Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-80-0576101 RESOLUTION NO. 8 U- 5 7 6 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 1(4-A) (d), TO PERMIT A RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY (SPECTRUM PROGRAM INC) ON LOTS 2 THRU 11, BLOCK 5; HIGH SCHOOL PARK TRACT (4-44) BEING, APPROXIMATELY 114-160 NORTHWEST 59TP STREET, AS PER PLANS ON FILE. THIS APPLICATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR PARKING. LOTS 2 THRU 8 ZONED R-3 (LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE) AND LOTS 9, 10 and 11 70NED R-2 (71.40 FAMILY DWELLING). WHEREAS, the City of Miami 7.oning Board, at its meeting of June 16th, 1980, Item No. 1, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. 124-80 by a 3 to 3 (2 members absent) vote denying the conditional use as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the applicant has taken an appeal to the City Commission, and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the denial of the Zoning Board, the City Commission after careful consideration and due deliberation of this matter has determined that the conditional use requested meets all the City's requirements for said use; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE. COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA- Section 1. The Conditional Use as listed in Ordinance No. 6371, Article VI, Section 1 (4-A) (d), to permit a Residential Substance Abuse Facilitv (Spectrum Program Inc) on Lots 2 thru 11, Block 5; HIGH SCHOOL PARK TRACT (4-44) being approximately 114-160 Northwest 59th Street, as ner plans on file. This application in conjunction with a conditional use petition for parking. Lots 2 thru 8 zoned R-3 (Low Density Multiple) and Lots 9, 10 and 11 zoned R-2 (Two Family Dwelling), be and the same is hereby granted. "SUPPORTIVE DON MENT S FOLLOW if "DOCUMENT INDEX ITEM NO.- - It CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUL1130 /,,��, yy //��. 8 0_ 5 g NamumAY.- .�MH..N.N _.M. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24 day of July t 1980. ATTEST: L G . G CIT CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: r V. TYURRY V. P3RCY ASSISTANT CITY ATTOR!,Y APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: GE RG F. KN X, JR. CITY TORNEY -2- MAURICE A. FERRE "SUPPORTIVE DOGS"AENTS FOLLOW„ 80-576 ZONING FACT SHEET LOCATION/LEGAL, a) 101, 129 & 137 N.W. 59th Street Lotsl4, 15 & 17, Block 2; HIGH SCHOOL PARK TRACT (4-44) and b) Approx. 114-160 N.W. 59th Street Lot92 thru 11, Block 5; HIGH SCHOOL PARK TRACT (4-44) 014111ER Spectrum Foundation, Inc. 1 N.W. 67th Street Miami, Fla. 33150 Phone: 754-1683 Elsehia Sinion Approximately 161 N.11. 58th St. Miami, Fla. Jacqueline Cash/Saint 153 N.W. 58 Street Miami, Florida. M. E. Nace III 1324 Citrus Lane Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. APPLICANT Parker Thomson (Attorney for applicant) 1300 Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Fla. 33131 Phone: 371-2000 ZONING, a) R-3 (Low Density Multiple) and b) Lots 2 thru 8 zoned R-3 (Low Density Multiple) and Tots 9, 10. 11 zoned R-2 (Two -Family Dwelling). REQUEST a) Conditional Use as listed in ARTICLE XXIII, Section 8 to permit open narking lots on above site, as per plans on file, or an accessory use to a residential substance abuse facility (Spectrum Program Inc.) This application in coniuction with a Conditional Use petition to establish the residential substance abuse facility. and b) Conditional Use as listed in ARTICLE VI, Section 1(4-A)(d) to permit a residential substance abuse facility (Spectrum Program Inc.) on above site, as per plans on file. This application in conjunction with a Conditional Use petition for parking. "SUPPORTIVE . 8 0- 5 7 5 DOCUMENTS* 8 0- 5 7 6 40 [, RECOMMENDATION PLANNING DEPARTMENT(REVISED): ZONING BOARD: APPROVAL IN ACCORD WITH THE PLANS ON FILE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. Subsequent to the first Zoning Board hearing the Department met with appli- cants and was able to resolve the questions which led to the Departments original recommendation. Although the proposed facility does not fully conform to the proposed standards in the "Community -Based Residential Facilities Study" it will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. The existing and proposed facilities meet the existing zoning requirements for Substance Abuse Facilities, and should be approved for the following reasons: 1) The Spectrum program already exists at this location and has the capacity and funding ,to serve 80 clients. Even though the number of beds are increasing, administrators of this program have stated that it is most likely that the client population will stabilize at 80. 2) The program has not received any negative response from the immediate community. 3) The site under consideration provides convenient access to support facilities such as the Dorsey Skills Center. Other facilities such as Miami -Dade Community College are accessible via public transportation. Deferred on May 5, 1980 at the appli- cants request in order to discuss the proposal with the Planning Depart- ment. DENIED on June 16, 1980. "SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" w rA IN N I? ARK 5.rEFFIET got ��Z4�i3� 1 1 r1L � N� 5a 5 1-6 si sv ppoRilVE -TS Mayor and City Commission Attention: Mr. Joseph R. City of Ili �:ni, Florida Conti cricn : June 26, 1980 qrassie re : C'0':17I'I'7071AT, IIS!' - DENIED BY THE 7nNTIiC P.nAPD C�l"l:ti_SSIO ', nY T" I I�:1C 4_O1, 12y & 137 hl.l1. 54th Street Lots 14, 15, & 17, Plotk 2; IIIC11 SCHOOL ?AM TRACT (4-44) `i,iie :I7"1';1 :'(-)nin�, i'Gard, a:: its r1e.2_in(I of June 16 'i, 19S0, Ite:n �1, fc11owinki .i:r Ilearin(i, adopted Resolution ':o. 123-30 Ly a 3 to 3 (? T::cr:ber--s absent) vo',.e C)onvinrj Conditional use as listed in U71, ARTICL" `::III, Section 3, to open par'r.inq L()t:: on 1.2, alit? 17, l;.loc:. 2 ; 111(;1! SC!I00L ?'AI:r: TP.I T (4-44 ) Lc>ir.�T 101, 129 & i37 .' !?. 59th S r,:et, as per n11-:ns on rile, as an to :i .'CSi_<iC'ntial Su!jstance Abuse Facility t. i) ctrum 1T),)1icat1on in con7:Inc -.ion %•:lth a con0itlonal the 'zosi(Iential SuLst�:ncc raciiity; Zori(:c.'. R-3 ".ui tiple) . ob vectors present at !:,eeting. four prr:�erit At mectinv. :r)r this-'nnditr,;..a! -'- tills I:C'Cn prot)ared. (�_ is in,; submittc,: for consideration o �i',z3el rely,- - Aurelio Perez- ur, toc;$ Director Der-,artment of Admi.-.istration Planning and Zoning APL:mo cc: Law i, ent Tentative Cit, Commission date: July 24, 1930. 1:0T::: Planninc? Department Rocorrmendation: Approval in accordance with plans on file and landscape plan approval by the Planning Du,,artnient. "SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" t a A m I ayor an(I c.,* tv commi­,sion Attention: Mir. Jo:;,_ -ph I`. City of Florida 11 t.1 (.; I C, I : (;ra-sio June 26, 1980 cn,'1)TT1O::AT, USE - DFIJED RY THE _z n,: 110 A R DA-PE-TITEDT TO _CITY A I-, T �:'Tl P L,--,CA I lic !)T)rc),,:. 59th Street Lot- 2 thru 11, Block 5; ., (4 _ A 4) at ;ts Tnoctinc of .Iunr_- Iter. 124-2,� by 11.earinq, 4 vote Conditioi;,J Use Is ..fisted r s 3 (.1-A) (d) , to permit a 1,ro1:ram Irc) on 'lots 2 (4-44, hcinq Af - piano or, fil-2. Thin %pplication in CO.. -)otition fc- Lots 2 1r". isand Lrits J, 16 ano. 11 -Zone(a -: 1­2 i.'J:-,i!y -tors prf_—sent at r.t3etinj ?'car ., I " to , _,or tiiip. (.,on(!itic)n: -i -,, C� 1 TIS`,ns brar een roped }rc it -InL fulrl S (2 ittcd for considcraton of C 4 ty Sincerely-, o i `Aurelio T"e'r e7�tu CT (1V e.5 rector Donartment of �.dministration Planning and Zoning : MC) cc: i_xa i)_,.,.rtmcnt Cj t,,, co.­,:.:islsion (:,atc: JL11%, 24, 19010. a 0 -,lanf-, on filc _nd laiidccz aT j2 elan p!) r v in accordance by dtAq a ,5uPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW __ 1 . I (11., 1 2`) 1~ .1 17 _N . W . 59 111 S'rltl;l:1' lttt r. l4, I'i nrnl 17, ilLock 2; 111C11 SC11001, PARK TRACT (4-44) (a) Conditional Use as listed in Ordinance 6871, ARTICLE XXIII, Section 8, to permit open parking lots on above site, as pt,r plans on file, or an accessory use to a Residential Substance Abuse Facility (Spectrum Program Inc). This application in conjunction with a conditional use petition to establish the Residential Substance Abuse Facility; zoned R-3 (Low Density Multiple). and APPROXIMh'IFIN 114-160 N 11. 59'ril :. TRLET 1,otr, 2. thru 1.1, Block 5; 111 C,,11 SC1100T. PARK TRACT (4-44 ) (b) Conditional Ilse as listed in Ordinance 6871, ARTICLE VI, :section 1(4-A)(d), to permit a Residential Substance Abuse I•'acility (Spectrum Program Inc) on above site, as per plans on file. 'Phis application in conjunction with a conditional uv;e pet:it.ion for parking. lots 2 thru 8 zoned I1-3 (Low Density Multiple) and Lots 9, 10 and 11 zoned R-2 (Two Family Dwelling). NOTE: Deferred from 'Zoning Board meeting of May 5, 1980. oecretary filed proof' of publication of Legal Notice of Hearing and administered oath to all those testifying at this Hearing. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: * Itf:NIA1'. 1ho prol+osed residential snhstance ahuse facility will adversely affect the surrounding ncilJhhorhood. Ihe proposal i� for construction of a complex which will eventually house 126 people. A facility of this magnitude doe-. not fit into a duplex and low density multiple family district. A "(;ommunity-Rased Residential facil- ities Study" which was adopted by the t'ity ('ommission late last year states that facilities which have SO or more resi- dent" (in the total complex) shonlcl only he permitted in the hil,her intensity districts such as It-S, C-1 and C-2. In tl►is lady it was determined that it is much more likely that a residen- t i a 1 far i l i t y will serve its littrlinses of providing a homelike atmosphere and t•nahlinl, the residents to experience life as p;irt of n community if it is kept small in size (7-16 residents). Iloforr(-tl roil N1;t%• 5, 199() in A1ay if). 11)go at lilt, a111l it-anl 's rotille- t in ardor to r*(,:tt•h ;t t•tunl►ronliSe with the Planning Doparl,mont. (continued next page) *UPDATED to approval "SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" -2- June 16, 1980 Item 1. ZB Subsequent. meeting, hetwenn the applicant and the Planninq department served to clarify the issues and the hopar.t-mont was ahie to make the following modified reconnendation. APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIM P1',ANS ON FILE Atli) LANV)SCAPE PLAN APPROVAL 11Y THE PLANNING DETARTMENT . Al t houclh the proposed facility does not fully conform to the propo noel standard, in the "Cormnuni.ty-13ased Ponidrntial. racilities Study" it will not have an adverse impart on the neighborhood. The existing and proposo(i facilities meet the exi.stinq zonincl reniri rements for Substance Ahuso facilities, and should be approved for the following reasons: 1) The spectr.nm program already exists at this location and has the capacity and f.undinq to serve 80 clients. Even though the number of beds are increasing, admin- istrators of this program have stated that it is most likely that the client population will stabilize at 80. 2) The program has not received any neclative response from the immediate community. 3) The site render consideration provides con - veniont access to support facilities such as the Dorsey Skills Center. Other facili- ties such as Miami -Dade Community College are accessible via public transportation. Mr. Perez-Lugones: Mr. Chairman, we have what we call a short Board. This happens when there are less than seven Members and at this point, I would like to inform the public that any applicant who wishes to take this opportunity to ask for a deferral because of a short Board may do so. The Rules of Procedure of this Board allows j this in a one-time situation and it is an automatic deferral. So if there is anybody at this point who wishes to request a deferral or 1I perhaps, Mr. Cruz the Board Member that we're waiting for, may show up {� and you may wish to defer your item until later in the evening. 1 ;( Mr. Thomson: It is conceivable that Mr. Hayden could respond 1 to a question raised by the Members of the Board. Would you like him to be sworn in at this time? ' Mr. Gort: Fie should be, yes. Ms. Susan Groves, Planning Department: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, you will remember this item was brought before the Board several weeks ago. At that time, the applicant asked to have th item ' deferred because the Planning, Department was recommending a denial of + the proposed use. The reason why the Department was recommending a denial. was because we were concerned that the size of the proposed facility would exceed the capability that could be handled by the neighborhood. Subsequent to that time, the Planning Department did have a discussion with the applicant and for several reasons we have -3- June 16, 1980 Item 1 ZB "SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" changed our recommendations from one accord with the plans on file subject the Planning Department. of denial to one of approval in to final landscape approval by Basically, there were three reasons why we changed our opinion: One, the applicant pretty much assured us that the number of clients would stabilize around 80 which is what exists in that facility today, so we feel there is not going to be a substantial growth or a sub- stantial increase which could further impact the neighborhood. Another reason is that we have received no negative response from the neighbor- hood; a very limited response. So we feel that the existing facility, since it is not going to be increased, it appears it will not adversely affect the existing neighborhood. The final reason is that it is a good location for such a facility. It, is close to public transportation and to other public services which can help the facility. So for these reasons, we have changed our recommendation to one of approval. Mr. Brenner: Mr. Chairman, my name is Dan Brenner representing the Department, of Public Works. And for the record, we are requesting the dedication of the westerly 10' of Lots 8 and 9, Block 5. Thank you. Mr. Perez-Lugones: Mr. Chairman, we are starting a new format for the Fact Sheets. You may find that the dedication was on a separate sheet from D.O.T.T. It is now on the Fact Sheet plus some other things so it will be easier for you to determine what is required. Ms. Basila: Congratulations on that. Mr. Perez-Lugones: That was Gloria's innovation. Mr. Thomson: Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, my name is Parker Thomson, 1300 Southeast First National Bank Building, Miami. I am an attorney and I am also a member of the board of directors of Spectrum programs. The applicants with me today are its directors, Mr. Bruce Hayden; business manager, Horace . . .; and Mr. Tom Cooper, the architect for the project. I will attempt to be brief. I would like to hand each of you a copy of the site plan. The Spectrum program is a 10 year old program, highly respected throughout the City, the county, and the nation for drug rehabilitation work. It is presently located in the area and has purchased additional property with the intent of consolidating its administrative facilities presently in the general vicinity but not here and certain of its other facilities also presently in the general area into a contained unit that will provide all services for Dade County and the City of Miami from this one area. Essentially, the buildings that are presently in existence are the ones marked here - Treatment - Outpatient - Re-entry. It is planned to build residential facilities here, a dining area here and to provide an administrative facility here and have the parking for this project in this area here. The program will not increase by size by reason of these changes. The program will remain the same size but all facilities that are presently in this general vicinity of the City of Miami will be brought into one area for easy administration, bringing the administration facilities together with the drug treatment facilities. We have, as has been reported by the Planning Department, scheduled public meetings with the people in the area. There has been no objection made whatsoever to the proposed project other than a single letter that has been received with respect to the parking area which contains some concern. We believe we have satisfied the staff that the parking area will be solely for the use of the administrative -b- June 16, 1980 Item 1 ZB `iSUPPOE RTIV DOCUMENT FOLLOW" r P facility and the project itself and will provide no objection or other problems to the area. I will be happy to respond or have Mr. Hayden or the architect to respond to any question that will be asked. I should say that it is provided that 75% of overall will be maintained as open space. Mr. Gort: Thank you Mr. Thomson. Is there anyone in opposi- tion? Alright, I'll close the public hearing and have comments from Board Members. Any questions? Ms. Basila: You've been there for 10 years, is this the first time you've expanded your facilities? Or, did you expand it as you went along? Mr. Thomson: It's actually the first time that the facility has been expanded. We have been in the City of Miami during the entire 10 years. cation? Ms. Basila: How long have you been at that particular lo- Mr. Thomson: Since 1973. Ms. Basila: Do you anticipate further expansion? Mr. Thomson: No, it is anticipated that the number of resi- dents will remain essentially the same as it is today. Ms. Basila: Thank you. Mr. Alfonso: How many will be there? Mr. Thomson: 80. Mr. Hayden: My name is Bruce Hayden. I'm the executive director of Spectrum programs. The office is 1 N.W. 67th Street. At the present time, Spectrum programs is funded under a matrix system by N.I.D.A., which is the National Institute of Drug Abuse in Washington. We are funded for a capacity of 80 residential clients. The reason why we made reference, in our proposal, to 126 is to abide by the client flow. In other words, we have four separate residential units which we are building which have the capacity of 24 beds per unit. One unit will be for, let's say, females as an example. If we don't have 24 females and we only have 10 females in the treatment program at any one point, we need to have the additional capability of building our matrix up over the possible 80. We need to have the beds available to us. Mr. Alfonso: How many do you expect altogether? Mr. Hayden: We have a funded capacity for 80. At the present time that's what we anticipate maintaining for the coming year. Mrs. Baro: Will you be getting additional funding now? Mr. Hayden: I can't answer that but at this point, I do not expect additional funding. Mrs. Baro: So you will operate more or less with the same funding. Mr. Hayden: Correct. Mr. Thomson: That is the anticipation. In fact, the history has been reduced funding of drug programs but it is anticipated that we will be able to hold the 80 that I have mentioned. -5- June 16, 1980 Item 1 ZB "SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" Mr. Gort: Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Rolle: Mr. Chairman, I have great difficulty in under- standing the change of recommendation by the Department. Certainly, in light of the study that was done last year in reference to the Community Based Facilities Study that was done last year, and the reasons that were offered by the Department in their update simply adds nothing to the recommendation that the matter be approved. I think that the information that was included in the study certainly lends itself to the kind of expansion that Mr. Thomson is talking about and certainly Mr. Hayden. I think that the kind of complex that they're talking about should be relegated to the R-5. C-1 and C-2 districts. I do not believe that the kind of expansion that we're talking about is best accommodated in that area and the reasons that were offered by the Department in reference to the support facilities such as Dorsey School Skills Center because of the location of the Skills Center and reference to the availability of public transportation. I don't think those should be justifications for offering this matter for approval. I've heard nothing in Mr. Thomson's presentation that changes the recommendations that were initially offered by the Department and I think that unless there is some additional information, that this Board should be on record as supporting the content of a study that was done last year. One other thing, Mr. Chairman, I have great difficulty in understanding the reason for this deferral last time, and I didn't enter anything, into the record but there was no justifiable explanation offered in the record I heard what Mr. Whipple said last time, but I could not fathom the substance of the comments that were made in terms of why this matter was deferred to this particular meeting. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Chairman if I could respond, I'd appreciate the opportunity. The Department has been working with the Spectrum program for more than a year with respect to their existing location and not an expansion. I wish to correct that terminology that was just recited. It is not an expansion of the program. It's a consolidation of the program. As stated by the applicants, the number of people that are to be accommodated in this facility is the same as what they presently do. They have the capabilities for accommodating 80 people. Their objective is to accommodate 80 people but they would like to accom- modate 80 people in a more convenient and more efficient manner based upon the program types problems that they have. Going back to my initial point, for over a year and -a -half, the Department, and specifically myself. have been working with the Spectrum program. After we started working with the Spectrum program and trying to assist in accommodating their needs in the upgrding and modernization of their facilities, the Department began a study. The study was completed prior to the culmination of the final plans and approvals of the necessary organizations Board of Directors of the Spectrum program. We as a Department realizing the time sequence, recognized the fact that it would be improper having suggested to them all along from more than a year and -a -half ago, that the expansion program was appropriate under the current zoning that exists today to come along and on the basis of a study which has not been implemented with respect to zoning regulations - say - 'no, you cannot do that'. Then taking the current program, getting back to my second point, as to being a non -expansion as to what they propose to do, it is just a modernization of the existing; facility; accommodating the numbers that they presently accommodate but to accommodate them in a different manner and a more appropriate manner. One of the points stressed by the facility was the amount of open space, separation, things of that nature, which they do meet and again, it doesn't relegate them to another zoning, district because they are accommodating the existing number of patients that they presently have. So, for those reasons primarily, the Department, did change their recommendation based upon the facts of all concerned and a more in-depth analysis as to what the proposals were for the Spectrum program. So for those reasons, we have no problem with this facility. We don't mean to set aside the study. However, -6- June 16, 1980 Item 1 "SUPPORTIVE ZB t P as indicated, their process was already started with the Department's blessing notwithstanding the studies and one of the key issues of the study is the concentration of this type of activity in particular areas. And again, because of the numbers we suggest to you, this is not going to add to the concentration. This concentration in the Spectrum Pro- gram is part of the statistics indicating this concentration of which they are not going to increase. So on that basis, the Department has no problem. Mr. Gort: Conditional use means we can attach certain con- ditions; maintaining; the landscaping and so forth. But my question is this, with the amount of square footage they have here, what's their maximum capacity? Mr. Whipple: The maximum capacity is not precisely calcu- lable. The reason is that they must provide an excess number of beds over the 80 that they are programmed to accommodate. The reason was explained by the applicant. If you want to attach a condition that this facility be staffed and programmed for the 80 persons, I think that's appropriate, but they still need the excess number of beds in order to accommodate the conditions and changes that occur during the processing of these people. Mr. Rolle: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate the comments that Mr. Whipple made and Mr. Thomson made but I think that if an applicant comes before this Board, and he's asking for 126 people, and Mr. Whipple is saying that the conversation indicates that they're talking about the same number of people, then I'm not doubting that the conversation between Mr Whipple, the Department, or Mr. Thomson - what I'm saying to the Department - what you have on this piece of paper, the Fact Sheet, is that you're talking about 126 people. Regardless of the other embellishments in the conversation, when I read it on this paper, I want to see the numbers you're talking about, 1 want to see the numbers you're talking about - whatever the overage is going to be, 10%, 5% or whatever it is. So when you write the information in the Fact Sheet, and the manner in which it is written, we're still talking about the zoning in this area being R-3, Low Density Multiple and R-2, then I'm saying to you that I have great concern and great reservations about the request that has been made by the applicant and I have great con- cern about the comments made by the Department. I think I need to put that into the record. Mrs. Baro: Mr. Chairman, I understand that there have been no objections except one. Is that true? Mr. Perez-Lugones: That is correct Mrs. Baro. We had one response by mail. Mrs. Baro: Does that mean, Mr. Thomson, that you have spoken to the neighbors? Do they know that you're going into this expansion? There is only one objection. Is that true? Do they know exactly what you're going to do Mr. Thomson: Let me reiterate what Mr. Whipple said. It's a consolidation not an expansion. Mrs. Baro: Excuse me, according to my Sheet, there are a lot of new buildings. Mr. Thomson: Mr. Thomson: The facilities serving those are in the immediate neighborhood, several blocks away, but in the immedi- ate neighborhood. In any case, Mr. Hayden for the program, has cir- cularized the neighborhood inviting them to meetings to discuss the plan and offering to discuss it on any level, a one to one meeting, -7- June 16, 1980 Item 1 ZB "SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" on anything on whatever they wish to discuss. Mrs. Baro: And did you have any results? Two people showed up. Mr. Hayden: We circulated flyers around the neighborhood inviting any and all individuals to our program to an open house on two consecutive Wednesday evenings specifically dealing with the in- formation that we're going to be discussing tonight; our consolidation of the Spectrum program in the 59th Street area. Mrs. Baro: Did you have any success? Did anyone show up? Mr. ftayden: We had a total of four individuals on both evenings. Two of those individuals are Board Members. Mr. Gort: Any other questions? Does anyone have a motion? Mr. Rolle: Mr. Chairman, I move that the application be denied. Mr. Alfonso: I second the motion. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing against this program. It's a beautiful program. What I resent at this time is the Department changing a recommendation of a strong denial; and even though it's reduced from 126 to 80, in their recommendation it is stated that 50 or more have to be in a high density area. That's the reason I move for denial. Mr. Gort: Any further discussion on the motion? Ms. Hasila: I am not against this. I would like to see some kind of limitation as to further consolidation - expansion. I think the facility is there. It's already established. We have to look at these a couple of time,. I know that the City has established some new guidelines as contained in the Community Based Residential Facilities 1 think we can limit the number. I'm not against it. Mr. Gort: I myself, like Ms. Basila, believe the same thing. A lot of landscaping; will will required for this project which will be an improvement for this area ani; at the same time I don't thin-16 we should penalize the applicants on something that has taken place in another department. I believe we can control this; being conditional use we can set some conditions on it. Call the question sir. Mr. Gort: It has been moved and seconded. Mr. Perez-Lugones: We have a motion to deny l(b). Motion was made by Mr. Rolle and seconded by Mr. Alfonso. (PLEASE TURN TO PAGE 9 FOR RESOLUTION) "SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" -8- June 16, 1980 Item 1 ZB f Mr. Wellington Rolle offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ZB-123-80 RESOLUTION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE 6871, ARTICLE XXIII, SECTION 8, TO PERMIT OPEN PARKING LOTS ON LOTS 14, 15 AND 17, BLOCK 2; HIGH SCHOOL PARK TRACT (4-44) BEING 101, 129 AND 137 N.W. 59TH STREET AS PER PLANS ON FILE, OR AN ACCESSORY USE TO A RESIDENTIAL SUB- STANCE ABUSE FACILITY (SPECTRUM PROGRAM, INCORPORATED). THIS APPLICATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION TO ESTABLISH THE RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY; ZONED R-3 (LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE). Upon being; seconded by Mr. Jack Alfonso, this resolution ended in a tie vote which constitutes a denial. AYES: Messrs. Alfonso, Garcia, Rolle NAYS: Mmes. Baro, Basila. Mr. Gort Absent: Messrs. Cruz, Carner Mr. Perez-Lugones: We have a tie vote which constitutes a denial. (PLEASE TURN TO PAGE 10 FOR RESOLUTION) "SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" -9- June 16, 1980 Item la ZB C C Mr. Wellington Rolle offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ZB-124-80 RESOLUTION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE 6871, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 1(4-A)(d), TO PERMIT A RESI- DENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY (SPECTRUM PROGRAM, INCORPORATED) ON LOTS 2 THROUGH 11, BLOCK 5 ; II IGII SCHOOL PARK TRACT (4-44) BEING APPROXIMATELY 114-160 N. W. 59TH STREET AS PER PLANS ON FILE. THIS APPLICATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR PARKING. LOTS 2 THROUGH 8 ZONED R-3 (LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE) AND LOTS 9, 10 AND 11 ZONED R-2 (TWO FAMILY DWELLING). Upon being seconded by Mr. Jack Alfonso, this resolution ended in a tie vote which constitutes a denial. AYES: Messrs. Alfonso, Garcia, Rolle NAYS: Mmes. Baro, Basila. Mr. Gort. Absent: Messrs. Carner, Cruz Mr. Perez-Lugones: constitutes a denial. -10- We have a tie vote which June 16, 1980 Item lb ZB