HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-09952J-84-928
1]./20/84
ORDINANCE NO, 9952
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF
ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI► FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2210
SOUTHWEST 16TH STREET AND APPROXIMATELY
1600-02 SOUTHWEST 22ND AVENUE, MIAMI;
FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN)
FROM RS-°2/2 ONE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL
TO CR-1/7 COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL (NEIGHBOR -
ROOD) BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL
THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 39 OF' SAID
ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO.
9500 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE
3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A
REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of
September 24, 1984 , Item No. 1, following an advertised hearing,
adopted Resolution No. ZB 68-84, by a 8 to 0 vote, RECOMMENDING
DENIAL of a change of zoning classification, as hereinafter set
forth; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of
this matter deems it advisable and in the best interest of the
general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants not-
withstanding the Zoning Board's recommendation of denial, to
grant this change of zoning classification as hereinafter set
forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Zoning Atlas of Ordinance No. 9500, the
zoning ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, is hereby amended
by changing the zoning classification of approximately 2210
Southwest 16th Street and approximately 1600-02 Southwest 22nd
Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described as Lots 1, 2
and 3 inclusive, Block 11 VEDADO, according to the plat thereof,
as recorded in Plat Book 10 at page 19, of the Public Records of
Dade County, Florida, from RS-2/2 ONE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL
to CR-1/7 COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL. (NEIGHBORHOOD).
Section 2, it is hereby found that this toning classi-
fication change!
(a) is in conformity with the adopted Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan;
(b) is not contrary to the established land use pattern;
(c) Will not create an isolated district unrelated to
adjacent and nearby districts;
(d) 15 not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood
or the City;
(e) Will not materially alter the population density
pattern or increase or overtax the load on public
facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.;
(f) Is necessary due to changed or changing conditions;
(g) Will not adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
(h) Will not create or excessively increase traffic
congestion or otherwise affect public safety;
(i) Will not create a drainage problem;
(j) Will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent
area;
(k) Will not adversely affect property values in the
adjacent area;
(1) Will not be a deterrent to the improvement or develop-
ment of adjacent property in accord with existing
regulations;
(m) Will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with protection of the
public welfare;
Section 3. Page No. 39 of the Zoning Atlas, made a part
of Ordinance No. 9500 by reference and description in Article 3,
Section 300 of said Ordinance, is hereby amended to reflect the
changes made necessary by these amendments.
Section 4. All ordinances, code sections, all parts
thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed insofar as they
are in conflict.
Section 5. Should any part or provision of this Ordi-
nance be
declared
by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid,
the same
shall
not affect the validity of the ordinance
as a whole,
-2-
PASSED ON PIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this day of
November
t 1984.
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this 24th
day of January --t 1985-
ajjKi!cp, A. Vetrq_
MAURICE A. FERRET Mayor
ST
4LPH G. ONGlE
CiNy Clerk
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
k lv�WN\' \�i �!'a'�r')-)'-"'
G,*'MIRIAM MAER
Assistant City Attorney
APPROVBIT �ATff"�FORM ND CORRECTNESS:
LUCIA-K.-DOUGHLATY
City Attorney I
Clcrk of the City of Miami, Florida,
GMM/wpc/pb/317 her.11% ct:,.W%- that ,�n 7 01 k of
Door
J)'ov.dd
lot, litilic i On,, C.-:py to
WITNESS my lliild and the otficial sc:i! of "aid
City .... O"y .. .. .... . .... ....
City Clerk
-3-
c) 9
0
V
tf-J IT r-AGE 1F:f,N
Sylvia tamToh December 3, 1984
Deputy City Clerk
City Clerk's office Morningside H,C, = District,
1 /7 Ordinance
November 15th City Contrdssion
Meeting
Attached hereto is a revised ordinance that was U-Upd�the City Commission
at its meeting of November 15 on first reading as *�,No. 5 This ordinance has
been revised to reflect --U-e excMsIon or-cerr-anrproM 1esadjaccnt to Biscayne
Boulevard which were excluded on first reading as per City Conm-Lission's action.
Please place this revised ordinance bearing a date of 12/3/84 for City Commission's
action on second reading.
JEM/gcb
encl.
cc; Aurelio E. Perez-Lugones
Director Planning & Zoning Boards Administration Dept.
Sarah Eaton
Heritage Conservation Consultant
Planning Department
9952
pilami r November 15. 1984
i
Mr. Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Miami;-
Gentlemen, I appear before you again to express my continued
opposition to a rezoning of the five lots at the southwest corner of
22nd Avenue and 16th Street, I have already pointed out the
unfavorable aspects of a change in zoning, such as increased traffic,
parking problemsp crimep litter, noise, smelly garbage bins, .
commercial garbage collection between 2 - 4 A.M., delivery trucks,
noisy air conditioners and air pollution; all combining to make
the adjoining properties less desirable and depreciate in value.
If Mr. Perez, as he claims, and you Mr. Mayor and City
Commissioners really want to do something to benefit the neighborhood
you would leave it zoned as it is and persuade Mr. Perez to build
homes instead of a shopping center which is not needed and not
wanted. What is wrong with one family homes? One family homes are
presently located on the two corners of the opposite side on
22nd Avenue and 16th Street.
Now I want to call to your attention the relationship between
the list of names submitted by Mr. Perez consisting of more than
300 names and my list of signatures representing 55 property owners
all within the circle. It is possible that his list includes tenants,
different members of one family and many people located outside
of the circle. Those outside of the circle would not suffer the
annoyances and tenants do not concern themselves with property
devaluation. If a shopping center would be in their back yard
I think they would have an entirely different attitude. Furthermore
only property owners within the Zone of Notification were invited
by the Zoning Board to express their views on this matter.
My list consists of property owners only living within the
375' radius. The properties adjoining the proposed shopping center
And others directly involved would suffer the most annoyance and
greatest loss.
In conclusion we appeal to you to protect our interest and
again ask that you be guided by the unanimous decision of the
Zoning Board Members 8 to 0 for denial.
Thank you.
Gudrun Drindloy, 2245 SW., 16th Torrace, MiamA, Florida!
I7ianLL i t' lor�d� ���Y�S
November l� s 1984,
Mr, Naybv3
Although I utas out of the country during the First Cdrwission review of this
proposal, I obtained a tape of the d ::cugsion8 and would like to cojcrtht on SotA of
the points raised.
In the stat-8%ont which I had read on my behalf by Mr. Fernandez on Octot,-r 25.
I spoke of the erection of an 8-foot uAll around the boundaries not opening on either
16th Street cr <'nd Avenue. I reconfirmed this inPormaticn with Mrs. Brindley, who
had been vlsit�-d or, Sunday, August 19, of this year, by Mr. Perez, Senior, with an
interpreter, At that titre representations were made that the wall would be erected.
A -sprese,..ntat .ve of Mr. Perez visited Mrs. Buctfrerger about two weeks after the rirst
Zoning Board ree.ting on July 1t and again the same rtpresentation was trade.
Contacting th,► Zoning Board, I asked thn breakdor,n of card responses by the
horrowners within tha 375' notification area for the proposed shopping center. Mrs.
Betty Malber to?3 me 65 cards had been received, with 25 of the homeo;:ners for and 40
against. This means that 62% in the- ircnediate impact zone are against the proposal.
It should be noted that the list of residents provided by the sponeors of this spot
zoning change reside predominantly outside the zoreL of notification.
I have personally visited 17th, 22nd and 27th Avenues, Bih Ste-^t and Coral Way
and have found that the residents outside the notification, zone have more than ample
facilities available to them, with boutiques, bakeries and pharmacies on 8th
Strn,tt, Coral Way and the avenues, two markets on 17th Avenue, three or, 22nd Avenue
and the Wi±..n Dixie at 16th Avenu- and Coral Way. All such facilities art ,within easy
walking. cycling or driving distance, even within the designatftd impact area. Thus,
there is no obvious need to have additional shopping facilities at the corner of
16th Stmrct and 22nd Avenue,
- ,99 5 2
4 t
IJ
+� MiaMl l r F16rida 331458
brivrlhg north on 27th Avoh�* frdw. the Mait, Highway to V•W. 14th Stet,
particularly abate S.W. 8th Street, one appeurt to be entering a cembht Jungle+ and
the r-vidents of the impaet area do tot want a concrete 'uta.U, Crossing; to 2-Nd
Avenue* from slightly north of Flagler Street do%,.n to S,W& 9th Streeto there Are many
small businessot, particularly auto parts, auto repair, and paint shops, as well as
used auto sales lots. On S.W. 22nd Avenue between end Terrace and 3H Street both the
sidewalk and part of the outer lane were blocked with cars in Front rf an auto paint shop,
so the motorists had to go fror, two-lane to cne-lane traffic, and the pedestrian Into
thh street. From experience this is a regular occurence, and the residents of the
Impact. area do not want this phenamenon cn 16th Street and 22nd Avenue. From S.W. 9th
Street south to Coral Wiy there are residences, with the F1 Csito Market and
laundromat between 14th and 151uh Strr.ets. the. Solis Market at 16th Street and the
Rimar Market, laundromat and vidso arcade `.ctween l?th Terrace and 1Pth Street.
All of these small businesses are grandfathered and have served the community for many
years. At Coral Way two service stations, one restaurant and a bank are at the
interseeticn. Small shops are along Coral Way for meeting every conceivable domestic
need and. in fact, are anxious for additional busin-ss as demonstrated by pictures
to be sul nitted to the Corffr:ission.
The tape records Mr. Villalobos ° last comment at the October 25th meeting that
"no co=,erce could exist within the .7ctificaticn area," and I agree with him. It
would appear that the shopping center is b-ing proposed mere for the residents outside
the notification area. Those residents would not he subjected to any of the problems
associated with such a c-nt+-r, such as, the cornercial intrusion into a residential
area, increased traffic and parking outside the shopping center an adjacent stm..ets,
delivery,, garbage and miscellaneous service, trucks, insufficient water pressure,
noise. the increased traffic hazards to the residents. depreciated property and.
.- 99 5 2
Crud'_^rkt:,
8,V, 16th Terrace
.. Matai r Florida 1)145•
i.M general the lowering of the ovetr-aj-1 quality of lit'e now in the neighborhood*
ire appro:aiate the purpose of the zoning Board and the Cortnissiotj hearings is
to permit the proposals and concerns of all sides to be fully knowto so that a
consensus in Fairness can emerge. It A:i apparent to me, as well as to all those with
whom I have talktd concerning this proposal ani its ongoing process of consideration
by the Commissionerso that the mote w+ have heard as this review process evolves the more
we have grown increasingly opposed to the change in zoning.
Wei the 62f, who live in the immediate ar«a that would be affected, agree with
the Zoning Board's overwhelming recotrr,rniation of denial and we look to the
Commissionere for relief in this matter now 1a-n-Ung.
We have no obj,;ction to the construction o" angle.. -family r-sid-ncts on these
lots for which they 3TY zoned, but w• ccn`inue to be opposed to this attempt at spot
zoning.
Thank you,Mr. Mayor.
Attachment: Stat,�tr�nt of October 25, 198-4.
�-9952
t ►ttrude 1105211bd Marks - 2207 56W6 16th Nrrace, ti10do PUMA
Hrb* Chair ati
I wo tld like to count ob the proposals for the use of lots 1.,! cm the $butt+ e t
corner of 16th Street acid ZhA Av6nty. b Bch a reported to be the f61low1hgj the erection
of a two-etorey building with boutigtL-_s on the ground Boor and offices on the second„
After the first Zoning board neetingd representatives of the ptititiorer visited scree of my
neighbors to say that consideration is also being given to the installation of a Super-
markets laurdromat and/or bakery on the ground floor,, as well as construction of an eight -
foot wall an all bounr ariea not opening on either 16th Street or 22nd Avenue. Parking
would be on 'lots four and five facing S.W. 16th Street as well as on parts of lots ore
and two facing 22nd Avenue;
having ce with my parents to this home about 19,
oxOo 2 hpve seen the area grCM Bona a fear
hams built in the middle of a citrus grove to what it is todavo hams from ene end of the
block to the ott6r.'
Therefore, I would ask the Cc=ission to consider the toll.'--,-ing in ntviewing this petitions
A.zone change
1: hakes co;=nercial intrusion into the residential nature of a long-established and
well-=intaincd neighborhood.'
20 Would severely impact and disturb adjacent property values;
jo Increases the density of an already over -crowded and over -parked area, since 16th
Street is not wide enough to support additional traffic and street parking. Parking is
prohibited on 22nd Avenue, Patrons of Solis Mrket on the northwest corner of loth
Street and 22nd Avenue regularly park on 16th Terrace when the mantas lot is crowded;
4; Lot depth of 100 feet not sufficientg intended or planned for counarcial use.
9952 ',
}
S#�Vi 16th e-rtat .'b
XiazA # Ploridd �3145
5a WatA r pressure is insufficient to h&Vts now and Would become increasingly worse if ahr
of the above. -proposed busines+osi l.amndreeiat for exatplt-# were constrnotode Axtj we roved
to Vedadoi there was a one-islArrd Gulf filling stations which was operated for the last 20
years of Its exd:stence by an arthritic older man whoso use of Prater was strictly to fill car
radiators# to hose do-,n carto if regt,68tedy or in his station restroom The stationts water
consu-rpticm was minimal compared to what would be required if other than a ones- toroy
residence t•-ere permitted on these lotya, As ?fir, Campbell of the Departront of Public Works
noted at the September 17 meetingp the areats sanitary facilities were designed for existing
zoning; A change to upgrade the zoning to CR1/7 would equal very high usage and could
seriously affect the sanitary facilities in the area;
6o what are the oxen -air ordinances for Miami in a resi9ential area? There am two
garage apartments facing on to the area which would be affected by the erection of an
eight. -foot wall; On belongs I to me. Such a wall would rise to within two inches of the
top of four wi Acr"-s on the north side of my apartment. In addition to reducing the lightg
there would be no circulation of air and the wall. -would reflect heat on to the premises;
7; What are the noise control orlinannces, since air conditioners or other ventilating
mechanisms would be blowing on residences located behind the building:
8; Garbage disposal. If stored in metal containers, where wcu-Id containers be located?
At what time Would garbage collections be made and where would truck enter?
go Rodent control for supermarket and bakery premises.
100 All night security lights Would shine ,into yards of homes on both 16th Street and
16th Terrace o
n: A two -storey struct,,u-e would be an eyesore and invade the privacy of the surrounding
hocre s o
129 Snviror=ental changes Would occur tiith the removal of the fruit and other trees now on
lots four and $ive, slncc; tboae trees and hoirses Vould be removed and replaced by parking lots;
w- 9952
a
2207 S W& 16th Terraeto
Miatni # Florida 3314,E
The terms "boutique aM professional officese afford absolute4 too guarantee of the
types and uses to 'which the facilities ultitately would be placed - ;for e%antple, bovarage
stores a 24-:hour convenience storms, as at 2?th Avenue and 16th Street, use of noisy agaip-
meat in rear of shops, air compressor# el.ectrio saws noxious odors. bar with loud
muse in evening or early morning hours;
146' to grant this variance mould be precedent setting for all of 16th Scree{. and 2: IA
Avenue$ from 8th Street to Tigertail Avenue, Variance mandates the results*' 16th Street
could become another 8th Street, since other lots would soon fall; In this connection,
three "for sale" signs are now posted in the 2300 block of 16th Street*
13o This application is a repeating of previous years for the same property for increase
uses vhi.ch would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Others have been denied this use
before by the planning board;
16; Designating this area as cam ercial would be the breakdown of the traditionalo
long-standing character of the neighborhood:
170' When a purchaser buys a horse in this particular neighborhood, he or she should be
able to rely in good faith on the master plan as set .forth by the City of Miami pertaining
to zoning and use of properties* this proposed spot zoning is at variance with the master
plan of the City of Miami as reported by representatives of the land Development Division,
Mr. Whipple on July 1% and Miss Fernandez on September 17, at meetings of the Zcaing Board;
At each meeting the Division Representative reco- nded that this variance not be approved,
and I agreed
189 We are looking to the Miami City Comwai.ssion to support our neighborhood and to protect
us from the intrusion of a shopping center.
19; I'have no objection to the construction of single-family residences on these lots for
which they were plarmedo but I am unalterably opposed to this flagrant attempt at spot
zoning,'
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.-
.. 9952 ;
U
fl
Howard V. Gary art September 21, 1984
City Manager
ORDINANCE - RECOMMEND DENIAL
APPROX 2210-30-40 SW 16 STREET &
(� APPROX 1600-02 SW 22 AVENUE
Aur�-11 o _E_' ez-L �nq _
Director COMMISSION AGENDA - OCTOBER 25, 19c
Planning and Zoning Boards PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
Administration Department
It is recommended by the Zoning
Board that an amendment to the
Official Zoning Atlas of Zoning
Ordinance 9500, as amended, by
changing the zoning classification
from RS-2/2 One Family Detached
Residential to CR-1/7 Commercial -
Residential (Neighborhood) for the
property located at approximately
2210-30-40 SW 16 Street and
approximately - SW 22 Avenue
be denied.
The Zoning Board, at its meeting of September 17, 1984, Item 1, following an
advertised hearing, adopted Resolution ZB 68-84 by a 8 to 0 vote,
recormiending denial of an amendment to the Official Zoning Atlas of Zoning
Ordinance 9500, as amended, by changing the zoning classification from RS-
2/2 One Family Detached Residential to CR-1/7 Commercial -Residential
(Neighborhood) for the property located at approximately 2210-30-40 SW 16
Street and approximately 1600-02 SW 22 Avenue, also described as Lots 1
through 5 inclusive, Block 1, iEDADO (10-19).
Forty objections received in the mail; eighteen opponents present at the
meeting. Twenty-five replies in favor received in the mail; thirty-seven
proponents present at the meeting.
Backup information is included for your review.
An ORDINANCE to provide for the above has been prepared by the City
Attorney's Office and submitted for consideration of the City Commission.
AEPL:111
cc; Law Department
MOTE; Planning Department recommends; DENIAL
e
9952
q •- V -� ti i lf.
.. lr -.r • V• �.�y�•Iw .. ••� ♦!4-� � .. •• i.fv �sii^-\�a.
ZONING FACT" SHEET
LOCATION/LEGAL Approx 2210-30-40 SW 16 St &
Approx 1600-02 SW 22 Avenue
Lots 1-5 inclusive
Block 1
VEDADO (10-19)
OWNER/APPLICANT Jemajo Corporation .
c/o Felix J. Perez, President
2000 SW 17 Terrace
Miami, FL 33145
Jose Villalobos (Attorney for Applicant)
1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard
Suite 200
Miami, FL 33134 Phone #446-3400
Z011ING RS-2/2 One Family Detached Residential
REQUEST Change of Zoning Classification to CR-1/7
Commercial -Residential (Neighborhood)
RECOMMENDATIONS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DENIAL. The proposed change is not in accord
1 th tthe Miami Comprehensive Plan and the land
use characteristics of the area. Except for the
non -conforming commercial uses in the ,area, the
area is zoned and used for single-family, two-
family and multi -family development. There is
no commercial use or zoning existing within one
quarter of a mile except as indicated above.
Likewise there has been no change in character
or need indicated in the area to justify the
requested change of zoning. There is ample
commercial zoning and areas for commercial
development within the community without
additional rezoning as requested herein.
PUBLIC WORKS
No dedication is requested.
ZONING BOARD At its meeting of July 16, 1984, the Zoning
Board adopted Resolution ZB 67-84 deferring
action on the above for applicant to meet with
neighbors,
At its meeting of September 17, 1984, the Zoning
Board adopted Resolution ZB 68-84 by an 8 to Q
vote, recommending denial of the above,
1952
... :t ++ y'.'C-«•.w'� ti.v••ii�it� .t� : c`s+"a•c �W�.� . w�.+ _
.i:9ci�4¢iS�"K ',• �.y, . ,. ..iNa•y�, *IOM�iT O4 FSs7�r _+���'a'�v.1�al `�:.4+•�3i'[yirald�Gi..}4L •`ts�',p. .� •. �.�,�,, +y3,-„L•'��,y';+. . ��R����.;��. �.t?���1 "i�,: •" :{ • .; :.���':- 1. .... "�."i'ki�r•F.•�"'w..� :ti.•'.i _. :ram"': ti... ....���...^�wSw3t�i.�iGS'. _:ma's
Y
•
+'r+at�c+aii5iai�r.+i00-44 r MnWipN!r.+�;nh w'
CITY COMMISSION At its meeting of October 25, 1984, the City
Commission continued action on the above.
At its meeting of November 15, 1984, the City
Commission passed on First Reading Lots 1, 2
and 3 only.
At its meeting of December 20, 1984, the City
Commission continued action on the above.
9952
i o v 1 •j t
9 I J ('S 4 •
r 1,y 14 CT
I
O
9
B- '
6
S
4
3 2 1
7
1 6
1 9 20
21
2 2
23124
2 5
210
,,
en
50 SO
0
I
0 9 i 7 6 b 4 3 2 I
I � 5
'7 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 23
I 50
S W
7
..
R
50
6G
9
8 L
5
4
3
2
1
116
1 7 11
19
20
21
22
23
24
1 ,
(.•
1•
5a
LGO
S.,T7.
S. W.
50
9 86 14 13 12 fit
f��°'
� 1
d
1 3
12
11
i
22
10
2*3
9
8
7
u6 0
ti
s =
4 .
1
s,
l9
19
r0
2 1
24
2576
5:
3
2 =
1
0
50
'6
12 3
1 5b
18
19
20
22
so •
50
ly to '
7
2
• ,� '� l 5 16 `� 8 9
-
• ( 1
x
1}
Q
n
12
I
4
15
L11,6,01 7
18
19
20
3
r
24 2— c20Rl9
ha8O
17 S T.
S.W.
6.g
50
1S0
1 i 8d
1
Li9
8 �J
5
4
3
CV
^
'�4
5 1 6Ll
3
2
r
`y
•
2 i t
l
60 y(•
f 9 8 ) 5 4 I n N
1
1
S. W 1 a..
f
')
1
9 Z
6 �► 5
4
,
3
2
1
1
I
7
SAr
53
3z
I
S I
SO
44
47
:0
'io
, ,.
ja
50
110
I
2
25
26
27
22
21
20
17
3
(
I
b0 `0 I -_
, .. su 'AQ 4 0
5 1-. 13 iZ 11 9@ 7 S
.............
s.w,..••�. �7
Q�
5
1� _ST.__I
_. ..— - - 9
5„ . IQ ,
i
1 9 i T 1 6 15
14 1 1 z
1 ?-- Z8 July 16, 1984 AS 39
Z��y��? 27 29 Approx 221040 $W 16 5t.
1 imp I
1E00 SW 22 Ave, p K.1
- 0.. ..�
it
fil UP =e—, -- ZB July 16. 19
AS 39
Approx St. 10�40 S),
Ave, AP K-13
16 C 0
1� ;Awl 1D 5 2 \5
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO ZONING ATLAS File Number ZA-83-
I, Felix Peru ,hereby apply to the City Commis-
sion of the7.ity of Nliami for an amenament to the Zoning Atlas of the City of Miami as
more particularly described herein and, in support of that request, furnish the following
information: Z 2- 30 a• 4. �'X o
�.
cv iU — / 6 0 X. S.:-cJ . 1 z
!/1. Address of property i_I-
V , n S-. �•'�. i >
2. Two surveys, prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land Surveyor. (Attach to
application)
t/ 3. Affidavit disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of
interest form (Form 4-83 and attach to application).
i
4. Certified list of owners of real estate within 375' radius from the outside
boundaries of property covered by this application. (See Form 6-83 and attach to
application.)
V'5. At least two photographs that show the entire property (land and improvements).
6. Atlas sheet(s) on which property appearsg
7. Present Zoning Designation iZ
I/. 8. Proposed Zoning Designation /7
�_ 9. Statement explaining why present zoning designation is inappropriate. (Attach to
application),
10. Statement as to why proposed zoning designation is appropriate, (Attach to appli-
cation)
if. Other (Specify)
k"" 12. Filing Fee of $ ,� ! 7/� �' according to following schedule:
(a) To: RS-I, RS-I.I, RS-2, 0.04 per sq.ft. of net lot area, minimum
RG-1, PD-H, PD-HC, 800.00
(b) To; RG-2, RG4.11 0.06 per sq.ft. of net lot area, minimum
RG-2.3, RO_I, 850,00
RQ-2.1
(o) To. RG-.2, RC.O, 0.08 per sq.ft, of net lot area, minimum
RQ;3 �400'00
9952
12
1
i
1
(d) To: CR-I, CR-2, 0.10 per sq.ft. of net lot area, minimum
CR-31 0-11 CG- I, �500.00
CG-2, WF-I, WF-R,
I-1, 1-2; SPI-It2,5,7,
8,9,11,12
(e) To: CBD-I, SPI-6 $0.12 per sq.ft. of net lot area, minimum
$600.00
(f) For any change in a sector number only, for a particular district classifica-
tion, the fee shall be the same as for a change in its district classification, as
shown in (b) through (e) above.
(g) Surcharge equal 'to applicable fee from W-(c) above, not to exceed $500.00;
to be refunded if there is no appeal. (City Code- Section 62-61)
Signature
Name Felix J. Perez
Address 2000 SSW 17 Terrace, Miami
Phone 446-3400 (c/o Villalobos)
STATE OF FLORIDA) SS:
COUNTY OF DADE )
Felix J. Perez
, being duly sworn, deposes cnd
says that he is the.(Owner) Authorized Agent for Owner of the real property described in
answer to question # I, above; that he has. read the foregoing answers and that the same are
true and complete; and (if acting as agent for owner) that he has authority to execute this
petition on behalf of the owner.
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED _- Felix J. Perez, Pre sj.frlcnt
before,-np this, day
.• i
Of / 0 "', 1 8
T / �
71
Noiary Public? -State of Florida at Large
MY COMMI SIGN EXPIRES:
t
Form 25'83
4
t
4 �.. w+l .. ..
-.r ..� ti ... •..i .. .,. .�J
JI..VL v. A.v� r
a. d:' da1'
a r.."._31-.^T_� Felix
J. POrCz
who
l:�i. �:.> Uri
me firzt d
l.' cft C :.~ , dc;nse .
- - 4- ` " s
1. that he is tha a...nclr. or the legal npr ?,senta iti'In CA" the
7--ir , apvlicati n for a blic as
rec'by No. L$ 71 of the Code of the Citi of t aar;i , Fyo, -da,
eff zct:L-4; the real pn pee -; 'Located in the City of t�sa,�i as desc.1-b : and
liste, on the pages attached to this affidavit and made a parr trerecf.
2. That all c'r:^.ers %..hich he represenems, if arrj, have Z4-.en th2_r
full c::, cC'nZete Ge.:.:.SS_01 for hL^ to act in their be:"1Z for the
or ,a cr . icat:c:: cf acation or as se:, cut i.-1
3.
T _ ` _ ` t "" a e 1' `
limit �.i1e f_...'�5 a�. a:...ed �'lcTei.O ar... i�.rG.. a �..1. 0.:. ,.h_S
'i �^e e��-: n es a lin ec a
CC:':tc.__ the C ::t .cT, , R'..i�.._..o ads Sr_'S, phc:� r
1e�=1 descr=p:;icr.s for the ra....�' pr cper .y wrath ne is the ,c:;:zer or le_='
rerresentatve.
4. Tre faC.S -as r e pr ese^,_-ed in the 2p;'ii^aticn ar.,.
su ea Ln ccn J-:,_.cticz .. _th this of fid.:.:-it are trae and correct .
(flame )
Felix Jr Perez,•President
ce,
th_s dzu of
before me
19�.
,�l.i.c, State of Florida at Uumc
r;-j _'icn .,xE..'—rJam. C'S'
77
'ai i ing r,d :r ess 2001.1 sir 17 Terrace
Telex~cnc *%tber 4,16-3400 (c/o '!i i lalo'Dos,
L y.l Cnscr:irF::^: Lots l through 5 inclusive, BIQck 1, Vedado (10-19)
G%-rr,er' s I'lame.
!;at 1 rng ,address
Telephone Number
=_al Description:
Darner' s Nan,e .
,ailing ;,udress
r
I e h�� l a one i�umber
Lecal C=_scription:
Any other real estate propert. -i ned individually, jointly, or severally
(by ccrroration, partnership privately) within 375' of the subject
Site is listed as follows:
Street address Lecal Description
IA -
Street Address Lecal Descripticn
Street Address Leeai Cescriotion
I
vC t..Ti'.
1. Legal jescr pticn and strcet address of subject real property:
._
v~
2. Nner(s) of sui,je�t teal proms -and- percentage of ownership.
Vot4: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parities
having a financial interest, either direct or indirect., in the subject
;matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Ccrnnission.
Accotdincly, question a2 requires disclosure of all shareholders of
corpoeaticns, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested patties,
together with their addresses and prrscortionate interest.
J
.Jose Manuel Perez 33.33": 1776 SW 13 St., Miami
Felix Geronimo Perez 33. 33) 2000 SW 17 Terrace, Miami _
33.33� 1110 SW ld Ave.,
,Jorge P e r e � � � �c• )�� �,:�- L� �
3. IPcal descripticn and street address of any real prcperty (a)
owned by any party listed in an.-,;er to question #2, and (b) located within
375 feet of the subject real property.
v14
I , 7
avNER OR A=KU Ei FOR C,�ivL
Felix J. Perez, Presia.tnt
ST-AT'E OF FLORIDA ) SS:
CC(1M CF WXE )
Felix J. Perez , being duly sworn, deposes and
says that ne is the (Cwner) (Attorney for Owner) of the real property
described in answer to question Q1, above; that he.has read the foregoing
answers and that the same are true and complete; and (if acting as attorney
for owner) that he has authority to execute this Disclosure of Ownership
form on behalf of the crmAr.
(name} C
Felix J, Pere_
before
day o�,�
y1 ��
gar.- P=4 c, Stare o
l rida at Wrge
f
7
COJiv11 V'C ►.c'Zf. '
.j. :: I'c_"
r `
� salts that ne 1.s the nuiy a m�'inted „ N ! �,.. , .r� r � 1 f �I r! .1() C
the owner of the real pccNrty deScrlbpc]`in answer to question 1r abate;
that.,, he has read the foregoing answers; that the same are true and comma
plet:e; and that he has the authority to execate this Disclosure of Dwnery
ship form on behalf. of the owr4er•.
- / 5
( Name) �71XiL
Felix J. Perez', President
s xOnti TO AND $L'ESC I MID
before me ,this
day of rt�•; r.198`�
1
Notary ?abbe, State of
Florida at La e
MY CC -MISSION E'`TIRES :
I
c. �M/,.Pc/a-b/-u25
a
9952.
V V V
2.Zb� 5`,`� I6
A, 7,e"02�p-
LLJ
Y
I
y
:7F? �jG[?iii:_rt..<^..ii jr .'..i 'iiGai�J�;x �•.
Cc-,-,iisionados a I.,-!dLid de Miami q u e iE, te n e1 P,: e c t 0
tie construcc ion de un Centro c:omercial en esta direccion:
Este Centro comercial responde a una necesidad social y
comunitaria.
1
The undersigned, neighbo*-`s cf S. W. 22 Avenue and 16 Terrace
pray to the.zonning authorities, Mayor and City Commissioners
of the City of Miami to aprove the project for the construction
of a shopping center in this address. This shopping center
answers a.community and social need.
Name Address Signature
I (. �
�� (;1 ��t r. .� f� �el ' f(=/i /J /� t��i►/ �°,�i ' T
LZ
Iz-JAI A , W
lq C. ,U khii,7 /9-N .ti
:-? Z_7z
LU
D, I Ct
2- `! O%
S4
i Do
tc-
iv
tr-'r:�/--'.
..
.. -^
R
�.1
9952 t#
J
.. ? 'j n v a .1. :1 L � :a �. a t?
„�_<�?i=��Vit i3 i�iJJ JC.• -;a .,.lu"'A :Y •.,}.11 t? i3 `J�•.i lv, 4>�:i: +-'1 1��v�c.�'S., 1. '..4>
de cons tri_lcci,Dn de un centeo =. 1TIe C131 en esta direcclon.
Este centro comerciai responde- a una necesidad social y
comunitaria.
The undersigned, neighbors of S. W. 22 :"venue and 16 'Terrace
pray to the zonning authorities, Mayor and city Commissioners
o,` the City of Miami to aprove the project for the construction
of a shopping center in this address. This shopping center
answers a community and social need.
Name Address
L
Sicnature
z;.
c-
YIIII
C ir YJ /5. 2 Cfnco'YJ ? /,-D emu% ZLS
S4U
;Y L. ,�, �' f / `z I ,S, ,�E-K •mil
c
r
PO Nvc'L =,:2 n. S'W 175
G r _1 n A - 71
MW.M
eze
9952 1
.1
C
r
J 3: S -A 1 Q: Cl
i �,n 1. q 1-1 b e n e 1 P aU I e r 0 j 0, c t, 0
de const-ruccion de u n c en L z- 0 C: Cille --,: 1 3 i en e s IL- a diteccioni
Este centro comercial responde a una necesidad social y
comunit-aria.
The undersigned, neighbors of S. W. 22 Avenue and 16 Terrace
pray to the zonning authorities, Mayor and City Commissioners
oj' the City of Miami to aprove the proj
ect for the construction
of a shopping center in this address. This shopping center
answers a community and social need.
Name
Address
r
Si r,n t u re
b 6 =-R To L
J i L
G
; 2
/r t�! f 1-7 9 L /4L
c 'ry
0
i_k 2/ i IV/'.
) 4
10 9 -7 k6l M7
C7
45
ZT
7—
Z-2
I P
11y)
rn
13
rA-1
2— f2- L V
F�vw—
crog3mcs a a i
C I-i a d c� "D c to
de cons t ruc, cion tie un cenLrc,�aiercial en esta direccion.
Este centro cornerCi31 -responde a una necosid"ad social Y
ccmunA. , ta a.
The undersigned, neighbors of S. W. 2'4 L\venue and 16 Terrace
pray to the zonning authorities, Mayor and City Commissioners
of the City of Miami to aprove the project for the construction
of a shopping center in this address, This shopping center
answers a community and social need.
Name Address
Siqnature
P-3 7,2 r) ca e R'T 0 c A A)
a
IE
16 t e r ra C e
i.0 :'3 r7l 1-1 -L e G C I Inc S
f
I.j
construction d P, -un cent—ro C.omerclal en en I L-2 cc ion.
Este centro comercial 'responde a una necesidad social Y
cornunitaria.
The undersioned, neighbors of S. W. 22 Avenue and 16 Terrace
Dray to the tonning authorities, Mayor and city Commissioners
k.If the City of Miami to aprove the project for the construction
of a shopping center in this address. This shopping center
answers a -cornmunity and social need.
Name
Address
Signature
to
/f� +Iti � L-.\�I,�IJ`
it .i `J,� :�(..� !ti�,� J �
��� •���..,.i.1 _ ..�_.�._.�)
Z7
f I
'7
4/
'/7
>
A
7",
Y,
IT
�7-
7
-7 t
U
'6 •. <' `_' `� c'. •1 } f—., i <.: I :- i3 c; j C.?,`. �.� ., .., . ?1 . 4; a', : (:1 �1 1'.j :� .i (' . ``'• a C: ,�
`v�li .. ... .�. 3 '� .. ii .. ... l t ` - .) t'� ;:� L� x� .. .. .. '.. _, _ a .� 7'?. � 23 � , - . ! ,,� t� •fit
de const ucc..ion (A q, tin cent corne cial en esta Kyt.cacn.
Este centeo coinercial responde a una necesidad sc'c. 13l y
comunitaria.
R
The undersigned . neighbors of. c. W. 22 Avenue and 15 Terrace
pray to the zonning authoritieSi
Mayor and City Cocn,nissioners
cE the City of Miami
to aprove the project for the construction
of a shopping center
in this address. This shopping center
answers a community and
social need.
/
- '
Address "` S i na ture
VI
!1.-71 � ('SJ:,`1
, � � J tia� ! fir. i! "lam `fir � ;J�.` '`, r i���•\
_,_}
J
—
�/� �` -�- ` � ^ �
1
+ • / ! l ..r'I � � �� cSC. �' � � 4� �
� ` r
, I v/ � 1
.. I 1 ( ,
rt��{ l }I` r • ^,rl\ ��
r
1 '� t '` .rJ 1 /1 J' (^1 `11 �,'.., 1f}..�'�1� _ �� If
n
'1 ram/ j + '.. ' J �, �^ �f
�' ^_ r ..� n �. (? (' 2 L.:: r . l_Ll�,% %: •' i .7. f
57
14,
1./
9952"`�
-
i t_ 1 (.i t .3
>..'J CTi l .:� l �..'� � t i .i �.; :� _.' •_ � :3 t, i :l _� ..:1'.� . ,� ;`� 1 . , i' i Cj'',i •. � l �; ., l �� i.''_: (1 � 1. C' ,. � ,? � � ..)
de constru cn -,l e -Li I, ,f-�,itr cc>>n€C-rc:ia1 sta d:irec i:0nf.
Este Centro comercial responcle a Una necresidad social y
comunitaria,
The undersigned, neit-1 'In %,cars of S. -01. 22 Avenue and lE Terrace
pra , to the zonning a�Athorl ities, Mayor and City Commissioners
of the City of mi.ami to aprove the project for the construction
of a shopping Center in this address. This shopping center
answers a community ,and social need.
Name Addra ss
I
e:
r
S iu na ture
F'. N .et
'ter}IZ.- . /.. C';L y %sAil ,; .- f- -
ILYS
20 �c� l� '� fir— `�. ;,, •�- �—���
w�x a to
12 1/
w 992 Qla
a Ile- y ,I i :lit 3L' Jr
C
Cie construccion d -1 Uri cent-ro en esta C C G n
Este centro rc ial r e s p, 0 n di e a u a n (-I C 0- 15 i dad, scci3l Y
camunitaria.
The undersigned, neighbor--s oLI S. W. 22 ',.venue and 16 Tie -.race
prey to the zonning authorities, Mayor and City Commissioners
of the City of Miami to aprove the project for the construction
of a shopping center in, this address. This shopping centot
answers a community and social need.
Name Address
Jnc, m rt-0- rci //I Co 5cQ ?o,,i-(je
L V
1. 4. 14-
f L
4-e
2
41M
J?
!L,7
47
r�i?�'t/, / J{�r�•��I�L~l
'�� �/
/ / ' �'
t� 4L,
..7+.
G ek-�m 4,t/ :2 1-5:3 �5 zel
el 72nele
r
Tr ZZ
-7'
7 L U
A2
L)
-7 Z-,
71
Q,
/X)
4
p
I
a I A a
C
I-n S i.:) a C,- , � 4
de construction de un centro comerciai en est-a
Este centro comercial responde a una necesidad social y
comunitaria.
The undersigned, neighbcrs of S. '4- 22 Avonue 3,nd 16 Terrace
1,.tay to the zonning authorities, Mayor and city Commissioners
of the City ojl-'- Miami to ap.-ove the p.-o-ject fo,, the constructicin
of a shopping center in this address. This shopping center
answers a community and social need.
N a nie Address
13
Zl
Signature
/L
t i ...
i
w a �.. �. ._ .. 1 i- :? i?'. �. . i `. .i �.; r ;J t. y 1 :a
de core rt ucciur kile un c e n -c7 come cial en esta di.reccio,
Este centro ccmercial responde a una necesi.dad social y
comunitaria.
The undersioned, neighbo,.s of S. W. 22 %venue and 16 Terrace
pray to the zonning authorities, Mayor and City Commissioners
of the City of Miami to aprove the project for the construction
of a shopping cents: in this address. This shopping center
answers a community and social need.
Name
Address
ff ( �C.r_, '-CI
C..':-'Q
_
P 76 F0,4
Signature
r
-z-
.O
�-. •— .7—e--• -, -- Cam/'-.�• �•�J/.
7`
"Y :y
J �V�
1
r i -
.. .a " R. 14
? e n
L d J
e cc) n s t ru c c i- on d e U r"i C e I I t:-- C Cci.,ie c i a I en e s " a i fin.
Este cen"----o comercial responde a 1.1r.a nf�(,.O_Sidad social Y
colnunitaria.
idle 6
Ine undersigned, neightors of S. W. 22 ,'�ven,,Je and I Terrace
nray to the zohning authorities, Mayo-- and city Commissioners
cf the City of Miami to aprcve the project for the construction
of a shopping center in this address. This shcoping center
answers a community and social need.
9 2
}. jM
OR
-
d 1 ! CL 1 ! d- n C�t?,nt'.�J `U<It.. �1u�. fl � t� (�12 Ctr1o11.
!-entro cci'`tE3'rcial -_-esponde a u L (lt?l F'�i?t�r3d 5C.,rial
cnmunl tar'l a .
The undersignedp neichbors of S). W. 22 A,,,enue and 16 Terrace
pray to the zonning autho-rities, Mayor and City Commissioners
of the City of ;Miami to ap ove the project for the construe; ion
of a shopping center in this address. This shopping center
answers a,community and social need.
Name Add -Tess Signature
L� K.�cz �/7`./{
L. r
' a" � % it % % `L: ,• i 'v y
i ,K \' r ti.:: CL.'
rf /
L.' l� �.'4 f' .it/1 _J, � .f` I . C..i+---�-,.,, -
X"
�
\
v
— ✓C ti: to ✓�iJ u !�p0 a
G�O b O 4S,
Z.
4
9952.
co,rt1 ' ").; ;i' i:.> i:iL 33l.i 3 11 S ii.l+' �) Ul.. Pn ''.L i�L'Ujr'ULO
de cons trucci'' n (Ae, un centro ccme -cial on -'Sta jirpccion.
Este centre rer,[1•::)n(ie a d.na y
comu,ni'C-aria.
— The undersigned, nwigInDors of S. W. 22 Avenue: and 16 Terrace
fray to the zonning authorities, Mayor and City
Commi.ssicners
of the City of Mi.atni to aprove the project f<�r
the construction
of a shopping center in this address. This shopping
center
answers a corn-nuni.ty an, social need.
Name Address
Sii�Qn/ature1
d4{ � .� �t/ �. �
� / L(� f �..i'.,�✓ � 1---1/Lt"-,r-�.
..i
C ,: s�eel
^IAA
��� •) /f�� -
eY,? `� �� .off p �'l J/ / j . f/✓
--- .-�. y'—�,1
zi
k" / i" l% tl�✓
�� i� f! '' N ;^i t ' J�� y!'
i':' - pit r S � c �, J � C. � t ; ,'c / •,%v / �'l `.% c� � i .
i1 v' •
•-=- �---_., � � � -
�4 ,-
4 �
�.A
V
`� C/Q-•�7 r �b'��. f !x1�-\ � � � 1 .. %�J � � S l �
Y� '''�/� ��--• i`G!/ ✓v,�i`�% L-i-i..1 -
t
f
52
FM
Ls�
V y 1 6 2
"'j
C' C -I cl C
d e Ttje-1�7j , 1 -1 i reccion
o I I j t- -� -LI c- c i on �3 q un c e T-. I E! n e s t a u -
Este centz:o ccnlercial 'responde a una necesidad social y
ccmunitaria.
The undersigned, neighbo.-S of S. W. 221 Avenue and 16 Terrace
oray to the zonnina authorities, Mayor and city Commissioners
(-f the City of Miami to aprove the project for the construction
of a shopping center in this address. This shopping center
answers a community and social need.
Name Address Signature
#1
0 C-
A
R
le
own
-7
S 'I C:
n il' D e n e -
t? L a
cull'3truccioIn City ontro c cine r c a I e n esta d i r ec cun Este centro coulercial *-Iosponde a una necesidad social Y
c (,),-n U,-I i t ar i a .
Ik
—ihe undersigned, neighbors of S. W. 22 Avenue and 16 Terrace
I -ray to the zonning authorities, Mayor and city Commissioners
of the City of Miami to aprove the project for the construction
of a shopping center in this address. This shopping center
answers a.community and social need,
Name
Address
Signature
'Z E-V
IIX
L
-7 Al2
r
77-
Z7
r)1Z 0)
Le
17 r?
or -IN
L�
A
7 t 0
de c o n s t r t I c c i. on de urn c e n t ro c orn e ia 1 en e -3 Ii -7ecc ion.
Este centre comercial responde a una nec_,eSic-iad Y
c omnun i t a r i a .
The
-1 Jt uri,.le--signed, neighbors of S. W. 22 Avenue and, 16 Terrace
p-ay to the zonning authorities, Mayor and City Commissioners
of the City of Miami to ap.-ove the prD4-,-t f'cJr the ccnsti- u c t i o n
f a shc -;ppi ng center in this address. -his shipping center
a t�i allic, social need.
Name Address
gs
ianature
t I)o
`7 1
/7,2 'YU
S 7- 4elO
/. �,t
Ct
2e 43 C-,,2 7 e j
y•
1 W
" "�'.'>�. L ' `� I_ '`� 1 •— c......1�' ;*-.J �t,., �, t✓—d.:..:.L.� �... jam.;. L �...,t �.�= mot. L� � i % �_ , �l r +i �-- �
' � � f� �r / �� ' / ,� ? � �:. rya•^ � �J �/ V / � L / :,,yE''`�!
53
3
7
,
9952 ''
t.. .
a
d
9952
;R, 3 Ctn,-
Certrnd9 'Rosalind Harks - 2207 S,,W. 16th 'Terrace. Miami. Florida,
Mr, Chairman o
Haling been out of the country for about six weekso I was unaware of this requested
zoning change until the end of July,
From ray neighbors I learned that the original proposal was for the erection of a
tu-o-storey building with boutiques on the ground floor and offices on the second. I
ur.•d�rstsnd that r-prasentatives of the petitioner :isitedsc-ne of ray neighbors after
the first board meting to say that consideration is also ring given to the installation
of a supermarket. laundromat and/or bakery = the grotad floor,, as well as construction
of an eight -foot .tall on all boundaries not opening on either loth Street or 22nd
Avenuso Parking would b- on lots four and five facing S.We 16th Street as well as an
parts of lots one and two facing 22nd Avenue, -
�a•iing come with my par-nts to this he^.- about 1930, I have seen the area grow from a
few hcm-s built in the rriddle, of a citrus grove to what it is today, homes from one
end of the block to the others
Th-ereforeo I would ask the board to consider the following in reviewing this petition:
A zone change
to Makes corm-�rci;k1 intrusion into the residential nature of a long-established and
we11-mairt=tined neighborhood.
2. Would sieverely impact and disturb adjac-nt pro;+-rty values.
3; Increases the density of an already over-crm-ded and over -parked area, since 16th
Street is not wide enough to support additional traffic and street parking. Parking
is prohibited on 22nd Avenue. Patrons of Solis Marl-t on the north corner of
16th Street and 22nd Avenue regularly park on 16th Terrace when the carketa s lot is
crowded;
a
995
..�'.. Gertrude Rosalind '.larks,,
2207 SeW, 16th :"erracs o
Miami e Florida.
4. Lot depth of 100 feet not sufficiento intended or planned for comriercial used
5- Water pressure is insufficient to homes now and would become increasingly worse if
any of the ab", ye -proposed businesses o lamLdromat for example g were constructede
6e What are the open. -air ordinances for Miami in a residential area? There are two
garage apar-l=--nts facing on to the area which would be affect-ed by the erection of an
eight foot .call, One belongs to mes Such a wall woul. rise to within two inches of
the top of four-wrindows on the north side of my apartmento In addition to reducing
light, there would be no circulation of air and the mall would reflect mat on to the —
premises.
7. What are the noise control ordinaces, since air conditioners or other ventilating
nechanis-s would be blowing on residences located behind the building.
8. Garbage disposal, If stored in metal contaihersp ::hers would containers be located? _
At what time :could garbage collections be made and where would trucks enter?
9. Rodent control for supermarket and bakery premises.
10. k11 night security lights would shine into yards of homes on both 16th Street
and 16th Terrace.
11, A two-sygrey structure would be an eyesore and invade the privacy of the
surrounding homes• _
12. Rnvirorznantal changes would occur with the removal of the fruit and other trees
ro•.r on lots four and five• since these trees and houses Would be removed and replaced
by par)dng lots.
13. The term? "boutique and professional offices" afford absolutely no guarantee of
the types and uses to which the facilities ultimately would be placed for examplao
beverage stoms a 24-hour convenience stored as at 27th Avenue and 16th 5treeti use
of noisy equipment in read' of shopsg air co^►presser, electric sawsp noxious odors,
bar 4 th 1o,4i music in evening or early morning hourso
9T * V
..3.. Oertrude Rosalind Marks,
220; S.W. 16th Terraces
Miami. ?loridas
1.49 To grant this Arian" would be Pmeedent setting for all of 16th Street and
22nd Avenue, from 8th Street to Tigertail Avenue, Variance mandates the results,
16th Street could become another 8th Street,, since other lots would soon fall; In
this con.^ecticn, in the past week I have noticed three for sale signs in the 2300
block of 16th Street,
his application is a repeating of previous years for the same pro: ert_ yor
increase uses Which would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Others have been denied
this use before by the planning board.
16; Designating this area as commercial would be the breakdown of the traditionalo
long. -standing character of the neighborhood;
17. When a purchaser buys a home in this particular neighborhoodo he or she should
be able to rely in good faith an the master plan as set forth by the City of Miami
Pertaining to zoning and use of properties; This proposed spot zoning is at varia-ice
with the mastar plan of the Ci£y of Miami as stated by Yr. Whipple in the July 17
meeting o at Which tine me he reconded that this variance not be appr oved. and I agree.
18. We are looking to the Zoning Board to support our neighborhood and to protect
us :ff� cm the intrusion of a shopping center.
190' I have no objection to the construction of single• -family residences on these
lots for which it was planned, but I am unalterably opposed to this flagrant attempt
at spot zoning;
Thank you; Yx. Chairnan,
A
July 16, 1 9,34
City of Miami
Planning & Zoning Boards
Administration Department
Bc:., 330703
ami , c �.cr .�a 33133
RB. Shopping C:ent.� r at 221nN y:anue S 16t S__eet
Gentlemen:
My name is Mrs. Buchberger and I reside at 2250 S.W. 16 Street. I
have lived at that address since 1955.
I and my neighbors are very concerned about a Mr. Perez wanting to =
t^ 1)210 ')240 ra 16 h h' —
ouIld a s.00ping center tram to b.V. t Streit. T zs is a
residential neighborhood and is zoned RI. We don't want it changed to a
commercial area. The traffic on S.W. 16th Street to Douglas Road and
also to 17th Avenue is extremely busy. We can't even get out of our
driveways during rush hours. ,-e don't need all the extra traffic and
noise and crime that a shopping center will bring. Also I might point
out there is not enoucuh parKing for a shopping center and there is no
room to park on the streets. We can still walk in our neighborhood
without fear.
A shopping center will also change the nature of the neighborhood.
Right now it is zone R 1 — family homes from S.W. 9th Street to S.W.
21st Terrace. I would also like to point out that there are plenty of
stores and shopping on 27r_h Avenue, Coral Way and S.W. Sth Street if one
needs to go shopping.
gain I stress the need to keep our neighborhood residential and
not ruin it with a shopping center that will create chaos by heavy
traffic of both cars and people.
Thank you for taking the tiTe to listen.• Respectfully,
Mrs. Anna Buchberger
2250 S.W. 16 Street
Miami, Florida 33145
95
a
e tcir.or ii
;it;y* of :.iami
l:,nnILn:; :=:nc .�onin; ponr:::s
Aci:ainistrcition LP^art::cnt
;ox 330703
- lorida 33133
Ph: :; _onnin,� Ccntcr at 22nd avenue 16ta ,trcct
�ntle:.en.
,nc, I r esi-e ;at 4. -
i cave 1=:F:G at that ac'.c.ress since 1c;5• -
A few weeks after our last meetin.. a Friend of
:r. rerez visited me. ::e salu. that ,'ir. Perez :rants to out ua_
an office built:{r.; :•;ith an -8 ft. wall around the property.
SucZ a :;all :,oulcl block the air o4 the east side o' r;- ?souse
cih(.ro my bedroo,-s are. _
-, h4 of:__;r.rors :rere role of plans to ru': u�� a
la,.,ndro:',at; and a-jarker`r. ?4'e ',ave. a laundromat on %?nc, Avenue
between 1L-tr and i7th Street and another and 10)t;_ 3treot,
also on 22na Avenue ;s on 3.: • c7{__ r.l"'T3U�
a n a 16L i :, rt_C t.
_ ui lc:in-s -n 'oral '::wy.
'lonty of stores for sr:oprinL� oil •: tit•:! -1tr` c't i.,m
on S•. • 2l't,"t A%., nut:• L arc: %:t t;ca*
�i'�t� �'14 _:i �r t.'.'�I• 1. is :. .i �'r .li:LL LC:u.-r'.:S C Uad is rf •�: • ��th iivE •
on 1�.}.t. �tcct. ..e c&nnot even ,�t Llt o*' �Gr r 're::jRvs
dcn't need all the extra tr f� .'ic an:;
nc { se ane cr_:-,e that a shonpin;T, center
'his nei';!aboraljou will drop in Val'.?C+• 'Lvtry oiie
will nut up ais douse 'or sala, because living; here wall 'co aectic.
?'lease do not chaIl,--c t:1e Zor:in_-
to co..:-ercial i=�lcave it !`or one fa:•ii?y homes only, -
?esrlecti ,;ily,
,rs. Anna B%i.i hbcr;er
-- 9952 3 '
Mr. Maxwell: So you are saying you will allow
then 50 ft4 above the expressway?
Mr. Manes: Right...
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: Right.
Mr. Manes: Up to a maximum of 65 ft. above
ground, grade, crest, call it what you will.
Mr. Luaces: No, there's a difference between
ground and grade.
Mr. Manes: Ground and grade. Well you're the
construction expert there.
Mr. Luaces: Specifically there's a difference.
The difference may be about 7 ft. because grade is grade and the
crown of the road is something else.
Mr. Manes: Okay, 65 ft. maximum commencing at
the crown of the adjacent local or arterial street.
Mr. Benjamin: That's it.
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: Well, that's it.
Mr. Manes: How's that?
Mr. Rodriguez: If that's what he wants.
Mr. Manes: This is wording coming out of our
fact sheet here. Let's see, establish the height of signs
commencing at the crown of the adjacent local or arterial street.
So that's where the 65 £t. cap would start.
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: Okay.
Mr. Manes: But it would go up to 50 ft.
higher than the crown of the main -traveled way...
Mr. Benjamin: Right.
Mr. Manes: ...which would be interpreted as
the road, the main street, that the sign is facing.
Mr. Benjamin: Don't interpret it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: Yes, that's it.
Mr. Manes: Any further discussion? Are we
clear on the motion, Mr. Rodriguez?
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: Yes.
Mr. Rodriguez: Fifty feet from the crown... -I have
it somewhere.
(Everybody laughed)
Mr. Manes: It's all being recorded. We've
got it. Please call the roll.
29 July 18, 1984, Item 5
Planning Advisory Board �
95 /
(Secretary called the roll)
AYES. Messrs. Manes, Diego, Armesto-Garcia, Correa,
Benjamin and Luaces
NAPES: Ms. Kolski
ABSENT: None.
11 Mr, Rodriguez: The "motion carries 6 to 1.
RESOLUTION PAB 78-84
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF ZONING ORDINANCE
9500, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 20
GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS,
SECTION 2026 SIGNS, SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS AND
REQUIREMENTS BY PROVIDING FOR BILLBOARD
HEIGHT TO BE 50 FT. FROM THE CROWN OF THE
MAIN -TRAVELED ROAD, IN RELATION TO
EXPRESSWAYS, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 65 FT. FROM
THE CROWN OF THE NEAREST ADJACENT LOCAL OR
ARTERIAL STREET AND CLARIFYING THAT EACH SIGN
SURFACE SHALL NOT EXCEED 750 SQ. FT. AND PAGE
5 OF THE OFFICIAL SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
REGULATIONS MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE
9500, AS AMENDED, BY REFERENCE AND
DESCRIPTION IN SECTION 320 PERTAINING TO CG
GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT,
LIMITATIONS ON SIGNS.
Mr. Manes:
Mr. Armesto-Garcia?
Does that conclude your motions,
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: Yes, sir.
Mr. Manes: Does that -answer all, the questions
that the City Commission has askeO this Board to review, the
viewing, the surface, the billboard height, billboard spacing
formula, angle of billboards? I believe we've covered all the
items.
Mr. Whipple: You have some more, Mr. Knox?
Mr. Knox: Oh no, sir, no.
Mr. Manes: No. Okay, I believe we've
finished it. Closing comment, Mr. Knox?
Mr. Knox: I'd just like to thank the Board
again and there is an understanding, I think, that the matter has
already been placed on the agenda for the City Commission's next
meeting. That is my information.
Mr. Maxwell:
Mr. Knox:
members of the Board.
Mr, Manes:
That is correct. That's correct.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman,
Thank you, Mr. Knox.
30 July 10, 1984? Item 5
Planning Advisory Board
9952
TRANSCRIPT
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF APRIL 26, 1984
PAGES 155-158
5
Mayor Ferre: Any objections to that, provided that it does
not exceed three days consecutive?
Mr. Plummer: That's in the first, 2003.9.1 - wait a minute,
with this other wording their problem, Mr. Mayor, is three
days. Okay? 1 said to them under a normal circumstances of
three days or as approved by the Commission, leaving the —
latitude of this Commission to make a decision.
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, what I'm more concerned with is not
the private carnival operators that are going to be making
the profits, I'm concerned with the churches, synagogues in
the City that are the ones that in my opinion really have
some legitimate concerns. And what I would like to do is to
have the opportunity to meet with some of the representa-
tives from some of the churches, synagogues, get their
opinions and come back with something concrete.
Mayor Ferre: There is a motion by Commissioner Carollo that
_ this item be deferred to the next Zoning Meeting - contin-
ued, so that he will have the opportunity to meet with some
of the affected parties. Is there a second?
;� Mr. Perez: Second.
Mayor Ferre: Is there further discussion? All right, call
the roll on the continuance.
The preceding motion to continue was introduced by
Commissioner- Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Perez and
passed and adopted unanimously.
6T. BRIEF DISCUSSION AND RETURN TO PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD
FOR REVIEW A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TEXT CHANGE TO 9500
ENTITLED: SEC. 2026 ENTITLED: SIGHS, SPECIFIC LIMITA-
TIONS AND REQUIREMENTS.
Mayor Ferre: Take up 30. This is on First Reading. All
right, sir.
Mr. Stuart Simon: I'm not going to talk more than a
minute and I think I can make a suggestion that will be very
appealing to you and the Commissioners. I'm going to recom-
mend that you send this back to the Planning Advisory Board
for further consideration.
Mayor Ferre: Based on what, Mr. Simon?
Mr. Simon: There was a 3 - 3 vote, and I think we should
get a recommendation if we possibly -an from the Planning
Advisory Board. The issue before you is a very simple one.
We had recommended that there be a height '_imitation on
signs of 30 feet above the grade of the road. The Planning
Department's recommendation was that it be 30 feet above the
ground. There is very little difference between these two
proposals.
Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, I don't understand this. One
is 30 feet above ground, the other one is 30 feet from the
crown of the road?
Mr, Simon: Yes, no, above the grade of the road. One is 30
feet above the grade of the road and the other is....
Mayor Ferre: Does that include expressways
are 40 feet up in the ai.r7 Okay, now I see
ence is. Did you say there was very little
' 155
RT
when expressways
what the differ -
difference?
19
&4
y
Mr. Simon: Well, let me say this, in most cases there are
very little differences. Of course, there are some cases
Where there is a very extensive difference.
�Mayor Ferre: I'll tell you what I'd be willing to vote on,
I'd be willing to vote on it from the crown of the road for
all ground level roads and all those that are elevated roads
would go back to the Planning Board.
Mr. Simon: Well, we think one of the things that you should
consider is this: The old ordinance that you had had the
criterion that we favor, 30 feet above the grade of the road
and that was the rule in the City of Miami for many years.
You are suddenly going to make....
Mayor Ferre: You're recommending that we send it back to
the Planning...
Mr. Simon: Yes,
Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, what he is asking is reasonable.
Mayor Ferre: I agree. There is a motion by Commissioner
Carollo that this item be referred to the Planning ... Yes,
staff will have an opportunity. Do you want to have the
opportunity now or before the Planning Commission?
INAUDIBLE RESPONSE
Mayor Ferre: Go right ahead, sir.
Mr. Richard Whipple: Mr. Mayor, the reason for bringing
this to the Commission and pursuing it is that the new
Zoning Ordinance is silent or very unclear as to the height
limit of signs. We believe it is important that a limit be
established as there is no clear one established in the
ordinance today. We, in fact, are utilizing a recommended
height that was recommended to this Commission approximately
a year ago in conjunction with some litigation and this is
the same height, as Mr. Simon has pointed out, as was in the
old Zoning Ordinance as to 30 feet. Specifically, the
wording of the old Zoning Ordinance which we've never had
any problem with for 19 years, and Mr. Simon point out,
simply reads: in commercial and industrial districts the
shall not exceed a height of 30 feet above the grade
of the street at which the sign is oriented. This grade
refers to ground level or surface grade. This has never
been questioned before and we don't see any problem with it
today.
Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? All right, thank you,
sir. Call the roll.
The preceding motion to continue was introduced by
Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner- Dawkins and
passed and adopted unanimously.
Mayor Ferre: Did you want to say something?
Mr. Simon: Yes, I wanted to say this: When you send it
back, we have made two- other suggestions in the letter that
I sent to you that the Planning Advisory Board make recom-
mendations on. One is the ridiculous requirement that signs
face away from the road;
Mayor Ferre: Well, what is a sign for if it is going to be
facing away from the road?
1964
5
Mr. Simon: I can't imagine what value the sign would have,
it is a requirement.
Mayor Ferre: Does the maker of the motion have any objec-
tions to incorporate that? All right, what is your second
thing?
Mr. Simon: And the second thing that we would like is that
we would like to recommend to the City Commission 1000 feet
spacing requirement between signs. Otherwise you're going
to get a tremendous proliferation of signs in the City of
Miami and it is going to affect the aesthetics of the City.
Mayor Ferre: Do you have any objections to that, Mr,
Whipple?
Mr. Carollo: Do you think 1000 is enough, Whipple, or do
you think we should have more?
Mr. Whipple: I'm not prepared to comment as to the reason-
ableness of the proposed regulation, my concern is that
there is some direction with respect to legislation before
the Planning Advisory Board of which (1) we're not familiar
with or haven't proposed or have any legislation being
expounded nor does the Planning Advisory Board so I'm not
too sure what the Commission's direction is on this.
Mayor Ferrer Let me tell you what the Commission's direc-
tion is. It was a 3 - 3 vote and the Commission is, there-
fore, sending it back so that they further deliberate on the
issue, (1) of height, (2) of the directions of signs and (3)
the spacing of signs. And, we're not sending it back, Mr.
Simon, with all due respects to you, with any recommenda-
tions because then why are we sending it to them? We are
sending it to for them to deliberate on those issues before
it comes to us.
Mr. Whipple: yes, but there is only one issue before this
Commission, that is the height of signs and the new issues
would have to go through a new process.
Mayor Ferre: Well, then that is something that we'll have
to deal with but I think the instructions from this Commis-
sion is that if possible - and that means if it is legal -
that you also consider the direction of the signs and the
spacing of the signs.
Mr. Dawkins: Is it a fact that we do have some law or
ordinance that says the sign has to be 90, 60 or 80 degrees
turned from the road?
Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, if I am putting up a sign and it is at
an angle, I'm going to run off the road trying to see it.
Mr. Whipple: No, sir, you would have to have a full expla-
nation as to the reason for that angular relationship. It
specifically has to do with billboards along expressways, so
you end up with a basic decision (1) do you want to have
billboards along the expressways or not. If you do not, you
still need to allow billboards that might be adjacent to
expressways on adjacent streets but that are not oriented or
cannot be viewed from the expressway and that is one of the
reasons for the angles involved and the way the ordinance
has been Written which. has been in effect likewise for 19
years without any difficulty,
Mr. Dawkins: But Mr. Whipple, why would 1, a sign person,
rent space to put a sign near a highway if people from the
highway can't see it.
.1 7 ,APR 2 6 1984
s
!d
Mr. Whipple: No, sir, you're misunderstanding the question.
They don't rent signs that cannot be viewed by the passing
motorists so they don't build them that way.
Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Dawkins, there is a motion, there
is a second, it is clear, we've voted on it haven't we?
Mr, Ongie: yes, sir.
Mayor Ferre: And it has been amended to include those three
items and we're not voting on it today and I want to tell
you I'm not saying how I'm going to vote, I reserve that for
when it comes back.
Mr. Simon: And we will not present something cold to the
Planning Advisory Board.
Mayor Ferre: Thank you, sir.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: AGENDA ITEM 31 WAS CONTINUED TO THE
MAY 10, 1984 MEETING.
68. FORMALIZING RESOLUTION: AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH ATHALIE RANGE FOR PROFESSIONAL
LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANT SERVICES CONCERNING LEGISLATION
WHICH IMPACTS ON THE CITY OF MIAMI.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner
Carollo, who moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 84-493
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAG-
ER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTAN-
TIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH ATHALIL
M. RANGE FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGISLATIVL
CONSULTANT SERVICES CONCERNING LEGISLA-
TION WHICH IMPACTS ON THE CITY OF MIAMI
AND ITS CITIZENS; ALLOCATING THEREFOR AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,000 FOR SUCH
SERVICES AND AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$6,000 FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES FROM
SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS CONTINGENT
FUND.
(Here follows body of resolution, omit-
ted here and on file in the Office of
the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolu-
tion was passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
5 APR 26 1984
HT
',.. c O' li„,�7
a�
I
TRANSCRIPT
PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1984
ITEM 13
s •.
.. ... ,.
''�
i RC,,t'dSCR. t 7
Pl anni rig Advisory Board
Mr. Manes: Members of the Board, public, we have a special request this evening. There's a gentleman in the
audience at this time, gentleman or lady in the audience that has
a plane to catch on item #13. Could that person please raise
their hand? Is that you, sir? Okay, if there's no objection
from either the Board or the public, we're gonna take item 13 out
of order and then return to our original agenda. (Pause)
There being no discussion we'll now go into agenda 13. -
We'•re gonna need to read this into the record, we'll be ready for
you` in just a moment, sir. Mr. Rodriguez.
Consideration of amending the text of Ordinance 9500,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida, by
amending Section 2026 entitled "Signs, Specific
Limitations and Requirements", Article 20 entitled
'"General and Supplementary Regulations" clarifying
billboard height; further, amending sheet 5 of the
Official Schedule of District Regulations made a part
of said Ordinance 9500 by reference and description in
_ Section 320 thereof, by providing for height
limitations on ground or free standing signs, onsite
and offsite, and incorporating the above textural
changes; and containing a repealer provision and a
severability clause.
Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal Notice of Hearing.
Mr. Manes:
will be presenting this?
Mr. Rodriguez: ..
Mr. Manes:
Mr. Whipple. Welcome!
'Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Who
Mr. Whipple.
Whenever you're ready,
Mr. Whipple: Good evening. For the record,
Richard Whipple, Chief of Land Development Division in the City
of Miami Planning Department. This is an amendment that is a, in
part a result of an oversight with the transition of Ordinance
6871 into Ordinance 9500. Ordinance 9500, pretty thorough in its
sign controls, did have specific regulation as to sign heights.
In the translation to 9500, we have found out that there are no
specific height limits included in the new Zoning Ordinance. Now
as the Board may be aware, there were certain amendments that
were up for consideration before the...this Board and the City
Commission, particularly in relation to Ackerly Outdoor
Advertising problems and at that time, we had put in a provision
along with their concerns to limit the sign heights as they were
under Ordinance 6871 to 30 ft. However, that... although that has
passed First Reading, it has been sitting dormant for quite some
time and pursuant to recent activity with respect to outdoor
advertising, we feel it is necessary that the ordinance be
clarified as to what are the permitted sign heights and that the
remainder of the sign activity that was previously addressed will
come along in the future so we are very specifically and straight
forwardly saying that there are height limitations needed for
offsite signs and that is the proposal before you this evening
and we would like to recommend your... that you recommend this
amendment to the City Commission.
Mr. Manes: Thank you, Mr. Whipple. Are
there any questions for Mr. Whipple at this time? If there are
no questions at this time we'll open the public hearing. This is
a public hearing item, is there anybody in the audience wishing
to speak either for or against this item? You wish to speak,
sir? Okay, we'll get to you in just one second. We're gonna
need first to have you sworn in, anybody wishing to speak that is
not an attorney be sworn in. Sir, are you an attorney? You're
not an attorney, Okay, if you wish to spear, you'll need to
stand and be sworn in. You too, sir.
l April 4, 1984, Item 13
Planning Advisory Board
4?
t�
(fir. Pere z—Luaones administered oath to all persons
wishing to speak on this item.)
Mr. Manes: Okay, just one second. Are you
in favor of this, sir, or do you just have a question?
Man in audience: No, I would like to just to
introduce myself. (pause while somebody off the record told him
this was not item 3 as he thought but instead 13). I will ... I
wil`1...
Mr. Manes: Address?
Man in audience: ...introduce later.
Mr. Manes: Okay, thank you very much. Okay,
we always have the proponents speak first there. Mr. Hancock,
did you wish to speak on this?
Mr. Hancock: Yes. My name is Andy Hancock
with E. A. Rancock Advertising. I live at 3856'Douglas Road.
The reason I brought this up tonight and unfortunately I didn't
hear about it soon enough or I would have made sure you got some
further information on this item. I represent the outdoor
advertising business for myself but not all the other companies
because I don't believe they knew this was coming up tonight. I
think what you should consider is the 30 ft. height limitation
which is standard in the industry is all right but what you
should look at further and the only little addition that needs to
be made because probably of...somebody just didn't think about it
at the time, was that it should be 30 ft. above the grade of the
road which the sign is showing and the reason for that is a lot
of times the grade of the road is a lot higher than actually
where the sign is built and it reaches a point where you can't
even see it or it might be to the point where it's half what you
see. Aesthetically, anyway if that's the major argument that it
would be obviously much better for them to be a level height and
not scattered different heights all along. That's basically the
only change I would like to make than what I think the staff has
presented.
Mr. Manes: Okay, thank you. We may have
some questions for you, Mr. Hancock? Are there any questions at
this time for Mr. Hancock? Okay, is there anybody else wishing
to speak on this item? There being none, we'll close the public
hearing and go into discussion among the Board members.
Mr. Whipple, would you address...did you get a copy of
Mr. Hancock's memo?
Mr. Whipple: Yes, I did.
Mr. Manes: And has one copy been entered
into evidence on this? Thank you.
Mr. Whipple: I believe we understand
Mr. Hancock's request but we have two problems with that
consideration. We have no problem making sure that we're talking
about 30 ft. above grade of the land but in essence, the
suggestion is that it be above, let's say the grade of an
expressway, an elevated expressway. The problem with that is
number one, we have a regulation that does not allow billboards
to face the expressway within a certain distance 600 or 660 ft.
so there would really be no need in the -City of Miami by which to
use the expressway grade plus an additional 30 ft. because the
signs are not allowed to begin with. Notwithstanding that, it's
been the policy of the City and what have you, in the past, as
Mr. Hancock, Jr. and Sr. and I have discussed that we have not
allowed and do not allow signs to be faced toward the expressway.
So, therefore, the wording would not be acceptable to us because
it infers that we're going to allow expressway signs and they
should be viewed and allowed to go to a height of 30 ft. above an
expressway by this change in wording.
2 April 41 1984, Item 13
Planning Advisory SQard
9952 DSO
Mr. ,•Santis: Okay, if I und(!rstood you
correctly, any sign that we see as we go through the City of
Miami, if there's billboard that's closer than 660 ft. or 600
ft., that's been grandfathered in since?
Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. At the present time,
notwithstanding the litigation, they are nonconforming and they
are subject to the finalization of that litigation and yes, legal
no.tconforming is the proper term.
Mr. Hancock:
suggestion that...
Mr. Chairman, if I might make a
Mr. Manes: Okay, let me just,..is there no
objection from the Board, we have closed the public hearing?
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: I have no objections, let's hear
it.
Mr. Manes: Okay, proceed.
Mr. Hancock: If Mr. Whipple's only concern is
the expressway and signs are effectively banned from the
expressway then he should have no objection to making it a
uniform height above the grade of road.
Mr. Manes: Any comment, Mr. Whipple, there?
Mr. Whipple: Wrong. We do have an objection.
The standard, notwithstanding Mr. Hancock's comment, 30 ft. has
been quite acceptable for...since 1965 when the City of Miami and
as we do keep pretty well up-to-date, this standard is still
acceptable as far as we know and we believe ... and we believe that
a 30 ft. height on a billboard is more than enough height for
proper viewing unless you really want to do something
extraordinary and we don't believe that Miami, Florida and South
Florida is the place to do something like that.
Mr. Manes: Mr...
Mr. Luaces: I have a question for Mr. Whipple.
Mr. Manes: Okay, Mr. Luaces.
Mr. Luaces: What is the ... what is the Dade
county height limitation on billboards?
Mr. Whipple: Mr. Hancock may have to correct
me on this but I believe it's either 30 or 35 ft. There are
other municipalities that have allowed higher signs pursuant to a
change in Dade County legislation. The Dade County legislation
mr is basically the same as ours, they do not allow signs within 600
ft. or odd feet of the expressway and to the best of my know-
ledge, all ground signs are limited to either 30 or 35 (ft.) and
I'm not sure as to the exact number.
Mr. Luaces: Thirty above grade or thirty.,.
Mr. Whipple: Thirty above ground, sir.
Mr. Luaces: Above ground not grade.
Mr. Whipple: That's -right.
Mr. Hancock: If I might add a little, you
know...
Mr. Manes: Okay.
3 April 4, 1904, Item 13
Planning Advisory Board
Mr. Hancock: . , . I' m pretty .Tamil iar with mcst
of the sign ordinances in the 28 municipalities in Dade County
plus Dade County. There are quite a few municipalities that
agree that the height is supposed to be above grade and really
the point is not whether it should or shouldn't be but what looks
the best and my point is to you that if you have a road that's 4
or 5 ft. high above the grade of the sign where you build the
sion down lower and then on down the road about another half a
mite or another 500 ft., the road comes up like this and you have
an effect that is not aesthetic, if what you're looking for is to
strive for aesthetics, that certainly isn't the way to achieve
it.
Mr. Manes: I'm curious, where do you see the
roads going up and down?
Mr. Hancock: In a lot of cases you have ... even
on South Dixie Highway, it will be 4 ft. higher than the ground
right next to it and what Mr. Whipple is referring to is where
you actually build the sign which will be ground level, might be
a different level from where the road is that the signs is going
to show to. It's just a logical solution to a problem that
hasn't really been dealt with and I think should be.
Mr. Manes:
stating your views here?
Mr. Whipple:
Mr. Manes:
Mr. Whipple, is he accurately
Not our views, no, sir.
Okay.
Mr. Whipple: We understand the difference of
grade, if there's a question -on grade and if it is not an
approved site which might be subject to flood criteria filling
then they would use the crown of the road at grade, they would
not use the expressway grade naturally, but the term -grade at
ground level, you know, that's variable and let's, you know, if
we want to talk aesthetics for minute, the viewing of a sign at a
30 ft. height and if you can imagine doubling that height to 60
ft. on South Dixie Highway, the 3 or 4 ft. grade is immaterial
with the 30 ft. and the 60 ft. is immaterial as to viewing
because signs on South Dixie Highway at a 60 ft. height are just
completely out of place because of the angle and the height.
There is just no real value to putting a sign at a... in a normal
situation to that height.
Mr. Manes: Did you have a comment,
Mr. Luaces?
Mr. Luaces: Yes, it is to no value of the 2,
3 ft. difference. I don't see why we shouldn't then do as he
recommends to be above grade.
Mr. Whipple: But the wording as proposed would
allow that consideration in relation to elevated expressways...
Mr. Luaces:
No, I...
Mr. Whipple: ...the way it's worded now.
If...
Mr. Luaces: Legally he can not put a sign and
use the grade of the expressway because -it's not allowed in the
City of Miami right now so this will not effect the expressways
at all.
Mr. Whipple; Well, I would like to suggest
that...that is perhaps a good thought but with respect to what is
trying to be done in the City of Miami and elsewhere in Dade
County, that is in fact not the case. If the 3 and 4 ft. would
be a problem which I don't consider it a problem whatsoever and
4 April 4, 1984, Item 13
Planning Advisory Board
52
if ;'c u'll just .iG•3i.;n imagine _? 30 it. sign in a little deviati,')n
in grade. They're, not worried about that grade. They're
- worrying about the viewing path. They have to have a clear path
that it can be reviewed and the fact that it may differentiate
between the actual road on grade, 3 or 4 ft. doesn't make that
much of a difference. The basic response is that that's needed
for an approach and proper viewing. =-
Mr. Manes: Mr. Armesto-Garcia.
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: Yes, what I don't..I don't see
any conflict here in what Mr. Hancock's saying...if he has no
right to put a sign facing the expressway now and this is what he
wants, "the maximum height above the ground for a commercial
advertising sign shall not exceed 30 ft. from the grade of the
road to which the sign faces." I don't see anything wrong why -_
the Department can not get along with this. I mean this is the
most common sense and common language instead of going through to
many languages and since this is clear...
_ Mr. Manes: Well, not speaking for the
Department, I...
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: This is clear to me that...in
Dade County the maximum height is 35 ft. in Dade County, in Dade
County's unincorporated, 35 ft. Here we are not exceeding 30 ft.
is okay from the grade of the road. I will move for that.
Mr. Manes: Okay, well, we're not quite in a
motion stage yet, but...
Mr. Luaces: We're not ready for that but
that's...I'll second.
Mr. Manes: What I wanted to say was, not
speaking for the Department, I think that there's other things to
be taken into consideration besides expressways, there's ramps
_ and overpasses and things like that that is what the Department's
concern —Mr. Rodriguez, did you have a comment?
Mr. Rodriguez: The only comment I would like to
add is that is conceivable that you could be beyond the distance
from the expressway, you know, more than the 600 and not facing
the expressway but taking advantage of the height differential of
the road of the expressway. I guess you might be able to raise
the billboard much more than the 5 ft. What I think we're doing
is by doing what they're proposing, we're really opening it up
and we don't know exactly the implications of what they are
saying. ours is a very clear standard, you apply, if it is only
4 or 5 ft., well if it's not a big deal in one area, it's not a
big deal the other side, you know. Four or five feet won't kill
them, right? if it doesn't...
Mr. Manes: Is there or do either you or
Mr. Whipple see any compromised language that would allow for,
you know, something where the road is possibly built up for, you
know, 5 ft. or so? I remember that it was just last fall that we
increased the sign height limit from 20 ft. to 30 ft. and that
was after...isn't that correct, Mr. Whipple, there?
Mr. Whipple: Well, that had to do with the
residential districts and the ground signs with respect to the
residential district. We had proposed, yes, many months ago that
the maximum height be 30 ft. which was the same as it was under
6871 which has been no problem since 1965.
Mr. Manes: But, you know, do you see that
there is enough of an instance or enough instances where the road
varies from the, you know, from the grade where it's not an
expressway situation to change the language?
5 April 4, 1984, Item 13
Planning Advisory Board
3F''"�fM _ 1 a i .. _
sir. ihi�.11�. No, sir, if we were to look, at
t}.e ma,reIt
�r arteriais in the City f Miami, I could see this might
happen down in South Dade, Homestead, our on Tamiami Trail, out
in the County areas there might be a 3 or 4 ft. differential but
I don't see any problem in the City of Miami whatsoever. I do
see a problem though with the language as proposed or as being
proposed by Mr. Hancock.
Mr. Manes: Thank you, Mr. Whipple. Any more
comments or questions from the Board?
Mr. Luaces: Yes, I have a question. If we
increase the height limitation to 35 ft. and leave it as it is
from the ground level, will that be ... will that give you enough
leverage to work it out?
Mr. Hancock: I don't think ... I think there's a
lot of cases in Miami even though we're pretty level around here
that the idea would be not to say it's 1 ft. or 2 ft. or 5 ft. or
whatever, it's to say that it's uniform and if you want to get
something that's uniform that's simple, this is' -the way to go and
you might run into a case where it might be 6 ft. or 7 ft. or it
might be 3 ft. but that's really not the point. What the point
is you're making it a uniform ordinance that you all know it's
going to be 30 ft. above the grade and so there's no misunder-
standing, there's no question, that it's better for my business
because you can see the sign better if it's visible from a car
driving along the road. If you can't see it, it has absolutely
no value for me and you cut out a lot of property owners that
might derive income from leases -.that we would pay because we
can't show the sign from the road and it's just something that
would be uniform. I'm not saying that...I'm not an angel. I'm
sitting up here telling you I would make more money, I would be
able to sell more signs if ybu could see "them from the road, in a
lot of cases you can't and this would solve that problem.
Mr. Manes: Ms. Kolski.
Ms. Kolski: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Whipple, when
did you first get knowledge of Mr. Hancock's proposed wording?
Mr. Whipple: A few moments ago.
Ms. Kolski: Okay, I understand what you're
saying, Mr. Hancock, but I'm afraid to adopt this wording without
a study of the impact of this wording. I would like to know some
of the implications that would be involved.
Mr. Hancock: I want you to know I agree
totally. I think we should study it and I think there's a lot of
other areas that should be studied but this just came to my
attention recently.
Ms. Kolski: What I'm saying ... What I'm saying
is if the Department takes your wording and somehow tries to wor:..
with it so that we can achieve some of what you want and yet
protect the things that we are trying to protect...
Mr. Hancock: Certainly.
Ms. Kolski: ...then maybe we can come up with
a compromised wording. I don't know how anybody else feels about
it but I'd be for deferring this is or continuing or whatever you
have to do.
Mr. Luaces: I agree with you, Pat. I believe
we should do that.
Mr. Manes: Okay, well we are in discussion.
Mr. Whipple, you have a comment there?
Mr, Whipple: Did you want a response,
Ms. Kolski?
6 April 4, 1984, Item 13
Planning Advicory 13o�trd
4y
54
2
;113, Kolski. Sure, go ahead Whipple.
Mr. Whipple: I think Mr. Hancock`s response to
the last question regarding 35 ft, really quite clearly spells
out their desire. Their desir-� is not to have to do with a
variation in grade, their desire is to have a siqn 60 ft. in
height. I think this is really just a subterfuge. If you want
to defer, fine, but our analysis isn't going to be any different
thin what I put before you this evening and that we feel it's a
puve attempt by which to relate advertising signs to expressways+
We believe this is wrong. The law does not permit it now. We
would not recommend permitting it in the future so we see no need
to really give them the leverage by which to say, "Well, hey, you
know, we changed this wording and now were talking above ... 30
ft. above the expressway."
Mr. Hanes: Mr...I have something I just
thought of, sitting here smiling. If we were to, you know, put
some sort of limitation on the distance from the road which the
sign face would be applicable...let's say that if you, you know,
from the grade of the road to which the sign faces, it appears
that the Department's apprehension is that they're going to face
it towards the expressway at 661 ft. and put it at any height but
if the sign and the road facing each other must be, let's say
within 650 ft. or something.
Mr. Whipple: You're dealing in areas which we
believe are, may come up and be addressed in the future either
pursuant to the City Commission's first reading offering that
really shouldn't completely enter in and govern this control
tonight. The control tonight is a very basic control one only of
height. This height has been in effect since 1965 until 9500 was
adopted. We would see no problem other than...in fact, one of
the problems we have is that there is a iquestion right now as to
what height the signs are permitted and we feel it's necessary
that the legislation continue on and that these other problems be
addressed in the proper form and through the proper studies. We
just have a serious problem with the delay and we see a real need
due to that lack of 9500 to get legislation moving.
Mr. Manes: Mr. Mackey.
Mr. Mackey: Bill Mackey, Public ',forks
Department. I'm the Highway Engineer for the City of Miami and I
was just trying to go through in my mind what streets may be
higher, say 5 ft. higher than the abutting property. I can';.
think of any but I'm sure that there may be a few isolated
incidences but I don't think that that's a major problem.
Mr. Manes: Thank you, Mr. Mackey. I
couldn't visualize any more than one corner that that was much
higher, myself, there. Board members, what is your pleasure
there?
Mr. Luaces: I feel that...
Mr. Manes: You can sit down, Mr. Hancock.
Mr. Luaces: ...I go along with Pat and with
both in mind, I'm not thinking that the private sector or the
businessman is using subterfuge. He's trying to make a living
and I feel that we should go and try to find out the solution for
it. He's open to do it and he's not saying that we're out to
kill him. He's saying let's find a solution and a compromise and
I think we could work that out or we should continue the item.
Mr. manes: Any other comments? I would like
to say also...
Mr. Rodriguez: M...
Mr. Manes: ...Did you want to speak?
7 April 41 1984, Item 13
Planning Advisory Board
' 9 ,
t Rod riau!ey: Yeah, I'm a little bit concerned
that, you Know, here we're trying to correct a ,mistake of
something that was...that's not clear in the ordinance and
delaying it more, there may be some applicants trying to get some
permits at this point that the purpose of the language at this
point will be to clarify exactly the intent of the ordinance from
%1 the beginning and the way it was originally drafted. By delaying...
not approving the proposal as we are proposing, we are leaving a
situation that should be cleared up immediately, unclear. We're
ali for clarifying the future. I think we can do that between
the time we do now and we go to the Commission for first reading
if you give us some instructions in looking to different
possibilities but I ... if you make a deciaion tonight of trying to
approve this limitation, I think it's important that we get it
through.
Mr. Manes: Thank you. Mr. Maxwell.
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman, members of the
Board, it's not normally the Law Department's position to, or
place to inform you of what ramifications of your actions might
be. I have in this particular situation, I must inform you that
there exists a serious loophole in 9500 to which this particular
amendment is addressed and to delay it any further subjects the
City to ... well, because there is litigation, I will say it could
work to the City's detriment to defer this item for any prolonged
period of time, even to maybe next month because of the
applications that come in on a continuous basis. Therefcre, I
would recommend that this Board take some action one way or the
other at this particular point because we're only talking about,
the Hancock amendment that is, could be addressed at the City
Commission level and does not amount to what could be considered
a substantial deviation froiZ what this Board is considering at
this point. There rights would not be substantially harmed by
your acting at this particular time. They would have an
opportunity at the City Commission to propose the same language
and the City Commission if they desire to, could accept it at
that particular time but there is...I think time is of the
essence on this particular amendment before you.
Mr. Manes: We thank you very much,
Mr. Maxwell. Does everybody understand what the situation is
here?
Ms. Kolski: Yeah, yeah.
Mr. Hancock:
I might...
Mr. Manes: I'm sorry, the public hearing is
closed there...there will be nc more comments from the public.
You know, the Board is not traditionally in the policy of going
against the recommendations of Planning Department. It's seldom
that the Law Department makes a recommendation of this type here.
Mr. Maxwell is accurate, whatever action we take tonight... still
this matter would be coming up to the City Commission probably
what? before the end of this month, Mr. Maxwell?
Mr.
Maxwell:
That would depend on the
Planning
Department but
I would assume
they're moving it quickly.
Mr.
Manes:
Probably by the end of this
month.
Mr.
Maxwell:
What I would also, for the
record, like
to also say so
Mr. Hancock could understand
it, I'm
not proposing
that you vote
one way or the other.
Mr.
Manes:
Right, you just...
f
Mr.
Maxwell:
I'm just saying that you
should.
say that you
should vote.
I'm not saying how you should
vote...
r
8 April 4, 1984, Item 13
—
Planning Advisory
Board �,
`1t Manes:
recommending...
You're reco,;meldin7... IOU're
Mr. Maxwell: ...You might vote for
Mr. Hancock, you might vote for the Planning Department. That's
not our recommendation. I'm simply saying that we would propose
that...we would suggest that you do something at this time.
r Mr. Manes: Can we...can we get...Ms. Spohn.
Ms. Spohn: Yeah, I'd like to know when we're
voting on this, the wording on here says, "The maximum height
above the ground for commercial at 30 ft." what is the Planning
Board's recommendation?
Mr. Manes: That is the Planning Department's
recommendation.
Ms. Spohn: Oh, that is.
Mr. Manes: That is.
Ms. Spohn: Oh, okay.
Mr. Manes: That's the underlined text on the
following page there under #5.
Mr. Luaces: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Manes: Mr. Luaces.
Mr. Luaces: -I would like to ask a question of
Mr. Mackey. _
Mr. Manes:
Mr. Mackey.
Mr. Luaces: You referred that in the City of
Miami you can not find several places that are above ground more
than 4 or 5 ft. Do you find in your mind a lot of places in
which the sign company could place a billboard and face
expressway and be farther away than 600 ft.?
Mr. Mackey:
that question.
I'm not sure that I can answer
Mr. Luaces: Well, then the other question I
can ask either because it's...that's the problem, we're thinking,
we're opposing this idea that he has to equal the height
limitation to ground level because we are afraid that something
may develop from it but then again nobody knows what could
happen.
Ms. Kolski: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: Let's handle what he develops.
Ms. Kolski: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Manes: Ms. Kolski.
Ms. Kolski: I can understand what you said
but by the same token, number one, we have a very serious
loophole and number two, we can't approve it until it's been
studied so what I think is what we ought to do is fill the legal
loophole that we currently have and then perhaps study it.
Mr. Manes: Yes, the, you know, the Hancock
amendment, as we'll call it here, is subject to further ... future
review, is it not? You know, even after the Commission level
action, whatever action they may take without being...because
this particular item hasn't been presented before us by the
Department, is that correct?
9 April 4, 1984, Item 13
Planning Advisory Board
tiir . ACC: i Ali a{d^ �Q, ar "nci eri t 'r1 i 7 1 go
h c Y
+
the Commission for first reading.
Mr. Maness Go to the Commission but if,
let's say the Commission decided no to act on it, it could
conceivably come back to us at a later time to be addressed, you
1 know, for what it is. Is that accurate?
Mr. Rodriguez: No, not...
Mr. Manes: No...
Mr. Rodriguez: ...unle:;s the Commission refers
back to the Planning Advisory Board, this will be part of the
record and the Hancock Company can go before the Commission to
present their case and it will be, as in this case, they will be
notified as we have been notifying through the news media, you
know, that the item is on the agenda and they will be able to
present their case before the Commission.
Mr. Manes: Okay. Mr. Maxwell.
Mr. Maxwell: It would only come back to this
Board if the Commission made so many changes in it that it would
be considered a whole new ordinance. In that case, it might come
back to you but just the Hancock amendment, if you will, it would
not be necessary for it to come back to this Board. You would
not see it again unless the Commission...
Mr. Manes: 'Directed it.
Mr. Maxwell: ...directed it back because of
the 90 day rule or something like that. _
Mr. Manes: Thank you. Mr. Armesto-Garcia.
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: Yes, I see that this is a storm
_ in a glass of water because the only difference I see here is the
Hancock amendment said, "The maximum height above the ground for
the commercial advertising sign shall not exceed 30 ft. from the
grade of the road to which the sign faces." What the Department
is the same thing, they say, "Thirty feet," but they don't say
from the grade, they say, "above grade". It's only one word
different.
Mr. Manes: Well, no, that's not the bone of
contention that is that which way the sign faces. If the sign is
facing the expressway then a different grade would apply. The
grade is not the problem it's which grade are you using the way
the...
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: We are pulling the horses before
the cart. That is something to be developed in the future and we
can.handle that or other people will handle that in the future
with what develops. We have not here a crystal ball to see what
is going to happen tomorrow or two years from now. We are here
tonight on April the 4th with a problem and the problem is only
one word "grade" or "from". That is the way I see it and I think
that Mr. Hancock, also, can go to the Supreme Court but we don't
have to penalize a taxpayer with those expenses. I think that
here tonight we have the opportunity to fill the loophole and
correct the mistake that has been done with adopting this or
including this in the proposal of the Department. I don't
see ... is nothing wrong why the Department can not accept a
friendly amendment from the taxpayer, something that they make a
mistake and let's recognize it. Not everybody because works for
the City has, has the wisdom of deciding what is right and what
is wrong. In the same way, here, we are faced with a problem.
let's solve the problem and take the bull by the horns not defer
it to any future meeting. Let's do it tonight, The only
10 April 4, 1984, Item 13
Planning Advisory Board
i
9
-AV
d i " «' a ro• (� r• �z r 1I - t1 , •5 , �f n :. t` +l e wr•� r -3 tt � e tt ✓y� ti 4, , r {
L .. �... J i • t. - l ~i v �T t .� :) Y l. �dl'I .:.1 .. r C �.I a i. J 4 i t r J i� i. '
,1b^,:r Qrc3d'.?it Th3tt ~} Jli'1fit, ynjtj:Iny ?is' 1s can
insult to my intelligence.
Mr. Manes: No, that...okay, Ms. Kolski.
Ms. Kolski: Yes, Mr. Chairman, my feeling is
this. We have an ordinance. We used to have 6871 that contained
these provisions and it's worked for us since 1965. We know how
it works and we know all of the implications involved. We have
brand new wording that Mr. Hancock handed us tonight and maybe
there's merit in it but I don't know enough about it. I want to
know a lot more but by the same token, I still want to go ahead
and at least put our old provisions in in order to get the
protection that we need right now and then perhaps study this
matter and come up with something else to change it a little bit
and still protect the expressway deal.
Mr. Manes: Ms. Spohn, did you want to
_ comment? Okay. I have one more comment and then I think I'm
going to ask for a motion. My feelings are this. As the Law
Department's advised us, we have a serious loophole that needs to
be filled. The Planning Department and Mr. Whipple in particular
as this is his department in the Planning Department, feels very
strongly about the wording of the proposed ordinance and the
wording that the Planning Department has proposed by...the
Planning Department's proposal and the Hancock, as we're calling
it, the Hancock amendment. I feel that ... and, you know, the
potential loopholes that we're opening up here with adopting, you
know, without further study the Hancock amendment is opening up
possibly a very large door. This item is going to be before the
City Commission in the very near future and if the City
Commission feels that this amendment merits to be the further
consideration or action they will either take it or send it back
to us and I think that's a Commission level decision. -
Mr. Luaces: Mr. Chairman, I feel .the
Commission level decision...they appoint us because we have a
say. I ... my feeling is that I will recommend what I feel is good
for business, which is above grade. I will recommend it and if
they feel and they find the loopholes, let them find the
loopholes and send it back to us then.
Mr. Manes:
Okay, fine.
Mr. Luaces: It works both ways so at this
point I would recommend to pass this...
13...
Mr. Manes: You're making a motion to...
Mr. Luaces: Yes.
Mr. Manes: ...adopt amendment number or item
Mr. Luaces: Number 13.
Mr. Manes: ...and incorporate...
Mr. Luaces: Incorporating from the grade of
the road to which the sign faces.
Mr. Manes: Okay, the wording from the
Hancock amendment there. -
Mr. Correa: I'll second it.
Mr. Manes: Seconded. Is there any further
discussion on the amendment?
Ms. Kolski: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Manes: Ms. Kolski.
11 April 4, 1984, Item 13
Planning Advisory Board
s`—
F
LMs. Kolski: I woul only asp: my fellow Boari
members to please consider that we may be putting something in
here and someone may be able to come along and put in some rather r-
unsightly things. We don't know all the implications. It's
rather dangerous to vote on an amendment unless it's been fully
r
studied.
Mr. Manes: Okay, is there any further
d L7cussion?
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: In the same way, I would like to
recommend to vote for Mr. Luaces and second by Mr. Correa, I will
vote for that because if something happens tomorrow, let's worry
about that tomorrow. The people who will handle that in the next
meeting, they will worry about that. Why we have to go back
again to pull the horses before the cart.
Mr. Manes: Okay. _
Ms. Kolski: Mr. Chairman, probably a lot of
things that we're unhappy with in the City today is because
somebody said let them worry about it tomorrow. I think we're
here today to make the plans so that tomorrow is more enjoyable
in this City.
Mr. Luaces: Mr. Chairman. What I'm referrinc
to, Pat, is that if the City Commission knows the Planning Board~
knows and will find those loopholes or those errors, they have
time to present it to the City Commission before they approve or
act on it.
Ms. Kolski: Well, I understand that but the
City Commission can recommenb a study and' they probably would
recommend a study after seeing Mr. Hancock's amendment. I'm not
saying that I'm totally opposed to that. I'm saying let's not
take a chance and do it tonight. Let's wait until a 'study has
been completed. Let's fill the loophole tonight.
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: We are filling the loophole in
this way with their part and his part. We're putting both parts
together and filling the loophole then the City Commission will
- take the whole thing as a whole or divide it. That's their
problem but we are filling the loophole. We have...I will sleep
very well tonight with my conscience because I am pulling
together two people and sending the two thinking together to the
next meeting, to the above us hierarchy, and they will decide if
we were wrong or we were right. We can not decide if we are
right or we are wrong. They will do it.
Ms. Kolski: Mr. Chairman. We're filling the
loophole by putting them both together. What I am suggesting is
that we fill the loophole with the old wording. The City
Commission is going to have in all of it's information,
Mr. Hancock's suggested wording. I'm saying it's potentially
harmful to combine the wording if Mr. Mackey couldn't even tell
us what places in the City a sign could be put up. This thing
needs to be studied. You just ... you just don't combine wording
like that. You study it.
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: That is the problem, Mr. Chairman,
that after so many years...after so many years with the City they
can not tell us what even Ms. Kolski wants to know. Now, if in
so many years they can not, how do you think,
Ms. Kolski, they're going to know in two or three days?
Ms. Kolski: Did you honestly expect a man to
stand there and tell you where all these signs could be put just
like that at the drop of a hat?
Mr. Manes: Mr. Luaces.
12 April 4, 1984, Item 1.3
Plannin? 11dvis.nry Board ��
i.
6
Mr. . Luac^s:
That is
my problem. He
was able
to tell r,e that he could
not
remember:
a place in Miami
where it
could be five over grade
and
if he can
do that, he can
rernember
- the expressway because if
I
think a little
bit, maybe I
will be
able to know which expressways
are in
Miami.
Ms. Kolski:
Sir...
i Mr. Luaces: I think he was...
Ms. Kolski: ...he works with roads.
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: Call the question.
Mr. Manes: We have a motion to call the
question by Mr. Armesto-Garcia. Is there a second?
Mr. Correa: No, no...
Mr. Luaces: Call the question.
Mr. Manes: Okay, we have a second. There's
no discussion? Please call the roll on calling the question.
Mr. Rodriguez:
item 13 as...
Mr. Manes:
The motion is for approval of
No...
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: -No, call the question.
Mr. Manes: Just to call the question. Yes
or no, do we end debate.
Mr. Rodriguez: Oh! No, I wanted to make sure
that I have the right motion.
Ms. Spohn: Yeah.
Mr. Manes: Okay, but we're just ... we're
ending debate first.
thirds.
Mr. Rodriguez: Okay, I'm sorry.
(Secretary called roll on calling the question.)
AYES: Messrs. Manes, Luaces, Correa and
Armesto-Garcia
NAYES: Ms. Kolski and Spohn
ABSENT: Messrs. Benjamin and Diego
Mr. Manes: We have 5, 7. We need two-
Mr. Rodriguez: No, we have 4 to 2.
Mr. Manes: Four to two?
Mr. Rodriguez: MmHm.
Mr. Manes: Then we have two-thirds. Okay,
debate is over, please ... okay, I'll state the motion and the
second and then we'll call the roll. The motion is for approving
item #13 as presented and incorporating the, more or less, the
last line of the Hancock amendment here, as we're calling it,
incorporating the wordage "grade of the road to which the sign
faces" and the motion was made by Mr. Luaces, seconded by
Mr. Correa and please call the roll.
13 April 4, 1984, Item 13
Planning Advisory Board #
• All
r-a, lad --n the yues".i.)n. )
AYES: Messrs. 1juaces, Armesto-rGarcia and Correa
NAPES: Ms. Kolski and Spohn
Messr. Manes
ABSENT: Messrs. Benjamin and Diego
/ Mr. Rodriguez: The motion fails 3 to 3.
Mr. Manes: Now, Ms. Kolski, what's in order
here is, since you are the proponent on the other end, an
alternative amendment or an alternative .,Lotion.
Mr. Armesto-Garcia: I will propose one if she has...
Mr. Manes: No, Ms ... okay, Ms. Kolski.
Ms. Kolski: Mr. Chairman...
Mr. Manes: Item 13.
Ms. Kolski: Mr. Chairman, I move approval of
item 13 as presented by the Planning Department,
Mr. Man -es:
Is there a second?
Ms. Spohn: I'll second it.
Mr. Manes: Thank you. Is there any
discussion on the motion? Motion is to approve item 13 as
presented. There being no discussion, please call the roll.
i
_ (Secretary called roll on the motion.)
AYES: Ms. Kolski and Spohn
, Messrs. Manes
NAYES: Messrs. Luaces, Correa and Armesto-Garcia
ABSENT: Messrs. Benjamin and Diego
Mr. Rodriguez: The motion fails 3 to 3.
Mr. Manes: Thank you. This item will now go
on to the City Commission deemed as being denied in its orginal
form and we wish you a lot of luck there, Mr. Hancock. Thank you
for coming.
Okay, we're back to our initial or our original agenda
and we're up to agenda item number 3, I believe.
ed
14 April 4, 1984, Item 13
Planning Advisory Board
e
DF,CI,ARATION OF
KNOW AU, MEN 13Y V11: il; P1;.`-i1;D1TS
I'riAT the nndei:3tgned, ,JEM,' JO ICORPOtA`I''[ON, lire h.j titt> owner of.
the fen simple title to the property letjally ds-_�s ribod :its:
;_,tat s 1, 2, and 3 of .rMADO, accor.,.1 ing tca tho
Plat theret:,F as re,::orded in Plat Book 10, 3t
-- Page 19, of the Pub1 is Re or,.]s oC Dade
County, Florida.
make.; the following voluntary Decl�arati,-)n oll Restrictions cov-
ering and running with the above referenced property, specifying
that this Declaration shall constitute a covenant running with
the land and shall be binding upon the undersigned and all part-
ies deraigning title through it. These Restrictions during their
lifetime shall be for the benefit of and a limitation upon all
present and future owners of the real property and to the City of
Miami, Florida, for the pulbl.ic welfare.
1. The owner is prescntly an applicant before the City
Commission of the City of Miami, Florida to rezone the subject
property from RS-2/2 to CR-1./7.
2. If the property is rezoned to CR-1/7, the owner, will
not use said property for the following purposes;
(a) Residence hotels, lodging houses, touri:5t homes, and
guest homes, with quarters rented for periods one week or
more, hotels and other transient facility.
(b) Private clubs, lodges, fraternities, sororities and the
like.
(c) Playgrounds, playfields, and auditoriums.
(d) Package liquor stores, lounges and bars or any sale of
alcoholic beverages.
(e) Restaurants, tea rooms, and cafes.
(f) Any use which would necessarily produce noxious odors
or loud noises so as to create a nuisance.
(g) The operation of any drive-in or drive-thru teller
facilities for financial institutions.
(h) Repair shops.
(i) Retail establishments for the sale of any food producto
including grocery stores, meat markets and bakeries.
3. If the property is rezoned to CR-1/7, the following
covenants and restrictions shall be applicable to the property:
(a) At no time will any wall be constructed on the property
which would unduly obstruct the view or visibility from
adjacent lots.
(b) All .air. -conditioning units and fans :shall he installe1
on the roof of the building so as to avoid noise and heat to
adjacent loth,
91
Ak
(c) No
refuse
collection shall
take place except Crum S.W.
22nd Avenue
and
all such refuse
collection shall take place
after 9:00
A*M.
and before 000
P.M.
(d) Landscaping shall 1),n plantod in conFormance WK the
City of Miami landscaping code.
(e) All security lights be Kracted away Efom a residential
area.
(f) Hours of operation shai! ne permitted between 7 A.M.
and 9 P.M. Jai ly.
(g) The use of lots 4 and 5 WIT lie for residential
purposes only.
5. This Declaration of Restrictions may be modified,
amended or released as to any portion of the lands covered hereby
by written instrument executed by the holder or holders of the
Coe simple title to the subject property and by the City of Miami
or its authorized representative, provided, that no such mod-
ification, amendment or release shall the made without a prior
public hearing being held by the City of Miami.
6. This Declaration shall enure to the benefit of the
owner, the City of Miami, and all property owners within 300 feet
and may be enforced by the City of Miami and by such owners of -
property within a 300 foot radius of the subject property by a
suit in equity against the then owners of the subject property
violating these restrictions, after a determination that a
violation exists is made by the City Commission and the Code
Enforcement Board of the City of Miami.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set its and seal
this Aday of' 1905.
JEMAJO CPO ORATION
By
Pablo Perez, President
STATE OF FLORIDA
SS:
COUNTY OF DADE
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of ' A-- - 4 , 1985, by Pablo Perez, as President of Jemajo
corporat , n. - corporation, on behalf of said corpora-
tion.
CARD-1
Notary Public
State of Florida at Large
my commission Expires:
2
f f !P; J�! "I
101 5,
9952
CITY OF MIAMI C'(141ISSIONERS
mimil Cl'ry [iAa
35W PAN IVIERICAN DRIVE
MIAMI, FL. 33253-0/08
GENTLEMEN:
WE REGRET THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO WRITE A SECOND TIME TO OPPOSE THE CON-
STRUCTION OF A SHOPPING PLAZA ON THE CORNER OF SW 16 ST. AND SW 22 AVE,
A SHOPPING CENTER ON THIS CORNER WOULD ADD TO AN ALREADY HAZARDOUS SITE
IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC FLOW, &1, 16 ST. HAS BECOME A THRUWAY DURING PEAK
TRAFFIC HOURS, WE ALSO OPPOSE THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF THIS PROPERTY
BECAUSE VIE ALREADY RAVE A VARIETY OF SHOPPING AREAS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY
TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD,
FURTHERMORE, WE FEEL IT WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CRIMINAL ACTS IN
A NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH HAS SHOWN AN INCREASE IN BREAK-INS,
WE INVITE YOU TO VISIT THIS SITE AND GET ACQUAINTED IN-DEPTH WITH OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD. YOUR NEGATIVE VOTE WILL ALLOW US TO MAINTAIN OUR PLEASANT,
SAFE AND WELL -CARED FOR ENVIRONMENT IN A STABLE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE ARE NOT
OPPOSED TO CHANGE, BUT WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT AN ALREADY BUSY TRAFFIC AREA
CAN BE IMPROVED BY ADDED CONGESTION. THANK YOU,
YOURS SINCERELY,
?HN VD 4U�T��STTEEENSMA
14
Mayor Kaurice Ferro
Miami Ci ty "la 110
1500 Pan s e ri corn ?)ri yr o
Yi ami o Florida 3323-3-0' 0 �o
Dear Mr. Mayor,,
�p O
2207 Sbwd 16th Terrace,
Miatti, Florida. 33145d
:J
Janwiry 22, 1985,,
d
P� Jetaa jo Corporation, 02, 9500
Atlas RhnGe from P.g-21 = '„v ��i2•-1%7
Z am enclosing a copy* of onr ri ply addreesel to the J-amu jo Corporation,
vhi,ch reply 13 in response to laura 'Tindell,»;Iowelln� cover letter
of Jaruary 18, 1985n forwarding a copy of thFir Declar.atiot� of
Restrictions* which :Declaration is ostentiiblyr in full compliance with
the Commission's strong alvice to them of December 20. 1r34*
Because of the urgency of the situation, xs we now perceive it, we
ask that our letter of response fir its entir, cty be entered into the
pu,bl.ic record of the Januar. L� 24th meting convening to consider this
rezoning petition*
Sincerely yourso
Gertrude R. Marks
Enclosure
cc: Cosmni ssioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Hiller Dawkins
Commissioner Demetrio Perez
Commissioner J.L. Plummer
wpm,
Cl c t I
On
14, 1
2 77
V
c
On cr
C
w
v4
�h
t
n n:: In tl-.at p`cn,
5 s icr,..! ri mv-, i r g for sp-clfl,- sl.At:im-- r-lni'Anz to t
tv`-,-,I an' r-,j,!-,r for
Jk—
pl pt:a -,- r.--: t wl th h-I iz i-.- -.� to I cn Out thf,
rr, i r, L:T i te n,,j of c c, n c -,� t-,, , e. t (-• 7 ex ill -
-air.- i t-- h-r- tlr:f. sin -Cc n--?ithTr ue ncr-
(to my !7,>--n tlh,i ti-xt Or cf thl> s 'L
,- i {': ivy*
to t'-- f'.- -
rc
in nir-71 5,17 11 W�' C 0
+ 'v
is v� -y :I- E 1
hell i i�om—y ,n t hrt i o r
jTSr.M 4-p,11--tic:z-: of y,-",:r
t Is
C. u
c.
.41
1ic
t—
— —
— — — — —
— — —
— — — —
I w!f7`.
tc
w.11 nct
m-C-
any c.,f F,
It 15
n;�
,a
yc,
T t
I
A I I rl
Ti-,- fir
mi
rr,
s c, 1- ry
wa v c
W;cam--t
t
Vi
,7—
V ta
1 a 7, 1C 1
V
r"V th-
71 1, C 7 V 17 1
0'. 71�
rj-
n
•
t 7 oar
aftTr 30 ely= 7-
t,. rc.
y n, a c
!r,111 a III, cr a
az
in 7n-
-W�� rm V cz
to 04 n"
Y: .1
U� 1 W in V a L
cc"- rM A n-11%Py
of an, VAY FW
R M 11 it nil
C-7- -Yk! g7l 15 ar-n-
th-
A :O Cr L7
I
cc
tin W -0 4
j!'5 1,
TrA
an! r a
coveral th-s- ccunp
rr., thavp ccn:-:na
hoirs the
roarm EnAWMAly why 1ot3
t
W 5 were wlth!rayn
froi
Fzurily, rAn
yjV th!y
tIttrilcil,
an it apv-Ap- to ma,
your
prclkq
r-
cr-IMAty. TE-
n-Ighlol: L,�, 1
an! ary,7j;2Z V-rL!l C77MIt-
,
rj yonr pr-:17-
meAn boNry th- Mlazi
City Gc-AnAs�-rs,
hut
can fin! no fallcn thrw�jh On
termn of
In light
of the
currmt aa vast mr-ranne or
prcff-rel
ec7ennOn,
fj 1.,
W
1
111
AGO?
�SPWRPRIOR R
h
1�
t li
IV
7
-
C SY
��,.• r .. �. .. ::t ..
s. �
,..� �, :�
t _ _ .'
99-152
.. -. ... .. -. ..
..� L i...lie .. -,. 7 ... _ .,
Ly
_. r - -. .. t, ,,. _ -...
.. ... ... t
.. _ .. .. _ ...
yrc
.... _, .. -.. a .. :.
.. '✓. _. .`.
or? DES �n
week or
l
9ZP-)' 2 1
5rry p"T"n. �i?Eq ,r rr ^wigA=.n�: 'Y •*kt'. •.
CITY OF IM1I.6 1AIif= UNITY, FLORIDA
AL NgTICIE
MIAMI REVIEW
AND DAILY RECORD
Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and
Legal Holidays
Miami, Dade County, Florida.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DADE:
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared
Octeima V. Ferbeyre, who on oath says that she is the Supervisor
of Legal Advertising of the Miami Review and Daily Record, a
daily (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper,
published at Miami in Dade County, Florida; that the attached
copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice
in the matter of
T'" i OF
-2
in the ... ..... Court.
was published in said newspaper in the issues of
):].I, 1918�5
Affiant further says that the said Miami Review and Daily
Record is a newspaper published at Miami in said Dade County,
Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been
continuously published in said Dade County, Florida, each day
(except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in
Mlemi is :aid DaA? County, Florida, for a nariod of one year
next precedi„g tke H-31 publication .d tl,e ..ttached copy of
advertisement: and aitiant further says that she has neither
pa;d nor p,amisad any (•arson, ".rm or corpora;ion any discount,
rebate commission or refund for 're purpose ut securing this
ative ment for .C.G� publicatio said newspaper.
~ 1 Sworn ]p and
d sutlscribed before me this
1.:;t: day of A.D. 19 3it�
Sonia He an
Notary Public, Staj6-of F odda at large
(SEAL) :fr"7 *�` • '
My Commission exdkEs
its •_i,;
MR 144
Ilt h 1
ntervstod opr ;<« , &01 i�3kri r7ntlf-P i,)�rt g,v
.;r , '•I4' r hr ',tp�, , +a_ ,_i r. 1r+"- t'.
u t �;'.c'-h a•t't '�hJr� "F;F.'i_fJiNCi is L.��.i C1:� i?i�E:7!
i:Ar.1, 1 41l`4,]; 0,F4DII Al`fC:f_ C F TPf
I',V iilAiA) c i).a's;!A, i'lY (".HANGING THE ZONING Ci,AS
ATiz-j!4 ;'tF APPROXIMATELY _i11 13 SOUTHWEST 2,',
PA14%All, F"i_ORIDA AMC%RE PARTICUL.APLY
i�EC;s:_f2fK3Et�r IAFREOl; FROM RG-t,x (3ENERAI_ RESIDEN�
TiAi_ LONE APJC+ TV>!t7 FAMILY) TO CR3i7 COMMERCIAL
PE` 10ENTIAL i,CIENE PA..L.i BY MAKIN(_; FINDINGS, AND BY
MAKING ALL, THE '4ECCSSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO
Ill OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE
NO s'Y;00 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE
SECTION :0,). THEREOF, CONTAINING A REPEALER PRO
VISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO 9951
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS ORDI.
NANCE NO. 9500. THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY APPLYING THE HC-3: RESIDEN-
TIAL OFFICE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
TO ADDITIONAL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE "J.W:
WARNER HOUSE," LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 111
SOUTHWEST 5TH AVENUE, (MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS: AND BY MAK-
ING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 36 OF
SAID ZONING ATLAS: CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVI-
SION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO, 9952
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDI-
NANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA. BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLAS-
SIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2210 SOUTHWEST 16TH
STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 1600.02 SOUTHWEST 22ND
AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RS-212 ONE FAMILY DETACHED
RESIDENTIAL TO CR-1/7 COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL
(NEIGHBORHOOD) BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAK-
ING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 39 OF
SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO.
9500 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3,
SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PRO-
VISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO. 9953
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF ORDINANCE
NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 15 ENTITLED "SPI: SPE-
CIAL PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICTS," BY ADDING A NEW
SECTION 15170 ENTITLED "SPI.17: SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
OVERLAY DISTRICT," AND ASSOCIATED NEW SECTIONS
15171 THRU 15173; PROVIDING FOR INTENT, EFFECT, AND
CLASS C SPECIAL PERMIT REQUIREMENT; AND
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABIL-
ITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO.9954
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDI-
NANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY REMOVING THE SPI.3: COCONUT
GROVE MAJOR STREETS OVERLAY DISTRICT FROM THE
AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY MARY STREET, A LINE
RANGING FROM APPROXIMATELY 100 TO 200 FEET SOUTH
OF AND PARALLEL TO TIGERTAIL AVENUE, AVIATION AVE-
NUE, AND TIGERTAIL AVENUE, (MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAK-
ING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGES NO.45.46
OF SAID ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PRO-
VISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO. 9955
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF ORDINANCE
NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 515.1 TO DELETE
AN ERRONEOUS REFERENCE, SECTION 606 TO PERMIT
CERTAIN FACILITIES IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DIS-
TRICTS, SUBSECTIONS 612.6 TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE
PERTAINING TO LIGHT PLANES, SECTION 1568 TO CLAR-
IFY OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS, SUB-
SECTIONS 2000.1.1 AND 2000.1.2.1 TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE
RELATIVE TO VARIATIONS TO FLOOR AREA RATIOS AND
OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, SUBSECTIONS 2003Z TO
CLARIFY LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS,
2008.8.1 TO CLARIFY RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO MUL-
TIPLE FAMILY DISTRICTS, 2102.1 TO INCLUDE ONE•FAM14Y
SEMI-DETACHED, TWO-FAMILY DETACHED MULTIPLE
DWELLINGS AND ADDING NEW LANGUAGE PERTAINING
TO THE USE OF NON -CONFORMING LOTS, 2102.1,1 TO
PROVIDE FOR CLASS C SPECIAL PERMITS FOR USES EQUIV-
ALENT TO ONE -FAMILY SEMI-DETACHED, TWO-FAMILY
DETACHED, AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, 2510.2.3 TO CLAR.
IFY HEIGHT AND LIGHT PLANES, 2510.3.2 TO PROVIDE
FOR NOTICE, 2510;2,3 TO CLARIFY HEIGHT AND LIGHT
PLANES, 2510.3,2 TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE; AND SEC-
TION 3004 PERTAINING TO NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, SUB.
SECTION 3101.1 TO PROHIBIT FLOOR AREA RATIO VARI-
ANCES,A
ANCES, AND 3602 TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF "FAM-
ILY'; FURTHER, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL SCHEDULE
OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS: PAGE 2, BY ADDING "RESI-
DENTIAL" TO THE TITLE OF TABLES 1 AND 2; PAGE 3, BY
ADDING "NON-RESIDENTIAL" TO THE TITLE OF TABLES 3
AND 4; AND PAGE 4, CR-2, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
(COMMUNITY). PERMISSIBLE ONLY BY SPECIAL. PERMIT
AND CR•3, PERMISSIBLE GENERALLY, BY APPLYING THE
PROVISIONS TO "NEW" AUTOMOBILES; CONTAINING A
RCDFAI KR P�lJL/1Slt]151 AALLi A CGVPRARIj iTY rA A.LISE_..
- !
la bY3ln LOIS1 ma _ IU+7 x t i rittf tr , ,: n+.i , f
�tdvgytr�i4ma,n1 ic,r puhS , a ,rail jn tff$y .f„} �;i;s:,r� ...
'SwIJm Iq kind I,hs r r he0 ??rouI
;Inv et A 7
Sonia Hailitall
Nolaiy Pub(ir, Siatd of £lortcla at iarwr
i5EAL)
My Commission expires b�C. 23, ig96.
MR 144
-.efx( I M I
� %.. 9 f s_; e.
;-
{
i�fp� ltgs(a f f9 iIIA Al ,( .Af"AA t.S r
r nt,{) raAFa,1_;.# 1 r1r fii{.I,_ AVFNtIF4vIA'irIN tvi-
t+l_jE: A N P 7 (AFH,,cri- A,JEt�t1E, ItlriFtE f'�x.�t {C,tJi.Alrtt�,
d?f if;Rili£fCi tM (JiN4°;S, AND NY
IN('; Al L 1"1-4E. +i i:;F'i At?Y CHANGES ON RAt F:S IN 4`,r16
CIF SA11) Z ,?NING A'T'L.AS, CONI'AININ(i A REPEALER = il.
VISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE,
ORDINANCE NO. 9955
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF ORDINANCE
NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 515,1 TO DELETE
AN ERRONEOUS REFERENCE, SECTION 606 TO PERMIT
CERTAIN FACILITIES IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DIS-
TRICTS, SUBSECTIONS 612.6 TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE
PERTAINING TO LIGHT PLANES, SECTION 1568 TO CLAR-
IFY OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS, SUB-
SECTIONS 2000.1.1 AND 2000.1.2.1 TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE
RELATIVE TO VARIATIONS TO FLOOR AREA RATIOS AND
OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, SUBSECTIONS 2003.5 TO
CLARIFY LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS,
2008.8.1 TO CLARIFY RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO MUL.
TIPLE FAMILY DISTRICTS, 2102.1 TO INCLUDE ONE -FAMILY
SEMI-DETACHED, TWO-FAMILY DETACHED MULTIPLE
DWELLINGS AND ADDING NEW LANGUAGE PERTAINING
TO THE USE OF NON -CONFORMING LOTS, 2102.1.1 TO
PROVIDE FOR CLASS C SPECIAL PERMITS FOR USES EQUIV-
ALENT TO ONE -FAMILY SEMI-DETACHED, TWO-FAMILY
DETACHED, AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, 2510.2.3 TO CLAR-
IFY HEIGHT AND LIGHT PLANES, 2510.3.2 TO PROVIDE
FOR NOTICE, 2510.2.3 TO CLARIFY HEIGHT AND LIGHT
PLANES, 2510.3.2 TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE; AND SEC-
TION 3004 PERTAINING TO NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, SUB-
SECTION 3101.1 TO PROHIBIT FLOOR AREA RATIO VARI-
ANCES, A
ANCES, AND 3602 TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF "FAM-
ILY": FURTHER, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL SCHEDULE
OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS: PAGE 2, BY ADDING "RESI.
DENTIAL" TO THE TITLE OF TABLES 1 AND 2; PAGE 3, BY
ADDING "NON-RESIDENTIAL" TO THE TITLE OF TABLES 3
AND 4; AND PAGE 4, CR 2, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
(COMMUNITY). PrP" S^Inl F ANI.Y rry nrr_CIAI. rrpmn -r
AND I I'LWAl',>`51131,E ULNEHALLY, BY APPLYING ll-tE
ppOVISIONS 1() "NEW" AUTOMOBILES; CONTAINING A
t1EJ`F/,LER PROVISION ,:,Np A SEVERASIt..ITY CLAUSE
ORDINANCE NO 99 i6
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDI-
NANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLAS-
SIFICATION OF THE NREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY
SOUTHWEST 27TH AVENUE (GRAPELAND BOULEVARD), A
LINE APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET SOUTH OF, AND PARAL-
LEL TO, TIGERTAIL AVENUE, AVIATION AVENUE, AND
TIGERTAIL AVENUE, PER PLAN ON FILE IN THE DEPART.
MENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDS ADMINISTRA-
TION, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); FROM
RG-215: GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO RO.316: RESIDENTIAL
OFFICE; MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE
NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGES NO. 45 AND 46 OF
SAID ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVI-
SION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
ORDINANCE NO. 9957
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDI-
NANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, 13Y APPLYING THE SPI:17 SOUTH
BAYSHORE DRIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE AREA GEN-
ERALLY BOUNDED BY McFARLANE ROAD, SOUTH
BAYSHORE DRIVE. A LINE APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST
OF, AND PARALLEL TO AVIATION AVENUE (EXCLUDING
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AVIATION AND TIGERTAIL
COMPRISED OF AN AREA 100' ALONG AVIATION AND
150' ALONG TIGERTAIL AVENUE), TIGERTAIL AVENUE, MARY
STREET. GRAND AVENUE, AND A LINE APPROXIMATELY
250 FEET WEST OF, AND PARALLEL TO MARY STREET, TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING, (MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAK-
ING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGES NO, 45
AND 46 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
(t11372) u ��,ya RALPH G. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
SS CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Pubticabon of thls Notice on the 1 day of February 1985
11 85,020167M