Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-75-00742 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 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 MEA/ 10/22 74 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM •!i'NANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11(1), Ts PERMIT REPLATTING OF LOT 5, TENATIVE PL.',' #870-B, "MICANOPY WOODS", LOCATED AT 'PROXIMATELY 1800 MICANOPY AVENUE, WITH;IDTH OF 49.97' (60' REQUIRED); ZONED -1 (ONE FAMILY). Vt WHEREAS, te Miami Zoning Board at its meet- ing of May 20, 1974, Item #4(a), following an advertis- ed hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 6874, by a four to two vote (one member bsent), denied variance from Ordinance No. 6871, Artic] IV, Section 11(1) as herein- after set forth; and WHEREAS, the applicant has taken an appeal from the denial of said varia1tFe to the City Commission; k and WHEREAS, the City Commission, notwithstanding the denial by the Zoning Board, bit after careful con- sideration of this matter, finds that due to peculiar circumstances affecting this parcel of land, practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship' would impair the owner's right to the reasonable us8 of the property without the variance granted as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED $Y THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The request for a variance as per Ordinance No. 6871, Article IV, Section 1(1), Permit repiatting of Lot 5, Tenative Plat #874-B, 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 "Mic opy Woods", located at approximately 1800 Micanopy Avenue, with width of 49,971 (60' required); zoned R-I (One FamL, y) be and the same is hereby granted. SSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1974, M A Y O R ATTESTt CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: MICHEL E. ANDERSON Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: II, _ • p-OHN S. LLOYD (City Attorney Page 2 of 2 36 flif of Honorable City Commission Attention: Mr, P. W. Andrews City of Miami, Florida Gentlemen: tuna, October 11, 1974 Re: VARIANCE - DENIED Approximately 1800 Micanopy Avenue Lot 5, Tentative Plat #870-B "MICANOPY WOODS" Applicant: Housing Engineers of Fla. The Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of May 20, 1974, Item #4 (a) following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 68-74 by a 4 to 2 vote (one member absent), DENYING Variance from Ordinance 6871, ARTICLE IV, Section 11 (1), to permit replatting of Lot 5, Tentative Plat #870-B, "MICANOPY WOODS", located at approximately 1800 Micanopy Avenue, with width of 49.97' (60' required); zoned R-1 (One Family). Sixteen objections were received in the mail. A RESOLUTION to provide for this Variance has been prepared by the City Attorney's Office and submitted for consideration of the City Commission. Sincerely, ,Da ikY Simpson, Jr.,/ Director tl%partment of Administration Planning and Zoning Boards cm Z.M. 44 Attached: Minutes cc: Law Department NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: "DEFERRAL". Tentative City Commission date: November 7, 1974. //-7-74/ 2 a 4 5 7 10 11 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 MEA/s L0/23/74 RE SOLtiT I ON NO. A RESOLUTION OFFICIALLY VACATING AND CLOSING MICANOPY AVENUE FROM ITS WESTERLY TERMINUS TO A DISTANCE OF 49.97' EAST IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENTATIVE PLAT #870-B, "MICANOPY WOODS", LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1800 MICANOPY AVENUE: ZONED R-1 (ONE FAMILY). WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of May 20, 1974,' Item #4(b), following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 68-74, by a four to two vote (one member absent) recommended denial of the official vacation and closure of Micanopy Avenue as hereinafter set forth; WHEREAS, the City Commission, notwithstanding the recommendation of denial of the Zoning Board, after careful consideration of this matter, deems it advisable in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to grant the vacation and closure of Micanopy Avenue as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The request for a vacation and closure of Micanopy Avenue from its Westerly terminus to a distance of 49.97' East in conjunction with tentative Plat #870-B, "Micanopy Woods", located at approximately 1800 Micanopy Avenue, Zoned R-1 (One Family), be and the same is hereby granted. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1974. ATTEST: CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: MICHEL E. ANDERSON, Asst, City Attorney APPROVD AS TO/`FORM AND CORRECTNESS; JOHN S, LLOYD, City A� 'torney C.; MAYOR tlei 5r 1 Honorable City Commission Attention: Mt. P. W. Andrews City of Miami, Florida Gentlemen: °et October 11, 1974 tlf� f ,l ._ 44. 1, Re: STREET CLOSURE - RECOMMEND DENIAL Approximately 1800 Micanopy Avenue Tentative Plat 0870-B "MICANOPY WOODS" Applicant: Housing Engineers of Fla. The Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of May 20, 1974, Item #4 (b), following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 68-74 by a 4 to 2 vote (one member absent) RECOMMENDING DENIAL for the official vacation and closure of Micanopy Avenue 49.97' from its westerly terminus, in conjunction with Tentative Plat #870-B, "MICANOPY WOODS", located at approximately 1800 Micanopy Avenue; zoned R-1 (One Family). Sixteen objections were received in the mail. A RESOLUTION to provide for this Closure has been prepared by the City Attorney's Office and submitted for consideration of the City Commission. S incere cm Z. M. 44 Attached: Minutes cc: Law Department NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: "DEFERRAL". Da id'Simpson, Jr.,irector 7( 6�.�jD epartment of Administration Planning and Zoning Boards Tentative City Commission date: November 7, 1974. 1 s cfrN (a) APP oximATELY 1800 MICANOPY AVtNtui Lot 5, Tentative Plat #870- - "MICANOPY WOODS". 6) , Variance from Ordinance No. 6871, ARTICLE rt, Section 11 (1) , ' _ to permit replattinq of above site, with width of 49.97' (60' required) ; zoned R-1 (One Family). and, (b) Request for the Official Vacation and Closure of Micanopy Avenue 49.97' from its westerly terminus in conjunction with Tentative Plat #870-D - "MICANOPY WOODS". Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal Notice Df Hearing, and administered oath to all persons testifying at this hearing. PLANNINr DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: "DEFERRAL" Approval by the City Commission of Tentative Plat #870, on November 8, 1973, served to effectively provide convenient access and movement to and from platted lots, alleviates the need to relocate approximately 24 mature trees including 18 live oaks while providing a five (5) foot landscaped buffer to the rear of properties frontonq on Crystal Court. However, owing to the size of the property, and its natural hammock -like qualities, its relative seclusion, we believe that the applicant, in the interest of design and environment, should pursue a course of action permitted under the Planned Unit Development Ordinance provisions. Mr. Dean: Staff? Mr. Uoonev: Mr. Chairman. This matter came up, twice before nand, before the Plat and Street Committee, and in November - on November 8th, 1973, it received approval to clone, •i' ;i the exception of the westerly five feet of Micanopy Street, and provide a cul-de-sac on the southerly lot. We feel that the approval that was granted in Noveuwer of 1963 ;sic) aill serve to effective]y accomplish the aims cc the deg►eloper, therefore, the Tentative Plat, which is before you, tonight, roquesting Vacation, together with a Variance on the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, . . . be denied. We feel that to satisfactorily aid and abet the development of this project, we would encourage the developer to submit it to Planned Area Development. 'rhe Re -Plat, which is before you, now, #870-8, calls for the creation of a cul-de-sac some fifty feet east of its original approval. This would cause relocation of a number of trees, specifically, some twenty-four, approximately eighteen of them being oaks. We feel that the approval that was gained in November of 1973 should accomplish the objectives of the developer, and therefore, we deny the applica- tion. Mr. Dean: All right, sir, state your name and address for the Record. Mr. Gould: Dennis I.Gould, 5930 S. W. 89th Avenue. Before making the presentation, I would like to ask a quAstion of this gentleman. For whom was he speaking? As Member of Staff? Mr. Dooney: Speaking for the Planning Department. Mr, Dean: He was speaking for the Planning Department. Mr, Gould: Well, this is not our understanding. We received a letter to the effect that this was approved by Staff, sebiect to the Usual public hearing. and usual requirements. Mr, SimPSon: 14r, Chairman, let me clarify that, -23- May 20, 1974 Item #4 t. Dean: Mr, Sithpson? Mr. Simpson: The applicant did submit a tentative plat, which goes before the Plat and Street Committee of the City of Miatni, mid, the Plat and Street Committee, recommended the Plat, subject to this public hearing. What - the report that was made this evening, is directly from the Planning Department. No relationship to the Plat and Street Com- mittee, who reviews the plat, as they relate to the required easements, utilities, sub -standard size lots, et cetera. Mr. Dean: A11 right, sir, does that clear it up for you? Mr. Gould: Well, I understand, no+', who - for whom he is speaking. We are the contract owners of this area to be known as "Micanopy Woods", shown in blue, and the one yellow portion, on the screen, in front of us here. There was a Tentative Plat, to which this gentleman referred, that was approved, with a cul-de-sac, at the westerly end of Micanopy. We are requesting, this evening, the relocation of that cul-de-sac, approximately fifty feet to the east, with the portion shown, that is designated, almost, by the letter "M" in yellow, on the word "Micanopy", that portion of the dedicated Right -of -Way of Micanopy, then, to revert to what was formerly Lot 35, of the initial Plat of Silver Bluff, Re -Sub, which will now become Lot 5, of Micanopy Woods. Now, this is an existing lot, on which we can build, at present. The variances requrested, or, being requested this evening, because of the regulation that now requires, in tr -r of :.'eplatting, a sixty -foot average width of lot. We are also bound by the regulation that, in order to vacate an existing Right -of -Way, this must be done by Re -Plat, hence, the variance, to carry forth the - or, carry forward,the existing fifty- foot lot, on which we presently can build, at this time. I would like to offer for you, a letter that I have taker. around to several of the objectors. Unfortunately, I was not able to reach all of them. And, I'd like to read the letter now, if I may, there were certain questions that were raised,and the letter is sought to put to rest a nubmer of the comments that, or, questions that have been raised on this. It says: "Dear Property Owner, we have been informed that you have objected to our request for a variance near your home, in the property we will be calling 'Micanopy Woods'. We can well understand your objection, based on the notice you received, and the way it was worded . . ." I might add, parenthetically here, that's no reflection on Staff, they fulfilled the requirements of the regulation, but we just feel that, perhaps, more information would have been beneficial to the adjacent property owners. We go on to say, that: "Lot 35, of Re -Sub- division of a part of Silver Bluff, which will now become Lot 5, Micanopy Woods, for which the variance has been requested, is a platted lot, on which a single-family home can he built. We have requested per- mission to increase the size of this lot, by approximately thirty-five by fifty. However, the Ordinance still requires the Re -Platting of the lot, even to increase the size. Ordinarily, the property - for property which has not already been subdivided, the minimum width is sixty feet, therefore, the wording of the notice you received . ." And, we go on to state that: "We will, under no circumstances, increase the density over that permitted before we acquired the property This is a single-family detached home area, and must be protected , . ." and then, we ask if they wish to reconsider their objection., and we did, in fact, I would like to submit for the Record, we have five individu- als, who, with their understanding of what we were attempting to do, sought to withdraw their objection. Two individuals, also, who had -24- May 20, 1974 Item #4 not responded, have responded in the of firmative , and I'd like to offer this, as well, if I may, Mt► Emil Gould: My name Miami, Florida. I'd like to add, just e word to this. this application, I think it's essential that have the Plat, which was previously approved, change, which we have requested. The portion of the street, we request to he vacated, we wish to add to the smaller lot. Now, normally if the street was vacated, without replattinq the lot, it would go half to each property owner, on each side of the street. I3ut, since we will own both sides, we want to make certain that it goes to the smaller of the two lots. This will permit us to better screen the rear of the property, which faces on Crystal Court, which you can see on the map on the wall. And, in accordance with statements which some people have made, it will be helpful to them, because it will remove fifty feet from the back end of their proeprty, the noise, and the traffic, which will occur on the Right -of -Way. The Plat which you see on the wall, now, does not show the configuration of the lot, nor the cul-de-sac. But if you compare the - to other Plat submitted, I think you will be able to understand what we are trying to accomplish. In either case, the number of lots permitted, the number of houses permitted, will be exactly the same. And, I would like to add, there are some people here, who I met for the first time, this evening, who've been concerned with the fact, that perhaps is this is granted, and tw., 1rt.s touch one another, join one another, that we, or some other future owner, may request still an additional change. They have asked whether we would be willing to put a Deed Restriction of Record, so that each one of these sites, will never be - will never allow for the construction of more than one single family detached home. We said that we would be happy to Record such an Instrument, whatever terms the City and the adjacent property owners might desire. The change that we're requesting now, will not change the number of dwellings permitted, nor, the fact that they will be single family detached homes. is Emil Gould, 35 1. E. 40th street, In order to understand the Memaers of the Board for Recording, and the Mr. Dean: All right, thank you, sir. Is that the end of your presentation? All right, those in opposition. Mr. Williams: i ir. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Lucius Williams, and my address is 3275 Crystal Court. And, I'm not here, as I have been here, on past occasions. I own Lot 5, and the Easterly 16.9 feet of Lot 6, I believe, it's accurately reported on the objections that are listed here. My objection - . . . let me say that I do not object to build- ing houses out there. I hope, indeed, that they do build houses on those lots, because it create a szfe situation, which now is not safe. Not to blame the City, indeed, they have put the street there, they have put lights there, the vandals constantly knock them out, as they are placed back in. So we hope that it will be developed. But I hope, similarly, you will not permit them to develop it, at the expense of taking away my access from that street. Presently, I have approximately ten to twelve feet of accr s from my back lot line, into Micanopy Avenue, A neighbor has even additional space than that. I have been conscious of the possibility of providing screening, -25- May 20, 1974 Item #4 as Well, for future development. And I can say to these c#ehtleinen, that I have atraady planted the full screening, on my hack fence, anticipating that some day, somebody is going to do something there. And, 1 certainly hope that they do not take the trees down, because its a miagnificant addition to the area. And, one that we would like to keep. I do think it would be unfair to close this street and to give this street land area to the potential developer, at the expense of neighbors who have, indeed, already perhaps, paid for that dual access, when 1 bought my land. I believe the cul-de-sac can be placed up to the existing lot line, retaining the access, and accomplishing the same purpose. And, the addition of the existing driveway would not enhance that lot that essentially. In other words, if anything, it's too long now, it's the width that you need. And I do understand that if perhaps there is no way to get in. I also understand that they can build on it presently, and I just encourage them to do it, in its present form. Thank you. Mr. Dean: All right, next. Ms. Beaty: Yes. My name is Glenda Beaty, 3301 Crystal Court. Mr. Gort: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. Mr. Dean: We can't hear you. Ms. Beaty: I'm sorry. 3301 Crystal Court, and my name is Glenda Beaty. We live next door to Mr. Willaims, and I believe it's Number 6, and we have about - I haven't measured it, twenty-five or thirty feet, where the road comes to the back of o_ lot, and that was one of the reasons that we did.buy our house, two years ago, was because this access road, we have a boat, and we intend to keep it at our home, shortly, and have E. fence, a gate at the back, so that we can use the back entrance, and not use the front of the house so much. The kitchen is at the back of the house, and it is more helpful for us. And this is one of the very reasons that we did buy our house, was because of this access road. Thank you. Mr. Dean: Thank you, very much. Anyone else? Mrs. Sinclair: I am Mrs. Sinclair. I live at 3210 Coacoochee. I own Lots 29 and 30, so this is right at my back door. I'm not really against the man, but I didn't - I'm a layman, and as a sixth grade teacher, and I don't understand this language. I can see where - I now understand a little bit about it. But one thing I do want to ask. That one - that lot, at 49 feet and 97 inches, I guess that is. Is that legal? 'that's - I'm wondering. And, also, there have been talk - talking with the neighbors, that - that I wanted to be sure, that this wouldn't be cut in half. Someone said, instead of nine houses, eighteen houses. And I wondered. I'm the only one here, I don't see any neighbors, unless they're the ones that they got their signatures from. No one spoke to me. And I'm right - right on your tailend, there. I don't know, maybe I wasn't home, or contacted. But, I'm interested in the building. We're not against anything like that, we think it will help. As I said, I just got up here, for information. To be sure. The first thing, it would be still R-1, it would still be - what is it - eight or nine? Nine houses. And it wouldn't be eighteen.. Mr, Dean; Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson; May I try to explain. At the present time, there are three very large lots, Dots 36, 41, and 44, right here, They are part of the Tentative Plat, together with the lot that is shown on yellow. The new Plat intends to add to the present lot, as shown in yellow, the small portion of Micanopy at this point, Put a cul-de-sac -26, May 20, 1974 Item #4 in this area, a turn -around, old it would create for lots, instead of three, here, one lot, as sh3wn in yellow, and then, there remains four other lots in this blue area that will remain the same, a total Of nitre building sites. 44, 41 and 36, Mr. Silverman: 71, 62, 79, 52. Mrs. Sinclair: Just as long as we . . . Mr. Dean: All right, anyone else? Mr. Maclntyre: I am Alexander t lactntyre, and we have Lot 42, on South Bayshore Drive, the ones in pink, there, abutting this property here. And, a couple of questions - Mr. Dean: Your address? Mr. Maclntyre: 1835 South Bayshore Drive, .it is the Lot 42. On Lots 36, 41, and 44, now replatted into four lots, and can they be replatted into four lots, without approval of the Zoning Commissioner? Mr. Simpson: Yes, sir. Mr. ,Maclntyre: They are. So, this issue is nothing that we have anything - Mr. Simpson: The replotting of those lots meet - in fact, it exceeds the minimum standards of platting. The only reason they are before the Board on a sub -standard lot, is, the Lot 35 shown in yellow. Mr. MacIntyre: All right, the second question. The objection that was raised by your group here, related to area development, could you carry this a little bit further? Mr. Dooney: Everyone in the audience is very familiar with this piece of property. It's very heavily wooded, and we feel that because of the pertinent restrictions of geometry, that is the way the lot's laid out, this will be restricted to good design, in regard to the environment. We would like to point out and encourage the developer to look into the possibilities of developing within the same density regimented as now required, and see if we can depart from these very rigid and restrictive lot lines. One of the points that we attempted to make this evening, in regard to denial, is the fact that the proposed designed cul-de- sac, will require the relocation of twenty-four mature trees, eight- een of these are oak trees. Now, we feel that this is something that is going to have to be met, and confronted with, as the designer gets prepared to site the houses. Mr. MacIntyre: The third point. I wonder if you can explain how you could overcome the objection of the people, whose property abuts this, and realign this, as an access route. Mr. Gould: We cannot. Mr. MacIntyre: You cannot. Mr. Gould: We cannot. Mr, MacIntyre: Thank you. Mr. Dean: All right, thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Filer; My name is Cleare Filer, I live at 1740 South Bayshore Drive, and on behalf of our Bayshore Homeowners' Associa- tion, of which I am Secretary -Treasurer. In view of the City's the Planning Department's opposition, and also, in view of the -27- May 20, 1974 Item #4 restriction of access to ."fit. Williams to the tear, and the other adjoining owner, we particularly would - would oppose it. We did have some discussion with Mt. could, to the effect that, if it Were otherwise approved, that we might ao along with the idea, based on some type of Deed Restriction, acceptable to us, and approved by Us, but in view of these other problems, we - we would have to oppose it. Thank you, so much. Mr. Dean: All right, anyone else? All right, there being no one else, you have a few minutes for rebuttal. Mr. Emil Gould: The point was made about access to the lot facing on Crystal Court. 1 think the Planning Department, or the Planning Board, can tell you what the policy of the City is, on lots which front on two streets. I'm not certain of what that is, and they can tell you what present policy would be. When it comes to the number of trees, when the Planning Depart- ment made that statement, this area, fortunately and unfortunately, has an enormous number of very beautiful trees. The only way they can all be preserved, would be to keep the property in its present state. There are so many trees, however, that it will be possible to leave a very significant number, so that when houses are built, you would still get the feeling of the woods, which you certainly have now. As a matter of fact, that's why we wanted to call it "Micanopy Woods". This is very heavily overgrown area, it is now, but when the underbrush is cut out, there are some very beautiful specimens there. The property on which the Planned Unit Development, and let me say, that we considered this, was that the people in the area aet terribly concerned about what will be done, and the number of units which will he built. It is our concern, to fund ld si, L 'e1\' the hest job which can humanly be done there, limiting the number of dwelling units to the nine, which we've stated here, before. Frankly, we'll do that in any manner, which meets the approval of all of the people involved. We wanted to give assurance, however, and that's why we suggested we'd be willing to record a Restrictive Covenant, that there would never be more units than that. One woman said, she heard eighteen. I've heard a high rise apartment, frankly. And, these stories get around so quickly, that I wanted to make certain to go on record, here, that we would not plan to build more than nine dwelling units, and that we would be willing to record an Instrument, which would make it impossible, to build more than that, or, for us to request, or the future owners, to request a change in zoning. Thank you. Mr. Dean: All right, that concludes your presentation? All right, we will close the public hearing, and have discussion among Hoard Members. Mr. Silverman? Mr. Silverman: Mr. Chairman. Do you want to have discussion, or a motion? Mr. Dean: Is there any discussion? There being none, the Chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Silverman: Mr. Chairman, I would move to grant. And, let me say just a few words. One is, that the two major objectors have access, if they didn't have access, it would be a different ball game, but they have access, through Crystal Court, and I believe they're adequately served. Secondly, Mr. Gould is one the finest developers, I think, the City has. If you look on 40th Street, he wasthe one that Promoted that whole Decorator Row. And, I know from experience, when he was with Metro, his integrity, and I feel that this request is a very minor request. And it will certainly improve the area, and I am in favor of it. -28- May 20, 1974 Item #4 Mr. bean: All right, you have heard the motion, N there a sedond` Mr. Gort: I will second it. Mr. bean: Seconded by Mr. Gort. none, call the roll. Mr. Simpson: Mr. Chairman, this On 44, "a", the Motion is to grant. Siatteen objections were received Under disctilsion? Being will be in two motions, in the mail. Mr. Silverman offered the following resolution, and moved its adoption: pass RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE mom ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11 (1), TO PERMIT REPLATTING OF LOT 5, TENTATIVE PLAT 4807--B, "MICANOPY WOODS", LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1800 MICANOPY AVENUE; WITH WIDTH OF 49.97' (60' REQUIRED) ; ZONED R-1 (ONE FAMILY) . Upon being seconded by Mr. Gort, this resolution failed by the following vote: AYES: Messrs. Gort, Silverman. NAPES: Messrs. Alfonso, Johnson, Dean. Mrs. I3asila. ABSENT: Mrs. McGraner. Mr. Simpson: The motion fzils, two to four. Another motion is in order. to Mr. Dean: All right, there is a motion in order, under the "b" portion. A motion in order under the "b" portion. Mr. Simpson: No. For purposes of appeal, Mr. Chairman, if a motion to grant fails, I will ask for another motion to deny. Fir. Dean: Then, it'3 a new motion in order. Mr. Simpson: And, if we deny, if we deny "a", it will auto- matically deny "b". So, the motion to deny can be for "a" and "b". Mr. Dean: All right, you move it? 4r. Alfonso: Well, I move for denial. Rev. Johnson: Second. Mr. Dean: You have heard the motion by Mr. Alfonso, seconded by Reverend Johnson, under discussion? There being none - Mr. Silverman: Wait a minute. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Dean: Mr. Silverman? Mr. Silverman: I don't want to prolong this, seeing as how the vote has gone. I just can't understand the reasoning, on portion "a". They can build on this lot, right now, there is no reason why they cannot build, This lot was a platted lot, prior to the change of zoning, and they can build on it, they can put a house up there, today, So, I just don't see, any basis for the denial, on "a". Mr, Dean: All right. Ca11 the roll. Mr. Simpson; The motion on 44, "a", and "b", is to deny, -29- May 20, 1974 Item #4 1 Mr, Alfonso offered the following resolution, and Moved itg adoption: RESOLUTION NO. z8-68 74 RESOLUTION DENYING: (a) VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11 (1) , TO PERMIT REPLATTING OF LOT 6, TENTATIVE PLAT # 870-8, "M.tCANOPY WOODS", LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1800 MICANOPY AVENUE; WITH WIDTH OF 49, 97' (60' :2EQUI}U D) ZONED R-1 (ONE FAMILY). AND; (b) REQUEST FOR THE OFFICIAL VACATION AND CLOSURE OF MICANOPY AVENUE 49.97' FROM ITS WESTERLY TERMINUS, IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENTATIVE: PLAT #870-8, "MICANOPY WOODS". Upon being seconded by Reverend Johnson, this resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Messrs. Alfonso, Johnson, Dean. Mrs. Basila. NAYES: Messrs. Gort, Silverman. ABSENT: Mrs. McGraner. Mr. Simpson: The motion carries, four - two. Mr. Dean: All right. -30- May 20, 1974 Item #4 1.1 4.1 • r 4 9 : • t1 % I • •-• • • %le ' 10. ��1.E M / c. • • Y • ^ - ~ I i ° � / | . � 6 & _ ^ ~ t � ` ^ • • -• :i0#9'a�%'iiW'1Ft.Y+"a?YBXfNWIiR1R➢6aiiRtii4iaxs'are.�+uw._:- ,e - f- r