Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-75-05702 3 4 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 BESOtJttT'1ON NO, 75»570 A RESOLUTION A ' `IRMINO THE ORANTINO Ott A * ON0ITIO AL USE". AS . PROVIDED IN OPOINANOE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XII SECTION 1 (33)(f), TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OP t RIVE..Ifs TELLER PACILITY ON S 1'00' OP LOTS 10 AND 11, BLOCtt 80N, MIAMI (8-41) BEING APPROXI- MATELY 405 N.E. 2ND AVENUE. SUBJECT TO PLAN APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, IN CON- fl3NCTION WITH PEOPLE'S DOWNTOWN NATIONAL BAN; ZONED C-3 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of May 19, 1975, Item No. 2, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 60-75 by a 7 to 0 vote granting a conditional use as provided by Ordinance No. 6871, Article XII, Section 1 (33)(f) as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City of Miami Planning Department has taken its appeal to the City Commission pursuant to the provisions of Article XXXII, Section 4, Subsection 1 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Commission after due deliberation and careful consideration of this matter has determined that the use as hereinafter set forth will not be detrimental or injurious to the character of the development of the immediate neighborhood; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The grant of "Conditional Use" as as provided in Ordinance No. 6871, Article XII, Section 1 (33)(f), to permit construction of drive-in teller facility on $100' of Lots 10 and 11, Block 80N, Miami (B-41) being approximately 405 N.E. 2nd Avenue, subject to plan approval by the Planning "DOCUMENT IND X *ITEM NO. 1I CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUN 121975 Resoturgoo fit' 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Departments hn c njun °tiers with People's Downtown National tank: zoned C-3 (CentraI Commercial) Districts be and the same is hereby affirmed. PASSED ANDAiOPTED this day o JUN 1975. H. D ' OUTHERN CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: MICHEL E. ANDERSON Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO F 22 / ,!'��. 23 ,OHN S o LLOYD City Attorney 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 MAURICE A. FERRE M A ? O 1 36 ter tft MAN tL:6R1bA 1N?i= ,OPPite MtMC RANI UM f-A6M: 1f ronbrable Members of the City Cottitf`itsstbn 1406614"-- P. W. Andrews City Manager JIMM :e i gps PH. su UEcfi: tt err, C bttifiit s s l5fi Agenda. June la 1975, Planning Department Appeal Peoples Batik Drive.4ti 1''at ltty €2EPthENdt51 N �iS�uit S: Attie ., 1975 letter . 'Wallacei Meta rg, Roberts & "Todd This memorandttni; 1) explains why the City adi tnistratton is appealing the decision of the Zoning Board to the City Commission 2) requests that the City Commission estab* lush a general policy concerning bank drive'in facilities in the Downtown area; 3) recommends the application of Peoples National Bank for conditional use approval for drive-in banking facilities at, the northeast corner of NE and Avenue and 4th Street, as recommended by the Zoning Board, be denied. The administration is appealing this recommendation of the Zoning Board because policy for the future land uses in the Downtown must be established by the City Commission. Recognizing that bank drive-in facilities cater solely to motorists without reference to the pedestrian scale of activities and that vehicular traffic entering and exiting a drive-in facility interrupts pedestrian traffic on sidewalks and interferes with street traffic, the City Commission is requested to establish a policy for bank drive-in facilities in the Downtown. To aid the Commission in their policy deter- mination, it is requested the administration be directed to undertake studies and make recommendations pertaining to these facilities. The Peoples National Bank has applied for conditional use approval of a bank drive- in facility at the NE corner of NE 2nd Avenue and 4th Streets as allowed in the C-3 district and this application was approved by the Zoning Board (ZB-60-75, _ of May 19, 1975). It is recommended that the City Commission overrule the Zoning Board and deny this application based on the following substantive reasons: the facility is oriented solely to motorists and interferes with the pedestri- an scale and activities Downtown. the facility would interrupt vehicular traffic flows on NE 2nd Avenue where curbs cuts would be prohibited by the Downtown Zoning Plan and Downtown Miami: A Conceptual Transportation Plan. Page 1 of 2 lionorabl 1Viernbees of the City ona i s s the facility lies directly in the rightLbf,way of the proposed ]fade Countyrapid transit system. land use its the f event iwn, area should net encourage mere automobile traffic, especially eri designated pedestrian streets such as Plagler, Mta,ti t Avenue, N 'And Avenue, s.nd Iltseaytie touleva.rd. Page 2 of 2 tiValifitis 1t tiia '§ titiltitrt§ tti'id Urban and Er ;cal pfah+rprs g575 South f3ayshrre Drava, `kiiattii,'t`iorida 3S`I33 05✓$58-6550 Offices: Philadelphia, San Francrst o, Los Angeles, 'Miami Stine 34 1975 Mr. 'teorge S. Acton, Sr. 1Sirector, Planning Departn1Lent City of Miami O. Dok 708 Miami, Florida 3313 Dear Mr. Acton: This letter is intended to clarify information presented in our Urban Develop- ment and Zoning Plan 1973-1985 for Downtown Miarrii. The Plan reflects the continuing goal of creating a vital city center in Downtown Miami. This includes two critical points related to the proposed drive-in bank at NE 2nd Avenue and 4th Street. 1. Automobile movement on NE 2nd Avenue. Continuing goals of the central core of Miami requires certain streets to serve as contin- uous carriers of auto traffic. This is best achieved by eliminating in and out movements in mid -block. Thus we recommended pro- hibiting curb -cuts on such streets which include Flagler Street, Miami. Avenue, Biscayne Boulevard and NE 2nd Avenue. 2. Downtown pedestrian orientation. The City of Miami is headed toward a new mass transit system which will decrease the reliance on auto access to Downtown. Again, consistent with the overall goal of making Downtown Miami a fine place for pedestrians, it is desirable to discourage drive-in facilities of all types in the highest intensity areas which includes the NE 2nd Avenue corridor. In fact, the area between NE 2nd and the Bayfront Park was considered as one of the critical development areas for pedestrian ties between the transit facility and the Park. Drive-in facilities are encouraged in the proposed commer- cial service area designated as C-3C on the proposed zoning map. Based on these two critical points, we feel a drive-in bank facility at this critical location is consistent with neither the plan nor the goals upon which it was based. sin ely, A r CLaa./.77 ‘?.! 4/171t&p, DAV D A. WALLACE David .A V.'allace, FAIA, AIP Ian L. FASLA, FILA, AMTPI VJrNrarci H. Roberts. ASLA Thomas A. Tudd, AIA, AIP Narendra Jureja. ABA, ASLA David C Hamme Donald FI Brackenbush, AIA, AIP Charles B Tomlinson Michael G Clarke As read by Barbara Shenkle, Secretary to David A. Wallace Recorded and typed June 6, 1975/vb Richard VI, Huffman. PA Ross M Sutherland, A:A Jonathan S. Sutton, RA. RLA George C. Toop, Jr. RA John E Clark, Jr., CPA Bons Dramov Director: Miami Otnco Honorable City Commission Attention: Mr. P. N. Andrews City of Miami, Plorida May 28, 1975 re: CONbITIONAL USE - GRANTED BY 20NINO BOARD APPEALED BY. PLANNINGDEPARTMENT Approximately 405 N.E. 2nd Avenue 5100' Lots 10 and 11, Block 8Ot4 MIAMI (B-41), Applicant: People's Downtown National Bank Gentlemen: The Miami Zoning Board. at its meeting of May 19, 1975, Item #2, following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 60-75 by a 7 to 0 vote GRANTING Conditional Use as listed in Ordinance 6871, ARTICLE XII, Section 1 (33)(f), to permit construction of drive-in teller facility on S100' of Lots 10 and 11, Block 80N; MIAMI (B-41) being approximately 405 N.E. 2nd Avenue, subject to plan approval by the Planning Department, in con- junction with People's Downtown National Bank; zoned C-3 (Central Commer- cial). No objections were 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. David Simpson,'Jr., Djlrector Department of Administration Planning and Zoning Boards cm Z.M. 36 Attached: Minutes cc: Law Department Planning Department NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: "DENIAL". Tentative City Commission date: June 12, 1975. , . APPROXtMMq LY .405 N, E, 2ND AVENUE, Sl00' Lots 10 and 1, Biock 80N 9 MIi\MI (41) Conditional Lite as listed in ordinance 6871, AiTICLtr Xtt, Section 1 (33) (f) , to t;s'rrni t construction of drive-in teller facility on above _, ;n conjunction with People's Downtown National Bank located at 117 N. t. 2st Avenue; Zoned C-3 (Central COMmercial). NOTE: Deferred fr.Jm Zoning Beard Meeting of 4/21/75. Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal '6'tice of Haring, administered oath to all persons testifying at this hearing. PLANNING DEPARTM> NT RECOMMLNC 'ION: "DEN/AL" TEe establishment of a drive-in teller tacifity on the subject property is incongrur- 4 with the objectives outlined in the City of Miami Downtown Urban Design and Zoning Study established for Downtown redevelopment Underlying the City's revitalization plan, now in hearing stages with the Planning Advisory Board, were the recommendations outlined in the Beisweinger-Hoch conceptual transportation plan. Pertinent recommendations directed to new development along N. W. 2nd Avenue were its widening and prohibition of curb cuts. Existing high pedestrian activity in conjunction with expand- ing community college enrollment and proposed transit station location in proximity to the subject site indicates that a more restrictive policy be implemented immediately to assure efficient grade level traffic flow on N. W. 2nd Avenue, while insuring maximum pedestrian safety anc%,_pinenity at this location. The establishment of future drive-in facilities in high intensity core arec can only serve to interrupt the con- tinuity of retail functions and activities critical to the optimum arrangement of such uses, while creating additional vehicular turning movements encroaching with normal pedestrian and vehicular movements. Mr. Dean: Alright, Mr. Dooney? tir. Dooney: Mr. Chairman, the Department has not modified its earlier recommendation with the exception that we did request of the applicant a conference with the Dade County Department of Mass Transportation. That conference was hel. J_Lenrly and the Department of Mass Transportation, as I understand it, was ur-.':le to provide any information additional to that which we had provided the applicant formerly. The Department feels that, based on t1 ,principles of the Downtown Urban Design and Zoning study and the Downtown Urban Trans- portation Conceptual Plan that was prepared by Beisweinger-Hoch, we should prohibit curb cuts on major arterial streets in the down- town area; that inasmuch as this facility will require openings on 2nd Avenue, we feel that it is not appropriate at this particular location and recommend that the Board deny this application this evening. Mr. Dean: Alright, let me see if I understand. This item was a request to defer by the applicant..... tir. Dooney: The applicant made the request, sir, yes. Mr. Dean; So, because there was something that had been stated about the Downtown Transit Authority going to build, or wanted to utilize that location for one of the transit sites, is this correct? Mr. booney. That is oorrect, yes. Mr. Dean: The reason they requested deferral was SO they could be able to get with all the parties to see if they could irot� things out. Mr. Dooney That is right. Mr. Dean: And this has been done? Mr. Dooney: Yea, it has been. As a coordinative body, the Department felt that this matter should be discussed in order to give the Mass Transit Authority an opportunity to discuss with the applicant's design possibilities in conjunction: with the bank facility itself. Here again, the matter before you toli.. .rt though is grade -level develop- ment for a drive-in facility. The basis for our denial here is in conjunction with the Downtown Urban Design and zoning Study which was a part to our former recommendation and which we ride with tonight. We feel that additional openings on 2nd Avenue should be prohibited. Mr. Dean: Okay. Mr. Campbell, you're standing up on your feet -- you have something to say? Mr. Campbell: On the basis of that, I can only reiterate what Mr. Dooney has said, the fact that in this area with the high incidence of pedestrian traffic due to the location of the college there, and the pending, let's say, development of the rapid transit with the station there, as you may be aware, that the plans now developed for the .rapid transit are rather schematic in nature so that the actual location and size of this particular transit station are still a little bit undecided, that this would potentially provide a high -cost development, let's say, in the transit station, the transit station location, which would materially or might materially affect t31e development of the rapid transit for. Miami. Coupled with the ingress and egress on two heavily -travelled streets, we agree with the Department's recommendation. Mr. Dean: Alright, thank you very much. Alright sir? Counselor? Mr. Simmons: May it please the Memi3z.rs of the Board, my name is William P. Simmons, Jr., I'm an attorney with the law firm of Shutts & Bowen, 100G S. E. 1st National Dank Building, Miami, Florida, representing the applicant here. Following our hearing several weeks ago in which we asked for the postponement because we had not contacted the County Depart- ment that is planning the rapid transit system, as has been stated, we did meet with them at great length and they explained to us in considerable detail the status of the rapid transit planning for this area. We found, first of all, that what they had was only, and I quote, preliminary engineering program" that had been prepared by Kaiser Engineers for a proposed rapid transit for this County. That preliminary engineering plan, as of this time, insofar as the,align- ment is concerned, received no approval of any of the many governmental agencies that must approve it before it can become effective. It has not been approved by the County Commission of Dade County, it has not been approved by any agency of the State of Florida that must put up a lot of the money, and it has not been approved by the agencies of the Federal Government that are expected to put up most of the money. So, it is merely a plan without any approval. Furthermore, not only does it not have any file approval of governmental agencies responsible for approving it, but no funds have been allocated for the building of it yet. The only funds that have been allocated are for this planning. Furthermore, we found out that May 19, 1975 Item #2 (and you have read this in the paper, I'm sure, if you're fiat fats.].iar with the plan) , that the . ipid transit system will consist of two major elementa, a north -south plan first, and second, aid easteWeet plan. The north -south plan was the subject of an interesting aros e in Saturday's Ttiami Herald in which the route Of the north-eotath plan was outlined. The north -soul: "..>n route, Which will be built first according to all the publicity at least aecordi.ng to the recommendations of the engineers and the County PlatYhere, goes up the rlorit East Coast right-e4 -way through the center of town, cuts back, goes north to the center c town to about llth Street and then cuts back to N. W. 17th Avenue and goes up N. W. 17th Avenue. It does not include the area that we're talking about here. The area that we're talkine .`bout here is a part of the so- called east -west route of the rapid ,. .tsit, as presently On the drawing board. That route would cone east -west along Plagler Street and go through the middle of town ane curve northward up along N. E. 2nd Avenue. So, we found that not only none of the plans had been approved and that no money had been allocated for the building of it, and that the plan for this particular route is second priority and not first priority, but then, we also found out that it's in the distant future. The article in the Miami Herald that was published Saturday says, that the 23 miles first stage which Metro Officials hope (hope) is completed by late 1980 -- then would start at Perrine and run through town as I have described it to you. Late 1980 for the first plan of the rapid transit, if it gets the governmental approvals necessary and if the funds are allocated. The article doesn't even mention the second priority, the second stage (east -west route) which we're talking about her. When that'll ever come about is anybody's guess. Under those circuit: tnces and in view of the representation that was made to the Board last time concerning the great importance to the bank that it move it's bank to another location, to a location in which it has purchased the property and made these plans for a fine building which everyone has complimented insofar as the design and so forth, of it -- even your own Planning Department has compli- mented them, -- in view of this situation, it was the decision of my client that it could not afford to wait the future development of this rapid transit plan and that it was willing to take the risk of putting a building here with the possibility that some distant time in the future, the property might be condemned for rapid transit system, and I suggest to you that if the :Jahn is willing to take that risk, that it should be permitted to do so, if the plans otherwise are proper. In that connection, I must remind you that the bank has the right under the law to get a building permit today to put that, building up, but for one thing and that is the drive-in facility :cross the sidewalk. That's the only reason we're here.' It's to get the permission to make a drive-in facility there and cross the sidewalk in two places on both sides. In that connection, I don't want to repeat what I said last time but I just want to remind you briefly of the importance of the drive-in facility to the bank. If you agree, as everyone seems to agree, that this, a building of this kind, would be an asset to the area, an area that needs development of this kind that we're trying to develop in that area, then the drive-in facility is necessary insofar as the bank is concerned. Now, the other objection that was voiced, in addition to the fact that the rapid transit might someday go through there at some time in the distant future, the other objection was to having pedestrian -- the drive-in cross the pedestrian traffic there and the statement by your Planners, your Planning Department, that this area, according to the Downtown Miami Urban Development and Zoning May 19, 1975 Item #2 i"'lae which is under consi doratioh, this area should Later to peee stri.iiie and not to vehicular traff.c. This is hard to understand. You're aware of the importance of i.4. E, 2nd avenue as a ntairi artery into downtown Miitni for vehicular traffic. I don't think there's any north -south street in dowetowi, Miami, outside of Biscayne Boulevard, that carries more vehicular traffic w.., "h-south than N. E. 2nd Avenue and to say that this close to downtown Miami is going to be made for pedestrians just doesn't jibe with the faets You have recently •.ncouraged, that is, the City has, and I'm sure this Board had something to do with it, a great deal of additional vehicular traffic on N. E. 2nd Avenue. There is a huge parking garage that's just opened south of the college on N. E. 2nd Avenue between 2nd and 3rd Street; - I believe it's the biggest parking garage in downtown Miami. Tr,.. 'ic to get to that, while there's no direct access on N. E. 2nd Avenue, traffic coming down N. E. 2nd Avenue turns west on 3rd Street and can go in the parking garage and use as a parking garage from that Street in that manner. Furthermore, on 2nd Street or 1st Street I bel eve, and N. E. 2nd Avenue, you recently permitted the Florida National Bank to build a needed drive-in facility for its purposes, just two or three blocks straight south of where we're talking about here. So, this plan, this so-called planning for this area to be pedestrian as against vehicular doesn't seem to jibe with the facts in there. Furthermore, this is again, what your Staff is talking about, the Downtown Development and Zoning Plan, again, is a plan that has not been given final approval as I understand it, either by this Body or by the City Commission which must finally approve it. Now, we wont one step further in seeking guidance in this matter and we sought the advice of the Downtown Development Authority and its Executive Director, Mr. Lucius C. Williams, and I would like to ask if the Board has had the beeefit and has seen the letter that we have a copy of that has been addressed to this Board by Mr. Lucius Williams, the Executive Director of +:he Downtown Development Authority?, If not, Mr. Chairman, may I ask that that letter be read to the Board, would that be proper? Mr. Dean: Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson: Mr. Chairman, this question came up late this afternoon and we have not received a copy of that letter. Now whether it's tied up in the mails or not I don't know. If you have it, I'11.... Mrs. Basile: Who'd like to hear the lettpN? Mr. Simpson: Why don't you just read it.... Mr. Simmons: Alright. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board. We were told by Mr. Williams that he had written this letter, it's dated May 15th and we received a copy of it last Friday, and why it has not gotten here or not, I assure you that he did write it and that it jibes with what he had told us was his opinion on this. It's addressed to the Miami Zoning Board from Lucius C. Williams, Executive Director, Downtown Development Authority: "Subject: Item #2, May 19, 1975 Agenda Approximately 405 N. E. Second Avenue" "The applicant proposes to construct a new banking facility in the Central Business District (C-3), to replace existing leased facilities which are inadequate for today's banking requirements. Except for the drive --intoner facilities (a conditional use) the proposal meets all land use, density and set -back requirements of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami Further, the banking center is consistent -�9-• May 19, 1975. Item #2 with future land use plans for the area and Cofpat.ble with existing and propc ed nevi developments in the area." Now that his conclusion and then he gives these factors. "The Cohdirtion l Use: The �rh, .;.."art's prcposal for vehicular access from n. E. 2nd Avenue anc vehicular eXit Onto INN 4th Street, seeks to minimize congestion caused by turning. The provision of f. "teen (15) 'stacking' spaces, off the public right -of -waft exceeds projected demands for drive- in service. The design of the structure, and the proposed' landscape treatment tends to encourage, pedestrian circulation by utilizing all ground level street frontage, except driveways, for pedestrian pa..-oses (banking facilities are on mezzanine level)." I might add there that there is a per trian banking teller Gage well back off the sidewalk at this location to facilitate pedestrian use of the banking facilities on the ground 1ev^1. Further quoting from Mr. Williams' letter to you: "It does not appear acceptable to 'prohibit' vehicular access to all properties on N. E. 2nd Avenue, south of N. E. 20th Street. The new Community College, the new Greyhound Bus Station and the Florida National Bank & Trust facilities all have either ingress or egress from this avenue. I favor 'controlled' access which is compatible with pedestrian activities but fear 'totally prohibited' access, for such long distances. And his second point is entitled "Rapid Transit Alignment": 'Metropolitan Dade Cr my has not established any policy on applications made under existing zoning for developments within the 'proposed alignme-,t'. (We would all argue against changes in zoning when related to speculation.) In the absence of a firm, fair and community -wide policy on this matter, perhaps it should be the applicant who must make a judgment of his risks. This applicant has indicated a willingness to work with the County in their future needs, including an accelerated depreciation to minimize future liabilities." That is true, we did offer that to work witli them when we had a conference with the County authorities on that sub-;.:ct. Now, the third thing that Mr. Williams calls the board's attention to is entitled "Proposed Zoning Ordinance - Access Restrictions": "The recommendations in the proposed zoning ordinance appear too restrictive, in my opinion. I cannot imagine enforcing access or egress prohibition on N. E. 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard, south of 20th Street. Certainly, Omni International will have access from the Boulevard. Also, the City of Miami will undoubtedly require access to Bicentennial Park, from the Boulevard. In my opinion, our efforts should be directed to appropriate 'controls' to assure the objective --improved pedestrian circulation and amenities: The suggested access/exit and allocation of ground floor areas and uses to the pedestrian seem to meet this objective. It is unfortunate that Rapid Transit Plans are not far enough along to have firm public policies and more certain decisions on alignment, elevation (consideration is still being given to an underground system in the downtown area) and right-of-way needs. Also, it is unfortunate that the proposed zoning MW MM MM MM ordinance does not have the benefit of the public hearings so that the Lague f 'prohibited' accegg oft designated streets could be known, Therefore, I calk these matters to your attentisn for consideration in your evaIlla+.4 An of the request." ue/s Lucius C. Williams, Executive Director DOWNTOWN bEVEtO ?i ENT AUTHORITY" Ladies and Gentlemen, we have here, I don't want to prolong this matter unnecessarily, but we have . I have here the President of the Bank, Mr. Stafford, who is ready verify in detail if necessary the importance of this to the Bank, why the Bank needs to move and how much this means to the Bank and its ability to improve its services to its customers and also I nave Mr. ?erendino the --whose firm, he's head of the architectual firm that prepared these plans and can verify what's already been said about the nature of the plans and how they tried to make it take care of pedestrian traffic in this area. They'll be glad to answer any questions on the subject. Mr. Stafford would like to speak briefly about the importance of this to the Bank if he may. Mr. Stafford: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen of this Board, mid-1973..... Mr. Dean: Put your name and address in the record first, please. Mr. Stafford: My name is Roland M. Stafford and I am President of the Peoples Downtown National Bank. In mid-1973, we purchased this piece of property at a sub- stantial cort to the Bank, some $240,010, to get a corner downtown because the only bank downtown that I know of that doesn't own their building and the only bank that I know of downtown that does not have a drive -up teller and also a walk-up teller on the street, all of the others do. Our lease is running out in just a little over two years and we still have not negotiated an extension of that lease we purchased that property for that purpose. There is a parking lot on the property at the present time that has cars going over the sidewalk of N. E. 2nd Avenue and coming out over the side- walk on N. E.'4th street right now. Where will be no change in the pattern of traffic flow. The parking lot is full every day of auto- mobiles and there's coming and going and it was zoned for this purpose, to build a building, zoned properly for a bank building, and that's the reason we bought the property so that when the time comes, if we were not able to work out a satisfactory renewal of our lease, then wewould have, a place to go and to move. It's important to us to continue to serve the downtown area and to build a building that is in keeping with the proper design of the downtown area, and as Mr. Simmons has so well said, we're willing to extend our depreciation on this building so that the end of 5, 6 8 or 10 years or whenever this thing comes to being, that we'll have it reasonably well charged down. The building's only a three-story building, and it isn't any great big skyscraper if it was something of that nature, it would be different, hut it isn't and I beg you to give us favorable consid- eration on our request. Thank you. Alright, thank you sir. Mr. Simmons: We'll be glad to at wer any questions that the Soard may have about t .e matter. l think we've presented all the facts that we see. 1 really have only Mid more thing to say, t have had lawyers iri our firm research the proposition as to the real right to deny an appliea't who is other~wiee qualified because some future plan might be developer ‘uwt hasn't even been adopted yet and we don't know whether it's goint; into effect or not. We've advised our client that it would not be really legally right for us to be eJnied this facility "'sere because some plan, which hasn't been adopted, might be adopted .A the future. Until the County, for example, puts some ' kind of moratorium or makes a firm commitment as to where it's going to build this rapid transit line, I really don't think we should be denied -- I don't think it's right to deny us the "4ght to take the risk and put our building there under these circumstances. That's the Only Other point I wanted to make. Mr. Dean: Alright, thank you very much. Anyone objecting? Alright, there being none, we'll close the public hearing and have discussion among Board Members. There being none, the Chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Silverman: Mr. Chairman, frankly I'm not impressed with the site for a bank but if they want to put their money where ,their mouth is, that's their property and that's their responsibility and if that's what they want to do, I'll move in favor. Mr. Dean: Is that a conditional -- only a conditional use or anything? Mr. Silverman: Yes, in accordance with the -- I move to grant the conditional use It has to be subject to a site plan doesn't it? Subject to a site plan approval by the Staff. Mrs. Callahan: I'll second it. Mr. Dean: Alright, you heard the motion by Mr. Silverman, seconded by Mrs. Callahan. Other discussion? There being none, call the roll. Mr. Simpson: The motion is to grant subject to plan on file and approval by the Planning Department. Mr. Silverman offered the following resolution, and moved its adoption:• RESOLUTION NO. ZB-60-75 RESOLUTION TO GRANT CONDITIONAL USE AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE 6871, ARTICLE XII; SECTION 1(33)(f), TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF DRIVE-IN TELLER FACILITY ON S100' OF LOTS 10 AND 11, BLOCK 80N, MIAMI (B-41), BEING APPROXIMATELY 405 N. E. 2ND AVENUE, SUBJECT TO PLAN APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING' DEPARTMENT; IN CONJUNCTION WITH PEOPLES DOWNTOWN NATIONAL BANK; ZONED C-3 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) . Upon being seconded by Mrs. Callahan, this resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote; AYES: Messrs. Gort, Johnson, Silverman, Dean, Mmes. Basile, Callahan, Baro, NAYES; None Mr. Simpson; Motion carries unanimous. -12- May 19, 1975 Item #2 APY RO11I 7L 1SL i 4 O S NI n4,2141) AvtiU :v s , Bits i,-� l t�tl (1) Conditional tine as listed in ordinance 6871, ARTICLL Xft, Section 1(WW) CWW to permit conntruotion of drive-in teller facility on a1oVe nites. in conjunction with People n Down- town National tank located at 117 W tt ls't` Menus 2c let C»3 (Central Commercial). Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal ;7otioe of hearing, and adminieterad oath to all persons testifying at this hearing. pLANNt1df`i D1 PAMTMEMT _ lltCof_ittr ain .Ot4 : "n:.a f 1 \L" metropolitan Made County's :'1ass rapid Transit Plan ;proposes to establish a downtown transit :station at this location. :Moreover, the city's reCent1y cotnploted Urban Design and Zoning Plan for NE 2nd Avenue discourages the establishment of grade level non -pedestrian uses in this; location. Mrs. Basile: •4r. Chairman, may I address a question to the attorney? Mr. Dean: Oh boy, you own .sone of this one too? Mrs. Basila: I wish 1 did, boy: Mr. Chairman, I'm a customer at this bank -- does this interfere with my vote in any way sir? M4r. Dean: Counselor? Mr. Anderson: would being a customer of the bank in any way affect your independent exercise of judgment on this item? Mrs. Basila : Well, they're_ awful nice pcornle down there but I don't think so. Mr. Anderson: Okay, then you mayt, ors Basile. Mrs. Daro I could say the same thing has an account with them, too. Mr. Anderson: Your company has an account with the bank? :Would that in any way affect your independent exercise of judgment on this item coming before the Board? Mrs. Baro: I don't think so. dr. Anderson: Okay, if you feel such, it's alright. Mr. Dean: Okay, Staff? Mr. Dooney: Mr. Chairman, the proposed dr.ive-in facility is located on 2nd Avenue. This is the principal distributor to the North -South Expressway. about rare. £Iv company Quite recently the Department completed a downtown urban development and downtown zoning study. One of the principles that was established in this study was to discourage a, many non -pedestrian activities along certain corridors in the downtown. N. W. 2nd Avenue was one of these corridors. M. E. 2nd Avenue, excuse me. Subsequent to that study, the Kaiser Group completed their study of mass transit facilities for downtown rtiami. In the location cited for this drive-in facility is a recommendation by the Kaiser' people for the establishment of a down- town rapid transit facility. For these two reasons, we feel it inappropriate tonight to recommend aprroval on the application "before you for a drive-in teller facility, -49- T pri 1. 2,11 197,5 Item 'f 7 We have advised the applicants and their architects to cones tact thebade County 'tlapid Transit people. TO bur information, at this time, no contact has been made. We feel it essential and within the public interest that some sort of arrangement be made whereby we pan ee rdinato location of bank facility Mere which will be in keeping tyith the establishment of rapid transit facilities in the future. We have had an opportunity to evaluate the plans. rrbm the standpoint of design, we feel that the plans which are reflected tonight are excellent plans. however, from the standpoint of the downtown 26fing recommendations, we don't feel this is an appropriate location for this type of use. ,`1r. ;leant Alright sir? Mr. Simmons t Ladies and Sentlemen, my name is William P. Simmons, Jr. I'm an attorney -at -law representing the applicant here. My address is 1000 S. S. 1st National Bank Building, 'tiami , rlorida. I have with me °ir. Roland Stafford, thn President of the .bank, which is the applicant, and also Mr. Ferendino who is the head of the architectural firm that prepared the plans for the location of the bank. We want to present to the Board tonight the reasons why we're making this application and then I want to answer the proposal that has the objections that have been voiced by your Staff. First of all, this is an important move for this bank. The Peoples Downtown National Bankwas taken over by its present manage- ment just three years ago. It was then known as the Capital National Bank. It was in serious financial condition at the time as you may have reaa in the newspaper and somebody, they -wanted some resr,onsible banking group to take it over to protect the depositors from what was Door manacierient at the time. The bank was actually losing money and this didn't make sense in a arowing community like this. The Peones nroun of Banks took over this bank and made it a Peoples Hank As you may know, there are six other Peoples Banks, all located in the northern part of the county, all in made County, and this .bank serves as the downtown anchor for the Peoples Group of Banks. They're all small banks. This is the smallest of the old 'banks in downtown "•siami. A11 of the other banks in downtown :1iami are much larger than this bank, and you know who they are -- the First National Bank of :tiami, the City National, the Florida National, the Pan American Bank and even the new bank -- the Bank of "liami, which is constructing a big new building on the southeast corner of Flagler Street and 1st Avenue, is much larger than this bank. There's only one other hank downtown --that's the new Biscayne Lank over on Biscayne Boulevard -- that just started ahout 18 months ago and has hardly gotten off the ground But the present management of this bank and :lr. Stafford is here to verify this, in the three years that the Peoples Group of Banks has had this bank, has turned this bank around financially from an unprofitable poorly managed bank to a profitable bank that is paying dividends and increased the dividends, this year, I mean 1975 over 1974. That was done recently. I'm one of the advisor -directors on the Board of Directors so I know whereof I'm sPeakin-. Now the bank is not in a good location. It's down in the old metropolitan, what was originally Metropolitan Dan} ;iuilding, if you know where that is -- it was originally called the etropolitan Building, � �-- pr l 21, 1975 Item •J7 t" s at 11, N. t. let ,venue. It's hemmed in in tho middle of a block on the narrow North tiiamt 'venue. It is the onlydowntown bank that has no drtvemin facilities whatevor or none planners except this one. tt j an to have drive-in facilities to he A tiod+ rn up-to-date± bank an all tht other tanks in ita Croup haves (trive-in facilities and all bank; have and tht eustomtra need drivee-i.n facilitl s for & modern ut-to-dato bank. trot only does it have to have these and could not get them at its present location but the bank doesn't'evon own the building in its present location. So, it bought this property , some time ago, with the idea that it would eventually move the bank to this new location and have a nice drive-in facility. So while the application, that you have to pass on, is only for the drive-in facility, the amain purpose is to Trove the bank itself to this new location and the drawings that you see will be, we hope, the new location of the Peoples Downtown National Bank. These are the reasons why its important to the bank to move. But what you're interested in is why its important to.the public, and the reason its important to the public is because this beautiful, new bank will add to the development of downtown Miami, in an area that needs new development, and in an area where new development is begin- ning to take place, particularly with the building of the beautiful new Junior College which is diagonally across the street -- across the intersection, from this bank. This will add materially to the development of this particular area. .ow I have :ir. Ferendino here and I was going to call on him to explain this beautiful building and how it is Jdesigned to meet the requirements of the conditional use Ordinance but in view of the statement made by. your Staff or unless you want to ask some questions about it, it may not be necessary because, asI understood your Staff Member'' to say that they are in accord and have no objection to the building that is proposed here, that it is adecuate an'1 that it meets the conditional uses, -- the requirements of the conditional use. Am I correct in that, aside from the two objections that you made, the study for the Transit and the study for the new Urban Development? Otherwise, we meet the requirements of the conditional use Ordinance as to vehicular traffic and that sort of thing. Am I correct in that? Mr. Dean: Was that your statement, Mr. gooney? Mr. Dooney: No, no, you're not correct thrre. Lot me re- phrase that. If we were looking at the design of a drive-in teller facility, three drive-ins on this particular site, we feel that the design as shown is very good. At this particular location, however, which is on N. L. 2nd avenue, we feel that it's inappropriate to have drive-in facilities. Now we've commented on that prior. We commented on that I think three to six months ago when Florida Iational Bank came in; because it was a temporary facility, it was permitted. We're talking about a permanent drive-in facility encompasses?within a bank building. The point that was raised at that time, here acrain, is a matter of trying to create an environment where we're going to generate more pedestrians and yet and all introduce into it vehicular -movements which, in turn, are going to conflict with this pedestrian movement. Mr. Simmons; Ir. Dooney, may I ask you just a couple of questions in clarification, and I'm sorry that I didn't have an oppor- tunity to discuss this with you before but I do think it important and I think the Board should know this, too. I was away last Thursday when the announcement called our people and told them about 51- April 21, 1975 Item #7 ,,: ��.r �,, �., ,•. this objection, and I only got back to torn today. ut , Olen you mentioned the Xaiter people completed, have got plans to run the Rapid Transit along this side oft N. I. 2nd Avenue tthat's what l understood you to say), when were those plant completed? haven't they jtat been Completed quite recently? fir. Dooney: To the bent of my knowledge, the plant have ben completed now for approximately 36 to 45 dayg. We advised the applicant's architect approximately 30 days ago in the tray of a letter to the firm of ?erendirlo, Grafton and ensue ates, at that time, to make contact with the Dade County Department ent Of ;fats ttapid Tranait. We contacted them more recently, that is, this afternoon, and we found that there has been no contact made along those lines. Again, ae the City Planning Departtnent it is our rule to attempt to insure proper coordination between public activity and private activity. Mr. Simmons Do you have any information as to when that Transit Plan will be put into effect? Mr. Dooney: No I don't t•ir. Simmons: All I read in the newspapers is that it may take until 1985 or something like that in order to get it into effect and I do not understand that the County Commission has passed any Ordinance firming up this location or any other-- do you know of any Ordinance or Resolution, or approval that's been given by the County Commission to the Rapid Transit location? Mr. Dooney: Nothing has been formally done to this. i•lr. Simmons: : Now this is the point that disturbs us and this, of course, is the legal point that is involved in this case and that is whether this Board has the right to turn an applicant down that is otherwise qualified to put up his property because snrie other governmental agency, some time in the future, at some unkno'•rn time, may want to use the property for something else.How this is the point that I want the opportunity -- further opportunity to investi- gate. Per. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman, I have a question For the applicant. I am a little confused here. The intention here is the drive-in teller is going to be used in the principal structure, is that correct? .ir. Simmons: Yes sir. 'lr. Alfonso: So, it's to aleviate the ')ant:'s operation -- at the same structure, you're going to create a drive-in teller, is that correct? '4r. Simmons: Yes sir, that is correct. 'Ir. :Alfonso: It's nothing new, only► for drive-in teller. It will be the permanent bank plus the drive-in teller to give some facility to t'.ie customers. lr. Simmons; That is correct. ''low the other problem we have here that I was not aware of until I came 'sere tonight and that is the Staff's reference to the recently comnleted Ur`)an ne sicn and Zoning Plan which, as I read the objection, discourages the establish- ment of Grade Level "non -pedestrian uses" in this location. When was that plan completed. I believe you said it was completed recently. ►lr. noonoy: That plan is now in the nrocess of being considered for public hearing before the Planning Advisory Hoard, -52-- April 21, 1975 Item #7 Mr. gif moi' : In Other words, it i:51 t u iv COMpletet 'yet, 1r. Dooney The plan has been complete for softie time, aS a ;natter of het, it was tendered to the City Cottinnion approximately aix f11C,1i'it1is to n year ago, and it's nOw comint up for 15sartnos Before the planning \dvisory hoard. Mr, Simmons': Han the hearing date helm set? 3r, Simpson: May 7th. Mr, booney May 7th. 1r. Simmons: 1efore this board? booney: No, before the Planning Advisory Board.. tlr. Simmons: The Planning Advisory Board. So, the reference to the Urban Design and Zoning Plan is with reference to a Plan that has not been given even first approval by the first body to consider it, is that right? 1r. booney: It has not been adopted, yes. rir. Simmons: Hasn't been adopted. We have not -- this, today is the first time that we had knowledge of this particular matter. Uh, Gentlemen and Ladieso excuse me, Ladies and rentlemon, in view of these two factors, we request that consideration of tYis he postponed to give us an opportunity to check into these two matters. Your Staff has advised us previously about this Rapid Transit matter and we would like to have an opportunity to check into both of these and defer it until, not until a fixed date but until such time as we advise you that we would like to have it brought '.pack up, if that will be agreeable. Mr. Dean: Yes sir, certainly is a nice roan: okay, there's no one in opposition? Mr. Simmons: Gentlemen, I appreciate your courtesy. I did want to make a record of what we had here and make a record of the objections of your Staff. With the questions I had, we thought it important to do that. Mr. Dean Okay, we'll close the public hearing discussion and ask for a motion to defer. Mr. Gort:love to defer.' Ctrs. naro Oh, I certainly will second it Mr. Dean: Alright, moved by Nr. Gort, seconded by '1rs. Daro. Okay, would you call the roll? Mr. Simpson: Motion on Item ,E7 is to defer. (Continued on next page) ..53- Anril 21, 1975 Item 37 Mr. Oort offered the foil h ihq ret lutior , and hove 1 itt ROMU 'toi4 t 213-4 - AnSO UTIO f TO bt ?1nt UNTIL 1 Ot1t ST 3Y APPLICANT POR 11 ARINel, PSTI i IoN :'oq CONDITIONAL U8t AS LISTi ii 11 (',O1Nf1`$t'`.i':l 6871, ARTICLt XIt, SI TtoN 1(r13) (f)) , yTO lit .r CONSTRUCTION -O -D /V1 I I - 1,-, l,L p PACItIrY ON S100' LOTS 10 & 11, IlLoCit 30tJ, MIAMI (II -4i) , MINO APP OY;tA.:'.Ci=.tY 40S 1. 1.1. 2ND AV1 Wtir, IN C011.ttti c'rtotr WtPH 18OPLt' S DoNNTOt t1 NATIONAL 13T ttIC tl'dl '.) C-3 (crTtt M COt4Mi7CIM4. Upon being seconded by tirs. 13aro, this resolution was adopted by the following vote AYES: Messrs. Alfonso, Cort, .tohnson, Silverman, Dean. Mines. Bar°, i3asila. i1r. Simpson: Unanimous. -54- Nori . 2l, 1975 Item 'f7 I' amc I.,h0aJ.)f. (_0`1Yr11,'� if Ii`J'WX(".? 111 D , Ci,OSi1R Cli' CoNPLICTS.UP :(N'['i;C: ,::;'r BY PUBLIC C('I':(r"E1 3 III VOTING SITOATTS MA421tt_At MAW_ c-t1t.Y-) ar P°s11H o`cl ')la `6�` 'tf'� the City of tlian (ove]:nm2nL 1 i3ociy: City of Miami, Dada County, Florida P::ose t Term Began._ •Novembef. Pcsent 't'onn Enc:1 November (month) It any iii.a {::^; coming before you for Vhf';1n(j cocas deraton by you .trt yC1• o.cfc.alcapacitydirectly or indirectly inures to your pati tLcular private cjain as opposed to your p':iv Le gain as a I% iiiber of a special class, or creates a conflict between year privy .P interests and your public duties, explain either: a. How the mattor tinder consideration will inure to your particular private gain: OR How• the matter bring considered•wiLi create a conflict • hetw. en your -private interests and you •pub:Lic duties: c-0 + C- Vice president of ��^ inowner of several Tots in immediate vicinity of application- Agenda Item (a 6 JUNE`12, 1975 cDat:i:; o-i F-'_11nq) c:.i ynature of -person ll. `7L cloS II Under provision o F. Chapter 7.4-177, Laws of Florida, intentional violation of any discio urkl requiromz,nt. shall constitute grounds for dismissal fr'oIIl employ - removal from office or removal from the ballot, NOTE: Questions concerning this form or Chai)tu /' -•1 / 7, Laws of Florida, may bi_-. directed to: State of Florida, Commission on Ethics, P. O. flo' 6, Tallahassee, Florida 32302.