Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1989-07-31 Minutes4 OF IWIN6 HELD ON JULY 31, 1989 (PLANNING & ZONING) ` r MIX StPUTR$ Or RIGULAR MRSTING CITY COMMIS910M bF MIAMIi FLORIDA JULY 31j 1989 ITIM SUBJECT LEGISLATION PAGE NO. NO. 1. DISCUSS AND TEMPORARILY TABLE PROPOSED DISCUSSION 1-13 RESOLUTION CONCERNING VACATION AND 7/31/89 CLOSURE OF PORTION OF S.W. 30TH AVENUE - south of southerly right-of- way line of S.W. 28th Lane and north of Metrorail right-of-way (Applicant: Public Storage Properties XIX Ltd.) (See label 9). 2. GRANT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO PERMIT R 89-743 13-19 DRIVE-IN FACILITY FOR TERRABANK - in 7/31/89 Madison Circle Office Building (3191 Coral Way) (Applicant Forte Properties, Inc.) 3. GRANT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO PERMIT R 89-744 19-20 DRIVE -THROUGH FACILITY - providing 11 7/31/89 of 20 required off-street stacking — spaces - for Terrabank in Madison Circle Office Building (3191 Coral Way) (Applicant: Forte Properties, Inc.) 4. APPEAL GRANTED: HERITAGE CONSERVATION R 89-745 20-26 BOARD'S APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 7/31/89 CBS WALL UPHELD - (with modifications) at approximately 3918 Main Highway (Applicant: Lavigne Properties, Inc.). 5. BRIEF DISCUSSION CONCERNING SALARIES OF DISCUSSION 27-29 CITY OFFICIALS. 7/31/89 ME i 6.A BRIEF COMMENTS FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISCUSSION 30 CONCERNING BOARD OF COUNTY 7/31/89 COMMISSIONERS' ACTION CONCERNING PROPOSED KEY BISCAYNE AREAWIDE DRI. 6.B DIRECT MANAGER TO DRAFT NEW ZONING M 89-746 31-40 ORDINANCE - making it easier to 7/31/89 understand - Set public hearings. 7. URGE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES TO NAME R 89-747 .40-41 VALERIE HICKEY-PATTON, VICE MAYOR OF 7/31/89 CITY OF WEST MIAMI, AS RECIPIENT OF 1989 FLORIDA MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS OF THE YEAR "E. HARRIS DREW AWARD". $. REFER TO DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REQUEST FROM DIRECTOR OF CAMILLUS HOUSE - for full-time City staff person to assist with their meals program. R 89-748 7/31/89 southerly right -Of -WAY line of S.W. 28 Lance and north of Metrorail right-of- way (Applicant: Public Storage Properties XIX Ltd.) (See label 1) 1�. ALLOCATE $5,000 TO SISTER CITY OF M 89-150 48-49 BUENOS AIRES FOR SEMINAR IN APRIL 1990. 1/31/89 lY. APPEAL DENIED, WITH MODIFICATIONS: R 89-751 49r-17 ' Allow applicant (Nasser Adrisi, Sunny 7/31/89 Electronics, Inc.) to construct an 18- unit apartment building at _ approximately 2100 Brickell Avenue, with certain provisos. 12 FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend Future DISCUSSION 77-88 Land Use Plan Map of 10544 (Miami 7/31/89 Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989- 2000) - Change designation of property at approximately 3490 & 3500 Main Highway (PLAYHOUSE THEATER) from Restricted Commercial and Single -Family Residential to Major Public Facilities; _ Transportation and Utilities = (Applicant: Board of Trustees, Internal Improvement Fund, State of Florida, - Department of Natural Resources). 13. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend zoning ORDINANCE 89 atlas - change zoning classification at FIRST READING _ approximately 3490 and 3500 Main 7/31/89 Highway (PLAYHOUSE THEATER) from SPI-2 and RS-2/2 to GU (Applicant: Board of _ Trustees/Internal Improvement Fund, State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources). 13.1 BRIEF DISCUSSION CONCERNING PURCHASE OF DISCUSSION 90 CAMILLUS HOUSE- direct City Manager to 7/31/89 =_ place issue on the September agenda. (See label 8) 14. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend zoning ORDINANCE 90-106 atlas - change zoning classification at FIRST READING approximately 2400 N.W. 14th Street 7/31/89 from PR to RG-2/6 (Applicant: City of Miami Housing Conservation & Development Agency). 15. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: Amend 9500 - ORDINANCE 106-107 amend Schedule of District Regulations, 10623 Residential -Office District, Principal 7/31/89 Uses and Structures - Permit RO-1 Residential Office Uses in RO-3 Districts - Change terms "drive-in" to "drive -through" (Applicant: Planning r Department). rryyaa t i 910MM READING ORDINANCEt Amend 9500 ORDINANCE Provide that discontinuance of a 10624 Nonconforming Use in part of a 1/31/89 building, after a time certain, will necessitate honing district conformance for future uses - Provide for non- acceptance of Variance applications which alter prior grant of Special Exception - Provide more specific time limits for Planning Director's receipt of Major Use Special Permit referral comments - Provide Major' Use Special Permits be effective for two years with renewal periods (Applicant: Planning Department). li. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: Amend 9500 ORDINANCE ("major Use Special Permits; Intent: 10625 Determinations by City Commission; 7/31/89 Referrals") - Provide Planning Director shall receive/make recommendations on all applications for Major Use Special Permits and Amendments and forward same to Planning Advisory Board, etc.; and defining substantial deviation (Applicant: Planning Department). 18. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: Amend 9500 - ORDINANCE Provide that concurring vote of 5 10626 members of Zoning Board be required to 7/31/89 reverse any decision of an administrative officials or to decide in favor of appellant (Applicant: Planning Department). 19. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: Amend 9500 ORDINANCE (SPI-8 Design Plaza Commercial 10627 Residential District, Section 1587, 7/31/89 Minimum Offstreet Parking) - Provide conditional exception for restaurants under 1800 square feet in floor area (Applicant: Planning Department). 20. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: Amend 9500 - ORDINANCE Limit effective date of Class C Special 10628 Permits to one year, subject to 7/31/89 renewals (Applicant: Planning Department). 21. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend 9500 ORDINANCE ("Community Based Residential FIRST READING Facilities") - Require Special 7/31/89 Exception with City Commission approval, lower census tract cap on client, increase distance separation between facilities establish i t i 109 110 n er or space standards, require Special Exception with City Commission approval for change of ownership, require Commission approval of Special Exception for Community Based Residential Facilities (CBRF), convalescent homes, nursing homes and _ institutions for the aged or infirm and orphanages (Applicant: Planning Department) . F S A` �., 22i MOT READING ORbINANC13s Amend } 6de Settion 62-62 (a) - Provide ft,r V&iver of appeal fear ' ralativa to Claims C Special Permits under certain circuiaatant aa (Applicants Planning Department). 23. DISCUSS AND DEFER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PROPOSED RESOLUTION t -APPROVING, IN PRINCIPLE, DOWNTOWN MIAMI MASTER PLAN (MAY 1989) - for development, redevelopment, improvement, zoning and infrastructure of downtown, including Flagler Core, Omni and — Brickell areas, etc. 24. FIRST READING ORDINANCEs Amend Schedule of District Regulations of 9500 - Change unit density cap, delete stories, General Residential - Add new zoning district classifications "CON. CONSERVATION", for environmentally ORDINANCE FIRST READING 101/89 DISCUSSION 7/31/89 ORDINANCE FIRST READING 7/31/89 123-138 MINUTES OF RECONVENED MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 31st day of July, 1989, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in Special Session as a continuation of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of July 27, 1989. The meeting was called to order at 2:08 p.m. by Mayor Xavier Suarez with the following members of the Commission found to be present: Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Mayor Xavier L. Suarez ALSO PRESENT: Walderman Lee, Assistant City Manager Rafael Suarez Rivas, Assistant City Attorney Matty Hirai, City Clerk ABSENT: Cesar Odio, City Manager Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Walter J. Foeman, Assistant City Clerk An invocation was delivered by Mayor Suarez followed by a pledge of allegiance to the flag. 1. DISCUSS AND TEMPORARILY TABLE PROPOSED RESOLUTION CONCERNING VACATION AND CLOSURE OF PORTION OF S.W. 30TH AVENUE - south of southerly right- of-way line of S.W. 28th Lane and north of Metrorail right-of-way (Applicant: Public Storage Properties XIX Ltd.) (See label 9). Mr. Plummer: ...not necessarily the latest owner. Not the owner of record of today but the owner who, in fact, made that dedication is who the property had to go back to. Now, I'm not asking in this particular case because we've never followed it before, but I think the City better be getting an opinion that if that could be right, that we've been doing some things wrong. So I'm just merely asking that for the record, OK? Do you understand I said? Mayor Suarez: I knew that I' had some concerns of my own but if you want to restate them. Mr. Plummer: No, I'm just asking them to come up in the future with an opinion that if the property is vacated and turned back, not being used... Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. Plummer: ...that it has to go back to that person who dedicated the property. It might have been a hundred years ago so I think that we'd better be aware... Mayor Suarez: I guess that is along the lines of what I was thinking about because I was always wondering if there was any way that we could somehow limit the amount of time by which the easement would be given or the property would be passed over to the developer for - or property owner for use. Is there anyway to put a limit on this in case we someday would want to have a different traffic alignment or any... a a� Mr. Jim Kay: You're talking about maybe a separate legal instrument to that effect. Yes, that could be done. I've discussed this with the Law Department. Mr. Plummer: OK, I'm merely bringing it up. Someone said that, you know, you're doing things wrong down there and I said, what? And then they hit me with this, and so I'm asking for the legal opinion. Rafael Suarez -Rivas, Esq.: Well, the vehicle for what the Mayor spoke of would be something like a reverter clause where, for example, the reasons for the vacation were no longer necessary or apparent, the property would revert to the City. The state statute we will - we're looking into, we're looking in the index now and we'll get back to you after we locate it. Mr. Plummer: There's only one... Mayor Suarez: And I would understand in a situation like that that we would want to compensate sort of like we do when we ask to end waterfront leases for a percentage of the unamortized value of whatever the property owner has built on there in reliance on our giving him the use of that street, but always subject to our control. At this point, I don't think you've indicated, counselor, that you have anything planned for there except parking maybe or... UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'll let Mr. Helfman... Steve Helfman, Esq.: For the record, Steve Helfman with Fine Jacobson. To answer your question, that is our plan for parking in the area and landscaping In the area. But we're getting all sorts of ideas here and different about where it goes and who's entitled to it... Mr. Plummer: No, no, no, I'm asking for the future. I'm not asking in this particular case. Mr. Helfman: OK. I think the law provides that the property owner owns this land and he dedicates it as a public easement for right-of-way for the public to use for so long as they use it. At which time... and when they terminate use, it's abandoned and you request that a vacation occur from the legislative body. This item was deferred from the June 22nd meeting where there were two objectors here. One of... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, counselor, I'm not asking that this be deferred. Mr. Helfman: No, I understand, it was... Mayor Suarez: You may want to save yourself a complete presentation and hear from the objectors and just keep as much of your time for rebuttal, if needed. Mr. Plummer: Do for rebuttal. Mr. Helfman: I'll be happy to do that... Mayor Suarez: Because we all know the history of it pretty well now. Mr. Helfman: I'll be happy to do that. For the record, one of the objectors, Mr. Jackson, has submitted a letter to the Mayor. I have the original here as well as all the Commissioners and very briefly, it says, "...I appreciate the time and consideration given to me. I urge you to grant the applicant's request." Mr. Dawkins: Who owned the land? Mr. Plummer: The City. Mr. Dawkins: Who owned the land now? Mr. Helfman: My clients own the land. Mr. Dawkins: OK, who dedicated the land for... an easement? Mr. Helfman: The property was dedicated by... Mayor Suarez: Prior owner. 2 July 31, 1989 Mr. Helfman: Our predecessors, prior owners, in 1927. Mr. Dawkins: Nineteen twenty-seven? Mr. Helfman: Yes. Mr. Dawkins: All right. And that easement went along with the sale for the dedication for the right-of-way. Mr. Helfman: The dedication of the right-of-way and the ownership to the underlying land goes with the ownership of the land as its conveyed down the line and, yes, it did come to us. Mr. Dawkins: Now, the present owner wants to utilize the vacated land because its no longer being utilized as what it was dedicated for. Mr. Helfman: That's correct, it's never been utilized for that purpose. Mr. Dawkins: I'm not worried about never, it could be. You say never now and if you're going to say never, I'll say it will be or someday. Mr. Helfman: Well, that's when we're going to hear from... Mr. Dawkins: So now, well let's leave well enough alone. Mayor Suarez: At this point we're not. Mr. Dawkins: Let's leave well enough alone, OK? Mayor Suarez: At this point we're not, that's what he asked. Mr. Helfman: OK, I think that's what we're going to hear, Commissioner, from the objectors. Mayor Suarez: We'll hear from the objectors when the objectors speak. Mr. Plummer: I gave you a paper to bring back so I can read it into the record very quickly. Mayor Suarez: Yes, that should be introduced into the record. Mr. Plummer: A memo from the Police Department, "...after reviewing item PZ-6 of the Commission agenda is the traffic unit recommendation not to oppose the proposed closure of S.W. 30th Avenue south of 28th Lane. This portion is presently closed not allowing traffic on south on 30th Avenue through to South Dixie Highway." This is a memorandum dated July 25th from Lieutenant Eugene Telez to Perry Anderson, for the record. Mayor Suarez: Very good. I'll have it introduced into the record after the Commissioners looked at it. Go ahead, sir; or whoever's opposing it. Ma'am, I know you are on this item too, right? That's your husband. Mr. Jim Confalone: Yes. Mayor Suarez: He speaks for you. Mr. Confalone: She speaks for... Mayor Suarez: I'm sorry, swear in the... anyone else that intends to speak or at least even potentially, because you might decide that he's already made your presentation, but you may as well be sworn in just in case, please. AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE. Mr. Confalone: My name is Jim Confalone and I'm the owner of much of that property that's in red there, but not all of it. The part that's the triangle piece up on the top, over the top of the blue, and over the top of the blue piece on the left, that other red section on the other street. There's even other properties there that are not even colored in. Not that this all makes that much difference as to how much land that I own in the area there. But I 3 July 31, 1989 am definitely opposed to this closing of 30th Avenue for a couple of reasons. As a matter of fact, we feel that if you foreclose, the opportunity of ever opening that street to U.S. 1, that it's going to be foolhardy to give away a piece of property for $5,000 that could be used at a later date as an access, ingress/egress, to the rapid transit area. Now, this rapid transit station is going to be developed someday. There's been an RFP put out on it already, a request for proposal, and that was about five years ago, and it was shelved because of some conflicting with permitting between the City and the County. In that RFP, part of the criteria that was required of whoever won the RFP or whoever the high bidder was, the criteria was that that party would have to open 30th Avenue to U.S. 1 and install a traffic signal there. As a matter of fact, I'd like to install in the record one point, one-two of this criteria which was part of the RFP that Dade County put out that showed all the different stipulations that the developer would have to abide by in order to win the Coconut Grove station site development, standards and criteria. If I could just read this one paragraph that's in that the developer would have to provide, it was access road improvements. "Lessee, developer, shall pay to Dade County an amount equal to the cost of design in the contract award for constructing the extension of S.W. 30th Avenue from S.W. 27th Lane to So. Dixie Highway. And, in addition, shall pay the County the full cost of signalization for the intersection of S.W. 30th Avenue and South Dixie Highway. The improvement of 30th Avenue and the signalization as described shall, upon shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the station site development." Now, earlier on, they were very much interested in keeping this as an option for better access to this station which is part of the Coconut... I should say the Dade County rapid transit system which $1.3 billion dollars has been spent on. Without that, it would be kind of - I think it wouldn't be very prudent for anybody to give away that one particular piece of street there to anybody at this point in time, and I say give away, well I understand they've offered $5,000. They want, and when I say they, Dade County and this RFP initially, and I know that it's been shelved up to now, but it will come back because... Mr. Dawkins: What was the date the RFP was issued, sir? Mr. Confalone: I believe it was in 1985, and I can't tell you exactly the date. This particular document does not have a date on it, but this came from Dade County. Mr. Plummer: Was it even issued? Mr. Confalone: And... Mr. Dawkins: Well, was it ever put out? Mr. Confalone: It was put out and it was shelved... Mr. Dawkins: Was it ever brought in and say we're going to act on it. Mr. Confalone: No, they never acted on it because of a permitting problem that they... Mr. Dawkins: Because of what, I didn't... Mr. Confalone: Permitting... Mr. Dawkins: Permitting. Mr. Confalone: Permitting, the permit for the 200,000 square foot building that they wanted built there with a 500 car parking garage, they wanted to do the permitting at Dade County and City of Miami said that they thought that they should, and then there was a little back and forth there, and they finally pulled the RFP. Now, this RFP will come out again. Mr. Dawkins: Are you sure? Who said so? Mr. Confalone: Well, I'm not saying so, but I think that rapid transit is trying to get as much development in and around these stations as possible, like the Babcock at 37th Avenue, the Datran north and south of Dadeland. But - and I'm not a - you know, I don't have a crystal ball here and I'm not trying to say I do. 4 July 31, 1989 11 U Mr. Dawkins: Oh, no, we're just trying to, you know, get both sides of it, that's all. Mr. Confalone: Sure. I understand. What I'm trying to say is that it would make good business sense, and I think a lot of business people are here now, who all have their businesses in that area, but we all want to see rapid transit survive, or we all invested in and around that station there. In order to get, you know, better ridership, I think that there's going to have to be a lot of development in this area. Consequently, I've always banked on it and I've banked on this RFP. It was in the proposal of Dade County's rapid transit master plan that there was one day they were going to have a traffic light at that intersection. Now, I understand Mr. Jim Kay saying that they do close different streets which are abandoned, and I don't blame them for that, but something with a potential like this that's sitting right there right due west of that rapid transit station, it's the next exit or inlet that they could open. I mean, to close that, you know, it doesn't even compare to the other streets that he may be talking about on Natoma and all these others. This requires something that I think in the long run, and the not too distant future, they're building a 90,000 square foot building, Public Storage is, right now. I sold them that property. I sold them that property with the idea that they would become a catalyst in the area to start some building. It's five story building that's going up there. And I'm not trying to hurt Public Storage, I think they're great people, and I'd like to see them succeed there, but I don't want their project to come in and foreclose the possibility of more success in this area. I really appreciate your time and anything else I can answer for you, I've spent an awful lot of time in this area, and I'm very up in this area, and I think it's very important that you forever, you know, and so five or six years from now you'll see that the development will be great in that area and we may need to open this. Mayor Suarez: I guess not to answer you specifically, but we can always take back property, I suppose, by condemnation, at which time we have to pay the fair market value of it. Mr. Confalone: Well, if I can say something... Mayor Suarez: We'll specify a price at this point. This is really kind of what I was thinking of trying to build in some kind of mechanism where we could take it back for something less than fair market value at that point. Mr. Confalone: Sure, if I could mention, I sold them that land for $53.00 a foot and that equates, that's 7,500 square feet that road. Mayor Suarez: You may be needed as a witness at that point, but not right now because we're not condemning it, we're trying to take input from general public... Mr. Confalone: OK. Mayor Suarez: ...and I believe there's some other people that want to and in fairness to them and to the other matters, I don't think we're going to... unless anybody has a question for you, sir. Mr. Confalone: I'f I could just mention the equation though, that's $400,000 worth of land there, right today at today's value. Mayor Suarez: OK. Anyone else? Mr. Confalone: Thank you. Mayor Suarez: The same, I guess, if you want to go up to the mike and give your address and say that you basically support the same arguments, you're welcome to do that. Give us a home address too, so we know how many City residents we have involved in this and... Mr. Berton Hufsey: OK, my name is Berton Hufsey. I own the property at 2900 S.W. 28th Lane. I am... Mayor Suarez: Your home address, sir. Mr. Hufsey: My home address is 7266 S.W. 61st Street. I am not a resident of Miami, I am a property owner and I agree with what Mr. Confalone has said. 5 July 31, 1989 Mayor Suarez: Anyone else? Mr. Elmer Coombs: Yes, my name is Elmer Coombs and my address is 1750 Tigertail Avenue in Coconut Grove. I have interest in property at 3001 28th Lane, and I have the same interest in it as Mr. Conf alone expressed. Thank you. Mr. Richard Barry: My name is Richard Barry, 15462 Kipford Court in Miami Lakes and Mr. Confalone has expressed himself very well. Thank you. Mr. Juan Dalla-Rizza: My name is Juan Dalla-Rizza. I reside at 3666 Bayhomes Drive and basically we own property on 29th Avenue, 27th Street, 28th Street, and 28th Lane. Basically, probably, about 10 lots. We have a business at 3011 S.W. 28th Lane. I feel that the Commission would be a little bit hasty in granting the closure because it will limit the expanse or the future of the area. Mo. Therese McKitka: My name is Therese McKitka. I reside at 7160 S.W. 6th Street and I'm a business owner at 30th Avenue and 28th Street and I do think it would be hasty to close it off right now. Mr. Emilio Martinez: My name is Emilio Martinez. My address is 1800 S.W. 7th Street, Miami. I own and operate the Muscle Express gym on 28th Lane. Our access is pretty difficult to my gym from U.S. 1, it's confusing, in other words, and most people who call me for directions get lost and never show up. I think that something like the future of 30th Avenue will really be a big boost to my business. Thank you. Mayor Suarez: Somewhere between what you had suggested, Mr. Vice Mayor, of a fee being paid back if we ever needed that street of exactly the same amount of the voluntary contribution and the fair market value which is what we'd have to pay if we'd have to condemn it back because all of a sudden we found that our traffic patterns are such that we ought to have it open, is what I had suggested. I'm not sure if this isn't a bit late in the process to come up with it but we've done it in other cases where we voluntarily lease or give up to the private sector City land - now this is not clearly City land - this is their land that's dedicated to our use, but in those situations what we do is we require that part of the agreement be that if we ever need the property back, we pay only the unamortized value of whatever improvements they have built on it, keeping in mind that we have to approve any of those improvements, so that, for example, there's a parking lot we could always take it back without any major payment to them if we found that it was really needed for traffic or whatever. That's what I was talking about. We also retain the ability to at any time prohibit them building anything on it, but I'm not sure that that is a very similar concept that what we're dealing with here. Maybe someday, we can consider that. Mr. De Yurre: When this was dedicated, back was in the '25, 126... Mr. Helfman: Twenty-seven. Mr. De Yurre: Twenty-seven. Did we pay anything for that dedication? Mr. Plummer: Most likely not, we don't pay for dedication. Mayor Suarez: It was probably done in conjunction with some platting, maybe, or... Mr. Kay: I can't say for certain. I doubt very seriously that we paid anything for that at all. It was... Mayor Suarez: Street lines or something.... Mr. Kay: It was dedicated by the owner then who created the plat. Mr. Plummer: What happens is, the City holds people up with a gun because they tell them, if you want to take out a permit of any kind, you can't do it without making a dedication. I don't know that that's legal but they've been very successful at it. 6 July 31, 1989 Mr. De Yurre: Because, you know, the thing is that my argument was I'd be willing to give back the $5,000 if we ever needed that again. The Mayor's making a point that he wants it to be somewhere between the five and what the fair market value is. But if we're going to see ourselves in a situation wherein we would have to pay more than what we're going to be getting now, I'd rather just not vote for this at all, you know, unless we get a commitment from the applicant saying, "Listen, you can have it back and if you ever need it back...", and, in fact, they're not going to use it for any structure of anything, you just want it for parking and landscaping and things of that nature. So, you know, I don't see where the detriment would be to that. Mayor Suarez: At least upon payment, maybe at least upon payment of any improvements that you would make on that property which themselves would be subject to our approval. Would that make any sense? In other words, we wouldn't expect you to - if you had the use of it and had to build something on it and we approved it and later to be able to throw you out without having to pay you for those, but... Mr. De Yurre: You're not planning to take that property then sell the whole piece and build something there. You're not planning to do that, right? Mr. Helfman: No, in fact, the structure is already out of the ground. Mr. De Yurre: OK, so that doesn't hurt you, doesn't affect you at all one way or another. Mr. Helfman: Well, number one, one of my clients is here, the other is not who owns the other half of the right -of way that's not public storage. Their name is Roncalo. But aside from that, we're getting into a whole concept of creating something that doesn't currently exist. Mr. De Yurre: No, we're trying to have some vision here and trying to cover ourselves. Mr. Helfman: I understand. I think we need to have vision when it's foreseeable that we're going to need the vision, and you've heard from the opponents, and now I'd like an opportunity to tell you a little bit about this right-of-way area and what the foreseeable future is for it. Then, we can discuss what the best thing to do is. After the last hearing I did pretty extensive research on this whole area. We also hired the firm of David Plumer and Associates to review the traffic circulation in this area and they, especially John Taylor who is going to speak in a minute, was involved in the planning of this station. Just let me tell you briefly, it was dedicated in 1927. From everything we can tell, it is never been used to this date as public right-of-way. In fact, it's barricaded right now. For the record, I'd like to submit a copy of the plat from 1927 providing the dedication as well as copies of aerials back as far as the county has them showing that the area has never been used for public right-of-way purposes. In July 3rd, 1979, the county did, and prior to that time, did studies of each of the Metrorail station sites and the areas surrounding that. And what they did for the whole Metrorail system is they determined what areas they would need for right-of- way purposes around each station and they adopted rapid transit zones for each location. This is a map entitled rapid transit zone, stage one, rapid transit system. It was adopted by county ordinance 7959, July 3rd, '79. It shows the area that t•he county felt was necessary around the station to reserve for right-of-way purposes for future expansion and development of those sites. In fact, they took 29th Avenue, which is the street one over, but there was clearly - these lines are clear - that to go to 30th Avenue was not contemplated. It's not in this plan, and so for the record, I'd like to introduce rapid transit zone, stage one, rapid transit system map, adopted by the county. We heard from the neighbors that there an RFP put out. We have searched for days now, weeks now, to try to find this RFP. Everybody at the county tells us that there was no such RFP. We have loads of letters, Public Works Department, Parks... Mayor Suarez: We figured if that was a major issue we would have heard from the county or from somebody. I don't think anybody here thinks that's such a big issue... Mr. Helfman: Their - OK, there's ab... 7 July 31, 1989 Mayor Suarez: ...the possibility that someday someone might want to use the street is the only thing that concerns any of us at this point, I think. Mr. Helfman: What I'm saying is that it's within the county's jurisdiction and they have no plans, none, either in their short or long term plans to open this roadway. In fact, they say that they have no plans even contemplated up to 2010 under their traffic circulation plans. DOT has filed no objection to this. It would open up on to their right-of-way, in fact, they say that that would impede the orderly transition of traffic down U.S. 1. Your own Public Works Department says no, your planners who were involved ten years ago in the Metrorail stations, say that there is not RFP, there are no plans for it. I think it's very clear that it's never been used for right-of-way, there is no foreseeable uses right-of-way, they apparently have some draft language that somebody thought up that they were going to open this, but none of it has been substantiated. We think we've met the requirements. It's nice to create these rules and thoughts about future expansion and what's going to happen. Your code sets forth requirements. We believe we've met them, we have recommendations of all of your departments as well as the Zoning Board, the unanimous recommendation, and we would ask you to apply those rules in this instance, and I think you'll find that the closure is justified. Mr. Plummer: Is the public hearing closed? Herbert Cohen, Esq.: If I may... Mayor Suarez: We have really heard from both sides, bdt maybe you misunderstood that we were going to hear from the opponents and then finish that and then hear from. Well, I tried to speak except you asked for Mr. Helfman. Mayor Suarez: OK, well go ahead and in view of that but... Mr. Cohen: My name is Herbert Cohen, lawyer with the firm of Cohen, Chase, Heckerling and Tescher Troutman. I represent Mr. Confalone. Mr. Plummer: Are you a paid lobbyist, sir? Mr. Cohen: Yes, I am. Not a... Mr. Plummer: Registered? Mr. Cohen: Yes, I have. Mr. Plummer: With the City? Mr. Cohen: Yes, I have. Mr. Plummer: You were sworn in? Mr. Cohen: Yes, I was. The points made by Mr. Confalone, of course, don't bear repeating. However, his reference to the Coconut Grove station site development standards and criteria are apparently being indicated by both Mr. Helfman and the board that these do not exist and never existed and I object to that and want to introduce this into the record. Mayor Suarez: Welcome to do so. Mr. Cohen: The introduction to this says, "...all developmental activities on Metrorail property, whether public or private in nature, shall conform without exception to the Metrorail compendium of design criteria, volumes one through seven, as well as those criteria listed below." I can't believe that a thorough analysis by Mr. Helfman's client did not reveal that these were ever published, and we didn't get these or make them up out of thin air. Clearly.... Mr. Helfman: Sir, can you tell me the date of the publication of the RFP, please? Mr. Cohen: It does not have a date on it. Mayor Suarez: If it doesn't have a date, we'll introduce it without a date. 8 July 31, 1989 Mr. Cohen: OK, with you if I may. Mr. Helfman: And ere you testifying... Mayor Suarez: Counselor, you're not directing this hearing. Mr. Helfman: ...that that RFP was put out for publication? Mr. Cohen: I'm testifying as to what it says. Mayor Suarez: Counselor, you don't need to get involved in that, counselor, you're not testifying at this hearing at this point, sir. Mr. Cohen: Second thing that I'd like to point out - this is strictly from a legal standpoint - I'm a little confused as to Mr. Helfman's position. His position is that this - they're asking this be vacated because its been abandoned. If its been abandoned, it goes to the property owners who own it and you don't pay for it. I can't understand the idea of paying $5,000 for something that they're requesting to be abandoned. Number three, and if I may... Mayor Suarez: That's just a voluntary contribution, City fund of some sort. Mr. Cohen: It's not consistent with his position. Mayor Suarez: No, that wouldn't - I guarantee that would not be his fault, that would be our fault, if anybody's. Mr. Cohen: OK, number three, Mr. Helfman said that they own that property. However, my client deeded the property to them clearly omitting and accepting out of the legal description that street. So they have no ownership rights whatsoever other than an adjoining property owner. And the last point is the courts have clearly held in the past that the vacating of a street by a governmental authority has to take into consideration the property rights of the adjoining property owners. There is no question but that with all the property owners around, who have purchased their property on the basis of this plat showing a street ultimately to be put in there, would have their property rights damaged by this vacating of this street. Mayor Suarez: Who's your client on this matter? Mr. Cohen: Mr. Confalone. Mayor Suarez: Same gentleman that spoke. Mr. Cohen: Yes. Mr. Helfman: Very briefly... Mayor Suarez: Final rebuttal. Mr. Helfman: ...in rebuttal to those. Number one, you cannot hold back right-of-way as a matter of law from selling a tract of land. It goes appurtenant to the sale, so if they did try to hold back the right-of-way that we're trying to close, that was prohibited as a matter of law. Number two, yes, you have to consider adjoining property owners under the City's ordinance, but the Confalone's are not an adjoining property owner nor are any of the other property owners. All the adjoining property owners have made this application. Mayor Suarez: OK, Commissioners. Anything further from the City? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me... Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Plummer. Mr. Plummer: ...since the public hearing is closed, two points that I think have been overlooked, and I'm not arguing for the applicant, but I think that are very important in behalf of the street closure as recommended. Number one, there is, in fact, an opening at 31st Avenue one block away and that's right alongside of the Boys' Club. Number, two, God forbid that we should see 9 July 31, 1989 another street light on Dixie Highway at 30th Avenue when you have one at 27th and one at 32nd. If anything, Dixie needs to be opened up, not closed and another street light in that area would just impede traffic, in my estimation, I don't care what Metro says about their computerization. Now, the only thing that's been raised, Mr. Helfman, is $53.00 a square foot for 7,500 square feet. I did a little math here and it's a long way from $5,000 which you voluntarily contributed. Mayor Suarez: What? -forty? Thirty-nine? Thirty-nine and six fifty. Just about forty. Mr. Kay: For the record, our calculations by staff were $6,650, slightly less. Mr. Plummer: I'll accept that. Mr. Helfman: Firstly, let me say this. Number one, we did offer a voluntary contribution and I'd like to tell you that - and this is obviously within your discretion - it's come to our attention that there's a need for some of these funds, if not all of them, for the Miami Northwest Express Track Team, and apparently there is a Junior Olympics going on in Spokane, Washington and many of you, of the Commissioners have been approached by this group. They're in desperate need of funds, so if the contribution is accepted, we would suggest that those funds be designated for that purpose. Of course, you can decide where it should go. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, am I understanding you, the five thousand plus those or included? Mr. Helfman: I don't know what those expenses are. Mr. Plummer: You better find out. Mr. Helfman: If the contribution doesn't seem to be equitable, I'd be willing to request, number one, for a deferral of this agenda, not to the next meeting, just a continuation until I have an opportunity to talk to my client about the contribution and get back to you before there's any vote. Ms. Range: Mr. Mayor, just before we go with the... Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Range. Ms. Range: ...with the vote on this. I'd like to address myself to contributions and the clients or the persons who come before us offering special or specific items for which the contributions should be used. I'm sure we appreciate whatever contributions they are and even though I'm being told now that it is voluntary, I think it would be a much better practice if the Commission were to decide from among the many requests that we have rather than giving it to any one specific item. I'm very afraid that even though it might not be of any harm in this particular case, as we go along, many, many items that are very, very needed in the community will go ungifted, if I might use that word... Mayor Suarez: Yes, create a special fund. Ms. Range: Yes. Mayor Suarez: I like that. And we get reports every so often as to what we have in that fund. We never seem to know how much we have. Ms. Range: Right. Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: What does your client plan to do with the land? Mr. Helfman: Their intention is to use - it's a 50 foot right-of-way. My client gets 25, the other 25 goes to my other client Roncalo who's not... Mr. Dawkins: What does the two clients plan to do with the land? 10 July 31, 1989 Mr. Helfman: Well, Public Storage intends to put parking and landscaping on it, and I am uncertain what the Confalone's intend to do on the property. Mr. Dawkins: I'm not interested in the Confalone's, I'm interested in your client, OK. Mr. Helfman: OK, my specific client intends to use it for parking and landscaping. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Sir? Mr. Dawkins: Is it any way that I can say that whatever voluntary contribution they offer, that in the event that a City Commission, no, not this one because I probably wouldn't be here, but decides that this should be opened up again, that the maximum you can pay them is what they voluntarily offered us? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes, you could certainly ask for an amendment to the resolution, but I would be remiss if I didn't tell you that if they don't agree to that in writing by some separate side agreement, it's simply a City resolution expressing that as a requirement, but they could come along 30 years from now and say, "Well, we didn't sign that or...". Mr. Dawkins: All right, then, Mr. Mayor, I go along with the request that this be deferred until they can go get that in writing and bring it back. The only way I plan, me, to vote for this is that whatever they offer as a voluntary contribution, that that's what, in the event that in some maybe two years from now, five years from now or ten years from now, it become evident that this has to be opened, that that's all the owner, whomever it may be, could get for that property. Mr. Helfman: I think I have an even better solution. My clients have agreed that if we need, in the next ten years, if the county opens the right-of-way onto U.S. 1, the Metrorail right-of-way, onto U.S. 1, any time in the next ten years, we will rededicate that property. Mr. Dawkins: What about twenty years? Mr. Helfman: No, I can't agree to twenty years. I think it's been... Mr. Dawkins: Well, all right, then I can't agree with ten. Mr. Helfman: I understand, but... Mr. Dawkins: I can't agree with ten. Mr. Helfman: I understand, but it's been since nine... Mr. Dawkins: I can't agree with ten. Mr. Helfman: I understand, but it's been since... Mr. Dawkins: Well, let's split the ten, give it fifteen. Mr. Helfman: I'll have to check. Let's go ahead with your deferral. Mr. Dawkins: Oh, well, check then and let's see, OK? Give it fifteen, let's split the ten. Go ahead, J. L. Mr, Confalons: Excuse me, can I make a point? No? Mr. Plummer: Let me just speak to the one point. The problem with that, Commissioner, and I understand what you're trying to accomplish and I think it's good for the City. The problems are that I have seen in most of the street closures are that they want to use it for either their setback problems or to build over or things of that nature, and once you do that, it's only - you know, if it's left vacant land, there's no problem. But once you build a building on top of it or you use that as your setback to meet the zoning requirements, that's when you start really getting into a rub if you had to buy it back. 11 July 31, 1989 a Mayor Suareet in that scenario, there would be, within the years in question, would be quite a risk for them because under that scenario, we could conceivably want the property back. And by the way, if we ever did something like this, I want to make sure it's not only the county or any other appropriate governmental entity with jurisdiction, just in the case the City ends up having jurisdiction over some of these transportation things in the next ten or fifteen years. Mr. Plummer: God forbid. Mr. Helfman: I would just ask for the opportunity to meet with my client, to make the appropriate telephone calls and to come back to you as soon as we're ready to determine number one, the extent of the contribution and, two, the time period for rededication. Mr. Plummer: Ten percent sound good? Mr. Confalone: Could I make a point? Mr. Plummer: Surely, sir. Mr. Confalone: Fine. I'm not sure if I am or not, but first of all, the question was asked... Mayor Suarez: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! What do you mean, first of all? You're going to make a point, then you begin by telling us first of all. Mr. Confalone: Well, how about one and a half points? Mayor Suarez: No, no, really. Mr. Confalone: OK. Mayor Suarez: This is totally outside of our procedure, we're trying to figure out how we're going to vote on this. The public hearing has been closed. Make a quick point. Mr. Confalone: One point. The question was - James Confalone - the question was asked, what would the other parcel of property be used for if you split that 50 feet and the answer to that is just exactly what it's being used for right now in conjunction... it's a junkyard. So, we're going to take and create 25 foot of junkyard there, and he's looking at me like it's a little strange but it's called Southland Towing, and they have junk cars parked in there, and they're all over the street there too. But it'll be fine because we'll increase the size of that. Mr. Helfman: Is that what they've told you they're going to use it for? Mr. Confalone: That's what they're using it for right now and that's what they're going to use it for also... Mayor Suarez: OK, I don't think... Mr. Confalone: ...Joe Crato will tell you. Mr. Plummer: I thought Southland was at 24th Avenue. Mayor Suarez: I don't think this has had all that much impact on the Commissioners, but if anybody has questions... Mr. De Yurre: Don't we have some representatives of Southland right here back in the corner? Mr. Plummer: No, you got the Golden Greek. I saw him. He's not Southland, he's Coral Way Towing. Mr. De Yurre: Nobody here from Southland? OK. Mayor Suarez: OK, Commissioners, what's your pleasure? Are we... 12 July 31, 1989 Mr. Plummer: I think we ought to give him the time to go consult with his owner. Mayor Suarez: You can't do that while we have these hearings today? Mr. Plummer: Yes, he will to come back this afternoon... Mr. Helfman: Yes, yes, 1 can. Mayor Suarez: Table the item then. Mr. Helfman: And if I can't, I'll tell you. Mayor Suarez: OK, yes, I hope so. Mr. Plummer: Ten percent sound like a good number. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. GRANT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO PERMIT DRIVE-IN FACILITY FOR TERRABANK - in Madison Circle Office Building (3191 Coral Way) (Applicant Forte Properties, Inc.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Suarez: PZ-8. Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: PZ-8 and nine are companion items... Mayor Suarez: Nine are related. Mr. Olmedillo: ...and this is a drive-in or drive through window for a financial institution located at 3191 Coral Way. For the record, the Planning Department recommended denial, the Zoning Board did recommend approval. This is coming to you for two reasons. One... Mayor Suarez: What's the financial institution? Mr. Olmedillo: TerreBank. One, because they are providing fewer waiting spaces, queueing spaces than they're required in the ordinance and the second, because they are having a financial institution with a drive through window. What they have is two windows. They come in from 21st Terrace and they come in through the eastern side, eastern entrance. Then they open up into two windows. Mr. Plummer: Wait, where's Coral Way? What are you telling me? INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mr. Plummer: Be where? Mr. Olmedillo: It's on the other side. Mayor Suarez: It's one hell of a sketch you got there. It looks like a bunch of marine flags... Mr. Olmedillo: That represents the cars. Mr. Plummer: That's Coral Way. Mayor Suarez: Those are cars, right? The marine flags are cars, right? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, that... Mr. Plummer: Is that in that parking garage? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: In the building itself. Mr. Olmedillo: It's within the building itself. Now, we recommend denial because they don't have the queueing spaces, you know, it's ten per window. They have two windows, and we feel that there's a problem in the maneuvering of the cars when they come in through a one entrance and then they have to open up into two. 13 July 31, 1989 Mayor Suarett Let me ask, if I may, Commissioner, if there's anyone here that wishes to be heard on this item in opposition to it? Let the record reflect that no one stepped forward. Mr. Plummer: Is this... because I can't make it out. You tell me. Is the way the flow of the traffic for the drive-in tellers different and separated from the regular parking? Mr. Olmedillo: It is from what we saw. It is not separated, however... Mr. Plummer: Because as I remember, that damn ramp goes, I mean, like this. I can't equate this, I'm sorry. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Tony, why don't you give your name? Mr. Plummer: You got to do it with a hand held mike. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. Mr. Plummer: Because you're coming in the back of the building which is where the church is. Mr. Tony Jimenez: My name is Tony Jimenez with offices at 2000 So. Dixie Highway. Commissioner, to answer your question, the ramp is right in the middle here, OK? It would have nothing to do with the egress and ingress of the drive-in teller. It's totally separated. Mr. Plummer: How many cars, because I just truthfully, I can't see that damn thing. How many cars would you be talking about could be stacked off the street? Mr. Olmedillo: Eleven. Mr. Jimenez: Fifty. Mr. Plummer: How much? Fifty? Mr. Olmedillo: Eleven. Mr. Jimenez: Fifteen. I have fifteen showing, they only count eleven because of the counting that they do. But there will be 15 cars that will be stacked there. Ms. Range: What is the required amount of cars for stacking? Mr. Plummer: Ten per window. Mr. Olmedillo: Twenty. Mr. Jimenez: Ten and ten; twenty. Ms. Range: Twenty? I was given twenty, that's why I want to be certain? Mr. Jimenez: Twenty. Mr. Plummer: Well, that's two windows. Ms. Range: For two windows. Mr. Plummer: It's ten per window. Mr. Jimenez: Correct. Mr, Olmedillo: Right. The waiting space is a 22 foot space and that's the way we have to count it by ordinance. You can cram cars in but the space that's provided in the ordinance is 20 feet long. Ms. Range: What is this going to do to your traffic as it comes out onto the street? Mr. Jimenez: Let me turn to the other page now. 14 ■ MI r E� Ms. Range: Aren't you going to have traffic backed up? Mr. Jimenez: You would have two cars that would have... once they do the transaction, they would be waiting here to turn into the rear street and then from there, they would go on. Ms. Range: They'll be waiting for the turn, did you say? -to come on to street. How is the traff ic? How is the flowing traffic on that particular street? Mr. Jimenez: There's hardly any traffic by here. It's a secondary road, there's a... let me show you what's back in there because that's one of the arguments that the Planning Department is making that we're encroaching into a neighborhood and really this back street, S.W. 21st Street, has Wiwi Transmission at the corner, it has an auto storage which they bring in cars in there to store them and there's an assembly hall at the corner here. The Winn -Dixie is here and a gas station is over here in this S.W. 32nd Avenue. There's a restaurant on this side and there's a residence here. Ms. Range: Does your traffic increase, to any great extent, during peak hours? I mean as far as the bank is concerned? Mr. Jimenez: Well, the services that we would be providing would be the ones that would be - the bank is offering right now to her tenants, just the convenience of them not... Ms. Range: And, of course, that would increase during the peak hours? Is that right? Mr. Jimenez: Well, the peak hours wouldn't be involved in the sense that the drive-in tellers would only be open form 8:00 to 5:00 and... Ms. Range: From 8:00 to 5:00. Mr. Jimenez: ...and at 5:00 which would be the peak hour where most people leave their work, it would be closed at that time. Ms. Range: I see. Tony O'Donnell, Esq.: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, my name is Tony O'Donnell and I'm representing the applicant on this matter. We received the recommendation of the Zoning Board, and we did discuss this with the nearby residential owners and they have no objection to our proposal. The one technical thing that the Zoning Board did raise which I think is important to understand our application, is that the reason we need the variance is that we've added one teller window. In fact, the addition of that teller window makes it a better situation for purposes of getting cars through the particular facility. In other words, if you had one less teller window, we wouldn't need a variance, but the way ours comes in one lane and goes through, the second teller actually helps the situation. So it's a technical variance and it's actually an improvement over a normal situation with one teller in the bank. The second thing is that it avoids taking it off site. It is a relatively small bank, there's no way that people will have access into the residential neighborhood from this site because there's no place to go that way. We're dealing with the totally commercial area and yet there's very little traffic in there except perhaps, as you say, at 5:00 o'clock when people will be leaving the garage. So we would not be interfering with any traffic patterns in that whole area. The alternative, you know, off site facilities starts generating problems. It's one of the things you have when you start encroaching into neighborhoods with off site drive-in facilities and things like that. So the building owner, which we represent, thinks it's something that will be a good addition. It will certainly serve the needs of the TerreBank facility there, and that we will be responsible, obviously, as owners, to manage it for the overall building. We really do meet the spirit of the requirement for off street stacking, because we have over ten and we're not adding an additional demand with an additional lane where people would be stacking up with our second teller facility. So we think the Zoning Board, when it considered those issues, and considered the neighborhood's support, felt that really what we were proposing was reasonable and should be supported for this particular facility. 15 July 31, 1989 Mr. Datkine: Thbee two care will be waiting on what street coming out of the teller? Mr. O'Donnelis bight here? Mr. Dawkins: Yes. Where? Mr. Olmedillo: That is 21st Street, sir. Mr. Plummer: Twenty-first Street. Mr. Dawkins: Twenty-first Street? Mr. Olmedillo: Terrace. Mr. O'Donnell: Terrace. Mr. Olmedillo: Does that street have a median in the middle of it? Mr. Plummers No. Mr. O'Donnell: No. Mr. Dawkins: How wide is it? Mr. Olmedillo: It's a fifty foot street. Mr. Dawkins: So, two cars turning in at the same time, what would it do to traffic? Mr. Olmedillo: Create a conflict to our understanding. Mr. Dawkins: This is my applicant over here, let me talk to him a minute. Mr. Olmedillo: It would create a conflict... Mr. Dawkins: Why? Mr. Olmedillo: ...in getting out. Because you have a two-way street which has parking lanes on both sides... Mr. Dawkins: OK. Mr. Olmedillo: And then, if they try to make the same turn onto the street, then you create a problem. Mr. Dawkins: What now? Go ahead... Mr. O'Donnell: All right, the way we've handled our on site traffic, coming in... Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no. See, the way you handle it, OK, you got to explain it to him... Mr. O'Donnell: Exactly. Exactly. Mr. Dawkins: ...so that he knows that what you're handling is OK. See, your handling it, and it's confusing to him, I'm not going to accept it... Mr. O'Donnell: Right. Wi Mr. Dawkins: So now, you have to clear him up. Mr. O'Donnell: OK, what we've done, and I'll have Tony come back to explain :W this, an architect. What we've done is to come into the facility, is only one Ilane in. In other words, you don't have two cars coming in. It's striped in. ,T You come into the facility with one. { M4yor Suarez: We got that. He was asking about coming out, Tony. Is, Range: Coming out. E� 14 July 310 1909 ■a Mr. O'bonnellt Pardon me? Mayor Suarez: He was asking about coming out. Don't be too subtle hare. Ms. Ranget Coming out. Mr. O'Donnellt Right, when we come out, we have two card that could theoretically line up at the same time. Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. O'Donnell: Very unlikely that would ever happen. If it does happen, the right lane is forced to go right and the left lane is forced to go left. Mr. Plummer: If it works out that way. Mr. O'Donnell: This is not a high traffic. If any of you have been on this street, I have never seen a car using this street for any other purpose except perhaps to get into this building. This is not a high trafficked street. Ms. Range: But, even so, even though it is not a trafficked street, just in the event, you do have cars coming in the opposite direction. The cars going out to the left... Mr. O'Donnell: Yes. Ms. Range: ...could be subjected to having to begin stacking back into the bank lanes. Let me ask you this question, air. Mr. O'Donnell: Yes, ma'am Ms. Range: Would a security guard or a traffic - I don't mean a police - but a traffic attendant, would that help in any way? Mr. Olmedillo: Traffic management has helped in other cases... Ms. Range: Yes. _ Mr. Olmedillo: ...and that has been the provision sometimes of the Commission to require from the bank somebody to handle traffic so that whenever there's excess people, cars, waiting to get in the facility, that they be directed to either the parking, the main parking, or else where. But so that they don't clog the street in any way. Ms. Range: So, a security or traffic assistant could help in that instance, is that correct? Mr. Olmedillo: It does help, definitely. It does help. Ms. Range: Right. Yes. Would you be willing... Mr. O'Donnell: We would be... accept that as a mandatory condition. Mr. Plummer: Are you ready for a motion? Mr. O'Donnell: As a mandatory condition, we could accept that. We would meet that requirement. Ms. Range: Very good. Mr. De Yurre: What is the requirement? Is it ten spaces per teller? Mr. Plummer: Per window, per window. Mr. Olmedillo: Per each teller. Mr. De Yurre: OK, and we got two windows, right? Mr. Plummer: No, they got one now and they want to open a second. Mr. De Yurre: OK, so we're talking about twenty cars. 17 0 Mr. Plumnert 'What's correct: Mr. De Yurre: Requirement. My concern is not the two cars leaving at the same time, I figure they're going to come up with some solution, one goes first or whatever. But my concern, if you talk theoretically about the twenty cars, and they're coming in off of 32nd, you're going to have 15 cars into the property, then you're going to have five cars lined up going backwards which are going to be in front of and will prevent those two that are trying to get out from getting out because they're stopped. Ms. Range: That's why we need the security guard. Mr. Plummer: It's true at... Ms. Range: Or traffic attendant. Mr. De Yurre: What? Mr. Plummer: It's true at every bank drive-in teller. Same thing prevails. The reason this came about was through... Mr. De Yurre: What' I'm saying is, as opposed to, as the exit being on the other side. They come in one way and they go out the other. Mr. Plummer: Because on 7th Street and 27th Avenue, they were using the whole City street to back up on. It was dangerous as hell. Mr. O'Donnell: They're likely... Mr. De Yurre: But here they're going into. Mr. O'Donnell: They're likely to come this way though, frankly. Mr. Plummer: You ready for a motion? Mayor Suarez: Yes, I'm ready for a motion. Mr. Plummer: I would make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we pass PZ-8 with two provisions. One, that at any time the windows are open a security guard must be there to direct traffic on the private property and, two, that a one year review. Ms. Range: I'd second that. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? If not, call the roll, with those provisos. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89-743 A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD AND GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, CR-3 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (GENERAL) AND CR-1 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (NEIGHBORHOOD) PAGE 4 OF 6, PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES, TO PERMIT A DRIVE - THROUGH FACILITY WITH A TWO -TELLER WINDOW FOR TERRABANK LOCATED IN THE MADISON CIRCLE OFFICE BUILDING AT 3191 CORAL WAY (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); AS PER PLANS ON FILE; ZONED CR-3/7 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (GENERAL), SAID SPECIAL EXCEPTION HAVING A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED AND SUBJECT TO CITY COMMISSION REVIEW. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) 16 July 31, 1989' Upon being seconded by Commissioner Range, the resolution *Aft passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Commissioner Miller Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 3. GRANT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO PERMIT DRIVE -THROUGH FACILITY - providing it of 20 required off-street stacking spaces - for Terrabank in Madison Circle Office Building (3191 Coral Way) (Applicant: Forte Properties, Inc.) Mr. Plummer: Same provisions on PZ-9, it attaches to the same property. Mayor Suarez: I'll entertain a motion on PZ-9. Is that your motion? Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Mr. De Yurre: Second. Ms. Range: Second. Mr. Plummer: Same stipulations. Mayor Suarez: Second that? Mr. De Yurre: Second. Ms. Range: Yes, I did. Mayor Suarez: Call the roll on PZ-9. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89-744 A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD AND GRANTING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, CR-3 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (GENERAL) AND CR-1 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (NEIGHBORHOOD) PAGE 4 OF 6, PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES, TO PERMIT A DRIVE - THROUGH FACILITY PROVIDING 11 OF 20 REQUIRED OFF- STREET STACKING SPACES FOR THE TERRABANK LOCATED IN THE MADISON CIRCLE OFFICE BUILDING AT 3191 CORAL WAY (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); AS PER PLANS ON FILE; ZONED CR-3/7 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (GENERAL), SAID SPECIAL EXCEPTION HAVING A TIME LIMITATION OF C AYZ§t C6missioner J. L. Plummer, 4r. Ceissioner M. Athalie Mange Coftisaioner Miller Hawkins Mite Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavitr L. Suarez NOHSf None. AAS£NTs None. Mr. O'Donnell: Thank you very much. _.......----------------- —------ .r__------__-__..__�_�_�-..__..... 4. APPEAL GRANTED: HERITAGE CONSERVATION BOARD'S APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CBS WALL UPHELD - (with modifications) at approximately 3918 Main Highway (Applicant: Lavigne Properties, Inc.). ------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ Mayor Suarez: PZ-11. Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: That was scheduled for 5:00 p.m., sir. So... Mayor Suarez: Eleven's for... Mr. Olmedillo: ...you'll be looking at PZ-12 next. Mayor Suarez: PZ-12. Ten we did. Yes, that was that... Mr. Dawkins: All right, eleven, it's 5:00 o'clock. Mr. Plummer: What are we looking at now? Eleven? Ms. Range: No, twelve. Mayor Suarez: PZ-12 now. Mr. Plummer: What happened to...? Mayor Suarez: Eleven, thirteen and fourteen are for after five. Mr. Plummer: Oh, ten has been taken out. Mayor Suarez: Ten was done last time. Mr. Plummer: OK. Mayor Suarez: We did that. Mr. De Yurre: Twelve now? Ms. Sarah Eaton: PZ-12 is an appeal of the Heritage Conservation Board's decision to approve a six foot wall along Main Highway as opposed to an eight foot wall appealed - proposed by the applicant. The applicant is here to make a presentation and then... Ms. baton: Right. The zoning ordinance allows 8 foot walls. However, any development activity along scenic transportation corridors are subject to review by the Heritage Conservation Board and the development activity must be in character with that particular corridor. Mr. Plummer: What is accomplished by a six foot wall instead of an eight? Mayor Suarez: Does anybody have any rationale for that? Do you have any idea why they would have recommended six instead of eight? Ms. Eaton: The board felt that a six foot wall would accomplish the same purpose as an 8 foot wall. Mr. Plummer: But why drop it two feet? That's my question. What does it accomplish? Does it, I mean, they can't see in over a six foot wall and they can't see in over an 8 foot wall. Mayor Suarez: The Miami Heat players can but that's about it. Mr. Plummer: Well, but even they're seven foot, six. Ms. Range: Is the 8 foot wall... Mayor Suarez: They can see over the six foot and not the eight. Ms. Range: Is the 8 foot wall in character with the other walls along the... Ms. Eaton: No, it's not. An eight foot has never been approved along Main Highway. Ms. Range: There are no 8 foot walls along... Ms. Eaton: No. And the majority of walls along Main Highway are four foot. Mayor Suarez: Wait, wait, wait, wait. That's not entirely correct when she said - remember the question the Commissioner's asking. There are no eight foot walls along Main Highway? You want to revise your answer to that? Ms. Eaton: Approved. Or... Mayor Suarez: There have not been any approved since this ordinance went into effect... Ms. Eaton: Correct. Mayor Suarez: ... or whatever you want to say, but don't tell us there are no eight foot walls along Main Highway. There's some a lot higher than eight feet and eight feet. They've been there for - before I was born. Mr. Dawkins: Around that Presbyterian - whatever that church is, that's almost a ten foot wall. Mr. Plummer: Plymouth Congregational is over eight foot. I don't know what is accomplished by reducing it from eight foot to six foot. Nobody's said what it does. Ms. Eaton: It provides less of a barrier, a visual barrier to Main Highway. Mr. Plummer: Six foot is a visual barrier. Ms. Eaton: Yes, we would prefer to have a lower wall. Mr. Plummer: For what? I mean, look, you're talking to somebody that hates 8 foot walls, but that's our ordinance. OK? I hate solid walls, to me they're a concentration camp. But if a man wants to live behind it, God bless him. You know, the Mayor and I, this Mayor and the former Mayor had a problem with 8 foot walls and everyone of them says, "Don't pass it until I get mine up." Mayor Suarez: I want you to know mine is exactly 8 feet, not one inch higher, not one inch lower. Except where it's six feet. Mr, Plummer: Are you ready for a motion? 21 July 31, 1909 Mr. De Yurre: Go ahead. Mr. Plummer: I move that this thing be approved and give him his 8 foot wall. Mr. De Yurre: You move to deny the appeal. Mr. Plummer: Move to deny the - no, to deny the appeal... Mr. De Yurre: Is this an appeal from the Heritage Conservation Board? Mr. Plummer: No, this is an appeal by the objector. Whatever it is, you give me the terminology to give them the 8 foot wall. The hell with this noise, I mean... Mr. De Yurre: Second. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Mr. Plummer: Sir, you open your mouth, you're liable to lose. Mayor Suarez: What's the correct expression of the motion that we're about to pass? Mr. Plummer: What's the terminology? Mayor Suarez: So we have it in the record. Mr. Plummer: Turn your microphone on and we can hear you. Linda Kearson, Esq.: You should modify the HC board's approval. They approved the certificate of appropriateness of approval. Mr. Dawkins: Where do you come from? Me. Kearson: Back there. Mayor Suarez: The HC board, meaning... Ms. Kearson: The HC board... Mr. Plummer: Heritage Conservation... Me. Kearson: ... Heritage Conservation Board approved the certificate of approval, but for six feet. You should modify that to allow for an 8 foot... Mayor Suarez: That's what the motion is. Mr. Plummer: That's exactly what I said in my motion. Mr. De Yurre: Second. Mr. Dawkins: And that's what you seconded. Mr. De Yurre: That's what I seconded. Mayor Suarez: Was second. Any discussion? At your risk. Mayor Suarez: No, no, don't say fellas. Mr. Plummer: What was the second part? Mr. Lavigne: Coral rock facing where I asked for is CBS and the fact... Mr. De Y'urre: What did you bring that up for? That's not part of the issue right now. Mr. Lavigne: Yes, sir, it is. Mr. De Yurre: Well, it is now. Now, it is. Go ahead. Mr. Lavigne: The thing is that the wall, I had to dedicate on one of those questionable legal things Mr. Plummer was referring to. The front ten feet... Mr. Plummer: It says here, the conditions - limestone facing, it doesn't say coral rock. Mr. Lavigne: Well, limestone. But the thing is, it's a hundred percent hidden. You can't see the wall from Main Highway and that's seventy-two hundred... Mr. Plummer: But wait a minute. Let me ask this question. Are you saying 60 percent and 60 percent vegetation covered on above site? Now, is that the whole - site, to me, is the whole piece of property. Ms. Hirai: Excuse me, sir... Mr. Plummer: Or are you talking about the wall? Mr. Lavigne: The wall. Mr. Plummer: And it's behind all of that? Mr. Lavigne: It's seventy-five or eighty percent covered right now. I'm going to fill in the rest. You can't see the wall so there's no point in putting... Mr. Plummer: Yes, but what happens if that shrubbery dies? Mr. Lavigne: It's been there since 19 , about 1910.... I'm sorry, this is the wall - this is the frontage that we're talking about. These trees are tremendous trees, it's covered. I'm going to fill in the rest with trees. So what I'm trying to do, is get eight feet CBS 100 percent invisible from Main Highway. Mr. Plummer: Yes, it's invisible to everything but the burglars. Mr. Lavigne: To block the sound on a $600,000 house that's going right behind it. Thank you. Mayor Suarez: If we had passed the motion as it was stated, would we have required the - what is it, the structure, that he was not willing to - the coral or not, Madam City Attorney? Ms. Kearson: The motion should include whatever structure he has to - you'd like for him to... Mayor Suarez: That's the best way to avoid a question is to come up with what it should have had in the motion. But I said, if the motion... Mr. Plummer: I move it. I move it. Ms. Kearson: You only spoke to the height. Mayor Suarez: Right, so what would have happened if we'd passed that motion the way it was stated? Ms. Kearson: You would not have dealt with the structure itself. Mayor Suarez: Right, so we would have been in limbo. OK, thank you. 23 July 31, 1989 7P ,,. - �� :.. Adlk — Ms. Kearsont What's right. Mayor Suarez: i thought we were in limbo anyhow. We're back to limbo. What do you want to do, Commissioners? - Mr. Plummer: So I move it to include the eight foot wall, to put the regular CBS with the proviso that it must be heavily landscaped so that the department cannot see the CBS wall through the landscaping. Ms. Eaton: Commissioner Plummer. Ms. Range: And heavily landscaped at all times. I noticed a question was asked, what if the foliage dies? Foliage need not necessarily die, but what - _ if an act of nature comes along, we have a hurricane. How can we ensure... Mr. Plummer: He'll have to put it back. Mayor Suarez: We can enforce it by requiring them to provide it. Ms. Range: How can we ensure in this motion that it be replanted immediately? Because it would make an awfully ugly sight... Mayor Suarez: It can be made a... Ms. Range: ...an 8 foot wall with a... Mayor Suarez: It can be made a requirement of the approval. Ms. Eaton: Yes, it can. Mayor Suarez: OK, well you just heard it in a motion and now... He. Range: Then I'd like to put that in there now. f! Ms. Kearson: Ms. Eaton would like to address that. _r Me. Eaton: Yes, we would appreciate it if the landscape plan could be subject to approval by the Planning Department. j t Mr. Dawkins: No. No. —i Mr. Plummer: Well, I have no objection, but my colleague... I will respect my =! colleague's opinion. Mr. Dawkins: No, but you see, all we're doing is jerking them back around again. Why didn't they say all this... Mr. Plummer: Well, no, all I said... Mr. Dawkins: No, all they had to do was say this at first. Mr. Plummer: Miller, all I said was that to them to verify for us that the 3 vegetation was one hundred percent where you couldn't see the wall. Mr. Dawkins: OK. _ Mr. Plummer: I'm not going to go out and check it and I don't think you are, but I think we have... Mr. Dawkins: That's not what she said. She was that the plans that's already there be approved by the Planning Department. Mr. Plummer: But that was not in my motion? Mr. Dawkins: That's what she was asking for. id 5 Mr. Plummer: My motion spoke that the department would go in and make sure that its a hundred percent so that, in fact, you cannot see the wall. A hundred percent. Me. Ranges And the addition to the most... 24 July 31, 1969 ak. s Mr. De Yurre: Let's be realistic, a hundred percent, that's a pretty high percentage. I wean like... Ms. Range: Well, if that's what he pants. Mr. Dawkins: That's all right. That's what he said. He said that. Mayor Suarez: Yes, I think it's substantial, no? Mr. Plummer: I agree. I mean, I don't think we ought to go more than a hundred percent. Ms. Range: And we must be sure that any dying foliage, regardless to what the reason, is replaced immediately. Mr. Dawkins: OK, well I think what we need to do - I think, I don't - and if I'm in error, J.L., maybe we need to amend it to say that if any time you can see the wall, it has to come down. That's all. Mr. Plummer: They'd either have to restore it to the hundred percent or the wall would have to come down. Mr. Dawkins: Or the wall come down, yes. Mayor Suarez: That's built into the motion too. Mr. Plummer: Fine. Mayor Suarez: We have a motion and a second, right? Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: Before we vote, let me say, Sarah, one thing. What I think you hear and correct me, Commissioners, if I'm wrong, is a Commission that is obviously concerned with how Main Highway looks and how all kinds of parts of the City look, but we're not that concerned to the point that we want our j Planning Department to spend its time on the exact materials that are built t there. If people want to have that kind of a community, they could move to —i Coral Gables... Mr. Plummer: Or they would pay for it out of self -pride. Mayor Suarez: Right, or pay for it out of self -pride, but our Planning Department and our City is devoted, at this particular point, I think, under these five Commissioners to try to improve areas of the City where this would be just a magnificent thing to happen there. It concerns us, I think, to hear the way you're getting into the details of the way people build things that are not the kinds of concerns that we have up here. At least I don't, and I think I speak for the rest of the Commission. OK, call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89-745 A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE DECISION OF THE HERITAGE CONSERVATION BOARD AND GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EIGHT FOOT CBS WALL WITH NO TREE REMOVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3918 MAIN HIGHWAY (3665 ST. GAUDENS ROAD), COCONUT GROVE FLORIDA. (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: [a AM: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Commissioner Miller Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Mr. De Yurre: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Suarez: The word that I was looking for was nit picking. That was the word I was looking for. Commissioner, Vice Mayor... Mr. De Yurre: Mr. Mayor, now that I'm looking at some of these pictures. You know, one of the things that really I find that is totally out of place in the Coconut Grove area is the unkempt green areas abutting the streets. For example, that Poinciana and Main Highway, all the weeds and that kind of thing. Who's supposed to take care of those things? Is it... Mr. Plummer: Public right-of-way is supposed to be done by the City. Mr. De Yurre: Well, I tell you, it's lacking to a great degree along Main Highway. Mr. Plummer: Victor, let me tell you something, two things real quickly. One... Mr. Dawkins: We're going to get out of here at 9:00 o'clock, OK, you two? Mr. Plummer: I just came back from Vancouver and you ought to see how that town is kept. It is beautiful. Second of all, the biggest thing I ever had of a problem on Main Highway was the banyan tree in front of St. Hugh's Church. That tree sticks out in the street. This City got sued and paid off $100,000 claim and I said I would only vote to pay the claim to tear the tree down. Buddy, you got paper airplanes on Chalk Airlines? I got banyan twigs for months. It's amazing, they don't want to do anything about it. Mr. De Yurre: Yes, but the City must keep the green area, at least cut the - you know, all the stuff that's... Mr. Plummer: Well, that's the tree trimmer with the two-way radio. Call him on the radio and tell him to go down there. Mr. De Yurre: Well, Wally, can you make sure that Main Highway gets addressed and all along Douglas also. Mr. Wally Lee: Yes, sir, I'll follow up on it. Mr. De Yurre: Main and Douglas. Mayor Suarez: Who's is the - as long as we're into that, who's is the maintenance of what it looks like is sort of a sidewalk and also parkway along U.S. 1 right next to the wall there on Dixie coming up into downtown? I don't think there's any worse maintained area of Miami than that little sidewalk parkway area between the wall... Mr. Plummer: Vizcaya? Mr. Olmedillo: That's a federal road. Mayor Suarez: Well, all along there. All along up to 17th Avenue. Mr. Olmedillo: That's a federal road. Mayor Suarez: Ah. Could you do something to try to alert them to the fact that all it takes is every once in a while to mow that or pick up the trash or the garbage and it's one of the most viewed highways in the City. 26 July 31, 1989 orris -------- ----...r-...r------------------------- S. BRIEF DISCUSSION CONCERNING SALARIES OF CITY OFFICIALS. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, since we seem to be going off on tangents here, for five minutes, we got something that's been coming up for the longest and we've never gotten to it. The City Clerk and Assistant City Clerk works for the City of Miami and the City Clerk is desirous of giving a pay raise to the Assistant City Clerk. We want to state your position so we can get through with this? Ms. Hirais Yes, sir, he has, by now, all the necessary experience and he's a real value to our office and I thought it was only fair that his salary would run parallel to Assistant Directors of other departments in the range area, and who sets its... Mayor Suarez: Why would this come before the Commission? Ms. Hirais Because you approve both of our salaries. Mr. Dawkins: Have to approve the budget. Mayor Suarers And we don't do that as part of the budget process? Ms. Hirai: I thought it would be. I was not aware that it was Mr. Dawkins: For her, no her's come, but his Mayor Suarez: Yes, your's is... Mr. Dawkins: They both... Mr. Plummer: Of all the three that we appoint and their sub -directors come before this City Commission for approval. City Manager and his assistants, the City Attorney and his assistant and... Mr. De Yurre: When do we approve the Assistant City Managers? Mr. Plummer: We do if they get a raise. Mr. Dawkins: We don't. Mayor Suarez: There's a provision... Mr. Dawkins: No, you don't. Mr. De Yurre: No, no, no, no. Mr. Plummer: We did. Mayor Suarez: Let me tell you, there's a provision in the charter, just so you know. Ms. Hirai: No. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. Mayor Suarez: There's a provision in the charter that says this Commission approves the salaries of all directors too if you ever want to... Mr. De Yurre; Well, I want, then I want... Mr. Plummer; We approve all directors by virtue of budget. Mayor Suarez: But, I mean, there's a provision in the charter specifically refers to our approval of directors compensation. Mr, De Yurre; But what about Assistant City Managers? Mr. Plummer: Well, of course. h 4 1 27 MY! t � f xl May6t Outtmt All that:e part bf the budget protreaa. Mt. be Tutre t But hot... Mayor Suareat Not individually. Mr. Plummer: But, Viotor, for Victor, if I'm not mistaken, the Assistant t City Managers have not got a pay raise for two years. a_ Mayor Suarest but he's just looking at the procedure for approving. Mr. De Yurre: In how long? Mr. Dawkins: You want to bet? Mr. Plummer: No, they got a bonus. Mr. Dawkins: No, sir. Mr. Plummer: They got a bonus, not a pay raise. Mr. Dawkins: They got a pay raise. Mr. Plummer: They got a bonus. Mr. De Yurre: No, they've gotten pay raises. Mr. Dawkins: What's that lady's name that's up there in his office? What's her name? i Mayor Suarez: They got all kinds of things. Mr. Dawkins: What's that lady's name up here? Mayor Suarez: Whatever... Mr. Plummer: Angela? Mr. Dawkins: No, the other one. Mr. Plummer: Janet. Mr. Dawkins: Janet. She got... Mr. Plummer: She's not an Assistant City Manager. Mr. Dawkins: What is....? Mr. Plummer: She's an Assistant to. Mr. De Yurre: She's an assistant to the City Manager. Mayor Suarez: Assistant to the City Manager which is about the same thing as far as I'm concerned. Mr. Dawkins: Well, what's the difference? Me. Range: What's the difference? Mr. Plummer: About $40,000. Mr. De Yurre: No, no. k Mayor Suarezc We ought to really review in connection with the budget... Mr. Dawkins: Well, why do you want to review it when I bring this one up? Why doalt you review it after you put this one through? i Mayor Suarez: I don't think we can. I don't think we can. 20 Jul,y 3 r tmC`/ 4Z`'(' ' �}JEx' ♦ ' ] _ .tl-. 1 .�a�.F+{ Pl ?._�'e r `, Mrs 'i'wrraa 'dell, iet� s+amthitig klMpl6i Over the last t#6 Y*Atlls .$e #ally, trlug the a breakdown of all the kalkistatit 'City Maaagarb and the pair raises they renattodi Mr. wally Leaf fifes, sir. Mr. De Yurre: And the dates when they received them: Mr. Lest Yes, sir. Mr. Ds Yurre: OK? And we'll see. Mayor Suarea: Madam City Clerk, it sounds like, assuming that we can't act on this today... Mr. Dawkins: Yes, we'll do it with the budget. I don't have any problem.... Mayor Suarez: It sounds like you have a pretty clear signal that maybe there should be some... INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Suarez: Right and you maybe ought to have the Manager reflect that in the budget and, if not, you alert us to it. Ms. Hirai: Mr. Mayor, I did not request the issue to come up today. Mayor Suarez: Let me finish what I'm saying. Why does everybody interrupt me all the time? Then you alert us to it at budget season. Ms. Hirai: Yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: Unless you don't want to alert us to it at budget season, in which case we don't act on it even though, apparently, you agree that he x3; s -. .. _ .. _ : _... �=.. �..rr..r.i.w.'i.wWirW.rii.rW�.WWrr--:-.—a►..`..rrr.W...a�.-rawer.irrrr.WrrwWrr.rWa.�rWW..... -: _. :.� � ...,,..:.. .:... b . A BRIEF WINIENTS FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONCERNING BOARD Or COUNTY - COMMISSIONERS' ACTION CONCERNING PROPOSED KEY BISCAYNE AREAWIDE DRI. Mayor Suarez: OK, we have the ability to do PZ-26 and 27, Commissioners. If you want to do those real quick before we... Mr. Plummer: What about 13 and 14? Mayor Suarez: They're all scheduled for after 5:00 p.m. Mr. Plummer: No, sir, that's scheduled for 2:00. Mr. Olmedillo: The neighbors requested that these items be taken after five. Mayor Suarez: That's one of ones we scheduled specially. Mr. Plummer: Thirteen and fourteen? Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Item... what are you saying, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Olmedillo: Twenty-six and twenty-seven. Mayor Suarez: PZ-26 and 27, we can handle before 5:00 p.m. We may as get those out of the way. Mr. Olmedillo: There's no vote, there's no vote, there's no motion. This is only a report to you. Mayor Suarez: Discussion item. Proposed Key Biscayne areawide DRI. Who wanted that to come back? Mr. Plummer: We did. Mr. Olmedillo: Well, you wanted a report after the County Commission meeting of Tuesday. Mr. Plummer: After the County acted. Mr. Olmedillo: The County acted on it. And you want... Mr. Plummer: And they acted rightly, that's why I commended Barbara Carey the other day. Mayor Suarez: They turned it down. Unless somebody else wants to report, that's... Mr. Olmedillo: Well, that's the report. Mr. Plummer: They decided not to do the DRI. Mr. Olmedillo: Decided not to. Mayor Suarez: I don't remember asking this to be scheduled for a discussion item, but anyhow. Anybody else want to hear anything on that? idNil..rr :•`:�—.—'".... ,.. i�.w.�.W31ra��:'�aa'i�yiir r"r.ir.i'..rrW�i.�"—...�.�.ri:iu.�riwa.aGii:i+..r':ar_.rir'....• _' i�i+�...��i7�.. it ier to 6.B DIR$CT MANAGER TO JJMVT NSW ZONING ORDINANC$ - making eas understand = Set public hearings. ------------------------ —------------------- ----- _:.---- �..�.. -- -- Mayor Suarez: OK, PZ-27. Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: PZ-27, you have received... Mayor Suarez: Proposed new zoning ordinance. Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct, air. Mr. Plummer: Where is it? Mr. Olmedillo: You have been asking... it was delivered to your offices the day of past City Commission, Thursday, and I will run quickly through what we're proposing to do with it. Not necessarily go into deep discussion, but if you want to, of course, we can do that. But this is basically what we're trying to do. We're trying to respond to the need of making this a simpler ordinance, and what we're doing is that we're reducing the number of districts. Right now, we have 52 districts times the number of intensity factors that we have. So, conceivably, we have 468 districts in our ordinance today. Mayor Suarez: Now, wait a minute, wait a minute. Mr. Olmedillo: We are... Mayor Suarez: Wait a minute. We have 468 districts. Mr. Olmedillo: Possible districts. Mayor Suarez: What does that mean? Mr. Olmedillo: We, well... Mayor Suarez: Four hundred sixty eight different kinds of districts or 468 actual districts? Mr. Olmedillo: We have 52 basic districts... Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. Olmedillo: ...and then we have the intensity. Mayor Suarez: Classifications, there's another way of saying districts there. Mr. Olmedillo: Right. Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. Olmedillo: And then we have nine... Mayor Suarez: Variations of each one. Mr. Olmedillo: Nine different sector numbers; from one through nine. Which gives you the intensity of development, so you can have from... Mr. Plummer: I thought we were doing away with that? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, we are. Mr. Plummer: When? Mayor Suarez: So he's telling us how bad things are. Mr. Olmedillo; I'm giving you the draft. 31 Mr. Plummer: For two years you've been telling us you're going to do Away with it. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, 1 turned in a draft. Last Thursday I delivered to your offices a draft of the new ordinance. We... Mayor Suarez: OK, how many classifications will we have there? We used to have 460 some possible ones. How many was it? Mr. Olmedillo: Four sixty eight. Mayor Suarez: Four sixty eight. Mr. Olmedillo: We're going for 27 now. Mayor Suarez: Twenty-seven Mr. Olmedillo: Twenty-seven. Mayor Suarez: OK, how does that scheme work? How many basic and how many variations? Mr. Olmedillo: What we have is twelve basic and fifteen special ones. Mayor Suarez: OK, how are the basic ones? How do they run? Mr. Olmedillo: The basic ones will be like an R-1, R-2... Mr. Plummer: Great. Mr. Olmedillo: ...R-3, R-4. C-1, which is a commercial district; C-2, which is a liberal commercial district. Then you have one industrial, then cutting down... Mayor Suarez: One industrial. Mr. Olmedillo: One industrial. We have three industrials right now. Mayor Suarez: Just wanted to make sure I heard what it was. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: How many business? Mr. Olmedillo: And then... Mayor Suarez: Or office? Mr. Olmedillo: Office, one district and central business district only one. Mayor Suarez: CBD is one. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, we have CBD-19, and we have... Mr. Plummer: What about mixed? What used to be the old RC? Mr. Olmedillo: The mixed will be the C-1. C-1 district will be a mixed use. Mayor Suarez: It's accumulative zoning, so that anything is included in a C that if OK in an R, or is that the idea? Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct, sir. Mayor Suarez: I see, that's the true... Mr. Plummer: Are you going to put in the height limitations and all of that into the C-1? Mr. Olmedillo: We will have height limitations in the districts themselves. Mayor Suarez: OK, now what about the other 17? You gave us twelve. What about the other seventeen? 32 July 31, 1989 s� r Mr. Olmedillo: Then you have the HC district which now we have four, we're reducing it to one. Mayor Suarez: What is the HC? Mr. Plummer: Heritage Conservation, special overlays. Mr. Olmedillo: Heritage Conservation district. We got four, then we're going to reduce it to one... Mayor Suarez: To one. Mr. Olmedillo: ...and then we have the SPIs. So far, we've eliminated four SPIs. We would like to go for more, but at this point, we have had about 30 meetings with staff and 30 different organizations. Now, we want from here from you is direction. You want us to go back to the public? We have a committee which is called a 9500 committee. You want this to be taken back to the public. We suggest that we have public meetings on this before we come with a final version to you so that people are informed of what we're trying to do. Mr. Plummer: How about bringing it up this afternoon? Mr. Olmedillo: We can do that. Mr. Dawkins% Who is the 9500 committee? Mr. Olmedillo: They are about 30 organization that we have invited... Mr. Dawkins: Who are who? I don't care, I didn't say how many, I said who? Mr. Olmedillo: I will list them to you, sir, if you bear with me just one second. Mayor Suarez: All the builders organizations... Mr. Olmedillo: Yes. Mayor Suarez: Do we have neighborhood organizations too? Mr. Dawkins: No. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, we have... I'll go down, yes, we have. Otis Pitts from Miami -Dade Chamber of Commerce, Teresita Garcia... Mr. Dawkins: Who? Mr. Olmedillo: Otis Pitts. Then we have Teresita Garcia of Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce; Luis Sabines, Latin Chamber of Commerce; Carlos Bertot, National Association of Cuban Architects; Douglas McKinney, Allied Contractors; Angel Saqui, AIA; Edmund Mazzei, Building Owners and Managers Association of Greater Miami; Marjorie Douglas, Friends of the Everglades; we have Beth Ann Brick, Sierra Club; we have Jens Henriksen, Dade County Chapter, Florida State Department of Transportation; Terry Lunn, president, Florida Engineering Society; Fernando Gomez -Pine, Association of Cuban Civil Engineers; American Planning Association, Bill Kwalick; Manuel Moreles, President, National Bankers Association; we have Larry Handfield, Black Lawyers' Association; we have Johnnie Ridgely, Dade County Bar; we have Lou Lawtin, Builders Association of South Florida. Mayor Suarez: OK, we got an idea, we got an idea. You got most people that might be interested. Anything else, Commissioner, on that? Mr. Plummer: There's only one problem there. They have nobody of the real general public. Who's going to speak for the public? These are vested corporations who have an interest in this. Who have they got for the public? Mayor Suarez: Well, you've got some from neighborhood associations, don't you, you said? Mr. Olmedillo: We do and we've 33 July 31, 1969 Mayor Suarees Who do you have from neighborhood associations? Mr. Olmedillo: We've talked to the Coral Gate people specifically. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, you talked to them or are they part of the committee? Mayor Suarez: Who do you have on the committee from the neighborhood associations? Do you have any? Mr. Olmedillo: Not on this committee because this... Mr. Plummer: None. Mayor Suarez: OK, well just say that. Mr. Olmedillo: And what we have suggested... Mayor Suarez: You're asking us, Guillermo, what we suggest by way of workshops before we adopt this. Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct. Mayor Suarez: The Commissioner's asking, do you have, in the committee, members of neighborhood associations? Mr. Olmedillo: No, sir. Mayor Suarez: It's a very logical question given the other question you've asked us to decide which is, what procedure we're going to follow before we try to make this into law. Do we now have hearings and given the fact that the committee doesn't have neighborhood associations, that may be one argument for having the hearings. Mr. Plummer: Should have some on it. Mr. Olmedillo: OK, we'll... Mayor Suarez: Sure. Or to have hearings now at which time they take their input. Let me just show, Commissioners, the downtown master plan, for example, which I was having a chance to look at because I think we're expected to approve that today, has so many classifications on it, that it's just an incredible hodgepodge of things, you know, that are so confusing. For example, there's something here called the WF-1/7. What, in heaven's name, is that? Mr. Plummer: Waterfront. Mr. Olmedillo: Waterfront industrial. Mayor Suarez: All right. How is that going to be taken care of under the new classifications? Mr. Olmedillo: That'll be an industrial... Mayor Suarez: Industrial. Mr. Olmedillo: Industrial. Mayor Suarez: All right, that makes a lot more sense than WF-1/7. will just be CBD now? Mr. Olmedillo: CBD, yes. CBD-1/9 Mr. Plummer: See, they have to have all those classifications to justify all those people working in the department because they - if we can't figure it out, and they can't figure it out, they got to have more people. Mayor Suarez: OK, we have a PDMU dash eight. Mr. Olmedillo: Planned development for mixed use. 34 ==-=l July 31, 1909 Mr. Olmedillo: Same to you. Al Mr. Plummy r: With three shots of penicillin, you can rid of it. Mr. Olmedillo: Planned development, mixed use as opposed to planned development housing, or planned development... s Mayor Suarez: What are we going to do with these PDMUs now? Mr. Plummer: Two shots. Mr. Olmedillo: Instead of having three of them, we're just going to have one PDMU. Mayor Suarez: Couldn't we think of a name a little bit easier than PDMU? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, we are and if I can run... Mayor Suarez: How about PD? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, planned development, that's it. Mayor Suarez: Thank you. Mr. Plummer: Police Department. Mr. Olmedillo: That's what we have. Mayor Suarez: Could mean other things too, but - all right, we have here something called PR. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, parks and recreation. Mayor Suarez: What is that going to be now? Mr. Olmedillo: Parks, P. Mayor Suarez: Thank you. Mr. Olmedillo: Right. Mr. Plummer: That isn't what Emilio Lopez says. i Mayor Suarez: We have here something called SPI-16.2. You're not going to have any more SPI-16.21s, are you? Mr. Olmedillo: We'll have it just the plain number. The SPI and the one number, sir. Mayor Suarez: OK, and each one of those SPI numbers will just mean an SPI number because we have to list all the SPI's or because that number will mean something as to density or anything else. i t Mr. Olmedillo: Well, no, the number is because of an area of the City. Mr. Plummer: It depends. • Mayor Suarez: OK, so, in other words, we'll just number them from one to - whatever - how many were there altogether? ' Mr. Olmedillo: One through whatever. Right now, we're cutting it down to fifteen instead of 19. Mayor Suarez: OK, you can't eliminate the overlays? Mr. Olmedillo: We're trying to do it, however that was done work with the community directly and... 35 July 31, 1989 _ s Mayor Suarez: I really would hope, and I think maybe I speak for the Commission on this, if not, if you would express yourselves that we could come up with a system that defines the classifications and what the zoning is going to be without overlays. Mr. Olmedillo: We'll try that, air. Yes, we'll try. Mr. Plummer: That's going to be difficult. Mr. Olmedillo: And if I can run very quickly through a list of concepts... Mr. Plummer: It's going to be difficult. Mr. Olmedillo: ...that we're using to fac... Mr. Plummer: Well, it can be done, but it's going to be difficult because an SPI in Coconut Grove is obviously going to be a lot different than an SPI in downtown Miami, so you can't set a base of minimum requirements. Mayor Suarez: Well, I'm just wondering about the whole reason for an SPI. I mean, if you've got zoning, you could specify in area we want this and in this area we want that without all these overlays. Mr. Olmedillo: Well, it's a zoning district, instead of calling it SPI we can call it something else, but for, I guess people that have been used to the special district concept, and then to change it again, it may be confusing again to go back, but if... Mayor Suarez: OK, well maybe limit it to as few as you possibly can. They're going to have numbers then from one to whatever number we have, and that's it. Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct. Mayor Suarez: No decimal points and all of that. Mr. Plummer: No less. Mr. Olmedillo: No, no decimal points. Mayor Suarez: Well, it sounds like we're headed in the right direction. GU will be what? Mr. Olmedillo: GU, it's governmental use so we're getting you just the G will do for it. Mayor Suarez: Are we going to make that industrial? Mr. Plummer: No, that would stay, governmental use would stay. Mayor Suarez: We'll keep that as G? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Olmedillo: Right. Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. Olmedillo: An quick... Mayor Suarez: By the way, that's important because if we have governmental use for some property, like we did for the municipal justice building, you'd wonder why you would have to go through a rezoning when you're going to offer that for sale. I mean, you don't - you shouldn't have a rezoning, you should have a zoning, really, is the determination of what the ideal zoning would be for that area and that's it. Mr. Olmedillo: Right. Mr. Plummer: Compatible. Mayor Suarez: Yes, compatible, not necessarily like a rezoning. 36 Mr. Olmedillo: If I may, if I run quickly through the con... Mayor Suarez: I guess you lost a vote here regardless of what you bring back. Mr. Dawkins: You don't have nobody on here that relates to... every time I look down here, the people who come down here arguing about the zoning and everything. You don't have them on here. You've got the people on here who get paid to come down here and fight for their clients. Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct, sir. The way that we wanted to take this through was to meet with staff many times, meet with these people many times, the developer site, and then with a structure, meet with the community. Mr. Dawkins: When do you plan to bring it back, 1992? Mr. Olmedillo: No, sir. Mr. Dawkins: You must do. Then you got to meet with the general public. Mr. Olmedillo: We were planning to do so during the month of August and September to be back to you before the end of the year. Mr. Dawkins: No, unless you get some of those people who come in here arguing about we violate their rights as citizens and we allow stuff just like we got over here on Tigertail where that house sits right in the middle of the road. These people who come here and complain about that needs to be on this. Mr. Olmedillo: And we concur with you. However, we wanted to get something structured so we can show it to these people. Mr. Dawkins: See, but hold it - see, if I were Ms. Range, I could understand it, OK? I've been here eight years and eight years I've been complaining about 9500 and eight years you've been telling me you're going to correct it. OK? Now, all of a sudden, you've got in two months you're going to do what we haven't done in eight years. With these people who have a vested interest, who get paid to argue against what we're supposed to be - all these people here have a vested interest almost, you know. Mr. Olmedillo: And we realize that, sir. And we want to... Mr. De Yurre: Guillermo, you know what the problem is that once you structure something, just what you're trying to do here, it's difficult to change it. Because the people out there are not going to have the expertise to really, you know... Mayor Suarez: I got an idea. I got an idea. Mr. De Yurre: ...make a dent into something that's already been structured. You're going to be railroading it to a great degree over these people. Mayor Suarez: Mr. Vice Mayor, why don't we set up a committee, since we're going to set up the procedure by which it's going to reach us, of citizens and neighborhood associations to whom this will be submitted and who will, in fact, hold the workshops - we can, of course, bring our staff - and let them make the recommendations to us. Mr. De Yurre: Do we have a list here in the City as far as homeowners associations? Are they registered where we have a list of all of these... Mayor Suarez: We have an informal list. Mr. Olmedillo: We do have a list in the Planning Department. Mr. Plummer: Only if they've asked for agendas or... Mayor Suarez: We have an informal list, yes. Mr. Plummer: Only if they've asked for agendas to be on the mailing list. Mr. De Yurre: Because what we could do, depending on how many there are, just to invite them to present, you know, or nominate somebody from the organization. 37 July 31, 1989 K,' Mayor Suarez: Or we could have them hold the workshops and be a commnittee, an advisory committee. And they make the recommendations to us. Mr. Dawkins: And we take it to them. Mayor Suarez: Do you want to do it? Mr. Plummer: Yes, fine, and then let the vested interest go to that committee and talk. Mr. Olmedillo: We welcome that... Mayor Suarez: That way, the vested interests are put in the situation of having to appeal to the neighbors instead of the other way around. Mr. Plummer: Fine. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, we welcome that. Mayor Suarez: How many would you want on the committee, Commissioners, ten? Mr. Plummer: A hundred and three. Mayor Suarez: Fifteen? Try to keep it to a multiple of... Mr. Plummer: Well, I think the answer to your question, Mr. Mayor, is how many homeowners groups do we have? Mayor Suarez: Well, I don't that we have an exact count, but I'd guess we're awfully close to twenty or twenty-five. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, around thirty. Mr. Plummer: Thirty? Mr. Olmedillo: Around thirty that we... Mr. Dawkins: Fifty, no fifty. Mayor Suarez: I was wondering what you meant by that? I was ready to flash back some at you because, you know, I see that stuff and I don't know what you're talking about. Mr. Plummer: What do you want? Mayor Suarez: That means thirty? Mr. Plummer: You want each of us to come up with three or four names? What do you want? Mayor Suarez: Yes, I was thinking that it'd make it fifteen and each one appoint three. Mr. Olmedillo: The thing that I may suggest, we have to narrow it down to a group of five or six people who are going to work intensely with us. Then, kind of expand it because if you get... Mayor Suarez: OK, we'll do it one and two alternates who can come as i observers. One and one. Mr. Plummer: You know, excuse me, Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry. You know, these committees are fine and all of this is fine, but it's a bunch of bull. What this Commission wants is to go back to the old system that was so damn simple to understand it was unreal. Why do you have to go through all this committee malarky? Hey, we want an R one, two, three, four, and five. We want a C-1, -2, -3, -4, and -5. You don't need a damn committee to do all of that. All we're asking you to do is to not oversimplify, but simplify a system. You've been two years in this Commission asking for that. Now, you're going to go to more committees, more people and all we want is a simplified form that everybody understands. Why all this committees? Now, if you all have it any different, please tell me but in the old days, we worked under R one, two, 38 July 31, 1989 three, four and five. We worked under C-1, -2, -3, -4, and -5. We had two industrial. We had a public and recreation. We had a waterfront and it was to simple to understand. Mayor Suarez: Well, we're headed towards that. Mr. Plummer: That's all we want now. Why through all this committees and all of this malarky? t= Mayor Suarez: Well, all right, here's where we are, here's the juncture we're at. We have a proposal that does bring us back substantially to the old system. We also have an indication from the Commissioners that we want to have citizen input and from staff that we have to set the procedure by which this will reach us. Do you want these citizens... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, the reason we're doing this is, is that public are demanding we do it. Mayor Suarez: Do you want these hearings that would be had before this ordinance comes back to us, whether you want any hearings to be had, or would you want to have a committee... Mr. Plummer: Let me short circuit it. Mayor Suarez: ...acting on our behalf and take in input and then getting back to us? Mr. Plummer: Let me short circuit it. OK? Mayor Suarez: Yes. Mr. Plummer: Let's schedule it before this Commission on the September meeting of zoning and let the people come here and speak to it. How simple and how quick can you be? Mayor Suarez: It's just that I want to make sure that we don't later have the neighbors saying they didn't have enough input. That's fine with me. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Suarez: Because I think that they're going to be very... Mr. Plummer: It's a public hearing. Mayor Suarez: ...they're going to be very supportive of this. Mr. Plummer: You have two public hearings. Mayor Suarez: No more workshops. Mr. Plummer: I don't see it. Mayor Suarez: Just bring it back to the Commission what is it, the second meeting in September? Mr. Plummer: Schedule it as public hearings on September 28th, the first one and the next zoning hearing, the second one... Mayor Suarez: I'll tell you what, do a variation on that and send - do it exactly that way, but send to all of the neighborhood associations that you told us there was thirty of them - whatever those fingers that you flashed at me meant - and send them each a courtesy copy of the zoning code with a little letter saying the Commission would like input on these from you. Is that all right? Mr. Olmedillo: Will do, sir. Mayor Suarez: Thank you. Mr. Olmedillo: Thank you. 39 July 31, 1989 Mayor SuareA: Anything further, Commissioners, do we need to have � do we need to... Mr. Plumper: What time? We got to set a time. Mayor Suarez: Do we need to trove that, Madam City Attorney? Mr. Plutmrners Five, no, you got too much, put it at 2:00 o'clock. touch at five. You got too Mayor Suarez: OK, do we need that in the form of a motion? That just... Mr. Plummer: I so move. DNIDENTIFIBD SPEAKER: No. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Suarez: Since she said no, let's go ahead and move it. Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 89-746 A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO DRAFT A NEW ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD BE SIMPLER AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND THAN THE ONE PRESENTLY IN EFFECT; FURTHER REQUESTING THE CITY MANAGER TO SCHEDULE THE FIRST AND SECOND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON SAID PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1989, AT 2 : 00 P.M. , AND ON OCTOBER 26, 1989; AND FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO FORWARD TO ALL INTERESTED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS A COURTESY COPY OF SAID PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE REQUESTING THEIR INPUT AND COMMENTS CONCERNING SAME. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Commissioner Miller Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. --------------------------------------------------------- 7. URGE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES TO NAME VALERIE HICKEY-PATTON, VICE MAYOR OF CITY OF WEST MIAMI, AS RECIPIENT OF 1989 FLORIDA MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS OF THE YEAR "E. HARRIS DREW AWARD". --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Suarez: What happened on your item, so that we can recess until 5:00 here? Mr. Plummer: I saw Steve out there somewhere. Mr. Dawkins: Steve, Steve. Mr. Plummer: Huh? Mayor Suarers Apparently everything else has to be after five because it either affects five percent of the City's land or was scheduled for after five. Mr. Plummers Mr. Mayor, can I bring this thing up.here because it's on a...' 40 July U , 1949 Maj6t Suited too, what was that, Commissioner? Mr. Pluthlmer: Mr. Mayor, we're being asked to support one of Our fallow colleagues in the City of Neat Miami for the B. Harris brew Award issued by the State of Florida, Florida League of Cities, and I'd like to a6fninatt aired forward to the Florida League of Cities, Commissioner 'Valerie Hickey Patton that recommend. Mayor Suarers Valerie Hickey Patton, OK. That's in the form of a motion? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mayor Suarez: Second? Somebody. Ms. Ranges Second. Mayor Suarez: Second. If there's any discussion. You recommend her, you've worked with her under League of Cities, right? Mr. Plummer: Very definitely. Mayor Suarez: Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89-747 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION URGING THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC. TO NOMINATE VALERIE HICKEY-PATTON, VICE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF WEST MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS THE RECIPIENT OF THE 1989 FLORIDA MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL OF THE YEAR, "E. HARRIS DREW AWARD." (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Range, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Commissioner Miller Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 8. REFER TO DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REQUEST FROM DIRECTOR OF CAMILLUS HOUSE - for full-time City staff person to assist with their meals program. Mayor Suarers What's the story... 11 Mayor Suarez% Uh huh. 17J Ms. Range It is in regard to the fact that the Arena apartments will be opening very soon. There's some need for cooperation of the City of Miami, the Downtown Development Authority, on behalf of the Southeastjbvertown project are working diligently to coordinate and expedite the Camillus House satellite meal program. Now, they're asking in this state, that in order to meet our mutual goals, we are requesting that Mrs. Garcia, City of Miami Homeless Project's coordinator, be assigned to assist and facilitate with assessing the City and County sites that could be utilized for satellite locations throughout the community. With her time and dedication together, we can all work toward implementing the satellite meal program and discontinuing our current practice of the daily meal line which sometimes is very, very long. Mayor Suarez: Wally is there... does the administration have any recommendation how to handle this recommendation or this proposal to have.... Mr. Plummer: I thought, Mr. Mayor, I thought that was their responsibility that they had "X" number of months, and now they're trying to get a City parcel? Mayor Suarez: I don't think so. I think they're going to pay... Ms. Range: I don't know. This was just brought to my desk and I thought we'd talk about it. Mayor Suarez: I'll tell you what we'll do. I'll propose, Commissioners, if with your approval, is to refer this to the Downtown Development Authority and see if the DDA will not pick up what is not a current City salaried employee who wants to... Mr. Plummer: Isn't that the organization that's sunsetting October 1st? Mayor Suarez: Do you want the DDA to consider footing the bill for this employee or not, Commissioners? If not, I won't even take it back to DDA. Mr. Dawkins: I don't. Mayor Suarez: OK. Commissioner Range, I don't have any suggestions for you. I'm sorry, I... Ms. Range: You say you have no suggestions? Mayor Suarez: Oh, I do, but apparently the rest of the Commissioners don't. I'd very much like to.... Mr. Plummer: Take it out of Matthew Schwartz's $123,000 a year. Mayor Suarez: That's precisely what I was proposing to do, Commissioner Plummer. Mr. De Yurre: Put it in the form of a motion. Mr. Plummer: I make a motion that we refer this to the DDA. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Mr. De Yurre: Second. Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Mr. Dawkins: Under discussion. Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: When are we going to have something definite and finished with Camillus House? Mr. De Yurre: I'm going to get into that now. Mr. Dawkins: OK? Every time, first we gave them the money, they haven't moved. They were supposed to have the satellite feeding places and they had them identified and they were going around to churches and they were going to have that, and now they come back, now they want a person to go do what they're supposed to have done. I need to know when will this come to closure? Mr. De Yurre: Let me say that... Mr. Plummer: That was in the contract. Mr. De Yurre: ...I got some... Mayor Suarez: Yes, that's a requirement. Mr. De Yurre: ...what I feel like, some alarming news Friday night over at that Better Way Fundraising that we were at. It seems to me, and I don't want to think that that's the way it's been handled, but that the approval of the contract by the church which was supposed to come back in three months and that was, I think, many weeks ago that it should have come back, if not months ago. That they were kind of holding back, at least that's the impression I've gotten, they were holding back on their approval of the contract because they were trying to negotiate a number of things as far as parking was concerned with the new site where they want to build on the corner of Third and Fifth. If that is the case, you know, I don't take that too kindly. I don't think that... Mr. Plummer: Wasn't there a provision, Victor, in there... Mr. De Yurre: That they were 90 days to come back. Mr. Plummer: And then, if it did not come back in 90 days, the contract was null and void. Wasn't that in there? Mr. De Yurre: I don't know if we stated that or not, but I think it's time that we started looking into it... Mr. Plummer: I'm almost certain it was. Mr. De Yurre: ...because I think that we've acted in good faith to work with them, and we've given them all they've wanted. Mr. Plummer: Well, they had... you negotiated the contract. Didn't they have, as I recall, twelve months in which to vacate the property? Mayor Suarez: From the point of closing, I think, and the closing... Mr. Plummer: Was it twelve or eighteen months? Mr. De Yurre: Eighteen. Mr. Plummer: I know there was a stipulated time. Mayor Suarez: Eighteen, I think. Mr. De Yurre: The soup lines were going to be gone in twelve and they were going to move out in eighteen. Mr. Plummer: OK, I knew there was a stipulated time. Ms. Range: Well, now, the... Mr. De Yurre: OK? But the thing is, it's been like six months and we haven't heard anything on the contract. It seems to me we're about - this happened what? -January, maybe, February of this year? Mr. Plummer: Somewhere around there. Mr. De Yurre: OK. So, you know, I'd like to make some headway and find out exactly what the status is, and also I've heard that the deal with the satellite feeding places is not going the way it should, and that they're not being - meeting with success the way they thought that they were. So there may be some problems with that also, and I would like to find out exactly what the status is on that. 43 July 31, 1989 Mr. Plummer- Well, if there's a time restraint of 90 days to close and they didn't do it, then the contract is void. I mean, that's the normal situation. Bob Clark, Esq.: I don't have the recollection, I... Mr. Plummer: Because I don't remember giving any extension of time. Mr. De Yurre: See if you can get that information by tonight sometime. Mr. Clark: Will do. Ms. Range: Yes, because what's going to happen, the Arena Towers is going to be on our shoulders for the marketability of it. Mr. Plummer: The what is? Ms. Range: This is precisely what is being said in this letter. Mr. De Yurre: When are the Towers? Mayor Suarez: Arena Towers, Overtown/Park West. Mr. Plummer: It's going to be on our shoulders? Ms. Ranges Well, I mean the Park West construction company, Geraldo Levea, is that correct? Mr. Plummer: Well, my dear, let me make something very clear for you. Anything I'm not putting on my shoulders when we give somebody $2 million dollars for something that was appraised for a million, two... Ms. Range: Um hum. Mr. Plummer: No, no, no. I won't accept that on my shoulders. Ms. Range: Well, I hope not, but this is what is being said in this letter and that's why I brought it to the Commission because I think it's important enough to try to work it out. Mayor Suarez: The various groups that are interested in this, in downtown, do have a way of putting all the responsibility on our shoulders... ■ Mr. Plummer: Yes, always. Ms. Range: Yes, right. Mayor Suarez: ...to get everything done, and they don't provide any financing for it and that applies to the DMBA, DDA, the Overtown/Park West developers. Mr. Plummer: All except the private residence of Brother Paul who is sworn to poverty for $300,000 residence. Mayor Suarez: But what they'd mentioned is a good point, Commissioner, of course, that it would inure to the benefit of the City of have this matter resolved and moving before we open. Ms. Range: Well, what should we do? Should we refer this to the DDA? Mayor Suarez: Yes, there's a motion to defer - to refer it to the DDA and, hopefully, the DDA will - if they don't want to get disbanded, will see fit to figure out a way to provide resources. Ms. Range: Did anybody second that motion? I'm ready to second it. Mayor Suarez: Yes, it was. Mr. De Yurre: Yes, I seconded the motion. Mr. Plummer: To do go DDA. 44 July 31, 1989 F. Mr. De 'turret tut I also want Mr. Clark., to get that inforsation to Us leer on today, Mayor Suarez t btu. Mr. Plummer: If in fact the contract is void, then there is nothing to tend T to the DDA, am I correct in that? Mayor Suarezi The DDA motion is really to have possibility of the homeless coordinator be on their staff at their expense, is what really the motion.,. Call the roll the roll on that. - The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 89-748 A MOTION REFERRING TO THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A REQUEST RECEIVED FROM BROTHER HARRY SOMERVILLE, DIRECTOR OF CAMILLUS HOUSE, FOR A FULL TIME STAFF PERSON `MS. LIVIA GARCIA, CITY OF MIAMI HOMELESS PROJECT COORDINATOR) TO ASSIST CAMILLUS HOUSE IN LOCATING POTENTIAL SITES FOR SATELLITE LOCATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR MEALS PROGRAM; FURTHER URGING THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO TRY TO ASSIST WITH THIS REQUEST. Upon being seconded by Commissioner De Yurre, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL: Mr. Plummer: For clarification, Mr. Mayor, that's not just for them, solely as their employee. That would be a homeless coordinator for anybody that needed the services, but not just for Camillus House. Mr. De Yurre: No, for the City. Mayor Suarez: Right, right, it's for the whole... Mr. Plummer: OK, just for clarification. I vote... Mayor Suarez: For all the affected areas of downtown and... Mr. Plummer: I vote yes. 45 .-----------........----------------------- ------ ------ —__-:� .- - 9. (Continued Discussion) VACATE AND CLOSE PORTION OF S.W. 30 AVENUE = south of southerly right-of-way line of S.W. 28 Lane and north of Metrorail right-of-way (Applicant: Public Storage Properties XIX Ltd.) (See label 1) Mayor Suarez: What was the deal? Do we have a deal? Do we have a proposal, do we have anything? Mr. Dawkins: Jim here say he give you $100,000 for the land. Mr. Jim Confalone: Yes, I would like to purchase that for $100,000. Mr. Plummer: You can't by law. You are not the contiguous owner, so you can't do it. Mayor Suarez: Jim, somebody, we're not negotiating any purchase or any sale of land here. What is, if anything, proposal that we have before us? Wait, wait, from staff first. Mr. Kay: Well, the question is, you can't purchase right-of-way. Mr. Plummer: All he's doing is trying to build up the prices. Mr. Kay: You cannot purchase public right-of-way. Mayor Suarez: I'm sorry? Mr. Kay: We are not the fee simple owners. You can't purchase. Mayor Suarez: That wasn't my question, Jim. Mr. Kay: Oh, I'm sorry. Mayor Suarez: We left the Commissions proceedings at a point at which we had asked for basically the applicant and you to meet about the possibility of either a reversible deal, which after a certain number of years we'd be able to take the property back without having too pay anything for it, or some other formula that you might devise. Do you have any such formula to recommend to us? Mr. Kay: The applicant has come up with a... Mayor Suarez: He was going to try to get authority from his client, possibly, for... Mr. Stephen Helfman: I have authority and I will give you what I have authority for, but I think it is very important to note that the main objector here just told you he'll pay for that right-of-way for a hundred grand, having nothing to do with the fact that it's got to be opened up, which is their whole argument, that they needed to be opened up... Mr. Dawkins: He might be opening it up. You don't know that he's not going to open it up for one hundred thousand, Steve. Mr. Helfman: ... which is their whole argument that they needed to be opened up. Now it's just a function of dollars. Mr. Confalone: I was going to donate it. I would donate it at the date that it needs to be taken. Mr. Dawkins: You don't know that he's not going to buy it and open it up, so don't even get into that. Mr. Confalone: I would donate it. Mayor Suarez: Sir, please, please, please, you made your offer, which is highly improper and out of order, but at least you made it, let him finish. 46 July 31, 1989 Mr. Helfman: We're prepared to make a voluntary contribution of $10,000 to the City and a condition to the road closure that if in the next ten years it is required for connection to U.S. 1, we will rededicate the property. Mr. Dawkins: $15,000 or 15 years, it doesn't make any difference. I mean 15... Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask you this, let me clarify your statement. Are you saying you are going to give us $10,000, that if in ten years it's needed for reopening, you'll give it back free of charge? Mayor Suarez: Or at the same... Mr. Plummer: No, no, no. Mr. Helfman: That is a voluntary contribution. Mr. Plummer% In other words, you'll give it back to the City. Mr. Helfman: We are not going to seek our contribution. Mr. Plummer: If the City allows you to use it for ten years, OK... Mayor Suarez: He said yes. Mr. Plummer: OK? - and any time during that time the City requests it back for public purpose, you'll give it back to us free of charge. Mr. Helfman: The voluntary contribution is separate and apart from the road closure. It's being given, we're not going to ask for the money back, but it must be needed for connection to U.S. 1. Mr. Plummer: Public purpose. Mr. Helfman: Not just a public purpose. For a right-of-way connection to U.S. 1. Mr. Plummer: What other public purpose would there be? Mr. Helfman: I don't know, a park? I don't know what anybody could come up with. Mr. Rafael Suarez Rivas: Any other municipal purpose that the Commission might be able to make of that land. Mr. Plummer: Well, I think the whole basis of any contention has been for the opening, so I don't think that's anything. Mr. Helfman: Public right-of-way, for the purpose of connecting to U.S. 1. Mayor Suarez: Yes, the correct jurisdiction would have to want it for some highway or transportation purposes. Mr. Plummer: Steve, let's don't play games with each other. You're either going to give him 15 years or $15,00. Now, which do you want? Or you lose. Mr. Helfman: $15,000. Mr. Plummer: OK, fine, $15,000 for ten years, OK? I'll move it. Mayor Suarez: So moved with those provisions and voluntary proffers. Any discussion? If not? Does it need an ordinance? Does it need a reading? Ms. Hirai: It's a resolution, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: Resolution, call the roll. 47 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plurm6r, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89=749 A RESOLUTION CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING THE PUBLIC USE OF THAT PORTION OF SOUTHWEST 30 AVENUE LYING SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SOUTHWEST 28 LANE AND NORTH OF THE METRORAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN, SAID REQUIREMENTS BEING ESTABLISHED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PLAT NO. 1347-A "L.R.G. SUBDIVISION". (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 J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Mr. Mayor, just for clarification, Mr. Helfman, would you send us a letter to that effect confirming those conditions? Mr. Plummer: He'll send the letter collect. THEREUPON THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 3:46 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 5:03 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COMMISSIONER RANGE AND VICE MAYOR DE YURRE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10. ALLOCATE $5,000 TO SISTER CITY OF BUENOS AIRES FOR SEMINAR IN APRIL 1990. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, one of our Sister Cities is Buenos Aires, which is holding a seminar in April of next year. For the record, I cannot go under any circumstances, but it is our Sister City and there is a balance in the fund of Sister City International, which we the City have. I would move at this time that $5,000 be allocated for that seminar for the purposes of our Sister City to have a successful convention, I so move. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Mr. Dawkins: I second it. I'll be recommending... (INAUDIBLE)... Mr. Plummer: My pleasure. Ms. Hirai: Commissioner, your mike is off. Mayor Suarez: OK, moved and seconded. Any discussion? If not, call the roll. 48 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who mowed its adoption: - MOTION NO. 89-750 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ALLOCATE $5,000 FROM THE SISTER CITY INTERNATIONAL FUND TO THE SISTER CITY OF BUENOS AIRES FOR A SEMINAR IN APRIL 1990. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner M. Athalie Range Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Suarez: With inflation, by the time you get there, you might need twice that amount. Mr. Plummer: Yes, that's always the problem, or half. 11. APPEAL DENIED, WITH MODIFICATIONS: Allow applicant (Nasser Adrisi, Sunny Electronics, Inc.) to construct an 18-unit apartment building at approximately 2100 Brickell Avenue, with certain provisos. Mayor Suarez: PZ-11. Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: PZ-11, Mr. Mayor is an appeal to the Zoning Board's decision to reverse the class C denial for 2100 Brickell. Usually, the appellant speaks first, then we present the facts of the case. Mayor Suarez: OK, let's proceed with the appellant. Who is the appellant, Guillermo? Mr. Troy Register, Jr. The appellant is here. Mayor Suarez: The property owner represented by counsel? Mr. Plummer: No, not the property owner. Mr. Olmedillo: No, the neighbor. Mr. Plummer: The neighbors. Mr. Olmedillo: Next door neighbor is the appellant. Mayor Suarez: OK, I'm sorry, all right. The appellant is the neighbors? j Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, for the record... Guillermo, let me ask a question because I have been told and I just want to ask this. For the record, I would merely like to ask is there what I've been told, true. I was told that this 4 applicant made a request for a Class C permit that in fact, it was granted and f then later was revoked. Is that a true statement? Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct. There was a mistake discovered in the issuance of the permit and the ordinance makes it obligatory to deny the permit to... Mr. Plummer: All right, my question then is, what was the time frame between the time it was granted and the time it was revoked? Mr. Olmedillo: Six days. i 49 July 31, 1989 1 Mr. Plummer: Six days? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, air. Mr. Plummer: All right, because I think we are going to hear the contention that the applicant spent in excess of $75,000 for plans based on the granting of the permit prior to it being revoked and I think that's going to weigh very, very heavy, so I just wanted to make on the record that that in fact was a true statement. I'm not asking you to attest to the $75,000, they'd have to demonstrate that, but in fact, supposedly, if that's a true statement is what I wanted on the record. Mayor Suarez: What was the reason for the revocation then? If you can explain the reason for the granting, might as well explain that, although it sounds like it is unexplainable, from our perspective. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, the intent of the ordinance reads specifically that district has a cap of 25 units per net acre. Having .41 acres, that piece of property should have ten units as a maximum. Now, the Comprehensive Neighborhood... Mayor Suarez: Was this purely coincidental, those are the same figures we heard for the project at 1890... whatever it was? Mr. Olmedillo: The property is similar, but you had asked me, if you remember, to address 2100 so that you could understand the differences between them. Mayor Suarez: Right, but the .41 is the same, .41 acre, same kind of layout, the same general area, OK. Mr. Olmedillo: The same, yes sir. Mr. Plummer: But it's less property? Mr. Olmedillo: No, it's exactly the same amount of property, it's 118,000 square feet per each one of those. Mr. Plummer: But it's a different classification of zoning. Mr. Olmedillo: Right now it is a different classification, although you granted the zoning change to 1918, which is the one that you changed the zoning last Thursday. Mayor Suarez: So now both will have the same. Mr. Olmedillo: Now both will have 30 days from last Thursday, they will be the same. Mayor Suarez: We made the other one conform with this one, OK. Mr. Olmedillo: Right. Mayor Suarez: All right, from the appellant. Mr. Troy Register, Jr.: My name is Troy Register, Jr. I live at 2006 Brickell Avenue. I, along with three other members of the 2000... Mayor Suarez: Can we swear anyone who will testify on this matter, please, Madam City Clerk? Selma is standing up and eager to go. (AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE.) Mayor Suarez: OK, proceed. Mr. Register: I, along with three other members of the 2000 Condominium Association, are the appellants in this matter and the issue before us is very similar to what you heard the other night, 1918. Lot 1918 is the same size of lot 2100, which is right next door to our complex. 50 July 31, 1989 Mayor 5uaraz: OK, we know that the configuration is similar. Mr. Register: One hundred... Mayor Suarez: We know that the zoning is now similar in the two cases. `We just changed the other one to conform with this one, but we are here on a special, or a class C permit, is it, right? Mr. Register: Right. Mayor Suarez: Which that other project did not apply for. I just don't want to get too confused, when you say the two situations are similar. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. Troy, excuse me, I'm still... they are appealing the revoking of the permit? Mr. Olmedillo: Right. What happened is, the permit was rescinded. It was revoked, then that decision was appealed to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board reversed the decision of the Planning Department to revoke the permit. Mayor Suarez: So as of now it is granted. Mr. Olmedillo: Therefore... Mr. Plummer: So in other words, as it stands now, the permit is valid. Mr. Olmedillo: It's granted. Mr. Plummer: OK, and they are appealing that... Mr. Olmedillo: The Zoning Board's decision. Mr. Plummer: So it's four steps instead of two. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes sir. Mr. Plummer: OK, fine. Mayor Suarez: OK, now, if we decide for whatever reason not to have the permit granted, how many units could they build? Mr. Olmedillo: They could build 10 units under the present zoning ordinance. Mayor Suarez: And if we decided to grant the exception, how many units could they build? Mr. Olmedillo: Twenty is the one that they have already granted. The Zoning Board granted 20. Mr. Plummer: That's what they are asking for. Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct. Mr. De Yurre: How many parking spaces do they have? Mr. Olmedillo: They have 24 parking spaces, the last count that we did at the plans. Mr. De Yurre: How much are they, how many are they supposed to have? Mr. Olmedillo: That's the Code, 1.2 per unit and they meet Code. Mr. Dawkins: Can you bring back the 9500 is going to be out of that 1.2. It will all be one parking space or no parking spaces, is that right? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir, that's... Mr. Plummer: It ought to be two. Mr. Dawkins: That's what I am saying, J.L., with one... 51 July 31, 1989 Mr. Plummer: Plus ten percent for guest parking. Mr. Olmedillo: We've got whole numbers for all of that. Mayor Suarez: If you do ten percent, let's clarify, to do ten percent, or anything else, then you are going to have fractions, and I have no problem with fractions, I just want to clarify that. Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, you know, it's simple. You do one guest space for every five units, or whatever. Mr. Plummer: It's the same as .2. I think that the Commission is saying that he has problems with fractions though. Mr. Dawkins: I don't know how you are going to put a car on a fraction of a parking space, I've been saying that ever since I've been here. Mr. Plummer: You buy a Hyundai. Mr. Dawkins: I agree. Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. Register: 2100 Brickell Avenue is a vacant lot with 100 feet fronting on Brickell Avenue and it goes back 180 feet, has 18,000 square feet, 41 percent of an acre. To the immediate... the lots on each side of 2100 Brickell Avenue are the same size. Our lots, we're on the north side, is 100 by 180 feet and we have four units in our complex. The complex on the south side of 2100 has three units in that complex, the same size lot. Then to the north of our complex, is another complex two -level complex with 14 units and to the... Mr. Dawkins: What is the area for the 14 units? Mr. Register: 190... 200 by 180. Mr. Dawkins: Thank you, sir. Mr. Register: And the Brickell Woods complex, which is to the south of the lot adjoining on the southern portion of 2100 has 16 units in it and it also has 200 frontage on Brickell Avenue and goes back 180 feet deep. So what we have is, we go into some percentages, the proposed 20 units, which the Zoning Board approved and we appealed from you... to you on that issue is 100 percent more density than is intended under the current zoning regulation, 400 percent more density than the property to the north, 567 percent more density than the property to the south and 150 and 186 percent more density than the two story developments that I've previously described, that is in the immediate neighborhood. We consider parking one of the most serious problems involved here, because in the last few years, there's been tremendous increase in traffic on Brickell Avenue, both automobile, vehicles and pedestrians and with our complex getting in and out of it, we've experienced a lot of trouble, particularly trying to enter that complex with a high speed automobiles coming in behind us, so if there is 20 units allowed in 2100 Brickell, they will have at least 30 automobiles over there and there will be visitors there and I don't know where they will park them. They'll have trouble getting in and out of the complex. We will have the disadvantage of a lot of noise, a lot of pollution, a lot of things that we have not been accustomed to, so we feel that... Mr. De Yurre: Excuse me, how many units in the apartment building where you live? Mr. Register: Four. Mr. De Yurre: Four? And how many parking spaces do you have? Mr. Register: We have eight in a garage. OK, four garages with parking in the garages and when we have visitors in our complex, they have difficulty getting in and out if we have a number of visitors. Mr. De Yurre: So what do you do? 52 July 31, 1989 Mr. Register: In our complex. Mr. De Yurre: So what do you do, then? Where do they park if you have visitors? Mr. Register: We park them in there and restrict the entrance and exit. Mr. De Yurre: So they are in fact illegally parked in there, improperly parked. Mr. Register: Well, we leave an opening where they can get in and out, but it's restricted. Mr. De Yurre: Look, you have eight parking spaces... Mr. Register: Eight parking spaces in garages. Mr. De Yurre: Which none are guest parking. Mr. Register: None are guest parking. Mr. De Yurre: OK, so then they park somewhere else, which is not a parking space. Mr. Register: Yes, we still have space inside that we can park automobiles and still be able to enter and to exit. We could park approximately eight cars and still enter and exit. Mr. De Yurre: OK. Mayor Suarez: Hey, are you going to wrap up, because we have other people that want to speak and I don't know that they are going to just confirm and... Mr. Register: I want to go into one thing, if I may. Mayor Suarez: ... affirm whatever you stated. Mr. Register: I know we need to rush along here, but we strongly feel that the decision of the Planning Director should be upheld because his decision is in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and is in accordance with the desires of and in the best interests of the neighborhood and in addition to these comments, we have petitions that have been signed by the 2000 Condominium Association plus the following people, I will hand some folders to you at this time. Brickell Place Condominium represents 552 members. Brickell Bay Club represents 450 members, Brickell Forest represents 64 members, Brickell 25 Inc. represents 51 members, Brickell Biscayne Condominium represents 187 members, Brickell Townhouse represents 360 members and we also have, you will note in the folders there, individual signatures not represented by the above, that I've described from residents on both Brickell Avenue and Miami Avenue totaling 37. There are other condominium associations and other individuals that would probably concur, however, because of the shortness of time, we were not able to reach all of the relevant parties. Mayor Suarez: OK, if we were in a court of law we would call that hearsay and it wouldn't be admissible. Mr. Register: All right. Mayor Suarez: But you are pretty sure you have other people also agreeing with your posture. All right, anything further? Mr. Register: We also have here today a number of people. I'd like for them to stand up now, if they would. Mayor Suarez: OK, most of the residents who are here are in fact residents of the City and neighbors of this project? Mr. Register: Right. Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. Register: Brickell Avenue and Miami... 53 July 31, 1989 Mayor Suarozi And some South Miami, I think. Mr. Register: Miami Avenue. Mayor Suarez: Miami Avenue. OK. Mr. Register: In summary, we urge you to reverse the Zoning board and uphold the denial of the class C permit by the Planning Director and again we urge you to restrict the number of units to ten and I'd like to reserve the rest of my time as the spokesman and appellate for rebuttal purposes. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, can I ask... Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Plummer. Mr. Plummer: ... a quick question of the Department. Does item PZ-25 in any way affect this item? Mr. Olmedillo: No, sir. Mr. Plummer: The increase to 40 units per acre does not affect this item? Mr. Olmedillo: Not this time that it's going to be brought before you. Mr. Plummer: You are familiar with 25? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir, that's the rezoning citywide. Mr. Plummer: OK, that does not affect this application? Mr. Olmedillo: Let me check to make double sure. Mayor Suarez: While you check that, Ma'am, would you go ahead and make your presentation? Ms. Kris Register: Yes, my name is Kris Register, also living at 2006 Brickell Avenue and I wanted to specifically address Commissioner De Yurre's question about the parking and the visitors in our complex. There are only four of us there. There is limited parking just with those units. We do have a provision in the garage for eight. We do have some extra room in our driveway that we can park a few cars when they visit. Because of that we are all acutely aware of the not having a lot of visitors and with the small number of units that we have, we can control that. With 20 units, you're going to have less control. There is going to be constant visitors and not as much consideration of the neighbors and they will be bringing the cars in or they will be trying to find places in other facilities close by to park their cars. They won't have the control that we have over it. I just wanted to respond to that. Ms. Selma Alexander: Good afternoon, or good evening, I should say. I'm Selma Alexander of 2323 South Miami Avenue. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Ms. Range, whom I'm glad to see back. And J.L. who is pleased to see me resurrected when they waived Brickell Avenue in front of me... Mr. Plummer: Bad for my business, but for your health, I'm glad to see you resurrected. Ms. Alexander: Thanks. Thank you very much, I knew we'd get a laugh somewhere. What's been said before is quite clear, the parking will be a problem, but I'd like to take a little walk back into history. Historically, starting with the Brickell Hammock Civic Association, which I was the treasurer and Judge Dubbin was the president. We were very active in trying to prevent inconsiderate zoning on Brickell Avenue. We realized it was going, so R-5A developed on the bay, R-3A developed on the west side of Brickell Avenue in order to lessen the impact of the high-rises on the bay, on the residential community on South Miami Avenue and it's a stable viable living residential area. Young people are coming in, they're raising children there. We have descendents of children who were raised there, here as well and other people are moving in and liking what they see. I was on the Planning Board for six years and we worked very hard on the Comprehensive Plan, the City of Miami and we thought we had this thing very well licked. Now, the biggest 54 July 31, 1989 _ problem was the impact upon the R-1 area on South Miami Avenue. Nov►, I don't want to bore you with too many details, but let me say one thing, when Brickell Forest got built, they were supposed to build only three stories. Somehow, and I'm not going into that either, four stories got built and nobody did anything about it, but nevertheless, they built a high wall, they had French drains, supposedly to prevent their spill -over waters from spilling into my property particularly, which sloped to the rear, because we kept our hammock. We didn't bulldoze, we didn't fill, we kept the hammock and the proudest day of our lives was when Dr. Fairchild, of the famous Dr. Fairchild Gardens came to call on us and said, my, you have a miniature Fairchild Garden here and we were very pleased at that, pleased that we could keep it. We had a very bad rain after Brickell Forest was built and at that time... Mayor Suarez: Selma, are you going to not tell us the whole botanical and historical narrative of the area? Ms. Alexander: No, I'm not, I'm going to tell you exactly what happened. Mayor Suarez: You've got to try to focus in on the issue before us, please. Ms. Alexander: It was post hurricane, post hurricane, and my property, I've lived there since 141, we never had two inches of water and I've been through so many hurricanes, I could... Mayor Suarez: I have no idea what the inches of water has to do with this. If you could relate it somehow to this, we would appreciate it. Ms. Alexander: A five foot deep lake in my back yard because of the lack of water drainage from the property that's been cemented over and the drains don't hold and the storm sewers don't hold... Mayor Suarez: But are you arguing that the difference here between they are seeking and what would be... Ms. Alexander: I think that the difference is... Mayor Suarez: It would affect somehow the drainage? Ms. Alexander It would affect the drainage for the people in back of them, aside from anything else, aside from the parking and aside from the fact that... Mayor Suarez: I'm not sure how, but maybe our staff will be able to address that. Ms. Alexander: But the main thing is the Building Department gave then a go- ahead for a permit that was not according to what was on the books in the ordinance. Mayor Suarez: But we're sort of past that. That was revoked and then they appealed and then the Zoning Board... Ms. Alexander: I know, but I don't think that we should be... we should suffer, all of us in the area because the Building Department doesn't know its business. Mayor Suarez: We are going to get into why they granted, at least I want to know for myself why it was first granted and then revoked. Ms. Alexander: That flood cost us $11,000, if you want to talk about impact. The insurance company paid and we now have a... Mayor Suarez: I have no idea what relationship that has to this, but... Ms. Alexander: I also was able to have my property values decreased on my assessment by 25 percent because of the adverse impact of what the City of Miami did to me. That's the most telling point. Thank you. Mayor Suarez: What was... OK, well I won't even ask you. OK, counselor. ji Mr. Al Cardenas: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, for the record, my name is Al Cardenas with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here 55 July 31, 1989 i Y on behalf of the project, the appellee, the Acropolis at Brickell and I'd like to, if I may, while I give my brief presentation, hand out a proposed rendering and site plan of the project in question. It may be noted that the site plan and rendering that you are receiving, received an award from Florida Architect, dated July -August 1989 edition and where the architect, Hervin Romney was awarded for his design of this particular structure in the statewide magazine. The sign that you have before you on the site plan comports with every single code requirement other than number of units. It comports with the FAR requirements, with open space requirements, with height requirements, with parking requirements and with every single other Code requirement imposed upon our client or any other developer by the City Code. I presume that if the requirements for parking or anything else should be different, I would respectfully suggest that perhaps we ought to revisit the Code, but the client, relative to those particular standards, had a building design that complied with each and every one of them except the units and let me go into that, if I may, because that is the crux, obviously, of why the City originally granted a permit and why the Zoning Board, after hearing evidence, voted by a seven to two vote to do the same. I first want to go into density, if I may, because we have heard the standard applied that were we not to have prevailed at the Zoning Board, we would be entitled to build ten units and I would give you a summary of what went on at the Zoning Board, but basically counsel's argument at that time was very basic, and that is that RG-2.1 and those of you who may be familiar know that this a very specific section of the City designed to cover that area in West Brickell which is the subject area in question and I don't want to likewise Mayor, bring in a lot of past occurrences, but I recall, relative to the Green project and others, an ongoing dialogue with the Planning Department which resulted in part in a Comprehensive Plan that provides for forty unit per acre density in this particular area. That 40 unit density, which the Comprehensive Plan that you adopted here last year would permit, if my calculations are correct, at most, 16.4 units per acre. Mayor Suarez: 16.4, that's still not 20, though. Mr. Cardenas: That's correct. Now, here's where the 20 comes in and that is based on equitable estoppel and I will share that information with you, if I may. On August of 1988, the present owner, then a prospective buyer for the property took the plans that you have before you to the City staff and met with Teresita Fernandez and Juan Gonzales, two respected and well known members of your staff and were presented with these plans and were specifically asked whether these plans could be built on the site in question and they indeed received an affirmative vote that they could do so. On October of 1988 in reliance on this information from staff, our clients acquired the subject property. In December, two months later, of '88, they applied to the City for a class C permit. Now, let me if I may, read to you the application for class C special permit what it says, because it's been signed by the chief zoning inspector, the third gentleman in staff, Mr. Rafael Rodriguez and it's dated December 23rd of '88. Mr. Plummer: When was it filed? Mr. Cardenas: That was filed in December of 1988. The plans were submitted January 3rd of '89. The application for class C special permit was submitted beforehand, Commissioner Plummer. Mr. Plummer: I have 3rd day of January, 189. It's really immaterial. Go ahead. Mr. Olmedillo: If you allow me to explain, Commissioner, what happens is that their complete application is considered complete when everything is in it, so the drawings... Mayor Suarez: No, I think what is more interesting, since you weren't asked about that is to explain why it was initially granted and then revoked. That would be helpful at some point. Mr. Plummer: Yes, because also... Mr. Cardenas: I'm going to get to that if I may. Mayor Suarez: Well, we are going to get your version, but I want to see our version too. 56 July 31, 1989 Mr. Plummer: Also, the way I've got it figured, unless my math is bad, from the day that it was issued to the day it was revoked is 12 days, not six from the 23rd day of March to the 4th day of April is 12 days. Go ahead, I'm sorry. Mr. Olmedillo: Correct, besides... Mr. Cardenas: OK, thank you. Here's what it reads. Any project requiring a class C special permit must first be reviewed by the Building and Zoning Department to insure that each project conforms to all zoning requirements, therefore this form must be signed by the chief zoning inspector before the project will be considered for final approval by the director of the Planning Department. That is a statement that is affixed in the application, which I am submitting a copy of for the record to the clerk. It was signed on December 23, 1988, so far, here is what's transpired. The client has personally visited with two members of staff who assured him prior to closing that you could build those plans that you have before you at this site. The client closed and paid the purchase price asked based on that information and all of you know, purchase price is based on the acquisition price per unit. Then after he closes on the property and pays valuable consideration for the property, in reliance on that information. He presents the plans and received a signed copy by chief zoning inspector stating that he has met all the zoning requirements. Mr. De Yurre: Al, was that in writing? Mr. Cardenas: Yes, sir. The original opinion, no, sir. It's verbal, but I have some case law on that. Mr. De Yurre: OK, now, Juan Gonzales, what is his position with the City? Mr. Cardenas: Chief zoning inspector. Mr. De Yurre: OK, is he the type of person that you usually go to? Mr. Cardenas: Yes, sir. Mr. De Yurre: You always go to him? Mr. Cardenas: I would say he is certainly the right person to go to. There may be another choice, but he's the appropriate person. Mr. Rodriguez is the person that you must go to and apply for the class C special permit. Mr. De Yurre: OK, so I can get my bearings straight, Guillermo, explain to me the duties of Juan Gonzales. Mr. Olmedillo: The chief zoning inspector is the one in charge of supervising code violations. That's basically his role. Again, he also checks plans when there's submissions for special permits like class A's, B's, C's, so he reviews that. Also within his staff he's got Rafael Rodriguez who is a plan checker who checks the plans to see if they are in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. De Yurre: So based on your opinion, Juan Gonzales was within his duties when he gave you an opinion that... Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct. Mr. De Yurre: ... that Mr. Cardenas is alluding to. Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct, air. Mr. De Yurre: OK, thank you. Mr. Castaneda: Subsequent to that, if I may, the client proceeded to incur a number of costs, one of course, was the purchase of the property. Cost number two, was he paid $30,000 for the architectural plans subsequent to the closing and after receiving the information that the plans were appropriate. He spent... Mrs. Range: This was for the 20 units? 57 July 31, 1989 Mr. Cardenas: Yes, Ma'am, the 20 units, the plans that you have in front of you. On February 20, 1989, client spent $7,000 for tree removal. On March 27, 1989, the client spent $75,000, which was paid to the contractor pursuant to a contract that he has entered into, a copy of which likewise I'll submit for the record, in an amount exceeding $1,000,000. According to legal counsel, the client of course, is obligated to the contractor and should there be a lawsuit filed, which there probably would be, the contractor, as you all well know, at the very least would probably be entitled to loss of profits, which in a matter like this would exceed $100,000. Mrs. Range: All of these expenditures were within the period of denial and... Mr. Cardenas: All of these expenditures were incurred following Mr. Rodriguez' finding in writing so that the plans met all of the zoning requirements, but prior to the information that... that prior to the notice being received of the attempt to suspend the permit, so all of these were incurred after receiving written notice by the City that the plan had met all zoning requirements and they were all incurred prior to receiving the notice of intention to suspend the permit. Mrs. Range: And just refresh me on how many days was that? Mr. Cardenas: The final sum spent, the $75,000 were submitted to the contractor on March 27, 1989, which is three days before the notice of intent to suspend was issued. In addition to that of course, the client is now obligated under the contract which was for $1,275,000, for at the very least, loss of profits to the builder. Mr. De Yurre: Could I see that contract? Mr. Cardenas: Yes, sir. In addition to that, there's a dry run building permit, which was issued by the City after examining the plans. This is another document upon which our clients relied. This dry run building permit, I don't know if all of you know the terminology, but dry run means that prior to their being a detailed review of the' working plans or drawings for a particular contract, the City takes a review to make sure that all of the basic information required for the issuance of a building permit has been submitted and meets legal muster. This dry run permit was signed by Teresita Fernandez on March 28th of 1989 and I have a copy here to submit to you for the records as well. I would like to at this time quote to you the case of City of Coral Gables vs. Puigross, which is the District Court of Appeals case in Florida, of August 17, 1982. The facts of this case, where the client was entitled to equitable relief, it was determined by the courts, were certainly not as meritorious to our client as they were to this particular counsel's client. In that case he had gone to the city and received a verbal statement from staff that his house was situated between two lots and he received a verbal assurance that he could demolish the home and build two separate houses on these two lots which he had purchased. The man went ahead and demolished the lot, demolished the house and proceeded to request this building permit, which was subsequently denied on the grounds that you cannot build on that basis. The man had incurred a total amount of cost of $3,000, went to court, the court sided with the gentleman against the City of Coral Gables, saying that his reliance on the word of staff and subsequent actions in reliance equitably estopped the city from refusing to issue the appropriate permit for him to build two homes on these two lots. I assure you after a thorough review of the facts of the Puigross case that the facts of this case are much more meritorious on the point on the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Mayor Suarez: Counselor, yes, aside from the legal requirements that you're imposing on us by our, presumably our prior actions and I think we have to ask staff at some point to clarify if there is anything that you have misstated. It sounds like you haven't jumped up and contradicted anything as to the facts that would lead you to argue the estoppel argument. What about on policy grounds? What would, if anything, lead us, if we had the freedom to do it, to grant a permit to go from ten units, which are now permitted, to 20, except you stated that the Comprehensive Master Plan calls for 16? Mr. Cardenas: Forty units per acre, right. Now, the zoning board... Mayor Suarez: Don't confuse with 40 per acre, we've got .41 acres and if we stick to what it would permit, we might understand each other. 16 would be basically allowed under... 58 July 31, 1989 Mr. Cardenas: Sixteen units would be allowed under the... Mayor Suarez: Why would we ever want to go to 207 Mr. Cardenas: Why you would want to go from 16 to 20 is twofold. Mayor Suarez: Or from ten to 20 for that matter. Mr. Cardenas: Right, well, our position of course is 16 or 20. The reasons are based on the findings of the Planning Department itself, in its application for class C permit and here's what the Planning Director himself said and I'd like to take the words right out of his mouth, if I may. Quote, the proposed multifamily development blends with existing character of the area, end of quote. May I add the following that that plan that you have before you, if I could build what I have before you and call it 16 units instead of 20 units, and comply in my opinion, with every requirement of the City of Miami, the number of square footage that structure before you has of construction is permitted by the City, the number of parking spaces, the height, the density, the open space, everything that you have before you is permitted by the City of Miami, with the exception that we are building 20 instead of 16 units, making the units smaller and more affordable so that more people could live there, so in terms of the size of the structure... Mayor Suarez: This is the most ingenious argument we have heard. We have been now subjected to that in two Commission meetings in a row. It's sort of the inverse size of the unit argument. Mr. Cardenas: Inverse size of that, precisely Mayor, I couldn't have worded it better and I would... Mayor Suarez: Pick all the parts of the Code that would permit you to build that many square feet and you divide that by the size of the units that you propose, and you either get the number of units that you are seeking if they are smaller, or a smaller number of units if the units are larger, and somehow, somehow that's supposed to convince us. Mr. Cardenas: Basically my comment is that very same size structure, the very same way it looks to you for the 16 apartments that would built there and the rational is good. We went over the whole theory of buffer zone to South Miami Avenue. When the Green project was built, we crossed a threshold where we reached a happy medium after a through discussion on the land use portion of it and that's how the Comp Plan got to the sixteen units we talked about and of course, that's how we got to where we are today. I think the structure itself, as the Planning Director said, blends with the existing character of the area. It's an award winning design. You are going to get something that the community can certainly be pleased and proud of and in terms of the equitable estoppel theory, I think obviously our client has now incurred at the very least, $200,000 in direct expenditures, including having to make good to the contractor in addition to having paid $200,000, perhaps more for the property than he should have, had we gone back to the other number of units. Mrs. Range: But sir, in going to the 20 units from the 16 that you could possibly be allowed, what does that do for your parking? You still have the parking problem. Mr. Cardenas: We meet the Code requirements for a 20 unit structure with the plans before you, yes Ma'am. Mr. De Yurre: I just want to know if those costs included the attorney's fees or not. Mr. Cardenas: Unfortunately, they do not. I had kept those private, and I haven't been authorized to disclose, sir. Mayor Suarez: Is there anything about the presentation, unless the Commissioners want to ask Mr. Cardenas questions, is there anything about the presentation that he has made that is incorrect as to the legal issue? Do you want to contradict anything, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: I'd only respond when any points of law that you all had. I factually would defer to the department. 59 July 31, 1969 Mayor Suarez: But assumes the facts as stated and as the department has related to you, we would be equitably estopped, very possibly to deny? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: That would in part turn on the facts, but there is a section in our zoning ordinance, 3408 that says that a building permit or certificate issued in error shall not confer any rights to construction or occupancy and upon a finding that a permit has been so issued, it shall be revoked providing actual construction has not been commenced. Mayor Suarez: Which it had been in this case. Now, supposing the equitable estoppel argument held, would that mean that we would have to allow up to what the Comprehensive Master Plan provides, or... Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes, if... Mayor Suarez: ... never beyond that. Not... never the 20 units, even though It was approved for 20. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Case law holds that you should not violate the Comprehensive Plan, so presuming equitable estoppel under the facts, you would be strongly persuaded to allow what the Comp Plan provides, 16 units. Mayor Suarez: Up to that. Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, just to clarify, counsel has quoted the section in question. I would... I would... Mr. Plummer: I hope you quit stuttering. Mr. Cardenas: OK. Basically... Mayor Suarez: You would disagree? Mr. Cardenas: Yes, I would... well no, I just recite what he said. Mayor Suarez: Let me finish the sentence for you. You would disagree. Mr. Cardenas: Right. Basically, what counsel has recited to you is correct except that he himself said that unless, unless there has been, you know, efforts undertaken or commenced, I think that's part of the... Mayor Suarez: No, I think he said construction commenced. Mr. Cardenas: Right, and I would respectfully suggest that the incurring of the expenses in question, the execution of the construction contract and the contractor having been paid monies for the first draw to commence work certainly qualifies that statement. Mayor Suarez: Certainly preliminary steps to construct... Mr. Cardenas: Oh, and tree removal. Mayor Suarez: Ah, the old tree removal argument) Mr. Cardenas: Right, tree removal has always been a mainstay for attorneys in construction commencement. Mr. Register: Mr. Henry Taylor wants two minutes on rebuttal of my time, but I've got some other things I want to comment that certain... Mayor Suarez: OK, quickly please, because this obviously creates a double problem for us of potential legal impediment to acting, accepting one way and public policy arguments and we are going to have to just grapple with it and decide. Yes air, go ahead. Ms. Register: We'd like to make some comments. Mayor Suarez: Yes, please. Mr. Henry Taylor: Mr. Mayor and the Commission, I'll be brief. I've been through this once before at the corner of 25th Road and Brickell Avenue. 60 July 31, 1989 Ixactly the same thing happened. They got a permit for about a 20 story building, was issued by the City by mistake. We looked at the Code, we said, look, you shouldn't have done this, the City said you are right, and it was revoked. Mayor Suarez: OK, now, do you know anything about that case? Wait sir, do we know anything about that case, Guillermo, when you finish talking to the counselor for the property owner? It would be nice to know if what he is saying is correct or not. You know anything about the case that a permit was improperly granted. What was the address, sir? Mr. Taylor: 25th Road and Brickell Avenue and Gerald Richman represented it. Mayor Suarez: Where? Mr. Taylor: Before this Commission. Mr. Olmedillo: There was no permit issued in that case. That case, we denied the class C and it went all the way to the courts and our decision was upheld. You upheld the same decision also, based on the number of units. Mr. Taylor: Now here's what happened in this case. You heard what happened at the Zoning Board, there's no record. Here's what happened in this case. These people came to me and said, these are our homes, what can we do? I've looked at the Code and said as counsel for the applicant said, this is a violation of the Code. He called it a Code requirement and I told these homeowners, you just get any architect and he'll go down to the City and they will tell, the City will tell him that permit should not have been issued and if anybody, the master architect had looked at the Code, if the owner, his attorney, or anybody else, they would have seen that this was a clear violation of the Code of the City of Miami and they should not be able to desecrate this residential aged area and lose it as a premise that 25th Road and Brickell Avenue, which is going to come again before this Commission. Thank you very much. The equitable estoppel argument was made by Gerald Richman firm and then Commission turned it down. Literally the permit hadn't been issued. Mayor Suarez: OK, remember that he has contradicted a little bit the fact of that other case, but as to this case, we don't really know, I suppose we should ask why the mistake was made, but as far as we know, it was an honest mistake and you know, some planning and zoning directors occasionally do make mistakes. Mr. Register: I would like this Commission to take into consideration... Mayor Suarez: Restate your name for the record, please. Mr. Register: I would like... Mayor Suarez: You are the appellant, right? Mr. Register: Troy Register, you've heard me before. I would like this Commission to take into consideration that the Planning Director is the final one to make a decision on a class C permit and after the Planning Director makes his decision, anyone that's involved, like we are, have 15 days to appeal it. Mayor Suarez: Let me ask about that, Troy. Mr. Planning Director, assistant to the Planning Director, who is traveling on vacation, sir, what about the argument that the Planning Director is the one that makes the ultimate decision on the class C permit? Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct, unless it is appealed and what happens and this I have to put on the record, is that once the class C is issued, there is a 15 day appeal period, so in fact, it is like when you grant a rezoning... Mayor Suarez: It was not... Mr. Olmedillo: permit. OK, in this case, who granted the permit, the building permit? The dry run is not a building permit. There was no building 61 July 31, 1989 Mayor 8uareat What do you tall it? The what? Mr. Olm6dillo: The dry run is not a building permit. Mayor Suarez: The dry run. Mr. Olmedillo: Dry run, yes. it's called a dry run because We a preliminary review of the plans that are submitted. Mayor Suarez: Preliminary, let's call it by that, please. Preliminary review of the plans. OK, and do you think the people are on notice that that is not the ultimate decision made by the City on whether you could build this on there on not, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: I just want to point out that the form it says that counsel, Al Cardenas referred to, therefore this form must be signed by the chief zoning inspector before the project will be considered for final approval by the director of the Planning Department, that is to say, class C's are issued by the Planning Department director and no one else. Mayor Suarez: All right... Mr. Register: Yes, and we have 15 days after that to appeal and we did appeal... Mayor Suarez: You understand that? I was just trying to figure out who made the final determination on the class C special permit and you... Mr. Register: And if I may add this... Mayor Suarez: I'm helping you out in your argument, but go ahead. Mr. Register: I want to get the point across that these people came down and had informal discussions with the people in the Planning Department and the Zoning Department. They also later submitted some plans and a class C application, although there is no date as to when that application was actually submitted down there in City Hall, not City Hall, but downtown. We couldn't find it in the files. Mr. Cardenas: I'll make it easy for you. I have a copy of it right here, that I received. Mr. Register: You give me a copy and I'll take it. Mayor Suarez: OK, please... Mr. Register: But the point I want to make is that when they proceed to continue to spend money when an appeal was underway, they were proceeding at their own peril, at their own peril. Nobody was telling them to spend money. An appeal was under way... Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Suarez: That's an interesting point. I would think that from the point that the appeal began, it would be a lot easier for us to win the argument that any expenditures from that point forward is at their own peril. The problem is apparently that they are arguing that they made a lot of these expenditures before that point. Mr. Cardenas: All of the expenditures. Mayor Suarez: Oh, while you are saying all, yes, OK, all. Ms. Register: Not all of the expenditures... Mayor Suarez: OK, we are getting into a back and forth argument here that we are not supposed to have. Now, finish your rebuttal and now the matter is over and we have to decide. Me. Register: All right, we'd like to address some of his points, as far as tho harmony of the structure with the neighborhood... 62 July 31, 1989 Mayor Suarez: Put your name in the record one more time. Ms. Register: Kris Register. OR, you are speaking of the appearance of the outside of the building, the five stories. That does not address the number of units that are inside the building. OK, as far as the permit itself, it is very clear in all of the sections, Article 23, Article 25 of your own :toning ordinance, that the Planning Director has the final decision on the issuance of a class C permit. I don't think that you can take the stand that you can rely on verbal representations that were erroneous if they in fact... Mayor Suarez: It wasn't verbal, they were in writing, but go ahead, but they weren't the final one by the Planning Director. Ms. Register: No, they are preliminary when they went before. They bought the property with preliminary and it was erroneous, the representation they received, I'm sorry about that. Mayor Suarez: We all agree that they were erroneous. Ms. Register: OK, but they made their decisions based on that and they knew what the Code was they should have decided what they paid for the property based on what they knew the Code was and not what they thought they could get. Mayor Suarez: You make a very good argument for the court if this ever goes to court. Ms. Register: All right, but... Mayor Suarez: How about public policy on the argument itself? Should we or should be not allow more than ten units here? Mr. Register: You shouldn't allow... Ms. Register: You should not allow, but I do want to say, we did have, when he granted the permit, OK? Even without his rescinding it, there was a 15 day period in which any of us could have appealed and the $30,000, specifically the $70,000 was spent on March 29th which was only seven days after he granted it. Mind you it was before the but anything that they spent prior to April 7, 1989, which was the day the 15 days expired was definitely at his own risk and does not count here at all! OK? Mayor Suarez: Well, I don't think you are technically entitled, if you want to... Mr. Cardenas: Thirty seconds to factually correct and that is that... Mayor Suarez: I'm going to let you have a clarification, if you have any. Mr. Cardenas: Right, as to the 20 unit reliance, the 20 unit reliance is based on the statement by the chief zoning inspector that signed it stating that we had met all zoning requirements. That includes number of units. Now, what the Planning Director does in his review process is go beyond the zoning requirements and that's why it's going to the Planning Director. Relative to zoning requirements, meeting the direct, exact requirements of the Code, that is the chief inspector who signed it, Mr. Rodriguez, who in writing stated that we had a right to the 20 units. Mayor Suarez: OK, that was... you were just entitled to clarification. Now, Mr. City Attorney, what about the point that the functions of the Planning Director are different from those of the zoning inspector as to the approval of the class C special permit. Does that argument convince you at all? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: While, your honor, personally, I think that what the Zoning Director's role as I best know it, is that it clarifies that the application appears on its face to be in conformity with City rules, regulations and laws, I personally, subject to clarification from the department, do not think it's a substantive decision on this class C, that only comes from the Planning Director. Mayor Suarez: OK, so do you think then that we could withstand a challenge, a legal challenge on this, if we denied the class C special permit application? The ultimate question here, from what you've heard. You have to advise us because otherwise we... 63 July 31, 1989 • Mr. SuaresiRieraas If there is no actual .. yea, unless there is actual expenditures in the very small period of time between issuance and the revocation, and I mean actual expenditures, otherwise, yes. Mayor Suares: I see, because that is the period of time that worries you is between the moment it was issued and the moment it was revoked. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes, that's correct, that's the only thing that concerns one. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask, what you are saying then, Mr. City Attorney, is that presently under the Master Plan which we have today, that it is perfectly legal without any request for 16 units. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: That is correct. Mr. Plummer: And they don't need a hearing of any kind, so what we are... Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes, the Comp Plan came in fact and has allowed that density in that property, yes. OK, they applied for 20. Mr. Plummer: But as of today, without any hearing, they could come in and get 16 units, is that correct? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes, under the Comp... Mayor Suarez: But they wouldn't have to go through the class C special permit application? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: No, not for the amount allowed by the Comp Plan. Mr. Plummer: So, what we are arguing about is the difference between 16 and 20 units, is that correct? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Right now... Ms. Register: The Comp Plan is not set in gold. Mr. Plummer: Whoa, whoa, Ma'am, please, unless you want to take his chair, you might do a better job, but maybe not. My question to you again, what we are arguing about is the difference between 16 and 20 units. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes, because case law has held that the Comp Plan governs over zoning ordinances of a local City insofar as they conflict. Mr. Plummer: OK, then my question to the department, in the design of these 20 units, is it the same square footage as what would be in the 16 units if designed? Mr. Olmedillo: There is no difference in the square footage. The FAR remains the same. Mayor Suarez: Then the only thing that we are talking and the units different between the 16 and the 20 is the size of the units. Mr. Olmedillo: Number and size of the units. Mr. Plummer: Well, of course, you'd have the same square footage and you'd made more units. They've got to be smaller in size, is that correct? Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct. Mr. Plummer: And from what I read here, if this is true and I want it on the record, counselor, the minimum square footage is 725 square feet including the balcony and the maximum is two floors, is that correct? It doesn't give me the square footage except 1,435? Mr. Olmedillo: I beg differ from that because the latest plans that we have on record show units... f 64 July 31, 1969 N LK i f 1 Mr. Plumer: But what I have in front of me, from a minimum of 725 Square feet, to the maximum, which I can't really come about because it says, unit TH-3, the lower floor is 10435... Mayor Suarers What is the maximum, Guillermo, if you know it, so we don't go through this. What is the maximum amount? Mr. Olmedillo: 1,430, 1,435, that's the maximum. Mayor Suarez: OK, from about 725 to about 1,400. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me now, I'm trying to get a clarification. That says the lower floor only. Now, what is the top floor? It doesn't give any square footage on that. Mr. Olmedillo: Well, that's the total unit. Mr. Plummer: Sir, now, OK, that's why I am asking you. Mr. Olmedillo: If I... Mr. Plummer: Unit TH-3, lower floor, 1,435 SF, including balcony. The second floor, upper floor unit TH-3, no square footage. Is it larger, or that both floors? What I'm reading in the English language here is that the lower floor alone is 1,435. Do you see what I'm saying? Mayor Suarez: Well, but he can... Mr. Dawkins: All of us want... Mayor Suarez: ... interpret for you and tell you what the maximum square footage and minimum and just get on with the discussion. I don't see... Mr. Olmedillo: I'm just going to have to differ with you... Mr. Plummer: Don't differ with me, differ with this paper which has been provided to me. Mayor Suarez: OK, the paper has confused you. What is the maximum and minimum square footage, please? Mr. Olmedillo: The minimum that it's read in the plans that were submitted with a permit is 550 square feet. That's the minimum size. Mr. Plummer: Then how can I sit here and go through this document, supplied by Mr. Cardenas...? Mr. Olmedillo: That was supplied by Mr. Cardenas for your benefit. It was not part of the class C permit. Mr. Plummer: Yes, it's to be inferred that this is what you're building. Well, he... Al, there is a discrepancy... Mr. De Yurre: But does that matter in our decision making process here? Mr. Plummer: Yes, it does to me, as to what kind of units you are putting on Brickell Avenue. Yes, sir, it makes... Mr. Cardenas: Yes, I will... Mr. De Yurre: As to the size. Mr. Plummer: Of course. Mayor Suarez: What is the minimum now planned, Mr. Cardenas, so we don't have to spend 15 minutes here, just going over the plans? Mr. Cardenas: I'll read them quickly. One, 1,435; one, 1,300; five units -of 1,280; two units of 1,037; two units of 1,060; two units of 1,045; and seven unl.ts of 725, which includes a balcony. 65 Mr. Plummer: OK, see, that's a lot different than what I got here. Mr. Dawkins: See, the balcony has nothing to do with living space. Mr. Plummer: OK, I'm not disputing what you've got there. I'm just saying I'm asking if these are correct figures. That's it there. Mr. Dawkins: That's 500. It's 500 square feet, J.L., when you add on the 225 feet for non -living space, that gives you 725. Mayor Suarez: 725. Mr. Cardenas: Right, I understand. Mr. Plummer: That's correct, here is where I had the discrepancy. Here they show as a lower floor, 1,435 and the upper floor they show nothing. Mayor Suarez: I think what they measured, they put on the lower floor the total amount. Mr. Cardenas: OK. I have Jeff Wilmington, here, who is the architect, if you like to ask him... Mr. Plummer: For the record, Mr. Cardenas, without going through all this rigmarole, the minimum square foot unit is 725, including the balcony. Mr. Cardenas: Yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: And the maximum is 14... whatever it was. OK. Mr. Cardenas: 1,435. Mayor Suarez: 1,435. I think it is a kind of a misstatement there that said lower floor the way it says. It should have meant both floors. It says lower floor on it. Mr. Cardenas: OK. Ms. Register: I would like to quickly address the Comprehensive Plan issue if we could? Mayor Suarez: I don't think Ma'am that you are entitled to go back and forth. We had clarification from the Commissioner. Unless the Commissioners have any questions to ask anybody... Ms. Register: You don't have clarification. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted according to your own records furnished by the City of Miami on February 9th of this year, was not effective until March 24th, the day after he granted the permit to begin with and in fact, coming before you this evening is a proposed amendment to change the district regulations to comply with this Comprehensive Plan to increase the density, delete the story. It's there for public opinion to try and convince you that that's not right. Mayor Suarez: OK, Ma'am, I have to cut you off, I have to cut you off. Mr. Register: Well, I cut you off too. Mayor Suarez: Now, to clarify, Mr. Assistant Planning Director, we are not going to hear from either side unless the Commission wants to ask a question of anybody. Now, the Comprehensive Master Plan applies now, obviously? Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct, sir. Mayor Suarez: Did it apply at any other or did it not apply at any other relevant time to our determination tonight? Mr. Olmedillo: Let me address that a little bit, because we requested a legal opinion from Tallahassee, because there is a difference of opinion between the Planning Department and the Law Department on that issue and we requested the legal opinion from Tallahassee. We are of the position, the Planning Department, that if you have range established by the Comprehensive Plan, let's say, 100 units per net acre and you have different little ranges in a 66 July 31, 1989 ssi Nay, you are always within the big range, so we are saying we're in compliaince because 25 units per net acre is in compliance of the 40 units per net acres It** within the range. Now, the Law Department has expressed to us that they feel that the Comprehensive flan establishes not a maximum, but a given, so when we say 40 units per net acre or 100 units per acre... Mayor Suarez: So we have no discretion as to that, is what the Law Department is saying. Mr. Olmedillo: Right, that we... Mayor Suarez: Now, as to the timing of it, she was attempting to make the argument before I cut her off, that somehow the timing of our acceptance and promulgation of the Comprehensive Master Plan affects this is some way or another. Mr. Olmedillo: The Comprehensive Plan was accepted, was approved by you, February 9th, it was accepted by the State. It was accepted by everybody, so that is in effect. Mayor Suarez: Before us. Now, does the fact that they first went for the building permit before that, does that mean anything to us at this point? Mr. Olmedillo: Not, really, it shouldn't make any difference to you at this point. The Comp Plan is there, the Zoning Ordinance is there. Mr. Plummer: All right now, in reference to the times that we can amend the Comprehensive Plan... Mr. Olmedillo: Yes. Mr. Dawkins: So what the hell, I'm going to ask something too. We may as well stay on this. Hey, let me speak with the architect. Mr. Plummer: Does that count as one if we amend this? Mr. Olmedillo: If we have an amendment here, remember... Mr. Dawkins: I mean, they said let's get rid of it and they keep asking questions. Let me talk with the architect. Mr. Olmedillo: May I answer Commissioner Plummer first? We already ran out of 1989 amendments. We cannot run any more 1989 amendments. 1990 amendments we will run one and this will count as one. Mr. Dawkins: From the architects, sir. You got one of these books? Mr. Hervin Romney: I'm not looking at one of those books right now. We can... can get one of those books? Mr. Plummer: Here, take mine, $5.00 a copy. Mr. Dawkins: On the third page sir, where it says unit 1-B. Mr. Romney: Yes. Mr. Dawkins: Up at 725 square feet, how many of them is the balcony? Mr. Romney: The actual enclosed air conditioned space of the unit is 550 square feet, 555, I'm sorry. Mr. Dawkins: So, the living space is 525. Mr. Romney: The minimum size of a one -bedroom unit is 550 square feet, you. Mr. Dawkins: Sir, on unit 1-B, as the architect sir... Mr. Romney: Yes. Mr. Dawkins: ... you got 725 square feet. 67 • Mr. Dawkins: ifteluding the balcony. Now, let's deduct the square footage from the balcony and give me the total square foot of the unit. Mr. Romnsyt it's 550, the unit. Mr. Dawkins: Sir? Mr. Romneyt The unit site is 550. Mr. Dawkins% All right now, either you going to start them all at one thing, or you are going to end them all at one. You will not start one at 505 and give me one at 495 or 510. Nov, either they are going to start at 5... don't me what they going to start at, tell me what they going to finish out at. Mr. Romney: Excuse me, yes sir. The size of the unit that's listed here, including the balcony, this was the balcony area, is the difference between the 550 and 725 and all the units are the same size. In terms of the one bedroom units, we have the same size, two bedroom units, and then you have the two bed townhouses. Mr. Dawkins: All right, two bedroom, you got 1037 square feet. What's the balcony? Mr. Romney: What page are you on, sir? Mr. Dawkins: Let's see, 4, 5, 6, 7, unit 2-B3. Mr. Romney: OK, 2-B3, that's a 725 square foot unit interior. We're dealing off of the FAR (floor area ratio) sir. On the balcony size is not determined on the FAR, it is internal space of the unit. Mayor Suarez: He just wants to know what the square footage of the unit is, minus when you take the balcony out, that's all. Mr. Dawkins: I want, like J.L. ... Mr. Romney: Three hundred square feet of the balcony. Mr. Dawkins: That's right, 300 square foot for the balcony. Mayor Suarez: So it leaves 737 net with the balcony. Mr. Dawkins: For two bedrooms, a dining room and a living room for 700 square feet. Mayor Suarez: 37. Mr. Dawkins: 737 square feet. What's the master bedroom? Mr. Romney: Excuse me? Mr. Dawkins: What is the footage of the master bedroom? Mr. Romney: I can look it them better if I pull them off of the building plan, sir. Mr. Dawkins: Sir? Mr. Romney: If I look at the building plans, I can tell you better. Mr. Dawkins: Well, give it to me, sir, give it to me. Give me the master bedroom, 10 by 10, 11 by 11, 5 by 5. Mr. Plummer: Guillermo, what is the total living space? Mr. Dawkins: The master bedroom. See, and the reason I'm getting into this Al, I asked you guys, you know, what kind of footage you going to give me in the building and you told me that I was going to have big rooms, big apartments... Mr, Romney: The room size of the master bedroom is 11 by 14. E E Mr, Dawkins: 11 by 14, and the other bedroom? Mayor Suarez: It is roughly 154 square feet. Mr. Romney: The other one is roughly it by 13. Mayor Suarez: 143 square feet. Mr. Dawkins: Thank you. Mayor Suarez: OK, Commissioners. Mr. De Yurre: I've a couple of questions. Mayor Suarez: Vice Mayor. Mr. De Yurre: First of all, I want to understand what the procedure is. We have a Law Department that supposedly represents the Administration. You know, I've been having problems comprehending this concept of the Planning Department going their own way with their legal position and the Law Department going their way with their legal position. It would seem to me that if we have the attorney's office representing us, then we have we have to abide by what the Attorney's office says, that's number one. Now, the other... Mayor Suarez: Yes, I'm glad you phrased it that way. It represents not the Administration, it represents the City. It represents all of us. Mr. De Yurre: All right, and that's what they are doing right now. So you know, we can't go and have different departments having their own opinion and the Legal Department having theirs and it being conflicting, that's number one. Mr. Plummer: You have it every day with the Police Department. Mr. De Yurre: I'm not saying that it's right. Mr. Plummer: I agree. Mr. De Yurre: Now, the other thing is, can the owner of this property just reapply now under the Comprehensive Plan and get their 16 units? Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct. Mr. De Yurre: So, what we are looking at right here is at least they get their 16, because they got to do is reapply and they get their 16 right now and through the Comprehensive Plan, so dates don't matter, whether they did it before it was adopted or was implemented because they can do it right now if they so desire, so you know, I think it is irrelevant when they applied as far as that point is concerned. I think we are looking at one way or another, they are going to get their 16 units and I'd be in favor of granting those 16 units at this point in time. Mayor Suarez: This plan here is for 20 units? Mr. Plummer: Unless I'm mistaken, my calculations come out if you hold them to the 16, I would rather see bigger units on Brickell, OK, but I don't think it is realistic because of what I'm looking at, if you hold them to the 16 instead of the 20 units, you are only adding approximately 120, 25 feet of livable space to the remaining units. I mean, there is just not... Mayor Suarez: They're adding about... Mr. Plummer: There is not a whole lot of difference. Mr. De Yurre: My problem is the 20 units, where it came from. Mr. Plummer: They're adding about 20 percent. Mr, Plummer: If you cancel four units of 550 feet, you know, you are talking about roughly 2,200 square feet. 69 July 31, 1989 Mayor Suarez: If you did it evenly across the board, it would be about 20 percent for each one more. Mr. De Yurre: Al, what is your argument for us to give you 20 instead of 16, you know... Mr. Cardenas: Sixteen based on the Comp Plan and the rest based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel because I feel strongly and unequivocally that the case law in the State of Florida would provide us with a meritorious judgment. We've met all the three requirements of equitable estoppel. We've acted in good faith, we've relied on the information from the City, both verbal and in writing, before and after the closing and we've actually... Mr. De Yurre: What do you have in writing? Mr. Cardenas: Excuse me? Mr. De Yurre: What do you have in writing? Mr. Cardenas: We have in writing two documents, the executed document on the application for a class C permit by the chief zoning inspector stating that we've met all zoning requirements and our... Mr. De Yurre: For the 20 units? Mr. Cardenas: Yes, sir, which includes the 20 units as a number and number two, you know, we have the... and as I said, the building permit pre, or dry run and based on that, based on the fact the we incurred the expenditures in February and in March before the intent to suspend the permit was issued, we feel that we would be amply justified in court on the theory... Mayor Suarez: OK, now you are arguing. Just give us... Mr. Dawkins: That's right, Mr. De Yurre, the motivation is simply profit. For 16 units you get less money than you get for 20 units, that's plain cut and dry. I don't know why you stand over there and don't say that. That's all it is! Mr. Cardenas: People before us made a profit. Mr. Plummer: Let me answer... Mr. Dawkins: But now all I need to know is, I need to know one thing before I could... I see this coming, OK? I hope your client does not need any other variances, any changes, any thing, OK? - because I'm not going to vote for them. See when you be inflexible like this and you demand that when errors are made that you are inflexible and you don't want to give, then when you come up here with this, you are going to adhere to whatever it is, I want that understood now, OK? If you miss the light plane, you miss it, you go back and you correct it, because all of us make mistakes and I can understand a mistake being made, I'm willing to correct it, but when you come down here and be inflexible and demand things which you are entitled to, then don't come back and later on and expect for me to be on your side. Mr. Plummer: Can I ask a dumb question? Maybe I'll get a dumb answer, maybe I won't. Mayor Suarez: You've asked a lot of them why not one more? Mr. Plummer: Drop dead. Mr. Dawkins: Hooray, congratulations! Mr. Plummer: I'll get you in November. The complaint of the neighbors, as I hear it, on their best complaint is parking. Is there any way on this project that more parking could be included? Mr. Cardenas: Yes. Mrs. Range: How? 70 ,Tull► 31, 1989 Mr. Plummer: Am I not hearing that your major complaint is parking? Mr. Register: Major Complaint! Mrs. Register: Noise, traffic and swell area. Mr. Register: Noise and parking. Mr. Plummer: OK, Henry, I can't please everybody, but the things I've heard, the major complaint is parking. My question is, is there an area of compromise in which you could put in more parking than what you presently have provided, maybe cost you a few more dollars and come up with some kind of a compromise acceptable to both sides. Mr. Cardenas: We can come up with some extra work with two additional parking spots which again exceeds the Code requirements. Mr. Plummer: I understand that Al, I understand that you are in compliance with the 24. Mr. Cardenas: We would provide two additional parking spaces. Mayor Suarez: Let me state if I may, Commissioner, to help the deliberations, what my position is so that I don't know what Commissioner Range feels, but I... the most I would go would be 16 and I'm inclined to figure out a way to try to hold you to ten, but the equitable estoppel argument doesn't convince me. I think we can withstand any challenge on that. Sixteen is our Comprehensive Master Plan, it's probably not a wise number of units for that kind of a lot, for that area, but the most that I would vote would be 16, so I don't know if you want to negotiate within that, unless Commissioner Range states her position. You may not get a third vote for anything beyond 16. Mrs. Range: You said just a moment ago when I asked a question about the parking, you said that in your plans for 20 that you had ample parking. Mr. Cardenas: Yes, I... Mrs. Range: Now when you are asked a question as to what you could do as a compromise, then you say you can provide two more parking spaces. Now, what is the actual facts on the parking? Do you have sufficient parking or do you need to provide two more? What is it? Mr. Cardenas: We have fully met the Code parking requirements in the plans presented to you, but in addition to that, even though we have met whatever the City has required us to meet, Commissioner Plummer said that the neighbors testified that there are parking problems in their projects and that they are concerned about possibly having parking problems at ours, although at this point in time, as you know, that is purely speculative. I have told the Commissioner that we checked with the architect and they advised me that we can put two parking spots on the premises in addition to what we already have and what we already have already meets the City requirements. Mayor Suarez: OK, Commissioners, let's decide here. We've got a legal argument that is compelling to some. We have a public policy argument that should be compelling to all of us and we have to decide. Have you moved the 16 units? Mr. De Yurre: I'll move the 16 units, however, with the proviso that they add the 24 parking spaces that they were going to add with the 20 units. Mayor Suarez: The two parking spaces, no? Mr. De Yurre: No, no, if they could squeeze in 24 parking spaces for 20 units... Mr. Plummer: The 16 units would require less than 24. Mr. De Yurre: I know, but I am asking... Mayor Suarez: But keeping it with 24 parking spaces? OK, with that proviso you move it? That gives them an additional 8 over and above one per unit, Can we legally do that, Mr. City Attorney? 71 July 31, 1989 Mr. Suarez —Rivas: Yea. Major Suarez: OK, I'll aeoond it. Mr. D6 Yurre: Do you want to Chair! Mr. Dawkins: Let J.L. do it. He's the oldie. Mr. Plummer: What? Oh, oh, because I'm the old man, right? Mr. De Yurre: The oldie goldie. Mr. Plummer: All right, is the motion understood? Is there any further discussion by the Commission? Hearing none, call the roll. Mr. Dawkins: Hold it. Mrs. Range: Will repeat that motion so that we are all clear on it? Mr. Plummer: As I understand... Mr. De Yurre: The motion is 16 units plus they have to provide the 24 parking spaces that they were going to provide when they were asking for the 20 units. Mr. Plummer: Oh, I've been offered a compromise. On the record, if you could find and it's not my suggestion, you can find it in your heart to compromise to 18 units, they would waive all rights to legal suits. I just offer that as it was handed to me. Mr. Dawkins: See there again, here you go threatening me, see, I mean, you don't get nowhere when you threaten me. Mr. Plummer: Sir, I'm not doing it. Mr. Dawkins: Yes you are, yes, you aret Mayor Suarez: Our City Attorney wants to save a little bit of work. Mr. Plummer: OK, and... Mayor Suarez: I know, I can tell a guilty face when I see one. Mr. Dawkins: If you'd told me, said look, let's split the four units with them and go from 16 to 18, I could understand it. Mr. Plummer: Sir, I am not recommending this. Mr. Dawkins: Yes you are! Mayor Suarez: Can you provide each Commissioner with one unit, as long as you are splitting units here? Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, basically a compromise seems fair because the City Attorney has advised you that without any action on your part, we would be entitled to 16 units. In addition to that, we've already spent all this money... Mr. De Yurre: No, no, you'd have to go through the process of having to apply and go through the whole nine yards again. Mr. Cardenass Sir, the problem is that we have already bought the property based on a price for 20, we've incurred all these expenses already and what we are suggesting is, since we are already entitled, as per your City Attorney, the 16 and as per our client's legal counsel, the 20, why don't we split it in half and we waive all the legal rights to any further relief. Mr. De Yurre: Let me ask you this, because attorney to attorney, OK? Who was representing your client at the time that they relied verbally on a position?' Mr. Cardenas: Another attorney. 72 Mr. be Yurre: Another attorney. Mr. Cardenas: but I don't believe that attorney was with the clients when they visited the City staff. Mr. De Yurre: Yes, because you know, I find it hard to believe... Mr. Cardenas: Let me put it this way, it was another law firm. Mr. De Yurre: OK, because I find it hard to believe that people that are in the business world would rely on a verbal opinion. Mr. Cardenas: It was another law firm. Mr. De Yurre: To go ahead and spend, you know, thousands upon thousands of dollars, $200,000 on a verbal opinion, it doesn't make sense. Mr. Cardenas: Well, it happens frequently, but I understand. Mr. De Yurre: Well then that's what happens, they end up in this situation. Mr. Plummer: The question of the Chair, Mr. De Yurre, or the maker of the motion, there has been proffer of an amendment. Do you accept the amendment? Mr. De Yurre: Well, but I leave it up to you now to, all these things you acquire for City as other... As negotiator. Mrs. Range: Just before we go any further with the negotiations, I think it should be between the sides here to decide to come up with the compromise. I don't think it should be the Commission to come up with this compromise of 18. If the two sides could get together, then I'd bet willing to go along with whatever they think is right, otherwise... Mr. De Yurre: But are we going along with the parking? Mr. Cardenas: Yes, sir. Mr. De Yurre: You go along with the 24 parking spaces? Mr. Cardenas: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask you this. Mr. Register, if we get 18 units, no lawsuits, with 26 parking spaces, would that in any satisfy you? Mr. Register: I think you are compromising the entire process when you... I think you... Mr. Plummer: OK, I'm just... sir, I'm just asking. I'm just trying to get the best of both worlds, OK? If you could get 18 units with 26... Mr. Register: We are asking for ten units. Mr. Plummer: Well, that you're not going to get, you've heard the motion. Mr. Register: I know that now. I know that, but I also know that the Comprehensive Plan calls for 16 units and I think if you are going to go compromise out between 20 and 10, 16 is the number that you should go for. Mr. Plummer: Mr. ... Mr. De Yurre: Let's me realistic, 10 is out of the picture. It is either 16, 18, or 20 and we got to... Mr. Register: 16. Mrs. Register: May I ask the City Attorney a quick question. When you are all saying that they are entitled to 16 no matter what, what is the purpose of having the first reading of the proposed amendment to change it to 40? I mean it's superfluous if the Comprehensive Plan is already going to take effect without even the public the right to oppose it. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, I ask again is that first amendment item number 25? 73 July 31, 1909 aa .: Mr. 01ta6dillo: No, it is not included there and the explanation for that, if �. - tray. i . - - �a' Mr. Plummer: OX, because I asked on the record, did that affect this application and your answer was no and then she is arguing that it's yssj but she doesn't know that it is not in the Rrickell Avenue area, OK? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: This Comp Plan amendment... i Mr. Plummer: That does affect... Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes, this particular parcel... Mr. Plummer: South of here. i Mayor Suarez: Yes, if it did, we would really be going crazy because... Mrs. Registers RG-2.1, which is our district, it's right there in your paperwork. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Register, I'm not arguing with you, I'm just asking is there an area of compromise? If there is not, the motion on the floor is very clear. Mayor Suarez: There is a motion on the floor and I just want to add one other thing. If I remember correctly, Commissioners and particularly for Mrs. Range, this property initially had what zoning, Guillermo? Mr. Olmedillo: RG-2.1/3.3 and it went to a sector five. Mayor Suarez: Which meant that we had an increase in the FAR. S 1 Mr. Olmedillo: In the intensity of use, FAR 2.75. Mayor Suarez: So already we have sort of bent over backwards to allow more density of building on Brickell and then they come in and yes, maybe we made a mistake, but we certainly have over the life span of this property and this property owner been more than reasonable in our dealings with him, even with this one mistake and I know, once again would ask that you hold the line at what our City Attorney is telling us is the maximum allowed by our Comp Plan. Mr. Plummer: Once again, the motion is clear on the floor, unless there is amendments... Mr. De Yurre: I'm going to ask one question of the City Attorney's office. Mr. Plummer: Mr. De Yurre. Mr. De Yurre: How much would it cost to defend a lawsuit of this nature? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: It would cost approximately, oh, I would say, 120 to 240 hours of an attorney's time and additionally, really just City staff and perhaps a planning expert at best for one or two thou, so you are talking less than five thou, I think, five thou or so. Mr. Plummer: Less than what? Mr. Dawkins: What? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: You are talking about five thou I think, is my guesstimate. Mr. Dawkins: Five thousand what? _ Mr. Plummer: Five thou is $5,000? a Mr. Dawkins: No way. Mr. Plummer; What attorney do you get for 200 hours at $5,000? s Mir. Suarez -Rivas: Well, we are cheaper than the private sector rate. 74 July 91, 1959 Mr. Plwaer: Yes, that`s Cohen and Cohen and Cohen and Abe make. Mr. guaret-Rivas: We are not talking about going out and hiring that firm to defand us. We are talking about doing it in-house. Mr. Plummer: That's the attorneys we saw investigated on Channel 7 the other night. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: We would see it as a major suit. You know, we don't see it as a major suit. Mr. be Yurre: Now I know why the Planning Department gets their own opinion. Mr. Plummer: OK, just for the record before I call the roll, I probably... Mr. be Yurre: I'll go ahead, we've got 26 parking spaces and no suit at all... no, we are going up to 26 now, 26 parking spaces. Mr. Cardenas: Yes, sir, 26. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: You should request a release, Vice Mayor, a release. Mr. De Yurre: All right, he'll give us all that we... Mr. Cardenas: 26, a general release. Mr. De Yurre: A general release? Mayor Suarez: Ma'am, he's trying to go up to try to get more parking spaces so that it presumably would be less confusion and less disruption of the neighborhood. That doesn't mean that I will vote for it, but... Mr. Plummer: Mr. De Yurre... Mr. De Yurre: I'll go with the 18 and the 26 parking spaces and your release. Mr. Plummer: Does the seconder of the first motion concur? Mayor Suarez: No, I'm sticking to 16. Mr. Plummer: OK, now then we have to vote on De Yurre's ... can he make an amend... Mr. Dawkins: I'll second it. Mr. Plummer: As a substitute motion. Mrs. Range: What is that, 18 units? Mr. Plummer: 18 with 26. f Mr. De Yurre: We get about five more parking spaces than required. Mr. Plummer: OK, now, then we vote on the substitute motion first. Is there any further discussion on the substitute motion understood to be 18 units with 26 parking spaces? Is there any further discussion on the substitute? Mr. De Yurre: And the waiver, and the waiver. Mr. Plummer: Of course the waiver as proffered by the attorney. The substitute takes priority. Call the roll. Mayor Suarez: It's really a new motion. Mr. Plummer: Sir, the public discussion is over, I'm sorry, OK? Call the i d,— f, y Mayor Suareet Yes, but he himself made the new motion, so it is his own snot ion i # Me. Hirai: Commissioner, the substitute, the mover.:, Mr. Plummer: All right, well let's get legal, whatever. What's legal? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Excuse me, just for procedural clarification, you should make the resolution if it is for over 16 units, subject to amendments of the Comp Plan as required by law. Mr. Plummer: Right, now the other legal question is, Mr. De Yurre made the first :notion and he has made a second motion. Mayor Suarez: it doesn't matter. He's in effect withdrawn his first motion to make it a new one and I'm not seconding the new one, but it doesn't matter. Mr. Plummer: But you didn't withdraw your second. Mayor Suarez: Well, but I... all right, if you want to call it a substitute. I don't know if he can substitute his own motion. It doesn't matter. Mr. Plummer: All right, so there is no problem as far as calling the roll... Mayor Suarez: Without withdrawing that. I think he withdraws it if he substitutes it. Mr. Plummer: ... on the compromise of 18 units with 26 parking spaces. That is the motion before us. Further discussion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner De Yurre, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89-751 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING WITH MODIFICATIONS THE ZONING BOARD'S REVERSAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF THE CLASS C SPECIAL PERMIT (C-88-1130) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EIGHTEEN (18) UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2100 BRICKELL AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); AND GRANTING, AS MODIFIED, SAID CLASS C SPECIAL PERMIT (C-88-1130) FOR AN EIGHTEEN (18) UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING; PROVIDING FOR THE GRANTING OF THIS CLASS C SPECIAL PERMIT UPON THE CONDITION THAT TWENTY-SIX (26) PARKING SPACES BE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND UPON THE FURNISHING TO THE CITY OF A GENERAL RELEASE BY THE APPLICANT. (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 J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre NOES: Commissioner M. Athalie Range Mayor Xavier L. Suarez ABSENT: None. COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL: Mr. Plummer: This is the time you don't want to be in the center chair. I agree with the compromise. I think it is a good compromise, I think that it gives us more parking spaces, the units would not be that much smaller or larger and for that reason I vote with the compromise. COMMENTS MADE AFTER ROLL CALL: Mr. Register: Parking spaces would be there anyway. 76 11 Mayor Suareat OK, please. • Mr. Register: I said the parking spaces would be there anyway, whether there are ib or 18. The 26 parking spaces would be there, Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. Plummer: Well, I can't... I don't know that would be the case, sir. _ 12. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend Future Land Use Plan Map of 10544 (Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000) - Change designation of property at approximately 3490 & 3500 Main Highway (PLAYHOUSE THEATER) from Restricted Commercial and Single -Family Residential to Major Public Facilities; Transportation and Utilities (Applicant: Board of Trustees, Internal Improvement Fund, State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources). Mayor Suarez: PZ-13. Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: 13 and 14 are companion items. 13 is a plan amendment and 14 is a zoning change for the playhouse property which is located here on Main Highway. The Zoning Board, for the record, approved it on a 9 to zero vote and the PAB approved it on a 7 to zero vote. The Planning Department has recommended approval of the change to the GU. Mr. Plummer: Anybody here in opposition? Mayor Suarez: There were some people last time, are they not here? Is anyone opposed to the application contained in PZ-13? Let the record reflect that no one has stepped forward. Jack, does that mean that we have basic agreement from the neighborhood? Is that a fair statement? Commissioners, I entertain a motion on it. Mr. Dawkins: Move it. Mr. De Yurre: Second. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? If not, please read the ordinance. Ms. Armbruster, were you going to oppose it? Ms. Esther Mae Armbruster: I'm not opposed, I just want a good understanding as to... Mayor Suarez: OK, yes, let's get clarifications that you might want. Ms. Armbruster: I want clarification. About three months ago, you promised us that you would give us a covenant stating that you would never try to open McDonald Avenue and come through there and acquire that property under no circumstances. Mayor Suarez: How about that? What guarantee do we have that there won't be an opening? Ms. Armbruster: You said you were going to give us a covenant. Mr. Olmedillo: You made a motion... Mayor Suarez: Is there going to be a covenant to that effect? Mr. Olmedillo: You made a resolution some time ago that you, under this City Commission, you will not approve the extension of McDonald, 32nd Avenue. Mayor Suarez: OK, that's not a covenant, that's a... Mr. Olmedillo: But this is... Mr. Plummer: That's a policy. 77 ,July 31, 1989 W I • Mayor Suarea: ii. sort of a, yet, !statement of policy. It's like a ooveagat with the people or something. Mr. Dawkins: Yes. Mr. Olmedillo: I don't know if the applicant wants to submit this into the record. Mr. Dawkins: Hold it, hold it, wait a minute, say what now? Mr. Olmedillos I don't know if the applicant wants to submit that as a... in addition. Mr. Dawkins: I withdraw my motion until you find out. I don't care who it isl Mr. Jack Mulvena: Commissioner, we, you know, we are one of two parties who are you know, applying. The State of Florida is another. We certainly don't have any objection to any particular covenant that relates to something that is outside of our project. Mr. Dawkins: This Commission said under no circumstances would you open up... what street is that, honey? Ms. Armbruster: That's McDonald and... Mr. Dawkins: McDonald to disrupt this neighborhood, now we said that and it was made clear and plain that was the stand of this Commission and under no circumstances were you to open McDonald Street and destroy that residential neighborhood. I don't care whether this is the federal government, let alone the state government. Mayor Suarez: OK, how do we do it so that it's more of a guarantee than just a statement of purpose or something by this Commission? That's what you're getting at, right? Mr. Dawkins: Um hum. Ms. Kathy Swanson: My name is Kathy Swanson. I'm with the Department of Off - Street Parking. We have conceptual plans now, none of which include the... Mr. Dawkins: All right, when you get the conception where I can see it, bring it back. Ms. Swanson: Yes, sir. Mr. Jack Mulvena: No, we have it right here. Mr. Dawkins: ....not conceptualized, it's not conception Mayor Suarez: Well, can we... what he's saying is, can you build it into something more specific like a covenant running with the land or something that is... Mr. Plummer: The State of Florida owns the land. Ms. Swanson: If I could also review... Mayor Suarez: State of Florida owns the land. Mr. Dawkins: All right, well, then, well go back to the state of... I move that this be continued until the State of Florida concedes that it is going•to preserve that neighborhood over there and not go in and destroy it by putting a street through there. Ms. Swanson: Commissioner, if I could talk about the time line. Mr. Dawkins No, ma'am, I'll tell you what you do, you get the State of Florida - no, ma'am, you see you guys should have brought the State of Florida in here. You were told at the very beginning it was made clear that this Commission, under no circumstances, was going to allow that street to be open and destroy that neighborhood. 78 July 31, 1989 Al No, $waftowit Uhioh is why none of our plans included we have a Wday review process with... 104 Dawkinst That you said you are for it but you don't know what the State of Florida's doing. Mayor Suarez: Let me see if there's another way we can work it out. Is there any other.., Mr. Dawkins: Come on, i mean, you're not... I have to understand what you're saying, you understand what I'm saying. Mayor Suarez: Mr. City Attorney... Mr. Mulvena: Commissioner, what we're... Mayor Suarez: Wait, Jack, Jack, Jack... Mr. Mulvena: Oh, I'm sorry, yes. Mayor Suarez: Would somebody, including yourself... Mr. Mulvena: Yes. Mayor Suarez: ...or the City Attorney or the Assistant City Manager; somebody - Assistant Planning Director, anybody... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor... Mayor Suarez: ...give us a tool or an instrument - Commissioner Plummer - whoever, that we can make this legally enforceable to the satisfaction of Commissioner Dawkins? Otherwise, we're going to have... Mr. Plummer: Can I offer to my colleague... Mayor Suarez: Yes, please. Mr. Plummer: ...and I sit on that board. Ms. Armbrister: I do too. Mr. Plummer: Can if offer to my colleague that this is first reading. That whatever requirements he has... Mayor Suarez: Get a covenant.... Mr. Plummer: ...that there would not be a second reading until such time. Their problem is raising the money and the time element is crucial. Mr. Dawkins: But, you know, everytime... Mr. Plummer: I understand what you're trying to accomplish. Mr. Dawkins: But, no, no, no, but every time I get in these areas and in these neighborhoods, it's always at the last minute and if we don't do this, we're going to lose the money, J. L. I get tired of that. Didn't we tell them this when we first sat down? r Mr. Plummer: Well, they knew the policy. y f, Mr. Dawkins: Oh yes, well, that's right. So, I mean, you know, don't come 4 and tell me we're going - you know, every time it's in Coconut Grove, it's in Liberty City, it's in West Little Havana. If you don't do this today, we're going to lose the money tomorrow. You come down here every time with that. Mayor Suarez: What enforceable instrument can anybody come up with that would be... Mr. Mulvena: You know, we feel very confident that we could provide•# covenant for the second reading, Commissioner. You know, actually, if... 79 July 31, 1949 q Mr, bawkihst Well, I'll make it an emergency at that reading when you bring it back to me. t mean, that's me, I'm not going to vote on it. Mr. Rafael Suarez -Rivas: You can't pass this particular ordinance as an emergency ordinance. Mr. Dawkinst Well, OK, let the say this. I'm voting no if it comes up for a vote. Now, I don't know what anybody else up here is going to do but I get tired of every time I tell you people about some areas in this town, that you have to do something. You wait until the last minute and you come in and tell me, "Miller, if you don't pass this, we're going to lose the money." And you do it every damn time. Not you - I'm talking about all of you. I mean, I'm just fed up with it. Mr. Plummer: Well, let- me ask this question to the department. The area of concern of Commissioner Dawkins is the area of, from what I would say, is Williams over to Grand, OK? That's the area. Now that presently is privately owned. Is that correct? Mr. Mulvena: It is. It is, right. Mr. Plummer: Really, Commissioner, I think what we're saying in reality is that the covenant we want is from this City Commission that says we'll never allow that property to be condemned for a street. So it's us, if anything, that's giving a covenant saying we won't do it because they can't control the private sector, they can't go in and buy that and turn it into a street. It's this City is the only one - and, department, tell me if I'm wrong - you understand what I'm saying? Mr. Dawkins: Yes, and all I'm saying to you, Commissioner Plummer, is that whoever, I don't care who it was... Mr. Plummer: Well, it might be us. Mr. Dawkins: Well, then, we should have done it - then we should have done it. Mayor Suarez: Then tell us a way... Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no, then if it's us, we should have done it. Mayor Suarez: Then tell us a way that we can, today... Mr. Dawkins: I don't care who should have done it. Mayor Suarez: ...bind ourselves in a way that the community will have assurances that we won't - that a future Commission won't change its mind. If there's any way of doing it. Mr. Plummer: Guillermo, can you answer my question, please? Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: It is, indeed, private property. You cannot - unless you condemned it - you cannot extend MacDonald up to the Playhouse. And what I rely upon is what you've already stated that the... Mayor Suarez: How about comprehensive plan change of some sort? That would make it... Mr. Olmedillo: That would not affect any... Mayor Suarez: ...entirely more difficult for it to happen without changes to the comprehensive plan. Mr. Olmedillo: That would not affect it. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask... let me play the other side for a minute. Would it be within their right to buy that property and then come before this Commission and ask for it to be turned into a street? Mr. Olmedillo: They could do it. However, I think Jack will be the one addressing that. 80 July 31, 1989 1 a Mr. Plummer: Well, no, he wouldn't be addressing it. You answered thy question, yes, they could do it. But, to me, it seen... Mayor Suarez: You say, they, you mean the Off -Street Parking Authority or you mean the State of Florida? Mr. Plummer: Well, I'm saying the applicant, really. Mayor Suarez: Internal improvement, whatever. The applicant, I guess, is - who is the internal improvement fund? He doesn't sit on it, you just sit on the board of the actual Playhouse, right, J. L.? Mr. Plummer: Myself, yes. Mr. Mulvena: It's the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, that controls the Playhouse property of which the garage, surface lot, oh, the entire footprint. Mayor Suarez: Who is the internal improvement fund which, I guess, technically, is the applicant? Mr. Plummer: How much do we bind ourselves is what we're really saying? Mr. Mulvena: It's the cabinet, Secretary of State. Mayor Suarez: The cabinet, State cabinet? Mr. Mulvena: Yes. Mayor Suarez: We probably can get a covenant by second reading. Mr. Mulvena: Yes, I think we could. In addition, I think, you know, Mrs. Armbrister, would be the first to, I think, give the Commissioners some confidence that we have provided no access at all to the neighborhood in this project. Ms. Range: Mr. Mayor... Ms. Armbrister: I would like to say... Ms. Range: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from Mrs. Armbrister. Let me get her views on this. Ms. Armbrister: OK, we - I and Coconut Grove - we are in the process of trying to put Coconut Grove in the historic district. That's number one. Next year, the owner's house, the first house built in Dade County, will be 100 years old. We, in turn, we are trying to save that. We are also trying to save the cemetery and save the whole thing because it is the first. We will be one hundred years old in 1990. You were a hundred years old in 1973, but we want ours in 1990. The plans that they have made so far - and by the way, I'm on the advisory board - the traffic, they're trying to take care of the traffic so we are going along with the way they're trying to take care of the traffic. That is left up to you to see that it's carried out, the way the traffic is going to be done in Coconut Grove after the parking lot has been built. Mayor Suarez: Miss Armbrister, then, if we move on first reading... Mr. Plummer: We're all in concurrence. Mayor Suarez: ...with the guarantee that by second reading, that we won't move on second reading until we get the cabinet to guarantee by covenant that they won't go. Would that seem acceptable to you? Ms. Armbrister: That's acceptable as first. Ms. Range: All right, just before we move it thought, I want to ask another question. You heard Mrs. Armbrister's objections. How does your plan affect what she has just said? Mr. Mulvena: Well, Mrs. Armbrister is on our parking advisory group and has been really with us through two years of this project that what we've been 81 July 31, 1989 MENEM able to accomplish together is that no street will penetrate the neighborhood. In other words, this project will be so designed that it will entrance and _ exit off of the Main Highway and not into the neighborhood and we're actually forbidding entrance along Charles Street as a visual aid shows so we've actually reconfigured the design over two years so that it really serves as a buffer for the neighborhood and we haven't been as concerned about the back street because we don't control it. But Mrs. Armbrister could very happily j speak to that. Ms. Armbrister: That is all right, but we do not take what you say as you say It. We need something in black and white. What you're saying is fine. Mr. Mulvena: Well, it's on the record. It's on the record, Mrs. Armbrister. Ms. Armbrister: Just get it in black and white and then we'll hold you to it. But unless we get we get it in black and white, anybody can come along and do what they want to do. What you say is fine, Jack, but we need it in black and white. Mr. Mulvena: OK, we'll provide it. Ms. Armbrister: Thank you. Mayor Suarez: Try with... Mr. Plummer: Just for the clarification of the record, Mr. City Attorney. As a member of the board, I have no conflict of voting. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: No, air, you do not have any conflict voting. Mr. Plummer: Thank you. Just putting it on the record. Ms. Armbrister: Thank you. Mayor Suarez: OK, let's go... Mr. De Yurre: Does he have free tickets? Mr. Plummer: Oh, yes, I got hundreds of free tickets. They go with the forty thousand dollars. Ms. Armbrister: The one thousand too. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: Of which you're a recipient. You'd better sit down. Mayor Suarez: We have a motion and I guess we have a - only a motion now because the second was withdrawn so if you want to second? Mr. Plummer: I'll second it. Mayor Suarez: On first reading, I think it's understood clearly that there won't be a second reading or at least it won't be approved unless we have that covenant from the state. Ms. Joanne Hane: Excuse me, aren't we going to get a chance to speak? Mayor Suarez: What else do you want to say? I asked before if there was any objectors and... He. Hane: I couldn't get through the crowd that were leaving. Mayor Suarez: Oh, go ahead, Joanne. Ms. Hane: I'm very sorry, we were trying to get in. Mayor Suarez: Go ahead, Joanne. Ms. Hane: I'm Joanne Hane. I live at 4230 Ingraham Highway. I am here representing myself and a number of people, two of whom have left letters to be read into the record. One from Mrs. William Stirrip, another from Mrs. Betty Bollard. Father Fox could not be here, he has a wedding rehearsal. The concern for the neighbors to put it briefly, I have discussed this with Kathy 82 July 31, 1909 And I will say it to all of you. The concern is much more than MacDonald, it is MacDonald. They are very concerned about that. They're very concerned about Charles being made one way. Kathy tells me that they would drop that. They're very concerned about the impact on Franklin Avenue. What we're dealing with, with a project of this size, is similar to what happens when we have developers come in and they have a development that has a regional impact. We're talking about the most precious 30-block area, I would assume, that is clearly defined - from Main Highway to Douglas Road, from Grand Avenue to Franklin and Marlowe, we have a clearly defined black neighborhood that should be a black historic neighborhood. I hope that working towards that is going to make it. But this plan needs to be so carefully drawn. The issue of changing any residential property to GU is a very, very difficult one. The residents need to be assured that this is it. They need to see the models, they need to have the reassurance that you're not going to wait and the next thing it's going to be two more. One of the real objections, I think, is that there's going to be a parking garage, which, basically, turns a blank side to the black area. Many years ago when I was writing for the Village Post, I inflamed some woman because I wrote about them building the parking - I mean the apartments - on Loquat. They're very charming apartments, beautiful apartments. But they all had blank sides towards Hibiscus and towards Marlowe and I wrote then, this is the way you shut people out is you build a blank wall. What you're saying is, you're not fit to look at. Let's be sure that this parking garage does not very, very specifically turn a blank side. Is there no way to build in some amenities for the people who are going to have to look at this structure everyday and I don't think any one of the five of you sitting there - or four of you sitting and one of them standing - thank you. Mr. De Yurre, you're standing, there are four sitting... Mayor Suarez: Go ahead, go ahead, Joanne. Ms. Hane: But I don't think any of you want a 36 - I'm sorry, whatever the height is, right across the street from you to look at a blank wall. Whatever you're going to put there, the people in the neighborhood need to hear this. The people in the neighborhood need to be brought in more. Kathy has made every attempt to do so. The fact that it hasn't produced more meetings that have generated more comment, is a combination of things. Partly, that the people didn't really quite understand what was being done at what stage. And I go back, it's like the Dinner Key master plan. I fought that when Jack Luft wouldn't even give me a written plan for it. And I think it's really necessary that people see something, as Esther Mae was saying, they need to see it in black and white. I'm sure that with as many attorneys as there are, the Mayor and on the payroll for the City, there's a way to make sure that MacDonald Street cannot come through there. What we're asking is that careful consideration be given to the neighborhood as a whole, to what happens to that neighborhood surrounding it so that there is something done there that is good for all of the residents. Years ago, we talked to Mr. Frank Stark who's now dead, about the possibility of housing one of his music collections in f something that would go where they want to put a new theater. It's fine if { they want a little theater though I tend to believe, if they can't fill up what they've got, it's a little bit airsy to come in here and want a second theater. Maybe this needs to be a two stage plan. Maybe the Playhouse can only generate so much money and if you got to have shops and offices to help it out, maybe that's necessary. When Roger Carlton and Jack Luft first approached the Civic Club board some years ago, this was a much smaller plan and it was, I believe it was 200 and I think like 20 parking spaces. Now, we got five hundred and something parking spaces and the residents really do need time to talk about this, to think about this, to get together with the City and for the City to proffer some amenities and some dead, right down the line, guarantees to this. And I appreciate it very much. To whom shall I give these letters? Mayor Suarez: Please give them to the City Clerk, Joanne, to introduce into the record, Ms. Hane: Thank you very much. Mr. Plummer: Question. How many parking spaces will be provided? Ms. Swanson: Five hundred. Mr. Plummer: Five hundred? 83 July 31, 1989 s Ms4 SMabsone And the commercial has been reduced from sixty thousand4 wh1eh was in the original plan, to thirty thousand. Mayor Suarez: OK, anything further? Ms. Armbrister: I just wanted to say that we have been meeting - I don't want you to take all the blame, Jack, but we have been - and some of the people in the community, have seen the plans. We have seen how they are going to do the back of the parking area so it won't look like a parking area, if you know what I mean, building. So, one thing we're worried about is getting that covenant and doing what you want to do with the traffic, but keep it off of Charles and Franklin. And whatever you do, that's up to you. And we have been in touch with some of the.... FIU to help us to get historical information that we need in order to put Coconut Grove... Mayor Suarez: On the other aspects of the historical dedications. Me. Armbrister: Yes. Thank you. Mayor Suarez: OK, that's it? What are you doing hanging around there, Mr. McMaster? Mr. Jim McMaster: I'll be brief, if I can be. Jim McMaster, 2940 S.W. 30th Court. Mr. Dawkins: Jesus. Are you going to speak too? And you too? Mr. McMaster: Pardon me, sir? Mayor Suarez: And him too. Mr. McMaster: I'll be very brief. Off -Street Parking has been saying, you know, trust us. You know, I like what they're proposing if it's done properly, but there are a lot of issues they need to address which I'd like to address before they come for second reading. Will we or won't we have two stories of artist housing behind this project? Where's the parking going to be during construction? Tie up the one wing of Charles Avenue, as everyone knows, the traffic study was approved a year and a half ago. I don't see why you couldn't have moved on that before now. How wide is the alley going to be on the right Commodore Plaza side of the building? The model shows four loading bays on Charles Avenue. Now we find out there's three so what's the fourth opening? You know, I'd just like to see a breakdown of how many parking spaces does the project need? I'm not against this project, but I want to know what we're getting. This project should be for the betterment of the City of Miami and Coconut Grove and the community around it, so let's see what we're getting and nail it down and then we can move ahead. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: May I suggest, Jim, that you give him your questions in writing so that he can answer them at the next hearing? Ms. Swanson: We have his questions. Mr. McMaster: Oh, OK. Mr. Plummer: You have them? INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mr. Plummer: Fine. Ms. Swanson: We've had in excess of 20 meetings on this project. We've also notified everyone within three hundred and seventy... Mr. Plummer: All I asked you to do was answer his questions. Mayor Suarez: Why do we always get more than what we ask? Mr. Ted Stahl: My name is Ted Stahl, 3120 Commodore Plaza. My property backs up to the alley and I am on the Off -Street Parking Advisory Board and we have been bringing up for two years, two items that I am very concerned about before these plans are finalized is when the decision, several years ago, to allow the alley that was a service alley behind Monty Trainer's area, when 84 July 31, 1989 4 -4 they built Fuddruekers they placed the pall of Fuddrucker's property directly upon the line making that alley today unusable and now we have all the beer trucks, laundry trucks, produce trucks, delivering during heights of time during the daytime on Commodore which causes a very serious congestion problems. The question here and it should be, we have been bringing this up for two years, we have never seen any concrete plans, all we see is models. That the alley that is now in consideration on the opposite side, Thomas Avenue, which is that small alley going up there, that when this building is designed that there be enough space left, even if we are approaching on the Playhouse property, that alley does not become just a single delivery street because it is impossible for anyone to use this. It's also a very important fire lane. This is what has happened on the opposite side so now we have all the congestion of delivery trucks on Commodore Plaza and if this alley is shortened in width, we're going to have the same problem now on the opposite side. Mr. Plummer: What you want to be assured is, is stays the same width that it is today; no less. Mr. Stahl: No, it should be - it should be, no, more. It should be at least four feet more. But the problem is - that's one major thing which we've asked to discuss for two years now. The other things that's been brought up are the tour buses. Now, we have brought this up several times, where are the tour buses going to unload? In our last meeting, the tour buses was discussed, the owner of the development said that they did not want the tour buses along Main Highway in front of their operation, because of the outdoor restaurants that are being built. That the gas fumes would approach on them. Two days after that meeting, the Playhouse had a matinee, there were eight tour buses; four of them take... Mayor Suarez: Let me ask a question, Ted, on that issue so we don't spend too much time on it because I initially asked if there was any objectors and nobody stepped forward. We have plenty of police powers to regulate the tour buses, do we not, Wally? Mr. Assistant City Manager? Mr. Wally Lee: Yes, we do. Mayor Suarez: OK, I think we can work with that. Anything else on....? OK, Bob, final one. Bob Fitzsimmons, Esq.: Yes, sir. My name is Bob Fitzsimmons. I live at 2512 Abaco Avenue. I'm the president of the Coconut Grove Civic Club. Four quick points. One thing that seems to be going very quickly and through the board is we're not just changing to GU, we're also rezoning three or two residential lots back there. They keep telling us they're necessary for the project, that they don't have final plans for the project. We brought this up at PAB, we brought this up at Zoning Board. I don't know if the projects been hanging around for three or four years, why they don't have final plans. It wouldn't be as much opposition or even discussion if we had final plans. They keep saying, "Wait till special exception, because that's required in GU." Well, that brings us to our second point. We're concerned. They can build this _ project without it being GU. They could build it with existing zoning. Why - do they want to change it to GU? You know, it has its own set of problems, bring it in there. The problem that it has for us is all of a sudden, the horse is out of the barn and you come here and there are zoning requirements. They have to be similar to the next door neighbors. They don't have the same restrictions. So I think that's basically the reason it's GU and we oppose that. We think, why don't you just build it with an existing zoning? Next, moving to the actual plan itself. I think we're going to have one, we have 30,000 square feet of retail. We, right now, have a government shopping center and if you look at the design. If you look at the point on the right there, that is the only access for 500 cars. We're building a government shopping center that's going to be like the Miracle Center. It's only one access on Main Highway. Mr. Plummer: Thirty thousand square feet? Mr. Fitzsimmons: Of retail space. Mr. Plummer: How does that compare to the Miracle Center? 85 July 31, 1989 Mr. Fitzsimmons: No, I'm saying the parking access. There'* one entrants and one exit... Mr. Plummer: Oh. Mr. Fitzsimmons., ...off Main Highway. We're going to have the same turning problem, the same light problem. These are all problems we'd like to address. We don't want to oppose this project. We do like the project somewhat. But can we have plans and can we have plans before second reading? At least some kind of tentative architectural drawing. Mayor Suarez: Can we do that, Jack? Can we do that? Ms. Swanson: We've provided... Mayor Suarez: What do you have her answer the difficult ones, you answer the easy ones? Is that the idea? Ms. Swanson: On June 16th we provided the Coconut Grove Civic Club the draft plans which do not show dimensions, but they show full layout of the 500 cars... Mayor Suarez: All right, between first reading and second reading, you're going to get them a lot more detail? Ms. Swanson: We have them, yes. Mayor Suarez: Thank you. Mr. Dawkins: OK, you got 500 parking spaces? How much square feet of commercial? Ms. Swanson: Thirty thousand. Mr. Dawkins: Thirty thousand. How much office space? Ms. Swanson: No office space. Mr. Dawkins: No other commercial or nothing in here other than this commercial 30,000 square feet? Ms. Swanson: We also have the infrastructure for the Playhouse. Mr. Dawkins: Ma'am? Ms. Swanson: We have a mini -theater for the Playhouse, dressing rooms for the Playhouse, property storage for the Playhouse. Mr. Dawkins: OK, put that other schematic up there you had up there, please. OK. Now, what are you going to do on Charles Street? Ms. Swanson: On the very back lot that you see there, we're proposing to have the dressing rooms, the property storage, which is currently on 836. We are proposing to do that. It would be a total of two stories and it would be landscaped. We went to... Mr. Dawkins; That's the same historical district I keep telling you people I don't want destroyed, OK? And that's why I'm against this project. You see, all right, what are you going to do on Williams Avenue? Mr. Mulvena: Commissioner, before you go to Williams Avenue, I need to share with you that on Charles Street and we've worked with the neighborhood to make sure that nothing exit... Mr. Dawkins: I don't... you didn't work with... I'm talking about what I want. You tell me about the neighborhood, OK? Don't tell me about the neighbors. You can go in there and promise the neighborhoods, neighbors that you're going to buy them a chocolate cake for Christmas and they'll buy it, OK? You can't get me nothing for Christmas, OK? Mr. Mulvena: But, you know... 86 Ki Mr. Dawkins: All right, so now let... now don't tell me about you _ —_ with the neighbors. You're going and promise them you're going to do - everything for them and they forget about it. OK? They don't realise that they get chocolate cake and the people on the other side don't get nothing. All right, now what are you going to do on Williams Avenue? Mr. Mulvena: Everything you see on Charles and Williams are all extensions of the theater. That's the reason we're looking for this amendment. We could have gone ahead and built the commercial and built the garage and never been back here. But because we are concerned about... Mr. Dawkins: No, you couldn't have because you needed certain variances. Mr. Mulvena: No, no, we don't, Mister.... r Mr. Dawkins: Well, then build it, well why don't you do that then? Mr. Mulvena: Because we want the theater to go forward with this project. That's the major reason we're out there. Mr. Dawkins: All right, how much of the money that you're going to generate from this development and the parking garage will go to the Playhouse? Mr. Mulvena: All of the rental payments from the commercial space is — earmarked for the theater. In addition, we're providing some infrastructure —_ support that has to come up close to the garage so the winner in this, by the way, is the Coconut Grove Playhouse. Mr. Dawkins: Well, just build a parking garage. I said it before and I'm --Z going to say it again. If you sincerely want to help the Playhouse, put a — ( parking garage there. Forget about the commercial, OK? If you really want to help the Playhouse. Mr. Mulvena: The commercial helps the garage and the Playhouse. I mean, that's the reason we have mixed used development, Commissioner. The days of =1 building free standing garages like the one next to the City administration building are far gone. You do not want to inherit that kind of deficit. Mr. Dawkins: I have to agree with Tim and those. In two years you have not shown me nothing concrete, you have not shown me anything that this is what we're going to do so that I could go against it or with it and everything... and then when the system, at the eleventh hour, when you need the money, then �j you come to Miller Dawkins and say, "Well, we got to have the money." You didn't come back a year and a half ago when we started this where we could have set down and ironed this out and I could have been happy and you could have been happy and we knew what we were doing. But you come here today and if we don't get the money, we're going to lose... you know, I get fed up with you guys doing this to me. I mean, I do. And I resent it. But it doesn't do any good because I keep telling you that and I lose on a four/one vote. I don't care. But eventually, it's going to be one that I can win on without - I'll have the winning vote on. And I hope it's a big one. Mr. Mulvena: Commissioner, we do have some conceptuals we can share with you. You know, I think if you polled, you know, the neighbors, the people we've met with, they'll tell you that this is a positive project. The Coconut Grove Playhouse will tell you it's a positive project. We'll tell you the only way to afford to solve the parking problem is to have mixed use development. Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. Mulvena: And we're looking... Ms. Hans: Excuse me, but I wish it would... Mayor Suarez: Anything further? Mr. Plummer: I only have one gripe with Mulvena and I've told him about it before and when you come back on second reading, I want you to demonstrate to me something that's going to alleviate the problem. The lot that you have there presently, you got the little gate twenty feet from the sidewalk and all of the stacking occurs on the street, OK? I recommend to you to move it somewhere where you can do at least ten cars stacked off the street and I'm 87 July 31, 1989 hopeful that you`re going to be able to demonstrate to las when you come back, the entrance into this garage is going to have somewhere to stack ears other than on Main Highway. Because if you don't, you got a problem with me. Mayor Suarez: I'd like to see some of that myself between first and second reading. Mr. Mulvena: Yes, its design has that in there, by the way. We took your suggestion and have it, you know, further into the garage. Me. Hans: Could I just may one more thing? Mayor Suarez: Because we're ready to read the ordinance and call... do you have anything that hasn't been said, Joanne? I can't imagine, because we've handled... Me. Hans: Yes. Mayor Suarez: ...over four years, almost every aspect of this. Quick. Ms. Hane: This is the first time I've commented on it. I'd just feel a lot better if up there on the screen was the plan that's being shown to us so that you all could see where the second theater is going to be and all the other things. You're being... I know that's the outline of the property, but it isn't what they want there. Not only that, I don't want to get in a contest with Mr. Mulvena, with all due respect, but the residents in the neighborhood do not all agree with this. The letter I gave don't and others don't. Mayor Suarez: All right, and we obviously all want a lot more detail by the second reading. We have a motion and a second. Read the ordinance. Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE, WITH ATTACHMENT, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 1989-2000, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3490 AND 3500 MAIN HIGHWAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MAJOR PUBLIC FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES; MAKING FINDINGS; INSTRUCTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE TO THE AFFECTED AGENCIES; AND PROVIDING A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Was introduced by Commissioner De Yurre and seconded by Commissioner Plummer and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: Commissioner Miller Dawkins. ABSENT: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. n .. .a, �...-gym L.._�-.... ..:..:.............,:.,,,.. _...riLLii. ••......:. c. .. ..:.-3.r�wr.f i.�r'.+:r'..a.ir.�r.�._.ii.r.r _ .. yf.fi�rt - - ' 1J. FIRST ARADINO ORDIROCIt Amend zoning atlas = thing* ebning classification at approximately 3490 and 3500 Main Highway (PLAYR01199 THRATIER) from SPI-2 and RS-2/2 to GU (Applicants board of Trustees/internal Improvement Fund, State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources). Mr. De Yurre: Move fourteen. Mayor Suarest Companion item, PZ-14. I'll entertain a motion on this. Mr. De Yurre: Moved. Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? I£ not, read the ordinance. Mr. Plummer: For the record... Mayor Suarez: All the same reservations that we've expressed on PZ-13 and hopes and instructions by the second reading we will have obtained all the assurances needed, prescribed. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mulvena, if you don't satisfy my colleague, Dawkins, don't come back. Mr. Mulvena: Agreed. Mayor Suarez: Call the roll. Read the ordinance. Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 3490 AND 3500 MAIN HIGHWAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), FROM SPI-2 COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND RS-2/2 ONE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL TO GU GOVERNMENT USE BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 46 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner De Yurre and seconded by Commissioner Plummer and was passed on its first reading by title by the following votes AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: Commissioner Miller Dawkins. ABSENT: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 13.1 BRIEF DISCUSSION CONCERNING PURCHASE OF CAMILLUS HOUSE- direct City Manager to place issue on the September agenda. (See label 8) Mr. De Yurre: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: Yes, Mr. Vice Mayor. Mr. De Yurre: Going back for a second to the Camillus House purchase. I have a copy here of the contract and also the minutes of the February 23rd meeting. Mr. Dawkins: Wait, J. L. isn't here, he's the one who's concerned about it. Mr. De Yurre: Well, I'm the one that's concerned about it too. Mr. Dawkins: No kidding? Mr. De Yurre: Yes. And our understanding was, at least mine, that Camillus House needed 90 days to get their approval from the Pope and whoever else they needed to get it from. That was my understanding. Now, to date, we haven't heard at all on that situation and we're going 60 days beyond what would have been the original 90 day period, and if we haven't closed this by the end of August, then I would like to have this put on the meeting, the September meeting, because I'm right now, disposed to consider going the other way and just rescinding the whole thing because I feel that... Mayor Suarez: OK, is that pretty clear? Wally, the City has to have completed the closing by the end of August or the item is going to be called back for reconsideration and then, God knows what will happen at that point... in the September, the first September hearing, otherwise Commissioner wants it on there, the Vice Mayor. Mr. De Yurre: Thank you. 14. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend zoning atlas - change zoning classification at approximately 2400 N.W. 14th Street from PR to RG-2/6 (Applicant: City of Miami Housing Conservation & Development Agency). Mayor Suarez: PZ-15. Is that the one that a lot of the folks are here on? Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: I believe so. PZ-15 is... Mayor Suarez: Do we have people against the application contained in PZ-15? OK, very good. Mr. Olmedillo: Is what you have before you is an application for a zoning change for property located at 2400 N.W. 14th Street to go from a duplex zoning to a - excuse me, from a PR zoning to an RG-2/6 which is a multifamily zoning district. The Planning Department recommends approval, the Planning Advisory Board recommended denial on a seven to one basis. The Zoning Board - excuse me, that's the votes, seven to one denial by the PAB. This is a consequence of the comprehensive plan. As you may remember, back in February, this is one of the properties which was changed in the land use designation for multifamily housing and from then, this is why the application is before you to become consistent to the comprehensive plan. Mayor Suarez: How did the City come into ownership of this property? Mr. Olmedillo: This was the Fern Isle Nursery and this has been in the hands of the City for many, many years. This is part of the Fern Isle property which comes down a triangular portion along the river. Mayor Suarez: We used it as a nursery ourselves until we stopped... Mr. Olmedillo:' That is correct, sir, and... 90 July 31, 1989 Mayor Suarez: ...making our own plants, I guess, growing our own plants. OK... Mr. Plummer: Just for the record, the property is not utilized by the City at this time for any use. Is that correct? Mr. Olmedillo: The nursery is still there in a way. There's a skeleton crew, I think, one person only there and a few plants which are being given away little by little. And there's some old fire trucks. Mr. Plummer: Plus the fact this is where we found $25,000 to change the plants at City Hall every week, as I recall. Thank you. Mayor Suarez: OK, let's... I have a feeling that Orlando could ask for a show of hands on all those who support that and we would get a lot of people who support it. So, rather than go through all of that, let's hear from the opponents and then we'll go back to anything that you might want to say, Armando, Orlando or any of the supporters. The City's actually the applicant so that's really kind of us. But we obviously if we think that it's necessary, we'll want to hear from neighbors in support. And, do we have any organization or anything so that we can have a spokesperson in any way? OK, Madam City Clerk, limit to two minutes, please. Mr. Dawkins: You got to swear them in. Mayor Suarez: And, yes, please swear everyone in that's going to testify. Madam City Clerk, do you want to swear them in? AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE. Mayor Suarez: Swear in anyone on the pro side just in case that their testimony is needed, please. �t AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE. Mayor Suarez: OK, go ahead, sir, proceed. Mr. W. R. Hoppe: My name's W. R. Hoppe. I live at 2401 N.W. 14th Street which is directly across the street from the City nursery. Mayor Suarez: Is it one of the red properties up there? Mr. Hoppe: Yes, sir, right it's right on the corner there. Mayor Suarez: Anybody point that out to us? Mr. De Yurre: Is there a house or duplex? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's a house. Right there. Mr. Hoppe: Right there, that's it. All right, that house was built in 1950 by my dad. I lived in the house right behind that on 24th Avenue from the time I was about eight years old with my grandmother. I've been in that neighborhood this many years. Next week, I'll be 55 years old so I've been there quite a long time. I have played in that neighborhood, I've watched that neighborhood change. Fourteenth Street used to be you go off 27th Avenue, you had to go on to 22nd Avenue and go south. They opened up 22nd Avenue with the bridge that gave us a red light at 14th Street and 22nd Avenue and a red light at 14th Street and 27th Avenue. In order to get across the Miami River bridge, you have to use one of those two bridges or go way around. This area right now is so impacted with traffic that there are times when neither one of those two bridges was - normally the 27th Avenue bridge gets stuck that every car comes past our house and 22nd Avenue red light holds them until they've backed up from 22nd to 27th Avenue. You can actually go out there and talk to people in automobiles and hold a conversation. They're planning to put in something like 50 and 55 units of two different kinds; townhouses as well as an apartment house complex. They intend to put it on the back part of the lot is what they showed me when they came to my house to see what they could sway me out of saying what I'm saying today. I showed 91 July 31, 1989 them, I said, it's beautiful, it's back on the back side of the lot. We've got 32 eighty to ninety year old oak trees on the front of that lot. The lot In well kept. They say there's only one man in there. Well, he does one hall of a job because that's a beautiful piece of ground. It's the last piece of ground we have in that area and, by the way, let's say one more thing, this is not Allapattah. I want that firmly understood that this is not Allapattah, this is... Mayor Suarez: Not Allapattah. Mr. Hoppe: It's Muse Isle, pardon me, because it's part of the tract that's been there for years. But any... Mayor Suarez: Muse Isle. What is comprehended by Muse Isle? I guess we've heard that name before in regards to some... Mr. Plummer: Muse Isle is an Indian village that used to be there and that's where it derived its name from it. It was over on 24th and the river. Mayor Suarez: Is there an actual. neighborhood that ever was described by that with boundaries or anything like that? I guess we have the housing project there. Mr. Plummer: It was always known as Muse Isle when I was growing up. Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. Hoppe: When you grew up and through the Indian village, it was Muse Isle then, wasn't it? Mr. Plummer: Sure. Mr. Hoppe: OK. Mayor Suarez: There's probably some platting, is there some platting? Mr. Plummer: Used to take the old boats out of Bayfront Park down to Muse Isle and watch them fight the alligators. Mr. Hoppe: Right. Mayor Suarez: Oh, there's some lots that have that? Any subdivisions that have that name? Mr. Plummer: I don't know if it's a subdivision or not. Is it Muse Isle? Mr. Hoppe: That's the way my taxes read. So I think they know where I'm at. Mr. Plummer: I think it is. Mayor Suarez: OK, I'm sorry, I took up a little bit of your time so go ahead and complete. Mr. Hoppe: Anyway, like I'm saying. We're impacted, there's only one way in and out of that place and it's on 14th Street and if you were going to add two automobiles per apartment and you're talking about 200 apartments, you're talking about 400 automobiles. There's only one way they can get out of there. They must come out onto 14th Street. There's no way around it, they got to come onto 14th Street because on the back side, you've got 836 and there's no way out of there. They have property at 27th Avenue and 28th Street you've owned since 1984. You've got 8.5 acres up there that has been zoned for exactly what you want to do here. More property, more way to get out and yet you can leave a park for the people. We're talking about 1989 now. Give it 20 years, all right? I've got grandchildren now that like to run. There's no where else around that neighborhood you can run. We've got the Policemen Park down the street. That is private. You take your kids back in there, you're just liable to get run off. All right, on the other side of the street, you've got the diesel outfit all the way down the river. I don't know how much land they own, but they've got problems down there too. We've got traffic in and out of that place all day. In the morning at 7:30 when I leave to go to work, it takes me five minutes to back out of my driveway so I have clearance to drive away. I have a business at 22nd Avenue and N.W. 6th 92 July 31, 1989 s M Street. I've been there for 35 years. So, like I say, I know what's going on In the neighborhood. i was in that house behind my property right there in 1942 when it was bought. I think that we need to keep a park. Mr. De Yurre: Lot me ask something because I was given some information the other day and want to verify it one way or another. The front of that piece of property, has that been given to any, to a municipios or something like that? I've heard something to that affect. Mr. Olmedillo: La Casa Los Municipios is supposed to have a location there with just the front portion of the property. Mr. Plummer: What do you call the front? -14th Street or the expressway? Mr. Olmedillo: Fourteenth Street. No, the 14th Street side. Mr. De Yurre: And how big is that property? You know, how much of that parcel is... Mr. Olmedillo: That's about almost a half about, I would say, a good 40 percent - 2 acres are being pointed out. Mr. De Yurre: Two acres? Mr. Olmedillo: Two acres will be La Casa de los Municipios and the remainder... Mr. De Yurre: The front two acres. Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct. Mr. De Yurre: So, you're telling me so that we understand each other here then that the park concept has already been done away with because of prior commitments by this City to give two acres worth of that frontage to La Casa de los Municipios. Is that correct? Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct, yes, sir. Mr. De Yurre: OK, I don't know if that was known or not. Where do we stand with the Casa de los Municipios? When was the given to them? Mr. Olmedillo: That must have been eight to ten months ago, at least and we haven't seen any... Mr. De Yurre: When? Mr. Olmedillo: Eight to ten months at least. Mayor Suarez: That's a use permit, is that what it was? Mr. Plummer: No, we gave them a commitment so they could got to the state to try to get money. Mr. Olmedillo: No, there's no permit or anything. We haven't seen plans. Mr. De Yurre: They what? Mr. Olmedillo: We haven't seen the plans but... Mr. De Yurre: Did they come here? Mayor Suarez: It was that proposed use... Mr. Plummer: Well, as I recall, we gave them permission to use that parcel to go before the State of Florida to try to get funds is what we did. Mayor Suarez: It was a revocable use permit form. Mr. Plummer: No, we didn't even give a permit. We said that we would so designate if they got the funds and if they did not, then there was - school was out. 93 Mr. D6 Yurra: And where Lib that at? Mr. Plummier: Excuse me? Mr. Olmedillo: We don't know. It's anybody from Housing here maybe. Mr. Plummer: Within the last year. First, we talked about Antonio Mace* mark that they were going to go in there. That didn't work out and then they came back and talked about this piece here. Mr. Jose Fabregas: Commissioner, there is preliminary plan site that they have done and that's as far as they have done. They presented it to the Building and Zoning Department in which their site plan did not touch of the existing trees but that's as far as they've gone. And it was... Mayor Suarez: How about funding? Is, I think, what the Vice Mayor was hinting at. Do they have the wherewithal? Mr. Fabregas: The funding with that, they were trying to get, like Commissioner Plummer said, they were trying to get some from the state. Mayor Suarez: We know that. Have they gotten it or not from this legislative session? The legislative session's over. Mr. Fabregas: No, air. Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. De Yurre: Because... Mr. Plummer: Well, excuse me, I think they got what they were looking for from the state. I think they got the hundred thousand from the state. Mr. Fabregas: Right, but the construction of the... Mr. Plummer: That's a lot more. Mr. Fabregas: ...proposed unit, it's over a million. Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. De Yurre: Because, you know, my feelings are, right now, that we need to find out exactly where they're at to see if it's feasible or not because if we're going to - if we're considering doing this project, I think that something that might alleviate the whole concept is leaving those front two acres as, you know, with trees and green area as a mini -park of sorts. So that is something that should be considered, but, again, we have to see where we stand with La Casa de los Municipios as far as that commitment is concerned and long we're going to hold it if we can, you know, if there's no funding available or if they can't secure it by a time certain. Mr. Plummer: How much land is left? Mayor Suarez: It was eight... Mr. Plummer: If, in fact, that... Mayor Suarez: Eight and a half you said before? Mr. Olmedillo: Three point four acres. Mr. Plummer: Is left? Mr. Olmedillo: In addition to - yes. Two... Mr. Plummer: Are we talking about the project that is proposed of housing? Can that go on the 3.27 Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct, yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: So what, is my colleague, what would we be holding up for if both projects are able to go on the site? Mr. Olmedillo: You mean La Casa de los Municipios and the housing project? Mr. Plummer: I'm asking, yes. Can they both, as proposed, go on the same site? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, yes. Mr. Plummer: OK, Victor was saying that we needed to, he thought, possibly hold up to see whether or not that other project is a go or no go. Now, what do we accomplish by holding up if both projects can go on the same site? Mr. Olmedillo: The Planning Department is recommending approval based on the comprehensive plan. We would say that the only thing that you accomplish will be have more open space for the people around that area. Mr. Plummer: Not necessarily. Mr. Olmedillo: If La Casa de los Municipios is not... Mr. Plummer: Not in my understanding the dealing with the people who are proposing the housing is for 3.2. Correct? Mr. Olmedillo: That's correct. Mr. Plummer: Now, the City, at a later time, if the other one falls through, the City could do whatever it wants with that additional two acres. We could give it... Mayor Suarez: Yes, or even... Mr. Plummer: ...we could build more housing, we could turn it into a park. There's a lot of things we could do with it. Mr. Olmedillo: Oh, yes, you have options. Mayor Suarez: We can even go back and figure out some other site for the other use and not go back on our commitment to them, but just find another site and end up leaving two acres open here for - as Vice Mayor was proposing. Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, I think that you and I both agree that the Municipals, good as their intentions are, to raise a million dollars is going to take quite a while. Mayor Suarez: Sure. And, also, we don't have to hold that offer available forever and ever while they look for funds. We can tell them we'll find some other location, if need be. OK. Mr. George Warren: My name is George Warren, I'm here representing Mrs. George Warren, owner of lot eleven, block two. That's 2351-53 N.W. 14th Street. First of all, I wanted to say that the planning board voted to approve it but the Planning Advisory Board recommended denial seven to one, a vote of seven to one. And also the Zoning Board voted it down on June 13th, six to two, something like that. Now, I've been all through this neighborhood and I've spoken, door to door, to just about everybody who lives in that neighborhood. No one really wants this zoning changed. The neighborhood cannot really take any more people. The density problem is going to get to us. I'd say over 90 percent of the people who live there now are against it and they have signed their names to a petition that I've taken around. Sixty names on the petition who are against this. We think that an impact study would prove that higher density habitation would bring higher density traffic and all the problems that would create and what we have now is Fourteenth Street which only has one lane in each direction and we couldn't take any more traffic than we already have. Because, as Mr. Hoppe said, a lot of people cut across from 22nd to 27th Avenue and when one of the two bridges get stuck, 95 July 31, 1989 either the one on 22nd or the one on 27th Avenue, there's just no way traffic _ can move on 14th Street. If you add more people on Fern Isle now, that'll create more traffic than we already have. This is going to ruin the quality of life for all who move into this neighborhood and for all who already live there. And that would cause the devaluation of property in the whole area. We believe that. Right now, the neighborhood it's a small little community with a lot of people who have lived there for over 30 years. Between 21th Avenue on the west and 23rd Court on the east, N.W. 16th Street Road on the north and the south fork of the Miami River on the south, this highly wooded area really resembles a nature preserve. If you've ever been back there, you'll know what I mean with all the old oak trees. We all think that Fern Isle really ought to be a park, a passive park. OR, thank you. Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your statement being timely. You're the most timely so far. Anyone else? Mr. Plummer: I try to stay away from them. Mayor Suarez: By the way, if I may, before they start, just clarify, how many units are being proposed to be built? Mr. Plummer: Let's not be forced today. Mr. Armando Cazo: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, my name is Armando Cazo. Mayor Suarez: Just in concept. I'm sorry, before we even get to Armando, does anybody know from Housing, City's Housing Department? Mr. Fabregas: Yes, sir, it's fifty townhouse units. Mayor Suarez: OR. Mr. Fabregas: Sixty-two townhouse units? And fifty-five. Mayor Suarez: And any elderly housing or anything else? Mr. Fabregas: Fifty and sixty-two elderly housing. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, my name's.... Mr. Plummer: Well, can I ask... let me ask a question. I question this is a complete change of zoning, OK? And I'm assuming it's for the entire tract from PR, public recreation, to RG-2/6. If, in fact, the municipal group, if they wanted to use the front two acres, they don't need a change of zoning, do they? Mr. Olmedillo: No, they would need... Mr. Plummer: So why are we even proposing in this application the change of zoning of the front two acres? (Applause) Mr. Olmedillo: They would need a change... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. Mr. Olmedillo: I believe they would need a change of zoning anyway from PR in order to make that much of a change into the park... of the park. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but you see, look, unless I'm completely out of base. If you left the front two acres as PR, as a park, I think it would be a lot more pleasing to everybody, including the people of the Housing, OK? Mr. Olmedillo: You can do that. Mr. Plummer: Now, the only thing that you're talking about is whether or not the Municipios - ahhhhh, can't roll my is - get their successful project or not. Now, I just personally feel that leaving those front two acres would be beneficial to everybody. The neighbors across 14th Street and if, in fact, the housing went in, they've got a park also built in for them of 2 acres. So 96 July 31, 1989 is I I, personally, would like to see from this application, taken out the front two acres. It makes no sense to me at this particular time. The municipios are not trying, in fact, to put in housing. Theirs is a community center as I understand the concept so I, personally, think that the front two acres ought to come out as far as a change of zoning is concerned. And I think the neighbors would be, you know, even though it doesn't address the parking, I think it addresses the fear that they have that might be used for more housing. So, I'm giving you that on the record for what I feel. Mayor Suarez: It makes a lot of sense. Ms. Blanca Mason: My name is Blanca Mason and I live at 1836 S.W. 15th Street and I'm here because although I think this is a commendable project and I understand the goal of the City of Miami to provide low income housing and affordable housing, I don't think this is the appropriate site. This is land that has been designated park space, open space, has been with the City of Miami since 1936 and it was decided the Fern Isle Nursery, which is the that has provided trees for the citizens of all the City of Miami, and has been used by many homeowners groups to beautify public rights -of -way and... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, who are you representing? Ms. Mason: I represent myself. I'm a taxpaying citizen. Mr. Plummer: I mean, because you don't live in the immediate neighborhood. Ms. Mason: No, no, I've used the site, the nursery site to use trees for the Shenandoah Homeowners and we have used... Mr. Plummer: You're arguing for the nursery, not necessarily anything else. Ms. Mason: The nursery and the entire site, just as a taxpaying citizen of the City, you know, this is my land and I think it belongs to all the City and to give away this land is really to divest the rest of the citizens of their park land. I think that you should retain the park concept, the green space. There's not enough here and really, if you look at the application, the surrounding area is one story duplexes. That site is medium density and part of the housing, the elderly housing, would be 5 story which would stick out in that neighborhood. It's totally inappropriate to the neighborhood. In fact, this group has the Melrose Nursery site that can be developed in Allapattah. There are alternative ways to provide affordable housing and low income housing in the City of Miami. You can improve code enforcement. There are many other sites in residential areas that need housing that would be a boost to the neighborhood. This neighborhood is stable and you're giving away, this sets a bad precedent to give away essential park land and green space that belongs to everyone in the City. And... Mr. Plummer: Just for the record, we're not giving it away. Ms. Mason: Well, I think the land is valued at over a million dollars and you're selling it for three hundred something thousand. Which is... Mr. Plummer: OK, but we're not giving it away, I just don't want a concept that it's a freebie. Ms. Mason: Well, essentially, you're divesting the rest of the citizens, I mean, you're not compensating the rest of the City of Miami with any more park land and, in fact, sometimes you all appropriate money to buy park land. Well, here you have land that's designated for that. There are other appropriate sites for this project and right now, the Melrose Nursery site has been sitting vacant for over two and a half years for a housing project and the Allapattah Community Action Agency is also in charge of that. They really should concentrate on what they have in that neighborhood and proceed there. Regarding the Municipios, the ordinance that you all agreed on a year ago gave the Municipios twelve months to acquire the funding for this and that was on June 9th of 1988. It's been over twelve months so at this point, the City is under no obligation regarding those front two acres which, by the way, on the east side of this property, the three lots, according to your Planning Department, are designated an environmentally - it's an environmentally designated protection area because this whole area is in Oak Grove. So, by all means, the Oak Grove and the Fern Isle Nursery, which is right behind the Oak Grove should be preserved. I don't think this is an appropriate site and sets a bad precedent to go ahead and do this. If the City's committed to... 97 July 31, 1989 Mayor Suarez: You don't need to summarize... Ms. Mason: OK. Mayor Suarez: ...because your time is up anyhow, so it's just a matter of, if you have anything further to say, go ahead and say it and finish up, please. Me. Mason: Yes, I think that there's a public trust doctrine and the City owns this in public trust for the rest of the citizens. Because it's Inappropriate to the site because its park land, and they would cause incredible problems of density in the neighborhood. It would divest the rest of the citizens of their land and because this project is opposed by the immediate neighborhood and has been recommended for denial by both the Planning Advisory Board and the Zoning Advisory Board, two citizens boards that are here to tell you essential, you know, what they have found, should be done. You should not consider this project for this site. Mayor Suarez: Thank you. Ms. Mason: Thank you. Mayor Suarez: Anyone further? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me stand corrected. There was a revocable permit issued by resolution 88-570 for two years. I hate to contradict the young lady but reading here, it shall come up every two years; "....said permit to come before the City Commission every two years for reconsideration and revision." Mayor Suarez: It's unusual that we would do it for two years, typically we do it for one, I wonder if we... Mr. Plummer: It's resolution 88-570 on June the 9th, 1988. Ms. Mason: Based on the packet prepared for you, that's where I saw it. And it... Mr. Plummer: Well, I'm just reading from the resolution. Mayor Suarez: He's just corrected the record, you're not contradicting anything that he's saying, are you? Mr. Plummer: No, she said a year. Ms. Mason: No, I'm sorry, you know, I based it on the packet given to me. Mayor Suarez: This has nothing to do with you, Miss. We had a discussion on what kind of a permit we had given to the people that were applying for monies from the state and he's just told us. Go ahead, sir. Mr. Ed Navarro: My name is Ed Navarro and I live on 1385 N.W.... Mr. Dawkins: Pull the mike up, sir, please. Mr. Navarro: I live in 1385 N.W. 23rd Court; right on 14th Street and 23rd, a duplex that's there. I'd like to ditto what everybody said about high density and everything else and it just came to mind you, yourselves, are putting barricades all over the City to prevent traffic and preserve peoples' land and safety. That's an area that before children could play all over in the street and be supervised without any fear. On 14th Street which is a dead end street, people zoom in and zoom out of there at 40-50 miles an hour. That would be great revenue for the City just having a policeman there to pass out tickets. And on like Friday, I wish one of you would have been there. Between 22nd Avenue and 27th Avenue, you've got a banking center and stuff there that people coming in and coming out between 22nd and 27th you can't make it from there to 27th Avenue within 15 or 20 minutes like Mr. Hoppe said. It's a real high density area. Furthermore, there - your zoning, they used to be all homes there. Now they're making five and six unit complexes on 14th Street. They're eyesores because you get all these people jammed in this little space and all you see is like little mice and mazes running and running out and insurance wise. Before you just go in now you've got to, in that 98 July 31, 1989 little area, it's so prone to accidents. If you would just sit there and look at all of the potential accidents that are happening now because there is no outlet between 22nd and 27th. It is a major damage and it will affect all our quality of lives like the gentleman said. I think it's an area that should be preserved and I think you should include a study. Go out there and talk to the neighbors because no one knew - I mean, the memos that you sent, no one knew about them till people received them. Everybody here knew about them. I mean everybody here and people around the neighborhood, which are one and two blocks away, they never received anything and yet this place is full from kept telling the, this is fantastic plan. And, we, the people that live there didn't even know about it. I think that's kind of unfair too. That's all I have to say. (Applause) Mayor Suarez: Anything further? Ms. Esteria Suarez: My name is Esteria Suarez. I live 1345 N.W. 23rd Court. I don't want to add anything because they already said everything but we're very crowded and we need a park because we all have kids. A lot of us they don't understand English, that's why they cannot speak, but the people that oppose, they're here, you know, and they want to talk. Mayor Suarez: You're welcome to ask them in Spanish. If they want to raise their hand if they're... Ms. Suarez: Well, they want to say their own opinion in Spanish, that's what I'm saying. Mayor Suarez: Listen to me. You're welcome to ask them in Spanish if they want to raise their hand if they're in opposition to this rezoning. Ms. Suarez: OK. We have a couple peoples... Mayor Suarez: You don't buy that. I'll translate what she says and put it on the record. Mr. Plummer: The ones' that have spoken spoke pretty good English that I understood. Mayor Suarez: (ASKED IN SPANISH FOR OPPONENTS TO RAISE THEIR HANDS.) OK, that did it for you. I just asked those that are against this rezoning to raise your hand. OK, ma'am, last statement. Ms. Johnnie Hoppe: My name is Johnnie Hoppe and I live at 2401 and I also have power of attorney for husband's uncle which is 1430 N.W. 24th Avenue. Now, my problem with this is you're warehousing people. This area has natural boundaries. It is naturally cut off, it is cut off by the river, it is cut off by the expressway, 27th Avenue and 22nd Avenue, and we have been blessed with a few things. I am not against housing for the elderly, I know it is terribly important because, right now, I have his uncle getting ready to go into a nursing home but I do think you ought to take a look at Muse Isle. That thing is a total disgrace. It is falling apart. And here you're going to build more housing, you haven't even taken care of what you've got there. Somebody put over a big thing on 27th Avenue. It's going to be ten stories with the penthouse and there is an entrance on to 27th Avenue from the parking lot and there's just one way and this is right after you come over the bridge. I'm waiting for the accidents to start on that one. There's also another building that's gone up right behind that. My whole point is, the only way out of these two pieces of property is onto llth Street which will feed out onto 27th Avenue which will go down 14th Street or across 27th Avenue bridge or down 27th Avenue. You intended to widen 27th Avenue, but the funding did not happen from what I understand. Mr. Plummer: It's Dade County, or State of Florida. Ms. Hoppe: Dade County did, but, anyway, it did not happen. And until you get this situation straightened out, you can't continue to impact people because every piece of property in there that is sold is going into a duplex and when you've got all existing property we have in there now going into duplexes, and you add more than a hundred more units with no way in and out except 14th Street, and the City trucks use this thing like an expressway, 99 July 31, 1989 .�. like you Vould not believe. It It unbelievable and so do the County trucks. And wb6n the - (hod love you guys - but when the police department holds something at that park, you can forget it. We need policemen to polite the policemen; it's disgusting. And they just don't do anything about it so You've got to look at what you're doing before you do it and I don't think they really did. Mayor Suarez: OK, thank you, ma'am. All right, Commissioners. Mr. Warren: Just, could I have one question? Could I just ask one question? Mayor Suarez% Ask a question, please, quick. Mr. Warren: How did the City come by getting this land and I heard that.... Mayor Suarez: Yes, I asked the question. I don't know that I ever got an answer to that. Mr. Warren: I don't know the history of it, but I heard that it was donated and... Mayor Suarez: I asked the question and I'm not sure I ever got an answer so it might as well... Mr. Fabregas: Mr. Mayor, this was... Mayor Suarez: Or if I did, I forgot it already. Mr. Fabregas: Yes, it was bought in 1936 on the court steps. Mayor Suarez: Bought by the City? Mr. Fabregas: By the City. Mayor Suarez: Presumably for a... Mr. Fabregas: Tax deed. Mayor Suarez: But presumably to use as a nursery and... INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me make sure what we're doing here today. By changing the zoning on this property less the two front acres which is the only thing I would vote on, we are not locking in concrete any project on that property at the present time. Is that correct? Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct, sir. Mr. Plummer: OK. Now, the one thing - just to give me an example because I don't see anything wrong with a high rise next to the expressway. I think it would be a blessing if you want my truth. How f ar back would that be from 14th Street, approximately, because that thing looks deep to me? I'm look," g at at least 700-800 feet from 14th Street. Mr. Olmedillo: About 250 feet will be the first structure. Mr. Plummer: No, no, the high rise structure, not the townhouse. Mrs. Hoppe% That's the high rise. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, that's the high rise. Mr. Plummer: About 250 feet. Mr. Oimedillo: It's part of the nursery. Mr. Plummert OK. = Mr. Olmedillo: They, but there are the oaks right in the front of it. Mr. Plummer: I understand, but it's not being used for a park or a playground presently? Mr. Olmedillo: No, sir. Mr. Plummer: OK. I think that a lot of people would feel more comfortable that if, in fact, the Municipios do not go through, that the City use that and dedicate it as a park for the neighborhood, they would find it a lot more accessible. And I don't see a thing wrong with that because, I mean, the people in the back could use it, the people in the front could use it. Mayor Suarez: The front two acres, you mean. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mayor Suarez: Yes, and that follows in line with what the Vice Mayor was saying before that maybe we can dedicate it as a mini -park. Mr. Plummer: You know, there's other properties and... Mayor Suarez: Make it more accessible than it actually is right now because right now, I presume, it's a nursery of some sort. I don't know that people are allowed to... Mr. Plummer: And, Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry to harp on this but I've got to have - make sure that the record is correct. Commissioner De Yurre showed me that the young lady was right. That if they do not get the funding and start construction in 12 months, that then they lose their right on this even though it is a revocable permit for two years. So there's a discrepancy there. Mayor Suarez: It's really got the one year cancellation provision. Mr. Plummer: That's correct. Mayor Suarez: Or... Mr. Plummer: Just for the record, you were right and I was right. Maybe we're both wrong. OK. You're right. Mayor Suarez: Has the time expired? Now, she's saying something different. Mr. Plummer: Twelve months by construction. Mr. Olmedillo: Right, it has. Mr. Plummer: Huh? Mr. Olmedillo: It has expired. Mr. Plummer: Yes, it has expired, by June the 9th it expired. Mayor Suarez: So we could legally dispose of that at this point. Mr. Plummer: Yes, in some other location. Mayor Suarez: Right. Commissioners, what's your pleasure on this item? Mr. De Yurre: Well, I think we're pretty much on the same wavelength. My feeling is that if we can have that two acre buffer and keep it as a park area for the neighborhood with the understanding that the applicants - or not the applicants in this case - but the people that would develop that area would up keep the park, I'd think that would be the best for all people concerned. Mr. Plummer: Victor, I can't go along with that and let me tell you why I can't, OK? First of all, you're talking about people of moderate income. You know, I don't want to rely on a condominium kind of association. I would much 101 July 31, 1989 prefer to see the City take care of it, I don't think there's any other way it can be dons. City park property is the City's problem, and as far as I'm concerned, they've got to maintain it. To rely on a third party to do it, I gust don't think it will be done. So I can't agree with that. The rest of it — I agree with. Ms. Masons I just want to suggest something... Mayor Suarez: We're not taking any more input from the objectors, ma'am, unless you've got a clarification which we'll allow, just out of courtesy to you. Ms. Masons OK, I just want to suggest, if you want somebody to manage it, why don't you get the homeowners associations to manage this since they've used the nursery and things like that? Mayor Suarez: We've been trying to look at homeowners associations to manage parks. We have yet to come up with one park that can be adopted by homeowners association that won't, some how, require substantial City funds. The day we find one, we'll be very, very pleased because then we'll start using that system over and over again. Mr. Plummer: Well, you going to make a motion? Mr. De Yurre: OK, then I'll go along with that. Mayor Suarez: Are you exempting the front two acres, is that what you're doing? Mr. De Yurre: The front two acres. Mr. Plummer: I'm accepting the front two acres as a dedicated City park based on no restrictions presently being held that the back be rezoned and that this City Commission would, in fact, hold any and all approval over any development on site, including ingress and egress to the rear portion of the property. That I will second. Mayor Suarez: Basically, that means that the front two acres are kept at PR. Mr. De Yurre: We'd have to give them an easement any way. Mr. Plummer: That is correct. Mayor Suarez: He's carving out of the zoning change, the front two acres. Mr. Plummer: Changing the zoning, less the front two acres. Now, I think what you need to do so that nobody gets wool pulled over their eyes, give me the dimensions of what the two acres are from the street back and across. OK? And, you know, let's be honest, these people want to preserve the oak trees and I think that's very... Mr. Olmedillo: Can we do that on second reading so that we can give you an accurate.... Mr. Dawkins: No. Mr. Plummer: No. No, because... Mayor Suarez: Well, give us an estimate now and then bring it exactly. Mr. Plummer: You know how things work around here. The two acres will all be down the left hand side. Mr. De Yurre: Now, do we have to give any easement at this point in time as far as ingress and egress? Because they're going to have to go through the park to get in. Mr. Plummer: Aye, that's a good question, is there an easement on PR for driveways? Mr. Olmedillo: There will have to be one and you would have to approve it by special exception, not you but.... 102 July 31, 1989 Mayor guarani You've got it along one side, the easement, you're showing it On Ott side there. Pit. De Turret Where is it now? Mayor Suarez: 'That's an interesting, that's a very nice layout he's got there. It seems to follow the... is that line that you see there, is that the two acres, by any chance? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me suggest to you, my friend, when you come back, I would strongly, and this is only one person talking - with this plan, I would put ingress on one side and egress on the other. I think that you eliminate the confusion that would be by the same entrance and exit at the same place. i Mr. Olmedillo: You may affect the oak trees there. Mr. Plummer: Well, if it does that, then I withdraw my... Mayor Suarez: Yes, you may be surrounding it with concrete if you do it. Mr. Olmedillo: The dimensions, for the record, are 340 feet across and... Mr. Plummer: The front... Mr. Olmedillo: ...yes, and 250 feet deep. Mr. Plummer: Let me see that - no, what he just had here. INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Suarez: Up, up, up, yes. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Ms. Range: Are the front two acres facing the objectors right now, is that where the oak trees are? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Yes. Ms. Range: I see. Mr. Plummer: Well, you see... yes, but see, if I were doing it, I would - we're not voting on that... Ms. Range: They're on the opposite side of 14th Street. Plummer: If I were to do it... Mayor Suarez: They're over here, yes. Mr. Plummer: I'd put the high rise here, townhouses up here. I would reverse it because then, in effect.... Mayor Suarez: No, but she means the objectors ----- Ms. Range: Yes, that's on the opposite side of 14th Street. Mr. Plummer: ...the high rise serves as a buffer to the expressway. Do you follow what I'm saying? Is there any problem with reversing that? I mean, is there any major problem? Well, we'll talk about that at the time. OK? But if I was doing it, I would put the high rise at the expressway... Me. Range: Right. Mr. Plummer: ... the townhouses in the park which then it serves as a buffer to the single family across the street. Mayor Suarez: Yes, it's sort of a gradual... 103 Mr. plumamer: Ixactly. Mayor Suaree: .,.going back to a purely residential type environment. Mr, Flummer: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, even though we're not talking about the project itself, I am told by staff that the trees in the front, In a affect, are high enough to completely cover and close this off to the view of the public. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Nol Nol Nol Mr. Dawkins: No way, not five acres, not five... Mayor Suarez: How many stories is the highest structure? INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Suarez: Go ahead, say it in the mike. i Ms. Hirai: Excuse me, we need.... yes. Mr. Fabregas: It's a four story high, 36 feet in height. Therefore... Mayor Suarez: Just 36 feet? Mr. Fabregas: Just 36 feet. Most of the trees in that area are more than 40 feet. i Mr. Plummer: OK. Mayor Suarez: You might want to have some - if we're going to have a second reading, if you disagree with that, you might bring some pictures and if you know... I'm sure you can allow access in there and if you want to take a measuring yard and stick it up in the air 36 feet high and take pictures of the trees, you can convince us otherwise. 1 Ms. Range: Are there going to be mixed structures? 1 Mayor Suarez: Thirty-six feet is pretty high trees. I don't know that that's... Ms. Range: No. Are there going to be mixed structures? Are you going to have some one story buildings and others that you graduate up? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, the townhomes are lower than the... Ms. Range: The townhouses are lower. Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct. Ms. Range: I see. Mayor Suarez: We're not approving that at this point, but that would be the recommended layout that he proposed. Ms. Range: And that's what you're saying that you should bring the higher places up near the expressway. Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. Olmedillo: That is Commissioner Plummer's, Ms. Range: By the way, is there an access road to that expressway? Mr. Olmedillo: Not to the expressway. There is an existing connection to 14th Street. ` Ms. Range: No, I didn't say exit, I said access. Is there an access road �• along the expressway? Mr. Olmedillo: No, Commissioner. :;., 104 .Tally 31, 1989 Me. adage: Clone. Mr. PluMers Note and you can*t do it. Mayor Suarea: OX, we have a motion, do we have a second? bid we got a Motion and a second? Mr. be Yurre: Yes. Mayor Suarez: Read the ordinance as modified, please. THEREUPON, THE CITY ATTORNEY READ THE ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD, BY TITLE ONLY. Mayor Suarez: Call the roil. Mr. Plummer: No, excuse me. That's not acceptable to me. 1 Mr. Dawkins: J. L. put the - he put the foot in, he put the feet in. Mr. Plummer: I want it spelled out on the footage. Not the front two acres, I want - did you say three fifty by two fifty? Is that what it was? -f Mayor Suarez: The width by... Mr. Plummer: The width, as I remember, was 350? Three forty by... Mr. Olmedillo: Three forty by two fifty. Mr. Plummer: By two fifty. Mayor Suarez: In depth. Mr. Plummer: Would you include that, please, in the ordinance to make it definitive. Adrienne Friesner, Esq.: Would you like me to reread it? — Mayor Suarez: No, no, please. Just with that linear or area amendment specified. Ms. Friesner: So, less the northernmost two acres, 340 by 250. Mayor Suarez: Very good. - Mr. Plummer: Thank you. Mayor Suarez: OK, call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2400 NORTHWEST 14TH STREET, LESS THE NORTHERNMOST TWO ACRES (APPROXIMATELY 340 FEET BY 250 FEET), MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM PR PARKS AND RECREATION TO RG-2/6 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL; BY MAKING f` FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 25 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF r ORDINANCE NO. 9500 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Was introduced by Commissioner De Yurre and seconded by Commissioner_ Plummer and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: 105 July 1, 1909 a< t - A' St Con nissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range ftuftioaLofter Miller Dawkins Vine Major Victor be Turre Major Xavier L. Suarez ROSS: None. ABSENT: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. Mr. De Yurret Mr. Mayor, I would also like to instruct the administration to start looking immediately and to come back at the first meeting in September with an alternative for the Municipios in case that they avant to proceed with their project. Mayor Suarez: And you might want to ascertain in that process - I think it makes sense, Mr. Vice Mayor, whether they're even in a position to even move forward at all because if they're not, then all we have to be told is that. In which case, we... Mr. De Yurre: OR. Mayor Suarez: Very good. 15. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: Amend 9500 - amend Schedule of District Regulations, Residential -Office District, Principal Uses and Structures - Permit RO-1 Residential Office Uses in RO-3 Districts - Change terms "drive-in" to "drive -through" (Applicant: Planning Department). Mr. Plummer: Sixteen. Mayor Suarez: Second - PZ-16's companion item or is it not? Mr. Plummer: No. Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: No, PZ, no, it's not. Mayor Suarez: OR. Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-16 is the second reading. Mr. Dawkins: Move it. Mayor Suarez: Moved, on second reading. Does anyone wish to be heard on PZ- 16? Let the record reflect no one stepped forward. We have a motion, do we have a second? Mr. Dawkins: Yes, he seconded it. Mayor Suarez: OR, seconded by the Vice Mayor. Read the ordinance. Call the roll, PZ-16... Mr. Plummer: Get the whip. For the record... Mayor Suarez: Yes, Commissioner Plummer. Mr. Plummer: For the record, we are voting only on an ordinance relating to 4 v.hle+ln not a Lana&if in annlinatien. OR? a AN ORDINANCE a AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, PAGE 3, RO-3, RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE DISTRICT, PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES, TO PROVIDE THAT RO-1 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE USES ARE PERMITTED OR PERMISSIBLE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IN RO-3 DISTRICTS; BY CHANGING THE TERM "DRIVE-IN" TO "DRIVE -THROUGH"; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 25, 1989, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Dawkins, seconded by Commissioner De Yurre, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Commissioner Miller Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10623. 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. ---------------- ---------------------------------------- ---------------------- 16. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: Amend 9500 - Provide that discontinuance of a Nonconforming Use in part of a building, after a time certain, will necessitate zoning district conformance for future uses - Provide for non -acceptance of Variance applications which alter prior grant of Special Exception - Provide more specific time limits for Planning Director's receipt of Major Use Special Permit referral comments - Provide Major Use Special Permits be effective for two years with renewal periods (Applicant: Planning Department). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Suarez: PZ-17. Mr. Dawkins: Move it. Mayor Suarez: Moved. Adrienne Friesner, Esq.: An ordinance amending.... Mayor Suarez: No, wait, wait, wait. I like her though. She's really ahead of the game, I mean, you know, the other City Attorney you got to satisfy all these formalities and she dispenses with all of them. OK, does anyone wish to be heard on this item? Let the record reflect no one stepped forward. Mr. Plummer: Basically, what does this accomplish? Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: This defines the - in a nonconforming part of the building that you cannot continue you that when the certificate of use has been void for 180 days and then you cannot apply for a variance when you have a special exception that's a loophole that we're catching with that, establishing a time line for the major use special permit and limits the special permit, the major use special permits to only two years. Right now, it's open ended and, as you know, the DRI... Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, three years? Mr. Olmedillo: Two, two. One, two. 107 July 31, 1949 Mt. Plummer, that the spacial exception permmit? Mr. Ol tedillot into, that's the major use special permit. The big :mess the ones that are 900,000 square feet and beyond. Mr. plummert A regional impact. Mr. Olmedillot They're be no other regional impact, but it's the same kind 6f thing although locally, we do it with a smaller threshold. Mr. Plummere OX. Thank you. Mayor Suareat Call the roil on PZ... oh, I'm sorry, we have a emotion and a second. OK, read the ordinance madam fast, very fast, City Attorney. Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500., AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, SUBSECTION 2104.6, BY PROVIDING THAT DISCONTINUANCE OF A NONCONFORMING USE IN PART OF A BUILDING, AFTER A TIME CERTAIN, WILL NECESSITATE ZONING DISTRICT CONFORMANCE FOR FUTURE USES; ARTICLES 26 AND 31, TO PROVIDE THAT VARIANCE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WHICH WOULD ATTEMPT TO ALTER A PRIOR GRANT OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION; SUBSECTIONS 2802.3 AND 2802.5 TO PROVIDE MORE SPECIFIC TIME LIMITS FOR PLANNING DIRECTOR'S RECEIPT OF MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT REFERRAL COMMENTS AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECOMMENDATIONS; SECTION 2803, TO PROVIDE THAT MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMITS SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FOR TWO YEARS, WITH TWO YEAR RENEWAL PERIODS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 25, 1989, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Dawkins, seconded by Commissioner De Yurre, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Commissioner Miller Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10624. 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. 17. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: Amend 9500 ("major Use Special permits; Intents Determinations by City Commission; Referrals") - Provide M Planning Director shall receive/make recommendations on all applications for Major Use Special Permits and Amendments and forward same to Planning Advisory Board, etc.; and defining substantial deviation (Applicants Planning Department), Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: PZ-18 is a second reading again, an amendment to the ordinance. This is to define substantial deviation the same way that the state defines substantial deviation. Mayor Suarez: OK, I'll entertain a motion on PZ-18. Mr. Dawkins: Move it. Mayor Suarez: Moved. Mr. De Yurre: Second. Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Does anyone wish to be heard against this item? Let the record reflect no one stepped forward. Read the ordinance, Madam fast City Attorney. Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 2301.5, ENTITLED "MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMITS; INTENT; DETERMINATIONS BY CITY COMMISSION; REFERRALS," BY PROVIDING THAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR SHALL RECEIVE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALL APPLICATIONS FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMITS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO AND FORWARD SAME TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATIONS; BY AMENDING SECTION 2806, ENTITLED "CHANGES IN APPROVED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT," BY REFERENCING SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATIONS FROM DEVELOPMENTS OF REGIONAL IMPACT PER SECTION 380.06, FLA. STAT., AND PROVIDING PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWING SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES FROM PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMITS, AND BY PROVIDING FOR A RECOMMENDATION ON SUCH CHANGES FROM THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, AT A PUBLIC HEARING, WITH ABBREVIATED NOTICE; AND BY AMENDING SECTION 3515, ENTITLED "REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING CHANGES IN ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS AFTER PROCESSING BEGINS," BY DEFINING "SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE," AND PROVIDING CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING SUCH CHANGES. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 25, 1989, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Dawkins, seconded by Commissioner De Yurre, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Commissioner Miller Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. • `i I gK ItUbING ORDINANCIt Amend 9500 - Provide that concurring vote of 5 o mbers of Zoning board be required to reverse any decision of a$ administrative officials or to decide in favor of appellant (Applicants Planning Department). ......-......----- ------ Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: the ordinance... Mr. De Yurre: Move it. PZ-19 is the second reading again, an amendment to Mayor Suarez: Moved by the Vice Mayor. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Does anyone wish to be heard on PZ-197 Let the record reflect no one stepped forward. Madam City Attorney, read the ordinance. Ah, she lost... she was going so well. Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3006 OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, { FLORIDA, TO PROVIDE THAT A CONCURRING VOTE OF FIVE (5) MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REVERSE ANY DECISION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OR TO DECIDE IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANT IN ANY MATTER BEFORE SAID BOARD. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 25, 1989, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner De Yurre, seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the Ordinance was 3 thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted - by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range a. Commissioner Miller Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez ;t t NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10626. 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. T 'f�',. lYv'a�i� :-+,d,.7 li it �� 4. ,e 7 L. 1 ,h �:_. l 3 , �• {�:. ,.� � R 1'1Q July Al'' 1909. 5 •y - '':j 19. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: Amend 9500 (SPI-8 Design Plaza Commercial Residential District, Section 1587, Minimum Offstreet Parking) - Providb conditional exception for restaurants under 1800 square feet in flour area (Applicant: Planning Department). r—L' d.Laa..r.nr—__aa__iaW__i.r—i.------.__a—__----rar_------ .r__waa_i�ar.+._w.....W.� Mayor Suarez: PZ-20. Mr. Guillermo Olmedillos PZ-20 is another amendment to the SPI district... Mr. Dawkins: Move it. Mayor Suarez: Moved. Mr. De Yurre: Second. Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Any discussion? Does anyone wish to be heard on this item? Let the record reflect no one stepped forward. Read the ordinance. Call the roll. — Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, I had a problem with this one. Mr. Olmedillo: This is the amended version. You wanted the restaurants. We'll have one per 200 instead of one per, I think it was 600. — Mr. Plummer: This corrects that? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, this is correcting the... Mr. Plummer: Thank you. Mr. Olmedillo: ...the way you want it. Mr. Plummer: Thank you. Mayor Suarez: Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO SPI-8 DESIGN PLAZA COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SECTION 1587, MINIMUM OFFSTREET PARKING, BY ADDING NEW PARAGRAPH 3 PROVIDING A CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION FOR RESTAURANTS UNDER 1800 SQUARE FEET IN FLOOR AREA; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 25, 1989, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Dawkins, seconded by Commissioner De Yurre, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Commissioner Miller Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10627. 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. 111 July 31, 1989 20. SICOND RBADINO ORDIMANCOI: Amend 9500 - Limit effective date of Glass C — Special permits to one year, subject to renewals (Applicants Planning Department). i.. _ �N...__-__...... _._..----------- --------_ ._.... _w__��..... _�. .. Mayor Suarez: PZ-21. -- Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: P2-21 establishing second reading again, limit the = effective date of a class C to one year. Mr. De Yurre: Move it. Mayor Suarez: Moved by the Vice Mayor. Mr. Dawkina: Second. Mayor Suarez: Seconded by the... Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute, do we really... Mayor Suarez: ...Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, do we really want to do that? You're talking about a special permit that they don't utilize within one year. Do we want to just continue or allow this thing to go on infinitum? Mayor Suarez: I guess this limits them to one year. Mr. Plummer: Or do we want to review it at the... Mayor Suarez: Before we had no limitation. What do you want to make it, if not one year? Mr. Olmedillo: This is what we're doing right now. We're limiting to one year. Mr. Plummer: Well, you're not. It says the effective date of a Class C special permits to one year subject to renewals. Do we want renewals? Mayor Suarez: Oh, you want to take renewals out? ... Mr. Dawkins: Yes, take renewal out. Mayor Suarez: Take renewals out. Mr. Plummer: That's the question. We have enough trouble with those buildings that have development orders and building permits and don't get started within a year not to have this now and some that don't get temporary COs extended and... Mr. Dawkins: Take out the "subject to renewal". Mayor Suarez: Take out Steve Helfman too while you're at it. Mr. Plummer: Just subject to renewal. Remove that wording. Mayor Suarez: Chris Korge, get them all out of here. Mr. Dawkins: Hmmmm? Mr. Plummer: Subject to renewal, remove that wording. `+ - - ----W& A..k k- ii iiawkinet tf w doa't do it in he year; it,* ditieolved+ w.. MA76t §uarett US just tid tubjett to renewal. It just.. Mr. bawkitfat That's right, no subject to review. Mayor Suaretrt Right. Mr. Pluft ort One year, basically they don't do it then tells us they didn't want to do it in the first place. Mayor Suarezt They got to start over again. They got to start over again; it lapses. OK, with those modifications, read the ordinance. Adrienne Friesner, Esq.t Let me just clarify this. There's no renewal. Correct? Now, no renewal. Mr. Dawkinat No renewal. Mr. Plummert That's it. Mayor Suarez: It's clear as it can be. Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY ADDING SUBSECTION 2503.5 TO LIMIT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CLASS C SPECIAL PERMITS TO ONE YEAR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of May 25, 1989, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner De Yurre, seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Commissioner Miller Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10628. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and b f th Cit Commission and announced that copies were available to the mein era o e y to the public. t 4_ rwrar------- ----------------ter.---------.r—r�ar.'r 21. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend 9500 ("Community Based Residential Facilities") - Require Special Exception with City Con nission approval, lower census tract cap on client, increase distance separation between facilities, establish interior space standards, require Special Exception with City Commission approval for change of ownership, require Commission approval of Special Exception for Community Based Residential Facilities (CBRF), convalescent homes, nursing homes and institutions for the aged or infirm and orphanages (Applicant: Planning Department). Mayor Suarez: PZ-22. Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: PZ-22 is the one that we call the CBRF limitations. As you remember, we want to make it more strict. However, meanwhile, the state has gone its own way. We could... we wanted to leave it on the agenda to see if you wanted to move portions of this but at the end, in October lot, the new state law will click into... Mayor Suarez: Go into effect. Mr. Olmedillo: ...into effect. Therefore, we would have to come back to you with a .... Mayor Suarez: Are you saying you want to withdraw the item? Mr. Olmedillo: I would suggest that we withdraw it, but we wanted to present it to you anyway to see if... Mr. Plummer: Well, this is the one that the northeast people came here an masse. Mr. Olmedillo: Right. And this is the way we prepared it. However, you may pass it on first reading. This is first reading. We have to come back to you in October with amendments again. You may pass it... Mr. Plummer: Well, I think we ought to do that. Mr. Olmedillo: ...I'm not saying, don't pass it, but... Mayor Suarez: Pass it on first reading and might limit the number of phone calls we'll get about it. Mr. Plummer: I'll move it on first reading. Mr. De Yurre: Second. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded to be heard against this item? Any discussion? If not, does anyone wish Mr. Plummer: Because I'd like it to be more restrictive than what it is. Mayor Suarez: Let the record reflect no one came forward. Read the ordinance. AT THIS POINT, THE CITY ATTORNEY READ THE ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD BY TITLE ONLY. Mayor Suarez: Call the roll. Ms. Ranges Just before we call the roll. Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Range. Ms. Range: I notice that this does not have - this does not address the drug or alcohol rehabilitation facilities. What are we going to do about that? Mayor Suarez: Guillermo? Mr. Dawkins: Community based... 114 July 31, 1909 Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, the one you have before you does address it. What happens is that the difference is that the one in the state does not address it so, in effect, we may be more restrictive in the ones that are not - that are alcohol rehab and drug rehab. So that's why maybe it's a good idea to pass it on first reading. We can probably reshape it and bring it to you on second... Ms. Range: All right, now just before we pass it on first reading. What about the localities? Does this ordinance speak to the localities or do we have to come back for another reading on the localities or another ordinance? Mr. Olmedillo: On this one we have a distance separation of 2500 feet which is more than the state has. Ms. Range: No, no, I don't have that in mine, not the distances, localities. We find that most of these facilities are placed in special areas. Mayor Suarez: Yes, typically in the northeast and so on. Mr. Olmedillo: In the northeast. Ms. Range: Right. Mayor Suarez: How are we addressing that? The fact that we have such a huge density in certain areas of the City already that we somehow would like to undo history, are we...? Ms. Range: We continue to crowd them in. Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. Olmedillo: Right. The future ones would have to comply with a two percent cap and population of the planning district - or the census tract. So... Ms. Range: When does the future one go into effect? Mr. Olmedillo: Well, this one will provide that... Mayor Suarez: Let me try this. I think - I remember now, Commissioner - I think the idea is that by defining these distance requirements, certain will already have de facto moratorium. They won't be able to have a single one added, because they're already beyond the limits of this five... Ms. Range: Good. Mr. Olmedillo: Right, and also the population cap for the district. Mayor Suarez: Right, well that's what I mean. Ms. Range: All right. Mayor Suarez: Aren't some of them already such that once this is passed, there won't be a way to put another additional one there? Mr. Olmedillo: Some are beyond the cap. Mr. Plummer: Well, I just got to enter in, you know, my comments that I've made for a couple of years and I have no problem with these kind of facilities, but I do believe that there is a responsibility for the other 27 municipalities in this community to bear their share of the load. You cannot convince me that in some of these halfway houses and narcotics whatever they are, that some of those kids don't come from Coral Gables and Miami Shores and E1 Portal. Yet, you don't find one of these kind of facilities in those municipalities. And, you know, my recommendation has always been and it will continue to be that we don't allow one more in the City of Miami until the other municipalities pick up and share the load with us and then once they do that, we go ahead and forward it. I just... Mayor Suarez: Yes, the... 115 July 31, 1989 AL L aWrYQi i iQY, VY4 wain Y♦ . ♦ ,wa waaww wuaa.. aa.3 s raaawr u,� oww.�... awe awaww what the state has Passed, don't you'd Mayor Suarers Hoar is the state...T f Mr. Plummets The state has said, more or less, you can go anywhere the hell s= you want. Mr. Olmedillo: On less than six clients. Then you can be anywhere as long as you're within a thousand feet of... Mayor Suarez: OK, but we're more restrictive than that, right? And we're allowed to be more restrictive than that. r Mr. Plummer: No, we're less. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, well not... Mr. Plummer: Much less. Mr. Olmedillo: No, let me... Ms. Range: I happen to have a copy of the house and senate bill on this. Mr. Plummer: You mean the recent one? Ms. Range: Yes, the one that was just passed and it's very, very liberal. You... Mr. Olmedillo: It is, I agree with you. Ms. Range: Yes, yes, you may go anywhere and... Mr. Plummer: Just open the door anywhere. Ms. Range: Unfortunately, it seems that everybody ends up on N.W. 61st Street and 17th Avenue. - Mr. Olmedillo: The one thing that we have going for us in the City is that the definition of a resident is very specific and it does not include alcohol rehab and drug rehab. Mayor Suarez: I think the one the Commissioner Range is talking about are sort of de facto rehabilitation centers where people don't really have licenses to have those there; just sort of where people live and need rehabilitation. Ms. Range: But we've been to the... many, many years ago, I led a fight to go to the State Department on this and absolutely nothing was done and they continued to open. Mayor Suarez: You are going to bring us, on second reading then, once the state one goes into effect, the most - any other suggestions on any other ways that we can further restrict these, right? Mr. Olmedillo: We shall do that, yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: OK. Have we moved it, Madam City Clerk? Mayor Suarez: That's interesting so we can restrict them to City residents, OX, call the roll then. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED= AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 2034 "COMMUNITY BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES" TO CLARIFY; TO REQUIRE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITH CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL, TO LOWER THE CENSUS TRACT CAP ON CLIENTS, TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE SEPARATION BETWEEN FACILITIES, TO ESTABLISH INTERIOR SPACE STANDARDS AND TO REQUIRE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION WITH CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP; AND AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, PAGES 1 THROUGH 4, BY AMENDING COLUMNS ENTITLED "PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES", RS-1, RS-2 ONE -FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL; RG-2 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL; RG-2.1 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL; RG-3 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL; 0-I OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL; CR-1 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (NEIGHBORHOOD), TO REQUIRE CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR COMMUNITY BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES, CONVALESCENT HOMES, NURSING HOMES AND INSTITUTIONS FOR THE AGED OR INFIRM AND ORPHANAGES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner De Yurre and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Commissioner Miller Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 22. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend Code Section 62-62(a) - Provide for waiver of appeal fees relative to Class C Special Permits under certain circumstances (Applicant: Planning Department). Mayor Suarez: PZ-23. Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: PZ-23 is the first reading code amendment to waive the appeal fee for the Class C when the majority of the neighbors are applying for... Mayor Suarez: OK, I'll entertain a motion on it. Mr. Olmedillo: ...for the appeal. Mr. Plummer: Wait, wait, wait. What constitutes the majority? Mr. Olmedillo: You have different Class Cs because you have the ones that you notify the abutting neighbors only; that is the adjoining neighbors. Mr. Plummer: My understanding is we had it once before was ten percent. Mr. Olmedillo: Of the 375. 117 July 31, 1969 SIN Mr. Piumtner: Of the 3151 if ten percent of them get together, thara is no fas. but what we were trying to stop was one guy who thought he was the martyr of the neighborhood continuously using that as a process to slow down every stoning application. Now, what does this contain? Is it ten percent? Mr. Olmedillo: The way it reads is, "...providing, however, if a majority of N owners in fact of property either directly abutting or across an alley which has been granted a Class C special permit shall, in writing, request review _ within the time limits set out, then no review fee shall be charged." They're talking about the abutting neighbors and the ones across the street. And let... Mr. Plummer: Well, you see, let me tell you what you're encouraging. Well, that's what I would like to do. I'd like to make it ten percent of the 375 feet of the subject property. You know, I stand well behind no fees for the ten percent or more. Mayor Suarez: You might want to go to - it's now 50 percent? Mr. Plummer: No. Mr. Olmedillo: No. Right now, it's the majority of the abutting neighbors, the ones that are actually touching with the property, and you have usually you would have four. Mayor Suarez: To me, it's 50 percent. Mr. Plummer: You're not denying the others, Mr. Mayor, from coming in but they would have to pay the fee. Mayor Suarez: Right, so now... Mr. Plummer: OK. Mayor Suarez: ...the proposed ordinance has 50 percent. He's talking about ten percent. Mr. Plummer: Of the abutting. Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. Plummer: I'm talking ten percent of the 375 feet... Mr. Olmedillo: Three seventy-five. Mr. Plummer: ...which we take in every classification. Mayor Suarez: OK, however you want. However you think it makes sense. You've been around here long. Mr. Plummer: I would insert the words, "ten percent." Mr. De Yurre: How many homes usually do we have, properties do you have under the 375 feet? Mr. Olmedillo: Three seventy-five, well, it depends on the... area, because if it's Brickell, you've got a thousand people. If it's single family, you probably have 12 families, 15. Mr. Plummer: And if it's Woodlawn Cemetery, there's 10,000. Mr. Dawkins: What do you know? Mayor Suarez: What cases are you trying to cover, Commissioner Plummer? Mr. Olmedillo: Remember this came... Mayor Suarez: The one where you have the just single families in the neighborhood or the ones where you have high-rise. Mr. Plummer: No, I'm trying to cover the, you know, no one or two people can get together and continuously slow down the process and that's why ten percent I thought was a fair representation. Mayor Suarest: Ten percent within 315 feet. Mr. Plummer: That's correct, air. Mayor Suarez: Because you may have a high-rise with a thousand people within 315 feet in which ten percent is, might be... Mr. Plummer: Yes, but does one high-rise in the 375 feet have the right to call the shots for the entire area is what it would be saying. Mayor Suarez: Well, if you make it ten percent, they will in effect with 30... if it is 100 people with ten... Mr. Olmedillo: Typically when you have 375 feet around that, you'd have about 30 properties, so you are talking about three people. Mayor Suarez: Thirty properties so three people could do it. Mr. Olmedillo: Thirty properties, so you are talking about three people if they file concurrently. Mr. Plummer: OK, no less than ten percent is what I would say. Mr. Olmedillo: OK, with those amendments, the Law Department, don't know if they... Mr. Plummer: No less than 20 percent. Hey, I'm, you know! Mayor Suarez: To waive the fee? Mr. Dawkins: Yes, no less than 20 percent. Mr. Plummer: OK, fine with me. Mayor Suarez: Twenty percent within 375 feet. Mr. Plummer: We're not denying them the right of appeal. We're just saying any group under that is got to pay for it. Mayor Suarez: Yes, you've got to have a substantial number of people, otherwise... now, we have a major argument going on here in our Planning and Building and Zoning. It's been resolved. Mr. De Yurre: Is that a motion, J.L.? Mr. Plummer: Yes, that's fine, I move it. Mr. De Yurre: I'll second. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded, with the modifications. Is it an ordinance? Resolution. Mr. Plummer: Ordinance. Mayor Suarez: Read the ordinance. THEREUPON, THE CITY ATTORNEY READ THE ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD, BY TITLE ONLY. Mr. Dawkins: Did you put the 20 percent in there? Mr. Plummer: No less than 20 percent. Ms. Adrienne L. Friesner: The twenty percent will be included in the body of the ordinance. In the title of the ordinance you said that for the waiver of appeal fees relative to class C special permits under certain circumstances. Mayor Suarez: You might want to say, with the provisions of the motion. Ms. Friesner: With the provisions of the motion. 119 July 31, 1989 Mayor Suarea: Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, SECTION 62-62(a) BY PROVIDING FOR THE WAIVER OF APPEAL FEES RELATIVE TO CLASS C SPECIAL PERMITS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND PROVIDING A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner De Yurre and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 23. DISCUSS AND DEFER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PROPOSED RESOLUTION APPROVING, IN PRINCIPLE, DOWNTOWN MIAMI MASTER PLAN (MAY 1989) - for development, redevelopment, improvement, zoning and infrastructure of downtown, including Flagler Core, Omni and Brickell areas, etc. Mayor Suarez: PZ-24, Downtown Master Plan, we have counsel here on behalf of at least one property owner, right? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I suggest if it's possible, I think everybody is here on that, is that correct? Mayor Suarez: No, they are here on 25. Mr. Plummer: You are here on... OK. Mayor Suarez: We've only got two items left and they've got some argument on 24 and then we've got quite a bit of argument on 25, I guess. You are the only attorney, or party that's here on PZ-24? Mr. Olmedillo: That shows a lot of satisfaction with the plan. Mayor Suarez: Who asked you? Mr. Plummer: Either that, or total confusion. Mayor Suarez: Who asked you? Swear in... why don't we swearing him in? That's what the Vice Mayor wanted to do a while ago, swear in any members of the public who are attorneys who want to be heard on PZ-24. (AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE.) Mayor Suarez: Are you on the matter that I got a letter from A. Quinton, Jr.? - A.E. Quinton, Quinton, Lummus, Dunwody & Adams, PA? Is there anyone from the law firm here? OK, so we are going to hear from more than one, possibly, then. i Mr. Olmedillo: If may make a very brief presentation, this was authorized by { the Commission in 1985 in conjunction with the DRI. This is an effort with ( the DDA staff and the Planning Department and the private sector. Downtown Master Plan remember, is a broad policy plan and it sets on an agenda. It is 120 July 31, 1989 ■ not the same, it is not as binding as the Comprehensive Plan is. This is a more flexible tool. Mayor Suarez: OK, now let me give you all the things that I am aware will impact on any property owner who wants to build in this area, thanks to you and thanks to the State and thanks to all the other wise people that tell us how to run our City. You've got the Comprehensive Plan, this is not part of it, you are telling us, right? This is a totally different plan, so now we have the Downtown Master Plan, whatever that is. We have the Development of Regional Impact, the umbrella one for Overtown/Park West and another one for downtown, that's three. We have growth management legislation. We have our zoning code, because these all have zoning classifications in addition to having this very nice Master Plan. Are you telling me that we need this to foster development in areas of the City that we need to have development, or is another impediment to development? - because I want your statement on the record as an Assistant Planning Director, you should have had the Planning Director here to hear this before I vote on it. Mr. Olmedillo: We believe it will foster development and it will organize development. This is our firm belief, professionally. Mayor Suarez: I bet. Go ahead. Mr. Plummer: You could bet me. Here they are, keeping more jobs, more people because they have to sit around and interpret this damn thing. Mayor Suarez: And I am sorry, this is not required by State law, by the Growth Management legislation or by Development of Regional Impact or anything else. It's your own concoction. Mr. Olmedillo: It is not really a requirement, but when we came up with the DRI, we requested from you an authorization to go ahead and do the planning. Mr. Plummer: For how much money? Mr. Olmedillo: Both DRI and Master Plan will be $600,000, mas-o-menos, as Commissioner Plummer... Mayor Suarez: And you know we need our planning staff for the City of Miami to be involved in developing those areas of the City that need development that are deteriorating, that are in need of the kinds of things that we have had Commissioner Range do here, since she's only been here a short time ago, and Commissioners Plummer and Dawkins for many, many years and I for the short span of three and one-half years and Vice Mayor De Yurre a little less than that and instead you spend all your time planning us to death. This is five different plans of development for the area covered, some of the areas covered. I'm telling youl Mr. Plummer: I just want to ask one brief question. What does this ton of paper, OK? - what does this accomplish above and beyond what all the rest of the studies did? What's different of... no, no, no, I want the one grinning from ear to ear, that told us about the $600,000. What does this do that benefits our City taxpayers to the tune of $600,000, up and beyond what the other plans already in place have accomplished? Mr. Olmedillo: It just creates an organized plan of action, then we would have to follow with the... Mr, Plummer: The DRI doesn't do that? Mr. Olmedillo: In a way it does, but it doesn't do it for the entire area for one thing and it doesn't do it for every use that we have in the downtown area. Mr. Plummer: Six - hundred - thousand - dollarsl Mayor Suarez: I, maybe only speaking for myself, but I don't think we need this and that's just the way I feel about it. Mr. Plummer: Why don't we defer it and give more study? Mr. Dawkins: Second. 121 July 31, 1989 Mayor guarest Are you going to speak against it? Vaidentified Speaker: We have concerns about a number of items. Mr. Plummer: Good, that pill give you time to talk about your concerns with the departatnt. Mayor Suarez: And this only covers the area known as downtown? Mr. Olmedillo: Well, it comes from Omni area all the May to $rickell. Mayor Suarez: Roughly the boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority? W or exactly the boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority? Mr. Plummer: No, it doesn't go as far north. Mayor Suarez: A little bit less from the north side. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: Which has been planned to death, worked to death, we spend all of our time meeting with potential developers, hoping to build it to death, so that we have a higher tax base in our City. Mr. Olmedillo: We have some... Mr. Plummer: Are you speaking to the motion? Mr. Olmedillo: No, sir. Mr. Plummer: OK, they speak... Mayor Suarez: Does anyone wish to be heard against the motion to defer? You're deferring indefinitely? Mr. Plummer: Right, sir. Well, continue it for further information and once I have it I'll let you know and come back and give you a date to set. Mayor Suarez: So you are deferring it indefinitely? Mr. Olmedillo: Date certain? Mr. Plummer: Date certain is when I get the information I want, I'll so notify the Mayor. Mr. Olmedillo: I think that has to be deferred then. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me? Mayor Suarez: Yes, why don't you just move to defer indefinitely? Mr. Plummer: Move to defer. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Suarez: OK, is that everyone who would object is satisfied? - is satisfied with that motion or wish to be heard against that motion? OK, I guess you'll have another shot at that in spite of you. Mr. Plummer: No, I'm going to give them the opportunity to come and beat my head soft and tell me why I need to implement this thing. As a matter of fact, you know, when you come to beat my head soft, bring a hammer that says, . hey, we are going to encourage people in the downtown area, not discourage people in the downtown area. Mayor Suarez: Thank you, I wanted to hear that. Mr. Plummer: I'll get you in November. Mr, Dawkins: Call the roll. 122 Mayor Suareaa Cell the roll. MOTION TO DEFER UPON MOTION DULY MADE BY COMMISSIONER PLUMMER AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DAWKINS, PZ-24 (PROPOSED MASTER PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN) WAS DEFERRED INDEFINITELY FOR MORE STUDY AND FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THE PLAN TO BE SUPPLIED TO COMMISSIONER PLUMMER BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE OF THE COMMISSION: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner M. Athalie Range Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 24. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: Amend Schedule of District Regulations of 9500 - Change unit density cap, delete stories, General Residential - Add new zoning district classification: "CON. CONSERVATION", for environmentally sensitive areas - Amend zoning atlas - Change zoning classifications affecting approximately 15% of total area of City land to achieve compliance with Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989- 2000. (TRAILERS, MOBILE HOMES) --------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Mayor Suarez: Now PZ-25. We have objections, I think, from a group of residents of a trailer park. Is there anything that we can propose to change in PZ-25 that would take care of those objections or is this going to become a controversial issue? I've a feeling that there is no real controversy, is there? - that we want to be able to retain this use there? Mr. Olmedillo: The key word for PZ-25 is consistency. As you know, we have one year from September last year to have all our zoning instruments, all our land development instruments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan approved. Mayor Suarez: OK, how can we make a modification that would adjust for this trailer park where they are located so that this doesn't affect their continued viability as the trailer park? Mr. Olmedillo: We feel that it is not a... Mayor Suarez: If we are disposed to do that. We may not be, I see... Mr. Olmedillo: We feel that it is not... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, haven't we already rezoned the trailer park? Mr. Olmedillo: No, this will be the action to rezone it. It's included here. We feel, the Planning Department feels that we are not affecting these people with a rezoning because this is not a action to evict, therefore... Mayor Suarez: So they get grandfathered in, is what you are saying. Mr. Olmedillo: So they are nonconforming today. Mayor Suarez: OK, which means that they are already grandfathered in and they continue to be grandfathered in. Mr. Olmedillo: They are already grand... and they will continue the same status. Mayor Suarez: What if somebody files suit? Mr. Olmedillo: They may very well do so, but back in 163, the ordinance excluded mobile home parks in the City and it was declared nonconforming. 123 July 31, 1989 Since then, 9500 picked up on the same idea and today they are nonconforming so that's why I can state on the record that by this action there is no... the people are not affected in an eviction type of decision. _ Mr. Plummer: Yes, but here again, under the State law relating to mobile homes or to trailer parks, the owner at any time can give them an eviction notice today, even though it takes a year to evict, so changing of the zoning has no predicate on that at the present time, is my understanding. Mr. Olmedillo: I agree with you, yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: I mean, leaving it as it is, the zoning as it is, the owner of the property can give eviction notices which I understand take a year to evict, so they have the room to find something else, so what is this basically here doing? Mr. Olmedillo: This is doing the rezoning so that the zoning atlas is consistent to the Comprehensive Plan, which as I repeated, it was approved by this Commission on February 9th and it was accepted by the State. Mr. Plummer: What is the present zoning? Mr. Olmedillo: The present zoning is a mixed zoning in there because you have commercial in the frontage of 8th Street, then you have residential - multifamily and then you have duplex to the southern portion of the property. Mr. Plummer: And you're saying make it consistent? Mr. Olmedillo: To the Comprehensive Plan which is a commercial designation, limited commercial designation. Mr. Plummer: I guess what bothers me is that the City is the applicant rather than the owner. He's the one that stands to benefit. Mr. Olmedillo: But we are obligated by State law to come into compliance within a year of submittal of the plan which was back in September of 188, so after a year, we have to come into compliance. Mayor Suarez: Or to change the... Mr. Olmedillo: Or amend the plan. Mayor Suarez: Or amend the plan as to this particular area, for example, if it makes sense to amend it. Mr. Plummer: Well, I guess my problem, as I say, is the fact that the City is the applicant rather than the owner of the property. By virtue of this, he's going to benefit. Mr. Olmedillo: Right, but we are obligated, and I, you know, I agree with you, but... Mr. Plummer: I understand what you are saying. Mayor Suarez: By our prior action. Mr. Olmedillo: But we have to bring all this before you so that we can try to be consistent with the plan. Mr. Plummer: I understand what you are saying. Mr. Olmedillo: Just for the record and in addition, these items that I'm passing out to you have to be pulled because of problems that we have with the advertisement, there's seven items and one includes the nursery that you looked at before, because that is going in as a private or as a separate application by the City, we wanted to exclude it from this list that is submitted to you and then there is... Mayor Suarez: It's not in real good shape as it reaches us, is it? Mr. Olmedillo: There's also... 124 July 31, 1989 Mayor Suarez: We got pulled items, we got errors, we got... Mr. Plummer: They wasted all their time on the Master Plan. Mr. Olmedillo: You have to realize we're affecting about 8,000 properties and you have five errors which were minor errors and you have items that you have to pull because there are inconsistencies in the advertising. Mayor Suarez: OK, let me ask a question. Counselor, are you about to disagree with their posture, whatever? You don't know yet? Mr. Stephen Helfman: I'm not sure, I'm waiting to hear. Mayor Suarez: OK, well let's hear then from the objectors. Sir, if you want to make a statement, you can step up to the mike. As long as we've heard, at least I heard him, he's asking about a map, why don't you go over there and talk to them and they'll provide you with a map. In fact, there's a map on the overhead, right there, projector. Not necessarily the most comprehensible map, but there it is. Counselor, go ahead. Mr. Robert A. Godoy: My name is Robert A. Godoy, my law office is... Mayor Suarez: Has he been sworn in, Madam City Clerk? Please, and anyone that might be heard against them, Steve, you'd better... (AT THIS POINT THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED REQUIRED OATH UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 10511 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE.) Mr. Plummer: Have you registered as a lobbyist, Mr. Godoy? Mr. Godoy: Yes, sir, I registered as a lobbyist last Thursday. Mr. Plummer: Thank you, sir. Mr. Godoy: My name is Robert A. Godoy, I am an attorney. My law office is at 701 NW Le Jeune Road, Suite 427. I am here as an attorney that I represent Tamiami Trailer Park Homeowners' Association Inc. Before I start talking, I want to introduce the president of the association. Mr. Raymond Pons: My name is Raymond Pons, I live at 3024 SW 8th Street, Lot 126, the Tamiami Trailer Park Homeowners Association, Inc. Please stand, all members to this. I want to let the lawyer to... Mayor Suarez: You can tell them to sit down, if they'd like. Sientense, por favor. Mr. Godoy: We have an association there that we... the association is formed, we have in the trailer park, 154 families. We represent over two-thirds of those who are members and we are going to have in this week, the hall, all the members of the association. We are already... Mayor Suarez: How many trailers? Mr. Godoy: 154 trailers. Mayor Suarez: Let me ask a question, if I may, counselor. Guillermo, how does the ordinance affect the trailer directly? How does the provision of the ordinance affect it? Mr. Olmedillo: This particular ordinance, I'm going to state again, it doesn't affect them because this was declared... Mayor Suarez: Because of grandfathering in or nonconforming use, but how does it affect the use? Is it because of the density or because it is just not supposed to happen, that kind of activity is not supposed to happen there? Mr. Olmedillo: Well, it becomes a commercial district, as opposed to, a residential district that is... Mayor Suarez: Now, in the proposed new Code, I thought that residential activities would be permitted within commercial districts. 125 July 31, 1989 Mr. blmedillos They are, that is correct. The only thing is that trailer parks per as were excluded from the ordinance before not by this action, 9500 did it, 6871 did it, to it is not by this action that you are changing the statue. Mr. Plummer: Well, we argued this point during the Comprehensive Plan, I remember, we argued extensively. What this in effect does, Mr. Mayor, the only way that it affects the trailers, that if in fact this zoning is not made in compliance with the Comprehensive zone, it would allow the man who wants to build on that property to build with no problem, and in effect, they feel that it would be a way to slow down the project and circumvent their removal, which I'm saying is, I don't believe is the case, because the owner of the property at any time can give eviction notices and it takes one year. Mayor Suarez: What kind of zoning is a trailer park permitted in? Mr. Plummer: Mixed. Mr. Olmedillo: None. Mr. Plummer: No, it's in mixed. Mayor Suarez: None in the City? Mr. Plummer: Not in the City anymore. Mr. Olmedillo: None in the City. Mayor Suarez: Ah. Mr. Olmedillo: So it is nonconforming anyway. Mayor Suarez: I see, and even with our new Zoning Code, that will be the case. Mr. Olmedillo: Right, that's correct. Mayor Suarez: I see. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but you understand what is being proposed here would facilitate for the person who wants to build the super grocery store there, and that's what they are in opposition to, I'm sure. Mayor Suarez: I'm not sure there is any relief we could possibly give you even if we wanted to, but go ahead, counselor. Mr. Godoy: OK, I don't agree with you, you read the statute, Commissioner, in specific, the Chapter 723.083, the Florida Statute specifically says that no agency or municipality, local, County or State government should approve any application for rezoning or take any other official action that be the case, which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile homeowner who resides in a mobile home park without first determining that... Mayor Suarez: OK, we see that here and it very clearly spelled out and I think we ought to get an answer from our City Attorney. Mr. Plummer: It has nothing to do with it, it is not affecting the removal. Mayor Suarez: Well, but he has read the wording which says, no agency of municipal, local, County or State government shall approve any application for rezoning or take any other official action including this one which would result in the removal or relocation of mobile homeowners residing in a mobile home without first determining that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist for relocation of the mobile homeowners. Why are we not in violation of that State ordinance, Madam City Attorney? Ms. Adriene Friesner: OK, it's the opinion of the Law Department that section does not apply to the rezoning that is before you today, because the... Mayor Suarez: Is it because of what J.L. is saying, that we are not... 126 July 31, 1989 Ms. Friesner: Exactly, because the rezoning that would take place will in no way... Mayor Suarez: Result in the removal or relocation. Ms. Friesner: ... result in the removal or relocation. Mayor Suarez: Even though it does sort of increase the chances that they will be removed or relocated, doesn't it? Ms. Friesner: And they, however, if I could bring up one other point. In the same chapter under Section 723.061, which deals with when the property owner wants to evict these tenants, that section specifically says that if the property owner wants to evict these tenants because of a change of use, number one, they'd have to give them a year's notice, like you've already heard; two, they'd have to either pay for the relocation cost, or purchase their mobile home, the unit and the most important part it says is that Section 723.083, the one dealing with the City Commission making the determination, that is not applicable, if in fact, the property owner evicts them for change of use. Mayor Suarez: OK, now the action that we would be expected to take today, does it increase the ability, or enhance the ability in any way of the property owner to in fact, evict them or not, in view of the two sections you just read? Ms. Friesner: No, I do not believe it does, no. You can go ahead, it's the Law Department's opinion that you can go ahead and pass this and you do not need to make a determination that... Mayor Suarez: No, that's not my question, that's not my question. I'm not saying that we, violating the law, or running afoul of the law, I'm asking, does our action today in fact, by your estimation or maybe Planning, or somebody, increase, or enhance the opportunity, or the legal right, or whatever, of the property owner, to in fact, evict them. Ms. Friesner: No. Mr. Dawkins: I think we are really trying to interpret what the owner of the property would do. Ms. Friesner: Correct. Mr. Olmedillo: Again I have to go to the fact that it is a nonconforming use. 1 It will be a nonconforming use under the different zoning category, so by that j change, you are not changing anything. They are nonconforming, they will be _{ nonconforming. The ordinance does not provide a district in which mobile s 'i homes can be located. 3 Mayor Suarez: What is it now zoned? What is the area now zoned? Mr. Olmedillo: It's mixed use because you have a multifamily, a duplex and a { 'i commercial district throughout the property. Mayor Suarez: And in all of those, the trailer park is nonconforming? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: OK, counselor. Mr. Godoy: If I can give you the opinion of the Dade County attorney in 1985 something about, I would like you to see the opinion of the attorney to see if she disagrees with the opinion of the County attorney. Mayor Suarez: Oh, this is a preemption argument, that we are preempted from taking any action that might affect the legal rights of mobile home owners? Mr. Plummer: We're not. We're not taking any action to prevent their legal <' rights. Mr. Godoy: Commissioners can argue. They are using these today to make the... you know, they have a letter that they sent to Gloria Fox, Chief 'wd Hearing Board Division. In their letter, this is the letter from the �k 127 July 31, 1989 C 0 attorney, the other attorney, where they may at the present time, the City through its Comprehensive Plan process has determined that mobile home parks no longer a desirable use in the neighborhood and they are taking major property for restricted commercial use. This is application is also part of a larger approval process, including an application, they are talking about it today, for a larger, including an application for major use special permit and rezoning thinking to permit the development for a community shopping center on this site and they withdraw two applications that they have waiting for what happened here today to doing, these are two applications that they are waiting right now... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Godoy, sir, would you understand or agree, that if we do nothing on this today, that the owner of that property has to right to evict the tenants with one year notice? Mr. Godoy: Sir, according to the regulations... Mr. Plummer: Do you agree or disagree to that, sir? Mr. Godoy: If you let me explain, I will disagree. Mr. Plummer: OK, you disagree? Mr. Godoy: Yes, disagree, because right now, this is the law, they have, that they could do it a month ago. Now, they cannot do it because they have a homeowners' association formed by two-thirds, more than two-thirds of the members, that means that before they can sell the property, they need to offer that property first to the homeowners' association and before... this is specific law about the trailer park, they need to find a place where these people can go. Mayor Suarez: I'll say this, unless you've got a better handle on this than I do, I see a preemption argument here. Madam City Attorney, the State has acted in this area, meaning that we cannot act as to mobile homeowners, is what I see here, I might be wrong. Mr. Dawkins: It says that if you are going to move them, OK? State law says if you plan to move them. Nobody plans to move them. They can stay there from now until day one. Mr. Plummer: Not by action of this before us application. Mr. Dawkins: Of this Commission. Mayor Suarez: But that is not the preemption argument. The preemption argument says that taking any action, including enactment of rules, regulations or ordinances with respect to the matters preempted to the State. In order words, within that area of State regulation, we cannot act, is what their argument is. I'm not saying it is correct. Mr. Dawkins: And those are the matters and things relating to the landlord tenant relationship. This has nothing... we are not the landlord and we are not the tenant. Mr. Plummer: The owner can still evict them. Mr. Dawkins: I mean, that has to do with the landlord, where they stay, and who owns it. Mr. Plummer: I'm saying that we do nothing... Mr. Dawkins: OK, I don't care what you... let's go home. Mr. Plummer: ... the owner has the right to give them eviction notices. If we do nothing) Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. Godoy: Yes, but they are using this change, then they have the application for across the street. They have another application to change the zoning. 128 July 31, 1989 1 Mr. Plummer: That is not before us, Mr. Godoy. Mr. Godoy: No, but they are using this now, because the next step, Commissioner Plummer, the next step, they are going to say, the planning already changed. This is the thing and they say in their letter, they withdraw. Look, this is in the record and the Planning Department, they have this letter in the record for... Mayor Suarez: Well, I am interested in that. What proposed change of zoning are you talking about, other than what we are doing today? Mr. Olmedillo: One and the same in the sense that they are the same quality. What happened is that the applicant, the owner had applied for it knowing that the City has to go through with this. I guess they... you know, they sat back down and said well, let the City do it. Mayor Suarez: Let the City do it, I mean, we're doing it today. Mr. Plummer: That's what I questioned before, that we were the applicants. Mayor Suarez: And the reason that... the answer the City Attorney gave on the preemption argument is that the general area regulated by State law here is more having to do with rents paid. Is that the answer? Where's Bob Clark, now he disappeared on me, or do you... please come up to the mike and state that. I want to make sure that we are not preempted, if that's what this letter was supposed to mean, according to counsel"s argument. Mr. Robert Clark: The paragraph that you are referring to is a paragraph in connection with rents... Mayor Suarez: With rents, OK. Mr. Clark: ... the landlord tenant relationship and that's the action that's prohibited, with respect to and preempted to the State. Mr. Godoy: They are talking anything and I read this again, because that was the discussion that I had in the City. They were telling me for rezoning. I say no, or taking any other official action and here I am going to show the letter, I only have one copy. This is the letter by the attorney of the owner. Mayor Suarez: Yes, you can put that into the record, I think you read it already, you made reference to it. Mr. Godoy: This letter to this... Mayor Suarez: What is the gist of that one? - and we'll put it into the record. } Mr. Godoy: It is a letter from attorney Carter N. McDowell to Ms. Gloria Fox, Chief, Hearing Board Division. "Dear Ms. Fox" - they are talking about already, they don't talk about the Tamiami Trailer Park, they talk already Tamiami Shopping Center. The record in the City is not the Tamiami Trailer Park. Right now they have Tamiami Shopping Center, variance and road closure i applications. "Dear Ms. Fox, as you know, we represent the owner of the property currently being platted as the Tamiami Shopping Center. On June 8th, 1989, we followed rezoning and road closure application on their behalf. The ? purpose of this letter is to request that you don't schedule those two applications for public hearing until such time that we can jointly schedule the major use special permit which have been filed for the same property at ' the same time." s Mayor Suarez: OK, I got you, what you are saying there, that the intent to rezone and proceed to build some kind of a shopping center is fairly clear from that correspondence and I guess that we take notice of that. Mr. Plummer: I think the City Attorney needs to read something into the record. Ms. Friesner: I'd just like to re... Y 129 July 91, 1989 Mrs. Range: Oh, I'm sorry. Just before the City Attorney reads into the record. You have in the final paragraph of your letter asking the Commission, we request that Chapter 723.083 F.S. be enforced. What is that chapter, can you explain that? Mr. Godoy: Yes, I put in the top of the letter, they talk about Chapter 723.083. Mrs. Range: Where is that? Oh, I'm sorry, I overlooked that. Mr. Godoy: In 1985 or 1986, the same question came in front of the County Commissioners and that was the opinion too, of the County Commissioners' attorney. This is not only my opinion. Mayor Suarez: Yes, what our City Attorney is telling us is that section does not apply because we are not taking action that would result, I guess is the wording, right, in the relocation or... Mr. De Yurre: You know, I think either, if we are not sure what we are doing, that we defer this, or if we go by our City Attorney's opinion, then we've got to move on and vote and... Mayor Suarez: Yes, I understand. Mr. Dawkins: Read whatever you are going to read in the minutes, please, Mr. Mayor, let her read... Ms. Friesner: OK, I just wanted to bring to your attention again that under Section 723.061, that deals with if the property owner evicts because of a land use change, that section says that the provisions of section of 723.083 shall not be applicable to any park where the provisions of this subsection apply; therefore, if they were evicted because of a land use change, the Chapter says that the government section saying that you have to determine whether or not there's, let's see, suitable facilities, that this section does not apply. Mayor Suarez: OK, now, let's go to a public policy argument. What, in view of the fact that State seems to be trying to do something to protect owners or residents of mobile homes, what can we, as a Commission, do, if anything, and what have you in your infinite, or not so infinite wisdom concocted or conceived, Mr. Assistant City Manager, as to what we might do to protect them so that they won't be evicted without some relief? Mr. Olmedillo: If I may address it, Mr. Mayor... Mayor Suarez: Oh, now we got the Planning Department telling us. Usually the Planning Department is trying to put all kinds of regulations and things so you can't build anything. Now let's see how you solve some social problems. Go ahead, I'm interested in this. Mr. Olmedillo: Only a suggestion. If you don't want to change the status, you can delete this portion of the ordinance and then change everything else, we'll put us substantially in compliance and then leave this one out for future reading for future public hearing. Mayor Suarez: I like that. Mr. Godoy: I agree with that. That is the only thing that we are asking. Mayor Suarez: Why shouldn't we do that, Mr. Helfman? Because you want to put a shopping center there real quick! Mr. Stephen Helfman: For the record, Steve Helfman with Fine Jacobson at One Centrust Financial Plaza. There's a couple things. Number one, this is one of hundreds of zoning changes that are required by the State to be consistent with your already approved Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Suarez: Don't argue about the other ones, because we just had an idea of carving this one out and leaving all the other ones in and we would be in full compliance with the State law, according to our Planning... Mr. Helfman: Mr. Mayor, I don't think you would be if you do not... 130 July 31, 1989 Mayor Suarez: OK, well, tell us why you don't think so, even though our Planning Director supposedly would be. Mr. Helfman: As with every one of those, you have the same obligation with ours to bring our zoning in compliance with the plan designation. To single out one property owner and say we are not going to put you in compliance in the plan, but we are going to take everybody else and make them in compliance with the plan, that's certainly unfair, but more importantly, these people are concerned... Mayor Suarez: I thought you were going to say illegal, but you said unfair, OK, so you are arguing public policy. Mr. Helfman: OK, they are concerned that they are going to be evicted and rightly so. The intention of the developer is to use this property for a shopping center. They are adequately protected. They have more protection than any renter in this entire City. There are extensive provisions in the Florida statutes which say exactly what you have to do if you want to evict them for the purpose of changing the land use. You have to give them a year's notice, you have to buy their unit, you have to relocate them, there is a list of innumerable protections for these people. Mayor Suarez: For the purpose of changing the land use. Mr. Helfman: Yes, if we... Mayor Suarez: Not the land use zoning, but the land use. Mr. Helfman: No, the land use. If we determine that instead of the trailer park... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, excuse me, Steve, you are defeating your own argument. If you want to evict them for any reason... Mr. Helfman: We can give them notice today for any reason. What you are doing today does nothing to cause an eviction here, nothing at all. Mayor Suarez: I am not particularly interested in it, but if you puts a hurdle on your way, I would do it. Now, tell me what you are required to do by law to evict them. That's what J.L. was trying to specify and you figured out a way around his point. Mr. Helfman: OK, in the event eviction for change of land use, homeowners must object to the change in land use by petitioning for administrative... it goes on... remedies within 90 days, excuse me, I jumped ahead of myself. We have go give them one year's notice. Within 90 days from the time we give the one year notice, we shall notify the homeowner of his election to either buy the mobile home, relocate the mobile home to another park owned by the park owner, or pay... Mayor Suarez: It's all of that relief that J.L. was referring to before, you must grant them before you are able to evict them, is that what you are saying, regardless of what we do today? Mr. Helfman: Regardless, regardless. Mr. Plummer: Wait minute, now wait a minute. There's one thing that's been brought up that I didn't... I'm not aware of. Is there a provision, as he said that an association, they have to be given the right of refusal to buy? Mr. Helfman: To buy their... Mr. Plummer: To buy the property. Mr. Helfman: No, that is not true. Mr. Godoy: Counselor, you are completely wrong. Read the law again. They say if the association have, like we have now, two-thirds, and we raise it with the Clerk of the Court, you need to give us the first choice. If you don't know that, I'm sorry to say you are wrong. 131 July 31, 1989 Mr. Helfman: Well, if you... Mayor Suarez: OK, counsel, wait, wait, we don't have to resolve that question. Hopefully, they do have that right and hopefully they will have the money and hopefully they will be able to exercise the right of first refusal, I'm not sure how and then they will own it. There's nothing wrong with that, but that, we don't have to decide that here today, I guarantee you that. Mr. Helfman: OK, if in fact, they have that right, which I don't believe they do, they'll be able to exercise it. More important... Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. Then here comes the other play. The other play is if we rezone this to a commercial location... Mr. Helfman: Yes. Mr. Plummer: ... then the price of that property in court is going to be justifiably higher. Mayor Suarez: To a commercial classification, let me just so that, so that we don't get a location involved in this. Mr. Godoy: Mr. Plummer, if I can say something. Mayor Suarez: Wait, wait, that's a good point. That increases the value of the land, does it not? Mr. Olmedillo: It certainly does. Mayor Suarez: And that would mean that the right of first refusal if existed would have to be exercised for a higher amount. Mr. De Yurre: You're assuming that there is going to be a sale. There is no sale here involved that I know of. Nobody is going to sell. Mayor Suarez: Is the right of first refusal involved only in sale or does it involve their right to purchase as against their proposed use? Ms. Friesner: It only involves if the owner wanted to sell the property. Then the homeowner association would have the right on first refusal. Mayor Suarez: So if the owner himself was going forward with plans to develop it in a different way, he would only have to satisfy the other requirements, but there would not be a right of first refusal in any event. Ms. Friesner: Correct. Mr. Helfman: Which we have no intention of doing. Mayor Suarez: You have no intention of doing what? Mr. Helfman: Selling the property. Mayor Suarez: So I don't know why you got so upset about his supposed right of first refusal if you are not going to sell anyhow. Mr. Helfman: Well, because it is one of several comments that he's made that are not exactly accurate. The other thing is, this Commission and predecessor Commissions determined a long time ago, almost 30 years ago, that mobile homes is not something that you want to continue to have in the City of Miami. Your ordinance declared them to be nonconforming uses with the intention to try to amortize them out of existence. Here, at least some of you are searching for a way to continue to have them in the City when your ordinances specifically say that they are not a permitted use in any district anymore. It's a type of use that you don't want in the City. Mr. Godoy: Mayor and counsel, this is a law that protects at the owner's trailer park, before 1987, this was not the law to protect specific the legislation passed this law in 1987 and this was modified to make more strong a position to help the people in the trailer park. If you now eliminate the change of zoning , of course they are going to have the right to buy the property, but why are they going to buy if they cannot use it for a trailer 132 July 31, 1989 park. I mean, in a sense, you eliminate their right they have and in specific they say here, before you make a decision, before you come to discussion on this point, what the Planning Department, what they need to do is to bring to you to say we have this place where these people can go before and it say specifically here, before you do this, you need to have the place. The only thing that we ask is... Mr. Plummer: Steve, is the present owner going to do the developing? It's immaterial. There is no sale of the property. In this particular case, from what I understand, the present owner of the property is the one who is going to develop the property. If it is offered for sale, you are right, you have the right to buy it. It is not being offered for sale. The man who owns the property is going to be the developer. There is no sale. Mr. Godoy: Yes, but everything that they do, they present already. They already are making the determination that is a shopping center. Everything in the Planning Department, they are not talking about trailer park. The are only talking about shopping center, it's more. They are supposed to notify the people before they start this thing. They notified the people June 6th, I think, or June 8th and they started already because I have here the letter from the Planning Department in March. That means that already they are against the law. This is what they are going to bring. You know, a suit from the homeowners' association to the owners, why to create that? Mayor Suarez: OK, we've had the same arguments over and over again. We have to make a decision. Mr. Vice Mayor, you are were going to make a motion. Mr. Godoy: The only thing that we are asking to delete this, we are not talking about the general... Mayor Suarez: Sir, oh we understand that the rest of it we fully intend to pass, regardless of what we do with this particular objection, unless there is anyone that wants to be heard on any part of the zoning. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Suarez: So we are still talking about the area affected only where the trailer park is, is that the area you are interested in? Mr. Stan Lapodi: Well, no, I want it to be known there are some additional... Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. Lapodi: ... Lots besides that. Mayor Suarez: All right, we will get to that right after this vote, presumably. Well, I don't know what your motion is going to be. Oh, OK, he was going to move the whole thing, so why not put it on the table? Mr. De Yurre: Well, he has something to say. Mayor Suarez: Yes, we'll take him up. Mr. De Yurre: Well, let's take him up now. Mayor Suarez: All right, the Vice Mayor is going to move to approve the whole scheme, or the whole rezoning, so you may as well make your statement. Mr. Lapodi: I wanted to make sure that... Mayor Suarez: Give us name and address and everything else that... Mr. Stan Lapodi: Excuse me, my name is Stan Lapodi, my address is 3038 SW 8th Street. I'm a resident of the Tamiami Trailer Park. I do oppose the zoning change. I have other reasons opposing it. Mayor Suarez: Well, OK, you do oppose the same issue, but for different reasons. What are the reasons? You have to either take your mike with you, or speak from the other mike. Mr. Lapodi: (OFF MIKE - INAUDIBLE). 133 July 31, 1989 Mayor Suarez: All this high paid City help, somebody help the gentleman, I can't get out here and explain to him how it works. You either got to speak on this mike here, or take the other one with you. Mr. Lapodi: There are some additional lots that I question being commercial property and this is what I want to know, whether you've seen the complete area being affected and not just this property at the trailer park. Mr. Plummer: The answer to that, sir, is yes, we saw that back at the time when this was argued in the changes of the Comprehensive Plan and as I said previously in the record, there was a great deal of discussion about this particular piece of property, back a year ago when we changed... you see, all we are doing now, hope you understand, is making in compliance the action which we took almost a year ago, so yes sir, we know, because we approved it almost a year ago, that this was part of the plan and it was discussed extensively, this locale and all we are doing today is by the Planning - Department, making that in compliance with what we did a year ago. Mr. Lapodi: I'm aware of that and you have answered my question. My other reason for opposing it would be it's kind of funny, you just had 80 or 90 people in here crying about low income housing, affordable housing and here you have 150 units of non -subsidized low income housing which you are pretty much, and you know that by changing the zoning to commercial, you are pretty much evicting the tenants from those low income housings, whether you put it that way or not, that would be the effect. Mr. Plummer: That's the best argument I've heard so far. That's a good argument. Mr. Lapodi: And this is my main reason for opposing it. It has been, whether you have called it residential use, it has been used residentially for 25 and 30 years and I think that establishes a residential use. My only other reason would be item M, this change would not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner. It's contrasted with protection of the general welfare. I think it is pretty obvious that it does contrast with protection of the public welfare. We have 150 units of low income housing... Mayor Suarez: OK, let me try this... I am sufficiently concerned about the wording of 723.083, where it says, which would result in removal or relocation £j of mobile home owners. I know it wouldn't directly result that I would at i this point move to exclude the area covered by this trailer park from the operation of the ordinance being proposed and I so move. Mr. De Yurre: Do we have a second? Mr. Helfman: May I briefly be heard? Very briefly. Mayor Suarez: Wait, there's no... there may not be a second. Mr. De Yurre: Do we have a second on this motion? — Mr. Plummer: Well, could I see the... do we have a map just of that particular location? Mr. De Yurre: Well, let's see if we have a second. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Godoy, let's see what they have, it's probably a little bit bigger and my eyes and my age... were is SW 8th Street? Mr. De Yurre: Motion dies for lack of a second. i Mr. Plummer: All right now, that area that is only occupied at the present time by the trailer parks, is that just the yellow? Just the red? The red, well most of that yellow is commercial. You got a car lot up there, you got a restaurant up there... Mr. Olmedillo: It's basically the red colored properties, sir. Mr. Plummer: Well, I think the problem, I know what the Mayor is trying to accomplish, but I think that if you did that, you are going to... you are still into a hodgepodge, as I see it. Is this first reading? 134 July 31, 1989 :t ILI E Mr, Olmedillo: That is correct, sir. Mr. Plummer: See, Mr. Mayor, there is only one way that you can take at this particular point and that is to amend the Comprehensive Plan. That's the only way that you can stop this from proceeding as we have already... you know, the argument was a year ago, so that we can get out of here tonight and you know, have everybody in this Commission have the opportunity to go look at it. I would move it on first reading, reserving my right to not do it on second reading if anybody wants to go look at it. _( Mr. Dawkins: OK, stop talking so we can go home then. i Mr. Plummer: Well then you make a motion, dummyl Mr. Dawkins: No, I'm not going to make a motion, sir. j Mayor Suarez: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Ma'am, were you going to argue? Mr. Dawkins: Did you second the motion? You second the motion? Mayor Suarez: No, now it is to the whole ordinance, right? 4 Mr. Plummer: I'm saying, just to get us out of here tonight, to the ordinance as presented on first reading, yes sir. Mayor Suarez: Right, but it is the whole ordinance, obviously. Yes, Ma'am, you wanted to address that from some issue other than the trailer park? Ms. Gisela Datko: Hello, I am Gisela Datko, I live at... Mayor Suarez: You have been waiting here all day and your last name is Datko, Gisela, right? Ms. Datko: Yes. Mayor Suarez: No? That's it and you live at 2950 SW 23rd Street. What do you want to tell us about this? Ms. Datko: I saw this in the paper and my daughter went to look at things, there was nothing at the Hearing Board Division. Mayor Suarez: At the where? Ms. Datko: At the Hearing Board Division. It tells you here that you can get copies of the proposed ordinances. Mayor Suarez: Oh, they didn't give you copies of the proposed ordinance? Ms. Datko: There was nothing there. Mayor Suarez: Oh, you got five Commissioners here, ready to give you our copies. We'd love to get rid of it. Ms. Datko: No, no, my daughter got the information. We are interested in C- 11. That's fifth blocks from 22nd Avenue to 29th you want to rezone to apartments. Now, I would like... Mayor Suarez: Do you know what areas she's talking about? Does anyone from staff know what areas she's talking about? Mr. Olmedillo: It's going from general residential, which is a duplex zoning to more intense density. Ms. Datko: Why? Mayor Suarez: Where? Where, somebody is pointing there. Is that... I see a pen there. Is that Gloria back there? What area is that? What streets are we talking about, roughly? Mr. Olmedillo: We are going to show you in the bigger map, that position. is 135 July 31, 1989 Mayor S'uaraae Show me anywhere, bigger smaller map, anywhere. What area* are ve talking about? Can anybody describe them, avenues streets, whatever? No. Datko: Yes, from 21th Avenue to 29th Avenue. Mayor Suarez: 27th to 29th Avenue? What streets? Me. Datko: 23rd and 22nd Terrace. It's the... Mayor Suarez: We are talking all southwest, right? Mr. Plummer: By Publix? Me. Datko: Yes, Publix and Eckerd's the whole block. Now, we would.,. Mr. Plummer: Which block are you talking about now? Are you talking about on 27th Avenue? Me. Datko: No, on... (INAUDIBLE) E Mr. Plummer: Is that behind the lumber yard? i 4 INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mr. Plummer: Well, Westview Hardware? - Westlake Hardware? INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mr. Plummer: OK. And where is her property that is in question? Behind Publix? And what is her question? Ms. Datko: The question is... Mr. Plummer: Why? Mr. Olmedillo: The intensity of use in that area, in that block... Mr. Plummer: There is no other place that I know of in there that says more than duplex. Behind Publix? It's all duplex. Mr. Olmedillo: You are correct, but this is... Yes, but remember the zoning right across the street, and remember the zoning of the... Mr. Plummer: But I don't know of any other multifamily in that neighborhood. Mr. Olmedillo: You are right, you are right. Mr. Plummer: So why would we do it here? Ms. Datko: That's the question. Mr. Olmedillo: Because of the location. It's right next to commercial on one side and... Mr. Plummer: Is that one lot? Mr. Olmedillo: No, that's more than one lot, sir. Mr. Plummer: How many lots involved? Ms. Datko: At least 10, I would think. Ten or twelve. Mayor Suarez: Really? And what is her concern, is anybody... Mr. Plummer: They are proposing to change that blue square there behind Publix from duplexes to multifamily and her question is, she doesn't want it. Mr. Olmedillo: Twelve lots, sir. Mo. Datko: No, a just minute, I didn't say that yet. 136 July 31, 1989 Mayor Suares: Why are we doing that? Is anybody here requesting that? Can we leave that out of this? Mr. Olmedillo: Well, we have it in the Comprehensive Plan and we thought it was technically appropriate to rezone that property to multifamily to serve as a buffer to the single family in duplex district. It is the blue area that is in the map that is... Mayor Suarez: I would suggest leaving that out. There is no one here that wishes for us to do it, so why don't we just leave it out? Mr. Plummer: Ma'am, you are opposed to it, correct? Mr. Datko: You don't... no, I'm not that You don't pull this out of your hat, you know. You must have ideas for what you want to do there. Mayor Suarez: No, no, we don't have any... we don't own any property there, so we just think that it would have made a good buffer, but if you want to leave it out, we can... Mr. Plummer: Exclude that from the change. Mr. Olmedillo: It can be deleted from the ordinance and then we can come back with a Comp Plan amendment and... Mayor Suarez: Right, thank you. Mr. Plummer: That's fine. Mr. Dawkins: Call the roll. Ms. Datko: No, let me finish what I was going to say, Mr. Plummer. Mayor Suarez: We are going to do what you want, unless you keep talking. Ms. Datko: I keep talking. Mayor Suarez: But then we are not going to do what you want. Ms. Datko: I changed my mind. Mayor Suarez: Put it back int Ms. Datko: No, no, the point is that I listened to all the people from Brickell and I listened to all the people from 14th Street, was it? Mayor Suarez: Right. Ms. Datko: And I've had it up to here and I saw all the little ladies with their little signs here. They don't understand a word of what is being said here but they sat there, holding the signs. Mayor Suarez: Oh, but they understood the results. Ms. Datko: If you want to build public housing or a project there, help yourself. I don't care, if it turns into a slum, so be it, I'll be back and complain. Mayor Suarez: But we are going to do what you wanted us to, we are not going to change that. Mo. Datko: You're going to take it off? Mayor Suarez: Yes, there we go. Mr. Plummer: You wonl You won, Ma'am. Mr. Datko: People have to live someplace. Mayor Suarez; Don't keep arguing, we might change our minds. With that proviso, the movant accepts it, does the second accept it? Who seconded? 137 July 31, 1989 E; 1 Mr. Plummer: i don't know. Mr. Dawkins: Victor. I accept it for him. Mayor Suarez: All right, read the ordinance. u Ms. Friesner: (READS TITLE OF ORDINANCE, THEN CONTINUES)... and by deleting those items that are listed in the memo dated July 21th from Sergio Rodriguez to Cesar H. Odio on items requested to be pulled and deleting those items listed in the memo dated July 27, 1989 from Sergio Rodriguez to Cesar H. Odio in the erratum sheet, and including that property located at... described as C-11. Mayor Suarez: Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE WITH ATTACHMENT, AMENDING THE SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE UNIT DENSITY CAP UP TO 40 UNITS PER NET ACRE AND DELETING STORIES ON PAGE 2, RG-2, GENERAL RESIDENTIAL; BY ADDING A NEW ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION OF "CON. CONSERVATION" ON PAGE 6 TO BE RESERVED FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS; AND BY AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS WHICH AFFECT APPROXIMATELY FIFTEEN PERCENT OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA OF THE CITY, IN ORDER TO BRING SAID ORDINANCE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 1989-2000, PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.3203(1), FLORIDA STATUTES, (1987), SAID CHANGES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES TO AFFECTED PAGES OF SAID ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner De Yurre and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: Commissioner M. Athalie Range ABSENT: Vice Mayor Victor De Yurre * *NOTE: Although absent at roll call, Vice Mayor De Yurre later asked of the Clerk to be shown voting with the motion. COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL: Mrs. Range: NO, I am going to vote against this, I think these people deserve a better chance than having to be put out of the property. Mayor Suarez: Yes, I have to vote yes, because it is the whole comprehensive plan. I mean it for the whole zoning change for the whole City. 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. 138 July 31, 1989 = 25. BRIBr COMMENTS: City Commissioners request of Administration information concerning individual arrested in Kennedy Park after closing hours - Direct Manager to install signs informing residents of park closing times. Mayor Suarez: We are adjourned unless there is an emergency matter. Mr. Plummer: To the City Attorney and the Administration, I have in my office, a man was arrested in Kennedy Park. As you are aware and I am aware, the bicycle path goes through Kennedy Park, all right? This man was on his bicycle, riding through the bicycle path and was arrested by the City of Miami Police Department because he was in the park after hours. He said he was on the bicycle path which you have designated as a bicycle path. At the end of it was standing a policeman who arrested him for being in the park after hours. He is more your neighbor than mine. May I strongly suggest to the Administration, either you mark that bicycle path closed after dark or make it outside of the park, because I don't think it is our intent to have good law- abiding citizens riding their bicycle to in fact be arrested because he went through the bicycle path. I've got all those... Wally, I've got all the particulars in my office. Unidentified Speaker: No, no, that's not fair. Mr. Plummer: It's ridiculous. THERE BRING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITT COMMISSION, TE STING WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:55 P.M. Xavier L. Suarez N A 7 0 R ATTEST: Natty Hirai 14 40 139 CITY OF MIAMI 1 DOCUMENT INDEI Mt��t ET JULY 31, 1989 pom NO: 1 Of 1 GRANT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO PERMIT DRIVE-IN FACILITY FOR TERRABANK - IN MADISON CIRCLE OFFICE BUILDING (3191 CORAL WAY) APPLICANT FORTE PROPERTIES, INC.) GRANT SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO PERMIT DRIVE -THROUGH FACILITY - PROVIDING 11 OF 20 REQUIRED OFF-STREET STACKING SPACES FOR TERRABANK IN MADISON CIRCLE OFFICE BUILDING (3191 CORAL WAY) (APPLICANT: FORTE PROPERTIES, INC.) APPEAL GRANTED: HERITAGE CONSERVATION BOARD'S APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CBS WALL UPHELD - (WITH MODIFICATIONS) AT APPROXIMATELY 3918 MAIN HIGHWAY (APPLICANT: LAVIGNE PROPERTIES, INC.) URGE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES TO NAME VALERIE HICKEY-PATTON, VICE -MAYOR OF CITY OF WEST MIAMI, AS RECIPIENT OF 1989 FLORIDA MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL OF THE YEAR "E", HARRIS DREW AWARD. REFER TO DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REQUEST FROM DIRECTOR OF CAMILLUS HOUSE - FOR FULL-TIME CITY STAFF PERSON TO ASSIST WITH THEIR MEALS PROGRAM. VACATE AND CLOSE PORTION OF S.W. 30TH AVENUE - SOUTH OF SOUTH- THERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF S.W. 28TH. LANE AND NORTH OF METRORAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY. (APPLICANT: PUBLIC STORAGE PROPERTIES XIX LTD.) APPEAL DENIED, WITH MODIFICATIONS : ALLOW APPLICANT (NASSER ADRISI, SUNNY ELECTRONICS) TO CONSTRUCT AN 18 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT APPROXIMATELY 2100 BRICKELL AVENUE, WITH CERTAIN PROVISOS. RETREV 4 No - (RESOLUTIONS) 89-743 89-744 89-745 89-747 89-748 89-749 89-751