HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-08561MEA
OMINANrcE No. ,.. N.�_ EE.w... �.0
AN ORbINANCE MMENbING ORDINANCE NO. 6871 #
THE COMPRENENSiVE ZONING OItbINANCE Pa THE
CITY OF MIAMI, by CHANCING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF SITE ENOfiN AS NE'LY 99=68
FEET OP LOT 9, b B: `► b" 2 9 3 r t)NPLATTE 3 i
7 HEING 3496 MAIN.HIGHfiAY, FROM;R.1E ONE FAMILY)
TO R.1 (ONE FAMILY)) ANb by MAfING THE NECEgSARY
CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP, MADE A PART
OP THE SAIb ORDINANCE NO. 6871, EY REFERENCE ANb.
DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2 THEREOF;
BY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, CODE SECTIONS, OR
PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT: ANb CONTAINING A
10 SEVERABILITY PROVISION.
11
12 WHEREAS, the Miami zoning Hoard at its meeting of
13 May 3, 1976, Item No. 7(a), following an advertised hearing,
adopted Resolution No. ZB 88-76 by a 7 to 0 vote recommending
14
a change of zoning classification as hereinafter set forth; and
15
WHEREAS, the Commission deems it advisable and in
16 the best interest of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to
17 amend said Ordinance as hereinafter set forth;
18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF
19 THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
20 Section 1. Ordinance No. 6871, the Comprehensive
21 Zoning Ordinance for the City of Miami, be and the same is hereby,
amended by changing the zoning classification of site known as
NE'ly 99.50 feet of Lot 9, D.B. "D" - 253, UNPLATTED, being 3495.
23 Main Highway, from R-1B (One Family) to R-1 (One Family) and by
24 making the necessary changes in the zoning district map made a
22
25 part of Ordinance No. 6871 by reference and description
26 III, Section 2 thereof.
27 Section 2. All laws or parts of laws in conflict
herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed insofar as they are
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35'
36'
in conflict.
in Article
Section 3. Should any part or provision of this
ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to
be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the ordinance
as a whole,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.25
26
27
28
29
30.
31
32.
.33
34
35
36
P igIEb ON PfkgT REAOINd EY TITLE ONLY this
kAggEb Mob AbOP' tb ON SECONb At4b PtNML =End EV
TITLE ONLY this _.a..:_.._,,day of JUL :.:._ r,....... .9'76.
MAUkt&E A. FERRE
UTHERN
Ric
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
MICHEL E.'ANDERSON
ASSISTANT CITY. ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
JOHNS . LLOYD
CITY ATTORNEY
'%
t•tta�l: '
tit* Si? MIAMI. i=L iiigk
iNtf=€ = r; PiisE MtMe3t ANbUM
Itorloratile Mdthiie>;s of the
it i.Ct ttit�iissibft
Ws Ai drewS
City Manager
PETITION•:
A. A change of zoning classification for the site known as NE'ty 99. 50' of
Lot 9, D. B. "D" - 253, UNPLATTED, being 3495 Main Highway, from
R-1B (One Family) to R-1 (One Fannily).
'U[!itci•
X otthig 13cia ird Vact 8i-wet
tt em 6 a "F`r b
City Cornmissih.m I eetitig Jtine ) 1976
h kt-tq ENcE5:
atcLOSUt is
ZONING I3OARD FACT SI-4EET
and
B. Request for Planned Area Development. (PAD) approval as per Ordinance
6871,ARTICLE XXI-) consisting of twenty-four (24) single family
cluster -type units, on site known as NE'ly 99. 50'. of Lot 9, D. B. "D" - 253,
UNPLATTED, being 3495 Main Highway, being the easterly units of site
plan on file, subject to platting of property; zoned R-)B (One Family);
proposed to be rezoned R-) (One Family).
EXPLANATION:
Applicant wishes to develop cluster housing on bayfront parcel adjacentto
the Barnacle State Park site on Main Highway. Plans for twenty-four (24)
attached dwellings would require some relocation and removal of trees in
heavily wooded tract. Reduced density would aid in minimizingtree re-
moval. Project has received approval of Environmental Preservation Re-
view Board and Urban Development Review Board.
APPLICANT:
David Miller
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: (SUMMARY)
The project will permit a more efficient and economical use of the land
while assuring significant amenities for both the community and residents
of the project, ttecognizing that pi it 1tted development under the 1i=1
tit StPirt., if platted, . woutd :allow the establishment of sit teen (16) dwell-
ings iiiil vidually sited on six thousand (6000) sguarc: foot lots j the use
of the Planned Area Development process has resulted in a superior
design Solution, ' A change in the zoning classification froth R.1B to 12.1
Planned Area Develops ient with a tnaditrium development of twenty one
(21) dwelling units is recotntnended.
ZONtNC BOARDRECOMMtNDATtON;
The Zoning Board, at its meeting of May 3, 1976, adopted Resolution No,
Z13 38-76 by a 7 to 0 vote RECOMMPNDING change of zoning R 113 to 11-1,
and; adopted Resolution No. 1,B 89-76 by a 6 to i vote recommending ap-
proval of a Planned Area Development permitting twenty-one (21) dwelling
units, deleting the three (3) units shown in the northwesterly portion of the
applicants proposed plan.
DESCRIPTIVE SKETCH: r
tiostrraUt.a.e40,
r7:1(
-
R
CO CONUT
GROVE'
jBAYE F ONT
7 P A E? K.
SE:.CTl0N O! E
4,4%-„ rd.t TRACT "A"
Honorable City Commission
Attention: Mr. P. W. Andrews
City of Miami, Florida
Gentlemen:
The Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of May 3, 1976, Item #7(a),
following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 88-76
by a 7 to 0 vote Recommending Change of Zoning Classification of
site known as NE'ly 99.50' of Lot 9, D.B. "D" - 253, ttNMMATTED,
being 3495 Main Highway, from R-1B (One Family) to R-1 (One Family),
One objection was received in the mail; Eight objectors were
present at the meeting. Four letters in favor of this item were
received in the mail; three people in favor were at the meeting.
An ORDINANCE to provide for this Change of Zoning has been prepared
by the City Attorney's office and submitted for consideration of
the City Commission.
re: CHANGE OF 2ONItG RECOMMENDED
3495 Maui Highway
known as NE'ly 99.50' of tot 9,
D. B. "D" 253, UNRLATPED
Applicant: David Miller
Sine rely,
as.A7
Ro rt A. Da is, Director
D partment of Administration
Planning and Zoning Boards
cm
Z. M. 46
Attached; Minutes
cc: Law Department
Planning Department
Note:. Planning Department recommendation APPROVAL.
Tentative City Commission date:
May 27, 1976.
Ca)
rite N HV HWA y
Known as NEty ff . W at Lot O r
D.B. "b - 253,, UNPLATttb
Change of lotting Clattifioatioh Oh above described site
from t-1B (One Family) to P,=1 (Otte Pamiiy)
and.
(b) Request, as per Ordinance 6871, AttTICtE XXI-1, for the
approval of a Planned Area Development (PAD) consisting of
24 single family cluster -type units oft above site,
subject to platting of property , . as pet ee rlanttens onRf llet (Otte
Zoned R-1B (One Family) ; proposed to
Family).
ar filed proof of publication of Legal Notice of Hearing and
Secretary at this hearing.
administered oath to all'persons testifying
EIGHT OBJECTOR5 TOPRESENTTEM WERE WIiO WEREP FORTHISITEM.
THREE PEOPLE WERE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONNt. PPRO PLAN
SUBJECT
ANTO
-SUBMISSION F A REVISED SITE 1
CONTAINING TWENTY-ONE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
UNITS.
In accordance with the provision for planned:area
development and pursuant to review of the Urban
Development Review Board and.the Environmental
Preservation , Board , the Depart e t recommends R- BRt l
change of.zoning classificat and approval -of the proposed project limiting
develop-
ment to twenty-one'(21) single family attached units.
An evaluation of the applicant's revised site plan is
contained in our memorandumto,the Board dated.
'April 29, 1976, titled "Abitare" - PADFindings and
Recommendations. 'The Department's recommendation is
based upon the presumption that the applicanto is not
the owner of baybottom land formerly, a p
art f the,
original application. However, should a'subsequent
determination from a higher authority '.confirm the
applicant's' rights to baybottom ownership,the
Department recommends: APPROVAL"OF SITE PLANS ON6,
FILE, IDENTIFIED AS SCHEME , DATED MARCH. 5,
POR TWENTY-FOUR (24)DWELLING UNITS.
Mr. Davis: If I may,:Mr.;Chairman, we.had super -efficient
custodians before themeeting, who removed everything from the ,, counter
up here,.and there are two letters ._... _to redetnotou no concerning
this item which were in front o you but wi ar
w.
The first letter'is to me, from Mrs.• Amparo Cardenas?,
Administrative Assistant, Environmental Preservation Review Board:
"This is to inform you that at the' Public Hearing
held by the.EPRB last April 27, 1976, it was
decided to recommend"the plans for'ABITARE Project,
3495 Main Highwayas presented, with'the 260 foot,'
setback from Main Highway. The voting was as follows;,
Three - In favor
Two - Against"
The next letter is from. Metropolitan Dade County A.O,T.T.,
Department of Traffic and Transportation;
"Regarding Item #7(b), the site plan for this proposed
Cluster development shows adequate internal circulation
May 1976
and cohhedtihh tit, a pubiio toad. 'phis plan
id aedeptable to the D.O.T.T."
The next letter is rather long but, itt eSsehce, it is frog
the Urban Development Review BOard. It states, again its essetiee 16,a
porhapS I'd better read this in tinore detail:
"A joint meeting of the Urban Development Review
Board and Environmental Preservation Review Board
was held on Monday, April 5, 1976, to evaluate a
Planned Development Submission for property
located at 3495 Main Highway.
(Those in attendance were listed.
Fact sheets describing the project were distributed
to the Members. Planning. Department representatives
explained the meeting purpose: to evaluate plans to
determine their impact on environmental conditions
and evaluate proposed densities submitted.
Following considerable discussion, Chairman Buff
of theUDRB asked fora motion. Mr.Seymour
motioned that the project be approved with
development not to exceed twenty (20) dwelling units.
Mr. Seymour's motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. O'Leary motioned that the applicants' submission
be granted for twenty-four (24) dwelling units
according to plan and: the architects commitment
for tree relocation. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Forfar with a vote of 3-1 in favor of the motion.
The UDRE adjourned their meeting at 5:30 P.M. In
accordance with the requirementthat the Urban
Development Review Board meet to evaluate plans for
developments of Planned Area Development, these
meeting minutes and action constitute a valid
summary of the proceedings that occurred."
(At this point and time, a visual count was made of those
people :for and against' this item. From the audience, Mr. Simonhoff
declared he would be against it if the larger number of units were
permitted in this PAD).
Mr. Dean: Alright, Mr. Dooney?
Mr. Dooney Mr. Chairman, you have our memorandum, titled
"Abitare--PAD Findings and Recommendations" which were submitted to you
on April 29th. This memorandum ,identifies 'the project in whole,
describes what the request is and provides our findings and recommendations
to you.
I should like to read into the record a summary of our
findings and recommendations this evening:
"Parts (a) and (b) - Approval, subject to the submission
of a revised site and landscape plan containing twenty-
one single family attached units. In accordance with
the provisions of Planned Area Development and
pursuant to review of the Urban Development Review
Board and the Environmental Preservation Board, the
Department recommends the change of zoning classifica-
tion from R-1B to R-1, and approval of the proposed
project limiting development to twenty -One (21) single
family attached units, An evaluation of the applicant's
revised site plan is contained in our memorandum which
I described earlier,"
May 3, 1976
1
The Department's radof tier datibn is based upon the
presumption that the applidant is not the owner of
baybottom formerly a part of the original applies
tion. However, should a subsequent determination
Confirm the applicant's rights to baybottom owner-
ship, the Department reeotfithends approval of site
plans on file identified as Scheme 1, dated
March 15, 1976 for twenty-four (24) dwelling units.
I should like to add on to that - that would alsobe subject
tb the submission.of revised landscape plans.
These are the Department's findings and recommendations this
evening.
Mr. Deana: .Alright, thank you very much. Mr. Campbell?
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, for
the record there is in Main Highway a sanitary sewer, twelve inches
in diameter, which will be sufficient for this development.. However,
as: I: understand it, the roadways and etc. are tobe private; the
entire development is to be a private sort of thing. The availability
of sanitary facilities depends upon the developers getting the affluence
to the main sewers via a lift station or whatever means they determine.
Mr. Dean: Alright, thank you, sir. Sir? Would you state
your name and address for the records?
Mr. Traurig: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my
name is Robert H. Traurig. I'm an attorney with offices at 1401 Brickell
Avenue. I represent Mr. David Miller and Mr. Carson Bennett Wright who
would be the joint -venturers who would develop this property. Mr. Wright
is the architect and has been the land planner for this project.
Mr. Dean: Let me ask you this.
Mr. Traurig: Yes sir?
Mr. Dean: Do you agree with their recommendation?
Mr. Traurig: I certainly do. We're prepared to accept the
twenty-one units which were recommended with the conditional approval
of an additional three units in the event title to the area that's shown
in blue,which is what we considered was our property but which is actually
baybottom at the present time, would ever be determined in our favor.
At the present time, we are ready to accept the recommendation
for twenty-one units and all the. conditions.
Mr. DeanAlright then. We can proceed to, listen to the
opposition and then you can have an opportunity for rebuttal. Okay?
Those in opposition?
Mr. Simonhoff: (From the audience, and inaudible).
Mr. Dean: I know you qualified it but you could step forward`
and there might be a better way to, or you might have some questions to
raise and want to have them respond to it.
Mr. Simonhoff: My name is Michael Simonhoff. I own the
property immediately to the south. I would be agreeable to the twenty-one
units as proposed but I would like to make one qualifying statement.,
that there are other areas that the City is now attempting to work, or
other zoning districts within this particular area, for the future
planning and I wouldwant to make sure that anything that happened on
this site would be agreed upon tonight by the Board and: by the applicants
that would not endanger the future City of Miami planning Department's.
recommendations towards the other area within the Main Highway diatriet.
I, at thin time, would be it favor of the twentykono unite and would
not give my opposition. Thank you.
Mr. Dean: Alright sir. Alright, anyone else?
Mr. May: Do you want me just to identify.ttyse1f/
mr. Dean: Yes sir. Your name and address.
Mr. May: aohn May, 3695 Avocado Avenue,
Mr. Dean: Alright sir, proceed.
Mr. May: You want the whole layout? flight now, er,►.?
Mr. Dean: Yes► You make your presentation no%.
Mr. May: I'd like to, if I may, read from the planning
Studies for Coconut Grove, as laid out by the City of Miami. I'm
taking parts out of it. It might seem to be out of context but I think
it presents the idea of what will possibly happen in this area if the
apartments are allowed to be built on the area in question. I'm
quoting here:
"The historical evolution of Coconut Grove has left us
squarely at the crux of the most important issue that
it will face in decades ,to come...in the future of its
low -density neighborhoods and the structure of the
community necessary to support them. To be sure, the
transitional growth pressures felt by the Coconut Grove
are common to many neighborhoods within any large
city. But.the potential conflicts. between existing and
anticipated development are nowhere more extreme than
in this" historical environmental and socially unique
community.
It is' the low -density neighborhoods. that serve the
foundation for the structure of the Coconut Grove
Community where they encompass; the greatest amount of.
land and embody the physical and' environmental hallmarks
of Coconut Grove,namely, the intimate scale and setting.
of these dense tropical foliage areas.
of the developed area in Coconut Grove and excluding
land devoted to streets, over 67% is utilized for.
single family'housing.
The next highest density in live-in dwellings is multiple
residential which is 4.5 which seems low in comparison and you might
say that allowing apartments in this multiple residential category
wouldn't put that figure up much higher but this depends on what else
I have to say here.
"The compatability of multiple dwelling units with existing
low density housing is, however, a delicate issue that
unless carefully resolved, could easily change the
character and scale of the several neighborhoodS in, the
Coconut Grove area."
Under the heading "Environmental":
"More than anything else, two features of Coconut Grove
environment, setting and scale set it apart from other.
communities in the region. The combination of low -profile
development (and it says one, two and three-story buildings
and I believe I have heard this is three --story buildings,
-20- May 3, .976 Item 7
however here agaih, think about this later Oh ih what
1 have to aay).4.the 1.bid profile development and narrow
meandering streets that restrict views and;defy the
crinfonity of grid street system create eh intimate
human Scale quite unlike any other COMMflity ih South"
Florida. The setting of homes and business, amidst
dense tropical foliage further enhances the seclusion
of homes, streets and neighborhoods while providing.
the visual background that tinitea the cemtitunity' s
image......Accent by grade changes, and exceptional
rock outcroppings, the scale and setting of groves
becomes a rich and distinctive a cperience for its
residents and for anyone moving along its intricate
highways. It is the fundamental enrichment of the
individual and the quality of life that the meaning.
of the Grove's environment becomes the precious and
irreplaceable resource. Significantly, it is the
low density single family neighborhoods of this
environment that., are most evident. The major
arterial highways such as Main Highway, Bayshore,
have largely escaped the functional improvements
that have drastically changed the face of so many
other streets in South Florida and these streets
remain a visible, viable extension of the environmental
character of the Grove. In direct opposition, for
example, is part of Douglas Road whose stark experience
belies its role as a major roadway in the Grove. The
intimate scale of the buildings, streets, spaces and.
abundance and variety of tropical plants that provide
the setting and the accents of diverse topography
tat
form the unique, if incomplete, environmental character
is the Coconut Grove that we know."
Now, this incomplete character in the area certainly doesn't
need apartments to complete the character. Even if this apartment
is scaled out with appropriate tropicalakiliage s-I seehtheee pictures
here present it as such, you're st g a
and access road, a great amount of natural'. setting in this area. The
Grovethat attracts the peopleto this area is comprised of the scale
and setting of the dense foliage, the low profile,the historical
buildings -- all of this is continued in and
aaaround athe
eaproperty to be
in
question. Next to the property is "The Barnacle",
a showplace of our unique Grove history. Acrossthe street is Charles
Avenue with its attraction of historic island grove -designed homes.`
Now theproperty itself, on it is one of the oldest buildings in the
Grove. Instead of allowing removal of the natural growth and
buiitldings
of any kind and putting in apartments designed to supposedly
nto
the area, let's not wreckthis historic setting that,. we have here. Let's
rather expand it. I think that even if they take this area, tteyimove
the trees here and yon, they put their buildings up, they put
roadway in, and what will we have then? I think we'll have -- from the
pictures I see in front of me would indicate -- we'll havesome very
beautiful settings around some handsome buildings. However, this is
not what is contiguous with the area.
This area, in particular, is a setting that this City could
put forward as an historic park, not a building area. The area lends
itself to an historic park in every aspect. It doesn't lend itself to
multiple dwellings of any kind.- The dwellings that are; in the area.
right now are single dwellings. They don't encroach up�n the character
of the neighborhood. Multiple dwellings certainly will. Thank you.
Mr. Dean. Alright, thank you very much. Anyone else?
Mr.weisberg; My name is Alan Weisberg, with offices at
812 Ainsley Building, and I represent Mr, Michael Simonhoff.
-21- May 3, 1976 'Item 7
The only stateinettt that I'd like to make fot is that t `fe
here (and t't representing Mt. Simotihoff ih his ihterest as an.adiaeont
property owner) to keep the development in the Grave reaeahable. the
applioahte originally were seeking a irnber of units greater than that
that they're requesting today. We understand the need for reasonable
development and we think that the number that :has been suggested and
..
is reasbnable.
.
which they're recommending today
Mr. Dean: Alright, thank yoti very much. Anyone else?
Ms. Lanadeli': Myname is Lisle,.Lansdell and I'm a resident
of the Grove. I'm opposed to this development for three reasons that
t can think of, on my feet,
It seems to me that that number of buildings and that number
of people and that number of cars going in and out will eventually
serve to destroy that hammock even though I heat the buildings are supposed to be further down by the water where it's fairly clear. you
can't divide an organism,1ike that hammock, in half and expect it to
survive.
The second reason is that I'm afraid that the development
will destroy the de Hedouville house which is one of the pioneer houses
in this area and,I think, very valuable.
The third reason'is I don't see how Main Highway and Coconut
Grove can take maybe forty some-odd'more cars coming in and out of
thereat rush hour.
We all know what Main Highway is like at rush
hour at this point,- and I don't see how it can take it.
Mr, Dean: Alright,' thank you very much. Alright, anyone
else? Anyone else? Alright sir, back to you for a few minutes'
rebuttal.
Mr. Traurig: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that all of
the spokespeople,made valid. comments. I have to tell, Mr. May that in
the report from the City Planning Department they categorized this
as single family. This is not a multiple family development, but is
,asingle family attached development. That'ar how it's characterized
in the Planning Department recommendation.
He made a'strong mention, and I think others have also, about
the: lush tropical foliage in this Grove area, this hammock area. 'I,call
your attention to Staff's recommendation in which it talks about tree
preservation and it says, ”all 'existing trees are. to be retained,
relocated"or replaced','. Therefore, in addition to what is obvious, and.
that is Main Highway, from Main Highway there 'are 260''in which the.
existing trees and foliage will'not be touched, perhaps:'relocated
somewhat, but will be retained without any:structure of any type invading
that property. Therefore, as people either walk on Main Highway; or
drive; on Main Highway, their' view will' be. exactly the same after this
project'has'been built as it is today. There wilh beno visual`
-penetration from Main Highway through to the:back of the:property:because
it's going to be retained in its present, natural condition. Iwanted
to call that to your attention.
Mr, Dean: I think you ought to call it to that lady's
attention.
Mr..Tzaurig: I want you to be satisfied thatt3is natural.
landscaping you'll:notice right.on the plan;is the natural landscaping
in existence. It's not going'to be torn out and some new foliage
installed to replace it. This is the existing 'foliage which will be
retained, the objective being to keep the view the way it is right now
and what you want to preserve. So this will be'a preservation of
cxisting,natural. landscaping.
-22- May ., 1976
Item 7
ZS
Ms. Lansdell: (Away from microphone? inaudible).
Mr. Traurig: father than get invalvr a ih the dialogue oVer,
you know, 'specifics , since this is a rebuttal period, l will merely
try to answer some, questions, but Mr. Wright who is the arohiteot is
very happy to make a complete explanation of exactly what the planning
proceed has been, how he has retained the foliage, how he has determined
heights, how he has determined traffic circulation and what the thOde
Of location of the buildings is and,how it was designed. If that
is what the Board would like...
Mr, Davis If I may, Mr, Chairman?
Mr. Dean: Alright, Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis: I just think I can answer the lady's question in
a very simple statement. -The Environmental Preservation Board
recommended this proposal, with the preservation of the first 260 back
from Main Highway as being preserved. I think that's what the plan.
entails, is that correct Mr. Wright?
Mr. Wright: Yes.
Mr. Davis:. And the applicant goes (along) with this so it
would be 260' back from Main Highway to the first structure.
Mr. Simonhoff: (Speaking from the audience, inaudibly).
Mr, Traurig: You're right, Mr. Simonhoff, and I should call
that to the Board's attention. Assuming that we have twenty-one units,
these three units (at the front) would also be left in natural vegetation
and would be removed from the plan, so it would move even further east-
ward.
Other suggestions made to you is that we should have concern
over. the environmental aspects and unique social structure.of,the Grove
and the intimate scale, etc. I'm sure that having been before the Urban
Development Review Board and the Environmental Preservation Review
Board, we have been put to the test on those various, aspects of our plan.
We think we've been responsive to the historical aspects;for example,
there's an historical building on the property right now. We're anxious
to work with the City in the relocation of that building to an historical
setting. As we've pointed out, we've been concerned over the environmental
aspects of the plan. It is low density, it is intimate scale, itis
low profile and I think that those questions that have been raised are
valid questions to put all developers to the test of satisfying We
think we have satisfied them. If -- Ms. Ansdell?
Ms. Lansdell: Lansdell.
Mr. Traurig: Lansdell? If you would note, we have 73.7% of
our site in open space with a building coverage of only 26.3%...
Ms. Lansdell;. Well that strip of land is only. about 100' wide.
I'm saying that it's crowded, that those people are going to be crowded
in: there and I'm not talking about what'I can see from the street. It
doesn't matter too much what I can see from the street. That number of
people in that area of land will destroy it. Those cars going in --'I
don't, know how many cars we'd end up with, with twenty-one units, but that
number of cars going in and out of that driveway would destroy that,
hammock, the life that goes on there in that hammock as it is now.
Mr,
Traurig:Well, we must call to your attention that the
Department of Traffic and Transportation of Dade County has reviewed the
plan and approved it, and we have appeared before all the City's Boards.
Were desirous of having an outstanding project that is sensitive to, the
_23- May , 1976 Item 7
_ Z�
environment. Y think if the board Member§ would like Mr. Wright to
address the board, he's prepared to.do aa, but we think that the,.
recommendations of gtaff and your other Hoar&s arc ao sound and ao
htrong ih favor of this project, and we have indieated a wiilingneaa
to accept the twenty-one units as recommended by gtaff subject, of.
course, perhaps to an ultimate revision for the additional, three unite;
that we Urge that you consider this favorably in accordance with your
Staff recommendations. We're prepared to answer questions. Thank you.
Mr,'Deah: Alright, We'll Close the public hearing and have
discussion among: Hoard. Members.
Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman?
Mr, Dean: Mr. Alfonso?
Mr. Alfonso: I have some questions for the Staff, please.
Mr. bean: Alright, Mr. Dooney?
Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Dooney, this change of zoning from R-1B to.
R-1 -- is it: in harmony with the Coconut Grove Study?
Mr. Dooney: Yes, we feel it is.
Mr. Alfonso: So, it's in accordance, with the Coconut Grove
Study that we have...?
Mr..Dooney: This is largely in accordance with the basic
principles of the Coconut Grove Master Plan, yes.
Mr. Alfonso: Another question I have for you about floor
area ratio — what is the FAR permitted in R-1 and what is the FAR
recommended?
Mr. Dooney: There is no floor area ratio requirements in
either one of the single family districts.
Mr. Alfonso: How about the 6,000 sq. ft. per unit, and
they only complied with 4,195. There's a difference...
Mr. Dooney.: Density requirements in the R-1 District are
one dwelling unit for each 6,000 sq. ft. of lot area. The provisions
for Planned .Area Development allow for variations from the basic densities
for superior design, considerations as to lot coverage, provisions for
additional open space, considerations for...
Mr. Alfonso: So it's a difference of. 1,000 sq.
correct?
ft. Is this
Mr. Dooney: No, no. Here again, this is not a variance per se.
This is a provision that is permitted. under Planned Area Development
Ordinance whereby the City is permitted, to waive the minimumrequirements.
in the interest of promoting...
Mr. Alfonso Waiving: That's what I asked of. you. That's
waiving 1,000 sq. ft. per unit. Is that correct?
Mr. Silverman: No.
Mr. Dooney: No. There reallyis no consideration for waiver
here per se. The waiver provision is built into the Planned Development
requirements.
Mr. Alfonso: It's built in. How many feet do you waive? What
is the criteria of the Department to reach the conclusion to allow them to
build more than they're supposed to? Why? I want to know, lam not a
professional.
May 3, 1976 Item 7
ZH
Mr. btoney : Yes, and thee, are .Valid gUebtibhA s if this r
project was subdivided under
the minimum @venteeh separateeifi�iViduai lifof the t whereby
Mini it Could be lottedthtb s
the owner and the developer.:
Mr. Alfonso: That's beoause it's unit by unit?
Mr, booney Right, ...Could put in seventeen single faMily
detached whits.
Mr. Alfonso: Seventeen.
Doone . However, +
y, in so doing, we feel that this would
Mive to the environment in question and would not a econnmioal
be destructive Proper, Therefore, for the residents, the developer and the City p
ord
er maximize on the site and its environmental qualities,
bththe
provisions for Planned Area Development have been pp
lied forapplicant in order to assure a more economical andardmord a edefficientunesign
of the, project. For these reasoner he has been
over and above what the minimums would be.
Mr. Alfonso: So they're giving a bonus of four units if they
build twenty-one. Mr. Traurig, how much is the range...
Mr. Dooney: Well, it's not, no...excuse me, let me qualify
that.
Mr. Alfonso: Just a moment. Let me -- I will ask you later
something. Let me ask this I have in my mind a good idea.
Mr. Dean: Alright.
t•!r. Alfonso: How much would be the price of these units
that you're going to build?
Mr. Traurig: I'll have to ask Mr. are you talking about
the price of the finished house?
Mr. Alfonso: Yes, selling price.
Mr. Traurig: Selling price?
Mr. Alfonso: More or less.
Mr. Traurig: $125,000 to $175,000, average price.
Mr. Alfonso: So for four units -- that answers my question.
Mr. Silverman: How much down? (Grin).
Mr. Dean: He said "how much down?"
Mr. Silverman: No, that's a littlejoke...(chuckle, chuckle).
Mr. Traurig:. Twelve cents:
Mr. Dean: Then a "ghetto man" can't get in there, can he.
(Chuckle, chuckle). How?
Mr. Silverman:. Let Harry Rich get over there...(Chuckle).
Mr, Chairman?
Mr, Dean: Yes sir.
Mr, Silverman: Just for the records, according to my arithmetic,
if you take 119,000-odd feet divided by 21 units, it's approximately 5700
feet per unit,
Mt 4 boohey This is t meet, Mr, gi .verman. Our fiqureo
repreoeht, dividihq the applicant's requeet for twenty-four units► our
reeotitehdation is fot twetty,One units
Mr. Alfonso: Thank you, Mr. tiaor►ey.
Mr, neah' Mr. looney? (i caught you before you sat do n
didn't 1?) A while ago it wag poind ot bit yourdreeoipftend tie h ►ere,
Ate those first three units there going tot)
Mr. Dooney:
We have not qualified the removal of any
specific grouping of units.
Mr. Dean: He pointed to it a while ago. The first three..
Mr. Dooney: That's completely acceptable to us and I think
that would be the.bost approach for the project, to be to remove the
first three units - if it is determined at a later date that the
applicants are not the owner of the baybottom,land.
Mr. Dean: I think if I heard right a while ago, this
gentleman here stated...
Mr. Simonhoff: I just have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I'm sorry, but the application came in for twenty-four but the applicant'
said twenty-one and the Planning Departmentrsaidwenty-one andtthat
was the basis of my acceptance as the prop ywter
Twenty-one: We're not talking about twenty-four.
Mr. Alfonso: That's right.'
Mr. Simonhoff:
own the underwater land,
as far as I'm concerned,
If they go to Circuit Court and determine they
well, that's something else again. But tonight,
it's twenty-one..
Mr. Alfonso: That's right.
Mr. Simonhoff: If it isn't, then I think we should open it
up to public discussion again.
Mr. Dean: No, I think that they have agreed to the twenty-one,
but I'm pointing to the first three units where the attorney had pointed
and said they were going to move those first three units.
Mr. Traurig: That's correct, sir.
Mr. Dean: That wasmy question. I was watching him very
see.
Mr. Traurig: The three units that would be deleted are the
three units on the west side.
closely,
Mr. Dean: That's right. I think that was one of the lady's.
concerns. You were pointing out that the first three would be deleted.
Mr. Traurig:. Yes sir.
Mr. Dean: That's what I was speaking to, Mr. Dooney. Alright?
Alright now. Any more discussion from Board Members?
Mrs. i3asila: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Dean: Mrs.Basiia?
Mrs. Aasi)a: Mr. Rooney? Po you have any idea when you might
know whether you're going to get some determination or is it in the worXa?
Mt. Ddoi ey: 1 have fi ided, Mi's. aai1a, - This would be
son thi q'i thick ?ou should address to the appiidants' attofneyY
Mr. Davis: May II.,
Mt, Dean: dust a moment. Mr, Davis
Mr. Davis: This Matter Was discussed at the previous hearing
on this matter. It was determined by our taw beparttnent that they could
find no situation under Which they could declare that the applicant is
the owner of the baybottom laird, but they, by the same token, WOUld not
and could not do anything and would not want to do anything if the.
applicant were to go into Court and find out that they de) own this
property. So it's up to the applicant to find out if they are the
owner of the land. The City, until that point, declares that they're, not.
Mr. Dean: That means that the applicant has to prove that
they do, but God owns all: that baybottom land.
Mr.'Traurigt We understand that situation.
Mr. Deant Alright.
the crucial moment has come.
Chair is ready for a motion.
Do you want (a) first?
Mr. Davis.:
Any other Board Member? Alright, now
Who will be the good guy or the bad guy?
I want to take them as (a) and (b).
(a) 'first, please.
Mr. Dean: Alright, the eloquent attorney, Mr. Silverman?
Mr. Silverman: In accordance with the Planning Department's
recommendation,.I would move 7(a)
Mr. Dean: Alright, you've heard the motion to move on 7(a).
Is there a second? Seconded by Reverend Johnson. Other discussion?
Being none, call the roll on 7(a).
Mr. Davis: The motion on 7(a) is to
zoning from R-18 to R-1:
recommend change of
One objection was received in the mail.
Mr. Silverman offered the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
passed
RESOLUTION NO. ZB-88-76
RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND CHANGE OF. ZONING
CLASSIFICATION ON: SITE KNOWN AS NE'LY 99.50'
OF LOT 9, D.H. "D" - 253, BEING 3495 MAIN
HIGHWAY, FROM R-1B (ONE FAMILY) TO R-1
(ONE FAMILY).
Upon being seconded by Reverend Johnson, this resolution was
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Silverman, Johnson, Gort
Mmes. Basila, Baro.
NAYS; None.
Mr. Dean: (At time of
there, it costs too much.
Mr. Wright: (Front the
worry about that.
vote) *I don't kn
Alfonso, Dean*.
ow, I can't move in
audience) You can have my house, Don't
Ma!
19 76 Item 7
ZB
Mts beam' Are you goinq to MOVe into the ghett®s
Mr Traurig: pbr you/ They'll make a deal. (Chuekie)
Mra Dean: (Chuckle, chuckle) okay. (I vote) yes.
In.eecordance with everything that was stated here now, particularly
that: gentleman over there.He's here all the time (Mr. SiTonhoff) , and
the lady. I'm the people-wateher: Okay? Aright, 7(b).
Mr. Silverman: Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the
recommendation of the Staff, 1 would move 7(b) for twenty-one single
family, cluster type units, in accordance with the plans submitted,
with the three units to the north deleted. In discussion, may I say
so there'sho misunderstanding -- in the event the applicant is
successful in determining that the applicant is the owner of the bay-
bottom, the applicant would have to come back for approval of the
additional three units. The Staff has indicated that they would
recommend it, however, it's my intention not to take any action on
those three units at this time so that there's no misunderstanding for
the future. You'd have to come back here for the three additional units.
Excuse me, on the West - I thought that was north.
Mr. Dean: Alright, you've heard the motion. Is there a
second?
Mr. Gort: Second.
Mr. Dean: Seconded by Mr. Gort. Other discussion? Being none,
call the roll.
Mr. Davis: The motion is to recommend to the City Commission
the approval of the Planned Area Development for twenty-one units, that is,
deleting the cluster of three units nearest to the street, the westerly
three units.
Mr. Dean: You heard the other part that Mr. Silverman stated?
Mr. Davis: I'm remaining silent on it because I think he
explained it to the applicant that if any further action were to be
taken, he'd have to come back before this Board to amend the PAD.
Mr. Dean: Alright. I just wanted to make
sure it's .in there.'
Mr. Alfonso: Before I vote, I want to explain why I'm going
to vote. I am not in agreement with the innovation of this project,
and the density. I. vote "no".
Mr. Silverman: Excuse me Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Dean: Yes.
Mr. Silverman: May I call upon the applicants to seeif there's
any question about these three additional units, so that there would be
no misunderstanding? I don't know whether they object to what I said
orif they're in agreement or if: they .have any comments. Maybe now would
be a good time for us to find out.
Mr. Traurig: Mr. Silverman, we understand, what you said, very
clearly, and that is that in the event we could demonstratethat we have
title tothe baybottom, we would then have to file a new application to
amend the PAD and seek the addition of the additional three units, and it
would be a new matter to be considered by,this Board at that time, and
that this Board is nottaking action on anything except twenty-one units,
being the easterly twenty-one units as recommended by Staff.
!Ir. Silverman; You have no objection to that?
-26- May 3, 1976 Item 7
Mr..Traurig: We have no bbieetion to that.
Mr. bean: Alright, Bail the roll
Mr. Silverman offered the foiiowinq re§olution and moved ita
adoption:
RESOLUTION i40.B $ t,6...
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A
PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) AS. PER
ORDftNANCE 6871, ARTICLE XXi.-1, CONSISTING
OP TWENTY-ONE SINGLE FAMILY CLUSTER -TYPE
UNITS, KNOWN AS NE'LY 99.50' Off' LOT 9,
D.B. "b" 253,.UNPLATTED, LOCATED AT 3495
MAIN HIGHWAY, BEING THE EASTERLY UNITS OF
SITE PLAN ON FILE, SOAJECT_TO PLATTING OP
PROPERTY; ZONED R.-1B (ONE FAMILY),.:
PROPOSED TO BE REZONED R.4 (ONE FAMILY).
Upon being seconded by Mr. Gort, this resolution was passed
and adopted by the following votes'
AYES: Messrs.'Gort, Johnson, Silverman, Dean.
Mmes. Baro, Basila.
NAYS: Mr. Alfonso.
Mr. Davis:6 - 1.
Mr. Traurig: Thank you.,
Mr. Davis: Both of these items will go before the Commission.
Mr. Dean: Alright, thank you very much for coming.
May , 1976. Item 7
MIAMI. Rtillt-W
ANb bAILY Icitookb
Published batty except Sdititdayr Snnday.drut
Legal Rolidayl
Miatnq brae eotinty, �lotida. .
• SM it OF FLORIDA
L'oUNfY OF DAbE
before the undersigned euthoritP personally air
Peered Martha brdbnie,. whd on oath says that the
1S the. V.P.; Legal Ads Of the; Miami Review and
Deify Rocord, a, daily, texeept, Saturday, Sunday end
Legal ..Holidays) newspaper published at Miami in
Dada COUntY, Florida; that the attached copy of edver•
tisement, being a Legal Advertisement or Notice In
the matter of
City of Miami
Notice - t71ily 14 1975
RE: Ordinance No. 8559 through 8552
In the ................ X.°..X ..X , , Court.
was published in said Newspaper In the issugs of
auly 84 1976
Affiant further says that the said Miami Review
and Daily Record Is a newspaper published at Miami.
in said Dade County. Florida, and that the said news.
paper has heretofore been continuously published in
seld Dade County, Florida, each day (except Saturday,
Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as
second class mail matter et the post office in Miami,
In said Dade County. Florida, fot a period of one year
next preceding the first publication of the attached
copy of advertisement; and atfiant further says that
she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount,rebate, commission or
refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement
for publication in the said.hewspaper.
/
A' 1
.i.Neu'
Swim to/iand•subscribed' betois. me this
f 1
Nr uetty J. Brooks
Stat✓pt\F?br a at
8t
My commission expoae une__3,.1,9.79.
Large.
SCE N0. S36O
h ill• 11P MI A'iit, UAbt3 Ctft:Nfi r ttolittiA
i,t:r)At, NOttc All iat,ri•n: rq(.1 tsi)I take nntice that nit the t rt rIIS ' of iuty
1) 6. t?.o City d.ini lisioti nt'Attanii, Flothlii'adopted the tniinera i
. ln; tilled err:Inances: .
OttbtNANCE O. 53.,9 .
AN ottb'N.\NCE APPROVtsd APPROt'pt.\'i'IONs FOtt
Tilt FISCAL. YEAR ColttECtSiG OCTOBER 1. 1Q.16
AND tE T OF` Oi?F,STP.F: TE P ARI:IS:G;B}CONTAtNI A,T 1'+
�'
�' SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND REPEALING .ALt oRM+
NANCF.S , OR PARTS OF
tiEREWITI4
i" oRbtSIA.
AN ORDINANCP. APPROVING APPROPRIATIONS' RE•.
OCIRED BY THE" DEPARTMENT OF . OFF-STREET
PAP KING FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
TOF HE, CITY. OF 3 t AMI FOR- t1ELL AND THE }F' FISCAL YEAR COaI'
NIENCtNG OCTOBER 1. 1316'AND ENDING SEPTEMBER
30. 19i1: CONTAINING .\ SF.VERAB1LITY CLAUSE AND
REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORMI•
NANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH.
- ORDINANCE NO. S36t
AMENDING 'ORDINANCE' r0.. 6Stt.
AN OP_DTNA HE A:dE..
THE CO MIAM . i CHANGI.`GOTHE ZONING CLA SS1E-
ytC.\ F
LOT 9ID. OF Y'-StTE. LNPLA TTE1 , BEING 1495FEET
tAIN
' LOT D.B. .. r ONE FAMILY). TO ' R-1 NONE
FAMILY)..
FROM R-IB 'MAKING THE NECESSARY.
CAJIML.y). AND BY •
'CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP.' MADE A
PART OF THEDESCRIPTION ORDINANCESAM IN RTIC'.._Ecl t. SECTION r SCE \.'D
c_hC 10NS. BY REPEALING
PAi1TSLTHERFOF IN CONFLICT... ADD .
CONTAINING: A SEVERAB)LITY PROVISION,
• OP.DIN.\NC.E NO. '% 2
AN ORDINANCE \1((:NDING THE. 1It.V\1r CiTY rm.
PLOYZES RETIREMENT SYSTEM t0P.DINANCt: NO.
- 2223.0. DF.CEMBER 6. 1939. AS AMENDED) AS APPEAR-
ING IN CODIFICATION FORM AS A PAPART F tl OF CHAP._
._
TER 2 OF. THE CODE OF ' THE.
FLORIDA.
OYEF.Sa1l')t() ARE S AS FEMPLOVEDD. BY O PROVIDING THE F
F`s:CTTVE: DATE THEREOF AND 1V1?G�.-TIIREAFTrR
. i TICALLY iccmts; OR BECOME . MEMBERS' OF' THE SYSTEMEN SHALL .
AND BY PROVIDING THAT EMPLOYEES PREVIOUSLY
APPOINTED TO 'THE POSITION OF POLICEMAN OR
SAID\SYSTEM ONE THE CT EFFECTIVEnccomr i DATE OF SUCH
APPOINTMENT.. ' AND BY PROVIDTNri A. METHOD
OF COMPUTING BENEFITS FOR THOSE MEMBERS SO
TRANSFERRING.' HEREUNDER: DATE OF DECEMBER 3t. 1976 AS THE DEADLINE NE DATE
TO EXERCISE SUCH' ELECTION: REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES, CODE. SECTIONS OR PARTS •THEREOF
' IN CONFLICT. INSOFAR .\S THEY 'ARE CONFLICT. AND
' CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY PROVISION.
H. D.'SOUTTIERN '
- CITY CLERIC'
puhltcatL.n ,7I this notice on the Sth tiny of July. 1976, 1I 10265
ORDINANCES