HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-080288028
ORDINANCE NO._
iN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO 6871,
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE 'FOR
THE CITY OF MIAMI B CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION.. rk. LOTS 1 THROUG I 18r AND
LOTS 43 THROUGH -}. ), BLOCK 1, FROM C-4
( GENERAL COMMERC : 2V,) AND R-3 (LOW DENSITY
MULTIPLE) TO C-=: (vv CAL 'COMMERCIAL) ; AND
OP LOTS 1 THROUGH '', AND LOTS 48 AND 49,
BLt M< 2 r PROM R-3 ! LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE)
TO R-C (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE); ; LOCATED IN
BRADDOCK SUBDIVISION NO, 4 (3-61) - KNOWN
AS TENTATIVE PLAT #798-A, "MIDTOWN SANK.
of ' MIAMI SUBDIVISION", AT SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF N..W. 14TH AVENtrf; AM N. W. 2OTH STREET;
AND BY MAKING THE NEC? S ?. PY CHANGES IN THE
ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID
ORDINANCE NO. 6671 BY REFERENCE AND.DESCRIP--
TION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION ' 2, THEREOF; RE-
PEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH;'AND.
PROVIDING FOR A S VEP.ABILITY CLAUSE HEREIN.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board of the City
of Miami, at its meeting.held on'December 6 1971, passed
and adopted by an 8 to 1 vote its Resolution No. 71-2E9,
recommending granting 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 inhabi-
tants to grant a change in zoning classification, as here-
inafter set forth;
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 &Mended by changing the toning clas§itioation tor
Lott§ 1 thrOUgh 18, and Lots 43 through 49. Il1t5Cit i# ftoM
CM4 (General Commercial) and R-3 (Low Denaity WItiple)
tO C4. (Local Coalmen. _al) and of Lots 1 through 13, and
Libts 48 and 491 Block 2, from R-3 (Low Density Multirle)
tO R-C (Residential Office), iodated in BRADD0C1 SUICIVISION
NO. 4, Plat Book 3, Page 61, known as Tentative Plat #798-A,
"MIDTOWN BANK OP MIAMI SUBDIVISION", at SOuthwest corer
of N. W. 14th Avenue and N. W, 20th Stree.., and by mating
the necessary changes in the zoning district map made a
part of said ordinance No. 6871 by refereAce and description
in Article III, Section 2, thereof.
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herewith, be and the same are hereby repealed insofar as the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 20th
of December 1971
PASSED AND ADOPTED on second and final reading by title
only this 6th day of January • 197 2
Attest:
DAVID T. KENNEDY
MAYOR
I-1,D, SOUTHERN
- 2 -
City
hezE eprtity 't Ittt; dzi u / 7 Wia$, t) .'. :..„, .,.
4. 14 0'72 1' t1111.1 't3tio th v'o'r9iit 4.G1 tf +.),
w 't3 ►t tota re t r1f o •di .r. ieo t t.f pdtitje4 4t th* c -.
n4662 off' tit Dztrtt C tihty Tht1¢t; ' �t;t,.t 4.t 140 :) .'
prc,vidt d fir totS.bbt Atiti pubi.1 i t 6-pil b .4' ta10±4.:
tio.a odp `' to t t -pla ptOVi e4 t io 6 v '; -
INBt✓nyhataatu,„t 0,
bii.io..lappl.it'p-a
Yit7 tiue,fl ,t.,4r ot.......' F iiiY: •iY.‘ Aif p(/i. sMi4414,•• MiN Nii.... i.i i.ai, iNiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiell i i i.
MIAM1 R 'I VI
awe pAroreane
a6t�sii8i� a►fy ese t 5attzrilt ' 5uhrtfty'nhit
_lima. Holidays
itil9te� bah ttfhhfyi toFitfti.
.tUNf1' Or.. bA Ei : '
138184 this undlraighEd 8uthoiitiq oer5oiatly ap•
pplaPgd Menthe brabhta, Whb. tin oaths soya that she
le fRe Offlee Maneger at the Mulct ReirloW end
batty Rebell!, a belly (e*eefSt Saturday; SJ"ppday and
Legef H611deys). h **peper, published at Mtartii in
Dade eufity; Merida; that, the, attacked 660y bf elver.
titentent, being a Legal AdVertiseftient or Notice In
the tiiatt8T 61 ;Adoption of 0rdiMhbt' No. 8028
Itet . Choi b '6t 26 Lat8 1 through 18 and 43 thrrougll 40s
131&lek 1) rota "0-4� tt-3 to C-4.s Otcr e i a.
TIINTAI1Vit MAT //108-A
ttrttD` 01414 flint 010 istlAlit Stti hIVIStOtv'rt) otos
in the.
aO►'X Court,
was published its sold newspaper in the issues of
3.'0,tttt 11) 19/2
Affiaht turther says 'that the said Miami ReView
and Daily Record is a newspaper published at Miami,
in said bade County, Florida, and that the said hews•
paper_ has heretofore been, continuously- published In
said bade County, Florida, each day (except Saturday,
Sunday 'and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as.
second class mail matter at' the post office in Miami,
in selet bade County, Florida, for a -period of one- year .
next preceding the -first publication of the attached
'.copy of - advertisement; and',affiant further "says that.
she:has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
be corporation any discount, rebate, commission or
refund for the purpose. of securing this advertisement
for publication in the ,said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ' 13-th
day ot.Jtltl€ __ 77
Notary Publiate of Florida at Large.
(SEAL)
My Commission expires May 16, 1973.
s e 6 6 6
Ati If5
11191 ,y 1intir.A"13t'�tlif
1979 "tip' 91091t-St'`tRF;
tit , l itfft'ifr P.. Iatt' ode"
iit't�ftfatt�E�ttll� ;;
AOtif3titAtitillti
(i'xlbi34'A1�' FAR'.
lye. MtAM'::; A.gCtltft#
'fit ",.AOSt?tt#A=:
'11014 1 11O'i 1'�rti�ti(Itt
18:. -AND t o,49,49_1 litatCX4,10,r ROM ",re-4
. rotr�tt
ANit: it=8 a t 0%,tl ,,,IYPSIOTT
:MttittIC1A't l .: °, _
10t9: t ., 11t11otri tff,_,,.:
;1f1 ls'1II'LE) `C(l. 't't C t1tEg1=;
btNTIAL b1110E ' f-:.•,fibs
2:CA1 I.'4.:ErtAb�'
blvtstCDf" fit0:1:°N.t__
PLAt :f998,A, . " bttb'rO' ':4
IIANtt OP MIAMI StriabtVI.
:SibN."i r.:..A'�' '::'; SotTltt�I;sti
COR;NE°R:Ot` N;1V. -1#T1# AVE=,
NUE ANb.N.
S`tI;EET: AND 131',;:MAk11O
.'Pit$.' Ni•;CESSAt.Y • Ct'IANGES
IN TIM ZONING ` bISTIttC'r
MAI? MA1>✓.::A;.'%AitT
SAID Ottbl'NANc1_: NO.. 4811
BY Ftla'P' tit ar'
'SCIIIPTTION IN ARTICL1'Ttt;`
SECTION2, TfIEREOP: Bt .
PEALING ALL TAWS .._1 4
CONFLtCT t#EIiEWVT1tt ANb
t'RO�'it)tNGPort.,'A ° SFVSIt.
ABILITY CLAUSE: ItE1tEIN:-;
which ''19 designnted Ocditinnee:
No. 8028. ,
' II. D. SOtiTltt;RRN.
CITY 'CLERit
CITY OF atTAMT, :
.FLORIDA
Fahiir•ation of this notice nn
the llth day of Innnnry, 1972.
— Ad. No. 10244
ORDINANCE NO r:4 .a . .. ,..�:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871,
THE COMPREHENSIVE BONING ORDINANCE PM
THE CITY OE MIAMI, EY CLANGING THE 20NIN0
CLASSIVICAT ION FOR LOTS 1 THROUGH 18, AND
to 43 THROUGH 49, ELOCR 1, PROM C-4
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND R-3 (LOW DENSITY
MULTIPLE) TO C-1 (LOCAL COMMERCIAL) ; AND
OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 13,.AND LOTS 48 AND 49,
ELOCR 2,.PROM R-3 (LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE)
To 1 -C (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE) ; LOCATED IN
ERADDOCIC SUBDIVISION NO. 4 (3-61) , KNOWN
AS TENTATIVE , PLAT 4798-A, "MIDTOWN BANK
or MIAMI SUBDIVISION", AT SOUTHWEST CORNER
OP N. W. 14TH AVENUE AND No W. 20TH STREET;
AND BY MAKING THE. NECESSARY CHANGES IN. THE
ZONING DISTRICT MAP MADE A PART OF SAID
ORDINANCE NO. 6871 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIP-
TION IN ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, THEREOF; RE-
PEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND
PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE HEREIN.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board of the city
of Miami, at its meeting held on December 6, 1971, passed
and adopted by an 8 to 1 vote its Resolution No. 71-269,
recommending granting 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 inhabi-
tants to grant a change in zoning classification, as here-
inafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
Section 1, That Ordinance No. 687., the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for the City of Miami, be and the same is
CITY 01\1$ $ 1ON
M CTINC,
DEP s Q t 7t
ti?4lttrat,x r:y.
hereiiy amended by changing the toting classification for.
Lots 1 through 18, and Lots 43 though 49, Plock 1, from
C-4 (General Commercial) and R-8 (Low Density Multiple)
to c-1 (Local Commercial), and of Lots 1 through 18, and
Lots 48 and 49, Block 2, from R-3 (Low bensity Multiple)
to RµC (Residential Office), located in B 2ADDOCK SUEDIVISION
NO. 4, Plat Book 3, Page 61, known as Tentative Plat 0758-A,
"MIDTOWN BAND OF MIAMI SUBDIVISION", at Southwest cornet
of N. W. 14th Avenue and N. W. 20th Street; 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 IIX, Section 2, thereof.
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 c' " -day
/JLC ,197 PASSED AND OPTED on second and final reading by title
only this„, day of
MAYOR
Attest;
city cl@rJt
PREPARED AND APPROVED E2:
•
:harry _...___.._ __.. _ __w._
Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED AS T,6 FORM AND OOR CTNESS
Rothstlin
City Attorney
Honorable City Commissi n
Attention: Mr. M. L. ft d8e
City of Miami, Plorida
bebetber 9, 1971
Ito : CHANGE OP ZONING - RECOMMENDED
8. W. corner N. _W. l4th Avente_: and:,
-N. W. 28th Street
Lots i+thru 18, and Lots 43 thru 49,
81ock 1, and, Lots 1. thru 13, and
Lots 48 and 49. Block 2,
BRADDOCK SUBDIVISION NO. 4 (3-61)
Applicant:Midtown Bank of Miami
Gentlemen:
The Miami Planning Board, at its meeting of December 6, 1971, Item
0 (a), following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. 71-269
by an 8 to 1 tote recommending Change of Zoning Classification of Lots
1 through 18, and Lots 43 through 49, Block 1, from C-4 (General
Commercial) and R-3 (Low Density Multiple)' to C-1 (Local Commercial);
and, Lots 1 through 13, and Lots 48 and 49, Block 2, from R-3 (Low
Density Multiple) to R-C (Residence -Office), propertylocated in
BRADDOCK SUBDIVISION NO. 4 (3-61), otherwise known as Tentative Plat
#798-A - "MIDTOWN. SUBDIVISION".
No objections were 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.
Sincerely
vidtSimpson, Jr.
Executive Secretary
Miami Planning and Zoning Board.
mm
Z. M. 24
Attached: Minutes
cc: Law Department
NOTE; Planning Department recommendation: "DENIAL".
Honorable City
Attention: Mr
City of Miami'
Gentlemen:
COMMitiOiegi
I M.L. ftetao
Florida
DeceMber 9, 1971
Ret °CONDITIONAL USE" - RECOMMENDED,
Se W, corner- Ne We 14th Avenue and
N, W, 19th TerraCe
tots 1 thru 13, and 48 and 49,
Block 2,
BRADDOCR SUBDIVISION NO. 4 (36'61)
APPlicantt Midtown tank of Miami
The Miami Planning Board, at its meeting of DeceMber 6, 1971, Itetn
44 (b), following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No.
71-270 by an_g_to,l_vote recommending "Conditional Use" as listed
in Ordinance No. 6871, ARTICLE XI, Section 1 (5) (b), to permit
construction of "Drive-in Tellers" on Lots 1 thru 13, and 48 and 49,
Block 2, BRADDOCX SUBDIVISION NO. 4 (3-61), located at the southwest
corner N. W. 14th Avenue and N. W. 19th Terrace, as per plan on file
At Planning Board office: zoned R-3 (Low Density Multiple) proposed
to be rezoned to R-C (Residence -Office).
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.
Since e
aild Simpson, Jr.
Executive Secretary
Miami Planning and Zoning Board
mm
Z. M. 24
Attached: Minutes
cc: Law Department
NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: "DENIAL".
Honorable City CotyiBion
Attention: Mr. M. is Reese
City of Miami, Florida
!Meentber g, 1971
Re: ALLB? CLOSti1 RECOMMENM.
S. W. corner t : V. ihth_AVentie.
atia W. 20thStreet'
B-W and NGS Alleys lying within
the east 319.47' of Block 1, and
lying within the east 190.746 of
Block 2,
BRADDOCK SUBDIVISION NO. 4 (3-61)
Applicant: Midtown Bank of Miami
Gentlemen:
The Miami Planning Board/ .,.at.,,its . mee ing cdo December
Item
__
#4c), following an advertised ea
gi adopted
71-271 by a 9w to ,0 vote recommending Vacation and closure of E-W
and N-S Alleyslying 1 in within the east 319.471 of -Block 1, and lying
within the east 190.74' of Block 2, BRADDOCK SUBDIVISION NO. 4 (3-61),
located at S. W. corner N. W. 14th Avenue and N. W. 20th Street, in
conjunction with Tentative Plat #798--A - "MIDTOWN SUBDIVISION".
No objections were received in the mail.
A RESOLUTION to provide for this Alley Closure has been prepared by
the City Attorney's office and submitted for consideration of the
City Commission.
mm
Z. M. .24
Attached: Minutes
cc: Law Department
Since
Simps6n; Jr.
xecutive Secretary
Miami Planning and Zoning Board
NOTE: Planning Department recommendation;
"APPROVAL".
N6Ti1 E
NOTICE TO OWNERS O` REAL ESTATE ltt
THE VICINITY OP SOUTHWEST CORNER
N. W. 14THAVENUE BETWEEN N. W. 1 AH
TERRACE AND 2OTH STREET, MIAMI, PLAI
The Miami ° City Cc mmission, at its meeting of MON t AY,
December 20, 197 1, at 10 s 38 A. M e , in Ol'Y'?a.1 ALL ,. SO8..,.Pah
American Drive, DinnerMi<eV,. Miatti,._.Plorida, will consider
the following:
(a) Resolution recommending Change of Zoning Classification of
Lots 1 thru 18, and Lots 43 thru 49, Block 1, from C-4
(General commercial) and R-3 (LOW Density Multiple) to.
C=1 (Local commercial); and .Lots 1.thru 13, and Lots 48 and
49, Block 2, from R-3 (Low Density Multiple) to R-C
(Residence Office), property located in BRADDOCK SUBDIVISION
NO. 4 (3-61), otherwise known as Tentative Plat #798-A
"MIDTOWN SUBDIVISION".
AND
Resolution recommending "Conditional Use" as listed in
Ordinance No. 6871, ARTICLE XI, Section 1 (5) (b), to permit
construction of ''Drive -in -Tellers" on Lots 1 thru 13, and,
48 and 49, Block 2, BRADDOCK SUBDIVISION NO. 4 (3-61),
located at the southwest corner N. W. 14th Avenue and N. W.
19th Terrace, as per plan on file at Planning Board office;
zoned R-3 (Low Density Multiple) proposed to be rezoned to
R-C (Residence Office).
AND
(c) Resolution. recommending Vacation and closure of E-W and N-S
Alleys lying within the east 319.47' of Block 1, and lying
within the east 190.74' of Block 2, BRADDOCK SUBDIVISION,
NO. 4 (3-61), located at S. W.,corner N. W. 14th Avenue and
juwith Tentative #798-A -
N. W. 20th Street, in conjunction five Plat
"MIDTOWN SUBDIVISION".'
At its meeting of. December 6, 1971, the Miami Planning Board
adopted Resolutions: (a) 71-269'by 'an 8 to 1.vote; (b) 71-270
by an 8 to 1 vote; (c) 71-271 by a 9 to 0 vote.
IMPORTANT
(b)
The City Commission requests that PETITIONER be present or.
represented at this meeting, and all interested real estate
owners are invited to express their views.
MIAMI PLANNING BOARD.
cm
12r1471.
E UTRWEST CORNER Ns W. 14T i AVENUE ARB ML W. 20T i MEET
Lots t ru , ant ru , Bioc an , Lots 1 thru 13,
and 4n and 49, back 21 BRADDOCK tUBDtViSl st NO. 4 041).
Otherwise khawn as Tentative Plat 479A-A, "MIDTOWN BARK OP
MIAMt tUBDtVICION" .
(a) Change of 'honing Classification of above de8oribed from
C-4 (deneirai Commercial), and R-1 (Low. Density Multiple),
to C-1 (Local Commercial)
and,
W 14Tt AV 19TH TERRACE
��U�Ht�`EE�T C��tN�it��,.��. Et�i��;�...AMb��fi N. t� �.�,,.
Lots 1 thru 13, and 48, and 49, Bloch 2,
BRADDOCK SUBDIVISION NO. 4 (3-61) : Otherwise known as
Tract B, Tentative Plat #79R1A, "MIDTOWN BANK Off' MIAMI
SUgDIVtStON" .
(b) "Conditional Use" as listed ih Ordinance No, 6871,
ARTICLE XI, Section l (9) (b) ► to permit construction,
of "Drive-in Tellers" oh above site as per plan on file
at planning Board Office; zonedR-3 (Low Density Multiple),
proposed to be rezoned to C-1 (Local Commercial);
and,
(c) Vacation ` and closure of. E-W and .N-S Alleys lying within
the east°319,47 of Block 1, and lying within the east
190.74' of Block 2, B tADDOCK SUBDIVISION No. 4 . (3-61) ,
in conjunction with Tentative Plat #798-A, "MIDTOWN BANK
OP MIAMI SUBDIVISION".
Secretaryfiled proof of publication of Legal Notice of Hearing
and administered oath to all persons testifying at this hearing.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
4. (a) "DENIAL"
The land use of the. subject area is residentially
oriented to the west and south of the subject property
and, the requested C-1 zoning classification would not
afford the necessary protection to the residential area,
and would create a crazy -quilt pattern of zoning. The
existing zoning patterns in the subject area would
indicate that consideration should be given to zoning
the subject property to an R-C,classification. Such
a consideration should', include all of the area existing
northeasterly-ofthe Wagner Creek alignment. If the
comprehensive rezoning was accommodated in this manner
this would afford existing and future residential develop-
ment sufficient protection from undue commercial encroach-
ment.
4. (b),"DENIAL"
Predicated upon the above recommendation of the change
of zoning the "Conditional Use" should not be granted
until the zoning request is modified. The plans sub-
mitted for drive-in tellers and expansion' of the bank
facilities' is considerably improved over the previous
submissions, however, additional consideration must be
given to the conflict with residential traffic that
would be created by the western exits on N. W, 19th
Terrace, to the provision of additional landscaped
buffering along the western property line that abuts
existing residential development and to the preservation
of the trees presently existing on the site,
4. (c) "APPROVAL"
TWC"elcsure-Qf-these alleys will perm3.t more efficient
utilization of the sites. The Plat and Street Committee
has recommended this item.
Rev, Wright; A11 of those who are here to testify in this
item, will you stand to be sworn, please, Will you state your name.
and address for the Record, please,
-14-
DsQgmber 6, 1971
Item #4
Mr. Trentham! Mr, Chairman, RO erend Wright., my tithe it
Tom Trantham, 1 ' m a lawyer with the law f ifm of M+ rehen, gawyer,
ahnston, 6unwe dy and Coles 1 repre'sent Midtown Dank of Miami,
the applicant,
l would like to start out by informing some of the new members
here, and recalling baek for the benefit ;of the oldtimers, several
months ago, we came here with an applicat enfor some rezoning.' to
allow us to; build some additional drive-in facilities, on the then
02.1 existing property of Midtown Dank
In your wisdom, and under the conditions then prevailing,
you had under consideration the preparation of a new ordinance regu-
lating the use of property for bank drive-in facilities. After a
discussion with you, we deferred our application, at that time, and
while you were preparing your drive-in ordinance, we were able to
acquire at the bank, some additional property.
We now come back to you with an application, which is, in
effect, a package application, asking for you to rezone and make in
one uniform class of toning all of our property. We want it replatted,
want to vacate some alleys, establish easements in different ways,so
that we may be in a position to erect at some time in the future, a
larger, more gracious, and serviceable bank building itself, on the
main parcel. And also, as soon as possible, to move forward with the
construction of additional drive-in facilities, which will be located
on the what I shall refer to - as "our new property"
1 have furnished each ofyou with a little booklet, and ifyou
would open your book, you'll find on the first page, a sketch of the
plat there, for the area, and colored in orange, is the old property.
The green .to the south of it, is the new property. It's on that green
property that we want to establish our drive-in facilities.
I have here, and will exhibit to you now, an architect's rendering
of the proposed facility.
This colored in red there, at this end, is the existing bank
facility. Thisis as more or less, as currently landscaped here as
shown. I say, more or less, because it isn't quite as extensive, but
we do have a couple or more, magnificant old oak trees, that we've saved
in our parking lot immediately to the west of the existing facility,
and along the sidewalk there.
Now,to the south, here, as.I point, is the proposed new drive-in
facility. Thereare two banks of drive-in, or two sets of drive-in units,
with the entranceway down here, on this street, coming in off of:14th
Avenue, up the side street, 19th Street, turning right into this area,
and making a loop back, into either of these drive-in facilities.'
We have made a careful study of the drive-in facilities of all
the other banks in this area, and in fact, throughout the state,and
we confidently tell you, that there's no bank in the State of Florida
that has drive-in facilities that will accommodate cars comparable to
this. This is the best there is, and the best that there will be for
many, many, years to come.
The reason it is, because that's a lot of land tobe devoted to
a drive-in facility, and provides more than ample, and gracious planning
of space for backups. We can have twenty, thirty, forty, fifty cars,
over a period of time, backed up, , inside of the facility, if it's neces-
sary. We don't really expect to ever have that many, or that situation,
41 but we are prepared for it, if, as, and when the circumstance should ever
arise.
If you will turn to the second page in your book, yeu'11 see.
in black and white, s diagram similar to this,
This diagram, that is inthe little booklet, is in exact accord-
ance with the ,application that we have presented.
This architect's rendering is very slightly different, primarily,
in that the exit in the northern parcel of the property, has been moved
-15- December -6, 1971 Item 414
11111 Ell
tb the east* you'll notice right here, as l indicate with ny finger,.
onthe sketdh, there is an emits On the sketch in your booklet, this.
exit is somewhat to the west, or closer to the end of the propertys
This has :begin roved easterly, at the recommendation, and for the
purpose of complying with the suggedtions of your own staff*
1 think we've worked this out, in accordance with them:
Also, the greenery around the dr,ives,in area hat been at►pplement.ed
on our architect's rendering, and will be in accordance with the render -
SO ing, and that, too, is at the suggestion of your staff,
We are prepared to, and will provide a let of nice greenery.
In confection with this, I'd like to remind you, or inform you,
really, that Midtown sankof Miami it operated by, owned by, substan-
tially the same group of stockholders and officers, and is an affiliate
of Riverside Bank.
The reason I bring that up, .is because I wanted to tell you that
the City of Miami Beautification Committee, very recently, on June 12,
1970 gave the Award of the Month to Riverside Bank for the Banks'
parking area, right to the north of Riverside Bank Building.
Y have a picture here, it is not in color, but those of you
who are familiar with our Bank, an
mighty area, I think you'll agree
with me, that ,Riverside Bank g y nice, pretty parking lot,
and drive-in facility. And we'll have equal, or better, at Midtown.
Mrs. McGraner: Mr. Chairman?
Rev. Wright: Yes, Mrs. McGraner.
Mrs. McGraner: I would like to say something. Because, I was
very proud, at the Beautification Committee, when Riverside Bank was
designated and being very beautiful in their beautification.
4
And I had the pleasure of presenting that Award. So, I just
didn't want that to slip by.
Mr. Trantham: All right, well, thank you, Mrs. McGraner.
Rev. Wright: It seems as though' you have a' friend, Mr. Trantham.
'
Mr. Trantham: Friends in high places, and middle places, and
low places, everywhere, are, mighty good to have in all cases, Reverend
Wright.
Rev. Wright: Go right ahead with your rendition. Have you
finished?
;t Mr. Trantham: Well, - there are --we have asked that the
property be rezoned. As it now exists, the northly property, the
old Bank property, is zoned for C-4.. We thought it would be more
appropriate to rezone all of it down to one level use of C-1.
Now, of course, at the same time, we are asking you to change.
the parking lot area from a 'residential classification that it now
suffers from, into a.C-1, and make it uniform.
Admittedly, there is some disagreement between our views, and
your staff recommendations, but I think that from the overall stand-
point, I like to believe that our views are a little better than that.
Now, we've worked out all of the other problems that I know
of, that we've had with the staff, and we think we can live with their
recommendations, and they've indicated they could just about live with
ours. But we'd like for you, if , you Would, to . accept our application'
and recommendation for a constant zoning of this in a C-1 classification.
For one reason, in ,articular, if you notice here, the red area
on our sketch, the architect's rendering, that's the existing Bank
-16- December 6, 1971 Item #4
building, A change in zoning upwards from Cal would interfere
with : the eetbalk requirements, so that we could not. continue south-
erly, on this, right along here, with that hank tua1ding, Weld have
to setbaek and make a zigzag, 5aggedy, type of strteture, and it really
would not fit in well, and it would be tremendousi empeneive to try to
adapt the existing building into a jagged, jigsaw, type of construction,
which would be required, if we were saddled with the sethack require-
ments of an R_d, or swathing of that nature,
At this time, if it p:.ease the Chairman, I would like to ask
all of th : Director§ and Officers of cur Banking Croup, who are inter-
eaten here in support of this, and any other friends we might have in
the group, to please stand and be recognized. I won't Bali Hades,
but
(Approximately twenty to thirty pereons stood to be recognized.)
Rev. Wright: My goodness. okay, Mr. Trantham.
Mr. Trantham: I might also add, that Iam not aware of any,
objections by any of the adjacent property owners. We have filed some
twelve or fourteen consents and waivers, and particularly, one of our
_ pa ,i.the west of our site.
important and substantial neighbors, is here, the owner and operator of
the Creek. Club Apartments, which is 'a little to
He's here, and would like to say a few words, if you would indulge us.
Thank your
Rev. Wright: With pleasure. Thank you very much, Mr. Trantham,
thank you for your presentation.
Mr. Sorkin: My name is Reuben Sorkin. I'm the owner of the
Creek Club Apartments, which is a large building having eighty-five
units, immediately adjacent to the property in question.
We are verymuch in favor of the Bank's petition. The present
existing buildings there are very old, and run down, need painting,
and are overgrown with shrubs and weeds. As the former owners of
that owned the property, merely kept it for land evaluation
We are anticipating that the Bank coming into the area will not
modernize it, and upgrade it. Which will affect our. property. As a
rule, when a bank moves into an area, the property adjacent to it is.
enhanced in appearance. Also, at the present time, on 14th.Avenue,
there is very little traffic. And we feel that`the parking and drive-in
facilities which the Bank will provide, will not increase the traffic
congestion.
So, the other owners, and myself, are very much in favor of. the
Bank's petition. Thank you.
Rev. Wright: Thank you, very much, Mr. Sorkin, you have deep
interest. Now, Mr. Trantham, if you have further words, you may do
so at this time.
Mr. Trantham; No, sir, Reverend, I don't have anything further
to offer at this time. 1 am ready to answer questions, or enter' into
any discussion anyone wants.
Rev. Wright; Is there anyone here in objection to this item?
Is there anyone else hereto speak to the item? If not, now we will:
close the, public hearing, and have discussion among the Board Members.
Mrs, Callahan?
Mrs. Callahan; Are we going to consider these in their order,
please?
Rev, Wright; Yes,
.Mrs., Callahan; Thank your
;Mr. Kalil; Mr, Chairman, this being in my area, and being that
these people have been before this Board, and have met with our planning.
-17 December 6, 1971 item #4
•
Staff, They've been before the Board, f think, fits times already,,
within One year, We are creating a very, much unneeded hardship upon
them, which 1 don't think is necessary.
The hank is a very clean operation, I don't know if ail of
the Members on our Board have gone by that area, but you must have
in the past yearn, gone by NS W. 26th Street, in that section,
Adjoining, on the other side of the street, of the Avenue, there,
l6th Avenue, is - or loth Avenue, rather, is a junk yard that's an
ralo eyesore to the City, Up and down the street there are warehouses, used
lumber places, used fixtures places, used furniture places, N.W, 2Oth
Street is one of the worst looking streets to drive down.
The Bank has put up a beautiful building. it has needed this
expansion into vacant territory, although there are some homes `on'there
that are very rundown. I think there's about five or six of them there.
These would be torn down, to build the new expansion for the drive-in
tellers.
Now, our Planning Staff said, and we have given them the chance,
almost six months ago, for a study on drive-in tellers. Not only for
this Bank, but other banks, and banks in the future.
Now, after the study is completed, we still are getting a denial
from our Planning Staff, to allow them to proceed. Which is almost within
their grasp of our Planning Staff, of thislayout,: with the exception
that they do notwant any traffic to go out on l9th Terrace, which is
a dead-end. There is no flow of traffic on that street, and I cannot
see why our Planning Staff cannot, approve this, and go along with the
Board in seeing that we can help beautify this area.
Now, south of this area is a parking lot for the Veteran's
Hospital. And the other part is the Tropical Gardens. Now, there are
nohomes that are going, to be built in this area, I don't think, for
many, many, years to come. Yet, our Planning Staff says they want to
keep it as a residential area, and it cannot be a residential area,
because the complex that is in there of the Ludman Hospital, the VA
Hospital, and the parking lots that they have, you'll never be able.
to be developedinto anything else. Therefore, I see no reason why we,
as a Board, cannot approve this as it is put before us, tonight.
I would like to put into motion for approval.
Mr. Deans Are we going to discuss it?
Mr. Kalil: Or, do you still want to discuss it.
Rev. Wright: All right, thank you, very much, Mr. Kalil.
All right, Mr. Dean?
Mr. Dean: I would like to hear from Mr. Whipple on his
recommendation, please.
Mr. Whipple: Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Board. If I may
start from the bottom and work forward inorder to perhaps simplify and
clarify our position on this.
We do not object to any of the closures of alleys that they
submit on � their Tentative Plat which is Part 4, "c", of this applica-
tion.
6
Now, we believe this is necessary for the best utilization of
the site, for a very good development plan, that is submitted before
you.
Lot me state at this point, and as Mr, Kalil has alluded to,
these people have begin before this Ward in the past with a plan that
did not encompass but about two-thirds of the area they have before
you, tonight, 1 think, perhaps, part of our objection at that time,
was the fact that wedid not feel that the site that they submitted
to us, and this Board, was sufficient to accommodate the business, and
the activity, that they foresaw, and which we could foresee, related
to bank activity and teller.
10- December 4, 1971 fta= #4
Thespian that they have gubmitttd before this board tonight,
which we are presently reviewing, we feel is muck improved over what.
they submitted to: US and this body ,in the past, And basically, wo are
in accord with this plan with the exception of one item, that b@inq
the question of toning.
Lot me move upward, then, to Item 44, lib" ,
We have met with the applicant at a very late date As a
Matter of fact, a date that was after the time we fade this reeom-
OFmenration, and we told then what our concern was, with the "Conditional
Use" approval, on part 4,.ri1:01 that being the protection of the resi-
dential - existing residential development, to the west of the lower
yellow square, which you see before you.
And they have submitted to you, tonight, a much improved land-
,
seape plan, a plan that l believe indicates trees and landscaping
every.twenty-five feet, rather than the fifty feet, that the Ordinance
requires, and we find no problem with this. As a matter of fact, we
encourage it,_we accept this, on the condition that the zoning of this
lower site is R-C.
This brings us to the part "a", which concerns the zoning of the
total site, a request from C-4 and R-3, to C-1. We respectfully sub-
mit that the lower portion, I believe the applicants agree, should be
R-C.The question is, what should theR-3 portion below the C-4 be?
The entire area, majority of the area, except for the 20th Street
frontage, is residential. You have due west, or the lower left-hand
portion of Lot 1, there presently exists a multi -family residential
structure,right adjacent to the subject property. Also, on the green
portion in Block 2, to the left of the yellow portion, there exists a
multi -family residential structure.
The block to the south, which is presently zoned R-5, is vacant,
but it is, by its classification, intended to be residential.
So, ourcontention is, at this point, number one, that the
portions of their application that are adjacent to the existing resi-
dential uses, and future residential uses, should be R-C, compatible
with the residential, by virtue of setbacks, and their restriction of
uses.
Likewise, we suggest that the entire area needs consideration
for an R-C application. And I' am speaking of all of the area that is
sort of northeasterly of Wagner Creek. We think this is a must. We
think it is a: proper application in a comprehensive sense, that all of,
this area northeasterly of Wagner Creek, including the subject property,
on up to the commercial zoning existing along 20th Street, which, inci-
dentally, is across
s the street from an industrial classification, should
bezoned to a residential classification. Preserving the character, and
with the restrictions and the plans that the applicant has submitted, we
believe will be compatible. The only question is the future use which
the applicants might put to the orange structure thatexists on the
site plan before you.
The orange structure; is "a future use", and we submit that that
use could be under, the restriction of an R-C classification, just as
well as a,C-1'classification, with the consideration of additional
setbacks, and the restriction on the use.
We submit that thefrontage, being zoned commercial, either
c-1.or C-4, at the discretion of this Board,tonight, could accommodate
all retail or commercial activities that they seek to provide as an
adjunct to the Bank activities on this site.
So, in essence, we disapprove, or we recommend denial of the
zoning as petitioned, but we do not object to the use, as such, with
the proper zoning classification of R=C on those portions which 1 set
before you tonight,
Rev. Wright; Mr, Trantham?
f
F
AEI
Mr. " rartthar: May 1 f recagnite that your heari g has )*en
'elated, and .1 appreciate .your indulgence, 5ut, perhaps there has
a l :ttle lack of understanding on my part of all of ter. Whipple ' t ,
objections Al to the oning, and in turn, perhaps, i didn't make my
position quite a6 Clear to the board.
Let Me say this,,.that 1 recogni2e some Merit in what he says,
t don't agree with. him a. hundred percent, out we oouid live with a:
compromi2e there, if youwould go-ahead and give us C=1 on the northern
portion, ati being indicated now, and -that itt}mediately to the east' of
it, from where your pencil is, that entire yellow - keep that all C-1.
And, then, the lower portion, down below, which is where the
drive-in facility is, your - would be perfectly
our �t � classification
acceptable, and we can live with that quite easily. gut 1 pointed out
that we do need the advantage of the setback requirements, in C-1,
as opposed.to the burden that the R-C would put on us for future
eXpaneion along 14th - on the 14th Avenue side of our Bank.
Rev. Wright: Mr. Whipple, what do you say to that?
Mr. Whipple: Ho has explained it correctly. hut, there is
one item that, if I may, in rebuttal to your - not rebuttal, but as
a comment to your remarks. We are talking about a commercial classi-
fication.; Aside from the basic restrictions of commercial zoning,
which by the applicant they do not intend to do, but,: the.C-1 classi-
fication i portionhavej -foot setback
cation would allow the northern to - ust a lb
along 19th Terrace, and right across the street from the existing.
apartment that exists on the south side of 19th Terrace.
Now,thatis our concern here. We feel there is enough liberali-
nation existing along the 20th Street frontage, properly oriented to a
commercial or industrial classification, that it does not have to be
oriented to the existing residential use, or the residential.classifi-
cation on the south side of 19th Terrace.
Now, I don'tmean to argue this, but I did want to point that
out to the Board. We are talking about C-1 - no restrictions. The
northern site has no restrictions on it, whatsoever. It is not the
subject of "Conditional Use", or variance by this hearing. Only the
southern site is, by virtue of the acceptance of the R-C classification,
and the "Conditional Use" of teller facilities.
But, once this property is zoned C-1, assuming they meet., all of the
other regulations, the only restrictions with the effect upon the 19th
Terrace properties, would be,the '10-foot minimal setback in the C-1,
or, C-4 - C-1 classification, with no other protection to the residential
property.
Mr. Trantham: All I can say is, I have to stand by what I
said, and remind you all, again, that in many things you have to have
a little faith in people, and who they are, and I remind you that
we're askingyou to more restrictively zone that C-4 property, which
we have, upwards to C-1.
Rev. Wright: Mr. Silverman?
Mr. Silverman Mr. Trantham, let me ask you one question.
Does the Bank own all of this property, or is the sank leasing it?
Mr. Trentham:
Mr. Silverman;
Mr, Trantha;
We own absolutely every bit of it.
In fee, all of it.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Silverman; 1, personally, have no objection to the appli-
cation, as amended just now. l don't see any reason why it shouldn't
be granted
Mr. Kalil; Mr, Chairman? Under the R•C zoning, are they.
allowed, with the drive-in teller windows?
Mr, ,Simpson; yes, .sir.
Mr, RANI: Th€y Are allowed that under the 11-0
Mr, Simpson: With the approval of the "donztitional Use" in
the "b" portion, yes, sir.
Mr. kalif: Yes. Now, instead of jumping around with spot
mdning) which we are trying to stayaway from, instead of going to
C-1,'whieh doesn't exist in that area, anywhere. C�4 comes down
to 19th Terrace, in the adjoining block.
Mr. Simpson: No, No, sir, it does not.
Mr. Kalil: 1 am talking about over by the fiver, by the Canal.
The other way, west. That's west: of it.
Mr. Simpson: That is where the junk yard is, 1 think.
M. Kalil: That's right.
Mr. Silverman: Now, west.
Mr. Kalif That's it. why can't we just drop for that 125 feet
or so, drop that down on the same level to l5th Terrace, and keep it
C-47
Mr, Simpson: The application would not be properly before this
Board. The advertised hearing is for the R-3 to go to a C=1. This
Board cannot grant anything more liberal than a C-1. Actually, the
C-4 is much more liberal than the C-1, Mr. Kalil.
Mr. Kalil: Yes, I know that, but I am referring to staying
away from spot zoning. And, the setbacks that are required tinder
C-1, to allow them to be able to build an addition on their building
without the setbacks. Unless this Board will grant the setbacks..
Mr. Silverman: There are the same setback requirements in C-1
.and C-4.
Mr. Simpson: C-1 gives them everything they want.
Mr. Silverman: They have no objection to C-1, they don't need
anything more liberal.
Mr. Kalil: No, he was referring to - Mr. Whipple was referring,.
to the setbacks, and they were to - if they built an adjoining building,
and addition on the building, on'14th - what is that? 14th Avenue?
Yes.
Mr. Silverman: I'd rather give them C-1 over there, and if and
when they have an opportunity to expand, and; they feel they needthe
setback variance of five feet, let them come back at that time. That's
going to be several years away. And then, we will see what happens at
that time. They are here on the C-1 this evening.
Rev. Wright: This is in your district, Mr. Kalil, what is your
pleasure? It is in sections.
Mr. Burns: Mr. Chairman, before we close the discussion.
If 1 was following Mr, Whipple correctly, it was - the problem
I.thought he was trying to raise i , you are going to orient traffic
onto a residential street, %his rec_ mmendationi was to get it back on
ne commercial street. And going _orward with the C--1 doesn't meet
that.
Mr. Whipple, weren't you trying to change the traffic pattern
flow through this proposed development, or, wasn't that your point?
Mr, Whipple; Not - no, I am sorry, that wasn't quite the point,
The point was that we .did not want the commercial activity, or"commer-
cial zoning with the potential activity, across from the residential
area, which would be the northern part of Bloch 2, In other words,
-21- December 6, 1971 Item 01
•
if you take the green area of block 2, and you take Lots 14 through
la, they are facing, or would face, a commercial classification directly
north. .we feel thin is, wham ,lean desirables And, particularly
in light of the fact, that the applicant§ agree, and we agree, that
a proper application of coning for the southern tract is R-Cs
In other words, the t-C application, the existing 'it»C and future
R-C, we hope, would be then compatible with the north, the north aide
of 10th Terrace, which we are recommending, also, far ft-Cs
And, here you have the setbacks, the orientation the applicants
have agreed to moving the entranceway to an easterly point, 1 wound.
venture to say, some fifty -feet easterly of where they orginaily have
it, which we feel is appropriate. We had suggested, perhaps, down
to another seventy -feet to their existing entranceway, andmake it an
entrance and exit. They have suggested an in-between point, with their
exit still maintaining the separation of ingress from the egress.
So, what we're trying to say is, that we feel the northern portion
should be R-C, from a compatibility standpoint of setbacks, and useage,
commercial versus residential -office,' in the future.
Rev. Wright: All right. Now, Mr. Kalil, this is in your
district.
Mr. Kalil: All right, I make a
motion for approvalof
�
Item #4, "a".
Rev. Wright: The motion is for appro'al, of Item #4, "a"•
Mr. Silverman: Well, under this - as I understand the applicant
changed his proposal - that the northern portion would be C-1, and
the southern block would be R-C. Now, isn't that correct?
Mr. Trantham: Well, Mr. Silverman, I really didn't change it,
I just said we could live with it, if that was your pleasure, and if
"you want to . . that as an amendment, you may.
Rev. Wright: Is that your motion, Mr. Kalil?
Mr. Kalil: Yes, the motion, in "a", is to change the C-4 to
C-1.
Mr. Simpson: Let me clarify. I think. I. understand the motion
it is the drive-in tellers you want to be in R-C classification, the
main bank site C-1.
will
Mr. Trantham:.
Mr. Simpson:
be changed from
Mr. Trantham:
Correct.
All right, then, all the subject lots
C-4, and R-3, to C-1.
Correct.
Mr, Simpson; All of the subject lots in Block 2 will be
from R-3 to R-C.
Mr, Martinez: I will second that.
Rev. Wright; All right. Mr. Simpson, call the roll, please.
No objections were received in the mail.
(Continued on Next Page)
changed
-22-
December
1971 Item #4
Mr, Kalil offered the f0110Wing reseiution# and fi ve its
adoption
RESOLUTION JTION NO, 71 69�
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CHANGE OP ZONING
CLASSIPtCATtON OP LOTS 1'THROUGH 18, AND LOTS'
43 THROUGH 49 # BLOCK t., PROM C-4 . (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL) AND R-3 (LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE) TO
C-1 (LOCAL COMMERCIAL): AND OP LOTS 1 THROUGH 13,
AND LOTS .48 AND 49, ' ,BLOCK 2 i PROM H-3 (LBW DENSITY
MULTIPLE) TO R-C (RESIDENTIAL O ` `IC1;) :.;PROPERTY
BEING "LOCATED 'IN'BRADDOCK SUgbrVISIoN NO. 4 (3-61)r
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS TENTATIVE PLAT #796-A# "MIDTOWN
SANK OE MIAMI SUBDIVISION", A' SOUTHWEST CORNER
OP N. W. 14TH AVENUE AND N. W. 20TH STREET.
Upon being seconded by Mr, Martinez# this resolution was
passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Burns, bean, Kalil, Martinez, Silverman,
Wright.
Morescallahan and McGraner.
NAPES: Mr. Alfonso.
Mr. Simpson: The motion carries, eight to one.
Rev. Wright: The next portion.
Mr. Kalil: I make the motion for approval, on "b",'that
would be changed
Mr. Simpson: This would be approval of the drive-in tellers
on the subject lots, in Block 2.
Mr. Kalil: In Block 2, right. Well, that is taking the horse
before the cart. We have to change the zoning on it first.
That was on the C-4 to C-1.
Mr. Simpson I included - under the way the item is set up,
all of it can be handled under the "a" portion.
Mr. Kalil: All right.
Mr. Martinez: Second.
Rev. Wright: Call the roll, Mr. Simpson, please.
(Continued. on Next Page)
-23- De ember 6, 1"971 Item #4
Mf$ Rai :1 otteted..the folioWang Oeolutio and Moved ire
adopt ion
RMOLUT!Ot4 4O. 71 27O
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING "CONDITIONAL USE"
AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 5071; ARTICLE XI,
SECTION 1 (5) (1) ; TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OE
"DRIVE=IN TELLERS" ON LOTS 1 THROUGH 131 AND.
LOTS4S AND 49; BLOCK 2; BRADDOCK SUBDIVISION
NO: 4 . ( -61) ; OTHERWISE KNOWN AS TRACT t;
TENTATIVE PLAT #798-A;.."MIDTOWN BANK OP,MIAMI
SUBDIVISION"; AS PER PLAN ON PILE`AT PLANNtNC
BOARD OPPICE; ZONED 11=3 (LOW DENSITY_ MULTIPLE)
RECOMMENDED TO BE REZONED TO R-C (RESIDENCE OPPICE),
Upon being seoondedby Mr. Martinet; this resolution was
passed and adapted by the following vote
AYES: Messrs. Burns; Dean, Kalil; Martinez; Silverman;
Wright.
Mores. Callahan and McGraner.
NAPES: Mr, Alfonso.
Mr. Simpson: The motion carries, eight to one.
Mr. Kalil: I move for approval on #4, "c"•
Mr. Martinez: Second.
Mr. Kalil: Vacation and closure.
Rev. Wright: Call the roll, please, Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson: On Item #4, "c", the motion is to recommend.
(Continued on Next Page)
4= January b, 1971 Item #4
Re Ral :i of er@d the following reeoltitien t and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 71 27i
RESOLUTION IECCMMENDtNC VACATION AND
CLOSURE OP . EAST -WEST AND NORTH -SOUTH
ALLEYS LYtNC WITHIN THE EAST 319 47,
or RI,CCR 1, ANb LYING WITHIN THE EAST
190; 74, OP BLOCK 2, HR 1DDOCK SUBDIV1E1oN
NO. 4 (141)► IN CONJUNCTION WITH TErIATtVE
PLAT *-798 A, "MtbTOWN BANK OP MtAMt tUga.
DIVISION",,LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER'
OP N. W. 14TH AVENUE AND N. W. 19TH TERRACE.
Upon being seconded by. Mr. Martinet, this resolution was
passed and adopted by the £ollbWing vote
AYES: Messrs. Alfonso, Burns, bean, Kalil, Martinez,
Silverman, Wright.
Mies. Callahan, and McGraner,.
MAYES: None.
Mr. 'Simpson.: The. motion carries, unanimously.
Rev. Wright:m, I believe you had a pretty g+bbd
deal, tonight.
Mr. Trantham: I think so, and it. was a, real pleasure to be
herewith you all, tonight. Thank you all, so very much.
Rev. Wright: Thank you, and goodnight.
Mr. Simpson: Mr. Chairman, on this particular item, in
conjunction; with: the "b" portion, we will attach a copy of this sketch,
it will be made part of your recommendation to the City Commission.
and
Rev., Wright: All right.
Thank you
very much.