Loading...
05-26-1964 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING March 26, 1964 A regular meeting of the Miami. Shores Village Planning and Zoning Board was held at 7:30 P.M., March 26, 1964, at the Village Hall, with the following members present: Mr. Emrys C. Harris, Chairman Mr. M. B. Arnold Mr. Gordon H. Moyer, Jr. Mr. Thomas B. Baden Absent: Mr. Donald W. Hoefle Mr. William H. Bradford, Building and Zoning Director, was also present. Minutes of the last meeting were approved as written by motion made by Mr. Baden, seconded by Mr. Arnold and passed unanimously. (1) Preliminary plans for a condominium office building for Al Quinton & Walter Elting, were presented, to be constructed on Lots 5 through 13, Block 21, El Portal Subdivision, which is located south of the former McGahey real estate office at 9050 N. E. 6th Avenue. The Building Inspector explained that the parking requirements for a B-2 zone require one sq. ft. of parking area for one sq. ft. of aggregate floor area and that without including the private alley along the rear of this property the parking area is short by approximately 1397 sq. ft. With the inclusion of the alley area, the total area would be more than sufficient. Or, if the "O" zone formula is used, as it is to be an office building, the requirement would be 68 automobile spaces against the 67 presently shown. After some discussion Mr. Arnold moved that the Board recommend to the City Council that the layout with the parking as shown be approved, subject to meeting all building requirements. Motion was seconded by Mr. Baden and passed unanimously. (2) Next was the unfinished business of a request for zoning change on Blocks 19 and 20, El Portal Subdivision. After discussion,, Mr. Baden moved that the Planning Board recommend to the Village Council that the request submitted by Mrs. Ethel M. Hauk to re -zone Blocks 19 and 20, El Portal Subdivision, from A-1 to B-2, be denied for the following reasons: 1. Such rezoning would allow the land to be used for purposes which would greatly reduce the desirability and value of the adjoining improved and vacant residential property lying to the west and north of Blocks 19 and 20. 2. The present zoning of Blocks 19 and 20 would allow an improvement of multi -family units which would serve as a 3/26/64 -2- transitional 2- transitional buffer between the existing single family homes and the business operations to the east of the railroad tracks. 3. A serious traffic and safety hazard would develop along already heavily travelled N. E. 87th Street, if cars were allowed to be taken in and out of the parking and storage spaces proposed for Block 20. 4. I believe it is in the best interest of all the residents of both Miami Shores and El Portal that this request be denied on the grounds that such rezoning would definitely depreciate the high residential character of these two fine home commun- ities. ommun-ities. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moyer. Mr. Arnold stated he was very much concerned about this property and what is eventually going to happen to it; that he would much prefer to see it zoned for office buildings like the Jones buildings than have it spot zoned for some other specific purpose. Mr. Arnold said he has very close personal friends on both sides of this issue and would hate to deprive Mrs. Hauk the use of this property, but thought we could not do anything but turn it down as he felt it could be used to better advantage for some other use. Mr. Moyer stated that no feasibility study had been made to deter- mine the need for such a change and second, that it is not a hardship case as the petitioner has had many opportunities to sell the property for uses under the present zoning regulations. Mr. Harris read his comments as follows: 1. Petitioner has presented no expert nor authoritative evidence to substantiate the position that the property in question is not at present zoned for its best and proper use. Indeed, the property has long been so zoned as an integral part of the overall Miami Shores Village master zoning plan and its classification was established under the advice of one of the leading planning and zoning authorities in the United States, Mr. Hugh Pomeroy. Since the time that the property and affected nearby one -family residential areas in Miami Shores Village were zoned for their present classifications there has been no overt or subtle deterioration in. the char- acter of the residential areas which would in any way warrant, excuse or make plausible the change of zoning classification requested by petitioner. On the contrary, the affected nearby one -family Miami Shores residential areas have zealously maintained the standards and character of the neighbor- hood. To accede to the request of the petitioner would be to destroy the buffer now established by the present zoning and protecting the one -family residential area in Miami Shores Village affected, and would intrude a type of use into this one -family affected area of Miami Shores Village which, on its face, would be obnoxious and undesirable, leaving no buffer whatever. 3/26/64 -3- " 2. No evidence has been presented by the petitioner that any objection has been made by the owner to the existing zoning classification prior to the present time. The petitioner, therefore, has been enjoying the tax rate afforded by the present classification while holding the property vacant and unused. " 3. Petitioner has presented no authoritative and expert evidence that if the change in zoning classification were granted, such change would not have a detrimental effect on the values of nearby affected one -family residential properties in Miami Shores Village. " 4. Petitioner has presented no authoritative nor expert evidence that there are any peculiar or unusual physical conditions applying to the property which would prevent its being used under its present zoning classi- fication. II Petitioner has raised the question of the location of the property adjacent to the F. E. C. Railroad right-of-way but has presented no expert or authoritative evidence to substantiate that this factor or this type of situation is in any sense unique or unusual in the residential areas of Miami Shores Village nor of greater Miami. In fact, a physical inspection of similarly situated residential areas of Miami Shores Village and greater Miami demonstrates that the opposite is the case. II 5. Petitioner has presented no evidence that if the change in zoning classification were granted an advantage would not be bestowed not enjoyed by other properties similarly classified and/or similarly situated. If the change requested were granted it would constitute spot re -zoning. " 6. Although request is made for re -zoning Block 19, no actual use is planned for this property at the present time. " 7. If the change in zoning were granted, the proposed use of Block 20 as a parking lot under the tentative lease between the petitioner and Tropical Chevrolet is a use which could be changed at a later date to other purposes considered undesirable by the Village of Miami Shores and without further reference to or permission from Miami Shores Village. "" 8. Miami Shores Village is essentially a top -grade, residential community renowned for the maintenance of its standards and character. All business and commercial activities existing and permitted within the limits of the Village are intended to be and are incidental and subsidiary to the primary residential nature of the community. Noauthoritative and expert evidence has been presented by petitioner to substantiate that Miami Shores Village is in any need of nor that there is any demand within the Village for additional commercial or business activities permitted under the classi- fication requested." The motion was then passed unanimously. 3/26/64 -4- (3) Mr. Haines, owner of the Miami Shores Package Store, 9718 N. E. Znd Avenue, appeared before the Board in regard to a sign he installed without permit on the wall of his building to the left of the doorway advertising ice for sale. After discussion of the type of sign, which the Board felt could be put in the window, Mr. Arnold moved that the request for permit for the sign already constructed be denied. Motion was seconded by Mr. Moyer. Mr. Arnold added that he thought the Village should have . some control over signs in the windows and recommended to the City Council that they consider amending the sign ordinance to give the Planning Board and the Council control Over signs on the glass on the fronts of buildings. The motion was passed unanimously. Mr. Arnold suggested that this applicant be given a weeks time to get this sign down. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 P. M. Clerk Approved: