Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-84-0721J-84-344(a) 7/3/84 RESOLUTION NO. 84-721 A RESOLUTION AFFTRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 9500,, ARTICLh XX, SECTION 2003.4, ECTTO N 2(11.6.3 AND SCHEDULE OF DIS`I.'RIC„T_ 1RE6i1I_,ATT0tv,1;, PAGI 4 OF 6, TRANSI- TIONAL USES, STRUCTURES ANI) I?EQi7I:IZEtdIN`i'S, CR (COMPIERCTAL-RISTi)Et3TIA1_, (GENERAI_,T_,Y) I.a. OF ORDINANCE 9500, AS AMENDED, TO PERMIT THE ERECTION OF TWO (2) DISH ANTENNAS AND ONE (1) BROADCASTING ANTENNA AT 2501. NORTHWEST 7TH STREET, APPROXIMATELY 740-742 NORTHWEST 25TH AVENUE AND 741-743 NORTHWEST 26TH AVENUE, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), AS PER PLANS ON FILE, WI_H A PROPOSED 10' YARD FOR ALL ANTENNAS (45.65' R11_,QUIRED) AND A PROPOSED 86' PENETRATION OF THE LIGHT PLANE I3Y THE BROADCAST.' ANTENNA (NO PENETRATION OF LIGHT PLANE ALLOWED), ZONED RG-1/3 GENERAL RESI- DENTIAL (ONE & TWO FAMILY), SUBJECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PIRMIT WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF JUNE 28, 1984, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting of March 19, 1984, Item No. 7, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 27-84, by a 5 to 0 vote granting the variance as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department has taken an appeal to the City Commission from approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, after careful consideration of this matter finds that there are peculiar circumstances affecting this parcel of land, practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships which would impair the owner's right to the reasonable use of the property without the grant of variance as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The decision of the Miami Zoning Board in this matter is affirmed and the request for a variance from Ordinance No. 9500, Article XX, Section 2003.4, Section 2016.3 CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JU14 28 i RLSOLu, C3 tB i and Schedule of District Regul.ati.ons, Page 4 of 6, Transitional Uses, Strtictm es and Regis _r.empnt s, CR Commercial -Residential (Generally) I.a.. of Ordinanc -. 9500, as amended, to pprrtit the erection of (2) dish ani.cnnris and one (1) b nadcasti-ng antenna nt 2501. Northwest 7i_h Stt eel , approximat:cl.y 740-742 Northwest 25th Avenue, and 741-743 Northwest 26th Avenue, more particularly described as the E 1/2 of B1-ock 5, RIVERSIDE, FARMS SUPP (2--88) and Lots 5, 6, 7 & 8 Less the east 5 feet of the west 10 feet of said Lots 7 & 8, Block 5, MERRICK'S SUB (4-189) and TRACT "A" CHANNEL 23 SUB (121-82) formerly Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5, Block 6 RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) and Lots 1 & 6, Block 6, RIVERSIDE FAR[�S SUPP (2-88), as per plans on file, with a proposed 10' yard for all antennas (45.65' required) and a proposed 86' penetration of the light plane by the broadcast antenna (no penetration of light plane allowed), zoned RG-1/3 General Residential (One & Two Family), subject to the issuance of a building permit within 12 months of June 28,. 1984, the effective date of the rezoning of the property, is hereby granted. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of June , 1984. ATTEST: RALPF G. ONGIE City Clerk PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: it �J f4 .. 14IRIAM MTf EIR s istant City Attorney Maurice A. Ferre MAURICE A. FERRE, Mayor APPROVED hS 1"O F0101 AND CORRECTNESS: vM" ` t OkiL t;ARCIA-PEDR SA City Attorney GMM/pb/265 -2- 84-i21 CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA 12' INTER-OFFICEE MEMORANDUM 'O Howard V. Gary :APE April 2, 1984 FtLE City Manager SU©JECt RESOLUTION - APPEAL BY PLANNING DEPT VARIANCE 2501 NW 7 ST, APPROX 740-742 NW 25 io s e -L n AVE & 741-43 NW 26 AVE �RCNI Director „EFFf7Etr.r_5 Planning and Zoning Boards COMMISSION AGENDA - APRIL 26, 1984 Administration Department _N,UUo.;,,t> PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS It is recommended that a review be made of the Variance grante-U by the Zoning Board to permit the erection of two (2) dish antennas and one (1) broadcasting antenna at 2501 NW 7 Street, approximately 740-742 NW 25 Avenue and 741-43 NW 26 Avenue, with a proposed 10' yard for all antennas (45.65' required) and a proposed 86' penetration of the light plane by the broadcast antenna (no penetration of light plane allowed). The Zoning Board, at its meeting of March 19, 1984, Item 7, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution ZB 27-84 by a 5 to 2 vote, granting the variance from Article 20, Section 2003.4, Section 2016.3 and Schedule of District Regulations, page 4 of 6, Transitional Uses, Structures and Requirements, CR Corimercial-Residential (Generally) 1.a. of Ordinance 9500, as amended, to permit the erection of two (2) dish antennas and one (1) broadcasting antenna at 2501 NW 7 Street, approximately 740-742 NW 25 Avenue and 741-43 NW 26 Avenue, also described as the E 1/2 of Block 5, RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88); Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 less the E 5' of the W 10' of said Lots 7 and 8, Block 5, MERRICK'S SUB (4-189); TRACT "A", CHANNEL 23, SUB (121-82), formerly Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 6, RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) and Lots 1 and 6, Block 6, RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88), as per revised plans submitted on March 19, 1984, with a proposed 10' yard for all antennas (45.65' required) and a proposed 86' penetration of the light plane by the broadcast antenna (no penetration of light plane allowed) with a fence as high as permitted and installed prior to any antenna construction, written assurances to the neighbor that TV reception will not be affected and the tower will be secured against hurricanes or other elements, final landscape approval by the Planning Depart.rient and with the voluntary dedication of the E 5' of the E 1/2 of Block 5 and the E 10' of Lot 1. This Variance is conditioned to the approval of a rezoning application for Lots I and 6, Block 6, RIVERSIDE: FARMS SUPP (2-88) frour RG-1/3 to CR-2/7. The property legally described above is zoned CR-2/7 (Cotmiiunit.y) except for Lots I and 6, Block 6, RIVERSIDE FA1?19S SUrp (2-88) and the N 5' of Tract "A", C N,11WEL 23 SUB (121-82) formerly the 11 5' of Lots 2 and 5, Block G, R1VEF,,SIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) r,hichl are Zoned RC -1/3 General Residential ( iie arid Two Family) and proposed to be rc-2onEd CR-2/7 Ccnr uercial-Rcsideritial (Colmlluni ty) . Howard V. Gary -2- April 2, 1984 One objection received in the mail; three opponents present at the meeting. Three replies in favor received in the mail; five proponents present at the meeting. Backup information is included for your review. A RESOLUTION to provide for the above has been prepared by the City Attorney's Office and submitted for consideration of the City Commission. AEPL:III cc: Law Department NOTE: Planning Department recommends: DENIAL * * * This item is to be heard at the City Commission meeting of June 28th for the establishment of time limitation only. 84-721 2- MR h ' � ZONING FACT SHEET LOCATION/LEGAL 2501 NW 7 Street, Approximately 740-742 NW 25 Avenue and 741-743 N14 26 Avenue The E 1 /2 of Block 5 RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) and Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 less the E 5' of the W 10' of said lots 7 and 8 . Block 5 MERRICK'S SUB (4-189) _ and Tract "A", CHANNEL 23 SUB (121-82) formerly Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 Block 6 RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) and Lots 1 and 6 Block 6 RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) OWNER/APPLICANT SPANISH INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS c/o Gary M. Held, Esquire (Attorney for Applicant) 1401 Briekell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Phone # 579-0583 ZONING This application is conditioned to the approval of a rezoning application for Lots 1 and 6, Block 6, RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) from RG-1/3 to CR-2/7. The property legally described above is zoned CR-2/7 Commercial Residential (Community) except for Lot 1 and 6, Block 6, RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) and the N 5' of Tract "A", CHANNEL 23 SUB (121-82) formerly the N 5' of Lots 2 and 5, Block 6, RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) which are zoned RG-1/3 General Residential (One and Two- . Family) and proposed to be rezoned CR-2/7 Commercial -Residential (Community). REQUEST Variance from Article 20, Section 2003.4, Section 2016.3 and Schedule of District Regulations, page 4 of 6, Transitional Uses, Structures and Requirements, CR Commercial -Residential (Gencrally) 1• a. of Ordinance 9500, as amended, to permit: the erection of two (2) dish antennas and one (1) broadcasting antenna on above site, as per plans on file with a proposed 10' yard for all antennas (45.65' required) and a proposed 86' penetration of the light plane by the broadcast antenna (no penetration s - of light plane allowed). _ 84— 4A 3 sc.+eyk*,[s:.1!st'P'i:?lX�r� •i �- #fit=;i,?,w�: �^tS�A'N - r�err•.Hr. .->r.. �,.�Ar-u- � .�.'r'k&;CSC•`..�4f�irtr..''`,�'ct+�+..••r:�`�f', -�n��r`'z!�'R'+�.''"�'1�.: _, .. I 1. 1•4+r.^ ��.1•,. � •� ". ` .., rXw'fv'fF! i+rs.i�.i-�� _r .Y...�:v �..•1'/�':: n:=J��... ._. .. r RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING DEPT. DENIAL. No hardship exists to justify the requested variances. -The existing broadcasting antenna is properly located toward the center and away from the residential area as should the proposed antennas. The proposed location is immediately adjacent and across from residential development. We are of the opinion that the antennas can be accommodated on another site or elsewhere on the subject site without violating zoning requirements. The requested variances would have an adverse impact upon the living conditions in the area. PUBLIC WORKS Request the dedication of the East 5' of the E 1/2 of Block 5 and the East 10' of Lot 1. ZONING BOARD At its meeting of March 19, 1984, adopted Resolution ZB 27-84 by a 5 to 2 vote, granting the above with conditions. At its meeting of April 2, 1984, adopted Resolution ZB 32-84, assigning a time limitation of 12 months in which a building permit must be obtained. CITY COMMISSION At its meeting of May 24, 1984, the City Commission upheld the Zoning Board's approval of the applicant's request by Resolution 84-490. * * * This item will be reconsidered on June 28, 1984 to establish a time limitation only. 84- 721 :3?�r.T�aLIY•;_+v`.:;. K!� CITY OF MIAM1, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO Aurelio Perez-Lugones DATE: March 29, 1984 FILE Planning and Zoning Boards Administration SUBJECT: Appeal by the Planning Depart-- - ment - Spanish International FROM t ,uez, Director la n apartment Communications (Channel 23) Antennas location: NW 7th REFERENCES Street between 25 & 26 Avenues Approval of Variance for E"eLosuRes: Zoning Board: March 19, 1984 Per City Code Chapter 62, Section 62-62, the Planning Department requests a review by the City Commission of variances granted by the Zoning Board on March 19, 1984 for Spanish International Communications (Channel 23) antennas location, NW 7th Street between 25th and 26th Avenues. The Zoning Board on March 19,1984 granted two variances for Spanish International Communications (Channel 230 NW 7th Street between 25th and 26th Avenues. The Planning Department cites the following items as forming the basis for review by the City Commission: 1. No hardship exists to justify the requested variance. The antennas can be accommodated on another site or elsewhere on the subject site without violating zoning requirements. 2. The existing broadcasting antenna is properly located toward the center and away from the residential area. Its proposed relocation and location of dish antennas immediately adjacent and act -ass from residential development would have an adverse impact upon the living conditions of the area. 3. Spanish International CotnmunicationS technical Gdvisor stated that the proposed antennas location is not the sole solution for proper broadcasting reception. Therefore, other alternative solutions should be considered. It is requested that this item be heard on the City Commission meeting of April 26, 1984. SR/TF/dr 84-721 '�_ :r "���.5:;-.Sn-±s�9s+c►�l-��"'` . _ - 41s:.�:l�a-::.��•1.r�ftus.:N;«,i:!r �,s�h �i:A?*'r.;*�.nmt_sR.+r+� - `''�"'�- .. - tomt of ... _ r CITY OF MIAM1. FLORIDA \ �' INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO Sergio Rodriguez GATE: April 12, 1984 FILE Dire cAem PIa SU9JECT APPEAL BY PLANNING DEPT2501 NW 7 St, Approx 740-742 NW 25 Ave & 741-743 NW 26 Ave FROM nes REFERENCES- Direc Planning and Zoning Boards ENCLOSURES Administration Dept On April 26, 1984, the City Commission will consider the appeal of the Variance granted with conditions by the Zoning Board on March 19, 1984 by Resolution ZB 27-84. 2501 NW 7 St Approx 740-742 NW 25 Ave & 741-743 NW 26 Ave The E 1/2 of Block 5 RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) -and- Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 less the E 5' of the W 10' of said lots 7 and 8 Block 5 MERRICK'S SUB (4-189) Tract A CHANNEL 23 SUB (121-82) formerly Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 Block 6 _ RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) -and- Lots 1 and 6 Block 6 RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) Variance from Article 20, Section 2003.4, Section 2016.3 and Schedule of District Regulations, page 4 of 6, Transitional Uses, Structures and Requirements, CR Commercial -Residential (Generally) l.a. of Ordinance 9500, as amended, to permit the erection of two (2) dish antennas and one (1) broadcasting antenna, as per plans on file, with a proposed 10' yard for all antennas (45.65' required) and a proposed 86' penetration of the light plane by the broadcast antenna (no penetration of light plane allowed). Please be advised that the appellant and petitioner are required to attend this meeting. AEPL:111 cc: Gary Held C r 1� Of ,� p HOWARD V. GARY age ,,�� O LV Uu�lvJ� j J � City ,`tanager April 12, 1984 CERTIFIED MAIL Spanish International Communications c/o Gary Held 1401 Brickell Ave Miami, FL 33131 Dear Mr. Held: RE: APPEAL BY PLANNING DEPT 2501 NW 7 St, Approx 740-742 NW 25 Ave & 741-743 NW 26 Ave On April 26, 1984, the City Commission will consider the appeal of the Variance granted with conditions by the Zoning Board on March 19, 1984 by Resolution ZB 27-84. 2501 NW 7 St Tract A _ Approx 740-742 NW 25 Ave & CHANNEL 23 SUB (121-82) 741-743 NW 26 Ave formerly Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 The E 1/2 of Block 5 Block 6 RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) -and- -and- Lots 51% 6, 7 and 8 less the E 5' 7 Lots 1 and 6 of the W 10' of said lots 7 and 8 Block 6 Block 5 RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) MERRICK'S SUB (4-189) Variance from Article 20, Section 2003.4, Section 2016.3 and Schedule of District Regulations, page 4 of 6, Transitional Uses, Structures and Requirements, CR Corlrnercial-Residential (Generally) l.a. of Ordinance 9500, as amended, to permit the erection of two (2) dish antennas and one (1) broadcast- ing antenna, as per plans on file, with a proposed 10' yard for all antennas (45.65' required) and a proposed 86' penetration of the light plane by the broadcast antenna (no penetration of light plane allowed). Please be advised that the appellant and petitioner are required to attend this meeting. Si cerely, I � oilr AEPL:111 I es cc: Planning Department 84-'721 r PLANNING 6 ZONING BOJRDS ADMINISTR1TION DEPARTMENT 1275',.\`:. 2nd C1roe•1'hliami. FI i)'!" 'r30; II �f5 MU.. 9 1 Or ;1. 1 . = 7n!iina Pin) ca ,Approxi.matel.<< 740742 tWW 25 Avenue and Approximat.el_y 741-743 Niq 20 Avenue Lots 1 1nd 6 Block 6 RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPPLEMENTAL (2-88) --and- The N 5' of.: Tract "A" CHANNEL 23 SUIT (121.-82) formerly the N 5' of. hots 2 and 5 Block 6 RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) Change of Zoning Classification in the Official Zoning Atlas of Zoning Ordinance 9500, as amended, from RG-1/3 General Residen- tial (One and Two Family) to CR-2/7 Commercial -Residential (Community). Ms. Fox.: Mr. Chairman, do you want me to read both items together since 6 and 7 are companion items or do them separately? Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: We have to vote separately so. Ms. Fox: Do you want me to read them and swear people in individually or what's your preference? Mr. Gort: If we're gonna have the same people testifying, I would like to go ahead and have it all at one time and take each item differently. Ms. Fox: Okay, all right. I'll go ahead and read that, -too. 2501 Nd 7 Street Approximately 740-742 NW 25 Avenue and 741-743 Nw 26 Avenue The E 1/2 of Block 5 RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) -and- Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 less the E 5' of the w 10' of said lots 7 & 8 Block 5 MERRICK'S SUB (4-189) -and- Tract "A", CIiANNEL 23 SUB (121-82) formerly Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 Block 6 RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) -and- Lots 1 and 6 Block 6 RIVERSIDE FAIti4S SUPP (2-88 ) Item number 7. Variance from Article 20, Section 2003.4, Section 2016.3 and Schedule of District Regulations, page 4 of 6, Transitional Uses, Structures and Requirements, CIZ Commercial -Residential (Generally) 1. a. of Ordinance 9500, as amended, to permit the erection of two (2) di h antennas and one (1) broadcasting antennas on above site, as per plans on file with a proposed 1.0' yard for all antennas (45.65' required) and a proposed 86' penetration of the light pine by the brortdcast antenna (no penetration of light I)lane al low('d) . This application is conditioned to the of a rezoning application for Lots 1 and 6, Block 6, RIVERSiDI� FfiFu15 SUPP (2-68) from RG-1/3 to CR-2/7. 'lire property legally described above is zoned CR-2/7 Commercial -Residential (Community) except for Lots 1 and 6, Block 6-, RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) and the N 5' of. Tract "A", CHANNEL _ 1 March 19, 1.984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board S, 4 7 2 23 SUB ( 12.1.-82 ) formerly the N 5' of i,ots 2 and 5, Block 6, RIVERSIDE FAR'4S SUPP (2.-88 ) which are zoned R.G-1./3 General Residential. (One and Tt--) Family) and proposed to be rezoned CR--2./7 Cnmm-t:r.i 31_-i?esi�lt_ial. (C:n-y). These two i_t-.(�ms are companion items. Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal Notice of this Hearing and administered oath to all persons testifying at this meeting. PROPONENTS: 5 OPPONENTS: 3 Ms. Fox: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gort: Go ahead, Mr. Whipple. Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Gort: Yes. Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: Because the applicant is the man that signs my paycheck, I would like myself to disqualify from this particular case. Mr. Gort: Okay. Mr. DeYurre then will be (one) of the board members. 4 Mr. Traurig: Mr. Chairman, this young gentleman is here with his parents and I think he has a question for you as to how the opposition should express itself. Mr. Torres: What's the opposition of that thing that you're talking about? Mr. Traurig: What is the meaning of opposition?. Mr. Torres: Yeah. Mr. Gort: Does your parents ... do your parents speak Spanish? Mr. Torres: Yeah. They don't understand what you're talking about. Mr. Gort: _ Okay. (Spoke to the boy's parents in Spanish) I'm going to repeat what was said a little earlier. (Mr. Gort explained to the gentleman that this is a hearing on the property mentioned previously and then he explained the purpose of the transparency map.) Mr. Torres: (Spoke in Spanish)(His name is Jose Torres and lives at 750 14N 25 Avenue) Mr. Gort: He lives at...he gives his address and name and he owns the lot right next door, I imagine it's lot number 3, right next door to 1. Ms. Fox: In favor or opposition? Favor or _ opposition? Mr. Gort: They're in opposition. (Mr. Gort asked Mr. Torres in Spanish if he was was in favor or opposition.) (Mr. Torres spoke in Spanish in the record and Mr. Gort translated.) Mr. Gort: (Translating) At this moment I am not in opposition as long as I ... (Mr. Torres finisia�d his 2 March 19, 1984, Items 6 6 7 Zoning I;oa i-d statement) ..,as .long as it's in accordance with the zone which is where he lives. (Mr_. Gort. spoke to Mr. Tor.r_es tell.i.nq him he him a chance to make his pr.esentat.o� and a`ter he has presentation of the applicant he can give hi.s decision or not he is in favor of thQ item.) Mr. Gorr: Mr. Whipple, residential will give heard the of whether Mr. Whipple: Chairman Gott, members of the Board, I'd like to read the recommendation into the record if I may. We are recommending denial.. The applicants were previously granted a change of zoning which encroached into the established residential neighborhood previously. To call your attention to that point, the four_ .lots 2,, 3, I believe 4 and 5, immediately south now included in the blue were changed from their residen- tial classifi.cation...from their: residential classification to a commercial classification in April of 1982. As indicated, this action rezoned four residential lots except for the northerly 5' to CR-2/7. The northerly 5' were not rezoned to prevent further encroachment into the residential area by way of transitional development. As this Board may be aware, is aware, that when you have a side lot line abutting a commercial classification, you have certain rights as to transitional development. These rights in this particular instance would allow offstr_eet parking, would allow office development and things of that nature. When the City Commission ultimately decided upon this, they restricted the zoning less the N 5' by which to prohibit any transitional development on the northerly...in a northerly direction. So that's why your request this evening is not only the two additional lots but that 5' of the two northerly .lots that were previously approved. Suggest to this Board, or not suggest, let me finish with the recommendation. This request is therefore completely opposite to the previous granting of the change of zoning. This request is a further encroachment which has a much more adverse impact especially in light of accompanying variances being requested. Accompanying variances being the petition that is the accompaniment to the request before you this evening, the next item. It should likewise be noted that there is no restriction as to the type of CR Commercial --Residential uses that could be placed on the subject property meaning that statement is simply that you may have a request by a company or a corporation before you this evening and I suggest to you that that site could be sold tomorrow and used for something other that might be professed... lost.) (Pause, problem with recorder. No information was Mr. Whipple: Testing, one, two. Ms. Fox: I think we lost about the last two minutes. If you could repeat it. Mr. Whipple: It's all in writing. All I was trying to indicate was that the request before you this evening has no strings, no attachments. They may use it for any commercial residential use notwithstanding what may be proffered before you this evening as far as a particular corporation or a company. The request continues to be contrary to the established land use patterns and I just simply point, out to you to look at the map with respect to the zoning boundary that exists today and the extension they want. You can see that that's quite contrary to existing zoning boundaries and existing land use patterns and therefore we find great objection to th'-At and we al: o note that there's no justification for more commcrci.zl zoning in the area. Now, we are quite close to 37t-h Avenue. We have "7th `:trcet. We have sufficient_ commercial that wxists abundantly within a quarter mile or less of tide subject property. V°le feel that this request before you this evening if: granted and approved is the grant of a special privilege. We flat out suggest to you that without the consideration of abutting properties or properties 3 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board 84-721/0 across the street, would they likewise ho gi.vr--.n the same consideration and I suggest to YOU not-- r?nl.y t,7o1J1 1_d �ao oppose that and in opposing this r.egiiest: we do hr* lie,- it is in fact a special privi.lecle, W- foel. 0- will, a.dvf 7_sely effect the living conditionsthe l.i;ri.n{a c:nnr,i.t:i.C;n^ i_s the same warding Are had on the previouf; ret::nmmen�lat_i.o.1 wit.11 reset: to the four lot.7, that". w,n,rp 1:e ,oned and not•' we'rhQin,_1 asl-ed to 7-one two more and these do effect t:he living conditions pa.rt?.cul_arl.y in light of what is coming as the next item on a. variance. Mr. Chairman, my one question would be do you want me to go on with the next item wiL-h respect: to t_.he var_ i.ances -At this time or do you want. me to hold it? Mr. Gort: Let's hold it and then ... let's hold it and then when the other item ... we'll let you make your statement also. Mr. Whipple: So we're speaking just on the change of zoning at this point in time? Mr. Gort: Yes, sir. Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, the Department would echo the concerns of the Planning Department mainly from the standpoint that, notwithstanding whatever proffers would be made, the change of zoning allows for certain development in the area and this would, as Mr. Whipple has pointed out, would be a severe encroachment into the abutting residential area. Mr. Gort: Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if -I may make a request. Mr. Gort: Go ahead. Mr. Whipple: If it would be all right with you and the Board, I'd like to go ahead and proceed with the request for the variance because there's pertinent items with respect to that request which I think have an effect or impact upon the requested change of zoning. Mr. Gort: Okay then, go right ahead. Mr. Whipple: We likewise recommend denial of the variances requested. We have several problems.. Number one as we indicated in our written recommendation, we believe that the technology involved does not dictate the variances being requested - i.e. the location of the antennas, the location of the antenna tower. We have had the opportunity, of which I thank the applicants for, this afternoon of learning more as to the techniques involved but one of the aspects of having the oppor- tunity to learn more about how antennas, satellites and the like are operated and the needs and what have you, we're of the opinion that there are in fact alternatives available. Alterna- tives such as another site for the antennas either cabling communication from the subject site to another site so that the antennas can work and things of that nature. Secondly, we note and if I may ask that the plans be passed up to you, you note that the plan for the variance only addresses itself to the location of the antennas and if you remember when the rezoning was granted and plans were proffered as to what was going to be done, we knew that we had a subterranean pari:ing area. Y�'e knew we had an antenna over in the northwest- corner. 1�e kne\,� certain things were going to be done and as the Department stated earlier today, we do not. feel that the plans before- you this evt=niny are sufficient nor are they sufficiently bindiny as to what the applicant's going to do which again relates to the ch.inye, of zoning. You have a CR-2 and it might as well be whatever. So we do have a problem with that type of approach with the variance before this Board. This Board -- -has been quite cautious and understanding and requiring in many 4 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board 84-71.ir instances as to what they're looking at. Tf you look at the second page of the plans tieing suhm i.tt_erl ind there' c only two pages suhmi t. t-ed , it g i veF, ynu all ulna �.. i_(1 -ha t- i.h^ Tl pa rtmpnt I s concern i.s. N— rlon't rn i knnw nil i)agr, nnh,)t: tllr' u—st. of the site is going t.n i)r �i.=rc1 for ind on T=`aq� 2 i.t. �hn- :,s how 1 1(1 what is being it CTunsi:F rl is inlinci to hn ;and 1.7e t_al kc- greats yell k7)01d, Offense to ghat if y01_1 wi1.1_ Usiia)11,,- wc� pave the i.nfnrmot.i.on in front of us. This Bkoard collld t.hereforc c;ondi_ti.on their approval on certain things that S�'ould h- done and wn hav0 nonce of that information before us this evening. Thirdly, fourthly or whatever, to inflict this upon a residential area, and I callyour attention again to the map on the Board when you're talking about lot 1 which is already approximately 200' into a residential area to have somebody next door or across the street to have to look at what you're saying on page 2, I think is a real, real injustice and on that basis we likewise recommend denial of not only the variance but the requested change of zoning. Mr. Gort: Okay, Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell: Well I seem to be speaking with fork tongue at this point. Once again we also, we still reiterate what the Department has said however, should you see fit to grant this extreme variance we would request that the ... would request the dedication, I'm sure it's a voluntary dedication, of the easterly 5' of the E 1/2 of Block 5 and the easterly 10' of Lot 1 for purposes of right-of-way. Mr. Gort: Thank you, Chief. Okay, sir. Mr. Traurig: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Robert H. Traurig. I'm an attorney at law with offices 1401 Brickell Avenue and I very proudly represent Spanish Inter- national Communications Corp which is the owner and operator of television Channel 23 here in Miami. I'd like to show you first the neighborhood by means of this aerial photograph and then to show you a rendering which depicts what was presented to this Board and to the City Commission two years ago and to explain to you the differences between what was previously proposed and what we now propose. You are looking at an aerial photograph where this property on the south side is NId 7 Street and on the west is 27th Avenue. Contiguous to our property on the west is 26th Avenue and on the east is 25th Avenue and this parcel that is outlined in yellow is the subject parcel. It is only 50' deep. It has two old substandard houses and it's our objective to remove those houses and make them an integral part of this complex. I'd like to first review with you again the language in Mr. Whipple's recommendation. Ile says number one that the applicants were previously granted a change of zoning which encroached into the established residential neighborhood. I would like you to know that this Board unanimously recommended approval of that application that he spoke so poorly about and that it was unanimously approved by the City Commission and that the commentary was that it was an outstanding site plan and in particular because the parking was below grade and because the entire rear of the property had very extensive landscaping and the outstanding landscaping combined with the unobtrusive aspect of the development which was approximately 40'0 of the permitted floor area was wliat really swayed both this Board and the City Commission. I Would like you to know that the language used in the staff recommen(lations t�,�o years ago was this. This is the staff recom!<<undations. "The- proposed Chang(, is contrary to the established land use p,.�tturns in thC' area because of the encroachment of thu col111tjerci.:1. zoning into a residc!-,ti:il area. There have been no ,ignific:,nc cli t,gus in ttiu are,: to %,arrant the requested change. Co![i!ll(,L"Cial :JeVelopil!(,11t of this property would have an adverse efft-ct upon tl,e surrouriditig residential development." That's al!liost rile s::me languag(, that was used tonight to describe what is being presented and this was presented to this Board in this language and to the City 5 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board Commission and both this Board and the City Commission unanimously recommended, this Board recommAnd-d apt)roval and the City Commission passed and ordinance approvincq i:ho change in zoning of the property i.mmedi.a.t..el.y_ to t11c so11t.,1 ,>f tho recuested parcel. The Second hart of the rec:ommenclatJ( 1 ;_eaci try the Planning Department is that the nor. therly- 5' crel_e not rezoned in that pri.-or rezoning to prr?vent: encroachment-, into the resi.denti.al by way o`: transitional development. we in 1-his application gave also emitted that nort-herly 5' so as not to provide for a transitional. development that: will. continue further north and consequently we are being consistent with the action we took two years ago. Number three, the recommendation says, "This request is for a further encroachment which has a much more adverse impact especially in light of accompanying variances being requested," and I would say to you that the variances are minimal and when we go over the site plan with you and the basic elements of the plan that we are proposing, you will see that we are buffering to protect the property to the north and that we're only asking for a couple of dish antennas and the relocation of an existing tower. You can see the existing tower on this aerial photograph. It goes on to say, "There is no restriction as to the type of CR uses that could be placed on the property." We will covenant and we will present that covenant to the City Commission before the City Commission meeting on this that we will limit this to television studios and the accessory uses and the ancillary uses related to that because we don't intend to build a shopping center here. We intend to develop this as an office building and a television studio because Channel 23, the largest channel in this area, serves a growing public, needs more space and we don't want to remove the facility from this neighborhood which is a typically Spanish speaking neighborhood and number five, they say, "It's not justification for more commercial zoning in the area." This is not commercial zoning. We are merely asking you to approve an extension of an existing commercial zone but not for the purpose of creating the kind of commercial zone that all people associate with CR districts and that is the shopping center. We have just a building. Let me show it to you. This is the NW 7th Street side, this is 24th Avenue, 25th Avenue, 26th Avenue. The building, you're looking at it from the north looking south --sir, would you ask your father to come look at the picture? What we propose to do on the southerly portion of our property is to have landscaping and as (Pause) ... as we did in the prior application, there will be three basic elements on... Mr. Sands: Northerly. Mr. Traurig: Pardon me? Ms. Basila: You mean the northerly. Mr. Sands: Northerly. Mr. Traurig: Northerly. Did I say northerly? Mr. Gort: No, you said south. Mr. Traurig: Okay, on the northerly side. There are three basic elements of what we're going to develop on the northerly side. One is there's going to be a plaza. Another is it's going to be underground parking. VIe're not putting the parking on grade as most other_ developers do. W(e're gonna put it underground and then we're going to have an extensive landscape buffer on the northerly peri.ul(:!ter of our property. tde think that the removal of the existing , ul.)standard houses give us a great oppot-t:unity to create moru opk_�n space and more landscaping than you g�ncrally finci and it will be used as we committed in the prior hearing for community purpose.. We will have outside activities which will enliance the recreational --life of this area because we will have what's in the nature of a 6 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board r� t 21 /3 garden and a ,eccration area on the northern p>rtion of our property. We 6eliene that the granting of Lb� application will give us a central location for tbe comm uni(-V icen which we intend tn hane ernnnaf.,n from this location since this is a major Spilnisb npr�aking televi7,i^u network, v«r int-�nd to nLilize these facil.OJon [com time to time for community pnc�onc� anG it's a centl c�focal point for the Gpnni�b spen�ing community and as I pointed out to you, for staff Lo pot Lhe accent on Lhe commercial, use when in fact this is merely parkliug and plaza area and it's only a SO' area, we think distorts the overall picture of the intention of the applicant in connection with this property, Now, I'm gonna call on a gentleman in just a few minutes to talk to you about the antenna and to verity to you wbl/ the antenna ought to be located where, we have placed it but I think it's very important to give you an overview of this situatioo. We are in the communications business and we must locate the antenna where it is reflected on the eastern end of our property to assure the reception and transmission without undue interferences. If we develop on tbis...if we place the antennas on the westerly portion of our property, then when 27tb Avenue is redeveloped with greater height than it presently has and that will occur and the zoning permits it, we fear that that height would have the effect of obstructing the reception of TV signals from the satellites that presently are utilized by Channel 23 and that will be discussed by our expert who came here from the Washington area to talk to you about this. I think it's very important to know that even with the expansion that we presently contemplate, all of which will be within the existing C8-3/7 area, we're gonna have a building of 50'000 more or less, 50,000 sq. ft. more or less, on a site which with the existing FJ\D could accommodate 128,000 sq. ft. We're not asking for this change in order to build more than we're entitled to have. We're ask-ing for it in order to continue with our low profile development in a relaxed atmosphere. We need additional square footage than what we presently have because the expanding services and the expanding staff demand more space but we're not overloading tbip site. We have a low profile develoDmeut and as I indicated to you, this area is primarily for patio' for outside activities and landscaping, for plaza area and for underground parking. I commit to you that we will submit that covenant and that covenant will say that we'll develop substantially in accordance with a specific plan which we will describe in great detail and that we will utilize this northern 50" for the purposes I just stated, I would like you to know, as I said earlier, we will delete from the site the northerly 5` in order to prevent the transitional use from being asked for on properties north of that. I -would like now to introduce to you Mr. James P. Fitzgerald who is the vice president for Earth Station Services for a company called ComSeacob Incorporated out of Reston, Virginia and I would like to ask him some questions so that be can respond to you concerning the need for the location of the two dish antennas and the tower vvbece we show it in the 0C corner of the site. Mr. Fitzgerald, could you take the microphone on the other side please. Ma. Daoila: Mr. Traucig, may I just ask you a � question, sic? Mc. Traucig: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Basila: Where the tower and the antenna are, is that street level there or is that elevated? Mc. Tcaurig: That's elevated. That is...CJb you mean...(Spoke away from the microphone while pointing to an area on the drawing.) --level?- Ms. Basila: Yes, right there. That's street _ Mr" Traurig: Yes, ma'am. 7 March 19v 1984^ Items 6 6 7 Zoning Board N4_~721 �u/ Ms. Basila: Okay, sir. Mr. Traurig: I would like you to note though (Started to sp-atti acviay from the microphone) that that antenna that you see is exactly the same as this antenna which is already in place but we hav-n't removed the antenna because if we left the antenna in this location... the... Mr. Sands: Use the microphone. Mr. Traurig: ...it would affect the reception of Mr. Sands: Use the microphone. Ms. Maer: Speak into the microphone. Mr. Traurig: Excuse me. It would affect the reception of the dish antennas. Mr. Fitzgerald, would you please state your name and address? Mr. Fitzgerald: James P. Fitzgerald, 2000 Hanover Street, Silver Spring, Maryland. Mr. Traurig: What is your occupation and with whom? Mr. Fitzgerald: I am an electronics engineer, vice- president of Earth Station Services for ComSearch Incorporated in Virginia. .. Mr. Traurig: And what is the business of ComSearch? , Mr. Fitzgerald: We're system design engineers and engineering consultants in... Mr. Traurig: Excuse me, sir. Could you raise your microphone a bit? Mr. Fitzgerald: Okay. We are system designers and engineers and communication consultants in the frequency coordination area for preparing application of the FCC and monitoring transmission facilities. Mr. Traurig: Are you familiar with these particular antenna and tower which Channel 23 is seeking? Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Mr. Traurig: What is your basic responsibility with your company? Mr. Fitzgerald: Well I'm in charge of the Earth Station Division responsible for all. office and field work in determining Earth Station locations. Mr. 'Traurig: over a long period of time? Mr. Fitzgerald: present company. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Fitzgerald: Have you been involved in that work About fifteen years. Five with the And are you a registered engineer? No, I'tn not. Mr. Tr-"urig: What is your specific educational experience and professional experience? Mr. 1itzgerald: I received a BSCE from the University of Maryland in 1957 and have practiced in the 8 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board 84-'; engineering area since then, 27 years. Mr. Trai.zri.y: The property which is depicted on this aerial photograph is 10cated at NW 7th Street between 25th and.. ,north of NW 7th Slue -et hetwf-ren 7. 5t:h find 26th Avenue in the City of Miami. Are you familiar- with t_hi.s par.ti.cial.ar site? Mr. Fitzgerald: YPs, sir. Mr. Traurig: Would you de cri_I)e for this Board the proposed satellite antenna operation on this site? Mr. Fitzgerald: The satellite antennas need to communicate with satellites over the Equator that can exist anyplace from over the Atlantic Ocean to over the Pacific Ocean and they're in geostationary orbit above the Equator_. You have to lock on to one and have a clear view of the satellite so that as you look to the east, you may be looking at a pretty high angle but as you go to the south, dead south you're looking up highest and you to the west they're out over the Pacific over Guam and there your elevation angle is quite low so for this particular location you want to have as much clearance to the west as possible. Mr. Traurig: Is that the reason that you selected the most eastern most location and northeasterly corner of this site? Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes, the elevation angle of the satellites were —we could be concerned with the 16 degrees that we want to be as back as far as we can to clear the present buildings and any four or five story buildings that could possibly occur. Mr. Traurig: Is it your opinion that in order to protect against interference from existing and potential development to the west particularly along that NW 27th Avenue corridor that I described, that the proposed dish antennas are necessary in this particular location? Mr. Fitzgerald: I'm sorry, would you repeat that one now. Mr. Traurig: Well I think I'm really repeating what you had just testified to and that is that you needed to place this antenna in the northeast corner of the site because of the satellite which was coming from the Pacific and so forth... Mr. Fitzgerald: Clear view of the satellite. Mr. Traurig: ...Does it have to be in that particular location in order to avoid interference by buildings that might potentially be developed to the west of this? Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Mr. Traurig: Thank you. I asked Mr. Fitzgerald to testify just so that you would hear expert testimony as to why we had to locate the antennas where we sought to do that. We urge that this Board approve this application. It is a logical extension of an outstanding complex for an outstanding company which Will provide a great service to the local community, that is the conur;unity within the environs of this particular station and also to the general. Saudi Florida community. We think that the building that will be constructed with the amenities that will be provided for ti-le neighborhood as well as the people who V:or}: here and wit -I-, the minimal impact on the street scape and th(; minimal impact on the neighborhood because of: the underground parking and thy= very extensive landscaping, will provide an atmosphere for: eMployRlent and a community asset that. this Board and tiie City Commission will be proud of. We urge you to approve this application. It is 9 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board _ SLz -721 /� necessary f.oa: t h n pans; .on of th.i.s growing, dynamic company which is Ginn of mct7o_ otitstanrli.ng nes' in South Florida and =i(fi t h i_I1?' t_i1a t;t1^ enc.otaracter er, t: of this Board is vitally ' h' )nl. you vc-i y mlic:h. nl ay , i.r, t: he a: e anyone else in a...Okay, those i.n c1pPosi.ti_on, We' i.J_ Clive You a few times. Yeah, Mr. Whipple, ynu want to... Pals. VON: Okay.., ter. Chairman, I'm going to need to swear hoth him in and whoever_- interprets for him. Mr. Gort: Go right ahead. Ms. Fox: First; I'll need to swear in the interpret...I need to swear you in as an interpreter first before you interpret for him. (Secretary administered oath to both the opponent, Mr. Torres and the interpreter, Ms. Fernandez) Ms. Fox: Mr. Chairman. (Ms. Teresita Fernandez translated for Mr. Jose Torres) Ms. Fernandez: (Translating) My name is Jose N. Torres. I live on 750 NW 25 Avenue. I did not send my paper in because I wasn't sure if I was going to vote in favor or against it because I didn't know what was going on in there. Now that I know what, they are about to do, that they are planning to move the existing antenna to another•location...those antennas are going to be next to my property and I am opposing to that. These antennas are going to damage myself for many motives. These antennas will interfere with my TV and they are also are going to be in danger of a hurricane br something with these antennas. This is all. Mr. Gort: (Said "thank you very much" in Spanish) Anyone else in opposition? Anyone else? Yes, sir, Mr. Whipple. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Chairman, I believe there's some points that should be commented by the Department. The Department has absolutely no problem with the standing of Channel 23 as to how outstanding it is, what a good corporation it is and how it's growing. We've had that visibly shown to us, if you will, by way of the Grand Prix. It is absolutely outstanding and we are not attacking Channel 23. We are attacking, however, some of the comments made that were talking about old substandard housing as if it's a blight on the neighborhood or something like that and I believe as this Board probably visited the premises they would understand that this is not what I would consider old substandard houses. The comment was made that, as we did previously, that it did encroach into the residential area; however, a comment was .also made that it was an outstanding site plan and they were only building 40% of what they were permitted etc., etc., with respect to plans. Number one we're dealing with a change of zoning. Number two, this Hoard does not have any plans before it which was my comment in relation to the rest of the variance request which is the second part of this issue. There are no plans. That plaza, that landscape area is undefined and speaking of undefined I would assume that this is evidence on to the record this evening and will he part of the record as it proceeds to the City Commission but it doesn't say 50' or 20' . The application 'does not say that they're not rezoning the northerly 5' of the subject t,.,ao lots. It was suggested here this evening. I have not heard a proffer, for- instance, that yes in fact, officially, legally, that we are removing the northerly 5' of two lots from our petition this evening. The existiny ,nteilria is perhaps something that we have to live with. In fact, we will live with - -- -it but I don't think we can live with it in the corner or - 10 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board li adjacent to this property owner or across the street from these other property awnrvs. As you sass the plans this evening, it is completely out: of 1,ine. T.t. i.s commcrr_i.a1 7.oni.nq, Tt's CR-2 and whatever (.7R-2 you can hi)ild in C:R-2 and if T may bn so brash and p,-rat, T. )m brash, that's whai.'s hcfot:c this }Board this even i_ng is CR--2.. T t: i.s not: the oat strand inq company or anything like that. Tt's a (-.R.--2 and any sho{_)pi.nq center or any use that'-, permitted in CR--2 and T would like to-,u(jgcst to this Board that ' s tide way it -.ha 7, to tie consa.derecl nc}t:,Ti.t hSt<-,nc.3l,ng what's been said before you this evening. Again, landscaping, plazas, more open space, none of the plans that are part of the record that are before you this eveni.nq which are these two plans which I proffered down here . how any of this. I would like to question except that, rather_ than question, I'm going to make a statement. I think if Mr_. Fitzgerald was so kind to come in and discuss it with us today, if we were to ask him the question are there alternatives, he would say, "Yeah there's alternatives. They're difficult alternatives. Satellites and antennas, ports, another location, microwaves beaming all of this type of activity hoping there's no interference and that they can find a clear spot and things like that by which this can be accomplished. It could be done by cable." All of these are perhaps more expensive, more expensive as far as the company but how about the residential_ area. Now, what's the cost at this point in time. When you speak of the residential area, I think this Board with the change of zoning that has already been granted and if the change of zoning is granted that's being requested tonight, would be hardpress just on the westerly side of 26th Avenue to not rezone lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, maybes even 18 to a similar type classification. Now we know that yes antennas have certain problems that are certain restrictions but if the pressure which I'm sure will probably come allowed commercial development on those lots, then there might be a 5, 6, 7 or 10 story building on those lots and all of the sudden the leeway that has been explained to me as to locating and receiving the signals is blocked off. What they're suggesting is that "Hey, we're here first and we want to do something". Well that's not the case. We don't have completely that problem on the east side because all the satellites are in the western hemisphere, if you will, but you're gonna have the same pressure with respect to rezoning 9, 4, 3, 6 of Block 7 etc., etc. and I'm just suggesting this is an outlandish request and the Department really takes offense to it and we suggest to this Board that they take offense to it. Outstanding, admirable, great, we have no problem with that but I'll tell you what we think there's residential neighborhood there and we think they deserve the protection that they're entitled to under the zoning laws. Mr. Gort: Okay, thank you, Mr. Whipple. A• few minutes for rebuttal please, sir. Mr. Traurig: Thank you. I think that almost the same words were utilized when there was an application two years ago to extend the CR-2/7, actually at that time it was the C-2, 50' to the north and this Board and the City Commission rejected that argument and felt that it was consistent with the commercial character of the neighborhood to permit that expansion. Particularly because we were not going to intrude with a typical commercial operation but we were merely going to have a very low profile, as I said, landscaped area which was really ancillary to the principle use which was, as I. indicated earlier., less than 50,000 ft. at that time, a very great underutiliz.3tion of the site. I think that it's very important to answer this gentleman who livE-s i.m�uedi:�t ly to the north of this site. We're gonna havr-, th,- highc t wall that the City will pf-rmi_t us to build on our northerly 1)our.d<7ry. lt'S in this, plan that Mr. Whipple says he do-sn't h,,ve a copy of but which will be tied to any covenant that we will. submit in connection with the City Commission hearing but ill addition to that we co;nmit and the _ record ought to reflect that on that northerly boundary contiguous to his property, we will have high trees not less than 11 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board 1-e S4-7^201 10' and hopefi11.1• hetween 1.2 and 14 feet high so t-.hat: ":.hose dish antennas will. not: he within the view of his pr:opc-,rty hart the wall itself will ohstr ,reef: t:ha.f: view, tip Ir,ent- inne(I that file's concerned i=.hat- hi.s T`"7 si.gnal would he of`:nc-t-ed and T asked Ptr.. Efrain Ri., —a, tIQ -t_(Ii_on engineer,, c:.het her or: no that_ coi_rl.d possi.bl; cccor, hi s answer to me is wap "no". If you went to hear hr.m under: oath that same ansuh,er, 1_ would call him to the witne.gs ^_•t<and anti ask him to do that. With regard to the unde.f-i.ned landscape plan, wr= submit to you that because are, asking for: variances, you can condition variances and you can impose upon us any specific: landscape requirements that you think are proper butte have already committed to you verbally that we will have an extensive landscaping within this 50' as part of the overall. co-,plex which would include the plaza area, etc. And lastly, Mr. Whipple said we had never formally proffered that we would delete the northerly 5' from the application and I maize that formal proffer at this ti e. We think this is a good plan. We think that this is unobtrusive. We think that this is good for the neighborhood. We want to be good neighbors with these people and I intend personally through the people of Channel 23 who will. act as my interpreters to discuss with them all of the aspects that they seem to be concerned about. We urge your recommendation for approval to the City Commission. Mr. Gort: Okay. Ms. Basila: Mr. Traurig, may I ask a question... _ Mr. Gort: Let me ... let me... Ms. Basila: I'm sorry. - Mr. Gort: It's ... we'll now close the public hearing and have comments among the Board members. Go ahead. Ms. Basila: Has the neighborhood at all been consulted on this? I mean have your plans been shown to anyone in the neighborhood at all? Mr. Traurig: I think that the absence of people from the neighborhood is an indication that from time to time we have had contact with the neighborhood but at the last hearings, the lady on the west side of 26th Avenue who has the school expressed concern. tie have met with her. We were unaware that these folks had a concern. The answer is no we have not met with them but we intend to do that. If any other property owner, and I do see one splash of red on the map, is concerned, we're gonna visit with them and we commit to you that we will visit with those people immediately to the east of the property that is on the east side of 25th Avenue. Ms. Basila: Thank you. Mr. Gort: Any other questions? Questions? Statements? Mr. Freixas: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move to recommend to the City Commission for approval of item 6. Mr. Gort: on the motion? Mr. Romero: Mr. Gort: Ms. Fox: There's a motion, is there a second Second. Discussion on the motion? Who second it? 12 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board 84-721, /` Mr. Gort: In discussion of the motion let me tell you how T feel- about this and that: is a i:es denti.al. area. It's quite of a l,i.t of encroachment- T wcmld not have that much problem with a Tv channel or news of that type of c0mmer-ci.a.1- use though clan..,i.f_i.ecl as a. r..ommer-c ial, T (inn' see ).; a. commnr.cial. use myself bait at the same time T think there' several_ points that's hern raised by our staff in here. I: don't know what: the problem has been between the applicant and the staff. Tt seems that staff_ does not have enough plans with them. I have not seen enough plans here with me. I love the concept. T was in favor_ of it the first time it was in here. T'd probably be in favor of it again if we had the plans with the specific and all the items included in it al- though I understand that it's not part of it because this is a change of zoning and that's the one thing that worries me also. With a change of zoning I know the people represented here by Channel 23 and I think they're the best of the people they've done a lot for this community but at the same they're business people. What is to say that five years from now they're to sell their outfit, somebody has to buy it and they want to use it in something else. I want to see some protection towards that that the property would not be able to use for any other purpose than for television station and for that cultural events use and I'd be very happy with that. Presently I think staff has got a lot of problems and staff feels that they have not been consulted sufficiently with the plans, that we don't have any specific plans with it in front of us and I tend to agree with staff in that and this is something that we need in here. I don't know what happened, who's at fault here, if staff was maybe so set against it they was not willing to look at the planning and that's the way I feel about it. I think. this has been on the making for a year and a half- now, maybe two years, and I think a deferral would be...I'd rather see a deferral and have you come back with us with more specific plans and covenants and ideas and a chance to talk with the neighbors and that's the way I would like to see it and that's how I feel personally. Mr. Traurig: May I have an opportunity to respond, Mr. Gort? Mr. Gort: Let me hear any further...(unintelligible) Ms. Basila: Mr. Sands. Mr. Gort: Yes, Mr. Sands. Mr. Sands: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Whipple, I'm assuming that you said the plans weren't as complete as you thought they should have been for this project? Mr. Whipple: That is what I said, yes, sir. Mr. Sands: Then how would you stand as far a deferral would be concerned and until you get more complete plans? Mr. Whipple: Sir, and I'm ... we are not as hardnosed as the Chairman would suggest. My problem is that there's been the suggestion of the plans, there's been the suggestion of landscaping, there's been suggestions of buffering, all we have seen is the plan that was brought in this afternoon that only addressed the corner. We don't know what's going to be done with the other two lots and even though there's a change of zoning prefacing the variances, you can attach conditions and you can attach the plans or accept the plans that are being proffered as part of the variance being requested. You can't do that as far as the change of zoning 900-S bUt you can do it nos far as the variance request and 1 believe we passed the plans around. There's two sheets. They do not even show the plans, for instance, that were proffered with the rezoning of the previous four lots so "yes" we have no problem with a deferral. We think that you should understand what you're approving not only zoning wise but as far as the variance. 6'• 13 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board >-r-> Mr. Sands: Mr. Freixas: Mr. Gort: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, under discussion... Yes. Mr. Freixas: ...I want- to make a comment. I think that —this Board all it does is recommends approvals of zoning. I have no reason to doubt Mr. Trauri_g's statement. He's a member of the Florida Bar and prestigious lawyer and they have committed here today that by the time this item reaches the City Commission, they will have a covenant that will do three things if I understood correctly that was what prompt me to make a move on the motion. First, they will restrict the use of that property for television station, studios and offices only. They will delete the five feet to create that buffer that goes into the residential P.rea and now, thirdly, my intentions is on the .following motior; which is what is refers to the antenna and the satellite dishes to put some conditions. In fact at this time, I was considering then on attaching the conditions that were really the words of the neighbors that have the house next to where the antenna and the satellites are going to be. So I don't think that a deferrment by this Board at this point, all they're going to bring is some more plans. The final decision is up to the City Commission. They will have to provide a covenant to the City Commission, not to us and I have no reason do doubt their statements here tonight. Ms. Maer: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Mr. Gort: Before you go on, I myself and when I spoke, I don't have any —expressed any doubts on the persons that are here representative ... both the representative of Channel 23 and Mr. Traurig but at the same time we are at part of destiny and we could be walking out right now and may heaven forgive, that lightning might strike and knock them both dead and here we're taking approval with nothing in specifics so I'm not doubting any of the applicants' words or the presentation but at the same time we worked with this in the past, we have the records so I just want to maintain that in the record. Yes. Ms. Maer: Mr. Chairman, if I may. I just want to point out, I want to caution the Board that the recommendation with reference to the change of zoning can not be tied to any proposed or... Mr. Freixas: We understand that. We understand that. Ms. Maer: Okay, that's why...I just want it on the record that... Mr. Freixas: I was making reference only that the ultimate body that approves a zoning change is the City Commission and the ultimate people to receive a covenant whether they want to give it or not is the City Commission so ... I mean, I'm very well aware of that. I'm not basing my opinion here tonight on whether they going to provide it or not. I mean, I'm just taking their word for it, that's all. Mr. Gort: Thank you, Ms. Maer. Anyone else? Ms. Basila: Yeah, I think that we're the first step and I really feel the neighbors should be in on it. I mean, if they haven't had an opportunity to t.aD'. with the neighbors, let them know what the ch ir1ge is, 1'u, surd t1ley might get the cooperation that they nr=ed but 1jere is a 111zi, ttiat camp that doesn't going oil. 1 think we have to take this man also and that's my point. I think also the Department has expressed itself that there might be alternatives. I think we - ought to give the Department the chance, myself. 4 A.. 14 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning B 0 1-H 17,1 84- 7A!1 �� Mr. Gort: Anyone else? Mr. Channing: I don't see any real objections from the neighborhood at all. here and 1 think I happen to agree with Mr.. Frei, -,as, T_...based on what. Mr. Traur.ig has said, I would like to see it-, approved. Mr. Gort: Okay, any other. statement? Call the question. Ms. Fox: Motion on item number 6, change of zoning, to recommend approval to the City Commission. This would include the deletion of the N 5' of Lots 1. and 6 as proffered this evening. Motion by Mr. Frc ixas, seconded by Mr. Romero. (Secretary started to call roll). Mr. Gort: Excuse me. Are you ... that's gonna be part of the application the ... you're gonna automatically omit the 5'? Ms. Fox: Yes, sir. I'll have to talk with City counsel to see whether we'll have to have a separate application but it will be reflected from here on out. Mr. Traurig: We would like to formally withdraw the five feet at this time if that assists you. Ms. Mier: That's fine, we can just have you amend the application at a later date to conform to the modification made here tonight.. (Secretary called roll on the motion) AYES: Messrs. F'reixas, Channing, Romero and DeYurre NAYES: Ms. Basila Messrs. Gort and Sands (During vote) Mr. Gort: The easy thing for me to be to vote "yes" on this application it already passed but I would have to back what I said before and with all my respect to you all, I would have to vote "no". ABSTENTIONS: Messr. Moran-Ribeaux ABSENT: None. Ms. Fox: Motion carries 4 to 3. RESOLUTION ZB 26-84 AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3509 OF ORDINANCE 9500, AS AMENDED, - THE ZONING BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB 26-84 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CHANGE OF ZONING CLASS IFICATIOIN IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS OF ZONING ORDINANCE 9500, AS AN,IENDED, FROM RG-1/3 GEIIERAL RESIDENTIAL (ONE AND TWO FAMILY) TO CR-2/7 COI�ll•IERCIAL-RL:'SIDI-II 'IAL (COMMUNITY) COI: THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATH,'LY 740-742 Nl%d 25 AVENUE AND APPROX1iiA`I'ELY 741-743 NN 26 AVENUE, ALSO DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 6, BLOCK 6, RIVERSIDE FAR111S SUPPLLiMl:!QT1AL (2-83 i) AND 'I'lii: IQ 5' OF TRACT "A", CHANNPL 23 SUB (121-82) PDRM ERLY THE N 5' 01, LOTS 2 AND 5, BLOCK 6, RIVERSIDE FARI,IS SUPP (2-88) . - - - - - - -- - - Mr. Freixas: Mr. Chairman? - Mr. Gort: Yes, sir. 15 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board 84-y°721�''" Mr. Freixas: Item 7. Ms. Maer: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt Mr. Freixas for one moment. I just: would like fox_ the record to have the plans that Mr, Traurig had referr-0 t-.n rjtiring his presentation with reference to t:he variance, t=he one ow-r there, made a part of the record. Mr. Freixas: By all means. I'll make it part of my motion. Mr. Gort: Okay, Mr:. Freixas, Mr. Freixas: On item 7, I would like to move for approval of the variance but I would like to attach three things to it. First that the landscape be done around that antenna and the satellite dishes so that they will not infringe in this gentleman's property, that the fence it be the highest allowed and that the fence will be put first before they move the antennas and satellites to that specific location and thirdly that it be some written assurances to this gentleman here that his TV signal_ will riot be interfered with and that that antenna and those dishes are sufficiently secured and put in place to ease his fear that the hurricane or something will knock down his house. Mr. Gort: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Mr. DeYurre: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just how close is that antenna to the street? -How many feet? Mr. Traurig: Mr. DeYurre, if you'd give me one second, I'll give you the ... twenty feet. Twenty feet to the property line. That's the tower, you're talking about the...not the dish antenna but the tower... Mr. DeYurre: Mr. Traurig: line. Mr. DeYurre: gentleman's property? Mr. Traurig: Mr. DeYurre: property? Mr. Whipple: The tower. ...twenty feet to the property And how close is that to the Pardon me? How close is it to this gentleman's Ten feet. Mr. Traurig: His property line is ten feet north of this property...of the antenna. Mr. DeYurre: What kind of landscaping could there be that would kind of buffer this because I'm trying to, in my mind, picture something being erected there and some kind of plants or shrubbery or something. You know when you have a 100' thing going up, I don't think there's much landscaping that can buffer that. Mr. Traurig: sight, you don't look up... Mr. DeYurre: Well, when you consider line of I understand. Mr. Trauria: ...vertically but number one, we are committed to 10 to 12 foot high trees on our side of the property line. Without talking to Mr. Blaya, I will assume his concurrence and that we will also put landscaping on their side -- - of the property line so that they have trees on both sides of the 16 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board ! —721 �' r property line which obscure his view of that antenna. Now, we will work —you know, t_hat_'7 stabjec:t to their approval of our doing that but we wi J 1 install mat -tire trrr es, not less than 10 feet high at: the ci.,, e of planting - Mr. DQ urge : Okay, thank you. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Cort: Yes, sir. Mr. Whipple: If I may, that's the second time that the 10' has come up and I would like to suggest to this Board that a 10' high tree is not a significant or substantial tree. It is ... can be basically as a big as my thumb and have that much meaning so again, we have these proffers that are as whispy as a 10' thumb thick tree would be and I think there ought to be a much more substantial commitment on something like this than a 10' tree. Mr. Freixas: Do you have any ideas, Mr. Whipple? Mr. Traurig: May I suggest that we'll build based on plans to be approved by the Planning Department with the calipers and the heights and the width to be approved by the Planning Department. Mr. Whipple: I would rather have it in front of this Board as informational fact and part of the record, not my decision. Mr. Freixas: Mr. Whipple, my question is, would you enlighten me on it, what suggestions you have that will ... that I could attach to my motion?. Mr. Gort: (unintelligible) ... the motion, conditions are being set so if you have anything to say, Mr. Whipple, now is the time to say it. Mr. Whipple: Now is my time to say it. As the plans showed there was 5' from the gentleman's property and it was 10' from the street line which has now been modified and I guess we have plans coming in that show it's going to be 10' from the gentleman's property line and 15 or 20 feet from the street. jMr. Freixas: They say 20' from this side and 10' from the gentleman's... Mr. Whipple: Fine, I should suggest... Mr. Gort: You stating that 20' from the... Mr. Whipple: ...I would suggest... Mr. Gort: ...south boundary, I mean, west, east, have those plans changed from the plans that Mr. Whipple has? Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. Mr. Gort: Are they different? Because you stated one thing, Mr. Whipple has another. Mr. Traurig: (Spoke from out in the audience. Portion inaudible.) I don't know which plans Mr. Whipple has but... Mr. Held: Excuse me, if I might... Mr. Whipple: Ones on file in the office, sir. - - - - - _-- Mr. Held: Mr. Gort? - - -- 17 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board N4- 7 21 fit` Ir PO Mr. Tr,auri.y: (Continued to speak away from the microphone.) We commit to the plan that's dater.] the 19th. Mr.. tlel.d., Mr. Gort, those ar.e. , - Mr. Whipple: Nineteenth of next- year? Mr. Held: Those are the plans that we discussed this afternoon with Mr. Whi.pple... Mr. Gort: Your name and address please, sir. Mr. Held: Gary M. Held, 1.401. Drickel.l Avenue. We were discussing the plans last week with Mr. Whipple and suggested some alternatives, increase the setbacks and those are the plans that we presented to him this afternoon and we commit to those plans. Mr. Gort: This? These? This is the one that's showing 20' and 10', am I correct, setbacks? Mr. Held: Mr. Freixas: Mr. Gort: Mr. Freixas: that the plans... Mr. Whipple: evidence? Yes, sir. Well, Mr. Gort... That's the one... ...Mr. Gort, Mr. Whipple, I think They're proffering that as Mr. Freixas: ...like you say is a confusion so what I want to attach to my motion that is 10' from the gentleman's property and 20' from the, from the, what is it?, from the street, from... Mr. Whipple: Well, I... Mr. Freixas: ...what is it? 25th. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Freixas, please don't misunderstand me but I think this Board is entitled to know what's going to be done. Are we going to have a 10' whisk or are we going to have a 5 inch black olive 30 feet when planted. What have we got? We're sitting and standing here... Mr. Gort: Mr. Whipple. Mr. Whipple. Mr. Whipple: ...and we don't know... Mr. Gort: Mr. Whipple. Mr. Whipple: ...and that's my whole point. Not to be argumentative but we don't know what we're really talking about. Mr. Gort: Mr. Whipple, Mr. Freixas is making a motion right now and he's setting conditions to it. I think you had some ideas what the landscaping should be. Go ahead and state and he will make it part of his condition and part of his motion. Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. If he'd like that then I would... Mr. Gort: That's what lie requested. Mr. Whipple: ...request 4 inch caliper, Mahogony's, minimum 22 feet in height, planted every 40 feet - - along the rear property line and along the street not only on the subject property but around the total site of Channel 23. 18 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board 4 Mr. Freixas: Well the total site, you mean on 7th Street also? Mr. Whipple: Yes, sir. Mr. Gort: Okay, Mr. Freixas. Mr. Freixas: Well. I would like to see some on the rear, what is it north, of the adjacent... Mr. Sands: South. Fax:. Freixas: What is it, south? South. No, that's north. Mr. Sands: North on the front isn't it? Mr. Gort: North is towards the neighbors... Mr. Freixas: That's what I'm saying on the north ... that's the north side. Mr. Sands: The north, okay. Mr. Channing: That's north, that's north. North side. Mr. Freixas: ...to have some heavily landscape that will buffer from the residential area and what I still will say that at this time I would feel more safe that the Planning Department will approve the final landscape plan. That way I think that they can in detail work it out with Mr. Whipple and satisfy him. Mr. Gort: Are you adding to it subject to approval of the... Mr. Freixas: Final landscape plan on the north part of the subject property. I don't like ... I don't want to see those trees on NW 7th Street. Mr. Gort: I don't want see them on 7th Street either. Mr. DeYurre: Mr. Freixas, I think there's also neighbors to the side that are going to be exposed to that antenna so. Mr. Freixas: Well I'm saying to the residential area which would be the back of the building, the plaza. Mr. DeYurre: Well also the side. Mr. Freixas: Yeah on 25th...on 25th and 26th. Mr. DeYurre: Twenty-fifth Avenue you got neighbors across the street. Mr. Freixas: On 25th and 26th Street (Avenue). Mr. Gort: Let me ask you a question. Do you want to make it the perimeter that was approved today as a change of zoning? Mr. Freixas: Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's why you're the chairman and I'm not. Mr. Gort: No, sir. I'm just trying to help. Mr. Freixas: Please... Mr. Gort: Any other conditions? 19 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board In Mr. Freixas: Why don't you read it again, Gloria, so that way we get our act together hero. Ms. Fo%- I only nave 50 pages of notes right here, Mr. Freixas. (oka.y, this is a mot-i-on to recommend approval Of the variance as Per the revised plans sut_,mi.t t.ect t oday with the following conditions: landsr.api_ng to he provide(around the satellite antenna as referenced by Plimini_ng Department, fence as high as p<)ssi.ble and installed prior to any antenna construction, written assurances to the neighbor that his reception mould not be affected and that the tower would be secured against hurricane or other element-s, voluntary covenant as mentioned by IMr. Campbell in the Public Works Department, I mean dedication, exuusea „c, and subject to final landscape approval for the north boundary of the property by Planning with the final. attachment that this variance would not be in effect until a change of zoning was secured and approved by the City Commission. Mr. Freixas: Well I think, Gloria, that we have to change the north...the northern part of it to the whole property that was rezoned today. Ms. Fox: Okay, all right, so I'll just scratch northern boundary, subject to final landscape approval of property by planning. Okay, and then again, the sixth attachment being subject, of course, to the City Commission approval of a change of zoning. Mr. Gort: Okay. Ms. Fox: Okay, that would mean the effective date which is 30 days after the second reading. Mr. Gort: Yes, sir. Mr. Traurig: I wonder whether or not you have two conflicting conditions. The condition that you read at the end that the landscaping has to be approved by the Planning Department I think is the sense of this Board but earlier you said something about as referenced by the Planning Department and I'm not sure what that was and I would appreciate your repeating it. Ms. Fox: Okay that was when Mr. Freixas made reference to the landscaping and he asked Mr. Whipple... Mr. Freixas: Yeah, Gloria, the first ... we are repeating ourself-. The first condition that I made about the landscaping on the antenna.. Ms. Fox: You want me to delete it? Mr. Freixas: ...that you can delete that because the other one is more complete... Ms. Fox: Okay. Oh, all right. Mr. Freixas: ...because it refers to the whole lot that was rezoned today so... Ms. Fox: Okay. Mr. Freixas: Okay? Ms. Fox: That's the motion. Mr. Gort: All right. Is there a second to the motion? Ms. Fox: Excuse me, who seconded it? Oh, Mr. Romero. (Secretary called roll on the motion) 20 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board --y r AYES: Messrs. Freixas, Romero, Sands, DeYurre and Channing NAYES: Ms. Basi_la Messrs. Gort (During vote) Mr. Gort: Once again I would like to explain my vote again. Once bec:anse of the consideration of the applicants that are her(, this evening. I'd preferred to have had this come back to us with more spucifi`. plan. I'm sorry it took the turn it did for that reason I would have to vote "no". ABTENTIONS: Messr. Moran-Ribeaux ABSENT: None. Ms. Fox: Motion carries 5 to 2. Mr. Traurig: Thank you very much. RESOLUTION ZB 27-83 AFTER CONSIDERING THE CITY'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE PROPOSALS OF THE APPLICANT, THE ZONING BOARD ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB 27-84 GRANTING THE VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE 20, SECTION 2003.4, SECTION 2016.3 AND SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, PAGE 4 OF 6, TRANSITIONAL USES, STRUCTURES AND REQUIREMENTS, CR COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL (GENERALLY) 1. a. OF ORDINANCE 9500, AS AMENDED, TO PERMIT THE ERECTION OF TWO (2) DISH ANTENNAS AND ONE (1) BROADCASTING ANTENNA AT 2501 NW 7 STREET, APPROXIMATELY 740-742 NW 25 AVENUE AND 741-43 NW 26 AVENUE, ALSO DESCRIBED AS THE E 1/2 OF BLOCK 5, RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88); LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 8 LESS THE E 5' OF THE W 10' OF SAID LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 5, MERRICK'S SUB (4-189); TRACT "A", CHANNEL 23 SUB (121-82), FORMERLY LOTS 2, 3, 4 AND 5, BLOCK 6, RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88) AND LOTS 1 AND 6, BLOCK 6, RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPP (2-88), AS PER REVISED PLANS SUBMITTED ON MARCH 19, 1984, WITH A PROPOSED 10' YARD FOR ALL ANTENNAS (45.65' REQUIRED) AND A PROPOSED 86' PENETRATION OF THE LIGHT PLANE BY THE BROADCAST ANTENNA (NO PENETRATION OF LIGHT PLANE ALLOWED) WITH A FENCE AS HIGH AS PERMITTED AND INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY ANTENNA CONSTRUCTION, WRITTEN ASSURANCES TO THE NEIGHBOR THAT TV RECEPTION WILL NOT BE AFFECTED AND THE TOWER WILL BE SECURED AGAINST HURRICANES OR OTHER ELEMENTS, FII4AL LANDSCAPE APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND WITH THE VOLUNTARY DEDICATION OF THE EAST 5' OF THI, E 1/2 OF BLOC: 5 AND THE EAST 10' OF LOT 1. THIS APPLICATION IS CONDI'PIO?QED TO THE APPROVAL OF A REZONING APPLICATION FOR LOTS I AND 6, BLOCK 6, RIVERSIDI- FARMS SUPP (2-83) FROM RG-1/3 Lo CR-217. THE PROPLRTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED ABOVE IS ZONED CR-2/7 COMMERCIAL RESIDElYTIAI, (C0f,i!1UN11TY) EXCEI'`I' FOR LOTS 1 AND 6, BLOCI 6, RIVL'It i CJL FARI.IS SUPP (2-33) AND THE Id 5' OF Tl`AC'P "f ", C111.NNE,L 23 SU13 (121- 82) FOI:MEItL'Y THL N �' QELOTS 2 AND 5, BLOCK 6, R1VLRSIDL Fi- 101S SUPP (2- 38 } W111CII ARE ZONED RG-1/13 GENIFRAL RESIDENTIAL (ONE AND TWO _ FAMILY) AND PROPOSED TO BE RE`LONED CR--2/7 COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL (COMMUNITY). 21 March 19, 1984, Items 6 & 7 Zoning Board W11 H4-7z>l r J-83-347 4/9/84 ORDINANCE NO. M 1) 8 3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 10500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 740-742. NORTHWEST 25TIl AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, ( MORE PART IC 11UAR�I Y DES%.RTBED HEREIN') FROM RG-1/3 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL, TO CR--2/7 COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL (COMMUNITY) BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 25 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 March 19, 1984, Item No. 6, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 26-84, by a 4 to 3 vote, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a change of zoning class ification, as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of this matter deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to grant this change of zoning classification as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: r 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 740-742 Northwest 25th Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described as Lots 1 and 6, Block 6, RIVERSIDE FARMS SUPPLEMENTAL (2-88) and the N 5' of Tract "A", Channel 23 Sub (121-82) formerly the N 5' of Lots 2 and 5, Block 6, RIVERSIDE: FARMS SUPP (2-88) of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, from RG-1/3 General Residential to CR-2/7 COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL (COMMUNITY). Section 2. It is hereby found that this zoning classi- fication change: 84-721 >- I El 11 i 1 (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 anH districts; (d) Is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the City; (e) Will not materially alter the population density pattern or increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.; (f) Is necessary due to changed or changing conditions; (g) Will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; (h) Will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion or otherwise affect public safety; (i) Will not create a drainage problem; (j) Will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent area; (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; i Section 3. Page No. 25 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 jurisdictiin to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole. PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 26th day of April , 1984. 1 -2- 84-721 r - PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY this 24th day of May , 1984. Maurice A. Ferre MAURICE A. FERRE, Mayor 5RMAL i G. ONGIEity` lerk 14Utv1►...... _.....•,,..,..•at..=. Vaxlfa►.snl'1"LA:-0.II,.heA_b:l+..,l�llt�L�LxWI4l�t•� PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: G.' MIRIAM MAER Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO i'ORM AND CORRECTNESS: CE GARCIA-PEDROSA y Attorney GMM/wpe/pb/264 I. Ralph G. Ongie, Clerk of the City of Miami, Florid7, hereby certify that on the .................. day of .......................................... l A. D. 19........... a full, true and correct copy of the above and for-_ going o:Jinancc was posted at th;. Soatit Doer of �thc. Dad. County Court Iioc,c Lt the pInce prop iu¢d for notic.s and 1;ub,ica:ions by atu;c;iiuo sail cjhy to the plac.: hroviJcd thctclor. WITNESS my hand and the official s;:al of paid Citythis..................day uf................................................ A. D. 19............. ........................................................ .City Clerk 84-M'721 caF?R 31 r] L a' CITY OF Y i lug ,rr i, To Sergio Rodriguez, Director June 29, 1984 FitF Planning Department aF f p;i D ',' "'— t'1+",,:-- �'' Spanish Tnternational Commiini-c iti_-ons Corp. /1— PROM. �I REFERENCES G. W m Maer Declaration of Restrictions Assistant City Attorney ENCLOSURES Origin il Attached hereto please find the Original Covenant which I am forwarding to you. GMM/bjr Attachment CC: Ralph G. Ongie City Clerk D.H. Teems, Deputy Chief Building & Zoning Aurelio Perez-Lugones Director, Planning & Zoning Bds. I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE ORIGINAL COVENANT AS REFERENCED ABOVE. i RECEIVED BY 4� `/ / J („"" - 1 Lc �,•., �� n'✓ ,�'` DATE.tj ' .,C, l> �!< < L�� t L�. t�-'- �``'� -tl�-� t .ti` :•`� 1 PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN TO BETTIE RICH - LAW DEPARTMENT DECT.,.ARATT+r -T OF F`''t 1 i T T CTTONS KNOW ALL MEN BY Tttl?r,?? TIFF that- ttin undersigned, heinq the owners of the f0U_0Wi_n(j desert',er3 l�r.��phrty (the "Property") r lying, being and situatAd in Dail- County, t,lo,: i-da, to -wit: Lots 1 and , T31to _, _r:f Riverside rarm�-,, according to the, P- Int of as rQco.r-ded in Plat Book 2, Page 8t3 of the. Public Recor(I's of Dade County, Florida. in order to assure the Zoning Roard and City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, that: the representations made to them by the owners will be abided by, voluntarily make the following Declaration of Restrictions covering and running with the Prop- erty: 1. That use of the Property shall. be limited to uses accessory to television station studios and offices, Including but not limited to parking, plaza and satell_i.te and tower anten- nas. 2. That the Property will not be used for the purpose of floor area calculations for the redevelopment of ahutting Prop- erty at 2501 N.W. 7 Street. 3. That the antennas to be located on the Property will be designed against television reception interference at homes within a radius of 375 feet of the Property, and any television interference which may result to such owners from said antennas will be eliminated by the undersigned at its sole cost and expense. 4. That the antennas to be located on the Property will be designed and secured against collapse beyond property owned by the undersigned due to hurricanes or other storms, and any damage caused by said antennas to abutting properties shall he repaired at the expense of the undersigned. 5. That the antennas will be located on the Property sub- stantially in accordance with the site plans entitled "Spanish International Comm. Corp., WLTV 23", prepared by E. Frances, A.I.A., dated April 25, 1984. 6. That an 8 feet high wall will be installed to the north and east of the antennas as shown on said site plan prior to the commencement of construction of said antennas. 7. That approximately 20 feet high trees will be planted every 10 feet along the landscaped buffer- north and east of the wall described in paragraph 0 above. 8. That said landscape buffor shall. be no less than 10 feet wide along the northern boundary of the Property. 9. That the undersigned will obtain and maintain in full force an insurance policy against the claims of other property owners for damage; which might he caused to such other property owners resulting from the col lapse, if any, of the antennae reflected on the plan dc-scrihed in Paragraph 5 above. It is understood and agreed the undersigned that any official inspector of the City of Miami hire, I eSCUE_ and Inspec- tion Services Dcpartaient car any :.sac nt duly ::authorized by the Director of that Department. !n«\,7 h� vt-- th(- 1.7r i vil e.ge at any time This 1`Ylitrument Prctj)a (-td By: Gary M. Held, Esq Greenberg, Trauriq, Askew, )toffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A. 1401 Brickell Avenue, PH -I Miami, Florida 33131 %2 during normal working hours of enl-_Qi -ng and investigating the. use of the Property to deter.mi.ne Or not the requirements of the building and zoni-ng regul.,ti.ons and the conditions herein - agreed to are being fulfil -led. These rest.ri.ct.i_ons during theft: l.i_fetime shall_ be a restric- tion and limitation -on upon a1-1- present and future ot,.,net.s of the Property and for the public welfare. This Decl.arati.on Shall_ const.i.LuLe a covenant- running with the land and shal.l_ be recorded in the public records of Dade County, Florida, and shall remain in full force and effect and be binding upon the undersigned, its successors and assigns until such time as the same is modified or released. These covenants shall. continue for a period of 30 years from the date of recordation, after which time they shall be extended automatically for successive periods of ten years, unless an instrument signed by a majority of the then owner(s) of the Prop- erty has been recorded which changes or releases the covenants in whole, or in part, provided that the covenants have first been released or the changes approved by the City of Miami.. This Declaration of Restrictive Covenants may be modified, amended or released as to the land herein described, or any por- tion thereof, by a written instrument executed by the then owner (s) of the fee simple title to the lands to be affected by such modification, amendment or release, provided that the same has first been approved by the City Commission or the Zoning Board of Miami, Florida, (whichever by law has jurisdiction over such matters) after public hearing. Should this Declaration of Restrictive Covenants be so modi- fied, amended or released, the Director of the City of Miami Fire, Rescue and Inspection Services Department, or his suc- cessor, shall forthwith execute a written instrument effectuating and acknowledging such modification, amendment or release. Enforcement shall be by action at law or in equity against any parties or persons violating, or attempting to violate, any covenants, either to restrain violation or to recover damages. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover, in addition to costs and disbursements allowed by law, such sum as the Court may adjudge to be reasonable for the services of his attorney. Invalidation of any one of these covenants, by judgment or Court, in no wise shall. affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHIREOF, the owners have caused these presents to be executed and signed in their names by their proper officers, and their corporate seals to be affixed hereto and attested to by their Secretaries the day and year set forth below. WITNESSES: W 2 SPANISH IN'1.'E'RNATIONAL COMMUNICA`i'IONS CORPORATION By: _ 1,W)"'Old V. l nsenic; Pre dent ATTEST: y r Secr'etary< : 4 [ CORPORATE SEAj.; ] 2 18 7 I r: 2835 STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS: COUNTY OF BRONX ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 23 day of May , 1984, by Reynold V. Ansel.mo and Sally Segal. , President and Secretary, respectively, of Spanish International Comm. Corporation , a Delaware corporation, on behalf of the corporation. My Commission Expires: MARIA RODRICAMZ Ncozy Public, State of New Yotk No. 034756t19 Qualified in Bronx County Comm;5 lion Expires M"di 30, 1996 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: City Attorney s ,3 W I NOTARY IMBIAC State of New York at Large RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RLODROI ODD OF DADE COUMIV, FLORIDA. RECORD VERIFIED BICHARD P. BW.1 K1_ ?, CLLRK CIRCUIT CuuRi 07 7c2 AIIIIA