Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-08263I ORDINANCE NO. 8263 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR LOTS 72, 73, 74 AND 75, BEACOM MANOR (8-121), LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2519 S.W. 7TH STREET, FROM R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE) TO C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL), AND BY MAKING TH. NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF; AND BY REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of March 18, 1974, following an advertised Hearing, adopted 15 Resolution No. ZB 32-74 by a 6 to 0 vote (one member abstaining) 16 recommending Change of Zoning Classification, as hereinafter 17 set forth; and WHEREAS, it is deemed advisable in the best interest 18 19 of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants 20 to grant a change in zoning classification, as hereinafter set 21 ;forth; 22 23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF !THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Ordinance No. 6871, the Comprehensive 24 25 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Zoning Ordinance for the City of Miami, be and the same is 26 hereby amended by changing the zoning classification for Lots 27 1 72, 73, 74 and 75, BEACOM MANOR (8-121), located at approximately 28 j 2519 S. W. 7th Street, from R-4 (Medium Density Multiple) to 29 (C-2 (Community Commercial); and by making the necessary changes f 30 Ein the zoning district map made a part of said Ordinance No. 31 32 33 34 35 6871 by reference and description in Article III, Section 2, tthereof. -1- 36 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 36 Section 2. That all laws, or parts of laws, in conflict herewith, be and the same are hereby repealed insofar as the above described land is involved. Section 3. It is declared to be the legislative intent of this body that if any sec.cion, subsection, sentence, phrase or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance shall not be affected. PASSED on First Reading by Title Only finis 25th day of April , 1974. PASSED AND ADOPTED on Second and Final Reading by Title Only this 23 day of May , 1974. ATTEST: H.D. SOUTHERN CITY CLERK 2. MAURICE A FERRE MAYOR 1411AMilteVitVit AND DAt4Y ' lD fRi010 i i '-:bait too* 'ItAtb rbP II.iyORIA • i ldiT CIF`;bRet Alta• IMO ititkrlita lilri1lf 8PP!(i debt i3fa ai= WFYB 8fi 'tsata i a i ►t and la betet&fit to fhb �fiahef 'et 'the P tam1 e`vte* ens att tteder5, 'ii deity ttaapt sauc e r S ay af`d L�a�l fidllr9ayffi) :tia a Pe gUblI hId at ° to n 'beef tiaur5teFfeedd; het he aftathld:eeet i5f 8641'• • `Ii3Effltftit" beIflg a 'Lehi Adiertit flfeht 'b belted he M'In tlaitteP of �Tt,Y TIYt'.t1i,�.S.T1tki,icliii,t7 Y►"PrA. a ..:uir, suir,.:uu eW& gtahpublt8hed in ball hiWbfiedet in the IssUbb 'bf may• „..2.93 1974 Aftleht further bans that the betd Miami Review Mid Deily_ Record is a neWspeeet, ffublished et Mitmi, In said Dade Couhty, Florlda, and that the 'said heW5• paer has heretofa a been cbntinUbusly published in said Dade County.- FIbrida," bath day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) end has bean entered be secohd CUM Mail : matter at the post office In Miettii, In said Dade County,FRAMs, for a period of one year next pteceding the first publication . et the attached copy of advertisement; and ardent further :says that she has Neither 'paid not; promised any person, firth of bbtporatioh any discount, rebate. cblmlilssleh Or refund for the purpose -of securing this advertisefheht tor publication In the said hawspaper. bcwo nto and Subscribred btote the this. 29 th aey o Mai'..;.. w i►k.le. 19 7 4 Mar�oriemtth Notary public, tate of Fldiride at Large. (SEAL) My Commission' expires September'" 1, 1977. Mr trills r lull t � lell°S1 RKilflftln`T s� 1>r ASS* i1 ATt fN r`OR L1DILS', o .f 3S AND 38r StACOM MAW I .' .l21) 1rOCAT D Al� ApPR R MAT LY ="26)9 Wt 3fiH . ETREE'Pf RROM Rio IMr= IUM DENSITY: 1uvriisteiEithi<`.°5 I�My/A i AMMO NECEgtARV "CHA1i61= 'IN THE '1ONINO 'DI51RICfi, MA13, MAT E A sART DPA5Aib -OROIN NCR NO, 6131. DV REVTrCNC1 AND_ DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 111r S C' l0N 3j ¶'HEREOF; AND BY RRPEALiNO ALL, LAWS iN CONFLICT HEREWI'`H .s which is desigh8ted OPdlhahte i o 8263. - j H. b. SOUTHERN CITY CLERlt CITY OP MiAMi, PLO DA Fubiitbtlbh et this ttbtlte on the 29th day of May, 197i. 51M 51066„ .__.._.. - . LEGAL NOTICE All interested will take notice that on the 23rd day of May, 1974, the Commission of the City of Miami,Florida adopted an ordinance entitled - • 42,7:LINCE :',MEND:NG CNANCE NO. 6871, • C,V.2REHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE • 07 IAI Y CHANGIG THE ZONING CLABSTFICArION FOR LOTS 72, 73, 74 AND 75, M.ANOR (S-121), LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2319 S.W. 7TH STREET, FROM R-4 (MEDIUN DENSITY Y2LTTPLE) TO C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL), AND • XING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING D:STRIC1' N.11,DE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6671 3Y REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE :TT, SECTION 2, THEREOF; AND BY REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. which is designated Ordinance No. 8263. H.D. SOUTHERN CITY CLERK CITY OF MIAMI,FLORIDA 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 36 ORDINANCE NO, cro2 4, •`eft? AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR LOTS 72, 73, 74 AND 75, BEACOM MANOR (8-121), LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2519 S.W. 7TH STREET, FROM R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE) TO C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL), AND BY MAKING THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6871 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF; AND BY REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of March 18, 1974, following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 32-74 by a 6 to 0 vote (one member abstaining) recommending Change of Zoning Classification, as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, it is deemed advisable in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to grant a change in zoning classification, as hereinafter set forth; 1/2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Ordinance No. 6871, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the City of Miami, be and the same is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification for Lots 72, 73, 74 and 75, BEACOM MANOR (8-121), located at approximately 2519 S. W. 7th Street, from R-4 (Medium Density Multiple) to C-2 (Community Commercial); and by making the necessary changes in the zoning district map made a part of said Ordinance No. 6871 by reference and description in Article III, Section 2, thereof. 1 C; TY COP�:.'•�',?SSIC)N MEETiNG OF l`. P R S E1974 :,5,,,ANf E h <Inul`+ti; �,rl Hj AIK`�C__", 1 2 1 4 5 6 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 36 Section 2. That all laws, or parts of laws, in conflict herewith, be and the same are hereby repealed insofar as the above described land is involved. Section 3. It is declared to be the legislative intent of this body that if any section, subsection, sentence, phrase or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance shall not be affected. PASSED on First Reading by Title Only this okr day of , 1974. PASSED AND ADOPTED on Second and Final Reading by Title Only this day of C%=a-.7 PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: i MICHEL E. ANDERSON Assistant City Attorney APPRQVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: JOHN S. LLOYD (City Attorney 2. , 1974. am , 1ar hz • March 21, 1974 Honorable City Commission Attention: Mr. P. W. Andrews City of Miami, Florida Re: CHANGE OF ZONING - RECOMMENDED Approximately 2519 S. W. 7th Street Lots 72, 73, 74 & 75; BEACOM MANOR (8-121) Applicant: International Bank Gentlemen: The Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of March 18, 1974, Item #6, following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 32-74 by a 6 to 0 vote (one member abstaining) recommending Change of Zoning Classification of Lots 72, 73, 74 & 75, BEACOM MANOR (8-121), located at approximately 2519 S. W. 7th Street, from R-4 (Medium Density Multiple) to C-2 (Community Commercial). One objection was received in the mail. 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. ncerely, David Simpson Jr., rector Department of Admini ration Planning and Zoning Boards cm Z. M. 34 Attached: Minutes cc: Law Department NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: "DENIAL". 6. APPROXIMATELY 2519 S. W. 7TH STREET Lots 72, 73, 74 and 75; BEACOM MANOR (8-121). Change of Zoning Classification on above property from R-4 (Medium Density Multiple) to C-2 (Cormnunity Commercial). Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal Notice of Hearing, and administered oath to all persons testitying at this hearing. PLANNII4G ;DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: "DENIAL" The requested change of zoning from R-4 (Medium Density [Multiple) Residential to C-2 (Community Commercial) is neither of public necessity nor in the general welfare of the community at this time. The subject property is comprised of four (4) lots owned by the International Bank which is located at the corner of S. W. 27th Avenue and S. W. 7th Street. Proceeding from the Bank eastward, the lots exist, or, are used as follows: Lot 72: Off -Street parking, currently in use by the Bank (Lot 72 granted variance October loth, 1969, from 20' required front yard setback on S. W. 7th Street with provision of 7' to accommodate more parking; Lot 73: Vacant Lot; Lot 74: Single family residence; and Lot 75: An 8-unit apart- ment structure. Three (3) single family residences abut the subject lots to the north, with multiple family apartment structures abutting to the west. The Bank has expressed its intention of using the subject property for expansion of their parking facilities in order to meet anticipated business require- ments of the Bank. In addition, the Bank expects to commence a substantial building expansion program in the near future. As the Bank now meets City parking requirements, and will be able to satisfay these requirements in tine future in relation to their expansion program, and that the applicant could apply for "Conditional Use" approval for Off-Stteet Parking (with special request for an access drive), the request for zoning change is not found to be relative to the matter of providing suf icient parking in the area. The property's close relation - shin to existing low -density and multi family residential proper- ties on the block make this requested expansion of additional commercial zoning premature. t3asi1a: Mr. Chairman. I would like to abstain from voting in this matter, because I feel that there is a conflict of interest; I am a stockholder in the Bank. Mr. Anderson? For. Anderson: She can abstain. You might advise the applicant that he needs - he's allowed one deferral. Mr. D^an: No deferral this time, you have seven voters here, so you would have to have four votes out of six. Mr. Anderson: Four out of six, that's right. :Mr. Pailot: Unless the party refusing themselves would indicate a willingness to dispose of the stock before the next meeting, I think we'll be in the same boat. I don't have any buyers, Gloria. Mr. Dean: All right, staff? Mr. McLean: The Department's recommendation on this item is for denial. We do not feel that the change of zoning is in the public interest at this time. The subject, the area of the subject applica- tion is a heavily impacted area. We have met with the applicant. The applicant has been very willing to express, and to let us review his expansion program for the main use of the site. We have compared this, we have considered, and our analysis the surrounding land uses, the major development that will be occurring in the near vicinity. The applicant - as our recommendation reads, the applicant has expressed the desire to use the subject property, of four lots, for off-street parking, for continuation of their parking requirements, business and -29- March 18, 1974 Item #6 parking requirements on the site. This, the off-street parking, the additional parking can be accomplished under the existing zoning classi- fication, and we feel that because of the existing single family resi- dential properties existing north of the property, and further to the east of the subject property, that it would be in the public interest to maintain the existing x-4 zoning classification, on the property. We feel that if the applicant does wish to request, or to have an access drive in the it-4 zone, that this can be accomplished under our existing zoning regulations, as access to the property can come from an arterial street, S. W. 7th Street is classified as an arterial, there- fore, a driveway can be moved from the commercial area, or left in the commercial area, and it can also be moved down into the R-4 zoned lots. That concludes the Department's recommendation. Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bean: All right, any comments? Mr. Campbell: No, no particular comments, other than the ones that were originally made on this. Mr. Dean: All right. Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman. I have a question for the Department. Mr. Dean: Before the presentation is made? Mr. Alfonso: Yes, sir, that is proper, because this is the time, now. I wish to ask the Department, if they are seeking here a rezoning, an they an intention of a use now, but they can change that intention the rezon_.nc• is granted. I mean, rezonings-have no conditional attatched, is that correct? m . Mc:Alan: That is correct. There are no conditions attached to a zoning change. mr. Alfonso: That is what I want to know. Thank you. Mr. Dean: Mr. Pailot, would you proceed? Pallot: Yes, sir. For the Record, my name is Richard Paliot, i'n president of Inter National Bank, the applicant. c,entlemen, just to maybe for a short orientation, referring to th<:: map, the blue area, is of course, the existing bank building, and Lots 70, 71, and 72, and also, a portion of Lot 2, and I can't read the number, but where the C-2 is written, a portion of that, presently contains parking, going all of the way back to Lot 73, and that parking is existing with a seven foot setback. Now, the dilemma that we face was as follows, we were told that we could not apply for a "Conditional Use" for parking, unless we agreed to a twenty foot setback on Lots 73, 74, and 75. By agreeing to a seventy (sic) foot setback about all we accomplish with losing eighteen parking places that are very sadly and sorely needed, and it will help contribute to alleviate a problem that we have in the area, that I think will be compounded, in the future, when the seventeen story office com- plex that is presently under construction, immediately to our south, is completed. Now, I think essentially, what I heard a number of you ladies anu: gentlemen say today, is applicable in my judgment, to the existing caaa, and that is, that what you do ought to he practical. Now, I thought of the reason sitting here, as to why it's practi- cal to grant the request that we've made, and I think tnere are several reasons that make it practical. You know, number one, if we get the rezoning granted, we can -30- March 18, 1974 Item #6 create a much better traffic flow. At the moment, and I think we discussed this with staff, at the moment, we have three openings from S. W. 7th Street, into our parking area. One of those narking entran- ces is very close to the easterly part of Lot 2. Now, if we get the parking permitted on Lots 73 and 74, we would close that entranceway. And, I think your Planning Department his these sketches, which would permit us, to move the ingress and egress, to number one reduce the ingress and egress driveways to two from three, and close the one closest to 27th Avenue, which is causing a traffic problem at the existing time. In other words, when that light is red, and 7th Street which is heavily trafficed begins to back up, it just creates a problem. By granting what we have requested, we would, number one, elimi- nate that problem. Number two, the Planning Board, essentially made three statements in their denial, all three of which I take exception to. The first is that it's not in the general welfare of the community at this time, which I think is merely a conclusion. They have no facts to back up that statement. The second tning that they say is, that we - under the law, at the present time, we don't need the additional parking, because for the number of square feet that we have, or that we plan to build in futural, the law presently says we have sufficient parking. But, as a practical matter, for those of you that have frequented S. W. 7th Street, on almost any day or the week, and very certainly on Fridays and Mondays, as a •racti.cal matter. we don't have sufficient parking. And I think that situation will be nothing but aggrivated with the advent of the seven- teen story building, that's going in, across the street. I think we ;list can't look at what the law says, in relation to parking, but what practically makes sense. And it clearly makes sense to permit us to come in with thirty-four additional barking places. You know, it will clearly help the neighborhood, help the traffic flow, and by the way, will help Inter National Bank, which of course, we're interested in, too. Thu third exception I take, is that they say "the request for zoning change is not found to be relative to the matter of provi'ing sufficient parking in the area" - aside from the legal point of view that they expressed. And they make reference to the fact that we could go in with treat "Conditional Use", if we were willing to take a twenty foot setback. Well, a]1 a twenty foot setback would do are two things. One, it will eliminate thirteen parking spaces that are badly needed. Two, as far as the aesthetics are concerned, we have a seven foot setback on the eastern part of Lot 2, Lot 70, Lot 71, and Lot 72, and then, they want to jut it up to a twenty foot setback, which aesthetically, to me, just makes no sense at all. You know, what harm can be created in that neighborhood, if we're going to nave parking, and can have parking, to keep it consistent with the seven foot setback requirement, and permit us to pick up these additional thirteen spaces, which are so badly needed. In sum and substance, and without getting into any, you know, lengthy detail, I'd like to make three statements. Number one, I think the equities cry out in our favor, I don't see any real logic to the position that the Planning Department has taken upon examination. As to the statement that was made by Mr. Gort, saying that if you change the zoning, does't that permit us to do anything. Mr. Gort: I didn't say anything, Mr. Pallot: Yes, or maybe it was Mr. Alfonso that said that, I'm sorry. Mr. Alfonso. And, I can only say that our purpose for now, and for the -31- March 18,1974 Item #6 foreseeable future, that for the long-term is to use it for nothing but parking. We have our Architect here, if there is some way that we could provide that for X-years without permission of the City Commission or this Planning Board, we would not use it for anything but parking, by way of Restricted Covenant, I would have no objection, because our purpose is only to use it for parking. Ar. Alfonso: Air. Pallot, I went for assistance to Mr. Simpson, and in my recollection, Inter National Dank being here four or five times asking for something else every time. Mr. Pallot: Not on this property, sir. Mr. Alfonso: Well, I think Inter National Bank came here before us on all of the lots on 27th Avenue and 7th, and they bought the next door lot, and they are encroaching and encroaching the residential zone, and always asking for rezoning or something else. I ask this question, aeeause when you grant a rezoning, there is no condition attached, you ,-see intentional use today, tomorrow your needs are different, and you can enange at will. And that is the reason that we are against - I mean, I am not in favor of this application, because we need a buffer to protect the residential zone, those poor I feel sorry for those neighbors that came here. I don't see anyone today. Maybe they are -- Mr. Pallot: I think you are thinking about the 6th Street - Mr. Alfonso: Yes, 6th Street. Mr. Pallot: Well, this is 7th Street, which is considerably different, Mr. Alfonso, from Gth Street, this is a very heavily travel- led thoroughfare, you just voted to rezone the Toby's property to permit the erection of a seventeen story building. :Ir. Alfonso: We - the Department recommend, because they own the main part of the property to be in one lot and one lot the rezoning, dont move to grant any snot zoning in that particular place. The Department had the feeling that they are going to have a nice project, and they owned all of the lots, and they grant the rezoning, we only move with the Department. And, this time, the Department denies your application. Mr. Dean: Mr. Pallot, you mention something about a Toby's site that was before us? Mr. Pallot: I don't know if it was before this Board, Mr. Dean. They came in for rezoning and they're constructing a seventeen story building on the property immediately to our south. Which is going to create more of a traffic problem, and more of a requirement for parking. Because, many of our customers parked on that Toby'' lot, i.L reciprocation for their narking on ours. And, if you look at this thing practically, I don't see any reason for denying the application. Mr. Dean: All right, sir, are you through with your presentation? Mr. Pallot: Yes, sir. Mr. Dean: All right. Anyone in opposition? Mr. Preece: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, I am Godfrey Preece. I own Lots 61, 62, 63, on S. W. 6th Street. What we're concerned about, my wife and myself, - Mr. Dean: Your address? Your address, sir? Mr. Preece: 2546 S. W. 6th Street, Mr. Dean. A11 right, proceed. -32- March I8, 1974 Item #6 Mr. Preece: These lots in cTuention back up to our property. What we're concerned about, Mrn. Preece and myself, it's our home, and we own the house next door, which is a custom built home, and I'm wondering if the law requires them to continue the fencing, which they now have around our property. Regardless of whichever way you ladies and gentlemen vote. Mr.. Pallot: We would stipulate, if it doesn't, that we would put it there, but I think it does. Mr. Preece: That would be the same size, Mr. Pallot? Mr. Pallot: Yes, sir. Mr. Preece: The same height? Mr. Paliot: Yes, sir. Mr. Preece: Thank you. Mr. Simpson: A parking lot adjacent to residential property does require the wall. Mr.. Dean: All right. Anyone else? You may have a few minutes for rebuttal. Mr. Paliot: No, sir, no rebuttal. We will be happy. We want to keen it uniform, and that's why we'd like to keep the seven foot setback in the front. Mr. Dean: All right, we will close the public hearing portion, and have discussion among Board Members. Mr. Gort. Mr. Gort: Mr. Chairman. I would like for staff to please explain to me, what would be the difference between the C-2 and the R-4, in accordance to the parking. Mr. Simpson: Just the setbacks. Mr. Gort: Just the setback. What would be the setback under the C-2? Mr. Simpson: Under the C-2, they could go up to five, they have indicated they intend to remain with the seven. Under the R-4, or, rather any - under any residental property, approved for parking by way of "Conditional. Use", they must meet the twenty foot setback. Mr. Gort: That's a "must". Mr. Simpson: It's a "must", no variance can be applied for. Mr. Dean: All right, anyone else? Staff? Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman? Are you ready for a motion? Mr. Dean: Staff, sir? A while ago, you were talking in terms of how this applicant can come into being where you can make a recom- mendation. Would you sort of tell me that over again? Mr. McLean: The Department just wanted to point out that the applicant can meet all of his required parking, both now, and even with his future expansion, with the use of these four lots, under R-4 zoning, that if it was conditionally approved by the Board, of course, that it's only because of the Bank's business, their - what they feel they need for parking, that they feel that they need these extra eight - teen spaces, or thirteen spaces, that they would be losing. The Department feels, that the nature of this particular segment of S. W. 7th Street would be better off in a landscaped use, to improve the aesthetics of ti:e area, and that at the present time, with the existing single family homes still remaining abutting the property to the north, and the applicant's intended and implied and stated use for the four lots for parking, that this can be accomplished under the -33- March 18, 1974 Item #6 existing zoning, and would not necessitate a zoning change. The Department feels that a zoning change would be premature. Mr. Pallot: Could I rebut that? Mr. Dean? Just a short rebuttal, yes. That brings the issue right into focus, I don't disagree, that that is the issue. What the 1lanninq Department is saying, is let us go ahead with a twenty foot setback, that that gives us enough parking under the law. And they think that we'll get some more beauti- fication with a twenty foot setback. My answer to that is, forget what the law says, and come out and look at the parking requirements. We need the other eighteen spaces. It can let tis close one of the ingress and egress entrances that are causing a traefic back-up at 27th Avenue and 7th. As far as the aesthetics are concerned, Inter National Bank won an award from the City of Miami Beautification Committee, and several other local beautification groups, for the seven foot setback planting we had on 6th Street. And I think that if you'll go by and look at our 7th Street aesthetics and beautification, we don't take a back seat to anybody. Mr. Dean: Mr. Pallot, your statement awhile ago, the Bank couldn't live with it. Mr. Pallot: Well, I think it's impractical for two reasons, Mr. Dean, number one, it's not that we couldn't live with it, but we're going to lose thirteen parking places that we need for no reason. Secondly, it's going to give us an unattractive frontage on 7th Street, becasuse we'll go from a seven foot setback on four lots, to a twenty foot setback on two lots, because - on Lot 72 we have an existing seven foot setback right now. We won't have to change that, no matter what happens here. And, number three, you know, as far as the third reason, if we don't get what we seek, we won't be able to close that other entranceway, which will alleviate a problem, so there is really no practical reason, to deny it. Other than the fact that the law says nave enough parxlny- as it is. :end that's not a practical reason all of the time. 1lr. Dean: All right. Anyone else? Mrs. McGraner? frs. 1cGraner: sir. Chairman. Mr. Pallot do you own that entire block where the Inter National Bank is at the present time? :•:r. Pallot: No, ma'am, we own up through Lot 75, we do not own 76. 17e own everything yellow and blue. Mrs. McGraner: from your bank? Then, you own the property across the street Mr. Pallot: Yes, ma'am. Mrs. McGraner: present time. Which you are using for parking at the Mr. rallot: Yes, ma'am. There's parking, and those are drive-in facilities and parking. Mrs. McGraner: I read here, further, in the Planning Depart- ment's recommendation, "In addition, the Bank expects to commence a substantial building expansion program . . ." Mr. Pallot: What that is, - I,don't know if "substantial" is - we plan, although those plans are not final, Mrs. McGraner, but we do plan, hopefully, to expand the lobby to the north, not the south, and to the northeast, where that lot's - it won't have any effect on these lots, as far as any structure. .ors. McGraner: . . . on your present lots. Mr. Pallot: No, ma'am, it'll just be on the present lots. -34- nareh 18, 1974 Item #6 Attaching to the building. It will have no - absolutely no effect on these lots. And we would so stipulate here. Mrs. McGraner: Thank you. :•ir. Dean: All right, anyone else? All right, we are ready for a motion. Ir. Alfonso: :ir. Chairman, I an ready to stove to deny this application. Mr. Dean: All right, sir, you have heard the motion by dr. Alfonso, moving for denial. Is there a second? Is there a second? The motion dies for lack of a second. A new motion is in order. Mr. Gort: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dean: Yes, Mr. Gort? Mr. Gort: I am ready to stake a motion, every time we have somebody come here with a project, we try to get as much narking as we can, here we have an institution that wants to provide more than what it needs. I think we snoulu go along with it. That area right there has suffered a lot of A lot of parking is needed in that area, there. I don't know if that the Inter National Bank would probably be willing to use it only for parking, so for that condition, I move for approval. Mrs. McGraner: I will second it. 'Ir. Dean: All right, you have heard the motion by Mr. Gort, to grant. Mr. Alfonso: "Ir. Chairman, may I comment on that motion. :z. Dean: And, seconded by tars. McGraner. Alfonso: Under comments on that motion. :r. Dean: Under discussion. Mr. Alfonso: Under discussion, thie application does not represent the general welfare of the community, as the Planning Depart- ;oent states, it will be only to the interests of Inter National Bank. is the reason I am against this application. Mr. Dean: All right. Mr. Simpson, would you - Mr. Silverman: Wait a minute, let me put my two -cents in. Mr. Chairman, here - here's my problem. I am all in favor of the parking. The problem in, when you change the zoning, down the road, you may have a problem. I would prefer, for the applicant to voluntarily give us a Restrictive Covenant, which he mentioned earlier, in his application. If the applicant voluntarily submitted a Restrictive Covenant, and the City Attorney approved, I would feel a little more secure. And while we cannot have conditional zoning, it would alleviate any problem in my mind, that some day there may be a drive-in teller, or some other problem on this property. Now, in the future, in ten or twenty years from now, conditions may change, of course, at that time, the applicant could come hack to the City, and say, 'things have changed, and we want to change'. However, looking down the road, I'm concerned about just changing the zoning, especially with that huge project that's going to go in, across the street. I think we're going to have a traffic problem, if there is anything built on this property. So, I would feel a little more secure, if the applicant would voluntarily submit a Restrictive Covenant. Otherwise, I am not - -35- March 18, 1974 Item #6 I have some thoughts . . Mr. Pailot: Yes, we have no desire, as I said, we have no . desire to use it for any other purpose. I just think that is what we ought to do then, I am perfectly willing. The only thing that I think that I would be remiss in not doing, was to gay that we ought to set - to affix a term that is not unreason- able, because I'm speaking for an organization. And I know what our present intent is. You know, if - I don't know what's doing to happen ten year down the line, or it may be - I think we ought to have a time certain that the Covenant would expire. And, I think that during the period of the Covenant, it ought to be without the permission of the Commission. In other words, I think that we could very easily live, Jerry, with say, seven years, or seven and a half years. That's a pretty lorg foreseeable future. And have it provide, if it's legal, that we would not use it for anything other than parking, for a period of seven and a half years, without the permission of the Zoning Board, or the City Commission. Mr. Dean: All right, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Anderson: Well, as Mr. Silverman pointed out, you cannot have any conditions on the - on rezoning. Now, he could actually put any kind of Restrictive Covenant Lhat he wants on it, but you can't make it a condition to rezoning. Tills Board car. only recommend rezoning, it can't rezone. And, the City could be a part of the covenant, but it cannot require it, for rezoning. So, in the interim, if Mr. Pailot so desires, between now, and the City Commission Meeting, he could make a Restrictive Covenant, on the oronerty. Mr. Dean: Mr. Pailot? tr. j'allot: Yes, I would be quite happy to have our lawyers draw a Restricted Covenant. Ancl, I think what I'd like to do, is have it so that we don't have a misunderstanding, let's sav, for a term of seven and a half Years, from this date, and that it not be used for anything but parking, without approval of this Board, or, the City Commission. 'trs. McGraner: Are you in favor of wnat Mr. Silverman has stag Ste!d? Atr. Pailot: I have no - Mrs. McGraner, I am not in favor of it, but I'r certainly not opposed to it. Because, we would go along with that. Mr. mean: Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Anderson: Well, we could iron out the specifics on the covenant, but actually you couldn't say that - you know, without this Board or the Cite Commission, it would just be if at some future date, you asked for a release of the covenant, then, that would be up to the Commission, at that time. You could put a time limit on the covenant, that, how long it was to run with the land. Mr. Dean: Mr. Silverman? Mr. Pallot: Well, I don't follow you, if you say we - we could not put it subject to a recision, mutually, by the property owner and/or and the City? Mr. Anderson: What I'm saying is, that in other words, you're talking about putting a covenant on the land, and when you start putting conditions in the covenant, that you're not going to do a certain thing without the permission of the Commission, then, you're talking about what seems to be a conditional rezoning, -36- March 18, 1974 Item #6 of course, at any time there's a restrictive covenant placed on property within the City, a person can ask for a release of the covenant from the Commission. Mr. Pallot: Well, it depends on the restrictive covenant, I would think. It will just - I don't think that the City can release a restrictive covenant - you can add this to the Deed, can't you? :1r. Anderson: Yes. Pallot: The restrictive covenant would be added to the deed, but I don't think the City can - can, per se discharge a restrictive covenant. Of course, it seems to me, maybe - you know, I'm willing to you know, work this out, although I don't want to get us in a box, whereby if things should change, and the total character of the neighborhood changes, wniie we're sitting there locked into something we can't then change. I ''on't think ''ou want to do that, and I don't think that would be fair. Maybe we just have two options, to take us on our good faith, which you may or may not be willing to do, and I can assure you, that our present intention is to do nothing with it but to use it for narking. I don't want to get us boxed in, so that if the total character of the neighborhood changes, you know, we're boxed in, and evervthina else is building multiple, or, constructing, I don't think that would oe your purpose or intention. Mr. Dean: Mr. Attorney? !Ir. Anderson: This is up to - like I say, the formalities can be worked out, I don't see that that's a problem. But let me just say, that tl•ere - this is something that's a very touchy point, as to the ordinance, our Ordinance, and the laws, that you can't put any conditions on rezoning, and this would strictly be voluntary on the part or the applicant, to put this restriction on his property. Mr. Dears: Mr. Pallot? Pallot: Yes, sir? Mr. Dean: Is there a great biv rush on this? Mr. Pallot: Yes, sir. Mr. Dean: . . . on this apolication? Mr. Pallot: Yes, sir. If you just come around there at any time, you'l3see that w'eve got very unhappy customers and staff that just can't work. Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I believe that "Ir. Pallot is a man of integrity, and his word is good for me, he promised to have that ready for the City Commission Meeting, I will move along with him, on the provision. I will trust your word, that that is the case, that you are ready, before the City Commission, to have that ready. Mr. Pallot: Yes, but wait, what we're arguing about is what we'll nave ready. I can clearly state that it's our intention to use it for parking. Mr. Alfonso: You promised a covenant. Mr. Pallot: Yes, but what we're discussing now, they're saying that the covenant that I propose would be illegal. Mr. Alfonso: No, no, no, we cannot enforce it. Mr. Pallot: No, he's saying that it's illegal to even put it on. Is that correct? I'll be very happy to have our lawyers draw a covenant, and Record it, that says that we can only use that for parking, for the next seven and a half years, unless Inter National Bank is -37- March 18, 1974 Item #6 . •4 • • relieved of this covenant by the City of Miami, period, and if - and not even get your approval, and we'll file it before the City Commis- sion Meeting. Mr. Anderson: All right, there's no problem. Mr. Pallot: Is that okay? Okay. (Discussion) Mr. Uean: All right. Mrs. McGraner: Mr. Pallot, are you willing to defer this, and then bring in your Covenant? Mr. Pallot: I don't think we'd gain anything by deferring, Mrs. McGraner. Mr. Gort; The Commissioners will have to take the final decision on this. Mr. Pallot: We will file the Covenant. Mr. Dean: I haven't carried any motion, yet. Mr. Alfonso: I trust your word, Mr. Pallot. Mr. Pallot: Thank you, sir. I will have at the Commission Meeting, the Covenant, that we can deliver to the City Attorney for Recording. Mr. Alfonso: Okay, sir. Mr. Gort: Okay, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Dean: Is there a motion on the floor, Mr. Simpson? :1r. Simpson: Yes. I show a motion to recommend, made by :4r. Gort, seconded by Mrs. McGraenr. Mr. mean: All right, would you call the question? 2r. Simpson: Is the motion understood? One objection was received in the mail. Mr. Gort offered the following resolution, and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. ZB-32-74 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION ON LOTS 72, 73, 74 AND 75, i3EACOM MANOR (8-121) , AT APPROXIMATELY 2519 S. W. 7TH STREET; FROM R-4 (MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE) TO C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL). Upon being seocnded by Mrs. McGraner, this resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Messrs. Alfonso, Gort, Johnson, Silverman, Dean. NAYES: None. ABSTAIN: Mrs. Basila. Mr. Simpson: Six - zero, one abstained. Mr. Pallot: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. -38- March 18, 1974 Item #6 • =ea). the ty.