HomeMy Public PortalAbout2000 Crandon Park Master Plan Litigation.tifWEISS SEROTA HELFIVIAN
PASTORIZA & GUEDES, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JAMIE ALAN COLE
EDWARD G GUEDES
STEPHEN J HELFMAN
GILBERTO PASTORIZA
JOSEPH H SEROTA
RICHARD JAY WEISS
DAVID M WOLPIN
STEVEN W ZELKOWITZ
LILLIAN ARANGO OE LA HOZ.
RICHARD A ARONSKY
PATRICIA M BALOYRA
ALISON S. BIELER
MITCHELL A. BIERMAN
NINA L. BONISKE
MITCHELL J. BURNSTEIN
ELAINE M. COHEN
MICHELLE M. GALLARDO
DOUGLAS R. GONZALES
JOHN R HERIN, JR.
ROBERT W. HOLLAND
CHRISTOPHER F. KURTZ
PETER A. LICHTMAN
KAREN LIEBERMAN•
BERNARD S. MANGLER
MARIE E. MATO
NANCY RUBIN.
GAIL D. SEROTA•
ARI C. SHAPIRO
JEFFREY P SHEFFEL
DANIEL A. WEISS.'
Mayor Joe Rasco
Village of Key Biscayne
•85 W. McIntyre Street
Key Biscayne, FL 33149
MIAMI-DADE OFFICE
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
SUITE 420
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133
TELEPHONE (305) 854-0800
TELECOPIER (305) 854-2323
WWW.WSH-FLALAW.COM
Re: Key Biscayne v. Dade County
Dear Mayor Rasco:
February 23, 2000
BROWARO OFFICE
1132 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33316
TELEPHONE (954> 763-4242
TELECOPIER (954) 764-7770
•OF COUNSEL.
This letter confirms our conversation last week regarding the settlement of the Crandon
Park litigation and the Village's use of the ballfields on Crandon Park. As a result of the
settlement, the existing lights will remain until at least January 1, 2005. Unless an amendment
to the Crandon Park Master Plan takes place prior to that time, the lights could be removed.
As we discussed, there is a committee set up by the Master Plan which would allow
amendments if the members of the "Amendment Committee" vote to allow a change. Since
this committee has never met and the members have not yet been appointed, it is not possible
to predict our chances of keeping the lights up beyond 2005 through a change in the plan.
However, I believe that there are things we could do between now and January, 2005
which might enhance the chances of obtaining an amendment to the Master Plan. Assuming
that the fields and lights are used on a regular basis, keeping a log of all the activities as well
as the number of participants who are benefited by the facility could be very helpful. I
personally believe that demonstrating that children and adults regularly use the fields and the
lights will help make a strong case for keeping the status quo. These records could be created
and maintained by Village staff. We might also want to include in this file stories about
athletic contests or leagues that take place there and pictures of children and adults taking
advantage of the fields and the lights.
a
Mayor Joe Rasco
Village of Key Biscayne
February 23, 2000
Page 2
If you have any other thoughts about this, please feel free to give me a call.
Respectfully,
JHS/bbi
103.021
cc: Mr. C. Samuel Kissinger
Mr. Richard Jay Weiss
v U
V L 11 U J. 11
r .XL 11. 1`V
p I` •
Rt. _
NINA L. BONISKE
JAMIE ALAN COLE
EDWARD G. GUEOES
STEPHEN J. HELFMAN
GtLB£RTO PASTORIZA
JOSEPH H. SEROTA
RICHARD JAY WEISS
DAVID M. WOLPIN
STEVEN W. ZELKOWITZ
THOMAS J. ANSBRO•
LILLIAN ARANGO DE LA HOZ•
ALISON S. BIELER
MITCHELL A. BIERMAN
MITCHELL J. SURNSTEIN
MIAMI-DADE OFFICE
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
SUITE 420
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133
TELEPHONE (305) 854-0800
TELECOPIER (305) 854-2323
WWW.WSH-FLALAW.COM
BROWARO OFFICE
3111 STIRLING ROAD, SUITE B
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33312
TELEPHONE (954) 763-4242 • TELECOPIER (954) 764-7770
The Honorable Mortimer Fried
C ouncilmember
Village of Key Biscayne
291 Harbor Court
Key Biscayne, FL 33149
•OF COUNSEL
October 25, 2000
Re: Village of Key Biscayne v. Miami -Dade County
Dear Mort:
ELAINE M. COHEN
DOUGLAS R. GONZALES
GERALD T. HEFFERNAN
JOHN R. MERIN, JR
CHRISTOPHER F. KURTZ
PETER A. LICHTMAN
KAREN LIEBERMAN•
BERNARD S. HANDLER'
MARIE E. MATO
GARY 1. RESNICK
NANCY RUBIN•
GAIL D. SEROTA•
ARI C. SHAPIRO
JEFFREY P. SHEFFEL
NANCY E. STROUD•
SUSAN L. TREVARTHEN
DANIEL A. WEISS.
As a follow up to our telephone conversation yesterday, I gathered some materials which
are relevant to the issue of "ballfields" as well as the Village's claim against the County
regarding County representations about "local park acreage" for the Village back in 1989.
Because this file has been closed and stored away, I was not able to get all the original
documents. However, I think that the enclosures do explain what happened.
The following documents are relevant to our litigation and the settlement:
1. Copy of our First Amended Complaint containing an equitable estoppel claim
(Count II) dealing with the issue of green space necessary to support development projects on the
Key. The County moved to dismiss Count II, which was granted. The court was concerned that
the 1989 letter was not made to the "Village" (it went to a citizens group — pre -incorporation),
r:. 1',:)r',cnaotc [' oft.niet
Page 2
October 25, 2000
and that it contained some equivocating language which did not support our allegations and
claimed reliance.
2. My letter of February 9, 2000 to Sam Kissinger enclosing Joni Coffey's letter of
January 31, 2000, with the attached pages of the Crandon Park Master Plan reflecting the terms
of our settlement with the County.1
3. A September 7, 2000 letter from Joni Coffey to me confirming that the Master
Plan was recorded as revised.
4. A copy of the Village's notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice which was
filed with the court on September 27, 2000.
5. The May 18, 1999 memorandum from Michael Bain regarding the Athletic Club's
use of Crandon Park.
As you can see, the County would likely take the position that our voluntary dismissal of
this lawsuit pursuant to settlement also resolved and concluded our initial claim regarding the
1989 letter. It is also my belief that there were and are substantial legal and factual barriers to
pursuing this theory. In addition, the letter was written over 11 years ago. We would face a
statute of limitations defense as well as arguments of waiver, standing, etc.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter any further with me, please
feel free to give me a call.
Sincerely,
eph H. Serota
JHS:jju
103.001
Enclosures
cc: Mr. C. Samuel Kissinger (w/o enclosures)
Richard Jay Weiss, Esq. (w/o enclosures)
/ The County Attorney's office did not want to agree to enter into a formal written settlement agreement. As
a result. I insisted that I would hold off dismissing the case until all elements of our settlement were achieved. Once
the Crandon Park Master Plan was recorded incorporating these changes, our voluntary dismissal was filed.
WEISS SEROTA HELFMAN
PASTORIZA & GUEDES, P.A.
_v THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 1 HE ; I TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
THE VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE. )
a Florida municipal corporation, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
Vs. )
)
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY. a )
political subdivision of the )
State of Florida, )
)
Defendant. )
)
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, the Village of Key Biscayne ("Village"), hereby sues defendant, Metropolitan
Dade County ("County"), and states as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Chapter 86.
Fla.Stat., arising from a settlement agreement ("Agreement") entered into by and between the
County and certain members of the Matheson family ("Mathesons"). A true and correct copy of the
Agreement is attached as Exhibit "A."
2. This is also an action for equitable estoppel in which the Village seeks to estop the
County from taking any action pursuant to the Agreement contrary to prior representations made
and positions taken by the County upon which the Village and Village residents relied to their
detriment.
3. The Village also seeks attorney's fees pursuant to F.S. 164.104.
4. The Village is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Florida.
5. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida.
6. Venue is appropriate in this court since the lands which are the subject of this
lawsuit are located in Dade County, Florida, as are both the Village and the County. Moreover, the
Agreement was executed and is being enforced in Dade County, Florida.
7. The Village is a proper party to this action as it is and will be directly affected by the
acts of the County complained of herein. The Agreement will have a significant and negative effect
upon Calusa Park, a parcel of land, owned by the County, but located within the geographical
boundaries of the Village. The Agreement will also negatively affect portions of Crandon Park.
which the County has previously determined to be the Village's "local park." The elimination of
Calusa Park as an active athletic facility and the changes in Crandon Park which resulted from the
Agreement will have a deleterious effect on the Village and on the residents of the Village, as well
as violate various constitutional principles, interpretive case law and state law.
RELEVANT FACTS
8. For years. the International Players Championship, Inc., a professional tennis
tournament operator, conducted a tournament for approximately two weeks every year in the
County ("Tournament"). The Tournament was held at the Key Biscayne Tennis Center ("Tennis
Center") located on public lands which make up a part of Crandon Park located immediately
adjacent to the Village.
2
9. As an enticement to the Tournament operators to maintain the Tournament in its
current location, the County agreed to the construction of a permanent tennis stadium ("Stadium")
within the Tennis Center, which would henceforth serve as the site for the Tournament.
10. The Mathesons, whose family deeded ownership of the Crandon Park lands to the
County in 1940, filed a lawsuit against the County to prevent construction of the Stadium on the
grounds that the Stadium would violate certain deed restrictions which required those lands to be
used exclusively for "public park purposes."
11. As a result of the Mathesons' lawsuit, the County became involved in a series of
legal proceedings, including numerous appeals to the Third District Court of Appeal, all of which
related to the propriety of constructing the Stadium on the Crandon Park lands.
12. In an effort to resolve all disputes between the County and the Mathesons relating to
the construction and operation of the Stadium, the County and the Mathesons prepared and executed
the Agreement. The Agreement was a comprehensive document which not only allowed for and
regulated the Stadium, but also provided for the creation of a Crandon Park Master Plan ("CPMP"),
which was to plan, design and regulate how Crandon Park, part of which is located on the island of
Key Biscayne, could be used in the future.
13. Among the lands to be included in the CPMP is a parcel of land, currently referred
to as Calusa Park, which includes, among other amenities, tennis courts and a small theatrical
playhouse ("Calusa Park"). Calusa Park is entirely located within the geographical boundaries of
the Village, even though it is owned by the County.
14. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the County and the Mathesons agreed to a
specified process for the creation of the CPMP. The County and the Mathesons agreed that the
3
CPMP "shall determine for all time . . . the uses of, and improvements upon, and their location
within the Crandon Park lands."
15. As a result of the CPMP and the required adoption of a restrictive covenant
implementing the CPMP, Calusa Park, which has for years serviced the recreational needs of
Village residents by providing tennis courts and a playhouse among other needs, will be converted
into a mangrove preserve. All existing facilities, including the historic playhouse and tennis courts
will be eliminated.
16. In addition, the CPMP eliminates ballfields in Crandon Park which were extensively
used by Village residents. There exists a scarcity of ballfields in the Village. As a result. the
existing ballfields in Crandon Park are especially important to the Village.
17. Pursuant to the requirements of F.S. 164.103, the Village, on October 13. 1995,
advised the County in writing of its intent to file the instant lawsuit. The letter is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A."
18. The County failed to hold a public meeting with the Village to discuss the matter
within thirty (30) days as required by F.S. § 164.103(2).
19. All conditions precedent to the filing of this lawsuit have either been met or waived.
Pursuant to F.S. § 164.104, the Village is entitled to recover its attorney's fees and costs in this
proceeding.
4
COUNT I
(DECLARATORY RELIEF FROM UNLAWFUL
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY)
20. The Village realieges and incorporates by reference herein the allegations contained
in paragraphs 1 through 19.
21. Under the terms of the Agreement, the County unlawfully and irrevocably delegated
to a private planning firm ("Olmsted") and certain non -elected "committees" the legislative
responsibility for the preparation of the CPMP, without providing adequate guidelines to Olmsted or
the "committees" for its preparation. In fact, the "committees" have been provided with no
guidelines or criteria of any kind in performing their functions.
22. The County capitulated to the Mathesons by giving over the complete design and
control of public lands, held in trust for the public, to private individuals unaccountable to the
public. The County acted in violation of the State Constitution and interpretive case law, as well as
its public obligations in fear that the Mathesons might be successful in their attempts to prevent the
construction of the Tennis Stadium or, at the very least, delay its construction and prevent the
Tournament from taking place.
23. More specifically, the terms of the Agreement provide for the following procedures
in the creation and implementation of the CPMP:
A. Olmsted is to prepare a comprehensive development plan for Crandon Park
(including Calusa Park) pursuant to "generally recognized and accepted public park
5
standards," guided largely by the limitation that Crandon Park should be used for
"public park purposes only."1
B. Once the proposed CPMP is prepared, it is submitted to the Mathesons and the
County for comments. In the case of the County, a public hearing is held to receive
the public's input.
C. Olmsted is required to attend the public hearing held by the County, but is only
required to "consider" the comments of the public and the County. There is no
obligation for Olmsted to implement any of the comments made by the public or the
County in the preparation of the CPMP.
D. After the public hearing has been held, Olmsted is to prepare the final CPMP which
is submitted again to the Mathesons and the County for objections to any aspects of
the CPMP.
E. Any objections made by the County or the Mathesons will be reviewed, and
approved, rejected or modified, by a Committee on the Formation of the CPMP
("Objection Committee"). The Objection Committee will consist of two appointees
selected by the County, two appointees selected by the Mathesons, and one
appointee -- an independent park professional -- selected by the first four appointees.
F. The Objection Committee is not obligated to accept, in any form, the objections of
the County or the comments of the public.
1/ The Agreement contains other limitations relating to certain existing facilities, such as a
dive shop, restaurant, a golf course clubhouse, a marina and a nature center. Most of these
limitations expire at the termination of the existing leases for these facilities, after which time.
further development would be governed by the terms of the CPMP. The remaining limitations to
be incorporated into the CPMP relate to operational hours, signage requirements, gambling and
overnight accommodations.
6
G. Once the Objection Committee has considered possible objections. the County is
obligated to implement it by recording a declaration of restrictions in the official
records of the County, which declaration shall be a covenant running with the land.
H. In terms of amending the adopted CPMP, the County is permitted to recommend
revisions or amendments by resolution, but the actual decision as to whether those
revisions or amendments are adopted is left to a Committee on Amendment of the
CPMP ("Amendment Committee"), which Amendment Committee is comprised of
appointees selected by the County and the National Parks and Conservation
Association, a non-profit organization. If the Amendment Committee approves the
proposed amendment, it is incorporated into the CPMP by the County. If the
proposed amendment is rejected, neither the County nor the public has any means by
which to amend the CPMP.2
24. The foregoing procedure, described in paragraphs 19 (A) -(H), constitutes an
unlawful delegation by the County of its powers to plan the use and control of public lands to a
group of individuals who are neither (1) elected by the residents of the County or accountable to the
public; nor (2) provided with adequate guidelines for the future planning and development of
Crandon Park lands, including Calusa Park.3
2/ The time frames for the various stages of the Agreement have been extended numerous
times by the County and the Mathesons. At this time, it appears that the Objection Committee will
shortly complete its work. Once the Objection Committee is done, the CPMP will be presented to
the County Commission for obligatory adoption of the declaration of restrictions implementing the
CPMP.
3/ Other than using the lands for "public park purposes" and that the property be developed in
accordance with "generally recognized and accepted public park standards," Olmsted has been
given the irrevocable, unlimited and unregulated freedom to design, plan, and control these vast and
unique public lands. The "committees" have absolutely no guidelines of any kind upon which to
base their decisions.
7
25. The decisions delegated to Olmsted, the Objection Committee and the Amendment
Committee are fundamental and primary policy/legislative decisions which are properly made
solely by a duly elected legislative body. In essence, the County has contracted away its legislative
obligation to create the policy which will govern the future use and/or development of Crandon
Park, including Calusa Park.
26. As a result of the adoption of the Agreement by the County, a justiciable controversy
exists between the County and the Village as to the use of Calusa Park and the remaining Crandon
Park lands, and the ability of the County to delegate away its power to legislatively determine how
those lands are to be used in the future.
27. Due to the unlawful delegation, the Village has suffered, and will continue to suffer.
irreparable harm insofar as the County has violated Article II, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution
and interpretive case law, which provides that legislative functions such as the ones delegated here
will remain solely within the province of accountable legislative bodies and not be delegated or
contracted away.
28. The Village will further be irreparably harmed by the loss of its use of Calusa Park
and portions of Crandon Park as active recreational facilities for its residents. The Village will have
no avenue of redress for this loss since the final decision as to the use of Calusa Park will be left to
Olmsted and the "committees." No adequate remedy at law exists with respect to the harm that the
Village will suffer.
29. The public interest in requiring the County to abide by the constitutional limitation
imposed upon legislative bodies that they shall neither delegate nor contract away their legislative
powers clearly outweighs any harm which might accrue to the County as a result of the relief
requested herein.
8
WHEREFORE, for the all the foregoing reasons, the Village respectfully requests the
following relief:
(a) A declaration that the Agreement is invalid, ab initio, since it constitutes an unlawful
delegation by the County of its legislative, planning and policy -making functions;
(b) A permanent injunction precluding the County from delegating its power to regulate
the use and development of Calusa Park and Crandon Park in an unlawful manner;
(c) Attorney's fees and costs pursuant to F.S. § 164.104; and
(d) Such other relief as the court deems just and proper.
COUNT II
(EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL)
30. The Village realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs 1
through 19 as though fully set forth herein.
31. Prior to the incorporation of the Village, an entity called the Key Biscayne Council,
Inc.. a resident council elected by the citizens of Key Biscayne, inquired of the County whether or
not additional park land was required on Key Biscayne in order to satisfy the recreation and open -
space element of the Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan ("CDMP").
32. On March 13, 1989, the Director of the County Park and Recreation Department
wrote a letter (attached hereto as Exhibit "B," "Director's Letter"), which represented the County's
review and conclusions relating to compliance with the CDMP based upon adequate local park land.
33. The Director stated that "local park needs on Key Biscayne are being accommodated
through Crandon and Calusa Parks, . . ." The Director's Letter attached certain tables which
demonstrated that more than half of the total local park acreage for the Village (15.7 acres) was
attributable to Crandon Park and Calusa Park. The recreational facilities located in Crandon Park
and Calusa Park included baseball fields and multi -purpose courts.
9
34. The County made these representations with the intention and understanding that the
citizens of Key Biscayne would rely thereon.
35. When the Village became incorporated in 1992, the Village reasonably relied upon
these representations as to the configuration and availability of the local park land located in Calusa
Park and Crandon Park.
36. In addition, in 1989, the County considered two applications for the development of
multi -unit housing/hotel projects located within the Village: Royal Biscayne Ventures Project for
an 800 -room hotel and 600 condominium units ("Hemmeter Project"), and the project proposed by
VMS Realty, Inc. for the construction of 585 condominium units ("VMS Project").
37. Both the Hemmeter Project and VMS Project were "developments of regional
impact" ("DRI") as that term is defined in Chapter 380, F1a.Stat. After conducting a concurrency
analysis to determine whether there existed sufficient infrastructure to support the development of
both the Hemmeter Project and the VMS Project, the County issued development orders approving,
in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 380, Fla.Stat., the construction of the Hemmeter
Project and the VMS Project within the Village.
38. As part of the County's concurrency analysis and approval of the Hemmeter Project
and VMS Project, the County considered Calusa Park and Crandon Park to be "local park land" in
order to satisfy the "level of service" ("LOS") standards required by the recreation and open -space
element of the CDMP, and as set forth in the Director's Letter.
39. The County approvals of both the Hemmeter Project and VMS Project were
contingent upon the existence and availability of the active recreational space provided by Calusa
Park and Crandon Park in order to satisfy the LOS standard of the recreation and open -space
10
element of the CDMP. Without the existence of this "local park" acreage, the development orders
approving these projects would not and could not have been lawfully issued.
40. As part of the incorporation process and as contained in Sec. 8.03 of the Village
Charter, the Village adopted and assumed all applicable resolutions of the County Commission,
including those approving the Hemmeter Project and VMS Project.
41. When the Village later considered amendments to these projects, they approved
reduced densities in an effort to mitigate the inadequacy of park land and the Village reasonably
expected that the local park acreage as defined by the Director's Letter and used as a predicate to
County's Hemmeter Project and VMS Project would remain intact.
42. The Village detrimentally relied upon these representations (the Director's Letter and
County's concurrent approval of the Hemmeter Project and VMS Project) reasonably expecting that
the parks would remain as presently configured and that the Village population would be served by
them.
43. Although the Village has since purchased nine (9) acres of property in order to
attempt to satisfy the insufficient local park land available on Key Biscayne, an additional eleven
(11) acres are still needed according to ¶ 3 of the Director's Letter, which had recognized a need for
twenty (20) additional acres.
44. The Village reasonably relied upon representations of the County to its detriment
when it incorporated itself as a Village, when it assumed jurisdiction of the development orders and
when it later approved amendments to the development orders, although the Village did attempt to
mitigate the effect of the size of the development of the proposed projects.
45. As a result of the Village's reliance and the County's decision to change its prior
representations and position and to remove Calusa Park and portions of Crandon Park as active
11
recreational areas, the infrastructure of the Village will be overburdened. Moreover, concurrency
compliance of future beneficial projects in the Village may be impaired by the deprivation of such
areas.
46. Therefore, the County is estopped from now eliminating the active recreational areas
in Calusa Park and Crandon Park or from converting such areas to a classification which is outside
of the recreation and open -space element, unless and until an additional eleven (11) acres of local
park acreage can be provided by County or otherwise found in the Village.
WHEREFORE, the Village respectfully requests the following relief:
(a) A permanent injunction precluding the County from taking any action which would
materially alter the existing nature of Calusa Park or Crandon Park with regard to the
recreation and open space previously allotted to the Village as described in the
Director's Letter and as utilized by the County in the original approvals of the
Hemmeter Project and VMS Project;
(b) Attorney's fees and costs pursuant to F.S. § 164.104; and
(c) Such other relief as this court deems just and proper.
WEISS SEROTA HELFMAN
PASTORIZA & GUEDES, P.A.
Attorneys for Village
2665 So. Bayshore Dr.
Suite 420
Miami, FL 33133
(305) 854-0800 Telephone
(305) 854-2323 Facsimile
By
JOSEPH H. SEROTA
FLA. BAR NO. 259111
MITCHELL A. BIERMAN
FLA. BAR NO. 864439
12
WEISS SE -ROTA HELFMAN
PASTORIZA & GUEDES, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
NINA L. BONISKE
JAMIE ALAN COLE
EDWARD G. GUEDES
STEPHEN J. HELFMAN
G:LBERTO PASTORIZA
JOSEPH H. SEROTA
RICHARD JAY WEISS
DAVID M. WOLPIN
SEVEN W. ZELKOWITZ
THOMAS J. ANSBRO.
LILLIAN ARANGO DE LA HOZ.
RICHARD A. ARONSKY
PATRICIA M. BALOYRA
A_ISON 5. BILLER
MITCHELL A. BIERMAN
MITCHELL J. BURNSTEIN
ELAINE M. COHEN
DOUGLAS R. GONZALES
JOHN R. HERIN, JR.
ROBERT W. HOLLAND'
CHRISTOPHER F. KURTZ
PETER A. LICHTMAN
KAREN LIEBERMAN•
BERNARD 5. MANDLER.
MARIE E. MATO
NANCY RUBIN.
GAIL D. SEROTA'
ARI C. SHAPIRO
JEFFREY P. SMEFFEL
DANIEL A. WE155•
Mr. C. Samuel Kissinger
Village of Key Biscayne
85 W. McIntyre Street
Key Biscayne, FL 33149
MIAMI-DADE OFFICE
2665 SOUTH UAYSHORE DRIVE
SUITE 420
MIAMt, FLORIDA 33133
TELEPHONE (305) 854-0800
TELECOPIER (305) 854-2323
WWW.WSH-FLALAW.COM
February 9, 2000
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
Re: Village v. Dade County (Crandon Park Litigation)
Dear Sam:
BROWARD OFFICE
1132 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33316
TELEPHONE (954) 763-4242
TELECOPIER (954) 764-7770
•OF COUNSEL
Enclosed please find a recent letter from Joni Coffey along with the revised pages which
will be included in the Crandon Park Master Plan and recorded in the public records. As you can
see, pages 76 and 78 refer to "four unlighted, multi -purpose sport courts." It also states that a
storage closet for the equipment will be located on premises. The tot lot will remain as is. Page 88
makes reference to the lighting for the Crandon Park fields which will remain until January 1,
2005. While the existing backstops will be removed, a new low, permanent backstop is permitted.
These pages accurately reflect our settlement. You may want to keep this letter and pages
in your file on this matter in order to have a record of the changes in the Master Plan agreed to by
the County as a result of our litigation.
Sincerely,
JHS:jju
103.021
Enc.:,sure
cc: Richard Jay Weiss, Esq.
COUNJ Y ATTORNEY
M1AM1-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
111 N.W. 1 ST., SUITE 2610
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33128-1993
TEL (305) 375-5151
FAX (305) 375-5634
Joseph Scrota, Esquire
Weiss Serota & Heitman, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 200
Miami. Florida 33133
Dear Joe:
January 31. 2000
Enclosed are copies of the pages with revisions reflecting the County's settlement
with the Village. These pages have already been inserted in the copies of the Plan that
will be recorded.
I have received your original Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and am holding it
until the recording of the Plan. In the opening of the office mail, the original was slightly
damaged at the fold of the document. I believe that there will be no problem fling it in
its present condition. If, however, you would like to provide a new copy, I will be happy
to return the original that I am now holding.
Thank you again for your considerable efforts in getting this matter resolved.
Sincerely,
Joni Armstrong Cdffey
Assistant County Attorney
JAC/bc
Enclosure
. all vehicles shall be limited to the parking lot southwest of the Tennis Stadium and
south of the Clubhouse.
No vehicles other than maintenance vehicles shall be permitted to travel on the
Tennis Center Site beyond the parking lot south of the Clubhouse, except that during
the Tournament Preparation Period, -the Tournament Period and the Site Restoration
Period (all as herein defined), use of the north entrance access road shall be permitted
subject to installation of the entrance feature at the north entrance by the Tournament
which shall remain closed at all other times.
WEST POINT PRESERVE
Except for provisions herein and for re -planting, the West Point Preserve shall
remain undisturbed. The West Point Preserve canals, opening into the lake opposite
the Tennis Center Clubhouse and into Biscayne Bay, are navigable by canoes and
kayaks, and shall be maintained and remain open to the public, with limitations and
with the guidance of trained naturalists. This Master Plan moves the existing east
boundary of the West Point Preserve all the way east to Crandon Boulevard, requiring
the restoration of this area of the Preserve to its natural state, with only the following
exceptions: (1) four unlighted multi -purpose (including basketball, hockey, tennis)
sport courts, with the existing recreational facilities to be modified consistent with the
following subsection; (2) the recreation center remodeled in the South Florida
Vernacular style, retaining only restrooms, a storage closet for the sports court
equipment and the existing roof, thereby creating an open -but -roofed shelter area; (3)
three picnic shelters with a maximum individual shelter size of 300 square feet; and
(4) a tot -lot with a footprint identical in area to the tot -lot existing on the Adoption
Date, but with equipment designed to match the tot -lot equipment planned for the
Beach Area. The importance of preserving all of the remainder of this ecologically
significant tract in an undisturbed condition cannot be overemphasized.
The winds of Hurricane Andrew toppled a number of Australian Pines in West
Point Preserve fronting on Crandon Boulevard, crushing mangroves and other native
flora. This area, now largely bare, shall be restored to its natural state, nurturing new
native and mangrove growth and providing for a coconut seed orchard. A 3,500 linear
feet boardwalk loop nature trail shall be constructed, as expeditiously as possible,
76
originating from the existing parking lot at the flew Calusa Mangrove Trail site. This
loop shall provide a view of Biscayne Bay and a mangrove interpretive experience for
the Park patrons.
Signage at the Biscayne Bay mouth of the canal entering the West Point
Preserve shall restrict access to canoes and/or kayaks accompanied by a skilled,
interpretive naturalist.
FIRE STATION
So long as the Fire Station is used by the Dade County Fire Department, to
provide fire/rescue service to Crandon Park, there shall continue to be a traffic light
and a median strip cut -through opposite the Fire Station building's driveway.
Following the Adoption of the Crandon Park Master Plan, the Fire Station building
shall be renovated to conform to the South Florida Vernacular Architectural Style.
Planting along its frontage shall be consistent with the landscape character of Crandon
Boulevard, and all landscape standards set forth in this Master Plan.
If such fire service is at some future time furnished from another facility outside
of Crandon Park, and provided that the present Park Office for Crandon Park is
vacated and razed entirely, and further provided that all use of spaces in the Tennis
Center Stadium by the Parks Department for offices and other park administration
shall be discontinued entirely and not reinstituted, then and only in those events, may
the Parks Department use the former Fire Station for the Crandon Park Office. Use
of this facility for a fire -rescue facility for the Village of Key Biscayne or any other
municipality is specifically declared to be inconsistent with this Master Plan and
prohibited.
CALUSA MANGROVE TRAIL
The Master Plan makes no change in the existing layout and facilities at Calusa
Park until year end 1997. After January 1, 1998, the existing Calusa Park Playhouse,
play equipment and tennis courts shall be razed or removed (except as provided
below) and the area shall be restored with an open area and heavily landscaped with
native vegetation as part of the West Point Preserve. The parking lot, restrooms and
77
open area, however, will be retained and three picnic shelters (maximum size -30u
square feet each) shall be placed around the site. The existing recreation building shall
be modified in the South Florida Vernacular style, and together with the surrounding
court area, be modified by no later than February 2000, to retain only the restrooms,
a small storage closet for equipment for the multi -purpose sport courts, and the current
roof size, thereby creating an open -but -roofed shelter. This area shall also retain four
unlighted multi -purpose (including basketball, hockey, tennis) sport courts with the
necessary equipment for their utilization stored on site. This area shall also retain a
sandlot play area with a footprint identical to the sandlot on the Adoption Date, but
with equipment designed to match the sandlot equipment for the Beach Area.
In view of the fact that "Calusa Park" is part of Crandon Park and is no more
a separate "park" than are the Golf Course, the Botanical Garden, the Tennis Center,
the Marina or the Beach, this area of the Park is shown on the Master Plan as "Calusa
Mangrove Trail".
The new Calusa Mangrove Trail will originate at the existing parking lot. At
3,500 linear feet, it may be part boardwalk (with protection for the mangroves) and
part wood chips, depending on existing conditions. The Calusa Mangrove Trail will
provide an interpretive and sensory excursion westward into the mangroves with vistas
of Biscayne Bay and offering native variety to the Crandon Park experience.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
All of the presently known archaeological sites located on the Crandon Park
Lands are significant and vulnerable to the additional subsurface disturbances which
may result from proposed development and landscaping activities. Further
archaeological sites may be discovered on the Crandon Park Lands in the future.
Appropriate management techniques will benefit from determining the exact
boundaries of the various known and potential sites and therefore an archaeological
survey shall be conducted of these sites prior to any development activity.
Construction and landscaping activities within any of the archaeological sites or
designated zones may require any one or a combination of the following actions:
78
. The closing time for those portions of the Crandon Park Lands east of Crandon
Boulevard shall be sundown (except for ball fields until January 1, 2005).
The field in the central allee shall remain open and the walkways shall be
landscaped with coconut palms.' By no later than February 2000, the baseball fields,
and back stops shall be removed and -the field shall be graded smooth and permitted
to recover to a total grass cover and be used as a unlit multi -purpose sports field.
Portable, temporary sports equipment for a variety of sports and games, including
temporary baseball backstops, volleyball nets and soccer goals, a new low permanent
backstop (maximum height 4') and landscaped hedges shall be permitted. All field
lighting shall be removed by January 1, 2005.
The central allee when reestablished shall be developed with an enframement
of coconut palms, the lines flaring out as they approach the beach to offer a wide view
of sand and sea.
THE BEACH
The Master Plan Landscape Plan enhances the Beach with the addition of many
coconut palms, natural dune systems and vegetation, starting with just coconut palms
at the central part of the Beach and becoming denser, with natural vegetation toward
the north end of the Beach. These plantings serve to reduce the vast expanses of
glaring sand and blur the boundaries between the picnic areas and the ocean. Single
post thatched roof sunbrellas may also be appropriately placed along the beach.
The Master Plan retains the existing promenade, but removes the parapet along
its west side after the new sand dunes have been established. Between the promenade
and the shore, the Master Plan calls for the development of a series of overlapping
dunes and dune plantings which, together with the planting of additional groups of
coconut palms and with the existing retaining wall along the east side of the
promenade, will reduce the inland drifting of the beach sand. Additional sets of steps
or ramps shall be developed along the promenade at no more than 100 -yard intervals.
On the north end of the Beach, the pedestrian/bicycle recreation trail (10 foot wide)
Zs See Landscape Guidelines and Standards, Landscape Sectionals, p.14, Appendix B.
88
"
4
1 ' 1 1 N . W . 1 S T . , S U I T E 2 8 1 0
M I A M I , F L O R I D A 3 3 1 2 8 - 1 9 9 3
T E L ( 3 0 5 ) 3 7 5 - 5 1 5 1
F A X ( 3 0 5 ) 3 7 5 - 5 6 3 4
S e p t e m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 0
J o s e p h H . S e r o t a , E s q u i r e
W e i s s S e r o t a H e l f m a n P a s t o r i z a & G u e d e s , P . A .
2 6 6 5 S o u t h B a y s h o r e D r i v e
S u i t e 4 2 0
M i a m i , F l o r i d a 3 3 1 3 3
R e : V i l l a g e o f K e y B i s c a y n e v . D a d e C o u n t y
C i r c u i t C o u r t C a s e N o . 9 5 - 0 2 3 7 0 1 C A 0 1
D e a r J o e :
T h e C r a n d o n P a r k M a s t e r P l a n w a s r e c o r d e d o n A u g u s t 2 9 , 2 0 0 0 , a t O f f i c i a l
R e c o r d s B o o k 1 9 2 5 9 , P a g e 3 7 4 1 o f t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s o f M i a m i - D a d e C o u n t y . W e a l s o
e x p e c t i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e t o k e e p t h e P l a n a v a i l a b l e f o r r e v i e w a t b o t h t h e o f f i c e o f t h e
c l e r k o f t h e B o a r d o f C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n e r s a n d t h e P a r k a n d R e c r e a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t .
B e c a u s e t h e P l a n h a s n o w b e e n r e c o r d e d , w e p l a n i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e t o f i l e w i t h
t h e c o u r t t h e K e y ' s v o l u n t a r y d i s m i s s a l o f t h e r e f e r e n c e d c a s e . A s I m a y h a v e m e n t i o n e d
t o y o u , t h e o r i g i n a l v o l u n t a r y d i s m i s s a l p r o v i d e d b y y o u r o f f i c e w a s s l i g h t l y d a m a g e d
w h e n r e c e i v e d i n t h e m a i l . I t i s a c c e p t a b l e f o r r e c o r d i n g w i t h t h e c o u r t , b u t i f y o u w o u l d
l i k e t o p r o v i d e m e w i t h a n u n d a m a g e d d u p l i c a t e o r i g i n a l f o r f i l i n g , I w i l l b e h a p p y t o
w a i t u n t i l y o u c a n s e n d i t t o m e . P l e a s e l e t m e k n o w y o u r p r e f e r e n c e .
I l o o k f o r w a r d t o h e a r i n g f r o m y o u .
S i r e l y ,
"
J o s t r o n g C o f f e y
A s s i s t a n t C o u n t y A t t o r n e y
>.\1/ 1. V1\ ✓ &A/A.4 vv
CiE,NERAL JURISDICTION DWVISiON -
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
THE VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE, )
a Florida municipal corporation, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, )
a political subdivision of the State of )
Florida, )
)
Defendant. )
)
)
NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Plaintiff, the Village of Key Biscayne ("Village"), hereby files this notice of voluntary
dismissal with prejudice dismissing all claims brought in this action.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was fumished by mail
this Z 1 of September, 2000 to Joni Armstrong Coffey, Esq., Assistant County Attorney, Stephen
P. Clark Center, Suite 2810, 111 N.W. 1st Street, Miami, FL 33128-1993.
WEISS SEROTA HELFMAN
PASTORIZA & GUEDES, P.A.
Attorneys for Village
2665 South Bayshore Drive
Suite 420
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 854-0800
Facsimile: (305) 854-2323
By:
JO H. SEROTA
Fla. ar No. 259111
WEISS SEROTA HELFMAN PASTORIZA & GUEDES, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. (305) 854-0800 • FAX (305) 854-2323
VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE
1!(,:111,
Villrae eland/
1„k 1. Ramo, Mayo
Gregory C Han. Vkr Mawr
• Scoa Bass
. Marcia Felez-Ledn Fiaucek
Alan H. Fein
Monmcr Fried
Ruben ( Makowski
May 18, 1999
To: C. Samuel Kissinger
Village Manager
From: Michael Bain
Sports Coordinator
Subject: Use of Crandon Park
During the months of October through March, the Key Biscayne Athletic Club runs their youth
soccer program. This past season there were 360 children registered. For the month of October,
practices are held on Monday's and Friday's at Crandon Park from 5:00-7:00 p.m. During this
period the lights are not utilized due to Sea Turtle season.
From November through March, nine (9) soccer teams practice on Tuesday and Thursday
evenings from 5:30 to 8:30. Each team has up to 17 children for a total of 153 players practicing
at Crandon Park. These players belong to our traveling program and are at least 10 years of age.
Many of these children go to school outside of Key Biscayne and do not return until 5:00 p.m.
During December we lose daylight by 5:30 and for these children to be able to practice without
lights would be impossible.
In 1995 I was informed by Bob Sullivan from Crandon Park that the KBAC could only reserve
Crandon Park two days a week. T submit in writing a month in advance when the program needs
to utilize the fields. 1 was also informed that we cannot use the field prior to 5:30 p.m. due to the
fact that there aren't lifeguards at the beach and the gates will not be opened prior to 5:30 p.m.
due to that reason.
Prior to 1995, the KBAC baseball program utilized Crandon Park for practices on Tuesday and
Thursday evenings and for games on Saturday's from March til June. However, this posed a
serious problem because, baseball practice began the second week of March when the Lipton
Tennis Tournament was held. We were not allowed to use the fields for 17 days while the
tournament lasted and the maintenance equipment was on the field.
H5 west McIntyre Street • Key Biscayne, Florida 33149 - (305) 365-5506 • Fax (305) 365-914
MIssin' crAI Mk•NT -Tn nu,viuk A SArr cici.i n v c:c7M1.fLINIly f•NviKU )NMCNT FOR ALL LSl ANnrki 11IROcc:H Kt:SKKIN: MDLL GOVERNNFxi'
WEISS SEROTA HELFMAN
PASTORIZA & GUEDES, P.A..
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MIAMI-DADE OFFICE
NINA L. BONISKE
JAMIE ALAN COLE
EDWARD G. GUEDES
STEPHEN J. HELFMAN
GILBERTO PASTORIZA
JOSEPH H. SEROTA
RICHARD JAY WEISS
DAVID M. WOLPIN
STEVEN W. ZELKOWITZ
THOMAS J. ANSBRO•
LILLIAN ARANOO DE LA HOZ"
RICHARD A. ARONSKY
PATRICIA M. BALOYRA
ALISON 5. BIELER
MITCHELL A. BIERMAN 2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
MITCHELL J. BURNSTEIN
ELAINE M. COHEN
DOUGLAS R. GONZALES
JOHN R. HERIN, JR.
ROBERT W. HOLLAND*
CHRISTOPHER F. KURTZ
PETER A. LICHTMAN TELECOPIER (305) 854-2323
KAREN LIEBERMAN.
BERNARD 5. MANDLER•
MARIE E. MATO
NANCY RUBIN.
GAIL D. SEROTA`
ARI C. SHAPIRO
JEFFREY P. SHEFFEL ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
SUITE 420
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133
DANIEL A. WEISS.
Mr. C. Samuel Kissinger
Village of Key Biscayne
85 W. McIntyre Street
Key Biscayne, FL 33149
TELEPHONE (305) 854-0800
WWW,WSN-FLALAW.COM
February 9, 2000
NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
Re: Village v. Dade County (Crandon Park Litigation)
Dear Sam:
BROWARD OFFICE
1132 SOUTHEAST SECOND AVENUE
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33316
TELEPHONE (954) 763-4242
TELECOPIER (954) 764-7770
•OF COUNSEL
Enclosed please find a recent letter from Joni Coffey along with the revised pages which
will be included in the Crandon Park Master Plan and recorded in the public records. As you can
see, pages 76 and 78 refer to "four unlighted, multi -purpose sport courts." It also states that a
storage closet for the equipment will be located on premises. The tot lot will remain as is. Page 88
makes reference to the lighting for the Crandon Park fields which will remain until January 1,
2005. While the existing backstops will be removed, a new low, permanent backstop is permitted.
These pages accurately reflect our settlement. You may want to keep this letter and pages
in your file on this matter in order to have a record of the changes in the Master Plan agreed to by
the County as a result of our litigation.
Sincerely,
JHS:jju
103.021
Enclosure
cc: Richard Jay Weiss, Esq.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
I N.W. 1 ST.. SUITE 2810
4MI, FLORIDA 33128-1993
TEL. (305) 375-5151
FAX (305) 375-5634
Joseph Serota, Esquire
Weiss Serota & Hellman, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 200
Miami, Florida 33133
Dear Joe:
January 31. 2000
Enclosed are copies of the pages with revisions reflecting the County's settlement
with the Village. These pages have already been inserted in the copies of the Plan that
will be recorded.
I have received your original Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and am holding it
until the recording of the Plan. In the opening of the office mail, the original was slightly
damaged at the fold of the document. I believe that there will be no problem filing it in
its present condition. If, however, you would like to provide a new copy, I will be happy
to return the original that I am now holding.
Thank you again for your considerable efforts in getting this matter resolved.
Sincerely,
Toni Armstrong Cdffey
Assistant County Attorney
JAC/bc
Enclosure
all vehicles shall be limited to the parking lot southwest of the Tennis Stadium and
south of the Clubhouse.
No vehicles other than maintenance vehicles shall be permitted to travel on the
Tennis Center Site beyond the parking lot south of the Clubhouse, except that during
the Tournament Preparation Period, the Tournament Period and the Site Restoration
Period (all as herein defined), use of the north entrance access road shall be permitted
subject to installation of the entrance feature at the north entrance by the Tournament
which shall remain closed at all other times.
WEST POINT PRESERVE
Except for provisions herein and for re -planting, the West Point Preserve shall
remain undisturbed. The West Point Preserve canals, opening into the lake opposite
the Tennis Center Clubhouse and into Biscayne Bay, are navigable by canoes and
kayaks, and shall be maintained and remain open to the public, with limitations and
with the guidance of trained naturalists. This Master Plan moves the existing east
boundary of the West Point Preserve all the way east to Crandon Boulevard, requiring
the restoration of this area of the Preserve to its natural state, with only the following
exceptions: (1) four unlighted multi -purpose (including basketball, hockey, tennis)
sport courts, with the existing recreational facilities to be modified consistent with the
following subsection; (2) the recreation center remodeled in the South Florida
Vernacular style, retaining only restrooms, a storage closet for the sports court
equipment and the existing roof, thereby creating an open -but -roofed shelter area; (3)
three picnic shelters with a maximum individual shelter size of 300 square feet; and
(4) a tot -lot with a footprint identical in area to. the tot -lot existing on the Adoption
Date, but with equipment designed to match the tot -lot equipment planned for the
Beach Area. The importance of preserving all of the remainder of this ecologically
significant tract in an undisturbed condition cannot be overemphasized.
The winds of Hurricane Andrew toppled a number of Australian Pines in West
Point Preserve fronting on Crandon Boulevard, crushing mangroves and other native
flora. This area, now largely bare, shall be restored to its natural state, nurturing new
native and mangrove growth and providing for a coconut seed orchard. A 3,500 linear
feet boardwalk loop nature trail shall be constructed, as expeditiously as possible,
76
open area, however, will be retained and three picnic shelters (maximum size 300
square feet each) shall be placed around the site. The existing recreation building shall
be modified in the South Florida Vernacular style, and together with the surrounding
court area, be modified by no later than February 2000, to retain only the restrooms,
a small storage closet for equipment for the multi -purpose sport courts, and the current
roof size, thereby creating an open -but -roofed shelter. This area shall also retain four
unlighted multi -purpose (including basketball, hockey, tennis) sport courts with the
necessary equipment for their utilization stored on site. This area shall also retain a
sandlot play area with a footprint identical to the sandlot on the Adoption Date, but
with equipment designed to match the sandlot equipment for the Beach Area.
In view of the fact that "Calusa Park" is part of Crandon Park and is no more
a separate "park" than are the Golf Course, the Botanical Garden, the Tennis Center,
the Marina or the Beach, this area of the Park is shown on the Master Plan as "Calusa
Mangrove Trail".
The new Calusa Mangrove Trail will originate at the existing parking lot. At
3,500 linear feet, it may be part boardwalk (with protection for the mangroves) and
part wood chips, depending on existing conditions. The Calusa Mangrove Trail will
provide an interpretive and sensory excursion westward into the mangroves with vistas
of Biscayne Bay and offering native variety to the Crandon Park experience.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
All of the presently known archaeological sites located on the Crandon Park
Lands are significant and vulnerable to the additional subsurface disturbances which
may result from proposed development and landscaping activities. Further
archaeological sites may be discovered on the Crandon Park Lands in the future.
Appropriate management techniques will benefit from determining the exact
boundaries of the various known and potential sites and therefore an archaeological
survey shall be conducted of these sites prior to any development activity.
Construction and landscaping activities within any of the archaeological sites or
designated zones may require any one or a combination of the following actions:
78
originating from the existing parking lot at the new Calusa Mangrove Trail site. This
loop shall provide a view of Biscayne Bay and a mangrove interpretive experience for
the Park patrons.
Signage at the Biscayne Bay mouth of the canal entering the West Point
Preserve shall restrict access to canoes and/or kayaks accompanied by a skilled,
interpretive naturalist.
FIRE STATION
So long as the Fire Station is used by the Dade County Fire Department, to
provide fire/rescue service to Crandon Park, there shall continue to be a traffic light
and a median strip cut -through opposite the Fire Station building's driveway.
Following the Adoption of the Crandon Park Master Plan, the Fire Station building
shall be renovated to conform to the South Florida Vernacular Architectural Style.
Planting along its frontage shall be consistent with the landscape character of Crandon
Boulevard, and all landscape standards set forth in this Master Plan.
If such fire service is at some future time furnished from another facility outside
of Crandon Park, and provided that the present Park Office for Crandon Park is
vacated and razed entirely, and further provided that all use of spaces in the Tennis
Center Stadium by the Parks Department for offices and other park administration
shall be discontinued entirely and not reinstituted, then and only in those events, may
the Parks Department use the former Fire Station for the Crandon Park Office. Use
of this facility for a fire -rescue facility for the Village of Key Biscayne or any other
municipality is specifically declared to be inconsistent with this Master Plan and
prohibited.
CALUSA MANGROVE TRAIL
The Master Plan makes no change in the existing layout and facilities at Calusa
Park until year end 1997. After January 1, 1998, the existing Calusa Park Playhouse,
play equipment and tennis courts shall be razed or removed (except as provided
below) and the area shall be restored with an open area and heavily landscaped with
native vegetation as part of the West Point Preserve. The parking lot, restrooms and
77
The closing time for those portions of the Crandon Park Lands east of Crandon
Boulevard shall be sundown (except for ball fields until January 1, 2005).
The field in the central allee shall remain open and the walkways shall be
landscaped with coconut palms.' By no later than February 2000, the baseball fields,
and back stops shall be removed and the field shall be graded smooth and permitted
to recover to a total grass cover and be used as a unlit multi -purpose sports field.
Portable, temporary sports equipment for a variety of sports and games, including
temporary baseball backstops, volleyball nets and soccer goals, a new low permanent
backstop (maximum height 4') and landscaped hedges shall be permitted. All field
lighting shall be removed by January 1, 2005.
The central allee when reestablished shall be developed with an enframement
of coconut palms, the lines flaring out as they approach the beach to offer a wide view
of sand and sea.
THE BEACH
The Master Plan Landscape Plan enhances the Beach with the addition of many
coconut palms, natural dune systems and vegetation, starting with just coconut palms
at the central part of the Beach and becoming denser, with natural vegetation toward
the north end of the Beach. These plantings serve to reduce the vast expanses of
glaring sand and blur the boundaries between the picnic areas and the ocean. Single
post thatched roof sunbrellas may also be appropriately placed along the beach.
The Master Plan retains the existing promenade, but removes the parapet along
its west side after the new sand dunes have been established. Between the promenade
and the shore, the Master Plan calls for t'ie development of a series of overlapping
dunes and dune plantings which, together with the planting of additional groups of
coconut palms and with the existing retaining wall along the east side of the
promenade, will reduce the inland drifting of the beach sand. Additional sets of steps
or ramps shall be developed along the promenade at no more than 100 -yard intervals.
On the north end of the Beach, the pedestrian/bicycle recreation trail (10 foot wide)
25 See Landscape Guidelines and Standards, Landscape Sectionals, p.14, Appendix B.
88
ROY J. BAROUET
STEPHEN S. BODDEN
NINA L. BONISKE
DANIEL H. COULTOFF
L. ROBERT ELIAS
EDWARD G. GUEDES
STEPHEN J. HELFMAN
JILL A. JARKESY*
GILBERTO PASTORIZA
ELLEN N. SAUL*
GAIL D. SEROTA*
JOSEPH H. SEROTA
DANIEL A. WEISS*
RICHARD JAY WEISS
DAVID M. WOLPIN
STEVEN W. ZELKOWITZ
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
SUITE 420
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 BROWARD OFFICE
888 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD
SUITE 710
TELEPHONE (305) 854-0800 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 763-1189
TELECOPIER (305) 854-2323
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
NOT SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
July 28, 1997
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Key Biscayne Council
Village of Key Biscayne
85 West McIntyre Street
Key Biscayne, FL 33149
PALM BEACH OFFICE
1872 SOUTHWEST 17TH STREET
BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33486
TELEPHONE (561) 392-8762
TELECOPIER (561) 392-7551
*OF COUNSEL
Re: Village v. Dade County (Circuit and Appeal Actions)
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Enclosed please find a copy of the motion for summary judgment
which was filed in the Crandon Park Master Plan litigation in state
court. This matter has been set for hearing on November 13, 1997.
With regard to the appeal of the Crandon Park Master Plan, the
County has received an extension until July 31, 1997 in which to
file its answer brief.
I will keep you advised of all developments in both these
matters.
espectfully,
seph H, erota
JHS:jju
103.021
Enclosure
cc: Mr. C. Samuel Kissinger (w\o enclosure)
Richard Jay Weiss, Esq. (w\o enclosure)
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
THE VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE,
a Florida municipal corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a
political subdivision of the
State of Florida,
Defendant.
VILLAGE'S MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510, Plaintiff, the Village of Key
Biscayne ("Village"), requests that this Court enter final summary
judgment in its favor as to Count I of its Complaint herein, and as
grounds therefor states that, based on the record and affidavit
filed by the Village in support of this motion, there exists no
genuine issue of material fact and the Village is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. In support thereof, the Village
states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
By this action, the Village seeks a declaration that a certain
settlement agreement ("Agreement") entered into by and between the
County and certain members of the Matheson family ("Mathesons")
unlawfully delegates legislative responsibilities of the County and
is, therefore, void ab initio. A true and correct copy of the
Agreement is attached both to the Complaint and to this motion as
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL (305) 854-0800 • FAX (305) 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
Exhibit "A." (Complaint, ¶ 1, second sentence; Answer, ¶ 1, second
sentence)
UNDISPUTED FACTS
Prelude to Settlement
1. For years, the International Players Championship, Inc.,
a professional tennis tournament operator, conducted a tournament
for approximately two weeks every year in the County
("Tournament"). (Complaint, ¶ 7, first sentence; Answer,
first sentence)
2. The County agreed to construct a permanent tennis stadium
("Stadium") in Dade County, in part to serve as a site for the
Tournament. (Complaint, ¶ 8; Answer, ¶ 8)
3. The Mathesons, whose family deeded ownership of the
Crandon Park lands to the County in 1940, filed a lawsuit against
the County to prevent construction of the Stadium on the grounds
that the Stadium would violate certain deed restrictions which
required those lands to be used exclusively for "public park
purposes." (Complaint, ¶ 9; Answer, ¶ 9)
4. As a result of the Mathesons' lawsuit, the County became
involved in a series of legal proceedings, including multiple
appeals to the Third District Court of Appeal, all of which related
to the propriety of constructing the Stadium on Crandon Park lands.
White v. Metropolitan Dade County, 563 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA
1990), is attached to this motion as Exhibit "B." Dade County v.
Matheson, 605 So.2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), is attached to this
- 2 -
¶ 7,
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. 1305) 854-0800 • FAX 1305) 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
motion as Exhibit "C." Matheson v. Florida Department of Community
Affairs, Case No. 91-2504 (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Leon County 1991), was
dismissed on June 29, 1995, for lack of prosecution.
Settlement Agreement
5. In an effort to resolve all disputes between the County
and the Mathesons relating to the construction and operation of the
Stadium, the County and the Mathesons prepared and executed the
Agreement. (Complaint, ¶ 11, first sentence; Answer, ¶ 11, first
sentence) The Agreement is a comprehensive document, which not
only allowed for and regulated the Stadium, but also provides for
the creation of a Crandon Park Master Plan ("CPMP"), which was to
plan, design and regulate how Crandon Park could be used in the
future. (Complaint, ¶ 11, second sentence; Answer, ¶ 11, second
sentence)
6. The County admits that the Agreement provides for "a
specified process for the creation of the CPMP." (Complaint, ¶ 13,
first sentence; Answer, ¶ 13, first sentence)
7. The terms of the Agreement provide for the following
procedures in the creation and implementation of the CPMP:
a. The Olmsted firm "or other mutually agreed firm" is
to prepare a comprehensive development plan for Crandon Park
(including Calusa Park) "depicting all permitted uses of various
areas on the Crandon Park lands, including guidelines and standards
for the type, location, size, color, landscaping and other features
of all structures, improvements and recreational and other
- 3 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. (305) 854-0800 • FAX 13051 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
facilities to be located in Crandon Park or on the Crandon Park
lands." (Exhibit "A," p. 1, 1 1(a)) . The following amorphous
standard governs the firm's responsibility for the comprehensive
plan: "The Olmsted Firm shall be guided by the principle that the
uses and facilities appropriate for the Crandon Park lands are
limited to 'public park purposes only' and for no other activities
other than those ancillary activities directly furthering public
park purposes, and subject to that overall limitation, by all
generally recognized and accepted public park standards and
criteria." (Ibid.)
b. Once the CPMP is prepared by Olmsted, it is
submitted to the Mathesons and to the County for comments. In the
case of the County, a public hearing is held to receive the
public's input. (Exhibit "A," p. 1, ¶ 1(b))
c. Olmsted is required to attend the public hearing
held by the County, but is required only to "consider" the comments
of the public, the County, and the Mathesons. There is no
obligation for Olmsted to implement any of the comments made by the
public or the County in preparation of the CPMP. (Ibid.)
d. After the public hearing has been held, Olmsted is
to prepare the final CPMP, which is submitted again to the
Mathesons and the County for objections to any aspects of the CPMP.
(Ibid.)
e. Any objections made by the County or the Mathesons
will be revised and approved, rejected or modified, by a Committee
- 4 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. 1305) 854-0800 • FAX 1305) 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
on the Formation of the CPMP ("Objection Committee"). The
Objection Committee will consist of two appointees selected by the
County, two appointees selected by the Mathesons, and one
appointee --an independent park professional --selected by the first
four appointees. (Exhibit "A," pp. 2-3, ¶ 1(b))
f. Critically, the Objection Committee is not obligated
to accept, in any form, the objections of the County or the
comments of the public, but may "approve, reject or modify the
objection(s) of either" the County or the Mathesons, in the
Objection Committee's sole discretion, as determined by a majority
vote.' (Ibid.)
g. Once the Objection Committee has considered possible
objections, the County is obligated to implement the CPMP by
recording a declaration of restrictions in the official records of
the County, which declaration shall be a covenant running with the
land. (Id. at p.3, ¶ 1 (f))
h. In terms of amending the adopted CPMP, the County is
permitted to recommend revisions or amendments by resolution, but
the actual decision as to whether those revisions or amendments are
adopted is left to a Committee on Amendment of the CPMP ("Amendment
Committee"), which Amendment Committee is comprised of appointees
selected by the County and the National Parks and Conservation
Association, a non-profit organization. If the Amendment Committee
1 All emphasis in this motion and accompanying memorandum of
law is supplied by undersigned counsel.
- 5 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. (3051 854-0800 • FAX 13051 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
approves the proposed amendment, it is incorporated into the CPMP
by the County. If the proposed amendment is rejected, neither the
County nor the public has any means by which to amend the CPMP.
See ibid.
8. The Agreement provides in pertinent part that the CPMP
"shall determine for all time . . . the uses of, and improvements
upon, and their location within, the Crandon Park lands."
(Exhibit "A," ¶ 1(a), last sentence)
9. The Village is a municipality located directly adjacent
to the County -owned recreation area known as Crandon Park. Crandon
Park and the CPMP include an area known as Calusa Park. All of
Calusa Park is located within the geographical boundaries of the
Village, even though it is owned by the County. (Complaint, ¶ 12;
Answer, ¶ 12)
Calusa Park
10. Calusa Park includes, among other amenities, tennis
courts and a small theatrical playhouse ("Calusa Park"). Calusa
Park contains 3.76 developed acres near the southern boundary of
Crandon Park and immediately west of the Crandon Boulevard Rotary.
(CPMP attached as Exhibit "D," p. 36) The CPMP states that
2
2 If there were any doubt that the County adheres to the
terms of the Agreement, it would be removed by public statements
and public conduct consistent with this language demonstrating that
the County cannot make decisions regarding Crandon Park without
express consent of the Mathesons. See hearing transcript excerpts
attached hereto as Exhibits F, H and I, as more fully set forth at
pages 11 through 14 of the memorandum of law supporting this
motion.
- 6 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. 1305) 854-0800 • FAX 13051 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
"[a]lthough open to all residents of Dade County [Calusa Park] has
evolved into a small community park for the residents of Key
Biscayne offering four tennis courts, a recreation building,
children's play equipment, the community playhouse, and storage
buildings." (Exhibit "D," p. 36) Calusa Park is entirely located
within the geographical boundaries of the Village, even though it
is owned by the County. (Complaint, ¶ 12; Answer, ¶ 12) The
residents of the Village rely upon and use the tennis courts
located at Calusa Park. (Affidavit of Councilmember Betty Sime,
Exhibit
11 E 11 )
11. After acknowledging the character of Calusa Park as a
"community park for the residents of Key Biscayne," the CPMP
proceeds to specify that the designation "Calusa Park" shall be
eliminated and shall be shown on the master plan as "Calusa
Mangrove Trail." (Exhibit "D," p. 80) The conversion of Calusa
Park into a mangrove preserve results from the edict that "after
January 1, 1998 the existing Calusa Park Playhouse, play equipment,
and tennis courts shall be razed or removed and the area shall be
restored with an open area and heavily landscaped with native
vegetation as part of the West Point Preserve." (Exhibit "D," p.
80; Complaint, ¶ 14, second sentence; Answer, ¶ 14, second
sentence)
12. The elimination of Calusa Park as an active athletic
facility by virtue of implementation of the CPMP, under the
County's own documents, plainly has the deleterious effect of
- 7 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. (305) 854-0800 • FAX (3051 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
depriving Village residents of what concededly has been their
"community park." (Transcript excerpt, County Commission hearing,
July 18, 1996, Exhibit "F," pp. 48-50)
13. Factual references in the following memorandum are hereby
incorporated in this motion by reference.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Summary of Argument
The crux of this lawsuit is a challenge to the settlement
agreement ("Agreement") entered into between the County and certain
members of the Matheson Family ("Mathesons") which requires the
creation of a Crandon Park Master Plan of development ("CPMP").
According to the Agreement, the responsibility for the design of
the CPMP rests with certain non -elected individuals including the
Olmsted architectural design firm ("Olmsted") and the Crandon Park
Master Plan Committee ("Committee") who have the final authority to
"determine for all time . . . the uses of, improvements upon, and
their location within the Crandon Park lands." Although the County
must implement the CPMP by recording a declaration of restrictions,
the County has no discretion with regard to whether or not a
restrictive covenant should be approved, since the Agreement states
that the "Crandon Park Master Plan . . shall be implemented
through the County recording a declaration of restrictions . .
(Exhibit "A," p. 3)
Other than the amorphous requirement that lands be used for
"public park purposes" and that the property be developed in
- 8 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL (305) 854-0800 • FAX 1305) 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
accordance with "generally recognized and accepted public park
standards," Olmsted has been given the irrevocable, unlimited and
unregulated freedom to design, plan, and control these unique
public lands. The "committees" have absolutely no guidelines of
any kind upon which to base their decision. (Exhibit "A," pp. 2-3,
¶ 1(b))
The Agreement will have a significant (and negative) effect on
Calusa Park and Crandon Park which the County has previously
determined to be the Village's "local park." (Exhibit "D," p. 36)
The CPMP will change forever Crandon Park and Calusa Park, the
Village's "local park" according to previous representations of the
County. The playhouse and the tennis courts and other amenities of
Calusa Park (all of which is within the geographical boundaries of
the Village) will be forever controlled by the CPMP. Eliminating
tennis courts or taking other actions which affect Crandon Park
will also adversely affect the Village and its citizens who rely
heavily upon this recreation area. According to the analysis made
by the County, the Village itself lacks sufficient recreation and
open space and, as a result, must rely upon Crandon Park and Calusa
Park (attached hereto as Exhibit "G").
I. UNLAWFUL DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY BY THE COUNTY VIOLATES THE
FLORIDA CONSTITUTION
A. Introduction
The procedure described in ¶¶ 7 a through h of the foregoing
motion constitutes an unlawful delegation by the County of its
- 9 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. (3051 854-0800 • FAX (305) 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
powers to plan the use and control of public lands. The County has
by Agreement entered into with private parties delegated its
decision -making
elected by the
public; nor (2)
authority to
residents of
provided with
individuals who are neither (1)
the County or accountable to the
adequate guidelines for the future
planning and development of Crandon Park lands, including Calusa
Park. The Agreement was negotiated and executed without the
participation of the Village or the public.
3
B. CPMP Deprives the County of Exercise of Discretion
The County is simply wrong when it states that it has the
final "decision" with regard to approval of the CPMP. In fact, a
plain reading of the Agreement demonstrates that the County has no
decision to make. After the CPMP is created by Olmsted and any
objections are determined by the Committee,
[t]he Crandon Park Master Plan, as adjusted by
the Committee on Formation of the Crandon Park
Master Plan, shall be implemented through the
County recording a declaration of restrictions
in the official records of Dade County,
Florida which shall be a covenant running with
the land, and through entry of an amendment to
3 As a result of the adoption of the Agreement by the
County, a justiciable controversy exists between the County and the
Village as to the use of Calusa Park and the remaining Crandon Park
lands and the ability of the County to delegate away its power to
legislatively determine how those lands are to be used in the
future. Riviere v. Orlando Parking Commission for the City of
Orlando, 74 So.2d 694, 696 (Fla. 1954) (in suit by municipality to
determine its authority to acquire land and establish off-street
parking facilities, contracts and terms of statutes involved
created doubt as to rights of parties and presented case for
adjudication under declaratory judgment act); § 86.021, Fla.Stat.
(1995) .
- 10 -
WEISS SEROTA 8c HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. (305) 854-0800 • FAX 13051 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
the final judgment in the Litigation.
(Exhibit "A," p.3)
There is nothing in the Agreement which provides for any discretion
or any real "decision" by the County Commission. Once the CPMP has
been created, it "shall be implemented" by the County. (Exhibit
HA,71
p. 3)
C. Land Use Policy Decisions Are Legislative in Nature
In essence, the County has contracted away its legislative
obligation to create the policy which will govern the future use
and/or development of Crandon Park, including Calusa Park. Such a
contract is void as against public policy. P.C.B. Partnership v.
City of Largo, 549 So.2d 738, 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (contract
between developer and city purporting to restrict city's ability to
decide whether to build a road, install a traffic device and permit
development of a parking lot and storm drain connection was ultra
vires and unenforceable; city did not have authority to effectively
contract away exercise of police powers); McQuillin, Municipal
Corporations § 29.10 (3rd Ed.) (ultra vires contract is one "which
it is not within the power of a municipal corporation to make under
any circumstances for any purpose").
The County has repeatedly evidenced abdication to the
Mathesons of its legislative authority to plan for the future land
uses of Crandon Park and Calusa Park. For example, at the outset
of the July 16, 1996 County Commission hearing, the ostensible
purpose of which was to receive public comment before approving the
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. 1305> 854-0800 • FAX 13051 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
CPMP, Commissioner Ferre stated that he was "ready to vote for this
thing the way Bruce Matheson is proposing it, and would so move."
(Transcript excerpt, County Commission hearing, July 16, 1996,
Exhibit "H," p. 2) The chairman of the County Commission
interjected:
[T]here is a public --slight technicality,
there is a public hearing to be had. (Id. at
p. 4)
The hearing was reset for July 18, 1996. (Id. at pp. 6-8)
At the July 18, 1996 hearing, the Village complained that the
hearing was meaningless because the Settlement Agreement had taken
away the Commission's discretion to reject the CPMP. (Exhibit "F,"
pp. 11-12) The County Attorney admitted that "the Settlement
Agreement does not contemplate bringing this master plan back to
the County Commission at public hearing." (Id. at p. 13)
The County Commission proceeded to request Mr. Matheson's
approval concerning three issues featured in the CPMP, and
acquiesced to his wishes each time. (Exhibit "F," at pp. 8-10 and
pp. 60-62; Transcript excerpt, Parks, Recreation and Culture
Committee meeting, July 12, 1996, Exhibit "I," at p. 114; p. 151;
pp. 170-171) In one such instance, Commissioner Ferre stated that
he wished to incorporate a provision contained in a letter written
by the County Attorney dated November 20, 1995 into the CPMP.
(Exhibit "F," pp. 60-62)
- 12 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. (3051854-0800 • FAX 13051 854 2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
The County Attorney immediately interjected:
The problem is that I don't think we
have anything like substantial
agreement with this on behalf of the
[Matheson] family, Commissioner.
Commissioner Ferre responded:
Are you saying that this would
break [ . . . ] ?
The County Attorney responded:
Yes, sir, I think so.
The Chairman:
Mr. Matheson is here --
Commissioner Ferre:
Let's get Mr. Matheson up here.
Village Attorney Serota attempted (without avail) to
participate at that juncture:
At some point, Commissioner Ferre,
if I could just respond to that
point?
Commissioner Ferre pre-empted any comment by the Village
with an invitation to Mr. Matheson:
Well, before you do let's get Mr.
Matheson up here. Mr. Matheson,
you're well aware of this letter of
November 20th. Would you like a
copy of it?
Mr. Matheson:
No, sir. I was in the discussions
when the letter was created.
- 13 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. 13051 854-0800 • FAX 13051 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
Commissioner Ferre:
Would this be acceptable to the Matheson family?
Mr. Matheson, after a page -and -a -half of commentary,
responded:
No.
Commissioner Ferre:
All right. Thank you, Mr. Matheson. (Exhibit "H,"
pp. 60-62)
The County Commission then approved the CPMP in accordance
with Mr. Matheson's position and over the Village's objection.
(Id. at p. 62)
D. Unlawful Delegation of Legislative Authority Violates
Florida Constitution
The question of unlawful delegation of legislative authority
may arise in two different situations: First, when the local
government delegates discretionary authority to make land use
decisions without specifying adequate standards for the exercise of
such discretion; and second, when legislative authority is
delegated to an entity which lacks authority, to act on behalf of
the local government. The Agreement between the County and the
Mathesons suffers from both such infirmities.
Administrative and municipal governmental authority,
functions, and duties may be conferred as provided by law, and all
such authority, functions and duties are subject to control by one
or more of the three branches of government. Nelson v. Lindsey,
151 Fla. 596, 10 So.2d 131 (1942). The Florida Constitution
- 14 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE. SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. 1305) 854-0800 • FAX 13051 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
provides that the legislature may delegate performance of certain
functions to administrative agencies provided that in doing so it
announces adequate standards to guide the ministerial agency in the
execution of the powers delegated. Delta Truck Brokers, Inc. v.
King, 142 So.2d 273, 275 (Fla. 1962). An unlawful delegation of
legislative authority occurs where "non -legislators" are left with
unbridled discretion to adopt and create policy and make decisions.
Id.
1. Lack of Adequate Criteria
Questions of zoning policy, in which decisions must be made
regarding what is good or bad for the government and public, are
legislative matters which cannot be delegated, absent definite
standards establishing guides for the exercise of discretion. City
of Miami v. Save Brickell Ave., Inc., 426 So.2d 1100, 1103-05 (Fla.
3d DCA 1983). In Save Brickell Ave., the Third District struck as
arbitrary an ordinance by which the City of Miami delegated zoning
power to itself, clearly an appropriate entity; the ordinance was
fatally defective because it set out no criteria but simply
authorized discretionary disregard of existing criteria. (Ibid.)
If the ordinance delegating authority does not include
adequate criteria and the entity to which the authority is
delegated formulated the guidelines itself, then the entity
"becomes the law giver rather than the administrator of the law."
Corona Properties of Florida v. Monroe County, 485 So.2d 1314, 1316
(Fla. 3d DCA 1986). But total absence of any criteria is not the
- 15 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420. MIAMI. FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. (305) 854-0800 • FAX 1305, 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
requisite standard for a finding of unlawful delegation of
legislative authority. Rather, the absence of adequate criteria is
the earmark of an improper delegation. Based on the lack of
adequate criteria, Askew v. Cross Key Waterways, 372 So . 2d 913, 916
(Fla. 1978), invalidated a statute delegating to the Governor and
cabinet acting as the Administration Commission responsibility for
identifying areas of critical state concern. The statute was
invalidated even though it specified the following criteria for
recommending designation of a particular area of critical state
concern:
"(a) An area containing, or having a
significant impact upon, environmental,
historical, natural, or archaeological
resources of regional or statewide importance.
(b) An area significantly affected by, or
having a significant effect upon, an existing
or proposed major public facility or other
area of major public investment."
Id. at 914-15; § 380.05(2), Fla.Stat. (1975).
Contrary to arguments by the County in its motion to dismiss,
the creation of the CPMP does not merely involve the "details" of
development. Olmsted and the Committee have been given the powers
to do far more than to determine "details." They have been given
the irrevocable, unlimited and unregulated freedom to design, plan
and control these unique public lands. The fact that the CPMP will
be developed as a result of litigation is not relevant to the
unlawful delegation claim.
- 16 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. (305) 854-0800 • FAX (305( 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
Finally, the Agreement provides absolutely no legally
sufficient guidelines to the committees. To pass constitutional
muster, standards in a land use ordinance must be fixed "with such
certainty that they not be left to the whim or caprice of the
administrative agency." City of West Palm Beach v. State ex rel.
Duffey, 158 Fla. 863, 30 So.2d 491, 492 (1947) (en banc) (voiding the
portion of a zoning ordinance requiring that "the character and
appearance of existing buildings or structures in said subdivision
shall be considered, but in every new instance the completed
appearance of every new building or structure must substantially
equal that of the adjacent building of structures in said
subdivision in appearance, square foot area and height"). Other
than using the property for "public park purposes" and developing
it in accordance with "generally recognized and accepted public
park standards," Olmsted and the Committee have the unbridled power
to determine how the property should be used. Therefore, without
adequate guidelines, an unlawful delegation of authority has
occurred. Husband v. Cassel, 130 So.2d 69, 71-72 (Fla. 1961); Save
Brickell Ave., 426 So.2d at 1103-05.
2. Delegation to Inappropriate Entity
In addition to providing adequate criteria by which to carry
out the legislative mandate, delegation of land use decision -making
authority must be to an appropriate entity if it is to survive
legal challenge. Even a court established in accordance with
Article V of the Florida Constitution is not an appropriate entity
- 17 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. (305) 854-0800 • FAX (305) 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
to exercise legislative land use authority. In City of Miami Beach
v. Weiss, 217 So.2d 836, 837 (Fla. 1969), the Florida Supreme Court
held that a judicial order mandating the rezoning of a parcel from
single-family to multi -family residential violated the separation
of powers principles of Article II, Section 3, because it would
unlawfully usurp the legislature's ability to consider future
growth, infrastructure, and population density.
Constitutional prohibitions against the unauthorized exercise
of the power to make land use decisions extends not only to zoning
officials, as in Corona Properties, but also, as sub judice, to
private persons. In Eubank v. City of Richmond, 226 U.S. 137, 33
S.Ct. 76, 57 L.Ed. 156 (1912), the Supreme Court invalidated a
state statute and municipal ordinance. The ordinance provided that
establishment of a building line would be controlled by a vote of
the owners of two-thirds of property abutting on any street. Id.,
226 U.S. at 141. In Eubank, the Supreme Court found the delegation
of legislative authority to private property owners offensive to
the due process clause. Id., 226 U.S. at 143-44.
Thus, Eubank rejected as unconstitutional land -use decision -
making by a committee answerable to the owners of two-thirds of
property on an abutting street. In the case at bar, the Committee
constituted under the Agreement likewise does not answer to the
County Commission or the public at large. Because of its
composition alone, the Committee is an inappropriate entity to
which to delegate legislative authority. Where, as here, the
- 18 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL (305) 854-0800 • FAX (305) 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
County has delegated an essentially legislative function to a
committee or series of committees which are neither a governmental
entity nor answerable to the electorate, nor subject to judicial
review, the unlawful delegation of authority to a non -governmental
entity violates Article II, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution.
See Broward County v. La Rosa, 505 So.2d 422, 423-24 (Fla.
1987) (authority to award common law money damages is exclusive
prerogative of judiciary, the delegation of which to non -judges
violates separation of powers doctrine).
II. IMPROPER LAND USE DECISION -MAKING MANDATES INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
In City of Homestead v. Schild, 227 So.2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA
1969), the Third District Court mandated an injunction against the
zoning authority on facts analogous to those at bar. There, the
court invalidated an ordinance which failed to set forth standards
upon which an administrative board could decide the propriety of
granting special use permits. The matter before this Court
remarkably contains not only the same issue of lack of adequate
legislative standards, but also the absence of any public
participation at the final stage of decision -making, both of which
features were understandably condemned by the Third District in
City of Homestead v. Schild, 227 So.2d at 541-42.
Where, as here, a municipality seeks to enforce substantive
legal standards, irreparable harm is presumed. Dade County v.
Dunn, 22 Fla.L.Weekly D1193, D1194 (Fla. 3d DCA May 14, 1997) (where
government seeks an injunction in order to enforce its police
- 19 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL 1305) 854-0800 • FAX 13051854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
power, any alternative legal remedy is ignored and irreparable harm
is presumed); Metropolitan Dade County v. O'Brien, 660 So.2d 364,
365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (same) . Where a governmental entity seeks an
injunction against violation of the state's laws, "the presence of
actual injury is not an essential element." Rich v. Ryals, 212
So.2d 641, 643 (Fla. 1968).
Moreover, actual harm is present and need not be presumed in
the instant case. The Village will be irreparably harmed by the
loss of its use of Calusa Park and portions of Crandon Park as
active recreational facilities for its residents. The Village will
have no avenue of redress for this loss since the final decision as
to the use of Calusa Park will be left to Olmsted and the
"Committees." Injunctive relief is uniquely appropriate where, as
here, the County has unlawfully delegated its constitutional
legislative authority to nongovernmental private individuals. See
City of Coral Gables v. State ex rel. Worley, 44 So.2d 298, 300-01
(Fla. 1950) (zoning authority may be restrained from arbitrary
exercise of lawful powers conferred upon it by legislature since
such powers must be exercised in conformity with constitutional
principles). See also § 86.111, Fla.Stat. (1995) (authorizing
issuance of an injunction in addition to a judicial declaration
where appropriate in order to afford "full and complete equitable
relief").
- 20 -
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL. 13051 854-0800 • FAX 1305, 854-2323
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing argument and authorities, and upon
the record herein, there is no genuine issue of material fact and
the Village is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect
to Count I of the Complaint.
WHEREFORE, the Village prays the Court to grant its motion for
final summary judgment and to enter judgment in its favor herein,
granting the Village: (a) a declaration that the Agreement is
invalid, ab initio, since it constitutes an unlawful delegation by
the County of its legislative, planning and policy -making
functions; (b) a permanent injunction against enforcement of the
Agreement; and (c) such other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
was furnished by mail this 2 day of July, 1997 to JONI ARMSTRONG
COFFEY, ESQ., Assistant County Attorney, Stephen P. Clark Center,
Suite 2810, 111 N.W. 1st St., Miami, FL 33128-1993.
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN
Attorneys for Village
Suite 420
2665 So. Bayshore Dr.
Miami, FL 33133
(305) 854-0800
By
- 21 -
J' S 1•H H. SEROTA
FI A BAR NO. 259111
D IEL A. WEISS
FLA. BAR NO. 326119
WEISS SEROTA & HELFMAN, P.A.
2665 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 420, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 • TEL 1305) 854-0800 • FAX (3051 854-2323
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AGP,EEMENI made this 14th day of January, 1993 among Margaret Matheson
Randolph, Malcolm Matheson, Jr., Julia Matheson Guy, Frank S. Hight, III and Lucy
Matheson Hight (the "Tract 2 Mathesons"), R. Hardy Matheson, Finlay L. Matheson, Bruce
C. Matheson, Mary Meigs Matheson, Catharine M. E. Matheson, Paull Matheson and
Peggy Clute, (the "Tract 1 Mathesons"), Jean Guyton, Anne Knowlton, Sarah Carleton,
Judy Gould, Katharine Preston, Robert Wood, Carol Duell, and Willis Wood (the "Tract 3
Mathesons") (the Tract 1, 2 and 3 Mathesons are sometimes collectively hereinafter
referred to as the "Matheson Family") their heirs and assigns and Metropolitan Dade
County, Florida (the "County"), a political subdivision of the State of Florida (the Matheson
Family and the County are sometimes hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Parties").
WHEREAS, in 1940 the Matheson Family deeded approximately 900 acres of Key
Biscayne, Florida (Tracts 1, 2 and 3) to the County for use as a public park under "public
park purposes only" deed restrictions (such property is more particularly described on
Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Crandon Park lands"), and is now
commonly known as "Crandon Park", and
WHEREAS, the County has constructed a tennis complex in Tract 2 of the Crandon
Park lands, and has now commenced construction of a permanent "professional sports
franchise facility" in Tract 2 of the Crandon Park lands, and
WHEREAS, the Tract 2 Mathesons have challenged the County's actions in
permitting commercial uses, conducting a professional tennis tournament and
constructing a permanent professional sports franchise facility in Tract 2 of the Crandon
Park land as violating the public park purposes only deed restriction on Tract 2 of the
Crandon Park lands, and on various other grounds, in legal actions in the Florida courts,
such actions being styled White v. Metropolitan Dade County, 563 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1990), lower tribunal, Case No. 88-24491 (10) (11th Cir. Dade Cty, Fla.), Dade
County v. Malcolm Matheson Jr. et.al., _ So.2d , 17 Fla. L. Week. D1745 (Fla. 3d DCA),
rehearing en banc denied, _ So.2d _, 17 Fla. L. Week. D2424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992),
remanding tg White jower tribunal for further proceedings, and Matheson v. Florida
Department of Community Affairs, et.al., Case No. 91-2504 (2d Cir. Leon Cty, Fla.),
(collectively the "Litigation"), and
WHEREAS, in order to avoid the necessity of further adjudications in the Litigation
or otherwise on the propriety of the County's use of the Crandon Park lands, including
the propriety of the County's construction of a professional sports franchise facility in
Tract 2 of the Crandon Park lands, the Parties desire to amicably resolve once and for
all time, the appropriate park uses to which the County may put Tracts 1, 2, and 3 of the
Crandon Park lands and the locations of such uses within the Crandon Park lands;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants
hereinafter set forth, the Parties agree as follows:
1. CRANDON PARK MASTER PLAN.
(a) Creation. The Parties agree that a Crandon Park Master Plan shall be
prepared by the professional park planning Olmsted Firm (Artemas Richardson,
Principal), or other mutually agreed firm, depicting all permitted uses of various areas on
the Crandon Park lands, including guidelines and standards for the type, location, size,
color, landscaping and other features of all structures, improvements and recreational and
other facilities to be located in Crandon Park or on the Crandon Park lands. The Olmsted
Firm shall be guided by the principle that the uses and facilities appropriate for the
Crandon Park lands are limited to "public park purposes only" and for no other activities
other than those ancillary activities directly furthering public park purposes, and subject
to that overall limitation, by all generally recognized and accepted public park standards
and criteria. It is the Parties' intention that the Crandon Park Master Plan created
pursuant to this Settlement Agreement, and implemented through the Declaration of
Restrictions hereinafter described, shall determine for all time (subject to amendment as
hereinafter provided) the uses of, and improvements upon, and their location within, the
Crandon Park lands.
(b) Consultation With The Parties; Draft Plan; Final Plan; Amendment In
creating the Crandon Park Master Plan, the Olmsted Firm shall consult with the County,
and its designated Park professionals, and with the Matheson Family, and their
designated representatives. In addition the Olmsted Firm shall consult with the County's
professional tennis tournament operators concerning the use of the "Tennis Center" at
Crandon Park (hereinafter defined and referred to as the 'Tennis Center') for the
operation of the International Players Championship (hereinafter referred to as the
"Tournament"). The Crandon Park Master Plan shall be consistent with all of the terms
of this Settlement Agreement, including those provisions relating to activities to be
permitted upon the Tennis Center. The Olmsted Firm shall submit a draft of the Crandon
Park Master Plan within 150 days after the date hereof to the,Parties, and the County shall
hold a public hearing on, and the Parties may submit comments on, the draft Master Plan
to the Olmsted Firm within 30 days thereafter. The Olmsted Firm shall attend the
County's public hearing, consider the comments of the public at the public hearing and
the comments of the Parties, and complete and deliver the Crandon Park Master Plan
within 210 days after the date hereof. Within 30 days after delivery by the Olmsted Firm
of the Crandon Park Master Plan, either the County or the Matheson Family may object
to any feature of such Final Crandon Park Master Plan, which objection shall be reviewed
and approved, rejected or modified by a Committee on the Formation of the Crandon
Park Master Plan composed as hereinafter provided. Within 5 days after delivery of such
an objection by either the County or the Matheson Family, the County shall appoint two
members, the Matheson Family shall appoint two members, and those appointees shall
2
appoint an independent park professional, all of whom shall act as a Committee on the
Formation of the Crandon Park Master Plan to approve, reject or modify the objection(s)
of either Party, which decision shall take place no later than 60 days after delivery of such
objection(s), and the affirmative vote of at least three of such Committee members shall
be rep_ ired for such action. If the Matheson Family and the County can not agree on an
independent park professional, the Circuit Court judge in the pending Litigation styled
White v. Metropolitan Dade County, 563 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), lower tribunal,
Case No. 88-24491 (10) (11th Cir. Dade Cty, Fla.), shall appoint an independent park
professional to fill such Committee position. The Crandon Park Master Plan, as adjusted
by the Committee on Formation of the Crandon Park Master Plan, shall be implemented
through the County recording a Declaration of Restrictions in the official records of Dade
County, Florida which shall be a covenant running with the land, and through entry of an
amendment to the Final Judgment in the Litigation styled White v. Metropolitan Dade
County, 563 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), lower tribunal, Case No. 88-24491 (10) (11th
Cir. Dade Cty, Fla.), as hereinafter provided. The cost of creation of the Crandon Park
Master Plan, including the professional fees of the Olmsted Firm, shall be borne by the
County. The Crandon Park Master Plan as implemented by the above mentioned
Declaration of Restrictions and Final Judgment, may be amended following adoption only
by the following procedure: (1) the County by affirmative vote of the County Board of
Commissioners shall propose an amendment through action by resolution; (2) the County
shall appoint two persons to a Committee on Amendment of the Crandon Park Master
Plan, and the National Parks and Conservation Association (or a successor non-profit •
park preservation organization mutually agreed upon by the Parties) shall likewise appoint
two members to such Committee on Amendment of the Crandon Park Master Plan. The
Committee shall consider the proposed amendment to the Crandon Park Master Plan and
an affirmative vote of no less than three members of such Committee shall be required
to amend the Crandon Park Master Plan, which amendment shall be incorporated by the
County in an amendment to the Declaration of Restrictions implementing the Crandon
Park Master Plan. Should a proposed amendment to the Crandon Park Master Plan fail
to receive an affirmative vote of at least three members of such Committee on the
Amendment of the Crandon Park Master Plan, the proposed amendment shall fail and
the Crandon Park Master Plan shall be enforced as previously in force.
Following the adoption of the Crandon Park Master Plan, the County shall expend
no less than $250,000 per annum for the next four years thereafter in furtherance and
implementation of the provisions of the Crandon Park Master Plan.
(c) Stadium; Criteria for Visibility, Configuration and Use; Prohibitions.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties agree to jointly direct the Olmsted Firm to
include in the Crandon Park Master Plan a tennis stadium with the following limitations
and restrictions in the Tennis Center located on Tract 2 of the Crandon Park lands. The
County may promptly resume construction of and may complete a tennis stadium and
related facilities on the Tennis Center and may authorize use of such stadium and facilities
3
for a professional tennis tournament of the type and nature heretofore conducted thereon,
subject however, to the restrictions contained herein.
(i)
Name of Stadium. The stadium to be located within the Crandon
park lands shall not be named, or if named such name shall be
. derived from the name of flora or fauna native to Crandon Park
lands.
(ii) Criteria for Visibility; Height Limitations. The Crandon Park
Master Plan and the Declaration of Restrictions implementing such
Master Plan shall require that no permanent portion of the stadium
structure (including elevator shafts, railings, lighting devices, etc.)
shall be visible by a pedestrian from any location on Crandon
Boulevard or on the beach areas of the Crandon Park lands
bordering on the Atlantic Ocean or on any area on the Crandon Park
lands in between, from a point where Crandon Park Boulevard
becomes a divided highway on the north to the southerly most point
of the Tennis Center lands along the line of Crandon Boulevard. In
addition, no portion of the stadium or related facilities shall be visible
by vehicles or pedestrian traffic traveling north on Crandon
Boulevard from the southern boundary of the Crandon Park lands to
a point on Crandon Boulevard directly east of the northern boundary •
of the Tennis Center. The entire permanent stadium structure and
its associated facilities shall be screened by berms, terraces, and
heavily landscaped with native flora so as to block completely any
view of the stadium or its associated facilities as provided above. No
permanent portion of the stadium structure (excluding elevator
shafts, lighting devices, etc.) shall exceed 37 feet 6 inches in height,
and all lifting rails, safety rails, and collapsible lighting devices shall
not exceed 4 additional feet in height and shall not be visible from
the areas on the Crandon Park lands as described above.
(iii) Deadline for Visual Screening of Stadium. The County obligation
with regard to visibility of the stadium and its associated facilities
shall be as provided above and shall be fully in place by no later
than January 1, 1994. In the first week of January 1994 the Olmsted
Firm shall review all applicable sight lines. Should any portion of the
permanent stadium or its associated structures be visible from such
locations, the Olmsted firm shall notify the County with specificity as
to the areas requiring landscape adjustment to block such views.
The County shall then have 30 days within which to make
appropriate adjustments to the satisfaction of the Olmsted Firm.
Should any portion of the permanent stadium remain visible from the
4
above mentioned areas on the Crandon Park lands following the 30
day County cure period, then in that event, the Visibility Contingency
Fund (as hereinafter defined) shall be used to forthwith make all
necessary landscape adjustments to preclude visibility of the
..permanent stadium and its associated structures as provided herein.
(iv) Visibility Contingency Fund. The County shall deposit all revenues
received from or relating to the 1993 Tournament (as herein defined)
in an amount of no less than $500,000. in an escrow fund with the
Dade Foundation, a non-profit organization, or other mutually agreed
upon entity or person (the "Visibility Fund Escrow Agent"). This
Visibility Contingency Fund shall be held in an interest bearing
account and the deposit and any interest earned thereon shall be
used to pay for landscaping adjustments to make the permanent
stadium and associated facilities invisible from the portions of the
Crandon Park lands as provided herein. The Visibility Fund Escrow
Agent shall make disbursements from the Visibility Contingency Fund
upon application from landscaping contractors engaged by the
Visibility Fund Escrow Agent to make any and all adjustments in
landscaping directed by the Olmsted Firm. Upon certification by the
Olmsted Firm that the visibility criteria specified herein have been
achieved, the Visibility Fund Escrow Agent shall remit any balancerof '
such Visibility Contingency Fund, together with any interest earned
thereon, to the County.
(v) Use of Stadium Spaces. Subject to special provisions for the
United States Tennis Association provide below, the Crandon Park
Master Plan and the Declaration of Restrictions implementing such
Master Plan shall prohibit permanent or year around commercial or
any out of park activities from being conducted within the spaces
under or associated with the stadium, and there shall be no
commercial, or retail sales, operations of any kind permitted in, under
or immediately surrounding the stadium, except (1) during the
Tournament Period and tournament ticket sales during a period from
August 1 through the completion of the Tournament Period, and (2)
during other permitted tennis events under subsection 1(d) hereof.
the County may locate one year around office in the spaces within
the stadium with no more than 1,000 square feet and
accommodating no more than 10 County employees. The County
shall use its best efforts to remove the present Crandon Park
administration building located on the Crandon Park lands and
restore such area as may be specified in the Crandon Park Master
Plan. The stadium court and seating shall be used for tennis only,
and for no other purposes. Except during the Tournament
Preparation Period, the Tournament Period and the Site Restoration
Period (as hereinafter defined), and tournament ticket sales during
a period from August 1 through the completion of the Tournament
Period in the area of the stadium designated for such function on the
.Plans created by Swanke, Hayden, Connell Architects, Court Level
. Plans, prepared June 5, 1991, no Tournament personnel or
volunteers shall be allowed into the stadium facility, provided that
such Tournament personnel may use the area on the Plans created
by Swanke, Hayden, Connell Architects, Court Level Plans, prepared
June 5, 1991, offices numbered 1108-1117) from January 1 through
the end of the Site Restoration Period each year for Tournament
operations.
(vi) United State Tennis Association Use of the Stadium and Tennis
Center. The United States Tennis Association (the "USTA") shall be
permitted to use areas within the permanent stadium only as
depicted in Architectural Sheet A-2.0 of the Stadium Plans dated
October 1, 1991. The USTA shall open the stadium sport science
and weight training areas therein depicted to all members of the
public accompanied by tennis coaches and shall design appropriate
weight training and sports science programs for such uses. The
USTA shall also conduct a youth tennis educational program of no
less than 10 hours per month for Dade County tennis youth
programs. The use by the USTA of the courts and facilities of the
Tennis Center other than the stadium shall be limited to a schedule
to be unanimously agreed upon by the four members of the group
designated for modification of this Settlement Agreement as provided
in Section 9 hereof.
(vii) No Advertising on Stadium. Except during the Tournament Period
the Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration of Restrictions
implementing such Master Plan shall prohibit visible graphic panels,
banners, signs, billboards or similar devices located on the outside
of the stadium depicting or promoting any commercial activity of any
subject, advertising or promotion, either expressed or implied.
(d) Tennis Center Limitations. The Crandon Park Master Plan shall designate
a portion of the Crandon Park lands more particularly described as Exhibit B attached
hereto and made a part hereof, as the 'Tennis Center" at Crandon Park. The following
limitations and prohibitions shall be contained in the Crandon Park Master Plan and in the
Declaration of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan relating to the Tennis Center.
Other than professional tennis events which in the aggregate do not exceed 20 days per
annum for all preparation, operations and restoration activities, the Tournament shall be
the only professional tennis event conducted or permitted in the stadium on the Tennis
6
Center site. During such additional events all Tournament rules and provisions contained
herein shall apply to such event(s).
(i)
Limitation on Temporary Tennis Court Seating. Once the
_permanent tennis stadium is constructed on the Tennis Center, there
. shall be no temporary seating or stadia located on the Tennis
Center, except there may be as many as 8,000 bleacher seats on
courts 1 and 2 in the aggregate, and as many as 500 bleacher seats
on each other individual court. The Tournament organizers may
reallocate these temporary seats among these courts in their
discretion. All temporary seats and bleachers shall be removed each
year by the end of the Site Restoration Period (as hereinafter
defined).
(ii) No New Permanent Structures on the Tennis Center; Removal of
Temporary Structures and Vehicles. Except as provided above
with respect to the permanent tennis stadium, the Tennis Center shall
include only such permanent structures as are presently located on
the Tennis Center. No temporary facilities, vehicles, mobil homes,
trailers or similar temporary facilities shall be placed on the Tennis
Center prior to the commencement of the Tournament Preparation
Period (as hereinafter defined), and all temporary structures, •
vehicles, mobile homes, trailers and similar temporary facilities shall
be removed from the Tennis Center by the end of the Site
Restoration Period (as hereinafter defined).
(iii) Tennis Only. The Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration of
Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall limit uses of and on
the Tennis Center to tennis only within the Tennis Center or stadium
except (1) during the Toumament Period and tournament ticket sales
during a period from August 1 through to the completion of the
Tournament Period, or (2) incidental Clubhouse concession activities.
(iv) No Exclusive Use; Public Access. Except during the Tournament
Period and subject to the special provisions relating to the USTA in
subsection 1(c) (vi) hereof, the Crandon Park Master Plan and the
beclaration of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall
prohibit exclusive use of any of the Tennis Center facilities by any
person, group, association or entity, and shall provide that the public
shall have full access to all Tennis Center facilities. Except during
the Tournament Period the County shall remove the International
Players Championship logos from the Tennis Center entrance
signage, substitute the designation "Tennis Center at Crandon Park"
and add the following language in lettering of no less than 10 inches
7
in height: "THIS IS A PUBLIC TENNIS FACILITY'. Such signage
shall be installed before the 1993 Tournament Period (as hereinafter
defined).
(v) _Removal of Trash Station. By no later that 90 days after the
effective date of this Agreement, the County shall remove the trash
station located on the Crandon Park lands and also restore and
remediate the trash station area to native flora.
(vi) No Tennis Center Advertising. Except during the Tournament
Period (as hereinafter defined), the Crandon Park Master Plan and
the Declaration of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall
prohibit any visible advertising on the Tennis Center site or clock
tower, including but not limited to logos, banners or similar
temporary devices for advertising or promotion of any product or
service, either express or implied.
(v) Limitation on Lighting. The Crandon Park Master Plan and the
Declaration of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall
require that except during the Tournament Period (as hereinafter
defined), the County shall reduce the height of all lighting devices
located on the Tennis Center to no more than 25 feet, which shall be
accomplished as rapidly as reasonably feasible, but in no event shall
such reduction of lighting height take more than 5 years after the
date hereof.
(vi) Clubhouse. Except as provided during the Tournament Period the
Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration of Restrictions
implementing such Master Plan shall limit the Clubhouse located
within the Tennis Center to its present size and functions.
(e) Tournament Limitations. The Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration
of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall contain the following limitations
concerning the operation and conduct of the Tournament on the Crandon Park lands.
•
(1)
No Interference With Public Access. Beginning on January 1,
1994 the Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration of
Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall require that all
members of the public shall be permitted to use not less than 75%
of all courts at or on the Tennis Center throughout the "Tournament
Preparation Period" and up to the day before the commencement of
the "Tournament Period" (as those terms are hereinafter defined)
8
without disruption or interference by the Tournament sponsors,
operators or the County.
(ii) Installation and Removal of Temporary Seating. Except as may
be otherwise expressly provided herein, the Crandon Park Master
. Plan and the Declaration of Restrictions implementing such Master
Plan shall provide that all temporary seating associated with the
Tournament shall be installed no more than 30 days prior to
commencement of the Tournament Period and removed by no later
than 30 days following the end of the Tournament Period, as defined
in the Tournament Agreement.
(iii) Tournament Dates. The Crandon Park Master Plan and the
Declaration of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall
define the Tournament dates on the Crandon Park lands as follows;
(1) The Tournament dates shall be selected by the County within
the months of January, February, or March of each year.
(2) Tournament Preparation Period shall commence 45 days prior
to the commencement of the Tournament Period.
(3) The Tournament Period shall be no more than 21 days in
length (including rain dates).
(4) The Site Restoration Period shall be complete by no more
than 30 days following the last day of the Tournament.
(iv) Public Parking. The Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration
of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall prohibit
Tournament use of at least 1,000 paved parking spaces by
Tournament employees, guests, volunteers or patrons, and no
Tournament employees, guests, volunteers or patrons shall be
permitted to park on any unpaved areas on the Crandon Park lands.
(f) Limitations and Prohibitions on the Crandon Park Lands. In addition to the
foregoing prohibition% and limitations on the uses and structures and improvements to
be located within the Tennis Center, the following restrictions and prohibitions shall be
included in the Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration of Restrictions
implementing such Master Plan for the entire Crandon Park lands.
(i) Sundays. The Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration of
Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall limit the restaurant
and facilities now known as "Sundays By The Bay" to its present size
9
and use until the present lease between the County and the
Sundays' operator expires, at which time such area shall be subject
to the provisions of the Crandon Park Master Plan determined as
provided herein.
(ii) , Dive Shop. The Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration of
Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall limit the dive shop
facilities now located on the Crandon Park lands to its present size
and location until the present lease between the County and the dive
shop operator expires, at which time such area shall be subject to
the provisions of the Crandon Park Master Plan determined as
provided herein.
(iii) Marina and Charter Boats. The Crandon Park Master Plan and the
Declaration of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall limit
the marina facilities and charter boat operations now located on and
conducted from the Crandon Park lands to their present size and
location.
(iv) Park Slgnage; No Advertising. The Crandon Park Master Plan and
the Declaration of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall
require that all Crandon Park signage be redesigned for uniform
styling and content in order that the public may be able to determine
that all Crandon Park facilities are within Crandon Park and available
for public access, including all portions and facilities located on the
Tennis Center. Except during the Tournament Period and
Tournament ticket sales within the stadium only during a period from
August 1 through to completion of the ,Tournament Period, the
Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration of Restrictions
implementing such Master Plan shall further prohibit any advertising
or promotion of any product, service or organization on or within the
Crandon Park lands, including but not limited to advertising
associated with graphic panels, signs, billboards, bus benches, bus
shelters, banners, balloons, temporary graphic displays or similar
devices.
(v) Golf Course Clubhouse. The Crandon Park Master Plan and the
Declaration of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall limit
the Golf Course Clubhouse and other structures associated with the
present golf course located on the Crandon Park lands to such
Clubhouse and structures' present sizes and locations, and shall
contain a use limitation precluding nightclub type facilities, functions
or operations within or associated with such Clubhouse or
structures.
10
(vi) Nature Center. The Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration
of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall limit the nature
center now located on the Crandon Park lands to no more than 3
times the present square footage of such nature center, and any
design for improvement of the present nature center shall conform
to the design, height and other limitations and criteria contained in
the Crandon Park Master Plan.
(vii) No Gambling. The Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration
of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall preclude
gambling or wagering on or within the Crandon Park lands.
(viii) No Overnight Accommodations. The Crandon Park Master Plan
and the Declaration of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan
shall prohibit overnight accommodations on the Crandon Park lands,
except for the existing Crandon Park caretaker facilities.
(g) Declaration of Restrictions; Enforcement By Any Person; Costs of
Enforcement. The Declaration of Restrictions to be recorded in the public records by
the County implementing the Crandon Park Master Plan to be created as provided herein,
shall be a covenant running with the land, shall bind all parties having any right, title or •
interest in the Crandon Park lands, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure
to the benefit of and be enforceable by any citizen of Dade County, Florida in the same
manner and under the same terms and conditions as enforcement of Section 16(C) of
the Metropolitan Dade County Citizens Bill of Rights effective as of the date of this
Settlement Agreement, including specifically the recovery of attorneys' fees and costs
against the County for enforcement of such Declaration.
(h) Future Operation Of Crandon Park. From and after the date of this
Settlement Agreement, the County agrees that it shall maintain and operate the Crandon
Park lands in accordance with the Crandon Park Master Plan to be created as provided
hereunder and the Declaration of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan, and the
Parties agree that no structure, building, improvement or other facility, whether temporary
or permanent, shall be located or constructed on the Crandon Park lands, unless
expressly depicted in the Crandon Park Master Plan, created pursuant to this Settlement
Agreement.
2. FINAL JUDGMENT; SETTLEMENT OF UTIGATION.
Upon recording of the Declaration of Restrictions by the County implementing the
Crandon Park Master Plan created as provided herein, the Tract 2 Mathesons and the
11
County shall jointly seek the entry by the Court in that certain litigation styled White v.
Metropolitan Dade County, 563 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), lower tribunal, Case No.
88-24491 (10) (11th Cir. Dade Cty, Fla.) on remand from Dade County v. Malcolm
Matheson Jr. et.al., So.2d _, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1745 (Fla. 3d DCA), rehearing en banc
denied, So.2d 17 Fla. L. Week. D2424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), of a Final Judgment
adopting the provisions of this Settlement Agreement and ordering and directing the
Parties to comply with such provisions as an amendment to the Final Judgment of the
Court. Upon recording of the Declaration of Restrictions by the County implementing the
Crandon Park Master Plan created as provided herein, and entry by the Court of the
above referenced amendment to the Final Judgment, the Tract 2 Mathesons shall also
dismiss that certain litigation styled Matheson v. Florida Department of Community Affairs,
et.al., Case No. 91-2504 (2d Cir. Leon Cty, Fla.), and shall withdraw a pending
Emergency Motion for Supplemental and Additional Relief and To Amend Final Judgment
in that litigation styled White v. Metropolitan Dade County, 563 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA
1990), lower tribunal, Case No. 88-24491 (10) (11th Cir. Dade Cty, Fia.) on remand from
Dade County v. Malcolm Matheson Jr. et.al., _ So.2d _, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1745 (Fla.
3d DCA), rehearing en banc denied, So.2d _, 17 Fia. L. Week. D2424 (Fla. 3d DCA
1992).
3. NOTICES. Whenever any notice, delivery of documents or other
communication is required to be given or delivered pursuant to this Agreement, such
notice shall be given in writing, and shall be deemed to have been given when delivered .
in person (including by express delivery service) or two days after mailed, postage
prepaid by certified mail, return receipt requested, and mailed to the addresses as
follows:
If to the Matheson Family:
Bruce C. Matheson
4940 Sunset Drive
Miami, Florida 33143
Copy to:
If to
Dade County:
Frank Burt
Jorden Schulte & Burchette
701 Brickell Avenue
22nd Floor
Miami, Florida 33131-2861
Joaquin Avino, County Manager
MetroDade Center
111 N.W. First Street
Miami, Florida 33128-1993
12
Copy to:
Robert Ginsburg, County Attorney
Suite 2810
111 MetroDade Center
Miami, Florida 33128-1993
or, as to each party, at such other address as shall be designated by such party in a
written notice to each other party complying as to delivery with the terms of this Section.
4. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in
accordance with, the laws of the State of Florida.
5. EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any
number of counterparts and by different parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of
which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and each of which shall
constitute but one and the same agreement.
6. DEPENDENT COVENANTS. M provisions of this Settlement Agreement, and
the performance of each of the parties hereunder, are expressly dependent upon the
other provisions of this Agreement and the performance of the other party. An uncured'
breach by a party to this Agreement shall relieve the other party from that other party's
duties of performance hereunder.
7. NO ASSIGNMENT. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of parties and their respective successors and assigns, provided,
however, that neither party shall have the right to assign its rights hereunder or any
interest herein.
8. NO WAIVER; CUMULATIVE REMEDIES. No failure or delay on the part of
either party hereto in exercising any right, power or remedy hereunder shall operate as
a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any such right, power or
remedy preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right,
power or remedy hereunder. The remedies provided herein are cumulative as provided
herein and not exclusive of any remedies provided by law.
9. MODIFICATION. No modification or waiver of any provision of this Settlement
Agreement nor consent to any departure therefrom, shall in any event be effective unless
the same shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith and then
such modification, waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and
for the specific purpose for which given; provided however, implementory and minor
amendments to this Settlement Agreement may be made by the unanimous written
agreement of the County Manager, the County Attorney, Frank Burt and Bruce C.
13
Matheson without referral to the Parties for ratification, adoption or approval by execution
of the Parties.
10. HEADINGS. Headings in this Agreement are included herein for convenience
of reference only and shall not constitute a part of this Settlement Agreement for any
other purpose.
11. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Settlement Agreement and all of the documents
referred to therein, represent the entire agreement between the parties concerning the
subject matter hereof.
12. ATTORNEYS' FEES. Should any party hereto institute any action or
proceeding in court or otherwise to enforce any provision hereof or for damages by
reason of an alleged breach of any provision of this Settlement Agreement, the prevailing
party shall be entitled to receive from the non -prevailing party such amount as the court
may judge to be reasonable attorney's fees for the services rendered to the prevailing
party in such action or proceeding, plus the prevailing party's costs and expenses
therein, regardless of whether such action or proceeding is prosecuted to judgment.
13. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROTOCOL The Parties and their counsel agree
to cooperate in good faith in implementing this Agreement and in the preparation and
execution of the Crandon Park Master Plan, the Declaration of Restrictions and Entry of
Final Judgment provided for herein, to consult in areas of difference, and to mediate
those areas of disagreement so as not to frustrate the intent and purposes of this
agreement. In the event that the Parties disagree as to implementation of any provision
of this Agreement, neither Party will commence any litigation without first submitting the
dispute to mediation for a minimum of a 30 day period.
14
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Settlement
Agreement to be executed by appropriate officials and individuals as of the date and year
first above written. -
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
;r, •,...... 1
F's co M Mi, •.. a
�::k pAOE s'
•2 Zi
M couwrr rn
a?,
I.
� i
.
4
BY: 5 /�ll�r-�
Joaquin Avino, County Manager
y
let* of the Board
11/
'Aargaret Matheson Randolph
Malcolm Matheson, Jr.
Julia Matheson Guy
Frank S. Hight, Ill
Lucy Matheson Hight
Jean Guyton
15
Anne Knowlton
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Settlement
Agreement to be executed by appropriate officials and individuals as of the date and year
first above written.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY:
Joaquin Avino, County Manager
By:
Clerk of the Board
Margaret Matheson Randolph
r--' -;/,�' Y---'
Malcolm Matheson, Jr.
Julia Matheson Guy
Frank S. Hight, III
Lucy Matheson Hight
Jean Guyton
Anne Knowlton
15
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Settlement
Agreement to be executed by appropriate officials and individuals as of the date and year
first above written.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY:
Joaquin Avino, County Manager
By:
Clerk of the Board
Margaret Matheson Randolph
Malcolm Matheson, Jr.
c",6,_, Ll�l1 l fl E._] c tcc- c, L- f
Julia Matheson Guy �I
Frank S. Hight, III
Lucy Matheson Hight
Jean Guyton
Anne Knowlton
15
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Settlement
Agreement to be executed by appropriate officials and individuals as of the date and year
first above written.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY:
Joaquin Avino, County Manager
By:
Clerk of the Board
Margaret Matheson Randolph
Malcolm Matheson, Jr.
Jul' Matheson G
Frank S. H III
Lucy Matheson Hight
Jean Guyton
Anne Knowlton
15
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Settlement
Agreement to be executed by appropriate officials and individuals as of the date and year
first above written.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY:
Joaquin Avino, County Manager
By:
Clerk of the Board
Margaret Matheson Randolph
Malcolm Matheson, Jr.
Julia Matheson Guy
Frank S. Hight, III
/'
?*j//:64(-63-,
. -.41-4-7ucy Matheson Hight
Jean Guyton
Anne Knowlton
15
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Settlement
Agreement to be executed by appropriate officials and individuals as of the date and year
first above written.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY:
Joaquin Avino, County Manager
By:
Clerk of the Board
Margaret Matheson Randolph
Malcolm Matheson, Jr.
Julia Matheson Guy
Frank S. Hight, 111
Luffy Matheson Hight
\.,..1)4/iii 1,44.. If:vi.
an Guyton
Anne Knowlton
15
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Settlement
Agreement to be executed by appropriate officials and individuals as of the date and year
first above written.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY:
Joaquin Avino, County Manager
By:
Clerk of the Board
Margaret Matheson Randolph
Malcolm Matheson, Jr.
Julia Matheson Guy
Frank S. Hight, III
Lucy Matheson Hight
Jean Guyton
C IL ,, re- t.5, 4 ..-e to ,
Anne Knowlton
1S
.4,1:x.' 4 8,-4_ Z ----
Sarah Carleton
Judy Gould
Katharine Preston
Robert Wood
Carol DueII
Willis Wood
R. Hardy Matheson
Finlay L. Matheson
Bruce C. Matheson
Mary Meigs Matheson
Catharine M.E. Matheson
Paull Matheson
Peggy Clute
16
Sarah Carleton
, dii 6 Aid
ould
Katharine Preston
Robert Wood
Carol Duell
Willis Wood
R. Hardy Matheson
Finlay L Matheson
Bruce C. Matheson
Mary Meigs Matheson
Catharine M.E. Matheson
Paull Matheson
Peggy Clute
16
Sarah Carleton
Judy Gould
2,4;
Katharine Preston
Robert Wood
Carol Duell
Willis Wood
R. Hardy Matheson
Finlay L Matheson
Bruce C. Matheson
Mary Meigs Matheson
Catharine M.E. Matheson
Paull Matheson
Peggy Clute
16
Sarah Carleton
Judy Gould
/ tharine Preston h..... it r ivi - Lbncie,. .
Robert Wood
Carol DueII
Willis Wood
R. Hardy Matheson
Finlay L Matheson
Bruce C. Matheson
Mary Meigs Matheson
Catharine M.E. Matheson
Paull Matheson
Peggy Clute
16
Sarah Carleton
Judy Gould
Katharine Preston
Robert Wood ll
4 J
Carol Duell
Willis Wood
R. Hardy Matheson
Finlay L Matheson
Bruce C. Matheson
Mary Meigs Matheson
Catharine X111. E. Matheson
Paull Matheson
Peggy Clute
16
Sarah Carleton
Judy Gould
Katharine Preston
Robert Wood
R. Hardy Matheson
Finlay L Matheson
Bruce C. Matheson
Mary Meigs Matheson
Catharine M.E. Matheson
Paull Matheson
Peggy Clute
16
Sarah Carleton
Judy Gould
Katharine Preston
Robert Wood
Carol DueII
Willis Wood
eson -
Finlay L Matheson
Bruce C. Matheson
• Mary Meigs Matheson
Catharine M.E. Matheson
Paull Matheson
Peggy Clute
16
Sarah Carleton
Judy Gould
Katharine Preston
Robert Wood
Carol Duell
Willis Wood
Matheson
7 2/4Z7-„ ,
y L Matheson
Bruce C. Matheson
Mary Meigs Matheson
Catharine M.E. Matheson
Paull Matheson
Peggy Clute
16
Sarah Carleton
Judy Gould
Katharine Preston
Robert Wood
Carol DueII
Willis Wood
R. Hardy Matheson
Finlay L Mathesoniti,e47
/ '€- e7
Bruce C. Matheson
Mary Meigs Matheson
Catharine M.E. Matheson
Paull Matheson
Peggy Clute
16
Sarah Carleton
Judy Gould
Katharine Preston
Robert Wood
Carol Duell
Willis Wood
R. Hardy Matheson
Finlay L. Matheson
Bruce C. Matheson
Mary keigs Matheson
Catharine M.E. Matheson
Paull Matheson
Peggy Clute
16
Sarah Carleton
Judy Gould
Katharine Preston
Robert Wood
Carol DueII
Willis Wood
R. Hardy Matheson
Finlay L Matheson
Bruce C. Matheson
Mary Meigs Matheson
.,J.=).,014LLI,Itti 2)
Catharine M.E. ath
Paull Matheson
Peggy Clute
16
Sarah Carleton
Judy Gould
Katharine Preston
Robert Wood
Carol DueII
Willis Wood
R. Hardy Matheson
Finlay L Matheson
Bruce C. Matheson
Mary Meigs Matheson
Catharine N.E. Matheson
,,,Ic_ bt ),._
Paull Matheson
Peggy Clute
16
Sarah Carleton
Judy Gould
Katharine Preston
Robert Wood
Carol Duel!
Willis Wood
R. Hardy Matheson
Finlay L Matheson
Bruce C. Matheson
Mary Meigs Matheson
Catharine M.E. Matheson
Paull Matheson
Z i
Pe i cute
16
EXHIBIT A
Tracts 1, 2, and 3 of MATHESON ESTATE, according to the
Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 34 at page 34, of the
• Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
17
EXHIBIT B
TENNIS CENTER AT CRANDON PARK
GOLF COURSE
—BOUNDARY LINE
77
TENNIS CENTER
32 ACRES +
a
1.4
a.,
arr r,•a,-
a, . y. S
t •
•
ray 7' 7a-
.'' as
r.
UNDEVELOPED AREA
Y
r
STADIUM
. =
ti
$
SCALE: 1"=3001+
PAGE2of2
WHITE v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY Fla. 117
Cite u 563 Sold 117 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1990)
thereafter within 30 days, attorney could
not recover.
Marc L. Goldman and Carlos Lidsky, Hia-
leah, for appellant.
Lockett & Blair and Jerri A. Blair, Ta-
vares, and Matt Hellman, Plantation, for
appellee.
Before NESBITT, LEVY and
GERSTEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court order denying
relief in a declaratory suit seeking attor-
ney's fees based on an alleged wrongful
withholding of benefits under an automo-
bile insurance policy.
At the time the complaint was filed,
there were no unpaid medical bills pending
and the carrier had asked for follow-up
information and any additional medical
bills. When subsequent medical bills ac-
crued and the aggregate exceeded the in-
sured's $2,000 deductible, the carrier set-
tled all claims submitted within thirty days.
Consequently, until such time as benefits
were wrongfully withheld, the insured's at-
torney was in no better position than the
insured himself to claim a denial of cover-
age and the right to any applicable attor-
ney's fees. See Government Employees
Ins. Co. v. Battaglia, 503 So.2d 358 (Fla.
5th DCA 1987); Great Southwest Fire Ins.
Co. v. DeWitt, 458 So.2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA
1984).
Affirmed.
Helen WHITE, Dwight Hewett, Rafael
Conte, Raul Llorente, Karen Llorente,
Ignacio Tamayo, Owen Zayas Bazan,
Dr. Eric Softley, Helmut Bracke, Helen
Lancaster, Eugenio Albarran, George
O'Brien, Enrique Audrain, Elsa Au -
drain, Louis Garisto, Juan Camacho,
Vivian Camacho, Dr. Daniel Mandri,
Monica Mandri, Jeronimo Paseiro, Dr.
Claudina Mojer, Esteban Ferrer, Susan
Ferrer, Helen Walker, Jeannie Fields
Dubow, Martine A. Glasgall, Dr. Alonzo
Portuondo, Madeline Portuondo, B.J.
Grady, Toolie Millard, Laura Chamblis,
Margaret O'Keefe, Marion Murphy,
Henrietta Labarrere, Barbara Casper,
Patricia Ryan, Dr. Alfredo Crucet, De-
lia Crucet, Ann Schubert, Carolyn
Fowler, Alonzo Portuondo, Connie
Portuondo, Christina Conte, George
Fox, Maria Costa, Arnold McDonald,
Graciela McDonald, Ernie Cambo, Dick
Hodges, Thomas Roussel, Barbara
Wheelock, J.J. Donoghue, Anne Dono-
ghue, Dr. Eduardo Delgado, Richard
O'Connell, Paul Crick, Anne Crick,
Walter Sommer, Charles Austin, Tuck
Austin, Devere Curtis, Muriel Curtis,
Elena Cora, Miguel Bacallao, Rosario
Bacallao, Robert Charbonneau, Renan
Moreira, Margaret Matheson Randolph,
and Malcolm Matheson, Jr., Appellants,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE
COUNTY, Appellee.
No. 88-2450.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Third District.
May 22, 1990.
Heirs of deed grantors, and residents
of county, brought action seeking to enjoin
county's construction of tennis center as
violative of deed, violative of county's com-
prehensive development master plan, and
failing to conform to requirements of State
law with respect to review of developments
of regional impact. The Circuit Court for
Dade County, Sidney Shapiro, J., entered
final judgment denying injunctive and de-
claratory relief from development of the
tennis center or the holding of tennis tour-
nament. Heirs and residents appealed.
The District Court of Appeal, Gersten, J.,
held that: (1) residents did not have stand-
ing to bring challenge to county's construe-
110 i 'a.
eiu. 111L1‘11 ili' r 111Ali, GU .71ii11L.0
tion of tennis complex or holding of tennis
tournament; (2) holding of tennis tourna-
ment violated deed restriction of "for pub-
lic park purposes only"; (3) county's con-
struction of tennis complex was in violation
of Local Government Comprehensive Plan
and Land Development Regulation Act;
and (4) development of tennis complex was
subject to development of regional impact
review.
Reversed and remanded with instruc-
tions.
Nesbitt, J., dissented and issued an
opinion.
1. Covenants X77
In order to enforce a deed restriction,
party seeking to enforce the restriction
must show that it sustained an injury that
was greater in degree than that sustained
by the general public, or that the restric-
tion in the deed was intended for the par-
ty's benefit.
2. Covenants X79(3)
Heirs of original grantors had stand-
ing to enforce deed restriction, where the
deed transferred land to a county and in-
cluded the provision that in the event the
stated purpose was thwarted, "the said
[grantor], his heirs, grantees, or assigns"
were entitled to have lands reconveyed.
3. Covenants X77
Residents of county lacked standing to
enforce restriction in deed of property to
county "for public park purposes only;" the
residents failed to show that they sustained
an injury greater in degree from that sus-
tained by the general public or that the
deed restriction was intended for their ben-
efit.
4. Covenants X103(1)
County's construction of a tennis com-
plex on property deeded to it for "public
park purposes only" did not violate the
deed restriction.
5. Covenants ''103(1)
County's act in turning over tennis
complex to commercial operator did not
violate restriction in deed of using property
for "public park purposes only"; commer-
cial benefit does not defeat a park purpose.
6. Covenants X103(1)
County's operation of tennis tourna-
ment on tennis complex violated deed re-
striction of "for public park purposes
only"; the tournament deprived the public
of the use and enjoyment of the park and
tennis facilities for a period of three to four
weeks, the tournament operator had the
right to exclude the public for as long as
five months, and operation of the tourna-
ment amounted to virtual ouster of public
from the park.
7. Dedication 064, 65
County was enjoined from permitting
tennis tournament to proceed in violation of
deed restriction, but property did not revert
to heirs of grantors; grantors had deeded
land to county for "public park purposes
only," tennis tournament violated restric-
tion by infringing public access to park, but
county was not prevented from using ten-
nis complex for tennis tournaments, rather
county was required to insure that public
access to the park was not infringed during
any tournament. West's F.S.A. § 86.021.
8. Declaratory Judgment €183
Declaratory judgment statute gives
courts jurisdiction to declare rights of par-
ties when there is a dispute over the inter-
pretation of a deed. West's F.S.A.
§ 86.021.
9. Zoning and Planning X764
Heirs of grantors of property to coun-
ty had standing to pursue a master plan
challenge under the Comprehensive Plan-
ning and Land Development Regulation
Act to county's building of tennis complex;
language in the deed provided for the
grantor, his heirs, grantees or assigns to
have property reconveyed to them if deed
purpose was thwarted. West's F.S.A.
§§ 163.3161-163.3215.
10. Deeds X170
Grantors created a "reversionary fu-
ture estate" in land by including language
in deed providing for the grantor, his heirs,
grantees, or assigns to have property re-
p
1
s
c
c
WHITE v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY Fla. 119
Cite u 563 Sold 117 (FIa.App. 3 Dist. 1990)
conveyed to them in the event the stated that the complex conformed strictly to the
purpose was thwarted. CDMP, or that complex complied with envi-
ronmentally sensitive zones, as prescribed
in master plan, in that the construction of
parking lots, access roads, tennis courts,
and a club house for the complex could not
be justified. West's F.S.A. §§ 163.3161-
163.3215.
11. Zoning and Planning 4'764
Residents of county did not have
standing to challenge county's construction
of tennis complex on land which had been
granted to county under deed as violative
of Local Government Comprehensive Plan-
ning and Land Development Regulation
Act; there was no testimony that the resi-
dents were directly or adversely affected
by the county's action, and the residents
did not show that they had a legally recog-
nizable interest in the property. West's
F.S.A. §§ 163.3161-163.3215.
12. Zoning and Planning 4=+662
Heirs' of property grantors claim un-
der Local Government Comprehensive
Planning and Land Development Regula-
tion Act which challenged county's con-
struction of tennis complex on property
which had been granted to it, was not
precluded for failure to exhaust administra-
tive remedies, even though county held a
public hearing and the heirs failed to raise
an objection at the hearing; at time county
held public hearing, county had already
ripped out area necessary to construct the
tennis complex, county had installed tennis
courts and parking lots, and a tennis tour-
nament had already been held, thus a sig-
nificant portion of damage had already
been done by time of hearing. West's
F.S.A. §§ 163.3161-163.3215.
13. Zoning and Planning 4=381.5, 435
Property developments challenged as
contrary to master plans must be strictly
construed, and burden is on the developer
to show by competent and substantial evi-
dence that the development conforms
strictly to the master plan, its elements,
and objectives.
14. Zoning and Planning 4=278
County's construction of tennis com-
plex was in violation of the Local Govern-
ment Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act (CDMP), even
if the area had been improved from an
environmental standpoint when the county
cleaned up dump site; county failed to
present sufficient evidence to demonstrate
15. Zoning and Planning 4=372.1
Developments of regional impact are
required to undergo a review and approval
process. West's F.S.A. § 380.06.
16. Declaratory Judgment 4292
Zoning and Planning 4781
Persons with a legally recognized in-
terest which will be directly affected by a
zoning decision have standing to seek de-
claratory and injunctive relief with respect
to statutes governing the development of
regional impact. West's F.S.A. § 380.06.
17. Zoning and Planning 4=764
Heirs of grantors of property to coun-
ty had standing to challenge county's con-
struction of tennis complex and stadium as
violating statutes governing developments
of regional impact; heirs held a reversion-
ary future estate in the property. West's
F.S.A. § 380.06.
18. Zoning and Planning 4=237, 387
County's construction of 12,000 seat
tennis stadium on property which had been
deeded to county "for public park purposes
only" was subject to development of re-
gional impact review. West's F.S.A.
§§ 380.06, 380.06(1), (2Xd)lb, (8), 380.-
0651(3)(b)1b.
19. Zoning and Planning 4x372.1
Development of regional impact stat-
utes do not allow developers to commence
limited construction of a project which ulti-
mately must undergo development of re-
gional impact approval without obtaining a
final development order or a preliminary
development agreement before commenc-
ing construction. West's F.S.A. §§ 380.06,
380.06(8).
20. Zoning and Planning 4=435
Presumption that two or more develop-
ments should be aggregated as a single
development for development of regional
impact review could be rebutted by a show-
ing that the individual components were
not part of a unified plan of development.
21. Zoning and Planning X372.1
County's construction of a "tennis
complex," including a projected 12,000 seat
stadium, fell within definition of "unified
plan of development," thus subjecting the
complex -to development of'regional impact
review, even though the complex was to be
accomplished in phases. West's F.S.A.
§§ 380.06, 380.06(8).
See publication Words and Phrases
for other judicial constructions and
definitions.
22. Zoning and Planning X372.1
Letter from Department of Community
Affairs to county did not exempt county's
development, which included building of
tennis complex and stadium, from aggrega-
tion provisions of development of regional
impact review, where the letter was not a
written decision, agreement, or binding let-
ter of interpretation so as to qualify for
exception to aggregation provision. West's
F.S.A. § 380.06(4, 8).
23. Zoning and Planning X372.1
Department of Community Affairs
does not have authority, under statute or
rules governing development of regional
impact, to issue "clearance letters" to de-
velopers. West's F.S.A. § 380.06(4, 8).
Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson and
Gregory J. Willis, Miami, for appellants.
Robert A. Ginsburg, Deborah Bovarnick
Mastin, and Eileen Ball Mehta, Miami, for
appellee.
Tew, Jorden, Schulte & Beasley and Dan
Paul, Miami, for the Friends of the Ever-
glades, as amicus curiae.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and
GERSTEN, JJ.
GERSTEN, Judge.
Amid the turmoil attendant to living in
an urban environment, on an island off an
island, called Key Biscayne, there exists a
sylvan spot of tranquility —Crandon Park.
Key Biscayne, which is actually a barrier
island protecting Biscayne Bay from the
Atlantic Ocean, was originally owned by a
Dade County pioneer family surnamed
Matheson. In 1940, the Mathesons gave
the people of Dade County, Florida, access
to and enjoyment of that portion of Key
Biscayne which came to be known as Cran-
don Park.
The Mathesons' deed to Dade County
contained the following simple deed restric-
tion: "for public park purposes only." In
spite of the limitation contained in the deed
restriction, Dade County took part of the
land deeded by the Mathesons and used it
for the development of the Lipton Interna-
tional Tennis Center. Two Matheson fami-
ly heirs, together with residents of Dade
County, sought to enjoin the construction
of the center for: (1) violating the restric-
tion in the original deed; (2) violating Dade
County's Comprehensive Development
Master Plan; and, (3) failing to conform to
the requirements of state law with respect
to review of developments of regional im-
pact concerning a proposed tennis stadium.
The trial court held an evidentiary hear-
ing and found that: (1) appellants were not
the proper parties to raise the deed restric-
tion issue; (2) the use of the park for a
commercial enterprise did not negate the
main purpose of the park property under
these facts; (3) Dade County had complied
with its Comprehensive Development Mas-
ter Plan (CDMP) in the construction of the
tennis complex; and (4) "Development of
Regional Impact" (DRI) review, as it per-
tained to the proposed stadium, was out-
side the ambit of the action. The court
issued a final judgment denying injunctive
and declaratory relief from: (1) the devel-
opment of the Lipton International Tennis
Center on Key Biscayne; and (2) the hold-
ing of the Lipton International Players
Championship Tennis Tournament on Key
Biscayne. It is from that final judgment
that this appeal follows. We reverse.
I. FACTS
In 1940, several members of the Mathe-
son family deeded three tracts of land lo -
ca
a
in
C
g
WHITE v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY Fla. 121
Clte as 563 Sold 117 (FIa.App. 3 Dist. 1990)
cated on the northern portion of Key Bis-
cayne to Dade County. This land, consist-
ing of 680 acres, came to be known as
Crandon Park. In the recorded deeds, the
grantors expressly provided:
This conveyance is made upon the ex-
press condition that the lands hereby
conveyed shall be perpetually used and
maintained for public park purposes
only; and in case the use of said land for
park purposes shall be abandoned, then
and in that event the said [grantor], his
heirs, grantees or assigns, shall be enti-
tled upon their request to have the said
lands reconveyed to them.
Since that time, several amendatory deeds
have been issued by the grantors to allow
ancillary uses which may have been other-
wise violative of the deed restriction. The
additional uses permitted were the con-
struction of public roads, public utilities,
and "houses, apartments and facilities for
the use of employees engaged in [the] care,
maintenance and operation" of Crandon
Park. The last amended deed permitted
the building of a firehouse on the property.
However, the grantors' heirs refused to
allow the building of a cable satellite dish.
The grantors, their heirs, or assigns, have
not waived the deed restriction as to any
other construction or use. In 1963, a sec-
tion of the park was utilized as a dump.
This use was never approved or sanctioned
by the grantors, their heirs, or assigns.
In 1986, the Dade County Board of Coun-
ty Commissioners passed Resolution R-
891-86, which authorized the execution of
an agreement with Arvida International
Championships, Inc., (Arvida), and the In-
ternational Players Championship, Inc.,
(IPC), to construct a permanent tennis com-
plex. The construction of the court facili-
ties and infrastructure began in the sum-
mer of 1986, and terminated in 1987. Ini-
tially, the tennis complex consisted of fif-
teen tennis courts, service roads, utilities,
and landscaping, all located on 28 acres.
The agreement provided that for two
weeks each year, subject to a renewal pro-
vision, the tennis complex would become
the site of the Lipton International Players
Championship Tennis Tournament (Lipton
tournament). This renowned tournament
is only open to world class players who
compete for two weeks.
In February 1987, the first Lipton tour-
nament was held before approximately
213,000 people. The county manager con-
sidered the Lipton tournament to be such a
tremendous success that he recommended,
and the County Commission approved in
Resolution R-827-87, the construction of
"Phase II," a permanent clubhouse/fitness
facility. This 15,000 -to -33,000 -square -
foot facility was to house locker rooms,
training and exercise equipment, meeting
rooms, food and beverage concessions, and
a sporting goods store. As a result of
"community input," the clubhouse was ulti-
mately reduced to 9,800 square feet. This
"community input" consisted of informal
meetings with residents and one public
hearing.
During the four Lipton tournaments held
thus far on Key Biscayne, temporary seat-
ing has been provided. Appellants contend
that a 12,000 -seat permanent stadium is
part of the future development plans. Al-
though Dade County admits that "[a] stadi-
um is a future possibility," it asserts that
"no unified plan of development for a stadi-
um exists, and no approvals or permits for
any stadium have been issued."
The record reveals only one public hear-
ing has been held regarding the tennis fa-
cilities. In July 1987, a public hearing was
held pursuant to section 33-303 of the Met-
ropolitan Dade County Code (1987). Sec-
tion 33-303 requires a hearing be held be-
fore the construction of any new govern-
ment facility. This hearing involved only
the approval of the site plan for the pro-
posed clubhouse. No other public hearing
has been held either for the previous con-
struction or the projected stadium.
Although the site is classified as "envi-
ronmentally sensitive parkland" in Dade
County's Comprehensive Development
Master Plan (CDMP), no hearings have
been held to change that designation in the
CDMP. In 1989, the clubhouse was com-
pleted.
The facilities are closed to the public for
specified periods of time both before and
after the two-week Lipton tournament.
Dade County's agreement with the tourna-
ment sponsors, Arvida and IPC, gives them
control of the tennis complex during what
is called the "Tournament Period." The
"Tournament Period" is defined in the
agreement as the:
three weeks prior to the beginning of the
calendar week in which the qualifying
rounds of the Tournaments . . . are to be
played . . . and continuing until the date
occurring one (1) week after the comple-
tion of such Tournaments concerned.
In addition, the contract gives the tour-
namen- sponsors "reasonably necessary"
time before the "Tournament Period" for
site preparation. Arvida and IPC are also
each afforded 45 days and 30 days, respec-
tively, after the "Tournament Period" for
site dismantling.
With respect to the 1987 tournament, the
agreement specifically provided for Arvida
to have "Priority Use" of the "grandstand
and stadium court areas from November 1,
1986 through a period ending 45 days after
the conclusion of the Tournament." The
agreement defines "Priority Use" as "[t]he
unimpaired right of [Arvida and IPC] . . .
to permit, reasonably restrict and control
access to the Site...."
Dade County offered testimony at trial
that the public was only excluded from
using the facilities for some three to four
weeks. However, under the clear wording
of the agreement, relative to the 1987 tour-
nament, Arvida had the right to exclude
the public from the tennis complex for as
long as five months.
During the tournament, the sponsors are
given most of Crandon Park's parking
spaces to provide parking for the tourna-
ment spectators. The agreement provides
that the "County will designate adequate
parking facilities in the currently existing
Crandon Park parking areas . . . for Priori-
ty Use in connection with the Tourna-
ment."
The contract estimated that the parking
needs of the tournament would "not exceed
4,000 spaces per day." These 4,000 spaces
were not sufficient to satisfy the needs of
tournament spectators and other park visi-
tors. At trial, Earl Buchholz, Jr., the tour-
nament operator, testified that tournament
spectators parked not only at Crandon
Park, but at the Marine Stadium, as well.
Correspondingly, Dr. Charles Pezoldt, Dep-
uty Director of Dade County Parks and
Recreation Department, testified that dur-
ing the final Saturday and Sunday of the
tournament, the parking lots were tempo-
rarily closed to the public.
In 1987 and again in 1988, Dade County
attempted to obtain the consent of one of
the heirs, Hardy Matheson, for the opera-
tion of the Lipton tournament. Hardy
Matheson refused to give his consent, and
informed the County that the tennis com-
plex and the operation of the Lipton tour-
nament was contrary to the deed restric-
tion.
Appellants, joined by the Friends of the
Everglades in an amicus brief, raise three
issues on appeal: (1) that the trial court
erred in refusing to declare that the place-
ment of the tennis complex and the holding
of the Lipton tournament in Crandon Park
violated the Matheson family deed restric-
tion; (2) that the trial court erred in ruling
that the construction of the tennis complex
in Crandon Park was consistent with Dade
County's CDMP; and (3) that the trial
court erred in ruling it was premature to
require the projected stadium to undergo
DRI review and that the tennis complex,
including the projected stadium, should be
required to undergo DRI review.
Dade County responds that: (1) the ten-
nis facility is consistent with the deed re-
striction limiting use to a public park; (2)
the tennis complex is consistent with its
CDMP; (3) any question relating to DRI
review is premature; and (4) appellants
lack standing to raise the issues they have
brought on appeal.
We will address each issue separately.
II. THE DEED RESTRICTION
A. STANDING
[1] Dade County contends appellants do
not have standing to enforce the deed re-
striction. In order to enforce a deed re-
st
sI
d
P
s
(
2
c
f
i
WHITE v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY Fla. 123
Clte u 563 Sold 117 (Fle.App. 3 Dist. 1990)
striction, plaintiffs must show that they
sustained an injury that was greater in
degree than that sustained by the general
public, Town of Flagler Beach v. Green, 83
So.2d 598 (F1a.1955); Henry L. Doherty &
Co., Inc. v. Joachim, 146 Fla. 50, 200 So.
238 (1941), or that the restriction in the
deed was intended for the plaintiffs' bene-
fit, Bessemer v. Gersten, 381 So.2d 1344
(F1a.1980); Rea v. Brandt, 467 So.2d 368
(Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 476 So.2d
675 (F1a.1985).
[2] Two of the appellants, Margaret
Matheson Randolph and Malcolm Mathe-
son, Jr., are heirs of the original grantors.
The deed by which the land was transfer-
red to Dade County included the provision
that in the event the stated purpose was
thwarted, "the said [grantor], his heirs,
grantees, or assigns" were entitled to have
the lands reconveyed to them. Since this
restriction in the deed was intended for the
benefit of the heirs of the grantors, we
conclude that the appellant/heirs have the
requisite standing to enforce the deed re-
striction.
[3] We rule, however, that there exists
a lack of standing as to the other appel-
lants to raise the deed restriction issue.
These other appellants have not shown that
they sustained an injury greater in degree
from that sustained by the general public
or that the deed restriction was intended
for their benefit. We will therefore deter-
mine whether Dade County has violated
the deed restriction solely as it pertains to
the claims of the appellant/heirs of the
grantors.
B. DADE COUNTY'S VIOLATION OF
THE DEED RESTRICTION
[4] Appellant/heirs first contend that
the construction of the tennis complex vio-
lates the deed restriction. As previously
stated, the deed provides that the "lands
hereby conveyed shall be perpetually used
and maintained for public park purposes
only."
"In construing restrictive covenants the
question is primarily one of intention and
the fundamental rule is that the intention
of the parties as shown by the agreement
governs, being determined by a fair inter-
pretation of the entire text of the cove-
nant." Thompson v. Squibb, 183 So.2d 30,
32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). Similarly, "the
terms of dedications of lands for park pur-
poses where the lands are conveyed by
private individuals are to be construed
more strictly than is the case where the
lands are acquired by the public body by
purchase or condemnation." Hanna v.
Sunrise Recreation, Inc., 94 So.2d 597, 600
(F1a.1957).
Appellant/heirs argue that it was the
intent of the Matheson family to limit the
use of Crandon Park to passive activities
such as picnicking, swimming, and the like.
We glean no such intention from the lan-
guage of the deed. Further, the Florida
Supreme Court has adopted a very broad
definition for what a "park" encompasses.
The court has stated:
[A] park is considered not only as orna-
mental but also as a place for recreation
and amusement. Changes in the con-
cepts of parks have continued and the
trend is certainly toward expanding and
enlarging the facilities for amusement
and recreation found therein.
Hanna, 94 So.2d at 601. The court further
explained that the permissible uses for a
public park include:
[T]ennis courts, playground and dancing
facilities, skating, a swimming pool and
bathhouse, horseshoe pitching, walking,
horseback riding, athletic sports and oth-
er outdoor exercises . . . golfing and
baseball . . . parking facilities . . . provid-
ed always that a substantial portion of
the park area remains in grass, trees,
shrubs and flowers, with seats and tables
for picnicking, for the use by and enjoy-
ment of the public.
Hanna v. Sunrise Recreation, Inc., 94
So.2d at 601 (quoting McLauthlin v. City
and County of Denver, 131 Colo. 222, 280
P.2d 1103 (1955), with approval). We con-
clude, based on the Florida Supreme
Court's broad definition of "park" con-
tained in Hanna, that the construction of
the tennis complex did not violate the "pub-
lic park purposes only" provision of the
deed restriction.
[5] Appellant/heirs next argue that
turning the tennis complex over to a com-
mercial operator violates the deed restric-
tion. We do not agree. Florida courts
have consistently ruled that commercial
benefit does not defeat a park purpose.
Hanna v. Sunrise Recreation, Inc., 94
So.2d at 601; State v. Daytona Beach Rac-
ing and Recreation Facilities District, 89
So.2d 34 (F1a.1956); Sunny Isles Fishing
Pier, Inc. v. Dade County, 79 So.2d 667
(F1a.19551.
[6] Finally, appellant/heirs contend that
the operation of the Lipton tournament vio-
lates the deed restriction because it de-
prives the public of the use and enjoyment
of Crandon Park, including the use and
enjoyment of the tennis facilities. We are
persuaded by this argument and rule that
the holding of the Lipton tournament vio-
lates the deed restriction because it virtual-
ly bars the public use of Crandon Park
during the tournament, and does bar public
use c: t'ne tennis complex, for extended
periods of time.
Courts have unfailingly guarded against
encroachments on public parkland where
such parkland is under the protection of a
deed restriction or restrictive covenant.
Fairhope Single Tax Corporation v. City
of Fairhope, 281 Ala. 576, 206 So.2d 588
(1968) (construction of civic center or recre-
ation building was not consistent with the
dedication that the property be used for
"park purposes"); City of Wilmington v.
Lord, 378 A.2d 635 (De1.1977) (construction
of water tower in park violated deed re-
striction, limiting use of property to "public
park purposes"); City of Miami Beach v.
Kirsner, 178 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965),
cert. denied, 385 U.S. 920, 87 S.Ct. 231, 17
L.Ed.2d 144 (1966) (city's use of part of
park for a dump violated deed restricting
use of area for park purposes); Village of
Croton -on -Hudson v. County of Westches-
ter, 30 N.Y.2d 959, 335 N.Y.S.2d 825, 287
N.E.2d 617 (1972) (use of public park for
solid waste disposal site violated dedica-
tion); Borough of Ridgway v. Grant, 56
Pa.Commw. 450, 425 A.2d 1168 (Commw.
Ct.1981) (placing of firehouse in a public
park violated terms of deed restriction).
In ruling that the holding of the Lipton
tournament violates the deed restriction,
we note that a distinction must be made
between "park purposes" and "public pur-
poses." Assuming arguendo that the Lip-
ton tournament is an economic success
which brings innumerable benefits to Dade
County and its citizens, such an undeniable
public purpose is not consistent with a deed
restriction mandating the narrower "public
park purposes only." See Fairhope Single
Tax Corporation v. City of Fairhope, 206
So.2d at 589.
In addition, the word "only" in the deed
restriction at issue further buttresses our
ruling that the operation of the Lipton
tournament, as presently constituted, vio-
lates the restriction. As the court in
Thompson v. Squibb explained, "the word
'only' is synonymous with the word 'solely'
and is the equivalent of the phrase 'and
nothing else.'" Thompson, 183 So.2d at
32.
Dade County contends that the tennis
complex is consistent with the "public park
purposes" restriction provided for in the
deed. In support, Dade County argues
that the complex is open to the public when
the tournament is not being held, the site
of the tennis complex utilizes less than 5
percent of Crandon Park, and that a valid
park purpose is served by "spectating."
Dade County also points to the benefits
derived by Dade County from having the
Lipton tournament in Dade County.
Dade County relies on Hanna v. Sunrise
Recreation, Inc., 94 So.2d at 597, as sup-
port for its contention that the tennis com-
plex is consistent with the deed restriction.
The facts of the present action are differ-
ent from those in Hanna, in which a lessee
was given the right to construct and oper-
ate golfing, tennis, refreshment, and other
recreational facilities on land deeded to the
state for "State park purposes." Hanna,
94 So.2d at 600-601. The facilities and use
at issue in Hanna were to serve public
recreational purposes.
Here, the public, in fact, is deprived from
using these tennis facilities for a period of
thr
Pe
the
to
me
th
al"
fr
of
P'
ti
P
n
1
WHITE v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY Fla. 125
Cite u 563 So.2d 117 (FIa.App. 3 Diat. 1990)
three to four weeks during the Tournament
Period. Further, under the contract as to
the 1987 tournament, Arvida had the right
to exclude the public for as long as five
months.
In addition, the court in Hanna noted
that the recreational use "would not
amount to an ouster of the public there-
from." Hanna, 94 So.2d at 601. Here, the
operation of the Lipton tournament, for all
practical purposes, does amount to the vir-
tual ouster of the public from the park for
periods of time during the two-week tour-
nament.
The contract gives the sponsors "Priority
Use" of the parking areas of Crandon Park
during the tournament. The contract esti-
mated that the tournament needs "would
not exceed 4,000 spaces per day." The
amount of parking spaces was not ade-
quate to meet the needs of tournament
spectators and other park visitors as the
testimony was uncontroverted that people
were turned away from parking lots at the
park. There was also uncontroverted testi-
mony that some people found it necessary
to park at the Marine Stadium.
We recognize that many legitimate park
events, such as softball or golf tourna-
ments, might fill up lots and make it diffi-
cult for latecomers to find a parking space
at a certain area within the park. This,
however, is not simply a case of a filled
parking lot within a certain area of the
park. The testimony demonstrates that
the tournament apparently takes up all the
available public parking spaces at Crandon
Park for periods of time during the tourna-
ment. This is a public park parking night-
mare.
We also recognize that the agreement
between the tournament sponsors and the
County required the County to provide
shuttle services, if necessary, to transport
tournament spectators. The parties' agree-
ment, however, provides only for the Coun-
ty's shuttle transportation of spectators
from the parking facilities in "Crandon
Park parking areas."
In none of the cases which Dade County
has cited to this court, see e.g., Ocean
Beach Realty Co. v. City of Miami Beach,
106 Fla. 392, 143 So. 301 (1932); Kosanke
v. City of St. Petersburg Beach, 256 So.2d
395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); Florida Little
Major League Association, Inc. v. Gulf-
port Lion's Little League, Inc., 127 So.2d
707 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961), was the public's
use and enjoyment of the public park in-
fringed upon, as in the present case. In
Ocean Beach Realty, for example, the
plaintiff sued to recover possession of city
property which had been conveyed to the
city to be used exclusively for park pur-
poses. The city had used a portion of the
property to widen an abutting street. The
court found that the use of a portion of the
property to widen a roadway was not an
abandonment of the park purpose. The
court found:
The result is to make the park accessible
to, and usable by, a greater portion of
the public than it would have been acces-
sible to, or could have been used by, had
not this improvement been made....
Ocean Beach Realty Co. v. City of Miami
Beach, 143 So. at 302. Here, the result in
effect, is to make the park inaccessible to,
and unusable by the public for periods of
time.
Dade County argues that the use of the
property as a tennis complex is better than
its previous use as a dump. While we
agree that a tennis complex in a public
park, is better than a dump in a public
park, we note that the County's previous
use of the site as a dump, was also in
violation of the deed restriction. City of
Miami Beach v. Kline, 189 So.2d 503 (Fla.
3d DCA 1966); City of Miami Beach v.
Kirsner, 178 So.2d at 65-66. Dade Coun-
ty, in fact, conceded before the trial court
that the dump was inconsistent with a pub-
lic park purpose. We do not congratulate
Dade County for shifting from one imper-
missible use to another.
Finally, Dade County argues, and we
agree, that it is well settled that "equity
abhors a forfeiture," that "such restric-
tions are not favored in law if they have
the effect of destroying an estate," and
that they "will be construed strictly and
will be most strongly construed against the
grantor." Dade County v. City of North
arua vary uar, rµ ..1 LJ 1►LVU
Miami Beach, 69 So.2d 780, 782-783 (Fla.
1953).
[7] Appellant/heirs, however, clearly
represented to this court and the trial court
that they were not seeking a reversion.
What appellant/heirs want is a declaratory
judgment that the present use of the park
is in violation of the deed restriction and an
injunction to prevent any further erosion of
the "public park purposes only" deed re-
striction.
[8] Florida's declaratory judgment stat-
ute gives courts of this state jurisdiction to
declare the rights of parties when there is
a dispute over the interpretation of a deed.
§ 86.021, F1a.Stat. (1989). Further, injunc-
tive relief has long been recognized as an
appropriate remedy for violation of a deed
restriction or restrictive covenant. Osius
v. Barton, 109 Fla. 556, 147 So. 862 (1933);
City of Miami Beach v. Kline, 189 So.2d at
505-506; Thompson v. Squibb, 183 So.2d
at 33-34.
We therefore declare Dade County to be
in violation of the deed restriction. We
reverse the trial court order as to the deed
restriction, and remand for entry of an
order enjoining Dade County from permit-
ting the Lipton tournament to proceed as it
is presently held. Our ruling does not pre-
vent Dade County from using the tennis
complex for tennis tournaments. It merely
seeks to insure that in holding such tourna-
ments, public access to the rest of Crandon
Park is not infringed; and use of the tennis
complex is not denied to the public for
unreasonable periods of time.
III. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOP-
MENT MASTER PLAN
A. STANDING AND EXHAUSTION
OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Dade County contends that appellants
have no standing to pursue a CDMP chal-
lenge and further argues appellants'
CDMP claim is barred for failure to ex-
haust their administrative remedies. In or-
der to resolve these issues, some back-
ground on the laws governing master plans
must be provided.
Dade County was required, pursuant to
Florida's "Local Government Comprehen-
sive Planning and Land Development Reg-
ulation Act," to adopt a comprehensive
plan for future development applicable to
all of Dade County. §§ 163.3151-.3215,
F1a.Stat. (1989). The purpose of the act is
"to protect human, environmental, social,
and economic resources; and to maintain,
through orderly growth and development,
the character and stability of present and
future land use and development in this
state." § 163.3161(7), F1a.Stat. (1989).
CDMP's are approved by the state and
local governments, and developments un-
dertaken or approved by local governments
are required to be consistent with such
master plans. §§ 163.3161, .3194, F1a.Stat.
(1989).
In 1984, the Florida Supreme Court clari-
fied the standing requirements for plain-
tiffs to pursue a master plan challenge
under Florida's "Local Government Com-
prehensive Planning and Land Develop-
ment Regulation Act." The court held
"only those persons who already have a
legally recognizable right which is adverse-
ly affected have standing to challenge a
land use decision on the ground that it fails
to conform with the comprehensive plan."
Citizens Growth Management Coalition
of West Palm Beach, Inc. v. City of West
Palm Beach, Inc., 450 So.2d 204, 208 (Fla.
1984); see also, § 163.3215(1), F1a.Stat.
(1989) ("[a]ny aggrieved or adversely af-
fected party may maintain an action for
injunctive or other relief against any local
government to prevent such local govern-
ment from taking action on a development
order . . . that is not consistent with the
comprehensive plan"). In applying the
standing requirements enunciated in Citi-
zens Growth Coalition, the Fourth District
Court of Appeal has ruled that property
owners whose land adjoined a proposed
development and who stood to be directly
affected by the development, had standing
to pursue a master plan challenge. South-
west Ranches Homeowners Association,
Inc. v. Broward County, 502 So.2d 931
(Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 511 So.2d
999 (F1a.1987).
WHITE v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY Fla. 127
Cite as 563 Sold 117 (FlaApp. 3 Dist. 1990)
[9,10] In the present case, we rule that
the two appellant/heirs of the grantors
have standing to pursue a master plan chal-
lenge under the act because they have a
legally protected property interest which
was directly affected by the County's ac-
tion. By including language in the deed
providing for the grantor, his heirs, grant-
ees, or assigns, to have the property recon-
veyed to them in the event the stated pur-
pose was thwarted, the grantors created a
"reversionary future estate" in land. See
R. Cunningham, W. Stoebuck & D. Whit-
man, The Law of Property § 3.1, at 91
(1984) [hereinafter cited as The Law of
Property]. This future estate is a "pres-
ently existing, legally protected property
interest." See The Law of Property § 3.1,
at 91.
[11] We conclude, however, that the
other appellants have not established the
requisite standing to raise such challenge.
No testimony was offered before the trial
court that they were directly or adversely
affected by the County's action. Nor did
they show that they had a legally recogniz-
able interest in the property. See Citizens
Growth Management Coalition of West
Palm Beach v. City of West Palm Beach,
Inc., 450 So.2d at 208.
[12] We next turn to the administrative
remedies issue as it pertains to appel-
lant/heirs. Dade County argues that ap-
pellants' CDMP claim is barred because
they failed to exhaust their administrative
remedies. Dade County contends that
since it held the public hearing mandated
by the CDMP and appellants failed to raise
an objection at the hearing, appellants'
CDMP claim is now precluded.
We are not persuaded by Dade County's
argument on this point. The public hear-
ing Dade County refers to was held in July
of 1987. By the time of the hearing, Dade
County had already ripped out the area
necessary to construct the tennis complex.
The County had also installed tennis courts
and parking lots, all without holding public
hearings.
Further, the first of the four planned
Lipton tournaments had already been held.
Since a significant portion of the damage
had already been done by the time of the
hearing, the administrative remedy avail-
able to appellant/heirs could not have af-
forded adequate or timely relief. Under
these circumstances, we conclude that ap-
pellant/heirs' CDMP claim is not precluded
for failure to exhaust their administrative
remedies. See Gulf Pines Memorial Park,
Inc. v. Oaklawn Memorial Park, Inc., 361
So.2d 695 (F1a.1978); Warner v. City of
Miami, 490 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986);
School Board of Leon County v. Mitchell,
346 So.2d 562 (Fla. lst DCA 1977), cert.
denied, 358 So.2d 132 (F1a.1978).
Having found that appellant/heirs have
standing to pursue their CDMP challenge
and that they are not precluded from rais-
ing their claim for failure to exhaust ad-
ministrative remedies, we next determine
whether Dade County has violated its
CDMP.
B. DADE COUNTY'S VIOLATION OF
ITS COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOP-
MENT MASTER PLAN
Appellant/heirs contend that Dade Coun-
ty failed to comply with the County's
CDMP with respect to the development of
the tennis complex at Crandon Park. Dade
County asserts that it has complied with
every requirement, has obtained every per-
mit required, and is not in violation of its
CDMP. Dade County further responds
that the trial court's ruling that the com-
plex is consistent with the CDMP, is sup-
ported by competent, substantial evidence.
The tennis complex is located in a zone,
which is designated as "environmentally
sensitive parkland" under Dade County's
CDMP. The key guidelines for zones des-
ignated as environmentally sensitive, pro-
vide in part:
Activities which remove organic soils or
scarify native rock formations should be
minimized to the extent possible and
should not disrupt the environmental
functions of the zone.
Removal of native vegetation should be
minimized, and further removal of bay
heads or tree islands particularly avoid-
ed.
lw� "‘-'••
.
'UV .)v 1, 111L1►.• t►L1 kilt 1 1...4110, !rU 01L1►11.' ti7
No rock pits, borrow pits, roadways,
building pads, or other development
should be permitted to displace primary
nesting, roosting, or feeding habitats for
endangered, threatened, or rare wildlife,
or species of special concern.
Anthony Clemente, former Director of
Dade County's Department of Environmen-
tal Resources Management (DERM), testi-
fied that he had direct responsibility for
applying the County's environmental crite-
ria and for ensuring that the tennis com-
plex was consistent with the County's
CDMP. He testified that DERM conducted
an evaluation of the proposed tennis com-
plex and found that it would have no signif-
icant impact on environmentally sensitive
areas, and the complex was consistent with
the CDMP.
However, Clemente stated that certain
requisite evaluations should have been
done, such as the impact of the develop-
ment on bird nesting and related environ-
mental issues, before commencing con-
struction. Clemente admitted that he could
not find these evaluations in the file or
verify that they had been completed.
[13, 14] This court has recognized that
developments challenged as contrary to
master plans must be strictly construed
and that the burden is on the developer to
show by competent and substantial evi-
dence that the development conforms
strictly to the master plan, its elements,
and objectives. Machado v. Musgrove, 519
So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), review de-
nied, 529 So.2d 693, 694 (F1a.1988). We
find that Dade County has not met this
burden of proof. Dade County did not
present sufficient evidence to the trial
court to demonstrate that the complex con-
forms strictly to the CDMP, its elements,
and objectives. We rule that the construc-
tion of the parking lots, access roads, ten-
nis courts, and clubhouse for the complex
cannot be justified under the strict stan-
dard of review enunciated by this court in
Machado.
We note that the County also argues that
the area was improved from an environ-
mental standpoint when Dade County
cleaned up the dump site. Assuming this
to be true, it still does not establish that
the tennis complex is in compliance with
the master plan.
Because Dade County has failed to show
by competent and substantial evidence that
the tennis complex complies with the guide-
lines for environmentally sensitive zones,
as prescribed in the master plan, we find
that the tennis complex is in violation of
the CDMP. We reverse the trial court
order on this point and remand for entry of
an order enjoining any further development
at the site.
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
IMPACT REVIEW
A. STANDING
Dade County contends that appellants do
not have standing to enforce the statutes
governing developments of regional impact
review, and that enforcement of these stat-
utes vests exclusively in the Florida De-
partment of Community Affairs (FDCA).
We do not agree.
[15,16] Chapter 380 of the Florida Stat-
utes (1989), mandates developments of re-
gional impact to undergo a review and ap-
proval process. § 380.06, Fla.Stat. (1989).
Nothing in chapter 380, Florida Statutes,
however, has abrogated "the rights of citi-
zens to challenge local zoning decisions in
circuit court." Friends of the Everglades,
Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners
of Monroe County, 456 So.2d 904, 909 (Fla.
1st DCA 1984), review denied, 462 So.2d
1108 (F1a.1985); see Caloosa Property
Owners Association, Inc. v. Palm Beach
County Board of County Commissioners,
429 So.2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA), review de-
nied, 438 So.2d 831 (F1a.1983). Persons
with a legally recognized interest which
will be directly affected by a zoning deci-
sion have standing to seek declaratory and
injunctive relief with respect to the stat-
utes governing DRI. See Friends of the
Everglades, Inc. v. Board of County Com-
missioners of Monroe County, 456 So.2d
at 909; Caloosa Property Owners Associa-
tion, Inc. v. Palm Beach County Board of
County Commissioners, 429 So.2d at
1264-1265.
WHITE v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY Fla. 129
Cite as 563 Sold 117 (F1a.App. 3 Dist. 1990)
[17] We recognize that the appellants
who are not heirs of the grantors do not
have standing under this test. We con-
clude, however, as we did with respect to
the issue of appellants' standing to raise
the violation of the CDMP; that the ap-
pellant/heirs do have standing to enforce
the statutes governing developments of re-
gional impact. Appellant/heirs are not just
citizens who have sustained damages sim-
ilar to that suffered by the community.
Appellant/heirs hold a "reversionary fu-
ture estate" in the property and they seek
to safeguard that estate. See The Law of
Property § 3.1, at 91. We will therefore
consider whether the tennis complex, in-
cluding the stadium, should be required to
undergo DRI review solely as it applies to
the claims of the appellant/heirs.
B. DADE COUNTY'S FAILURE TO
UNDERGO DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT REVIEW
[18] Appellant/heirs contend that the
tennis complex, including the proposed sta-
dium, should be required to undergo DRI
review. DRI review and approval is man-
dated for "any development which, because
of its character, magnitude, or location,
would have a substantial effect upon the
health, safety, or welfare of citizens of
more than one county." § 380.06(1), Fla.
Stat. (1989). Both appellants and Dade
County agree that a 12,000 -seat stadium
would be subject to DRI review. See
§§ 380.0651(3)(b)(1)(b), 380.06(2)(d)(1)(b),
F1a.Stat. (1989).
Dade County argues that the tennis com-
plex and proposed stadium is not required
to undergo DRI review until, and unless,
the County commits to the construction of
the stadium. This argument is without
merit.
[19] The laws governing DRI review do
not allow developers to commence limited
construction of a project which ultimately
must undergo DRI approval without ob-
taining a final development order or a pre-
liminary development agreement, in accord-
ance with section 380.06, Florida Statutes,
before commencing construction. Section
380.06(8), Florida Statutes, permits a devel-
oper to obtain a written preliminary devel-
opment agreement from the FDCA as a
prerequisite to engaging in limited con-
struction of a project which will ultimately
trigger DRI review. In order to prevent
developers from dividing their project into
phases to avoid the DRI review process,
certain administrative rules were adopted
by the state. These are referred to as
"aggregation" rules or provisions.
[20] At the time the project was com-
menced, the aggregation provisions in
force were found in chapter 27F-18, Flor-
ida Administrative Code (1986). The pur-
pose of chapter 27F-18, Florida Adminis-
trative Code, was to establish the criteria
to determine when two or more develop-
ments should be aggregated as a single
development for DRI review. Chapter
27F-18.003, Florida Administrative Code
provided:
(1) Two or more developments shall be
presumed to be aggregable if:
(a) The developments evidence common
ownership or majority interest; and
(b) The time between completion of one
development and acquisition of land
for any other development is five (5)
years or less; and
(c)1. The developments are rural devel-
opments and any boundary of one de-
velopment is one (1) mile or less from
any boundary of all other develop-
ments; or
2. The developments are urban develop-
ments and any boundary of one devel-
opment is within one -quarter ,7‘; :rile
or less from any boundary of all other
developments.
[21] The presumption thus raised could
be rebutted by a showing that the individu-
al components were not part of a unified
plan of development. See Ch. 27F-18.004,
F.A.C. The criteria for determining the
existence of a unified plan of development
was provided as follows:
The Department will consider the follow-
ing factors to determine if two or more
developments are components of a uni-
fied plan of development:
1e)V
VUU 1-_,V1, •►U►,S♦ ►•U1 VIA. A1.4 b •.l1 U►A►.►L1U
(1) The nature and design of each devel-
opment.
(2) The geographic proximity of the de-
velopments to each other.
(3) The temporal proximity between ac-
quisition of land for development and
completion of developments thereon.
(4) The ownership interests in the devel-
opments and relative activity of indi-
vidual owners.
(5) Common management of the develop-
ments.
(6) Common advertising of the develop-
ments.
(7) Sharing of infrastructure between de-
velopments.
(8) A master plan or other corroborative
documentation of a unified plan of de-
velopment.
(9) Oral statements made about the de-
velopments by the officers or agents of
the developer prior to the initiation of
aggregation review by the Depart-
ment.
(10) Separation and interconnection of
developments....
(11) Separation of developments by natu-
ral or artificial barriers....
Ch. 27F-18.005, F.A.C. The construction
of the "tennis complex," including the
projected stadium, even though it is to be
accomplished in phases, falls within the
definition- of a "unified plan of develop-
ment" under chapter 27F-18, Florida Ad-
ministrative Code, thus subjecting the
project to DRI review.
Chapter 27F-18, Florida Administrative
Code (1986), was superseded in 1988 when
its provisions were inserted in section 380.-
0651(4), Florida Statutes. Ch. 88-164, § 3,
Laws of Fla. The aggregation provisions
in section 380.0651(4), Florida Statutes,
were revised from the previous aggrega-
tion provisions contained in chapter 27F-18,
Florida Administrative Code.
Nothing in the new provisions, however,
exempts the tennis complex and proposed
stadium from DRI review as a "unified
plan of development." These new provi-
sions, in fact, strengthen the regulations
requiring two or more projects meeting
certain criteria to be aggregated and treat-
ed as a single DRI, subject to the review
provisions of section 380.06, Florida Stat-
utes. § 380.0651(4), F1a.Stat. (1989).
Dade County vehemently denies the pro-
posed tennis stadium is part of a unified
plan of development. In support of its
contention, Dade County points out that no
approvals or permits have been issued, and
no hearing has been held with respect to
the projected stadium. We are unpersuad-
ed by the County's argument.
The record is replete and repeatedly re-
sounds with references to the permanent
stadium planned for the park: (1) the tour-
nament director, Buchholz, admitted that
his company was contractually obligated to
place a 12,000 -seat permanent stadium on
the site; (2) the Coordinator of the Dade
County Developmental Impact Committee,
Carey Lee Rawlinson, Jr., admitted that
the existing contracts commit the tourna-
ment director to construct a 12,000 -seat
permanent stadium; and (3) Interim Coun-
ty Manager, Dewey W. Knight, Jr., had
informed the County Commissioners that
contractually, construction of the perma-
nent stadium must commence by December
31, 1990.
In addition, the County Commissioners
passed resolutions in 1986 and in 1988,
which expressly recognize the plans to con-
struct a permanent stadium in Crandon
Park. Dade County, Fla. R-891-86 (July
15, 1986); Dade County, Fla. R-712-88
(June 7, 1988). Indeed, the 1986 resolution
authorizing the execution of an agreement
with the tournament sponsors, attaches as
an exhibit, a site plan depicting a perma-
nent stadium to be constructed at the park.
(See the appendix attached). The County
also, in applications for permits to the Flor-
ida Department of Environmental Regula-
tion and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, submitted drawings depicting
the location of a permanent stadium to be
constructed.
Additionally, in the resolution which the
County Commissioners passed in 1988,
recognizing the plans to construct a perma-
nent stadium, the County also adopted an
amendment to the contract between it and
WHITE v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY Fla. 131
Cite as 563 So.2d 117 (F1a.App. 3 Dist. 1990)
the tournament sponsors. The amendment
to the contract specifically requires IPC to
"immediately . . . pursue approvals and
permits necessary to construct and use a
12,000 -seat, first class permanent stadium"
at the site. Dade County, Fla. R-712-88
(June 7, 1988).
We therefore reject Dade County's asser-
tion that it is premature to require the
tennis complex, including the proposed ten-
nis stadium, to undergo DRI review. The
record demonstrates ample proof that such
stadium is part of a "unified plan of devel-
opment" under the criteria set forth in
chapter 27F-18, Florida Administrative
Code, and as now statutorily prescribed
and strengthened in section 380.0651(4),
Florida Statutes.
[22] Dade County next argues that a
letter from the FDCA, dated May 27, 1988,
exempts the development from the aggre-
gation provisions. The letter states in
part:
The Department has received your letter
dated May 23, 1988, concerning proposed
development at the Key Biscayne Inter-
national Tennis Center in Dade County.
Based on your representations, we un-
derstand that the developer has received
local government approval to construct a
9,800 square foot clubhouse and locker
room. It is our understanding that the
developer is considering additional devel-
opment consisting of a 4,800 seat tennis
stadium at the Tennis Center, and may
eventually develop a facility with a total
of more than 12,000 permanent seats.
However, according to your letter the
developer has not yet requested or re-
ceived local government approval to de-
velop any permanent stadium seats.
The development currently approved by
local government, which consists of a
9,800 square foot clubhouse and locker
room, does not, by itself, constitute a
Development of Regional Impact (DRI).
If the developer seeks approval to devel-
op permanent seating at the tennis cen-
ter, we request that he obtain a binding
letter of interpretation of DRI Status, or
that the project undergo DRI review pur-
suant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, if
applicable. If any proposed development
at the tennis center is determined to be a
DRI, the developer may wish to request
a preliminary development agreement to
allow limited development prior to receiv-
ing a DRI development order.
The Department reserves all its rights
pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Stat-
utes, concerning this development and
further review of the project may be
required if the developer's plans are ma-
terially changed.
Section 380.0651(4)(d), Florida Statutes,
provides that the aggregation provisions of
section 380.0651(4), Florida Statutes, do not
apply to developments in which, prior to
July 1, 1988, the FDCA had issued "[w]rit-
ten decisions, agreements, and binding let-
ters of interpretation." We rule that this
letter is not a written decision, agreement,
or binding letter of interpretation, under
this subsection.
Section 380.06(4), Florida Statutes, and
section 380.06(8), Florida Statutes, define
binding letters and preliminary develop-
ment agreements. Section 380.06(4)(a),
Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part:
If any developer is in doubt whether his
proposed development must undergo de-
velopment -of -regional -impact review un-
der the guidelines and standards, . . . he
may request a determination from the
state land planning agency [FDCA].
1.(d) A request for a binding letter of
interpretation shall be in writing and in
such form and content as prescribed
by the state land planning agency.
Within 15 days of receiving an applica-
tion for a binding letter of interpreta-
tion or a supplement to a pending ap-
plication, the state land planning agen-
cy shall determine and notify the appli-
cant whether the information in the
application is sufficient to enable the
agency to issue a binding letter or
shall request any additional informa-
tion needed....
Section 380.06(8)(a), Florida Statutes, pro-
vides in part:
A developer may enter into a written
preliminary development agreement with
132 r ia.
563 SOLTHERN KEPOK'1'r.K, 2d Sk:KI.E,S
the state land planning agency to allow a
developer to proceed with a limited
amount of the total proposed develop-
ment....
1. The developer shall comply with the
preapplication conference require-
ments pursuant to subsection (7) with-
in 45 days after the execution of the
agreement.
Dade County presented no evidence to
the trial court that it complied with either
subsection (4) or subsection (8) in its receipt
of the May 27, 1988, letter from the FDCA.
Further. the May 27 letter makes clear that
it is neither a binding letter of interpreta-
tion nor a preliminary development agree-
ment. Moreover, the FDCA expressly re-
served all its rights under chapter 380,
Florida Statutes, concerning the develop-
ment.
[23] We also reject the contention Dade
County made in the trial court that the
May 27 letter is a "clearance letter."
Nothing in the statutes or rules governing
DRI provide for the issuance of "clearance
letters" by the FDCA.
Based on the foregoing, we rule the de-
velopment should be required to undergo
DRI review.
V. CONCLUSION
We rule that the holding of the Lipton
tournament in Crandon Park violates the
deed restriction. Accordingly, we reverse
the trial court order as to the deed restric-
tion and remand for entry of an order
enjoining the holding of the Lipton tourna-
ment as it is presently held. In addition,
we declare that the tennis complex is in
violation of the County's CDMP. We re-
verse the trial court order on this point and
remand for entry of an order enjoining any
further development at the site until Dade
County is in compliance with its own
CDMP.
Further, we declare that the development
of the tennis complex was and is subject to
DRI review. We therefore reverse the tri-
al court order as to the DRI and remand
for entry of an order enjoining Dade Coun-
ty from any further development at the
site, unless the development is in accord-
ance with the DRI review and approval
process.
It is undisputed that the Lipton tourna-
ment and the tennis complex in which it is
held serve a public purpose, that it brings
tourism to Dade County, and attracts inter-
national and national media coverage,
thereby enhancing Dade County's image.
Dade County may wish to continue its
sponsorship of the Lipton tournament at
the tennis complex. It just cannot continue
to do so by violating the deed restriction,
its own CDMP, or Florida law.
Reversed and remanded with instruc-
tions.
BASKIN, J., concurs.
" i l
. - . \ ! N n r 4 1 c " Y
. ' ���� 1 A - . "
"
+ i ;
"
\ "
" ; "
"
4 . 0 1 0 . 4
G i 1 1 1
" " N o : s t r u c t u r e s a r e t o b e c o n s t r u c t e d d u r i n g
t h e i n i t i a l p h a s e o f t h e A g r e e m e n t .
T H E 1 9 8 7 L P T O N I N T E R N A T I O N A L P L A Y E R S C H A N P I O N S H P S
K E Y B I S C A Y N E F L O R I D A
. "
"
i t y
J /
T O U R N A M E N T L A A V O U
W
134 Fla. 563 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
NESBITT, Judge (dissenting):
In 1940, the Matheson family deeded to
Dade County some 680 acres on Key Bis-
cayne. The deed contained a restriction
which stated that the land was to be used
"for public park purposes only." The site,
named Crandon Park, over the years has
developed into a recreational area offering
numerous and varied activities to the pub-
lic. These include expansive beaches and
picnic areas; a marina with a restaurant
and bait and tackle shop; a championship
eighteen -hole golf course constructed in
197r nro shop, locker room/clubhouse,
snack bar and restaurant (the site of an
annual professional golf championship
tournament); boat ramps; bicycle paths;
diving facilities; berths for charter deep
sea fishing vessels; sports playing fields;
an annual professional athletes' "Supers-
tars" competition; and tennis courts. The
park also contains maintenance facilities
and numerous parking lots. Crandon Park
was the site of the Metro Zoo until that
attraction moved to new facilities off Key
Biscayne in 1980.
In 1986, Dade County undertook con-
struction of a tennis center on twenty-eight
acres of Crandon Park. Even though most
of the site selected was zoned environmen-
tally sensitive park land, the area had pre-
viously been the site of a dump (landfill)
and park maintenance yard. The center,
initially consisting of fifteen tennis courts,
service roads, and utilities, was built after
the Board of Dade County Commissioners
entered into a license agreement with spon-
sors of the two-week Lipton International
Players Championship Tennis Tournament
whereby the center would become the site
of a yearly tennis tournament. Over 200,-
000 spectators have attended each year
since the tournament began in 1987.
In 1988, Dade County commissioners pro-
posed that a 33,000 square foot clubhouse,
locker room, restaurant, pro shop complex
be constructed at the center. After vari-
ous informal hearings with Key Biscayne
residents, as well as a public hearing man-
dated by section 33-303, Dade County
Code, the county decided to reduce the size
of the project to a locker room/clubhouse
of 9,800 feet. Soon after the county com-
mission authorized this project, several Key
Biscayne residents, as well as other Dade
County residents and two members of the
Matheson family, filed this suit. Plaintiffs
sought a declaratory judgment as to wheth-
er construction of the tennis center and its
use for the Lipton Tournament violated the
deed restriction requiring that the park be
used for public park purposes only. More-
over, they sought to enjoin the county from
further construction at the center based on
allegations that the existing center, the ap-
proved clubhouse and a proposed 12,000
seat permanent stadium violated the Dade
County Comprehensive Development Mas-
ter Plan and Chapter 380 of the Florida
Statutes which governs the grant of per-
mits to build certain developments which
will impact the state's natural environment.
Plaintiffs requested that the court order
the removal of all existing structures and
the immediate review of the tennis center's
compliance with Chapter 380, Development
of Regional Impact requirements.
A hearing was held to decide whether or
not the facts and allegations entitled plain-
tiffs to a temporary injunction. At that
hearing, the county moved, and the plain-
tiffs agreed, to take testimony and evi-
dence in order to make a final disposition
of the case. The evidence adduced, viewed
in the light most favorable to the county as
the prevailing party, will be set out within
the discussion of each of the three issues
which this case requires us to address.
I. The Alleged Violation of the
Deed Restriction
Plaintiffs allege that the tennis center
was built strictly for the purpose of accom-
modating the Lipton Tournament which is
a commercial enterprise, and thus the cen-
ter is a violation of the deed restriction
which requires the land deeded be used for
public park purposes only. I agree with
the reasoning and holding set forth by the
majority that according to Florida law, con-
struction of the tennis complex and the
yearly tournament's management by a
commercial operator do not defeat the pub-
lic park purpose. However, I disagree with
the majority's holding that the tournament
viol
virt
Cra
me:
use
ed
me
rec
th
68
w
ei
tc
I
c
t
WHITE v.
Cite as 563 Sold
violates the deed restriction because it a)
virtually bars the public's use of the entire
Crandon Park facilities during the tourna-
ment period and b) does bar the public's
use of the tennis complex itself for extend-
ed periods of time. I base my disagree-
ment on the evidence set forth in the
record.
First, the majority bases its conclusion
that the public is denied use of the entire
680 acres of Crandon Park during the two-
week tournament on its finding that people
who want to attend the park in order to
enjoy recreational pursuits other than the
tournament cannot find a parking place.
My colleagues hold that the tournament
"does amount to the virtual ouster of the
public from the park for periods of time
during the two-week tournament." Majori-
ty op. at 125. There is a total lack of
competent evidence in the record to support
this holding.
Earl Buchholtz, Jr., the tournament orga-
nizer, testified that one of the primary rea-
sons the Crandon Park site was selected
was because of the parking facilities there.
According to the contract between the
county and the tournament organizer, the
estimated parking needs during the tourna-
ment are 4,000 spaces per day to be provid-
ed in currently existing Crandon Park lots.
The parties agreed that the county is to
provide shuttle services to transport spec-
tators from other parking facilities, if nec-
essary, to the site of the event. The con-
tract also provides that the county will
provide public transportation to the tourna-
ment site from the Vizcaya and Brickell
Metrorail stations and other key points in
the county.
Dr. Charles Pezoldt, Deputy Director of
the Dade County Parks and Recreation De-
partment, testified that essentially four pri-
mary parking areas, located to the east
side of Crandon Boulevard, are utilized to
park the cars of those attending the tennis
tournament. Pezoldt said that during non -
tournament times, those lots are used for
beach -goers' parking and special activity
parking. Pezoldt further testified that
park attendance at the time of year the
tournament is held (late winter/early
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY Fla. 135
117 (FIa.App. 3 Dbt. 1990)
spring) is light as compared to the summer
time when many people visit the beach.
According to his testimony, "Normal use
[of the lots designated for tournament
parking] is very, very light" during the
weeks when the tournament takes place.
"That's why the tournament works so well
on the site," he said. Pezoldt went on to
say that increased park attendance during
this light season is "an asset because it's
performing a recreational need for the peo-
ple in the community to enjoy tennis as a
spectator and for fulfilling their recreation-
al pursuits."
Pezoldt stated that the county is current-
ly studying parking uses at the park and
that if there is a problem the county will
modify the amount of parking at the park.
He said that one consideration is to have
the 600 to 800 volunteers who work at the
tournament park off the island and be
brought in by bus. He made clear that
"the primary use" for the park will remain
"the beach or [] any other recreational
use." He emphasized that these activities
"will have priority" over parking.
The record shows that on the Saturday
and Sunday afternoons of the tournament's
final matches of 1987 and 1988, the parking
areas which normally serve the beach
might have been temporarily full for cer-
tain periods with the vehicles of both tour-
nament spectators and beach -goers; how-
ever, the testimony was that the lots would
reopen as people left and parking became
available. There was no testimony that the
public was prevented from enjoying the
myriad activities which Crandon Park has
to offer in addition to the tennis tourna-
ment for even one day, much less for the
full two weeks the tournament runs. The
most that can be said is that for a few
hours on two days, people arriving after a
certain time of day may have found it
difficult to find parking at the beach lots
across from the tennis center site. Many
legitimate park events —softball tourna-
ments, professional golf tournaments, the
Superstars competition as well as others —
might fill up lots and make it difficult for
latecomers to find a parking space at a
certain area within the park. Accordingly,
I emphatically disagree with the majority's
136 Fla.
563 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
finding that the testimony shows that "ap-
parently all the available public parking
spaces at Crandon Park", maj. op. at 125,
were taken up with the vehicles of tourna-
ment goers during certain periods. The
record clearly does not prove this. There
was absolutely no proof that any Crandon
Park facilities were closed due to the tour-
nament or that the public was ousted from
any facilities during any time the tourna-
ment took place.
In short, the record simply does not sup-
port a finding that the deed restriction was
violated because the public was ousted
from the park; the public can and does use
Crandon Park during the tennis tourna-
ment. In fact, during the tournament, so
many people appear to be using the park
that it could be said that a public park
"nirvana" is reached. Consequently, I find
it incomprehensible that the majority could
find that the operation of the tournament
amounts to an ouster of the public from
Crandon Park.
Second, I disagree with the holding that
the record demonstrates that the tourna-
ment bars public use of the tennis complex
itself for extended periods. The record
shows that Dade County controls program-
ming at the tennis center for forty-six
weeks of the year and that the commercial
operator controls the center program for
the other six weeks in order to operate the
tournament. Simply because a commercial
operator conducts the tennis center pro-
gram, situated on a mere five per cent of
the entire park, for a period of six weeks a
year, it cannot be concluded that the tennis
center is closed to the public's use during
that entire time. Hanna v. Sunrise Recre-
ation, Inc., 94 So.2d 597, 601 (F1a.1957). It
was established at the hearing that spectat-
ing at sporting events is one of the most
popular recreational activities in the coun-
try. Throughout the tournament itself,
while tennis enthusiasts cannot get on the
courts and play tennis, spectators can enjoy
watching the professional tennis matches
which take place for the public's benefit.
In its opinion, however, the majority choos-
es to ignore this evidence completely. In-
stead, the court holds that the tournament
"virtually bars the public use of Crandon
Park during the tournament, and does bar
public use of the tennis complex, for ex-
tended periods of time." Maj. op. at 124.
This holding is based on a clearly impermis-
sible reevaluation of the evidence. E.g.,
Marshall v. Johnson, 392 So.2d 249 (Fla.
1980) (appellate court may not substitute
its judgment for that of the trial court by
reevaluating the evidence in the cause).
Although the plaintiffs alleged that the
tennis complex is totally closed to the pub-
lic for some eight to nine weeks due to
pre -qualifying matches and the set up and
take down of commercial booths, bleachers,
and other appurtenances, the evidence ad-
duced does not support this statement. Ac-
cording to the terms of the contract be-
tween the county and tournament operator,
Arvida International Championships, Inc.
(AIC), the "Tournament Period," during
which time the AIC has full use of the site
and facilities runs from three weeks before
the qualifying tennis rounds, through the
two weeks of the tournament and until one
week after the tournament's completion.
The tournament itself lasts for two of
those six weeks. During the tournament,
as the majority found, the center is put to
public park use. Consequently, from the
face of the contract itself, it appears that
the park could feasibly be closed for some
three to four weeks while the site is under
AIC control but the tournament is not tak-
ing place. According to the testimony of
tournament chairman Buchholtz, the com-
plex can be utilized forty-nine weeks a
year.
Appellants presented two witnesses in an
attempt to prove their allegation that the
tennis center is closed for public use for
eight to nine weeks. Both were Key Bis-
cayne residents who frequently passed by
the tennis center site. One said that the
center "was closed for a few weeks before
and a period of time after" the tournament.
The other said that the courts were closed
during the weeks of the tournament.
When asked by plaintiffs' counsel if the
front gate leading to the center was locked
for nine weeks, Deputy Parks and Recrea-
tion Director Pezoldt said, "I don't know
the exact amount of weeks. I think it was
WHITE v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY Fla. 137
Cite u 563 So.2d 117 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1990)
longer than it will be over time." This
evidence does not prove the plaintiffs' alle-
gations. Based on the testimony presented
and the unambiguous language of the con-
tract involved, the clear weight of the evi-
dence permitted the trial judge to hold, as
he did, that the tennis center is open to the
public for forty-eight weeks a year. The
remaining ninety-five per cent of the Cran-
don Park facilities are available to the pub-
lic at all times.
The record shows that the public flocks
to the tournament events, that the tourna-
ment operator makes every effort to main-
tain the courts open to the public during
those times when the tournament is being
set up and taken down; in sum, that the
complex is not inaccessible to the public for
eight to nine weeks out of the year. In
addition, it is uncontroverted that most of
the twenty-eight acre site devoted to the
Lipton Tennis Tournament, which compris-
es some five per cent of the entire park,
was previously an illegal dump which has
been made accessible and converted to a
public park use. Consequently, with the
elimination of the dump more usable land
has been devoted to the park.' The fact
that this newly available recreational facili-
ty is closed to public use for three to four
weeks in order to prepare for a tennis
tournament which some 200,000 park -goers
can enjoy does not amount to a violation of
the deed restriction. The closing of the
tennis center to public play for a brief
period in order to prepare it for an event
that is enjoyed by tens of thousands is
most assuredly a fair trade-off. Even if
the evidence in this record is considered in
a light most favorable to the appellants,
rather than the appellees, it will in no way
support a determination that the public has
been ousted or will be ousted from the park
or the tennis facility. Obviously then, the
majority has impermissibly substituted its
judgment as to the weight of the evidence
presented to the trial court. E.g., Mar-
shall, supra.
1. The majority's statement that the county is not
to be congratulated for changing use of the site
from an impermissible dump to an impermissi-
ble tennis complex is inconsistent with its own
II. The Alleged Master Plan Violation
I disagree with the majority's holding
that the record lacks competent and sub-
stantial evidence, see Machado v. Mus-
grove, 519 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987),
review denied, 529 So.2d 693 (F1a.1988), to
prove that the county complied with master
plan guidelines for the development of
those environmentally sensitive portions of
land upon which the tennis center sits. In
point of fact, it is questionable whether the
Machado strict scrutiny standard of review
is even applicable here. Machado applies
to situations where a landowner seeks a
rezoning which is inconsistent with a mas-
ter plan's zoning designation. The case at
hand does not involve a rezoning. The
majority acknowledges that the site at is-
sue, zoned park land, is being permissibly
used as park land. The issue here, as it
regards the master plan, is whether the
park land, concededly environmentally sen-
sitive, was developed in accordance with
the master plan's guidelines for such land.
Consequently, this case is more analogous
to Hillsborough County v. Putney, 495
So.2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), which in-
volved a conservation element written into
that county's comprehensive plan. There,
the court ruled that the standard of review
in such cases is whether the zoning authori-
ty (county commission) abused its discre-
tion or was clearly erroneous in its decision
to approve or disapprove a development.
Id. at 226. I would thus apply the abuse of
discretion standard here and hold that the
trial court acted totally within its discretion
in holding that the evidence showed that
the Dade County master plan's environ-
mental guidelines have been complied with-
in in the construction of the tennis center
up to now.
Nevertheless, even if the Machado strict
scrutiny test is applied, plaintiffs did not
prove that Dade County violated the mas-
ter plan. Plaintiffs alleged in their amend-
ed complaint that the property upon which
the center stands is not zoned for commer-
holding that the tennis complex is permissible
but that the public's ouster from the park and
tennis complex during the tournament violates
the deed restriction.
138 Fla.
563 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
cial use and the use of the property for
commercial purposes is incompatible with
its designation as an environmentally sensi-
tive area. They allege that this "spot zon-
ing" is inconsistent with the master plan.
This allegation will not stand up to scruti-
ny. In Hanna the supreme court held that
private parties may enter contracts to oper-
ate public park facilities for commercial
profit. 94 So.2d at 601. Furthermore, the
court today holds that the tennis center
maintains a public park purpose and that
its use for commercial benefit does not
defeat t'r,e added restriction: "For public
park purposes only."
A. The Bird Studies
Plaintiffs' only arguable point on the
master plan issue is that the county failed
to prove that it developed the facility fol-
lowing the strict guidelines contained in the
Dade County Comprehensive Development
Master Plan for developing environmental-
ly sensitive areas. Relying on Machado,
the majority finds that the county failed to
prove by competent and substantial evi-
dence that it followed the guidelines. To
support this determination, the majority
cites the former director of the Dade Coun-
ty Department of Environmental Re-
sources Management (DERM), Anthony J.
Clemente, who testified that certain evalua-
tions of the project's impact on bird nesting
were required; the majority then states
that this witness admitted that he could not
find these evaluations in the file or verify
their completion. However, a reading of
the record demonstrates that Clemente tes-
tified only that he could not find the evalu-
ation after looking through one -quarter of
the files stacked before him. His perusal
of the files on the witness stand was cut
short; the record shows that he never had
an opportunity to completely search the
files. Consequently, this witness's testimo-
ny was utterly incompetent to prove any
disputed question of fact favorable to the
plaintiff.
Furthermore, this evidence is incompe-
tent to permit an inference that if Clemente
had been given time to go through all the
files, he would not have been able to locate
any study which evaluated the impact of
the project on birds. As the witness later
testified, at least three evaluations of the
center's environmental impact were done:
one by Dade County, one by the State of
Florida, and another by the federal Corps
of Engineers. All of these evaluations rec-
ommended that the project permit be grant-
ed. Consequently, construing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the county as
the prevailing party, it must be inferred
that the permits would not have been
granted if any of these evaluations had
found that bird nests and habitats at the
old dump site and small surrounding area
of mangrove had been observed. Plaintiffs
presented no evidence whatsoever to the
contrary.
B. Mitigation of
Environmental Impact
The record is replete with evidence that
the county took extensive measures to miti-
gate the impact on the environment caused
by the tennis center's construction. In
fact, much of the environmental concern of
the responsible agencies portrayed in the
record deals with the sealing off of the
landfill and its effect on the water supply
rather than with any damage done to wild-
life habitats, native vegetation and the like.
The unrebutted testimony of Peter Kerwin,
Dade County's Chief Engineer for the
Parks and Recreation Department and the
man in charge of design and construction,
was that the cleanup of the dump site
actually improved the area from an envi-
ronmental standpoint.
While 1.89 acres of mangrove which had
concealed the dump and maintenance yard
from Crandon Boulevard had to be de-
stroyed, the county mitigated this by in-
stalling 3.98 acres of seedlings destined to
become mangroves in another area within
the project boundary. In order to receive
permits to undertake the tennis center
project, the county was required by the
local DERM and the state Department of
Environmental Resources (DER) to carry
out a mitigation plan which would guaran-
tee the re -seeding and an eighty percent
survival rate of new mangroves. The plan
required monitoring on a quarterly basis
or
a:
a
c
a
r
i
f
1
WHITE v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY Fla. 139
Cite u 563 So.2d 117 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1990)
over a two-year period by both the DERM
and the DER.
Moreover, the county pledged to set
aside 220 acres of mangrove growing adja-
cent to the project site as a conservation
area. To insure this, the Corps of Engi-
neers required as a condition of granting
its permit that the county furnish the corps
with an executed copy of the conservation
easement. As a condition of the DER per-
mit, the county was required to submit
within ninety days of the permit's grant,
the legal documents pursuant to section
704.06, Florida Statutes (1987), necessary
to create and enforce the conservation
easement of mangroves.
A review of the numerous studies, evalu-
ations, exchange of letters between envi-
ronmental agencies, and the mitigation
plan undertaken by the county to insure
compliance with the master plan abundant-
ly supports the trial court's finding that the
master plan has not been not violated in
the construction of the tennis center up to
now. While it is true that monitoring of
the project by the DER showed that the
county failed to comply with two aspects of
its mitigation plan: namely, proper periodic
testing of the ground water to insure it had
not become contaminated by the sealing of
the dump as well as the removal of a
pathway crossing a small section of the
newly planted mangroves, the county en-
tered into a consent order with the DER to
guarantee future compliance with its obli-
gations.
Based on the above facts, I must dissent
from the majority's holding that the county
is to be enjoined from further development
of the tennis center because of its viola-
tions of the master plan.
2. State land planning agency; powers and
duties. —The state land planning agency shall
have the power and the duty to:
(1) Exercise general supervision of the ad-
ministration and enforcement of this act and
all rules and regulations promulgated hereun-
der. § 380.032(1).
3. State or regional agencies may inquire wheth-
er a proposed project is undergoing or will be
required to undergo development -of -regional -
impact review. § 380.06(5)(b).
III. The Alleged Regional Impact
Review Violation
Finally, I dissent from the holding that
the Matheson heirs have standing to re-
quire the county to undergo Chapter 380,
Florida Statutes, review of the tennis cen-
ter. According to the clear terms of the
applicable statute, only the Florida Depart-
ment of Community Affairs (FDCA), the
state land planning agency, has the power
to require a developer, here the county, to
undergo a Development of Regional Impact
(DRI) review. § 380.032(1); 2
§ 380.06(5)(b), F1a.Stat. (1987).3 There is
no private right to enforce this statutory
provision.
The primary legislative intent behind
DRI review was to involve local zoning
officials and regional and state environ-
mental authorities with property owners
and developers in a comprehensive land use
review technique which would have as its
aim the preservation of Florida's natural
resources. Caloosa Property Owners
Ass'n v. Palm Beach County Board of
County Commissioners, 429 So.2d 1260
(Fla. 1st DCA 1983). As the administrating
state agency of Chapter 380, the FDCA
monitors developments which meet the
statutorily set thresholds defining a devel-
opment of regional impact. See §§ 380.-
06(2)(a); 380.0651, F1a.Stat. (1987). When
the agency determines that the threshold
has been met, it is required by state statute
to coordinate an extensive review assessing
the regional impact of the project on the
natural environment.' § 380.06. Carey Lee
Rawlinson, Jr., the Coordinator of the Dade
County Development Impact Committee,
testified that as the coordinator of the de-
velopment review committee in Dade Coun-
4. If a development meets the statutory criteria
for DRI review, the developer, together with the
county zoning authority, must file an applica-
tion with the regional planning agency and with
the FDCA. § 380.06(6). The public —local, re-
gional and state —is given timely notice of the
hearing by the local zoning board. The regional
and state environmental protection agencies are
also notified and a detailed investigation is un-
dertaken, involving extensive public involve-
ment and public hearings before any develop-
ment order is granted.
140 Fla.
563 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
ty, it is his job to oversee projects, both
private and public, to insure that the
projects are in compliance with Chapter
380. In this case, the applicable guideline
states that any sports facility that will pro-
vide more than 10,000 permanent seats re-
quires DRI review. § 380.0651(3)(b)1.b,
Fla.Stat. (1987). However, up to now,
there has been no request for a permit to
build such a stadium even though such a
project is planned for the future.
Rawlinson testified that his department
questioned whether the tennis center on
Key Biscayne would be required to under-
go a DRI review. He said, "The state
[FDCA] had asked us by telephone call to
clarify for them what was presently ap-
proved and proceeding for development on
the Key in regard to the tennis facility."
The county wrote to the FDCA to advise
that the clubhouse project had been ap-
proved by the Dade County Board of Coun-
ty Commissioners and that a stadium facili-
ty with more than 12,000 permanent seats
was projected to be developed at the site at
some future time. The county sought to
ascertain whether and/or at what point in
time DRI review should be undertaken.
The FDCA responded that the construction
of the clubhouse did not meet the threshold
requirements for DRI review; however,
the agency reserved its right to require
such review should the county seek to ob-
tain a permit to build the stadium. While
the majority discusses this letter in terms
of whether or not it constitutes a binding
letter or preliminary agreement which
5. The subject letter from the FDCA to the Dade
County Developmental Impact Committee, dat-
ed May 27, 1988 states in part:
The development currently approved by lo-
cal government, which consists of a 9,800
square foot clubhouse and locker room, does
not, by itself, constitute a Development of
Regional Impact (DRI). If the developer
seeks approval to develop permanent seating
at the tennis center, we request that he obtain
a binding letter of interpretation of DRI Sta-
tus, or that the project undergo DRI review'
pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, if
applicable. If any proposed development at
the tennis center is determined to be a DRI,
the developer may wish to request a prelimi-
nary development agreement to allow limited
development prior to receiving a DRI develop-
ment order.
would permit the county to forever forego
any DRI review, the letter is more correct-
ly viewed, as testified to by Rawlinson, as a
clearance letter —a determination on the
part of the statutorily authorized state
agency that the statutorily mandated
thresholds for DRI review had not been
met as of the date of the letter.5 At the
least, the trial judge who heard and
weighed the evidence was clearly permitted
to reach this conclusion.
The majority's finding that the May 27
correspondence could not have been a
clearance letter because such letters are
not provided for by statute or FDCA rule is
ingenuous; however, it fails to recognize a
well -settled principle of administrative law
known as free -form agency action.6 Agen-
cies, such as the FDCA, commonly use
such procedure to transact day-to-day busi-
ness. "Without summary letters, tele-
phone calls, and other conventional commu-
nications, the wheels of government would
surely grind to a halt." Capeletti Bros. v.
State, Dept. of Transp., 362 So.2d 346, 348
(Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d
1374 (F1a.1979). Clearly, the "clearance
letter" which Dade County received from
the FDCA was proper administrative proce-
dure.
Case law holds that in specific instances,
certain private parties may have a private
cause of action when a development order
has been granted or may be able to inter-
vene in a proceeding where the grant of a
development permit is being considered;
e.g., Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v.
The Department reserves all its rights pur-
suant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, con-
cerning this development and further review
of the project may be required if the develop-
er's plans are materially changed.
6. "Tree -form' proceedings are not subject to
legal requirements with regard to any of the
procedural elements, although legal require-
ments may exist with regard to nonprocedural
elements. In free -form proceedings the agency
is therefore at liberty to adopt any procedure it
wishes, or no procedure at all." Capeletti Bros.
v. State, Dept. of Transp., 362 So.2d 346, 348, n.
1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), citing H. Levinson, Ele-
ments of the Administrative Process, 26 Amer.L.
Rev. 872, 880 (1977).
i
WHITE v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY Fla. 141
ate u 563 So.2d 117 (F1a.App. 3 Dbt. 1990)
Board of County Comm'rs of Monroe
County, 456 So.2d 904, 909 (Fla. 1st DCA
1984), review denied, 462 So.2d 1108 (Fla.
1985); Caloosa Property Owners Ass'n,
429 So.2d at 1264-1265; however, such is
not the case here where the FDCA has
determined that no DRI permit proceedings
are necessary at this time.
In sum, nothing in Chapter 380 grants a
private party the right to pursue a cause of
action requesting the courts to require the
FDCA to find that DRI review threshold
requirements have been met and that DRI
review must be undertaken. In this pre-
liminary stage, private citizens are not af-
forded standing: when the development or-
der is sought, concerned neighbors and the
public at large will have a statutorily con-
ferred opportunity to be heard. The ad-
ministrative action of an agency charged
with the enforcement of a statute or rule is
entitled to great persuasive force and ef-
fect when that action is not in plain conflict
with the statute. Public Employees Rela-
tions Comm'n v. Dade County Police Be-
nevolent Ass'n, 467 So.2d 987, 989 (Fla.
1985). In this case, the county amply es-
tablished before the trial judge that it
placed the FDCA on notice of its contem-
plated action and that the agency deter-
mined the construction of the clubhouse did
not require a DRI permit. For the plain-
tiffs to argue, and the majority to agree,
that DRI review is now required in the face
of the FDCA's decision that the project did
not trigger the threshold requirements for
such review is to say that the state agency
was blind to its obligation and oblivious to
its responsibility to enforce the statute.
Finally, appellants argue and the majori-
ty holds that, in effect, the FDCA did not
do its statutory duty and find that the
threshold for DRI review has been met
because the aggregation rules, detailed in
the majority opinion, have in fact been sat-
isfied. The majority states that the con-
struction of the tennis center courts, club-
house, and proposed permanent stadium
are each separate projects which, when
considered as a whole, constitute a unified
plan of development subject to the aggre-
gation rules which can require DRI review.
As I have set out above, I believe that
resolution of this issue is premature; more-
over, I disagree that those rules would
even be applicable to the specific factual
situation before us. The aggregation rules
clearly apply to situations where a develop-
er (or developers) is ostensibly planning to
build two separate developments which, if
considered as the two halves of one whole,
would require DRI review. The plain lan-
guage of the aggregation rules states that
the rules apply to "two or more develop-
ments." Fla.Admin.Code Chap. 27F-18.-
003. Those rules contemplate the acquisi-
tion and development of distinct pieces of
property. They do not address the phases
of development on one piece of property.
In a situation such as that before us, where
the developer intends to develop one piece
of property over a period of time, the devel-
oper apparently has at least two options if
the DRI thresholds may be implicated. He
can submit a master plan for the complete
development and seek approval and build-
ing permits all at once, or he can build
those phases of the project which do not
trigger the DRI threshold, then seek per-
mission to build those portions which do
require DRI review. In the second in-
stance, the developer is building at the risk
that his entire project will never reach frui-
tion should a DRI permit be denied. The
county has apparently chosen to proceed
into the gaping jaws of the FDCA by
choosing the second option. It could well
be that when a building permit is sought
for construction of the stadium, a DRI
permit will be denied. This is the risk the
county has undertaken. Regardless, the
plaintiffs will have their opportunity to
voice concerns when a permit to build the
stadium is sought. Based on this analysis,
the majority's holding that the May 27,
1988 letter the county received from the
FDCA is not a binding letter or a prelimi-
nary agreement is eminently correct. Of
course, the letter is neither of those things
because the review process has never been
triggered.
In conclusion, I disagree with the majori-
ty's decision that the holding of the Lipton
Tennis Tournament violates the deed re-
striction because I believe the evidence
142 Fla.
563 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
shows: first, that Crandon Park remains
open and accessible to the public at all
times during the tournament and, second,
that the temporary closing of the tennis
center to prepare the site for the tourna-
ment does not amount to the public's oust-
er from that small section of the park much
less the remaining ninety-five percent of
the park. I further disagree that the con-
struction of the tennis center violates the
Dade County Comprehensive Master Plan.
The county presented substantial, compe-
tent evidence to prove that proper steps
were taken within the dictates of the mas-
ter plan, to protect the environmentally
sensitive aspects of the site. The trial
judge did not abuse his discretion in hold-
ing that the county complied with environ-
mental guidelines. Furthermore, even ap-
plying a strict scrutiny analysis, plaintiffs
did not prove Dade County violated the
master plan. Finally, I do not believe that
the Matheson heirs have standing or that
this court has subject matter jurisdiction to
require the FDCA, the state agency statu-
torily mandated to enforce Chapter 380, to
undertake a Development of Regional Im-
pact review. The FDCA, has ruled that the
threshold requirements for DRI review will
not be met at least until the county seeks a
permit to build the proposed 12,000 seat
stadium. I would cede to that agency's
authority to interpret the applicable stat-
utes and rules.
In practical terms, the winners of today's
decision are the tennis -playing residents of
the Key who will continue to enjoy the
tennis facility twelve months out of the
year. Ironically, however, it is the public
that is ousted from complete use of the
tennis facility.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Robert MOEGERLE, Individually, and
the Estate of Sue I. Moegerle, a/k/a
Erma Sue Moegerle, Appellants,
v.
Laurence CUSICK and Diana Cusick,
his wife, Appellees.
No. 89-1067.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Third District.
May 29, 1990.
Rehearing Denied July 24, 1990.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court of
Dade County, Leonard Rivkind, Judge.
Ann Mason Parker, Coral Gables, for
appellants.
Rhea P. Grossman, Miami, for appellees.
Before COPE, LEVY and GODERICH,
JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Marrone v. Miami National
Bank, 507 So.2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Jackie CASTELLANO, Appellant,
v.
John CASTELLANO, Appellee. "
No. 88-3120.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fourth District.
May 30, 1990.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
Denied July 24, 1990.
Former wife filed petition to increase
child support and to have former husband
held in contempt for default on payments
of children's private school tuition. The
Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, John D.
DADE COUNTY v. MATHESON Fla. 469
Cite as 605 So.2d 469 (Fla -App. 3 Dist. 1992)
ing construction of tennis complex re-
DADE COUNTY, Florida, a political viewed by state Supreme Court, decision
subdivision of the State of rendered in that action was binding on all
Florida, Appellant, parties.
v.
Malcolm MATHESON, Jr.,
et al., Appellees.
No. 92-1069.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Third District.
July 21, 1992.
On Motion for Rehearing and
Rehearing En Banc Oct. 20, 1992.
Heirs to property sought to prohibit
construction of stadium based on allegation
that deed restriction required property to
be used only as public park. The Circuit
Court, Dade County, Jon I. Gordon, J., per-
manently enjoined and prohibited county
from further construction. Appeal was tak-
en. The District Court of Appeal, Levy, J.,
held that: (1) heirs were precluded from
relitigating county's ability to build tennis
complex on property, and (2) heirs gave up
right to seek reversion of portion of proper-
ty where they did not seek review of earlier
decision permitting construction of proper-
ty.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded with directions.
Schwartz, Chief Judge, with whom
Levy and Gersten, JJ., concurred, filed
opinion specially concurring with denial of
motion for rehearing en banc.
Ferguson, J., filed opinion dissenting
from denial of motion for rehearing en
banc.
1. Judgment X720
Court's finding in initial action allow-
ing construction of tennis complex but pro-
hibiting stadium precluded further litiga-
tion of whether concept of tennis complex
violated deed restriction.
2. Judgment X650
Where plaintiffs and county did not
seek to have court's initial opinion concern -
3. Judgment €=591
Rule against splitting causes of action
applies to preclude party from maintaining
separate second suit on abandoned claim
where party voluntarily drops claim in first
action and later seeks to maintain separate
second action on abandoned claim.
Robert A. Ginsburg County Atty., and
R.A. Cuevas, Jr. and Joni Armstrong Cof-
fey, Miami, for appellant.
Jorden Schulte & Burchette and Dan
Paul and Frank Burt and David Ashton,
Miami, for appellees.
Hicks, Anderson & Blum, Miami, for the
International Players Championships, Inc.,
as amicus curiae.
Before HUBBART, LEVY and
GODERICH, JJ.
LEVY, Judge.
In 1988, heirs of Malcolm and Julia
Matheson initiated a lawsuit ("the first
case") seeking to prevent Dade County
from completing the construction of the
International Tennis Center in Crandon
Park on Key Biscayne. Specifically, the
heirs claimed that the tennis complex, in-
cluding the planned 12,000 -seat permanent
stadium, violated a deed restriction requir-
ing Crandon Park to be used for public
park purposes only.
The trial court ruled that the heirs were
not entitled to the relief that they were
seeking. The heirs appealed that decision
to this Court. On May 22, 1990, this Court
filed its opinion resolving the issues that
had been raised before it by the parties in
"the first case". White v. Metropolitan
Dade County, 563 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA
1990). Thereafter, on September 24, 1990,
the trial court issued a Final Judgment in
conformity with the mandate of this Court
that had been issued on June 15, 1990.
In 1991, the heirs filed another 1awsiii•.
("the second case") seeking to prohibit the
construction of a 7,500 —seat permanent sta•
dium that Dade County intended to con-
struct as part of the tennis complEx. Dade
County argued before the trial court, in the
second case, that the question concerning
the construction of a tennis stadium had
already been determined in the Wj;ite case
decided by this Court in mid -1990. In the
Final Judgment rendered by the trial court
in the second case, on May 8, 1992, the
County was permanently enjoined and pro-
hibited from further construction of the
tennis stadium. The County now appeals
to this Court from that Final Judgment.
[1] The heirs argue that it was permis-
sible for them to file the second case, rath-
er than seeking relief within the context of
the first case before the judge having juris-
diction of that case, because of their con-
tention that this Court's opinion in White,
which emanated from the appeal filed in
their first case, did not address or resolve
the question as to whether the construc-
tion of a stadium in the tennis complex
would violate the deed restriction that was
the subject of the litigation in the first
case. Rather, the heirs argue that White
only addressed the way that the tourna-
ments were conducted and the general con-
cept of a tennis complex, and how such a
complex might affect the deed restriction,
without specific consideration being given
to the construction of a permanent tennis
stadium. We disagree.
The County's argument before this
Court, which is identical to its position be-
fore the trial court in the second case, is
based upon the contention that the ultimate
issue of whether or not a stadium may be
built as part of the tennis complex has
already been decided by the White court.
1. Although the White opinion reflected the fact
that this Court felt that there were legal prob-
lems presented by (1) the manner in which the
tennis tournaments would be conducted
(amounting to a "virtual ouster" of the public
from the park), and (2) the fact that the County
had not applied for and received approval as a
development of Regional Impact, and (3) the
fact that the planned complex affected zoning in
a manner inconsistent with Dade County's Mas-
ter Plan, the White decision made it clear that
Saecificall:,, the County argues that when
the %Vhite court held that the concept of a
ten z is complex (1.d not violate the deed
res:riction.1 the court was envisioning a
stadium 2 as being included within the com-
piex. We agree. It is clear that the White
court both addressed and resolved the
question as to whether the construction of
a stadium in the tennis complex violated
the deed restriction. Concerning this issue,
we note the following portions of the White
opinion:
We will therefore consider whether the
tennis complex„ including the stadium,
should be required to undergo DRI re-
view . . .
White, 563 Sc.2d at 129 (emphasis added).
The construction of the "tennis com-
plex," including the projected stadium,
even though it is to be accomplished in
phases, . . .
White, 563 So.2d at 130 (emphasis added).
We therefore reject Dade County's asser-
tion that it is premature to require the
tennis complex, including the projected
tennis stadium,. to undergo DRI review.
White 563 So.2d at 131 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, it was legally impermissible
for the heirs to ask the Circuit Court trial
judge, in the second case, to rule upon the
same question that had already been heard
and decided by the District Court of Appeal
in White.
The County next contends that the heirs
lack the standing necessary to contest the
construction of the stadium. That question
was also addressed and resolved in White
wherein the court stated:
Since this restriction in the deed was
intended for the benefit of the heirs of
the grantors, we concur that the appel-
the concept of a tennis complex, in and of itself,
did not violate the deed restrictions. White, 563
So.2d at 123 and 126.
2. In fact, the proposed stadium considered by
the White court contained more than 4,000
more permanent seats than is to be contained in
the proposed stadium that is now being chal-
lenged in the second case.
W
fil
tic
19
24
n(
ca
vi
cc
CE
tr
in
C
C(
q
p
ti
p
c
('
e
e
t
v
c
t
c
t
1
DADE COUNTY v. MATHESON
Clte as 605 So.2d 469 (F1a.App. 3 Dist. 1992)
lants/heirs have the requisite standing to
enforce the deed restriction.
White, 563 So.2d at 123.
[2] Neither the County nor the heirs
filed any motions for rehearing or clarifica-
tion in connection with this Court's May 22,
1990, Opinion or the trial court's September
24, 1990, Final Judgment. Furthermore,
none of the parties involved in the first
case sought to have the White opinion re-
viewed by the Florida Supreme Court. Ac-
cordingly, and with the apparent acquies-
cence of all of the parties in the first case,
the decision rendered in White is now bind-
ing on all of the parties involved in that
case. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad
Company v. Industrial Contracting Com-
pany, 260 So.2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
The heirs' arguments before the trial
court, and this Court, focused solely on the
question of whether the construction of the
proposed stadium violated the deed restric-
tion. Despite the fact that the current
proposed plan involves a contract through
which the County agreed to give the United
States Tennis Association "exclusive" use
(whereby the public could be excluded from
even viewing U.S.T.A. activities) of twelve
of the seventeen hard courts and four of
the eight day courts at the tennis complex
virtually all day, on every Thursday, Fri-
day, Saturday, and Sunday all year long,
the heirs specifically advised the trial court,
and this Court at oral argument, that they
did not want the Court to consider these
facts or to address the question of how the
tournament was going to be run or wheth-
er it amounted to a "virtual ouster" of the
public from the tennis complex itself. In
addition, the heirs advised this Court at
oral argument that they did not want this
Court to address the fact that the total
slumber of parking spaces that would be
;Heeded in connection with a single day of
the tournament was large enough so as to
ilippear to require the County to apply for,
,,field receive, approval as a Development of
gional Impact. Accordingly, since this
urt is only permitted to rule on the ques-
r
The proper trial judge to entertain such a
Matter would be the trial judge who has juris-
diction over the first case in which the final
Fla. 471
tions presented to it, we specifically do not
address the manner in which the tourna-
ment will be run, the "virtual ouster" ques-
tion, or the need for DRI approval.
The County correctly acknowledges that
anyone with the proper standing who
wishes to challenge the nature or design of
the stadium or any other part of the tennis
complex, including questions of how tour-
naments are run or whether the public is
being improperly ousted from the use of
the park in violation of the deed restric-
tions litigated in the White case, would
have the right to go back before the origi-
nal trial court, who has jurisdiction over
this matter, to seek the appropriate relief
or enforcement, be it of a equitable nature
or otherwise.3
For the foregoing reasons, the Final
Judgment rendered by the trial court on
May 8, 1992, is reversed, and the trial court
is directed to dismiss the remaining portion
of the Complaint filed by the heirs, to -wit:
Count II. The said dismissal is to be with-
out prejudice to any party having legal
standing to initiate an appropriate proceed-
ing, before the trial judge having jurisdic-
tion of the first case, to ensure complete
compliance with the trial court's Final
Judgment entered on September 24, 1990.
[3] Finally, the heirs cross -appeal the
trial court's dismissal of Count I of their
Complaint which sought to have the entire
Tract 2 portion of Crandon Park revert
back to them pursuant to the reverter
clause contained in the deed. Clearly, the
heirs gave up their right to seek such relief
in the first case. As noted in the White
opinion,
Appellant/heirs, however, clearly repre-
sented to this court and the trial court
that they were not seeking a reversion.
What appellant/heirs want is a declarato-
ry judgment that all use of the park is in
violation of the deed restriction and an
injunction to prevent any further erosion
of the "public park purposes only" deed
restriction.
judgment was rendered on September 24, 1990,
in response to this Court's mandate issued in
White.
White, 563 So.2d at 126. I Fonda law gen-
erally provides under the "rule against
splitting causes of action," that all dam-
ages sustained by a party as the result of a
single wrongful act must be claimed and
recovered in one action. Gaynon v. Sta-
tum, 151 Fla. 793, 10 So.2d 432 (F1a.1942);
Schimmel v. Aetna Casualty & Surety
Company, 506 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA
1987), abrogation recognized on other
grounds, Robinson v. State Farm Fire &
Cas. Co., 583 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA
1991); Thermofin, Inc. v. Woodruff, 491
So.2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). As this
Court recognized in Schimmel v. Aetna
Casualty & Surety Company, 506 So.2d at
1164:
The rule against splitting causes of ac-
tion requires that all damages sustained
or accruing to one as a result of a single
wrongful act must be claimed and recov-
ered in one action or not at all. The rule
is founded on the sound policy reason
that the finality it establishes promotes
greater stability in the law, avoids vexa-
tious and multiple lawsuits arising out of
a single incident, and is consistent with
the absolute necessity of bringing litiga-
tion to an end.
Especially in cases where a party voluntari-
ly drops a claim in a first action, and then
later seeks to maintain a separate second
action on the abandoned claim, the rule
against splitting causes of action applies to
preclude that party from maintaining the
separate second suit on the abandoned
claim. See Casto v. Arkansas —Louisiana
Gas Co., 597 F.2d 1323 (10th Cir.1979);
Johnson v. Southwestern Battery Compa-
ny, 411 P.2d 526 (Ok1.1966). Accordingly,
the trial court's dismissal of Count I of the
heirs' Complaint is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded with directions.
Before HUBBART, LEVY and
GODERICH, JJ.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Motion denied.
neiure Oun vv rin i c., v.0., a.,..
BARKDULL, HUBBART, NESBITT,
BASKIN, FERGUSON, JORGENSON,
LEVY, GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
EN BANC
PER CURIAM.
Motion denied.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL,
HUBBART, NESBITT, BASKIN,
JORGENSON, LEVY, GERSTEN and
GODERICH, JJ., concur.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge (specially
concurring).
I share many, if not all, the concerns
expressed in Judge Ferguson's opinion. I
nevertheless concur in the denial of the
motion for rehearing en banc only because
of the very limited holding of the panel
opinion. It states only, as, it is clear, the
opinion in White v. Metropolitan Dade
County, 563 So.2d 117 (Fla.3d DCA 1990)
sub silentio holds, that a stadium does not
per se violate the deed restriction in ques-
tion. As the panel opinion also explicates,
however, every other issue concerning the
conduct of the proposed tournament, the
building of the specific stadium, and the
operation of the facility —including the
"virtual ouster" question, the requirement
of appropriate approval as a Development
of Regional Impact and all of the other
matters considered in White —must be de-
termined by the White trial court, subject
of course to the holdings in White and
subsequent review by this court. On this
basis alone, I concur in the denial of en
bane consideration.
LEVY and GERSTEN, JJ., concur.
FERGUSON, Judge (dissenting to denial
of rehearing en bane).
This case should be heard by the full
court because it is of great public impor-
tance, is in irreconcilable conflict with
White v. Metropolitan Dade County, 563
So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), on which it
purports to rely, and is in conflict with a
DADE COUNTY v. MATHESON Fla. 473
Cite as 605 So.2d 469 (F1a.App. 3 Dist. 1992)
decision of this court on the question of
standing to enforce a restrictive covenant.
In language that needs no interpretation
the White court wrote:
In [this] ruling that the holding of the
Lipton tournament violates the deed re-
striction, we note that a distinction must
be made between "park purposes" and
"public purposes." Assuming arguendo
that the Lipton tournament is an econom-
ic success which brings innumerable ben-
efits to Dade County and its citizens,
such an undeniable public purpose is not
consistent with a deed restriction man-
dating the narrower "public park pur-
poses only."
Id., at 124. The panel in this case says that
the White court, in the same breath, then
approved the construction of a stadium in
Crandon Park for the Lipton Tournament.
That conclusion is neither reasonable nor
supported by the earlier opinion.
By accepting the County's strained argu-
ment for that proposition, the panel has
become an unwitting accomplice to a power
move, as the Mathesons contend, which
would hasten construction and schedule the
next tournament before the real parties in
interest can be heard.' If stadium con-
struction is resumed based on a misinter-
pretation of the opinion in this case, the
legal issues will be mooted. Any subse-
quent review would be limited to a ceremo-
nial balancing of economic interests against
relatively impotent environmental and pub-
lic safety concerns. It goes without saying
that once the multi -million dollar coliseum
is constructed at taxpayers' expense the
tournaments will go forward despite deed
violations and adverse environmental im-
pacts.
1. The fears expressed by the appellees are well-
founded. White v. Metropolitan Dade County
held that the projected stadium was subject to
Development of Regional Impact reviews pursu-
ant to section 380.06, Florida Statutes. Id., at
130. The court in White held further that the
law does not allow developers to commence
construction without obtaining a final develop-
ment order or a preliminary development agree-
ment.
DRI reviews are time-consuming proceedings
which focus, intensely, on matters of public
health and safety, and inquire into, among other
things, whether adequate public infrastructure
Questions Presented
Three specific and interrelated questions
are deserving of en banc review: (1) where
one appellate court panel has determined
that a proposed tennis tournament, in a
predominantly low -density residential and
"environmentally sensitive parkland," vio-
lates a "public park purpose" use restric-
tion as the term is used in a restrictive
covenant, whether another panel of the
same court may, or should, approve the
construction of a stadium to be used specif-
ically for that tournament; (2) whether
property owners living in proximity to land
encumbered by a use restriction for public
parks may sue to enforce the covenant
where the court recognizes that the resi-
dents may be adversely affected by the
proposed activity or may be "virtually oust-
ed" from use of the land as a park; and (3)
where the court has recognized environ-
mental impact and public ouster as critical
factors to a determination that a public
park purpose restriction in a covenant has
been violated, whether a conclusion may be
reached that there is no deed restriction
violation in constructing an edifice for that
purpose before there is a factual determi-
nation that the proposed use will not cause
environmental harm and that the public
will not be virtually ousted. The last issue
assumes, for the sake of argument, that
the deed violation issue was not previously
litigated.
Conflict With The White Opinion
Key rulings made in the White decision
are the law of this case and are unchanged
by any material occurrences or evidence
presented after remand. First, and most
significant, is that "Dade County took part
exists to accommodate the development and
whether the development will result in material
adverse impacts to existing resources. Because
the island of Key Biscayne is connected to the
mainland by a single often -congested causeway,
the DRI review takes on increased significance.
The panel treats the subject as if it had not
been litigated in the first case. After White was
released, however, Dade County attempted to
circumvent this court's mandate by obtaining
from the state land planning agency a waiver of
the DRI reviews. The propriety of that action is
yet to be tested which, alone, is a basis for
affirming the injunction order.
of the land deeded by the Mathesons and
used it for the development of the Lipton
Tournament Tennis Center." Id. at 120.
In finding that the deed restriction was
violated, the White panel further held that
(1) "the public . . . is deprived from using
these tennis facilities for a period of three
to four weeks during the Tournament Peri-
od," (2) "operation of the Lipton tourna-
ment . . . does amount to the virtual ouster
of the public from the park for periods of
time during the two-week tournament," (3)
"the tournament apparently takes up all
the available public parking spaces at Cran-
don Park . . . during the tournament . . .
[t]his is a public park parking nightmare,"
and in conclusion, (5) "Dade County [is] in
violation of the deed restriction." Id., at
125-26.
At the heart of the controversy in this
second review is the proposed construction
of a stadium for the Lipton Tournament on
"environmentally sensitive parkland" locat-
ed on the island of Key Biscayne. A corol-
lary question was presented to the panel in
the first review —whether holding the inter-
national tennis tournament on the island
violated the deed restriction in the first
place.
First, the panel says that the White opin-
ion holding that the "concept" of a tennis
complex did not violate the deed restriction
was a holding that the proposed Lipton
Tournament stadium did not violate the
restriction, citing to pages 123 and 126.
What is to be found at page 123 is merely
an observation, in reliance on Hanna v.
2. Dade County's reliance on Hanna v. Sunrise
Recreation, Inc., as support for its contention
that the tennis complex was consistent with the
deed restriction was expressly rejected in White.
The White panel noted that the facts in Hanna,
which involved a public golf course, were differ-
ent from the facts in this case where the public
would be deprived from using the facilities for a
period of three to four weeks during the tourna-
ment.
As the Hanna court observed, tennis courts
and golf courses are permissible public park
uses when the facilities are accessible "for the
use by and enjoyment of the public" as is the
case with playgrounds, dancing facilities, a
swimming pool, bathhouse, horseshoe pitching,
walking, horseback riding, and other outdoor
activities. It is still to be decided whether the
proposed stadium, which will block off access
Sunrise Recreation, Inc., 94 So.2d 597
(F1a.1957), that a tennis complex, in the
abstract, may be a permissible public park
use.' To be found on page 126 is the
gratuitous statement that "[o]ur ruling
does not prevent Dade County from using
the tennis complex for [any] tennis tourna-
ments". That language, however, follows
the ringing holding that the Lipton Tourna-
ment is a "violation of the deed restric-
tion." Nowhere in the White opinion is
there a holding, even inferentially, that the
construction of a stadium to accommodate
the Lipton Tournament is consistent with
the "public park purposes only" restriction
found in the deed.'
Standing To Enforce A Restrictive Cove-
nant
A restrictive covenant in a deed, unlike a
police power limitation on the use of land,
does not necessarily involve general public
welfare concerns. Such covenants are pri-
vate promises or agreements creating neg-
ative easements or equitable servitudes
which are enforceable as rights arising out
of a contract. Board of Public Instruc-
tion v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands, 81
So.2d 637 (F1a.1955). Whether a litigant
seeking to enforce the covenant is among
that narrow class of persons who have
standing is a question of fact. Osius v.
Barton, 109 Fla. 556, 147 So. 862 (1933). It
is established as a matter of law, however,
that those persons entitled to enforce the
promise include "those in the neighborhood
who may be considered [intended] benefi-
to the tennis courts except on terms and condi-
tions as fixed by the private operator, is a Han-
na -type public park use.
When White was heard in the trial court, a
stadium was only a future possibility. Subse-
quently, according to the appellees, final plans
were submitted for the construction of a "55
foot high, three tier structure with hundreds of
offices and facilities built into it (and with pro-
visions for 14,000 seats during the Lipton tour-
nament)."
3. Pages 129-131 of the White opinion, referred
to by the panel, discusses Development of Re-
gional Impact review as a pre -construction re-.
quirement. That discussion is irrelevant to the
issue of whether the stadium violates the deed
restriction. The court's discussion of the deed
restriction violation ends on page 126.
DADE COUNTY v. MATHESON
Cite as 605 So.2d 469 (FIa.App. 3 Dist. 1992)
Fla. 475
ciaries of the contract." Silver Blue Lake
Apts., Inc. v. Silver Blue Lake Home
Owners Ass'n, 245 So.2d 609, 611 (Fla.
1971); Osius, 147 So. at 868; Batman v.
Creighton, 101 So.2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA
1958). We held, in City of Miami Beach v.
Kline, 189 So.2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966),
that property owners in a neighborhood
near a golf course were proper parties in
an action to enforce a covenant requiring
the property to be used only for "golf
course purposes." This case is factually
indistinguishable. Contrary to the panel's
holding, those plaintiffs who are residents
of Key Biscayne, assuredly, would have
standing to enforce the covenant.'
There is another aspect of the panel opin-
ion which begs for clarification. It is noted
at the outset —incorrectly --that the plain-
tiffs who are not heirs of the grantor have
no standing to enforce the covenant. Then
the panel recognizes the holding of White
that whether the deed restriction has been
violated turns on how the stadium will be
constructed, whether the tournament will
be disruptive to the area and whether the
public will be ousted from use of the com-
plex —legitimate concerns of those who
may not be heirs of the grantor. Neverthe-
less, the panel finds that there is no viola-
tion of the restrictive covenant even though
others who have standing —including those
who were previously determined to be with-
out standing —may "challenge the nature
or design of the stadium . . . how tourna-
ments are run or whether the public is
being improperly ousted from the use of
the park in violation of the deed restric-
tions litigated in the White case." What is
the trial judge to do on remand?
Conclusion
In summary, the prominent conflicts and
internal inconsistencies presented by the
panel opinion are: (1) a stadium may be
constructed for the Lipton Tournament
even though the earlier opinion held that
conducting the tournament in the park vio-
4. Heirs of the grantors have standing to enforce
the covenant because of their beneficial interest
in the reversion if the public park purpose is
found to have been violated. See generally Mau-
rice T. Brunner, Annotation, Who May Enforce
Restrictive Covenant or Agreement as to use of
Real Property, 51 A.L.R.3d 556 (1973). That
lates the deed; (2) some of those same
persons who the first panel said had no
standing are the real parties in interest
who may have some after -the -fact stand-
ing; (3) whether the public will be ousted
from the park by operation of the Lipton
Tournament, and whether a stadium for
the Lipton Tournament violates the deed,
are issues still to be litigated, although
there is a recognition that whether the
tournament itself violates the deed has al-
ready been litigated; and (4) the trial
court's order enjoining stadium construc-
tion was erroneous even though there are
parties with standing who have yet to be
heard on whether the stadium violates the
deed restriction. I submit, respectfully,
that the panel opinion is confusing.
The trial judge's injunction order, which
halted stadium construction, flowed logical-
ly from and was imminently correct in light
of the White opinion. Those findings and
holdings made in the earlier case are the
law of this case and are binding unless
found, specifically, to be manifestly errone-
ous or unjust. In my view the en bane
court should reconcile the two opinions ren-
dered in this cause of action and give clear
directions to the trial court.
Editor's Note: The opinion of the Dis-
trict Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth
District, in Holstrom v. Watkins, pub-
lished in the advance sheet at this cita-
tion, 605 So.2d 475-476, was withdrawn
from the bound volume because the opin-
ion was withdrawn on motion for rehear-
ing September 21, 1992. A substituted
opinion will be published.
standing is not exclusive. Non -heirs, such as
owners of property in proximity to the servient
lands, have standing where it is shown that they
are intended beneficiaries of the negative ease-
ments or servitudes created by the use restric-
tions. Silver Blue Lake Apts., Inc., 245 So.2d at
611.
DRAFT - May 3, 1996
THE
CRANDON PARK
MASTER PLAN
FORWARD
This Master Plan contains within its pages information of the utmost value to
everyone who is concerned with standards and restrictions which will help
perpetuate the use of public park land.
Crandon Park had its beginning in 1929 with Mr. A.D. "Doug" Barnes, as the
first County Parks Department employee, inviting the American Institute of Park
executives to Miami for their annual conference. Included in the conference was a
fish chowder party on the beach under the coconut palms on Key Biscayne. In
attendance were Mr. Matheson, who owned a portion of the beach on Key Biscayne,
Doug Barnes and several county officials, including Commissioner Charles
Crandon. As Barnes explained in his thorough History Qf Dade County Park System
19294969 The First Forty Years (1986) "[M]any of the park people, under the spell
of the rustling palms [at the Key Biscayne chowder party], were enthused about an
opportunity to set aside such a tropical isle or a piece of one for a one of a kind
park." This did come to pass in 1940 with a donation to Dade County from the
Matheson Family of nine hundred and seventy-five acres of their property on Key
Biscayne. This Master Plan is dedicated to the foresight of Mr. A.D. "Doug"
Barnes.
"Unless someone blunders in the future, the citizens of Dade County are going
to have a public park that cannot and will not be equaled in the Americas -- North
or South America ... This is the future of this new land - unless ruined by those
unto whose hands it will be placed."
Charles Crandon, Dade County Commissioner
Park Dedication Ceremonies 1949*
Crandon Park is "a rare and invaluable resource; one that most areas of the
country would envy." Dade County Parks Department, Crandon Park: The Next
Fifty Years, p. 47.
Crandon Park is recognized as a "sylvan spot of tranquility." White v. Dade
County, 563 So.2d 117, 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(Judge J.J. Gersten).
Crandon, Country Bumpkin at 64-66.
CRANDON PARK MASTER PLAN
Prepared By:
Mr. Artemas P. Richardson
The Olmsted Office
Fremont, N.H.
Charles W. Pezoldt, PhD.
Director, Dade County Park and
Recreation Department
Bruce C. Matheson
Matheson Family
1993-1994-1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Crandon Master Plan consists of the written material and figures which
follow, together with the Appendices, including comprehensive Master Plan Site
Plans, graphically depicting all features and structures to be permitted in the
Crandon Park Lands.'
FORWARD
INTRODUCTION
STATEMENT OF INTENT
GENERAL OBJECTIVES
DESIGN OBJECTIVES FOR SPECIFIC AREAS
CRANDON PARK BOULEVARD
CRANDON PARK MARINA
IBIS PRESERVE
CRANDON PARK GOLF COURSE
CRANDON PARK TENNIS CENTER
WEST POINT PRESERVE
FIRE STATION
CALUSA MANGROVE TRAIL
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
CRANDON PARK SERVICE AREA
CRANDON PARK BOTANICAL GARDEN
CRANDON PARK CABANAS
PARKING AND BEACH DRIVE
CRANDON PARK BEACH
The Master Plan Site Plan and other graphic materials are prepared in color. Computer discs of this
Master Plan containing both text and color drawings have been deposited with and are available from the
Historical Museum of Southern Florida, Dade County Public Library, Dade County Park and Recreation
Department, Dade County Clerk's Office, 111 N.W. 1st Street, Miami, Florida 33128; Telephone
(305)375-5126.
4
CRANDON PARK VISITORS AND NATURE CENTER
BEAR CUT PRESERVE
PLANNING PROCESS
SITE ANALYSIS - The Present Situation
EXISTING SITE MAP (300' scale)
EXISTING LANDSCAPE MAP (300' scale)
MASTER PLAN
A. SITE PLAN (300' scale and 120' sectionals)
B. LANDSCAPE PLAN (300' scale and 120' sectionals)
C. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
D. DETAILS OF SPECIFIC AREAS
E. PRIORITY LIST FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MASTER
PLAN
APPENDICES
CRANDON PARK GRAPHICS
PHOTOGRAPHS - KEY BISCAYNE AND CRANDON PARK
U.S. GOVERNMENT TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP (1947) APP.R.
U.S. GOVERNMENT TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP (1988) APP.R
WILLIAM LYMAN PHILLIPS PLAN (1942) APP.R
DADE COUNTY PARK PLAN (1959) APP.R
CURRENT PARK PLAN (1993) APP.R
CURRENT SITE MAP (300' SCALE)
5
CURRENT LANDSCAPE MAP (300' SCALE)
MASTER PLAN GRAPHICS
Site Plan (300' Scale) with structures and acreage
Sectionals (120' Scale)
Marina
Marina Entrance (40' Scale)
Golf Course
Golf Course Maintenance Area (40' Scale)
Tennis Center
Tennis Center Promenade Area (40' Scale)
Fire Station and Calusa Mangrove Trail
Botanical Garden
Beach Areas 1 through 6
Beach Picnic Area (40' Scale)
Landscape Plan (300' scale)
Sectionals (120' scale)
Marina
Marina Entrance (40' scale)
Golf Course
Golf Course Maintenance Area (40' scale)
Tennis Center
Tennis Center Promenade Area (40' scale)
Fire Station and Calusa Mangrove Trail
Botanical Garden
Beach Areas 1 through 6
Beach Picnic Area (40' scale)
Bear Cut and Ibis Preserve Areas
West Point Preserve Areas
Illustrated Landscape Sectionals See Appendix B
Detailed Elements with
Guidelines and Standards
6
INTRODUCTION
The island of Key Biscayne, and what is now referred to as Crandon Park,
have a long and colorful history. Beginning with European discovery in 1497, the
island has hosted Spanish explorers, Caribbean pirates, Native Americans, a coconut
plantation and urban development. Complementing its history are Crandon Park's
exceptional environmental qualities. Its barrier island shoreline, sea grasses,
wetlands, coastal hammocks, fossilized mangrove reef (unique in the world), and
bird rookeries cannot be overrated. This rich historical and environmental backdrop
provides Crandon Park with unparalleled recreational opportunities that include
boating, fishing, swimming, picnicking, nature study, walking, bicycling, tennis and
golf.
Since Crandon Park was donated to Dade County by the Matheson Family in
1940,2 the planning efforts of William Lyman Phillips have been its development
guide. The integrity, quality and historic value which these plans gave the Park
must be preserved, particularly in view of the many other forces which have affected
the Park in the last fifty-three years, exacting their toll on its physical and
environmental resources.
In 1988, disputes arose between Dade County and the Matheson Family on
certain activities on the Crandon Park Lands.3 Under a 1993 Settlement Agreement
between Dade County and the Matheson Family, the parties agreed to the creation
of a comprehensive Master Plan for Crandon Park, "to determine for all time" "all
permitted uses of various areas on the Crandon Park Lands, including guidelines and
The Crandon Park Lands include Tracts 1, 2 and 3 in Plat Book 34 at page 34 of the Public Records
of Dade County, Florida (hereinafter the "Crandon Park Lands").
White v. Metropolitan Dade County, 563 So.2d 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Malcolm Matheson. Jr. et.
al. v. Dade County, Case No. 91-3207 (CA-15)(11th Cir. Dade Cty, Fla.), Dade County v. Malcolm
Matheson. Jr. et. al,, 605 So.2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Malcolm Matheson. Jr. et. al. v. Dade County,
Case No. 88-24491 (CA-10)(11th Cir. Dade Cty, F1a.)(Emergency Motion for Supplemental and
Additional Relief and to Amend Final Judgment; Settlement Agreement signed January 14, 1993). The
Matheson Family claimed that the County's operation of an International Professional Tennis Tournament,
and plans for construction of a "professional sport franchise facility" on the Crandon Park Lands, violated
the simple use restriction contained in the Mathesons' deeds to the County; "This conveyance is made upon
the express condition that the lands hereby conveyed shall be perpetually used and maintained for public
park purposes only...".
7
standards for the type, location, size, color, landscaping and other features of all
structures, improvements and recreational and other facilities to be located in
Crandon Park or on the Crandon Park Lands." [Settlement Agreement ¶1(a)]. This
Master Plan is essential if Crandon Park is to provide an experience that captures its
real history, utilizing, yet preserving its natural amenities to maximize future
benefits to the residents of Dade County. This Master Plan establishes that Crandon
Park is a cherished natural treasure with a focused purpose described in this
document, to be carefully sustained as an inheritance for our children and our
children's children, in perpetuity.
STATEMENT OF INTENT
The following statement of intent shall govern this Master Plan and be used
in construction of its various provisions:
The Crandon Park Lands shall be held in trust for all future generations as a
place where urban dwellers may escape the stresses of the urban environment for
renewal and refreshment in harmony with nature and naturally functioning
ecosystems. The Crandon Park Lands provide woodland and beach settings which
contain special aesthetic beauty and offer priceless natural resources which are to be
preserved and properly maintained for all time. The Crandon Park Lands shall
provide a native and tropical woodland, a field and beach setting emphasizing
passive recreation, serenity, beauty, and a retreat from the noise and congestion of
the urban area, and a return to nature for park patrons. Commercial activity shall
be strictly limited and such activity as is permitted shall be directly related to and
designed to have the least impact possible on the Crandon Park Lands. The Crandon
Park Lands belong, for all time, to the people of Dade County, so that every man,
woman and child, rich or poor, who frequents the Crandon Park Lands, may say
"this is my park and I have a right to be here."
8
GENERAL OBJECTIVES
PLANNING PREMISES FOR THE CRANDON PARK MASTER PLAN
General Goal
To rehabilitate and restore Crandon Park to serve all the residents of Dade
County as their premier Metropolitan Park for all time.
General Park Objectives
1. To preserve and enhance Crandon Park's unique character as a Natural
Resource Based Metropolitan Park;
• Provide primarily passive, natural resource -based
recreation experiences
• Balance conservation of natural and historical resources
with public use and enjoyment
2. To restore Crandon Park's aesthetic and historic character;
• Reestablish a lush tropical landscape
• Reintroduce the historic coconut palm
• Reestablish Crandon Boulevard as a scenic park road
• Remove all commercial signs and benches
• Screen out tennis stadium and maintenance facilities
• Minimize adverse, unsympathetic impacts on natural areas
• Restore the health of natural systems
• Prohibit incremental degradation of Crandon Park Lands
3. To establish a unified, cohesive identity for Crandon Park and its
activity areas;
• Create a clear statement of welcome at the Causeway
entrance
9
" D e v e l o p l i m i t e d , w e l l - d e f i n e d [ t r a f f i c c r o s s o v e r s ] w h i c h
s a f e l y u n i f y t h e v a r i o u s a c t i v i t y a r e a s
" D e v e l o p a s t a n d a r d s i g n a g e s t y l e
" I n t r o d u c e S o u t h F l o r i d a V e r n a c u l a r a s t h e c o h e s i v e
a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t y l e
4 . T o i m p r o v e p e d e s t r i a n a n d b i c y c l e u s e o f C r a n d o n P a r k ;
" D e v e l o p c i r c u l a t i o n r o u t e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e P a r k
" P r o v i d e s a f e a c c e s s t o a n d w i t h i n a l l a c t i v i t y a r e a s
" P r o v i d e a v a r i e t y o f w a l k i n g a n d n o n - m o t o r i z e d w h e e l i n g
e x p e r i e n c e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e P a r k
" M i n i m i z e c o n f l i c t s w i t h v e h i c l e s
5 . T o m i n i m i z e a d v e r s e i m p a c t o f a u t o m o b i l e s i n t h e P a r k ;
" M i n i m i z e a l l c r o s s - t r a f f i c a l o n g C r a n d o n B o u l e v a r d
" M i n i m i z e p o i n t s o f a u t o m o b i l e / p e d e s t r i a n / b i c y c l e c o n f l i c t
" M a k e p a r k i n g a r e a s m o r e c o m p a t i b l e a n d s y m p a t h e t i c
t o t h e P a r k ' s c h a r a c t e r
6 . T o i m p r o v e t h e P a r k ' s r e c r e a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e ;
" R e c r e a t e h i s t o r i c o p e n f i e l d s
" D e v e l o p n a t u r a l a n d h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t i v e a r e a s
" C r e a t e a v a r i e t y o f a r e a s t h a t p r o m o t e c r e a t i v e l e a r n i n g
e x p e r i e n c e s a n d w h i c h a r e t h e m e d a r o u n d t h e P a r k ' s
h i s t o r i c a n d n a t u r a l a t t r i b u t e s a n d e m p h a s i z e n a t u r a l
m a t e r i a l s
" P r o v i d e a c c e s s f o r p e o p l e w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s
" P r o v i d e f o r f a m i l y a n d g r o u p p i c n i c k i n g
" P e r m i t a p p r o p r i a t e l y s c a l e d s p e c i a l e v e n t s
" P r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l , c o n v e n i e n t v i s i t o r i n f o r m a t i o n s i g n s
a n d e x h i b i t s
" A s s u r e a d e q u a t e s h o w e r s , d r i n k i n g f o u n t a i n s a n d
r e s t r o o m s
1 0
" I m p r o v e e x i s t i n g s h e l t e r s , c o n c e s s i o n s , d r i n k i n g f o u n t a i n s
a n d r e s t r o o m s
" A d d f a m i l y a n d s h a d e s p a c e s
7 . T o e s t a b l i s h a t i m e t a b l e , p r i o r i t i e s a n d d e d i c a t e d f u n d i n g s o u r c e s f o r
c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e f e a t u r e s o f t h i s M a s t e r P l a n .
1 1
DESIGN OBJECTIVES FOR SPECIFIC AREAS
CRANDON BOULEVARD
I. Design Objectives:
• Create an identifiable Park theme and welcoming entrance
• Create a relaxed Park road character along Crandon Boulevard
• Reintroduce coconut palms and a historic landscape theme with lush
tropical and native plantings
• Reduce hazardous cross -traffic along the Boulevard
• Provide positive separation of pedestrians and recreational bicyclists
from vehicles
• Facilitate movement of vehicles and speed bicycles through the Park
and into various activity areas.
CRANDON PARK MARINA
I. Design Objectives:
• Improve the efficiency of traffic circulation
• Enhance the aesthetic character and appeal of the Marina
• Provide for the preservation of the Rookery Island
• Provide for the preservation of the Tern Nesting Area
• Provide for erosion control of the shoreline with riprap and mangroves
• Provide 3 to 5 picnic shelters (300 sq. ft. each) on the grass area of
Pelican Point
• Remove all boats from Pelican Point
• Provide for public access, picnicking and observation along the western
edge of the Marina area
• Permit a Dive Shop operation which includes a building for office
(maximum size 530 sq. ft.), tour and merchandise sales and dock space
that currently exist
• Permit dive shop activities including chartered dive trips and off -site
certification instruction of the existing size
12
" P r o v i d e f o r c h a r t e r a n d p r i v a t e b o a t s l i p s a n d m o o r i n g s o f t h e s i z e t h a t
c u r r e n t l y e x i s t
" P r o v i d e a m a r i n a r e s t a u r a n t w i t h d e s i g n a t e d p a r k i n g t o c o r r e s p o n d t o
c o d e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r s e a t s f o r f o o d a n d b e v e r a g e s a l e s i n t h e
r e s t a u r a n t
" R e m o v e r e s t a u r a n t a n d a l l o t h e r a d v e r t i s i n g s i g n s f r o m C r a n d o n
B o u l e v a r d f r o n t a g e
" P r o v i d e f o r a 2 - s t o r y d o c k m a s t e r b u i l d i n g , w i t h a f i r s t f l o o r o f f e r i n g
t o i l e t s , s h o w e r s , a n d l a u n d r y , a n d a B a i t a n d T a c k l e s h o p ( m a x i m u m
s i z e : 1 , 2 5 0 s q . f t ) ; a n d a s e c o n d f l o o r f o r d o c k m a s t e r o f f i c e s
( m a x i m u m s i z e : 1 , 0 0 0 s q . f t )
" R e t a i n , c o n s t r u c t a n d / o r r e n o v a t e a l l e x i s t i n g a n d f u t u r e p e r m a n e n t
s t r u c t u r e s i n t h e S o u t h F l o r i d a V e r n a c u l a r A r c h i t e c t u r a l S t y l e .
" P r o v i d e f o r a n o u t d o o r p i c n i c a r e a n e x t t o t h e b a i t a n d t a c k l e s h o p o f
t h e e x i s t i n g s i z e
" P r o v i d e f o r a d d i t i o n a l b o a t t r a i l e r p a r k i n g b y r e m o v i n g t h e e x i s t i n g
f e n c e d b o a t t r a i l e r c o m p o u n d a n d r e n o v a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g p a r k i n g
" P r o v i d e a d e q u a t e t r a s h r e c e p t a c l e s t h r o u g h o u t t h e M a r i n a a r e a
" R e m o v e a l l t r a i l e r s a n d / o r c a m p e r t r u c k s p r o v i d i n g o f f i c e s p a c e
" R e t a i n a n d r e n o v a t e e x i s t i n g r e s t r o o m b u i l d i n g s
" P r o v i d e l i m i t e d r e s t r i c t e d p a r k i n g f o r M a r i n a t e n a n t s
" P e r m i t b o a t i n g a c t i v i t i e s o n p r i v a t e , r e n t e d o r c h a r t e r e d v e s s e l s a s
c u r r e n t l y e x i s t s
" P r o v i d e r e s t a u r a n t s e r v i c e f o r t h e b o a t i n g a n d g e n e r a l p u b l i c
" P e r m i t s a l e o f m e r c h a n d i s e a n d f u e l s e r v i n g t h e b o a t i n g a n d g e n e r a l
p u b l i c o f t h e s i z e t h a t c u r r e n t l y e x i s t
" P r o m o t e p i c n i c k i n g a n d n a t u r e o b s e r v a t i o n
I B I S P R E S E R V E
I D e s i g n O b j e c t i v e s :
" R e s t o r e d e g r a d e d a r e a s t o n a t u r a l s y s t e m f u n c t i o n s
" P r e s e r v e t h e i n t e g r i t y o f u n d i s t u r b e d n a t u r a l a r e a s
" M a i n t a i n l i m i t e d a c c e s s t o t o u r s l e d b y q u a l i f i e d n a t u r a l i s t s
" M a i n t a i n a c a n o e z o n e a l o n g B i s c a y n e B a y
1 3
" P r o m o t e n a t u r e o b s e r v a t i o n a n d e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s i n c l u d i n g n a t u r e
s t u d y a n d f i e l d w o r k
" P r o m o t e r e s t o r a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s i n c l u d i n g r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f w e t l a n d s a n d
s o m e u p l a n d s
C R A N D O N P A R K G O L F C O U R S E
I . D e s i g n O b j e c t i v e s :
" P r o v i d e f o r v e h i c u l a r a c c e s s f r o m C r a n d o n B o u l e v a r d
" I m p r o v e t h e a e s t h e t i c c h a r a c t e r o f t h e d r i v e t o t h e c l u b h o u s e b y
s c r e e n i n g o u t a l l s t o r a g e , m a i n t e n a n c e a n d s e r v i c e y a r d a r e a s
" P r o v i d e f o r p e d e s t r i a n a n d b i c y c l e a c c e s s t o t h e g o l f c o u r s e
" R e t a i n e x i s t i n g t e n n i s c l u b c o m p l e x
" R e t a i n , c o n s t r u c t a n d / o r r e n o v a t e a l l e x i s t i n g a n d f u t u r e p e r m a n e n t
s t r u c t u r e s i n t h e S o u t h F l o r i d a V e r n a c u l a r A r c h i t e c t u r a l S t y l e
" P r o v i d e l i m i t e d a d d i t i o n a l m a c h i n e r y s t o r a g e a t e x i s t i n g g o l f c a r t s h e d
l o c a t i o n
" P r o v i d e l i m i t e d b u l k s t o r a g e i n t h e m a i n t e n a n c e a r e a
" P r o v i d e f o r t h e e x i s t i n g d r i v i n g r a n g e g o l f p r o b u i l d i n g
" P r o v i d e f o r l i m i t e d c l u b h o u s e , r e s t a u r a n t / b a r , p a t i o s n a c k b a r ,
g o l f s h o p , l o c k e r r o o m s a n d p a r k o f f i c e s a s n e e d e d
" P e r m i t c l u b h o u s e a c t i v i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g f o o d a n d b e v e r a g e s e r v i c e ,
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a n d g o l f - r e l a t e d r o o m a n d p a t i o r e n t a l s
" P r o v i d e r e s t r o o m s a n d a n e l e v a t o r f o r h a n d i c a p p e d p e r s o n s i n t h e
e x i s t i n g c l u b h o u s e a s n e e d e d
" R e t a i n t h e e x i s t i n g s h e l t e r a n d b o a t l a n d i n g o n B i s c a y n e B a y
" P r o m o t e g o l f i n g a c t i v i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g p u b l i c p l a y , t o u r n a m e n t s , s p e c i a l
g o l f e v e n t s a n d i n s t r u c t i o n
" P r o m o t e t e n n i s a c t i v i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g p u b l i c p l a y , t o u r n a m e n t s , s p e c i a l
t e n n i s e v e n t s a n d i n s t r u c t i o n
" R e t a i n e x i s t i n g s a l e s a r e a f o r g o l f m e r c h a n d i s e
1 4
CRANDON PARK TENNIS CENTER
I. Design Objectives:
• Provide for vehicular access from Crandon Boulevard
• Improve the efficiency of vehicular circulation within the Tennis Center
• Provide for pedestrian and bicycle access to the Tennis Center
• Provide for better pedestrian access and scale within the Tennis Center
• Improve the aesthetic character of the Tennis Center grounds through
extensive, lush, tropical and native landscaping
• Provide for the existing Stadium
• Screen Stadium from all points on Crandon Boulevard and all points
between the Boulevard and the Beach
• Retain all existing permanent structures now built in the South
Florida Vernacular Architectural Style
• Renovate and build all new structures in the South Florida Vernacular
Architectural Style
• Provide for the existing clubhouse and locker rooms
• Provide for a total of seventeen hard courts, five of which are lighted
• Provide for eight clay surface tennis courts and three grass surface
courts
• Provide for storage of maintenance equipment, bulk materials and
supplies in the Stadium
• Provide for tennis activities, including public play, tournaments,
exclusively tennis -related events and instruction
• Limit the tennis merchandise sales area to its present size
• Permit clubhouse activities (including administration, room rentals and
meetings) relating exclusively to tennis
• Permit indoor snack and beverage vending
15
WEST POINT PRESERVE
I. Design Objectives:
• Limit access to tours by qualified interpretive naturalists
• Restore degraded areas to their original natural and/or historic
characters
• Preserve the integrity of the undisturbed natural areas
• Maintain canoe access to Biscayne Bay from the Lake
• Promote canoeing, nature observation, and guided nature walks
• Advance the preserve boundary eastward to Crandon Boulevard
• Implement restoration activities of wetland and upland areas
• Maintain a 1,000 foot wide "no motor" zone along the outer most edge
of the western Biscayne Bay shoreline, the sea grass beds and sand flats
• Maintain a 1,000 foot wide manatee zone along the southwestern
shoreline
• Provide for a 3,500 linear foot boardwalk loop nature trail
• Except as provided for, prohibit any disturbance in the preserve
FIRE STATION
I. Design Objectives:
• Provide for vehicular access from Crandon Boulevard
• Permit Fire/Rescue activities only if the Park is serviced from this
station by the Dade County Fire Department.
• Retain and/or renovate all existing permanent structures in the South
Florida Vernacular Architectural Style.
CALUSA MANGROVE TRAIL
I. Design Objectives:
• Provide vehicular access from the Crandon Boulevard Rotary
16
" P r o v i d e f o r p e d e s t r i a n a n d b i c y c l e a c c e s s t h e C a l u s a M a n g r o v e T r a i l
f r o m t h e n e w p e d e s t r i a n / b i k e t r a i l w e s t w a r d o f C r a n d o n B o u l e v a r d
" R e t a i n a n d m o d i f y e x i s t i n g s h e l t e r a n d r e s t r o o m s
" R e t a i n e x i s t i n g p a r k i n g f o r a c c e s s t o t h e n e w C a l u s a M a n g r o v e T r a i l
" A f t e r y e a r e n d 1 9 9 7 , r e m o v e a l l o t h e r b u i l d i n g s a n d s t r u c t u r e s , a n d
r e s t o r e t h e C a l u s a a r e a w i t h f l o w e r i n g t r e e s a n d n a t i v e v e g e t a t i o n a n d
p r o v i d e t h r e e 3 0 0 s q . f t . p i c n i c s h e l t e r s
" P r o v i d e a p e d e s t r i a n m a n g r o v e e x p e r i e n c e f o r p e d e s t r i a n s t h r o u g h a
3 , 5 0 0 l i n e a r f o o t e l e v a t e d b o a r d w a l k l o o p i n t o t h e W e s t P o i n t P r e s e r v e
w i t h i n t e r p r e t i v e s i g n a g e
" R e s t o r e h a b i t a t s f o r n a t i v e a n d m i g r a t o r y f a u n a
" P r o v i d e l i m i t e d v i s u a l a n d s e n s o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f f l o r a a n d f a u n a
A R C H A E O L O G I C A L S I T E S
I . D e s i g n O b j e c t i v e s :
" P r o v i d e f o r a n d p r o t e c t e x i s t i n g a n d f u t u r e a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s i t e s
" F u r n i s h i n t e r p r e t i v e s i g n a g e f o r p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n
" S t i m u l a t e p u b l i c a w a r e n e s s b y p r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t p r e h i s t o r i c
p a t t e r n s o f T e q u e s t a I n d i a n s o n K e y B i s c a y n e t h r o u g h n o n - c o m m e r c i a l
i n t e r p r e t i v e a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e C r a n d o n P a r k B o t a n i c a l G a r d e n
C R A N D O N P A R K S E R V I C E A R E A
I . D e s i g n O b j e c t i v e :
" P r o v i d e f o r v e h i c u l a r a c c e s s f r o m t h e C r a n d o n B o u l e v a r d R o t a r y
" S c r e e n c o m p l e t e l y t h e m a i n t e n a n c e a r e a f r o m a l l P a r k r o a d s , p a t h s a n d
w a l k w a y s
" C l e a n - u p , o r g a n i z e a n d p r o p e r l y m a i n t a i n a l l m a t e r i a l a n d e q u i p m e n t
" P r o v i d e s e c u r i t y f o r m a c h i n e s , m a t e r i a l s a n d r e c o r d s
" P r o v i d e f o r a g a r b a g e / t r a s h c o m p a c t o r o r i n t h e f u t u r e , a m o r e
t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y a d v a n c e d d e v i c e f o r t e m p o r a r y s t o r a g e o f P a r k r e f u s e
" R e t a i n a n d / o r r e n o v a t e a l l e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s
1 7
" R e t a i n p a r k s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g v e h i c l e a n d m a c h i n e
m a i n t e n a n c e a n d s t o r a g e , m a t e r i a l s s t o r a g e , t o o l s t o r a g e , t r a d e s s h o p s
a n d o f f i c e s , s t a f f l u n c h r o o m a n d f u e l p u m p s
" P r o v i d e a m e a n s t o c h i p a n d / o r m u l c h a n d r e c y c l e t h e P a r k ' s v e g e t a t i v e
m a t t e r
T H E C R A N D O N P A R K B O T A N I C A L G A R D E N
I . D e s i g n O b j e c t i v e s :
" P r o v i d e f o r v e h i c u l a r a c c e s s f r o m C r a n d o n B o u l e v a r d
" P r o v i d e f o r p e d e s t r i a n a n d b i c y c l e a c c e s s t o T h e B o t a n i c a l G a r d e n
" P r o m o t e w a l k i n g , n a t u r e o b s e r v a t i o n , p i c n i c k i n g a n d l i m i t e d n o n -
c o m m e r c i a l a r t a p p r e c i a t i o n
" P e r m i t i n t e r p r e t i v e a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e P a r k ' s h i s t o r i c , c u l t u r a l a n d
e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e s o u r c e s
" P e r m i t l i m i t e d s h e l t e r a n d g r o u n d s r e n t a l
" P e r m i t a p p r o p r i a t e l y s c a l e d s p e c i a l e v e n t s
" I n t r o d u c e l i m i t e d c a n o e i n g
" R e t a i n a n d / o r r e n o v a t e a l l M a s t e r P l a n p e r m i t t e d e x i s t i n g a n d f u t u r e
s t r u c t u r e s i n t h e S o u t h F l o r i d a V e r n a c u l a r A r c h i t e c t u r a l S t y l e
" E x c e p t a s s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d i n t h i s M a s t e r P l a n , i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e
g e n e r a l g o a l s a n d o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e " M a s t e r P l a n f o r t h e G a r d e n s a t
C r a n d o n P a r k " s e t f o r t h a s A p p e n d i x T a t t a c h e d h e r e t o a n d b y t h i s
r e f e r e n c e m a d e a p a r t h e r e o f .
C R A N D O N P A R K C A B A N A S
I . D e s i g n O b j e c t i v e s :
" P r o v i d e f o r v e h i c u l a r a c c e s s f r o m S o u t h B e a c h P a r k i n g L o t b y p e r m i t
o n l y
" P r o v i d e f o r p e d e s t r i a n a n d b i c y c l e a c c e s s t o t h e C a b a n a s
" I m p r o v e t h e a e s t h e t i c c h a r a c t e r o f t h e C a b a n a s a n d g r o u n d s
" R e d e s i g n t h e e x i s t i n g C a b a n a s u s i n g t h e e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e f o o t p r i n t , b u t
i n g r o u p s o f 3 o r 4 w i t h c o m m o n s p a c e b e t w e e n , a n d n e w C a b a n a s t o
1 8
conform to South Florida Vernacular Architectural Style for all
Crandon Park buildings
• Provide upon demand new Cabanas south of the existing Cabana
foundations for up to 6 renters
• Retain the existing restroom and concession structures serving the
Cabanas
• Permit daily, weekly, monthly and seasonal rentals of Cabana units
PARKING AND BEACH DRIVE
I. Design Objectives
• Provide for vehicular access from both the north and south Crandon
Boulevard entrances
• Improve the efficiency of vehicular access, parking and visitor drop-off
• Create natural yet effective traffic control devices which do not obstruct
the Park's scenic qualities
• Improve the aesthetic character of the central allee and of the Beach
Drive
• Raze existing Park Office, and provide a Park Office at the South
Beach Parking Lot toll booth (maximum size: 900 sq. ft.) in the South
Florida Vernacular Architectural Style
• Permit limited bicycle and roller skate and roller blade rental at the
roller rink.
• Permit Park management activities including administrative offices,
public information desk and map display in Park office
• Prohibit any increase of the existing parking spaces and enlargement of
other parking areas
• Provide for the existing Boulevard crossings for pedestrians and
bicycles and an additional one upon demand.
• Provide for a permeable parking lot surface
19
CRANDON PARK BEACH
I. Design Objectives:
• Improve the aesthetic character of the entire Beach with landscaping
• Provide for pedestrian and bicycle access to the beach activity areas
• Provide picnic areas that include open, informal play fields, family
picnic tables, small group picnic shelters and large group picnic shelters
• Provide for no more than three concession buildings at convenient
locations with limited snack bar food and beverage sales
• Provide lifeguard observation towers along the shoreline
• Maintain a 1,000 foot wide "no boat" zone along the beach
• Provide a Lifeguard Headquarters Tower
• Provide limited storage for lifeguards' vehicles and boats
• Provide additional landscaping, including coconut palm groups, dune
vegetation and natural plantings throughout all of the Beach areas
• Retain and renovate existing restroom buildings
• Provide for adequate outdoor showers, restrooms with changing areas
and drinking fountains
• Permit walking, jogging and bicycling, tram and train rides, picnicking,
parties, open field games, beach games, sunbathing, swimming, nature
observation, and limited appropriately scaled special events
• Permit limited and appropriately scaled rentals of picnic shelters,
umbrellas and lounge chairs with mats (300 maximum)
• Permit Park management activities, including administrative offices,
storage, locker rooms and first aid
• Permit limited and appropriately scaled print media and film industries
photography
• Retain and/or renovate all existing permanent structures in the South
Florida Vernacular Architectural Style.
20
CRANDON PARK VISITORS AND NATURE CENTER
I. Design Objectives:
• Provide for vehicular access from Crandon Boulevard
• Provide for pedestrian and bicycle access to the Nature Center
• Provide for the Nature Center to become the "gateway" into the Bear
Cut Preserve
• Provide for one dual-purpose South Florida Vernacular Architectural
Style building comprised of a Nature Center, primarily serving school
children, and a Park Visitors Center, serving the general public
• Provide for a Park Visitors' Center and include visitor orientation,
office space, storage and restrooms
• Provide for a Nature Center and include classrooms, restrooms and
teacher work space
• Provide for a self -releasing turtle hatchery
• Provide for a temporary plant propagation shade house for native plant
restoration projects
• Promote indigenous passive non-commercial environmental and
historical education activities, including classroom study, field study,
nature observation, lectures, films and literature only during daylight
hours
• Provide Park orientation activities, including lectures, films,
workshops, exhibits, staff contact and guided tours
BEAR CUT PRESERVE
I. Design Objectives:
• Provide for vehicular access from the north beach parking lot
• Provide for a single point of access for pedestrians, trains, trams, and
bicycles, into the Preserve through the Park Visitors' and Nature
Center
• Provide for the restoration and protection of the historic natural systems
in the Preserve
21
" P r o v i d e f o r i n t e r p r e t i v e t r a i l s w i t h s i g n a g e
" P r o v i d e f o r a S o u t h F l o r i d a V e r n a c u l a r A r c h i t e c t u r a l S t y l e
s h e l t e r / r e s t r o o m a n d o b s e r v a t i o n s t r u c t u r e i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e
f o s s i l i z e d m a n g r o v e r e e f
" R e s t r i c t b o a t a c c e s s i n t o t h e s e a g r a s s b e d s a n d s h o a l s w i t h a 1 0 0 0 f e e t
w i d e " n o b o a t " z o n e
" P r o v i d e f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f p r e s e n t a n d f u t u r e a r c h a e o l o g i c a l
r e s o u r c e s
" P r o m o t e n a t u r e o b s e r v a t i o n , w a l k i n g , b i c y c l i n g ( e x c l u d i n g t h e C r a n d o n
B l v d . b i c y c l e p a t h ) , s u n b a t h i n g , s w i m m i n g , s n o r k e l i n g , n a t u r e s t u d y ,
i n t e r p r e t i v e t o u r s a n d f i e l d s t u d y o n l y d u r i n g d a y l i g h t h o u r s
" I m p l e m e n t r e s t o r a t i o n o f w e t l a n d s , c o a s t a l a r e a s a n d u p l a n d s w i t h
n a t i v e p l a n t i n g s .
" P r o v i d e f o r a 1 0 ' w i d e p a v e d b i c y c l e p a t h t o r u n f r o m t h e N o r t h B e a c h
p a r k i n g l o t t o t h e B e a r C u t b r i d g e
" A n y s t r u c t u r e s h a l l b e c o n s t r u c t e d i n t h e S o u t h F l o r i d a V e r n a c u l a r
A r c h i t e c t u r a l S t y l e
P L A N N I N G P R O C E S S
P u r s u a n t t o t h e 1 9 9 3 D a d e C o u n t y - M a t h e s o n S e t t l e m e n t A g r e e m e n t , t h e
O l m s t e d F i r m w a s e n g a g e d t o p r o v i d e i n i t i a l M a s t e r P l a n d o c u m e n t s . T h e M a t h e s o n
F a m i l y s u b m i t t e d v a r i o u s O b j e c t i o n s , a n d D a d e C o u n t y a n d t h e M a t h e s o n F a m i l y
t h e n u n d e r t o o k a n e x t e n s i v e r e v i e w a n d r e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e i n i t i a l O l m s t e d M a s t e r
P l a n d o c u m e n t s . A C o m m i t t e e w a s f o r m e d a m o n g a C o u n t y P a r k s D e p a r t m e n t
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , a M a t h e s o n F a m i l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a n d a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e
O l m s t e d F i r m t o c o m p r e h e n s i v e l y r e v i s e a n d r e s t a t e t h e M a s t e r P l a n d o c u m e n t s ,
t a k i n g t h e s e O b j e c t i o n s i n t o a c c o u n t a n d i n c o r p o r a t i n g o t h e r a g r e e d f e a t u r e s a n d
u n d e r s t a n d i n g s . T h e C o m m i t t e e r e f i n e d a n d r e s t a t e d t h e M a s t e r P l a n d o c u m e n t s ,
w h i c h s h a l l n o w b e c o m e t h e " C r a n d o n P a r k M a s t e r P l a n " c o n t e m p l a t e d i n t h e
S e t t l e m e n t A g r e e m e n t .
2 2
SITE ANALYSIS
THE PRESENT SITUATION
AREA DESCRIPTION`
Characteristics. Key Biscayne is part of a chain of barrier islands extending
southward from Miami Beach. It is separated from the mainland by Biscayne Bay,
a body of water about 38 miles long that varies in width from 3 to 9 miles. Key
Biscayne itself has a maximum length of 4.5 miles and a maximum width of 1.6
miles, yet averages closer to 0.8 miles wide. Its average elevation is approximately
5 feet above sea level. The central portion of Key Biscayne is highly developed.
The west -central portion bordering Biscayne Bay contains over 1,100 homes, while
the east -central portion contains over 4,200 condominium and hotel -motel units.
Crandon Park, operated by the Dade County Park and Recreation Department,
occupies approximately 975 acres on the northern half of the Island. The southern
410 acres of the Island consists of the Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Recreation
Area. Key Biscayne and Biscayne Bay are two of the primary recreational resources
for Dade County.
Geology. Key Biscayne is a barrier island surrounded by Biscayne Bay on the
West and the Atlantic Ocean on the East. In their natural state, barrier islands are
constantly shifting and when wave energy is relatively low, sand tends to accumulate
on the beach slope. With the arrival of stormy fall and winter weather, the trend is
reversed and sand is eroded from the beach and deposited on near -shore sand bars.
Key Biscayne was created from material cut from the sea floor by wave action and,
most recently, by dredging and filling western portions of the island. The result was
the development of natural beach on the eastern or Atlantic side of the Key and the
growth of mangroves and mudflats on the western or bayside.
For more information on the general area see Crandon Park "The Next Fifty Years" 1989 Dade
County Park and Recreation Dept. available at the Dade County Public Library.
23
History. The history of Key Biscayne extends back almost 2,000 years. It
includes a diverse and fascinating combination of cultures, people and events. From
earliest times the island hosted Tequesta Indian settlements, discovery and
exploration by John Cabot in 1497; visits by Juan Ponce de Leon and Escalante de
Fontenada in the early 1500's, landings by Black Caesar and other pirates; and
encampments of Union and Confederate soldiers and sympathizers during the Civil
War. The Cape Florida lighthouse was built in 1825.
In the early 1900's William J. Matheson acquired a majority of the island's
2,270 acres from Mary Osborn. He continued to hold title to the island for many
years, building a tropical nursery, small zoo and working coconut plantation. In
1940, Mr. Matheson's heirs deeded approximately 975 acres to Dade County for a
park and public beach.5 In 1947 Key Biscayne was linked with the mainland by the
Rickenbacker Causeway and Crandon Park was opened to the public. Since then,
other portions of the original Matheson coconut plantation have been developed into
hotels, motels, condominiums, single family residences and shopping areas.
Flora and Fauna. Vegetative cover on Key Biscayne includes red, white and
black mangroves, coconut and sabal palms, typical beach shrubs and native grasses.
Except in planned landscapes, there is little natural vegetation remaining in
residential areas. The natural vegetation remaining is primarily restricted to the
southern, northwestern, and extreme northeastern portions of the island. Many
exotic species have acclimated to South Florida, filling unoccupied ecological niches
and effectively disrupting the island's natural ecosystem. Major exotic intruders
affecting the Key include Australian Pine, Brazilian Pepper and Cane Grass.
Offshore vegetation consists primarily of extensive seagrass beds. These grass
beds are principally turtle and manatee grasses and Cuban shoalweed. They provide
shelter for small aquatic species such as crabs and small fish. The importance of
these grass beds as biological communities stems from the fact that the plants serve
both as primary producers and substantial contributors to the detrital matter.
Moreover, the root systems of these grasses act as sediment accumulators and
stabilizers.
Deed of Gift: Plat Book 34 at Page 34 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
24
Resident wildlife species on the Key are comparatively limited. The more
common species include various passerine birds, herons, egrets, terns, gulls and a
variety of snakes, lizards, landcrabs, toads, small rodents and raccoons. The
mangrove areas on the northwestern shore are used by ospreys, herons, egrets,
pelicans and frigate birds for nesting, while shallow water near shore areas is used
extensively by foraging wading birds. Other species found in the area include the
American peregrine falcon, brown pelican, great white heron, roseate spoonbill, and
mangrove cuckoo. The Key is located within a major north -south migratory flyway,
and also periodically receives a wide variety of non -avian migratory species.
Several of these species are considered endangered or threatened, including the
Atlantic Ridley, hawksbill, leatherback, loggerhead, and green turtles, and the West
Indian Manatee.
Climate.' Key Biscayne is located in the subtropical portion of Florida. The
climate is greatly influenced by its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, the warm
northward -flowing Florida Current a short distance offshore, and the prevailing
southeasterly tradewinds. Winters are mild with temperatures averaging about
70°F. Sumner temperatures average about 80°F. Rainfall is relatively high,
averaging between 50 and 60 inches per year, with about 70% of the total rainfall
occurring from June to October and about 10% from December through February.
Weather Bureau records show that, on the average, southeast winds prevail
about 28 % of the time, easterly winds about 23 % of the time, and northeasterly
about 17% of the time. The prevailing east and southeast winds are generally
moderate and average about 10 mph. The northeast winds generally are stronger,
and during the fall and winter months occur frequently during storms.
Roadways. As an island, Key Biscayne has historically had limited access.
Crossing Biscayne Bay, Virginia Key and Bear Cut, the Rickenbacker Causeway,
completed in 1947, is the Island's only link to the mainland. There are occasions
when beach or special event traffic effectively blocks incoming and outgoing
vehicular access. In 1988 Crandon Boulevard (2.21 miles in the Park) was
National Climate Center Ashville, N.C.
25
designated as a Historic highway by the State of Florida.' This law states that 'no
public funds' may be spent for alterations of the physical dimensions or location of
Crandon Boulevard, running three-quarters the length of Key Biscayne.
Existing Park Development. Crandon Park's 975 acres have gradually been
developed into a variety of recreation areas. They include:
• 36 acre/240 wet slip marina complete with dry storage, restaurant, bait
and tackle shop and charter boats
• 26 acre mangrove preserve south of the marina
• 213 acre championship 18 hole golf course, fronting Biscayne Bay,
complete with restaurant, proshop, a ten court tennis complex and
parking for 215 automobiles
• 32 acre tennis center composed of 27 courts, a 7,500 permanent seat
stadium and a clubhouse
• 292.4 acre mangrove area along the western and southwestern side of
the Park, including a 5 acre lake
• .58 acre Dade County Fire Station
• 3.76 acre Calusa Park, a small community park with four tennis courts,
recreation building and small theater
• .40 acre Florida Power and Light Company, Substation
• 1.94 acre park service area
• 44.6 acre former zoo site
• 3.68 acre children's amusement area
Chapter 88-418, Laws of Florida (1988). See Appendix M.
26
" 4 8 a c r e s o f p a l m - l i n e d b e a c h e s
" 3 0 . 7 a c r e s o f s h a d e d p i c n i c a r e a s , f o o d c o n c e s s i o n s a n d a m u l t i - p u r p o s e
s p o r t s f i e l d
" 2 . 8 a c r e s i t e w i t h a 8 7 5 s q u a r e f o o t N a t u r e C e n t e r c l a s s r o o m
" 1 3 3 . 4 a c r e n a t u r e p r e s e r v e a l o n g t h e n o r t h e a s t s i d e o f t h e P a r k w i t h
n a t u r e t r a i l s a n d a u n i q u e p e t r i f i e d m a n g r o v e r e e f
O v e r t h e y e a r s , C r a n d o n P a r k d e v e l o p m e n t p r o c e e d e d p i e c e - m e a l a s f u n d s
b e c a m e a v a i l a b l e . S o m e r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s , s u c h a s a b a t h h o u s e , r e s t r o o m s ,
r e f r e s h m e n t s t a n d s , p i c n i c g r o u n d s , m a r i n a a n d g o l f c o u r s e w e r e c o m p l e t e d a s a p a r t
o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y m a s t e r p l a n . O t h e r r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s t h a t w e r e l a t e r
d e v e l o p e d i n c l u d e d a z o o , a m u s e m e n t a r e a , c o m m u n i t y p a r k , a n d t e n n i s t o u r n a m e n t
c o m p l e x , b u t w e r e n o t p a r t o f t h e o r i g i n a l p l a n . T h e y w e r e t y p i c a l l y c o m p l e t e d i n
r e s p o n s e t o a C o u n t y o r D e p a r t m e n t a l e f f o r t t o b e t t e r s e r v e s o m e s e g m e n t o f t h e
r e s i d e n t , b u s i n e s s o r t o u r i s t p o p u l a t i o n ' s r e c r e a t i o n a l n e e d s .
F r o m 1 9 4 8 t h r o u g h t o t h e m i d - 1 9 7 0 ' s , C r a n d o n P a r k w a s a m o n g t h e m o s t
p o p u l a r o f a l l D a d e C o u n t y b e a c h e s . I n s o m e y e a r s o v e r 3 m i l l i o n p e o p l e w e r e
a t t r a c t e d t o t h e b e a c h , a m u s e m e n t a r e a , z o o , m a r i n a , a n d g o l f c o u r s e . T h e s i t u a t i o n
c h a n g e d d r a m a t i c a l l y w i t h t h e c l o s i n g o f t h e a m u s e m e n t a r e a i n 1 9 7 6 , a n d t h e
r e l o c a t i o n o f t h e z o o i n 1 9 8 0 . V i s i t a t i o n d r o p p e d d r a m a t i c a l l y , a n d t h e c o m p o s i t i o n
o f v i s i t i n g g r o u p s c h a n g e d f r o m p r i m a r i l y f a m i l y g r o u p s t o a m i x o f f a m i l i e s ,
t e e n a g e r s a n d y o u n g s i n g l e s . T h i s c h a n g e w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y e v i d e n t o n t h e b e a c h s i d e
o f t h e P a r k . B y 1 9 9 3 t h e s i t u a t i o n h a d c h a n g e d b a c k t o a f a m i l y w e e k e n d p a r k .
T h e s u c c e s s o f C r a n d o n P a r k i n p r o v i d i n g a r e a r e s i d e n t s w i t h b e a c h t y p e
a m e n i t i e s i s w e l l d o c u m e n t e d . H o w e v e r , i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t P a r k i n f r a s t r u c t u r e
e l e m e n t s a r e u n a b l e t o a d e q u a t e l y s e r v e p r e s e n t d a y v i s i t o r s . S o m e o f t h e m o r e
o b s e r v a b l e p r o b l e m s w h i c h m u s t b e o v e r c o m e f o l l o w :
1 . A s i t e x i s t s n o w , C r a n d o n P a r k i s d i s j o i n t e d , b o t h v i s u a l l y a n d
f u n c t i o n a l l y . I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o p e r c e i v e t h e P a r k a s a w h o l e . M a n y e l e m e n t s a r e s o
d i f f e r e n t i n f u n c t i o n , n a m e , p h y s i c a l d e s i g n a n d m a n a g e m e n t t h a t t h e y a r e n o t e v e n
2 7
recognized as being a part of the Park. Circulation is confusing to a point that it is
dangerous.
2. It is obvious from a survey of architectural styles within Crandon Park
that there has been little or no coordination of design at a master plan level. The
disparity of styles, materials and colors heightens the perception of Crandon Park
as a disjointed collection of unrelated parts. While some structures have been well -
maintained, others have been vandalized or are simply beginning to wear out.
3. Most of the original beach facilities constructed between 1947 and 1955
now require extensive rehabilitation or replacement. Many other facilities are
simply inadequate in size, location, or level of service to continue adequately serving
the current visitor population. There is a distinct lack of logic and clarity of
pedestrian flow from the parking lots to the beach. The result is a set of facilities
that do not necessarily provide a satisfactory experience for present or future
customers.
4. For a variety of reasons, the Park has been physically and
philosophically bisected in terms of development, rehabilitation and clientele. The
Park east of Crandon Boulevard represents the original and more traditional regional
park. To the west of Crandon Boulevard, with perhaps the exception of the marina
proper (a part of the original Park plan) are the upscale "crown jewels" of the
county enterprise facility network. The clientele of each side is considerably
different. While there is no public exclusion from the marina, restaurants, golf
course and tennis center, they are, by their nature, price selective or exclusive to
only a certain segment of the public at large. Perceived and real differences in
physical condition, signage and levels of maintenance expenditures heighten this
split.
5. Park utilities are generally insufficient to handle current demands placed
on them. Sewage lines except for the tennis center, and marina, for example are
non-existent; and older septic tank/drain field systems regularly backup causing
customers and Park managers constant problems. Water and irrigation systems leak
water and, in some cases, are no longer safe for use. Electrical lines within the Park
suffer from both salt water intrusion and insufficient load capacity. In an increasing
fashion, utility constraints are indirectly acting to diminish total customer
satisfaction.
28
6. Severe erosion is affecting the sand shoreline of the Park, particularly
the northernmost end of the beach and around to Bear Cut. Erosion problems are
similarly affecting a unique fossilized reef, adjacent sea grass beds, and native
upland coastal hammock system. Other areas of the Park's natural setting are also
stressed and deteriorating. A combination of uncontrolled intrusion of exotic
vegetation, poor resource management, and the destructive impacts of unlimited
public access are eroding the remaining natural biological community park.
7. Local island residents are increasing their use of the Park for typically
community -oriented recreational activities. While public relations with many groups
have improved as a result of this use, the Park has suffered since major portions of
the Park are being usurped for athletic fields at the expense of other Park patrons.
8. The sign system is confusing. Too many different sizes, materials and
styles are now being used, contributing to misconceptions of where and what the
Park really is. Placement of signs is inconsistent and often illogical. The names
which have been used for the Golf Course and Tennis Center give the impression
that they are not a part of Crandon Park and are not open to the public.
9. The two Park maintenance areas contain large quantities of non-
functional machinery, disorderly piles of new and used material, much of which is
allowed to continually deteriorate.
These existing amenities are more particularly described as follows:
CRANDON BOULEVARD
When he undertook the initial planning of Crandon Park, William Lyman
Phillips developed three successive layout schemes. The first provided an East and
a West Park drive, related to the coasts of the Key and leaving the central portion
open for uninterrupted pedestrian access between all recreation areas. The second,
which retained these drives, added a central drive, essentially in the same location
as the Boulevard we know today. The third eliminated the coastal drives and open
recreation space. It featured only the central, bifurcated Crandon Boulevard which,
in effect, separated the Park into two distinct sections, linked only by a strong
29
central allee. This plan, while never officially adopted by the County, has been the
basis for development over the past half century.
Recognizing the Park's previous existence as a coconut plantation, Phillips
lined Crandon Boulevard with Coconut Palms, supplementing these with a dense
background planting of native trees and shrubs. In the median strip this planting
screened the north and south -bound lanes from one another, creating for each set of
lanes a sense of serenity -- with walls of green contributing to a park -like ambience
and withdrawal from the tensions of city traffic. The median plantings were echoed
on the outer sides of the Boulevard as well -- the whole resulting in a drive between
and beneath arching branches and fronds. Crandon Boulevard provided a special
welcome and set the character of the Park for the visitor. It combined a recognition
of the Park's historic heritage and its unique native vegetation.
Over the years, due to many factors, including the 1970's Coconut Tree
Blight, the Boulevard's special character has eroded. The welcome at the Bear Cut
Bridge and the unified Park image has been forgotten. With the growth of the
Village of Key Biscayne and the Cape Florida State Recreation Area, traffic volumes
have increased substantially, and the pace of living today has contributed to
increased traffic speeds -- even 45 mph restrictions are being ignored by a driving
public which finds 55 or 60 mph more suited to its 1990's vehicles and to its wish
to travel to somewhere quickly. The aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in 1992 left
much of the median and roadside plantings denuded, the north and south -bound lanes
in full view of one another, and today Mr. Phillips' restful park drive more nearly
reflects a busy, arterial highway.
Today, traffic speed and density, augmented by frequent vehicular crossovers
and turn-arounds between the north- and south -bound lanes and a lack or
discontinuance of safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings connecting the east and west
sides of the Park generate numerous potential accidents. At the Marina, there is risk
of accident with drivers towing boats on trailers from the Marina, or when "leisure
bicyclists," emerging from the Bear Cut Bike Trail, cut directly across speeding
traffic on Crandon Boulevard. It must also be noted that "through bicyclists" or
"speed bicyclists" who approach via the Bear Cut Bridge traverse the Park en route
to the Village of Key Biscayne via special, narrow lanes along the sides of Crandon
Boulevard.
30
MARINA
Crandon Park's location on Key Biscayne, with frontages on the Atlantic
Ocean and on Biscayne Bay, provides it with the rich resources of first-class beaches
and of a harbor offering outstanding opportunities for sail and power boating, for
fishing and for diving. The fact that the Marina lies at the south terminus of the
Rickenbacker Causeway makes it the first park feature and facility to be seen by the
visitor. The Marina's appearance, maintenance and composure -- or lack of
composure -- create a lasting impression of the Park.
Presently the Crandon Marina has the appearance of a typical, commercial
venture, and does not present itself as a part of the Park. Signs on Crandon
Boulevard in front of the Marina advertise its restaurant and a large number of
other, unrelated signs of varying size, color and quality within the Marina are visible
from the Boulevard. Parked cars within as little as ten feet of the roadway add the
reflection of their windshields to the motorist's view of the Marina, at the same time
usurping what could otherwise be a foreground of trees, shrubs and grass --
hallmarks of a park experience and park values.
The Marina facilities buildings - restaurant, dive shop, bait and tackle shop,
dock master's office, restrooms, toll booth and boat rental offices - vary in
architectural style, color and size, some being trailers or even small, undistinguished
stalls or booths, and some being substantial structures. All are identified by
prominent signs, and these are supplemented by other signs promoting photographic
film, colas and other commercial products. As though their heterogeneous signs
alone could not adequately draw the public to them, the power boat and fishing
cruiser charter stalls are lined up along the waterfront, parallel to the Boulevard, and
covered by a prominent blue -and -white striped canopy, 235 -feet long. The boat and
trailer storage areas and a large, waterside gantry provide utility, but deny beauty
to Crandon Park's Marina.
Vehicular circulation within the Marina is confusing and it is virtually
impossible to drive between some parts of the complex. As is pointed out in the
"Crandon Boulevard" section above, the exit from the Marina to the Boulevard is
dangerous, as evidenced by a significant number of recorded accidents.
31
The Dive Shop is a 530 -square foot trailer, with a partial deck, stairs and a
ramp for handicapped persons leading to the front door. On the deck are a soft drink
machine and an ice chest. The front of the trailer is adorned with signs
inappropriate to Crandon Park. There is a 144 sq.ft. Chickee at the southeast corner
of the trailer.
The Dock Master's Offices are presently located in a 720 square foot trailer,
located in the parking area median almost midway between the Bait and Tackle Shop
and the Restaurant. It would be highly desirable to eliminate trailers as permanent
structures everywhere in the Park.
The existing Bait and Tackle Shop, like the Dive Shop, is presently covered
on all sides with signs, ice machines, telephones, trash barrels, and similar
commercial excrescences. The roof of the building is, itself, a mammoth sign. On
its east side a camper, with its electric line tied into the building, serves (as a sign
on its side proclaims) as the Shop's office. Between the camper and the building a
wooden enclosure has been constructed, contributing to the heterogeneous and
disorganized appearance of the whole.
North of the Bait and Tackle Shop's main door is a pleasant paved area,
shaded by palm trees and providing benches and tables for enjoying a leisurely
quayside snack. The ambience of this area is spoiled, however, by the presence of
a red canvas -covered tent -like booth offering "CORN & CHEESE", "BURGERS"
and so forth.
The large boat hoist immediately south of the Bait and Tackle Shop has two
drive -through bays. Since only one can be used at a time, and the one farthest from
the waterfront cannot be used at all as long as there is a vehicle in the other, it is
desirable to remove the eastern most bay altogether.
South of the Boat Hoist is a fourteen lane launching ramp for boats on trailers
and an adjoining parking lot, about half of which is devoted to permanent dry
storage.
Approximately three hundred feet west of the Marina's Pelican Point lies a 3.5
acre mangrove island which serves as a rookery for Pelicans and Frigate Birds.
32
IBIS PRESERVE
The Ibis Preserve in Crandon park lies between the Marina and the Golf
Course and extends from Biscayne Bay to Crandon Boulevard. Covering more than
26 acres, it is a unique and environmentally sensitive tidal area, largely covered with
Mangroves, and off shore sea grass beds and sand flats all of which are protected
from disturbance.
The Preserve has unique flora and a wide variety of mangrove associated
fauna such as sponges, jelly fish, mollusks crabs, fish and birds. The predominant
bird species is the white Ibis which perch on the mangroves of the Preserve's
Biscayne Bay shoreline.
GOLF COURSE
The Golf Course in Crandon Park is its most fully developed -- and, certainly,
its best maintained -- activity area. Nevertheless, there is much room for
improvement in the Golf Course area and this Master Plan delineates the required
improvements.
NpiJ The sign for the Golf Course used to read "The Key Biscayne Golf Course"
but net -it reads "The Links at Key Biscayne" both of which give the impression that
it is not part of Crandon Park and not open to the public.
In addition to the Golf and Clubhouse facilities, there are currently a total of
ten tennis courts, three of which are hard -surfaced, seven are clay, and three of
which are lighted.
In the area between this small tennis complex and the Golf Cart Storage
Building, an unsightly, barren area is used for the haphazard parking of
non-functional golf carts, mowers and other mechanical equipment. This area is
fenced with a wooden fence, and on part of the driving range side with chain link
fencing. Inside and parallel to the wooden fence is an open shed housing bags of
fertilizer and seed, as well as drums of lubricants and chemicals. A pile of wood
chips and an assortment of picnic tables, trash receptacles, sawhorses and signs add
to the unsightly appearance of the area. Both the non-functional machines awaiting
33
repair and the exposed maintenance materials will deteriorate rapidly if not stored
under cover. Equipment which is broken beyond repair, tables, signs, boxes and
other debris are stored here and elsewhere on the Golf Course.
The existing Golf Cart Storage Building received significant damage from
Hurricane Andrew's (August 1992) winds. Its roof has been stripped of a large
section of shingles and there are areas of broken or missing siding as well. Behind
this building - between it and the driving range tees - is a trailer, currently housing
offices for golf tournament personnel. Three storage containers are adjacent to this
trailer.
Associated with the Driving Range, west of the Golf Cart Storage Building,
is a small 'Pro Shop', where patrons of the driving range may secure buckets of golf
balls, golf clubs and tees.
The parking area serving the Golf Clubhouse is convenient and efficiently laid
out, with adequate islands defining the parking bays and providing space for tree
plantings to shade the parked cars and provide a green and restful setting. Many of
the trees in the parking area were damaged by Hurricane Andrew and should be
replaced, which would contribute to the parking lot's role as a forecourt to the
Clubhouse. The approach to the Clubhouse from the parking lot is via a wooden
footbridge which crosses the western most planting island. The overall effect of the
building is "modernistic", rather than modern -- an uncohesive juxtaposition of
geometric shapes. Further, the entrance portico, which appears to serve only the
pro -shop, should be made to include the restaurant as well. The Clubhouse badly
needs restudy, simplification and conversion to the South Florida Vernacular
Architectural Style.
A hip roofed structure with a wooden deck and bar and a flat roofed extension
has been appended to the back of the Clubhouse building, opening conveniently onto
the golf course, but adding to the heterogeneous architectural conglomeration. On
the Clubhouse's north side, large glass windows in the lounge and dining room look
onto the Clubhouse's service area.
Throughout the Golf Course there are displays, benches and signs bearing the
logos, names and/or messages of commercial enterprises. Particularly noticeable
throughout the course are advertisements for the Royal Caribbean Cruise Line --
34
displays varying from signs at each of the 18 holes to a large, roofed, 4 -sided
bulletin board beside the Clubhouse.
At Crab Point there is a forty foot long dock and a 683 sq.ft. thatched roof
shelter located on the west shoreline adjacent to the 18th fairway available for golf
related functions.
TENNIS CENTER
The Crandon Park Tennis Center is located west of Crandon Boulevard
between the Golf Course and the West Point Mangrove Preserve, and was
constructed on top of a landfill. The entrance sign which reads "The International
Tennis Center of Key Biscayne" and the large fountain located on Crandon
Boulevard give the impression that facility is not part of Crandon Park and is not
open to the public. A Tennis Stadium has been built at the location depicted on the
Crandon Park Master Plan Site Plan map. A Clubhouse is located in the vicinity of
the Stadium, and there are 27 tennis courts (17 hard, 8 clay and 2 grass surface).
The existing Clubhouse, which shows evidence of uneven settlement resulting in
cracks in the walls, is in need of restoration. Its configuration and its pink color are
disturbing elements in attaining a unified and composed Crandon Park character.
In spite of the overshadowing size of the Stadium, the Clubhouse occupies a focal
position and is important throughout the year in serving the public.
WEST POINT PRESERVE
West Point Preserve is a unique and environmentally sensitive area within
Crandon Park, largely covered with mangroves, but containing both wetland and
upland species of native plants. Covering more than 238 acres, it lies at the extreme
southwest end of the Park, abutting the Tennis Center and Golf Course on the north,
Biscayne Bay on the west, the Village of Key Biscayne on the south and Crandon
Boulevard on the east.'
The West Point Preserve is further protected by Dade County Ordinance No. R-1765-86; see
Appendix I.
35
Within the Preserve are drainage canals, islands and a lake -- the latter
abutting the Tennis Center on two sides. In addition to its unique and pristine flora,
the Preserve contains a wide variety of fauna, including tree crabs, land crabs,
coffee bean snails, a great many birds, reptiles and mammals. Two of the canals,
opening into the lake abutting the Tennis Center Clubhouse and into Biscayne Bay,
are navigable by canoe. The importance of preserving this ecologically significant
tract in an undisturbed condition cannot be overemphasized.
The winds of Hurricane Andrew (August 1992) toppled a number of
Australian Pines in West Point Preserve fronting on Crandon Boulevard, crushing
Mangroves and other native flora as they fell. The remediation and replanting of
this area are reflected in the Landscape Plan appearing in the Master Plan.
FIRE STATION
The Fire Station is currently located in a Park building with frontage on the
west side of Crandon Boulevard just north of the Crandon Boulevard Rotary in an
area of .58 acres. The Station is manned and operated by the Dade County Fire
Department.
CALUSA PARK
The area known as "Calusa Park" contains 3.76 developed acres of Crandon
Park near its south boundary and immediately west of the Crandon Boulevard
Rotary. Although open to all residents of Dade County, it has evolved into a small
community park for the residents of Key Biscayne offering four tennis courts, a
recreation building, children's play equipment, and a community playhouse, and
storage buildings. The Playhouse is an historic wooden structure which was
originally located on the Matheson Coconut Plantation.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
In the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew, three distinct areas of archaeological
materials were uncovered in Crandon Park during archeological monitoring of the
36
Hurricane clean-up. These three areas have been recorded with the Florida Site File
and two sites have been designated as an archaeological zone by the Dade County
Historic Preservation Board. These sites are described as follows:
1. Bear Cut Dune Site (8DA5247)
This site is located on a relic dune that extends southwest from the beach in
the Bear Cut Preserve. The dune extends southwestward towards Crandon
Boulevard for about 1000 feet, making it one of the longest Tequesta sites in Dade
County. A bicycle path follows much of the site because the path is located on the
crest of the dune.
2. Crandon Median Site (8DA5248)
This site is located on a series of segmented sections of a relic dune that
follows the alignrnent of Crandon Boulevard south of the Tennis Center entrance.
This relic dune supports hammock vegetation and has been heavily impacted by the
clean-up operation. The dune is located on a portion of the median and/or the east
side of Crandon Boulevard. This site is included in the designated Key Biscayne
Archaeological Zone.
3. Crandon Dune Site (8DA5249)
This well preserved site is located on a relic dune on the east side of Crandon
Boulevard and just north of the Village of Key Biscayne boundary. adjacent to the
old zoo. It is a very significant site because test excavations there have uncovered
well preserved post hole molds that may indicate the exact size and format of
Tequesta thatch houses - information not previously found anywhere in southeast
Florida. Hundreds of prehistoric artifacts have already been uncovered from this
site. This site is included in the designated Key Biscayne Archaeological Zone.
SERVICE AREA
The Crandon Park Service Area is located between the Botanical Garden and
Crandon Boulevard and is accessed by a drive from the Crandon Boulevard Rotary.
Here an assortment of machines and materials are stored -- some in buildings and
37
some in the open -- on a 1.94 acre plot. The buildings, of varying size, shape,
materials and condition, provide space for administration, shops and storage. The
uneven surface of the maintenance yard retains sizable puddles of water after a
rainstorm. Tractors, trucks, trailers, and other machines and accessories are parked
haphazardly, interspersed without regard to size or use. Defunct machines are
stored with operative ones. One old tractor has sat in one position long enough that
a tree is growing through it. New materials -- pipes, fencing and wood and metal
panels -- lean against buildings or are left in disorderly piles, together with discarded
signs, park benches and other fixtures. Use of the spaces is not organized for
efficiency or for protection of materials against corrosion, abrasion or crushing.
THE BOTANICAL GARDEN
The site for the Crandon Park Botanical Garden was once home to the
Crandon Park Zoo and Botanical Garden. Although the old Zoo closed in 1980, the
site is still richly endowed with beautiful natural features. In 1991, the Dade County
Board of Commissioners approved a new master plan for the site which strives to
preserve and restore its natural attributes and enhance them with functional art and
cultural features. This Master Plan enhances and expands upon the previous
planning processes.
Although closed for thirteen years, the Botanical Garden has not been totally
abandoned. It has periodically hosted a number of notable special events because
of accessibility, existing access control, and scenic beauty. To accommodate these
events the Parks Department has continued to maintain only the central portion of
the old zoo. Time and insufficient maintenance funding have, however, hastened
the deterioration of areas outside of the central portion. Structures throughout the
site have been vandalized, cannibalized for materials, left to structurally deteriorate
or altogether removed. Pedestrian circulation has become broken or eroded. The
Children's Zoo bridge has been rendered unusable due to rot and decay. Areas
outside of the Central Zoo have become cluttered with debris (machinery,
equipment, etc.) and the storage of large bulk materials (sand, mulch, railroad ties,
etc.). Utilities are similarly in disarray. Electrical poles and panels have been
removed, leaving much of the site without service; water lines have been corroded
by age and salt intrusion, causing water to leak into exhibit and canal areas; and
restrooms are unable to support the original level of use because of corroded septic
38
tanks and filled drain fields. There are twenty-one old abandoned animal cages or
pens remaining on the 44 acre site.
An analysis of existing vegetation found the Botanical Garden to be composed
of a diverse collection of native and exotic ornamental trees, shrubs, ferns, and other
herbaceous plants. Five vegetation zones were identified (1) Mixed Coastal
Hardwood Hammock; (2) Mangrove Creek; (3) Date Palm; (4) Casuarina, and (5)
Cultivated Ornamental. The zones did not always occur in a regular pattern, nor did
they have equal width or density of plant cover. The position, configuration and
diversity of plant species within each zone appeared dependent on land
characteristics, such as topography, soil content and distribution, erosion, flooding
and alterations caused by land fill or construction of berms, and the intrusion of
exotic vegetation into natural plant systems.
CABANAS
The existing Cabanas are located at the edge of the beach in the southeastern
corner of Crandon Park. Most are rectangular units (8 -ft x 10 -ft), grouped in a
straight line, in flat roofed, one-story buildings. A two-story structure at the
northerly end of the Cabana group is semi -circular however, with the individual
units being trapezoidal and somewhat larger. Each of the units opens onto a
common porch, which provides shelter for the entire length of the complex. Most
of the units are in bad repair with broken doors, cracked walls or floors, leaking
roofs and/or broken showers. Parking for the Cabanas is provided in a separate lot
behind the units, as well as in the main south parking lot.
PARKING AND BEACH DRIVE
Essentially all visitors to Crandon Park arrive by car. Those patronizing
facilities in the Marina, the Golf Course or the Tennis Center at normal,
non -tournament times are accommodated by parking lots on the west side of
Crandon Boulevard. For those using the Beach, the Botanical Garden, or the picnic
and natural areas, parking is provided on the east side of Crandon Boulevard in
space, which at Tournament times must be shared with golf or tennis spectators and
participants. Two entrances on Crandon Boulevard bring vehicular traffic through
39
separate toll gates to the beach drive. Between the Boulevard and the beach drive
are two large, rectangular parking lots, with a capacity of approximately 3,450 cars.
The north parking lot is, itself, broken into two segments which are separated by a
multi -purpose sports field. The north and south lots are divided by a central allee
which contains a 26 ft. wide asphalt track and open sports field. Past conversion of
this allee to a sports field with running track, interrupted the beach drive and made
traffic circulation extremely difficult.
William Lyman Philips designed the stiff, geometric shape of the lots, which
in no way reflects the rhythm of the shoreline or of the natural vegetative areas of
the Park, and is a disruptive design element.
All parking bays in the north and south lots are oriented in an east -west
direction.
There are no access control devices between the parking lots and the picnic
areas. This presents operational problems for the Park staff and hazardous
conditions for the public, as some patrons drive their cars right on to and through
the picnic grounds to drop off or pick up their belongings.
THE BEACH
Crandon Park's Beach is often rated as one of the ten best in the United
States.' Its broad stretch of sand, from the Village of Key Biscayne boundary line
to the fossilized mangrove reef, fronts on approximately two miles of Atlantic
Ocean. Although most of the coconuts from the original plantation have died,
groups of sabal palms, mostly on the southern half of the Beach, provide shade and
create a special ambience which attracts visitors and photographers from distant
points and contribute to the pride of citizens of Dade County in their special Park.
Many of the facilities on the Beach are in poor condition however, needing
renovation or removal -- several currently being boarded up. Signage on the Beach
is prolific and mixed in style, color and size -- much of commercial nature. Some
University of Maryland, Laboratory for Coastal Research 1994.
40
board walks are either buried by drifted sand or canted into nearly upright positions,
with boards- missing and nails exposed. Restrooms, showers and drinking fountains
are inadequate -- only one drinking fountain being available in the entire length of
the Beach. Entire sections of concrete pavement are missing, leaving wash -out holes
in the sand base and making the route impassible by service vehicles. Tree cover,
tables and benches are sporadically available on the Beach and between the Beach
and the parking lots. There are two large deep drop off areas along the shore which
are posted as dangerous and generally not accessible to regular park patrons. In
spite of all these negative aspects, large numbers of people (although progressively
fewer than in past years) are still actively using the Beach facilities.
A wide, paved promenade and service road, running south to north, extends
from the north end of the Cabana group to 400 feet north of the central allee. Its
eastern side, defined by a concrete retaining wall, lies about 2 -ft to 3 -ft above the
elevation of the sand beach, though drifting sand at various points reduces the
elevational difference considerably. Occasional wooden flights of steps connect the
promenade with the Beach, although the distance between these stairways is
excessive. Furthermore, there are no ramps from the promenade to the Beach to
accommodate the handicapped. The west side of the promenade is defined by a low
(about 3 -ft) parapet which was constructed to catch sand which otherwise is blown
into the picnic area. Parts of this wall are in bad repair, with sections missing or
leaning. This low wall also impedes visual access to the ocean from the picnic area.
There is a distinct lack of logic and clarity of pedestrian flow from the parking lots
to the beach.
NATURE CENTER
An environmental education program for 5th grade school children and the
public is currently conducted by Dade County public schools and a non-profit
organization respectively in a 875 sq. ft. portable classroom. The classroom is
located slightly north of the northern most parking lot and behind the sand dune line.
Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, this feature may be expanded in
a limited manner, (a maximum of three times its present size) and this Master Plan
establishes the details of that expansion.
41
BEAR CUT PRESERVE
Bear Cut Preserve is a very special area for nature study and historical
research. The fossilized mangrove reef near the end of Airline Drive (as shown on
the Master Plan Site Plan) is unique in the world. The environmentally sensitive
turtle grass in the shallow waters off its shore is readily available for study by all
interested persons and is an important resource to conserve. Native plant life
abounds here in wetlands and uplands, and with it numerous varieties of birds,
reptiles and mammals. The archaeological findings in Site 8DA5247 are important
to the study of the Tequesta Indian culture.
Before the construction of the Rickenbacker Causeway and of Crandon
Boulevard, the waters of what is now the Crandon Park Marina flowed across the
Key into the Bear Cut area, forming a coastal wetland which was flushed by the tidal
flow from Biscayne Bay. When the causeway, the Boulevard and the Marina were
built, the road formed a dam which halted the flow of water from the Bay, and fill
from dredging the Marina was deposited in the large inland tract, changing it from
a coastal wetland to an upland, no longer capable of supporting mangroves and other
wetland vegetation. Over the years upland plants -- largely exotics, like the
Australian Pine -- established themselves, changing the character and negating many
of the environmental resources which were native to the area. Hurricane Andrew
has taken care of removing a large quantity of the Australian Pines and the
opportunity to restore the coastal wetlands is at hand.
There is an existing bike trail through the Preserve which offers a very
pleasant recreational experience. However, its present, unrestricted access point
across from the Marina creates a hazardous conflict between the bikers coming into
the Park from the mainland and vehicles speeding along Crandon Boulevard. In
addition, the bike trail's easy access from the north Marina parking lot encourages
patrons to cross Crandon Boulevard into the remote and unpatrolled parts of the
Preserve, creating numerous problems with people who are ignorant of their impact
on this sensitive resource, and with vagrants and vandals who strip bark from the
mangroves for medicinal purposes.
42
EARLY KEY BISCAYNE
AND
CRANDON PARK PHOTOGRAPHS
MASTER PLAN
General Provisions and Restrictions
1. Except on the Tennis Center Site during the Tournament Period (as
hereafter defined), all advertising, promotion or merchandising, either expressed or
implied, including but not limited to visual, organoleptic (taste and odor), verbal or
audio, shall be prohibited on exterior surfaces, and on the interior of windows if
visible from any area surrounding the buildings or any areas within or over the
Crandon Park Lands; and advertising, promotional, or identifying umbrellas,
banners, balloons or similar devises, outdoor vending machines, or merchandise
awnings, bench advertising and similar devices, shall be prohibited on the Crandon
Park Lands.
2. Persons engaging in commercial photography, filming, broadcasting,
audio, video or other image production or reproduction on the Crandon Park Lands
shall be subject to the Commercial Imagery and Recording Rules set forth in
Appendix E and shall pay an appropriate user fee established by the Parks
Department which fee will be used solely for the enhancement of Crandon Park
Lands, and all such persons shall always give notice a proper credit referencing the
location as Crandon Park, Miami, Florida.
(a) Any and all film, tapes, voice transmissions, photographs or any
other reproduction materials of and in respect of any event or promotion, park
concession, lease, permit or other event on the Crandon Park Lands shall be
acknowledged with a credit in a prominent location, that such event will occur, is
occurring, or has occurred at Crandon Park Miami, Florida.
(b) Any live broadcast (film, tape, voice transmission or other event)
originating from the Crandon Park Lands shall promote (with County approval) the
Crandon Park Lands and its features for a period of one minute per hour of
broadcast time, or any prorated portion thereof.
3. No structures, areas, items, features or anything located on the Crandon
Park Lands shall be named or memorialized, except solely with the names of flora
48
or fauna native to South Florida; provided however, the Parks Department may erect
a trophy case (maximum size 1' x 5' x 10')within the interior of park buildings
located on the Crandon Park Lands containing small plaques or small memorials to
donors or other persons recognized for their contributions to the enhancement of
Crandon Park.
4. No area designated by this Master Plan on the Crandon Park Lands for
a specific type of activity (i.e., tennis, golf, boating, beach, etc...) shall be used for
any activity other than the specific activity for which it has been designated. The
Mangrove Islands, the Ibis Preserve, the West Point Preserve and the Bear Cut
Preserve shall only be used for passive nature observation. The Botanical Garden
shall be used for passive walking, canoeing, nature appreciation, social gathering,
limited functional non-commercial art observation, and historical island
interpretation. The Beach and Picnic Areas and the multi -purpose Sports Field shall
be used for passive recreation only. The Golf Course and Tennis Center Site shall
be the only Park locations on which active recreation activities shall be permitted.
Passive recreation in this plan shall be defined as swimming, sunbathing, walking,
jogging, family and informal or nonstructured group gathering and sports, including
softball, football, soccer, volley ball and other similar activities. Active recreation
in this Plan shall be defined as structured, organized and competitive tennis and golf
tournaments sited within the Golf Course and Tennis Center Sites. Except during
the Tennis Tournament Period (as hereinafter defined), there shall be no activities
of any kind unrelated to Tennis on the Tennis Center Sites.
5. For all primary access roads within the Crandon Park Lands, a three
foot setback from the edge of the pavement, and a clearance of not less than 15 -feet
from the ground surface to the overhanging vegetation, shall be maintained. For
recreational trails and pedestrian walkways, a 2 foot setback from the edge of the
pavement, and a clearance of not less than 8 -feet from the ground surface to the
overhanging vegetation, shall be maintained. [See Graphic Landscape Guidelines
and Standards Appendix B.]
6. In any areas within the Crandon Park Lands, including those where
musical, family entertainment and special events are permitted, sound generated by
such events or any other sounds in the park shall not exceed the decibel level of a
normal conversation (65 dB) beyond 50 yards from the activity area where the sound
49
originates, or beyond one half the distance to the adjacent group or party, whichever
is less, or so as not to create a nuisance or disturbance.
7. All large non-native stones (i.e., granite) presently located on the
Crandon Park Lands shall be removed from the Park immediately. The two large
concrete pipes presently located near the bath house shall be removed immediately.
8. All new permits, leases, and concessions; modifications and renewals
of existing permits, leases, concessions; or, any other contract or obligation whether
temporary or permanent, shall be subject to the restrictions set forth in this Master
Plan.
9. Any use, assembly, function, event, installation, development,
construction, reconstruction or modification permitted under this Master Plan shall
be consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws, rules, regulations and
ordinances.
10. All Park facilities and areas shall be maintained free of hazards and
waste, including solid waste.
11. All new and replacement walkway, sports, parking and general light
poles, stands and fixtures shall be of uniform design, color and material respectively
and shall conform to the standards and limitations set forth in this Master Plan.
12. All curbs including parking lot curbs shall be a weathered concrete and
shall not be painted.
13. There shall be adequate numbers of trash cans of uniform design and
color placed throughout the Crandon Park Lands. If needed, all trash cans placed
upon the Crandon Park Lands shall be fitted with appropriately sized plastic bag
liners.
14. All new structures on the Crandon Park Lands shall be constructed of
comparable materials and conform to all standards set forth in this Master Plan.
Structures requiring repairs over 50 % of their value should also be reconstructed of
the comparable materials and conform to all standards set forth in this Master Plan.
Structures requiring repair of less than 50% of their value shall be repaired with the
50
same kind of materials as those which are being replaced, redesigned however, to
conform to all standards set forth in this Master Plan and in full compliance with the
South Florida Building Code.
15. Except as expressly provided in this Master Plan, there shall be no new
structures, improvements, features, or major modifications to existing structures or
improvements (defined as renovations or repairs constituting more than 50% of the
value of the existing structure or improvement), whether temporary or permanent,
located or constructed on the Crandon Park Lands.
16. Except during the Tournament Period (as hereinafter defined) and
except for Tournament ticket sales within the Tennis Stadium only during a period
from August 1 through to completion of the Tournament Period, all advertising or
promotion of any product, service, or organization whatsoever (either express or
implied) shall be prohibited on, over or within the Crandon Park Lands, including
but not limited to advertising associated with graphic panels, signs, billboards, bus
benches, bus shelters, banners, audio or video devices, balloons, temporary graphic
displays or similar devices. No activity, feature or building shall be advertised or
promoted on the Crandon Park Lands by a sign, flag or banner or any other means.
All restaurant and all other advertising signs along the Crandon Boulevard frontage
shall be removed within 60 days from the recording of the Declaration of
Restrictions for Crandon Park incorporating this Master Plan (the "Adoption Date").
17. All gambling or wagering shall be prohibited on or within the Crandon
Park Lands.
18. Crandon Park shall be perpetually and forever owned, held and kept by
Dade County for the use and benefit of and in trust for the public as an ocean beach
recreation and botanical park, and shall not be owned, held, kept, used or enjoyed
for any other purpose or purposes whatsoever. The Crandon Park Lands shall
perpetually, continuously and forever be kept open, at all reasonable and appropriate
times, for the access, use and enjoyment of the public; provided, however, that the
Dade County Park and Recreation Department may impose and enforce such
reasonable restrictions and regulations upon the use of the Crandon Park Lands by
the public as may from time to time be necessary to fully protect, preserve and
perpetuate park -wide the physical and vegetative characteristics existing and
proposed in this Master Plan.
51
19. There shall be no overnight stays or accommodations or overnight
parking accommodations for groups or individuals on the Crandon Park Lands.
20. The Dade County Parks Department shall, consistent with the Crandon
Park Lands Landscape Guidelines and Standards (Appendix B), take all necessary
and desirable actions to assure guest safety, by providing and maintaining a safe and
well kept Park, controlling exotic and nuisance flora and fauna, avoiding attractive
nuisances and by protecting Park guests from latent dangers. These actions shall be
implemented using quality design, superior Park and Area management practices,
signs, barriers, warnings, inspections, Area closures, and, where necessary,
supervision during periods when Crandon Park is open to the public.
21. There shall be no exclusive use of any Park structure, feature or Area
by any person, group, association or entity (except for a golf or tennis tournament,
garden event or reservation of group picnic areas for periods of no more than 12
hours per day), and the public shall have full access to all features and Areas, unless
such features or Areas are subject to preservation or environmental restrictions of
general applicability. The public shall be permitted the use of not less than 75% of
all courts on the Tennis Center site up to the day before and recommencing on the
day after the end of the Tournament Period (as hereinafter defined). All other
tournaments or events shall be scheduled to permit no less than 90% public court
usage up to the day before, and recommencing the day after such tournament or
event.
22. From and after January 14, 1993, Dade County shall maintain and
operate the Crandon Park Lands in accordance with the Master Plan and no
structure, building, improvement or other facility, whether temporary or permanent,
shall be located or constructed on Crandon Park Lands, unless expressly depicted
in this Master Plan.
23. The opening and closing times for all Crandon Park Lands east of
Crandon Boulevard and including the Calusa Mangrove Trail shall be sunrise and
sunset, respectively. All other areas in Crandon Park Lands shall close by 10:00
p.m. except the Boat Ramp at the Marina which may remain open twenty-four hours
a day. The Park shall be open year round except in emergency situations.
52
24. Except for specific items or features covered in the Settlement
Agreement and this Master Plan, the ratio of natural and landscaped lands to
developed lands (i.e. architectural construction, structures, pavement etc.) existing
as of the adoption of this Master Plan in the following respective areas of Crandon
Park Lands (i.e. Crandon Park Marina, Mangrove Islands and This Preserve and all
shoreline mangroves, Crandon Park Golf Course, Crandon Park Tennis Center,
West Point Preserve, Calusa Mangrove Trail, Crandon Park Botanical Garden,
Crandon Park Beach Area, and Crandon Park Bear Cut Preserve) shall be properly
and adequately maintained and there shall be no net departure from such ratio,
effective January 14, 1993 or incremental degradation of Crandon Park's natural and
scenic beauty. Any future expansion, extensions or modifications of developments
or features of any kind in the respective Crandon Park areas shall in all cases be
minimal in environmental impact and only in favor of natural and landscaped areas.
All areas on the Crandon Park Lands which are designated as preserves in this
Master Plan, or which are natural and largely undisturbed as of the date of this
Master Plan, shall not be disturbed in the future (including disturbance by
application of pesticides, herbicides or other chemicals); except when necessary to
construct the boardwalks or remove invasive exotic, nuisance or feral animals and
vegetation, and with the limited application of safe herbicides, to replace these with
native flora and historic Coconut Palms.
25. No event held on the Crandon Park Lands shall be larger than the
appropriate and practical carrying capacities of the areas or features of the Crandon
Park Lands, with such carrying capacities being established pursuant to the standards
appearing in Appendix H to this Master Plan.
26. Except during the Tennis Tournament (as herein after defined) and
except for the golf tournament operated on the Golf Course as of the adoption date
of this Master Plan, there shall be no temporary covering of landscaped or grassed
areas with hard surface material, tents, containers, trailers, boxes, vehicles, or
other materials or coverings which prevent light from reaching such areas for
periods in excess of 5 days. All golf and tennis tournament areas covered for more
than 5 days shall be resodded within 7 (golf) and 30 (tennis) days, respectively, after
the conclusion of the events.
53
27. No less than fifty-five percent of all tennis court surfaces shall be made
available for use by individual members of the public (excluding group or
associational usage) during all hours of operation of the Tennis Center.
28. Parking and directional signs for all events shall be set up on the first
day of the event and taken down and removed no later than the end of the last day
of such event. All signs used on the Crandon Park Lands shall be limited to
standard Park signage for such events.10
29. Except as provided herein, all preserve land (Mangrove Islands, Ibis
Preserve, West Point Preserve, and Bear Cut Preserve) in the Crandon Park Lands
shall remain free of man-made disturbance and kept natural and forever wild.
30. All helicopters and aircraft shall be prohibited from landing and taking
off on the Crandon Park Lands, except for County, municipal or military helicopters
in emergency situations.
31. Dade County shall proceed as expeditiously as possible within its
financial means to implement this Master Plan. Dade County shall also continuously
seek out and obtain any and all available federal, state, local and private funding
sources to implement the Crandon Park Master Plan and maintain the Crandon Park
Lands.
32. From the Adoption Date of this Master Plan, the Dade County Parks
Department shall implement a fee system for use of the Crandon Park Lands by all
vendors, permitees, lessees, promoters, concessionaires or other purveyors of goods
or services upon the Crandon Park Lands, which shall include a fee which is the
greater of a flat fee to be determined by the Parks Department, or a minimum of
10% of all gross revenue generated by the permittee, lessee, promotor,
concessionaires or other purveyor whose activities occur on the Crandon Park
Lands. All such fees and revenue shall be devoted to implementing the Crandon
Park Master Plan and maintaining the Crandon Park Lands.
See Signage Standards. Appendix 0.
54
33. All fencing anywhere within the Crandon Park Lands shall be dark
green if visible by the public and black or dark green if hidden by vegetation.
34. No structure, including light poles, shall be permitted over 25' above
the natural ground level, excluding the Dockmaster's Office, the Nature and Visitors
Center (28' max), the Crandon Boulevard street lights (30' max.) and the Crandon
Park Tennis Center during the Tournament Period (as hereinafter defined).
35. Other than Park maintenance equipment in the Park Service Area, there
shall be no overnight truck and/or trailer storage of any kind on the Crandon Park
Lands.
36. Only pedestrians, non -motorized bicycles, wheel chairs, park operated
motorized trams and essential park maintenance vehicles shall be permitted on any
park sidewalks and bicycle paths within the Crandon Park Lands.
37. Upon expiration of the dive shop lease in existence on the adoption date
of this Master Plan, the dive concession operation on the Crandon Park Lands shall
be limited to a 530 square foot facility, and be served by no more than two dive
boats no larger (40') than those in service as of January 14, 1993.
38. All scoreboard and golf tournament related items shall be erected no
more than 15 days prior to the tournament and removed completely within 7 days
following any tournament on the Golf Course.
39. The portion of the Crandon Park Lands (2.87 acres), and the structures
to be located thereon, which is or will be lessee by the School Board of Dade
County, Florida, shall be utilized solely for Crandon Park related environmental
education and interpretive programs.
40. The Dade County Parks Department shall impose as a condition in
every contract, permit, lease, agreement or other document, that all lessees,
concessionaires, promotional operators, event operators or any other activities
involving the Crandon Park Lands shall identify and credit its location as "Crandon
Park Miami, Florida" on all promotional literature, telecasts, broadcasts or any other
advertising or promotion medium for such activities.
55
41. The failure of Dade County in any one or more instances to insist upon
strict performance of any of the covenants or restrictions of the Crandon Park
Master Plan, shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment for the future of
any covenant, condition, agreement or election provided in this Master Plan, but the
same shall continue and remain in full force and effect.
42. Any amendments to the Crandon Park Master Plan or to its Declaration
of Restrictions shall be adopted sparingly, in conformity with its Statement of Intent
and consistent with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement reached on January
14, 1993 by and between the Matheson family and Dade County. Such
amendments, if any, shall be liberally construed in favor of preservation of regional
park values articulated in Dade County Charter Article 6, and the Dade County
Metropolitan Park Policy and Park Designation for Crandon Park effective as of the
January 14, 1993," shall conform to the creation of a green and natural haven on the
Crandon Park Lands, and shall prohibit any incremental degradation of Crandon
Park's natural and scenic beauty.
43. All structure presently in the Park may be removed entirely or reduced
in size as determined by the Parks Department.
44. All Appendices attached hereto are included and made a part of the
Crandon Park Master Plan by this reference.
45. Provided that based upon Florida Department of Transportation or other
recognized professional standards, the present and future pedestrian traffic control
devices (on demand push button lights) and arrangements for crossing over Crandon
Boulevard throughout the year (and not just during any professional tennis
Tournament or other periodic event on the west side of Crandon Boulevard) are
determined to be inadequate, and further provided that all other features, structures
and provisions of this Crandon Park Master Plan have been fully constructed,
implemented and completed by Dade County, then and only upon the occurrence of
these conditions precedent, Dade County shall have the option of placing a
See Appendices C and D.
56
pedestrian tunnel (approx. 15' Wide, 8' Tall) under the normal road grade level and,
the full width of and perpendicular to Crandon Boulevard between the Golf Course
and the South Parking Lot entrances excluding the central allee, provided that the
entrances to such tunnel shall be screened visually with landscaping so as to
completely block any view of such entrances or the tunnel itself from Crandon
Boulevard and all other venues within the Crandon Park Lands.
57
MASTER PLAN
Description of Detailed Elements By Feature or Area
CRANDON BOULEVARD
The Master Plan addresses the Boulevard throughout the entire length of
Crandon Park. Implementation of this Master Plan shall restore the Boulevard's
serene character by reintroducing a dense, refreshing green corridor of native plants
and historic coconut palms. The north entrance incorporates an enhanced and
expanded mangrove planting along the Bear Cut shoreline,12 together with the
restoration of the Bear Cut Preserve, the newly designated Pelican Point, and the
Boulevard median. Introduced on the lush, natural background, the coconut palm
will complete the effect desired -- a grand but natural feeling of welcome to visitors
entering the Park.
By removing the north marina entrance, parking bays between the Marina
restaurant and Crandon Boulevard, parking between the internal Marina Drive and
the Boulevard near the Bear Cut Bridge, the Master Plan gains green space to carry
the landscape theme further into the Park.
All vehicles exiting from the Marina shall turn right (the direct cross -over
having been eliminated) into an acceleration lane which will allow merging with
southbound traffic. Approximately 4,700 feet south of the Marina exit, an ample
deceleration lane and crossover will permit these vehicles to reverse direction,
entering the northbound traffic stream from a new acceleration lane.
Commencing 2,700 feet south of the north Park entrance, the area within the
boundaries of the Crandon Boulevard median strip, as depicted in the Master Plan
Site Plan, and the graphic Landscape Guidelines and Standards Sectionals shall
screen completely the north and south bound traffic lanes from each other, except
at the traffic crossings, the Central Allee, and the open and clear median strip area
opposite the Crandon Park Marina.
See Master Plan - Site Plans
58
The maximum speed limit of 45 mph shall remain for Crandon Boulevard.
The speed limits for all other roads and drives within the Crandon Park Lands shall
be set at 15 mph. The north and south bound traffic flow exiting to the west side of
Crandon Boulevard is minimal. Traffic flow between the east and west sides of
Crandon Park is even more minimal. Beach patron traffic is only heavy on the
weekends...south bound entering the beach parking and north bound exiting the
beach parking. The total traffic demand can be handled by two intersections,
signalized - on demand - for East and West side automobile and pedestrian access.13
The two intersections shall be landscaped with medium height grasses (maximum
height 2 feet) and coconut trees to provide a unique and identifiable (clear of Palm
Fronds to 8' high) character. Any large -event parking needs can be assisted by the
Dade County Traffic Safety personnel.
CRANDON PARK MARINA
The Marina Restaurant (currently known as "Sundays On the Bay") and the
Dive Shop shall be limited to their present size and use until their present leases with
the County expires, and thereafter, except as otherwise provided, the areas which
are the subjects of the leases for "Sundays" and the Dive Shop shall be subject to the
provisions and limitations of the Master Plan. With respect to all other Marina
facilities and charter boat operations, except as otherwise provided in this Master
Plan, such facilities and operations shall be limited to their present size, location and
operation conducted from the Crandon Park Lands. All activities on or about the
Crandon Park Marina shall be marine -oriented, including opportunities for boaters,
fishermen, divers and the public in general to observe water fowl in restricted
nesting areas and to enjoy dining in a water -related facility.
The reconfiguration of parking areas and the realignment of drives and walks
reflected in the Master Plan Site Plan will require the moving of some buildings, and
the replacement of trailers (such as the Dock Master's Office) with permanent
buildings which will be consistent with the South Florida Vernacular Architectural
See Master Plan Site Plan -Crandon Boulevard.
59
Style Standards which are part of this Master Plan and conform to the uniform
Crandon Park Master Plan."
For the Marina, the principal design objectives of the Master Plan are
therefore:
1. To improve the efficiency, clarity and safety of traffic circulation;
2. To enhance the aesthetic character and appeal of the Marina as an
integral part of Crandon Park;
3. To preserve, augment and protect the shoreline, existing mangrove
plantings, bird sanctuaries and nesting areas.
The circulation layout contained in the Master Plan Site Plan provides clear,
easy entry and movement within and between the various Marina activity areas. The
Master Plan eliminates the most hazardous of its two entrances closest to the Bear
Cut Bridge. The Master Plan enlarges and gives character to the existing second
entrance, further reducing vehicular conflicts and creating a grander feeling of
welcome for the Marina visitor. The entrance clearly defines the visitor's choice:
a central drive leading boat trailer traffic to the boat ramp, or an auxiliary drive that
leads to the Marina, restaurant, boat charters and dive shop.
The central drive leading to the water ends at a toll booth and includes two
approach lanes, one for boat launching and one for boat retrieval, and separated by
a planted median from a parallel exiting lane. This drive isolates trailer and hoist
traffic and parking from the rest of the Marina. With the exception of twenty spaces
for sailboats, the long-term, fenced storage for boats in the southeast portion of the
Marina shall be eliminated over two years time (from the Adoption Date) and
replaced by an expansion of the parking space for the short term parking for vehicles
and trailers. Canoe launching shall be from the new dinghy float and no more than
six Park Department's canoes shall be stored in a rack in the area.
See South Florida Vernacular Architectural Style Standards App. A.
60
The auxiliary road or marina drive leads past a large parking area available
for bait and tackle, dockmaster and restaurant patrons. The north portion of the
parking area is available only to the owners of boats moored at the adjacent piers
who shall be provided permitted parking only. Parking for the Restaurant is nearby,
but not adjacent to the building. A drop-off lane for Restaurant patrons is, however,
provided at the front door.
The north Marina parking lot area shall continue to provide space for the
owners and crews of boats moored at adjacent piers and persons wanting to view the
birds nesting on the nearby Rookery Island; the Miami skyline; to visit the Dive
Shop or to reach the dinghies stored on expanded racks. Dinghy storage in this area
shall be limited to the area on the south side of the parking lot and to those no longer
than 10'. A forty-four foot length of beach frontage on the north side and a floating
dock on the south side of the marina basin shall be provided for dinghy launching.
All catamarans and vagrant dinghies shall be removed from the north side beach
area.
The Marina drives and parking areas have been designed to permit
maneuvering of emergency vehicles for close approach to piers and fueling areas.
Turnarounds have been designed to permit semi -trailer trucks to service the
Restaurant and other Marina facilities.
At the north end of the Marina, now designated as Pelican Point, a section
of beach which is being used by the Least Terns as a nesting area has been fenced
to provide protection for the birds, and a dense planting along the fence shall be
placed to furnish seclusion. The shoreline here and northward to the Mangrove
Area is to be riprapped, using native stone, as protection against erosion. The
existing broken concrete slabs shall be removed within 120 days from the Adoption
Date. Existing mangroves along the north shore of Pelican Point, facing Bear Cut,
are to be enhanced and extended all the way to the Bear Cut Bridge by additional
mangrove planting and random riprap. The depth and width of the Marina channel
are to be maintained at their present dimensions. "No wake", "no motors", and
"manatee" signs shall be properly placed at the channel entrance and around the
marina area.
61
In the open area northeast of the Least Tern nesting site, the Master Plan
reflects three (maximum of five) picnic/viewing shelters of no more than 300 sq. ft.
each.
Median strips in the parking areas, in the entrance drive and along the
Crandon Boulevard perimeter shall feature palms set in a background of native
plantings: Coconut Palms (Cocos nucifera) fronting the Boulevard and within the
Marina where falling coconuts will not dent cars or injure pedestrians. In other
locations, a limited number (max. 7) of Royal Palms (Roystonea elata) and Sabal
Palms (Sabal palmetto) shall be planted. [See Landscape Guidelines and Standards -
Appendix B].
No umbrella, roof, awning or exterior bench may bear any advertising logo
or wording. All restaurant and other advertising signs are to be removed from the
Crandon Boulevard Frontage within 120 days of the Adoption Date. Each Marina
building, shed or stall shall be identified by a single, attached identifying sign which
shows its name and/or use. Signs shall be uniform in color, print and style (see
Detailed Elements; Signage Guidelines and Standards, App. 0). These buildings
(i.e. restaurant, dockmaster, dive shop, picnic shelters, restrooms) shall be
constructed or remodeled to conform to the uniform South Florida Vernacular
Architectural Style style described and illustrated in Appendix A by no later than six
years from the Adoption Date. No flag or banner identifying a building or activity
shall be displayed on, above or adjacent to it. No building or activity shall be
advertised elsewhere in Crandon Park by a sign, flag, banner or any other means.
North of the restaurant; along the waterfront, a number of boat chartering booths are
grouped and covered by a long, blue and white striped awning, which is an intrusive
element in the Marina's park setting. Upon the next replacement of this awning -
no later than 120 days of the Adoption Date - and at the time of all future
replacements of this or any other awning on the marina site, new awnings shall be
a solid park green color. See Crandon Park Color Standards -App. A. All charter
boat signage and dock box configurations shall be identical to those at the charter
boat "Abracadabra" on January 14, 1993.
The outboard rental concession shall remain the same size (6 outboards 18'
to 24') operation but be moved to a location next to the existing sailboat rental. The
towboat service shall be relocated to a space next to the charter boats. The length
62
and number of all existing and future commercial boats using the marina shall not
be increased.
The restaurant and facilities now known as "Sundays By The Bay" shall be
limited to their present size and use except as otherwise provided, until the present
lease between the County and the operator expires, at which time, restaurant shall
conform to the Master Plan. As of the Adoption Date, the Marina restaurant shall
have a family atmosphere and serve alcoholic beverages, only with meals. `S The
Marina restaurant shall have no dance floor, no beverage or meal shall be served
after the 10:00 p.m. closing time, and the restaurant shall provide no live
entertainment after dusk and no music which creates a nuisance, disturbance or is
audible farther than 50 yards from the restaurant building. When replaced, the large
outside awning at the marina restaurant shall be reduced in size and changed to a
solid park green.
On or before the expiration of the Marina (Sunday's) restaurant's current
lease, all the additions made from the inception of the present lease shall be
removed. The remaining original building (Length 92', Width 80') shall be
remodeled in the South Florida Vernacular Architectural Style, and may have a
maximum of two stories and a total inclosed area of 5,500 square feet. This
remodeled structure may develop a covered, but otherwise open water -side dining
terrace not exceeding an additional 1,500 square feet in area, and a public walkway
8' wide shall be extended around the bulkhead in front of the restaurant.
The dive shop facility now located on the Crandon Park Lands shall be limited
to its present size, the number of dive boats and location until the present lease
between the County and the dive shop operator expires, at which time such area
shall be subject to the provisions of this Master Plan. Upon the termination of the
present contract for the Dive Shop, the existing office trailer shall be removed and
if the concession is continued a new one-story building may be constructed in the
South Florida Vernacular Architectural Style style, not exceeding 530 square feet
of interior floor space in the position shown on the Master Plan Site Plan. The
maximum number of concession dive boats shall be two and the maximum length
forty feet. Effective within forty days of the Adoption Date there shall be only one
See Signage standards. Appendix 0.
63
sign16 no larger than 15" x 30" on the existing building or any projected new
building. There shall be no signs, banners, flags or other means of advertising or
promotion including vending machines visible from outside the building. The new
Dive Shop building may have a 4 -foot wide, wooden front porch under the overhang
of the eaves, with a ramp for the handicapped and steps to accommodate a rise of
not greater than 18 -inches from natural grade, except as required by the Americans
With Disabilities Act.
This Master Plan relocates the Dock Master in a new 2 -story building,
maximum size 2,250 sq.ft. located near the sea wall and the existing fuel pumps.
The ground floor of this new building is to contain the Bait and Tackle Shop, as
described below, restrooms, showers, and an outdoor washer and dryer. Such
restrooms shall be no larger than necessary to comply with the Americans With
Disabilities Act. The second floor will contain the dockmaster's office and space
for the Florida Marine Patrol. This floor shall have a maximum footprint of 1,000
square feet of interior floor space. The ground floor shall contain a maximum of
1,250 square feet of interior floor space. The new building's position, together with
the second floor elevation, would give the Dock Master greatly improved visual
control of the Marina. Removal of the existing Dock Master trailer will improve the
appearance of the area.
There shall be a new Bait and Tackle shop within the ground floor of the New
Dock Master building. There shall be no food service in this area except for
commerical pre-packaged food. If there is a need for ice machines and bait tanks
they may be placed on the 10' wide veranda on the west side of the buildings.
However, until the new two-story building replaces the existing Bait and Tackle
Shop, all signs, and the vending machines are to be permanently removed without
delay from the outside of the building. All ice machines and bait tanks are to be
grouped together on the west side of the existing building under cover of a park
green -colored" awning extending outward from the building up to 8 feet. If the bait
tanks are not to be used, they shall be removed completely from the Marina within
sixty days of the Adoption Date.
See Signage standards. Appendix 0.
See Appendix A.
64
North of the Bait and Tackle Shop's main door is a pleasant paved area shaded
by coconut palm trees with benches and tables for enjoying a leisurely quayside
snack. The red canvas -covered tent -like booth offering "CORN & CHEESE",
"BURGERS" and so forth, is to be removed promptly and the serving of any snacks
is to be confined to the interior of the existing and new buildings. The area will
benefit from the planting of additional palms. The existing tall shrubs and dinghies
presently obscuring the harbor view shall be removed. The dinghy rack will be
moved eastward to a location on the fuel tank island where it will not obscure the
harbor view from the Bait and Tackle sitting area. Extraneous commercial signage18
of the existing camper -office as well as the canvas -covered booth and the
camper -office shall be removed within 60 days of the Adoption Date. Some
remodeling of the building will be necessary to bring it into conformity with the
Park's South Florida Vernacular Architectural Style. At the time of any remodeling,
a redefinition of interior spaces, including the 2nd floor loft, might produce the
office space which has been previously found in the camper.
The existing sailboat rental facility shall be limited to its present size,
including size (27') and number of sailboats (8)and dock length. The present
adjoining awning (8'x 14') shall be moved and placed between the existing free
standing sailing and new outboard rental booths (6'x6'). The awning shall be park
green. There shall be two floating docks (maximum length 65' and width 6')
serving the sailboat and outboard rentals, respectively.
The eastern -most bay (39') of the large boat hoist immediately south of the
Bait and Tackle Shop shall be removed, unless some unforeseen engineering
problem makes the removal unfeasible. The removal will reduce the mass, and
therefore the aesthetic impact of the boat hoist on this portion of Crandon Park.
The tree -shaded area next to the boat ramp shall have the gravel removed and
grass planted in its place within 120 days of the Adoption Date.
The boat ramp slope in the first bay and the finger piers shall be repaired
within twenty-four months after final adoption of the Master Plan.
See Signage standards. Appendix O.
65
The three and one half acre Rookery Island off the channel entrance to the
marina shall be preserved in its present undisturbed condition and human visitation
shall be prohibited.
IBIS PRESERVE
The Ibis Preserve area shall be kept undisturbed, except for such passive
activities as limited marine grass and mangrove tours conducted by trained
naturalists.
CRANDON PARK GOLF COURSE
The Crandon Park Golf Course is the subject of specific Settlement
Agreement limitations and prohibitions, as follows:
Golf Course Clubhouse. The Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration
of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall limit the Golf Course Clubhouse
and other structures associated with the present golf course located on Crandon Park
Lands to such Clubhouse and structures' present sizes and locations, and shall
contain a use limitation precluding nightclub type facilities, functions or operations
within or associated with such clubhouse structures."
Access to the Golf Course from Crandon Boulevard shall be provided opposite
the entrance to the north parking lot, allowing buses or trams to drop off passengers
at times of tournaments. Patrons coming on foot or by bicycle will have direct
access to the entry drive via the future bike path which will generally follow along
the eastside of the existing utility easement.
The existing tennis clubhouse located on the entrance drive, before the Golf
Course Clubhouse, shall remain. There shall be no parking spaces for vehicles in
front of or immediately adjacent to the tennis courts located on the Golf Course site
and only tennis activities shall be permitted in this area. The tennis clubhouse shall,
with little modification, be altered to conform to the South Florida Vernacular
Architectural Style. It shall be enriched with shrub plantings and additional coconut
palm trees shall be planted to echo the line of the drive. Tree and shrub plantings
66
shall also be added to break up and partially screen the lines of the tennis court
fences. Behind the tennis clubhouse, the existing wooden deck area which provides
a pleasant sitting area, with sun -shaded tables and chairs, shall be kept. Neither the
clubhouse, storage shed nor deck shall be increased in size or changed in shape.
The umbrellas at the tables shall not display any advertising messages or logos. No
vending machines and no advertising signs shall be permitted outside of the tennis
clubhouse.
No additional tennis courts shall be permitted in the Golf Course area, and if
any use of the courts by the current lessee is discontinued then they shall be removed
and replaced with a dense landscaping of native vegetation. Between the tennis
courts and the driving range's protective fence, a dense planting of palms and shade
trees shall be established, using only varieties ecologically or historically associated
with Key Biscayne. Only light standards and fixtures currently existing at the
Adoption Date at the courts shall be permitted; however, no light fixtures shall be
set higher than 25 -feet above ground level of the courts.
The Master Plan Site Plan provides storage for the machines and equipment
necessary to the maintenance of the Golf Course in a new 57' extension of the
existing golf cart storage and repair building. It also provides for an eight foot high,
fifty-five foot long fertilizer and gangmower storage shed and a ninety -foot long
open sand storage area. The golf course chemicals shall be stored in a special shed
10'x16' which shall be placed upon a custom built 14'x40' vehicle wash down pad.
The existing fuel storage shed shall be renovated as needed. The existing Golf Cart
Storage Building shall be altered to reflect the South Florida Vernacular
Architectural Style at the same time as the extension is added to the building.
Equipment broken beyond repair, tables, signs, boxes and other debris stored here
and elsewhere on the Golf Course shall be promptly and completely removed from
the Park. The proposed building extension and driveway access shall improve the
appearance of the area and achieve the economic advantage of saving valuable,
salvageable equipment. The new building extension shall conform to the South
Florida Vernacular Architectural Style. Within twelve months following the
Adoption Date the entire area between the entrance drive and the storage compound
shall be richly planted with coconut palms, trees and shrubs to completely block the
maintenance and cart storage buildings and grounds from view, thus extending the
planting development proposed in front of the tennis Clubhouse and the tennis
courts.
67
Behind the maintenance building - between it and the driving range - there are
three storage containers and a trailer, currently housing offices for golf tournament
personnel. They shall be removed from the Crandon Park Lands within thirty days
of the Adoption Date. No concrete pad shall be provided in this location for any
mobile office trailer to be utilized by the operators of any golf tournament on the
Crandon Park Lands. All Golf Tournament office and related needs may be
provided in temporary space on the second floor of the Golf Course Clubhouse.
This temporary space shall not be used more than two weeks before or more than
one week after the tournament. Since removal of the tournament trailer will expose
the extensive westerly side of the Golf Cart Storage Building to full view from the
Golf Clubhouse, from the driving range and its Pro Shop, the planting of groups of
trees and shrubs shall be implemented in a timely fashion (within 12 months) to
completely screen the building. Lighting for the driving range tees shall be limited
to poles and fixtures not exceeding 25 -ft. in height. Lighting of the range itself shall
be accomplished by "bunker lighting" rather than "pole lighting" and shall be
extinguished by 9:00 p.m. The Settlement Agreement and this Master Plan prohibit
any expansion of the existing driving range Pro Shop beyond its present square
footage. As with all Park buildings, no advertising signs shall be permitted outside
of the Pro Shop. Presently, this building is a nondescript shack. It must be made
into a permanent building conforming to the South Florida Vernacular Architectural
Style without increasing its interior square footage.
The main Golf Course Clubhouse shall be simplified and converted to the
South Florida Vernacular Architectural Style.19 Sale of items such as clubs, hats,
shoes, bags, balls and clothing shall be restricted to the main Clubhouse and shall
be limited to its present use and size. Except for temporary use (three weeks) by the
current golf tournament and park staff meetings, the upstairs area of the Clubhouse
shall be closed and no activity shall take place therein.
On the Clubhouse's north side, large glass windows in the lounge and dining
room look onto the Clubhouse's service area. The service area shall be reoriented
and screened completely with landscaping to shield it from the view of diners on the
first and second floors of the Clubhouse, its deck and surrounding grounds, within
one year of the Adoption Date. A wooden deck and bar with a flat roofed extension
See Signage Standards. Appendix 0.
68
appended to the back of the patio cookout building, opens conveniently onto the golf
course, but adds to a heterogeneous architectural conglomeration. The flat roofed
extension shall be removed within 30 days of the Adoption Date. The remaining
building and deck area shall be altered to conform to the South Florida Vernacular
Architectural Style within one year of Adoption Date.
With the exception of the maintenance shed area and golf starters booth (max.
size 36 sq. ft.) the Golf Course Clubhouse and all other structures with the exception
of the maintenance shed associated with the Golf Course shall be limited to their
present size and location. All activities on the Golf Course lands or Golf Course
facilities shall be strictly golf oriented, with the exception of (a) the dining facilities
in the Golf Course Clubhouse, (which shall be open to the public), (b) non
promotional food and beverage carts on the golf course, (c) Crab Point located
adjacent to the 18th fairway which may be used only as a non-commercial golf
related picnic pavilion by golf patrons, and (d) the tennis courts located on the Golf
Course lands, which shall be used for tennis only. The closing time for the Golf
Course shall be sundown. The closing time for the Golf Course Clubhouse facilities
(including but not limited to the restaurant and bar) shall be no later than 10:00 p.m.
The restaurant in the Golf Course Clubhouse, like the restaurant in the Marina, shall
have a family atmosphere and in this case cater particularly to golfers. The
Clubhouse shall have no pool tables, electronic games or like items, dance floor or
live entertainment. Except for the driving range, and subject to the expiration or
other termination of any existing lease, concession or other contractual arrangements
in effect as of the Adoption Date, following the Adoption Date, the County shall not
contract with any lessee, concessionaire or other party for the operation of the Golf
Course or Clubhouse, including the Pro -Shop or other spaces within the Clubhouse
(except restaurant). Following the Adoption Date, the County may elect to contract
with a lessee or concessionaire for operation of the Clubhouse restaurant and/or
driving range for terms of no more than three years in length with three, one year
options to renew in each instance.
All sponsor boards, benches and items bearing advertisements or promotions
shall be removed within 90 days of the Adoption Date.
The Biscayne Bay shoreline along all areas adjacent to the Golf Course, from
the southern edge of the Crandon Park Marina south to the Southern boundary of the
West Point Preserve and 50 feet inland from the mean highwater line along such
69
shoreline, or to the edge of the mangroves, whichever is less, are hereby designated
as "mangrove preserve". The upland mangrove area south of the Crandon Marina
and north of the Golf Course as designated on the Master Plan Site Plan as the Ibis
Preserve is also designated as a preserve with protection from all disturbance.
CRANDON PARK TENNIS CENTER
The Crandon Park Tennis Center, which is defined as a portion of the
Crandon Park Lands more particularly described in Appendix G (the "Tennis
Center"), shall be subject to the following limitations and restrictions:
The Stadium
Tennis Stadium. A tennis stadium, subject to the restrictions described below,
shall be built at the location on the Tennis Center depicted on the Crandon Park
Master Plan map.
Name of Stadium. The stadium to be located within the Tennis Center shall
not be named, or if named such name shall be derived from the name of flora or
fauna native to Crandon Park Lands.
Criteria for Visibility; Height Limitations. No permanent portion of the
stadium structure (including elevator shafts, railings, lighting devices, etc.) shall be
visible by a pedestrian from any location on Crandon Boulevard or on the beach
areas of the Crandon Park Lands bordering on the Atlantic Ocean or on any area on
the Crandon Park Lands in between, from a point where Crandon Boulevard
becomes a divided highway on the north to the southerly most point of the Tennis
Center lands along the line of Crandon Boulevard. In addition, no portion of the
stadium or related facilities shall be visible by vehicles or pedestrian traffic traveling
north on Crandon Boulevard from the southerly boundary of the Crandon Park
Lands to a point on Crandon Boulevard directly east of the northern boundary of the
Tennis Center. The entire permanent stadium structure and its associated facilities
shall be screened by berms, terraces, and heavily landscaped with native flora so as
to block completely any view of the stadium or its associated facilities provided
above. No permanent portion of the stadium structure (excluding elevator shafts,
lighting devices, etc.) shall exceed 37 feet 6 inches in height, and all lifting rails,
70
safety rails, and collapsible lighting devices shall not exceed 4 additional feet in
height and shall not be visible from the areas on the Crandon Park Lands as
described above.
Maintenance of Visual Screening of Stadium. The County shall maintain the
vegetative visual screening of the Tennis Stadium so no permanent portion of the
stadium structure including (elevator shafts, railings, lighting devices, etc.) shall be
visible by a pedestrian from any location on Crandon Boulevard or on the beach
areas of the Crandon Park Lands bordering on the Atlantic Ocean or on any area on
the Crandon Park Lands in between from a point where Crandon Boulevard becomes
a divided highway on the north to the southerly most point of the Tennis Center
lands along the line of Crandon Boulevard. In addition, the County shall maintain
the vegetative screening so that no portion of the stadium or related facilities shall
be visible by vehicles or pedestrian traffic traveling north on Crandon Boulevard
from the southerly boundary of the Crandon Park Lands to a point on Crandon
Boulevard directly east of the northern boundary of the Tennis Center.
Use of Stadium Spaces. Subject to special provisions for the United States
Tennis Association provided below, there shall be no permanent or year around
commercial or any out of park activities from being conducted within the spaces
under or associated with the stadium, and there shall be no commercial, or retail
sales, operations of any kind permitted in, under or immediately surrounding the
stadium, except (1) during the Tournament Period and tournament ticket sales during
a period from August 1 through the completion of the Tournament Period, and (2)
during other permitted tennis events under subsection 1(d) hereof. The County may
locate one year around office in the spaces within the stadium with no more than
1,000 square feet and accommodating no more than 10 County employees. The
County shall use its best efforts to remove the present Crandon Park administration
building located on the Crandon Park Lands and restore such area. The stadium
court and seating shall be used for tennis only, and for no other purpose. Except
during the Tournament Preparation Period, the Tournament Period and the Site
Restoration Period (as hereinafter defined) and tournament ticket sales during a
period from August 1 through the completion of the Tournament Period in the area
of the stadium designated for such function on the Plans created by Swanke, Connell
Architects Court Level Plans, prepared June 5, 1991, no tournament personnel or
volunteers shall be allowed into the stadium facility, provided that such tournament
personnel may use the area on the Plans created by Swanke, Hayden, Connell
71
Architects, Court Level Plans, prepared June 5, 1991, offices numbered 1108-1117)
from January 1, through the end of the Site Restoration Period each year for
Tournament operations.
united States Tennis Association Use of the Stadium and Tennis Center. The
United States Tennis Association (the "USTA") shall be permitted to use areas
within the permanent stadium only as depicted in Architectural Sheet A-2.0 of the
Stadium Plans dated October 1, 1991. The USTA shall open the stadium sport
science and weight training areas therein depicted to all members of the public
accompanied by tennis coaches and shall design appropriate weight training and
sports science programs for such uses. The USTA shall also conduct a youth tennis
educational program of no less than 10 hours per month for Dade County tennis
youth programs. The use by the USTA of the courts and facilities of the Tennis
Center other than the stadium shall be limited to a schedule to be unanimously
agreed upon by the four members of the group designated for modification of this
Settlement Agreement as provided in Section 9 hereof.
No Advertising on Stadium. Except during the Tournament Period (as defined
below), there shall be no visible graphic panels, banners, signs, billboards or similar
devices located on the outside of the stadium depicting or promoting any commercial
activity of any subject, advertising or promotion, either expressed or implied.
The Tennis Center
The Tennis Center shall be subject to the following limitations and
prohibitions:
Tennis Center Limitations. Other than professional tennis events which in the
aggregate do not exceed 20 days per annum for all preparation, operations and
restoration activities, the Tournament as hereinafter defined shall be the only
professional tennis event conducted or permitted in the stadium on the Tennis Center
site. During such additional events all Tournament rules and provisions contained
herein shall apply to such event(s).
Limitation on Temporary Tennis Court Seating. There shall be no temporary
seating or stadia located on the Tennis Center, except there may be as many as
72
8,000 bleacher seats on courts 1 and 2 in the aggregate, and as many as 500 bleacher
seats on other individual court. The Tournament organizers may reallocate these
temporary seats among these courts at their discretion. All temporary seats and
bleachers shall be removed each year by the end of the Site Restoration Period (as
hereinafter defined).
No New Pe anent Structures on the Tennis Center: Removal of Tem rare
Structures and Vehicles. Except as provided above with respect to the permanent
tennis stadium, the Tennis Center shall include only such permanent structures as are
presently located on the Tennis Center and depicted in the Master Plan Site Plan.
No temporary facilities, vehicles, mobile homes, trailers or similar temporary
facilities shall be placed on the Tennis Center prior to the commencement of the
Tournament Preparation Period (as hereinafter defined), and all temporary
structures, vehicles, mobile homes, trailers and similar temporary facilities shall be
removed from the Tennis Center by the end of the Site Restoration Period (as
hereinafter defined).
Tennis Only. The Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration of
Restrictions implementing such Plan shall limit uses of and on the Tennis Center to
tennis only within the Tennis Center or stadium except (1) during the Tournament
Period and tournament ticket sales during a period from August 1 through to the
completion of the Tournament Period, or (2) incidental Clubhouse concession
activities.
No Exclusive Use: Public Access. Except during the Tournament Period and
subject to the special provisions relating to the USTA in subsection 1(c)(vi) hereof,
the Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration of Restrictions implementing such
Master Plan shall prohibit exclusive use of any of the Tennis Center facilities by any
person, group, association or entity, and shall provide that the public shall have full
access to all Tennis Center facilities. Except during the Tournament Period the
County shall remove the International Players Championship logos from the Tennis
Center entrance signage, substitute the designation 'Tennis Center at Crandon Park'
and add the following language in lettering of no less than 10 inches in height:
"THIS IS A PUBLIC TENNIS FACILITY". Such signage shall be installed before
the 1993 Tournament Period (as hereinafter defined).
73
Prohibition of Trash Stations: Restoration. The County has removed the trash
station located on the Tennis Center site. There shall be no further permanent or
temporary trash transfer stations located on the Tennis Center Site. The County
shall promptly restore and remediate the trash station area to a dense planting of
native flora. See Landscape Guidelines and Standards -App. B.
No Tennis Center Advertising. Except during the Tournament Period (as
hereinafter defined), there shall be no visible advertising on the Tennis Center site
or clock tower, including but not limited to logos, banners or similar temporary
devices for advertising or promotion of any product or service, either express or
implied.
Limitation on Lighting. Except during the Tournament Period (as hereinafter
defined), the County shall reduce the height of all lighting devices located on the
Tennis Center to no more than 25 feet, which shall be accomplished as rapidly as
reasonably feasible, but in any event such reduction of lighting height shall be
completed by no later than January 14, 1998.
Clubhouse. In spite of the overshadowing size of the stadium, the Clubhouse
occupies a focal position and is important throughout the year in serving the public.
It provides lockers, administrative and display space and a salesroom for
tennis -related items. It shall be made to conform to the South Florida Vernacular
Architectural Style in shape, proportions and color, when major structural damage
becomes apparent. Except as provided during the Tournament Period the Clubhouse
located within the Tennis Center shall be limited to its present size and functions.
In the event that in the future, the Parks Department and/or other regulatory
agencies (such as Risk Management, Building and Zoning or D.E.R.M.) concur that
major structural deterioration appears in the Clubhouse, no additional funds shall be
expended for repair of the Clubhouse. In the event such major structural
deterioration appears to pose a threat to public safety or property, the deteriorated
portions of the Clubhouse shall be demolished, and upon renovation, restoration or
rehabilitation of the Clubhouse thereafter, the square footage of such renovated,
restored or rehabilitated Clubhouse shall not exceed one story and a footprint of
5,000 square feet. The remainder of land of the former building footprint shall be
densely planted in native vegetation. All vending machines shall be located within
the interior spaces of the Clubhouse.
74
The Tennis Tournament
The following limitations shall apply concerning the operation and conduct of
the Tournament on the Crandon Park Lands:
No Interference With Public Access. Beginning on January 1, 1994 the
Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration of Restrictions implementing
such Master Plan shall require that all members of the public shall be
permitted to use not less than 75 % of all courts at or on the Tennis Center
throughout the "Tournament Preparation Period" and up to the day before the
commencement of the "Tournament Period" (as those terms are hereinafter
defined) without disruption or interference by the Tournament sponsors,
operators or the County.
Installation and Removal of Temporary heating. Except as may be otherwise
expressly provided herein, the Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration
of Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall provide that all
temporary seating associated with the Tournament shall be installed no more
than 30 days prior to the commencement of the Tournament Period and
removed by no later than 30 days following the end of the Tournament
Period, as defined in the Tournament Agreement.
Tournament Dates. The Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration of
Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall define the Tournament dates
on the Crandon Park lands as follows:
(1) The Tournament dates shall be selected by the County
within the months of January, February, or March of each
year.
(2) Tournament Preparation Period shall commence 45 days
prior to the commencement of the Tournament Period.
(3) The Tournament Period shall be no more than 21 days in
length (including rain dates).
75
(4) The Site Restoration Period shall be complete by no more
than 30 days following the last day of the Tournament.
Public Parking. At least 1,000 paved parking spaces east of Crandon
Boulevard shall be reserved for general use by other than tournament
participants whether they be employees, guests, volunteers or patrons. Except
on the Tennis Center site, no tournament employees, guests, volunteers,
patrons, or anyone else connected or associated with the Tournament (as
herein described) shall be permitted to park on any unpaved areas on the
Crandon Park Lands. All grass areas on the Tennis Center Site which are
used for parking, or are otherwise covered, during the Tournament or any
other event, for a period greater than 5 days, shall be resoded completely
immediately following any such event.
Vehicular Access
The Master Plan relocates the vehicular entrance to the Tennis Center to the
existing south entrance on Crandon Boulevard and closes both the existing Tennis
Center entrance and the service entrance to the former Trash Station. Both of the
open spaces left by the removal of these entrances shall be replanted with native
plant materials which continue the Boulevard's sideline enclosure and contribute to
the screening of the stadium. The fountain shall be removed and replaced with a
large shade tree by January 1, 1997 and the walkway modified to be heavily
landscaped and shall be used by pedestrians only.20 The pedestrian walkway across
the Crandon Boulevard median strip shall be modified with bollards to prohibit any
vehicle traffic.
Pedestrians and bicyclists can enter the Tennis Center via the 10 -foot wide
path, which the Master Plan shows generally following the Florida Power & Light
Company utility easement from the Marina to the old traffic circle by the Calusa
Mangrove trail at the south end of Crandon Park. At the point where the path
intersects the modified Tennis Center entrance, a raised circular bed with a large
tree will mark the beginning of a palm -lined entrance mall -- no longer a vehicular
See Master Plan - Site Plan - Tennis Center
76
way. The mall continues past the north side of the stadium and terminates in front
of the clubhouse, where it intersects an allee leading from the patrons' parking area
to a second allee, which turns westward, to the west end of the complex. The
intersecting mall and allees serve as the backbone of a garden which surrounds the
tennis courts with lush plantings of trees, shrubs and flowers. The allees shall be
terminated with colorful mass plantings and raised beds. All utilities (i.e. electrical,
telephone and television boxes, electrical transformers and similar items) shall be
screened from view with landscape vegetation within nine months of the Adoption
Date.
A peripheral drive provides access for service and emergency vehicles around
the entire perimeter of the Tennis Center. It connects with the patrons' parking area
and, through it, to the main entrance road. On the northern perimeter of the
complex, it connects with the Golf Course drive which passes by Hole #4 and
continues to the main Golf Course entrance drive. It also connects through a gate,
with the west side (Crandon Boulevard) pedestrian and bicycle path, which is to be
paved and wide enough (approximately 10 ft.) to accommodate service or
emergency vehicles.
Other
The Master Plan indicates the locations of the Tennis Center's seventeen hard
surface courts, eight clay courts and three grass courts. Trees and landscaping shall
be planted on the Tennis Center in accordance with the Master Plan Landscape Plan
and the Landscape Guidelines and Standards appearing as Appendix B to this Master
Plan. The trees, shrubs and flowers shall be selected and planted in order to provide
the maximum color during the tournament as hereinafter described. All portions of
the Tennis Center site on which mangroves are located as of the Adoption Date,
shall not be disturbed and shall be designated a part of the West Point Mangrove
Preserve.
Any Tennis center materials, supplies, Park Tournament signs or other park
owned items used on the Tennis Center site must be stored inside the Clubhouse or
Stadium according to all applicable laws, rules, regulations and ordinances. All
tournament materials, supplies or other items, not the property of the Dade County
77
Parks Department, shall not be stored on the Crandon Park Lands during non -
tournament times.
The Tennis Stadium as constructed in 1994 shall have 7,500 permanent seats
and up to 6,500 temporary seats.
During the Tournament Period (as herein defined) any tennis courts permitted
for any use other than tennis shall be completely covered by plywood (minimum one
half inch thick) or comparable material.
Except during the Tennis Tournament as hereinafter described, the closing
time for the Tennis Center Site shall be no later than 10:00 p.m.
Only non-alcoholic beverage and snack machines shall be permitted on the
Tennis Center Site.
Within one year of the adoption date, the Tennis Center shall be landscaped
and maintained in compliance with the Master Plan and the Tennis Center Landscape
Plan.
The individual court surfaces closest to the Clubhouse shall be reserved for
use by the General Public.
Proper tennis attire shall be worn at all times by all those using the Tennis
Courts.
All Tennis Center Site parking for all vehicles shall be limited to the parking
lot southwest of the Tennis Stadium and south of the Clubhouse.
No vehicles other than maintenance and major Tournament vehicles shall be
permitted to travel on the Tennis Center Site beyond the parking lot south of the
Clubhouse.
78
WEST POINT PRESERVE
Except for provisions herein and for re -planting, the West Point Preserve shall
remain undisturbed. The West Point Preserve canals, opening into the lake opposite
the Tennis Center Clubhouse and into Biscayne Bay, are navigable by canoes and
kayaks, and shall be maintained and remain open to the public, with limitations and
with the guidance of trained naturalists. This Master Plan moves the existing east
boundary of the West Point Preserve all the way East to Crandon Boulevard. The
importance of preserving this ecologically significant tract in an undisturbed
condition cannot be overemphasized.
The winds of Hurricane Andrew toppled a number of Australian Pines in West
Point Preserve fronting on Crandon Boulevard, crushing mangroves and other native
flora. This area, now largely bare, shall be restored to its natural state, nurturing
new native and mangrove growth and providing for a coconut seed orchard. A
3,500 linear feet boardwalk loop nature trail shall be constructed, as expeditiously
as possible, originating from the existing parking lot at the new Calusa Mangrove
Trail site. This loop shall provide a view of Biscayne Bay and a mangrove
interpretive experience for the Park patrons.
Signage at the Biscayne Bay mouth of the canal entering the West Point
Preserve shall restrict access to canoes and/or kayaks accompanied by a skilled,
interpretive naturalist.
FIRE STATION
So long as the Fire Station is used by the Dade County Fire Department, to
provide fire/rescue service to Crandon Park, there shall continue to be a traffic light
and a median strip cut -through opposite the Fire Station building's driveway.
Following the Adoption of the Crandon Park Master Plan, the Fire Station building
shall be renovated to conform to the South Florida Vernacular Architectural Style.
Planting along its frontage shall be consistent with the landscape character of
Crandon Boulevard, and all landscape standards set forth in this Master Plan.
79
If such fire service is at some future time furnished from another facility
outside of Crandon Park, and provided that the present Park Office for Crandon
Park is vacated and razed entirely, and further provided that all use of spaces in the
Tennis Center Stadium by the Parks Department for offices and other park
administration shall be discontinued entirely and not reinstituted, then and only in
those events, may the Parks Department use the former Fire Station for the Crandon
Park Office. Use of this facility for a fire -rescue facility for the Village of Key
Biscayne or any other municipality is specifically declared to be inconsistent with
this Master Plan and prohibited.
CALUSA MANGROVE TRAIL
The Master Plan makes no change in the existing layout and facilities at
Calusa Park until year end 1997. If, however, any of the existing facilities should
be abandoned or removed before year end 1997, they shall not be replaced. After
January 1, 1998 the existing Calusa Park playhouse, play equipment, and tennis
courts shall be razed or removed and the area shall be restored with an open area
and heavily landscaped with native vegetation as part of the West Point Preserve.
The parking lot, restrooms, and open area, however, will be retained and three
picnic shelters (maximum size 300 sq. ft. each) shall be placed around the site. The
restrooms-recreation building shall be modified to become an open shelter with
restrooms in the South Florida Vernacular Architectural Style.
In view of the fact that "Calusa Park" is part of Crandon Park and is no more
a separate "park" than are the Golf Course, the Botanical Garden, the Tennis
Center, the Marina or the Beach, it is shown on the Master Plan as "Calusa
Mangrove Trail".
The new Calusa Mangrove Trail will originate at the existing parking lot. At
3,500 linear feet, it may be part boardwalk (with protection for the mangroves) and
part wood chips, depending on existing conditions. The Calusa Mangrove Trail will
provide an interpretive and sensory excursion westward into the mangroves with
vistas of Biscayne Bay and offering native variety to the Crandon Park experience.
80
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
All of the presently known archaeological sites located on the Crandon Park
Lands are significant and vulnerable to the additional subsurface disturbances which
may result from proposed development and landscaping activities. Further
archaeological sites may be discovered on the Crandon Park Lands in the future.
Appropriate management techniques will benefit from determining the exact
boundaries of the various known and potential sites and therefore an archaeological
survey shall be conducted of these sites prior to any development activity.
Construction and landscaping activities within any of the archaeological sites or
designated zones may require any one or a combination of the following actions:
1. Avoidance:
Certain site components may be so significant that their preservation is the
first priority. This is the case with site 8DA5249, where numerous Tequesta house
sites are located. The site is small and not within a proposed tree -planting area, so
its preservation will cause minimal difficulties with proposed landscaping plans. Its
location, furthermore, is ideal for public interpretation because it is adjacent to the
bike and pedestrian trail.
2. Salvage Excavations:
Any archaeological site or feature that has scientific or historic significance
and that can not be preserved because of impacts from construction or landscaping
will be subject to salvage operations under the direction of an archaeologist. The
recovery of associated artifacts and data will act as mitigation for the loss of the site.
3. Monitoring:
Subsurface activities within areas of archaeological sensitivity may be subject
to monitoring by an archaeologist. The purpose of this monitoring would be to
collect archaeological artifacts and data during construction activities. The monitor
will need to work closely with the work crew and, if a significant feature is
uncovered, shall be given the opportunity to properly recover and record the feature.
81
4. Modified Exotic Plant Removal Techniques:
Removal of exotic plants from areas of archaeological sensitivity may require
the use of herbicides, above ground cutting, and hand labor, as opposed to heavy
equipment operations. These techniques will help to minimize subsurface impacts
to any site or feature.
5. Modified Planting:
Planting and landscaping within areas of archaeological sensitivity may require
the use of smaller plants and hand labor to minimize impacts to any site or feature.
The Crandon Park archeological sites are among the most significant in Dade
County. They offer an important scientific record of prehistoric Tequesta Indian
settlement and subsistence patterns on Key Biscayne. Public interest in
archaeological sites is very high and these sites offer an excellent opportunity for the
public to learn about the area's prehistory. Two of the sites, 8DA5247 and
8DA5249, are located adjacent to bicycle and pedestrian trails. These sites can be
interpreted with signage and outdoor exhibits - particularly near the Botanical
Garden. Site 8DA5249, with its many porthole molds of Tequesta houses, can be
interpreted by placing one -foot -high wooden posts above the ground to provide a
"footprint" of the houses.
All archaeological sites located on the Crandon Park Lands shall be managed
according to Dade County ordinances, and potential ground disturbances shall be
monitored, minimized or avoided altogether.
SERVICE AREA
Between the Service Area and Crandon Boulevard there is a screen planting,
thinned in part by Hurricane Andrew, which with supplementary planting as
provided in the Landscape Guidelines and Standards will be effective as a tight
visual barrier, to block the view of such service facilities. No such screening exists,
however, between the Service Area and the Botanical Garden and shall be installed
as provided in the Landscape Guidelines and Standards. Much of the Service Area
82
is enclosed by chain link fencing, but there are openings which violate security.
These openings shall be promptly repaired.
The Service Area shall remain in its present location, with no change in size.
Present buildings shall be restored, with roofs, doors and siding repaired, but
without need for conformity with the South Florida Vernacular Architectural Style.
The sides of the buildings shall be painted green, using hues that match the sage
green color described for the Tennis Stadium, to help hide them from Crandon
Boulevard and the Botanical Garden.
Cracks and depressions in pavements shall be repaired and parking spaces for
trucks, automobiles, tractors and other equipment shall be marked in a systematic
and cohesive arrangement. Racks shall be provided for materials which can be
stored out of doors, and materials awaiting repair shall be kept separate from new
materials. Equipment broken beyond repair shall be removed from the site
promptly. Space for bulk storage and machine repair shall be provided in the
buildings.
The perimeter of the Service Area shall be totally enclosed by chain link
fencing and gates which shall be secured at night. New screen plantings shall be
developed between the Service Area and the Botanical Garden, and existing screen
plantings shall be supplemented with new plants as necessary to assure a tight visual
barrier, which shall mean such screening as will hide from view such maintenance
features by a person with normal vision. This tight visual barrier around all
maintenance areas shall be completed no later than twelve months after the Adoption
Date.
It should be noted that the former Elephant House, which is a part of
Botanical Garden, is currently being used by Service Area employees for storage.
This building shall be razed and the area planted in accordance with the Landscape
Guidelines and Standards.
A trash compactor or, in the future, a more technologically advanced device
shall be provided and used to reduce volume of all Park trash, garbage and other
solid waste, during the period when such solid waste is temporarily stored for
prompt removal from the Crandon Park Lands. All trimmings and cuttings of
noninvasive species shall be mechanically chipped and reduced and distributed as
83
mulch to suitable locations all about the Crandon Park Lands and other park
property.
All invasive exotic or prohibited flora or nuisance fauna, as defined in the
Metropolitan Dade County Code or regulations or guidance documents promulgated
by the Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management or other
agencies having jurisdiction, shall be removed with dispatch from the Crandon Park
Lands and steps shall be taken by the County to preclude reintroduction of such flora
or fauna on the Crandon Park Lands.
The area South of the Cabana Road and North of the Parks South Boundary
shall be used to maximize the propagation of a variety of coconuts for use on the
Crandon Park Lands and other parks.
THE BOTANICAL GARDEN
The Master Plan for the Crandon Park Botanical Garden provides two
contrasting experiences for this site. One takes place in the cultivated central garden
of broad South Florida Seaside and Caribbean landscapes and picturesque lakes; the
other, in a dense tropical jungle with lush native and tropical vegetation overhanging
narrow waterways and winding trails. Historic vestiges of the Matheson Coconut
Plantation and the Crandon Park Zoo are scattered throughout the landscape,
invoking the past as they become part of the present.21
Within the Central Garden, broad walks, colorful detailed plantings and
exciting landscape features create picturesque vistas, and a landscape of clarity and
openness that promotes social interaction and refreshment of the mind and nerves.
In contrast, the wild and uncultivated appearance of the jungle signals a primordial
experience where the flora and fauna prevail. Visitors are led through dense woods
along a series of narrow, twisting pathways, aerial walkways and silent waterways
to encounter the hidden aspects of the site. Glimpses of some of the more than 160
species of migratory birds which use the Garden's trees and waterways, or of the
colorful 6 foot iguanas, add to the mystique. The variety of limited cultural features,
Landscape Guidelines and Standards. App. B.
84
artworks and musical events in this area are designed to be often hidden; to be
encountered or explored, and calculated to create a sense of surprise and discovery.
The Waterway, accessible by canoe, changes as it moves throughout the
Garden, reflecting the character of the surroundings. At the entrance, the Waterway
begins as a colorful water garden. Along the inner loop, the canals are broad and
open, reflecting the cultivated botanical setting of the Central Garden. Along the
outer loop they become narrow, winding and darker where a dense canopy hangs
over the water.
Beyond the Waterway's outer loop lies a buffer zone of even denser natural
vegetation that encircles the forest and central garden area to seal it off completely
from the surrounding metropolitan area and to create a sense within the Garden of
a separate world.
First phase development efforts, cleanup and replanting had been
accomplished when Hurricane Andrew struck. The storm leveled the site. Although
renewed development efforts have begun, except as otherwise expressly set forth
herein, the Gardens will be developed in accordance with the Master Plan for the
Gardens at Crandon Park as approved by the Dade County Board of Commissioners
in 1991 and attached hereto as Appendix Al. These exceptions include:
A. All development and use of the Botanical Garden shall be consistent
with this Crandon Park Master Plan, and if a conflict between this
Master Plan and the 1991 Master Plan occurs, this Master Plan shall
control.
B. The Crandon Park Botanical Garden Master Plan shall create a lush,
profusely colorful native South Florida and tropical Caribbean botanical
setting which will be enhanced through the sensitive, limited integration
of people -friendly functional art, of art that defines a journey and of
historical cultural features (i.e. old plantation structures). The plant
species in the Garden shall be named, numbered and depicted on a site
plan but not promoted for botanical research. The functional art shall
be limited to bridge railings no higher than four feet and four small
sites each limited to one hundred square feet each. These sites shall in
no way stand out as objects of beauty or ornament and shall not be a
85
distraction in the landscape. However, these sites, shall not be turned
into an art gallery or exhibition area. There shall be no artists in
residence; all artwork or cultural features shall be site specific,
empathetically conceived and executed from the Park's past and present
historic themes, from its environmental attributes and from factual
characters of the flora and fauna of the Garden's site and not from the
idiosyncratic signature or psychology of the artist. The factual
representations of the flora and fauna shall be no larger than life size;
in scale and proportion to the natural attributes of the Garden's setting,
with a maximum height of six feet. Representations of very small flora
or fauna, i.e., insects may could be reproduced to a maximum of 8
inches.
C. Subject to the limitations in B above, the Botanical Garden area may be
used for temporary non-commercial display of works of art only,
during appropriately scaled festivals or events of a maximum of 3 days
duration and a maximum of three per year. No event held in the
Botanical Garden shall use any electronic ampliation of voices or
sounds.
D. The canals in the Botanical Garden shall be interconnected with
sufficient depth and width to permit navigation exclusively by non -
motorized canoe, and the areas adjacent to such canals shall be heavily
landscaped with a tropical jungle atmosphere and the water within such
canals shall be aerated with sufficient oxygen to preclude detrimental
marine growth.
E. The Botanical Garden's Forest shall be replanted with a variety of
native and natural fruit bearing plantings which will enhance and
recreate wildlife habitats to insure the return and reproductive abilities
of native fauna.
F. Appropriate species of colorful ducks, peacocks, flamingos and other
foul, fish and if allowed, other native or protected species of fauna,
some of which can be fed by visitors, shall be introduced to roam freely
and to enhance the visitors' visual experience. The County shall also
86
lo M Wd CUO OIL <<,4,11'? i .D
reinstitute the petting zoo in the Old petting zoo areaAwithin 3 years of
the Adoption Date.
G. The remaining former animal cages and pens shall be modified or
removed from the Botanical Garden site. (See Site Map).
Building 2 Remove turtle house and raise planter bed to top of
wall or remove wall
Building 3 Remove 60% of the Building
Building 5 Modify for animal house
Building 5A Remove
Building 6 Modify to South Florida Vernacular
Building 7 Rehabilitate
Building 8 Remove all walls
Building 10 Remove all vertical bars and plant flowering vines
on the horizontal bars
Building 11 Remove all walls
Building 13 Remove
Building 15 Remove 60% of the footprint and the vertical bars
and plant flowering vines on the horizontal bars
Building 17 Remove
Building 18 Remove
87
\
2
FIRE
STATION
058 Ac.
Q
BEACH
r \cranaon\cranoet cgn Mar 28. 1396 11 ;7 44
292.42 Ac.
CABANAS
J
"
H . T h e r e s h a l l b e n o a r t s t u d i o b u i l d i n g i n t h e B o t a n i c a l G a r d e n .
"
I . C a n o e r e n t a l s i n B o t a n i c a l G a r d e n s h a l l b e l i m i t e d t o o n e l o c a t i o n i n t h e
s i t e .
J T h e g r e e n p l a n t a t i o n h o u s e s h a l l b e m o v e d ( i f f e a s i b l e ) t o t h e B o t a n i c a l
G a r d e n - M a t h e s o n P l a n t a t i o n a r e a , a n d a l o n g w i t h o n e o r t w o o t h e r
M a t h e s o n p l a n t a t i o n b u i l d i n g s o r r e p l i c a s s h a l l b e r e m o d e l e d a n d u s e d
f o r i n t e r p r e t i v e p u r p o s e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e h i s t o r i c a l a n d n a t u r a l
r e s o u r c e s o f C r a n d o n P a r k . '
e d w i t n u L i u e c y e a r s o f t h e
A d o p t i c A - D a t e . .
K . T h e p r e s e n t C r a n d o n P a r k g u i d e m a p s h a l l b e r e l o c a t e d a n d p r e s e r v e d
i n t h e i n t e r p r e t i v e c e n t e r t o b e l o c a t e d i n t h e B o t a n i c a l G a r d e n
M a t h e s o n a r e a o r t h e p a r k a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e .
L . T h e t w o p i c n i c s h e l t e r s i n t h e s p e c i a l a c t i v i t y a r e a s h a l l b e l i m i t e d t o
1 , 6 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t e a c h .
C R A N D O N P A R K C A B A N A S
T h e c a b a n a s a r e l o c a t e d a d j a c e n t t o r e s t r o o m s a n d a c o n c e s s i o n b u i l d i n g , b o t h
o f w h i c h s h a l l b e r e t a i n e d b u t r e n o v a t e d c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s t a n d a r d s e s t a b l i s h e d i n
t h i s M a s t e r P l a n . G r o u p s o f c o c o n u t p a l m s a r e e f f e c t i v e i n p r o v i d i n g s h a d e a n d a
s p e c i a l a m b i e n c e f o r t h e u n i t s . T h e s e g r o u p s s h a l l b e s u p p l e m e n t e d b y l a r g e r
s i m i l a r p l a n t i n g s . V e r y s i m i l a r n e w C a b a n a s s h a l l b e c o n s t r u c t e d o n t h e f o o t p r i n t s
o f t h e e x i s t i n g u n i t s , b u t p r o v i d i n g c o m m o n , r o o f e d o p e n s p a c e b e t w e e n e v e r y 3 o r
4 o f t h e 1 - s t o r y u n i t s a n d u s i n g t h e S o u t h F l o r i d a V e r n a c u l a r A r c h i t e c t u r a l S t y l e .
B e c a u s e t h i s s p r e a d i n g o f u n i t s w i l l r e d u c e t h e t o t a l n u m b e r a v a i l a b l e , a f e w
a d d i t i o n a l , s m a l l g r o u p s o f 3 o r 4 m a y b e c o n s t r u c t e d u p o n p a t r o n d e m a n d t o t h e
s o u t h a s s h o w n o n t h e M a s t e r P l a n S i t e P l a n .
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
8 8 "
"
The two-story portion of the Cabana complex shall be renovated, but not
replaced, and be made to conform to the South Florida Vernacular Architectural
Style used throughout Crandon Park.
The two southern most cabana sections may be demolished down to their
concrete slab and then covered with sand until renovations are made.
Parking for the Cabanas is provided in two lots - one behind (west of) the
units, the other in the main south parking area. Both are accessed by the South
Beach parking entrance by permit only. The closing time for the Cabana area shall
be sundown. No more than 40% of the available cabanas may be rented on a
seasonal basis and those renters shall be selected seasonally by an independently run
lottery system. All other persons (patrons) shall be eligible to rent a cabana on a
rotating first come first serve basis.
PARKING AND BEACH DRIVE
The principal design objectives with respect to the development of a future
Beach Drive and East Parking Lots are:
1. To develop a Beach Drive offering the public an opportunity to
circulate around the parking lots, to which it will give access, and
providing views into the beach, and access to drop-off points for all
activity areas east of Crandon Boulevard;
2. To introduce effective yet natural looking access control measures
between the Beach Drive and the picnic areas without cutting off views
to the picnic areas and beach.
The present parking lot capacity shall not be expanded and all parking spaces
shall be a minimum of 9 feet wide and 20 feet long or the appropriate size for the
needs of the vehicles. The concrete walkways in the middle of the parking lot
median strips shall be removed except as required by the Americans with Disability
Act. The Parks Department shall make an effort to replace as much asphalt as
possible in the parking spaces with concrete or similar material pavers which all
allow for a maximum of water penetration (minimum permeability 70%).
89
"
H u r r i c a n e A n d r e w ( 1 9 9 2 ) d e s t r o y e d m a n y o f t h e s h a d e t r e e s i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t s , a n d
s u c h t r e e s s h a l l b e p r o m p t l y r e p l a c e d . T h e s o u t h p o r t i o n o f t h e S o u t h p a r k i n g l o t
s h a l l b e p l a n t e d w i t h t r e e s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e L a n d s c a p e G u i d e l i n e s a n d "
S t a n d a r d s . ' D u r i n g T o u r n a m e n t s a n d s p e c i a l e v e n t s , b e a c h a n d p i c n i c p a t r o n s s h a l l
a l w a y s b e p r o v i d e d w i t h a d e q u a t e p a r k a c c e s s a n d p a r k i n g . O v e r f l o w p a r k i n g f o r
l a r g e , s p e c i a l e v e n t s c a n b e a c c o m m o d a t e d o f f - s i t e i n p l a c e s s u c h a s V i r g i n i a K e y
B e a c h o r t h e M i a m i M a r i n e S t a d i u m . "
P e d e s t r i a n c r o s s i n g s o f t h e B e a c h D r i v e b e t w e e n t h e p a r k i n g l o t s a n d t h e
p i c n i c a r e a s , t h e m a l l o r t h e b e a c h s h a l l b e p a v e d w i t h m a t e r i a l o f d i f f e r e n t c o l o r a n d
t e x t u r e t h a n t h a t o f t h e s u r f a c e o f B e a c h D r i v e t o a c c e n t u a t e t h e c r o s s i n g l a n e .
D r o p o f f p o i n t s s h a l l b e d e s i g n a t e d b y s i g n s w h i c h s h a l l a l s o p r o h i b i t p a r k i n g
( i . e . " D R O P O F F O N L Y - - N O P A R K I N G " ) . C o r a l r o c k b o u l d e r s , w o o d b o l l a r d s
o r o t h e r n a t u r a l m a t e r i a l s o r v e g e t a t i o n s h a l l b e u s e d t o c o n t r o l a c c e s s o n t o t h e
p i c n i c a r e a a n d b e a c h , f r o m B e a c h D r i v e , w i t h o u t i n t r u d i n g o n t h e P a r k ' s v i s t a s o r
a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t i e s .
T h e r e s h a l l b e a P a r k b u i l d i n g o f n o m o r e t h a n 9 0 0 s q . f t . t o p r o v i d e
i n f o r m a t i o n f o r v i s i t o r s t h r o u g h d i s p l a y s a n d p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s e t o q u e s t i o n s a n d
r e q u e s t s f o r h e l p . T h e r e s h a l l b e 1 0 t o l l - f r e e p a r k i n g s p a c e s f o r v i s i t o r s ' v e h i c l e s .
T h e c l o s i n g t i m e f o r t h o s e p o r t i o n s o f t h e C r a n d o n P a r k L a n d s e a s t o f
C r a n d o n B o u l e v a r d s h a l l b e s u n d o w n .
T h e f i e l d i n t h e c e n t r a l a l l e e s h a l l r e m a i n o p e n a n d t h e w a l k w a y s s h a l l b e
l a n d s c a p e d w i t h c o c o n u t p a l m s . 2 3 T h e l i g h t e d b a s e b a l l f i e l d s s h a l l b e p e r m i t t e d t o
r e c o v e r t o a t o t a l g r a s s c o v e r a n d b e u s e d a s a u n l i t m u l t i - p u r p o s e s p o r t s f i e l d . T h e
l i g h t t o w e r s a n d b a c k s t o p s s h a l l b e r e m o v e d , t h e b a s e b a l l d i a m o n d s g r a d e d s m o o t h
a n d r e t u r n e d t o a t o t a l g r a s s c o v e r w i t h i n 1 2 0 d a y s o f t h e A d o p t i o n D a t e . A n e w
l o w b a c k s t o p ( m a x i m u m h e i g h t 4 ' ) a n d l a n d s c a p e d h e d g e s s h a l l b e p e r m i t t e d .
L a n d s c a p e G u i d e l i n e s a n d S t a n d a r d s , L a n d s c a p e S e c t i o n a l s p . 1 0 , A p p e n d i x B .
S e e L a n d s c a p e G u i d e l i n e s a n d S t a n d a r d s , L a n d s c a p e S e c t i o n a l s , p . 1 4 , A p p e n d i x B .
9 0
The central allee when reestablished shall be developed with an enframement
of coconut palms, the lines flaring out as they approach the beach to offer a wide
view of sand and sea.
THE BEACH
The Master Plan Landscape Plan enhances the Beach with the addition of
many coconut palms, natural dune systems and vegetation, starting with just
coconuts palms at the central part of the Beach and becoming denser, with natural
vegetation toward the north end of the Beach. These plantings serve to reduce the
vast expanses of glaring sand and blur the boundaries between the picnic areas and
the ocean. Single post thatched roof sunbrellas may also be appropriately placed
along the beach.
The Master Plan retains the existing promenade, but removes the parapet
along its west side after the new sand dunes have been established. Between the
promenade and the shore, the Master Plan calls for the development of a series of
overlapping dunes and dune plantings which, together with the planting of additional
groups of coconut palms and with the existing retaining wall along the east side of
the promenade, will reduce the inland drifting of the beach sand. Additional sets of
steps or ramps shall be developed along the promenade at no more than 100 -yard
intervals. On the north end of the Beach, the pedestrian/bicycle recreation trail (10
foot wide) serves as a continuation of the promenade and service road.
Picnic locations in both the north and the south Beach areas occupy tree
shaded areas on the Master Plan Site Plan. The picnic areas are conveniently served
by drop-off points on the Beach Drive, where family members, picnic baskets and
supplies may be discharged. In the picnic areas there shall be open tables and
benches close to the promenade, and behind these, shelters (400 sq.ft.) with tables
and benches, where groups may gather without concern for rain showers. Shelters
in the south picnic areas shall be sized for family groups (900 sq.ft.), while those in
the north picnic areas shall be larger (1600 sq.ft.) to accommodate larger groups.
Some of the shelters, located in the back, or west side, of the picnic areas may be
on stilts, with access ramps for the handicapped. This will afford all patrons equal
visual access of the ocean and Beach. The shelters shall be simple structures,
consistent with the unified South Florida Vernacular Architectural Style of the Park.
91
"
A s t h e i r n e e d d e v e l o p s , n e w r e s t r o o m s s h a l l b e c o n s t r u c t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y n i n e
h u n d r e d a n d f i f t y f e e t n o r t h o f t h e s o u t h c o n c e s s i o n s t a n d a d j a c e n t t o t h e p r o m e n a d e .
T h e l a r g e , e n c l o s e d c a r o u s e l a t t h e s o u t h e n d o f t h e s o u t h p i c n i c a r e a s h a l l b e
r e h a b i l i t a t e d . I t w i l l i d e n t i f y t h e s o u t h e n d o f t h e p i c n i c a r e a . T h e a d j o i n i n g r o l l e r
s k a t i n g r i n k , w h i c h m a y o f f e r b i c y c l e a n d s k a t e r e n t a l , a n d b a t h r o o m s s h a l l a l s o b e
r e h a b i l i t a t e d . I n t h e f u t u r e , i t m a y p r o v e n e c e s s a r y t o s e g r e g a t e t h e b i c y c l e r s a n d
r o l l e r b l a d e r s f r o m t h e p e d e s t r i a n s i n t h e m o r e a c t i v e p a r k a r e a s . A c h i l d r e n ' s
s a n d l o t p l a y a r e a ( 1 , 6 0 0 s q . f t . ) m a y b e b u i l t i n t h e f a m i l y a r e a w i t h p l a y e q u i p m e n t
a n d l i f e s i z e r e p l i c a s o f s e a t u r t l e s , m a n a t e e s , d o l p h i n s , a l l i g a t o r s , a n d s t i n g r a y s
m a d e o f c e m e n t o r f i b e r g l a s s a n d p a i n t e d i n l i f e l i k e c o l o r s ( n o s o l i d b r i g h t c o l o r s ) . 2 4
A n o t h e r i d e n t i c a l s a n d l o t p l a y a r e a m a y a l s o b e p l a c e d i n t h e p i c n i c a r e a , n o r t h o f
t h e C e n t r a l A l l e e .
T h e M a s t e r P l a n p r o v i d e s f o r t r a m s t a t i o n s n e a r t h e e n t r a n c e t o t h e B o t a n i c a l
G a r d e n , a t t h e c e n t r a l a l l e e a n d a t t h e n o r t h e n d o f A i r l i n e R o a d , n e a r t h e f o s s i l i z e d
m a n g r o v e r e e f . T h e t r a m s e v e r a l c a r s i n l e n g t h , s h a l l r u n o n t h e p r o m e n a d e a n d
t h e n n o r t h w a r d o n t h e e a s t e r l y a r m o f t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l t r a i l , g i v i n g p a s s e n g e r s a r i d e
a l o n g t h e B e a c h f r o n t a g e . I n t h e f u t u r e , a n a r r o w g a u g e t r a i n m a y a l s o r u n
t h r o u g h o u t t h e p a r k .
P a t h s f o r b i c y c l e s a n d p e d e s t r i a n s ( 1 0 - f t w i d e ) a r e p r o v i d e d o n t h e M a s t e r
P l a n S i t e P l a n t h r o u g h o u t t h e P a r k , s e r v i n g b o t h t h e e a s t a n d w e s t a c t i v i t y a r e a s .
O n t h e e a s t s i d e o f t h e P a r k t h e p a t h b e g i n s a t t h e V i l l a g e o f K e y B i s c a y n e ,
c o n t i n u e s t h r o u g h C a b a n a R o a d a n d t h e p r o m e n a d e t o t h e c e n t r a l a l l e e , a n d t h e n c e
t o t h e n o r t h e n d , t e r m i n a t i n g a t a n o v e r l o o k b y t h e m a n g r o v e r e e f . A n o t h e r b i c y c l e
p a t h o r i g i n a t e s a t t h e n o r t h b e a c h p a r k i n g l o t a n d r u n s n o r t h b e h i n d a m i n i m u m
t h i r t y f o o t w i d e v e g e t a t i v e b u f f e r p a r a l l e l t o C r a n d o n B o u l e v a r d t e r m i n a t i n g a t t h e
B e a r C u t B r i d g e . F o l l o w i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n t o t h e B e a r C u t B r i d g e , t h e b i c y c l e p a t h
w i l l c o n t i n u e o n t o V i r g i n i a K e y . 2 S T h e w e s t s i d e b i c y c l e p a t h o r i g i n a t e s a t t h e B e a r
C u t B r i d g e , g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w s t h e F l o r i d a P o w e r & L i g h t C o m p a n y p o w e r l i n e r i g h t
o f w a y , a n d t e r m i n a t e s a t t h e s o u t h p a r k b o u n d a r y .
S e e A r c h i t e c t u r a l S t a n d a r d s A p p e n d i x A - 1 4 .
S e e B e a r C u t B r i d g e - A p p e n d i x r . T
9 2
On the side of the existing pedestrian/bicycle path in the North Beach Area,
there is a fitness course (' Fit -Core,' ' Vita Course,' 'Parcours,' or equal) with
instructional signage and simple balancing beams, parallel bars, horizontal and
vertical ladders, and similar equipment to help the participant undergo a planned
fitness regimen. The elements of the course shall be restored as necessary.
The central allee recognizes the importance of the strong open -space
connection of the east and west sides of the Park envisioned in the early Phillips
master plans. The importance of maintaining the openness of the central allee and
the completely unobstructed vista it provides cannot be overemphasized. It shall be
lined with coconut palms, densely planted so as to flare out as they approach the
Beach.Z6 The allee from Crandon Boulevard to the Atlantic Ocean shall contain no
goal posts, backstops, lighting standards, flagpoles, umbrellas, life guard towers or
anything which would obstruct the view and be incompatible with the design of the
Master Plan and of the earlier Phillips plans. Any trees currently blocking the
central allee's openness shall be relocated to other areas in the park. It would be
acceptable to develop in the central allee a limited bed of low ground cover, with
some open areas for passive activities.
The existing concession building at the Cabanas and at the north side of the
central allee and existing restrooms on the Beach shall be rehabilitated conforming
to the South Florida Vernacular Architectural Style which will characterize Crandon
Park. A small mobile food vehicle painted with two compatible park colors and free
of all exterior advertising and wording shall be permitted to travel the paved areas
east of Crandon Boulevard. None of these concessions or any other buildings, or
exterior vending machines shall have any advertising or promotional signs, flags or
bulletin boards. Signage and flags to warn patrons of hazardous conditions shall be
allowed. Restrooms, tram stations and the lifeguard station shall be marked with
appropriate signage of modest size to identify their functions.
There shall be appropriately spaced lifeguard towers on the beach. The main
lifeguard tower mounted on wooden piles and standing no higher than the existing
towers shall house two desks and appropriate communication equipment. The
towers shall be positioned on the beach to the north and south sides of the central
See Appendix B Sectionals, p.13.
93
"
a l l e e v i s t a . T h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e t o w e r s ( s e v e r a l n e w o n e s h a v i n g b e e n r e c e n t l y
i n s t a l l e d ) i s p l e a s a n t , l e a v e s n o q u e s t i o n a s t o t h e i r i d e n t i t y a n d t h e y t h e r e f o r e n e e d
n o s i g n a g e e x c e p t a p p r o p r i a t e l y s c a l e d s y m b o l s a n d c h a l k b o a r d s . S i g n a g e
i d e n t i f y i n g l i f e g u a r d s o n d u t y o r h a z a r d o u s c o n d i t i o n s w i l l b e a l l o w e d o n t h e t o w e r s ,
a s l o n g a s i t c o n f o r m s t o t h e s i g n s t a n d a r d s s e t f o r t h h e r e i n . T h e l i f e g u a r d s ' d o r y
s h a l l b e s t o r e d a t t h e C r a n d o n M a r i n a o r p a r k c a r e t a k e r ' s g a r a g e . E x c e p t f o r
l i f e g u a r d a n d p a r k m a i n t e n a n c e v e h i c l e s , n o m o t o r i z e d v e h i c l e s s h a l l b e p e r m i t t e d
o n t h e b e a c h .
T h e P a r k s D e p a r t m e n t s h a l l b e p e r m i t t e d t o g r a n t f o r a p e r i o d n o t t o e x c e e d
o n e y e a r i n e a c h c a s e , a l o u n g e c h a i r a n d / o r b e a c h u m b r e l l a c o n c e s s i o n f o r p a t r o n s
o f b e a c h a r e a s , p r o v i d e d h o w e v e r , t h a t n o c o n c e s s i o n s h a l l b e g r a n t e d w h i c h p e r m i t s
m o r e t h a n 3 0 0 l o u n g e c h a i r s o r 3 0 0 u m b r e l l a s t o b e l o c a t e d i n t h e b e a c h a r e a i n
t o t a l , a n d f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d t h a t s u c h c o n c e s s i o n a g r e e m e n t s h a l l p r o v i d e t h a t n o
u m b r e l l a o r l o u n g e c h a i r s h a l l b e p l a c e d ; ( a ) w i t h i n a n a r e a 7 5 f e e t w e s t w a r d o n t h e
m e a n h i g h t i d e l i n e ; ( b ) w i t h i n 7 5 f e e t t o t h e n o r t h a n d s o u t h o f a n y c o n c e s s i o n
s t a n d ; ( c ) e a s t w a r d o f a n y c o n c e s s i o n s t a n d ( i . e . , c r e a t i n g a n o p e n i n g a t l e a s t 1 5 0
f e e t w i d e f r o m t h e c o n c e s s i o n s t a n d t o t h e o c e a n , ( d ) n o t m o r e t h a n 1 , 8 0 0 f e e t s o u t h
o f t h e c e n t e r o f t h e C e n t r a l A l l e e ; a n d ( e ) n o t m o r e t h a n 1 , 6 0 0 f e e t n o r t h o f t h e
c e n t e r o f t h e C e n t r a l A l l e e . T h e c o n c e s s i o n a g r e e m e n t s h a l l f u r t h e r p r o v i d e t h a t t h e
P a r k s D e p a r t m e n t s h a l l h a v e t h e r i g h t t o r e d u c e t h e n u m b e r o f l o u n g e c h a i r s o r
u m b r e l l a s , i f i n i t s s o l e a n d a b s o l u t e d i s c r e t i o n , t h e P a r k s D e p a r t m e n t d e t e r m i n e s
t h a t s u c h l o u n g e c h a i r s o r u m b r e l l a s d e t r a c t f r o m o r i n t e r f e r e w i t h p u b l i c a c c e s s t o
a n y a r e a o f t h e b e a c h o r t o t h e o c e a n .
B e n c h e s s h a l l b e l o c a t e d a t i n t e r v a l s o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 0 0 f e e t a l o n g t h e
p r o m e n a d e f o r r e s t i n g o r v i e w i n g B e a c h a c t i v i t i e s .
S i g n a g e a n d / o r b u o y s s h a l l b e p l a c e d i n c o a s t a l w a t e r s a r o u n d t h e C r a n d o n
P a r k b o u n d a r y a t m u t u a l l y v i s i b l e i n t e r v a l s a t a m i n i m u m o f 1 , 0 0 0 f e e t o f f s h o r e ,
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t n o o p e r a t i n g m o t o r s s h a l l b e a l l o w e d w i t h i n s u c h 1 , 0 0 0 f e e t o u t e r
p e r i m e t e r s u r r o u n d i n g C r a n d o n P a r k , e x c e p t a t t h e w i d e c e n t r a l b e a c h w h e r e
m a r k e r s w i l l e x t e n d t o t h e o u t e r p e r i m e t e r o f t h e s a n d b a r . T h e c h a n n e l s t o a n d t h e
a n c h o r a g e a t t h e C r a n d o n P a r k M a r i n a s h a l l b e p r o p e r l y m a r k e d . A l l b o a t a c c e s s
t o t u r t l e g r a s s a n d t h e f o s s i l i z e d m a n g r o v e r e e f a r e a s o f t h e B e a r C u t P r e s e r v e s h a l l
b e p r o h i b i t e d . A l l r e s t r i c t i o n s s h a l l b e p o s t e d w i t h s i g n a g e a n d b u o y s . N o b o a t o r
w a t e r c r a f t s h a l l b e o f f e r e d f o r r e n t a l o n t h e C r a n d o n P a r k b e a c h a r e a s . C o n c e s s i o n
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
9 4
"
areas on Crandon Park Lands shall only be constructed or expanded as the Park
patronage dictates.
Management practices shall be implemented for the Crandon Park beachfront
and offshore swimming area so as to maintain the recreational beach and swimming
area at its existing (January 1993) or an improved level. Management elements shall
include the creation of a viable dune system to recreate a more natural beach habitat
and reduce the loss of sand from the beach to other areas of the Park, and the
implementation of the most economically feasible beach cleaning operations
consistent with generally accepted practices, such as those in the State of Florida
Beach Management Handbook, to meet the multiple objectives of debris removal and
sand preservation. Crandon Park shall, in the future, participate as necessary with
the Village of Key Biscayne in the renourishment of the Key Biscayne beach.
Adequate and fully functional restrooms, drinking fountains and showers shall be
maintained along the entire picnic and beach area.
The County shall implement modifications or recreational enhancements to the
shoreline drop off areas north and south of the attached sand bar. The placement
of sand to shallow the existing north and south drop-off areas, and if appropriate,
shall be undertaken within three years of the Adoption Date. An artificial reef
snorkeling area in the south drop-off area to provide for a greater diversity of
recreational opportunities within the Park shall be done within two years of the
Adoption Date.
CRANDON PARK VISITORS AND NATURE CENTER
This Master Plan shall include the following specific provisions of the
Settlement Agreement relating to the "Nature Center":
Nature Center. The Crandon Park Master Plan and the Declaration of
Restrictions implementing such Master Plan shall limit the nature center now
located on the Crandon Park lands to no more than 3 times the present square
footage of such nature center, and any design for improvement of the present
nature center shall conform to the design height and other limitations and
criteria contained in the Crandon Park Master Plan.
95
0
The Park Visitor's and Nature Center shown on the Master Plan Site Plan
shall be an elevated single story facility built in the South Florida Vernacular
Architectural style. This facility shall have a visitor center with a maximum interior
footprint of 2,050 square feet, and classroom with a maximum total interior footprint
of 2,650 square feet. An open porch with a maximum width of ten feet may be
placed around a maximum combined sized park visitors' and nature center of 4,700
square feet. The location of Park Visitors' and Nature Center, at the junction of the
east and west branches of the bicycle and pedestrian trails, provides its staff control
of access to the Bear Cut Preserve interpretive trails. The Visitors' Center shall
include a desk/counter area staffed by approved volunteers, naturalists or Park
Department/Crandon Park Nature Center naturalists to answer questions, a seven
minute or longer audio/video presentation recounting the natural resources and
history of Crandon Park, a photography display presentation, artifacts, a limited
retail area providing brochures describing Crandon Park and other Dade County
Park facilities, a staff office, storage area, and bathroom facilities. The Nature
Center shall contain classrooms/laboratories and storage. In no event shall more
than 500 persons be permitted admittance to the Nature Center classrooms
throughout any one day, and members of the public shall have access to all areas of
the Nature Center after 2:00 p.m. on week days and on Saturdays, Sundays and
holidays. The Visitors and Nature Center and restrooms shall be generously
landscaped with tall, medium and short trees to soften their visual impact on the
north, south and west sides within one year of the buildings certificate of occupancy.
The existing restroom on the beach nearby shall be removed and a new restroom
built adjacent to the new Nature Center. A shelter (max. size 40'x40') shall be
placed next to the fossilized area and another halfway in between the first shelter and
the Nature Center on the Access Trail. A shade house, no larger than 1,000 sq. ft.
approximately 100 yards north of the Nature Center complex, will be administered
by the Park's staff naturalists and will be used for propagation of native plant
materials for the Bear Cut plant restoration project. The shade house shall be placed
just inside the vegetation on the Bear Cut Preserve's southern vegetative edge. The
shade house shall be removed after such restoration is complete, but in any event,
the shade house must be removed by no later than 5 years after installation.
The self -releasing turtle hatchery on the Beach east of the shade house shall
remain. Crandon Park Nature Center sponsored trips to gather turtle eggs at night
may be conducted solely from the Nature Center's parking lot, and neither the
96
Nature Center, the Visitors' Center nor anything else shall be used or illuminated
during such activities.
BEAR CUT PRESERVE
First impressions are lasting. It is extremely important that the Park entrance
at Bear Cut be open, friendly, expansive, welcoming and accessible to the many
amenities the Park has to offer, and that any barriers be completely invisible from
the causeway, Bear Cut Bridge or Crandon Boulevard. The open shoreline (450')
eastward of the Bear Cut Bridge shall be planted with red mangrove.
A salt marsh shall be developed within the area of Bear Cut Preserve
designated on the Master Plan Site Plan. By dredging, the uplands will be restored
to their former elevation below the water table, and by cutting a channel to the
ocean, the resulting coastal wetlands can benefit from the resultant, necessary tidal
flushing. This development will include the creation of one or more flushing
channels to prevent stagnation within the pond and maximize the ecological value
of the marsh. The size and location of the channel(s) shall be based on the
recommendations of coastal engineers with expertise in channel design, [see
Appendix K). The channels shall be located away from Crandon Boulevard, and
shall be designed in an aesthetically pleasing manner compatible with the natural
setting and shall meander to avoid long linear sections. All spoil from the
excavations for the Bear Cut Preserve salt marsh shall be sold and/or removed from
the Crandon Park Lands, or if such spoil will not have any damaging environmental
effect on any natural feature, such spoil shall be deposited on the Crandon Park
Lands in an appropriate location. If such spoil is sold, all proceeds shall be used to
enhance Crandon Park Lands.
There shall be along the west side of the Bear Cut Preserve, a 10 ft. wide
recreational bicycle path extending northward from the west side of the North Beach
parking lot to the Bear Cut Bridge. The bicycle path shall be separated from the
Boulevard by a vegetative buffer no less than 30 feet wide. From the east side of
Crandon Boulevard, the bicycle path shall be separated from the west side of the
Bear Cut Preserve by a vegetative buffer and eight foot high fence. This path will
97
originate at the north parking lot and proceed across the Bear Cut Bridge modified
to accommodate the north bound bicycle path.27
The new channel created for the wetland restoration project, together with a
parallel fence and buffer, will offer a formidable barrier to people seeking to enter
Bear Cut Preserve from Crandon Boulevard and will require them to enter at the
Park Visitors and Nature Center. The 8' high fence shall extend from the Bear Cut
Bridge, south along Crandon Boulevard to a point opposite the Nature Center and
may then proceed directly to the Nature Center. It shall be completely screened by
heavy native planting, and shall be black in color.
In the coastal wetland restoration area there shall be several interpretive trails
and overlook points -- some even extending out into the wetlands on wooden piers
or walkways to allow close observation of flora and fauna. These shall be laid out
by skilled naturalists and shall be marked with suitable, instructive but unobtrusive
signage.
An observation shelter with a maximum height of 25' above ground level and
a restroom facility shall be located in the vicinity of the fossilized mangrove reef.
No bicycles shall be permitted further north than the observation shelter.
Signage shall be installed offshore to prohibit boat access into the turtle grass
area, as indicated on the Master Plan Site Plan. No more than 200 visitors per mile
shall be permitted on the Bear Cut Preserve trail at one time. The Bear Cut
Preserve shall be designated as a low noise area, where except for maintenance
operations sounds shall not be permitted to exceed the decibel level of a normal
conversation.
A majority of the Bear Cut Preserve shall be replanted and maintained with
native species indigenous to Key Biscayne and to South Florida Barrier Islands
within five years from the Adoption Date.
See Appendix i r
98
The Bear Cut Preserve shall be maintained free of all exotic vegetation in the
restored wetlands areas; all culverts shall be maintained for proper water flow and
the perimeter chain link fence shall be maintained to ensure long term habitat
protection.
MASTER PLAN
Priorities List
All specified features and provisions of this Master Plan shall be implemented
with reasonable expedition by the Dade County Parks and Recreation Department.
The following specific provisions of this Master Plan shall, subject to the Settlement
Agreement, be accomplished pursuant to the following order by category:
CATEGORY ONE:
Rehabilitate the large picnic table area at the North Beach.
Repair the sand drift walls and North Beach service road.
Install all significant signage and remove all nonsignificant signage.
Remove all sponsor signage from the Golf Course.
Delineate and protect all Park Preserve Land.
Implement the Landscape Guidelines and Standards for the entire Crandon
Park Lands, and improve and maintain perpetually the visual screening of the
Tennis Stadium in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
Restore the Beach and establish landscaped sand dunes.
Implement the improvements to Crandon Marina.
99
"
M o v e t h e C o c o n u t P a l m s ( 2 0 5 + - ) a n d G u m b o L i m b o s f r o m t h e m e d i a n
o p p o s i t e t h e m a r i n a a r e a t o t h e m e d i a n s t r i p a n d r o a d s i d e s t o t h e s o u t h .
M o d i f y a n d s c r e e n w i t h l a n d s c a p e t h e g o l f c o u r s e m a i n t e n a n c e a r e a .
S c r e e n f r o m v i e w a l l u t i l i t i e s o n t h e G o l f C o u r s e a n d T e n n i s C e n t e r S i t e w i t h
L a n d s c a p e V e g e t a t i o n .
M o d i f y t h e g o l f c o u r s e c l u b h o u s e b u i l d i n g w i t h w h e e l c h a i r a c c e s s .
S c r e e n t h e p a r k m a i n t e n a n c e a r e a w i t h l a n d s c a p e m a t e r i a l .
R e m o v e i m m e d i a t e l y a l l d e b r i s , l a r g e t r a i l e r s , c h i p p e r s , b u c k e t t r u c k s a n d
o t h e r p a r k v e h i c l e s f r o m T h e T e n n i s C e n t e r s i t e .
P a i n t a l l u t i l i t y g r o u n d c o v e r s p a r k g r e e n w i t h a c o l o r c o d e d s h a p e ( m a x . s i z e
4 s q . i n . ) f o r e a c h t y p e o f u t i l i t y .
P a i n t a l l e x p o s e d g u a r d p o s t s a r o u n d u n d e r g r o u n d u t i l i t i e s a d a r k p a r k g r e e n .
I n s t a l l s i g n a g e i n t h e T e n n i s C e n t e r C l u b h o u s e i n d i c a t i n g t h e P u b l i c ' s a c c e s s
a n d u s a g e t o t h e T e n n i s C o u r t s .
I n s t a l l b a r r i e r s S o u t h o f t h e T e n n i s C e n t e r C l u b h o u s e t o p r o h i b i t a u t o m o b i l e s
f r o m b e i n g p a r k e d i n a n y t e n n i s c o u r t a r e a .
I n s t a l l b o l l a r d s t o p r o h i b i t a l l v e h i c l e t r a f f i c o n t h e p e d e s t r i a n w a l k w a y a c r o s s
t h e C r a n d o n B o u l e v a r d m e d i a n s t r i p .
R e m o v e t h e b r o k e n c o n c r e t e f r o m P e l i c a n P o i n t a r e a a n d c o m p l e t e t h e
M a n g r o v e p l a n t i n g a n d t h e n a t u r a l s t o n e r a n d o m r i p - r a p a l o n g t h e e a s t e r n e n d
o f t h e P e l i c a n P o i n t s h o r e l i n e .
R e m o v e t h e t w o l a r g e C o n c r e t e P i p e s b y t h e O l d B a t h H o u s e .
R e m o v e a l l w o o d p o s t s a r o u n d t h e p l a n t e r s a t t h e b o a t r a m p a n d t h e b a i t a n d
t a c k l e s h o p .
1 0 0
Remove the rock boulders on the Golf Course and Beach Areas.
Remove all unnecessary white metal gates from the central allee area.
Designate the beach shelter by the south concession stand for the handicapped
and provide suitable beach chairs as needed.
Replace all survey stakes on the tennis center site with 3" galvanized pipe
with two feet showing above ground and painted park green and three feet
below ground incased in concrete.
Remove the telephone poles with cement platforms from the goat area in the
old zoo.
Relocate all abandoned domestic and feral animals to areas other than the
Crandon Park Lands.
Remove the pool tables from the restaurant/bar in the Golf Course Clubhouse.
Install "No Parking" signs along the western edge of the Marina parking lots.
Remove the movie set north of the old north concession stand.
CATEGORY TWO:
Connect all restrooms to the public sewer main in the median of Crandon
Boulevard.
Install graywater irrigation system throughout the landscaped areas of
Crandon Park and repair all water fountains.
Construct bicycle paths and nature walks in all designated Park areas.
Modify the Bear Cut Bridge to accommodate the northbound bicycle path.
Renovate and reorganize the group picnic tables on the beach
101
a
Implement rehabilitation of the Crandon Park Botanical Gardens.
Plant a red mangrove screen along the shoreline East of the Bear Cut Bridge
(approximately 450' in length).
Construct the Park Visitors and Nature Center.
Remove or modify all light poles over twenty five feet high and in particular
those at the baseball diamonds, charter board dock, picnic shelter area,
amusement area, golf course and tennis court areas.
CATEGORY THREE:
Reinstate the children's petting zoo in the Matheson Plantation area of the old
zoo.
Install the median strips in the South Beach parking lot.
Remove the concrete side walks in the existing median strips of the Beach
parking lots.
CATEGORY FOUR:
Renovate the existing Lifeguard Headquarters Building and build main tower
on the beach as described in the Master Plan.
CATEGORY FIVE:
Construct dockmaster's office and modify buildings at the Marina.
CATEGORY SIX:
Construct the Crandon Boulevard intersections.
102
APPENDICES
Architecture - The South Florida Vernacular Architectural Standards A
Crandon Park Lands - Landscape Guidelines and Standards B
Dade County Park Policy and Park Designations C
"Save Our Parks" Charter Amendment D
Commercial Imagery and Recording Rules E
Matheson Family - Dade County Settlement Agreement (January 1993) F
Tennis Center Survey and Settlement Agreement (Exhibit B) G
Crandon Park Carrying Capacity Standards H
West Point Preserve Protection Ordinance I
Crandon Park Natural Areas Protection Plan J
Bear Cut Preserve Mitigation Plan K
Bear Cut Preserve Historical Surveys L
Crandon Boulevard Historic Road Designation M
Key Biscayne Archaeological Zone N
Crandon Park Signage Guidelines and Standards 0
NR&PA Park Maintenance Standards P
Aerial Photographs Q
Historic Crandon Park Plans R
Crandon Park History S
Bear Cut Bridge Bicycle Path Modification T
Master Plan for the Gardens at Crandon Park (1987) U
County Park Permit Performance Evaluation V
Bibliography
Crandon Park: "The Next Fifty Years". Dade County Park and Recreation Department 1989.
Available at the Parks Department and the Dade County Public Library.
Key Biscayne v. Dade County (Tennis Center Usage Limitation - Dade County Resolution 415-95).
Available at the Dade County Clerk's office.
Bear Cut Preserve Environmental Restoration and Management Plans. Prof. Juan A. Bueno,
Florida International University, Spring 1992.
103
e
Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines by Roger A. Lancaster, National
Recreation and Park Association, Alexandria, Virginia 22302, 1983.
History of Dade County Park System 1929-1969, The First Forty Years by A.D. Barnes & Jack
McCormack, 1986 Dade County Park and Recreation Department. Available at the Dade County Library.
Country Bumpkin by Charles Crandon Privately Printed. Available at the Dade County Public
Library.
104
ili
soh
PJ�W'
GOB»
1
BISCAYNB BAY
t-.
•
V,
•
ATLANTIC OCEAN
r
ATLANTIC OCEAN
) .?
BEAR CUT
BISCAYNE BAY
1,61 Ke t1
MOONS
wcc anrr
wSTU, aw w_sr. �
BISCAYNE BAY
t, , fin, , _ ,'� a i
-72
�� ���
'1��` �.� air ,�� I ~ 1�
"/ ///Y i�� )��-77(
a a o
cuvu
m nold
1,€
coma uc
a 3.a
ATLANTIC OCEAN
17
ATLANTIC CC==AN
CRANDON PARK
975. ACRES
EXISTING — SITE MAP
JANUARY 1993
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
THE VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE,
a Florida municipal corporation,
Plaintiff,
VS.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a
political subdivision of the
State of Florida,
Defendant.
AFFIDAVIT OF BETTY SIME
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DADE
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared
Betty Sime, who was sworn and stated the following:
1. My name is Betty Sime.
2. I have personal knowledge of all the facts stated in this
affidavit.
3. I am an elected member of the Village Council of Key
Biscayne ("Village"), and have served in this capacity since March,
1992.
4. I am presently and have been a resident of Key Biscayne
since 1972.
5. I am familiar with Calusa Park. The tennis courts at
Calusa Park are actively used by residents of the Village.
6. Any loss of the tennis courts at Calusa Park will deprive
CASE NO. 95-023701 CA 01
residents of the Village of an important recreational resource.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
'R'S A.A.....(__'
Betty ime
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this
1997, by Betty Sime.
Personally Known
Or
WAIQ
day of July,
Notary Public, State of Florida
D n nQ > theyi
Notary Printed name
My Commission Expires:
Produced Identification
Type of Identification Produced
OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL
DONNA GOLDEN
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA
COMMISSION NO. CC540949
MY COMMISSION EXP. MAR. 18,2Q90
- 2 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ZONING HEARING
JULY 18, 1996
RE: AGENDA ITEM 4JJ, Substitute
RESOLUTION 6(B)1
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
James Burke
Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, Chairman
Betty Ferguson
Maurice Ferre
Dennis Moss
Natacha Millan
Pedro Reboredo
Katy Sorenson
Javier Souto
Arthur Teele
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Flagler Street
Miami, Flonds 33130
2
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
THE CHAIRMAN: The next item is a time certain
item.
Mr. Attorney, read the item. That's Item 4JJ
and the accompanying resolution, which I believe is 6(b)1.
Read the item, sir.
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY: 4JJ, Substitute.
Resolution authorizing the approval of the Master Plan for
Crandon Park located at 4000 Crandon Boulevard, in
compliance with Section 33-303, Code of Metropolitan Dade
County.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, this is a public hearing.
Before we hear from members of the public, let's just have
a brief staff synopsis.
Mr. Director.
MR. CUTIE: William Cutie, acting director,
Parks Department.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Director, please go ahead.
MR. CUTIE: The master plan for Crandon Park
that we are asking you to approve today is the outcome of
Dade County/Matheson settlement agreement initiated back
in January of 1993.
In the initial master plan --
THE CHAIRMAN: Hold on for a second, Mr. Cutie,
please. Just hold on for a second.
Ladies and gentlemen, if we could have some
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Flagler Street
Miami, Fonda 33130
3
1 cooperation and some quiet so Mr. Cutie can make his
2 statement without having to scream.
3 All right. Sir.
4 MR. CUTIE: Okay.
5 Back in January of 1993 is when Dade County and
6 the Matheson's settlement agreement occurred. The initial
7 master plan documents provided by the consultant, Artemis
8 Richardson of the Olmsted firm, after extensive input from
9 various county departments and park user groups, the
10 initial master plan went through site review in June of
11 1993, and was approved by the Commission on July of 1993.
12 The Olmsted plan is an exceptional one in that
13 it presents a broad but purposeful view of the intent of
14 the settlement agreement.
15 The detailed text that is part of the final
16 master plan is intended to depict the permitted structures
17 and uses in connection with the initial plan.
18 The process of getting to this point has been a
19 long one, but the end result has provided a document that
20 will be instrumental in preserving and maintaining Crandon
21 Park as one of the premier park properties in the United
22 States.
23 As stipulated by the settlement agreement, the
24 Matheson and Dade County undertook an extensive review
25 process of the initial Olmsted master plan. A committee
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Flagier Street
Miami, Florida 33130
4
1 consisting of the county representative, a Matheson family
2 representative and a representative from the Olmsted firm
3 comprehensively reviewed and revised the master plan,
4 taking objections into account and incorporating other
5 features.
6 As the review process progressed, other issues
7 became known that were addressed.
8 The master plan document before you is an
9 amalgamation of ideas, philosophy and professional
10 judgment and standards that require a willingness to
11 compromise and a willingness to understanding others'
12 perspectives.
13 The plan does not satisfy all the participants'
14 priorities. In the process of getting the final master
15 plan before you today, we realized that the details of the
16 plan would have impacts in a number of areas.
17 This year the Park & Recreation Department took
18 additional steps to inform and solicit other opinions.
19 This was accomplished by meeting with individuals, user
20 groups, and leaseholders with an interest in Crandon Park,
21 having a second site review on June 7th of 1996, holding a
22 public meeting on June 20, 1996, and as a result, a number
23 of changes, over 30 changes, to the master plan were
24 incorporated.
25 The county believes that this master plan does
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Flegler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
5
1 achieve the paramount objective of the settlement
2 agreement --
3 THE COUNTY ATTORNEY: Mr. Chairman --
4 MR. CUTIE: --which is a statement guarantying
5 that Crandon Park will remain a natural resource oriented
6 metropolitan park for the use of the citizens of Dade
7 County for all times.
8 At this time I would like to introduce to you
9 Bruce -Matheson from the Matheson family, and Artemis
10 Richardson from the Olmsted firm which collaborated in
11 this master plan.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
13 Mr. Matheson. Welcome, we need your name and
14 address.
15 MR. MATHESON: Good evening. Thank you very
16 much.
17 We've been working on this for about three years
18 now. We've consulted with art professionals, consultants,
19 and we've had numerous meetings with interested parties,
20 and the family is satisfied that we have come to a
21 satisfied conclusion the Parks Department, and the
22 attorney's office and Artemis Richardson of the Olmsted
23 firm.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
25 Sir. Welcome.
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Hagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
6
1 MR. RICHARDSON: I am Artemis Richardson of
2 Fremont, New Hampshire. I'm the sole principal of the
3 Olmsted Office, park planners and landscape architects who
4 produced the master plan for Crandon Park which was
5 presented and was approved by this Board of Commissioners
6 on July 13, 1993.
7 Excuse me, I'm having some trouble with my
8 voice; I hope you'll bear with me.
9 - THE CHAIRMAN: No problem.
10 MR. RICHARDSON: Following the approval, the
11 Matheson family presented a list of concerns and
12 objections to the plan, and subsequently I have met, on
13 numerous occasions, with Mr. Bruce Matheson and with
14 representatives of the Park & Recreation Department to
15 discuss alternatives and to seek resolutions which would
16 be mutually satisfactory.
17 In the course of these discussions we met with
18 various technical experts and representatives of the
19 public and private sectors. The result of these
20 discussions was the development of the detailed document
21 before you this evening.
22 While the plan is not in every respect what any
23 one of us would prefer to present, we consider it a viable
24 compromise which we can endorse as furnishing a unique and
25 outstanding regional park which offers a large variety of
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Fiagier Street
Miami, Flonda 33130
7
1 recreational experiences for people of all ages, genders,
2 racial and cultural backgrounds.
3 Through it we have provided for the preservation
4 and the enhancement of the rich park and boulevard
5 plantings, we have eliminated excessive and potentially
6 dangerous roadway intersections, and we have sought to
7 obviate and eliminate unnecessary conflicts between
8 automobiles, pedestrians and bicycles.
9 The plan developed in full recognition of the
10 settlement agreement between Dade County and the Matheson
11 family should contribute to the continuing pride of the
12 county's residents and visitors as a very special and
13 treasured resource.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
15 MR. RICHARDSON: I feel most fortunate to have
16 been able to share that pride and to have enjoyed a valued
17 association with both Metro Dade County Park & Recreation
18 personnel and with members of the Matheson family.
19 Thank you.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Richardson.
21 Okay, is that it for staff's presentation?
22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I would
23 just like to add for the record, the Parks Recreation
24 Committee looked into this presentation on Friday. There
25 was a rather lengthy public hearing that took place at
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suit* 2950
150 West Flagier Street
Miami, Florida 33130
8
1 that time --
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Four hours?
3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Approximately.
4 The committee asked at the time that two
5 particular issues be pulled out of the package, or be
6 recommended to be pulled from the package, and that is
7 certainly within the Commission's purview tonight.
8 Those issues related specifically to the
9 commercial and film industry which would be Appendix E,
10 and there were issues related to Marjory Stoneman Douglas
11 Biscayne Nature Center.
12 My understanding is that since that time, since
13 Friday, there have been discussions that have taken place
14 with the Matheson family. The issues regarding the nature
15 center, I believe have been resolved, and certainly we can
16 ask that on the record officially tonight. My
17 understanding is that there continue to be concerns on the
18 part of the film industry.
19 The Film Board, the Miami Dade Film Advisory
20 Board, was presented with certain compromises that have
21 been made since Friday night, and those were presented to
22 them last night, but I believe that there are still
23 additional concerns.
24 So all of those options are within the purview
25 of the County Commission tonight.
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Flagler Street
Miami, Flonda 33130
9
1 COMMISSIONER SORENSON: Mr. Chairman --
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Sorenson.
3 COMMISSIONER SORENSON: I think there are a lot
4 of people here on the film issue itself who spoke at the
5 committee hearing on Friday, and I think if we could
6 separate out that issue and defer that portion, and I
7 believe that's acceptable to Mr. Matheson as well --
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Matheson?
9 COMMISSIONER SORENSON: Then we don't have to
10 let all these people sit here, go through the whole litany
11 because that's going to be worked out in another venue.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: So what you'd like to do is
13 defer --
14 COMMISSIONER SORENSON: Defer that portion.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: --that matter and take it up
16 later as an amendment to the plan then?
17 COMMISSIONER SORENSON: Yes.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. And that would be --
19 COMMISSIONER SORENSON: Appendix E.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Attorney, is that Appendix E
21 in the document we have?
22 THE COUNTY ATTORNEY: Rather than --that's
23 Appendix E.
24 Our recommendation is, rather than deal with it
25 as a subsequent commission item, that that Appendix E be
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 west Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
10
1 dropped out and the Manager be authorized to negotiate
2 that to conclusion --
3 COMMISSIONER SORENSON: I so move.
4 THE COUNTY ATTORNEY: --with the film industry.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
6 A COMMISSIONER: Second.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: That motion is appropriate, to
8 drop that from consideration at this point, and it's
9 seconded.
10 All those in favor of the motion signify by
11 saying "Aye."
12 THE COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Those opposed, like sign.
14 (None opposed.)
15 THE CHAIRMAN: So that's not on the table now.
16 What we will have a public hearing on now is all the other
17 issues, except for the Appendix E issue. Okay? This is a
18 public hearing on Item 4JJ, with the exception of Appendix
19 E which has been taken out. We have removed the Appendix.
20 This is a public hearing; all those persons
21 wishing to address the Commission on this item at this
22 time, may do so.
23 There being no persons coming forward at this
24 time, the public hearing is closed.
25 (Audience outcry.)
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Flagier Street
Miami, Florida 33130
11
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, so I guess there was --well,
2 fine, but that's why I said what we will be discussing is
3 4JJ with the exception of Appendix which has been dropped.
4 I'll repeat it again.
5 Those persons wishing to address the Commission
6 on Item 4JJ may do so at this time. And now this is the
7 time that people come forward and say that they'd like to
8 discuss it before the public hearing is closed.
9 Sir, welcome. We know who you are, but we need
10 your name and address for the record.
11 MR. SEROTA: My name is Joseph Serota. I'm here
12 in my capacity as one of the Village Attorneys for the
13 VIllage of Key Biscayne.
14 I'd first like, if I could begin by
15 complimenting all of you on the effort and stamina you all
16 seem to display through these very lengthy and difficult
17 agenda.
18 No one in Dade County really should question the
19 amount of effort or how hard this Board works, and I think
20 these long evenings show it.
21 The item which I'm addressing, unfortunately,
22 requires and permits no effort of any kind on behalf of
23 this Commission because this, what you're presented with
24 today, is actually a done deal.
25 What happened in this case is that the
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Fiagier Street
Miami, Florida 33130
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
12
discretion that this Board, this Commission, had has been
delegated away. There is absolutely nothing you can do
here. I know that you're here in good faith to listen to
public input, but there is absolutely nothing that we can
say, no matter how profound or persuasive, that could in
any way affect any of your decision here today.
When Dade County entered into this settlement
agreement back in 1993, it delegated away its right to
decide the policy and the direction of the future of
Crandon Park.
Unless the Matheson family agrees with any of
the issues that may be raised today, there is nothing to
be done here.
As you know, the Village is challenging the
constitutionality of the settlement agreement because of
its unlawful delegation of your authority to unelected
individuals not accountable to the public.
Again, we don't question the good faith of Mr.
Matheson or the Olmsted firm, but the reality is they have
created this plan and you must approve it. And on Page 3
of the settlement agreement it says that Crandon Park
master plan, as created by the Olmsted firm, "shall be
implemented through the county recording a declaration of
restriction." "It shall be implemented." You have
absolutely not discretion. If there is some point we
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Ruler Strut
Miami, Florida 33130
13
1 raise, you cannot oppose it unless the Mathesons agree to
2 it.
3 Betty Sim (phonetic), who is a member of the
4 Village Council is here as the elected and designated
5 representative of the Village to speak with you, but
6 please understand, and I'd like to state this for the
7 record, that her appearance here should not and cannot be
8 used as a waiver of the Village's legal position that you
9 have already delegated --when I say "you," the county has
10 already delegated away its right to make its own decisions
11 as to what is in the best interests of the county.
12 The plan has been proposed. Either you approve
13 it or you're in breach of the agreement, and we believe
14 that that is an unlawful delegation and that is where we
15 are today.
16 So, Betty Sim is here to speak with you. I just
17 want to say our legal position.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Before Ms. Sim is
19 recognized, Mr. Attorney, just on that issue, on that
20 point.
21 THE COUNTY ATTORNEY: Okay.
22 It is true that the settlement agreement has the
23 provision that the attorney mentioned. The settlement
24 agreement doesn't contemplate bringing this master plan
25 back to the County Commission at public hearing.
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Sager Street
Miami, Florida 33130
14
1 We filed a motion to dismiss the Village's
2 complaint on that ground and on the other ground that they
3 raised.
4 I think it's critical for me to correct the
5 record here. I explained all of this to the judge, that
6 we were preparing a master plan that was going to be
7 advertised as a public hearing, that a public hearing was
8 going to be scheduled on an official agenda of the Board
9 of County Commissioners, that the Board of County
10 Commissioners was going to open the public hearing,
11 consider the comments of the public, and make whatever
12 judgments the Board of County Commission will make with
13 regard to this item. No hold barred.
14 As an example, Exhibit Appendix E has already
15 been separately removed, will be separately negotiated.
16 There will be other terms with regard to Appendix E than
17 appeared in the original master plan.
18 In addition, this Board has the same discretion
19 here tonight that it has with regard to any 33-303 public
20 hearing in considering the material that's presented to
21 you and making a judgment on the merits in your best
22 exercise of legislative discretion.
23 I will also tell you that the attorney for the
24 Village of Key Biscayne heard me explain what the process
25 was going to be, even though that process wasn't part of
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suits 2950
150 west Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
15
1 our agreement with the Mathesons, it's over and above
2 that, and indicated to the court, on the record, that if
3 the county actually followed through with that process,
4 had a public hearing before the Board of County
5 Commissioners, in due course, and approved the plan, or a
6 substantial portion of the plan, as a result of that
7 public hearing, then his arguments would no longer be
8 valid. They would, in fact, be moot. Because there was
9 no.deiegation.
10 In fact, what would happen in fact is, that the
11 Board of County Commissioners, as you are tonight, will be
12 making the final determination with regard to the Crandon
13 Park master plan.
14 So if this Board makes the final determination,
15 which is the reason we're here, under a properly
16 advertised public hearing, then there has been, there is
17 no unlawful delegation of legislative authority.
18 In fact, this Board is exercising its
19 legislative authority over this plan. And if you find
20 this plan unacceptable, you can reject it, or any portion
21 of it. It's our hope after three years of negotiation
22 that doesn't take place, but that is --and that's not a
23 recommendation --but that's certainly up to this Board.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: All right.
25 THE COUNTY ATTORNEY: The first motion can be
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suits 2950
150 West Hagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
16
1 one to deny and if the majority carries that, it's over.
2 We go back to the negotiating table or go back to court --
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Attorney, we can make a
4 motion to pull any aspect out and ask that that be
5 renegotiated. So we --
6 THE COUNTY ATTORNEY: You have the discretion --
7 THE CHAIRMAN: So we have unfettered discretion
8 here?
9 THE COUNTY ATTORNEY: Yes, sir.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you, sir.
11 MR. SEROTA: Mr. Chairman, I recognize this is
12 not an oral argument, but there was a statement made that -
13 just bear with me if I could.
14 I absolutely did not, did not state that if you
15 attempt to exercise discretion then the argument goes
16 away. What I said was if you amend the agreement so that
17 it no longer says that the county shall do it, if you
18 amend the agreement so that you do have this discretion,
19 then the argument goes away.
20 I did not, under any circumstance, say that if
21 you go through this --
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You've clarified --
23 MR. SEROTA: I just thought I'd state that for
24 the record.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: You've clarified that and I'm
Jack Bosoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
17
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sure that whatever's said on the record will speak for
itself when --
MR. SEROTA: It will.
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Hagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
48
1
2
3
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let's line up the
5 discussion.
6 COMMISSIONER SORENSON: Okay.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Sorenson,
8 Commissioner Moss, Ferre--anybody else?
9 Okay, Commissioner Sorenson.
10 To address Councilwoman Sim's concerns regarding
11 active recreation, could you, Mr. Attorney, give us some
12 history of Calusa Park and how all this came about?
13 THE COUNTY ATTORNEY: Calusa Park has been used
14 for many years as a local recreational center, park
15 center, for the people on Key Biscayne, owned by the
16 county, but used by the people in the Village.
17 Pardon? Oh, I'm sorry.
18 Calusa Park is on the far southern portion of
19 Crandon Park. I know it's hard to visualize directions
20 when you go out to Key Biscayne, but eventually you're
21 going south, and you go south through the Crandon Park and
22 through the Village and through the Bill Baggs State Park
23 at the furthest southern end.
24 At the furthest southern point of Crandon Park
25 and, in fact, when we drew the boundaries for the Village
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suits 2950
150 West Sayler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
49
1 of Key Biscayne we included Calusa Park within the
2 Villages boundaries. It's still part of Crandon Park,
3 it's still owned by the county, and it's still being
4 utilized by the people on the Key. It's open to everyone,
5 but because of its fairly remote location and slight
6 difficulty of access for the general public, non -Village
7 of Key Biscayne people, it's used mostly by the Village.
8 That's the location of the playhouse, that's the location
9 of four tennis courts that are in use by the people in the
10 Village.
11 The issue of Calusa Park has been discussed by
12 the county and the Village for many years. In 1989--'88?
13 Where's the Bill Byrd letter? --Bill Byrd wrote, now
14 Councilwoman Sim, a letter detailing what the local parks
15 uses were, how the county was dealing with it at that
16 time, before there was a village, the municipal park needs
17 of the Village residents of Key Biscayne. Calusa Park is
18 part of that.
19 In fact, as an aside, this letter was attached
20 to the Village's lawsuit against the county, which remains
21 pending, alleging that the County Commission was estopped
22 from changing the use of Calusa in any way.
23 I want to make the point that Mr. Byrd did write
24 in his letter that he recognized, as all of us do, that
25 Crandon is a large metropolitan park, and even though it
Jack Bssoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 avast Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
50
1 was providing local recreational services through Calusa
2 and the ballfields to Village residents, that there may
3 come a time when the county would utilize all of Crandon
4 Park for metropolitan park purposes and the Village needed
5 to be aware of that.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Jack Bssoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Flagier Street
Miami, Florida 33130
60
1 COMMISSIONER FERRE: Well, what I'm going to say
2 is that --if you can get Commissioner Sorenson for a
3 moment --I would like to reinsert the November 20th letter
4 and make a proposal, one more time, and ask that this be
5 accepted into the resolution, and give you --what would be
6 a fair time, Bob, to give them to respond?
7 THE COUNTY ATTORNEY: The problem is that I
8 don't think we have anything like substantial agreement
9 with this on behalf of the family, Commissioner.
10 COMMISSIONER FERRE: Are you saying that this
11 would break?
12 THE COUNTY ATTORNEY: Yes, sir, I think so.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Matheson is here --
14 COMMISSIONER FERRE: Let's get Mr. Matheson up
15 here.
16 MR. SEROTA: At some point, Commissioner Ferre,
17 if I could just respond to that point?
18 COMMISSIONER FERRE: Well, before you do, let's
19 get Mr. Matheson up here.
20 Mr. Matheson, you're well aware of this letter
21 of November 20th. Would you like a copy of it?
22 MR. MATHESON: No, sir. I was in the
23 discussions when the letter was created.
24 COMMISSIONER FERRE: Would this be acceptable
25 to the Matheson family?
Jack Besoner & AssocWas
Suit. 2950
150 West Flagler Stmt
Miami, Florida 33130
61
1 MR. MATHESON: Commissioner Ferre, I'd like to
2 answer your question in this way.
3 I personally took the time to talk to the City
4 of Miami and the Dade County Parks Department to come up
5 with a resolution suitable in language to all three
6 parties: Dade County Parks Department, representing the
7 actual County Commission, the City of Miami and the
8 Village of Key Biscayne.
9 I took my time to spend over an hour with the
10 mayor, John Festa, of Village of Key Biscayne, to point
11 out to him the real concern that we, the family, had over
12 satisfying the concurrency requirements for the Village of
13 Key Biscayne, which is 25 acres for concurrency parkland
14 for that community.
15 I pointed out to him that the little three and a
16 half acres that would be allocated in the concurrency
17 requirement to Calusa Park would not really help them. I
18 pointed out how important it might be to consider 15 acres
19 on Virginia Key, 15 acres which would come from the City
20 of Miami, donation, Dade County Parks Department would pay
21 for half of the methane gas test, plus move the light
22 poles from the ballfields of Key Biscayne to the new 15-
23 acre recreational site, which would more than satisfy the
24 concurrency requirements of the Village of Key Biscayne,
25 plus Mayor Festa suggested that they would even use their
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Hagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
62
1 bus to transport the children over to Virginia Key, plus
2 he said they had 2 million dollars to spend, plus I know
3 there are philanthropic residents on Key Biscayne that
4 would extend their generosity to a recreational facility
5 on Virginia Key, in combination with building another 15-
6 acre complex for all the people that live on Brickell. So
7 you'd have 30 acres there, 15 acres specifically for the
8 Village of Key Biscayne. And I felt that that was a real
9 good suggestion to alleviate a lot of problems. It fell
10 on deaf ears. And in the negotiations I feel that we
11 have, in the past, bent over backwards to suggest and help
12 and work with, but, you know, when they filed that
13 lawsuit, I just, on behalf of the family that, you know,
14 that sets the tone, and I respectfully say no.
15 COMMISSIONER FERRE: All right. Thank you, Mr.
16 Matheson.
17 MR. SEROTA: Commissioner Ferre--
18 COMMISSIONER FERRE: Mr. Ginsburg --
19 MS. SIM: Could I respond?
20 COMMISSIONER FERRE: No. I'll get to you in a
21 moment.
22
23
24
25
Jack Boomer & Associates
Suite 2950
150 west Ragior Street
Miami, Fonda 33130
hiiETAs
PARKS=
METROPOLITAN DACE CCUNTY PARK & REcEA iC: J DEPARTMENT • 50 SW 32 ROAD • MIAMI. FLORIDA 33129
'March 13, 1989
Mats. Betty Sirne
The Kev Biscayne Council. Inc.
P.C. Box 272
rCey Biscayne. FL 3319
Dear Betty:
We have comoieted our review of the need for additional local park land an Kev
3iscavne. As you may Know, the "4'.ecreation and Open Space Element of the Dade Count'.
Comorenensive Development •laster Dian ,CDMP) shows no current need for additionai
local park land. ',See =xnibits _ However. this is somewhat misleading and it :s
important to understand why.
The !e:"ei of service :l.o.s.. standard in the CDMP reflects the minimum acreaoe
recurred by a residential communrty. It is essentially a starting point in determining what
acreaoe is really neeeee. Currently, local park needs on Key Biscayne are being
accommodated througn C:anoon and Calusa parks, the community school, and recreati=n
complexes in pianned ceveiopments such as conaomtniums, .townhouses, apartments. etc.
'See T aole I'.
From the minimum acreage i.o.s.. we then must look at the community's exhibited
demand and desires for recreation programs to determine if the existing oarks' function,
configuration, and size are appropriate. Often, we find a need for additional park land to
aaeauately service the community. As for Key Biscayne, the need for athletic fields.
muiti-purpose courts. and a community center cannot be properly serviced by existing
park or school acreage. In our opinion, an additional 20 acre community park for Kev
Biscayne is needed ;See Tables 2 & 3).
Finally, it is important to make a point about Crandon Park's role in providing far
local recreation programs_ We are acccmmoaating these programs by allocating eleven
"11) acres for athletic fields. This is necessary because insufficient public open space
exists on Kev Biscayne to meet the current demand for such recreational facilities. As a
rule. however. we do not allow sucn use of a Metropolitan Park unless the need is urgent.
Besides being an inaooroortate use of Crandon Park. these programs may eventually be
forced out of the Park as other. more appropriate uses are demanded of the beacn
resource. If this hapcens. the need for additional community park acreage is further
exacerbated.
Bill Bird
Director
c:csures
=`,C_ `4 =EL: CF SARK ANO RECREATION MANAGEMENT
Park
Ac-eace
•15.;0
• 2LCi
•\ev oiscavne
tai L.ccat Park .-creace
=colic ionool
?lannea Development
Acreace
8.:0
•Includes i0.% acres in Crancon Park ana 5.0 acres in Calusa Park
7•ABLB
Aoproorcatsress to :•feet Cxhibitea Demana
for Athietic r ie:cs ana Courts ana Community Center
Property Comrrents
Crandon Park Functionally inaoprooriate use of Metropolitan Park. Competes
.vith utilization of beacn and other natural resources.
Caiusa Park Cannot accommodate athletic fields and courts due to small
size. Could. pernaps. accommodate a community center .f
existing facilities are razed.
Community School Cannot accommodate athletic fields and courts due to small
size. Future scnool expansion will further reduce available
open space.
Planned Deveicoment Cannot acccmmoaate community recreation facilities designee
for use by development residents.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
s
1
1
e^_r eat.cn
=enter
El3se0aii ' .eice
,60-75';
r COt`,alli "- - -or
ieics
Flew Acreage
:rrrrocate Succestea
r aC::ltie5
—creage
Czn-
.nciuce.^.
. •'•uitl:ur:cse _cur is
:t _ r J L
Infernal Ccen Scace
?:c^:c Eheiter
3.3
•
3.:
Inciucec in Basecaii
1
1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2
JULY 16, 1996
3
4 RE: AGENDA ITEM 4JJ, Substitute
RESOLUTION 6(B)1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
12
James Burke
13 Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, Chairman
Betty Ferguson
14 Maurice Ferre
Bruce Kaplan
15 Gwen Margolis
Dennis Moss
16 Alex Penelas
Pedro Reboredo
17 Katy Sorenson
Javier Souto
18 Arthur Teele
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
2
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
THE CHAIRMAN: The next matter, and the last
matter that we will take up, at the request, by popular
demand I might add, would be Item 4JJ and 6(b)1, which is
a related matter.
Mr. Attorney.
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FERRE: Mr. Chairman, before you
get into that --
THE CHAIRMAN: Hold on for a second, Mr.
Ginsburg.
Commissioner Ferre.
COMMISSIONER FERRE: I realize that Bruce
Matheson and many others have been waiting here all day to
deal with this issue, but it is, in case you hadn't
noticed --
THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, I noticed.
COMMISSIONER FERRE: --a few minutes after 2
o'clock in the morning, and I really think it's inhuman
and poor policy for us to be making decisions of this
sort.
Now I'm ready to vote for this thing the way
Bruce Matheson is proposing it, and would so move. It
happens to be in my district, but I think we're going to
have some serious discussion here, and by the time we're
through, I guaranty it will be 4 o'clock in the morning,
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 west Fiagisr Street
Miami, Florida 33130
3
1 and I don't know about you, but I don't plan to last that
2 long.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. The item 4JJ and the
4 companion item 6(b)1 were items that the Chair originally
5 considered taking up on Thursday, but by popular demand,
6 it was requested that the items be considered tonight, and
7 I'm willing to do whatever the majority would want to do.
8 COMMISSIONER FERRE: But, Mr. Chairman, popular
9 demand did not foresee that we'd be here at 2:00, at 2:20.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, and I think --
11 COMMISSIONER FERRE: Had we looked at it in
12 hindsight, and knowing it would be here at 2:20, you know -
13 I'm willing to --if everybody is willing to limit the
14 discussion and just vote on it, I got no problems voting.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I'll tell you what. Let me
16 just, number one, say that I think everyone knew we were
17 going to be here until 2 a.m. based on the size of the
18 agenda, the fact of how this is the last meeting before
19 the August break, and the fact that the items we said we
20 were going to consider from the regular agenda were
21 started at 11:30 or after 12 midnight. So, you know, if
22 anyone didn't think they were going to be here at 2 a.m.,
23 then, you know, that was pretty unrealistic.
24 But, notwithstanding that, a motion to limit
25 debate is in order, and the motion to limit discussion is
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Flagler Stmt
Miami, Florida 33130
4
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
in order. This is a public hearing item. I'm glad that
some of us are ready to vote, but there is a public --
slight technicality, there is a public hearing to be had.
COMMISSIONER FERRE: Would you believe Thursday?
THE CHAIRMAN: And the intent of the Chair would
be to have the item read and to limit each speaker on the
item to two minutes and then we can just limit total
debate to three minutes per Commissioner, max. And that
would give us --again, I don't have any cards here from
speakers on this issue.
I'd just like to find out how many of you --I
would imagine if you're still here it's on this item --how
many of you are here on this item, if you'd just raise
your hand.
Okay, we have about --if we adhere to a two
minute per speaker, we're talking about half an hour --
COMMISSIONER FERRE: 3:30, 4 o'clock.
THE CHAIRMAN: About half an hour, and then if
we have a few minutes per --if we had three minutes per
Commissioner, or two minutes per Commissioner, you have
another half hour. We're talking about, best case
scenario, about an additional hour, which would take us to
3:00 in the morning.
COMMISSIONER FERRE: Mr. Chairman, can I ask --
how many are opposed to the Manager's recommendation?
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 west Sager Street
Miami, Florida 33130
5
1 Can we get a show of hands on that? Opposed to the
2 Manager's recommendation. Three--four--five--5 o'clock in
3 the morning.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, well, you know, again, I
5 think --I'm willing to stay 'til 6:00 in the morning, 7:00
6 in the morning, 8:00 in the morning, whenever we need to
7 stay to finish the item.
8 The Commissioner from District 3, who is sitting
9 in the audience and raising his hand, had requested that
10 we take this item up tonight, and these people who are
11 here tonight have been waiting to take the item up.
12 Now --
13 COMMISSIONER FERRE: You've already taken up
14 your two minutes.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Then, again, this discussion has
16 taken --the discussion which was initiated by the
17 Commissioner to my right, has taken longer than ten
18 minutes.
19 I think that if we hear from the speakers who
20 are opposed to the Manager's recommendation, limited to
21 two minutes, and if we could just have the Manager make
22 the Manager's recommendation, if other folks could wait
23 their time on the Manager's recommendation, those who
24 agree with the Manager, then we could probably conclude
25 within half an hour.
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
6
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
first.
COMMISSIONER FERRE: Let's go.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay?
Mr. Attorney, we need to read the ordinance
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY: 4JJ substitute is a
resolution authorizing the approval of the for Crandon
Park, located at 4000 Crandon Boulevard, in compliance
with Section 33-303, Code of Metropolitan Dade County.
THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. This is a public hearing
on Item 4JJ.
Okay, Mr. Manager, briefly give us your
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER TEELE: Mr. Chairman --
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER TEELE: With all due respect, I
think both sides have agreed they want to be heard on this
issue and they really don't want the limitation, they're
rather come on Thursday.
THE CHAIRMAN: Great. So --
COMMISSIONER TEELE: I think that's what --
because this is an important issue and we really --
THE CHAIRMAN: No question about it, I tell you,
I'm prepared to stay as long as we need to, but if that's
the case, what we will do, then, is we will, if there is a
motion to defer the item and bring it back on Thursday,
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suits 2950
150 West Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
7
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
we'll take it up on Thursday.
COMMISSIONER TEELE: At a time certain, like at
7?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: A real time certain.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, you see, but let me tell
you something, and I'll tell you one thing, those of us
who have been here all day, from bell to bell, from
beginning to end, not every commissioner has been
from beginning to end, okay, but those of us, you
that kind of commentary and, you know --we've been
here
know,
here.
We've been seated here, we've been listening to each item,
and we're willing to stay as long as we need to. The
problem is that you need seven people, at least
people, who want to do the same.
Every effort will be made to take the
a time certain of --and it wouldn't be realistic
seven
item up at
to say 7
p.m., quite frankly, because we have another item at 8:00,
and I know this item is not going to be completed in one
hour, so let's just say 9:00, 9 p.m. There are 18 items
on the zoning agenda, there are all these other carry over
items. The matter won't be taken up before 9 p.m. But
that's --and, again, you know, I'll make every effort --and,
by the way, just for the record, you know those of you who
are sitting around and have been sitting around all day, I
hope you take notice of who spends a lot of time
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 West Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
8
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
discussing and debating issues and going back to the same
point over and over, so that there isn't any kind of
misplaced antagonism.
Thank you.
We'll take this item up, then, on Thursday.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that, the foregoing is a
correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of
the proceedings in the above -entitled matter.
/• / r/Sc.
Transcriber Date
Jack Besoner & Associates
Suite 2950
150 Wet Rigby Strout
Miami, Florida 33130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 PARKS RECREATION
9 AND
10 CULTURE COMMITTEE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Friday, July 12, 1996
TAYLOR REESE and Associates
(305) 444-7331
* * *
- 114 -
•
•
•
1 as I say, to be involved in the process.
2 I think if there had been more time since June to
3 sort of go through a public hearing process and the
4 like, we might be in a different position at this
5 point. We might even be in a position where members of
6 the film industry would support the compromise plan
7 that is in front of you today.
8 MADAM VICE -CHAIR: All right. Thank you, Mr.
9 Peel.
10 Madam Attorney, is there a way to separate this
11 issue?
12 MADAM COUNTY ATTORNEY: That would be a matter of
13 negotiation between the county and the Matheson family.
14 The settlement agreement by its general terms
15 called for the submission of an entire plan.
16 If the county and the Matheson family both agree
17 to segregate out one piece that would be the choice of
18 the two parties.
19 However, after three years, and I think seven
20 hundred pages of very special interest, that would be a
21 matter that would take some consideration by both
22 sides.
23 MADAM VICE -CHAIR: All right. That is not a
24 Commission decision whether or not we can separate it
25 out? That would have to be negotiated between Mr.
* * *
TAYLOR REESE and Associates
(305) 444-7331
* * *
- 151 -
•
1 for any of these commercial purposes.
2 So I just want to keep that caveat before the
3 committee, whatever the committee or the Commission
4 next Tuesday decides to do in terms of negotiating with
5 this industry, so long as it's okay with the Matheson
6 family is fine but I want everyone to be mindful of
7 that underlying restraint. That is why we're here.
8 MADAM VICE -CHAIR: It's a delicate balance here.
9 MADAM COUNTY ATTORNEY: A very delicate balance.
10 MADAM VICE -CHAIR: That by right they don't have
11 any right to be there at all. Is that what you are
12 saying? It's a matter of negotiating how much use is
13 acceptable, use by the Matheson family.
14 MADAM COUNTY ATTORNEY: According to the courts we
15 must be very careful to preserve our public's access.
16 MADAM VICE -CHAIR: Okay. Then I would recommend
17 that Mr. Matheson's representatives and our county
18 representatives in the film industry get together and
19 have a meeting prior to -- we can keep -- well I think
20 we should keep this in committee one more time. I
21 think before Tuesday is just unrealistic to call all
22 those parties together. That is my sense.
23 Is there any objection to that from anyone.
24 MADAM COUNTY ATTORNEY: The only possibility that
25 had been raised by staff is the possibility of carving
* * *
TAYLOR REESE and Associates
(305) 444-7331
"
"
"
1 M a r j o r i e ' s b o o k s a b o u t S o u t h F l o r i d a , s h e m e n t i o n s
2 g o i n g o u t o n a h o u s e b o a t w i t h m y g r e a t - g r a n d f a t h e r .
3 S o t h e l a s t t i m e I s p o k e t o M a r j o r i e t h a t m e a n s
4 f o u r g e n e r a t i o n s i n t h e M a t h e s o n f a m i l y h a v e k n o w n
5 M a r j o r i e S t o n e m a n D o u g l a s .
6 N o w i n r e s p e c t t o t h e n a m e , w e s a i d t h a t t h e
7 N a t u r e C e n t e r i t s e l f i s w h a t M a b e l M i l l e r a n d M a r j o r i e
8 S t o n e m a n D o u g l a s a c t u a l l y c r e a t e d o u t o f n o t h i n g . A n d
9 s o t o c a l l i t t h e C r a n d o n P a r k N a t u r e C e n t e r l i k e t h e
1 0 C r a n d o n P a r k M a r i n a a n d t h e C r a n d o n P a r k T e n n i s C e n t e r
1 1 a n d t h e C r a n d o n P a r k G o l f C o u r s e i s i n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e
1 2 c o n t i n u i t y o f a l l t h e n a m e s o f t h e s e p a r a t e p a r t s o f
1 3 C r a n d o n P a r k .
1 4 M A D A M V I C E - C H A I R : H o w a b o u t c a l l i n g i t t h e
1 5 M a r j o r i e S t o n e m a n D o u g l a s N a t u r e C e n t e r a t C r a n d o n
1 6 P a r k ?
1 7 M R . M A T H E S O N : W e l l , I d o n ' t t h i n k w e c o u l d g e t
1 8 a l l t h a t o n a s i g n .
1 9 T h e f a m i l y h a s n o t p r e c l u d e d n o r i n t h e
2 0 n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h t h e P a r k s D e p a r t m e n t h a v e t h e y
2 1 p r e c l u d e d - - t h e M a r j o r i e S t o n e m a n D o u g l a s B i s c a y n e
2 2 N a t u r e C e n t e r a c t u a l l y i s a n o n p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n , a
2 3 v o l u n t e e r o r g a n i z a t i o n w h i c h t a k e s t h e c h i l d r e n t h r o u g h
2 4 t h e B e a r c u t P r e s e r v e a r e a a n d o u t i n t o t h e s e a g r a s s
2 5 b e d s .
T A Y L O R R E E S E a n d A s s o c i a t e s
( 3 0 5 ) 4 4 4 - 7 3 3 1
- 171 -
•
•
•
1 Now we have not precluded them from putting up a
2 bronze plaque or a sign inside the building saying that
3 the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Biscayne Nature Center
4 501 C 3 nonprofit organization is here to guide you as
5 a volunteer group through the Nature Center area.
6 But we feel it's important to continue the
7 continuity of everything in Crandon Park being
8 associated with Crandon Park in the name.
9 So that is why it's Crandon Park Marina, Crandon
10 Park Golf Course, Crandon Park Tennis Center, Crandon
11 Park Nature Center.
12 MADAM VICE -CHAIR: All right. Well, I am not
13 really swayed but I guess it's your call.
14 COMMISSIONER MOSS: The choices that we have is we
15 either agree or we go to court. I mean is that
16 basically what it boils down to?
17 MADAM COUNTY ATTORNEY: What the settlement
18 agreement calls for is after the Commission approved
19 the plan in 1993, the draft plan, the parties were
20 allowed to file objections.
21 There were some 60 to 70 objections filed by the
22 Matheson family and those objections were due to be
23 negotiated, not negotiated, but arbitrated by
24 an independent panel selected by both sides and that
25 arbitration panel would make a final decision so long
* * *
TAYLOR REESE and Associates
(305) 444-7331