HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-08047dRDINANCE 10s $ 47
AN' 'ORDINAN'CE : AMENWMG ORDINANCE No, 65`!1,
THE 'costintworm BONING ORDINANCE PC R
THECI'Y OP MIAMI, BY, CHANGING. THE -ZONING
CLASSIFICATION ; POR X OTS- 13 14, RLOCR
t,GT : ,1, 2 13 AND 14, BLOCK 3t LOTS ., 2,
13 AND 14, BLOCK S ; - LOTS 2S , 24 AND 2,
fLOCR 12 f LOTS 21 THRODGH 23, . StOCR. 3.6; -
LOTS 21 THROUGH# 25,, BLOCK 2Of RAILWAY- SHOPS
ADD 2ND' AMb (34181 FROM Ce4 (GENERAL COM-
MERCY) . tO C'2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCE,),
DISTRICT, AS ' A RESULT i5P PLANNING .bEPA1tTMENT
STUDY BATED PSBR RY,7, 3.972, LOCATED AT
N..W. 2ND AVENUE BETWEEN N. W. S1ST AND S4TI
STREETS;' AND BY MNG ,THE NE ACESSARY CfiGES
IN THE' ZONING: D/STRICT MAP MADE A; FART OP
SAID ORDINANCE NO. 6873. BY, REFERENCE AND_
DESCRIPTION. IN ARTICLE IIZi-SECTION 2'e
THEREOF; REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING rOR'A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE HEREIN.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of
Miami, at its meeting held on February 28, 1972, passed and
adopted by a 9 to 0 vote its Resolution No. 72-41, recom-
mending granting a change in zoning classification, as here-
inafter 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;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 10 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 12 and 14) Moak 1; Lots 1., , 13 and 14, Bleak
Lets 1, 2, 13 and 14, H1oek 5; Lots 23, 24 and 25, H1e
12; Lots 21 through 25, Block 16; Lots 21 through 25,
Block 20; RAILWAY SHOPS ADD 2ND AMD, Plat Hook 3, Page 183,
from c 4 (General Commercial) to C-2 (Community Commercial)
District, as a result of Planning Department Study dated
February 7, 1072, located at N. W. 2nd Avenue between Ni W.
51.st and 54th Streets; and by making the necessary changes
in the zoning district map made a part of said Ordinance
No. by gip
Sb71.reference and description in Article tzl,
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herewith, be and the same are hereby repealed insofar as the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.
16th
PASSED on first reading by title only this day
March
of , 1972.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on second and final reading by title
only this
6th day of April , 1972.
DAVID T . KENNEDY
Attest:
MAYOR
H.D. SOUTHERN
City Clerk
tbbr ebtt ie z t i,at gb the /. f �d t
,� i�' � tht i�c IA ic�li.�r
It
ji�iC�i` ded fir fxo'ICf:°' .? a i Fa.
titththing
tiiti_60py V( the p1%LC6 . vs r} 't)t Fi
6141
WI :Ni? fii� �'r' °3 3.i:i Olt.) C1i�'i >�ti Ei t� 1i
•....'.s"""-0''x"' •x..x:.usxx xx.. xxxxlsiiiHiixim..tiialj
MEA IL L
tiahi tf -Atilt i freijit Sattitttay; &lido .d1
Levi &May§
Mimi; Delete tt#tlity; north.
MMe 8r tL0itibrA
COUP4tp -bAb
betas 'ilia I/ndarailiitERI cif/tail/so *rep Mty t3�
jy�
! tha 'Offlef Manager Of the Mlarrii aftatitewt SIM
braid 'MARRA brbbnle, Whti Bil 'aeth t
he
Ally Rildbfd, a 'daily (ibidabt Satu day, Sn dap' and
Legal 6tIntyi Flefi• d thattathapfttacN b'@bpy f adver•
cart", in
tisefileht, being a Legal Adveftisafhefi't dr Notice ill
the FaattaF of -
Adoptiofi of Ordittande Noe 8047
klp: Chafe'of, Zottlite alasaituatloti
Intl 2td Ave, between MW,.S2.st and
S4th StreOtbji etc'a e e s a a r, a
Wathpubtishad rn said he�apeF in the rssue3 o OUR.
A1ifl, 2, 1972
' ' Aftiatit further `says that' the said- Miami Review
fin Saidfille de County, -Flo idea aand that the Said Flew ,
- paper has heretofore been cohtinuousty published In
said bade CbUhty FlOrida, each day (except Saturday,
Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered es '
.second class mail Matter at the post
bfoffiteln Warn'. d bade CoyfrtrjpuicinetheatehMextprecednBtheisFlorida,
ted copy, of advertisement; and affiant further says that
orebetoort neither -a paid discountronrebA e.- commissio- firmr
refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement
for publication -in the said hewspaper,
(SEAL)
My Commission expires September 1, 1973.
Sworn to and subscribed before me ihts
12th day or April . A.D. 19 72
i" i,
Notary Public Marjorie
of Florida at Large,
•••
htit li;'
All : riitrflFriitd that. -on: the eth: ea 11)12 ri' BtFfifftf 6ff' Iif thg Cif
0t z , erida fldebtdd.= .en
t*dlh$ifee eFitititd s
A tiitifiliNt AMthil
/Rd ORb/NAN/et NO.tiif`!ii •
• "i -14 t"'C(3bIPI; 1 ttSfV
kO1 i?ri;,.rt73IroitCL i
Tbi .'dtt. � of 11AM%
Cr/Ai1TGt:V'tlH'E zON Icl
CLABSD tCA 'ION ...:.P 0 it
i3OTs i3 Afs'b-14,-ii1`sOCIt
I;0f1,8 it.. "'2r 'i�3, AIVi�. 14
'' Buell` 2,, L'lT§ r . 2 i3
AMb 14, EELOCI(s LOTS 2S
24 ANb 2$: )sLOCH 12, LOTS
21 THItQtJ it 2 _16.: :
LOTS 21,,:,,,I1m1fOnr 25
RLOCTt t RAILWAY
SitOPs AbD 2,v
wa.wL3-ie3)- 1{o11t (Gritb AEfb
ERALr C1AAA + " .
G$.MM1CTi;) , TO"
cCO2tirr'tii<rtp , COM-, .
MErtCIAL):bratlttc!r AS:A`
A SUET Ol' PLANi)ING
,PART-SittNp ST17by 1)AT> b
FERRL:ARY 7', 1072. Lb=
CATE!) ,AT NW 2ND AVE-
N LTE'.,, 33ETi EN NW biST
RV\rA C1Nr TfE%EC F
SA) y 'CIIANDP,S 1 TIIi;
ZONINGs; DISTRICT :' 1lAP
O MADE A PART ':OW SAID
REFERS, 6&7i,:W BY
I ]1L��12t CII"_AhtD :
SCRIPTION 114-,'AR2;ICLE
1tt, se:CTION 2 THER&ioP,'.
RR16F1 ALING ALis":LAWS.IN
CONFLICT Iit� RE1VIrt'I# ""
AND PROVIbrNG FOR- .1
Si3VERABILiTY'.:' CLAUSE
It1:REIN
which Is designated Ordinance
No, So47,
H b SOitTHERit
CITY CLERK
CITY OF MIAblt,
FLORIDA
Publication of this notice on'
the 12th dog of April, 1972.
Ad. No. 40366
1.
Ry8/16/72
13 141 ; b1.1
E NOs 71
ORD1iQANC 4 ,...�.. .�
AN ORtiINANOE AMENi3INC ORDINANCE NO.. 6871,
HMIS OOMPR2HENS IvE BONING OWANANOE FOR
'THE CI 'Y OE MIAMI; DY CHANGING THE 20NINO'
OLASSIEICATION PM LOTS 13'AND 14, BLOCK,1;
LOTS 14 2, 13-AND-14, BLOO1 3;-LOTS 1; 2
3 ANb 14, BLOCK St, LOTS 23,'24 AND 25,
BLOCK-12; LOTS 21 THROt?GH 25, BLOCK 16;
LOTS 21 THROUGH "25, BLOCK 20; RAILWAY SHOPS
ADD 2N1) AND (3-183); FROM C 4 (GENERAL COM=
MERCIAL) TO C-2 (COMMUNITY.COMMERCIAL)
DISTRICT, AS A, ESULT OF PLANNING' DEPARTMENT
STUDY DATED FE$R UARY 7, 1972, LOCATED 'AT,
No W. 210 AVENUE BETWEEN Nb g. 51ST AND 54TH
STREETS; ANb BY MAILING THE NECESSARY CHANGES
IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. MAP MADE A PART or
SAID ORDINANCE NO. 687BY REFERENCE AND
- DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 14,.SECTION 2,
THEREOF; REPEALING 'ALL LAWS' IN. CONFLICT
- HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING FORA SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE'HEREINo
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of
Miami, at its meeting held on February 28, 1972, passed and
adopted by a 9 to 0 vote its Resolution No. 72-41, recom-
mending granting a change in zoning classification, as here-
inafter 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;
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
CITY CQMMISsI» 4;
MEETING OF
MAR t61972
1 Pi
GRomictv„R
R
tots 13 and 141 blook I; tots 1, 2, 13 and 14, block 3;
Lots 1, 2, 13 and 14, blot±k St Lots 23, 24 and 2' , block
121 Lots 21 through 25, block 16 Cuts 21 through 25,
block 20; RAILWAY 81.16P8 An 2NDD AMb, Plat Book 3, page 183,
from 0�4 (General Conmercial) to C-2 (Community commercial)
b.sttict, as a result of Planning Department Study dated
pebrtiary 7, 1972, located at Ni W. 2nd Avenue between N.W.
51st and 54th Streets; and by making the necessary changes
in the zoning district map made a part of said Ordinance
No. 6871 by referenceand description in Article 111,
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 / day
19720
PASSED AND ADOPTED on second and final reading by title
only this . day of
1972.
PREPAREb AND APPROVEb BY:
lards 'ruiner
Assistant City Attorney
. REVIEtab EY
Jack R. ; Rice, •
Assistant, to DiYect°
APPROVED AS TO 40R6t1 AND.;eoRREC-TNESS L,__�
r
. -
/t
Alln"h Rot Stein
dity Attorney 'f`
MO►orabie City Commission
Attention: Mr, M: I,, Neese
City of Miami, Florida
Re: C%tANCN OP ZON1NO -R2COMM2Nbta
N. , as Avenue betwe W - VI: -
-Silt -and- 54th—StYAets
Iats. 1., ' 14 "slooie' , .'-tots 1, 2#
12 & 14, $lock 3; Lots 1, 2j 13
14, 81oek S; Lots 23, 24 & 25,,
tiock 12; Lots 21 thru 25, block
16 and Lots 21 thru -25, Block 20,
RAILWAY SHOPS Abb 2ND AND (3-183)
Moard initiated] w..
Gentlemen;
The Miami TanninBoard, at g its .... meeting o£ . 'abrary 28, 1972, Item
�.ts
04, following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. 72-41,
by a 9 to 0 vote recommending Expanded Public Hearirig;initiated ,by
Planning Board Resolution No. 72-36, as a result of Planning Depart-
ment Study dated 2/7/72, to consider a Change of Zoning Classifica-
tion for Lots 13 & 14, Block 1; Lots 1, 2, 13 & 14, Block 3; Lots 1
2, 13 & 14, Block 5; Lots 23, 24 & 25, Block 12; Lots 21 thru 25,
Block 16; Lots 21 thru 25, Block 20, RAILWAY SHOPS ADD 2ND A' (3-183),
located at N. W. 2nd Avenue between N. W. 51st and 54th Streets, from
. C-4 (General Commercial) to C-2 (Community Commercial).
Nine 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,
David Simpson, Jr.
Jr.
Executive Secretary
Miami Planning and. Zoning Board
ram
Z. M. 16
Attached; Minutes
cc: :Law Department
i.. i .?ti
(1. R
NOT C ; TO GWNEAE ASP ABM, ESTATE 1N
THE ViCIN/TY OP N. W. 2iMB AVENUE
BETWEEN N. W. 5151" ANb 54TH ;STBEETE
HIAM/, PLORIDA
The Miami City Commission, at its meeting of Tfltfl SDAY,
March 16, 1972, at 11:15 A. r ., in C. Ty`a_.i_� i,.�.__35Gtl..�ten
American brute;, Pinnerlteyy__Mianlij_...Florida, will oon4ideL
the following:
N. W. 2nd Avenue between N. W.
51st and 54th Streets
Lots 13 & 14, Block 1; Lots 1, 2,
13 & 14, Block 3; Lots 1, 2, 13 & 14
Block 5; Lots 23, 24, & 25, Block 12;
Lots 21 thru 25, Block 16 and Lots
21. thru 25, . Block 20,
RAILWAY SHOPS AbD 2ND AMD (3-183)
Resolution recommending expanded Public Hearing initiated by
Planning Board Resolution No. 72-36, as a result of planning
Department Study dated 2/7/72, to consider a Change of Zoning.
Classification for the above described property from C-4
(General Commercial) to C-2 (Community Commercial).
At its meeting of February 28, 1972, the Miami Planning Board
adopted Resolution No. 72-41 by a 9 to 0 vote recommending
the Change of Zoning.
All interested persona areinvited to attend.
MIAMI PLANNING BOARD
cm
3-10-7 2
+e' Mr. David Sit p e on, it*
titeeutive Secretary
P1 nirlg and Zening
Ire : -tannin
EcOMMENDATIOY :
It is recommended that the Planning and Zoning Board initiate the necessary
public hearing to consider rezoning the properties along NW end Avenue between
NW 51st Street and NW 54th Street that are presently zoned C-4, to a C=2 zoning
classification.
BACKGROUND:
At the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of January 1 Oth, 1972, as Item #9,
the Planning Department requested deferral of a petition that requested a change
of zoning from C-4 to C-2 for the block between 52nd and 53rd Streets on the
west side of NW 2nd Avenue. The Planning Board, inresponse to this request,
deferred the item by Resolution No. 72-9 until February 28th with a request for
a study and report by the Department to be submitted by February 7th. This memo
is in response to this resolution and request.
Ctti; ttP MAW. rienteA
iNi n.oriiCE MEMONAND
partment
"Sift:
1t,lietisry 1, 197/
Area Study NW Intl Av
52nti anti 51rd Streets
ntttRt:Hete:
NcLneliRtit
ANALYSIS:
The study area was generally confined to the properties fronting along NW 2nd Avenue
between NW 50th Street and NW 54th Street and the 'immediate environs. There are
approximately five commercial establishments and one vacant commercial structure
in this C-4 zoning district.. The remainder of the C-4 zoning district is comprised
of vacant land and residential development. It is noteworthy that the property due
east of the property under petition is almost vacant with the exception of one single
family residence.
Of the five commercial establishments, two would be made non -conforming as a
result of an area change of zoning from C-4 to C-2. Since the commercial activity
in this area is somewhat limited,: and as it has been borne out by other planning studies . that there is a significant amount of general commercial zoning within this neighborhood
to serve the needs of the community, the upgrading of this zoning would be in keeping
with the existing land use of the subject area.
Page 1 of 2
!Art .DavidSimpson;
stew multiple family residential developtnent$ as has been indicated by the requested'
change of xening petition; would provide a more stable environment for the gub3eet
area and Would tend to encourage redevelopment of other areas in this neighborhood;
The upgrading of zoning froth C•4 to C.2 would also be more harmonious with the
single family and duplex development existing to the rear of the subject Commercial
coning
tt is therefore recommended that the existing nni fig of C.4 be changed to a C-2
toning ciao sift cationb
cSAtttbWtvb
Page 2 of 2
MN NI
sots, . 3 and 4, B oc. LOts ^ ;� an s von 2;
Lots 1, 2, 13 and 14, block Si Lots 221 24, and 88, block 12;
loots 21 through 25 r block 10 Lots 21 through H, Slack 20:
t3AltrWAY SHOPS ADD 2Nb AMb (3..182).
Expanded Publid Hearing, initiated by Planning board ftesalQt.on
Mb. 72.,36, as a result of Planning Department Study, rated.
2/1/72, td consider a Change of ,Zoning Classification oft the
above property, from Ci.4 (General Commercial) to C"2 (''-oMa
vanity Commercial), NOTE: Portions of above Item 49 deferred
fro► Manning Board Meeting of 1/16/72.
Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal Notice of Nearing
and administered oath to all persons testifying at this hearing.
PLANNING b8PARTMENT �RECOMM: NbATibt :: "APPROVA °
See Panning Department iiiiay memo, datia-Paivary 70
1972.
rt . Charles: My name is William Charles, 15156 Sisoayne
Boulevard, North Miami $sash, Florida.
May it please the Chairman, and the Ladies and Gentlemen on
the Board.
Two meetings ago, we had Item #9 on the Agenda,;and We were
requesting a change of zoning, so that We could help Mr. Bean's
neighborhood out, and clear out the forest, on the west side of
second Avenue, N. W. 57th Between 52nd, 53rd, and 54th Street.
Apparently, the Planning Staff was so impressed with the
progress that would be made by changing this from a C-4, to upgrade.
it to 'a C-2, that the matter was postponed, and they have asked, ..
brought this on before the Board, to change the two blocks in each
direction.
I would still like to have my individual matter heard,
but I still would like to speak in behalf of this.
The other witness is Mr. Crawford, of Walter Etling,Company,
who had the property listed for over two years, andnever got a single
request to use the listed full block for commercial purposes, in a
two-year periodof time, so apparently, there is no demand for the
C-4 in that area.
1 stand for any questions, or Mr. Crawford will be glad to
answer any questions.
Rev. Wright: All right, Mr. Charles,thank you. Is there
any other testimony to this item? At this time, we will close the.
public hearing, and have discussion among the Board Members. There
is no discussion among the Board Members. Mr. Burns, this is in your
district. What is your pleasure?
Mr. Burns: I think we've got a late discussion from my left,
if we might.
Rev. Wright Did you want to say something, Mr. Campbell?
Mr. Campbell: Yes. Again, on behalf of the Department of
Public Works.
We have not seen any plans, again, for development in this
area. There is no sanitary sewer available in, the vicinity here.
And, the best of our projection, there will not be one available
before 1976, and maybe as late as 1980, ` or '81, before we care
adequately supply sanitary sewers to this area.
Mr. parks, who is our Sanitary Zngineer, has not discussed
this with any of the people involved in the development of this area.
They haven't come to us for ar'R' . guidance on the matter.
Rev, Wright; All right, thank you. Do you wish to say anything
else, Mr, Charles?
-14- rebruary 28', 1972 Item 44
•
M!`; af es t 4 , with tie ekeeptienthattMOJA 'tithe:
wades of it des, I Would like t6 have a vote On tht 'one to had ..
e ore so it woiiidn' t be tits in with other pnopinne four bloor a,
: th a question.
Rev: Wright: All right: Mr: dharle ss Mr: turns/
Mr: 8ttrns t I would like
On the previous recommendation,
recommendation, of February 'nth.
bo We have two
Mr► Charles: rebrUary 16#
to ask Mr. gimpson's help here:
they refer US back to an earlier
Is that actually February 22
Mr: hums: f have one dated February 2, where the staff did
recommend it, Is that the recommendation that they're referring ue
back to?
;fir. Simpson: Probably so, yes,
Mr. Charles: You may have my copy.
Mr. Hurns: Mr, Whipple? If you could pull together.; the :com-
ments that were being made to us, from thestaff, as I. understand it:
this Pebruary 2hd report recommended the change of zoning. Now, we've
just heard from the staff, stating that we have a sewer problem,
Does that reflect back into your recommendation, and change it
in any manner?
Mr. Whipple: This information was not available to us, atthe
time. However, this should be a consideration. Such a project, not-
withstanding what Mr. Charles has stated this evening. Mr. Charles
isinterested in one item, however, it does affect this one item,
in addition to the whole area. There are several solutions, available.
That being, if there are no sewers available, if they want to build an
apartment, they have to make available the necessary facilities to
handle the sewage. You cannot handle the sewage of a magnitude as,
proposed here, tonight, or in this area, without making proper arrange-
ments.
So, in essence, I am saying at this point, that our recommenda-
tion was without the sewage knowledge, but based upon the land use,
and the - what we considered the planning objectives for this area,
we felt that the upgrading of zoning from C-4 to C-2, was appropriate,
that we had significant amounts of C-4'zoning existing in the area to
accommodate the needs, and that the petitioied request, and the initi-
ated hearing, as we put it in our memorandum, was proper, based upon,
primarily the land use, and :the 'objectives for the needs of the sur-
rounding area.
Mr. Burns; well, now I was trying to geta a very short
precise answer, Mr. Whipple. Please, pleasebear with me, because
h'am sure you answered it or, maybe did you want to say something?
Mr. Campbell: Maybe I could help.
The zoning of an area, and the availability of sanitary sewers,
are apples and oranges, really. The availability of sanitary sewers,
in here, as I said, is not for the best. However, it would' be possible
for the developers, particularly on the other map it shows a. fairly
extensive stretch of Second Avenue being developed - yes, It would
be feasible, or possible, to develop either force mains, from the
individualdevelopment, or, if there were a consortium group of
people individually building these sites, they could get together,
and develop a sanitary sewer to join the nearest available sanitary
trunk main. This is a possibility which is open to them,
Hut, I would suggest consultation with the Department of
Public Works, in order to achieve the-, This will. 41.10w them to
develop the property,
Mr, burns; Do we have a chicken and an egg situation, here,
•
-15= F'ebruary 281 1972
Item #4
de we Zone fifst, all Cheri f §et the sever
Mf campben t No, no, ,no, one has nethircg . da with the
really. One has nothing to do with the Other.
Zoning and sewers are not - are not the 'same
Mr. Surns: I understand, but would we want this property
zoned at this time, for that use, without the faculties? And l
thought that was what Mr. Whipple was trying to speak to.
Mr. Whipple: Well, that's not quite true, because we do
not know to length the petitioner, and the other property owners
in the area are willing to go to, by which, hypothetically, to
utilize this property for residential use. NOW, we have instances
where developers, and property owners, have run force mains - l
would say in the 7th Street Area, for instance, close to a mile,
or a little longer,. force main, at their own expense, to connect up
with the sewer, to make their property marketable, in the form of
residential use. We are not in a position, planning Department -wise,
to determine whether this is feasible, or not.
This is up to the individual developers, and property owners.
So, therefore, we don't have a ready answer, either yes, or no, because
depending upon their economic strength, and fea
sibility of the.project
would be the determinate, whether they could accommodate the needs.
What Mr. Campbell was saying, is that the sewer needs are there,
and the developers of the subject property, and the surrounding property,
will have to be met.
other
Now, in what form? He has indicated what the City's form of
meeting these needs will be. If the petitioner has something else,.
then this is up to them, which we are not knowledgeable on, and are
not prepared to argue one way or the other.
We have heard that, here are the City's requirements and
requisitions and programming, as far as cost, monies available, and
what have you. If they want to speek something different, then this
istheir alternative, really.
It's not that the two shouldn't meet, but if we're talking
about, perhpas, a larger area, a square mile, or a two-mile segment,
then it becomes a little more incumbent upon the City, to be more
realistic as to whether they should, or shouldn't, approach this.
one or two -square mile area. But as we're not talking about that,
then, it's the the authority rests more on the developer's side
than on the City's side.
Rev. Wright: All right, thank you very much. Now, just a
moment, please.
Mr. Charles, we have. Bishop Bali, here, who comes to speak in
objection to this item. And at this time, we will have the Bishop
to coine over to my left to the microphone on my left, over here, and.
state his objection.It isn't necessary to swear him in, the Bishop
of our Church.
Bishop, you may state your objection. State your name and
address, for the Record.
Bishop Ball; My name is, William F. Ball, Senior. My address
is 7530N. W. 1Oth Avenue, Miami.
If I" understand, that . the question.for discussion now, is
*whether or not this area, this piece of land, facing Second Avenue'
between 52nd and 54th Street, I believe.
Rev. Wright: Yes.
Bishop Sall: Whether this land, - where all of those trees are?
Whether we should have this area set aside for apartments 4% this parcel
-16- February 28, 1972 Item #4
t lands The only oojectian I haVe there, ill that area yeu have meetly
fesidefit§, pepoie whd are perrni"nenti r living there* Ttey'ye bought
he nea. In my Opinion, the apartmdnta WOuld have matt to to do with
bringing down the value of those hems in that areas 1 would rather
think that the front of this parcel, facing Second Avenue, eeu1d be
used for commercial, and the batik could be uiaed for resideteee r
owning two pieces of property in that area, one at 271 N. W.
54th Street' and the other on the center of Ms W. 2nd Avenue and 50th
Street, i think that number is S006.
And 1 have - that would be my objection, from the very fact
410 that it could have it toiling effect on deteriorating the value of
the property there that's being used for residences. That would be
objection.
ob
my only
Rev. Wright: All right. Mir. WhippleWhippl0 Would you explain to
the Bishop, the Study Report, and if this would degrade the property.
in that area?
Hr. 'Whipple: If l may, 3ust let me briefly explain the map
we have before you. It is pretty barer, but it reflects the land use.
dust moving it up, for the classifications, for a minute.
The idea we are trying to portray with this map, is that it is
not a liberal commercial district, it is not a district that is overly
burdened with paint and body shops, and with the C-4 type of obnoxious
commercial uses that you will find in` other areas.
As a matter of fact, the map indicates, there are, only one, . two,
three, commercial uses existing in this strip of C-4 zoning that exists
there, today.
Now, by our recommending this upgrading of zoning, from C-4 to
C-2, is number one, is to still permit the commercial development, if
the need is there, and if somebody so desires to developa neighborhood
or community type commercial development. But what we are doing and
in addition to that, what we are doing, by eliminating the C-4, is
ruling out those obnoxious commercial' developments, such as paint and
body shops, garages, and other liberal commercial uses, which we feel
would be detrimental to the backing, low -density, R-1 and R-2 districts.
This is a principle, which weary to protect the single-family
and duplex ownership, as much as possible, through zoning, and in
essence, this is what we are proposing by our recommendation,here,
tonight. That we upgrade it from the obnoxious commercial C-4, to a
more restrictive commercial, C-2, which still allows your neighborhood
and.: community objectives, but in addition allows for multiple -family
consideration, such as is proposed by the petitioner,' here, tonight.
Now, there .may be some objections, to the multiple -family
development. Thisis quite possible. But we feel that due to the
if,;I may - purity of the area, which is reflected bythe land uses,
youryellow and oranges being low -density, and if you look at the
zoning pattern of the other map, the only objectionable: zoning is this
along 54th Street, which we -I - the Department, I am sure., this Board
recognizes, as a liberal commercial andwholesale area, but the rest: of
the areas are all R-2, and R-1, surrounding Second Avenue,:. almost for
the entire length, until you get down around 46th Street. Now, we feel
this residential character should be protected as much as we - asyou can,
but we. don't feel that the C'-4 zoning classificaiton;gives it the suffici-
ent, or significant amount of protection, as is, required.
The C-2, still allows the commercial, as opposed to the single-
1' family and duplex, but it is not as obnoxious zoning . classification, as,
y _ p n on therecommendation.
- the C-2 is. And that's basically, out. oss.tis� xecommendati_
We are trying to upgrade the zoning. You could, perhaps, upgrade
it to even more, let's say, a C-1, or residential, but again, we are try-
ing to lack at the needs of the local community.
On 54th Street, you have a liberal, commercial, which does net
necessarily address itself to the neighborhood and community needs.
-17- February 28, 1972," Item #4
i
Arta6 you hava . soMe 1014 on down Cn e nd Avn;tte, heirthe 210
ekists there, ttow,, which AecaMmodates, :n etuf spin&en,. the . generai
es:Meta-air heeds, and perhapa, n6twithstanding cur thoughts, and 'what
have` youi, foresight into this, we fen there -may be a tend, it -tome'
.nstanoes, particularly:with respect to ett#:sting strttotttresi forHa
nsighbbrhOed or commercial develop ►ent. And that's .why we haN reeem=
mended the C,2: as opposed., perhaps to a Cal, or a f=classification,
rev. Wright! Now, Bishop. Now, on Seeond Avenue, it appear
to, me, you have apiece of property there, it appears tome that it.
:enhancesthisl But your pieta of property on 13rd no, on S'2nti
Street - that's not being tampered with, at all, That's B 4, for
410 two -families, and it is going to remain that way. Bt1t it appears
that it enhances the other.
if you notice, on the corner of Slst and 2nd► you remember,
we -had all of those:bid oars there, this Board made them more those,
and clean that all up. And if:you u notice, across the street, in the
picture, Bishop, that place -- left there, you see? This is --that Cm4►
this is what, it does. But the C-2 will upgrade it.
Bishop Ball: I see. May l ask a question of information,
please? When you said C-3, what do you have in mind?
Rev. Wright: C-2.
Bishop Ball: C-2. That is
Rev. Wright: With C-4, they could put a blacksmith's shop there,
they could put a car - a paint and garage there, they could do anything.,
But under C-2, they cannot do that.
Bishop Ball: And the homes
Rev. Wright: Are protected, the homes on the street are
protected.
Bishop Ball: All right, thank you.
Rev. Wright: Bishop, I have apiece of property too, right
around the corner there, and I am going to have to look outfor that,
too. Thank you for coming down, Bishop. Bishop, you may remain, if
you like, until we finish this item.
All right, Mr. Charles.
Mr. Charles: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enlighten everybody, and
I think I made that clear the last time, but so many things have happened.
This property is in an estate. We haven't had a chance to sell
it, not even a feeler, for the C-4. The property is a jungle. The
man wants to buy it, and remove every one of the, trees from there,
except the landscaping trees, and preserve the trees, and not just chop.
them down.
There's no thought of any apartments, or any housing, at this
time. It will take him a long, long, time to get the trees off. So,
apartment goingousout, tomorrow,
And,aIddon't think tthetother side got the
were notchop and put
Pthe
picture, but - here is the picture - but here is the dense trees that
are there, we will save every one of them. There are no plans, or any
development at all, at this time, and probably wouldn't be for four or
five years. But that is a nuisance, and I wouldn't go in that shrubbery
at high noon,
S When I walked around, getting the consents to everybody, they
All told me, how they didn't want their children in that area, and how
it was snakey, and people going in there to do things that they wouldn't
do under the bright lights
Rev, Wright: All right, Mr, Charles, Now, if there is no
turther discussion to this item, - alright, thank you for coming down,
pishop: if there is no further discussion to this item, we will close
-18- February 28, 1972
Item #i
s
t he public hearinqlow,, and have diatrusait n eloO q. the Dbard Meng
bira, Mr-, turns, this is in your diStr et,
Mr. turns: Mr. Chairman, ter. Simpson, by memo dated 4anuary 12th
maligned ed Mr. Lundblatt to report back, onwhether or not they could
require this area to Be ,cleaned up, because we became •aware at the
last hearing, that it was gather overgrown. Did you get a report back/
Mr, Simpson His answer is . it' the
out copies. I forget 3ttst how he phrased
Mr. turns: I am going tO move the
pursuant to the St;aff's recommendation,
Mrs. Callahan: I'll second it.
Rev. Wright! The ntotiork is for approval.
Nine objections were received in the mail.
Mr. Burns offered the following resolution, and Loved its
adoption
file, Mr. turns. We Bent
it, but it is in the fife.
approval of this application,
RESoLuTrbN µk2.::,..72-4_
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CHANGE OF ZONING
CLASSIFICATION - ON LOTS13 AND 14, BLOCK 1;
LOTS 1, 2, 13 AND 14, BLOCK 3, LOTS 1, 2,
13 AND 14, BLOCK 5; LOTS 23, 24 AND 25,
BLOCK 12; LOTS 21 THROUGH 25, BLOCK 16
LOTS 21 THROUGH 25, BLOCK 20; RAILWAY SHOPS
ADD 2ND AM) (3-183) , FROM C-4 (GENERAL COM-
MERCIAL) TO C-2 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL).
Upon being seconded by Mrs. Callahan, this resolution
passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Alfonso, Burns, Dean, Kalil, Martinez,
Silverman, Wright.,
Mmes. Callahan and McGraner.
NAYES: None.
Rev. Wright:
Mr. Charles:
got by myself?
Mr. Charles -
Do you want, to take any action on the one I've:
was
Rev. Wright: Well, this is what we have before us
Mr. Charles.
Mr. Charles: If I. could get that other one,I wouldn't have to
fight everybody else's battles.
Thank you, thank you, we appreciate this.
Rev. Wright: All right, Mr. Charles, thank you for coming' down.
Mr. Charles; We will get some of those trees out .of
you can see some sunlight. All right, thank you.
Mr. Burns;' Mr. Simpson, the report in the file says that they're
going to contact Mr Crawford,, of ' the Walter Ealing Company, and he was
going to take some action to get it cleared, according to this report.
-19- February 28, 1972 Stern #4,