HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-80-0574RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE AS
LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE VI,
SECTION 1(4-A) (a), TO PERMIT A RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPME14T OF A PLANNED UNIT NATURE (PUN)
ON LOT 10, BLOCK 6; KEW GARDENS (8-9), BEING
3095 NORTHWEST 14TH STREET, AS PER PLANS 014
FILE, CONSISTING OF ONE EXISTING DWELLING
UNIT AND 4 NEW DWELLING UNITS IN 2 STRUCTURES
WITH 2 DWELLING UNITS PER STRUCTURE; ZONED
R-2 (TWO-FAMILY).
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Zoning Board at ist meeting
of June 2, 1980, Item No. 1, following an advertised hearing,
adopted Resolution No. 92-80 by a 7 to 0 vote denying conditional
use as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has taken an appeal to the
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 COMFISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Conditional Use as listed in Ordinance
No. 6871. Article VI, Section 1(4-A) (a), to permit a residential
development of a Planned Unit Nature (PUN) on Lot, 10, Block 6;
KEW GARDENS (8-9), being 3095 Northwest 14th Street, consisting of
one existing dwelling unit and 4 new dwelling units in 2 structures,
with 2 dwelling units per structure, as per plans on file; zoned
R-2 (Two -Family Dwelling), be and the same is hereby granted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this __day of
h, i 6V .
bLPH ^_ffGIE
..STY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
/I . V/. -
TERRY V. PERCY
ASST. CITY ATTORNEY'
MAURICE A. FERRE, M. A Y O R
. 1980.
APPROVED AS TO F iJM._►ND CORRECTNESS :
GE0R E KIIOX „ JR.
CITY ATTORNEY '
80-574
10
ZONING FACT SHEET
e
LOCATION/LEGAL 3095 N.W. 14th Street
Lot 10, Block 6;
KEW GARDENS (8-9)
OWNER/APPLICANT Adela & Victor Perez-Villar
1530 Bird Road
Coral Gables, Florida. 33146 Phone# 661-2125
ZONING R-2 (Two -Family Dwelling).
REQUEST Conditional use to permit a residential
development of a Planned Unit Nature (PUN)
on above site, as per plans on file,
consisting of one existing dwelling unit
and 4 new dwelling units in 2 structures
with 2 d.u. per structure.
RECO?IMENDATION
PLANNING
DEPART"LENT Denial. The proposed plans do not meet the
intent of a development of a Planned Unit
Nature (PTIN). Although the minimum standards
are heinp met., (ie. two parking spaces per
unit, setbacks, density, etc.), no substantial
amenities have been provided. There is
virtually no meaningful open space provided
for the four new units and no unique design
has been provide. for the architecture.
ZONING BOARD Deferred on April 22, 1980 to June 2, 1980
at the applicant's soil's request in order
to have the applicant present.
Denied on June 2, 1980.
_J
i t 3o9s did, /.i or
vv-
y�
v
80..514
0
I1�1 l�ti�I (I )1� J' (1l.11�►(J 0
L
L!
Mayor And City Commission
Attention: Mr. Joseph R. Grassie
City of Miami, Florida
Gentlemen:
0
ft"f l'H R. ( J V S11
( rty 00 rrIaRlM
June 16, 1980
re: CONDITIONAL USE - DENIED BY ZONING
BOARD - APPEALED TO CITY COMMISSION
BY APPLICANT: Victor Perez-Villar
3095 N.W. 14th Street
Lot 10, Block 6;
KEW GARDENS (8-9)
The Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of June 2, 1980, Item #1,
following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 92-80
by A 7 to 0 vote DENYING Conditional Use as listed in ordinance
6871, ARTICLE VI. Section 1(4-A)(a), to permit a Residential
Development of a Planned Unit Nature (PUN) on Lot 10, Block 6;
KEW GARDENS (8-9), being 3095 N.W 14th Street, as per plans on
file. consisting of one existing dwelling unit and 4 new dwelling
units in 2 structures with 2 dwelling units per structure; zoned
R-2 (Two Family).
Four objectors present at meeting. Six objections received
in the mail.
A RESOLUTION to provide for this Conditional Use has been prepared
by the City Attorney's office and submitted for consideration of
the City Commission.
i rrel
o E z -L e�
Director
Planning and Zoning Boards
Administration
cm
Z . M. #26
CC: Law Department
NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: DENIAL.
Tentative City Commission date: July 24, 1980.
8 0 - 5 7 4
i
1. 3095 N. W. 14TH STREET
Lot 10, Block 6;
YEW GARDENS ( 8-9 )
Conditional Use as listed in Ordinance 6871, ARTICLE VI,
Section 1(4-A)(a), to permit a Residential Development of
a Planned Unit Nature (PUN) on above site, as per plans
on file, consisting of one existing dwelling unit and
4 new dwelling units in 2 structures with 2 dwelling units
per structure; zoned R-2 (Two Frmily).
NOTE: Deferred from Zoning Board meeting of 4/22/80.
Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal Notice of Hearing
and administered oath to all persons testifying at this Hearing.
PLANNI:Ir DEPART11ENT RECOMMENDATION: venial.
e proposed plans �o n`otmeet Uie intent of
a development of a Planned Unit Nature (P.U.N.)
Although the minimum standards are being met,
(i.e., two parking spaces per unit, setbacks,
density, utc.), no substantial amenities have
been provided. There is virtually no meaningful
open space provided for the four new units and
no unique design has been provided for the
architecture.
Ms. Susan proves, Planning Department: Mr. Chairman, Members of
the Board, the Planning Department is recommending a denial of the
requested conditional use Permit to allow a P.U.N. consisting of. 4
units in 2 structures in addition to an existing single-family residence.
The reason why we are recommending a denial of this application is that
we feel the design of the project does not conform to the intent of a
P.U.N. While it does meet the minimum standards, it does provide
2 parking spaces per unit and the minimum required building spacing, it
does not go beyond that and it does not provide a meaningful open
space for the units. If this property were to be developed without
any public hearing, the site could be subdivided into two lots to total
4 units. We feel that perhaps this is a better choice for the property
at this time to allow traditional development; duplex development
rather than going through with this proposed conditional use, P.U.N.
Mr. Victor Perez-Villar: tty name is Victor Perez-Villar, 1530
Bird Road, Coral Gables. I would like the architect, Mr. Miro, to speak
on my behalf.
Mr. Miro: I live at 101 Grand Canal Drive, Miami, Florida.
When my client first bought that property, his intention was to build
two duplexes. A member of. the Zoning Department mentioned to him that
he could get more use of the land if he would go to a P.U.D. Based
on that advice, we started working on that. We worked very closely
with Ms. Groves. We met about five or six times and thought we met
the requirements she was looking for. After that, she gave un verbal
approval of the P.U.D. Based on that verbal approval, my client in-
structed me to continue and proceed with the working drawings because
-2- June 2, 1980 Item 1
ZB
it was our assumption that the plan would be approved. Based on that,
my client has entered into a hardship of time and money based on the
preliminary approval, verbal approval of this project. The meeting
was deferred. I was in the office at 4:00 when I was called by
Ms. Groves tellin4 me that the . . . had decided not to recommend
the P.U.D. development on that property and I think it was unfair to
be told just a few hours before the meeting that the plan would not
be approved. We met with Ms. Groves on several occasions and I thought
we accomplished everything she was looking for in those plans.
Mr. Gort: That's it?
Mr. Miro: Yes.
Mr. Gort: Ils. Groves, would you care to answer this please?
Ms. groves: I did meet with the architect many times over,
that is correct. Fiowever, I never stated that we would recommend
approval. I did state that they did meet the minimum standards and they
did have the right to apply for a conditional use permit. I do know
that I stated every time we met, and one of the reasons why we met so
many times, was because I did not feel that this design, the proposed
design, really offered a Rood solution for a P.U.N.
Mr. Gort: Can we hear from the opponents now.
Mr. Smith: My name is Floyd Smith, 1451 N. W. 31st Avenue. This
was supposed to be taken care of, I believe, April 22nd and I wonder why?
Mr. Gort: A deferral was asked for by the applicant on April 22nd.
His son was here to ask for the deferral on his father's behalf. At
the same time though, the people who were here in opposition were given
the chance to state their name, address and record their opposition to
this application on that day. That's what took place. Does that
answer your Question?
Mr. Smith: Actually no, it doesn't because our name was supposed
to have been taken out here in the hallway - do you recall that?
Mr. Gort: Yes sir.
Mr. Smith: They were never taken. Tell me why they weren't taken?
mr. Gort: Sir, we recommended it to the applicant; to take
everyone's name and get together with you to try to work out a solution
if it was possible. It was up to the applicant to do so. If he didn't
do it, that's his problem, not ours or yours.
Mr. Smith: Ile ran out the front door. Why?
Mr. port: Sir, I cannot answer for the applicant. I can answer
for this Hoard.
Mr. Smith: Ile came down here and spent a lot of time. I believe
there were about 10 or 12 people at that time. well, we oppose it.
Mr. port: Sir, do you want to tell us why you're opposed to this
application?
Mr. Smith: Yes. For one thing there's not enough room for
parking. If 4 units are built there, there'll be at least 12 cars.
That is a nice neighborhood and we want to keep it that way. They're
going to cut down all the beautiful trees there to put up 4 units. It's
zoned R-2 and let's leave it the way it is. I've lived in that area
-3- June 2, 1980 Item 1
ZB
s. .
for 33 years and I've seen things happen by the Toning Hoard that has
deteriorated the City. This will deteriorate the area much more.
Mr. Rolle: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask Mr. Smith
a question before he leaves. Sir, you mentioned your concern about
parking in the area and the Department tells us that the plan includes
adequate parking, 2 cars per apartment. Is that your understanding
in looking at the plans?
Mr. Smith: I understand, but, that don't mean a lot. I've seen
it happen before and you have too. Right?
Mr. Rolle: I'm just asking for your understanding of what that
is, sir.
Mr. Smith: I understand.
fir. Rolle: Thank you sir.
Ms. Smith: I'm Bernice Smith at 1451 N. W. 31st Avenue. I am
a neighbor to 3095 N. W. 14th Street lot. I'm in consent with what
my husband said. We do have a lovely neighborhood there and it is
zoned for R-2. I don't think we people in the neighborhood have too
much objection to the R-2 zoning but with 4 units there, there would
be a lot more traffic as a through -street and it would be bad. The
parking is supposed to be taken care of in the structure, but, as my
husband said, it never is. They never quite park where they're supposed
to. There's a lot of beautiful trees; on): trees have been there for
years and fruit trees will have to be taken up. The house on the lot
now is a 3-bedroom, 1 bath home already and to get 4 more families in
on this lot with children and so forth, I think is asking too much of
our community to accept that. As t said before, I don't think too
many people in there are too opposed to the R-2 zoning but the R-4 is
what we're opposed to.
Ms. Camber: My name is Millicent Gamber. I'm representing
myself, my mother Margaret Philipson who lives at 3074 N. 11. 14th
Street. I live at 3070 N. 11. 14th Street. I have lived in that
neighborhood since 1926 and I oppose the breaking down of the residential
property to apartment lots. As you look at that map on the wall, you
can see they're very large lots in there and that's about the only
place close in, in the Miami area, that the lots are large like that.
When they put in apartment lots, they put in, Car #1, Car #2, Car #3,
Car #4.
Ms. Theodorides: My name is Helen Theodorides. I live at 3083
N. W. 13th :street. I'm opposed to this.because when we find an R-2
zoning we think generally people are going to buy or build a duplex,
will live on one side -and rent the other side. They'll be there looking
after the oronerty. Putting in a P.U.N. or 2 or 3 duplexes on one lot
and the actual owner of the property not even living there is ruining
the so-called R-l's and R-21s in Miami and I think it's not right for
the people who have lived here and paid taxes all their lives thinking
they're going to have a home and not an apartment.
Mr. fort: Anyone else? Alright sir, we'll come back to you for
a few minutes rebuttal.
Mr. Miro: I get the impression that the people don't really
know what we're talking about. What we're talking about is 2 duplexes
and the existing house. The applicant has a right to go back and the
thing he'll lose is a lot of time. Ms. Groves is very tough with the
trees. We have to preserve all the existing trees plus we have to go
-4- June 2, 1980 Item 1
ZB
over and beyond the minimum requirements of the City of Miami for
landscaping purposes. A simple duplex would have no requirements.
She is asking for a lot of landscaping and I think this P.U.D. will
look much better than 2 simple duplexes. In that respect, she's asking
for tree preservation that exists there.
dr. Gort: Thank you. We'll close the public hearing and have
comments from Board members.
Ms. Baro: Mr. "tiro, you said the people didn't seem to under-
stand what you are trying to put up there. That's the problem we have
here. You were given an opportunity the last time to take their names
down and to get together with them to try to explain to them. According
to Mr. Smith that effort was not made so that they're still in the dark
as much as they were before.
Mr. Miro: Ma'am, when I received that call from Ms. Groves, the
owner called about ten minutes later and said he had to run to Key West
to pick up some relatives. lie sent his son over who had somebody
waiting for him outside and they were going to Key West. That's the
reason he didn't stay here and meet with the people.
t1s. taro: fir. Miro, that was on nrjril 22nd. Since then you
should have been able to contact and qet in touch with them. I'm not
trying to tell you how to run your business but I think you had an
opportunity that you missed. Only the minimum standards are being met;
there are no substantial amenities; not enough open space provided.
Mr. Miro: There is no room for more open space than we are
providing right now.
Mr. Carner: I would just like to say that I think there's an
unintentional attempt to subvert the meaning of a P.U.N. here. It's
not an ideal way of trying to put the highest density on a piece of
property. It's trying to make the hest use of a piece of property as
far as design, shape, view, to make it attractive. The architecture
that we have here looks like it belongs on the set of 'Stalag 17' and
I'd like to move for denial.
Mrs. Baro: I second it.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: Mr. Chairman, there is a gentleman in the
audience who would like to speak.
Mrs. Baro: I'll ask him the question.
Mr. Gamber: I would like to respond to the statement that the
architect made in regards to our misunderstanding as to his intent
regarding rezoning this area. As I look at the map -
fir. fort: Excuse me sir, did you understand the statement made
by a member of the Board? The motion that was made?
Mr. camber: Yes I did, but I want to respond because I think it
is our right to have someone know that we do understand this situation
a little better than he thinks we do. I resent his inference that we
don't. And I want to respond to it as a citizen of this City. Now I'm
sick and tired of people coming down here looking for the maximum use
of any land piece that they want to pick up just for the dollar that
they might get out of it. T think that it's time you People sitting
before the community as a whole, as well as any architectural knowledge
of what is good or bad for this City, takes a stand. Ile have to let
you know that we feel a certain way or you're goina to he back here next
week or next month and allow this variance. It goes and goes until it's
-5- June 2, 1980 Item 1
ZB
approved. What is the P.U.D. that he says is 4o great? We don't see
any evidence of it. What is this land cut up into in the way of lots?
We don't see any evidence of it. I see two lots. Is it one lot or is
it two lots? Plow if you cut that into two lots, and he comes back here
and says 'I want to build two duplexes on it' where is he going to
build it? There's no room to cut two lots and put 4 duplexes. Is it
2 duplexes? There's one duplex per R-2 lot not two. That's my state-
ment. I want to make you aware we understand what's going on here
tonight. Thank you.
Mr. Gort: There's a motion on the floor and it has been seconded.
Call the question.
Ms. Basila: Mr. Chairman, before you call the question, I would
like to have somebody from the Department explain exactly what the
P.U.N. is and what the minimum requirements are for a P.U.N.
Mr. Gort: I would like that statement to he made after the
question has been called. tie have a motion on the floor, it has been
seconded. If we don't have any discussion on the motion, I would like
to vote on the motion and then I would like it explained to the people
what a P.U.D. is. Is that okay with you?
Ms. Basila: Alright.
Mr. Perez-Lugones: We have a motion to deny made by Mr. Carner
and seconded by Ms. Aaro.
6 Return Notices opposing petition were received in the
mail from property owners of record.
(PLEASE TURN TO PAGE 7 FOR RESOLUTION)
-6- June 2, 1980 Item 1
Z$
Mr. Stephen Carner offered the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION Zia-92-80
RESOLUTION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE
AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE 6871, ARTICLE VI,
SECTION 1(4-A)(a) TO PERMIT A RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OF A PLANNED UNIT NATURE
(P.U.N.) ON LOT 10, BLOCK 6; KEW GARDENS
(8-9) BEING 3095 N. W. 14T11 STREET AS PER
PLANS ON FILE, CONSISTING OF ONE EXISTING
DWELLING U14IT AND FOUR NEW DWELLING UNITS
IN TWO STRUCTURES WITIT TWO DWELLING UNITS
PER STRUCTURE; ZONED R-2 (TWO FAMILY).
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Alicia Baro, this resolution was
passed and adcpted by the following vote:
AYES: Mmes. Baro, Basila
Messrs. Alfonso*, Carner, Cruz, Rolle, Cort
NAYS: None
Absent: Mr. Garcia
*Mr. Perez-Lugones: The motion to deny carries 7 - n.
You have the right to appeal the decision of the Board to the City
Commission. You have 15 days to do so. In order for you to be aware
of the procedure, please contact my office. Thahk Vou.
*Mr. Alfonso at vote call: I wish to explain my vote. One of the
speakers has a very valid point and that is when you live in a neighbor-
hood, and something is aoinq to be built there, you will suffer or
enjoy what you have built, or what someone else has built. If you
build in a neighborhood and you don't live there, that you're just
seeking to make money on a piece of property it is not good. I vote yes.
*Mr. Gort: I've been in the area since 1955 and I've seen what a lot
of R-2's have done. I'm against a lot of the duplexes that are in the
area. They all look the same as though from the same plans but just
on different lots. That's why the City of Miami thought of the P.U.D.
A P.U.D. is where you give a person a chance to come here and come up
with beautiful different plans; a set of architectural drawings with
landscaping. We're qoing to give something but at the same time, we're
going to demand from them to give a lot to the neighborhood. That's
mainly what a P.U.D. is for.
*Mr. Perez-Lugones: A P.U.N. is a device in which on larger lots a
duplex is allowed to be built upon conditional approval which means it
has to be in character with the neighborhood et cetera for every 6,000
square feet of lot area. A lot if it were to be created today, any
lot in the City of Miami with the exception of R-113 would have to be
6,000 square feet. Therefore, the net amount of land is the same as
the number of ideal lots that could be divided into.
Ms. Basila: I particularly wanted you to say that for the benefit of
the audience; that we do have these vehicles under certain zoning like
the R-2 where they can put Planned Unit developments when they meet the
certain requirements that are set out by the P.U.M. I did want every-
body to understand that: that there are certain things under R-2 that
you can build more than just 2 units. Mr. Chairman, would you please
-7- June 2, 1980 Item 1
ZB
80-574
recognize this gentleman.
of the P.U.N. understood.
The issue is over but I want the subject
Mr. camber: I would like to say that everyone is for better
development and better planning. Now whatever you call it, and when-
ever it is changed, no matter what the density is, now matter what
the requirements are for a unit, I think that these plans then should
be presented so everyone has a chance to look at them and decide if
it is something worthwhile or not.
Mr. Gort: That's why we have public hearings on every one of
these applications.
Mr. Gamber: Thank you very much for hearing me.
Ms. Gamber: When we were here last week we were told this
gentleman would be put under oath to swear whether he was here or not
because we saw him sitting out in the back. This was not done. We
also feel very funny about this, you know?
fir. Carner: I believe he did say he was here and he was called
to the sealift and that's why he went away. Regardless of the reason,
we've turned it down Ma'am; you've gotten your petition sustained; the
man has the right of appeal under law but it was denied.
Ms. Basila: Thank you for coming and being interested in your
neighborhood too.
i -8- June 2, 1980 Item 1
ZB