The URL can be used to link to this page

PB MINS 05-14-68 - 04-08-69MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD May 14, 1968 chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. Present: J. C. Shaw, chairman Myron Keys, Vice Chairman Sidney Fagin James Bowman Joyce Schechter Harold Yak ely Absent: James Bowman Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ****** Hearing: #68-22, Arby's,Applicant Request: Special exception to permit the waiver of the condition of Resolution #2307 that the use of outside loudspeakers shall be prohibited. Subject property: Part of Tract 2, E. R. Clark Property, PB 43/20 and part of Lot 5, BlockS, Oak Heights, PB 46/64 Location: 6290 South Dixie Highway Zoning Director's Recommendation: The prohibition on the use of out- side loudspeakers was originally recommended by the Department. The recommendation is hereby affirmed. Chairman Shaw referred to letters of objection from Don K. Campbell and William W. Gilbert in reference to the application. Mr. Robert Rutledge represented Mr. Dickman, the tenant-lessee of Arby's. Mr. Rutledge pointed out that the adjacent shopping center had music playing from 9 AM until 10 PM. He further stated that since Arby's fronts on Dixie Highway which has a great deal of traffic noise so that the music would not be so offensive. He said the speakers music would carry no further than the side walk. Mr. Rutledge pointed out to the Board that music was very common in restaurants since it was conducive to eating. Mr. Don campbell appeared before the Board and read the letter he had written to Chairman shaw. In the letter he stated that the restaurant had abused the privilege by playing the music late into to the night at a loud volume. He said that the South Miami Police records would show that they had been summoned to request that the music be turned off because the noise reached as far as his horne which was on the opposite side of the highway, across the F.E.C. tracks. Mrs. Gertrude Warren said that she had also been awakened in the nght by the music from Arby's. She said that some nights they seemed to have a party or auction with a man on a platform speaking to the crowd. Mr. Joseph Gula stated that he was in objection' to the loudspeaker for the same reasons that had been previously mentioned. He said that as it was, loud voices and conversations could be heard in the residential neighborhood in back of the restaurant and a loudspeaker would not enhance the situation. chairman Shaw closed thepublic portion of the hearing. Mrs. Schechter made a motion that the Board recommend to the City Council denial of the application. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Schechter, Keys, Bowman, Fagin, Shaw) No -0 Absent -1 (paden) ****** Hearing: #68-23 City of South Miami, Applicant Request:Change of zone Classification as follows: Property -Legal NW~ of NW~ of SE~ of Sec. 25-54-40 less N. 115' of the E.330' thereof N. 115' of NE~ of NW~ of NW~ of SE~ of Sec. 25-54-40 -2- Present Proposed RU-4B RU-lB C-l RU-lB property-Legal Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Franklin Subdi- vision, PB 5/34 Lots 3 thru 7 incl., Block 1, Franklin subdivision, PB 5/34 All lots in Block 2, Franklin Subdi- vision, PB 5/34 Present Proposed C-l RU-1B RU-2B RU-1B RU-2B RU-1B Location: Area between S.W. 64 Street and S.W. 66 Street, from S.W. 62 Avenue to 120' east of S.W. 60 Avenue Zoning Director's Recommendation: Recommend approval of the applica- tion with the exception that Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Franklin subdivision be rezoned to RU-2B and the remainder of Block 1 and all of Block 2, Franklin Subdivision remain as is. Mr. Thomas Bradshaw, 6128 S.W. 66 Street, asked the Board if the rezoning would affect him. Chairman Shaw explained that the area in question was across the street from him but asked his opinion about apartment development across the street from him since he was present. Mr. Bradshaw said he was in favor of single-family residences. Mr. Bradshaw pointed out that there is not enough room around apartments for children to play. He said he would not be opposed to a duplex across the street. Willie Turner, 6081 S.W. 64 Terrace, said he would not like to see any two-story apartments but rather single family residences. In answer to a question from Mr. Yakely, Mr. Turner stated that he preferred duplexes over apartments. Addie Fryar, 6091 S.W. 64 Terrace, said that she did not see much dif- ference between apartments and duplexes. She would rather see the area developed with single family homes. Maggie Fryar, 6119 S.W. 66 Street, was not in favor of apartments either for the reason that some will try to keep their area clean while others do not make any attempt to keep it clean. Harry Zeigler, 6443 S.W. 60 Avenue, said that there was now an apart- ment next door to him and that the tenants did not bother to take the garbage down but throw it into his yard. He felt that apartments should be eliminated altogether. -3- Ann Hoskins, 6074 S.W. 63 street, felt that single family homes were needed in her neighborhood. Rosie Lee Wesley, 5990 S.W. 67 Street, said that there were already too many little houses without adding apartments to the area. Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mrs. Schechter asked that the record reflect the following comments on her part: "I feel that in this neighborhood, we should consider the Zoning Director's recommendation. It agrees with what we have heard from the residents here this evening. It is also strengthened by the report by the study that we had done by the Dade county Planning Department." On the basis of the foregoing remarks, Mrs. Schechter made a motion that the Board recommend that the Council accept the Zoning Director's recommendation. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -2 (Schechter, Bowman) No -4 (Yakely, Keys,Fagin, Shaw) Absent -1 (Paden) Mr. Keys felt it was quite logical to have RU-2B in Blocks 1 & 2 of Franklin Subdivision to permit duplexes and that RU-l would be compatible in the area to the west of that. He did feel that there was a need for apartments, but thought the RU-4B should be cut down in density to RU-4. Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend the following to the Council: 1. Lots 1,2, Block 1,Franklin Subdi- vision, PB 5/34 2. Lots 3 thru 7 incl., Block 1, Franklin Subd., PB 5/34 3. All lots in Block 2, Franklin Subdivision, PB 5/34 4. E~ of NW~ of NW~ of SE~ of Sec. 25-54-40 (williamson) 5. W~ of NW~ of NW~ of SE~ of Sec. 25-54-40 (Whitten) -4- Present Proposed C-l RU-2B RU-2B no change RU-2B no change RU-4B RU-2B RU-4B RU-4 Mrs. Schechter commented that she thought the Board would be making a grave error in raising the density of the area in view of the fact that the residents of the area had expressed the feeling that they would like to keep it a residential area. Mr. Shaw was of the opinionthat the Wieder, Whitten and Coffin property should be RU-4 while RU-2B should be in the area east of the school between 66 Street and 60 Avenue. Mr. Masson reminded the Board that they might want to provide a buffer zone for the business area on the west side of S.W. 62 Avenue. Mr. Keys said he suggested apartments because if a man had to trade a high-density use for low density usable property in that area, he might sit on the little houses and not develop. If he were given a reasonable density in apartments, he would be more likely to tear down the older buildings and build something more compatible and decent for the area. It would be more compatible with the busy street 62 Avenue is. Chairman Shaw read letters of objection to the rezoning change proposed from Marshall Williamson and from the Trust for E. L. Whitten, deceased, in care of H. L. Hinton. Mr. Keys motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Fagin stated that he thought this hearing should be tabled in order to obtain additional information, particularly in view of the fact that the Marshall Williamson had changed his stand concerning his property. Mr. Fagin made a motion to recommend to the city Council that this hearing be continued in order to give the Planning Board time to further study the proposed changes and submit a recommendation. Mr. Keys seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled -Yes -4 (Yakely, Shaw, Fagin, Keys) No -2 (Schechter, Bowman) Absent -I (paden) Chairman Shaw requested that another courtesy notice be sent to the same property owners to whom notices went out for this hearing. -5- Hearing: #68-24 Leonard Lapinsohn, Applicant Request: Variance to permit an existing home occupation to engage to work with or for the occupant of the dwelling in connec- tion with such home occupation. subject Property: Lots 3, 4, 5 Block 2, Royal palm Villas, PB 19/17. Location: 6285 Sunset Drive Zoning Director's Recommendation: The issuance of a home occupation license is at the discretion of the City Council. No recommendation. M. S. Marlin, 520 Seybold Building, represented Dr. Lapinsohn. He said that there was a discrepancy in the word "variance", that the application that was submitted requested a zoning change. Mr. Masson said that he did not interpret the request that way, but if that was Dr. Lapinsohn's intention, then the Board would have to readvertise for a change of zoning. Mr. Marlin said that Dr. Lapinsohn had all the attributes of a professional building, but he is not allowed any type of help in the building. Since it was a error on the part of the Department, it was suggested the city assume the cost of readvertising. Mr. Fagin made a motion that this hearing be removed from the agenda to allow for readvertising for a change of zoning. The motion was seconded by Mr. Keys. The question was called and the vote polled. ****** Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Schechter, Keys, Bowman, Fagin, Shaw) No -0 Absent -1 (paden) Hearing: #68-25 Paul & Suzie Whigham, Applicants Request: To permit the construction of a single family residence in RU-4B zone with the following variances: 1. Variance of setback requirements to permit front setback of 15' (25' required); rear setback of -6- 22.95' (25' required); side setback of 5' (7.5' required); and side street setback of 5' (15' required) . 2. Variance of lot size requirements to permit a building site with 4,845 sq. ft. area (5,000 sq. ft. required.) 3. Variance of lot coverage requirement to permit lot coverage of 27% (maximum permitted 25%) Subject Property: Lot 1, Block 4, Hamlet, PB4/48 Location: SE corner of S.W. 59 Place and S.W. 63 Street zoning Director's Recommendation: Recommend approval of the appli- cat's proposal. It is also recommended that the Board study the possibility of vacating that portion of S.W. 63 Street that lies between the city limits and S.W. 59 Place. Mr. Masson reported that Mr. Barson, who represents the Whighams, called in the afternoon and reported that he might be late. Mr. Masson observed however, that Mr. Barson was not yet present. Mr. Bowman asked what was meant by Mr. Masson's recommendation of vacating the portion of S.W. 63 Street that lies between the City limits and S.W. 59 place. Mr. Masson explained that this was a portion of land that was unimproved and leads to nowhere. He added nothing could ever be built on it. Mr. Bowman asked if the City could dedicate it for a small park and Mr. Masson replied that it was possible. Mr. Fagin asked what would happen if it were vacated. Mr. Masson said that it would no longer be used as a right-of-way or public use and it would revert to the abutting property owners,one-half to one owner, the other half to the other owner, generally spea~ing. Mr. Bowman made a motion to recommend to the city council that the application be approved. Mr. Keys stated that before the motion was seconded, that if in fact the City vacated the property as recommended by Mr. Masson, then the property owner would not need some of the variances requested. Mr. Keys said perhaps the applicant should wait until some action is taken toward vacating the property. Mr. Masson said that the Board should act on the application according to existing conditions. -7- Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion. Mr. Yakely questioned the setbacks saying that if the streets were widened, the property owner would be left with only a 5' setback in the front since he was requesting a variance to 15'. Mr. Masson explained that this was not so because the setback requirements were taken off the zoned right-of-way. The question was called and the vote polled. ****** Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Schechter, Keys, Bowman, Fagin, Shaw) No -0 Absent -1 (paden) Hearing: #68-26 Fashion Trend Shop. sally R. Schaumberg & Roslyn R. Marks, Applicants Request: Approval of an Unclassified use, boutique shop to sell new and used merchandise in a C-l Zone, under the provi- sions of Section 20-23.1 of the Code of Ordinances. Property: Lots 1 & 2, Coopers, PB 4/152 Location: 5881 Sunset Drive Zoning Director's Recommendation: Allowing the sale of used merchan- dise in a C-l zone can lead to further liberalization of the area. denial. (E.G. pawn shops, used furniture, etc.) Recommend Chairman Shaw referred to a letter from Mrs. Anne Redd who is in objection to the proposed use. He also read a letter from Stella and Joseph ott, 5875 Sunset Drive, who said they were not opposed to the proposed use. Mrs. Schechter opened the discussion by reading a list of shops in the C-l zone that presently sell second-hand merchandise. Mr. Masson pointed out that on October 3, 1967, the C-l classification was revised to read, "Uses unless specifically stated to the contrary, shall be for the sale of new merchandise ... ", and the shops that Mrs. Schechter had named had licenses prior to the revision of the ordinance. sally R. Schaumberg appeared before the Board and told them that the shop would be a high-quality one with good merchandise. Some of the -8- dresses will have been worn once or twice, but will be in good condition and of highest quality. Mr. Fagin asked Mrs. Schaumberg if she and Mrs. Marks would be agreeable to approval of the application subject to the fact that it could be rescinded if at any time in the future the business went into the "junk shop" type of business or atmosphere. Mrs. Schaumberg said that she thought that would be all right since they were putting a lot of money into the venture and had no inten- tion of allowing it to deteriorate. Mr. yakely said that perhaps the application could be made renewable yearly. Mr. Shaw felt that the city Attorney should give the Board some direction so it is legal and not an unwarranted abuse of police powers. Mrs. Gertrude Warren, 7601 S.W. 63 Court, said that some temporary license should be given since she didn't think used material should be sold on the main street of a city. Mrs. Schechter asked about stipulations such as professional clean- ing of the garments. Mr. Fagin made a motion that the Board, subject to the City Attorney's approval, recommend the approval of the unclassified use be granted with the proviso that the City would be within the confines of the BW to remove this approval with just cause after proper notice. Mrs. Schechter felt the Board should hear the City Attorney's opinion before taking any action. Mr. Fagin's motion dies for lack of a second. Mrs Schechter made a motion that the Board recommend to the City Council that this hearing be deferred until the next regular meeting to obtain an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether or not this operation could be granted with restrictions. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion. Mr. Masson asked the Board specifically what they would like from the City Attorney. Mr. yakely said he should suggest the proper restric- tions. Mr. Shaw said he would like to know how the Board could enforce the restrictions, so it could reinspect the store each year. -9- Mr. Keys said that they would receive an occupational license which would be renewed each year. They would be inspected to see if they were still compatible with the area so the City Attoney would have to suggest some criteria. The question was called and the vote polled. ****** Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Schechter, Keys, Bowman,Fagin, Shaw) No -° Absent -1 (paden) Executive Session: Mr. Keys made a motion that the minutes of the April 30, 1968, meeting be approved as individually read. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. The motion carried. ****** Remarks: Mr. yakely asked if the Lee Park rezoning was being referred back to the Committee. Mr. Keys said that the committee should be a lerger committee and that not much could be done in one hour's time. He set up a meeting of the entire Board to be held in the Council Chambers on Monday, May 20, 1968, at 8:00 P.M. Mr. Bowman asked why the matter has been deferred. Mr. Keys asked Mr. Bowman if he could find out why Mr. Williamson, the larger property owner in the area, changed his opinion about the rezoning. Mrs. Schechter said that personalities should not playa part in zoning matters. Mr. Keys said that personalities should not, but property owners' wishes should. Bernard Albert asked if the Board was condoning spot zoning by considering a portion of the area at a time. He felt the entire area should be done at the same time. Mr. Keys said if citizens petitioned the Board, the Board had to honor that petition, regardless of the area involved. -10- Mr. Masson~pointed out that the Dade county Planning Department had given the City an overall plan for the Lee Park area and that even they had suggested that each area be considered closely and acted upon within the concept of the overall plan. Mrs. Schechter said that at the special meeting of the Council on May 13th, Mayor Block and Councilman Corley asked that the Board consider limiting the number of hearings at each meeting. Mr. Keys said that if this were actually a Zoning Board where vari- ances could be granted unless appealed, then the Council would be relieved of much of the burden. With the consent of the Board, Chairman Shaw issued a directive to Mr. Masson that up to, but not more than four applications for hearings were to be scheduled for future meetings. Mr. Keys asked the President of the Chamber of Commerce, Chairman Shaw, what the results of the study conducted by the Chamber as to the amount of apartment land that was still unused were. Mr. Shaw reported that the report was on the way to the city Manager at that time. Mr. Keys asked why this study was given to the Chamber rather than the Planning Board. Mr. Shaw said it had been done by the Chamber simply as an interested body. Mr. Keys also inquired as to why it was sent to the city Manager rather than the Planning Department and Mr. Shaw replied that it had been considered the proper sequence. Mr. Bowman had no remarks. Mr. Fagin asked Mrs. Schechter about the Community Advisory Board to which she had referred earlier. know if this was a secondary group to the Planning Development He wanted to Board. Mr. Bernard Albert, chairman of the Community Development Advisory Board, who was in the audience, remarked that many of the duties are overlapping.He further commented that the Board had been created by the previous administration and that he had been told by a coun- cilman who is still seated, that it was created to replace the Planning Advisory Board. He said that the councilman told him that the main purpose for its creation was to dispose of two members of the Board and it was created for no good reason other than this. Mr. Albert said that he had suggested that in areas where the Planning Advisory Board had already made studies, he would deem it very wise -11- if this information could be available to the community Development Advisory Board because the proposition of rezoning the City for the best possible use is a tremendous job that could be done better by both Boards. Mr. Albert asked Mr. Shaw if the study made by the Chamber of Commerce covered existing zoning or proposed zoning for apartments. Mr. Shaw replied that it concerned proposed zoning. Mr. Albert then commented that he agreed with Mr. Keys, that this would be very much out of order because the Chamber has very few residents of the community as members and would be weighted heavily in favor of the business people. As a resident of the area, Mr. Albert did not like that idea. Mr. Fagin commented that there were seven members on this Board of divers backgrounds and interests and that he felt Mr. Albert's statement was unfair. Mr. Shaw commented that the study showed statistical information that showed either the confirmed or projected asking-price for property remaining in the area. Mr. Shaw further felt that another opinion in the form of another board, the Community Development Board, was welcome. However, he thought that the Planning Board should have at least been informed by memo and not have to have learned of another planning board by reading the newspaper. After further discussion, Mr. Albert invited the members of the Planning Board to the meetings of the Community Development Advisory Board. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 PM. -12- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD May 28, 1968 chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman Myron Keys, Vice Chairman Sidney Fagin James Bowman Joyce Schechter Carl paden Harold Yakely Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ****** Hearing: #68-23 City of South Miami, Applicant Request: Change of zone classification as follows: Property: Legal Description NW~ of NW~ of SE~ of Sec.25-54-40 less N. 115' of the E. 330' thereof N. 115' of NE~ of NW% of NW~ of SE~ of Sec. 25-54-40 Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Franklin Subdi- vision, PB 5/34 Lots 3 thru 7 incl., Block 1, Franklin Subdivision, PB 5/34 All lots of Block 2, Franklin Subdi- vision, PB 5/34 Present RU-4B C-l C-l RU-2B RU-2B Proposed RU-1B RU-1B RU-1B Ru-1B Ru-1B Zoning Director's Recommendation: Recommend approval of the applica- tion with the exception that Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Franklin Subdivision be rezoned to RU-2B and the remainder of Block 1 and all of Block 2, Franklin Subdivision remain as is. Chairman Shaw opened the hearing by reading a new letter from George Coffin objecting to the rezoning. He also referred to letters from Marshall Williamson and H. L. Hinton, agent for the B. L. Whitten Trust that were previously submitted in objection to the rezoning. Chairman Shaw asked if there was anyone in the additional information to offer in the matter. either for or against the application. The public portion of the hearing was closed. audience with any No parties spoke Mr. Yakely made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Zoning Director's recommendation be approved. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mr. Fagin asked if there was any further information from the School Board relative to a purchase of additional land adjacent to J. R.E. Lee Elementary. Mrs. Schechter reported that it was her understanding that no official action had been taken. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -5 (Schechter, Yakely, Paden, Fagin Bowman) No -2 (Shaw, Keys) ****** Hearing: #68-27 James A. vaughn, Jr., Applicant Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l (single family residential) to C-l (commercial). Property: Lot 21, N. 15' Lot 22, less E. 25' W. A. Hobbs Subdivision, PB 4/111 Location: 7240 S.W. 62 Avenue Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant's request is in accordance with the Board's plan. Approval recommended. Dr. James Vaughn, 5965 Ponce de Leon Blvd., explained that four years ago a use variance had been granted the site for use as a medical office. Now South Miami Hospital is using the building and this use is not covered under variance. For that reason, a request for a zone change has been requested to make it possible for the hospital to use the building legitimately. There were no objectors to the application. The public portion of the hearing was closed. -2- Mr. Yakely made a motion that the Board recommend to the City Council that the application be approved. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. Mrs. Schechter pointed out that there was one piece of property on that block that had not been rezoned to C-l. She inquired as to whether or not the Board could at that time consider rezoning that piece. It was pointed out that it would have to be advertised first. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -7 (Schechter, Yakely, Paden, Keys, Fagin, Bowman, Shaw) ~ -0 ****** Hearing: #68-28 Ben Avick, Applicant (1) Request: Variance of lot size requirement to permit a lot in an RU-lA zone to be used as a building site with a frontage of 40' (100' required) and an area of 6,800 sq. ft. (12,500 sq. ft. required). property: Lot 8, Block 1, Seaview Park, PB17/80 Location: Approx. 5731 S.W. 84 Street (2)Request: Variance of lot size requirement to permit a lot in an RU-IA zone to be used as a building site with a frontage of 40' (100' required) and an area of 4,940 sq. ft. (12,500 sq. ft. required). property: Lot 12, Block 5, Seaview Park, PB 17/80 Location: Approx. 5980 S.W. 83 Street Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant obtained ownership of the lots after the zoning regulations were adopted. Denial recommended. Chairman Shaw referred to an objection to the application that had been submitted that contained fifty-one signatures, also seven letters of objection and one letter of approval. -3- Ben Avick, 7970 Hawthorne Avenue, Miami Beach, told the Board that he had owned the lots in question for 12 years. He purchased them with the intention to build and was never told he could not build on them. Since that time he has tried to sell the property to the neighbors, he has advertised the lots for sale and had to tell potential buyers that they could not be built on. Mr. Avick said that he had come before Council to try to get the city to purchase the lots for the exact price that he had bought them for 12 years ago and was turned down. He said that he has been paying taxes and paying to have the land cleared but is not able to use it. He said the structures would be an asset to the area. Mr. Keys asked Mr. Avick if he had owned any other lots in Seaview Park. Mr. Avick replied that he had not. Mrs. Schechter asked if he had not in fact had offers from the neighbors to purchase the lots. He said he had not. Mr. Paden asked Mr. Avick if he had not determined the zoning in the area prior to buying the lots. Mr. Avick said he only knew that it was residential and had not checked the frontage requirements. Lawrence G. Ropes, Jr., 5970 S.W. 83 Street, explained to the Board that he had researched the history of the two lots and found that they were purchased March 5, 1956, from a Francis R. Bunker and was not recorded until February, 1957. The stamp denoting the value for which the lots were purchased was a 10-cent documentary stamp. Mr. Ropes explained that at that time the valuation was a $1. 00 stamp per $1,000 value or 10¢ a $100 value. Following this, Mr. Ropes continued, it would appear that Mr. Avick paid $100 for the lots, if this was a truthful representation to the State of their value. Mr. Ropes said he further verified the price by contacting the former owners who advised him that the purchase price for the two lots was $250. Mr. Ropes said that he had contacted the neighbors of the area and they were unanimously against this variance. He then asked those in the audience Who lived in the immediate area and opposed the variance to stand and a major part of the audience rose. Hughlan Long, 5900 S.W. 82 Street, said that he agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation given the Board, that the hardship was -4- self-imposed. He questioned Mr. Avick's stated intention to build a home for himself on the property due to the fact that Mr. Avick is listed in the telephone directory as a real estate agent and he would think that a realtor would check the zoning to see if the property could be used as desired. Mr. Long continued that the law is quite clear that variances are to be granted only when there is a hardship shown and that in this case there was no legal basis for granting the variance. Mr. Avick said that he believed Mr. Ropes had unknowingly given incorrect information. He further charged that many of the names on the petition of objection were not residents of the area and that they signed the petition without full knowledge of the circum- stances. He told the Board that if he were turned down, he would have to go to higher courts. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mrs. Schechter commented that it was gratifying to see so many residents who were interested in good zoning and were in attendance. She then made a motion to recommend to the City council that the application be denied. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -7 (Yakely, Schechter, Paden, Keys, Fagin, Bowman. Shaw) ~ -0 ****** Hearing: #68-29 Leonard Lapinsohn, Applicant Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l (single family residential) to RU-5A (semi-professional office). Property: Lots 3, 4, & 5, Block 2, Royal Palm Villas, PB 19/17 Location: 6285 Sunset Drive Zoning Director's Recommendation: There is no evidence that this well established area is in transition for commercial type development. Denial recommended. -5- Mr. A. S. Marlin, 520 Seybold Building, represented Dr. Lapinsohn. He explained that the building is presently under a special use and for this reason he is not allowed to have any help come into the office. Mr. Paden asked the applicant if he was aware that he could not have the property rezoned to RU-5A because the lot was not large enough. He recommended that the applicant should go to the Council and request an exception to his present license to permit an assistant. Mr. Marlin said it had been his understanding that Mr. Masson had recommended this rezoning. Mr. Masson explained that when the application first came in, it had been advertised as an exception to a home occupation license, but that the applicant said he wanted RU-5A rezoning, not simply an exception. Mr. Marlin asked if the lot would come up to the 10,000 square feet requirement if the 15 feet dedicated for Sunset Drive were included. The Board determined that it would still be short of the requirement. The question expressed by members of the Board was whether Dr. Lapinsohn wanted simply to hire a person to help in the office or if he wanted to develop it as a professional office building. Dr. Lapinsohn said he wanted to hire help, but more than that, he wanted to make some substantial improvements on the property, but he did not want to do it if he might be left in a bad situation. If he invested money in improvements, he wants some guarantee that his license will not be taken away and rezoning of the property would be more permanent. Mrs. Schechter asked D-·. La,Jlllsohn if he had ever lived on the pro- perty and how long has it been if he had. Dr. Lapinsohn advised the Board he had never lived there. Mrs. Schechter asked if he was aware that the home OCC,,'d tion is gran ted wi th the understanding that the person lives at the location. Dr. Lapinsohn said he felt he spent enough time there to legally say he lived there even though he did not sleep there. Mr. Marlin asked the Board if the application could be for a variance as well as a zoning change. Mr. Shaw explained that the application had to go in this sequence, that a variance could not be requested on something that has not been rezoned. There were no objectors to the application. The public portion of the hearing was closed. -6- Mr. Paden made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application be denied. Mr. Keys seconded the motion. Mrs. Schechter pointed out that Dr. Lapinsohn's property backs up to and is across the street from residential property so that any change the Board might make in zoning could affect the whole character of the area. Mr. Paden took exception to the fact that Dr. Lapinsohn stated that he spent enough time in the building to say he lives there because this would be true of any doctor or businessman. Mrs. Schechter said that it is a consequence of the Council's action at the time they granted Dr. Lapinsohn a home occupation in a house he did not really live in that has put Dr. Lapinsohn in the bind he is now in, with no place to turn. Mr. Fagin said he should most probably go back to Council and a.sk for an exception to his home occupation license. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes-7(yakely, Schechter, Fagin,Keys, paden, Bowman, Shaw) No -0 Mr. Marlin asked how the application could be filed so that a change in zoning could be granted with a variance. It was reiterated that a variance could not be granted on something that did not exist, namely the zone, and the change in zone could not be granted due to a lack of square footage. Mr. Paden said that since the position that the doctor is in was created by the council, by giving him a home occupation license, and now he has come to the Board requesting something that is technically impossible, the solution would be to go back to the council and ask them for what is needed. Mr. Paden said that they were the ones who issued the home occupation license and they would have to be the ones to amend it. ****** Executive Session: Mr. Paden noted that theminutes of the meeting of May 14, 1968, should be corrected to show that he was absent and not James Bowman as shown. -7- Mr. Yakely then made a motion that the minutes be approved as corrected. Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ****** Remarks: Mrs. Schechter had no comments. Mr. Paden felt that if the Board continued to make zoning changes it should consider some kind of master plan that it could point to as a guide. This master plan would also put the City in a better position legally in the event any of the rezoning resulted in court cases. Mr. Keys explained to Mr. Paden that the committee is making a study of the entire Lee Park area, but is simply doing it by section. Mr. Keys said that the committee is using the guidelines set forth by the Metro Planning Department. Mr. Paden said he understood that, but that the Board had never actually stated that any plan was being followed. Mr. Fagin said he too would like to see some sort of acceptance of the Lee Park Planning Study in general or in toto, if it is within the province of the Board, and still go on with the more detailed studies. Mr. yakely made a motion that the Board accept the Metro study of Lee Park area in principle. Mrs. schechter seconded the motion. Mr. Paden questioned the propriety of adopting the study without a public hearing. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: yes-7 (Yakely, Schechter, Paden, Keys,Bowman,Fagin, Shaw) No -0 Chairman sahw suggested that the Board recommend to the City Council that it take similar action to give added support to the plan. Mr. Yakely said that at an earlier meeting he had asked what consti- tutes a quorum and he had heard nothing more on the point. Mr. Paden said that the Board had adopted a set of rules which said that if any area was not covered in the rules, Robert's Rules of Order would apply. Mr. Shaw said that the City Attorney had ruled that if at a given -8- meeting a quorum was not present, those who did attend should carry out the meeting and offer adopinion,although not a recommendation, to the City council. Mr. Shaw asked if this was still the desired procedure of the Board. Mr. Keys said that if a public hearing has been advertised, it is not right to tell those who attend to come back another time and that the Board should operate on the basis of offering an opinion. Mr. Paden said that Robert's Rules of Order's definition of quorum as a majority would provide some basis for operation, although there might still be occasions when decisions would be made by a minority. Mr. Yakely interjected that if he were in the position that had arisen recently with councilman Holly, where he was handed a lengthy report at a meeting and asked to render a decision, he would not know what action to take because he does not like to make a decision without sufficient knowledge and he also hates to abstain since he feels everyone should have an opinion. Mr. Paden continued that at the time the Board consisted of eleven members, a quorum consisted of six members and that a vote required a majority of the entire membership to pass, not just a simple majority of those present. In a case where only six members attended a meeting, it would take a unanimous vote to pass a motion. He suggested that Mr. Masson furnish the new members with copies of the rules of procedure that had been adopted. Mr. Masson quoted the Section of the Code that said the Board could adopt any rules of procedure not inconsistent with the Code or charter. Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Paden and Mr. Yakely to research the matter of rules and report back to the Board at the next meeting. Mr. Yakely said that in looking at the vaughn application he wondered why the Board permitted the building to be built on a variance across the street from RU-l property. Mr. Keys said that that had been done by council, they had overruled the Board. Mr. Keys asked when the public hearing for the next section of Lee Park was scheduled and said that if it was possible, the last meeting in June would be better to give the Board time to study the area. Mr. Masson was directed to advertise the hearing for June 25, 1968. -9- Mr. Keys said that at the time there was a movement to abolish the Planning Board some years back, a committee studied the possibility of the Board acting on variances with the appeal from the Board would be r~~ courts rather than the Council. This would have re- lieved the Council of many of the variances, but the Council was afraid it might create a "monster" and decided not to carry through with it. He felt that this would be a good time to bring this possibility up again. Mr. Ed Holly asked the Chairman for the floor. He said he had gotten the impression that there was a unilateral battle between the Board and the City Council. He said that if he were a person listening to the comments of the evening he would have said to himself that this Board was having some difficulty with Council action. He said that there seemed to be a degree of belittling of Council action. Mr. Holly said that this did not create a uniformity of action between all boards and the administration. He too recalled that at one time a majority vote of the entire membership of a board was required to pass a motion. Mr. Holly said that the Board's action of that evening of passing a motion adopting the Lee Park study in principle effectively binds only the Board, no one else. He felt that Council would be mis- taken to accept it in principle only also. Mr. Keys replied that he thought Mr. Holly was referring to Dr. Lapinsohn's case where the Board told him his best solution would lie with the council. He explained that it is Council's preroga- tive to grant a home occupation license, which it had, and now it was extended far beyond that into a commercial type of business. Mr. Keys said he did not want to sit there and abuse the Board on the fact that they had given him a license and now they would not give him an RU-5A zone, which was poor zoning in the area. The problem Mr. Keys said was with the council, although not with any five particular people, but it is Council that has the right to grant a home occupation license. Mr. Paden said that he had no battle with the Council and thought that there action had been very good for the most part. He said that on occasions where the Council overruled the Board, he felt it was a result of a lack of information. -10- Mr. Bowman had no remarks. Mr. Fagin said that he had voted for the Lee Park rezoning because he felt for thp ~o~t part it was best for the area although there were parts he felt should not be RU-l. He said he wanted to attend the Council meeting and explain which parts of the application he thought should not be RU-lA. There was a general concensus that this would confuse the council since he had voted for the rezoning and he would be contradicting his own vote. Mr. Masson had no comments. Chairman Shaw said that there would be a meeting of the South Florida Planing and Zoning Association, May 29, 1968, at the VIP Room of the Biscayne Cafeteria. On June 4, 1968, between 1:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. there will be a Governor's Conference on Redevelopment and Urban Planning at the Sheraton Four Ambassadors. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. -11- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD July 9, 1968 Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman Myron Keys, Vice chairman Sidney Fagin James Bowman Carl Paden Harold Yakely Absent: Joyce Schechter Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ****** Hearing: #68-30 7-11 Store and Burger House, Applicants Gene Duffy, Agent Request: Permit the erection of a detached sign with the following variances: 1. More than one detached sign on the same road frontage. 2. A detached sign that advertises a business not located on the same premises as the sign. 3. No front setback (7.S' required). Property: Begin 200'N. of SE cor. of SE~ of Sec. 2S-S4-40 th W. 20S', N. 93' W12S', N. l1S.42', E. l6S', S. 21S' to POB Sec. 2S-S4-40. W l2S' of S. 293' of E~ of SE~ of SE~ of SW~ less S.SO' for R/W, Section 2S-S4-40. Location: 6233 Sunset Drive and 7160 S.W. 62 Avenue Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant has requested a - condition that is specifically prohibited in the sign regulations. Granting a variance would have the effect of amending the ordinance. Denial recommended. Gene Duffy spoke on behalf of the applicants. He explained that both businesses were experiencing difficulty as to direction of customers entering and leaving. They hoped to relieve the problem with the directional signs requested. Mr. Paden asked if the signs were advertising the 7-11 store or the Burger House. Mr. Duffy explained that the sign on the 7-11 store property would be a directional sign to the Burger House and the one on the Burger House property would be directional to the 7-11 Store. Mr. Fagin inquired about the arrows on the sign. Mr. Duffy said that they would be internally illuminated signs and would not be flashing. He also said it would be agreeable to the applicants to turn the lights off when the businesses closed. There were no objectors to the application. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Fagin made a motion to recommend to the city council that the application be denied. Mr. yakely seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 No -0 Absent -1 (Yakely, Keys, Paden, Fagin, Bowman, Shaw) (Schechter) ****** Hearing: #68-32 C & W Marine, Inc., Applicant Request: Variance to permit a boat storage and sales area to be enclosed by a 6' chain link fence instead of a building or wall as required. Property: Begin at intersection of N line of Davis Road (SW 80 street) and E. line of South Dixie Highway (U.S. HWy. No.1) said point being 35' N. of S. line of NW~ of Sec. 36-54-40 and 66' SE' ly from FEC Railroad R/W; thence NE'ly parallel to said R/W a distance of 261.98' to POB' Thence NE'ly parallel to said R/W a distance of 175' to a point; thence continue at right angles SW'ly a distance of 99.75'; thence continue at right angles NW'ly a distance of 175' to POB. -2- Location: 6460 S. Dixie Highway Zoning Director's Recommendation: A financial hardship is not proper grounds for granting a variance. Denial recommended. Mr. B. Weiss, 971 N.E. 4 Avenue, Homestead, the president of C & W Marine, told the Board that the need for this application arose when the company's insurance company informed them that they could no longer obtain insurance on the new boats, motors and trailers that were kept outside of a chain link fence. Mr. Weiss further stated that when application was made for a permit for a fence, it was found that fences were not permissible. Since the business is based a great deal on display, a wall would cut down on this visual display provided for by a fence. The only other alternative would be to enclose the area with a glass case front, but this would not be practical in so small a space. Mr. Weiss said the original fence that is presently on premises was put up before the prohibition of fences. asked Mr. Masson when the prohibition went into effect Masson replied that it was May, 1967. There were no objectors to the application. Chairman Shaw closed the pUblic portion of the hearing. the Mr. Fagin and Mr. Mr. Keys said that in view of the fact that this application in specifically prohibited by ordinance, it would be setting a pre- cedent to anything other than deny it. Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the city Council that the application be denied. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. Mr. Paden said that he would like to see the applicant get some relief, but did not think it should be done by violating the ordinances. Mr. Fagin suggested the possibility of a movable enclosure. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 No -0 Absent -1 (Yakely, Paden, Keys, Bowman, Fagin, Shaw) (Schechter) -3- Hearing: #68-33 Bernard Goodman, Applicant Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l (single family residential use) to RU-4 (apartment use) . property: Tract A, Block 5, west Larkin Park, PB 12/49 and S~ of S~ of SE~ of NE~ less E. 1013.42' less S. 35' and W. 25' for R/W, Sec. 35-54-40. Location: Northeast corner of S.W. 80 Street and S.W. 69 Avenue Zoning Director's Recommendation: There is no condition to indicate that this area is in transition for liber- alized zoning. Granting the request would constitute "spot zoning". Denial recommended. chairman Shaw referred to letters of objection to the application that appear in the file. clifford Clark, attorney at law, 7211 S.W. 62 Avenue, represented Mr. Goodman, the applicant. Mr. Clark distributed plot plans for the garden-type apartment complex. He pointed out the area was within one-half a block of an industrial area, quite close to the F.E.C. railway and U.S. #1. Mr. Clark further stated that in 1957, when the area was within the geographical limits of Dade county, it was zoned RU-3. At that time there was a nursing home on a part of the property now in question. In 1963, this property was included in the South Miami city limits. The City considered this property suitable for apartments according to Resolution No. 1878. Mr. Clark showed the Board that the apartment would not be a square box area, but would have six separate buildings and parking areas, gardens, recreation facilities and pool. Mr. Paden, who was on the Board at the time Resolution No. 1878 was passed, said that the first variance allowed the issuance of a permit for an apartment house with work to begin in 180 days. They were granted an extension of an additional 180 days after that, but construction still did not begin, apparently for financial rea- sons, and the variance lapsed. The propoerty was then rezoned. Mr. Yakely said that he too was a member of that board and had voted for the variance against his better judgement and that subsequent applications were turned down. -4- Carl Snyder, 6890 S.W. 78 Terrace, pointed out to the Board that there is much fine property near railroads and highways, so he felt the argument by Mr. Clark was not cogent. He said that about two years ago a 7-11 complex was proposed on the southwest corner of S.W. 80 Street and S.W. 67 Avenue and it was turned down by the County since they judged it to be a residential neighborhood. Mr. Snyder also felt that there would be a definite traffic hazard in this neighborhood. Robert Gardner, 7871 S.W. 69 Avenue, presented a petition to the planning Board. It included citizens of South Miami and adjacent County property-owners for a total of 158 signatures of persons who objected to the application. Mr. Gardner read a letter he had prepared stating that all adjoin- ing city of South Miami property is zoned RU-l; that the property owners adjacent feel that any commercial development would reduce the value of their property; previous to the area becoming part of South Miami, the City twice objected to the county regarding a possible rezoning of the property in question. Mr. Gardner said that the individual home owner has no one to protect a poor purchase; he must take a loss with no recourse. Victor Kravitts, 7130 S.W. 74 Street, said that the proposed ~pressway was to be a buffer between the apartments near Dadeland and the residential areas. Charles Stevenson, 6815 S.W. 80 Street, said that he is sympathetic to the need of the present owner, Dr. Sykes, to dispose of this property, but he feels that this apartment is not the best means. There is too much density for the area. Mr. Gardner asked about the arrangements for sewage and garbage. Mr. Clark said a sewage plant would be installed on the property. Mr. Goodman said that the State Board of Health is the controlling factor and that their standards would be met. Dan Petrotich, 6850 S.W. 78 Terrace, objected to the proposed location of the sewage plant. Chairman Shaw closed the publicportion of the hearing. Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application be denied. -5- Mr. yakely seconded the motion. Mr. Shaw commented that he could not see an Ru-4 in this case, but he is concerned that the City is able to take in a man's property and,regardless of what the zoning had been and what he may have intended for it, change that zoning without considering the owner's hardship. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: ****** yes -6 No -0 Absent -1 (Yakely, Keys, Paden, Fagin, Bowman, Shaw) (Schechter) Hearing: #68-34 David Hill, Applicant Request: variance to permit the erection of a detached pole sign with a front setback of 2' instead of 12' as required. Property: Begin intersection of ElL of SE\ of SW\ of NW\ and ElL of U.S. #1 S.w. 182.36' SE at RIA 175' NE parallel to HWy. 35.55' N. 228.43' to POB less Rlw Sec. 36-5440. Location: 6400 S. Dixie Highway Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant created own hardship by installing sign without approval. Denial recommended. Chairman Shaw referred to a letter from Hughes F. Miller, 6410 S. Dixie Highway,requesting that the previous agreement regarding the sign placement be abided by. Mr. David Hill, 6400 S. Dixie Highway, explained that the sign was approved by the Planning Board and by the Council on the first two readings. But at the third reading, one member of the Council was absent and the vote was 2 to 2, which is technically a denial, so it did not pass. Mr. Masson explained that the original application had an 8' setback, while this one is for 2'. There was a discussion regarding the use of the pole or the leading edge of a sign in determining the set back. Mr. paden pointed out that it would not be consistent to use anything but the leading edge of the sign, since in the case of the same sign mounted on one pole as compared to the sign mounted on a double pole, the setbacks would be different if the poles were used, but the same if the leading -6- edge is used. There were no objectors to the application. Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Paden made a motion to recommend to the City council that the application be denied. Mr. Keys seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 No -0 Absent -1 ****** Hearing: #68-35 (Yakely, Paden, Keys, Shaw, Fagin, Bowman) (Schechter) David R. Rifas, Applicant First Baptist Church of South Miami Request: Exception to permit a recuperative and extended hospital care facility in a C-l zone and to determine the suit- ability of the use or the site requested. Property: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and S. 25' Lot 6 and Lots 26,25, 24, 23, and S. 25' of Lot 22, Poinciana park, Revised, PB 41/41. Location: East side of S.W. 62 Avenue north of FEC R/W Zoning Director's Recommendation: Approval is recommended of the application to permit the development of the site sub- stantially in accordance with the plot plan submitted. There should be a limitation to mentally competent patients. David Rifas, 7500 Red Road, told the board that this would not be a hospital, but an extended care facility. He said that there is a great need for a recuperative, rehabilitation facility encompassing complete therapy departments. There will be no operating rooms or radiology equipment or any of the allied facilities that a hospital needs. The patients will be recuperative patients rather than terminal patients. Feasibility studies have shown that this is an ideal location on direct routes from Baptist, Mercy, and Doctors' Hospitals, across the street from South Miami Hospital, and in close proximity to the -7- to the expressway for those traveling from the Jackson Memorial complex. There will be 250 beds. Chairman Shaw asked if the mental restriction would be objectionable Dr. Yeschner said that as far as incompetency, that would not bother the project. There would be patients who are emotionally disturbed and would have to be rehabilitated, but none that are violent or psychotic. There was no intention of having mentally deranged. Leon Tishman, Live Oaks Convalescent Home, said that the type of person with an emotional problem might be someone that has taken a death in the family very hard. The State of Florida laws will not allow a violently ill person to be kept in a nursing home. Aspee Irani, Architect, Ingraham Building, said that different facilities are required for mental incompetents. Mr. Fagin inquired about the parking and was told that there is the required number of parking places and that this type of operation does not have the volume of traffic that a hospital does. The average length of stay of a patient will be approximately 15 to 20 days. Ray Poore, South Miami Hospital, said that they hospital board is very pleased about the facility. It is necessary to a hospital complex. Regarding the parking, he thought controlled parking by both parties would be necessary. The present plans for the South Miami Hospital expansion would provide for an entrance on S.W. 74 Street rather than S.W. 62 Avenue. The Huskamp area would be used for employee parking and visitors will move into the present employee parking area. Mr. Rifas said that they hope to begin construction within six months. It is a private, taxable proposition. Mr. Poore said that an additional 300 parking spaces will be pro- vided on the Huskamp property. They will be paved and lighted long before construction of the new facility. There were no objectors to the application. The public portion of the hearing was closed by Chairman Shaw. Mr. Paden made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application be approved with the recommendations of the Zoning Director. -8- Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mr. Fagin questioned the phrase "a limitation to mentally compe- tent patients" on the grounds that is a nebulous phrase, open to a lot of interpretation. Mr. Masson explained to the Board that he included that to bring out the possibility of whether or not any type of mental health rehabilitation would be done at the facility for the purposes of discussion. Dr. Teschner suggested that the better phrase would be "acute psychotic person". The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: ******* Yes -6 (Yakely, Paden, Keys, Fagin, Bowman, Shaw) No -0 Absent -1 (Schechter) Chairman Shaw declared a five minute recess. ******* Executive Session: Mr. Bowman made a motion that the minutes of the meeting of May 28, 1968, be approved as individually read. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. The motion carried. Committee Report on Phase II of Lee Park Area Rezoning. Mr. Keys made a committee report, presenting and explaining the present and the proposed zoning the Phase II of the Lee Park Area Rezoning. Mr. Masson requested the Board to direct him to advertise the proposed rezoning for public hearing since he felt it was a good plan. Chairman Shaw felt that it should not be advertised until the Board first came to agreement and had studied the plan more closely. with the approval of the Board, he called a special meeting on July 25, 1968, at 8 P.M. for the purpose of studying the proposal. -9- Remarks: Mr. Paden said that he had checked the old rules of procedure used by Board and found that while there were a few small differences between the Code and the Board's rules of procedure, they were not in conflict. Chairman Shaw asked that the consideration of the Board's rules of procedure by placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting. Mr. Keys, with approval of Chairman Shaw, requested Mr. Masson to have Mrs. Wallis contact the members and remind them of the special meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M. -10- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD July 30, 1968 Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman Myron Keys, Vice Chairman James Bowman Sidney Fagin Carl Paden Harold Yakely Absent: Joyce Schechter Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ****** Hearing: #68-36 Ramona Fleischer, Applicant Request: Variance of lot size requirements to permit the con- struction of a residence on a building site with a frontage of 50 ft. (75 ft. required) and 7,000 sq. ft. in area (10,00 required). Lot 11. Variance of lot size requirements to permit the construction of a residence on a building site with a frontage of 50 ft. (75 ft. required) and 7,000 sq. ft. in area (10,000 sq. ft. required). Lot 12. Property: Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, McKeever Terrace, PB 9/49. Location: Approximately 4330 and 4350 S.W. 61 Avenue Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant's request is in conformity with the development of the area. Grant- ing approval would not have a deleterious effect on the neighborhood. Approval recommended. Jack Fleishcer, husband of Ramona Fleischer, spoke on behalf of his wife. He said that the area does not warrant one house on the two lots. Valuation of the property makes it unfeasible to put only one home on the property and most of the adjacent homes were built on 50 or 55 foot lots. Mr. Fleishcer said all South Miami building regulations would be followed. Mrs. John Bethea,4300 S.W. 61 Avenue, objected to the application because she and her husband bought their home because they felt the minimum lot size of 75 feet would afford them a nice home in a neighborhood that would graduarry be built up. She said that the street is only wide enough for one car and there is already a traffic problem. Charles Seymour, 6111 S.W. 44 street, objected to Mr. Fleischer saying that most of the homes were on undersized lots. His lot is the required size and he hoes not want the smaller lots backing up to his. It was later pointed out, however, that a variance was obtained in order to build the house he presently lives in. Mrs. Eugene Myers, 4350 S.W. 60 Avenue, lives in the County where they have raised the valuation on the property and she feels the smaller lots would decrease the actual value. Everett sawyer objected to the application because most of the homes were over the minimum requirements for building. He added that the traffic is particularly bad. Mrs. Gradinger,4316 S.W. 60 Place, felt that it would be a definite traffic hazard if the application were granted. Mr. Shaw asked if she would be willing to dedicate her portion of the right-of-way to which she replied no. Mr. Fleischer said that of all the objectors, only one had the required size of property, the rest were under the minimum. Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Fagin made a motion that the Board recommend to the city Council that the application be approved. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mr. Yakely pointed out that 17 of the 24 lots on the block were under the minimum requirement for size. Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Masson if this was correct and Mr. Masson said there were actually 18 lots under the minimum requirement. Mr. Fagin explained his motion by pointing out that S.W. 61 Avenue was in existence by virtue of a dedication of the pro- perty by the City of South Miami. If Dade county would in turn dedicate its share of the street from the other side, -2- a street of standard width would result and the traffic pro- blem spoken of would be alleviated. He said that the building department requires a minimum off-street parking for automobiles. Mr. Keys said that in order to grant a variance, a hardship should be shown and in this c.ase there is no hardship as to the construction of a home on the available property. Mr. Bowman said that it seemed to him that if the original owner came in for a variance, it would almost have to be granted since they owned the property before the new minimum area requirements went into effect. Mr. Paden said this was not necessarily so because they did have sufficient land to build own. It might be different if they were boxed in on either side of the 50 foot lot and had only 50 feet to build on, but as it is, they have 100 feet. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -2 (Bowman, Fagin) ****** No -4 (Yakely, Paden, Keys, Shaw) Absent -1 (Schechter) Hearing: #68-37 Alexander am Dorothy Alvin, Applicants Request: Change of zone classification from RU-lA (single family residential use) to RU-5A (professional office use). Property: S~ of SE\ of SE\ of SE\ less the W. 340 ft. and less R/W (Approximately 1.9 acres). Location: N.W. Corner of S.W. 67 Avenue and Sunset Drive Zoning Director's Recommendation: The request is contrary to the established land use pattern and would constitute "spot zoning". Denial recommended. Chairman Shaw referred to two letters of objection in the file. There was one from Mr. & Mrs. J. Troy Mills, 7133 S.W. 66 Avenue, and another from Mrs. Alan Abess, 6721 S.W. 69 Terrace. Mr. William Alvin appeared on behalf of his parents, the applicants. He pointed out to the board that the land has been owned by the -3- Alvins for 31 years. to put it to some use at a loss. They have tried to build a house there and they eventually had to sell that house One other application has been filed, in 1963, at which time they requested a change of zoning. The property has several problems in that it is bordered by four-lane Sunset Drive, a widening of Ludlam at that particular corner, a church direct- ly south, and a school on the diagonal corner, and a soon to be constructed church on the north and east. The Alvins feel that the most compatible use for the area would be a professional office building. Mr. Alvin pointed out that no conventional establishment will loan money for single family residences along Sunset Drive in this area. The Alvins feel that after 31 years as tax payers, they are entitled to some use of the land. Mr. Alvin contended that there were two basic issues; is the property usable for single family residential and would a zone change adversely affect the neighborhood. He feels the answer to both is "no". James stamm, 6961 S.W. 69 Terrace, asked denial of the request because he believes the people to the east of the property will also want a zoning change if this request is granted. Leonard Kalisch, 6700 S.W. 69 Terrace, felt to grant this application would be the first step to an expansion on Sunset. The residential character of the town should be maintained. The additional traffic that would be dangerous in view of the school across the street. chester Abney, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the First Baptist Church of South Miami, said he was not here to oppose something being done with this property. He said that prior to the Church coming before the Board earlier in the year, numerous meetings were held with residents of the area to assure them that they would work with the residents in uphold- ing the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Abney explained that the Church had commited itself, not by agreement, but by the mere fact that they are going into this area, to uphold the quality of the use of this property just as if every member of the congEgation were buying lots there. -4- Mr. Abney presented a document in which the Alvins, when they sold the property to the east of the parcel under discussion to a family named Marton, agreed to setback any building on the property 200 feet from Sunset Drive. He said this agree- ment was recorded in Deed Book 3346 on page 203. Mr. Alvin said that he had heard no comments from anyone relative to the fact that the property was not usable for a single family residence, so he must conclude that they were in agreement on that point. The arguments have only been that the rest of the area would go commercial and this is not pro- per because the Alvinsfeel they have a right to be considered on an individual basis. Chakman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the city council that the application be denied without prejudice. Mr. paden said that he was in sympathy with the Alvins but he believed a commercial activity would change the character of the neighborhood and would set a precedent for other pro- perty in the area. chairman Shaw was concerned because the RU-l use for that corner had been destroyed by the introduction of the church and yet no one was willing to introduce a commercial use. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Paden, Keys, Fagin,Shaw, Bowman) No -0 Absent -1 (Schechter ****** Executive Session: 1. Mr. Keys made a motion that the minutes of 9, 1968, meeting be approved as individually read. seconded the motion which passed unanimously. the July Mr. Paden 2. Mr. Keys made a motion that Mr. Masson be directed to advertise a public hearing for Phase II of the Lee Park rezoning. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion which passed unani- mously. -5- 3. Mr. Paden said that in reviewing the Board's Rules of Procedure, he and Mr. yakely had found two minor conflicts with the Code of Ordinance. The changes suggested are as follows: Paragraph 2 under Meetings: "Meetings shall be held at the time prescribed by the zoning ordinance and at such times as the chairman deems necessary" should read "Meetings shall be held at the time prescribed by the City Council and at such other times as the chairman or a quorum of the Board deems necessary" in order to be in accordance with the Code. paragraph 11 under Minutes: "The minutes shall be kept on file in the office of the zoning director" should be "The minutes shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk" in order to be in accordance with the Code. Mr. Yakely made a motion that the described changes be adopted. Mr. Keys seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. chairman Shaw read an announcement from the Florida Atlantic University regarding a seminar sponsored jointly with the Planning-Zoning Association on Land Use and Transoportation on September 5 and 6 at the Gulf Ocean Mile Hotel in Fort Lauderdale. ****** Remarks: There were no remarks. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. -6- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD August 13, 1968 Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman Myron Keys, Vice Chairman James Bowman Sidney Fagin Carl Paden Harold yakely Joyce Schechter Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ****** Hearing: 68-31 City of South Miami, Applicant Request: Change of zone classification on following properties: Existing Proposed Legal Description Zone Class. Zone Class. Blocks 1, 2, 3, & 4, Amended plat of Hamlet, PB 4/48 Blocks 11,12,13,14,15,16,17 & 18, Franklin, PB 5/34 All Blocks, Pines, PB 13/2 Lots 6 thru 31, Block A and all of Block B, Resub. of Blocks 3 & 4, Townsite of Larkins, PB 4/1 All of Block C. and Lots 6 thru 31, Block D, Resub. of Blocks 3& 4, Townsite of Larkins, PB 4/1 Lots 1 thru 5 and 32 thru 36, Block A and Lots 1 thru 5 and 32 thru 36, Block D, Resub. of of Blocks 3 & 4, Townsite of Larkins, PB 4/1 RU-4B RU-lB RU-4B RU-IB RU-4B RU-2B RU-4B RU-IB RU-4B RU-2B RU-4B C-l Existing Legal Description Zone Class. Lots I thru 9, Block 5 and Lots 4 thru RU-4B 10, Block 6, Townsite of Larkins,PB 2/105 Proposed Zone Class. RU-4 Zoning Director's Recommendation: The changes proposed by the Planning Board are substantially in accordance with the Metro Planning Department planning study rec- commendations. Approval recommended. Chairman Shaw invited those in the audience who were interested to come up to the platform where Mr. Keys could explain the proposed changes to them in relation to the map. Mr. Keys then outlined the proposed changes to the residents, explaining the ramifications of the changes, and answering any questions they had. Chairman Shaw pointed out that the general concept is to try to tend toward fewer families in the area by emphasizing single family homes rather than apartments. By progressive zoning down, apartments would be limited. There were no objectors to the application. Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mrs. Schechter made a motion that the Board recommend to the City Council approve the proposed changes in zone classification as outlined in Public Hearing #68-31. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mr. Fagin asked if there were any letters of objection in the file. chairman Shaw said that there were not. Mr. Masson said that he had received a number of verbal objections, but that the property owners had been reluctant to make any written comment. Mr. Keys inquired about the future plans of the remainder of the Lee Park area. At present all that remains is the east side of S.Wo 59 place which Metro suqgested be used for duplexes and RU-lB. If the Board follows the pattern it has been setting, Mr. Keys said that area would almost have to be rezoned RU-IB to comply with the rest of the area and this would eliminate all apartments except for a small strip. Mr. Keys felt that any area this size that is bounded by commercial on two sides needs more apartments than have been provided for. Mr. Keys said he is not in complete agreement with the plan. -2- Mr. Paden said that there is a considerable amount of property south of S.W. 68 street that is currently zoned C-l and is not developed. He felt that if there was a need for apartments, there was no reason why they could not go in there. Mr. Bowman also felt apartments could be built in the C-l zones. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Schechter, Paden, Bowman, Fagin, Shaw) No -1 (Keys) ****** Executive Session Mr. Keys said that at this time the Board should consider eliminating RU-4B and substituting RU-4 which is more restric- tive and has more controls. He felt that some uses would be more appropriate in another classification. He pointed out that some of the uses such as schools and churches are already in another classification. Chairman Shaw asked Mr. Masson what the procedure would be to change the classifications. Mr. Masson said it would take Council action to amend the ordinance. He added that before seeking to change the ordinances, perhaps they should consider a zone classification with a density less than the 36 units an acre of RU-4 but more than the 13 units per acre of RU-3. Mr. Paden said that the County has an intermediate zone classi- fication, RU-4L. Chairman Shaw requested Mr. Masso~ to mail copies of the Dade County RU-4L ordinance to th,,, Board and place it on the next agenda. Mr. Masson further remarked that since RU-IB is being used quite a bit, that perhaps the Board should review that classification also to make it more compatible with the Lee Park area. Chairman Shaw then asked Mr. Masson to give the Board his comments on what should be reviewed in the RU-1B classification and to also put that on the agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Fagin suggested that some minimum landscaping might be ad- visable, especially in relation to the RU-2B classification, in order to upgrade the surroundings. Mr. Paden said that duplexes normally don't have such a requirement although apartments might. Mr. Bowman was favorable to Mr. Fagin's suggestion. -3- Mr. Masson said that the City enforces the county ordinance on landscaping, but that this covers only commercial property or areas of vehicular traffic. Mr. Paden said that duplexes are usually considered the same as a residence since most often the owner lives in the duplex and it is not strictly a commercial venture. Mrs. Schechter poipted out that even though setbacks provided space, that it could be left bare, so it might be advisable to provide for a certain amount of greenery. Mr. Shaw would hesitate to do it unless the Board is basically talking about the Lee Park area, because in that area the duplexes are for the most part rented by owners who live elsewhere. How- ever, in other areas, the owner would probably live in the duplex and Mr. Shaw felt the Board could not dictate tmmuch to the owner in that case. Approval of Minutes: Mr. Paden pointed out two corrections; on page five, relative to Public Hearing #68-37, it should be noted that Mr. Paden seconded the motion by Mr. Keys. Also, on page six, Gulf/Mile Hotel is actually Gault Ocean Mile Hotel. Ocean Mr. Paden then moved that the minutes be approved as amended. The motion carried unanimously. Remarks: Mrs. Schechter congratulated the Board on the excellent job it had done on the Lee Park zoning. She further remarked that she read the ruling on the Martin Brothers case and as a point of information, she requested that Mr. Masson obtain from Mr. Frank Kelly, the names of the witnesses who had appeared in the case and on whose behalf they appeared. Mr. Paden added that he had been a witness in the case and he hoped that the City would appeal the case because every time a city loses one of these zoning cases and does not appeal it, they are breaking down their own zoning by taking a suppine at i- tude. He stated further that he was not being critical, that he felt the City had presented the case in the best possible way. Mr. Keys asked Chairman Shaw what progress the Chamber had made on its study of the area south of Sunset that is tentatively zoned for apartments, relative to what percentage has been used -4- and what percentage is left for apartments. Mr. Shaw reported that it was on file with the city Manager and at the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Keys asked if it was the intent of the report to point out whether or not any further expansion of the present apartment area. Mr. Shaw said it was. Mr. Shaw said that the purpose of the Chamber's studies was to give more testimony and the benefit of more individual study on several problems. He said they are done with the hope that the Chamber might give the City its thinking and that the City might do something with it. Mr. Fagin asked if it would be possible to request a copy of the report from theCity Manager. chairman Shaw asked Mr. Masson to request the report from the city Manager. Mr. Fagin inquired whether the Board was going to continue the rezoning of the remainder of Lee Park. Mr. Keys replied that the Board had requested Metro Planning to make a planning study of the area and now the Board was taking parts of that study so it should be completed. He felt however that the Board's work was useless when they had obtained a professional study and kept restudying it. Mr. Bowman had no remarks. Mr. Masson pointed out that the next meeting, August 27, was the night on the Council's public hearing for the new bUdget and had a number of zoning matters as well. The members of the Board agreed to change the Meeting of August 27th to August 26th. Mr. Shaw read a bUlletin from Florida Atlantic University Department of continuing Education regarding a seminar spon- sored by the Florida Planning & Zoning Association, "schooling to Make Wiser planners" on september 5 and 6. Mr. Shaw reported that comment had been made that the Council was upset with the Board for going ahead with the rezoning of the Lee park area without being requested by the Council. He said he tried to recall how it came up and asked for opinions from the Board regarding not doing a study without being requested to do so by the Council. Mr. Paden said that at one time the Board made a recommendation to the City Council who in turn ordered the City Manager to have a study done. The policy then changed so that the city -5- Manager accepted responsibility for ordering the study and authorizing the disbursement. Mr. Paden felt the Board should get an interpretation from the Council as to what they wanted. He added that the ordinance authorizes the Board to make studies. Mrs. Schechter said that the initial Lee Park study was at the request of the former city Manager. She felt it is a matter of clarification between the Council and the City Manager. Mr. Keys said that the Lee Park study came as a result of the study done by the Board of the area south of S.W. 68 street. He explained that when that study was completed, Mrs. Schechter suggested that the committee make a study of the Lee park area and that he, Mr. Keys, felt that it was best to have Metro do the study since they are professionals and he felt his committee was not capable of making a study of that large an area. Mr. Shaw was of the opinion that the Planning Board, being specialists in the area, should see the problems that exist and make studies about the problems and submit recommendations to the City Council. If the council then felt no action should be taken, that is up to them. Mr. Fagin said he felt the point in question was an adminis- trative one, the process by which studies would be ordered. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P. M. -6- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD August 26, 1968 Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. Present: J.C. Shaw, Chairman Myron Keys, Vice Chairman Sidney Fagin Carl Paden Harold Yakely Absent: James Bowman Joyce Schechter Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ****** Hearing: #68-38 Paul L. Dempsey, Applicant; Grace poliner, Agent Request: variance of off-street parking requirements to permit the construction of a building providing 8 parking spaces instead of 12 as required. Property: Lot 53, W. A. Larkins, PB 3/198 Location: 5795 S.W. 73 Street Zoning Director's Recommendation: Approval of applicant's request is recommended provided that all landscape requirements for the parking area can be met. Grace Poliner explained to the Board that she presently has a knit shop at 5841 S.W. 73 Street which she would like to move to this location so she can incorporate a boutique adjacent to the knit shop. There will also be an apartment for her use upstairs and a third store in the building will be rented out. Mr. Fagin asked Mrs. Poliner's contractor, Mr. Cicero, if they intended to use the bank's alley, which is in the rear of their property. He said they did, if the bank would give its permission. Mr. Masson said this could not be done because of an easement the bank had obtained from the property owners. In answer to a question by Mr. Fagin, Mr. Masson explained that the store area requires 11 parking spaces and the apartment one space. Mr. Keys asked if there was to be a dedication for S.W. 73 street. Mr. Masson replied there was, but that the parking space required is determined by the size of the building, not the lot. Mr. Keys asked how this case differs from the property adjacent to it to the north (where state Farm is) where the owner wanted to build a new building, but was turned down on his request for a parking variance. Mr. Masson explained that this party had another lot adjacent that could have provided the necessary parking area, but he did not want to use it. Mr. Fagin pointed out that there is a public parking lot on S.W. 58 Avenue, directly across the street. Mr. Shaw asked how else this property could be developed to pro- vide the required parking. Mr. Masson the building could be built up with parking under it, but that this would be very costly. Mr. Fagin expressed concern that there was not sufficient room for parking, access to the parking and the necessary landscaping. Mr. Paden also felt it would be difficult for them to provide enough space for turning around, so vehicles would not be backing out into traffic. Mr. Robert Rutledge, 7321 S.W. 57 Court, appeared before the Board, representing South Miami First National Bank, several other South Miami business interests and himself. Mr. Rutledge remarked that there was no legal hardship in this case, that the buyer would be acquiring the property with her eyes open in regard to its problems. Mr. Rutledge stated that there would be no access to the building through the bank property since it will be closed and is not geared to take large trucks. He said it is a matter of several require- ments, one of them insurance. He added that the bank has plans for the back of their property that will mean the bank will in no way be able to facilitate the use of their parking, they will need every bit they have. Mr. Rutledge said that the Board has had a strict policy of holding to parking requirements, especially in the downtown area, and it should be adhered to. -2- Mr. Shaw asked if the matter of servicing from the rear would be a problem and Mr. Masson pointed out that it can be serviced from the parking area. Mr. Paden asked Mr. Masson what the legal hardship for the variance was, since he had recommended approval. Mr. Masson said that there was no land available in the area and that a matter of economics was involved. Mr. Paden felt that the building should be adapted to the size of the land and that the Board was not too concerned with the economics involved. Mrs. Poliner told the Board that she was one of the first stores on S.W. 73 Street when she opened six years ago and the street had since developed quite a bit. The main reason for the move is that she needs the space. If she did not need to move into something considerably larger, she would remain where she is. She added that she has no large delivery trucks, that most of her merchandise comes by parcel post. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Paden made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application be denied. Mr. yakely seconded the motion. There being no discussion, the question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -5 (paden, Keys, Yakely, Fagin, Shaw) No -° Absent -2 (Schechter, Bowman) ****** Hearing: #68-39 William E. Berkey, Applicant; Walter Etling, Agent Request: Special exception to permit a drive-in and take-out restaurant facility in a C-l zone; to determine the suitability of the use on the site requested and to impose conditions as may appear desirable. Property: Lots 9 & 10, Block 1, westerfield Manor, Section 3, PB 27/9 Location: Approximately 5826 Bird Road -3- zoning Director's Recommendation: Approval is recommended provided the site is developed substantially in accordance with the plot plan submitted and the use of outside loudspeakers is prohibited. walter Etling appeared before the Board with his associate, Andy Gustafson. The applicant, Dr. Berkey, has entered into an agreement with the parent company of Kentucky Fried Chicken to build a res- taurant on this site. Mr. Etling said the application might be somewhat misleading since it implied they were building a strictly drive-in restaurant, but they were actually building a restaurant with an auxiliary facility for take-out. Mr. Etling said that the take-out facility was traditional with the company. He pointed out that the area presently has a num- ber of restaurants, some of them with take-out facilities. Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Masson if the main reason for the application was for the drive-in aspect. Mr. Masson said that it was, and that this was not necessarily a variance but rather a special exception. He added that the public hearing is necessary to determine if any special conditions should be imposed. Mr. Keys was of the opinion that the drive-in classification was under c-3, not C-l. Mr. Masson said that the type of drive-in where you are served in the car would be under C-3, but this is not the case here. Mr. Keys still contended that drive-ins are prohibited under C-l and Mr. Masson agreed that this is true if the customer eats in the car. Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Etling if the drive-in window was necessary to the operation and Mr. Etling explained that that was not the pat- tern established for these restaurants. If it were not for the drive-in aspect, they would need no special exception since the use of a restaurant in C-l is appropriate. Mr. Fagin inquired about the parking and drive-ways. illustrated on the plot plan that any back up in the be on the restaurant property and not the street. Mr. Etling line would Mr. Yakely pointed out that in anticipation of the widening of Bird Road, there is an additional twenty-foot setback, which patrons of an adjacent restaurant are presently using for parking. This is hazardous due to the fact that they must back into traffic when leaving. Mr. Etling said that they would be happy to maKe provisions to prevent this in their case. -4- Mr. Fagin asked if there would be a speaker-type communication. Mr. Etling said he believed so, however, it is not a loudspeaker with music, but simply a device for people to place an order. There were no objectors to the application. Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Fagin made a motion to recommend tofue City Council that the application be approved in accordance with the zoning Director's recommendations. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. Mr. Keys wanted to clarify the earlier discussion about C-I zone including or excluding a restaurant of a drive-in nature. Mr. Keys felt that recommending a special permit is in theorychanging the zone and that the Board has been firm in not breaking the C-I use on the South Miami side of Bird Road. He asked Mr. Masson what the Board's argument would be against permitting a Farm Store,which has the same drive-in operation, if they granted this special exception. Mr. Masson said that the Farm Store is not a restaurant and it is specifically listed in C-2 under dairy store. Mr. Keys said he still could not satisfy himself that this type of operation belongs in the C-I zone since that refers to restaurants other than drive-in in nature. Mr. yakely thought perhaps that since restaurants were in C-I zones and strictly drive-in operations were in C-2, that a use such as this, a restaurant with a drive-in facility in connection with it,should be added to the C-l uses. Mr. Paden said that this was a restaurant and a retail food store also, both of which are permitted in C-l zones. He felt that the question here was that you could drive in and have the food delivered to the window of your car without having to park, which is a small difference. He felt there would be no violation of the zoning laws. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -4 (Yakely, Paden, Fagin, Shaw) No -I (Keys) Absent -2 (Bowman, Schechter) ***** Mr. Fagin made a motion that the minutes of the meeting of August -5- 13th be approved as individually read. Mr. Keys seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. James Duncan of the Metropolitan Dade county Planning Department introduced Mr. William Kelly, a new member of their staff, before outlining the Planning study of the area bounded by S.W. 80 street, U. S. #1 and S.W. 62 Avenue to the Board. Mr. Duncan said that this particular area was somewhat broader than the actual request for the study, but their department felt this was a homogeneous area as far as physical barriers are concerned. He said that the apartments in the area are not necessarily undesirable since they create a good transition between the commer- cial strip on U.S. #1 and the single family homes. The main problem was that they were not put in in an orderly manner. One of the worst particular sites was an apartment that was put in on a variance where the parking had not been worked out well on the site and there was a great deal of congestion. The recommendation is that the three lots north of S.W. 78 street and west of S.W. 62 Avenue be rezoned from RU-l to RU-4. He sited five reasons for the recommendation: 1) existing apartments in area have already altered the character of neighborhood; 2) site is immediately adjacent to commercial, limiting use for single- family residences; 3) apartments would serve as buffer; 4) vehicular access to main streets and highway is good; 5) sewerage facilities are capable of serving Ru-4 development. Mr. Duncan said his department went further and considered the six lots across the street, on the south side of S.W. 78 street from S.Wo 67 Avenue to S.W. 63 Avenue. It is their opinion that these lots should be considered for multi-family use of a lower density such as the county's RU-4L which provides for a maximum density of 23 units per acre. He suggested this classification be called RU-4A to fit in with South Miami's present zone titles. To alleviate some of the traffic, Mr. Duncan suggested that the South Highway Road that runs behind the Elks Club be placed through to the highway so the apartment traffic would not have to go through the single-family area. He said that adequate controls over parking and landscaping were also essential. Mr. Fagin told Mr. Duncan that there was an application before the Board that was for rezoning the three lots under discussion for apartments and it drew many objectors and was subsequently turned down by the Board. He asked Mr. Duncan if this was not an indica- -6- tion of the residents' desires to keep the zoning as it is. Mr. Duncan said the recommendations are often unpopular because the residents may have valid objections but that does not alter the fact that these recommendations are made in accordance with good planning principles. Mr. Keys asked Mr. Duncan why the RU-4 and RU-4A zones on S.W. 78 street were brought all the way to S.W. 62 Avenue while the RU-4 strip on S.W. 79 Street stopped one lot short of S.W. 63 Avenue. Mr. Duncan said that it was a matter of appearance and access that differed in each case. Mr. yakely asked what would happen if someone wanted to put apart- ments below the suggested RU-4A zone. He contended that if they went to court, the same arguments for apartments could be used then as are being used in this report. Mr. Duncan said that this was not necessarily true, that the justifications for each recommenda- tion made could also serve as an argument for not extending the apartment area any further. He pointed out that the greatest problems arise from apartments and single-family homes fronting and siding with one another and this had been eliminated with this study. Mr. Masson reminded the Board that the Council had not taken action on the application for apartments on the north side of S.W. 78 street pending the results of this study. Mr. Fagin inquired what the Council expected from the Board regarding this study. Mr. Shaw explained that the Council is most immediately interested in the study in respect to the application for rezoning pending before it. The Board should give its consideration to the larger area as a whole. Mr. Yakely asked Mr. Duncan if it was his recommendation that RU-4B be eliminated. Mr. Duncan replied that essentially the only purpose for RU-4B is for some of the public assemblage uses which could be handled easily by including them in some other zone classification. There was some discussion relative to the existence of cambridge House on a variance. Mr. Masson explained that the application was for an RU-4 use which was not a very well regulated zone at the time. The Board said they would not grant an RU-4 use but would give a variance so they would be able to impose restrictions which RU-4 did not provide for, such as landscaping and no-parking on the front setback. In answer to a request by Mr. Fagin, Mr. Duncan agreed to furnish -7- the Board with a written memorandum recommending that RU-4B be eliminated. Mr. Keys, seconded by Mr. Paden, made a motion that the Board accept the Planning Study for further study. The motion carried. Mr. Massonsuggested that the Board take all these recommmendations that had been discussed regarding the new RU-4A, elimination of RU-4B and the revision of RU-lB and present them to the Council simultaneously for their consideration. Mr. Shaw, with the approval of the Board, requested that the following items be placed on the next agenda: 1) addition of RU-4A classification; 2) elimination of RU-4B zone classification; 3) revision of RU-lB zone classification. Remarks: Mr. Fagin asked Mr. Masson if he would obtain a definition of "drive-in" for the Board. Mr. Shaw announced that former Board member, James Ferguson, was the speaker at the South Florida Chapter Planning and Zoning Assoc. meeting, Wednesday, August 28, 1968, at 12:00 noon, at the Biscayne Cafeteria. Mr. Shaw remarked that much had been said about the yellow-striping by the Burger House on S.W. 62 Avenue, to the effect that a person may cross them without being ticketed. Mr. Masson said that the County Attorney had ruled that the striping does not constitute a traffic island but simply designates the flow of traffic and therefore may be crossed. Mr. Shaw requested that Mr. Masson obtain this opinion from the county in writing. Mr. Keys requested that Mr. Masson prepare some zoning maps for the remainder of the Lee Park area for use by his committee. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. -8- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD September 10, 1968 Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 PM. Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman Myron Keys, Vice Chairman Sidney Fagin James Bowman Carl Paden Joyce Schechter Harold yakely Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ***** Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes be approved with one cor- rection in line three, paragraph five, page six: "S.W. 67 Avenue" should read "S.W. 62 Avenue". The minutes were approved as corrected. ***** Hearings: #68-40 South Miami Hospital Foundation, Inc., Applicant George Buchmann, Attorney Request: Change of zone classification from RU-2 to RU-~B (hospital use) . Subject Property: Lots 6 thru 10, S. 2' of Lot 11 and Lots 28 and 29, W. A. Hobbs Subdivision, PB4/111 and begin at S.Wo corner of Lot 8, then S. 60' to N.W. corner of Lot 29, then Po. 270' to NE corner of Lot 26, then N. 60' to S.E. corner of Lot 9, then W. 270' to POB all being in W. A. Hobbs Subdivision, PB 4/111, Dade County, Florida. Location: North of S.W. 74 Street between S.W. 62 Court and S.W. 62 Place. Zoning Director's Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1) a recorded deed restriction running with the land owned by the South Miami Hospital Foundation be filed stating that the property will be used hospital purposes only, to be released only by possible later action, after public hearing, by the Planning Board and the City council; 2) that if any of the existing structures are used by the hospital for any purpose, a site use plan be submitted for approval and the buildings be required to conform with all existing zoning and build- ing regulations prior to occupancy; 3) any other restriction the Planning Board and the city council may deem necessary. George Buchmann told that Board that the hospital is trying to expand to 400 beds. The expansion will take place on the adjacent Huskamp property, with some of the land going to needed parking. He pre- sented a chart showing the properties under consideration for rezoning. He pointed out that their request for rezoning is in accordance with the Master Plan for South Miami since all of that area is recommended for RU-4. He said the hospital recognized that this is also apart- ment zoning, but that they must ask for this classification since hospitals fall into that classification. He emphasized that the hospital had no intentions of constructing apartments on the site. He added that the hospital did intend, for the time being, to use the structures presently on the site for hospital uses. Mr. Buchmann requested that the Board not ask the hospital to enter into a restrictive covenant since the hospital was in fact carrying out the Master Plan for the city. He said that they did not have strong negative feelings for the covenant since it is in accord with their intentions but they did feel it would be an unnecessary encumberance upon the land. He pointed out to the Board that the Hospital Charter stipulated that if the hospital failed, that the operation must be turned over to an organization with a similar use and intent. Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Buchmann to reiterate that there were no strong negative feelings to the covenant. He said that there were no strong negative feelings but that it is legally repugnant to encumber land for all time in this manner. Raymond Poore, Hospital administrator, remarked that he was con- cerned about the second recommendation of the Zoning Director. Mr. Masson said that this was to bring the residential buildings involved up to the more commercial standards of the hospital use such as installing curbs and gutters. Mr. Poore said that tenta- tively they planned to use the buildings involved for residential purposes for use by key personnel that must be on hand when they are on call. Since these buildings will ultimately be torn down to make way for further development, the hospital hopes it will -2- not have to invest too much in them at the present time for reno- vations. Chairman Shaw said that he was worried about the phrase "hospital use" since he felt this was very broad. Mr. Buchmann said that this be any use normally carried out by a hospital. Mr. Poore pointed out that the traffic load would be taken off S.w. 62 Avenue and moved with the entrance onto S.W. 64 Avenue. Mr. Fagin remarked that the Board was presently considering elimin- ating the Ru-4B zone classification and that is the only one under which a hospital is permitted. Mr. Keys felt that in light of this that it might be best if the application were deferred until a decision had been made regarding the RU-4B zone. Mr. Paden said that the application was for hospital use and if hospital use were granted, it would be granted under the zone classi- fication in which it falls. He felt that a matter of terminology should not delay the application. Mr. Masson said that Mr. Paden's point was well taken, that if the RU-4B zone was eliminated, the hospital's application would simply fall into the new classification. Mr. Buchmann said it was a matter of some urgency since for tax purposes they had to have the land rezoned for hospital use before the end of the year and deferments some times have a way of being dragged out. Mrs. Schechter said that it was also important for the entire area to be considered in entirety rather than just this one piece and a deferment would enable the Board to do this. Mr. Keys pointed out that the matter of the eliminationof RU-4B would be decided that night and asked if there would be objection to a deferment just until the next meeting. Mr. Paden said that if the hospital planned to use the buildings presently on the site without alterations, they should have no objections to the second recommendation of the Zoning Director. If they planned to alter them in any way, there would be no ques- tion but that they would have to obtain a building permit for the work. Mrs. Schechter questioned the legality of the third recommendation submitted by the Zoning Director. Mr. Masson explained that this -3- was put in to bring up the fact that if this is rezoned RU-4B it can be used for apartments as well as hospital uses. The intent of the restriction of the recorded deed is to prevent this from happening. Mr. Buchmann said that they had only wanted a little flexibility and that as long as they could use it for hospital use, there was no objection to the restriction. He had the misconception that the Board wanted to limit the land to parking earlier, which was the reason for the objection to the restriction. There were no objectors to the application. Chairman Shaw closed the public portionof the hearing. Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend that application be defered until the next meeting. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. Mrs. Schechter said she was afraid that the matter might drag on until the end of the year, putting the hospital in an awkward position. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -2 (Keys, Fagin) No -5 (Shaw, Yakely, Schechter, Bowman, paden) Mr. Yakely made a motion to recommend that the city Council approve the application for hospital use subject to: 1) a restrictive covenant to be recorded pertaining to the land for rezoning limiting its use to hospital purposes only; 2) That if any of the existing structures are used by the hospital for any purpose, a site use plan be submitted for approval and the buildings be required to conform with all existing zoning and building regulations prior to occupancy. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -7 (Yakely, Schechter,paden,Keys, Bowman, Fagin ,Shaw) No -0 ***** #68-41 Clyde Alexander, Applicant Request: Variance to permit to park a house trailer within the -4- required front setback of a residence. Property: Lot 8 less W. 21' and W. 27' of Lot 7, Block 6, Bird Road Estates, PB 19/76 Location: 6358 S.W. 42 street Zoning Director's Recommendation: specifically prohibited Denial recommended. The applicant's request is by the zoning regulations. Clyde Alexander explained to the Board that he and his wife enjoy camping and they like to have the camper on hand at their home rather than having to park it elsewhere. He said they keep it stocked with food and supplies, but no one lives in it at any time while it is parked at the house. He said that a petition had been sent in by the neighbors who have no objection to their keeping the trailer their. Mr. Keys asked if it were a fold-up type camper and Mr. Alexander showed an illustration indicating that it is not the fold-up type. Mr. Keys then mentioned that there is a petition signed by eighteen property owners saying that they are in accord with Mr. Alexander's request. Mrs. Schechter asked if it would be possible to keep it in the back yard by installing a larger gate in the fence. Mr. Alexander said that they had thought of this but it was not possible. Chairman Shaw asked Mr. Masson where on the lot the trailer could be parked. Mr. Masson said anywhere but on the required set back. Mr. Keys said that as he saw the problem, the Board could not recommend anything but denial as this is specifically prohibited by the ordinances. The only alternative would be for the Council to change the ordinances. There were no objectors to the application. Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Paden said that because there is no legal hardship, he would have to make a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application be denied. Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion. -5- The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -7 (Shaw, Schechter, Yakely, Paden, Keys, Bowman, Fagin) No -0 ***** Executive Session: 1. Mr. Keys said that he had read the ordinance submitted by the Zoning Director for the RU-4A zone, limited apartment house use, and it compared closely with the county RU-4L ordinance which has worked very well for the County. Mr. Paden said that paragraph three contained a provision that interior setbacks and spacing requirements may be disregarded in approving the plan, but it did not say by whom the requirements could be disregarded. Mr. Masson said that this was at the public hearing. It was in reference in particular to a complex with several buildings. Mr. Paden contended that this was in reference to the setback from the property line and that the adjacent property owner should not be penalized because a developer has several buildings and there- fore can have the setback requirements disregarded. Mrs. Schechter felt that it should be spelled out that the Council is the authority that could disregard the setbacks. She then made a motion to recommend that the city Council adopt the ordinance establishing the limited apartment house zone classification, RU-4A, with the addition of the phrase "at the discretion of the City Council" following the last line in paragraph 3). Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mr. Paden said that there was no reason why there should not be a setback from the property line. He said that this wording would only encourage more applications for variances. Mrs. Schechter agreed that this should not be disregarded and after Mr. Bowman withdrew his second, she withdrew her motion. Mr. yakely moved to recommend to the City council that the ordinance establishing a new apartment house use zoning classifica- -6- tion to be designated "RU-4A, Limit ed Apartment House District," be added to Chapter 20 of the Code of Ordinances with the following amendment, Paragraph (3), after the word "above" delete "except that interior setbacks and spacing requirements may be disregarded in approving the plan." Mr. Paden seconded the motion. Polled, Yes -7 (Shaw, Schechter, Bowman, Fagin, Yakely, Paden, Keys) No -0 ***** 2. Mrs. Schechter moved to recommend to the City Council that the RU-4B zone classification be deleted from Chapter 20 of the Code of Ordinances in accordance with the recommendations of the Zoning Director and the Metro Planning Department due to the fact that it is too liberal without the proper restrictions, and the following permitted uses be included in the proposed RU-4A zone classification that are presently in the RU-4B zone classification, Every use permitted in RU-l. RU-2 and RU-3 districts, and also buildings for public assemblage, hospitals and private clubs. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion. Mr. Paden said that if RU-4B is eliminated, there will be fewer density problems. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -7 (Shaw, Yakely, Schechter, Fagin, Bowman,Paden, Keys) No -0 ***** 3. Mr. Keys asked Mr. Masson for an explanation of why he omitted home occupations in his recommendations on revising RU-IB. Mr. Masson said many people object to them in their neighborhoods. Mr. Keys replied that a public hearing is required first before a home occupation license is granted, but Mr. Masson said that there is a tremendous enforcement problem. Mr. Shaw said that he is unhappy because many people take business calls in their homes. Mr. Keys said that is not a home occupation in the legal sense. -7- Mr. Masson pointed out further that in a residential section where there is more room between homes, a home occupation may go unnoticed but in smaller lots, as RU-IB, it is more likely to bother neighbors. Mr. Yakely questioned whether or not lawn maintenance men are consi- dered home occupations, since they operate out of their homes. Mrs. Schechter said that they have occupational licenses. Mr. Fagin said that he felt the Board was losing sight of their original intentions to revise the lot size requirements. Mr. Paden said he thought it would be discriminatory to do away with home occupations in RU-IB zone only. Mr. Keys said that recommendation (f) was related to recommendation (a). Mr. Shaw said he was unhappy with (f) for the same reasons as (a). Mr. Paden said he thought the Board could depend on Council in regard to approving any home occupations. Mr. Yakely moved to recommend to the city Council that the follow- ing changes in the RU-IB as recommended by the Zoning Director be adopted: Subparagraphs c, d, and e of the zoning Directors recommen- dations. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. Polled: Yes: 7 (Schechter, Shaw, Keys, Paden,Yakely Bowman, Fagin) No : 0 Mr. Paden moved to recommend to the City Council that recommenda- tions by the zoning Director, Subparagraphs a, b, and f remain unchanged. Mr. Keys seconded the motion. Polled: Yes -(Fagin, Bowman, Keys, Paden, Yakely, Schechter, Shaw) ***** Remarks: Mrs. Schechter said many of the merchants have approached her with the idea that the city fathers should approach the transit authori- ties to seek a rerouting of buses and also a central terminal for the city. This would alleviate the parking problems and the conges- tion during parts of the day. -8- Mrs. Schechter also referred to the recommendation by the Charter Review Board that the number of members of the Planning Board be reduced. She pointed out that Metro has increased there number and asked for an expression from the Board on the matter. Mr. Keys said there was no reason for changing the size of the Board, that all that did was change the size of the quorum. He pointed out that there was a time when there were habitual absentees and it rook 11 members to have six present. It was suggested that perhaps the number was being cut back because they would now receive salaries. Mr. Shaw felt the Council would do well in increasing the size of the Board. Mrs. Schechter said that she would like some clarification on why the number of members on the Board was being reduced and the purpose behind it. She further commented on a meeting with Haley Sofge, 7:30 P.M., September 13th in the Conference Room. Mr. Keys said that he felt there should be more direct communica- tion between the Board and the Council as to what the Board did and why. Referring to the controversy the week before relative to the nature of a drive-in, Mr. Keys quoted a zoning booklet from 1966 that sti- pulated that drive-ins were prohibited. He then added that this was not the case in the regular ordinance books they had been given recently. Mr. Masson reminded him that in early 1967 an extensive study had been made of the C-l zone uses and that on May 16, 1967, new uses were adopted and this line was omitted either intentionally or unintentionally. He then read the definition of a "drive-in"which he obtained from a good authority which indicated that the Kentucky Fried Chicken operation under consideration last week was not a drive-in as provided by zoning regulations. Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Masson if he would obtain the names of the witnesses in the Martin Brothers case. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Attachments: 2 Proposed RU-4A zone classification ordinance Zoning Director's recommendations for revision of RU-lB -9- EXISTING (a) PERMITTED USES: Single family residences and incidental uses thereto, municipal recreation buildings, play- grounds, parks or reservations owned and operated by a municipality or county, home occupations under certain conditions accessory buildings, agricultural uses limited to growing of produce, flowers and fruit groves. (b) MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS: 50 ft. frontage, 5,000 sq. ft. area (c) MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: 25% (d) MINIMUM SIZE FAMILY RESIDENCE: 700 square feet (e) SETBACKS: 25 ft. front; 25 ft. rear; 15 ft. side street; 20% of front- age with 7 1/2 ft. minimum on each side. (f) PROHIBITED USES: None RECOMMENDED REVISION TO RU-IB ZONE CLASSIFICATION PROPOSED (a) PERMITTED USES: Single family reSidences, recreation buildings, playgrounds, parks owned and operated by a municipality or county and accessory buildings. (b) Same (c) MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: 30% of lot may be covered by principal and accessory buildings o (d) MINIMUM SIZE FAMILY RESIDENCE: 800 square feet (e) SETBACKS: 25 ft. front, 25 ft. rear; 15 ft. side street; 20% of frontage with minimum of 5 fto on each side for lots with frontage of less than 75 ft. and minimum of7 1/2 ft. on each side for lots with 75 ft. or more o (f) PROHIBITED USES: Garage apart- ments, home occupations and all com- mercial uses. COMMENTS (a) Home occupations are a question"- able practice at best and should be eliminated. (b) None (c) The increased lot coverage pro- vides for more flexibility in the construction of a residence on the minimum lot size requirements o (d) This will provide for a larger livable unit equal to the size of mOR:_ apartment units being built today. (e) This will provide more flexibilk,- on narrow frontage lots but will stil:.- preserve the existing requirements on lots wider than 75 ft. (f) This will preserve the residentL, character of a neighborhood if spec:-- ifically prohibited. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD September 24, 1968 Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman Myron Keys, Vice Chairman Sidney Fagin carl Paden Joyce Schechter Harold yakely Absent: James Bowman Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. Mr. Fagin moved that the Executive Session be considered first. Mr. Keys seconded the motion which carried. Executive Session: Request: By Fred Acker to change the facing of house on Lot 1 and Lot 4, Lu El Manor, PB 69/49. Referred to the Planning Board by the city Council for recommendation. Location: Approximately 6840 and 6860 Sunset Drive. Mr. Paden said that he would like to hear from Mr. Acker the reasons for wanting the house facing on Sunset Drive. Mr. Acker said that he liked the address of Sunset Drive and felt it would be easier to find. He also would not want a house facing west with the side and rear of it facing Sunset. He feels it is too pretty a street for that. Mr. Paden asked if there would not be any objections to the heavy traffic on Sunset. He pointed out that if the house faced the avenue, the garage could be placed on the Sunset Drive side to eliminate some of the noise. Mr. Acker explained he had no objection and the garage would not be visible from Sunset in any case. Mr. Keys pointed out that the houses facing on the court and avenue are set back 35 feet and if Mr. Acker built his house facing Sunset Dcive, his setback from the court and avenue would only have to be 25 feet since it would be a side setback in that instance. Mr. Acker said that he did not want to do that and would be willing to have side setbacks of 35 feet so he would not extend further than the neighboring property. He said he would not want to be sticking out. Mr. yakely said he did not want to see a situation like that on Miller Road and S.W. 67 Avenue where there is an apartment house that is way out of line with the adjacent property. Mr. Fagin asked Mr. Acker if it would not be possible to build the house facing Sunset with an entrance and egress on the side street, thus affording the Sunset Drive address and eliminating any traffic problem. Mr. Acker told the Board that his plans were for a circular drive-in and he had already acquired gates for the purpose. Mr. Keys said that if the house could be built after meeting side setbacks equal to the front setbacks of the adjacent property as well as all other setbacks, he could see no objection. Mr. Paden felt that there would be plenty of space left for the size house that Mr. Acker wanted to build. Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Masson why the City had a regulation against facing the house on Sunset. Mr. Masson said that most zoning regulations stipulate that the house will face the shorter dimension. Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the request be granted on the condition that the side street setbacks on the avenue and the court (S.W. 68 Avenue and S.W. 68 Court) be not less than the front setbacks of the adjacent pro- perties and that all other setback requirements are met. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Schechter, Paden, Keys, Shaw, Fagin) No -0 Hearings: #68-19 Absent -1 (Bowman) Alfred A. Jaskewicz, Sr., Applicant. (Referred back to Planning Board by the City council for further study.) Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l to RU-4. -2- Property: E. 305' less the N. 151.07' of Tract 2, Palm Miami Heights, PB 38/52. Location: 6201, 6211, 6221 S.W. 78 street. Larry Rice, 7321 S.W. 57 court,appeared on behalf of the applicant. He brought to the Board's attention the Metropolitan Dade county Planning Department study which had been completed since the application was first made. He cited the study's indication that the character of the neighborhood had already been altered by existing apartments and that apartments would serve as a buffer between the commercial and single-family homes in the area. Mr. Rice said that this has been the contention of the appli- cant from the beginning. The applicant is not seeking an initial intrusion into the area. He conceded that the city has a right to regulate zoning but such regulation should not be unreasonable. Mr. Rice was of the opinion that the City would lose the case if it ever went to court for the reasons that there were already apartments and that the character of the area had changed and in that case the City would be wasting the people's money on such a case. Mrs. Schechter said she agreed with Mr. Rice that the Board is charged with public responsibility and that the entire area should be considered rather than this one portion. There were no objectors to the application. Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Keys also felt that before certain parts of the area in the study be ruled on that the entire study be taken into consideration. Mr. paden explained that the Board had not referred the study to the councilor made any recommendation on it, but had only accepted it for study. Mr. Keys felt that the next step should be for the Board to recommend that the council hold a public hearing on the study. Mrs. Schechter felt that the action should lie with the Board since the Council had referred it back to the Board. Mr. Keys moved to recommend to the Council that a public hearing be advertised and held to consider the area covered by the Metro study. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion. -3- Mr. Paden felt that Mr. Keys motion was well taken since the Board has recently been criticized for holding public hearings without approval of the Council. Councilman Ed Bramson, 6000 Twin Lakes Drive, explained to the Board that Mayor Block requested the Council to authorize the city Attorney to draw an ordinance that would restrict the Planning Board from initiating public hearings and courtesy advertisements. He said that the the motion passed and the ordinance would come up at some future time, but that at this time the Board still had all its powers. Mr. Bramson said he had seconded the motion for the purposes of discussion since he wanted to debate his ideas on the Council level. He said he saw no reason for the Board to change its policies at this time. Mr. Bramson said the Board should do what they felt was best with the study and not refer it back to the counci~. The Board in his opinion still had all its powers and authority. Mr. yakely and Mrs. Schechter felt that there was a wide difference between the section abutting the application and that near S.W. 80 Street and that these areas should therefore be considered separately. Mr. Masson brought up the point that it would be difficult to advertise for a public hearing on the study since a new zone classification was included which has not yet been approved by the city Council. Therefore,the Board could not correctly advertise for a change to a zone that does not yet exist. Mr. Keys amended his motion and directed the Zoning Director to send out notices for a public hearing on the entire area covered in the latest study made by the Metro Planning Department to determine the feelings of the residents of that area. Mr. yakely approved and seconded the amendment. Mrs. Schechter told the Board that at the last Council meeting she requested that this application be returned to the Board because it was a new case in light of the study that had been submitted since their previous recommendation. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Schechter, Paden, Keys, Fagin, Shaw) No -0 Absent -I (Bowman) -4- Mrs. Schechter moved the the Board recommend that the Council defer Hearing #68-19 pending the results of the public hearing on the Metro study. Mr. Keys seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Schechter, Paden, Keys, Fagin, Shaw) No -0 Absent -1 (Bowman) ****** Approval of minutes: Mrs. Schechter requested that her remarks in paragraph five, page nine, be taken out since she felt that they were out of context. Mr. Keys moved that the minutes be approved as corrected. Mr. yakely seconded the motion which carried. ****** Remarks: Mrs. Schechter requested the list of witnesses in the Martin Brother case. Mr. Keys asked the Board if it felt that a study of the area from S.W. 62 Court over to and including the west side of S.W. 63 Avenue would be in order in view of the change in zone classification~anted the week before to the hospital, which was very close to "spot zoning". The north and south boundaries would be from Sunset to S.W. 74 Street. Since there were no objectors Chairman Shaw asked if the usual committee would be able to study that area. Mr. Keys said that the plats for the remainder of Lee Park are ready so the Committee would be working on both. Mr. Yakely asked Mr. Bramson about the meeting with Haley sofge that was coming up. -5- councilman Ed Bramson told the Board that a meeting was scheduled for Monday, September 30th with Haley Sofge from Little H.U.D. He felt that at least the committee on Lee Park, if not all the Board, Should attend. He said that it was concerned with a new neighborhood rehabilitation program. Councilman Bramson explained further that about a year and a half ago he recommended the formation of the Charter Review Board, which after study, proposed three charter amendments which passed at the last election. Another of the recommendations of the Review Board was the appointment of another Board to go into the entire Charter. It has since drafted a whole new charter. Mr. Bramson said he recommended that the Charter make it manda- tory that the city have a Planning Board, rather than having it an optional Board as it now is. One of the recommendations of the Charter Review Board was that there be only five members, but he emphasized that this was still in the recommendation stages. He suggested the Board review those provisions relating to the Planning Board and come to a consensus SO the Council will have an expression from the Board to consider. Mr. Keys asked that the Zoning Director provide copies of the proposed new charter to the Board. Chairman Shaw called a special meeting on October 7, 1968, at 8:00 P.M. for the public hearing on the Metro study. Chairman Shaw announced the South Florida Chapter of the Florida Planning and Zoning Association meeting at the Biscayne Cafeteria on September 25th with Alfred pallot as the guest speaker. The Florida Planning and Zoning Association will hold a conven- tion in Daytona Beach November 20 through November 23, 1968. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. -6- MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD october 7, 1968 Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman Myron Keys, Vice Chairman Sidney Fagin James Bowman Carl Paden Joyce Schechter Harold yakely Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ****** Public hearing for consideration of Special Area Planning and Zoning Study for the triangular area bounded by S.W. 80 Street, S.W. 62 Avenue and U. S. #1 (South Dixie Highway). Zoning changes to be considered in accordance with the recommendations of the Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department. Chairman Shaw explained to the audience that this was an infor~al meeting to ascertain the feelings of the residents of the area in regard tc the recommendations in the Metro Study. He referred to letters of objection in the file from Arthur Bell, 6171 S.W. 79 street and Alice Rosenthal and Gertrude David, 6020 S.W. 76 Street. Chairman Shaw told the audience about the Planning Contract between the City and the Metro Planning Department and the need for professLonal planners in certain instances. He said a study was considered neces- sary in this case because the area has been controversial for some time. Mr. Keys then reviewed the recommendations of the Study for the benefit of the audience. with the help of a diagram, he pointed out the possible changes and explained their ramifications. Mrs. schechter commented that her main concerns are poor parking at cambridge House,and subsequently other apartments in the area, and the fact that rentals are often to students which results in more than one car per apartment. Mr. Keys said that a variance was granted for cambridge House in order to gain better control of certain requirements, such as parking, since sufficient controls did not exist at that time. Mary Ellen James, 6210 S.W. 79 Street, asked the Board what advantage it would be to the City to tear down homes that presently are in existence to make room for apartments. She asked why this was even being considered. Chairman Shaw explained that an application had been made for apartments in the area and the procedure called for a public hearing before the Board and the city Council. This was one of the instances where the use of outside professionals was considered advisable before reaching a decision. Mr. yakely said that it would bring in more taxes, although he could not say how much more. Mrs. James asked if the community would have to go through a hearing like this each time an application came in. Mr. Masson said it was not strictly a matter of advantages and disadvantages, but tha-t in the opinion of professional planners, this applicant was entitled to hlS request. He commented further that in order to protect the remaining portion of the residential neighborhood, there must be a buffer zone between the existing apartments and the proposed apartments. He pointed out that it was up to the Board to find the best way to protect the remainder of the residential character of the neighborhood. He added that this Study would carry a great deal of weight in the event of a court case. Mrs. Schechter remarked that the courts are taking more action in zoning cases than ever before, so the Study had to be given considera- tion. Betty Long, 6230 S.W. 79 S:-reet, said she did not know why Metro was even asked about the area. Chairman Shaw commented that the Board members are not professionals and therefore sought outside professional help since this matter could affect the entire City. Mrs. Long felt the Board had a greater right to make a decision in the matter than Metro since the Board members had an interest in the City. She said there are people who really love the community but are being driven out by the apartments. -2- Mrs. Schechter reiterated that if such a case went to court, they would not take the word of an ordinary person on the Planning Board but would require the opinion of a professional planner. Chairman Shaw said the Board was trying to establish a line that it could hold to effectively. Mrs. Long countered that she had been present eight years ago when Jean Willis established a line and that it was the City's line, not Metro's. She felt the City's own recommendations should be abided by. Mr. Paden remarked that there is bound to be some change since the city did not have a plan prepared by people whose opinions would be accepted by the courts until just recently. He added that a precedent had been set with the existing apartment house; therefore, a plan for that area, with definite boundaries, had to be set up in accordance with the opinions of professionals. Lilly McGuirt, 6211 S.W. 79 Street, felt sympathy for the people on S.W. 78 Street because they had fought through so many hearings. She added that there was a person in the neighborhood who had been approaching the home-owners and painting an attractive picture about the excellent deal he could get for their homes. She did not feel a real estate company should operate on this basis. She felt the apart- ments should stop right where they are now. Chairman Shaw asked Mrs. McGuirt her opinion about what the next best course of action might be, if admittedly it would be ideal to keep the present zoning, but more realistically if it had to be rezoned in light of possible court action. Mrs. McGuirt replied that the parking lot behind the shopping center had always been considered the buffer and she did not see what had changed since that was established. She added that simply because one interest has a lot of money, they should not be allowed to push the residents around. Mrs. Schechter asked that the record reflect that she, as a member of another organization, has seen correspondence in which an agent for the Keyes company has been approaching home-owners in the Sudy area. She added that a home-owners organization in the community has requested that they stop the practice. Mrs. Long suggested that another p1anning~oup be consulted for a different opinion on the area. She thought that the line should be drawn at S.W. 78 Street since the owners of the homes on the north side of S.W. 78 Street did not live at the location and apparently did not care about the rezoning. -3- Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Masson if he thought is advisable to consult another planner. Mr. Masson replied that he believed another planner might render a similar, if not identical, recommendation. Mrs. H. W. Loesser, 6201 S.W. 80 Street, told the Board that she deeply resented the letter she received from the Keyes Company intimating that the entire area had already been rezoned and offerring to purchase her home. Joseph Gula, 6230 S.W. 78 Street, felt that the Metro Study was full of holes. He pointed out that the cambridge House had many more cars than the minimum number of parking spaces. There is also diagonal parking, creating a traffic hazard. He said that the basis for the recommendat~ons in the Study was the cambridge House's presence in the area which was a mistake to begin with. Mr. Gula would like to continue living in his present location, but does not know what the additional apartments will bring. He thought that as the apartments are extended, people living in single- family homes adjacent will move out as they find conditions intolerable. Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Gula his feelings about having RU-3 zoning on the remaining three lots on the north side of S.W. 78 Street, to which he replied that he would have to give it some thought. Mr. Yakely asked how many of the homes on S.W. 78 Street were occupied by their owners and Mr. Gula informed him that four out of the six were occupied by their owners. Mr. Gulas said he thought the RU-3 would not be desirable for the builders since they would not have a high enough return. Mrs. Schechter said she was more concerned about the effect on the home owners than the builders,at this point. Mr. Gula felt it would be an additional burden on the traffic situation. Mr. Fagin asked Mr. Gula additional apartments or density zone. Mr. Gula changes. if he was unalterably opposed to any if he would be inclined toward a lesser said that he would be against any Mr. Gula told that Board that the City should try the courts to see where it stands. If the City does not go to court, it will never know if it could have won or lost. -4- Chairman Shaw told the audience that the Board was now in a position of zoning defensively, and while he recognized that they ideally would like the area to stay as it is, he felt it necessary to obtain an expression from them of the next best step as an alternative. Mr. Masson told the Board that an RU-3 zone in this case would be an admission that the land was not at its best use as RU-l and could be used against the city to gain an even higher use zone. Mr. yakely asked if S.W. 62 Avenue would be widened south of U.S. #1. Mr. Masson told him that it would be widened to S.W. 80 Street with an ultimate possibility of a bridge across Snapper Creek. Mr. Gula asked the Board if the Study's recommendation to rezone the south side of S.W. 78 Street to RU-4A seemed logical since the people backing up to this area would most likely object to it. Chairman Shaw said that he held the minority opinion that a street could be a buffer, so he felt they could stop at S.W. 78 Street. Mr. Gula said if the three lots on the north side of S.W. 78 Street are rezoned for apartments, he did not see how those on the south side could do anything but go along with the Metro Study. As much as he hates to, he said he would have to go along with the tide. Ralph James, 6210 S.W. 79 Street, asked the Board exactly who has the final jurisdiction in rezoning. Chairman Shaw explained that the Board is an advisory body only and that the final decision in the City was the council. He added however that people were often going outside the City to appeal rulings and the City had lost more than it liked to which is the reason for being so careful with rezoning applications. Mr. James asked why it was not possible for the Council to say that apartments will stop at a certain point and Mr. Shaw reiterated his point about the court decisions. Mr. James felt that the property owner had very little left to say, that they were being pushed to a point where they had to sell. Mr. Shaw agreed that there are "soft" areas in the Ci.ty, and the purpose of the hearings was to establish acceptable boun- daries and firm up these areas so there will be fewer problems of this nature. -5- Mr. Paden asked if there were any property owners from S.W. 78 Street present, besides Mr. Gu1a. Mrs. McGuirt said that she believed they were not present because they had had to fight the issue so many times before. Mrs. McGuirt asked the Board if it would not be spot zoning to rezone this section of land for apartments. Mrs. Schechter said she thought it was spot zoning and she had fought it when Cambridge House was put in. She said the answer she received from Mrs. Jean Willis when she later objected to the second apartment house was that it was not spot zoning because there was already an apartment in the area on the theory that two wrongs make a right. Mr. Paden agreed with an earlier point by Mr. Shaw that the Board had to zone defensively. He pointed out that the courts' rulings were based on the Anglo-Saxon theory of law that a man can do anything he wants with his property as long as he does not materially injure his neighbors. Mrs. Schechter suggested to use the three lots on the north side 'of S.W. 78 Street for a park as a buffer zone. Mr. Fagin suggested that town houses would increase the density of the area slightly but would preserve the residential appearance of the neighborhood. He said the town houses are like duplexes but with less land area between the buildings. Mr. Keys pointed out that there is no town house ordinance in the Code. Mr. Yake1y objected that town houses were the beginning of slums. Mr. Fagin told Mr. yake1y that this was 1968 and the town house concept was something altogether different from row houses. Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mrs. Schechter felt the Board should make a recommendation on the basis of what had been expressed by the residents at the hearing. Mr. Keys said that of the property owners on S.W. 78 Street, only one was interested enough to corne to the hearing that night. He therefore moved to advise the city Council that the Board is not in agreement with the recommendations made in the Study and to recommend that the present zoning should not be changed in any manner. -6- Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion. Mr. Fagin asked Mr. Keys if he would not consider rezoning the three lots on the north side of S.W. 78 Street in his motion. Mr. Keys said he would not because he is not in favor of rezoning on one side of a street and not the other because he is of the opinion that a street is not a buffer and there should be something compatible on either side of a street. Mr. Masson reminded the Board that the residents of the south side of S.w. 78 street submitted a petition at the time of the original application requesting that their lots also be rezoned. Mr. Shaw thought that their intention was contingent on the lots on the north side of the street being rezoned. The question was called the the vote polled. Polled: Yes -4 (Yakely, Schechter, Bowman, Keys) No -3 (paden, Fagin, Shaw) **~*** Mr. Fagin said he felt that there were other aspects of the report that should be considered, such as cutting South Highway Road through to U.S. #1 and rezoning the variance that permits cambridge House in the study area. Mr. Fagin then moved to recommend that the c'ty Council consider improving South Highway Road to its full dedication in accordance with the recommendation made by the Metro Planning Department. Mr. Keys seconded the motion. Mrs. Schechter asked if there would be any affect on the property owners. Mr. Masson said that an improvement district would probably be set up in that area and the abutting property owners would be assessed the cost of the street improvements. He indicated that opening this street would alleviate the need fbr the tenants in the apartments at the dead-end of S.W. 79 Street to use the residential neighborhood to the east as access to the apartments and reduce the complaints regarding the traffic. The questlon was called the the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Schechter, Paden, Keys, Fagin, Bowman) No -0 Abstention -1 (Mr. Shaw on the basis that he was confused about the routing of the street) -7- Mr. Keys was against Mr. Fagin's suggestion to rezone the area of the cambridge House because nothing would be gained since the apartment would continue to exist whether it was on a variance or due to rezoning. He felt a variance would not be as damaging in court as rezoning the area would be. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P.M. -8- MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD October 29, 1968 Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman Myron Keys, Vice Chairman Sidney Fagin James Bowman carl paden Joyce Schechter Harold yakely Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ****** Hearings: #68-42 R. J. Shelley, Applicant; Robert Caldwell, Agent 1. Request: Change of zone from RU-4 to C-l Property: E. 131' of N. 150' of W~ of SE~ of SE~ of SW~ of Section 25-54-40 Location: Approximately 6230 S.W. 70 Street 2. Request: Change of zone from RU-l to C-l Property: W. 180' of N.245' of E~ of SE~ of SE~ of SW~ of Section 25-54-40 Location: Approximately 7009 S.W. 62 Court Zoning Director's Recommendation: It is recommended that the applicant's request for change for the E. 131' of N. 150' of of W~ of SE~ of SE~ of SW~ of section 25-54-40 be denied. It is recommended that the applicant's request for change for the W.180' of N.245' of E~ of SE~ of SE~ of SW~ of Section 25-54-40 be approved. This portion of the request complies with the Planning Board's zoning plan. Chairman Shaw referred to a letter from D. A. Brooks saying he was in favor of the application. The letter did not carry an address. Robert Caldwell appeared on behalf of R. J. Shelley. The plans for the area are to build a retail-office complex. This provides for professional offices on the upper floors with a small retail operation on the ground floor. He said they thought it would be easiest to apply for the C-l zone for both parcels due to the fact that he was not sure of the procedure for obtaining permission to use the RU-4 parcel for parking. Mr. Masson informed him that a special use exception could be granted by the city council to permit parking on the RU-4 parcel. Mrs. Schechter asked about the type of retail store that might be in the building. Mr. Caldwell said it would primarily be a service operation for the tenants of the offices, something conducive to a professional office building such as a coffee shop or apothecary. Mr. Fagin inquired as to the heighth of the building. Mr. Caldwell said they planned on four or five stories. Mes. Schechter asked if this area was included in the Lee Park study area to any degree. Mr. Keys remarked that it was removed from the area by several blocks. He referred to another study that was made approximately two years ago in which there was a recommendation that the RU-l parcel under consideration at present be rezoned to C-l. Mr. Masson said that the study referred to by Mr. Keys was done by the Metro Planning Department in March, 1967. He said it included the area along Sunset Drive from S.w. 62 Avenue west to the City limits and added that the study recommmended this parcel for C-l zoning. Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Masson if he felt this type of retail operation would be appropriate in this area at this time. Mr. Masson was of the opinion that a merchandiser would not do very well in the area and that this operation would have to be almost strictly a service-type operation catering to the occupants of the building. Mr. Fagin was concerned about the ownership of the property. Mr. Caldwell explained to the Board that he is the authorized agent for Mr. Shelley and Mr. Shelley has power-of-attorney for the other owners who are relatives of his. Mr. Masson said he -2- had no official notification of this in the file and requested that Mr. Caldwell submit such notification before the application comes before the Ci.ty Council. Mr. M. J. Temby, 6240 S.W. 69 street, is in favor of the rezoning since he feels it is only a matter of time before the entire area is rezoned. He cited the convalescent home and the new post office that are soon to be built in the area as signs of the change. John McGinnis, 6285 S.W. 70 street, felt that the trend toward commercial zoning in the neighborhood was undesirable. is a residential street and business has no place on it. people in the neighborhood have been there many years. His street Many In answer to a quest Lon by Mr. Yakely, Mr. caldwell stated that the building would face S.W. 62 Avenue with entrances on that street. Mr. McGinnis felt there would still be a parking and traffic problem, regardless of where the building faced. He added that this is a general situation where ever there are crowds and some undesirable people make it worse by their actions. Mrs. W. A. Shepard, 6940 S.W. 62 Court, said that the RU-4 pro- perty was not dedicated and there was actually only half a street on S.W. 70 street at that point. She asked the Board what is planned for the two blocks to the north of the parcels under consideration so that the property owners would know how to plan. Mr. Shaw said that the Board could not predict into the future. Mrs. Schechter told the Board that Mr. Yakely had told her that the parcels under consideration were to have been buffers. This was determined at the time the Sunset Club Apartments were approved. Mrs. Shepard did not object to Mr. Shelley's business offices, but did object to the Board not planning the entire area. Mr. Joost, 6941 SoW. 63 Avenue, had the same feelings as Mr. McGinnis regarding too much noise and traffic. He was against anything crowding the area further. The public portion of the hearing was closed. -3- Mr. Fagin pointed out that one portion of the land was already zoned RU-4 and that a developer could presently build apartments there which would add even greater congestion to the neighborhood. Mr. Fagin to recommend to the city Council that the request for change of zone from RU-4 to C-l be denied and the request for change of zone from RU-l to C-l be approved in accordance with the recom- mendation of the Zoning Director. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. Mr. Paden asked if there had been any dedications for street use and Mr. Masson informed him that there had not been a dedication on any of the property the Shelleys own. He added. that the Code requires a zoned right-of-way line and that the owner would be required to put in the sidewalks, curbs and gutters. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 (yakley, Paden, Keys, Fagin, Bowman, Shaw) No -1 (Schechter) Mr. Fagin requested the Zoning Director obtain the proper authori- zation from Mr. Shelley regarding his power-of-attorney for the other property owners involved. ****** #68-43 David Balogh, Applicant; George Barkins, Agent Request: Variance of off-street parking requirements to permit the construction of a building providing 3 parking spaces instead of 11 as required; and to permit egress and ingress to parking area through a private easement. property: W.40' of Lot 3, W. A. Larkins, less the N. 30' for right-of-way. PB 3/198 Location: Approx. 5734 Sunset Drive Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant's request for variance is on a self-imposed hardship. Denial recommended. Chairman Shaw referred to a letter of objection in the file from william C. Lewis, Attorney, representing the owners of property at 5801 through 5811 Sunset Drive. -4- Robert Rutledge, Attorney, 7321 S.W. 57 Court, raised a technical objection regarding the validity of this application appearing before this Board at this time. He pointed out that the application had previously been denied by the City Council on November 7, 1967, and that section 20-62 of the Code requires that a year elapse between the denial of an application and its refiling and this requirement had not been met. Therefore, the application was not properly before the Board. Following a brief discussion, the applicant agreed to refile the appli- cation at the appropriate time. ****** Executive Session: Mrs. Schechter commented that she thought it had been decided that the minutes of the Board's actions would not be forwarded to the city Council until they had been approved. She requested that Mr. Frank Kelly, the City Attorney, be requested to make a ruling on whether it is correct that the unapproved minutes of the Board's meetings go to the City Council. Mr. Yakely moved that the minutes be approved as individually read. Mr. Paden seconded the motion which carried. ****** Remarks: Mr. Keys said that the committee working on the final sections of the Lee Park area would be back to work soon. Mr. Masson reported that William Alvin had filed suit against the city requesting relief on his property at Sunset Drive and S.W. 67 Avenue. Mr. Fagin told the Board that he was informed that the Charter Review Board had rewritten their recommendation relative to the membership of the Planning Board and had left the membership at seven persons. Mr. Shaw requested that Mr. Masson contact Metro Traffic again on the striping in front of the Burger House on S.W. 62 Avenue. Mr. Masson said he had written to Robert Dunivan and was awaiting a reply. -5- Mr. Shaw reported that he had received a complaint about a trailer at 5834 S.W. 68 Street and asked that it be checked out. Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Masson if the tree at the end of the bicycle path near S.W. 68 Terrace could be cut. He referred her to the Parks Director as being the proper authority. Mrs. Schechter announced a debate on Consolidation being held by the South Miami Home Owners at Holsums at 8:30 P.M., October 30, 1968. The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 P.M. -6- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD November 12, 1968 Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman Myron Keys, Vice Chairman Joyce Schechter Carl Paden Harold yakely Sidney Fagin Absent: James Bowman Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ****** Hearings: #68-43 David Balogh, Applicant; George Barkins, Agent Request: Variance of off-street parking requirements to permit the construction of a building providing 3 parking spaces instead of 11 as required; and to permit ingress and egress to parking area through a private easement. Property: W. 40' of Lot 3, W. A. Larkins, less the N. 30' for right-Of-way. PB 3/198 Location: Approximately 5734 Sunset Drive Zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant's request for variance is on a self-imposed hardship. Denial recommended. Mr. Daniel Wick, attorney, 19 West Flagler, represented Mr. Balogh. He told the Board that the parking spaces to be provided would be situated to the rear of the lot. The proposed entrance would be from S.W. 73 Street through a l2-foot alleyway. There is suffi- cient room at the end of the drive for the automobiles to turn around, making it unnecessary to back out. Although the request is for a variance of off-street parking require- ments, Mr. Wick cited the Holsum parking lot across the street and a metered lot on S.W. 73 street and S.W. 57 Court, as well as parking along the street, as being sufficient. The building would be a one-story marble front building with the type of tenant that would be an asset to the commercial area. The currently vacant lot does not add much to the tax rolls of the city, it is not particularly attractive and could be a source of danger to shoppers as a breeding ground for crime where purse snatchers, etc., could hide behind the hedge. Mr. Wick said that the applicant has a recordable agreement respecting the easement and the right to come and go along the alley. Mr. Keys felt that the Board could not permit ingress and egress to property. Mr. Massonreplied that that off-street parking requirements state that off-street parking areas must have proper ingress and egress to that area and it was his opinion that the only way to get to an area with an automobile is through a public right-of-way. Mr. Keys asked if the situation would change if the applicant were not required to have any off-street parking at all. Mr. Masson said that in the legal respect, the applicant has no access to the rear of his building except through this private alley and the property owners at the entrance of the alley could take steps to prevent the applicant's use of the alley. Mr. Paden felt it important to make sure the agreement would con- tinue in perpetuity, regardless of any change in ownership. Mr. Masson felt the most effective way to accomplish this would be to dedicate the alley to the city. Mr. yakely asked Mr. Masson what the effect would be on trash collection if either party put up a fence. Mr. Masson said that if it became difficult to manuever the truck in the reduced size of the alley, the owners would be required to put their trash and garbage in a different location. Mr. Masson said that it would be a disadvantage to all parties to erect any type of fence to cut off the alley's entrance. Mr. yakely was not satisfied that there was a hardship justifying the request for a variance. Mr. Wick pointed out that it was a detriment to the owner, a loss of revenue to the City and the main difference in the application at this time is that an ease- ment agreement had been obtained. Mr. Fagin inquired about a clause prohibiting parking in the alley itself, since thls would block the alley for any other traffic. -2- Mr. Wick said there was no such provision. Mr. Shaw asked if there was any way to enforce a no parking restric- tion on the alleyway under this particular agreement. Mr. Masson said he believed if the alley were dedicated to the City it could be policed for no parking, but he was unfamiliar with the policing on a private basis. Mr. Shaw asked if the building could be cut down in any way and still be developed feasibly. Mr. Wick replied in the negative, adding that the only thing smaller would have to be a service store of some kind which would not be productive in the area. Mr. Ronald Singerman, 6821 S.W. 66 Avenue, felt that access to the alley was of mutual benefit to all and that no one would consider blocking off their portion of the alley. Mr. Balogh would be will- ing to dedicate his portion of the alley. This property deserves to be developed for the benefit of the City, the owner and the community and Mr. Balogh would not develop the property in a way that would compromise the commercial area. Mr. Shaw was concerned because at present the shop owners in the Crossroads Building are parking at their rear doors in the alley for convenience and they would have to change that habit. Mr. Singerman remarked that in the Gables the police would come ticket a car if called. Mr. Paden said that is true, but that the police can not automatically come in and enforce this on pri- vate property but must be called in each instance. He added that there was nothing in any agreement that would allow anyone to use the eastern ten feet belonging to Mr. Steiglitz for any reason. Mrs. Schechter thought Mr. Masson's suggestion of dedicating the alley to the city would be to everyone's advantage. Mr. yakely mentioned the possibility of a fire truck having to make it through the alley. Mr. Robert Rutledge, attorney, 7321 S.W. 57 Court, filed a letter of objection for himself and Alfred Boas of Lanes Menswear on the basis that there is insufficient parking already. Chairman Shaw also referred to a letter from William C. Lewis, representing the owners of 5801-5811 Sunset Drive, objecting to the application. -3- Mr. Rutledge told the Board that the application had been denied twice, in 1966 and again in 1967. At that time Mr. Balogh had not yet taken title to the property and he knew that it was only 40 feet because the previous property owner had sold the eastern por- tion in 1953. Despite the Council's denial of the application, he purchased the lot. Mr. Rutledge contended that Mr. Balogh could use the property in accordance with the city ordinances without asking for variances. He added that Mr. Balogh also owns the Judi Lesli building which provides no off-street parking. He cited examples of developers who had provided their off-street parking; First National Bank, Holsums, steve Hessen, V. Steiglitz. He said that Mr. Steiglitz leased the parking lot to the City so he could get protection from the city to ticket those cars that were from other buildings but stayed in his lot all day. He said that the parking and bus situations were recognized as the most critical problems to be faced in South Miami. Mr. Rutledge told the Board that the easement is no good unless all those who hold mortgages on or have an interest in the Cross- roads Building sign it also. Mr. Yakely asked if Mr. Steiglitz objected to the utilization of his portion of the driveway and if so, would he build a fence. Mr. Rutledge said he did object, but did not know anything definite of the fence. Mr. Keys said he doubted if 25% of the stores on Sunset Drive provided off-street parking. They were built without that require- ment because there were municipal lots for parking. He feels it is unfair to prevent a man from using his property on a street like Sunset Drive by requiring him to put in parking that had not previously been required in entirety. Mr. Paden brought up the point that no property owner on the four sides of that block had off-street parking. That included the Sunset Court Building which, although it did provide parking, had given it up by virtue of leasing it to the city. Mr. Barkin told the Board that Mr. Balogh purchased the land before the application was denied by the Council. Mr. Singerman said that in order to comply with the Zoning Code's parking requirements without using the alley, it would be necessary to bring a driveway across the sidewalk onto Sunset Drive. -4- Mr. Paden noted that the Holsum parking lot has driveways across the sidewalk. Mr. Shaw asked Mr. wick if he thought the alleyway might be dedi- cated to the City by the owners. Mr. Wick said his client would, but he could not speak for anyone else. He added that it was his opinion that the recordable easement would be binding on later owners. chairman shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Fagin made a motion to recommend that the city Council approve the application subject to the submission to the City of a legal restriction acceptable to the city from the property owners affected by the east half of the subject private easement permitting ingress and egress to the subject property and also agreeing to a mutual no parking covenant in the east half of the private easement. Mr. Keys was of the opinion that parking could not be restricted by a covenant. The motion died for lack of a second. Mrs Schechter felt some consideration ought to be given to the tenants of the Crossroads Building who might object to the appli- cation. Mr. Keys moved to recommend to the city council that the variance for the off-street parking requirements be granted and that the request for ingress and egress through a private easement be referred to the City Attorney to determine if the easement provided for this purpose is acceptable. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. Mr. Yakely said that a building in that lot would be quite an im- provement. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: yes -3 (Fagin, Keys, Paden) No -3 (Schechter, Yakely, Shaw) Absent -1 (Bowman) Mrs. Schechter requested that the record reflect that she realizes that the owner of the property has a hardship but that there is a safety hazard involved here that might call for are-evaluation -5- of the parking spaces so there would not be a traffic hazard. Mr. Yakely said that it was his considered opinion that Mr. Balogh acted hastily in purchasing the lot; therefore, the hardship is self-imposed and on that basis he made his vote. Mr. Shaw said he would like to see the application deferred until the Board could meet with the City Attorney, at the same time giving Mr. Wick an opportunity to explore the possibility of having the alley dedicated to the city. Mrs. Schechter asked that Metro Public Safety Department be contacted about the projected plans for angle parking at heavily traveled intersections such as this one. Mr. Masson reported that traffic engineers were in the process of eliminating the angle parking in front of the Crossroads Building until they discovered that the thirty feet on which the angle parking occurs has never been officially dedicated for right-of- way. Therefore, unless the property is condemned the angle parking will remain. Mr. Fagin did not see how the angle parking would effect the application at all. Because of the tie vote, Mr. Keys moved to recommend to the City council that the application be denied. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. Mrs. Schechter asked if the application could not go on to the City council with the tie vote and allow them to make the decision. Mr. Wick asked if it was not the function of the chairman to break a tie. Mr. Shaw said that the chairman votes on each application. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -3 (Keys, yakely, Shaw) No -3 (Fagin, Paden, Schechter) Absent -I (Bowman) Mrs. Schechter moved to send the application to the City Council with the current vote and no recommendation. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. -6- Mr. Keys said that the Board is frequently asked to make a decision so the council would have something to go on. He said that he switched from recommending to denying with the intention of getting the application to the Council, but someone else created another tie. Mrs. Schechter said the Council should be able to see the Board's dilemma in that there were some answers that the Board was not able to come up with. Mr. Fagin felt that the Council would be able to get a direct answer from the city Attorney at the time the application came before them since he would be present. Mr. yakely said he agreed with Mr. Keys that the council expected a recommendation from the Board, not a tie vote. Mr. Shaw also agreed that the Board should examine certain aspects of the application so that the Board could arrive at a decision. The specific information referred to is: 1) Mr. Wick exploring the possibility of deeding the alley to the CHy; 2) The future prospects for parking on Sunset Drive, i.e., would parking be removed altogether or limited in any way; 3) A brief meeting with the city Attorney to ascertain legality of some points that have been brought out. Mr. Keys made a motion to recommend that the city council defer the application pending further information from the Planning Board. Mr. yakely seconded the motion. Mrs. Schechter said that the Board is advisory in nature and that it has before submitted applications to the Council without a recommendation. She said there are several unanswered questions and since they are the body that will make decision she would like to see it go on to them for the decision. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -5 (Keys, Paden, Fagin, yakely, Shaw) No -1 (Schechter) Absent -1 (Bowman) Mrs. Schechter asked that the record reflect that she is in favor of the application going to Council on a tie basis since they are the decision making body. -7- · , Executive Session: Mr. Paden noted that the word "moved" should be inserted after Mr. Fagin's name in the second paragraph on page 4 in order for the sentence to be complete. Mr. Masson pointed out that the heading should read "Regular Meeting" rather than "Special Meeting." Mr. Fagin moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion which carried. Remarks: Mrs. Schechter suggested for consideration the possibility of a Master Plan for the city using the studies that Metro has done recently for the city. The Board's own findings would supplement and complete the Plan. She pointed out that this could appear on the referendum at the time the charter amendments are submitted for vote. It was her opinion that the residents would feel much safer with such a plan. Mr. Keys contended that the Board's findings would not be acceptable in a legal sense. Mrs. Schechter then suggested that the remaining areas then be submitted to Metro to comprise a Master plan. Mr. Keys asked if Mrs. Schechter intended to hire Metro to give the City a Master Plan. She felt it would not be one complete job turned over to Metro since they had already made studies of segments of the city. Mr. Paden commented that in view of the opinion rendered by the city Attorney he saw no objection to the procedure the Board has been following in regard to the minutes. Mr. Shaw reminded the Board of the Planning and Zoning Conference in Daytona, November 20 -23, 1968. Mr. Fagin referred to the city Attorney's suggestion that any properties now classified RU-4B should be reclassified Ru-4A by description. He asked the Zoning Director about the status of this action. Mr. Masson said a public hearing regarding these properties would be instituted as soon as possible. -8- · ( Mr. Shaw requested that Mr. Masson request the city Attorney to meet with the Board in the near future. Mr. Masson said that he would make the request. Mr. Masson reported that he had received a copy of a letter from the Metro Traffic Department contending that it is not illegal to make a left turn over the striping in front of the Burger House. Mr. Masson reminded the Board that there was a meeting on New Year's Eve. Mr. Shaw directed Mr. Masson to cancel the meeting of December 31, 1968. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. -9- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD November 26, 1968 Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. Present: J. Co Shaw, Chairman Myron Keys, Vice Chairman James Bowman Sidney Fagin Carl Paden Joyce Schechter Harold Yakely Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ***** The Board agreed to discuss the application by David Balogh, Hearing #68-43, which had been deferred from the November 12th meeting, before proceeding with Hearing #68-44. Mr. Masson reported that he had invited Mr. Kelly, the City Attorney, to attend the meeting and Mr. Kelly responded with a request that the questions be forwarded to him in written form. Mrs. Schechter asked that the Council be informed of the questions in the event they chose not to defer the hearing. Mr. Shaw asked if there is a legal means of controlling parking in the alley under the existing agreement and would there be a legal means of controlling parking in the alley under the proposed agree- ment as stated in the application. Mr. Fagin felt the City Attorney should be asked what sort of deed restriction or legal instrument would be necessary by the applicant to have a deed restriction whereby the applicant and other parties would dedicate property for continuous use. He wanted to know if the Board can request a "legal" restriction from the property owners affected by the east half of the subject private easement, permitting ingress and egress to the subject property and also agreeing to a mutual "no parking" covenant in the east half of the private easement,and, whether or not this would be acceptable to the City. Mrs. Schechter said that it is her understanding that the Sunset Drive traffic was going to be revamped and she would like to find out from the safety department how they would feel about the possibility of an alley coming out onto Sunset, which was one of the alternatives considered, and what affect, if any, another additional four car space would have on the already heavy traffic on Sunset. Mr. Paden raised the question as to whether this was an irrevocable easement, one that could be recorded and enforced and could not be cancelled by either party unilaterally. He said any cancellation should be made by both parties with the consent of the City. Mr. Shaw suggested that the abstract be researched to be sure that the agreement that is signed has been executed by those parties who have the authority to do so. Mr. Yakely wanted to know if the holders of mortgages on the Cross- roads Building must give consent before the alley could be turned over to the City. Hearing: #68-44 George Maurer, Applicant Request: Variance to permit the creation of two building sites (138.5g'x 217' and 138.33' x 95.66') from an existing lot. Property: Lot 6 less the w.217', Block I, La Hamaca, PB 51/25 Location: 5444 S.W. 63 Avenue Zoning Director's Recommendation: Recommend denial of application since it is evident that the 95.66' depth of one of the proposed sites would not comply with the other lots in La Hamaca that have been subdivided No appeared on behalf of the applicant or in favor of the application. Hughlan Long, 7550 Red Road, represented George Stone who lives across the street from the application. Mr. Long said that it was an elementary rule of law that there must be a legal hardship in order for a variance to be granted. The applicant in this case was well aware that the plat for this property designates only one single family residence on this piece of land. Mr. Long pointed out that the plat was recorded in 1950. He told the Board that the owner of the property adjacent to Miller Road divided the property into parcels by having it replatted. -2- Mr. Long suggested the Board apply to the county Planning Department and the county Attorney for some guidance in future similar cases because it was his contention that it is almost impossible to alter an original plat unless all property owners in subdivision consent to its being altered. He said it would be illegal to alter the plat by variance or any other means without the consent of all property owners and requested that the application be denied. Mrs. Ball, 5275 S.W. 63 Avenue, told the Board that while she lived in the County, she objected to the subdividing of the property because it would lower the value of the homes in the whole area. Mr. yakely asked Mrs. Ball about Lots 3 & 4 being subdivided some years before. She said it had deteriorated the neighborhood some- what because of the smaller lots. Dr. Schuh,5411 S.W. 63 Avenue, pointed out to the Board that the request was not that the parcel be divided in half, but would have instead a lot only 95 feet deep. with septic tanks and wells, the smaller the lots, the more danger there is of seepage from the septic tanks into the wells. Bernard Riggs, 5445 S.W. 63 Avenue, said that he had bought in this area because there was some privacy and the houses were of substan- tial construction and well kept. He said he had paid the price for all these things and he felt it would be impossible to put a structure on this size lot without changing the character of neigh- borhood. He cited a house on a subdivided lot down the street that was even larger than the proposed lot in this application, yet it has remained vacant the two years it has been built. Mr. Riggs further stated that he could not conceive of anyone running the seepage to the west into the adjacent property, so they would have to run it under 63 Avenue. He added that seepage often causes sinkage and this sinkage under the avenue would cause repair work for the City. Mr. Lucky, 5325 S.W. 63 Avenue, voiced his objection to the pro- posed variance for the same reasons mentioned by the previous objectors. Mrs. Schechter said that in her opinion any homes smaller than those already existing would be ruining a very good area. Mrs. Arthur Best, 5349 S.W. 63 Avenue, bought her property with the understanding that it could not be subdivided and there would only -3- be one residence per acre. In addition, she pointed out that the houses are all set back to the middle of the lot and if this lot were subdivided, the house would have to be too close to the street and would be inconsistent with the pattern of the neighborhood. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Yakely moved to recommend to the City Council that the application be denied. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. There was no discussion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -7 (Yakely, Schechter, Paden, Keys, Fagin, Bowman, Shaw) No -0 ****** Mr. yakely moved that as individually read. unanimously. ****** the minutes of the November 12th meeting be approved Mr. Paden seconded the motion which carried Mr. Keys submitted the final portion of his committee's Lee Park area study to the Board. Mr. Paden moved that the Board accept the report for study and discussion at the next meeting. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion which carried. ****** Remarks: Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Masson about the status of the Master Plan as recommended by the City Attorney. Mr. Masson reported that the city Manager has recommended that the city Council hire a professional consultants to give the city a comprehensive Master Plan. There will be a special joint meeting with the Planning Board next month to discuss this matter. Mrs. Schechter added that Mr. McConnell had informed her that the City and the County had jointly worked out an experimental loading and unloading zone at South Miami Elementary to increase safety. -4- Mr. Paden referred to the City Attorney's recent letter on minutes and the Board's Rules of Procedure. The question in his mind was whether or not the Board's rules meet the City Attorney's opinion regarding the requirements of the ordinance and the charter. He felt they did. Mr. Paden pointed out that the Rules provide that the minutes will be official when signed by the Chairman and the secretary, although that does not mean that they are letter-perfect, but are subject to amendment at the subsequent meeting. He said that thoughsome did not agree, he felt they are the official minutes of the meeting. Mrs. Schechter is one of those who feels that the minutes are not in final form as the charter indicates they should be,until they are approved. She asked that the City Attorney rule on whether or not they are in their final form when they are submitted and are unapproved. Mr. Paden said it would be a horrible waste of time to delay the minutes several weeks and completely out of line with what the Board was trying to accomplish. Mr. Fagin felt that the Board should find out from the City Attorney what the Board had to do to achieve a final set of minutes. Mr. Masson said that the ordinance says record shall be kept of action and all action is taken by motion, so the motions are the basic matter of the meetings. Chairman Shaw appointed Mrs. Schechter and Mr. Paden to speak with the City Attorney to establish proper procedure for writing minutes. Mr. Masson asked the Chairman's permission to schedule five hearings for the next meeting. Chairman Shaw announced a meeting of the South Florida Chapter of the Planning and Zoning Association at the Biscayne Cafeteria. Councilman Ed Holly,who was in the audience,told the Board that their duties went beyond those of granting variances. Their duties are planning toward an ultimate goal that would do all the occupants of the City a lot of good. He mentions this because the night before there was a meeting that represented a lot of planning in his mind; represented a goal that every member of the Planning Board would be interested in, yet he saw only one member there. Mr. Holly referred to a meeting scheduled on December 10, following -5- the regular Planning Board meeting to discuss the Master Plan. He reported that he recommended to the City Manager, that in addition to those persons who might normally be invited, members of the various home owners associations and businessman's associations also be invited. The reason for this is that any long range planning should take the needs and requirements of all the groups that live and work in the City of South Miami into consideration. Both the residents and businessmen are vital segments of the community, and he hopes the Board will join him in his thinking. The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 P.M. -6- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD December 10, 1968 Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman Myron Keys, Vice Chairman Joyce Schechter Harold yakely James Bowman Sidney Fagin carl Paden Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ****** Hearings: #68-45 S. M. Professional Center, Inc., Applicant W. W. Woodson, Owner Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l to RU-5A with variance to permit the construction of a building with no front setback instead of 25' as required and rear setback of 10' instead of 25' as required. Property: Lots 37, 38, William Hobbs Subdivision, PB 4/111 and the E.60' of the S.lOO' of N.135' of E~, NW~, NE~, NW~ section 36-54-40 less R/W Location: Approximately 6280 Sunset Drive zoning Director's Recommendation: The applicant's proposal for change of zoning in this area will have a definite impact on the neighborhood to the west. until the city has a comprehensive planning and zoning study of this area by professional planners, it is recommended that no changes in zoning be granted. william Cox, Architect, 4621 Ponce de Leon, represented the South Miami Professional Center and submitted site plans of the building proposed. He explained that the variance was requested so they would not have to build a professional type building, but one more in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood. Clifford Clark, 7211 S.W. 62 Avenue, who is Mr. Cox's partner in the South Miami Professional Center, said it is their intention to build their office on this site. Mr. Paden asked Mr. Cox why he had requested a variance on the setback. Mr. Cox replied that he wanted toretain the foliage and this would not be possible if the setbacks had to be adhered to. Mr. Paden felt that a zone should not be requested unless the applicant could comply to its requirements. Mr. Cox said they did not ask for a more liberal zone because they did not intend to use it for anything of a commercial nature and wanted to convey this intention to the Board by requesting the more restrictive zone. He added they could not use the property without the variances. Mary Jones read a letter from Mr. Robinson who owns the adjoining pro- perty and who could not be present due to illness. He objected to the rezoning saying this is allowing one man to pursue his interests at the expense on another's interests. He added that the planners seemed primarily ineterested in pure, if not always valid, economics and the Board should consider if the rezoning will add to "livability" in South Miami. Frank Van Merlin, broker and owner of the property w the west of the Woodson property on Sunset, pointed out that Mr. Woodson long-time resident, not a speculator. He is over eighty and needs to dispose of the property. George Mihawk, owner of the third lot on the corner, is in favor of the application. He bought his property to build a beauty shop and has been unable to use it. Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Keys referred to the Zoning Director's recommendation that a study be made. He asked if a time limit would be set for the professional planners to submit a study. A delay would deny the applicant the use of the property and approval would be contrary to the Director's rec- commendation. Mr. Masson remarked that the study could take anywhere from several months to a year and a half, but that the impending Lee Park Area urban renewal program will absorb much of the undeveloped commercial use land available, thus increasing the pressure for commercial use in the area hing considered in this application and also in other peri- meter areffiaround existing commercial and apartment zones. He added that the reason for having the change of zone and variance in the same application is that the applicant could be required to develop the site in accordance with the plot plan submitted and, therefore, give the Board and the council an opportunity to place restrictions and have the property developed according to their wishes. -2- Mr. Keys moved that the Board recommend that the City council deny the application. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: ****** Yes -7 (Fagin,Bowman,Shaw,paden,Keys,Schechter,Yakely) ~ -0 #68-46 Mrs. Charles Ivanik, applicant; Ricardo C. Puente, agent. Request: Variance to permit the creation of two building sites from three platted lots with a frontage of 73.18' instead of 75' as required and lot area of 8,123 sq. ft. instead of 10,000 sq. ft. as required. property: Lots 25, 26, 27, Block 7, Westerfield Manor, section 1 & 2, PB 18/47 Location: Approximately 4254 Red Road Zoning Director's Recommendation: There is no legal hardship for the request. Denial recommended. Carl Blohm, architect and representative of the applicant. He told the Board that the home would be suitably placed on the lot and would not be a hardship on the surrounding homes, but would enhance the neighborhood. Mr. yakely asked how much land would be dedicated to Red Road if it should be widened. Mr. Masson replied that there would be another 20' dedication on each side. Mr. yakely said that inasmuch as there is an unresolved question as to the width of Red Road, he would move that the Board recommend that the city Council deny the application. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Fagin moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the application. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mrs. Schechter asked if there was any way to defer the application until the Board had a ruling on whether or not Red Road would be widened in the near future. -3- Mr. Shaw felt the application should be weighed on its presentation and own merits with the information at hand. Mr. Keys said that there is little question that Red Road will eventually be widened, but he did not feel the widening would affect these houses anymore than many others on the street, and perhaps less than some. Mr. Fagin commented that there was recently an application for apart- ments on this land. Mr. Paden said that there had been three applications on this pro- perty and this one is the first that is in keeping with the surrounding area. These lots compare favorably with adjacent South Miami lots and those on the Coral Gables side of Red Road. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 (Fagin, Bowman, Keys, Paden, Shaw, Schechter) No -1 (yakely) ****** #68-47 D. C. Fitzpatrick; Simon Camacho, agent Request: Change of zone classification as follows: l. From RU-l to RU-4A -The N.157' of 5.421' of w;' of NE\ of NW\ of NW\ of Sec. 24-54-40 2. From RU-l to RU-1B -The 5.421' of W;, of NE~ of NW~ of NW~ of Sec. 24-54-40, less the N.157' thereof. Location: Approximately 4117 S.W. 65 Avenue Zoning Director's Recommendation: The request for RU-5A will provide a buffer from the C-l use to the north of the proposed plat. Approval recommended. The RU-IB will allow the proposed lots to fit the zoning classification, otherwise lot variances would be required for each lot. Approval recommended. Chairman Shaw referred to a letter of objection from Metropolitan Dade County regardingthe application. -4- Larry Pels represented the applicant. He pointed out that this was one block from a very commercial section along Bird Road. He said this would be a buffer zone between the commercial zone and one other apartment house already in existence and the residential section. Mr. Masson suggested that the proposed plat, which was on the agenda for the Executive Session, be discussed in conjunction with the application. In answer to a question by Mr. Keys, Mr. Pels told the Board there are eighteen apartments planned for the area. The Board reviewed and discussed the proposed plat among themselves. Mrs. Charles Koleski, 6515 S.W. 41 Street, told the Board that 65 Avenue is a very narrow street and eighteen apartments would mean twenty-seven more cars. There is no sewage, only septic tanks. She objected because everything south of Bird Road is residential. Mrs. Alice Darlow, 6501 S.W. 42 Street, said the entire area is single-family reside~tial and there would be a terrific traffic problem with the additional cars. Kathy Johnson, 6511 S.W. 42 street, objected to being boxed in with apartments, since there were already so many on S.W. 67 Avenue. Mrs. Burgin, 6481 S.W. 42 Terrace, said that the developers were just trying to squeeze an extra lot in. She felt that the neighbors simply wanted something compatible with the rest of the lots. She added that the traffic was especially dangerous to the many aged persons in the area. Mr. Pels pointed out that the apartments were right off Bird Road and most traffic would use that street rather than the residential streets. He said improvements would be made, such as new streets cut and 65 Avenue's widening. Mr. yakely did not feel that 50 foot lots would be an improvement to the area. J. E. Brown, 6491 S.W. 42 Terrace, objected for the same reasons stated by the previous objectors. Mrs. Schechter felt that the buffer area was an overcrowded one and noted the objection registered by Metro. On this basis, she -5- moved to recommend to the city Council that the application be denied. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mr. Fagin felt weight should be given to Metro's objection since the area is surrounded by County land. In addition, he cited that the other lots in the neighborhood are larger. The question was called and the vote polled. polled: yes -7 (Yakely, Schechter, Paden, Keys,Fagin, Bowman, Shaw) No -0 ****** #68-48 Emory L. Hudson; Miquel Zogby, agent Request: Change of zone classification from EU-l to RU-1A Property: The S.190' of W.125' of S.340.2' of SE~ of SE~ of Section 26-54-40, less the S.50' thereof, and that portion in the SW corner of the remainder for R/W purposes. Location: Approximately 6891 Sunset Drive zoning Director's Recommendation: It is recommended that this lot and all other nonconforming lots to the north be rezoned to the proper zoning, RU-1A. Approval recommended. The applicant did not appear before the Board. Mr. Keys referred to the zoning Director's recommendation that the other nonconforming lots also be rezoned. It was his opinion that this was an excellent idea, but that a public hearing would be necessary and it might be best to defer this application until the entire area could be rezoned Mrs. Schechter remarked that heretofore each application had been considered on its own merits and this application should be handled in the same manner. Mrs. Schechter moved to recommend that the city Council approve the application. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. Mr. yakely said he hated to see the area divided up as had been done -6- in La Hamaca Subdivision. Mr. Keys said the RU-1A is the proper zoning for the area, but it would also be spot zoning, which is not the policy of the Board. He felt the application should be deferred until a proper study could be made and the entire area rezoned, if that is what the residents want. Mrs. Schechter withdrew her motion and moved that the hearing be deferred until the first meeting in January to permit advertisement of a public hearing on the rezoning of the other nonconforming lots to the north to the proper zoning. Mr. yakely seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -7 (Yakely, Schechter, Paden, Keys, Fagin, Bowman, Shaw) No -0 ****** Approval of Minutes: Mr. Paden moved that the minutes be approved as individually read. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ****** Executive Session: 1. Recommendation on request for a Special Use Permit for a Salvation Army store at 6720 S.W. 62 Avenue by Thad Mark. Zoning Director's Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to yearly renewal by the City Council. Mr. Keys did not feel that this operation would be a detriment to the area. Mrs. Schechter felt that a public hearing should be held in case there were other interested parties besides the Salvation Army. Mr. Fagin moved that the Board recommend to theCity Council that the request be approved in accordance with the Zoning Director's recommen- dation. Mr. Keys seconded the motion which passed unanimously. -7- 2. Hearing #68-43, David Balogh, applicant. Mr. Yakely moved that since the requested information from the city Attorney had not been received the application should be deferred until the next regular meeting. Mr. Keys seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 3. proposed plat, Nueva segobia. Zoning Director's Recommendation: Recommend approval of plat sub- ject to increasing the size of the lots to be used for single family residential use to a minimum frontage of 60 feet to match the lots in the existing subdivisions in the unincorporated area. The Board agreed that since the proposed plat was rejected by being the basis of Hearing #68-47, it did not need to rule on it again. 4. Proposed plat, Gaymont Subdivision. plat was pre- viously submitted on April 12, 1966, by A. D. Henry and approved by Board for subdivision at Miller Road and S.W. 64 Avenue. The Board unanimously reaffirmed the earlier approval. ******* Remarks: Mrs. Schechter reported that she had spoken to the City Attorney regarding the approval of the minutes was told that before the minutes are in their final form, they should come back to the Planning Board to be aprroved. She said she told him that she thought there was something in the Charter stating the minutes had to be passed on immediately but he said they are in their final form after they have been corrected. Mrs. Schechter said it has been her contention all along that the minutes should come back to the Board before going to council. She added that the city Attorney felt there was no reason for the zoning to be handled as rapidly as it is. Mr. Keys felt that since the Board was recommending in function the minutes did not have a great deal of bearing on the final hearing. He pointed out that any corrections had been insigni- ficant in recent times. Mr. paden agreed that there had not been an error in fact in -8- some years. He said corrections in comments did not affect the validity of the Board's actions. Mr. yakely felt that since some of the Council members are interested in the remarks, and this is wher e most of the correc- tions are necessary, there should not be a chance of misconcep- t ion. Mrs. Schechter felt that since the City Attorney had been asked for a ruling, the Board should concur with it. Mr. Fagin felt that the facts should be presented to the Council for their decision on what they would like to have done. Mrs. Schechter moved that the minutes be approved in final form before being sent onto the City Council. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mr. Bramson, councilman, who was in the audience, said that he felt this would be affecting a policy change which is better left up to the council. Chairman Shaw said he thought it was important that the zoning be carried on in an orderly but prompt fashion. It is this small-town concept that makes South Miami a pleasant place to live and work. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -2 (Schechter, Bowman) No -5 (Fagin, Paden, Keys, Yakely, Shaw) Mr. Fagin moved that a member of the Minutes Committee report the Board's feelings on the minutes, along with the City Attorney's opinion, to the City council and obtain from the City Council an expression of their wishes concerning the procedure to be followed. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Keys took exception with Councilman Holly's comment at the last meeting that there was a meeting that the Board should have been at. Mr. Keys said he had had no notice of such a meeting. councilman Holly, who was in the audience, said he was not aware that the Board had not received notices. He told the Board that '-9- the meeting was with residents of the Lee Park area and represen- tatives of HUD who explained the new urban renewal program. Areas were covered in the meeting that he thought were within the realm of interest for the Planning Board. councilman Bramson informed the Board that there would be a meeting with a planning consultant company regarding an overall comprehensive plan for theCity. He said the plan was needed to further qualify for federal grants, and for purposes of being in a better defensive position in zoning appeals cases. He felt the Board should be kept abreast of these meetings. Mr. Shaw regretted that the Board had not been officially informed of these transactions. Mr. Masson said that the Board would be informed of the meetings. He added he had dictated one memorandum announcing a meeting, but that the meeting had to be cancelled before the memo ever went out. Mr. Shaw said that he thought this was in the planning stages for some time without the Board having been consulted. Mr. Masson said the City's first meeting with the planning consultant was only a preliminary discussion held on November 20th, The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. -10- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD January 14, 1969 Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. Present:J. C. Shaw, chairman Carl paden Absent: Sidney Fagin James Bowman Joyce Schechter Harold Yakely Myron Keys Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ****** Hearings: #69-1 Airguide Sales & Service, Inc.; William H. Spitzer Request: Variance to permit the construction of a building in a commercial zone without providing curbs and gutters as required. Property: Lots 32 & 33, Block 7, Townsite of Larkins, PB 2/105 Location: 5871 S.W. 68 Street Zoning Director's Recommendation: In order to continue the orderly development of the commercial areas, it is imperative that the City adopt a strict policy on installation of sidewalks, curbs and gutters. William Spitzer told the Board that he felt it would be an unnecessary expense to install curbs and gutters due to the prospect of urban renewal taking over the property within the next two years. He pointed out that no one else on that block that has curbs and gut- ters. He added that if the land was not allocated, he would gladly install curbs and gutters at that time. Mrs. Schechter said that to her knowledge there had been no move to adopt this particular area for urban renewal and that even if 1-14-69 occurred, curbs and gutters would still be required. Mr. Spitzer said he intended to install sidewalks. In answer to a question by Mrs. Schechter, Mr.Masson stated that it is the city's policy to pave the street up to the curbs and gutters. He also informed Mr. Fagin that the sidewalk on the east side of the street was installed by the City before curbs and gutters were required. Mr. Fagin asked if any kind of deed restriction could be placed on the property requiring the builder to install curbs and gutters at a later date. Mr. Masson said that there was a provision in Code that if work under any given permit is not completed in accor- dance with the plans submitted the developer must give a surety bond equal to 110% of the cost of the work to be done. Mr. Bowman felt that if there is a regulation on the books, the builder should abide by it. Mr. Grossman, a partner in the J-R company which is building the new Post Office, said that curbs and gutters were not originally in their plans but they conformed to the Code. He felt every- one should be granted a variance or else the Code should be enforced uniformly. Mr. Paden said that if a temporary release pending a determination of the urban renewal area was all that was being sought, then a variance was not the proper way to grant it because a variance would be permanent. He felt a special exception with an accom- panying performance bond would be more appropriate. Mrs. Schechter felt this would be setting a dangerous precedent to permit the variance and therefore moved to deny the application. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Polled: Yes 6 (yakely, Schechter, Paden, Bowman, Fagin, Shaw) ~ -0 ****** #69-2 First National Bank of South Miami; Omar Stang Request: To permit the erection of a vertical projecting sign with the following variances: 1. Area of 182 sq. ft., 40 sq. ft. permitted. -2-1-14-69 2. Project 6'10" from building wall; 4' permitted. 3. vertical height of 31'10"; 18' maximum permitted. 4. Extend 23'10" above the top of parapet wall of building; 5' maximum permitted. 5. Sign permitted to extend over public property. Property: Lots 6-8 and 64-66, W. A. Larkins, PB 3/198 Location: 5750 Sunset Drive Zoning Director's Recommendation: Granting the applicant's request could cause a rash of variances on signs on Sunset Drive. There is no legal hardship for the changes requested. Denial recommended. Robert Rutledge, 7321 S.W. 57 Court, represented the First National Bank of South Miami. He presented petitions carrying the names of approximately 150 merchants in the area indicating approval of the Bank's desire to erect a time and temperature sign. He also explained diagrams of the sign to the Board. He reminded the Board of the clock that existed at the corner of the bank before it was remodeled. He further pointed out that if the building were at the three stories it is geared for, which it will be in the forseeable future, the sign would not extend over the parapet wall. Mr. Rutledge told the Board that the sign would be certified by a registered engineer as to the safety and stability of the sign. It is the Bank's contention that the time and temperature feature of the sign will make it a community service. He explained to the Board that the Bank had to upgrade its service and advertising due to increased competition. Mr. Yakely said that this could not be considered a legal hardship in his opinion. Mrs. Schechter pointed out that Sec. 3-61. Article 7, provides special circumstances under which variances can be given. She felt this would be a real service to South Miami and that due to the cost of the sign, there would not be any others in the imme- diate area. Mr. Fagin was concerned about the marked difference between the dimensions requested and those required. Omar stang of the First National Bank told the Board that one main purpose of the sign was to provide an arrow to draw the traffic onto Sunset Drive to the South Miami shopping area. He felt the 1-14-69 -3- sign would be in keeping with the good taste of the building and a credit to the city. Mr. Yakely pointed out that the Bank is the only concern which had dedicated property to the City in that immediate area and that is why they now had to seek permission to have the sign extend over public right-of-way. Mr. Shaw requested a projected timetable on the addition of a second and third stories to the building. Mr. Stang told the Board the Bank did not need it for its own operation but would lease the space to a reputable tenant and would proceed as soon as they had located such a tenant, but he could give no specific estimate. Mr. Masson told Mr. Shaw that the sign would probably meet all requirements except area when the building was enlarged. If there was only one story added, the height might also require a variance. Mr. Shaw asked Mr. stang if the sign could be scaled down and he replied that the size was needed to reach its objective. Mr. paden asked if it would not be possible for other operations in the area to ask for sign variances on the basis of community service if they put a clock on their signs also. Mr. Rutledge pointed out that the cost would be prohibitive for most businesses. Mr. stang added the monthly maintenance would be more than most tenants pay rent. Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mrs. Schechter moved to recommend to thecity Council that the appli- cation be approved. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mr. Fagin told the Board he would have to vote against the sign because it was so contrary tothe terms of the Code. He felt it was incumbent on the Council to make this decision. Mr. Shaw said he could not find a hardship on the Bank itself, but he would vote for the sign on the basis of the hardship to the community due to a typical deteriorating downtown area. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -5 (Schechter, Yakely, Paden, Shaw, Bowman) No -1 (Fagin) Mrs. Schechter requested the record reflect that her vote was based onfue sign's community service aspect. -4-1-14-69 #68-43 David Balogh; deferred hearing. Chairman Shaw read several new letters in the file which were in favor of the land being developed. He explained that the hearing had been deferred pending information from the city Attorney which had not been received. However, the Council had referred the hearing back to the Planning Board. Mrs. Schechter felt that since the Board could not arrive at a definite recommendation and there was no further information at this time that the applicant was being subjected to a merry-go-round by having the application sent back to the Board after Council had already voted on it. Mr. Paden said that there had been an implication that the Board had not arrived at a decision because it was delving into an area that it should not have been concerned with in connection with the appli- cation. Mr. Masson informed the Board that the motion passed by Council had been a directive to Mr. Kelly to prepare an ordinance approving the application. He added that according to the Rules of Procedure set up by the Board, that a lack of a recommendation constitutes approval. Ronald Singerman, 6821 S.W. 66 Avenue, said it was his opinion that the Council felt that the alley had no connection with the application. Mrs. Schechter said she could not vote again any differently because no additional information had been presented for consideration. Mr. Fagin moved that the Board recommend that the Council approve the application. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mr. Fagin commented that the addition of the building on this lot would be an asset to the community. Polled: Yes -4 (Yakely, Paden, Bowman, Fagin) No -0 Abstain -2 (Shaw, schechter) Mrs. Schechter's abstention was based on the fact that she had voted before and had no new information to alter her vote. Mr. Shaw abstained because he does not understand the application thoroughly because the questions he has asked officially have not been answered. -5-1-14-69 Approval of Minutes Mr. paden pointed out a clerical mistake on page 4. The application was for a change to RU-4A,but in the Recommendation it is referred to as a change to RU-5A. Mrs. Schechter cited omission of a point she would like included regarding the Ivanik property. In answer to a question by Mrs. Schechter, Mr. Masson stated that in his estimation the Ivanik lots, if granted the variance, would be approximately the size of the lots at Miller and Red Roads where some new smaller homes had been erected. Mr. Paden moved that the minutes be approved as corrected. Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Executive Session Jim Duncan and Sam Shannon of the Metro Planning Department appeared before the Board to give some background information on a Master plan for the city. Mr. Duncan explained that his office is the administrating agency for 701 Grants from the federal government which provide cities a two-thirds grant for urban planning assistance. South Miami was suggested as a potential applicant for such funds. The next funding will be March 1, 1969, so it would be very desirable for the Board and the Council to make a decision on entering into a comprehensive planning program before the middle of February so the proper application could be made to Atlanta. He added it might be a year before more money is allocated to the program. Mr. Duncan told the Board there is a rule-of-thumb limitation on the cost of the program which provides about $8,000 base cost and $1.50 per capita population. Mr. Shaw asked if this formula provided a realistic figure for the grant. Mr. Duncan said that it depended on the community. Mrs. Schechter asked if the fact that money had been alloted by HUD for redevelopment of Lee Park would inhibit the city's eligi- bility for this program in any way. Mr. Duncan said it would not. Mr. Duncan presented some of the methods used in making a compre- hensive plan, using the plan recently under way in North Bay Village as an example. These items were an atitude survey, base map and a study of the external and internal effects on the economy of the commercial areas, land use, population and housing, community facilities, zoning review. -6-1-14-69 Mr. Duncan said that the city had an advantage of previous work done in planning and regardless of who eventually did the City's comprehensive plan, they would have available a great deal of information that would prevent duplication of work and thus reduce the cost of the total project. All information is directed to the coordinating organization which may be the Planning Board, citizens Advisory committee or whomever the Council might delegate, and they would establish the objectives and goals of what the City is to become. Mrs. Schechter commented that she had had conversations with the city Attorney during which he expressed the need for a Master Plan for theCity so the city would not be in such a vulnerable position regarding zoning. Mr. Shaw expressed the feeling that a local organization would understand the problems of the community better than one from out of town. Mr. Duncan read the standard resolution that would have to be passed by the City Council which stated that the city would like to participate in the program and would allocate funds to pay for one-third of the planning costs. Mrs. Schechter moved to recommend that the City Council take imme- diate action toward the necessary steps in order to qualify for a 701 Federal Planning Grant. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Bowman commented that he would like to see the Citizens Advisory Committee work with this program. Mr. Masson added that one of the aspects of the Workable Program that the city is deficient in is comprehensi~planning. Mrs. Schechter felt that the Council should meet with Mr. Duncan informally and obtain the background that the Planning Board had received. Remarks Mr. Masson commented that some of the problem that has arisen regarding the minutes is attributable to the conflict between sections 11 and 14 of the Rules of Procedure and that the conflict should be resolved by the Board. -7- 1-14-69 Mrs. Schechter said it was her understanding that Mr. Goldberg, Acting city Manager, was going to initiate the policy of the minutes coming back to the Board for approval before going to the Council. Mr. Masson said that Mr. Goldberg had drafted several memos to this effect, but that each one contained a conflict, so he referred it to Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly subsequently ruled that the conflict in the rules should be corrected. Mrs. Schechter added that the Code makes no provision for a Zoning Director. She felt that reading the Zoning Director's recommendation before the applicant makes his presentation was like throwing cold water in the applicant's face. Mr. Paden said that the format had been originally set up similarly to the Metro Zoning Appeals Board and the Recommendation was to come immediately before the rebuttal, after both cases had been presented. He said this item was changed by the majority of the Board. Mr. Fagin commented that he would like to have the benefit of the Zoning Director's recommendation in considering the case. He felt there might be some technical point that the Board, as laymen in zoning, might not be cognizant of and which might be very important. Therefore, it was his opinion that the Board should be aware of the recommendation before each case is presented, even if it is not read aloud until the rebuttal. Mrs. Schechter thought it should be clarified as to whether or not the Zoning Director's position was created by ordinance. Mr. Masson said he thought it was just a matter of titles used and that it would be more correct theoretically Director of Public Service Department and since that department handled zoning, it came to be referred to as Zoning Director. Mr. Shaw said he could not make a decision until he had reviewed Sections 11 and 14 of the Rules of Procedure as well as Mr. Kelly's memo regardning the conlfict between the two. Mrs. Schechter moved that until the procedural conflict is clarified that advertising of zoning be held in abeyance. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Shaw felt that until official notification had been received that the Board's procedure was not correct, that the procedure be main- tained as it had been . -8-1-14-69 Mr. paden moved to eliminate the conflict by amending the Rules and Regulations as follows: Amend Rule 11 by deleting from the second line the words, "upon signing of the same by the Chairman and the Secretary" and substituting therefore the words "upon approval by the Board." Mr. yakely seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -5 (Yakely, Schechter, Paden, Bowman, Fagin) No -0 Abstain -1 (Shaw) Mr. Shaw abstained because he had not had time to review the Rules and Mr. Kelly's memo. Mrs. Schechter moved that the Zoning Director's Recommendation, in the future, be submitted to the Board in writing prior to the hearings being presented, but the recommendations will not be read until immediately before the rebuttal for each hearing. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. Mr. Shaw felt the recommendation should be presented verbally at the beginning of the hearings so the applicant would know how to direct his argument. He said he would like to know the City's position in the case according to law. Mr. Masson pointed out that the Zoning Director's Recommendation was a part of the hearing which is unique to Metro and South Miami. He added that he would not like to be placed in the position of arguing with the applicant. Mr. Paden told the Board the recommendation is more or less an explanation of what has already been decided by the Zoning Depart- ment and why, otherwise the applicant would have no need to request a variance. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -5 (Fagin, Bowman, Paden, yakely Schechter) No -1 (Shaw) Mrs. Schechter remarked that she would like to know about the meetings that the Planning Board might be interested in. Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Masson if the Council had set up any more meetings -9-1-14-69 with professional planners. Mr. Massaon told him that there were no meetings scheduled with planners at the moment but there was a possible meeting with HUD representatives and he would notify the Board when it was confirmed. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M. -10-1-14-69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD January 28, 1969 Approved February 11, 1969 Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman Carl Paden Myron Keys, Vice chairman Sidney Fagin James Bowman Joyce Schechter Harold Yakely Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ****** Hearings: #69-3 Howard Learner; H. V. Green, agent. Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l to RU-4 property: Lots 8, 9, American Townsites, PB 3/134; Lots 4, 5, Block 2, Larkin Pines, PB 24/20 Location: Approximately 7510 S.W. 59 Place Hank Green, 5825 Sunset Drive, told the Board that the building would bo either two or three stories depending on the size of the units. Originally Lots 4 and 5 were purchased and an attempt was made to purchase the six lots to the east on S.W. 59 Place, but the only two that were optioned are Lots 8 and 9. Mr. Green stated that he realized the necessity of good management to keep down any problems with apartments. He added that four previous zoning studies indicated that this area would be compatible for apartment development but the studies were not implemented. Since there is a great deal of apartment and commercial zoning in the area, it would not constitute spot zoning. Mr. Green felt that if the builder set the tone with the apartments, the people living in them would follow that tone. He said that no one had expressed an objection to the plans. 1-28-69 Mr. Keys asked Mr. Green if he had considered exchanging Lots 8 and 9 for Lots 10 and 11. Mr. Green pointed out that the lots would not be lined up effectively. Harold Margolin, 7530 S.W. 59 Place, owns the lots on either side of Lots 8 and 9. He is opposed to the fact that the plans can be changed as well as the problems that are present with apartment development such as trash, noise ~nd irresponsible parking. He was aware that Mr. Green would maintain the live hedge proposed for the south side of the building but added it would be a different story if the building was sold. Mr. Margolin said he was not trying to deny the zoning since it is admittedly an apartment area. He felt there was not sufficient parking. There is also a drainage problem which has increased as the area has been developed. Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Masson if the drainage is a City problem and if it has been aggravated by the apartments. Mr. Masson said the problem was aggravated by the building up of all parts of the City and a storm drain system would soon be necessary in the commercial district. He added that the city's Code has the strictest parking provisions in Dade County. Mrs. Margolin told the Board she and her husband are not objecting to Mr. Green's building per se but to the things which come with apartment development. Mrs. Schechter asked how long the City was from a Master Zoning Plan. Mr. Masson advised it would be a year to 18 months. Mr. Bowman said he thought the two problems, the streets and the drainage, were the City's problem. Mrs. Screchter inquired how many residences were left on the Margolin's block and was informed there were three. Zoning Director's Recommendation: Applicant's proposal is in accor- dance with Planning Board's plan. Approval recommended. Mr. Green sympathized with Mr. Margolin and emphasized that good management was necessary to control the noise problem. He agreed that South Miami had the strictest parking ordinance in the county but added that whatever the regulations someone will manage to get -2-1-28-69 around it. Mr. Green stated that he had gone over the plans with Mr. Margolin and nothing had been said about a wall rather than the hedge, but he would be glad to put in the wall that Mr. Margolin wanted. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mrs. Schechter asked the Margolins if they had changed their objection in any way. Mrs. Margolin reiterated that they were not objecting to Mr. Green's building but were simply seeking enforce- ment of the city's various regulations so they would have some protection from problems. Mr. Fagin moved to recommend to the City council that the application for change of zone classification be approved. Mr. Keys seconded the motion. Mr. Fagin made the observation that several zoning studies have been made of the area and they all recommended this particular area for apartments so he did not feel it was spot zoning. Polled: Yes -7 (Yakely, Schechter , Paden , Keys ,Bowman,Fagin, Shaw) ~ -0 Mrs. Schechter asked the minutes to show that she does have reser- vations because the study of the overall area was done by a lay planning group and the City would have a master plan in approximately a year's time. She voted yes because there was no objection to the apartment. Approval of Minutes Mrs. Schechter moved that the minutes be approved with the incom- plete sentence at the bottom of page three stricken from the page. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Executive Session 1. Rezoning of area in vicinity of Sunset Drive and S.W. 69 Avenue. Mr. Masson suggested the Board review a previous study it had done of the area extend the area into the Barbara Estates unless they wanted to wait for the comprehensive plan. Mrs. Schechter moved that the area from S.Wo 68 Terrace south to -3-1-28-69 sunset Drive and from S.W. 67 Avenue west to the city limits be studied for a possible change from EU-l to RU-IA. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mr. Yakely felt the Board would not be retarding the growth of the area by waiting for the master plan since there are only approximately five lots left to be developed. Mr. Keys pointed out that the whole subdivision is zoned EU-IA and that every house built is in .violation to the EU-lA zone classification. Rezoning would not change the number of lots or the homes but would simply bring them into compliance with one another. Polled: Yes -6 (Schechter, Keys, Paden, Bowman, Fagin, Shaw) NO -1 (yakely) Mr. Keys commented that the same lot that has come in for rezoning was before the Board a few years ago and if the Council had done what the Board recommended at that time the current applicant could have built on the lot with no problem. Remarks: Mrs. Schechter commented that there is a question in her mind regarding the zoning techniques used in the HUD Neighborhood Development Program and since the plan was never brought before the Board she requested a HUD representative attend the meeting. She explained that the Board had often been told that it is best to zone with residential facing residential and commercial facing commercial yet the plan submitted by HUD presented residential blocks facing commercial blocks. She asked an opinion on the idea of rezoning the block between S.W. 68 Street and S.W. 69 Street along the rear property line from S.W. 62 Avenue to S.W. 58 place. victor Doresky of HUD told the Board that garden-type apartments are planned for the residential sections. Mr. Doresky said there was no doubt that it was possible to adjust the zoning down the middle of the block between S.W. 68 and 69 Streets. He said one problem that would arise was that there would be a need for relocation resources this year and the plan reflected the area that would be most able to provide the area needed. He added that another public hearing before the County Commission would be necessary to effect the change. Mrs. Schechter said that in a conversation with Mr. Underwood of -4-1-28-69 HUD he had expressed the fear of giving the residents of the area the feeling that HUD was reneging on its original plan. Mr. Masson asked what effect the thinking of the project Area committee. which is to be formed in connection with the redevelopment program, would have on the acquisition of the property for relocation. Mr. Doresky said the Committee did not have to be formed before HUD went into its initial application but during the early stages. Mr. Shaw asked Mrs. Schechter the reason for zoning down the rear property line. Mrs. Schechter said this was more in keeping with the rezoning the Board has done in the past so that commercial would not be facing residential and the number of apartments would not be decreased. She added that Mr. Bowman had reported that some residents of the area were afraid this would lessen the space for relocation. Mr. Doresky pointed out that using a whole block allowed the developers more area in which to work and exercise more leeway in planning ability. Mr. Doresky added that an entire block provided room for internal courts and internal parking. Mr. Margolin asked how the people in the area felt about the plan. Mr. Masson said the feelings that had been expressed by the people in the area were mostly in agreement with the plan. Mrs. Schechter said the commercial area did not know the property was to be rezoned and that is why she asked a representative to discuss the plan with the Board. She added that it was her impression that the zoning for the area was accomplished. Mr. Doresky said that a concept is developed but that each year's activities are planned only a year in advance and they are often refined before being implemented. Mrs. Schechter mentioned that James Duncan of Metro Planning said that in a comprehensive plan the HUD area would be related with the community as a whole. She asked what would happen if after the program was initiated it was found that it did not relate to the entire community. Mr. Doresky admitted that mistakes could occur but that through the year by year planning, the rest of the area could benefit from them. He added that by filing an application for urban renewal assistance the city admitted that something had to be done in the Lee Park area. Mr.Keys asked what would have been done if the commercial area -5-1-28-69 had been fully developed. He felt that was the only reason the deveopment area had come below S.W. 68 street, because that was the most available land. In answer to a question from Mr. Keys, Mr. Doresky told the Board that the boundaries for the Lee Park area were on the application that had been submitted by the City with the exception of a few minor changes. Mr. Masson remarked that he thought that the first concept plan did not go south of S.W. 68 street but was extended later at the request of the city Council. Mr. Doresky and Mrs. Schechter were in agreement with his statement. Mr. Bowman felt that availability of space for additional housing was an excellent reason for bringing the program south of S.W. 68 st. Mr. Doresky explained that the housing would be built by private developers. If there had not been the available commercial land, the apartments would have to go higher to provide sufficient units. In addition, each year's activity plans must be resubmitted to the City Council for approval. Mrs. Schechter asked what affect on the first year's program a court case might have. Mr. Doresky said it would slow it down but they would acquire as much as they could and build around the tied up land. Mr. yakely suggested that splitting the block down the middle would interfere with the garden-type apartment concept. Mr. Doresky said it might, but a good architect would be able to work it out. Dorothy Thomas,who was in the audience, suggested that swimming pools be included in the plans for the apartments. Mr. Doresky explained that since the housing was being put out to bid, it was primarily up to the developer to include features such as a swimming pool in the plans. All plans would be subject to design competition and the best would be picked. He felt a public swimming pool would be the ideal. He said that a swimming pool could not be a required part of the specifications because this would tend to raise the rent structure. Mrs. Margolin expressed the idea that apartments on the condominium basis would give the occupants a pride of ownership. -6- 1-28-69 Mr. Doresky said that the housing is subsidized by the government and that first priority would be given to those being relocated. Mrs. Schechter asked that Mr. Doresky's remarks be forwarded to the council, but Mr. Masson pointed out that the minutes WDuld not be approved until the next Board meeting. Mr. Paden noted that in the Rules and Regulations of Procedure, Section 12, the word "and" in the last line should be "any". He moved that the correction be made and that all references to the "Zoning Director" be changed to "Director of Public Works" which is the correct title. Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Keys pointed out that a Vice Chairman had not been reelected in April as called for in the Rules. Mr. Fagin moved that Mr. Keys serve as Vice Chairman. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion which carried. Mr. Shaw reminded the Board of the Public Hearing to be held February 3, 1969, at 7:30 P.M. regarding the Lee Park area. Mr. Fagin questioned the disposition of recent committee reports. Chairman Shaw directed Mr. Masson to place the report on the area of Sunset Drive and S.W. 62 place on the agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Masson <Eked the approval of minutes scheduled meeting. held. Board if they would hold a special meeting for in the event there were no hearings for a It was the concensus that a meeting would be The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 P.M. -7-1-28-69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD February 11, 1969 Approved February 25, 1969 Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman Carl Paden Absent: James Bowman Joyce Schechter Harold yakely Myron Keys, Vice Chairman Sidney Fagin Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ***** Approval of Minutes: Mrs. Schechter called the Board's attention to the lack of a second of a motion she made which appears on pages 3 and 4 regarding a study of the area fromS.W. 68 Terrace south to Sunset Drive and from S.W. 67 Avenue west to the City limits. Chairman Shaw then called for a second to the motion to correct the minutes. Mr. Paden felt that this would not be proper and that the Board should go back to find out who seconded the motion. Mr. Bowman said the motion died for lack of a second. Mrs. Schechter moved that her motion regarding the study be stricken from the recordo A check of the shorthand minutes indicated that Mr. Bowman seconded Mrs. Schechter's motion. Mr. Bowman asked if that was the correct motion under discussion as he did not recall seconding the motion. Mrs. Schechter added that if anyone seconded the motion, it might have been Mr. Fagin. Mr. Masson suggested that the Board listen to the tape of the meeting. 2-11-69 Mrs. Schechter said that she had submitted this to the City Clerk to get a ruling on the conflict interest aspect since she did live in the vicinity of the study. She said that the ruling that the City Clerk gave her verbally was that it was proper for her to make the motion for the study. However, it would not be proper for her to take part i" dny deliberations, committee work or voting. Mrs. Schechter suggested the possibility of having someone else make the motion. Mr. Keys indicated it was his understanding that the conflict of interest ordinance referred to a monetary benefit. He added that Mrs. Schechter's motion was only to make a study and was not a motion to make any decision on that study nor to carry out any rezoning. Chairman Shaw agreed that Mr. Keys' feeling was valid in that a moticn may be made to study an area, but that when a decision is made, the party should step down from voting. Mr. Bowman felt that it would be a conflict of interest since Mrs. Schechter lived in that area and offerred the motion for the study. He thought if any ruling was made in favor of Mrs. Schechter, that there would be talk about it. Mrs. Schechter said she could see the ramifications in such a matter but that she would abide by whatever the Chair ruled as well as the interpretation she had received that day. Mr. Paden moved that the minutes be corrected by inserting a second by Mr. Bowman to the motion by Mrs. Schechter regarding the study which appears on pages 3 and 4 of the minutes. The motion died for lack of a second. Mrs. Schechter said she would like to rescind her original motion on the study and allow someone else to make it since there was some uncer- tainty on who made the second. Mr. Keys made a motion that the area bounded by S.Wo 67 Avenue on the east, S.W. 69 Avenue on the west, Sunset Drive on the south, and the area on both sides of S.W. 68 Terrace continuing up to the south side of S.W. 68 Street. The new southern boundary more accurately defines the area due to a curved street and a street that does not go through. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Keys said he was resigning from all future study groups if the Board had no more interest in the attempt the committee has made that a second would not be made. -2-2-11-69 Chairman Shaw asked Mr. Masson to play the tape of the January 28th meeting at the next meeting. Mr. Masson said that he could do so immediately. Mr. Keys stated that it was his feeling that anyone who lives in an area and is most familiar with its problems is the proper person to bring forth anything that is beneficial to the City. It is not a matter of conflict of interest but rather a matter of civic interest and it behooves every citizen to cooperate for the good of the community. He felt that there was a lack of this type of cooperation on the Board. Mr. Masson played the tape of the January 28th meeting and ascertained that Mr. Bowman had seconded Mrs. Schechter's motion. Mr. Bowman then moved that his second of Mrs. Schechter's motion be inserted in the minutes of the January 28th meeting. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion which carried. There were no other corrections. Mr. Paden moved that the minutes be approved as corrected. Mrs. Schechter and Mr. Bowman seconded the motion which carried. Executive Session: 1. Rezoning of area in vicinity of Sunset Drive and S.W. 69 Avenue. Mr. Keys withdrew his earlier resignation as chairman of the Special Study Committee adding that future studies would have to stand on their own merits. Mr. Keys presented the Board with zoning maps, explaining that the problem with the acre estate area was that most of the homes did not comply with the zoning regulations. Therefore, in the event of a catastrophe or the owner simply wanting to build an addition to his home, he would first have to obtain a variance since he would not comply with the requirements of the zone. Mr. Keys pointed out that by correcting the zoning the Board could eliminate as many as fifty variances before the Board and the Council. He added that only one of the homes in Barbara Estates complies with the fifty foot front setback requirement. He told the Board the committee had made no official recommendations, but that it was his personal opinion that the lOgical thing would be not to change from the EU-IA zone but to change the ordinance, i.e., if the front setback was modified to 35 feet rather than 50 feet, all -3-2-11-69 of the homes would conform. Chairman Shaw felt there were no acre lots in South Miami that would be detrimentally affected by the reduction of the front setback from 50 feet to 35 feet. Mr. Paden moved that the study presented by Mr. Keys be accepted for study and placed on the agenda of the next meeting. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion which carried. ***** Mr. James Duncan of Metro Planning appeared before the Board and told them of the kick-off meeting held February lOth by HUD for all of those involved in the planning and engineering of the projects. it was an open session and South Miami was well represented. He pointed out with the use of a zoning map that the planning presented in the Neighborhood Development Program is essentially in keeping with the land use concept presented to the City in the Lee Park Study done by Metro Planning. He added that the main difference was that the Lee Park Study recommended high density apartments in the southern most section, but at the time of the City indicated they felt this area was preferable for commercial use. Mr. Duncan reported that the better areas of the Lee Park Area have been designated as rehabilitation areas by Little HUD. This means that the area would remain essentially the same and homeowners would be eligible for very low-interest home improvement loans. The first thing HUD must look for is the least occupied land which will consequently take the least relocating and moving of homes so they will have housing into which they can move those who are in the very densely populated sections. The one basic principle fol- lowed is that everyone is retained in the area, no one is forced to leave because of a housing shortage. Mr. Duncan commented that at the kick-off meeting Mrs. Schechter had told him she had heard that property acquisitions were under way in the Lee Park area. He said he had checked this out and according to Litte HUD, there has been no property acquisition made in the area; in fact, the appraisal stage has not even been initiated. Mrs. Schechter said she mentioned this because a resident of the area had told her that her mother had already received an appraisal state- ment. -4-2-11-69 Mr. Duncan interjected that he had not come in contact with three more competent men in the area of urban renewal administrators as the three in Dade county, Messrs. watson, Underwood and Doresky. This is evi- denced by the fact that Dade county was the first program to be approved for th" :::0ulltry and this took only two months. He told the Board the the Neighborhood Development Program was initiated so activities could be accelerated and results achieved because the old urban renewal process was so involved and lengthy. Lloyd Veldman, City Manager, who was in the audience, asked Mr. Duncan comment on a question regarding increasing costs that had come up at the kick-off meeting. Mr. Duncan admitted this is a problem with all federal programs, that as time passes it may take two million dollars to accomplish what could have been done for a million and a half as a result of spiralling costs. Mr. Veldman added that he had had experience with federal programs and as a rule the slightest change could take from three to six months being approved and that time could make a great difference on the cost estimates. Chairman Shaw remarked that he was concerned about the lack of communication, another instance being that he knew nothing of the kick-off meeting. Mr. Duncan said it was intended to be for those directly involved in the actual program, the engineering and planning consultants. However, managers and mayors of municipalities involved were notified, so many other interested parties also attended. Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Masson if it had been his impression that South Miami would have comprehensive planning before the program was started. Mr. Masson replied that at most of the meetings that he attended before the development of the overall concept plan, the representatives of Little HUD emphasized that the first year's acti- vities would be mostly planning and the project Area Committee would be involved in this planning. Chairman Shaw made the following remarks: "Let me go back half a second. You haven't satisfied my concern. These people are talking about some- thing that I am vitally interested in and what concerns me is that they have more information than I have. I am vitally concerned about this communication because thE Board didn't have the first communica- tion to anyone of the original discussions of Little HUD in South Miami. The final meeting we were notified of. And now here we're at this plateau, we're now on what I call a second plateau and if I'm sitting here as a chairman of the Planning Board somebody has to tell -5-2-11-69 me that this is happening because I happen to be interested. And I would further want each member of the Board notified and I would certainly think it would be entirely proper for interested organi- zations such as the chamh~r of Commerce. But we are on plateau two and S()Tn.s::'ody knows something that I don't and I want to have the opportunity to know this. The opportunity; if I don't have time to attend or if I don't show interest. Now I don't know what the channel is but I would like to go on record to have the folks downtown notify South Miami through whatever the official channels are and I would like to know so that I can in turn, if that is the protocol, notify our people. But this discussion that we have here tonight is good, but I'd love to understand it. Now I'm not really scolding, I just voicing my concern." Mrs. Schechter commented that she attended the meeting as the Liason for Community Relations. Mr. Shaw replied, "I think it is very admirable and yet as chairman of that Board you received word. As chairman of this Board that has been totally ignored on HUD to date, we continue not to have the word. And whatever the sequence is, tell us so. " Mr. Duncan was in agreement with the need for better communications. He added that everyone had to take a positive attitude since many problem arise which actually should be resolved on the staff level because it is difficult to deal with hundreds of people who are emotionally involved in a situation. Councilman Ed Holly, addressed the Board from the audience, saying that he had to defend HUD to a degree because they were not completely to blame. He said in correspondence at the beginning of the program that a city official was advised to include various segments of the community. He said this official thought it might not be wise at the "preliminary hearings". Mr. Veldman gave a synopsis of the activities of the kick-off meeting to bring the Board up to date. He said one question raised was about the problem of money shortages mentioned earlier. Commissioner Alex Gordon asked HUD officials at the kick-off meeting if they would make the changes necessary to take care shortages of money caused by delays in the program. He was told that HUD could not be called on for changes. Mr. Duncan reported that the second session of the kick-off meeting dealt with the technical aspects for the program. Little HUD has requested the Metro Planning Department to do the detail planning in the Lee Park area due to their previous familiarity with the area. -6-2-11-69 Mr. yakely asked Mr. Duncan what the actual amount allocated to South Miami for this year would be used for. Mr. Duncan said it was his understanding that the first year's activities would be sewers and land acquisition, but no actual building. The amount that Lee park wouln ~~~~Lve from next year's appropriation would depend a great deal on the detailed planning studies during the coming year as well as priorities in relation to the other nine areas under development. In answer to a question by Mr. Yakely, Councilman Holly explained that government money is actually distributed for construction but projects are then sold to private ownership at 100% mortgages, or cloase to that figure. This makes it privately-owned, taxable property. Mrs. Schechter raised a question about an area of Lee Park where, because of the zoning, there could conceivably be a 72-unit apartment facing the garden-type apartments. Mr. Duncan pointed out that the South Miami ordinance is structured on a cumulative basis by which anything of less intensity may be put in a commercial zone. The best way to correct this,according to Mr. Duncan, was to create a commercial zone that would not allow apartments. He admitted that the new Post Office could then possibly be in the middle of a residen- tial neighborhood. Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Duncan if the County Planning Department is selected as the planning consultant for South Miami, would they replan the area as it relates to the city or would they go by the HUD designation for this particular area. Mr. Duncan stated that the general concept has been endorsed by the City but that refinements to this plan would evolve in the course of the detailed planning work. Remarks: Mrs. Schechter requested copies of the Code of Ethics and an inter- pretation of what it would mean as far individual members of the Planning Board are concerned. Mr. Shaw felt that the Board should list some specific questions for an interpretation from the City Attorney rather than a general question. Mr. Masson distributed copies of the ordinance. Mr. Paden thought the Board should have time to digest the ordinance before any questions were formulated. -7-2-11-69 Chairman Shaw requested that his comments on the lack of communication be recorded verbatim. councilman Holly ~cported that the Council will deliberate on what he believes will be one of its most important subjects ever on February 18th. The Council will either reject completely its ori- ginal action on the HUD plan, accept its original action or to recommend modification. He thought it would be wise for members of the Board to attend and offer their feelings since the Council had had no expression from the Board on the subject. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 P. M. -8- 2-11-69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD February 25, 1969 APPROVED MARCH 11, 1969 Chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. Present: J. C. Shaw, Chairman Myron Keys, Vice Chairman Carl Paden Sidney Fagin James Bowman Joyce Schechter Harold Yakely Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ****** Hearings: #69-4 Henry Bendinger; Leonard Fels, Agent Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l to RU-5 Property: The N. 60' of W. 200' of S~ of SW~ of SW~ of SW~ of Section 24-54-40 less the W. 35' Location: NE corner of S.W. 67 Avenue and S.W. 56 Street ****** #69-5 Sarah L. Root; Leonard R. Fels, Agent. Request: Change of zone classification from RU-l to RU-5 property: Tract 1: The E. 132' of W. 396' of S~ of SW~ of SW~ of SW~ of Section 24-54-40, less the S. 50' Tract 2: The W. 264' of S~ of SW~ of SW~ of SW\ of Section 24-54-40, less W.35' and S.50', less w.185' of S.185' of S~ of SW~ of SW~ of Section 24-54-40, les~ the S.35' and W.35' for street purposes Location: NE corner of SoWo 67 Avenue and SoW. 56 Street 2-25-69 chairman Shaw announced that the two hearings would be discussed simultaneously. He added that there were petitions submitted which included 138 signatures in opposition to the request and six in favor. Burton Landy, attorney, represented the applicants. He pointed out that Mrs. Root has owned the land since 1945 for one tract and 1941 for the other. The Bendingers have owned their land over ten years. The land is located at the intersection of two major arterial streets in South Miami with two gas stations and an apartment house on the other corners. Mr. Landy explained that a section of the tract, 150 feet on Miller Drive and 135 feet on S.W. 67 Avenue, was already zoned RU-5, but if an apartment building were built on the corner, it would have to be very close to the intersection. Some years ago the City of Miami water Departmentobtained an easement for water lines over the land involved in the application but instead of squaring the lines with the streets, they cut across diagonally. Because of this easement, no permanent structure can be built over this portion of the property. Mr. Landy displayed an architects plan which would permit the construction of an apartment without using any of the easement property. It utilizes the property for open spaces and service areas. The closest the building would be to the intersection would be over 110 feet. The property could also support 84 apartments, but the plan being considered will have only 68 units. There will be more than the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Landy felt this was an appropriate solution for the use of the land. He stated that they had appeared before the South Miami Homeowners Association, but that the organization had not taken any stand on the application. He added that those people who would be most affected by the application, the immediate neighbors, were the ones who had signed petitions in favor of the application. The applicants have been paying taxes for years but have not been able to use their property. Mr. yakely asked if the property adjoined the nursery to the north. Mr. Landy said that it did. He also advised Mr. Yakely that the entrances and exits would be on SoWo 67 Avenue. Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Landy if he had received the endorsement of the South Miami Homeowners Association that he had requested and he said he had not. -2- 2-25-69 Mrs. Schechter asked if Mr. Landy were aware that relief had been given for a portion of the property through court action. Mr. Landy said he was aware of the case but that even with the RU-5 zoninq there was no relief because it still could not be built on because of the easement. Mr. Keys suggested that the easement was a self-imposed hardship. John Root, Jr., told the Board that at the time the easement. was granted, his father was ill and he was pressured into granting the easement. He had been told his property would be condemned otherwise. Mrs. Schechter said it was her belief that there was an annual compensation of $1,500 for the easement. Mr. Root replied that there is no annual compensation, but that his father had been given $1,000 of which $500 was used to clear the title. Mr. Fagin asked about provision for sewage disposal. Mr. Mendoza, the architect, said all Health Department requirements would be co~ied with. E. Schafer, 5405 S.W. 67 Avenue, said he understood the Root's problem and that Mr. Root had been pressured. Mr. Schafer his own attorney had advised him to settle with the water company as well. He felt this was the solution to a problem that could only get worse. John Converse, 6523 S.W. 56 Street, said he knew it would not do him any good and might do him harm, but he still felt this was the best use of the property. He said a real estate man had approached him with a paper to sign about putting up a shopping center on the corner of Miller Drive and S.W. 67 Avenue and they needed his property. Mr. Converse told him he thought the best use of the property was for apartments and if the other neighbors went along with it, he would too. The other neighbors did go along with it, so Mr. Converse agreed to it as well. Ao Do Henry, 6491 Miller Drive, has developed five acres immediately east of Mr. Converse's property for construction of thirteen homes in the $40,000 to $50,000 class. He feels it is time to stop the further encroachment down Miller Drive. Martin Dilloff, 6460 Miller Drive, said the property owners had been through this before when the apartments on the southeast corner were built and again when the Roots applied for rezoning. The Roots had been granted relief and the property owners were promised that rezoning would not come down any further. If this is granted, others also have the right to rezoning until Miller Drive will be a strip of apartment houses, destroying a beautiful section. 2-25-69 -3- Mrs. Jack Stanton, 6520 Miller Drive, said that although the parking would be down at the corner, the apartments would be right in front of her house. Each time there has been a application, the Roots have been there to help. She intends to keep her property as her home since it is not now and never has been potential business property and she objects strenuously to any apartments being con- structed on Miller Drive. Harry Zide, 6400 Miller Drive, and his neighbors have what they consider very nice homes. They moved there because it was a fine residential section, but if apartments come any further down Miller Drive the existing homes will be worth only half as much. Mrs. Janice Dien, 5390 S.W. 64 Court, told the Board there had been no change in the character of the neighborhood necessitating the change of zone. The rezoning of the portion of the property at the corner to RU-5 is spot zoning and it should not be made perpetual. She cited the Scott Bagby report's recommendation that the area be single family residential as well as the Dade county General Land Use Map's projection through 1985 that the area should be single family residential. In 1949 a legal instru- ment was filed granting the easement to the water Company for due consideration and she maintains the Roots were fully aware that the property could be used only for a surface use. Howard Foht, 6490 Miller Drive, bought his acre after checking the zoning and finding that it was zoned for single family residential use. Since then he has been before the Board once or twice a year to fight a zoning change. He feels if someone wants to make a profit, it is fine as long as it is not at the expense of other people. Herb Margolis, 6625 S.W. 58 Street, said he was here by the grace of his neighbors since many were not notified o He said he was told that letters were sent to those within 500 feet, but he is 525 feet away. Anyone who is interested should be at the intersection between 5P.Mo and 6 P.Mo and then imagine what a traffic situation the extra cars from the apartment would create. Bill Cookson, 5720 S.W. 64 Place, did not think apartment houses belonged in the neighborhood. He added that he is a safety engi- neer and the apartment house with its additional cars was a direct hazard to the children in the neighborhood. There were enough citizens of the City present who are against the apartment to justify the Board denying the application. Mrs. A. D. Henry suggested that a nice office building could be built on the portion of the land that is already zoned RU-5. -4-2-25-69 Irving Weiner, 5611 S.W. 64 Place, feels that Miller Drive is one of the loveliest areas in Dade county and is against any apart- ments being built there. Alexander Zeffer, ~650 s.w. 64 Place, reitereated that this would be the first step toward a string of apartment buildings. He referred to the Jaycee Attitude survey which indicated that there had been a shift among the Dade county residents into South Miami. One reason for this was that it was a residential community. The residents are basically professional people. Zoning Director's Recommendation: The Board should deny the applicant's request and recommend to the City council that the planning consultants give the Miller Drive area detailed study for possible solutions to preserve the residential character of the area. Mr. Landy told the Board that it is charged with the responsi- bility of making recommendations to the city Council as to appro- priate zoning for specific requests. It should not consider politics, emotional appeals, but should consider the facts of the specific proposal at hand. The property is located on two principle streets with commercial uses on all other corners. The plans for the apartment provided for more than the minimum requirements and did not develop the the land to the maximum number of units permitted. Mr. Dilloff pointed out that relief had already been given for the propertyon the corner and that the gas stations were in Dade County and out of the jurisdiction of South Miami. Sidney wirtshafter, 5795 S.W. 67 Avenue, said he too had not received notification and he felt that the distance should be enlarged for sending letters concerning a hearing. He sa.id there wa.s no problem about the property being used because it could be used. If politics came up it is because the City officials are supposed to represent the residents who elected them. Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mrs. Schechter, being well aware of the responsibility she is charged with on this Board, moved to recommend to the City Council that Hearing # 69-4 be denied and that the Zoning Director's recommendation to have the planning consultants give the Miller Drive area a detailed study be adopted. -5- 2-25-69 Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -7 (yakely, Keys, Schechter, Paden, Bowman, Fagin, Shaw) No -0 Mrs. Schechter moved that the Board recommend to the City Council that Hearing #69-5 be denied and that the Zoning Director's recommendation to have the planning consultants give the Miller Drive area a detailed study be adopted. Mr. Bowman and Mr. Yakely seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -7 (Keys, paden,Fagin,Schechter,Bowman,Yakely,Shaw) No -0 ****** Executive Session: (Approval of Minutes) Mr. yakely moved that the minutes of the February 11, 1969, meeting be approved. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion which carried. Remarks: Chairman Shaw referred to a memorandum from the City Manager regarding dog kennels in the City. He requested the Zoning Director to place this item on the agenda for the next meeting. He asked that a definition be obtained from the City Manager of a dog kennel so the Board would know what exactly he had in mind. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M. -6-2-25-69 "if you have something new to tell us --but otherwise Mr. Keys: I think you are right. Mr. Shaw: Well I think, these people were mad enough and un- happy enough where in not knowing how we were going to vote, they wanted to be heard, I guess, I don't know, but at any rate I pass this on for Mr. Keys: I don't take offense to it, because I think all were heard. Mr. Paden: That is what I was going to say, all were heard. One man got up to raise a point of order and he talked for 5 minutes, and he didn't say anything that had/g~~eady been said. Mr. Keys: I wouldn't worry about that. Mr. Bowman: I do recall asking about going down stairs, but I am positive that I did not say it loud enough for the other people to hear. Mr. Keys: Well Council should not, on our night, take our room on an important meeting like that and expect us to hold a public hearing somewhere else. Because, again, if we have so little consideration, then maybe we oughten to go up there at all. If they are having a meeting down there, this is our night, so we won't have the meeting at all. I think they should give us some consideration on it. comment Mr. Fagin: Mr. Shaw, I mentioned this/of Mr. Keys ~~~ to Mr. Bramson, because I happened to meet him in the hall, at the time the meeting was getting started upstairs and downstairs, and I said exactly that to him. Mr. Keys: Well it says right here that they want to see us down there, so they put their meeting on the same night as ours. Mr. Fagin: This is an unfortunate thing that happened, it should never ever happen again, because this was a rather important Council meeting and an important Planning Board meeting. Looking at the minutes of the City Council meeting, it says: Mayor Block announced that the Planning Board members had requested to be present at the Council meeting on the agenda items #3 thru 8. 9 3-11-69/mc The Planning Board's regular meeting is now in session in the Court Room of City Hall, therefore in order to accomodate the members of the Planning Board, items #3 through #8 would be taken up following the other items on the agenda. However, I am wondering who asked Mayor Block to rearrange this thing, I know it was not me, and should not this have been through the Chairman of the Board, rather than anyone else. Mrs. Schechter: I agree with you Mr. Fagin: Who did discuss this with Mr. Block to move this around or anything like that, because if some one did, then I think it is rather presumptive for anyone. It was a specific request. Mr. PadAn: There was a request but I think it was the other way around. Councilman Holly requested US to be here. Mrs. Schechter: Why don't you ask the Mayor. Mr. Fagin: This is an unfortuante lack of communication. Mrs. Schechter: I would like to at this point, since I have not been given a question to make a remark, to say, that I deeply resent Chairman Shaw's statement, that I said, if there was one more comment that I would walk out. Perhaps, this is what he thought, but I sat as did everyone till they were through. I admit that I thought the meeting downstairs took precedence and was on a very important sub ject. I resent the side remarks, one attributed to my collegue, Mr. Bowman, and one attributed to myself, and I would like that put into the record. Mr. Fagin: It is unfortunate that all these little side remarks are being quoted and so on. I think for purposes of discretion, I am not going to comment on them. I would say some of them were made in my opinion and some were not. Mr. Shaw: Well I felt badly about the meeting. Mr. Fagin: Well, I do not think we should even discuss that at this time, all sorts of things. Mr. Yakely: Was this objection after the meeting? They got what they wanted, didn't they. 10 3-11-69/mc Mrs. Schechter: I would also like to add, because this was done i~ the presence of one of the city officials, that I had been told by a resident in this area, that the group was very pleased in the manner that the Planning Board handled the hearing. They were very proud of the fact that the Planning Board was adhering to the request of the people in the area, to maintain a residential neighborhood. This statement was made to me in the presence of our City Clerk in City Hall. Mr. Yakely: Off the record, you wouldn't care to tell us who made the objection. Mr. Shaw: I don't know who those people are, I caught it 3 times down here, and thank God that our vote was positive, if this had been a negative vote, boy, we wouldhave really had it. Mr. Paden: I have a copy of an ordinance #2-69-634 adopted on the 21st day of January. I am wondering if I am in violation of it. Every member of the Planning Board, among other things, is supposed to file statement covering his real estate holdings, it doesn't say where, it must mean in South Miami. I don't think that the City Councilor anyone else would have any interest in what I might own out in California. Have the others already complied with this. Mr. Paden was informed that statements had been filed with the Clerk's office from Mrs. Schechter, Mr. Yakely, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Bowman. Mr. Keys asked that a statement to the effect that he owns only 7640 SW 60 Avenue be prepared for his signature. Mr. Paden asked for prepared statement for 5949 SW 79 Street; Mr. Fagin asked for one for 5811 SW 65 Avenue. question of Mrs. Schechter: Would like to raise/the Conflict of Interest ordinance as it pertains to us discussing and deliberating on certain areas which come up. I am of the opinion, that in this area which you discussed tonight, I may be wrong that you do have some interest in property in that area. Is this not so? Mr. Paden: Are you speaking to me or to Mr. Shaw. Mr. Shaw: I am adjacent to, but not within---- Mrs. Schechter: Adjacent to this area? 11 3-11-69/mc Mr. Fagin: You are talking about the Lee Park area, that South commercial area or something. Mrs. Schechter: I would further like to have our City Attorney clarifiy with us, how far we can go on these things. For instance, and I dodt mean necessarily as it concerns you, you are adjacent to it. I may be in an adjacent area where we may be discussing, if I discuss it, I could have a change from it. I think that we should get some ruling on it, where we can speak and where we cannot. Mr. Shaw: I think that the last time we discussed this, since it was that we needed to give him specific questions for him to answer. See otherwise he would be trying to think of all the possibilities that might happen, and I wonder if we shouldn't give him specific questions, this being one, if you are adjacent to. Mr. Paden: I asked for a delay on this when it first came up. so we would have time to read it and digest it, then we would be able to ask some pertinent questions and not just pick some- thing off the top of our heads. Mr. Shaw: For example, this C-I zone that we are talking about, or lets take another example; if we are doing an RU-I zone, we would have to completely disqualify everyone of US as homeowners. When these things are about to happen, we should ask him the specific questions. Mrs. Schechter: Well, especially where taxes, if there might be a reappraisal of taxes, it would affect all of us, and I think we need to have this clarified. Mr. Fagin, Well, on that area of Ludlam and Milk, the ordinance says within 300 ft. and I live just down the corner aboul; ~OO ft., cause I did not receive a notice, but should I have disqualified myself? I dodt know. Mr. Yakely: to put in an tainly would Tha t i.s a good que[;tion, apartment in the general be madder than--- after all, if SOlf,(,One wanted area where I live, I eer- Mr. Fagin: This is rather close, where do we get the divi.ding line, someone has to make a distinction. Mrs. Schechter: I think eventually we wi1lhave to have it clarified. 12 3-11-69/mc Mr. Keys: mentioned a ruling, Well, I think the only way you can do it, as has been before, if something specific comes up, then you get a blanket ruling, I don't know how you can do it. Mrs. Schechter: a block. Here are 3 of us who have been affected within Mr. Fagin: I think it has to be brought up at a specific time, I think Mr. Keys is right. Mr. Fagin: I know you are going to kill me, but I have 2 items, that I wrote out. Mr. Keys: Those big long ones. Mr. Fagin: This has been something that has bothered me for a long time, and I wrote it out. It is reference to a memorandum to City Council. Whereas, the Planning ano Zoning Board has an integral interest in any activity affecting property in South Miami, and Whereas, Little HUD is planning a program in the City of South Miami, and WHEREAS, there is being projected an overall planning study of the entire City of South Miami, and Whereas, there has been evidence of a lack of communications as to related activities affecting the interest of this Board; We of the Planning a:,d Zoning Board deem it auvisable that the City Counci~ give due consideration to setting up a special committee consisting of, but not specifically limited to, One member from the Community Development Board One member from the Planning and Zoning Board One member from the City Council The City Manager, and The Public Works Director, The purpose of this committee wouhl be to act as a nucleus throuCih which a representative· of each of the above offices can serve to 13 3-11-69/mc bring back to their respective office as members, information relating to meetings, organizational matters and other general information relating to any item affecting the development and/or planning of the City of South Miami. Decisions will not be rendered, nor is it to be a policy making committee, but rather a concentration of representative of the key groups which are directly interested in seeing that related information is properly channelled back to the offices or groups represented. This committee can also serve to be part of the community planning board recoremended by both Little HUD and Metro Planning Department. Mr. Shaw: Communication, in one word. Mr. Keys: What do you propose to do with it? Mr. Shaw: Reflect in the minutes to be passed onto Council? Mr. Fagin: Yes, for consideration as a recommendation. I think the idea is good, to avoid all this, like with 2 meetings on one night, to avoid all the things that might have happened with Little HUD. It would not have happened if one of each was here. Someone would have come up with the idea of notices. Mrs. Schechter: Do you want to make a motion to this, or do you want --- Mr. Fagin: I don't know --- Mr. Shaw: I like it, yours was a motion, whose got a second. Mr. Keys: I'll second. Mr. Shaw: Discussion, I like it, because it says communication. Mr. Keys: Who is to see that they read it? Mr. Shaw: Miss Callan, that will be in the minutes won't it, it will be a motion. Mr. Yakely: Does that include a member of the Community Develop- ment Board? I am an ex-officio member of that committee, and I suppose it is my job to keep you people informed of the activities 14 3-11-69/mc of that committee. Gentlemen, I will now officially report to you that the activities consisted of the calling of one meeting, which the chairman and I attended alone. No other members showed up. The second meeting no one showed up. Mr. Fagin: In view of the fact that no business has been done up to now, I can envision that with the Little Hud program and this Metro planning contract, what they so far, the people might appear before the Community Development Board where we should be apprised of this type of thing. Mr. Yakely: You can't even get them together to hold a meeting. Mr. Shaw: The groups that you thought of, and there are probably others, The concept is what we are voting on, rather than thos~ just particular ones, the other groups will be represented too. Mr. Fagin: Maybe I ought to add another comment, to the affect, not specifically limited to. Mr. Shaw: All in favor say "Aye". Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Fagin: I went to a meeting, oh a week or two ago, I went to the Lions Club, it was very interesting to me, as I had never been to a Lions Club meeting in South Miami. They dis- cussed a few things, and one thing that comes to mind, which I did not know when I mentioned it to Mr. Keys, because he and I were the only ones here, we came early. I admitted to my lack of knowledge of this Board. I just completely took for granted that we go on in perpetuity or whatever it is, but now I under- stand that some members go out and some members come in. I was just completely unaware of this or I was not knowledgeable to it. Also, that the chairmanship gets changed every year, I didn't know that, and also that the appointments have to be made and so on. And, due to the fact that the year is almost up, because I didn't realize as young as I am, that time moves fast and April 1 will be one year that I have been here. Mr. Shaw: And you have done a fine job. Mr. Fagin: I am quite pleas&( #1 to the way the Board has worked. I think it has been a wonderful exchange of ideas, because it is from ideas that we learn things about each other and places, and I feel that Mr. Shaw, in my opinion, has done a pretty good job. 15 3-11-69/mc And, if you are going to go out, I would like to make a recommendation to the Council that they consider, in my opinion, that if you are reappointed that you would be the chairman for next year, or what is the method to do it, I don't know. Mr. Yakely: The chairman is appointed by the Mayor. Mr. Fagin: Oh, he is appointed by the Mayor, is there a recommen- dation by the Board. Mr. Keys: No, no, there hasn't been in the last year. Mr. Fagin: Well, I don~ see any objections in I'd like to express my opinion to the Council. come up? sending a memo, When does this Mr. Shaw: I think the ordinance says thA chairman may not succeed himself. Mr. Fagin: Oh, the chairman cannot succeed himself. Mr. Keys: The new ordinance however, the Mayor appoints the Chairman. Mr. Fagin: Well, how many members are going out for April 1st? Four. Four of those will not be here, or have to be reappointed or something. Well, what do you know: Who are the four? May I know who the four are, or is it a secret? Mr. Keys: Well, my term expires. Mr. Shaw: My term expires. Mr. Bowman: My term expires. Mr. Fagin: Well what are the terms, I am on for 2 years, is that it. Mr. Shaw: Only if you do well. Mr. Fagin: So okay, I might not be reappointed. Mr. Paden: Three are elected for 2 years, then on the alternate year three are elected and the chairman. Mr. Masson: I have received a couple applications for hearings that may be of interest to you all. #1 is the Pierce property 3-11-69/mc 16 the NE corner of Ludlam Road and Sunset, application for a private school. Day school type. Mr. Paden: That is better than a gas station. They now have 2 churches and a public school, I don't know how the neighbors would feel about it. Mr. Masson: On the SW corner of 68 Court and Sunset Drive for another church. Part is in the County and part in South Miami. Mr. Keys: I had a call just yesterday, I didn't realize we were in there, but I had a call yesterday from a person who lives in the immediate area, and the story is that South Miami gets to hear first, and if South Miami goes on, then the County will and so forth. You know how that works where you got duo ownership on the same property, I mean duo municipalities. Mr. Masson: This will be for.~he Eastern Catholic Church, it is not the Roman Catholic it/the Eastern Catholic. Mr. Keys: How many acres in there Steve? Mr. Masson: In South Miami almost three, in the County there is five I believe. It is pretty deep. Mr. Shaw: If I am a catholic, do I have to disqualify myself? Mr. Masson: I got the site plan improvements in the office, if you all want to look at them. Mr. Keys: When does that come up? Two weeks from tonight. Mr. Masson: A special use exception. School and churches are allowed in single-family residential zones after a hearing, remember that? It looks like Sunset Drive might be turning into the Avenue of Churches. Mr. Masson: I happened to be in Little HUD yesterday for other fuings. We are trying to get the water company to cooperate in improving the system up in Lee Park area. Course, we had a nice meeting but they didn't show. I stopped in to see Jim Duncan, and he indicated that the City's application for the 701 grant has been submitted to Atlanta, the thing is in the works. They should expect to hear something in 4 to 6 weeks. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. 17 3-11-69/mc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD March 11, 1969 APPROVED March 25, 1969 Chairman Joseph C. Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m., with members, Carl C. Paden, Myron Keys, Sidney Fagin, James Bowman, Joyce Schechter and Harold Yakely present. Also present was Public Works Director Stephen C. Masson. *** The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, led by Chairman Shaw. *** Consideration was then given to public hearing #69-6, on application of A. Morrison for a variance of lot frontage require- ments. To permit construction of a single family residence on Lot 14, Block 12 Twin Lakes Manor, PB 57/82, located at approx- imately 6151 SW 63 Court. Mr. Alex Phillips, agent for the applicant, stated this would be the oply variance required to construct an "L" shaped single family residence, a variance of 8.84 foot frontage of the lot. Mr. Louis Leudeman of 6l20SW 63 Court and Mrs. Robert Stewart of 6101 SW 63 Court, adjoining property owner spoke in favor of the application. No persons appeared in objection to the application, however, the Chairman commented that a letter of objection had been filed with the signatures of a Mr. Timothy G. Fleming of 6041 SW 63 Court; Mr. H. P. Hicklin of 6021 SW 63 Court; and, Catherine Von Jany of 6020 SW 63 Court. Mr. Paden suggested that a plot plan be submitted before approval of a variance is recommended by the Board. Mr. Phillips stated he had a deposit for purchase on the lot, contingent on approval of the variance requested. Mr. Keys mentioned that Mr. Phillips had constructed buildings in Dade County for many years, and he was confident if Mr. Phillips were permitted to build the house, it would be 3-11-69/mc the best for the size lot and in keeping with the neighborhood. Mr. Fagin called attention to the fact, that the building would have to meet the building requirements, and that the request before the Board was for a variance on the lot frontage. Mrs. Schechter agreed with Mr. Fagin, however, felt that a plot plan should be submitted as notice of objections had been filed with the Board. For the record and clarification, Mrs. Schechter has no objection to a house being built, but hesitates to recommend approval of a variance without a plot plan. After further discussion, Mr. Yakely, seconded by Mr. Paden, moved that the Planning Board recommend to the City Council, that the request for a variance contained in hearing #69-6 be approved. Polled: Yes, Mr. Yakely, Mrs. Schechter, Messers Paden, Keys, Bowman, Fagin; Mr. Shaw No, None Public Works Director recommended approval, as this lot was platted with the existing RU-l regulations in effect, and a variance should have been granted at the time the plat was approved. *** Consideration was then given to public hearing #69-7 on the application of BPOE, SM Lodge #1888 for a waiver of Section 20-5.1 of the Code of Ordinances, to permit the enlargement of a building without installing sidewalks, curbs and gutters, at 6304 SW 78 St. Mr. Hughlan Long, attorney at 7550 Red Road, appeared on behalf of the application for Lodge #1888. Mr. Long said that at the time the Lodge was built a small kitchen was all the Lodge could afford, also at the time of construction there was no requirement for sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Mr. Long asked the Board to consider a special exception for the improvements to enlarge the kitchen, and waive the requirement of sidewalks, curbs and gutters around the perimeter of the 3 acres of land. That in the future, as the Lodge has been put on notice to requirements of Sec •. 20-5.1, that they will endeavor to comply with the re- quirements on any future renovations of the building. 2 3-11-69/mc In answer to Mrs. Schechter's question, Mr. Long said he could not give a definite time for improvements of sidewalks, curbs and gutters. It would depend on the finances of the Lodge and taken into consideration whenever the Lodge planned for any future renovation. Mr. Long mentioned that the Lodge has sidewalk the length of the building at the entrance. Mr. Fagin commented that Highway Road may be continued up to SW 79 Street and at that time, when the road is improved a special assessment could be requested for the improvements. Mr. Grover Sheffield said within the next few years they had planned a scout building, recreation room for members, a second story on the building. Mr. Keys mentioned that the new animal hospital was on two lots and the building constructed after the ordinance went into effect, yet they were not required to gutter the road. The Lodge was built a few years before the sidewalk, curb and gutter ordinance was adopted. Mr. Yakely mentioned that on highway road, just beyond the Elks Club there is a barrier at the edge of the canal. Recommenda- tion had been made by a previous Planning Board regarding the conjestion in this particular area, that the exit from Highway Road be made to US #1 along the side of Midas Muffler Shop. This would eliminate the barrier and the joining of Highway Road onto SW 79 Street. Mr. Yakely asked if any action had been taken on this recommendation. Mr. Shaw said the recommendation had been made to Council but no action had been taken. Mrs. Schechter suggested that this be calleo to the Council's attention. Mr. Shaw asked the City Clerk to bring this to the attention of the Council. Mr. Keys said that in view of the question he had asked Mr. Masson, the animal hospital did not come before the Board for a variance, he does not understand Mr. Masson's recommenda- tion for denial under the same conditions. The request of the Lodge is a minor addition to a large building, therefore, they should be granted the variance to permit them to continue with the construction of the building without requirement of side- walks, curbs and gutters. 3 3-11-69/mc Mr. Keys, seconded by Mr. Bowman, moved that the Planning Board recommend to the City Council that the application be approved. After further discussion, Mr. Keys, seconded by Mr. Bowman, moved that the motion be amended to read, "that a special except- tion be granted only to this alteration under building permit #15665. " Polled on the amendment: Yes, Mr. Yakely, Mrs. Schechter, Messers Keys, Bowman, Fagin; Mr. Shaw. No, None; Abstained, Mr. Paden as an active member of the Lodge Polled on the motion as amended: Yes, Mr. Yakely, Mrs. Schechter, Messers, Keys, Bowman, Fagin; Mr. Shaw No, None; Abstained, Mr. Paden Public Works Director's recommendation, that if the develop- ment of the City is to be carried out in an orderly fashion, the existing requirements should be enforced, denial recommended However, since a portion of the right-of-way known as South Highway Road is not improved, it is further recommended that a Special Exception be granted under building permit #15665 to exclude the requirement on that portion of the property that abuts the unimproved portion of South Highway Road. *** Mr. Paden, seconded by Mr. Keys, moved that the Planning Board minutes of February 25, 1969 be approved as individually read. Motion carried unanimously. *** At this time consideration was given to the referral ordinance pertaining to prohibition of apartments in commercial zones, said ordinance referred by Council. Mr. Shaw asked City Manager Veldman if he knew what Council wanted the Board to begin with on the ordinance. Mr. Veldman said the Council is talking about the NDP area. There are certain areas that are zoned commercial. The intention is that they would like to have the area developed and hold for commercial. The zoning ordinance allows anything to be built in a commercial area that is less than commercial. The proponent of this ordinance would like to have this held for commercial use only. 4 3-11-69/mc Mr. Keys said this would be impossible, as any ordinance can be amended in the future by enactment of a new ordinance in conflict. Mr. Veldman said it could be held by a special ordinance specifying certain areas or districts to be set aside for commercial development only. Mr. Keys said it would require a deed restriction and you cannot get deed restrictions on some- thing the City does not own. Mrs. Schechter referred to Mr. Veldman's description,that the ordinance is aimed at a problem now existing in the perimeter commercial area that surrounds the NDP area. However, without this ordinance, a 72-unit apartment could be built which would create a housing problem to the HUD area. The commercial property owners could sell the land for the highest possible use, a 72-unit apartment per acre. The problem could be alleviated by adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Yakely said he was in favor of the ordinance and the Board should recommend adoption, as under the present zoning classifications the permitted businesses are very broad. Mr. Veldman commented that the 701 program would be coming up very soon, which is the master planning of the entire city, and for the construction and adoption of brand new .zoning ordinances. Mr. Masson said that trying to solve a particular problem with this ordinance is not good. There is the tool of a special exception that would permit a development of a high rise complex, or a shopping center with multiple dwellings, or a mixture of an office building with apartments on top. There would be nothing. mrmful to the downtown area having high rise apartments with restrictions. This could be helpful to the City and to. the developer. The ordinance is limiting multiple family uses in commercial areas under special use exception that could be mixed. Mr. Keys said there is no way the City can guarantee that an area will be limited to C-l usage until a master plan is adopted and restricted as commercial only. Mr. Keys pointed out that we now have a commercial area where apartments are being built on 74 Street and across the street is vacant property zoned C-l where apartments would be compatible. 5 3-11-69/mc Mr. Fagin asked how this particular ordinance would affect other existing areas presently zoned commercial. This ordinance would limit a combination of office and apartment buildings. The ordinance is premature in view of the proposed master plan, yet, it is being pursued by virtue of emotional and controversial situation of SW 69 Street and Lee Park area. The area for apart- ment construction is already severely limited in South Miami. The ordinance is an attempt to pacify the conflicting interests of a specific area. Mrs. Schechter said it was her understanding that the ordinance was to protect the property owners from having a 72-unit apartment across from garden-type apartments. Under the present zoning a 72-unit apartment can now be built without application before Council and Planning Board. Mrs. Schechter mentioned that Mr. Duncan had said the City would have to rezone the surrounding area to make it compatible with the NDP. Mrs. Schechter suggested that the Planning Board request information from Mr. Watson and Mr. Duncan before the Board makes any recommendation. Mr. Shaw suggested the Board ask Metro Planners for an answer on this problem before recommendation is made. Mrs. Schechter asked that this matter be deferred until after a meeting with Mr. Watson and Mr. Duncan. Further, suggested this meeting be held without delay to avoid the possible problem of a 72-unit apartment across from a garden- type area. Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Masson to set up a meeting with Mr. Watson and Mr. Duncan, and asked that all the property owners be notified. Mrs. Schechter, Mr. Fagin and Mr. Keys asked that the meeting be held with all Board members and Mr. Watson and Mr. Duncan prior to any public hearing. This met with the approval of the Board. Mr. Fagin, seconded by Mrs. Schechter, moved, that in view of the uncertainty of the ability to make a proper decision, recommend to the City Council that they defer action on this matter, to permit the Planning Board to invite Mr. Watson and Mr. Duncan for a direct confrontation and specific answers. Motion carried unanimously. 6 3-11-69/mc Mrs. Schechter asked that the City Council be requested to attend the meeting. *** At the request of the City Manager, the Board considered the matter of dog kennels in residential areas. Mr. Keys pointed out that under our present ordinance, a kennel is listed under unclassified use. Therefore, once they become a kennel (6 dogs) a public hearing would be required. Following discussion, Mr. Shaw requested Mr. Masson to contact other municipalities for ordinances on kennels, so that the Board could make a study on kennels and animals. *** Consideration was given on the possible rezoning of area in vicinity of Sunset Drive and SW 69 Avenue. Mr. Yakely, seconded by Mr. Keys, moved that a public hearing be set up for the purpose of rezoning 7 lots,and, for the purpose of changing the setback on the remaining EU-1A property to 35' instead of the 50' that is now required. The above motion was changed so that the recommendation to the Council would include all properties in EU-1A area for change of setback requirements. Original motion and change carried unanimously. *** Mr. Yakely mentioned that the Board has a study on the Lee Park area which is excluded from the present BUD area and that no action had been taken to date. The Chairman, Mr. Shaw requested that the study be put on the next agenda; also the study of 62 and 63 Courts south of Sunset, and any other unfinished business. Mr. Shaw requested that the remarks section be recorded verbatim. Mr. Shaw: I have been roundly and soundly critized the way we handled the apartment house application on Miller and Ludlam Road. The opposition felt that the applicant was given due time for presentation without interruption. Yet, when the objectors 7 3-11-69!mc wanted to be heard, they felt that they were hurried. On rebuttal, they point out that again we gave them, the applicant as much time as he wanted, and on their rebuttal we hurried them. Look- ing back, I suspect we did. Mr. Keys: I don't think we did. Mr. Shaw: I think we were in a rush to get down to HUD, and I, as I say, have been critized for it and I frankly was upset at the time. It seems that the HUD meeting was set for 9 here, and we are shooting for 9 o'clock prices. It is difficult enough for a Chairman to run a meeting without having full support from the Board. And, there was considerable amount of pressure to get this thing going so we could get downstairs. Just a few minutes before 9, Mr. Bowman gave me the sign that he wanted to go down stairs. Mrs. Schechter: I did too. Mr. Shaw: And he indicated that, finally he said loud enough evidentally for someone in the audience to hear it, "I've got to get down stairs. If we are planners, we got to devote our full time to planning, and as Mrs. Schechter says, I received a note, a few minutes before nine which said, may I be excused? I just felt that she shouldn't be and couldn't be, and I asked her not to. Mrs. Schechter: And, I didn't. Mr. Shaw: Again, and as a side comment, Mrs. Schechter (as the objectors were coming up) made an aside comment, "that if I heard one more objector, that she wou~d get up and walk out. Mrs. Schechter: I did not say that, you must be hard of hearing. Mr. Shaw: This is most disconcerting and is not the way to run a planning board, and again I say, if we are planners, while we are planning, we got to plan with all our might, our attention has to be completely undivided, we have to be on the subject regardless of what else goes on. I was critized for it and look- ing back perhaps justly so. Mr. Keys: Tell me this, what objectors did we refuse to hear. Mr. Shaw: I think possibly, my final comment, where I said, 8 3-11-69/mc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD MARCH 25, 1969 APPROVED APRIL 8, 1969 chairman Shaw called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Present: J. c. Shaw, Chairman Myron Keys, Vice Chairman carl Paden Sidney Fagin James Bowman Joyce Schechter Harold Yakely Public Works Director Masson was also in attendance. ***** Hearings: #69-8 Berry W. Benson, Rev. N. M. Abraham, agent Request: Exception to permit the construction of a church and ancilliary uses in an EU-l zone. Property: N. 290' of W~ of W~ of NE\ of NE\ of Section 35-54-40 less N. 50' thereof and less E. 25' thereof. Location: Approximately 6852 Sunset Drive zoning Director's Recommendation: Approval granted should be subject to the following conditions: 1. The site development to be substantially in accordance with the site plans submitted with the application and be made a part thereof. 2. Dedicate and pave the addi- tional 25 foot right-of-way required on SW 68 ct. in accordance with city requirements. 3. Egress and engress to the parking lot to be limited to Sunset Drive. 4. The South 25 feet of the property to be reserved solely as a landscape buffer prohibiting the construction of any buildings in this buffer area. chairman Shaw referred to two letters of objection in the file. One from Paul A. willey, 6863 Sunset Drive, and one from Timothy Kelly, 7250 S.W. 68 Avenue. 3-25-69 Anthony J. Blaty, Attorney, 1900 S.W. 57 Avenue, represented the applicant. He stated that they are seeking the City's permission to construct a church and its affiliated uses on a piece of property presently zoned for one-acre residences, located on the SW corner of 68 Court and Sunset Drive. The size of the property is approximately 240 feet by 313 feet, the longest front is facing on Sunset Drive. The site exceeds the city's zoning requirements of 20,000 square feet for church use. He further stated that there were several other churches in the immediate vicinity of the site chosen. He said that the church will help buffer the existing residential area from the heavily traveled artery of Sunset Drive, and therefore would help to enhance the neighborhood. The plan they have submitted for approval shows approximately 114 parking spaces which they intend to adequately screen and landscape or would comply with whatever requirement the City so desired. The church itself will hold a congregation of 240 people. Mr. Blaty further indicated that they are purchasing the property to the west that is in the County, and that this portion of the property will contain the parish house. Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Blaty if they had any other specific requirements. Mr. Blaty replied that they have complied with the minimum require- ments of the City Code, but also stipulated that they would comply with any other requirements that the Planning Board so desired. Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Masson if there were any other problems other than square footage. Mr. Masson replied that the only Code requirement was the square footage and that they had complied with it. Any other restrictions would be at the will of the Board. Mr. Keys wanted to know what other uses other than the church, would be on the property. Mr. Blaty replied that there would be nothing else other than the church and the parish house contemplated for the improvement of this property and that there would be no school. Mr. Fagin inquired as to what the intended use of the residence with a pool on the county property was. Mr. Blaty answered that there would be no additional buildings con- structed on that property other than the church and the parking lot. Mr. Paden asked what the maximum capacity of the church would be. -2 - 3-25-69 Mr. Blaty replied that it would be 240 persons. Mrs. Schechter inquired of Mr. Blaty if he was aware that resi- dential homes were being built on the property to the East of their property. Mr. Blaty replied that he did not. Mrs. Schechter further stated that the Board and the city Council had granted variances for two homes to be constructed on the property to the East, within the past few months. Mr. Yakely inquired about the additional paving for 68th Court. Mr. Blaty replied that Mr. Masson had advised him of the widening of the street and that they had conformed with the requirement. Mr. Bowman asked Mr. Blaty if a public hearing would be required before the county for that property on the portion that is in the County. Mr. Blaty replied that to the best of his knowledge, no hearing would be required. Mr. J. L. Plummer, Jr., 1349 West Flagler street, spoke in favor of the application. Mr. Plummer indicated that he was Chairman of the city of Miami Zoning Board and he had requested the City of Miami Planning Department to comment as to the compatibility of churches in residential neighborhoods. He indicated that the Miami Planning Department had stated that churches and residential neighbor- hoods were considered a compatible use. He also stated that churches have been allowed in this neighborhood and that there should be no objection to the extension of the use. He indicated that in the plan submitted for approval, the applicant has provided sufficient setbacks, parking, and open areas to maintain the tranquil resi- dential appearance in the neighborhood. He further feels that these requirements will probably exceed those provided by the other churches in the area. Mr. Paden inquired if Mr. Plummer was a member of the congregation. Mr. Plummer stated that he was a member by marriage. Mr. Anthony Abraham of Coral Gables, also spoke in favor of the application. He stated that he was a member of the parish and was very active in helping to create this church. He explained that -3 -3-25-69 this church was of the Melkite Eastern Rite of the Roman Catholic Church and that there is only a handful of cities throughout the united states that have this particular Rite. He stated that the establishing of this church in South Miami would be an asset to the community and that it would attract many desirable permanent residents to the area. Mr. carl Leib, Jr., 7335 SW 69 Court spoke in opposition to the applicant's proposal. He also stated that he had a letter from captain M. R. Harnden of 7400 SW 68 Court who also objects to the proposal. Mr. Leib stated that although he was not against churches, he felt that the granting of this church would ruin the neighborhood due to the increased traffic. He also stated that it would be spot zoning to allow this church to be built on the property. Mr. Leib indicated that he has lived at his present address for 11 years and that he would urge the Board to maintain the residential neighborhood by denying the applicant's request. Mr. Paul A. Willey, 6863 Sunset Drive, requested that his letter of opposition be entered into the record. He stated that he strongly objected to the granting of the exception for the following reasons: 1. There are already two churches within a stone's throw of this location. 2. It doesn't appear that there would be enough off-street parking at the proposed location. 3. Approval of this exception would remove this property from the taxrolls of South Miami. 4. with the existing two churches already under construction in the same locality, the approval of a third would certainly not enhance the free and safe flow of traffic on Sunday mornings. Mr. Willey further stated that he had not received his Courtesy Notice of the Public Hearing within enough time to provide him to file his written objection. He also stated that someone had gone out on the applicant's behalf to talk to the people in the area. He said that he was not contacted, although he lives directly across the street from this property. Mr. Yakely asked to seethe mailing date on the Notices. Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Masson what the customary time lapse on the Courtesy Notices was. Mr. Masson stated that they are sent out approximately five days prior to the hearing before the Board. Mr. William E. Chickering, Attorney, 7330 SW 69 Court, who was repre- senting Mr. & Mrs. Robert Kirkman of 6881 SW 75 Terrace, which is just within the City limits of South Miami, indicated that his clients ob- jected to the proposal. He stated that he had heard all of the points -4 - 3-25-69 that had been brought out by Mr. Leib, and that he was in agreement with him. He also felt that if the house to the west of this property was to be used as a church rectory, they would have to get permission from the county Zoning Board. He also felt that the church would eventually have to put the property to the west to some use insofar as it was uneconomical for them to invest such a large amount on a property with no intentions of ever using it. Mrs. Schechter requested a point of clarification on whether or not if the City granted this exception, would the applicant have to appear before the County. Mr. Masson stated that he would answer Mrs. Schechter's question as soon as he consulted the Dade county Zoning Code Book. Mr. Masson, after reading the appropriate sections of the county code, felt in his opinion, the only hearing required would be that if the site was to be used as a church, and that no hearing would be required if the property to the West was to be used as a parish house or convent. He also stated that this was up to the interpretation of the admini- stration of the County Zoning Department. Mrs. Schechter asked the applicant at this time,if they felt in the future they anticipated to use the area for a school, kindergarten or a convent for nuns. Mr. Bla ty answered "No". Mrs. Beverly Felton, 6851 Sunset Drive, also submitted a letter ob- jecting to the applicant's proposal. She felt that the property in- volved would not provide adequate parking for the church and that the increased traffic would add to the already hazardous conditions on Sunset Drive. She also questioned as to the need for any additional churches in this vicinity. Mr. Berry W. Benson, 7250 SW 68 Court, and also the owner of this property, spoke in favor of the application. He indicated that he had agreed to sell this property to the Melkite church due to the fact that he and his wife were getting on in years and could not provide the physical effort that was required to maintain this large parcel of property that he has owned for over 15 years. He felt that Sunset Drive was getting to be the Avenue of churches and that this group should be granted the same privileges as those granted to other groups. He felt that this church would be an asset to the community. Mr. Yakely inquired as to the existing zoning on the rectangular piece in the county. -5 - 3-25-69 Mr. Masson informed Mr. yakely that at the present time the property was zoned EU-1M which is half acre estate modified. On rebuttle Mr. Blaty brought out the following points: 1. The applicant was not asking the Board to spot zone the property and they have complied with all the city requirements. 2. He felt that adding this church on Sunset Drive would not increase the traffic due to the fact that the church itself has a projected growth of 200 people. He respectfully requested the Board to grant the proposal. chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Fagin inquired as to the status of the gravel road indicated on the survey. Mr. Masson answered that this road was just a local access road on private property and there would be no future street to be dedicated in this area. Mr. Keys moved to recommend to the City council that the application be denied. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mr. Keys commented that the majority of the persons living in the immediate area had objected to the proposal and those favoring the proposal did not live within the vicinity of the church. He further stated that he felt the church would have no beneficial affect on the neighborhood. Mr. Schechter stated that although she felt that the Melkite group had made a very fine presentation, the neighborhood was still growing and the land usage should be maintained for further RU-l development and she concurs with Mr. Keys' comment. Mr. Fagin stated that he felt that Mr. Keys comments were not valid, since he questions that any church or synagogue has all of its members living in the immediate area. Mr. Anthony Abraham requested that he be heard. The Chairman agreed to let Mr. Abraham speak. Mr. Abraham indicated that the great concern of the residents on the traffic hazards were not warranted insofar as the church would be used for one hour a week, and that he is concerned by the lack of respect shown by the people in the area for a group of people who are desirous in setting up their house of worship. -6 - 3-25-69 The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -5 (Yakely, Schechter, Paden, Keys, Bowman) No -2 (Fagin, Shaw) ****** #69-9 Edward F. Peirce, Diane C. English, agent Request: Exception to permit the construction of a private school in an RU-1A zone. Property: S. 158' of w~ of SW~ of SW~ of SW~ of Section 25-54-40 less the w. 35' and less the S. 50' and less the E. 25' thereof. Location: NE corner of Sunset Drive and SW 67 Avenue. Zoning Director's Recommendation: Approval granted should be subject to the following conditions: 1. Site de- velopment to be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted with the application and be made a part thereof. 2. Dedicate and pave the additional 25 foot right-of-way required on SW 66 Avenue in accordance with City requirements. 3. Increase the number of parking spaces to meet City requirements to provide adequate egress and engress to parking on the west. 4. Provide necessary protection for children using the site. 5. Install a five-foot masonry or precast fence on the North boundary line of the property to buffer remaining residential property. Chairman Shaw referred to a letter of objection in the file by Leonard J. Kalish of 6700 SW 69 Terrace. Mrs. Natalie Jordan stated that she is representing Diane C. English and herself since they are both involved in this property. She stated that this school would serve the early childhood education, prior to the entry of the first grade,by children ages 3 through 6. Mrs. Schechter asked Mrs. Jordan who owned the property and the frontage on Sunset Drive. Mrs. Jordan replied the property was 270 feet facing Sunset Drive and 108 feet deep. She further stated that the property is presently owned by Mr. Peirce who has been at this location for 50 years. -7 - 3-25-69 Mr. Fagin asked Mrs. Jordan what the intended use of this building would be. Mrs. Jordan replied that this building would be used as an office and library until such time as it was not further needed, due to the construction of other buildings. Mrs. Schechter asked how many children would be anticipated in this school. Mrs. Jordan replied that the standards set up by the Florida Kinder- garten Council and the Florida Council of Independent Schools would be complied with. These standards would allow up to 65 children, based on 100 square feet of outdoor area and 30 square feet of indoor area per child. Mrs. Schechter asked Mrs. Jordan if she owned a school at the present time and also what the operating hours of the proposed school would be. Mrs. Jordan replied that she did not have a school at this time, and that the probable operating hours would be from 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Mrs. Schechter asked Mrs. Jordan if she anticipated providing facilities for caring for children of working parents. Mrs. Jordan replied that based on her research of the area, this particular service would not be required. Mrs. Schechter further inquired as to the size of the staff antici- pated for the school, and also if there were any plans to have the school accredited. Mrs. Jordan replied that the size of the staff would be set by the required standards, and that the school will obtain approval from the Governor in accordance with the State Laws. Mr. Fagin asked Mr. Masson in view of the fact that the proposed development of this large piece of property showed only two small buildings, what control would the city have to further expansions. Mr. Masson replied that in granting special use exceptions, further public hearings are required when the original use granted is en- larged or changed. Mr. Fagin also indicated that he would be in favor of placing a definite time for the daily operation of the school. -8 - 3-25-69 Mr. Fagin further inquired as to the disposition of the property if the school could not continue to operate. Mr. Masson replied that the property then would revert back to its original RU-IA zoning classification. Mr. Keys commented since there is a school and a church on the properties on the South side of Sunset Drive, granting this other school would affect the city's court case on the Alvin property on the West side of 67 Avenue. He felt that the court would probably grant Mr. Alvin relief if the Board approved the special use. Mr. Fagin commented that he did not agree that granting the special use exception would not have the same affect of changing the zoning to RU-3. Mrs. Schechter asked Mr. Masson to give an opinion on what affect would the egress and engress have on the residential area on 66 Avenue. Both areas allocated were for 66 Avenue where there is a dead-end on the street and not straight through. Mr. Masson replied that in his opinion the negative affect would be only on the lot at the corner during the time the school is operating. Mr. Fagin asked Mrs. Jordan what would be taught to the children going to this school and if they would use licensed teachers. Mrs. Jordan replied that the school would function as a typical pre-school program with trained teachers. Mr. Fagin asked Mr. Masson if he could define the exact meaning of the word "School". Mr. Masson replied that the zoning code does not give a definition of a school. Mr. Yakely inquired as to what the parking requirements were for a school. Mr. Masson replied one space for every 300 square feet of floor area. Mr. Evan Olster, Attorney, who lives at 6740 SW 68 Terrace spoke in favor of the application. He indicated that he was an attorney and -9 -3-ts -('9 a real estate developer and felt that allowing a school at this particular location would probably be the best alternative for this corner. He stated that the longer this corner remains vacant the more vulnerable it will become for developing it to a more liberal use. He stated that he felt that if anyone asked for liberal zoning and was denied, that in view of the recent court decisions he felt the courts would probably grant liberal use zoning for this corner. He also indicated that he felt that since sunset Drive is now a four lane main highway, the property can no longer be used for a single family home, and he would rather see a school of this nature than some less desirable use. Mrs. Schechter inquired of Mr. Olster if he had any financial interest in this property. Mr. Olster answered that he did not. Chairman Shaw called for those in opposition to the application. Mrs. Troy Mills, 7133 SW 66 Avenue, indicated that she was strongly opposed to the applicant's request. She indicated that she felt there was no need for this type of school in the area in veiw of the fact that the public schools are now starting kindergarten programs and also that there are two churches that run kindergarten programs in the vicinity. She also objected to the increase in the traffic situation. She said that she would rather the undeveloped property be made into residential homes. Mr. John Murphy, 6955 SW 66 Avenue, also spoke in opposition. He indicated he had been living at his address for nine years, and the granting of the school would change the character of the neighborhood. He said that his house was now worth $30,000 and that he hopes to keep it that way. He says that the increased traffic generated by the school and the fact that 66 Avenue is a dead-end street would have a definite affect on the value of his property. He also said that by giving this land use a variance it would probably affect the City's court case involving the Alvin property. Mr. Robert W. Gardner, 7871 SW 69 Avenue, indicated that he likes the idea of a school or something in this area, but he felt that even though you would still have RU-IA zoning on this property, it is actually an RU-3 usage. He further stated that he was not only worried about the affect on the Alvin property, but also on the property to the North as far as possibly Miller Drive, in view of the fact that these properties have already requested for more liberal zoning. -10 -3-25-69 Mr. Joe Numberg, 7049 SW 66 Avenue, spoke in opposition to this proposal. He pointed out that the amount of traffic at the corner of 66 Avenue would make the existing situation worse. He also stated that he was not against the school itself, but on the egress and engress into the parking area. Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Keys inquired of Mrs. Jordan if she was aware that the zoning director had recommended an increase in the number of parking spaces to meet the City requirements, and also to provide adequate egress and engress on the West side of the parking area. Mrs. Jordan answered yes, that they were prepared to meet all of the city's requirements. Mr. Fagin moved that the Board defer action on this application pending the revising of the site plan submitted to meet the zoning director's recommendations showing better egress and engress to Ludlam Road. The motion was seconded by Mr. Keys. Mrs. Schechter noted that she would like to have this application deferred until such time as the church school traffic is set. She felt that granting the applicant's request at this time would be compounding a very serious traffic situation. Mr. Fagin commented that if this Board waited until every traffic pattern of all churches were studied, the terms of all of the members of this Board and future ~oards would have expired. Giving Mrs. Jordan an opportunity to restudy the egress and engress problem would give them the opportunity to revise their plan and then the Board could go on with the action on this application. Mr. Keys recommended that it might be possible to limit the hours of operation from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. He indicated that these hours would completely miss the peak rush hour in the neighborhood. Mrs. Schechter indicated that she disagreed with both Mr. Fagin and Mr. Keys on this matter and that she would like to see the application as submitted either approved or denied at this time. The question was called on the motion to defer and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -2 (Keys, Fagin) No -5 (Yakely, Schechter, Paden, Bowman, Shaw) -11 -3-25-69 Mr. Fagin moved that the application be granted subject to the following conditions: 1. site development to be substantially in accordance with the plot plans submitted with the application and be made a part thereof. 2. Dedicate and pave the additional 25 feet right-of-way required on SW 66 Avenue in accordance with the city requirements. 3. Increase the number of parking spaces to meet the City requirements to provide adequate egress and engress to parking on Ludlam Road entrance. 4. The entire property to be enclosed with suitable enclosure to provide necessary protection for the area in which the children will be using the site. 5. Install a five foot masonry or precast fence on the North boundary line of the property to buffer the residential property. 6. The hours of operation be limited from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 7. A deed restriction to be properly filed as to the use requested. Mr. Keys seconded the Motion. Mr. Paden commented that he was very concerned about the fact that this school is a commercial venture, and although there are two churches and a school existing on the other three corners, all of these are operated by non-profit organizations. He further stated that he felt the city would be establishing a very bad precedent in granting this special exception for a commercial venture, because he felt that the Alvin property to the west and the unimproved property to the North would undoubtedly come in for the same use. He urged the Board to consider this seriously when they deliberated their vote. Mr. Bowman commented that the Board should wait until the master plan for the area is completed. He felt that the planners could come up with a suitable use for the area. Mrs. Schechter said she heartily concurred with Mr. Paden and Mr. Bowman. Mr. Fagin commented that holding everything back contingent upon the master plan is not the best interest, since this Board cannot stop the progress of this City or any other City. The Board must take each individual piece as it comes up for them to consider and in turn make the best decision in their own judgment which perhaps will concur with the proposed master plan. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled Yes -3 (Keys, Fagin, Shaw) No -4 (yakely, Schechter, Paden, Bowman) ****** -12 -3-25-69 #69-10 Ernest corsiglia, Jos. Lewis, agent Request: Variance of lot frontage requirements to permit the construction of a single family residence on a lot with a frontage of 63.78' instead of 75' as required. Property: Lot B, west Larkin Park, PB 12-49 Location: Approximately 7850 SW 68 Avenue Zoning Director's Recommendation: A variance was granted in 1963. There has been no change in conditions. Approval is recommended. Chairman Shaw stated that he had no letters of objection in the file. Mr. Joseph Lewis, 10380 SW 38 Terrace, applicant, indicated that he intended to build a house for his own use and would comply with all the other zoning requirements. The need for the variance was only due to the frontage which does not meet the zoning requirements. Mr. Robert W. Gardner, 7871 SW 69 Avenue, spoke in favor of the application. He indicated that the sooner this property gets developed the better it would be for everybody, and he recommended that the Board grant the variance. Mr. yakely commented that a variance had been granted in February 1963, but it expired. Mr. Shaw asked if there was anyone in the audiance in opposition to the application. There were none. Mr. Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Paden moved that the application for the variance be approved. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion. Mrs. Schechter moved to amend the motion that the variance could not be renewed if the variance time ran out. The motion died for lack of second. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -7 (Yakely, Schechter, Paden, Keys, Bowman, Fagin, Shaw) ~ -0 -13 - 3-25-69 #69-11 Andrew Thoro, H.V. Green, agent Request: Special use exception to permit an off-street parking lot in an RU-l zone adjacent to an RU-5A zone. Property: The w. 86' of E. 286'of N~ of NE~ of SE~ of NE~ of Section 36-54-40 Location: Approximately 7600 Red Road Zoning Director's Recommendation: Recommended approval substantially in accordance with the site plan submitted. chairman Shaw stated that he had no letters of objection in the file. Mr. H. V. Green, 5825 Sunset Drive, developer of this site, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that he had developed many build- ings in South Miami and would like to continue to develop other areas in South Miami for so much needed office space in this area. He is submitting a plan layout of the proposed project and feels that he can continue the development of this property in keeping with the established development of the Shore building to the North. He is willing to comply with any reasonable requests that the Board may have to make a development that will be compatible with the neighborhoods in the area. He indicated that he had talked with the neighbors and although he could not contact all of them, most of them had been favorable to this proposal. One objector that he had heard of, indicated that he was concerned that the building would be turned into a Townhouse project. Mr. Green indicated that he in no way would build Townhouses because: (1) The city did not have a Townhouse Ordinance, and (2) The zoning was not set up for Townhouses. He will construct a building to maintain a residential appearance as the ordinances call for and will comply with the landscape requirements of the ordinances. Mr. Green indicated that the front part of the building would be at an elevation of 20 feet with the rear part being 36 feet with parking underneath as the ordinance provided for. He stated that in this area there would be penthouse offices with a roof garden which would add to the prestige of the building and bring the types of tenants in this office that would be advantageous to the City of South Miami. Mr. Keys asked Mr. Green if he would object to having the wall at the rear of the property line up with the existing wall of the Shore build- ing on the North. Mr. Green replied that he believed that the wall is required to be setback only when it abuts a right-of-way, and he does not believe that there is a right-of-way at the rear of this property. -14 - 3-25-69 Mrs. Schechter inquired of Mr. Green regarding his definition of a penthouse office. Mr. Green replied that it would be an office on the third floor as indicated in his submitted plans. Mrs. Schechter inquired of Mr. Green if the building could be built without the need of this variance. Mr. Green indicated that there could probably be an office building built in the area zoned for RU-5A and would not need a variance, but he feels that in the overall development his proposal would be much more feasible and much more attractive for the area. Mrs. Schechter indicated that she wanted the record to reflect that Mr. Green could build without a variance if they went up to a 3-story height of 36 feet. Mr. Fagin inquired of Mr. Green if he would not object to a setback requirement whereby the fence would be in line with that fence on the North of the property. Mr. Green replied that he would not object. Mr. Bob Goldner of the South Miami News spoke in favor of the appli- cation. He stated that he had no financial interests in the property but he had known Mr. Green for 20 years and felt that Mr. Green had done very much for the progress of South Miami with the beautiful buildings and developments that he had constructed to date, and he urged the Board to look favorably on this application. Mr. W. Gilchrist, 7610 SW 58 Avenue, stated that he is not against Mr. Green's building as a professional building. He stated that he is the person that Mr. Green could not contact. Mr. Gilchrist further indicated that if the variance was granted, that the remaining portion of the area would only be good for an apartment house, and that he definitely did not want any apartment house on this tract. He further stated that he wished that Mr. Green would build the building high with the parking underneath. Mr. Edward stys, 5712 SW 77 Terrace, also spoke in favor of the appli- cation. Mr. Stys indicated that his property had also been rezoned RU-5A and he felt that eventually all those who had received this new type zoning would be asking for the same type variance in order to develop their property. -15 -3-25-69 Mr. Ivar Larson, 7620 SW 58 Avenue, inquired as to why the sign had not been put up. Several members of the Board commented that upon their inspection on the previous Monday, they had all seen the sign at the site. Chairman Shaw closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Fagin moved that the Board recommend to the City Council approval of the application substantially in accordance with the site plan submitted, but subject to the erection of a concrete louvered fence setback to the same line as the fence on the property immediately North, with the bottom of the fence at ground level. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. There being no further discussion the question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Paden, Keys, Bowman, Fagin, Shaw) No -1 (Schechter) ****** Executive Session: Mr. Paden noted that on page 1, paragraph 3, first line, Public Hearing #69-4 should read #69-6. On page 3, paragraph 3, it should read "Mr. Grover Sheffield, and on page 13,last line, instead of the work "savell, it should read "serve". Mr. paden moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Mrs. Schechter seconded the motion which carried. Chairman Shaw asked about the ordinance regarding not permitting apartments in commercial areas. Mr. Masson commented that at the last meeting he was asked to get a representative from the planning department and a representative from little HUD, to discuss this ordinance. Mr. Duncan, the representative from the planning department was here, but he left at 10:30 p.m. due to the lateness of the hour. There was no one available from little HUD. Any other discussion on the ordinance was deferred to the next meeting. ****** -16 -3-25-69 Remarks: Mr. Fagin requested that the following statement be incorporated in tonight's minutes: "I have read the minutes of the last meeting very carefully and I did not realize until I reread the minutes, the impact of the verbatim comments as they relate to the Zoning meeting regarding the Ludlam and Miller corner. Specifically, on Page 10, where reference is made to remarks supposedly made by Mrs. Schechter. If there was anyone at that meeting who heard any remarks, it had to be me. I was sitting directly to the right of Mrs. Schechter. In the minutes I am quoted as saying, and I quote, 'It is un- fortunate that all these little side remarks are being quoted and so on. I think for purposes of descretion, I am not going to comment on them. I could say some of them were made in my opinion and some were not', unquote. I am ashamed of myself, for I see now I was not really descreet at all by my silence. Therefore, and if I may quote Mrs. Schechter's famous words, let the record show, that Mrs. Schechter did make the comment, and I did answer her with words to the effect that if she left the meeting, it would be an insult to the Chairman and to the Board. Now that I have confessed to the shame of silence, I feel better. Thank you." Mrs. Schechter commented that she would like the names of Mrs. Mildred stanton and Mrs. A.D. Henry who both in the presence of the city Clerk said to her that they were very happy of the manner in which the Planning Board had handled the hearing. They registered no distaste on the parts of any of the people who had come with them. Since she has given the names of these two ladies, she would like her colleagues who are offering unhappiness, to also present the names of the people who felt slighted and unhappy. If they do not, she feels that it is mere hearsay and should not be admissible as part of our minutes. Mrs. Schechter and Mr. Fagin commented that we should work on a solution regarding plenty of notification time for the public hearings. Mrs. Schechter moved that as soon as it is practical ,to have the notices for the hearing before the planning board be mailed at -17 - 3-25-69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH' MIAMI PLANNING BOARD April 8, 1969 APPROVED April 28, 1969 Chairman Schechter called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Present: Joyce Schechter, Chairman Sidney Fagin James Bowman Leonard Kalish carl Paden William Fitzpatrick Harold Yakely Public Works Director Stephen Masson was also in attendance. ****** Approval of Minutes of March 25, 1969 Mr. Paden stated that on Page 2, paragraph 7, line 2, it should read "parish house". On page 3, the name should be "Mr. J. L. Plummer." On Page 5, paragraph 6, line 4, instead of "provide" it should read "add", and on Page 12, paragraph 2,line 7, after the word "West", we should add "and the unimproved property to the North". Mr. Paden moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion which carried. ****** Hearings: #69-12 First Baptist Church of South Miami, Karl G. Frese,Jr., Agent. Request: Special exception to revise the site development plan approved by Resolution #2417 to permit the parking spaces to be re- duced from 256 spaces as originally approved to 133 spaces. Property: N~ of SE\ of SE\ of SE\ of Sec. 26-54-40 and E. 155' of W. 340' of S~ of SE\ of SE\ of SE\ of Sec. 26-54-40 and W. 185' of S~ of SE\ of SE\ of SE\ of Sec. 26-54-40 and E. 15' of S. 371.23' of SW\ of SE\ of Sec. 25-54-40 all situated and being in Dade County, Florida. Location: 6767 Sunset Drive. 4-8-69 Mr. Karl G. Frese, Jr., 6461 SW 74 street, made the presentation. He stated that they would like to pave only those spaces that the church people need today. The new Sanctuary will seat twice the number of people that the present one will. The rate of growth they do nn~ know. They have counted heads for many months and they know how many people they have. They think they have a fair idea of how many cars they need to provide for, and they will pro- vide everyone today and in the near future, a paved parking space. They do not want to provide more than this at this time, due to financial problems, if the Board will allow them to do so. Mr. Fagin inquired of Mr. Frese as to how many seats the Church is being constructed to provide. Mr. Frese replied that the new Sanctuary will provide about 650 seats. Mr. yakely inquired of Mr. Frese as to how many people attended the church in the past few Sundays. Mr. Frese replied that on March 30, 1969 that they had 395 in Sunday School and on March 23, 1969, they had 428, and that these figures included everyone, such as children, choir members, etc., but when they move to the new location they expect to increase their attendance. Mr. yakely further inquired that the property they expect to exclude from the parking requirement is the property facing SW 67 Avenue. Mr. Frese replied that this is correct. Mr. yakely asked Mr. Frese if the existing house on the site would continue to be used. Mr. Frese replied that the house is now being used and will continue to be used. Mr. Frese further stated that the initial plans showed the area to the South of the house to be paved for parking, however, due to the beautiful trees and landscaping, the church would like to use this area for outdoor activities such as picnics, etc. However, the church is willing to pave more area for parking as the need arises, or as would be required by the city in the future. Mr. yakely replied that he would not vote to reduce the number of parking spaces to 133 because he would have to check to see if the Board has the authority to grant a temporary variance on a piece of property. chairman Schechter asked Mr. Frese if he was aware that the parking spaces that were approved, conformed to the minimum requirements. Mr. Frese replied yes. chairman Schechter asked if there was any opposition to this application. Mr. Tim Kelly, 7250 SW 68 Avenue, stated that he has lived at his present address for 9 years and in the past, on a number of times, -2 -4-8-69 an existing church there has had functions which have brought in a crowd of people who have overflowed the parking area and the cars have backed up around SW 68 Avenue into his front yard, and he feels that in view of this, along with this church wanting to cut down on their parking spaces, it is going to create a traffic hazard that will be objectionable, and also a hardship on the residents. Mr. David J. Felton, 6851 Sunset Drive, also stated that the re- duction of parking spaces would create a traffic hazard. Mr. William R. Alvin, 11681 SW 72 Place, stated that he was repre- senting his folks who own the NW corner of Sunset Drive and Ludlam Road. He feels that since stores, office buildings, etc. are re- quired to meet the minimum parking requirements, there should be no exception made in this case. He feels it will be too hard to control the matter of providing additional parking spaces at a later time or whenever the need arises. He asked the Board not to grant the application. Chairman Schechter read into the record a letter of objection from Mr. Robert L. Floyd, 6800 SW 68 Street, which was made a part of the files. Mrs. Sylvia Martin, 6760 Sunset Drive, commented that if the original parking area that was agreed upon was at all times to be kept as such, and this is only a request for a temporary reduction, she would not be opposed to the application. Mr. Fagin asked Mr. Masson to comment on the requirements for parking lots anywhere in the City of South Miami under our Code. Mr. Masson replied that the area had to be paved, drained, and landscaped. Mr. Frese stated that the land is there to park all the cars that the church would ever require, but at this time they only need to pave part of the area and the other would remain in grass. Mr. Frese further stated that when the cars started parking on the grass area, they would then pave more of the area. Mr. Chester Abney, 310 Ainsley Building, asked Mr. Masson what the ratio per person to parking space is. Mr. Masson replied that it is 4 to 1. Mr. Abney further stated that they know how many people corne to their church and how many cars are used by the members, and due to the fact that they approximately 7~ acres and the church building will only take 1 acre, they want to assure everyone that as soon as the church begins to grow they will, without being asked to, pave additional parking spaces because they do not want people parking allover the grounds. -3 - 4-8-69 Mr. Fagin stated that he wanted the record to show that the minimum 256 parking spaces was computed in two ways. One by one space for every 4 seats designed for the church, and the balance of the parking spaces by virtue of the space building requirements of the other parts of the church such as the school, etc. The requirement is one parking space for every 300 square feet of floor space. He further stated that this is the same requirement for office and commercial buildings,etc. Mr. Paden inquired as to how they came up with the figure of 133 spaces. Mr. Frese replied that it was based on the number of cars that they have at present church services today. Mr. Fagin moved that the special exception be denied. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mr. yakely commented that just recently the Board had required two other churches to meet the minimum parking space requirement. Mr. Masson confirmed this comment. Mr. Paden commented that he feels that the area would look better with grass, trees, etc., than an empty portion of an asphalt lot. Mr. Fagin reminded the Board of the statement Mr. Masson had given regarding that our Code requires a parking space to be paved in order to be considered as such. Mr. Kalish commented that he wasn't pleased with the way the 133 park- ing space request was computed. Also, he feels that if this request was being made mainly for the reason of economy, it would be more economical to go ahead and pave the entire area now, rather than have to call in contractors at a later date to pave the additional area. chairman Schechter stated that she would at this point rule, since Mr. Kalish was one of the persons whose name appeared on the list of those being notified of the public hearing, she would not call on him for the vote. Mr. Kalish replied he intended to abstain. Mr. Masson commented that the Church was permitted to construct their facilities there on a special exception based on a specific site de- velopment plan, and what they are asking for now is a modification to this site development plan which includes the reduction of the number of parking spaces. The question was called and the vote polled on the motion to deny. Polled: Yes -6 (Fagin, Bowman, Paden, Fitzpatrick, Yakely, Schechter) No -0 Abstained -1 (Kalish) ****** -4 -4-8-69 #69-13 David R. Balogh, George A. Barkins, Agent Request: Variance to permit the construction of a commercial building with no off-street parking. Property: W. 40' of Lot 3, W. A. Larkins, less the N. 30' for R/W, PB 3/198. Location: Approximately 5734 Sunset Drive Mr. Daniel A. Wick, Attorney, 8325 SW 62 Place, made the presentation. He requested that they be permitted to construct a building to house a single store with no off-street parking as this location is avery good business area and there are many public parking lots in the . immediate vicinity. Mr. Wick noted that the objections raised when their previous application was submitted was that the egress and in- gress to the proposed parking area was through a private alleyway and although they would have no difficulty using this alleyway for servicing the building, the question of allowing cars to use the alley could not be resolved. Therefore, by eliminating the parking at the rear of the building there would be no need of private cars using this alleyway. Mr. Paden asked how they would have access to the service area in the back of the store. Mr. wick replied through the alleyway and they have never had a problem with egress and ingress with this alleyway as it is a 22-foot opening. Mr. yakely inquired as to what sort of business do they intend to put in here. Mr. Wick replied that it would be some type of retail store. Chairman Schechter read a letter of objection from Robert E. Rutledge, , Attorney, 7321 SW 57 Court, into the record which was made part of the files. Mr. Fagin inquired of Mr. Masson in regards to the one-year waiting period for refiling of an application. Mr. Masson replied that they have to wait a one-year period if a variance is denied. In this case the variance was not denied, but failed to pass by virtue of the fact that it needed a 4/5 vote. Mr. Masson stated that he had discussed this matter with Mr. Frank Kelly our City Attorney, who advised him that we could accept the application. Chairman Schechter ruled that this application has never been denied and that we may have the hearing at this time. Mr. Fagin moved to approve and recommend the variance for Hearing #69-13 to permit the construction of a commercial building with no off-street parking. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. -5 -4-8-69 Mr. Fagin commented that this piece of property is unusually unique in its location and size as this portion of South Miami is the Flagler Street of Miami and because of this we should help any businessman to bring business to our community. Chairman schechter asked if it were not true that Mr. Balogh has already received remuneration for a portion of this lot. Mr. Barkins replied no. Mrs. Schechter then asked did he not sell a piece to the Crossroads Building which then gave him a smaller piece. Mr. Barkins replied no. Mrs. Schechter further asked was Mr. Balogh aware when he bought this lot that he was buying sort of a problem. Mr. Barkins replied that when Mr. Balogh bought this lot the variance was already passed by the Planning Board. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. wick whether they were coming to the Board this time with the idea of approving their plans for a store in order not to cause the City the hardship and deface our business area by putting an alley in the prime location of our town which they could do without coming to the Board. Mr. Wick replied that that was correct. Mr. Kalish asked if it was their intention to lease one store or sub-divide the store. Mr. Wick replied that it would be one 40x80 foot retail store. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: yes -7 (Fagin, Bowman, Kalish, paden, Fitzpatrick, yakely, Schechter) . NO -0 ****** #69-14 PHDM Associates, Herman Kaskel, Agent Request: Special use exception to permit the conversion of a con- valescent home as approved by Resolution #2341 to a hospital. Property: Lots 1 thru 9 and Lots 18 thru 20, Block 1 Larkin Center, PB 27/67. Location: 7031 SW 62 Avenue Mr. Thomas D. O'Malley, 602 Concord Building, Attorney representing Mr. Herman Raskel, made the presentation. Mr. O'Malley stated that originally they requested and received a special exception to construct -6 - 4-8-69 a convalescent home, but after a great number of surveys they found there is a need for a hospital and additional beds and they have proposed a 119 bed hospital at this site, so now they would like the Board to modify the special exception to permit the construction of a hospital. Mr. O'Malley further stated that the parking spaces have been amply provided for with 158 spaces and that they comply with all the elements of our Ordinance. Mr. Fagin asked Mr. Masson what the minimum legal requirements South Miami can place on this application for a hospital. Mr. Masson replied only in so far as parking restrictions are concerned. There are no height restrictions or setback restrictions as far as the building being in a commercial area is concerned. Mr. Fagin asked if the existing parking layout was within the confines of our minimum parking requirements including setbacks for landscaping as per Ordinance. Mr. Kaskel stated that if they were not, they would modify the·ir plans in order to meet our requirements. Mr. Fagin requested that a Deed Restriction be placed on the parking area across the street. Mr. O'Malley stated that they would give a Deed Restriction on that property. Mr. Fagin further requested that the parking spaces be shown on the plans. Mr. Masson stated that before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for this hospital or any building, they must comply with the regulations of the Code, and as long as they comply with the Code, there are no other problems. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Masson if they could have built this hospital in a C-l area. Mr. Masson replied in the affirmative. Mr. yakely asked if the matter of a convalescent home had come before the Planning Board at one time. Mr. O'Malley replied that it did. Mr. yakely further asked if PHDM Associates was a partnership, cor- poration, association or just a group of people. Mr. O'Malley re- plied it is an association of partners and the individual initials stand for the names of the four associates involved. Mr. Yakely then asked if there had been any change in that partnership. Mr. O'Malley replied not since the origination and formulation of ac- quiring the property and building, planning and construction of a convalescent home. Chairman Schechter then asked Mr. O'Malley to state the names of the initials PHDM. Mr. O'Malley replied that Mr. Phil Brown was the "P", Mr. Herman Kaskel was the "H", Mr. David Kaskel was the "D", and Mr. Malinovsky was the "M". Mr. M. J. Temby, 6240 SW 69 Street, stated that he was very much in favor of the application. Mr. Fagin moved that we approve the application conditioned upon them meeting all parking requirements of the city of South Miami and a proper Deed Restriction be placed on the surrounding parking properties. Mr. Kalish seconded the motion. 4-8-69 -7 - Mr. yakely inquired as to where the emergency entrance 1-0 the hospital would be. Mr. Malinovsky replied that it is on the -;W 'Corner of the building facing North on SW 70 street and We"t 0n 62 i,Venue. Mr. yakely ~urther inquired if they would have an operating room. Mr. Malinovsky replied that they would have two operating rooms and that this will be a fully equipped hospital. Mr. Fit7~~tr~ck commented that he feels the area is a poor area for a hospital and that it will create a lot of community problems in terms of traffic, visitors, ambulances, etc. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 (Fagin, Kalish, Paden, Fitzpatrick, Yakely, Schechter) No -1 (Bowman) ****** Executive Session: 1. Mr. Jim Duncan spoke to the Board regarding an Ordinance not permitting apartments in commercial area. He discussed the two basic approaches to structuring a zoning ordinance--That being the cumula- tive and distributive approaches. He gave illustrations of each and the advantages and disadvantages to each approach. After further discussion, Chairman Schechter appointed a committee to study the problem and recommend alternatives for solutions as the original proposed ordinance had intended tc do. 2. Mr. Fagin nominated Mr. carl Paden as Vice Chairman of the Board. Mr. Kalish seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Remarks: Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson to give a report on the HUD meetings he has attended. Mr. Masson commented that most of the meetings have been sessions with the people from HUD, and wit.h the consulting engineers in reference to the physical improvements to the area, streets, sewers, etc. They find that since this program is so new the guide lines are not clearly defined and as a result decisions made are frequently changed. Conse- quently, a lot of time is spent trying to resolve problems. Mr. Bowman gave a report on a meeting that had been called to discuss the planning of the area. He stated he felt that the people present at this meeting were not representative of the residents of the area and consequently another meeting was called to select a representative group. -8 - 4-8-69 Chairman Schechter announced that there will be a meeting at City Hall at 7 p.m. on Friday, April 11, 1969, at which time the City and HUD will decide the proportion of the cross-section of repre- sentation. She asked Mr. Bowman to attend the meeting and officially represent the Planning Board and bring back a report for our next meeting. Mr. Fagin commented that we should cover the "Approval of Minutes" in the "Remarks" section of the agenda. He further suggested that we not read the full legal description when we are introducing each hearing. Mr. Kalish suggested that letters of objection or approval should be given to the Secretary to read. Mr. Fitzpatrick inquired of Mr. Masson if he was successful in his attempt to recover copies of the City Ordinances. Mr. Masson replied that he will have them for the next meeting. Chairman Schechter stated that she had had a long discussion with Mr. Veldman and it was felt that since Mr. Masson is considered our official Secretary to the Board, his use is to give us his opinion of the Code. She further stated that it was the City Manager's feeling, and she went along with it, that she would exercise her prerogative as Chairman to do away with the Zoning Director's written opinion because she felt that he could make these known by each Board member aSking him questions during the course of each hearing. She suggested that we discuss this more thoroughly at the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 11;20 p.m. -9 -4-8-69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD April 28, 1969 APPROVED May 13, 1969 Chairman Schechter called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Present: Joyce Schechter, Chairman carl Paden, Vice Chairman Sidney Fagin Absent: James Bowman William Fitzpatrick Harold yakely Leonard Kalish public Works Director Stephen Masson was also in attendance. ****** Mr. Veldman, City Manager, appeared before the Board to wish the newly formed Board success. He offered his services to the Board whenever they felt they needed his assistance. He also welcomed the students who attended the meeting from South Miami Junior High School and stated they should be viewing the proceedings tonight with a great deal of interest as they will be the future citizens of South Miami, and he hopes that through their studies they can be a great success in the future. Chairman Schechter moved to have the "Approval of Minutes" in our Executive Session, due to the fact that the students present tonight may have to leave early. The motion carried unanimously. ****** Hearings: # 69-15 samuel Puder, Trustee Request: change of zoning classification from RU-l to RU-5A with the following variances: 1) Permit off-street parking in front of front building line. 2) Permit the building to be constructed to a height of 4 stories. 3) Waiver of sidewalks, curb and gutters. 4-28-69 Property: Lots 14, 15, Block 5, Davis Manor, PB 51/41. Location: 6540 Manor Lane Mr. Samuel Puder, Architect, 6601 sw 80 Street, made the presentation. He stated that their present offices were in the Professional Building, at 6601 SW 80 Street, and all the offices in that building were occupied. The subject land was purchased about 8 years ago. The request being made is for the proper classification to construct a professional build- ing on the site. This will fall in the zoning category of RU-5A or C-l classification. The intent is to duplicate the professional build- ing that is existing at 6601 SW 80 Street. Chairman Schechter asked if the request was as stated in the appli- cation, or something different. Mr. Puder replied that what they are requesting is the zoning to construct a professional building on this site with the necessary items to construct it according to the plot plan submitted. In a C-l classification a variance for items 1 and 2 would not be needed. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson if items 1, 2 and 3 (under the request) would be necessary to construct the kind of building that Mr. Puder is telling us about. Mr. Masson replied that with an RU-SA classification, all would be-necessary. Mr. Fagin inquired, for clarification purposes, if Mr. Puder was before the Board to request for an RU-5A zoning classification with the three variances. Mr. Puder replied that was correct. Mr. Puder further stated that the property is right on the corner of u.S. 1 and S.W. 80 Street by the railroad tracks. Due to the lack of proper upkeep, the property has deteriorated very rapidly and it is causing a hardship on them. The site plan submitted shows they are locating the building setback approximately 70 feet from Manor Lane and almost a full lot (75 feet) from the residence directly North of them. They are aware of the fact that they are bordering residential property and in an effort to alleviate that situation they have pro- vided the setbacks mentioned, they have provided 20 more parking spaces than required and also more landscaping than required. They have met with the owners of the property to the East and they explained that they would work with them to blend their yard with their landscaping plans. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Puder if they were utilizing(regardless of where the building itself is situated) both of the lots. Mr. Puder replied yes. -2 -4-28-69 Mr. Fagin stated that the 43 parking spaces shown on the plan are more than the minimum requirement of 33. He further stated that if the S spaces in the front setback were eliminated, the number of park- ing spaces would still be above the minimum, and the variance under item l,would not have to be requested. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson, for the benefit of herself and other Board members, if the requirements for office buildings in the RU-SA zone, permitted 3 stories if the one story is utilized for parking and the other two being actually the floors. Mr. Masson replied if you utilize the ground floor for parking, you can go to a height of three stories, and no higher. Mr. Puder stated that they are requesting four stories. Mr. Fagin asked Mr. Masson that in view of the fact that item 3 calls for a waiver of sidewalks, curbs and gutters and the city of South Miami now has a bond program for the installation of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters, he would like to know what the plans are in regards to curbs and gutters in this particular area. Mr. Masson replied that the city has no long-range plan for installing curbs and gutters in this area, however, the Code requires the installation of sidewalks, curbs and gutters in all RU-SA zones. Mr. Fagin asked if the applicant can place a 110% bond to the total costs of curbs, sidewalks and gutters, if we agree to waive item 3 now. Mr. Masson replied no. If someone is constructing a building and request a temporary certificate of occupancy, a cash bond can be re- quested to insure the completion of the building according to the plans submitted and approved. Mr. Bowman asked if there is an Ordinance requiring the construction of curbs and gutters. Mr. Masson replied yes. Chairman Schechter stated that this requirement has been strictly adhered to by the City. Mr. Puder stated that the six foot requirement for sidewalks is required in an area where there is large pedestrian traffic. Since there is no pedestrian traffic in front of our building, there is a very sparse need for sidewalks. Mr. Fitzpatrick commented that this discussion was somewhat irrelevant as the Code specifies sidewalks and Mr. puder is asking for a waiver of that requirement. -3 -4-28-69 chairman Schechter stated that Mr. Puder is retracting the request for waiver and will comply with the requirements for sidewalks, curb and gutters in an RU-5A zone. Chairman Schechter asked for those in favor of the application to speak. Mr. J. F. McKenna,M.D., 3939 Loquat Avenue, stated that he represents the original group that purchased the property in question and also the building at 6601 S.W. 80 Street. He stated that this area of South Miami was originally entirely residential, but the area is losing its residential character. He stated that they have tried to rent the house but the undesirability of the location makes it difficult to find responsible people to stay in the house. The building has become a burden to them and they feel that the proper and reasonable use of this property will be as the application states. Chairman Schechter asked Dr. McKenna if he felt that the Professional Building across the street has improved the character of the area. Dr. McKenna replied that in his opinion the building is certainly better looking than the residence that was there before. He also stated that the vacant property to the west of them is zoned for non-residential use. Mr. Masson stated that the property to the West is zoned RU-5. Mr. H. welman,D.D.S.,660l SW 80 Street, signed in as being in favor of the application. Mr. Robert Rutledge, 7321 SW 57 Court, spoke in opposition to the application. He presented a list of 32 families in the neighborhood who object to this application. He further stated that the Manor Lane area was developed around 1951 and many of the original residents have been there since then. He stated that the residents have invested money in their homes in order to keep the neighborhood looking nice. He agrees that the subject property is an eyesore and has been a source of irritation to the neighborhood. He does agree that the present Professional Building is a nice looking building, but it has had its problems. There is not adequate parking. The parking is on the pe- rimeter around the outside of the building. The traffic congestion will be increased by putting up another four-story building, and the traffic that will be generated by this Professional Building if it is occupied by Doctors will use Manor Lane to get to South Miami Hospital. This will create an unwarranted and undue burden on all the residents who live on that street. He hopes the Board will protect the integrity of the neighborhood and the homes by denying this application. Mr. Chris Hansen, 6611 SW 78 Terrace, also spoke in opposition to the application. He showed the Board aerial photographs of the area before the existing Professional Building was built, noting the 30 or 40 trees -4 -4-28-69 on the property that are now gone. is approved, many more will follow to sellout. He also felt it will safety for the children. He felt that if this building and this will force all residents create a traffic problem and Mr. Fagin asked Mr. Hansen if the building he saw in the photo was a motel. Mr. Hansen replied that was correct. The motel is located on Manor Lane and it is one story. He indicated that was the point that he was trying to make. Once a commercial building is built in a residential area, this forces the residents to move out. The following persons were all opposed to the application because of the additional traffic problems the building would create, and also because of the additional hazard to the children of the neighborhood: Mr. John Bond, Attorney, 6570 SW 77 Terrace Mr. C. J. Conroy, 6625 SW 79 street Mr. George Oglesby, 7740 SW 65 Place Mr. Chris Phelan, 6480 Manor Lane Mr. James Ruck, 6510 Manor Lane Mr. David Tucker, 6556 SW 78 Terrace Mr. Puder then spoke in rebuttle. He stated the building would be next to the Railroad tracks and would not encroach into the residential area. He further stated that he will agree to install the sidewalks for the childrens' safety, and that they are trying to do everything they can to better the neighborhood. Mr. yakely moved to recommend to the City council that the application for Hearing # 69-15, be denied. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Mr. Fagin commented that this is another problem area of the City. The City is experiencing pressure to hold the line to residential, but with the existing Professional Building, the commercial area on the South side of 80th Street and the commercial area and motel existing on Manor Lane, already indicates that the character of the area has changed. Another factor that will strongly influence this will be the proposed. expressway alignment that is shown as going through this area. He urged the Board that all these factors must be considered by each member be- fore casting their vote. Mr. yakely pointed out that the property to the ¢(st and the property to the South had been zoned by Dade county and not by the city of South Miami. Also, the motel referred to was approximately three blocks away and is separated from this RU-l zone by two residences and a canal. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Fitzpatrick, Paden, Bowman, Fagin, Schechter) No -0 Absent -1 (Kalish) 4-28-69 ****** -5 - #69-16 H. O. Lasseter,Sr., R. C. Collins, Agent Request: Variance to permit the creation of two building sites (138.5 x 156.28) by resubdividing an existing lot. Property: Lot 5, Block 1, La Hamaca, PB 51/25. Location: 5420 SW 63 Avenue Mr. Wilson G. Lovell, 7321 SW 57 Court, representing R.C. Collins & Son, stated that they are requesting for the creation of two ~-acre lots from the existing one-acre lot. The zoning will remain as is. Granting the request will result in the development of an unsightly overgrown lot. We intend to build two nice homes there. One home will face East and the other West on 63 Avenue and 63 Court respectively. The homes planned will be of the same quality as the other homes in this Sub- division. Granting the variance will benefit the residents of the area and the City of South Miami. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if the zoning will remain RU-l. Chairman Schechter requested Mr. Masson to answer the question. Mr. Masson replied yes. The applicant has only requested division of the lot. Mr. Fagin remarked, for the record, that if the lot is divided into two parcels each parcel will meet the minimum requirements of RU-l. Chairman Schechter asked for anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application. Mr. Bernard Riggs, 5445 SW 63 Avenue, stated that he understands, after conversations with the City Clerk, that the existing zoning on this property is RU-1A. He further stated that all the existing lots are one acres with nice homes. The other homes are those eyesores that Mr. Collins has built and these homes look like cell blocks in a residential area. One has to look at the homes that Mr. Collins imposed on this street and wonder how he then expects those who live on the avenue to accept the statement that he will compliment the area. He fee~that this is a ridiculous statement. He further feels that the septic tanks of the proposed homes will contaminate the wells in use for drinking water. He stated the papers have recently been filled with articles about the impurity of the water in Dade county where there are no sewer lines. Mr. Riggs further stated that the courtesy sign was posted on the wrong lot. Chairman Schechter stated that the Board members noted the error when the inspection was made. -6 -4-28-69 chairman Schechter asked Mr. Riggs if the error in posting possibly hendered other people in the area from appearing at the hearing. Mr. Riggs stated he spoke to neighbors and that he represented their viewpoint. Chairman Schechter stated that since the courtesy sign was not properly posted and since this may have deterred people from appearing, she will entertain a motion at this time to continue this hearing after the property is properly posted. Mr. Fagin stated that in his opinion this action is not warranted in view of the fact it is a courtesy notice and the fact it was on the next lot would not materially affect the relationship of objectors or proponents of this case. Therefore the Board should continue on with the hearing. Mr. Bowman stated that he felt the sign should be on the correct lot. Mr. Paden stated that if anyone in the neighborhood was interested they would have appeared just as Mr. Riggs has. He felt the sign should be placed on the correct lot for 15 days before the case is heard before the Council. Since there is time to do this it shouldn't delay what the Board is doing tonight. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that the matter is somewhat irrelevant. If Mr. Riggs really considered this a serious point, and since he had known about it long enough, he could have called the City and in- formed the zoning department of the error. Therefore this is not a very strong point and he agreed with Mr. Paden. Mr. yakely stated that the City has an Ordinance wherein if a property is denied rezoning, one cannot re-apply for a certain length of time. He has no objection to continuing. Chairman Schechter stated that she agrees with Mr. Bowman and feels that if the Board is going to be effective, the property should be posted correctly. However, since the majority of the Board disagrees she recommended that the sign be correctly placed 15 days ahead of the council meeting so that the objectors know which lot is being considered. She stated that we will continue with this hearing. Mr. Edward Schuh, 5411 SW 63 Avenue, spoke in opposition to the appli- cation. He stated that his well lies within 20 feet of this property and if this application is approved he will have a septic tank within 20 feet of his well. He also agrees the homes Mr. Collins has built are monstrosities and all the other neighbors feel the same. -7 -4-28-69 Mr. Arthur Best, 5349 SW 63 Avenue, spoke against the application. He stated that he is the oldest resident on the street. When he built his home 19 years ago they were required to set back to the center of the lot. He feels the investors are trying to make a profit by dividing the acre into ~ acres. He would like to see this area remain one-acre sites. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if the area was zoned ~ acres since the beginning. Mr. Best replied that this had become a Court case about platting and zoning. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson if this lot was platted into two ~-acres. Mr. Masson stated all the lots in La Hamaca Subdivision were originally platted in one-acre size, but the zoning is that of less than an acre, RU-l. Mr. Best stated that South Miami zoning was apparently different from the platting. Myrtle Green bought the area for back taxes and had it platted as acres. Mr. Masson stated the platting does not set the zoning on a particular piece of property. The zoning is set by the legislative authority, in this case, the city Council of South Miami. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson when this was platted. Mr. Masson replied that it was platted in the early '50's. Chairman Schechter stated that she recollected a dispute in this Sub- division about two years ago. Mr. Best replied that she was correct. The Courts granted a replatting to ~-acre lots. Chairman Schechter then stated that the resulting court action has no influence on other similar requests. Mr. Lovell stated that in 1967, Mr. Lasseter, the owner, obtained a ruling from the Circuit Court which ruled that the lot could be divided since it was zoned for RU-l. Chairman Schechter asked if this applied to the lot being considered in this application. Mr. Lovell replied it applies to all the lots in La Hamaca Subdivision. Chairman Schechter then asked why is it necessary for Mr. Collins to apply for the resubdivision of this lot. Mr. Masson stated that the requirements of Section 20-5(b) of the code requires Council's approval for the resubdivision of platted lots. -8 -4-28-69 Mr. Fagin stated that Tract A of La Hamaca was granted a similar variance by this Board. Mrs. M. J. Ball, 5275 SW 63 Avenue, spoke against the application. She stated that she signed a plat that allowed only one house per lot. Mr. Lovell stated that there is a restriction of one house per lot, but the restriction is on the square footage of the house. Mr. Masson stated that this requirement is also in the Code. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that due to the legal matters involved that perhaps the Board should table this application until the City Attorney can appear to discuss it with the Board. Mr. Lovell stated that the Court's findings are immaterial as far as this request is concerned and he requested the Board to arrive at a decision tonight so it will get to the City council on June 10, 1969. Mr. Lovell further stated that he had requested Mr. Masson to bring this to the attention of the City Attorney and to get his opinion before the hearing. Mr. Fagin asked Mr. Masson whether or not an opinion was requested from our city Attorney. Mr. Masson replied that the city Attorney had not been contacted. Mr. Fagin asked Mr. Lovell if he would have any objection to deferring this hearing to the next meeting. Mr. Lovell replied he does not mind deferring it if he can be assured that it will go before the Council on their June 10 meeting. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson if this would be possible. Mr. Masson replied that due to the time element involved in getting the minutes approved that this would not be possible. Mr. Fagin moved that the application to permit the creation of two building sites (one 138.5 x 156.28 lot facing 63 Avenue and one 138.5 x 156.28 lot facing SW 63 court) by resubdividing an existing lot, be approved,with the recommendation to the city Council that the city Attorney give an opinion on any possible legal ramifications regarding this property as a result of Court actions. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion. Chairman Schechter stated for the record that due to the fact that the property was incorrectly posted and that there are still legal questions that have not been answered, she will vote nO,on the motion. She stated further that if the Board is to be effective, it should have all question~ answered before voting. -9 -4-28-69 Mr. Fagin stated that the posting of the property is a courtesy notice, not required legally. Since the applicant requested our representative to discuss this matter with the city Attorney before this hearing for a legal opinion, and since this was not done, then the Board should not penalize the applicant by delaying him another four weeks. The question was called and the vote polled on the amended motion. Polled: Yes -5 No -1 Absent -1 (Yakely, Fitzpatrick, Paden, Bowman, Fagin) (Schechter) (Kalish) ****** #69-17 city of South Miami Request: Consideration of Planning Board study to rezone the areas described below from EU-l(one acre estate zone) to RU-l (single family residential zone -10,000 sq. ft. minimum) Property: W. 250' of S. 346.2' of SE~ of SE~ of Section 26-54-40, less the S. 50' thereof for R/W. (NE corner of Sunset Drive & SW 69 Avenue) AND Begin at SE corner of SW~ of SE~ of SE~ of Section 26-54-40, then W. 17.5' to POB then N. 371.25' then W. 178.5' then S. 371.25' then E. 178.5' to POB less S. 50' thereof for R/W. (NE corner of Sunset Drive & SW 68 court.) Chairman Schechter asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or in objection to this application. There were no speakers. Mr. yakely moved that we recommend to the City Council that the seven lots described in the application, and more fully shown on the*map which is to be attached to the minutes of this meeting, be rezoned from EU-l to RU-l. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. (* Exhibit "A"). Mr. Masson stated that this particular study was referred to the Board by the City Council as a result of an application made by the owner of the lot that is on the NE corner of SW 69 Avenue and Sunset Drive. Sub- sequent to that the owner of the lot directly North of the one on the NE corner of 69 Avenue and Sunset Drive, applied for a building permit. Also, I informed the owner that he could not get a building permit in so far as the lot did not meet the zoning requirements. He was told that he would either have to get a lot size variance or a change of zoning. The owner conferred with the city Manager and they were in- formed that the Board was studying this area for a possible rezoning to RU-l and therefore they should wait for their action. -10 - 4-28-69 .f v "/1, ~ N Y:' N " .('I I) i uI r- «) \ '" :J' • () 11) " EXHIBIT "A" ~: -0 · . • " • ':\ · " r' • · , '" <t /(' "55/ .0 I • '" ~3 C\l 'l~1 f1I7Vd ~O <~ ':l ~ .:'"', L .. 05 "'--' oz -1/1 "Y{E' NOUdOd CITy DF SOu Til To .# 61-/7 \ -,: ~ 'J .. '-' I-, , I-lJ. '>. \.) < J£; I-.' C>I u.. ~ <l: ! :r \- ::> ~ SIc)/) '/ 4-28-69 EXHIBIT "A" I~ ~ ~i ,'1r/ / / Mr. yakely stated that all seven of these lots meet the RU-l zoning requirements. Mr. Masson agreed. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Fitzpatrick, Paden, Bowman, Fagin, Schechter) No -0 Absent -1 (Kalish) Mr. Masson stated that he would like to have direction from the Board if they would like for him to advertise this for a Public Hearing before the City Council. Chairman Schechter directed him to do so. Chairman Schechter also stated that she would like to at this point direct Mr. Masson to write to our city Attorney for clarification on the legal points discussed in Hearing # 69-16 for possible answers for the next meeting. ****** Executive Session: Approval of Minutes: After several corrections were made to the minutes of the April 8, 1969 meeting, Mr. Paden moved that the minutes be approved as corrected. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Schechter stated that at this point she would discuss Mr. Veldman's Memo #24 to Mr. Masson. She asked Mr. Masson to comment on this. Mr. Masson replied that he had been directed by the City Manager to refrain from giving recommendations on applications in writing and also from giving opinions. Chairman Schechter read the Memo,to the Board. Mr. Fagin stated: "Since Mr. Masson is an employee of the City Manager, the City Manager has a right to direct his duties and I cannot contra- dict that which he directs. I question, however, whether we should be that restricted in requesting from an employee of the City of South Miami an interpretation of the law and code or his opinion on certain things. Mr. Masson has an 8-hour job here and he knows the law and the various interpretations of what is written. I would like to have the opinions of a person of this nature, whether it is Mr. Masson or anyone in his position. The Zoning Director is apprised of many situations which we would not ordinarily be aware of, so if I want his opinion, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to give it. -11 -4-28-69 Chairman Schechter stated that Mr. Veldman said that if anyone had any questions about this memo or his opinions in regards to this matter, that they should contact him, and I would urge you to do so and he will discuss it with you. Mr. Paden stated that he felt the City Manager should come in and discuss this with the Board. He agrees with Mr. Fagin that this is a highly restrictive thing for the city Manager to do. This Board was authorized by the City Ordinances which designates the Zoning Director as the Secretary of the Board. NOW if we cannot ask questions of the Secretary and get his professional advise, then we don't need a secretary and we shouldn't have a Secretary who has been restricted by a superior in answering certain questions. Mr. Masson stated that there is a fine line here between opinion and the administration of the Code. On any matters that deal with the application of our Code, I am given free hand to tell you how that Code is applied to a specific instance. This is the intent. On matters of the application of the Code and how things in the Code are interpreted, since I do this as a matter of every day routine, this I will do. There comes a time when there are differences in inter- pretation, but as long as you are consistent with your interpretations your judgment is fair to everyone. However, the City Manager is referring to making recommendations on changes of zoning for a specific piece of property. There is more to that than just the administration of the zoning code. To state whether a change of zoning is good for a piece of property can legally place the City in a poor position since at the present time we do not have the guidance of a comprehensive plan. I may comment whether it is spot zoning or not spot zoning, but not whether it should be changed or not; and also on matters of variances, whether there is hardship shown or not. Chairman Schechter stated that she would invite Mr. Veldman to meet with the Board to discuss this matter first hand. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Fagin to report on the Lee park area study. Mr. Fagin replied that he has no report but hopes to have something for the Board by the next meeting. chairman Schechter inquired of Mr. Yakely concerning his remarks about a study for Linden Acres area. Mr. Yakely replied that there are two areas that we should look at. One, the area North of 75 Terrace and West of Ludlam Road should be studied for possible rezoning, and two, the Linden Acres area, also for rezoning. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson if they needed the Council's approval to do these studies. Mr. Masson replied that the Ordinances give the Board the authority to conduct studies and make recommendations to the City council. -12-4-28-69 Chairman Schechter appointed Mr. Yakely, Mr. Fitzpatrick, and Mr. Paden to do these studies. Remarks: Mr. Fagin stated that the new proposed Charter has some pertinent areas in it relative to the Board. There is going to be another hearing on the proposed charter on May 12, and he suggested that the members attend this meeting. Chairman Schechter stated that she and Mr. Bowman attended the HUD meeting and that Mr. watson stated that they would have to get a cross-section representation at these meetings. Mr. Lee Perry stated that they would be represented and that there would be somebody from the City council and the Planning Board. Chairman Schechter stated that there would be a FPZA Meeting at the Biscayne Cafeteria on May 30, 1969. They are going to talk about Metro Transit and Mr. Reynolds will be the guest speaker. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. -13 -4-28-69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD MAY 13, 1969 APPROVED May 27. 1969 Chairman Schechter called the meeting order at 8:00 P. M. Present: Joyce Schechter, Chairman Carl Paden, Vice Chairman Harold Yakely William Fitzpatrick Leonard Kalish James Bowman Sidney Fagin Public Works Director Stephen Masson was also in attendance. ***** Approval of Minutes of April 28, 1969: Mr. Yakely stated that on page 5, Paragraph 8 which reads as follows, "Mr. yakely pointed out that the motel on the East side of the canal, three blocks away, exists not as a result of the zoning of South Miami, but of the county" should be deleted and corrected to read "Mr. Yakely pointed out that the property to the West and the property to the South had been zoned by Dade county and not by the City of South Miami. Also the motel referred to was approximately three blocks away and is separated from this RU-l zone by two residences and a canal." Mr. Yakely moved that the minutes be approved as corrected. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ***** Hearings: #69-18 Helen R. Stratt Request: Variance to permit the construction of an addition to non-conforming, single family, frame-stucco building. Property: Lots 7-10 inc. and Lot 6 less W. 15.65' Block 6 West Larkin Park, PB 12-49 Location: 6875 S. W. 78th Terrace 5-13-69 Mrs. Helen R. Stratt, 6875 S. W. 78th Terrace made the presentation. She stated she wants to add a bedroom and bath to the rear of her home. Her house built prior to 1926 is one of the oldest houses in South Miami and it projects out into the right-of-way. The addition will conform in side and rear setback since her lot is wider than the average lot in the area. Mr. Fagin asked Mr. Masson what is the existing front setback of the house. Mr. Masson replied, that the house projects into the right-of-way approximately eight feet. Mr. Fagin asked if the road was ever to be widen would the city have to buy that portion of the house that is projecting. Mr. Masson replied, yes. Mr. Fagin asked Mr. Masson why the house was non-conforming. Mr. Masson replied, the house has no front setback. Mr. Fagin asked if code requirements. the addition complied with Mr. Masson replied, yes. the existing Chairman Schechter stated, for the record, that the addition will be on the back of the building and will not interfere with front setback. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated the only issue to be concerned with is that the non-conforming status is due to the fact that the present structure projects into the right-of-way. Chairman Schechter asked if there was anyone objecting to this application. There were none. Mr. Masson stated there is a letter in the file from Mrs. Juliet Peacock. She did not object to the request. Mr. Fagin moved to recommend to the City Council that the application be approved. Mr. Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: ***** Yes -7 (Yakely, Fitzpatrick, Paden, Kalish, Bowman, Fagin, Schechter) No -0 -2 - 5-13-69 #69-19 Buwebe, Inc., George A. Buchmann, Agent Request: Change of zone classification from Ru-l to C-l Property: Lots 17, 19, 20 and N. 20' Lot 21 Poinciana Park, PB 41-41 Location: 7220, 7240 and 7250 S. W. 61 Court. Mr. George A. Buchmann, Attorney at Law, 7550 S. W. 57th Avenue, made the presentation. He stated the properties are located West of the City Hall building. The other properties in the subdivision facing on Sunset are occupied by Farm Stores and by a service station. Immediately, West of the properties in question is the 7211 Building which although is used for a commercial building is still zoned RU-l with a use variance. It is obvious that the pattern of this particular block is commercial in nature and the residential use has become a thing of the past. We presently propose to utilize the houses in their present condition. parking facilities will be installed to satisfy the C-l classification requirements and also sidewalks will be installed. He further stated that this whole block should probably be rezoned to C-l in order to utilize the property properly. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Buchmann if the second lot South from the Farm Stores not involved in this application is being negotiated for purchase. Mr. Buchmann replied, an offer has been made for the lot. Also the owner of Lot 20 has been approached but the offer has not been accepted. Mr. Fitzpatrick also asked Mr. Buchmann if he would give the names of the individuals in the group that he is representing. Mr. Buchmann replied that Buwebe, Inc., is a corporation formed by himself, Mr. Al weintraub and Mr. Richard Beare. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Masson what the parking requirements are for C-l zoning and if there is sufficient area to meet the requirements. Mr. Masson replied, the parking requirements are one space for every 300 square feet of floor area in the buildings and it appears that the rear yard of these buildings have sufficient area for parking. -3 -5-13-69 Mr. Yakely stated that due to the way the Fire Department is located parking in front of these buildings should be prohibited. Mr. Buchmann agreed. He further stated that they plan to exceed the minimum requirement for parking spaces. Mr. Yakely further asked Mr. Buchmann if he planned to continue his efforts to purchase Lot 18. Mr. Buchmann replied, yes. Mr. Yakely stated the City could be accused of spot zoning if Lot 18 is not rezoned. Mr. Buchmann stated it was very important to them to acquire this lot, as it fits into their total develop- ment plan for the future. He commented that the spot zoning was due to the existing residential and not the commercial use requested. Mr. Buchmann further stated that he would supply the City a Unity of Title covenant on the three houses so that the parking area could be utilized by the three buildings. He indicated that this will comply with the code requirement of the city. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson to be sure that this appeared in the minutes. Mr. Fagin stated he agreed with Mr. Yakely that no parking be permitted on the street across from the Fire Department. Mr. Buchmann stated presently there are no signs indicating that parking is prohibited but if it is zoned commercially the City should indicate no parking on the street. Mr. Fagin suggested the Board recommend to the Council to have that area restricted parking. Chairman handled. that can Schechter asked Mr. Masson how this situation could be Mr. Masson replied that he thought this was a matter be handled administratively. Chairman Schechter asked the Board if they should recommend to Mr. Masson that this be done too. Mr. Yakely said he thought so if Mr. Buchmann had no objections. Mr. Buchmann replied that he had no objection. Chairman Schechter asked for a vote from the Board. The recommendation was passed unanimously. -4 - 5-13-69 Mr. Kalish asked Chairman Schechter whether it would be possible for the Board to recommend that not only Lot 17, 19, 20 and part of 21, but that the whole block including Lot 18 be rezoned to avoid the question of spot zoning. It will be only a matter of time before the applicants will acquire Lot 18 and they will be back to ask for rezoning. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson if it is possible to commit the entire area for rezoning now or would it have to be done on a separate application. Mr. Masson recommended that another Public Hearing be held before this Board on the remaining lots of this subdivision. Chairman Schechter recommended to defer this application and advertise for a Public Hearing for rezoning the entire block. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that in all fairness to the applicants this application should be acted on tonight. Chairman Schechter replied the Boards' action could be classified as spot zoning. Mr. Fagin stated he was questioning the phrase "spot zoning" and he doesn't feel it applies in this case. This is not something that has been selected out of a large area where we have residential homes or apartments. This is something that is already zoned C-l. Mr. Yakely asked Mr. Buchmann if the Board delayed action on the application would put him at a distinct disadvantage on the negotiations for the balance of the lots on the block. Mr. Buchmann replied it would. Mr. Bowman stated that the Board should act on the application as presented and recommend to the Council that we study the other portions of that area and come up with a correct zoning for it. Chairman Schechter then asked Mr. Masson if granting this would be considered, according to the definitions of the planners, "spot zoning". Mr. Masson replied that Mr. Duncan, Metro Planner, was present and could answer that question. Chairman Schechter then asked Mr. Duncan if he could clarify it for us. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked for point of order. He stated the Board should complete the questioning of the applicant now. The question of spot zoning should be discussed under Executive Session. Chairman Schechter replied that she thought this point should be answered before the Board voted. 5-13-69 -5 - Chairman Schechter asked if there were any objectors or letters objecting to this application. There were none. Mr. Fagin made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application be approved. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Chairman Sechechter stated that before voting on this matter she would like Mr. Duncan state if in his opinion granting this change would be "spot zoning." Mr. Duncan replied, that with the existing uses in this area and the adjacent areas in his opinion it is not "spot zoning." The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -7 No -0 (Yakely, Fitzpatrick, Paden, Kalish, Bowman, Fagin, Schechter.) Mr. yakely made a motion that the Board request permission from Council to study the Poinciana Park Subidivsion for rezoning remaining lots from Ru-l to C-l. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -3 No -4 Motion was defeated. ***** Executive Session: (Yakely, Paden, Schechter) (Fitzpatrick, Kalish, Fagin, Bowman) 1. Committee Report on deleting apartment uses from commercial zones. Mr. Fagin reported that the Committee comprised of himself, Mr. Bowman and Mr. Paden had met and was ready to report its findings. Mr. Fagin read the Committee Report to the Board. After some discussion of the report the members decided that it should be reproduced and distributed to the member of the Board so that they may have an opportunity to study the recommendations. Mr. Yakely suggested that the report also be made available to Mr. Duncan. Mr. Masson was instructed to have the report reproduced and sent to each member. -6 -5-13-69 2. Report of Committee studying the area in the vicinity of the university Christian Church. Mr. Yakely reported that he had not received the necessary maps and consequently had not called a meeting of the Committee. He indicated that there would probably be a report at the next meeting. Chairman Schechter requested that Mr. Yakely's Committee also study the rezoning of the remaining lots in Poinciana Park Subdivision as was discussed in Hearing #69-19. She also added Mr. Kalish as a member of this committee. Remarks: Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson if there were funds budgeted by the City for Planning Board Members to attend Florida Planning and zoning Association Meetings. Mr. Masson replied, yes. Mr. Fagin commented that the members of the Planning Board should familiarize themselves with the recommendations of the Charter Review Board as they pertain to the Planning Board. Each member should make suggestions as they feel necessary to the Charter Review Board. Chairman Schechter indicated she would consider setting up a committee to study their recommendations. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson to read the letter he was directed to write to Mr. Kelly with reference to Public Hearing #69-16. Mr. Masson read the letter to the members of the Board. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P. M. -7 -5-13-69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD MAY 27, 1969 APPROVED June 24, 1969 Chairman Schechter called the meeting to order at 8:00 P. M. Present: Joyce Schechter, Chairman Carl Paden, Vice Chairman Harold Yakely William Fitzpatrick James Bowman Absent: Leonard Kalish Sidney Fagin Public Works Director Stephen Masson was also in attendance. ***** Approval of Minutes of May 13, 1969: Mr. Yakely stated that in the "Approval of Minutes" of the last meeting he had meant to say " ••.• the propertr, to the West •••• ", instead of " .... the property to the East .... '. Mr. Yakely further stated that on Page 5, Paragraph 7, Line 3, the word "lost" should be "lots." Mr. Yakely moved that the minutes be approved as corrected. Mr. Fitzpatrick seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ***** Hearings: #69-12 First Baptist Church of South Miami Karl G. Frese, Jr., Agent Revised Request: Special exception to revise the site development plan approved by Resolution #2417 to permit the Property: parking spaces to be reduced from 256 spaces as originally approved to 167 spaces. (Original request -133 spaces) N~ of SE~ of SE~ of SE\ of Section 26-54-40 and E. 155' of w. 340' of S~ of SE\ of SE\ of SE~ of Section 26-54-40 and W. 185' of S% of SE\ of SE\ of SE\ of Section 26-54-40 and E. 15' of S. 371.23' of SW\ of SEt of SE~ of Section 26-54-40 all situated and being Dade County, Florida Location: 6767 Sunset Drive 5-27-69 Dr. M. McMillan, Pastor of 7320 S. W. 62nd Avenue, made the presentatior. He stated that the 256 parking spaces roquire~, is based on the total area of the educational facility and the sanctuary. However, since it is the practice of the Baptist Church to hold their Sunday School services at 9:30 A. M. to 10:30 A. M., and the Sanctuary services at 11:00 A. M. to 12:00 noon, they would never use the 256 spaces at one time. Therefore, it is impractical that they should be required to pave all 256 spaces at this time. Their request for 167 spaces was based on the seating capacity of the Sanctuary. The land is available for these 256 spaces, but they feel that it would look better in green grass, trees, etc., rather than paving. Whenever the need arises, more area will be paved. They feel that this request is justifiable under the circumstances and they hope the Board will approve this application. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Masson if the Code is dependent on the square footage and the occupancy of the whole building, and not at the increments separated from one another. Mr. Masson replied that when you have a mixed use, such as this church has with a sanctuary, classrooms, cafeteria, office space, etc., you consider the total requirements for the mixed uses. Chairman Schechter asked Dr. McMillan if they had planned on reducing the parking spaces before they made the original application for the special exception. Dr. McMillan replied no. When they first came before the Board they were not concerned with parking as they knew they would always have enough land for that use. Chairman Schechter stated to Dr. McMillan that with his permission she would like to read into the record, a statement made by Mr. Frese at the April 8. 1969, meeting, which is as follows: ...•••. ."1 unClerstand. Can I say one thing, that there was so much difficulty getting the church there in the first place that if we had come back with a minimum parking amount I don't think the church would be half built today. So I'm not the least bit apologetic for the fact that I am coming now instead of when they first came. We knew back then that a Baptist Church doesn't have Sunday School and Sanctuary Service at the same time, at least they don't today. If they do one day then the thing will change but they don't today. That knocks out 95 or 100 cars out of the Sunday School area right off the bat. I don't think that this is difficult to see. NOW, there are many churches that do have Sunday School and Sanctuary Worship Service at the same time. In this case you fully utilize almost every square footage of your building. The Baptist Church does not do that. NOW, I do not think that some of the objectors understand this. You see it's not the drastic reduction in paved parking -2 -5-27-69 spaces is really not as bad as it seems when all the facts are known. Let me say I'm not an Architect. I am a registered Engineer in the State of Florida but for the last three years I have been a Project Manager for my firm and I have been very closely associated with architecture and I enjoy it and I would like to be an Architect but I'm not :1 .. Architect, so I don't want you to quote me .•••.•• " Dr. McMillan stated that he did not understand the motivation of Mr. Frese's statement as Mr. Frese was not even engaged in the original plannirg. He apologized for that statement and he wanted to assure everyone that their church has never had any intentions to practice any deceptions in this matter. Chairman Schechter asked if there were any letters in the file, or anyone in the audience, who would like to speak in favor of the application. There were none. Chairman Schechter then asked for those that were opposed to this application. Mr. William R. Alvin, Attorney, 11681 S. W. 72nd Place, spoke in opposition. He feels that the 256 spaces that are required should be complied with. He further feels that once the parking spaces are released, that would leave the land for some other type of development. He urged the Board not to grant this application as the church will increase their membership and they are going to need the parking spaces. The following persons all agreed with Mr. Alvin and they were opposed to this application: Mr. J. C. Stamm, 6761 S. W. 69th Terrace. Mr. Edward Pierce, 7191 S. W. 67th Avenue. Mr. Walter Lippman, 6780 S. W. 69th Terrace. Dr. McMillan spoke in rebuttle. He stated that at present they are averaging 450 persons at their services and they feel it will take around 5 years to reach their maximum of 700 persons to be seated in the Sanctuary. They have the land available for all 256 spaces. For the remaining property they have hired a Landscape Architect who will make it into a beautiful piece of land. Again, they feel their request is reasonable and he hopes the Board will grant this application. Mr. Yakely moved that the Board recommend to the City Council that the request contained in Hearing #69-12, requesting a reduction in parking spaces from 256 to 167, be denied. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Chairman Schechter read a letter into the record, which was made part of the files, from Mr. Sidney Fagin, who is one of the Board -3 -5-27-69 members, that gave his reasonS as to why he was opposed to this application. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -5 (~dKely, Fitzpatrick, Paden, Bowman, Schechter) No -° Absent: 2 (Kalish, Fagin) ***** #69-20 Request: Samuel Goldstein Change of zone classification from EU-l (one acre estate zone) to EU-lA (one-half acre estate zone) Property: East 143.4' of Tract 3, Nelson Homesites, PB 39/57 Location: Approximately 460' east of S. W. 69 Avenue on north side of S. W. 68 Street Mr. Samuel Goldstein, 6815 S. W. 69 Terrace made the presentation. He stated that he was one of the owners of the property in question. He stated that he wanted to cut his one-acre lot into two half-acre lots and build two homes on them in the $40,000. to $50,000 bracket with one home facing S. W. 68 Street and the other home facing S. W. 67 Street. He further stated that the property to the South a his, Linden Acres to the left and Barbara Estates to the right, are all composed of half-acre sites. He feels that more and more people are looking for half-acre sites rather than one-acre sites because of high prices. He urged the Board to grant this application. Mr. Yakely asked Mr. Goldstein if he would be willing to give up 25 feet of the front of the lot on S. W. 68 Street for the widening of that street. Mr. Goldstein replied yes. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Goldstein who the other owner was. Mr. Goldstein replied that he and Mr. Braun were the owners of the one-acre site. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Goldstein if he knew that the area was zoned one-acre estates when he bought this lot. Mr. Goldstein replied yes, and also stated that when he bought this lot it was in Dade County and not in City of South Miami. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson if there were any letters in the file in favor or in opposition to this application. Mr. Masson replied no. Chairman Schechter asked for those in favor to speak. -4 -5-27-69 Mr. Evan Olster, Attorney and Real Estate Developer, 6740 s. w. 68 Terrace, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that he could see no justification for keeping this property as a one-acre estate and he feels that the only chance of this site being developed was to cut it into two half-acre sites, as the running prices for acres are very high in this particular area. ch~irman Schechter asked for those in opposition of this application to speak. The following persons were all opposed to this application because they felt this would be intruding on their privacy and also it would devaluate their one-acre tracts of land: Mr. Bob O. Hoskins, 6505 S. W. 69 Avenue Mr. Stanley F. Folker, 6605 S. W. 69 Avenue Mr. G. L. Hart, 6864 S. W. 68 Street Mrs. James Byrne, 6790 S W. 67 street Mr. E B. Garey, 6830 S W. 67 Street Dr. O. M. Reinmuth, 6848 S. W. 68 Street Mr. Goldstein spoke in rebuttle. He stated that he has no intentions of intruding on anyone's privacy and he does not feel that this application would devaluate anyone's property. Mr. Paden moved that the Board recommend to the City council that the application for Hearing #69-20, be denied. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion. Mr. Yakely stated that he was on a Committee that is presently investigating the rezoning in this particular area, as well as the area South of Sunset Drive and East of S. W. 69 Avenue. He said they would probably recommend a change of zoning to comply with the actual square footage of the lots in the area involved. The North side of Sunset Drive we will recommend to the city Council that the corner of S. W. 69 Avenue and the seven lots there be rezoned from EU-l to RU-I. The only EU-I zoning would be the three houses on S. W. 69 Avenue to the North. Mr. Yakely also stated that area where Mr. Goldstein has his acre was not studied for that purpose. Mr. Paden stated that he was not basically opposed to changing the zoning from one acre to half-acres if the majority of the property owners in the area wanted it, but he feels it would be wrong to single out this lot, which is surrounded on three sides by one-acre estates, and change it to two half-acre sites. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: ***** Yes No Absent 5 (Yakely, Fitzpatrick, Paden, Bowman, Schechter) -0 -2 (Kalish, Fagin) -5 -5-27-69 Executive Session: 1. Committee Report on Proposed Ordinance to Delete Apartment Uses in Commercial Zones. Chairman Schechtpr stated that due to the fact that some of the Board members indicated they had not received copies of the report mailed, this item will be deferred to the next meeting. Remarks: Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson to give a report on her request to contact city Attorney Kelly for an explanation of the Fascell case ruling. Mr. Masson reported that Mr. Kelly had explained that the District Court agreed with the Circuit Court that the city's action to rezone to RU-5A had not been proper. However, the District Court also stated that the Circuit Court did not have the right to establish a specific zoning classification as it had directed. Chairman Schechter stated there would be a meeting of the Citizen Advisory Planning Commission at 8:00 P. M. on May 28, 1969. She urged the Board Members to attend. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson to report on the progress of the N.D.P. improvements. Mr. Masson stated that the plans for the physical improvements (streets', sewer, etc.) were moving along according to the schedules set up by Little HUD. Mr. Fitzpatrick discussed the possibility of having review the city's off-street parking requirements. discussion it was agreed that the Planners would be of the problems and ask for their review. the planners After further made aware There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 P. M. -6 -5-27-69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD JUNE 24, 1969 APPROVED July 8, 1969 Chairman Schechter called the meeting to order at 8:00 P. M. Present: Joyce Schechter, Chairman Carl Paden, Vice-Chairman Harold Yakely William Fitzpatrick Leonard Kalish James Bowman Absent: Sidney Fagin Public Works Director Stephen Masson was also in attendance. Chairman Schechter stated she had a letter from Mr. Fagin and she will read it during the "Remarks" section of this meeting. ***** Approval of Minutes of May 27, 1969: Mr. Paden moved that the minutes be approved as individually read. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ***** Hearing ff69-21. Howard J. Foht Request: Exception to waive platting requirement to permit resubdividing an existing tract into three building sites in accordance with Section 20-5 (2) (b) of the Code of Ordinances described as follows: Site 1. The E. 75' of N. 135' of Tract A, Block 1, Merion Park, PB 57/54. Site 2. The N. 75' of Tract A, less the E. 75' there- of, Block 1, Merion Park, PB 57/54. Site 3. Tract A, Block 1, Merion Park, PB 57/54 less the E. 75' of N. 135' and less the N. 75'. Location: 175' S. from Miller Road between S. W. 64th Place and 65th Avenue 6-24-69 Mr. Howard J. Foht, 6490 Miller Road, made the presentation. He stated that the subject property is approximately an acre. Presently his small house is located on the property. He is requesting permission to divide the tract into three (3) sites. Site #1 would be 75'x135' facing S. W. 64th Place. Site #2 would be 75'x143.l6' facing S. W. 65th Avenue. His home would remain on Site #3. The three (3) sites meet the City's requirements for setbacks and square footage. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Foht if the three (3) sites were comparable with the size of the surrounding lots in the area. Mr. Foht replied that the surrounding lots were approximately 95'xlOO' . Mr. Yakely stated that the Board should keep in mind that there must be a 25 foot setback from the property line facing Miller Road, as that Road is to be widened. Mr. Yakely further stated that the surrounding lots have been subdivided equally and have nice homes built on them. Mr. Foht replied that the sites would meet all the City's setback requirements. Chairman Schechter requested Mr. Masson to clarify the situation of the requirements. Mr. Masson replied that once the tract is split into the 3 lots, the facing of the site which contains the existing house changes from Miller Road to S. W. 65th Avenue. This is in conformity with the Code requirements. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that the planning consultants recommend that the replatting request include that Site #1 be required to face S. W. 64th Place and Site #2 be required to face S. W. 65th Avenue. Therefore, he inquired how this recommendation could be included if the request was approved by the Board. Mr. Masson replied that it should be one of the conditions on which the Board would recommend for granting this request. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Foht if these requirements would be agreeable with him. Mr. Foht replied yes. He would like the proposed homes to be attractive and be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Foht if he was going to construct the homes. Mr. Foht replied that he will sell the property. Chairman Schechter asked if the lots would remain residential. Mr. Foht replied yes. The area is zoned for single family homes. Mr. Bowman stated that the Metro Planning Department is satisfied -2 -6-24-69 with the sites as proposed and have recommended how the homes should be faced on the proposed lots. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson if application with the restrictions that would the setback requirements be met. the Board granted the the Planners suggested Mr. Masson replied yes. Mr. Yakely stated that all of the homes on Miller Road are setback for future widening. It appears that Site #1 could not comply with that setback requirement as it would only be 65' wide. Mr. Masson replied that the existing plat shows a 50 foot dedication south from the center line of Miller Road. The north 50 feet has been dedicated in the plat of Gaymont Subdivision. This provides a total dedication of 100 feet for the widening of Miller Road. Chairman Schechter asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in favor of, or in opposition to, this application. There were none. Mr. Yakely moved to table action on this application can be determined what the applicant is requesting. died for lack of second. until it The motion Mr. Paden moved that the application be denied without prejudice. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion. Mr. Paden stated that in his opinion the present plan is objectionable for several reasons, Site #2 is a corner lot which would require a 25 foot setback on the Miller Road side. This will leave only 50 feet on which to build. This site probably wouldn't be suitable in the area. Site one would provide only about 10,000 square feet. He further stated that it would be better to resubdivide the tract into two sites instead of three. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that he felt that this proposed layout, would not be suitable to the neighborhood. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Foht if the plan was his own. Mr. Foht replied that the layout was strictly as he visualized it and he would revise the layout if required to. He indicated he would divide the tract into only 2 lots if the Board so directed. Mr. Paden stated that if the applicant revised his proposal to divide the tract into two sites he would withdraw his motion. Mr. Yakely withdrew his second. -3 -6-24-69 Mr. Yakely moved that the Board defer action on the application pending a decision from the owner on the size of the lot for Site #1. The motion died for lack of second. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that Mr. Foht should restudy all of the suggestions made by the Board very carefully and then resubmit an altered layout. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson for a recommendation. Mr. Masson recommended to the Board to defer the application until the next meeting. Mr. Masson further stated that he, Mr. Foht and the planners would meet and resubmit a modified proposal by the next meeting. Chairman Schechter stated that this hearing would be deferred to the next meeting. ***** Executive Session: 1. Committee report on ordinance to eliminate apartment uses in "e il zones. Mr. Paden stated that the Committee Report was submitted to the Board for their consideration at the last meeting. After discussion of the report Mr. Yakely moved that the Board accept the report as corrected. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Draft of the proposed Ordinance submitted by the Committee was discussed. Mr. Yakely moved that the Board recommend to the City Council that the Proposed Ordinance be adopted as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Report on proposed Ordinance to delete private schools from permitted uses in "RU" zones. The Board agreed to postpone discussion to the next meeting. Remarks: Chairman Schechter read a letter from Mr. F~gin expressing his reasons for not attending the meeting. Chairman Schechter asked for a report from the members that attended the meeting of the N.D.P.-P.A.C. Committee. Mr. Kalish and Mr. Bowman commented that the proposed plan for the N.D.P. area was presented to the City officials and that -4 -6-24-69 a meeting had been set for the following week to discuss the proposed school site. Chairman Schechter asked for a reporlon the Master Plan Committee meeting. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that the meeting was primarily to discuss the attitude survey that will be mailed to all the residents. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M. -5 -6-24-69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD JULY 8, 1969 APPROVED, July 30, 1969 Chairman Schecther called the meeting to order at 8:00 P. M. Present: Absent: Joyce Schechter,Chairman Carl Paden, Vice-Chairman Harold Yakely William Fitzpatrick Leonard Kalish James Bowman Sidney Fagin Public Works Director Stephen Masson was also in attendance. ***** Approval of Minutes of June 24, 1969: Mr. Yakely moved that the minutes be approved as individually read. Mr. Paden seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ***** Hearing #69-21. Howard J. Foht Revised Request: Exception to waive platting requirements to permit resubdividing an existing tract into two building sites in accordance with Section 20-5(2) (b) of the Code of Ordinances described as follows: Location: Site 1. The E. 85' of Tract A, Block 1, Merion Park, PB 57/54. Site 2. Tract A, Block 1, Merion Park, PB 57/54, less the E. 85'. 175' S. from Miller Road between S. W. 64th Place and 65th Avenue. 7-8-69 Mr. Howard J. Foht, 6490 Miller Road presented the revised proposal in accordance with the wishes of the Planning Board to divide the lot into two sites instead of three as originally submitted. Chairman Schechter asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in favor or in opposition to this application. There were none. , Mr. Masson recommended that the Board include in its motion that the applicant be required to have minimum building setbacks of 25 feet from Miller Road, S. W. 64th place and S. W. 65th Avenue. Mr. Kalish moved that the Board recommend to the City Council that the application be approved provided that the applicant be required to have minimum building setbacks of 25 feet on Miller Road, S. W. 64th Place and S. W. 65th Avenue. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Absent: ***** Yes -6 (Yakely, Fitzpatrick, Paden, Kalish, Bowman, Schechter.) No -0 -1 Fagin Hearing #69-22. Daco Building, Inc. -Allied Bldrs., Agents Request: property: Location: Exception to permit the alteration of a non- conforming structure without meeting the re- quirements of a new structure as provided by Section 20-22(1) of the Code of Ordinances. Lot 1, Block 1, Carvers, PB 6/36 5700 South Dixie Highway Mr. S. Murray, President of Allied Builders, 5824 South Dixie Highway, made the presentation. He stated that the request is to reduce the size of the existing building and modernize the front for the purpose of having easier access from Dixie Highway. The existing 20x20 office area will be reduced to l2x20 and a simulated brick stucco face will be constructed on the remaining portion of the building. -2 - 7-8-69 Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson why the building is considered non-conforming. Mr. Masson answered that the existing building does not meet the required setbacks as to the location of the building, the gas pumps and gasoline storage tanks. Mr. Masson recommended to the board that this application be denied since the alterations will not bring the buildino ;ntG Q conforming status. Mr. Kalish asked Mr. Masson if the building was structurally sound. Mr. Masson replied, yes and further stated that the non-conforming issue would not apply in this case as to whether the building is, or is not structurally sound. Mr. Murray stated that the proposed addition did meet the setback requirements of the Code and also beautify the situation. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson if what Mr. Murray had stated was true would the building then be conforming with the regulations. Mr. Masson replied no that there are portions of the existing building in the zoned right-of-way and also the pumps would be still non-conforming. Mr. Masson also stated that if Red Road was to be improved the building would have to be condemned for the additional right-of-way needed. Mr. Yakely asked Mr. Masson what the present right-of-way dedications were on Red Road and U. S. #1. Mr. Masson replied that the dedication on Red Road is 15 feet and the dedication on u. S. #1 has already been obtained by the State Road Department. Mr. Murray stated that as the building did not conform with the Code requirements the owner should be required to demolish the structure. Mr. Masson stated that non-conforming uses are permitted to continue however, they may not be altered or enlarged. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that the planning Board's objective should be to comply with the intent of the Code not only as to the technical aspects but also as to the aesthetic values of the community. Mr. Murray stated that the application they had submitted does not change the existing violations. The principal aim is to improve access into the station and also its appearance. -3 -7-8-69 Chairman Schechter asked if there was anyone in the audience in opposition to this application. There were none. Mr. Fitzpatrick moved to recommend to the City council that Application #69-22 be denied. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. Mr. Fir~p~~rick stated that the Board has a moral obligation to the community not to permit the continuance of non-conforming uses. Mr. Kalish stated that although the building is non-conforming the Board has the opportunity to improve the appearance of the station and therefore they should do so. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson if the Planning Board had ever approved additions to other non-conforming buildings. Mr. Masson replied, that recently the Board granted an application whereby an addition was permitted to a non-conforming residence. Mr. Paden stated that the applicant has shown no hardship, and therefore granting the application is not justified. He further stated that the existing use is not illegal and it may continue indefinitely. However, the Code states that it cannot be enlarged or altered. Therefore the application should be denied. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -3 (Fitzpatrick, Paden, Schechter) No -3 (Yakely, Kalish, Bowman) Absent: -1 (Fagin) ***** Executive Session: 1. Reportof study for possible rezoning of certain areas south of Sunset Drive and west of 67th Avenue was submitted to the Board. Mr. Yakely moved that the report be accepted for study and that it be discussed at the next Board Meeting. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. -4 - 7-8-69 Remarks: Chairman Schechter requested that the Board members be sent a copy of the report submitted to the Comprehensive Planning Commission and have Mr. James Duncan appear at some future meeting to bring the Board up-to-date on the proqress of lhe Master plan. Chairman Schechter requested Mr. Masson to contact Little HUD and request an informal presentation of the proposed land use plan in the NDP area. Mr. Masson stated that he would make arrangements for the next meeting. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P. M. -5 - 7-8-69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD JULY 30, 1969 APPROVED AUGUST 12, 1969 Chairman Schechter called the meeting to order at 8:00 P. M. Present: Absent: Joyce Schechter, Chairman Carl Paden, Vice-Chairman Harold Yakely Leonard Kalish William Fitzpatrick James Bowman Sidney Fagin Public Works Director Stephen Masson was also in attendance. ***** Approval of Minutes of July 8, 1969: Mr. Paden moved that the minutes be approved as individually read. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ***** Executive Session: Mr. Masson requested from the Chairman that an additional item be added to the Agenda of the meeting. The item was entered as Item #4 under Executive Session (Discussion of Proposed Rezoning of Llewellyn Tract on Miller Drive East of S. W. 62nd Avenue. County Zoning Hearing #69-8-41). Chairman Schechter noted that Item #4 would be included as part of the discussion for tonight's meeting. Item #1. Presentation of Proposed Land Use Plan for NDP (Lee Park) Area by Planners. Mr. Felipe Prestamo, Dade County Planning Dept. Mr. Prestamo of the Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department, Local Planning Services Division presented the Proposed Land Use Plan that has been adopted by the project area connnittee of the Lee Park NeighDorhoori Development Program. ~r. Prestamo explained the objectives of the Plan for the area as it related South Miami and the Metropolitan Dade County area. He gave a step by step explanation on how the following objectives were determined: Physical Objectives Environmental Objectives Housing Objectives Social Objectives Economic Objectives Metropolitan Scale Urban Structure Mr. Prestamo went on to explain the method by which the final plan was decided upon by the PAC Connnittee and answered questior asked by the Board Members. He stated that the Plan would be presented to the City in the near future for their consideration and indicated his cooperation in matters concerning the approval of the Plan by the City. Chairman Schechter expressed her gratitude to Mr. Prestamo for presenting the Plan and requested that the Board be kept informed at all times when new information is available. At this time there was a request from a number of citizens in the audience to hear Item #4 of the Agenda. Chairman Schechter asked for a consensus of opinion from the Board and they agreed to consider Item #4 of the Agenda. Item #4. Discussion of Proposed Rezoning of Llewellyn Tract on Miller Drive East of S. W. 62nd Avenue. County Zoning Hearing #69-8-41. Mr. Heussen of 5978 Miller Road, who is a resident of South Miami requested that the Planning Board take a stand opposing the proposed rezoning of the Llewellyn Tract. The proposed rezoning is for 160 Town Houses to be built on 20 acres. The Town Houses will contain a minimum of 800 square feet with an average of 1600 square feet per unit and will range in price from $40,000.00 to $60,000 0 00 per unit. The development will also include parking for 350 cars, 2~ acres of green area and recreational facilities. Mr. Heussen further indicated that the plot plan showed access to the property from Miller Road only. -2 - Mr. Heussen asked the Board to object on the bas is of r"e tremendous increase in density for this area which doc:; not conform to the GLUMP and the existing development arcllnd the perimeter. The following persons apppa~~d objecting to the increased density and additional traffic generated by the proposed zan ing change: Mr. David vleintraub, 5705 S. '.-:. 60th Avenue. Emily G. Card, 5979 S. \'". 5i<th <(,Trace. Mr. Yakely moved that the Planning Board recommend that the City Council file an ohjection against the proposed rezoning as stated in Hearing #69-15-41 of the Dade County Zoning Appf'sls Board. Hr. Kalish seconded the motion. Chairman Schechter l1rged the people present to appear at the Council Heeting and obtain petitions from the property owners in the area to be presented to the City Council and also the Dade County Zoning Board of Appeals. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -4 (Yakely, Paden, Kalish, 3chechter.) No -(j Absent: -3 (Fitzpatrick, Bowman, Fagin.) Item #2. Land use and zoning study tif La Hamaca Subdivision. Chairman Schechter appointed a Committee composed of Carl Paden and Leonard Kalish to conduct a study as directed by the City Council. Chairman Schechter also recommended to the Committee that they invite th" H('tro Planners at such time as the Committee is ready to make its presentation so that they may comment on the information gathered by the Committee. Mr. Paden suggested that the Planners should be requested to submit their own recommendations lo the Boart! prior to the Board holding a Public Hearing on this study. Item it3. Land use and zoning study: Poinciana Park Subdivision and west side of S. W. 62nd Avenue, south of Sunset Drive to S. W. 74th Strf'et. The Board took this item under advisement. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 P. M. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 12, 1969 APPROVED AUGUST 26, 1969 Chairman Schechter called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Present: Joyce Schechter, Chairman Carl Paden, Vice-Chairman Harold Yakely Absent: William Fitzpatrick Leonard Kalish Sidney Fagin James Bowman Public Works Director Stephen C. Masson, was also in attendance. ****** Approval of Minutes of July 30, 1969: Mr. Paden moved that the minutes be approved as individually read. Mr. yakely seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ****** Hearings: #69-23 Dorothy Carter, Alfred Jaskewicz,Sr. (Agent) Request: Exception to the off-street parking requirements to permit a drive-in, pick-up laundry and plant to provide 10 parking spaces instead of 15 spaces as required by the commercial requirements of the Code of Ordinances. Property: E. 5' of S. 40' of Lot 21, all Lots 22, 23, 24, Coopers Subdivision, PB 4/152. Location: 5840 S.W. 71 Street. Mr. Francis O'Donnell, Attorney 5763 Sunset Drive, made the presen- tation for the applicant. Mr. Jaskewicz and the architect were also in attendance. They explained why they needed this request, sub- mitted some photographs as exhibits, and requested that the Board grant their request. 8/12/69 After further discussion between the Board Members and the parties concerned, Mr. Fagin moved to recommend to the city council that the application be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the site be developed in accordance with the plans sub- mitted within 180 days after final approval by council, other- wise the exception will become null and void. 2. That the on-premises parking be limited to customer parking only. 3. That a written agreement between the applicants and University Bowl, Inc., be submitted indicating that the applicants have obtained access to the University Bowl parking facilities for the applicants' employees. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled: Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely,Fitzpatrick,paden,Kalish,Fagin,Schechter). No -0 Absent -1 (Bowman) ****** #69-24 David R. Balogh, George Barkins, Agent. Request: Variance to permit the construction of a commercial building with no off-street parking. Property: W. 40' of Lot 3, W.A. Larkins, less the N. 30' for R/w, PB 3/198. Mr. Daniel Wick, Attorney, made the presentation for the Agents and explained the reasons for this request. Letters from various neighboring merchants who were not opposed to this request, were presented and made a part of the files. It was further urged that the Board grant this application. Mr. Robert E. Rutledge, Jr., Attorney, 7321 SW 57 ct., who was representing his client, Mr. Val Stieglitz, spoke in opposition to this application. After further discussion between the Board Members and the parties concerned, Mr. Fagin moved to permit a variance to permit the con- -2 - 8/12/69 struction of a one-story commercial building with no off-street parking according to the plans submitted herewith to the city of South Miami. Mr. Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Chairman Schechter stated, for the record, that an alley way, such as exhibited by the Holsum Building, would not be doing the business area of South Miami any kind of a good turn and that if it is possible to create a good business corner in this area, this should take precedence. This is the reason she is going along with the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely,Fitzpatrick,paden,Kalish,Fagin, Schechter) • No -0 Absent -1 (Bowman). ****** Executive Session: In regards to the discussion of land use and zoning study of area west of SW 67 Avenue to city Limits and from Sunset Drive to SW 76 Terrace, Mr. yakely and his committee moved that we recommend to the council that the zoning on Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, of Block 1, and Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, of Block 2, in South Miami Villas Subdivision, be changed from EU-1A to RU-l. Mr. Kalish seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Masson was directed to advertise for a pUblic hearing. Mr. Paden gave his committee Report, pursuant to a request made by the Council, for a study of the La Hamaca Subdivision, and Mr. Fagin suggested that the Board be furnished with copies of the Committee Report and copies of the plan of the Subdivision showing the existing and proposed zoning. The Board accepted the report for study and for discussion at another meeting. Remarks: Mr. Fitzpatrick inquired as to what action has been taken in regards to the "New Book Store". He was advised as to what has been done up-to-da te. The meeting was adjourned at 10 p.m. -3 - 8/12/69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 26, 1969 APPR0VED, September 9, 1969 Vice-Chairman Paden called the meeting to order at 8:00 P. M. Present: Carl Paden, Vice-Chairman Harold Yakely Leonard Kalish Sidney Fagin Absent: Joyce Schechter, Chairman William Fitzpatrick James Bowman Mr. Rex Romine was also in attendance in the absence of Public Works Director Stephen C. Masson. ***** Approval of Minutes of August 12, 1969: Vice=Chairman Paden stated that the Approval of Minutes would be discussed during the Executive Session. ***** Hearing: #69-25. Cornban, Inc. Request: Special Use Exception to permit the construction of a bank and all related uses in an RU-l zone. Property: Lots 4, 5 less N. 10' and Lot 3 less E. 5' and N. 10', subject to conveyances and dedication of S. IS' for R/W purposes, Block I, Royal Palm Villas, PB 19/17 Lots 9 thru 15 inclusive, subject to conveyance and dedication of S. IS' of Lots 10 thru IS, inclusive, for R/W purposes, Block 9, Cocoplum Terrace, PB 25/4 Lots I, 2 and E. 5' of Lot 3 and less N. 10' and Lot 6 and N. 10' of Lots 1 thru 5, subject to conveyances and dedication of S. IS' of Lots I, 2 and 5' Lot 3 for R/W purposes, Block I, Royal Palm villas, PB 19/17 Location: 6303, 6313, 6333 Sunset Drive 8/26/69 Mr. Richard M. Lund, Attorney, 303 S. Bayshore Drive Boulevard, Miami, Florida represented the applicant. Mr. Lund stated that Cornban, Inc. is a Corporation comprised of the Directors of the Coconut Grove Bank who have applied to the State for a bank charter. He stated that the application for a Special Use Permit was submitted so as not to create a spot zoning situation on the proposed site, and that only the bank facilities could be constructed. The site plan submitted will generally be followed in the development of the site. The one item that the applicant will consider in its final plans will be to construct the foundations for the building to support a second story with square footage as the land area will support. He further stated that the applicant feels the use pattern of Sunset Drive is changing from a residential neighborhood to a more liberal use due to the widening of Sunset Drive, and recent court actions at Ludlum Road. Mr. Fagin inquired if Mr. Lund had been duly authorized to represent the applicant. Vice-Chairman Paden ruled that Mr. Lund was properly authorized to represent the applicant. Mr. Fagin questioned Mr. Lund as to whether the bank contemplated any uses other than banking facilities for the proposed building. Mr. Lund replied, No. Mr. yakely asked Mr. Romine if the plans submitted complied with the Code Requirements of the City. Mr. Romine replied, yes. Vice-Chairman Paden noted that there were no letters of objection to the application and that there were three (3) letters in favor of approval of the application. Vice-Chairman Paden then asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak on the application. Mrs. Mary Charkarian of 7107 S. W. 63rd Avenue, asked Vice-Chairman Paden if the application were approved could uses other than the bank be allowed on the site. Vice-Chairman Paden replied that if a Special Exception is granted it would be for the bank use only. Mr. Fagin stated that he feels a more detailed site plan should be required of the applicant before the City grants approval of the application. -2- 8/26/69 Mr. Lund stated that the plan indicated a minimum type facility to meet the banks needs for the next five years. Vice-Chairman Paden stated that any major changes to the site plan would require a new application be filed for the City's consideration. Vice-Chairman Paden closed the Public portion of the hearing. Mr Yakely moved that the Board defer action on the application until a recommendation is received from the Planning Consultants on the proposal, and that a special Committee of the Planning Board give thorough study to the matter. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. Mr. Yakely stated that he felt that the full Board should be present to vote on the application and that he hoped the Council would do the same. Mr. Fagin stated that due to the importance of the application that a recommendation from the planners was vital. Mr. Lund requested that the Board delay any action on the application to a minimum due to the fact that the State requires that a site inspection and also the applicant has a ninety day limit in which to meet the property properly zoned for the bank. The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Absent: Yes -4 No -0 -3 (Yakely, Kalish, Fagin, paden) (Schechter, Fitzpatrick, Bowman Vice=Chairman Paden appointed a Sub-Committee made up of Harold Yakely, Leonard Kalish and Sidney Fagin to do a detailed study of the application, and directed Mr. Romine to write the Planning Consultants for a recommendation for the next meeting. Executive Session: Approval of Minutes of August 12, 1969: Vice-Chairman Paden stated that on Page 3, paragraph 3 under Executive Session should be corrected to read " ..•..• Mr. Paden gave his Committee Report, pursuant to a request made by the Council for a study of the La Hamaca Subdivision, and Mr. Fagin suggested that the Board be furnished with copies of the Committee Report and copies of the plan of the Subdivision -3 - 8/26/69 showing the existing and proposed zoning. The Board accepted the report for study and discussion at another meeting ...•... "instead of" ..... Mr. Paden gave his report and Mr. Fagin suggested that the Board receive an "As Is" and a "proposed" report and that the Board discuss it at another meeting ••.... " Mr. Fagin moved that the Minutes be approved as corrected. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion which carried unanimously. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P. M. -4 - 8/26/69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 9, 1969 APPROVED, October I, 1969 Chairman Schechter called the meeting to order at 8:00 P. M. Present: Absent: Joyce Schechter, Chairman Carl Paden, Vice-Chairman Harold Yakely Leonard Kalish James Bowman Sidney Fagin William Fitzpatrick Public Works Director Stephen C. Masson was also in attendance. ***** Approval of Minutes of August 26, 1969: Mr. Kalish moved that the minutes be approved as individually read. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ***** Hearing: 1169-25. Comban, Inc. (Deferred from Meeting of August 26, 1969.) Chairman Schechter at this time turned the Chair over to Vice-Chairman, Paden who in turn requested Mr. Fagin to give the Committee Report with reference to Hearing #69-25 which is as follows: "The committee met Monday evening, September 8, 1969, and the following report is submitted: Pursuant to the request of the Board, the Committee met with Metro Planning nepartment September 3, 1969, to discuss the ramifications of this Hearing upon the entire Sunset Drive area in the immediate vicinity. A letter dRted September 4, 1969, has been received from the Metro Planning Department and is herein incorporated as part of this report. near Mr. Paden: Regarding your recent request for our op1n10n concerning Comban, Tnc.'s request for a Special Use Exception to construct a bank on Sunset Drive, we would make the following comment: Your approval of a development such as this in the location proposed by the applicant would prematurely establish a land use policy precedent which would conflict with the city's current comprehensive planning efforts. As consultants to the City of South Miami, we anticipate having specific land use recommendations for this area,as well as the entire city, within five months. We would therefore strongly advise that the Planning Advisory Board not approve this request pending the results of these studies. Sincerely, James B. Duncan Local Planning Services Division Metropolitan Dade County The committee feels that this request for a change of usage for this area is of such importance, that any decision either way, would permanently set the course for the future development of Sunset Drive from Ludlam to 62nd Avenue. Therefore, the committee concurs with the report of the Metro Planning Department and recommends that the request be denied without prejudice. Committee: Present: Committee Chairman, Sidney Fagin Harold Yakely Leonard Kalish Carl Paden, Vice-Chairman." Mr. Yakely moved that the report be accepted. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion which carried unanimously. At this time Vice-Chairman Paden turned the Chair back to Chairman Schechter. Chairman Schechter stated that since new information had been introduced the applicant would be given the opportunity for rebuttal. Mr. Richard Lund, Attorney representing the applicant reqlle,;t',·.\ that the Board take definite action on the application instead of deferring until the planning study is completed. He stated that the applicant has Purchase Contracts with the owners of -2 - are the property that! due to expire prior to the submission of the planning study. Chairman Schechter at this time recognized Mr. James Duncan of the Metropolitan Planning Department. Mr. Duncan commented that his staff had met with Mr. Peacock (a principal of Comban, Inc.) to explain their position on the recommendation they had submitted to the Planning Board. He also stated that his staff would be available to help Comban, Inc. find another location in South Miami that would be suitable for their use. Mr. Fagin stated that the record should reflect that no letters of objection have been received or no one has appeared to offer objection to the application. He further stated that in his opinion a change in the uses fronting on Sunset Drive is inevitable. Mr. Kalish stated that the Board should take definite action on the application instead of deferring it until the planning study is completed. Mr. Lund requested that if the Board is to deny the application that it be done "without prejudice." Mr. Yakely moved to recommend to the City Council that the application be denied without prejudice. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Paden, Kalish, Bowman, Fagin, Schechter) No -0 Absent: -I (Fitzpatrick) Executive Session: Chairman Schechter stated that under the operating rules of the Planning Board the Public May attend but not Participate during the Executive Session. She further stated that it had been brought to her attention that this may be in violation of the state's Sunshine Law. She therefore, requested that Mr. Masson write Mr. Kelly requesting a legal opinion on the procedure followed by the Board. The members present concurred unanimously. 1. Planning Board Zoning Study on La Hamaca Subdivision. Mr. Yakely moved that the study accepted by the Board be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. -3 - 9/9/69 Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Paden, Kalish, Bowman, Fagin, Schechter) No -0 Absent: -1 (Fitzpatrick) Chairman Schechter moved that the City Council be requested not to schedule special meetings on the nights of the regularly scheduled advertised Planning Board Meetings in the future. The Board adopted the motion unanimously. Remarks: Mr. Masson reported to the Board that a Symposium on Zoning would be held at the University of Hiami and requested that any of the Board Members who are interested in attending to notify him so they can be registered. Mr. Duncan reminded the Planning Board Members of the Citizens Planning Advisory Commission meeting on Wednesday, September 10, 1969. He urged all members to attend. Mr. Duncan reported on the findings and recommendations on the proposed rezoning of the Llewellyn Property on Miller Drive. He stated that the site plan submitted by the developer was totally unacceptable to their department and after conferring with the developer his staff recommended a new layout which would allow approximately 106 units which is considerably less than the 160 originally proposed. This would be accomplished by using a totally new concept to Dade County lmown as Cluster Single Family Type Development. Mr. Duncan further commented that the developer had received this concept very enthusiastically and would strongly consider it as an alternative. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P. M. -4 - 9/9/69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ~!EETING SOUTH HIAMI PLANNING BOt,RD OCTOBER 1, 1969 APPROVED, October 14, 1969 Chairman Schechter called the meeting to order at 8:00 P. M. Present: Absent: Joyce Schechter, Chairman Carl Paden, Vice-Chairman Harold Yakely William Fitzpatrick Sidney Fagin Leonard Kalish James Bowman Public Works Director Stephen C. Masson was also in attendance. ***** Approval of Minutes of September 9, 1969: Mr. Paden stated that the following corrections should be made: 0n Page 3, Line 1, that the word "are" should be inserted after the word "that" and before the word "due." Also on Page 3, Paragraph 3, Line 2, instead of the word "when" it should read "un til" • On Page 4, under "Remarks", Paragraph 3, Line 7, it should read "less than" instead of "less that". Mro Paden moved that the minutes be approved as corrected. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ***** Hearing: Request: Property: Location: Paul E. White, Owner. Variance to permit the construction of a single family resi.dence on a lot wi.th 51' frontage and 5,100 :;quare foot area ins tead of 75' frontage and 10,000 square foot area as required. Lot 19 Block 7, Bird Road Estates, PB 19/76 Approximatelv ('3!+5 S. W. 43rd Street. Mr. Paul E. White, Owner, of 6351 S. W. 43rd Street, South Miami, Florida, made the presentation. He stated that in 1960 he purchased Lots 18 and 19 with the intention of constructing his home on Lot 18 and use Lot 19 for investment in the future. The home that was constructed on Lot 18 was built to meet all setback requirements. He further stated that a visual inspection of the Bird Road Estates area will show that 50% or more of the homes are constructed on 51' lots and that his proposal would not be different from the existing development. He also stated that since the lots in this subdivision have been platted to 51' frontages that a single family residence would be allowed on each lot. It was on this assumption that he purchased the property. Chairman Schechter asked if anvone else would like to speak in favor of the Rpplication. Mr. Peter Jones, 6395 S. w. 42nd Terrace, South Miami, Florida stated that the construction of a home on his lot as proposed bv Mr. White would have a favorable effect to the neighborhood and therefore he had no objection. The following agreed with Mr. Jones's comments: Mr. M. J. Cochran, 6374 S. w. 43rd Street, South Miami, Florida. John A. Cosart, 6331 S. w. 43rd Street, South Miami, Florida Chairman Schechter noted that there was a letter from Mr. Hugh Miller, Jr., 6327 S. W. 44th Street, South Miami, Florida, in favor of the application. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that he had lived in this neighborhood and that the development as proposed by Mr. White should be compatible with the area. At this time Chairman Schechter asked if anyone was in opposition to the application. Mr. Ronald Bowers, 6339 S. W. 43rd Street, South Miami, Florida, stated that he was concerned about the setbacks of the proposed building since his home on Lot 20 at the present time is only 5' from the property line. Chairman Schechter asked Mr. Masson what the minimum side setback requirements would be on any proposed construction on Lot 19. Mr. Masson stated that the side setback requirements are a minimum of 7~'. Chairman Schechter stated that there was a letter of opposition in the file from Mrs. Gladys Richardson, 6250 S. W. 42nd Street, South Miami, Florida. -2 - 10/1/69 Mr. Paden asked Me :1asson when the plat of Bird Road Estates was recorded. Mr. Masson stated that the plat was recorded around 1946. Chairman Schechter stated that she had researched the record of the City and found that the City has granted similar variances in this area. Hr. Fitzpatrick moved to recommend to the City Council that the application be approved. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that the Board has an obligation to try to upgrade neighborhoods and if it can be done by granting a request such as this the Board should do it. The construction of a new house would have the effect of upgrading any neighborhood. Chairman Schechter stated that the Board should consider rezoning the area Lnstead of granting variances since the applicant must prove hardship in order to have a variance granted. Chairman Schechter stated that since Mr. Bowers had shown reluctance in being in favor of this application, and since he would be the closest property owner effected she would be reluctant in voting in favor of this application. Mr. Yakely stated that he agreed with Chairnlan Schechter since the hardship was self imposed. The questiv",,"d~ called and the vote poEea. Polled: Yes 3 No -2 Absent: -2 Remarks: (Fitzpatrick, Paden, Fa,;in) (Yakely, Schechter) (,<alish, Bowman) Chairman Schech ter announced tha t this would be the .I.. as t. !Clei; :h.; that Mr. Fitzpatrick would be a member of the Boani. ..",,':' ",'f": that Mr. Peter Luckenbach, 6875 Hardee Dri\'" , SO',l<::h dl<:"':,., "" .. : .. ,,' has been appointed by the Hayor to fill Mr. Fitzpatrick's vacancy. She further stated that the Board regrets that Hr. Fitzpatrick resigned. Mr. Fitzpatrick thanked the Board members for giving him the opportunity to serve with them. He stated that due to pressing lousiness requirements that he could not give anol1'd .. tim., 'C' correctly fulfill his duties as a Board Member, and was with regret that he is resigning. He stated that tir. Luckenbach would be able to fill his shoes adequately. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P. M. -4 - 10/1/69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 14, 1969 APPROVED, October 28, 1969 Chairman Schechter called the meeting to order at 8:00 P. M. Present: Absent: Joyce Schechter, Chairman Carl Paden, Vice-Chairman Harold Yakely Peter Luckenbach Leonard Kalish Sidney Fagin James Bowman Public Works Director Stephen C. Masson was also in attendance. ***** Approval of Minutes of October 1, 1969: Mr. Fagin made a motion that the minutes be approved as individually read. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ***** Hearings: ff69-27. Request: Location: Henry E. Sirkis, Owner Exception to waive platting requirements to permit resubdividing an existing tract in to two building sites in accordance with Section 29-5(2)(b) of the Code of Ordinances as described as follows: Site 1. The N~ of PB 39-57 Tract 16, Nelson Homesites, Site 2. The S~ of PB 39-57 Tract 16, Nelson Homesites, West side of S. W. 67th Avenue between S. w. 64th Street and S. W. 65th Street this was a legal question that would have to be answered by the City Attorney. The zoning regulations do not have any requirements regarding ingress and egress into single family residential property. Hr, Yakely asked ~lr, Masson what method could be used to have S. \", 65th Street paved. tiro l1asbon replied that the City could initiate an improvement district for the paving of any street and the cost be assessed to the abutting property owners, ~1r. '(alis:, stated that he felt the acc(;ss should ':,e fr:ml S. \':. 6:,t:, Street to mininize the hazard to the ~hildren elsin; thf' ticycle path. Shainaan Schechter concurred with :1r. T'alish. '1,* The question was "aIled and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -4 (Yakely, Luckentach, Paden, Fagin.) No -2 (1(alish, 3checht"r.) Absent: 1 (Bowman) /"69-28. R~quest: "'roperty: Location: Stevens Market (The Yumbre lla) Variance to perr;dt an addition to an existing nor.-c~nformin6 fii6n. Tract 1, Fernwood, PR 35-72 660(} Red Road Mr. Eugene Duffy, Agent, C)301 N. E. 6th Avenue, Hiami Shores, stated that a new restaurant "nown as the "Yurnbre11a" will soon he occupying the space directly tn the South of the Stevens Market and thf'y lVould like to place an identification sign 2 feet high a:1d 18 fef't Hi.de on the existing detached sign that facei' P.ed Road. The existing sign was erected around :960. Hr. Fagin asked Ec :1asson in (,hat respects was the existing s i;n :con-conforming. Hr. '1a3son stated tha t the sign was 30 ft. high instead of 21 ft. as required \,y the Code and had a front setbac~ of 5 ft. instead of 12 ft. as required by the Code. ChlirnJan Schechter stated th".:: the exib ting sign was badly in r.eed of reconditioning and ;hereforf' suggested to Mr. Duffy thil t the sign be pair. ted wher; the new sec t ion is added. ** '1r. '(alish mm'wi t:" ,-ec0mmend to City Council that the applicatioI' be 'lCJ!'l':"'ved in acc,rdance with the plans submitted -3 - 10/14/69 subject to the reconditioning of the existing sign. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled. ** Polled: Yes -6 (Yake1y, Luckenbach, Paden, Kalish, Fagin, Schechter.) No -0 Absent: -1 (Bowman.) Remarks: Chairman Schechter stated that the Planning Consultants had proposed additional multi-family areas in the City and that it was her feeling that the Board should study Town House Zoning Ordinances to recommend to the Planning Consultants. After some discussion it was decided that this study was premature and that it be deferred until the planning report is submitted. Chairman Schechter welcomed Mr. Luckenbach as a new member of the Board and stated that he would be a valuable addition to the group. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P. M. -4 - 10/14/69 .' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR NEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 28, 1969 Chairman Schechter called the meeting to order at 8:00 P. M. Present: Absent: Joyce Schechter, Chairman Carl paden, Vice-Chairman Harold Yakely Peter Luckenbach James Bowman Leonard Kalish Sidney Fagin Public Horks Director Stephen C. Masson was also in attendance. ***** Approval of Minutes of October 14, 1969: Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes be approved as individually read. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ***** Hearings: #69-29. Jack T. Garris Request: Consideration of proposed plat of PHILLIPS PARK SUBDIVISION, a replat of Tract A of the Replat of Lots 7 & 8, Block 1 and Lot 7, Block 3, LaHamaca Subdivision, PB 55/26. Mr:. Jack T. Garris, 622 S. H. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida made the presentation. Mr. Garris stated that the owner of the property had been granted a waiver of plat by the City but he found it necessary to file the proposed plat for the purposes of obtaining clear title to the land. The proposed plat meets all zoning requirements as to lot size, frontage and zoning classification. Chairman Schechter asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak in favor of the application, there were none. Chairman Schechter asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak against the application, there were none. , ** Mr. yakely moved to recommend to the City Council that the application be approved. Hr. Bowman seconded the motion. Chairman Schechter asked Hr. Hasson if there were any other lots in the area that could be subdivided. Mr. Masson stated that the remaining lot was Lot 5 and this Board through a special study has recommended approval of the resubdivis ion. The question was called and the vote polled. ** Polled: Yes -5 (Yakely, Luckenbach, Paden, Bowman, Schechter.) No -0 Absent: ***** it69-30. -2 (Kalish, Fagin) Earl W. Thomas. Request: Variance to permit an addition to a single family residence with a rear setback of 15.18' instead of 25' as required. Property: Lot 2, Block 1, Villa Buena, PB 56/51 Mr. Earl IV. Thomas, Owner of 6630 S. H. 64th Street, South Hiarni, Florida, made the presentation. He stated that he had just purchased the residence and is enclosing the existing carporte for an extra bedroom. He stated that he wished to construct a new two car carporte at the rear of the property which will encroach ten feet into the required setback area. Therefore, he is requesting a variance. He further stated that he felt it would be more desirable to have the cars in the carporte rather than parked in front of the house. Chairman Schechter asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor of the application, there were none. Chairman Schechter asked if anyone in the audience who wished to speak against the application, there were none. -2 - lO/2iJ/69 The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Absent: ***** /,69-31. Yes No 3 (Yakely, Bowman, Scnechter.) 2 (Luckenbach, Paden) 2 (Kalish, Fagin) Golden Hand Knit Shop, Inc. Request: Variance to permit the construction of a commercial building with 8 parking spaces instead of 13 parking spaces as required. Property: Location: Lot 53, W. A. Larkins, PB 3/1J8 5795 S. W. 73rd Street. Mr. Michael Kramer, Attorney represented the applicant. He stated that due to the unique size and location of the property there exists a hardship in the economical development of the site. The applicant is presently a proprietor of a shop to the west of this property, and her customers now use the Municipal Parking Lot for off-street parking. The City's parking requirements are applied equally to all commercial uses which further places additional hardships on this property. The use intended for this property is not similar to a drugstore or grocery store and therefore, the arbitrary parking requirements should not be equally applied. The development of the property as contemplated will provide a marginal economic return and therefore the size of the building cannot be reduced. The requirement of a similar building will result in the lot not being developed. The development will not be a detriment to the surrounding properties as there is ample municipal off-street parking directly across the street. Mr. Paden stated that a year ago a similar application was requested and denied. He asked Mr. Kramer what conditions have changed to justify a new application. Mr. Kramer stated that increasing cost of construction and also the City has recently granted off-street variances in the vicini ty. -4 - 10/28/69 Mr. Kramer presented a petition signed by several merchants of the downtown area offering no objection to the proposal. Chairman Schechter asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak in favor of the application, there were none. Chairman Schechter asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak against the application. Mr. Robert E. Rutledge, Jr., Attorney, 7321 S. W. 57th Court, South Miami, Florida, representing himself, the First National Bank of South Miami, The South Miami Corporation, R. C. Collins & Son and Alger-Panky-Steglitz interests stated that the applicant purchased the property knowing that variances would be required for its development, therefore, any le3al hardship has been self-imposed. The petition submitted by the applicant is signed by tenants and not by owners of the property in the area, therefore it is not valid. The City has previously denied this application and it should be denied again. Mr, Omar Stang, President of the First National Bank of South Miami appeared objecting to the proposal. He stated that parking variances should not be granted since there is a critical parking situation in downtown South Miami at the present time. Chairman Schechter read a letter of objection from the Allen Connie Corporation. Mr. l(ramer in rebuttal stated that although the petition is signed by tenants that if the tenants are happy the owners would therefore be happy and therefore it is valid. The hardship in developing the property will be the same whether it is owned by his client or by any other individual. Therefore, the change in ownership does not alter the hardship. ** Mr. Paden moved to recommend to the City Council that the application be denied. Hr. Yakely seconded the motion. Mr. Paden stated that conditions have not changed from one year ago therefore, in order for the Board to be consistent it should deny the application. The question was called and the vote polled Polled: Yes -5 (Yakely, Luckenbach, Paden, Bowman, Schechter.) No -0 Absent: -2 (,«lUsh, Fagin.) -5- 10/28/69 Remarks: Chairman Schechter urged all the members of the Board to attend the meetings with the Planning Consultants and participate in the diSCURa~c~~. Chairman Schechter requested that on the Agenda of the next meeting time be allowed for discussion of possible changes in the Rules and Procedures of the Planning Board. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P. M. -6 - 10/28/69 ) ) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 12, 1969 APPROVED, November 25, 1969 Chairman Schechter called the meeting to order at 8:00 P. M. Present: Joyce Schechter, Chairman Carl Paden, Vice-Chairman Harold Yakely Sidney Fagin Absent: Peter Luckenbach Leonard Kalish James Bowman Public Works Director Stephen C. Masson was also in attendance. ***** Approval of Minutes of October 28, 1969: Mr. Paden stated that on Page 2, Paragraph 4, Line 1, should read "Lot 5" instead of "Lot 6". Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes be approved as corrected. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Executive Session: The Rules and Regulations For The Conduct of Affairs were discussed and several amendments were suggested. Mr. Masson was instructed to compile the suggested amendments for further discussion and possible adoption, and be put on the Agenda for the next regular meeting. Remarks: Chairman Schechter read a notice from the Dade County Planning Department for a Public Hearing to be held in Room 690 of the Justice Building on December 4, 1969 at 1:00 P. M. for the purposes of presenting the Open Space and Recreation Master Plan for Metropolitan Dade County. The notice urged all interested persons to attend the hearing. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P. M. 11/12/69 • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 25. 1969 APPROVED. December 10. 1969 ------~---, ..... -- Vice-Chairman Paden called the meeting to order at 8: 00 P. M. in the absence of Chairman. Joyce Schechter. Present: Absent: Vice-Chairman. Carl Paden Harold Yakely Peter Luckenbach Leonard Kalish James Bowman Sidney Fagin Joyce Schechter. Public Works Director Stephen C. Masson was also in attendance. ***** Approval of Minutes of November 12. 1969: Mr. Fagin made a motion that the minutes be approved as individually read. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ***** HEARINGS: #69-32. Request: Union Decorators. Inc. (tenant) Harold Krasner (Owner) Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 20-23.1 of the Code of Ordinances to permit upholstering. refinishing. carpeting and making draperies as a use in C-2 zone classification. Subject Property: Part of Section 36-54-40 Location: 6450 South Dixie Highway ** Mr. Rolando Gayaree, 3200 S. W. 25th Terrace, Miami, Florida, owner of Union Decorators, Inc. made the presentation. He stated that he does all the reupholstering and refinishing of furniture and antiques for Mr. Harold Krasner the owner of the property, however, he must obtain a license to do independent work. The city zoning code allows all the operations he wishes to perform with the exception of the refinishing of furniture and therefore, he is asking for permission to do so. He will occupy the portion of the building where the Pullman Furniture Company previously repaired and refinished furniture. Mr. Harold Krasner owner of the property and proprietor of Travelers Antiques spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that Union Decorators, Inc. has been associated with his business and do all the necessary reconditioning of his antiques, however, Union Decorators, Inc. would like to also be permitted to do independent work. Mr. Yakely asked Mr. Krasner how many separate businesses were being conducted in the building. Mr. Krasner stated that presently Pullman Furniture, Travelers Antiques and union Decorators, Inc. are using space in the building. He stated that there is additional space for future rentals. Vice-Chairman Paden asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the application and there were none. Vice-Chairman Paden asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak against the application and there were none. Vice-Chairman Paden delcared the public portion of the hearing closed. Mr. Kalish moved to recommend to the City council that the application be approved. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. Mr. Fagin stated that in his opinion the use requested would not be any worse than any of the existing uses in a c-2 zone classification. -2 - 11/25/69 Mr. Yakely stated that the Board should designate a specific area of the building in which Union Decorators will be permitted to operate. Mr. Luckenbach asked if the Board could do what Mr. yakely has suggested. Vice-Chairman paden answered. yes. Mr. Kalish stated that based on the other uses permitted in a C-2 zone that the applicants request would not be detrimental to the area. Therefore. limiting the portion of the property which could be used is not in his opinion necessary. *** The question was called and the vote polled. *** Polled: Yes -5 (Luckenbach. Kalish. Bowman. Fagin. Paden.) No -1 (Yakely) Absent: -1 (Schechter.) ***** #69-33. Request: Property: Location: Julie Deal (owner) Change of zone classification from RU-l and RU-2 to C-l Lot 1 less N. 25' and Lots 2.3.4.5 W. A. Hobbs subdivision. PB 4/111 Extending approximately 300' south of Sunset Drive on the east side of S. W. 62nd Place. Mr. Frank H. Shuflin. Architect. 8760 N. E. 2nd Avenue. Miami. Florida. made the presentation for the owner. He stated that the request for rezoning to C-l was being asked in order to erect a seven (7) story Medical and Professional Building consisting of the following: 1. A basement floor for offstreet parking. 2. The main floor to accommodate offstreet parking. building lobby. a pharmacy and two small shops with uses related to the building occupancy. -3 - 11/25/69 3. Four floors of offices. 4. The top floor to contain two penthouses and/or offices. with the underground and first floor parking we are providing more spaces than required by the regulations. My client does not desire to develop the property for uses other than a medical and professional building complex. However, the C-l zoning classification is the only regulation that is applicable to the intended development. Mr. Shuflin also stated that in his opinion this property and the adjacent area is developing into a Medican and Professional Office Building complex and it is not his client's intentions to introduce retail uses. Mr. Paden asked if there was anyone else in the audience wishing to speak in favor of the application and there was none. Mr. Paden asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak agains the application. Dr. Robert L. Yachee stated that he opposed the rezoning to C-l but not necessarily the proposed development of the property. Vice-Chairman Paden declared the public portion of the hearing closed. *** Mr. Fagin moved to recommend to the city Council that the application be denied without prejudice. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion. Mr. Fagin stated his reasons for making such a motion was not that he was opposed to the development as described by the applicant but that the change in zoning could create problems if granted prematurely prior to the completion of the Master Plan. The Planning consultants are presently studying this area and will make recommendations shortly on many proposed changes. Mr. Yakely stated that granting c-l zoning for this property could possibly introduce many of the uses listed in that zoning classification. -4 - 11/25/69 Vice-Chairman Paden stated that until the Master Plan recommendations are adopted the changing to C-l on this property would be premature. Mr. Kalish stated that the proposal as outlined by the applicant was very favorable but he would be hesitant for a zoning change to C-l since there is always a possibility that the uses listed in that zone could be introduced on the property. *** The question was called and the vote polled. *** *** Polled: Yes -6 No -0 Absent: -1 (Yakely, Luckenbach, Kalish, Bowman, Fagin Paden. ) (Schechter) Mr. Yakely moved that this application be submitted to the Planning Consultants for study and recommendation. Mr. Fagin seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polledo Polled: Absent: ***** #69-34. Request: Property: Yes -6 (Yakely, Luckenbach, Kalish, Bowman, Fagin Paden) No -0 -1 (Schechter) City of South Miami (applicant) Change of zone classification from c-l and C-2 to RU-4A (South Miami NDP, Lee Park Area) Lots 10 thru 18 inclusive, Block 5, Townsite of Larkins, PB 2/105 Lots 11 thru 23 inclusive, Block 6, Townsite of Larkins, PB 2/105 -5 - ll/?t;/e:;Q Location: Location: Lots 12 thru 27 inclusive. Block 7. Townsite of Larkins. PB 2/105 North side of S. W. 68th Street from approximately S. W. 58th Place to S. W. 62nd Avenue Lots 1 thru 25 inclusive. Block 12. Townsite of Larkins. PB 2/105 Lots 1 thru 18 inclusive. Block 13. Townsite of Larkins. PB 2/105 From S. W. 59th Place to S. W. 62nd Avenue between S. W. 68th and 69th Streets. Mr. Masson stated that this application was being presented by the City at the request of the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Housing and Urban Development. However. due to legal problems they requested that the application be deferred. therefore. the City is withdrawing the application ~ this time. ***** Executive Session: Discussion of Proposed Amendment to Rules and Regulations for Conduct of Affairs. Mr. Fagin moved that the Rules and Regulations for Conduct of Affairs be amended as follows: 1. Rule 12 -VOTING. That the word "and" between the words Chairman and member be changed to lIanyll. 2. Rule 14 -ORDER OF BUSINESS. Paragraph I. Motion. When the Chairman thinks there has been sufficient discussion. he will call for a motion. be changed to read: Paragraph I. Close Public portion of hearing. will declare the Public portion closed and call for a motion.) -6 - (The Chairman of the hearing 11/25/69 Paragraph J. Decision by the Board, if not deferred to Executive Session be changed to read: Paragraph J. Motion. may not (Discussion of motion by the Board; public participate unless requested by the Chainnar:.) and add Paragraph K. Decision by the Board, if not deferred to Executive Session. (After sufficient discussion of the motion the question will be called and a vote taken.) Rule 18. CONFLICTS. In the event any of these rules conflict with the City charter, or the zoning Ordinance of the city of South Miami, Florida, as amended, the latter will control and supersede the rules in conflict be changed to read: Rule 18. CONFLICTS. In case any of the above rules conflict with the Florida Statutes, city Charter, or the Zoning Ordinance of the city of South Miami, Florida, as amdended, the Florida Statutes, city Charter or the zoning Ordinance will control and supersede the rules in conflict. *** Mr. Yakely seconded the motion. *** The question was called and the vote polled. Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Luckenbach, Kalish, Bowman, Fagin, Paden.) No -0 Absent: -1 (Schechter) There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P. M. -7 - 11/25/69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 10, 1969 APPROVED; December 30, 1969 Chairman Joyce Schechter called the meeting to order at 8:00 P. M. Present: Absent: Joyce Schechter, Chairman Carl Paden, Vice-Chairman Harold Yakely Peter Luckenbach Leonard Kalish James Bowman Sidney Fagin Public works Director Stephen C. Masson was also in attendance. ***** Approval of Minutes of November 25, 1969: Mr. Paden s,tated that on Page #5, Paragraph 4, last sentence should read, "Mr. Fagin seconded the motion" instead of "Mr. Paden seconded the motion." Mr. Paden also stated that on Page #7 under "Add Paragraph K" the last line , the words "by roll call" should be deleted. Mr. Paden made a motion that the minutes be approved as corrected. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion which carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: #69-36 Request: Pr0perty: Location: Harold Krasner (Owner) variance to permit a 47 square foot addition to an existing sign with a 7' setback instead of 11' as required. Begin 35 ft. Nand 15 ft W. of S£ corner SE\ of SW~ of NW~ of Section 36-54-40 then W. 252 ft; N at RIA 23.54 ftl Northeasterly parallel to US#l 113.38 ft; Northwesterly at RIA 175 ft; Northeasterly along S line of Hwy 150 ft; Southeasterly 195 ft; Northeasterly at RIA 20.65 ft; Southeasterly 41.75 ft; Southwesterly 6.05 ft; Southerly 152.80 ft. to POB 6452 South Dixie Highway Mr. Krasner made the presentat~on. H ~ e stated that the Travelers wished to build a Sixty Minute System Dry Cleaning Franchise Operation on this property. This operation will include a dry cleaning system operated by machines that are completely self- contained and do not give any toxic or nauseous gases and is completely safe and approved by the Metropolitan Dade County pollution Control Offi ce. Mr. Masson asked Mr. Fried if the system was similar to the systems as approved by the City's zoning code. Mr. Fried replied, that he was not familiar with the code requirements and therefore could not answer the question. Mr. Masson asked Mr. Fried if there were any stores in the vicinity that could be inspected by the Board to determine if this type of dry cleaning operation was objectionable. Mr. Fried replied, that he would be happy to supply the Board with the addresses of the existing establishments for the Board's inspection. Mr. Harry Raleigh, 5500 S. W. 6th street, Plantation, Florida, representing the Southland Corporation stated that they had leased this property for the purpose of establishing a franchise dry cleaning operation, and that these operations do not have the dry cleaning plants that emit fumes or odors. **** Mr. Paden at this point moved that the application be deferred **** to the next regular Planning Board Meeting pending a field inspection by the Board to determine if the operation as stated would be detrimental on this property. Mr. Kalish seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ***** Executive Session: 1. 2. City Manager, Lloyd Veldman appeared before the Planning Board to explain the request of the Larkin General Hospital for the City to accept a Surety Bond in lieu of installing the sidewalks, curbs and gutters so that a Certificate of Occupancy could be issued. He further stated that the Bond guarantees the installation of the sidewalks, curbs and gutters upon the completion of the street improvements for the NDP Project Area. He requested that the Planning Board recommend the acceptance of the Bond as required by the Code of Ordinances. Mr. Kalish moved to recommend to the City Council that the Surety Bond posted by the Larkin General Hospital be accepted subject to the approval as to form by the city Attorney. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Masson stated that at the regularly scheduled Council Meeting of December 2, 1969, the City Council dLrected the Planning Board to pursue the recommendations for the zoning changes in La Hamaca Subdivision made by a Planning Board Commi ttee. -3 -12/10/69 Chairman Schechter directed Mr. Masson that this item be included in the Planning Board Agenda of January 13, 1970. 3. Chairman Schechter read a letter directed to the Planning Board in reference to certain remarks made by a councilman concerning the Planning Board and its relations to the Citizens Planning Advisory Commission. Mr. Kalish stated and requested that before this could be intelligently discussed by the Planning Board that verbatim minutes of the remarks in question be made available to all the Planning Board Members. Chairman Sechechter directed the Secretary of the Board to have the minutes transcribed and be made available to the Planning Board members and the City Council as soon as possible, and the itembe placed on the next regular Planning Board Meeting for discussion. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM. -4 -12/10/69 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 30, 1969 APPROVED, January 13, 1970 Chairman Joyce Schechter called the meeting to order at 8:00 P. M. Present: Absent: Joyce Schechter, Chairman Carl Paden, Vice-Chairman Harold Yakely Peter Luckenbach Leonard Kalish James Bowman Sidney Fagin None Public Works Director Stephen C. Masson was also in attendance. ***** Approval of Minutes of December 10, 1969: Mr. Yakely made a motion that the minutes be approved as individually read. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ***** PUBLIC HEARINGS: #69-38 John L. Bridges, owner Selig D. Snow, agent Request: Change of zone classification from Ru-lA (Single Family Residential) to Ru-5A (Semi-Professional Office) Property: W. 195' of N. 264' of S. 422' of W~ of SW~ of SW~ of SW~ less 25' of Section 25-54-40. 1.6 A. M/L Location: E. side of S. W. 67th Avenue approximately 160' of Sunset Drive. Mr. Burton R. Levey, Attorney, 126 S.E. 2nd Street, Miami, Florida made the presentation for the owners. He stated that although the size of the parcel owned by Mr, Bridges is 269 feet deep that the request is for changing the property to a depth of 160 feet facing 67th Avenue. The remaining portion (109 feet deep) facing 66th Avenue will remain RU-IA to provide a buffer for the existing residential area on the east side of 66th Avenue. He further stated that the immediate area surrounding the property in question is changing due to the construction of the new church, the court decision on the Alvin property and the increased traffic on Sunset Drive and 67th Avenue. These changes no longer make the property in question desirable for single family residential development. Chairman Schechter asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of the application. There were none. Chairman Schechter asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in opposition of the application. Mr. Ronald G. Singerman of 6821 S. w. 66th Avenue, spoke in opposition to the change. He presented a petition with the names of property owners who live on S. W. 66th Avenue to the Chairman. He stated that the South Miami Homeowners Association had studied this parcel of property and also considered the property to the north and they felt that a modified Town House zoning district would be an acceptable development for the area. Allowing this commercial use would create spot zoning and it would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area. Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department Recommendation: As planning consultants to the city of South Miami this division is very familiar with land uses and zoning in the area of the Ludlam Road/sunset Drive intersection. In the case of the Alvin property on the northwest corner of this intersection, staff recommended to the Appeals Court to retain the existing single family zoning. However, the Alvin property now bears RU-SA zoning, by court order. Staff also expressed concern to the court that the character of this area would be changed in advance of the comprehensive plan recommendations, by a ruling in favor of the plaintiff. These plan recommendations, including proposed revised zoning, will be available the latter part of January, 1970 according to a previously established timetable. This division thus recommends that the Planning Board ~ approve this petition for change of zone for the following reasons: 1. Such action would further prematurely establish a land use policy precedent for the immediate area which would conflict with planning efforts. 2. Awarding of RU-SA zoning to the Alvin property by city action -2 -12/30/69 **** on September 16, 1969, has not to this date resulted in construction for any of the premitted uses; there thus exists some 2.3 acres of office zoning at the intersection of Ludlam and Sunset which has not yet been put to use, which thus suggests that the amount of such zoning in the area exceeds the demand. In rebuttal Mr. Levey stated that the objectors would be protected by the proposed buffer which would remain RU-l and would be maintained and landscaped by the owners. He further stated that RU-5A development would provide less density than Town Houses as suggested by Mr. Singerman. He stated that the second reason stated by the Planners for not approving the application was irrelevant. He indicated that the property owners most effected by the change both on the north and south sides of the property have not presented objections. Chairman Schechter declared the public portion of the hearing closed. Mr. Yakely moved to recommend to the city Council that the application be denied without prejudice. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. Chairman Schechter stated that in her opinion any change of zoning on this parcel would open the entire vacant land area from Sunset Drive north and including the Davis Nursery for development that would adversely effect the adjoining single family residential neighborhoods. Mr. Paden stated that he agreed with the Planners recommendation although he also agreed with Mr. Levey's statement that the second reason stated by the Planners for not approving the application was irrelevant. The question was called and the vote polled. **** Polled: Yes -6 (Yakely, Luckenbach, Paden, Bowman, Fagin, Schechter. ) ***** #69-39 Request: No -0 Abstention -1 (Kalish) Emile L. Cotton & Vern.a Pope, owners Change of zone classif'ication from RU-l (Single Family Residential) tel RD-5 (Residential Semi-Professional Office) -3 -12/30/69 **** Property: Location: Lots IS, 16 Block 2 Larkin pines, PB 24/20 Lots 17, 18 Block 2 Revised Plat of Part of Blocks I, 2 Larkin Pines, PB 53/41 NW corner of SW 76th street and 61 Court. Mr. E. L. Cotton, Jr., 11505 South Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida requested for a deferment of this Public Hearing until the planning report is received by the City. Mr. Paden moved to defer the Public Hearing to the meeting of February 10, 1970. Mr. Yakely seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department Recommendation: As planning consultant to the city of South Miami this division has reviewed this petition for change of zone from RU-l (Single Family) to RU-5 (Residential Semi-Professional Office). The area in question is particularly critical in that it lies between commercial zoning and land uses oriented to S. w. 62nd Avenue and U. S. #1, and; single family zoning and land uses immediately to the east. Staff has already studied this general area in detail as part of the city's comprehensive planning program, particularly in view of developing a transition of land uses between the most intensive (commercial) and least intensive (single family residential). The transition can be accomplished by a graduation of population density, through a control of dwelling units per acre, as will be included in a proposed revised zoning ordinance. which will also include the power to require local site plan review. In absence of the site plan review prerogative at present, it is staff's opinion that the city cannot exert the control necessary to make any of the permitted uses in the proposed RU-5 zone compatible with the land uses to the east of the subject property. In addition, permitted uses in the RU-5 zone include both apartments and offices. without site plan review, the introduction of additional offices on local streets is not in the best interests of the city. It is recommended that the planning Board not approve this petition. #69-37. Southland corporation (deferred from meeting of December 10, 1969) -4 -12/30/69 _. Request: Property: Location: Special use exception to permit the operation of a franchise dry cleaning establishment in a C-l (Commercial) use classification. W. l7S' of the N. 180' of the WY, of NE~ Section 24-S4-40, less the N. SO' and the W. 2S' for road purposes. SE corner of Bird Road and SW 6Sth Avenue Hr. Masson read a memorandum to the Planning Board as follows: "As directed at the regular meeting of December 10, 1969, a field inspection was made to two Sixty Minute Dry Cleaning Franchise Operations by myself, Mr. carl Paden and Mr. Harold Yakely. It is the consensus of opinion that this type of dry cleaning operation would not be detrimental to the neighborhood around the property as requested in Hearing #69-37." Mr. Paden briefly explained the operation of the type of Dry Cleaning establishment being requested. He stated that in his opinion it was a clean operation and would not adversely effect the surrounding neighborhood. ***** Mr. Yakely moved to recommend to the City council that the special use exception to permit the operation of a franchise dry cleaning establishment only in a C-l (commercial) use classification be approved. Mr. Paden seconded the motion. The question was called and the vote polled: ***** Polled: Yes -7 (Yakely, Luckenbach, Paden, Kalish, Bowman, Fagin, Schechter.) Executive Session: Letter from Chairman to Members of the Planning Board Re: Remarks of city Councilman Mr. Kalish stated that after reading the verbatim transcription of the minutes he had concluded that there was no need for further discussion of this matter. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M. -S -12/30/69