The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 1987-12-02 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI * INCORP OR:1TE1) 18J 96 CQ.F OF MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 2, 1987 (PLANNING & ZONING) PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL MATTY HIRAI City Clerk INDEX MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA DECEMBER 2, 1987 1. PRESENTATIONS 2. RECONSIDER R87-1063 (FLAGLER DOG TRACK FLEA MARKET) (SEE LABEL 10) 3. AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 BY CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM RG-1/3 TO RG-2/5 FOR SPECIFIED AREAS BOUNDED BY COCOANUT AVENUE, VIRGINIA STREET., AND SW 27TH AVENUE. (GATEWAY) 4. AMEND ORDINANCE 9500, SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICT, (SPI), BY ADDING COCONUT GROVE OVERLAY DISTRICT REQUIRING ALL PARKING BE LOCATED ON SITE. (27 AVENUE GATEWAY) 5. AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 BY APPLYING SPI-19 COCONUT GROVE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO AREAS BOUNDED BY COCOANUT AVE., VIRGINIA ST., AND S.W. 27TH AVENUE. (27 AVENUE GATEWAY) 6. AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 BY CHANGING ZONING OF 5959 N.W. 7TH ST., FROM RG-3/5 TO 0- 1/7. (PAN AMERICAN HOSPITAL) 7. AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS BILLBOARDS FROM TEN TO NINE WITHIN SPECIFIED AREAS OF I-95. 8. AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 TO PERMIT ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES (ACLF) TO BE LOCATED AT 1700-1770 N.W.34 TH ST., 1701-1757 N.W. 33RD ST., AND 3300-3380 N.W. 17TH AVENUE. (ALLAPATTAH BAPTIST CHURCH) 9. CONTINUE REQUEST BY JEMAJO CORP. FOR MODIFICATION OF COVENANT (2230-40 S.W. 16TH STREET.) 10. RESCHEDULE FLAGLER FLEA MARKET ISSUES DEALING WITH FISH VENDING AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION TO JANUARY 28, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING. (SEE LABEL 2) 11. AMEND COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2575 SW 27TH AVENUE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL. PRESENTED 12/2/87 M 87-1065 12/2/87 ORDINANCE FIRST READING 12/2/87 ORDINANCE FIRST READING 12/2/87 ORDINANCE FIRST READING 12/2/87 ORDINANCE FIRST READING 12/2/87 ORDINANCE FIRST READING 12/2/87 R 87-1066 12/2/87 M 87-1067 12/2/87 M 87-1068 12/2/87 ORDINANCE 10351 12/2/87 1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 6-7 7-8 9-17 17-26 26-32 32-44 'o 4 12. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMENDING 9500 ORDINANCE 44-45 BY CHANGING ZONING OF 2575 SW 27TH 10352 AVENUE FROM RS-2/2 TO CR-2/7. 12/2/87 13. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMENDING ORDINANCE 45 COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY 10353 CHANGING ZONING OF 1025 NW 19TH AVENUE 12/2/87 FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MODERATE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. 14. SECOND READING ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 46 ORDINANCE 9500 BY CHANGING ZONING OF 10354 1025 NW 19TH AVENUE FROM RS-2/2 TO RS- 12/2/87 1/3. 15. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING M 87-1069 46-50 (ESCLOFER REQUEST TO CHANGE PLAN 12/2/87 DESIGNATION AT 2600 NW 14TH STREET.) 16. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF FIRST M 87-1070 51-52 READING. (AMEND ZONING ATLAS REGARDING 12/2/87 2600 NW 14TH STREET PROPERTY.) 17. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMENDING ORDINANCE 52-72 COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY FIRST CHANGING ZONING OF 2951-2999 SW 22ND READING TERRACE FROM LOW MODERATE DENSITY 12/2/87 RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL. 18. FIRST READING ORDINANCE AMENDING 9500 ORDINANCE 72-73 BY CHANGING ZONING OF 2951-2999 SW 22ND FIRST READING TERRACE FROM RG-1/3 TO CR-2/7. 12/2/87 19. DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO ENFORCE M 87-1071 73-87 ORDINANCE REGARDING STREET VENDORS 12/2/87 PENDING FINAL DECISION ON FEBRUARY 25, 1988. 20. FIRST READING ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 87-88 COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY FIRST CHANGING ZONING OF 3151-3199 SW 27T.H READING AVENUE, 2660 LINCOLN AVENUE AND 2699 12/2/87 TIGERTAIL AVENUE FROM MODERATE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL. 21. FIRST READING ORDINANCE CHANGING ZONING ORDINANCE 88-89 CLASSIFICATION OF 3151-3199 S.W. 27 FIRST READING AVE., 2660 LINCOLN AVE., 2699 TIGERTAIL 12/2/87 AVE., FROM PD-MU TO SPI-13 (27 AVENUE GATEWAY) 22. DENY PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO M 87-1072 89-93 PERMIT BOATS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES 12/2/87 IN FRONT YARDS. 23. ADMINISTRATION TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS TO M 87-1073 94-106 ACQUIRE LOT 8 IN CONNECTION WITH THE 12/2/87 GOLDEN ARMS APARTMENTS MATTER FOR POSSIBLE USE AS AN OFF-STREET PARKING SITE. 24. DISCUSSION REGARDING DEMONSTRATION AT DISCUSSION 106-107 THE HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, N.E. 54TH 12/2/87 STREET. A 25. FIRST READING, AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 BY ORDINANCE 108-111 ADDING SECTION 2035, "ADULT DAY CARE FIRST READING CENTERS" AND SECTION 2036, "CHILD DAY 12/2/87 CARE CENTERS" AND ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND PARAMETERS FOR EACH. MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ii CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 2nd day of December, 1987, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, i met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in special session to hear Planning and Zoning items which had jbeen continued from November 19, 1987 Commission meeting. 'I The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Mayor Xavier Suarez with _.; the following members of the Commission found to be present: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy Mayor Xavier L. Suarez ALSO PRESENT: Walter Pierce, Assistant City Manager Lucia Allen Dougherty, City Attorney Matty Hirai, City Clerk Walter J. Foeman, Assistant City Clerk ABSENT: Cesar Odio, City Manager An invocation was delivered by Mayor Suarez. Vice Mayor Kennedy then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation: Sister City Charter (first formal step in Miami -Santo Domingo Sister City Program) presented to Mayor Rafael Suberbi of Santo Domingo. 2. Special Recognition: To dignitaries from Puerto Cortez, Honduras who are interested in participating in the Sister City Program. A plaque was presented to the City of Miami by the delegation. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Item PZ-1 was temporarily deferred. 2. RECONSIDER R87-1063 (FLAGLER DOG TRACK FLEA MARKET) (SEE LABEL 10) Mr. De Yurre: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: Yes, Commissioner. Mr. De Yurre: Before we get started on the agenda, I'd like to move for reconsideration PZ-16 which was heard at the last meeting. If we could have it reconsidered at the next meeting on December loth. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Call the roll. 1 December 2, 1987 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner De Yurre, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 87-1065 A MOTION TO RECONSIDER PREVIOUSLY PASSED RESOLUTION 87-1063 (FLAGLER DOG TRACK/FLEA MARKET) AT THE COMMISSION MEETING PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 10, 1987. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Note: Motion 87-1065 was later changed by M-87-1068. 3. AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 BY CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM RG-1/3 TO RG-2/5 FOR SPECIFIED AREAS BOUNDED BY COCOANUT AVENUE, VIRGINIA STREET., AND SW 27TH AVENUE. (GATEWAY) Mayor Suarez: PZ-2. Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: PZ-2, 3, and 4 are companion items. You may remember that when we made the proposal for 27th Avenue, SPI-13, there were some zoning changes accompanying that change on 27th Avenue and one of them was the one on Cocoanut Avenue. That was proposed to go to an RG-2/5. Commissioner Plummer asked us to prepare an overlay to have all parking on site. We couldn't have off site parking and... Mayor Suarez: This is more restrictive then? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir, what this is doing is that the zoning the RG-2/5 will contain all parking within the main site. There's no off site parking, for one thing, and three items, the one, the item two will be the zoning change, item three will be the creation of the overlay that is - the amendment to the ordinance creating the overlay and item four is the application of that j overlay on that particular area. Mayor Suarez: You recommend? Mr. Olmedillo: Approval, sir. Mrs. Kennedy: Move it. Mayor Suarez: OK, moved. Do we have a second? Mr. Plummer: Of course, I second it, Mr. Mayor. _ Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any discussion on PZ-2? Read the ordinance. Call the roll. 2 December 2, 1987 AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM RG-1/3 TO RG- 2/5 FOR THE AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY COCOANUT AVENUE ON THE SOUTH; A LINE PARALLEL TO VIRGINIA STREET AND LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET NORTH OF IT ON THE NORTH; AND A LINE PARALLEL TO SOUTHWEST 27TH AVENUE AND LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET WEST OF IT ON THE EAST; MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NUMBER 42 OF THE ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Plummer and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy 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. 4. AMEND ORDINANCE 9500, SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICT, (SPI), BY ADDING COCONUT GROVE OVERLAY DISTRICT REQUIRING ALL PARKING BE LOCATED ON SITE. (27 AVENUE GATEWAY) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Suarez: PZ-3 is a companion item. Mrs. Kennedy: Move it. Mayor Suarez: Moved. Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Suarez: Any discussion? Any discussion? Read... Mr. Plummer: Does this accomplish basically the same thing on PZ-3? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, PZ-3 is the creation of the overlay which is the one that restricts parking. Mr. Plummer: And we held it up until this other one was passed. Mr. Olmedillo: Right, that is correct. Mr. Plummer: Correct. OK, thank you. Mayor Suarez: Do we have a motion and second? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mayor Suarez: Read the ordinance. Call the roll; 3 December 2, 1987 AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI; ARTICLE 15. SPI SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICTS BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 15190 SPI-19 COCONUT GROVE OVERLAY DISTRICT, SECTION 15191 INTENT, AND SECTION 15192 EFFECT OF SPI- 19 DISTRICT DESIGNATION, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO REQUIRE THAT ALL PARKING SHALL BE LOCATED ON SITE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Plummer and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy 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. 5. AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 BY APPLYING SPI-19 COCONUT GROVE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO AREAS BOUNDED BY COCOANUT AVE., VIRGINIA ST., AND S.W. 27TH AVENUE. (27 AVENUE GATEWAY) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Suarez: PZ-4. Is that also a companion? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir, that's... Mr. Plummer: What does that do? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir, that is the application of the district on the geographical area. The one before was the creation of the district. Mrs. Kennedy (Off mike): Move PZ-4. Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any... Mr. Dawkins: Is this PZ-20 or PZ-4? Now, because you've got me thoroughly confused. In the package, what is it? Mr. Walter Pierce: No, it's PZ-4 on today's agenda. We put the old PZ number from the 19th because there was a problem in keeping the material. Mr. Dawkins: Well, all right, you did not give me a package for today, I've got to use the package from the 19th... Mr. Pierce: Yes. Mr. Dawkins: ... so now, in the package, what number is it? Mr. Pierce: In the 19th package, that would be PZ-20. Mr. Dawkins (Off mike): Now, hold on a minute. Mayor Suarez: Is there any way, Guillermo, while the Commissioner's looking for that that we can possibly handle these together as opposed to being separate items all the time? 4 December 2, 1987 I Mr. Plummer: Not as ordinances, you've got to read them each one separately. Mayor Suarez (Off mike): No possible way? Mrs. Dougherty (Off mike): No. Mr. Plummer (Off mike): Not ordinances. Mrs. Vice Mayor, we're on five? Mrs. Dougherty: Four. Mr. Plummer: Four. Mr. Plummer: Has it been read? Mrs. Dougherty: I haven't read it yet. Mr. Plummer: Read it. Mrs. Dougherty: Has there a motion and a second? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, there is. Since the Mayor's not here and I made the motion, I'll defer to Mr. Plummer. Mr. Plummer: Motion understood? Hearing no further discussion, call the roll on PZ-4. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS, PAGE 42, OF ORDINANCE 9500, AS AMENDED, BY APPLYING SPI-19 COCONUT GROVE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY COCOANUT AVENUE ON THE SOUTH; A LINE PARALLEL TO VIRGINIA STREET AND LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET EAST OF IT ON THE WEST; A LINE PARALLEL TO COCOANUT AVENUE AND LOCATED 150 FEET NORTH OF IT ON THE NORTH; AND A LINE PARALLEL TO SW 27TH AVENUE AND LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET WEST OF IT ON THE EAST; RETAINING THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Plummer and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy 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. 5 December 2, 1987 6. AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 BY CHANGING ZONING OF 5959 N.W. 7TH ST., FROM RG- 3/5 TO 0-1/7. (PAN AMERICAN HOSPITAL) Mrs. Kennedy: PZ-5. Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-5 is the first reading for a zoning change on the Pan American Hospital property which is on 7th Street N.W. The change requested is from RG-3/5 to 0-I/7. The comp plan has designated this particular property for institutional and, as you know, by state law our zoning instruments have to comply with the comprehensive plan. The zoning change will accomplish this particular idea, that is the zoning atlas will be in accordance with the comprehensive plan which has designated this land as institutional. The use has been there for a long time. The PAB recommended for approval by a 9-0 vote and the Planning Department is recommending it for approval. Mrs. Kennedy: Is there anybody here who wishes to object to this item? Mr. Plummer: Let the record reflect that no one came forth to object. Madam Vice Mayor, I move item five. Mr. De Yurre: Second. Mrs. Kennedy: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Mr. Plummer: Counsel, are you of record for PZ-5? Al Cardenas, Esq.: Yes, for the record, my name is Al Cardenas. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, item 5. Mr. Plummer: You stipulate everything herein contained is true to the best of your knowledge? Mr. Cardenas: I do. Mrs. Kennedy: Mr. Mayor, there's a motion and a second on PZ-5. Mr. Plummer: Read the ordinance. Mrs. Kennedy: Read the ordinance. Mayor Suarez: You're the chairman. 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, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 5959 NORTHWEST 7TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RG- 3/5 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO 0-1/7 OFFICE -INSTITUTIONAL BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 30 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 Plummer and seconded by Commissioner De Yurre and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: 6 December 2, 1987 17A • AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy 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. 7. AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS BILLBOARDS FROM TEN TO NINE WITHIN SPECIFIED AREAS OF I-95. Mayor Suarez: PZ-6. Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: PZ-6 is the text amendment following the direction from the Commission that we look at the possibility of reducing the number of billboard signs from 10 to 9. Mayor Suarez: This is only along I-95? Mr. Rodriguez: Along I-95 from the western side. Mayor Suarez: I'll entertain a mo... Mr. Rodriguez: And we make a recommendation and the Planning Advisory Board recommends approval of our recommendation. Mrs. Kennedy: Move PZ-6. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, say that again. Mr. Rodriguez: The motion that you gave us sometime ago, the Commission, was to reduce the number of signs from 10 to 9; following, if you remember, some actions by the Commission in some possible signs. This applies - yes. Mr. Plummer: Oh, OK, all right, all right, all right. Now, let me make sure, this is the only thing pertaining to signs and that is reducing the number from 10 to 9. It does not include anything else about signs on buildings or anything like that. Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. Pierce (Off mike): ----- ten billboards. Mrs. Kennedy: Billboards. Mr. Rodriguez: No, no, no. This is billboards. Mr. Plummer: Is there somewhere else on this agenda something about signs? Mr. Dawkins: Centrust. Mr. Rodriguez: No, there will be - there is an item on the agenda the loth which I'm planning to withdraw because I want to discuss with members of the different industry that deals with sign in the top of the building. Mayor Suarez: Thank you. Mr. Plummer: OK, fine, because I've been getting calls telling me there was something coming up tonight about signs and I said the only thing I knew was billboards. So in effect, all this does, for the record once again, is reduce it from the number of 10 down to 9. 7 December 2, 1987 Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Mr. Plummer: It does not change the setbacks, the boundaries or any of that. Mr. Rodriguez: No. Mr. Plummer: Thank you. Mayor Suarez: What item is the other item, Sergio? Was that... Mr. Rodriguez: It's not on tonight's agenda. Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. Rodriguez: It's on the loth and since it's already advertised, I cannot withdraw it but we're going to be meeting with the different members of people affected by this and try to see whether we can come up with a good... Mr. Plummer: It's basically the Centrust problem. Mr. Pierce: But it is our intention on the loth to withdraw it at that time. Mr. Rodriguez: That item. Mayor Suarez: OK. I'll entertain a motion on PZ-6. Mr. Dawkins: Move it. Mrs. Kennedy: I did. Mayor Suarez: It's been moved. Seconded. Any discussion? Read the ordinance. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 20, ENTITLED "GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS"; SECTION 2026 ENTITLED "SIGNS, SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS"; SUBSECTION 2026.15.2.1, BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS FROM A MAXIMUM OF TEN (10) TO NINE (9) WHICH MAY FACE LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAYS, WITHIN TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET OF THE WESTERLY SIDE OF I-95 RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES, OR OF ANY LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAY INCLUSIVE OF EXPRESSWAYS WESTERLY OF I-95; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy 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. i-------- ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------ 8. AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 TO PERMIT ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES (ACLF) 3 TO BE LOCATED AT 1700-1770 N.W.34 TH ST., 1701-1757 N.W. 33RD ST., AND 3300-3380 N.W. 17TH AVENUE. (ALLAPATTAH BAPTIST CHURCH) Mayor Suarez: PZ-7. Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: PZ-7, it's an appeal - it's the old PZ-3 and it's the appeal to the Zoning Board's decision... to grant 222 out of 248 clients which was the application. Mayor Suarez: This is the only item that we left of the ones having to do with the Allapattah... Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir the... Mayor Suarez: ... Baptist Church's ACLF facility? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir. Being an appeal, I will defer to the appellant. Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute, refresh my memory. He was asking 264? Mr. Olmedillo: There was an original application of 262, then... Mr. Plummer: 262. Mr. Olmedillo: ... then the Zoning Board approved 248. Mrs. Kennedy: Approved 222. Mr. Plummer: Right, and you're trying to hold the feet to the fire of two... Mrs. Kennedy: 222. Mr. Olmedillo: Excuse me, excuse me, the Zoning Board approved 222. Mr. Plummer: Right. Mr. Olmedillo: Out of 248 which was his modified application. The Planning Department had recommended to the Zoning Board one client per room because of the privacy of the person of the individual. The item... Mr. Plummer: Even if related. Mr. Olmedillo: No, unless related by blood or marriage. Then the Zoning F Board ruled on 222. What is being appealed to you today is that the applicant would like to go for the 248 instead of the 222 that the Zoning Board approved. Mr. Plummer: What happened to the thing that we were pursuing of the 1500 square feet per room? What happened to that? Mr. Olmedillo: The applicant has an argument to present to you today on that. Mr. Plummer: You're opposed to it. Mr. 0lmedillo: Our issue is the individual room because of the privacy of the individual unless the person is - unless the two people are related by blood or marriage. Mr. Plummer: All right, now let me ask you one other question, in your review, did you go around and visit other facilities? Mr. Olmedillo: No, sir. Mr. Plummer: Damn right you didn't. Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: May I add something? 9 December 2, 1987 Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Rodriguez: You also asked the applicant to come up with a plan that might divide the large rooms into two smaller rooms if possible. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Olmedillo: We haven't seen that yet. And... Mr. Plummer: Why is this before us then? Or why wasn't it done? Rev. Richard A. Pankey: That wasn't what was asked of me. What was asked of me was to get with - this is Richard Pankey, Pastor Allapattah Baptist Church, 3300 N.W. 17th Avenue - was to get with Mr. Olmedillo and try to work something out and come back with you and I have gotten with him; I've enlarged the rooms as Mr. Dawkins had mentioned last time and it's on the back, the last page shows that I do have the size of the rooms we were talking about. Mrs. Kennedy: How many 10 x 12 rooms do you have? Rev. Pankey: 10 x 12? I don't have any 10 x 12 rooms. Oh, eight, I'm sorry, those are private on the back page, those are private rooms. On the back page is the square footage of the rooms, the double occupancy, and to keep to the 248, I even have some that are a hundred and sixty 10 x 16 that are single occupancy; to keep it to the 248 instead of going over that. Mr. Plummer: Actually you're asking for the 248 which they've approved and the only difference at this point is the occupancy, is that correct? Rev. Pankey: Well, the Zoning Board approved 222. Mr. Plummer: Right, you put in a plan for 248. Rev. Pankey: Right. Mr. Plummer: You all went along with the two... oh, you did not go a... Rev. Pankey: No, they're still sticking with the 132, one person per room. Mr. Plummer: OK. Mrs. Kennedy: You know, the thing is that those 26 rooms are not going to make you or break you. Mr. Plummer: Oh yes, it'll make or break the rent. They've got to charge the rest of them. Rev. Pankey: On feasibility - feasibility, it's going to increase the rent and it's just like a classroom. If you only have ten students in a room, you don't pay for a teacher, you got to have fifteen students in a room. Mayor Suarez: Two points that you made before, in case we all forgot because those hearings were hectic for other reasons is that people obviously voluntarily go there. I mean, no one is confined to go there... Rev. Pankey: Right. Mayor Suarez: ... so they get to choose if they want to have double occupancy, if they want to live with someone else. And, of course, that's one point and the second point you made, I think, is that the alternative may be in typical confinement of this sort is a room with many people. Rev. Pankey: Right. Mayor Suarez: I mean if they're in a hospital or if they're in a - some nursing homes have more than - as many as how many beds can they have in one room in some cases? Mr. Plummer: Four to six. Rev. Pankey: Four to six. 10 December 2, 1987 Mayor Suarez: Four to six. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Rev. Pankey: I'm saying two. Mayor Suarez: I have no problem with whatever is legal under all the codes and all of the health requirements and so on. Rev. Pankey: We're way beyond the HRS standards on this which you know. Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: You are and you're above the HRS standards. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me put in a plea here if I may because, unfortunately, I'm on the other end of these homes. But I do see them and I do go into them and I know that they're there. I want to tell you that two to a room would be a tremendous improvement in this community. I can show you homes in this community in which there are four, six, and sometimes eight... Rev. Pankey: Yes. Mr. Plummer: ... that are rooms that are maybe this size or a little bit larger. Now, if this is being sponsored by the church, we're not doing it to the private sector for public profit. This is a church running this thing and I have faith in a church that it will not do anything but what is right by these people. And I just think that this is perfectly, perfectly legitimate request of having as the Pastor says. Hey, if the people don't want to go there, there's no one forcing them to do it. But I can tell you from what I know that there's going to be a big rush to have the opportunity to go to two to a room instead of four, six and eight. So I have no problem with the 248 and I just wanted to put that on the record. Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, just for the record, what you're speaking to, Mr. Plummer, are nursing homes. This is not an application for a nursing home, this is a community based residential facility where these people are healthy, basically healthy, and specifically HRS regulations... Mr. Plummer: Walter, I will ask the same question I asked of you of staff. Have you been to any one of them? Mr. Pierce: Mr. Plummer, a few years ago, I worked in one. Mr. Plummer: How long ago? Mr. Pierce: Well, it's been a few years but I still go to the... Mr. Plummer: They were snake pit. Mr. Pierce: Those were nursing homes. Mr. Plummer: They were snake pits. Mr. Pierce: Those were nursing homes. Rev. Pankey: I'm trying to keep them from the nursing home, that's the whole purpose of this ACLF is that they don't have to go there until the very last straw. Mr. Plummer: I've said my piece, I'll say no more. I'll express myself in my vote. Mr. De Yurre: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: Commissioner. Mr. De Yurre: Yes, I'd like to know a little bit more about this. These individuals, what's their average age? it December 2, 1987 Rev. Pankey: Well, they are senior citizens, they have to be over, I would assume it's 65. Mr. De Yurre: If it's that then tell me about... Mr. Pierce: No, sir. Rev. Pankey: Well, I know what doing, we're doing the ACLF type two... Mr. Pierce: And these... Rev. Pankey: ... and that is these are the elderly that we're giving to take care of that are not able to take care of themselves in their home, either for a mental disorientation or for some other reason. They're not able to take care of themselves, they have no family, we want to provide a place for them so that they don't have to go to a nursing home. We want an intermediate place for them. Mr. De Yurre: I just want to understand the degree of a situation wherein they're willingly going to this. You know, if you're not mentally in capacity to make a decision, and you're telling me that some of them are not? Rev. Pankey: Well, if they have a legal guardian, then that legal guardian makes the decision. Mr. De Yurre: OK, so it isn't they that are making the choice. A lot of times it's their children that want to put them somewhere... Rev. Pankey: Right. Mr. De Yurre: ... and that may not be the place of their choice but they're going to stick them in there. Mayor Suarez: Well, we don't... you don't take anybody against their will there, I can't imagine. I mean, you don't have any Baker Act or any of that. Rev. Pankey: No, this would have to be - the legal guardian could do that, but... Mr. De Yurre: Because my concern is that if you have four, six or eight to a room, there's a difference in the sense if you put two to a room and let's say what controls the ------ if one is a smoker or can they smoke, they can't smoke? What if one likes to watch TV late at night, the other one likes to go to bed at eight? You know, what control do you have over that? Rev. Pankey: Yes, sir, that's a very important question because with your professional management groups, Rest Care out of Louisville, Kentucky, we've talked with them, we will have professional managers managing this. We will not try to do it ourselves. j Mr. Pierce: Commissioner De Yurre, I'm not quibbling with the sentiments of the Commission but I want to be sure that the Commission is acting on correct and accurate information. One of the key questions that you just asked speaks distinctly and specifically to the differences between a nursing institution, which is a custodial care type facility and an adult congregate living facility. Mr. Pankey, or anyone else, operating an ACLF under current regulations of HRS is not even permitted to dispense medication. -3 —{ Rev. Pankey: Right. Mr. Pierce: They may remind the patient or resident that it's time to take medication, but they can't dispense it. There is no nursing care to be provided in these facilities. This is a living facility for someone who is not quite at that point that they can still live alone and be totally self sufficient, but do need minimum supervision. Minimum, I mean... Rev. Pankey: Yes, sir. Mr. Pierce: ... by law it has to be minimum. Rev. Pankey: There's a type... 12 December 2, 1987 Mr. Plummer: Yes, let's put it another way. Mr. Pierce: OK. Rev. Pankey: OK, there's a type... Mr. Plummer: Let's put it another way. Rev. Pankey: OK, there's three types.. Mr. Plummer: Let's put it another way, if you don't have these kind of facilities, the only other alternative is the nursing home. Rev. Pankey: Nursing home, right. Mr. Pierce: You're right, but... Rev. Pankey: Mr. De Yurre, there's three types of ACLF's now as of September of this year. There's a type III ACLF which the ACLF can administer medication, they can change colostomy bags, they can give insulin shots, as of this year, that's a type III, which I don't particularly care about being that we're looking at the type II ACLF. The type I is a residential retirement who are able to go and afford nice places. We're talking about the type II that may not be able to afford that. We're wanting to meet that need, especially in our area. Mr. De Yurre: Can't you put a - now you have one bathroom for each... Rev. Pankey: Room. Mr. De Yurre: ... for each room. Rev. Pankey: Yes, sir, we do have that. Mr. De Yurre: There's no way you can divide these rooms and put a partition down the middle? Rev. Pankey: I don't think it would be practical. Mrs. Kennedy: That's what I've been trying him to do for the past few months he's been here. Rev. Pankey: Well, when you say - then you're making two rooms out of it. What do you mean by a partition? Mr. De Yurre: Yes, make two rooms out of it. Rev. Pankey: We could... Mrs. Kennedy: In other words, that unless they're related by blood and marriage, everybody should have their own room. Rev. Pankey: How large of a partition do you want? Mr. De Yurre: Full partition. Rev. Pankey: Are you talking about separating the beds? Mr. De Yurre: Yes. Rev. Pankey: OK, then I don't see a problem with that. Mr. De Yurre: I'm talking about separating, you know, having separate doors. Is this a hallway here? Rev. Pankey: Yes, sir. Mr. De Yurre: OK, can't you... Rev. Pankey: Oh, wait, I'm sorry. 13 December 2, 1987 Mr. Plummer: Is the suggestion along the line that you would be actually then going up to... Rev. Pankey: Going back to the Zoning Board, 132 then. Mr. Plummer: ... to the double the number of rooms? If you're talking about 232 beds, you'd have 232 rooms there alone, right? Rev. Pankey: Two sixty four, if you divided each room. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. De Yurre: Well, that's what I'm talking about. Rev. Pankey: I don't think you want it... Mr. De Yurre: Well, you know, the way I see it, I went to law school and when f I went to law school I lived in a 6 x 9 room for three years. So the size doesn't bother me that they end up with half of the room, you learn to live there. But the thing is, you have your privacy. Rev. Pankey: OK, on our double occupancy rooms and if you wanted a partition between the beds only, then they could go - there would be a break there - you know, OK. Mayor Suarez: I think that's what he was getting at, to provide a little bit more privacy and... Rev. Pankey: OK, I have no problem with that. Mr. De Yurre: Well, what I'm talking about is, you know, we're talking about individuals that you say need minimal help, OK? Rev. Pankey: Right. Right, yes, sir. Mr. De Yurre: And we've got to talk about the dignity of the individuals and, yes, I know people that are in their 80's and they still have an active sex life. What happens then if two of them meet or... yes, including Miller. Mr. Plummer: That is not tolerated in a Baptist Church. Mr. De Yurre: What then? Rev. Pankey: I understand what you're saying. I have no problem if you want to make that recommendation, we'll do that. Mr. De Yurre: I'd like to see if we can... Rev. Pankey: I just can't go with the thing of making two a one room, a bath and a closet for every individual. You know, feasibility wise, there's no way. Mr. Plummer: Yes, I guess the other problem, Victor, is the problem at the present time you have one bathroom facilities for two patients. If you make it two rooms, then one of them are not going to have a bathroom facility. Mr. De Yurre: No, because you do it the other way. You see, this bathroom here, you put the next room over and they share that bathroom. Mr. Plummer: Oh, I see, OK. Mr. De Yurre: OK, so you don't have a problem with that. Mr. Plummer: Use it from each side. If that's practical. Mr. De Yurre: Yes, I'm building a house in south Coconut Grove and I'm aware of these problems. Rev. Pankey: So, what you're saying... Mr. Plummer: Yes, I heard during the campaign you're building a house. 14 December 2, 1987 0 Mr. De Yurre: You heard that one, huh? Mrs. Kennedy: You heard it many times, right? Rev. Pankey: So what we're talking about then is putting a 6 foot, 8 foot partition to separate the beds. Mr. De Yurre: What I'm talking about is putting a partition to divide that room in two, putting doors on the hallway,then you can just walk into your room. Rev. Pankey: The hallways aren't running that direction. The hallways are running down..... Mr. De Yurre: They run down this side, is that it? Rev. Pankey: No, perpendicular. Mr. De Yurre: No, show me. Rev. Pankey: The building is 150.... INAUDIBLE COMMENTS. Mr. De Yurre: (Off mike) Where's the entrance to the... is this the entrance to the rooms? OK, what's back here? Mayor Suarez: Let me say one thing, Commissioner, I understand your concern about some people's privacy and dignity and all that but if we make him go beyond what he's already gone, we're saying that people cannot be roommates even if they want to be and even if that's a facility that is otherwise affordable to them and that the state agrees with and approves and it fits all the norms and codes, I... Rev. Pankey: We are meeting all - we're going above and beyond HRS standards which I'm not, you know, pleased with that. But we are doing that. And that's the governing body behind the whole thing, you know, which... Mr. De Yurre: OK, I got no further questions, thank you. Mayor Suarez: As the ninth of fourteen kids, I certainly can understand the concept of sleeping more than a couple per room, you know. In any event, I think we've all heard enough about this now for I don't know how many Commission meetings, so I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, I have expressed myself and will be happy to make the motion for 248 rooms. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Mr. Olmedillo: Mr. Plummer, may I suggest that it is tied down to these dimensions that are submitted to the record. Mr. Plummer: It's his proffering, yes, I'll hold it to that. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, this is a special exception so we can apply conditions to it. Mr. Plummer: That's fine. Mayor Suarez: I'll second it. Mrs. Kennedy: OK, it's been moved and seconded to accept this. Is there any further discussion? Let me just say for the record that I would have liked to see the rooms bigger, 10 x 16, 10 x 16 1/2, but I'm going to go with you. Please call the roll. 15 December 2, 1987 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 87-1066 A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD AND GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, THE SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, PAGE 2 OF 6, RG-3 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL, PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES, PERMISSIBLE ONLY BY SPECIAL PERMIT, AND ARTICLE 20, SECTION 2034 TO PERMIT AN ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY (ACLF), FOR THE ELDERLY, WHICH IS A TYPE OF COMMUNITY BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITY (CBRF), WITH A MAXIMUM OF 248 RESIDENTS INCLUDING RESIDENT STAFF, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1700-1770 NORTHWEST 34TH STREET, APPROXIMATELY 1701-1757 NORTHWEST 33RD STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 3300-3380 NORTHWEST 17TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), AS PER PLANS ON FILE, WITH ONLY CERTAIN DESCRIBED ROOMS TO BE USED FOR DOUBLE OCCUPANCY (ALL OTHERS ARE TO BE SINGLE OCCUPANCY) PER EXISTING PLANS ON FILE; SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM RG-1/3 ONE AND TWO FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL TO RG-3/6 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL; ZONED RG-1/3 ONE AND TWO FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL AND CR-3/7 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (GENERAL). THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION HAS A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Mayor Suarez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ' ABSENT: None. COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL: Mr. Dawkins: Reluctantly, I too would like to see more, but since everyone says this is what they need, I'll vote yes. COMMENTS AFTER ROLL CALL: Rev. Pankey: Could I say one... Was that it? Could I say something else? Mr. Plummer: You'd better quit, you've won. Rev. Pankey: OK, I appreciate your vote, I really do and I think this is going to be a complement to the City, we're going to do what we can to make you proud of it. Mayor Suarez: Remember the old momentum policy here. Rev. Pankey: What's that? Mrs. Kennedy: Quit while you're ahead. Rev. Pankey: Oh, no, no, no. All right. Mrs. Kennedy: Goodbye, Reverend. 16 December 2, 1987 Mayor Suarez: Go away and sin no more. Mr. Plummer: Fish don't get caught unless he opens his mouth. INAUDIBLE COMMENTS. Mayor Suarez: Pete, do we have a companion item or... INAUDIBLE COMMENTS. Mrs. Kennedy: Goodbye Reverend. Mr. Plummer: Merry Christmas. Mayor Suarez: Pray for us. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9. CONTINUE REQUEST BY JEMAJO CORP. FOR MODIFICATION OF COVENANT (2230-40 S.W. 16TH STREET.) Mayor Suarez: PZ-8. Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-8 is the old PZ-17... Mr. Dawkins: PZ-8? Mr. Olmedillo: ... and this is an application to modify a covenant, it... Mr. Dawkins: That's it up there? Mr. Olmedillo: That is the property in question. To refresh your memory, this was an issue highly debated before the Zoning Board and the City Commission and the negotiating of the applicant and the different boards brought about the covenant which was proffered by the applicant. This covenant included not having any use but residential on lots four and five. The applicant now has come before you to request an amendment to that particular proffer that they made in order to change that zoning on those two lots which were held to a residential district. Mr. Dawkins: Didn't we at that time get the commitment from him and the reason we went along with the rezoning was that these covenants were offered? Mr. Olmedillo: To my recollection, yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: So what good is it then for us to sit up here and accept these covenants from individuals for the zoning if we're going to come back and let them switch out on it? OK? I move to deny this. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Mr. Pierce: You should give him a chance to speak though. Mayor Suarez: There's a motion made. Proceed counselor. Mr. Al Cardenas: Thank you, my name is Al Cardenas. I'm here on behalf of the applicant Jemajo Corporation and I'd like to, if I can, Commissioner, set forth my disagreement with the presentation made by staff because you're absolutely right, these things are presented in order to be complied with. What I'm about to do here this evening is to ask you for something which in no way detracts from the sixteen or eighteen covenants that were proffered two years ago. This is a point of clarification more than anything else and I explained to you what I mean. I'm here only relative to one particular item of the sixteen or eighteen items and that declaration of restrictions that has been filed and it's not to remove its intent but to clarify its intent so our clients can proceed accordingly. Paragraph 3 (g) of the Declaration of Restrictions says the following, that "the use of lots four and five shall be for residential purposes only." I'm here to tell you that we're willing and want to live within the integrity of that statement so that nothing that you would do here this evening would, in any way, detract or change what it was 17 December 2, 1987 that was agreed upon two years ago. What I'm about to do here this evening is to ask you to clarify it so I can proceed in accordance with the code to the Zoning Board. What I'm asking for this Commission to do is to instead of using is to permit paragraph (g) to state the following, that "the use of lots four and five will be limited to those transitional uses permitted by special exception pursuant to the City of Miami's zoning code. That means that these two lots that we're about to talk about here this evening are currently zoned residential which was the intent of that deed of restrictions. We are still telling you that we want them to continue to be zoned residential. However, this is a situation where a client was permitted to build a shopping center on the southwest corner of S.W. 22nd Avenue and 16th Street. I think he's done a superb job in having a fine shopping center on that site. It's now filled and what we now find is that there are automobiles parking off site across the street and elsewhere because there are not enough parking spaces. That's causing a traffic and safety hazard our clients feel. They own the two homes immediately adjoining the shopping center. Under normal circumstances, the normal procedure would be if you owned a shopping center lot, the commercially zoned property, and you joined to it a adjoining residentially zoned properties, you qualify to go the Zoning Board and say, "Zoning Board, I'd like to have a public hearing on my being entitled a special exception to permit parking on these two residentially zoned lots." Then there's a public hearing and the Zoning Board determines the merit of the presentation, whether we're entitled to what we're asking for or not because it's to the benefit of the public. I need still - if you do me a favor what I'm asking for this evening, all you're doing is giving me the opportunity to apply to the City of Miami, go before the Zoning Board, request a special exception, have a full hearing by the Zoning Board on that special exception and if anybody appeals it, of course, come up before you. I'm not asking you to change at all under any circumstances the intent of those covenants. All I'm asking you is to permit a clarification so that I can go on behalf of the client and do what anybody else who would otherwise own residential lots adjoining a shopping center be able to do and ask for a transitional use which permits parking on the residential lot, which, incidentally, will alleviate the traffic congestion and the pedestrians crossing the street which we feel maybe is a safety hazard at this time. So, I'm not asking you to change anything; I'm primarily asking for a clarification, the addition of language to 3(g) so I could go to the Zoning Board and have a full hearing on it. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, what he said is beautiful rhetoric, OK. But we have citizens who come here for these zoning hearings and they sit here and hear the applicant make promises and say that we will voluntarily guarantee you that we will not do so and so and on the strength of that, this Commission go ahead and award the request for variances. Now, if we are not going to hold people to their word, and it says right here, that these following volunteer declaration of restrictive covenants, and then it lists them, and (g) specifically says, "we say, that under no circumstances, the uses of lots four and five shall be for residential purposes only." Now, you tell me that you're not asking the change... Mr. Cardenas: Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: Well, what's the special use exception you want to use if it's going to remain residential, then you don't need anything. But if you're not going to change it from residential to something else, then you need to change it. Mr. Plummer (Off and on mike): It's provision in the code, Miller, that says, even though they would remain residential, if this covenant had not been put forth the transitional use extends over, still remains residential but the transitional would allow parking. That's in any application. Mr. Dawkins: But the covenant - be he gave a covenant that waived his rights to this. Mr. Plummer: You're right there, but it's still... Mr. Dawkins: That's what... all right, then so - OK, but once he waived his rights, in my opinion, OK? Mr. Plummer: I understand. 18 December 2, 1987 Mr. Dawkins: OK, once he waived his rights and I sit up here and got an audience full of people and say, yes, and because you give this, you're right, I'll give you that. I cannot, in good faith, let him come back now when nobody is here and tell me that, well, we're really not asking for a change, what we're asking for is a clarification. Come onl Don't play on my intelligence. Mr. Plummer: OK, I voted against this when it was here before, but let me say a few things into the record. First of all, to the Administration, was this matter advertised and the neighbors notified? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (Off mike): Yes, it was advertised and we got notice in the mail. --------- Mr. Plummer: OK, so you were made aware by how, by letter or by advertise... UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (Off mike): By letter. Mr. Plummer: By letter. Did all of the people in the neighborhood, did they receive notification? INAUDIBLE RESPONSE. Mr. Plummer: OK. And am I to assume that you are the only one here to speak? INAUDIBLE RESPONSE. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask, is there anyone else here? OK, is there anyone - before there were thirty, OK? Is there anyone else here to speak in opposition? INAUDIBLE RESPONSE. Mr. Plummer: OK, now the only point that I wanted to make, and as you know, I voted against this before and most likely will again. But, it's been two years and maybe, just maybe, some of the neighbors might agree that more parking would be advantageous and I'm wondering, by virtue of only one man here who says he represents two, that silence in the law journal gives consent. Is it worth our while to look into, for the safety and the cluttering of the streets, to possibly hold a public hearing in which that could be used for additional parking? Now, I don't know, but I'm only questioning, I guess, really, that when this matter came up before the parking lot for approval, there was 30, maybe 40 people here in opposition. These people did receive notification that this was coming up today and only one person is here. I'm wondering if we had a public hearing on this before this Commission, make sure everybody is notified, maybe the neighbors not being here today is trying to tell us that they think that the additional parking would be beneficial. I don't know, I'm asking that in the form of a question. Mr. Pierce: Commissioner, you know that this item has been deferred a couple of times to get to this point. Mr. Plummer: I understand that, Walter... Mr. Pierce: And, well... Mr. Plummer: ... and maybe they got tired of coming down here, that could very easily be. Mr. Pierce: That's exactly the point that I was going to make. Mr. Plummer: But here, again, I've been by that shopping center maybe two or three times a week, OK? And there is the need for more parking is the reason I voted against it in the first place; that it was not adequate. But maybe now that it's there and a reality is there, the possibility that the neighbors say, hey, it's there, we've got our choice of additional parking or no additional parking, we feel the best part of the two is to allow them to have more parking. Now that's all I'm asking it on the record. Mayor Suarez: In the original application, what, if any, concessions, variances, rezonings did they obtain? 19 December 2, 1987 f' 1 Mr. Plummer: Oh, Lord, sixty. Mr. Olmedillo: They obtained a change of zoning to a commercial district. Mayor Suarez: I mean, I remember that lot in that corner for many years because I lived a few blocks away and... Mr. Plummer: It used to be the old filling station. Mayor Suarez: ... well it was a filling station on one point but when I lived there, it was just - yes... Mr. Plummer: Yes, it... Mayor Suarez: And, in fact, I remember this property being the one most affected because occasionally we would use it to put equipment whenever we were redoing 22nd Avenue and they would get... Mr. Plummer: Oh, they had constructions materials there for a long time. Mayor Suarez: ... dust all over their property and all kinds of problems. When it was finally rezoned, it was rezoned a change of zoning classification? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, it was — as you can see, three of the lots were rezoned to a commercial district and you can see around it, it's an island. Everything around it is residential, either multi family or... Mayor Suarez: What was the thinking or justification rationale for the rezoning? Mr. Plummer: You'd better ask those devoted for it. Mr. Pierce: Staff recommended against it. Mr. Olmedillo: Staff recommended denial. Mayor Suarez: And not even the corner lots could be used for commercial, nothing? It was all residential? Mr. Plummer: Well, the corner, no... Mr. Olmedillo: Not before the rezoning was granted. Mayor Suarez: It was all residential, right up to the corner? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir. Mr.. Pierce: Yes, the... Mr. Plummer: Well, but the use that had been there previous was grandfathered. Mayor Suarez: But there had been a grand... Oh, I see, OK. Mr. Plummer: It's a nonconforming use. Mayor Suarez: And then everybody who owned that property presumably was hoping that at some point he could use it for something like a shopping center. Mr. Pierce: Well... Mayor Suarez: That's why it was never turned into homes or... Mr. Pierce: Commissioner Plummer's correct, it was a gas station and when the gas station was demolished and the land became vacant, he lost everything. Mayor Suarez: He lost his grandfather rights. Mr. Olmedillo: No, he lost everything. Mr. Pierce: And it reverted to the residential use only. 20 December 2, 1987 Mayor Suarez: Well, didn't lose everything, I mean, you know, there's still property there. I mean, he lost the right to have that kind of a use. Mr. Pierce: Yes, but - right. Well, anything other than single - than residential. Mr. Cardenas: There were two if I, Mr. Mayor, if I can... Mayor Suarez: And why at the time - well. Mr. Cardenas: ... offer you my recollection, because I represented the applicant at that time. There were two prevailing reasons why the Commission voted 4-1 in favor of the rezoning. And those were as follows: One, that all the neighbors who lived in the neighborhood, or most of them, lived there while the gas station was in operation so there was a commercial use in operation at that intersection during all of this time. In number two, the expansion of S.W. 22nd Avenue and the traffic at that intersection was such that it was clearly not the most logical location for single family residents, and based on these two thought processes, the Commission, at that time, thought it was appropriate to zone it commercial. I just wanted to restate two things, that at no time at that hearing, did we ever discuss waiving transitional uses. I'm here more for a clarification than anything else and I'll admit we need one, but at no time did we discuss waiving a transitional use. We discussed making sure that there was not an intrusion into the residential properties and, as such, what this paragraph accomplished, was making sure that the commercial intrusion would not be there. But we never discussed a waiver of the transitional use for parking purposes, and God only knows that there's parking needed there, but let me also remind this Commission that your vote today is not ipso facto going to permit us to do that parking. We still would have to file an application for special exception. The Zoning Board would have to look at the site plan, let us argue the merits of the thing, go into it in full length with us. That's what we're here for, to have you give us a chance to go to that public hearing before the Zoning Board and have the neighbors have a full public hearing at that time and appeal it to this Commission if necessary. Mayor Suarez: Let's hear it from the objector. Is there anyone else that wishes to be heard on this item by the way? We have one person, OK. Mr. Bob Poller: Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah too. My name is Bob Poller, 2260 S.W. 16th Street which is the fourth house down from the property that you're discussing. I object to... Mayor Suarez: Along 16th? Mr. Poller: On 16th. I object to what you're about to do, which is going to start an additional domino effect here, because I believe Mr. Perez owns the house at the end of the street too and not being too stupid, I'm trying to sit there and visualize what's going to happen. Mayor Suarez: What do you mean at the end of the street? Mr. Poller: I believe on 23rd Avenue or 23rd Court and 16th Street, he's the owner of the house right there. What a lot of the people in the neighborhood are concerned about is 16th Street from 23rd to 22nd, it's going to become basically a commercial area. Now, I do not live in the house. 1,11 Mayor Suarez: Let me ask, if I may interrupt you, Guillermo, to answer that. Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: OK. Mayor Suarez: How about the domino effect problem here? What increased stability will the people who own the properties right past these two lots, what increased stability would they have of also changing the character from residential to commercial if we did this? Mr. Olmedillo: If you allow... Mayor Suarez: And if it was then approved by the... 21 December 2, 1987 Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, if you allow the applicant to go ahead and apply for the special exceptions, special exception... Mayor Suarez: And if he gets it, and if he gets the exception. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, we'll go for a hundred feet from the commercial district. That'll cover two regular lots, two 50 foot lots and transitional would stop there. It will not continue. However, if he acquires a zoning change, then, of course, the domino effect will enter into play. Mr. Dawkins (Off mike): Well, what's to stop the other people from coming in to get a transitional use? Mr. Olmedillo: The people who bought the commercial may apply for the transitional, but the rest of the people there, as you can see, that's an island there. There's nobody except lots four and five and the lots on 22nd Avenue proper which are abutting the commercial district. So, no one else can go ahead and use the transitional requirements or transitional limitations. Mr. Poller (Off mike): May I comment on that? Mayor Suarez: Please, go ahead. Mr. Poller: Mayor, I have some very mixed feelings about this because as owner of the house, if this goes commercial, in the future I will probably benefit in the pocketbook. The problem is, I don't live in the house and my mother lives in the house, has lived in the house, will live in the house until, God forbid, that ACL winds up being the next thing in the future. My next door neighbor, Mrs. Buckbinder, has lived in their house and is her main concern, as my mother, is the evils that the increased traffic causes in a shopping center. Now, that center is there, 16th Street is busy, it has become much more dirtier, there's a lot more paper and debris. The neighborhood is changing and I don't think there's anything that's going to be done to stop that from happening. What I was prepared to do is have it go over that whole line there of saying there's been absolutely no thought to what's going to happen after those two houses get torn down and a parking lot gets put up. And I was absolutely prepared to go through those things, try to get a little tear here and there and say, I'll tell you this, Mrs. Buckbinder and my mother say, go ahead and make the parking lot, but make sure that there's a buffer zone and because item 3(a) of that same group of covenants states that no wall will be built. They're actually - yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: May I cut you off? Well, what assurance would your mother and other lady have that this Commission would make them put the buffer zone up if we're not going to hold up to this covenant? Mr. Poller: Well, that's what concerns me. I'm raising the ideas. What I want to express, if I could, that there are still people that are living in that area that are concerned about the so-called peace and tranquility that a residential area is supposed to have. If those two houses go down, and there is no provisions made for protecting that, then that domino effect is going to take place, I would say, within two or three years, because there was an article in the Herald which I have right here that Mr. Perez was quoted as saying in 1985 that those two houses are going to stay there. Now, the area again is changing. Across the street, there's the little grocery store's gotten a lot larger. To get through that intersection, it takes a lot more time. So, I think there's got to be a lot more concern over what is eventually going to happen to that street and if the Miami City Commission wanted to become lawyers offices, doctors offices... Mayor Suarez: Well, the street light there has an electric eye, when it sees cars approaching, it turns red against the direction that the people are coming. Mr. Poller: I couldn't figure it out. Mayor Suarez: I spent years trying to get a green light at that intersection on 16th; it just never happens, I don't what it is. Mr. Poller: I used to shot it out as a kid. Mayor Suarez: That probably did it. You're the culprit. 22 December 2, 1987 r� Mr. Plummer: Do I understand you, you're not really in opposition? Mr. Poller: Maybe I didn't express as succinctly, I was pre... Mr. Plummer: Well, I've read your - the area of concern and safeguards. Mr. Poller: Yes, that's... Mrs. Buckbinder, my next door neighbor, and my mother say, go ahead and let him do what he wants because I think and they think it's going to happen. But, before anything happens, if he builds his parking lot, the great big wall has to be there because they're going to live there for... Mr. Plummer: Well, but you see, that would be what you would put in as safeguards at the time that they were granted the permission of the transitional use. You can, in fact, put those safeguards in and from what I'm hearing you say, you're not necessarily concerned if the safeguards are there. Mr. Poller: Exactly right. I feel in my heart that that neighborhood is changing and... Mr. Plummer: So you're really not in opposition if the safeguards are built in. Mr. Poller: Exactly right. Mr. Plummer: But you see, we can't do that today. We cannot - huh? Well, OK, what I'm saying is, it's got to go back before the board, before the department, it's got to go through a public hearing... Mayor Suarez: Wait, wait, wait, she's being unfair, she's whispering to you over here. Mr. Plummer: No, all she's saying is put it in the covenant. Mr. Dawkins: To what? Mayor Suarez: We can build it in to the determination today? Mrs. Dougherty: You could require them to amend the covenants saying that if they were to get the class C special permit, that they have to build this wall and in advance of getting the CO to use the area, that the wall has to be up. Mayor Suarez: Yes, we can modify one covenant and get another one in return. I'm not saying this is a good idea to do necessarily... Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, if I can, we have... Mr. Plummer: No, I would feel much - sir, excuse me. Mayor Suarez: Wait, wait, wait, Al... Mr. Cardenas: Yes. Mayor Suarez: I was just wanting to hear what she said and what makes more sense, whether we would do that now or later if we're going to pass this. I don't even know if we're going to pass it but, whatever. Mr. Dawkins (Off mike): Oh, it will pass. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would feel more comfortable that they go through the regular procedure of having the hearing before the Zoning Board. It would be an appeal - I would ask that that immediately be automatically appealed to this Commission regardless of the outcome which I understand is what we can do. And, I think that there is the possibility that of the best of two worlds, we can alleviate some of the congestion in the area and, likewise, build in sufficient safeguards that it would not be detrimental to Mrs. Buckbinder next door or your mother. But without that approval here today of clarification, they don't even have any way to do it other than to do it direct here today which I would be opposed to. 23 December 2, 1987 Mr. Cardenas: May I, Mr. Mayor, lastly, let me restate what it is that I'm asking of the Commission today. Paragraph 3(g) says, "the use of lots four and five shall be for residential purposes only." Please leave it in just add to that paragraph the following wording: "the use of lots four and five will be limited to those transitional uses permitted by special exception pursuant to the City of Miami zoning code." So, you see, I'm not asking you to eliminate anything, delete anything we've committed to, just add a sentence of clarification so we can go through the next process. Mr. Dawkins: The only problem I have with that, Al, is that we did not add it when we first did it, OK? And, there again, we're coming right back to my original theory, we gave a zoning variance on the strength of a covenant and now this Commission is going to allow the covenant giver off the hook the same as we did with the people who decided that they were going to build 200 units of housing on Claughton Island and this Commission sat right here and did not make - and for ten years, they did not live up to their covenant and it's just a habit of this Commission not to make people live up to covenants and it's just that simple. Mr. Olmedillo: Mr. Mayor, may I state something for the record? Three (g) reads, "the use of lots four and five shall be for residential purposes, not use purposes only." Mayor Suarez: So you'd have to delete that if you were going to allow parking. Mr. Olmedillo: If you were to change, you would have to say, the purposes, the word would have to be changed, but I'm just clearing the record because counsel for the applicant is saying, residential uses and it says residential purposes only. Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. Pierce: There's another problem that this brings to light. I believe the special exception of process for parking on those lots would require that there be a wall built there so that paragraph 3(a) would have to be modified as well. Mr. Plummer: But, what I'm understanding this gentleman to say if it were to be approved, he wants the wall there. Mr. Pierce: Well, that's fine, I'm just discussing the mechanics of it that this covenant sets up a conflict between the ordinance requirement for a wall if you put parking there and 3(a) which says, at no time will any wall be constructed on the property. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes... Mr. Pierce. It doesn't say property land, it says property period. Mr. Plummer: So if we change one part of the covenant, we can change another... Mr. Pierce: You have to change the other one. Mr. Plummer: ... because now you're finding, as I understand what they're saying, is that they want the wall if the transition does occur. Mr. Poller: Right, there is a wall there right now as I tried to demonstrate by the pictures. The problems are, as demonstrated by the pictures, that that dumpster is right next to the wall. Mrs. Buckbinder's house is going to be next to that dumpster. I mean, literally five feet away from it, so... Mr. Cardenas: Let me, if I can, suggest the following because we have met with staff a few times; we've come up with a site plan that answers every concern we think the neighbors would have. The dumpsters would not be near the neighbors, the wall would be there, staff has requested a landscaping buffer, no lights looking at the neighbors and we've gone through a whole process; no parking lot ingress and egress from the residential property so 4( that the ingress and egress will be closer to traffic light and the commercially zoned property. There's a lot of thought that has gone into this i and, frankly, if it were not for the fact that the people were just parking s! —' 3j 24 December 2, 1987 i i .i� } outside of here and it's becoming a safety hazard, there would not be a need for us to be here. What I'd like to do, if it's OK with the Commission, is for you to have this matter continued or deferred. Let me meet with the neighbors because we haven't had a chance to, we've met with staff. Let me go over this proposed site plan. Let me, hopefully, get a few neighbors here next time saying, hopefully, that that's a sensible solution to the current problem and me, perhaps, bring to you more proof that, unfortunately, it's true that we didn't think about this. Commissioner Dawkins is 100 percent right, but we've now got a problem and we feel that this is a sensible way to deal with the problem. We're not asking you to give us one more square foot of shopping center. We're not asking you to rezone this property or anything else. We're asking you to help us deal with a current very real problem that just won't go away and if you can give us a month to do that, maybe we can be successful and maybe we won't be persuasive but it's worth a shot, I think. Mr. Dawkins: Well, before, all right, before you do that, I'm going to make my motion and let it die for the lack of a second. I move that this ordinance was accepted in good faith and at the time that it was accepted, we assumed that it was going to be lived up to and I make a motion that this be denied and that the covenant be held as is. Mayor Suarez: So moved. We have a second? Mr. Dawkins (Off mike): I'm not going to second it, go on to ------ but I had to put it in. Mayor Suarez: Yes. Mr. Dawkins (Off mike): I knew it wasn't going to get a second... Mayor Suarez: OK, I'll entertain a motion, alternative motion from any member of the Commission. Mr. Plummer: As I understand, the request is to defer or continue for one month to give them the opportunity to speak and go over this laundry list and any others to try to come about a reasonable solution to be satisfactory before this Commission, I so move. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Mrs. Kennedy: Second. Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Any discussion on the motion to continue. Is that right up to the next Planning & Zoning Agenda? Mr. Plummer: That'll be in January. Mr. Olmedillo: January. Mayor Suarez: Right. Call the roll. We have to specify in the motion to continue. Mr. Dawkins: Under discussion. Mayor Suarez: Commissioner. Mr. Dawkins: You know, we got staff, we pay staff to make recommendations, staff recommended against this when it was first offered. They're recommending against our changing now. I'm going to vote no now and I'll promise you that I'll vote no every time it come up and nine times out of ten, I'll be on the losing side of a 4-1 vote, but I vote my convictions. Mrs. Kennedy: Let me just say for the record that I probably would have voted against it also, however, meeting with the neighbors and giving them one more month is - I don't think it's such a big deal so I'm going to go with this motion. Mayor Suarez: Call the roll. 25 December 2, 1987 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved 'i its adoption: MOTION NO. 87-1067 A MOTION CONTINUING REQUEST BY THE JEMAJO CORPORATION FOR MODIFICATION OF COVENANT (2230-40 S.W. 16 STREET) TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 28, 1988. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ABSENT: None. 10. RESCHEDULE FLAGLER FLEA MARKET ISSUES DEALING WITH FISH VENDING AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION TO JANUARY 28, 1988 COMMISSION MEETING. (SEE LABEL 2) ---------------------------------------- Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor, before we do that, may we respond to Commissioner De Yurre's earlier question and motion on Flagler Flea Market? We have a lack of adequate time for public notice for the December loth meeting and the next planning and zoning meeting would not be scheduled until January 28th and at that time... Mr. De Yurre: Well, I'll amend my motion then to read, till the next available meeting provided we get our timing in as far as notice is concerned. Mayor Suarez: That will be for January 20 what, 20... Mr. Pierce: January 28th will be the planning and zoning meeting. Mr. Plummer: No, well that wouldn't affect the wall. Mr. Pierce: OK, all right. Mayor Suarez: No, no, no, this is on the... Mr. De Yurre: No, we're talking about the flea market. Mayor Suarez: The flea market. The motion to reconsider. Mrs. Dougherty: Flea market. Mr. Plummer: Well, the wall was on the west side on the 38th Court side and as far as I... are you - is that part of your re... Mr. De Yurre: I got no problem with that part of it. Mr. Pierce: I was going to ask in making the motion to reconsider it at the 28th meeting, are there any specific instructions or direction you would like to give us to pursue in the meantime? Or do we just simply bring it back for Commission discussion? Mr. Plummer: Well, can we limit the reconsideration, I guess is what you're asking and, if so, what? Mr. Pierce: I think I'll defer to the City Attorney. Mr. De Yurre: There's only... 26 December 2, 1987 Mayor Suarez: Madam City Attorney. Mrs. Dougherty: You can limit the reconsideration, however I think if you're going to reconsider it, you ought to bring the whole thing back because right now, the record is very unclear as to what you actually voted for the last time. John Fletcher representing the protestants have said that there are certain things on the record we can't find so it's beneficial to us if you bring it all back. Mrs. Kennedy: Well, do we have the minutes of the last meeting? How can it be unclear? Mrs. Dougherty: We have the tape. Mr. Plummer: That's how lawyers make a living, it's unclear. Mayor Suarez: Now much confusion... Mrs. Dougherty: But, if it's OK with you, Commissioner De Yurre, we'll bring it back on the 28th of January as opposed to the loth. Mr. De Yurre: That's fine. Mrs. Dougherty: OK. Mr. Pierce: And specifically, if you wish, because it's certain to attract a great deal of attention, we will set it for a specific time if that's the Commissioners' wishes. Mr. Plummer: Well, but wait a minute now. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Then I've got to change my vote. If that is going to delay that wall going up, I'm going to change my vote which - it's not going to change because it was 5-0, OK, but to keep good faith with the people, that wall was one of the main considerations that gave the buffer between a commercial outfit and the residential. Now, can it be that the reconsideration is not with the wall and is, in fact, still under the same time frame... Mrs. Kennedy: Right, my... Mr. Plummer: ... then I can vote yes. Mrs. Kennedy: Madam City Attorney why can't it be? Mayor Suarez: There's no confusion as to that. Mrs. Dougherty: Well, if you're going to reconsider the entire item... Mr. Plummer: Well, see, I don't want to do that. Mrs. Dougherty: ... that means you could reverse it and, therefore, why would they have the... Mr. Plummer: Because we gave them 90 days to put in the wall. Mrs. Kennedy: Right. As the maker of... Mrs. Dougherty: And 30 days to get the building permit, so their.... Mayor Suarez: He doesn't want to change the timetable on the building of the wall by this motion to reconsider. How can we do that? Mrs. Kennedy: Right. As the maker of the motion, I can tell you exactly what was in there. Mayor Suarez: Right. Miriam Maer, Esq.: As to the wall, the dispute was whether it's on - as to the wall, I believe one of the areas was as to whether the wall is only on the west side or the west side and the southerly side. Mr. Plummer: No, it was only on the west side. 27 December 2, 1987 Mrs. Kennedy: Only on the west side. Ms. Maer: John - Mr. Fletcher represented that it was on the west... Mrs. Kennedy: No. Ms. Maer: ... and the southerly side. Mr. Plummer: No, never. Never. Mrs. Kennedy: No, only on the west side, that's what I stipulated. Mr. Plummer: In other words, Madam City Attorney, how do I vote for reconsideration but still leave the time frame in there as far as the wall is concerned? Is that possible? If not, then I'm changing my vote. Mrs. Dougherty: If you're asking for reconsideration of the entire item which means that when it comes back up, you can then reverse your appeal and then say that the class C permit is denied, then you have got a problem because they may have already built the wall. Mr. De Yurre: My reconsideration that I'm requesting only has to do with one specific item and that is the sale or not being able to sell fish or seafood at the flea market. That's my only issue. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Commissioner, I will be bringing up another area of discussion. I have been brought to my attention that the traffic pattern which we laid out the gates... Mr. De Yurre: It's not the same that they should have. Mr. Plummer: OK, but there is a safety problem involved and I was asked would I look at a plan that would accomplish the same, but eliminate the safety hazard and I said I would look at it so I might be looking back at that. Mr. De Yurre: OK. Mr. Plummer: It does not affect the wall. Mrs. Dougherty (Off mike): I don't know if there's any notice of requirement actually. What's going to happen if they decide to turn down the permit altogether? Mr. Plummer: Yes, Mr. Cardenas' is the lawyer for Flagler Dog Track. There was a motion made by Commissioner De Yurre earlier to reconsider the issue. INAUDIBLE COMMENTS. Mr. Plummer: Well, that's what we're arguing about right now. Mrs. Kennedy: But the whole issue, can't we just reconsider that part of the... Mr. Dawkins: Just one something in it that Commissioner De Yurre is dissatisfied with. I mean, unclear on, not dissatisfied, I'm sorry. Mr. Plummer: My concern now, just so you'll know for the record, we put you under a time frame for the wall, OK? And by reconsidering this on January 28th, the City Attorney is telling me that's when this time gun starts running and I'm saying, no, I'm not voting for that. The time frame started at the last hearing. Mr. Cardenas: Well, let me then on the record, as attorney for the Flagler Flea Market, for the record my name is Al Cardenas, make the following statement to make it more comfortable for you. I understand that there may be one or two items that the Commission wishes to revisit. As to those items, they're not going to be revisited such as the wall, we're perfectly willing to live under the previous schedule from a time perspective and are willing to waive the tolling of a time period if you're going to revisit a specific portion... 28 December 2, 1987 i Mr. Plummer: The question, Al, is, under the reconsideration, can we limit the reconsideration to the issue of the fish vending and the location of the gates as experienced by the Miami Police Department creating a problem? Mr. Cardenas: OK, let me... Mr. Plummer: Now, Madam City Attorney, can that be done? Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, what you're doing is you're saying to the applicant and the protestants that you are not going to reconsider whether or not you're going to deny or approve this application... Mr. Plummer: Correct. Mrs. Dougherty: ... for this appeal because you have already approved the appeal and the permit is issued so that's not something you're going to reconsider. You're only going to reconsider two conditions. Mr. Cardenas: Right, my understanding under... Mrs. Dougherty: So then the public notice can go out in that manner. Mr. Cardenas: Right, my understanding under section 2306 is that you have a continuing jurisdiction over conditions and safeguards that can be revisited at an appropriate time. Mrs. Kennedy: And for further clarification, Madam City Attorney, those two items are the sale of fish and which is the other one? Mr. Plummer: The other one is the safety traffic pattern. Mr. Cardenas: On 37th Avenue. Mayor Suarez: The gates. Mrs. Kennedy: OK. Mr. Plummer: The gates. Yes, they've created a hell of a problem. We thought they would work but they're not. Mrs. Dougherty: So those two items are the only items that you're going to reconsider. Mr. Cardenas: Right, the fish vendors issue and the gates on 37th Avenue, correct? Mr. Plummer: Correct. Well, Al, I'm not going to limit it to that. I'm going to say to the traffic congestion problem; that's broad. Mr. Cardenas: Well, the reason for it because it would affect the timetable because we're proceeding to build the wall which knocks off a gate on 38th Court. We've locked the gates on - we've started a procedure on 7th Street pursuant to your instructions. Mr. Plummer: That has no bearing on it. Mr. Cardenas: OK. Mr. Plummer: I'm saying to make it broad that it's the traffic congestion problem period. Mr. Cardenas: OK. Mr. Pierce: Traffic circuit. Mr. Plummer: Traffic circulation problem. Is it understood, on the record, that this is a reconsideration limited to the two items? If that is the understanding, then my vote continues to be yes. Mayor Suarez: It's understood by this Commission, but how about the City Attorney, are we OK, Madam City Attorney on that? 29 December 2, 1987 Mr. Dawkins: Is that OK with the maker of the motion? Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, it is. Mr. Plummer: You didn't make the motion. Mrs. Kennedy: I did, yes. Mr. Plummer: De Yurre. Mrs. Kennedy: Oh, this...... Mr. Plummer: For the reconsideration. Mrs. Kennedy: Oh, for the reconsideration. Mr. Dawkins: Commission De Yurre made the motion. Mayor Suarez: accepts it. appellant. record? The maker of the motion accepts it. The seconder of the motion The City Attorney is busy talking to the attorney for the We got problems. Do we need his statement of waiver on the Mr. Plummer: Whatever she says. Mayor Suarez: Why don't you give us your statement on the record then, counselor? Mr. Cardenas: For the record, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, you, if you will recall, by your actions last time, we now have received a three-year special permit with conditions and safeguards imposed by this Commission which are attached to it and as to which we're bound. Without proper cause, those conditions and safeguards, in my opinion, could not, otherwise be modified unless the cause is established which could modify the conditions and safeguards. However, nothing there me, on behalf of the permittee, I guess, from at this point in time stating that we're willing to waive those two portions of the permit or conditions that were granted to and open the jurisdiction as to the issues of the fish vendor and the traffic pattern. Mayor Suarez: And this is, in no way, affect the timetable on the building of the wall - erection of the wall and whatever else you were required to do. Mr. Cardenas: Well, that's what I was trying to get to with Commissioner Plummer, if your deliberations on the traffic issues get more complicated, it could well be. If don't change... Mayor Suarez: Well, they don't affect the west wall in any event, do they? Mr. Cardenas: I don't know, I mean there was a statement as to the review of the whole traffic pattern, that's why I was trying to be specific. Mayor Suarez: Well, it would never go back to any gates on, or entrances on N.W. 7th? Mr. Cardenas: If N.W. 38th Court and 7th Street were not applicable, then we would commit, of course, that there would be no time changes. Mayor Suarez: And nobody's thinking of wanting entrances and so on on 7th Street, are they? Mr. Plummer (Off mike): No, sir. Mayor Suarez: OK. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I received a call from the Miami Police Department who were experiencing a problem because of the gates being closed and they were complaining - not complaining, but saying that there was a circulation problem and they felt, that knowing what the intent of the Commission was, that they wanted to lay out a proposal that would accomplish the same thing, but make their life a lot easier in regards to the circulation. I said, as long as it met the intent of this Commission, I think this Commission would be willing to listen to any proposal that would, you know, make it a safer situation. 30 December 2, 1987 Mayor Suarez: What was the basic problem? All kinds of traffic and tie ups on 37th Avenue? Mr. Plummer: On 37th. Mr. Cardenas: It will be interesting also to see in the next week or two, people are now getting used to the fact that they have a different parking pattern also to get used to and that was the f irst week, but it could very well remain a problem, but I think it will be largely alleviated. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, for the record, I'm not saying that I would be approving some other plan that might be proffered, I'll look at it and this Commission will look at it. Mayor Suarez: But you're also the same one that is concerned about having no _ modifications of any of the other conditions and saying that you might not even vote for the reconsideration. Are you satisfied that if this traffic issue indicates that something should be done differently on the question of the wall that that... Mr. Plummer: On the wall? Mayor Suarez: Yes. Mr. Plummer: Not on the wall. No, the wall is definite. Mayor Suarez: The west wall would not be affected in any event by whatever traffic pattern is suggested and whatever changes in the exits are proposed? Mr. Plummer: No, sir, not for my vote. Mayor Suarez: I can't imagine how it would be in any way. It's a whole different problem that it's trying to resolve. Mr. Cardenas: Fine. Mayor Suarez: OK, so moved and seconded. Any discussion? Call the roll. This is really a motion that we voted on before but it's been modified. Mr. Plummer: It's a motion of clarification Ms. Hirai: I don't have a mover or a second, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Could we have a second, please? Mrs. Kennedy: Second. Mrs. Dougherty: And if I could, just for a minute, clarify this and may be have already been said, but if it wasn't for the fact that you wanted to hold their feet to the fire in the timetables, we were not excluded from reconsidering the entire application and all of the conditions. Mr. Plummer: You are excluded from that. Mrs. Dougherty: Because you want to hold their feet to the fire on all of the conditions. Mr. Plummer: All except the two that are up for possible reconsideration. Mrs. Dougherty: OK. All right. Mayor Suarez: Call the roll. Do we have a second, please? Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, second. 31 December 2, 1987 a 0 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 87-1068 _ A MOTION AMENDING PREVIOUSLY PASSED MOTION 87-1065 (REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF THE FLAGLER DOG — TRACK/FLEA MARKET ISSUE) AND SETTING THE DATE OF JANUARY 28, 1988 FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS ISSUE; FURTHER STIPULATING THAT SAID RECONSIDERATION WILL BE SPECIFICALLY LIMITED TO ONLY TWO ASPECTS OF THIS ISSUE: (1) PROHIBITION OF FISH VENDING; AND (2) TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AS IT RELATES TO CONGESTION IN THE AREA. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Mr. Plummer: Madam Clerk, would please get a transcript to the City Attorney prior to the next meeting of the Flagler Flea Market? Ms. Hirai: Yes, of course, sir. Mr. Plummer: Separate. I'm sorry. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11. AMEND COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2575 S.W. 27TH AVENUE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Suarez: PZ-9. Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-9 and 10 are companion items again. This is the second reading for the plan amendment of the zoning change —for the property located on 27th Avenue between 25th Terrace and 26th Street and you may remember that there were some concerns, the Mayor wanted to see a possibility of one way alley instead of a two way alley on S.W. 26th Street and then there was the location of the wall, whether it would be on the alley, which is public property, or - which is a public alley, excuse me, or would it be within the property line of the neighbor? Those two issue were up in the air. The wall on the alley leading from 26th Street, it's proffered in the covenant that you should have in your packets. The access on 27th Avenue to the Planning Department is possible and it is basically a design problem. There is 300 _ foot frontage on 27th Avenue and we feel that they may accommodate the concern that the Mayor has about the one way alley coming out of 26th Street. Mayor Suarez: How was that resolved or accommodated, to use your own term? Mr. Olmedillo: Excuse me, sir, I didn't understand. Mayor Suarez: How was the concern resolved of the one way traffic on that alley? Mr. Olmedillo: They could proffer voluntarily that is - they can proffer their traffic will be one way either in or out. Mayor Suarez: And the other exit or entrance would be on 37th? Mr. Olmedillo: On 27th Avenue proper. 32 December 2, 1987 Mr. Plummer: 27th. Mr. Olmedillo: Right. Mayor Suarez: And how do we guarantee on second reading that that would be the case that the traffic flow would, in fact, be that way and that we would not have the alley being used two ways? Mr. Olmedillo: I believe it's up the applicant to voluntarily proffer that he's going to have his traffic management do it that way. Mr. Plummer: Tom, I guess the ball's in your court. Mr. Thomas Dixon: I'd be more than happy to restrict the direction of traffic on a public alley but I don't believe I can do that. That's a public alley we're discussing. Oh, my name is Tom Dixon. I'm the owner and applicant. I'd be more than happy to do it; in fact, my suggestion was to put a one way sign... Mayor Suarez: Well, but you could put an arrow right where it goes to the alley and direct your traffic that way. Mr. Dixon: Yes, I'd be more than happy to do that. My understanding was that I, as an owner of property... Mayor Suarez: I don't mean on the alley, I mean on your property leading to the alley. You see that all over the place, you know, little signs that tell you, don't go in this way and don't go in the other way. Mr. Plummer: No, there's another way you can do it. The same way we did it on the shopping center on 27th Avenue. You put the grates in the floor, if they go against traffic... Mayor Suarez: With the angle. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Dixon: That'll stop it, yes. Mr. Plummer: If they go against the grates, goodbye tires. Mayor Suarez: That's right. Mr. Plummer: If they go the other way, the grates lay down. Mayor Suarez: See, that's what happens when you get cute here with us and you tell us you can't do that, we come up with... Mr. Dixon: No, no... Mayor Suarez: ... I thought of the arrow, a simple arrow right on your property and thought of the grates that... Mr. Plummer: Well, the problem with the arrow is there's no way to enforce it. The grates in the street, they automatically enforce it. Mr. Dixon: But, I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting. The public alley that's there existing would be the access alley to the property. I had suggested that we put a sign that says, right turn only which would limit the direction of traffic. I didn't know that I would restrict the direction of traffic on a public street and I didn't realize it was discussed. Mr. Plummer: Yes, well you can do it either way. Sure you can. Mayor Suarez: You don't, you do it from your own property is what we're saying. Mr. George Campbell: Whether they're going... Mr. Dixon: But I front along the alley. I don't know how I could tell cars that are backing out or driving into the alley that they... 33 December 2, 1987 Mayor Suarez: Oh, there's no other obstruction there? Mr. Dixon: No, it's like having property that fronts on a public street and saying that you were telling the public street it can only go in one direction. Mayor Suarez: How are you going to limit the boundaries of your property in that alley, anyhow? Are you going to have some kind of a... Mr. Dixon: By covenant, I've agreed to put up a wall that limits one side and by ordinance, or by law, I have to put a wall around the rest of it. Mayor Suarez: So, you're going to have a wall? Mr. Dixon: Exactly. Mayor Suarez: Except for a little entrance or exit there... Mr. Dixon: Exactly, what I'm doing... Mayor Suarez:. ... into the alley. So people are not going to be able to back up through that wall, I don't know what you mean. Mr. George Campbell: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Mayor Suarez: George. _ Mr. Campbell: George Campbell representing the Department of Public Works, what Mr. Dixon is saying is that that being a public alley, he, himself, cannot put any restrictive signs or devices there. However, on review, when he does come up with the traffic management plan, then we, the department, can contact Dade County and, assuming that it's exit only through the alley, then we could have them put up Do Not Enter signs or No Outlet or however they word it so that the traffic would not legally be able to go in there. If, on the other hand, you enter from that and then exit onto 27th Avenue, that could be taken care of on his property so that one way or another, by design, this can be accommodated so that there is not a lot of traffic both ways going through there. Mayor Suarez: It wouldn't make any sense for us to argue whether you could do _ it either way from your property because I think we'd be at it forever. As long as it can be done with the cooperation of the county, I'm satisfied. Anything else on this item? We passed it on first reading, I guess unanimously, those who were here. Mrs. Kennedy: I'll move that we approve it. Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Mr. Plummer: With the covenants as proffered. Mayor Suarez: Yes, please. Including the layout such that the traffic pattern has only one way flow on the alley we dont' get people. Mr. Olmedillo: Was it started whether it was entrance egress? Mayor Suarez: No, I guess George was is suggesting it's better to work that out with the county. Mr. Olmedillo: OK. Mrs. Dougherty: Now? (AT THIS POINT, THE CITY ATTORNEY BEGAN TO READ THE ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD BY TITLE ONLY) Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: Yes. 34 December 2, 1987 • Mr. Plummer: I think prior you should ask if any member of the public wish to speak. Mayor Suarez: Is there anyone here on item PZ-9 that wishes to be heard for or against, please? Mr. Lorenzo Rao: My name is Lorenzo Rao, 2559 S.W. 26th Street. I have to get together with all of the neighbors, you know. Everybody in the block is against the exit or entrance on 26th Street due to the fact that there is a school very close to that place and all the children in the morning, you know, they go walk to the school by themselves so that's nobody that care for those children. So as soon as those trucks because it's going .... to be a business residential construction - start going in and out and whatever, we are positive that there is going to be an accident. I got signatures and addresses and telephone numbers of all the neighbors, that they don't agree with that exit and entrance on 26th Street, but on 27th Avenue they say it's all right. Mayor Suarez: Does it matter to you and the other signatories that the alley will only be used one-way as, opposed to two-way? Does that help at all? Mr. Bravo: We thought that one entrance in one side and one exit, but all the neighbors, they don't agree with anything in there. They don't like any traffic because it's a residential area. Mayor Suarez: On 26th Street? Mr. Bravo: On 26th Street. That's completely residential. On the other side it's commercial, which is the correct thing. That's what we think, you know, everybody going in and out on that 27th Avenue. Mayor Suarez: What was the answer to that the last time we went through all of this? Why not have both entrance and exit on 27th? Mr. Plummer: (OFF MICROPHONE) It physically couldn't be done. Mr. Olmedillo: We consider it a matter of design. There's a 300 foot frontage on 27th Street. We feel that it can be accommodated. The applicant ® feels that it cannot be accommodated. Mayor Suarez: And what about the other question, then, that you asked, and I sort of glossed over because I didn't see that it made any sense, but I guess maybe it does. Is it better to take care of their concerns that we have an entrance on 26th, or an exit on 26th? Mr. Olmedillo: An exit for an office building will be a massive exit at 5:00 p.m. You have peaks. Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. Olmedillo: An entrance, you may have people come in... Mayor Suarez: At all times of the day. Mr. Olmedillo: ...over a longer period of time, so in an office use, that makes sense. On a residential use you may have a peak coming in after five. You have a longer peak, also. If it's a mixed use building, which is what they are proposing to do, I'm going to have to defer to George, Public Works, and guide you on that one. Mayor Suarez: Well, if the concern is kids, is it not always better to have an entrance on the area that you have kids, as opposed to an exit, because at least the cars have to slow down? Mr. Campbell: Well, yes, in this case, for instance, the gentleman the neighbors are concerned about - the Silver Bluff, is it, elementary school? Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. Campbell: And I am sure that what they're concerned about is vehicles coming out from the development and then turning left - coming out from the alley, that is - and turning left on 26th Street to head over in that 35 December 2, 1987 direction. We could preclude that by having the alley as a one-way northbound, that is, enter from 26th Street on to the property and that way, as far as truck traffic goes, obviously the majority of the truck traffic would be on 27th Avenue. Mayor Suarez: Do we have any way to control so that all truck traffic - ? I guess, then, we'd have to allow 27th Avenue to be both an entrance and an exit. Mr. Campbell: The 27th Avenue, per se, that is from the property on 27th Avenue itself could be two-way. There's no restriction on that. They could, for instance, I'm sure that their loading area and so on will be at the rear of the building. Probably the easiest way - and since that, by the way, would be in - and the entry would probably be mid -block, the best way for any service vehicles to come in would be, either northbound or southbound, to come to 26th Street and turn in 26th Street, in the alley, on to the property. That way there would be no running around through the adjacent streets, for instance, to get to an entry only on 27th Avenue. Mr. Dawkins: Is there any way, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Dixon explain what he's going to do with the blue piece and with the gold piece for Commissioner De Yurre so that at a later date if there's any questions at least he knows what he voted on when he was not here. I got caught in things like this and I would just ask for you to explain to him what you're doing, please. Mayor Suarez: , Throw in if you're willing to covenant or agree, whatever way we can enforce it, that there would be no truck traffic on 26th Street and that there would only be automobile entrance from 26th Street to help the situation with the school. Mr. Dixon: So that everyone understands, this piece of property right here that's blue is the area that's going to be developed with a mixed use commercial building. The distance from here to here is 150 feet. It is not 300 feet. This area that's in gold is by restrictive covenant, which you have in front of you, only to be used for surface level parking of passenger vehicles. This, right here, is an existing public alley. The plan is to build the mixed use building right here with having an entrance and exit at this point and having access for service to the commercial areas through this alley. It was my suggestion to the neighbors, because of their concern with the school, that a "Flight Turn Only" sign be place here, which I am more than happy to pay for and do. However, I was advised that I can't do that as a private citizen. I have to request it of Dade County. I am more than happy to request it, and pay for it, but the confusion comes up of the question of one-way in or one-way out, and if, in fact, you restrict the directional flow of this little alley coming in here, you may create more problems than you solve. For example, if you say that it can only be an entrance, then, in fact, what happens is people are going to only enter in here. Theoretically, they are going to exit out this way from here, but there may be circumstances, because the building is here, that people are going to try to enter and miss it, and then they have to come all the way around through this neighborhood. Mr. Plummer: But let me tell you where there's a big difference. Their concern is the kids walking on the sidewalk. If a guy is pulling into the alley, he can see the sidewalk. If he's pulling out of the alley, the kids he might not see, especially with a wall going to be constructed there. There's no question in my mind... Unidentified Speaker: (OFF MICROPHONE) The wall's going to be here. Mr. Plummer: OK, fine, but I'm saying that you've got a better chance of seeing the kids on the sidewalk if you're pulling in rather than if you're pulling out. Mayor Suarez: Also, when you're coming in, you're decelerating; when you're pulling out, you're accelerating. Mrs. Kennedy: How tall is the wall? Mr. Dixon: By code, it has to be six foot. Mr. Pierces No, no, no, no, wait, wait. By code, it has to be six feet, except within what's called the "clear vision triangle." Then it has to drop 36 December 2, 1987 down to a maximum of two and a half or three feet in height, which is well below the eye level of even a person in one of the smallest automobiles on the road today. Mr. Dixon: Commissioners, I have no objection to your decision that traffic should flow in only, or out only, of the alley. I think, personally, that a "Right Turn Only" sign here, which limits people from going down towards the school, might accomplish a better purpose. Mr. Plummer: Why not both? Mr. Campbell: He could do both. Mr. Dixon: I have no objection, either way. Mr. Plummer: Well, if you're going to use it as an ingress, you don't need the right turn. Mr. Dixon: That's true. If you use it as an exit only, then you'd want to have a right turn here. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but I still believe, for the safety of the kids, a car on the street has better vision 'of that sidewalk than a car exiting from there who would not see it. Mr. Dixon: Of course, the other problem is that if this is an exit only, you may have a serious problem with people who generally expect to enter a building from the front colliding with people who can only use this as an exit, but this is something that Public Works might be able to advise you on. It's just do you have exits from the entrances of buildings? Mr. De Yurre: Can't you have the entrance and exit on 27th Avenue. Mr. Dixon: Yes, you can. In fact, the plan is to have an entrance and exit off 27th Avenue. This is really not a major entrance, this is an auxiliary access point. Mr. De Yurre: Well, if we have a problem with the kids, can't we just wall in along with the parking lot? You just don't use the alley. Mr. Dixon: I don't believe, as a private citizen, I can just wall in the alley. Mr. De Yurre: I'm talking about the County, or whoever is in charge of that. Mr. Dixon: Plus the problem comes up that you've limited... Mr. De Yurre: How far does that alley go? It's going to go to your property line. Mr. Dixon: It's 85 feet long. It's 20 feet wide. One of the other problems is, of course, that you are then going to have a facility that is only going to have one entrance and exit from this point, which may create a safety problem of access for vehicles back here. Mr. Plummer: How about if you don't use the alley? How much would that hurt your project? Mr. Dixon: You can't effectively build it because you can't... The problem is, as I pointed out to the Commission before, this is only 75 feet wide, so if a truck comes in here, a garbage truck to pick up garbage behind the building, because you don't want the trash in front, he has a devil of a time executing a turn. He's got to back and turn and work his way around to come down here to service this area. Fire trucks can't get in there to service the area. You're going to have a problem with those types of vehicles, and you're going to have a problem — delivery trucks are going to have to park out here, because a delivery truck really can't get in and turn and come out of here. I mean, that's the purpose of an alley. Mr. Plummer: The question, again, if the alley was eliminated, would it create a problem for the project? 37 December 2, 1967 Mr. Dixon: Yes. Mr. Plummer: Why? Mr. Dixon: Because if the alley was eliminated, we would need a secondary means of access to leave the property or enter the property, and what we'd do is we'd put a driveway right here. To be honest with you, you need two ways to get in and out because the shape of this lot is such that you can't get in and turn around. I mean, that's the practical matter of it. This lot is only 75 feet wide. Trucks can't turn around in there. If I went to the City and tried to get a permit to have only one ingress and egress, they'd say: how are the fire trucks going to get in there and out? And they'd say: you'd have to have a driveway, and so if you close the alley - I'm not trying to be smart - you'd need a driveway. Mr. De Yurre: Where would you put the trash that you'd have the problem with the truck? Would you put it all the way back? Mr. Dixon: This area, here, is where the trash would be that would serve... this is the area here. The building's only going to be built here. This is all going to be parking. The building's going to be built here. The trash facilities are designed to be inside the building on the first floor in the middle, right here. So the trash trucks would either enter or exit in here. They would pick it up and then go on out this way. That's the plan. Mr. De Yurre: The thing is that you look at buildings, and what if you didn't have that alley, what would you do, you wouldn't have bought the property? I think that there are solutions... Mr. Dixon: No, I would have a driveway. That's what you do, you have a building with a driveway next to it, just like we're putting a driveway here. Mr. De Yurre: Well, can't you have a two-way driveway on that side, and that takes care of the problem? Mr. Dixon: The problem is that if you have a two-way driveway right here, then, in fact, the trucks that come in here and back down behind the building. It's very difficult to negotiate a hundred feet backing up along this driveway, right here. It creates a real problem for the design and the flow of the building because this lot is not very wide, anyway, to begin with. Mr. De Yurre: How wide is it? Mr. Dixon: It's about 75 feet wide, so it's not a very wide lot to begin with, and by the time you take the setbacks this way, and the setbacks this way, the building is only 50 feet wide through here. Mr. Campbell: May I offer a few more comments? This might be an easier way to show it. Let me go back to 27th Avenue. There's a median in 27th Avenue, here. I believe there's an opening through the median on 26th Street here. What I was saying before was that service vehicles approaching the property, here, if they are coming southbound, can turn in 26th Street and up into the property. Similarly, northbound service vehicles, whether they be refuse collection trucks or delivery trucks, or whatever, can turn into 26th Street and come in. Now, as Mr. Dixon has indicated, the building would be located in here and I assume it would be set back somewhat from this line from his description. The negotiating of this turn, coming north and in, could be worked out as far as the turning radius for a garbage truck, and so on, which is not too sharp, but it's good enough. Parenthetically, let me say, where I live, they back up and turn around more or less within the street all the time, so that to come up here and possibly back up a little bit and then go out would be no great problem for them. As to emergency vehicles, and fire trucks particularly, that is a difficult problem, no matter where you are. Depending on the size, the makeup of the fire truck, if there were a problem In the building, they would be in 27th Avenue, they'd be in 26th Street. If they can get in here, they'll be in on the property and then, certainly for an emergency vehicle, they could back out into the street because they usually have firemen all around the place, stopping traffic so that there is enough room for the vehicle to maneuver. As to a two-way entry on 27th Avenue, in addition to the one-way alleyway here, that would be feasible. Certainly traffic approaching from the south would have an easy shot in here. Other traffic coming from the north and coming south would, no doubt, particularly 38 December 2, 1987 1 _ for single vehicles, regular passenger vehicles, would no doubt make a U-turn. They do it all the time, anyway. Probably you've all noticed. They could enter and exit at the northerly end of the property, get to the parking area in the back here, and I think that it could be worked out in that manner without adversely affecting either the building or the traffic pattern in the area. Certainly, as Mr. Dixon mentioned, a sign at this point, let's say, _ that says: "No Right Turn," would be observed more in the breach than in the _ honoring, because unless you have a policeman sitting there ticketing people who make the wrong turn coming out of the alley, it's not going to work. If they want to turn left, they will. If this is one way in, that's all she wrote, you can't get there from here. Did I answer your question, Mr. De Yurre? Mr. De Yurre: More or less. Mr. Plummer: Do the objectors have anything else to say? Mayor Suarez: Anything else? We've entered into the record all the petitions and, as you can see, we're doing the best we can to deal with the traffic situation, in and out, to ensure the safety of the children. Go ahead. Mr. Bravo: If it can be used, the alley, only for emergency vehicles... Mayor Suarez: Emergency? Mr. Bravo: ...emergency vehicles only, that would be some guarantee that nobody's going to get in because if they put a "No Right Turn" or "Right Turn Only," that's an unpatroled area and many people are not going to obey the law and we have to keep calling a police officer every five minutes, and actually there is a lot of traffic in that area, so if we put any... Mayor Suarez: Well, we're thinking of going ingress only so that the people would have to be slowing down and no one would be able to come out quickly from that alley. That's the best we can do, to say "Emergency Vehicles Only." Mr. Bravo: Beside that, if they put a lower wall... Mayor Suarez: It will have to be. Mr. Bravo: ...the lights are going to bother the neighbors in that house when they... Mayor Suarez: The lower wall is only right close to the intersection, right? Mr. Plummer: Close to the sidewalk. Mr. Pierce: Right close to the property line, as it approaches the property line. Then it can go back up to six feet, some distance in. I forget the exact number. It's 10 feet back, I'm told. Mr. Bravo: If it is 10 feet, the lights are going to go to the Leon house, which is the one closest to the alley, so it doesn't solve the problem of the lights going in and out during the... There are going to be 30 apartments, plus a commercial, and then business office, which will triplicate the actual traffic in that area. And, actually, there is a glut of traffic in the school. Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor, if I may try and put this in focus for a second. The property is already zoned commercial. The landowner has the right at this point to already build on that property and build more than what he is requesting. And I believe that because an alley intervenes between the commercially zoned and residentially zoned property, there's no requirement for a wall at all, if he builds on that commercial site under the existing zoning and conditions. He's proffering these things as a covenant. Believe me, staff, we weren't happy with his application when it first came in, either. This is the end of a long road. Mayor Suarez: We're taking advantage of the fact that he needs that property for parking back there. Mr. Pierces Yes and no. 39 December 2, 1987 s Mayor Suarez: And that's a long strip that cannot otherwise be developed, land locked. Mr. Pierce: Yes, but he does need it for parking. Let's be clear. He could build on 27th Avenue frontage. It may make it a better project, from his perspective as an investor and developer, to include that for parking, but he doesn't need it. He's not required to have it. Commissioner De Yurre asked a question about the alley, whether or not the alley can be closed. If the property owner, the applicant here, and the adjoining property owner of that residential lot east of the alley, both join in an application, that's the only way it can be closed. _ Mr. Plummer: Don't I recall that the reason the wall was proffered because the man on the right was worried about his kitty cat? Mr. Pierce: Well, he already has a fence built into the alley, for one thing. Mr. Plummer: That's right, and that's why he was more upset. Mr. Dixon: (OFF MICROPHONE) He only took a little bit of the city property! Mayor Suarez: Anything else? Mr. Bravo: I am positive that if they want to close the alley that Leon will agree with that, which is the neighbor. Mayor Suarez: You need owners from both sides. Mr. Bravo: Right, on both sides. Mayor Suarez: And I think one side is the applicant, and he's certainly not offering that at this point. Mr. Dixon: I'd be more than happy if you'd restrict it so that the traffic on the alley is one way in. I've got no objection to that. Mayor Suarez: I'm happy you don't, because that's the only way I'll vote for it. Mrs. Kennedy: I get the feeling that's what we're going to be doing, I guess. Mr. Dixon: That's fine. If it was in my prerogative to do that. It's a function of government... Mayor Suarez: We'll figure... Mr. Dixon: ...to say that traffic can only move one way or in a public alley. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I will move the item 9 with the condition that the _ alley be used only for ingress to the parking lot, with the proper safeguards guaranteeing that, and I'll leave it to the department to build in on the owner's property the safeguards. Mrs. Kennedy: And I will second that motion. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Commissioner. Mr. De Yurre: On this alley, which is a public alley, what would happen to individuals that back in and out? I'm saying, what control are we going to have over that. Could we possibly put in, or require, even though it's a public alley to put one of those electric arms that... Mr. Plummer: They don't work, Victor. They don't work. The only one I know that works is the grate in the ground. Let me tell you something. It works. Because if they go to go out that alley, they've just lost at least two tires, if not four. As you pull in, the grate lays down and there's no question about that. They don't break, they don't have anything... Mrs. Dougherty: This is a public... Mr. Plummer: No, he's going to put it on his property. 40 December 2, 1987 Mrs. Dougherty: Where? Mr. Plummer: At the entrance to the alley. Mayor Suarez: He told us before that he had a problem because people would back into the alley, and there's no way to prevent that, but I don't understand why he's saying that because there's going to be a wall there, Tom. Mr. Dixon: (OFF MICROPHONE) The wall is going to be located. Mr. Plummer:....along that property line. Mr. Dixon: (OFF MICROPHONE) This white area is the alley. What you're asking me to do is to put a barrier across the... Mr. Plummer: No, no, no, I'm not. Go back up to the yellow. Mayor Suarez: No, no, no. Mr. Plummer: You're going to put that barrier right there. Mr. Dixon: (OFF MICROPHONE) A restrictive barrier right here. Mr. Plummer: The grate in the ground. Mayor Suarez: Right, right, right. Mr. Dixon: (OFF MICROPHONE) The problem is, if you do that, then the trucks that need to maneuver, for example for trash.... Mr. Plummer: They're not going to have room to maneuver, there. Mr. Dixon: The building, right now, is designed to have a dumpster inside the building on the first floor, right here. Mr. Plummer: Right. Mr. Dixon: If there's a grate here that says you can only go in this direction... Mr. Plummer: That's right. Mr. Dixon: ...then this garbage truck, if he comes in here and tries to back up, he may go across that grate. Mr. Plummer: No, no, no. He backs up the other way. Remember all of the dumpsters are on wheels. He can pull it out to wherever he needs it. Mr. Dixon: Commissioners, I would ask you not to create such a restriction in a barrier there, that's going to be just a nightmare to try to service this commercial part on the first floor in the rear of this, because I can just see the problem if you try to service any of the commercial in here with the barrier across there. Mr. Plummer: Let me tell you why I disagree with you, Tom. There's nothing to say that they can't service that commercial area from the alley. In other words, they don't have to pull through and pull all the way through. They can stop in the alley and do whatever they need to do because they're going to be blocking ingress into your property, and it's going to be your people who are going to ask them to move. Look, the man has raised a safety question about kids. I agree with him. The only thing we're telling you is that you're not going to use the alley to egress the property, and we want guarantees that that is going to happen. I've sat here for 18 years. I've seen those arms be placed down where trucks drive through them. I've seen where the electricity doesn't work. I've seen where the gate stays open and will never go down. It just doesn't work. Unidentified Speaker: (OFF MICROPHONE - INAUDIBLE) Mr. Plummer: There was the one on Velauto Tire over there. You got one helluva lawsuit where the gate came down and they were going to talk about suing the City because we made him put it there. The grate works. 41 December 2, 1987 J —` Mr. Dixon: Commissioner, please understand. We're really not dealing with this piece of property. We're dealing with the property that's in gold. The property in blue is currently zoned commercial. Mr. Plummer: No question about it. Mr. Dixon: I've tried to work with the neighbors as best I can. This issue about ingress and egress has really come up at the last moment. As to the safety of the children, I'm not objecting to the safety of the children. My concern is that I've built a wall. You're asking me to restrict access to this public alley... Mr. Plummer: Wait, wait, got your answer. No, I was going to say put it half way in the alley, but you can't do that. Mr. Dixon: There are certain things I can't do in a public alley. I'm more than happy to try to accommodate for the safety of the children in the area, - but creating a tire -punching barrier, I think, is going to create real problems for servicing the back of this building. Mayor Suarez: I don't see how, Tom. Maybe you've convinced him, but those things are no longer than a foot and a half or so, and if you need that extra foot and a half, then... Mr. Dixon: No, no, I'm saying, backing up. If the truck comes in and tries to back up to deliver goods... Mayor Suarez: Not too smart, if he does it right over those tire -punching... Mr. Dixon: Well, how do they come in there and do that? Mayor Suarez: You build enough space into your project so the trucks have plenty of room to maneuver. Mr. Dixon: Maybe I'm confused about these tire -punching devices. Mayor Suarez: If the tire -punching things are there facing one direction, that's the direction that any vehicle should be coming in, period. No one should make any mistake. They're fairly obvious. You can put all the signs you want telling them not to do it, should not be backing into it, or coming into it, at least, unless I'm missing something. Mr. Dixon: Commissioners, I came here in June. I came here in July. I came here in August. I came here in September. I came here in October and I came here in November, and here I am in December, and I have made every change suggested by the Legal Department, by the Commissioners... Mayor Suarez: So did we. Mr. Dixon: I know, I'm sorry you were here too. I'm just joking. Mayor Suarez: Others are sorry we were here, tool Mr. Plummer: You're sorry that we were here! I move to deny! Mayor Suarez: Thirty-seven point six percent are sorry I'm here! Mr. Plummer: Only 35% of mine. Mr. Dixon: I'm asking you not... I've made all the changes. I've tried to comply with every request, and here's one coming at me that is totally new, that I'm more than happy to try to structure it within the covenant. I'm on - my second reading. It was passed unanimously two months ago at the prior two hearings. Mayor Suarez: I did say that I was worried about making it a two-way alley, and I don't think an alley is ever meant to be two-way, to tell you the truth. I don't know what alleys are supposed to be doing, but they're not supposed to be two-way traffic streets, and the concern of these kids is certainly an _ important one to me, so I don't really care how you structure it as long as it's one way, going in, ingress. And we'll work with the County. 42 December 2, 1987 Mr. Dixon: Could you ask the Public Works Department so that we work something that's comfortable? Mayor Suarez: Yes, absolutely. I intend to leave it up to them. Mr. Plummer: I said the proper device; I gave the latitude. Mayor Suarez: I don't particularly want necessarily the tire -punchers, or anything. Whatever way they come up with. Mr. Plummer: I only know one thing that works, but if they come up with something else that guarantees it. Mayor Suarez: Do we have that in the form of a motion? Mr. Plummer: I so moved. Mayor Suarez: And a second? Mrs. Kennedy: Yes. Mrs. Hirai: Yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: Last statement. Mr. Bravo: I mentioned that building last night. There are 180 feet front and there is another building in front. It's a modern building, and it has exit and entrance in the same places. There is no question at all that it can be done that way, and there is plenty of room in the back for the fire engines to go in and out, so I see no reason that the alley has to be functional. If the alley starts working - actually it's not working because there are some trees in there. If the alley starts working, the heavy traffic is going to be more and more... Mayor Suarez: I'll tell you this. If I was starting on this now and this was first reading, I would say that. I would say do your project any way you want but both entrance and exit have got to be on 27th Avenue. That would do it. At this point with that alley being so close to 27th Avenue, when people are only able to ingress through there, that's the closest we can come, but I think you're right. It's just that at some point we have to make a determination up here, so, for myself, if I have at least that safeguard, I'll vote with it, but I think if I could revisit visited the whole thing, I would have just said entrance and exit on 27th Avenue, and to heck with it. I'm not convinced at all that it couldn't be done that way. In fact, I'm convinced it could be, as you're saying. Mr. Plummer: I think you have a motion and a second. Mayor Suarez: Anything further? We have a motion and a second. Any discussion from the Commission? Read the ordinance. Call the roll. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: At this point, the City Attorney, due to an oversight, reads into the public record, by title only, the ordinance pertaining to agenda item PZ-10, and she so recognizes her error publicly. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND ADDENDA (SEPTEMBER 1985); FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2575 SOUTHWEST 27TH AVENUE (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) BY CHANGING DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL USE; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of October 22nd, 1987, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: 43 December 2, 1987 • �J AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10351. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 12. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMENDING 9500 BY CHANGING ZONING OF 2575 SW 27TH AVENUE FROM RS-2/2 TO CR-2/7. Mayor Suarez: PZ-10. Mr. Plummer: Move 10. Mayor Suarez: Moved. It's a companion item, no? Mr. Plummer: It's companion. Mrs. Kennedy: Second. Mayor Suarez: Zoning atlas. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Read the ordinance. You read it already. Call the roll. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: The City Attorney stated in the public record that ordinance PZ-10 had been read previously, during the passage of PZ-9. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2575 SOUTHWEST 27TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RS- 2/2 ONE -FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL TO CR-2/7 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (COMMUNITY) BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 43 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. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of October 22nd, 1987, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10352. 44 December 2, 1987 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. Dixon: Thank you very much, Commissioners. 13. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING ZONING OF 1025 NW 19TH AVENUE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MODERATE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Suarez: PZ-11. Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-11 and 12, again, are companion items and this is the second reading for plan amendment and zoning change from RS-2/2 to RG-2/4. The City Commission approved the RG-1/3 with the motion made by Mr. Plummer. The applicant accepted that modification to his application. Mayor Suarez: Do we have anyone here that wishes to be heard on item PZ-11, as an objector, presumably? Mr. Olmedillo: He's the applicant. Mayor Suarez: We have an applicant. Do we have any objectors? Mr. Plummer: I move item 11. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Mr. Plummer: As modified. Mayor Suarez: This is a second reading and it was unanimous on first reading. We have the modification that was proposed. Mrs. Kennedy: Second. Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Any discussion? Read the ordinance. Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND ADDENDA (SEPTEMBER 1985); FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1025 NORTHWEST 19TH AVENUE (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) BY CHANGING DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MODERATE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of October 22, 1987, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10353. 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. 45 December 2, 1987 14. SECOND READING ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 9500 BY CHANGING ZONING OF 1025 NW 19TH AVENUE FROM RS-2/2 TO RS-1/3. Mr. Plummer: Move 12. Mrs. Kennedy: Second 12. Read the ordinance. Mayor Suarez: AN ORDINANCE - Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI , FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1025 NORTHWEST 19TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RS- 2/2 ONE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL TO RG-1/3 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL (ONE AND TWO FAMILY) BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 25 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. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of October 22, 1987, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10354. 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. 15. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING (ESCLOFER REQUEST TO CHANGE PLAN DESIGNATION AT 2600 NW 14TH STREET.) Mayor Suarez: PZ-13. Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-13 and 14, again, companion items. This is the property located on 2600 Northwest 14th Street. You may remember this was before you a couple of months ago and it was sent back to first reading again because of the number of property owners, neighbors that we had at the hearing. The issues that the Planning Department is raising is that the east and west... Been called for time. Mrs. Dougherty: Just want to make a notation on PZ-11 which was your old PZ- 6. It was changed from low density residential to moderate low density residential. 46 December 2, 1907 Mr. Olmedillo: Again, to pick up. This is located on Northwest 14th Street just off 27th Avenue. The concerns of the Planning Department were the fact that the homes, both east and west of this particular property are in very good condition and they are resisting change. The Planning Advisory Board recommended denial in a 6-3 vote. The Zoning Board recommended denial on an 8-1 vote. What they are trying to do is change the zoning from RG-1/3, which is a duplex zoning to an RG-2/5, which is a multifamily zoning. And, likewise, with the plan amendment, to change the designation of the land use. Mr. Plummer: Explain your comment that the single family homes to the east and to the west are well maintained. Tell me where the homes are to the east. Mayor Suarez: Madam City Clerk. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, are you speaking about the parcel in red? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, I am. This is the applicant. Mr. Plummer: Yes, I understand. Mr. Olmedillo: As you move east, then you have properties which are in very good shape, except for one house which is very dilapidated. Mr. Plummer: And you also have one to the east which is, in fact, multifamily. Mr. Olmedillo: No, there is a duplex in the corner. Mr. Plummer: No, sir. There is one there that is presently multifamily, more than a duplex, to the east. Mr. Olmedillo: When you move south there is a multifamily. Mr. Plummer: To the east. Mr. Olmedillo: No, sir. Not when we looked at it. I don't know if it came up in the last two months, but this is a duplex, here. Mr. Plummer: That's correct. Mr. Olmedillo: As you move south, yes, this is a multifamily district. Mr. Plummer: And it backs up to Tanglewood. Mr. Olmedillo: Right. As you move east, that property is also multifamily, and that was changed about a year ago. Mr. Plummer: That's the point I'm making. Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct. And it was represented to us when I met with one of the applicants that they had done this particular project and they wanted to repeat the same project in this subject lot, today. Mr. Plummer: That's understood. Mr. Olmedillo: As I said before, the recommendation of the Planning Department is for denial. Mr. Plummer: Who's the applicant? Is the applicant here? Is the applicant on PZ-13 here? Somebody had better say it in Spanish. Mr. Pierce: Esclofer Miguel and Olga A. Laza. Mr. Plummer: Is the applicant present? Mr. Olmedillo: (in Spanish) Is the applicant present? Mr. Plummer: How many people are here in opposition? Mayor Suarez: One side certainly got the notice. We specified. We did switch around a lot on the date. 47 December 2, 1987 • • Mr. Plummer: Was the applicant here at the last meeting? Mayor Suarez: Yes. Mr. Plummer: They were here. Mayor Suarez: Yes. Mr. Plummer: So they are aware that it was continued over to today. Mayor Suarez: We had said - some members of the Commission had said that they wanted to see the site, and I can't speak for the rest of the members of the Commission, but I know I have not. Mr. Plummer: For the record, the applicant's not here. There's no way that we can consider this item without the applicant being present. It gives us one of two choices: either to continue or to deny. Mayor Suarez: You got itl ' Mr. Plummer: So, what is the pleasure of the Commission? I don't hear anybody speaking. Mr. Mayor, I have a long-standing policy that every applicant should have his day in court, and there's no way that we can hear one side without hearing the other. I'll move that this matter be continued to January. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Do we have a second? Mr. Ramon Guevara: We have a petition here of people residing in the neighborhood. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, the only thing he can actually speak to is the motion on the floor. The motion on the floor is to continue. Now, if that fails, then he can speak to anything he wants. Mayor Suarez: But he is here pursuant to notice and if he wants to insert something into the record, he's certainly entitled to do that. Mr. Plummer: After the motion on the floor... Mayor Suarez: Except the motion hasn't even been seconded. Mr. Plummer: ...which is for continuance, is either accepted, approved or denied. Then he can speak, no problem. There is no second, so... Mayor Suarez: Except the motion hasn't been seconded. Do you want to enter something into the record here? Mr. Guevara: Yes, sir, we have a petition here of 42 individuals that reside in this neighborhood, that have signed this petition against this proposal. In addition, the one I want to submit to Mr. Mayor, indicates red asterisks the property owners in this neighborhood, which are nine of them, nine property owners within the 375 feet designated by the City of Miami, and 43 adults that have signed this petition. We'd like to enter this if possible. Mayor Suarez: And let me tell you, it certainly looks good for your side because the other side's not even here and, at best, they're going to get a continuance. Mr. Plummer: That just failed. Mr. Guevara: (OFF MICROPHONE) This is our third time already here, and we figured if we were aware of it and we've made every single trip out here... Mayor Suarez: Sure, the only thing that I can conclude is that there was some confusion. There was two or three different dates discussed the day that we continued this and, if you remember, we discussed the 1st, the 30th, the 2nd, the 3rd. Mr. Guevara: (OFF MICROPHONE) But it was clearly stated... Mr. Plummer: No question, sir. No question that it was clear. 48 December 2, 1987 Mayor Suarez: We don't quarrel with you. We agree with you on that. Mr. Plummer: And we're making it clear, sir. There's no disputing your point. I'm not disputing your point. Mayor Suarez: He's in agreement with you on that point. Mr. Guevara: I understand. Mr. Plummer: We're in accord on that area. Mayor Suarez: We have a motion that has not been seconded. What happens if no motion passed, Madam City Attorney? I always forget. Mrs. Dougherty: If no motion passes to deny it? Mayor Suarez: If no motion passes, period. What happens then. Mrs. Dougherty: Then it is automatically continued. It will be on your next agenda. Mr. Dawkins: Run that by me again. Say what now? Mrs. Dougherty: If you make a motion to deny and it doesn't pass, and you make a motion... Mr. Plummer: Oh, well that hasn't happened. Mrs. Dougherty: OK. Mr. Dawkins: No, but if no motion is made, what? Mrs. Dougherty: If no motion at all is made, this thing will automatically show back up on your agenda, because you have to pass legislation. Mr. Plummer: In other words, you can't get off the hook. You have got to fish or cut bait, one or the two. Mayor Suarez: I'll second the motion to continue. Mr. Dawkins: If the recommendation is to deny, and no motion is made, it is denied. I mean... Mr. Plummer: If it gets three votes. Mr. Dawkins: You have got to get no votes! If it is here and it says the department recommends denial, and nobody moves on it, it is denied. OK? Mayor Suarez: Unfortunately, we have to take some action. In any event, I am going to second it, just to clarify the motion to continue. I can't imagine that they would have just given up on this totally and the best thing we can do is hear them out and then decide and it may be that you will prevail. Certainly the fact that they are not here, with me weighs heavily in your favor. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, are you seconding my motion to continue? All right then, the question is... Mayor Suarez: Are you restating it? Are you restating it, I mean... Mr. Plummer: No, no. The question is... Mayor Suarez: Please restate it so we have it again on the floor. Mr. Plummer: To continue the motion, but, Mr. Mayor, the meeting of the lOth, it cannot be, so it would be in January, correct? Mr. Guevara: Mr. Suarez... Mr. Plummer: The zoning meeting in January would be the 28th of January. 49 December 2, 1987 Mr. Dawkins: Motion understood. Mr. Plummer: To continue to January 28th. Mr. Guevara: There are two individuals here that are for this proposal. OK, they are not the property owners, but they are here for this proposal. Now, if they are aware of it... Mr. Plummer: He should have been. Mr. Guevara: And we feel that the applicant...... Mr. Plummer: No question, sir. Mayor Suarez: Do you want to explain why the applicant is not here, whoever is here for the... on behalf of the proposal? Do you want to want to explain anything? Mr. Guevara: "For" is on the other side of the room, sir. We... Mayor Suarez: I'm sorry. Whoever is here in favor of this application, want to explain why the applicant is not here? Anyhow, we... Mr. Guevara: You might want to say it in Spanish. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Suarez: I have no problem moving to continue it if the applicant is not here, for the same reasons that Commission Plummer stated, so... Do you want to call the roll on it? Mrs. Kennedy: OK, there is a motion on the floor to continue this item? Any further discussion? Call the roll. Mrs. Dougherty: Do you want to hear it on the loth? The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 87-1069 A MOTION CONTINUING CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE (REQUEST BY MIGUEL AND OLGA ESCLOFER FOR AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING PLAN DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2600 NW 14 STREET) TO THE COMMISSION MEETING PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 28, 1988, AFTER 7:00 P.M. Upon being seconded by Mayor Suarez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 50 December 2, 1987 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING. (AMEND ZONING ATLAS REGARDING 2600 NW 14TH STREET PROPERTY.) Mayor Suarez: OK, that takes care of 13. Do we need to pass the same motion on 14? OK, I entertain a motion on 14. Mrs. Kennedy: I so move. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Moved to continue 14, that is a companion item. Seconded. Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 87-1070 A MOTION CONTINUING CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE (AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2600 NW 14 STREET) TO THE COMMISSION MEETING PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 28, AFTER 7:00 P.M. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins _ Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. _ Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Mayor Suarez: PZ-15. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, Mr. Mayor, in courtesy to these people, OK?... I s would like, with your permission, since you seconded the motion, that for whatever reason, if the owner does not show up on January 28th, it is an automatic denial. Mrs. Dougherty: No, no, no. Mr. Plummer: Can't do that? Why? Mrs. Dougherty: You automatically hear it, no matter what. Mr. Plummer: All right, fine. Then it will automatically and definitely be heard on the 28th, that a conclusion will be drawn on that evening. Mrs. Kennedy: I agree, because this is the second time. Mr. Plummer: With a time... Mr. Guevara: (OFF -MIKE) This is the third time that we are here, this is the fifth time already, including the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. Mr. Plummer: I understand, sir. Would a time certain be better for you? Would it be better after 6100 o'clock in the evening? Mayor Suarez: You want it at a particular time of the day? Mr. Guevara: It would be better at night. Mr. Plummer: OK. After 6:00 p.m., is that convenient, or after 7:00 p.m., sir? 51 December 2, 1987 Mr. Guevara: After 7:00 p.m. Mr. Plummer: After 7:00 p.m., at a time convenient, that it will definitely be heard on that night. Mr. Guevara: If I can just ask the Commission a second, how come on the previous case, there was nobody here against the proposal, and it was automatically passed for it? Mr. Plummer: Because the applicant was here. Mayor Suarez: Because the applicant is the one that has to be here. The applicant is the one asking us to take action, that's the difference. Mr. Plummer: And second of all sir, we asked if there were objectors, and there were no objectors. You are objectors. Mrs. Kennedy: And it was second reading. Mr. Plummer: And it was second reading. There is three differences of the reasons. Mr. Guevara: This is the third time we have been here. This has already been read also twice. Mr. Plummer: But it is here before us as a first reading. Mrs. Kennedy: But it is here before us... Mayor Suarez: OK, we have... what did you do? Do you want to make... that is not necessary to make into a form of a motion. You can just say you are going to vote against it as I am, if they don't show up. Mr. Plummer: You can stipulate that for sure, but don't... Mayor Suarez: If they don't show up, he can't say that he is going to vote against it, if they don't show up. Well, if he doesn't say it, I'll say it. I am going to vote against it if they don't show up. The hell with youl Mr. Plummer: After 7:00 o'clock. Mrs. Kennedy: Same here. It serves him right. Mayor Suarez: Rightl Try to get technical with us! 17. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING ZONING OF 2951-2999 SW 22ND TERRACE FROM LOW MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL. Mayor Suarez: PZ-15. Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-15 and lb again are companion items. This is located on SW 22nd Terrace, south of Coral Way and it is located between 27th and 32nd Avenue, SW. The application is for a plan amendment, and for a zoning change from RG-1/3 to CR-2/7. That is from a duplex zoned residential district, to a commercial residential district. The concerns of the Planning Department are the neighborhood intrusion. As you may remember, the City Commission has acted on three cases west of 32nd Avenue, but not between 27th and 32nd Avenue and there were covenants proffered by the applicant on those particular cases. Mrs. Kennedy: What was the covenant offered? Mr. Olmedillo: In the other cases, or this particular case? Mrs. Kennedy: In this particular case. Have they proffered a voluntary covenant? 52 December 2, 1987 Mr. Olmedillo: They have proffered a voluntary covenant, yes, Ma'am, which prohibits access on 22nd Terrace, and they have a setback of 20 feet, and they have a height limitation for the first 50 feet of buildings on the southern property line. Those are the conditions that we have in the covenant, that we have on the record. Mr. Plummer: How many people are here in objection to this item? You are, sir? Three people? Four, five, six. Mr. Olmedillo: If I may add for the record, Planning Advisory Board recommended approval by six to three votes. Zoning Board recommended for approval seven to two votes and Planning Department recommended for denial. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, just in the interest of trying to expedite, are the people who are here in objection, in total objection?... or are you here to try to build in some safeguards and not really in objection, but want to make sure the safeguards are there. Is that the consensus? INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mr. Plummer: Well, the only reason I am trying to do is to cut down on the time, and if there are safeguards that they would be willing to agree to, that are satisfactory to you, and then you are no longer an objector, we are going to take about half the time to hear this case. Mr. John Gregalot: I understand. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, if you want to pursue that line... Mr. Gregalot: John Gregalot, 2962 SW 22 Terrace. This is like saying, "Do you stop beating your wife yet?" There are objections. There are objections to the presentation, but they could be eliminated through considerations and most likely, much of this consideration should be of great interest in your determining the... Mr. Plummer: What are you looking for, sir? What are the safeguards that you are speaking of? Mr. Gregalot: Well, first of all, the safeguard is, one is parking, very objectionable. Between the time that we last met here and tonight, there have been two ambulances on the corner of 29th Avenue and 22nd Terrace, due to bad accidents. There is a stop sign on 29th Avenue. Now, you say, what does this have to do with this petition. There is a stop sign. People do stop, but then they follow the law which says, "Proceed carefully." They do proceed carefully, but coming down 22nd Terrace, these people do not stop, they have the right of way - accidents. Why the accidents? Because cars are parked on both sides of 22nd Terrace. These cars are the excess. Mr. Plummer: But, how could this building be, in virtue of building there, could that change it? Mr. Gregalot: We are getting there, sir. We are getting there. These cars parked along both sides from 27th Avenue, all the way up are the excess of the businesses on Coral Way. Now, the restaurant right next door to the property, the applicant is asking for, has 10 employees. How many cars do you think are parked on 22nd Terrace right opposite this property and around it?... ten employees, ten carst They are obstructing all the residents' travel. They are parking on the private property of the applicant's property, which is illegal. Right now, these people have... the applicant has 30 cars, based on the covenant they have. If they do not park on the property with the covenant, where are they are going to park? In spite of the fact... they will put a building there, but where are these cars going? And every particular business there has to have parking area and it all ends up on 22nd Terrace. Now, this is peculiar to this situation because this is... Mr. Plummer: But they are not asking for a waiver of any parking, sir. They are complying with the parking. Mr. Gregalot: Oh, yes, but this happens. It isn't legally, It is not done legally, it is just done. When these people... right now, they are restricted to park on their property, by the covenant, but if this petition is granted, as is, it means they know longer have to be concerned about a setback. They 53 December 2, 1987 no longer have to be concerned about parking on their property, nor do the employees all around. They now have a commercial zoning, which gives them the right to park anywhere they want. You remove... Mr. Plummer: Do you understand his objections? Mr. Gregalot: You remove the 20 foot setback by the covenant, you also... I have no objection to their utilizing the best potential for their property, but the petition doesn't say anything about complementing their property on Coral Way. It merely wants change of zoning. Let's say we give them the change of zoning. Tomorrow they got a buyer who buys those four lots. Now, I don't see anything in this application that ties that into one plot, tied into the property on Coral Way. It merely says, "Let's change the zoning on the 22nd Terrace." There is no question the property from 22nd Terrace, going south, is supposed to complement Metrorail. It is all residential, there is no question about that. Mr. Plummer: Can we do it under a unity of title? Mr. Gregalot: Now, this is the borderline, and we must be very much concerned about whether we are going to make it all a big property... parking lot, or whether they are going to keep it residential. Mayor Suarez: OK, we are going to have a lot of questions on this and of course you will be able to raise objections and otherwise discuss it, but let's hear from the applicant, since it doesn't seem like we are heading anywhere here. We will get all of the objectors. I don't know if it is worth it at this point to tell you that from just looking at the shape, it doesn't look to me, and you might address this in your presentation like the other modifications or changes of this sort that we have done in Coral Way. I think Kaufman and Roberts is one, and I think Tony Zamora had a case that he had, a similar situation except in this case you have got these four lots that somehow are entitled to the same treatment and the four lots fronting on SW 22nd Terrace. I don't why you would expect any special treatment for the two lots are not really contiguous to the two on Coral Way, and you might address that. That's an awfully strange shape that you are expecting us to deal with. Mr. Al Cardenas: OK. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, my name is Al Cardenas. I'm here on behalf of the applicant who is better known as Radio Mambi. With us is Sheila Wolfson, our associate and in world long dominated by men in the zoning world, I thought it would be appropriate for Sheila who is a rising star in our zoning department to make the presentation for you. Mayor Suarez: That is reverse sexism. Mrs. Kennedy: Are you trying to get my vote real hard? Mr. Cardenas: Well, I have also for that purpose brought my wife, who is pregnant, expecting our fifth child, and my partner, Bob Traurig, who is anxiously awaiting the results. Now, Sheila, I believe, is going to answer most of those questions. Let me, if I... Mayor Suarez: The result of the pregnancy, or result of the presentation? Mr. Dawkins: Does he want to know the result of the pregnancy, or the zoning Mr. Cardenas: Well, tonight the zoning, I hope. The long and short of the... Mayor Suarez: So far in your presentation, you lose five to zero, but I am sure you will improve. Mr. Cardenas: Yes, I am... Mr. Plummer: You should talk! Of all people on this Commission, you should talk! How many kids you got? Mr. Cardenas: We've got, I think that... Mrs. Kennedy: Too many! Too many. Mayor Suarez: You never know! Four, as of now, but you never know. 54 December 2, 1987 Mr. Cardenas: The one thing I did want to mention to you before Sheila started with the merits of the presentation itself, is that we have had a number of hearings before the Planing Advisory Board and the Zoning Board. The neighbors who are here have been with us throughout the process and we have addressed, I believe, all of the issues which have been of concern to them. They will speak, obviously, and conclude after we do, but I think that you will find that there has been an evolution of this process that has hopefully answered their concerns of the neighborhood. I believe that the two couples who are here at the end will acknowledge that, because we are anxious to work them and continue to work with them and .I think that, although you may have heard some mixed signals and there may well be, that by and large we really zeroed in on this and spent the time that is required to provide you with a good work product. Let me add before Sheila commences, Mr. Mayor, that there have been four rezonings on 22nd Terrace, as you well know, and that has been the result of what we have perceived to be an evolution of development in Coral Way, whereas decades ago of course, the front lots on Coral Way were sufficient for one story buildings. Subsequent to that, the use intensified and this Commission saw fit that the only way to resolve that issue was to permit the transitional use on the lots adjoining the Coral Way lots and facing 22nd Terrace, to take care of the off -site parking needs in Coral Way, and thirdly, we are now into the third phase of the evolution, which has been demonstrated in your previous four decisions which have said, you know, this whole thing looks, you know, hodgepodge, and is just not making sense and nowadays it is just not enough width to permit commercial building of something that can be attractive and beautiful and provide appropriate buffers just on the Coral Way fronted lots, so that we have taken a more appropriate view of the situation. I think the covenants that have been negotiated with this Commission and with staff have been cognizant of those issues, traffic, buffering the neighborhood, so on and so forth, and I think this is the fifth time we are here on those particular set of facts. Let me, if I can, remind you, that although the Kaufman and Roberts property was a different situation, there was also one that was presented by my partner, Tony O'Donnell involving Carlos Salman that had similar configurations as this one, and the building fit in very nicely, and as a matter of fact, I thought it was a rather unusual shape and worked out just fine. That was not too different from the current situation, it was highly familiar with. Where there were more lots facing 22nd Terrace than Coral Way, and it worked out just fine, but let me, if I can, let Sheila do that for me, and she will be brief and to the point. Ms. Sheila Wolfson: Thank you. For the record, my name is Sheila Wolfson, with law offices at 1401 Brickell Avenue. The request before you tonight, as Mr. Cardenas indicated, is for rezoning to CR-2/7 of the four lots that are indicated in yellow on this exhibit before you. These lots are of course, contiguous to the lots on Coral Way which are already zoned CR-2/7. Now, although these lots currently have a residential zoning, I would like to point out to you, the fact that two of these 'lots are currently being used for a commercial purpose. That is, they are being used for parking for Radio Mambi, whose existing building is fronting on Coral Way. Although they are residential, the parking is of course, a permitted use, both under your prior code as a conditional use, and currently under the transitional use provisions of your code. As Mr. Cardenas also indicated to you, and I think this exhibit more fully shows, there have been several phases of development along the Coral Way Commercial corridor. As you look at this exhibit over here, that shows the various zonings that currently exist on Coral Way, both on the Coral Way frontage and along SW 22nd Terrace, to the rear of the Coral Way lot, you can see of course, that the zoning along Coral Way is all commercial. Initially, maybe in the 1940's or 1950's, during the first period of its development, the buildings along there were basically one story, single lots with fairly narrow frontage and then in the second phase as these businesses expanded, there was only one direction for them to expand and that generally was to the rear. So you have a situation today where, as the exhibit shows, you have in brown there many of the lots are on Coral Way - I'm sorry, to the rear of the lots on Coral Way being used as transitional uses for parking so these lots are, in fact, being used for commercial purpose now. The request before you tonight is for a rezoning that would allow redevelopment of the property by joining a combination of these four lots on S.W. 22nd Terrace with the two lots that are presently containing the Radio Mambi Building on Coral Way. And by joining these two lots, and then rezoning them, allow the property owner to develop the property with a building that has greater architectural flexibility because 55 December 2, 1987 instead of having the building crammed to the front of the property on Coral Way and the parking to the rear, as is presently the situation, it would allow the architect to redesign it to place the parking to the side, perhaps under the building or in other ways. This not only presents a better solution to the use of the property for the commercial property owner but I would submit to you that it presents a better use for that property for the residents who are across 22nd Terrace who are looking at the property. Right now, they are looking at a commercial use but they are looking at the least attractive part of a commercial use, they are looking at the parking lot and they're looking at the dumpsters. Now, the zoning proposal before you tonight as was previously indicated, has, what we feel, are some innovated built in protections that provides some transitions between the residential and the commercial use. We don't feel that this commercial rezoning has to negatively impact the stable residential neighborhood on S.W. 22nd Terrace. The covenant provisions that we feel are safeguards are as follows: first of all, the property owner is committing to establishing a 20 foot landscaping buffer from the south of the property line. All right, secondly, at the end of this 20 foot landscaping buffer, we're committing to construct a six foot masonry wall. So, instead of the property owners across 22nd Terrace looking at this parking lot and the dumpster, what they would be looking at would be a landscaping buffer ending in a wall. Secondly, again to provide... Mayor Suarez: Why are they looking at dumpsters, now, I don't... Ms. Wolfson: Well, because that's what's at the rear of the building. Naturally, your dumpster is going to be at the rear of the building while they can see directly across the parking area. Mayor Suarez: Isn't there a wall there now? Ms. Wolfson: No, there's not. There's a chain link fence. The property owner has recently put in some landscaping but it's basically open to a view, there's grass, the neighbors have contributed some palm trees there. Mayor Suarez: There are a lot of solutions to not having to look at a dumpster including having some kind of a little, you know, nice wall of some sort around it so that people don't have to look at it, but... Ms. Wolfson: That's true but we feel that overall the combination of a 20 foot landscaping buffer plus a wall gives a much more attractive, much more esthetically pleasing view to the residents across 22nd Terrace. Mr. Plummer (Off and on mike): Did I understand that you to say that the transitional use into the residential property is the same as the commercial use? Ms. Wolfson: I'm saying it is a commercial use, it is serving a commercial use. I'm not saying it is exactly the same thing but I'm saying that this is part of the commercial use that it's serving on Coral Way. Mr. Plummer: That's what I thought I heard you say, thank you. Ms. Wolfson: OK. Mayor Suarez: What about these extra two lots, why do you keep arguing that these extra two lots that are not contiguous to the property fronting Coral Way and probably were not intended to be part of the concept of transitional uses, that they should be included and that somehow, this is going to end up with a better architectural model of some sort? Mr. Wolfson: Well, because the more property you have to work with, the more you have flexibility in design of the building. CSK 56 December 2, 1987 Mayor Suarez: Or the alternative is always to have just have a less dense structure, you know; smaller structure would still be = very attractive. Mr. Cardenas: Excuse me, Mayor, let me interject, I have seen a couple of quick drafts of the thing and a building, basically, that would take this sort of shape can only take place with those four lots in the back and which is an extremely attractive type of situation; this being Coral Way, this being ingress and egress and so forth. And you can only do that if you have these two lots and these four lots. Mayor Suarez: Well, the building would go into the back lots. Mr. Cardenas: Yes, but with all of the feet that Sheila's talking about, so, you're going to have a 20 foot setback and you're going to have 30 feet and so forth. So, you know, it's - not going to be... Mayor Suarez: Well, it's certainly a more interesting shape and if you make the building cover all of that shape... Mr. Cardenas: Right. Mayor Suarez: ... and if you make the building cover all of that shape, you'll probably end up with a more interesting building, I guess. Mr. Cardenas: That's the purpose behind it, right. Mrs. Kennedy: Al, is ingress to the property on Coral Way? Mr. Plummer: Only. Mr. Cardenas: Only on Coral Way. Mrs. Kennedy: Only, only on Coral Way. All right. Mr. Cardenas: Ingress and egress will only be on Coral Way itself. Mrs. Kennedy: OK. Mr. Cardenas: And since this is in the middle of block, there can't even be a temptation to go through one of the avenues for a side entrance because there won't be any. You can only come in through the Coral Way side. And I think there were four things Sheila mentioned to you which we've made always sure are part of the process; the wall, the setbacks, the limitations on ingress and egress and so forth and on earlier applications, this Commission has, I think on at least one instance, discussed the possibility of a park donation if you'll recall. And I've spoken to this about the client and he's amenable to entertain something reasonable if that makes sense. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask you a question, if I may. How many square feet there now? Mr. Cardenas: How many square feet wide, Commissioner? Mr. Plummer: How many square feet in the present building? _ Mr. Cardenas: Oh, it's a small, one story building. I would say 7500. Mr. Plummer: That's what it is now. Mr. Cardenas: Probably. Mr. Plummer: And square footage in the proposed building? CSK 57 December 2, 1987 - , Mr. Cardenas: Well, we haven't done the design because we haven't received a zoning decision, but... Mr. Plummer: Well, but, Al, you know where I'm coming from. Mr. Cardenas: Yes. Mr. Plummer: OK, how many parking spaces now present and how many will be there when the new building is and what's the ratio? That's what I'm trying to determine. Mr. Cardenas: OK, well I can assure you of one thing, that there will be a heck of a lot more parking spaces... Mr. Plummer: Yes, but you're going to have a heck of a lot more square footage. Mr. Cardenas: But not on a ratio basis, Commissioner, because right now, let me tell you why, right now you only have two lots that are being used for parking behind the two lots in Coral Way. By having six lots, part of the configuration for the building design, I will bet you that you're going to have a better parking ratio per square foot than you currently have. Mr. Plummer: But, I think that's the concern of the neighbors, as I understand it, is the parking. Mr. Cardenas: Right. Well, the concern of the neighbors, frankly I think, stems from uses other than our clients because I know what has concerned the neighbors a lot and it's a separate issue and I think we've taken some temporary steps to remedy it although not a hundred percent to their satisfaction. You see, what happened before, when we acquired the back lots, by we I mean our clients, there was a pre-existing condition without the chain link fences and the landscaping and so forth where people who went to the Latin American Cafeteria next door, I think we all know the problem, would come around the back and park on 22nd and walk across our clients parking lot and across Latin American Cafeteria when they didn't find parking at Latin American Cafeteria. And that has been the source of a great deal of concern to these two couples and we've talked about that at length. So what we did, after the first original conversation, when the problem came to surface, we built a chain link fence, we landscaped it and so forth. Now, that applies to our property. It helps them considerably on the short •term because the pedestrians can't cross through our client's property any more to get to Latin American Cafeteria and, therefore, it dissuades them from parking on 22nd Terrace. But the problems not all finished but that's a problem that really is not a problem that is due to a development of this building, it's due to the fact that you've got a very popular cafeteria with a fine product that has a shortage of parking. Mayor Suarez: Well, let me interrupt you for a second and pursue what the Commissioner's saying. From what I know of the parking situation to get to the existing facility, that's got to be the worst place in Miami to be able to park. Mr. Cardenas: That's right. i Mayor Suarez: Either if you try to do it on Coral Way or if you come, I think there's a little alley way or something on the side of the building there? Mr. Cardenas: No, it's just that before we started taking these steps, both the parking lots adjoined each other and people on 22nd Terrace had pedestrian access. Mayor Suarez: But I mean the other way to get into that parking lot now, other than if you want to park close to the building, is you either park on Coral Way or you come in through a very narrow... CSK 58 December 2, 1987 i Mr. Cardenas: That's right. Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. Cardenas: That, that's... Mayor Suarez: How do we know that with the new zoning you would and the new uses and so on, including all the setbacks and all the proffers you're making, that we would not have a worse parking situation here? Mr. Cardenas: Well, for one thing... Mayor Suarez: The Commissioner was trying to pin that down in terms of parking, the ratio of parking to say, FAR, or parking to - floor area, but... Mr. Cardenas: Right. For one thing as to the parking on 22nd Terrace itself, it will be eliminated because if you have a 20 foot setback, if you got a masonry wall, if you got another 30 feet, and if you got all of that landscaped, there's no way that anybody can park their car on 22nd Terrace and climb over a fence and go 50 feet in a dress or a suit or something to a commercial office building. So, obviously, no one's going to park there that's going to go to our client's building because it's like going through an obstacle course. I mean, it's just physically impossible as compared to very attractive and feasible at this point in time so, from the standpoint of off site parking on 22nd Terrace, the advantages are immediate and obvious. From a standpoint of being able to meet parking criteria and muster, I believe that in order for this building to be commercially attractive and successful, it better, knowing the problems on Coral Way, design the building with an appropriate number of parking spaces or we're going to have a heck of a difficult time convincing tenants it's the place to be. I mean, that's become a very competitive place, Coral Way, if you're familiar with the current market conditions there for office space. I think that based on who the owners are, my knowledge of them and what they have in mind, I think you're going to be very proud of what they have in mind doing there. I think one of the things, if you want to be triple sure of this, is why don't we just proffer, this is first reading, between first and second reading or I can make it on the record, of course, and follow it up in writing, that we will provide a 110 percent of what the parking code calls for. I mean, that's something that no one else has to comply with but that's how sure I am of what I know about what they have in mind that they're willing to comply with that criteria. Mayor Suarez: Do we have anyone from staff that can tell us, .Guillermo, why, under the existing parking requirements, that particular use that it now has with the particular layout that it now has, is creating such a traffic hazard? Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: The one on this particular property or.. . Mayor Suarez: What it has right now. It is a traffic hazard right now to park and try to go to that building no matter whether you approach it from Coral Way or through that little alley, whatever it is that takes you through that back parking lot. I don't believe you can get to it from 22nd Terrace anymore, can you? Mr. Plummer: No. Mr. Olmedillo: No, sir. Mr. Plummer (Off mike): No, the driveways too narrow. Mayor Suarez: So, if that's so bad now, why is it so bad now? Is it because this building wasn't meant to be used for what it is, is being used now, or... CSK 59 December 2, 1987 Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, it's too intense. The use that it has now is too intense and it generates more traffic than it can support. Mayor Suarez: Can you explain to me why, or if it is really true what Al is saying, that we can expect, and I'm not saying he's lying, but I mean, can we contemplate it, can we expect that the situation will not become worse if they're allowed to do what they're asking to do? Mr. Olmedillo: There's proper design he would be right controlling that. Mayor Suarez: Can we control that beyond this point? Mr. Olmedillo: Or controlling that beyond that point is that the intensity of the use is less not more because if you intensify the use, of course, you're going to generate more automobile traffic. That, you know, it stands to reason. Increased intensity would bring more traffic, it would bring more cars, it would bring more interference with Coral Way. Mayor Suarez: So you're saying what we're doing, or if we approve this, we would be leading to a worse traffic situation and a worse parking situation. Mr. Olmedillo: My belief is, yes, you are increasing the opportunity to have more traffic into that. Mr. Cardenas: Where, on 22nd Terrace, Guillermo? Mr. Olmedillo: Not on 22nd Terrace, we're talking about... Mr. Plummer: Well that's not - no, that's not true, OK, and there's something else that's not being said. In the old days prior, many people came in through that driveway on the west side only and went out through Latin American Cafe. OK? That's what happened in the old days. Now, when that fence was put across, it only left a 10 foot driveway at best, at best which means that you can't have ingress and egress. What does the code call for under present conditions today I think is 20 feet, is that correct, for a two way... Mr. Olmedillo: For a two way drive. Mr. Plummer: No, I mean the code calls for two way traffic, doesn't it? Ingress and egress has got to be two way, 20 feet? Mayor Suarez: Well, you've got to have... Mr. Olmedillo: If it's ingress, egress is 20 feet. Mr. Plummer: OK. Mayor Suarez: Yes, what he's saying is, what we have now there looks like it could only be one way because it's just not broad enough for both ways. Why is that? Mr. Olmedillo: It should be one way. Mayor Suarez: But one way at a time definitely, otherwise they'd have to fly over each other. Mr. Campbell: If I may, at the time that that building was built, the requirement was only for, I believe, a 9 or 10 foot wide driveway. Mr. Plummer: Right, what is it now? Mr. Campbell: 20 feet. Now, for ingress and egress, two way driveway is CSK 60 December 2, 1987 Mr. Plummer: But, is it required that they must have, if they build, ingress and egress? Mr. Campbell: Yes. Mr. Plummer: So, in other words, if they built a new building, they would have to put a minimum of 20 feet as to ingress and egress. Mr. Campbell: That's correct. Mr. Plummer: That's mandatory? Mr. Campbell: Yes. Mr. Plummer: OK. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Since I am - excuse me, since I am not... Mayor Suarez: Are you finished with the presentation so we can get to the objectors? Mr. Cardenas: Well, just to say two things, that we've already proffered, as you know, covenants and Sheila and I have gone over what the provisions are, I would encourage this board, this Commission, to vote in favor on first reading and permit me, between first and second reading, to present a modified covenant adding two items to those items already proffered. Mr. Plummer: Refresh our memory, what are the covenants presently proffered? Mr. Cardenas: Covenants presently proffered are as follows: a 20 foot setback, masonry wall of 6 foot, after that, landscaping, then 30 feet after that up till the... Ms. Wolfson (Off mike): Height limitation of 2 story to 35 feet limit... Mr. Cardenas: Right, 35 feet after the 20 foot and the masonry wall and then along with that, so that height plane provides a proper setting for the 22nd Terrace folks, we've provided a height limitation of 3 stories on the covenant - there are 2 stories, excuse me, 2 stories. And, in addition to... Mayor Suarez: That only applies to 2 stories, only applies to i the back lots, the ones in front on 22nd Terrace. ' Mr. Cardenas: That's correct, Mayor, that's correct. And at... 1 INAUDIBLE COMMENTS. 1 Mr. Cardenas: Oh, the first 50 feet, that's correct... from the south property line. Then we've also provided no ingress and jj egress to and from 22nd Terrace. As I said earlier, we're in the middle of a block so that means the only possible ingress and — egress with the expanded 20 foot - the sign that George Campbell talked to you about - will be on Coral Way. And in addition to those items which we have proffered, there are two additional Items which we're voluntarily proffering orally today and, of course, in writing prior to the next hearing. And those are, that we'll provide a 110 percent parking spaces based on what's required by code so we'll exceed the code accordingly and number two, that we will make a $5,000 donation to the Park Improvement Trust Fund for the child care facilities. And we'll put those - two items in writing and submit them accordingly prior to second reading. Mr. Plummer: Speak to the setback on the west side of lot twenty... to the west side, the lot in yellow to the west. Mr. Cardenas: OK. CSK 61 December 2, 1987 Mr. Plummer: What is that lot? Mayor Suarez: 26. Mr. Plummer: OK, and what is the set back from that? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (Off mike): From here to there? Mr. Plummer: The setback for the use of their property. Mr. Olmedillo: For residential use, is five feet and the commercial, if it were to be changed to a commercial use, then the setback will be as for the residential, so it will be 5 feet on the side. - Mr. Plummer: What is to the west of that lot? Is it residential? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir. East and west of that property is RG- 1/3 which is a duplex, two family residential. Mayor Suarez: What is now on 26th and 27th on their property? Mr. Olmedillo: There were houses which were demolished there and... Mayor Suarez: So, they are what is now... Mr. Olmedillo: Twenty-six still has a house on it. Mayor Suarez: OK. I was going to say, otherwise, then we have demolished houses formerly existing there which are now demolished. So, presumably, we have parking, empty lot, whatever. But we do have a house on 26th? Mr. Olmedillo: On 26th, but 27th was the one that was demolished. -- Mr. Cardenas: Permit me to add one thing, if I can, which I had failed to add, Mr. Mayor. If you recall, in our previous - discussions, there's also a concern about a domino effect. One of the provisions that we set forth in our covenant was that one foot of remaining residential on the boundary line so that we _ wouldn't go to the middle of the street and, as you may know, that also restricts our density for development purposes. - Mr. Plummer: Yes, but, Al, also... Mr. Cardenas: And the last thing I want to mention to you is the following, on the east side, on the so-called lots facing 22nd Terrace on the east side, as you know, Latin American Cafeteria _ -, has its place and then parking, so that's a paved lot. And on the other side, Commissioner Plummer, you'll notice the neighbors are not here, the owners of the property are not objecting to our _ building the facility and they have no problems with it so I just — wanted you to be cognizant to that, because we're cognizant of it. To provide setback requirements when the adjoining -#, landowners are not opposing what we have in mind may, not may, will more than likely cause us to have, you know, serious design i difficulties and we also want to make sure we provide ample parking and that's why we've proffered the 110 percent criteria. Mr. Plummer: My concern is, as you're well aware, if we change that to commercial, you then get the privilege of transition to the west. i 1 Mr. Cardenas: OK, we can deal with that. Mr. Olmedillo: If I may, sir. Mr. Plummer: You can waive your right. y = 62 CSK December 2, 1987 Mr. Olmedillo: Those lots already have the transitional rights or transitional benefits - I shouldn't say rights because they got to go through special permit - because they are abutting commercial on the north. Mr. Plummer: Are you telling me that lot 26 could not enjoy transitional to the west? Mr. Olmedillo: No, they were not transmitted to the west. The one transmitted the transitional privileges to that lot will be the one on the north side which is abutting it. Mr. Plummer: The first hundred feet. Mr. Olmedillo: For a hundred and twenty - well, for a hundred feet in that case. Mr. Plummer: OK, that lot is more than 100 foot deep. Mr. Cardenas: Well, I wanted to mention two things on that comment, Commissioner. The property's not our client's, so I can't covenant as to the adjoining properties on either side. Mr. Plummer: No, but you can waive your right of transition. Mr. Cardenas: But two, the problem is that you have, as Mr. Olmedillo said, you have a right of transition inherent as a result of adjoining the commercially zoned properties on Coral Way which we don't own. Mr. Plummer: See, I have no problem, Al. The day that lot 25 were to be changed, but as long as it remains residential, that's where I got a problem. Is it possible, Madam City Attorney, that of waiving of their transitional rights as long as that westerly lot stays residential that they can waive their rights on transition? Mrs. Dougherty: The covenant could be written that way. Mr. Plummer: If it ever changed, I got no problem with it. Of course, if you didn't buy the property... Mr. Dawkins (Off mike): Then eighteen months later come back for a waiver of the covenant. Mr. Plummer: No, no, no. What I'm saying, Miller, is that if they didn't buy the property, there would be no reason for a transitional. Mrs. Dougherty: The covenant for the present... Mayor Suarez: Well, the transitional there is obtained from the north though not from the... Mr. Plummer: But only a part. See, they're coming from the east to the west where the transition now exists is from the north to the south. Mayor Suarez: It doesn't apply, it doesn't apply. Mr. Walter Pierce: Mr. Plummer, are you speaking to lot 25 receiving transitional right? Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Pierce: From lot 26? Mr. Plummer: Yes. CSK 63 December 2, 1987 Mr. Pierce: He can't effect that, he doesn't own 25. Mr. Olmedillo: And he's giving up somebody elses's rights. Mr. Pierce: And he can't give away somebody elses' right. Mr. Plummer: Well. Mr. Cardenas: My point is, if you're trying to protect 25, I think 25 probably wants to retain that transitional use but, you know, they're adjoining landowners and we've talked to them about that plan. Mr. Pierce: You can't even... Mr. Plummer: I see what you mean. Mayor Suarez: Yes, they get it from 12 and 5, but, Al... Mr. Pierce: You can't even speak to it. Mayor Suarez: ... why are we allowing, for the first time on _ Coral Way, lots 26 and 27 themselves to have a change of use from what they have now based on the transitional concept when they're not even adjoining the northern lots? Mr. Cardenas: Because there'd be a unity of title and that's how the property will be developed. Mayor Suarez: Why did we mess up our... Mr. Cardenas: Why do... - Mayor Suarez: ... code by allowing those to be considered part of the same quote, unquote property when it's not contiguous? I mean, if they owned all of those lots on 22nd, they could be applying transitional uses to all of it? Mr. Cardenas: But, Mayor, I see... i- Mayor Suarez: Just because one of them is attached to the `- northern property? Mr. Plummer: Who owns the... i Mr. Cardenas: No, not one, but in... Z.. Mr. Plummer: The key is, who owns 10 and 11? { s Mr. Pierce: Quite honestly, whoever owns the lots on the south half of the block enjoy the transitional provisions from the north half regardless if they own them to the south. If they sold off the two lots on the west - the westerly two lots, those i lots would still get the transitional benefits. 3 Mr. Plummer: What's in lots 10 and 11? i Mr. Pierce: Looking at the aerial photograph, it looks like there's two commercial structure on that property. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Restaurants. Mr. Plummer: Is that the El Chipi which has gone out of business? Mrs. Kennedy: Mr. Manager, it says that in the Planning Advisory Board Meeting, there were four opponents. Do we know who they are, do you recall? Mr. Plummer: They're here. Mrs. Kennedy: Is that... CSK 64 December 2, 1987 Mr. Pierce: No, we know there are people here who are in opposition. Mayor Suarez: You know, I don't believe this aerial photographs _ because it's got all these buildings up there that are leaning. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me raise another problem while we're raising the problem. What happens if E1 Chipi comes in and wants to use the back for parking? Then what happens? Mr. Pierce: He gets the first hundred too. - Mayor Suarez: It's not theirs. Mr. Pierce: Well, if he has a - wait a minute, sir, he can get a _ lease, he can buy it, you know, but if he has control of that property, he doesn't have any right to use it if can't control it, leasewise or ownership wise. — Mr. Plummer: Well, my concern is this is basically the first of the applications that come in with commercial on the back side. It's always been ------- to put parking in the back which is a - supplement to the front. I know we've approved two but they've - basically - one was on a corner. OK? And that didn't create any ingress and egress problem. INAUDIBLE COMMENTS. Mr. Plummer: Yes. _ Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, Armando's property was right in the middle. Mr. Plummer: Yes, well I... this being the third. INAUDIBLE COMMENTS. - Mr. Plummer: Oh, I understand that. Mayor Suarez: What would happen if we were to do exactly as we have done in the other cases on Coral Way and only allow what you're requesting as to lots 28 and 29? i - i Mr. Plummer: Then they can't build their building because they don't have a parking area. Mayor Suarez: They would have to build a much smaller building.- , Mr. Plummer: Oh, hell, yes. 9 Mr. Olmedillo: Right. t Mrs. Kennedy: What is your FAR by the way? x Mr. Plummer: They don't know what their FAR is, they haven't designed their building. Mr. Olmedillo: In the front... Mayor Suarez: No, their permit, permitted FAR. t Mr. Olmedillo: In the front, it's 1.72 and they get the benefit of fronting on Coral Way which is a wide street. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but right now, you don't know what that is. Mr. Olmedillo: And on the rear, it's .33; it's limited to residential. Point three, three which is a duplex zoning. Mayor Suarez: Once they get this, they would have 1.2 FAR; 1.72 FAR. CSK 65 December 2, 1987 Mr. Olmedillo: 1.72 two for the whole property. Mr. Plummer: That'll be the zinger. Mayor Suarez: Oh, six lots... Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct. Mayor Suarez: And if we only approved it as to four, that would be a much less intense use obviously. Mr. Pierce: They'd still have the 1.72 FAR, but it would be a smaller parcel so, obviously, reduce building sites. Mayor Suarez: Right. And then what would happen to lots 26 and 2 7 ? In that circumstance, they would have no transitional use, they would. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, they would have a transitional possibility because they would be abutting a commercial district on the side and on the rear. Mayor Suarez: On the east. Mr. Pierce: On the north. Mayor Suarez: And in the north also counts even though we're not changing the zoning as to those. Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct. Mayor Suarez: And presumably, that that means that they would be able to use that for parking, for surface parking. Mr. Olmedillo: They could apply for it. Mayor Suarez: I mean, if they went through... Mr. Pierce: Special exception for parking there. Mayor Suarez: In essence, there's not all that much discretion to us on that. I mean, that's... Mr. Cardenas: With all proper... Mr. Pierce: Oh, oh, there's lots of discretion. It's a public hearing before the zoning board which is appealable, of course to the City Commission. But that can in effect be conditioned any way you feel reasonable and quite severely. Mayor Suarez: I understand that that... Mr. Pierce: Which is something you can't do on a zone change. Mayor Suarez: Right, I understand that that particular concept would restrain or constrain your design, but it also would constrain you to a much less intense use and it makes more sense to me because we've never done anything like having four lots, of which only two are contiguous to the commercial area, rezoned in this fashion on Coral Way that we know and this would be the first time we were doing that. Mr. Cardenas: The only problem with that, Mayor, is that based on what I think I know the particular designs in mind and what they intended to use for property, we go back to, what I recall will be phase II of Coral Way development; your block type buildings without, you know, without the creativity intended and then surface lots to the side to take care of parking and it will... I, you know, just from a purely esthetic point of view, I understand exactly what you're saying in terms of, you know, the layout, precedent and so forth, but in terms of this particular six lots, I think what you can put in there from an aesthetic CSK 66 December 2, 1987 LL perspective is so far superior based on what we have in mind than being forced to build a, you know, a... Mr. Plummer: Yes, but you see we - Al, we don't see that and you have nothing to show us. Mr. Cardenas: Because you're not supposed to consider it anyway in your evaluation. Mr. Plummer: But, you're trying to sell us on that aspect, but you have nothing to show us. Mr. Cardenas: I know. Mr. Plummer: I got the answer. Mr. Cardenas: OK. Mr. Plummer: I'm ready to approve Commission's approval of the site plan. INAUDIBLE COMMENTS. Mr. Plummer: In the covenant, of course. covenant. Mr. Cardenas: OK. it subject to this It's got to be in the Mr. Plummer: And the other conditions, of course, they've already proffered those. Mayor Suarez: Walter, tell us all please. Mr. Plummer: What are you telling me? Mr. Pierce: Well, another way to do it would be for them to design the building and proffer at this time, construction in accordance,with their plan now. Mr. Plummer: Well, that's what I'm basically saying when they... you can't approve a site plan without them designing the building and we would reserve that right to the approval of the site plan as they proffered in the covenant giving us that right. Mr. Pierce (Off mike): That's right. Mayor Suarez: That also solves my concern because if we give you two more lots commercial that means you can build approximately one-third, or 33% more, with the same FAR depending on, of course, the shape of the design and it may or may not be something that'll be good for that area and for traffic patterns and everything else so it would be nice to know what you're going to build there. Mrs. Kennedy: Yes. I have no problems with that, Commissioner, if you want to make a motion reflecting that, I'll second... Mr. Gregalot: Sir. Mr. Plummer: Well, we've still got to hear from the objectors. Mrs. Kennedy: OK. Mayor Suarez: Yes, air. Mr. Gregalot: I do like to have my say today. Mayor Suarez: Yes, well let me just tell you where we were just heading and that is that we would not approve anything until we saw exactly what they plan to build there. That would be the idea. In other words, which may benefit you too... CSK 67 December 2, 1987 4 Mr. Gregalot: Right, I would just... Mayor Suarez: ... because you would be a part of that process advising us whether to approve it or not. Go ahead. Mr. Gregalot: Right, I will not use all your time, it is just a few little things I'd like to point out. I've lived there 43 years, so I know the whole picture. The parking that has been in violation, I must say they made every effort to landscape like what is supposed to have been, so I appreciate their efforts. They are very pleasant to work with and trying. For this reason, I feel that they definitely will work out something and I want to see them get the right to utilize the whole property. However, the situation is that people don't live by the law. The restaurant, as they said, they landscaped and put up the fence, but it still does not mean anything because now there are ten cars from that restaurant parked on the other two lots, 26 and 27, which has a house. It merely shifted from the property directly behind shifted from the next two lots which they are applying for, so it really hasn't changed anything. They are parking all the way up and down the east side of the street, so this is just the one restaurant that had utilized that whole neighborhood and the reason they can do this is because the restaurant owns the duplex directly behind their restaurant. Mr. Plummer: But, they don't have it for parking. Mr. Gregalot: Right. They rent the front section of the duplex, they use the back section as a storeroom and meat processing plant. Mr. Plummer: How can they do that? Mr. Gregalot: Because it backs up to their restaurant and they have a... Mr. Plummer: That doesn't make any difference, not if it is zoned residential. Mr. Gregalot; But, this is what they are doing. It is a big nuisance, that restaurant. It is a great restaurant, but they have a fan blowing their barbecue unbiodegradable fat off their hams, which is supposed to go through a filter, but they have a fan in the window, blowing it, and that neighborhood smells like cooking hams 24 hours a day. They are violating every rule they can. These people, right next door to the east of their restaurant is a lot that has a sign... Mayor Suarez: All of that that you are saying about the restaurant, we need to know, but not in this particular form. We need for you to get all of that to our code enforcement people and we hope we take notice of it. We ought to start investigating right off the bat. Mr. Gregalot: I am sorry to use up your time... Mayor Suarez: No, no, that is very important! That may be affecting more of this whole neighborhood than their plans. Mr. Gregalot: Well, you see, for these cars have been parking there for four years, while it was the Boy Scouts of America and try to get a hold of you guys with the enforcement, I mean, you know what that is? Try and do it! Get on the phone and try and do it. Try to find somebody that will come and say, "Hey, that's right, these people are violating this. Well, we will see, we will look into it." Mayor Suarez: I will give you all the phone numbers of the ones who are up here in the Commission, and we will get... call us if our code enforcement people don't move. Mr. Gregalot: OK, anyway, I will cut it short. Mayor Suarez: You'll see. Mr. Cardenas: Mayor, as I understand it, based on what I heard Commissioner Plummer say, the fact that we are here in first reading, makes everything that is being said fairly reasonable implement. For example, if you accept our proffered covenants as to this date, if you move this thing on first reading 68 December 2, 1987 with the proviso that the covenants, which have been orally proffered on this date are set forth in writing in a matter which is legally acceptable to the City Attorney, and if you further state that we are to submit a site plan by the next meeting, which will also be tied into our covenants that we'll build substantially in accordance with that site plan and you have it all before you on January 28th when we are here again, I think that complies with the intent of this Commission that you want to take a look at what we propose to do and it doesn't delay the process, it gets us in a reasonable time frame, and it is all perfectly and legally enforceable. Mr. Plummer: It is acceptable to me. Mr. Gregalot: I would like to suggest just one thing. I want to work with them, I know they are going to try, but the other side of the coin is, they are asking for residential and commercial. Unless they do have strict and certain intent to build, we are merely taking four lots and making them commercial, one of which has a house on it now. 27 has a house on it. Mayor Suarez: That's another good point. Does the fact that Commissioner Plummer's idea of requesting some sort of a site plan or concept as to what they are going to build there, assures that they are not just simply going to get the rezoning and then sell the property? Mrs. Dougherty: If you tie the site plan into the covenant, then you are assured that they would have to come back and amend that covenant before they could build anything other than what that site plan is. — Mr. Cardenas: Yes, I know that what I am proffering at this point in time is not legally enforceable, but knowing the owners of Radio Mambi, who we have represented for years, and knowing what their intentions are, I assure this =_ Commission that this, unless the unforeseen happens, is going to be an owner occupied property, to most of its extent, and but the fact that we are coming = with a site plan which will be binding on present and future ownership, should handle that issue. o Mayor Suarez: I know the owners of Radio Mambi too , and they are nice _ people. I am sure that their principal concern is to make money. Anything else from the objectors? Mr. Gregalot: Only that I am sure they are nice people too and before I feel I could work with them with no objections I merely want to know that what they say is going to happen, will happen and the only way to do this... Mayor Suarez: That's taken care of. Mr. Gregalot:... they know to put it on paper. Mayor Suarez: That is taken care of by that idea. Mr. Gregalot: Right, caveat emptor. Mr. Cardenas: Lastly, second reading... Mayor Suarez: You got it! Mr. Gregalot: You buy what you get, and you get what you buy. Mr. Cardenas: Second reading is called for December loth. Obviously, that won't give us a time period, so if you could have it January 28th, that would... Mayor Suarez: We will call this one caveat Cardenas, instead of caveat emptor. Anything else from the objectors? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would ask that the applicant, 10 days prior to the 28th hold a meeting with the neighbors to show them the site plan and let them look at the site plan. Don't hold the meeting at Latin-American Cafe! I do think that it would be nice that they have an advance preview of what is going on. Let them look at it ten days before the next meeting and they have any suggestions, or possibly alternations, they might be able to compromise right then and there and then we will look at it on the 28th. 69 December 2, 1987 Mayor Suarez: OK. Mrs. Theresa Gregalot: Do you need my name? I am Theresa Gregalot. Mr. Plummer: Yes, Ma'am, and address. Mrs. Gregalot: Right. I live at 2950 SW 22nd Terrace, directly across from this property we are discussing and thank you for letting me express my views. First, I have several things that concern me. I am not exactly comfortable _ with this, although I think you suggestions are excellent, and I hope that we can work everything out. The important thing is dependability. Can we count on what they are saying?... and that means a great deal. Someone before us, at sometime before us said at this board that they were new owners... Mr. Babcock was the original owner who had the first variance and he built a very nice building. He landscaped. He did everything he said he would do. He maintained the property which is very important and then the next owner came in and they added a little bit to the building and that's where that entrance became small. It was bigger, but they added that and they squeezed that entrance and then asked for more parking. The owners after that said that at the meeting, and I will quote exactly from the record: "We also feel too, we are willing as a scout organization to beautify this area by putting in proper shrubbery and trees, so that we hope to enhance the beauty of the area. Right now there aren't any trees back there, just a few of them. We feel that we — can really make this an outstanding area for not only our own organization, but our neighbors that we are close to." Gloria Fox has photographs I have taken to show what we had. This is one thing. We were burned on that one. If — she could get them out. I also took a number of photographs of all the violations on 22nd Terrace. I took them late last year and some of them, there is something's been done, and I guess we can thank this Administration for all — the trash piles that have been removed. There was a little dump in front of every house and a big dump behind every business, and that has been removed. - Of course, the landscaping is still atrocious. Mayor Suarez: We don't very often get thanked, but I appreciate your thanking US. Mrs. Gregalot: Yes, we appreciate it. We like what is going on. We hope you continue. All right, can I bring these to you? Mayor Suarez: Certainly. Mr. Plummer: She has offered it before. Mrs. Gregalot: (OFF -MIKE, INAUDIBLE) Mr. Plummer: Sergio, he is the one that proffered it to be attached to, as a covenant. Let it be if he wants to Mayor Suarez: This is not beautiful landscaping. Mrs. Gregalot: (OFF MIKE, INAUDIBLE) Mayor Suarez: Whose property is this, Ma'am? Mr. Plummer: He is volunteering in a covenant to surrender a site plan which he will hold himself to. Mrs. Gregalot: (OFF MICROPHONE - INAUDIBLE) Mayor Suarez: And no one has ever accused Al Cardenas of being a boy scout. Mrs. Gregalot: (OFF MICROPHONE - INAUDIBLE) Mrs. Kennedy: Carlos Arboleya. Mayor Suarez: Except for Carlos. What did you do with Bob Traurig? Is he hiding behind there? Mr. Cardenas: No, he had to go to the hospital, but my wife's still here, and Sheila. Mayor Suarez: There you go again, trying that approach. 70 December 2, 1987 Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor, for the information of the attorney, any plans that are going to be submitted will have to be in staffs hands 20 days before the hearing, meaning January 8th. Mr. Cardenas: That's right. Mr. Pierce: OK. Mr. Cardenas: We'll meet with... we will have it in staff's hands by January 8th and we will meet with the neighbors at least 10 days prior to January 28th. Mrs. Gregalot: The only thing I wanted to bring up is that one of our concerns is that we feel now that we are opening up a bigger can of worms and these other properties along the way will want the same kind of consideration, and we feel that it is very important that some plan be worked out for all the subsequent applicants, something that we can all live with. Mayor Suarez: Do you mean applicants like on the south side of 22nd Terrace? Mrs. Gregalot: Well, I mean the applicants on the north side of 22nd Terrace who will want the same privilege, and every time this comes up, we go back to zero. We started zero and there is all these meetings, I have a file about this thick and I am keeping a record of all of this, because we refer to it, but this is the problem. This area is really changing and it needs to... we need to have some kind of plan that will work instead of going through this every single time, and I hope that our applicants will do all the things they said. So far, we are watching them, we are very vigilant. Mayor Suarez: On that last point she made, does she have anything coming back to the Commission on the whole concept of additional safeguards for transitional uses? Mr. Pierce: Well, that is part of what I wanted to mention to you, since she brought it up, is that yesterday... you know we are going through this ordinance 9500 review, and yesterday for the first time we got real deep into this whole concept of how the deal with arterials like Coral Way, Biscayne Boulevard, other arterials that somewhere down the line are going to be affected with the same kinds of pressures, so we explored, and it looks very interesting what we have got. We've not ready to talk about it yet, but it is a problem. We recognize it and have for a while, I think starting all the way back to Saunder's Hardware, if I can bring that ugly word up and... Mrs. Gregalot: Yes, that's another nightmare. Mrs. Kennedy: Have they since cleaned up this property? Mr. Cardenas: Yes, that is the before and after pictures. Those are the before pictures. Mr. Pierce: And for the Commission's knowledge, I will tell you the concept we are talking about does not differ too much from this pattern that is being established here. It is along those lines, but we will be talking about it in the next few months. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I move item 15 with all of the amendments that have been made in the form of covenants and most importantly, the one in reference to this Commission having site plan approval prior to the second reading. Mrs. Kennedy: I second. Mayor Suarez: Moved, seconded, thirded, any discussion? Read the ordinance. 71 December 2, 1987 • AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND ADDENDA (SEPTEMBER 1985); FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2951-2999 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) BY CHANGING DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM LOW MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy NOES: Mayor Xavier L. Suarez ABSENT: None. COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL: Mayor Suarez: I am going to vote no. If I was going to be consistent with the other similar cases, it would be only as to the two lots that are contiguous to the northern lots, so I am going to vote no. Maybe it will be a signal to the future applicants of this sort. 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. 18. FIRST READING ORDINANCE AMENDING 9500 BY CHANGING ZONING OF 2951-2999 SW 22ND TERRACE FROM RG-1/3 TO CR-2/7. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Al Cardenas: Excuse me, there is also a contingent item 16, Mayor. Mayor Suarez: A companion item 16? Mr. Cardenas: Companion, right. Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor, as a matter of fact, all of those things that we were talking about in `,he covenant, the covenant properly belongs with item PZ-16, not with... Mr. Plummer: Well, we are going to deny that, so that's... Mayor Suarez: I will entertain a motion on 16 with the covenant... Mr. Plummer: So moved. Mrs. Kennedy: Second. Mayor Suarez: Which actually applied to 16 and not 15. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Read the ordinance. i 72 December 2, 1987 AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI , FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2951-2999 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RG- 1/3 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL (ONE AND TWO FAMILY) TO CR-2/7 v COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (COMMUNITY) BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 42 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 Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy NOES: Mayor Xavier L. Suarez 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. 19. DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO ENFORCE ORDINANCE REGARDING STREET VENDORS PENDING FINAL DECISION ON FEBRUARY 25, 1988. Mayor Suarez: What are we doing on this vendor's ordinance being proposed, PZ-l? Who is here to speak on that besides Tucker? Yes, sir. Mr. Jahad Rasheed: Jahad Rasheed, representing the Coconut Grove Street Merchants' Association. Mayor Suarez: Right, and do you have some of the vendors with you? — Mr. Rasheed: Yes. _ Mayor Suarez: Can you raise you hand, those of you that... OK. Will you allow your representative to do the speaking for you, hopefully? OK, is there anyone else who wishes to be heard from the vendor's side? OK, that is good. That will simply matters. Mr. Vincent Pastori: Are you ready for this side? Mayor Suarez: That's what I am trying to figure out. I guess so. In fairness, we should... Counselor, I am sorry to have stopped you, but we should take PZ-1, we have been... Mr. Pastori: My name is Vincent Pastori, and I am here representing myself as a property owner, so I guess we will start and then there are a number of us here in reference to the... Mayor Suarez: Do we hear from staff on this before you start, Guillermo? Is this one of our own items, actually, the way it comes, the posture it comes to us in? Mr. Olmedillo: No, sir. Mrs. Kennedy: Guillermo, have you looked into the ordinance that I proposed the last time, similar to the one in San Francisco? 73 December 2, 1987 Mr. Olmedillo: Let me find out, because I was not involved in that one. Just one second, please. Mr. Joel Maxwell: Madam Vice Mayor, members of the City Commission, at the last... Mayor Suarez: Joel, yes, what is the posture. That's what we need to know. Mr. Maxwell: At the last City Commission meeting, when this item was discussed. We were directed by the Commission to prepare and ordinance for your review that was similar to the downtown vending ordinance of the City of Miami, which is a restricted vending district. One of the ordinances here is prepared in response to that. In addition to that, the Planning Department prepared and the Law Department reviewed an ordinance which has additional restrictions on it and allows sale of items in the Grove other than the food and fresh cut flowers, which the restrictive vending district downtown would allow. So what you have in front of you, is an "A" and a "B" for discussion purposes only. Mayor Suarez: Now, "A" is less restrictive than "B." It is more restrictive than "B." Run that by me one more time, please. "A" is more restrictive, because it does not allow any street vendors? Mr. Maxwell: "A" would allow only the sale of fresh cut flowers and food. "B" would allow food, flowers, and handicraft type things. Mrs. Kennedy: Where is that, Joel? Mr. Maxwell: PZ-31, you have a proposal, and it is "A" and a "B". Mr. Pierce: PZ-1 on today's agenda, yes. Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, I know, PZ-31, but I have that... Mr. Maxwell: That is right, it has been renumbered PZ-1. Mrs. Kennedy: The backup, specifically those. Mr. Maxwell: You don't have it in yours? Mr. Plummer: All right, let me ask you this question. Is it within the purview of this Commission to allow or to restrict the areas in which vending can take place? Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: In other words, can this Commission say that in the heart of the Grove, there will be no vending, but in the Dinner Key area, there can be vending. Is that within our purview? Mr. Maxwell: If you have a rational basis for making that distinction, you can do so. Mr. Plummer: And what constitutes a rational basis? Mr. Maxwell: A rational basis means a reasonable basis, reasonably connected to your police power, if it is connected to the health, safety and welfare of the community. That's right. Mr. Plummer: OK, I assume the applicants are the people that came here before. Mr. Pastori: No, I was not here before. Mayor Suarez: Well, that is as good a way as any to proceed, so... Mr. Pastori: I think that is an excellent starting point for exactly what I intend to speak about. My name is Vincent Pastori, and I live at 4038 Ventura Avenue in Coconut Grove and am one of the property owners at 3121 Commodore Plaza, which is the corner of Commodore and Main Highway. 74 December 2, 1987 Mayor Suarez: You are not paid for your appearance here today, obviously, so... Mr. Pastori: No, this is a freebie. Mayor Suarez: Does either ordinance satisfy you, or do you have a preference, or...? Mr. Pastori: I have worked diligently with the previous ordinance that was on the books with the Police Department in reference to that corner, and if any of you know that corner, you can really can become a specialist in vendor identification from that corner, because you really see them all in that spot, and in hearing "A" and in hearing "B," and after that preface about whether or not this City can take a position as to eliminate vending due to health and welfare of public, I will just say that in the... to basically see what we are dealing with, in the streets there are four types of vendors that appear from that vantage point on 3121 Commodore Plaza, and all of them are of varying states. One, of course, is the type that is in a parking space with their trunk up and their debris all over the car with their ghetto blaster blaring in public streets, selling the goods. I don't think anybody here, including the vendors like that type of identification of a vendor, in addition to the fact that they are obstructing a parking space and using one at variable times of the day. It is not a very attractive site for the City to put forward to people that come to any part of Miami. Secondly, there is the type of vendor that has a card table that is set up on a public sidewalk that has a Coleman lantern on the sidewalk during the night that gives a tent camp effect, very unique effect that occurs in the street, and I don't think anybody here on this Commission, or even the vendors would think that a card table with a Coleman lantern is a very aesthetic way to sell any goods and I want to make sure before I get to the next two, there is no issue... Mayor Suarez: You said a card table? Mr. Pastori: A card table with a beautiful decorated Coleman lantern on it, at various lights. It is funny, because some of the people renting stores... Mayor Suarez: Selling what? Mr. Pastori: Anything, tapes, tee shirts, whatever, and I want to make sure, before I get in the last two, the issue really is not competition, because I don't think that any of the retailers are concerned about any of the vendors being competition. I think that is ludicrous. I think the issue is the aesthetics of the area, and the regulation of the area. Now, that is two types of vendors. There is a third type of vendor which would probably take a lot of pride in his particular product, whether it be a hot dog stand, or an ice cream vendor and do a great job with his little stand and have a great product and keep it clean and move it around, and they also would vend and they would be right in with those other two. In other words, there is no real fair identification. And then there is the fourth type of vendor that is an artist, or a juggler or a masseuse, and he has a certain talent, and they are there, and they are also a vendor and all four of those, in the past, we never really had to decide whether we liked any of them because we had an ordinance on the books that just said, "Hey, if you want to do any of that, do it down there in an area that was designated and we had the beat policemen, and in my particular location, we had a copy of the ordinance, because when the policeman rotated, and when people came to vend that were improper, when the policeman showed up that didn't understand the ordinance, we said, "Just a minute, sir, here is the ordinance." He read the ordinance. He read it to the individual, and the individual moved to the designated area. But, the problem is that many of the people that frequent the Grove during season come from Manhattan and other areas, where vending is allowed and when the guy that comes to Coconut Grove, that doesn't know any better, sees vending going on by the Playhouse, he says, "God, those stupid guys, they ought to be setting up at Commodore Plaza. There is a lot more money over there." So he comes and he sets up, we call the best policeman comes down, reads the ordinance, reads to the vendor, vendor moves. I mean, it's police, we are there all the time. The sergeant, we have his number programed into the system. We just hit it, he came, "Fine, I'll be there." Here we go, dispatching two police officers to move this vendor 500 feet away from a location. My position is, that "A," or "B," I mean actually, "A" is great. You can regulate that, and then you get into - is he a nice vendor, what does he sell, does he look nice, where does he go, and how many times do we call the police and tell him to move, and 75 December 2, 1987 again, it is public health and welfare. The guy is on the street, or on the sidewalk. Mrs. Kennedy: But, who establishes the criteria there? Mr. Pastori: I don't want to say it. I don't think you guys can say it, because, what if he is selling an ice cream you don't like, or a stand that is not attractive. I think that is a very difficult thing to determine. Yes, you can have committees and try that, it is not easy to do. It is not easy to legislate, it is not easy to police, so the point is this, that the guy that was the artist that we may all love and the masseuse that looks great, that get's rid of your back pains, is thrown right in with the guy that throws the trunk of the car up and vends with a ghetto blaster, and they are all the same! They all have a license, and they all are the same, and they all have the degrees of attractiveness, and I think it is a very difficult thing. My point is, that there are more bad than there are good, so I think that for the health and welfare of the community in the public streets and the sidewalks, I don't think we should be compelled to see that type of element going on, and I don't think it becomes the City of Miami to put that image in front of the public. Mayor Suarez: What you are saying is, if we can distinguish, not have anybody. Mr. Pastori: Well, I think it is hard to determine that. You guys have that task. You have "A" or "B" "A" makes you do food and flowers and say, "OK, where do you go with food and flowers, and who can that be and who do you regulate." I think you certainly can do that, and have done it in other areas. It is certainly better than the guy in the street using a parking space with the trunk, and certainly better than the guy with the Coleman lantern on the sidewalk, and it is lot better than the guy just makeshifts and comes about, and every one of these vendors take pride in what they do, but by — the same token, are cast in that same ugly word, "vendor". They are all in that spectrum, and to me, I think that, for the overall good, the easy way is _ just say, "Don't have them," then there is no problem. If you begin to have them, boy that problem is in your chairs, and the police's chairs, and people -_ like us that have to call the police and make sure that everyone is abiding the rules, and it is very difficult to have... _ Mayor Suarez: If you have an ordinance, you have the problems with enforcement, that is the story of life. Mr. Pastori: It is tough, and it is police money to do it, and believe me, in the Grove, those boys have a lot of things to do besides move vendors. Mayor Suarez: We are aware of that. Mr. Pastori: So, that is my statement. I am not for "A" or "B," I am for "C". Mrs. Kennedy: You are talking about food and flowers. Sergio, what is happening with the guy on Commodore and Grand?... from France to You, I think he is called? Who can answer that? Unidentified Speaker: France to you on Commodore Plaza? Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Plummer: While you are waiting, Mr. Pierce, sir... Mr. Pierce: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: I want you to take and go to every one of the people in Coconut Grove or anywhere else, in reference to sidewalk cafes. Are you listening to me? There is a provision in that ordinance that says that those tables and chairs are open to the public. Unidentified Speaker: That's right. Mr. Maxwell: Yes, it is. 76 December 2, 1987 Mr. Plummer: Two kids were arrested by a City of Miami policeman the other night, because they sat at one of those tables, and the policeman came up to them and said, "If you are not making a purchase from this company, you cannot sit there." I want it reiterated, I don't want any more kids arrested illegally, to go up there, and I want to make it very clear that every one of the public has the right to use those tables. Now, I know a man who puts them out there, would prefer only his customers have preference, but it is on public property, so I want them all to be put on notice that they do not have _ preferential, and I think you had better put a memo to the Police Department, that they are in fact, open to the public. _ Mr. Pierce: Yes, sir, that is what I was going to say. We will not only do that with the restaurant operators, but we will reiterate that with the Police Department. Mr. Plummer: Well, OK, I just... it was a shame to me, because the parents of the kids came to me, and these two kids were arrested, and I am sure it is going to be thrown out the minute the judge sees the ordinance, OK? But, they were arrested because they were not purchasing there. I think they were arrested for not following the orders of a police officer, when he told them to get the hell out. Mayor Suarez: Joel, Ted, somebody. Mr. Ted Stahl: Ted Stahl, Ted Stahl Interiors, Commodore Plaza, 3120 Commodore Plaza. My residence is 3171 Royal Road. Back in October when we came before you, a few days before, we came to present our request. We handed to all of the Commissioners, hand delivered to your office, a document, which at the time, I do not think you had the time to read, but I am going over it very carefully quickly, what the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce, the Merchants' Association, Tigertail Association and the Civic Club have all sat down and agreed up, what we would like as a proposal. Showing up on the screen you will see a red outline and this is what we are calling the district e restricted area. Our proposal to the Commissioners, which was discussed by all of these organizations that represent both merchants and residents, came up with this proposal, which was delivered, and I do not think you had the opportunity to read, that the area bordered by, and including both sides of the street, sidewalks, and setbacks of Bayshore Drive to McFarland, McFarland to Main Highway, Main Highway to Franklin, Franklin Avenue to Margaret, and Margaret to Grand Avenue, and Grand Avenue to McDonald Avenue, McDonald Avenue to Oak Avenue, Oak Avenue to Mary Street, and Mary Street to Bayshore Drive, be restricted from all street vendors, not to include licensed performing and producing artists, such as musicians, dancers, clowns, painters, sketchers, sculptors, weavers who are, underlined, actively performing and producing their art on location. That is what we have requested and the red line is the area. Mr. Plummer: Delineate for me, what about if a man were to do... I understand, a juggler. He doesn't sell a product. Mr. Stahl: That's correct, sir. Mr. Plummer: If a man does a sketching of an individual and sells that sketch to that individual, is that not selling of a product? Mr. Stahl: I agree. What we would like is, to abolish all vendors. Then we, a few of the merchants and residents, said, "Well, this community is known for artists, so we have got to keep the artist here." I've lived in the Grove all my life, for 52 years, and I have never seen a vendor on any of our streets in all the 52 years I've lived here. We had what they called a Grove House, _ where the artists showed their art, that they made in their homes. That was of course, torn down because of its deterioration. It is now part of the Coconut Grove Parking lot, the Playhouse. Getting back to where the problem started, four years ago, when the City Planning Department came up with this ordinance, the Grove was free of vendors. They started appearing downtown Miami. The merchants in downtown Miami came up very strongly that they did not approve of all these card tables, etc., on their streets, the same that we are asking to get rid of. They came up with one of the existing ordinances, which I believe is ordinance "A," that the City Attorney has even told us is not working downtown Miami, so we do not feel that it is going to work in the Grove, and we are not too happy about ordinance "B." Going back about four years ago when the vendors started appearing on our street, we called the City 77 December 2, 1987 Police Department. The City Police Department at that time said, "We cannot help you," and it took about four or five of us to go down and start researching the ordinances and we found the existing ordinance, which stated - that there shall be no vendor within 500 feet of a school, period! It didn't - say 24 hours a day, didn't state 7 days a week. For a while, when we called _ the police, the police came down. We literally had to show them that - ordinance. We then had to pull out a sheet of paper like this, showing them - exactly where the areas were allowed. The average policeman that comes into _ this community to enforce the law does not know the law. The merchants know it better than the Police Department, so when... Mayor Suarez: Ted, we know all that. It has been described, and whatever we do, we have to build in some kind of a mechanism for enforcement. Mr. Stahl: Well, the problem is that the City of Miami Police Department says — a letter... we asked, since there was so much commotion about this ordinance and who was legally to enforce it, who wasn't, we asked Mr. Maxwell to come to the Chamber of Commerce meeting and to please explain us this ordinance, and -_ which he did, and he stated that this law was so written to be enforced 24 — hours a day, seven days a week. We asked Mr. Maxwell, "Please, would you make - a copy of that, send it to the City of Miami Chief of Police who is not _ enforcing this ordinance." He in turn, sent a letter back to the City Attorney stating that he did not feel that this ordinance should be in effect = _ after school hours, and from that time, it has never been enforced, and when we called the Police Department to enforce the 500 foot radius, they will not enforce it, because of the Chief's position on this matter. All we are asking for you, until we can sit down and... Mayor Suarez: Would about that? Let me clarify that. What about that, Walter? What could we do? Supposing that we were to find that the single thing we can do right now is to make sure that the ordinance is enforced as it is on the books. Mr. Pierce: The Manager's office has already taken steps and the Police Chief has been advised that the ordinance is to be enforced. As a matter of fact, there was an arrest down there today at about 12:30 for vending within... Mayor Suarez: You are not saying then, that the ordinance is unenforceable as written. Mr. Pierce: No, it is not unenforceable, and it... Mr. Plummer: Well, but the question, I think that is arising, is it enforceable 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That's the question. Mr. Pierce: The City Attorney's advice to us is that it is. Mr. Plummer: It is? Mr. Pierce: It is, and we have instructed the Police Chief to do that, and they have returned to enforcing it as of today. Mr. Plummer: Does the 500 feet ordinance take care of that area delineated? Mr. Pierce: Yes, we haven't... Mr. Maxwell: You have to have a survey decision. Mr. Stahl: The blue marks are the 500 foot radius from the three primary schools in our community. Mr. Pierce: Assuming that those circles are accurate Mr. Stahl: They are accurate. Mr. Pierce: What I am saying is, we should not have that problem any more. The Police Department will be enforcing that ordinance as evidenced by an individual who was physically arrested today. Mr. Stahl: All right, may I ask then to the City Manager who is stating that I �! this law is being enforced... divorcing myself from the Chamber of Commerce now, as I merchant I speak to you. I am on Commodore Plaza and I have three 78 December 2, 1987 i vendors in front of my store, and they have told me that they are not going to be moved, and they are still there, and what I have got to tell you, sir, my friends is... Mr. Pierce: Mr. Stahl, please, I just said that as of today, it was being enforced. You are telling me about last week. Mayor Suarez: Yes, you have got to give us a little time to prove it to you. Just go ahead. Mr. Pastori: (INAUDIBLE, OFF -MIKE) Mr. Stahl: And if it is not enforced, who do we call? INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Suarez: Among other places, you can call the Police Department, but you can also call Walter, and I am going to give you his private number. Go ahead, Ted. — Mr. Stahl: I mean, we are not trying to be the bad boys and... INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Suarez: We have answered that, Vince. Go ahead. Mr. Stahl: All right, the point is, we don't want to feel... the community, we don't want you to feel, we don't want these vendors to feel that we are the bad boys, we have got lots of money in our pockets, we are the big guys. I've worked all my life for what I've gotten, and it is being threatened now, and I don't appreciate it. I am a taxpayer in this community and I pay big ® taxes, I've worked a long time to have what I have and it is being threatened. This man is no... the vendors in front of me, they are not directly hurting my business, but their appearance in front of my store is degradable and I do not appreciate it and I want some action taken now. Mayor Suarez: What is the actual violation of those that are in front of your as= store?... the fact that they are within 500 feet of a school? Mr. Stahl: They are legally now, it is a 500 foot radius, if you enforced it. Mayor Suarez: You have heard him say he can enforce it and he will enforce it. Go ahead. Mr. Stahl: All right. Mayor Suarez: As to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Stahl: What we would like to do is, we originally came out with the proposed ordinance to abolish them. We want to work with them. We don't want to seem like we want to totally get rid of them, but our sidewalks in this community, between the months of October to April, are so highly congested in the evening hours with tourists and people coming from the theatre. Then on the weekends, we have thousands of high school students coming in. There is a law that you cannot have signs advertising your store on the property of City sidewalks. They are there. All we have to do is pick up the phone and the orange City truck comes down the block and pulls one at a time and takes them to the dump. They are not allowed there because they are obstructing the walkways. Between the signs, the lampposts, the meters, the news stands, the benches, there is no space for these people in places and as a businessman - I am sitting on their side, they want to be where everybody is, and that is our problem. The Main Highway and Commodore Plaza are just too totally congested with walkways and people for more of this congestion to be put there. If we can find an area that they would be happy with, and they don't want to be happy, except where they are now... if we could take an area like Peacock Park, or some area, to where these vendors could be placed, let it be _ advertised, the vendor's market, let them have the hotdog stands down there. Let it be all known to people into the community if they want to get a deal, go down, this is the vendor area, but to have them piled up all over these narrow sidewalks in front of stores, I think this is wrong. I am not saying abolish them, but we have got to do something, and I am telling you, this control of 500 foot radius is not going to work. It didn't work when it was ineffective. 79 December 2, 1987 Mayor Suarez: Well, tell us that after we have tried it. Mr. Tucker Gibbs: We are just going to reiterate the Civic Club's and the Tigertail Association's support of this position. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask a question. Is it within our purview to increase the radius? Mr. Maxwell: When you say increase, do you want it larger than 500? Mr. Plummer: If we wanted to increase it from 500 to 750 or 1,000, is that within our purview? Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir, again, as long as you have a rational basis for doing so. Mr. Plummer: All right, is a rational basis is that that particular area, that the sidewalks are very narrow and it does create a pedestrian right-of- way? Is that a rational problem? Mr. Maxwell: Well, the answer is yes, but I would like to clarify. Mr. Plummer: OK. Mr. Maxwell: Remember, what you do in the Grove, you would probably would need to do to the rest of the City, you couldn't treat the Grove differently. Mr. Plummer: Do I have a problem with that? Mr. Pierce: If I may jump in for a moment, Commissioner Plummer. The effect, practical effect, of increasing the radius, say from 500 to 750 feet, is to in effect, ban vending in the Grove. As a practical matter, it may be more effective, and more defensible to just ban it period. Mrs. Dougherty: That's right. Ban it within those boundaries. Mr. Pierce: Sure. Mr. Plummer: Well, OK, you know, I am trying to be... there has got to be... look at the map. If we said that in that red area, that we do not allow vending, OK, what is the rationale for that action? Mr. Stahl: The Police Department would know... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, you are not my attorney. Mr. Stahl: I'm sorry. Mr. Maxwell: I think you have a... Mr. Plummer: Not yet! Mr. Maxwell: ... legitimate basis on traffic alone. That's a congested area. All you have to do is go down there on the weekends and observe what is taking place. Mr. Plummer: So that would be a safety factor? Mr. Maxwell: Certainly. Mr. Pierce: Oh, yes. Remember, the primary purpose of sidewalks is for public circulation, not for commercial gain. Mr. Gibbs: May I say just one thing? Mr. Rasheed: Can we be heard from this side at this time? Mayor Suarez: Yes, please. Mr. Rasheed: OK, my name'is Jahad Rasheed, I am a spokesman for the Coconut Grove Street Merchants' Association and I heard the deliberations here and 80 December 2, 1987 based on the last meeting, we as a group of vendors, vending, engaged in — lawful commerce on the streets, primarily in Coconut Grove, for the last five years, there has been a set number of merchants, who are for the most part, residents of the Grove, property owners of the Grove, such as I am. I live at 3127 New York Street, I own three buildings. I am a vendor in the Grove. The first point I want to emphasize is that... Mayor Suarez: What do you sell? Mr. Rasheed: We sell sterling silver, my wife and I... sterling silver, high fashion costume jewelry, so forth, as other vendors sell a variety of crafts. Mayor Suarez: Just out of clarification, would that be allowed under both "A" and "B?" Mr. Maxwell: Well, it would be allowed under "B", but it would not be allowed under "A." Mr. Rasheed: All right, first of all, I, as spokesman for our association, have been in contact with some property owners - Mr. Enrique Gonzales. I've had conversations with Mr. Marshall Steingold, who represents certain properties, Stuart Sorg, of the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce, and various businesses have been surveyed, interviewed regarding their feelings for street merchants. First of all, there is very, very, broad based strong support among the business community in Coconut Grove, also among tourists and shoppers in support of vending in general. There is a study that was commissioned by Coconut Grove marketing company that showed that vending was highly favored and desired by those who patronized the Grove. We, in the Association, recognize and appreciate the problems that the merchants have. We also abhor the problems that they have. Sometimes you have derelict store merchants and there are remedies for those. We believe in like mannor there are remedies for the problems with street merchants that can be legislated, and therefore, we are asking that any deliberations at this point be deferred and that an over -site committee, consisting of the representors from the City Manager's office, the Mayor's office, the Legal Department and Department of Planning, the Coconut Grove Merchants' Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Street Merchants' Association and anybody deemed fit by the Commission, be put together. At this point I have a meeting with the Department of Planning, and their legal counsel, to map out a plan that essentially is like this, to alleviate the problems and address ourselves to these concerns here, regarding egress and ingress on the streets. -- Mayor Suarez: Let me say something on your proposal to have further consideration of all this on the part of City and interested groups. Coconut Grove Civic Club, if I understand your position, Tucker, is that unless we are ready to act on a ordinance today prohibiting vendors, basically,.. Mr. Gibbs: We would like the present ordinance enforced as per the City Attorney's opinion. Mayor Suarez: Which we are saying now, we are doing anyhow, so we are meeting with that request... Mr. Plummer: Which is being done. Mayor Suarez: ...and in the meantime, you would like to meet with the vendor... Mr. Gibbs: Our position is, we would prefer to have what Commissioner Plummer talked about, that entire red area being vendor free. If it is not the wish of the City Commission... Mr. Plummer: Tucker, wait a minute. Commissioner Plummer only asked, could we do it. Mr. Gibbs: Oh, I understand. I am not saying you are advocating it. Mayor Suarez: But, in the meantime, if we were disposed to follow his request, you also have no problem meeting with vendors and you even say here that "and meet the vendors to hammer out a compromise" so you are certainly optimistic that one can be hammered out. 81 December 2, 1987 Mr. Stall: No, that is one of the options that hopefully can... Mayor Suarez: Well, as a lawyer's if you had meant, "if we can," you would have put it in there, right? Mr. Stall: OK. Mayor Suarez: Anyhow, would you have any problem meeting with the Coconut Grove Civic Club? Mr. Rasheed: No, but with some clarification. I'd just like to amplify from it. Mayor Suarez: Yes, do you have time to go ahead and add whatever... Mr. Rasheed: There is a matter of creativity and thought in regarding vendors. I mean, we have a fine appreciation what Coconut Grove is about, and we admire the work, the investment and the time that has been put into the Grove to make it what it is, but we are a part of that and we can contribute significantly. We know our place, and we can contribute by the means of lights, ambience, security. There is a creed been worked up. There are certain plans. The streets have been surveyed for the best feasible spot to permit a cooperative manner. We can have it all. We can have vendors and we can have the things that you desire in the Grove. It is not necessary to ban Grove or severely restrict them. Give us an opportunity to work up a plan. I am confident that it will be acceptable to all of those involved. We do, if you can just appreciate for the moment, that we can look out of your eyes and appreciate the same problems. I can say, on behalf of this group here, no one has been guilty of those problems. One of the main things that we want to include is the requirement of a push cart, similar to those that are used in many malls. This requires a certain investment and it will preclude transients, those who will come... Mayor Suarez: I have always thought that if we specified a push cart and even some kind of color, and some kind of design, and so on, that would help enormously, to not allow eyesores, or people selling out of the back of cars, or all the things that really make the.. Mr. Rasheed: We are against that too. It is moot. We are on your side there, but we don't want to be thrown out, they are throwing the baby out with the wash. Just don't do that. We have a plan, it has been professionally done and rendered, drawings, sketches, streets, traffic patterns will be taken into consideration... a code of ethics, things like CPR training for some of the vendors, cooperation with public safety agencies and the police. All those things will be addressed in that proposal and restriction to specific spots where the lovely building that we appreciate in the Grove, that we admire too is... Mayor Suarez: Some geographical restrictions applied make some sense. We already have some built into the law because of the proximity to schools. I would not... I'm sorry, Joel, did I say something? Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to comment earlier on something that was said and you mentioned again just now. That's the selling from trunks that one of the speakers mentioned. That is illegal now. You can't do it now. Mayor Suarez: That is illegal, but I mean, if there is additional ways of specifying what is legal, it is certainly easier for the police to know what looks like what is acceptable and what doesn't, and how they can enforce the law. What I am saying with all of this, I, for myself, would not vote against... would not vote in favor of eliminating vendors. I will restrict and ... Mr. Rasheed: Mr. Mayor, can I interrupt... the thing is, the association asked that the current enforcement of the law exists now, with the provision of the 500 foot rule be enforced during school days, during school hours, primarily because that rule is to protect the school children is obvious, and that position puts the vendors, particularly these at the association, outside those particular zones and we also would covenant that no one would set up on Commodore Plaza. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. 82 December 2, 1987 Mr. Rasheed: It is not the Commodore Plaza, but the vocal opposition is from Commodore Plaza. Mayor Suarez: That is an interesting in-between proposal, but the thing is that this is the only ordinance that we have got. It is now being enforced and while we hammer out a compromise, assuming this Commission is willing to have both groups meet, and I hope that the Commission is willing to do that, because I think we can end up with a better deal all around. The best we can do now is to enforce the existing loan. Mr. Rasheed: But, the 500 foot rule mostly... Mayor Suarez: I understand that that is meant to protect the young people going to school and so on, and that outside of school hours it doesn't make much sense to have... Mr. Rasheed: Well, can I point out, according to that map, as it stands now, the vendors that are Coconut Grove's own vendors, are basically outside those zones. Now, through the course of recent events, one of the vendors, yours truly, would be in that target zone, but it does not present a problem with traffic and egress. If that rule was enforced school hours during school days and the proviso that no one sets up on Commodore Plaza or any sidewalk less than six feet wide, we could give us some time to come back with the fuller program, I think we could work that out, and if they enforced the law, we wouldn't have been here in the first place, because those individuals would never have stood up in front of Ted Stahl's store, and he wouldn't have complained and we would not have been here, and we would just ask that we be allowed to continue. Mayor Suarez: I figured that Ted was the cause of all of this, but... Mr. Stahl: No, listen, I fought against these vendors way before that man started appearing in my store, sir. He has been there a year. I have been after this four years. Mr. Rasheed: Well, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Mayor Suarez: Yes, that was particularly bad strategy on his part, I guess, because it means that we have Ted here now at City Hall for the next three or four Commission meetings until we get this resolved. Mr. Rasheed: And those who cause the problem are not here. They are not concerned, and we put in many hours and we work, and again, those concerns are not just theirs, those are our concerns. We don't have a million dollars to back up our concerns, but you are no more concerned about this problem than we are, so don't throw us out, leave us there until we can work out a program under some restrictions. Mayor Suarez: Well, I have already said for myself, that I am not going to vote to eliminate vendors unless the rest of the Commission is going to feel that way. Mr. Rasheed: The main sticking point is the 500 foot rule during the school hours and school days. Mayor Suarez: Well, hey, I don't see any feasible way of getting around that right now. We asked the Manager to enforce that and he said he is going to enforce it. Commissioner. Mr. De Yurre: I'd like to know from the City Attorney, could we put restrictions that the vendors be members of a certain group that can be policed, somehow? - or, that they can be kept within a certain distance from each other as to their location? Mr. Maxwell: As to your first question, I would advise against attempting to do that. The second question... Mr. De Yurre: Do you advise against it because it is illegal, or because...? Mr. Maxwell: I think it would be illegal or unconstitutional, probably, because there would be an abuse of discretion. I don't know what standards 83 December 2, 1987 and criteria we could use for setting up such rules, or attempting to do so, so we would probably get into an equal protection problem if we attempted to do that. Mr. Rasheed: There is a proposal for concession that is going to be put forth through the Planning Department to address those particular issues, every one of those points have been considered. Again, we have support of major businesses and business owners and they have been surveyed and those issues, and there is a limited number of push carts have been proposed in this proposal, actually, a very limited number. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Mayor, if I may continue to respond to Commissioner De Yurre's question. We are talking about the public streets... Mr. De Yurre: That's right. Mr. Maxwell: ...sidewalks, to attempt to restrict those to a particular group is going to present a problem. Secondly, there is a way to do that, through the issuance of revocable permits, and so forth, where a person gets a permit to occupy a specific location. Now, your second question dealing with distance from one another, and so forth, would actually occur in either one of the options "A" and "B," because you set up restricted vending zones, which in fact, do that, which specifically designates certain locations for vending activity and it utilizes standards and criteria within either one of those ordinances. They in fact, would be a certain distance from one another because of the safety factors, they can't be so many feet from certain type uses. Mr. De Yurre: So then we can pick certain sites where there can be vendors. Mr. Maxwell: That occurs, and that is what happens downtown at this particular time in fact. Mr. Plummer: Enforce the ordinance as it is now and go to a meeting, let's do it. Mayor Suarez: Please. I'll entertain a motion to that effect. Mr. Pierce: Just one thing. Mr. Rasheed makes certainly a compelling argument, but I think the Commission has actually two decisions to make here. The first one is, whether or not vending will be permitted in the Grove or City-wide, or any such combination or modifications thereof, and then secondly, how. Which, after that first decision is made, that will be appropriate for the Street Merchants Association and the merchants and staff, to get together in the task force that Mr. Rasheed proposed. Mayor Suarez: It is implicit... yes, you are right, but it is implicit in the concept of having the two groups meet and come back with proposals, as we do _ want to have some vending going on and that is only the way I feel. I will entertain a motion along the lines we were just saying. Mr. Plummer: Well, the motion, as far as I am concerned, at this particular point, since everybody seems agreeable to sitting down, as long as the ordinance presently there is in effect, until such time as a conclusion is drawn by this Commission, I will be move that that be the policy that we accept right now. Mrs. Kennedy: I second that motion. We have to have enforcement of the ordinance. Mr. Rasheed: Point of information. Mayor Suarez: So moved and seconded. Yes, sir. Mr. Rasheed: Will you reiterate the 500 foot rule for me, please? Mr. Plummer: Well, I ... Mr. Rasheed: Is it 24 hours a day, or is it going to... Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir, 24 hours, that is what the ordinance calls for now, sir. That is what is presently being enforced. 84 December 2, 1987 Mr. Stahl: Seven days a week, sir. Mr. Plummer: Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, yes sir. That's what it calls for. Mayor Suarez: Any further discussion from the Commission? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 87-1071 A MOTION DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENSURE THAT PROPER ENFORCEMENT OF PRESENTLY EXISTING CITY ORDINANCE REGARDING STREET VENDORS BE CARRIED OUT UNTIL THE CITY COMMISSION RECONSIDERS THIS ISSUE AND COMES TO A FINAL DECISION AT THE FIRST CITY COMMISSION MEETING PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 25, 1988. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Mayor Suarez: That doesn't mean that that is the way that we are going to end up. It may not makes sense after school hours. Mr. Rasheed: It is just the interim I was concerned about, but I understand. Thank you. Mayor Suarez: Right, at least for myself, but... Mrs. Kennedy: And by the way, what you are proposing was my suggestion, to create the over -site committee and for them to determine the size of the carts, the type of vendors... Mr. Rasheed: Did you see our proposal? Mrs. Kennedy: I've got it here. Mr. Rasheed: No, we have an additional proposal with the carts and so forth, but I think you are going to be quite pleased... quite pleased with it. Mr. Stahl: Before I leave, may I have the telephone number that we can call at any time of the day, and evening... Mr. Pastori: I want that number too. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Stahl, let me tell you something, sir, and you are my friend. I am going to be very much upset with the Administration, if you have to call at all. Mr. Stahl: All right, sir, but may I have the telephone number? Mr. Plummer: They should show... 579-6040, Mr. Walter Pierce. Mr. Stahl: And if it is 10:00 o'clock at night, and 11:00 o'clock and 1:00 o'clock in the morning? Mrs. Kennedy: And at night, Walter? And at night, come on! Mr. Stahl: No, I don't want to bother Mr. Pierce at his home. 85 December 2, 1987 Mr. Dawkins: At night, the number to call is... what is Cesar Odio's number? No, I mean, that's what he gets paid forl Mrs. Kennedy: 854-3128. Mr. Stahl: This is not a joke. Mr. Dawkins: That's the number to call. i Mr. Stahl: I don't want to have myself arrested for calling somebody at night. Mr. Dawkins: If the Police Chief is not doing his job, Odio is the one who hires and fires. Call him. Mr. Stahl: All right, may I ask for a telephone number that we may pass out to the merchants who have these problems? Mr. Pastori: To get the police cooperation, that is the number that we need. Mr. Plummer: Then you call the City Manager's office, which is the number you just got, 579-6040. Mr. Stahl: And this is like at 10:00 or 11:00 o'clock at night when we need them? Mr. Plummer: No, sir, there is no one there at 10:00 o'clock at night, but you can call them the next morning at 8:00 o'clock and tell them that there was a violation. Mr. Stahl: All right, sir, thank you very much. Mr. Pastori: Thank you. Mayor Suarez: Thank you both. PZ-17, I believe we are about to get to. Mr. Dawkins: I'm in the phone book. You can call me and I will call Odio. If you wake me up at 3:00 o'clock in the morning, you know I am going to call Odiol Mrs. Kennedy: Miller and I am in the phone book. Mr. Dawkins: I'm in the phone book, I have no problem with itl Mr. Pierce: Commissioner Kennedy asked a question about one property over there. Mr. Dawkins: You call me at 3:00 o'clock and I'll call Odio. Mayor Suarez: She's in the phone book and she lives right next to him, so she will wake him up at 3:00 o'clock in the morning. Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, the three of usl Mr. Plummer: Yes, which live around the corner from South Miami Avenue and 31st Roadl Mrs. Kennedy: Which is two blocks away from Cesar Odio's house. Mr. Pierce: That's why I live in the northeast. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Manager, may I suggest... Mr. Stahl, may I suggest to you, Mr. Manager, that you send a copy of the memorandum that you are going to send to the Police Department about the enforcement of these rules to the merchants, and they can distribute them among themselves, and I think that might help to resolve. The only question that I have is the map that was on the wall, I don't know was done by us. Mr. Stahl: It is a map taken from the City. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Stahl, if it was not done by my people, delineating clearly what is the 500 feet, we could be under a false arrest, if one of them... 86 December 2, 1987 Mr. Pierce: We will prepare our own map in Public Works. Mr. Plummer: They will prepare a map, they will delineate what is the 500 feet, they will send a memorandum to the Police Department of what shall be enforced. Mr. Stahl: Fine, sir. Mr. Plummer: Send you a copy of it, and Mr. Rasheed, I would want you to get a copy of whatever these people get. Mr. Rasheed: All right. Mr. Dawkins: And I would want you to keep... Mr. Pastori: (OFF MIKE) I think that these vendors should also call. When you see a vendor in violation, you get the number, and you call too. Mr. Rasheed: We do. Mr. Plummer: That's restraint of trade. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Suarez: Please, please. No more discussion. Mr. Pierce: Commissioner Kennedy asked a question about From France to You. I don't know all the answers, but I promise you an answer by tomorrow afternoon. We will work on getting that for you, specifically. Mrs. Kennedy: All right, appreciate it. Mr. Pierce: Thank you. ® Mr. Dawkins: When is this supposed to come back, Mr. Pierce? Mr. Pierce: We will have to establish the task force. I would imagine that the Law Department and Planning Department would be the lead agencies. This is not going to be something that is going to be done in a week. I would suggest that we set it for discussion, probably on the first Commission meting in February, is a suggestion. Mr. Dawkins: OK, put that in the record, first Commission meeting in February. 20. FIRST READING ORDINANCE AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING ZONING OF 3151-3199 SW 27TH AVENUE, 2660 LINCOLN AVENUE AND 2699 TIGERTAIL AVENUE FROM MODERATE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL. Mayor Suarez: PZ-17. Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-17 and PZ-18 are again companion items. You may remember that there was a piece of property on 27th Avenue and Tigertail, when we are looking at the zoning changes on 27th Avenue. That was left out. It was recently, about three years ago, changed to a PDU with a sector six. If I may, I will show you what the sector 6, and what they are proposing now, is... Mr. Dawkins: Did staff recommend approval? Mr. Olmedillo: Sir, we recommend approval, yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: I'll move it. Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute. I don't disagree with you, but for the record, are there any objectors present? 87 December 2, 1987 i Mayor Suarez: Is there anyone here that wishes to be heard on PZ-177 Let the record reflect that no one has stepped forward. Mr. Plummer: I second the motion of Commissioner Dawkins. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Read the ordinance. Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND ADDENDA (SEPTEMBER 1985); FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3151-3199 SOUTHWEST 27TH AVENUE, 2660 LINCOLN AVENUE AND 2699 TIGERTAIL AVENUE (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) BY CHANGING DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM MODERATE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL USE; MAKING FINDS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins and seconded by Commissioner Plummer and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy 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. 21. FIRST READING ORDINANCE CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 3151-3199 S.W. 27 AVE., 2660 LINCOLN AVE., 2699 TIGERTAIL AVE., FROM PD-MU TO SPI-13 (27 AVENUE GATEWAY) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Dawkins: Eighteen is a companion to 17, I move. Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Suarez: Read the ordinance. 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, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 3151-3199 SOUTHWEST 27TH AVENUE, 2660 LINCOLN AVENUE AND 2699 TIGERTAIL AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM PD- MU PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - MIXED USE TO SPI-13 SOUTHWEST 27TH AVENUE GATEWAY DISTRICT BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 45 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 Dawkins and seconded by Commissioner Plummer and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: 88 December 2, 1987 AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre _ Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy 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. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you very much. There's one question I had, I think we're set for second reading on the 10th, I just wanted to confirm that. Mr. Plummer: Can't be now. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It was advertised as... Mr. Plummer: It's got to be ten days, right? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But it was advertised... Mrs. Dougherty: I think we did have the advertisement. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's correct. Mr. Plummer: It is for the loth? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, sir, it is. Mrs. Dougherty: Yes. Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: No 10-day rule? Mrs. Dougherty: It's already been advertised. Mr. Plummer: Oh, OK. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you very much. 22. DENY PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT BOATS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN FRONT YARDS. Mayor Suarez: PZ-19, Planning Department. It's suspect already. Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: PZ-19 through 27 are text amendments, so let me try to go through each one of them. Mr. Plummer: Well, I think we ought to do 28 so they can leave. They're here for a status report. Mayor Suarez: Sir. Mr. Stanford Cohen: In a conversation I had with one of the Commissioners; Commissioner Plummer, I - this took place the last meeting, I stated my concern that I was waiting months and months and months and he said I had to wait my number, wait my turn. I would like to do that. Mayor Suarez: Which is your number tonight? Mr. Cohen: Nineteen. Mr. Plummer: You have every right to request that, sir. Nineteen... 89 December 2, 1907 Mrs. Kennedy: Boat trailers. Mayor Suarez: Planning and Zoning item 19. What is 19 about? Mrs. Kennedy: Boat trailers. Mr. Plummer: Nineteen, I'm totally opposed to. Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: It's boats in the front yard. Mr. Cohen: PZ-19, according to the agendas, has petition of... Mr. Rodriguez: It's the amendment to allow boats in the front yard and if you want to, I can go into explain that in some detail. Mr. Plummer: Well, it not only allows boats, but it allows recreational vehicles... 1 Mr. Rodriguez: They have been allowed before and not in the front yard. The recreational vehicles are only allowed behind the buildings. Mr. Plummer: Well, but what I'm saying to you is the fact that it doesn't — delineate in any way, that it can be a derelict boat, it can be a piece of junk as far as a recreational vehicle. It doesn't give a time limit, it is a disgrace to a neighborhood, you can take up half of the front of the property. Is that correct, a half? Mr. Rodriguez: You're partially right, yes. Mrs. Kennedy: And what about... Mr. Plummer: What do you mean, whoa, whoa, whoa, I'm approximately right? Mr. Rodriguez: You can take half, that part you are right. _ Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Rodriguez: The other portion you are not right in the sense that there is a time limit by which this ordinance is in effect. One year after it, you can - remove it. Mr. Plummer: Yes, you can remove it but what do you do for the year when you've got a piece of junk sitting in the front yard? - Mr. Rodriguez: They have to get a class A permit to be allowed and if there is a violation it will be brought to the attention of the Code Enforcement Board like any other zoning violation. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me tell you something, to me if that is the proper landscaping for a front yard, a piece of derelict boat or an old junked RV, or some of these things we see parked down here in Kennedy Park, which are an absolute disgrace, and you're trying to propose that, I got a problem. - Mrs. Kennedy: And what about repairs? Mayor Suarez: What was the objective of this ordinance? Mr. Plummer: Would you really like to know who the proposer was? Mayor Suarez: Yes. Mr. Plummer: All I'll tell you is, he's no longer here. Mrs. Kennedy: Mr. Carollo. Mayor Suarez: Do you have anything to say in favor of this ordinance? Mr. Cohen: I would like to express my views on this. I'm a concerned citizen, my name is Sanford.... Mr. Rodriguez: I would like to be able to present it. 90 December 2, 1987 Mayor Suarez: Are your view in favor or against, if I may ask? Mr. Cohen: Against. But I would like to speak my views. Mayor Suarez: Well, you can speak all you want, but if we're all going to vote against anyhow, I don't... Mr. Cohen: I would like to speak my view. _ Mr. Rodriguez: If he is going to speak his views, I would like to resent it for the record. Mayor Suarez: Sir. Mr. Rodriguez: If he's going to speak his views, I would like to present the recommendation from the Planning Department for the record. So, if I may. Do you want to take item 20 first or 28? Mr. Plummer: May I ask a question, Mr. Mayor, excuse me for one moment. Mayor Suarez: You want to be fed before the lions wipe you out, right? Mr. Rodriguez: I want to be fair. Mr. Plummer: The young lady in uniform. Are you a PSA? Mr. Manager, I want to ask why there's not a police officer in this chambers? We instructed... Mr. Dawkins: Because they've all been fired for ---------- on drugs and we don't have any. Mr. Plummer: No, no, no. You're not on duty. Are you assigned here? - e INAUDIBLE RESPONSE. _ Mr. Dawkins: Yes. o Mr. Rodriguez: You blew his cover. - — Mr. Plummer: OK, no, no, no, no. - Mrs. Kennedy: I'll bet he is here for the pleasure of being here. Mr. Plummer: You know, you remember what happened at the last Commission Meeting? Mayor Suarez: I thought you were here to play basketball a little later tonight, I think. Mr. Plummer: OK, no I know - J.L. knows J.L., but J.L. didn't think that J.L. - was here on duty. We've always had a uniformed man here and I have no problem with PSA, but if a problem broke out, we know the limitations of a PSA. Mr. Dawkins: That she does not have a gun. Mr. Plummer: Well, that's one of the problems. Mr. Dawkins: OK, thank you. Mr. Plummer: OK, I'm just saying that it always had been that we had one - policeman here in uniform and one here in uniform and tonight there's none. - OK? Now, maybe there's a reason for it and we'll listen to the reason later. Mayor Suarez: Sergio. Mr. Rodriguez: You want to go with PZ-19 or 28, I'm not sure? Mr. Plummer: Nineteen, this is what he wants to speak to. Mr. Rodriguez: Nineteen, OK. Let me try to go through this - the issue of this amendment was brought up Commissioner Carollo sometime ago and he asked us to bring it back before the Commission. The issue was basically, a result of the fact that we have at present violations in the ordinance of people 91 December 2, 1987 which are parking the boats in the front yard and the enforcements is done selectively, only based on complaints from people. The reality of the situation that we have is that we have approximately 10,000 people that own boats in the City of Miami and that they have to place it somewhere. And the marinas don't have enough capacities for it so we have to face the reality of what the situation that we have on hand and based on that, we created the ordinance that is before you now. Mayor Suarez: Sergio, any particular reason why, as a practical matter, at least my office has not been inundated with phone calls about boats in front yards and so on. I mean, we are inundated with every other kind of phone call, I'll tell you that. Mr. Rodriguez: It might be... all these amendments basically they have been deferred so many times. Some of them have been deferred since April and I think people have lost, in some cases, interest in it or... Mayor Suarez: No, I mean the ordinance. I mean just that you were saying that... Mr. Rodriguez: The issue itself, if it has been maybe in the papers as an issue, maybe there will be people reacting to it. When people read this in reality it's difficult to know what it means because it's in legal language. Mayor Suarez: I meant that if there were that many boats in front yards and if they were creating that kind of a problem and so on, I would think the people would have complained to us more about the violations because they complain about every other kind of violation. Mr. Rodriguez: They complain about violations and then the... Mayor Suarez: Maybe they call your office instead of mine in this particular case. - Mr. Rodriguez: No, they call to the building and zoning office and they go and selectively is enforced which is one of the ------- that we have. Mayor Suarez: That is a problem, that is a problem, selective enforcement. Mr. Plummer: I'm asking Mr. Korge to speak for his father who has passed who can't speak who was the one who was violently opposed to this ordinance, especially as it related to the Roads Section of all the boats that were being parked in front. Am I right, Mr. Korge? Mr. Rodriguez: Are they still there, the boats? Mr. Plummer: They're still there. Mr. Rodriguez: Are they enforced? Mr. Plummer: They're not enforced. That's your fault. Mr. Rodriguez: Trying to be fair to everybody. Mayor Suarez: Sir. Mr. Sanford Cohen: My name is Sanford Cohen of 1510 S.W. 15th Street. I naturally concur with Commissioner Plummer's view on this, however, I wish to add the following. The enforcement of the existing ordinance is nonexistent but more importantly, the Dade County Home Rule Charters, section 5.02, municipal powers, provides that the minimum standards of zoning and particular pertaining to boat storage is as follows: "Pertaining to boats of less than 26 feet in length, not more than 96 inches in width an 13 feet, 6 inches in height, may be stored in, as far as residential zoning districts, subject to the following conditions. And there are just five provisions. And I have no other way other than to read five short sentences. "Number one, the place of storage shall be to the rear of the front building line and behind the side street building line. In each case building line referred to being that portion furthest from the street. No more than one boat may be stored on any — number two, no more than one boat may be stored on any one premise. Number three, boats and place of storage shall be kept in a clean neat and presentable condition. Number four, no major repairs or overhaul work shall 92 December 2, 1987 be made or performed on the premises. Number five, the boats shall not be used for living or sleeping quarters and shall be placed on and secured to a transporting trailer." The existing ordinance in the City of Miami conforms to some of these requirements and does not conform to others. Basically, the whole concept that was offered and utilized public money, the use of public employees to formulate this amendment Q-2 was inappropriate. It was wasteful and reflects a lack of, according to the authority of the Dade County Home Rule Charter, Section 5.02. Mr. Plummer: Sir, you happen to be wrong and I disagree with you but you have your right to say what you think. Mr. Cohen: Thank you. Mr. Plummer: I say you're wrong. Mayor Suarez: But you want us to... the conclusion of all that is that you'd like us to vote against this ordinance. Mr. Cohen: Yes, I'm bringing this to your attention to explain the rationale, my rationale, my opinion, which Mr. Plummer disagrees with which I respect this right to do and we're mutually disagreeable on that point, that the... I'm asking you to deny this amendment... Mayor Suarez: You're both disagreeable. - Mr. Cohen: ... for the reasons so stated. Thank you. Mayor Suarez: OK, Mr... thank you for your - I think you've got momentum on your side and we do have a saying around here. s 9 Mr. Plummer: I move that item 19 be denied. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Do we have a second on 19 being denied? Seconded. Any discussion? Call the roll. Mr. Plummer: Where do they all go? Ms. Hirai: Mr. Mayor, who seconded the motion? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mayor Suarez: Commissioner De Yurre. Ms. Hirai: Thank you. Mayor Suarez: Call the roll, please. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 87-1072 A MOTION DENYING PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE REGARDING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, (AMENDMENT "Q-2") - PARKING AND/OR STORAGE OF CERTAIN VEHICLES PROHIBITED OR - LIMITED TO SPECIFIED DISTRICTS. Upon being seconded by Commissioner De Yurre, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: _ AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy 93 December 2, 1987 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 23. ADMINISTRATION TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS TO ACQUIRE LOT 8 IN CONNECTION WITH THE GOLDEN ARMS APARTMENTS MATTER FOR POSSIBLE USE AS AN OFF-STREET PARKING SITE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Suarez: OK, let's go then to the status report or whatever it is we're doing on the... Mr. Plummer: Golden Arms. Mayor Suarez: ... Golden Arms. Item 28. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Armada, have you provided, since you're only giving it to me now, have you provided the residents and the association with copies of what you're providing us with? Mr. Al Armada: (Off mike): No, it's a status report... Mr. Plummer: Well, it's now a public record once you give it to me. Are you going to do likewise for them? Mr. Armada: I can. Mayor Suarez: Yes, as of, I don't know exactly when, but certainly as of now, if not earlier, everybody knows the appraised value of all these properties. Mr. Plummer: Well, we really don't know the full extent but we know the bottom line. Mayor Suarez: I thought you were supposed to have it in advance of this - meeting, but no matter. You have this chart also? Mr. Gustavo Casanova: No. No, we don't. Mayor Suarez: Take this one if you want. _ Mr. Casanova: Thank you. Mayor Suarez: You see the problem, lot nine? Mr. Casanova: Yes, yes we see it. Mayor Suarez: That's not even the asking price. In fact, the asking price is left off altogether. That's just the appraised value. Mr. Casanova: This is not the Hyatt Regency building. This is not the Hyatt Regency building where... Mayor Suarez: I don't know what you mean. Mr. Casanova: What I mean... Ms. Josefina Sanchez Pando: It's not the DuPont Plaza, that's what he meant. _ Mayor Suarez: Well, whatever you call it, that's what we deem it to be worth and they're asking for a lot more money than that. I don't even think that they've ever actually given a. figure what they're asking. Ms. Pando: For the... that's the burnt one? Mayor Suarez: That's - no, no... Mr. Casanova: No, that's the... ' Mayor Suarez: No, that's the one that where they have a section 8 housing there. Mr. Plummer: No, see, that's the biggie. 94 December 2, 1987 1 Mayor Suarez: That's the big ticket item. Mr. Plummer: That's item nine, right? Mayor Suarez: Right. _ Mr. Plummer: OK, what you're talking about a million three is the appraised price. The price that is not inserted is if you have to relocate all of those people which most likely would have to be done and that is what we don't know what the cost factor is. That's why I say, we have the bottom line. Mayor Suarez (Off mike): What did you say was the bottom line? Mr. Plummer: Well, the bottom line is in this column here. _ Mayor Suarez: Oh right, but that's the appraised value. Mr. Plummer: OK, but in this one here there is a number absent. Mayor Suarez: In that case, the guy's not even asking for a particular amount, he's... Mr. Plummer: No, no, the asking price is based on the relocation also and we don't know what that cost factor is. Mayor Suarez: That's the price what he's asking and he won't even tell us. I think he said something about 5 million dollars. Mr. Plummer: No, no, no, no, no, Xavier, his asking price is one thing, the relocation of the people in there is another and we don't know that. Mayor Suarez (Off mike): But this guy -----asking price. This is for purposes of settlement and explain to him what---- Mr. Plummer: This has an A portion and a B. Mayor Suarez: He doesn't want to sell it. He's saying some huge figure. Mr. Plummer: OK. Mr. Dawkins (Off mike): You get a gym..... Mayor Suarez: Right. Well, if we have to condemn, we get an idea from the fair market value and legal expenses and so on. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but the area that is still up in the air, that has not been made a determination, is what would be the cost of relocating the people that we would have to assume and that is a figure that is not been yet developed. And let me tell you something, in the few cases where we've done it, it's been damn expensive. Mayor Suarez (Off mike): Well, even just the appraised value's already prohibitive. Mr. Plummer: Yes, I agree with that, OK? Mayor Suarez: What configuration might make sense if the City were able to acquire some of these lots? Of course the troublesome one, the one that we've always wanted to do something about, the one that should have been demolished four years ago, I guess, is lot 8, right? Mr. Casanova: Correct, sir. Ms. Pando: Right. Mayor Suarez: Now, lot 8 is on the opposite side, whatever that side may be from the rest of the lots that would make sense to buy and make into some sort of a park. So what configuration do you, the neighbors, suggest assuming we could do nothing with lot nine because of the cost? Mr. Gustavo Casanovas Mr. Mayor, for the record, I'm Dr. Casanova, the President of the Homeowners Association. We have, we have - and I happen to live on lot 20. 95 December 2, 1987 Ms. Pando (Off mike): Which is part of the park. Mayor Suarez: You have what, I'm sorry? Mr. Casanova: I happen to live on lot 20. Mayor Suarez: Ah ha, you have a conflict of interest. Mr. Plummer: Goodbye, goodbye. Ms. Pando: No? Mr. Casanova: I don't live on lot 20? Mr. Plummer: Lot 20 is not in consideration. Mr. Casanova: OK. Mr. Plummer: Unless you're trying to sell out. Mr. Casanova: No, no, no... Ms. Pando (Off mike): ... in the picture of the park. — Mr. Casanova: Yes. Mr. Walter Pierce (Off mike): That's an error. Mr. Plummer: Yes, it should not include 20. Ms. Pando: No, but here it is. Then he does live on lot 20. Mayor Suarez: OK, that line should not have included lot 20 there. OK, what does the red line mean? _ Mr. Casanova: We, we have to... Mayor Suarez: Wait, let me just ask one question. Is that your idea of what would make a nice park, is that it? Mr. Armada: Excuse me a second, the four lots that are in red are owned by the same entity. Mayor Suarez: I see. Mr. Armada: The other seven lots, I believe, are owned by some other entity. Mayor Suarez: OK. - Mr. Armada: OK? Mr. Plummer: Yes, but lots 8, 9, 10, 18, and 19 are owned also by the same entity. a Mr. Armada: That is correct, 18, 19. - Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask you this question. Mayor Suarez: This line here is all screwed up. Mr. Plummer: Eight is the troublemaker, right? Mr. Casanova: Correct, sir. _— Mr. Plummer: That is the one that is the bugaboo. Is that correct? Mr. Casanova: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: That's the one that was burnt out, that's derelict, that's everything that's all bad. 96 December 2, 1987 Mr. Armada: That is the derelict building. building, the abandoned building, yes. That is the only unoccupied Mr. Plummer: All right and according to what I see here, we're only talking about $10,000 difference between the appraisal and what they're asking for it. Lot seven is $20,000 difference, but they're not owned by the same. Ms. Pando: Oh yes they are. Mr. Armada: Yes, they are, Commissioner. Mr. Plummer: Well excuse me, Josefina, I'm reading from the sheet proffered to me, now you might know something different than my people know, but... Mr. Armada: Commissioner, yes, they are owned by the same person. It's just that the title there is - on that particular lot is under Mr. Barrera. Mr. Plummer: Well, it's immaterial because they're both saying they're willing to sell, all right, so that's the material factor, OK? Now, what happens if we tell you to acquire 7 and 8 and turn that into a park to start? Mr. Casanova: Commissioner Plummer, we have with the board of directors and the neighborhoods, we have taken a reality appeal to the situation and we have entertained that as one of the possibilities that, maybe, the City Commission will tell us about. Mayor Suarez: Our understanding that that one adds up to somewhere in the vicinity of $330,000-$350,000. Mr. Casanova: Right. That is a very nice idea. It will take great part of the eyesore to the problem; it will take it out and... Mayor Suarez: It solves a legal problem of five year standing. Mr. Casanova: Right. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Right. Mr. Casanova: Now, there is a situation pending with a lot of the neighbors in the area is that the building on lot 9 has 24 units and each of this units, living units, I mean families, has maybe more than one car, and they... Mrs. Kennedy: But, excuse me one second, how can you be considering lot nine when you have 21 units with the cost of relocating all these people? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me. Mrs. Kennedy: OK, all right... Mr. Casanova: No, what I'm talking is about lot nine is an occupied building. It has 24 families in there. They all have cars and they create - they don't have parking space and they create a chaos for the neighbors that especially live on 24th Street. Mayor Suarez: Suppose the owner of lot nine - we could make some kind of a deal where he would make these two lots into a parking. Ms. Pando: That would be perfect. Mr. Plummer: Which two lots? Mr. Casanova: Part of the suggestions... Mayor Suarez: Seven and eight, seven and eight is the two that I keep thinking about. Mr. Casanova: Part of the suggestions that were given to me by the neighbors was why not asking the owner of lot nine to make lot 10 an agreement or whatever, make lot 10 a parking space for that building. Mr. Plummer: What are you going to do with seven and eight? 97 December 2, 1987 Mr. Casanova: Like you just mentioned, the possibility of this City making a small park for the small children. Mr. Plummer: Why not put the parking lot in seven and eight and then you can _- acquire six lots to make a park? Mr. Armada: That would be great. Mayor Suarez: Because seven and eight, the owner's still going to be wanting to be paid for 7 and 8. Mr. Plummer: Well, they're going to want to be paid anyhow. And if you don't acquire eight, you have not gotten rid of the problem. Mayor Suarez: Right. But we're going to have to pay for some consideration for him tearing down eight. —_ Mr. Plummer: No, we just buy the property. Mayor Suarez: That's what I'm saying, that's consideration, that's money. Mr. Casanova: Ah, I'm new in... - Mr. Plummer: Yes, but if you - the other alternative, if you spend the money to acquire anything else without doing eight, you've accomplished nothing. Mayor Suarez: What's that? Mr. Plummer: If you spend money to acquire any of the other property without = taking eight... Mayor Suarez: You got it, seven and eight is the - course, eight, let's say, is the crucial problem. Mr. Plummer: Eight is the crux. Mayor Suarez: Seven and eight are contiguous and, maybe, in some kind of a way with some kind of exchange of consideration, he could be convinced to make that into parking, which would be awfully nice for... Mr. Plummer: Eight, not 10, you said 10 before. Mayor Suarez: Seven and eight. Joel Maxwell, Esq.: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: Or just eight. Mr. Maxwell: Before the Commission commits on that parking problem, I think you should have staff research it because there are certain legal questions and planning considerations... Mayor Suarez: Is that right, there could be zoning problems? Mr. Maxwell: That's right, that may not allow that. Mayor Suarez: And then, the other thing about parking that is interesting is, who knows, our fine Off -Street Parking Authority might be interested in themselves doing something with seven and eight if they knew that there was a great demand for parking there and that by being allowed to go in there and build a parking facility which they usually do very nicely, and landscape very nicely, that they would then be able to charge for the people parking there. Ms. Pando: A City parking facility? Mayor Suarez: The Off -Street Parking Authority. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Off -Street Parking. Mayor Suarez: No? Mr. Pierce: No. 98 December 2, 1987 Mr. Maxwell: That's a single family residentially zoned area. Mayor Suarez: OK, there we have a lot of problems then, zoning. Mr. Pierce: Big problem over there, yes. Mayor Suarez: Do we have, off the top of your head, Joe, since you brought up the point, do we have zoning problems with just allowing parking there just surface, just to be - as an adjunct to lot nine? Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir, I think we may have a problem. One, because lot nine is a non conforming use for one thing so you can't expand the non conforming use to adjacent property without certain considerations. Secondly, because it is residentially zoned... Mayor Suarez: Of course, we can change that but you're saying... Mr. Maxwell: Not necessarily, because you have a potential spot zoning issue if you try to rezone just that one lot there. Mayor Suarez: You've got to be creative now, we have potential spot zoning but we also have a four or five year law suit here and neighbors that, you know, want us to come up with some solution. Mr. Pierce: No, no, no, it's expansion of a nonconforming use and that's the problem. No, it's expansion of. Mayor Suarez: What does that mean, is that good or bad? Mr. Pierce: Which means that the owner is presently prescribed some very strict limitations on it and it's possible that it could be done, but I'm reluctant to say that. I don't want to be the spreader of false hope but it is an expansion of a nonconforming use. Mr. Maxwell: That's the point we're trying to make, don't commit yourself to that. Mayor Suarez: Then we'll do like the Coconut Grove Playhouse, we made a commitment to a certain project not realizing that it would come back to require all kinds of zoning changes that may or may not be acceptable to the neighbors. But in this case we know, we have a feeling that the neighbors would prefer that use. OK, what other options do we have? Mr. Casanova: Commissioner, I believe I heard the proposal of having lot 7 and 8 for a parking space and then the rest of the six lots for a park. Ms. Pando (Off mike): Was the what you said, J.L.? Mr. Plummer: Well, I'm saying that the Mayor had originally made a mistake, according to him, about talking about using lot 10 for parking, which I didn't think was accomplishing anything. If you acquired 8, OK, and used that for the parking, then you could speak from the westerly point of acquiring, as you have the money to do it, the other six lots, OK. I don't think we even have to address seven. OK, seven is not a problem. There's already a structure on 7 as I recall. It's vacant. But, I mean, the most they can build on that is a residence. That's all they can do with it. All right, now, if we were to acquire 8 which is the trouble zone, get that out of there now. Then as we have additional monies, and money's going to be a problem as you see here, which is what I tried to say before but could not. As we acquire money, we can acquire from 10 over and from 18 over, all right? Which would then give you a decent sized park in the neighborhood. Because I can tell you, you're talking about, if you acquire just 8 now, I don't know if we got that kind of money to buy it. Where's the money going to come from? Mr. Pierce: I have no idea but we have previously said that there was no money available currently for it. Mr. Plummer: What about in capital improvements? Mr. Pierce: No money, it's not a capital improvement item. 99 December 2, 1907 i Mr. Plummer: What about community development? God knows this is a development of the community. Mr. Pierce: But it's not a target area, I don't believe. Mayor Suarez: What about the contingency fund and the parks improvement fund? Mr. Dawkins: Which park? Mr. Pierce: That's a question I'd have to let Mr. Eads answer, I don't know anything about that park fund. Mr. Jack Eads: (Off mike - Inaudible) Mayor Suarez: I know there's money in that contingency fund, there's $783,000 less fifty, 733. Mr. Plummer: By who, by the owner? Mr. Casanova: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, if in 7 and 8... Mayor Suarez: But see, the reason I say is, I know he doesn't want to touch that fund so I want to put the burden on him now. Yes. Mrs. Dougherty (Off mike): ... there's no way you could deny it because it's gone through the process. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Casanova: In 7 and 8... Mayor Suarez: That's all right, you'll hear about it. Mrs. Dougherty (Off mike): ...we deferred it the last time, we won't get -------- forever. a Mr. Casanova: ... you build up a small park for small children, not even a table or a bench or anything; just a small playground... Mayor Suarez: It works out to be what, 100 x 100? Mr. Casanova: It will be 100 x 150. Mr. Plummer: What's that? Which one? Mr. Casanova: Seven and eight. Mr. Plummer: But you see, that's not going to really accomplish anything for you. All right, seven, I think, will go away the problem if you acquire 8. That's the problem, all right? And if you acquire 8, hopefully, it can be used for off-street parking, that's the desire. Now maybe we got problems, maybe we don't. But once you acquire 8, 7 is no longer a problem and you're saving there to apply elsewhere $60,000. Mr. Armada: Yes, but that's where we're concerned, it may not ever be applied. Mr. Plummer: It might never be what? Mr. Armada: Applied. Mr. Plummer: It might not be a what? Mr. Armada: You never have the money to buy, I guess. Mr. Plummer: Well, we may never have the money to acquire to the west of there. Mr. Armada: Right. Mr. Plummer; All right, based on the appraisals here, that's possible. 100 December 2, 1987 Ms. Pando: That is possible. Mr. Plummer: I'm saying that we address, right now, the immediate problem. Mayor Suarez: You want to try to negotiate for 8, is that the direction you're headed and try to acquire that? Mr. Plummer: Eight is the problem. Mayor Suarez: And solve the problem and then we deal with the rest of it. I fully agree. Mr. Plummer: I would like to send them to immediately negotiate on 8. Mayor Suarez: I fully agree. Mr. Plummer: And... Mr. Dawkins: OK, is the contingency fund... Ms. Pando: And what do we - excuse me, may I? Mr. Dawkins: Is the contingency fund from the Bayfront Park funds or from the $8,000,000 other City funds? Mrs. Kennedy: You know that that can only be used for Bayfront Park. Mr. Dawkins: Beg your pardon? Mrs. Kennedy: You know that that can only be used for Bayfront Park. Mr. Dawkins: But see... Mr. Plummer: Until three votes of this Commission changes it. Mrs. Kennedy: Abolishes it. Mr. Dawkins: There you go. There you go, that's what --- Mrs. Kennedy: OK. All right. Mr. Dawkins: All right, it's money available. I just want to keep this in the proper perspective. Mayor Suarez: I think it makes sense to proceed to purchase 8 knowing that that's solves the biggest thorn in our side for I don't know, the last how many number of years? Mr. Plummer: Yes and let the administration come back at the next meeting and tell us where they found the money. Not if they're going to; where. Mayor Suarez: Right. Ms. Pando: Yes, but let me ask you a question, when you say, let us acquire 8, that means let the City buy lot 8... Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mayor Suarez: You got it. Me. Pando: ... demolish the building. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mayor Suarez: Oh, yes. Me. Pando: Fine. Whose property is it now, yours, the City? Mr. Plummer: Yes, yes. Mayor Suarez: Yes. 101 December 2, 1987 Ms. Pando: Why are you going to use it for a parking lot for Mr. Barrero's property? Mr. Plummer: No, no, no, no. Mayor Suarez: Oh, no, at that point, we may do all kinds of things with it. We could negotiate with Mr. Barrero to see if he wants to use it as a parking facility if that's otherwise allowable under the loan in which case we want consideration from him, we can do whatever. But at least we've solved your problem. Ms. Pando: Oh, I understand, so you can sell it back to him... Mayor Suarez: Well, the first thing we do is we tear the building down. Ms. Pando: ... or rent it to him for parking lot or do anything with it. Mayor Suarez: Right, exactly. Mr. Dawkins: Rent. We will not sell it to him, we will rent. Mayor Suarez: We would rent it or whatever, right. If you, the neighbors _ advised us and if it makes sense to do it and if zoning wise it makes sense and so on. But, in the meantime, we've knocked building and tear it down as it should have been done five years ago. We're paying $290,000 for a mistake made five years ago. Ms. Pando: Yes, and saving a lot of money if you keep it in the court. Mayor Suarez: We're saving a lot of money in legal fees. He was just estimating - Chris was estimating Mr. Courts that we could probably win this case in court, but it would take a lot more expenditure. . Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: And even then, you know, yes. Mr. Pierce: I want us to be very clear, you're saying then that we immediately go out and attempt - make the acquisition of lot 8. I mean, I'm sorry. Negotiate it and come back but, I mean, with the idea of it - the idea of that direction is to acquire lot 8. Mayor Suarez: Yes, right. Mr. Plummer: Correct. Mr. Pierce. I mean, the intent, OK. Then, any effort towards a lease arrangement with the adjoining for use as parking or anything else with the adjoining property, that's after the fact... Mr. Plummer: That would be subsequent after it's in our ownership. Mr. Pierce: OK, I wanted to make sure that those two were not... Mr. Plummer: We can't attempt any kind of a lease of something we don't own. Mr. Pierce: All right, but you could attempt to negotiate them together and.I wanted to make sure that they were separate so that we could deal with the acquisition only. Mayor Suarez: Well, if we were going to try to do it together, we would be in a position to deal with him without having to acquire it as long as he was interested in making it into a parking lot. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mayor Suarez: But it sounds to me like the complexities in that, the possibility that it could all fall through, the desperation of the neighbors, and every other factor argues against trying it that way. Mr. Pierce: Right, that's why... 102 December 2, 1987 Mayor Suarez: That's the problem. Mr. Maxwell: Furthermore, Mr. Mayor, once we acquire the property, that property is going to be subject to competitive bidding procedures so you can't tie the acquisition of the building to the lease to Mr. Barrero because you don't know if Mr. Barrero would win any competitive bidding. Mr. Plummer: Yes, good point. Let me tell you, I think we ought to give them some latitude. We're going to give them a deadline, a date, a time certain for amen day. But let me tell you something, let me tell you what you could maybe come out with, OK? That we acquire lot 8 and 7 through a negotiation in which we pay him X number of dollars and he gives back us a covenant that he will use 8 after he tears down the building for parking and if he breaks the covenant, we take over the property. In other words, you might - look, let me give you an for example, you go to this man and you say, look, we're going to give you $150,000, OK, for lot 8. That's half. Now, what we want you to do is to tear that building down, make it an off-street parking if that's legal and we think we can work it, and you must maintain it and keep it at all times for parking to that structure for a period of 30 years or 40 years and at any time that you break that covenant, we will immediately assume the property. That's hypothetical, but that's what I'm saying... Mayor Suarez: You know what, once he gets that far, we kind of would want him to break the covenant because once he gets that far... Mr. Plummer: Exactly, but I'm saying where we're saying... Mayor Suarez: Then the only thing he can build on there would be whatever the zoning code allows. He would not have been able to build what he wanted to build there anyhow, so... Mr. Plummer: I am saying to you, Mr. Mayor, let's give them the latitude and negotiation... - Mayor Suarez: Yes, in effect, we're giving them $150,000 to use your example, to knock the building down. Mr. Plummer: And use it for parking. OK, now... Mayor Suarez: Be happy if he just knocks it down and keeps it nice. Mr. Plummer: ...the way that we were originally talking, go buy it and only buy, that's all you can do... Mayor Suarez: Right, that... Mr. Plummer: ... and get the best price you can buy. I'm saying, let's give them some latitude to maybe negotiate something else better. That's all I'm saying. Mr. Armada: Excuse me, Commissioner, are you saying that the title will remain in his name? Mayor Suarez: Under that concept, but we're giving you flexibility. Mr. Plummer: If you negotiate that, yes. OK? Mayor Suarez: And then that gives us more money to... Mr. Plummer: And that gives us then, we could acquire 7 because they're only asking $60,000. Maybe we could... Mayor Suarez: Or go to the other corner then and try to acquire four lots for a mini park. Ms. Pando (Off mike): And hope that he breaks the ordinance. Mr. Plummer: If he then breaks the, excuse me, that is hypothetical, OK. All I'm saying is, give them the negotiation right, a little bit of broadness that it's not a flat out as we originally spoke, go acquire it, here's the dollars and buy it. There's maybe some innovative negotiation that can be done and that's what... 103 December 2, 1987 Ms. Pando (Off mike): And buy 7 too with the other $60,000. Mr. Plummer: That's possible but what we spoke about before was buy 8, pay him a check, negotiate the best price. That's maybe not the best thing for us. It might be in the final analysis. Ms. Pando (Off mike): And now you're saying, give them the $150,000, have him tear down the building, make the parking lot and you're going to buy with the savings of the other with lot 7 to put in a park? Mr. Plummer: Josefina, do you know the word, hypothetical? Ms. Pando (Off mike): Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: OK, I'm not saying a hundred and fifty is what we're going to offer him, he might not accept it, it might be one eighty, it might be one twenty. Ms. Pando (Off mike): We're not arguing money, by X number of dollars. Mr. Plummer: No, what we're - the area that I'm arguing presently is to give them the latitude to negotiate maybe something innovative and if not, then come back and then we have no choice but to go and buy the property. But, if we can innovatively negotiate something where maybe we'll have more money to buy more property, let's listen. Ms. Pando (Off mike): We've been here five years, let's be innovative. Will be five and a half. Mr. Plummer: Try it. Mr. Casanova: Commissioner Plummer, I would like to just to call your attention to something is we have an eyesore which is that empty building. Now, what I will hate to happen is that the City gets the building and it's demolished and then instead of the building, what we'll get an empty lot where will be a dump. Because then if there is some way of preventing that situation... Mr. Plummer (Off mike): I understand what you're saying. I understand fully what you're saying. But no more than can we do unless we take it into ownership, that's the only way we can control it... Mr. Casanova: Correct, I understand. Mr. Plummer: ... because then they can turn around, instead of using 10 any of this property here they can use for parking on the way of the corner. Mr. Casanova: No, I was just... Mayor Suarez: Yes, we're looking for the smallest amount of money that will guarantee the tearing down of the building so that whatever money we have available, we might be able to use for... Ms. Pando (Off mike): On the other lots. Mr. Plummer: Exactly. Mayor Suarez: Exactly. OK, is that understood by staff or do we need to make that in the form of a motion? I don't believe we do. Mr. Plummer: I'll make it in the form of a motion, but more importantly, I'm going to put a deadline date of January, what's the meeting, 14th. Ms. Pando (Off mike): Year? Mr. Plummer: January 14th, that... Ms. Pando (Off mike): Of what year? Mr. Plummer: 188. 104 December 2, 1987 Ms. Pando (Off mike): Thank you. We've been here since 183... Mayor Suarez: Don't get cute. That's a motion, do we have a second? Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, I second. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Suarez: Any discussion? Call the roll. Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor... Mayor Suarez: Please, yes. Mr. Pierce: May I ask please that the motion be fully restated so that we want to be sure we have the clear authorization to make an offer. Mayor Suarez: That we resolve that we instruct staff to negotiate towards the acquisition of the rights, at least to lot... Mr. Casanova: Seven and eight. Mayor Suarez: ...really eight, principally... Mr. Pierce: Seven secondarily? Mayor Suarez: ... and come back to us with creative recommendations and possible negotiating price to at least acquire 8 and knock down existing use and then beyond that, see what other monies are available for acquisition of additional lots. Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 87-1073 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO IMMEDIATELY BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS TOWARDS ACQUISITION OF AT LEAST LOT NO. 8 IN CONNECTION WITH FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE GOLDEN ARMS APARTMENTS (2000-12- 20 SW 24 STREET) SAID ACQUISITION OF LOT NO. 8 FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE USE AS OFF STREET PARKING; FURTHER - DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO COME UP WITH SOME CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE NEGOTIATIONS AS WELL AS COST FACTORS AND ESTIMATED PRICE FOR ACQUISITION OF SAID LOT (AND POSSIBLY LOT NO. 7) FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COMMISSION; AND FURTHER STIPULATING THIS ISSUE WILL BE TAKEN UP ON JANUARY 14, 1988, AFTER 6:00 P.M. - Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: None. Mr. Casanova: So we will be back... I'm sorry, we will be back in January... Mayor Suarez: Fourteenth. For myself, on that day I hope to vote on the final determination of what to do with lot 8 and anything else is secondary to me because this has been now a matter that's been pending for so many years that I hope we decide on that day. Mr. Casanova: Could this item be placed... 105 December 2, 1987 Mayor Suarez: We may do other things on that day, but... Mr. Casanova: Could this item be placed on the agenda approximately around 6:00 p.m.? Mayor Suarez: Yes, we'll place... Ms. Pando (Off mike): It is on 6:00 p.m. It was placed today at 6... Mayor Suarez: We'll just put it at the top of the agenda, Aurelio, please. Ms. Pando (Off mike): But not to be heard before... Mayor Suarez: At 6:00 p.m., right. That gets a little tricky because we try to follow... Ms. Pando (Off mike): Yes, like you did with Coconut Grove vendors. Put it on 1:00 and hear it at 6:00. Mayor Suarez: Right. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, there's something related to this that you should be aware of. On lots 11, 12, 16, and 17, which are now shown on your sheet, these lots have been the subject of plat and street committee action. The owner requested and was granted by plat and street committee, the right to replat those lots from four to six lots. It was on your agenda at the last City Commission meeting and it was deferred. They have a right to the replatting at this time. Once those lots are replatted, you then will be faced with six lots and the value is going to go up, so those lots would cost more money than presently shown here. So that's something you need to keep in consideration. You cannot reject the request to replat. ®_ 24. DISCUSSION REGARDING DEMONSTRATION AT THE HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER, N.E. 54TH STREET. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor, before we get into PZ-20, just for the Commission's information, I was just informed by the Police Department that the demonstration is ongoing currently at the Haitian Refugee Center at 54th Street. Mayor Suarez: They're out on 54th? Mr. Pierce: On 54th Street, the street has been blocked. Mr. Plummer: Give me the real answer, is it orderly? Mr. Pierce: Yes, at this point it is orderly, we... Mayor Suarez: What do we have out there by way of resources? Mr. Pierce: I believe we have about the same number of police personnel there that we've had for the last couple of nights which would be from eight to - anywhere from eight to eleven or twelve police officers. Mayor Suarez: Do we have the stage or do we have barricades? Do we have anything on the North Miami? Mr. Pierce: We have barricades blocking on the west at Miami Avenue, on the east at N.E. 1st Court. Mayor Suarez: Do we have officers on rooftops? Mr. Pierce: I doubt that. Mayor Suarez: Can we get officers on rooftops or do you think its not a good idea at this point? 106 December 2, 1987 Mr. Pierce: Once the gathering has commenced and - I don't think that's a good idea to try that. It's when we have advance notice that we've had a chance to have cooperation from HRC, then yes. Mayor Suarez: You were telling us that before at a private meeting. Why is that because of the feasibility of getting on top of the rooftops or because of the visual effect that it has or the impact or why? Mr. Pierce: All of those things. Once, once - we've asked that they... Mayor Suarez: Because remember, in all these totally festive demonstrations and festivals we have in the City, those nice stands that we've building lately have allowed the police to have a heck of a view and have been very - effective in keeping the peace and this is an alternative to that to have them up on the rooftops which worked very well in the last set of demonstrations we had out there. Mr. Pierce: But, Mr. Mayor, the point though is that we knew about those in advance and we had cooperation from the sponsors or coordinators of those events. We have tried to get that from them and they... Mayor Suarez: Oh, because some of the prop... Mr. Pierce: ... have not - they've declared that these things are spontaneous but they're... Mayor Suarez: But how does that affect the ability to put a police officer on top so he can get a clearer view of everything that's happening? Mr. Pierce: Well, one, I think it's the situation that one the Chief or the police command personnel on the scene ought to be responsible for making that decision based on the situation but, secondly, I would be hesitant to do it once it's started and it could provoke something. Mayor Suarez: It could be seen as a provocation is what you're saying. Mr. Pierce: Yes. Mr. Plummer: Have they taken out a permit for their Saturday parade? Mayor Suarez: Commissioner. Mr. Pierce: Yes, they have. Mr. Plummer: And who is footing the bill for the police department? Mayor Suarez (Off mike): If you want to move to defer the other items because you want to get out there, go ahead. Mr. Pierce: I don't know that specifically, but I have a copy of the permit here and the sponsors are, the name of the organization is ----------------. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, the rest of these are housecleaning items and I think that three Commissioners could handle it. Commissioner De Yurre and I would like to go to the scene to represent the Commission if it's agreeable. If everybody wants to go, we cancel everything and go. 107 December 2, 1987 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- 25. FIRST READING, AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 BY ADDING SECTION 2035, "ADULT DAY CARE CENTERS" AND SECTION 2036, "CHILD DAY CARE CENTERS" AND ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND PARAMETERS FOR EACH. Mr. Plummer: Well, Dr. Barnes is here on 20 and I think that's the only... Mayor Suarez: Let's do PZ-20 at least, Dr., you've been waiting all day and if Sergio has any items that have to be done, we can always handle those real quickly. Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: OK, PZ-20, is basically to establish adult day care centers and also to define better, what is a, child day care center and what is a family day care home. And to try to follow recommended... Mr. Plummer: Dr. Barnes, are you... wait a minute, hold on a minute. Dr. , are you here for or against the ordinance? Dr. Barnes (Off mike): We're for it. Mr. Plummer: OK. Mr. Rodriguez: For it. Mr. Dawkins: Move it. Mrs. Kennedy: Well, well, which one is this? Mayor Suarez: PZ-20. Mr. Plummer: 20. Mr. Rodriguez: Child care facilities and adult care facilities. Mr. Dawkins (Off mike): Twenty. Mrs. Kennedy: Oh, sure. Mayor Suarez: PZ-20. Moved, seconded. Any discussion? Read the ordinance. Mr. Plummer: Yes, hold up a minute, is this first reading? Mrs. Kennedy: It is. Mayor Suarez: Madam Vice Mayor. Mrs. Kennedy: Let me ask you, Madam City Attorney, since we have been working on this ordinance for so long and it's so needed, can we have second reading at the next Commission meeting? Mrs. Dougherty: I believe it may have already been noticed for the second meeting on the loth. Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, it was. Mrs. Dougherty: Yes. So we will be having... Mr. Rodriguez: It was noticed for, second reading. So we could have it on the tenth. Mrs. Kennedy: OK, so we will have it on December loth. Wonderful, thank you. Mr. Plummer: Hey, I'm going to tell you, Sergio, OK, you're taking these things and grouping a lot of things into a single ordinance. Now, the one area that I have a problem with is this about more than five adults living under the same roof which really has nothing to do with day care centers. Mr. Rodriguez: They are not living under one roof, first, this is for day care only. It's an adult day care facility... 108 December 2, 1987 _i� e Mr. Plummer: You're talking about a detached building? Mr. Rodriguez: We're talking about a building in a single family area. What we're trying to do is, there are families that have elderly, elder relatives and they cannot leave them by themselves during the day in the house so they take them to these day care facilities during the day and pick them up in the afternoon. Mrs. Kennedy: This is to make it conform to the State requirement. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but, well, OK, yes, but my concern and I think the case before us was the case over here on Third Avenue. Mrs. Dougherty: No, that has nothing to do with this. Mr. Rodriguez: That's nothing to do with Charlie or anything like that. Mr. Plummer: No, no, no, I'm not talking about Charlie. I'm talking about on Third Avenue in which we found a single family residence with all cubby holes and there were 12 people crammed into that house. Now, you know, I would say to you that in R-1, that there are houses that could accommodate five people and there are houses that can't accommodate two. Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Mr. Plummer: But you're hitting it here with a broad brush of allowing five without putting square footage regulations... Mr. Rodriguez: They have the square footage regulations as to size of the lot and also require a class C permit in which I sent courtesy notice to all the neighbors anyhow. And in the cases where you have more than... Mr. Plummer: I'll read it over before the next, OK. Mr. Rodriguez: Sure. Mr. Plummer: But all I'm saying is, you're trying to get too much in one ordinance. Mr. Rodriguez: I tried to put them together because it makes sense. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but you're also trying to sneak some stuff through too. Mr. Rodriguez: No, I'm not trying to sneak anything through. Mr. Plummer: Yes, I know... Mr. Rodriguez: No, no, no, no, no. Mr. Dawkins: Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Mr. Plummer: I'm still waiting - hey, you better go - let me tell you something. You want to get that sign ordinance, you'd better break it down into about five or six different areas that it's in because you've got about two or three Sneaky Bete's in that thing. I'm telling you. Mr. Rodriguez: We'll deal with that when the time comes. Mr. Plummer: OK, hey, you know, the more we turn down, the more you're going to have work to do. Mr. Rodriguez: Well, that will keep me busy. Mr. Dawkins: I move it. I move we adjourn. Mr. Plummer: There's a motion made and seconded. But we got to do twenty. Mr. Rodriguez: Let us, let us finish. Mayor Suarez: Read the ordinance. 109 December 2, 1987 c AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 20, ENTITLED "GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS" BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 2035 ENTITLED "ADULT DAY CARE CENTERS", PROVIDING FOR DEFINITION, MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS, LOCATION OF BUILDINGS IN RS-1, RS-2 AND RG-1 DISTRICTS, REQUIRED OUTDOOR AREA, AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS, LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS; BY AMENDING SECTION 2036 ENTITLED "CHILD DAY CARE CENTERS", AS IT PERTAINS TO OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS WITHIN CHILD DAY CARE CENTERS BY ADDING THE WORD "DAY" TO "CHILD CARE CENTERS" THROUGHOUT SECTION 2036; BY AMENDING ARTICLE 36 ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS", SPECIFICALLY AS IT PERTAINS TO THE DEFINITION OF CHILD DAY CARE CENTERS AND BY ADDING DEFINITIONS FOR "FAMILY DAY CARE HOME" AND "ADULT DAY CARE CENTER"; AND AMENDING PAGES 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 5 OF THE OFFICIAL SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS BY GENERALLY PERMITTING FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES IN RS-1 AND RS-2 DISTRICTS; ONE -FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BY CLASS C PERMIT IF LESS THAN 5 ADULTS, AND BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION IF 5 OR MORE ADULTS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS OF PROPOSED SECTION 2035 "ADULT DAY CARE CENTERS"; PROVIDING FOR MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS; TO GENERALLY PERMIT ADULT DAY CARE CENTERS, SUBJECT TO CLASS A PERMIT, IN RG-2 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS OF SECTION 2035 "ADULT DAY CARE CENTERS", PROVIDING FOR MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS; BY PERMITTING CHILD DAY CARE CENTERS BY CLASS C PERMIT AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS IN CG-1 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS; AND BY ADDING THE WORD "DAY" TO "CHILD CARE CENTERS" THROUGHOUT THE SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR CLARITY; BY CORRECTING A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN "0-I OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL" BY CHANGING SECTIONS 3036.4 AND 3036.5 TO SECTIONS 2036.4 AND 2036.5; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Rosario Kennedy 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. Mr. Dawkins (Off mike): I move we adjourn. Mr. Plummer: Always in order. Mr. Rodriguez: As soon as we get some of these amendments out of the way, first reading. Mayor Suarez: Is there any that are non controversial and that we ought to vote on? Mr. Plummer: Yea, bring them up in 1989 or 190 or... 110 December 2, 1987 Mr. Dawkins (Off mike): Kill the whole 9500 and you've got me. Just do it one time, you know. Don't keep coming back with 9500... Mr. Rodriguez: We have been since April. Give up. THERE BRING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:00 p.m. ATTEST: !fatty Hirai CITY CLERK Walter J. Foeman ASSISTANT CITY CLBRK Xavier L. Suarez N A T O R 111 December 2, 1987 CITY OF MIAMI DOCUMENT INDEX jMM-TM "TL. DECEMBER 2, 1987 PAW tCW .••. =i ilia .= • AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 TO PERMIT ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES (ACLF) TO BE LOCATED AT 1700-1770 NW.34 ST. 1701-1757 NW.33RD ST. AND 3300-3380 NW 17TH AVENUE (ALLAPATTAH BAPTIST CHURCH). 87=1066