HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1996-12-19 MinutesI
CITY OF
Nam` "Ir��
e)2
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
WALTER FOEMAN
CITY CLERK
0
ITEM
NO.
1.
2.
3.
4.
INDEX
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
December 19,1996
SUBJECT
LEGISLATION PAGE
NO.
Convo TS FROM COMMISSIONERS CONCERNING
DISCUSSION 1-3
LEPIER CITY MANAGER SEMI' TO FRATERNAL
12/19/96
ORDER OF POLICE DISCUSSING POTENTIAL
LAYOFFS.
COMIl ENTS FROM MAYOR CAROLLO CONCERNING
DISCUSSION 3-4
EDITORIALS CRITICAL OF EFFORTS BEING
12/19/96
MADE BY CITY COMMISSION TO COPE WITH
FINANCIAL CRISIS.
REQUEST BY COMMISSIONER PLUMMER TO
DISCUSSION 4-5
BEGIN MEETING OF 12/23/96 AT 11.00
12/19/96
A.M.— COMMISSION REQUESTS TO RECEIVE
AGENDA BY FRIDAY, 12/20/96.
(A) FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPROVE ON
ORDINANCE 5-25
FIRST READING AMEND 11000, BY AMENDING
FIRST READING
ARTICLE 6, SECTION 617, SD-17, SOUTH
M 96-938
BAYSHORE DRIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT — TO
12/19/96
PROVIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT BONUSES FOR
PORTION OF DISTRICT BOUNDED BY
McFARLANE ROAD/ SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE/
MARY STREET/ PORTIONS OF GRAND
AVENUE —APPLICANT: COMMUNITY PLANNING
& REVITALIZATION.
(B) (R96-938) SCIE DULE SECOND READING
OF ABOVE -CITED AGENDA ITEM FOR MEETING
OF 1/23/97, AT 5:00 P.M.
CO M'lISSIONER PELZ24ER CLARIFICATION BY
DISCUSSION 25
ADMINISTRATION IN RESPONSE TO INTENT OF
12/19/96
PROPOSED HOME INSPECTION FEE .
�y�
r
C1
7.
CITY MANAGER UPDATES CITY COMMISSION ON
DISCUSSION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
12/19/96
STATE OF FLORIDA AND CITY - PROVIDE
COMMISSION WITH AN ITEMIZATION OF THE
NUMBERS CONTAINED IN FYI 97 BUDGET PLAN
TO BE SUBMITTED BY 1/3/97.-
CLARIFICATION BY THE COMMISSION
REGARDING TIMETABLE FOR
CONSIDERATION. - FIVE YEAR PROJECTION
PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED BY 4/15/97.
SCHEDULE MEETING ON 12/23/96 TO APPROVE
DISCUSSION
AND FINALIZE INTERGOVERNMENTAL
12/19/96
AGRMYO`P STATE AND CITY, ALSO SET
ADDITIONAL MEETING DATE(S) TO FINALIZE
FY'97 BUDGET.
26-30
30-31
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 19th day of December, 1996, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its
special meeting place in City Hall City Commission Chambers, 3500 Pan American Drive,
Miami, Florida in regular session.
The meeting was called to order at 10:20 a.m. by Mayor Joe Carollo with the following
members of the Commission found to be present:
Mayor Joe Carollo
Vice Mayor Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Humberto Hernandez
Commissioner Wifredo Gort
Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr.
ALSO PRESENT:
Edward Marquez, City Manager
A. Quinn Jones, III, City Attorney
Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk
Maria J. Argudin, Assistant City Clerk
An invocation was delivered by Commissioner Plummer who then led those present in a
pledge of allegiance to the flag.
1. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS CONCERNING LETTER CITY
MANAGER SENT TO FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE DISCUSSING
POTENTIAL LAYOFFS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Plummer: Good morning. Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Carollo: Go ahead, Commissioner.
I- Commissioner Plummer: I talked, but I want to go on the record. The Manager sent a letter to
the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). And I just want it fully understood that this Commission
never acted or asked him to send a letter talking about layoffs. I was never consulted. I, that to
me almost is tantamount to a policy which this Commission to my knowledge has taken no
action. This Commission is faced with some very serious, serious decisions to be made. But I
just want it on the record because the Manager fully acknowledged and admitted that it was he,
r and he alone who made that decision to send such a letter. And for that, I just wanted it as a
matter of record. Thank you.
Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor.
1 December 19, 1996
1i
Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor, my understanding was that the people were going to vote on an
issue, and I think if someone wants to vote on an issue, they should be educated. They should
know all the results of the... And my understanding, my interpretation of the letter is the letter
explaining to the people who are going to vote on the issue what are all of the alternatives that go
with their vote. And I think this is not... I don't look at it as a threat. I looked it as it as
information given to the individuals and then they can vote according to all the information they
have.
Commissioner Plummer: If I may.
Commissioner Gort: And at the same time, the Manager makes all the recommendations, but the
bottom stops here. We are the ones who have to vote on whatever we decide later on.
Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Plummer, hold on there.
Commissioner Plummer: Sure.
Mayor Carollo: Vice Mayor Regalado.
Vice Mayor Regalado: I just want to say also for the record that I fully support the Manager's
decision in sending the letter. Because we have an important election tomorrow. And I have
talked to many police officers and some of them are under the impression that the City will move
in other directions if the agreement is not approved. So I believe that it was necessary that the
people of Miami and that the police force understands that the City has a problem, that has to be
resolved. What caught the eye of the press, and I can speak on that issue, is the last paragraph
which is the issue of the layoffs. But, the letter is self-explanatory, and it just conveys the
importance of this issue that is coming up on a vote tomorrow. But I want to say on the record
that I fully support the Manager in his decision of informing the members of the seriousness of
the situation.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Carollo: Commissioner.
Commissioner Plummer: Unfortunately, a great number of policemen took this letter as a threat,
OK? - and maybe that is what it was implied to do. But let me tell you, for one vote on this
Commission. If there are cuts the last one in my estimation would be the safety of the people of
this community and the Police Department. We can make a lot of other cuts before I start
cutting policemen off of the street. So just for the record, there might be some cuts, but it will he
the last for this vote. I just want to go on the record Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Now, I have some
questions to ask. My understanding we have one item before us this morning.
Commissioner Gort: J.L., if I may?
Commissioner Plummer: Sure.
Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Carollo: Yes.
Commissioner Gort: I think this has been a topic, and I think we should give the Manager an
opportunity to explain this letter..
2 December 19, 1996
G
Commissioner Plummer: If he wishes, lie has that opportunity.
Mayor Carollo: Well, if he needs to. I really don't see the major need for this today, gentlemen.
Frankly, what the Manager did, he is fully entitled to do under the City Charter.
Commissioner Plummer: Absolutely.
Mayor Carollo: As you well said Commissioner Gort, we end up making the final policy. And I
think you said it best. What the Manager did was not to threaten anyone, but to plainly put the
facts as they are. The only alternatives that we have if the vote is not in the positive. You know,
I've said time and time again, it's just like the Governor when he talked to me on several
occasions has said from the onset that this is going to be a partnership between the State and the
City. So it must be a partnership between the City and its employees, all of its employees. Not
just some unions, and some don't have to be part of the partnership. We all have to work on this
together and the solutions would be found by all of us working together. Mr. Manager, if you
would like to address any of this you certainly have the opportunity to and are welcome to. But I
don't see the need for it.
Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): I don't think there is really a need, just to understand that
the intent was informational. It truly was. Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. COMMENTS FROM MAYOR CAROLLO CONCERNING EDITORIALS
CRITICAL OF EFFORTS BEING MADE BY CITY COMMISSION TO COPE
WITH FINANCIAL CRISIS.
Mayor Carollo: Now, the only other area that I would like to touch upon real quickly so we can
move on, is the following. We have been getting some editorials, different news articles that it
has been very critical of this Commission as a whole. And I mean very unjustly critical. You
know it seems that because someone said something last week, then others without finding out if
the facts are right or not, "shoot from the hip." Then the next group shoots from the hip and then
before you know it, what you have is tunnel vision. Then no one is looking at the facts and
people are repeating the same bit of this information. The truth of the matter is, while there have
been statements made, and frankly even by some, that I am quite shock and surprised that they
would be making such statements. This Commission has gone forward, this Commission has
made motions, taken the steps necessary to approve just about every fee request, every new area
of revenue that we as a whole has worked in Merrett Stierheim's strategic plan. In addition to
that, we've added many others that were not in that plan, since the plan was formulated. The
only area that we did not go along with was the garbage fee. That's the only area. And frankly,
you know, whether that was approved like we said before, is irrelevant as to the future of this
City. This City will not survive or die based on a "Jihad" of a garbage fee. So to those out there
that are in positions of responsibility, I ask you to be fair. That's all I am asking you to do. To
look at all the facts before statements are made to the public or the media. And those in the
media to be fair and look at all that we have done. Take Mr. Stierheim's strategic plan, and go
item by item, you will see that we have done everything, and much more than he requested there,
with the exception of the garbage fee. And we have shown clearly that we didn't need to go to
that extreme to balance our budgets. In fact, you know, I even want to go as far as presenting
something today. I am getting ahead of the game because I don't want to get into this until later
on when I showed year by year. But, you know for those who are so concerned about recurring
revenues for the future. In the five year plan that we will eventually formulate, like this City
3 December 19, 1996
r
should have always had one, and we should always have one after this one is finished in the year
2001. In the fifth year of the five year plan that we will be formulating, we are going to have at a
very minimum, at a very, very minimum, and it could be much more than that, some thirty-five
million dollars ($35,000,000) in new additional recurring every year revenues that by the year
five, will be on board. These will be coming on each year partly. Partly each year you'll be
getting some of these monies coming in, but by the end of the year five, it would have
accumulated to a total of thirty-five million ($35,000,000) additional dollars. And that's a
conservative figure, that's a hard figure. It would end up being much more than that. So,
unfortunately there is a lot of people out there that frankly, you know, it's quite easy when you
don't have to put 18, 20 hours a day. And when making statements out of ignorance, you know,
you don't have to pay a penalty to do that. But the truth of the matter is, that those of us that are
working, living, eating, sleeping on this every day, know what we're doing. We know how
we're going to get there and we know that Miami is going to survive and have a fantastic future.
And that we're going; to start the next century in sound, financial footsteps. It's not like some are
trying to portray us to be. We have been acting the way that we should. We have been
following the plans that were presented to us by Merrett Stierheim. We have been doing what is
expected of responsible, elected officials to do. What is irresponsible is for people making
statements without having the financial information. Without knowing what they are talking
about. You know, I'd like for some of those that are here, that have been making some
statements as of late, that maybe put in one fourth or maybe one third of the time that some of us
do these days. To show me how many cities, mayor cities in the United States, or for that
matter, how many states including this one, have 100 percent recurring revenues in their budget.
You know the answer might surprise everyone. Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. REQUEST BY COMMISSIONER PLUMMER TO BEGIN MEETING OF
12/23/96 AT 11:00 A.M.-- COMMISSION REQUESTS TO RECEIVE
AGENDA BY FRIDAY, 12/20/96.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, for informational purposes, and so that I can maybe try to
make a schedule. Today, we're going to have a workshop after the zoning meeting?
Mayor Carollo: The Manager will be setting the pace for us. We had left it open so that he
could bring anything that we would need to discuss. Today, I don't believe it will be a long
agenda at all Commissioner but...
Commissioner Plummer: Can I anticipate we'll be out of here before noon?
Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Yes, sir.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. Now, the second question is. Monday was only supposed to be a
special meeting, if there was a second reading on the garbage tax which has failed. So that is
now an out item. I have not received any agenda which of course has to be in our hands five
days in advance. So am I to assume that there's not going to be a meeting on Monday?
Mayor Carollo: No, sir. We definitely will have a meeting on Monday. In fact, at the last
meeting that we had we stated clearly that we would be dealing with more items in that meeting
than just that one, if we had to deal with it.
Commissioner Plummer: All right. Then...
4 December 19, 1996
Mayor Carollo: On... Yeah.
Commissioner Plummer: Mayor, I have no problem with meeting on Monday. I would ask this
favor if possible, that we start at least at eleven o'clock in the morning.
Mayor Carollo: That's fine.
Commissioner Plummer: And second of all, that before the weekend starts, that I would have as
all of us would, something in our hands to read over the weekend to know what we're meeting
about on Monday.
Mayor Carollo: Well, that's fair enough Commissioner. And you know on behalf of the
administration, and I'm talking not just for the Manager but for everyone that works on the
agenda, including all the department heads. They have all been putting a tremendous amount of
hours. And you know, I know that we expect to have rightly so the agenda, five days before.
But these are special times, and I think that for this meeting on Monday, we have to give them
that leeway 'cause they have been putting in a tremendous amount of hours. But I am sure that
they will have that for us by Saturday morning, if not Friday evening so that we could go over it
like we need to.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me just conclude it for you. I commend the
administration and have marveled at the amount they have been able to turn out so far, on very,
very short notice and I know that requires long hours. But here again, the buck stops at this table
when we have to make a vote and we've got to be informed fully as to what we're voting on.
So, all I'm saying is, I am one who likes to do my homework, get us the materials.
Mayor Carollo: You're correct, Commissioner. And Mr. Manager, we need for the agenda to be
finalized by the end of Friday. Even if it's late at night, so we have it for the weekend.
Mr. Marquez: Yes, sir.
Mayor Carollo: Thank you
------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
4. (A) FIRST READING ORDINANCE: APPROVE ON FIRST READING
AMEND 11000, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SECTION 617, SD-17,
SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT -- TO PROVIDE
FOR DEVELOPMENT BONUSES FOR PORTION OF DISTRICT
BOUNDED BY McFARLANE ROAD/ SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE/
MARY STREET/ PORTIONS OF GRAND AVENUE --APPLICANT:
COMMUNITY PLANNING & REVITALIZATION.
(B) (R96-938) SCHEDULE SECOND READING OF ABOVE -CITED
AGENDA ITEM FOR MEETING OF 1/23/97, AT 5:00 P.M.
Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Mr. Mayor...
Commissioner Plummer: PZ one.
Mr. Marquez: Yeah, the zoning meeting should go first.
Mayor Carollo: OK. We have PZ one.
E
December 19, 1996
r
Mr. Al Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, make I make... I want to make a procedural comment, if I could?
Mayor Carollo: Certainly.
Mr. Cardenas: Thank you. For the record, my name is Al Cardenas with offices at 201 South
Biscayne Boulevard. I am here representing a property owner who has an interest in this matter.
We were supposed to have heard this ordinance on first reading on Monday, and because of the
time frame, it was after nine o'clock and as a courtesy to the developer and its counsel, we had
agree to set only this one item today, for special hearing. Now, neither the developer nor their
counsel are here. We are prepared to go and we'll be happy to go and present our objections to
the proposed ordinance, which is being presented by the Planning Department. But I wanted you
to know that, since this matter may be litigated in the courts later on, if you wish to postpone this
matter 'till later, that's fine with us. We don't have an objection to that. If you want to hear it
now, that's fine with us as well. We just don't want counsel to be concerned about having or
been precluded of the opportunity to have participated.
Commissioner Plummer: The applicant is the City of Miami, correct?
Commissioner Gort: Correct.
Mr. Cardenas: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: So I mean, you know. You...
Commissioner Gort: The applicant is here.
Commissioner Plummer: The applicant is here, I think. And I don't want it to draw on. Look,
Monday is almost Christmas Eve, and I don't want to draw out Monday's meeting. So, that's
what we're here for, let's do it. You said you had less than a 30 minute presentation, we'll cut
you down to ten, let's proceed.
Mr. Jack Luft (Director, Community Planning and Revitalization (CPR) Department): All right.
Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. My name is Jack Luft, Director of Planning. The
department is proposing an amendment to SD-17 which is the zoning district along Bayshore
Drive in Coconut Grove. The purpose of the amendment is to add bonus provisions for publicly
accessible parking. To provide an incentive for private property owners, developers within the
Bayshore Drive area to build and make available at prevailing public parking rates, parking to
serve the public needs in the Village Center and Bayshore Drive area. The SD-17 ordinance
actually dates back almost a decade. It was first established and a garage was built under the
provision of those bonuses at Aviation and Bayshore in what is now known as the Tarmac
Building, Tarmac Center. That was 500 spaces of publicly accessible parking to serve the
easterly or northeasterly end of the Dinner Key area which is severely short of parking. The
intent clause of the district goes on to say that it is further the intent of the SD-17 district to
provide incentives for parking for the Village Center, the commercial or the far westerly end of
Bayshore Drive. There was however an oversight in our opinion in the drafting of the definition
of that district, inasmuch as you see on the map here, projected on the screen. The yellow area is
the SD-17 district. However, the green area which lies between McFarlane Road and Mary
Street was not included in the bonus provisions of the district. As it stands today, there is no
availability of that public parking bonus for any property owners in that green area. That arose
from the fact that the boundaries that we described for these bonuses left out that area. We are
saying here that that was inadvertent. That obviously with an intent clause to provide bonuses
for the Village Center area, which lies immediately adjacent to that green area, it is necessary to
bring that portion of the district back into the bonus provisions. This amendment does that.
6 December 19, 1996
r
What it provides is consistent with the other bonuses in the district up to a point five Floor -area
ratio bonus, if publicly accessible parking is provided. At least a minimum of 75 spaces and
operated and priced in accordance with prevailing rates that the Offstreet Parking Authority
would do. This is a timely amendment because as you are well aware, this Commission adopted
at its recent meeting, the parking ordinance for the Village Center which set in motion a number
of changes designed to bring additional funds into the trust fund and accelerate the program of
public parking for the Village Center. That public parking program is a direct result of the
Coconut Grove Planning study which will be coming before you later next year, in the Spring, as
it goes through the review process. But that planning study identified four major locations, in
the Village Center as preferable sites for public parking facilities. The objective of the planning
program is to position public planning at the entrances of the Village Center. We already are
well on our way to developing a parking garage at the corner of Mary and Oak, the so called
Farm Store site. Which is one major entrance. We've now made it possible for parking facilities
to be built, thanks to a zoning change this Commission approved at McDonald and Grand, 32nd
Avenue, for a surface lot to be built. We have brought to you at... We will bring to you as
we've stated in the ordinance, an amendment to include the Coconut Grove Playhouse GI
District, so that parking could can be built at that particular entrance of the Grove on Main
Highway. Those are three sites. The fourth site was at Bayshore Drive and McFarlane Road
where traffic comes in the four lane Bayshore. And before it gets to the Village Center, before
you drag those cars through that problematic intersection, the idea would be to develop a parking
facility to intercept those cars and put them in a garage and then people walk in. It's part of an
overall plan. However, because the district does not include bonus provisions, it would be
necessary to build that parking strictly through public means which would mean acquisition of
land. As you know, it is difficult and expensive for the public sector, the Parking Authority to
acquire land. The other way to do it is through the bonuses, where we can spare the public the
costs and the time delay of acquiring property and in said us incentives as we did in Aviation and
Bayshore to develop that. parking. There is a change or a difference between this bonus
provision on the McFarlane Road end and one at the Aviation end of SD-17, in that this
provision now applies to residential projects. The one on the easterly end on Aviation, was for
office projects. The calculation for the bonus is different than it was for the office end. And I'll
tell you why. For an office building, all tenants and users and visitors to that building are
essentially a commercial function. Any excess parking that's provided in an office building,
literally benefits all tenants of the building. It is economically valuable for that structure to build
accessory or additional parking because it meets an overflow demand for the building. That kind
of economic incentive does not exist for residential buildings. In that excess parking is of little
value economically or practically to a residential tower that provides all of its required ofsight
parking. Literally, it would be an offsight use that would need to benefit from that parking. In
this case the Village Center. The bonus provisions to be meaningful for that residential tower
would have to be somewhat greater. This particular ordinance provides that one parking space...
For every parking space, an additional 350 square feet of floor -area maybe permitted in the
underlying district. This was calculated by the department...
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: At 10:41 a.m., Mayor Carollo left the
Commission meeting an returned at 11:00 a.m.
Commissioner Plummer: Jack, can I stop you for one minute?
Mr. Luft: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: Am I of the proper thinking - this only affects two pieces of property?
7 December 19, 1996
f'
Mr. Luft: If affects the Housekeepers Club.
Commissioner Plummer: The Mutiny. The Mutiny and the Outharbor?
Mr. Luft: And the Housekeepers Club.
Commissioner Plummer: The Womens' Club.
Mr. Luft: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. So that's all it would affect? And those are...
i Mr. Luft: That's the - those are the only properties in the area that was not included.
i
Commissioner Plummer: OK, so the Womens' Club is actually a one level kind of thing. The
Mutiny is already built and the Outharbor is already built.
f
Mr. Luft: Good.
Commissioner Plummer: So we're really talking about one piece of property?
Mr. Luft: Not necessarily. The Outharbor has a parking lot on Grand Avenue. That is excess
parking. It is a surface parking lot.
Commissioner Plummer: That's not involved here.
Mr. Luft: This particular property is...
Commissioner Plummer: Wait a minute, let me back track. Is this a way for the Mutiny and the
Outharbor to think about expanding.
Mr. Luft: No, sir. This is a way for the public to gain needed parking.
1 Commissioner Plummer: Where would the parking go behind Mutiny, on their property?
Mr. Luft: It would go, logically on the McFarlane roadside. Let me explain a peculiarity of the
zoning district.
Commissioner Gort: Excuse me, there is an existing two story parking structure...
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, it's already there.
Mr. Luft: There is a one level deck.
Commissioner Gort: Right.
Mr. Luft: Which I believe they are planning on removing.
Commissioner Gort: By my understanding of what you're telling us today is that what's going
to happen, that's going to expand?
Mr. Luft: That deck could expand, yes. Right now that deck is not public.
Commissioner Plummer: But where would the bonus be used?
8 December 19, 1996
�i
Mr. Luft: Within the...
Commissioner Gort: Right there (phonetic)
Mr. Luft: ... Mutiny property.
Commissioner Plummer: The Mutiny, the already built building?
Mr. Luft: The already built building has a substantial site that comes... Let me show you the
site. The site is off of Bayshore Drive...
Commissioner Plummer: Right.
Mr. Luft: ... and then it turns in an L-shape and continues to McFarlane Road.
Commissioner Plummer: Right.
Mr. Luft: OK.
Commissioner Plummer: On the corner is the Womens' Club.
Mr. Luft: Right. Half of the property is zoned SD-17. The other half is zoned SD-2, in the
commercial district. When a particular property under unity of title is divided amongst two
planning districts, two zoning districts, the property owner has the choice of using the less
intensive zoning, in this case the SD-17, to apply to the entire property. So that would mean that
the Mutiny could use the SD-17 for the SD-2 portion because the SD-17 is less intensive than the
SD-2. So literally that piece that comes out to McFarlane is another portion of the property that
could accept the garage under the bonus available in the SD-17.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, let me just. Let me go on the record. I mean you want to finish
your presentation, or you're finished?
Mr. Luft: OK, I'm just about concluded.
Commissioner Plummer: OK, I'll wait for you to finish.
Mr. Luft: I was stating the amount of the bonus.
Commissioner Gort: Jack, I think we...
Mr. Luft: Three hundred and fifty feet for each parking space.
Commissioner Gort: I think is important you explain how the bonus is going to be used.
Mr. Luft: Yes.
Commissioner Gort: And if the bonus is going to affect the existing building.
Commissioner Plummer: Actually...
Commissioner Gort: My understanding is, it's not going to affect the existing building.
Commissioner Plummer: No, they are going to build on to it.
6
December 19, 1996
Commissioner Gort: That's right.
Mr. Luft: The existing building would remain as it is -additional floor area presumably in
another structure. I doubt that they would go on top of the existing structure because of the
complexity of trying to build on top of something.
Commissioner Plummer: And what is the maximum amount of bonuses that can be acquired?
Mr. Luft: Point, zero point five.
Commissioner Plummer: And what would that? Let's talk direct, OK.
Mr. Luft: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: Because I mean we're not beating around the bush, there's three
pieces of property. So let's talk directly to what we're talking about.
Mr. Luft: Correct.
Commissioner Plummer: Now, if we were to grant what you're asking here.
Mr. Luft: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: All right. And they were to build this parking structure in the back.
Mr. Luft: Uh-huh.
Commissioner Plummer: What I would call in the back...
Mr. Luft: Right.
Commissioner Plummer: ... on McFarlane side.
Mr. Luft: Correct.
Commissioner Plummer: Then they can put an addition on the Mutiny?
Mr. Luft: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: All right. How much of an addition, what is the maximum amount
that they can put on?
Mr. Luft: Zero point five, FAR.
Commissioner Plummer: What? Tell me what point zero is? Is that 24 floors, 105 floors, two
floors? Is it 8,000 square feet, what is it?
Mr. Luft: Let me tell you that the current building is approximately one point two FAR.
Commissioner Plummer: OK.
Mr. Luft: And this would be...
10 December 19, 1996
or
Commissioner Plummer: Point five.
Mr. Luft: ... a little better than a third of that.
Commissioner Plummer: But is there a... In other words, that's the maximum?
Mr. Luft: That's the maximum.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. Now, are they going to go up?, because I don't know how much
room they have on the side. Is there a maximum height?
Mr. Luft: Commissioner, there is a maximum height of 22 floors in the SD-17 district.
Commissioner Plummer: No way.
Mr. Luft: OK.
Commissioner Plummer: See, let me tell you what my big problem comes.
Mr. Luft: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: I voted for the Aviation Avenue because I thought that it was a good
thing. It was an office building, it was more so for, more Monty Trainers at night. Call it like it
is, for excess parking at a dollar ($1), is a very reasonable rate.
Mr. Luft: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: You're not talking here about office. You're talking about people that
are living in the building that are going to be affected by this, all hours of the day and night.
Traffic coming in and out of that building, OK. And don't tell me that you're not going to be
able to affected.
Mr. Luft: OK. Well Commissioner you...
Commissioner Plummer: Because I'll tell you, the one night that I stayed at Mayfair, OK.
Nobody goes to sleep 'till everybody goes to sleep because of the noise. And as far as I am
i concerned, I don't know about my colleagues, but, I'm just telling you, I am not for it. Go from
f there.
Mr. Luft: O Commissioner. This f K, particular site, you understand is in the SD-2 Commercial
district. So, OK.
Commissioner Plummer: Jack, nobody. I know that better than you do, OK.
Mr. Luft: OK, I'll grant you that.
Commissioner Gort: He's been here longer.
Commissioner Plummer: That's right absolutely.
Mr. Luft: Pardon. He's been here longer than me. Actually, I've been here longer than J.L.,
believe it or not.
Commissioner Plummer: No, you have not. How old are you?
11 December 19, 1996
r
Mr. Luft: Nineteen seventy.
Commissioner Plummer: How old are you?
Mr. Luft: Fifty-two.
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, I'm 60 and I was born here.
Mr. Luft: OK, all right. On that basis, yes.
Vice Mayor Regalado: Jack, Jack. Is that one parking space for one room, right?
Mr. Luft: Per 350 square feet. It's actually... The rooms would be - the units would be larger
than that, so it works out... If the units are 1,200 square feet average, it would be about three
spaces for each unit.
Vice Mayor Regalado: And, how about the big columns, they're trying to... Will that take a lot
of parking spaces to build? Additional parking spaces, how many parking spaces that would
take?
Mr. Luft: They would have to build at least 75 to get... to be eligible for the bonus. OK. I'm
not sure what you mean by the columns.
Commissioner Plummer: Your columns, to build...
Commissioner Gort: Support.
Commissioner Plummer: Support.
Mr. Luft: To support the garage?
Vice Mayor Regalado: Yes, that would take parking spaces away from the original space, right?
Mr. Luft: No, there are already columns there. There is a deck there now.
Vice Mayor Regalado: OK.
Mr. Luft: It depends on how you design the building. If you design a post tension then you can
do it through the side walls. You could design it so that the parking would fit as it does today.
Vice Mayor Regalado: So, you're saying...
Mr. Luft: Our purpose here, and of course you understand the department isn't proposing this
amendment for anyone property owner. What we see here is an opportunity to gain for the
public's use, parking in a very strategic location which the planning studies have pointed out
would be very beneficial to the Village, in a way that probably is the only way that we can do it.
I doubt that the City would ever be in a position to acquire a property on McFarlane. It's your
choice. We're offering the opportunity to provide a bonus to get parking where we feel it's
needed, in a way that would not burden the trust fund, would not take away from the ability to
build further parking at the Playhouse or at 32nd Road.
Commissioner Plummer: And you're also putting a lot of dollars in the pocket of the developers.
12 December 19, 1996
Ii
Mr. Luft: No, sir. We don't believe so. We think it's enough to justify the bonus. We look
very carefully at the amount of incentive that would be required. Basically, a parking space is
going to cost seven to ten thousand dollars ($7,000 to $10,000). OK. And...
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, and how many are they anticipating?
Mr. Luft: Pardon.
Commissioner Plummer: How many are they anticipating?
Mr. Luft: How many what, parking spaces?
Commissioner Plummer: On the McFarlane side, what's the maximum amount of parking
spaces they could put there?
Mr. Luft: I have no idea sir.
jMr. Rodriguez: A minimum of 75.
Mr. Luft: A minimum of 75, and as many as they could build. But they wouldn't get more than
a point FAR, no matter how many they build.
Commissioner Plummer: OK, but assuming that they've used the point five. How many parking
spaces would that be?
Mr. Luft: I believe it's 120, in that neighborhood. One hundred and fifty.
Commissioner Plummer: One hundred and twenty. So you're talking about one million two
($1,200,000), that it would cost them to build the garage. Correct?
Mr. Luft: Probably.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. How many more new units are they going to get by that bonus?
How many units are you using now?
Mr. Luft: Probably about 30.
Commissioner Plummer: There are only 19 units in Mutiny? No.
i
Mr. Luft: No, how many... you said in the bonus.
Commissioner Plummer: How many units in Mutiny now?
Mr. Luft: I don't know sir.
Commissioner Plummer: 'Cause it's a third. Whatever a third is, is the amount of new units
they're going to acquire.
Mr. Luft: I haven't counted the units. I am sorry. I don't know.
Commissioner Plummer: Let's assume that they're going to get 100 units, all right. Because I
think that's reasonable. There's got to be 300 units in Mutiny.
Mr. Luft: I don't know how many there are.
13 December 19, 1996
r
Commissioner Plummer: All right. Those things are selling for a half a million dollars
($500,000) each, OK. Just multiply it by 100. How much money is that? And you're telling me
the developer is not...
Mr. Luft: The key is the 350 square feet. We've looked...
Commissioner Plummer: Jack, the developer is not going to go into this for the benefit of
Coconut Grove and Parking.
Mr. Luft: No, sir. You're right.
Commissioner Plummer: He's only going to go into this if he could make a dollar ($1).
Mr. Luft: That's right.
Commissioner Plummer: And that's... Nothing wrong with that.
Mr. Luft: That's why the incentive.
Commissioner Plummer: All right. There is nothing wrong with that. But he's going to be
making an awful lot of money off of new units. That's not my problem. God bless him...
Mr. Luft: Yeah.
Commissioner Plummer: ... if he works hard and pays legitimate money, I've got no problem.
My problem is, incorporating a basically commercial venture, which it is. The parking is going
to be charged...
Mr. Luft: Uh-huh.
Commissioner Plummer: ... for in a residential zone. And the obnoxious noise and all that's
going to be incorporated is why I am opposed to it. And I've got to be honest with you, I'm
really surprised the department, that they're in favor of it. That not you personally. Please don't
take it personal, you...
Mr. Luft: Well, you. Well, that's a fair question. But you do know we proposed and you
approved the parking bonus on the other end of Bayshore. And I think...
Commissioner Plummer: And again, the other. Wait a minute now. On the other end of
Bayshore is an office building. Entirely different scenario.
Mr. Luft: Correct. But...
Commissioner Plummer: They had to build an office building to put it there with it.
Mr. Luft: Fine.
Commissioner Plummer: And now we've got Bed and Breakfast going across the street.
Mr. Luft: When I read the code, the intent clause which you adopted in SD-17 says "the
objective is to build parking for the Village Center." This is the proper place to do that. It seems
inconsistent to us that bonuses would not be available at the Village Center end, if that's the
intent. So we're offering it to you and it is in the commercial district. s
14 December 19, 1996
15!�ii`i� ry�L
Commissioner Plummer: I've made my...
Mr. Luft: OK.
Vice Mayor Regalado: Jack?
Mr. Luft: Yes, sir.
Vice Mayor Regalado: OK. City Clerk has to swear in Mr. Cardenas.
Mr. Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): Do you solemnly swear that the statements you are about to
give, will be the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Al Cardenas: I do.
Vice Mayor Regalado: OK.
Mr. Cardenas: Good morning. For the record again, My name is Al Cardenas with offices at
201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. Basically, I think you have heard a number of
the points I was going to bring up, brought up by Commissioner Plummer. Let me state at the
outset the following. I represent Murray Diamond. Murray Diamond is the owner of the
property immediately adjacent between the sandwich on McFarlane. sandwiched in between the
Mutiny Parking lot, the Womens' Club and the library. If you take a look at the legal description
suggested to amend the proposed ordinance that the City's presenting to you and you take a look
at the affected property. In reality, this ordinance only affects one property. Because the Yacht
Habor fully developed, all of the properties on McFarlane are on the SD-2 overlay which has a
limit of five stories, they are all commercial. And the whole purpose of the SD-2 overlay
district, is for there to be a pedestrian ambience to encourage pedestrians. For that reason, they
lowered the height lowered the height limit to five stories and they only permit commercial
development on McFarlane. Our client owns that property. He bought it with the full intention
of developing it as a five story commercial structure, counting on the pedestrian traffic flow that
emanates on McFarlane - that exists on McFarlane now. The rest of the properties are on the
SD-2 overlay and are not affected. Furthermore, they further imposed another restriction on the
proposed ordinance saying that the only properties affected would be those that could
accommodate at the very least, an addition 75 parking spaces which because of my client's
property and the size of the property of the Womens' Club and the library. And the other
properties that would otherwise be available, it excludes all of us. So in reality, we are only
really talking about one parcel of land here, and that is Mutiny's parcel of land. The reason,
another reason why the Mutiny is going to be able to develop their property, L-shaped property
as an SD-17 is as Jack mentioned, there was a unity of title situation where you're allowed to
develop it under the less intense FAR. Now, they are amending this ordinance to make the SD-
171ess intense because prior to this ordinance they claimed by a scrivener's, I claimed otherwise
you could have made an argument that the SD-2 was less intense. It certainly has a height limit
of five stories and the SD-17 overlay has a height limit of 22 stories. And so if you're talking
about intensity, FAR, in my opinion is one way to define intensity. I would respectfully suggest
to you that if you have an overlay district that permits 22 stories, and the other permits five
stories. I would suggest the one with the 22 stories is more intense. But that discussion is for
another day, not really here. However, let me go on and tell you what the Mutiny has before you
so you understand the height of the structure that they have in mind, Commissioner Plummer.
The Mutiny as it currently stands, has 177 units. Since they changed their use from a hotel to a
condominium they have now had to propose to the City of Miami without this ordinance, by
special Class II permit which incidentally has been approved by staff. They had to submit to the
City a four story parking garage in order to accommodate according to them, 234 parking spaces
15 December 19, 1996
where 233 are now required. So, without this ordinance they are already going to build a four
story parking garage which we object to, next door to my client's property in order to
accommodate the existing facility. Now, obviously they wouldn't have gone through all this
effort with staff, hired lawyers and architects and everything else if they really intended to
develop the Mutiny as it stands. The only reason I am bringing all of this to your attention is
because in order to provide the parking called for in your code, for the existing Mutiny, they
already have to have four levels of parking on the McFarlane side. Now, let's assume this
ordinance gets approved, and they come back to you and they say, we want to take advantage of
the ordinance, here are our new revised plans. The new revised plans cannot be for a building
less than 15 stories. And let me tell you why. They have a four stories of parking garage which
they already need to do for the current building. Then they need to provide parking for the
residential units, which they intend to put up, plus the public parking which is what gives them
the 350 square foot per parking space bonus. That means that they will have to come back to
you. This is the minimum size that they can come back to you, would be a nine story parking
garage and five stories of residential on top of it. The minimum project that they could use to
take advantage of this proposed ordinance would be a structure which would be no less than 14,
15 stories in height. Nine stories of which would be a parking garage. Now, you imagine my
client who has got an SD-2 overlay, who is limited by you to a five story structure, having to
face adjacent to it nine stories of parking garage with noise, fumes, alarms going off and so forth.
Not only that, what this will do is it will totally the pedestrian traffic because there will be a
massive 15 or 22 story on McFarlane. No pedestrian will want to cross that part of the street
because there will be cars going in and out, ingress and egress, very heavy traffic. And our
client's property will be rendered useless as a commercial site because you would have indeed
interposed a 22, or 15 or 22-story residential tower between the commercial district on
McFarlane asnd our client's commercial property. So in conclusion, let me put this on the
record, just to do the "legal lingo" thing. In conclusion this ordinance runs counter to the intent
of SD-17 because of the traffic circumstances not having been property considered, the area's
commercial services values being diluted. The preservation of the area wide property values
certainly will not be the case. Our client's property value will be diluted. And it will be a
detriment to the desirability of Coconut Grove as a place to live and reside. Now, there are three
reasons why the ordinance should not pass because it's unconstitutional. One the ordinance only
really applies to one property, in effect and it's thus impermissible as spot zoning. Since it only
applies to the Mutiny, this parking bonus would help increase the Mutiny land to a higher
density leading to disharmony within the surrounding area and giving preferential treatment to
j that one parcel at the expense of the zoning scheme as a whole. The ordinance should not pass
! secondarily because it's a violation of our client's substantive due process rights. He's got a
vested right to the specific uses of his property allowed under SD-2. And if this ordinances
passes, it will be an arbitrary and capricious depravation of his vested right to the specific uses of
this property since it will discontinue the commercial and pedestrian flow that the SD-2 district
is supposed to enhance. And lastly, this ordinance should not pass because it's an
unconstitutional taking of our client's property, and even if this ordinance doesn't amount to a
taking, it should not pass because pursuant to Section 70.001 of the Florida Statutes, the City of
Miami could be liable to our client for damages incurred by him as a result of this ordinance
diluting his value and limiting its use. And so, I thank you for your time in listening to me and I
respectfully suggest that an 18 or 22-story residential tower on McFarlane is not in keeping with
your planning schemes. Thank you.
Vice Mayor Regalado: Thank you.
Mayor Carollo: Is there a rebuttal from staff"?
Mr. Jack Luft: Yes, we have some more comments from the public.
16 December 19, 1996
�i
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: At 10:57 a.m., Commissioner
Plummer left the ommission meeting and returned at 11:00 a.m.
Mr. Tucker Gibbs: My name is Tucker Gibbs. I am the attorney for the Coconut Grove
Womens' Club. I am here to speak for the record, the Coconut Grove Womens' Club objects to
this ordinance because of its potential to add to the already existing traffic congestion in the area.
And the area we're talking about is McFarlane. For those of you who know the Grove,
McFarlane is a very limited roadway. If you're going to go into a garage off of McFarlane, to
get out of a garage out of McFarlane, you have to go in to the Grove. So there's some issues and
we would just like the opportunity to be able to, before this ordinance, if it does pass, we'd like
the opportunity to meet with the developer of this site because, the fact is, this may be an
ordinance that deals with that geographic area, but the fact remains as we all know, it deals with
the Mutiny. And we are concerned about that and so we want to put our objections on the
record. Thank you.
Mayor Carollo: Jack.
1 Commissioner Plummer: Jack, just for the record. I sat down and, since you didn't know and I
heard the number -I'm looking at, they would have the potential, the maximum would be an
additional 60 units. Knowing how 60 units are built today, you're talking about thirty million
dollars ($30,000,000). That tells me a lot. Go ahead, whatever rebuttal you have.
Mayor Carollo: OK, any other further questions from any members of the Commission?
Commissioner Plummer: None. I move to deny.
Commissioner Gort: Wait, I have a question.
Commissioner Plummer: I'm sorry. Don't take so long.
Commissioner Gort: My understanding the L-shape connects in the back with the existing
property?
Mr. Luft: Yes, it does.
Commissioner Gort: It's connected?
Mr. Luft: It's connected, it's a direct access for the Mutiny property to the rear.
Commissioner Gort: My understanding also the FAR will apply it to the whole property or only
to the strip the present parking is located at?
Mr. Luft: If they chose to develop the parking under the SD-17 provisions...
Commissioner Gort: Right.
Mr. Luft: ... which they may do.
Commissioner Gort: Uh-huh.
Mr. Luft: Then the FAR will apply to that whole property, yes.
17 December 19, 1996
FA
Commissioner Gort: How will that affect the existing building today, and what would they be
able to build in the vacant, or where the parking that exists now?
Mr. Luft: I don't know how it would affect the existing building. I could presume, I could ask
the property owner to tell you how it would affect it. I have not - Our department has not
calculated how any one property could use the bonus. When we provide bonuses whether it's in
Brickell or downtown, we don't go around calculating for every property, how they use it. The
point here is, what is the public purpose? - and the benefit. Is it proportionate to the incentive
we're providing? What we've calculated is that the cost of a space, parking space versus the
profit that can be obtained from 350 square feet of additional development is in our minds, and I
am prepared to defend this aggressively, a reasonable bonus. That, that cost of that space
requires a subsidy and the cost of building that 350 square feet versus what they can sell it for, is
the gap that provides that subsidy. And we think it's reasonable. Now, I don't know how many
parking spaces they could build, I don't know how many Yacht Harbor could build. I do know
Yacht Habor has excess parking and they have an excess site on Grand Avenue that they could
potentially build parking. But I haven't calculated that either.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: At 11:08 a.m., left the Commission
meeting and returne at 11.10 a.m.
Commissioner Plummer: But that's not SD-17.
Mr. Luft: No, but it's part of one property that is in SD-17, and just like this one they could
choose to use it under those provisions.
Commissioner Plummer: Jack, I have many times voted for bonuses. You remember in the
Brickell Avenue...
Mr. Gibbs: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Plummer: ... for additional parking?
Mr. Gibbs: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: Alan Morris, we gave him an additional floor, for additional things.
Mr. Gibbs: Sure.
Commissioner Plummer: And I think bonuses are something that are good. It gives incentive.
But my problem here, is simply incorporating a commercial venture of parking into a residential
area of condominiums. You know, we're looking here all of these are turning into
condominiums You know what's that going to do to our tax base? Everyone of those condos get
a twenty-five thousand ($25,000) homestead exemption. And whatever they were paying before,
it's going to be a lot less now. So all I'm saying is, I...
Mayor Carollo: Not, necessarily Commissioner.
Commissioner Gort: Property values must go up.
Commissioner Plummer: Huh.
18 December 19, 1996
r
Mayor Carollo: No, no sir.
Commissioner Plummer: What do you mean, no?
Mayor Carollo: You're talking about the Mutiny.
I
Commissioner Plummer: Yes, sir.
Mayor Carollo: First of all, let me explain this to you. The property appraiser's office has
lowered the appraisal on that property so low because of what we have here now. That by
converting that into condominiums, on the contrary. Even with a twenty-five thousand
($25,000) homestead exemption we're going to end up making more in property taxes, once that
project is done.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, you could be right but...
Commissioner Gort: J. L., let me ask a question?
Commissioner Plummer: Sure, go ahead, go ahead.
Commissioner Gort: My understanding is, this is going to have to be in two readings. In other
words, let's have these suggestions, let's pass it on first reading. Let it come back with all the
questions that we have. Let them answer my questions, how much they can build, how high they
can go? What are the benefits and so on? And in the second reading we get it to approve it or
deny it. At least we give an opportunity and presentation.
Commissioner Plummer: I have no problem with that.
Commissioner Gort: I am ready to move on approval of first reading.
Commissioner Plummer: No, no. I've already moved for denial.
Commissioner Gort: Oh, OK. Sorry.
Commissioner Plummer: Now, if that doesn't get a second, then you're entitled to.
Mayor Carollo: It hasn't gotten a second Commissioner.
Commissioner Plummer: I am sorry.
Mayor Carollo: It hasn't gotten a second.
Commissioner Plummer: Then, let it die.
Commissioner Hernandez: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Carollo: Yes, Commissioner Hernandez.
Commissioner Hernandez: Commissioner, I'd like to hear from the developer.
Mayor Carollo: Go ahead. He certainly has that right.
19 December 19, 1996
Mr. Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): Would you raise your right hand and repeat after me. Do
you solemnly swear or affirm that the statements that you're about to make here today, would be
the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Ricardo Gunin: Yeah, I do. OK, for the record my name is Ricardo Gunin with offices at
2951 So. Bayshore Drive. I first want to apologize, we're late and actually my attorney Lucia
Dougherty she is not here today. I mean she's also running late. We were led to believe this was
going to happen a little later because of a workshop. I know it's our fault, so I'll apologize.
Commissioner Gort: Your ex -attorney.
Mr. Gunin: Yeah. OK, I guess I'll start from the beginning and try to be brief. I mean, we
actually bought the Mutiny and we want to do a good project for the Grove. I mean, I live in
Key Biscayne, my kids go to Saint Stevens. I mean Coconut Grove is really where I come to do
everything. Different from, I mean some developers we would like to be very sensitive to
neighborhood issues, and we have been doing that. Actually, on this issue alone and other issues
we discussed with the Civic Club, the Village Council, the Chamber of Commerce. Some of
these people were supposed to be here today. And again, because of this timing problem, they
are not. Actually, the Village Council is supporting what we're trying to do. The Chamber of
Commerce and with all its thousand plus members are also. The objective here is really to, I
mean we started working together with staff, trying to alleviate the parking problem. I mean, it
is... There is a lot of people that believe that there are too many cars in the Grove at a certain
point in time. They all come in through McFarlane. They get very congested because of
McFarlane and Grand intersection. And by having a parking garage, before you reach that
intersection, the cars will get off of the street and you will have a benefit. Also, I think there is,
in everybody's interest that we develop that parking garage that looks very ugly today. And do
something a lot nicer with some retail in the front. And I think it deserves that. The problem
with this is that we don't have FAR to do it and that would be, we will be "killing two birds with
one stone." We'll be providing public parking using our own monies, not going into reaching to
the funds, I mean other people's monies that are available. At the same time, we would get the
FAR and do the parking, the retail on McFarlane.
Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me, you said retail?
Mr. Gunin: Yes. What I would be doing on that building, the parking building. We need to do
retail on McFarlane, it's a requirement.
Mr. Luft: Commissioner, on McFarlane is a pedestrian street and it would...
Commissioner Plummer: Well, I'm well aware of McFarlane.
Mr. Luft: A ground level retail shop, it could be 20 feet deep, but we would require them to
have some level of retail frontage for that pedestrian street.
Mayor Carollo: OK, it"?
Commissioner Plummer: That even adds to the commercialism.
Mr. Luft: Pardon.
Commissioner Plummer: That even adds to the commercial aspect of it.
Mr. Luft: It's in a commercial zone.
OR
December 19, 1996
r
Mayor Carollo: Let me call the question so we can move over...
Mr. Luft: If I may, Mr. Mayor, we have had charges of arbitrary and capricious, and the
question on why the department is doing this. If I may just enter into the record?
Mayor Carollo: All right.
Mr, Luft, We believe in the SIB-17 district, that there probably are 1S or more property owners.
The intent of the district was to apply to all of the district because of its relationship to the
Village Center. To say we would not recommend, amending it to include the last, or the last two
or three owners in my mind would be arbitrary and would be discriminatory on those. I am
obliged to take the whole district and the intent and bring it forward and apply it fairly and
evenly to all. And that's what we're trying to do here.
Mayor Carollo: All right. There's a motion...
Mr. Gunin: If I? I just wanted to add one word.
Mr. Cardenas: ... after we finish...
j Mayor Carollo: Look gentlemen, I hope I am not going to be impolite but, you know Al, you
had a lot of time. If anything, he's at a disadvantage because I am going to cut if off now in
discussion. We had a motion. I am going to give the Vice Mayor the gavel. I am going to
second the motion and I am going to call the question. Vice Mayor.
Vice Mayor Regalado: Yes. There is a motion by, I wasn't here, I am sorry.
Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Gort. I second it.
Vice Mayor Regalado: By Commissioner Gort. Second by Mayor Carollo. Those in...
Mayor Carollo: For approval.
Vice Mayor Regalado: Go ahead.
An Ordinance entitled -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING
ARTICLE 6, SECTION 617, SD-17 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE OVERLAY
DISTRICT, TO PROVIDE FOR DEVELOPMENT BONUSES FOR THE PORTION
OF THE DISTRICT BOUNDED BY MCFARLANE ROAD, SOUTH BAYSHORE
DRIVE, MARY STREET AND PORTIONS OF GRAND AVENUE; CONTAINING A
REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
21
December 19, 1996
r
was introduced by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Mayor Carollo, and was passed on
first reading, by title only, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort
Commissioner Humberto Hernandez
Mayor Carollo
NAYS: Commissioner Plummer
Vice Mayor Tomas Regalado
ABSENT: None.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies
were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public.
Vice Mayor Regalado: Mr. Clerk.
Mr. Walter J. Foeman (City Clerk): Roll call.
Mayor Carollo: Commissioner Gort: The reason I made this motion is because on first reading
its got to come back and on second reading it gives the opportunity to the opponents and the
applicant to come up with more specific answers to the questions that we asked today. At the
second reading we could either approve it or deny it. Yes.
Mr. Foeman: Mayor Carollo.
Mayor Carollo: Yes.
Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Hernandez.
Commissioner Hernandez: Yes.
Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Plummer.
Commissioner Plummer: I vote on the second reading denial and the first reading denial.
Mr. Foeman: Vice Mayor Regalado.
Vice Mayor Regalado: No.
Commissioner Plummer: While Jack is still here can I ask? This has nothing to do with you.
Mr. Jones: Excuse me, Mr. Plummer. On this item that you just passed, Mr. Mayor. A
resolution to schedule this prior to five o'clock would be in order because it would be the only
item at your next meeting that wouldn't prior to five, from my understanding. So, if you could
so move it...
Commissioner Plummer: When will the second reading be? The 20th of January?
Mr. Jones: The 23rd of January.
Commissioner Plummer: What year?
22 December 19, 1996
r
Mr. Jones: Ninety-seven.
Commissioner Plummer: Thank you. So move.
Commissioner Gort: Second.
Mayor Carollo: There is a motion, there is a second. All in favor signify by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 96-938
A MOTION STATING THAT AGENDA ITEM PZ-1 (PROPOSED FIRST READING
ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE 11000 IN ORDER TO PROVIDE
FOR DEVELOPMENT BONUSES, AS INTENDED BY THE SD-17 SOUTH
BAYSHORE DRIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT, FOR. THE PORTION OF THE
DISTRICT BOUNDED BY McFARLANE ROAD, SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE,
MARY STREET AND PORTIONS OF GRAND AVENUE) CAN BE HEARD ON
SECOND READING AT THE JANUARY 23, 1997 COMMISSION MEETING
BEFORE 5 P.M.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gort, the motion was passed and adopted by the
fallowing vote:
AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Humberto Hernandez
Vice Mayor Tomas Regalado
Mayor Joe Carollo
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: None.
Mr. Jones: Thank you.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, if I may through you to Jack Luft, or to the Manager,
through the Manager. Jack, we talked to you at the City Commission about trying to resolve
some of the traffic problems in Coconut Grove.
Mr. Luft: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Plummer: And I spoke to you and I thought you had accepted and were going to
pursue the traffic cones on Grand Avenue...
Mr. Luft: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: ... there at Virginia?
Mr. Luft: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: I have not seen them.
23 December 19, 1996
1i
Mr. Luft: I have.
Commissioner Plummer: They were supposed to be permanent. Not just at night.
Mr. Luft: OK, well that takes an effort to design it, bid it, install it, you know.
Commissioner Plummer: OK, OK. You are? It is in process?
Mr. Luft: Yes. Ms. Haydock, our NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Teams) Administrator...
Commissioner Plummer: Ellie?
Mr. Luft: Ellie. We rely on our NET offices to help.
Commissioner Plummer: The thing that the Commission asked for on Grand Avenue at Virginia
on a permanent basis.
Ms. Ellie Haydock (NET Adminstrator): Right. I've seen it on a temporary basis and I have
written a letter to Jim Mahoney (phonetic), in Dade County and asked him to look at... Your
suggestion was to do so and we needed to meet, look at that and look at some other signage. I
have not heard back. I an give you...
Commissioner Plummer: That was three or four months ago?
Ms. Haydock: No, I probably did it about three or four weeks ago.
Commissioner Plummer: Then, I would like to be informed as soon as possible. Because I've
got to tell you something, in my estimation, I think the Commission agreed at that time, it's
going to make a big difference on relieving the congestion that occurs there, especially at night.
But a lot of times during the day when people...
Ms. Haydock: The Police Department have put up barricades...
Commissioner Plummer: Right.
Ms. Haydock:... and they've got their yellow... So that has been working on a trial basis.
Commissioner Plummer: I am sure that that's showing a big difference.
Ms. Haydock: I think so.
Commissioner Plummer: OK, thank you Mr. Mayor.
Ms. Haydock: So, I'll send you a copy of that letter to.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: At 11:19 a.m., Vice Mayor Tomas
ega a o left the ommission Meeting.
Commissioner Plummer: I have one other question in Building and Zoning. I guess your office
is plagued like mine. For the record. Where's Carlos? Jack, you can probably answer it. We're
getting calls about a one hundred dollars ($100) home inspection fee.
24 December 19, 1996
Mayor Carollo: I discussed it at the last meeting.
Commissioner Plummer: And my understanding from the Manager, is that is only a fee that
would be imposed at the time of the sale of the house.
Mayor Carollo: Yeah.
Commissioner Plummer: People are not understanding it that way.
Mayor Carollo: Well, they are. They are. They don't want to.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, you know I don't think that the calls that we basically received.
It's not... People around here are not in a hurry to sell their homes. But I think they've
misunderstood it to be that it is every year a home inspection fee of one hundred dollars ($100).
And I just wanted to get he record clear. That fee, is a fee that will be imposed by the City really
for their benefit to make sure that there are no illegal structures on that property under the "buyer
beware." So, am in the right vein?
' Mr. Luft: Yes, sir. You are.
Commissioner Plummer: OK, so it's onlywhen the o to sell their house for their protection
they
for the City to come in and say, that there are no violations of the building and zoning. Thank
you.
Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor and after that, as a past member of the zoning board a lot or
problems that we have... People come in here requesting for variances and so on - is for the
reason, I just bought the house and I was not aware of it, that there was an illegal unit in it. We
get that a lot. So I think like J.L. said, it could be very helpful...
Commissioner Plummer: No, eliminate it.
j Commissioner Gort: ... to eliminate this problem.
I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. COMMISSIONER PLUMMER CLARIFICATION BY ADMINISTRATION IN
RESPONSE TO INTENT OF PROPOSED HOME INSPECTION FEE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Carollo: Mr. Manager, is there anything else you have to come before us today?
Mr. Edward Marquez (City Manager): Oh, there's a couple of discussion items that I want to
touch base on...
Mayor Carollo: OK.
Mr. Marquez: if I may.
Mayor Carollo: Certainly.
25 December 19, 1996
ri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. CITY MANAGER UPDATES CITY COMMISSION ON
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN STATE OF FLORIDA
AND CITY -- PROVIDE COMMISSION WITH AN ITEMIZATION OF THE
NUMBERS CONTAINED IN FY' 97 BUDGET PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED
BY 1/3/97.-- CLARIFICATION BY THE COMMISSION REGARDING
TIMETABLE FOR CONSIDERATION. -- FIVE YEAR PROJECTION PLAN
TO BE SUBMITTED BY 4/15/97.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Marquez: OK, I want to give you a quick update on the Intergovernmental Agreement
between us and the State regarding our financial crisis. As you know, there's been an executive
order by the Governor detailing that there will be the establishment of a financial oversight board
and specifying that by December 23rd, the City and the State shall enter into an Interlocal
Agreement regarding the roles and duties of the City and State and this board going forward.
The... For the past several nights, we've been negotiating aspects of this contract. One of the
requirements, well there are multiple requirements within the draft, and I am hoping to get a
draft today. And hopefully finalize something to... out to you by tomorrow so that you can read
over the weekend. But, the... As it's shaping up, right now there's a requirement for a plan to be
submitted to the state on January the 3rd. That plan as it stands right now, is to be a one year
plan covering the operations of this fiscal year. That, within that plan we must specify the
coverage. Within that operating deficit, that sixty-eight million dollar ($68,000,000) number,
there is approximately forty-six to forty-eight million dollars ($46,000,000 to $48,000,000),
depending on how you look at it, that is recurring in nature. And the state specifying that once
we submit the plan on January the 3rd, that we ensure that that plan has recurring revenues equal
to 60 percent of that recurring deficit number of 46. So the recurring deficit number is around
46, that equates to coverage. We must have recurring revenues of at least around twenty-eight
million dollars ($28,000,000) and using the definitions of the State, I think we can meet that for
this year. The second part of the, well there are several requirements but the other requirements,
that they're requesting in the Intergovernmental Agreement is that by around April the 15th or
thereabouts, that there be another submission by the City dealing with the five year plan. And
now the five year plan, the mandate in there now, is saying that we will have a coverage of
recurring deficit number, again that twenty-eight million dollars ($28,000,000), 100 percent will
be recurring revenues by that point in time. That's... And then they give... At the moment, they
give us an option out of that by... If there are reasons why we can't meet that, we can go back to
them.
Mayor Carollo: Well, Mr. Manager before you proceed I would just like to ask my colleagues
from refraining, making any statements, or asking any questions. Any questions that you might
have from the Manager on this, I would suggest, and politely ask that you ask him one on one.
Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Marquez: OK. There are a number of other items within the Intergovernmental Agency.
One of them being that we must submit to them an operational recovery plan, more or less in the
same time frame as the five year plan. They approved our budgets on a recurring basis and we
must update our numbers based on an estimating in conference (phonetic). Again, when the
contract comes out, hopefully by the end of today, and I have a real decent draft. I will go to you
all and talk about the specifics of the plan as I see it. And, I'll talk back to the state to see if i
they're willing to amend anything if at all. And what... The goal is to have a finalized contract
to the extent that I can negotiate it with the state, present it to you, in your hands that Friday
afternoon and then on Monday for presentation for consideration by this Commission.
26 December 19, 1996
r
Mayor Carollo: OK. Anything else, Mr. Manager?
Commissioner Plummer: The deadline is also Monday?
Mr. Marquez: You're saying, the deadline for approving the Intergovernmental is Monday.
Commissioner Plummer: So, we the Commission where "the buck stops," do not have the right
to negotiate?
Mr. Marquez: I believe...
Commissioner Plummer: I'm losing something here.
Mr. Marquez: OK. Well, that's the purpose of me updating you all about the specifics of the
plan and I will carry back your concerns to the state. But there is a governmental. The Governor
has issued an executive order.
Mayor Carollo: Executive Order, Commissioners unless the Governor changes it...
Commissioner Plummer: I am very much aware of that.
Mayor Carollo: And I hope there's not a need for it, that we submit such agreement by the 23rd.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I'm well aware, but who negotiates for this City, is the
five of us sitting here. Now, all I am saying to you is, that I might be in total accord with what
you're negotiated. But you put me in a hell of a position if I'm not. When this thing is due on
Monday, and we are going to get it over this weekend, and I have no time to negotiate, which I
think is our right, the five members of this Commission, to go directly to the Oversight
Committee and to negotiate.
Mayor Carollo: Commissioner, again. I respectfully request yours concerns be expressed to the
Manager, one on one. It would be this Commission that will vote upon that plan on Monday, not
the Manager. So, if you could meet with him and express to him your concerns, ask your
questions, then I'm sure, you know, in the end, everything will be fine.
Commissioner Plummer: I hear you talking.
Mr. Marquez: There are a couple of other items within the Intergovernmental Agreement as it
stands now, which are good items as far as I am concerned. That's the provision of technical
assistance to this City, that is extremely valuable to help us out of the fiscal crisis. There is a
structure, if nothing else. There is a structure that a set of parameters is given to us by the State,
under their powers under the Chapter 218. That's a benefit because then we know exactly what
we need to do which has not been the case to date. But when we get the draft I will come to each
one of you and take as much time as we need to go through the specifics.
Commissioner Gort: J.L., in the past, you've been a member of, you've representated
Commission. You have been involved in a number of negotiations and I think what we need to
do in here, and I understand your point of view and I agree with you. But I think in this case,
each one of us should sit down with the Manager, express our opinions, what we think and let
him negotiate and come back to us. We have to take a final vote anyway.
Commissioner Plummer: OK.
27 December 19, 1996
r
Mr. Marquez: Mr. Mayor, the last thing that I really need to impart to you all today is the...
Commissioner Plummer: I've got one.
Mr. Marquez: There is a new draft...
Commissioner Plummer: This is a new, new.
Mr. Marquez: ... of a five year plan going around, this thing is changing by the minute. Now,
you have to throw the old one away, which means...
Commissioner Plummer: The one I got this morning?
Mr. Marquez: The one that you got this morning.
Commissioner Gort: Right.
Commissioner Plummer: Who's selling you paper?
Mr. Marquez: Staff has been working or this round the clock. And this is nothing more than, at
this point in time, a layout of numbers that represents our best guess at this moment. We are
going to be refining this a lot, over the weekend. If there are any suggestions from any of you as
far as additions, deletions. I'd like to hear it, so that on Monday you get back something like this
for informational purposes. Now, again remember that the requirement for January the 3rd will
be for Fiscal '97 and '97 only, but approximately four months later, we'll have to talk in terms of
a five year plan with the state. So, just to give you a quick run through of what's here so that
you know. And again, this thing is subject to errors.
Mayor Carollo: Well, Mr. Manager with all due respect. We do not have to hand in this five
year plan until April 15th.
Mr. Marquez: Exactly.
Mayor Carollo: What is the purpose of going through a five year plan now?
Mr. Marquez: Just to show you what the initial thinking of the staff was, because it's going to be
four months later. If it's the desire of the Commission to talk only about the Fiscal '97 fplan, we
will do that.
Mayor Carollo: I think we should, you know, get over that one first. And the other things that
are before us, we have plenty of time to then work and give them a much clearer picture than
• even what we have here now on the five year plan by April 15th. You know, I think that all of
our time should probably be better spent than working on the issues that are before us between
now and the 23rd, than others that we have some time to handle.
Mr. Marquez: I'd be more than happy to do that. The reason why we have a five year plan right
now, is because up until the day before yesterday, we were under the impression that the January
3rd requirement was going to be a five year plan and staff was going crazy to do this.
Mayor Carollo: We understand that then, we knew the constraints that we had and the effort that
all the departments put forth to put this together. By the same time, you and I both know that
you know, this is very much off because there is so much more that we need to add and reduce.
And this is done. This is the best that we could do in such short time. But we'll do a lot better
than this by the 15th.
28 December 19, 1996
M.
r
Y
Mr. Marquez: Would you like to concentrate on 1997 numbers now, so I can quickly run down
right down the column?
Mayor Carollo: If you would like to do it, on the '97.
Mr. Marquez: OK. In the '97 column you will see I've broke it up, the '97 column into two
pieces - the one time revenues and the 1997 recurring stuff. Right off the bat, you come down
with the deficit number that's in the Stierheim's plan. The recurring deficit is forty-six million
and five hundred thousand ($46,500,000) one time deficit. Which is more or less your CPI, your
Capital Improvement Cost or twenty-one million five hundred thousand ($21,500,000). Down
below, the next section, the funding solution matrix is the numbers off of Exhibit B, I believe in
the Stierheim plan.
Commissioner Plummer: But wait, excuse me. Back up. The first one, the total deficit. You're
speaking now to the one year of '97-'98 or '96-'97?
Mr. Marquez: Ninety-six, ninety-seven. Fiscal '97.
Commissioner Plummer: OK, I show a deficit of sixty-eight million ($68,000,000), you said
forty-six five ($46,500,000).
Mr. Marquez: Well that's the recurring portion of the deficit. The total deficit for the strategic
plan is sixty-eight million ($68,000,000).
Commissioner Plummer: All right, I see it. Go ahead.
Mr. Marquez: OK. The next section here is Exhibit... Is the solutions that were contained in tab
five of the Stierheim's plan, amended, adjusted by what's shown on your last page. Ah, excuse
me, it's not. Oh, yes. As shown on the next page in this particular handout. It's lifting the
numbers from the report, Stierheim's numbers and adjusting them for our best information as of
this point in time. Like an action taken, those numbers slightly changed because of timing
differences.
Commissioner Plummer: Are you saying the thirty-seven million eight hundred ($37,811,000) is
the same as the Stierheim book less the garbage...?
Mr. Marquez: For the most part. And other adjustments that are contained in Exhibit A.
Commissioner Plummer: OK.
Mr. Marquez: All right. And I need to point that out because in Exhibit A, for instance, I am
recommending that you keep the 13 NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Teams) offices open and
I'm throwing back in the savings. And that's a policy call of the Commission but it is just for
right now, for working purposes I stuck the adjustments on Exhibit A. Then the next section is
our best estimates of all the new revenue items that the City Commission has passed that's not
contained in the plan. That you primarily had passed at this past board meeting through all those
emergency ordinances. So you can see they were picking up an additional twelve million dollars
($12,000,000) there. So, if you look at just the side without doing any other adjustments on the
expenditure side, without enhancing anything we meet... we cover our deficit for this year, and
that's the difference between the thirty-one million ($31,000,000) and the negative seventeen
($17,000,000) that you see here. And if you compute this thing of which items will be
considered recurring by the state, it appears that we're going to be OK, meeting that requirement
of the 60 percent coverage. On the last page, this is a little bit out of sequence. But on the last
29 December 19, 1996
r
page, we have what's... I'm listing what I'm showing, what I'm calling as departmental
enhancements. These are expenditures that we're anticipating in the various departments that are
going to improve our management to a degree and start the safety program. The biggest single
item on this. OK, the biggest single item on this is the two million dollar safety program amount
and that's really a capital cost because five hundred dollars ($500,000) of that is to go for fixing
park, the equipment at the park system. One million five ($1,500,000) is to go to fix sidewalks.
And again, it's to reduce the amount of claims coming in. This is again the first part. Staff has
been working hard on it. Over the weekend we're going to be working hard on it. I hope that
you all can give us input individually and we'll throw it into this plan so that we can have a real
good, one year working document for Monday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. SCHEDULE MEETING ON 12/23/96 TO APPROVE AND FINALIZE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT STATE AND CITY, ALSO SET
ADDITIONAL MEETING DATE(S) TO FINALIZE FY'97 BUDGET.
Mayor Carollo: Let me say this to you, Mr. Manager. We meet on the 23rd. The 23rd what we
have to finalize is the agreement with the State. We still have until the 3rd, even though I've
made it clear that I want to finalize this fiscal year's budget to give to the State before the end of
the year. So if need be, what we could do is, we're scheduled on the 23rd. Sometime either on
the 27th, Friday and the 30th, or 30th Monday, or even on the 28th, Saturday, we can meet to
finalize the budget that we will send to the State. That will give us a little bit more time to work
on the numbers.
Commissioner Plummer: Then why are we meeting on the 23rd? Why don't we just do it all on
one day, and just cancel the 23rd and do it on the 30th?
Mayor Carollo: Well, Commissioner we can't. We still need to meet on the 23rd to approve the
agreement between the City and the State.
Commissioner Plummer: Oh, OK.
Commissioner Gort: I'm not going to be here on the 30th.
Mayor Carollo: OK, if you're not going to be here on the 30th Commissioner, we can do it on
the 27th or...
Commissioner Gort: The 23rd is fine with me.
Mayor Carollo: Well, the 23rd yeah. But I'm saying that...
Commissioner Plummer: It's not going to be ready.
Mayor Carollo: It's not. We're really not going to be ready to finalize this budget. We have
most of the components practically all there. We want to fine tune it a little better so we need a
few more days. So what I'm suggesting is, that we either meet on the 27th, 28th, 30th even 31st
in the morning. Anyone of those four days...
Commissioner Plummer: See you Monday morning at eleven, correct?
Mayor Carollo: Monday morning at eleven. But, we could decide on this then.
30 December 19, 1996
r
Commissioner Plummer: Huh.
Mayor Carollo: We could decide on this on Monday, what day we're meeting on.
Commissioner Plummer: Fine with me.
Commissioner Gort: Question.
Mayor Carollo: Yes.
Commissioner Gort: Can I phone in?
Mayor Carollo: Sir?
j Commissioner Gort: Can I be present by phone?
Commissioner Plummer: No. You can't vote by phone.
Commissioner Gort: OK.
i
Mayor Carollo: OK. Anything else for us?
Mr. Marquez: No sir, that's it.
Mayor Carollo: OK, this meeting is adjourned.
i
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY
COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 11:38 A.M.
JOE CAROLLO
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Walter J. Foeman
CITY CLERK
Josephine M. Argudin
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
31
December 19, 1996