HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1992-02-18 Minutes1
TY 0 M..IAMI
� �r4
* I NCOR ORATED
IS E 96
S
1AINUTES
OF METING HEW ON FEBRUARY 18, 1992
PLANNING & ZONING
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
MATTY HIRAI
City Clerk
INDEX
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 1992
ITEM SUBJECT LEGISLATION PAGE
NO. NO.
1.
BRIEF DISCUSSION CONCERNING REQUEST BY
DISCUSSION
1-2
RABBI FAVISH DALFIN OF THE SHUL OF
2/18/92
DOWNTOWN MIAMI FOR CLOSURE OF
DESIGNATED STREETS FOR A RELIGIOUS
HOLIDAY CELEBRATION (See label 4).
2.
(A) DISCUSSION CONCERNING POSSIBILITY
DISCUSSION
2-4
OF CHARGING IMPACT FEES FOR
2/18/92
CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL AND COUNTY
FACILITIES WITHIN CITY OF MIAMI LIMITS.
(B) COMMISSIONER PLUMMER URGES
ADMINISTRATION TO REVIEW PRESENT PLAN
IN CINCINNATI, OHIO, WHERE A FEE IS
CHARGED TO ALL NON -CITY RESIDENTS WHO
WORK IN THE CITY.
3.
DISCUSSION CONCERNING POSSIBLE DONATION
DISCUSSION
5
OF A VEHICLE TO MODEL CITY TO ASSIST
2/18/92
WITH CRIME PREVENTION.
4.
(Continued Discussion) GRANT REQUEST BY
R 92-139
6-8
RABBI FAVISH DALFIN OF THE SHUL OF
2/18/92
DOWNTOWN MIAMI FOR CLOSURE OF
DESIGNATED STREETS FOR A RELIGIOUS
HOLIDAY CELEBRATION (See label 1).
5.
COMMISSIONER DAWKINS SEEKS DIRECTION
DISCUSSION
8-10
FROM COMMISSION CONCERNING HIS
2/18/92
IMPENDING TRIP TO WASHINGTON, D.C. IN
CONNECTION WITH THE U.S. GRANTING OF
THE NAVAL RESERVE PROPERTY TO MIAMI
COALITION TO THE HOMELESS.
6.
INSTRUCT ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE TWO
M 92-140
10-20
MASTER PLANS FOR LANDSCAPE
2/18/92
BEAUTIFICATION ALONG BISCAYNE
BOULEVARD.
e
7.
DISCUSSION CONCERNING PROTEST BY SAC,
DISCUSSION
INC. REGARDING CITY'S AWARD OF THE
2/18/92
ASBESTOS REMOVAL CONTRACT AT THE ORANGE
BOWL.
8-A.
PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS & SPECIAL
DISCUSSION
ITEMS.
2/18/92
8-8.
REQUEST ADMINISTRATION TO REPLACE
DISCUSSION
COMMISSIONERS' CHAIRS IN COMMISSION
2/18/92
CHAMBERS.
9.
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND 10544
ORDINANCE
(MCNP) FUTURE LAND USE MAP - CHANGE
10949
LAND USE DESIGNATION AT 283 N.W. 35
2/18/92
STREET FROM MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI -FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL
(Applicant: Robert McCanna Reilly,
Trustee for Robert McCanna Reilly &
Mary Sabol Reilly Trust).
10.
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND 11000
ORDINANCE
ATLAS -- CHANGE DESIGNATION AT 283 N.W.
10950
35 STREET FROM R-3 MULTI -FAMILY MEDIUM
2/18/92
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN SD-12
SPECIAL BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT TO C-2
LIBERAL COMMERCIAL (Applicant: Robert
McCanna Reilly, Trustee for Robert
McCanna Reilly & Mary Sabol Reilly
Trust) .
11.
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND 11000
ORDINANCE
ATLAS -- CHANGE DESIGNATION AT 2727-
10951
2729 S.W. 27 TERRACE FROM R-2 TWO
2/18/92
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED
COMMERCIAL (Applicant: Daniel A.
Kavanaugh & Elliott Y. Denner).
12.
APPROVE VACATION AND CLOSURE OF PORTION
R 92-141
OF N.E. 51 STREET LYING EAST OF THE
2/18/92
EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) LINE OF N.E.
MIAMI PLACE AND WEST OF THE WEST ROW
LINE OF N.E. 2 AVENUE, AS WELL AS
PORTION OF N.E. 1 COURT LYING NORTH OF
NORTH ROW LINE OF N.E. 50 TERRACE AND
SOUTH OF THE SOUTH ROW LINE OF N.E. 51
STREET (TENTATIVE PLAT #1402: DOUGLAS
GARDENS SOUTH) (Applicant: The Miami
Jewish Home & Hospital for the Aged,
Inc.).
20-41
41
41-42
43-47
47-48
48-50
50-55
U
2
13. DISCUSSION CONCERNING
ADEQUATE FREE PARKING
CONDOMINIUMS, ETC.
PROVISION OF DISCUSSION
SPACES IN 2/18/92
14. APPROVE VACATION AND CLOSURE OF
PORTIONS OF N.W. 10 COURT, N.W. 11
AVENUE, N.W. 11 COURT, N.W. 68 STREET,
N.W. 69 STREET, AND EAST -WEST ALLEY IN
AREA BOUNDED BY N.W. 10 AND 12 AVENUES
AND N.W. 67 AND 71 STREETS (Applicant:
The School Board of Dade County).
15. APPROVE SUBMITTED LANDSCAPE PLANS AND
AUTHORIZE THE PLANNING, BUILDING AND
ZONING DEPARTMENT TO PROCESS CLASS II
SPECIAL PERMIT FILE NO. 91-1861 FOR
PROPOSED USE OF GALLERY AND OFFICE AT
2908 S.W. 27 AVENUE (Owner / Applicant:
Jorge Bernal).
16. DISCUSS AND TEMPORARILY TABLE
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION
GRANTING SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A
COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE AND ALCOHOL
ABUSE HOMELESS FACILITY AT 800 N.W. 28
STREET (Owner: City of Miami 8 Better
Way, Inc.) (See label 22).
17. DECLARE THE DINNER KEY BOAT YARD
CONTAMINATION CLEANUP A VALID, PUBLIC
EMERGENCY -- DIRECT MANAGER TO TAKE
NECESSARY STEPS TO REMEDIATE FUEL TANKS
AND WASTE OIL TANK CONTAMINATION --
ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR WASTE OIL TANK
REMOVAL AND ASSOCIATED CLEANUP
($50,000, FROM CIP 311009: UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANK RETROFITTING).
18. DISCUSS AND TEMPORARILY TABLE
APPEAL OF ZONING BOARD'S DECISION
TO GRANT A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE
TO ALLOW A LESSER REAR SETBACK
FOR EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 2891 COACOOCHEE
STREET, IN CONJUNCTION WITH
REPLATTING EXISTING SITE IN TWO
LOTS, ETC. (Owner: Lang
Baumgarten; Appellant: John G.
Fletcher, Esq. See label 23).
R 92-142
2/18/92
R 92-143
2/18/92
DISCUSSION
2/18/92
R 92-144
2/18/92
DISCUSSION
2/18/92
56-57
57-62
62-63
64-71
72-77
77-97
18.1 CLARIFY BACKUP MATERIAL IN AGENDA DISCUSSION 98
PERTAINING TO ITEM PZ-12 WHICH 2/18/92
WAS ERRONEOUSLY ATTACHED TO PZ-10
(See label 21).
19. BRIEF DISCUSSION CONCERNING DISCUSSION 98-100
RECENT DEDICATION OF A STAR TO 2/18/92
HANSEL MARTINEZ BY LATIN STARS,
INC. WITHOUT REQUIRED COMMISSION
APPROVAL --REQUEST ADMINISTRATION
TO ISSUE FULL REPORT.
20. DENY APPEAL AND AFFIRM ZONING BOARD'S
DECISION IN GRANTING A VARIANCE, TO
PERMIT A SMALLER REAR SETBACK THAN
OFFICIALLY REQUIRED, AND A SETBACK FOR
THE OVERHANG OF PROPOSED TWO STORY
ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 2952 LOUISE STREET (Owner:
William Whitlock; Appellant: James G.
McMaster).
21. DENY PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE
TO AMEND 11000 ATLAS FROM R-1 SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL WITH AN SD-12 SPECIAL
BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 3200-3298
FLORIDA AVENUE (Applicant: Arturo
Alfredo). (See label 18.1).
22. (Continued Discussion) GRANT SPECIAL
EXCEPTION FROM 11000, ARTICLE 4,
SECTION 401 (SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
REGULATIONS) TO ALLOW A COMMUNITY -BASED
RESIDENTIAL FACILITY (CBRF) FOR A
RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE
/ HOMELESS FACILITY AT 800 N.W. 28
STREET, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS (Owner:
City of Miami & Better Way, Inc.) (See
label 16).
23. (Continued Discussion) DENY APPEAL AND
AFFIRM ZONING BOARD'S DECISION TO GRANT
VARIANCE TO ALLOW 9189' REAR SETBACK
FOR EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE,
IN CONJUNCTION WITH REPLATTING EXISTING
SITE INTO TWO LOTS, WITH PROVISOS
(Owner: Lang Baumgarten; Appellant:
John G. Fletcher, Esq.) (See label 18).
R 92-145
2/18/92
M 92-146
2/18/92
R 92-147
2/18/92
R 92-148
2/18/92
100-104
104-117
117-123
124-128
C
a
24. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND 11000
TEST -- (a) ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401
(SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS) TO
ADD, CLARIFY, AMEND AND DELETE CERTAIN
USES AND REQUIREMENTS; (b) ARTICLE 9:
TO PERMIT BARBED WIRE FENCES -- TO ADD
REQUIREMENTS / LIMITATIONS FOR
WATERFRONT YARD AREAS -- TO ADD HEIGHT
REQUIREMENTS FOR BROADCASTING TOWERS --
TO PROHIBIT VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR
NONRESIDENTIAL USES THROUGH RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES, etc. (Applicant: Planning,
Building & Zoning Dept.).
25. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND 11000
TEXT, ARTICLE 6 -- SD-1 MARTIN LUTHER
KING BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; SD-
5 BRICKELL AVENUE AREA OFFICE -
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; SD-6 AND SD-6.1
CENTRAL COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS; SD-7 CENTRAL BRICKELL RAPID
TRANSIT COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT; SD-13 S.W. 27 AVENUE GATEWAY
DISTRICT; SD-14, 14.1, 14.2 LATIN
QUARTER COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; SD-16, 16.1,
16.2 SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN / PARK WEST
COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; SD-18
MINIMUM LOT SIZE DISTRICT, etc. --
AFFIRM AMENDMENT TO HISTORIC AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION ATLAS
(Applicant: Planning, Building &
Zoning Dept.).
26. DENY APPEAL AND AFFIRM DECISION OF THE
HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION
BOARD -- APPROVE DESIGNATION OF THE
BAYSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT, AN AREA
BOUNDED BY THE REAR LOT LINES BETWEEN
N.E. 72 STREET AND N.E. 72 TERRACE ON
THE NORTH, BISCAYNE BAY AND N.E. 7
COURT ON THE EAST; N.E. 69 STREET EAST
OF N.E. 7 COURT (EXTENDED) AND THE REAR
LOT LINES BETWEEN N.E. 67 STREET AND
N.E. 68 STREET WEST OF N.E. 7 COURT ON
THE SOUTH, AND THE REAR LOT LINES OF
PROPERTIES FRONTING ON BISCAYNE
BOULEVARD ON THE WEST, AS A HISTORIC
DISTRICT. (Applicant: Planning,
Building and Zoning Dept.; Appellant:
Estate of Mary Elizabeth Whitney
Tippett and Cloyce Tippett.)
ORDINANCE
FIRST READING
2/18/92
DISCUSSION
2/18/92
R 92-149
2/18/92
128-133
134-138
138-155
27. AFFIRM ZONING BOARD'S DECISION TO GRANT
A SPECIAL EXCEPTION -- ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF THREE MAUSOLEUM
BUILDINGS AT 5301 W. FLAGLER STREET,
etc. (Applicant: Flagler Memorial
Park).
R 92-150 155-158
2/18/92
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 18th day of February, 1992, the City Commission of Miami,
Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American
Drive, Miami, Florida in regular session.
The meeting was called to order at 1:37 p.m. by Mayor Xavier Suarez with
the following members of the Commission found to be present:
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
ABSENT: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
ALSO PRESENT:
Cesar Odio, City Manager
A. Quinn Jones, III, City Attorney
Matty Hirai, City Clerk
Walter J. Foeman, Assistant City Clerk
An invocation was delivered by Mayor Suarez. Vice Mayor Alonso then led
those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. BRIEF DISCUSSION CONCERNING REQUEST BY RABBI FAVISH DALFIN OF THE SHUL
OF DOWNTOWN MIAMI FOR CLOSURE OF DESIGNATED STREETS FOR A RELIGIOUS
HOLIDAY CELEBRATION (See label 4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: Mr. City Manager, are you aware of a petition by a downtown
temple for a closure of streets coming up in the next few days? They want to
have a...
Mr. Odio: I think I saw letter...
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, from Kiki Berger.
Mr. Odio: ... it might be in the Agendas office.
Mayor Suarez: And if we can all have that handy. Just make sure that the
Administration is in fact recommending favorably. It doesn't involve any City
expenditure.
Mr. Odio: I remember seeing the letter.
1 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: They've done it other years...
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, I saw it.
Mayor Suarez: ... and it's like an hour, I think...
Mr. Odio: Let me see if I... Lori, do you remember that letter?
Mayor Suarez: ... on the date that we have to take action on today because
otherwise it would be too late.
Mr. Odio: Let me see if I can find it, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: As we dig that up, my staff was supposed to have it in front of
me as we began the meeting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. (A) DISCUSSION CONCERNING POSSIBILITY OF CHARGING IMPACT FEES FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL AND COUNTY FACILITIES WITHIN CITY OF MIAMI
LIMITS.
(B) COMMISSIONER PLUMMER URGES ADMINISTRATION TO REVIEW PRESENT PLAN
IN CINCINNATI, OHIO, WHERE A FEE IS CHARGED TO ALL NON -CITY
RESIDENTS WHO WORK IN THE CITY.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: We have items 1 through 3. The first one is Vice Mayor
Alonso's request...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: ... possibility of charging an impact fee on the construction
of Federal and County building facilities, etcetera.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yeah, I'm waiting for some legal opinion and also working
with the Administration. I had requested that we delay but by some sort of
mistake it was placed in the agenda today which it was not supposed to be.
-! I'm waiting for a legal opinion and also some other items that we're waiting.
Probably the next Commission...
Mayor Suarez: OK. If you need any resolution to speed up anything, don't
hesitate to...
Commissioner Plummer: Let me ask this question while the City Attorney is
doing research. I would like to know if it is humanly possible if the answers
come back negative as to an impact fee on Federal or are these tax exempt?
Can we, in effect, in reverse, tell them that we will no longer provide them
municipal type services, which cost the four hundred and forty thousand of
this City a lot of money. And, so I don't know whether we can do it or not,
force them to do their own policing and their own fire and their own whatever,
so if we...
2 February 18, 1992
Vice Mayor Alonso: We can research that. That is a fine suggestion.
Commissioner Plummer: Exactly. In the negative is what I'm saying. If we
can't get them to volunteer an impact fee, can we so notify them that in the
future they'll have to provide their own?
Vice Mayor Alonso: Some other cities, I think, are doing... looking at ways
and having it work for them, so I guess we can follow.
Mr. Odio: The last time I saw, the city of Boston...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Boston.
Mr. Odio: ... had raised ten million dollars a year in voluntary fees.
Voluntary fees they call them.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, you can check, because I've not had the
time to do it, but there is some plan in Cincinnati, that if you're not a
resident of the city of Cincinnati, you have to pay a fee to come in and work
in Cincinnati. So if you'll have somebody look into that, that's another
possibility of what they're doing and another way to look into the...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Several years ago also in Washington, D.C. there was a
plan that was never implemented, but I remember that since I was working for
Fairfax County, we were very much aware and we felt, I was living in Maryland
at that time, and I recall that most of us felt that it was right that
Washington had the need to collect funds and I think most people were
agreeable. The plan was never implemented, but it was a fine plan and I guess
something was done differently and they looked at other alternatives, but
maybe something that we could look at.
Mr. Odio: OK.
Vice Mayor Alonso: It was in the seventies, at the beginning of the
seventies. Something that as I recall in general ways, it's possible...
Mr. Odio: We definitely...
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... and it's beneficial for Miami as well.
Commissioner Plummer: Let me tell you I'm also told, Mr. Manager, that the
Federal government gives the District of Washington a huge amount of money...
Mr. Odio: Oh, yeah.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Oh, yes.
Commissioner Plummer: ... every year to provide those services.
Mr. Odio: Yes, they do.
Commissioner Plummer: Now if they do it there, why aren't they doing it here?
Vice Mayor Alonso: Exactly. Exactly.
3 February 18, 1992
Mr. Odio: Well, we have a floating population of four hundred thousand a day.
Those are people that come into the City every day. So the total population
of...
Commissioner Plummer: How many?
Mr. Odio: Four hundred thousand a day.
Commissioner Plummer: More.
Vice Mayor Alonso: I would say.
Commissioner Plummer: Much more.
Mr. Odio: So we have a total population of eight hundred thousand a day.
That's a lot of people.
Vice Mayor Alonso: That's a lot of people.
Commissioner Plummer: Best estimate I ever heard was a...
Mayor Suarez: Yeah, the daily population is estimated at eight twenty.
Mr. Odio: Eight twenty.
Mayor Suarez: Eight hundred twenty thousand a day.
Commissioner Plummer: I'll bet you it's more.
Vice Mayor Alonso: That's quite a bit.
Mayor Suarez: All right, on item 2 then, Commissioner Dawkins. Recovery
Connection and Serenity to request donation of a City vehicle. Are they here?
If not, if they do show up at the appropriate time...
Commissioner Dawkins: Are they here? The Recovery Connection to request the
use of the vehicles?
Mayor Suarez: If not, we can take it up a little later if you like.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I have a...
Commissioner Dawkins: No, if they're not here, forget it.
Mayor Suarez: All right.
4 February 18, 1992
e
rl-
3. DISCUSSION CONCERNING POSSIBLE DONATION OF A VEHICLE TO MODEL CITY TO
ASSIST WITH CRIME PREVENTION.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I have a request that I was going to put on
an agenda, but maybe would be the time to talk. Mr. Manager, Model Cities has
asked for the possibility of a vehicle to be given to a Mr... What's his name,
Miller?
Commissioner Dawkins: Jonathan or Donathan or something. I don't know.
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Jonakin.
Commissioner Dawkins: OK.
Mr. Odio: Jonakin.
Commissioner Plummer: Right. The man is up there every day using his own car
to help the Crime Watch and I...
Commissioner Dawkins: OK. Before you get carried away, J. L.,...
Commissioner Plummer: I'm just conveying...
Commissioner Dawkins: Let me say something, J. L.
Commissioner Plummer: Yep.
Commissioner Dawkins: We gave two vehicles to this gentleman and I had to...
I'm just putting this in the records for information.
Commissioner Plummer: Sure.
Commissioner Dawkins: And I had to have a carnival at Hadley Park in order to
provide funds to maintain these vehicles. So, if a vehicle is given to the
individual, give it with the understanding that they have to maintain it...
Commissioner Plummer: Oh, yeah.
Commissioner Dawkins: ... and that they have to have the insurance on it and
that it's theirs.
Commissioner Plummer: Oh, no question. I'm just saying... I'm conveying to
the Manager that there is a request on my desk and I'm conveying the
information and he can get back with it whatever stipulations are appropriate.
Mayor Suarez: OK.
Commissioner Dawkins: No problem.
5 February 18, 1992
---------------------------------------------- — ------------------------------
4. (Continued Discussion) GRANT REQUEST BY RABBI FAVISH DALFIN OF THE SHUL
OF DOWNTOWN MIAMI FOR CLOSURE OF DESIGNATED STREETS FOR A RELIGIOUS
HOLIDAY CELEBRATION (See label 1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: All right. Before we go to item 3. If I may ask the...
Assuming that Rabbi Dalfin is here. Rabbi? Would you please approach the
mike? The request is dated February 6, 1992. I don't know if the
Commissioners have a copy of it. If not, I can tell you that it's for a one -
hour permit. It does not involve any City expenditure. I understand the
Administration has cleared it and that it was some celebration that already
took place two years ago and then it was interrupted last year. We do have
the first amendment considerations. You have to be very careful. The Vice
Mayor is kind of an expert on that, having recently staged the celebration
that has a religious connotation, so what you do is you do it totally on a
non -denominational basis and with all of that having been said, I don't know
if you have someone that can make a recommendation on this, Mr. Manager. I
think it's supposed to be...
Mr. Odio: I would recommend it subject to police... We have not had time to
check with the Police Department and...
Mayor Suarez: OK. It's...
Mr. Odio: ... he would have to pay for permits and to hire Police Officers.
Mayor Suarez: It's noon to 1:00 p.m. on March 19th. It involves downtown
merchants and downtown residents in an area roughly...
Commissioner Plummer: What street?
Mayor Suarez: ... the Capitol Mall and around it. Is it at some portion of
the street in front of the Capitol Mall?
Rabbi Favish Dalfin: It's on the Capitol Mall block.
Mayor Suarez: Just that one block?
Rabbi Dalfin: Just that block. Between 2nd Avenue and 1st...
Mayor Suarez: And you did it a couple of years ago...
Rabbi Dalfin: Two years ago.
Mayor Suarez: ... and then you interrupted it last year. And there was no
problems created from what I understand. If you want to move it subject to
the Administration...
Vice Mayor Alonso: OK. Yes, I do move subject to all the specifications as
mentioned on the record.
6 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Plummer: Second.
Mayor Suarez: So moved and secnnded. Any discussion? And remember, we can't
be involved in any subsidies, both for constitutional reasons and also for
financial reasons which lately have been more important than the constitution
even. Call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Mayor Alonso, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-139
A RESOLUTION RELATED TO A RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY
CELEBRATION TO BE CONDUCTED BY RABBI FAVISH DALFIN, OF
THE SHUL OF DOWNTOWN MIAMI, ON MARCH 19, 1992;
AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE OF DESIGNATED STREETS TO
THROUGH VEHICULAR TRAFFIC SUBJECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF
PERMITS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE AND FIRE, RESCUE
AND INSPECTION SERVICES; FURTHER CONDITIONING ALL
APPROVALS AND AUTHORIZATIONS HEREIN UPON THE
ORGANIZERS PAYING FOR ALL NECESSARY COSTS OF CITY
SERVICES AND FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE EVENT AND
OBTAINING INSURANCE TO PROTECT THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT
AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I have one thing I needed clearance on.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you, Rabbi and if I may just ask you to put your name on
the record. I tried to pronounce it, but I'd love to hear the way the first
name is pronounced, too.
Rabbi Dalfin: It's Favish.
Mayor Suarez: Favish. And the last name is?
Rabbi Dalfin: Dalfin.
Mayor Suarez: And the address listed here, of course, for the congregation,
the synagogue, is at 145 East Flagler Street, 3rd Floor. Right in the mall?
7 February 18, 1992
Rabbi Dalfin: Yes, on the third floor.
Mayor Suarez: That's what you call being there with the people, right? All
right.
Rabbi Dalfin: I really want to thank all of you.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you. Next year, you're going to...
Rabbi Dalfin: God bless all of you.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you. We need the blessings. Next year, you're going to
give us a little bit more advanced notice, right?
Rabbi Dalfin: Sure.
Mayor Suarez: So we put it on the regular agenda and not even have to...
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, but I think for the record, he needs to pray for
Kiki Berger more than us.
Mayor Suarez: Pray for Mr. Kiki Berger.
Rabbi Dalfin: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Plummer: Kiki Berger is the only man I know that went on a diet
for thirty days and the only thing he lost was a month.
Commissioner Dawkins: That's unfair, J. L.
Vice Mayor Alonso: That's a low blow.
5. COMMISSIONER DAWKINS SEEKS DIRECTION FROM COMMISSION CONCERNING HIS
IMPENDING TRIP TO WASHINGTON, D.C. IN CONNECTION WITH THE U.S. GRANTING
OF THE NAVAL RESERVE PROPERTY TO MIAMI COALITION TO THE HOMELESS.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Dawkins.
Commissioner Dawkins: I need some guidance or something from the rest of the
Commission. I will be going to Washington tonight. I've already scheduled a
meeting with the person who is speaking for the agency that holds the Naval
Property in custody and I will be saying for Miller Dawkins and I need to know
if I'll be speaking for Miller Dawkins or I can say the Commission, that I'm
in favor of giving that Naval property to the City of Miami and if the City of
Miami cannot have it, give it to anybody who will accept it outright and do
not lease it. Because the Federal government is trying to get out of the land
ownership and to let someone else lease it, they're not getting rid of it and
if the Miami Coalition does not, as they told me, want to lease it, then I
think it should go - I personally think it should go to anybody who will
8 February 18, 1992
accept it as an outright gift so that our zoning laws would apply. So, I need
to hear from the rest of the Commissioners.
Commissioner Plummer: Somewhere, Mr. City Attorney and you know, I hate to
prolong this, but to me, what the Federal government is doing is tantamount to
fraud. They are giving that police power to a nongovernmental agency and, to
my knowledge, only a governmental agency has the right to circumvent...
Mr. Odio: Commissioner.
Commissioner Plummer: ... our zoning laws.
Mr. Odio: Commissioner, the law, McKinney Act law...
Commissioner Dawkins: You are not the City Attorney, now.
Mr. Odio: ... supersedes every... I'm sorry.
Commissioner Dawkins: Let the City Attorney answer.
Mr. Odio: But the McKinney Act supersedes everything else.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. I just... I don't know how in the hell they can do
it, but they're doing it.
Commissioner Dawkins: OK. That's one Commissioner. Anybody else?
Mayor Suarez: My problem with the approach...
Commissioner Plummer: I'm with you.
Mayor Suarez: Yes. Go ahead. My problem with the approach is the following.
I like the result of what you're trying to accomplish, but I wonder about the
strategy for the following reason. If you suggest that they must give flat
out the property and it is given to someone that we're not able to constrain
in any way, then it's gone forever and ever. At least with a lease, we've
been able to build in some restrictions or at least we tried to negotiate some
restrictions be put into the lease and I have a feeling you're doing it as a
strategic move that may have some...
Commissioner Dawkins: No, I'm dead serious.
Mayor Suarez: OK. If it...
Vice Mayor Alonso: No, and the problem with the zoning is the problem that we
have with the lease.
Commissioner Dawkins: I'm dead serious, Mr. Mayor. I'm not doing this... I'm
not trying to frighten anyone. I am sincere.
Mayor Suarez: OK. If it was up to me, what I would like to see done is to
have that property sold to the private sector. That's my view.
Commissioner Dawkins: OK. Well, OK. Madam Vice Mayor.
9 February 18, 1992
Vice Mayor Alonso: No, I agree with you, Commissioner Dawkins. As you stated
in the last Commission meeting and you say today, I'm with you and I'm very
supportive of your position in going to Washington.
Commissioner Dawkins: Thank you. OK.
Mayor Suarez: All right.
Commissioner Plummer: Give 'em hell!
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes, indeedl
Commissioner Dawkins: I will try. Thank you. That's all, Mr. Mayor. Thank
you.
Commissioner Plummer: Is that a one-way ticket or two way? It's one way.
You only get the return portion if you win.
Commissioner Dawkins: I'll be campaigning with George Bush when I come back
this week.
Commissioner Plummer: God forbid. Ain't it bad enough being a Democrat.
Mayor Suarez: And by the way, I join in the "Give 'em hell" part of that
resolution. If not the rest of it.
6. INSTRUCT ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE TWO MASTER PLANS FOR LANDSCAPE
BEAUTIFICATION ALONG BISCAYNE BOULEVARD.
Mayor Suarez: Why don't we go ahead to PZ-1. Madam Vice Mayor, when you're
ready on your ceremonial item, let me know.
Commissioner Plummer: What about... Excuse me, what about number 3?
Vice Mayor Alonso: Three is...
Mayor Suarez: Are they here? I'm sorry. That was my item. That's it. Item
3 then not PZ-1, rather. I called it wrong.
Mr. Doug Broeker: Good afternoon. Doug Broeker. 538 N.E. 55th Terrace. I'm
here with Juan Crespi of Edgewater and McVay Christy of the Bayside
neighborhood. This originally was a request by the Chamber of Commerce as a
unified presentation of the Northeast Task Force, the Greater Biscayne
Boulevard Chamber of Commerce and the Edgewater Economic Development
Corporation. Basically, we have three items to discuss. None of them are
going to cost you any money. They're happy items. The first is Juan is going
to report on the Northeast Task Force project of a beautification grant
request made with the City's matching grant to the State of Florida and then
we want to follow...
10 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: How much was that matching grant that we proposed?
Mr. Broeker: A hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars this year and a
hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars next year.
Mayor Suarez: And that money has been earmarked, etcetera, etcetera. How are
we doing with the legislature? That's what you're going to tell us about now?
Mr. Broeker: Right, right.
Mayor Suarez: Great.
Mr. Broeker: It's a division of the DOT (Department of Transportation),
landscape beautification division. And then the other two things we want to
do is follow staff's request to have you direct staff to prepare two master
plans, a landscape beautification master plan for 48th Street to 87th Street
on Biscayne Boulevard and a comprehensive master plan from 36th Street or I-
195 to 87th Street. Let me turn it over to Juan.
Mayor Suarez: Remember as you mention anything having to do with the
legislature, that the key is not to throw it in with the rest of... It should
be part of our legislative priorities, but you should also emphasize to
Commissioner to my right, Commissioner to my left and the one all the way to
the left, not ideologically, how important this item is, because we're not
going to ever be able to agree collectively as to this being the number one
priority. But I think all of us up here feel that it's extremely high. When
we go to Tallahassee to lobby, it should not be the last item on ten that we
go up there for. It should be right close to the top, if we agree on it,
because I think we do that we need to do something with the northeast.
Mr. Broeker: That's why we want to spend just two minutes on that today
because the legislative priority... the lobbying priority is right now.
Mr. Odio: Mr. Mayor, you know we have obtained monies from the Federal
government to do Biscayne Boulevard up to 24th Street. I think it would be
unwise not to follow up and keep the same pattern going all the way through.
Mayor Suarez: Well, maybe we ought to hear on that presentation because the
Burle-Marx project is what you're talking about?
Mr. Odio: Yes, sir.
Mayor Suarez: And we haven't seen that move along too quickly and we
shouldn't wait for all that...
Mr. Odio: Oh, it's under design now.
Commissioner Dawkins: Are you talking our legislative priority for this year
or next year?
Commissioner Plummer: Both. It's a two year priority.
11 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Dawkins: How can you... OK. You know, I'm a... I mean, I try to
be a realist. See, I try to be. OK. But up there right now, the only issue
that anybody has discussed with me is redistricting. OK. They have not sat
down and discussed no budgetary items at all. Now, knowing how they operate,
the last week everything is going to be passed that belongs to certain people
and I'm going to go up there with your issue as a priority and it's not going
to even get listened to, because we did not put it in. Is it in the
legislative package? OK. So, I'm going to listen to you, but I'm going to
listen to you with your understanding that it's very little, if anything, I
can do this legislative session. But as the Mayor said, there's not a
Commissioner up here who does not feel that the Northeast corridor's time has
come. OK. We put money in Liberty City. We put money in Overtown. We have
put money in Little Havana. We've put money on Brickell Avenue and it's time
that we put some money in the Northeast corridor on Biscayne Boulevard. See,
so you'll have no problems with me identifying it as a priority, but I want
you to understand that I want to put it as a priority when I know I can help
you deliver. Not that I'm just going to sit here and have you think that we
can go to Tallahassee and get this classified as a priority and get you some
money.
Mr. Broeker: Thank you.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, I think also that, you know, that Commissioner
Dawkins or our lobbyist can find out for you where the appropriate time that
you, yourself, could be in Tallahassee to make a presentation. Let me tell
you, this particular year is the most unique year in Tallahassee, aside from
redistricting. They are addressing two budgets. Not one, as normal. Two.
They are looking at the cuts for the rest of this year, which they know are
major cuts and they're addressing the 192-193 budget, keeping those cuts in
mind. So if you don't go there now, during this session, you're going to be
cut out of not only '92, but 193 budget because they are taking an axe to both
budgets.
Vice Mayor Alonso: That's right.
Commissioner Plummer: They are showing revenues of five hundred and thirty-
five thousand increased over last year with deficit of nine hundred and
twenty-six million. So they've got all of that to cut out before, because it
looks like - you never know what's going to happen in the last days - but
they're right now saying there are no new taxes. They've all got to run and I
think it might hold this year.
Mayor Suarez: Keep in mind, of course, that you've got possibilities of any
and all capital funds, trust funds - I can't imagine this would be
educational - so I can't imagine putting it under PECO (Public Education
Capital Outlay and Bed Service Trust Fund) funds, highway funds. I mean,
there's all kinds of budget items there that from year to year have amounts
left in them and you never know. I mean, it may not be an operating fund
situation, you may be able to find it elsewhere. You may even know more about
that than we do, but don't hesitate to identify that, don't hesitate to
involve us in the process and our paid lobbyists in Tallahassee that, you
know, are there for that very purpose.
12 February 18, 1992
Mr. Juan Crespi: We will certainly take you up on that. I think the decision
of the grant will probably not be legislators making it. There is a committee
composed of primarily landscape architects in Tallahassee and that is the one
that we...
Mayor Suarez: So you must be thinking of a particular fund with a particular
oversight committee.
Mr. Crespi: Correct. Correct. Correct.
Mayor Suarez: OK. So what fund is that, Juan?
Mr. Crespi: It's FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) and it's a
beautification grant, they call them.
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, that's if they have any money granted to them and
any money left.
Mr. Crespi: To them, correct, correct. There's a lot of "ifs." OK. Let me
bring you up to par as far as what we've done with the beautification project
up to date. We met the February 1st deadline of some middle to FDOT District
6, which is the Miami district. They are endorsing our project and it's on
its way to Tallahassee. Like I mentioned, the committee is the one who
evaluated and, basically, we're competing among others for the same monies, so
everything counts, having endorsement counts. The other two items that they
will look at is community support, in which case you'll see all the letters of
recommendation we have for all the concerned neighborhoods and they're looking
for political support, which we're asking you to help us out on. Just as a
refresher, what we did is, our target, obviously Biscayne Boulevard, 24th
through 87th, with an initial funding we have gone from 24th Street through
48th, we have replaced all the missing palm trees, twenty palm trees. And
then we're taking one block, which is the 38th to 39th block and we're using
that as a pilot, or demonstration, block and we've also... That's indicative
of some kind of paving pattern that we will be using and again to replace
palms and the landscaping that goes with it and then we went further up...
Mayor Suarez: The paving is only done at the intersection, is that the idea?
Mr. Crespi: No, no, no. That's just a graphical way of showing it. The
entire sidewalk will be paved.
Mayor Suarez: Doesn't that get...
Mr. Crespi: But we're only doing it for one block...
Mayor Suarez: Oh. OK. I was going to say that gets pretty expensive.
Mr. Crespi:...as a demonstration because the monies will not be available to
do it throughout. What we did next is we skipped up to Bay Point and we're
doing the medians on Bay Point which are in pretty sad shape right now. The
people evaluating the grant are looking for a lot of green shrubbery, flowers,
replacement of the palms, so that area is ideal for their evaluation.
13 February 18, 1992
='3
i,
i
i
-` Mayor Suarez: To answer the Manager's question, to what extent does what is
being proposed fit in, conflict with, clash with, or otherwise extend the
Burle-Marx concepts up to 24th Street if that's even an appropriate question?
Mr. Crespi: OK. No, no, it is an appropriate question. We've kicked it
around several times. The consensus among ourselves and among the Planning
Department has been that it's kind of abrupt to just cut Burle-Marx plan at
24th Street. The ideal situation will be where in the future...
Mayor Suarez: By the way, let me just state for the record and not pick bones
here with my Manager, but the Burle-Marx project is quote, unquote, right now
being designed, which I think means, basically, that out of twenty some
million dollars that we need or out of eighteen, I think we've got like less
than two. So, to go from that, you know, money that we now have which is all
being used for design, much to my dismay, but apparently that's the way the
Federal grant comes down, to actually being able to implement that all the way
up to 24th Street, it's anyone guess whether we'll be able to do all that. I
think he has all kinds of assurances from Congressmen that they're not going
to forget about us, that once they plant something and design it, they don't
stop the funding, but anything is possible in Washington and I know that that
money is not sitting there in some account waiting to be spent. So, this less
grandiose approach,...
Mr. Crespi: Correct.
Mayor Suarez: ... from the economic standpoint, is something you never even
think of abandoning if it makes sense on its own.
Mr. Crespi: So the logical thing is not stopping at 24th Street but, if
possible, the Burle-Marx or a similar plan should go all the way to 36th
Street underpass and that would be a logical transition...
Mayor Suarez: I got it. I see what you're saying.
Mr. Crespi: ... from there to a more economical...
Mayor Suarez: I see what you're saying.
Mr. Crespi: ... situation. I don't think we'll even dream of going beyond
there. The situation right now...
Commissioner Plummer: What are you doing about under the underpass now?
Mr. Crespi: OK. This minute, we're not. The next fiscal year proposal -
because we split our... when we split our monies in two fiscal years, we also
split our plans in two fiscal years. The upcoming fiscal year, we will take
care of the underpass and the upper area of the Northeast as far as our monies
will go. And that brings me back to Doug.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Commissioner De Yurre entered
the meeting at 2:01 p.m.
14 February 18, 1992
Mr. Broeker: I'd like to just address one thing the Manager brought up. It's
a great idea and we appreciate the thought of trying to get a large
expenditure for one thing, but what we're trying to do is a little bit
different. We're trying to do a lot of small manageable projects right now
and so what we're looking for is a master plan that's going to encompass a lot
of projects that are on the boards.
Mr. Odio: No, I think you have a great concept. I just didn't want it to
clash with the other one.
Mr. Broeker: Right.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, let me ask you a question. Under the
State laws pertaining to DDAs(Downtown Development Authority) - I know they're
specified laws - is it possible that the people of the Northeast could form a
DDA as such where they had their own taxing authority, beside a special taxing
district? Is that... You know it maybe is one of the areas that could be
explored, that could be a raising of funds for your particular area.
Mr. Odio: The additional millage like the DDA.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, in other words, they could... you know, the DDA
we know, the Downtown Development where they have their boundaries. They have
the opportunity by State statute to raise a half a mil outside of the City.
Now, what I'm saying is, that maybe if it was possible and legal...
Mayor Suarez: Say beyond the City's millage rate. You said outside of the
City, sounds like you mean geographical.
Commissioner Plummer: Outside of the ten mil cap.
Mayor Suarez: Beyond the... Yeah.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Beyond.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. Beyond the ten mil cap. That, you know, it might
be one of the things that you all should consider.
Mr. Broeker: We have considered that. We talked about it in the task force
and our view is we would rather, instead of creating an agency like that and
all of the additional money that goes into staff, location, office and
basically another layer of government, we'd rather take the money and just put
it into target projects because what we see...
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, but you see what you're doing here now is
basically you're putting, what I see, all your eggs in one basket and that's
the beautification.
Mr. Broeker: No, we're not. What we have going on right now, you have Herb
Bailey moving into the Lemon City neighborhood with his scattered -site housing
project. You have the Chamber of Commerce focusing on a target area between
69th and 74th. You have the Wynwood group that's focusing on the area between
24th and 36th.
15 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Plummer: For economic development?
Mr. Broeker: The Chamber's is economic development. Herb's is housing, which
the task force feels is the fundamental foundation for economic development.
The Edgewater group is economic development and what we see... what we're
looking for today is a landscape beautification master plan, but also a
comprehensive...
Commissioner Plummer: OK.
Mr. Broeker: ... master plan so it all fits in together.
Commissioner Plummer: All right. I just thought that it would be an infusion
of cash that you all there could control, if you understand what I'm saying.
Mr. Broeker: Right. We just don't feel that the community is ready to make
that kind of an economic commitment on its own. What we'd rather do is have
the few groups that are active get smaller amounts of money. You know, what
we've been asking for from you has been little blocks of a hundred, hundred
and fifty, two hundred thousand dollars and targeting them in particular
projects that we think are going to do a lot of good right now.
Commissioner Plummer: Let me ask you one more question.
Mr. Broeker: Yeah.
Commissioner Plummer: Operation NEON (Neighborhood Enhancement Operation
Network) has moved out of your area. What difference, if any, has it made?
We know it made an impact while it was there. What is your opinion of
Operation NEON as of today?
Mr. Broeker: I haven't reviewed statistics to draw a conclusion about
Operation NEON, but we're in as desperate need of police enforcement in our
area as we were when we came before you in May.
Commissioner Plummer: Have you seen the problem go back to what it was before
Operation NEON?
Mr. Broeker: In my opinion, yes. In my opinion, it's as bad or worse.
Commissioner Plummer: Or worse?
Mr. Broeker: You've got the hookers on the Boulevard and I'm hearing more
stories about people experiencing smash and grab robberies in the 60's on the
Boulevard than I heard before.
Commissioner Plummer: Are you aware of the latitude and authority of the
Nuisance Abatement Board?
Mr. Broeker: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: Have you been making the complaints as necessary and
prescribed by law?
11.
February 18, 1992
{
f Mr. Broeker: Well, I'm counsel to the Nuisance Abatement Board. So,...
_I Commissioner Plummer: Then why aren't you...
i
Mr. Broeker: ... I'm on that side. I think the Nuisance Abatement Board, I'm
very bullish about it. I think it's great.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, OK. Because they have... My understanding...
Mr. Broeker: The Nuisance Abatement Board is just having it's first meeting.
Commissioner Plummer: ... they have the authority to go in and pull a
license.
Mr. Broeker: You've got to understand that the ordinance that we drafted
requires a conviction.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. I don't want to get into it. All I wanted was an
opinion.
Mr. Broeker: OK.
Commissioner Plummer: Thank you.
i
Mr. Broeker: Yeah, we require a conviction. So we need the police
enforcement to get those to bring the cases forward. OK.
Mayor Suarez: All right. Anything further?
Mr. Broeker: Let's see. Yes. Now what we want to ask you for is to direct
Planning and Public Works to prepare master plans. One, the landscape
beautification master plan from 48th to 87th with a three-month deadline.
Public Works going ahead and doing an inventory of the trees that are missing
and the locations where trees can go in. And then Planning going ahead and
preparing the plan. The task force and the Chamber of Commerce will host
meetings in order to solicit public opinions so that this is a publicly
inputted process and then come up with it. The second thing we're requesting
is to direct Planning to come up with a comprehensive master plan working with
all other City departments between I-195 and the City limits at 87th.
Mayor Suarez: That would be 36th Street, roughly.
Mr. Broeker: Right.
Mayor Suarez: All right. And north.
Commissioner Plummer: So be it.
Mayor Suarez: I understand your resolution to that effect.
Commissioner Plummer: So be it.
Mayor Suarez: Moved.
17
February 18, 1992
Vice Mayor Alonso: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Seconded as to both...
Commissioner Dawkins: Under discussion.
Mayor Suarez: Yes.
Commissioner Dawkins: Mr. Manager, you've heard the requests, you did not
respond. Say something if it's wrong.
Mr. Odio: No, I think their concept is OK. I mean, we'll be glad to work
with them and pursue it.
Commissioner Dawkins: Do you have the manpower to assign to this project, to
assist this project, to do what they said to?
Mr. Odio: We have a planner that has been assigned to them that will continue
to do so, if that's... That's our understanding that that's what they're
asking for. We have a man working with them now, or a person working with
them now.
Commissioner Dawkins: I will ask my question again.
Mr. Odio: Yes, sir we do have the manpower to help.
Commissioner Dawkins: You have the manpower to work with them...
Mr. Odio: Yes.
Commissioner Dawkins: ... and get this done in the time frame that they are
asking?
Mr. Odio: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Dawkins: So that means that you will bring it back to me
completed like he says. OK. Thank you. No further questions, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: All right. Thank you. Call the roll on the motion.
18 February 18, 1992
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 92-140
A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO DO AN INVENTORY OF THE
REQUISITE NUMBER OF TREES MISSING AND PROSPECTIVE
LOCATION OF TREES NEEDED ALONG BISCAYNE BOULEVARD FROM
N.E. 48 STREET TO N.E. 87 STREET; FURTHER DIRECTING
THE ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE TWO MASTER PLANS: (A) A
LANDSCAPING BEAUTIFICATION MASTER PLAN FOR THE ABOVE -
STATED AREA TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE NEXT THREE
MONTHS; AND (B) A COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN TO COVER
THE AREA OF I-95, N.E. 36 STREET UP TO THE CITY LIMITS
AT N.E. 87 STREET.
Upon being seconded by Vice Mayor Alonso, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
COMMENTS MADE AFTER ROLL CALL:
Mayor Suarez: In the eventuality that you... in the event that you don't get
the State grant, what is Plan B? Where do we go? Try to rely on what funds
we're able to obtain from the City and...
Mr. Crespi: OK. Right. The City has committed...
Mayor Suarez: One twenty five and one twenty five.
Mr. Crespi: ... two hundred and fifty thousand basically. The project before
you can be done with the two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Yes.
Mayor Suarez: We'd just like to a lot more than that.
Mr. Crespi: If we manage to, obviously, get the matching funds, the area will
be doubled.
Mayor Suarez: Very good. All right.
Mr. Crespi: Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Congratulations to both of you.
19 February 18, 1992
Mr. Broeker: Thanks.
Mayor Suarez: And these things do require a lot of stroking, folks. Don't
hesitate to continue to contact individual Commissioners and make sure that we
know any impediments that come up because if you don't call us, these things
tend to drag out forever and ever as the questioning by Commissioner Dawkins
implied and I think it reflects the way we all feel about it. This has to be
done quickly. Not as... Don't take for a timetable the Burle-Marx funding and
all that. That could be a while. That's a lot of money. Eighteen million
dollars, I think, the last time I looked.
7. DI"PJSSION CONCERNING PROTEST BY SAC, INC. REGARDING CITY'S AWARD OF THE
ASBESTOS REMOVAL CONTRACT AT THE ORANGE BOWL.
Mayor Suarez: We have a protest, or challenge - I don't know what the correct
word is - ...
Mr. Odio: It's... Mr. Mayor, I'd like to put a...
Mayor Suarez: ... which is pending from the last Commission meeting and I
think we ought to have a...
Mr. Odio: Yeah. I'd like to ask for your permission to go ahead and as you
awarded a contract to this firm that we proceed and uphold your decision and
based on this letter I just received from Charles Danger, P.E., Chief Building
Code Compliance Officer, I'll put this on the record, I'll just read the last
paragraph and you're getting a copy of it.
"If the City of Miami determines in the Orange Bowl Stadium
Modernization - Phase II (1992) Project that the primary work
falls within the scope of an asbestos abatement contractor, then
the asbestos abatement contractor who is awarded the contract
must be licensed by the State of Florida as required by Florida
Statutes 455.301, 455.309. All work which does not fall under
the scope of the asbestos abatement contractor, must be
subcontracted to licensed, qualified contractors in the trade
for which the work is to be performed."
We also, with Richard...
Commissioner Dawkins: What is that saying?
Mr. Odio: It means that we have to give it to an asbestos removal company, as
we did - by the way, that the board, he is the Chief Building Code Compliance
Officer, the board that Mr. Weiss had indicated had denied our permit, they
never met and never discussed this item. I have here a memorandum that shows
all the key players: Charles Danger, P.E., Chief Building Code Enforcement;
Al Childress, Chief Enforcement Officer Contractor Section; Patrick Wong,
Chief Air Section, Environmental Monitoring; and Bob Wolff. All of their
comments are very simple and in writing that we are to proceed with the
asbestos removal company and, therefore, that we should not listen to the
protest that Mr. Weiss brought forth for SAC. All these documents are here
20 February 18, 1992
and you have copies of them and, in fact, it was very clear that it was left
up to our Building Official to determine the removal of this asbestos and that
he has the authority to do what he did.
Mayor Suarez: Counselor.
Richard Weiss, Esq.: Mr. Mayor. First, 1 want to thank the Commission for
taking this time again to hear this protest. Before you I bring up to date, I
would like to make a couple of personal comments. No one has more respect for
the City Manager or for the City Attorney than we do. I understand that the
City is under tremendous pressure and that your staff is under tremendous
pressure to get this project done, have it complete on time so we can all
watch the Orange Bowl game there. And, to the Manager and to the Commission,
I want to tell you that I am truly sorry, on a personal basis, to be raising
these complaints at this time, but what is right is right, what is safe is
safe and the rules are the rules. First, just to address the Manager's letter
that you have in front of you. I totally agree. Had the contractor listed as
a subcontractor a certified general contractor or a certified demolition
contractor, which is what they're saying, then I would not be here. This is a
copy of the bid sheet submitted by the general contractor and what the County
has said is that these people are... if the City determines that they're
eligible to bid on the job, that's fine and they can hire whoever they want.
The issue is have they listed any of those people on their bid sheet? This is
their bid sheet and the name of the subcontractor, if you can't read it, says
self, self, self, self, self, self, self. So then the question is can the
people that you've hired do the work themselves? During my initial
presentation to you, I based my argument on the fact that the contractor that
you had chosen had only an abatement contractors license. I quoted to you
Section 455 Florida Statutes regarding what an abatement contractor could do.
Again, had he listed other subcontractors, that wouldn't have been an issue
because he would have done the work with those subcontractors. But he didn't.
The question is what the contractor you hired is legally permitted to do. You
disagreed with me. I respected that. There is a quasi-judicial board created
by ordinance with the sole responsibility of reviewing and ruling upon matters
of licensing of contractors. That is called the Construction Trades
Qualifying Board. I am told by the staff that I may have misquoted the name
of that board the last time that I was here. That board is made up of
architects and contractors and the staff that serves that board has the
ability to revoke licenses. Last Thursday, SAC Construction asked that board
a series of questions related to the Orange Bowl. One of those questions was,
may an asbestos contractor remove the structural slabs like those on the job
we are discussing? Here is a blowup of a - it's marked preliminary draft, but
it was Thursday and this accurately reflects what happens at the meeting -
this is a County document and what the board said was this. It said "an
asbestos abatement contractor cannot remove slabs or structural systems." And
then it quotes the same statute that I quoted to you and says what an asbestos
contractor can do. There is a section of an ordinance says that "No person or
entity shall submit a bid nor shall any contract be awarded on any County or
municipal public works project in Dade County unless such a person or firm has
complied with the licensing requirements. Any bid not in compliance with this
section, shall be null and void." Section 2 of your bid documents says
exactly the same thing. That a person has to have the licenses in place in
order to do the work, in order to get the work. This section says that a bid
submitted without the licensing requirements is null and void. The contract
21 February 18, 1992
you entered into there - since the bid is void - the contract you entered into
is null and void and, therefore, you're free to contract with my client. The
contract was awarded five weeks ago. No contract had been signed as of
Thursday. No work had been done and no bond had been posted. Should you
award this contract to SAC, provided that the City processes the documents, we
will have somebody working on this contract tomorrow. We will have it done
within the eighty days allowed by the contract. This is not a technical
argument. It's about hiring a company who can do the work legally and get it
done and not be stopped in the middle by inspectors because they don't have
proper licenses. We will get the job done on time so we can have the Orange
Bowl game there next year. I'd ask you to please rescind your prior
resolution. The contract that you entered into was null and void and award
the contract to my client.
Mr. Odio: Mr. Mayor, just I want to add to the record. He just showed page
one of the report from Mr. Childress but he didn't mention that he also said
in his report that the board also explained to SAC when they went there that
the City's building official must make the determination on the prior
contract. He also referred them to Mr. Wolff, who is the Florida Department
of Professional Regulations. Mr. Wolff indicated that he received an inquiry
on the Orange Bowl matter apparently from SAC Construction. By State law, the
asbestos abatement work would have to be done by a State licensed asbestos
abatement contractor, according to Mr. Wolff, and I just, to put this to rest,
these slabs that we are talking about are totally contaminated by asbestos.
They cannot be touched by anyone else but by an asbestos removal company. Our
building official has determined that and I think we should put this to rest
once and for all.
Commissioner Dawkins: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: Yes.
Commissioner Dawkins: Mr. Manager.
Commissioner Plummer: See, I see it as two separate jobs.
Commissioner Dawkins: Of the job, what is fifty-one percent of the job? The
problem here seems to be who does fifty-one percent of the job? Now, in my...
That's your problem, I'm talking about my problem. I don't know what yours
is. OK? I know what my problem is. OK? Now, Mr. Manager, it says that the
fifty-one percent rule... is fifty-one percent of the job removing asbestos?
Mr. Odio: I would say it's more than...
Commissioner Dawkins: Or is fifty-one percent of the job removing the slabs
and taking them out? Now what is fifty-one percent of the job?
Mr. Odio: I would say, from what I understand, it's more. Seventy percent is
asbestos removal.
Commissioner Dawkins: OK. Explain that in terms that I can understand.
Mr. Odio: OK.
22 February 18, 1992
j Commissioner Dawkins: All right. No, no, no. All right what's the other _
_{ thirty percent?
Mr. Odio: Let me show you a picture, Commissioner. Maybe that will... I'll
show you the asbestos on the slab.
J Commissioner Dawkins: No, I've got a high school diploma. I don't need to
see it like in a comic book. -
Mr. Odio: OK.
Commissioner Dawkins: Just explain it to me.
Mr. Odio: The slabs are totally... The outside concrete is surrounding
asbestos.
—1 Commissioner Dawkins: OK. The total slab is surrounded with an asbestos
—1 coating.
Mr. Odio: No, no.
Commissioner Dawkins: The total slab.
Mr. Odio: No, no. The asbestos is inside the slabs, as I understand it.
Right...
Commissioner Dawkins: All right, so the slab is made up of asbestos material.
Mr. Odio: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Dawkins: The total slab?
Mr. Odio: Not the total. You have concrete on the outside. Maybe you can
explain it. I'm not an expert on asbestos.
Commissioner Dawkins: Me either.
Mr. Robert Ankney: Hello, Commissioner. My name is Robert Ankney. I'm with
Project Development Group. We have been chosen as the asbestos contractor to
work at the Orange Bowl.
Commissioner Dawkins: No, no, no. I don't need you, sir.
Mr. Ankney: Hopefully.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Oh, but that's not...
Commissioner Dawkins: No, no, no. I don't need you, sir. No, no, no. I do
not need you to confuse me with the legal and the technical aspects of it. I
need the Manager, who understands as much about it as I do to explain it to
me.
Mr. Wally Lee: Commissioner.
23 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Dawkins: No...
Mr. Lee: OK.
Commissioner Dawkins: Go ahead. Go ahead. No, no, no.
Mayor Suarez: Let me clarify procedurally. If...
Mr. Juan Ordonez: Juan Ordonez from Public Works.
Mayor Suarez: Wait. Wait. If it should ever become necessary for the
winning bidder to put anything on the record as to their position, we'll for
sure let you speak since the challenger has spoken, but at this point as
indicated by the Commissioner, I don't recommend that. We really want to hear
from our technicians.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Of course.
Mayor Suarez: If indeed they can explain it to us in a way that we can
understand it which is always a concern.
Mr. Odio: I think I ca.n explain it in simple language.
Commissioner Dawkins: Go ai,ead Mr. Manager.
Mr. Odio: When the slabs were put in place, poured, the forms were made out
of asbestos.
Commissioner Dawkins: OK.
Mr. Odio: They were left in place....
Commissioner Dawkins: OK.
Mr. Odio: ... because it was cheaper at the time. So now they are part of
the slab, so when you remove the slab you have to remove the forms also that
were left there when the concrete was poured.
Commissioner Dawkins: OK. Then explain to me then if... All right, how
much - and I'm asking something that you have to explain - how much of the
slab is concrete and how much of the slab is asbestos material?
Mr. Odio: Well, I... How thick are the...
Commissioner Dawkins: Because if it's "X" percentage of concrete and two "X"
percentage of asbestos material, then fifty-one percent of it is concrete. If
it's two "X" percent asbestos material and one "X" percent concrete, then
fifty-one percent of it is asbestos removal. So now that's what I need for
somebody to clear up for me.
Mr. Weiss: May I respond or would you want your staff...
Mr. Ordonez: May I answer that question?
24 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Dawkins:
experts. Thank you.
Who is that? No, no, no. We're asking from our
Mr. Ordonez: The situation is that the concrete and the asbestos material has
become monolithic. I'll just...
Commissioner Dawkins: Hold it, hold it, hold it, sir. We already agreed on
that. That they're both bond together because the concrete was poured and as
it set up and hardened, the other stuff became a part of the concrete. But
how much?
Mr. Lee: The thickness of the concrete, Commissioner, is two and a half
inches.
Commissioner Dawkins: Two and a half inches of concrete?
Mr. Lee: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Commissioner Dawkins: Around how much asbestos?
Mr. Lee: A quarter of an inch, approximately.
Commissioner Dawkins: So two and a half inches is more than... So, therefore,
you've got more concrete than you've got asbestos materials. It's just that
simple.
Mr. Lee: That is not the way EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) looks at,
sir, and DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management).
Commissioner Dawkins: Beg your pardon?
Mr. Lee: That's not the way DERM classifies an asbestos contaminated
material.
Commissioner Dawkins: But see DERM isn't here arguing this contract. We are.
And nobody told me when you awarded the contract, that you're awarding it
according to DERM's specifications. You told me it was awarded because my
experts in the City of Miami determined that this was the best contract and
the best way to go. Now when did you tell me that you awarded the contract
because DERM said that's the way it has to be done?
Mr. Lee: We presented a letter from Law Engineering, who was our consultant,
that specifically instructed us, based on DERM's recommendation, to use an
asbestos removal contractor, abatement contractor, Commissioner.
Commissioner Plummer: That's not the point that I see. Let me ask... Are you
finished?
Commissioner Dawkins: No, sir. I can't get any... Go ahead, Mr. Mayor.
Commissioner Plummer: Let me ask a question if I may.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Plummer. Inquire.
25 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Plummer: I see this as two separate jobs.
Commissioner Dawkins: Thank you, J. L.
Commissioner Plummer: I see one job of bringing the slabs down and I see the
second aspect of removing the asbestos and doing away with it in the
prescribed manner. Am I in the ballpark?
Mr. Lee: No, sir.
Commissioner Plummer: Why?
Mr. Lee: The slab in place will be cut into four -foot pieces. The asbestos
removal people will hook on the crane hooks to this four -foot slab...
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah.
Mr. Lee: ... and then it's removed by the crane operator. So you have...
Commissioner Plummer: Isn't the removal of the asbestos done on the ground?
Mr. Lee: No, sir.
Commissioner Plummer: It's done up there in the top.
Mr. Lee: It's done up in the air because you cannot take the asbestos off the
concrete. It's monolithically part of the concrete.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. Then tell me of the awarded firm who is doing the
crane work?
Mr. Lee: I believe, and it can be confirmed by the contractor, it's George's
Crane Service.
Commissioner Plummer: And is that a part and parcel of their company? Are
they then, in fact, a subcontractor?
Mr. Lee: They are a subcontractor of the...
Commissioner Plummer: Then why weren't they listed on the bid? Well, the bid
says you've got to list...
Mr. Lee: We don't know.
Commissioner Plummer: ... all subcontractors. Am I correct?
Mr. Lee: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: I assume you would do that to indemnify the City from
any liability. And if, in fact, you have to do that according to the bid, why
wasn't it done?
Mr. Lee: We...
26 February 18, 1992
0
N.
Mayor Suarez: If you can answer that.
or whoever can give us an answer.
If not, we'll hear from a contractor
Commissioner Plummer: No, no, no. I don't want to hear from a contractor.
Mayor Suarez: From our...
Commissioner Plummer: I want to hear...
Mayor Suarez: All right, you want to hear from our perspective. If he can't
answer it, he can't answer it.
Commissioner Plummer: He has said that this is a subcontractor. Now if, in
- fact, this is a subcontractor and the RFP (request for proposals) said you
must list all of your subcontractors and this was not done...
Mr. Lee: Well, really it's an equipment rental, Commissioner. All we're
renting is a crane operator. That's the same with the disposal of the
material. From there it goes into a truck and that's hauled off to an
approved disposal site. You're renting the truck and the driver to get rid of
the material.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Is this the only company that they are using or are they
using a different subcontractor for something else?
Mr. Lee: No, just the crane and the truck. Those are the...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Just the crane.
Mr. Lee: Right. Those are the only two items that do not involve the
demolishing of the asbestos material.
Vice Mayor Alonso: And then they will proceed to do the entire job
themselves?
Mr. Lee: That portion. Yes, ma'am.
Vice Mayor Alonso: You know, I have problems with this from day one because
it's, I don't know, maybe because the attorney's presentation was very well
done, but in fact as soon as he explained to us, in my opinion, it was
definitely a two-part job as my fellow Commissioners have been saying. It
doesn't seem to me that this is the job of an asbestos company alone. It's
much more to this that just the asbestos removal, it seems to me that it
involves some other company, subcontractor, that does the job. Otherwise
it's... It gives me a funny feeling to see the City of Miami allowing this
work to be done and as far as I'm concerned, we have had so many problems with
the Orange Bowl already that I don't know if I'm ready to go along with one
more.
Mayor Suarez: From the City's standpoint, Mr. Manager, isn't there a built-in
requirement that any portion of any job that, in fact, requires a licensed
general contractor or a licensed contractor in a particular field, you in fact
have an obligation to make sure that whoever is operating that crane and
removing that to the extent that that requires a licensed contractor in that
particular field will in fact have it. I mean...
27 February 18, 1992
F
Mr. Lee: Yes, we will.
Mayor Suarez: ... you have that obligation.
Mr. Lee: Yes, we will.
Mayor Suarez: You can assure this Commission that whether they were listed as
a subcontractor or as a - I forget how it was stated by Commissioner Plummer
or someone else - as a vendor or something, that they will in fact have the _
proper licensing to do...
Mr. Odio: Yes.
Mr. Lee: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: ... whatever portions of that job. Maybe we would have liked
to have seen it since we think of contractors and subcontractors as being the
kinds of entities that we should approve here at this level, at least if not,
they should be listed as subcontractor, but having done all that and having
this confusion in the State law which I think counsel has very brilliantly
elucidated for us in his effort to get this one contract cancelled, which I
think is somewhat ambiguous, I happen to believe it's ambiguous, and I think
that they mean that the asbestos removal has to be done by an asbestos
abatement contractor. I don't think they imply by that that individual,
without being a general contractor, can do all the functions that a general
contractor would otherwise be able to do. I don't think the State law means
that. Having said all of that, I don't we have a real quandary here because I
think you are going to be assured that a contractor does any and all portions
of the asbestos removal that in fact requires a general contractor or a crane
contractor or whatever the appropriate terminology is.
Mr. Odio: Sir, it's rental equipment, that's what it is. I don't know why
you call it a sub.
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, but wait. Wait, wait. Mr. City Attorney.
A. Quinn Jones, Esq.: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Plummer: They're renting a crane and an operator. They're not
renting just the crane.
Mr. Jones: Um-hmm.
Commissioner Plummer: According to them, they're renting a crane and an
operator. If somebody is injured, who is... Are they going to indemnify us
from the cranes?
Mr. Jones: Absolutely.
Mr. Lee: Yes. We have a...
Mr. Jones: It's part of the contract.
28 February 18, 1992
Mr. Lee: ... certificate of insurance from the...
Mr. Odio: Every single job that there is a contractor involved, the cranes
are rented. In every job that I know.
Commissioner Plummer: Not necessarily with a general contractor.
Mr. Odio: Yes. There is no general contractor...
Mayor Suarez: How do we know that...
Mr. Odio: ... that owns cranes.
Mayor Suarez: How do we know that from the documents that have been issued
and signed and awarded? How do we know that? Where's the protection in there
that in fact will be...
Mr. Lee: The contractor will hold us harmless and meet all the insurance
requirements of the City.
Mayor Suarez: OK, we're talking about the asbestos removal contractor now.
Right?
Mr. Lee: And any of his subs.
Mayor Suarez: Asbestos abatement contractor.
— Mr. Jones: Mr. Mayor. When the contract is signed, every contract that we
have, whether it's with an Orange Bowl project or any project, has a standard
indemnification clause. And that would be the City's protection. So there is
absolutely no problem in that regard.
Mr. Odio: I need to clarify something because, you know, Richard and I are
friends. If you could separate the concrete from asbestos, I would agree with
him. OK. And I would have been the first one to say, we admit it. But you
cannot separate this asbestos from that concrete. So no one but an asbestos
licensed individual can touch these things. If you could separate them and
say you take care of the concrete, he'll take care of the asbestos, I could
understand and agree with it.
Mayor Suarez: Well, this Commission, I think, is of a mind to suggest that
for future contracts and for our clarification, you do have a, you know, you
do make it part of the documentation that a subcontractor doing heavy lifting
of the kind that requires a crane and that kind of equipment, have all the
proper licensing and that that be mentioned in the specifications and in fact
we get that as part of the RFP and then later the bid. But I don't think it
is a serious defect in this process. As long as we're assured that in fact
you'll be exerting that oversight and holding them responsible as per the City
Attorney's opinion...
Mr. Odio: There is a standard clause that protects the City.
Mayor Suarez: Yeah, a standard clauses is not enough. Because we are seeing
as a separate, fairly important chunk like the Vice Mayor was just saying, it
29 February 18, 1992
isn't just like rental of equipment. I mean, it's a little bit more than
rental of equipment here. It's like almost like a separate important chunk
here. I'm not ready to say that that doesn't mean it cannot be awarded to an
asbestos removal contractor, but at least, for future reference, make sure
that the subcontractor is included and that we have all the assurances of
certification there. Because we have them in this case de facto, but we don't
know that up front. We didn't know that up front. We didn't have the
assurance contractually that it would...
Mr. Weiss: Mr. Mayor, if I may.
Mayor Suarez: Yeah. I don't know... I don't have any more interest in your
particular position, because I've heard three times your position and
_ brilliantly expounded. If Commissioners want to hear from you,...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: ... they can certainly you questions and if not,...
Vice Mayor Alonso: No, I have...
Mayor Suarez: ... let's hear comment from the Commission and make a
determination here if indeed we need to act at all, which I'm not sure.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes. I have a comment and I'd also like clarification
from the City Attorney in reference to the letter that is a little bit
confusing, at least to me. I don't think it's clear enough. It's saying yes,
but yes and it is the responsibility of the City and you see it as... You
consider it proper and adequate. So it's not telling me exactly what I want
to hear. First of all, I have to say on the record what I have stated before.
Had I been given all the information that I have today, I would have given a
different vote of what I gave concerning this contract. I would have gone
with the other company rather than with this one because it seems to me that
definitely it does require a contractor, not only the asbestos removal and
right now we have after -the -fact information as it has become sort of a system
lately which we have to work to change because we have expressed on many
occasions that we would like this to be done differently so we have all the
information prior to giving the vote. Now, I would like to ask the City
Attorney, are you satisfied that what we have in front of us is what they've
been telling us and that this letter says exactly what they want us to
understand or it is more in the sense of what at least three of us have stated
that we see it as two different contracts?
Mr. Jones: No. When you say you're referring to us, are you meaning...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Meaning that in this letter it's not really saying yes.
What you have done is giving to the right contractor. It's more the
impression they are giving fifty-one percent and apply to the job and it's not
clear. It's not clear. They are saying but not saying. I want your opinion,
your legal opinion to tell us what you have done is OK even though you're not
completely satisfied, you can in all fairness continue what you approve and we
have no problems or legal implications later on.
30 February 18, 1992
a-
Mr. Jones: Let me preface my comments by saying something initially because
you heard at the outset that apparently there was some confusion as to what
board was appealed to or what appearances were made before the board. I just
want to point out to you again the decision to use the asbestos abatement
contractor, the determination that was made that this was in fact - or should
I say that this project called for using an asbestos abatement contractor, is
a decision that only the building official of the City of Miami can make.
That decision was made. The recourse, whether it's Mr. Weiss's company that
represented or any aggrieved company is to go before the Dade County Board of
Rule and Appeals which is the only entity that has any jurisdiction to resolve
any dispute or any matters to interpretation. Now, to get to your question in
terms of what was submitted from the various officials from Dade County, you
heard statements that were read into the record by the Manager from Mr.
Danger, Mr. Wolff, whatever, I have had the opportunity to review this
information as well prior to this meeting. You're asking me for my best legal
opinion based on what's been presented to me for review, I think that you're
on solid ground. I mean, that's as succinctly as I can put it. Again, if the
aggrieved party has a problem with your decision as a Commission in terms of
an award that was made, then there is legal recourse for that. That's the
best that I can tell you, Commissioner.
Vice Mayor Alonso: OK. Now I have a question for the Administration.
Perhaps the City Manager or some other members of the Staff. You are
confident that this job is not going to be delayed as a result of inspectors
coming over and saying these people don't have the proper license, that the
City of Miami made the mistake in awarding this contract and these people
don't have proper license. Perhaps the director in his judgment thought he
was acting properly, but in fact an additional license is needed and
additional delays will take place. Are you confident this is not going to be
the place?
Mr. Jorge Ventura: We are. We are.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes. We are not going to have any kind of delays, County
coming over and saying you don't have the proper license or anything like
that?
Mr. Lee: We have no problem.
Mr. Santiago Jorge -Ventura: May I...
Mr. Lee: Commissioner, we had the...
Mayor Suarez: Well, I've heard enough, but if any Commissioner has any
questions of...
Commissioner De Yurre: I just have one to clarify my position. Legally -
because I've heard a lot of different opinions and different things happening
here - legally when you provide a bid, when you make a bid, are you required
to list the subs that are going to do any of the work which you are not
licensed to do? Yes or no.
Mr. Kay: That's the normal procedure.
31
February 18, 1992
i
a
i
Commissioner De Yurre: OK. What happens if you don't list the subs that are
going to work which you are not licensed to do?
Mr. Kay: A sub would have to be submitted and approved by the Public Works
Department.
Commissioner De Yurre: So, then you're telling me that you're not required to Y-
put the subs that will do work for which you are not licensed to do with the
original bid. Is that correct?
Mr. Ordonez: That is correct. Most of the time the contractor changes the
subs. Once they submit the bills or while the sub does not perform rightly.
Commissioner De Yurre: OK. I'll ask the City Attorney's office. Mr. Jones,
is it correct to say that in a bid if you're not licensed to do a particular
work, you do not have to list the sub that would be licensed to do that
particular work?
Mr. Jones: I would say yes, that would the case.
Commissioner De Yurre: OK. So then the situation of no subs being listed to
do the work that the asbestos company is not licensed to do, is of no
consequence in this matter.
Mr. Jones: Yeah. I would say it's...
Mr. Kay: It's...
Mr. Jones: Are you asking me?
Commissioner De Yurre: Yes.
Mr. Jones: I would say it's of no consequence because what has been explained
to me, which happens in many instances, the company may very well have those
particular individuals as part of their respective staffs or whatever that are
capable of doing the work, that are already licensed so the work wouldn't have
to be subcontracted. I don't know whether this in fact is what happened here,
but that is a very regular scenario of how things happen in a contract
situation like this.
Commissioner De Yurre: Normally, isn't the normal course is to have your
subs, because you've priced it out in making your own bid, you know, that this
sub is going to do it for "X" dollars as opposed to having to go shopping for
somebody to do it?
Mr. Odio: Well, the way I used to prepare bids is that you get prices, you
put in a general bid, after you obtain the bid, you go and negotiate with a
sub, deal with the sub, you make a deal with him, then you bring it back to
the Public Works Department or whoever, and say do you approve of this sub?
No. Then you go and find another one. That's the way that... It's the normal
procedure. In this case, you are only talking about rental of equipment.
You're talking about renting cranes which is standard operating procedure in
the industry. Nobody owns cranes. Very few companies own cranes, if any.
All cranes are rented at all times, that I know of. I don't know of any large
contractor, maybe Rooney, I don't know, even him, to own cranes.
32 February 18, 1992
Commissioner De Yurre: OK.
Commissioner Plummer: Let me ask one other question. Mr. Manager, if there
was no asbestos, would your bids require the general contractor?
Mr. Odio: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: It would have?
Mr. Odio: Yes. That's the difference.
Commissioner Plummer: Then, according to this letter, the primary contractor
then has the responsibility to subcontract all portions of the work ... does not
fall under the scope of this license, the abatement ... to licensed, qualified
contractors.
Mr. Odio: Correct.
Commissioner Plummer: Not rental of equipment.
Mr. Odio: That's all you're going to do here. Because the main job...
Commissioner Plummer: You're not listening to me.
Mr. Odio: Yes I am.
Commissioner Plummer: The responsibility for subcontracting to a licensed,
qualified contractor. It doesn't say a word about leasing.
Mr. Odio: Fine.
Commissioner Plummer: It says licensed...
Mr. Odio: But he's not doing that. You have to... Again let me repeat. You
have to remove these pieces in one.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, let me read it again.
Mr. Odio: They are not subcontracting anybody...
Commissioner Plummer: I'm reading from a letter...
Mr. Odio: Oh, you're talking about the crane.
Commissioner Plummer: ... dated the 18th of February...
Mr. Odio: Yeah, that's the same...
Commissioner Plummer: ... from Metropolitan Dade County.
Mr. Odio: Right.
33
February 18, 1992
a
Commissioner Plummer: The primary contractor that has a responsibility to
subcontract all portions of the work that does not fall under the scope of
this license to licensed, qualified contractors. It doesn't say to rent
equipment. It says to licensed, qualified contractors.
Mr. Odio: Fine.
Commissioner Plummer: Who is the licensed, qualified contractor under this
contract to do what you said would be required of a general contractor if
there was not asbestos? Who is the licensed contractor? That's the question
I'm asking.
Mr. Kay: The low bidder on this job that we're recommending.
Commissioner Plummer: No, sir. He is the primary. He is going to use subs.
What licensed contracting sub...
Mr. Odio: If needed.
Commissioner Plummer: ... is he going to use?
Mr. Odio: If needed.
Mr. Lee: He's going to use...
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Manager, you told me...
Mr. Lee: ... a licensed crane operator.
Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me. You told me prior that if there was no
asbestos, that you would have required a general contractor.
Mr. Odio: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: Now that means that the second portion of this is going
to require a general contractor.
Mr. Odio: No.
Commissioner Plummer: They're not licensed to do that.
Mr. Odio: No. These pieces are coming out altogether. I explained that.
They are monolithic. They cannot be separated. Therefore, a general
contractor cannot touch them.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. I guess we're going to wind up in court and...
Mr. Lee: Let me make a statement.
Commissioner Plummer: ... I'm assuming then that...
Mr. Lee: Commissioner.
34
February 18, 1992
Commissioner Plummer: ... I would hope that Mr. Weiss and the company that he
represents would go back to the board and make your determination there. You
know, if if in fact...
Mr. Lee: Commissioner, may I make a statement?
Commissioner Plummer: ... that's the case, that's the case.
t
Mr. Lee: We had the same problem when we started the Orange Bowl. Kovac
Construction started demolishing these same slabs we're talking about. DERM
went in there, saw it, found asbestos and told them ,you, as a general
contractor, cannot take these slabs down. You have to get an asbestos removal
person. OK?
Commissioner Plummer: As a sub?
Vice Mayor Alonso: It makes sense. It makes sense.
Mr. Lee: And that is why we had to do it and we paid one of these asbestos
removal to remove those slabs last year.
Mr. Weiss: That was along with the general contractor.
Mr. Lee: No, sir.
Mr. Odio: No, sir.
Mr. Lee: No, sir.
Mr. Odio: No, sir.
Mr. Weiss: Because the subcontractor...
Mr. Lee: We had a contract directly with MCO.
Mayor Suarez: All right, we've got a little bit of back and forth... You've
told us that this happened two years ago. The Commission may want to inquire,
and you may have some answers, or you may have some answers, or no one may
have answers on the issue of whether in fact two years ago we did that
alongside a general contractor or a demolishing contractor or whatever we call
those that do the lifting. Commissioners, do you need to hear anything more
from either staff or the challenger?
Mr. Weiss: I have the...
Vice Mayor Alonso: I am glad that we only have one Orange Bowl.
Mr. Weiss: I have the chairman of the board, chairman of the Construction
Trades...
Mayor Suarez: Mr. Weiss.
Mr. Weiss: ... Qualifying Board.
35 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: You're out of order. Do the Commissioners have any more
questions of anyone?
Commissioner Plummer: Well, wait, wait, wait. There's the Chairman of the
Qualifications Board.
Mr. Weiss: Is here, sir.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, why didn't you put him on to begin with if he has
something to say?
Mr. Weiss: Well, because I was waiting for the discussion. But he's here...
Commissioner Plummer: Well, he's the one that makes the determination. Am I =
correct on that?
Mr. Weiss: He is, sir and he's here.
Mr. Jones: He is not.
Mr. Weiss: His name is Bob Perry and he's...
Commissioner Plummer: He is not.
Mr. Jones: Commission, let me remind you again. Any interpretation as to
this particular work whether it requires an asbestos abatement contractor or a
general contractor, it goes before the Board of Rules and Appeals. That is
the only board that can make that determination. This board, as I understand
it, only deals with proper licensing of contractors or whatever else. So
don't let this become a smoke screen...
Commissioner Plummer: OK. All right. I'm just asking.
Mr. Jones: ... for you so you become confused or whatever else.
Mr. Weiss: With all due respect, Mr. Mayor, I have to do...
Mayor Suarez: Wait, Mr. Weiss. I am inclined, at the end of all of this,
just for the heck of it and for procedural fairness, to let you have one more
statement, we've got to have some fairness in this. Does any Commissioner
have any other question of Mr. Weiss? Would you wish to make a statement,
sir? Go ahead and make your statement. Let's keep everybody to a couple of
minutes, please, and in your case, momentum may or may not be on your side.
You may want to be very brief.
Mr. Ankney: I'll be very brief.
Mayor Suarez: Give name and address and who you represent.
Mr. Ankney: My name is Robert Ankney. I represent Project Development Group,
we're a national asbestos company. Our address is in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida. Under the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, which governs
asbestos, it says in here what an asbestos project is. It means an activity
involving the removal, enclosure or encapsulation of friable asbestos. Now
36 February 18, 1992
Q-
the form board is not friable until it's broken. But, in order to remove the
concrete and the form board which is asbestos, you have to penetrate with
holes to drill it, you have to saw cut it. That is a potential for a fiber
release, which the EPA says is an asbestos project. The EPA also says the
meaning of demolition when it comes to asbestos. It means the wrecking or
taking out of any load supporting structure. We're not affecting any load
supporting structure. It's slabs only. The people involved in removing the
form board, which is transit when you drill that, you have to wear respiratory
protection. You have to have a respirator to protect your employees as far as
OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Association) is concerned. A GC (general
contractor) contractor does not have this equipment. Furthermore, if the
specs calls for a two million dollars asbestos liability insurance to protect
the City. A general contractor does not carry asbestos liability insurance.
This is a special insurance that mainly asbestos contractors carry. It will
cost him a lot of money just for one job to do that. So any time that you're
going to take asbestos and there's means for it possibly to become friable,
the State of Florida, the EPA, says you will be an asbestos contractor and
when you mess with the slabs up there, that asbestos could become friable
there, in turn, putting your employees in danger of causing cancer or disease.
That's it.
Mayor Suarez: OK. Last statement, counselor.
Mr. Weiss: I'll be very brief and then I'm just going to have half my time
for the Chairman of the Construction Trades Qualifying Board, if it's all
right with you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, the issue here is not the asbestos.
We have a qualified asbestos subcontractor who's going to do the work. Due to
respect to the City Attorney, the Construction Trades Qualifying Board deals
with contractor licenses. The Board of Rules and Appeals deals with appeals
of actions of the Building Official. The Building Official has not taken any
action in this case and, therefore, the Construction Trades Qualifying Board
is the remedy that we took because it's the one that we had. They have
determined that these people cannot legally do this work. It's plain as day.
Irrespective of whether it's in connection with asbestos. These people have
the ability to come out, and the Chairman will speak to you now, and cite this
contractor and red -tag this job and stop it. I have been, you know, trying to
speak with you about that so that doesn't happen. Let me have the Chairman of
the Board speak to you for two seconds. His name is Bob Perry. I just want
it on the record so that you have it. Maybe he can toss some light on this
for you.
Mr. Bob Perry: Honorable Mayor and Commission. Last Thursday this came
before the Construction Licensing Trade Board, which I'm the Chairman of that
board, it was presented to us as a job that there was a lot of problems with.
We took the position that this is a general contractor's job for the simple
reason there's so much coordination there. Now, I'm going to give you an
analogy of what it was.
Mayor Suarez: By the way, you characterize as a job that we have a lot of
problems with, I don't know who you're referring to. I don't have any
problems with the job. If somebody told you that they had a lot of problems
with the job, it sounds like it would be one of the parties here. That may or
may not be the way this Commission feels about it.
37 February 18, 1992
Mr. Perry: OK.
Mayor Suarez: Or the Administration of the City of Miami.
Mr. Perry: All right, as a general contractor, we have spent years learning
how to pick up a piece of concrete that weighs twenty thousand pounds. It
takes years to know how to do this type of work. An asbestos contractor can
go to school for four weeks and become a contractor, an asbestos contractor
certified by the State. A general contractor is required much more schooling
than that. Also, there's a lot more danger here. This is structural work
where an asbestos contractor is not qualified to do structural work, either
put it up or take it down. Now, the asbestos can be removed under the
direction of a contractor, a general contractor, where the general contractor
would be the prime contractor. Now, that was a basis of the Board, which you
have a letter in front of you, what we determined from that meeting last
Thursday.
Mayor Suarez: Of course you take no opinion in the situation where they in
fact involve a general contractor in that part of the operation, do you? As
long as they in fact do that. I mean, you said under the orders of, or under
the direction of. I don't think you mean to say that the general contractor
has to be the one giving the orders as opposed to working in conjunction with
an asbestos removal or asbestos abatement contractor.
Mr. Perry: That would be highly unusual because it's... The contractor would
direct the work. Because if they hired an asbestos contractor, an asbestos
contractor cannot direct how to remove something they're not qualified to do.
Mayor Suarez: And that's based on the fact that he went to school for four
weeks and the general contractor went to school for a longer period of time?
Mr. Perry: That's... Well it has a lot to do with it. He has the knowledge.
Mayor Suarez: Well, you know on the work sites, with all due respect to
everybody here, I've done enough of that, too, and you've got a lot of people
working with a bunch of different qualifications and they all have to work
together, and in another sense, I suppose depending on how complex the work
is, they all work under an engineer or under an architect and none of these
characterizations apply to every single situation. But... Anything else you
want to add?
Mr. Weiss: Two seconds. Commission, I just ask you if you're going to
make... It looks like you're going to be in litigation on this project one way
or another.
Mayor Suarez: I think you were in the wrong forum from the beginning. I
think that was your correct forum from day one.
Mr. Weiss: No, no, no. I disagree with you because you remember the problems
with the... Our bid protest was on time. If you're going to be in
litigation,...
Mayor Suarez: But this is the third time we hear you on this.
38 February 18, 1992
Mr. Weiss: ..* be in litigation with someone that the County says is
qualified, is a local contractor. These people, PDG (Project Development
Group) awarded the contract five weeks ago, will start tomorrow. Be in
litigation with the board that has authorization to deal with these matters on
your side, rather than having the City Attorney have to go into court and try
to explain why the County board that has jurisdiction over these type of
licenses has ruled that this asbestos contractor can't do this work. That's
who should be in litigation and with somebody who's going to start this job
immediately. I'd ask you not to continue with this mistake.
Mayor Suarez: All right. Anything further, Commissioners?
Vice Mayor Alonso: I... Just one question. What was the price difference
between one company and the other?
Mr. Odio: Ninety thousand dollars.
Mayor Suarez: OK. Anything further anyone? Do we need to take any action on
this item?
Mr. Odio: No, sir.
Mayor Suarez: OK. If anyone wants to make any motions, that's fine. If not,
we're going on to, I think we have a ceremonial matter.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: OK. Madam Vice Mayor.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes, I'd like to recognize...
Commissioner Dawkins: But before... May I, please?
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes, please. Yes.
Commissioner Dawkins: Mr. Manger. I think I heard you say that we do not
require general contractors to list their subs. Is that a correct statement?
Mr. Odio: That's what I was... Yes, I have been informed that they can
list... they have to get permission from the Public Works Department after...
before the sub can do work for the City.
Commissioner Dawkins: No, no. Do we require that general contractors list
their subs?
Mr. Odio: Do we? The answer is...
Unidentified Speaker: Not anymore.
Mr. Odio: No.
j Commissioner Dawkins: And I sit here and I've been raising sand and fussing
and arguing that the reason black subcontractors are left off is because you
do not require them to be listed and then you come here before me today and
39 February 18, 1992
tell me that even though I sit here and demand that black and Latin and women
contractors be listed as subcontractors so that they don't do what you said
they do, shop bid, then you tell me you don't require it. Now is there
anybody over there who has not heard me say this and demand it? Is there
anybody over there?
Mr. Odio: I have heard you say that many times.
Commissioner Dawkins: Well why would you tell me today, Mr. Manager, that
it's not required?
Mr. Odio: Well, in the original bid package they don't have to. However,
before they do hire a sub, they must get approval from the City.
Commissioner Dawkins: No, no, no, no. See. I've been here eleven years and
for eleven years, I've been demanding that you do not allow a prime contractor
to come in and not list subs. Because when you do, you allow them to do just
what you said. They go out and they get some bids and once they get the job,
they go and tell a guy, OK pick a little piece, we're going to do it for nine
dollars, we can get Jim Jones to do it for eight. Will you do it for five?
And that's unfair. And you know, I'm tired of sitting here by myself
demanding these things and then have the Manager tell me today that I heard
you, Mr. Commissioner, but we didn't care what you were saying. We couldn't
care less...
Commissioner Plummer: It's a bad policy.
Commissioner Dawkins: ... and you can say it until you get white in the face,
which will never happen, we aren't going to do it. Do you think I'll get
white in the face, J. L.?
Commissioner Plummer: I hear you. You know, let me tell you what the danger
here is and I would say that, you know, we, the Commission usually take the
blunt of any ink in the morning tabloid. And when we don't know who the
subcontractors are, and I don't mean to sound like a former Commissioner
around here, but we wind up with some subcontractor that's a drug dealer from
out of the country and they come here and they start raising hell with us
about using these kinds of people. I would say it begs out that we need
change, that this Commission has got to be informed of who all subcontractors
are, not just the primary. Because, let me tell you, if something goes wrong,
they're not going to go running to the Public Works Director, they're going
come running here.
Commissioner Dawkins: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Joseph W. May: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Odio: Mr. Mayor. He approached me. He said he needed to address the
Commission for a second.
Mayor Suarez: Who do you... Let's determine...
40 February 18, 1992
Vice Mayor Alonso: About this item?
Mayor Suarez: ... that before...
Mr. May: Yes, Your Honor. My name is Joseph May. I am here on behalf of
Envirotech Contractors, Inc. Envirotech Contractors was a bidder on this job.
They were not awarded the...
Mayor Suarez: No, we're not... You're out of order then because we're not
engaging any and all protestors to this job.
Mr. May: Very well. Thank you, sir.
Mayor Suarez: All right.
---------------------------------------------------
8-A. PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS & SPECIAL ITEMS.
Key to the City presented to Mr. Stephen B. Friedman, President of American
Express International, Inc. for Japan, the Pacific and Asia.
8-B. REQUEST ADMINISTRATION TO REPLACE COMMISSIONERS' CHAIRS IN COMMISSION
CHAMBERS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: The photographer that was here, notwithstanding the Vice
Mayor's suggestion that it was someone at the request of my mother, that was
taking all of those pictures was actually from a German magazine whose card I
have around here somewhere. At some point I'll figure it out and put it on
the record if need be. Yes.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Mr. Mayor, before we go to PZ-1, it has been really
delayed but I want to make a formal request. If the City Manager is still in
the...
Mayor Suarez: Chambers.
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... chambers...
Mayor Suarez: Or close by.
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... please listen to this. It is very important to me
that he listens to this. I'm placing a formal request of a new chair for the
Mayor since he has taken upon himself to take mine. This is the second
Commission meeting that I have to use his and I do understand he wants me to
get used to the Mayor's seat, but other than that, I resent that his chair is
impossible. I practically have to lay down while he's using my great chair
which is wonderful for my back. So, formally I'm requesting one exactly like
mine or we can trade seats.
41 February 18, 1992
E_
Mayor Suarez: The Manager is proposing that we switch chairs...
a
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: ... which I absolutely refuse to do. You 'll have to get a
restraining order. I do want to say that...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Well, I want you to know that Martin started the whole
thing and he is to blame. He started last Commission meeting and I resent
_ this and as soon as he gets up I'm going to grab mine and give his back to
him.
Mayor Suarez: And I am not... By the way, I'm going to be a gentleman and
make the switch right now, but I'm not going to suggest...
Vice Mayor Alonso: I will let you use it today.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you. That the Commission get new chairs for anyone of us
that would like have some that are a little bit healthier and stiff back and
so on because we've been saying that about the microphones now for some time
now and it doesn't get us anywhere, so why even bother.
Commissioner Dawkins: I will keep my chair. I do not need the Miami Herald
saying that I'm spending money foolishly to buy a chair.
Mayor Suarez: There you go.
Vice Mayor Alonso: I just want mine back, that's all.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: AT THIS POINT, THE CITY
_ COMMISSION CLOSES CONSIDERATION OF REGULAR AGENDA
ITEMS TO CONSIDER ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING
PORTION OF THE AGENDA.
42 February 18, 1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND 10544 (MCNP) FUTURE LAND USE MAP -
CHANGE LAND USE DESIGNATION AT 283 N.W. 35 STREET FROM MEDIUM DENSITY
MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (Applicant: Robert
McCanna Reilly, Trustee for Robert McCanna Reilly & Mary Sabol Reilly
Trust).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: PZ-1.
Mr. Joe McManus: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. PZ-1 and PZ-2 are
companion items. This is for property at 283 N.W. 35th Street. The proposal
is to change the designation from a medium -density residential to general
commercial...
Mayor Suarez: Is anyone here to oppose the petition...
Mr. McManus: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: ... represented by this item? Yes.
Mr. McManus: We do have a representative here today from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs, David Dahlstrom. At the appropriate time,
Mr. Dahlstrom would like to make a statement on behalf of the DCA (Department
of Community Affairs).
Mayor Suarez: Department of Community Affairs. That's otherwise known as
DCA. I have added an 110" at the end of that. Make it Department of Community
Affairs Obstruction. But having said all that, they're certainly entitled to
put on the record whatever they would like.
{ Vice Mayor Alonso: If not, I move.
I
_ Mayor Suarez: Other than DCA, do we have anyone else that has any comments to
make on this? If not, Madam Vice Mayor, were you about to move it?
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Second. Would the DCA representative give us his name and
state whatever you'd like on the record, sir?
Mr. David Dahlstrom: My name is David Dahlstrom from the Department of
Community Affairs, Tallahassee, Florida. Mayor Suarez and Commission, I have
a letter from Robert Pennock, Bureau Chief, that I'd like to hand -deliver to
you and also have entered into the record.
Mayor Suarez: OK. Will you put that into the record?
Mr. Dahlstrom: And I have extra copies, too.
43 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: Very good.
Mr. Dahlstrom: And just like to say that if you have any questions, I'm here
to answer them.
Commissioner Plummer: Wait a minute. Here again. The State of Florida is
short of money. Sir, are you stationed in Tallahassee? And you flew all the
way down here just to hand that letter in. Is that correct? At the request
of the City, you invited him instead of a twenty-nine cent stamp. Why did the
City ask him...
Commissioner Dawkins: Wait a minute. Mr. Mayor. I will not let J. L. do
that to us. They've got a fax machine, they don't have to send no stamp.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. Why did the City insist that someone come down
here from DCA?
Mr. McManus: Commissioner Plummer, there is a procedure that if the City...
Commissioner Plummer: No, no, no. He said the City requested them to come
down here and spend I don't know, five, six hundred dollars, for this
gentleman - and I'm not holding it against him - to come here for the sole
purpose of giving the Clerk a letter. Now, somewhere something is wrong that
a twenty-nine cent stamp could have sent the thing or, as my colleague says, a
fax. Why is it... This man is telling me the City required it. Or requested
it.
Mr. McManus: Commissioner Plummer, State legislation, chapter 163, if we
invite DCA down here and DCA refuses to come down here and put in a personal
appearance, they cannot continue an appeal. If, on the other hand, we invite
them down and they appear here personally, then they continue an appeal to
your action.
— Mayor Suarez: All right, look, the procedures don't make any sense to us.
Could you just reflect that to them and hope that somebody somewhere along the
line implements some logical procedures where they can file their objections
or their comments in a nice letter and be done with it?
Commissioner Plummer: Sir, don't take this personal, OK? I don't... I've
said this every time somebody down here comes...
Mayor Suarez: Yeah, you look a lot nicer than the last one that was here,
actually.
Vice Mayor Alonso: And enjoy our City as well. We'd like to welcome you.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, can I ask what - now that all of this has gone
forth - what is their objection?
Mr. McManus: Their objection was not to the amendment itself. Their
objection was the fact that we did not have a thorough enough analysis of the
traffic included for their review. We have supplied that...
Commissioner Plummer: Do you feel that that is a legitimate concern?
44 February 18, 1992
Mr. McManus: We do not think it's a legitimate concern, but we are not DCA.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, OK. OK. I'm just asking my people if they have
a concern.
Mayor Suarez: If you...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Anyway, bureaucracy is costly to the taxpayer.
Mayor Suarez: We have a motion and a second. Unless we have any discussion,
we don't need to swear in counsel.
Commissioner Dawkins: What's the motion?
Commissioner Plummer: To approve.
Vice Mayor Alonso: To approve.
Mayor Suarez: To approve the second reading of this ordinance, PZ-1.
Commissioner Plummer: Item 1. PZ-1.
Commissioner Dawkins: All right. What's the Staff recommendation?
Commissioner Plummer: To deny.
Mr. McManus: Originally... This is second reading, Commissioner. Our
original recommendation was to deny and you approved it.
Commissioner Dawkins: What is your recommendation today, sir?
Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: Recommendation today is denial.
Commissioner Dawkins: Denial.
Mayor Suarez: But they have built in their proposed... What was it?
Mr. Rodriguez: But we have reflected the concerns that you have in the first
reading and we have addressed each one of those issues...
Mayor Suarez: OK.
Mr. Rodriguez: ... and I think that policy decision you made on the first
reading.
Mayor Suarez: All right.
Ms. Lucia Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, could I...
Mayor Suarez: On second reading then, we have a motion and a second. Do you
need to add anything in the record, madam?
Commissioner Plummer: And you still recommend denial?
45 February 18, 1992
Vice Mayor Alonso: That translates into they agree with us.
Ms. Dougherty: Could 1 just make sure that the record contains all of their
staff analysis as well as the record from before the Zoning Board which
approved it.
Mayor Suarez: OK.
Commissioner Dawkins: What is Staff recommendation today?
Mr. Rodriguez: Recommendation is denial, sir.
Mayor Suarez: Technically, denial. All right. We have a motion and a
second.
Commissioner Plummer: That goes hand...
Mayor Suarez: Read the ordinance.
Commissioner Plummer: That goes hand in hand with the Code Enforcement,
another useless department.
Mayor Suarez: Call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF
ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE MIAMI
COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 1989-2000, FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 283 NORTHWEST 35TH
STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN), BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI -FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL; MAKING FINDINGS;
- INSTRUCTING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A COPY OF THIS
ORDINANCE TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of January 23, 1992,
was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On
motion of Vice Mayor Alonso, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the Ordinance
was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
ABSENT: None.
46 February 18, 1992
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10949.
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.
COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Dawkins: I vote no following the recommendation of Staff.
10. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND 11000 ATLAS -- CHANGE DESIGNATION AT
283 N.W. 35 STREET FROM R-3 MULTI -FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH
AN SD-12 SPECIAL BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT TO C-2 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL
(Applicant: Robert McCanna Reilly, Trustee for Robert McCanna Reilly &
Mary Sabol Reilly Trust).
Mayor Suarez: PZ-2 a related ordinance?
Mr. Joe McManus: Yes, they're companion ordinances. This is the zoning
amendment.
Mayor Suarez: OK. I'll entertain a motion on PZ-2.
Vice Mayor• Alonso: So moved.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Commissioner Plummer: PZ-2. I second.
Mayor Suarez: Second. Any discussion? If not, please read the ordinance.
Do we need to restate the DCA comments on PZ-2 or not?
Joel Maxwell, Esq.: No, sir.
Mr. Kay: No.
Mayor Suarez: All right. Read the ordinance.
Commissioner Plummer: Please do, and that will cut it in half in price.
Mayor Suarez: Call the roll.
47 February 18, 1992
AN ORDINANCE -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE
NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FROM R-3 MULTI -FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL WITH AN SD-12 SPECIAL BUFFER OVERLAY
DISTRICT TO C-2 LIBERAL. COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 283 NORTHWEST 35 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA
(MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), AND BY MAKING
ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 21 OF SAID
ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of January 23, 1992,
was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On
motion of Vice Mayor Alonso, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the Ordinance
was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
ABSENT: None.
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10950.
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.
11. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND 11000 ATLAS -- CHANGE DESIGNATION AT
2727-2729 S.W. 27 TERRACE FROM R-2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1
RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL (Applicant: Daniel A. Kavanaugh & Elliott Y.
Denner).
Mayor Suarez: Item PZ-3.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Has the covenant been proffered?
Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: You may remember, Vice Mayor, that the last time,
the first reading, the applicant was going to come up with a voluntary proffer
to this Commission and we haven't heard from the applicant directly...
Vice Mayor Alonso: OK. We will now.
48 February 18, 1992
Mr. Olmedillo: ... so I suspect that he's going to talk to you today.
Mayor Suarez: Can we swear in... Do we have any opposition to PZ-3?
Commissioner Plummer: Let the record reflect that this gentleman, the honest
and upright citizen that he is in this community, submitted two pieces of
paper which went to St. Albans Day Care Nursery as he committed that he would
do and it is in order.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Great.
Mayor Suarez: OK. If we don't have any opposition...
Commissioner Plummer: Move it.
Mayor Suarez: All right.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Second.
Mr. Olmedillo: We recommend approval. It's consistent with the comprehensive
plan also.
Mayor Suarez: Very good, Guillermo. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? If
not, please read the ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE
NO. 11000, AS AMENDED THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FROM R-2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1
RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2727-29 SOUTHWEST 27TH TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), AND BY MAKING ALL THE
NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 42 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS;
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of January 23, 1992,
was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On
motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Vice Mayor Alonso, the Ordinance
was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
49 February 18, 1992
fib
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10951.
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.
12. APPROVE VACATION AND CLOSURE OF PORTION OF N.E. 51 STREET LYING EAST OF
THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) LINE OF N.E. MIAMI PLACE AND WEST OF THE
WEST ROW LINE OF N.E. 2 AVENUE, AS WELL AS PORTION OF N.E. 1 COURT LYING
NORTH OF NORTH ROW LINE OF N.E. 50 TERRACE AND SOUTH OF THE SOUTH ROW
LINE OF N.E. 51 STREET (TENTATIVE PLAT #1402: DOUGLAS GARDENS SOUTH)
(Applicant: The Miami Jewish Home & Hospital for the Aged, Inc.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Plummer: Next item, we're going to get a big check out of.
Mayor Suarez: PZ-4. Street closure.
Commissioner Plummer: Here comes a biggie. Yes, we approved the synagogue
this morning, street closures and... Hello.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Hello.
Commissioner Plummer: Hello.
Adrienne Friesner, Esq.: Hello, my name is Adrienne Friesner with law offices
at 1221 Brickell Avenue.
Mayor Suarez: Have you complied with all the City Codes, I guess finally as
to number of years that you have to be away before you can make presentations
at this Commission, because they usually...
Ms. Friesner: Yes, I have.
Mayor Suarez: ... keep you in the background. That must be for a reason.
Ms. Friesner: No. I had to wait two years before I could appear before the
Commission without requesting a waiver and...
Mayor Suarez: We're happy that those two years are over and we get to hear
from you directly and not the rest of the boring - I mean the members of your
law firm.
Vice Mayor Alonso: And we thought that she liked us and she was just
visiting.
Mayor Suarez: We do need to... If we need any testimony at all, we're going
to have to swear you in, though. Do we need any testimony at all,
Commissioners, on this matter? We have everything?
50 February 18, 1992
1{
Commissioner Plummer: Well, it... No, she doesn't have to say a word. Just
slip it under the door.
Mayor Suarez: Is the voluntary contribution taken care of, as far as we all
know.
Ms. Friesner: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: I don't know.
Ms. Friesner: We would like to make a voluntary contribution of $5,000 to be
payable at the time that the plat is recorded.
Commissioner Dawkins: To do what with?
Ms. Friesner: With whatever you would like to do with it.
Mayor Suarez: It goes into the general discretionary fund...
Commissioner Plummer: It goes to the...
Mayor Suarez: ... that the Commission manages. Right?
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah.
Commissioner Dawkins: No. You know, I don't understand. OK. I don't
understand why it's at the discretion of somebody and then you all sit up here
and spend all the rest of it.
Mayor Suarez: No, no, no. That's what I meant. I meant the one that we all
have to approve the expenditure of. Otherwise, it just piles up until we're
ready to approve anything.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yeah.
Commissioner Dawkins: OK. Good.
Commissioner Plummer: It accumulates.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes. Yes.
Mayor Suarez: It accumulates.
Commissioner Dawkins: OK. Then, no problem.
Mayor Suarez: And from time to time, give us a report...
Commissioner Dawkins: But you see...
Mayor Suarez: ... on that fund before somebody gets ready to spend it and the
rest of us find out at the last moment.
Commissioner Dawkins: That's fine, OK?
51 February 18, 1992
Vice Mayor Alonso: So let's move.
Commissioner Dawkins: But just now we got one earmarked for St. Albans, but
yet you tell me we're stacking it up. You see...
Mayor Suarez: I was not aware of one being earmarked.
Commissioner Dawkins: Well, yes you did. You tell me we're stacking it up.
You just said it.
Commissioner Plummer: No, sir.
Vice Mayor Alonso: No, no. That's a different item.
Commissioner Dawkins:
Commissioner Plummer:
J. L. Plummer said...
It's a different item.
Vice Mayor Alonso: It's a different item.
Commissioner Dawkins: ... an instrument was delivered that had...
Mayor Suarez: How was it different? How was it different? Because I do
remember a statement being made that something was extended to St. Albans. I
didn't...
Commissioner Dawkins: Because St. Albans is in Coconut Grove and that's where
J. L. lives. I ain't got no problem with that. Look out for your
constituency, man.
Commissioner Plummer: No, no, no. Commissioner Dawkins is right. OK? Had
there been any instructions - remember this is voluntary - I did not ask them
to make it out to St. Albans.
Commissioner Dawkins: They did on their own?
Commissioner Plummer: ... I did not ask them.
Commissioner Dawkins: No problem. No problem.
Commissioner Plummer: They brought it into the office. It was made out to
St. Albans. It is voluntarily... If this Commission rejects it, they reject
it.
Mayor Suarez: Please, let's make sure that they all go into the total fund.
Commissioner Plummer: That's correct.
Mayor Suarez: No one should have a pet fund here to get stuff...
Commissioner Plummer: No more black olives.
Mayor Suarez: All right.
52 February 18, 1992
401
<W
Commissioner Dawkins: OK. No more black olive trees. OK.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, excuse me. Just for the record, Dan Kavanaugh is
a member of the Board of Directors of St. Albans...
Mayor Suarez: Oh.
Commissioner Plummer: ... and I'm sure that's why that it was done that way.
Commissioner Dawkins: I just want us to be consistent. That's all.
Mayor Suarez: Yeah, that really should go into a...
Vice Mayor Alonso: But this one goes to the fund that we all decide.
Commissioner Dawkins: And this has nothing to do with you. Thank you.
Vice Mayor Alonso: OK. So no problem. I move...
Mayor Suarez: OK. I'll entertain a motion on PZ-4.
Vice Mayor Alonso: So moved.
Mayor Suarez: So moved by the Vice Mayor.
Commissioner Plummer: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Second. Any discussion? Mr. Sergio Rodriguez, would you give
us a report on that fund as soon as it's appropriate, sir? Today or the next
Commission meeting.
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, we will do that.
Mayor Suarez: Call the roll. PZ-4.
53 February 18, 1992
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Mayor Alonso, who moved _
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-141
A RESOLUTION OFFICIALLY CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING
AND DISCONTINUING THE PUBLIC USE OF THAT PORTION OF
NORTHEAST 51ST STREET LYING EAST OF THE EAST RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF NORTHEAST MIAMI PLACE AND WEST OF THE WEST i
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE, AND THAT
PORTION OF NORTHEAST 1ST COURT LYING NORTH OF THE
NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTHEAST 50TH TERRACE AND
SOUTH OF THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTHEAST 51ST
STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA ALL AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL
OF TENTATIVE PLAT NO. 1402 - "DOUGLAS GARDENS SOUTH",
SUBJECT TO RECEIPT BY THE CITY OF MIAMI OF AN EXECUTED
HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY OR PROVIDING
DOCUMENTATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNER HAS WAIVED ITS
REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY; AND FURTHER =_
SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE MIAMI JEWISH HOME
AND HOSPITAL FOR THE AGED, INC., SHALL PAY TO THE CITY ZZ
OF MIAMI THE SUM OF $5,000 TO BE USED AT THE CITY'S
DISCRETION FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AT THE TIME TENTATIVE -_
PLAT NO. 1402 "DOUGLAS GARDENS SOUTH" IS RECORDED WITH —_
DADE COUNTY.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Dawkins: I'm voting yes and I want to tell the Miami Jewish Home
and Hospital for the Aged that if they try to put one more thing on that
little piece of land, I'm going to vote against it. They can't put nothing
else on that property. Nothing. They have used every possible inch of usable
land that they can use up there.
Mr. Rodriguez: Commissioner, if it would help you, maybe. We're going to ask
the Miami Jewish Home for the Aged to prepare a plan of all proposals, future
- and so on.
54 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Dawkins: No, no. OK. No, no. Tell... No, no, no. I want the
City of Miami to prepare a plan telling them that you can't put nothing else
up there.
Mayor Suarez: He wants a sign that says "Don't even think of it".
Commissioner Dawkins: That's right. That's what I want. OK.
Vice Mayor Alonso: That's a good sign.
Commissioner Dawkins: Finish calling the roll.
Mayor Suarez: I think it might not be inappropriate to do that, though, Mr.
Assistant City Manager, for the rest of us, because I'm not familiar enough to
be able to say flat out, I can't vote for anything else, but it sounds like,
hearing my brother Commissioner...
Commissioner Dawkins: Well, all you have to do is go up there and you will
see.
Mayor Suarez: Yeah, that's...
Commissioner Plummer: Well...
Mayor Suarez: But if he has... If they submit a plan, I don't mind looking at
plans, either.
Commissioner Dawkins: But, now, I must say that every inch provides service
to...
Mayor Suarez: There we go.
Commissioner Dawkins: ... to people in the community. I can't take that from
them.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, can I bring up a point and I'm not...
Ms. Hirai: Excuse me. May I continue the roll call,, sir?
Commissioner Plummer: ... going to pinpoint it at...
Mayor Suarez: Let me finish the roll call and then before we...
Commissioner Plummer: All right, sir.
55 February 18, 1992
1 0 #
13. DISCUSSION CONCERNING PROVISION OF ADEQUATE FREE PARKING SPACES IN
CONDOMINIUMS, ETC.
Commissioner Plummer: Let me... You dirty devil. Let me ask you a question
and it was because I went up to visit at the Jewish Home for the Aged. We, in
our Code, require that any application requires adequate parking. Correct?
It's spelled out in almost everything but a single -•family residence. What are
we doing to bring about that there is not a charge made for parking and people
don't use it? You follow what I'm saying? In other words, the Jewish Home
for the Aged, if you go there and they provide the parking which is required
by law - and I'm just using them as the example - and you cannot park in that
parking without paying a fee, are we really accomplishing anything? Are we
really accomplishing anything? The same way I brought up, Mr. Mayor, about
condominiums. Condominiums we require that "X" number of units, they must
have "X" number of parking spaces. But, there is no requirement, if you buy a
condominium, that you have to buy a garage space. Are we really accomplishing
what we think we're accomplishing by requiring it and it's not being used? Or
should we be considering that if we require that at least fifty percent of it
be free to the public. I'm saying that I can show you many cases. One in
particular here on 25th Road from Bayshore Drive to the water where those
condos are. There are many, many people who park in the vacant lots, who park
on the street, who own condominiums, but did not want to pay for a garage
space. What have we accomplished? It would seem like to me that it should be
if you buy a condo, you must be required to buy at least...
Mayor Suarez: Yeah. The implication of the regulation that says so many
parking spaces per unit is that in fact they will be sold with the units.
Commissioner Plummer: That's... But they're not. OK? When I found out, for
example, that a guy bought three parking spaces and a fourth for his boat, and
I said how can you do that because there's so many per... No, no, no. You can
buy a condo...
Mayor Suarez: I guess the problem then comes in if we don't allow the
transfers of those, then we really put a...
Commissioner Plummer: We're not accomplishing anything trying to...
Mayor Suarez: ... hamper on the market...
Commissioner Plummer: And you drive by...
Mayor Suarez: ... because there might be people who have three units that
don't use the parking. I can see the problems both ways.
Commissioner Plummer: You drive by at night on 25th Road, those cars are
parked everywhere, in the medium, in the vacant lots and everywhere. I'd like
the Administration...
56 February 18, 1992
0 0 #
Mayor Suarez: Well, you know what's a commercial example of that, if I may,
is the people who park right here on Pan American Drive who really should be
parking in the commercial buildings across the street.
Commissioner Plummer: That's right.
Mayor Suarez: In the office buildings across the street.
Commissioner Plummer: I'd like the Administration to come back with some kind
of recommendation. Either you think there's no problem, you think the problem
should be addressed and if you do...
Mayor Suarez: Or if it cannot be solved, you might want to indicate that
because I'm thinking that the solution may be worse than the problem. But we
at least...
Commissioner Plummer: I think it's worth looking into.
Mayor Suarez: At least we ought to look at...
Vice Mayor Alonso: About a year and a half I tried to look into this and I
think that it became such a problem that - remember we decided the solution
was much more complicated than... But it's worth looking again.
Mayor Suarez: We really should look at it.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yeah.
Mayor Suarez: And there may be other incentives that can be made to have them
not park on empty lots and on the street, Commissioner, I think would satisfy
you. That might go with the permits.
14. APPROVE VACATION AND CLOSURE OF PORTIONS OF N.W. 10 COURT, N.W. 11
AVENUE, N.W. 11 COURT, N.W. 68 STREET, N.W. 69 STREET, AND EAST -WEST
ALLEY IN AREA BOUNDED BY N.W. 10 AND 12 AVENUES AND N.W. 67 AND 71
STREETS (Applicant: The School Board of Dade County).
Mayor Suarez: On item PZ... What are we on?
Vice Mayor Alonso: Five.
Mayor Suarez: Five. Resolution street closure.
Commissioner Plummer: This is Miller's.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Dawkins will entertain your motion if you would
like.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Do you want to move?
57 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Plummer: Miller. Hello.
Commissioner Dawkins: Put that monkey on my back.
Commissioner Plummer: No, you were the one that raised questions about this.
Is your questions resolved?
Commissioner Dawkins: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: OK.
Vice Mayor Alonso: OK. So moved.
Mayor Suarez: So moved by the Vice Mayor.
Commissioner Plummer: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Any further discussion? If not, please call the
roll on PZ-5.
Commissioner Plummer: Is there a reverter on this?
Commissioner Dawkins: No.
Commissioner Plummer: If they ever give up the property, it comes back to us?
Commissioner Dawkins: No.
Commissioner Plummer: Wouldn't that be appropriate?
Commissioner Dawkins: Yes.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Well, let's do it.
Mr. Jim Kay: Reverters are to the private property owners, but the City never
had fee simple title to these.
Commissioner Plummer: We're giving it...
Commissioner Dawkins: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Don't say... Hold it,
hold it.
Vice Mayor Alonso: The County has done that to us in the past.
Commissioner Plummer: We're doing this for a public purpose. What did the
County do to us on that property between the two administration buildings?
Why is this any different? It seems like to me if they vacate and don't use
this at any time, it ought to come back to us. They're not paying us for it.
Commissioner Dawkins: We can have a reverter. I mean, because...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yeah.
58 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Dawkins: ... the School Board bought all the property to the
right of that filth Avenue. So, therefore, they are running the School Board
property from loth Avenue to 12th Avenue.
Commissioner Plummer: Second one of the day. _
Commissioner Dawkins: Now I have a problem with it because I think we should
have gotten the property across the streets because - and I went through this
with them - and they tell me that you cannot - and I told the Superintendent
that I didn't understand how they tell me that they cannot give a piece of
School Board property to the City as an entity...
Commissioner Plummer: If it was owned by a private party, they would have to
buy it.
Commissioner Dawkins: No, no. They own it already.
Commissioner Plummer: No, what I'm saying, if that was a private piece of
property that they needed, in the hands of a private owner, they would have to
buy it.
Commissioner Dawkins: We know that. OK? They already bought all - that's
_ what I told you - they already bought all of that side of lath Avenue. OK?
And paid something like eighty-seven dollars a square foot. OK? But they
told me that they could not give us this land, but yet it's all right for the
City of Miami, a public entity, to give property to the School Board, but it's
improper for the School Board to give property to the City. OK?
Mr. Rodriguez: I understand, Commissioner, - and maybe the Law Department can
clarify this - that the land that we have in the right-of-way, we have in
trust, I mean we don't really own the land, but that we have received that in
a trustship. Right? And then we don't really...
Commissioner Dawkins: Oh, no. No, no, no, no.
Mr. Rodriguez: Maybe I need to have that clarified.
Commissioner Dawkins: This is why we're going along with it. OK? The roads
going up in there were dedicated for roads. Once you no longer use the roads
for roads, it reverts to the owner.
Mr. Rodriguez: Right.
Commissioner Dawkins: Since the School Board has bought property on...
Mr. Rodriguez: Adjacent.
Commissioner Dawkins: ... both sides of the road...
Mr. Rodriguez: Right. That's what I meant.
Commissioner Dawkins: ... it automatically becomes the School Board property.
And that's why we're going along with it.
59 February 18, 1992
r'r
�
Mr. Rodriguez: Right. That's what I meant.
Commissioner Dawkins: Although we don't like it. But, hey, what else can you
do? But I still say out of the goodness of their heart, they should have
given me that other property and I will say that as long as I sit up here.
And I hope they don't heed nothing else. But I'm going along with this
because this is a project that is needed in that area. With a fifty-three
million dollar school in the heart of the ghetto, you think we, the City
Commission, would stop it? No way.
Commissioner Plummer: They got a billion dollars.
Mayor Suarez: Not. All right.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Well, to the question.
Commissioner Dawkins: Call the question.
Mayor Suarez: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? If
not, please call the roll. I'm sorry. Wait. The Vice Mayor was trying to
get a clarification.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Well, yes from the Legal Department.
Miriam Maer, Esq.: Well, I would agree with what the Assistant City Manager
is saying. In fact if we do own that land as a result of dedications to the
City for public right-of-way, then when the owner of both sides, in this case
the School Board, applies for the vacation and closure, the title
automatically reverts to the adjacent owners at the time that the street is
officially closed. If, in fact, this is one of those instances where the City
owns the land in fee simple, which doesn't appear to be the case, then, in
fact, you would have the opportunity to attach a reverter clause if that was
what you wanted to do.
Commissioner Plummer: But it's not automatic in law?
Ms. Maer: No, it's not.
Commissioner Plummer: If we don't close the street, it doesn't revert back.
Ms. Maer: That's true. It's only when you close the street.
Commissioner Plummer: Ahl
Mayor Suarez: Ohl
Commissioner Dawkins: Mr. Go, you owe me one.
Commissioner Plummer: How about that?
Ms. Maer: So, it's when you close and abandon the street. Once the
abandonment occurs, then it's automatic, that to the center line of the
street, the underlying title goes to the adjoining property owners. Each side
to the center line closest to them.
60 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Dawkins: So what you're saying and what J. L. is saying, that we
could very easily run a cul-de-sac - just let them go up in there, turn around
and come out. rk
Commissioner Plummer: What about if we lease the property to them?
Vice Mayor Alonso: No.
Mayor Suarez: Why are you posing such strange hypotheticals?
Commissioner Dawkins: We have nothing else to do.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you.
Commissioner Plummer: Because I... Let me tell you why. I'll tell you why.
At budget time, they're either going to pay for the SROs (School Resource
Officers) that we're paying for or we're going to know why. I'm just building
up a case for budget.
Mayor Suarez: The SROs. What SROs?
Commissioner Plummer: School Resource Officers. Thirty-six of our policemen,
they've got free of charge.
Mayor Suarez: All right. The last time we engaged in that, I just want you
to know, we got - Well, we got an accounting from the School Board that I hope
that all of the Commissioners got copies of because they claim they do an
incredible amount enforcement, law enforcement that otherwise the City would
have to do. But let's not get into that folks.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes, let's call the roll.
Mayor Suarez: I think we all support this. We've got a motion and a second
and unless anyone has anything further to say, let's please call the roll.
61 February 18, 1992
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Mayor Alonso, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-142
A RESOLUTION OFFICIALLY CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING
AND DISCONTINUING THE PUBLIC USES OF THOSE PORTIONS OF
NORTHWEST LOTH COURT, NORTHWEST 11TH AVENUE, NORTHWEST
11TH COURT, NORTHWEST 68TH STREET, NORTHWEST 69TH
STREET AND THAT EAST -WEST ALLEY LOCATED IN AREA
BOUNDED BY 67TH AND 71ST STREETS, FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT PORTION OF NORTHWEST LOTH COURT, 11TH
AVENUE, 11TH COURT, 68TH STREET AND 69TH STREET, ALSO
DESCRIBED AS TRACT A AND B, MIAMI, FLORIDA; SAID
ACTION BEING A CONDITION FOR THE APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE
PLAT NO. 1414A - "MIAMI NORTHWESTERN SENIOR HIGH
SCHOOL".
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. APPROVE SUBMITTED LANDSCAPE PLANS AND AUTHORIZE THE PLANNING, BUILDING
AND ZONING DEPARTMENT TO PROCESS CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT FILE NO. 91-
1861 FOR PROPOSED USE OF GALLERY AND OFFICE AT 2908 S.W. 27 AVENUE
(Owner / Applicant: Jorge Bernal).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: PZ-6.
Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: PZ-6 Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, is a class II review
that, because of the ordinance for SD-13, is referred to you. It's only a
landscaping plan. We're recommending approval. We have no...
Commissioner Plummer: Move it.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Second.
62 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. The only clarification I have is are you,
by any chance related to Mr. Peter Bernal?
Mr. Jorge Bernal: No, sir. I'm not.
Mayor Suarez: That's all I need to hear. Call the roil. We can't take
testimony from you. We'd have to put you under oath. I wasn't trying to be
facetious.
Mr. Bernal: Thank you.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-143
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBMITTED LANDSCAPE PLANS AND
AUTHORIZING THE PLANNING, BUILDING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT TO PROCESS CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT FILE NO.
92-1861 FOR PROPOSED USE OF GALLERY AND OFFICE LOCATED
AT APPROXIMATELY 2908 SOUTHWEST 27TH AVENUE, MIAMI,
FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice Mayor Alonso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
THEREUPON THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 3:27
P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 5:03 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF
THE CITY COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT EXCEPT VICE
MAYOR ALONSO AND COMMISSIONER DE YURRE.
63 February 18, 1992
p
16. DISCUSS AND TEMPORARILY TABLE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION
GRANTING SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A COMMUNITY -BASED RESIDENTIAL
FACILITY FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE AND ALCOHOL ABUSE HOMELESS FACILITY
AT 800 N.W. 28 STREET (Owner: City of Miami & Better Way, Inc.) (See
label 22).—
------------------------------------------------------------------------------;
:r
Mayor Suarez: All right, on PZ-9. 800 N.W. 28th Street, City of Miami and
Better Way.
Mr. Duke McBride: Mr. Mayor, if I could at this time, could I ask this item
be deferred until later in the agenda?
Commissioner Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, may I make a statement?
Mayor Suarez: Yeah, more like tabling it. How much later?
Mr. McBride: At your discretion. Probably, perhaps fifteen minutes.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Vice Mayor Alonso entered the
meeting at 5:04 p.m.
Mayor Suarez: OK. Commissioner Dawkins.
Commissioner Dawkins: I will be leaving here at 5:30 or quarter of. Anybody
desirous of having a full Commission, if we get five members, should ask that
we hear...
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Commissioner De Yurre entered
the meeting at 5:05 p.m.
Commissioner Dawkins: We have five members. If anyone feels that they have
to have a five member Commission, I wish you would speak up.
Mayor Suarez: OK. Very good. That goes for that item, I think. The one
that was just mentioned. PZ-9.
Commissioner Dawkins: OK. PZ-9. All I was... He got a 4/5ths.
Mayor Suarez: Table PZ-9 for a few minutes at the request of the applicant.
Commissioner Dawkins: Go ahead, J. L.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Plummer had a special item.
64 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Plummer: Well, no let her read it. She said she hadn't seen it,
Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I move item 9.
Mayor Suarez: Nine or ten.
Commissioner Plummer: Nine.
Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: That's the one that was tabled.
Commissioner Plummer: What?
Mayor Suarez: They wanted to wait a few minutes. I'm not sure why?
Commissioner Plummer: For what? Oh. OK.
Mayor Suarez: Any particular reason that you want to wait on PZ-9?
Commissioner Plummer: I'll move to deny.
Commissioner Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Suarez: OK. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Mr. Gonzalez-
Goenaga, are you going to add;,ess PZ-9?
Mr. Manuel Gonzalez-Goenaga: Yes, sir.
Mayor Suarez: OK. Under our rules, you need to be sworn in. And Mr. McBride
and anyone else that might conceivably testify. I don't know that it's going
to be controversial, so... But if you think that you might have to testify,
raise your hand and be sworn in just in case. Just in case, be sworn in.
Thank you.
AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO.
10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES.
Mayor Suarez: Let's see if there's an-v...
Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. For the record, I am told that
the Zoning Board recommendation will be presented at the City Commission
meeting. I think we should have that on the record.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, please.
Mr. Joe Mc Manus: They approved it.
- Commissioner Plummer: Approved it. By a nine oh? What was the vote?
Mr. Mc Manus: Unanimous. Nine: oh.
Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga.
65 February 18, 1992
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Yes, excuse me, Commissioner De Yurre.
Mayor Suarez: Sir, go ahead.
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Oh. I want to put on the record the statement of Mr.
Suarez in Exito on February 12, 1992 and let's forget about hypocrisy,
cynicism regarding the issue of the homeless. I have come here day after day,
meeting after meeting, I hear one thing, the Mayor says something else in the
newspaper as you will see and then nothing happens. More of the same. And I
have expressed myself constantly that the problem with the homeless is bigger
than any other thing that we have in Miami. It affects tourism, it affects
the basically human beings and patriots...
Mayor Suarez: OK, but sir. We're talking about PZ-9. Are you...
•t
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Well, I under... I read in the...
Mayor Suarez: ... in favor or against a special exception in PZ-9?
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Of course, but I want a little explanation of why are
we losing that million dollars that came in the paper yesterday.
Mayor Suarez: I don't think we're losing anything, but that's not what we're
on. We're here on a special exception, which is what PZ-9 is all about. Do
you support it, just so we have that for the record?
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Well, of course I have to support anything that you can
give for the homeless, but this is not enough.
Mayor Suarez: Very good. OK, but at least as to this position, we have your
position. OK, Commissioner...
Vice Mayor Alonso: OK...
Mayor Suarez: I'm sorry.
Vice Mayor Alonso: I am ready to move.
Mayor Suarez: Vice Mayor.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes, I'm ready to move that we approve PZ-9.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Commissioner Plummer: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Yes.
Mr. Rodriguez: I'm afraid I'm going to have to put something on the record
because it's not clear. We're going to discussion of this item right here at
this time. The question that we have before us if the application is in
effect at this point because Better Way is shown as an applicant and at this
point, from what I have been able to gather, Better Way is telling us that
66 February 18, 1992
they have already a permit, but I cannot find legally that we have a permit in
our hands and that's what I'm trying to clarify at this point.
Mayor Suarez: What kind of permit?
Mr. Rodriguez: The revocable permit so they can be a co -applicant.
Vice Mayor Alonso: They have a permit?
Ms. Miriam Maer: What I understand is there is no executed revocable permit
giving Better Way any right to that property. Without such an interest, they
can't come before you for a special exception.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Didn't we give them before a temporary permit?
Mr. Duke McBride: In October.
Commissioner Plummer: But they've not occupied... they've not put out...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes, we did.
Commissioner Plummer: No, we gave them the right but they haven't executed a
legal document, is what she's saying.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Did you?
Mr. McBride: Unfort... Yeah, we did. Brother Harry Sommerville, who's our
President,...
Commissioner Plummer: Well, she's saying they don't have it.
Mr. McBride: ... of the board did execute that document with the City.
Ms. Maer: The one in your package which was, I guess...
Commissioner Plummer: Do you have a copy of it?
Commissioner De Yurre: Hold on.
Mr. McBride: We can have probably faxed down here.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, you can make it subject to, can't you Sergio?
Commissioner De Yurre: Well, no, I've been hearing that there is no permit
for a long time.
Ms. Maer: My understanding from the City Manager's office is that the permit
has not been executed by the City. If that's the case, there is no valid
revocable permit for the property.
Vice Mayor Alonso: If that is the case, why is this item in front of us and
why this was not identified prior to coming to us?
67 February 18, 1992
Mr. Rodriguez: The items should have been signed by now. There were some
questions, I believe, about a termination clause that were affecting the
signature of this document because we're affecting the standing they have in
getting from HUD (Housing and Urban Development) a possible grant. And I
believe that this 1s the situation that we have until now that we haven't been
able to resolve. This is what I'm getting second hand. I haven't myself
personally received any information at this point.
Mr. McBride: As a matter of fact, on the last agenda of the City of Miami
Commission meeting for February 13th, there was an item on that agenda
regarding a long-term lease and it's specifically notated on that agenda as
published rescinding the prior revocable permit in substitution for the lease,
a long-term lease.
Ms. Maer: So, if there were a permit, it has been rescinded, from what I've
just heard.
Mayor Suarez: No, because that...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Why? No.
Mr. McBride: No. No.
Mr. Rodriguez: Subject to...
Mayor Suarez: ... that has not taken effect.
Ms. Maer: That was subject to...
Commissioner Plummer: Only if the other one is approved.
Ms. Maer: OK. That was subject...
Mr. Rodriguez: Could be table this?
Mayor Suarez: And of course, if it were to have that effect, we would all
want to, up here, have a whole new...
Mr. Rodriguez: I understand.
Mayor Suarez: ... City Attorney, a whole new City Manager and a whole new
bunch of bureaucrats because we want to get this done, folks, and we want to
make sure that it is done right.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Exactly.
Mayor Suarez: And I don't know how...
Mr. Rodriguez: I understand.
Mayor Suarez: ... to put that.
Mr. Rodriguez: I understand. I understand. That's why I'm trying to make
sure that we do it right so we don't have any problem legally later on. If
you could table this...
68 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: Let's ascertain that for a little while.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yeah, let's table this item...
Mr. Rodriguez: See if we can get an answer on this.
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... and as the Mayor said, we have a commitment to this.
We want to do it. So, let's do it right.
Mr. Rodriguez: I understand.
Mayor Suarez: All right. But...
Commissioner De Yurre: Let me ask a question on this while we're at it.
Mayor Suarez: Yes. Any Commissioners...
Commissioner De Yurre: Are we just talking about thirty-nine clients? Is
that it?
Mr. Rodriguez: That is the application that you have before you today.
Commissioner De Yurre: No. Is that what we're talking about...
Mr. Rodriguez: That's what we're talking about.
Commissioner De Yurre: ... that's going to be done there?
Mr. Rodriguez: That's the only thing before you today.
Commissioner De Yurre: And what else is there that will be brought before us
at a future time then. Anything else?
Mr. Rodriguez: Well, if you bring the lease issue that's something that can
be discussed later as a separate issue but it's not part of this other than as
a support to the application. But the issue before you is special exception
for thirty-nine clients.
Commissioner De Yurre: I understand that, but my belief has been all along
that we're talking about a lot more people than thirty-nine.
Commissioner Plummer: If the other is passed...
Commissioner De Yurre: Is that correct or not?
Commissioner Plummer: ..o it would be a hundred. It would take another
hearing.
Commissioner Dawkins: A hundred and twenty.
Mr. Rodriguez: I know that they talked about a larger number, but the
application that was made by them was based on thirty-nine.
69 February 18, 1992
Commissioner De Yurre: OK. Now...
Mayor Suarez: OK. We've got that. We've got that but can we have an idea of
your intent...
Mr. McBride: This particular item refers to one wing of the building.
Mayor Suarez: I'm sorry. We can't both talk at the same time. Can we have
an idea of your intent? Are you intending to eventually have more? If so,
what does that require?
Mr. McBride: Should we receive the funding to renovate the other two wings of
the property... This is encompassing one of the three wings on the site.
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, but if you increased up to a hundred occupants,
instead of thirty-nine, it would...
Mr. McBride: We would have to come back before you.
Commissioner Plummer: Another hearing.
Mr. McBride: Yes, sir.
Mayor Suarez: OK.
Mr. McBride: Another public hearing.
Commissioner Plummer: And wouldn't it be interesting if everything went that
way and then it was turned down.
Mr. Rodriguez: By you all?
Commissioner Plummer: By the neighbors who at this point, the neighbors have
no objection. But if you go from thirty-nine to a hundred, they might have an
objection.
Vice Mayor Alonso: If it's turned own, then they don't... nothing happens.
Mr. Rodriguez: It's turned down. At least you have a...
Mayor Suarez: We go back to the old ways.
Commissioner Plummer: Except they've already...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Go back to the way it was before.
Commissioner Plummer: Interesting.
Mr. Rodriguez: To the way it was now.
Mr. McBride: However, keeping in mind that our maximum occupancy expectancy
at the site has been stated on the record as being one hundred and three. And
that is a fifty percent reduction in its previous use as a prison.
70 February 18, 1992
U
4
Mayor Suarez: OK. But as of now, we have today's...
Commissioner Dawkins: Yeah, but... Hold it, hold it, hold it.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner.
Commissioner Dawkins: But as a prison, people were locked up. You see, you
guys keep getting up here mixing apples and oranges. Yes, at a previous time
the number of people exceeded what you're talking about now. But those people
were not free to come and go as needed be.
Mr. McBride: It was a work release center and they were free to roam about.
Commissioner Dawkins: But if they violated the work release...
Commissioner Plummer: Well,...
Commissioner Dawkins: OK. No problem.
Commissioner Plummer: Let me tell you something. The Legal Department brings
up a very good point. The affidavit in front of me says that Albert J.
Armada, that he is the owner or the legal representative. The owner
submitting the accompanying application for a public hearing. It doesn't say
a damn thing about Better Way.
Commissioner Dawkins: It does Better Way on the other side, J. L. Albert J.
Armada, for the City of Miami. Better Way of Miami, Inc.
Commissioner Plummer: I'm talking about the affidavit in our backup material,
Miller.
Commissioner Dawkins: Oh.
Mr. Rodriguez: But if you look at the application itself the application is
made by both.
Commissioner Plummer: The application is different than the affidavit.
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes. Oh, the owners. The only thing I want to make sure is
that before we move on that this will be clear...
Commissioner Plummer: All right.
Mr. Rodriguez: ... I don't know, if anything else, that you can clarify this
point.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. Mr. Mayor...
Mayor Suarez: All right, we're tabling that item.
71 February 18, 1992
17. DECLARE THE DINNER KEY BOAT YARD CONTAMINATION CLEANUP A VALID, PUBLIC
EMERGENCY -- DIRECT MANAGER TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO REMEDIATE FUEL
TANKS AND WASTE OIL TANK CONTAMINATION -- ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR WASTE OIL
TANK REMOVAL AND ASSOCIATED CLEANUP ($50,000, FROM CIP 311009:
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK RETROFITTING).
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me do the resolution.
AT THIS POINT, COMMISSIONER PLUMMER READ INTO THE
RECORD RESOLUTION 92-144.
Commissioner Plummer: I offer such a resolution.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Commissioner Dawkins: Second and under discussion.
Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Commissioner Dawkins.
Commissioner Dawkins: It says remedial fuel tanks and waste oil tank
contaminations. All right. How many tanks are you talking about removing?
Mr. Jim Kay: We're talking about removing six tanks total.
Commissioner Dawkins: Six tanks. And fifty thousand dollars is sufficient to
remove six tanks.
Mr. Kay: No, sir. The fifty thousand... We're allocating funds to remove the
waste oil tank only. We're giving approval to the Manager to come up with a
method to remove the other five tanks since they are reimbursable to the
contractor removing the tanks. We're not allocating funds for the removal of
those tanks.
Commissioner Dawkins: DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management)
has instructed the City of Miami to remove the tanks. Correct?
Mr. Kay: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Dawkins: What is the deadline they gave you for removing them
before the City of Miami would be fined?
Mr. Kay: Well, they didn't get that far into it. They gave us thirty days
from January 23rd, last month, to come up with a definite plan on how we're
going to remove these tanks and clean up the soil.
Commissioner Dawkins: I'm at a loss as to why - you got six tanks and if one
tank cost fifty thousand dollars to remove, six times fifty is three hundred
thousand and you're coming here wanting an OK for fifty thousand knowing
fairly well that that's not sufficient.
72 February 18, 1992
Mr. Kay: We're asking for fifty thousand - to spend fifty thousand dollars of
the City's money because, for that tank, the waste oil tank, because that tank
is not eligible for reimbursement funding. The other five fuel tanks are
eligible for reimbursement funding, but they're reimbursed to the contractor,
not to the City.
Commissioner Dawkins: Have you contacted the Super Fund to ensure that they
will fund immediate removal of these or that you will not have to go on a
waiting list or what is the procedure?
Mr. Kay: Well the procedure is for the contractor to do the work, he up
fronts the money and then he applies for funding through the Super Fund Act to
the State for reimbursement.
Commissioner Dawkins: Is this done through competitive bidding?
Mr. Kay: Well, there'll have to be a competitive method devised to...
Mayor Suarez: I think what he means is, is there like a limited amount of
funds and the first to apply gets them or do you have to compete against other
applications. Do you have any idea how that works?
Mr. Kay: Right now, for the whole City, we're in the process of an RFP
(request for proposals). However, this particular problem has taken
precedence to the point where we can't wait for the RFP.
Mayor Suarez: We're just thinking of Super Fund applications. What kind of
guarantee do we have that we're going to get some of that money?
Mr. Kay: Because the State has written and stated that they are on the Act.
I mean they are on the list.
Mayor Suarez: I know. I know that. And I know that it qualifies under the -
I'm pretty sure it qualifies under the - parameters of the Act, but is there
money? I mean, the whole point is, is there money? And if so, what
preference is given, what priorities are given to applicants for Super Fund
contribution? Do you know how that works?
Mr. Kay: I don't know all the details of the cash flow on that, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: OK. We have start initiating those...
Mr. Kay: But we are not putting any money forward for that.
Mayor Suarez: So we know as to the various sites which have been contaminated
which we have suffered losses from, when are we going to get contributions
from other entities that may have created that contamination or from the Fund
and then possibly from others. To be able to get an idea and get a feel for
how that cash is going to come into our hands as we commit our monies for
these cleanups, we need to start doing these unless you've got a simpler way
of explaining it. I don't know any other way.
Mr. Kay: As I said, the cash will not come into our hands, the City's hands.
It will come into the contractor's hands.
73 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: Yeah, assuming the contractor does and assuming that they have
enough money in the Super Fund. All the questions that we're asking.
Commissioner Dawkins: What... Does this have to or does it not have to go out
for competitive bidding? Yes or no?
A. Quinn Jones, Esq.: Commissioner.
Commissioner Dawkins: Beg your pardon?
Mr. Jones: Do you want me to respond?
Commissioner Dawkins: Yes, sir, Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones: The fact that you're declaring an emergency...
Commissioner Dawkins: No, no, no. Not this one. The other six.
Mr. Kay: The other five you mean?
Commissioner Dawkins: Yes, sir. The other five.
Mr. Carlos Garcia: My understanding is, Commissioner, that there is going to
be a competitive process. We'll put out an RFP and the number of firms will
provide proposals to the City. From those...
Commissioner Dawkins: That's RFQ(request for qualifications) then?
Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. From that, we should be able to select one or more of
the firms.
Commissioner Dawkins: OK. How long will this take, approximately?
Mr. Garcia: It shouldn't take more than a month before we come up with a plan
on how to implement this process.
Commissioner Dawkins: And once you come up in thirty days with a plan to put
out the RFP, how long would the RFP have to be out...
Mr. Garcia: No, no.
Commissioner Dawkins: ... and come back before you award a contract?
Mr. Garcia: The RFP will not take thirty days. The RFP will take
approximately from two to three weeks and...
Commissioner Dawkins: That's a month, around here.
Mr. Garcia: Well, it will be less than that.
Commissioner Dawkins: OK. Now, my concern, my fellow Commissioners, is we
have put out an RFP to do the boat yard. We are being told here now...
74 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Plummer: No, we haven't put it out yet. We're having a public
hearing in March for the decision as to what may or may not be the RFP and
then we'll go forward from there. We have not put out the RFP as of yet. We
haven't even had the public hearing in reference to the RFP.
Commissioner Dawkins: But we are sending the message now that the land is
contaminated and must be cleared up. Now what investor is going to respond to
this RFP knowing that there are five tanks there that have to be removed and
the City of Miami is telling everybody it's a refundable... you can get the
money back once you do it, but yet the City of Miami isn't doing it and you
expect an investor to come in and do it. I don't... I mean I have a problem
with it.
Mr. Garcia: Well, that's why we are coming to you today. Because this work
the State has told us has to be done or we must have a plan on hand by the
23rd of this month.
Commissioner Dawkins: And my plan to you is that you should be planning to
move all six of them and not one of them, that's my plan.
Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Dawkins: That's the only plan I got.
Mr. Garcia: That is the case.
Mayor Suarez: OK.
Commissioner Dawkins: No further questions, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Garcia: OK.
Mayor Suarez: OK. Anything further on this item? We have a motion and a
second, do we?
Commissioner Dawkins: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: I offered it, sir.
Commissioner Dawkins: I second.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, it was seconded. Call the roll.
75 February 18, 1992
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-144
A RESOLUTION BY AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF 4/5THS OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION DECLARING THE DINNER
KEY BOAT YARD CONTAMINATION CLEANUP A VALID, PUBLIC
EMERGENCY; AND FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
TAKE THE STEPS NECESSARY TO IMMEDIATELY REMEDIATE FUEL
TANKS AND WASTE OIL TANK CONTAMINATION IN A MANNER
MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE CITY; ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR
THE WASTE OIL TANK REMOVAL AND ASSOCIATED CLEANUP IN
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000 FROM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 311009 ENTITLED: "UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANK RETROFITTING".
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Mayor Suarez: PZ-10.
Commissioner Plummer: Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Commissioner Dawkins: That's an emergency.
Commissioner Plummer: Second reading.
Ms. Hirai: Second reading. Vice Mayor Alonso.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes.
Ms. Hirai: Commissioner Dawkins.
Commissioner Dawkins: Yes.
Ms. Hirai: I show it as a resolution.
Mayor Suarez: It's a resolution. It's just 'iu-hat it need 4/5ths vote.
Commissioner Dawkins: Yes.
76 February 18, 1992
Vice Mayor Alonso: It's a resolution.
Ms. Hirai: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, why did you give it to me as a 4/5th?
Mayor Suarez: It does need 4/5ths.
Ms. Hirai: Yeah, but we...
Mr. Jones: It's an emergency.
Vice Mayor Alonso: It is because of an emergency.
Mr. Jones: It's an emergency.
Ms. Hirai: ... on 4/5ths we...
Commissioner Plummer: As a resolution it only takes one reading with 4/5ths?
Ms. Hirai: Yes, sir. Only one.
Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me. I stand corrected.
18. DISCUSS AND TEMPORARILY TABLE APPEAL OF ZONING BOARD'S DECISION TO GRANT
A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A LESSER REAR SETBACK FOR EXISTING
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 2891 COACOOCHEE STREET, IN CONJUNCTION WITH
REPLATTING EXISTING SITE INTO TWO LOTS, etc. (Owner: Lang Baumgarten;
Appellant: John G. Fletcher, Esq. See label 23).
Mayor Suarez: On PZ-10, we have...
Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: PZ-10 is an appeal to a variance which was granted
by the Zoning Board, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, on 2891 Coacoochee Street
and, as usually is the case, the appellant speaks first.
Mayor Suarez: OK. Who do we have on the appellant's side and the appellee or
the opposing side?
Mr. Olmedillo: The appellant is represented by John Fletcher.
Mayor Suarez: OK. Please swear in everyone that would be testifying or...
AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO.
10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES.
Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me, Mr. Fletcher, you have to be sworn in, sir.
77 February 18, 1992
John Fletcher, Esq.: Excuse me, sir, that would violate the Code of Ethics of
the Florida Bar.
Commissioner Plummer: No, sir.
Commissioner Dawkins: No, sir.
Commissioner Plummer: We've already gone through that. You have to be sworn
in.
Commissioner Dawkins: Either you be sworn in or we can't hear from you.
Mr. Fletcher: OK. Understanding that I'm not here to testify. I'll be happy
to do it, but...
Commissioner Plummer: You're here for a fee, sir.
Commissioner Dawkins: Or if you're not, then it's all right.
Mayor Suarez: If you don't mind, it doesn't make much sense as to anyone and
particularly... Well, it doesn't make any sense as to anyone, but we have it
in the books, so please if you would comply, we would appreciate it.
Mr. Fletcher: I'll be happy to as long as it's understood I'm not giving
factual testimony.
Mayor Suarez: Right.
AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO.
10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES.
Mr. Fletcher: My name is John Fletcher and I represent Mr. Ned Berndt who is
this gentleman right here who is the owner of property at 1779 Tigertail. Now
the subject property that we're dealing with today that was granted the
variance below is property at 2891 Coacoochee Street, which is right on the
corner of Coacoochee and Tigertail. And if I can... My eyes are so bad, Mr.
Olmedillo, could you point out...
Mayor Suarez: On the overhead.
Mr. Fletcher: ... the subject property to me over there.
Commissioner Plummer: Which is his client? The red?
Mr. Fletcher: OK
Commissioner Dawkins: The yellow.
Commissioner Plummer: You are...
Mr. Olmedillo: Lot eighteen.
Commissioner Plummer: ... to the north... Your client is to the north of the
subject property?
78 February 18, 1992
Mr. Fletcher: To the...
Mr. Rodriguez: Northeast.
Mr. Fletcher: ... north. It's northeast the way it's angled here.
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. OK.
Mr. Fletcher: His property directly abuts the subject property.
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah.
Mr. Fletcher: I think the best way of looking at it is in your kits you have
a copy of the zoning map and it's lot eighteen, which is right next to the
subject property and in the aerial photograph you can see how his property is
laid out next to it. Now what happened below was there was permission granted
by the Zoning Board to... not to divide the property, that was OK, but in
dividing the property to violate the rear setback requirements of one of the
new lots which will be the existing house. The Staff had recommended denial
and I know you have it in your kit, but it's a lot easier for me to remind you
simply by reading a few words from it. The Staff recommended denial. "There
is no hardship to justify the requested variance. As a result of petitioner
replatting this property into two lots, the side setback of 9.89' will became
a rear setback where 20' are required. In other words, when the original
homeowner built his house, he elected some time ago to build a house so that
it was in such a fashion that would not permit this division without creating
the need for a variance. The special conditions and circumstances are a
direct result from the actions of the petitioner. The petitioner bought the
property a few years ago knowing what the regulations are that are applicable
to the property. Granting the variance requested will confer on the
petitioner a special privilege that is denied by the Zoning Ordinance to other
lands in the same zoning district. The grant to this variance will not be in
harmony with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance" and so forth and so on. Now
Mr. Berndt appeared at the Board and objected to the granting of the variance.
Before that Board was his recommendation of the director and, indeed, the
variance is not justified because your Code does in fact require an
unnecessary hardship. To be specific - I don't know why I'm reminding you of
this. You guys know it better than I do. Anyhow, but the Code in Section
1901 defines a variance and it says "A variance is a relaxation of the terms
of the Ordinance where such action will not be contrary to the public interest
and where, owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of
actions of the applicant, the literal enforcement of this ordinance would
result in unnecessary or undue hardship on the property." And the case law,
which I don't need to cite to you, you don't need to hear that, but the case
laws says what that means, when you say an unnecessary hardship, is that the
property is not usable for a reasonable purpose. We have had the property
used for a reasonable purpose over the years and that is for the single-family
home on it. Now, when my client, Mr. Berndt, bought his property, he also was
bound by the zoning regulations and entitled to have them enforced as to his
property and the surrounding property as they exist. I'd like to have Mr.
Berndt just come forward for one second, let you know that he is the owner of
the property and what his situation is.
79 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: All right. Proceed, sir.
Mr. Ned Berndt: Thank you for your time. I came here several weeks ago in
front of the Zoning Board and asked that this variance not be granted. They
went ahead and granted it anyway and I'd like to ask you to reverse their
variance.
Mr. Fletcher: The situation he will find himself in, as you can see from the
aerial photograph, is that there now will be two houses abutting the side, one
of which will be violating the setback requirements and the other house, which
we're concerned will of course be a two-story house the way things are going
in the Grove development, will be looking right down out over what has been
his private swimming pool area. Now we know that the law permits the division
of this into two lots, but we believe that the law that says that the setback
requirement must be met should be complied with. Under this circumstance, in
particular, where you're going to just have this crowding on these lots, which
was not expected at all by my client. I thank you.
Mayor Suarez: You want to put something in the record while they get ready or
would you like to wait until the appellee makes her presentation.
Mr. Olmedillo: It's clearer that we wait until they make the presentation.
Jeffrey Bercow, Esq.: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. My name is
Jeffrey Bercow. I'm an attorney practicing law in the City of Miami at 200 S.
Biscayne Boulevard. I'm here today representing the owner and the original
applicant, Mr. Lang Baumgarten. I'd like to tell you three things today and I
will try to keep it brief. I want to tell you the purpose of our variance
request, I want to indicate what the legal basis is for our variance request
and I would like to talk a little bit about what we think is the real issue
behind this appeal. Firstly, the purpose of the request. Mr. Baumgarten owns
2891 Coacoochee Street, Coconut Grove. It's a 15,000 gross square foot lot
_ zoned R-1. The minimum lot size in R-1 is 5,000 square feet. It's located at
the corner of Coacoochee and Tigertail. You've probably driven past it a
number of times and remember it. It has a very distinctive six-foot high
_ coral rock wall which surrounds the property. Lang, I'd like you to pass the
a photographs, if you will, to the Commissioners of the coral rock wall. Last
year, Mr. Baumgarten...
Mayor Suarez: Are we talking about the subject property or...
Mr. Bercow: This is the subject property.
Mayor Suarez: ... that of the objector?
Mr. Bercow: No, the subject property.
Mayor Suarez: Oh, I thought you said it was that of the objector.
Mr. Bercow: Last year, Mr. Baumgarten decided to subdivide his property into
two parcels and, of course, he is permitted to do that as Mr. Fletcher
indicated by right, according to both the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Now
he had two choices. Either subdivide the property with a north - south
boundary line or an east - west boundary line.
80 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: You might have to take that mike with you, Jeff. You're saying
either way he could do it? Either north - south or east - west?
Mr. Bercow: Yes, sir.
Mayor Suarez: Because there's enough width and length that still would meet
the...
Mr. Bercow: That's right. If he were to subdivide the property and this is -
the red line is the proposed subdivision line - but if he were to subdivide
the property in the north - south fashion, firstly he would have to demolish
the coral rock wall in order to gain entrance onto Tigertail. He would have
to demolish the existing house and, in all likelihood, he would have to
demolish all or part of the banyan tree located in this area, and Lang I'd
like you to pass out pictures of the banyan tree, which is a very distinctive
and beautiful specimen tree in this area. Given that those choices are not
very attractive choices, Mr. Baumgarten decided to subdivide in an east to
west fashion which allows the house to be maintained, it preserves the tree
and it preserves the coral rock wall. There's only one problem, and we think
that's a technicality, which is that what was a side setback before becomes a
rear setback and that's the area highlighted in yellow in the map. That
encroaches about ten feet into the present - actually it doesn't encroach into
this present side area because it's not a - the present side setback is only
five - is required to be five feet and it's ten feet away. However, once that
becomes the rear after the subdivision, it's a required 20' setback area and
it encroaches by ten feet. So what Mr. Baumgarten did was face the two
choices. That we either need a variance or we demolish the rear ten feet of
our house. He decided to apply for a variance. The Zoning Board approved
that by a six to three vote in December and Mr. Berndt appealed. We think
that the grounds for Mr. Berndt's appeal are totally without merit and I don't
want to take the time today to go into all of the legal issues that we think
support our reasoning on this issue and the legal bases for the variance
itself. What I would like to do is to pass out a summary of the legal issues.
I'd like Lang to distribute that to each of you, put a copy in the record...
Mayor Suarez: Are you saying that the setback...
Mr. Bercow: ... and a copy for Mr. Fletcher...
Mayor Suarez: ... would be in effect between property owned by your client
and other property also still owned by your client?
Mr. Bercow: No.
Mayor Suarez: If he divides a lot that he now owns in two parts...
Mr. Bercow: That's right. The setback would be at this location.
Mayor Suarez: Why does that change from being a side setback to being a back
setback?
Mr. Bercow: Right now it's a side setback because the address of the property
is 2891 Coacoochee.
81 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: Right.
Mr. Bercow: I'm sorry. The house is deemed to face Tigertail...
Mayor Suarez: Right.
Mr. Bercow: ... and it's a side setback and you're only required to have five -
feet.
Commissioner Plummer: How can the house face Tigertail with a Coacoochee
address?
Mr. Bercow: Once we subdivide this way, obviously we have no frontage on
Tigertail and now the house is deemed to face Coacoochee. This becomes a rear
setback except the property still exists as is...
Mayor Suarez: The ingress and egress would not change...
Mr. Bercow: That's correct.
Mayor Suarez: ... just the way one, for whatever reason and in the abstract,
looks at it as being side or back. I see.
Mr. Bercow: That's right. We would have to demolish - there's a shed here -
have to take down the swimming pool. We would commit to preserve and oak tree
that's in this location, commit to preserve the banyan tree, commit to
preserve the coral rock wall.
Mayor Suarez: Well, you don't have to do any of that. I mean, you can
just...
Mr. Bercow: We don't have to, but we're willing to.
Mayor Suarez: What we're talking about here is the fact that you have
subdivided into two lots. The moment you do that, that becomes a side
setback...
Mr. Bercow: It becomes a rear...
Mayor Suarez: Or a back setback, rear setback as opposed to a side setback.
Mr. Bercow: Right. Exactly.
Mayor Suarez: Stranger things have probably been seen by man somewhere...
Mr. Bercow: Very briefly.
Mayor Suarez: ... but not by me in this particular situation.
Mr. Bercow: Very briefly...
Mayor Suarez: Yes.
82 February 18, 1992
Mr. Bercow: ... on the legal issues. You've got our memorandum and I'm not
going to go into that chapter and verse, but we would like to say that we
believe that special conditions are applicable to this property and that is
that there is a very unique combination of a specimen banyan tree, a
preexisting coral rock wall and the house.
Commissioner Plummer: That wall's new.
Mr. Bercow: We think that all of these special circumstances combine to make
this a unique property. This particular combination...
Commissioner Plummer: It's a brand new wall.
Mr. Bercow: ... of circumstances does not exist anywhere else in the Grove,
nor do those special circumstances, those special conditions result from the
actions of Mr. Baumgarten. We think that a literal interpretation of the Code
would result in the deprivation of rights for this reason. A denial of the
variance would deny Mr. Baumgarten the right to subdivide his property. In
addition, there are a number of other properties in Coconut Grove that have
received similar types of variances in the past, variances for setbacks, and
I'd like Mr. Baumgarten to pass out these copies of resolutions of prior
Zoning Board approvals and Commission approvals. We believe that these
properties are similarly situated, that a deprivation of the variance, the
denial of the variance in this case would constitute a deprivation of our
right to equal protection, a deprivation of our Constitutional rights and,
therefore, work and undue hardship for Mr. Baumgarten. Without the variance,
Mr. Baumgarten would be forced to remove the tree, the coral rock wall, a
portion of his house or a combination of all three. We are willing to be a
good neighbor. We've made the commitments that I've indicated earlier. We
don't want to harm this neighborhood. The last point that I want to bring up
is what we think is the real issue here. We met with Mr. Berndt and Mr.
Fletcher in an attempt to try to work out the issues. We didn't want to come
here in an adversary context. Mr. Berndt indicated that his principal concern
was a loss of privacy, primarily for his swimming pool area. His swimming
pool area is located in this area. We pointed out to Mr. Berndt that we could
subdivide the property, that we have a right to subdivide the property, the
only thing we have to do is to knock down the rear portion of the house and if
we were to do so, then we can build a home on this property, the home could be
twenty feet high, twenty-five feet high, of course it would have to set back
at least twenty feet, but that we could do so and he would have no protection.
We recognized, we were sensitive to his concern for a loss privacy and,
therefore, we said we're willing to commit to a landscape buffer in this area.
In fact, we're willing to commit to landscaping on his property so he could be
completely in control of it and we would get an estimate of an appropriate
landscape buffer and submit it to him and then give him the money represented
by that landscaping proposal and he could place the landscaping within his
setback area. We got a proposal...
Mayor Suarez: Is it your intended result that the variance would also apply
to the new lot, for lack of a better term?
Mr. Bercow: No, sir. The landscape - I'm sorry. The setback variance would
only apply to the existing structure. We wouldn't expand it up, we wouldn't
expand it out and it wouldn't apply to the new lot at all. It would just
apply to the existing structure.
83 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Plummer: This is only the variance.
Mr. Bercow: I'd like to pass out a copy of the landscaping proposal. We had
actually...
Commissioner Plummer: What?
Mr. Bercow: We had actually first proposed...
Commissioner Plummer: Well, excuse me, Jeff.
Mr. Bercow: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: The Mayor asked a question. Let me clarify that. At
this particular point, the variance would apply to the entire piece of
property. Yes. Because it has not yet been replatted.
Mr. Bercow: We're willing to make a commitment...
Commissioner Plummer: But answer his question. He asked if the variance
would apply to the other parcel. Well, at this point, there is no other
parcel. It is one piece of property, so any variance that you apply here
today, you will later apply possibly for a replatting.
Mr. Bercow: That's not our intent.
Mayor Suarez: Well, I'm...
Mr. Rodriguez: You can condition it anyhow.
Commissioner Plummer: Huh?
Mr. Rodriguez: You can condition it.
Mr. Bercow: Yeah.
Mayor Suarez: And I'm not sure about...
Commissioner Plummer: At this... Excuse me.
Mayor Suarez: ... that argument either because if...
Commissioner Plummer: At this point, that property has not been replatted.
It is a single -unit piece of property at this time.
Mayor Suarez: But it only becomes a rear setback when it... That's not an
issue if it...
Mr. Bercow: We would...
Commissioner Plummer: No, no, no. That's not what he's trying to accomplish.
He's trying to accomplish that you don't put any restrictions on that parcel
that is there. For example, we could say here today to grant this variance
that we demand there be an eight -foot wall...
84 February 18, 1992
Mr. Bercow: That's correct.
Commissioner Plummer: ... on this other parcel of property. It is still a
single unit at this time.
Mr. Bercow: OK. Commissioner, we wish to condition any granted variance to
apply only to the existing setback in this area.
Commissioner Plummer: That's what you would like.
Mr. Bercow: That's what we would like.
Commissioner Plummer: But that was not the Mayor's question.
Mr. Bercow: OK. But I want to clarify.
Mr. Olmedillo: Mr. Plummer, a point of...
Mayor Suarez: You read my mind. I was going to ask about that, too. What
his intentions were.
Mr. Olmedillo: Point of information to the Mayor's question and to your
question is that the variance is approved, if approved, per plans on file, the
variance will not contain any structure in the new parcel, in the out parcel.
So the variance would be restricted, if you agree to the variance, to the
existing structure.
Mayor Suarez: Physical structure.
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, but today...
Mr. Olmedillo: Not to the entire property.
Commissioner Plummer: The point today is that we can apply any conditions as
a variance to any part of that property because it is a single unit.
Mayor Suarez: Yes.
Mr. Olmedillo: That's correct.
Mayor Suarez: All right.
Mr. Bercow: Let me get back... I'm sorry.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Just one point...
Mayor Suarez: Vice Mayor Alonso.
Vice Mayor Alonso: One point of clarification. You have no objections to a
wall if we were to say you have to build a wall...
Mr. Bercow: We don't.
85 February 18, 1992
0
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... adjacent to that property.
Mr. Bercow: There is an existing six-foot wall there but we think we can go
that one better and let me get back to my proposal.
Commissioner Plummer: I think the point we're talking about is a wall to the
adjacent property...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Dividing the properties.
Commissioner Plummer: ... not the one to the street.
Mr. Bercow: Oh, dividing the two lots?
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes. Yes.
Mr. Bercow: I'm not sure what the purpose of that is. I think that there'd
probably have to be some division...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Well, privacy.
Mayor Suarez: Privacy. Maybe they don't want... Maybe the
don't want privacy.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Between... One of the points that they have mentioned...
Mr. Bercow: We'd agree to a six-foot wall.
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... is that the swimming pool is adjacent to the property.
One of the concerns the gentleman has is that the view to the swimming pool -
which I can sympathize with that - a wail. It's a way to divide the property
and then you're obstructing the view.
Mr. Bercow: There is a six-foot wall now between...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Dividing between the swimming pool and this property?
Mr. Bercow: Yes. Yes.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Oh, really? Including that adjacent to the swimming pool?
I see. OK.
Mr. Bercow: Yes. The coral rock wall goes all the way around. There is a
six-foot high coral rock wall...
Vice Mayor Alonso: In that... OK. Fine.
Mr. Bercow: ... in this area and the swimming pool is here. There is a
generously landscaped area in this location already and, Lang, perhaps you can
pass out those pictures, as well.
Mayor Suarez: That's on his side of the wall.
Mr. Bercow: On his side as well as our side.
86 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: He certainly shouldn't be penalized in any way by having nice
landscaping on his side.
Mr. Bercow: But back to our proposal. We pointed out that if we were to
knock down the rear ten feet of our house, and then seal it off, that would be
about sixty-five hundred dollars to seven thousand dollars. We said we'd be
willing to pay a reasonable portion of that cost component to Mr. Berndt so
that he could place the landscaping himself on his side. We got a landscape
proposal originally of thirteen hundred dollars for six areca palms and two
queen palms, which were thought to be sufficient. We felt that this was a
generous offer because if we demolish the rear of the house, then we can
replat, we can subdivide the property, we can build a two-story house on the
new lot and we won't have any obligation to landscape. So, you know, we
thought that we were being very generous in this offer. Mr. Berndt rejected
the offer. He didn't indicate that he had any quarrel with the landscaping or
the amount of the landscaping. We then made a second offer to him, and I
think that that is the revised landscaping plan that you have in front of you,
which is approximately for twenty-five hundred dollars which are slightly
higher areca palms and two queen palms and they will grow to even higher
heights, which we think should completely shield his pool area from any new
house to be built. Mr. Berndt rejected this offer as well and when we asked
why, he said that he wanted sixty-five hundred dollars to compensate him for
his loss of enjoyment for the property. We explained the economics to him and
why that didn't make sense and he rejected our offer and he insisted on sixty-
five hundred dollars.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, seventy-five hundred to knock the house and you
get a thousand . That makes sense.
Mr. Bercow: So, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, the real issue here is not
principle. The real issue here is not...
Mayor Suarez: I think I know whose property this is, but regardless of whose
it is, I just want to congratulate the person whose property this is. This is
very nice. I wish I could landscape my house that way. All right.
Commissioner Plummer: If it costs you seventy-five hundred dollars to tear
down the back part of the house and he's offered for sixty-five hundred...
Mr. Bercow: No, no. We think that we could...
Commissioner Plummer: Sounds like a bargain to me.
Mr. Bercow: ... knock it down for sixty-five hundred to seven thousand
dollars.
Unidentified Speaker (OFF MIKE): No, to knock it down and rebuild
Mr. Bercow: And to rebuild.
Unidentified Speaker (OFF MIKE): I could rebuild.
87 February 18, 1992
0 0
Commissioner Plummer: Well, and he's offered for sixty-five hundred. Sounds
like a bargain.
Mr. Bercow: No, it's... But we can do it for that. We can do it for that,
Commissioner. The point I want to make is there's no principle involved here.
Mr. Berndt doesn't care about hardship or landscaping or privacy. He thinks
that simply by objecting tonight, he can make an easy four or five grand. I
submit to you that the only issue here is pure naked greed and I ask that you
not use... Not allow these Commission Chambers to be used as, basically, a
sleazy bargaining tactic.
Mayor Suarez: Well, the issue of hardship is really a legal criterion that
you have to satisfy, you know, and by...
Mr. Bercow: But, I submit to you, Mr. Mayor, that...
Mayor Suarez: ... making ad homineum argument, you know, I don't know who
you're going to convince up here when you're already doing pretty well, I
think.
Commissioner Plummer: Where is the hardship? Which hardship of the
categories, Mr. Bercow, are you referring to?
Mr. Bercow: I believe that there is a hardship because similarly situated
properties in Coconut Grove have received variance setbacks...
Commissioner Plummer: That's not a hardship.
Mr. Bercow: Well, you haven't let me finish. And that since they are
similarly situated to us, it's a denial of our right to equal protection under
the law. It's a denial of our Constitutional rights and that constitutes a
hardship.
Mayor Suarez: You know what I see as the hard...
Commissioner Plummer: Wait a minute Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Jones: The Code section is specific in terms of what constitutes
hardship.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, you heard his definition. Are you saying that he
Is within the Code or not within the Code?
Mr. Jones: What he has just stated does not come within the definition of
what constitutes a hardship.
Commissioner Plummer: Have you had the opportunity to go over in which he
addresses the six areas of hardship and do you find anywhere there a legal
basis for hardship? That's the real question here.
Mr. Bercow: Mr. Commissioner, I think it's for you and not for the City
Attorney to determine whether a hardship exists.
88 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: He's thinking that there's a definition that has six
criteria...
Mr. Bercow: There's no definition of a hardship in the Code.
Mayor Suarez: I don't think that there is. I don't think that there is. I
think you may be...
Mr. Bercow: There's tests that you need to meet, but there's no definition of
a hardship. If a deprivation of Constitutional rights doesn't constitute a
hardship, then what does? I mean, you may disagree that it is a deprivation
of Constitutional rights,...
Mayor Suarez: Well, what you're saying is that...
Mr. Bercow: ... but I think that that's something...
Mayor Suarez: What you're saying is...
Mr. Bercow: ... for the Commission to determine.
Mayor Suarez: I think what you're saying is that by the peculiar layout of
this property, and by the operation of other sections of the Code, something
that you would otherwise be entitled to do perfectly well, becomes impossible
for you to do and that, in a sense, creates a hardship and it's not generated
by your client because it just happens to be there. Something that was proper
and that would otherwise be proper, becomes improper for the simple reason
that there's a quirk in the law that makes this now, by definition, a rear
setback as opposed to a side setback. And my question is what is the
philosophy of rear setbacks or side setbacks that one is five feet and the
other one is twenty? Just sort of a general notion that we want to have more
property to the back so that neighbors are a little bit farther away?
Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Basically that and that you have in the back usually
an area that is... To start with, the City has been divided in lots which are
narrower in the front...
Mayor Suarez: Fifty by a hundred.
Mr. Rodriguez: ... and that's reflecting that situation.
Mayor Suarez: We figure we can't help the situation where people are close to
one another on a sort of sideways,...
Mr. Rodriguez: Right.
Mayor Suarez: ... elbow -room basis than behind...
Mr. Rodriguez: Do you have more room in the back or the front?
Mayor Suarez: ... nobody wants anybody to look at them from too close from
the rear. Right? People don't have very pleasant rears is the argument.
Mr. Rodriguez: Well, it depends.
89 February 18, 1992
Mr. Bercow: Speak for yourself.
Mayor Suarez: All right.
Mr. Bercow: Mr. Mayor, we are willing to stand by our original offer for
landscaping.
Mayor Suarez: This illustrates a quirk in the law that may or may not be
sufficient for us to decide if there's a hardship, particularly if, as you're
alleging, this is the only situation where this might take place.
Commissioner Plummer: The turning radius, is that staying in?
Mayor Suarez: It's interesting.
Commissioner Plummer: Is that there? There was a question in reference to
the turning radius raised by some. Is that there even if, in fact, the land
is replatted into two lots as proposed here?
Mr. Olmedillo: No, that's no problem because the...
Commissioner Plummer: Well, I'm just asking the question. I noticed in the
backup material that one of the civic organizations said that they would have
no objection. One said if the banyan tree stayed and the other one said if
the twenty-five foot... The banyan tree on Coacoochee and the oak tree on
Tigertail. Is that written into the...
Mr. Olmedillo: That may be part of the variance. One of the conditions that
you may consider for the variance.
Mr. Bercow: We would...
Commissioner Plummer: Well, was that at the lower level? Was that part of
the conditions or not?
Mr. Olmedillo: Not on the Zoning Board but the Heritage Preservation Board.
When they heard it, they recommended that the banyan tree be...
Commissioner Plummer: Is there a covenant given...
Mr. Bercow: No, but those conditions are acceptable to us.
Mr. Rodriguez: You can put conditions.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, I'm saying... I'm asking the question.
Mr. Bercow: The conditions are acceptable.
Mr. Rodriguez: Remember being a variance, that you can impose conditions.
You don't have to rely on a covenant. There was no condition imposed by them.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. All right. And the other one. What about the
question raised in reference to the twenty-five foot turning radius?
90 February 18, 1992
Mr. Rodriguez: They meet the minimum size which is 5,000 square feet...
Commissioner Plummer: With the turning radius?
Mr. Olmedillo: ... even with... Even donating or dedicating the turning
radius.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. All right. So, that's covered. The only thing
you would have to do is to... They would have to... Or we would restr... OK.
Mr. Rodriguez: You can condition it.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Could you tell me the size lot of each one of the
properties, the one with the existing building is and the new one?
Mr. Bercow: Madam Commissioner, the existing lot would be - the existing
house would be on an 8,500 square foot lot and the new lot would be 5,450
square feet in size.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Divided in what way? Could you give me the measurements,
please?
Mr. Bercow: Eighty five by one hundred and the new lot would be - or the -
when I say the existing lot, I mean where the existing home is.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes.
Mr. Bercow: The new lot where the new home would be, would be fifty-four and
a half feet by one hundred feet, but actually it would be slightly less than
fifty-four hundred feet because of this turning radius.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Because of the... Yeah, turning point. OK. Thank you.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Fletcher, you have a chance of rebuttal.
Mr. Fletcher: That's what I would like.
Commissioner Plummer: That's normal.
Mr. Bercow: I'm sorry. We have one person in the audience who wishes to just
indicate his support for the requested variance. I'd like that one person
to come up and identify himself and simply say he's in support of it.
Mr. Rodriguez: Also for the record, we should have the recommendation from
the staff on record.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes.
Mr. Brett Ersoff: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. My name is Brett
Ersoff. I live at 3273 Coacoochee. I'm in favor of the variance.
Commissioner Plummer: 3233...
91 February 18, 1992
0
Mr. Ersoff: 3273 Coacoochee.
Commissioner Plummer: You're on the other side of Tigertail?
Mr. Ersoff: Would you like me to point out... It would be the third lot in on
the other side of Tigertail.
Commissioner Plummer: You're one of the new houses?
Mr. Ersoff: No, on the other side. The other side of Tigertail.
Comnissioner Plummer: Are you one of the new houses they just built?
Mr. Ersoff: Yes, I am. Right there. I am not... The thin, narrow lot.
Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: I thought you had gone away. Mr. Bercow managed to hide you,
so...
Mr. Fletcher. Yes, I noticed that. Remind me not to negotiate with Mr.
Bercow again by the way.
Mayor Suarez: I've heard of that from great litigators, you know, it usually
isn't done here, but...
Mr. Fletcher: The last few comments I want to make relate to what Mr.
Baumgarten wants. Mr. Baumgarten wants to split his lot. Mr. Baumgarten
wants to have a second house he can build. Mr. Baumgarten wants to violate
the setback. Mr. Baumgarten wants to leave Mr. Berndt in the lurch without
the open space that he's assured of by the Code. If both of these houses - if
there are going to be two houses on the property - had been built originally,
they both would have had to meet the setback requirements. The choice was
made by the original owner, and Mr. Baumgarten, when he bought the property,
inherited that choice that was made by the original owner. That's a self-
imposed hardship, if there is a hardship. Our position is there is no
hardship. Complying with the Zoning Code because it's written the way it is,
is not a hardship. Hardship...
Mayor Suarez: Would you client be satisfied if he made a commitment that the
new structure, if any is built, would in fact itself abide by a twenty foot
side or rear setback? However you characterize it.
Mr. Fletcher: No, he's going to have that much more bulk there including the
bulk that's going to be on the first house that already exists. I mean, it's
taking away from the open space that's available in the area. Now, Mr. Bercow
said that there were no standards for a hardship and he gave you a very
interesting theoretical Constitutional argument that because other people have
gotten variances for lot splitting or lot sizes, that as a Constitutional
right on the part of his client, he is entitled to one. I think your City
Attorney will tell you that that argument is specious. The real test is in
case law, as to what a hardship is, and I know your City Attorney knows these
cases, including...
92 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: We11, but the Commissioner was inquiring if there was like a
breakdown of six or seven elements of that test and that, I don't know that we
ever got an answer to that.
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah, there is, isn't there?
Mayor Suarez: I maybe interrupted before.
Commissioner Plummer: There is.
Mr. Fletcher: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mayor Suarez: There are?
Commissioner Plummer: Yeah.
Mr. Fletcher: Yeah. What it boils down to, the court says, is whether or not
there's a use for the property in the absence of the variance. There has
been, there is and there will be the use for the property. The home that is
already on there as chosen to be built by the original owner. And I started
to say I don't want to negotiate with Mr. Bercow again, I thought our
conversations were private when you're settling a case. I guess I was wrong.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Bercow, how long has your client owned the
property?
Mr. Bercow: Two years.
Commissioner Plummer: And when he bought it, he knew the conditions existing
at the time, I'm assuming.
Mr. Bercow: I'm not sure that Ordinance No. 11000 was in effect at that time,
but I think that there was still a twenty -foot rear setback under the prior
Code.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Ten.
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, under 9500, that was ten feet.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Ten.
Mr. Bercow: It was ten feet?
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes.
Mr. Bercow: OK. So we did not know the change of law.
Mayor Suarez: Planning Department.
Mr. Olmedillo: Just for the record, the Planning is recommending denial based
on the hardship issues is not satisfactory to the hardship test.
Vice Mayor Alonso: The one thing that I'm not clear is that we have a case on
file which these persons will be able to have that legal side regardless of
93 February 18, 1992
our actions today. He will be able to tear down part of that property and the
one thing that bothers him, the privacy to the swimming pool, as I understood
that to be the case and something that I can understand, will continue to be a
problem for him, but he will be able to... The neighbor will have that lot
regardless of our action here today.
Mr. Bercow: That's correct. If Mr. - If you decide to reject the variance
application, Mr. Baumgarten's recourse will be to knock down the rear ten feet
of his house, bring himself into compliance, build... subdivide the property
and - without a public hearing - and then he'll...
Vice Mayor Alonso: But the lot will be exactly the same - new lot - will look
exactly the same way.
Mr. Bercow: Right. The only thing that will be different...
Vice Mayor Alonso: So he will be...
Mr. Bercow: ... is that yellow area will be expanded by another ten feet and
you won't have a structure in it.
Mayor Suarez: And you would be able to build exactly, following the same line
of argument, exactly the same thing that you would otherwise be able to build
on that additional lot?
Mr. Bercow: That's right. Without providing any landscaping.
Mr. Fletcher: With the only exception being that there would be the
additional open space which... Oh, I'm sorry.
Mayor Suarez: Yes. I gather that the exception would be that in the event of
not getting a variance, like he just said, he has to knock down ten feet of an
existing structure.
Mr. Fletcher: Which proves, incidentally, there's no hardship.
Mayor Suarez: That sounds to me like the opposite, but...
Vice Mayor Alonso: But what is the benefit to him? I don't understand.
Other than forcing this gentleman to trim down part of that property, I don't
see the benefit to him.
Mr. Fletcher: The benefit is the additional open space.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Like what?
Mr. Fletcher: Air.
Vice Mayor Alonso: What open...
Mr. Fletcher: There's... There won't be... He'll have a twenty -foot setback
all the way over across his property line once that is accomplished, which is
what the Code requires.
94 February 18, 1992
Mr. Bercow: What that area looks like now. It's heavily landscaped right
now. Mr. Forndt has, I believe, block glass windows in that area which are
translucent but they're not transparent, so you really can't see anything.
We'll agree to commit... We'll commit to maintaining the landscaping on that
side, as well. Actually, there's no need to commit the landscaping...
Vice Mayor Alonso: And you have not been able to agree on some sort of plan
that perhaps they will compromise? Confidentially.
Mayor Suarez: Yeah, this time if we were to urge you to discuss this
further...
Vice Mayor Alonso: To meet again, not to tell us, but just to...
Mayor Suarez: ... we would also suggest that you do it in...
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... get together and make a decision.
Mayor Suarez: ... under the rules of...
Vice Mayor Alonso: I will feel much better if you people do that. This is...
Mr. Fletcher: Well, we didn't make it.
Mayor Suarez: All right, if it makes any sense for you to take...
Vice Mayor Alonso: This is his property?
Mr. Bercow: That's our property.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Your property.
Mayor Suarez: Wait. He's saying into the record that is the property of the
appellee, I believe.
Vice Mayor Alonso: That's the distance. I see.
Mayor Suarez: We need you to take a mike with you or something.
Vice Mayor Alonso: I see. I see.
Mayor Suarez: Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga, please, sir.
Mr. Bercow: I'm sorry. For the record, with respect to that picture, the
wooden structure is the back part of Mr. Baumgarten's house that would have to
be knocked down. The stone wall is the coral rock wall that separates the two
properties and Mr. Berndt's property is on the other side.
Mayor Suarez: OK. Anything further,...
Mr. Manuel Gonzalez-Goenaga: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: ... Commissioners? Do you have an interest in this matter? I
can't imagine what the relevancy would be, but...
95 February 18, 1992
i
Mr. Gonzalez-Goenaga: Well, I just simply want to solve the problem very
easily. I suggest that they consult a "santero". Just like it's done here.
Mayor Suarez: All right, sir. Have a seat.
Vice Mayor Alonso: At times, we need one.
Mayor Suarez: If it wasn't so tragic, it would be comic. All right.
Anything from the Commission on this? Commissioners. Anybody. Is it going
to die for lack of interest?
Vice Mayor Alonso: Well...
Mayor Suarez: We need a motion to either uphold the appeal which forbids,
precludes the variance, or to turn down the appeal which would allow the
variance. Either way.
Commissioner De Yurre: Move to turn down the appeal.
Mayor Suarez: Move to overturn the appeal.
Commissioner De Yurre: (INAUDIBLE COMMENTS)
Mayor Suarez: Or to, I'm sorry, to uphold the appeal and permit the variance.
So moved.
Vice Mayor Alonso: So, he's moving to grant...
Mayor Suarez: The variance, yes.
Mr. Olmedillo: The variance.
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... the...
Mr. Olmedillo: The variance.
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... the variance.
Mayor Suarez: Do we have a second on that motion? Do we have a second on
that motion? Are we going to...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Well, what I really want is that they get together and
resolve the problem.
Commissioner Plummer: Move to defer.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Actually, there is some way that they can meet again and
agree.
Mr. Bercow: And agree to keep the discussions confidential.
Mr. Fletcher: Right.
96 February 18, 1992
Vice Mayor Alonso: We ask you people to get together one more time and come
back to us.
Mr. Fletcher: Yeah, under the cone of silence, I assume.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, I think you ought to do that...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: ... as lawyers can do.
Commissioner Plummer: In a locked room.
Mayor Suarez: All right, we have...
Vice Mayor Alonso: And then you come back with,...
Mayor Suarez: Entertain a motion to defer.
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... either today or do we table or...
Mr. Bercow: Can we defer until later on in the agenda?
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes. We'll table the item...
Mr. Bercow: OK. Fine.
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... and you come back...
Mr. Fletcher: Tonight?
Mr. Bercow: Yes.
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... later today if you have an answer to...
Mayor Suarez: Tables, but not too long, folks.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes. OK?
Mr. Bercow: OK.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Great.
Mayor Suarez: We don't know how much farther we're going to go tonight. Half
hour, an hour at the most. If you're going to take longer than an hour,
please advise me. One of you. All right. The item is tabled. The motion is
withdrawn, I understand, Madam City Clerk so we don't have something pending
or never got a second, so it doesn't matter.
97 February 18, 1992
i
18.1 CLARIFY BACKUP MATERIAL IN AGENDA PERTAINING TO ITEM PZ-12 WHICH WAS
ERRONEOUSLY ATTACHED TO PZ-10 (See label 21).
Commissioner Plummer: Do we have something on Florida Avenue tonight? What
item number is it?
Mr. Rodriguez: That's number two.
Commissioner Plummer: The reason I'm asking is...
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, back up... I know. I'm going to introduce in the
record...
Commissioner Plummer: ... on item 10 in by backup, I've got a tot of stuff
here on Florida Avenue...
Mr. Rodriguez: Right.
Commissioner Plummer: ... which has absolutely nothing to do...
Mr. Olmedillo: And I'm going to introduce into the record that that belongs
to PZ-12.
Commissioner Plummer: Twelve. OK. Thank you.
19. BRIEF DISCUSSION CONCERNING RECENT DEDICATION OF A STAR TO HANSEL
MARTINEZ BY LATIN STARS, INC. WITHOUT REQUIRED COMMISSION APPROVAL --
REQUEST ADMINISTRATION TO ISSUE FULL REPORT.
Mayor Suarez: PZ-11.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: Yes.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Before we go into this item,...
Mayor Suarez: Madam Vice Mayor.
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... there is something that has been called to my
attention and I would like to instruct the Administration to come back the
next Commission meeting with a report about Latin Stars. Last Saturday, these
people had...
Commissioner Plummer: You wouldn't listen to me when I told you.
98 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: Another dedication of some sort? No.
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... another dedication of a star...
Mayor Suarez: But all their activities were suspended.
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... on 8th Street for a person that I have no problems
with, but the problem is not the person or the item. The problem is that
Latin Stars believe that they own the streets of Miami and that they can do as
they please.
Commissioner Plummer: No, no. We put an absolute stop on it.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Last Saturday, they awarded a star to Hansel Martinez and
it has never come to this Commission.
Commissioner Plummer: Take it out.
Vice Mayor Alonso: They said... No, listen. Now the way they do it. They
went, they had the celebration, they did not install the star, but they say
they are coming to us. But they told the artist, they held a party on his
honor. It ends up that it puts the City of Miami in a position if we turn
down the star, we are like the bad guys. And if we don't... So, I don't know
why in the world, these people we have requested that they complete a... they
give to us a certified report of the finances which they have refused to do.
These people do as they please. So, I think we have to take some sort of
action. I don't want to take time today, but I think at the next Commission
meeting,...
Commissioner Plummer: We already took action.
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... we should take this item and tell them this is itl
End of the relationship) Latin Stars and City of Miami, because we cannot
tolerate actions like this.
Commissioner Plummer: Did we not take action and we stopped all further...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Oh, we did but...
Mr. Jim Kay: The Latin Stars program has been on hold until - pending their
submitting a certified audit of their program. And they haven't done so yet.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, did you so notify them in writing of that?
Mr. Kay: Yes, we have. We've notified them. Yes, sir.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, then I'll tell you what you want to do.
Embarrass them. Send a copy to whoever this is, they had the party and put it
on there.
Vice Mayor Alonso: It was published in the Miami Herald,...
Commissioner Plummer: That doesn't mean anything.
99 February 18, 1992
i
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... that they were going to have... I know, but it was
published and we cannot tolerate - Would you have it in the next Commission
meeting that we have to address...
Mr. Rodriguez: We'll do that.
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... this issue and then look at the entire picture,
prepare a report for us. What is the status and we'll take action.
Mr. Kay: We'll do that.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: OK. Thank you, Commissioner, for pointing that out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. DENY APPEAL AND AFFIRM ZONING BOARD'S DECISION IN GRANTING A VARIANCE,
TO PERMIT A SMALLER REAR SETBACK THAN OFFICIALLY REQUIRED, AND A SETBACK
FOR THE OVERHANG OF PROPOSED TWO STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 2952 LOUISE STREET (Owner: William Whitlock;
Appellant: James G. McMaster).
Mayor Suarez: Item PZ-11.
Ms. Margarita Genova Cordon: PZ-11 is an appeal for a setback variance
granted by the Zoning Board on 2952 Louise Street. We'll hear from the
appellant, I guess.
Mayor Suarez: Who is here in opposition to PZ-11? Go ahead and step up, sir,
if you're the applicant. Is there anyone that opposes PZ-11?
Mr. Olmedillo: The appellant is Jim McMaster and we don't see him here today.
Mayor Suarez: Don't see him. OK.
Mr. David Whitlock: My name is David Whitlock. I live at 2952 Louise Street.
I have also the power of attorney for my father that's eighty-eight years old.
Mayor Suarez: Let me just clarify something here. The terminology is pretty
strange. Planning, Building and Zoning denial of variance. Zoning Board
granted nine zero. OK. So the Zoning Board...
Mr. Rodriguez: Approved it.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Approved.
Mayor Suarez: Unanimous. And the Planning, Building and Zoning is denial of
variance. You all don't recommend too many variances, do you?
Mr. Olmedillo: The hardship is very difficult to meet.
100 February 18, 1992
a a
Mayor Suarez: The hardship test is difficult to meet. And of course the
hardship test doesn't vary on the basis of whether objectors are present or
not. There are objectors on file, otherwise there would be no appeal. Right?
Mr. Rodriguez: Right.
Mayor Suarez: Because their variance was in fact granted by the Zoning Board.
Mr. Rodriguez: Right.
Mayor Suarez: And so really he could just procedurally do nothing and we'd
almost have to reverse the appeal.
Mr. Olmedillo: If you don't do anything the lower board decision stands.
Mayor Suarez: Right. I'm not sure I want to let you say anything. It may be
better for you not to do anything. If it was a court proceeding, one side not
being present, the other side having the benefit of a decision at a lower
level would in effect prevail if we did absolutely nothing and maybe you ought
to be sworn in a put on the record what you think is worth it for you to say
and we'll have to decide what to do at that point. Madam City Clerk, could
you swear in the gentleman?
AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO.
10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, I think it would be behooving us to take some
action, wouldn't it?
Mayor Suarez: Yeah, what I meant is, procedurally, if the one side isn't
here, how can we possibly...
Commissioner Plummer: We deny the appeal.
Mayor Suarez: Right. All right. Do you need for him to say anything or does
somebody move it and I guess.
Commissioner Plummer: Silence gives consent. Isn't that the law?
Mayor Suarez: Yep. Silence betokens consent. That's from A Man for All
Seasons. Everybody alive back there?
Commissioner Plummer: Not too alive. Where are we?
Vice Mayor Alonso: Same place where you left.
Mayor Suarez: We're going to let him make a presentation. There's no
opposing side. They...
Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-11. The appellant is not present. The appellee is.
Mayor Suarez: He won at the Zoning Board level, nine to zero.
Vice Mayor Alonso: So we take no action and...
101 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Plummer: We've got to take an action.
Mayor Suarez: We could just take no action or deny the appeal.
Commissioner Plummer: I move to deny the appeal.
Mayor Suarez: Move to deny the appeal.
Commissioner Plummer: That the action, isn't it?
Vice Mayor Alonso: To deny?
Mayor Suarez: Right.
Miriam Maer, Esq.: Want to affirm the Zoning Board, deny the appeal. That
grants the variance.
Commissioner Plummer: What else is new?
= Vice Mayor Alonso: Second.
Mayor Suarez: OK. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? If not, please call
the roll.
Mr. Whitlock: I am sorry. I'm a little hard of hearing.
Mayor Suarez: You may be doing better if you don't say anything at this
point.
Commissioner Plumper: Yeah.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes, that's true.
Commissioner Plumper: Isn't that true. Hello.
Mayor Suarez: Call the roll, Madam City Clerk.
102 February 18, 1992
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-145
A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING
BOARD AND GRANTING THE VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1903.1 OF
ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401,
SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO PERMIT A 5' REAR
SETBACK (20' REQUIRED) AND A SETBACK FOR THE OVERHAND
OF 2' 6" (3' 0" REQUIRED) FOR THE PROPOSED TWO STORY
ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2952 LOUISE STREET, MIAMI,
FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), ZONED R-
2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; SAID VARIANCE HAVING A TIME
LIMITATION OF TWELVE MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT
MUST BE OBTAINED.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Vice Mayor Alonso, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Suarez: What would be...
Vice Mayor Alonso: PZ-12.
Mayor Suarez: I should have gotten this clarification before we called the
roll, but...
Vice Mayor Alonso: That's it.
Mayor Suarez: ... if I may just ask, what would be the practical effect of
the granting of the variance? He's able to have a five-foot as opposed to
twenty -foot rear setback and a two foot six...
Mr. Olmedillo: Overhang.
Mayor Suarez: As opposed to a three foot.
Mr. Olmedillo: To a three foot overhang.
Mayor Suarez: And the address of this is Louise Street.
103 February 18, 1992
Mr. Olmedillo: 2952 Louise Street.
Mayor Suarez: There's no... You reflect how many opponents and how many
supporters? Written. Those are opponents, right? And the subject property
is the blue?
Mr. Olmedillo: We've got eight opponents, five proponents in a way or who
would support the application.
Mayor Suarez: The subject property is the blue?
Mr. Olmedillo: The subject property is in yellow or amber and the blue
property is owned by the same property owner.
Mayor Suarez: Oh, the amber doesn't show. Your color codes are calculated to
confuse us even more than we're already confused. All right. Yes. I vote
yes. You're most eloquent, sir. Is that your family back there?
Mr. Whitlock: Yes, sir. It sure is.
Mayor Suarez: That's kind of unfair to bring little ones like that. We have
a rule. No one below seven years old.
Commissioner Plummer: It's cheaper to bring them here than a baby-sitter.
Mayor Suarez: Hopefully, Jim McMaster won't beat down our doors to reconsider
all of this, but we have acted in your favor and...
Commissioner Plummer: Go away and sin no more.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes. Enjoy it.
Mr. Whitlock: Thank you very much.
21. DENY PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE TO AMEND 11000 ATLAS FROM R-1
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN SD-12
SPECIAL BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 3200-3298 FLORIDA AVENUE (Applicant:
Arturo Alfredo). (See label 18.1).
Mayor Suarez: PZ-12.
Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-12 is an application for rezoning for property located at
3200-98 Florida Avenue. This is going from a single-family residential, R-1,
to a single-family residential with the SD-12 overlay. This overlay would
permit the applicant would be to provide a parking lot there and, as you well
know, SD-12 requires a special exception hearing which ultimately has to be
approved by this City Commission. Typically, what it calls for is a twenty -
foot buffer on the residential side with a wall and it only provides the
opportunity for parking. The Planning Department has recommended approval.
The Zoning Board recommended denial on a six to three vote.
104 February 18, 1992
0 40
Commissioner Plummer: Let me ask you a question. What other uses would it
allow besides a parking lot? Because that's what it is and has been for
years. Not legally, but it's there.
Mr. Olmedillo: Nothing else but a parking lot or a single-family which they
have by right today.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, they don't have to apply that.
Mr. Olmedillo: Right. Correct.
Commissioner Plummer: So the only thing it would allow in fact was a parking
lot.
Mr. Olmedillo: A parking lot. Surface lot. Not a structure.
Commissioner Plummer: Oh. OK. Because, I mean, you know, let's call it like
it is. It's been a parking lot for infinitum, illegally, but it's there.
Mr. Rodriguez: Let me introduce for the record, letters from the Coconut
Grove Homeowners' and Tenants Association which should be part of this record
now, in opposition to granting.
Mayor Suarez: Is there anyone here who wishes to be heard against the
application of PZ-12? OK. All the people that are in opposition that expect
to testify, would you please stand up and be sworn in together with counselor
and your client, if he's going to speak. Or the architect or any other... I
don't know if the other gentleman was an architect, an expert or just your
client.
Commissioner Plummer: An architect of a parking lot?
George F. Knox, Esq.: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: Well, there's some architects there that look like they made a
very nice rendering.
Vice Mayor Alonso: That's right.
Mayor Suarez: OK. At least swear in the parties.
AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO.
10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES.
Mayor Suarez: Counselor.
Mr. Knox: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. For the
record, my name is George F. Knox. I'm an attorney practicing law in the City
of Miami at 25 West Flagler Street and I'm counsel of record and applicant in
fact of the item represented by PZ-12. As the Staff has indicated, the
applicant owns both halves of the one square block area indicated in mustard
color and blue on the map.
105 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: You said one square block. Right?
Mr. Knox: Yes, sir. The subject matter of this and the blue area is
currently zoned SD-2. The amber area constitutes what is known as Tract A and
it is owned by the applicant and is contiguous to the commercially zoned
property immediately to its south. The request here is to have the City
Commission go through the process that will result in the approval of an SD-12
overlay district. You know the characteristics of SD-12. Essentially the
underlying residential zoning would remain; however, under the provisions of
SD-12... Under conditions imposed by the ordinance, it would be permissible to
operate a surface parking lot. As you can see from the renderings, the
property owners are simply seeking to give some order to a chaotic
circumstance involving the property as it's presently situated and the owners
propose, in conformance with the requirements of SD-12, to construct a surface
parking lot, number one, to relieve what is known to be a chronic problem
regarding parking in Coconut Grove, and of course, to maintain the tradition
of the weekend farmers' market upon the property. In a very real sense, Mr.
Mayor and members of the Commission, the only thing that's happening is that
the property is being beautified and organized without interfering with any
actual use that takes place upon the property now. We might indicate a couple
of things for the record. The first is that we have met on two occasions,
both before and after the Zoning Board hearings, with representatives of the
Coconut Grove Civic Club. Unfortunately, we were not able to gain their
concurrence and the application, for reasons that I am sure that they will
articulate. It's important, however, for us to at least advise the Commission
that the use that we wish to put to Tract "A" is not inconsistent with uses in
adjacent property. As a matter of fact, directly across Margaret Street,
which is immediately west of the property in question, there is a commercial
structure, which is commercial on the first floor, multifamily on the top
floor, and the back half - the counterpart of Tract "A" - is a parking
facility surface, surrounded by a six foot wall. As you know, SD-12 requires
no more, under the Code. Our simple request at this time, Mr. Mayor and
members of the Commission, and I would like to proffer the photograph for the
record of the property immediately west of Tract "A", the property that we
seek to have designated SD-12. I would simply ask that you support the
recommendation of the staff. The staff has gone through its check list. The
proposed use of the property is consistent with the master plan; will enhance
the property; will provide order where there is present chaos; will provide
some measure of security for the activity; will provide the buffer zone that I
understand the Civic Club's insisted upon when they were urging the adoption
of SD-12 overlay districts and would do nothing more than enhance a property
that right now is not very much more than an open field. On that basis, we
simply ask the Commission to adopt, on first reading, the ordinance that would
allow the SD-12. We understand fully that there must be a second reading,
that we must apply for a special exception, and submit the plans, after review
by the City staff, to your ultimate review. We offer the plans now only to
give you an idea of the quality and commitment that the applicants are
endeavoring to make to that parcel of property. Thank you so much, and I look
forward to the rebuttal.
Mayor Suarez: All right, counselor.
Commissioner Plummer: To the administration, this shows an Attachment "A".
It don't have an Attachment "A". It lists the different owners. Then at the
106 February 18, 1992
0 4)
bottom it says: "One hundred percent owner is Gallo G. Churaboga, Quito,
Ecuador, see Attachment 'A' for office designation." I don't have an
Attachment "A."
Mr. Rodriguez: We're looking for that, OK
Commissioner Plummer: I'm sorry?
Mr. Rodriguez: We're checking in the files, one second.
Commissioner Plummer: It shows Arturo 57 percent, Alfredo 14 percent, Arturo
14 percent, and Peacock Investments 15 percent, and then you go to the bottom
and it says one hundred percent owner is this other guy!
Mr. Knox: I can clarify that, Commissioner Plummer. One hundred percent
means that the person who's listed owns one hundred percent of the interest in
Peacock Investments. In other words...
Commissioner Plummer: Oh, oh, oh. so they own one hundred percent of fifteen
percent.
Mr. Knox: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, it says here: attached "A" and there is no
attached "A". OK, that clarifies it for me.
Mr. Knox: I'd like to indicate for the record that Ms. Judith Wibel, who is
the president of the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce would like to speak on
_ behalf of the item and advise you of the results of a meeting that was held in
connection with this item.
Mayor Suarez: Why don't you complete your presentation first and then we'll
go to the opponents.
Mr. Rodriguez: Commissioner Plummer, in relation to your question.
Attachment "A" would be in your page 14 of your package. It's not properly
identified because the copy didn't reflect it, but that's what it would be.
Commissioner Plummer: Sir, I do not have a page 14. I have 13 and 15. Oh,
I'm sorry, Thank you. Did you see what happened? I couldn't see it here. Go
ahead, I'm sorry.
Ms. Judith Wibel: Good evening, y'all, Mayor, Commissioners, Vice Mayor.
Thank you for listening to me for a moment. This last week our board of
directors of the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce, which represents
approximately 350 members of the Coconut Grove Chamber, voted after reviewing
this proposal, in favor that it be accepted for the variance that's being
proposed. We have, for a long time, had many serious problems with the
parking in Coconut Grove. We have a study here that was just released this
week - a Coconut Grove parking study - done by David Plummer & Associates in
Coral Gables, that notes that we have less than half of the parking required
by the City's own guidelines for the restaurants and other commercial industry
in our area. We would like for you to highly consider this recommendation
because it will definitely help those who are facing some hardship now due to
107 February 18, 1992
lack of convenient parking in the downtown center, as opposed to the
parameters, where we have problems with crime, and people walking into the �_
center Grove. And we would appreciate your considering backing this proposal.
Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: All right, ma'am.
Commissioner Plummer: You park there today if you go back and even your car
is there you're lucky.
Mr. Knox: That'll conclude the presentation on behalf of the applicant.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you.
Mr. Tucker Gibbs: My name is Tucker Gibbs and my address is 3820 Bayside
Court. I'm appearing tonight in my capacity as the chairman of the Planning
and Zoning Committee of the Village Council, and that committee voted
unanimously on Saturday morning to oppose this item. The reason why the
Village Council hasn't voted on this is that the Village Council meeting is in
approximately one week, and at that time it will make a decision on this. But
our recommendation is to oppose this item. I wanted to ask one question about
the parking study that was just referenced. Has that parking study been
reviewed by the City, and approved by the City? Because I think that was the
condition on its submission. Mr. Knox, do you know that?
Mr. Knox: No, I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Gibbs: Because my understanding is that that was part of a special
exception or variance given to CocoWalk, and it hasn't...
Mr. Rodriguez: No, we haven't reviewed it yet, and we haven't approved it
yet.
Mr. Gibbs: When SD-12 was designed, it was designed primarily to support
existing commercial uses. I think, Commissioner Plummer, all of you, were
aware at the time that the big issue was Coral Way and 7th Avenue. Some of
the main thoroughfares in the City of Miami where old commercial uses were
still there on small platted lots on, for example, Coral Way, and these
existing commercial uses could not - they didn't have enough parking. And so
what happened was the owners of the property would purchase the property
behind them in residentially zoned areas, and under transitional use zoning,
would be permitted to use those residentially zoned areas for parking to
support the existing commercial uses. This Commission abolished transitional
use and replaced it with this SD-12 overlay, and the primary purpose from my
understanding from working on it and voting on it as a member of the Planning
Advisory Board was that SD-12 was designed to support existing commercial
uses. It was to resolve a problem that has existed in the City of Miami for
the last several years, with these existing small commercial lots. This lot
here has nothing on it. There's no existing commercial use that is crying out
for supporting parking. That's the first issue. The second issue is a simple
issue that we always talk about when we come before the City Commission on
zoning issues, and that is the owner. The owner purchased this property in
the late 1970s with the knowledge that half of the property was zoned
residential. That property used to have houses on it and some of the
108 February 18, 1992
residents tonight are going to talk about the houses that were there and that
were bulldozed. Now the owner has a vacant piece of lot that's zoned
residential and he wants to do something with it. He's had approximately ten
years to build houses on it, but economically, he can't build houses. That's
what he says. Well, the question is, why did he purchase the property? I
don't know why he purchased the property, but it looks like he wants to
purchase the property for commercial use. As you all well know, especially
Commissioner Plummer, and Mayor Suarez, who have been here for a while, this
isn't the first time you've seen this piece of property come before you for
some kind of zoning action. It's come to you to be rezoned to commercial on
two occasions, and this, we feel, is the first step to making it commercial,
because once you rezone this to SD-12, it is not going to be available for
residential use. You know it, they know it, and we know it, too. The goal,
we thought, in developing SD-12 was to protect the residential character of
neighborhoods. I, for the life of me, can't understand how taking a piece of
land that this owner has owned for ten years and has failed to make any effort
to develop, has failed to post it, has failed to maintain it, how you all
could vote to give this property this SD-12 designation. This is clearly a
precursor to commercial zoning. In ten years, when this is being used as a
parking lot, if you all provide for this, in ten years he can come back to you
and say, hey, this has been a parking lot for ten years. You don't want it to
go back to single family residential. That's ridiculous. And you're going to
say, well, it has been a parking lot for ten years. It's the first step. The
key here is once it goes SD-12 it's never going to go back to residential, so
we urge you to deny the petition. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Anything further from the opponents?
Mr. Plummer: Oh, Oh, You're going to hear from the lady across the street.
Ms. Graciela Balanzategui-Garrido: I'll be brief. Graciela Balanzategui-
Garrido, 3620 S.W. 20th Street. I'm here on behalf of Miami Homeowners
Coalition. First of all I need to say something. When we worked on the SD-
12...
Mayor Suarez: What was your last name, again?
Ms. Balanzategui-Garrido: Balanzategui-Garrido.
Mayor Suarez: That's more than twenty syllables. We can't allow that!
Ms. Balanzategui-Garrido: When we first worked on the SD-12, we did it
because we wanted to provide a special buffer, a special area for certain
areas of the City, which is why when we did the maps, and we all worked on it,
there were certain areas that were planned out. What's unusual about this
location is not only is there not already a commercial use there, but on both
sides, east and west, you have residential uses. So, in essence, granting
this is granting a commercial intrusion into a residential neighborhood.
There is no way that it can be interpreted differently. Because a parking lot
is not a house.
Ms. Denise Wallace: Good evening. I'm Denise Wallace. I reside at 3680
Grand Avenue, Coconut Grove. I'm here in two capacities: as a member of the
community and as vice chairman of the Coconut Grove Village Council. I know
109 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Plummer has asked where we are. We're up and running and we're
trying to get moving, so I'm here in that capacity.
Mayor Suarez: Has the Council taken a position on it?
Ms. Wallace: The Council has not met. Our zoning and planning committee has
met and they voted unanimously to oppose it. Our meeting is scheduled for
February 25th, when we will vote on this issue. I'd just like to point out
one thing. Mr. Knox pointed out that the property immediately west of this is
already zoned commercial and it does have a parking lot. That, indeed, is
true. However, that property immediately west was zoned during a period of
transitional use which does not exist today. So, therefore, that property has
been grandfathered in and, at this point, it has no bearing on this issue.
The neighbors and the residents of this area don't oppose any commercial
development on the Grand Avenue side of the property. They, however, do
oppose it being changed from the residential character to commercial
character. And for that reason, I would ask this Commission to please follow
the recommendation of your own City Planning and Zoning Board, and deny this
petition. Also, for the record, I would just like to ask Mr. Knox whether or
not he or any of his clients or any representatives of his clients have had
any communications with this Commission regarding this matter? It need not be
answered now. I'd just like that for the record. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: What is the recommendation of the department exactly? - before
we clutter this record up with something that I am not sure...
Mr. Olmedillo: The recommendation of the Zoning Board is denial, the
recommendation of the Planning, Building and Zoning Department is approval of
the SD-12.
Mayor Suarez: So the departments recommend approval, and the Board denial by
six to three.
Ms. Grady Lee Dinkins: I'm Grady Lee Dinkins, and I live at 3201 Florida
Avenue. I live less than 50 feet from this proposed parking site. You know,
in 1979 we came here for the same purpose we're here tonight, and were back
here again in 1983 for the same thing we're here tonight.
Mayor Suarez: On this very same site?
Ms. Dinkins: Yes, this very same site. It has been nothing but harassment
for all the people who live on Florida Avenue. And, of course, when they
bought the property, they knew it was zoned residential. We had brand new
homes over there and they bulldozed them down. They were two-story houses,
too. And they were very nice, and even University of Miami students lived in
one of the houses. So I came tonight to oppose rezoning Florida Avenue - the
3200 block for a parking lot - and I'm also opposed to having SD-12 special
buffer overlay district for the block. I firmly believed that the black
homeowners who live in this block and adjacent blocks should not have to
suffer from the stress, or the pressures from the Rainbow Plaza developers and
their attorney, Mr. Knox because they would like to put a parking lot over
there. We have worked hard for our homes, and a change of zoning and a
parking lot will mean a total wipe-out and a life's work gone. And, of
course, there have not been any changes in this block which would make it
110 February 18, 1992
necessary to rezone it for a parking lot. The land use pattern would also be
destroyed in this block because we purchased homes on Florida Avenue over
thirty years ago and Florida is zoned for residential use from Matilda Street
all the way down to Douglas Road - at least one house inside of Douglas Road -
and it's been that way because I've lived there for that number of years, and
we have never had anything else. Yes, Mr. Plummer, you said that it has been
an illegal parking lot, which it is, and it's really an eyesore for us down
there, because we have all of the noise down in that spot. Even Sunday
morning we had a break-in of an automobile right there. And, of course, we
have the traffic flow of noise. We have people who sit there and turn their
burglar alarms on in their cars, and let them run for three hours. Police
doesn't say a thing about it. Of course they say they can't go on the
property because it's private -owned property, and so, I guess, they just had
to do the best that they possibly could. And then all this sound of loud
music. In fact, that lot is overcrowded with people and cars. I don't know
what you're going to do. It's just quite out of hand, trying to get down
Florida, and down Margaret, and right there by the post office on MacDonald
Street, right at the red light, and that's where they intend to come out of
the parking lot, right there by the post office. And I just don't understand
how can we get any more cars in there. It's just terrible. And then, they
have said in some of their discussions that a parking lot would positively
improve the living conditions on Florida Avenue, but I refuse to say that it
would because I don't think a parking lot, especially a dirty parking lot
that's going to bring in all these strange dirty people, and they're going to
commit all of these crimes. I'm expecting them to probably have a rape over
there, or even a killing, or anything - a murder - over there. Because
they're in a position to do it, and all of this drug trade is going through
there. It's going through there already, and now, to put a parking lot over
there with all of those dark shadows, I don't know what is going to happen to
them. So we just don't need the parking lot. Rezoning will just absolutely
destroy our block and we wouldn't like to have it destroyed, because I really
cannot get another job. I have worked hard for a long time and now I've
retired, and I'm not physically able to buy a home anyplace else. I'll just
have to stay there because it is my retirement home, and of course, as I have
said, we also have air pollution - the dust. The whole of my house is just
ruined, my draperies and everything - just dirty, dirty, dirty all the time.
I keep the windows tightly closed, but the dust just seeps in and then all of
that carbon monoxide is seeping from the overflow of traffic that's out there.
And it really makes you sick. I am afraid, right now, to go to bed until
around two o'clock in the morning, because those people out there - really,
for the last three months, they have been really illegally using that space
and charging to use it. They get paid for the cars that park out there. And
the lady said from the Chamber of Commerce that it would help us out in
Coconut Grove, but you know that 149 space parking lot is not going to ease
the traffic in Coconut Grove at all. And I'm sure if you had been there on
the weekend and looked at all of the trash and the stuff our there, and all
the cars, you would agree with me. It is really not our fault on Florida
Avenue for having them to buy in there and now want to help some people out in
the Grove to park their cars. Because if you have property, or you have
businesses on Commodore Plaza, you shouldn't even build a business until you
know that you have parking, and it shouldn't even be granted for them. And
so, I don't think that we should have to be sacrificed.
ill February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: Are you getting to the point that you're going to summarize and
complete your comments.
Ms. Dinkins: All right, I will summarize. We do not want...
Mayor Suarez: By the way, the argument that the business community sometimes
makes, I think we are wise enough here to understand is not one that is
particularly persuasive. It says: we've allowed too much density in this area
and therefore to take care of all of it with parking, you must now allow all
kind of changes to permit parking where otherwise you would have residential.
That is not a real persuasive argument to us, so don't worry too much about
that one.
Ms. Dinkins: No.
Mayor Suarez: It's sort of a self-imposed problem.
Ms. Dinkins: Well, we do not want Florida Avenue rezoned, and we do not want
a parking lot bordering our property, and we urge you to please deny the
rezoning, and also the SD-12 special buffer overlay district. We would not
like to have it in our block. Thank you very much.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you. Ms. Armbrister, and then we're going to wrap this
up.
Ms. Esther May Armbrister: Good afternoon. My name's Esther May Armbrister,
and I live at 3350 Charles Avenue, and have been there for the past 46 years.
That particular block that is in question today, it has been in question since
1965 - before your time - shortly after Plummer came aboard in 1970. We work
hard with the NDP to keep Coconut Grove, Coconut Grove. And for you to change
the zoning at this present time, it would be bad. On the corner of Margaret
and Grand Avenue, there is the vacant lot. There is a developer who wants to
develop that piece of property on the front and, come in on Thomas Avenue,
that is a residential area. So if you start this kind of stuff for them, the
others have a right to come in and try the same thing. So, as far as they
need this parking, and what the Chamber of Commerce said, I would suggest that
they take it near one of the Chamber of Commerce houses, and let it stay
there, instead of bringing it... We don't need that kind of trash in Coconut
Grove. We have worked too hard - ever since 1949 - with Coral Gables, and the
City of Miami, and the County to bring Coconut Grove up to par. We put in
houses, we put in streets, we put in sidewalks, we put in new houses, senior
citizen condominiums, and all of that, trying to bring Coconut Grove up to
part, and to think that they are doing us a favor by putting a parking lot in
there, I would suggest that they carry out the work where you live, either
down here on Main Highway across from the Coconut Grove Playhouse, by the
Barnacle down there. They have some space out there. Maybe you can use that,
but not to bring it to Coconut Grove. You're not doing us a favor. Please
deny this. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Is this Mr. McMaster behind you that was...
Mr. James McMaster: ... was unavoidably detained.
Mayor Suarez: ... defaulted earlier today.
112 February 18, 1992
Mr. McMaster: Yes, sir! It made it easier for you. Jim McMaster, 1940 S.W.
30th Court. I'd just like to say I'm here to support Mrs. Dinkins and the
rest of the neighbors and to urge you to turn this request down. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: All right. Do we need to - ? The partner in crime! You knew
if Tucker was here, Mary would be there.
Ms. Mary Weber: My name is Mary Weber. I live at 3900 E1 Prado Boulevard. I
am speaking on behalf of the Coconut Grove, Civic Club, of which I am
president. The Board of Directors of the Civic Club voted to oppose this last
week, and we ask you to do the same. Thank you very much.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you, Mary. Counselor.
Mr. Knox: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: Oh, one more. Yes, sir.
Rev. James Davis: Mr. Mayor, Reverend James Davis, living at 3221 Florida
Avenue. We do understand...
Mayor Suarez: Reverend, you came without clerical garb, today!
Rev. Davis: Right. We do understand that we have a parking problem in
Coconut Grove. The thing that we're concerned about is that it will distort
_ our neighborhood, and we do have severe problems, now, with an illegal parking
lot where it's located. I would hope that the Commission would reconsider and
not grant the change of the zoning, and let it remain like it is, and I also
would hope that the Commission would also impose some type of penalty, or
enforce the law to cut out the illegal parking that we have now. It is really
terrible on the weekend. The noise level is rough until about three or four
o'clock in the morning, you know. They throw all kinds of trash, not only on
that property, but in our yards. So I would hope that the Commission would
reconsider and not grant the change so that they can have a parking lot.
Mayor Suarez: Very good. Thank you, reverend.
Mr. Knox: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I will be brief. I would like to
indicate, I think, that I believe on behalf of the applicants, that Mrs.
Dinkins made every compelling argument on behalf of allowing this SD-12
overlay district, as we indicated earlier, to bring some order to the chaos
that she has indicated existed under the present circumstances. The other
thing that I'd like to point out, that was mentioned by one of the speakers
with respect to the property immediately to the west, we were only endeavoring
to show that irrespective of the zoning classification or process, those who
are concerned about what they call creeping commercialism, or the operation of
surface parking lots, should just be aware that this takes place immediately
west of the property on which we're making application at this time. Another
thing that I need to point out to the Commission is, unfortunately, there is
very little that any of us can do...
Mayor Suarez: A shade west of the property? What are you referring to?
113 February 18, 1992
AV,\
Mr. Knox: The property where we showed you the photograph that now is a
commercial...
Commissioner Plummer: The west would be the blue.
Mr. Knox: ... property facing on Grand.
Mayor Suarez: What is it - the commercial use there?
Mr. Knox: The first floor is a commercial business enterprise, and then it's
about a three or four story building that has apartments on top, and the
parking is in the rear to service that building.
Mayor Suarez: And what shops are in that building?
Mr. Knox: I won't describe any shops. I'm saying that the zoning allows
commercial activity...
Mayor Suarez: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were saying the use, not the
zoning. All right.
Mr. Knox: The other thing that I would like to point out is that there's very
little any of us can do about grim prognostications and seeing ghosts, if you
will, and dire predictions about the motives and intentions of the applicants.
As a matter of fact, we would respectfully suggest that there is no reason to
doubt that the motive of the applicants is that the property remain
residential because they sought an SO-12 overlay to preserve the underlying
residential character and zoning classification, as opposed to seeking a
zoning change to commercial classification. The last thing is that there is a
reality that all of us may face, and that reality, irrespective of history,
the reality is that there is no reasonable expectation that single family
housing will be developed upon this property. The applicants simply seek yes
to make some commercial use of property that they own, in a manner that would
allow them to at least receive a return on their investment and justify the
taxes while preserving the underlying zoning. That is the way SD-12 is
written and that is the only request that we make. We point out also that
your adoption of an ordinance on first reading that will grant this SD-12 does
nothing more than begin a process. You must have a second reading. We must
submit to the City plans for conformity to the regulations involved in the
grant of a special exception. The matter must come back to you to grant the
special exception after staff review and your own opportunity to review the
plans. We renew our offer and our commitment to work with the various civic
organizations so that there is something that they can appreciate about what
we are trying to accomplish, and we simply ask you to begin the process by
adopting on first reading the ordinance that has been prepared that would
allow the development of... allow the zoning classification of SD-12 upon this
property. Thank you very much.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioners, what's your pleasure? Any questions? You want
to introduce anything else by way of evidence, recommendations, observations,
etcetera into the record? The genesis of all of these special districts
typically was the Planning Department, wasn't it? I mean it wasn't applicants
coming in and asking for a particular overlay district, was it?
114 February 18, 1992
Mr. Olmedillo: That was an evolution of the old transitional use, Mr. Mayor,
which was...
Mayor Suarez: Oh, we tried to kill it and then it came back in a new form...
Commissioner Plummer: We kill the transitional.
Mr. Olmedilio: As we were instructed.
Mayor Suarez: Right. Right. That's right. I forgot about that.
Vice Mayor Alonso: I will move for denial.
Mayor Suarez: Moved.
Commissioner Plummer: The denial of the application? Second.
Mayor Suarez: Second. Any discussion? If not, please call the roll.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me just state for the record.
Mayor Suarez: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: You know,...
Commissioner De Yurre: You guys are too quick.
Commissioner Plummer: ... I would like to believe that this plan... If I
lived across the street, I think it would be a good plan, because it is not
going to change. Where we deny it tonight, it's still going to be used as a
parking lot, the dust is still going to be there where you could have had a
landscaped, paved, lit and drainage that you're not going to be able to have.
And it's still going to be a parking lot. You're still going to have, I
guess, an illegal flea market where you could have controlled it. But the
people who live there don't want it. Coconut Grove... The one thing that
Coconut Grove cries out for is parking. There's just no parking and I just,
you know, I'm strictly voting on the premise of the neighbors who live there
don't want it, and that's why I seconded the motion.
Vice Mayor Alonso: And also they were told the last time they came, that no
further changes were going to take place, and that was a promise made by this
Commission and, regardless whether we were here or not, that promise was made,
and I think we should honor that.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Commissioner De
Yurre.
Commissioner De Yurre: Yes. Now, is it true that presently that property is
being used as a parking lot?
Mr. Rodriguez: At present, my understanding - I was checking with Mr.
Genuardi, I asked him whether they have any permits to operate over there, and
he told me that he wasn't sure whether they have any permit, but that they
might have a permit for a farmers' market from way back. But I couldn't give
115 February 18, 1992
# 4)
you an answer specifically. If there was a permit for a farmers' market, that
might imply some parking. But I'm not sure about that.
Mayor Suarez: We're getting indication from the back of the room that if it's
being used as a parking lot, it is being used illegally. We have no doubt of
that particular issue. I mean, if it's not zoned for a parking lot, and it's
used that way, it would be illegal. He's saying that as a factual matter, is
It in fact being used...
Commissioner De Yurre: No...
Commissioner Plummer: Well, how can you get a permit on a single-family
residence? How can you get a permit to operate a flea market on single-
family?
Mr. Olmedillo: When I mentioned that, I was mentioning the property that is
facing Grand Avenue, not the property in the back. But I definitely will
follow up on that and if there is an illegal use, we will cite the violators.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, you've also got it across the street, now.
Mr. Olmedillo: Well, we'll cite...
Commissioner Plummer: OK. Behind the theater. You've got the same problem
existing over there as you do over on this side, and there's no question that
this, as proposed, would harm and be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mayor Suarez: Counselor, did you want to add something? We kind of let in a
long-distance comment.
Commissioner De Yurre: Well, George do you know for a fact whether they use
that property as parking.
Mr. Knox: Commissioner, I can tell you that the owners do not operate the
property as a parking lot. I can tell you also that people park on it and
people receive compensation and those are not necessarily the owners.
Commissioner Plummer: One of the biggest fights I saw on that corner were two
guys arguing who didn't have the right to do what to whom. Neither one of
them...
Mayor Suarez: Whoever charges over there, legally or illegal, could you make
sure that the City gets a percentage of it so that we can reduce your taxes?
Commissioner Plummer: No, no, no. They were arguing who was going to have
the illegal right to do with that property and the Police Department ran them
both off.
Mayor Suarez: All right. We have a motion and a second. Any further
j discussion? If not, please call the roll.
116 February 18, 1992
The following motion was introduced by Vice Mayor Alonso, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 92-146
A MOTION TO DENY AGENDA ITEM PZ-12 (PROPOSED FIRST
READING ORDINANCE SEEKING TO AMEND ORDINANCE 11000
[ZONING ATLAS] TO CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION AT
3200-98 FLORIDA AVENUE FROM R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN
SD-12 SPECIAL BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT).
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
22. (Continued Discussion) GRANT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM 11000, ARTICLE 4,
SECTION 401 (SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS) TO ALLOW A COMMUNITY -
BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITY (CBRF) FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE AND
ALCOHOL ABUSE / HOMELESS FACILITY AT 800 N.W. 28 STREET, SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS (Owner: City of Miami & Better Way, Inc.) (See label 16).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: PZ-13.
Mr. Rodriguez: Mr. Mayor, if you want to go back to PZ-9, I think we have now
language on that.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, absolutely. We can solve that.
Commissioner Plummer: Which one was PZ-9?
Mr. Rodriguez: Better Way.
Commissioner Plummer: Oh, OK.
Vice Mayor Alonso: It's coming back to us the way we wanted it to be?
Mayor Suarez: OK. What was the concern? I don't even remember the concern
anymore.
117 February 18, 1992
Mr. Rodriguez: The concern is whether we have properly before you the permit
that allows that you to do what they were asking us to do and we have language
over here that, besides all the language that you have in the recommendation,
when the action by the Zoning Board that if you are inclined to approve this
as you were so before, you will proceed subject to appropriate parties
obtaining all necessary licenses and regulatory permits and leases and other
legal requirements as may be required.
Mayor Suarez: And other legal requirements as may be required. That's what
we call in...
Mr. Rodriguez: The problem that we have is a...
Mayor Suarez: ... diction a tautology.
Mr. Rodriguez: I know, it's not perfect, but I...
Commissioner Plummer: OK. So...
Mr. Rodriguez: What they're telling me to go... The issue is that we have a
lot of other agencies involved besides the City.
Mayor Suarez: Yes. We thought frankly that anything that we determine is
always subject to following the law and all the licenses being obtained,
particularly something where we're supporting this agency, so I'm sure that
we're adding anything. But if anybody was concerned, I think that wording
probably solves it.
Vice Mayor Alonso: So we can move for approval now?
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes.
Vice Mayor Alonso: I so move.
Commissioner Plummer: Just for the record...
Mayor Suarez: So moved. He...
Commissioner Plummer: I second it but for the...
Mayor Suarez: Thank you.
Commissioner Plummer: For the record, that is only addressing the thirty-nine
occupancy.
Mr. Rodriguez: That's only addressing...
Commissioner Plummer: Correct.
Mr. Rodriguez: ... the application with thirty-nine before you.
Commissioner Plummer: And at best is on a revocable permit.
118 February 18, 1992
Mr. Rodriguez: Well,...
Commissioner Plummer: No. Well, no.
Mr. Rodriguez: It's based on the latest action that you took which is for a
revocable permit...
Commissioner Plummer: That is the only action.
Mr. Rodriguez: Right.
Mayor Suarez: At this particular time, it's a revocable permit.
Commissioner Plummer: Right.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yeah. The...
Commissioner Plummer: Thirty days.
Vice Mayor Alonso: The problem that we have with Better Way is that by saying
that we give revocable permits, what we are saying is they cannot get the
money for the grant because they will not qualify.
Commissioner Plummer: That's not before us.
Vice Mayor Alonso: So, it's something that we will have to take again. Let's
move and take a vote of this and then we...
Mr. Rodriguez: What I was trying to do today with the language that I have is
to have language...
Mayor Suarez: Let's vote on it and...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Let's vote on this and then we get...
Mayor Suarez: ... then we get clarification because I think we're all
concerned...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes. Yes.
Mayor Suarez: ... about what the impact may be of certain, probably
erroneous, press reports, etcetera, etcetera.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes, we were blamed as usual.
Mayor Suarez: Yes. If something...
Commissioner De Yurre: Now...
Mayor Suarez: Mixed in with something totally unrelated having to do with the
County...
Vice Mayor Alonso: We were the bad guys.
119 February 18, 1992
6 to
Mayor Suarez: ... and failure to act on something.
Commissioner De Yurre: Let me ask something from the Legal Department. Isn't
there some case law to the effect that even though it's a revocable permit, if
they go out and they spent significant amounts of money, they have an inherent
right or acquire a so-called inherent right to keep that property and they
just can't be ousted on a thirty -day notice?
Ms. Maer: I'm not sure of that case law; however, one would always look to
the terms of the specific revocable permit.
Mayor Suarez: We've done that with revocable permits a few times including
Southwest Social Services and a few, but the question still has validity. I
mean...
Commissioner De Yurre: Let me ask you something. Is there anyone that has
any awareness of what I'm talking about?
Commissioner Plummer: I can understand what you're saying...
Mr. Jones: Commissioner, there...
Commissioner Plummer: ... but I don't know case law.
Mr. Jones: Commissioner, there is a body of case law that would suggest that
once the permittee makes substantial improvements or whatever, then it loses
its character as a permit and takes on the characteristics of a leasehold,
which, as you know, would change significantly the type of legal rights or
ramifications that may result in comparing a permittee as opposed to a lessee.
Commissioner De Yurre: What legally can be done to prevent that, if anything?
Commissioner Plummer: That's a good question.
Commissioner De Yurre: Based on that case law.
Mayor Suarez: Can we build any caveats, disclaimers, whatever?
Mr. Jones: Certainly. I think we've done in the past, you can certainly
build a clause in. I think very recently there was another group here and
this Commission direct... There was a similar situation, the Commission
directed that a clause be inserted into the permit basically stating
something, or with language to the effect, that they would be taking the
property with the understanding that, notwithstanding any improvements, or
substantial improvements that the City could revoke it at its will.
Commissioner De Yurre: Is that based on that case law or is that just your...
Mr. Jones: Well, it's not based on that case law, but certainly if there are
two contracts...
Commissioner De Yurre: Well, was... In any of those cases was there any other
similar language to what you're suggesting that still was not applicable?
120 February 18, 1992
a
WE
Mr. Jones: The case law that I'm aware of does not address it specifically as
you state it, but certainly it would be legally permissible for the City and
this other entity as a party...
Ms. Maer: (INAUDIBLE COMMENT OFF THE MIKE)
Mr. Jones: It's already in there. So apparently this is what I'm referring
to, I think when they were here. The language was already included in the...
This is the proposed lease? The proposed lease has that tang... The proposed
revocable permit has that language in there that you speak of, that
disclaimer.
Commissioner De Yurre: So, it's well understood that they can spend a million
dollars there and we can still in thirty days, take that property back and
they're accepting that with that understanding?
Mr. Jones: That's correct.
Commissioner Plummer: Isn't this a special exception?
Mr. Jones: Yes.
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: Can't we apply any regulations that we want?
Mr. Jones: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: Can we not apply a regulation that says that it's an
annual renewable permit? Or, annual renewal special exception? Sure we can.
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Plummer: Sure we can.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Please. Yes, we can but we don't want to, do we?
Mr. Jones: But then if you do that, you still...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Remember the kind of service that they are providing for
our community.
Mayor Suarez: Yeah, we can automatically invoke that right without having to
build that in as an automatic thing that comes back every time...
Mr. Jones: Commissioner.
Mr. Rodriguez: Commissioner.
Mr. Jones: Commissioner. If you do that then, of course, you're right back
to square one with the same problem they have in going... in their attempt to
get the grant.
121 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Plummer: Wait a minute.
that issue this evening.
Wait a minute. We are not speaking to
Mayor Suarez: Just a special use exception. But the more...
Commissioner Plummer: We're only speaking to item 9.
Mayor Suarez: The more you delve into the...
Commissioner Plummer: What they may or may not do for any other lease will
come up at a different time. Not this evening. It's not here. It's not on
the agenda.
Vice Mayor Alonso: But I don't... I'm not sure how we're going to work it out
if we say that this is coming every year, how are we going to change the other
hand and...
Commissioner Plummer: I just said that was what you could do.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Oh. OK.
Commissioner Plummer: That's all.
Vice Mayor Alonso: But we don't want to, do we?
Commissioner Plummer: Would you believe six months?
Mayor Suarez: All right, anything further? Do we have a motion and a second?
I believe we do.
Vice Mayor Alonso: I moved for approval.
Commissioner Plummer: I second.
Mayor Suarez: If not, please call the roll.
122 February 18, 1992
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Mayor Alonso, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-147
A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING
BOARD TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM ORDINANCE NO.
11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF
DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO ALLOW A COMMUNITY BASED
RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE AND
ALCOHOL ABUSE/HOMELESS FACILITY FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 600 NORTHWEST 28TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA
(MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THE APPROPRIATE PARTIES
OBTAINING ALL NECESSARY LICENSES AND REGULATORY
PERMITS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CERTIFICATION OF
BETTER WAY BY FLORIDA HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE
SERVICES ("HRS") AS A SUBSTANCE ABUSE REHABILITATION
PROVIDER; (2) A LONG-TERM LEASE WITH THE CITY OF
MIAMI; (3) LIMITED TO 39 ADULT MALES AND STAFF; AND
(4) SUBMITTAL OF A LANDSCAPE AND SITE PLAN WITHIN 120
DAYS TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING, BUILDING AND
ZONING DEPARTMENT; WITH ALL EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS TO
BE MADE IN THE SUBSEQUENT TWELVE MONTHS FOR THE
FOLLOWING: (A) REPAIR AND PAINT FOR PICNIC SHELTERS,
SIGN AND BUS SHELTER IN COURTYARD, REMOVE STORAGE SHED
IN SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COURTYARD, (B) REMOVE DUMPSTER
IN NORTHEAST CORNER OR BUILD CBS SCREEN WALL FOR
DUMPSTER LOCATION, (C) REMOVE FURNITURE SHED IN EAST
BASKETBALL COURT, (D) REARRANGE AND RESTRIPE FOR
TWELVE VEHICLES IN SOUTHEAST PARKING LOT, DADE COUNTY
LOT DOES NOT ACCOMODATE ARRANGEMENT AS SHOWN, AND (E)
RESOD SITE, ZONED G/I GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL ;
SAID SPECIAL EXCEPTION HAVING A TIME LIMITATION OF
TWELVE MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE
OBTAINED.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
123 February 18, 1992
23. (Continued Discussion) DENY APPEAL AND AFFIRM ZONING BOARD'S DECISION TO
GRANT VARIANCE TO ALLOW 9189' REAR SETBACK FOR EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH REPLATTING EXISTING SITE INTO TWO LOTS,
WITH PROVISOS (Owner: Lang Baumgarten; Appellant: John G. Fletcher,
Esq.) (See label 18).
Mayor Suarez: Do we have smiling faces and counselors, etcetera reflecting
some sort of an agreement on a prior item that we tabled?
Vice Mayor Alonso: Didn't I tell you? An agreement.
Jeffrey Bercow, Esq.: We saw the light.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Good.
Mayor Suarez: Everyone saw the light. What is the...
Vice Mayor Alonso: You see?
Mayor Suarez: ... proposal from the...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes, I knew it.
Mayor Suarez: ... sole objector and/or the applicant?
John Fletcher, Esq.: If you will pass a resolution granting the variance with
a condition - if I could read that to you, if you'd be kind enough?
Mayor Suarez: Yes, please. Put it into the record.
Mr. Fletcher: OK. That a condition will be placed in the variance resolution
that two thousand dollars will be paid by the owners of the subject property
to Ned Berndt or his successor in interest on his property prior to the
issuance of a building permit on the new lot for the purpose of installing
landscaping on Ned Berndt's property adjacent to the subject property.
Vice Mayor Alonso: I so move.
Mayor Suarez: So moved. I can't believe it. At least...
Miriam Maer, Esq.: And can I...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Didn't I tell you an agreement?
Ms. Maer: We need to clarify where the variance is located.
Mr. Olmedillo: Can we clarify?- because I think it wasn't clear before, the
item that you mentioned, Mr. Mayor, that the variance applies only, if
approved,...
124 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: To the existing structure.
Mr. Olmedillo: ... to the land where the existing structure is located and
any new building will have to comply with existing regulations.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Well, yes. Of course.
Mr. Fletcher: That's right. Yes.
Mayor Suarez: OK. So moved...
Mr. Olmedillo: OK.
Commissioner Plummer: I'm sorry.
Mayor Suarez: ... with those clarifications.
Commissioner Plummer: Would you repeat that, please?
Mr. Olmedillo: That, if approved, this variance will refer only to the land
where the existing house is located, and any new building in the proposed
second lot will have to comply with existing requirements. The variance only
applies to where the building is located. If you have a second lot, you will
have...
Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me.
Mr. Olmedillo: ... to comply with requirements.
Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me. I don't think you can legally do that.
Mr. Olmedillo: You can condition it.
Commissioner Plummer: Not to a residence. It's all one lot, today.
Mr. Olmedillo: Well, in case that a new lot is built in the future,...
Vice Mayor Alonso: That's it.
Mr. Olmedillo: ... then you would have to comply on the second lot with the
existing requirements of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Wonderful.
Mayor Suarez: Yeah, the variance is granted only as to the existing
structure.
Mr. Fletcher: Yes, the existing structure.
Mr. Olmedillo: Right.
Commissioner Plummer: No, on the existing parcel.
Mayor Suarez: As to the existing structure.
125 February 18, 1992
Ms. Maer: It has to be the...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Structure. Yes.
Mayor Suarez: We're specifying that it's only as to the existing structure.
Ms. Maer: Otherwise the new house would have to come back to get...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Exactly.
Ms. Maer: ... an amendment to that variance.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yeah.
Mr. Olmedillo: We don't want that.
Ms. Maer: And you're not looking forward to doing that.
Vice Mayor Alonso: We don't want to see them again.
Mr. Bercow: The variance applies to the encroachment of the existing building
into the twenty -foot setback area only. Only.
Commissioner Plummer: And this gentleman who has agreed to this... Sir, for
the record, you are... No, up on here. On the microphone, where you're on the
record.
Mr. Fletcher: Ned. Mr. Berndt, yes.
Commissioner Plummer: You realize that when you put that landscaping there,
that they can go up as high as thirty...
Mr. Fletcher: Twenty-five.
Commissioner Plummer: No, no, no. Thirty feet.
Mr. Rodriguez: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the first part.
Commissioner Plummer: High.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Two story.
Mr. Rodriguez: Twenty-five.
Commissioner Plummer: What about the parapet?
Vice Mayor Alonso: Whatever the regulations.
Mr. Olmedillo: The parapet is five feet above that level.
Commissioner Plummer: Thirty feet. You understand, sir, so don't...
Mr. Ned Berndt: Yes, I do, sir.
126 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Plummer: I don't want you to come back later and say, hey.
Mr. Berndt: No, sir. I've taken enough of your time.
Commissioner Plummer: OK.
Mr. Fletcher: Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Does that mean second?
Commissioner Plummer: Fine.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you. Any discussion? If not, please read the ordinance.
Is there an ordinance? No.
_ Ms. Maer: This is a resolution.
Ms. Hirai: It's a resolution, Mr. Mayor.
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Mayor Alonso, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-148
A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING
BOARD AND GRANTING THE VARIANCE FROM SECTION 1903.1 OF
ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401,
SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO ALLOW A 9.89'
REAR SETBACK (20' REQUIREDS) FOR THE EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 2891 COACOOCHEE STREET,
MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN)
(THE "TRACT") IN CONJUNCTION WITH AND AS A CONDITION
TO REPLATTING THE TRACT INTO TWO LOTS, SUBJECT TO
REMOVING ALL ENCROACHMENTS TO MEET THE REQUIRED 5'
SIDE SETBACK AND SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE
SUM OF $2,000 BE PROFFERED BY APPLICANT TO NED BERNDT,
THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, TO BE USED FOR
- LANDSCAPING ON NED BERNDT'S PROPERTY, PRIOR TO THE
ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE TRACT, AND
FURTHER, CLARIFYING THAT THE VARIANCE IS LIMITED TO
THE LAND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE, REFERRED TO AS LOT 1 OF TENTATIVE
PLAT NO. 1415 KNOWN AS "THE BANYAN", AND DOES NOT
EXTEND TO THE REMAINDER OF THE TRACT; ZONED R-1 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; SAID VARIANCE HAVING A TIME
LIMITATION OF TWELVE MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT
MUST BE OBTAINED.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
127 February 18, 1992
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. _s
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
24. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND 11000 TEXT -- (a) ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401
(SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS) TO ADD, CLARIFY, AMEND AND DELETE
CERTAIN USES AND REQUIREMENTS; (b) ARTICLE 9: TO PERMIT BARBED WIRE
FENCES -- TO ADD REQUIREMENTS / LIMITATIONS FOR WATERFRONT YARD AREAS --
TO ADD HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR BROADCASTING TOWERS -- TO PROHIBIT
VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES THROUGH RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES,
etc. (Applicant: Planning, Building & Zoning Dept.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: PZ-13.
Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-13 and 14 are related items. These are amendments to the
zoning ordinance as we promised to you will only come back to you every six
months with cleanup amendments, general...
Mayor Suarez: Is there anyone here that wishes to be heard on items PZ-13 or
14? Raise your hand or step forward, Ms. Lewis. Is that it? Do you support
them?
Ms. Lewis: We support them.
INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Vice Mayor Alonso: OK. So...
Commissioner Plummer: In other words, you're...
Mayor Suarez: OK. On behalf of the association or just yourself?
Commissioner Plummer: You're going to allow barbed wire fences now?
Mayor Suarez: Are you saying...
Mr. Olmedillo: By special permit we had a special request from residents of
areas in the northeast where they have a security problem, people breaking
into the parking...
128 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Plummer: Sure doesn't speak highly of our City, does it? Barbed
- wire fences.
Mr. Olmedillo: By special...
Commissioner Plummer: What is the highest on broadcasting towers?
Mr. Olmedillo: Right now it's a hundred and twenty feet; however, typically
the broadcast towers are a hundred and fifty, and it's kind of silly to come
back with a variance...
Commissioner Plummer: What is this going to allow?
Mr. Olmedillo: Up to a hundred and fifty.
Commissioner Plummer: One five zero.
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. Now explain to me the non -rooftop signs that are
rooftop signs called balloons.
Mayor Suarez: The old balloons...
Commissioner Plummer: Yes.
Vice Mayor Alonso: But we have limitations on those.
Mayor Suarez: ... that you let go with the little advertisement.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, but, you know, we have a thing here...
Mayor Suarez: Not exactly the kind of problem that people are beating down
our doors about. But then maybe they're going to you instead of the rest of
US.
Commissioner Plummer: What is the rooftop signs that are not rooftop signs?
Are they temporary?
Mr. Olmedillo: Right, and they are permitted...
Commissioner Plummer: And what is temporary? How many days?
Mr. Olmedillo: They are permitted in conjunction with the event. It's not
defined over here as to how...
Commissioner Plummer: And if there is one that's been up now for over six
months, that would be legal or illegal?
Mr. Olmedillo: That's not legal. It has to be tied to a special event and
has to receive a Class 1 Special Permit.
Commissioner Plummer: Uh-huh. And how long... In other words, can they put
it up before the event? And how many days prior to? And how many days
thereafter?
129 February 18, 1992
zz
1
Mr. Olmedillo: There are no written rules because the Zoning Administrator...
Commissioner Plummer: Well, then why are you putting in here without some
kind of a specification? _-
Mr. Olmedillo: To provide that the Zoning Administrator has the ability...
Commissioner Plummer: You have one downtown that's been there for over a
year. Nobody's done anything about it.
Mr. Olmedillo: There is another provision that the special event can only be
up to two weeks. So...
Commissioner Plummer: In advance?
Mr. Olmedillo: No, no. Two weeks total.
Commissioner Plummer: Two weeks total.
Mr. Olmedillo: Right.
Commissioner Plummer: So the maximum that anybody can have a rooftop sign in
this City is for two weeks.
Mr. Olmedillo: Well not rooftop. Balloon sign.
Commissioner Plummer: It is a rooftop sign. Don't kid yourself. Call it
what it i s.
Mr. Olmedillo: It's a floating sign.
Commissioner Plummer: It's a what?
Mr. Olmedillo: Floating. It floats in the air.
Commissioner Plummer: And you're full of hot air, also.
Mayor Suarez: One of the two of you is full of hot air.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, let me tell you. I sat here in the days when the
plea of this community was no more rooftop signs. OK? And yet now we turn
around and we allow these balloons up on top of buildings as a rooftop sign.
Mayor Suarez: Well we can...
Mr. Rodriguez: Can deny it.
Commissioner Plummer: I don't understand.
Mayor Suarez: ... amend this can we not, if that becomes a problem?
Mr. Olmedillo: If that is a problem, you may exclude it from this
particular...
130 February 18, 1992
Mayor Suarez: Can we excise it...
Commissioner Plummer: I'd like to exclude that and go a little bit further.
Mayor Suarez: Right now... -
Commissioner Plummer: Because at this particular time, they're not allowed.
Is that correct?
Mr. Rodriguez: Right.
Mr. Olmedillo: Right.
Commissioner Plummer: They're not allowed at all?
Mr. Olmedillo: They're not allowed at all.
Commissioner Plummer: But they do exist everywhere. That's because there's
no code enforcement.
Mr. Olmedillo: We were trying to put certain limitations on it.
Mayor Suarez: They exist everywhere. Maybe you dreamt all of this.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, you've seen the balloons everywhere, as I have,
too.
Mayor Suarez: Yeah, I've seen them from to time. They're usually related to
specific events, but...
Vice Mayor Alonso: I think the intent was to limit the usage.
Commissioner Plummer: That might have been the intent, but that's not the way
in reality.
Mr. Olmedillo: If you are opposed to this, then you can say balloon signs are
not permitted. Period.
Vice Mayor Alonso: By his action today, if we pull this section, actually we
are allowing it to remain without any restrictions.
Commissioner Plummer: No, there is no permission today at all for them to
exist.
Vice Mayor Alonso: My friend, you know it exists because we have... Have you
seen it?
Commissioner Plummer: Because we have no code enforcement.
Vice Mayor Alonso: You do. Then the answer, yes it is in existence.
Commissioner Plummer: Am I right? Is there any permission today where these
can exist?
131 February 18, 1992
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yeah, but we function on the basis...
Commissioner Plummer: Hello.
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... do we have anything that denies the existence of this
and...
Mayor Suarez: Under Constitutional principles, the balloons are not
specifically permitted, they are prohibited.
Commissioner Plummer: That's correct.
Mayor Suarez: I'm just kidding about it. I have no idea. I don't care.
Just you all decide how you want to go on this balloons issue which don't seem
to be a burning problem in the City.
Vice Mayor Alonso: No one talks to me about balloons, so...
Mr. Olmedillo: They have been permitted to exist under a Class 1 Permit as a
special event. If you believe that these shouldn't be allowed, it should be
made clear that balloon signs are not allowed.
Commissioner Plummer: This is first reading. Let's talk about between now
and second.
Mayor Suarez: There we go. Thank you.
Vice Mayor Alonso: That's good.
Mayor Suarez: Please satisfy the Commission between first and second reading
and then maybe we'll get a recommendation from him since... Can we have a
motion on the item then?
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes, we do. Moved.
Mayor Suarez: Moved. Seconded?
Commissioner Plummer: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you. Any discussion? If not, please read the ordinance.
132 February 18, 1992
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLEO-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF ORDINANCE NO. 110009
AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 4, ZONING DISTRICTS,
SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ADD,
CLARIFY, OR DELETE CERTAIN USES IN SEVERAL DISTRICTS,
TO AMEND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS AND
MINIMUM LOT SIZES FOR THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, AND
PARKING REGULATIONS FOR LODGINGS; ARTICLE 9, SECTION
906.9 TO CORRECT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR; SECTION 908.81
TO ALLOW BARBED WIRE ALONG TOPS OF FENCES WITH A CLASS
II SPECIAL PERMIT; SECTION 908.9 TO ADD WIDTH
REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS FOR WATERFRONT YARD
AREAS; SECTION 915.3 TO ADD HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR
BROADCASTING TOWERS; SECTION 917.1 TO PROHIBIT
VEHICULAR ACCESS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES THROUGH
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES; SECTION 925.3.9 TO ADD
PROVISION FOR BALLOON SIGNS ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIAL
EVENTS; ARTICLE 13, SECTIONS 1301.2, 1304.2 AND 1305
TO CLARIFY VAGUE LANGUAGE; ARTICLE 17, SECTION 1701 TO
CLARIFY CRITERIA FOR A PHASED MAJOR USE SPECIAL
PERMIT; SECTION 1702.3 TO CLARIFY VAGUE LANGUAGE;
ARTICLE 25, SECTION 2502 TO ADD DEFINITIONS FOR AUTO
CARE SERVICE CENTERS, BANQUET BALLS, PHASED PROJECTS,
AND VETERINARY CLINICS; AND TO CLARIFY DEFINITIONS FOR
ANIMAL CLINICS, LOTS, AND YARDS, OTHER YARDS ADJACENT
TO STREETS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION,
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Was introduced by Vice Mayor Alonso and seconded by Commissioner Plummer
and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
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.
133 February 18, 1992
ir
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
25. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND 11000 TEXT, ARTICLE 6 -- SD-1 MARTIN
LUTHER KING BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; SD-5 BRICKELL AVENUE AREA
OFFICE -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; SD-6 AND SD-6.1 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; SD-7 CENTRAL BRICKELL RAPID TRANSIT COMMERCIAL =-
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; SD-13 S.W. 27 AVENUE GATEWAY DISTRICT; SD-14,
14.1, 14.2 LATIN QUARTER COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
j DISTRICTS; SD-16, 16.1, 16.2 SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN / PARK WEST COMMERCIAL -
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; SD-18 MINIMUM LOT SIZE DISTRICT, etc. -- AFFIRM i
AMENDMENT TO HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION ATLAS (Applicant:
Planning, Building & Zoning Dept.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: I'll entertain a motion on PZ-14, which is a companion item.
Mr. Olmedillo: Just for the record, Mr. Mayor, we sent notices on these
specific items to above sixty neighborhood organizations throughout the City
so that they would be aware that these were before you.
Mayor Suarez: Very good. PZ-14, then.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Move it.
Mayor Suarez: Moved.
Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I want to ask a question. Mr. Rodriguez, on
the first page, note. The Planning Advisory Board public notice include a
proposal to add night clubs and permitted principal uses in SD-2. The
Planning Department then withdrew it. Why?
Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: At the hearing before the Planning Advisory Board, we
were made aware by the residents that came to the hearing, that they were very
concerned that this will be allowed in the Coconut Grove area without public
hearing, and they were concerned about the noise that they might create. They
will be allowed as a matter of right. At that point, the Planning Advisory
Board was not supporting the whole ordinance based on this issue, and we felt
that we were not taking into consideration an issue that otherwise was
important to the neighborhood. What we did is left things the way they are
now, which is allowing these activities as part of the special exception, and
require a hearing as compared to just a permitted use as we were changing.
Commissioner Plummer: Are you telling me you have changed your feelings on
the matter?
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, we have. How can you pull...
Commissioner Plummer: So rather than a permitted use, it would have to be a
special exception?
Mr. Rodriguez: Right. It's difficult to argue again a request from the
community that they want to have a hearing, because they want to see the
effect that it will have through the noise in their neighborhood. So, in this
134 February 18, 1992
case, it will be on a case -by -case basis. And the other issue is that because
they are located in an SO-2 district, these people will be required to go to a
Class 2 Permit anyhow, which might be subject to a possible hearing. So we
felt that either way there will be the possibility of a hearing involved.
Commissioner Plummer: This, as I understand it, would only pertain to Coconut
Grove?
Mr. Rodriguez: Right. It was together with an amendment that was going to be
allowing it in Brickell. The situation in Brickell is somewhat different
because we have in the Brickell area support for this kind of activity. In
Coconut Grove, we have concern by the residents of the area that there will be
more noise into the area, and they won't have a chance to express their
opinions through a hearing. So I think that they have a good point.
Commissioner Plummer: How did the present ones get their permit?
Mr. Rodriguez: They had to go through a special exception. In the ordinance
as we have it now, to get a supper club - this is for activities which are
allowed to stay until five o'clock in the morning...
Commissioner Plummer: Five o'clock license.
Mr. Rodriguez: For those you have to go through a special exception.
Commissioner Plummer: Are you telling me that in the Cocowalk - what is it,
the Babaloo?
Mr. Rodriguez: Baha.
Commissioner Plummer: Baha?
Mr. Rodriguez: Babaloo. That's a different thing.
Commissioner Plummer: I'm sorry. I don't ever recall them going before a
special exception.
Mr. Rodriguez: I believe in that particular case, they were part of the major
use permit
Commissioner Plummer: So they can circumvent...
Mr. Rodriguez: They were covered... I think... I believe in that particular
case, they were covered. My understanding in that particular case, because I
heard a covenant on that, that they have the permit in hand. But I'm not sure
about that. I couldn't tell you. I could check on that if you want to.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, they're sure operating that way, aren't they?
Mr. Rodriguez: I don't believe they're operating that way. They haven't
exercised that option. I haven't been there, but they tell me that they close
at... they don't close at five o'clock.
Commissioner Plummer: Six thirty.
135 February 18, 1992
emr.z.ri.rre.rarns®iae�..a.s :.a...a� -
Mr. Rodriguez: Oh, you have been there.
Mayor Suarez: Anything else? We have a motion and a second.
Commissioner Plummer: This is first reading?
Mr. Oimedillo: Yes, sir.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: Ms. Lewis, did you mean to put on the record that any —
particular association supported these? - without getting into testimony, in
which case I would have to put you under oath, and I don't think we want to do
that.
Ms. Lynn Lewis: My name is Lynn Lewis and my address is 1101 Brickell Avenue. -
I'm here on behalf of the Brickell Area Association which is a neighborhood
association that commends the Planning Department for working with us to draft
the sections relative to SD-5 and SD-7, which we would like to see put into
the ordinance. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: He's getting expressive. I like that. I like that. He's
always been well dressed and always has a smile on his face, even when he gets
all kinds of grief from us or the public, but...
Mr. Rodriguez: How can you become expressive when you get a compliment from a
person like Lynn Lewis?
Vice Mayor Alonso: But now he expresses his feelings.
Mayor Suarez: Ms. Lewis, magnificent technician that she is, has given you a
compliment. All right. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? If not, please
call the roll. Read the ordinance, I'm sorry. Getting a little slower. Call
the roll.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Wait a minute, no. We don't have a quorum.
Mr. Rodriguez: I think he is here.
Commissioner Plummer: I vote yes.
Mayor Suarez: There you go.
136 February 18, 1992
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000,
AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
_
_
FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, ZONING DISTRICTS,
SECTION 601, SD-1 MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD
' COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, TO ADD REFERENCES TO C-1; SECTION
605, SD-5 BRICKELL AVENUE AREA OFFICE -RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT, SUBSECTION 605.1., TO CLARIFY THE INTENT
STATEMENT, SUBSECTION 605.3., TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE,
SUBSECTION 605.4., TO ADD AND CLARIFY PERMITTED AND
CONDITIONAL PRINCIPAL USES AND REQUIREMENTS,
SUBSECTION 605.5., ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES, TO
CLARIFY LANGUAGE, SUBSECTION 605.89 TO DELETE
REFERENCES TO URBAN PLAZAS AND CLARIFY LANGUAGE;
SECTION 6069 SD-6 AND SD-6.1 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SUBSECTION 606.1, INTENT TO
CLARIFY LANGUAGE, SUBSECTION 606.7., FLOOR AREA
LIMITATIONS, TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE, SUBSECTION 606.8.,__
TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE REGARDING OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS;
SECTION 607, SD-7 CENTRAL BRICKELL RAPID TRANSIT
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SUBSECTION 607.01.
==
_ INTENT, TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE, SUBSECTION 607.3, TO
- CLARIFY LANGUAGE, SUBSECTION 607.4., TO ADD, CLARIFY
- AND DELETE USES SPECIFIC USES, SUBSECTION 607.8.3., TO
- DELETE REFERENCES TO URBAN PLAZAS AND CLARIFY SPECIAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR THEATERS; SECTION 613, SD-13 S.W.
27TH AVENUE GATEWAY DISTRICT, NEW SUBSECTION 613.5.9
- TO ADD PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL ACCESSORY USES AS FOR
= R-1; SECTION 614, SD-13 S.W. 27TH AVENUE GATEWAY
DISTRICT, NEW SUBSECTION 613.5., TO ADD PERMITTED AND
CONDITIONAL ACCESSORY USES AS FOR R-1; SECTION 614,
SD-14, 14.1, 14.2: LATIN QUARTER COMMERCIAL -
RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SUBSECTION
614.3.2., TO DELETE VAGUE LANGUAGE AND SUBSECTION
614.3.8., TO ADD PROVISIONS FOR GROUND OR FREE
STANDING GAS STATION SIGNS; SECTION 616, SD-16, 16.1,
16.2; SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN-PARK WEST COMMERCIAL -
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, TO ADD CHILD AND ADULT DAYCARE
CENTERS; AND SECTION 618, SD-18: MINIMUM LOT SIZE
DISTRICT, TO CLARIFY NAME AND OVERLAY STATUS OF
DISTRICT.
Was introduced by Vice Mayor Alonso and seconded by Commissioner Plummer
and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
137 February 18, 1992
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.
----------------------------------------------
26. DENY APPEAL AND AFFIRM DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PRESERVATION BOARD -- APPROVE DESIGNATION OF THE BAYSIDE HISTORIC
DISTRICT, AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE REAR LOT LINES BETWEEN N.E. 72 STREET
AND N.E. 72 TERRACE ON THE NORTH, BISCAYNE BAY AND N.E. 7 COURT ON THE
EAST; N.E. 69 STREET EAST OF N.E. 7 COURT (EXTENDED) AND THE REAR LOT
LINES BETWEEN N.E. 67 STREET AND N.E. 68 STREET WEST OF N.E. 7 COURT ON
THE SOUTH, AND THE REAR LOT LINES OF PROPERTIES FRONTING ON BISCAYNE
BOULEVARD ON THE WEST, AS A HISTORIC DISTRICT. (Applicant: Planning,
Building and Zoning Dept.; Appellant: Estate of Mary Elizabeth Whitney
Tippett and Cloyce Tippett.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: Item PZ-16. Appeal of historic designation. Who is here on
item PZ-16? Would you raise your hand, if you're here on that. Lot of people
here on that. OK.
Commissioner Plummer: You're all in favor of it, right?
Mayor Suarez: Can we swear in Mrs. Dougherty, her clients and anyone who
wishes to be actually heard - if there's a group that's represented by
someone, maybe just the someone who is representing the group - and, if not -
hopefully there is! As much as we'd like to hear from each and every one of
you, and anyone else who is not part of the group, but who otherwise wants to
make a separate statement, would you stand up and be sworn in. Thank you.
Anyone who expects to actually have to speak and testify. Thank you.
AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO.
10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES.
Mayor Suarez: The appeal is filed by yourself, counselor?
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, sir.
Mayor Suarez: You may proceed, then.
Commissioner Plummer: Excuse me, would somebody show us on the map exactly
where? - there's no coloring on the map. Is it the whole area? - my God - as
a historic designation.
Mrs. Dougherty: Commissioner Plummer, the entire area is being appealed.
However, we have the affected property where that pen is.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. That's what I really wanted to know. The people
that are objecting to the appeal...
138 February 18, 1992
Mrs. Dougherty: Own those two lots where the pen is - the two lots - that one
and the one underneath it.
Commissioner Plummer: And they go to the water.
Mrs. Dougherty: They go to the water, and those are the two lots that we
would like to have excluded from the district, but because of the nature of
this kind of appeal, we have to appeal the entire designation for the whole
district.
Commissioner Plummer: And are there others here that are opposed to this?
Mrs. Dougherty: I don't know.
Commissioner Plummer: You're opposed to it, sir? Opposed to the historic
designation. Where do you live, sir? He's opposed, well, he raised his hand.
OK. All right. Thank you.
Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. Lucia Dougherty. I'm
here on behalf of the appellants, who is the estate of Elizabeth Whitney
Tippett and Cloyce Tippett, represented also by Jack Watson, the executor of
that estate, and it's the owners of the property at 7101 N.E. 10 Avenue, which
is the northeast portion of the entire district. The existing structure - we
think that R-2 lots ought to be excluded from this district. There is an
existing structure on one of the lots, and this structure is an unsafe
structure. It's a dilapidated structure and I'd like at this time - Lance
Atkins, who's an engineer who has done a survey of the structure, to come now
and testify as to the conditions of the structure. I have also passed out,
for your information, a copy of his report, and it's also in the record. I
might add, while he's setting up, that he has estimated the cost of
rehabilitating this structure to be $277,000, but before you get to the point
where you can actually rehabilitate the structure, you have to spend a hundred
thousand dollars to study the structure to see whether or not it can be
rehabilitated.
Commissioner Plummer: Let me ask a question, because I don't think we've had
one where it's been an entire district before. We have? Let me speak
individually. As a historic district, is this the same as if it were an
individual piece of property that at best you slow them down for six months?
Mrs. Dougherty: That's correct.
Commissioner Plummer: And after six months, they can do what they want?
Mrs. Dougherty: Correct.
Commissioner Plummer: OK. Thank you.
Mr. Lance Atkins: Hello, I'm Lance Atkins. I'm a licensed structural
engineer in the state of Florida. I was first registered in 1974. I was
asked to have our firm examine the subject residence at 7101 Tenth Avenue.
I'll make this short. We examined the residence. We found that the residence
has undergone several renovations as far as the structure. The first picture
is the front elevation of the house. The north end of this house - this house
139 February 18, 1992
1
-' has gone under approximately a six to eight inch settlement in the area
between the front door and the end of the house. This has been - they've
already tried to renovate it, or fix it up at one time. The second picture is
one of the worst cracks in the house. This is at the foundation line. It
represents something in the order of another three to four inch settlement.
This is a typical crack that's found inside the house above a header frame.
It reflects approximately an inch and a half worth of movement at the floor =
line. This is a picture in the crawl space underneath the house. As you can
_ see, the reinforcing for the floor system is hanging down. Part of the
concrete is already on the ground. The tiles, that were a pantile system, a
type of structural system, has already fallen to the ground. This house is
structurally unsafe at the present time. There is, in the floor, if you walk
around on the floor, there are variations within a room of two to three inches
on this elevated concrete deck. In order to repair the house, basically,
someone has to pin the house at approximately the second floor - in other
words, support the whole house at the second floor, take out the whole first
floor, the foundation, the first floor walls and rebuild everything underneath
of it back up. The problem with doing that is it's going to take a lot of
engineering work. I don't mind extra engineering work, but it would involve a
lot of engineering work and the results would be very questionable. The big
_ problem is, is when you go to pin a house that's this old, you have a hazard E
that the house could fall down, even if you attempted to do it. It's a very
fragile house. It is one that has to undergo major repairs or, as in our
recommendation, be torn down.
Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Atkins, do you have an opinion as to whether or not you
could even hire an engineer, or a contractor to actually undertake this kind
of renovation, or do you think it's too unsafe?
Mr. Atkins: You could hire a contractor. There would be a provision in his
clause, of course, that he's not going to be responsible if the thing comes
down. It's going to be basically out of his control, so you could spend a lot
of money doing design work and the best of numbers, and crunching numbers, but
the results are very questionable, on whether you could actually get a
contractor would be doubtful, I think.
Vice Mayor Alonso: You have to appeal the entire district?
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, but you have the power to take these two lots out of the
district and leave the district in tact, which is what we would be asking you
to do.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, I guess the question we want to know - are the
people that are here this evening objecting to taking these two lots out?
A chorus of unidentified speakers: Yes!
Commissioner Plummer: I guess that was pretty definite!
Mayor Suarez: Guess that answers that.
Vice Mayor Alonso: I suppose that they are opposed because they fear that the
zoning could be changed and they might end up with condominiums, or something
like that. If we could work it out in a way that they can have just a new
structure, a single home...
140 February 18, 1992
Mrs. Dougherty: The zoning already permits...
Vice Mayor Alonso: These people object? Maybe some of them, as they come,
they can let us know so that we can make a judgment on it.
Mrs. Dougherty: I can tell you that my client believes that the highest and
best use for this property is a single family house. They believe that it is
unreasonable for you all to assume that this structure will remain. It is a
delapidated condition. What you will have is a chilling effect on anybody
buying this structure. We believe that the best use is to take down the
existing structure and put up a single family home on both lots that exist
now, as opposed to having two separate structures on the two lots. Therefore,
we have no intent whatsoever in applying for, or seeking a rezoning to a
highrise condominium, or anything else. That is not part of our purpose. We
intend to try and sell this, frankly, as a single family residential structure
In both lots together. That's what our intent is. That's what the intent of
the executor, Jack Watson, for this estate is.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Do you know the assessment value of this property?
Mrs. Dougherty: I don't know it.
Commissioner De Yurre: Let me ask you something. As far as what would be
built there, could there be any type of constraint as to the architectural
design, that it would blend in with what the historical ambiance is of the
area, as opposed to building something ultramodern that would certainly take
away from what that district is supposed to do?
Mrs. Dougherty: I don't think that the client who would want to purchase this
property would so much be concerned about the design criteria being put on
them for the new structure, but what they're concerned about is being delayed,
or not even knowing how long it would take them to take down the structure, or
whether it could be.
Commissioner De Yurre: But here you are, you know, and I have a feeling - I
have a sense here - that you're on the short end of the stick at this point in
time.
Mrs. Dougherty: I have that feeling, too.
Commissioner De Yurre: So, what I'm trying to do is deal with the concern of
the majority and I think it makes good sense that if we get some commitment -
a covenant, or whatever we can get - to say it will blend in with what is
there, then maybe something could be looked into.
Mrs. Dougherty: How about if we make the covenant that we take the design and
have it approved by the staff - the Historic Preservation staff, which in this
case, would be Sarah Eaton.
Commissioner Plummer: You mean any new structure?
Mrs. Dougherty: Any new structure.
141 February 18, 1992
Aft
Commissioner De Yurre: Well that thing has to be, obviously... Is anybody
living there, now?
Mrs. Dougherty: I don't know.
Commissioner De Yurre: So how can people be...?
Mrs. Dougherty: I believe they have a watchman living there. Somebody who
lives there for free, basically to watch the premises.
Commissioner De Yurre: Because the way that you have presented this here, I
can't believe that there would be anybody living in there, under those
conditions.
Vice Mayor Alonso: They'd better move out.
Mrs. Dougherty: I want to tell you, I agree with you.
Commissioner De Yurre: In fact, I don't see how the Unsafe Structures Board
hasn't moved in and ordered the thing to be torn down.
Mayor Suarez: Sounds like it meets the criteria of the Unsafe Structures
Board for demolition.
Commissioner Plummer: Sounds like Code Enforcement has dropped the ball
again.
Commissioner De Yurre: That's right. I think we need to get Code
Enforcement - Mr. Rodriguez - Code Enforcement out there immediately to look
into this situation because we don't want to be in a position where they can
come back to us and say, well, you guys are responsible because you never
looked into this, you're not doing your job. So now that we are on notice,...
Commissioner Plummer: One more lien.
Commissioner De Yurre: ...I think we need to get out there immediately, like
sometime tomorrow morning, to look into this property to see what the real
deal is. As you were saying?
Commissioner Plummer: After one year, Code Enforcement will impose a lien,
which will be added to the twenty-two million that they already have.
Mayor Suarez: Thirty-two.
Commissioner Plummer: Thirty-two million, now? Ah...
Mayor Suarez: Ladies and gentlemen, he's about to go into a very long
dissertation on the inefficiencies of our Code Enforcement Board.
Commissioner Plummer: It speaks for itself.
Mayor Suarez: We don't necessarily agree with all of that. In fact we think
it's doing pretty good work, although, it takes a while sometimes to collect
and to get people to comply, and we've even added hearing dates, enforcement
142 February 18, 1992
officers, and many, many other things. He would like to make the fines about
a million dollars a day for anyone who is in violation, which wouldn't do any
good because we can't collect against them. I'm exaggerating. Sorry about
that.
Commissioner Plummer: As usual.
Mayor Suarez: It was my way of preempting whatever you were about to go into.
Commissioner Plummer: As usual.
Mayor Suarez: Who else do we hear?
Commissioner De Yurre: Well, let's get into this concept of...
Mrs. Dougherty: I have an entire presentation dealing with the legalities,
which I will forgo if you want to pursue this...
Commissioner De Yurre: I'm looking into this as a possible alternative. What
would be the position that you would be in as far as reviewing the plans?
Would you be able to, say, approve something that would blend in with what is
the character in the area?
Ms. Sarah Eaton: The intent of the historic preservation ordinance is exactly
that. As you're aware, we cannot prevent the building from being demolished,
but the Historic Preservation Board would review any new construction to make
sure that it is compatible with the district. The Board is not looking for a
replica of a historic building. Just so the scale, the materials and design
are compatible with the district.
Commissioner De Yurre: So, are you saying, Lucia, that you want to know this
thing down?
Mrs. Dougherty: That's my understanding.
Commissioner De Yurre: OK. And obviously from what we've seen, I think that
the right situation would be for it to be knocked down. My concern is what is
going to be put up there in its place.
Ms. Eaton: That is the reason why the historic district should include this
particular property.
Commissioner De Yurre: OK. Now, the problem is that if it's included, then
if they want to knock it down they have to wait a six-month period.
Ms. Eaton: At the maximum, six months. If they present...
Commissioner De Yurre: Who controls the time factor?
Ms. Eaton: The Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. If this
argument is made to the Board and, it is demonstrated that the building is
structurally unsound, the Board could say: demolish it tomorrow.
143 February 18, 1992
Commissioner De Yurre: Do we have any say on that right now, that we can
waive that time period and get it knocked down as soon as possible? - if that
1s what they're looking for.
Ms. Eaton: I don't believe so.
Commissioner Plummer: Let me ask this question, Victor. If, in fact, it
comes down, whether by the Board or by the six months, and it's their desire
to tear it down, what they put back there, as long as it complies with zoning,
the R-1, you have no control over, correct?
Ms. Eaton: The Board does have the right to review the design of the
building, insofar as to make sure it's compatible with the character of the
historic district.
Commissioner Plummer: They have the right to review, but they don't have the
right to enforce.
Ms. Eaton: Yes, but the owner has the right of appeal, also, to the City
Commission, if they don't agree with the Board's decision.
Commissioner Plummer: I don't ever recall that happening.
Ms. Eaton: We've never had a problem with the review of new construction in
the past.
Commissioner De Yurre: Can we put enough strings to that property that
basically it has all the requirements to meet as far as the district is
concerned, except for that time factor for knocking the property down? Mr.
City Attorney? Sorry to wake you up. What I'm looking for is to find a way
that we don't have that restriction, or that situation of waiting up to six
months, or having to go before the Board to get an approval to knock down the
property, since I think pretty much everybody's in accord that, that property
cannot stand the way it is.
Joel Maxwell, Esq.: Right now, that's a Code provision. That is a provision
of your ordinance, and in order to change that, of course, you would have to
amend the ordinance itself.
Commissioner De Yurre: What I'm saying is, can we apply everything else that
the ordinance requires to that property as a covenant? And it would serve the
same purpose without the time factor - the six-month period.
Mr. Maxwell: No. Your Code specifically grants the City the authority to
hold up construction, or reconstruction on that property for a period of six
months. The only way to waive that - what is tantamount to a statutory
provision - would be to amend your Code itself to allow for that.
Mrs. Dougherty: What he's suggesting....
Commissioner De Yurre: You're not following me. What I'm saying is, take
every requirement of the ordinance...
Mrs. Dougherty: No, what he's suggesting...
144 February 18, 1992
As
Commissioner De Yurre: ... apply it as a covenant to this property, except
the six-month waiting period. _-
Mrs. Dougherty: What he's suggesting is, taking it out of the district —_
entirely and just...
Mr. Maxwell: You're saying exempt these two lots from the district...
Mrs. Dougherty: And have us impose a covenant.
Mr. Maxwell: If the property owners would agree to that, certainly
voluntarily, they could do it.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Let me see.
Mr. Maxwell: The property owners would have to agree to a covenant.
Vice Mayor Alonso: You will have to demolish this property right now.
Mrs. Dougherty: That's right.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Because as you present it to us, it's a very unsafe
structure.
Mrs. Dougherty: Not unless you go to the Unsafe Structures Board and they
take it there.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Can we allow them to demolish the property right now? -
and then the district goes into effect and all the regulations will be in
place, so we will be able to do both. You will have your way, that you will
be able to demolish now, and at the same time they have their district, and
you will have to follow according to what is the nature of the area.
Mrs. Dougherty: It's already designated...
Vice Mayor Alonso: So we will have the perfect world.
Mrs. Dougherty: The property is already designated. Right this very minute.
It is already designated. It's in a historic district. Because you've
amended your ordinance, now, to give that power to the Historic Preservation
Board. This is an appeal of that decision, notwithstanding the fact that it's
already in existence.
Vice Mayor Alonso: It must be some way. How can we do it that they can
demolish the property? They have to demolish this property, let's face it,
this property, according to what we have seen is falling apart. When I stand
in front of the property, it looks to me pretty good.
Mayor Suarez: From the outside it looks pretty good.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Not as unsafe as you have presented to me. If I had the
money, I would buy it because I love the house. But anyway...
145 February 18, 1992
_ Mayor Suarez: Without reaching that conclusion, because we're going to hear =_
from your side, and I gather you're going to try to tell us that the property
does not have to be demolished, but before we get to that, and to try to =
answer the Commissioner's concern, what's happening here is that we have been =
told that the basic thrust of this designation is that anyone who wants to
demolish it must wait six months, in which time the preservationists...
Commissioner Plummer: Up to six months.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Up to six months.
Mayor Suarez: Up to, all right. In which time the preservationists have time
to gather their resources, restore the property, purchase it from the owner,
etc. That's the philosophy we have been told. Now it appears that in this
particular case, we're not sure that is really the scenario that will take
place. We think that what you would like - many of you, maybe all of you -
would like is to make sure that whatever is built there is itself subject to
the historic designation criteria. If that were the only concern, then what
the Commissioners are talking about, might make sense to explore. If, in
fact, you want to simply obstruct their ability to demolish, etc., then we're
going to hear from you in any event, but we were trying to explore this
because it's been presented to us in a particular way, and now it seems like
there's more to this historic designation than we had been led to believe.
Ms. Eaton: Mr. Mayor, if I may? The last demolition request that came before
the Board was granted with no delay whatsoever. I think you may all remember
the old Anderson Hotel.
Mayor Suarez: Well, right, but I don't know that they want to pursue that.
If they have an estate, they might want to have an automatic permit to
demolish, if that makes sense, and I'm not sure that there's any way for us to
fashion that particular remedy, nor am I sure that it's the ideal thing to do
right now. Maybe we ought to just hear from both sides.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Also, if the City of Miami gives an order that this
property has to be demolished...
Mayor Suarez: That's another way to go about it.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Then the property will have an unsafe...
Mayor Suarez: We have to refer it to the Unsafe Structures Board and if does
fit the criteria, it seems like they would order it. Some of you might argue
at that point, to the Unsafe Structures Board, that it does not fit that
criteria, and that their analysis is erroneous.
Commissioner Plummer: The six months would run quicker than you go through
that process over there.
Vice Mayor Alonso: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: It seems like...
146 February 18, 1992
Commissioner Plummer: That's ridiculous! The Unsafe Structures Board takes
forever.
Mayor Suarez: I don't know which particular avenue they would pursue. All _
right, anything further?
Mrs. Dougherty: I have the rest of my presentation, if they're not agreeable
to this particular methodology.
Mayor Suarez: It doesn't sound like there's unanimity, so we would be back to
having to hear the ones who are not in favor, and we probably would have to
hear the whole case, in any event. We may as well hear it.
Commissioner Plummer: Let me ask one more question. Is it the feeling of the
neighbors that you want the building to stay?
Unidentified Speaker: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: You do want it to stay.
Unidentified Speaker: Yes.
Commissioner Plummer: And you disagree with the photographs that we've seen?
Mr. Miguel Seco: For every expert that they can produce...
Commissioner Plummer: Well, sir, for the record, you've got to put your name
and address on the record.
Mr. Seco: I'm sorry. My name is Miguel Seco. I am the president of the
Bayside Residents' Association, and I live at 700 N.E. 72nd Street. And for
every expert that they bring to you, saying that the house is unsafe and must
be demolished, I can bring you an expert that will tell you the house can be
repaired and can stand for ever and ever.
Commissioner Plummer: OK, but you realize - I hope you realize - that
whatever action this board takes tonight - for or against - that in six months
they have the right to tear it down.
Mr. Seco: That is correct.
Commissioner Plummer: So what are you accomplishing by putting a stumbling
block tonight? That's the question.
Mr. Seco: They have to play by the same rules that everyone else has to.
Vice Mayor Alonso: No, but excuse me. I'm with you all the way, you know
that. But I don't find that this is a very strong point, by saying that they
have to abide by the same rule. We have a structure here that has been
presented as an unsafe structure. Let's say that they have gone to the
extreme and it might be a happy middle. Actually, the house has a lot of work
to be done. They're not going willing to do it. I'm sure they will not be
willing to fix the place.
147 February 18, 1992
i -
Mr. Seco: But...
Vice Mayor Alonso: They want to demolish and to rebuild.
Mr. Seco: But...
Vice Mayor Alonso: What you have to do is to be certain that what you get
there, it's a property that 1s similar to your neighborhood, the kind of a
structure that will be acceptable to you. That I find reasonable.
Mr. Seco: But, maybe someone would like to buy that house and restore it.
And they have had people - a family - with children living in that house for
the last five years, and up until now, while they have been collecting rent,
it hasn't been a problem. So why is it a problem, now? And whether or not
the house is structurally unsound is not a point in their appeal which they
presented to you in December. This is something new they have brought. That
was not one of the items in the appeal.
Vice Mayor Alonso: OK, but you understand that in six months maximum they
will be able to do exactly what you don't want them to do.
Mr. Seco: That is what they're entitled to do by law.
Vice Mayor Alonso: If you don't find, perhaps, a buyer to go and sell off...
Mr. Seco: But, why...
Vice Mayor Alonso: ... with the property...
Mr. Seco: But why should we assume a priori, firsthand, that a historic
structure that means so much to the history of Miami must come down just
because somebody says so?
Vice Mayor Alonso: But it will, if they want, in six months.
Mr. Seco: If it were to happen. But since the property is for sale between
now and six months, they might find somebody who is willing to buy the
property and restore it as a single family home.
Vice Mayor Alonso: The idea is you want to give every chance to the property
to be purchased.
Mr. Seco: Absolutely. So why should we give up a piece of our history just
because an expert says so?
Mayor Suarez: Let's complete the presentation and then we'll hear from this
side, so we dont...
Commissioner Plummer: When was this house built?
Unidentified Speaker: 1926.
Commissioner Plummer: Nineteen when?
.1
148 February 18, 1992
Unidentified Speaker: Twenty-six.
Mayor Suarez: Counselor.
Mrs. Dougherty: Both under the certificate of appropriateness section, as
well as the demolition section, there is a provision that says neither one of
them can be denied, if there is undue economic hardship. Why do we have to go
through the procedure of having to apply to the Board, being denied, having to
wait six months, perhaps appealing that, appealing the six-month provision?
During that six-month period of time, by the way, if the Board should decide
that there has been some sum proffered to us which is reasonable, they can
then take away that six-month denial, and keep us there in limbo forever. Why
do we have to go through that, since we have already proven to you that we
have an undue economic hardship that meets the criteria of that ordinance? No
one is going to purchase this property in this condition, not knowing what
they can do with the property. No one is going to buy this property, even to
renovate it, knowing that they have to spend $100,000 before they even know if
they can renovate it. It's just impossible. What's going to happen is that
you're going to have this piece of property continuing to be delapidated, and
eventually it will just crumble down. There is nothing wrong with excluding
this property. The integrity of the district can still remains if you exclude
our two lots. I have to make several legal arguments for the record. One of
them is that the designation violates Chapter 166 because it is a land use
regulation which was passed without the formalities of the zoning ordinance.
You may recall the County required you - they threatened you by a lawsuit, and
they required you to amend your zoning ordinance taking out this historic
preservation designation portion of it and putting it into your City Code.
Well, I believe when you all did that, you then created a land use designation
in your City Code, and therefore, when people have their properties actually
designated as a historic site or a district, they do so illegally because it's
not passed by the same methodology as the zoning ordinance. Now, in support
of that, I would just like to read the end of the case, which I've given to
your City Clerk, called: The City of Sanibel versus Buntrock. This is a case
where the Second District Court of Appeals overturned a City code provision
affecting a moratorium on a piece of property. They cite grazing of cattle as
another land use restriction, and they cite the height of buildings as a land
use restriction, but the last paragraph says: "If an ordinance substantially
affects land use, it must be enacted under the procedures which govern zoning
and rezoning to entirely prohibit a person from building upon his property,
even temporarily, is a substantial restriction upon land use. Consequently,
it is not too much to ask that the municipality follow the same procedures
with respect to notice and hearing before it puts on such a moratorium into
effect. Likewise, if you designate a piece of property, it's a land use
restriction because you can actually impose a six-month moratorium on a piece
of property, merely by having a designation created by the Historic
Preservation Board. I would also like to read to you a portion of the
Philadelphia case in which they struck down the City of Philadelphia historic
preservation ordinance, and they did so, and this case has been appealed to
the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court failed to take jurisdiction. It
says: "Prior to the historic designation of the Boyd Theater, the owner could,
without governmental control, alter, revise, or remodel the premises in any
lawful way, just as a neighboring properties could, and can be altered,
revised or remodeled. Now, however, that the Commission has designated the
Boyd Theater as historic, the law requires that the property be maintained in
149 February 18, 1992
its present state at the owner's expense unless the Commission grants
permission for a change. Likewise, in this particular case, we have a
situation where the law is a substantial restriction on land use already,
right now, and therefore the City of Sanibel case is applicable and,
therefore, it is an illegal designation of this piece of property. I would
like to also - and I have submitted this into the record, the Attorney
General's opinion that went to Robert Ginsberg in connection with an illegal
delegation of legislative authority, and you may recall reading in the paper
where the Attorney General told the County Attorney that there couldn't be
localized zoning boards for their particular districts or neighborhoods, and
that was an illegal designation of legislative authority and, likewise, I
believe that your designation, or your permitting the Historic Preservation
Board to actually create a designation, is an illegal designation of...
delegation, excuse me, of legislative authority. That Attorney General's
Opinion, I've also given to your Clerk for the record. Thirdly, this district
does not meet the criteria for the designation of properties. If you'll look
at, in your historic preservation zoning ordinance, or excuse me, preservation
ordinance, it says properties may be designated for historic districts only if
they have significance in the historic cultural acreological, aesthetic or
archaeological heritage of the City, State or nation, possesses integrity of
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association and meets one
of the following criteria. Well these criteria are things such as,
association with a significant way in the life of a person important in the
past, or the site of a historic event, exemplify the historic cultural
political, economic trends of the community, etcetera. I want you to know
that vacant pieces of property such as we have, do not meet any of these
criteria. And I believe that over fifty percent of the so-called properties in
this district, which are so-called conforming properties, they are historic
properties, are not historic. And I'd like Charles Sieger, who is an
architect who specializes in historic properties, to come and tell you his
results of his survey.
Mr. Charles Sieger: For the record, my name is Charles Sieger, practicing
architect in the Dade County area for a little over twenty years now.
Unidentified Speaker (OFF MIKE): Can the audience also see the
Mr. Sieger: It's quite small and we'll turn it around.
Mayor Suarez: If you could just kind of put it at a little bit of an angle.
Anyone that wants to get up and see it may do so, but we can also go around
and see it ourselves, so you know, if you... That's fine. One Commissioner
will kind of have to get up and...
Mr. Sieger: My background in historic preservation goes back in college with
my professor, Blaire Reeves, who was one of the major protagonists of founding
the Nantucket Preservation Board, which was one of the really first major
districts in the country. He subsequently has worked in the North Florida
area for the last twenty-five years, and I was a participant with him during
that period of time. I was retained - our firm was retained - to take a look
at just what the contributing structures that were formulated in the district
by the report, whether or not they were really contributing, and they claim
that - the report claims - that there are a hundred and twenty-two
150 February 18, 1992
4
contributing structures of two hundred and thirty-three total structures on
the property which do not include thirty-eight additional empty lots. There
are truly historic properties in this district. There are some really
wonderful houses that should definitely be preserved. Make no mistake about
that. However, the study revealed some interesting things. Primarily that at
a line which cuts just about where this cul-de-sac is through here that there
are approximately nineteen houses which are, in the report, were considered
contributing of which items seven through thirteen are some of those houses
that they have called contributing in the report and the ones that I've
photographed, I felt were really stretching it. There are certain items in
each of the particular houses that are cute, but they're not contributing in
i the context of those houses which are certainly historic. And I think that
{ the report went a long way in increasing the boundaries to reach the Bay, and
that the majority of the truly historic structures are in the portion that is
directly off Biscayne Boulevard. They're wonderful houses. They vary in all
kinds of nature. They're not strictly art deco. There are some deco.
There's some original pioneer type. There's a whole series of architectural
expressions that are all historically true houses in this district, but these
out here are really marginal, and I feel that there was, for some reason, an
effort, probably because of the encroachment of the Palm Bay Towers and those
high-rises and the fear of further encroachment along the Bay and
repercussions that might have zoning there was an immense effort to stretch
that district out to the boundaries of the Bay. In addition, the character of
the house that we're trying to exempt in itself is of historic value.
However, the character as it relates to the scale of the neighborhood, which
is what this is - a historic district neighborhood - this is totally
incongruous. There is about six lots, or maybe even more, contained within
the two lots that is the subject property, the scale of this neighborhood are
small lots and small houses, very nice, very wonderfully kept with very close
streets that are very intimate and very nice, until you get to this house and
one other, and which it's a very large house with an adjacent lot that is
approximately six other house lots combined. Just the empty lot itself. And
I don't think that this house, although in itself is historic, is really
compatible with the scale and the nature of the district at all. In addition,
the hundred and twenty two... Federal guidelines say that more than fifty
percent of the houses should be contributing. They barely met the fifty
percent, and if you discount the ones that I disagree with, it falls down in
the forty percent category. And so the district boundaries, if they were
actually shrunk, would increase the percentage in the seventy percent category
where they truly really are, in this area here. And if you look at some of
the photographs you can see that... I mean there's nothing historic about that
house, on the exterior and there's very little, if anything, on this one, nor
is there any on this one. And these are the houses in the report that were
stated to be of historic contributing quality, and they may have been very
minorily, but like I said, they made a great effort to stretch that to the Bay
for their concerns over zoning. And I don't know how you resolve it, and I'm
not being hired to do that, except to say to you that this area is
predominantly not a historic district. And I can show it on the larger, for
the sake of the audience, if you'd like.
Mayor Suarez: You're not going to try to propose a particular percentage of
houses that would have to have historic quality in the architecture or
construction for the whole neighborhood to be validly a historic district, are
you? I mean, there's no magical percentage, is there?
151 February 18, 1992
Mrs. Dougherty: The State has a guideline. They'd like to see over fifty
-; percent in historic districts.
Mayor Suarez: All right. Anything further, counselor?
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, I'd just like to cite two other cases. I have given
them to your City Clerk for the record. It's the United Artists Theater
versus the City of Philadelphia, which I read a bit of it to you before, but
for J. L. Plumner's sake, I'd like to read just the beginning of this case for
you. This was a case in which the court held, and remember the Supreme Court
has not taken jurisdiction of this case, so therefore this is the law in the
state of Pennsylvania. And it says that the city code's provision authorizing
historic designation of private property without the consent of the owners
were unfair, unjust and amounted to unconstitutional taking without
compensation. And also, the City of Orlando's historic preservation ordinance
was also declared unconstitutional in a case exactly such as this in which
they were denied a demolition permit for an unsafe structure, and the court
said under the privacy provision of the Florida Constitution that this
constitutes a review that strict scrutiny is a standard for review and,
therefore, struck their ordinance as not being in compliance with those
standards. I only have the final comments and that is from a public policy
standpoint. Why would you want to exclude these two lots? And what I say to
you is that if you don't, the only thing that could possibly happen is that no
one's going to buy this property. This property will become more dilapidated
as time goes by. People won't want to buy the lot next door to it, either,
because they're going to have a dilapidated house next door to them. And the
only reasonable solution is really to take down the structure and sell the two
lots as a package, and I thank you very much for your attention.
Ms. Eaton: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: Proceed.
Ms. Eaton: Members of the Commission. The Administration recommends that the
decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board be upheld and
the appeal be denied because it is totally without merit. The Bayside
Historic District clearly meets the criteria for designation as set forth in
the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The designation report, which is part of
the record, documents the District's significance and clearly shows that way
over fifty percent of the properties are contributing structures.
Mayor Suarez: Are?
Ms. Eaton: Are contributing structures.
Mayor Suarez: Contributing structures.
Ms. Eaton: They contribute to the historic significance of the District.
That's how it got its name.
Mayor Suarez: In our sense, all of them are contributing structures. They
all have to be pay taxes, but I think I know how you mean it. All right.
152 February 18, 1992
Ms. Eaton: I'd just like to read to you the definition of historic district
in the ordinance. That is a geographically defined area possessing =-
significant concentrations of structures united historically by plan or
physical development. This entire neighborhood is united by plan and physical =
development. This particular house was constructed by Samuel Prescott of
Washington. This was his winter home, and he subdivided the remainder of the
northern portion of the historic district. That was his plan, his idea, and
if there is any distinction or difference between the size of his house and
the others, it's because that was what he planned back in the 19201s. The
Prescott house is a focal point of the district, and it's probably the most
significant property in Bayside. The condition of the house has no relevance
on whether the property should be included within the district. As we've
discussed before, the owners would have the right to tear it down within six
months if the Board would in fact impose that much of a delay. The vacant lot
adjacent to the Prescott house is an integral part of the estate. Redrawing
the district boundaries to exclude this property would be completely arbitrary
and would violate accepted historic guidelines by excluding a major
contributing property from its planned environment.
Mayor Suarez: All right.
Mr. Seco: Do I have to state my name again?
Mayor Suarez: Yeah, you might as well for the transcript to be clear.
Mr. Seco: Miguel Seco, 700 N.E. 72nd Street. We are not here to discuss the
constitutionality of historic districts. We are here...
Mayor Suarez: Thank you. God bless you for that.
Mr. Seco: And, you know, they can mention however many cases they want.
We're here to preserve our neighborhood which has met with the overwhelming
support of primary homeowners. The house is by far one of the most historic
homes in the neighborhood. As Ms. Eaton pointed out, it was built by Samuel
Prescott, who built houses in what are now the Kalarama and Dupont Circle
Historic Districts in the nation's capitol. The architect has overlooked to
photograph other very important homes in the neighborhood. He seems to have
concentrated on one-story houses and some of the styles he doesn't know are
Mediterranean revival, art deco and streamline modern. And some of the people
that have lived in the neighborhood include the Hainlins after which Hainlin
Mills Road and Judge Pat Cannon whom some of you might still remember who
lived also in our neighborhood. We feel the appeal makes absolutely no sense
and it's totally unfounded. The district should remain as it has been
approved, and it should retain the borders that have been approved, because it
is a cohesive and intact neighborhood that we have tried and maintained and
fought for the last nine years, from Biscayne Boulevard to Biscayne Bay, and
that's how we pay taxes, and that's how we want it kept. And at this point, I
would like all those people who are here in favor of our district to please
stand up and acknowledge their support.
Mayor Suarez: That's what you were doing here all
ribbons. You may have all kinds of presentations,
hand at a motion that's about to made by one of my
a lot of time.
153
this time. With the little
but if you want to try your
colleagues, you might save
February 18, 1992
Vice Mayor Alonso: Ready.
Commissioner De Yurre: Mr. Mayor, I would move at this point in time to -_
uphold the HEP Board's decision.
Mayor Suarez: So moved. Do we have a second on that motion?
Commissioner Plummer: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Second. Any discussion from the Commission? Anything we
should add in the record? Madam Planner, historic preservationist.
Ms. Eaton: No.
Mayor Suarez: I guess you made some pretty strong statements already, didn't
you?
Ms. Eaton: I think so.
Mr. Rodriguez: I think it's covered.
Mayor Suarez: All right. Call the roll. Thank you. Go home.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner De Yurre, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-149
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE
DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PRESERVATION BOARD, APPROVING THE DESIGNATION OF THE
BAYSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT, AN AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED
BY THE REAR LOT LINES BETWEEN NORTHEAST 72ND STREET
AND NORTHEAST 72ND TERRACE ON THE NORTH, BISCAYNE BAY
AND NORTHEAST 7TH COURT ON THE EAST, NORTHEAST 69TH
STREET EAST OF NORTHEAST 7TH COURT (EXTENDED) AND THE
REAR LOT LINES BETWEEN NORTHEAST 67TH STREET AND
NORTHEAST 68TH STREET WEST OF NORTHEAST 7TH COURT ON
THE SOUTH, AND THE REAR LOT LINES OF PROPERTIES
FRONTING ON BISCAYNE BOULEVARD ON THE WEST, AS A
HISTORIC DISTRICT; AND FURTHER AFFIRMING THE AMENDMENT
TO PAGE NUMBERS 8, 9, AND 14 OF THE HISTORIC AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION ATLAS TO REFLECT SAID
HISTORIC DESIGNATION.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote:
154 February 18, 1992
AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
27. AFFIRM ZONING BOARD'S DECISION TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION -- ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF THREE MAUSOLEUM BUILDINGS AT 5301 W. FLAGLER STREET,
etc. (Applicant: Flagler Memorial Park).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: Item 17. PZ-17.
Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: PZ-17, Commissioners, Mr. Mayor, Commisssioner this
is the Flagler Memorial item. You may remember that you instructed the Zoning
staff to meet with the neighbors and the applicant...
Commissioner Plummer: Oh Lord, yes. Yes.
Mayor Suarez: I guess we have a de facto half a minute recess.
Commissioner Plummer: Something to do with firemen.
Mayor Suarez: Now if you let us... OK. Can we have celebrations,
commiserations, discussions outside the Chambers please so we can finish our
item. This has been a bit of a long day. Trying to see if your house is one
of the good ones or one of the bad ones, huh? See if your house is one of the
good ones or one of the bad ones. There you go. Sally and Dr. Jude. One of
the greatest doctors in this community. She's got a mess over there with the
Miami River Inn. She's trying to keep that going. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, everyone. I'm sorry, Madam Attorney, did we skip something here?
Or you want a clarification?
Vice Mayor Alonso: No, she's waiting for the next item.
Mayor Suarez: PZ-17 is yours, too?
Commissioner Plummer: The best item, the last one.
Mayor Suarez: Is anyone here against the application represented by PZ-17?
Lucia Dougherty, Esq.: I don't think we have anyone against it. I have two
neighbors here who are in favor, and I want to put on the record what we have
agreed to do for them. And that is we agreed to have a landscape buffer with
trees both inside and outside of the cemetery, so that you can't see the
mausoleum. Ironwork on top of the existing fence eight feet high. On 53rd
Avenue and 3rd Street install a sidewalk, which I think is already being
installed now. Condition the design of the structure on the rendering that we
155 February 18, 1992
submitted at the last hearing. And then we've also agreed to meet with them
regularly.
Mayor Suarez: Yes. Do you want to put something in the record? We haven't
sworn you in so if there's anything that she has said that is incorrect, we
can swear you in. If not, if you're satisfied then... OK. Let the record
reflect...
Vice Mayor Alonso: Then I will move for approval with the conditions as
stated.
Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much.
Mayor Suarez: So moved. Second. Any discussion? If not, please... Is it a
resolution?
Commissioner Plummer: Let me just put on the record. Mr. City Attorney, in a
related business, I have no conflict of interest?
A. Quinn Jones, Esq.: None whatsoever.
Vice Mayor Alonso: I hope not. Because this lady is like a member of the
family. She's always here. We have to take care of this issue right away.
Commissioner Plummer: I've already got my condo somewhere else, so...
Mayor Suarez: It's not an ordinance, it's a resolution? Call the roll,
please.
156 February 18, 1992
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Mayor Alonso, who moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-150
A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING
BOARD TO GRANT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM ORDINANCE NO.
11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, ZONING DISTRICTS G/I
GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL, ENTITLED "CONDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL USES: ... (9) MAUSOLEUMS, EITHER ALONE OR
IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CEMETERY, ONLY BY SPECIAL
EXCEPTION WITH CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL ...", TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE MAUSOLEUM BUILDINGS, EACH
BEING 21 FEET AND 2 1/2 INCHES IN HEIGHT AND HAVING A
BUILDING AREA OF 3,360 SQUARE FEET TO HOUSE A TOTAL OF
384 SINGLE CRYPTS, AS PER PLANS ON FILE, SUBJECT TO
PROVISION OF: 1) A SIDEWALK ON NORTHWEST 53RD AVENUE
FROM FLAGLER STREET TO 3RD STREET AND A SIDEWALK ON
NORTHWEST 3RD STREET FROM 53RD AVENUE TO 55TH COURT,
2)PROVISION OF SIX (6) REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, 3) A
WROUGHT -IRON FENCE ON TOP OF THE EXISTING WALL TO A
TOTAL HEIGHT OF EIGHT (8) FEET ALONG THE NORTHWEST
53RD AVENUE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE 3RD
STREET PROPERTY LINE, 4) PROVISION OF AN EIGHT (8)
FOOT HIGH LANDSCAPED BUFFER ALONG ALL OF THE NORTHWEST
53RD AVENUE PROPERTY LINE AND THE 3RD STREET PROPERTY
LINE, INCLUDING THE PLANTING OF TREES BOTH INSIDE AND
OUTSIDE OF THE EXISTING WALL, IN ORDER TO BUFFER THE
CEMETERY FROM THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREA FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5301 WEST FLAGLER STREET, MIAMI,
FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); ZONED
G/I GOVERNMENT AND INSTITIUTIONAL, SAID SPECIAL
EXCEPTION HAVING A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE MONTHS IN
WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner De Yurre, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Vice Mayor Miriam Alonso
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
157 February 18, 1992
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY
COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:03 P.M.
ATTEST:
Natty Hirai
CITY CLERK
Walter J. Foeman
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
Xavier L. Suarez
M A Y O R
1
A s
158 February 18, 1992