01-18-07 SpecialCITY COMMISSION AGENDA
Special Meeting
Meeting date: January 18, 2007 Time: 6:30 PM
Next Regular Meeting date: January 23, 2007
6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, FL; Phone: (305) 663 -6340; Time: 7:30 PM
City of South Miami Ordinance No. 10 -00 -1712 requires all lobbyists before P .
engaging in any lobbying activities to register with the City Clerk and pay an
annual fee of $125.00. This applies to all persons who are retained (whether
paid or not) to represent a business entity or organization to influence "City"
action. "City" action is broadly described to include the ranking and
selection of professional consultants, and virtually all- legislative, quasi-
judicial and administrative action. It does not apply to not - for - profit
organizations, local chamber and merchant groups, homeowner associations,
or trade associations and unions.
CALL TO ORDER:
A. Roll Call:
B. Invocation:
C. Pledge of Allegiance:
D. Presentations)
(NONE)
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 1
AGENDA - JANUARY 18, 2007
ITEMS (S) FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION:
RESOLUTION PUBLIC HEARING
1. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST
PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -7.51 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT IN THE "SR(HD -OV)" SPECIALITY RETAIL (HOMETOWN
DISTRICT OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT TO PERMIT SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS TO SECTIONS 20 -7.8B, 20- 7.10B, 20 -7.11 IN
ORDER TO: (1) ALLOW A TOTAL LOT COVERAGE OF 85% OR
26,833 SQUARE FEET WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM 60% LOT
COVERAGE ON SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY AND THE MAXIMUM 50% LOT
COVERAGE ON SW 74th STREET; (2) ALLOW A BUILDING TO
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF
20,000 SQUARE FEET; (3) ALLOW A CURB CUT TO BE LOCATED
ON SW 59th COURT WHICH LOCATION IS NOT SHOWN ON THE
HOMETOWN DISTRICT REGULATING PLAN; ALL FOR PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5966 -70 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 4/5
(A RESOLUTION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TO PERMIT SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF THE LDC: (1) TO ALLOW A TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
OF 26,833 SQ FT WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAX 60% LOT COVERAGE ON SOUTH DIXIE
HIGHWAY AND THE MAXIMUM 50$ LOT COVERAGE ON SW 74" ST; (2) ALLOW A
BUILDING TO EXCEED THE MAX PERMITTED BUILDING SQ FOOTAGE OF 20,000 SQ FT;
(3) ALLOW A CURB CUT TO BE LOCATED ON SW 59th COT ALL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 5966 -70 SO DIXIE HWY)
(Deferred 12119106)
(City Manager)
2. Adjournment
THE CITY HAS A SIGNIFICANT GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST IN CONDUCTING
EFFICIENT AND ORDERLY COMMISSION MEETINGS. SPEAKERS PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE THAT SECTION 2 -2. 1 (K) (2) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
PROVIDES THAT "ANY PERSON MAKING PERSONAL IMPERTINENT, OR
SLANDEROUS REMARKS OR WHO SHALL BECOME BOISTEROUS WHILE
ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION SHALL BE FORTHWITH BARRED FROM FURTHER
AUDIENCE BEFORE THE COUNCIL BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, UNLESS
PERMISSION TO CONTINUE BE GRANTED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE
COMMISSION."
PURSUANT TO FLA STATUTES 286.0105, "THE CITY HEREBY ADVISES THE PUBLIC THAT IF A PERSON DECIDES
TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THIS BOARD, AGENCY OR COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER
CONSIDERED AT ITS MEETING OR HEARING, HE OR SHE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT
FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AFFECTED PERSON 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. THIS
NOTICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSENT BY THE CITY FOR THE INTRODUCTION OR ADMISSION OR OTHERWISE
INADMISSIBLE OR IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE, NOR DOES IT AUTHORIZE CHALLENGES OR APPEALS NOT OTHERWISE
ALLOWED BY LAW.
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION 2
AGENDA - JANUARY 18, 2007
To:
Via:
From:
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTER- OFFICE MEMORANDUM
South Miami
All- AmedeaCky
II 11.1
2001
The Honorable Mayor Feliu and Members of the City Commission
Yvonne S. McKinley, City Manager
Julian Perez, Planning Dire
Date: January 18, 2006
ITEM No. I
Subject: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -7.51 OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT IN THE "SR(HD -OV)" SPECIALITY RETAIL (HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY)
ZONING DISTRICT TO PERMIT SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO SECTIONS 20 -7.811, 20- 7.10B, 20 -7.11 IN
ORDER TO: (1) ALLOW A TOTAL LOT COVERAGE OF 85% OR 26,833 SQUARE FEET WHICH
EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM 60% LOT COVERAGE ON SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY AND THE
MAXIMUM 50% LOT COVERAGE ON SW 74th STREET; (2) ALLOW A BUILDING TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET; (3) ALLOW A
CURB CUT TO BE LOCATED ON SW 59"' COURT WHICH LOCATION IS NOT SHOWN ON THE
HOMETOWN DISTRICT REGULATING PLAN; ALL FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT
5966 -70 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Background:
The applicant, 64 Development Corporation, is requesting approval to construct a mixed use building on property
in the SR(HD -OV) zoning district. The vacant site contains 31,523 square feet and has sides facing three streets.
The project proposed will be a mixed use (office / retail) four story building with an integrated parking structure.
There will be 38,233 square feet of commercial office and 11,052 square feet of retail space. The parking areas will
contain more than the minimum required 191 parking spaces. The applicant is requesting three special exceptions to
modify regulations pertaining to lot coverage, building size, and location of curb cuts.
Special exceptions requested:
Lot Coverage The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a lot coverage of 26,833 square feet which is 85%
of the total site. The Hometown Overlay District `s regulating graphic plan (Sec.20 -7.9B) limits lot coverage to
60% on S. Dixie Highway and 50% on SW 70' Street.
Maximum Sq.Ft. Per Building: The applicant's proposed structure contains 50,163 square feet of floor area and a
ground floor of 26,833 square feet which exceeds Hometown Plan's 20,000 square feet maximum.
Location of curb cut. The applicant's proposal shows dual access to the parking area from SW 74th Street and from
SW 59thCourt. The parking provisions contained in the Hometown Overlay District regulating graphic plan
(Sec.20- 7.11) mandate the location of curb cuts. The plan shows a permitted curb cut on SW 74th Avenue,
however, the proposed curb cut for the vehicle entrance on SW 59th Court is not shown. The applicant's third
special exception is to permit the SW 59th Court curb cut.
The granting of special exceptions require a finding by the City that seven criteria are applicable to the project.
(Sec.20- 7.51). The Planning Department has compared the project to each of the seven criteria listed in the LDC,
and has determined that the proposed development advances the economic development of the City and is
2
compatible with land use, density, and design criteria established for the Hometown District. Based upon this
review the Planning Department determined that the proposed development supports the granting of special
exceptions.
Traffic Report:
The applicant contracted with a consultant to prepare a traffic impact analysis for consideration prior to approval of
the special exception. Attached is a copy of the study ( "5966 S. Dixie Highway - Traffic Impact Study") carried out
by David Plummer & Associates. The report concludes on p.16 that all roadways adjacent to the project were
found to be operating during both the morning and afternoon peaks at acceptable levels of service and that there is
sufficient capacity for future volumes. The study also confirms that the driveway entrance to the parking levels off
of SW 59t' Court will help minimize traffic from using neighborhood streets.
Planning Board Action:
The Planning Board at its November 29, 2006 meeting, after public hearing, adopted a motion by a vote of 4 ayes
2 nays (Ms. Beckman, Ms. Young) recommending approval with conditions of the special exception request.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Commission approve the three requested special exceptions for 5966 -70 S. Dixie
Highway with the following conditions:
(1) The applicant must agree that all street, sidewalk and street furniture improvements must be consistent
with the design and material specifications as set forth by the City in its downtown street improvement
program.
(2) In compliance with LDC Sec. 20 -7.51 (C ) the proposed development must be consistent with the
specific design of the building and site plan submitted as part of this application, identified as "5966 S.
Dixie Highway" dated October 13, 2006 prepared by Mateu Architecture, Inc.
(3) The applicant provides additional landscaping on the S. Dixie Highway side if permitted by the Florida
Department of Transportation.
Backup Documentation:
Draft Resolution
Planning Department Staff Report 11/29/06
Planning Board Meeting Excerpt 11/29/06
Survey/ Plans
Traffic Impact Study
Public Notices
J P /SAY
P: \Comm Items\2007 \1- 18- 07 \PB -06 -032 Spec Excep 5966 S Dixie CM Report.doc
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
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -7.51 OF THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR A MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE "SR(HD• -OV)" SPECIALITY RETAIL (HOMETOWN
DISTRICT OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT TO PERMIT SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO
SECTIONS 20 -7.811, 20- 7.10B, 20 -7.11 IN ORDER. TO: (1) ALLOW A TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
OF 85% OR 26,833 SQUARE FEET WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM 60% LOT COVERAGE
ON SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY AND THE MAXIMUM 50% LOT COVERAGE ON SW 74th
STREET; (2) ALLOW A BUILDING TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET; (3) ALLOW A CURB CUT TO BE LOCATED
ON SW 591h COURT WHICH LOCATION IS NOT SHOWN ON THE HOMETOWN DISTRICT
REGULATING PLAN; ALL FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5966 -70 SOUTH
DIXIE HIGHWAY PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE ]DATE
WHEREAS, the 64 Development Corporation has submitted Application No. PB -06 -033 requesting
approval for three special exceptions necessary to construct a mixed use (office / retail) four story building
on property located at 5966 -70 S. Dixie Highway within the SR(HD -OV) zoning district, said project to
include 38,233 square feet of commercial office and 11,052 square feet of retail space and a total of 198
parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting special exceptions for lot coverage, maximum building
square footage, and curb cuts; and
WHEREAS, a special exception request in the Hometown Overlay District requires the Planning
Board's recommendation and approval by the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, after review and consideration, the Planning Department recommended approval
of the application with conditions ; and
WHEREAS, at its November 29, 2006 meeting the Planning Board after public hearing
voted 4 ayes 2 nays to recommend approval of the special exceptions with specific conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to accept the recommendation of the Planning
Board and enact the aforesaid resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That the proposed construction of a mixed use (office / retail) four story building on
property Tocated at 5966 -70 S. Dixie Highway advances the economic development of the City and is
compatible with land use, density, and design criteria established for the Hometown District, as set forth
in LDC Sec.20 -7.51, which includes seven criteria necessary for approving special exceptions:
(1) 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.
1
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
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
(2)
(2) The proposed development is compatible with the land uses and development intensities
prescribed by all applicable city regulations.
(3) The proposed development must possess integrity of design compatible with the design
criteria established for the Hometown District and with the overall image of the city.
(4) 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 management of the impacts of the development public
facilities and services.
(5) The proposed development does not expand the permitted uses within the Hometown
District.
(6) The proposed development will not have an unfavorable effect on the economy of the City
of South Miami.
(7) The proposed development, when considered cumulatively with other development, both
present and future, within the Hometown District, will not create excessive overcrowding or
concentration of people or population.
Section 2. That the subject application requesting a special exception to allow an overall lot coverage of
85% of the total site which exceeds the lot coverage of 60% on S. Dixie Highway and thee 50% on SW 74
Street as required by the Hometown Overlay District regulating graphic plan (Sec.20 -7.9) is hereby
approved subject to conditions set forth in Section 5 below.
Section 3. That the subject application requesting a special exception to allow the placement of a curb
cut/ driveway to be located on the SW 59t' Court side of the building which location is not designated on the
Hometown Overlay District Regulating Graphic plan (Sec.20 -7.11) is hereby approved subject to
conditions set forth in Section 5 below.
Section 4. That the subject application requesting a special exception to allow the building area to exceed
the Hometown Overlay District regulating graphic plan (Sec.20 -7.9; 20 -7.11) which limits ground floor
building square footage to 20, 000 sq. ft. is hereby approved subject to conditions set forth in Section 5
below.
Section 5 . The special exceptions set forth above as requested are approved subject to the following
conditions:
(1) The applicant must agree that all street, sidewalk and street furniture improvements must be
consistent with the design and material specifications as set forth by the City in its downtown
street improvement program.
(2) In compliance with LDC Sec. 20 -7.51 (C ) the proposed development must be consistent with the
specific design of the building and site plan submitted as part of this application, identified as
"5966 S. Dixie Highway" dated October 13, 2006 prepared by Mateu Architecture, Inc.
1
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
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
(3)
(3) The applicant provides additional landscaping on the S. Dixie Highway side if permitted by the
Florida Department of Transportation.
Section 6. This resolution shall be effective immediately after the adoption hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this , day of ,2007.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
MU Esr •:
P:\Commltems\2006\12-19-06\PB-06-032 Special Exception Resolution.doc
Commission Vote:
Mayor Feliu:
Vice Mayor Wiscombe
Commissioner Palmer:
Commissioner Birts
Commissioner Beckman:
SOUT4
O
F �
•
INC ORPORATED • )?A
1927
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Action Summary Minutes
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
EXCERPT
L Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:37 P.M.
Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
II. Roll Call.
Action: Mr. Morton, Chair, requested a roll call.
Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Ms. Beckman, Mr. Davis,
Ms. Lahiff, Ms. Young and Mr. Farfan.
Board members absent: Ms. Yates
City staff present: Sanford A. Youkilis, AICP (Acting Planning Director), Eve Boutsis
(City Attorney), Christian Moya (Video Support), and Patricia Lauderman (Planning
Board Secretary).
III. Planning Board Applications / Public Hearing
PB -06 -032
Applicant: 64 Development Corp.
Location: 5966 -70 South Dixie Highway
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -7.51 OF
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR A MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE "SR(HD -OV)" SPECIALITY RETAIL
(HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT TO PERMIT SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS TO SECTIONS 20 -7.8B, 20- 7.1OB, 20 -7.11 IN ORDER TO: (1) ALLOW A
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE OF 85% OR 26,833 SQUARE FEET WHICH EXCEEDS THE
MAXIMUM 60% LOT COVERAGE ON SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY AND THE
MAXIMUM 50% LOT COVERAGE ON SW 74th STREET; (2) ALLOW A BUILDING TO
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 20,000
SQUARE FEET; (3) ALLOW A CURB CUT TO BE LOCATED ON SW 59th COURT
Planning Board Meeting
November 29, 2006
Page 2 of 8
WHICH LOCATION IS NOT SHOWN ON THE ]HOMETOWN DISTRICT REGULATING
PLAN; ALL FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5966 -70 SOUTH DIXIE
HIGHWAY PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE; DATE.
Note: City Attorney Eve Boutsis asked all Board members if any of them have had any
type of communication whether written or spoken that relates to this item. Ms. Beckman
disclosed she visited the site and looked over the property and spoke to some adjourning
business neighbors. Ms. Boutsis asked Ms. Beckman if she had any type of communication
with the applicant or applicant's architect for the project. Ms. Beckman concurred she did
not speak to anyone related to the applicant.
Action: Mr. Farfan read the Resolution into the record. Mr. Youkilis presented the staff
report to the Board. He explained that the applicant, 64 Corporation is requesting approval
to construct a mixed use building on property in the SR (HD -OV) zoning district. The
vacant site contains 31,523 square feet and has sides facing the three streets. He noted that
the proposed project will be a mixed use four -story building with an office and retail
component, with an integrated parking structure. The proposed project will be 38,233
square feet of commercial office and 11,052 square feet of retail space. Furthermore, the
parking spaces will contain more than the minimum required 191 parking spaces. Mr.
Youkilis indicated that the applicant is seeking three special exceptions to modify
regulations pertaining to lot coverage, building size, and location of curb cuts.
At this time, Mr. Youkilis provided a breakdown of the special exceptions being sought by
the applicant.
Lot Coverage The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a lot coverage of 26,833
square feet which is 85% of the total site. The Hometown Overlay District `s regulating
graphic plan (Sec.20 -7.9B) limits lot coverage to 60% on S. Dixie Highway and 50% on
SW 74th Street.
Maximum SoXt. Per Buildinz: The applicant's proposed structure contains 50,163
square feet of floor area and a ground floor of 26,833 square feet which exceeds
Hometown Plan's 20,000 square feet maximum.
Location of curb cut. The applicant's proposal shows dual access to the parking area from
SW 74'h Street and from SW 59th Court. The parking provisions contained in the
Hometown Overlay District regulating graphic plan (Sec.20 -7.11) mandate the location of
curb cuts. The plan shows a permitted curb cut on SW 74th Avenue, however, the proposed
curb cut for the vehicle entrance on SW 59th Court is not shown. The applicant's third
special exception is to permit the SW 591h Court curb cut.
Furthermore, Mr. Youkilis provided the following; staff s observations:
• The proposed development incorporating two major land uses is consistent with the
objectives of the Hometown Overlay District Mixed Use standards specified in
LDC Sec.20- 7.2(E).
Planning Board Meeting
November 29, 2006
Page 3 of 8
• The proposed development is consistent with the specifications set forth in LDC
Sec. 20- 7.2(D): a height limit of 4 stories (56 feet); a non - residential floor area ratio
of 1.59 ( maximum FAR permitted is 1.6); the retail ground floor area is more than
the minimum 20% of the gross floor area.
• The special exception for the proposed curb cut for the vehicle entrance on SW 59th
Court is an appropriate request because it will become the only entrance and exit
for vehicles to the upper or lower floors of the parking garage. The SW 74th Street
entrance will be for parking on the first floor only there will be no access to the
other levels of the garage. This will limit the number of vehicles entering and
leaving the parking areas from SW 74th Street which is residential on the south side.
• The Hometown Overlay District regulating graphic plan (Sec.20 -7.8 and Sec. 20-
7.10) mandates that lot coverage may not exceed the 60 % on S. Dixie Highway
properties and 50% lot coverage on SW 74th Street properties. The special
exception request is to allow an 85% overall lot coverage. This is a result of a
building design which incorporates the required parking as an internal garage. The
Zoning Task Force and the Planning Board have both recognized that the lot
coverage issue is a deterrent to unified development projects and have included in
the revised Land Development Code draft a provision increasing the Hometown
Overlay District Regulating Plan lot coverage to "....80% maximum, if garage
construction provides all required parkin 1r"
• The Hometown Overlay District regulating graphic plan (Sec.20 -7.7 -Sec. 20 -7.11)
mandates that all buildings be limited to 20,000 square feet. This concept to
encourage a number of small buildings on each block runs counter to today's
development patterns and construction costs and is a deterrent to multi -level mixed
use development, a major objective of the; Hometown Plan. The applicant's request
for a special exception / waiver of the 20,000 square feet building size is
appropriate.
The granting of special exceptions require a finding by the City that the below listed seven
conditions are applicable to the project. (Sec.20- 7.51):
1) 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.
2) The proposed development is compatible with the land uses and development
intensities prescribed by all applicable city regulations.
3) The proposed development must possess integrity of design compatible with the
design criteria established for the Hometown District and with the overall image of
the city.
Planning Board Meeting
November 29, 2006
Page 4 of 8
4) 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 management of the impacts of the development
on public facilities and services.
5) The proposed development does not expand the permitted uses within the
Hometown District.
6) The proposed development will not have an unfavorable effect on the economy of
the City of South Miami.
7) The proposed development, when considered cumulatively with other
development, both present and future, 'within the Hometown District, will not
create excessive overcrowding or concentration of people or population.
The applicant, in a letter dated October 9, 2006 (Compliance Criteria), provides their
analysis as to how the proposed project complies with the City's special exception criteria.
The Planning Department has compared the project to each of the above seven criteria
listed in the LDC, and has determined that the proposed development advances the
economic development of the City and is compatible with land use, density, and design
criteria established for the Hometown District. Based upon this review the Planning
Department finds that the proposed development supports the granting of special
exceptions.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Mr. Youkilis indicated that there was concern about the impact of traffic on the streets
which contain exits and entrances to the development. The applicant contracted with a
consultant to prepare a traffic impact analysis for consideration prior to approval of the
special exception. Mr. Youkilis noted to the Board that attached was a copy of the study
carried out by David Plummer and Associates titled "5966 S. Dixie Highway - Traffic
Impact Study ". The report concludes on p.16 that. all roadways adjacent to the project were
found to be operating during both the morning and afternoon peaks at acceptable levels of
service and that there is sufficient capacity for future volumes. The study also confirms
that the driveway entrance to the parking levels off of SW 59th Court will help minimize
traffic from using neighborhood streets.
Recommendation:
Staff recommended that the Planning Board approve all three of the requested special
exceptions for 5966 -70 S. Dixie Highway with the following conditions:
1) The applicant must agree that all street, sidewalk and street furniture improvements
must be consistent with the design and material specifications as set forth by the City in its
downtown street improvement program.
2) In compliance with LDC Sec. 20 -7.51 (C ) the proposed development must be
consistent with the specific design of the building and site plan submitted as part of this
Planning Board Meeting
November 29, 2006
Page 5 of 8
application, identified as "5966 S. Dixie Highway" dated October 13, 2006 prepared by
Mateu Architecture, Inc.
Chairman Morton opened the public hearing.
Present: Mr. Marcelo Fernandes, applicant /owner of property
Mr. Roney J. Mateu A.I.A, Mateu Architecture Incorporated, Architect of record.
Mr. Fernandes explained his company 64, Development Corporation is the applicant for
this request and he is the rightful owner of the property. Mr. Fernandes addressed the
Board and proceeded to clarify that all that is bring proposed is shown on the elevations.
Furthermore, he stated that it was evident from the site plan that the site is very irregularly
shaped with the nine sides and fronting three streets South Dixie highway, SW 59 Court,
and SW 74 Street. Yet, even with this challenging site configuration the proposed
development is designed to meet all of the Hometown District Overlay (HDO) ordinances
except for lot coverage and building size which is the reason why he is requesting these
special exceptions. In addition, he commented that design of the proposed project is
compatible with the design criteria established for the Hometown District and with the
overall image of the City. Mr. Fernandes expressed that the uniqueness of the design and
quality of the materials will definitely make this building one of the flagship buildings of
this city. He also noted that the project has been designed in a manner that provides
effective management of traffic because access is available via all three streets along with
an underground parking level. Finally, the building's 198 on -site parking spaces exceed the
requirements needed. To conclude, Mr. Fernandes commented that the proposed project
will have a favorable effect on the economy of City of South Miami.
At this time, the architect Rony Mateu spoke on the design of the building. Mr. Mateu re-
iterated Mr. Fernandes point stated earlier, in which the property is not your typical site
because of its irregular shape. Mr. Mateu also pointed out to the Board that the project
does comply with the greenspace ordinance because the applicant has submitted 11 % of
open yard where a 10% is required but need a variance for lot coverage to 85% where 60%
is allowed. Also, Mr. Mateu stated that the planned building would provide one level of
underground parking. In conclusion, Mr. Mateu stated that the unique design will establish
a new higher level of architecture standard to the city because this building will be iconic
especially since the building will be situated along the highly visible boulevard of South
Dixie Highway.
At this time, the Board discussed the item. Ms. Beckman emphasized to the other Board
members that the issue of increased traffic flow generated by the new development is a
crucial issue since there is a daycare center around the corner. In addition, some Board
members including Ms. Beckman wanted to assure that retail and office was the only
component allowed in the development and not any type of medical office or restaurant be
applied for due to the parking issues that would arise.
Planning Board Meeting
November 29, 2006
Page 6of8
Speakers:
NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE
Stan Gents Supported
Mr. Gents indicated he did not object to this well - designed project. He would like to see it
in the city.
Shirley Huebner Neutral
Ms. Huebner applauded the design of the project. However, she did express concern in
regards to the property owner's awareness form because the requirement of obtaining the
20% of the property owners around the subject property is not really addressing the issue
of when one property owner owns several businesses in the surrounding area. Additionally,
she wanted the Board to consider how the restaurant "New Chinatown Restaurant" was
going to be impacted by this development. Lastly, she urged the Board to review the traffic
report thoroughly because traffic is a serious issue because of the high flow of already
existing traffic which will become a big concern for motorist once they have to enter and
exit from South Dixie Highway.
Cathy McCann Opposed
Ms. McCann stated she opposes this request in which the applicant is asking lot coverage
of 85% where 60% is allowed. She also addressed the Hometown Plan and expressed her
opinion that the Hometown Plan is not doing what it was meant to do. She strongly urged
for the Board to review the traffic impact study because as of now the traffic situation on
South Dixie Highway is such that it is most of the time backed up with cars. Her greatest
concern is that this building will generate more traffic due to the proposed office and retail
stores that will be opened in the building. She vehemently opposed this project and all of
the special exceptions being requested.
Walter Harris Opposed
Mr. Harris explained he is the owner along with his wife Eda of Harris photography. He
stressed the fact that if the project is allowed to go through it will negatively impact his
business because his studio is right next to the proposed development. Additionally, he
opposed the request for the special exceptions because he knows that traffic tie -ups are
already bad and that allowing a building will worsen the traffic situation on the very busy
South Dixie Highway.
Eda Harris Opposed
Ms. Harris indicated that she is both a resident and business owner of Harris Photography
in the City of South Miami. She spoke vehemently against the development of the
building. She provided an experience in which she witnessed a vehicle come really close to
a pedestrian walking his dog after leaving the nearby animal clinic, that experience left her
very worried because the project would be built very close to US 1 leaving the possibility
that if a motorist loses control of his or her car and drives into the sidewalk a pedestrian
may be seriously injured. Lastly, she stated that the Hometown Plan appears to turning into
a method to obtain exceptions because the applicant should be able to design the building
with the requirements found in the Hometown Plan.
Planning Board Meeting
November 29, 2006
Page 7 of 8
James Black Neutral
Mr. Black stated his office is across the street and he felt that the traffic impact study was
very thorough in its analysis however, there is no doubt that a traffic problem exists on that
very busy South Dixie highway. Therefore, he is concerned that this development will add
to the already existing traffic problem that impacts the surrounding businesses. Once the
traffic issue is addressed thoroughly the project should be allowed because having a vacant
lot is not profitable.
Dean Whitman Opposed
Mr. Whitman urged the Board to review the design of the building because the building
appears to look very different from the surrounding buildings.
Beth Swartz Opposed
Ms. Swartz stated to the Board the need to review the fagade of the building because the
arcade comes out close to the busy highway of South Dixie Highway. Additionally, she
emphasized that the tree canopy left has to be preserved and at the same time incorporate
more canopy.
Milo Lawson Opposed
Mr. Lawson indicated that he is the manager of Sunset Apartments which is right across
from the proposed new project. He stressed the possible parking problem that could arise
due to new retail stores and offices being introduced into that area. Lastly, he stated he
concurred with Ms. Huebner's comments made earlier pertaining to the traffic problems.
George Andrews Supported
Mr. Andrews explained he is the owner of Fox's, tavern located on South Dixie Highway.
Furthermore, Mr. Andrews stated that he believed this was a refreshing project and saw no
reason it should not go through. Especially since the patch of rocky, undeveloped land will
continue to be an eyesore to residents and business surrounding the property.
Chairman Morton closed the public hearing
The Board resumed discussion on the request. Ms. Young expressed concern about the
two entrances on SW 59 Court being sufficient to handle large volumes of traffic. Mr.
Davis inquired if the design addresses a designated pick -up area for trash collection and if
so, the area has to be large enough for a good size garbage truck. The architect, Mr. Mateu
indicated that trash collection has been figured into the plans. Ms. Lahiff commented that
to her the building appeared to come right out to the street. Ms. Lahiff recommended
softening the effect by incorporating additionally landscape. Mr. Mateu replied that he
would not have a problem with incorporating additional landscaping however, since South
Dixie Highway is a federal highway and any proposed changes have to be authorized by
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
Motion: Ms. Beckman made a motion recommending denial of the application.
Motion died for lack of a second
Planning Board Meeting
November 29, 2006
Page 8 of 8
Motion: Mr. Farfan made a motion recommending approval of the special exception
request with the following conditions:
1) The applicant must agree that all street, sidewalk and street furniture improvements
must be consistent with the design and material specifications as set forth by the City in its
downtown street improvement program.]
2) In compliance with LDC Sec. 20 -7.51 (C: ) the proposed development must be
consistent with the specific design of the building and site plan submitted as part of this
application, identified as "5966 S. Dixie Highway" dated October 13, 2006 prepared by
Mateu Architecture, Inc.
3) The applicant provides additional landscaping on the South Dixie Highway side if
permitted by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
Ms. Lahiff seconded the motion.
Vote: Ayes 4 Nays 2 (Ms. Beckman and Ms. Young)
K: \PB \PB Minutes \2006 Minutes \PB MINS 11 -29 -06 Excerpt 06- 032.doc
- , U U dpUlfflft!
R HLU USSIP WIUI Y Uf or
Nothing goes better with bre"st than The Miami Herald, delivered,
1-800-441-0444,
35RBR711
I
BlueCross BlueShield
ja 9 of Florida
ne eitlepergeni Uee —.Nlh.
Blue erase ewe Shield ASeocieYlon
a� ,p�saw �ue
�t
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP
FOR HOMELESS
Saturclay, January 2.7, 2007
Register and help raise funds that will
change the lives of others.
Official events of the ING Miami Marathon® Weekend.
For more information and registration, please visit
INGMiamiMarathon.com
For sponsorship opportunities, please contact Virginia del Pino at
305 -376 -4724 or vdelpino @miamiherald.com
De,AiamIfflerattl I I ZNG4 ,:. i a,�rD s�ttfMAUTHOW'
ADEM278
_yam
�:V,Ahl
Get the UM Advantage!
9 Math and verbal review 9 Small classes
21 Test -taking strategies 9 Expert instructors
21 Practice tests Ef Competitively priced
Courses also available for: For a brochure, call
PSAT, ACT, SAT II; and individual tutoring 305 -386 -4746
Code: SATIOO
hsae'i
Available
16 Hard To StopAftne."
13339 SW 88 Ave.
Miami FL 33176 3 ®cJ- ��� -iZ6 ®®
0
0
Q
'a
0
Z
0
x
a
E
W
x
E
0
V
A
N
3
E
(D
C7
t
" CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida will conduct a Public Hearing during a special City Commission meeting on
Thursday, January 18, 2007, beginning at 6:30 p.m., in the City Commission
Chambers, 6130 Sunset Drive, to consider: !II
A RESOLUTIOIN OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A -
REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 -7.51 OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR A MIXED
USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE 'rSR(HD -OV)" {
SPECIALITY RETAIL (HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY) ZONING
DISTRICT TO PERMIT SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO SECTIONS 20-
7.SB, 20- 7.108, 20 -7.11 IN ORDER TO: (1) ALLOW A TOTAL
LOT COVERAGE OF 85% OR 26,833 SQUARE FEET WHICH
EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM 60% LOT COVERAGE ON SOUTH
DIXIE HIGHWAY AND THE MAXIMUM 50% LOT COVERAGE ON
SW 74" STREET, (2) ALLOW A BUILDING TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF I
20,000 SQUARE FEET; (3) ALLOW A CURB CUT TO BE LOCATED '
ON SW 59" COURT WHICH LOCATION IS NOT SHOWN ON THE
HOMETOWN DISTRICT REGULATING PLAN;. ALL FOR
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5966.70 SOUTH DIXIE
HIGHWAY PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Inquiries concerning this item should be directed to the Planning and Zoning Department Office
at 305.663 -6326.
ALL Interested parties are invited to attend and will be heard. .
Marla M. Menendez, CIVIC
City Clerk
City of South Miami
Pursuant to Florida Statutes 286.0105, the City hereby advises the public that if a person
decides to appeal any decision made by this Board, Agency or Commission with respect to any
matter considered at its meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings,
and that for such purpose, affected person 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.
k6SOLUTION 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 OF FROM SECTIONS 20 -7.98 THROUGH AND SECTION 20 -7.40
uD0V NW! STREETS" AND MO 3 cc
13- �Q„ LAfiFA,. � ,-- �- ���-- za- 1B- SE��- �I- �B -���� ��� ATJNG PLAN!-OF
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT,
PROPOSED ON TWO PARCELS B DIN LOCATED IN THE HOMETOWN
DISTRICT HELD UNDER A COMMON OWNERSHIP PROVIDING FORA 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 T LY A = 5966 AND -5970 SOUTH DIXIE
HIGHWAY AND ON PARCEL 2 LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF SOUTH WEST
CORNER OF ,S.W.74T4- STREET "'`'T' �. DLAAM. SW 59TH PLACE AND SW 74TH
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 87,425 sq. ft. mixed
use project within the Hometown District, and
WHEREAS, the project includes two separate parcels, one
specifically located at 5966 and 5970 South Dixie Highway(Site
1) and the other parcel (Site 2) located at the south west
corner of S. W. 74th Street and 59th Place; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking a Special Exception 'to
vary from the built: te , , s, maxifftcuft met eever-age, building
_depth and epen yard req:uirement the regialating plan, ,...,,rsa nt
t-e Sections 20 -7.-38 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 Pa-23, 1999, the Planning Board
failed to make a recommendation and agreed to send the
application to the City Commission without a recommendation;
veted • ef the Speei a i t'==eept4 &R
req,aest -and,
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South
Miami desire to accept the recommendation of the Planning Beard.
_
Staff.
NOW, THEREFORE,
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
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 1000 on
59t' Court .
4.Deviate from the required open yard space of 5% to
approximately 0.80.
A ee - Em e eptien fie- - deviate -- up --fie 0 feet - frem the
tom"ild —te line aleng 74 Street (Seed , � 20 ��93); to deviate
s. " cv-sa -e
-Z— maicifathft let eeyei-aage 60 and a maximufft ef 20,00-G
s g f t per- building en Site 1 az- d
50% and a ffim � 20,000 f�
f3-�iirniT— ETr°zZ —Per building en Site 2 tE3 --u
of 39,202 sgft -- (Seetle rs-20 7 9, 20-:2 1111 and 20 7.13),, t-e
deviate frefft a ffta } iir'mn building d ep plus go f feet t —e-f
errtbu -rrE git to a maximcuft of 100% )n Site 1; te — deviate frezcc
epen yard ef--8% tennene —en Site 1, z
Section 2. That the conditions for Site(parcel') 1 are as
follows:
1. Setback building facade 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 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.
Fv
(b) A shared parking reduction of u 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
74t Street from 61St Avenue to 59-t-.F Court to the extent
possible and along the full frontage of the project
sites. Additionally the developer is required to enhance
the intersection of 74" Street and 5 9th 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 Communities
guidelines and specifications.
e) The theater is to be available for 200 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. Unity 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 -Z. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon
approval.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
(As amended — September 7, 1999)
7th day of September, 1999.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
COMMISSION VOTE:
Mayor Robaina:
Vice Mayor Oliveros:
Commissioner Feliu:
Commissioner Bethel:
Commissioner Russell:
4 -I
Yea
Yea
Nay
Yea
Yea
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Commission Date: September 3, 1999
From: Charles D. Scurr Re: Agenda item to
City Manager 5966 & 5970 S Dixie Hwy.
Rum Bum Distributors, Inc.
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 2O -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 28th 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`h, a number of technical and procedural issues were raised resulting in
a second deferral to July 6`h . At the July 6`h 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
0�
project was placed on the Planning Board agenda on August 10`x' . The Planning Board deferred
the item to its next regularly scheduled meeting of August 31" for further review and
consideration. The City Commission at the August 17th meeting deferred the item pending
recommendation from the Planning Board. The Planning Board at its August 31St 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 fagade 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
re0,_.
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 ofparking
without exceeding the allowable height but will increase the massing of the parking structure
(c) In lieu of open s ace on Site 1 the developer is required to provide street trees along both
sides of SW 74 Street from 61s` Avenue to 59`h Court to the extent possible and along
the full frontage of the project sites. Additionally the developer is required to enhance the
intersection of 74`h Street and 59`h 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 of development.
Both parcels are located within the Hometown District. The larger parcel, Sitel, 5966 and 5970
South Dixie Highway, is an irregular shaped parcel with an area of 31,473 sqft and is located at
the north west comer of S.W.74`h and S.W.591h 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 corner of S.W.74`h Street and S.W.591h 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 59th 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 narrow 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 59th 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:
Staff's 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.
° 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.
° 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.
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
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 athd
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
x
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 infll 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.
j
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 of Intent dated 22July, 1999
Concurrency evaluation of Traffic/ 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.
01\Planning\ City Commission Rum Bum 08 07 99 Staff report.doc
8
Felix Alardo, & Associates, Inc.
Architecture Planning Interiors
5455 S.W. 8 Street, Suite 205
Miami, Florida 33134
AA0002478
22 July 1999
City of South Miami
6130 Sunset Drive
South Miami, FL 33143
Attn: Mr. John Little, Assistant Planning and Zoning Director
i4
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.
LS
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 adopted. 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: Parcel 1 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 of the 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 Liner 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.
r
3) Lot Coverage: Parce. _provides 99.15 % Vs 60 % allowed�rce12 provides
95.66 % Vs 50 % allowed. Again, because of the uniqueness of the Parcel l .site, r
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 Parcel 1 Vs 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 1/3 of the maximum, allowed already.
5) Building Depth of 70 % maximum Vs 100 % on 59 Court for Parcel 1 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 1 and 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 favorable 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.
Furthermore, this project o_ cs a tremendously rich diversity of us _', with a cultural
element not previously seen in the City of South MiamL -The project is sensitive to the — - -
human scale and promotes pedestrian movement through covered arcades. 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.
, CSI
cc 1W. Luis Bacardi, Rum Bum Distributors
file
s-
` 455 Fairway Drive, site 103
Deerfield Beach, In c. Telephone: (954) 427 -675
project development, engineering, !raft, economic and finance. Faaimile: (954) 427-1815
E- Mail.• millerco @gate.net
http://www.mi&r-m
nsulting. com
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:
MILLER CONSULTING, INC. has performed a traffic concurrency analysis for a proposed multi -use
development planned to be located on SW 74" Street and generally bounded by Dixie Highway to the
northwest and SW 591 Court / 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:
❑ 5,180 square -foot boat repair / sales store _
❑ 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:
❑ A small theater (7,923 square feet) with seating capacity for 150 people.
❑ An 8,832 square -foot restaurant.
❑ A 2,800 square -foot micro brewery.
❑ 20,261 square feet of retail area.
❑ 4,032 square feet of office space.
❑ Six townhomes.
❑ 10 apartments.
Given the small -scale and specialty nature of the 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 Prefect \Projects\Pvtaea\Rum BwiVtepon.08.30rn,isederpd - - - - -
"creating value for. our clients with ingenuity, creativity and excellence"
G
/-N t 1 ■ 'I 7/ 1 I A it r 1 f 11 f 1
IN
'U
O
tX �
a o�ro
5
Sunset Drive
SW 72nd Street
SW 73rd Street
Cn SW 74th Street
a�
U
(0
ii
L U
LO
m �
N
UO 3
Figure I
Site Location Proposed
Commercial Building
Map _ ___ _ South Miami. Florida _ __-
kd��vi uutr to uie imiituie or i (- - 'sporiation tngmeers, a theater generatf "" pproximately 40 percent
Jess traffic than a retail use of b..ailar size), the theater was treated as retail space in order to assess - -- -=
impacts with a conservative approach. This yields a total retail development area of 39,816 square
feet.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The existing transportation network located in the vicinity oftheproject includes three major roadways
and two minor strcets. The threc major roadways include US 1 (South Dixie Highway), SW 72nd
Street (Sunset Drive), and SW 57' 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 ds traffic associated with approved developments,
as of May 1999, but not yet built and/or fully operational
TRIP GENERATION
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 (6`'' edition). The daily and PM peak hour trip
generation formulas used for the proposed retailloffice /residential development, as obtained from ITE, are
documented below:
RETAIL (ITE LAND USE 820)
O Daily Trip Generation: Ln (T) = 0.643Ln (x) +5.866
D PM Peak Hour Trip Generation: Ln(T) = 0.660Ln (x) +3.403
I Reflects the available capacity consumed by the recently approved office /retail development to be located on
the southeast corner of SW 73nd Street and SW 571 Court as well as the office/retail development to be constructed at
5920 South Dixie Highway.
W- Wun11' ed�at�ProjaatAt- sc�tVWnrSumlkpoRA8JOrc+i.ai.�md Page 3 of 8
N
SW 72nd Street
Figure 2
Concurrency .Stations Proposed
commercial Building
South Miami, Florida -- -_
~ ❑ Daily Trip Generation: Ln(T) = 0.768Ln (x) + 3.654
❑ 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)
❑ Daily Trip Generation: Ln(T) = 0.850I.n (x) + 2.564
❑ PM Peak Hour Trip Generation: Ln(T) = 0.827Ln (x) + 0.309
RESIDENTIAL — APARTMENT (ITE LAND USE 220)
❑ Daily Trip Generation: Average Rate = 6.63 trips / dwelling unit
❑ 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.
ABLE
TRIP.GENERATION SUMMARY
:CITY OF SOUTH MJAMI ;MULTI -USE DEVEiQPNIEN:T
Daily Trip Generation
Land Use
Size
Daily Trips
Retail
Office
Townhouse
Apartment
39,816 sq. ft
4,032 sq. ft.
6 Dwelling Units
10 Dwelling Units
3,771
113
60
66
Total
4,010
Passer -by
-1,885
Internal
-24
Net External
2,101
PM Peak Hour
Land Use
Size
Daily Trips
Retail
Office
Townhouse
Apartment
39,816 sq. ft.
4,032 sq. ft.
6 Dwelling Units
10 Dwelling Units
342
15
6
6
Total
369
Passer -by
-171
Internal
-3
Net External
195
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual (6" edition)
WAWnnl Page 5 of 8
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) indicates that not all of the 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 formula
published in the Trip Generation Manual (5' 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 of the 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 of the 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 subject project 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. "
WAW—d Pcrfnl�Pmjety �lFaa Y' tVtum- BumUlepon.08.30m•i�ed.��pd Page 6 Of 8
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
The project traffic distribution shown in Table 3 was assigned to the existing roadway network as
follows:
❑ 40% to US 1 north of Sunset Drive
❑ 15% to Red Road north of Sunset Drive
❑ 12% to Sunset Drive west of US 1
❑ 25% to US 1 south of SW 74" Street
❑ 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.
WAWord Page 7 of 8
- ;; �.. .`. _ :: -., ,• fit`
.'FLj'Ft�R� C(>i!TGt1RRL�t4"iF EY��UATIE?N.
CiT1t QF OWN" hiU.'l�SS��LU�#[!'f
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 west of US 1 79 23
656 Sunset. Drive east of Red Road 761 16
634 Red Road north of Sunset Drive 1,640 29
7urce: Miami -Dade County, City of South Miami Comprehensive Flan, and Miller Consulting, Inc.
Based upon the forcgoing 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.
V truly yours,
111er Consulting, 166.
t
aqui Vargas, P.E.
ice P e ident
w:\Word
Page 8 of 8
germ � :,�y7 v�Ll 111 -lytSL
3 &Z Proc ,# ... ,,lio...09- 4036 -029 -0090
applicant
;ontact Name..MR FELIX PARDO
.ompany Name..FELIX PARDO & ASSOCIATES,INC
►ddress ....... 5455 SW 8 ST
.......... MIAMI
Celephone Number.....305- 445 -4555
De= Proc No.. _
Date.....05 /21/199
State..FL Zip--33134-
Fax Number .... 305- 445 -7006
? roject Background
?roj Name..COMMERCIAL BLDG.- RUM -BUM DISTRIBU Is it a public facility (y /N),
kddr ....... 5966 S DIXIE HWY NNI (Y /N)..N DIC
:ity ....... SOUTH MIAMI S. E. Number if any..
;tate ...... FL Zip.. -
itility Information
Pump Station Recv..30 -0177
:,ateral Connection (NEW/EXT) ... EXT
Point of Connection
PROPERTY RIGHT OF WAY
*Building official .... 30
MIAMI DADE WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT
Sewers Abutting Prop. (YIN) ....... y
Project Details
cumber and Type of Units..6 TOWN /10 APART /8832 SF BREWERY /20261 SF RETAIL
Previous Use........
:onstr. Schedule..as
6 townhouse
10 apartment
8832 sf brewery
20261 sf .retail
...:4339 SQFT RETAIL
soon as possible
= 1500 gpd \ 4032 sf office = 403 gpd
= 2000 gpd \theater 217 people = 651 gpd
= 4416 gpd
= 1013 gpd
((Prop flow 9,983 gpd) -(Prev Flow 217 gpd)= 9,766 gpd Prop In
(DEAL gpd) + (Alloc Flow 9,766 gpd) + (CO gpd) = 9,766
Estimated Completion Date... 12/01/1999 Application Status .... CERT2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
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.... / /
}----------------------------------- - - - - -- -----------------------------------
Improvements for the following pump stations must be completed before CO /CC:
Station Number Rec (R), Up (U) Signature Date
or Down (D)
_ f /
' / I
t------ - - - - -- ----------------------------- .- �-------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
Signature..TOLEDO_O Sign Date..05 /21/1999 16:20:35:24
SOLD /S <S >ewer Cert Letters GOLD /C Station <C >omments GOLD /L Plan <L >ot
30LD /K Legal Trac <k >ing GOLD /Y Station Monthl <y> Info ESC /A Print Label
SOLD /G Codes & Cate <g >ories GOLD /H Create Paragrap <h >s
MLA. .,ADE COUNTY. FLORIDA
M1 A fhAi METRO -DADS FLAGLER BMMIG
May 21, 1999
Mr. Felix Pardo
Felix Pardo & Associates
5455 SW 81s Street, Suite 205
Miami, FL 33134
Ref: Permanent occupancy of public property
Dear Mr. Pardo:
SUILDLNG CODE COMPLUNCE OFWg
. MMO -DARE FLAMER DUUDIko
140 WEST FLAMM bS'2R$FT, SUITS 1663
MMMt. FLORIDA 33130 -1563
(303) 373 -2901
FAX (305) 375 -2908
PRODUCT CONTROL DrVIMON,
(303) 37S 29(x2
FAX (30S) 37x•6339
VIA: TELEFAX
This is in response to your May 21, 1999 telefax on the above referenced issue. The South Florida
Building Code (SFBC) Section 3303 PERMANENT OCCUPANCY OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
regulates your issue.
Although Subsection 3303.1 GENERAL: states that "ihe permanent use or occupancy of public property
shall bo prohibited except as provided in this section", there are exceptions with conditions, for s:3ns;
awnings; marquees; pipes and service equipment; architectural ornasncrvtation and other projections; and
foundations. If your condition is contemplated in any of the aforesaid exemptions, the use could be
allowed under the South Florida Building Code if also compliant with: other applicable regulatiors-.
Feel free to contact me if you ltaYe any rarther questions on this matter.
Very *Wily yours,
Th..odart Berman, P.E.
Deputy Director
C:%My I)ocarneeUMM221b Fd x Pardo yr**t;ooz ILWAO
.. .....:....:..:____..,,,.i:... t'� Homeossc: htta:/ /WWW.bUU4ingcodeonliae.cuu3
MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
PLOlished Dairy except Saturday. Sunday end
Legal Holidays
miami. Owe County, Florida.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DADS:
before the undersigned authority personally appeared
Octetma Y. Ferbeyre, who on oath says that she Is the
Supervisor, Legal Notices or the Miami Dally suslntsa
Review f/k/a Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday
and Legal Hoildays) newspaper, published at Miami In Dade
County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement-
being
��Oo M manar of ITYOFSUTH MI AMI
PUBLIC HEARING — 8/17/99
A RESOLUTION RELATING
TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS OF SECTIONS
20 -7.8r ETC.
inthe..... __.._......XXXXX .. ....... .. ..... _ ....................... court,
W S published Ili �Id 09wapOptr in the loves of
Affiant further says that the said Miami Dally Business
Review is a newspaper published at Miami in sold Dade
County, Florlde, and that 94 said newspaper N23 heretofore
been continuously published In said Dade County, Flo"".
each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal holidays) and
has been entered 83 second class mall matter at the post
office In FAaml In said Dade County, Florida, for a period of
one year next preceding the first publication of the attached
copy of edvtrUsemant; and afnant further Gaya that she 1123
neither paid not promised sny pe ffn or corporsoon
any d , rebels, canml rehtn for the purpose
or secu g this advert, t public tion In the said
news
6 Sir)', , LAsubscribed before me 6
aciTY of :P* I' UTAUJ
.. 1i0Y�CE OF OunLiC. H44141MG -
NOTICE IS i•IEREBY plven thil tlw City CommIM10.91 the City 01
South Miami, .F#da wilt 00muct a. publid HeaArs during Its regular:
City Coittmtssiori nteoUrtg Qn Tuesday, Augutit 17, 1989. b*9 nniny at
7:30 p.m.; in the City. Conx+usd In Chambers; 6130 Sunset DAve.; to
ponslder.
A RESOLUTION OF. THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF TiqE A REOUESTM OR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS OF OF SETCTION$
20}7.8 TtIP10UGH SECTION • 20-7.13 OF. THE • LANO DE ,
VELOPMEkT OD F4A A M0(ED -uSE DEVELOPMENT.:
PROPOSED ON.Tvi'o PARCELS LOCATED 1N THE NOME
T "0I.4TRICT fielb UNDER A COMMON OW &R3F01
PROVIOING FOR A UNITY 6F.TRLE FOFj THE.PURPOSES
OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARCELS SEPARATEO BY A':
powr, f t,t; W OF WAY; PARCEL ) lS. LO :ATED AT THE
NORTH W9ST A OF S,VtP. 5or COt1RT AND FLVv
74TH .STREET AHD p(TENDING TO 5006 -6974 SOUTl�
pIXIE H1GiiWAY� .AND: PARCEL 2: 40CATED AT THE
SOUTH VfEST CORNER OF 5" PLACE /WD &W. 74TH
STREET. W14 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33t43:
OhA Wa.itam t #iov!d be ffnbr 10 tits Ptar+ni!t9
ALL Interested paroles am invited to 90" and will be MaN.,: ='•,
CMO .
FcSoutn Miami .
Pursuant to Florida Statutes 286.0105. the City 114IMPy li"ii* the
public that if a person doodn to APP•!) any Qedsion made by this
90ard. Agency or ComMsabn with respect io any matter Considered ...
at Its maeling or heaRrtp. he of atie will. rood a r>�td of the'060 ed• .
Ings. and that for such purpose, affeCGad perlidn M3Y� need to Ortsur9 .
that a verbat,m.mcord or the *c"an9srIs ffi fhb 11050*
�l�ts�to`bo '
dud" the testimony ,snd eY�P� . Pan .
ate W34WG75M
....... day ol ................................ ........ ............ A.D. 19......
`I OY AGe 0"ICIAL NOTARY SELL
(SEAL) o k, CHERYL H MARMelit
t •� O COwtisiON NtAtS6R
Opralms V. Ferbeym personalty ki awn t • C C S f S3 E
Y� f°' 1fY C0111MIS6lpp EXPIRES
OF FtO APR. 12.2000
T0'd BV5:9299902 IwtoIW HiLnos to kiI•o Wd 'St,:ZT I= 66— £0 —d35
0 -` COUMSY& to(MYivarlCE t� .`
CITY OF 'S
MIAMI
Planning and Zoning Department ..
On Tuesday. August 10. 1999. at 7:30 P.M. the CltY of South Miami Planning Board will conduct a Public He '
Commission Chambers at the above address on the following:8 in the
A request for Special Exceptions from applicable Sections 2 -7.8 through 20 -7.13 of the Land Develo went
mixed use development" in the Hometown District., The mixed -use development is located on two Code for a
common ownership, providing for unity a of title for the purposes of development of the•iwo sites
separated by der
public- righi =of way and is seeking special exception to deviate from requirements of lot coveiage and 20,000 by f
building footprint, open yard space, building depth, build to line and parking at above grade levels, The s9ft of
located at the north west comer of S -W. 50th Court: and S.W. 74th Street and extending to 5966.5970 South 11 is,
Highway and parcel 2 located at the southwest corner of S.W. 59th Place and S.W.•74th Street. south pbde
33143. �. Florida
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 maybe made in person at the hearing f
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 involved. 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.
L oGY fort
V 147734.
IVE'S
{����i��i; jai
SbL ist. AWL
J-1
IN
- A-t
141.
Al
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - Atli �) . , � � ), sa, ( -' f ■dti 4 o - i i t/)
- - - - - - - - - - -
cl
jcn
- - - - -- - - - - - - -
-----------
is. 55*
ij'
- - - - - - - - - - -
40
X40
��
o
_o
C Ln
�
77 O
C
D
l -�
-- <
ci
Z
p,-4
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR: FELIX PARDO A A860GIATE6, Ina I
I RUM —BL ".' DISTRIBUTORS INC. ANA241W JE i rLa►+rn+a i HTEWW e #
\ \Wilfredo \felix -w \1998 \9830 \1999 DWGS\re v \PLANNING BOARD REV \FLOOR PLAN.dwg Wed Aug 25 12:19:58 1999 KLC
\ \Wilfredo \felix -w \199809830 \1999 DNGS \rev \PLANNING BOARD REV \FLOOR PLAN.dwg wed Aug 25 12:20:37 1999 KLC
J
\ \Nilf redo \feIix-w \1998 \9830\1999 DWGS \rev \PL ANN ING BOARD REVVL00R PLAN. dwg Wed Aug 25 12:20:59 1999 KLC
J
\ \Wilfredo \felix -w \1998 \9830 \1999 DWGS \rev \PLANNING BOARD REV \FLOOR PLAN.dwg Wed Aug 25 12:21:29 1999 KLC
7�
J
t
E: \FELIX-K \1998 \9830 \1999 -dwgs \BOARD REVISONS \elevations2.dwg Wed Aug 25 14:01:02 1999 KLC
\FELIX-K \I99B \9830 \i999 —dw s \BOARD REVISONS \elevations2,dwg Wed Aug 25 IA:DO:30 1999 KLC
Y
m
• - r
m
r
0
a
°x
y
J
CI
.■
1
.
=
oO
N
'
•
I. I=
■.
••
ISLE:
'
�!
j _..
I ■..
III
���
I B _
\•
�.�.-
::
E:VELIX-K \1998 \9830 \1999 -dwgs \BOARD 9EVISONS \e)evations2.dwg wed Aug 25 13:59:58 1999 KLC
T
c
L
m
r
m
D
z
i
m
k
0
X
m
C
y
u
z�
O
-t
L
m
r
m
D
O
Z
z
m
D
N.
-4
m.
r
m
D
.O
z
}
:: \FELIX -K \1998 \9830 \1999 -dwgs \BOARD REVISONS \e1evations2Awg wed Aug 25 13:59:35 1999 KLC
9
0
y
V!
y
°z
y
C
■
N
m
n
O
z
N
m
n
O
z
0
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR: RLIX PAIR00 t A66=IATM, Ino.
- RUM -BUM- DISTRIBUTORS INC. AIWM MWrJU i P wk%NMb i Wrt MOM
5966 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY 04M I'a w+V"ISr, Wrm 700 - MIA".nom¢u Hsu,
P "TONE: (305) 665-6599 r._ow +gsss ..., r�sw.r•�sw u �aetn�
n
z
0
y
y
N
m
0
z
y
o�
\1
V
N
N
N
m
n
0
N
N
N
m
O
z
m
E
N
N
N
m
n
z
ci
• �r�
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR: Mlx PAR00 4 A"=[A?M, *We,
RUM —BUM DISTRIBUTORS INC. Awaamw -r+M i PLAPOtne i 04TWIOIM
. % SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY DA" uu.1u+ I SUMS 200 . Mi L wowVA »w
vDRAFT
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
1. Charles Scurr (City Manager); Subrata Basu (ACM/Planning Director); John Little (Principal
Planner)
III. Public Hearing
A. ITEM: PB -99 -007
Applicant: RUM BUM DISTRIBUTORS
Request: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR & CITY COMN11ISSION OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS FROM SECTIONS 20 -7.8 THROUGH 2O -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 :I Ains 08 -31 -99 1
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 staff's
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
r(.-paving along SW 74 Street and extending to SW 61 Avenue.
PB 1v4ins 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 fagade. 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 fagade 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 C:ty 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
fometown Plan and that he would have voted in favor of the project.
PB Mins 08 -31 -99
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, parcel 1, 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 0
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
2.
Board Secretary
P -B Mins 08 -3 x -99
Date
Date
4
x
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
Planning Board
Regular Meeting Summary Minutes
Tuesday, August 10, 1999
City Commissidn 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 2O -7.13 OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A MINED -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 I LOCATED AT THE NORTH
WEST CORNER OF S. W. 59TH COURT AND S. W' 74 1H 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.
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 staff s 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 feratures.
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 ion 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 -level 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.
'B 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 requ -ements 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;
i. 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 applicationmay be advisable.
43. Staff responded that the City Attorney would be contacted regarding issues surrounding
deferral of the application.
44. Motion: Mr. '.efley 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
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 fora 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
NffNUTES
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.
H. 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: Stir Crazy Enterprises, LLC
Request: 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 C 18, 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: 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 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 hid 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;
1. that arcades are proposed for pedestrians, as well as aesthetics;
m. 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.
PR MII S 05 -25 -99
4
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, of 7930 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.
I6. 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 io 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
MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and
Legal Holidays
Miami, Dade County, Florida.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DADE.
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared
Sookle VAIllams, who on oath says that she Is the Vice
President of Legal Advertising of the Miami Dally Business
Review I/kla Miami Review, a dally (except Saturday, Sunday
and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Dade
County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement,
being a Legal Advertisement of Notice In the matter of
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PUBLIC HEARING — 8/10/99
ITEM: PB -99 -007
In the .......... XXXXX ..................... Court,
wat_ pyblls V In sn lgispaper In the Issues of
Affiant further says that the said Miami Dally Business
Review is a newspaper published at Miami in said Dade
County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In said Dade County, Florida,
each dray (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and
has bean entered as second 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 s rtlsement; and afflant further says that she has
nelth r nor promised any person, firm or corporation
any s nt, rebate commission or refund for the purpose
of s u ng this a rtissment for publication In the said
no r.
J .
30 S%,3m to and subscribed before me 1 1�
Y
...... day of ......................... A.D. 19.. ...
.:.-,.............
(SEAL) �A1w pVS OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL
Sookle WIIIIams personally 1 to me i CHERYL H. MARMER
I i P n COMMISSION NUMBER
< CC54538 4
MY COMMISSION EAF4RES
OF KO APR. 12,24700
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
6130 SUNSET DRIVE; SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA 33143
PHONE: (305) 663 -6326; FAX •: (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
Chamb&s at the above address on the following:
ITEM: PB- 99-007
Applicant: RUM BUM DISTRIBUTORS
Request: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR & CITY COM-
MISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA,
RELATING TO 'A 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 parties are urged to attend. Objections or expressions
of approval may be made in parson at the hearing or riled in writing
prior to or at the hearing. The Planning Board reserves the right to foc-
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
.1
ff C y
AUG - 31999
,
_ E
'This instrument Prepared BY:
MICI (AEI. S. CFASE, ESQ.
2900 N. W. 7th Street
Miami, Florida 33125
Folio No IS- 09- 4136 -0?
.09- 4036- 029 -oi 0
Orr,
Rfc.1823? 04160
090: 09- 4036 - 029 - -0100
036 - 030 -502G; 09. -4036- 030 -00
43R40 1452 1993 AU6 14
DDC" DEE I2 R
,tQ00.G0 5UTX
HARVEY RUVINP CLERK DADE COUNT'
This Warranty Deed, Made the
INC., z Florida corporation existing under ey Iaws Ion— fFlorid-it 99—R y MATRIX PANS,
Place of business at: 300 Costanera Road, Coral Cables Florida having its Principal
Grantor, to RUM gL =1V1 llI.STRIBUTORS, INC., a Floridarecrrnt�rat an aler called the
laws of Florida, whose Post office addresi is: Y. o. Bax 339, coconut Grove. existing under the
33133 Florida
, hereinafter called the Grantee:
(14'hency et uxd herein the t.rn) "grsntoe, and "grantee- include all the tarties to pus instrancr.. and
heirs. tegil representatives rnd 33:4is Of individuals, and the 5UUeS!;0rn srd assigns of corparuiani)
Witnesseth, That the Grantors, for an in consideration of the sum of .S 1 U.00 and other
valuable considerations, receipt whereof is I�ereby
aliens, realises, releases, conveys and confirms unto t acknowledged, Grantee 111 that �ce grants,
n land, s bargains, ua sells;
Miami -Dade County, State of Florida, viz: d, situate in
SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION MARKED EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions, restrictions, easements, asses"'n nts and lirnitation5 of
redord, and to 1998 taxes and subsequent years.
Togetlier, with all the tenements, hereditarnents and ariStlrterrltaceS in anywise appertaining. thereto belonging or
To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simPh-- forever.
And the Grantor Hereby covenant with said grantee that the grantor is la',Vfully seized of
said land in fee simple; that the grantors have goat right and lawful authority to sell and
said laud, and hereby warrant the title to said land and will defend the same against convey
claims of �� Persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances except lawful
accruing subsequent to December 31, 1907, �CZpt t<�xsrs
.n Witness Whereof, the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed in its name
and its, corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, by its proper officers thereunto duly author'?
Flax a'nd year first above written. Y t _ed, the
..�.. v 1777. U4:19ptl Ps
Af�: � 32PI4162
• I�ARCE,� L l�
Lots 9 a=d 10 and the last 10 last of the South 95.5$ fast of Lot
8 , Block Z, >0MMV- MCAT Or MM SOLOYOTIr 8=DXW8zoK, according to
the ' Plat thereof as recorded in. Plat Beak 7 at Pape 11 of the
public Records of Dads Cot sty, Plorldat and
All of Lot; 6 std that portion at Lot 'a, describad as follows s
Beginning at the Southvestsrly aorn:er. of Lot 6; theme* South 30.34
facts Lbauaa !ut 65.96 fasts thence North 30.34 foots thence
Harthxe,st:oaly 41.S festj thence Bouthvewterly 50 feet to the
origina3. Point a: Ruginning, all lying !.n Block 2, of the ari7=4v'
PLAT of SOLOVOrt bGB MSIM , As recorded 3a rPI&t book 7 at Page it
of the Public hitao =ds of Dada County, prloridat and
All. of Lott 2 end 3, AXMaCAX TOWNSITZ COMPAM SuMDIYISI0Y, at
recorded is Plat hook 3 At Page 134 of the Public Raeords of Dada
County, Florida.
PARCEL $ t
X11 of Lot 5, Block 2, SOLOVOP!'S SUHDVrXSSO27, as racordid in Plat
Book 7 at Page Ili and the S.W. 1S feat of Lot 4 (which is the
strip 1S rest .ids end lie fast long adjolaiag Lot 5), of said
h3lack 2 3 and all Of Lot i, Block 2, axaept: the mast 20 fnot
thareot, Arid ezcspt thy, following desosibad portions Baginaiag at
the SW =o=ar of Lot is thence run Easterly along the 8cuth .ling,
64.96 tfents thecae Northwesterly parallel to the asst ling of Lot
4, 30.34 feet; tUftea Nesthrsstaslr as a production of the
Northeasterly line of Lot 6, a distssaaw of 41.50 foot to tho
divldina line botreaa Lots 8 and &I theaut• along the dividing line
bstw"ft Lots s sad 61 soutb""Arly So fast to the Northwesterly
acrner o! Lot 11 thenea 8outharly 30..34 teat to the Point. of
Begiaaiag all located in SOLOVOPP'S Su=IVISXOH, according to the
.Amended plait tbaraof as recorded in Plat Book 7 at Page 11 Of the
Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
,£CORDED N OFF C.'AL Recz quz; tKhN:
DADECot/KTY, FILV•uiA .
nscwo V EHIFttJ
HARVEY RUVIN
4s.0K*s Cwr14k r GOURr
4
�
BZJZP4 1
ATTES 6 1
HILDA ACARDI, SEC.
Signed, sealed and deliye;gd in the presence of
Witness. Signature
Fri _ d Nanij.
Wnted Name:
STATE OF no zTDA)
COUNTY OF MIAMI- DAnF)
MATRIX PAWS, INC.
.BY: HILDA BACARDI, P
Post Office Address;:
I Hereby Certify that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and
take acknowledgments, personally appeared l41T,nA_RACAEM president and Secretary of
MATRIX PAWS, INC., a Florida corporation, know-rt 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 identification: Fl. Driver's
Licence,
Witness my hand and official seal in the Coun0 and State Iast aforesaid this
day of _A % ' IST . A.D., 192.°- )
Notary Rubber Stamp Seal:
NOTARY SIGNATUR"
el 1217-
Printed Notary' Signature
jKMARYMill
't
►.iYCO�!41�,it)\
X"
N�