of 1985, Section 163, Florida Statutes. A component of the comprehensive plan is the Future Land Use Map, future modifications of which take on importance to the current application, under Zoning Ordinance 11000. Adoption of Zoning Ordinance 11000 Reinterpretation of RO-3/6 to 0, Office Designation On March 3, 1990, the Commissioners of the City of Miami adopted Zoning Ordinance 11000. This ordinance repealed Ordinance 9500, including the Zoning Atlas in effect at that time. The new Zoning Atlas adopted with Ordinance 11000 reinterpreted the RO-3/6 zoning designation in the study area as "O", Office. Below is a comparison of the two atlases: Side -by -Side Comparison of the 9500 Zoning Atlas and the 11000 Zoning Atlas (at Adoption) -3/6 Above: The zoning designations in the Point View area Above: The reinterpretation of the zoning designations under Ordinance 9500. from Ordinance 9500 to Ordinance 11000 in the Point View area. From the side-by-side comparisons, it is discernable that the City of Miami re -designated lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 30 from RO-3/6 to "O," or Office. Water -facing lots that had been designated RG -3/7 under Zoning Ordinance 9500 were re -designated to "R-4", or Multi -Family High Density Residential. File ID: 18-313 Page 7 For a period of time, the lots that were adopted as RO-3/6 under the previous Zoning Ordinance remained intact as a small district of residential -office property. However, over time, the City received two separate private applications to amend the Zoning Atlas for property within this 0 district. With the adoption of the zoning amendments due to these applications, the Zoning Atlas that existed at the end of the life of the 11000 Zoning Ordinance looked different for the study area. Private Application #1: Rezoning of 185 SE 14 TER from 0 to SD -5 On October 3, 1994, the Zoning Atlas was changed for property at 185 SE 14 Terrace from 0, Office to SD -5, Brickell Avenue Area Residential -Office District. The Intent section of the 11000 Zoning Ordinance says this about the SD -5 Zoning designation, which encompassed the most intense and most dense parts of the Brickell area: [The SD -5] district is of special . . . interest because of its prime location on Brickell Avenue along the bayfront and the Miami River, close to and visible from the CBD and Biscayne Bay, and its importance to the economic well-being of the City as a prestigious high-rise office district housing banking, finance, international trade, and other professional office uses. In the interest of reduction of travel and traffic ... conservation of energy, maintenance of principal views ... it is intended that development at appropriately high intensity, shall be so designed as to assure open character, attractive and secure open space available to the general public at ground level, and appropriately located recreation space serving residential uses. It is intended that multifamily residential occupancy in this area is to be promoted and encouraged.... Excerpt of the 11000 Zoning Atlas after Ordinance 11202 at 185 NE 14 TER pLq rx. za Image 4: The City Commission approved a request to change the zoning for Lot 30 to SD -5 in 1994. In the application, the applicant made the case that the single lot on SE 14 Terrace with 0 zoning was a challenge to develop due to the fact that, under the 11000 Zoning Ordinance, it was substandard—it was less than 20,000 square feet and it lacked the minimum 100 feet street frontage required for development. However, abutting the parcel to the west were parcels designated as SD -5 and to the east were parcels designated as R-4. The Planning Department was supportive of the application and the Zoning Board voted to recommend approval of the request unanimously by a vote of 7-0 on September 12, 1994. The City Commission approved the change to the Zoning Atlas on October 3, 1994, Ord. 11202 (See Attachment 6). The amendment to the atlas is shown in the image above. Private Application # 2: Rezoning of 218 SE 14 ST and 170 SE 14 ST from 0 to SD -5 In 1998, Bayhaven Investments requested a change of zoning for Lots 6, 7, and 8. This application for a change to the Zoning Atlas under Ordinance 11000 was adopted by the City Commission on June 23, 1998. The address for the site was 194-218 SE 14 ST. The File ID: 18-313 Page 8 Department of Planning and Development offered the following findings (See "Analysis for Zoning Change," included in Ordinance 11668, found in Attachment 7): It is found that the subject properties are adjacent north and west to the SD -5 zoning designation. It is found that the requested change to SD -5 "Brickell Avenue Area Office -Residential District" on the subject property is a logical extension of the adjacent parcels and will unify the designations and therefore allow for a more unified development proposal to serve the Brickell core. It is found that the requested zoning designation change is consistent with the underlying land use designation and therefore does not require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Atlas change that resulted from Ordinance 11668 shows clearly that Lots 6, 7, 8 were effectively zoned away from the O zoning designation, and absorbed into the SD -5 designation. This left Lot 5 (the Subject Parcel of this application) as a remnant designation in the O designation. Discussion Excerpt of the 11000 Zoning Atlas after Ordinance 11668 was adopted Image 5: Selection of the Zoning Atlas under Ordinance 11000 illustrating that Lots 6, 7, and 8 were zoned away from O to SD -5 under Zoning Ordinance 11000 existed from 1990 through Ordinance 11668 on June 23, 1998. 2010. During the life of this Zoning Ordinance, the lots examined for this analysis encountered the following: - The zoning designation for Lot 30 was changed from O to SD -5 in 1994; - The zoning designations for Lots 6, 7, and 8 were changed from O to SD -5 in 1998; - The zoning for Lot 4 was R-4 and remained as such for the entire life cycle of the Zoning Ordinance; and - The zoning for Lot 5 (the Subject Parcel) was O and remained as such for the entire life cycle of the Zoning Ordinance. In the midst of these changes to the Zoning Ordinances, the City amended the Future Land Use Map of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan on January 24, 1991 through Ord. 10832 to include Residential Increase Areas (RDIAs). One of the City's RDIAs is located in the study area—the Brickell RDIA and it establishes that density is 500 dwelling units an acre. While the analysis here focuses primarily on densities allowed by zoning, there is great merit to contemplating the underlying density allowed through the comprehensive plan. With the establishment of the Brickell RDIA in 1991, the two private applications detailed above followed in succession to implement the FLUM in 1994 and again in 1998. The Planning Department notes that Lot 5, the Subject Property, was (and remains) the easternmost lot of the RDIA, where the FLUM allows density of up to 500 du/ac. File ID: 18-313 Page 9 Future Land Use MaD of the Studv Area High Density Multifamily Residential C30HginalApplication RezoneLots.'95001 Subject Parcel �.. Brickell RDIA FLU Des ignalons in Study Area High Density Multifamily Residential Reetncted Commmial 0.01 0.005 0 0.01 hoes s Image 6: The map above shows the FLU designations and RDIA for the study area. Notably, Lot 5—the Subject Property—was included in the RDIA as early as 1991, with a base density of 500 dwelling units per acre, a density that stands in stark contrast with the 150 units per acre for the abutting properties outside the RDIA with only 150 units per acre. Adoption of Miami 21, in 2010 and the T6 -8-R Transect Zone Designation Zoning Ordinance 13114, also known as Miami 21, was adopted on April 22, 2010. As was done with the previous zoning ordinance, the new zoning code reinterpreted the Zoning Atlas; the entitlements of properties throughout the City were reinterpreted from the old zoning designations into the new zoning designations of Miami 21. Miami 21, being form -based, uses transect zoning, an approach to zoning that delineates zoning designations through transitions from Natural Zone Transects (T1) to Urban Core Transects (T6). Within each of these Transects, there are sub -categories, Restricted, Limited, and Open. These subcategories indicate how intense each Transect is with regard to uses. With the adoption of Miami 21, the lots in the study area previously designated as SD -5 (Lots 6, 7, 8, and 30) were reinterpreted into Miami 21 as "T6 -48A -O," Urban Core – Open. This Transect is very dense (in this part of the city, it is as dense as 500 du/ac) and allows nearly the most liberal non-residential uses in the City. Lots 4 and 5, previously designated R-4 and O under the 11000 Zoning Ordinance, were reinterpreted under Miami 21 as "T6 -8R," Urban Core – Restricted. This allows very dense development with tight restrictions against non-residential uses. In fact, T6 -8R prohibits office uses—a curious observation for Lot 5 given that it had long File ID: 18-313 Page 10 been entitled to that use since Ordinance 9758 and the covenant executed when it was rezoned in 1983 anticipated mostly office uses. Understanding the evolution of the zoning entitlements of the lots within the study area from 1983 to present guides the planning analysis and recommendation. The table below summarizes this evolution. Table 1: Summary of Zoning Changes in Study Area, 1983 -Present Changes to Zoning Designations of the Lots in the Study Area, 1983 -Present Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 30 Zonine Ordinance* Date 9500 1983 RG -3/7 RG -3/7 RG -3/7 RG -3/7 RG -3/7 RG -3/7 9758 1983 x RO-3/6 x x x x 9791 1984 x x RO-3/6 RO-3/6 RO-3/6 RO-3/6 11000 Adoption 1990 R-4 O O O O O 11202 1994 x x x x x SD -5 11668 1998 x x SD -5 SD -5 SD -5 x End of 11000** 2010 R-4 0 SD -5 SD -5 SD -5 SD -5 Miami 21 PRESENT ZONING 2010 T6-811 T6-811 T6 -48A-0 T6 -48A-0 T6 -48A-0 T6 -48A-0 Planning Dept. Recommendation 2019 x T6-12-0 x x x x *This table lists the zoning designation given for each lot by each ordinance examined in this report at the time of the adoption of each ordinance. **This column lists the zoning designation for all lots at the time Zoning Ordinance 11000 was rescinded ad Miami 21 was adopted. This information is provided so as to summarize the evolution of all entitlements over time, through all ordinances, up through 2010. The intention is to provide a convenience for the reader, so that they can easily understand the zoning for each lot when Miami 21 was adopted, at a glance. T6 -8-R Transect Zone designation Under Miami 21, Lot 5 was zoned with the same designation as all the parcels facing the water: T6-8 R. This designation has high density (150 dwelling units per acre, plus density from the fact that this is within the RDIA, hence 500 du per acre—the parcels facing water are not in the RDIA). The non-residential uses are relatively restrictive. Below is a copy of Article 4, Table 3, as attached to Ordinance 13114, reflecting uses allowed by Transects, when the ordinance was adopted. File ID: 18-313 Page 11 Below: Reproduced Image of Article 4. Table 3 from Miami 21, as Adopted by the City Commission THIS DOCUMENT IS A SUBSTITUTION TO ORIGINAL. BACKUP ORIGINAL CAN BE MIAMI 21 SEEN AT TI•IE END OF THIS DOCUMENT. ARTICLE 4. TABLE 3 BUILDING FUNCTION: USES AS ADOPTED - OCTOBER 2009 Ta 14 TS TO L D SUB -ARRAN URBAN GENERAL LRBAN CENrER URBAN ORE CIVIC DISTRICTS DENSRY IBNRS PERACREI I I @ I B I 1B I I - I- I- RE51DENrIAL I 758`'150' I 160` I I WA I AZ^ I 150' I I fA I NIA I NIA I R R R SINGEEFAMILYRESIOENCE R R R R R R 0 MMUNm RESIDENCE R R R R R R ANCILLARY UNIT R R R R R R R R TVIO FAMILY RESIDENCE R R R R R R MU TI FAMILY HOUSING R R R R FGRMIT— RII R E E E HGME OF— R R R R R R (LIVE -WORN R R (WORK -LIVE E R (LODGING R R 411� BED & BREAKFAST W R R NN IHGTEL I I I I R I OFFICE GFHCE R R OM1EItGIAJ. G"` AUE 7DCONMERCNLEGTAB ENTERTAIMMENFESTABUSHMENI R ENTERTAINMENT ES TAB. -ADULT FOOD SERMICE ETABLISHMENT R R ALCOHOL BEVERAGE SERVICE E— R R GENERANCOMLERCML R R MARWE RELATED COMMERCIAL ESTAB. ( OPEN AIR EE PLACE OFASSEMRLY RECREATIGNN- ESTPELI.MENT IGmc IcaMMUNmFAaLRv RECREATIONALI'MM I I I I E E I I E E RELIGIOUS FACNRY E E E E R R IC LSI 11— CGMMDNmSU—TFACILHY w W IwFRASTRUCTUREANDUnlR1Es W W W W W MAJOR F.— MARRIA E W W IPUSLIC wNaaNc w W REIX EMISSION TRANSIT FACNmES W W I EDucARDNu I I I IcwLDGARE E W W OOLLEGEILDIM—RIF ELEMENTARY RCHGCL E E E E EE LEAWJING CENN=R E E MIDDLE I HIGH SCHOOL E E E E E E (PRE m -L E E EII E E E RESFARCH FACNm R R IsPEGMNTRaMINGlvacnnONAL E I IxwusTRUN AUTO{tEIATED INWSTRIAL ESIBL. I I I IMANUFACTImIwcANDlwacFsslwG I I I I I MARWE REIATEDIroUSTRLAL ESTBL PRODUCTSAND SERNCES STORACI=I DISTRIBUTION FACILRY RAlbwed BYRigh1 WAlbwed BY WanaM: AdmircstraBve Pogcess-CRC IC«rdrNeed Review Cwnrredce) E Albwed By E—pibn:PNNc Hemp-granteddy PZAB)Pbmdlg,Zmw BAP 1,3gmd) Bmxa 1 m desynaden dgnify Ilse prchided. I 06 I fib I fi5 I 758`'150' I 160` I I WA I AZ^ I 150' I I fA I NIA I NIA I R R R I II II R R R R R R R R R R R R R I II II R R R R R R R R R R R R R R E R R R R R R R R R R R R R ^AZDerrsdydkb Alwb Zme RII R E 11 R rR R R E R R R 411� R R I� E I R R R W W — "0 W R R 07R RRW W E RR w w I- R R E R R R I E R w w I w W w w l w w E W E W E W E w E w E w RR W R W R II E W II W W R II R II II WII W R W w I w I I W W E IN W R w E w N W I E w N I I W w w W W w W II V1 E w ro l l R R R N E W E W W R E R R R R R W 1 w W I R R I R R R E R R R W R R R W E R R R W R R R E R R R W E E R R W E R R R W E W R R W R R E R R R W EE R R W E W W R W E R E E E ER R R E R R R W E R E W W E R R R W E R E E R E ER E E R E E R E E R E E R R R W € R R R W Image 7: Article 4. Table 3, as it was originally adopted on October 22, 2009 by the City Commission. Miami2l Reinterpretation Here is the exact reproduction of the "use table" in Miami 21. Through the adoption of Miami 21, the City converted its zoning philosophy from a use -based approach to a form -based approach. The nature of a form -based code is such that the urban fabric dictates policy; however, externalities being what they are, some regulation of uses cannot be avoided. One of the ways Miami 21 addresses this necessity is through Article 4, Table 3. The T6 -R Transect is highlighted with red outline. A red arrow points to the empty cell for "Office" uses. This empty cell indicates that office uses are prohibited in T6 -R Transects. Designating this property as T6 -8-R prohibited the major use contemplated at the time of the zoning adopted to this property in 1983 with the covenant. Furthermore, the previous zoning designation allowed office use. Rezone application in 2014 In 2014 the current owner of the Subject Property filed an application to amend the zoning atlas for this site from T6 -8-R to T6 -8 -48 -AO. Staff analysis for that application found that the FLUM for the area is Restricted Commercial with the RDIA, allowing 500 dwelling units per acre for the site. The Restricted Commercial designation was found to exist on abutting properties to the north, east, and west, but High Density Multifamily Residential (with a density limit of 150 units File ID: 18-313 Page 12 R R w R R W R R R R R W R R W Ills may be LMer nodF 1 by SipplemaiW Re�latims, Sdie RegJatime, ordFer proms W Mi Ccde. ` Addk.A d . . . i,.RMT6mn AM ilk.R1A i Dlagam9. ^AZDerrsdydkb Alwb Zme IV 6 Image 7: Article 4. Table 3, as it was originally adopted on October 22, 2009 by the City Commission. Miami2l Reinterpretation Here is the exact reproduction of the "use table" in Miami 21. Through the adoption of Miami 21, the City converted its zoning philosophy from a use -based approach to a form -based approach. The nature of a form -based code is such that the urban fabric dictates policy; however, externalities being what they are, some regulation of uses cannot be avoided. One of the ways Miami 21 addresses this necessity is through Article 4, Table 3. The T6 -R Transect is highlighted with red outline. A red arrow points to the empty cell for "Office" uses. This empty cell indicates that office uses are prohibited in T6 -R Transects. Designating this property as T6 -8-R prohibited the major use contemplated at the time of the zoning adopted to this property in 1983 with the covenant. Furthermore, the previous zoning designation allowed office use. Rezone application in 2014 In 2014 the current owner of the Subject Property filed an application to amend the zoning atlas for this site from T6 -8-R to T6 -8 -48 -AO. Staff analysis for that application found that the FLUM for the area is Restricted Commercial with the RDIA, allowing 500 dwelling units per acre for the site. The Restricted Commercial designation was found to exist on abutting properties to the north, east, and west, but High Density Multifamily Residential (with a density limit of 150 units File ID: 18-313 Page 12 per acre and tight restrictions on non-residential uses) was found on abutting property to the south. With this finding, liberal commercial uses are permitted in all directions abutting the property except to the south. The application for the change to the zoning atlas was submitted to the City and the Planning Department undertook its initial analysis of the request. The Planning Department made the following findings about the Subject Property in the course of its review: 1. It is zoned T6 -8-R. 2. The FLUM designation for it is Restricted Commercial, granting it extremely liberal residential and non-residential uses, densities, and intensities. 3. It is located within the Brickell Residential Density Increase Area (RDIA). Due to this, the density for the property is actually 500 dwelling units per acre. With the square footage for the site, it could conceptually achieve a density of 183 dwelling units. 4. Under the prior zoning code, it was designated O. The entitlements for that designation are more liberal, especially with regard to non-residential uses, than the Miami 21 reinterpretation of T6 -8-R. Chief among the restrictions among Miami 21 is that of the Office Use. 5. The property abuts a T6 -48A-0 district. Having made these findings, the Planning Department concluded that a scrivener's error had been made with the Miami 21 reinterpretation of the O designation under Zoning Ordinance 11000 for Lot 5. As a result, the 2014 application to amend the Zoning Atlas for the Subject Parcel was amended so that the City co be a co -applicant. This application to change the zoning for the Subject Parcel proceeded as far as First Reading to City Commission, but the item was continued on February 25, 2016, and indefinitely deferred in March 2016 and again in September of 2016. Ultimately, the Applicant decided to withdraw the application in February of 2017. Historic Designation and Appea As the Applicant attempted to change the zoning for Lot 5 with its 2014 application, the City's Unsafe Structures Board found the Babylon unsafe on October 28, 2015. This order gave the owner 300 days to repair or demolish the building. On March 9, 2016, the Applicant applied for a demolition permit. In response to this, the City's Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB) mailed notices of intent to consider a preliminary evaluation of the structure for historic designation on April 6, 2016. This mailing had the effect of prohibiting the issuance of the demolition permit pursuant to Section 23-4 of the City of Miami Code. Ultimately, the building was designated as historic through the HEPB. This determination was appealed by the owner. On January 25, 2018, the City Commission appealed the HEPB designation through Resolution R-18-0034 finding that the property was not "exceptionally important." C. ANALYSIS Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) The Future Land Use (FLU) designation for the subject Property is Restricted Commercial. Interpretations of the City's FLU designations follow the pyramid concept, meaning that, in File ID: 18-313 Page 13 general, as each FLU designation is listed in the Interpretation of the 2020 Future Land Use Map in the MCNP, these designations are cumulatively inclusive. Thus, within the High Density Multifamily Residential FLU designation, the MCNP establishes the Residential Density Increase Areas (RDIA). The Brickell (RDIA) is established within this FLU designation. The Brickell RDIA is an overlay that increases the maximum density for this area of the city to 500 dwelling units per acre. The property is located within the Urban Central Business District (UCBD)overlay on the FLUM which allows it an FLR of 37.0 by the MCNP—the most liberal FLR in all of the City. Based on these observations, this property is located within an area of the FLUM which is nearly the densest and most intense within the City. Image 8: An excerpt of the Future Land Use map for the study area and beyond, showing the Brickell Area RDIA outlined in blue hatch. D. PROJECT DATA A review of project data is intended to bring to the fore current regulations in an applied fashion. In this way, the following analysis reviews the Miami 21 regulations for the subject Property and the surrounding context in a general sense. Then the analysis reviews the specific regulations applied toward the Subject Property when the Property's zoning designation was modified in 1983 under Ordinance 9758, then when those entitlements were reinterpreted with the adoption of Zoning Code 11000 in 1990, and then again, with the reinterpretation of those entitlements with the adoption of Zoning Code 13114 (Miami 21). Having reviewed the succession of entitlements under the zoning codes over time, staff analysis considers the merits of the request based on Miami 21 criteria. File ID: 18-313 Page 14 Neighborhood Context First, an analysis of neighborhood context provides some insight to the general area and how it relates to surrounding properties. The general area is characterized as having a high density, though the uses permitted vary greatly. The table below summarizes the characteristics found in the area. Table 2: Neighborhood Context Miami 21 Zoning MCNP / Density �I Existing Use Restricted Commercial with the Brickell f North T6 -48A-0 Residential Density Increase Area Multi -family, Mixed -Use (RDIA)and Urban Central Business District (UCBD) FLUM Overlay South T6 -8-R High Density Multifamily Residential, Hotel, Office, Mixed -Use UCBD FLUM Overlay and Commercial East T6 -8-R High Density Multifamily Residential Multi -Family Residential UCBD FLUM Overlay Restricted Commercial with the Brickell Residential, Office, West T6 -48A-0 RDIA and UCBD FLUM Overlay Mixed -Use and Commercial Evolution of Entitlements Once the zoning designation for the Subject Property was established in 1982, what was the nature of the reinterpreted zoning designations? How did the changing designations address such things as density, floor area ratio (or floor lot ratio), height limits, and related allowances under the respective Zoning Ordinances? The table below summarizes these details for each relevant Zoning Ordinance for the Subject Property. Table 3: Evolution of development capacity and standards under Zoning Ordinances 9500, 11000, and 13114 (Miami 21) for Lot 5, located at 240 SE 14 Street (the Babylon) 9500 Zoning Ordinance (adopted in 1982) Density 50-80 LUI Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Gross Land Area Height By Right 11000 Zoning Ordinance (adopted in March 1990) Density 150 du/acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Gross Land Area RO-3/6 (covenant applied) 21-30 du/ac 1.21 X 23,680 sq. ft. = 28,652.8 sq. Ft. FAR calculated to the street centerlines 16 -stories O (Office) 55 dwelling units 1.72 X 23,680 = 40,729.6 sq. Ft. FAR calculated to the street centerlines In the 11000 Zoning Ordinance: Floor area, nonresidential. Nonresidential floor area is the sum of areas for nonresidential use on all floors of buildings, measured from the outside File ID: 18-313 Page 15 faces of the exterior walls, including interior and exterior halls, lobbies, enclosed porches and balconies used for nonresidential uses. Not countable as nonresidential floor area are: (a)Parking and loading areas within buildings; (b)Open terraces, patios, atriums or balconies; (c)Stairways, elevator shafts, mechanical rooms; or (d)Floor areas specifically excluded from floor area limitations by special provisions of these regulations. Height By Right Unlimited stories MIAMI 21 Zoning T6 -8-R Ordinance (adopted in 2010) Density 500 du/ac 183 dwelling units Floor Lot Ratio (FLR of 5) 5 x 15,977 sq. Ft. =79,885 sq. Ft. FLR is the Multiplier applied to the Lot Area that determine Max Floor Area above grade Public Benefit FLR 25% Max floor area w/Public Benefits Height By Right Height w/ Public Bonus MIAMI 21 Zoning Ordinance (adopted in 2010) Density 500 du/ac Miami 21 defines Floor Area as : The floor area within the inside perimeter of the outside walls of the Building including hallways, stairs, closets, thickness of walls, columns and other features, and parking and loading areas, and excluding only interior Atria and open-air spaces such as exterior corridors, Porches, balconies and roof areas. Also means Building or Development Capacity. 79,885 sq. ft x .25 = 19,971 sq. Ft. 79, 885 sq. Ft +19,971 sq. Ft = 99,856 sq. Ft. 8 -stories 12 -stories T6-12-0 183 dwelling units Floor Lot Ratio (FLR of 8) 8 x 15,977 sq. Ft. =127,816 sq. ft. FLR is the Multiplier applied to the Lot Area that determine Max Floor Area above grade Public Benefit FLR 30% 127,816 sq. ft x.30= 38,344.8 sq. Ft. Max floor area w/Public 127,816 sq. Ft +38,344.8 sq. ft = 166,161 sq. ft. Benefits Height By Right 12 -stories Height w/ Public Bonus 20 -stories Having reviewed the evolution of the entitlements for the Subject Property through three Zoning Ordinances, the analysis turns its focus on the current Zoning Ordinance. The prevailing concern is what is the best zoning designation for the Subject Property for the health, welfare, safety, and morals of the City, with an eye toward the rights of the property owner. Having File ID: 18-313 Page 16 already reviewed the local context, the table below reviews the existing zoning, proposed zoning, and the zoning recommended by the Planning Department. Table 4: Existing, Successional, and proposed Zoning and Development Capacity MIAMI 21 Existing Zoning Successional Zoning Proposed Change of Zoning T6 -8-R T6-12-0 Transect T6 -8-R (5 FLR / 25 % T6-12-0 (8 FLR / 30% T6 -48 -AO (11 FLR / 50% Public Zones Public Benefit) Public Benefit) Benefit) FLR 79,885 sq. ft. 127,816 sq. ft. 175,747 sq. ft. Public Benefit 19,971 sq. ft. 38,344.8 sq. ft 87,873.5 sq. ft. FLR + Public 99,856 sq. ft. 166,161 sq. ft. 263,620.5 sq. ft. Benefit Density 500 183 dwelling units 183 dwelling units 183 dwelling units du/ac (MCNP Brickell RDIA) By Right 8 -stories 12 -stories 48 -stories Height Additional 4 -stories 8- stories 32 -stories Floors permitted via Public Benefits E. CRITERIA FOR CHANGE OF ZONING The following is a review of the request of change of zoning from T6 -8-R to T6 -48-A-0 pursuant to the criteria in Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8 (a)(3) & (f)(2) of Miami 21. Sections A through D of this report are hereby incorporated into the analysis and its corresponding criteria by reference. In accordance with Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8.a., a change may be made to a Transect Zone in a manner which maintains the goals of Miami 21. In the recommendation, staff must show that it considered and studied the request with regard to the three criteria identified in Miami 21 Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8.f. The criteria and staffs findings are provided below. Criteria 7.1.2.8.f.1.a The relationship of the proposed amendment to the goals, objectives 1.a and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, with appropriate consideration as to whether the proposed change will further the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; the Miami 21 Code; and other city regulations. Analysis Land Use Policy LU -1.1.7: Land development regulations and policies that will 1.a allow for the development and redevelopment of well-designed mixed-use neighborhoods that provide for the full range of residential, office, live/work spaces, File ID: 18-313 Page 17 neighborhood retail, and community facilities in a walkable area and that are amenable to a variety of transportation modes, including pedestrianism, bicycles, automobiles, and mass transit. The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) has assigned this property a Future Land Use (FLU) designation of Restricted Commercial. The Restricted Commercial designation allows for and envisions the development of residential, general office and commercial uses that generally serve the daily retailing and service needs of the public. Miami 21 code is a form -based code and the Transect sub -categories of Restricted, Limited, and Open regulate uses within forms. The Property has a zoning designation of 76-8-R" Urban Core -Restricted. The "R" Restricted Transect prevents the establishment of many Uses that generally serve the daily retailing and service needs of the public garnered form the Restricted Commercial FLU. Additionally, the Property is included within the Brickell RDIA and it can be reasoned that the development capacity and Uses allowed on this Property were anticipated to be greater than those properties with the T6 -8-R designation to the east. The Restricted Commercial FLU designation is not incompatible to the property, the FLU may exceed the Transect Zone for a site it is located on. Because the FLU is already compatible with the proposed "0" Open Use category there is an opportunity change the Transect Zone to further the tenets of the MCNP. This area has changed since the T6 -8-R designation was placed on the property with the adoption of Miami 21 in 2010. Abutting three sides of the Property (240 SE 14 Street) are properties that have the MCNP Restricted Commercial FLU designation with a T6 -48-A-0 Transect Zone designation. The "0" Open Transect is an important component of the request as it allows an array of non-residential Uses that the "R" Restricted Transect excludes; Uses and activities that supported by the existing FLU designation. To the east, the Property abuts properties with frontage on Brickell Bay Drive, which is high density residential in nature. The proposal to change the zoning of the 15,977 square feet Property from T6 -8-R to T6-48-0 would eliminate buffering provided by this Property from the heights and intensity of Uses established on properties found along SE 14 S from the stable residential neighborhood to the east. The Change of Zone as proposed by the Applicant increases the Floor Lot Ratio (FLR), Height, and increases the variety of Uses permitted on the property. The residential density allowed By Right on the Property remains the same with or without the Change of Zoning. However, the change of the zoning increases the FLR, increased the mix of uses allowed and provides a greater opportunity to achieve the residential density already allowed. A Change in Zoning designation from 76-8-R" to a higher T6- "Open" Transect Zone will help to achieve the goals of Policy LU -1.1.7. However, a Change of zoning to T6 -48 -AO is not successional and does not provide a gradual transition. File ID: 18-313 Page 18 The extension of the T6 -48 -AO Transect Zone, as proposed, allows development capacity that is incompatible with the abutting T6 -8-R properties to the east. Planning recommends that the property be rezoned to T6-12-0 which creates a gradual transition of development capacity and heights that fit in the immediate neighborhood context. Finding The proposed change of zoning from T6 -8-R to an "0" Open Transect is consistent 1.a with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8.f 1.a. of Miami 21 Code. The "0" Open Transect will help provide a mix of uses is a walkable neighborhood. The better fit for the proposed rezone is not the Applicant's request to change the zoning from T6 -8-R to T6 -48-A-0, but a successional Change of Zoning from T6 -8- R to T6-12-0. The "0" designation will allow a variety of uses on site as anticipated for the site as per the Change of Zoning under Zoning Ordinances 9500 and 11000, and as anticipated in the Covenant. Criteria 7.1.2.8. f. 1. b. The need and justification for the proposed change, including changed 1.b or changing conditions that make the passage of the proposed change necessary. Analysis The request to change the zoning from T6 -8-R to an "0" open Transect is consistent 1.b with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8.f.1.b. of Miami 21 Code. The growth, development and redevelopment within the of the City area support the requested rezoning at 240 SE 14 Street to an "0" Open Transect, which can continue to be a buffer and transition from the higher T6 -48 -AO sites to the west to the residentially zoned T6 -8R sites that are abutting the site to the east. The neighborhood context, history of the development capacity and heights under the previous 9500, 11000 Zoning Ordinances, and the Miami 21 Code. The best fit for the proposed change of zoning is not the Applicant's request to change from T6 -8- R to T6-48-0, but the successional Change of Zoning from T6 -8-R to T6-12-0 which is successional to the T6-8 zoning transect and allows a full array of Uses on the site. Criteria 2 Section 7.1.2.8.f.2. "A change may be made only to the next intensity Transect Zone or by a Special Area Plan, and in a manner which maintains the goals of this Miami 21 Code to preserve Neighborhoods and to provide transitions in intensity and Building Height." Analysis Section 7.1.2.8.2. establishes that changes shall occur in succession, in which the 2 change of zoning may be made only to a lesser Transect Zone; within the same Transect Zone to a greater or lesser intensity; or to the next higher Transect Zone, or through a Special Area Plan. The request to rezone from property from T6 -8-R is an extension of the abutting T6-48-0 Transect Zone; however, the request is not successional pursuant to Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8(a)3. of Miami 21. What is successional and supportable is a rezone to T6-12-0. File ID: 18-313 Page 19 Above: Existing T6 -8-R Transect Zoning with by right height shown in white and public benefit height shown in yellow. Above: Successional to the T6 -8-R , the above T6-12-0 Transect Zoning with by right height shown in white and public benefit height shown in yellow. The proposed change of zone as requested by the applicant for the property at 240 SE 14 Street is an encroachment of the abutting T6 -48 -AO Transect Zone within an established T6 -8-R Transect Zone. This particular site with its T6 -8-R designation has historically acted as a buffer between the T6-48 properties to the west on SE 14 Street and the T6 -8-R properties that front Brickell Bay Drive to the East. Under the former Zoning Ordinance 11000, the properties along Brickell Avenue were zoned "R-4" Multifamily High -Density Residential and the properties along SE 14 Street were zoned "0" Office and Restricted Commercial. While the 11000 Ordinance was not a form -based code, the "0" Office Zoning was applied to this site and it remained as a buffer area between the residential and File ID: 18-313 Page 20 nonresidential district as originally conceptualized under Ordinance 9758. Although this "0" Office zoning allowed for greater flexibility in development of the land, nonresidential development in this district was subject to the residential standards of the "0" Office zoning district in addition to specific development standards of the R-4 zoning district related to minimum lot size, setbacks, site accessibility, and landscape buffer requirements, among others. These standards ensured proper transition and buffering between adjacent residential uses. The transitional development pattern that existed under the 11000 Ordinance and that currently exists along SE 14 Street to Brickell Bay Drive demonstrates a guiding principal of the Miami 21 Code (Section 2.1.2.a.2.) which aims to create a harmonious relationship "between low Density Residential neighborhoods and adjacent Commercial Corridors with appropriate transitions of Density and Height following the theory of the Transect." The proposed zoning change would permit a maximum Height and Density that are incompatible with the existing context and the goals of the Miami 21 Code. The appropriate change of zoning—rather than T6-48-AO—is to T6-12-0. Finding The request to change the zoning from T6 -8-R to an "0" open Transect is 2 consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8.f.1.b. of Miami 21 Code. Based on the neighborhood context, history of the development capacity and heights under the previous 9500, 11000 Zoning Ordinances, and the Miami 21 Code. The better fit for the proposed rezone is not the Applicant's request to change the zoning from T6 -8-R to T6-48-0, but the successional Change of Zoning from T6 -8-R to T6-12-0. F. CONCLUSION Staff recommends Denial of the applicants request to change the zoning of the property located at 240 SE 14 Street from T6 -8-R to T6 -48 -AO, this zoning is not successional and does not create a transition of the heights, intensity, and capacity on the site and intensity that are permitted in the T6 -48-A-0 transect zone. However, based on analysis of the history of zoning of the site and neighborhood context, staff recommends approval for a successional change of zoning from T6 -8-R to T6-12-0 Transect Zone. The T6-12-0 Transect Zone will provide appropriate transitions and capacity in line with being a bridge between the higher T6 -48 -AO west of the site to the lower capacity T6 -8-R properties to the east. File ID: 18-313 Page 21 Pursuant to Miami 21 Code, Article 7, Section 7.1.2.8. c.2(g) of Ordinance 13114 ("Miami 21 "), as amended, the Department of Planning recommends denial of the Applicant's non-successional request to Change the Zoning from T6-8-R to T6-48-A-0 and recommends approval for a Change of Zoning to T6- 12-0 based upon the facts and findings in this staff report. The Comparison of these designations is found in the images, right. Aeq-6'eline EI is Chief of Land Development Exhibit A: Legal Description Attachments Comparison of Existing Zoning, Applicant's Proposal, and Planning Department's Recommendation Planning Dept. Existing Zoning: T6 -8-R Proposed Zoning: T6 -48 -AO Recommendation: T6-12-0 N Images, L -R: Exising, proposed, and recommended zoning designations for the nearly 16,000 SF parcel that exists between the stable, T6 -8-R district, facing Biscayne Bay, that is predominantly high-density residential, and the more intense, mixed-use T6 -48 -AO district that is characteristic to the north, west, and south of the parcel. File ID: 18-313 Page 22 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 2 and the South 1/'2 of Out Lot 3, Block 2, according to the AMENDED PLAT OF POINT VIEW, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93 of the public records of Miarni—Ocde County, Florido, LESS the Northerly 10 feet borders on and runs parallel to the public right of way of South Bayshore drive. Attachment A (Declaration of Restrictions with Ord. 9758 in 1983) W 41 4 DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS KNOW ALL MHN BY THHBB PRODONTS that the undersignedbeing the owhar of the following described property, lying, being 09 situated in Dade County, 8lorida, to• -wits • Lot 5, Block 2, Point View, according to Plat gook 2, Page 93, of the Doblia Reoorde of Dade County ("the• -proper tyh), is order -to assure 'the City -Commission of the City of Miami, P.lovida, that..the representations made to it by the.owner will be abided .by, voluntarily makes .the following Deolaration of Restrictions covering and running with the property, Notwithstanding the zoning classification of the propertys it The building presently existing on theproperty shall be preserved and shall not be structurally modified except as is hecessary both internally and externally to convert said struo-- ture into a building with a combination of office and residential uses, on to improve the landsonping or parking thereon► however, Ln all instances any modification must comply with all tea tric-• tions set £ortlr in .this Declaration. GSI,t . k s .2. The property and the building may be used only for the following usess residential,- offices (not selling merohandise on the premises), -banks and 'savings and loan associations, oubjeat to the additional restrictions contained'herein, 3. The top floor of the building shall be used for • residential uses only.'-' 4. The first (ground) floor of the'building shall be used for parking only, B. No medical or dental offioes or clinics shall be per- mitted. b, Only that portion of the building may be ocoupied for which there is adequate parking asrequired or permitted by the AO 3/7 zoning classification as determined by the respective uses within the building. 7. There gbala be a maximum of one (1) bank tel,lbr on�thhee property, which shall be located within the building. � 8. There shall be no drive-in tellers,. automatic or mechanical teller #04 hqur tel aFsv *Z--;49ht 9. There hall be no signs on the South Bayshore Drive side of the building or on the south side of the building, Signe and lights therefrom shali be limited to the 8,8. 14th street side of the building or property. 10. A11 exterior modifications of the building, including structural changes and signs, must be appAC roved by TRV ROREir as a representative of Point View Aescoiation, Ino,, or, in the evant of his inability to serve in such oapaoity, another person to be designated by the Point View Association, Inc. No'exteriog modifioations-of the building may be made unless approved in 'writing in adVanoe. Iry Horaeh or his successor ma to tCi�rea moq[ ee he color of the eXterior of the u i re in � VJi�h` Ven1Wmwff t�"°ddib r&Ityl b a e When the preliminary and final designs for khs sem.... ' .....]Exhibit A q'7q I 908 • '' _-��, i.ldi•L.Ikb,pdY��ie���Jw66i�f�ll', ]� - -- . _ ,.•..�i:' . ' 12000 ;D24ro exterior modifications have been submitted to MR. XoRAcn, or his sucoe�gok.a._.that.,Auak...be..._commentad_.ugon..and approved 04./.0 . da :a:isaiipeoved.. witfiin....14c y.t_:.thtitsafter.,.: ••railure tb make.. huoh. ' comments within such period; u�a11•establish a conolusive presump- tion of approval of•suoh proposals by the Point View Association, 11. The landscaping of the property along South tayghotp Drive shall. be improved and maintained at at level at least con- sistent with the landscaping at the existing point View area -residential buildings. ; 12. • The- owners of 'the property will oontribute the .sum 61 '• $10000 fore a neighborhood traffic study to be performed by professional traffic• engineers to bei"bbbsen by the Poi'at 'Vibw _ Aasooiation,. Inc. y' which sum may 'also 6e Utilized to implement the recommenalations of such study.- -The owners shall also eyo 1 arats with Point View Association, 'Inc. by providing Fxnrormac on relating to- the :uses at the property and will cooperate Irk aeeking to-accomplish the recommendations of the study; wim tie specific understanding', however, that the owners shall have no additional expenses in connection tberewith. r rtur thermore t A.- . It is understood and agreed by the undersigned- that any official inspector of the City of Miami Building Depax ment or zoning Department, or any agents duly authorized by; the Director of. those Departments may have the privilege at' any ;time '. during normal•working hours of entering and investigating the'use of -the Premisas'tc determine whether or not the reguirementa of !` the building and zoning regulations and the conditions herein agreed to are being fulfilled. g. These restriotions during their lifetime shall be a tee trLotion••and limitation upon, all present and future owners of the above-described real property and for the public welfare and shall be enforoeabl:e• by property ownety within 375 feet of the sub act property, property owners on South Bayshore bk'itth bet}}vvsen SoM Last, 19th Street and South East 15th Road, Miami, F%ot'kda, speoifioally including those who may be farther than 375 Pee''of the subject prope.rtyt any condominium association in the above- described areas;. the Point View Association, Inc., 'a`ridE�fbr� profit Florida Corporation or its successor, or by the City. of, Miami. •' irh�n -Agreikent shall .constitute 'a .covenant, running with the land, shall be recorded in- the Public Records of Dade County, rlorida, and shall remain in full force'and effect and be binding upon the•unders•igned, its successors and' assigns until such time ,as it is modified or released in the manner provided herein. D. These c6 n'ants•nre to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them for a .� period of 30 years from•thb date ,of recordation, after which time they shall be extended automatically for successive periods of i ten years, unless an instrument signed by a majority of the then owner(s) of the property has been recorded which changes or " releases the covenants in whole, or in part, provided that the d covenants have been released or the changes approved by the Ciit of Miami Commission after a public hearing. If the aonLng } district or the regulations applicable to all the properties on # South Beyshora Drive between S. 13. 14th Street and S. E. 15th Road should change to permit any structure within such area to be used totally for offices, banks or ccmmarcial uses, Or combina- tions thereof, or if the permuted VAR applicable to -such area ' a h ......... >� 7 ^'1• e��i NSR, l vSl+i1 _ .. t• El 200D pc247l increases_ above that pr.esenkiy_.per itkedt„ th.Q„ gpjeet t�roperty s ;a_73: tLe':r': � av'e .: aha_ ��mikd Yctba aanta�nstt_.bszein wF cl.j ars mor @:restr oliva hen the new distFiot. oK• regulations. '£he recordation among the Publi'o ReooYds..af Uade County, plorida, of _ an'Affid'aVit or Certificate from the City Attorney of the City of Miami that such changes in the City of Miami ordinances have Lon made will be.sufficient.to place all persona on notice that Such ; ch.anVes have, modified these oovenantst Ft This Deolaration of Restrictive Covenants may be modified, amended or released as to the land herein described, or any portion thereof, by a written instrument executed by the then -'owger.of, the .fee simple title to ,the,.!lands<.to be.•af£eoted by sueti':modification, amendment or relbise, provided that the name bg first been approved by;. the Point,. Vi•er�Assooiation, Inc., and then by tha City Commission after -public hearing. P.,,,' Should this beclaration bf Restriotive•Covenants be so mod itiad'; amended or released,. the Director of the City of Miami ' Building a zoning Department, or his successor, shall for thwitb execute a written instrument effectuating and acknowledging such modification, amendment 'or release. • 0. . Enforcement shall be by action at law or in equity a ai St any, .parties or—persons violating, or attempting to ,QVO1Zta any covenants, either to restrain -Violation or to, recover damages, ' . Xf ' any suit bg,,. brought, for such, enforoement the enforoitigparty, if successful,, shall be, entitled .to r eoover,-in addition to costs and disbursements allowed by law, such sum as the' Court•tnay adjudge to be reasonable for the services of his attorney. $. Invalidation of any 'one of these covenanta, by jpdginent or Court, in no. wise shaa,l affect any of the other proyisiona which shall remain in full forge and efEeot. „ IN,�4I"PN888',wFTgRSor, the vwnex has caused tcheae presents to be executed and signed in its name by its proper officers, -and 1VO, corporate seal to be affixed hereto .Agd,nttested to by its Seoretary%the day and year set forth. i. WY'SNas5v8Y Ou6shpa .. uY1 esident' A'3"'I'E8 r „r • pATR Io d at Secretary .(Co orate Seal) ' i Edi" �ilEiililrl, ! f " Plc ( Wou P4?41 I STATE OF f►LORIbA ) 'SS COClNI'Y OF bAD% ) I HER99Y CERTIFY that on this ] � day of ► 7.983► before me personally appeared RAY-COt�ONA attd m -CMO COitl3NA► Pr.es16ent and Secretary, respectively► of CpCUSA, INC.► a aorpo" ration undbr the Jaws of the State of Florida, to me known to be the persons who signed the foregoing instrgment as such officers and severally acknowledged the execution thereof to be their free act and deed as such officers for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and that they affixed theteto the official seal of said corporation, and that the said instrument is the Act and deed of said corporation. r WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year last aforesaid. �ARYfl� 44�M PU9L STA' p gRxpA AT",My Commission ppirsai n� :..k`�'": ;:;.. lif, � #It rr. O Ali At 17' CORRECTNSSSt +' • "'t'f+"+"f '�tJ.rG:.'SiiS:#'srl_`.s`'.1:°\:+.;:'.. r:_`.n•}. • :'m`'•t t•yyxt 3L:•. �t , ., :5f �:: .s:•^x� `t`vs r�•tykiq .r t•K .�( ;i� �: r. �iuf#y +'•Y='. Pad,,ra r'Jgh't'}'>2cre Cooper, Attorney Lhli�t. i)FFtCEs Or JANET" L.' COOPBg 'wi` =4t :~ `•� •' ;';` '+;�• i¢5' j=.••sf'iT•? 7 U S ``' ;` „r'.+:`.;" ; ,6�'"Easy• FJagler Street A:.:;4;Ks;;afi:�•-.'Mia43rt''Plorida 33 8 ' lf': �Yt•�°.s �y n{;1 :s't,�•' 7 ::'s• y .:;:_v" .'.e..: :«�.` ;. iu,F '. � 'r. { A,;' :r#�:!•i..3..'i? ,"' ,N,•• r.�•' ?M1: ° •'u .. u{r�.r:' �t� `=ir syr.: ,� t•.,, . a. 1. "rrY.+•yV,}'�a It•%Y�i '=w.{..j ' ' .tc ' ,•. ''•'t tl♦ ,.✓• : r .r{»�. ., �•�t'.'1 if 'X4s.a S*L It �"f.;tSir,1 r; y" Yiip ., .e. .,.; t•f' .,•�• .�` .=•:..3 • y .y L•g {t:}: �s:• .1 :Ls ti•` :. 'r;s.. .4. r t�%i�q(rdf�x s.�tti4'ts � t•,,.,s:. �• �: ` • '. Y. k:'t �t4R ri's..L . a r: �� �.• s .. •a,` ;,Sa;` S"(• {.}Y•'�,s,.'�'. •a3�t wP:'.,•',•Lf t•:�,5„t f=s+ n,.� ii 'i'�t. ?. •, r. ri.• ,` •::. ' Vit. •. ..5 $:j l~,'�'r::�'•':2s�,�. stt ° tst',^�•s:t: tr�ir•, •a}''r .ts; ..f •Yas `*i,s s,� _ r t• •���•� • tc'+' � ii',:h �y"^l.`.'�•'h �..5 . . r ��f ."t r..• :ti;.,.;{�r.{='�;,f,•;.,F,t{�)�f=u,,•t.••�V�«.y�r1, •ir.4.r ..�brlrh?y,2'*;��^.•• 3 `lei. • ru d • a .tt rr—�--�.•. •rwwf,� ala 1 .I ft r '••1 ` U tR g5YF5t��y}Wr' a�sftrr ova, �. i•W . t '•r. 1 :1yf'i/L L r •3 1 nva.�ariiir o:AII111 u4 w.,o•.m,a,a�n,a.L.asrlv....a, ✓„_,..••• ..• Attachment 2: Introduction to Zoning Ordinance 9500 PROPOSED ZONING � � X11!• �I �M YYrY. 'YI!!!�I® _ ..... _ PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA MAY 7, 1981 CITY COMMISSION Maurice A. Ferre, Mayor Theodore R. Gibson, Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Armando Locaso J. L. Plummer, Jr. CITY MANAGER Howard V. Gary Jim Reid, Acting Assistant City Manager CITY CLERK Ralph G. Angie This book contains the Text and the Schedule of District Regulations of the pro- posed Zoning Ordinance. They were prepared by Dr. Ernest R. Bartley and Fred H. Bair, Jr., zoning consultants, with the assistance of the City of Miami Planning Department. Bath documents were the subject of a series of public meetings and — hearings held by the Miami Planning Advisory Board. Fallowing is a list of persons who participated in the final preparation anchor review and modification of the proposed Zoning Ordinance; PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD _ Grace Rockofellar, Chairperson Lorenzo Luoces, Vice -Chairman Eduardo Calil Jose Correa Aaron J. Manes Arsenio Milion Cyril Smith — Patricia M. Kolski, Alternate *Mary Lichtenstein *Richard Rosichan = PLANNING DEPARTMENT Joseph W. McManus, Acting Director George Acton, Jr., Project Coordinator Richard O. Whipple, Chief, Current Planning Jack Luft, Planner III _ Matthew Schwartz, Planner III Jose Casanovo, Planner II Fred Fernandez, Planner I Laurence Martinez, Planner I Richard Butler, Planning Illustrator II Debra Ann Ragin, Secretary DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDS Aurelio E. Perez-Lugones, Director l Gloria Fox, Assistant Director Nancy Mills, Secretary LAW DEPARTMENT George l-. Knox, Jr., City Attorney Terry Percy, Deputy City Attorney Mark Valenflne, Assistant City Attorney BUILDING DEPARTMENT Gerardo Salmon, Director Laura Howell, Chief Zoning Inspector Richard Weisberg, Zoning Inspector I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Donald W. Cather, Director George Campbell, Assistant Design Engineer *No Longer With the City of Miarni Special acknowledgement is accorded the following committees who worked dili- gently in reviewing and making recommendations on the proposed ordinance: ARCHITECTS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS Mr. Louis A. Jamil Mr. Raul Alvarez Mr. Roy Barden Mr. Willie Bermela Mr. James Deen Mr. Roger Fry Mr. H. Samuel Kruse, Chairman Mr. Walter Martinez Mr. Lester Pancoast _ Mr. Paul Stutsman Mr. Robert West CONSUMERS AND USERS Mr. Aaron J. Manes, Chairman Ms. Aurelia Maer, Vice -Chairwoman Ms. Ruth Bartoli Ms. Janet Waldman Ms. Sarah West DEVELOPERS, LAWYERS AND INVESTORS Mr. Irvin Adler r`1+1r. Michel Anderson Mr. Hernando Corillo Mr. Sidney Fogin Mr. John Forte, Ca -Chairman Mr. Brian J. Giller Mr. Tibor Hollo, Co -Chairman Mr. Robert Korner Mr. Jess Lawhorn `Ns. G. Miriam Maer Mr. Herbert Simon Mr. Robert Trourig INTRODUCTION Over the past five years, the City of Miami has been engaged in a concen- trated planning program}, designed to provide a meaningful, efficient, and economical framework for future growth and development. A great deal has been accomplished in that time, but several important ingredients vital to the program remain. The planning process carries with it not only the setting of comprehensive goals and objectives to guide future growth but includes the utilization of a variety of means for implementation of those goals. Early in the present planning program, it was recognized that one of the important means of implementation would be necessary land use controls, and particularly zoning. To that end, the City commissioned its Zoning consultants, Ernest R. Bartley and Frederick l . Bair, Jr., to analyze and evaluate the present zoning ordinance. Their report clearly demonstrated that the present zoning ordinance would not meet the requirements of the comprehensive planning program of the City. Their report made a number of major, and numerous minor recommendations. Those major recommendations indicated that; 1. The present Miami zoning ordinance should be completely reorganized and rewritten to reflect the fact that future City development would, in almost all instances, be redevelopment. 2. The present physical format should be changed to incorporate a Schedule of District Regulations approach, removing from the text of the ordinance most fr ` regulations applicable to specific zoning classifications and presenting them in columnar farm for easier citizen use and administration. 3. Reeevoluation of intensities of various types of uses - commercial, industrial, and residential, throughout the City would be necessary. 4. As a basis for residential land use intensities the City should adopt a modi- fied version of the Land Use Intensity System {LUO of the Federal Housing Administration. This internally consistent system provides a sound basis for regulation by coordinating lot coverage, height, bulk, building spacing, and related controls based on gross (rather than, at present, net) land acreage. Present inconsistent and uneven controls would thus be supplanted. 5. A new ordinance must be related more closely, than is presently the case, to an understanding of the consequences of regulation of architectural form. b. A limited faun of transfer of development rights should be included. I An Analysis and Evaluation of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami,• .. May,pp.i-xxvii, 534 7. A new ordinance should distinguish between and make provision for Planned Development and Special Public Interest districts. Greater use should be made of these modern techniques than of present under carefully drawn standards guiding exercise of administrative discretion. 8. Reconsideration of the present numbers of "special approvals" should result in the establishment of a logical special permit system, with the officer or agent for each type of special permit operating under meaningful standards. 9. Certain regulations now found in the present zoning ordinance are not properly zoning in character and should be placed in other parts of the City Cade of Ordinances. 10. Some parts of the present zoning ordinance are not enforced, or are enforced only upon citizen complaint. Regulations that are a part of a new ordinance should be put there with a commitment to enforce them - or they should be dropped altogether. The proposed new zoning ordinance, which consists of three major parts, incorporates the above listed recommendations. The three parts of the ordinance are: a. The Text sets out general provisions on procedures and administration, regulations applying generally to several or all zoning districts or classifico- tions, definitions, standards necessary for the exercise of discretion by those charged with the administration of the ordinance, and provisions for specialized treatment of particular types of development. b. The Schedule of District Requiations lists the regulations applying in most zoning districts. C. The Zoning Atlas outlines the boundaries of the proposed districts and shows the Land Use Intensity sector for each district. The book, which includes the proposed Text and the Schedule of District Regulations as approved and recommended to the City Commission by the Miami Planning Advisory Board, represents over three years of intensive effort on the part of the Planning Advisory Board, the Planning Department, and the consultants. The first draft of the ordinance was considered by the Planning Advisory Board in a long series of workshops extending from December, 1977 to November, 1978. Sitting in on those sessions and serving critical and advice giving functions were members of the Zoning Board and affected City personnel. During the course of those workshops, numerous changes, additions, and deletions were made to original draft as submitted by the consultants. The ordinance was revised and by January, 1980, it was ready for public review. To insure an depth public review, noticesto 88,000 Miami property owners informing them of six public meetings to be held in six different neighborhoods March toJune,1980. At # ! public comment was # # # for Planning + # # Boardconsideration.addition committeescitizen review formed: Consumers and Lawyers, Users; the Architects, Landscape Architects, Engineers, and Planners; and the Developers, and #committees# # i on proposed # # Mayor Ferre: We shall see what happens. 44. FIRST READING ORDINANCE - CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 185 S.E. 14TH TERRACE AND APPROXIMATELY 200 S.E. 14TH STREET FROM RG -3/7 TO SPI-5. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: All right, Agenda item 31. Are you ready? Cuousa, Inc., Seaplace Realty Investments NV 7 Curacao, Inc. This has the Planning Department's recommendation for approval. The Zoning Board on a 3 to 2 vote voted denial. There were 2 in favor, 12 against. Proponents present at the meeting, 2 - opponents, 20. All right, we will hear the Department first, and then we shall hear from the Applicant, who is appealing the denial of the Board. Okay, from the Department, first. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, the Planning Department recommended approval of a portion of this item and denial of the other portion. Mayor Ferre: I don't understand that. You are approving a portion, and now you are approving the other portion too? - Mr. Whipple: No, sir. The Planning Department recommended approval of a portion of the request, and denial of the remainder of the request. Mayor Ferre: I see. Mr. Whipple: Specifically, in referring to the illustration of the Zoning map, we recommend approval of Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, which are the westerly four lots, but recommend exclusion of Lot 4. Mr. Plummer: What about 30? Mr. Whipple: And 30 we recommended also, yes. Mr. Plummer: You are recommending for that? Mr. Whipple: For that - yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: What classification? Mr. Whipple: SPI -5, from the existing RG -3.7 The map reflects the old zoning that is before you on the board. The basis for this recommendation is the way the lots are situated. The Planning Department, for many years, along with this Commission and the City Board has maintained and recommended that the waterfront lot in the Point View area be maintained in a high density residential classification. On the other hand, we have likewise recommended, in the Brickell area, Brickell frontage, and the office district, that highrise, high intensity office development take place. We had a request come before you, or the request before you 89 10121183 Attachment 3: Minutes to City Mayor Ferre: All right, how about 10:00 o'clock in the morning? Commission Meeting on Mr. Plummer: No, no. Make it 2:00 o'clock in the 10/27/831 afternoon. I don't plan on being sober that early! Excerpted for Hearing of Mayor Ferre: Okay, 2:00 o'clock on the 17th. Bring all the drawings, plans. We will have an open discussion. First Reading to Ord. 9758 Mr. Carollo: Commissioner Dawkins can check Mr. Suarez' records to see if he can be here at that time also. Mayor Ferre: We shall see what happens. 44. FIRST READING ORDINANCE - CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 185 S.E. 14TH TERRACE AND APPROXIMATELY 200 S.E. 14TH STREET FROM RG -3/7 TO SPI-5. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: All right, Agenda item 31. Are you ready? Cuousa, Inc., Seaplace Realty Investments NV 7 Curacao, Inc. This has the Planning Department's recommendation for approval. The Zoning Board on a 3 to 2 vote voted denial. There were 2 in favor, 12 against. Proponents present at the meeting, 2 - opponents, 20. All right, we will hear the Department first, and then we shall hear from the Applicant, who is appealing the denial of the Board. Okay, from the Department, first. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, the Planning Department recommended approval of a portion of this item and denial of the other portion. Mayor Ferre: I don't understand that. You are approving a portion, and now you are approving the other portion too? - Mr. Whipple: No, sir. The Planning Department recommended approval of a portion of the request, and denial of the remainder of the request. Mayor Ferre: I see. Mr. Whipple: Specifically, in referring to the illustration of the Zoning map, we recommend approval of Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8, which are the westerly four lots, but recommend exclusion of Lot 4. Mr. Plummer: What about 30? Mr. Whipple: And 30 we recommended also, yes. Mr. Plummer: You are recommending for that? Mr. Whipple: For that - yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: What classification? Mr. Whipple: SPI -5, from the existing RG -3.7 The map reflects the old zoning that is before you on the board. The basis for this recommendation is the way the lots are situated. The Planning Department, for many years, along with this Commission and the City Board has maintained and recommended that the waterfront lot in the Point View area be maintained in a high density residential classification. On the other hand, we have likewise recommended, in the Brickell area, Brickell frontage, and the office district, that highrise, high intensity office development take place. We had a request come before you, or the request before you 89 10121183 today is prompted by the suggestion that the existing apartment structure known as the Babylon, which is located on Lot 5, which has not been occupied since its completion, that there is a desire to utilize that property for development of office and per our recommendation - combination of office and residential. It is because of this commitment that will be set forth before you today to maintain that structure as it is today as office usage with residential development on the top and by the exclusion of Lot 4 from consideration of the change of zoning which is the old Commodore Club, we believe these two facilities provide a buffer area between the intended SPI -5 potential development and the RG -3 high density residential development. You will also note that Lot 5, 6, 7 and 8 actually do not directly face the water to the extent that Lot 4 does. That has merit in our estimation. that property actually faces 14th - it actually faces the site known as Helmsly Center. Now, we felt therefore, that this property should be treated in a similar manner to the property that existed to the northwest and to the southwest, and for those reasons we recommend approval of Lots 5, 6, 7 and 30. Mr. Plummer: And your recommendation further is that Lot 4 stay as it is. Mr. Whipple: Lot 4 stay as it is, yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Is there a building on Lot 4? Mr. Whipple: Lot 4 is the old Commodore Club, yes, sir. It is a significantly historic structure that could be brought back to its natural state. Mayor Ferre: But the Babylon... Mr. Plummer: You have got to be kidding me to make it... Mayor Ferre: Hey, listen to me, would you? The Babylon, which is 5, 6, 7 and 8... Mr. Plummer: No, no, the Babylon is only on 5. Mayor Ferre: How could it only be on 5? Mr. Plummer: That's what I said, it is only on 5. 6, 7 and 8 are vacant. It is nothing but a vacant lot. Mayor Ferre: Babylon is only on 5? Mr. Plummer: Only on 51 Mayor Ferre: That building sits on that little piece of ;property? Mr. Plummer: Maurice, if you walked it as I did, you have about this much space to get a car down what they call a driveway. It is incredible! Mr. Whipple: It has less than 50 feet of frontage ves width in the back, even though it has 100 feet of diagonal on the zront, it probably only averages about 60 feet. Mr. Plummer: I want to disagree with Mr. Whipple's statement about ... maybe Alan Bliss' buildings, the Commodore Club does have historic, but I want to tell you that any fool that went in there to try to restore that to its historic value - is there such a fool here? I am sorry if he is. I've got to tell you, that place is an accident looking for a place to happen. M# 10127183 11 Mr. Whipple: The interior is not been changed to that great an extent. The porches were added which could be renovated back to their original state. Mr. Plummer: The whole back was added. Mr. AlakP' Frnm a historic standaoint. without commenting on the technicalities of it, if the front facade was restored to its original facade, and the back facade was restored to its original facade, it then would qualify. Mr. Plummer: Tim, let me tell you - I am not a construction man, but I've got to tell you it would take five times the amount of value that that building is worth for somebody to restore it to its original ... I mean, a man that did that, only Alan Bliss and his love for that building would pour that money into that building. No one else could financially pour that kind of money into it. Mayor Ferre: All right, Counselor. Mr. Robert Traurig: Mr. Mayor, for the record, Robert H. Traurig, 1401 Bricked Avenue. I am here only to talk about the Babylon. The other parcels that are within this application are represented by others. Mr. Bliss will represent himself with regards to Lot 4. I am representing Babylon regarding Lot 5, and I believe Mr. Friend is representing the owners of Lots 6, T and 8. Mr. Plummer: Mr. who is representing them? Mr. Traurig: This gentlemen, Mr. Friend. Mr. Plummer: Okay, for the record, the owner of Lot 4 - you are not representing? Mr. Traurig: No, Mr. Bliss will represent himself. Mr. Plummer: Alan, you are representing yourself? 1 Mr. Traurig: Right. Mr. Plummer: You, for the record, the disclosure form that is put forth, who does it show as the owner of record of Lot 4? I want to get that clear, because there was some court action in here, and I want to know as the day of the hearing, who is the owner of record of Lot 4. Ms. Janet Cooper: While Mr. Perez is looking for that...Mr. Mayor, Janet Cooper, attorney, with offices at 169 East Flagler Street, representing the homeowners in the Point View area. This has become one of the most complicated zoning applications I have seen in the seven years I have been here because of all the various interested parties, and because of the diverse interests. We have been working very diligently to come up with something that would be suitable and pleasing to the various people involved, and I believe that we are well on the way. Earlier this morning, Mr. Bliss, Mr. Traurig, Mr. Friend and I agreed that we would come before you and ask you to vote yes on the item without hearing any discussion on it in an attempt to give us an opportunity before the Second Reading on November 18th to further resolve matter and to work on it without having to stand here and sling mud, which unfortunately, if we get down to it, it may turn into it - very likely will turn into it. In an effort to preserve the congenial atmosphere which now exists between these parties, we wanted to avoid that. This afternoon I learned that Senator McKnight has an interest in this and wanted to have his say, and even wanted to have an opportunity to look at it and wanted a deferral. 91 14/27/83 The people of Point View are not really concerned about whether it is e deferral, or whether we don't get into the matter, and just have a yes vote on First Reading with certain understandings and conditions. Mayor Ferre: Well, what are those understandings and conditions? Ma. Cooper: Okay, the understanding and the conditions were that the objectors would not raise any objections that they would be entitled to raise today, and that in the event... Mayor Ferre: Is that acceptable? All right, into the record, your name and each person - I'm talking about the property owners now. Is that acceptable, Counselor? Your name, and is it acceptable. Mr, Richard Friend: For the record' my name is Richard Friend. I am on attorney with offices at 800 BrioheII Avenue. I en here to represent the owners of Lots 8, ?, 8 and 30, and that is acceptable to me. Mr. Plummer: Who are the owners of Lots 6, 7, 8 and 30? Mr. Friend: Point View Towers, if I might then further disclose, I am representing three parties. There are two owners and a perspective contract purchaser. The gentlemen's name is Mr. Larry Silverstein. Mr. Plummer: That is not o pert of the application. Mr. Friend: Okay, I am here on his behalf as an observer. The actual name of the two owners is Point View Towers of Curacao, and Seaplaoe Realty Investments NV, and Point View Towers of Curacao, NV. Mr. Plummer: For the record, are both the mole owners of that Manuel ? � Mr. Friend: On information and belief, that is correct. « Mr. Plummer: No, sir, I am not asking that. Is he present? Mr. Friend: 0m, no. He is not present, he is in Switzerland, Mr. Plummer: According to this oppIiuotion, he is the sole ' owner. Nr. Friend: That is correct. Mr, Plummer: That is correct? Mr. Friend: As far as I understand, yes, sir. Since be is not,..I have not spoken with him and that was confirmed by his counsel to me, that is the extent of my knowledge. Mr, Plummer: Is that Mr. Nest? Mr. Friend: No, it is Nr. Cassel - Glenn Cassel. Mr. Plummer: According to document, on record it looks like an R. C. West. Mr. Friend; That is the gentlemen who signed on his behalf. He is being represented by Broad and Cassel in vunnaotinu with the sale of his property to my client. Mayor Ferre: I asked you to stand and answer m specific question, because Ms. Cooper made a statement I want to 92 10/27/83 make sure that the two attorneys and the owner of record of all these properties make a statement into the record. Now, the question is, is this acceptable to you? Mr. Friend: The answer was and continues to be yes. It is acceptable. Mayor Ferre: Let me explain to you what it is - I can't to speak for anybody else, but it is my intention to vote for this today on First Reading, as I see it at this time. All right now, but I want to make sure we get these stipulations in. Ms. Cooper: There is one more after that. Mayor Ferre: You say it is ... wait a moment! You say that is acceptable? Mr. Friend: That is correct. Mayor Ferre: All right now... Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a preparatory statement. We filed the application for SPI -5. Before this Board, we were asked, first by Janet and a number of others whether or not we would compromise and accept less than SPI - 5. Ms.Cooper: That was part of my second point, if I may address it as a whole. Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute. Janet, look, so we don't get confusion around here, you stipulate, you said...so we don't get into a long drawn out thing, you said "Vote on it on First Reading, on Second Reading we will discuss it, but there are two points I want to make". Now, you made your first point. I want to get it into the record, do they accept your first point? Ms. Cooper: Fine. Mr. Traurig: The point that I want to make is that we indicated that we would preserve the existing building and in order to do that, we would reduce the request from SPI -5 to RO-3.7, and we indicated that we thought that that was a fair solution for the neighborhood, in view of the fact that we wanted offices. We didn't want to build a larger structure. I just want that record to be clear on Mr. behalf, because we want this Commission to know that we are not going to back off what we have already committed to this Commission. With regards to whether... Mayor Ferre: Is that acceptable? Ms. Cooper: We would like to have the opportunity to negotiate. The second condition, if I may directly relate it to this, is that if you approve it on First Reading for SPI -5, none of the property owners will object after the Second Reading, if at the Second Reading you decide to give them, for example, RO-3.7, or something less. They would waive any objection to that down...it is not down -zoning, because it is really an increase in zoning, but less than SPI -5 on only one reading, and they all previously indicated to me that they would agree to that. Mayor Ferre: Into the record, mr. Traurig, to your client. Mr. Traurig: Well, my client has just advised me that he feels that if there are going to be issues raised, he would prefer those issues to be raised now, so that everyone understands the issues, rather than at a later date, and 93 10/27183 �� ,� ^� x� that is a little different than my original discussion with Janet, but I would like her and this Commission to know tUnt..,, Mayor Ferre: Fine, I have.., Mr. Traurl6:..,,tbe client has Just reached that conclusion. =� Mm, Cooper: In response to that, I would say that all the issues are on the table in our negotiations that are not before you. There is nothing that is being held back and I am merely asking for this solution in order to preserve the atmosphere in which some sort of settlement and agreement can be reached. Mayor Ferre: Janet, I can only request ~ I can't force _ these three property owners, so I am asking on the record now, whether those two stipulations are acceptable. As I understood Mr. Treurig, be said they are not. Mr, Tr�urig: We would have no objection whatsoever to the action'which she seeks this Commission to take. If she would say on the record that failing the solution that she wants, she won't object to the solution that she originally proposed to us, which was the BO -3.7, for Lot Number 5. Mo. Cooper: The reason why our discussions have not culminated a this point in a firm agreement regarding Lot 5, is because what happens on Lot 5 affects the other property, and we are trying very bard to resolve it between all the parties. What makes this so complicated is so many parties. The people at Point View are inclined to go along with what we have discussed, Mr. Trourig, on Lot 5, however, since it does affect the rest of the properties, we cannot make a firm commitment at this point until we at least understand our position with regard to the other properties, specifically, 6, ?, 8 and 20. We were contacted only a few weeks ago by Mr. Friend regardtn8 h, ?, 8 and 30. We have worked diligently. I was with a representative of Mr. Silverstein until after 11:00 o'clock last night and on the phone with Mr. Friend for d portion of that time. we have done everything we possibly nen to work it out. He Just need more time, and that is all Z am asking for. Whether you grant it in the form of a deferral, or vote yes on First Reading today is immaterial to me, % just don't went to have to get into mud slinging. Mr, TrauriB: We can't have a deferral, because if we have a deferral, it will result in the application being dismissed, because we will have extended beyond the permitted time. Me. Cooper: Not if you hear the First Reading on November 16th and the Second on the 18th.. You have until Thanksgiving or the day after. Mayor Ferre: No, no, look... Ma. Cooper: So I don't care which way. % really just don't want to have to get into the issue. Mayor Ferre: We have already deferred this thing once, and at this point I think it is time for this to proceed one way or the other. Now, I don't mind doing it without ton much discussion. She is got two questions - you have answered. I don't see that you are that fur apart. Mr. Iraurig; We are not far apart at all. We have talked often and we have, I think reached a meetings of the mind. The only difference between us is that I was hopeful that she would acknowledge that the DO -3.7 is an appropriate use 94 10/27/83 ffi 4b for this parcel, which will be more or less the buffer between the existing residential development and Point View and anything that occurs to the west of us, Janet has already indicated that she is not prepared to make that kind of a commitment to us. we don't have any objection to an approval of the SPI -5 of course, but that is more than what we wanted. Mayor Ferre: All right. Ms. Cooper: You see why I am saying it is so confusing, Mr. Mayor? Mayor Ferre: Go ahead. Make your statement into the record, now. Mr. Alan Bliss: My name is Alan Bliss, I reside at 1402 S. E. Bayshore Drive. I am willing to have the yes vote and discuss it later on, and Commissioner Plummer, you are wrong, that building is still solid and the balconies are self standing, they can be taken right off. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Bliss, we are... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, for the record, Mr. Bliss, I have to tell you sir, that this application that is presently before us is incorrect. I will ask the City Attorney who the owner of record and the disclosure form is, and their reference to Lot Number 4. Mr. Bliss: I signed an affidavit. Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, who is the owner of Lot 4. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: According to the Disclosure of Ownership form, Vice -Mayor Plummer, which is dated June 10, 1983, the owner of Lots 4 and 5 is Cucusa, Inc., whose sole share holder is Ray Corona. Mr. Plummer: All right sir, so then Mr. Bliss has no standing before this Commission today. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Not according to this disclosure form, no, sir. Mr. Plummer: Thank you, sir. Okay, where are we? Mr. Traurig: That disclosure form was the original disclosure form that was filed subsequent to which new disclosure forms were filed on Lot 5 and then another one on Lot 6, 7, and 8. No additional disclosure form was filed by me on behalf of 4, and I don't know whether or not Mr. Bliss did. Mr. Plummer: I asked the Department for the clarification. These are the documents that were given to me. If the Department is wrong, I will stand corrected in their behalf, but as it stands before us now, the owner of Lots 4 and 5, according to the disclosure form are incorporation, not Mr. Bliss. I am clarifying the record. I know what this real matter is, but I don't want this thing coming back on a technicality. Ms. Cooper: Mr. Vice -Mayor. Mr. Plummer: Ms. Cooper. Ms. Cooper: If my memory serves me correctly, and I have not seen it since the time of your Commission meeting in July, I believe that in July Mr. Bliss also filed a new 95 10127183 �� �� �� �� disclosure form. That is my memory, however, the record, in Mr. Perez' office is incomplete in that it does not contain that. It also does not contain the original recommendation of the Planning Department, which recommended denial of the entire application, and did mo in quite strong language. That recommendation for denial has, in fact, been removed from that folder. For what reason, I do not know, but if we are looking for a complete record, we do not have it, and I think that is crucial. Mr. Plummer' Well, I think that at this particular point, I em trying to clarify the disclosure, and as such, if this matter is beard today, Mr. Bliss has no standing before this Commission. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT CN32B2D INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.) Mr, Plummer; Mn, I am just saying that our files say that the owner of record is someone other than yourself, and as such, you cannot speak on behalf of that piece of propertX. Mr. 8Iimo; My memory was that I signed on affidavit - Mr. Traurig, had me sign it, and be brought it over and gave it to the Clerk that evening - early evening. I know I signed it that evening. Ms. Cooper; Mr. Vice -Mayor, I believe that the ordinance does not read that he does not have standing , but it reeds that the request or petition shall not be considered to be complete, or in proper form for consideration by the City Commission, or any City Board, and therefore, it is not that Mr. Bliss doesn't have standing, but that this matter cannot be heard today. Mr. Plummer: Not as a property uwner, is what I was getting at. He has a right - anybody has e right to speak before the Commission, but as far as e property owner, be cannot speak. Mr. Cooper: I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. 7 believe that the language used, that the entire application is then improper and cannot he considered by the Commission today. Mr, Plummer: Okay! All I want to go is get the legalities straightened out. Mr. City Attorney, I oak for your ruling on the matter, sir. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: The question is whether the Gentlemen could speak? Mr. Plummer: No, is this application properly before us? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: There is a disclosure form, and it is on record, and you can proceed on this application, based upon the fact that there is a disclosure form. Now, if that disclosure form is... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Bliss has indicated that the disclosure form that is there is not correct. He is the owner of Lot 4. Mr. Dawkins: You know, let me ask the City Attorney a question. I went through this for five months with Jmcarml, and evorytime it was because the form was not correct, and they didn't bomw who owned it, and 30 it had to go back. Now, you know, like I soy, this Commission, it bas...I don't know, we are so wishy-washy - flip-flop, flip~flop. Now that time, it the disclosure form was not accurate and on Id 96 10/27/83 time. it could not be heard. And now, Mr. City Attorney, you tell me, that if it is in the folder, whether it is incorrect or not, it can be heordl Now, which is correct? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Commissioner, I don't know if there is an acknowledgment by the Cacuea, Inc. representative, if that is the case. In the JeoarnI case, there was that acknowledgment by the property owner that the form was incorrect, and what I don't want to do is put the Commission in a position, in essence to have o evidentiary hearing on the matter. So, if there is a recognition, or an acknowledgment that the form is wrong" than I think you are right,, we cannot consider it. Mayor Ferre/ Look, it is either or or, okay? If it isn't 8lboe, it is Corona, is that right? And if it is not Corona, it is Bliss. So, whet are we talking about? Mr, Dawkins: Because we said up here, that if it was not filed correctly, and the ownership was not spelled mut, we would not hear it. You all took me through that for five monthol This Commission took me and the JacmruI through this kind of thing for five months, Mayor Ferre: Okay, now Miller, I understand, and I respect your position, but the difference here is that in Jaoerol, we never had a clarification as to who owned the property. Now, in this particular issue, there is no question that either Bliss or Corona, either/or own the property. Mr. Dawkins: I respectfully respeot you and Mr. Iraurlg and all, but I guarantee you that if Jecorol had had Mr. Truurig, they wouldn't have had e problem. Mr, Trourig: May I clarify something, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Bliss advises me that the ownership of Lot 4 is just in his personal name. If it is, be doesn't have to file e disclosure form. Mr, Plummer: Yes, be does, as sole owner. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That is true. Mayor Ferre: See, the whole question of JauaroI was the question of ownership, as to who owned the property, which was never clarified. Harm, that problem doesn't exist. Mr. Plummer: Bob, let me tell you something, and Alan, okay? I know what the story is, but I know the record is wrong, and I am not going to sit through this bearing and have somebody pull a technicality later and have to go through this hearing again, and that is mbst happened. All I am saying to you is, before we proceed, if we are going to proceed, let's get the record riQbtl Mayor Ferre: Okay, Qn sign the document, wherever it is. He has to have a document saying ... where is this form? Does anybody have a copy of the form? Go sign the document. Mu. Cooper: Mr. Mayor, if we cannot delay the project any by having the first hearing on the 16th and the second on the 18th and have the time to straighten this out, can we conclude the matter that way and have the opportunity to not mud sling and try to resolve this matter in a fair and easy solution. Mayor Ferre: That is fine, if the three owners are willing to do that. If they are not, then we proceed. 97 10/27/83 Ms. Cooper: I will caution the owners that this is not the only technical difficulty with the application, and... Mayor Ferre: Hold on Janet, because you are not listening. Bob, I want to you listen to what Janet is saying. She wants to continue this to hear on the 16th on the 18th. Now, if everybody is in unanimous agreement to do that, I've got no problems. But, other wise, we are going to hear it now. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Corona wants it heard today, sir: Mayor Ferre: I am for that, unless we can get unanimity..if you can get everybody together, than fine, otherwise we will have to go through the whole process. Mr. Traurig: So that this Commission will understand about the original disclosure form, Mr. Corona has again advised me that what happened is that subsequent to the original disclosure form, the Court entered an order which changed the ownership. There wasn't a transfer of ownership. It was not a voluntary thing on his behalf, and what happened is, that Mr. Bliss became the owner as a result of those court rulings and he has ... did you just sign a form? Mr. Dawkins: No, it is no problem. Just like you say, he can go right over there and sign it, but let the record speak - be up to date and correct. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Bliss, have you gone over and sign the paper so we can see it? Mr. Dawkins: They have gone over to get one. They have to produce one. Mayor Ferre: Okay, in the meantime, Janet I guess you may as well get going with the presentations, so do you want to start? Ms. Cooper: No, sir. I am going to do everything I can to keep my presentation as minimal as possible in an effort to retain the opportunity to solve this on an amicable basis, because if I make my full presentation, the feelings between the parties will not be the same and the attitude of the Commission, I expect will be different and the legal position will certainly be different on technical issues. I am really trying hard and I am asking all the parties here to please make the minimum presentation that they can to preserve their rights, so that we can retain the atmosphere necessary in order to solve this problem, because this problem will not end at this Commission if it is not solved to the satisfaction of the people. Mayor Ferre: All right, who wishes to make the next statement? Mr. Carollo: Do we have the ownership question clear? Mayor Ferre: Yes. Mr. Carollo: Is it clear for you, Janet? Ms. Cooper: With regard to those issues that have already been raised. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Bliss is going to sign the proper document stating that he is the owner of record this time. What occured was is that the courts entered - it started out one way and it ended up the other because of court action and Mr. Bliss ended up again being the owner. 98 10127153 Mr. Plummer: And Mr. Corona stipulates that is true. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Corona and Mr. Trauri8, for your client, did Mr. Corona stipulate that what Nr. Bliss is saying is so? Nr. TrauriQ: That he is the present owner of the property, as a result of that court action? Mayor Ferre: Yea, Mr. Traur1g: The answer is yea. Mayor Ferre: All right, now, are we ready to proceed? Go right ahead. Mr. Trauri8: Mr, Mayor, you have heard this matter twice. We made a presentation which acknowledged that the property which was the subject of this hearing really fell into more than one locational nstegury. We acknowledge that the property that was fronting on 14tb Street really was e bit different than the Property fronting on 8axb re Drive, that being Mr. Bliss' property. The presentation that was made said to you beeioaIIY that all we want to do with the Babylon property is to convert so that it is partially residential and partially office. In view of the fact that it is not really marketable as a residential building, and because the Sunshine State Bank and its affiliates wanted to use the snonud floor of the building for some banking operations, yIuo,s above that for some executive offices and the top floor for residential purposem, it was suggested in these chambers that that was a proper utilization of the property; however, there were some concerns on the part of Mm. Cooper and others regarding traffic and water and sewer, etc. We would like this Commission to know that in the event you approve this application, there will be o lower demand for water and sewer service in this area, because offices require Ipam utilization of those utilities and the consumption rates are lower. With regards to the traffic, we indicated that we would control the traffic through signage, etc., and that we would direct our traffic onto 14th Street and westward on 14th Street, and not through the BaYsbore Drive community. We pointed out also, and this is as to Lot 5, that we were prepared to give to this Commission, and we have a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant in which we confirmed everything that we said,d that is, that the building presently on the property shall be preserved and not be structurally modified, except as is necessary, both internally, and externally to convert the structure into a building with a combination of office and residential usage. and that building may be used for any use permitted in the SPI -5 classification, except that the top floor shall contain residential uses only. By doing that, what we were saying basically, is that if you rezone this property from the RG -3.7 to RO-3.7, we would utilize it partially for residential, and partially for offices, but not exceed the development potential of an RG -3.7 site, and that we would preserve it in that manner. That was suggested by members of this Commission, I believe. It was confirmed by private conversation and by some public statements made by Ms. Cooper and others, and we proceeded to try to work out the RO-3-7- 1 have had a number of discussions with both public officials and with the private individuals involved, and we submit to you that that is a reasonable solution. We don't need on Lot 5, the SPI -5, which I think Janet rightly pointed out, would give us an excess development potential which would have been inimical to the interests of the residential condominium owners along the Bayshore Drive corridor, so we urge you to rezone this property to the RO-3.7, the result of which would be, that 99 10/27/83 6 0 we will not be doing anything other than changing the uses of the property so that a portion of the building could be used for offices, primarily for a banking headquarters. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, statements by Mr. Bliss? All right, Counselor, you are next. Mr. Richard Friend: For the record, my name is Richard Friend, Attorney, with offices at 800 Brickell Avenue. I concur with what Mr. Traurig has said concerning his client's Lot 5, and I wish the record to be clear that his remarks are confined to Lot 5. 1 think there is very little that we need add to what Mr. Whipple informed us about earlier. I think that if you note from some of the aerial photographs that we have over here, you can see that the area itself is not, in terms of the property that we are concerned with, is not residential, clearly. Also, if you note from the colored maps, this is the blue area, with the exception of this, which is the Babylon, is the existing SPI -5 zoning area. This area in here is the area in which there was a confirmation this morning, as Item 6, that it is not SPI -5. The results of what we have asked for in terms of SPI -5 for the lots in which I am concerned, would, I believe, create a more natural demarcation between the SPI -5 and the RG -3.7, because of the fact that the entire area over here is all SPI -5. The leaving the area in which we are concerned in anything less than that creates a pocket, which in inappropriate for the uses that are natural for this area and given the way developments are now, being put on the drawing board, I think it is a natural that this area be SPI -5. I think you can see also with this aerial photograph, the yellow dotted lines, with the exception of this area, which is the property of which I speak. This is all SPI -5. By putting this diagonal line through here, to smooth out and create a more natural demarcation, I believe that the property will be more appropriately utilized for its best usage. Any questions? Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Bliss? Mr. Alan Bliss: My name is Alan Bliss. I reside at 1102 S. E. Bayshore Drive. The picture that shows the property there shows the Commodore Club facing Mr. Helmsly's large property of five to seven acres, I believe, and as far as waterfront, it is this small section of water between the two properties, but we, as much as anybody else are no more waterfront than Mr. Helmsly's property is, which is commercial. What I have left on your desk is a letter from Paul Thompson of Dade Heritage. They haven't had time to really have a board meeting. He explains that he thinks that the building is a very important building, and it should be saved. Last Sunday I spent less than an hour and got a petition signed by the ten units next store in Brickell Bay Towers, which is the building that most concerns our property, as their building is 300 foot long and 130 foot high, and anything on the other side of it doesn't have much view of the club or anything else. The traffic is another story. We have less than half an acre, approximately one-half an acre, and the traffic that is going to be developed by Mr. Helmsly's 6,000 or 7,000 square feet, and the property on Lots 6, 7, and 8 is going to be so massive compared to what we would generate that the traffic is not a problem with the club. What I hope to do, if it is rezoned office, and the SPI -5 is way higher than what can possibly be built on a half acre, I think the number three is higher than we can get on that land with the odd shape lot, is to preserve the facade of the club, the back section of the club be removed, and office building built where that the entrance of the Club is the entrance into the ME 10/27/83 0 office building. The short drawing I have there is not apropos to height. We have no idea what we can get until we can get a much smaller building on the last half of the lot with a narrow lot and we obviously can if we had the full lot, which a condo developer would do and take the club down. There is also a letter from the gentlemen that came the last meeting and spent all day and was here this morning _ that had to leave. He wanted me to read it. It is from Kenneth Pagano. He says: "My concern in writing this is that we must save some of the old buildings in Miami's past that are being torn down to make ways for high-rise monstrosities. The present Commodore Club, built by on Point View and fondly called Millionaire's Row is the last of the homes built on that plot and should be saved if possible. There was a woman in New Orleans............ that fought the powers that be to save the French Quarter and won. If she had lost, there would be no French Quarter, and that would be a tragic loss. Think for the future, and not just today. Most everything gives way. The Douglas Entrance in Coral Gables was saved by the skin of its teeth because of a few concerned people who fought for it. The Commodore has gotten awards from the Dade Heritage Trust at the same time as did Viscaya and the Douglas Entrance in Coral Gables. When we lose touch with the past, we lose our sense of direction. Once lost is lost forever." .... Kenneth Pagano. If that remains high-rise condo, there is no question that a developer will move to the front of the lot for several reasons. One, the lot is wider there. He can get a bigger project on there. Right now, Brickell Bay Towers, at 10:00 o'clock the other morning, the shadow cast by Brickell Bay Towers covered the entire back two-thirds of the Commodore property. Nobody is going to want to build with the Commodore - a residential area where there is going to be 1 shade all during the winter months, cool for even a residential area. I don't believe that that half acre can possibly over -shadow an area that is as I say, is 300 foot long, and 130 feet high, and that towers over the small Commodore Club there. But offices... right now, the only way ... if we could get a party in there that would keep it as a private club, we would do so, but I think that right now our only change of saving the building is as office and club combination. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: For the record, Mr. Mayor, I am handed a disclosure form that has been filed previously by Mr. Bliss. Unfortunately, it was filed with the Clerk and there was no copy made available to the Department. Obviously that is where the faux pas was. There is a disclosure form showing Mr. Bliss as the owner, so let the record stand corrected. Mr. McKnight. Mr. Robert McKnight: Thank you, Mr. Vice -Mayor and members of the Commission. My name, for the record, is Robert McKnight. I am an office of Planned Development Corporation. We own property immediately adjacent to the property before you. Mr. Vice -Mayor, I would like to start out by going back to a point, I believe Commissioner Carollo brought up in discussions with Ms. Cooper. You may recall Ms. Cooper, in addition to raising the question regarding the ownership, also raised the question that frankly I didn't know about until she brought it up, and I would like a ruling, if the Chair is willing to seek it, on the asser- tion that the file is incomplete, in that Ms. Cooper indicated that a critique by the Planning Department, a ld 101 10/271$3 office building. The ghort drawing I have there is not apropos to height. We have no idea what we can get until we can get m much smaller building on the last half of the lot with a narrow lot and we obviously can if we had the full lot` which e condo developer would do and take the club down. There in also a letter from the gentlemen that came the last meeting and spent all day and was here this morning that had to leave. He wanted me to read it. It is from Kenneth Pagano. He says: "My concern in writing this is that we must aovo some of the old buildings in Miami's post that are being torn down to make ways for high-rise monstrosities. The present Commodore Club, built by on Point View and fondly called Millionaire's Row is the lost of the homes built on that plot and should be saved if possible. There was a woman in New Orleans ............ that fought the powers that be to save the French Quarter and won. If she had lost, there would he no French Quarter, and that would he a tragic loos. Think for the future, and not just today. Most everything gives way. The Douglas Entrance in Coral Gables was saved by the skin of its teeth because of a yew concerned people who fought for it. The Commodore has gotten awards from the Dade Heritage Trust at the same time as did Visceya and the Douglas Entrance in Coral Gables. When we lose touch with the post, we Iuue our sense of direction. Once lost is lost forever.» .... Kenneth Pagano. If that remains high-rise condo, there is no question that a developer will move to the front of the lot for several reasons. One, the lot is wider there. He can get a bigger project on there. Right now, Briokell Bay Towers, at 10:00 o'clock the other morning, the shadow cast by 8rzrkelI Bay Towers covered the entire back two-thirds of the Commodore property. Nobody is going to want to build with the Commodore - e residential area where there is going to be shade all during the winter months, cool for even a residential area. I don't believe that that half acre can possibly over -shadow an area that is as I aey' is 900 foot long, and 130 feet high, and that towers over the small Commodore Club there. But offices—right now, the only way ... if we could get e party in there that would keep it as a private oIuh, we would du so, but I think that right now our only change of saving the building is as office and club combination. Thank you. Mr, Plummer: For the record, Nr. Mayor, I am banded a disclosure form that has been filed previously by Mr. Bliss. Unfortunately, it was filed with the Clerk and there was no copy made available to the Department. Obviously that is where the faux pas was. There is m disclosure form showing Nr. Bliss as the owner, so let the record stand corrected. Mr. McKnight. Nr. Robert McKnight: Thank you, Mr. Vice -Mayor and members of the Commission. My name, for the record, is Robert McKnight. J am an office of Planned Development Corporation. we own property immediately adjacent to the property before you. Mr. Vice -Mayor, I would lime to start out by goingback to a point,I believe Commissioner Carollo brought up in discussions with Na. Couper. You may recall Ms. Cooper, in addition to raising the question regarding the ownership, also raised the question that frankly I didn't know about until she brought it up, and I would like m ruling, if the Chair is willing to seek it, on the asser- tion that the filo is incomplete, in that Ms. Cooper indicated that m critique by the Planning Department, s ld 101 10/27/83 0 review of this application, is in fact, missing. Once again, Mr. Traurig made it clear that this has been before us before and my question, respectfully, Mr. Vice -Mayor, is if in fact, you can have this before you for consideration, if some of the file is incomplete. Perhaps the Planning Department can confirm the incompleteness - a suggestion. _ Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney is asked for a ruling. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, Mr. Vice -Mayor, I don't know that the file is incomplete, but I think the answer to the question is yes. Normally, you don't get the Planning Department file anyway. It is available, but it is not fully reproduced in the package. You could not possibly have everything the Planning Department gets, or you would have a packet that reaches to that ceiling on some of these applications. Mr. Plummer: Then you are ruling that it is legally before US. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Does that answer your question? Mr. McKnight: All right, Mr. Vice -Mayor, Just following... yes, it does, and I thank you, and Mr. City Attorney, I thank you for your ruling. Mr. Vice -Mayor, again for clarification before my remarks... Mr. Plummer: Excuse, me. I am sorry, were you asking a question? Mr. McKnight: Yes, sir, I am. Mr. Plummer: And that question again? Mr. McKnight: Okay, I will repeat it. I really did not have a chance to place it. Again, on this same point, which I think is fairly serious, before I get to my remarks - Ms. Cooper made the point the application you have in front of you, if you will look at once again what the staff has provided you, and Mr. Whipple made a very appropriate presentation, suggesting now that the Planning Department is suggesting concurrence. Mr. Plummer: Partially. Mr.. McKnight: Partially, thank you. Ms. Cooper made the point on a previous occasion ... the Planning Department, in fact, proposed totally, and that consideration of this application is missing, and I would just like to ask the Planning Department if they might take the microphone and either confirm or correct that particular assertion. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Whipple? For the record. Mr. Whipple: What has been indicated is correct. The Department did have a recommendation for denial going into the hearing probably back in December when the application was first filed. In between that time, certain information came to our attention, and we reviewed our posture on it, and rethought our position, and did change our recommendation for the later hearings I believe, on into July, whenever it came up at that point. There is about a six month gap. During that gap, we had discussed with the applicant the ability to save the building and to find out a little more what was intended to be done with the property, which we had not been privy to that information earlier. So yes, there was that change. Id 102 10/27183 0 0 Ms. Cooper: If I may address that issue briefly. That is correct, as far as the fact that there was a change in the recommendation. I think that when such a situation occurs, that it is only fair that the fact sheet that is presented to the Commission should indicate the initial recommendation and then the change with perhaps an explanation for the change. That was not done. In addition, I would like to certify that within the last...that this week I inspected the files in the Planning Department Administration office, that it did not contain the recommendation of denial on the fact sheet or in anything separate, any separate documents that... Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: This is a recommendation that was dated... Ms. Cooper: ... this creates an incomplete application in which if Mr. McKnight or someone else had gone to look at the application would not be fully apprised of it and I believe that it is significant that it is out of the file. I believe that it is significant that it was not presented to you. Mr. Plummer: Mr. City Attorney, I am just going for clarification to ask you once again. Ms. Cooper has indicated she feels there is a significant omission. Does it have a bearing on this application as it stands before us today? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, it does not make it improper for you, for the Commission, that is, to consider and decide this matter, if that is responsive to your question. Mr. Plummer: I think it is. Mr. Whipple, did you want to say something, sir? Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir, just from memory, Mr. Vice -Mayor, the procedure that we usually use, if in fact it has been subject to a public hearing and to scrutiny, then fine, it is part of the file. To my recollection, because of having this pulled off the agenda for short Board, it would be normal for us to just replace it. Otherwise, we would do as Ms. Cooper has suggested, we would revise a fact sheet if it had been subject to that public hearing. Mr. Plummer: Senator McKnight? Mr. McKnight: Yes, Mr. Vice -Mayor, that clarifies_ it. I think as long as the Commission is aware that the data that you have before you, at least at this time, is in fact somewhat incomplete. Once again, I respect the wisdom of the Commission. Mr. Vice -Mayor and members of the Commission, let me make comments and remarks very brief. First of all, I would like to say, as an adjacent property owner, we were not noticed regarding this consideration. I have checked with the Clerk. It does reflect a mailing to us, and I will therefore assume that there was some kind of an administrative error, but I will repeat again, a very substantial property owner was not noticed on this matter, nor have we been consulted regarding this entire matter until yesterday, as a matter of fact. Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission, let me remark as follows - first of all, I would remind you, if you review the data in front of you, this very same application that Mr. Traurig indicated to you, was opposed to, and as a matter of fact, as the Mayor read in the record, there was 32 opponents to this consideration at the time; only 4 proponents. The Zoning Board also denied it. I would want to remind you of Mr. Traurig's remarks and I believe if I understood Mr. Bliss correctly, both of those applicants, Mr. Bliss, and ld 103 10127183 Mr, Traurig, representing his client, are suggesting a more moderate floor area ratio than that being aumxeetro by Mr. Friend. For some reason, I have the impression that you in turn might have the impression that all the parties are asking for the same thing. In fact, that is not the case and in fact, e a minimum, we would vigorously oppose the application of Mr. Friend to triple the zoning in e residential area, and then open it up for commercial development, and and I will continue my remarks in just a second on that point. I am repeating again, least you think all of the these applicants in front of you are all in agreement asking for the same thing, they are nut! There is only one asking for a tripling of the zoning, and at a minimum, I certainly would vigorously oppose that for the reasons I would like to identify in just a second. First of all, this area, identified in, as Mr. Whipple did, has clearly been residential. I found o remarks of Mr. Friend curious, and perhaps almost comical, suggesting that the boundary line, a more natural demarcation point, would Just curiously curve right around the property that apparently his client is seeking to acquire under on option. Gentlemen of the Commission, this boundary has been in place for some time/ and I mould invite your consideration to your local government comprehensive plan. I had something to do originally with drafting this in the Legislature in 1975. If you look at that guideline, and I vent to again refresh your memory, because in the times I have been down here working with your Planning Department, and a fine one, I might add, they have been very consistent in trying to stay within this boundary, that you, the distinguished members of the Commission originally met up. I you look at the bounda- ries, it doesn't curiously circumvent around the property that Mr. Friend's client is seeking a rezoning of, but in fact, it is the same residential zoning that has been there for some time. I would read to you and invite your consideration of the actual language of the comprehensive plan, which once again has been adopted by this Commioaiun. The purpose of the comprehensive plan, which has identified all that area as residential zoning, is to provide an official guide to future development in the City of Miami, and 3 quote the State Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 regards the plan be adopted by July I, 1971, and quote "No public or private development shall be permitted except in conformity with comprehensive plans or elements or portions thereof" ... and Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I realize this is not sacrosanct. I realize there are circumstances and instances where you might want to consider alternatives to the requirements of the comprehensive plan and in turn, your zoning. But, I will remind you again, you have got one applicant of these three before you that are simply seeking to triple the zoning and convert it essentially to a commercial area. Again, it seems that Mr. Bliss and Mr. corona are suggesting alternative, or compromise, which perhaps would be acceptable and as adjacent property owners, we would be very happy to work with them. I would remind you, Mr. Mayor, and Commissioners, that therm has got to he a line where you finally draw the line and establish a zoning criteria. For you to propose today to triple the zoning... Mayor Ferre: Does that mean, Senator, once you get yours, you want to pull the ladder out behind you? Mr. McKnight: Mr. Mayor, I spent o great deal of time working with you, your colleagues and the members of your Department on trying to come up with a compromise on the original zoning for Bricbell Avenue and although it wasn't everything we wanted, we.. Mayor Ferre: That was meant in jest, 8enet6r. ld 104 10/27/83 0 Mr. McKnight: Okay, well, I appreciate your comment, but I feel very strongly about the point - I am not so sure what Mr. Traurig and Mr. Bliss are proposing to you is that incompatible. We have a favored a more realistic density, but I think really that sandwiched right in the middle of a residential area, a tripling of the zoning, the floor area ratio, is a bit out of the question. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. _ Mayor Ferre: All right, sir. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, for the record, I did make an incorrect statement earlier, which was pointed out to me. In fact, the previous recommendation was subject to a review by the Zoning Board prior to its deferral. Mayor Ferre: All right. Mr. Whipple: I stand corrected on that. Mayor Ferre: All right, Janet, now it is your turn at bat. Ms. Cooper: I am going to bunt! Is that the right word? Mayor Ferre: Yes, that's the right word. Ms. Cooper: First of all, I would like to remind this Commission that I represent the Point View Association, which consists of approximately 1,000 residential units in this area, many of which have been there over 20 years. There are probably some 1,500 people. Great numbers of them were here in July. I think you remember them sitting in the audience with little yellow signs saying that they should keep Point View residential and you see only one gentlemen here today - Bernard Kopel, who is the acting president of the Point View Association... Mayor Ferre: Mr. Kopec can represent 1,000 of them very well. Ms. Cooper: We asked him not to be here because we thought everything was resolved. Also, in July I presented to you a number of pages containing 246 signatures of residents of this area who were opposed to any office or commercial intrusion into the residential area. Today I submit to Mr. Ongie for inclusion in the record 7 additional pages containing an additional 98 signatures. There are more that were not brought here today because we did not think we would be going to be making this presentation. You should be aware that the original recommendation of the Planning Department was for denial and I am quoting from the Zoning fact sheet which is missing from the official files, but which luckily, I had in my file, which says their recommendation for denial of the entire application was based on the following reasons: 1. That change would constitute an encroachment into the stable high density multiple residential area, creating a precedent for further rezoning. 2. The change would be in conflict with the adopted City Comprehensive Plans for the Brickell area which was what Mr. McKnight was emphasizing. 3. The change would adversely influence living conditions in the residential neighborhood, since the intensity of development is higher and the traffic congestion will increase even more along S. E. 14th Street, and we would like to add that it would also increase significantly on South Bayshore Drive. 4. The change is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood and the City, since there is Id 105 14/27183 sufficient land all along Brickell Avenue zoned RCB, now SPI -5 5, With regard to the traffic, Mr. Campbell didn't have his opportunity to make the Planning Department's recommendation before you and I would ask that you ask him to do so. Would you like him to do mu now? Mr. Campbell? Mr. George Campbell: When this came up before the Zoning Board, we made certain recommendations and I will read from the recommendations that we made. This, by the way, was for e full SPI -5 on this on that whole property. "This will contribute to a portion of our sewer system, which is already designated "overloaded" by the SPI -5. This change will further overload this system. It may have a detrimental effect on downstream trunk maina, which have survived the initial SPI district impact." They go on to say "If this is considered as o trend spreading suuth along Bayshore Drive, it will have an overloading effect on the 18 inch interceptor on Bayshore. He have since this time requested that the Department of Nater and Sewers investigate both by visually or pulling manhole covers at various times of day' and installing plow meters to check and nee just where this is. When we say it is designated overloaded, this is based on design criteria for the mime of pipes and the size of buildings and the contributions from the various buildings. As we have stated before, we are quite concerned and we are of the considered opinion that when we achieve buildout in the area generally, this SPI -5, that we will have e situation on our hands which will require rebuilding of all the sewers, at least north of 14th Street in order to accommodate the zoning. Mayor Ferre: Okay, Janet, do you want to,,. Mm. Cooper: At a previous meeting, Mr. Campbell also referred to traffic being ... well, he said that it would have a seriously adverse impact on traffic in this residential neighborhood. Basically, at this hearing, I am going to reserve the right to raise many of the issues that I am not going to raise now. It is important for you to know that the people in Point View are opposed to commercial and office use in their area for valid and significant reasons because we didn't have a vary strong presentation and in the effort to preserve the opportunity to resolvethis in a manner that is satisfactory to everybody. I em going to leave it at that. I em going to attempt to resolve the matter and come book to you at the next hearing with o solution that pleases everyone. If we can't du that, we will be here for a little longer next time. Mayor Ferre: I want to say into the record, so that the 3 different groups will be so advised, that I plan to follow the good advice and offices of Janet Cooper, and I think I speak mostly, sir, to you, because I don't think there is any problem with either or Mr. Bliss, even though he problem with Bliss is with the Department, and I don't think there is any problem with Mr. Trourig, because since he hes on existing building, he could live with a little bit less. The problem is with your clients in the tripling of the size and their 3 subscribe to what Senator McKnight, so I just want to say that I realize the direction this is taking, I know what Janet is talking about, and % am just on the record implying to you where I stand as of right now. Now that doesn't mean that ... this can all change as we move along, but that is just one man's opinion. Mr. Friend: If I may address your last remark. ld 106 10/27/83 Mayor Ferre: Yeo. air. Mr. Friend: Prior to our discussion this afternoon, and based upon our conversations of last evening, we had (3 of us) had expected today's hearing today to be rather brief and we would have all requested e favorable vote pending our working out a solution, if that would be acceptable to all parties, prior prinr tn the Second Reading. It is still my expectation on behalf of my oIient, that we will continue to attempt to work out some type of compromise, which will accommodate the needs of Ma. Cooper's clients. From my viewpoint, the reason that we got into some detail over this was the unexpected opposition of Senator McKnight. That came as a surprise, I think, to the three of us. I would like to request that the petition be voted upon favorably, pending our working out a compromise prior to the Second Reading reading, and we will be working in that period to accomplish that compromise. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. McKnight, and I think this gentlemen wanted to say something. Mr. McKnight: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, for the record, I appreciate the willingness of Mr. Friend to try to work something out. For the record, he approached me before this meeting and asking me not to object to this, so it was not actually a surprise until I found out about it yesterday, but in any event, Mr. Mayor, I would suggest in the interest of fairness, and o compromise, I believe all the applicants, except for Mr. Friend, are proponents, of RO~3.7, if I have the designation oorreotly. That is a more modest zoning, that is one I believe Mr. Bliss and Mr. IrauriB favor, and Mr. Mayor, I believe that is where you are angling... Mayor Farre: 8O ... what? Mr. McKnight: Mr. TrouriQ, help me with the designation. � (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENT) « Mr, McKnight: 80-3.7and Z think we could probably work together as adjacent property owners, so I would respectfully suggest, Mr. Mayor, that the application before you be amended to reflect that, and then if Mr. Friend has Mayor Ferre: On First Reading, can ... All right, Mr, Attorney. Department - who is listening from the Department? Mr. McManus, are you going to answer for us? Ms. Cooper: While you are waiting for them ... Mayor Ferre: No, wait a moment. Will somebody from the Department listen, please? Can we, on First Reading of m matter that was voted down three to two, recommended denial by a Zoning Board, change, under Ordinance 9508, Atlas Change from RG -3.7, instead of going into SPI -5, to go to RU -3.7. That is a question. 0r. Joe McManus: I think the interpretation would be that you are then going to more restrictive zoning district, so that would be within the bounds of whet the Commission could do. Mayor Ferre: In other words, the answer is that this Commission can legally do that on First Reading. Mr, womanua: Yea. ld 107 10/27/83 Mayor Ferre: Is that correct? Mr. City Attorney, you have already said into the record the answer is yes. I assume you subscribe to that? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa; Yes, sir. I think you could do that on Second Reading. Mr. McKnight: That leaves all the options open, Nr. Mayor, and I thinh.,. Mayor Ferre: Wait u minute. You said on Second Reeding. Why can't we do it on First Reading? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I am saying you can do it on both. It is a less restrictive form of re0uletion, au there is no problem with it legally. Mr. McKnight: I thinb.,, Mayor Ferre: Wait s minute, because you are not an applicant. Mr. Bliss, you don't have any problems with that, because that covers you. All right, into the record, Mr. Bliss. Mr. Bliss: I have no problem with that. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Irourig, you have no problem with that, because that covers your client. Mr. T ri That is what we ourselves have indicated we would accept. Mayor Ferre: Okay, Mr. Friend, You do have a problem with that, because that doesn't cover what your clients went. Mr. Friend: That is correct. l do have a problem with that. Mayor Ferro: Okay, just want to get it into the record. Mr. Friend: If I might add one additional point, l believe that if you vote in favor at the First Reading for the downgraded zoning, it would preclude that anything better, at a higher zoning density at the Second Reeding. Mayor Ferre: That is correct. Is that right, Hr. City Attorney? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: I am sorry Mr, Mayor? Mayor Ferre; Mr, Friend said if You vote now for R0-3.7, you cannot on Second Reading then go back to SPI -5. You can go down, but you can't go up, Nr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Well, it is u mutter of advertinioQ. That would be true, but if You were to advertise as SPI -5... Mayor Ferre: Now that the motion is made.,, Mr. Plummer: Nbot was the motion? Mayor Ferre: There hasn't been any yet...om BO -3.7, which is what % think is what Janet wants. Mr. Cooper: Mr. Mayor, l know that you are going to be awfully shucked, and Z am really shocked, and Z don't ` believe it when I hear it coming out of my own mouth, but in order to preserve the flexibility that we need to try to resolve this matter in the manner which I think will be pleasing to everyone, and because Mr. Trmurig and because ld 108 10/27/83 Mr. Bliss have agreed that the would at the Second Reading as well as the First Reading accept Rn -3.7 on their property, give us the flexibility, approve it on First Reading for the purposes of giving us the time to try to negotiate this out as best as possible with an DPI -5 on all of the property. I know it is shocking and I am having pains in my chest as I stand here saying this/ but it is necessary, and end Iet me give you a brief insight. We are trying to work out something where the Commodore... Mayor Ferre; Now, Janet, you are talking now for the 1,000 members of the Association. Mo. Cooper: Yeo, sir. Mayor Ferre: I just want to make sure I heard that one right. Mm. Cooper: We are attempting to work out a solution which will involve preservation of the Commodore Club, and in order to do that in the best way possible, we need some flexibility, so I am asking you just to give us the flexibility, Mayor Ferre: All right, is there a motion? Oh, I am sorry, sir. Mr, Eduardo Chamorro: My name is Eduardo Chamorro, 151 Crandon Boulevard. I am a registered architect in Florida. I want to express my strong opposition to the zoning of that property as SPI -5. I think it will he very obtrusive of the whole conformity of the area there. I represent the property owners on the half circle that was approved on second reading today. I just wont to express my opinion. Mayor Ferre: What half circle? What is he talking about? Hr. Chamorro: Lots in point View, 19 up to 23. V Mayor Ferre: Okay. Everybody wants to go to heaven, but ' nobody wants to die. All right, are we ready now to vote? Mr, Plummer; Excuse me, would you re -read the motion? Mayor Ferre; Nobody has made the motion, but if nobody will, I will make the motion that Item 31 be approved on First Reading, SPI -5, for Lots 5, 6° 7 and of 4, And what ... Y (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mayor Ferre: Is that right? Mr. Plummer; 4, 5, 6, ? Q and 30. Mayor Ferre: Are we in agreement with that?... 5, 8, ? B and 30? Mr. Plummer: There is m motion made. Mayor Ferre: Janet? 5" 6, T, 8 and 30? Vow did 30 get into this? Mr. Plummer: 30 is the back lot, Nr. Mayor. Ms. Cooper: What I am asking is what I originally asked for, is e "yes" vote on the whole thing in order that we may have the flexibility to negotiate. l4 109 /0/27/83 0 Mayor Ferre: Okay, U, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30. That is the motion. Mr. Plummer: Is there a second to the motion? Mr. Perez: Second. Mr. Plummer: Seconded by Commissioner Perez. Is there further discussion? Hearing none, read the ordinance. Now, Mr. City Attorney, you heard the motion? Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: It is as the motion reads, not as reduced. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: That is right. Mr. Plummer: Okay. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 185 SOUTHEAST 14TH TERRACE AND APPROXIMATELY 200 SOUTHEAST 14TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RG -317 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO SPI -5 BRICKELL-MIAMI RIVER RESIDENTIAL OFFICE DISTRICT; MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 37 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF, CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Mayor Ferre and seconded by 1 Commissioner Ferre and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr. 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 members of the public. ON ROLL CALL: Mayor Ferre: In voting, let me say into the record, that it is my full intention to vote "no" on Second Reading on the basis of SPI -5 and it is my intention to vote in favor of RO-3.7 and only that. I am doing this so that there will be full ability to negotiate between the parties to see if something can come out that will soothe all of the different parties, but it is my clear intention, and I want to repeat it, that I will not vote for, on Second Reading, SPI -5, but rather will vote for RO-3.7 for some, or all of these properties, and I reserve that right on Second Hearing, and I vote "yes". Mr. Dawkins: I am going to vote "yes" and reserve the right to change my mind for any reason. Id 110 10127183 jl�V_IWW^-~ 0 Mr. Ongie; For the record, Mr. CarolIn votes "nn". Nr. Plummer: I vote "no". We will see you bark on the 18th. Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa: So it is three to two? Mr. Plummer: Let mo make the record clear. I voted "no', for the simple reason that I don't concur with the higher density and back out later. I could have voted for a different motion today, and I definitely will on the Second Reading, but I am not,,. Mayor Ferre: You are talking about R0~3.7? Mr. Plummer: I'm in that neighborhood, correct, okay? All I went to say is that the *ay it was presented today, I could not vote for it. That puts them inside looking not. I want to be inside and let them look in. Mayor Ferre: Okay, so this keeps this whole thing alive until you come back then with a proposal on 18th for the Brickel% Avenue Association. Ms. Co Now, % would respectfully this is for Point View Association - I would respectfully request that in order that the people who are working can attend that hearing, that this hearing be set for some time after 6:00 P.M. Is that possible to du on the 18th? Thank you. Mayor Ferre: That is agreed. Mr. Manager's office at 6:00 P.M. Ms. Cooper: Thank you sir. ` \ Id 111 10/27/83 Attachment 4: Schedule of Regulations from Ord. 9500, Excerpted to the RO District. SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS MIAMI, FLORIDA "3ee Also Reguiali Ina in Ordinance Text, Particularly Article 20, General And Supplementary Regulations And Articles Or Sections Identifled Below. USES ANA SIRUCrURES ACCESSORYUSES- ACCREEORY USES LIMfrAT1ONR ON SIGNS AND STRUCTURES NGOGNa INTENDED'" BE READ DISTRIM PRINCIPAL USES AND WAUCTURES —Sr-11Y PF ue ORRI. BeG—ePPA S_ ER—DESIGNAnON AND EMDTED GENERALLY OR PERNISSIRLE BY SPECIAL FERMIS Sueenron 2009.Fw epttial pvmrte, YIDED RELOW WTENT rcuxsn µr•Ited, eee sectrav 2001. Pw epweai pxmin, xxe artiriro 23-28 aeeartm1a 23-28 ro 2025,2029. e"p °iww�µmwWda eeemrwva'.ww M.+avw wY a irerwe.w..a t. tww,aemarv+uawutv¢am nnw4 Mw�.rw.¢,.. mawnu Daae*✓..wpwa �twu,w.hAw va n+4nem�i u to w� A06�rtimw w w.ewaiwA a. r.e w.a iwu• a.....r e w •uew. ww wxuw wnrw wee»vwwea•<xrumax¢t Wi WeaeNn. mWav2'r•wea.wawee.rcanrcivvn m•nm ma ..w °M.mw. b.uv pvM4:si�<tiwa�w iwM e'.r+rve . m. rerM �,nwa �Uxwm r°reM mdmaN e.caww..,r u.vmr mvw.q... m�..ou..um dmaea �m+oo.ane,r,vmm.,wm am+v"•r .,y.�°Nn °m�� � r' ueroem3u,orerta .. .w wmmu.vr..u,r ¢. tY..Umn sons, rtaU.=mwrwn•m+otl Uand arena wnrow+odty .ee �w�um aAw�rr v�w ��� �� (avn, uavrmtntamwra.xxnvem ��0 4h5mu rv.mn mr wa•n�e ucaL awrmw ry�x"�q •'w n. en �yar ¢r'tl° V 1 tww a•uxmra+.•mamwMn aveµe..0 wx, t d�wbw�,m� u dm wu �aw� � wriwrw..o,enuA.+uonma..>mx 'waaveinawbuie, � row.«•i E® & rnh �mw•uduowi "'wiayem°�Lmuwe. rurr+waa vxN,ae. w•n main w.ei.arwew n.• tvr.m•m ea pwanmwai rmawa '., .m� ee �I�W ra w.��dxwwu�ia•W.uneom.e ', aiv rdiaxwc ¢.we Mnvaw.,yai.wwau:eunwauw,a '.,. wPu`�Mraun w�tl ',. t n•r.�d,gd°°e�enwuM i�nmx �� e'rw ®.arcm.n m..ue4ee,umwd ...d¢.bw.vwyvn.wrnvdu.nanuw mwama .wnewxwud mUmmwnu4°bviu aevwuwwmN3iw�n.4+�bv rxa u wee. rznae.,w.n!ayraeaaaaw..a rwa,.W ww.,Na*•W w.yea.m aa7,m � .e ,.e at•a�y� a m.n.n For SPI Districts See A-ticle 15 MINIMUM -1 MINIMUM OPEN SPACR REQUIRENENIS REQUI—mrs THAW—ANAL USES, AREA AND WIUTR W1nMOFYAR3915ro SCRVCPURSB AND &kaenioru tae-2w'f. x«aamr.2ao5- kNAx]MUMtar MDRMUM OFFerRERT COYERA4R C3ee aectbv 2005.10) PARKING REQUIREMENTS FLOOR AREA ilvnetLefY SPACE OR MA%IMUM RR&UfRRMRNrR LIWf.rIONS PRaE41'RiAN oeeN RFAEE RFdGRT UERBFERbDTTEDORNRRALLYOR action 201211RUR04YG 8PAe Euvxdav2a9—B . PRRMISEIRLRRY... IPSARD FWOR ARRA R5n09 t5en eevuon' t 1S .R. CR, 3m ar,b,u 20l'I-E02v.Fw oM4'aet bkNer Fm ryaial perw4em utuka 82-28. Bea eectivm2at't 3, 200011 Cbazter, Section SNSbt 2036,8018. ,vesuaetioru 2028, 2021, o iy mer a..ovwv • .cue e��un mNpv rgwfedx utwN0. wt'vunva «y mrmW���a .iraa.�a m.N vm V 10- ur°we«..nraA m,n, wvanua 'mmwdm-. wa. Mrou a �'r.n� wuA§nes � ��a v xb omeun otl ume aM mcx a,u •,, vxe�vexnw a,uu.e. mw .wuLia+�m..tiu � vwa ri w °x.�es��ni t Mnn bti cel, 4.iiaxNm ae dry w�amw •e"..dm �, a...•m.nu urMn �, erz. m.v we cmwvwuiu ase iii ot2'r so t,�`�;i".d m�`wM1giw lyse xa, m�,awrrrr. .wa.Asv.ta: , htdidwuvi. drmsawmew� r a • r xai.s v �arn wrM.eo mtc -- �—�ytymyt of venvunermerwnAt. Luke w. mwn.+wnn anatmwxon• w,a.!«fn mri ko. �>reax..m.n emyyv��N ��wNr+avecw dww�.wwr� e.v.nv .wauu TE • awrJ �+uvmw=W»� en ♦v I"Eit� ro�ww v wddewty a°==nP,a� to o W � � _.. _.. _ee.•te»�An aradkx ' °7,.r. pm .tl.o .a.. 'u'm�®h: ea.°'i`i°..,:a" e os ss a .�:M.�nr.a=�no.�.wxea a,,.kae...�°.e.•n..a,«n��.�.,.n.o«.P �.�m vwwn ..nmma N w..ew n im.a m.0 —0" " _ `•�\ ys. i•mµm -u®w, MwremiwAN m ,a q'J •» tm ca gat aM 0vo.w wv,W a _ _ _ ax _ .a ��mu.ao.wsx wrm�te.e.�m u4. k6pquw°vw4 _tt �berkn��.� unv�A•ia uwart ��m�tva4'mi%nda�nm� \ 8uyp.N21 da•.e.n,at...nur,ue0w 393 Attachment 5: J-83-651 11/30/83 Ordinance 9758, ORDINANCE NO 9758 Rezoning tot 5 in AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF 1983 ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 2, POINT VIEW (2-93) MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM RG -3/7 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO RO-3/6 BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 37 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO 9500, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. WHEREAS, the Motion of the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of July 11, 1983, Item No. 5, following an advertised hearing, to RECOMMEND DENIAL of a change of zoning classifica- tion, as hereinafter set forth, failed by a 3 to 2 vote, therefore constituting a RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL; and WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of this matter deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to grant this change of zoning classification as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Zoning Atlas of Ordinance No. 9500, the zoning ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification of Lot 5, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93) of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, from RG -3/7 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL to RO-3/6 RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE. Section 2. It is hereby found that this zoning classi- fication change; (a) Is in conformity with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; (b) Is not contrary to the established land use pattern; (c) Will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; (d) Is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City; (e) Would not materially alter the population density pattern or increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.; 11 -0 (f) Is necessary due to changed or changing conditions; (g) Will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; (h) Will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety; (i) Will not create a drainage problem; (j) Will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent area; (k) Will not adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; (1) Will not be a deterrent to the improvement or develop- ment of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations; (m) will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with protection of the public welfare; Section 3. Page No. 37 of the Zoning Atlas, made a part of Ordinance No. 9500 by reference and description in Article 3, Section 300 of said Ordinance, is hereby amended to reflect the changes made necessary by these amendments. Section 4. All ordinances, code sections, all parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed insofar as they are in conflict. Section 5. Should any part or provision of this Ordi- nance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole. PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 27th day of October 1983. PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this day of November F ST: G. ONGIE 1W RAAL R CiLty Clerk RAL G , 1983. PREPARED AND APPROVED BY; Maurice A. Ferre MAURICE A. FERRE, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS; Ir J".4 --11AA..— MIRIAM BE GARCIA-PR NAOSA Assistant City Attorney ity Attorney GMM/wpc/096 E CITY OF WAMI. FLORIDA 31'1 INTER -OFFICE NIENIORANOLIM E TOHoward V. Gary DAIIZ: July 15, 1983 : City Manager sUOJECT> ORDINANCE - RECOMMENDED DENIAL LAO CHANGE OF ZONING - ORD 9500 APPROX 185 SE 14 TERRACE AND APPROX 200 SE 14 STREET FPO;I"urelio E. Perez-Lugones - REFERENCES: Dil Planningrector and Zoning Boards COMMISSION AGENDA - JULY 280 1983 ja ENCLOSURM PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS Administration Denartment ■ It is recommended that a request for a Change of Zoning from RG -3/7 GENERML IltbIUMIAL to SPI -5 BRICKELL- MIAMI RIVER RESIDENTIAL OFFICE,DIS- TRICT in the Zoning Atlas of Zoning Ordinance 9500 for the property located at approximately 185 SE 14 Terrace and approximately ;wu at T4-ST—reet be denied. The Zoning Board, at its meeting of July 11, 1983, Item 5, following an advertised hearing, made a motion recommending denial of a change of zoning classification from RG -3/7 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL to SPI -5 BRICKELL-MIAMI RIVER RESIDENTIAL*OFFICE DISTRICT in the Zoning Atlas of Zoning Ordinance 9500, for the property located at approximately 185 SE 14 Terrace and approximately 200 SE 14 Street, also de- scribed as lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30 less the ES' of Lot 30, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93), which failed by. a 3 to 2 vote, therefore constituting a recommendation of denial. Twelve objections received in the mail, twenty opponents present at the meeting. Two replies in favor received in the mail; two proponents present at the meeting. Backup information is included for your review. An ORDINANCE to provide for the above has been prepared by the City Attorney's Office and submitted for consideration of the City Commission. GF:Ill cc: Law Department NOTE: Planning Department recommendation. APPROVAL of Lots 5, 6 and 7 DENIAL of Lot 4 * LOCATION/LEGAL ZONING REQUEST RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING DEPT. � ZONING FACT SHEET Approximately 185 SE 14th Terrace and Approximately 200 SE 14th Street Lot 4,5,6,7.8 and 30 less the'E 5' of lot 30 Block 2 POINT VIEW (2-93) Seap1ace Realty Investments, H.Y. c/o A.R. Scutt ' 100 Horth Biscayne Blvd. ` Miami, Florida Phone #37l-3592 ' ' Cucusa, Inc. c/o Ray Corona, President 6240 Sunset ~ '`~' u� Phone � G6�-6874 .—_-i,Florida _ Pointview Towers -of Curacao, Inc. c/o A.R. Scott ` 180 North Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida Phone #37l-3692 Gary Held (Attorney for Applicants) ^ 1401 8r cke|| Avenue Miami, Florida Phone @579-0609 R-5 (High Density Multiple)/ RG -3/7 (Residential General) Change of Zoning Classification to (Residential (Bri�kell-Miami River ' Residential -Office District). - ' APPROVAL OF LOTS S, G, 7 AND DENIAL OF LOT 4. /ne majority ots tace u /*rn xtreet and property which is zoned SPI -5. Lot 4 is the first lot facing the water and should be maintained residential with the rest of the sites facing the water along South Qayshore Drive, It is understood that the structure on Lot S will he retained with residential use in the upper portion and this will serve as a buffer between the residential and non- residential zoning districts. The existing residential area should he preserved to retain the concept of needed housing close into the downtown area. ' ^ PUBLIC WORKS This will contribute to a portion of our sewer ^ ^v^`w. already designated "overloaded" by (SPI-S). It will further overload this system. It may ' have a detrimental effect on downstream trunk mains which survived the initial SPI District. . If this is considered as a trend spreading south / along Vaysbore it will have an overloading effect ^ | on 18" Intercept in Bayshnre. _ ZONING BOARD At its meeting of July ||, 1983, made a motion to � recommend oenia| which failed by a 3 to 2 vote, there- � ' funa constituting a recommendation of denial. (Ord 6871) � At its meeting of July ll, 1983, made a motion to recommend denial which failed by 3 to 2 vote, there- ! . fnre constituting a recommendation of denial. (Ord 9500) ~� ` ,- ! ' .! ' � ' s APPROX.185 S.E. 14 TERR AND APPROX . 200 S.E. 14 ST. V� R -CB ®t ® �o ".', IVG.�iY R --CB RAo f r CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING DEPARTMENT N ZONING FACT SHEET LOCATION/LEGAL Approximately 185 SE 14th Terrace and Approximately 200 SE 14th Street Lot 4.5,6,7,8 and 30 less the E 51 of lot 30 Block 2 POINT VIEW (2-93) ,OWNER/APPLICANT Seaplace Realty Investments, N.V. c/oA.R. Scott 100 North Biscayne Blvd, Miami, Florida 'Phone 0 Andresix, N.V. c/o Ribero 51 SW 9th Street Miami, Florida Phone # Pointview Towers of Curacao, Inc. c/o A.R. Scott 100 North Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida Phone # Florence Robbins (Attorney for Applicants) 1401 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida Phone #579-0609 ZONING R-5 (High Density Multiple) REQUEST Change of Zoning Classification to R -CB (Residential -Office). RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING DEPT. DENIAL. Based on the following reasons: 1) the change would constitute an encroachment into the stable high density multiple residential area, creating a precedent for further rezoning, 2) The change would be in conflict with adopted City Comprehensive plans for the Brickell area; .3) The change will adversely Influence living conditions in the residential neighborhood, since the intensity of development is higher and the traffic congestion will increase even more along SE 14th Street; N 4) The change is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood and the city, since there Is sufficient land all along Brickell Avenue toned R -CB. PUBLIC WORKS No dedication is requested. SEE REVISED FACT SHEET SHOWING REVISED LIST OF OWNERAPPLICANTS SEE REVISED FACT SHEET SHOWING REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS AND ZONING BOARD ACTION. 4T� e6 APPROX. 185 S.E. 14 TERR AND APPROX. 200 S.E. 14 ST. R --CB k I CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING OEPARUMNT 'r.'`'r5°%XtYrtY'i reg:s•.«.�h>.s+c'4,.•..A+c•n,�c.5�wys7.a..crAv+,r... •.�-,•.:aa: r '���'aw�E'!i"S"'*fin�u`,�r'xR`s"3aas!.%iA%,iw1'.' . _ ..... it ;• .+ee� �. . �1M'i.*Oj�Nw•.!•F+a 4'W� �w�so.. WN...I�4 a�R.'•a?YNI� r`1: Ye •'•,•.!�C-.t �'}"�'.�1;; " �L,A/W OFFICES �iy^,y 1DW OUPW BUILDING t. j 7 • :? ".. i 169 EAST FLAMER STREET MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131.1701 (a raEPhVW Iii i i �.,`C` d�vi_2 • (305j379•f6d1 August 2, 1983 Mr. Ralph Ongie Clerk, City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Re: City Commission Meeting, July 28, 1983 Agenda Item Number 11: Ordinance - First Reading Application by Cucusa, Inc., Seapiace Realty Investments, N. V. and Point View Towers of Curacao, Inc. to Change the Zoning of approximately 185 S. E. 14 Terrace and approximately 200 S. E. 14 Street from RG -3(7 to SPI -5 In the Zoning Atlas of Zoninx Ordinance 9500 of the City of Miami. - Dear Mr. Ongle: During the public hearing on the above referenced item, I started to list the names and addresses of those persons on whose behalf I was speaking. Mayor Ferre asked me to submit the list, rather than take the time of the Commission to read all the names and addresses into the record. In accordance with the Mayor's request, I am submitting below the names and addresses of those persons I represented at that hearing. Bernard Kopel 1430 ;south Bayshore Drive Juliet iiananian, M. D. 1450 South Bayshore Drive Ruth Eisasser 1450 South Bayshore Drive Mellen Corwin - 1430 South Fast Bayshore Drive Elsie Nolan 1430 South East Bayshore Drive Anna M. Marshall 1430 South East Bayshore Chive William 3. Scandella 1420 South Bayshore Drive Elizabeth Welsh 1430 South Bayshore Drive Marion Bevard 1430 South Sayshore Drive Ruth Hershberg 1430 South Bayshore Drive Gina Graham 1430 South Bayshore Drive Evelyn Fellows 1408 South Bayshore Drive Mary C. Freeman 1408 South Bayshore Drive Continued f f'{5 Mr. Ralph Ongie August 2, 1983 Page Two Evelyn La Touretta 1430 South Bayshore Drive Howard Flush 1430 South Bayshore Drive Dr. and Mrs. Phillip Gafitz 1430 South Bayshore Drive It is important that this fist become a part of the official record of -this item. I will very much appreciate your being sure that it is included with the other papers submitted at the hearing. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely yours, LAW OFFICES OF JANET L. COOPER �j COOPERJANET L. 3LC:cmm cc: Bernard Kopec V. ft CITY OF MIAMI October 13, 1983 Mr, Aurelio E. Perez-Lugones Director, City of Miami Planning & Zoning Boards Administrative Department 275 N. W. Second Street Miami, Florida 33133 Attention: Betty Re: Lots 4, 5 6, 7, 8 and 30, Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2 at Page 93 Dear Betty: Enclosed please find a second revised Disclosure of ownership form with regard to the above zoning application. If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please don't hesitate to call. Si4Qerely, YARY �.HELD GMH/bwp cc.- Robert Hir Traurig, Raq. Enclosure PLAN33;G A 1,6 14ING LAW OFFICES GREENBERG, TRAuRiG, AsKEw, HOPFMAN, LIPOFF & OUrNTEL, R A. 83 DOT 13 p 1 .57 LINDA KOODRICK ADLEN BRIAN K. GOOOKIND ANTHONY J, eOONNELL, JR. MICHACL O. ALBERTINC MATTHEW a, OORSOM ROGER 0. ossu"N CCSAR L. ALVAREZ 04ELVIN N. O"C"GERG BYRON 0, PETERSEN ftUOOLPM F. ARAGON MARILYN D. ORCENSLATT 11 VICTOR H. POLK. JR. AMBLER M, MOBS, JR. R cul"M O Q. As94:W ROSCRT L GROSSMAN ALBERT 0 OUCHTCL JAMES L OCMUS GARY M. HiLO RONALD B. "AVtKOPF ZACHARY M. WOLFF MILARIC ;.Asc SASS 14 MAN LARRY J. 0" FLORENCE T. RossINS *F COUNSEL SE NORMAN J, *CNrORO BARRY O. HUNTER NICHOLAS ROCKWELL MARK0. BLOOM ARNOLD M. jArret DAVID L. ROSS BRICKCLL CONCOURS su", BRUTON ROBERT K. BURLINGTON SETH P�JOSCPH MARTIN KALB ROBERT M. RUGtNSTCIN CLIFFORD A. SCHULMAN 1401 BRICKELL AVCNUC ALBERT G. CAPUAN^ TIMOTHY E.KISH MARK SC"WIMMCP MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 ALAN R. CHASE STCVCH J. KRAVITZ MARTIN B. SHAPIRO SUE M. toss STEVEN A, LAN DY EUGENE %my. JR. 04CMDALL B. COFFEY STEVEN N. LAPIOVS MARLENE K. SILVERMAN TELEPHONES MARK B. DAVIS ALAN 5, LC09R.AM TIMOTHY A. SMITH MIAMI (305) 579-0500 ALAN T. DIMOND WALLACE L. LEWIS, JR. DARLENE STOSIK IIIROWARO 1305) 523-8111 CHARLES W. EDGAR, GARY W EPSTEIN NORMAN H. Oporr GARY O. LIPSON HERBERT M. BUSKIN LILLIANA TORREM-SAYOUTH TELEXSO-31Z4 THOMAS K. tOU91.9 CARLOS I- LOUNItt? ROBERT H.TRAURIO TtLECOPY (305) 572-0710 RIC"AAO G. GARRIETT JUAN P. I.QUMICT YOLANDA 1. VILLAMIL wmiTans omccr NO:. LAWRENCE QGOOrSKY *CUBIC RUTH MALINSKY STANLEY H. WAKSHLAG ALAN S. GOLD GREGORY A, MARTIN JONATHAN M. WARNER HARVEY A. GOLDMAN (KORO A. MARTIN DAVID M. WELLS STEVEN E, GOLD14AN ALAN M. MITCHEL JULIO A, S. WILLIAMSON STEVEN M. GOLDSMITH Louis NOSTRO JERROLD A. WISH October 13, 1983 Mr, Aurelio E. Perez-Lugones Director, City of Miami Planning & Zoning Boards Administrative Department 275 N. W. Second Street Miami, Florida 33133 Attention: Betty Re: Lots 4, 5 6, 7, 8 and 30, Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2 at Page 93 Dear Betty: Enclosed please find a second revised Disclosure of ownership form with regard to the above zoning application. If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please don't hesitate to call. Si4Qerely, YARY �.HELD GMH/bwp cc.- Robert Hir Traurig, Raq. Enclosure F DISCUSU-1Z OF 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property* Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30, less the East 5 feet of Lot 30, Block 2# point View, Plat Book 2, Page 93, Public Records of Dade County Approximately .185 S. E. 14th Terrace, and 200 S. E. 14th Street 2. Owner(s) of su!;jett real Oro;,--Z---and- percentage of ownership.' Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 94i9 r;Guires disclosure of all parties Fiving a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Co=iSsiOn. Accordingly, question 162 requires disclosure of all shareholdersof corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and pr=.rtionate interest. As to Lots 6, 7 'dnd 8: Seaplace Realty Investments, N.V. Sole ownership - Manuel Etter R. Grafrnmatt 3706 Aeschit Switzerland As to Lot 30. Point View Towers of Curacao, Inc. Sole ownership Manuel Etter R. Grafenmatt 3706 Aeschi, Switzerland 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question -'C"2,-and (b)'located within 375 feet of the subject real property. SEAPLACE REALTY INVESTMENTS N-V- &76�RXEY IN �FA POINTVIEW TOWERS OF CURACAO, INC. A Il FA6 ST. T.= OF FLORIDA SS: COUNTY OF DADE in fact, R. C. West being duly sworn, deposes and says that ne is the (Gwmw) {Attorney for Owner) of the real property described in answer to question Irl, above; that he has read the foregoing answers and that the Sam are true and conplete; and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to exemte this Disclosure of Ownership, form on behalf of the owner. SWDfV TO PIC SMSCRIBED before re this 13th day Of October —77993 Florida at Lme NOTARY PUJUC STATE Of fUMDA AT LA" C014W,16610N WAD XC 5 19$4 11—V =MKISS124 r-yP11.RES,,N. rwtuOR*44 IN$. UNDOWLITUS M DISCUSME OF MNZMSPIP 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property; Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30, less the East 5 feet of Lot 30, Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2, Page 93, Public Records of Dade County Approximately ,185 S. E. 14th Terrace and 200 S. E. 14th Street 2. Owner(s) of sul;ject real proms--Z�,zdpercentage of ownership.' Note: Citv of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties E—aving a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question 42 requires disclosure of all shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. As to sots 6, 7 and St Seaplace Realty investments, N.V. Sole ownership - Manuel Etter R. Grafenmatt 3706 Aeschi, Switzerland As to Lot 30- Point View Towers of Curacao.. Inc. Sole ownership - Manuel Etter R. Grafenmatt 3706 Aeschi, Switzerland 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question U, -and (b) located within 375 feet of the subject real property. SEAPLACE REALTY INVESTMENTS N.V. ii RNEY IN FACS' I POINTVIEW TOWERS OF CURACAOj, INC. ATWeIN FACT STAFF OF FW?JDA SS: COMSTY OF DADE in fact, R. C. West,being duly sworn, deposes and says that ne is the (vomm) (Attorne. for Owner) of the -real property described in answer to question al, above; that he has reed the foregoing answers and that the same are true and cortzlete; and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to execate this Disclosure of 04nership fo= on behalf of the owner. /C(SZAL) (tame SW'Orui TO AM SUESCRIBED before re this 1.3th. T day of October 98 3 IvO .1c, State90= Florida at Large NOTARY PusuC STATE OF ILORMA AT LAK% ISSON Ek IUS MC 51984 $OWM IfUW Gtt244 INS. UhPRWIITM "A STATE OF FWMA ) SS: - - COM7r' Y OF RADE ) R. C. West being duly= sa*zn, deposes and says that he is the duly appointed Attornev in Pact of Pointview mawerP of Curacao the owner of the zeal property described in answer to question i, above; Inc that he has read the foregoing answers; that the same are true and coir- plete; and that he has the authority to execute this Disclosure of Owner- ship farm on behalf of the owner. ?� tName S'WMW TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this 13th . day Of October --7T98 3 Notary Puo�lic, state of , Florida at Large W COMMISSION MIRES: �wtAAY MUC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LAS MY COY MI55ION EXPIRES DEC � 1984 joN=P . IHAU GENERAL INS, UNDERWRITERS DISCMSURE OF GWMMHIP 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property* Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 30, less the East 5*feet of Lot 30r Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2, Page 93, Public Reocrds of Dade County.' Approximately 185 S. E. 14th Terrace and 200 S. E. 14th Street. 2. Owner(s) of sui5jest real proms. -,7—and' percentage of ownership. Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties Wa�vinq a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the city Commission. Accordingly, question #2 requires disclosure of all shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. As to lots 4 & 5: Cucusa, Inc., (sole shareholder, Ray Corona, President) 3. Legal 'description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question #2, and (b) located within 375 feet of the subject real property. R CWN r44EY FOR OWI*;R Pres I // Ray ona, President Ray Corona, President being duly swom, deposesI and says that he is the (Owner) (Attorney for owner) of the real property described in answer to question #2, above-, that he'has read- the foregoing answers and that the same are true and couplete; and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to execute this Disclosure of Ownership form on behalf of the owner. W COWSSION MIMS: NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF FLOKPA MY 90mmiWoN EK RA OEC 23 14$6 1014M J"W 4VAM INSURANQ " lArm, �C*", state of Florida at large ro STATE OF FLORIDA } SS: _ cOtJA y OF DADE } Ray Carona , being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the duly appointed pr sidnt of CUCUSa. Ine. , the owner of the real property describedin answer to question #1, above; that he has rears the foregoing answers; that the same are true and com- plete; and that he has the authority to execute this Disclosure of Owner- ship form on behalf of the owner. . tsrrw} / i 'acne) SKORN 70 AND SUBSCRIBED before this APRZ - ' day of �(�� ; , I98 3 , ff CX7OMISSICty EXPIRES: NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA MY COMMISSION EXPIRE$ DEC 23 1484 IONVED TM GENERA!. NJSUItANa UND i" Wwpclab/025 &twlic, State of Plorida at Large +,jJltttt, r,tl7t;itiiltit}„!'�, I �S s� , . ."f" . . . ul mi "'uuuu muuuumuim uii” ihunuidiuumi i�il"i '�., .'.�.�.,'",""� •� �//ilN �• �' uuuuui ' iii " i i munmuuumiiilM'i�n,� nil a auNP muuouiu a uu i i i� i,� ro A 0 A V I T C. nr_a_-mA) O__ DZZ Bercre ma, the authority, thin, day pemo.-z.117 Robert H. Trauricj appeared who being by me fimt dull Tolor.10 upon oath, deposes a:d -.*ys- 1. That he is the caner, or the legal representative of the miner, sub-Attirg the accc-m-panying. application for a public hearing as required by Ordinance No. 6871 of the Code of the City of Miard, Florida, effecting the real property located in the City of Miami as described and listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and rade a part thereof. 2. That all cr.-mers which he represents,. if arrj, have given their full and coaml itte permission for him to act in their behalf for the ch—a-Zee or m-c-dification of a classilication or regulation of zoming as 'set out in the accc.-.:,=-y-_*-Z petition. 3. That the pages attached hereto and Tmde a part of this aff—Ida%rit cmataLn the "cu=ent names, rr_*iLi_ng addresses, phone mr..'oers and legal descrip-ions for the real prope:ty he is the _inner or legal - representative. 4. The facts -as represented in the application amd doc=enmts sdl=itted in corij=ction with this affidavit are true and correct. Further AXIImt sayeth not. (SaW (Name) rmorn to and SubSc moed before me day 1993 Aotarl Pubilic, State of 'F'lorida at Large Expires: T IJOTAkf? POBIJC STATE Of FLORIDA WM TH&IJ GNUAL INMANO UM WtAtAj$goN wins JULY 16 1906 • _ _ �, r LIST Otcner's flame Cucusa, Inc. c/o Ray' Corona, President flailing Address' 6240 Sunset Drive, Miami, Florida 33143 Telephone Number 666-6874 Legal Description: sots 4 and 5, Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2, Page 93, Public Records of Dade County. Owner's fian; e Seaplace Realty Investments, N.V. e%0 Mr. A. R. Scott tailing Address 140 No. Biscayne Boulevard, 13th Floor, Miami, Florida Telephone Number 371-3592 Legal Description: Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 2, Point View - Plat Book 2, Page 93, Public Records of Dade County .� Owner's dame Point View Towers of Curacao, Tnc. c/o Mr. A. R. S60tt Mailing Address 100 No. Biscayne Boulevard, 13th Floor, Miami, Florida - Telephone Number 371-3592 ' Legal Description: Lot 30, less the East 5 feet thereof, Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2, Page 93, Public Records of Dade County Any e ner real estate propert, }timed individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership privately) within.375' of the subject site is listed as follows: :Street Address Legal Descrrption Street Address Leval Descriaticn- .d Street Address Leval Descriotion - r, ' ys,• •,9.?'rt'v:�`'#,t,�fi:? i�y 'ISP. t-+>macer'awratalekrtr:+>•Itw!t+keR::Rr'i;�x�tv;:a+�'•�'i=,tr+std+�+'au.?:xawrrAwpl.:�''s9r. - �''1?1�r�3tss..,�: �`^ 's . ' ' . •=+�:+s�+k�+vs�Y#t�R�FP'?'fs,rt�#ss,'��'+'"dL'��£i,7R�k" . .. . - .. .. .<. ... .,��t'!� p1� r• .. .. . Yi'.}•. K rpf.... itv.. i. ..... i ,.a •'. a;�' ±- {. Ty}yi�'.xTy.;!' - ...^,y+.' — 'i'i ::J'• .-'er.i..s:•_� tW«-._� `..:.:.�'.ti .: r., f �"'r'. �. i'.•$',. iNur:.. -.i" _ i`a.:"':'is73":."r.`i+:-'.',.sc:.rc,.'''—t ::..+.L2i�.•'�'+nd�'N♦yt,, :i+,�'1'. . •..K,�..., .. � '1. _ '.•r,,.'Sr �,T.S!?.��'3,�� .�•t:-.ti"!' Y)~.'�.}'fw,¢''»S, ,.e.'yx•,'an�1�,..J •'\r tl:? :r t�..:.«e..-.+.ra.Jt'<'f'..++q•*,w�,y{,.'.v.^ �rXeyr' t ' _i aw • €" -s 4 aY w ' - N:;_i:'s„'.•y�A:-�ri:w::NLT�i= (4j�:�«., ''y`ti �,`; L.t'.'�'i».fite.� :T},: _ - �n,�-i! .ri J`.�•�- iLa`r'k`M..4 i:�1r..n �fi' yR �,r.. ::ii't::i.'•„�t "S ✓+�+,) `ti ,E:::• �.� V'�X-`.Li..:W*-'.Y't}�*'*'.iRw''r":ht^•✓9'rT.a�. !4:'S� 'f'.wN INN I 1 "11 Nq -CAR Alai _ - :'n...5..<,Y:is ltt+.:4.4t"K"., p�,.•"�.,,.i..r .w•; ..'y,.n�_�i, s:�';^,.,r,,,n,,.':ia-:�'r- •.4 r xY, - - � i� ''•tip*r�` rr r CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING & ZONING LAW OFFICES AIIMI#t`,� T'' : — •, '���,;�� GREENBERG, TRAURiG, ASKEW, HOFFMAN, UporF & OUFNTEG, I? A. •RIC%CLL CONCOURS +ff}� `'�(( �,{� /� t --- 1401 ARICKELL AVENUE 83 NO - 9 A4 -2V � • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 MIAMI (305) STD -0500 CRowAND (305) S23-5fil + TCLEX e0 -31:+s TRi.[COW 1305) 570-0715 November 8, 1983 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Betty Malver Office of Aurelio Perez-Lugones City of Miami Planning & Zoning Boards 275 N. W. 2nd Street, 2nd Floor Miami, Florida Res Lots 4 thru 8 and 30, Blk. 2, Point view, PB 2/93 Dear Betty: As per your request of this morning,'enclosed please find an original and one copy of an Affidavit prepared and exe- cuted by Gary M. Held of this office, in connection with the captioned matter. Very truly yours, BARBARA ROMRR , Secretary to Robert H. Traurig s' br` Enclosure AFFIDAVIT STArr. OF IFW?-JDA) owl Tf OF DOE Before me, the un4e.migied authority, this day parsom-Ily appeared GARY M. HELD who being by tre firm duly Vorns upon oath, deposes and says: 1. That he is the oemer, or the legal representative of the owner, submttir 6m the accc-,.-AwryiM. application for a public hearing as required by Ordinance No. 9500 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, effecting the real property located in the City of Mud as described and Listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and made a part thereof. 2. That, all mmers which he represents,. if any, have given their full and coamlete permission for him to act in their behalf for the charge or modification of a classification or regulation of zoning as set out in the accc.--.panyIPg petition. 3. That the psges, attacIned hereto and made a part of this affidavit contain the cu:-,ent m-nes, rrailiz-,-- addresses, phone =-hers w::i legal descrii-tions for the real property w1luch he is the *,owner or legal representative. 4. The facts -as represented :in the application and docizmrms &.,:=tted in conjunction urith this affidavit are true and correct. Further Ufiant sayeth not. Name jGARY*M. HELD -Sworn to and Subscribed before me this day of j" 4 Notary Public, State of Florida at Lange flor Corrmission Expires: r4OTARY CUBUC STATE OF FLCIUDA AT LAMU 28 1985 BONDED THRV bENEitAL it.4. U,4, 'WRIIEkS '.sT OVVIER'S LIST Owner's flame SEAPLACE REALTY INVESTMENTS c/o Robert H. Traurig liailing Address 1401 Brickell Avenue Telephone Number 579-0500 Legal Description: Xots 6, 7, 8, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93) Owner's Name POINT VIEW TOWER OF CURACAO, INC. c/uxonert-H. Traurig Mailing Address 1401 Brickell Ave. felephone:Number 579-0500 Legal,Description: Lot 30, less the east 5 feet thereof, Block 2, POINT VIEW 12-93) Owner's Name CUCUSA, INC. c/o Robert H. Traurig Mailing Address 1401 Brickell Ave. Telephone Number 579-0500 Legal Description-, Lot 5, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93) ALLEN BLISS C/o Robert H. Traurig 1401 Brickell Ave. Lot 4, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93) Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 375' of the subject site is listed as follows: Street Address Legal Description Street Address Legal Description 0 to OVVIER'S LIST Owner's flame SEAPLACE REALTY INVESTMENTS c/o Robert H. Traurig liailing Address 1401 Brickell Avenue Telephone Number 579-0500 Legal Description: Xots 6, 7, 8, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93) Owner's Name POINT VIEW TOWER OF CURACAO, INC. c/uxonert-H. Traurig Mailing Address 1401 Brickell Ave. felephone:Number 579-0500 Legal,Description: Lot 30, less the east 5 feet thereof, Block 2, POINT VIEW 12-93) Owner's Name CUCUSA, INC. c/o Robert H. Traurig Mailing Address 1401 Brickell Ave. Telephone Number 579-0500 Legal Description-, Lot 5, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93) ALLEN BLISS C/o Robert H. Traurig 1401 Brickell Ave. Lot 4, Block 2, POINT VIEW (2-93) Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 375' of the subject site is listed as follows: Street Address Legal Description Street Address Legal Description 0 00 _ i DzscuSM OF rasRsp d P' 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property: - Lots 4, 5, 6, 7. 8 and 30, less the East 5'feet of Lot 30, Block 2, Point View, Plat Book 2, Page 93, public Reocrds of Dade County.- Approximately 185 S. E. 14th terrace and 200 S. E. 14th Street. j 2. Owner(s) of aLi;3a'ct real 'prok.a,ur ....1' percentage of ownership. ' note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties aving a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of s presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question #2 requires disclosure of all shareholders of O=porations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. As to lots 4 01OX; _ ., PA. L A N 4. .. 'S 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any ply listed in answer to question #2. and (bl-located within 375 feet of the subject real property. ti None bill 11 SPATE of FIlJ = ) SS: _ COMM OF DARE ) j��, being duly sworn, deposes and ti says tna lle s the (Owner) (Attorney for Owner) of the real prape;ty described in answer to question #2r aboves that he has read the foregoing answers and that the same are true and complete; and (if acting as attorney for Owner) that he has authority to execute this Dip-l.osurs of Ownership foram on behalf of the owner. (SEAL) Nasse SWOM TO AND S !MW before me,this da©of , �MAAAi t y not. /1+�'�{+{+r+s to t p,, ,, rte•,,,, ONEC 18 PM 2. 10 q,7q OFF 12000 P'1469 DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned, being the owner of the following described property, lying, being and situated in Dade County, Florida, to -wit: Lot 5, Block 2, Point View, according to Plat Book 2, Page 93, of the Public Records of Dade County ("the property"). in order to assure the City Commission of the City of Miami Florida, that.the representations made to it by the owner will be abided by, voluntarily makes the following Declaration of Restrictions covering and running with the property. Notwithstanding the zoning classification of the property: 1. The building presently existing on the property shall be preserved and shall not be structurally modified except as is necessary both internally and externally to convert said struc- ture into a building with a combination of office and residential uses, or to improve the landscaping or parking thereon; however, in all instances any modification must comply with all restric- tions set forth in this Declaration. 2. The property and the building may be used only for the following uses: residential, offices (not selling merchandise on the premises) , banks and savings and lo * an associations, subject to the additional restrictions contained herein. 3. The top floor of the building shall be used for • residential uses only. 4. The first (ground) floor of the building shall be used for parking only. 5. No medical or dental offices or clinics shall be per- mitted. 6. Only that portion of the building may be occupied for which there is adequate parking as required or permitted by the PO 3/7 zoning classification as determined by the respective uses within the building. 7. There shall be a maximum of one (1) bank teller on the property, which shall be located within the building. 8. There shall be no drive-in tellers, automatic or mechanical tellerF#Q4 hrour tellers9,aPfta49hk=g'ft@-._ MWE h�� 9. There 11 beAq4&wno signs on the South Bayshore Drive side of the building or on the south side of the building. Signs and lights therefrom shall be limited to the S.E. 14th Street side of the building or property. 10. All exterior modifications of the building, including structural changes and signs, must be approved by IRV KORACH, as a representative of Point View Association, Inc., or, in the event of his inability to serve in such capacity, another person to be designated by the Point View Association, Inc. No exterior modifications of the building may be made unless approved in writing in advance. Iry Korach or his successor may require a change in the color of the exterior of the building to a color more in harmony with the colors of buildings in the Point View neighborhood. Approvals required hereunder may not be unreason- ably withheld. When the preliminary and final designs for the ;0 12000 P'L24TO exterior modifications have been submitted to MR. KORACH, or his successor, they must be commented upon and approved and/or disapproved within 14 days thereafter. Failure to make such comments within such period shall establish a conclusive presump- tion of approval of such proposals by the Point View Association, Inc. 11. The landscaping of the property along south Bayshore Drive shall. be improved and maintained at a level at least con- sistent with the landscaping at the existing Point View area residential buildings. 12. The owners of the property will contribute the sum of $10,000 for a neighborhood traffic study to be performed by professional traffic engineers to be chosen by the Point View Association, Inc., which sum may also be utilized to implement the recommendations of such study. The owners shall also co - erate with Point View Association, 'Inc. by providing4information relating to the uses at the property and will cooperate 'n seeking to accomplish the recommendations of the study, with the specific understanding, however, that the owners shall have no additional expenses in connection therewith. Furthermore: A. it is understood and agreed by the undersigned that any official inspector of the City of Miami Building Department or Zoning Department, or any agents duly authorized by the Director of those Departments may have the privilege at any time during normal working hours of entering and investigating the use of the premises to determine whether or not the requirements of the building and zoning regulations and the conditions herein agreed to are being fulfilled. B. These restrictions during their lifetime shall be a restriction and limitation upon, all present and future owners of the above-described real property and for the public welfare, and shall be enforceable by property owners within 375 feet of the subject property, property owners on South Bayshore Drive between South East 14th Street and South East 15th Road, Miami, Florida, specifically including those who may be farther than 375 feet of the subject property; any condominium association in the above- described areas, the Point View Association, Inc., a not-for- profit Florida Corporation or its successor, or by the City of Miami, C. This Agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land, shall be recorded in the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, and shall remain in full force and effect and be binding upon the undersigned, its successors and assigns until such time as it is modified or released in the manner provided herein. D. These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them for a period of 30 years from the date of recordation, after which time they shall be extended automatically for successive periods of ten years, unless an instrument signed by a majority of the then owner(s) of the property has been recorded which changes or releases the covenants in whole, or in part, provided that the covenants have been released or the changes approved by the City of Miami Commission after a public hearing. If the zoning district or the regulations applicable to all the properties on South Bayshore Drive between S. E. 14th Street and S. E. 15th Road should change to permit any structure within such area to be used totally for offices, banks, or commercial uses, or combina- tions thereof, or if the permitted FAR applicable to such area - 2 - oppf{t12000'PC 2471. increases above that presently permitted, the subject property shall be relieved of the limitations contained herein which are more restrictive than the new district or regulations. The recordation among the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, of an Affidavit or Certificate from the City Attorney of the City of Miami that such changes in the City of Miami ordinances have been made will be sufficient to place all persons on notice that such changes have modified these covenants. E. This Declaration of Restrictive Covenants may be modified, amended or released as to the land herein described, or any portion thereof, by a written instrument executed by the then owners of the fee simple title to the lands to be affected by such modification, amendment or release, provided that the same has first been approved by the Point View Association, Inc., and then by the City Commission after public hearing. F. Should this Declaration of Restrictive Covenants be so modified, amended or released, the Director of the City of Miami Building & Zoning Department, or his successor, shall forthwith execute a written instrument effectuating and acknowledging such modification, amendment or release. G. Enforcement shall be by action at law or in equity against any parties or persons violating, or attempting to violate any covenants, either to restrain violation or to recover damages. If any suit be brought for such enforcement the enforcing party, if successful, shall be entitled to recover, in addition to costs and disbursements allowed by law, such sum as the Court may adjudge to be reasonable for the services of his attorney. H. Invalidation of any one of these covenants, by judgment or Court, in no wise shall affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the owner has caused these presents to be executed and signed in its name by its proper officers, and its corporate seal to be affixed hereto and attested to by its Secretary the day and year set forth. WITNESSES: CUCUSA, • ,1 DATE 3 LU , President ATTES . Ricaarb krona Secretary (Co orate seal) -- 9759 o,, 12000 PC 2472 STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) S5 COUNTY OF DARE } I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day of 1983, before me personally appeared RAY CORONA and RICARDO CORONA, President and Secretary, respectively, of CUCUSA, INC., a corpo— ration under the laws of the State of Florida, to me known to be the persons who signed the foregoing instrument as such officers and severally acknowledged the execution thereof to be their free act and deed as such officers for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and that they affixed thereto the official seal of said corporation, and that the said instrument is the act and deed of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year last aforesaid. My Commission Expires: OTARX PUBLIC ,j STAT) OORIBA AT LAR ., 90* AT" �1#i1L. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS; OF /CY Attorney Prepared by: Janet Lenore Cooper, Attorney LAW OFFICES OF JANET L. COOPER Suite 1020 169 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131 4 w*0 00- a ti. "E ,1 r. - f I, MIAMI REVIEW AND ONLY RECORD Publl$hW Daily ix"Pt Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holids" Miammi, Dbds County, FlOfift STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY or CAM Set- W& w4wdWod MOM" PO-01110Y 0111 Danny 8Iww, 10110 40 Oaf* OW dW 911110 Is 20 AselaWd 10 the Pubodw of dw IAa,ni Rwkm and owy PAM a do" (—W Saboday, Soy" Wall Legal "011ift" "0016"W- 9,,, q•, , at MWd in Deft Cownly. Fkd* VW 00 1 -11 copyolodmill momIb*q&L*qdAdww%mff4n1OrII-0'• III ow W~ of CITY OF MIAMI Re: ORDINANCE NO. 9758 indo _...x.X.X .................. — .... Court am pubUshell In mW - 01 p I I in the I"U" Of Dec. 6, 1983 I AIR lot MIAMI REVIEW AND DAILY RECORD Published Daily except Saturday. Sunday And Legal HoHdaYa Miami, ()Ed# County, Florida, STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADSI Miore do unders4ined 40010ft WSPRO"Ir "POWW =i is Sluver. V" an ORO " that dw Is On A$W*t@M to PhMdW of th, Miami RWI" OW DOW 111000K 4 daily ( .. w "wroy suaft -w L"d "as,"asl "weps'""', ps"aw at ;Z;� In Dm* County, Fbeft that tha aftched OM at ytswftgspao, ease a 1,01101 AdV001116"I"ad Or 1 M the matter of CITY OF MIAMI ORDINANCE NO. XXX in the ............ - ..... -.... was VubUshed In add MOSPOPW I" the Issues a' Nov. 8, 1983 beton IsS 066 83 MR 102 NoThat is Hthfty-61vtN that the city commission of tho City of Miami, Florida, on November ig, jqg3, cormlievicilrOp al1WAAk lit. the City Commission Chamber at 3500 Pan Allis , M ' Florida, *111 aortalder the foll0wifitt OtdirAft*111 bit the AdOothilft lh#ftt. ORDINANCE NO, SI CONTACLAUSE. INING A REPEALER PROVISION ANO A U40- AILITY ORDINANCE 140. AN OROINANdi'AMtNdlNd THE ZONING ATLAS OFOADI -NANCE WOOD, THE ZONING 0001MAN09 OF THE CITY OP MIAWPLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLAUIFICA- I U 90-W5,(GENERAL RESIDENTIAL). SY,MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY,M]MING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 180PSAIDZONING ATLAS MADt-A0AAtOF_OADINANCE NO. MW BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVI- SION AND A SEVERASILITY CLAUSE. ORDINANCE NO; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDI- NANCE NO.9500, THEIONING'ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZON(NO'CLA"IFICA- .11014 OF APPROXIMATELY 3225-27-29 DAM(N'stRW, mtAmi FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY OESCRIafO HtRMWFRO� RG -21& GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO AdIft, RESIDENTIAL'O"ICE; BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND SY'MAKING ALLL:THI! NECES- SARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO.45 OF SAID ZONING.ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE N0.'0508Y- REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTIO14-IN. ARTICLE 3, SECTIOW3*0 TV+EREOF; CONTAINING -A REPEALER PROVISIONANDA SEVERABILITY CLAOSF_.-, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING`ATLAS OF OR61- NANCE N0,9600, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICA- TION OF APPROXIMATELY 2815,2861 SOUTHWEST22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED !j HEREIN) FROM RG -113. -.GENERAL REsioENTIAL,(ONE AND TWO FAMILY) TO CR -217: COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (COMMUNITY) BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKINGALL THE NECESESARY CHANGES ON PAGE No. 42 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE- NO. 9500 BY REFER- ENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300,' THEREQF-,' 7 CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDI- NANCE NO. M, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICA- TION OF APPROXIMATELY 185 SOUTHEAST -14TH TERRACE AND APPROXIMATELY 200 SOUTHEAST 14TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RG,W GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO SPI -5 BRICKELLMIAMI RIVER RESIDENTIAL OFFICE DISTRICT; MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO, 37 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. M, BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300; THEREOF, CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A -SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. -ORDINANCE NO, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDH NANCE NO. OW, THE ZONING ORDINANCE -OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA. BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICA- 14S191A11+1Gi1 Tj }gAlN1G}T.1;Ii1N111}iRt RG1d ld'111s}/i!lG1pa1h4*G 1� NEQFSSARY ON P40 NO, 42 OF, I Z I - AT MADE A PART ORDINANCE 1}Y. Rff OF 09 NO ENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, $EQTiOt4 34D THEREOF; i CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION.7,4 tSgVERAOILITY CLAUSE, ORDINANCE NO. `AN `GRQJN$�INCE'AMIENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDI NAj4og NQ.�#I;THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GareettN�vLogItj4,'!0Y QHANGiNG,THE ZONING CLASSIFICA, CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A S#VERAWLIT, CLAUSE. J-94-948 10/3/94 ;.P.Aat4":`I�•m 11202 Attachment 6: Ord. 11202, Rezoning Lot 30 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM O -OFFICE TO SD -5 BRICKELL AVENUE AREA RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 185 SOUTHEAST 14TH TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 37 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting of September 12, 1994, Item No. 10, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 89-94, by a seven to zero (7-0) vote, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a change of zoning classification, as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, after careful consideration of this matter, deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to grant this change of zoning classification as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Zoning Atlas of Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, Article 4, Section 401, Schedule of District Regulations, 11202 is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification from 0 - Office to SD -5 Brickell Avenue Area Residential -Office District for the property located at 185 Southeast 14th Terrace, Miami, Florida, also described as Lot 30, less the Southerly 5 feet, Block 2, AMENDED PLAT OF POINTVIEW, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 93 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Section 2. It is hereby found that this zoning classification change: (a) is in conformity with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; (b) is not contrary to the established land use pattern; (c) will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; (d) is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City; (e) will not materially alter the population density pattern or increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.; (f) is necessary due to changed or changing conditions; (g) will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; (h) will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety; (i) will not create a drainage problem; (j) will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent area; IM 11202 (k) will not adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; (1) will not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations; and (m) will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner so as to compromise the protection of the public welfare. Section 3. Page 37 of the Zoning Atlas, made a part of Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, by reference and description in said Ordinance, is hereby amended to reflect the changes made necessary by this Amendment. i jSection 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances insofar as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 5. If any section, part of section, paragraph, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective after ! final reading and adoption thereof pursuant to Section 163.3189, I Fla. Stat. (1993). PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 27th day of October , 1994. 11202 -3- PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this 17th day of November , 1994. ATTEST: TTY*a ZU(II CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: !, G. MIRIAM MAER CHIEF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: A. Q NN JogS7, III j CITY ATTORN Y GMM/ms/M 84 -4- S EPHEN P. ILARK, MAYOR 11202 ZONING FACT SHEET PZw G LOCATION/LEGAL 185 SE 14 Terrace Lot 30 less the Southerly 5 feet, Block 2, of AMENDED PLAT OF POINT VIEW (2-93) PRDC. APPLICANT/OWNER Pointview Towers of Curacao, N.V., Owner St. James Development, Inc., Buyer 1414 NW 107 Ave., #205 230 Palm Avenue Miami, Florida Miami Beach, FL 33139 673-5909 673-5909 ZONING 0 Office. - REQUEST Change of Zoning as listed in the Zoning Atlas of Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Article 4, Section 401, Schedule of District Regulations, from 0 Office to SD -5 Brickell Avenue Area Residential -Office District. RECOMMENDATIONS: PLANNING, BLDG & ZONING Approval. PUBLIC WORKS No comments. PIAT AND STREET The Tent. Plat 1464 was approved subj.to rezoning. DADE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION No comments. ENFORCEMENT HISTORY, IF ANY C.E.B. Case No: N/A Last Hearing Date: N/A Found: NIA Violation(s) Cited: N/A Ticketing Action: NIA Affidavit of Non -Compliance issued on: N/A Daily Fine: `;0.00 Lien Recorded On: N/A Total Fines To Date: N/A CEB Action: N/A HISTORY Zoning Board recommended for approval to City Commission on 9/12/94 by Res. ZB 89-94. Two (2) proponents and zero (0) opponents. ANALYSIS The zoning clasification of the property is currently Office (0), and the Land Use designation is also Office. The property is located immediately to the east of an SD -5 district,.which also has a Land Use designation of Office. The purpose of this zoning change petition is to extend the SD -5 designation easterly by one lot. The Planning, Building and Zoning Department is recommending approval finding that the one lot extension of the SD -5 district will have little, if any impact in the area and that the change is consistent with the Downtown Master Plan. ZONING BOARD Recommended for approval to City Commission. (Res. No. 89-94) APPELLANT CITY COMMISSION Passed on First Reading on CC 10/27/94. .11202 APPLICATION NUMBER 94- 301 Page 1 September 12, 1994 s e e s I• ,• .• b °pP v 1641 t-11 43 a" T ,a ' .. M ST ' . w TRa� �, f � �i., C 1 J • 3 ^ u • BAygN w0p0 (1' OR 11 h 6 A i1 A04, n• , A I 12 ., ST. 1pr�L. , . IT .,•�.i w°RrF s. u - ' 99 S ce .Serf r 1 as 0 is IT t, iscofHSIOE ELEM. :i :: xa MUiUgC /Q W Sr 1 +'<r.e. read°M4k4 d"`13. ' T. -8E. 13 SZ r s sp 8-L.k � R '� 1, • ! + I " • 4 i17ACr.A •. .�. ; S00 « : 14 STS 1 • CF $ m tt • ' H ;+q (' 3.£.14 .. F 1 IF m 96 F M t li p " • Q «.LIJ S.W. a„EIiR. w U i i4a�A ' • r, a ' w `P i � • " $ 89 w z • 5 ro ,`K•°�0�1q Q�Oes fvf to Ur r' rx w er q �j �. a r• • t° tp (7! I S� vV. N + t � iii+++ ►►! 41 j w t • �w,,a !°g £• GOSTA 5U9`A 9�� w�� TrIp Is - ti Ip • 4 IIN I .ice 11202 --, Mr. Gary M. Carman offered the following Resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION ZB 89-94 AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, THE ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CHANGE OF ZONING IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, FROM 0 OFFICE TO SD -5 BRICKELL AVENUE AREA RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 185 SE 14 TERRACE LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3O.LESS THE SOUTHERLY 5 FEET, BLOCK 2, OF AMENDED PLAT OF POINT VIEW (2-93) PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY; ZONED 0 OFFICE. Upon being seconded by Mr. Lorenzo Luaces the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mses. Basila, Morales and Hernandez. Messers. Carman, Luaces, Milian and Sands NAYES: None. ABSENT: Messers. Barket, Crespo & Moran-Ribeaux. Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 7-0. September 12, 1994 Item# 10 Zoning Board 1-12-027 H Y r APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO ZONING ATLAS File Number 92- 11 �� l[�. Dr %; «.p.^s jI/ L""'-&rd'V /r% r% , hereby apply to the City Commission of the City of Miami for an 'amendment to the Zoning Atlas of the City of Miami as more particularly described herein and, in support of that request, furnish the following information: p 1. Address of property: - % D � 571F 2. Two surveys, prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land Surveyor. 3. Affidavit disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of interest. (See attached form.) 4. Certified list of owner of real estate within a 375 -foot radius of the outside boundaries of property covered by -this application. (See attached form.) S. At least two photographs that "show the entire property land and improvements.) 6. Atlas sheet(s) on which property appears: 7 7. Present zoning designation(s): 8. Proposed zoning designation(s): 9. Statement explaining why present zoning designation is inappropriate. (See attached form.) 10. Statement as to why proposed zoning designation is appropriate. (See attached form.) 11. Other (Specify) 1� 12. Filing fee of $ �/ ccording to following schedule: *J? ,2I=4/�'gWl,'ce Fac _ Change of zoning classification to: CS, PR, R-1, R-2, per square foot of net lot area ............. $ 0.12 Minimum....................................................... $550.00 R-3, R-4, 0, 6/I, per square foot of net lot area ............. r 0.16 Minimum....................................................... $650.00 C-1. C-2, I, per square foot of net lot are& ............ I..... E 0.20 Minimum....................................................... $750.00 CBD and all SD's, per square foot of net lot area ............. $ 0.22 1 Minimum ..................................................... $850.00 2 ►�C 'poi►. 1c. }��, �=�Ls. e)F Signature: Name: Address, 1 1 "c W � v � (% •'-5111 T Phone: 'U STATE OF FLORIDA } SS: COUNTY OF DADE } A .K being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the (Q*MT)(Authorized AaenL,.fgr weer) of the real property described in answer to question 1 above; that he has read the foregoing answers and that the same are true and complete; and (if acting as agent or own r) that he has authority to execute this petition on behalf of the owner. (SEAL) SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED utr►i:,ww '' 1120 i 2 {1 before ae `this � day of 19 RICHARD C wast NarARY PIlBUC SfA'11 Of FIARID NY COMMISSION EXPIRES: t:�ri— No a �� 9 ►,gjy�i��146i9il� Large STATE Of FLUMA } S9 CWATY Of MR' } } WOW 111. the undersivrd authority, this dpr Ors9n0ly appeared A. R. Scott , who being by ae flrat duty 9M rR, up" oath. deposes W says. I. Thin stir is the 4s *Y. or the legal rupmsetttiva of the mer. sutaitt4aq the accaap&Ving epplibatfow for a public- bearfaq " .raggj"d IV 4rdlow* Im of fist Cede of the City of Mufti. Floridt, effectinqi the rent property latattd in the City of !bast, tt described and listed OA the p4os atteoied to this effidatit and M&W a pert thereof. t. That 911 Croom which ha re ssmts, if a", M" given their, toil Q* eooplete Aee11114a ter hie t0 act in their behalf for the Change or modifies - tion of a CTasiitfastion ar "Ution of taming as sat out la the mm*"inq getitioa. 3. That the p"es atttOhld hef*%O 4M wade # part of this ttfidavit contain the eurr"t rtam, ,riling addresses, phone nuehers and legal descriptions for` the the real yropsrty of ohieh its is tH gair Or lapel representative. A. The facts aA 4%xe Wtd to ti4t applice4ion and dacwaaeti tubaitttd in contunotW with this affidavit wm.;m and toeratt. furttw Affiesrt sslleth Oct. Poi T e s''of uracao, N. V. t� Vice Presi\\dent 3mm to awd gildvibedAA ioferr ssa Ejlig' of , I*7_&' No ary Wk. State Of 1110M at Lane NY ODW1 100 girl urvIL AL IYUTAKI Mai: RICHARD. C W r NOTARY MBUC SCATB OF FLORIDA COMMMION Na CC37W I D sL. MY COMMISSION W if M 6„]996 11202 i ( �ss1 f+RSoNAtty isNaWW DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP I. Legal description and street address of subject real property: See Attached Exhibit 2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership. Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question it requires disclosure of shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. Property Owner: Pointview Towers of Curacao, N. V. (100%) 1414 N. W. 107 Avenue - Suite 205 Miami, Florida 33172-2741 Stockholder: Invrepa Holding AG (100%) Dufourstr 60 8702 Zollikon-Zurich, Switzerland Invrepa Owner: Paul Etter, Sr. Dufourstr 60 8702 Zollik Zu ch Switzerland 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (-a) owneBy My party See attaches listed in answer to question i2, and (b) located within 315 feat of the subject real property. exhibit re: St. James (buyer) See Attached Exhibit Point�0-140 Tow sto�1C racao, N. V. Bv: -, ATTO EY FOR OWNER Vice President STATE OF FLORIDA } SS: COUNTY OF DADE } A. R. Scott being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the (Owner) '(Attorney Jar Owner) of the,real property described in answer to question ►1. above; that he has read the foregoing answers and that the sada are true and complete; and (if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to execute the Disclosure of Ownership form on behalf of the owner.. Q�SijONNAVY k %/6W N. j•,,,,- (SEAL) . (Namia SWORN TO AND SU6SCRIBM , before aia this 1st ��J4 day of t -Y 190 Notary Public, State of Florida at Large MY MISSION EXPIRESt ur>Nua" �'AXY MA6 RICHARD C WEST NC1rARY FOBLiC STATE OF FLORIDA CC►lYIIy SSION N0. CC39 M .ry IY�1MlSSit)11i F.XP. lI7NE 6,1lm8 11202 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO ZONING ATLAS File Number 92- 1, 57/ - Uu/%t PS ee hereby apply to the City commission of the Ft7of Mimi for an amendment to the Zoning Atlas of the City of Miami as more particularly described herein and, in support of that request, furnish the following information: d' 1. Address of property: 2. Two surveys, prepared by a State of Florida Registered land Surveyor. 3. Affidavit disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of interest. (See attached fora.) 4. Certified list of owner of real estate within a 375 -foot radius of the outside boundaries of property covered by -this application. (See attached form.) S. At least two photographs that show the entire propsjty (land and improvements.) 6. Atlas shest(s) an which property appears: 7. Present zoning designation(s): a. Proposed zoning designation(s); 9. Statement explaining why present zoning designation is inappropriate. (See attached form.) 10. Statement as to why proposed zoning designation is appropriate. (Set attached fora.) 11. Other (Specify 12. Filing fel of /1°=Taccording to following schedule: Change of zoning classification to: CS, PR, R-1, R-2, per square foot of net lot area ............. S O.1Z. Minimum.................. .................... $550.00 R-3, R-4, 0, 6/1, per square foot of net lot area ............. $ 0.16 Minimum . ...... . . ...............4......... $650.00 C-1, C-2, 1, per square foot of net lot area ...... :........... $ 0.20 Minima ....................................................... $750.00 C80 and all SD's, per square foot of net lot area ............. $ 0.92 Minima ................................. ........ ... $850 OA.. .4� Signature: Name; .0 r� a `s �d�t274" Address: p2.t? /'��'+•.� •�, r , R=��f1�.�/�� r Phone: • '©— 6?.s —x'"94 9' STATE OF FLORIDA } SS: COUNTY OF OAOE } RLsrD6 1` c ' uQ<A.*fka, `outc A� An,a c being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the -Agent-i'or Owner) of the real property. described in answer to question 1 above; that he has read the foregoing answers and that the same are true and complete; ant! (if acting as agent owner that he has authority to execute this petition on behalf of the owner. (SEAL) $VOPA TO AND SUISCA1810 -, MCHMO C ares' before ex this day ofQ4 LY ; 19-142 2 0 2 NamRYPU ucSTATBOFnmw COMMMSION NO. CdV.4 5 ✓✓' uv AAAWIcr*nr VVIllb". /...C.-Qq0 r��s.•.. a,1.�1 : ri+Q1 "•�'•,"::•.••••'�,::::`••%;1= .AFFIDAVIT STATE OF FLORIDA } } SS COUNTY OF DADE ) Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared s -+r ' " ova_T , who being by me first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says: / Qcc rf �f �f��J 1. That he is the :he legal representative of the owner, submitting the accompanying application for a public -hearing as required by Ordinance 11000 of the Code of the City of Mini, Florida, affecting the real property located in the City of Mini, as described and listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and made a part thereof. 2. That all owners which he represents, if any, have given their full and complete permission for him to act in their behalf for the change or modifica. tion of a classification or regulation of zoning as set out in the accompanying petition. 3. That the pages attached hereto and made a part of this affidavit contain the current names, mailing addresses, phone numbers and legal descriptions for the the real property of which he is the owner or Legal representative. 4. The facts as npreiented in the application and documents submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are•true and correct. ` Further Affiant sayeth not. ,fes) X (Name) Sworn to and S4bscribed before me this�C d4 of kl,1_� 1e! 11202 14 Lary Publ c, tate of or a XMWA at large Nuc© Np a�aOes ..r m.�ta�tnN ifl(P. TUNS 1,1996 = OISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP I. Legal description and street a ddress of subject real property: JeP ',n(�t�.`�°w D.s'C�Su/'P �C/dCt�fitP� i 2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership. Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question !2 requires disclosure of shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, toneother! wi their addresses and prorrtionate interest. See . «r �,��v`�«. ,�;sC/4,v,-e liacu- e.r 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question i2, and (b) located within 375 feet of the subject real property. Sce a����P/ ���l�v.�,►. �/.`s�(osurr ,Qoc u'�.r� 'G OY�f ElT4RNi'f—F81t OiPI(ER (Ars' STATE OF FLORIDA } SS: SF. Ja.a►rs d/rvP/adv.•+ e', !. COUNTY OF DADE } ,� /�C �K• S A/'A r^ being duly sworn, deposes end sags that he is the foe f-�J'ss�r ( o the real property described in answer to question I1, above; that he has read the foregoing answers and that the sun are true and coeplett; and (if Acting as attorney for owner) that he has authorit execute the Disclosure of Ownership fors on behalf of the owner., f ITEAL) SWORN TO AND SUBSCA14P ` before me this !�— day of Nitv7 Public, State of Florida at Large ' Mr CONNISSION EXPIRES2 UN'k:IAL NU►•Awcr bawl. RICHARD C WEV - NOTARY PUDUC SCATI Of FLORIDA 15 COMMISSION NO. CC=ffi MY CO)MABS10N f". RM 09"11202 OWNER'S LIST ,r� Owner's Name t! Vii, r. �lr. Pc�� f per/Prr 117L C K/'Q eae Mailing Address /�4/15Z 1P. !.r/_ /© 7AVrh a y. Telephone Number Legal Description: ,S,r` oaf ��(% Oil•• e���'.t%�Y r7� o JN6'o, , i�G 'ra QPfor�'• fi SCP/wt�,�,(rr f,�ep e*C'ol�+/tq�,y� �rF/er•:�ar`�s's.+'iO ol�.r ?r 8 i��'r•',./a1�r @wn r f Nam 5T. AV �%j n /' �, f' Mailing Address �� /,Of Olioo,i+c u e//lam,. Telephone Number ��%�- 6%i `J-%-0, Legal Description:.5.-#•►r, e GeS AfiD,'e - Owner's Has$ Mailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 375 feet of the subject site is listed as follows: Street Address Street Address ti rR r 1 ( Street Address Legal Description ��ff • a2 , . r a..: Tit t" �A I !}i:1 {'' !w lee � '. p a oe .Z� %� a 9V o � IXC �,��e IZe�s� • �,r�e C'eM��r �/. �r Legal Description �J Ae�?'�i. r� 5/�� �B �:.r,rl`r�f(�v,a{PTavtr• iit�i/.� / ��fZ'%A'�t dP a+�r►.a /aCe //!°'���7//�,lo�� -ge iv. /°,['•t''�t ga° cr(1'pt"ioBn�r%c,�C2 pt' /s:A1� �e�✓ R eeor7AN ,. 1.202 i Attachment to Application for Amendment to Zoning Atlas For 185 S.E. 14th Terrace 10. Statement explaining why present zoning is inappropriate. The owners of the property have owned this since approximately 1974. In the comprehensive plan, the zoning line was drawn without owners knowledge to isolate this one lot in a different zoning (0) from the contiguous parcels under the same ownership (SD -5). This isolated lot does not meet the minimum standard for a lot in the O zoning, since it is less than 20,000 square feet and since it has less then 100 feet of frontage. The contiguous property that the owner has is all zoned SD -5 and when this lot is combined with the other SD 5 it meets the minimum requirements. Without the rezoning this is a sub standard lot and•is of no use to the owners and creates a significant hardship and a loss of use of the property by owner. The subject lot is the only lot South of the private alley which is zoned "O". The subject lot is the only lot in a development site different than the others and this makes the entire site difficult to develop as one site. 11. Statement as to why proposed zoning designation is appropriate. The SD -5 zoning is appropriate because it is the zoning of the adjacent land which is owned by the same owner. There is no other way to rezone this lot to make it comply with the minimum standards. Most of if not all of the uses allowed under the SD -5 zoning are also allowed under the O zoning. Every other lot South of the private alley, both to the East and the West of Subject site,. is zoned either R4 or SD -5. W.aAZOMIJAM Attachment to Disclosure of Ownership Form For Rezoning of 185 S.E. 14th Terrace 1. Legal Description and Street address of subject property: • 185 S.E. 14th Terrace + Lot 30 less the Southeasterly 5' of Lot 30, Block 2 AMENDED PLAT of POINT VIEW according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, together with that certain Southern 5 feet of the 10' private alley between Lots 30 and Lots 7,8, and 9, all in Block 2. 2. In addition to the ownership interest of Pointview Towers of Curacao, N.V. disclosed in the affidavit, ST. JAMES DEVELOPMENT, INC. has a financial interest in the property by virtue of a purchase contract on the subject.property as well as the property identified in question 3 as well as 151 14th Terrace and 152 14th Street. • St. James Development, Inc. - has the property under contract to be purchased Address: ST. JAMES DEVElopimENT, INC. 230 Palm Avenue Miami Beach, Florida 33139 • Ownership Of ST. JAMES DEVELOPMENT, INC. - 75 % of the stock of St. James Development, Inc. is owned by Jan Barwick Adams, 230 Palm Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 33139 and 25 % is owned by T.C. Metzner, 701 South Broad Street, Thomasville, Georgia 31792 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer #2, and (b) located within 375 feet of the subject real property, « Present Property Owners - Pointview Towers of Curacao, N.V. own the following property contiguous to the subject property: 1120219 the West 10' of Lot I 1 all of Lot 12 , and all of Lots 27 through 29 inc. together with the portion of that certain 10' private alley between Lots 12, 13, 26, and 27 and between the West 10' of Lot 11 and the West 10' of Lot 28, and together with the Southerly 1/2 of the portion of that certain 10' private alley which lies adjacent to the North line of Lots 28 less the West 10' feet and adjacent to Lot 29 and Lot 30 less the Southeasterly 5 feet, all in Block 2 of AMENDED PLAT OF POINT VIEW according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93 of 1 the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, is owned by Pointview, Towers of Curacao, N.V. The street addresses are ; 157 and 165 S.E. 14th Terrace and 160 S.E. 14th Street • St. James Development, Inc. has the following parcels under contract to purchase; the West 10' of Lot 11 all Lots 12 and 13, Lots 27 through 30 inc, less the Southeasterly S' of Lot 30, together with the portion of that certain 10' private alley between Lots 12, 13, 26, and 27 and between the West 10' of Lot 11 and the West 10' of Lot 28, and together with the Southerly 1/2 of the portion of that certain 10' private alley which lies adjacent to the North line of Lots 28 less the West 10' feet and adjacent to Lot 29 and Lot 30 less the Southeasterly 5 feet, all in Block 2 of AMENDED PLAT OF POINT VIEW according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Lot 26, in Block 2, of POINT VIEW, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book s Page 25, of the Public Records of Dade 11202 County, Florida, also known as Lot 26, Block 2, of POINT VIEW amended, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. the Street addresses are: 157,165,185, and 151 S.E. 14th Terrace and 152 and 160 S.E. 14th Street, Miami, Florida Ref.Rezonel.satn ,c' 11202 Minutes of Special Meeting of Shareholders and Directors of St. James Development, Inc. to approve the application for Amendment to the Zoning Atlas of the City of Miami, ]Florida At a special meeting of Shareholders and Directors held at 2:15 P.M. on July 27, 1994, held at 230 Palm Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, the shareholders and Director approved by Motion duly made and seconded that they hereby authorize the joint application of Pointview Towers of Curacao, N.V. and St. James Development, Inc. to amend the Zoning Atlas of Miami, Florida and authorize Louis A. Adams as President of St. James Development, Inc. to execute any and all documents necessary to complete said application and any other documents necessary to achieve the zoning amendment. The motion was made by Jan Adams and passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. I hereby -c-e�rtify that this is a true and correct copy of the minutes. Louis A. Adams President and Secretary 112022 :J CI`i`1f IDF MIAMI, FLORIDA NOTICE All int i;d ppaersons will take notice that on the 17th day of No- _ _ ��., "mbar 1 99d,1he City Commission of Miami, Florida, adopted the AVENUE AREA RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE DISTRICT FOR 8flowing titlod ordinances - u . -THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT.185 SOUTHEAST 14TH TERRACE; MIAM) FL)ORI0`A"tK4-AE'PARTICULARLY-MAKI` AN, EMERdE14 Y ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING INITIAL NECESSARY HEREIN); CHANGES ON PAGE No. OF AFID RESOURCES AND INITIAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR A ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVI ,SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED . `VIOLENT' SION ANDA SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. ' MI STREET CRIMESJASK FORCE' AND"AUTHORIZING s; THSIC[ I MANAGER TO ACCEPT A GRANT IN THE AMQUNT'OF. $17,843 FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT '0 RDINANCE NO. 11203 _ OF;JUS TICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, AND AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.,110W STATE TO"EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS NECES AS AMENDED; THE ZONING ORDINANCE,OF.THE COUNT SRY TO ACCEPT SAID GRANT; CONTAINING A RE - :CITY OF. MIAMI, FLORIDA:' BY' AMENDING' SECTION PEALER PROVISION'AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, . 401, `SCHEDULE OF ,bISTRICT.REOULAT10N5 ;; TO Bet{ ALLOW. 'DISCOUNT MEMBERSHIP MERCANDIS Octelrt ORDINANCE N0.11109 ' ERS' AS A CONDITIONAL PRINCIPAL USE IN,.THE C 1 Super ANMERQENCY ORDINANCE. AMENDING ORDI• RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BY SPECIAL Revle NANCE, NO ll059,:'ADOPTED ON APRIL, 15, 1993, EXCEPTION ONLY, AND ESTABLISHING MINIMUM WHICH and L ESTABLISHED :INITIAL' RESOURCES AND' - PARKING REQUIREMENT; BY ADDING TWO NEW County INITIALAPPROPRIATIONS FOR A•SPECIAL REVENUE `RESERVED'_SECTIONS;, BY, ADDING.SECTION.'944, being FUND ENTITLED DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE. "DISCOUNT 'MEMBERSHIP' MERCHANDISERS!,; ES EDUCATION',:TO PROVIDE -FOR AN INCREASE IN TABLISHING'APPLICABLE`REGULATIONS FdR SAID THE;AMOUNT''OF'$70,217.AS THE RESULT OF.A. USE; AND BY AMENDING SECTION 2502 "SPECIFIC CI SUCCESSFUL. GRANT APPLICATION FROM METRO- DEF ,TO- PROVIDE A ,DEFINITION ;:FOR POLITAN DADE':,COUNTY,. AND "AUTHORIZING THE 'DISCOUNT°MEMBERSHIP MERCHANDISER , 'CON OR CITY' MANAGER TO''EXECUTE ANY, DOCUMENTS TAINING''A' REPEALER PROVISION ANDA SEVER - NECESSARY 70' ACCOMPLISH THE ACCEPTANCE ABILITYCLAUSE; AND. PROVIDING FOR AN EFFEC OFTHE' GRANT-'; CONTAINING A REPEALER, PROVI- TIVE DATE. SIGN AND:A'SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.., In the ORDINANCE NO. 11109 ORDINANCE NO. 1204, was r AN ORDINANCE'AMENDING'SECTION 40.229,'OF'THE' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE, NO 11000 I'll GODS OF 7HE':CITY: OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AS AMENDED, THE.ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE N0- ;'AMENDED BY;�`PROVIDING FOR :CANGES:'IN IN-' CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: BY AMENDING'ARTICLE 9 VESTMENT, GUIDELINES AND TYPES _;:OF .,FUNDS SECTION 926 'SIGNS; SPECIFIC; LIMITATIONS,' AND x;' tWH,ERE INVESTMENT, MAY BE MADE FOR MEMBERS REQUIREMENTS ,'BY:ADDING A NEW SUBSEOTION - OF,,'CITY OF. WIAMI',GENERAL:EMPLOYEES' .AND 928.9.' ENTITLED .:•SIGNS ' Or 'HISTORIC SIGNIFI = SANITATION EMPLOYEES'. RETIREMENT-, TRUST; CANCE, 'AND. PROVIDING PRbCEDURES FOR' EX AftCONTAINING A' REPEALER'PROVISION'AND A SEV- EMPTING DESIGNATED SIGNS OF';'HISTORIC SIG Revler� F 'ERABII.ITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR AM N EFFECTIVE NIFICANCE FROUSUAL'SIGN LIMITATIONS; CON . •. - CountL �. DAIE -: TAINING A REPEALER PROVISION ANDA SEVER been c each ABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR:AN EFFEC- d. ORDINANCE NO. 11200 TIVE DATE. hasAN, ORDINANCE; RELATED TO 'HISTORIC" PRESER. office I vATION. 'AMENDING `THE , REQUIREMENTS ..FOR, ORDINANCE NO 11205 one a TERMS`OF.OFFICE AND REMOVAL OF MEMBERS OF y THE; 11 RIC AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING`APPROPRIATI.ONS copy o FOR CITY OF MIAMI 'CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS neithe TION BOARD TO CONFORM WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTINUING .AND. REVISING PREVIOUSLY , AP' any di '' OF ORDINANCE NO. 11130; ADOPTED, MARCH' 24, PROVED SCHEDULED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT - of Sec 1894;, ESTABLISHING";FEES'FOR; APPEALS OF DES- 'PROJECTS;' ESTABLISHING' NEW' CAPITAL' IM - news IGNATIONS AND., CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATE• pROVEMENT PROJECTS TO BEGIN DURING FISCAL - NESS; -MORE PARTICULARLY; BY -AMENDING SEG PROVE ENT. ; REPEALING PROVISIONS DURING, D1-'- TIONS 8271;.23.1-4 AND,23:1-5 OF'THE, CODE OF YEAR NANCE N0: 11139, AS AMENDED; THE FS OF -.YEAR - THE -.CITY OF: MIAMI; FLORIDA; AS`AMENDED; "CON• 1993=1994 CAPITAL`' IMPROVEMENTS ''APPROPRIA } !` TAINING :A' REPEALER .PROVISIOWAND A:SEVER- ABILITY CLAUSE; AND, PROVIDING'. FOR AN EFFEC- TIONS':ORDINANCE;;WHICH MAYBENIN CONFLICT TIVE, DATE : ; ; WITH THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING, CONDITIONS AUTHORIZATIONS AND DIRECTIONS TO THE".CITY 7. 30 1 ORDINANCE NO 11201 MANAGER AND CITY `CLERK; CONTAINING A ;RE day AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REQUIREMENTS, - PEALER_ PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE FOR''.TERMS: OF, OFFICE AND, REMOVAL OF. MEM AND PROVIDING FOR'AN EFFECTIVE DATE I n. OERS. ;OF :THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT - REVIEW Said ordinances may inspected by the ppublic 'I the Office of BOARD TO CONFORM WITH THE PROVISIONS OF . the City Clerk, 3500 Pan American Dnve Miami, Florida; Monda ORDINANCE N0.11130; 'ADOPTED MARCH 24, 1994 y (SEAL) i # .,AORE,PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING" SECTION 62-64 '; -through' Friday, excluding holidays, between the hours of'.8 a m . - OF THE,CODE<OF THE,CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA AS and,5 m, Y oF. Oclelm AMENpED -,CONTAINING` A REPEALER PROVISION' p c t L MATTY HIRAI _ e AND .AASEVERABILWY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING r" 9 CITY CLERK • • # ' FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. "' + s CITY OF MIAMI FLORIDA (#2251) o Hwy a ORDINANCE N0..3IIIII8I111— '944;d�113045M ` AN ORDINANCE -AMENDING -THE ZONING ATLAS.OF { - MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW Published Deily except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays Miami, Dade County, Florida. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE: Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Octelma V. Farbeyre, who on oath says that she Is the Supervisor, Legal Notices of the Miami Daily Business Review We Mlami Review, a dally (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Dade County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice In the matter of CITY OF MIAMI ORDINANCE NO. 11202 In the.......................}tX9Cfi•}E}X,X............................... Court, was published in sold newspaper in the Issues of Nov 30, 1994 Afflent further says that the said Miami Deily Business Review is a newspaper published at Miami in said Dade County, Florida, and that the said newspaper hes heretofore been continuously published in said Dade County, Florida, ouch day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office In Miami in said Dade County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of.advertleement; and affiant further says that she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discounj rebate, commission d for the purpose of secur this advertlsam pubic ation In the said news er. p Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30 November !J4 ........day of....... , A.D.19....,. (SEAL) = i Octelms V. Farbeyre personalixkao �e. c ppFIC1AL NOTARY SISAL Ct.RRYL H HARMER CuMAtwslON NO. CC191642 MY CION RYCP. APR 12,106 Attachment 7: J-98-521 Ord. 11668, 5/25/98 Rezoning Lots ORDINANCE NO. 11668 61718 AN ORDINANCE, WITH ATTACHMENT, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND PAGE, NO. 37 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM 0 OFFICE TO SD -.5 BRICKELL AVENUE AREA RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 194-218 SOUTHEAST 14TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. t WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of March 30, I ' 1998, Item No. 2, following an advertised hearing, adopted I Resolution No. ZB 1998-0042,1 by a eight to zero (8-0) vote, I RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a change of zoning classification, as i hereinafter set forth; and .WHEREAS, the City Commission, after careful consideration of this matter, deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to grant this change of zoning classification as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: I Section 1. The Zoning Atlas of Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, ATTACHMENT (S) CONTAINED 11668 i i Page 37, Article 4, Section 401, Schedule of District Regulations, is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification from O Office to SD -5 Brickell Avenue Area Residential -Office District for the property located at 194-218 Southeast 14th Street, Miami, Florida, more particularly legally described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 93, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Section 2. It is hereby found that this zoning classification change: (a) is in conformity with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; (b) is not contrary to the established land use pattern; (c) will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; (d) is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City; (e) will not materially alter the population density pattern or increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.; (f) is necessary due to changed or changing conditions; (g) will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; (h) will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety; (i) will not create a drainage problem; 11668 (j) will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent area; (k) will not adversely affect property value in the adjacent area; (1) will not be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations; and (m) will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner so as to compromise the protection of the public welfare. Section 3. Page No. 37 of the Zoning Atlas, made a part of Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, by reference and description in said Ordinance, is hereby amended to reflect the changes made necessary by this Amendment. Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances insofar as they are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 5. If any section, part of section, paragraph, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected. Section 6. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty 11668 (30) days after final reading and adoption thereof.l PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 26th day of May , 1998. PASSED AND ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this 23rd day of June , 1998. JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR In accordance with Miami Code Sec. 2.36, since the Mayor did not indicate approv-, ^{ this legislation by signing it in the designated place provided, said legislation becomes effective with the elapse of ten (10) days from the date of Commission aL:..; ATTEST: regarding same, without the Mayor exer ' ' a to. Walter J. Fo an, itv Clerk WALTER J. FOEMAN CITY CLERK t/ W498:YMT:dsl l This Ordinance shall become effective as specified herein unless vetoed by the Mayor within ten days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Ordinance, it shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission or upon the effective date stated herein, whichever is later. 11668 02/12/98 THU. 17:52 FAX 305 374 1156 FREEKAN,BCTTER1A.v,HABER am REC. I (LJ�r`�� : ,.N HARVEY RININ EXHIBIT "Au rt�rC+atur. cn, •, LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot . 6, in Bleck 2, and also ths' part of Lot 7 in Block 2., ;described"' follows: Begirming at a point So feat East of the � 'Northwest Garner of Lot 7; thence Easterly along Kathryni Avenue a distance 25 , feet; thence Southwesterly to the southeast ' :,corner of hidiLot 7; thence westerly along an alley toga point '24 feet 6 inches from the southwest corner of said Lot 7; thence to place ot!beginning; All of above being located in POIXT VIEW, 'a subdivision of part of Lot'27 and Lots 25 to 36 or Block 105 Sauth, City/ofjx1axi.'Florida; also That portion of Lot 7, in Black 2, or Amended Plat of POINT V=W, I.according to tie Plat thereat, recorded in Plat Book 2, !&t Pa ;9?, of the; Public Records of Dada county, Florida, vrhich is !b dunded a;nil: da'scribed as follows: , Commencing atthe NCrthweAt crner of�saia Lot 7; theAc+e-;run Shsterly on the Northerly fh1unda y line of said loot 7, a distance of 50 feet: tsenr:a rurti southweste;ly do'an intersection with the Southerly boundary line tof said Lot -7 at a point which is 24 1/2 feet Easterly from the, (southwest ico=4r of said Lot 7; thence roti Westarly'on the :Southerly t6undary ling of said Lot to the southwesterly cornier ithnreaf; th'cnca run Northeasterly on the westerly boundary line of said Lot:7 to the Placa of Seginnisig; also I ;All of Lot`• 6I in Block 2, of Amended Plat of POINT VIEW, :according # the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93, �of the. Public Records.of Dade County,.Florida , The above deac4bed property is also known as Lots 6, T and 8, Block •2, at Amended Plat of POINT VIEW accordisig to the Plat. :thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93 of the Public Records :of Dade Cotintyj Florida. l ;+LSO !A strip at'•land having a frontage -of .25 feat by a depth of 13 feet more or liasa, at the foot of* Kathryn Avenue described as follows: Begiening at a point in that Center of Xathryn Avenue ; frantinj onv this Bay; 'thence Northwardly a distance of 25 feet (following the*Bay line, thence Westwardly a distance of is feat ,more of lass, thence Southwardly a distanca of 25 feet more or less thence Me 1 feat more or less to the Point. of Beginning. The above description beinq the North 25 feet of out -Lot 5 in POINT 'VIER, a su$divilsion o= part of Lot 27 and Lots 28 to 36 of Block '105 South,:City of Miami, Florida; all recorded.in the Amended !Plat of POINT VXEW, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 2, at Page 93, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.*- Z003 11068 OF ® PZ -6 \�i\�b� SECOND READING O�INLDRB 96ATED���) ZONING FACT SHEET Case Number: 1998-0096 30 -Mar -98 Item No: 2 Location: 194-218 SE 14 Street Legal: (Complete legal description on file with the Office of Hearing Boards) Applicant: Zoning Bayhaven Investments, Inc. 1414 NW 107 Ave., #215 Miami, FL 33172 App. Ph: (305) 593-2584 O Office Lucia A. Dougherty, Esq. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 ' Rep. Ph: (305) 579-0603 ext Rep. Fa (__) = ext Request: Change of Zoning as listed in Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Article 4, Section 401, Schedule of District Regulations from O Office to SD -5 Brickell Avenue Area Residential -Office District. Recommendations: Planning and Development: Approval Public Works: No comments Plat and Street Committee: N/A Dade County Transportation: No comments Enforcement History, If any C.E.B. Case No: N/A Last Hearing Date: Found: N/A Violation(s) Cited: N/A Ticketing Action: N/A Daily Fine: $0.00 Affidavit Non -Compliance Issued on: Warning Letter sent on: Total Fines to Date: $0.00 Lien Recorded on: Comply Order by: CEB Action: History: Analysis: Please see attached. Zoning Board Resolution No: ZB 1998-0042 Zoning Board: Approval Vote: 8-0 Appellant: N/A City Commission: Passed First Reading on May 26, 1998. 11668 • 0 ANALYSIS FOR ZONING CHANGE Approximately 194-218 SE 14th Street. CASE NO: 1998-0096 Pursuant to Article 4, Section 401 and Article 22 of Ordinance 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, the subject proposal has been reviewed for an amendment to the Zoning Atlas as follows: The request is to change the Zoning designation as follows: A parcel which consists of three lots, from O "Office" to SD -5 "Brickell Avenue Area Office -Residential District'. (Complete legal description on file with the Hearing Boards Office). The following findings have been made: • It is found that the subject properties are adjacent north and west to the SD -5 zoning designation. • It is found that the requested change to SD -5 "Brickell Avenue Area Office - Residential District" on the subject property is a logical extension of the adjacent parcels and will unify the designations and therefore allow for a more unified development proposal to serve the Brickell core. • It is found that the requested zoning designation change is consistent with the underlying land use designation and therefore does not require an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Based on these findings, the Department of Planning and Development is recommending approval of the application as presented. 11668 neariiwjj=,� Add/Update a Case Supporting Matenals a.. Zoning Board History, . Zoning _Board Resobiiori �". Set Up Zoning Board Analysis , Enforcement History ,. Change Anatyri:, . Case#=;1998 0096 -Yes No:W A In harmony with Comp. Plan does eft rNwe`amendrn' e In harmony wh eabjsheeif lard use: " j Is related to'adlacent and'nea"4-districts !! Is within scale,with nee&of neighNrhood or C>fy j Mantains simar fiolahr.deny ptern -- s Existingdistrict boundies are go Update= Chan9es or cFrangmg coriddonsthat make charge necr<ssety a Positively inf uences living conditrori§ in nerght�orhood as similar impact on 4af6c; does not' affect'safety., Cancel Has sim@ar impact on drainage Has simar impact ori fight and au fo:adacent areas Has similar impact on jopertyr values in adjacent Return areas r+ Co�ibLAes to improvement or vel6pmerii adjacent PiaPah' , Conveysame tier as to owners wrffun "same elasscatron . Property is unfairly hued under existi' zoning, ` Difficult to find other .- adequate sites,in s�sroi.rndirg area I 11668 ;T. S.W. 9 ST S.E -4 ST l 11 .> I i SO , • � !• I� .. f • I e ! S L • S Q L --� ' 72 aJ :c s 71 �• Ir I • • N n .• Iif zo z� I22 2] i a S.W. 'o ST` S cr 3 2 z. 74 m .2 3 z I f.sss m „° 1,• .. I s � a• o• z,• ,S S. W. 11 ST. CITY 5 N Oj la v, Ire, z. xz z]PR N1 z 12 ST. 6 10 Is '?s =WT 5HSIDE ELEM./ ' SCHOOL 21 22 23 o S.E. 13 ST. ¢ 9S zl o '• " ~ u .a M n Is zo 100 Sn .•. I• 14 K _ N M If e - _ 14 ST N ° O / ° S O O �( O ° ISI C ` G ' 0 c � ppo i 1 _ ° ° o ko ° ] 0 0 o. 0000o I'� g r� . W R4 4" // T o - o° L i 000 BA?SH b(p p GAR.0 S o rR4c, ° oo ° I ° ti FORTE I S•f. °o pROpe Q li o c o° aur e. r42Cr0a4M4 E rv9 ST o NI TRACr_4 S 1 * I z O F Spe �zz A' „ � q o •.. o° I' 0 o B a'� so 9T ' a � ,,. 8 J � •S � a�e'�, ro 96 I. s 13 r. Q o f p0R �4 .:, Y „•, fe >e .Ida ' ° f •, 12 'O „ S T, S.W..�. 14 TERR. ° V rR,C 4. Z4 4• aszi . • O 98 s tiV 99 ° �.E z• 2 ]o 1 4 s TERR �• = • z ' sz `P' `'�� PPOra <t�• r s ' °° = zz ] e o � L NQS v y° ' 0 ZO s• 14, rLLA • 9 T r ,A s� m .. __ 1l . ) , . -'o ''J LEGEND MIAMI C I T Y L I M I T S RAILROADS SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST HISTORIC PRESERVATION �•�•�• m r i 1 f lr bra /rt, '• � tl . p l x r.r �� t� •. f' t j r � f y �s ai i je F-7 dF 5 d� :-7�F' \1 . at�r£. }*p�dF! l ,ii ,.. Q4• i" � •tib SaF� i �? vd � � � `1'�� �� a• f �1 I � F '��. 41, ok�3iax}'e; `r r+j�`� ► 1 'I . i. � n�" � r(t ; },y y a r� t �, n ���e�, at +�• }�y ,x Y, �JI�i t" r jia .4•:r. �k i � , srg •.s, • � rN. I x,rrJ es r r z . � r !. a� 6y�;���5 r i`�.'�'. t '`h 't y ,. a } LL � .' r i x �, .y � 7 �?c•; 't A rt t' ' t Y 11 ti•. a i� f `�'��� '+`ria 4i Miami Zoning Board Resolution: ZB 1998-0042 Monday, March 30,1998 Mr. Juvenal Pina offered the following Resolution and move its adoption Resolution: AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, THE ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CHANGE OF ZONING IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, PAGE 37. ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, FROM O OFFICE TO SD -5 BRICKELL AVENUE AREA RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 194-218 SE 14TH STREET LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A" HEREBY ATTACHED; ZONED O OFFICE. Upon being seconded by Ms. Christine Morales, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: Mr. George Barket Ms. Gloria M. Basila Mr. Tucker Gibbs Ms. Ileana Hernandez -Acosta Ms. Christine Morales Mr. Osvaldo Moran-Ribeaux Mr. Paris A. Obregon Mr. Humberto J. Pellon Mr. Juvenal Pina Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 8-0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Away Yes AYE: 8 NAY: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 0 NO VOTES: 0 ABSENTS: 1 Teresita L. Fernandez, Chief Office of Hearing Boards Case No.: 1998-0096 Item Nbr: 11668 • EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION I] Lots 6, 7 and 8 as One, Block 2, Amended Plat of Point View, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 93 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. 11668 SECTION 22 10. NATURE ANDMENTS OF ZONING BOARD • REPORT TO COMMISSION (CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS) When pertaining to the rezoning of land under application made under Article 22, the report and recommendation of the Zoning Board shall show that the Zoning Board has studied and considered, where applicable, whether or not: (a) The proposed change conforms with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and does not require a plan amendment; (b) The proposed change is in harmony with the established land use pattern; (c) The proposed change is related to adjacent and nearby districts; (d) The change suggested is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the city; i (e) The proposed change maintains the same or similar population density pattern and thereby does not increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.; 1 (f) Existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change; (g) Changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed \\ change necessary; (h) The proposed change positively influences living conditions in the neighborhood; (i) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on traffic and does not affect public safety to a greater extent than the existing classification; (j) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on drainage as \ the existing classification; (k) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on light and air to adjacent areas as the existing classification; (1) The proposed change has the same or similar impact on property values in the adjacent area as the existing classification; (m) The proposed change will contribute to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations; (n) The proposed change conveys the same treatment to the individual owner as to owners within the same classification and the immediate area and furthers the protection of the public welfare; (o) There are substantial reasons why the use of the property is unfairly limited under existing zoning; (p) It is difficult to find other adequate sites in the surrounding area for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. (MOTION) After considering the factors set forth in Section 2210 of Ordinance 11000, I move that the request be recommended to the City Commission for (APPROVAL) (DENIAL). Si J :0 "-L Agenda Item 3 130 A8 Date I 11668 • CITY OF NUANS OFFICE OF HEARING MARDS APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO ZONING ATLAS AND/OR OVERLAY DISTRICT #####*#*##*t###t###**#*###*#*#t*##tt####tt###ttt*tt#t##t####4#####t##tt####t#t#*#*##*#########*# SECTION 2-653 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, GENERALLY REQUIRES ANY PERSON WHO RECEIVES COMPENSATION, REMUNERATION OR EXPENSES FOR CONDUCTING LOBBYING ACTIVITIES TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST WITH THE CITY CLERK, PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES BEFORE CITY STAFF, BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION. A COPY OF SAID ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK (MIAMI CITY HALL), LOCATED AT 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33133. *#*#t*ttt##t##tt##t##ttt###t#t#t#t##tt#ttt###tt#tt####t####t#tt#####*######ttt##ttt###t#t##t**#* NOTE: THIS APPLICATION MUST BE TYPEWRITTEN AND SIGNED IN BLACK INK. Marco E. Rojas, as Lucia A. Dougherty, on behalf of Bayhaven Investments, Inc. -and trustee and/oassi� I, , hereby apply to the City Commission of the City - of Miami for an amendment to the Zoning Atlas of the City of Miami as more particularly described herein and, in support of that request, furnish the following information (see Anicle 22 of the Zoning Ordinance): X 1. Address ofroPertY� 194-218 S.E. 14th Street P 01-0210-US0-1250 2. Folio number: 01-0210-050-2260 X 3. Two original surveys, prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land Surveyor within one year from the date of application. X 4. Affidavit disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of interest (see attached form). X _ 5. Certified list of owners of real estate within a 375 -foot radius of the outside boundaries of property covered by this application. x 6. At least two (2) photographs that : hr- v rn- -:ntire property (land and improvements). X 7. Present zoning designation(s): o f f i c e x 8. Future zoning designation(s): SD -5 X 9. Other (Specify and attach cover letters explaining why any document you are attaching is pertinent to this application). 11668 10. Statement eainin Y Present zoning designation is ina pproj&e. Currently there are only four lots with the office designation which is out of character with the surrounding area: X I l . Statement as to why proposed zoning designation is appropriate. The property is surrounded on three sides by properties which are also designated SD -5. Thus the SD -5 regulations are more compatible for the area and give greater flexibility for development. X 12. Recorded warranty deed and tax forms for the most current year.available that show the present owner(s) of the property. 13. Other (specify): x 14. Filing fee of $9,983.70 according to Section 62-156 of the Zoning Ordinance: Change of zoning classification: CS, PR, R-1, R-2, per square foot of net lot area ....................................................$ .15 Minimum.................................................................................................................$ 635.00 R-3, R-4, O, G/l, HP per square foot of net lot area ...............................................$ .20 Minimum................................................................................................................$ 750.00 C-1, C-2, I, per square foot of net lot area..............................................................$ .25 Minimum................................................................................................................$ 900.00 CBD and all SD's, per square foot of net lot area ..................................................$ .30 Minimum................................................................................................................$1,000.00 Public hearing mail notice fees, including cost of handling and mailingper notice...................................................................................................$ 3.50 Signature Name Lucia Doughtery Address 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone (305) 579-0603 Date February 13, 1998 11668 STATE OF FLORIDA • COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i _ day of February 19 98 , by Lucia A. Dougherty who is personally known to me oPAWuAia - p_"u"d and who did (did not) take an oath. tC.,� Name: ; •� Notary Public -State of Florida ' J Commission iv.: OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL My Commissi �ISOL R GONZALEZ Y PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO. CC403667 MY COMMISSION EXP. SEPT 17,1998 xxxx,t+rxxx#*xxAxxtA xxxxft,t,tx,t#xxxAAA,tAA*xxx,►,t,►rxx*,txfxRx*!xA*fltr*xxx#*,txx*fir#,txxxxxxxxx ■ w �xxxxx*xxx STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 19 , by a He/She is personally known to me or has produced and who did (did not) take an oath. of day of corporation, on behalf of the corporation. as identification Name: Notary Public -State of Florida Commission No,: My Commission Expires: *x,rxxxxxxxox�xxxxxxxx,►xxxxxx,►,r,►:rx*,►xxx*xx,►xt*,►*xx**xx,►*nr:*sf�*t*ika***+►*+rt+►***+►+►*xx*xxxxx*x:*: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of partner (or agent) on behalf of a partnership. He/She is personally known to me or who has as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. 19___, by produced Name: Notary Public -State of Florida Commission No.: My Commission Expires: • AFFIDAVIT STATE OF FLORIDA ) ISS COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared who being by me first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says: 0 Lucia A. Dougherty 1. That he/she is the owner, or the legal representative of the owner, submitting the accompanying application for a public hearing as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, affecting the real property located in the City of Miami, as described and listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and made a part'thereof. 2. That all owners which he/she represents, if any, have given their full and complete permission for him/her to act in his/her behalf for the change or modification of a classification or regulation of zoning as set out in the accompanying petition. 3. That the pages attached hereto and made a part of this affidavit contain the current names, mailing addresses, telephone numbers and legal descriptions for the real property of which he/she is the owner or legal representative. 4. The facts as represented in the application and documents submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are true and correct. Further Affiant sayeth not. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE Applicant's Signature Lucia A. Dougherty The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3 day of February 199g , by Tj, r i a a . no>>,9herty who is personally known to me oF-*� predum,d ;G:...Gfl,,vL: -. and who did (did not) take an oath. Name: Notary Public -State o tlondbF��xARYYSEAL Commission No.: Tr Ai crZ I,RY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA My Commission Exp s: COMMISSION NO. CC403667 MY COMMISSION EXP. SEPT 17,1998 11668 0 �� I OWNER'S LIST Owner's Name Bayhaven Investments, Inc • , a Florida corporation Mailing Address c/o Arthur Scott 1414 N.W. 107th Avenue, ,215, Miami, Fl 3312 Zip Code Telephone Number ( 305) 593-2584 Legal Description: See attached Exhibit "A" Owner's Name Mailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: Owner's Name Mailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: N/A N/A Zip Code Zip Code Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 375 feet of the subject site is listed as follows: N/A Street Address Legal Description Street Address N/A N/A Street Address Legal Description Legal Description 11668 ' . I DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP 0 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property: See Attached Exhibit "A" 2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership. Note: Section 2-618 of the Code of the City of Miami requires disclosure of all parties having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question #2 requires disclosure of shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and proportionate interest. Marco E. Rojas, as trustee and/or assigns is the trustee for Key Real Estate Development II Corp., a Florida corporation- 100% shares owned by Neyda E. Avila. 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question #2, and (b) located within 375 feet of the subject real property. None Owner or A orne r er Lucia A. Dougherty STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of February 19 98 , by Lucia R. Dougherty who is personally known to me or wig prDdueed as -I and who did (did not) take an oath. J Name:�°` OFFICIAL�O—P'N� 0A Notary Publi -Stater i t. Commission ARY c�510N No• C.C4036 I OMI,4 ION EXP. SEYT,17. a� My Commis 11668 MG`x OSURfi OF 0Wn1tSM* 1, %31 description and street address of subjeot real petty; See attached Exhibit "A7 attached hento and ma&; a part hcmf. 2 Owner o f subject real prapr:--�y and pwentage of ownmhip.. Note: Section 2.618 of the Coin of the City of Wam r<wiz,rs disclosure of all parties having a financial ingest, either di: -ct or irtdire�, in the subject matter of a pteson atieu, request or paiition to the City C rru�isszan. Accordiagiy, question #2 requim disclosma of dwde Dlders of corporatitms, n e.aQf cixies of traits, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses and V7' xlrtionate intact. Shareholder Address interest Dover Corp. Inc. 1-41.4 N. T..1.07 Ave. - Suite 215, /Miami, Fla 45`! Christel & Cesar Payan 1414 N. N. 107 Ave. - Suite 215, 2Iiami, Fla 30/-> Antonio & Francesca Pacini 1414 N. W. 107 Ave. - Suite 215, Miami, Fla 10% Invrepa Holding SA 1414 N. W. 107 Ave. - Suite 215, /Miami, Fla 15% 3 Leg i description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any petty Uztcd in an;5wet to ques ion ##2, and (b) located within 375 feet ofthe subject real properly. N 0 N E Bayhnve tmeq , Inc. Bv ownwmAn President STA"IE O 1<LORmA ) C OUNTY OF NCLANII-DADS) The foregoing instrument was acl zowiedged befom me this day ofFebruary, 1998 b,"AP, SCGT'i who is personally /mown to ma or who 'bas produced as i&nfificatlon and who did*44M) take as oath. / hYUPublic-State of Florida My Commis on Expim: 'NM; -- -- 0FFTC:1AL NOTARY SEAL RIMUM C WEST NOTARY PUBLIC STA'T'E OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO. CC373395 MY CQI.04T3SIOIN EXP. 6,3998 11668 • EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION E I Lots 6, 7 and 8 as One, Block 2, Amended Plat of Point View, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2 at Page 93 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. 11668 OFF, AEC. 17�9e4r� IN TEN CIRCUIT COURT O! TBE iLEVa1T}! JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADi COUNT=, FLDRiDA GIMPAL TMISTICTIOm Dmsxox 96R334-257 1996 JUL 39 11:08 CIVIL ACTION NO. 96. 6262 2;C. 27 DOCSTFDEE 6456.00 SURTI 4.gS?,0D DOM CORP., INC., a I.V.I. corporation, KARVEY RUVINr (LERR DADE CDUNTY, FL CSRISTSL S. pAYAM, CZM pATA1f, AJIIUNTO PACIAI, FRARUCA. CrmuA Di PAC= and INVPMk NOZ4)X=, B.A., a twigs corporation, Plaiatiff(s)/Patitioner(s) vs. KIN03TAR IIIT22XITIOR&L. INC.. a British Virgin- Island camany, Defendant (a) Asspondent (a) C=RTrTICATi OF TITLE Chapter 45 TEE U.MMWXr9:D CLiRX OF this Court certifies that a Certificate of salt was executed and filed is this action as July 17, 1996 , for the property described herein and that objections to the sale have either tot been filed within the time allowed by statutory law or, it filed, haw been heard by the court, 'rhe property in Dads County, Florida and described es follows: ' (ail ATTACH COPY) was sold too 6AYHAVEN IWESiuENTS INC., a fto2.ida Cotportation, c/o Bernstein 4 Barger, 100 N. Biscayne Boulevard, #100, Kiami, Florida 33132.. wITNE.9s my hand and the seal of this Court on July 30, 1996 Harvey Ruvia. 7)), ,.p Cook By. �/l .` ^� D■puty Clerk Oar' 11668 02/12!98 THL' 17:52 FAX 305 374 1156 FRMLI N.B=R3iA_N, HAB ER OFF•. i 1 C.�`t� r�6t 'L REC. HARVEY RIJVIN EXHIBIT "Au "LTRW fur a„ •+ LEGAL DESCRIPTION • Lot 6, in IBlc'ck 2, and also the' part of Lot 7 in B•loCX 2,, :described 1S follows: Beginning at a point 50 feet East of the 'Northwest Corner of Lot 7: thence Easterly along Kathryzi Avanua :a distanc`i 25 -feet; thance Soutbwasterly to the southeast Sidi ::corner of Lot 7; thence westerly along an alley to !a point 24 toot 6 inches from the Southwest corner of said Lot 7; thence to, place of!beginning; A11 of above being located in POINT VIEW, 'a subdivision of part of Lot'27 and Lots 25 to 36 of Block 105 South, City! ofj Milani, 'Florida: also That portion ofJ Lot 7, in Black 2, 0f Amended Plat -of POINT V=W, /.according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 2, ;at Pa 19., of the;Public Records of Dada county, Florida, which is ibded anc2:described as follows: , Commencing at. the Ncrthwe t cgqrner o=;said Lot 7; thrun 8b'aterly on the Northerly i b-Sundaxy line of said Lot 7, a distw=a of 50 feet; thenr:a ran sottithwestatiy to' an intersection with the Southerly boundary line of said Lot•7 at a point which is 24 1/2 teat Easterly from the southwest worr> w of said Lot 7; thence ran Westerly •an the :southerly 'boundary line of said Lot to the Southwasterly corner itharearf; tAanci run Northeasterly on the wastarly boundary line .of said Lot.7 to the Placa of Begiunirig; also All of . Lot/. $I in Plock 2, of Amended Plat of Po2N';' • 9IBW, according U the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93, ! of the. Public Records .of Dada County, .Florida The above dsac-;ihad property is also ]mown as Lots 6, 7• and 8, Block '2, of Amended Plat of POINT VIEW according to the plat :thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 93 of the Public Records .of Dade Comintyj Florida. i ! kWO ' !A strip at' land having a trentage:of.25 feet by a depth of 25 foot more pr lies&, at the foot of'Kathryn Avenue described as follows: Begibn1ng at a point in the Center of Kathryn avenue F lrontin-j oiL- this Bay; 'thence Northwardly a distance of 25 Peet !following thd•Bay line, thence Westvardly a distance of is feet more* of les&, thence Southwrardly a distance of 25 last more or Mess, than'& 1 feat more or less to the Point of Beginning. The above description being the North 25 feet of out -Lot 5 in POINT VIEW, a subdivilsion oC part of Lot 27 and Lots 28 to 36 of Block '105 5outh,;Citp of Miami, Florida, all recorded in the Amended tPlat of POINT VIEW; according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 2, at Page 93, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. 2003 11668 0 RECEINEP '98 JUL -8 R10 :41 CI i '> C:11ERK "IT Y (); -, 111, FL A. MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays Miami, Dade County, Florida. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE: Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Sookie Williams, who on oath says that she Is the Vice President of Legal Advertising of the Miami Dally Business Review f/kla Miami Review, a dally (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami In Dade County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice In the matter of CITY OF MIAMI ORDINANCE NO. 11668 In the .................. XXXXXXX ... Court, ... was pr�bliVed irt, l rgwspaper In the Issues of Afflant further says that the said Miami Dally Business Review Is a newspaper published at Miami In said Dade County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published In said Dade County, Florida, each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as second class mall matter at the post office In Miami In said Dade County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy dvIertisement; and affiant further says that she has neat er d nor promised any person, firm or corporationany disc unt, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose offeculing this advertisement for publication in the said Svy6m}6y and sub(fcrib7q/ me t9hi8s 6 A �............ . Vii!.//:D. 19.....-. .. ..CtiL�fS J(SEAL) 1 ANFTT LLERENA O Sookle Williams 1 eras s ' o totMisstoN NUMBER c CC566004 MY EXPIRES FOF F�-O JUNE 23,2000 • CITY OF MIAMI, FLOii1DA LEGAL.NOTICE ` ='All'iriteresfed per! o66srwili'take notice'th'at on,the 23thi'day-of-Jon6 1998; the -City Commission of Miami,'Florida, adopted the following ti- tied ordinances: " ORDINANCE NO. 11666 AN ORDINANCE -AMENDING. CHAPTER 40, ARTICLE III, OF THE l CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTI , TLED "PERSONNEUCIVIL"SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS', ! ,TO PROVIDE THAT SUBJECT TO ANY PROVISION IN AN EXIST- ING LABOR AGREEMENT, REAPPOINTED EMPLOYEES SHALL ONLY' RECEIVE- CREDIT FOR SERVICE' RENDERED: PRIOR TO RE-EMPLOYMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEETING THE TIME - IN -GRADE REQUIREMENT NECESSARY FOR TAKING A PROMO- TIONAL EXAMINATION;- MORE • PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING.. SECTION 40-119(b). of SAID CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER ; PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN , EFFECTIVE DATE.` ORDINANCE NO. 11667 f AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 40,ARTICLE III, OF THE I ! CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTI- TLED: "PERSONNEL/CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS', I' TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO BE CERTIFIED AS. CANDIDATES FOR POLICE OFFICER ON OPEN COMPETITIVE REGISTERS; MORE PARTICULARLY'BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 40-88(x)(1) AND REPEALING SUBSECTION 40-88(a)(2); CONTAIN- ING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOWAN EFFECTIVE -DATE. ORDINANCE NO. 116 @@�� AN, ORDINANCE, WITH ATTACHMEiVDING THE ZONING j ORDINANCE -AND PAGE NO. 37 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,- FLORIDA; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSk FICATION FROM O OFFICE' TO SDc5113RICKELL AVENUE AREA' RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE DISTRICT -,FOR THE -PROPERTY LOCATED -AT APPROXIMATELY194-218 SOUTHEAST 14TH STREET, MIAMI;-' FLORIDA; MORE PARTICULARLY LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; 'MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING.A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN -EFFECTIVE,. DATE. ORDINANCtNO. 11669 " AN 'ORDINANCE 'AMENDING' THE 'FUT.URE LAND USE MAP OF -THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3615 NW 23RD COURT, FROM MEDIUM DEN- SITY -RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FIND- ; INGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS'. TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION -AND .A SEVERABILITY.,' CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE NO. 11670 :AN'ORDINANCE, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 34 OF THE ZONING'ATLAS-OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-3 MULTIFAM= ILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO C-2 LIBERAL COMMER- CIAL FOR THE PROPERTY- LOCATED- AT APPROXIMATELY 3615 ,'NORTHWEST 23" COURT MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE NO. 11671 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE -COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD 'PLAN BY CHANGING THE: LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3188.SOUTHWEST 18TH;STREET A_ ND 1801 SOUTHWEST 32ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA FROM DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL TO RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL; MAKING FIND- INGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO' AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION' AND A SEVERABILITY, CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE -DATE. ORDINANCE N0. 11672- ' AN ORDINANCE AMENDING'PAGE NO. 40 OF THE ZONING AT- LAS OF THE CITY -OF MIAMI, -'FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING, CLASSIFICATION FROM R-27`WO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Z TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LO - GATED AT, APPROXIMATELY 3188 SOUTHWEST 18TH STREET AND 1801 SOUTHWEST 32ND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER- PROVISION AND A SEV- ERABILITY CLAUSE;:AND PROVIDING FOR -AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE NO. 1111673' ON -ORDINANCE, WITH ATTACHMENT. AMENDING FUTURE LAND .USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD -PLAN-BY CHANGING. THE., LAND USE DESIGNATION .FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 900 SOUTHWEST 1ST STREET (MANUEL ARTIME AUDITORIUM) FROM MAJOR IN- STITUTIONAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES, TO RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CON- TAINING A REPEALER i PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.- - ORDINANCE NO. 11674 AN ORDINANCE, WITH ATTACHMENT, AMENDING PAGE'NO..35 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY OF -MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM G/I GOVERN MENT AND- INSTITUTIONAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 900 SOUTH- WEST 1ST STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MANUEL ARTIME AUDI- TORIUM); MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PRO- VISION AND A SEVERABILITY_ CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE NO. 11675 AN. ORDINANCE AMENDING PAGE NO. 20 OF, THE ZONING AT- LAS 'OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM G/.1 GOVERNMENT AND INSTI- TUTIONAL TO R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI -FAMILY RESIDEW TIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2301 NORTHWEST 10TH AVENUE,, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FIND-' INGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABIL- ITY•CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ' ORDINANCE NO. 11676 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS ,AMENDED, THE ZONING -ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 4; -SECTION 401 SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT }_REGULATIONS, 1N -ORDER TO ALLOW CERTAIN PROCESSING C: r AND WHOLESALING USES . (INCLUDING CUSTOMARY 'ACCES- SORY USES) OF SEAFOOD PRODUCTS BY CLASS II SPECIALr— PERMIT WITHIN C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL ZONING DIS -,,-0 --j TRICTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A. SEVER- ABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING -FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE NO. 11677 - A• r AN ORDINANCE_. AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000;_-. ASS' r" -" AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY-- AMENDING ARTICLE 9, SECTION 926 TO ALLOW A CLASS IM' SPECIAL M- SPECIAL- PERMIT, WITH CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL, FO SIGNS WHICH HAVE ARTISTIC OR GRAPHIC VALUE, PROVIDING .� FOR THE LOCATION, -REGULATION AND CONDITION -FOR THE " APPROVAL OF SUCH SIGNS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVI; SION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EF- FECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE NO. 11678 AN ORDINANCE. -AMENDING. CHAPTER 35, ENTITLED 'MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC" OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE VIII ENTITLED "VALET PARK- ING' PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF VALET PARKING' IN THE SD -5, SD -6 AND SD -7 ZONING DISTRICTS, AS DEFINED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A .REPEALER PROVISION AND. A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE NO. 11679 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, OF THE CODE,OF, THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES", BY ADDING NEW SECTION .4-13, -ENTITLED "CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS", TO PERMIT SALE OF LIQUOR IN RESTAURANTS, CAFES, CAFETE RIA AND DELICATESSENS WITH SEATING FOR -50 OR MORE - CUSTOMERS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE - DATE. Said ordinances may be inspected by the public at the Office of the City Clerk, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, between the hours of 8 a.m. and -5 p.m. i Tr OF WALTER J. FOEMAN o CITY CLERK NFIOQ- - (ff4814) 7/6 98-4-070621 M 00 X L M MIAMI 21 (EXISTING) FILE ID: PZ -18-313 REZONE ADDRESS: 240 SE 14 ST N .--� Established Setbacks 125 250 500 Feet SUBJECT PROPERTY I i I i i i I l� N 125 250 1 1 1 1 MIAMI 21 (PROPOSED) FILE ID: PZ -18-313 REZONE T6 -48A-0 500 Feet I I ta:11:7 ADDRESS: 240 SE 14 ST Established Setbacks SUBJECT PROPERTY AERIAL FILE ID: PZ -18-313 125 N ADDRESS: 240 SE 14 ST 250 500 Feet SUBJECT PROPERTY I i i i I