HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1987-03-31 MinutesI T Y.. OF
r
,4 i A 1!2
OF MEETING NEW ON March 31, 1987
(PLANNING & ZONING)
Pit EPAREp •Y THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
MAT:Y HIPAX
City Clerk
INDEX
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
MARCH 31, 1987
ITEM
SUBJECT
LEGISLATION
PAGE
NO.
NO.
1.
PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS,
PRESENTED
1
SPECIAL ITEMS.
3/31/87
2.
CITY OFFICIALS TO MEET WITH JOE
M 87-284
1-3
-
WOODNICK REGARDING RICO ACT
3/31/87
PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO PUBLIC
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CONFISCATED
PROPERTY.
3.
CONSENT AGENDA.
3-4
3/31/87
3.1
EXECUTE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH
R 87-285
5
_
CUBAN MUSEUM OF ARTS AND CULTURE
3/31/87
INC. TO ALLOW THEM TO RETAIN FULL
RENTAL PAYMENT IN ITS CONTINUED
•
OPERATION OF FACILITY AT 1300 S.W.
■
12 AVENUE AND EXERCISE THREE-YEAR
RENEWAL OPTION.
3.2
FIREWORKS PERMIT FOR BAYSIDE MARKET
R 87-286
5
PLACE GRAND OPENING.
3/31/87
4.
ACCEPT BID: ALLISON CO. FOR DECALS
R 87-287
5-6
FOR POLICE VEHICLES.
3/31/87
5.
(A) DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT
M 87-288
6-13
CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR REFERENDUM
R 87-289
STATING THAT FUTURE LEASES ON
3/31/87
WATSON ISLAND WOULD HAVE TO FIRST
BE APPROVED BY CITY VOTERS AT
REFERENDUM. (B) AUTHORIZE
NEGOTIATION OF AGREEMENT WITH DADE
COUNTY AVIATION DEPARTMENT FOR
HELIPORTS.
- 6.
PRESENTATION TO MIAMI SENIOR HIGH
PRESENTED
13
BASKETBALL TEAM.
3/31/87
7.
AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
R 87-290
13-17
-
WITH FLORIDA BASEBALL COMPANY INC.
3/31/87
-
FOR USE OF BOBBY MADURO MIAMI
BASEBALL STADIUM FOR MIAMI MARLIN
GAMES.
8.
DEFERRAL OF ITEMS DEALING WITH
DISCUSSION
17-18
PROPERTY AT 104 N.W. 1 AVENUE (FOR
3/31/87
OVERTOWN/PARKWEST PROJECT)
9.
APPROVE SLIDE SCALE FEE SCHEDULE
R 87-291
18-20
FOR BOND COUNSEL FIRMS.
3/31/87
10.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED EMERGENCY
DISCUSSION
20-22
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF
3/31/87
MARINA REVENUE BONDS (SEE LABEL
#12)
0
0
11.
OPEN BIDS FOR NORTH RIVER DRIVE
M 87-292
22-23
HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT B-4501.
3/31/87
12.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND DEFERRAL
DISCUSSION
23-24
OF PROPOSED EMERGENCY ORDINANCE
3/31/87
AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF MARINE
REVENUE BONDS (SEE LABEL #10)
13.
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH
ORDINANCE
24-25
PROJECT - "OLYMPIC SAILING AND
10244
TRAINING CENTER PHASE II" AT DAVID
3/31/87
KENNEDY PARK.
14.
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: FEES FOR
ORDINANCE
25-26
BUILDING, INSPECTION PERMITS.
10245
3/31/87
15.
APPROVE EMERGENCY DEMOLITION OF
R 87-293
27-29
STRUCTURE AT 947 N.E. 1 AVENUE.
3/31/87
16.
INCREASE IN CONTRACT WITH MET
R 87-294
29-30
CONSTRUCTION FOR ORANGE BOWL
3/31/87
RECEPTION/PRESS INTERVIEW AREA.
17.
AUTHORIZE TRAVEL EXPENSES TO
M 87-295
30-32
KAOHSIUNG, FREE CHINA, FOR SISTER
3/31/87
CITY CEREMONIES.
18.
COMMENTS ON U.S.S. SARATOGA CONCERT
DISCUSSION
32
AND EVENTS; CITY TO DO SAME AT
3/31/87
BICENTENNIAL PARK.
19.
REWARD OFFER FOR INFORMATION OF
M 87-296
32-34
CULPRIT OF ALLEGED BOMB MAILED AT
3/31/87
CUBAN AMERICAN NATIONAL FOUNDATION
IN MIAMI.
20.
$50,000 ALLOCATED TO LANDSCAPE I-95
M 87-297
34-38
RAMPS ON BISCAYNE BOULEVARD.
3/31/87
21.
DEFER CONSIDERATION OF PLACING A
M 87-298
38-41
FENCE AROUND CHARLES HADLEY PARK -
3/31/87
COMMISSIONER DAWKINS TO HOLD
MEETING WITH AREA RESIDENTS.
22.
COMMENTS REGARDING HERALD ARTICLE
DISCUSSION
41-42
ON COCONUT GROVE WALKTHROUGH.
3/31/87
23.
ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR
R 87-299
42-54
MIAMI ARENA PROJECT.
3/31/87
24.
GRANT APPLICANT RIGHT TO APPLY
R 87-300
54-57
BEFORE ZONING BOARD FOR VARIANCE
3/31/87
FROM DISTANCE REQUIREMENT AT 3838
N. BAYSHORE DRIVE.
25.
DEFERRAL OF ITEMS DEALING WITH
R 87-301
57-61
PROPOSED DRIVE-IN TELLERS AT 1600
3/31/87
S.W. 22 STREET (CITICORP SAVINGS OF
FLORIDA)
26.
SECOND READING ORDINANCE:
ORDINANCE
61-87
PROHIBITING HOUSEBOATS IN THE
10246
LITTLE RIVER CANAL DISTRICT.
3/31/87
27.
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: RETAIN
ORDINANCE
87-88
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, ETC.
10247
SPECIAL USE MARINE LIVE -ABOARD
3/31/87
EXCLUSION ON LITTLE RIVER CANAL
AREA (HOUSEBOATS).
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: APPLY ORDINANCE
SPI-18 LITTLE RIVER CANAL 10248
(HOUSEBOATS). 3/31/87
DEFERRAL OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE DISCUSSION
DEALING WITH PERMANENT ACTIVE 3/31/87
RECREATION FACILITIES AS ACCESSORY
USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE FIRST
PLAN DESIGNATION FROM MODERATE READING
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL- 3/31/87
OFFICE AT APPROXIMATELY 4091 S.W. 2
TERRACE.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ZONING FIRST
CHANGE FROM RG-2/4 TO RO-3/6 AT READING
APPROXIMATELY 4091 SW 2 TERRACE. 3/31/87
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE FIRST
PLAN DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY READING
RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE. 3/31/87
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ZONING FIRST
CHANGE FROM RS-2/2 TO RO-1/4 WITH READING
SPI-3 OVERLAY AT 2606-2630 S.W. 28 3/31/87
STREET.
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 27TH DISCUSSION
AVENUE GATEWAY PROJECT (SEE LABEL 3/31/87
#36)
DEFERRAL OF PROPOSED FIRST READING DISCUSSION
ORDINANCES TO CHANGE ZONING AT 3/31/87
APPROXIMATELY 368-88 S.W. 26 STREET
(INTRAMERICA INVESTMENTS)
DISCUSSION AND DEFERRAL REGARDING DISCUSSION
THE 27TH AVENUE GATEWAY PROJECT 3/31/87
(SEE LABEL #34)
RESCHEDULE SECOND APRIL MEETING FOR R 87-302
APRIL 30, 1987. 3/31/87
FORMALIZATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO R 87-303
THE SPORTS AND EXHIBITION 3/31/87
AUTHORITY.
RECOMMEND TO DADE LEAGUE OF CITIES M 87-304
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER J.L. 3/31/87
PLUMMER AS DELEGATE TO THE SOUTH
FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL.
88-89
89-92
92-101
101
102-113
113
114-116
116-125
125-129
130
131
131-132
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 31st day of March, 1987, the City Commission of Miami, Florida,
met at its regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive,
Miami, Florida in regular session.
The meeting was called to order at 2:06 p.m. by Mayor Xavier Suarez with
the following members of the Commission found to be present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
Cesar Odio, City Manager
Lucia Allen Dougherty, City Attorney
Matty Hirai, City Clerk
Walter J. Foeman, Assistant City Clerk
An invocation was delivered by Mayor Suarez. Commissioner Plummer then
led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag.
1. PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ITEMS
1. Betty Letchner for having been chosen Student Social Worker of the Year.
2. Edward H. Tutty Day for having been chosen Social Worker of the Year.
3. A resolution of condolence was passed in recognition of the Rev. Ed
Graham.
4. Dr. Gwendolyn H. Scott for having been chosen Citizen of the Year.
5. Social Worker Month: congratulating all the professional social workers
for their dedication and efforts on behalf of the community.
Mayor Suarez: Now we have Miami High School. Why don't we wait a few more
minutes to see if we can get the complete Commission to - ah, you've got the
proclamation - great!
2. CITY OFFICIALS TO MEET WITH JOE WOODNICK REGARDING RICO ACT PROVISIONS
PERTAINING TO PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF CONFISCATED PROPERTY.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, while we're waiting just a moment, if I could bring
up to the microphone Mr. Joe Woodnick who has, for years, been very much
behind this City up in the northeast in many fights that have been very
beneficial to this City. He would like to make a proposal. Very briefly,
I'll try to outline it. Under the RICO Act, when things are confiscated for
illegal acts - mostly of drugs - it is beneficial, and financially beneficial,
to this City. It is needed that a process be set up of secondary
notification, a second notice, in effect, and that we could, in fact, move on
these places where drugs are being used or being sold. It seems as how Joe
has found that this City at the present time does not have a second notice
follow-up kind of a provision, and he would ask that this City establish such
through the office of the Manager, the City Attorney and the Police
1 March 31, 1987
Department, and so notify the new Attorney General that that procedure is now
in place, and that this City is going to enforce that and start confiscating
some of these places, and that we also urge the State Legislature to try to
a,.,, ►.ne Attorney General funding so that he can have at least one - he does
not even have a single enforcer or follow-through of the RICO Act in Dade
County now. Joe, if I've not covered it all, I'm ready to make a motion to
instruct the Manager, the Attorney and the Chief of Police to sit together
with you and get this formula, or provision, put into place so that we can
proceed post haste. Have you got anything to add to that?
Mr. Joe Woodnick: This is primarily aimed at drug houses that repeatedly
violate the RICO Act by selling drugs there. We want two notices - we don't
even have a method or procedure for a first notice right now. You need to
establish that the owner was aware of what is occurring on his property, so
that it will hold up in court on the second notice, when the Department of
Legal Affairs files lien on the property for forfeiture to the State of
Florida, and then division of proceeds - 40 percent coming to the City of
Miami.
_ Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would like to move, with your permission at this
time, that we send this matter to the three parties involved with Mr.
Woodnick, and that the Manager would report back to us as quickly as possible
when they have that kind of procedure in line to see if there is anything else
we can do to help. I so move.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Commissioner?
Mr. Dawkins: Second - under discussion. Why is it we can't get but 40
percent, Joe?
s Mr. Plummer: That's under the Federal law. The state gets forty, we get
forty and twenty ... Is it the feds?
Mr. Woodnick: No, no. The state RICO statute and federal statute are
different. The State statute - well, if the State Attorney was involved in
-`] it, they'd get twenty percent off the top, now. The state would get forty and
the City would get forty. That was changed last year in House Bill 1270. The
federal sharing is the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. You get a
division of proceeds according to the amount of the input that you had into a
particular case.
Mr. Dawkins: But when the Feds come in and take over from me, I have no
input; therefore I get none of the money back. Because they are the Federal
government, Joe - you know this. They come in, and then they take over after
we have done all the work, and then they take the money and leave.
Mr. Woodnick: Miller, let me tell you this. Right now, DEA has something
like $138 million to divvy up between local agencies on over 9,000 cases
throughout the United States. They're backlogged with paperwork trying to get
it to the agencies.
Mr. Dawkins: Ok. No further discussion.
Mayor Suarez: Call the roll.
2 March 31, 1987
i
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 87-284
A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY ATTORNEY
AND THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO GET TOGETHER WITH MR. JOE
WOODNICK REGARDING CONSTANT VIOLATIONS OF THE RICO ACT ON
ACCOUNT OF DRUG SALES, IN ORDER TO DRAW UP AND INSTITUTE A
PROCEDURE WHEREBY OWNERS WOULD BE DULY NOTICED AND AWARE
AS TO WHAT IS OCCURRING ON THEIR PROPERTY, SO THAT THE
CASE CAN STAND UP IN COURT ON THE SECOND NOTICE, WHEN THE
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS PLACES A LIEN ON SAID PROPERTY
FOR FORFEITURE TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Suarez: We have items 1 through 10 on the Consent Agenda.
Mrs. Kennedy: I have two items.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Kennedy.
Mrs. Kennedy: 2 and 3.
Mr. Plummer: Hold on - let me put my glasses on. I'd like to pull item
5. I
think we need to pull item 9 for a little bit more discussion. I would pull 5
and 9, Mr. Mayor.
Mrs. Kennedy: Has administration withdrawn any items, Mr. Manager?
Mayor Suarez: Item 1, yes.
Mr. Plummer: Wasn't I told that item 8 was going to be withdrawn?
Mrs. Kennedy: And 6, also - 6, 7 and 8, I understood.
Mr. Plummer: Somebody came to my office and said that was going
to be
withdrawn today.
Mrs. Dougherty: 6, 7 and 8 are not withdrawn.
Mr. Dawkins: Why was item 1 pulled, Mr. Manager
Mr. Odio: Commissioner, since the Oprah Winfrey Show might not come
until
November, and this is allocating funds for this year's budget, I prefer
to do
it after October let.
Mrs. Kennedy: Mr. Manager, I have just been handed a memo that says: "Please
be advised that items 1, 6, 7 and 8 ..."
Mr. Odio: Well, that was given to you this morning, but we are changing our -
we reached an....
Mrs. Dougherty: We don't want it on the Consent Agenda, Commissioner Kennedy.
3 March 31, 1987
Mayor Suarez: Ok let's pull items 6, 7 and 8 from the Consent Agenda, but
they will b3 s'..
Mr. Plummer: Pull 8.
Mr. Odio: Commissioner Dawkins -
Mayor Suarez: All three of them. They're related to the same issues.
Mr. Odio: May I say a question to Commissioner Dawkins, to see if he prefers
to leave item I now? The problem is it won't be until November, and so I felt
that we'd better have it done after October 1st.
Mr. Plummer: Did I not read an article in the paper, that says that after we
passed the money, and we said it was all right, that nobody in their
organization knew anything about it?
Mr. Odio: No, what -
Mr. Plummer: Didn't I read an article like that?
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, but that's incorrect.
Mr. Odio: That's incorrect.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, ok.
Mayor Suarez: Well, it looks like items 4 and 10 comprise the entire Consent
Agenda today, everything else having been pulled out. If there's anyone who
wishes to be heard for or against items 4 and 10? Bill? Ok we're going to
get to that, we're going to 3. Please step forward. Let the record reflect
that no one wanted to be heard on items 4 or 10, and I'll proceed to accept a
motion on items 4 and 10.
Mrs. Kennedy: So moved.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Any discussion? Call the roll.
The following resolutions were introduced by Commissioner Kennedy,
seconded by Commissioner Dawkins and passed and adopted by the following
vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
4 March 31, 1987
•
•
3.1 EXECUTE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH CUBAN MUSEUM OF ARTS AND CULTURE INC.
TO ALLOW THEM TO RETAIN FULL RENTAL PAYMENT IN ITS CONTINUED OPERATION OF
FACILITY AT 1300 S.W. 12 AVENUE AND EXERCISE THREE-YEAR RENEWAL OPTION
RESOLUTION NO. 87-285
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AN AMENDMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM ATTACHED
HERETO, TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 2,
1981, WITH THE CUBAN MUSEUM OF ARTS AND CULTURE,
INC., A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, TO ALLOW THE CUBAN
MUSEUM TO RETAIN THE FULL RENTAL PAYMENT IN ITS
CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE FACILITY LOCATED AT 1300
SW 12 AVENUE, AND TO EXERCISE ITS FINAL THREE-YEAR
RENEWAL OPTION, BASED UPON SAID RETENTION.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
3.2 FIREWORKS PERMIT FOR BAYSIDE MARKET PLACE GRAND OPENING
RESOLUTION NO. 87-286
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE BAYSIDE MARKET PLACE
GRAND OPENING TO BE CONDUCTED BY ROUSE-MIAMI, INC.
ON APRIL 8-12, 1987 RELAXING THE LIMITATIONS OF THE
DISPLAY OF FIREWORKS TO ALLOW THE STAGING OF
PYROTECHNIC DISPLAYS IN DOWNTOWN MIAMI COMMENCING ON
APRIL 8, 1987 TO EXTEND UNTIL 1:00 AM ON APRIL 9,
1987 AND ON APRIL 9-12, UNTIL 11:00 PM; AND FURTHER
ESTABLISHING AN AREA PROHIBITED TO RETAIL PEDDLERS
DURING THE PERIOD OF SAID EVENT; CONDITIONED UPON
THE ORGANIZERS PAYING FOR THE NECESSARY COSTS OF
CITY SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH SAID EVENT AND THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THE CITY WILL BE INSURED AGAINST
ANY POTENTIAL LIABILITY.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and
on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
4. ACCEPT BID: ALISON CO. FOR DECALS FOR POLICE VEHICLES
Mayor Suarez: Item 2.
Mrs. Kennedy: Item 2, in the backup material, states that we're going to be
paying $132 for decals in the Police Department cars. Can somebody explain
why a decal costs $132?
Mr. Ron Williams: Yes, Commissioners, I provided each of you a copy of the
new design. This essentially includes all materials and labor involved in
equipping our new police cars.
Mr. Plummer: Well, Ron, defend your own position. The decals are a hell of a
lot easier and cheaper than repainting them when you go to sell them.
Mr. Williams: Absolutely.
Mrs. Kennedy: Ok. Is it something that could be done in-house, or do the
cars have to be taken to....
Mr. Williams: No, this would be done at our facility; however, by....
Mr. Odio: I'd rather not do it in-house. I'd rather have somebody private do
it. That way when we get the new cars in, they'll be ready to roll right
away, and not waste three months or four months to put them in service,
Commissioner.
5 March 31, 1987
Mrs. Kennedy: Ok.
Mr. Odio: That's the reason why we need to do it like that.
Mrs. Kennedy: Move item 2.
Mr. Plummer: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Call the roll on item 2.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87-287
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF ALISON CO. A NON -
MINORITY VENDOR FOR FURNISHING DECALING SERVICES FOR
APPROXIMATELY 304 POLICE PATROL VEHICLES FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION AT A TOTAL
PROPOSED COST OF $40,052.00; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR
FROM THE 1986-87 PRINT SHOP DIVISION, ACCOUNT NO. 42050-
680 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE CHIEF
PROCUREMENT OFFICER TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THIS
SERVICE.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
5. A- DIRECT CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR REFERENDUM
STATING THAT FUTURE LEASES ON WATSON ISLAND WOULD HAVE TO FIRST BE
APPROVED BY CITY VOTERS AT REFERENDUM
B- AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATION OF AGREEMENT WITH DADE COUNTY AVIATION
DEPARTMENT FOR HELIPORTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: Item 3.
Mrs. Kennedy: In item 3, nowhere in the backup material does it say - we're
not giving any specifics - what is the County doing? Are we going to turn
Watson Island into a large heliport? What are the routes? There's no
information to have this on the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Gilchrist: Commissioner, the County is here to make a presentation on
what they would like to do on this item.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, I say take this and send it
back where it came from. Number one, the County already has the seaport. The
County has the airport. The City of Miami gets nothing. So now if the County
wants to operate, cooperate with the City of Miami with a heliport, then I'm
willing to do that with them. But I'm not willing, at all, to let the County
take over a heliport in the City of Miami. That's me.
Mr. Plummer: I don't think that's really the thing behind it, Miller.
6 March 31, 1987
17J
Mayor Suarez: What jurisdiction are we ceding or yielding here?
_ Mr. Plummer: This is a st•.dy ' .:.,at p..::'re not
overlapping - let me say this, it's my understanding. If this study was to be
done, it is under no obligation to the City at all to join in with it or not
join in with it.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, then, I make a motion....
Mr. Plummer: It's just a study, is what it is.
Mr. Dawkins: .... I make a motion that the City of Miami pay for the study, and
it'll be our study, and we can tell people what we want, and the County won't
be able to dictate to us what's best for us. That's my opinion.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Mr. Gilchrist: Mr. Dawkins, it's a Countywide study.
Mr. Plummer: He made a motion, is there a second?
Mayor Suarez: I second it.
Mr. Plummer: Ok Under discussion. Commissioner Dawkins, are you then stating
that you want to pay for the Countywide study? Because that's what it's
proposed to do.
Mayor Suarez: We'll pay for the part that affects Watson Island.
Mr. Plummer: I am totally and unalterably opposed to the County taking over
anything in the City relating to a heliport or an airport. I am totally
opposed to that. Now, I don't know that I am opposed to a study being done,
to say on an areawide basis, what should be the norm from a safety standpoint,
from a logistics standpoint, a scheduling standpoint - I guess what I'm saying
is, if they want to give me something for nothing, and I'm not in any way
obligated as to the results of the study, I say we're looking a gifthorse in
the mouth.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, J.L., by the same token, I am the same one who sat
_ here and told you that when they bought the bridge over, the land on your
property you were going to get nothing for it. You don't get a penny out of
the tonnage that come into the port. We don't get a penny out of none of the
passenger revenues, and I'll go along with the majority here, only if they pay
for somebody, pay for half of the study, put somebody on it who has got my
interests at heart.
Mr. Plummer: I don't have any problem with that. I don't have any problem
with that at all.
Mr. Dawkins: Ok, all right, then, but I don't want the County to go and do a
study, and come back and tell me this is what's best for the City of Miami. I
don't want that.
Mr. Plummer: The only problem that you have - and we have seen this
traditionally and historically - is that the County does a study telling us
what's best for us, and then the newspapers get it and say that we're the fly
in the ointment. That's always been a problem with me. Now, what you're
saying is, to put somebody on from the City, who is there to protect our
interest and that we pay for the part of the study, I have no problem with
that.
Mrs. Kennedy: I have no problems with that, either.
Mr. Dawkins: I have no problem.
Mr. Bud Carr: I'm Bud Carr. I'm the assistant director of Dade County
Aviation Department. We came here today with a number of exhibits to show
you. What the study is that we are performing - and it's not just a Dade
County study, it's a multi -County study, going as far as Palm Beach and as far
as Key West south - I'd be happy to do that. I think the point of the
meeting, however, is to ask for your concurrence, with an agreement of
understanding that says that your staff, will work with our staff in
7 March 31, 1987
developing this study, and that anything that impacted the City, would then
come back to you for your approval. We don't intend, in any way, to do
anything in the City of Miami other than endeavor to regulate flights. so that
it's safe and efficient in the entire County and adjacent counties. That's
all that we're proposing to do.
Mrs. Kennedy: Ok, that's fine with me, but why wait until the end, and
perhaps have you tell us that what you need to do with the City is have Watson
Island turn into a huge heliport? Why not have somebody.....
Mr. Carr: Commissioner, we're just getting started, so we're not at the end,
we're just initiating the study and inviting your participation.
Mr. Plummer: (off mike) My fear is they come back and say you don't need one
at all.
Mr. Dawkins: You couldn't be ... Let me differ with you, sir. Let me
differ. May I ask you a question? How could you just be getting started when
you've got pictures and posters to show me - that you just got started - how?
Mr. Carr: We're just getting - we haven't set anything in concrete other than
a heliport at the.....
Mr. Dawkins: But then you're not just getting started because you have
something down to show me ... that you've already started on.
Mr. Carr: That's right. We've talked to other counties. We've talked to
Monroe County, we've talked to Palm Beach County, talked to individuals in
Broward County, all of whom, incidentally, are cooperating.
Mr. Dawkins: I'll be guided by the wishes of the majority.
Mayor Suarez: It's a greater Countywide analysis of heliport and similar
facilities - makes sense ... Let me ask you a question. How do you interplay
with the airport? Your jurisdiction is just what?
Mr. Carr: The jurisdiction at the airport, of course, is Dade County Airport.
We have a heliport at Dade County Airport. It's one of the stations within
the system where helicopters would land and depart, pick up passengers and
interface with the community. It's only one of several.
Mayor Suarez: I guess what you're proposing is something that if we had done
it, for example, with impact fees we could have jointly developed something
that would have made more sense for everyone involved. And there's no
jurisdictional concerns on the Commission's part, and the expenditure is
basically going to be joint staff, in-house?
Mr. Bill Terkeurst: Your Honor, Mayor, Commission, my name is Bill Terkeurst.
I live at 1627 Brickell in the City of Miami. There are some real problems
with accepting money to do a study on a heliport. The first problem is it'll
probably be federal ...
Mayor Suarez: Ok, Bill, let me stop you there. It contradicts what we've
just heard. It's going to be basically a joint staff study.
Mr. Odio: We're not accepting any monies.
Mr. Terkeurst: No, what it amounts to is there is a planning agency involved
in this - H.N.T.B. - which operates on federal funds. Now, when you have
federal funds involved ...
Mayor Suarez: H.N.T.B., what is that?
Mr. Odio: Excuse me, that is not correct.
Mr. Carr: H.N.T.B. is the general consultant for the Dade County Aviation
Department.
Mr. Terkeurst: Sir, I've been at the meetings.
Mr. Carr: They are employed by us. If they ...
8 March 31, 1987
•
•
Mayor Suarez: They're private consultants? Not under Federal jurisdiction?
Mr. Carr: They're private consultants - not under federal j,.,�,�_.., ►c,...
there is any federal jurisdiction, it is through the Aviation Department, so
Mr. Plummer: Is there a federal grant paying them?
Mr. Carr: Not at the present time. There are no Federal grants. We hope to
invite some.
Mr. Plummer: Let me ask a question on the record, because I see maybe where
Bill is coming from. Is there a possibility that there are federal funds
corning for this thing, and it can't be done without a regional study? And, if
such, we could get cut out if we joined with you.
Mr. Carr: There's a possibility for Federal funds. It would enhance the
possibility of obtaining those federal funds if we could go forward as a
unified community to develop a system.
Mr. Plummer: Well, ok, because that puts a different, you know, a different
light on this whole situation, because I've seen that - let me give you the
classic example, and that's the sewage plant. We lost $400 million, and when
we found out the truth, the truth was that the County could not get Federal
funds unless they had a unified system. Now, is this really a way of
accommodating a vehicle for the County to get Federal funds for a helicopter
service and cutting the City out of the availability of any of those funds.
And I think that's a great area of concern.
Mr. Terkeurst: J.L., what it comes down to - if any Federal funds are used in
the planning, construction, engineering, etc. ...
Mr. Plummer: Yeah, but if they cut me out of those funds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Commissioner Carollo entered the meeting at 2:31 p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Terkeurst: ...the City has no control over who uses this facility. In
other words, the existing facility at Miami International today - the new
high-rise helipad - was built utilizing Federal funds. This means that every
aircraft, every licensed pilot must be allowed to use it, which means a 25-
year-old Bell 47 with a private pilot must be allowed to land there. That is
the federal regulation.
Mr. Carr: That's not quite true, incidentally.
Mr. Odio: But let me tell you where I'm going with my recommendations - for
Watson Island will be that we let anybody land there that have a license and
they pay the City, the City fees, for the use of our municipal heliport.
Mr. Terkeurst: That's exactly what we have proposed to ...
Mayor Suarez: Would you be satisfied if we put a proviso on the motion that
said that no Federal funds may be applied or accepted in connection with the
... 7
Mr. Terkeurst: Your Honor, I think obviously the system should be built, but
I think the City should have absolute control over what's built in the City.
Mayor Suarez: Well, that might be a way to assure that - is to put....
Mr. Terkeurst: And I think it should be designed with - and built with
private industry, not because - because private industry will come up with the
money.
Mr. Plummer: That's not my fear. My fear is that if there's federal funds
for construction, and the County has to show the feds that area -wide planning
project, that the County could get all of the funds and we would get none to
build a City facility.
9 March 31, 1987
Mr. Terkeurst: Absolutely correct.
Mr. Plummer: That's my fear. I'll tell you what - you can assure - I'll tell
you how we can do that. We can write in that if any Federal funds are coming
forthwith from the results of this study, that the City gets at least forty
percent of said funds.
Mr. Carr: No, no.
Mr. Terkeurst: J.L., that's wrong. The problem is that you can't control the
use of the facility afterwards. Watson Island is a public facility. It is
_ now. Everybody in the area uses it - they use it free. The income to the
City could be increased dramatically by charging user fees. However, if they
build a high-rise or a rooftop parking garage -type heliport in downtown Miami,
Federal funds are utilized - you have no control. That's the law.
Mr. Carr: That's really not true, excuse me, sir.
Mr. Terkeurst: I'd appreciate it if you'd point out where I'm wrong.
Mr. Carr: Clarification on a couple of points. One, the Federal government
grants grant money for the building of airport facilities to the owner and
sponsor of the project. If the City sponsors a project, the City would
receive the federal funds. If the County builds facilities on our property,
the County receives the federal funds.
Mr. Plummer: Ok, so you're not in contradiction at this point. Now, if
federal funds are given to the City of Miami to construct that facility, is it
true that you cannot charge a fee to anybody using it?
Mr. Terkeurst: You just can't restrict the use.
Mr. Carr: No, you can charge fees. It must be open and available to the
public without discrimination. That's all.
Mr. Carollo: If I may --
Mr. Plummer: Ok, but the City can charge a fee?
Mr. Carr: Certainly you can charge fees. We charge fees for all of our
facilities.
Mr. Dawkins: Joe, you better be careful - they already got you in the paper
with a helicopter!
Mr. Odio: And that's all we want to do. We want to be able to have people
land there and pay us for landing.
Mr. Carollo: If I could make a short statement. All this back and forth
between these two gentlemen and everybody else is all Chinese to me. (Sorry
X!) I tell you what I'd like to have the City Manager place on the next
Commission agenda, and that is to have drafted, with the City Attorney, a
Charter Amendment, a charter change where, since the island of Watson is the
most valuable piece of property that the City of Miami owns, that any future
leases that the Commission would approve before they can go into effect, it
has to be approved by the people of Miami in a Charter change. I don't care
if it's for one small piece of a lease, or for a large piece, like we sold
back in April and May of last year.
Mr. Plummer: Are you saying a charter change or a referendum of the people?
Mr. Carollo: I don't know. We're talking to place on the November ballot an
amendment to the Charter that would have the people of Miami vote to see if
they want to have an amendment to the City Charter, specifically to Watson
Island, that any future leases that the City of Miami might negotiate, before
they're approved, it has to go before the people of Miami for final approval
in the form of a referendum, a vote.
Mr. Plummer: Joe, I can second that motion, but with one proviso, that it
doesn't bind the City itself in anything we might want to do on Watson Island.
In other words, other than the City, if there's to be any leases or anything
also, that that would have to take a Charter change or a referendum.
10 March 31, 1987
Mr. Carollo: I won't have any problems with that, however -
Mr. Plummer: But if the City wants to go over and build something on the
island, we can do it without having....
Mr. Carollo: That's fine, so long as it's only the City, and it's not the
City in conjunction with anyone else in private enterprise.
Mr. Plummer: Right.
_ Mr. Carollo: Secondly, besides that, I'd like to have an item for discussion
on the island of Watson. Since there have been statements made in different
newspapers, that people still want to go ahead and develop that island, there
were statements made by some of the previous people involved that they had not
lost hope in wanting to construct their Disneyworld at Watson Island, and,
since even the Mayor made a statement in the Miami News, that he wanted to
bring it back, and I've heard from sources that Mr. Abela has not lost hope in
going ahead with some kind of plan on Watson Island, I would like to bring
this item back for discussion at the next Commission meeting.
Mr. Odio: If I may, to clarify this heliport thing ...
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, now, we've got three motions on the floor, as I
see it.
Mayor Suarez: Well, he wants an item for discussion which can be done without
any kind of a motion.
Mr. Carollo: These are no motions.
Mr. Plummer: There's first a motion that Miller made.
Mayor Suarez: That's still pending.
Mr. Plummer: And there's a motion that you just made about proposing the
Charter change. Is that a motion, or to be scheduled later for discussion?
Mr. Carollo: This is asking the administration to bring it back at the next
Commission meeting, so that this Commission can vote upon it to put it on the
November ballot.
Mr. Plummer: Fine.
Mr. Carollo: And then the other part is for discussion as to....
Mr. Plummer: Two motions and a discussion.
Mayor Suarez: On the second motion, the one on Watson Island, generally to be
brought back to the Commission, do we have a motion and a second?
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: Any further discussion? Call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 87-288
A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT A
CHARTER AMENDMENT TO BE PLACED ON THE NEXT NOVEMBER
BALLOT STATING THAT ANY FUTURE LEASES TO BE GRANTED BY
THE CITY COMMISSION ON WATSON ISLAND WOULD HAVE TO
FIRST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY VOTERS AT A REFERENDUM;
FURTHER STATING THAT THE ABOVE CITED MEASURE WOULD NOT
IN ANY WAY TIE UP THE CITY'S HANDS IN CONNECTION WITH
ANY DEVELOPMENT THE CITY COMMISSION MAY DECIDE TO DO
ON WATSON ISLAND; AND FURTHER REQUESTING THE CITY
MANAGER TO BRING THIS ITEM BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING
FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
11 March 31, 1987
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Mayor Suarez: Now, on the motion of Commissioner Dawkins, do we have any
modifications in view of the discussion or are we satisfied that basically we
have a joint study?
Mr. Terkeurst: I've got a suggestion.
Mayor Suarez: Wait, Bill. Commissioner Plummer, you had made a modification
or proviso that is acceptable to Commissioner Dawkins so that we can vote on
it?
Mrs. Kennedy: Would you repeat that again.
Mr. Plummer: The proviso was that we go into the joint study with no
obligation as to the results, and that City staff be deeply involved,
representing the City's position, and that any Federal funds that were
forthcoming from the results of this study that forty percent of it would go
to the City.
Mr. Terkeurst: Might I make a suggestion - that the City would have an
independent study. The County could have their study which they already have
completed.
Mr. Odio: No, no, I think -
Mayor Suarez: We don't have any problem doing a joint study with the County,
Bill, that's -
Mr. Plummer: Bill, I guarantee you after that study is finished we'll wind up
with our own.
Mrs. Kennedy: And let me tell you, Bill, we have been talking about a study,
and that's why I pulled it out because, abruptly, I see that what we're doing
is we're entering into an agreement which is totally different.
Mr. Terkeurst: That's not •chat this resolution states at all.
Mrs. Kennedy: No, but it was before.
Mr. Carr: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Suarez: Does the agreement have any binding implications other than the
fact of a study being performed?
Mr. Carr: No. Mr. Mayor, relative to the forty percent of funds, the federal
rules...
Mayor Suarez: That's sort of a resolution of intent - the way it's built in,
it doesn't really - You understand, we can't bind the Federal government in
advance, but we certainly would like to get our fair share of any Federal
funds that come.
Mr. Carr: The fair share would be if we built the facilities - the facilities
are built in the City, the City would obtain the federal funds.
Mr. Terkeurst: The resolution, as written, is not what that is at all. The
resolution, as written, states that the City Manager is to enter into an
agreement with the County on the development. Further, the County ...
Mayor Suarez: On the study of
12 March 31, 1987
Mr. Odio: On the joint study with the County. We're not going to develop
aryflm4ng except a study.
Mr. Plummer: But the original on the agenda has been amended, and we're
voting on the amended item.
Mayor Suarez: Make sure that the resolution that I finally sign reflects the
modifications we have made.
Mr. Plummer: You check it before you sign it! (laughter)
Mayor Suarez: There's a lot of them to sign. Any further discussion with the
modifications on the motion, provisos, etc.? Call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87-289
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE
STAFF ASSISTANCE TO METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION, FOR A STUDY OF COUNTY -WIDE
PUBLIC HELIPORTS, HELISTOPS AND HELICOPTER ROUTES; AND
FURTHER, TO THE EXTENT FEDERAL FUNDS ARE OBTAINED FOR
THE STUDY OR IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH FACILITIES, SAID
FUNDS SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE CITY
PROPORTIONATE TO DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Suarez, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Mr. Terkeurst: Thank you.
6. PRESENTATION TO MIAMI SENIOR HIGH BASKETBALL TEAM
Proclamation presented to Miami Senior High basketball team for having won the
Florida State High School Basketball title.
7. AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA BASEBALL COMPANY INC. FOR
USE OF BOBBY MADURO MIAMI BASEBALL STADIUM FOR MIAMI MARLINS GAMES
Mayor Suarez: Item 5.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I asked that item 5 be pulled. This is in reference
to the baseball. I'd like to pull this item for the purposes of a minor,
minor amendment. That amendment is that if, in fact, this City is bestowed
with a major league team in the future, that it would null and void this
present contract with the following understanding: that if the contract holder
presently was not the recipient of the major league team, that the City would
13 March 31, 1987
negotiate with him any compensation that is necessary, to make sure that he
does not suffer any loss. I think it is foolhardy - this contract is what,
five years total?
Mayor Suarez: As we always ask - excuse me, Commissioner, whenever you
mention an option - whose option?
Mr. Plummer: I think it's mutual, isn't it? It's a mutual option.
Mayor Suarez: It requires both in order to renew? Or either in order to
renew?
Mr. Jack Eads: Mutual option. Both sides have to agree.
Mayor Suarez: That's really not an option. Ok.
Mr. Plummer: And what I'm saying is that in this particular contract here, I
don't think anybody would expect this contract to be the prevailing agreement
if, in fact, a major league team was brought in. It is with the full
understanding if this City were to be the recipient of a major league team,
that there is going to have to be an awful lot of money spent on that stadium
to fix it up. So, Mr. Mayor, what I would like to do is to approve this
contract, subject to that one point which I have outlined, to send back to the
Manager to negotiate, but to approve the contract as it stands before us, with
that one point yet to be settled by the recipient and the Manager, and I would
so move.
Mr. Dawkins: I'll second. Under discussion. On page two. The second from
the last paragraph. "It was also negotiated that the club would pay a portion
of the City's Special Event Coordinator's salary in an amount equal to
5/26ths." What is the total amount and what would 5/26ths equal?
Mr. Walter Golby: It would equal $25,000.
Mr. Dawkins: That's five -sixths of his salary? 5/26ths?
Mr. Golby: It could equal $25,000, which is half his salary.
Mr. Plummer: His salary is forty?
Mr. Golby: His salary is fifty.
Tim Mr. Dawkins: Well 5/26ths, now, that's twenty-six wholes and we're talking
about five of the twenty-six, so that leaves 19/26ths. I mean, I don't follow
what you're saying here.
Mr. Plummer: Five twenty-sixths would not be out of $50,000 salary.
Mayor Suarez: It would be about $10,000.
Mr. Plummer: Five twenty-sixths. Call it five twenty-fifths, which is a
fifth, or twenty percent. Twenty percent of fifty thousand would be $10,000,
not twenty-five.
Mayor Suarez: Now we got through fractions today.
Mr. Eads: Commissioner, can you tell us again what....
Mr. Dawkins: That's the second page, the third paragraph on page two.
Mr. Golby: He's reading from the memo, Jack. It's further back in the
agreement.
Mr. Dawkins: Twenty-six sixths makes a whole, right?
Mr. Eads: Yes, sir, there are two elements -
Mayor Suarez: You know what the problem is, the way it's worded.
Mr. Eads: Yes sir, I just saw that.
14 March 31, 1987
Mayor Suarez: It says five twenty-sixths of the concessions, and it refers to
the salary. It could end up being a lot more than the salary. Now what do
you mpnn. thprp?
Mr. Eads: There's two elements in there. One is the five twenty-sixths, the
concessions. The second is the percentage of his salary, which is a fixed
amount.
Mr. Plummer: Ok.
Mr. Dawkins: You going to fix it now?
Mayor Suarez: We got a double fraction here.
Mr. Dawkins: The other thought, then. All right, the next one.
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. What is it supposed to be? What would five
twenty-sixths of projected concession be?
Mr. Eads: Up to $25,000.
Mr. Plummer: So then the wording in there should say: "not to exceed ... ",
but it doesn't say that now.
Mr. Eads: (off mike) Let me find the item in the agreement then I'll refer
back.
Mr. Plummer: But I think Commissioner Dawkins makes a good point, that
there's got to be a maximum, and if you write in there that number not to
exceed 25,000, you're protected.
Mr. Eads: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: The second thing I have is: why is it the City is going to be -
and I'm reading from the same page - "the City will be responsible for stadium
maintenance, for preparing the playing field for the Miami Marlin games, and
for after games cleaning". Why?
Mr. Plummer: (off mike) It's always been done. Same way with the Orange
Bowl. We have to pay for it.
Mr. Dawkins: But we're giving them the field free. So you're giving them
everything, now.
Mr. Plummer: You're trying to keep a team there.
Mr. Dawkins: Beg you pardon.
Mr. Plummer: You're trying to keep a team there, that's the problem.
Mr. Dawkins: I'm with the whole thing, ok. The only problem I have is
$109,000, that somebody got away with, and we allowed them to get away with
it, and I got a problem with that.
Mr. Plummer: No question.
Mr. Dawkins: I guess that's why we've got to make concessions to this
gentleman, but we should go to court or go to somewhere to try to get our
$109,000.
Mr. Odio: If we agree to this, what we are saying is that we're waiving the
$109,000.
Mr. Plummer: What we're saying is that if you agree to this you placate court
action.
Mayor Suarez: No, he meant as an alternative, agreeing to this.
Mrs. Kennedy: If we agree to this, what were you saying?
Mr. Odio: That we are waiving the $109,000.
15 March 31, 1987
Mr. Dawkins: We have to waive it, because if you don't waive it then this
gentleman's got to pay it, and he doesn't owe it.
Mr. Odio: No, Commissioner, let me tell you this, that the deal that we have
worked out with Mr. Rivo, is ten times better than what we ever had before.
In other words, we're going to get a lease what we're entitled to get back.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Manager, I agree. I appreciate it, and that's what we pay
you for and you are earning your money, but it still does not alter the fact
that somebody beat us for $109,000.
Mr. Odio: The answer to that is "yes".
Mr. Dawkins: Move it.
Mr. Plummer: As amended.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second. Ok.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded, as amended.
Mr. Plummer: And by the way, Commissioner Dawkins, for your edification, in
the contract it is spelled out not to exceed twenty-five. It's in the
contract.
Mayor Suarez: It really was five twenty-sixths of the concession proceeds,
not five twenty-sixths of the salary.
Mr. Plummer: But not to exceed twenty-five thousand.
Mr. Eads: Two elements. Yes, sir.
Mayor Suarez: And we did lose substantial amounts on this but it is the only
feasible agreement that we can enter into that retains the baseball team.
Mr. Plummer: Maybe you lost a substantial amount now but what we hope to gain
in the future is where it's all at.
Mayor Suarez: And we get a head start, hopefully, on a major league franchise
if this particular team is successful.
Mr. Plummer: I so move this amendment.
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Call the roll.
Mrs. Kennedy: Let me just say that it's in the best of our interests to make
this a great success and I would like to congratulate Mr. Rivo. This is our
chance to get professional baseball and I just urge the whole community to get
behind this. It's a great effort. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87-290
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO
EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE
TO THE CITY
ATTORNEY, BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MIAMI
AND
FLORIDA
BASEBALL COMPANY, INC., FOR THE
USE
OF THE BOBBY
MADURO MIAMI BASEBALL STADIUM TO
PLAY
MIAMI
MARLINS
BASEBALL GAMES DURING THE 1987
AND
1988
BASEBALL
SEASONS WITH AN OPTION FOR THREE
ADDITIONAL
ONE-YEAR
RENEWAL PERIODS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
16 March 31, 1987
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you, Ron. You were very eloquent today.
8. DEFERRAL OF ITEMS DEALING WITH PROPERTY AT 104 N.W. 1 AVENUE (FOR
OVERTOWN/PARK WEST PROJECT)
Mrs. Dougherty: Item 6.
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. I got a problem with this, I want to tell you I
was going to meet with some of the people from the Law Department. I was told
this matter was withdrawn. Now you're coming back at me. I have not had the
opportunity to sit down with Mr. George. Maybe you all are versed on this
thing. I'm not, and that's why I was going to meet with him this morning. I
would like to get this matter deferred until such time as at least we know
what there's going to be on an agenda or withdrawn.
Mayor Suarez: I think what they meant was that they were going to pull it
from the Consent Agenda and consider it item by item because of its complexity
and everything else.
Mr. Odio: I tell very simply what happened.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, Mr. George is here. He is the one who
came to my office, who had an appointment with me, informed my office that the
matter was going to be withdrawn and so the meeting was canceled. Now he's
here to verify that.
Mayor Suarez: Ok.
Mr. Plummer: Now I would like this matter to be deferred until next Thursday,
and then I'll have the time to sit down with these people.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mr. Dawkins: And when you come back, tell me exactly how this is going to
enhance Overtown/Park West, tell me exactly if you're going to go from 1st
Avenue, 1st Street, all the way up to 8th Street at one time and no
increments, and be sure and explain fully how this is going to benefit
Overtown/Park West.
Mr. Plummer: Exactly. Let me put the other thing right on the record right
now. There's two areas, I understand that caused this withdrawal. One was
the indemnification and the other was giving the City insurance. So those two
matters better be resolved or I can tell you at this time they're not resolved
at the next meeting it's either going to be a denial or another deferment. So
you better address those two issues and have an answer when you come back
here. I move that items 6, 7 and 8 be carried over till the April 9th meeting
at 2:30 in the afternoon.
Mayor Suarez: So moved and seconded. Any discussion? Call the roll.
17 March 31, 1967
•
•
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -May— * , e,..___- ♦-
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
9. APPROVE SLIDE SCALE FEE SCHEDULE FOR BOND COUNSEL FIRMS
Mayor Suarez: Item 9 is the only other item on the Consent Agenda, I believe.
Commissioner Plummer asked for it to be
Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, we are asking you to adopt a fee
schedule for bond counsel. As you recall, you gave the City Attorney the
discretion to negotiate on a case by case basis each bond counsel fee on each
issue.
Mayor Suarez: We shortlisted three firms?
Mrs. Dougherty: You have three firms -
Mayor Suarez: And those are still pending, I mean -
Mrs. Dougherty: Those three firms are still rotating. The question is: what
fee is going to be charged on these? Now, we have found that you have saved
the City substantial amounts of money by going local on your bond counsel, and
we have looked at what Dade County charges, we have looked at all of the bids
from all of the bond counsels that bid when you originally put this out for
request for proposals. We've had the experience of negotiating with the
various bond issues, and we've come up with this formula that we'd like you to
adopt for bond counsel fees.
Mayor Suarez: And the sliding scale formula helps us to get lower fees - is
your recommendation?
Mrs. Dougherty: It's fair to the counsel because they know what they're going
to get. It's fair to the City, because I don't have to negotiate on a case by
case basis, and have them explain to me that one's more difficult than the
other, and we've also submitted these fees to each of the counsel, and they
would like more money, but they think it's fair.
Mr. Plummer: So is that in the best interests of the City? In other words,
if you set a fee, you never have a chance of getting it cheaper.
Mrs. Dougherty: You have a chance of making it less any time you want to.
You can redo these fees.
Mr. Plummer: Is this a fee not to exceed?
Mrs. Dougherty: These are fees not to exceed, but upon them demonstrating, in
writing, why this is a much more difficult issue. They can come to you and,
if the City Attorney recommends it, you can approve up to ten percent more.
Mr. Plummer: But there is nothing herein contained that says that they can't
reduce their fees.
Mrs. Dougherty: There's nothing in there that says that.
Mayor Suarez: And they also know that there's three of them, and that if one
doesn't negotiate in "good faith" that the other one could end up getting the
work.
Mrs. Dougherty: Well, this would no longer be in negotiating if one doesn't
want it.
18 March 31, 1987
Mr. Plummer: No, you see, that's what bothers me - when you don't negotiate.
I am a strong believer in competitive bidding. Competitive bidding is just
that. If one law firm wants to some in e^e+ cor.►P Fnr 4t,)n And the other one
is $140, then the City is better off. And I don't want to get it locked in
where you are locked in other than a figure not to exceed. Why the hell
should be lock the door that we can't get it cheaper.
Mrs. Dougherty: We will then put that in. If we find that it is even easier
to give me the opportunity to negotiate it down. But these are going to be a
maximum not to exceed.
Mr. Plummer: What you are doing is setting a maximum fee with a ten percent
if they can demonstrate to the Commission extraordinary amount of work. But I
sure don't want to say that that's the bottom line.
Mrs. Dougherty: Correct. Okay.
Mr. Plummer: I would move it, Mr. Mayor, based on the fact that the schedule
put forth by the City Attorney is fully understood that these are fees not to
exceed the amount of that outline. I so move.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mr. Plummer: Who knows, somebody might want to come up and do a community
service for nothing. I don't believe it, but it sounds good.
Mayor Suarez: Do you want to move it?
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Suarez: He moved it in terms of a maximum from which you can negotiate
downward and only upward in the circumstances you explained, ok? Any further
discussion?
Mr. Dawkins: That's ok.
Mr. Plummer: This schedule of fees is now the maximum. They can be less.
Mr. Dawkins: That's what she wanted, isn't it?
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, sir.
Mayor Suarez: Call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87-291
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA APPROVING THE ATTACHED BOND COUNSEL
SLIDING -SCALE FEE SCHEDULE FOR LAW FIRMS SERVING AS
PRIMARY BOND COUNSEL TO THE CITY AND AUTHORIZING AN
ADDITIONAL FEE NOT TO EXCEED TEN (10) PERCENT OVER THE
FEE SCHEDULE ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT A PARTICULAR BOND
ISSUE IS DETERMINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION TO BE
ESPECIALLY COMPLEX AND INVOLVED UPON THE POSITIVE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE FINANCE
DIRECTOR OR THE DESIGNEES THEREOF.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote-
19 March 31, 1987
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
10. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF MARINA
REVENUE BONDS (See label #12)
Mayor Suarez: Item 11.
Mr. Plummer: I got a problem with item 11, Mr. Manager. You going and
selling bonds of $12 million on the marina facilities. I'm assuming that the
great part of that is for Dinner Key. I haven't seen a plan on Dinner Key.
Have you seen a plan on Dinner Key? How the hell do I know what it's going to
cost? I don't think we should be about the business, right now, of selling
bonds without knowing what we're going to do. It just doesn't make sense to
me.
Mr. Carlos Garcia: I don't have the plans myself, but I have seen the work
being started, and according to the schedule that has been provided to me...
Mr. Plummer: Has any member of this Commission?
Mr. Odio: ...... a discussion item in May to show you what we're doing there.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Manager, excuse me. I listened to that same song about
Miamarina? and I also know that at Miamarina that we went just suddenly, with
a set of plans, from 1.9 to three million.
Mr. Odio: I don't know. I cannot say.
Mr. Plummer: Well, obviously, the tune was bad. Ok? Now, I'm saying that it
doesn't make sense to me that you go sell twelve million - we might say that
that's three million too much.
Mr. Odio: It is.
Mr. Plummer: Or two million not enough. Ok?
Mr. Odio: No, no. I told him, what he's doing...
Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry - I have to vote against this, in my estimation, until
you have in front of this Commission a plan of what you plan on doing how do I
know that this Commission might disagree with your plan? We've had no public
hearings of input from the people in the marinas. I'm saying to you that as
far as I'm concerned, let's put the cart in front.
Mr. Odio: I hate to disagree with you, Commissioner, but the plans for this
Marina was brought to you three or four years ago.
Mr. Plummer: And they have changed many times and they have changed
radically!
Mr. Dawkins: Will one of you tell me what this means, "and related marina
improvements." Explain that to me.
Mr. Odio: I tell you what it is. Commissioner, I asked the question why the
twelve million? - when I know that this marina might cost eight and I was told
that he was putting funds in here for Miamarina.
Mr. Dawkins: What is related marina improvements? What is that?
20 March 31, 1987
f
•
Mr. Garcia: If I may, Commissioner, the information that I have is that the
construction costs for Dinner Key is going to be $7.2 million. In addition to
that we need a million dollars in debt service reseax%.h.
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. Answer the Commissioner's question. If you
can't, I'll be happy to.
Mr. Garcia: I don't have that information.
Mr. Plummer: The normal thing - related issues are like a dockmaster's
office, a bait and tackle store, and accessory use. Those are the kind of
related things to a marina operation. Ok?
Mr. Dawkins: Ok, now let me read to you from page 5. "Cost of the project.
In addition to the items set forth in the plans, and specifications of which
we have none, may include, but need not be limited to the acquisition of any
land, rights and ways, or interest therein, or any other properties deemed
necessary or convenient therefor; engineering, legal or financial expenses,
expenses for estimates of cost of revenue, expenses for plans, specifications
and surveys, the fees of fiscal agents, financial advisors or consultants,
initial working capital and reserve therefor, operating costs incurred during
construction, administrative expenses related solely to the construction and
acquisition of the project, the capitalization of interest during the
construction period, and for a reasonable period thereafter the creation and
establishment of reasonable reserves for debt service, the cost of issuance of
bonds, repayments of interim advances and indebtment and such other costs and
expenses that may be necessary are incidental to the financing herein
authorized in the construction of the project and the placement of same in
operation." None of the money goes to the marina.
Mr. Plummer: That means that since my
to spend a half a million dollars to
the marina ..... (LAUGHTER)
Mr. Dawkins: Watch it!
office overlooks the marina, if I want
improve my office because it overlooks
Mr. Garcia: If I may, Commissioners, Mr. Mayor - the information that I have
is that we need $8 million for Dinner Key. We're asking at this time for
authority for up to $12 million, because we have some improvements at
Miamarina, which we think the private sector will end up paying for that, but
we want to have the flexibility, if necessary, to go up to twelve. Our plan
is that once you approve this ordinance, is to come back to you. All we're
asking now is your approval to authorize the bonds. We'll have to come back
with a resolution to award the bond sale. We hope to do this on a competitive
basis, and at this time we believe that bond sale will be very close to $8
million. But we want the additional flexibility in case we need money for
Miamarina or some other City marina.
Mr. Dawkins: I have to vote no until you identify what you are doing. I have
$12 million strung out. You've got The Miami Herald and everybody on my back
saying that I will not finish the park downtown when I specifically said that
you could only spend $6 million on the park downtown, when you earmarked $6
million for the inner - City parks, and you were running around saying you're
out of money, and you have yet identified what you are going to do on those
parks.
Mr. Plummer: Are we going to talk about that?
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, by all means.
Mr. Plummer: Well, you know, because I think it's ironic as hell, the
hypocrisy of the Miami Herald, who makes that point when it was one of the
highest representatives of that newspaper acting as a private citizen, and I
love her dearly, who stood before this Commission so many years ago and said
let's do that project City, and I personally guarantee that there will be not
a penny of taxpayer's money involved. Isn't it ironic that that happens this
way, that we are chastised by the same people from which the promise of not a
penny of taxpayers, and it's been 99 percent taxpayers' money, has gone into
that project. I think that there ought to be somebody taken and horsewhipped.
That is absolutely wrong, and when we're ready to discuss that one, let me
tell you, I'm ready! Mr. Capen was not around. He's a Johnny -come -lately,
and I want to remind him of the, as a matter of fact, Madam City Clerk, go get
those transcripts of when Tina Hills appeared before this Commission promising
21 March 31, 1987
if we gave them the go ahead, there would not be a taxpayers' money dollar
used; they would raise it from the private sector, and I want you to send him
a copy of those minutes, and let him ask Tina Hills why that project is not
finished, because she was the one who made the promise. Now, let me say in
the positive, Tina Hills is, without a doubt, the largest contributor.
Mrs. Kennedy: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: She believes in the project, and I admire her and her husband
for what they have done, but when this Commission, and I have to tell you
today was hoodwinked, I can't put it any other way, hoodwinked, that there was
no taxpayer's money, and it is now 99 percent. Go ask those people, and he
doesn't have to go very far from one office to another, why that money that
they promised to raise from the private sector was not forthcoming. But I
want you to send Johnny -come -lately a copy of those minutes. Succotash!
Mr. Carlos Garcia: If I may, Commissioner Dawkins....
11. OPEN BIDS FOR NORTH RIVER DRIVE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT B-4501.
Mayor Suarez: Before you do that, Carlos, let's open the bids on item 15.
Mr. Dawkins: Do what with 15?
Mayor Suarez: Open bids, scheduled for 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Dawkins: Go ahead, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Plummer: Well, we're on item 11, did we defer that?
Mr. Dawkins: No.
Mayor Suarez: No. We're just going to open bids on item 15. Table 11 for
the moment.
Mr. Dawkins: Suspend the discussion of item 11 while we open the bids.
Ms. Hirai: Mr. Mayor, these are bids, agenda item 15 is bids for construction
of North River Drive Highway Improvement, third bidding B-4501.
This being the date and time advertised for receiving sealed bids for the
construction of North River Drive Highway Improvement, the Mayor announced
that the City Commission was now ready to received sealed bids:
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 87-292
A MOTION TO RECEIVE, OPEN, AND READ ALOUD SEALED BIDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NORTH RIVER DRIVE HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT B-4501; FURTHER REFERRING SAID BIDS TO THE
ADMINISTRATION FOR PROPER TABULATION OF SAME.
(Here follows body of motion, omitted here and on file
in the Office of the City Clerk)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote:
22 March 31, 1987
•
0
AYES:
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
BIDS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING FIRMS:
Marks Brothers Company
Garcia Allen Const. Co. Inc.
Williams Paving Co., Inc.
Alfred Lloyd & Sons
12. CONTINUED
DISCUSSION
AND DEFERRAL
OF PROPOSED EMERGENCY ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISSUANCE OF
MARINE REVENUE
BONDS (See label #10)
Mr. Don Cather: If I may for a moment...
Mayor Suarez: Let me pose the question this way, Don. You're asking to
borrow $12 million right now, basically, based on future streams of return, I
guess all from marinas., right?
Mr. Cather: I'm simply going to address the immediate problem I have...
Mayor Suarez: Why should we do it now, because I think the Commission's
concerned that we should do it now before we're particularly sure of, that
we're specific on what the project will look like. And, Don, I don't mean to
interrupt you, I mean I want you to get whatever you...
Mr. Carlos Garcia: Yeah, the reason we need to do it now is that because we
need to validate these bonds, it is going to take sixty days before we can get
a date in the courthouse to go ahead and validate the bonds. So, in the
meantime, the Commission can go over the plans and Don can explain that...
Mayor Suarez: And you're absolutely sure that $12 million is...
Mr. Garcia: That will be tops, and what we're saying is that, to rebuild
Dinner Key Marina will cost...
Mayor Suarez: We won't necessarily spend $12 million?
Mr. Garcia: No, sir, it will cost $8 million.
Mayor Suarez: It's subject to Commission approval...
Mr. Garcia: That's right.
Mayor Suarez: ... when we get the plans, when we have seen them, etc., etc.
Mr. Plummer: The matter is deferred.
Mr. Cather: No, it's not deferred, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Well, you can bet me it's deferred because it takes four votes,
and there are two here that says it's deferred.
Mr. Cather: Well, may I say one thing please.
Mayor Suarez: Sounds like it will be deferred.
(LAUGHTER)
Mr. Plummer: Now, you want to lay odds on that?
23 March 31, 1987
0
(LAUGHTER)
Mr. Cesar Odio: No. J.L., you win, but we're going to delay that six months.
Mr. Plummer: Hey, it will not delay it six months.
Mayor Suarez: He's going to try to convince us that we shouldn't.
Mr. Plummer: You bring it back to us, Mr. Manager, bring, during this week
you bring us the proposed project, and then you bring it back on the agenda
next Monday, or next Thursday; we're only talking about nine days between now
and then, that's all. You lay us wide open to criticism that we're approving
money and we don't even know what the project is, OK. I move that item 11 be
deferred until the 9th of April, and it be the first item on the agenda. I so
move.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Call the roll.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: UPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, THE ABOVE ITEM 11
REGARDING MARINA REVENUE BONDS WAS DEFERRED TO THE APRIL 9, 1987 MEETING TO BE
FIRST ON THE AGENDA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Mayor Suarez: Item 12.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH PROJECT - "OLYMPIC SAILING AND TRAINING
CENTER PHASE II" AT DAVID KENNEDY PARK.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Plummer: Item 12 is a ratification of an emergency matter which we passed
at the last agenda. I so move.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mr. Dawkins: Under discussion.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded.
Mr. Dawkins: Under discussion. Why is it they are, how much more of the park
are they going to put asphalt for and in and how much more are they going to
fence in to remove the park away from the citizens use?
Mr. John Gilchrist: Commissioner, it is complete now, the work. It is
complete now, Commissioner. There will be no expansion of what's there.
Mr. Dawkins: I have your word on that?
Mr. Gilchrist: You have my word.
Mr. Plummer: We'll get Dan Paul to go out there with his tape measure.
(LAUGHTER) I move item 12, or I already did.
Mayor Suarez: So moved. Do we have a second.
Mrs. Kennedy: I did, I second.
Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Any discussion? Call the roll.
24 March 31, 1987
Mr. Plummer: For the record, Mr. Manager, define the emergency.
Mayor Suarez: I think we spent the money already.
Mr. Odio: The job is completed; the money was spent and...
Mr. Plummer: ...Just making the record replete.
Mr. Plummer: Call the roll.
Mayor Suarez: Call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10187,
ADOPTED DECEMBER 11, 1986, AS AMENDED, THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, BY ESTABLISHING
THE PROJECT ENTITLED "OLYMPIC SAILING AND TRAINING
CENTER - PHASE II," PROJECT NO. 414008 AT DAVID
KENNEDY PARK IN AN AMOUNT OF $25,000 FROM THE DINNER
KEY MARINA RETAINED EARNINGS FUND; CONTAINING A
REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner
Kennedy, for adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing with the
requirement of reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to by the
_ following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
i
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Plummer and seconded
by Commissioner Kennedy, adopted said ordinance by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10244.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: FEES FOR BUILDING, INSPECTION PERMITS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: Item 13.
Mr. Plummer: When is the dedication of that thing John, it's right close by.
Mr. Gilchrist: Monday evening, April 6th at 5:30.
Mr. Plummer: Monday, that's this coming Monday? At 5:30? At the facility?
Are you going to provide us with parking space?
Mr. Gilchrist: Yes, air, special for Commissioners.
Mr. Plummer: I move Item 13.
25 March 31, 1987
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
.ay.. _uarez: is is moved, seconded.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Manager, define the reason for the emergency.
Mrs. Dougherty: Need the money.
Ms. Edith Fuentes: We are in the process of straightening out some of our
records.
Mr. Plummer: Define the purpose of the emergency.
Ms. Fuentes: We have issued about, we would like to issue about 500 or 600
violation notices on...
Mr. Plummer: Thank you.
Ms. Fuentes: Thank you.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: CITY ATTORNEY READ THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE INTO THE
RECORD AT THIS POINT.
Mayor Suarez: Call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5 OF ORDINANCE
NO. 6145, AS AMENDED, OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ADOPTED
MARCH 19, 1958, FOR BUILDING, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL,
MECHANICAL (INCLUDING BOILER AND ELEVATOR) INSPECTION,
PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE FEES, BY ADDING AND INCREASING
SOME FEES AND CLARIFYING CERTAIN ITEMS IN SAID SECTION
5, TO COVER THE INCREASE IN OPERATIONAL COST PRIMARILY
FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA BUILDING
CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner
Dawkins, for adoption as an emergency measure and dispensing with the
requirement of reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to by the
following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Plummer and seconded
by Commissioner Dawkins, adopted said ordinance by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE N0. 10245.
26 March 31, 1987
t q Avpnnir ' TimrvP-rmry nEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE AT 947 N.E. 1 AVENUE.
Mr. Dawkins: I move that Item 14 be continued, and the reason that I'm moving
it be continued is that there's a house at 479 N.W. 4th Street, right next
door to Trinity Methodist Church. I've been begging for nine months to get it
torn down, and I can never get it torn down, but everybody else comes up here
and they've got demolition orders, so until you bring me the demolition order
destroying that place at 479 N.W. 7th Street, I don't want to see any others.
So I...
Mr. Plummer: Can I offer you an alternative?
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, go ahead, J.L.
Mr. Plummer: That we approve 14 subject to the other one being torn down
first.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED IN THE RECORD.
Mr. Dawkins: Which one? You see, you see, see, all right, now you see,
that's my problem J.L., you see, this one's been torn down already, now they
want me to approve the damn money for it, and this other one, I've been
begging for nine months and it hasn't been moved. No.
(LAUGHTER)
Mr. Dawkins: For nine months, I've been, nine months people come to my house
every Sunday with, "Commissioner Dawkins, when are they going to push this
building down?" We're in there having church; the people are in there smoking
pot, they're doing everything in it. I say, "don't worry about a thing" You
went out there, you told them, "don't worry about a thing." I took the
Manager by there. He said, "we got it made."
Mr. Walter Pierce: Mr. Dawkins, the demolition permit on the structures to
which you refer have already been issued. They were issued prior to the 27th.
The bid has already been awarded, and they're in the hands of the contractor.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, I tell you what. Since we got to pay for something
you people have already done, Mr. Manager, I've never threatened you before.
I'm going to threaten you now. If this building is not down by May 1, when
time comes to evaluate you for a raise and retention, I'll be voting 'no.'
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: INAUDIBLE COMMENTS NOT ENTERED ON THE RECORD.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, sir, now we understand each other.
Mr. Plummer: Why don't you do it April 1, that's April Fool.
Mayor Suarez: Give him a whole day to get it demolished.
Mr. Dawkins: No further discussion.
Mr. Pierce: We'll see that that building is started on by next week, sir.
Mr. Plummer: How about, wait a minute, let me ask this question. How come
we're not doing like we used to do, seeing the Fire Chief sitting there. We
used to train with what they called controlled burnings, which is a hell of a
lot cheaper than 458,000.
Mr. Pierce: Well, I asked the Chief that, but he can come up and explain it
to you himself. I wanted to know the same thing when you brought it up
before. There is a question about the liability and the fact that don't burn
the building completely. You still have to go in and still demolish.
Mr. Plummer: Yeah, but you got half of it left to cart off.
Mr. Odio: Commissioner, on that house, you showed me that house, I went with
you. The day I came back we issued, we began the process of finding the owner
27 March 31, 1987
and notifications and all of that. It's taken this long to comply with the
law. The other one is, this one is the Plaza Hotel; we've been doing that for
months and months.
Mr. Dawkins: Yeah, but you see, the guy who owns 479 sold the City of Miami
$4 million worth of property.
Mr. Odio: Oh yeah.
Mr. Dawkins: And, that's right, ask...
Mr. Odio: Who's that..
Mr. Dawkins: Al Simmonette. He owns it, and after selling it, he refuses to
take money and take down this eyesore.
Mr. Odio: No, the house is coming down, Commissioner, it's just it's taking
this long to give proper notification of law.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, OK, thank you.
Mr. Pierce: Just for the record, I'll tell you that E1 Plaza had a permit, it
was a demolition case that was over a year old, and it was in an area that had
real bad scenes and we had to move on that one.
Mr. Dawkins: There's no hell of a worse eyesore than the one I'm talking
about.
Mr. Pierce: Now it may be in different neighborhoods, but it's still just as
much of an eyesore to the citizens. Go right ahead Chief.
Chief Duke: In response to Commissioner Plummer's statement regarding burning
of buildings. Many times, when we do have the opportunity to burn a building
that is kind of isolated from the rest of the neighborhood, and it won't cause
problems, we can do that, but in most cases, we can't take them down to the
point that it's cheaper. The amount of debris and what not that is left
sometimes is more expensive to remove than it is to tear down a building
that's intact, when we start the process.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED IN THE RECORD.
Mr. Dawkins: Call the roll. Read the ordinance.
Mr. Plummer: What are you doing with 14, are we approving it, we're not
approving it, what? Dawkins, are you moving 14 - with a threat on the
Manager?
Mr. Dawkins: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: I second it. No, the ordinance's got to be read.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT READ INTO THE RECORD.
Mayor Suarez: Just a resolution. I'm sorry.
28 March 31, 1987
�r •
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87-293
A RESOLUTION RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING, BY A
4/5THS AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COMMISSION, THE ACTION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN FINDING THE
DEMOLITION OF A STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 947 N.E. 1ST AVENUE
TO BE AN EMERGENCY AND IN AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF AN
EMERGENCY PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE DEMOLITION OF SAID
STRUCTURE TO M.C.O. CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE DEPARTMENT
OF BUILDING & ZONING AT A TOTAL PROPOSED COST OF
$58,861.00; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM THE BUILDING
AND ZONING DEMOLITION FUND ACCOUNT CODE #560502-340-110035
WITH RECOVERY OF SAID AMOUNT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH
NORMAL LIEN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: COMMISSIONER CAROLLO ENTERED THE MEETING AT 3:22 P.M.
Mayor Suarez: Item 16.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__ 16. INCREASE IN CONTRACT WITH MET CONSTRUCTION FOR ORANGE BOWL
RECEPTION/PRESS INTERVIEW AREA.
Mr. Odio: This is authorizing an increase in the contract with MET
Construction for the construction of the Orange Bowl reception press area.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, what item?
Mr. Odio: 16. We had an overrun of $39,116.00 because of the needed
additions of fire escapes, and to make a reception.
Mr. Plummer: I'll move it Let me congratulate the administration. They did
a first class job, I want to tell you, they really did a first class job, and
it's an honor to this City
to have some first class facilities. And, because of that, I move item 16.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez: So moved and seconded. Any discussion. Call the roll on 16.
29 March 31, 1987
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87-294
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$39,116.00 IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA AND MET CONSTRUCTION, INC. DATED SEPTEMBER 5,
1986 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORANGE BOWL -
RECEPTION/PRESS INTERVIEW AREA, SAID FUNDS TO BE
PROVIDED FROM FUNDS ALREADY ALLOCATED TO THE PROJECT;
FURTHER RATIFYING THE CITY MANAGER'S WRITTEN FINDING
RATIFYING THE CITY MANAGER'S WRITTEN FINDING THAT THE
HEREIN INCREASE RESULTED FROM EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES
BY AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE CITY COMMISSION, AND ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS SET FORTH IN THE PREAMBLE OF THIS
RESOLUTION; FURTHER ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED WORK OF
MET CONSTRUCTION, INC., AT A TOTAL COST OF $478,540,50
AND AUTHORIZING A FINAL PAYMENT OF $83,058.45.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
17. AUTHORIZE TRAVEL EXPENSES TO KAOHSIUNG, FREE CHINA, FOR SISTER CITY
CEREMONIES.
Mr. Carollo: If I could bring a brief pocket item up,... we need to find out
who might be interested in it or not. As you all know, we recently approved a
motion to become a Sister City with one of the cities of free China, the
Republic of China in Taiwan, Kaohsiung, and the representatives of free China
in Taiwan, have contacted members of this Commission - Commissioner Plummer,
has been very instrumental in this, and myself, and they are requesting that
we send an official delegation from the City of Miami to the Republic of
China, free China in Taiwan, on April 20th of this coming month to officially
sign the documents to make the City of Miami a Sister City with the City of
Kaohsiung, in free China; so I would like to bring the rest of the Commission
up to date, and the Administration, so that those that would like to form part
of this delegation from the City of Miami to free China, can make plans as
soon as possible, because we are only talking about doing this three weeks
from now.
Mr. Plummer: I'll make the motion, Mr. Mayor, it is always appropriate that
when you twin with another city, that you do in fact, make an official trip to
that city for the changing of charters, and I would move that at this
particular time, not that it is absolutely necessary, because we don't know,
that we authorize up to four individuals be authorized to make that trip. Is
that sufficient, Joe?
Mr. Carollo: I would say at least five, J.L.
Mr. Plummer: All right, five... that we authorize the expenses of at least
five individuals to make that trip at City expense for that formal dedication.
I so move.
30 March 31, 1987
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mr. Plummer: That doesn't mean that tharo a 411 he f"10 nf%;^^ h,I* un to.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Call the roll. —
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption: -
MOTION NO. 87-295
A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING FIVE
OFFICIALS AND/OR STAFF MEMBERS TO TRAVEL TO THE CITY
OF KAOHSIUNG, IN FREE CHINA, IN CONNECTION WITH
CEREMONIES TO ACCEPT SAID CITY AS A SISTER CITY OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI; FURTHER DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
ALLOCATE THE NECESSARY FUNDS TO COVER TRAVEL EXPENSES
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Mr. Carollo: If I could give a little bit of information. The City of
Kaohsiung is a City of over 1.3 million people. It is the fifth biggest
container port in the world, and one of the ten largest ports in the world.
It is, I think, a very important city that can contribute a lot to Miami in
the Sister City program.
Mr. Plummer: I think it also needs to be said that there was a local group
here, who were very, very much interested in twinning with this particular
city. They came to my office because of my involvement with Sister City, and
almost begged that we make this kind of a connection, and if you ever want
successful programs of this nature, is to have enthusiastic groups on both
sides, so I say that in this particular case, I see nothing but a tremendous
success with free China, and as far as I am concerned, the sooner that we make
this association, the better that it will be, and I second the motion.
Mr. Carollo: Absolutely, the group that has worked with the free Chinese in
Taiwan have done a tremendous job and have taken up a lot of time in this
effort, and they should certainly be complimented.
Mr. Plummer: Joe, may I please recommend that when you go, that you make them
very much aware that this City is going to be honored July 20, 1988, with the
International Convention of Sister Cities, and we would surely like to have a
delegation from their City in representation at that conference, which will be
held at the Knight Center for four days. We are anticipating, Mr. Mayor,
because we hope that you will be deeply involved, that there will be roughly
2,500 people from 57 different countries, so we are working on it. We have
already had one meeting toward it, and I would also report, I don't know with
joy or with sadness to this Commission, that I represented you last weekend in
Washington, D.C., that is enough to be beyond the call of duty, but I had to
leave on Friday night and missed the Saturday morning session, and I am
understanding that I was elected as to the members of the Board of Directors,
so I don't know if I say that with joy or with consolation but the Sister City
is a moving organization; as you know, it is a Federal program started by
Eisenhower, of people to people, and it is a tremendous program, so Joe,
please beg upon them to bring a delegation.
Mr. Carollo: We will certainly extend that invitation to them in
representation of the Miami City Commission, people of Miami, and I think it
will be a prime opportunity for the free Chinese to show what they have been
able to accomplish in a part of China that is free, in comparison to mainland
31 March 31, 1987
China that is under the same Communist tyranny that Cuba and the Soviet Union
and other countries are.
Mayor Suarez: We have got the vote on that already, Madam City Clerk?
Ms. Hirai: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
18. COMMENTS ON U.S.S. SARATOGA CONCERT AND EVENTS; CITY TO DO SAME AT
BICENTENNIAL PARK.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I bring up one brief, this will be just a report
to the Commission. As you will recall, we have the U.S. Saratoga, the
aircraft carrier, coming in. There will be a series of events starting on
Thursday. Coconut Grove had asked that we allocate $3,500 for them to have a
concert in the park, and I sent it back, as you will recall, and asked them to
try to have something in Bicentennial. I'd like to congratulate the
administration in particular, Mr. Eads, who went to the same group to put on
the City of Miami's concert in Bicentennial Park and got it for $3,000. So,
where we were told it was going to cost $20,000 or $25,000, the City will be
placing a concert, which I hope we can all attend, and it will only cost the
City a total of $3,000, so I congratulate them.
19. REWARD OFFER FOR INFORMATION OF CULPRIT OF ALLEGED BOMB MAILED AT CUBAN
AMERICAN NATIONAL FOUNDATION IN MIAMI.
Mr. Carollo: If I may, I have one additional item that I'd like to bring up
at this point in time.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner?
Mr. Carollo: The last few hours, it's been reported in the news that there
was, supposedly some kind of bomb that was sent in the mail to the offices of
the Cuban -American National Foundation here in Miami. Supposedly, from what
we heard in the radio program that gave this information out, it was addressed
to their chairman, Mr. Jorge Mas, and supposedly, according to what the radio
station stated, it was sent from Hialeah in the last few days. Mr. Mas has
gone on the air accusing that this mail bomb was sent by Fidel Castro and his
government, because of all the efforts that he has undertaken to overthrow
Fidel Castro. At the same time, he's made some additional statements accusing
those that don't agree with the way he's approaching certain things, and the
way certain members of that organization are doing certain things, with being
either instruments of Fidel Castro or being agents of Fidel Castro, so on and
so on. I'm a little surprised that he would be making these statements like
he is now, and particularly since he's an individual that has been very
involved with working with different intelligence services of different
countries, now and in the past. He knows very well that that's not the way
the KGB nor the DGI operate; that's a thing of the past, and particularly when
they know that whatever mail bomb might be sent, it's not going to be opened
by him personally; it's going to be opened by some poor secretary. The motion
that I would like to make now, and particularly since these accusations are
being made by Mr. Mas, and he's saying that anyone that's not in agreement
with him and his policies, is either an agent of Fidel Castro or someone who's
helping them -- either knowingly or unknowingly. I find it quite interesting
that all of a sudden you start getting these little so-called mail bombs and
particularly when Friday, Mr. Mas and some of his close associates, had a
little situation where it kind of shook up the Cuban -American National
Foundation, and some of their so-called anti -communist crusaders, when this
Commissioner showed proof, like I have here, that one of their main members
and allies of Mr. Mas, his business is in Communist China, and these are the
kind of radius they are assembling in Communist China so it makes you wonder,
you know, if they're just against one group of Communist and maybe not against
the others, or just what kind of anti -communist crusaders are they? But,
since these allegations are being made and there was some kind of bomb that
was sent in the mail by whomever, for whatever reasons, I would like for this
32 March 31, 1987
Commission to go on record, and I would like to make the following motion.
That this Commission puts a reward of $100,000, for anyone who gives
information for the apprehension and conviction of whomever Vr
involved in the sending of that mail bomb.
Mr. Plummer: Joe, I, let me second it for discussion. I got a problem with
the amount. This Commission has never, ever gone beyond the $25,000, which I
think...
Mr. Carollo: No, we have in the past J.L. The maximum that we've gotten in
the past has been $50,000.
Mrs. Kennedy: Let me ask you, did it take place in the City?
Mr. Carollo: Excuse me.
Mrs. Kennedy: Did it take place in the City?
Mr. Carollo: No, but these are individuals that are actively working and
dealing with the City, and I think this is something that the City Commission
has every obligation to take this stance on.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I'm trying to ask the City Attorney. Put on the record
what you just told me, the difference between a State felony and a Federal
felony.
Mrs. Dougherty: Local governments are permitted to offer these kinds of
rewards only if it's a state felony. The letter bomb, I know it's a Federal
felony; I don't know if it's a State felony this time.
Mr. Plummer: Well, in other words, if this motion were to pass, and it were
to be not applicable, then the motion would be null and void.
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, it would be null and void because you're not authorized
to...
Mr. Plummer: Joe, I would like to go along with the $50,000, and no more
though.
Mr. Carollo: That'll be fine.
Mr. Plummer: And that would be for, not only the arrest, but the conviction.
Mr. Carollo: Of course. Absolutely, that's the way it's always been. ...of
anyone directly or indirectly involved in sending that device.
Mr. Plummer: The arrest and conviction.
Mr. Carollo: Whether they live in Miami or they live in Cuba or wherever they
might be.
Mr. Plummer: You're bad.
Mayor Suarez: It'll be a little difficult to convict them if they live in
Cuba right now, I guess. Have we ever exceeded $25,000 in a similar
situation, because I remember doing $25,000 for the alleged rapist of....
Mr. Plummer: Something in the back of my mind tells me that there was a case
with Sarmiento when he was murdered.
Mr. Carollo: Yeah, there were two. Sarmiento and Louis Fernandez Calbaez, if
you recall, Xavier.
Mayor Suarez: I recall, because one of the bullets actually grazed him,
Mr. Carollo: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: But I don't know anything about the amount
Mr. Carollo: It was $50,000, the amount that was made for both of those
cases. Because I made the motion, I recollect it clearly.
33 March 31, 1987
Mr. Dawkins: It's under discussion, I'll vote for ten, but I can't vote for
fifty.
Mayor Suarez: I won't vote for fifty; I'll vote for twenty-five. So I'll have
to vote no on it.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I hate to make this a bidding procedure, because I think
the intent of everyone here is the intent that we are definitely against
terrorism of any kind. Well, you want to do it, are you...say what you're in
favor of and then we'll know what the vote is. I'm willing to vote for the
fifty, so let me speak first.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK, I'll be next in line. I'd like to make it even like the,
since I've been here, what I've been hearing is twenty-five, I think it's
great and I will vote for that, twenty-five.
Mr. Carollo: If that's what the majority of the Coimnission would like to do,
I'll go along with that in order to get a consensus.
Mayor Suarez: You have modified and the second modifies. Any further
discussion? Call the roll.
Mr. Dawkins: Twenty-five .
Mr. Carollo: Twenty-five thousand.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 87-296
A MOTION DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO SET UP A
$25,000 REWARD FOR ANYONE WHO PROVIDES INFORMATION
= LEADING TO THE ARREST AND CONVICTION OF THE
INDIVIDUALS) WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THE ALLEGED RECEIPT
OF A MAILED BOMB AT THE CUBAN AMERICAN NATIONAL
MEN FOUNDATION IN MIAMI.* (*NOTE: This motion is null and
void since no bomb was found).
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Mayor Suarez: Item 17.
20. $50,000 ALLOCATED TO LANDSCAPE I-95 RAMPS ON BISCAYNE BOULEVARD
Mrs. Kennedy: Mr. Mayor, a group of citizens from the Greater Miami Chamber
of Commerce and Keep Dade Beautiful came to see me because the exit ramps on
395 are an eyesore. Now, this is the State's responsibility, but they're not
doing anything about it and with the Bayside opening, it will be the first
thing that our visitors will see when they come to our City. So...
Commissioner Dawkins: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, I will be leaving
at 6:30. I have another engagement, so anything we need four -fifths on, I'd
like for us, if we can, to get it done by 6 o'clock.
Mayo* Suarez: OK. Do you want to make a presentation:
Mr. Henry Block: Thank you, Commissioner Kennedy. Is this on?
34 March 31, 1987
0
•
Mayor Suarez: Yes, you might want to pull it up a little closer to you. And
give us your name and address if you're being paid to appear here. You have
to register as a lobbyist; I guess you're not. I wish you were.
Mr. Henry Block: My name is Henry Block. I live at 8363 S.W. 98th Street in
Miami Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, this appearance is an
application for funds as Commissioner Kennedy pointed out, to improve the I
395 off -ramps at about 12th Street near Biscayne Boulevard. This is an
application for less than $50,000, which we feel will adequately improve those
ramps, and it is based on receiving surplus funds from the Department of Off-
street Parking's transfer to the City General Fund. This is a project that
has result from a cooperation of several groups. Represented here are Keep
Dade Beautiful and the Omni -Venetia Action Committee of the Chamber of
Commerce. We are the sponsors of this request, but we have done what we hope
is a fair amount of homework with the Department of Transportation, Off-street
Parking, Public Works, and several other agencies, and in your package there
are letters from Off-street Parking and Department of Transportation, who have
agreed to cooperate on the continuing maintenance of this area, as well as
from Bayside, who is in support of this. We brought some slides, there's only
five of them, and we'll be very brief. Chris, can you get the first one out.
We feel that this area is a gateway to downtown; it's obviously a gateway to
some important show places such as Bayside, the Omni -Venetia area, the Grand
Prix Race and the central business district. This is the area we're talking
about and it's seen from the top of the Howard Johnson's Hotel. You can see
that there's very little to attract, to show off at this location. Go ahead
Chris. This is headed eastbound toward Biscayne Boulevard, where most of the
traffic will exit the I-95 system. Go ahead Chris. This is a little bit
closer. You can see that it is virtually a dessert there, and makes no
statement at all as to what's ahead as far as the way we feel about the City
of Miami. Chris. Then, upon return to the I-95 Expressway system in both
north and south and west to the airport, again you find an area which is
littered with trash, has no visual impact at all other than adverse, and
finally, this is the last stop light where often you can get your windshield
washed if you're not careful, and that's what you see as you head away from
our City. None of this is in keeping with the spirit of what we're doing
downtown. It's not good for the City and certainly not for the businesses.
Chris has a..
Mayor Suarez: Chris, before you do that, let me ask the City Manager. In
connection with the declaration of a development district covering the Omni -
Venetia area -maybe someone other than the City Manager would know the answer
to this, do we have any money, or are we anticipating having any money in the
trust fund that will be created, or has been created by the development
district from tax increment?
Mrs. Kennedy: Well, we have $500,000, Mr. Mayor, but what I would like to ask
the Manager is how much do we have left over?
Mayor Suarez: Oh, no, but, I'm sorry, that was from the Off-street Parking.
But the development district that we have declared should be generating tax
increment to go into a trust fund. Do we have anything, Sergio? Are we ready
to take some tax monies and put into that trust fund?
Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: The County Commission didn't approve the tax increment
financing, they didn't.
Mr. Odio: Neither one. No, they have not.
Mayor Suarez: I thought the Omni was approved.
Mr. Odio: No sir, they turned down both.
Mayor Suarez: Are we going back into, for reconsideration of that? - because
I think we can get the votes. Are you sure they didn't approve Omni?
Mr. Rodriguez: I'm sure of it.
Mr. Odio: The PIF was not approved.
Mr. Rodriguez: Of the $500,000 that we were supposed to get from the Off-
street, we have allocated $175,000 for the Miami Design District, and we might
have to allocate some funds for the Borinquen Health Clinic.
35 March 31, 1987
Mr. Plummer: We've already voted on that.
Mayor Suarez: We've voted, I think, for at least $15,000 the first year, and
we haven't pledged anything additional to that.
Mr. Odio: Right, we haven't pledged anything, so we're. And the other thing
is that I was telling Commissioner Kennedy, the present setting, that we're
going to maintain state roads, state right-of-ways.
Mr. Plummer: Well, the thing that you're, I'm sorry. The Chamber of
Commerce is the sponsor of the project. Why doesn't the Chamber go out and
raise the money?
Mr. Block: Well, we feel that the funds have been made available for this
kind of project, is our understanding. Also, we already have an agreement in
principle between Off-street Parking, who already maintain the parking areas,
just to the east of this area, as part of their ongoing system, that the
incremental cost to them of going one block to the west would be small
compared to what they are already spending.
Mr. Plummer: I guess the real bottom line I'm saying is, why do we need the
Chamber?
Mr. Carollo: Was that a general question or a specific question?
Mr. Plummer: I mean, you're not raising the money, you're asking for City
money to enhance City proper, what do we need the Chamber's involvement for.
What have you accomplished except bringing it to a head?
Mr. Block: Well, I think we've accomplished quite a lot, between Keep Dade
Beautiful and the Chamber, we've managed to bring several different parties
together that would otherwise not come together on their own. This project
has been active for at least six months and at this point, the Department of
Transportation and Off-street Parking, Public Works, our agencies all have
come together to a common meeting place, and we feel that is a significant
accomplishment.
Mr. Plummer: Well, OK, but you're not saying in any way that the City can't
do deal with the same agencies and just go ahead and make it a City project?
Mr. Block: No, sir, no.
Mr. Plummer: As long as it gets done, that's the important thing.
Mr. Block: Yeah, and we feel we can get it done.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I'll make a motion at this time that $50,000 of this
money, at the discretion of the Manager, that the Manager be authorized to
undertake such a project and get this project going as a City project, at his
discretion.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second, and
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded.
Mrs. Kennedy: I would also like for the Manager to give us a detailed list of
priorities like, what are we going to be doing with this $500,000, so that
fifty different organizations, you know, don't come asking for money. The
City has a lot of priorities, such as day care centers and many, many others,
so let's do that too, Mr. Manager.
Mr. Odio: You have not spent $340,000, so at least $160,000, which is not
much.
Mr. Plummer: But I believe..
Mayor Suarez: I count two hundred forty, not three forty.
Mr. Odio: Well, no, you got two ninety, well.
36 March 31, 1987
F
F
Mr. Plummer: I think that you are somewhat limited, aren't you? to capital
projects.
Mr. Dawkins: You know, I keep telling, I keep sitting here, OK, and everybody
comes here without a power broker like the Chamber, the Citizens against
Crime. They don't get a damn thing, OK?- because they don't have the power
brokers with them. The little man in the streets comes here and he gets
nothing. But any time the Citizens against Crime come here, the Chamber of
Commerce come, you dump your pockets and tell them, "here, take it and go."
We don't have no money to give nobody. You don't have money to give, Mr.
Manger...
Mr. Plummer: No, that is not my...
Mr. Dawkins:..Where are you going to get the $50,000 from, sir?
Mr. Odio: I was instructed to take it out of the $500,000 we are allocated by
the Off-street Parking. That's what...
Mr. Dawkins: All right. That's the same $500,000 that you were going to do
something in Overtown Park West, I mean, Overtown, that's the same $500,000
you're supposed to do something in Liberty City. That's the same $500,000
you're supposed to do something in Coconut Grove. That's the same $500,000
you're supposed to do something in Wynwood. The $500,000 can't do all this.
Mr. Plummer: Let me clarify, the motion does not give the money to the
Chamber; the motion gives the Manager the authority to deal with it as a City
project and bring it to a conclusion, not giving the money to anybody but
Manager, and he will have at his discretion, let me underline the word
discretion, the authority to handle the project in-house.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, all right, I got no problem with that.
Mayor Suarez: No one wants to propose any requirement of matching funds from
the Chamber or any other organization.
Mr. Plummer: No, I want to get it done. Obviously, if I impose that it would
never get done.
Mayor Suarez: Isn't the Chamber going to take, I mean, the initiative is
great, but I remember the fees for being a member of the board of governors, I
guess it is, or whatever it is, trustees and the regular fees, and I'm not too
sure what the budget is, spent for, by the Chamber. Couldn't the Chamber put
up half of the money -- $25,000?
Mr. Carollo: I'm going to defer, Chris, can you help us on that?
Mr. Chris Morrison: I'm Chris Morrison, Manager of the Omni Hotel. I live at
6600 Leonardo Street. The Chamber of Commerce has a very tight budget, as we
all do, and always have been, and always looking for the next dollar. What
we're trying to do with this project, and Mr. Plummer has acknowledged that
is, this is the major gateway to our area, as well as Bayside and Bayfront
Park. I believe, according to the traffic projections, that 40 percent of the
traffic arriving at Bayside will come down this ramp, and it doesn't look like
much right now, and we have agreement between Offstreet Parking and the State
to maintain the area, and I think we have a ready solution.
Mayor Suarez: Let me short-circuit this a little bit. Would you have any
problem in your motion instructing the City Manager to see if he can exact
some contribution from the Chamber in connection with this?
Mr. Chris Morrison: Absolutely no problem.
Mayor Suarez: OK. With that modification,
Mr. Plummer: Do you hear that, you're supposed to go beat the Chamber to see
if you can shake up their money bag?
Mayor Suarez: In their tight budget, maybe they can find some monies to help
us out with this. It's their initiative, they obviously try to get some
credit for it, and they should put some of their money.
37 March 31, 1987
s
Unidentified Speaker: We'll invite them to the opening.
��-••� - -r^z: They have quite a few members. Any further discussion? Do we
have any problems seconding that, Commissioner, with that proviso?
Mr. Dawkins: What is it?
Mayor Suarez: That the City Manager should do his best to obtain some
contribution from the Chamber itself.
Mr. Dawkins: And if he don't get any, we'll still go ahead with the $50,000.
Mayor Suarez: Well, he has discretion to spend whatever the City feels it
should spend on this project which would then be totally a City project. Call
the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 87-297
A MOTION REFERRING TO THE CITY MANAGER REQUEST
RECEIVED FROM REPRESENTATIVES OF "KEEP DADE BEAUTIFUL"
AND THE DADE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR PLANTING AND
SODDING OF TWO I-95 RAMPS ON BISCAYNE BOULEVARD TO BE
READY PRIOR TO THE OPENING OF BAYSIDE; FURTHER LEAVING
UP TO THE CITY MANAGER'S DISCRETION THE EXPENDITURE OF
UP TO $50,000 (TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE $500,000
RECEIVED FROM THE OFF-STREET PARKING DEPARTMENT) IN
CONNECTION WITH SAID PROJECT; FURTHER STIPULATING THAT
THE PROJECT WOULD BE HANDLED IN-HOUSE AS A CITY
PROJECT; AND FURTHER REQUESTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ATTEMPT TO EXACT SOME DEGREE OF CONTRIBUTION FROM THE
MEN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Mayer Suarez: Item 18. Florida Acorn.
21. DEFER CONSIDERATION OF PLACING A FENCE AROUND CHARLES HADLEY PARK -
COMMISSIONER DAWKINS TO HOLD MEETING WITH AREA RESIDENTS.
Mr. Plummer: Who's here on it? Here comes the gentleman now.
Mayor Suarez: Go ahead and give us your name and address and if you're paid
to be here, you're suppose to have registered with the City. If you're not,
no problem.
Mr. James Alfred: I live at 4745 N.W. 15th Court, in Allapattah.
Mr. Dawkins: What? N.W. 15th what?
Mr. Alfred: N.W. 15th Court. I'm here representing our citizens of Allapattah
Action Group, which is a subchapter of Acorn, and I'm here today to ask the
City of Miami to build us a fence around Charles Hadley Park to deter some of
the crime that's been happening in that park there.
38 March 31, 1987
0
�J
Mr. Plummer: Have you discussed this with the administration?
Mr. Alfred: We have talked with the Parks Department, Mr. Bonner on this,
yes.
Mr. Plummer: Is the Manager ready to make a recommendation?
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED ON THE RECORD.
Mayor Suarez: I had a memo out on the same topic, I think relating to the
same park, did I not? - and you answered with all kinds of technical arguments
why it was not a good idea, if I remember correctly.
Mr. Odio: Well, it is not a good idea, Mr. Mayor. The fence will not stop
kids from jumping that fence and from stopping the type of crime that he's
talking about. The neighborhood doesn't want it; I don't think he represents
that neighborhood, and I would like Commissioner Dawkins to hear this because
he lives right across the street from it, so I don't believe you represent
that neighborhood, and that the fence is not called for, really.
Mayor Suarez: Well, he may, but maybe it's not his views on this particular
item.
Mr. Odio: The Police Department feels that the fence is not a good idea
either. We're talking about $40,000 by the way.
Mayor Suarez: Well, what are the major technical reasons why it's not a good
idea? - other than the $40,000, which is always a reason.
Mr. Odio: Well, the fences won't deter crime.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, say what now? Where are we? - I'm sorry.
Mr. Odio: On the fence in Hadley Park. I'm recommending against it.
Mr. Dawkins: Who, where are the people from Acorn, where are they? Have them
stand up with you. Where are they?
Mr. Alfred: Well, I'm the only one here today.
Mr. Dawkins: OK. Do you know where I live?
Mr. Alfred: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: I live at 1385 N.W. 5Oth Street, OK. Now, first thing is, we
don't have no money for a fence. That's No. 1. OK. Number 2, I am the
individual who saw the girl being raped looking out of my garage. And I was
able to run in the park and stop it. Had we had a fence, I would not have
been able to get there. Now, will you explain to me how a fence is going to
deter crime in that area? I got it in the package, thanks, Jim.
Mr. Alfred: I mean again, if there was a fence around the park at that time,
it's a possibility he wouldn't have been able to get that female in the park
unless he took her over the top.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, what, you mean to say we're going to fence the park off
and it will not be able to be used by the residents at all?
Mr. Alfred: I didn't say that. The parks will have gates.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, you said, the individual would probably not have been in
the park...
Mr. Alfred: Now, Morningside Park is fenced, but it has gates that open and
close.
Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no, no, let's discuss Hadley Park, OK?
Mr. Alfred: Same type of fence will be put around Hadley Park. We discussed
that with the Parks Department.
39 March 31, 1987
Mr. Dawkins: Sir, you cannot compare Morningside Park and Hadley Park.
Morningside Park is in a commercial area on a main artery, two main
arteries -- 36th Street and 7th Avenue. There is no problem putting a fence
up in a commercial area, but...
Mr. Alfred: Morningside Park is on 56th and Biscayne.
Mr. Dawkins: Morningside, OK, yeah Biscayne, OK...
Mr. Alfred: Off of Biscayne...
Mr. Dawkins: Yes Biscayne.
Mr. Alfred: It's in a residential area.
Mr. Dawkins: Residential area.
Mr. Alfred: But the fence I was talking about, Hadley Park, would have gates
to it, that open and closes at a certain time.
Mr. Dawkins: We already...
Mr. Alfred: Now it wouldn't deter the public from going in and out.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, we already put the railroad tires there to deter -
remember when the cars were going in there tearing up the turf and all, and we
put the railroad tires there to stop it?
Mr. Alfred: Yes...
Mr. Dawkins: OK...
Mr. Alfred: But the citizens of the area around there, like we say, we talk
with the Parks Department, Mr. Bonner, and he told us that if we went to the
citizens that lived within the proximity of the park, on the streets up and
down each side...
Mr. Dawkins: OK, I'll tell you what...
Mr. Alfred: ... and got a petition signed, then it will be brought to the
agenda, which we did.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, I'll tell you what. I move that everybody on this petition
meet with me at Allapattah Junior High, and then we discuss this, and I'm
going to show you where you, if you're concerned, and you're willing to see
your taxes go up and you show me wherein you need a park more so than we need
trained recreational leaders who can give the youngsters something
constructive to do in the afternoon, you can show me where I should take money
that I should be buying equipment for them to play with and put up a fence.
If you can show me why I should not repair the, what's the thing we have over
there? - the seesaw that's been broken for six months, and take that money and
put up a fence, and if they can show me that, I'll vote for it. I move that
this be deferred until I can meet with the citizens in that area where I live.
Mr. Plummer: Second.
Mayor Suarez: To have a townhall meeting, etc. OK. Moved and seconded.
Mr. Dawkins: Have Acorn set up the meeting and invite me and I'll come.
Mr. Alfred: OK.
Mayor Suarez: Make sure you advise the entire Commission, in case any other
Commissioners are able to attend. Call the roll.
40 March 31, 1987
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 87-298
A MOTION DEFERRING CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST RECEIVED FROM
REPRESENTATIVES OF FLORIDA ACORN FOR PLACING OF A FENCE
AROUND CHARLES HADLEY PARK, UNTIL COMMISSIONER MILLER
DAWKINS HAS MET WITH THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA AT
ALLAPATTAH JUNIOR HIGH TO FURTHER DISCUSS THIS REQUEST.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Mayor Suarez: Yes?
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: THE FOLLOWING IS A NON -AGENDA ITEM.
22. COMMENTS REGARDING HERALD ARTICLE ON COCONUT GROVE WALKTHROUGH.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, can I put on the record, you know you brought up the
fact of a townhall meeting. I read in the paper while I was gone on ar.
official City visit about a thing in Coconut Grove, which kind of chastised
this Commission. And, I just want to put on the record, Mr. Mayor, that at
the time my office was notified of the date of that so-called townhall
meeting...
Mayor Suarez: Which one was that? - I'm sorry.
Mr. Plummer: The Coconut Grove...
Mayor Suarez: Oh ... the walk through Coconut Grove?
Mr. Plummer: Yeah.
Mayor Suarez: That supposedly was going to be an eye-opener for all of us
because we didn't know any... (Laughing)
Mr. Plummer: Whatever, I just want the record to be clear that at the time my
office received the call, they informed the caller that I would be out of the
country and not available. As if I was invited and I showed indifference by
not showing up ... they were well aware that I was not going and could not be
going to that thing because I would be out of town on official City business.
The article reflected that we were bad guys because we didn't show up. So I
just wanted to make the record clear.
Mayor Suarez: It was a beaut of an article, if I ever saw one.
Mr. Plummer: Yeah, it was right above the obituaries...
Mayor Suarez: Never taken into account that each Commissioner here is
thoroughly familiar with Coconut Grove.
Mr. Plummer: All important things in the Miami Herald are put by the
obituaries, because that's really about the only thing that people read, and
I'm here to attest that they're far from factual.
Mayor Suarez: At least, that's what you'd like them to read.
41 March 31, 1987
Mr. Plummer: No, I do believe. By the way, do you know that the obituaries
are the second most read thing in the paper?
Mayor Suarez: After the sports...
Mayor Suarez: No, sir, sports are third.
Mrs. Kennedy: What is the first?
Mr. Plummer: The comics are first.
Mayor Suarez: Comics are first. Easy.
Mr. Plummer: Let me give you one other piece of statistical information
you'll enjoy.
Mayor Suarez: I was afraid we'll wind them up on this topic.
Mr. Plummer: What percentage of people that read a newspaper, any newspaper,
actually read editorials?
Mayor Suarez: Or understand editorials?
Mr. Plummer: No, no, read them. They're not going to understand.
Mayor Suarez: Believe editorials, care for editorials?
Mr. Plummer: Statistical !nformation, four percent of people who read a
newspaper actually read editorials, and I guarantee you 3.9 of those are the
politicians. Right, Bob?
(LAUGHTER)
Mayor Suarez: PZ-1. Item 19. I've done an informal poll here of the
Commissioners. I don't know that anybody needs to discuss this, if you want
to just give us the information in writing, or if anybody has any questions,
I'm sure.
Mr. Plummer: Jack Daniels Black.
Mayor Suarez: Make sure you have the full $2 million to spend, etc., etc. PZ-
1.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Mayor Suarez instructed the administration to furnish
the Commission with information, in writing, concerning the opening of the
Bayside Specialty Center.
23. ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR MIAMI ARENA PROJECT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Suarez: PZ-1.
Mr. John Leffley: John Leffley for the Planning Department. The sole issue
before you tonight is a request by Decoma Venture and the Sports Authority for
the issuance of a development order on the Miami Arena. If you will remember,
approximately a year ago, the Commission approved a pre -development agreement,
and shortly thereafter approved a major use special permit. Since that time,
constructions has proceeded and the applicant has also prepared a development
of regional impact report. The South Florida Regional Planning Council
approved it and subsequently, the Miami Planning Department has reviewed it
and we have found no additional impacts that would affect the project in any
way. And based on this...
Mr. Plummer: Tell me how you address parking.
Mr. Leffley: Sir?
Mr. Plummer: How do you address the impact of parking?
42
March 31, 1987
Mr. Leffley: Park?
Mr. Plummer: Parking.
Mr. Leffley: Oh parking.
Mr. Plummer: Automobiles.
Mr. Leffley: We agree with the applicant's position and so does the South
Florida Regional Planning Council that no parking is needed in the form of a
building....
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Leffley?
Mr. Leffley: ... that there is more than sufficient at grade, within eight
minutes there is a approximately 6,000...
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Leffley, Mr. Leffley.
Mr. Leffley: Yes sir.
Mr. Dawkins: Name me the facility that's got approximately 15,000 public and
private parking spaces available within a ten-minute walk radius of the
project site. Name them for me.
Mr. Leffley: I could subsequently, I could show you a transparency that would
give you some feeling for the matter.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, that's fine.
Mr. Plummer: You've got topsy-turvy parking. Got any bubble gum?
Mr. Leffley: The vertical, yellow line on the left is the main Metrorail
line; the red at the north end is the station immediately across the street
from the arena. The yellow line running eastward, east and west, is the
People Mover, so that now, the half circle lines represent two minute
increments parking at grade. So, it's two minutes, four minutes, six minutes,
eight minutes. Within the eight -minute or five minute walk, or approximately
three blocks, there's at least 6,000 spaces available at night.
Mr. Dawkins: At night?
Mr. Leffley: That's right.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, all right, the Off-street Parking lock these facilities at
night.
Mr. Leffley: No, no, this is a common...
Mr. Dawkins: Oh, yes, yes, yes, And weekends, yes, yes, yes.
Mr. Leffley: In the development order, we have placed one of the conditions
that an agreement would be prepared which would provide additional parking and
late hours at the times of events. And that's one of the conditions of the
development order.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, well, my two pet peeves is parking, and I have not changed,
and minority participation.
Mr. Leffley: Both of those items are contained in the development order
and...
Mr. Dawkins: And, OK, see now when you were doing this here, you cut off a
part of a plot of land and you left it sitting out there, that you were
supposed to build a parking garage on, correct?
Mr. Plummer: Just for the record, as you will recall, the Sports Authority
wanted to negotiate with the Off-street Parking Authority for the use of some
land that the City has condemned for the Park Overtown West. I've not even
been at this point yet scheduled for a meeting to negotiate, which I was
designated as a negotiator, and I'm beginning to wonder if they've lost
interest or what has happened, but I haven't heard anything, and that was the
43 March 31, 1987
main reason I brought up about parking. They were an absolute need and demand
for those parking spaces on a temporary basis, but it was so urgent that
nobody's even contacted me yet. And that was like two months ago nr *hrne
months ago, so I'm concerned.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, another thing Mr., on page 2 of 6, it says "five full-size
fifty-five foot loading bays and one dumpster." One dumpster's going to be
enough to carry away, away all of the debris and waste that they're going to
have at that facility.
Mr. Leffley: This was reviewed by our Waste Department and there was, the
assumption of that department...
Mr. Dawkins: Who's going to be the one who carries the dumpster away, the
City of Miami's Sanitation Department or a private hauler?
Mr. Leffley: It is the wish of the City of Miami Waste Department that they
be awarded the contract.
Mr. Dawkins: Which are, which of have negotiated that?
Mr. Leffley: I have no further knowledge.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, in order to get a CO, I think it should be done by the
City, all right? The other thing is, it says now somewhere here you say there
will be no on -site parking, right?
Mr. Leffley: Correct.
Mr. Dawkins: It says no problems are expected in connection with deliveries
of commodities or large sized display articles common to these types of
events. There are a number of on -site areas suitable for temporary truck
holding areas in the event the bays are fully occupied. Proper loading
schedules can minimize the need for holding periods. You got no on -site
parking. How are you going to park these trucks?
Mr. Leffley: On the paved areas completely surrounding the arena,
particularly on the west side, there is large area and that is the purpose of
a loading...
Mr. Dawkins: Well, why don't you make that a parking lot then if you've got
such a large area, have some on -site parking.
Mr. Leffley: The purpose of this plaza is one of beauty.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, if it's for beauty, then why are you going to put trucks
on it and mar the beauty for then?
Mr. Leffley: Only for the short period of time in which they're unloading
which will be...
Mr. Dawkins: You're still marring the beauty. I mean if it's beauty, it's
beauty.
Mr. Leffley: Well, but nobody is, the large crowds that will come to an event
will see no trucks; there will be no trucks to be seen at that point. The
loading and unloading of this type of thing is done during the day or early
morning hours, and with the management, the loading management plan that
we're...
Mr. Dawkins: OK, what are the hardwood trees variety you going to plant?
Mr. Lef ley: I will have to refer to individuals from my department that are
not here.
Mr. Dawkins: Well give me an idea, I don't want no black olives... we don't
need no black olive trees.
Mr. Plummer: What do you... excuse me.
Mr. Lefley: I am not an expert. Agreement...
44 March 31, 1987
Mr. Plummer: Sir, why are you defending this? Ask the people who are the
proposers.
Mr. Lefley: Because I don't think she is a tree expert either! That's why.
_ Mr. Plummer: How do you know? They are the ones that got to defend this
thing, not you! You work for me, I hope! Or, you did. What kind of trees
you got?
Ms. Debbie Orshefsky: My name is Debbie Orshefsky, representing the
applicant. I am an attorney with offices at 1401 Brickell Avenue. In
response to your question on the landscaping, the landscape plan, which I
believe has been approved by the Planning Department, as part of, the Class C
review for this project, includes lives oaks and royal palm.
Mr. Dawkins: No other trees other than live oaks and palms, no other ones?
Mr. Plummer: What about white olives?
Mr. Dawkins: Wait a minute.
Ms. Orshefsky: I've been advised there are some flowering shrubs incorporated
into the plan.
Mr. Dawkins: "Trees should be hardwood variety, at least 18 and 20 feet in
height, with 12 to 15 foot spread, seven inch clear trunk, and a minimum four
inch caliper, planted at least 20 feet on center to create a shaded canopy
over the paved area."
Ms. Orshefsky: Those guidelines have been incorporated into the landscape
plan, and for the project, and will be met in the construction of the
landscape material. These guidelines were the basis for the Class C review
for the project, which occurred subsequent to the issuance of the major use
special permit last June.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Lefley, palms and oaks, that's what they are saying. Is
that clear?
Mr. Lefley: Yes, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, the other one is, it said: "Allow for construction
of a decorator walkway connected between the arena and Overtown Metrorail."
Is that the same that we had in item 6, 7 and 8 this morning?
Mr. Lefley: I can't respond. I don't know, I was not here for those items.
Ms. Orshefsky: Excuse me.
Mr. Dawkins: Yes Ma'am, go ahead.
Ms. Orshefsky: Commissioner Dawkins, no that matter, I do not believe was
_ before you this morning. We are in the process of negotiating with Dade
County, and I believe the F.E.C., with respect to construction of that paved
walkway. It has been depicted on our plan, and we don't anticipate any
problems in having that constructed as part of the project.
Mr. Dawkins: OK.
Ms. Orshefsky: Everyone has received this very well. Dade County has been
thrilled that we would have a guideway to the Metrorail station.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, it says here: "However, variances have been requested for
setback, open space and off-street parking." You have given him a variance
against off street parking?
Mr. Lefley: Sir?
Mr. Dawkins: On page 4 of 6, second paragraph.
Ms. Orshefsky: If I may respond, Commissioner Dawkins.
45 March 31, 1967
Mr. Dawkins: Go right ahead, darling.
Ms. Orshefsky: The variances that you were referring to for off-street
parking were approved as part of the major use special permit last June. Just
for your information, as part of that action, when you consider that the
parking that would have been required for this site, my recollection is, 357
parking spaces, which is totally inadequate for the site in any event, and the
consideration by this board and the zoning board, I believe was that we had a
shown that there were thousands of parking spaces available within the
surrounding area. The board that... just to supplement your information on
that a bit, these were the boards that was presented at the time that that
approval was granted. The blue markings are existing private parking
facilities, within the area of the arena, the red, are existing public, and as
Mr. Lefley indicated, we will need to enter into agreements with the Off -
Street Parking Authority with respect to operation of the public parking
garages off hours. They have been very enthusiastic about that, and we are
confident that the parking situation can be dealt with in this manner. Let me
add, though, that there is a portion of property which Commissioner Dawkins
referred to that is the open land just south of the arena there, which if, at
some time, a parking garage were planned for that area, it could certainly be
incorporated. With some of that view in mind, and at the request of the
Regional Planning Council, we evaluated what would happen if a parking garage
were located at that site. The determination was that the levels of service on
the adjacent roadways would remain the same with a minimal impact to 5th
Street, for whatever reasons the traffic engineers found that would be.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, on page 4 of 6: "Construction costs for the project are
estimated at $49.8 million with approximately 97 percent of that amount being
spent within the region." Can you prove that for me?
Ms. Orshefsky: I'd have to refer that question to...
Mr. Dawkins: OK, send it to me in the mail. There is no problem, OK?
Ms. Orshefsky: That 97 percent thing?
Mr. Dawkins: The 97 percent of $49.8 million was spent within the... and the
region to me, is Miami. And I've got one more thing...
Ms. Orshefsky: The region... with all due respect, the region is defined in
the A.D.A.
Mr. Dawkins: It may be for you. I'm telling you what is defined here for me.
Ms. Orshefsky: OK.
Mr. Dawkins: OK? All right, on page 5 of 6, and this is where Mr. Plummer
can get it from his administration: "The Miamarina project proposes no
dwelling units, will not be required to contribute to the Affordable Housing
Trust fund." Why not?
Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: Because basically, it is an arena on the site, and they
don't have to contribute toward the Federal Housing Trust Fund unless they
have to get a bonus for intensity of development, and they don't qualify under
that category. The portion which is north of here, are the lots for the other
parcels in S.E. Overtown/Park West where we have housing, but because they are
specifically asking what is allowed with the ordinance for zoning, they don't
have to contribute toward the Housing Trust Fund. It is a statement saying
that they don't have to because they don't require it.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, what about the other fund, what is that, the impact fee?
Mr. Rodriguez: The impact fee is reflected on the resolution itself, which is
on page...
Mr. Dawkins: Will they be required to pay impact fees?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir!
Mr. Rodriguez: We recommend that they do. Under item 6 and 7 of page 19 of
your package it shows requirement of impact fees.
46 March 31, 1987
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir, and I have just worked out, and that is one of the
things that we were going to delete today, item 6 and 7, that they are going
to be obligated to pay impact fees like anyone. The only difference is, we
are going to hold them in abeyance until called upon by this Commission and
John and Chris are going to work that wording out. In other words, they are
not going to be off the hook) This is not a City project. This is a Miami
Sports Authority project.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, the only other thing I have is, I am a little disturbed with
the minority participation, and Mr. Dean and those are working with me to get
that squared away, but I do not want... this is a first reading, last reading,
or what, of this? This is the final reading?
Mr. Korge: It is a resolution.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, I will have to defer this until I get... until whatever we
get, until I get satisfied on the minority participation, I'm sorry.
Mr. Rodriguez: This is a resolution, so it is only one reading.
Mr. Dawkins: I don't care what it is.
Mr. Rodriguez: No, that is fine. I'm trying to clarify.
Mr. Plummer: I've got a question of Debbie... I've got a question on page...
well, it is two numbers, page.. it is item ten of the provisions. How in
God's name are you going to force Metropolitan Dade County to extend the
Metrorail, the Metromover and Metrobus to the arena, without kicking into
their subsidy. I mean, this is a provision you have got to do it by December
31 of 1988. Now, have you entered into discussion with them on this?
0
Ms. Orshefsky: We have been having discussion with them for some time, since
e the original planning of the project. They have been terrific all along, and
every indication they have, they will be more than happy to provide Metrorail
service. They look at the arena as a way of bolstering the entire network of
Metrorail and Metromover in the downtown area, because they will get...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, my problem is, there is no way they are going to
extend it, OK? And that is what it calls for here. The wording here is for
the provisions of additional and/or extended Metrorail, Metromover, which they
can't extend, or Metrobus, that could be.
Mr. Lefley: Service.
Mr. Plummer: What?
Mr. Lefley: Service.
Ms. Orshefsky: It is extended... it is times of service. We have a letter in
the files from the County Manager, indicating their support for the project,
and their desire to cooperate by providing extended services.
Mr. Plummer: OK, you understand that if there is any subsidy to be paid, it
is going to be paid by the authorities, not by the City?
Mr. Dean Patrinely: Yes, we understand that.
Mr. Plummer: OK, the other thing that is in this thing that has got me... it
doesn't have me bothered, but, I want a clarification - page 4, item numbers
six and seven, and I am not going to speak directly to impact fees. Is it
your intention, Decoma, to provide City of Miami Police Department as
security, or private security? This doesn't make it clear.
Mr. Patrinely: Our intent, as it has been from the outset, and you choose to
characterize this not as a City, I call this the Miami Arena, which means we
use the Miami Police Department.
Mr. Plummer: OK, but in other words, are you going to do it, because what you
are calling for here, is to pay a fair share contribution to the City impact
fees, but that would be for police, you know, like an office and things of
that nature, and are you locking yourself in, or should it be and/or
security?
47 March 31, 1987
-I=
Mr. Patrinely: Our intent is to maximize utilization of the City's forces,
both in service, the impact fee ordinance, which suggestion you have come
forth is different than our desire to use the City of Miami's Police Force.
You can't operate an arena like this, which we believe is the City of Miami's
arena, barring the technicalities, and without having the City's police force
involved.
Mr. Plummer: OK, I just wanted that clarified. Now, another question, Mr.
3arks, you are chairman of the Authority now?
Mr. Eugene Marks: (OFF MICROPHONE, INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Plummer: All right, but that is why I want to know. I want to know, Mr.
Marks, on the record, sir, even though Miller Dawkins says you are from a
foreign country...
Mr. Marks: Well, so is he, so we are even.
Mr. Plummer: Have you read this, and if you and the Authority read this, and
in full compliance by formal action?
Mr. Marks: Have I? No, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Has the Authority acted on this in formal action?
Mr. Marks: I cannot answer that, J.L.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Blaisdell.
Mr. John Blaisdell: Yes, sir?
Mr. Plummer: Has the Authority seen this document as before us, have they
understood it? Have they had the opportunity to question it since they are
the ones who are going to have to back it up, and have they, by formal
resolution, as a body, recommended this?
Mr. Blaisdell: No, sir, and they also are not required, either.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, without question, without further questions at all,
the Sports Authority are the ones who this Commission are going to be looking
to for the purposes of backing this agreement, not the City of Miami; we are
here acting only in a capacity as a Commission that has to act on all regional
impacts. We are not here for the purposes of backing this document up. That
Sports Authority is going to have to do that, and Decoma, and I think it is
unfair to not give that Authority... not unfair, it is ridiculous that, that
Authority has not had the opportunity to look, review, and either reject,
alter, modify, or approve.
Mayor Suarez: But, this is a development order, which I think is exclusively
within our province, right?
Mr. Plummer: It is within our province, but excuse me, what happens if the
Sports Authority says: "Provision six, we can't live with."
Ms. Orshefsky: Commissioner Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: And they are the ones that are going to have to back it up.
Yes.
Ms. Orshefsky: When you have had a D.R.I., that development order, even
though it is issued by this body, you had... it is required under Chapter 380
that local governments, and let's say that the Authority is a quasi -government
entity.
Mr. Plummer: Debbie, excuse me.
Ms. Orshefsky: They are bound by it, but...
Mr. Plummer: Who is the applicant?
48
March 31, 1987
Ms. Orshefsky: The applicant on this is the Decoma Venture, and the Miami
Sports and Exhibition Authority. The Authority...
Mr. Plummer: And the Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority has not seen this
document. How can you even go forward?
Ms. Orshefsky: I believe that it has been reviewed by their executive
director. If I...
Mr. Plummer: My dear, there is a board. You see, that is one of the problems
that we have had in the past. That board was not acting as a board. There
were people who were making statements in behalf of the board, and I'm not
saying those statements were wrong, but those statements were not by formal
action of the board. I say, Mr. Mayor, that this document has got to go to
that board. They have got to have the right of going over it, and they have
to have the right to say, "We approve it, or we think it should be modified,
or we can't live with or "we think it is a great document." Mr. Mayor, I would
® move at this time that this matter be deferred until such time as one of the
applicants... one of the applicants has taken a formal resolution they accept.
I would so move that this matter be deferred and then, we the Commission can
supply to you in memorandum form, any additional areas of concern, and
resolution that would be necessary.
Mayor Suarez: I guess that is really a second to a prior motion to defer for
different grounds, unless you...
Mr. Plummer: Well, OK, I'm sorry, did you make a motion to defer? I second
your motion and I put my stipulation in there.
Mayor Suarez: OK, tell us John, on that particular ground, does it make any
sense for us to defer?
Mr. Blaisdell: Mr. Mayor, if I may, may I make one comment. Although
Commissioner Plummer is correct, the Authority has not taken any formal action
directly approving the development order, we have briefed, at two Authority
meetings ago, we did review the application and indicated to the Authority
that we were in agreement caith the recommendations of the Planning Council.
To be totally honest with you, we did not feel that as applicants, we should,
the fact that we are applying and here before you asking for your approval, is
representative of our consent...
Mayor Suarez: You must feel you have legal authority from your own board to
do it.
Mr. Blaisdell: Exactly, and we respect your motion to defer, but we would
suggest that we would rather try to get this done today, if we could.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, let me ask you one thing, John.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Blaisdell, let me remind you of the classic letter in my
desk. City Commission, write me a request for $10,000,000 and I will send you
a check. I am not going to tell you the three jokes about that, but they are
all true in this case.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Blaisdell, on page 2, item 3, since you are in complete
agreement with this and you say you are aware: "Promotion of minority
participation in development undertakings through implementation of that
certain minority participation agreement by and between the Miami Sports and
Exhibition Authority, the City of Miami and Decoma Miami Associates, as
approved by this City of Miami by and through the City Manager," dated
October 10, 1986 - how, have you done that?
Mr. Blaisdell: The intent of the provision was to mirror the rights and
remedies provided to the City Commission and the Authority, in the development
order, in the event there was a future determination that any of the parties
to the agreement had not acted in good faith.
Mr. Dawkins: That may mean something legally, but it don't mean nothing to me
as a layman. I moved it, and Plummer seconded it. Let's just bring it back at
the next meeting and now, the concerns that I just raised, I'll give them to
the Manager in Writing, and he can pass them on and we can come back and move
this at the next meeting.
49 March 31, 1987
Mayor Suarez: OK, subject to a resolution of all of those concerns, I would
,, ^^ *^ ts%a mm+inn to refer.
Mr. Blaisdell: When is your next meeting?
Mayor Suarez: We have one on the 9th.
Mr. Patrinely: We have a deadline.
Mr. Dawkins: April 9th.
Mr. Marks: We don't have... April 9th, we don't have...
Mayor Suarez: So far we have.
Mr. Dawkins: What is your problem, Gene?
Mayor Suarez:... deferred a half million items for April 9th.
Mr. Dawkins: Tell me, tell me.
Mr. Blaisdell: Mr. Mayor, is the motion to defer predicated on two issues? -
one, getting a formal resolution...
Ms. Orshefsky: Excuse me, if...
Mayor Suarez: Well, either issue, I guess, will carry the motion to defer,
because there is only four of us here right now, and I am not disposed to
defer it, but if the Commissioners want to resolve a couple of items, that
makes sense to do so, go ahead Debbie.
Ms. Orshefsky: May I make a suggestion. Through the D.R.I. process, you
could incorporate a condition in this development order, requiring that we get
the approval of this development order by the Sports and Exhibition Authority
Board,..
Mayor Suarez: No, that is the one that concerns me the least, actually.
Ms. Orshefsky: ... as a condition of approval, and that would permit you to take
action today and resolve that concern. Commissioner Dawkins, I know you have
some other concerns, and perhaps with some more time, we could do that.
Mr. Dawkins: I have no problems with you, I've got no problems with Dean. My
_ problem is with my Administration, I have been going through this for five
months, and every time they come up they want, "You go along with me, and I
will produce what you want," OK? "You go along with me and I will produce
what you want," and they just don't do it then, Gene, Dean.
Mr. Patrinely: Would it be helpful if we reviewed for you our status today
for minority participation so they can get your concurrence on this issue?
Mr. Dawkins: I've been with you. It is my staff that hasn't been to talk to
me about nothing, Dean.
Mr. Patrinely: Your staff has some information too, that I think...
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, but they got it, I don't have it! You see what I am
_ saying? I can pick up the phone and call you, and get anything I want, OK? I
have no problems with that, but I can't get nothing out of around here. I
have got to call all the way to Texas to find out from you what the hell we
are doing.
Mr. Patrinely: Would it be helpful to look at some of the information now?
We have it in a graphic form, which may... obviously, I would like to as a
representative of Decoma, Dean Patrinely of Decoma Venture, to possibly move
this forward with the condition that Debbie suggested, if it is in the
approval with it.
Mrs. Kennedy: Are you saying that we can table this before the evening to
later on in the day, and revise it before the evening is over?
50 March 310 1987
t
Mr. Dawkins: If you all can get three votes up here to do anything you want;
I am voting no, but if you get three more votes, and Joe makes four... if you
enV" T 1,il,e no problem with It, OK? But, I just cannot, in
good faith, vote for nothing else until I've got everything I want in my
hand, OK? And you've come all the way from Texas, you sat down with me, we
have gone through a laundry list you said, "Miller, this is what you need," -
am I right? _
Mr. Patrinely: Right.
Mr. Dawkins: Then you give the laundry list to somebody, they come back, you
say "well damn, this should have been done" right?
I
Mr. Patrinely: I think what you are referring to is probably the action on
bid packs tour and five, which we discussed the last time we were here. We
had presented a detailed strategy, which you should be receiving shortly, on
bid packs four and five, as to how that will, how that will work, and how...
Mayor Suarez: When would bid pack four and/or five have to be...?
Mr. Patrinely: Bid pack four is going to go out very quickly because it
relates to landscaping, as we discussed the last time.
Mayor Suarez: Quickly, meaning when?
Mr. Patrinely: I'd say in the next ten days.
Mr. Plummer: No, no, excuse me, Dean...
Mr. Patrinely: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Representatives stood before that microphone and promised Miller
Dawkins...
Mr. Patrinely: Bid pack five, that was on.
Mr. Plummer: Four and five, sir.
Mr. Patrinely: OK.
Mr. Plummer: That we would make up the inequities of minority hirings in bid
pack four and five, and it was stated in the record that it would be 60 to 90
days before those things went out, so this Commission could see the results of
what had happened in package one, two and three, and we were going to set what
was in four and five, and it was 60 to 90 days.
Mr. Patrinely: No, we are not...
Mr. Plummer: Now, let's make sure we understand.
Mr. Patrinely: I agree with you. What I am referring to, is we had to get
the numbers to look at from bid pack four. It will be 60 to 90 days before we
have all the answers from bid pack four and five, to present, and compare to
bid packs one, two and three, to come up with an assessment, what can we...
Mr. Plummer: Sir, all I am telling you, you better be damn careful. There was
a commitment made to this Commission, in particular to Miller Dawkins, that
any inequities would be covered in bid packs four and five. Now, I heard 60
to 90 days, and now when I hear you say 10, that kind of misleads me to
believe that something is going to be rushed through, and we are going to say,
"Well, maybe we'll get to it in five," and then five is going to go out, and
Miller Dawkins is rightfully going to be up here doing cartwheels, together
with the women minorities and the Latin minorities. I'm not even speaking to
the Anglo minorities, OK?
Mr. Marks: This was put on the record if I am not mistaken. I'm Gene Marks,
chairman of the Sports Authority. If I recall, the statement was made that
day that bid pack four and five would not even be put out on bid until such
time as was reviewed by the City Manager. Am I correct?
Mr. Plummer: You are correct, but it was the indication given at that time,
60 to 90 days, because we said, "OK, if we let the Manager do that, what are
the time constraints," and it was said that you would have 60 to 90 days.
51 March 31, 1987
}
Mr. Marks: The time on it, J.L., I don't recall, but I do recall standing
there at the mike and it was four and five...
Mr. Dawkins: Well, get the minutes of the...
Mayor Suarez: Oh, yes, I remember 60 days. I don't know about the 90, but 60
days.
Mr. Marks: All right, the 60 days and it would be reviewed by the Manager.
Mr. Plummer: Gene, my dear friend, I don't want you to get caught in the
middle of this war, if what I am envisioning can happen, because I can see
Miller Dawkins with vengeance and blood in his eyes, and rightfully so, coming
after those people who made a pledge. Now, don't you get in the middle of it,
OK?
Mr. Marks: No, I will not get in the middle of it.
Mr. Plummer: OK, they made the pledge, they made the promise, they have got
to keep it up. Now, that is all I am saying. Mr. Mayor, I understand while I
was.
Mr. Marks: Thank you for the warning.
Mr. Plummer: I understand, well, you know, I am going to bury it, I don't
want to do it in a hurry.
Mr. Marks: Thank you, but you are still not getting the
Mr. Plummer: Wait til times are bad.
Mr. Dawkins: I already paid him to bury you.
Mr. Plummer: I understand, Mr. Mayor, that when I was out of the room for
moment, that there was a compromise offered that we approve this action here,
deleting items six and seven, and that it is approved subject to it going to
the board of the Sports Authority, with their favorable recommendation, it is
then approved. If they do not approve this favorably, it must come back to
this Commission, is that what I heard?
Mr. Patrinely: That is correct.
Mayor Suarez: That is correct.
Mr. Plummer: All right, just for the record, I am not trying to cut off
discussion, that is agreeable to me. I will withdraw my deferral motion.
Ms. Orshefsky: May I make one suggestion, if the wishes of the board is going
to
Mayor Suarez: At your own risk.
Ms. Orshefsky: In terms of... can we put some time to bringing it back to
you, that we will take it to the board at their next available meeting, which
is April 21st?
Mr. Patrinely: April 21st.
Mr. Plummer: The next meeting of the Authority is April 21, so that it would
come back here on the 23rd.
Ms. Orshefsky: In the event it has to, then we will back here on the 23rd.
Mr. Plummer: If you have to.
Mayor Suarez: I would think the Authority, being the applicant, would get it
back to its own board as quickly as possible.
Mr. Patrinely: Absolutely.
Mr. Plummer: And do your homework!
52 March 31, 1987
Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: Yes.
Mr. Pierce: Just for the record, if you are not going to conclude this item
today, you should continue it, and not defer it, OK.
Mayor Suarez: OK.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK.
Mr. Plummer: No, we are going to...
Mayor Suarez: Sounds like there may be a consensus behind... at least a three n
vote consensus behind the idea of the latest revised motion. Do we have a
second on the original motion to defer the item?
Mr. Plummer: No, I withdrew it.
Mrs. Kennedy: He withdrew it. Second was with Dawkins.
Mayor Suarez: OK, I thought the original was made by Commissioner Dawkins. L
OK, we have a new motion?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I move PZ-1 with the deletions of items six and
seven, with a further provision that it must go before the Sports Authority
Board, if in fact, the resolution is for approval of that board, it is so
approved. If they reject or deny, it must come back before this Commission
for further action, together with further action on six and seven, which will
be decided at a later date. I so move, and it be brought back to this
Commission no later than the 23rd day of April, 1987.
Mayor Suarez: This does not alter all of the Commission actions, resolutions
taken at the last Commission meeting on the issue of the bid packs four and
five, not just five, but four and five.
Mr. Patrinely: Absolutely.
Mrs. Kennedy: And I second.
Mayor Suarez: We have a second.
Ms. Orshefsky: We will need appropriate notice for the hearing on the 23rd.
Mr. Plummer: No, it is a contingency...
Ms. Orshefsky: Are you going...
Mr. Plummer: No...
Mrs. Kennedy: It is not deferred, it is continued.
Mr. Plummer: Whoa, wait a minute. It could come back. It's got to be
noticed.
Ms. Orshefsky: If you can take final action today, then we can start the time
running on appeals and everything else, with the State, so that would be
wonderful.
Mr. Plummer: Well, whatever that legal framework, go ahead.
Mr. Korge: You would take final action today and if necessary, we will notice
it for the meeting on the 23rd. Even... well, then we will notice it, if we
have to, we will notice it anyway, for the 23rd. If we don't have to come
back, then we won't come back...
Mr. Plummer: That is the safe way to do it. Yes.
Ms. Orshefsky: Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Call the roll.
53 March 31, 1987
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87-299
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE MIAMI ARENA PROJECT (MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN), A DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT PROPOSED BY DECOMA VENTURE AND THE
MIAMI SPORTS AND EXHIBITION AUTHORITY; AUTHORIZING A
DEVELOPMENT ORDER; APPROVING SAID PROJECT WITH
MODIFICATIONS AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING
COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD,
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER,
ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A", THE APPLICATION FOR
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE,
AND THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOUTH
FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, ATTACHED HERETO AS
EXHIBIT "B", INCLUSIVE, AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY
REFERENCE, MAKING FINDINGS, PROVIDING THAT THE PERMIT
SHALL BE BINDING ON THE APPLICANT AND SUCCESSORS IN
INTEREST; FURTHER, DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO SEND
COPIES OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT ORDER
TO AFFECTED AGENCIES AND THE DEVELOPER.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
ABSENT: None.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Dawkins: I am voting no in principle, I'm tired of them not having the
minority participation plan in place now, and I Just vote no.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. GRANT APPLICANT RIGHT TO APPLY BEFORE ZONING BOARD FOR VARIANCE FROM
DISTANCE REQUIREMENT AT 3838 N. BAYSHORE DRIVE.
Mayor Suarez: PZ-2.
Mr. Plummer: Let me first ask - Madam City Attorney, I've talked with Mr.
Brake about this. Is the request that he has before this Commission, I assume
his request is to change the ordinance in relation to the distance
requirement?
Mrs. Dougherty: No, that is not what is before you. That is an alternative
solution to his problem.
Mr. Plummer: OK, is there an alternative solution besides changing the
ordinance?
Mrs. Dougherty: He is asking that he granted permission to go before the
Board of Adjustment for a variance.
Mr. Plummer: Does this Commission have that right? - I guess is what I am
asking.
54 March 31, 1987
Mrs. Dougherty: If you decide to overturn the Zoning Administrator's
decision, you do. He does.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, OK.
Mayor Suarez: Up to now, you haven't even been given the Authority or the
ability to petition the Zoning Board, is that the...? _
Mr. Brake: That is it. I am here to ask you to be allowed to ask you.
Mayor Suarez: You would still have to go before the Zoning Board, and
presumably, maybe this Commission automatically in this kind of...
Mr. Plummer: An appeal.
Mr. Brake: Yes, my understanding of it.
Mayor Suarez: Automatically?
Mr. Plummer: What were the reasons given by the Administration to deny his
request of a day in court?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Genuardi is here, and he should... I'd like for him to
address that.
Mr. Plummer: Playing God again, huh?
Mr. Joseph Genuardi: The zoning ordinance permits C.B.R.F., which include a
lot of different types of... facilities, besides A.C.L.F's., and half -way
houses, and homes for the mentally disturbed, etc., and it is under the column
for permitted use, it makes it permissible, subject to the requirements of the
zoning ordinance, and my interpretation is that since it is subject to this
distance requirement, it is a requirement of the use, and by going for a
variance, for a distance less than what is specified there, they are actually
permitted a use in an area which the zoning ordinance says you cannot have it.
Mayor Suarez: And you can't get around it by a variance, even if it was
approved, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, may I bring to your attention, sir, that we
have two trains of thought, which are different? One train of thought by the
Building Department and one by the Legal Department. I think we had better
hear both sides, because the Legal Department is disagreeing with Mr.
Genuardi, as he is disagreeing with them.
Mrs. Dougherty: I am not..
Mr. Plummer: I think we are in a Catch-22 here.
Mayor Suarez: I've got a feeling Zoning is going to oppose the request for a
variance anyhow, and all of this is going to come before us, so I... yes,
right, for myself, I have no problem with letting him apply.
Mr. Plummer: Look, I am going to short circuit this, Bob, if you are
agreeable. OK, Mr. Mayor, I am going to move that he have his day in court
before the Zoning Board, in whatever legal procedures he should have, with the
idea that he dismisses the Federal suit that was instigated at this time.
Mr. Genuardi: (OFF MICROPHONE) He has had dismissed by the zoning
Mr. Plummer: OK, fine, but the reason it was dismissed was based on the fact
that you didn't exhaust your administrative procedures, so the issue of the
Federal suit was really not addressed.
Mr. Genuardi: That is correct.
Mr. Plummer: OK, I am going to move at this time, Mr. Mayor, that this
application be given its day in court, be heard before the proper board,
period.
Mayor Suarez: Walter, we have a motion, are you seconding it?
55 March 31, 1987
:1
7�
Mr. Pierce: No, but I did want to speak to the Commission.
Mr. Plummer: Well, you can't until their is a second.
Mayor Suarez: I'll second it for purposes of... well, we have got
Commissioner Kennedy. Go ahead.
Mr. Pierce: I just wanted to remind the Commission that the reason for that
spacing requirement is...
Mr. Plummer: I know that.
Mr. Pierce: OK.
Mr. Plummer: I know it better than you, I fought it with filling stations. I
helped you write it..
Mr. Pierce: Then I would...
Mr. Plummer:...and I don't need any more comments.
Mr. Pierce: Well...
Mayor Suarez: I mean, even if there was no other reason than not to have a
Federal lawsuit against us, Walter, it makes sense for us to go through the
entire procedure, in addition to the fact that there used to be a Coral Gables
City Commissioner, in the old days County Commissioner too, at the beginning?
It is when they used to have single member districts. How did they ever get
away from single member districts?
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Suarez: The Miami Herald! Oh, my God, they are really taking a beating
today. Well, they are back to wanting single member districts now, so they
are on the right side of that one. OK. Well, Bob Traurig is not allowed to
say anything on this discussion. PZ-2, we have a motion and a second, to
allow the petitioner to go through our zoning process, request a variance and
so on, subject to...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me!
Mayor Suarez: No?
Mr. Plummer: I said that he would have his day in court to go through
whatever, not specified, whatever...
Mayor Suarez: Right, whatever the procedures call for.
Mr. Plummer: It might be five or six.
Mayor Suarez: call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87-300
A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING
BOARD, THUS UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
DECISION DATED JANUARY 9, 1987 THAT A VARIANCE FROM
THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT BETWEEN COMMUNITY BASED
RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES (CBRP) AS SET FORTH IN
SUBSECTION 2034.2.2.1-2 OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500 THE
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA IS NOT
PERMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 3101 AND SUBSECTION
3101.1 OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
56 March 31, 1987
Upon being seconded by Mayor Suarez, the resolution was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Mr. Blake: Thank you very much.
Mayor Suarez: Thank care, Bob.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. DEFERRAL OF ITEMS DEALING WITH PROPOSED DRIVE-IN TELLERS AT 1600 S.W. 22
STREET (CITICORP SAVINGS OF FLORIDA)
Mayor Suarez: PZ-3.
Mr. Olmedillo: Mr. Mayor, PZ-3, 4, and 5 are related items. PZ-3 is a
petition to allow a drive-in facility in a CR district. Four a special
exception to allow reduction in the number of reservoir spaces, and PZ-5 was
brought to you by the Planning Department so that you could see the whole
picture of the original petition by the applicant. The issues in hand are...
this is a facility which is located on Coral Way, the south side between 16th
Avenue and 16th Court. There is an existing facility there, banking facility
with parking on the south side. The...
Mr. Plummer: How many reserved parking... how many tellers are you putting
in?
Mr. Olmedillo: The...
Ms. Orshefsky: For the record, my name is Debbie Orshefsky, representing the
applicant.
Mr. Plummer: I just heard that. Are you a registered lobbyist?
Ms. Orshefsky: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Are you with Traurig's firm?
Ms. Orshefsky: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: My condolences.
Ms. Orshefsky: There are two drive-in tellers and one automatic teller
machine that operates from your car, which is the new craze in the banking
industry, so we actually have three drive -through locations, all of which are
located...
Mr. Plummer: How many cars in reserve?
Ms. Orshefsky: In the two drive-in tellers, traditional they have 10, which
meets the code. The third one is the automatic teller machine. It has one
space. Now, let me explain about ATM's, is the way that they refer to them.
The automatic teller machine, the typical user is there after hours, and is at
the location for 40 seconds to a minute and one-half. People generally don't
wait when they are going to use the automatic teller machine. The desire to
go from the automobile...
Mr. Plummer: Debbie, let me give you a short history. This has been my
ordinance because of the problems. The problems are, of the backup that is
created in the streets. Now, whether a car is there for 40 seconds or
whatever, if you have three people that want to go to that machine, that is
57 March 31, 1987
120 seconds. You don't have but one backup space. Now, I am telling you, in
other banks that I have worked with, and I'll be glad to do it with you, you
can workout a configuration where it is a combined situation. I'm telling
you that there is no way that I personally... I'm not speak1n;
Commission, can allow you to have any kind of a drive-in with car facilities
where you have got one reserve space, because that means anything beyond the
one car, is going to be on the street.
Ms. Orshefsky: The distinction with this site, the reason we tied the ATM,
that's the driveway with the one space, we will be restricted to an automatic
teller machine. We'll not be able to have a typical drive -up manned facility.
Mr. Plummer: But, the problem is, if two cars want to use the facility. One
cannot get off the street.
Ms. Orshefsky: Commissioner Plummer, we appreciate what you are saying and if
this were a typical drive -up teller, we would deal with it differently. What
the industry is finding, is that these "the quickie," come up and get your
money out of the machine, are used off hours. People like to be secure in
their cars. Now, what we have provided on the site, so that there wouldn't be
backup, let's say you come in here at 10:00 o'clock at night, you've come out
of the movies, you pull up here. If there were two cars there, there is more
- than sufficient parking right here.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, that is fine if your machine was attached to the building
where they have got to get out of their cars, which they normally are today,
OK? I am telling you that if you want me to work with you, I have with other
_ banks, but I am telling you, that there is no way that I can allow one reserve
space, where the rest have to be on the street.
Ms. Orshefsky: Can I offer a few more design aspects that we have on here?
One part of the problem we encountered here, and why we can only have the
ten... the one space, is that back here is traffic for cars going through the
site. Now, that is a problem while the bank is open. It is...
Mr. Plummer: That is not your biggest problem. Your biggest problem what is
to the east of that site over there? - to the east. I'll tell you, it is the
Farm Store.
Ms. Orshefsky: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: And that Farm Store has more generation of traffic night and day
that, that street can handle, because we made a cockamamie law that allowed
them to put filling station tanks in there, and your problem is that you don't
have a good flow of traffic around this. If you go up the west side of that
street, you can't get back over to 17th Avenue unless you go through a series
of turns. Your traffic pattern in that particular location is next to
impossible, you can't go straight! You run right into the old post office.
Ms. Orshefsky: One of the things that we have incorporated into this project,
is that no trips will be exiting onto the west side, 60th Avenue.
Mr. Plummer: How are you going to enforce it? You can't enforce that. You
know, it is nice to say I am going to put a sign there, but unless you have a
policeman standing there with a ticket book, people don't listen to you, and
they don't obey it.
Ms. Orshefsky: Commissioner Plummer...
Mrs. Kennedy: Let me ask something. Is there anybody here opposing this
item?
Mayor Suarez: Is there anyone from the general public that wishes to be heard
for or against this item, PZ-3?
Mr. Plummer: No, he's come up because I ask that they come up.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK.
Me. Orshefsky: Commissioner Plummer, if it is the wish of this board to give
us more time to work with you and the staff to try refine some of the aspects,
we would be more than happy to take a deferral.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I would move that this matter be deferred until the
9th. I can meet with these people in the interim, and give them some of the
other ideas that we used in the past. I would ask that this be deferred until
the 9th.
Mayor Suarez: You don't want it to make the next Planning and Zoning agenda,
would you?
Mr. Plummer: I don't want to try to hold them up. I can meet with them. —
_ Mayor Suarez: Just the... I am just thinking that we are postponing so many
things to the 9th. Ma'am, do you want to speak to that? We have a motion, do
we have a second?
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Seconded. You have been waiting patiently. The least we can
do is hear from you.
Ms. Martha Buss: I hope so.
Mayor Suarez: Give us your name and address.
Mrs. Buss: OK, I am up in your "neck of the woods," Mr. Plummer and Mr.
Suarez. I live right next to the bank, 16th Avenue and Coral Way, and yes,
the Farm Store is a disaster to the whole neighborhood. That's another sore
in its throat, thorn in your side. It should not have been put there, but it
is there, and the traffic situation is horrendous. Trucks come in there all
the time, the 18-wheelers, and they park up through the bank and then back in
to unload, and this happens three or four times a day.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Ma'am, did you...
Mrs. Buss: OK, now I know you want to get...
Mr. Plummer: ...give your name and address?
Mrs. Buss: Oh, yes. My name is Mrs. Buss, Martha, and I live at 2224 S.W.
16th Avenue, directly next to the bank. I've lived there for 40 years, and I
know what goes on in that bank and in the parking, and in the traffic on that
street. I would understand that this meeting today way for an appeal of the
transitional area also. I am asking that you give me 20 feet, as opposed to
10. There is a wall there. I understand that this is up for reviewing. I am
not up on legal matters, but I sort of read the paper that you sent out, and I
think that 20 would be very sufficient, rather than 10. The 10 is very close
to my home, and as I say, I've live there for 40 years.
Mr. Plummer: Let us look at it when we take this deferment.
Mrs. Buss. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Plummer: Let us look at that when we take this deferment.
Mayor Suarez: Just in case you are not able to come back at the hearing on
this...
Mrs. Buss: I'll come back. I've lived there for 40 years. I intend to live
there for 40 more.
Mayor Suarez: OK, well then that is it.
Mrs. Buss: I'm... yes.
Mayor Suarez: Then we will hear from you again, otherwise, you will come
knocking at our doors, I guess.
Mrs. Buss: Not hardly you're gonna come knocking at mine.
Mayor Suarez: You are probably right, you are probably right.
59
March 31, 1987
«4
Mrs. Buss: Yes, probably right, but I think that this situation, the tellers
in the bank going through with all this line of traffic, I would like more
space . from —my. side of the wall, to the first lane of traffic, if this goes
through. - 'f'V asking for at least 20, I would go for 15, and so far as the
beautification goes, that is there now, that they propose to have against the
bank wall, see I have already been to one meeting, so I pretty well know what
they have in mind. The trees are high now, and the wires there, they need
clipping. Now, their yard service comes on Saturday morning at 8:00 o'clock,
which I am opposed to, and I don't like to hear the racket. I am tired of it,
and I've spoken to them in Spanish and I have nothing against the Spanish
people, but they don't seem to answer me - probably a line of communication,
more than likely. They say step into the bank and I get referral to
downtown. Now, I'd like that not clipped on Saturday because they don't clip
the trees, and they don't have the authority to clip the trees. They are in
the telephone wires and they are on my side of the property. Now, I would
also like it stipulated that that bank wall be over six feet high and my side
plastered. I know they said to me once before when they didn't paint it in
1960, when the bank first went up, not the Citicorp, but the Biscayne Federal,
that that side of the fence was mine. Well, it is true that it was mine, but
it was built on their property, and I had to look at it, and it was never
plastered. Now, when this wall is redone...
Mayor Suarez: I've a feeling we can get the plaster done for you.
Mrs. Buss: I hope so. Well, these are things that I want.
Mayor Suarez: Looking over this side, it...
Mrs. Buss: I live there.
Mayor Suarez: If that was the only thing that kept them from getting their...
Mr. Plummer: Would you like a mural?
Mrs. Buss: What?
Mr. Plummer: Would you like a mural?
Mrs. Buss: No thank you, I know what it looks like, and you do too. You have
been down that street a hundred million times on the way to your home across
over Natoma Manor. So, I am saying, these are things that... of course, I am
a housewife, I live there and I love my home, and this would help the bank
also. Now, if they want to have a little meeting with me, I'd be glad to help
them out if they can do that, but as it is now, it is not working, and they
barely have enough customers really, I know it has been clocked to go down
there as to how many customers are going to go into the drive-in, but when you
go in for help now, you barely have enough people in there to help you, much
less the drive-in.
Mr. Plummer: Martha, I think you are speaking more to item five.
Mrs. Buss: OK, well four, five, whatever. I've spoken my little piece, and
that is about it, so I hope you will take all these things into consideration,
and thank you very much.
Mayor Suarez: And you will join the vice -mayor with his meetings with the
applicant, I am sure.
Mrs. Buss: Of course.
Mayor Suarez% OK. We have a motion and a second, to defer to a time certain
on the 9th.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, Mr. Mayor, time certain, 9:30.
Mayor Suarez: I meant time certain, date certain, I guess. We don't have to
specify the time in the motion, do we?
Mr. Plummer: April 9th.
Mayor Suarez: OK, call the roll on that motion.
60 March 31, 1987
0
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, that would be PZ-5, also.
Mayo. J..-.. .'a. ..... __'J, _.�...
Ms. Orshefsky: Excuse me, and 6.
Mayor Suarez: And 6. We are moving along.
Ms. Orshefsky: I think 3... that is 3, 4 and 5.
Mayor Suarez: 3, 4 and 5.
Mr. Plummer: 3, 4 and 5.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 87-301
A MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEMS PZ-3,
PZ-4, AND PZ-5 (APPLICATION OF CITICORP SAVINGS OF
FLORIDA FOR A DRIVE-IN FACILITY AT APPROXIMATELY 1600
S.W. 22 STREET) TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 9, 1987, IN
ORDER TO GIVE APPLICANT MORE TIME TO WORK WITH STAFF
IN CONNECTION WITH SAID APPLICATION.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
THEREUPON THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 4:51
P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 5:11 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF
THE CITY COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT EXCEPT
COMMISSIONERS CAROLLO AND DAWKINS.
26. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: PROHIBITING HOUSEBOATS IN THE LITTLE RIVER
CANAL DISTRICT.
Mayor Suarez: 27th Avenue Study, 27th Avenue rezoning.
Mr. Plummer: What time is that scheduled for? I think the 27th Avenue is
scheduled later, isn't it?
Mayor Suarez: We can go through these quickly, probably. OK, we have got a
quorum, this Commission is officially reconvened. Planning and Zoning items
6, is that correct, Joe?
Mr. Joe McManus: 7 and 8 are basically companion items and all have to do
with houseboats. Joe McManus, assistant director of City of Miami Planning
Department. These items, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, are up for second
reading. Basically, they would prohibit house barges effective May 1, 1987,
in other words, 30 days from today. Also, they would no longer allow live-
aboards in two areas of the City, that is the Little River Canal, extending
easterly at Biscayne Boulevard and the south bank of the Miami River,
approximately from 12th to 17th Avenues.
Mayor Suarez: Joe, let me ask one quick question. Could you state for the
record, who are you transcribing for? We usually ask that.
61 March 31, 1987
;i;
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Suarez: It is an association or an individual that you are...
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: An association.
Mayor Suarez: Would that be picked up by the record from there?
Ms. Hirai: No, sir. If you want...
Mayor Suarez: She has stated that she is recording on behalf of the Live-
aboards Association, I don't know if that is an actual corporate name or just
an association. OK, Joe, I am sorry. By the way, at some point, if you could
tell us, if you could remind us what the Waterfront Board's compromise was, I
remember at one point that that was presented to us. We've got a lot of cards
that we have received that indicated they favored that compromise, even though
they opposed the house barge ordinance as presently constituted, and those
will be introduced into the record. I don't know where all the rest of them
are, but I've got one right here. I know there are quite a few more that have
been received. I'm sorry, go ahead, Joe.
Mr. McManus: For the record, in your package, you have received a letter from
the Dade County Shoreline Development Review Committee, and that was also in
the package on first reading. There is also in the package a letter from the
Florida Department of Community Affairs, commenting on the plat amendment, and
a letter from the director of the Dade County Department of Environmental
Resource Management. The reason that this is on the second reading today is
that last month, 30 days ago, in your February meeting, the Law Department had
made some amendments on PZ-6, that is, the SPI-18 overlay district, and for
that reason, the Law Department recommended it revert back to first reading a
month ago.. On PZ-7, that is the plan amendment, the Florida Department of
Community Affairs has cited some deficiencies, so we suggested some amendments
for that reason, a month ago. That reverted to first reading and it is back
to second reading today. PZ-8 was a continued item. Mr. Mayor, I have
reviewed the so-called compromise by the Waterfront Board and reviewed the
language, and very frankly, the language as I read it, does not accomplish
what the Waterfront Board is telling you that it accomplishes. In other
words, as I understand it...
Mayor Suarez: What are they telling us that it would accomplish and...
Mr. McManus: As I understand it, the Waterfront Board would like to take out,
or delete properties fronting on the Little River canal from Biscayne
Boulevard easterly to approximately the west end of Belle Mead Island,
approximately a three block stretch, The language as they have presented it,
does not accomplish this, I'm just pointing it out to you for your benefit.
If there are any further questions, I'll be happy to answer them, Mr. Mayor
and Commissioners, otherwise, that would conclude the Planning Department's
presentation.
Mayor Suarez: The board wants to delete those from what?
Mr. McManus: In other words, what they...
Mayor Suarez: From the application of the ordinance, or delete those in a
sense of deleting like they can't have house barges there. I don't understand
which it is.
Mr. McManus: The Waterfront Board would like to allow house barges and
houseboats in its three block stretch from approximately Biscayne Boulevard,
running easterly on the Little River canal to Bell Meade island.
Mr. Plummer: You say houseboats and house barges, with or without live-
aboards?
Mr. McManus: With live-aboards.
Mr. Plummerc With live-aboards, in other words, leave it as it is now.
Mr. McManus: Leave it as it is.
62
March 31, 1987
Mayor Suarez: Hugh, is that ...
Mr. McManus: No, the Waterfront Board, of course, if free to ...
Mayor Suarez: ... Because as you stated, maybe the wording doesn't reflect
their intentions.
Mr. Hugh Padrick: Hugh Padrick, 2490 N.W. 18 Terrace, vice-chairman of the
City of Miami Waterfront Board.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I didn't get your name.
Mr. Padrick: Hugh Padrick, vice-chairman, City of Miami Waterfront Board. The
proposal that the City... the Waterfront Board is offering to the Commission,
excludes live-aboards on the south side of the Little River canal, fronting
Belle Mead Isle, and includes the south Little River canal that wraps around
the...
Mayor Suarez: Can you point those out as he is telling us that, please?
Mr. Padrick: OK, it includes the Little River - the is south side of Little
River canal, and includes both north south shores of the South Little River
canal, and it take a line... the point there where the branch of the river
comes... if you were to take the houses on the south shore and draw a line
straight across... no, it is to the left just a little bit more, toward
Biscayne Boulevard, right there, from that point west. The Waterfront Board's
position was that the north shore being commercial, exclusively commercial all
the way the way to Biscayne Boulevard, that at that point, houseboats could be
there, houseboats on the south side, there was an agreement that the
Waterfront Board felt that houseboats could be there. That was the Waterfront
Board's position on that area.
Mayor Suarez: Now, even though on the south side you have residential.
Mr. Padrick: Right, but there are residential property there, on the south
side of...
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Right across...
Mr. Padrick: OK, on the south side of the Little River canal, the house
barges that are there, if they were in compliance with the City of Miami's
mooring code, would not be violating the navigable waterway.
Mayor Suarez: But, you would separate the two areas of Little River, even
though the rest of Little River on the north side also has commercial, I
presume, doesn't it?
Mr. Padrick: All, well...
Mayor Suarez: All the way out to the bay?
Mr. Padrick: From where the pencil is east, there are spots of commercial,
but not a solid commercial area.
Mayor Suarez: OK, so you make that distinction as of where the pen is now?
Mr. Padrick: Right, there is a marina and apartment complex, I think, and
many...
Mayor Suarez: How about on the river, do you have any...
Mr. Padrick: The river... we excluded the river entirely.
Mayor Suarez: Excluded? Remember, that confuses us.
Mr. Padrick: No, deleted the river in the amendment, period. In other words,
we are not dealing...
Mayor Suarez: So we are back to the way, according to that proposal, we would
be back to the way it was on the river. I am talking about the Miami River, I
am sorry.
63 March 31, 1987
P,
0
Mr. Padrick: Yes, as the river stands today, it will stand after this.
Mayor Suarez: That constitutes a fair description of the Waterfront Board's
proposal, Henry? I see you nodding over there, but it isn't exactly that kind
of terminology that they gave to us, is it Joe?
Mr. Padrick: They may have been... you know, once it hits legal hands, it may
have...
Mayor Suarez: You never know what will happen once...
Mr. Padrick:... and none of us are attorneys, and so...
Mayor Suarez: ... it hits legal hands, OK.
Mr. Padrick: We felt that this was as much of a compromise after working with
both groups over a period of months and months, this was the best compromise
we could come up with.
Mayor Suarez: Are some of the proponents and opponents of these various
ordinances or compromises going to be representing others, or how many people
actually want to address these issues, could you raise your hands? OK, to the
extend possible, try to have someone represent the entire group, we have heard
these arguments quite a few times.
Mr. Padrick: Mr. Mayor, we do... I'll finish up. The Waterfront Board
proposal was endorsed by the Miami River Businessmen's Association, was
endorsed by, if I am not mistaken, the Marine Council as well, and the...
Mayor Suarez: One last question, maybe the City Attorney ... Does that
exclusion proposed by the Waterfront Board create a problem, that carving out
of certain areas create a legal problem, as far as being able to sustain the
ordinance, if we were disposed to pass it that way?
Mrs. Dougherty: No. I say that because what you have is - you have to have a
rational basis for treating one area differently than another, and I think
there is one which you have is exclusively residential left in the Belle Mead
area.
Mayor Suarez: OK, thank you very much.
Mr. Plummer: So he is saying is, that leave Miami River alone.
Mayor Suarez: Miami River and Little River west of that.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, OK. In other words, leave the Miami River as it is.
Mrs. Marguerite Shearin: Is it my turn yet?
Mayor Suarez: Well, yes, why not?
Mrs. Shearin: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Suarez and Commissioners, my
name is Marguerite Shearin, 1169 Bell Meade Island. My neighbors and I appear
before you tonight to ask that you pass house barge amendment to ordinance
9500 for the second time without further revisions or delays. We need this
law. Without it, we have no protection against further invasion of our area
by house barges, houseboats and other vessels used as a residence. You have
been handed copies of petitions signed by more than 150 residents of our area.
Mayor Suarez: Let me make sure these are in the record. Have you received
the original, Madam City Clerk?
Ms. Hirai: No, sir, but we will be happy to mark those.
Mayor Suarez: I'll give you these as copies.
Ms. Hirai: Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: OK, ordered into the record. Go ahead.
Mrs. Shearin: OK, please note that these signatures are of residents of Bell
Meade, Belle Meade Island, Shore Crest, and merchants on Biscayne Boulevard.
64 March 31, 1987
s� r
These are the people immediately affected by the house barge, houseboat live -
aboard vessel problem, and these are the people who have been working with
your help to correct the problem with legislation. Alt of us want this law,
which will ban house barges, houseboats, other vessels used as a residence
from Little River and Grove Park areas. Grove Park residents are here and
they wish to make their own presentation. We know you have received mail from
opponents of this law, but how many of them are even located in the area in
question? Immediate residents of an area are the ones most affected, not
necessarily the members of new organizations like Floating Homeowners
Association, the Belle Meade Landowners Association, the Live -aboard
Preservation Association - all of which have sprung up like mushrooms. They
are very active, we don't even know who they are. They don't live in our
area. This is the seventh meeting with this Commission on this subject. At
every one of these meetings, every one who wished to speak was allowed to do
so, sometimes at great length. Because we feel that by now everything has
been said, perhaps many times we make our presentations short. Please, pass
PZ-6, 7 and 8 tonight. Give us this law that we need. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Please.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I object.
Mayor Suarez: We are going to hear from everyone. Please don't disrupt, and
keep it to two minutes and as little repetitive as possible. Believe me, we
have heard most of these arguments.
Mr. Norris McElva: My name is Norris McElva, Jr. I have lived at 905 N.W. 15
Avenue, Miami, in Grove Park, which is a single family residential
neighborhood on the Miami River for over 60 years. I am sure that you all
have received a number of these cards, hoping to influence your vote tonight,
but as you well know, you are not considering the Waterfront Board's
compromise. According to the public notice, you are voting on the Little
River Canal Grove Park overlay district. I would also like to call your
attention to the fact, as the previous speaker has done, that there is no
place on these cards for the address of signer. These cards were widely
distributed and there is no way of knowing whether the signers are City of
Miami residents, or property owners, or have legitimate interest in the
overlay districts. Now, for my personal statement on the Little River Canal
Grove Park overlay. I am a member of the Miami River Division of the Marine
Council and I am involved in the marine community, but first and foremost, I
am a property owner in a single family zoned neighborhood and want to keep
that zoning in place and in force. Some property owners in the proposed Grove
Park overlay district have stated to the Commission and in private
conversations that they brought their property with the intention of renting
slips or dockage, or that they need an income from the boats to keep their
property. I cannot imagine anyone buying an expensive piece of property
without first checking the zoning. These property owners are trying to
convert residential property into commercial property. I ask you to vote for
the Little River Canal Grove Park overlay district. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Please. OK, anyone else wish to be heard? We are not taking
them necessarily for or against it, in any particular order, just... yes,
sir, go ahead.
Mr. Arthur Rockland: My name is Arthur Rockland. I am the owner of a
gallery called Island House in downtown Miami, shortly opening a store at
Bayside, and I am opposed to the amendment of the ordinance 9500, also known
as a houseboat, barge ordinance. I believe that it tends to limit the rights
of people to utilize their property, and I believe that it tends to limit the
rights of individuals to chose to live in the styles which they would prefer.
I have just recently come to awareness that this particular amendment was
going to be heard by the City Council, and was told that there were several
basises for its consideration. One was the question of pollution. That is
something that most people that live on the water are very much opposed to,
and there is also according to my understanding, present regulations on the
books it would solve that problem. Another was the question of navigational
hazards. It is my understanding that the people that are using the Miami
River for navigation of large vessels - I'm not sure of the name of the
organization, have come to the conclusion and will state that this does not
constitute a navigational hazard. Moreover, the river has been a working
river for a long time and the amount of live-aboards that have been on the
river for an extended period of time has never seemed to be a navigational
65 March 31, 1987
hazard in the past. The third question is the question of a visual obstacle.
I am not quite sure what that refers to, since I presume that that represents
an obstruction to one's vision of something else. I think ii,6.:.Vxt;6d :ion
that might be closest to what I think is meant, is an "eyesore", and I would
presume, although I am not conversant with the regulations of the City of
Miami, that there are regulations that allow for the proper disposition of
that which constitutes an "eyesore." Now, the last question is a question of
whether or not these vessels are able to move to a safe harbor.
Mayor Suarez: You going to wrap up, please?
Mr. Rockland: Yes, I will... to a safe harbor in case of a hurricane.
History will show that the Miami River is considered to be the safe harbor
that most vessels do go to in the time of hurricane, and I presume canals and
the Little River is also in the same boat, so to speak. Thank you very much.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your presentation.
Ms. Christine Schwartz: My name is Christine Schwartz, I live at 850 N.E. 78
Street. The charge that the Little River is being invaded by houseboats is
ridiculous. I have brought along some City of Miami aerial surveys which
clearly show that in 1969, there were 18 houseboats on the Little River. In
1974, there were 17 houseboats on the Little River. In 1984, there were 15
houseboats on the river, and today in 1987, there are 12 houseboats on the
Little River. To say that this area is being overtaken by houseboats is
absolutely ludicrous. I'd also like... could you show them the photographs,
please. I'd also like to refresh your memory on the absurdity of
creating a special interest district, which would ban houseboats and
live-aboards from behind these kinds of businesses: boat yards, commercial
pile driving operations, bait and tackle shops, auto repair center, a gas
station and a couple of small restaurants. I urge you to vote for the
Waterfront Board's compromise amendment. Thank you.
SEE
Ms. Doba Cauthen: My name is Doba Cauthen, Doba Cauthen, I live at 671 N.E.
77 Street. I have two pictures here I'd like to present into the record.
These were taken just this past weekend. We live just east of Biscayne
NEW
Boulevard. We have a 28 foot pleasure craft. Trying to navigate down the
river is really hazardous. We also can't understand why the Waterfront Board
would advocate a navigational hazard like this. Also, their recommendation is
in complete violation of the zoning laws. Next door to us, which is
supposedly a single family dwelling, we have a single family dwelling and
three houseboats, which makes it a four family dwelling. For them to advocate
something like this is completely • Also, the business district, she just
showed you the pictures there on 79thStreet, most of them, there is only one
business on 79th Street, which backs all the way to the river, and that is
Bassett Boats. The rest of them are on 79 Street, they are not on the river.
Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your presentation.
Ms. Theodora Long: My name is Theodora Long, I am president of the Grove Park
Homeowner's Association. As president of the Grove Park Homeowner's
Association, I urge you to pass unanimously PZ-7, 6, 7 and 8. All Grove Park
Homeowners would like Grove Park to remain a single family residential area.
There are 80 homes in Grove Park. Only 12 homes are on the waterfront. We
organized this homeowner's association five years ago, not recently. We are
trying to preserve our neighborhood. It is one of the historic neighborhoods
in Miami and most of our homes were built in the 19201s. Not to preserve this
neighborhood would be a shame. The governor organized a committee called the
Miami River Coordinating Committee. If the State has an interest in the Miami
River, I think you should as well. It is hard enough to fight crime in our
neighborhoods, never mind trying to fight zoning enforcement. If you, as City
elected officials would like to see the downtown Miami residential
neighborhoods remain nice neighborhoods, I urge you to keep the single family
residential zoning in Grove Park and Belle Meade. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Let me ask you a question. What is a, if you can just sort of
generally give that figure... what is a typical tax bill in your neighborhood
that a normal house pays?
i
No. Long: I think between $1,300 and $1,500, not on the water; about $3,000
to $3,500 on the water.
66 March 31, 1907
Mayor Suarez: Thank you, Theodora. Counselor.
Mr. Michael T. Moore: My name is Michael T. Moore, I am a maritime attorney,
head of the maritime department of the law firm of Holland and Knight. I am
not here today representing any special interest group or any client, but I
have a strong interest in the Miami River per se. I am member of the Miami
Marine Council, the Propeller Club, I'm a member of the Miami River
Coordinating Commission. I am not here in that capacity either.
Mayor Suarez: Two things. Do you want to give us an address for the firm, or
some address?
Mr. Moore: 1200 Brickell Avenue.
Mayor Suarez: And you are not being paid for your appearance here?
Mr. Moore: I am not being paid for appearing here today. I have been asked
by a number of different people representing different sides of this issue to
look at the ordinance and I would submit several things that I think creates
a great deal of confusion in ordinances like this, although generally
speaking, the ordinance per se, as a legal document, it stands as a legal
document, is, from what I can see, a valid presentation, but it does confuse
certain issues, which I would like to address. The first is that to the
extent that it addresses hazards to navigation, that is a federal matter. It
preempts state and local regulations and I would like to see the City of Miami
putting more pressure on federal agencies like the Coast Guard to do their job
to see that the Miami River is free of all hazards to navigation. We need the
Coast Guard on the Miami River, and I think every citizen, and particularly
this Commission, should bring pressure to bear to have them do their job. To
the extent that the ordinance addresses pollution issues, there are at least
three regulatory agencies that address pollution issues. The law in terms of
preemption, the Federal preemption doctrine would be the City of Miami Code,
and it specifically addresses marine pollution issues. I think it confuses
people who read ordinances and hear about them who do not have perhaps the
immediate and direct interest that these people do when they hear that things
Are being regulated that they then are concerned it might affect their
businesses or maritime activities. Then, in conclusion...
Mayor Suarez: You referred to the City of Miami Code. Were you referring to
the City of Miami zoning Code, or another provision having to do with
pollution of the waters?
Mr. Moore: It is another... the City Code, I think it is 5057, is the way it
is set up.
Mayor Suarez: You are suggesting that that should not be in the Code because
that may be preempted?
Mr. Moore: No, I am saying that to the extent that it is in the Code, it
_ should not be in this ordinance. It would be redundant, in other words.
There are...
Mayor Suarez: Well, every ordinance makes reference to every other Code
provision.
Mr. Moore: Well, to the extent that it specifically addresses, in my opinion,
to the extent it talks about pollution, it is redundant, and it should not
become an issue because you have your means, both City, State and Federal to
address that particular problem. To the extent that this is a zoning issue,
and the only aspect that I speak to today specifically is that it does seem to
address the RS-1, RS-2 zoning provisions and there is really nothing more to
be said. If it is a zoning issue, that is the province of the City, and the
City has to act. Other than that, I take note, my position. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you for all the clarifications.
Mr. Richard Briggs: My name is Richard Briggs, I am the executive director of
the Marine Council, whose address is 615 S.W. 2nd Avenue. I am also a
resident of the City of Miami and I live on the Miami River, 1700 N.W. North
River Drive. I am here to reflect a motion that was made by the general
membership of the Marine Council at a meeting held March 26th. These are
67 March 31, 1987
W r
comments related to that. The Marine Council is concerned both for the marine
industry and for members of the boating public. This issue concerns both
groups. Whereas the number of vessels and people affected by this ordinance
may not be large, it is the belief of the council that unfair treatment of any
segment of the marine community, no matter the size, must be objected to by
others who may next be on the receiving end of similar legislation. Among
those affected by this ban would be repair services, towing companies, boat
yards and marine dealers. It is our understanding that the proposed ordinance
is not limited in its scope to the Little River and a portion of the Miami
River, but includes eight other areas having a total of over 100 vessels.
Houseboats have been a normal, integral part of Miami's waterfront since the
City's beginning. We support the position of the Waterfront Board, which
advocates amendments which exclude the Miami River. Further, we understand
that the issue was brought before the City by the Belle Meade Homeowner's
Association.
Mayor Suarez: Which excludes the Miami River, meaning that houseboats would
be allowed on the Miami River?
Mr. Briggs: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: I have to keep asking each time that someone mentions
exclusion, because...
Mr. Briggs: I understand. We understand that this issue was brought up
initially by the Belle Meade Homeowner's Association, and it would be a shame
if a more general solution to their problem affected the large segments of the
whole City and the waterfront. We specifically urge that this ordinance be
tabled pending a further review or a decision to abolish it altogether. On
the environment, a houseboat, house barge, equipped properly for sewage
disposal is not a detriment to the environment, and may have positive
environmental benefits, hulls serving as habitats, and so forth.
Regarding waste water, when the vessels are used as residences, they must have
Coast Guard approved treatment systems. There have recently been appointed
two D.E.R. employees charged with enforcing discharge regulations on the Miami
River. Tests have shown sewage concentration in the river at locations other
than where the houseboats are located. Even if the boats did not comply,
which we wouldn't...
Mayor Suarez: Are you going to wrap up, please?
Mr. Briggs: Yes, sir. The damage from them would be minimal, compared to
other contaminations, such as from runoffs. The vessels are in a hurricane
refuge already, and there is no serious navigation problems brought about by
their existence there. That is the end of my presentation.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your comments.
Mr. Plummer: Sir.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner.
Mr. Plummer: To you, and to others, you are speaking in a lot of realms and
for this one vote, it hasn't been, and it will not be, but to the single
issue, which yet anybody is to address except the proponents. I did not hear
that the Marine Council, of which you represent, spoke to what I think is the
main thrust of this intent - keeping single family residence, single family!
Now, we are well aware that the Federal government regulates the storage and
the holding tanks and the enforcement of keeping the river open, but you are
speaking to everything other than what I think is the key issue. The key
issue, when a person buys a single family residence, is pretty damn clear that
is what it was intended for. It is not intended for multiple family, which is
a different zoning classification and incorporates different regulations and
rules. I am yet to hear one speak to what I consider to be the thrust, so if
anybody wants to change my mind from the first vote, you are going to have to
tell me why I should allow somebody who bought a piece of property very well
knowing single family is what it was zoned for, to be used for more than why
It was purchased. Now, that is where my vote is, and if you or others... I
cannot envision, knowing the members of the Marine Council, that they did not
speak to that issue, because I know the members of those councils and I
guarantee you, if it was in their front yard, they would be up here objecting,
not making resolutions for it, so all I am saying to you and to other
68 March 31, 1987
speakers, if you want to change my vote, you have got to convince me why I
should allow you to have more than a single family on a lot that you bought as
a single family lot. That is all I am saying, thank you.
Mr. Tom Schlauser: My name is Tom Schlauser, I live at 1545 N.W. South River
Drive, and I will try to speak to that issue just a little. If you will
notice this map here, the only, or not the only... these people are single
family homes back here. This is the bulk of the Grove Park Association.
These people are along the river. The red designation are the people who
are... they did a straw poll, I guess, a few months ago, the red people want
the houseboats. "No" people, where you see nothing, no color, they didn't say
one way or another. There are only two people that can see these houseboats
that have said they didn't want them, and I understand one of those votes
didn't understand what he was voting for, I am not certain of that. But, the
only two people alone there in their single family homes that can see the
boats on the river, or come into any contact with them at all, want us there,
so I think that kind of speaks to that issue.
Mr. Plummer: Sir, it still doesn't speak to the issue.
Mr. Schlauser: I know the legal zoning, the legal problem.
Mr. Plummer: The legal zoning says that you buy a parcel, you can have a
single family there, and what you are proposing is to allow two families
there. That is not within the ordinance, sir. Now, two families, is R-2, the
old, whatever the new is, that is duplex.
Mr. Pierce: No, RG-1.
Mr. Plummer: RG-1. A multiple family is an apartment house. I understand
that one of the areas here has three houseboats in front of its house. That
is multiple family, OK? I'm saying to you that a person who bought these
pieces of property, when they bought them...
0
Mr. Schlauser: Yes, but the people that bought them that can see us...
Mr. Plummer: Sir, excuse me. The law says you can have, a one family on a
single family lot. That is what I am addressing. You have not discouraged me
from that. Just because these people did not voice an opinion, is their right
to do such. It is not a poll, it is done by the Planning Department. All I
am saying to you is, that if they had an R-4, or R-5, then you know, we would
_ be looking at it from a different text than we are today. I am looking for
the integrity of the R-1 zoning, OK? That is all I am saying.
Mayor Suarez: Did you want to make that... I don't want to take your time
away. Do you want to complete the presentation?
Mr. Schlauser: There really is no other presentation when he puts it that
way. Of course, I can't speak to that. It is... you make zoning exceptions
though, you are making exceptions either way, so make an exception for this.
Mr. Plummer: Then you might want to change the ordinance, sir, or propose,
change the law.
Mr. Schlauser: Well, all I am proposing is we take the compromise recommended
by the City of Miami Waterfront Board. I think the people on Belle Meade
Island have a point. If it were my home there, I'd...
Mr. Plummer: Your ox is not gored. You don't live in Belle Meade.
Mr. Schlauser: You've got it.
Ms. Jaqueline Dozier: Good evening. My name is Jaqueline Dozier, I live at
990 N.E. 78 Street. Mr. Plummer, I'd like to address you, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, Ma'am, you have many times.
Ms. Dozier: And I will continue to if I have to, or if it is my pleasure to.
On the Little River, the houseboats that are docked on the section of the
river that you showed earlier, which is east of the designated portion that
the Waterfront Board members proposed, all of the houseboats that are docked
to the right of that red area, from there on, are on single family,
69 March 31, 1987
g
residentially zoned properties and there are no houses on the properties.
There are one families within the...
Mr. Pierce: Ms. Dozier, let me correct you now for factual.
Ms. Dozier: Sir.
Mr. Pierce: Your next door neighbor, I believe we have cited, to the west of
you...
Ms. Dozier: There is no houseboat on her property.
Mr. Pierce: Is it next to it?
Ms. Dozier: There is no houseboat on Ruby Burnell's property.
Mr. Pierce: Whose property is the Hayes houseboat on?
Ms. Dozier: Mr. Hayes' houseboat is on his own vacant lot.
Mr. Pierce: OK.
Ms. Dozier: So I would like to bring that to your attention. I think it is
very critical. These are single family lots, and they have single families
living on them at this moment, and it is a serious problem. We haven't made
plans to build or develop or bring in more boats. What are we being accused
of over there? Why do the boats want to be driven out of that particular
area, where they have always been on vacant lots? The lots are still vacant,
what is the problem? I don't understand. And I also understand that if you
have a house on your property, you are allowed two pleasure crafts and I don't
understand where the problem is in Grove Park with that.
Mr. Plummer: But not to live on. You can dock them, but you can't live on
them.
Ms. Dozier: That is true. Are you going to go down there, Mr. Plummer, and
prove whether there are people living on them or not? I think that needs to
be done. Code Enforcement has not done their job.
Mr. Plummer: I disagree with that.
Ms. Dozier: Suddenly, you are creating a problem that Code Enforcement should
have taken care of a long time ago, and it is not our problem, it is the
City's problem, and I'd like to see it addressed, and before me here, I have
affidavits which I would like to submit to the Clerk from property owners on
the waterfront everywhere in Miami, and property owners even not on the
waterfront, who are concerned and would like to see these boats, live -aboard
boats of every kind remain in the City of Miami. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your presentation. Please, please, please,
please! Order, have the affidavits entered into the record.
Mr. Dawkins: May commend you, you are much better than the first time you
appeared here. OK, good.
Mr. Plummer: She gets better with age.
Mayor Suarez: All right, let's year Hugh, and the second time he appears
today.
Mr. Hugh Padrick: The issue that Mr. Plummer is bringing up is addressed by
the Waterfront Board. Hugh Padrick, vice-chairman of the City of Miami
Waterfront Board.
Mayor Suarez: He is here in a dual capacity, because he also heads our
Waterfront Board.
Mr. Padrick: I'm still speaking as the vice-chairman of the Waterfront Board.
Mayor Suarez: Vice-chairman.
t
"�o
Mr. Padrick: On the issue of the RS-1 and RS-21 in our Waterfront Board
proposal. compromise proposal to the City, we address by language that says:
"No pleasure craft or houseboat shall be occupied as an assessory use as
dwelling or lodging at any canal, or on any adjacent property that are zoned
RS-1 and RS-2. OK, that is then the City of Miami Waterfront Board's proposal
to you.
_ Mr. William Stafford: I am William Stafford, I live at 1275 N.E. 79 Street
here in the City of Miami. Those of us who oppose this ordinance amending the
ordinance number 9500, have submitted, or offered to submit considerable
authoritative documentation arguing against the objective reasons outlined in
the intent of the proposed ordinance. Nowhere in that intent was the primary
purpose of preserving the integrity of RS-1 and RS-2 stated. It might have
been implied, it was not clearly stated.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, sir, I said that "my" intent. I was speaking for
myself as an individual.
Mr. Stafford: OK, well, we are addressing the ordinance and it is very
_ difficult to come here and be prepared to address something that might be in
somebody's mind. Specifically, the environment, as to the waterways and other
discharge, navigability on the waterways, danger during hurricanes, in
addition to what you have already seen here, or in the past you have
received - I am referring to section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act amendment of 1972, mandated the requirement from marine sanitation
_ devices, to prevent the discharge of inadequately treated sewage into, or upon
the navigable waters of the United States. Enforcement of the regulations and
certification of the devices is a responsibility of the United States Coast
Guard. I have a certified marine sanitation device on my boat, as do my
friends and acquaintances who are also live-aboards. May I present to you a
copy of two articles that appeared in the December 8, 1986 issue of the
Florida Shippers magazine. One article reports in an action by the Governor's
Miami River Coordinating Committee, they voted to contact the State and local
environmental regulating agencies, asking them to take into account the
positive environmental impact of docks, pilings, boats, floating docks, and
houseboats, stating that all provide a clean substrate which marine life can
attach to, thus filtering the river water and supplying food for the food
chain. The second article in that same...
Mayor Suarez: We can take note of any articles just by putting it into the
record, so if you will just paraphrase it, quickly, please, and wrap up.
Mr. Stafford: OK, you have it. I'd like to submit to you a copy of a letter
from Anthony Clemente, the director of the Department of Environmental
Resource Management, responding to a letter from one of the houseboat owners,
sharing her hope that her granddaughter will have a chance to live in a
houseboat in the future. Also, for your convenient recall, let me give you a
copy of the inner -office memorandum dated February, 1986 from Mr. Odio to you,
Mr. Mayor, recommending no change be made in the present procedures and
regulations and further pointing out that the houseboats are a viable source
of housing. Objective reasoning can be objectively argued both pro and con.
The statement, quote: "These vessels represent a visual obstacle on the
waterways, and a visual intrusion which interferes with the tranquility
otherwise enjoyed by adjacent residential properties." Classic subjective
reasoning. A visual obstacle is to one, is a work of art to another, and a
visual intrusion to one is a tasteful attraction to another. "Beauty is in
the eyes of the beholder", not an original statement, but true and apropos.
In his letter of November 30, 1986, Mr. Ralph Owens said it well: "The right
of one individual to see on forever certainly should not extend so far as to
deprive another of his right to look back." That a visual intrusion can
interfere with one's tranquility, subjective as one can get. People are
agitated by all sorts of different things, situations or events. If live -
aboard people were nefarious, rowdy, rogues, I could accept the tranquility
concept. I suggest to you that live -aboard people are hard working family
types, responsible taxpaying citizens, who care about and for their property,
their neighbors, the community and the environment. They are first class
citizens with second class status. The historical character on the waterways
included live -aboard boats of various designs long before the bulk of the
waterfront development ever took place. The aerial photographs has
substantiated that. The distinctive relationship of live -aboard boats to
adjacent properties is a historical fact in the City of Miami. If the unique
character and use of the waterways has valid historic significance, live -
&boards of all types would be encouraged. If an ordinance... forget that.
71 March 31, 1987
MAvnr Sttaro7: Are vnt+ sure you are wrapping up, here?
Mr. Stafford: Just one other thing. May I present also, a copy of a card
opposing the change of this ordinance, signed by Senator Carrie Meeks. Well
documented and factual data had been submitted to fully dissipate the
objective reasons listed to justify the proposed ordinance. The purpose of
zoning is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and the
community in its entirety. It should not be the vehicle to pander to special
interests of an obviously influential few. I urge you to cast your vote
against the ordinance, with prejudice, dismissing this onerous matter once and
for all.
Mayor Suarez: Please! Let me just ask you a question before I introduce this
letter into the record. Are you absolutely sure this was signed by Senator
Carrie Meek? ... because I think her name is misspelled.
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Suarez: No, it isn't. It is very, very important, if you introduce
something into the record, that it be signed by the person that supposedly
signs it and it doesn't look like a signature, it looks like the printing of a
name, so before you tell us that a State Senator is endorsing a concept, we
have to be absolutely sure that she in fact is, and if her name is misspelled,
mostly likely she did not sign it. It is not a cheap shot. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Roger Kent Snyder: My name is Roger Kent Snyder. I am the executive
director of the Miami River Business Association, 3218 N.W. North River Drive.
Speaking as a representative of the M.R.B.A., I should like to express our
opposition to the amendment to ordinance 9500. Many of our members are major
ocean shippers from the river. We have had no problems caused by the live-
aboards, be they houseboats or otherwise, interfering with our shipping or
terminal operations. Past history has shown that Little River and the Miami
River, as well as canals and waterways are safe harbor for all boats during a
hurricane threat. We urge the Commission to use the Waterfront Board's
recommendations as a basis for any ordinance. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Plummer: Sir, what was your business address?
Mr. Snyder: 3218 N.W. North River Drive.
Mr. Plummer: That's out of the City. That's in the County.
Mr. Snyder: In the County.
Mr. Plummer: Yeah. That's what I thought.
Mr. Snyder: We traverse the river, the whole length, through the City.
Mr. Plummer: Yeah, but you don't own property in the City.
Mr. Snyder: I don't own any property anywhere on the river, but our members
do. We have one hundred businesses who own property in the City segment of
the river.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you. Ma'am?
Mrs. Miriam Hutson: My name is Miriam Hutson. I live at 1650 N.W. 9th
Street, Miami, in Grove Park. I've lived there since 1949. I'm married to a
native Miamian who was born on N.E. 17th Street sixty-five years ago. All I'm
asking you is that I have made a stand to stay in Grove Park. I'm not going
to leave Miami, no one's going to run me out of Miami. I would like to go out
of that same house, feet first, in other words, I intend, I would like to tell
you just a few things. I'm not going to...
Mr. Plummer: She's talking to the right man here.
72 March 31, 1987
Mrs. Hutson: OK, Mr. Plummer. I may sound silly, but this comes from my
heart. I.zst f ' :::. :hose years, I don't, I understand the
people needing a home, it's just that when you have a single family residence
and it was that way and someone else comes in and buys in later years, it's
hard for you to understand how they then think that everyone should agree to
their breaking the zone. Just a few things that have gone on there -- I have
four children that lived in that house and graduated from Miami Senior High
School. In front of that same house, my son returned from Vietnam as an Army
helicopter pilot, having won the Distinguished Flying Cross, stood in the
middle of that street and said, "I don't believe it, I don't believe it." He
couldn't believe he was home. I lived through three years of an expressway
going directly through our neighborhood; I did not move, I learned to dance a
jig to pilings being driven in the ground. I used to pretend at night as I
looked through the moon shining through there that I was at the Stonehenge in
England or ancient Greece. And when the Cuban influx came in, in 1960, I said
to my children, you must be tolerant of the newcomers, and two of them took me
so literally that they married them. (LAUGHTER) When you are in a
neighborhood...
Mayor Suarez: Very tolerant, very tolerant...
Mrs. Hutson: Now I understand Mayor Suarez, since my son's wife was born in
Cuba and she came over when she was eight years old, that my three
grandchildren from them are now Hispanics -- from that new demographic thing.
I also go to church in Miami, the City of Miami. I shop in Miami, I go to
church on Biscayne Boulevard. When you are in a neighborhood, what affects
one neighbor affects all neighbors. And I am so happy to find that I am that
affluent; I'm fortunate and I'm not hungry or anything like that, but for
someone to use that as a reason that since 1949 and when your husband was born
in Miami sixty-five years ago, and you came to this City and you gave it the
same love that you gave to your hometown in South Carolina. So please let me
stay...
Mayor Suarez: Address the Commission please.
Mrs. Hutson: No, I mean I'm sorry, but I mean it was such a blow to me -- I
don't think she understands how we feel and so please, I want to stay there...
Mayor Suarez: It happens a lot of time when you have two different opinions
Mr. Dawkins: Points of view...
Mayor Suarez: ... Yeah, points of view.
Mrs. Hutson: I want to stay there, I want to stay there, we're single family.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your statement.
Mr. Scott Parsons: My name is Scott Parsons. I own the houseboat at 1545
N.W. South River Drive. I'd like to speak to your point, Mr. Plummer. A few
years back, one of the owners on that Grove Isle strip was cited for having
houseboats docked on her property. She went to a judge and the judge found in
her favor, stating that the single family dwellings stopped at the buikhead
line and the houseboats were in the River and that was the essence of the
decision. Now, I can get you a copy of all that, and send it to you.
Mr. Plummer: They're not to me. You know, the zoning either applies or it
doesn't. It's just that simple.
Mr. Parsons: Well, a few years back, this particular zoning was found in
fault.
Mr. Plummer: You could be right sir.
Mayor Suarez: We'd like for you to send that to the City Attorney. OK, we're
almost finished.
Mr. Borg Chair: My name is Borg Chair. I own property at 645 N.B. 77th,
which is zoned and has a multifamily building on it. We have two docks in
back of it which front on the Little River. I think this addresses Mr.
Plummer's point about a single family residence with a houseboat. We have a
73 March 31, 1987
s
6
multifamily property there with a houseboat. We've never had any problem with
them. I'm also a fne.nhsr If +h^ m0r:••^ ^• T'm also past president of the
chamber of the 79th and Biscayne Businessmens' Association and a consensus of
the members of their association, contrary to the speaker from Belle Meade
Island, are not against the houseboat owners, but are for them and very
simply, in your ordinance there are two places where they address the property
east of Biscayne and that encompasses property that is zoned commercial as
well as multifamily, as well as the single family homes. And I think that
addresses the part that you were arguing on. And for that reason, I think that
it should be repealed.
Mayor Suarez: You are going to give us the civic leagues? Get a little
closer to the, bring the mike a little closer to you. Name and address, and
if you represent, the Civic League in this matter.
Mr. Bob Worsham: Bob Worsham, President, Miami Civic League. I won't repeat
some of the other things here in the interest of time, but I'd like to bring
you up to say that we represent Allapattah, Bayside, Bay Point, Belle Meade,
Brentwood, Buena Vista, Morningside, Grove Park, Biltmore, Spring Gardens...
Mr. Plummer: How can you represent Bayside?
Mr. Worsham: They belong.
Mr. Plummer: Are you speaking about Bayside? - the thing that's...
Mr. Worsham: Not your downtown Bayside, I'm sorry.
Mr. Plummer: Not the downtown?
Mr. Worsham: No.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, there's another section known as Bayside?
Mr. Worsham: That's correct, northeast. United Tenants Council, Tiger Tail
Association, Miami Design District, Road Civic Association, Coconut Grove
Tenant Civic Association. We have been growing, not with a lot of effort, but
you've helped us with some of the dismay with zoning. So, to keep from
repeating a lot of this, I didn't say that all of these associations voted to
support this. We have new ones that have not had an opportunity to vote for
that. The majority of them did and they support Grove Park. They support
Belle Meade Island, Marguerite Shearin, Theo Long said what we want to say, "I
helped start Grove Park Homeowners Association. I feel very much the way they
do. Commissioner Plummer said it exactly as we feel and we appreciate that."
My office address is 7560 N.W. 82nd Street. I don't live in Miami; I don't
get paid for this, but I enjoy doing it. Thank you very much.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your statement, Bob. Now I remember you.
Mrs. Kennedy: You're the gentleman who gave us the money or offered us the
money.
Mr. William Smatt: Oh, yes. Well, let me remind you who I am. I'm William
Smatt. I live at 679 N.E. 77th Street. Mr. Plummer?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir.
Mr. Smatt: I want to ask you a question.
Mr. Plummer: If you wait one minute, I'll come back and try to answer it for
you.
Mr. Smatt: That's fine. In the meantime...
Mayor Suarez: Yes, that's what we're hoping you would say.
Mr. Smatt: I would like to say this. There are people that's living in
houseboats wherever it might be. You all are representatives of all the
people, not some of the people, all of the people. You are not here to pass
judgment on a minority group of people and put them out of their house in the
streets without offering compensation. If you're going to remove them from
where they are, then you should offer them compensation for the loss of their
74 March 31, 1987
homes, so that they may relocate somewhere else. And what about the boat, the
property owners that has leased waterfront property to houseboat owners. Are
you going to compensate them for that lease, or are you just going to waive a
wand and say, "Get out, all of you remove," because you have the power. You
are elected to at least appear to execute justice, not injustice. And you,
Mr. Plummer...
Mr. Plummer: Your question, sir.
Mr. Smatt: I want to ask you, you said one house per lot...
Mr. Plummer: That's what the ordinance says, sir.
Mr. Smatt: Yes, I agree. Let me ask you -- if you had four lots with one
house, would you be entitled to allow people with houseboats to dock at your
property?
Mr. Plummer: The answer, as live-aboards, no sir.
Mr. Smatt: Well live-aboards are houseboats.
Mr. Plummer: The answer's no sir.
Mr. Smatt: No. So, you are prejudiced?
Mr. Plummer: No, sir.
Mr. Smatt: Yes you are, sir. You are prejudiced.
INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mayor Suarez: Please, please.
Mr. Plummer: Sir, do you want an answer or do you want an argument?
Mr. Smatt: I'm not going to argue with you.
Mr. Plummer: You're arguing, sir.
Mr. Smatt: You got the power.
Mayor Suarez: But you asked him a question. Let the Commissioner answer.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me sir, no, let me do better than that. Would you read
Article Nine for this gentleman so he'll know that it's not J.L. Plummer, but
the law that is speaking.
Mr. Walter Pierce: It is not J.L. Plummer. This comes from the schedule of
district regulations which is part of zoning ordinance 9500, Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance, City of Miami. Specifically, Number Nine, under
"Permissible Only by Special Permit," in its entirety, reads:
"Occupancy of private pleasure craft and living quarters, shall be permissible
as a principle use in RS-1 or RS-2 districts, only by special exception, and
only in connection with vacant lots with occupancy for living quarters
construed to constitute one family occupancy of a lot, only one such occupancy
of a private pleasure craft shall be permitted per vacant lot. Moorage, or
dockage of additional major private vacant pleasure craft not used as living
quarters, shall be limited to one per vacant lot.
Mr. Plummer: Now, sir, let me answer if I may. You are absolutely right. We
are sitting here as elected officials to look out for all of the people, but
we also take an oath, sir, to uphold the law. The law is clear. A single
family on a single family lot -- that is the law and we take an oath to uphold
the law. Amen.
Mr. Smatt: Yes. I know you propose to change that ordinance. That's what
you're here for tonight
Mr. Plummer: No, sir, that is the law now.
Mr. Smatt: No, you change it. May I ask a question please? How many people -
here will support the boat owners? ^. t , . rI- .•• • • �� -� owners?
You have the majority of the people here who voted for you. I think that the people,
Mr. Smatt: Good God, where are they? No's.
Mr. Carollo: OK, how many are innocent bystanders here? There you go. OK,
now everybody feels at home.
Mr. Smatt: Yes, but here are the majority of the people here who wishes to
support the houseboat owners. And that's what you are the representative of
the majority of the people. So we hope...
Mayor Suarez: Well, I'm not sure that the majority of the people here, No. 1,
and of course we're not the representatives of the people that are necessarily
here at any one time.
Mrs. Kennedy: Right. Perhaps many of them...
Mayor Suarez: So please wrap up your arguments.
Mr. Smatt: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: We heard from you before, remember. It was quite lively.
Mr. Smatt: All right. Now, please take into consideration, putting the
people in the streets, off of their homes and compensation for both boat
owners and property owners. Then you may go through and pass a law. Thank
you.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you. Last statement and we...
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Greg Adams: Good evening, my name is Greg Adams. I live at 701 N.E. 81st
Street. I'm President of the Shore Crest Homeowners Association and we join
our neighbors to the south in urging you to pass this ordinance. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Martin Siskin: Mr. Mayor, I didn't come here to speak tonight, I was
going to look and see what was happening, and everything was going fine and
the hostility level seemed to be a lot lower than it has been in the other
meetings I've been to.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Please say your name.
Mr. Martin Siskin: My name is Martin Siskin.
Mayor Suarez: Address please, business or whatever.
Mr. Siskin: Well, I live in London at the moment, but I'll be moving to
Coconut Grove by June 15th.
Mayor Suarez: Smart decision. Go ahead.
Mr. Siskin: I almost moved to Belle Meade as you know. In any case, let me
first address this law situation that Mr. Plummer mentioned. Then I'll get on
to my point. My point's very simple. As far as the law goes, the late Martin
Luther King said it better than I could ever say it. "I ask that no new laws
be written, I ask that the laws that are already written be read." And, I
think, after listening to everybody talking about all these laws -- the
Federal laws, State laws, City law -- you've got enough laws to enforce
houseboats. You certainly have enough laws to enforce the taxes because if
you can't do it, the Inland Revenue will come or the Internal Revenue, as you
call it here, sorry, will come and collect the taxes. If a guy has three
houseboats, six houseboats...
Mayor Suarez: Not the taxes we collect, but go ahead.
76 !larch 31. 1987
Mr. Siskin: Whatever, I mean the taxes are a different law, different
problem. The problem that I want to address neu. Lb bi►uj).Lt. The greatest
cities in this world -- London, Paris -- have rivers. The have waterways,
they have a left bank, a right bank. Miami should use Biscayne Bay as its
left bank, as its right bank. It belongs to all the people, including people
that just come here on a holiday, drive down Biscayne Boulevard and now when
they look to the right (which we can call the right bank for the moment)
they're going to see a car parked there and they're going to see Bayside there
and I hope it works. But, you have an area - Second Avenue, Third Avenue,
behind Biscayne Boulevard, which could have been developed as the covered
garden of Florida. Covered garden is in London, not on any waterfront,
because the waterfront belongs to all the people, but on the waterfront in
London as on the Seine in Paris, you have houseboats that must abide by the
laws. Now, if you have laws, and you want houseboats there or you want them
there, and if you go to London, right by Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament,
you have hundreds of houseboats living on the Thames River. There was an
article on CNN, did a documentary, fairly recently. There could be a video,
you could get a copy of it and see the harmony that the Houses of Parliament
have with people living on the water. The greatest asset that Miami has and
Dade County and the State of Florida and the United States, are these
magnificent waterways which has brought me back to Florida after sixteen years
living in Europe. To see any more development is just completely crazy on the
waterways. There's room that could be... There's a new word, I'll introduce
it tonight -- revelop. Revelop Second Avenue, Third Avenue. Go toward I-95.
- But leave the waterway so everybody could see it. Otherwise, you'll have
another Miami Beach where people don't even know there's an ocean there. Now
that's all I want to say.
(APPLAUSE)
Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your statement please. Last statement.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: OK, that's it.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor...
Mayor Suarez: Yes, Commissioner...
Mr. Dawkins: I make a motion that we uphold the recommendation of the
administration.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Mr. Plummer: When you say the administration, Item 6 as presented?
Mr. Dawkins: As presented.
INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, are you going to allow more speakers?
Mayor Suarez: We're in danger of losing quorum. Counselor, do you want to
make a quick statement?
Mark Trop: Yeah, I just would like to conclude I suppose. I'd like to thank
the City.
Mr. Carollo: We know it already.
Mayor Suarez: Go ahead and state your name for the record, address please,
counsellor. Ma'am, please.
Mark Trop: 901 N.E 2nd Avenue, but I also am teaching at St. Thomas School.
And I really feel...
Mayor Suarez: What is your name?
Mr. Trop: Mark Trop ...that the law which you're proposing isn't going to
lead us where you want us, where you want to lead us, so I want to be able to
say to people that I was sitting around thinking about the issue and I was on
77 March 31, 1987
LJ
a houseboat and a big Cigarette boat drove by, you know roaring, grumbling,
and I thought to myself, what are you trying to protect hare nr?%".-«y,
Cigarette boats, what? So, what I'm trying to get across to the City
Commission's minds are, you got to ask yourself, should the law be passed?
You know, it seems to me as though we reach the stage where everybody more or
less would be able to admit that a bad law was passed at the beginning and
then it was revised. And, consequently you know, when mistakes are made, you
just have to, at some point I think, suggest to yourself that a mistake was
made with this law and then say, should it be passed. Because, you know, you
kind of do something dumb and then you see it's dumb and then you dig in and
take a position or do you admit that it's wrong? The question here what I'm
trying to suggest is that what you're talking about protecting residences is
not equal.
Mr. Plummer: Are you speaking for or against, I haven't figured it out yet.
(BACKGROUND LAUGHTER)
Mr. Trop: What I'm suggesting is that I'm speaking for the people and I'm
speaking for homeowners, but I'm not speaking for the ones who live on land.
I'm speaking generally.
Mr. Plummer: But you haven't spoke to what we've got before us yet this
evening.
Mr. Trop: Because I don't' know anymore, that's why I wanted to conclude.
I'm so confused at this point.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, you're sure of that?
Mr. Trop: Absolutely. So what I'm saying with this is, if
Mr. Plummer: Is somebody paying you to be here tonight?
(LAUGHTER)
Mr. Trop: Well, you don't think I'd get up here like this if that was not the
case. So, what I'm saying is, and it hasn't been said yet, it's pretty
obvious...
Mr. Trop: Did you pay him to be here, sir?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Paid? Yeah.
Mr. Trop: I don't know this gentleman. So, what I'm saying is...
Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute. He jusi said he paid you to be here.
Mr. Trop: Well, he didn't pay me enough I'm sure of that.
(BACKGROUND LAUGHTER)
Mr. Trop: So, what I'm saying is, so...
Mr. Plummer: I might argue that point.
Mr. Trop: Anyway, the point that I'm desperately trying to make clear here is
that if you look at the statute...
Mr. Plummer: We had people speaking for and against and now we got one in the
middle of them.
Mr. Trop: ... it's been revised, it says pretty much what it said before
except it's silly again because it talks about historic justification for land
dwellers. So, while you've been able to accumulate a new cogent position, the
fact of the matter is that historically houseboats were here before and now
that the houseboats are finally provinss to be a problem for the natural
development of the City, what I'm thinking is we're asking you to say no to
throwing out the houseboats, which is the effect of this legislation. And the
finally point which I want to make is that it's quite immoral if, from the
sense of these people who live in houses are going to end up out of their
houses because of this law which is supposed to be protecting family
78 March 31, 1987'
residences. And, therefore, when you talk about property and you talk about
law, it's not troubling at all except we would further add that it should b¢
equal and since it's not equal, we would ask you at this point to instead of
passing it, do what you did once before. Send it back because it is still
just intolerable.
Mr. Plummer: What is it you teach at the University?
Mr. Trop: Human freedom and dignity.
Mr. Plummer: Human freedom and dignity?
Mr. Trop: And Advanced Calculus sometimes, but... the point is, the point is,
which, in the case, what I'm trying to say is, see, so far, has anybody really
said anything which shakes anybody ? We don't think so, see. So, what we're
trying to...
Mrs. Kennedy: Mark, Mark, don't pay any attention to you, he just want to
bury you.
Mr. Trop: He's my best friend. I find that man stimulating.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What Mark Trop is trying to say is he wants this City
Commission, this one, in 1987, to be the Commission that actually took a stand
and looked at the entire problem of Miami and it's surrounding areas and look
at it on a long-term basis.
Mayor Suarez: Sir, we've been doing that for many months and you really out
of turn, I mean I appreciate your trying to paraphrase for counsel.
e Mr. Dawkins: I have to apologize to everyone. I have to go to a funeral to
represent the City Commission, so I'll be leaving and I don't want to cut
anyone short for presenting their case, but my position has not changed from
the first time I voted, so, thank you.
Mr. Trop: Well, OK, we thank you for your attention.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you counsellor. Last statement, quick.
Mr. Bill Bonner: My name is Bill Bonner and I'm a resident of the City of
Miami. I'm a live -aboard not a houseboat, a live -aboard, because I want to
be, not because I have to be...
Mayor Suarez: Can you give us an address, business address, P.O. box...
Mr. Bonner: 2490 N.W. 18th Terrace, on the River, and most of the people I
know live aboard not because they have to, because they want to. They've had
houses and trailers and they're fed up with all that jazz and they want to
live on, they want to be live-aboards, on boats or... Is there, I'm asking
Commissioner Plummer, is there a law on the books right now, that if it was
enforced, even partially, could take care of Belle Meade Island's problem? Is
there one already?
Mr. Plummer: Partially, yes. (inaudible comments )
Mr. Bonner: Could you explain that?
Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry, partially yes, wholly no. The book right now is not
clear and that's what I think we're trying to do.
Mr. Bonner: Couldn't that law be...
Mr. Plummer: Well, let the City Attorney answer it.
Mrs. Dougherty: The answer is, you can live aboard a private pleasure craft
on a vacant lot if you get a special permit. What the City Commission is
doing by this legislation is prohibiting the issuance of any special permits
and prohibiting live-aboards in these areas.
Mr. Plummer: In those designated areas.
Mr. Bonner: Is there a law now on the, you said, there's empty lot...
79 !larch 31, 1907
Mrs.
Dougherty: No, you can't do it, you can do it...
Mr.
Bonner: Is there a law now that, if enforced, could take care of
Belle
Meade
Island's complaint without going into this other thing that might affect
other
people?
Mrs.
Dougherty: The answer is no because they could come in and ask
for a
special
permit and that's what the City Commission wants to avoid. They
don't
want
the live-aboards to be able to come in and ask for a permit.
Mr.
Plummer: Are there any permits issued at all?
Mrs.
Dougherty: Just one.
Mr.
Bonner: I'm not talking about live-aboards, I'm talking about Belle
Meade
Island's
problem.
Mr.
Plummer: Huh, are there any permits ever been issued in the City?
Mrs.
Dougherty: I am talking about in that designated area as well.
Mr.
Bonner: I don't understand. Is there a law on the books now, right
now?
Mr.
Plummer: Sir, there is a law on the books now that says that you can have
live-aboards if you apply for and receive a special permit.
Mr.
Bonner: Is there a law that says you can't have live-aboards?
Mr.
Plummer: Is you don't receive the permit, you can't live aboard.
Mr.
Bonner: Now, who give the permits out? Couldn't they just...
Mr.
Plummer: The City of Miami under the present law.
Mr.
Bonner: Couldn't they just refuse the permits?
Mr.
Plummer: They could refuse it, yes sir.
Mr.
Bonner: Oh, that would take care of Belle Meade Island's problems.
Mr. Plummer: But very, very, excuse me sir, I would venture to say that if
there was a survey taken that most likely and I'll stand corrected, that 75
to 80 percent of the people who presently live aboard have never applied for,
yes or no, to get the permit. OK. Now, I might be off 5 percent or 10
percent...
Mr. Bonner: Then what happens to those people? They're violating the law.
Mr. Plummer: They presently are violating the law, yes sir.
Mr. Bonner: Now, couldn't they be put in jail or something up at Belle Meade
Island?
Mr. Plummer: Well, I sure don't want to go to that extent, sir.
Mr. Bonner: No, I mean, that would take care of...
Mr. Plummer: The answer is, can they be moved, the answer is yes, sir.
Mr. Bonner: Then why do we need another law?
Mr. Plummer: Because, what we are addressing here is the integrity of single
family residents.
Mr. Bonner: But, that could be enforced and taken care of then as it is now,
right? That's right, isn't it?
Mr. Plummer: Yeah, they could ask for a permit now.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's right, Mr. Plummer, and if you were giving
permits right now, people would be getting permits.
80 March 31, 1987
t APPT,AUSE )
Mr. Bonner: Then what are we here for, what are we here for is there is a law
on the books that says you can't do a certain thing. Then go to Belle Meade
Island and...
Mr. Plummer: Well, what we're here for to answer your question, sir, is a
petition of the people of Belle Meade and Grove Park to make a law that says
that there is no permit to apply for. That is what the original inception
came to this Commission was from the Belle Meade and Grove Park homeowners,
who said, "City Commission, we would like to see a law that, in fact, does not
even apply, does not even allow them to apply for a permit." And that's the
process that we've been going through, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's discrimination.
Mr. Bonner: This is Belle Meade Island's fault for not knowing there was a
law on the books that takes care of their problem in the first place. They
don't need this new thing. All they got to do is to file a complaint and get,
this is true now, isn't it? City Attorney?
Mayor Suarez: Sir, go ahead and complete your remarks. We've...
Mr. Bonner: no, I'm trying to...
Mayor Suarez: ...asked and answered many of these questions over and over
again. Just go ahead and...
Mr. Bonner: Yeah, but I'm getting double-talk and not an answer.
Mayor Suarez: Well...
Mr. Bonner: Is, could Belle Meade Island's problem be solved with the law
already on the books?
Mayor Suarez: We have before us, we have considered all kinds of different
alternatives, including one that would only do this for Belle Meade Island.
So far, the Commission has not chosen to support that alternative.
Mr. Bonner: Then the Commission is allowing a breach of the law...
Mayor Suarez: Well, that's your opinion, sir.
Mr. Bonner: And he says, oh, no, no, it's on the law books
Mr. Plummer: He happens to be right there; we've not enforced it.
Mr. Bonner: ... right now that they can't do that, right? It's on the law
books they can't do that. You say they can have this if they have an empty
lot. Is it on the law books that says they can't have that? Does it, usually
laws say you can't do this or you can't do that. Does it say any place that
you can't have that on a residential, single-family residential...
Mrs. Kennedy: Let me address that one second also. I think that you're
right, you're right in part...
Mr. Bonner: Because if it is there...
Mayor Suarez: Please, please, air. Go ahead Commissioner.
Mrs. Kennedy: The City is at fault because we never enforced the ordinance.
Mr. Bonner: Now, couldn't you do it now?
Mrs. Kennedy: Now, my concern and I think that the ethical question that we
have to ask ourselves, should this ordinance pass, is what are we going to do
with the houseboat owners and how much time are we going to give them and
should this ordinance pass, Madam City Attorney, I think that this is
something that we should address.
`t.— "-nnedy: Right, how long before it ... thirty days?
Mrs. Dougherty: You can specify when you'd want it to take effect. It takes
effect automatically within thirty days unless you specify a longer period of
time.
Mr. Bonner: Now, are you talking about the new law or the old one?
Mayor Suarez: The new law would...
Mrs. Dougherty: You should know that anybody that already has a permit is
going to be able to stay.
Mayor Suarez: She's telling you the new law would take effect thirty days
after the second reading, if there was a second reading today, unless we
specify a longer period of time.
Mr. Bonner: I'm saying, is there a necessity for the new law?
Mayor Suarez: That's what we've been arguing about, sir, for seven different
meetings now. Thank you for your comments. Go ahead, finish up please.
Mr. Fremont: My name is Fremont. I live aboard a sailboat at 2021 N.W. 14th
Street, which is on the Miami River. For Mr. Plummer, I would say that I am
on what is called a double lot. There is one residence on two lots and we are
on the vacant lot. None of us here have seen the actual wording of the
proposed ordinance as it's been changed, Mr. Plummer. I did see the earlier
one but there were no copies here when we came this evening. My own
background in this is that I went to high school here at Miami Edison. I
graduated from the University of Miami. I raised three children here. I was
in business here for thirty years and I am retired and I live aboard an
expensive sailboat by choice. I am a member of the Miami Yacht Club, a member
of the Seven Seas Cruising Association. I am not a newcomer to boating, nor
do I live on a boat simply for convenience and cheapness. The problem is, I
see, this - and there have been many people who've addressed the Commission
tonight who are not waterfront residents who simply live in a general
neighborhood near the water. The zoning R-1 has to do with the property
itself, not the adjacent property thereto, which may or may not be water. I
don't think there would be any argument about whether there should or should
not be two residences upon the property itself. The question that I am
addressing here is: is "waterfront" considered the same as "property"? Nobody
has said anything about the riparian rights of the property owners and how far
out that extends. In other words, if a boat happened to be docked 100 feet
away from the waterfront of an R-1 piece of property, would it be, Ms.
Attorney - is there legislation covering this?
Mr. Plummer: (off mike) If a boat were docked 100 feet from the property
line. Is there legislation covering that?
Mr. Fremont: We live on the Miami River and I point out that there is only
one marina on the Miami River that has live-aboards in it, a recognized
marina, that's Hardie's, and they do not take any new live-aboards in there.
There are a good number of us who live on the Miami River and, without
exception, we live at R-1 and R-2 zoning lots. All commercial property on the
Miami River is used by major shipping or by boatyards, which do not have live-
aboards. It's going to create a real problem for those of us who are
responsible people who live on boats. If you make this ordinance pass, the
only places we'll be able to legally live aboard would be at Dinner Key or the
new marina on Miami Beach. Currently, there is an ordinance that I cannot
anchor my boat in front of my yacht club. I cannot anchor it there for ten
minutes. I cannot anchor my boat in the Marine Stadium, even when it's not in
use for events there. I'm not allowed to legally anchor anywhere in the City
of Miami, nor is any other visiting yacht. There is only one legal anchorage
in the City of Miami and that's off Coconut Grove. So I submit to you that
this ordinance you are wanting to pass here is going to create a real hardship
in the so-called boating capital - certainly of the east coast of the United
States - of the whole United States which would be tantamount to the boating
capital of the world, that it will be illegal for anyone to live aboard.
Mayor Suarez: It sounds like your argument goes too far. If we pass this
ordinance, you can still anchor a houseboat in most areas of the river that
are zoned commercially, can you not, on both sides?
82 March 31, 1987
Mr. Framo^*• (^ff mike) Not on the Little River.
Mayor Suarez: Of the Miami River?
Mr. Pierce: It depends on which version of this ordinance you adopt. If you
adopt the staff version or the Waterfront Advisory Board's compromise.
Mayor Suarez: The staff version of the Miami River still leaves us ...
Mr. Pierce: ... Still leaves areas open.
Mr. Plummer: But they would have to get a permit.
Mr. Pierce: They would have to go through the public hearing process of
special exception approval.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (off mike) But there are no places. There's no
anchorage. There's nowhere for us to go.
Mr. Plummer: What is being said, other than that area that is proposed for
Belle Meade, and that segment - what is it? - it's a very short segment on the
river - it's from 17th Avenue to 12th Avenue, I think - other than that, you
can go anywhere else on the river -
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (off mike) Temporarily.
Mr. Plummer: Well, temporarily, OK. You can go to any other place and the
only thing you have to do is apply for a permit.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (off mike) Yes, but you don't get permits.
Mr. Fremont: You don't get permits, and you're proposing that these permits
not be issued.
Mrs. Dougherty: (off mike) She's the only one that's ever been denied.
Mr. Fremont: And, furthermore, all these places that are proposed - the
places that are proposed ...
Mayor Suarez: The City Attorney, just so you know, stated that that lady is
the only one who has ever been denied, that we know of, so I don't know why
you say we don't give permits, but I guess it's a matter of testing. We'll
see - what will happen depending on what this Commission does today.
Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, prior to Mrs. Dozier, there were
two approved on the Little River. Mrs. Dozier's application was the one that,
I would say, triggered the entire public demand for change.
Mayor Suarez: So that shows that they are approved, not that they are not,
because it was. Go ahead, sir. Finish up.
Mr. Fremont: The boatyards in question, such as Nuts's boatyard does not have
any live-aboards. Hardie's does not accept any new ones. Those are about the
only two large boatyards left on the Miami River. To be in compliance with
the new sewage treatment proposals and pump -out stations is prohibitively
expensive, even for our own municipal marinas, such as Dinner Key, right here,
so the only right way that they are able to function is to be grandfathered
in. And there is currently, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, a real shortage of
yacht dockage within the city of Miami. We have almost driven out all yachts
from the city of Miami to places like Fort Lauderdale, now. There are very
few yachts that are being serviced on the Miami River, very few yachts docked
on the Miami River any more, and the movement seems to be and, according to
Mr. Plummer the wording of this is to simply make it illegal to live aboard a
boat of any kind in the city of Miami. If that is the thrust of this, then
please tell us that you just don't want us in this boating capital of the
world. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your statement. (APPLAUSE) Please. Brief
statement, sir.
83 March 31, 1987
Mr. Richard Purcell: My name is Richard Purcell. I reside - I'm a live-
-it *I-- --"-^-- -0 2051 N.W. 14th Street. To you, Mr. Plummer, I
would like to ask you about your one family on RS-1 lots. Are you, sir, naive
enough to believe that no one in the immediate area that I am living in rents
out part of their residence to other families?
Mr. Plummer: No, sir, I'm not that naive.
Mr. Purcell: All right, sir, I ask you, then, why are you singling out we
people who live aboard, as opposed to those families that are multiple
families living on RS-1 zoned areas?
Mr. Plummer: Sir, to answer your question, we have to admit, shamefully, that
our code enforcement has not been what we think it should be. I can tell you
that we are presently working on an ordinance which would give the clout to
the zoning enforcement arm to go and inspect all of these single family
residences which this Commission will be acting on within the next 4-6 months.
And, also, the staffing so that when these areas are discovered, they will be
cited; they will be noticed, and they will have to desist and stop that. But, -
sir, I have to admit to you that I know of many of many of them - in my own
particular neighborhood, which is a nice neighborhood - where they are using
more than one, but I think that's what this Commission is trying to do, in
this ordinance and the one that is being proposed, is to put some teeth in so
that we can enforce it.
Mr. Purcell: All right, I'd also like to state that the elderly lady - who
happens to be 80 years old - that I rent my dockage from has been one of the
first people on the Miami River in that area. In other words, she is not a
person that has bought in and has started renting to live-aboards. She has
been renting to live-aboards for over thirty years. I have resided where I am
at for over eight years. If I am not permitted to live aboard my vessel
behind her lot, she will be forced to do one of two things. Number one: she
will have to sell her property because she cannot afford to meet the tax bill.
Mr.
Plummer:
But, sir, if I understood your address correct, you
are not in -
the
area that
is affected. You are west of 17th Avenue.
Mr.
Purcell:
That is correct, sir.
Mr.
Plummer:
So your area is not affected.
Mr.
Purcell:
No, my area's not affected right now...
Mr.
Plummer:
So, if you're speaking, though, to the 80-year ...
Mr.
Purcell:
But three months from now it might be.
Mr.
Plummer:
And you could be back down here arguing the point. ;APPLAUSE)
Mayor Suarez:
Please, please, please.
Mr.
Purcell:
Number two: If she doesn't choose to move out of her
residence,
which she will not, she will remain there until the day she dies,
number two,
she
will have
to rent her dockage to boats that look like this -
and I would
like
to show
you, sir, some of the atrocities that are occupying
residential
dockage in the area that I am speaking of.
Mayor Suarez: Sir, you've exceeded your time allotment, please conclude your
remarks. We'll enter into the record any pictures that you have and we will
look at them.
Mr. Purcell: I really have no conclusion to my statements. I just wanted to
make my statements as such.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you. (APPLAUSE) This is the final one.
Ms. Caroline Gaynor: Yes, Mayor Suarez, Commissioners, my name is Caroline
Gaynor. I reside at 960 N.E. 78th Street, a property I own. I reside there
on my houseboat, the "Maryville". It seems like forever ago I applied for and
received a special exception under Ordinance 9500 to do this. There is this
special exception on the books now. It is very stringent. It isn't something
one goes in and says - fills out a form, hands in a paper, gets a stamp and a
84 March 31, 1987
a
special exception. It took me, I think, a total of two -and -a -half years -
two, uAIY%% •, # , -- exception to be granted. My point is
this. As the ordinance exists now, there are all sorts of safeguards, of
checks, of community review, discussion, meetings, before this is arrived at.
There is no need for a sweep across the board, doing away with this exception.
It provides more than adequate protection for people who are opposed to
houseboats and I don't see why we have to take your time, the citizens' time -
to say nothing of money - to change something that is very adequate as it
stands. Now, my neighbor applied for the same special exception. Her
exception was denied because some people had gotten up in arms about an issue
that is a dying issue. I don't like to say this, but it's true, there are
fewer and fewer houseboats on the Little River and the Miami River. People
don't like to put in the time and effort and money to keep up a houseboat.
It's much more difficult than a home. It takes a certain sort of, I don't
know, maybe a stubbornness of wanting to live with the water, to live on a
houseboat. So, it's not like it's an invading phenomena. It's really,
unfortunately, a dying phenomena. And to get into a big hoo-ha-ha about
special areas, and no live-aboards, when we are a water city, we should be
encouraged. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: (APPLAUSE) Thank you for your remarks. We have a motion and a
second. Is the motion affected by the fact that the movant may no longer be
up here?
Ms. Hirai: No. He has already expressed that his vote has not changed, Mr.
Mayor, so we will just make sure and double check and make sure we show him
voting that way.
Mrs. Dougherty: He can't vote. He's not
Mayor Suarez: We've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Mr. Plummer: No, no, no. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Madam City Attorney -
Ms. Hirai: Mr. Plummer, may I say? My office requested of the City Attorney
a legal opinion that would direct me to do otherwise, but since I have done it
for some Commissioners, this is why I thought Mr. Dawkins could also be
granted the same -
Mrs. Dougherty: I am not in receipt of any request for legal opinion, but the
answer is: you can show on your minutes that he was in favor as he walked out,
but he is not officially voting since he is not here.
Mayor Suarez: I just want to make sure that we have a valid motion and a
seconder. We need another motion and a second. That's all I wanted to know.
Mrs. Dougherty: We'd accept another motion.
Mr. Carollo: Yes, I think you would, wouldn't you? You would need another
motion, wouldn't you?
Mrs. Dougherty: Was there a motion and a second while he was here? That's
OK.
Mr. Plummer: Dawkins made a motion which I seconded. Now Dawkins has left
the building.
Mrs. Dougherty: He just will not be voting.
Mayor Suarez: He cannot be reflected as voting, but his motion is valid?
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes.
Mr. Carollos But my question, Madam City Attorney, is: if by law, his vote
would not be valid, I don't want to run into any legal constraints that his
motion is also not valid, if this is challenged. Do you think that in order
to be legally sound maybe we should make a new motion and a new second with
people that are here?
Mrs. Dougherty: That's a prudent suggestion.
85 March 31, 1987
Mr. Carollo: I so move that we approve the Planning Department's
recommendation.
Mr. Plummer: That's item 6.
Mr. Carollo: Right.
Mayor Suarez: On second reading, item 6, moved.
Mr. Plummer: I second the motion under discussion. Commissioner Kennedy has
brought up a very good idea, or a good question. Does this Commission feel
that it's right that we give these people more than thirty days. I think that
there is an area of discussion. I feel that they should have more than thirty
days. I have to be honest with you. They have to relocate and they're going
to have to find a place which maybe, as they have expressed is not that easy
to do. I'm not in favor of prolonging it to make it look like that we're
retracting in any way, shape or form. I would suggest to this Commission that
we give them ninety days. That is ninety days to find and relocate their
situation. I wouldn't want to go more than ninety days, but I do feel the
unfairness of thirty and I would ask the maker of the motion that he would
incorporate that this not become an effective law for ninety days. Mr.
Carollo?
Mayor Suarez: (off mike) Joe, do you want to incorporate that in your
motion?
Mr. Plummer: I would ask that in the motion that it be stipulated that this
not become effective in law for ninety days rather than the automatic thirty.
Mr. Carollo: (off mike) I have no problem with that. I think that we should
probably be as fair as we possibly can.
Mr. Plummer: Now, Mr. Mayor, under discussion, and it's not to this
particular motion, but it was called so quickly. One of the things that I
have heard that bothers me is the fact that the only legal mooring is out here
on the other side of the smaller islands. I think it does behoove this
Commission to try and find, if it exists - I don't know that it does - that
there must be an area - I'm thinking more like off of American Legion, or
something like that where you could have moorings, where they're not directly
affected by a property owner - and I would hope -
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (off mike) deep over there.
Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry?
Mayor Suarez: Please, please!
Mr. Plummer: I'm not trying to designate an area, sir. I'm trying to say
that the administration, I would hope, would look to see if there is an area
that could be designated by moorings, as we have back here in the back, which
I understand are perfectly legal, and I would hope that they would do such and
report back to this Commission within sixty days to try and let this ninety -
day thing try to run its time.
Mayor Suarez: We've got a motion and second. Any discussion from this
Commission?
Mr. Plummer: Read the ordinance.
Mayor Suarez: Read the ordinance, please.
F
86 March 31, 1987
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED,
THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY
AMENDING ARTICLE 15, ENTITLED "SPI SPECIAL PUBLIC
INTEREST DISTRICTS" BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS 15180
ENTITLED "SPI-18 LITTLE RIVER CANAL -GROVE PARK OVERLAY
DISTRICT", SECTION 15181 ENTITLED "INTENT", SECTION
15182 ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS", AND SECTION 15183
ENTITLED "EFFECT OF SPI-18 DISTRICT DESIGNATION";
RESERVING SECTIONS 15174-15179 AND 15183-15189 FOR
FUTURE USE; AND BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 2024.1.4
ENTITLED •LIMITATIONS ON FACILITIES AND USES RELATED
TO DOCKAGE AND MOORAGE OF VESSELS IN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS" TO INCLUDE WATERWAYS AND BISCAYNE BAY, AND
TIME LIMITATIONS TO RELOCATE; AND SUBSECTIONS 2024.11
UND PARAGRAPH) ENTITLED "EXTENSIONS OF DOCKS INTO
WATERWAYS OR CANALS; SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS" TO ENLARGE
THE INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATIONS TO
EXTEND DOCKS INTO WATERWAYS, CANALS OR BISCAYNE BAY;
AND BY AMENDING ARTICLE 36 ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS" TO
ADD DEFINITIONS FOR HOUSEBOATS AND HOUSE BARGES;
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of December 11, 1986, was
taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of
Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the ordinance was
thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted
by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10246.
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.
27. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: RETAIN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, ETC. SPECIAL
USE MARINE LIVE -ABOARD EXCLUSION ON LITTLE RIVER CANAL AREA (HOUSEBOATS)
Mayor Suarez: Item PZ-7. Companion item. I'll entertain a motion on that.
Mr. Plummer: Move it.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Call the roll - PZ-7.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, before anybody leaves, I've just been informed by the
administration - and I think it's only fair - especially to those people who
are on houseboats outside of this area which has been generated, namely, the
portion of Grove Isle and the portion related to the MiamRiver. It will
behoove this administration, once this ordinance is passed, that all of you
who don't presently have a permit, immediately apply for a permit, that when
you enforce a law, you have to enforce it uniformly, so if you are outside of
these two designated areas presently, without a permit, which is the only
legal thing that can be done, the administration suggests that you immediately
apply for a permit. I just thought that that was only fair to warn you.
87 March 11. V117 - -
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (off mike) Does that apply if you're in the marina?
Mr. Plummer: I can't answer that. What about if it's in a marina?
Mr. Pierce: If the marina is legally permitted to live-aboards, they're OK.
Mr. Plummer: No, ma'am, it does not apply.
Mayor Suarez: Do we have a motion and second on PZ-7? Read the ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND ADDENDA (SEPTEMBER 1985); FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY THE AREA GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AND THOSE PROPERTIES
EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD FRONTING ON THE LITTLE
RIVER CANAL AND SOUTH LITTLE RIVER CANAL, AND FRONTING
BISCAYNE BAY BETWEEN THE LITTLE RIVER CANAL AND SOUTH
LITTLE RIVER CANAL; AND THAT AREA ON THE SOUTH BANK OF
THE MIAMI RIVER BETWEEN THE NORTHWEST 17TH AVENUE
BRIDGE AND STATE ROAD 836 BRIDGE (MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN) BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY, RETAINING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL,
MODERATE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL AND ADDING AN OVERLAY PLAN DESIGNATION
SPECIAL USE MARINE LIVE -ABOARD EXCLUSION; MAKING
FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of December 11, 1986, 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 Joe Carollo
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10247.
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.
28. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: APPLY SPI-18 LITTLE RIVER CANAL (HOUSEBOATS)
Mayor Suarez: Item PZ-8. This is the third companion item. This is the
zoning atlas as moved.
Mr. Plummer: Move it.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Moved, seconded. Please read the ordinance.
88 !larch 31, 1987
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE
NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, BY APPLYING THE SPI-18 LITTLE RIVER CANAL -
GROVE PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE AREA GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AND THOSE PROPERTIES
EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD FRONTING ON THE LITTLE
RIVER CANAL AND SOUTH LITTLE RIVER CANAL, AND FRONTING
BISCAYNE BAY BETWEEN THE LITTLE RIVER CANAL AND SOUTH
LITTLE RIVER CANAL; AND THAT AREA ON THE SOUTH BANK OF
THE MIAMI RIVER BETWEEN THE NORTHWEST 17TH AVENUE
BRIDGE AND STATE ROAD 836 BRIDGE, (MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS; ADOPTING AND
INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE THE "DESIGNATION REPORT";
AND BY MAKING ALL NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NUMBERS 8,
9 AND 24 OF THE ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of December 11, 1986, 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 Joe Carollo
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10248.
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.
29. DEFERRAL OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE DEALING WITH PERMANENT ACTIVE RECREATION
FACILITIES AS ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Mayor Suarez: PZ-9.
Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor, before getting into PZ-9, I just thought I would
mention that at the last Commission meeting Commissioner Plummer asked for
some information on the freighters on the river. We have that information
now, and we can make an oral presentation on it or, if the Commissioners
choose, we can convert that into written form and submit it to each
Commissioner individually.
Mr. Plummer: I would prefer it to be that way.
Mr. Pierce: All right, then, that we will do. Before we get into PZ-9, which
is amendment "S", we understand there has been some concern about one portion
of that which has to do with the pedestrian open space requirement. We agree
with that and for that reason we're going to withdraw from discussion tonight
that part dealing only with pedestrian open space concept, and we'll be
bringing that back after it's been revised and coming back through the PAB to
the City Commission.
Mayor Suarez: With that portion withdrawn, you can record all you want, but
if you're recording for the past item having to do with houseboats, we've
completed all of those items. I don't think there'll be any more discussion
on that tonight. In fact, I can assure you that there won't be unless
somebody, all of a sudden, wants to get into it which, hopefully, they won't!
With that portion of this item withdrawn, is there anyone that In waiting to
be heard on PZ-9 - for or against?
89 March 31, 1987
i
a
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute - there's people at the back, there
Mayor Suarez: All right, we're going to wait, then, until we clear the hall.
Mr. Rodriguez: The portion that we are recommending to withdraw from this
amendment includes section 2003, 2012 on pages 2 and 3 of the ordinance.
Mayor Suarez: Are you aware of the sections that are being withdrawn from
this item by the administration?
INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mayor Suarez: Well, unless we announce that we are going to withdraw
something completely, it's not going to be withdrawn, so they shouldn't have
assumed that, but you might want to check that with Sergio while we hear from
other people that are aware of what's before us, so you'll be made aware by
Sergio what we've withdrawn.
INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mayor Suarez: That won't be in the record because basically you're just
requesting information.
Mr. Rodriguez: Mr. Mayor, the area that we are proposing to recommend to
eliminate from this amendment deals with the first part of livability space
and pedestrian open space. We are recommending that you approve the second
and third item - and I believe Miss Alonso has a problem with number two. But
we believe that at this point, with the amendments that we have, number three
deals with a scrivener's error and number two deals with elimination of the
net lower area per dwelling unit of 2500 square feet from the RG-1 zoning
district. Based on the information that we get from Building and Zoning, what
is happening is -
Mayor Suarez: Excuse me, Sergio. Please have quiet in the Chambers! Do we
have an officer who can ask people in a quiet way to please clear the Chambers
back there? Henry, can you help to - Go ahead, Sergio.
Mr. Rodriguez: Based on the information that we get from Building and Zoning,
the situation that we face at this point is that because we don't have the
amendment that we're proposing, now we have in duplex area more than a duplex
being built this ordinance, what it does is basically require that on a duplex
lot you can only build a duplex. In the past you have the possibility of
going through a cluster or another form. That situation in our opinion
doesn't exist anymore; to be able to have a cluster, we tried to clarify the
language so to make sure that in a duplex zone only two or a duplex unit will
be built, and that will be the subject of the second amendment which is in the
package. Now I'm withdrawing, the only portion I'm withdrawing deals with the
use of open a space in the roof. We have had some problem with that concept
because it has been abused in the past. Until this amendment that is being
contemplated, which I'm withdrawing today, the first one, was on the books,
people could count the open space in the roof that was improved as part of the
open space requirement and legal ---- space requirement. I recommend that an
ordinance that we don't allow it at all. I realize that there are some cases
in which we should make exceptions, and there should be some administrative
remedies to deal with that. That's why I'm willing at this point to withdraw
that portion of the amendment.
Mrs. Kennedy: But Sergio, are you telling us that you're going to be amending
that part?
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, I will be amending in the future, what I am going to try
to do, I have been getting complaints from different people that how this will
unfairly affect the proposals that they have and the fact that it might not be
seen comprehensively. So for that reason, I think there is a good point on
that, and I'm willing to at this point recommend withdrawing the first part of
the amendment which deals with that part, which is section 2003 and 2012 on
pages 2 and 3 of the ordinance. Now, in addition to that, there are two more
amendments that are included in your packet and those two amendments the
Planning Department still recommends approval.
90 March 31, 1987
+ is
Mr. Plummer:
open space on
objections if
space.
You're saying, let me understand. You're saying is that the
the roof of a house you have no objections to, but you do have
it, in fact, is used to used for the configuration of open
Mr. Rodriguez: Let me tell you how this all this started. In the ordinance
there is some leanings in the way you can use the open space, the livability
space, the pedestrian, the area of recreation from the open space, and
sometimes you can put that on the roof of a building. At the beginning when
the ordinance was written, four years ago, that was an innovative approach and
it made some sense. It has been abused, and now we have cases in which we
have in the roof of buildings open space that nobody can use, trees which are
dying and so on. So what I tried to do was to correct the mistake, and the
recommendation that I had was an overhaul of that whole section that don't
allow it anymore. I realize that after talking to different people, and I
believe you have received some letters also yourself, from different groups,
that say that eliminating that completely might not make sense, and I can see
your point, so what I am saying, that portion of the amendment, let's not
discuss it today. Let me research it more, let me come back to the Planning
Advisory Board, because the amendment that I propose will be substantive to
what we have here tonight and you shouldn't deal with it. There are two
other portions from the amendment, yes. One of them deals with a Scrivener
error, and should be no problem with you in approving that, and there is
another portion that until now, I didn't know there was any controversy. I
understand Ms. Alonso has a problem with that portion. That amendment deals
with the fact that now in duplex area...
Mayor Suarez: You are talking about two now, right?
Mr. Rodriguez: Number two. On duplex area, you have a not flow area
requirement of 2,500 square feet. What has happened,is, that we have had more
than a duplex being built in duplex zone What we are doing with this is
saying that in the future, no lot can have less than 50 feet, and no more than
a duplex can be built in a duplex zone in a duplex lot, and that is what we
are doing with this.
Mr. Plummer: Do you have a problem with that?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
Ms. Miriam Alonso: Yes, we do. First of all, I think that it is... my name is
Miriam Alonso, and I think first of all, I think it is rather unfair to the
people that this is discussed today in a way that it was understood that it
was going to be eliminated, it was going to be off from the agenda, so many
people that were planning on being here today to express their feelings are
not here tonight, so they will have not have an opportunity to convey to you
the feelings about this item. We are concerned about this, because can
construct a unit in 25 square feet. It has been done in the past. For
example, if you had a lot that was...
Mrs. Kennedy: 2,500.
Ms. Alonso: It is 2,500, yes. If you had a lot, 7,500, you can have three
units. This is a necessity in certain areas. It does help to provide a home
that costs less to the people, and I believe very strongly that in areas like
Little Havana, it is a great help for the citizens as well for the people in
the construction business. I don't see the damage, why it should be
eliminated, as such, and we also feel very strongly that an item as important
to this, should not really be presented. For example, if you didn't read the
agenda, you cannot really understand what was the item to be discussed, and
secondly it was expressed that it was going to be off the agenda today, so I
really suggest that you should postpone this to the next meeting, at least, to
give an opportunity to more people to come and express their feelings about
this item.
Mr. Carollo: I'd be willing to do it.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I have no problem with the deferment. I do have a
problem with the issue which you raised, and the real area of where the damage
can be done simply is density, OK, that is the problem I have. You are going
back to the cluster home kind of concept.
014
91 March 31, 1987
Ms. Alonso: But, it is not close to home.
Mr. Plummer: Miriam, we are not going to argue today, if we defer it, OK?
And I'll save my comments, but as far as respecting the deferment to allow
people to come here and talk, of course I will vote for that.
Mr. Rodriguez: For the record, we never told anybody that we were going to
withdraw the whole amendment. I want to make sure that...
Mayor Suarez: Yes, I am not sure why they got that impression. OK, do we
have a motion to defer and a second?
Mr. Plummer: Second.
Mayor Suarez: I am going to vote with the motion and indicate that for
myself, I am going to really vote against the entire proposal by the Planning
_ Department when and if it comes back to us, with the exception of the
correction of Scrivener's errors. I don't see any need for it at all. Call
the roll.
THEREUPON, the City Commission on motion duly
made by Commissioner Carollo and seconded by
Commissioner Plummer, deferred consideration of
the above matter by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins.
Mr. Plummer: See you on the 23rd.
= ------------- ------------- ---------------------------------------------------
30. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE
PLAN DESIGNATION
FROM
MODERATE DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE
-------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
AT APPROXIMATELY
4091
S.W. 2 TERRACE.
Mayor Suarez: Planning and Zoning item 10.
Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-10 and 11 are companion items, Mr. Mayor. PZ-10 deals with
the plan amendment and PZ-11 deals with the zoning change. This particular
property is located on LeJeune Road, south of Flagler Street and 2 Terrace,
and it is abutting an RO-3/6 district. The original application was to have
it changed from moderate density to RO, and the zoning change from RG-2/4,
which is a multifamily type of a development, into an RO-3/6, which is the
abutting district. The...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. Which parcel of property is it? Sir, your agenda
has got to be wrong. There is no way that this can be 4091.
Mrs. Kennedy: No, you are right.
Mr. Plummer: It has got to be wrong.
Mr. Olmedillo: Well, that was my first impression when I saw the address, but
when I visited the site, that is 4091 S.W. ...
Mr. Plummer: Can't be!
Mr. Pierce: 41 Avenue runs this way. 41 Avenue stops if you are going that
way... (INAUDIBLE, OFF MICROPHONE)
Mr. Plummer: Hey, if you are telling me it is a legal address, then it is a
legal address, but I don't know how you can have... if you tell me it is
legal, I will buy it, but it doesn't seem right to me.
92 March 31, 1987
:s
Mr. Olmedillo: To continue on the presentation, the original application was
for an RO-3/6 change, which is the abutting district. The Planning Department
recommended denial of that particular change, because we saw it as an
encroachment onto the residential areas. We recommended approval over an RO-
1/4, which is a lower density residential office type of use. The...
Mayor Suarez: What... when you say lower density, give us an example. What
would an RO-1/4 look like?
Mr. Olmedillo: The RO-1/4, the 4 sector would limit the height to 25 feet.
Mayor Suarez: Which is basically two stories?
Mr. Olmedillo: That is the one thing, so, basically two stories.
Mayor Suarez: What about the proposed RO-3/6? What would that...
Mr. Olmedillo: The RO-3/6 has no height limitations. It expands the use to
all types of offices and many other uses. It is much more liberal. We see
this as a possibility of creating a buffer between the residential area, which
is well established south of that point. If you remember Bahama Gardens,
there is another apartment building right next to it, and there are some new
housing units on the western side of 42nd Avenue, LeJeune Road, so in order to
maintain this character, we saw that as a good buffer to have a limited RO
use, which is the RO-1/4, which we are recommending.
Mr. Plummer: What is it presently?
Mr. Olmedillo: Present, RG-2/4, which is multifamily with a sector 4. Sector
4 is about .40 F.A.R. and...
Mr. Plummer: And what are you going to do across the street?
Mr. Olmedillo: The original...
Mr. Plummer: Where the green is now.
Mr. Olmedillo: Our suggestion is that the zoning line would change and would
go only to 2 Terrace, because this would be the buffer... these properties
would be the buffer between the RO-3/6, which exists from Flagler to just
north of 2 Terrace and the rest of the property. This is the one that we find
that is rather stable, and here is where we have the Bahama Gardens building.
There is another apartment building there. There are some new housing units
which were built here. All these are apartment buildings, and therefore we
see this strip from here to the north as the proper buffer strip. Therefore,
our recommendation was for approval of a RO-1/4, which is also taken into
consideration, the land use change from moderate density to a residential
office. To give you some history, the Planning Advisory Board recommended
denial in a 7 to 2 vote, and the Zoning Board recommended approval on a 9 to 0
vote.
Mr. Plummer: Are you the applicant?
Mr. Floyd Smalley: Do I have the option of answering some of this?
Mr. Plummer: Are you the applicant?
Mr. Smalley: I am Floyd Smalley.
Mayor Suarez: OK, wait a minute, let's hear from the applicant very quickly.
Mr. Leonard Rubin: Leonard Rubin, attorney for the applicant, 1125 Alfred I.
Dupont Building, Miami, Florida.
Mr. Plummer: Are you registered, sir, as a lobbyist?
Mr. Rubin: Yes, sir, I am. My client is advised that he can abide the
reasonable compromise that the Planning Department has suggested.
Mayor Suarez: He cannot?
Mr. Rubin: Pardon me, sir?
93
• : or Ot4arez: He cannot?
Mr. Rubin: He can, yes, sir. I would like to point out a certain fact of
life, and I would like to do it with this overlay, this transparency.
Starting with Flagler Street, on the side of LeJeune Road, that the applicant _
is interested in, we have, of course, on the far side Burger King. Then there
is the Texaco Service Station, the Language and Travel School, Allapattah
Insurance and Del Rio Loans, Florida Properties, which is a real estate
company; crossing the street over SW 2 Street we have Rosen and Associates,
Real Estate, then the subject property; then crossing SW 2 Terrace we have Mr.
Sanchelima, who is a patent attorney, and then the church. In other words,
this is the only property that would be required to maintain its residential
character if the application as amended were denied. We respectfully submit
it wouldn't be fair. Now, we are ready to accept that and I don't have
anything further to say except that I would be willing to answer any questions
if I can.
Mayor Suarez: When you said as amended, that means as amended to reflect our
recommendations?
Mr. Rubin: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Save your time for rebuttal.
Mayor Suarez: That is right.
Mr. Smalley: My name is Floyd Smalley, I am from 3920 SW 2 Terrace. Number
one, we have never received a letter as to this zoning, and we are in the,
adjacent block to this property - neither I, nor the people across the street
from me and several others that I have talked to.
Mayor Suarez: I'm sorry, the Assistant City Manager is answering. Now, what
did you say it was?
Mr. Smalley: I am at 3920 SW 2 Terrace.
Mr. Pierce: Specifically, he is not in the radius, you'll note the circle
over there.
Mayor Suarez: He is not within the radius, OK.
Mr. Pierce: He is beyond that.
Mr. Smalley: We are beyond that?
Mr. Pierce: Yes, sir.
Mr. Smalley: But we live in that area.
Mr. Pierce: Sir, the radius only goes for a specific number of feet. You are
outside that distance.
Mr. Smalley: OK.
Mayor Suarez: But you are here, so we are going to hear you.
Mr. Smalley: OK, to go back to Mr. Plummer. I agree with you a hundred
percent. If it is zoned residential, you bought it as residential, why are
you suddenly turning it into something other than residential? We people that
live there, and will stay with this for the rest of their life, after this
meeting is over, we still have these properties, and we still must live with
this. The more you intrude into the area with this type of thing, I just
don't agree with it at all. What you are doing is a gradual erosion, and it
is not even gradual, it is a rapid erosion into a neighborhood that is a good
family neighborhood. You are moving in more and more of this stuff as time
goes on. You are setting up the dividing lines now, but it is only next month
that we started across the dividing lines. I just don't agree with this. We
bought this property as single family residences. It is zoned single family.
I don't understand what you are trying to do. I don't agree with this a bit.
Mr. Plummer, you nailed it right on the head. It is single family residences.
They bought it at that. It is only motivated by greed there. What else could
you have?
94 March 31, 1987
Mayor Suarez: Do you understand the sort of a compromise, I guess, being
proposed by the Planning Department?
Mr. Smalley: Compromise relative to what?
Mayor Suarez: Well, relative to what they applied for, which was an RO-3/6,
much higher density and really could go, the buildings could go much higher.
Mr. Smalley: Well, was that given to them?
Mayor Suarez: No, no.
Mr. Smalley: The RO-3? That wasn't given to them either?
Mayor Suarez: But, we hadn't decided that, and they proposed a lesser...
Mr. Smalley: Yes, you are giving us the lesser of two evils, but, man, we are
still living there!
Mayor Suarez: Right.
Mr. Smalley: We don't want any evil, we still want this to be residential.
Mayor Suarez: I just want to make sure you understand the lesser of two evils
by your definition.
Mr. Smalley: No, we don't want that. We don't want either one of them.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, it is 25 feet maximum, so it is not a large structure.
Mr. Plummer: Let me, since my name was used, Mr. Mayor. Sir, there is a
difference, and I will explain it, or try to explain it to you. The
INEEN difference is, that if you or I, I don't today would go to LeJeune Road and
ssEN build a single family residence, OK? The character of that street has changed
_ radically. Now, what the Planning Department in their recommendation, whether
I agree or disagree with it, is that in all good zoning for single family to
try to maintain a single family character of the neighborhood, that you should
_ have some kind of a buffer. Now, what they are saying in stating here is that
they feel that this with a 25 foot maximum height, would serve as a buffer and
would then maintain the integrity of a residence. I don't think anyone would
in their right mind, want to build (I wouldn't) a single family residence on
LeJeune Road, 40 miles an hour, the traffic it carries. There is a
difference, is what I am trying to tell you, and as you had said, I am a very
staunch backer of keeping single family single, or single family, but I just
don't think it applies at this particular location. I think what the Planning
Department is trying to tell you, if you want to maintain that character, you
are going to have to have a buffer, because if not, there is the day the
possibility might come where it would be more than 25 feet, and the old
"domino theory" Mould apply and it would, as you say, rapidly degenerate. So,
these are the areas - I am not saying which way I am voting right now, but I
am saying that there are differences in the character of the way things
change.
Mr. Smalley: Well, Mr. Plummer, 25 foot of elevation, if you are an adjacent
neighbor, cuts down considerably on the air, and the circulation, and
something like this also brings up the density of people into the area,
because you are talking about an office building, and this is a residential
area where there are families and children. You are now bringing an office
building into this!
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir, but I think that you will f Ind... and I am sorry to
find myself defending the applicant because I am not, but I think you will
find that if you look on LeJeune Road, mostly from this area to the north, you
will find some residential, you will find some that are very objectionable, I
would find if I lived in a neighborhood, such as Burger King and things of
those natures, that you always have the potential of having, and I think that
is what they are trying to protect against.
Mr. Smalley: Well, LeJeune Road is 42nd.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir, LeJeune.
95 March 31, 1987
a
J ?mot
Mr. Plummer: Oh, I understand, but...
Mr. Smalley: You are two blocks in.
Mr. Plummer: No, sir the actual parcel that we are discussing is on LeJeune.
It faces LeJeune Road.
Mrs. Kennedy: Guillermo, this...
Mr. Smalley: This property?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir. This property is the one there that is cross hatched
right there on LeJeune Road itself, sir.
Mr. Smalley: OK.
Mrs. Kennedy: Guillermo, there is no transition using RO?
Mr. Olmedillo: No, Ma'am and for the record, I'd like to make it clear that
the parcel that we are looking at has an RG-2/4 zoning today, which is
multifamily. The sector 4 in a residential allows you go to go 30 feet in
height. What we are proposing would be a different land use, but it decreases
the height limitation to 25 feet, and the intensity remains the same.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I think this gentlemen is of the idea that this is deeper
into the residential section and it is not.
Mr. Smalley: Yes, I was.
Mr. Plummer: It is facing LeJeune Road.
Mr. Smalley: Well, this I understand, of course, I am very familiar with the
area and I know what you are saying. There are. There are some multifamily
structures already there, which also got in without us noticing it also. Do
you notify people in the area by mail, or the mailer?
Mr. Plummer: 375 feet from the given piece of property, sir.
Mr. Smalley: Is that the way it goes?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir, that is the law.
Mr. Smalley: OK, this is what we didn't understand.
Mr. Plummer: And by the way, just for your edification, that is a courtesy
notice, not required by law.
Mayor Suarez: OK, thank you for your presentation.
Mr. Smalley: Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Anyone else wish to be heard on this item, PZ-10? Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: It is required? Oh, I am sorry, I stand corrected, Mr. Mayor.
Under the new 95, it is required, it is no longer a courtesy. It is a
courtesy requirement.
Mr. Jesus Sanchelima: My name is Jesus Sanchelima, and I am the owner of the
property colored green, now known as 235 SW LeJeune Road after I - corrected
the old address used to be 4090 SW 2 Terrace, which brought me a lot of...
Mayor Suarez: Counselor, you are not being paid to appear today, are you?
Mr. Sanchelima: No, I am just here as the owner of the subject property in
green.
Mr. Plummer: And you are in favor of it because you want the same thing?
Mr. Sanchelima: Exactly.
6
96 March 31, 1987 }'
Mrs. Kennedy: It: :I', ' . t.- . : _e•+,z that one out.
Mr. Sanchelima: What I'd like to urge the...
Mr. Plummer: Now, we can hear all the fluff.
Mr. Sanchelima: What I'd like to urge the council here is to extend the
precedent, if it is established, from Mr. Rosen to all those properties
adjoining LeJeune Road, since they are just a zoning a anachronism at this
point in time.
Mr. Plummer: That is your right, sir, to put in an application. You are not
going to get a freebie.
Mr. Sanchelima: Well, I have a technical problem now, as far as having
standing to even file my application, but I am like in between a church and
the property being applied for rezoning now, but eventually, I will, and not
only my property, but ten other piece of property owners have appointed me as
attorney in fact, only insofar as...
Mayor Suarez: Well, we'll take that up.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, you don't have the same standing, OK? And the reason for
it, as I heard from the Department, this parcel in particular is faced with
that huge building across the street known as Florida Power and Light, OK?...
and you are not faced, so your particulars are a lot different than this
particular parcel in question tonight. I don't know that I would look on
yours as favorably, and I am being honest with you. You are not faced with a
monstrosity across the street. You are faced with other residential property,
even though more so in height, but it is still not the same.
Mr. Sanchelima: That may be true, but another point to be considered is that
right next to my property, and my property is also zoned, what is it, RG-
2/4?... allows me to build a multilevel, or multifamily building. If I were
to do that with my property, this would just compete with very limited parking
spaces on the property, whereas, on the street, whereas if I developed it as a
residential office, the parking requirements would not compete. Another thing
is, when I first bought this property, the property of Mr. Rosen was full of
junk cars, and no doubt that by buying this property and putting it to an
office use, you improve the appearance of LeJeune Road. Being an artery to
Miami, I think that it is about time that we wake up to this fact. I have
lived there, I've stayed there nights and I can listen to these cars just
going by, not at 40 miles and hour, 50 and sometimes I'd venture to say...
Mayor Suarez: Are you basically arguing for?
Mr. Sanchelima: I am arguing for, and not only that, but also extending or...
Mayor Suarez: You are threatening the... you know, you are reducing the
chances every moment that this thing will pass.
Mr. Sanchelima: Well, I am sorry.
Mayor Suarez: Because the old momentum here, I mean, beyond being an adjacent
property owner, we can't get into the merits of whatever you might apply for,
the other people, we can only get into the merits of this particular
application. On this one, you are favoring the entire change to RO-3/6,
or...?
Mrs. Kennedy: Well, this is the...
Mayor Suarez: Or, are you saying that you would like only an RO-1/4, or what
are you saying?
Mr. Sanchelima: I am saying that the proposed change is proper, and that it
should also be extended. I'm not going to say anything more.
Mayor Suarez: It may not be advisable to go much longer.
Mrs. Kennedy: This is the only property... the only residence...
97
March 31, 1987
is 4{
k-J+i
Mayor Suarez: I may as well advise that my fellow Commissioners, for myself,
I would only gc -s °';`' " "- life . — , ' :; the recommendation of the
Department. I guess we are heading in that direction, OK.
Mrs. Kennedy: I was going to say that this is the only residence on that
side, on LeJeune between Flagler and SW 4 Street, I think it is a good
recommendation, and if we don't have anybody else, I am ready to move to adopt
the Planning Department's recommendation.
Mayor Suarez: Is that a motion?
Mrs. Kennedy: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: Do we have a second, Commissioner?
Mr. Plummer: Not of that motion.
Mayor Suarez: Not to the RO-1/4?
Mr. Plummer: No, let me tell you what I want to do. Well, I can't because
you have already made your motion. I'll tell you what I will vote for.
Mrs. Kennedy: Well, second my motion.
Mr. Plummer: I'll second your motion for discussion and vote against it.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK, make your motion.
Mr. Plummer: OK, I don't like to do that, but since it is understood, I would
like to take one foot off the back of that property. I want to change the
001
zoning all but one foot, which can never be said by the second lot, that it is
contiguous.
NOR
Mr. Olmedillo: The easterly one foot?
Mr. Plummer: The easterly one foot.
Mr. Olmedillo: Well, that parcel, it is abutting the RO-3/6 on the north
already.
Mr. Plummer: Am I defeating my own purpose?
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir, maybe you are talking about the southerly one foot,
so it doesn't go...
Mr. Plummer: No, no, we'll deal with that one later.
Mr. Olmedillo: OK.
Mr. Plummer: What you are saying is that the lot behind it is actually in
fact more liberal than what this is coming to?
Mrs. Kennedy: It is.
Mr. Olmedillo: Well, no, it is a residential, it is an RG-2/4.
Mr. Plummer: I understand.
Mr. Olmedillo: But it is abutting the RO-3/6 already, on the north...
Mr. Plummer: All right, I .understand what you are saying. OK, I stand
corrected.
Mayor Suarez: Could you do a strip all the way around it, is that what you
are concerned about?
Mr. Plummer: My concern, Mr. Mayor was, that as the gentlemen spoke, that in
fact, you know it would be the "domino theory."
Mayor Suarez: Yes. ##
98 March 31, 1987
1
Mr. Plummer: But, the "domino theory" really is in reverse, because that -
which we are changing lot nee, + !.css than what they
could have in lot two, so we are not really protecting anything.
Mayor Suarez: No, no, not lot two, the northern one there, the blue one.
Mr. Plummer% No, no, I am not even addressing the northern one.
Mayor Suarez: Well, lot two is the same as this one has up to now, RG-2/4.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I...
Mayor Suarez: But, they are saying that if you do the one foot strip, you
connect up to the more dense northern boundaries, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Plummer: No, what I saying is...
Mayor Suarez: What concerns the Planning Department about the idea of having
a one foot strip, as we always...
Mr. Pierce: The idea is to keep lot two from applying for the same zoning, it
won't work because it is contiguous to that zoning to the north anyhow, so
they can still come in and apply.
Mr. Plummer: Well...
Mayor Suarez: But, don't you reduce the argument, "the domino theory"
argument by at least...
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but the domino in this particular case is not domino up, it
is domino down!
Mrs. Kennedy: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: So doesn't it help to have the one foot strip?
Mr. Plummer: So why, you know...
Mr. Pierce: The only thing the one foot, the easterly one foot would do,
would be to keep lot two in theory from applying for that same zoning, but
since lot two already is contiguous to the north, to the same lot from
where...
Mayor Suarez: Well, why are they going to argue that, that it is only on the
north side that they have a higher density.
Mr. Plummer: The one point this man made was about the air. What we in effect
are doing, is reducing five feet, OK?... so I withdraw my objections and I
will vote in favor of the motion as presented by Commissioner Kennedy because
I think it is much better, because in effect we are reducing, not increasing.
Mrs. Kennedy: That's right.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Yes, Ma'am, did you want to be heard on
this item?
Me. Lillian Santos: I don't know if...
Mrs. Kennedy: State your name for the record.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, name and address, please.
Ms. Santos: OK, my name is Lillian Santos, I live at 4071 SW 2 Terrace. It
is the red one that is marked three.
Mayor Suarez: OK.
Ms. Santos: OK, I just want to find out what do you mean? - because I don't
know RG, or R3, or whatever you are talking about.
Mr. Plummer: OK, let me try to briefly tell you, quickly. Lots 1 and 2...
99 March 31, 1957
Ms. Santos: Yes.
Mr. Plummer:... as they presently are
Ms. Santos: That means two story building?
Mr. Plummer: It could, or could not because some of those buildings I know
over there have gone below grade, OK?
Ms. Santos: Parking on the...
Mr. Plummer: Exactly. All right now, what is being proposed for lot one,
presently, is in fact, under the new zoning that is passed here, would reduce
it down to 25, so you are coming down 5 feet, which gives you more clearance
for light and air.
Ms. Santos: OK, because the main objection that we have is for example, Mr.
Sanchelima, the green one...
Mr. Plummer: We will deal with him later.
Ms. Santos: Yes, but I am... we are concerned because of the parking and
because the more traffic in the area.
Mayor Suarez: Well, a change would allow office where now office use is not
allowed. We should say that too.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, that is true and basically what you are going to have is
traffic only during the day time and not as much in the evening.
Ms. Santos: Well, it depends, because I have worked in a place where it was
an office building, and they never had parking. People used to park all over
the block,, and they used to be open until 9:00 P.M.
Mr. Olmedillo: They would have to meet all the parking requirements in
relation to the square footage of office that they have.
Ms. Santos: I hope so because we have been getting cars all over the block.
Mr. Plummer: Well, now, I am not going to sit here and be naive enough to
tell you that that might not happen! But, they are going to have to meet the
requirement of whatever the code calls for in parking, or they don't even get
a building permit. They can't build. Now, you might say that that is
inadequate, you might be right, OK? Yet, I've seen it to the contrary.
Mayor Suarez: We have a motion. Does anyone else wish to be heard on PZ-10?
We have a motion and a second as modified. The application as modified. Any
further discussion? Read the ordinance.
THEREUPON, THE CITY ATTORNEY READ THE ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD, BY
TITLE ONLY.
Mayor Suarez: Call the roll.
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, under discussion. What is item 11? It is on the
same parcel.
Mrs. Dougherty: One is the comprehensive plan and the other one is the zoning
atlas.
Mr. Pierce: (OFF MICROPHONE)
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but other one is recommended for denial by everybody.
Mrs. Dougherty: No, it is not.
Mr. Olmedillo: It is recommended for denial from the P.A.B. meeting and the
land use was recommended for approval.
Mr. Plummer: Ok. all right, I'm sorry. Go ahead, call the roll.
i
l
t
100
March 31, 1987
d {
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND ADDENDA (SEPTEMBER 1985); FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 4091 SOUTHWEST 2ND
TERRACE (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) BY
CHANGING DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM
MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE TO RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE
USE; MAKING FINDINGS; 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 Joe Carollo
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and
to the public.
31. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ZONING CHANGE FROM RG-2/4 TO RO-3/6 AT
APPROXIMATELY 4091 SW 2 TERRACE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Plummer: Move item 11.
Mayor Suarez: Item 11 is moved. Do we have a second?
Mrs. Kennedy: Second 11.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any discussion on 11? Read the ordinance.
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 4091 SOUTHWEST 2ND TERRACE, MIAMI,
FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RG-
2/4 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO RO-1/4 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE
BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY
CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 32 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 passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and Y
to the public.
101 March 31, 1987
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE PLAN DESIGNATION FROM LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE
Mayor Suarez: PZ-12.
Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-12 and PZ-13 are companion items again, similar situation.
We have a comprehensive plan amendment and a zoning change. The... bear with
me for a second until we get the transparency on the projection. The shaded
property, which is the subject property, is located on 28th Street, SW and
right behind the Burger King site. You remember that the property across the
street was rezoned some months ago by this Commission. The property located
in this corner was also rezoned recently through an RO-1/4, which is the
abutting zoning district, that is facing Dixie. The recommendation of the
Planning Department is that this may be rezoned to an RO-1//4 again, which is
the same type of district, which is a residential office district. We believe
that the fact that this is across the street from that commercial district and
from that commercial district creates certain problems to have that as a
residence right now and under 6871, these two properties were already changed
in use from residential units to an office... to two offices, blocks five and
six. The extension of the RO-1/4 into these properties will not create a
intrusion into the already busy area, and you may remember also that when we
reviewed this particular case, which was changed to RO-1/4 recently, we had
recommended that the line come down to 28 Street. The recommendation of
course, is with the application of the SPI-3 overlay, which is a review by the
Planning Department and a planned use special permit has to be issued in
connection with whatever is built there.
Mayor Suarez: Where did that SPI overlay come from? Was that from the
nearness to the... proximity to the Metrorail?
MEN
Mr. Olmedillo: No, the SPI 3 district that we have at present on the 27th
Avenue corridor and it extends from Tigertail all the way to here and in some
portions of the Grove.
Mr. Stanley Price: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, Stanley Price,
law firm of Fine, Jacobs & Schwartz, Nash, Block & England, 2401 Douglas Road.
We are in total accord with the recommendations of the Planning Department,
the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. One additional fact that I'd like to
bring to your attention, which was omitted, is the fact that we have agreed to
provide a landscape buffer in the rear of the property, along the southern
border of the property, which is a further means of buffering our neighbors to
the south. Based upon the proximity to the commercial zoning and the fact
that this Commission has recently rezoned office use directly across the
street, plus the additional traffic of trying to beat the light at 27th Avenue
and U.S. 1, this street is no longer suitable for single family residential
development. The applicant has renovated the four homes in question. Two of
them are presently being utilized as an office, residential office, and we
respectfully request your approval in consistency with the recommendations of
your professional staff.
Mayor Suarez: Anyone wishes to be heard for or against PZ-12?
Mr. Bob Fitzsimmons: Mr. Mayor, Bob Fitzsimmons, I am a resident of Abaco
Avenue, which falls within the SPI-3 district apparently. I have a question
on that rezoning - what is the height limitation?
Mr. Olmedillo: The sector 4 for offices has a 25 foot limitation.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: OK, and a point that I will go into in more detail later
items, but you are increasing the traffic flow in that area and already the
intersection of what is Jefferson and 28 Street is a thoroughfare. There is a
shopping center going in across the street. There In a lot of traffic that
uses that intersection as a speedway to get back to 27 Avenue. Is there any
way we can include in this proposal some type of street closure on that
intersection to protect the residential area right there from the increased
traffic that is going to flow in that area?
102 March 31, 1987
•
LJ
Mr. Olmedillo: We have not isolated this case as for the traffic impact.
What we plan to do is that as you are aware of, our traffic studies address-:.d
this particular problem, not only in that area, but comprehensively.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: OK, is this the first reading on this item?
Mr. Olmedillo: This is the firs reading on this item, yes.
Mr. Plummer: Well, are you suggesting that a cutoff be made at address where
it reaches Abaco?
Mr. Fitzsimmons: No, sir, I am suggesting that a cutoff be made right at 28
Street. What we have experienced in the past and still experience, first of
all there is a foreign motor vehicle sales store right there, and they use to
test drive out Andros and up in that intersection and a lot of people use that
intersection as a shortcut to get back to 27, because there is no traffic
control until you get to 27 Avenue, so I am suggesting that 28 Street be
stopped right at the intersection, at 28 Street... I'm sorry, I should say
Jefferson be stopped right at 28 Street, right there. I am going to go into
more detail in the later items, but I think as part and parcel of the
rezoning, we should also start addressing traffic in that area.
Mr. Plummer: Is that within our purview. Well, he makes a good point. He
makes a damn good point.
Mr. Steven Cooke -Yarborough: Good evening, I'm Steven Cooke Yarborough, 3555
Crystal Court. I am vice-president of Tigertail Association, and I wish to
draw your attention to the map that I just gave you. This application for
rezoning is unfortunately another case that threatens our residential
community and questions the sincerity of this City in regards to the intent
and execution of the zoning ordinance. In the 27th Avenue study, which you
all recall was adopted a short while ago, the Planning Department stressed the
stability of the adjacent neighborhood, and the need to protect it from
encroachment. That is the area, to the east of the subject property. While
the study was to address the needs of rezoning in the areas on both sides of
27th, no recommendation was made for rezoning these lots. Why now the
request? If this is granted, it will tend to creep, no matter anybody's good
intentions, somebody will say, "I've got a precedent." Now, there are certain
good arguments put up for changing the zoning, but equally well, there will be
good arguments for changing the zoning on the next, the two red ones, because
then they will be two single family houses adjacent to an RO. Now, the two
RO's on blocks six and five have become offices under the transitional zone
being adjacent to Burger King. Now, they want to spread it to more, but they
want to get all four legitimized now, as an RO-1. OK, on the face of that,
that looks fine. We have heard from the gentlemen somewhere here that there
is a buffer zone in there. How secure is that buffer zone? If you will look
at the map which I just gave you, you will see the two lots that are now with
offices on them (I think only one of them is actually renting) in a double
crosshatch. Down below that, in a single crosshatch, is a property recently
acquired by the owner of the lots applying for rezoning. He also owns the
property immediately to the west of it, in the CR section. The intent for
this area is, or it is presently zoned single family residential, R-2. The
planning study for 27 Avenue didn't suggest that it should be changed. I can
see there is arguments for changing it, but what guarantee do we have that we
really mean that the rest of the neighborhood should stay residentials. If
you know Andros Street, it is a one way street going that way in toward 27th
Avenue. It is narrow, and it really serves only the properties facing on it.
They are residential, the street is quiet and perfectly suitable to remain
residential. Yet, if this rezoning on 28th is granted, it won't be very long
before the owner of the single crosshatched area is in to get that changed,
and then he will purchase the other lots in that area and before long that
whole corner block will have gone not residential. That will destroy the
residences on the other side of Andros. So, we are up against the old thing
we are always up against, the desire of the residents of the area to retain
their way of life and their investment in their properties and the desire of
the real estate people, the landowners, to change the zoning for their
personal gain. The landowners, unfortunately, always have money to support
their claims. The citizens, the poor voting public, doesn't have resources to
present our cases before this Commission with legal help, or before the court,
if it goes that far. While there is evidence that there might be some good
reasons for changing this, we maintain that there is more reason for holding
it, if the City is really intent on retaining the integrity of that area as a
103 March 31, 1987
single family residential area. You nibble at the boundaries, and very soon
the boundary is moved up; therefore we would request that you don't change
that zoning. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Steven, are you speaking on behalf of the association, or just
yourself?
Mr. Cooke -Yarborough: The association.
Mayor Suarez: Would it make any sense for us to, if we were disposed to
approve this, provide a one foot strip at the west end of lot three, or the
east end rather?
Mr. Cooke -Yarborough: At the east end? That, I think you have freedom to
make that proposal.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let speak into the record. Yes, Mr. Yarborough, I
don't think there is any question in my mind that lots two and one are right
around the corner from being changed. I don't think there is any question
about that. I think that has been espoused by the Planning Department, that
in effect, they agree to changing that line. Now, I think a natural barrier
is in fact, a street. That is a natural barrier, and if we were to look
favorably, as you say there are good arguments to change four and five, I
think that if this Commission was smart, it would go ahead and change two and
one as soon as an application comes in. Now, if in fact the two that are
cross -hatched coming down from lot six and lot five, are by the same owner,
that is my real area of concern, OK? I think that 28 Street, this other
gentlemen that spoke before, has a very, very fine idea of barricading that
off and keeping it residential. Mr. Mayor, I don't like the one foot
suggestion that I made before here, because I think the natural barrier is the
street... the avenue, and I...
Mayor Suarez: What do you propose to do on the southern end now that we are
thinking about that? I think you are making a good point there.
Mr. Plummer: Well, the southern end is where I am very much concerned. A new
mini -park, no, that is one more we can't keep up. See, the problem is, we are
not empowered this evening to hold, or to in fact, put that street blockage in
there. We would have to hold another hearing, a public hearing, and then go
forth. There is no question in my mind, that you are going to see it go to
Jefferson, and I think if we do it now and get it over with, we can draw some
lines, which I think are defendable in court. The ones that you are concerned
about down below, which I am concerned about, hey, the day ever comes they
have an application, I don't think I would be looking favorably on that,
because that would be in effect, the destroying of Andros Avenue, but...
Mayor Suarez: Well, are you implying that we could not build in the one
foot...
Mr. Plummer: Well, we could at this particular point, but do we want to? -
that is the question. Question, Mr. Mayor, if you go above this line...
Mayor Suarez: Well, it is a signal, at least, and it is a...
Mr. Plummer: Well, if you go above this line, Mr. Mayor, we have already, in
the two lots immediately to the north, we have already rezoned those, OK?
What we would in effect be doing is bringing that line straight down there,
all the way down. That's in effect what we would be doing, and I think that
that is the limit that I would vote to go for, on changing out of the R-1,
because of the character that is being implied, not only by the Burger King,
but by the shopping center that is across the street and everything that is
there. I would feel more comfortable in voting for this application if I
could be assured that that street closure would come about, because the main
problem of residential area is traffic, that is what destroys us quicker than
anything, and God knows in my area, I know it, OK? I have no problem voting
for the application as it exists. I have no problem voting for an application
on two in one, but it is predicated on the fact that that street would be
closed to vehicular traffic.
Mr. Cooke -Yarborough: May I get back to you?
Mr. Plummer: Sure. Excuse me for thinking out loud.
i9
104 March 31, 1987
Mr. Cooke -Yarborough: Isn't that what we are all doing? Do you share my
concern about the expansion coming south from that line? The gentlemen before
me said that there was a 20 foot buffer zone proposed, or a buffer zone, I
don't think he specified how wide. If that buffer zone...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, I did not hear him say a 20 foot, I heard him that he
was going to heavily landscape.
Mr. Cooke -Yarborough: Right.
Mr. Plummer: You are saying 20 feet?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It is required.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, OK, all right.
Mr. Cooke -Yarborough: OK, 20 feet. Is it possible, so that doesn't then come
back in a year or so and get changed under another zoning. Is it possible to
get that as a deed restriction or not - a certain number of years? Because,
if the same owner has control of those lots to the south, who knows, next
thing we are going to have an access roadway, or parking lot there, but if
there is a 20 foot buffer zone, landscape zone, which is a deed covenant...
Mr. Plummer: Do you own six and five?
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: Are you willing to give that 20 foot buffer on six, five, four
and three?
Mr. Price: Yes, it is required under the ordinance.
Mr. Plummer: Well, how about... now there is where your one foot might come
into play.
Mr. Cooke -Yarborough: What if it is not required? What we need is a
guarantee.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, that is what I meant, at the bottom, at the south end of
three, four, five and six.
Mr. Cooke -Yarborough: OK, one other point that was brought out. Now, on the
traffic up to 28th, we sent you... Tigertail sent you a copy of a letter that
we sent to the City, which then passed on to the County, that we have
requested that all of the stop signs in that area will be turned around onto
the other streets. This would save a heck of a lot of problems. At the
moment, all the stop signs are running on the short direction, this way, so
the traffic...
Mayor Suarez: Steven, why don't we get that scheduled for the next...
Mr. Plummer: 28 Street is a speedway, there is no question about it.
Mr. Cooke -Yarborough: Yes, but you see, it is a speedway, because there are
no stop signs on it. All the stop signs are going into 28.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, you can go from 27 to 22 Avenue, and there is absolutely no
slowdown.
Mr. Cooke -Yarborough: Right, now if you turn all the stop signs in that area
around, then you stop the traffic going in that direction on any streets,
Swanson and everybody else. And you allow it, well, if we put stop signs in,
at least you can pick them up if they
Mayor Suarez: When do we consider that? We can't consider that today, so why
don't we schedule a hearing on that? t,
Mr. Cooke -Yarborough: We have... no, but I was just bringing you up to date,
but this has gone through the County, and we are following up the County on
that matter, thank you.
I
105 March 31, 1987
1 0 1
Mayor Suarez: OK, great.
Mr. Joseph T. Calay: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, please.
Mr. Calay: Joseph T. Calay, 2985 Aviation Avenue. The two original existing
homes adjacent to the Burger King have been remodeled into an office. You all
are aware of that and I think that there are you know, and interesting study
in architecture. I am sure the rationale at that time was that this was going
to be a buffer for the adjoining areas, and then the area to the north changed
in nature from the very ancient and venerable electrical shop, to some new
shopping type center, and now we find the property on the east at 26 Avenue
being rezoned, and I don't think that anybody who lives in the Grove, who is
realistic about what's going on, and what has gone on in the Grove, would have
any objection to the type of development on six and five, where an existing
building was basically externally modified.
Mr. Plummer: Not the problem.
Mr. Calay: That's not the problem. That's not the problem. You know what
_ the problem is, Commissioner. The problem is when six and five and four and
three and two and one are assembled in one piece, the numbers are right to
tear down the six buildings that are there, and put up the building, and that
is the problem that we have had in the Grove since some of us were a lot
younger, and some of us were almost as young as some of the other Commission
members that were there seated with today, and that has been the problem, that
there is no instrument in the Grove, in the City of Miami, that says, "Hey, we
have this problem area, let's take the houses on six and five, convert them
from single family residence that was bringing in a rent of maybe $450, $550,
$600 a month, to an office at $10, $15, $18 a square foot, for a free standing
SEE
office in the Grove, so now, very shortly after five and six went down, we
have three and four going down, and we are sitting here talking about, you all
are sitting here talking about one and two. The truth of the matter is, that
if three and four were held to the same similar statutory remodeling
requirements as four as five and six, most of the people in the Grove would
say, "Great, we have finally established a transitional zoning, a transitional
use that is within the intent of what everybody in the Grove has wanted for
years. Now, if this isn't the block to do it in, then maybe one and two are
the ones to do it in, so that there is a transition, so that it is not the
accumulation of a bit by bit we get the zoning - Peter has it, give it to
Paul; Jack has it, give it to Jim, and then once the piece is big enough we
_ come in and say, "Gosh, almighty gee, that great big piece of property right
there within the taxing district for the Metrorail station certainly cannot
exist. It continually exists on the tax rolls being an RO-1/4, it needs to be
at least a 3/6." And gentlemen, if we can't do it now, when can we do it?
When can we get into this City of Miami zoning ordinance something that says
Yes, you can encroach into the neighborhood by use, but not by the structure.
Make that office building stay an office building. It is a lovely office
building. Somebody is going to rent it shortly, but let's not let it go down
bit by bit by bit. I appreciate your concept.
Mayor Suarez: Gee, with all the... thank you for your suggestion. With all
the segments of those classifications, you would think that we would be able
to do that with our different classifications. We can't do that?
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, the...
Mayor Suarez: I mean, our classifications contain four different little
symbols and there is no way to say, we are going to allow this particular
rezoning, but we are not going to allow, you know, tearing down all those
blocks and building something totally different.
Mr. Olmedillo: That may be done through a covenant, which according to our
zoning ordinances, it is voluntarily proffered by the applicant. There is no
particular zoning that would address that issue. Once the zoning is issued,
it is open to all the characteristics under that zoning district, no, to add
to the comments that Mr. Plummer was making, Commissioner Plummer was making,
remember that lots that are above the CR district on the went side, they have
presently the right not to get the rezoning, but they have the right to apply,
because they abut the CR district, so when you are thinking about the '
possibilities, please think of that also.
f �a
106 March 310 1987 i
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask this. Mr. Pierce, this is first reading.
setween now and 2nd reading, can we instigate the action to close that street,
and be heard simultaneously at the same time?
Mr. Pierce: I believe so, under the existing section in chapter 54, the
Public Works Department can look at it and initiate it.
Mayor Suarez: Why don't you point on the map there where we are talking about
closing street.
Mr. Pierce: Let George... (INAUDIBLE) ...
Mr. George Campbell: The applicant is always talking about closing it here.
I was looking at the possibility of closing it here, which would
this straight shot through here to 27th Avenue that everybody
is talking about and...
Mayor Suarez: I'm getting a nod over here, I don't know if it means yes, or
getting ready for my next argument, or what.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: That will send it all down Andros.
Mr. Campbell: Well, we would also like to look... as suggested that we look
again at the stop sign situation, considering we have asked Dade County to
look at it, see about either reversing some of the stop signs, creating four
way stops, doing something to impede the traffic, or change the traffic
pattern, I should say, from what it is right now, and we will look into
closing either here, or here. This poses a problem, closing it this way, in
that you have fire rescue approaches here, which would be difficult to turn
around.
Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor, obviously there are several different alternatives.
Let us look at all of their and at second reading to be in a position to
address each one intelligently.
Mr. Plummer: Let me go on the record. I don't like the one of closing 28
Street. I would prefer to close the Jefferson aspect of it. I think we can
address this, as Mr. Yarborough said, with maybe stop signs and enforcement on
28 Street from being a speedway, and then what we are talking about is on six,
five, four and three. The southerly 20 feet would remain in the old zoning,
would be a buffer zone and would not enjoy a transitional use, is that
correct?
Mayor Suarez: Well, you were talking about a landscape buffer, not a...
different zoning.
Mr. Pierce: That is correct.
Mayor Suarez: But, we can put a...
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Turn on the mike, we can't hear, Mr. Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry, sir. What I was saying was, that we would go the
southern 20 feet would be a buffer and not zoned to eliminate the transitional
use.
Mr. Price: We would agree not to have the transitional use, Commissioner, but
if you impose that 20 foot limitation, you are severely cutting back our
setbacks.
Mr. Plummer: Make what 40 feet?
Mrs. Dougherty:
Mr. Plummer: No, no.
Mrs. Kennedy: We don't have transitional use here.
Mr. Plummer: There is no transitional use. All right, so then in other
words, what you are saying, is there would be a 20 foot buffer?
1
107 March 31, 1987
•
Mr. Price: Yes, which is...
Mr. Plummer: With a wall?
Mr. Price: There is a fence and wall there now, yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Well, what kind of fence?
Mr. Price: A five foot chain link fence. Five foot, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Well, how about a six foot concrete fence?
Mayor Suarez: Sir, if you're gonna address, you will have to get to the mike.
Mr. Price: He says it is over six feet now. He can get verification for you,
Commissioner.
INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.
Mayor Suarez: Please, you have to get to a mike.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, just to start expediting... is everybody finished
talking? Mr. Mayor, I am going to move that we approve item four and three
with the 20 foot buffer, and a voluntary covenant that there will be no use in
that 20 foot of lot six, five, four and three, and simultaneously to be
brought back at the same time, the closing of the intersection of Jefferson,
that is my motion. I've got to be honest with you, if they don't close that
street up there, I probably would not vote for it in the second reading, and I
am going to impose upon the applicant that they would bear the cost of that
closing. I will move that in the form of a motion.
Mrs. Kennedy: I'll second that.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Nancy, do you want to address that very...
Ms. Nancy Marmesh: Can you hear me? OK, Nancy Marmesh, and I live at 2539
Andros Avenue which is on the street right behind where it says five, four and
three are, and I have to tell you this is really, really frightening me, not
what you just said, but the idea... are those properties all owned by the same
person? OK, also the property next to me... let's see, I don't know...
Mr. Plummer: Are you 20, or are you 17?
Ms. Marmesh: No, on 19...
Mr. Plummer: According to this, they own 18...
Ms. Marmesh: 18, excuse me, 18.
Mr. Plummer: No, they own 19 and 20, according to Mr. Yarborough.
Ms. Marmesh: Isn't 18 Marmesh?
Mr. Plummer: 18... 17 is the pie shaped.
Ms. Marmesh: OK.
Mr. Plummer: And 18 is the first long property, and according to Mr.
Yarborough, then they would own 19 and 20, which actually is the lot running
contiguous with lots six and five.
Ms. Marmesh: With Burger King. OK, I'm sorry, I just forgot the number. The
same person also owns the property next to me then, on 21, is that correct?...
the same person owns the six, five, one three?
Mr. Plummer: No, not according to Mr. Yarborough's map. Then, they would own
20 and 21.
Ms. Marmesh: Yes, we are 19.
Mr. Plummer: OK.
i
Mrs. Kennedy Then this is wrong.
Mr. Plummer: No, this is right.
Ms. Marmesh: OK, so the same person has six, five, four, three, twenty and
twenty-one, is that correct?
Mr. Plummer: Correct.
Ms. Marmesh: OK, this is what is really concerning me, because we...
Mr. Plummer: That is why it is concerning us, and we are putting a 20 foot
buffer there.
Ms. Marmesh: Right, OK, well, we have been approached also, about selling,
through the same person, so I just... you know, I just really think you have
to consider about what is going to happen here, if you have all six, five,
four, three, two and one owned by the same person and also 20 and 21, and that
is all I've got to say, I'm just too upset to talk about it.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good evening, you will hear from me later, but I wasn't
going to address this issue. The thing that bothers me is what Mr. Plummer
has requested, and that's the blockage of that street, in the fact that that
could be used as a precedent to block other streets in the Grove in other
residential areas. That bothers me because I feel that it prevents freedom of
access.
Mr. Plummer: That's what we are trying to do.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: .... to freedom of access by citizens who pay taxes for
those roads, to protect a few other citizens. Now, I am not saying that is
wrong, what you propose, I am just afraid of the precedent that might be set,
in other parts of Coconut Grove.
Mr. Plummer: Well, that is not the...
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Suarez: Please, please, he did.
Mr. Plummer: That is not the precedent that has been set. I mean, the
precedent has been set in Belle Meade, it has been set in Bay Point, and in
many other areas.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Has it been set in the Grove?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Where?
Mr. Plummer: You mean the closing of streets?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, where?
Mr. Plummer: Oh, I can't answer total closure, no, I can't answer that.
Well, Mayfair, they built over the... there is no street, they built the
building. No, Bay Heights, they closed no streets in Bay Heights, whoever
said that, that is absolutely wrong. Well, I make my motion, it is on first
reading, and let's take it from there.
Mr. David Strong: Excuse me, my name is David Strong, I live at 2321 Trapp
Avenue, and I'd just like to ask a couple of questions. You show an SPI-3 on
here. What is adjacent to SPI-3? As I understand it, an SPI district allows
you to practically build anything you want, and you go in with a special
permit, and all of that. Where does all of this baloney cease, anyhow? Where
does your buffer zone stop? You keep on putting buffers, the buffers keep
moving.
Mayor Suarez: Let him answer that first point that you made, Guillermo. The
SPI-3 overlay that you are showing there, what is that?
109
March 31, 1987
'ii
Mr. Olmedillo: The SPI-3 is a district, is a special district, and that does
not issue you any additional rights besides the uses that are there, because
it is an overlay uisi.,ut. it as a 6i:dY. makes you go through the
Planning Department review in order to do anything on those properties, but it
does not issue any additional uses, land uses, or intensities for that matter
in that property.
Mr. Strong: Only special designations seem to be working for the benefit of
the developer and whoever wants to come into an area and do whatever the heck
they feel like doing. It just seems that it is creeping...
Mayor Suarez: They are not supposed to have that effect and if they do, we
are really in trouble.
Mr. Strong:... creeping on and on and on, and there is never any end in sight.
As a case in point, we have, the Tigertail Association has a lawsuit in the
courts right now and it has just been in limbo for about a year. We have held
up a big thing on Tigertail Avenue and Aviation Avenue, but where the heck do
we stop with all this stuff?- I'd like to know!
Mayor Suarez: I'll tell you one thing, I think the overlay districts are
confusing. I don't see what they add to the discussion, to tell you the
truth. Maybe they help planners and zoning people and experts...
Mr. Olmedillo: They are designed to give more control of the land.
Mayor Suarez: More control, but they sure seem to sometimes have the opposite
effect. Thelma.
Ms. Thelma Altshuler Hi, my name is Thelma Altshuler from the Tigertail
Association. I just wanted to read a part of the description of the intent of
the SPI-3.
® "It is the intent of the special public interest district
regulations that future public and private developments shall
respect and enhance this character preserving property values and
enhancing Coconut Grove's desirability as a place to live and work,
to protect against inappropriate height, discordant or incongruent
design, disturbance of natural features, and encourage development
in such portions of the community in a manner appropriate to
preservation of its unique physical, cultural, and historic
heritage."
So I hope that that is what happens on this property over here.
Mayor Suarez: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I saw
a lot of heads being shaken when Commissioner made his motion with all the
complexity of it and all the requirements on...
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, if you saw from the proponents...
We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I saw a lot of heads
being c+shaken when Commissioner made his motion with all the complexity of it
and all the requirements on...
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, if you saw from the proponents...
Mayor Suarez: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: Let me clarify the motion. This would change the zoning as the
application is before us.
Ms. Hirai: Commissioner, please use the microphone.
Mr. Plummer: What's wrong? - I've always been known as a loudmouth! What the
hell happened here? As the application is before us, it would change the
zoning on six, five, four and three. It would leave a twenty foot buffer to
the south, heavily landscaped with a six foot minimum concrete wall,
simultaneously, would come back before us with the closing of 28 Street, the
cost of such to be burdened by the applicant. Now, what I am saying is that
if you can't bring this back on the closing, on the 23rd of April, then don't
bring this application back until such time you can bring them back together.
Follow me?
110 March 31, 1987
a
Mr. Olmedillo: Right.
Mr. Plummer: If you can do it by the 23rd of April and bring them back
simultaneously, that is fine.
Mr. Olmedillo: When you speak about the 20 foot buffer, are you speaking of
not rezoning those 20 feet, or using that only as a landscape buffer?
Mr. Plummer: As a buffer.
Mr. Olmedillo: Landscape buffer.
Mr. Plummer: As a buffer, yes with a minimum of six foot wall.
Mayor Suarez: Doesn't it make sense in addition for me to be able to vote for
this thing, assuming that I can vote for it, to have a one foot strip that
does not get rezoned? And if not, why doesn't it make sense to do that?
Mr. Olmedillo: It...
Mayor Suarez: As a signal, as a way of telling the adjoining property owners
that this will not...
Mr. Olmedillo: It makes sense for parcels...
Mayor Suarez: South, right. That's the ones.
Mr. Olmedillo: 19 to 22, because they would be abutting the RO district.
There is no transitional...
Mayor Suarez: Those are the ones that we have been talking about.
Mr. Olmedillo: Right. The ones west of that, since they are abutting the CR
district, it doesn't make any difference to them, but the ones, like I said,
19 to 22, it does make a difference, because then, they will not be able to
apply, unless they put together 200 feet of frontage, which is another
criteria used in the ordinance in order to apply for a zoning change.
Mayor Suarez: Right, in order words, unless a major...
Mrs. Kennedy: Are we incorporating that in the motion?
Mayor Suarez: For me to vote for it, I would like that incorporated in the
motion, wouldn't you?
Mr. Plummer: Well, with only three of us here, we had better accept it or
else, so we can get it by first reading.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: Excuse me, could I ask one question? When he said 200 feet,
is Andros 200 feet long?
Mayor Suarez: No, no, he was just talking about other situations where you
can apply for a rezoning.
Mr. Plummer: Front footage.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: So, if they had all the lots on Andros, they couldn't apply?
Mr. Plummer: Are you making an amendment, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Suarez: Yes, I would suggest to the movant, that he make the amendment
so that I can vote for it.
Mr. Plummer: I accept the amendment.
Mrs. Dougherty: One foot strip on the...
Mayor Suarezr Does the second...
Mr. Plummer: One foot strip on the south end.
111 March 31, 1907
Mrs. Dougherty: That is not zoned.
Mr. Plummers That would not be rezoned.
Mayor Suarez: Do you have a problem with that, George?
Mr. Campbell: No, I don't have a problem with that, but I want Commissioner
Plummer to hear this too.
Mr. Plummer: All right, so what you are saying then, for the record, what we
are applying should be on 13, rather than 12 - PZ-13, rather than 12. Is that
correct?
Mr. Campbell: Oh, yes, on 13, rather than 12.
Mr. Olmedillo: May I add something to the one foot issue? If they have unity
of title, of lots fronting on 28, and Andros, then the one foot becomes a dead
issue, because the property will be abutting.
Mayor Suarez: Well, they only have it as to two lots, so, it still would be
an impediment for the other.
Mr. Olmedillo: Right.
Mr. Campbell: Commissioner Plummer, you wanted to bring this back as far as
street closure comes on the 23rd.
Mr. Plummer: Yes sir, it requires a public hearing.
Mr. Campbell: It requires a public hearing and it requires going to the
Zoning Board, I can't possibly get to the Zoning Board before April 2Oth.
Mr. Plummer: Well, bring it back then in May.
Mr. Campbell: All right, but we will bring the road and street closure back
in May, do you want to hold this up...?
Mr. Plummer: Sir, I was clear, I thought I was clear.
Mr. Campbell: Well...
Mr. Plummer: Don't bring either one back without both
Mayor Suarez: OK, that is now further clarified, further amended, and with
those amendments and clarifications, any further discussion from the
Commission? Call the roll.
Mr. Plummer: Well, OK...
Mayor Suarez: Oh...
Mr. Plummer: Understand, this is on PZ-12, which is the comp change first.
There is none of those stipulations on 12, they all apply to 13.
THEREUPON, THE CITY ATTORNEY READ THE ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD, BY
TITLE ONLY.
Mr. Plummer: Call the roll.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, the one strip applies to PZ-12. Call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND ADDENDA (SEPTEMBER 1985); FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2606-2630 SOUTHWEST
28TH STREET (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN)
EXCEPT FOR A ONE FOOT STRIP ON THE SOUTH END BY
CHANGING DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE TO RESIDENTIAL OFFICE USE;
MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
112
March 310 1987
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and sc^^.ne" ':• -'- '
Kennedy and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and
to the public.
-------- -------------------- ---------- ----------------------------------------
33. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ZONING CHANGE FROM RS-2/2 TO RO-1/4 WITH SPI-3
OVERLAY AT 2606-2630 S.W. 28 STREET.
---------- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Plummer: I move PZ-13 with the stipulations as amended.
Mayor Suarez: PZ-13 is moved with the stipulations. Do we have a second?
Mrs. Kennedy: You have a second.
Mayor Suarez: Seconded, any discussion? Call the roll, PZ-13.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE
9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
APPROXIMATELY 2606 THROUGH 2630 SW 28 STREET, MIAMI,
FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) EXCEPT
FOR A ONE FOOT BUFFER STRIP ON THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY
LINE OF SAID PROPERTY FROM RS-2/2 ONE FAMILY DETACHED
RESIDENTIAL TO RO-1/4 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE WITH THE SPI-
3 OVERLAY DISTRICT, 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.
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner
Kennedy and passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and
announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and
to the public.
34. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 27TH AVENUE GATEWAY PROJECT (See label 936)
Mayor Suarez: PZ-14.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, are we going to make a determination. It is a little
after 8:00 P.M., we've got six items left, of which 27 Avenue is going to be a
long issue.
Mayor Suarez: Let me say something on 27 Avenue. I, for myself, am not
prepared to vote in favor of any of the proposed changes for 27 Avenue I
understand that as a study, it was finally a compromise after a lot of work,
but I don't think that it needs to be built into the zoning code at this
point. We can take proposed changes on a case by case basis, and I don't see
any reason for voting for it, so, unless the other three...
Mr. Carollo: Are you asking for it to be deferred, or...?
Mayor Suarez: Well, I am letting the Commission know that they will not pass,
you know, unless you have three other people that are voting for it, if that
helps your determination.
Mr. Carollo: Well, that is not my question. If you want to defer it, I will
go along with the deferment.
Mayor Suarez: No, I don't have any need to defer it.
Mr. Plummer: Well...
Mayor Suarez: I am voting against it.
Mrs. Kennedy: Are you saying that you would like more time to look at other
proposals, to meet with other people?
Mayor Suarez: I am saying that if there is anyone who wants to pass it,
unless there are three people here that want to pass it, it won't, you know,
it won't pass.
Mr. Plummer: What he is saying is, he is not voting for it.
Mayor Suarez: I'm voting against it.
Mr. Plummer: Now, let me ask you this question, to the Department and to the
people involved, because my office has received some calls that feels that
there is more area of compromise. Do we, effectively accomplish anything in
an area of deferment for further compromise? No. Just asking the question.
Now, the problem is time. You have got what is it, four items that affect it?
Mr. Carollo: (INAUDIBLE)... pass these items, we have more than six.
(INAUDIBLE)... item seven.
Mayor Suarez: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: I don't think you are going to get finished, because we are
going to finish at 9:00 p.m., and I don't think that we should take one issue
or two issues and not hear the others. I would much prefer, now, I am just
speaking for one, that we reschedule this, where it is in the morning, or
somewhere in the early afternoon, where we can hear all four issues at the
same...
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: Sure, sure.
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: All right, there are five of them?
Mrs. Dougherty: It has to be after 5:00 p.m.
114 March 31, 1987
is
:i
Mr. Plummer: Yes, OK, after 5:00 p.m. is fine, but schedule it for 5:00 p.m.
Mrs. Kennedy: But, set it for an exact time, then. You take it right at 5:00
p.m., if we decide to do that.
Mr. Plummer: But, you put the houseboat in here at 5:00 p.m. also.
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: You are sinking the Commission. Sir, you wanted to speak?
Mr. Andres Duany: Duany, 2949 Coconut Avenue. I want to go back 10 years in
time and be very brief, that is the only way I can be Originally,
there was a Metrorail proposed and voted on favorably, and there was a
Metrorail station. I am going to go very fast, but I cannot start...
Mr. Plummer: Sir excuse me. That is not the point. I think what we were
trying to determine is whether or not we were going to hear this tonight or
not, not the arguments of the case, if we do hear it. Now, I am just...
Mr. Duany: Well, the thing is, if you keep losing more and more sessions;
there were 23 sessions, you bore people so to death, that they don't say the
fundamental things that should have been said from the very beginning. At
some point, someone has to get up and say them! I have no messianic complex
of any kind, that have been waiting a long time to speak my piece. Now,
originally, when Metrorail was projected and voted on favorably, they used to
use the phrase, "impact areas." That seems to be no longer true. Now, they
also mentioned a bridge for pedestrians. Now, if it were not... if it were
possible not to be myopic about this thing, but the one thing that is
universally good, is the one thing that is tremendously effective medicine, is
to get people walking. In other words, if you can get away briefly from the
automobile by being able to walk onto the Metrorail station, you resolve a
great many things. I would like to contrast briefly what happened in the race
that they had, the automobile race, and what happened in Miami when they just
had a festival. There was a total jam up in the entire area, causing
problems, and so on. In the Miami area, people not only use the Metro very
extensively that day, they also used the people's walker. I am not talking
about a very expensive thing like the people's walker, I am just talking about
a pedestrian bridge over and pedestrian. Why must somebody, who wants to live
agreeably in Miami, take a plane to Europe? It is very simple. If you want to
live agreeably, there was a period when there wasn't any zoning. In other
words, the fundamental , do you want a utopia, or do you want an
otopia? Do you want to be the slave of your automobile at every minute of the
day? Now, the Metrorail was supposedly to get people away from the
automobile, away from the traffic jams, away from everything. I think that
bridge is basic, and then on the other area around there, you need the
agreeable living of let's say, arcades, cafes, a series of things which bring
people together, preferably three generations of people, like in Europe, where
you have the grandfathers, the parents, and everyone else living in areas
which become totally livable. You can take as an example, most any city in
Europe and they may have underground metro, they may have what it is, but it
is incredibly agreeable, because people within two or three blocks of where
they live, within subdivisions of the gran Paris, within
Barcelona, within Switzerland, it is all of this three generations of people
living, and by I say living, you have offices, you have professionals, you
have stores, you have everything you need, and also, you have one other thing
that is tremendously �:,.ortant, when you get those conditions, you get away
from delinquency. Why do you get away from delinquency?... because you have
three generations together. Why, isolate everything? Why this talk about
It is like... I don't know!
Mayor Suarez: But it sounds like, if I may interrupt you for a second, it
sounds like you are arguing in favor of the rezoning.
Mr. Duany: Yes, of coursel But, it never begins, and meanwhile... pardon me,
one last thing. During all this period, the area bound by Coconut Avenue, 27
Avenue and Dixie, instead of going ahead, instead of progressing with two
exceptions, has gone to seed, to whatever you want, but it has really gone
down hill, and why is it going down hill, with two exceptions? One In Grove
Plaza and the other is the Taurus Restaurant. Both of them are
architecturally coherent and both work very well. Precisely what there is an
115 March 31, 1987
l
over abundance of in Miami is conforming zoning. There is never an abundance
of unconforming zoning, because if people start using things in a mixed way,
you have life. Calle Ocho is life) But, that is what happened in Europe
anyway, because they didn't invent zoning, because there wasn't any
automobile. In this country the automobile came along so rapidly, that I
think the whole thing has to be put in perspective. There are new cities
going up in the United States in which this is happening. Why should the old
cities be at such a disadvantage?
Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your statement. I'm not sure that it means that
you want to have the items considered and determined today, or postponed, I
can't figure that out, but at least...
Mr. Duany: I would like it begun. I would like the fundamentals to be begun.
Mayor Suarez: Well, when the study was begun is when the whale discussion
began.
Mr. Duany: You see, because it is all myopically) I know it, but then it
went on and went on...
Mayor Suarez: Yes, on foreverl
Mr. Duany:... it got in the hands of the Tigertail people and so on, and
nobody has ever looked at it, they have always been looking at the little
trees, one tree at a time. Sometimes somebody has to look at the forest, or
else the consequences are not going to be satisfactory.
Mr. Plummer: I get back to my original question.
Mayor Suarez: Well, in the absence of a motion to defer items...
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD
Mayor Suarez:... 16 forward, let's go ahead and begin with PZ-14, which you
have a right. Yes, Tony.
Mr. Tony If it is deferred, would it be deferred to the next meeting
of the Commission regarding zoning? In other words, a full month, or would it
just go to the next zoning... to the next...
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Tony OK, that would be fine.
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Suarez: If we were to decide that, it would be fine with Tony.
35. DEFERRAL OF PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCES TO CHANGE ZONING AT
APPROXIMATELY 366-88 S.W. 26 STREET (INTRAMERICA INVESTMENTS)
Mr. Olmedillo: Planning and Zoning items 14 and 15 are companion items again.
We have a Comp Plan amendment and a zoning change from RG-1/3, which is a
duplex type of zoning to a CR-2/7 commercial zoning. The issues that we
looked at in this case are the uses along Douglas Road, 37 Avenue; the uses
behind 37 Avenue, the conditional use is already issued in the area; the
depth of the lot fronting Douglas; the possible intrusion into the
neighborhood and the continuation of the zoning, or rezoning actions into the
residential area.
Mrs. Kennedy: Guillermo, excuse me a second. Why didn't you give them a
transitional use permit?
Mr. Olmedillo: Why couldn't we? Actually, there was a possibility of issuing
a transitional use through a special permit, yes, for parking, but the
applicant chose with a covenant that they accompanied the application, they
chose to go for the rezoning of the rest of the property. They own the lots
i
116 !larch 31, 1987
i ��
which front on Douglas Road, and they have a contract, according to the
information that we have, a contract to purchase the three subsequent lots
into the residential district now. This is located across the Coral Gables
Hospital, and it is just north of the Tony Roma's restaurant. I'm sure you
are familiar with the area. In addressing the concerns of the Planning
Department, the applicant submitted a voluntary covenant, by which they would
limit the development to 1.5 F.A.R. They would limit all vehicular traffic to
occur only within the first 120 feet, which is already zoned for commercial.
They have additional setbacks, front setbacks which are not required by the
ordinance, but they have proffered also to have a front setback on both 37
Avenue and 26 Street. They have also proffered a landscape buffer, 20 feet
landscape buffer on the easterly boundary. They have limited the rezoning to
minus one foot of the easterly side, and also they have written the covenant
in a way by which the property cannot be sold in pieces. One thing that we
are concerned about was that the owner could, in the future, sell to the
neighbor, that one foot, therefore making the neighbor abut the particular
property and the way the covenant is drafted, is that they cannot dispose of
one foot of the property, they would have to consider the unity of title at
all times. In the blue area, there is a vacant old restaurant facility there.
Mr. Plummer: Is that the Madrid?
Mr. Olmedillo: Now, south of it - it is a nursery.
Mr. Plummer: Where is the hospital?
Mr. Olmedillo: Now, south of it, what we have is what used to be the Hasta
Manana restaurant, which is the Tony Roma's restaurant, south of it.
Mr. Plummer: Where is the hospital?
Mrs. Kennedy: The hospital Oh, I through he said hostile He said hospital.
Mr. Olmedillo: The hospital, yes, the Coral Gables Hospital.
Mr. Plummer:
Mrs. Kennedy: And where would he...
Mr. Plummer: Oh, this is the guy with the nursery?
Mr. Olmedillo: Right, that is correct.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, my God! Is he still the owner?
Mrs. Kennedy: And where would ingress and egress of the property be?
Mr. Olmedillo: Excuse me?
Mrs. Kennedy: Where would ingress and egress of the property be?
Mr. Olmedillo: It would be within the first 120 feet on the 26 Street side,
and fronting 37 Avenue on Douglas.
Mrs. Kennedy: Who was the guy with the nursery?
Mr. Plummer: Oh, he is a
Mrs. Kennedy:
Mr. Olmedillo: The way that the covenant translates into a physical form, it
will be that they have... the building would be 35 feet in height on this
portion, on what is today the residential portion of the property and they
would net back 20 feet and they would have the light planes described in the
transparency.
Mr. Plummer: Put the other map back up. How do you justify if it is north or
south? If you change this what stops the applicant of north and south three
lots east of that line applying for the same thing.
Mr. Olmedillo: Well, today on the south. The first two lots, two
residential lots were given a transitional use and they have a parking... now,
that is a medical building, which is just south of it.
117 March 31, 1957
^Y
■
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but that is transitional today, but tomorrow they can go
anu apply.
Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct. There is no way to stop that, if this were
to be granted anyway, remember that the lot abutting the CR, right now could
apply anyway again for this.
Mr. Plummer: But where do you... you know, somewhere along the line, you have
got to draw a line.
Mr. Rodrigues: We are drawing a line here now.
Mr. Plummer: No, you are notl Look at this up here.
_ Mr. Rodrigues: That was before, we are drawing it now with this new
We have notice that this has been happening, and we are drawing a line over
here now, which is...
Mr. Plummer: Over here.
Mr. Rodriguez: That was before We can draw a line with this and
Mr. Plummer: Why would you draw it here?
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: But it would only be a transitional, right?
Mr. Rodriguez: In this case, transitional zoning..
Mr. Plummer: But, how much beyond the transitional are they asking in this
application? Another lot less one foot?
Mr. Olmedillo: You can go 100 feet. Transitional would be 100 feet, so it is
two and one-half lots. They have 40 footers.
Mr. Plummer: If you look at this here, OK? There is no rationale or
justification in my estimation, to go almost three lots deep, because the
others, if you go just to the north of here, on from 26 to 25 Terrace, there
is in fact, no transitional presently, even though there is 100 feet that
exists, OK?
Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct, right.
Mr. Plummer: Ok? You go from 25 Terrace, to 24 Street, it is one lot deep,
OK?
Mr. Olmedillo: That is where the banking facility is.
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: Oh, I understand. All of this over here is very
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Olmedillo: However, to the south, you have the Tony Roma's restaurant,
which goes in about four lots, five lots deep.
Mr. Plummer: That's for parking.
Mr. Olmedillo: For parking, yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: I want to look at it. You make no sense with a line coming
down. If you increase this one, what you are doing is increasing from Coral
Way to Bird Road.
Mrs. Kennedy: Do you want to look ...(INAUDIBLE)...
Mr. Plummer: Yes, I think... my personal feeling, I want to go look at it. I
really do. The idea, if I use the map of Sergio, the depth... OK, here, that
lie March 91, 1907
is the same map I am talking about, all right? Now, there are two properties
there that we can't do a damn thing about that go four or five deep, but yet,
it we are going to establish a line, a straight line of any kind to try and
defend, where does it end?
Mayor Suarez: What you are showing there is CR-2/7, to follow the
Commissioner's reasoning.
Mr. Plummer: West of the line. That exists between Douglas Road and that
line.
Mayor Suarez: OK, that line is Douglas?
Mr. Plummer: That is Douglas.
Mayor Suarez: OK, what does the other line represent, just the inner lots to
how far?
Mr. Plummer: No, the other line represents how deep the CR-2/7 goes.
Mayor Suarez: And how far is that from Douglas?
Mr. Plummer: Approximately 100 feet.
Mayor Suarez: How many...
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Suarez: Most of those lots aren't that length, right?... just one lot.
That is what most of the lots happen to be, 120 feet there?
The initial lot, right off of Douglas, is what you are saying.
Mr. Olmedillo: The ones is fronting on Douglas, right.
Mayor Suarez: He has got a whole bunch of them lined up, all the way down.
The point right there, Stanley, where the project is on there.
Mr. Plummer: See, my problem, Mr. Mayor, is they are already entitled to two
lots for transitional. That they are entitled to under the law. What?
Mr. Olmedillo: Two and a half. They have forty foot lots.
_ Mr. Plummer: Oh, they are forty foot?
Mr. Olmedillo: Right.
Mr. Plummer: But, how much beyond are they asking for in the transitional
than what they are entitled to?
Mr. Olmedillo: They are asking for an additional 19, because they are going
to minus one foot, they are eliminating the easterly one foot.
Mr. Plummer: So, it is 40 feet more.
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes. Well, there is the 20 foot buffer.
Mayor Suarez: They are entitled to how many feet? I am trying to get the
math right, there.
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, they are entitled to 100 feet.
Mayor Suarez: A hundred, and they have got 40 plus 40, plus...
Mr. Olmedillo: Plus half of 20, plus 40, which...
Mayor Suarez: Plus half of...
Mr. Olmedillo: Of 40, which will be 20, that will make their 100 feet in
there.
Mrs. Kennedy: That will make the 100.
119
March 31, 1987
Mayor Suarez: What you are saying is, they are entitled to 100 and asking for
l0u?
Mr. Plt=er: No, they are entitled to 100 and asking for 120.
Mr. Olmedillo: No, they are asking for 119.
Mayor Suarez: 119?
Mr. Olmedillo: Right.
Mayor Suarez: And it is sloping right, in the way you showed it before...
Mr. Olmedillo: That is right.
Mayor Suarez:... to provide the buffer.
Mr. Olmedillo: That is the 20 feet...
Mayor Suarez: Right.
Mr. Olmedillo: ...that is being shown there, and from the 20 feet, then you
take your, what we call the which is the first wall that can occur,
and then it goes up and then it goes inside.
Mayor Suarez: You couldn't have put it into your design to just take the 100
feet that you are entitled to? You want to get that extra 20 feet here?
Mr. Olmedillo: Let the applicant.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask one more question, that is important. Going
back to the other map, what is the property immediately to the west? That
would be lot 10. What is the zoning on that?
Mr. Olmedillo: That is a single family and that is an RG-1/3 zoning district.
It is a duplex zoning.
Mr. Plummer: And you are going to be putting a wall up how high?
Mayor Suarez: For the record, that is immediately to the east, I believe.
Mr. Plummer: To the west, to the east, I'm sorry.
Mayor Suarez: Just so we don't confuse the record too much, here.
Mr. Plummer: You are talking about one, two, three, four floors?
Mr. Olmedillo: We are talking about 35 feet in height. That will be the
height of the building in that portion.
Mr. Plummer: I am assuming that what I am looking at is a garage.
Mr. Olmedillo: That is a garage...
Mr. Plummer: But, it has no bearing on it because this is not conditioned
upon what they are going to build, it is a zoning change.
Mr. Olmedillo: Right.
Mr. Plummer: See, that In the problem.
Mr. Olmedillo: They...
Mr. Plummer: You change the zoning, they can put anything up there they want.
There is no guarantee. There is no guarantee that this is what they will do.
Once you change the zoning, cleat la vie.
Mr. Stephen Helfman: Mr. Mayor, my name is Stephen Helfman, I am with the law
firm of fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block and England, with offices at
2401 Douglas Road. I am here this evening on behalf of the property owner, as
well as IntraAmerica Investments, who has a contract to purchase this
property.
120 March 31, 1987
Mr. Plummer: Who is IntraAmerica?
Mrs. Kennedy: Armando Codina.
Mr. Helfman: Armando Codina is the principal. We... to address your
concerns, Mr. Plummer, we have prepared a graphic showing what we could build
with special exceptions, taking advantage of the transitional use provisions
of the code, and what in fact, we are proposing to build, and what we are
limiting ourselves with the covenant, to build. This board, in the shaded
blue area, indicates the area that we are proposing and by virtue of the
covenant, we are limited to building within those parameters. The area that is
crosshatched here and also back here, is the area in which we could build, if
we went through the special exception transitional use, conditional use method
of attempting to put up a building like that. Our immediate neighbor to the
south, without going through this zoning change process has accomplished that.
They have parking back the entire length of our proposed structure, and its
office building on Douglas Road. We are here...
Mr. Plummer: Their parking is four levels high?
Mr. Helfman: No, it is not. I am not sure of the height, but there is a
parking structure back there.
Mr. Carollo: Who is the principal involved in this IntraAmerica Investments,
again?
Mr. Helfman: It is Mr. Codina.
Mr. Carollo: Oh, that is the guy you got your brother-in-law a job with,
right? Am I right, or not? He is playing deaf again.
Mayor Suarez: Proceed, Counselor.
Mr. Helfman: Thank you. What this shows is that by virtue of a special
exception or conditional use, and we have gone, we have met with the Planning
Department on numerous occasions, going back and forth. We could conceivably
put up the structure in the crosshatched area. We have done what Mr. Plummer,
you have suggested. We are the first people to come in and say: "We are not
going to go the transitional use route, because there is no public hearings
and there is not enough input from the neighborhood, we are going to be the
first people to go through this full-blown zoning change and Comp Plan
amendment." And that is exactly what we have done. We have offered the
covenant, we have put the one foot strip in, and we have attempted to put in
all of the safeguards that the Planning Department has recommended. We feel
we have addressed every single concern, and this is a perfect example of the
type of application that I have heard you individually ask for, in lieu of a
transitional use concept in putting up a project like this.
Mr. Plummer: Give me the concerns of the people that live in the duplex to
the west... to the east.
Mr. Helfman: I wish I could. They have not shown enough interest in this
application. After three hearings now, to even show up to send in any
objection. As you can see, there were no cards sent in. This is what the
process is for, for people to come down here. I can tell you that we have
been unopposed at every hearing. This neighborhood has changed, and this is
the type of project that is appropriate for this corridor. This map here
shows all the areas where it has been broken. There is only one block between
the park and Coral Way, where the zoning line has not been broken by some
combination of uses. You have got Tony Roma's that goes nearly half the
block, for parking. We are talking about an office building.
Mr. Plummer: That is surface parking.
Mr. Helfman: Yes, the point is...
Mr. Plummer: It is surface parking, and if they wanted to go up like this,
they only enjoy the transitional of the first 100 feet.
Mr. Helfman: That's right, exactly, but what we are saying is, through the
transitional use concept, you can see exactly what we could do. We have not
121 March 31, 1987 r
done that. We know that is not your wish, and that is the reason we are here.
It is not the wish of the Planning Department, and it is not your wish
individually, as I undecscanu it. we have gone through this entire process. I
think we have addressed all the concerns. These neighbors have had adequate -
notice. That is the purpose of this zone change process.
Mr. Carollo: Do you have any kind of model that you have made of this?
Mr. Helfman: No, I don't, I am sorry, not with me.
® Mr. Carollo: Would it be of any great inconvenience to ask you to bring a
model to us so we could get an idea more or less how it would look in that
space there, because it is very hard to tell from a drawing like this.
Mr. Helfman: Let me check with my architect. We can certainly provide you
with a rendering showing this thing to scale.
Mr. Carollo: I am not talking about renderings. I am talking about a regular
model to scale of how it would look in that piece of property. The land
masses is there.
Mr. Helfman: Well, we can accomplish... yes, we can accomplish that, but what
may alleviate your concern is that what we are saying is that what we could
build under a transitional use concept, is more than we are proposing.
Mr. Carollo: Well, it might be, then again, it is how you are building it.
Mr. Helfman: One final point to Mr. Plummer, and that is, that under a
transitional use concept, we can go the same height as we can, and as we have
agreed to limit our building enough...
Mr. Plummer: With one exception. You are not as close to the residential
without this granting. You are 20 feet closer. If we don't grant this, you
have got to be 40 feet away from that residence.
s�
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: 40.
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: He only gets the first hundred as transitional.
Mr. Carollo: It might be a lot easier if you would put the gentlemen there on
the mike and he could explain to us.
Mr. Plummer: He is gaining 20 feet, is what he is gaining.
Mr. Helfman: OK, if I may, I would like to have George Varki from
IntraAmerica address you just for a moment, especially with regards to the 100
foot issue and the 120 foot depth issue.
Mr. George Varki: I'm just going to be brief. I'm George Varki, I am with
IntraAmerica Investments at 150 West Flagler Street. We could have gone
through, as Steven Helfman said, through the transitional use process. If we
went through the transitional use process, in response to Commissioner
Plummer's question, we could have built 100 feet, and that's all we are
proposing to build. Second, we could have built 35 feet high, and that is all
we are proposing to build.
Mayor Suarez: I thought you said 120 feet before?
Mr. Varki: No, the property goes 120 feet, but we are only going to build
100 feet.
Mr. Plummer: No the lots,that's right. It's my mistake. The lots are 40
instead of 50 feet.
Mr. Varki: Under the transitional use, we can build up to 100 feet. We
cannot go beyond 100 feet, and so what we are really saying is, we are only
going to build what we could have built under the transitional use permit
because if you look carefully at that...
122 March 319 1987 r
Mayor Suarez: OK, so that is 40, 40 and 20, then.
Mr. Varki: It is 40, 40 and 40, of which, of the last 40, we only intend to
build on 20.
Mayor Suarez: OK, because you have got the 20 foot buffer.
Mr. Varki: So, what we are really saying is, we could have built the 100 feet,
under the transitional use. The only difference between this process and
going through the transitional uses is, we would have had a lot of variances,
which we would have gone only before the Zoning Board for, and since we didn't
get much opposition, there was a chance that we wouldn't have come before the
Commission, and second, is that we would not have to go for a land use change.
Mr. Plummer: Well, understand me, so you know where I am coming from. I said
I wanted to see it, I am going to see it. I am not trying to defer you
tonight. This is first reading, but I am telling you that you have got a lot
of convincing to do with me between first and second reading. I'll vote for
it on first reading, OK?
Mr. Carollo: I am not ready to, J.L. I want to see a model to scale, before I
will even...
Mr. Plummer: Well, that's... you express your opinion.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK, let me also ask you... I know that IntraAmerica is very
sensitive to the community, and buildings like these create a lot of jobs.
Jobs, on the other hand, create a lot of need for child care, and I was just
wondering, do you have provisions for any child care facilities?
Mr. Varki: We have an extensive ground floor in this building, and we are
between the first reading and the second reading, we have been made aware of
the extent of the problem, etc., so we are going to look very carefully at
this, and before the second reading, we are going to come back with some very
concrete directions with respect to child care, because I think we are
sensitive to that issue. We will also bring, say, a rendering to the next
Commission meeting, so you can get a better feel for the building. We are
talking about a zoning change, so we have tried to deal with the volume of the
building, the concerns of the volume, as it would have related to what we
could have done anyway, but we wanted to go through the whole process, and as
a result of it, we are actually going through a four hearings instead of one.
Mr. Carollo: Please understand me again. You keep talking about drawings and
renderings. I am talking about a model to scale, so I can visually see what
it is going to look like, and the mass that it would have in comparison to the
lot and the other residential properties next to it. Now, I haven't gone
there myself, yet, I apologize for that, because I haven't had the time, and
between now and the next time we take this up, I will certainly go by the area
and have a good look not only at that property, but all the other ones between
the park and Coral Way.
Mr. Varki: Commissioner, I think we can put together some kind of a block
model, which would give you some sense of the scale of that building, and
obviously the Coral Gables Hospital is across the street, and so that is some
sense of the scale of buildings that are in the area. We realize we are on
the edge of a residential area, and that is why we were willing to put
ourselves through this process, and we have tried through an extended process
with the Planning Department, to go through the process of all the things that
they felt is necessary to protect the neighborhood.
Mr. Carollo: Well, that is a peculiar area, as you know. You have got Coral
Gables across the street, and then you have got a very heavy residential area
right behind you, and that is what our concerns are.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I will assure you one thing. It is sure not the concern
of Coral Gables. That new building that they are putting up across from
Sears...
Mr. Carollo: It is unreal, isn't it?
123
March 31, 1967
Mr. Plummer: ...is got more damn bulk than any building, I think, in Dade
County.
Mr. Carollo: I never seen anything like it.
Mr. Plummer: It is really unbelievable.
Mr. Varki: Technically... just as a final statement... technically, we could
have been on the other side of the street and built a building which looks
very similar to the Alhambra structure that is further up the street. Zoning
across the street would have allowed us to do it, but we felt that this had a
better relationship to the hospital, and also the fact that the hospital
actually serves the community in that area, and a lot of the clientele is
actually from the City of Miami side.
Mr. Carollo: Well, I move to defer this to the next zoning meeting.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Mr. Plummer: You want to defer it?
Mrs. Kennedy: I thought you wanted to pass it on first reading...
Mr. Carollo: Yes, defer it.
Mrs. Kennedy: ...subject to the...
Mr. Carollo: No, no, I...
Mrs. Kennedy: You want to defer it?
Mr. Carollo: No, no, I'd asked that I wanted to see a model to scale before I
would even vote on this, plus I want to see the area.
Mr. Plummer: OK.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK.
Mayor Suarez: Motion to defer.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Any discussion? Call the roll... until what date
will this be? Until the Planning and Zoning item of the 23rd? Call the roll.
Do you want one last gasp?
Mr. Helfman: Commissioner Carollo, it is extremely important for us to stay
on a time frame that we set out. I...
Mr. Carollo: Well, with all due respect, counselor, I can understand, but
this is the same argument that we hear from every attorney that represents
every single project that comes before us. Nov, I cannot begin to comprehend
that a few weeks is going to be that detrimental to your project, and if it
is, you all were wrong from the beginning, to get into something like this.
All that I am asking is something that is very simple. I want to see a model
to scale, and I also want to be able to go there and look at the area. I
might be in full agreement with what you are asking, I don't know, I can't
tell you. That area, as you said, In a changing area.
Mr. Helfman: Yes, the only request we have, is that between now and the
second reading, you will certainly have that opportunity and we will present
that model to you, and if you would like to see that model in your offices
prior to the hearing, we can certainly do that, but the property is not going
to be available to us in the event that we lose our time schedule.
Mr. Carollo: Counselor, that is your fault. You should have gotten more time
in the contracts that were made to buy the property. I have made my motion, I
call the question.
Mrs. Kennedy: Let me tell you counselor, that it In sort of an unwritten rule
when a colleague asks for deferral, I usually go along, and that I$ why I did
It. I basically have no problems if I see the model, and especially if you
give me some child care facilities, but usually I vote with the deferral.
124 March 31, 1907
Mr. Helfman: Commissioner, I just see no down side to going through this on
first reading and complying with all the requests duri,►s u„u. ,,u....u. AAle Lr
is certainly ample opportunity to hear this thing.
Mayor Suarez: We have heard your arguments, counselor. We've got a motion
and a second.
Mr. Plummer: It is a common courtesy between this Commission, and I am
telling you that that is going to be honored. Now, you can keep on arguing,
and you might not get back here for a first hearing.
Mayor Suarez: Call the roll.
THEREUPON, the City Commission on motion duly
made by Commissioner Carollo and seconded by
Commissioner Kennedy, continued this item to the
meeting of April 23, 1987 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Suarez: Does that apply to PZ-15, or do we have to take a separate
motion for 15?
Mr. Carollo: Yes, a separate motion we need. So moved.
Mayor Suarez: Moved.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Seconded, any discussion? Call the roll on the deferral of 15.
THEREUPON, the City Commission on motion duly
made by Commissioner Carollo and seconded by
Commissioner Kennedy, continued this item to the
meeting of April 23, 1987 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
36. DISCUSSION AND DEFERRAL REGARDING THE 27TH AVENUE GATEWAY PROJECT (SEE
LABEL 34)
Mayor Suarez: OK, we have got the group of items constituting the 27th Avenue
rezoning, I guess is the best way to call it.
Mr. Carollo: Well, remember, we break at 9:00 p.m., so you should inform the
public of that, and we are down to three.
Mayor Suarez: This Commission has established a policy of breaking at 9:00
p.m. I need very little time to make up my mind, because I have already made
up my mind that this is unnecessary, so I would vote against it, but I don't
know... what is the Commission's pleasure?
125 March 31, 1987
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mayor Suarez: Sometimes we vote with our feet, anybody just leaves.
Mr. Carollo: In other words, you are voting against this, is what you're
saying, right? Well, there are three of us left, and I don't see us voting on
something with only three members of the Commission present, and especially
something that is as important and as delicate at this.
Mayor Suarez: Has Commissioner Plummer left, like for good?
Mrs. Kennedy: You know, I feel that the whole Commission should be here.
Mayor Suarez: He didn't leave?
Mr. Carollo: He went to the bathroom. OK, now there are four of us.
Mrs. Kennedy: In that case...
Mr. Carollo: That makes a difference.
Mr. Plummer: I went to do something nobody else could do for mel
Mr. Carollo: Well, and that wasn't to bury the dead.
Mr. Plummer: What are we going to do? Are we going to have... are we going
to hear these other four?
Mr. Carollo: Well, there are four of us left, that makes a difference. The
Mayor said he is voting against it.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I don't think that is the question. I think in fairness,
are we going to hear, which probably would be two of the items, and leave two
for deferral, or are we going to hear all four at one time. I will express my
opinion. My opinion is, it is unfair to hear it in piecemeal. It needs to be
done in its entirety, and as far as I am concerned, I think it needs to be
scheduled at the next meeting at 5:00 o'clock, and we will have it at 5:00
o'clock, and that's it. Now, that is my opinion.
Mr. Carollo: I think that is the only fair way of going about it,
particularly where we only have 13 minutes left.
Mrs. Kennedy: I agree. If you want to do that at 5:00 o'clock and be sharp,
let's take it the first item at 5:00.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but to the Administration, if we do vote on this, please
don't put in a houseboat ordinance, or something you know that is damn
controversial. You know, now, I would hope... OK, I am going to make a motion
to defer. Let me do that first.
Mr. Carollo: You have got to do it item by item, then.
Mr. Kennedy: Second.
Mr. Plummer: OK, then a second. Now, I would hope that in this deferment of
one month, that there is maybe still some area of compromise. I don't know
that there is, OK? But, I would ask the Administration to get all the people
who have any ideas that they want to bring forth in a town hall meeting of the
Administration, not the Commission. Maybe they have had too many, that could
be, but at least give them the opportunity to speak to the issue of possibly
an area of compromise. I Mould also like... no, I am going to force that on
you, OK? You can hold the meeting. Nobody wants to show up, that is their
point, but I want to give them that opportunity.
Mr. Carollo: _
Mr. Plummer: This will be number 11. You will miss one night out at the
attitude adjustment hour, OK? I would also hope...
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
126 March 31, 1987
Mr. Plummer: I would also hope...
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Plummer: We never knew you were drunk until one night we saw you sober.
I would hope that members of the Commission, and I will do such myself, that
have any questions, get them into the Department prior to the meeting, so
hopefully the night we hear this thing, everybody will be prepared, and
questions will not be asked so we will be forced into... there is a posture
again of saying, "Well, we have got to defer because we don't have answers."
So I would just hope that in fact, in fairness to this Commission, to the
people that are concerned, that... I don't want to see that, Walter. Now, if
you are so damn lazy, we will get somebody else to hold it, I mean, you know,
that is your problem. So, Mr. Mayor, in my deferment, I would ask the
Department to hold the meeting. Anybody wants to attend can, to try to work
out some areas of compromise, and the general public, as well as the
Commission, who have questions, get them into the Department in the next ten
days, so that on that meeting that night, we will be prepared to address the
issues.
Mr. Pierce: Mr. Plummer.
Mayor Suarez: You are going to address just the motion? Yes, Walter.
Mr. Pierce: For the record...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, my motion is that this is a deferral to a date
certain.
Mr. Pierce: Continuance.
Mr. Plummer: It is a continuance until a date certain of April 23, 1987, at
5:00 p.m. I would even be willing, Mr. Mayor, if the rest of the Commission -
is agreeable, that whatever we are doing at 5:00 p.m., we stop, hear this
issue, and go back to whatever time we have for a regular agenda. That is
legal, I am sorry, I had to be legal.
Mayor Suarez: You want to just address that issue, please.
Mr. Jerome Parnes: My name is Jerome Parnes, 3034 Oak. This is to address
that issue, and most of us are working people, other than government working
people, and...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me sir, for the issue, so are all of us.
Mr. Parnes: Yes, OK, but I didn't take on the position of being an
electorate, so I am doing this voluntarily and what I... this issue has been
here for about 23 times, and I just want to ask Mr. Plummer and Mr. Carollo,
especially, is there anything that citizens can do... I mean, we have
petitioned, we have gathered, we have filled your space here in opposition...
is there anything we can do to show you that we are truly opposed, the
citizens of Coconut Grove?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir, you can be here on April 23rd at 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Parnes: Oh, OK. Thank you.
Mrs. Altshuler: Also, could I ask a question? I just wanted to ask if it was
possible to have a report from whatever administrative agency, I am assuming
it will be the Planning Department, for some of the concerns that were
expressed at that meeting, because we have a feeling sometimes that there is a
lot of talk and there seems to be very little follow through as a result of
it.
Mr. Plummer: Is there any report that has been written on those meetings?
Mr. Olmedillo: We had after a workshop of six...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. If they give you any flak, remind them there is a
public document law, and you demand it.
127 March 31, 1987
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, there is a set of compromises which were reached on a
workshop which lasted six to six and one-half hours and that was made
available in one of the public hearings.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I think what she is saying is, is there any documents that
have been prepared, for example, what you sent to the Commission, and what you
sent to other people, that they could make copies available, OK?
Mr. Olmedillo: Everything is on the record.
Mr. Plummer: Well, what do... look, how does she get it? Come down to your
office, and let her go through it, and then make copies?
Mr. Pierce: Mr. Plummer, why ever she wants it, we will provide it for her.
Mr. Plummer: Walter, don't play games with the people, ok?
Mr. Pierce: I am not playing games, sir. I am simply saying that however she
wants the records, if she wants them...
Mr. Plummer: But, she doesn't know what records are available, that is what
she is trying to tell youl
Mr. Pierce: We can't let the records out of our custody, so she has to come.
Mr. Plummer: Did you hear what I just said? Did you hear what I said?
Mr. Pierce% Yes, may I say something?
Mr. Plummer: Let her come to your office. Let her go through the documents,
give you a written request for whatever documents she wants copies of? Now,
how the hell does she know what documents you have got hidden in the corner?
Mr. Rodriguez: If I understand what Miss Altshuler was asking, I think she
was saying that she would like to have summary minutes of the meetings that we
hold in the future, that is all she is saying.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: Commissioner Plummer, I have been to these meetings, and I
have looked through those item folders, and I don't see any notes of the
meetings. If there is a document, what is it called, so we can identify it, I
agree with you, I don't know what it is, and I am a lawyer.
Mr. Rodriguez: Have you been in the office for the official copy? If you go
to the official file, and you will find everything that has been done in every
meeting there.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: Official file of what?
Mr. Rodriguez: The second floor of the Administration building, the office of
Gloria Fox.
Mr. Plummer: Where Roger Carlton has parking meters!
Mr. Pierce: Mr. Plummer, sir, with all due respect... I'm sorry, Mr.
Manager, with all due respect, sir, the reason why I am expressing, or seeming
to display such feelings of futility about another meeting is that just for
the record, I Mould like to make the Commission aware that beginning on
September 6, 1985, we had five neighborhood meetings, four of them in the
Commission Chambers, one in Peacock Park. We had three workshops in the City
Administration building, and then beginning December 18, 1985, we've had a
total of eleven public hearings before the Planning Advisory Board, the City
Commission, all of which we have detailed minutes for, and we have had a
separate total of ten separate meetings of various neighborhood groups. I
don't really see, you know, what we can accomplish with one more, but we will
certainly follow your directions and hold that meetings, but all of these
minutes are there and they are welcome to them.
Mrs. Altshuler: I don't think it is a question of the meeting, I'd just like
to clarify what I meant. It is not a question of documents and it is not a
question of minutes. It is a question of a great many statements are made,
arguments, concerns at these meetings, which are called workshops, but we end
up with the same thing we started out with, so it is still a matter of the
128 March 31, 1987
same document that was read to us, seems to be there at the end. It is as if
we are school children, we get a chance to ventilate, and then we end up with
the same document that somebody wanted us to have in the first placel That's
why we keep coming down here.
Mr. Plummer: Don't feel bad.
Mrs. Altshuler: I dol I want you to protect me.
Mr. Plummer: You gotta know where they hide it.
Mr. Pierce: I must respond also to that. They have their opinions. Staff
has their professional opinions, and recommendations, staff makes that
recommendation. If they don't agree with it, then it has to come to the
Commission for you to settle or resolve the issue. Just simply going back and
us going at each other doesn't resolve anything.
Mr. Jack Rice: Commissioner, I'm telling you, we are worked to death. We
want you all to decide this.
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Mr. Rice: See, we are. We have had enough meetings. I have been "boo coo"
meetings with these people.
Mr. Plummer: So between now and April 23rd, don't go to the meetings.
Mr. Rice: Well, no, we would just like you all to hear it, because I don't
think they are going to... every time I bring up about 27th Avenue, they say
100 foot is 100 foot, and that is itl I mean, I've said that for 23 meetings,
so has my client. What do you want me to do, say it 24? We don't want the
change of zoning, I have told them that. We can't get this thing resolved
with them, and I don't care how many meetings we have.
Mr. Plummer: Then don't go, Jackl
Mr. Rice: Well, why do you even set it up? - because it puts us to a
disadvantage.
Mr. Plummer: Is there anybody here that wants the meeting? That is the
reason, Jack.
Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, that is right. Let me just...
Mr. Plummer: You don't have to go, but they want it, and they want to go.
Look, I operate under a theory that I have always operated. As long as you
got communication, you got the chance of resolving problems. If you have no
communication, you will never resolve problems.
Mrs. Kennedy: Right. The other day I met with a group from Apogee, and they
came out with a plan, Sergio... Sergio, they came up with a plan where they
had... one of the issues, for example, was 20 foot trees. The City
recommended 10 foot trees. Well, I ask you today, why couldn't we have the 20
foot trees? It really looked much nicer. Your answer was, they don't survive
when you....
Mr. Rodriguez: Survive moving them.
Mrs. Kennedy:... over 10 feet. Well, why, weren't you able to tell them,
this?
Mr. Rodriguez: We have...
Mrs. Kennedy: Obviously, there is a lack of communication.
Mr. Rodriguez: ... but, we are going to have disagreements. That drawing
that we saw before, we have been going over the same issues at this point. We
have made a lot of corrections and changes in many meetings. If you want to,
we have another meeting, and we have another mestingl
Mr. Plummer: Fine. Now wait a minute, before everybody leaves, Commissioner
Carollo, I understand, is going to ask that the last meeting of the month be
changed to the 30th.
129 March 31, 1987
37. RESCHEDULE SECOND APRIL MEETING FOR APRIL 30, 1987. -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Carollo: J.L. excuse me, why they are figuring it out, I'd like to make a
motion that we change the meeting of the 23rd for the Commission, to the 30th
of April.
Mr. Plummer: Second the motion.
Mayor Suarez: So moved and seconded. Any discussion, call the roll on that.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87-302
A RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF APRIL 23, 1987 TO TAKE PLACE ON APRIL 30, 1987.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
s Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: A meeting was scheduled to discuss the 27th Avenue
Gateway Project for Tuesday, April 7th at 6:00 p.m. in the Chambers.
38. FORMALIZAT.T.ON OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE SPORTS AND EXHIBITION AUTHORITY.
Mayor Suarez: We need a motion to formalize the appointments to the Sports
and Exhibition Authority, which is right before you.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, I move that the following individuals are hereby appointed
to the Sports Authority. This is a confirmation: Roger Allen, Jr., Bill
Bayer, Eli Fineberg, George Knox, Gene Marks, Raul Masvidal, Frankie Rolle,
J.J. Shepard, Monty Trainer, and this Commission designated Gene Marks as its
chairman.
Mr. Carollo: OK, I am going to withdraw Raul Masvidal'a name.
Mr. Plummer: OK.
Mr. Carollo: So, we can proceed in naming all of them except that one
appointment that I have.
Ms. Hirai: Commissioner, we cannot hear you.
Mr. Plummer: So, we will get...
130 March 319 1987
•
Mayor Suarez: With the exception of Raul Masvidal, which will be replaced at
a later time by Commissioner Carollo, we have a motion to approve this board.
Mr. Plummer:
Mayor Suarez: So moved and seconded. Any discussion? Call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 87-303
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING AND/OR REAPPOINTING CERTAIN
INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE AS MEMBERS OF THE MIAMI SPORTS AND
EXHIBITION AUTHORITY; FURTHER APPOINTING EUGENE MARKS TO
SERVE AS CHAIRMPERSON OF SAID AUTHORITY.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
Mr. Carollo: For the record, Mr. Masvidal did not get the "X".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. RECOMMEND
TO DADE
LEAGUE
OF CITIES APPOINTMENT
OF COMMISSIONER J. L.
PLUMMER AS
DELEGATE
TO THE
SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL.
-----------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Plummer: For the record, Mr. Mayor, you have got to make a motion here
this evening, recommending to the Dade League of Cities, an appointee for the
South Florida Regional Planning Council. I have agreed to take it if it is
within concert of my fellow Commissioners.
Mr. Carollo: Sure.
Mr. Plummer: But, we have got to make a motion.
Mrs. Kennedy: Move it.
Mr. Carollo: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Moved, seconded. Any discussion? Call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 87-304
A MOTION DESIGNATING VICE MAYOR J.L. PLUMMER JR., AS THE
CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE TO SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING
COUNCIL.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote-
131 March 31, 1987
0 •
AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor J. L. Plummer, Jr.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Items PZ-16 through PZ-21 dealing with the 27th Avenue
Gateway Project were continued to April 30, 1987 at 5:00 P.M.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO OM MORE THE CITY
CMWISSION, ffi MEETING VAS ADJOURNED AT 9:03 P.M.
ATTEST:
Natty Hirai
CITY CLERK
Palter J. Foam=
ASSISTANT CITT CLERK
Xavier L. Suarez
NATOR
OINCO"1'61TE�) T
132 March 31, 1987
17. AUTHORIZE TRAVEL EXPENSES TO KAOHSIUNG, FREE CHINA, FOR
SISTER CITY CEREMONIES.
Mr. Carollo: If I could bring a brief pocket item... we need to
find out who might be interested in it or not. As you all know,
we recently approved a motion to become a Sister City with one of
the cities of free China, the Republic of China in Taiwan,
Kaohsiung, and the representatives of free China in Taiwan, have
contracted members of this Commission, Commissioner Plummer, that
has been very instrumental in this, and myself, and they are
requesting that we send an official delegation from the City of
Miami to the Republic of China, free China in Taiwan, on April
20th of this coming month to officially sign the documents to
make the City of Miami Sister City with the City of Kaohsiung, in
free China, so I would like to bring the rest of the Commission
up to date, and the Administration, so that those that would like
to form part of this delegation from the City of Miami to free
China, can make plans as soon as possible, because we are talking
about doing this three weeks from now.
Mr. Plummer: I'll make the motion, Mr. Mayor, it is always
appropriate that when you twin with another city, that you do in
fact, make an official trip to that city for the changing of
charters, and I would move that at this particular time, not that
it is absolutely necessary, because we don't know, that we
authorize up to four individuals be authorized to make that trip.
Is that sufficient, Joe?
Mr. Carollo: I would say at least five, J.L.
Mr. Plummer: All right, five... that we authorize the expenses
of at least five individuals to make that trip at City expense
for that formal dedication. I so move.
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mr. Plummer: That doesn't mean that there will be five going,
but, up to.
Mayor Suarez: Moved ar_d seconded. Any discussion? Call the
roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer,
who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 87-295
A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING
FIVE OFFICIALS AND/OR STAFF MEMBERS TO TRAVEL
TO THE CITY OF KAOHSIUNG, IN FREE CHINA, IN
CONNECTION WITH CEREMONIES TO ACCEPT SAID
CITY AS A SISTER CITY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI;
FURTHER DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
ALLOCATE THE NECESSARY FUNDS TO COVER TRAVEL
EXPENSES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
id 1 March 31, 1987
rA
AYES: Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Vice -Mayor J.
Mayor Xavier
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Joe Carollo
Miller J. Dawkins
Rosario Kennedy
L. Plummer, Jr.
L. Suarez
Mr. Carollo: If I could give a little bit of information. The
City of Kaohsiung is a City of over 1.3 million people. It is
the fifth biggest container port in the world, and one of the ten
largest ports in the world. It is, I think, a very important
city that can contribute a lot to Miami in the Sister City
program.
Mr. Plummer: I think it also needs to be said that there was a
local group here, who were very, very much interested in twinning
with this particular city. They came to my office because of my
involvement with Sister City, and almost begged that we make this
kind of a connection, and if you ever want successful programs of
this nature, is to have enthusiastic groups on both sides, so I
say that in this particular case, I see nothing but a tremendous
success with free China, and as far as I am concerned, the sooner
that we make this association, the better that it will be, and I
second the motion.
Mr. Carollo: Absolutely, the group that has worked with the
free Chinese in Taiwan have done a tremendous job and have taken
up a lot of time in this effort and they should certainly be
complimented.
Mr. Plummer: Joe, may I please recommend that when you go, that
you make them very much aware that this City is going to be
honored July 20, 1988, with the International Convention of
Sister Cities, and we would surely like to have a delegation from
their City in representation at that conference, which will be
held at the Knight Center for four days. We are anticipating,
Mr. Mayor, because we hope that you will be deeply involved, that
there will be roughly 2,500 people from 57 different countries,
so we are working on it. We have already had one meeting towards
it, and I would also report, I don't know with joy or with
sadness to this Commission that I represented you last weekend in
Washington, D.C., that is enough to be beyond the call of duty,
but I had to leave on Friday night and missed some Saturday
morning session, and I am understanding that I was elected as to
the members of the Board of Directors, so I don't know if I say
that with joy or with consolations, but the Sister City is a
moving organization; as you know, it is a Federal program started
by Eisenhower, of People to People, and it is a tremendous
program, so Joe, please beg upon them to bring a delegation.
Mr. Carollo: We will certainly extend that invitation to them in
representation of the Miami City Commission, people of Miami, and
I think it will be a prime opportunity for the free Chinese to
show what they have been able to accomplish in a part of China
that is free, in comparison to mainland China that is under the
same Communist tyranny that Cuba and the Soviet Union and other
countries are.
Mayor Suarez: We have got the vote on that already, Madam City
Clerk?
Ms. Hirai:
Yes, Mr. Mayor.
ld
2
March 31, 1987
.N
CITY OF MIAMI
DOCUMENT INDEX
Mulm mm MARCH 31, 1987
PAW 1 OF _...._...
EXECUTE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH
CUBAN MUSEUM OF ARTS AND CULTURE
INC. TO ALLOW THEM TO RETAIN FULL
RENTAL PAYMENT IN ITS CONTINUED
OPERATION OF FACILITY AT 1300 S.W.
12 AVEBYE ABD EXERCUSE TGREE-YEAR
RENEWAL OPTION
FIREWORKS PERMIT FOR BAYSIDE MARKET
PLACE GRAND OPENING.
ACCEPT BID: ALLISON CO. FOR DECALS
FOR POLICE VEHICLES
CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR REFERENDUM
STATING THAT FUTURE LEASES ON
WATSON ISLAND WOULD HAVE TO FIRST
BE APPROVED BY CITY VOTERS AT
REFERENDUM.
AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATION OF AGREEMENT
WITH DADE COUNTY AVIATION DEPARTMENT
FOR HELIPORTS
AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
WITH FLORIDA BASEBALL COMPANY INC.
FOR USE OF BOBBY MADURO MIAMI
BASEBALL STADIUM FOR MIAMI MARLIN
GAMES
APPROVE SLIDE SCALE FEE SCHEDULE
FOR BOND COUNSEL FIRMS.
APPROVE EMERGENCY DEMOLITION OF
STRUCTURE AT 947 N.E. 1 AVENUE.
INCREASE IN CONTRACT WITH MET
CONSTRUCTION FOR ORANGE BOWL
RECEPTION/PRESS INTERVIEW AREA.
ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR
MIAMI ARENA PROJECT.
GRANT APPLICANT RIGHT TO APPLY
BEFORE ZONING BOARD FOR VARIANCE
FROM DISTRNCE REQUIREMENT AT 3838
N. BAYSHORE DRIVE.
DEFERRAL OF ITEMS DEALING WITH
PROPOSED DRIVE-IN TELLERS AT 1600
S.W. 22 STREET (CITICORP SAVINGS OF
FLORIDA).
RETREVAL CODE NO.
87-285
87-286
87-287
87-289
87-290
87-291
87-293
87-294
87-299
87-300
87-301
111.N
DOCUMENT INDEX
PAWL OF 2
MARCH 31, 1987
DOCLWAT DEN I wMAT" IRE I EVAL CODE NO.
RESCHEDULE SECOND APRIL MEETING FOR
APRIL 30, 1987
FORMALIZATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO
THE SPORTS AND EXHIBITION AUTHORITY
87-302
87-303
77 :;
qrl� n�..:4 ^�{; fas 1c r.u< syti..,.'. Y h o _...f, :,.- w .$ �SS3s�fi,�•,1'i+"�td.�!