Loading...
02-22-1960 Zoning Hearing2/22/60 ZONING HEARING 011 PETITION OF BAY LANDS, INC. FOR AN AMEND- MENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CREATE A NEW MULTI -FAMILY ZONE WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT OF THIRTEEN STORIES FOR THE APPROXIMATE TEN ACRES AT THE EAST END OF N. E. 105th STREET. A zoning hearing was held before the Miami Shores Village Planning Board at 7:30 P.M., February 22, 1960, at the Miami Shores Country Club. The following members of the Board were present: Mr. Marion B. Arnold, Chairman Mr. Elwood Jones Mr. Gordon H. Moyer, Jr. Mr. Emrys Harris Absent: Col. Thomas F. Burke The Village Manager, the Building Director, and approximately 150 residents were also present. Registered letters bad been sent to property owners within 500 ft. of the property in question and general notice of this hearing had been given in the Village Bulletin. Mr. Arnold, Chairman. of the Planning Board, opened the meet- ing and explained that the previous hearing was in regard to a petition for four 16 -story buildings and that the Planning Board had taken it under advise- ment awaiting a report from our zoning consultant, Mr. Pomeroy. Subse- quently the Bay Lands company withdrew their request for a variance and have now submitted a revised plan requesting a changein the ordinance to setthese ten acres apart for two 13 -story buildings with the present density as allowed in our zoning ordinance Mr. Arnold then turned the meeting over to Mr. Russell T. Pancoast, architect for this project. Mr. Pancoast described the location of the property as being an approximate 10 acre tract at the eastern end of 105th Street. Mr. Pancoast mentioned Mr. Pomeroyts report on the former petition in which the density was increased from 17 families per acre to approximately 64 families per acre and that he primarily objected to such a density. He stated Mr. Pomeroy advised that it would not be right to have high-rise buildings in the middle of the Village but if there is anyplace where they could be permitted this would be the location, inasmuch as the County zoning on the adjoining land Zoning Hearing -2- February 22, 1960 permits similar buildings. Mr. Pancoast said that because of its location they feel it would not hurt the character of Miami Shores and if there are high-rise buildings this would be the best location for them. Mr. Pancoast pointed out the type of development and land use that is permitted under the present zoning with practically no land left for recreation, landscaping, etc. Whereas, with high-rise buildings on ten acres there would only be two buildings which would leave plenty of room for recreation, better planned landscaping, etc. Part of the first floor would be up on stilts having less building exposed to the view across the canal. No shadows would be cast by these buildings across the canal at any time of the year. With only two buildings they can furnish more parking making it easier to get in and out. The parking lots could be sheltered so that the lights would not shine across the canal. There will be no more traffic hazard inasmuch as there will not be any more people than would be allowed under the present zoning. If there is a dock it could be built in the 7-1/2 ft. of land that is part of the canal but owned by the company. Only 10.47% of the ground would be covered with this type of building. Mr. W. F. George, 1559 N. E. 104th St., asked that the last page of Mr. Pom:eroyfs report be read aloud, which Mr. Pancoast did. Mr. George then discussed Mr. Pomeroy°s remarks on the visual impact of these buildings on the surrounding area. Dr. Robert Tolmach, 1343 N. E. 104th St. , also pointed out the remarks made by Mr. Pomeroy on the effect of high-rise buildings. Dr. Tolma.ch compared the proposed buildings to the Fontainebleau which is 14 stories and the impact created by this building. Be added that this application for re -zoning does not list the type of buildings, architect, set- backs, etc. and concluded: that once this zoning is accomplished anything may happen to the land, they may not own it five minutes after it is re -zoned. Mr. Pancoast read a letter submitted by Bay Lands, Inc. pledg- ing the development of this area exactly as proposed. Mr. Pancoast stated there is a great difference in the Fontainebleau and this area inasmuch as. they do not have ten acres of ground around them. Mr. Glen Keagle, 1566 N. E. 104th St. , commented on the proposed development of this area and stated he thought this is a very genuine and generous deal and that he is 100% for it. Zoning Hearing -3- February 22, 1960 Mr. Clyde Coyner, 1481 N. E. 104th St., mentioned that the Pomeroy report was based on the first applicationand that this is an. entirely different application. Mr. Coyner stated that he bas 150 ft. on the canal which is more property than anyone else has in this room and if he thought this was a disadvantage to his property he wouldnrt be here. With two tall buildings it would have a much more open view. He concluded that if it would be built as it is proposed he would be in favor of it 100%. Dr. Harry Keiser, 1410 N. E. lOZnd St., stated that most of the people wanted to live in. the Village because it was a quiet little Village of single family homes and not apartment buildings. Hestated the breaking down of the zoning regulations will affect the entire Village of Miami Shores, as pointed out by Mr. Pomeroy. This change would weaken the entire zoning of the Village and such a change could not be considered a part of the com- prehensive zoning of the Village Mr. Craig Burton. of Bay Lands, Inc., stated that when his company bought this land it was zoned for apartments.. He wanted to know if the people here knew that 105th St. was zoned for apartments when they bought their homes. He stated their group is asking for a specific new classification. that would not affect Biscayne Blvd. which is zoned for residences. Mr. Louis Coiovos, 1449 N. E. 104th St., stated that these people didn't think the last petition would go through so they changed the petition so that it would be easier to swallow. "Who can tell what they will ask for next." This type of buildings would attract hoodlums, gangsters, etc. and he asked the Planning Board to- deny this application. A representative of the Soka Corporation, a property owner on this street, stated that they felt this application is proper and that it would be a benefit tothe city and to the residents in this area. Col. F. Reed Williams, owner of the adjacent property to the • north, the Miami Military Academy, stated that he is fully in accord with this proposal. He added that the academy will stay in its present location, except that he sold a piece of land on the N. E. corner. Mr. Ray Nichols, 1181 N. E. 103rd St. , stated that the developers didn't have to go by these drawings. There is no guarantee that these people will not sell the property after it is re -zone&-- Other Zoning Hearing -4- February 22, 1960 requests will come in for changes. If it were put to a vote of the people of Miami Shores they would say deny this application. • Mrs. Bill George asked about sewage disposal and fire hazard. Mr. Pancoast stated that if they cannot use the City of North Miami plant they would have to build a sewage disposal plant. In regard to fire, he stated there must be a tank on top of the building as the water pressure is not sufficient for this height. A lawyer representing Mr. Sarkisian, a property owner, spoke favorably of this plan if it can be tied in with deed restrictions, bonds or other assurance so the property could not be sold and other plans built. He mentioned his own location, in Bay Harbor Islands, and that a ten -story building has been erected on the water front across from his home which he feels has not hurt his property. Mr. Walter H. Graff, 1191 N. E. 103rd St., stated that the. people of Miami Shores have spoken repeatedly in regard to the zoning laws of this city and he thought the Planning Board and City Council should deny this. Once there is a break in this dyke no one is going to stop it. He added that he hopes that everyone asserts himself to stop it. Mrs. Robert Tolmach asked for the record that a count be made of who are for it and who are against it. Mr. George pointed out there is no way of restricting this proposal to the present petition, according to Mr. Pomeroyrts remarks, as also repeated by Dr. Tolmach. Mrs. J. Welldon Currie, 1300 N. E. 103rd St., asked if the people can have .a voteor will the Planning Board decide. Mr. Bob Vickers, 1496. N. E. 104th St., stated that he didn&t think they would put up a cheap type of small building because of the cost of the development of the land. Mrs. Edith Pentecost who lives on the west side of the Shores, thought it affects everyone in the Shores and that everyone should vote on it. Mr. Burton stated there are only three families, within the Zoning Hearing -5- February 22, 1960 500 ft. who spoke here tonight. He mentioned the benefits tothe Shores if these apartments were built. He stated that the apartments will start at $30, 00Q and will not attract a low -type resident. He wanted everyone to give this a lot of thyought and consideration. Mr. Alfred Bergman who lives on 104th St., stated he diad not believe the box -type apartment would be built on this land. Mr. Stuart Adcock, 1340 N. E. 103rd St., pointed out that some people on 104th St. dont want this change and some want it. He thought the people in between these buildings on 104th St. are favoring it. Mr. Adcock stated where he lives he could not see a 40 ft. building, whereas, they would have to look at the 13 -,story buildings. He thought it will influence the value of the property. Mr. Arnold stated that the Planning Board would make a recommendation to the Council within the next two weeks. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 P. M. Respectfully submitted, , Village Cl rk.