Res. No. 182-99-10805RESOLUTION NO. 182-99-10805
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR & CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS ffiL FROM SECTIONS 20-7.98 THROUGH ANI) SECTION 20-7.M
ll"DO'.lINTO'.lIN STREETS" AND SECTION 20 7.13 "REGULATING-PhAN~OF
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
PROPOSED ON TWO PARCELS BUILDING LOCATED IN THE HOMETOWN
DISTRICT HELD UNDER A COMMON OWNERSHIP. PROVIDING FOR A UNITY
OF TITLE FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCELS
SEPARATED BY A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY; PARCEL 1 LOCATED AT THE
NORTH WEST CORNER OF 59TH COURT AND SW 74TH STREET AND
EXTENDING TO AND SPECIFICALLY AT 5966 ANI) -5970 SOUTH DIXIE
HIGHW AY AND ON--A PARCEL 2 LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF SOUTH WEST
CORNER OF S.W. 74+# STREET AND 59H1. PLACE. SW 59TH PLACE AND SW 74 TH
STREET, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA 33143.
WHEREAS, Felix Pardo & Associates, Inc. Architects, on
behalf of property owner, Rum Bum Distributors Inc. has submitted
a revised letter of intent to build a 63,301 57,425 sq. ft. mixed
use project within the Hometown District, and
WHEREAS,
specifically
1) and the
corner of S.
the project includes two separate parcels, one
located at 5966 and 5970 South Dixie Highway (Site
other parcel (Site 2) located at the south west
W. 74th Street and 59th Place; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking a Special Exception to
vary from the built to lines, maximum lot coverage, building
depth and open yard requirement in the regulating plan, pursuant
te-Sections 20-7.-9-8 through 20 7.10 and 20-7.13 of the South
Miami Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends approval with conditions of the
application for a Special Exception based upon (a) the merits of
the application (b) consistency and complying with the spirit and
the intent of the Hometown Plan and (c) consistency with the
City's adopted Comprehensive Plan; and,
WHEREAS, staff recommendation dated September 3, 1999 is
made part of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, on August 31 Hay 25,
failed to make a recommendation
application to the City Commission
voted 5:0 to recommend approval
request; and,
1999, the Planning Board
and agreed to send the
without a recommendation;
of the Special Exception
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South
Miami desire to accept the recommendation of the Planning Board.
Staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. For Site(parcel)l: That the following special
exceptions are granted with conditions:
1.Deviate from the build to lines on Southwest 74 Street;
from 10 feet to 0 feet.
2.Deviate from the maximum lot coverage of 60%, 20,000
square feet per building to 98.77%, 39,047square feet.
3.Deviate from the maximum building depth of up to 70% plus
the depth of an accessory building by permitting 100% on
59 th Court.
4.Deviate from the required open yard space of 5% to
approximately 0.8%.
A Special Enception to deviate up to 10 feet from the
build to line along 74 Street (Section 20 7.13); to deviate
from a manimum lot coverage of 60% and a mmdmum of 20,000
sqft. per building on Site 1 and a manimum lot coverage of
50% and a maximum of 20,000 sqft per building on Site 2 to a
combined lot coverage of 92.2% and a total building footprint
of 39,202 sqft (Sections 20 7.9, 20 7.10 and 20 7.13); to
deviate from a maximum building depth of 70% plus 30 feet of
"outbuilding" to a mmdmum of 100% on Site 1; to deviate from
open yard of 5% to none on Site 1, is granted.
Section 2. That the conditions for Site (parcel) 1 are as
follows:
1. Setback building fa<;ade line (excluding vertical
circulation elements), at the first floor level, along S.W.
74 Street and S.W. 59 Court by 10 feet.
2. Provide arcades, within the property line, on both of the
street frontages.
3. Provide street trees on sidewalks along 74 Street and 59
Court
Section 3. Site(parcel) 2: That no special exceptions are
granted; that the overhead bridge is eliminated and a limited
amount of retail is allowed at the first floor pursuant to
the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element.
Section 4. That the following conditions are met for the
project as a whole
(a) The overall built up area to be limited to 58,000
square feet. The development will include a theater on
Site 1, sixteen (16) residential units on Site 2,
retail/ office uses on both Sites 1 and 2 and a parking
structure on Site 1. The proj ect to provide a total of
207 parking spaces; 184 spaces including 7 handicapped
spaces in the parking structure, 16 surface parking plus
7 on-street parking.
(b) A shared parking reduction of up to 20% of the
unadjusted required parking of 251 spaces be granted.
(c) In lieu of open space on Site 1 the developer is
required to provide street trees along both sides of SW
74th street from 61 st Avenue to 59th Court to the extent
possible and along the full frontage of the project
sites. Additionally the developer is required to enhance
the intersection of 74th Street and 59th Court with
special pavers and landscaping to create an effect of
traffic calming. The maximum amount of landscaping
permitted by law, and acceptable to the ERPB, shall be
provided along the u.s. 1 right-of-way and median at the
front of the property.
(d) The flat roofs are designed with white reflective
surfaces in accordance with the Cool Communi ties
guidelines and specifications.
(e) The theater is to be available for 20% of the time
to the local community groups and organizations for
functions and special events. A utilization plan
acceptable to the City Manager, shall be submitted prior
to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy
for the project.
Section 5. The Staff report dated September 3, 1999 is hereby
made a part of this resolution.
Section 6. Uni ty of Title shall be established before the
issuance of the first building permit.
Section 7. The application and modified development plans are
incorporated into and relied on by the City in approving this
resolution.
Section 8 ~. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon
approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of September, 1999.
ATTEST: -p
dwza2 ~~ CITY CLERK
COMMISSION VOTE:
CITY ATTORNEY
Mayor Robaina:
Vice Mayor Oliveros:
Commissioner Feliu:
Commissioner Bethel:
Commissioner Russell:
READ~/APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~ / b, 6J)<>vL:
(As amended -September 7, 1999)
4-1
Yea
Yea
Nay
Yea
Yea
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Commission
From: Charles D. Scurr ~ §';,f !?-N1
City Manager ~ J ev'-.
REQUEST
Date: September 3, 1999
Re: Agenda item 10
5966 & 5970 S Dixie Hwy.
Rum Bum Distributors, Inc.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR & CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FROM
SECTIONS 20-7.8 THROUGH 20-7.13 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, PROPOSED ON TWO PARCELS LOCATED IN THE
HOMETOWN DISTRICT HELD UNDER A COMMON OWNERSHIP, PROVIDING FOR A
UNITY OF TITLE FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCELS
SEPARATED BY A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY; PARCEL 1 LOCATED AT THE NORTH
WEST CORNER OF S. W. 59TH COURT AND S. W. 74TH STREET AND EXTENDING TO
5966-5970 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY AND PARCEL 2 LOCATED AT THE SOUTH WEST
CORNER OF S. W. 59TH PLACE AND S. W. 74TH STREET, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA
33143.
STAFF REPORT:
Recommendation:
This project was first presented to the Planning Board on May 25, 1999 and was recommended
for approval by the Board 5-0. The project was placed on June 8 City Commission agenda but
was deferred to June 28 th meeting due to the lateness of the hour and to respond to the
community's desire to have additional time to study the project.
At the meeting of June 28 th , a number of technical and procedural issues were raised resulting in
a second deferral to July 6th • At the July 6th meeting, it was decided that the project be re-noticed
and reviewed by the Planning Board before final consideration by the City Commission.
A legal notice was published and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject
project. Felix Pardo & Associates, Inc. Architects, on behalf of property owner Rum Bum
Distributors, Inc., submitted a revised letter of intent and a set of plans on July 23, 1999. The
1
project was placed on the Planning Board agenda on August 10th • The Planning Board deferred
the item to its next regularly scheduled meeting of August 31 st for further review and
consideration. The City Commission at the August 1 i h meeting deferred the item pending
recommendation from the Planning Board. The Planning Board at its August 31 st meeting failed
to make a recommendation and agreed to send the application to the City Commission without a
recommendation.
The following recommendations incorporate comments made during the public meetings,
community concerns expressed during this period and reflects further analysis and review of the
project by the staff. Attached plans are revised based on the staff recommendations, which have
been accepted by the developer.
(1) Site 1:
The staff recommends approval of the special exception requests on Site 1 subject to
following conditions:
• Setback building fa<;ade line (excluding vertical circulation elements), at the first floor
level, along S.W. 74 Street and S.W. 59 Court by 10 feet.
• Provide arcades, within the property line, on both of the street frontages.
• Provide street trees on sidewalks along 74 Street and 59 Court
(2) Site 2:
The staff recommends the following:
• Eliminate the overhead bridge
• Remove all above grade parking
• Satisfy the lot coverage and open yard space requirements without any additional request
for special exceptions
• Allow for limited amount of retail at the first floor pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Element
(3) For the project as a whole:
(a) The overall built up area to be limited to 58,000 square feet pursuant to the original
application. The development will include a theater on Site 1, sixteen (16) residential
units on Site 2, retail! office uses on both Sites 1 and 2 and a parking structure on Site 1.
The project to provide a total of 207 parking spaces; 184 spaces including 7 handicapped
spaces in the parking structure, 16 surface parking plus 7 on-street parking.
(b) A shared parking reduction of up to 20% of the unadjusted required parking of 251
spaces be granted to minimize the impact of the massing created by the parking
requirement. The condition for such a reduction is that employee parking be
accommodated either on site or off site in order to eliminate impacting the adjacent
residential area. Elimination of the above grade parking levels on Site 2 without any
increase to the four levels of parking on Site 1 will result in about 20% parking reduction.
A 20% reduction is justifiable and it is believed will not adversely impact the surrounding
2
area because of the type of uses that are proposed for the project. The theater will
generally be open only at certain times, especially when some of the retail is closed. The
combination of residential and retail! office will further help with the shared parking
factor.
Additionally, there are two other scenarios that can be considered for parking. If the parking
incentives allowed by the code are granted to its fullest extent of 35%, one full parking level
can be reduced. This will reduce the massing of the parking structure to only three levels.
This scenario will provide approximately 170 spaces, a reduction of 80 spaces or 32%. A
second scenario will add an additional level of parking to provide up to 238 cars, a
reduction of 12 spaces or 5%. An additional level can be added to provide 5 levels of parking
without exceeding the allowable height but will increase the massing of the parking structure
(c) In lieu of open srace on Site 1 the developer is required to provide street trees along both
sides of SW 74t Street from 61 st Avenue to 59 th Court to the extent possible and along
the full frontage of the project sites. Additionally the developer is required to enhance the
intersection of 74th Street and 59th Court with special pavers and landscaping to create an
effect of traffic calming.
(d) The flat roofs are designed with white reflective surfaces in accordance with the Cool
Communities guidelines and specifications.
(e) The theater is to be available for 20% of the time to the local community groups and
organizations for functions and special events.
Project Description:
The applicant seeks a number of special exceptions for the proposed mixed-use project to be
located on two parcels held under the same ownership and separated by a public right of way.
The two parcels are proposed to be unified under a unity of title for the purposes bf development.
Both parcels are located within the Hometown District. The larger parcel, Site1, 5966 and 5970
South Dixie Highway, is an irregular shaped parcel with an area of31,473 sqft and is located at
the north west comer of S.W.74th and S.W.59th Ct. as identified by in the attached copy of the
survey. The uniqueness of this parcel is further highlighted by its configuration resulting in a
street frontage of 115 feet on US1 and a rear street frontage of 95.5 feet on S.W. 59 Court with
S.W. 74 Street running partially along the side of Sitel. The smaller parcel, Site2, has an area of
11,039 sqft and is located at the south west comer of S.W.74th Street and S.W.59th Place. The
Comprehensive Plan allows for a combined maximum buildable area of 68,019 sqft. based on an
allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.6 with a maximum of 23 residential units and a four story
height limitation. Both sites are required to meet the FAR of 1.6 independently.
The revised application for project as submitted has a total area of 63,301 sqft and includes a
theater, sixteen (16) residential units, retail/ office spaces and related parking structures to
accommodate 246 spaces with 7 on-street parking spaces.
3
It is the intent of the developer to rebuild and reopen the abandoned Sunset Theater to provide an
opportunity for community groups to hold cultural events or to show art films, and to make it
available to small cultural groups as their permanent home. Arcades along the US 1 frontage
provide the necessary width and appropriate setting for pre-and post-performance activities. The
primary retail uses of the building are located at the third and fourth floors facing South Dixie
Highway. The frontage along 74th Street and 59 th Court on Site 1 provides for active street level
activities, such as, newsstand, coffee shop and restaurant/ bar. The residential component of the
project, located completely within Site 2, provides for infill residential units.
The proposed developments on the two sites are physically connected by a two level overhead
vehicular bridge, which also provides access to above grade parking levels on Site 2. The
overhead bridge will require a separate ordinance to initiate the conveyance of air rights of
public rights of way. Approval of the overhead bridge will be subject to a negotiation of the air
rights conveyance to the satisfaction of the City Commission. It will also be incumbent upon the
applicant to obtain all necessary City and County approvals to construct over the public right of
way.
The applicant will provide appropriate street trees along the sidewalks surrounding the project.
The portion of the project that contains the residential component provides a nar;row landscaped
area at the ground floor and a landscaped rooftop courtyard at the apartment level. Other
landscaping elements such as potted planters, landscaped trellises, and wall-hugging vines are to
be installed throughout the project, in order to introduce colors and soften building surfaces.
The following special exceptions are requested by the developer to accommodate the allowable
building area and the necessary parking:
Site 1
1. Deviate from the build to lines on Southwest 74 Street; from 10 feet to 0 feet.
2. Deviate from the maximum lot coverage of 60%, 20,000 square feet per building to
98.77%, 39,047square feet.
3. Deviate from the maximum building depth of up to 70% plus the depth of an accessory
building by permitting 100%) on 59 th Court.
4. Deviate from the required open yard space of 5% to approximately 0.8%.
Site 2
1. Deviate from the maximum lot coverage of 50% to 95.66%.
2. Deviate from the required open yard of 10% to approximately 4.33%.
3. Deviate from the use schedule to provide above grade parking
The Land Development Code specifies that construction in the Hometown District will follow
those procedures established for the district or that the City Commission may, by special
exception after a public hearing by the Planning Board, waive strict compliance of the District
provisions. The Planning Board must find by substantial, competent evidence that:
4
(a) The proposed development contributes to, promotes and encourages the improvement of the
Hometown District and catalyzes other development as envisioned in the Hometown District
regulations;
(b) The proposed development is compatible with the land use and development intensities
prescribed by all applicable City regulations;
(c) The proposed development must possess integrity of design compatible with design criteria
established for the Hometown District and with the overall image of the city;
(d) The proposed development shall be designed in a manner that provides for effective
management of traffic (vehicular and pedestrian), parking, lighting , noise, and waste
generated by the development, and for management of the impacts of the development on
public facilities and services;
(e) The proposed development does not expand the permitted uses within the Hometown
District; .
(f) The proposed development will not have an unfavorable effect on the economy of the City
of South Miami;
(g) The proposed development, when considered cumulatively with other development, both
present and future, within the Hometown District, will not create excessive overcrowding or
undue concentration of population.
Project Analysis:
Staffs analysis of the project for consistency with the above criteria is as follows:
(a) The proposed development contributes to, promotes and encourages the improvement
of the Hometown District and catalyzes other development as envisioned in the
Hometown District regulations.
The proposed development provides a broad mix of uses and creates a rich diversity of
cultural, residential, and retail/restaurant uses. It contributes to, encourages the improvements
of and catalyzes other developments as envisioned by the Hometown District regulations.
o The project enhances the sense of place by placing pedestrian oriented activities,
providing pedestrian related amenities such as arcades, awnings and sidewalks with street
trees. Sunset Theater operated between mid 40's to mid 70's as a movie theater was the
only movie theater in the City for a period of time in the 40's. Renovation of the Sunset
Theater, which has a historical and emotional significance, is expected to create a
community identity.
o The proposed development will help reduce commuter traffic demand of the area by
providing a mix of uses including residential and locating uses such as news stand, coffee
shop, restaurants and a live stage theater in the close proximity of the multifamily
residential area.
o The proposed development provides the required parking spaces based on the code
requirements before any of the Hometown District parking incentives is applied.
Currently, it is the desire of the City Commission for each of the proposed developments
to provide adequate parking for its own need while every project is reviewed individually
to determine appropriateness for granting any incentive for parking reduction. The
developer has the option of possibly requiring lesser number of special exceptions by
5
providing a minimum number of onsite parking (approximately a total of 40 to 50 spaces
on both sites) on surface lots and contribute funds into the Hometown Parking Trust
Fund. The developer has chosen not to exercise this option because the development can
not be assured of an adequate supply of parking and staff believes that it will create
harmful and adverse impacts on the surrounding residential areas. The parking
infrastructure concept envisioned by the Hometown Plan is and remains the City's goal,
however it is currently not in place to the extent needed for this development. Whether all
or any or none of the parking incentives are granted, the development requires a parking
structure. The dimensional requirements of a parking structure, the size and the
configuration of the site make the requirements of the lot coverage, building depth and
build to line unattainable.
Graphic nature of the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance contemplates regularly
shaped parcels and acknowledges, through designation of "Special Areas", that special
rules may apply to lots with irregular geometry.
(b) The proposed development is compatible with the land use and development intensities
prescribed by all applicable City regulations.
The proposed development is compatible with the land use intensities, except where request
is made for special exceptions and development intensities prescribed by all applicable City
regulations. All the proposed uses are allowed by the code and the development is within the
prescribed FAR and the height limitations of four stories/56 feet.
(c) The proposed development must possess integrity of design compatible with design
criteria established for the Hometown District and with the overall image of the city.
The proposed development has received a conceptual approval of the Environmental Review
and Preservation Board. The development will have to go through additional design and
landscaping reviews by the staff and the Environmental Review Board. The staff feels that
the appropriateness of the scale and the architectural treatment of the bridge, which create a
"landmark" effect for the Hometown District, are of extreme importance to the pedestrian
character and to the architectural vocabulary and should be reviewed carefully. The overhead
bridge will allow for above grade pedestrian movement while Hometown Plan emphasizes
street level pedestrian movement. The overhead bridge also sets precedent for future projects.
The parking component is an "un-pedestrian" but a necessary element. The essence of the
Hometown Plan requires that parking structures be hidden so as not to create building
facades that are void of human activities. While this requirement becomes unattainable in this
particular case due to reasons discussed earlier, significant attempts have been made to
camouflage the parking from public view. The parking at the street level has been wrapped
with uses that create walkable streets, while the upper levels of parking have been treated
architecturally to provide a non-parking garage look.
(d) The proposed development shall be designed in a manner that provides for effective
management of traffic (vehicular and pedestrian), parking, lighting, noise, and waste
generated by the development, and for management of the impacts of the development
on public facilities and services.
6
The developer has completed the concurrency evaluation for traffic. The evaluation indicates
that there are adequate roadway capacities to support the development. The existing right-of-
way along S.W. 59 Court is currently below the minimum prescribed width. The proposed
development will be required to dedicate 5-feet along 59 Court at the time a building permit
is requested. The development does not create any significant impact on the City's inventory
of open space based on the permanent population generated by the development. With the
additional recent acquisition of open spaces, the City currently meets the requirements for
open space. The developer has obtained Sewer Capacity Certification from Miami Dade
County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM). Solid waste
generated by the development is contained within the site. All storm drainage related
comments by Public Works have been forwarded to the developer, who is responsible for
compliance with South Florida Building Code standards for on and off site storm drainage.
Other County concurrency requirements and impact fees for items such as fire, water,
schools will have to be satisfied by the developer during the permitting process.
(e) The proposed development does not expand the permitted uses within the Hometown
District.
All the uses proposed are permitted within the Hometown District.
(f) The proposed development will not have an unfavorable effect on the economy of the
City of South Miami.
Due to the under utilization and the present condition of the property, the proposed
development will substantially increase the tax base generated by the property. The
development will improve the economic health of the City by creating infill residential units
and providing opportunities for expending disposable income by introducing cultural and
retail elements.
(g) The proposed development, when considered cumulatively with other development,
both present and future, within the Hometown District, will not create excessive
overcrowding or undue concentration of population.
The development is within the prescribed regulations for development density, height and
use. The suggested mix of uses of the development will not create excessive overcrowding or
undue concentration of population that is beyond what is envisioned within the Hometown
District.
Staff generally finds the requests for Special Exception meet the intent of the Hometown District
Overlay Ordinance and the requirements set forth in the Land Development Regulations for
granting such exceptions. The development:
(a) Will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or
working in the vicinity of the proposed use;
(b) Will not be detrimental to the public welfare or property or improvements in the
neighborhood; and
(c) Complies with all other applicable Code provisions.
The staff also finds that the requests for special exception do not conflict with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan of the City of South Miami. The development furthers many of the goals of
7
the Future Land Use Element of the City's adopted comprehensive plan, including, to preserve
and enhance the City's small town character, to preserve and enhance the pedestrian character by
encouraging development as envisioned by the Hometown Plan and to achieve a tax base
adequate to support a high level of municipal services via increased mixed use projects.
Attachments:
Letter oflntent dated 22July, 1999
Concurrency evaluation of Trafficl updated September 3, 1999
Sewer Capacity Certification
Minutes of May 25, August 10 and 31 1999 Planning Board meetings
Copy of the Legal and Courtesy Notices
Property Survey
Reduced site plan,
Elevations and floor plans.
Ol\Planning\ City Commission Rum Bum 08 07 99 Staffreport.doc
8
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
RESOLUTION NO. ____ _
A RESOLUTION OF THE MA YOR & CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS FROM SECTIONS 20-7.8 THROUGH 20-7.13 OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, PROPOSED ON
TWO PARCELS LOCATED IN THE HOMETOWN DISTRICT HELD UNDER A
COMMON OWNERSHIP, PROVIDING FOR A UNITY OF TITLE FOR THE
PURPOSES OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCELS SEPARATED BY A PUBLIC
RIGHT OF WAY; PARCEL 1 LOCATED AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF S.
W. 59T11 COURT AND S. W. 74TH STREET AND EXTENDING TO 5966-5970
SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY AND PARCEL 2 LOCATED AT THE SOUTH WEST
CORNER OF S. W. 59TH PLACE AND S. W. 74TH STREET, SOUTH MIAMI,
FLORIDA 33143.
WHEREAS, Felix Pardo & Associates, Inc. Architects, on behalf of property
owner, Rum Bum Distributors Inc. has submitted a letter of intent to build a mixed use
project within the Hometown District, and
WHEREAS, on August 10, 1999, the Planning Board after a public hearing voted
4-2 to recommend deferral of the Special Exception request
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. This application is deferred at the request to afford the Planning Board
additional time to review the application for Special Exception.
Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1999.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
CITY CLERK MAYOR
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-------------------CITY ATTORNEY
Felix Pardo & Associates, Inc.
22 July 1999
City of South Miami
6130 Sunset Drive
South Miami, FL 33143
Architecture Planning Interiors
5455 S. W. 8 Street, Suite 205
Miami, Florida 33134 ,
AA0002478 ,~.
\\
Attn: Mr. John Little, Assistant Planning and Zoning Director
Re: Proposed Commercial Development for Rum Bum Distributors, Inc.
5966 South Dixie Highway, South Miami, FL
Project No.: 9830
Dear Mr. Little,
Please accept the following amended letter of intent for the above-mentioned project.
Although the ordinance is a good plan we respectfully request the following exceptions
due to the fact that some of these concerns were not anticipated at the time the
ordinance was aqopted. The Building Configuration as depicted on the site plans on the
hometown manual is only a small sampling of design possibilities and not a "paint by
numbers" manual.
This project requires the following special exceptions that are attributed to the
implementation of the Hometown District Ordinance.
1) Open Yard Space: Parcell provides 0.85 % Vs 5 % required. Parcel 2 provides
4.33% Vs 10% required. Because of the use of arcades in the project, landscaping
can not be provided at the perimeter ofthe building because of the uniqueness of
the site being bordered by three streets. Furthermore, because of the off-street
parking, we can not provide parking in a reasonable manner. Additionally,
landscaping which is proposed in the public right of way does not allow for any
credit toward the requirement. Finally, landscaping that is above the grade level
and landscaping under any overhang does not count toward this open space.
2) Build to Line: In this particular unique site the build to line is arbitrary and
therefore does not provide a consistency within this particular unique property.
These build to lines are better thought out in non-vacant parcels and closer to the
core of the business district.
3) Lot Coverage: Parcell provides 99.15 % Vs 60 % allowed. Parcel 2 provides
95.66 % Vs 50 % allowed. Again, because of the uniqueness of the Parcell site,
the use of the arcades does not allow counting said area to unencumbered area.
The off-street parking required does not allow for a smaller footprint of building. .
4) Twenty thousand square feet maximum per building only for Parcell V s 31,207
sq. ft. provided: The existing ownership and uniqueness of this property exceeds
this amount do to the fact of the required off-street parking footprint. The existing
theatre footprint covers 113 of the maximum allowed already.
5) Building Depth of 70 % maximum V s 100 % on 59 Court for Parcell only: The
uniqueness of the shape of the property and three streets it borders make this
requirement along with the required off street parking an unreasonable burden.
6) Parking levels above grade in Parcel 2 Vs Residential Uses only: ,We believe that
parking is not a use by itself and that parking is required in order to meet the
Ordinance requirements for storage of vehicles. It should not be considered retail,
office or residential. If not, only surface parking would be allowed in residential
areas. Furthermore, the majority of the parking is for the residential uses although
retail and office is allowed on the ground floor.
As described above, parking is a key component to this project. The Parking Trust
Fund was created in order to provide a parking alternative for those projects that could
not meet said requirements. But, our project is not near a completed facility to provide
the needs of our project. In theory this is great but what is the parking situation today
for our project? Our project is unduly penalized to make a reasonable use of the
property. Furthermore, the City Commission incased an ordinance suspending the
parking bonuses provision of the Ordinance. We are entitled to a 35 % bonus. This
adds to the requirement problems, which in turn make many of the special exceptions
required.
Furthermore, although not a special exception, both parcels I and 2 shall be joined by a
unity of title before the issuance of a building permit. We also understand that a
separate approval by the City Commission for the air rights in order to build the
vehicular / pedestrian bridge.
This project complies with all aspects with the Hometown District Overlay Ordinance.
Its integrity of design, promotes and encourages the improvement of the Hometown
District and abets future Hometown District development. This project is compatible
with the land uses and the permitted uses according to the Hometown Plan as well as
having a favorabie effect on the economy of the City of South Miami.
In addition, this project complies with Concurrency as set by the Hometown District
Overlay Ordinance. Please see attached letter concerning concurrency for traffic studies
by Miller Consulting Inc. and attached allocation letter concerning concurrency for
water and sewer by Environmental Resources Management.
"~\ . 't. , ..
Furthermore, this project offers a tremendously rich diversity of uses with a cultural
element not previously seen in the City of South Miami. The project is sensitive to the
human scale and promotes pedestrian movement through covered arc~es. It exceeds
the parking requirements without the look of a parking garage. This project promotes a
working, living, shopping, entertaining and cultural environment which is truly urban and
in keeping with the spirit of the Hometown District.
Finally, in granting these special exceptions, this project will be a catalyst for an area that
is run down and void of these positive elements for the City. The historic context of the
old theater will be revived and the positive financial benefits will not be limited to this
development but will affect other properties in a positive manner.
Once again, thank you for your cooperation and consideration of this matter.
cc Mr. Luis Bacardi, Rum Bum Distributors
file
O~~J~~~~~~!'~~'~~~~~:':
August 30, 1999
Luis Bacardi
President
Rum-Bum Distributors, Inc.
5966 South Dixie Highway
South Miami, Florida 33143
Re: Multi-Use Development
City of South Miami
Dear Mr. Bacardi:
455 Fal'rway Drive, Suite 103
Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441
Telephone: (954) 427-6675
Facsimile: (954) 427-1815
E-Mail: millerco@gate.net
http://www.miller-consulting.com
MILLER CONSULTING, INC. has performed a traffic concurrency analysis for a proposed multi-use
development planned to be located on SW 74th Street and generally bounded by Dixie Highway to the
northwest and SW 59 th Court I Place to the east in the City of South Miami. Figure 1 shows the
location of the site and its relationship to the immediate transportation network. The concurrency
analysis was prepared using the information contained in the City's Land Development Code,
Comprehensive Plan, and Miami-Dade County concurrency management system. The following is
a summary of the report's findings.
INVENTORY
The existing site contains the following land uses:
o 5,180 square-foot boat repair I sales store
o 4,250 square feet of retail (flower shop)
The proposed site plan for this location consists of the following retail, office, and residential land
uses:
o A small theater (7,923 square feet) with seating capacity for 150 people.
o An 8,832 square-foot restaurant.
o A 2,800 square-foot micro brewery.
o 20,261 square feet of retail area.
0' 4,032 square feet of office space.
o Six townhomes.
o 10 apartments.
Given the small-scale and specialty nature ofthe restaurant, micro brewery and theater and their inter-
relationship with the remaining retail development (cafe, coffee shop, newstand) these land uses were
treated as retail development as well. Even though the theater is anticipated to generate minimal trips
W:\Word Perfcct\Projecls\Pvl.sect\Rum.Sum\Report.08.30revised.wpd
"creating value for our clients with ingenuity, creativity and excellence"
N
A
Concurrency Evaluation
SW 74th Street
Site Location
Map
"0 co o
0::
"0
~
Sunset Drive
SW 72nd Street
Figure 1
Proposed
Commercial Building
South Miami, Florida
(according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, a theater generates approximately 40 percent
less traffic than a retail use of similar sue), the theater was treated as retail space in order to assess
impacts with a conservative approach. This yields a total retail development area of39,816 square
feet._
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing transportation network located in the vicinity ofthe project includes three major roadways
and two minor streets. The three major roadways includc US 1 (South Dixie Highway), SW 72nd
Street (Sunset Drive), and SW 57 th Avenue (Red Road). According to Miami-Dade County
Concurrency Management System, there are five (5) concurrency stations in the vicinity of the project
site, as illustrated in Figure 2. The available capacities on the five concurrency stations are
documented in Table 1. The available capacities shown in Table 1 are based on the lowest of the
capacities published by the City of South Miami and Miami-Dade County. Furthermore, these
available capacities reflect existing traffic as well as traffic associated with approved developments,
as of May 1999, but not yet built andlor fully operational.
. ., .. , ';:::'.:: .·':":::"il'A8tittl' .'. . ' .. ': ..:;..:,'.' .. ' .,
..
': ~ttY:dFSQl)ja:M~~~:~~~~1~~~t.at~~~¥.-~tQf~NT': .
Station
No.
164
127
70
656
634
Location
US 1 south of Sunset Drive
US 1 north of Sunset Drive
Sunset Drive west of US 1
Sunset Drive east of Red Road
Red Road north of Sunset Drive
Peak Hour
Available
Capacity
2,608
3,294
126
788
1,792
Source: Miami-Dude Cuunty and City ujSuuth Miami Cumprehen:;ive Plan
TRIP GENERATION
Recently Actual
Approved Available Peak
Development) Hour Capacity
95 2,513
74 3,220
47 79
27 761
152 1,640
The trip generation for the project was determined using the trip generation formulas published in the Institute
of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (6th edition). The daily and PM peak hour trip
generation formulas used for the proposed retail/office/residential development, as obtained from ITE, are
documented below:
RETAIL (ITE LAND USE 820)
Q Daily Trip Generation: Ln (T) = 0.643Ln (x) +5.866
o PM Peak Hour Trip Generation: Ln(T) = 0.660Ln (x)+ 3.403
1 Reflects the available capacity consumed by the recently approved office/retail development to be located on
the southeast comer of SW 73rd Street and SW 57th Court as well as the office/retail development to be constructed at
5920 South Dixie Highway.
Page 3 oj 8
Concurrency Evaluation
LEGEND
• Concurrency
Station
164 Station Number
SW 73rd Street
SW 74th Street
Concurrency Stations
Sunset Drive
SW 72nd Street 656
Figure 2
Proposed
Commercial Building
South Miami, Florida
OFFICE (ITE LAND USE 710)
o Daily Trip Generation: Ln(T) = 0.768Ln (x) + 3.654
o PM Peak Hour Trip Generation: Based on ratio between average PM peak hour rate
and average daily rate, as documented in the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
RESIDENTIAL -TOWNHOUSE (ITE LAND USE 230)
o Daily Trip Generation: Ln(T) = 0.850Ln (x) + 2.564
o PM Peak Hour Trip Generation: Ln(T) = 0.827Ln (x) + 0.309
RESIDENTIAL -APARTMENT (ITE LAND USE 220)
o Daily Trip Generation: Average Rate = 6.63 trips / dwelling unit
o PM Peak Hour Trip Generation: Average Rate = 0.62 trips / dwelling unit
Table 2 summarizes the trip generation for the project. As indicated in Table 2, the project is
anticipated to generate approximately 4,010 daily trips and 369 PM peak hour trips .
..
TAIJLE2
TRIP GENERA TION·SUMMARY
CITY OFSOUTH MIAMI ... l\1ULTl-USE DEVELOPMENT
Daily Trip Generation
Land Use Size Daily Trips
Retail 39,816 sq. ft 3,771
Office 4,032 sq. ft. 113
Townhouse 6 Dwelling Units 60
Apartment 10 Dwelling Units 66
Total 4,010
Passer-by -1,885
Internal -24
Net External 2,101
PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size Daily Trips
Retail 39,816 sq. ft. 342
Office 4,032 sq. ft. 15
Townhouse 6 Dwelling Units 6
Apartment 10 Dwelling Units 6
Total 369
Passer-by -171
Internal -3
Net External 195
.. Source: Institute oj Transportation Engmeers (ITE) Manual (6th editIOn)
W:\Word Perfec(\ProjeclS\p\,(oSect\RlIm-BullI\Rcport.08.30rc'\'ised.wpd Page 5 of 8
•.
PASSER-By TRAFFIC
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) indicates that not all ofthe traffic generated by retail
land uses are new trips to the area transportation network. ITE recognizes that a certain percentage
of the total generated traffic is already traveling on the adjacent roadways. These trips are known as
passer-by trips. The percent of passer-by traffic for retail land uses is based on the following fonnula
published in the Trip Generation Manual (5 th Edition):
Ln (Pass-by) = -0.341 Ln (x) + 5.376
Using the above equation, the percent passer-by traffic applicable to the proposed 39,816 square feet
of retail space is approximately 61 percent. In order to assess impacts with a conservative approach,
we have assumed that only 50 percent of the trips generated by the retail development are passer-by
trips.
INTERNAL CAPTURE
Since the proposed project is a mixed-use development, including three primary land uses (retail,
office and residential), some of the total trips generated by the development will be internal to the
project. Most ofthe theater-related trips are anticipated to be internal trips. However, in order to be
conservative, only five percent of the office and residential trips and 0.3 percent ofthe retail trips were
assumed to be internal trips.
EXTERNAL TRIPS
Using the passerby and internal capture assumptions documented above, the new external daily and
PM peak hour trips generated by the subj ect proj ect are 2,101 and 195 respectively.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The trip distribution for the project was based on Dade County's Cardinal Distribution information
for the study area. Table 3 summarizes the County's cardinal distribution data for traffic zone 915,
which is applicable to the subject project.
W:\Word Perfet:t\Pro;erts\P\,t-scct\RllIl\.Bum\Rcport,08.30rcyised.wpd Page 6 oj 8
'. .~
...
TABLE 3
..
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
CITY OF SOUTHMIAMI~MULTI .. USEDEVELOPl\1ENT .
-
Direction % of Total Trips
North: northwest 16%
northeast 25%
South: southwest 13%
southeast 1%
East: northeast 12%
southeast 3%
West: northwest 10%
southwest 20%
Total 100%
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
The project traffic distribution shown in Table 3 was assigned to the existing roadway network as
follows:
o 40% to US 1 north of Sunset Drive
o 15% to Red Road north of Sunset Drive
o 12% to Sunset Drive west of US 1
o 25% to US 1 south ofSW 74th Street
o 8% to Sunset Drive east of Red Road
The project traffic assignment outlined above was combined with the concurrency information
documented in Table 1 to develop a future conditions concurrency evaluation for the subject project
The future conditions concurrency evaluation is summarized in Table 4. As indicated in the table, the
transportation network located in the vicinity of the project has sufficient capacity to absorb the
impacts generated by the proposed retail/office/residential development.
W :\W ord Perfcct\ProjC..:lS\P\,t -seCl\RlIlll-Bum\Report.OS.30rcvised. \\Vd Page 7 of 8
'". :.,
Previous Peak Project
Station No. Location Hour Available Traffic
Capacity
164 US 1 south of Sunset Drive 2,513 49
127 US 1 north of Sunset Drive 3,220 78
70 Sunset Drive we:lt ufUS 1 79 23
656 Sunset Drive east of Red Road 761 16
634 Red Road north of Sunset Drive 1,640 29
Source: Miami-Dade County, City of South Miami Comprehensive Plan, and Miller Consulting, Inc.
New Peak Hour
Available
Capacity
2,464
3,142
S6
745
1,611
Based upon the foregoing concurrency analysis, it is evident that existing capacity is adequate on US 1, Sunset Drive
and Red Road per standards adopted by the City of South Miami, in compliance with the requirements of Florida
Statutes and the Department of Community Affairs.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Page 8 of 8
pa~e. 1 ot ~
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MIAM.---~
Issued Date: 21-MAY-1999
Expiration Date: 19-AUG-1999
MR FELIX PARDO
FELIX PARDO & ASSOCIATES,INC
5455 SW 8 ST
MIAMI, FL 33134
IWI~MRWUW.WBm.mmnIMuuuuuu.uunmwuwmUIWI
1999052115121982
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURceS MANAGEMENT
WATER AND SEWER DIVISION
33 S. w. 2nd AVENUE
SUITESOO
MIAMI. FLORIDA 3313().1S40
(30S) 372-6500
Fax-305-445-7006 Tel-305-445-4555
RE: Sewer System Treatment and Transmission Capacity Certification
Dear MR PARDO:
The Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management
(DERM) has received your application for approval of a sewer service
connection to serve the following project which is more specifically
described in the attached project summary.
Project Name: COMMERCIAL BLDG.-RUM-BUM DISTRIBU
Project Location: 5966 S DIXIE HWY SOUTH MIAMI
Proposed Use: 6 TOWN/10 APART/8832 SF BREWERY/20261 SF RETAIL
Previous Flow: 217 GPD
Calculated Sewage Flow: 9766 GPO
Sewer Utility: MIAMI DADE WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT
Receiving Pump Station: 30-0177
DERM has evaluated your request 1n accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth in Paragraph 16 C of the First Partial Consent
Decree (CASE NO. 93-1109 Crv-MORENO) between the United States of
America and Metropolitan Dade County. DERM hereby certifies that
adequate treatment and transmission capacity, as herein defined, is
available for the above described project.
Furchermore, be advised that this approval does not constitute
Departmental approval for the proposed project. Additional reviews
and approval may be required from sections having jurisdiction over
specific aspects of this project.
Please be aware that this certification is subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in the Sewer Service Connection Affidavit filed
by the applicant, a copy of which is hereby attached. By copy of
this certification we are advising the appropiate building official
of our Department's determination.
Issued Date: 21-MAY-1999
Expiration Date: 19-AUG-1999
Sincerely,
John W. Renfrow. P.E.
Director
IUDDUUWQWUWIWUUgWUQUUUUUUlnUMRWUWIHlRm
1999052115121982
Department of Environmental Resources Management ,-
By:
Vi te E. Arre ola,
Chief, Water & Sewer Division
Attachements (2)
cc: Building Official (w/Attachments)
Utility Official (w/Project Summary Attachment)
Date: 05,-21-1999
Applicant's Name: MR FELIX PARDO
Applicant's Address: 5455 SW 8 ST
DERM Number: 1999-0521-1512-1982
Project: COMMERCIAL BLDG.-RUM-BUM DISTRIBU
5966 S DIXIE HWY
Proposed Use: 6 TOWN/10 APART/8832 SF BREWERY/2
Pwnp Station: 30
Projected NAPOT:
-0111 Allocated flows:
8.19 (HR)
Folio Lot Block Flow (GPD) ----------------------------==== =~============== ===:==
1 09-4036-029-0090 9766
. "
Page: 1
9766 (GPD)
-... -.... ,..,,,,,-'
)erm i 1999-0521-1512-1982
5&Z Froe t... Folio ... 09-4036-029-0090 Denn Proe No ...
\pplicant
:ontact Name .. MR FELIX PARDO
:ompany Name .. FELIX PARDO & ASSOCIATES,INC
Date ..... OS/21/1999
\ddress ....... S455 SW 8 ST
:ity .......... MIAMI
relephone Number ..... 30S-445-4555
State .. FL Zip .. 33134-
Fax Number .... 305-445-7006
?roject Background
?roj Name .. COMMERCIAL BLDG.-RUM-BUM DISTRIBU
\ddr ....... 5966 S DIXIE HWY
:ity ....... SOUTH MIAMI
3tate ...... FL zip ..
Is it a public facility (YIN)? t
NNI (YIN) .. N DIC (Y/N) .. ~
S. E. Number if any ..
Jtility Information
Pump Station Recv .. 30 -0177
Lateral Connection (NEW/EXT) ... EXT
Building official .... 30
MIAMI DADE WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT
Sewers Abutting Prop. (YIN) ....... Y
point of Connection .
PROPERTY RIGHT OF WAY
Project Details
Number and Type of Units .. 6 TOWN/10 APART/8832 SF BREWERY/20261 SF RETAIL
Previous Use .............. 4339 SQFT RETAIL
Constr. Schedule .. as soon as possible
6 townhouse = 1500 gpd \ 4032s£ office = 403 gpd
10 apartment = 2000 gpd \theater 217 people; 651 gpd
8832 sf brewery = 4416 gpd
20261 sf retail = 1013 gpd
(Prop flow 9,983 gpd)-(Prev Flow
gpd) + (Alloc Flow
217 gpd)= 9,766 gpd Prop In
(DEAL 9,766 gpd) + (CO 9Pd) =
Estir!!ated Completion Date ... 12/01/1999 Application Status .... CERT2
9,766
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section is for issuing letters
Certified Letter Issue Date .... 05/21/1999 Issued by .... TOLEDO
90-day Expiration date ........... 08/19/1999
Recert Letter Issue Date ....... / /
Recert 90-day Expiration Date .... I /
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------_.
Improvements for the following pump stations must be completed before cO/ce:
Station Number Ree (R), Up (U) Signature Date
or Down (O)
I I
/ I
I /
I 1
I I
/ /
I I +----------------------------------------------------------------------------.--Signature .. TOLEDO_O Sign Date .. 05/21/1999 16:20:35:24
GOLO/S <S>ewer Cert Letters GOLDie Station <C>omments GOLO/L Plan <L>ot
GOLD/K Legal Trac<k>ing GOLD/Y Station Monthl<y> Info ESC/A Print Label
GOLD/G Codes & Cate<g>ories GOLD/H Create paragrap<h>s
-_II ML\i.'\1l-DADE COUNTY, FLOR.lDA
METRO-DADE FLAGLER BUILDING
-j."-.•
May 21, 1999
Mr. Felix Pardo
Felix Pardo & Associates
5455 SW 8th Street, Suite 205
Miami. FL 33134
Ref: Penn anent occupancy of public property
Dear Mr. Pardo:
."
BlilLOING CODE COMP1J.ANa: ODIC!
• MP:TRC.DAl)E 1LI.CiL£R. BlJILDINO
140 WEST flAGLER Snt!£T, SUITS 1603
MlAMl. FLOlUDA 3311U-1S63
(305) 37:5·291)1
FAX (lOS) 375-29(J8
PROOUCT CONTR.O~ DIVlSlON
(30') 37S-l9(Jl
FAX (lOS) 372·~)39
VIA: TELEF AX
This is in response to your May 21, 1999 telefax on the above rcferencl:d is~uc. TIle South florida
Building Code (SFB.C) S~ction 3303 PERMfu'ffiNT Deeup ANCY OF P1JBLIC PROPERTY
regulates your issue. .
Although Subsection 3303.1 GENERAL: states Ulat ;'the permanent use or occupancy of public property
shall be prohibited c;t.cept as providt!d in this section", there are exceptions with conditions. for s~gns;
awnings; marql.lces; pipes and servic;: cquipment~ arctUtectw-a! omalllentation and other projections; and
foundations. If your condition is contemplaled ill any of the atoreliai9 ex.emptions, the use could be
allowed under the South Florida Building Code if also compliant with other applicable regulations.
Feel free to contact me if you have any fl.l!ther questions on this matter.
Very trUly yout'S,
~~~
Deputy Director
C;IM, Documeuti~'!llb FtWl PardD proj«.~11.1 A.1I.4r.o
.... -""'L ...... '--__ 04 ......... \; .... ,. .. iM ,. Rnm~oa!l~: htto:llwww.bt1Udjnccod~llline.c .. lJl
....
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
Planning Board
Regular Meeting Summary Minutes
Tuesday, August 31,1999
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
I. Call to order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
A. Mr. Morton, Chair, called the meeting to order.
B. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
II. Roll Call
A. Board members present constituting a quorum
1. Mr. Morton, Mr. Lefley, Mr. Wiscombe, Mr. Cooper, Ms. Gibson
B. Board members absent
1. Ms. Chimelis, Mr. Illas
C. City staff present
DRAFT
1. Charles Scurr (City Manager); Subrata Basu (ACMlPlanning Director); John Little (Principal
Planner)
III. Public Hearing
A. ITEM: PB-99-007
Applicant: RUM BUM DISTRIBUTORS
Request: A RESOLUTION OF THE MA YOR & CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS FROM SECTIONS 20-7.8 THROUGH 20-7.13 OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, PROPOSED
ON TWO PARCELS LOCATED IN THE HOMETOWN DISTRICT HELD
UNDER A COMMON OWNERSHIP, PROVIDING FOR A UNITY OF TITLE
FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCELS SEPARATED
BY A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY; PARCEL 1 LOCATED AT THE NORTH
WEST CORNER OF S. W. 59TH COURT AND S. W. 74TH STREET AND
EXTENDING TO 5966-5970 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY AND PARCEL 2
PB Mins 08-31-99
LOCATED AT THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF S. W. 59TH PLACE AND S.
W. 74TH STREET, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA 33143.
1. In his opening remarks, Mr. Morton gave background information pertaining to the project,
explaining that the item had been carried over from previous Board meetings and was heard
at these earlier Board meetings.
2. Mr. Morton noted that several issues had been raised at the Board's last meeting held on
August 10 and, as a result, the Board had approved a motion to defer the application.
3. Staff related that the Board should take these issues under further consideration at its meeting
tonight.
4. Staff continued by reviewing issues that were raised at the Board meeting held on August 10.
5. Staff noted that these issues included lot coverage and footprint; the build-to-line along SW 74
Street; lack of open space; four stores vs. five levels; theater portion considered as one story;
traffic issues; parking as infrastructure, as well as the amount of adjusted parking for mixed use.
6. Staff explained that the change in the model demonstrated at the meeting on August 10,
including the removal of the bridge, reflected staff s recommendations.
7. Staff further explained that plans sent to the Board as part of the informational packet for the
meeting tonight reflect staff s recommendations.
8. Staff noted that the developer is in agreement with staff s recommendations.
9. The Board and staff noted that the model and subsequent drawings reflect staffs
recommendations and constitute an up-to-date submission.
10. In regard to concerns expressed involving traffic, Mr. Carl Peterson, of Miller Consulting,
approached the dais.
11. Mr. Peterson spoke in regard to traffic concerns, including what future projects had been
factored into the traffic concurrency analysis, which had been done based on the guidelines
established by the Miami-Dade County and the City of South Miami Comprehensive Master
Plan. .
12. Mr. Peterson noted that an analysis had been performed at SW 74 Street and 61 Avenue,
resulting in the determination that it deserved a Level Service A rating, even if traffic from the
Rum Bum project is superimposed.
13. Staff noted that roadway improvements are being considered, including restriping and
repaving along SW 74 Street and extending to SW 61 Avenue.
PB Mins 08-31-99 2
14. Staff also advised the Board that any improvements needed for the additional traffic
generated by the project will be the responsibility of the developer, who has accepted that
responsibility in writing.
15. Staff also noted that the developer has agreed to dedicating an additional 5' along SW 59
Court for future widening of 59 Court, and such dedication will be recorded at the time the
building permit is issued.
16. Discussion was held in regard to lot coverage. Staff outlined various issues involving lot
coverage and concluded that, due to the uniqueness of the site, a lot coverage exception is needed
to maintain the theater use and to provide a continuous active street level building fa<;ade. Staff
also concluded that a parking deck is essential to provide the necessary building edge along the
sidewalk and still provide parking.
17. Mr. Morton provided a sketch reflecting his concerns relating to lot coverage for site 1.
18. Discussion was held in regard to the sketch that Mr. Morton provided, including
consideration of lot coverage, arcades, parking, and landscaping with street trees.
19. Staff suggested the following: set building fa<;ade back 10 feet on both SW 74 Street and SW
59 Court; provide the arcade within the property; and provide street trees on the sidewalk.
20. Staff noted that this option will not impact the parking deck, will comply with build-to-line at
least on the first floor level, and will allow street trees which were not possible before.
21. Mr. Pardo noted that he would like to study and review the information at a later time.
22. The Board agreed to a brief recess to further review the sketch and its related considerations.
23. Following the brief recess, the public meeting continued.
24. Mr. Pardo accepted the modification suggested by staff.
25. Concerns were expressed as to whether or not Mr. Cooper, as the Board's newest member,
would be able to vote on the application.
26. The City Attorney, via telephone/speakerphone, conveyed his opinion that, as Mr. Cooper
had not been present for the developer's presentation of the project and for the public's
objections to the project, he should refrain from voting on the matter.
27. The City Attorney related that, even though Mr. Cooper should refrain from voting, his
presence can be counted for a quorum, with four voting members and one non-voting member.
28. Mr. Cooper responded by noting his opinion that the project more than meets the intent of the
Hometown Plan and that he would have voted in favor of the project.
PB Mins 08-31-99 3
29. Mr. Cooper further emphasized that the most important elements of the Hometown Plan are
mixed use, street level activities, and pedestrian amenities, such as arcades, etc.
30. Ms. Gibson proffered a motion, and Mr. Morton related that the motion would read as one of
approval, " ... going with the staff recommendation as originally submitted, modifying it to
incorporate the plans that were submitted this evening with those prior modifications, and taking
it one step further that we will have supplemental, ground-level modifications to preserve the
arcades, shift the arcades on SW 59 Court and 74 Street, parcell, and have additional
landscaping, street trees, on SW 59 Court and 74 Street, as part of the final presentation that will
come to the Commission, so our recommendation would be approval on those items, on those
conditions. "
31. Following the proffering of the motion, Mr. David Tucker, a member of the audience, related
his objections to the verbiage of the motion. ' , .
32. The motion died for lack of a second.
33. The Board offered no other motions from the floor.
34. Mr. Scurr summarized that the matter would be forwarded to the City Commission without a
recommendation by Planning Board.
IV. Approval of Minutes
A. Minutes of August 10, 1999
1. The Board duly voted and approved the minutes for August 10, 1999.
2. Vote: Approved 4 Opposed °
IV. Remarks
A. There were none.
VI. Adjournment
A. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
B. Respectfully,
1. ________________________ ___
Board Chair Date
2. ________________________ ___
Board Secretary Date
PB Mins 08-31-99 4
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
Planning Board
Regular Meeting Summary Minutes
Tuesday, August 10, 1999
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
I. Call to order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
A. Mr. Morton, acting Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m.
B. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
II. Roll Call
A. Board members present constituting a quorum
1. Mr. Morton, Ms. Gibson, Ms. Chimelis, Mr. Wiscombe, Mr. Illas, Mr. Lefley
B. City staff present
1. Earl Gallop (City Attorney, departed early); Charles Scurr (City Manager, departed early);
Subrata Basu (Assistant City Manager / Planning Director); John Little (Principal Planner);
David Struder (Board Secretary)
III. Public Hearings
A. ITEM: PB-99-007
Applicant: RUM BUM DISTRIBUTORS
Request: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR & CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS FROM SECTIONS 20-7.8 THROUGH 20-7.13 OF THE LAND'
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, PROPOSED
ON TWO PARCELS LOCATED IN THE HOMETOWN DISTRICT HELD
UNDER A COMMON OWNERSHIP, PROVIDING FOR A UNITY OF TITLE
FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCELS SEPARATED
BY A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY; PARCEL 1 LOCATED AT THE NORTH
WEST CORNER OF S. W. 59 TH COURT AND S. W. 74TH STREET AND
EXTENDING TO 5966-5970 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY AND PARCEL 2
LOCATED AT THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF S. W. 59 TH PLACE AND S.
W. 74TH STREET, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA 33143.
PB MINS 08-10-99
1. Mr. Illas read the request into the record.
2. Staff presented the item to the Board, reviewing an inter-office memorandum entitled
Proposed mixed use development by Rum Bum Distributors, Inc. and dated August 3, 1999.
3. Staff related that this second appearance of the application before the Planning Board, which
had been heard previously on May 25, 1999, represents an attempt to balance the
community's concerns, the developer's right to make a reasonable use of the property, and
the city's interest in promoting responsible and mixed use development.
4. Staff summarized information involving the two parcels contained in the application, as well
as the proposed rebuilding of the old Sunset Theater located on US 1, as shown on page 2 of
the memorandum.
5. Staff explained the special exceptions that are requested in the application, as outlined on
page 3 of the memorandum.
6. Staff continued by reviewing the criteria that must be followed regarding special exceptions
and staff s analysis of such criteria, as indicated on pages 3 through 6 of the memorandum.
7. Staff closed by summarizing their recommendations concerning the project, as shown on
pages 6 and 7 of the memorandum.
8. In regard to Mr. Morton's inquiry regarding whether or not the applicant has had the
opportunity to ascertain staffs recommendations, staff replied affirmatively ...
9. Staff noted that it would be proper to allow the applicant the opportunity at this time to make
a presentation and respond to the Board's questions and concerns.
10. The public meeting continued.
11. Mr. Felix Pardo, architect, signed in to speak as a representative of the applicant.
12. Mr. Pardo opened by noting that the application had been before the Planning Board and had
received its approval.
13. Mr. Pardo related that this second appearance before the Planning Board provided an
opportunity to further explain the project and to impart how the community'S concerns have
been addressed.
14. Mr. Pardo explained that he wished to reserve time following the public hearing for purposes
of rebuttal.
15. Mr. Pardo noted that he would explain the project from various viewpoints, including use
content and massing features.
PB MINS 08-10-99 2
16. Mr. Pardo explained that use content includes such uses as restaurant, coffee shop,
microbrewery, and residential uses, including townhouses and apartments.
17. Mr. Pardo related that egress and ingress for the project will occur on South Dixie Highway
and on SW 74 Street, with "minor" ingress and egress on SW 74 Street to and from the
residential component planned on site 2.
18. Mr. Pardo explained the project on a level-by-Ievel basis and with street-by-street elevations,
including fenestration.
19. Mr. Pardo noted the color scheme intended for the project, characterizing the proposed colors
as "subtle" and "pastel" in nature.
20. In further explaining the project, including massing features, Mr. Pardo invited members of
the Planning Board and the public to view the model on display in the chambers.
21. Mr. Pardo continued by opining that the project has been through a "metamorphosis," and he
asked that the City make a decision, tonight, regarding the project.
22. In continuing comments on the project, Mr. Pardo related that if a 20% reduction in parking
is sought and approved, the applicant can accomplish a decrease in massing for site 2.
23. Mr. Pardo indicated how such a decrease in massing would look by updating the model, and
he noted that site 2 would then contain apartments, with amenities such as a swimming pool.
24. Board members asked about traffic flow to and within the project, including for US 1.
25. The public meeting continued.
26. In regard to questions raised about traffic, Mr. Carl Peterson, of Miller Consulting,
approached the dais.
27. Mr. Peterson explained that a concurrency evaluation had been completed in regard to the
project.
28. Mr. Peterson noted that five traffic concurrency locations had been assessed and addressed.
29. Mr. Peterson related that the evaluation concluded that there will be 195 new trips generated
during the peak hour of approximately 5-6 p.m. on a typical weekday, with the conclusion
being that there is capacity to handle such additional trips.
30. Mr. Peterson further related that a localized microscopic analysis of the immediate road
network had been performed.
PB MINS 08-10-99 3
31. Mr. Peterson noted that the analysis concluded that during the peak hour, 50% of traffic use
will occur at the driveway on South Dixie Highway and 50% of traffic use will occur on SW
74 Street.
32. Mr. Peterson further noted that the analysis indicated that most of the local street network
may expect an additional vehicle every 2-5 minutes, while closer to the project, such as at the
entrance on SW 74 Street, an additional vehicle every 1-2 minutes may be expected.
33. As discussion continued, Mr. Pardo and staff confirmed that the modified model showing the
smaller configuration for site 2 represents what the applicant is now requesting for approval.
34. The public hearing was opened.
35. Members of the public speaking in opposition to the project, as presented, included:
a. Mr. George David, 7541 SW 61 AVENUE
b. Mr. Walter Harris, 7100 SW 64 COURT
c. Mr. Edward English, 6117 SW 44 STREET
d. Ms. Eda Sagi, 7100 SW 64 COURT
e. Mr. Doug Adams, 6031 SW 76 STREET
f. Ms. Shirley Huebner, 7540 SW 59 COURT
g. Ms. Cathy McCann, 5820 SW 87 STREET
h. Mr. Dick Ward, 8325 SW 62 COURT
i. Ms. Martha Kent, (NO ADDRESS GIVEN)
36. Issues and concerns expressed by members of the public included, but were not limited to,
the following:
a. whether or not the City satisfied notice requirements;
b. whether or not the amended application/model was properly noticed;
c, whether or not the project meets'the intent and spirit of the Hometown Plan;
d. status of the City's parking infrastructure trust fund;
e. whether or not the restrictive nature of the code was followed;
f. impact on traffic and parking, including both SW 74 Street and US 1;
g. future uses established at the project, including a gun store;
h. whether or not fact 'and competent evidence have been presented;
i. whether or not a question of air rights has been adequately settled.
37. In reply, the City Attorney's comments included, but were not limited to, the following:
a. that notice requirements have been met, as the first PB meeting was noticed, the CC meeting
was noticed, and this meeting, the second PB meeting, has been noticed;
b. that notice requirements having been met, the matter is properly before the PB for its
recommendation;
c. that while the application was amended, such modification does not negate sufficiency or
completeness of the original application;
PB MINS 08-10-99 4
d. that City staff is in a position to properly determine if the intent and spirit of the Hometown
Plan have been met, particularly in regard to recommending special exceptions;
e. that the question of air rights can be properly settled, as an agreement can be negotiated by the
City to give air rights. '
38. Other members of the public who chose to speak included:
a. Mr. David Tucker, Sr., 6556 SW 78 TERRACE
b. Ms Judith Gindy, 7615 SW 67 AVENUE
39. The public hearing was closed.
40. Mr. Pardo related his rebuttal remarks including, but not limited to, the following:
a. that the project is well below FAR;
b. that the project is not seeking more area than what is allowed;
c. that the project represents more than what could simply be built without special exceptions;
d. that the project represents something better than what could be built without the exceptions;
e. that fact and competent evidence have been provided, such as with the traffic study;
f. that applicable codes do involve interpretation and opinion;
g. that diligence has been exercised in regard to following the code and providing parking;
h. that exceptions, and not variances, are requested concerning the property;
1. that the Mayor should have the opportunity to respond to concerns about the parking fund;
J. that if site 1 is to be reduced, such as with site 2, the theater may have to be removed.
41. The Board held further discussion on the application including, but not limited to, the
following:
a. that a unity of title for both sites or parcels be filed;
b. that concerns relating to the parking trust fund be addressed;
c. that the City desires to retain the theater portion;
d. that concerns of a possible gun store use be addressed;
e. that traffic concerns citywide be addressed;
f. that the moratorium, bonuses, etc., relating to parking be addressed;
g. that site 1 be re-studied and re-evaluated, such as with site 2.
42. The board began to concur that deferral of the application may be advisable.
43. Staff responded that the City Attorney would be contacted regarding issues surrounding
deferral of the application.
44. Motion: Mr. Lefley moved deferral of the application. Ms. Gibson seconded the motion.
45. Vote: Approved 4 Opposed 2 (Mr. Illas)
(Mr. Morton)
45. Following the taking of the vote, discussion continued.
PB MINS 08-10-99 5
46. Concern was expressed that the City Attorney had departed the meeting early and was not
available to respond to further questions, such as those involving deferral of the application.
IV. Elections of new officers
A. Mr. Morton and Mr. Wiscombe were elected joint-chairperson and vice-chairperson to serve
as each for a half-time period for the calendar year ending March 2000.
V. Approval of minutes
A. Minutes of May 25, 1999
1. The Board duly voted and approved the minutes of May 25, 1999, as presented.
2. Vote: Approved 6 Opposed 0
VI. Remarks
A. There were no remarks.
VII. Adjournment
A. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 a.m.
B. Respectfully,
1. ______________________________ _
Board Chair Date
2. ____________________________ __
Board Secretary Date
PB MINS 08-10-99 6
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, May 25, 1999
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
I. Call to order and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States
A. Mr. Pages, Chair, called the meeting to order.
B. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
II. Roll Call
A. Board members present constituting a quorum
1. Mr. Pages, Mr. Morton, Ms. Gibson, Mr. Wiscombe, Mr. Illas
B. Board members absent
1. Mr. Lefley, Ms. Chimelis
C. City staff present
1. Subrata Basu (Assistant City Manager/Planning Director); John Little (Principal Planner)
III. Public Hearings
A. ITEM: PB-99-006
Applicant:
Request:
Stir Crazy Enterprises, LLC
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A "RESTAURANT, GENERAL" PURSUANT TO
SECTION 20-3.4(B)(4)(b) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5701 SUNSET DRIVE,
TENANT SPACE C18, THE SHOPS AT SUNSET PLACE, SOUTH MIAMI,
FLORIDA 33143; PROVIDING FOR A LEGAL DESCRIPTION; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
1. Mr. Illas read the request into the record.
PB MINS 05-25-99
2. Staff presented the item to the Board, noting that the request involved an application for an
Asian stir-fry restaurant at The Shops at Sunset Place.
3. Staff summarized an interoffice memorandum, dated May 17, 1999, noting that the subject
restaurant, Stir Crazy Cafe, would locate where China Grill had intended to open.
4. Mr. Rick DeMarco, of Glencoe, IL and Chief Operating Officer, spoke before the Board as a
representative.
5. Mr. DeMarco related details pertaining to the concept of the proposed restaurant.
6. During discussion of the application, including the former application by China Grill,
calculations of parking, restaurant use at the complex, etc., the Board and staff concurred that
outdoor dining should be included as part of the proposal.
7. Public hearing was opened.
8. There being no wishing to speak before or against the item, the public hearing was closed.
9. Following the close of the public hearing, the Board voted on the matter.
10. Motion: Mr. Morton moved approval of the application, inclusive of the recommendation
that outdoor dining be included as part of the proposal. Mr. Wiscombe seconded the motion.
11. Vote: Approval 5 Opposed 0
B. ITEM: PB-99-007
Applicant:
Request:
Rum Bum Distributors
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR & CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS OF SECTION 20-7.9 AND SECTION 20-7.10 "DOWNTOWN
STREETS" AND 20-7.13 "REGULATING PLAN" OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A BUILDING LOCATED IN THE SR
"SPECIALTY RETAIL" ZONING DISTRICT, SPECIFICALLY ON S. W. 59
PLACE, S. W. 74 STREET AND S. W. 59 COURT, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA
33143:
1. Mr. Morton read the request into the record.
2. Staff presented the item to the Board, noting that the request involves an application for a
mixed-use project, including a residential component, in the vicinity of US 1 and SW 74 Street.
3. Staff summarized an interoffice memorandum, dated May 21, 1999, noting that the subject
project has been reviewed for such items as sufficiency of parking and favorable uses for the
area, including a residential portion at SW 59 Place and 74 Street.
PB MINS 05-25-99 2
4. Staff emphasized the City's sensitivity to existing residential uses located nearby and noted
the intention to render the project a positive impact upon the neighborhood.
5. Staff noted that the project meets certain code criteria, including that for FAR regulations and
for height limitations, and that concurrency reports had been received.
6. Staff read into the record a letter from Ms. Shirley Huebner, a resident of 7540 SW 59 Court,
relating her opposition to the project, including granting exceptions to Hometown regulations.
7. The Board and staff discussed various items regarding the project, including Hometown
regulations, particularly in regard to the possibility of constructing a parking deck.
8. Mr. Felix Pardo, architect, spoke before the Board as a representative.
9. In his presentation, Mr. Pardo related various items regarding the project, including:
a. that uniquely configurated parcels are involved;
b. that rebuilding of the existing theater is planned;
c. that there is no overage regarding FAR;
d. that there is no request for any relief in parking;
e. that a mix of uses is planned;
f. that the intended mix of uses includes the theater, a restaurant, retail, offices, etc.;
g. that residential uses are included as part of the mix;
h. that the residential component will consist of townhouses and apartments;
i. that the residential uses make it possible for people to live at the project;
j that along with residential uses, storefront uses are intended;
k. that both residential and storefront uses promote an active streetscape;
l. that arcades are proposed for pedestrians, as well as aesthetics;
rn. that commercial activity will be situated closer to US 1;
n. that the residential uses will be situated closer to existing residential uses;
o. that fenestration will be provided on the parking structure portion;
p. that parked vehicles are well hidden from public view;
q. that a trolley stop is proposed in front of the newstand area.
10. The Board's responses included the suggestion to place landscaping at the exterior elevations
along the north and northeast sides of the project.
11. The Board held discussion on whether residential units will be for sale or rent and if
proposed uses are permitted uses within the Hometown District
12. The Public hearing was opened.
a. Mr. David Tucker, Sr., of 6556 SW 78 Terrace, spoke before the Board.
b. Mr. Tucker spoke of being diligent and keeping an open mind as the project moves forward.
PB MINS 05-25-99 3
c. Mr. Tucker asked that the residential uses remain intact as currently proposed and that the
project be a place of security and tranquility for both residents and visitors.
d. Ms. Susan Redding, of7930 SW 58 Court, spoke before the Board.
e. Ms. Redding related that a primary concern was the proposal to have retail on an upper level.
f. Ms. Redding noted that she applauds the rebuilding of the theater to use for cultural activities
g. Mr Pardo returned to the podium to speak before the Board, relating his responses to
comments voiced by the two citizens who had just spoken.
13. The public hearing was closed.
14. Following the close of the public hearing, discussion continued.
15. The Board noted that the workability and manueverability of the parking portion be finalized.
16. The Board held discussion in response to Shirley Huebner's concerns related in her letter.
a. In regard to the project resulting in an overbuilt site, the Board noted that it is important to
understand that US 1, a major thoroughfare, calls for density, both structurally and economically.
b. The Board also noted· that the proposed residential units will complement the neighborhood
and not detract from the area, which is aesthetically not the most appealing.
17. The Board and staff continued their discussions involving Ms. Huebner's letter.
a. The Board related that, in the vicinity of the Villa Fontana Apartments (Ms. Huebner's
complex) and in the area of the proposal, an urban area exists as the Sunset Drive and US 1
corridor, as well as office buildings and other apartment complexes, are all located nearby.
18. The Board and staff noted that concerns do involve traffic and noise, which the City fully
realizes and is addressing, such as with concurrency reports.
19. Staff noted that the Hometown Plan involves theory, and as such, acts as a guide for planning
purposes.
20. Staff also noted that the special exception process was developed as a safeguard mechanism,
with the understanding that there may need to be modifications as projects come to the City.
21. Motion: Mr. Illas moved approval of the application, as presented. Mr. Wiscombe seconded
the motion.
22. Vote: Approval 5 Opposed 0
PB MINS 05-25-99 4
MrAMI DAilY BUSINESS REVIEW
PubflSI'led Oally except SiUur08y. Sunoay anO
legal Holidays
Miami. Daa& County, Florida.
STATE OF FLORID"
COUNTY OF DADE::
Sefo,e the under,lgne(l luthorlty pe"onallv eppeared
Octelma V. Farbey,a, who on oeth say, that she Is til.
Suparvlsor. Llgel NOtices of the Miami Dally 8uSll\ua
Aa"lew flk/a Mllml ~vlew. a d,lIy (except saturdlY. BulldlY
and Legel Holl"'va) newspaper, published at ftleml In O~
County, Florida; that thl attached copy Of actvertlsel1leflt.
bel~ Lagal Advertisement of Notice In the 1n81U1' of CI'rY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PUBLIC HEARING -8/17/99
A nESOLUTION RELATING
TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS OF SECTIONS
20-7.8, ETC.
In the ..................... ~~.~.~~ ......................................... Court,
WXY'gDII~ 1'1. ~I~ ~per In thelUI.IeS of
Affiant furlh.r says that the $aId MI""I O4Il1y Busln ..
Review Is a newspaper pUblished at Mleml In slid Oade
County, florid., Ind tn.t the said ~ lias h.,..lofore
batn continuously publl$ftlClln said Oede COUnty, florta,
aaett day (except saturday, &unc:t.y Md Legal Holidays) .fIO
he, b6an entered as IMIcond clus mall man., It tM post
Offiea In Miami In uld oacs. County, fJOtida. fM a potIod of
one year nellt preceding the first publicatIOn 01 t .... attllchlld
COPV ot edV6rtlMmont; and affiant furt .... ' NYS Utat she hIS
nt\tMr p.ld nor promised .ny pe or corporation
eny disc: • """8, comml refun for tn. purpoae
of lieu 9 t"ls ed".rtl public tiOft in the &aId
6
........ dsy of ........................... ,: ................................ A.D. 18 .... ..
~"'r'
'. ",~: :.' ., .,l • ;:. ;.:'," .'" .
~ :;
',' .. '~ "---~.;:.;,;."'.---..; ---. .... _ . .......-~' ... ~.' ... --.-.... --';
•. 'J ': '~:~;'. 'Clty"'F IIIAIiI ,.:.:.: :~.<,'
;;. "OT'~E'OF . . . . MP.,,.,. .; ::
NOT!Ce 'IS 'H'EREQY iI~e~th~1 ~ ~;ty C~i~i~ ~I th~ ci~; 01
Sol,Ath ~~I.FJOOda wllI.~uct , .. , PutllltH~ng ~ring Its ~r.·
City eornml~ meeting,O!'i T~ay, ~ult 17.1_. boginOlrIg al
.7:30 p.m.; in the ~Ity.~, Chambers), 6!:J!.? ~.,~~ Otlv~:;' 10
(:Ol'Isfder. : .' .:.':' '. .':' . .,' .' ,
,": •• ".' .• ,'." ··"t
A RE~U.iTION OF,1rif~'MAYOR ~O Cfty COMMiSsiON, .
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO ;
A REOU~:r FOR, ~CIA.l. EXCEPTIONS OF SECTIPNS
20-7.& TJotROUGH $ECTI6N'2().7.13 OF. THE, LAND DE·:.
VElOPMENT COCE fOR' A MIXED-USE OEVELOPMEtfl.? ",
. PR6~SEO~. TWO PAAC~lS LOCATEO '!N Tti~ HOME'; ~
TOWN QISTRtCT HEll> UNDER ~ CO~ OWNERSHIP. '. :'
PROVIDING FOR A UNITY OF. TmE FO~ THE PURPOSES. .
, OF DEVELOPMENT Of! TH1! pARCelS SEPAAA TEO BY II
. rUeuc "I~ OF WA.V; PAR~l , IS ~TEO AT JHE :
.. NORTH WEST COAHfR OF S.W. 5t111 COURT AND S.W!.'
74TH STREET ~ EXTENDING TO 5888·~ SOUTH :
piXIE' HiGHwAY,~D'PAACEL 2:\-QCA~P AT l}E .'
SOUTH WEST CORNEFi OF 59TH pt.ACE AND S.W. 74TH: ,.
~EET. ~HUW.II,F~IOA33i.:J. ,': :':" ,:;.", ,
. ". '. . .-... .~" .. ,. .:: .' .~ . .'., ~ ; :. ::.,. ..' -: ", ' ,
~ ~ Ihlailem ~'be JI.iect~ to JtIe'.~ :'
OMIIOnet.8&3-a327~:;· ,.'; ,', .. :' r; "'1,':) .:. ,:',
, AU.~tetHted pani.. are ~ ~ ~ and Witt be heard .. :' ~,
• > • '. • • • ' •••• :.; i -. -: '." '. : .. ". ,~ .. ~. '
.' • ~tt~ Tia}'fOr, ~MO . ; ...... '. .'.. CitY C\e11!(. ..:-> •
.. ', ". ~hy ol.~Uth ~'''.~ ;, ' .. ' . :,:,
. purauan! to florida SlatUle$ 286.01OS. ttle City Mf1I\)y adviie. the
public that if a pe~ deQfdn 10 appeaIlJIly dedJiOrl made by this
Boa/'d. Ag&nef or Comrnlulon with ~ 10 any matte( c:cnllder.d '.'
at It I .rnaatrng or heaMg. he or Jt\e will (IeGd ~ ~rd oI.ltle ~', '
logs; and !tltt for sut;h PUrp()iG~ atf~ .per$O(l /'I13y ~ 10 ~u",
thal a vetbatlm ~ o( ~hG ~noll' ~de ¥lhich rqoo~,i!1':
clud8$ Ihe testimony ,and evJdeilOe uPon Which lllb appeal Is lobe "
based. . , ,
816 99-3.a80675M
-----.•• _-•... :-_.,--• ...,_ •. _. -..... ---...• -•. -.~.---"!'_!'--'--"
...... ~~: ....... ~~~~~
'
''EAl) :\.~nv JjiJ.. ot'FlClAl NOTARY SUi.
.. O~~rV(''''' CHERYL H MA'U'2A
Ott.lm. v. Ferbeyre personally kno'lllft , •. \ Ii ~ C~ON N\&lIEft
'.., 4f~::ot: ~ CC54S3U ~ ~ &tY CO«M.IS61ON EXPRS
°FF\..O APR. 12.Z0QO
1e e d
MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
Published Dally except Saturday, Sunday and
Legal Holidays
Miami, Dade County, Florida.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DADE:
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared
Sookle Williams, who on oath says that she Is the Vice
President of Legal Advertising of the Miami Dally Business
Review flk/a 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 SOUTH MIAMI
PUBLIC HEARING -8/10/99
ITEM: PB-99-007
In the ........... ~.~~~~ ..................... Court,
W'?J'1bll~~ !ns~~~!lspaper In the Issues of
Affiant further says that the said Miami Dally BUSiness
Review II a newspaper published at Miami In laid Dade
County, Florida, and that the laid newspaper hal heretofore
been contlnuoully publllhed In laid Dade County, Florldl,
each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and
hal been entered as sacond class mall matter at the post
office In Miami In said Dade County, Florida, for a period of
one ye t preceding the first publication of the attached
copy ad rtlsement; and affiant further says that Ihe hal
nelth r p nor promlled any person, finn or corporstlon
any s nt, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose
of sung this a rtlsement for publication In the said
~~~ 4J;;.g4f.~
30 Sj;1 r ynd subscribed before me ~I~
day of ........................ , A.D. 19 ..... .
.. C~d.2?!~ ............ .
(SEAL) '"' PlJ OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL
Sookle Williams personally I r,,~~t-to. m. e C:f(~ CHERYL H MMMER Ii ( .'-(') COMMIGSION NUMiER ~ . i{ ,. ~ .;} <I( CC545384
..,~ ~ MY COMMISSION EXP'lRES
. (:" OF f\.O APR. 12,2000
" .. ~ .
--.--.--.---.---. ----... -----
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
6130 SUNSET DRIVE; SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA 33143
PHONE: (305) 663-6326; FAX I: (305) 666-4591
On Tuesday, August 10, 1999, at 7:30 P.M., the City of South Miami
Planning Board will conduct a Public Hearing in the Commission
Chambers at the above address on the following:
ITEM: PB-99-'107
Applicant: RUM BUM DISTRIBUTORS
Request: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR & CITY COM-
MISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA,
RELATING TOA REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EX-
CEPTIONS FROM SECTIONS 20-7.8 THROUGH 20-
7.13 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, PROPOSED ON TWO
PARCELS LOCATED IN THE HOMETOWN, DIS-
TRICT HELD UNDER A COMMON OWNERSHIP,
PROVIDING FOR A UNITY OF TITLE FOR THE
PURPOSES OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCELS
SEPARATED BY A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY;
PARCEL 1 IS LOCATED AT THE NORTH WEST
CORNER OF S. W. 59TH COURT AND S. W. 74TH
STREET AND EXTENDING TO 5966-5970 SOUTH
DIXIE HIGHWAY AND PARCEL 2 LOCATED AT THE
SOUTH WEST CORNER OF 59TH PLACE AND S.W.
74TH STREET, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA 33143.
All interested parlies are urged to attend. Objections or expressions
of approval may be made in Person at the hearing or filed in writing
prior to or at the hearing. The Ptanning Board reserves the right to rec-
i ommend to the City Commission whatever the board considers in the
. best interest for the area involved. Interested parties requesting infor-
mation are asked to contact the Planning and Zoning Department by
calling 663-6326 or writing to the address indicated above.
You are hereby advised that if any person desires to appeal any de-
ciSion made with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or
hearing, such person will need a record of the proceedings, and for
such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro-
ceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is to be based (F.S. 286.0105). Refer to hearing
number when making any inquiry.
7/30 99-3-073035M
~ f . RECEIVED
AUG -3 1999
r.:" I J ... ? i '" CO ," . CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI}.
Planning and Zoning Department
.. -.. "
On Tue.sd~iAugust Hi. 1999. a't 7:30 P.M. the City of South. Miami Planning Boam wuiconduCt'a'Public Heanng in the
ComrrussJOn Chambers at the above address on the followmg:' , ',-.... . : ~
A request for'Special Exceptions from applicable Sections 2-7:8 through 20-7.13 of the Land Development Code for a
mixed use development" in the Hometown District. The mixed-use development is located on two parcels under
common ownership. providing for a unity a of title for the purposes of development of the·two sites separated by a
public-righi~of way and is seeking special exception to deviate from requirements of lot coverage and 20.000 sqft of
building footprint. open yard space. building depth. build to line and parking at above grade levels. The pareell is.
located at the north west comer of S.W. 50th Court and S.w. 74th Street and extending to 5966-5970 South Dixie
Highway and parcel 2 located at the southwest comer of S.W. 59th Place and S.w. '74th Street. South Miami, Florida
n141 .
For more information regarding this application or any matter. please call (305) 6653-6326.
All interested parties are urged to attend. Objections or expressions of approval may be made in p'erson at th~ hearing
or filed in writing prior to or at the hearing. The Planning Board reserves the right to recommend to the City
Commission whatever the board considers in the best interest for the area invol~d. Interested parties requesting
information are asked to contact the Planning and Zoning Department by calling 663-6326 or writing to the address
indicated above. .
You are hereby advised that if any person desires to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered
at this meeting or hearing. such person will need a record of the proceedings. and for such purpose may need to'
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. which record includes the testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal is to be based (ES. 286.0105) hearing number when making any inquiry.
''Fhis Instiiln1ent Prepared I.3y:
MICHAEL S. CEASE, ESQ.
2900 N. W, 7th Street
, Miam,i, Florida 33125
F'HmlE ~ 10. :
Rtf: 18232rc4160
Folio No's. 09-4136-029-0090; 09-4036-029-0100;
.09-4036-029-0120; 09-4036-030-'0020; 09.-4036-030-003(~
98R40 1.4-52 1998 AUG Ii 1
DOCSTPOEE 12,000.00 SURTX 9,(
HARVEY RUVIN. CLERK DADE CQUNI
This \Varranty Deed, Made the LL-'®ay of .A l JOUST. 192.8., by MATRIX P A \VS,
INC., a Florida corporation existing under the laws of Florida, and having its principal
place of business at: 300 Costanera Road. Coral Gables. Florida 33143, hereinafter called the
Grantor, to RUM BUM DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a Florida corporation existing under the
laws of Florida, whose post ofti.ce address is: P.O. Box 339. Coconut: Grove. Florida
]) 133 , hereina fier called the Grantee:
(\Vhcncvcr used herein (he term "l;:rsnlor" and ··grantee·· in.::lude aU the pa/'li~s to !Ilis instrument .mJ
hdrs. leSll reprcscnl3!ivcS and 3ssigns of individuals, and the su;cess(lr,; fond 3.$sijOns of COrpi)ratl"n~)
Witnessetb, That the Grantors, for an in consideration of the sum of $1 0,00 and other
valuable considerations, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged. hereby grants, bargains, seIl~;
aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the Grantee all that certain land, situate in
Miami-Dade County, State of Florida, viz:
SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION MARKED EXHII3IT i;A"
SubjecUQ: Conditions, restrictions, easements, assessments and limitations of
record. and to 1998 taxes and subsequent years.
Together, with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or
in anywise appertaining.
To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple fi)rever.
And the Grantor hereby covenant with said grantee that the grantc~r is lawfully sdzed of
said land in fee simple; that the grantors have good right and lawful authority to sell and convey
said land, and hereby wan'ant the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful
claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said bnd is free of all encumbrance::;, except taxes
accruing subsequent to December 31, 1997.
In Witness \Vhereof, (he Grantor has caused these presents to be executed in its name,
and its corpor-are seal to be hereunto affixed, by its proper officers thereunto duly authorized, the
day and year first above written.
FROM CEASE Law OfficeS
Apr. 30 1999 04: 19PI'1 P4
"
PMCBt, At
Lo~ t ahd 10 ADd the I •• t 10 t.et: ot the South 15.55 bat of Lot.
a, Bloc)(. .2, AlG:ND1D PU'l' or 'l'llZ sot-ovop!" SU'BDIVI8ION, aacoJ:cl1ng to
~b •. Plat: ~.reot.. recorded in Plat Book , At P~i. 11 of the
Publlc a.co::da of I)~ county, PloddA, &D.d
All of t.ot , &JI4 that portiou ot ,"ota, de.cri~od.... fellow. I
:a."iJ:uting at. tha Southv ... tarly eoruer o~ Lot 6, theDCe South lO.3(
te.t, eh-.no. hat (4.96 fut, theDae North 30.3' futl tbADCO
North .... teJ:l.y n.s t.atoJ thalll:!8 8ou.th",e.t.rly SO f.et t.CI the
origi.ca.l. Point of lt~glZU1ing, all ly1n~ U 1I10Q)( 2, ot the AmDm:D
PLAT 01" SOLOVOP1 $tJBt>IVl:SIOlf •• A reaorc1ad .:t.D Pl.At !Soole 7 lit tag-a 11
ot the Pl.3l;ll..ic ~tcO~da ~f Dad. County I Florida, Gil .
All of Lota 2 &Ad 3, AMnIC>.X 'l'OWlfSITli COMPA:.~ SOllDXVISIO~, air
recorded in plat ]look 3 aeo 1'&911 134 af the Public Raco:-da of D/ld&
County I P1a::ida.
)..11 at L~t 5, .Blo~k.4. BOX.OVO!'!" S StJBDrnSJ:ON, u reaordld in PlAt
.Book 7 at I>ago U, and th. S.W. 15 f •• t. oL Lot " (wQich h the
.t:rip l.5 Lo.~ .. ide and UO faet. l.cmg ad.:SoUUng Lot 5), Clf .aid
Block :1 J and. all of Lot •• aloak 2, axaep\O the 1i:act 10 t •• t
tbaJ:aot, an4 asc~t tha tollowi:1g 4e.o~1bad. poa:tionl aaginning at
t11. SW CCX"Z1tU' of Lot a, theca rwl Z •• te::l.y aleng the Bov.tb ~in.,
64.96 t •• t, th~e lforthw •• terly paral~.l to t:ll. " •• t. liAo of Lot e, 30.34 t.at, theDee lfofthw.ae.rly on .. praduct1or.l ot the
Noa:t..he ... tarly ll.u ot loot ,. • ell.canoe of U.50 teat to thQ
divL4.ing' 1:I.A. lItt.oea. LaC. 8 and S, the.uc. a10ng the divicU,ng liDe
betwooa. Lot. I W " Soutllw •• t:aa:ly SO te.t to the N'orthw .. tllrly
com" o~ Lot " tb..ftO* Qo\Sth.~ly 30.34 f •• t to the Point of
D.giml.J.:c.CJ all located i%l. !OLOVOpp· S Sf1Bt)IVI:S:IOll, aaeorcUng to the
.AmaDded Plat: "tracf •• a:.c:orded in Plat. Book 7 _t Page 1l of the
Public R.ecordJJ of n_d.. County, Plo~1da.
-'
.QECORDeO IN (~f-tCiA~ /<It:C:;;HU;; UOi..iI\
r)F DADE COlJNT'r. ~t ,,:vv(;;...
IlECOtlO vr:;HIFIEO
HARV&Y RUVIN
~I-f"""" CW(-;t~ r GOU,U
~t":UI"I ,_t::H::.t: LoW Ulll ces
.'.
(
ATTE8.
I
..... ,--_ ... _--,
STATE OF FLORIDA)
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE)
t-'HUNt: NU. Apr. 30 1999 134: 18Pt'l P3
MATRIX PAWS, INC.
.....
I Hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and
take acknowledgments, personally appeared HILDA BACARDI, President and Secrerary of
MATRIX PAWS, INC., a Florida corporation, kno'W'l1 to be the person described in and who
executed the foregoing instrument, who acknowledged before me that she executed the same, and
an oath was not taken. Said person provided the following type of id~ntification: FI. Driver's
Licence.
,,1,
$-.i' ;::; ',",
! ,
i
I
~-,-----,-
, >-..;1 ~ "" > I ~ -0'
;;;J ~I IZJ ,...."
~ I' o x'i = "', ~ I
~ !
C/1 I
.. ' .. , .
I ,
I : : III '9d 'L 'Sd) : :
: I ~J01S ___ : ___________ ..1., ... ,,_,.,.;,. ,:"" ':.,: --'----
,
I , , , ,
I
l. __ , , , , , , , ,
I
I
I L ____ _
I
I
I
I , ,
I
I ,
I ,
L ____ _
:: " . '~:.;' .. , .. " i,~,' ..~.: ,,", .... ' ... ...... .
',',\
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR:
RUM-BUM· DISTRIBUTORS INC.
5966 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA
~.
\ / Y > ; .~ :""'.t
! .. /~ l
1999
/. ... _.,1
,:.; :<~>',-; ~ :'';
ii 'f' ,~ .'
FELIX PARDO. ASSOCIATES, Inc:.
AlllCHfTECTUIIiE I PL.6I+lfNt:i I fNTERIOIIiI6
S4bS 5J1J. 8th 1lTI'<EET, SUITE 21Zl5 -MIAMI. !'LORIDA. 33~
flhons; (3050) ~·4555 Fax. (30&)..04-4&-'£106 AA ~418
r---------------------
LEGAL. ~ # ~ .... O."'U1.E· .# ff ==1 .;.';"" leI.=.fi=1 -
erTE "I
1.QT,.~.,AIC)"... .... T_~cw.TI4IC:VTl< __ "lIiIiT~I.O't.Cf'LOT:lOf'·AI'SC:lIiD
'"'-"t"'fl4!~~,~'!C1'kIr:I'UoT~ ..... ~IW~T =="\Jl.T.--.. CI',...~II;;~DI'D.ADII'GcIIHI'Y,~
AU.0I'1..DI'.~TW.&.T~C71.DT6~MI~~ ... Tn.«.~tt1lIl_,..
~0I'1.Ct •. 11.I!N2eo.rft.1_""'""-T.'neCII!e.ooeT~.'fI.e«2Io10111'TW_']'o'I'II!IIrf.~
~""'''4tII1'III!T.'tI4JCt~,.,..y N~TOna~JI"ONTOf~.r.u..
1..'l"N:ilWa..oot'Q'nE·~P\AtC1l_fICII..O\<R'~ .... _c;(lM:)Ijp"'"_"Tl:IoOO(l
~~ft"._t"'U5LIC~".D.oIO'I!:~.1'U::IIII!DA
AU..CI'~2Ne •• 0I'·~T~~~e.ac~dN', ... tWCOI'IDE>l'j~,.eo::K ..
ATl'"oIiar 1MC1f'tlo«:,....,..IC~"a.tOtc.o.xrr.~ ...
S!1'E ~
A,U.(;1FI.DT •• OI'\!L.O::I(.'OI·~~.;I,6~t.!I'IAT!IICiIOO;.'1. ... T"'~~
MCI~_.flEK'Tt:E\...O'T"fV.a(:I.I·"t\.C __ ·I'D'T~.<tO""l'GTu:MIo~i.DT·},
C#'MDIII...COC.2.",",ALLOFI.DT.OFeu:o:.2.exce-r'TICE.oaeTlII~~.NCI!XZ!""f
SITE DATA (SITE I)
ZClNtNCs· ~
LAND AREA
6UILDIN6 A~A
~t"b.£)!!eI'.il\lET)
ALLOWED PROvIDED REMA,.:(K$
=~""","",,--..--:::.-::-~--=-=::::--=:=.::: ~~"",_D~_:~: t;;t;;: n p~ p.o.'If!' jC ~ J ~ ~--------------,.,.L» .... __ -----------------------------------~ M: • ~: A
""~ _________________ -",~L ___ _
~.r~AS_~TICN. ___ .~_. __ .~~-...&~ ___ .. _ ... _._ .. ___________ _
.~--------~~.~~~----.---.~---B..QQR.¥li.A.BAlJO _____ . ____ ~.&£.ll6o&'l~~M~.FMi1_._. ___ . __ . ___ _
~T~loP.AC:E 1~'3.6!o&".(~) _~~ ________ _
~ .~ ______ ~....!Y!L ~6TORII~.L_. __ ._._~ __ _
SITE DATA (SITE 2)
ZONING -~""
LAJ"..ID AREA
Nll£.AOF-JD~L.·OITf":
eulLDINCs AIOi:E.A
1~~el'"!1€t)
Ili,£Q"D/ALLOUED PROvIDED REMARKS
aA".lCE~. ____ . __ . _____ . ______ .~ __ . .4}4WDF_~". ____ . ______ .
~ _____ ._. ________ " _____ J.U:U.21A1' ____ .. _"""""-______ _
~.FGaI' ...... ~ ______ " ______ ~Jlu....Ol:. __________ ." ____ ~_
~~ ___ ~ ___ .. ___ . ______ ~..:w:.IO!L&1: ________________ _
i.9.l..~ _____ ~.!"!I.,,61_.(~ &.&eb'lr1&1'_ (41""'-) ~ ___ _
13...!29RA!II!E ..... !lU.TIO l'.'ll....(IHI~~""U.~'Ol'_(1.~ ____ m_. ______ ~ ___ _
~..G!I!£N.....!r..oilrltO trA17 ,..,.. .... Af~ ___ J..;l!.eA,l6f....c~s.J ___ . __________ " __ • ____ ._ ••. __
~ ________ _lJl:~ . .3..~-'~~" ___________ ."_" __ _
PAQK.~ CALCULATIONS
!lii:EQ'D/AI...1.OII.ED
~ I 8'"ACE.Jll£Jlit-4 .8EAllL-....a.»..tIP.....6.CE4
1 ..... ."" ••
REMAl<I<S
-----1.&P...6CE-I!ER~~ ... ~_
~ lf1"!!!U11C!., ·.~~ __ ----'..r~~~~~L
11"FR'~_______Ll&.te~ ____ _____1IleM:;E"f'!EJIl.ZtZ!"fzU~~/~.J!!..1ClL"
'elDACEe!"'£~\III!T • ~ eI"'..t.Cee ~ V'1orrOlil 'PACE&1"E1'2LN.!T1 f'I..IJ&' VI&lTc:.I:.:M
IQEQ'D/ALJ...OUEP PROvIDED
w
U
-<l
....I
0...
..c ,.>
(]I
d)
~
<l)
.. -a ........ '~It_
~tIIOT .... HU'lI T
......
-..... 1 ...
~t ~e
-:'5 J ~m ~:
~ ... !i': ~! ~~ .. ~ ~~
0'" o! .. ~I ~~ <t ~~
It. H
~i n
~ o ...
"u zZ §~ ..... ~ ~o>IllE-o;:~
...J ;:J§;:!;
<iIl:I:J,
t-t ...... l.J(CJ u~x"" ~E-00~ f>lU)~g ::s-::::>~ ~o~~ o ",,0 u~~5:
::>'"
op:) ~I o;:a
0...::> ~~
0...
t-.,.
."'POI.
~"':"'-:=. -== II I~ ~~=== ;= GROUNDFLOORPLAN~I .. A.:! I
\\Wilfredo\felix-w\199a\9S30\1999 DWGS\rev\PLANNING BOARD REV\FLOOR PLAN.dwg Wed Aug 25 12: 19: 58 1999 KLC
~
~
~
~
."
---------T--
o I
e..U!. 5Sth" PLACE
~
-l
.J>.
~
~
Al m
-l
------·--e;:w~-§9th--C·ciURT-------·--·--·--·-·--
~
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR:
RUM-BUM DISTRIBUTORS INC.
5966 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
PHONE: (305) 666-3435
FELIX FA~O • A5SOCIATE6, Inc::.
AI'O!C!-II1l!ClUlE I PLANNING I 1NT1:RJ0fIIe
&.04,& e.w. 8th 6mEET, SUITE 20!1 • MIAMI, Ft..~OA. !1I1M
~., ,"'!.d'}"') "'''' ... '''' ... ''''' -=.ot". 1"101H'o) .... "' .. ~.,-... "A _~ ... . ~ . .
\\Wilfredo\felix-w\199S'i9S30\1999 DWGS\rev\PLANNING BOARD REV\FLOOR PLAN.dwg Wed Aug 25 12: 20: 37 1999 KLC
i
§
~
~
i ~ 1111; iii 'ii
------------------------------------------l-------------------------------------~
"'\
S.U). 5~th PLACE
------------,-----j
(J>
~
..J
-f>.
5-
<!l
ill m
--j
I
1
--------sm-S;Sth--cOuRT----·-·--·-·----·----
~
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR:
RUM-BUM DISTRIBUTORS INC.
5966 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
PHONE: (305) 666-3435
-.,
FELIX FA~O 'ASeocIATES" Inc.
A~ITECTUI'<E 11"f..~1NG I INTERIO!'¥
'00" e,W. 8th &Tr<EET, &lITE 2M • Mt.AMl, P\..OFtIOA ,,1)0(.
FhotI., (3A) ~&·4&!!O' Paxi (3~) 4"'&.'~ AA H\t>2""e
,$
\\Wilfredo\felix-w\1998\9B30\1999 DWGS\rev\PLANNING BOARD REV\FLDOR PLAN.dwg Wed Aug 25 12: 20: 59 1999 KLC
2S ~
fl ~
~
-------_._------------------------------.---------------------------_._---'"
6.UJ. 5'3th PLACE
(j)
~
-' .j>.
5'
(j)
-l
iil m
-l
1
--------s:uJ. -&9th --COURT -----------7 ----
~
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR:
RUM-BUM DISTRIBUTORS INC.
t:."('~ ("I"IIITtI nlVIt" UlrUIIIAV
FELIX PARPO • A&SOCIATE~, Inc.
~ITI!CI1J!I;il!! II"LANNING I 1NT!!1ItI0I'i!&
\\Wilfredo\felix-w\1998\9830\1999 DWGS\rev\PLANNING BOARD REV\FLOOR PLAN.dwg Wed Aug 25 12: 21: 29 1999 KLC
8 "il
~
-"-""--"''''''--'''''''''-''''\ "-'-"''''-'-'-''''-''·'''--''''''''1'--1''''-'\
I I '\
! I
1"11"--",·,,,1,--1 -;:;::;:;::;:;;" ~r-L::;;l i I
I I
S,U!. B'=lth FLACE
~
..J
./>. s:
~ m -I.
i I jm
i
,
1
1 , .... -,-
I
I
-----,---5:W~ -'§Sth" "COURT" '','''''''''' ---".-,,---
~
~, -I
m> ~ PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR: FEL.IX FA~O ~ ASSOCIATES, Inc. III I! I f III
I I" ~ RUM-BUM DISTRIBUTORS INC. A!'iCl-lfTECTU!E/F\.ANN!NI:i/~(.)t11t6 • ; r (JI ~. i 5966 SOUTH QIXIE HIGHWAY .... ow. "'" ",""!!T. WITO , ... ' HIAMI. "-"""DA ,,,..._
'.
E: \FELIX-K\1998\9830\1999-dwgs\80ARD REVISONS\elevations2,dwg Wed Aug 25 14: 01: 02 1999 KLC
I
~ ~ ~
~
c
(j)
I
m r m ~
-I
~
\J1
~
;J!
~ m
ffi
~
m r m
~
,~
~
§
~
m r m
~
~
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR:
RUM-BUM DISTRIBUTORS INC.
5966 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY our"'J!:'. ('U\&;' I=:hh_ "n"
FEL.IX FA~O 4 AeeocIATE&, Ine.
AFICI-lITEc::T1JII<I! I FI...AN-IING I INTEfltlOI't&
e4ee &W. 8th &11I!EET, eUlrn:2~ ~ MI.4MI, F=\.01IlIDA. "~
__ .... '..,"' ... 1,.1 ..... _..1 ....... I:"v. I ... ~ .. ) .dA'~'T~ AA ~'A'TA
'.
11.
:: \FELlX-K\1998\9830\1999-dwgs\BOARO REVISONS\elevations2,dwg Wed Aug 25 14: 00: 30 1999 KLC
I
~ ~ :::j
~ ,en
"f;
-J
.J>,. s:
(j)
~ m
-I
(j)
~
:t
m r m
~
~
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR:
RUM-BUM DISTRIBUTORS INC.
'iq"F; SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
-J
~ ::r-
~
~ m -I
6 ~ r.
m r m
'<
!?i
~
FEL.IX PA~O 4 AeSOCIATEe, Inc:. 11111 'III AI'iCI-lrTl!C'!\JfIIE I FI-.6J-N1NG I INTEI'fJO!<:e ;
~"""!o em. t>1.h eiFWl:1, !U1'tl;.:2re • MIAMI, I=t-ORtDA. 33134 ..
E: \FELIX-K\1998\9830\1999-dwgs\BOARD REVISONS\elevations2.dwg Wed Aug 25 13: 59: 58 1999 KLC
~ S
~
~ ~
i
2
~
rn m
~
--f
2
z ~ :c
m r m
~
~
z
~ :c m
1> ~
m. r m
~
--f
~
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR:
RUM-BUM DISTRIBUTORS INC.
'iQhh ,nIlTH nlYIF HIr.HWAY
~ 1~11 ~
9 D --
I §] 0 -
~"" §J 0
[§J D
§J D'
.~ 0
D
g D
g 0
§J 0
§J D
0 D
0 D
0 0
0 0
0 D
0 0
0 D
~
..
FEL.IX PA~O 4 ASSOCIATES,lnc.
A~lmCiUl'O!! I FLAl'NING 11N'TSR16tit&
.~ .. '" a", ... 10 __ It,. ... ,,'HIt .,..... IwIt"''''').-t ....... I .... A to'illl",(
:: \FELIX-K\199S\9S30\1999-dwgs\SOARO REVISONS\elevations2,dwg Wed Aug 25 13: 59: 35 1999 KLC
---,
~ ~
~ ::l ~ Vl
(J'l g
:r:
ffi (J'l
--f
m r m
'< 1>
--f
~
ffi
~
m r m
~
~
.~
I 1
0 ]0
1010
1010
I 1010
I I ~J 0 0
0 0
~
; ; ;
ma
Ell lBa1181l
~ I
~I •
~' PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR: FEL.IX PAf'!DO ~ AeeOCIATS6, Inc:. IIIII ~ III > I. RUM-BUM DISTRIBUTORS INC. A/IICI-IITeCTUfItI!/l"!-~lNao/lNmtlo:e • r cO ~ 5~66_SPUT~_.RIXlE .. HlqHlYfY •••• ew, "'" _TREeT, SUITE ''''. -MIAMI, FL"""PA. 33134_
,>
Q
o
VI
VI
VI
9
~
~
(Jl
m o --t
2
o!
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR:
RUM-BUM DISTRIBUTORS INC.
5966 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
PHONE: (305) 665-6599
m o --t
2
~
~
--<
I;:!! ~~ -d:i"-ur~"---r , , r
J-r«~r~
I
II&IX fllAIItOO • AeeOCI,A,'TW6, Inc.
~I"""'" I ~1NCr. IINTMICM
&4n &W. 8V'I ~. eul~ 2_ -MIAMI, IlI.CIIlICl.... ",1.)4
1IIt'Y::II'I.! (~} 44 .. 41. IIIx, (N6) "-"&-'~ """ No/D2 .. " I 3 '
OTICE
KEY PLAN
VEI-IICLE FARI<.fNG
MIC 1~"",RY' R£S~RAN.T
CROSS SECTION 'D'
I'Ili-I ;r-1N1ERIOR
CORRIDOR
FLOIJ.ER S+o40P BEYOND
CROSS SECTION 'C'
CROSS SECTION 'E'
-t
11 ~i
'II~ ~ ... --I II :~ i~1 ii
a: l:i
~I H
~ o ....
cC)
zZ §~
..... 0::
;:;0>-1IlE-<~g:
.... ::;:JQ:2
<1Xl:x:J, ~ ...... L&J\D
U 0::><'" ~E-<i5;n r.l :cO ::1!r!35~'
::1!Q~~ o ",,0 u::a:g~
::;:J'"
ClIXl ~I o::a
0...;::, go::
0...
--f·" ... ,.."
L-____________________________________________________________________________________ ~" CROSS SECTIONS 11~llaA~