HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1986-03-27 Minutess:
CITY OF MIAMI'
* INCORY���N:1TEl3
18 96
CQ,FL��
OF FETING HELD ON MARCH 27, 1986
(PLANNING & ZONING)
PREPIIin 8Y THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
INDEX
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
MARCH 27, 1986
ITEM
SUBJECT
LEGISLATION
PAGE
NO.
NO.
1.
PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS,
PRESENTED
1
SPECIAL ITEMS.
3/27/86
2.
SET PUBLIC HEARING DATES REGARDING
M-86-228
1-9
TERM OF MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS'
3/27/86
SALARIES.
3.
LITTLE HAVANA ACTIVITIES AND
R-86-229
9-12
NUTRITION CENTERS TO ACQUIRE
3/27/86
BUILDING AT 700 S.W. 8TH STREET.
4.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE PROVIDING
FIRST
12-21
REGULATIONS FOR NONMOTORIZED
READING
VEHICLES FOR HIRE.
3/27/86
5.
APPROVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
R-86-230
22-25
AGREEMENT FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE
3/27/86
AGREEMENT, LODGE NO. 20 (OCT. 1,
1986-SEPT. 30, 1987).
6.
DISCUSSION REGARDING DEMONSTRATION
DISCUSSION
25-30
AGAINST NICARAGUAN CONTRAS AT THE
3/27/86
TORCH OF FREEDOM.
7.
DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF
DISCUSSION
30-32
PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH GOTTLIEB
3/27/86
FINANCIAL SERVICES (COLLECTION OF
RESCUE TRANSPORTATION FEE) (SEE
LABEL #9).
8.
OPEN SEALED BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
M-86-231
32-34
DESIGN PLAZA HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT B-
3/27/86
4509.
9.
(CONTINUED DISCUSSION) REQUEST
M-86-232
34-36
CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATE METHODS
3/27/86
OF COLLECTION OF RESCUE
TRANSPORTATION FEE. (SEE LABEL #7).
10.
IMPLEMENT GIBSON PARK ATHLETIC
R-86-233
36
COURTS RESURFACING PROJECT -(AWARD TO
3/27/86
AGILE COURTS. INC).
11.
REFER TO MEMORIAL COMMITTEE REQUEST
M-86-234
37-38
FOR CODESIGNATION OF N.W. 5TH COURT
3/27/86
AS "RED RAIDERS ROAD."
12.
APPOINTMENTS TO MDC'S AUDIT REVIEW
R-86-235
38-39
COMMITTEE. (APPOINTEES WERE: THOMAS
3/27/86
MCGAHEY AND ALEX SOTO).
13.
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR COOPERATIVE
M-86-236
39-41
PROJECT IN LITTLE HAVANA FOR A LATIN
3/27/86
ORIENTED SPECIALTY CENTER, A
MODERATE INCOME HOUSING PROJECT, AND
A PARKING GARAGE.
L-1
14.
BRIEF DISCUSSION ITEM: COMPLAINT
DISCUSSION
41-42
FORM BUSINESS ON FLAGLER REGARDING
3/27/86
REMOVAL OF METERS ON S.W. 8TH
STREET.
15.
SECOND READING ORDINANCE: THE
ORDINANCE
42-45
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND ZONING.
10089
3/27/86
16,
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE
FIRST
45-46
ZONING ATLAS AT APPROXIMATELY 577
READING
N.E. 68 STREET & APPROXIMATELY 578
3/27/86
N.E. 69 STREET FROM RO-3/6 TO CR-2/7
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
WITH SPI-9 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NORTH
OVERLAY DISTRICT.
17.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE
FIRST
46-61
ATLAS AT 3200-3202 S.W. 1 AVENUE
READING
FROM RG-1/3 TO RG-3/7.
3/27/86
18.
DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED SECOND
DISCUSSION
61-67
READING ORDINANCE ON "AMENDMENT Q"
3/27/86
(PARKING OF BOATS AND TRAILERS IN
FRONT OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES.) NO
ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION.
19.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMENDMENT
FIRST
68-79
"Q-1" REGARDING ACCESSORY USES
READING
(RESTAURANT, BARS) IN CONDOMINIUMS.
3/27/86
20.
FIRST READING ORDINANCE: EXTEND TIME
FIRST
79-80
LIMITATIONS IN WHICH COMMISSION HAS
READING
TO ACT ON LEGISLATION RECEIVED FROM
LOWER BOARDS.
21.
SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED
M-86-237
81-85
AMENDMENT TO MIAMI CENTER I
3/27/86
DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
22.
DENY PROPOSED CHANGE TO MIAMI
M-86-238
85-113
COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AT
3/27/86
APPROXIMATELY 3471 MAIN HIGHWAY.
23.
DENY ATLAS CHANGE FROM RS-1/1 TO
M-86-239
113
SPI-2 AT APPROX 3471 MAIN HIGHWAY.
3/27/86
24.
RESCHEDULE MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1986
R-86-240
114
TO COKNCNCE AT 2:00 P.M.
3/27/86
25.
EXTEND 1*34E PERIOD OF TIME FOR
R-86-241
114-115
APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION
3/27/86
DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE OF FUNDS
EARMARKED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
HOUSING OFF CLAUGHTON ISLAND.
W
f
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 27th day of March, 1986, 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 2:04 O'Clock P.M. by Mayor Xavier
Suarez with the following members of the Commission found to be present:
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
Absent: Commissioner Joe Carollo
ALSO PRESENT:
Cesar Odio, City Manager
Lucia Allen Dougherty, City Attorney
Matty Hirai, City Clerk
Walter Foeman, Assistant City Clerk
An invocation was delivered by Mayor Suarez who then led those present
in a pledge of allegiance to the flag.
1. PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ITEMS.
PROCLAMATION: Friendsday: Presented to representatives of the Dade County
Mental Health Centers who make up the Friendsday Committee,
in recognition of their invaluable services to the communi-
ty.
2. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATES REGARDING TERM OF MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS'
SALARIES.
Mayor Suarez: First item of business - and I know Commissioner Plummer is
going to come back in a couple of minutes. I don't think there is any need to
delay. It is your personal appearance, Mr. Fine. I've read what you submit-
ted. My only comment is you make reference to the election of September of
1987, and of course, the elections here, unless I am wrong, are always in
November, so...
Mr. Martin Fine: I like to make a mistake and not appear to be perfect! For
the record, my name is Martin Fine, 2401 Douglas Road, Miami. I know you
probably have a very busy zoning agenda and I will try to be brief, but I
would like to take up enough time to discuss this is a manner that will be
meaningful from our over all perspective. Firstly, may I once again repeat
that I am here as a private citizen, and not as chairman of the Chamber of
Commerce, although I am very proud and pleased to serve in that capacity. I
also want to say, that I, as all of you know, have not discussed this with any
of you, only because I did want to give any appearance of doing that because
it might be of help or interest to any particular person. Rather, I am
pleased to present to the City Commission this proposal to amend the Charter
to expand to four years the term of the office of Mayor, and request that
change, in the interest of economy, continuity and stability of democratic and
ld 1 March 27, 1986
highly principled city governments be place on the election agenda in Septem-
ber of 1986, or indeed, if in your judgement, you think it should be November
of 1986, that would be fine with me. I would like to sort of clarify a point
that perhaps I did not do as well as I could have last time, and that is, that
I would expect that it would become fully operative in election of September,
or, as the Mayor corrected me, in November, of 1987, so that the person
elected as Mayor next time would serve for a period of four years. I believe
once this principle is fully understood, the four year mayoral term of office
should have an overwhelming appeal to the public's concern for stability of
reflection time in office, continuity for development of skill and experi-
ence, deliberation - I repeat-, deliberation of the Mayor and the staff of
continual contribution in campaign concerns, and in a manner of speaking, the
mayoral campaign cost control to less frequent elections. I believe that few
of us who take the time to examine closely our local political process, have
any doubt as to the inefficiency and exorbitant cost of a two-year election
system. By the way, I am not reading this whole paper, I am just taking some
highlights from it. In my judgment, this process remains in effect, not
because of any ineptitude, but because of the logic of these two frequent
elections has never been challenged locally, perhaps due to a lack of curios-
ity, or simply a complacency to leave traditional status quo. The rationale,
and this is a point that I would really like you to react to, when and if you
are kind enough to share your thoughts with me and with the community. The
rationale behind the distinction and inequity of the mayoral two year term and
the Commissioner four year term is not clear. Do not the Mayor and the
Commissioners answer to the same electorate? Is the integrity of the Mayor
more suspect than that of the Commissioners, and therefore to be tested by a
shorter term gamble. I think those answers are very obvious, and I would
hope that we might discuss them. Among the positive effects of a longer
mayoral term of office would be provision of times `or long range reflections
on solutions to local problems we face as a community, a society, and I might
just say that I think those problems are going to be overwhelming in their
complexity, as we deal with little problems like Graham -Rudman, like the
reduction in revenue sharing funds, and that like which we all want to accom-
plish, a balanced budget in the near future, but please remember, when we want
Uncle Sam off our backs, we have to get, as local governments and state
governments out of Uncle Sam's pocketbook, and that is a real concern to me,
and I think stability in government, and the office of the Mayor would help
in that regard. Ideally, the office of Mayor is a pursuit that demands a high
level of skill, continuity and experience. I believe the current two year
term, that system fails us in that regard. Think about it for a moment. The
kind of long term development needs we have, I think you will agree, requires
long term .leadership. It is very improbable for a man or a woman, serving a
part time two year mayoral term, to become conversant with the nuances of
issues, to develop programs, consider alternatives, oversee implementations
of new programs and policies, and a host of other things that you know need to
be done better than I. In the essence of time, I just want to bring your
attention to the fact that of three .r four of the largest cities in this
state - there is a chart on page six, and then subsequently followed by an
additional one, but in Florida, Jacksonville, Tampa, and Orlando, have four
year terms as mayors and some of the other cities have three terms, and in my
opinion, are headed to four year terms.
Mr. Plummer: Jacksonville, Orlando, and what other one?
Mr. Fine: Jacksonville, Tampa, and Orlando.
Mr. Plummer: All three are strong mayors?
Mr. Fine: Could be.
Mr. Plummer: No, I am telling you. I know them personally.
Mr. Fine: OK. If anybody knows them, you know them.
Mr. Plummer: Jake Godbold, Bill Frederickson, and Bob Martinez, are all
three, strong mayors, and that is the argument.
Mr. Fine: In terms, of a phrase we use around here very frequently, being a
world class city. I want to share with you on page 7, there are cities ranging
from New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Atlanta, Phila-
delphia, that have a four year term, and indeed, some of them may be strong
mayors and that is not my role to get into arguing about that system now, or
Id 2 March 27, 1986
deal with it, but, I bring that to your attention. I think there appears to
be very little risk, but much potential to be gained from this proposed
change. I .11ways like to be in a win -win situation. I think it is nice to
be able to do something where you are really are going to win, no matter what
happens. If we submit it to the electorate and they turn it down, you have
given the electorate an opportunity to express itself. If you submit it to
the electorate and they pass it, I think if properly implemented, we will
have a better run city and a better community, and a better overall Dade
County. The negative aspects fade in relative importance to the probable
benefits in better government and stability and citizen's satisfaction. I
think the public should be greatly pleased, and will be greatly pleased to
see monies being conserved, not wasted on unnecessary frequent elections.
The citizens apathy, and cynicism grows deeper with each too frequent elec-
tion, and growing million dollar campaign costs for a $6,000 a year salaried
position.
Mayor Suarez: $5,000.
Mr. Fine: $5,000. I tried to give you a $1,000 raise, I am sorry. I think
it is the County Commission that is $6,000. We should very seriously consider
doing something about this. 1 was intrigued in the morning paper to see that,
I think it is the speaker of the house, that is proposing something along
these lines, with a limit, at the state level. I would like to go on for a
long time, Mr. Mayor, talking about this, but I don't think that is fair. I
would be delighted to try to answer some questions, but in closing, I would
like to just make one or two final comments. I understand, and I always
appreciate learning from Mr. Plummer, who is a veteran here, that in order to
get an item like this on the ballot, you have to have public hearings. I am
very much in favor of that process, and I would hope that you would have some
public hearings on this matter. My indication is, that they would be a lot
better attended than some public hearings on some Metro proposals, which for
some reason or other, there is that kind of apathy, maybe, in the County, but
not in this City. I think our City is alive and well and interested and
active and we need to be concerned when people don't show up, but I don't
think you will have that problem. I personally hope after the public hear-
ings, you will place it on the ballot. Now, I don't want to deal with other
issues, such as the strong mayor, or Commissioners elected by districts, or
more Commissioners; I don't want to be presumptuous. I really don't have very
strong feelings about that, and didn't feel it appropriate to come to and deal
with that. I did, however, feel, that enclosing the little memo I sent to
you, I wanted to just mention a limit on campaign spending, and I don't want
to get away from that, go into that entirely, but, I must tell you I am in
the middle of reviewing that Supreme Court decision, or want to start doing
it. Its a U. S. Supreme Court decision. I can't quite understand the ratio-
nale of limiting campaign contributions, but not being able to limit campaign
spending. I can't believe that the framers of the Constitution ever had in
mind, not being able to limit campaign spending, as a violation of First
Amendment rights, but that is a subject for another day, and one of these days
we ought to deal with that, and frankly, if I get enough energy, or extra
time, I might deal with it later, but because, it intrigues me, I am appalled
by the kind of money that you all have to raise to spend to run for office. I
really aml From a personal point of view, if you had limits, it would help
all of us. It would be good. That was an att;:ii,pt at humor. Obviously, it
didn't sell. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, may I simply share witli
you that I am flattered at being able to come before you and to bring this t-..)
your attention. I'd be glad to answer any questions. I'd be even more glad
if you would schedule some dates for some public hearings. Thank you, very
much.
Mr. Dawkins: Marty, pardon me, but said that the public hearings, if we held
them, would be better attended than the ones in the county. Why? Why do you
say that?
Mr. Fine: Well, I must tell you - that is almost like having a good friend as
a shill in the audience. I must tell you, having lived in this city for 40
years, that I believe the electorate in this city has been, and continues to
be, and even more so now, more interested than county voters, for a reason
that I can't explain. I think...
Mr. Dawkins: When it is issues that are dear to them.
ld 3 March 27, 1986
r
Mr. Fine: You asked me a question, I want to give you my answer. I want to
share with you, if I may, that I have no evidence of that, Miller -
Mr. Dawkins: OK.
Mr. Fine: It is a viscera]. feeling that I have, very strongly, that this room
will be packed when you have it. Now, maybe people who want a four year
term, and intend to run for it, are going to have their friends pack it, I
don't know, but we will get a lot of interested citizens here that day.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, the other question is, Marty, why, knowing how sincere you
are for better government, and how much you appreciate working for the bet-
terment of the City of Miami, why didn't you see about making the sal6ry
commensurate with the work we are doing up here. If you are going to do one,
I mean, if you are going to do something, let's do something. Just don't come
here with a half-cocked gun; let's shoot the full gun.
Mr. Fine: Now, Miller, I will be glad to answer that, if I may. On the very
first page of the memo I sent to you, I suggested that you might want to deal
with the question of increasing the number of Commissioners and, I must say,
that I did not insert in there, "or, increasing their salaries", but I'd be
happy to discuss that. I would be pleased to discuss it with you. Do you
want to put it on the table at a public hearing, having these other issues on
the table too? My concern is, sometimes when you put more than one issue on a
ballot, and people are opposed to one, they are going to vote against them
all. Now, am I grateful for the fact that you all are willing to serve at
$5,000 a year? You bet I am] I think it is the best buy any taxpayer ever
gets, and I think that somehow or other, that ought to be changed. How to go
about doing it, I don't know. If you are asking me would I be part of an
effort to try to do it? The answer is yes. Would I like it on the same
ballot? No. Am I being ambivalent? I hope not.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, thanks, Marty.
Mrs. Kennedy: I agree. Commissioner Dawkins. I don't think anybody in this
community expects us to work the way we do for $5,000 a year, considering that
each one of us puts over 40 hours a week over here, but Marty, let me go back
to your proposal. I never doubted this. I don't think our city is served,
when every two years we go over a bitter, and emotional, and disruptive
campaign. Our City cannot afford having three men running for office and to
raise over, almost, I think, $2,000,000, it was this last time, for an office
that payr $5,000 a year.
Mr. Plummer: How about a woman?
Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, this time no woman ran. I hope a lot of women run in
future races. I think that regulating campaign contributions is difficult,
because of First Amendment issues. What we can do, is to hold these elections
every four years, so that there is less disruption in the community, and we
give the chance, to whoever is elected mayor to be a good mayor for three and
one-half years, and then, be a good politician for the remainder of his term.
As it stands right now, a person is elected one day, and starts campaigning,
literally, I think, the next, and this is not good for the Mayor, for any
mayor, nor for the citizens of Miami.
Mr. Fine: I am not sure that I follow you. Are you saying that everyone runs
at one time?
Mrs. Kennedy: No, no, no. I think every four years. I agree with your
proposal.
Mr. Fine: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I don't think it will
change the course of history of this community, but I think it will help a
great deal. I am sure by now Mayor Suarez knows some of the problems that
perhaps he thought were a little more easy to deal with when he was Candidate
Suarez, appear a lot more formidable now. I personally resent the fact that
he has to start being concerned in a few months about the next election. I
want him to use his creativity to do the things that he is capable of doing,
along with the rest of this Commission.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, Marty, I will be campaigning against it, for I don't see
it for nothing but a smoke screen. This is my personal opinion now - person -
Id 4 March 27, 1986
al opinion. I see it as nothing but a smoke screen for the strong mayor form
of government, which I am anti.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me throw some water on that smoke, OK? Let me tell
you a few things, Marty. First of all, when I ran in 1971 for the first time,
there was a limit on spending. You ain't going to believe this one - $10,0001
Okay, and then it was taken to court, and it was decided in court that the
maximum spending limit was beneficial to the incumbent, because he had his
name known, and he had his person known, and detrimental to the challenger,
who had to spend money to get his name in the press and in the public, and I
fully understand it. As far as I am concerned, I agree with you, these
amounts of monies that are going out just don't make any sense at all. Marty,
the problem, you can't stop the newspapers, who have a special rate for polit-
ical ads; you can't stop the television stations from charging what they think
they have the right to charge, and I want to tell you, one quarter page ad in
the morning tabloid is something in the neighborhood of about $4,000. It used
to be something like $600. One spot on T.V. used to be $600, it is now
$2,400. You know, these are the problems that are incurred. Your printing -
I used to buy bumper stickers - one cent a piece. Now, they are a nickel a
piece, OK? Let me tell you something else. The two things that I am assured
of in my 17 years of service on this Commission, is that the public has spoke
time and time again to, and will continue to do so - one, is the salary of the
Commissioners, and the second, if you try to change the location of City
Hall. I think they have spoken to the change in location four times, and they
talked to the Commission's salary three times.
Mr. Fine: You mean, they are not in favor of it?
Mr. Plummer: They turned it down, every time. I think there is merit to a
four year term. I will tell you quite honestly and candidly, one of the
reasons I have never seriously considered running for Mayor was just that
reason - that you are no sooner out of the campaign, then you are back into it
again, and campaigning is not my forte, I don't like it, but you have to do
it. Whether I am good, obviously, history will say. I have no problem with
allowing the public to speak to the issue, even though I think the public
spoke to this issue, coupled up with the rest last year, because it was
proposed - a four year term for the Mayor, coupled with the strong mayor,
coupled with the salary, coupled with all the rest, but I am going to tell you
something. I am just as nervous about this smoke screen around City Hall (No
rumor mill is any better, except in the Police Department) - that this is
just a front, that once this is opened up, then we are going to be talking
about districting, we are going to be talking about increasing the size of the
Commission, we are going to be talking about salaries. I will only vote
favorably today, or at the first hearing to put it on the ballot to let the
people decide, with a full understanding that the second and final hearing is
45 days before the election. That assures me that if anybody has any smoke
screen or any ideas of bringing anything else on the ballot, I've got the
right to vote against it on the second go around.
Mr. Fine: I would subscribe to that and support you and thank you.
Mr. Plummer: OK, so that smoke screen, if it does exist, and I don't know
that it does, but if it does, I am going to protect my vote, predicated on the
second, and final hearing, being 45 days, which is the cutoff, as you know, to
get something on the ballot, OK?
Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor, may I just make one comment. I assume that neither
Commissioner Dawkins, nor Commissioner Plummer are indicating that I proposed
this as a smoke screen, because we know each other too well. If I had other
things in mind, I would come out and say it, and I am always ready for people
to question my intelligence, but never my integrity, so I just want to make
sure where we are at.
Mr. Plummer: Marty, no one... you are not smart enough to start the rumors at
City Hall.
Mr. Fine: I don't...
Mr. Plummer: It takes a dumb man to do that, OK?... and they do it very well.
Mr. Fine: OK, thank you very much.
ld 5 March 27, 1986
Mayor Suarez: I just want to say, Marty, before we begin to take some action
on this, presumably, one way or the other - on number one item that you
mentioned, the one that you referred to, not necessarily first, that constitu-
tional opinion, at least the one I am familiar with, on being able to limit
spending, is about 55 pages long, quite confusing to me, and if you have any
ideas on how that could be done constitutionally at this particular time, in
this particular city, I would be disposed to vote in favor of anything that
would accomplish that. If I run for reelection, I have already said I would
limit the amount of money that I would spend. It is easier for the incumbent
to say that. I understand the challenger has to spend more money.
Mr. Fine: There is a very interesting dissent in that case, and frankly, a
couple of my partners who are far smarter than I, and more capable as consti-
tutional lawyers, have agreed to review that, and we have had a little experi-
ence in testing constitutional issues, and we might deal with that when we
come back to you and make a recommendation.
Mayor Suarez: On the issue of salaries for the Commission, I thought, and
toyed with the idea, proposing to the Commission that they consider putting
that on the ballot at the same time. When you indicated that you would not
have that on the ballot at the same time, you mean that it would not be the
same question.
Mr. Fine: Well.
Mayor Suarez: But, it could be two separate questions on the same referendum
ballot.
Mr. Fine: Let me just share this with you. The one thing I don't want to
appear is being presumptuous. If I had my choice, I would hope that this
might be a single issue, so that it was clear. On the other hand, if it were
just the salary added to this, I don't think it would change too much. but if
we end up with the smoke screen coming through, and somebody tries to get a
strong mayor ballot on there, a districting ballot, a salary increase and a
four year term, my prediction is all four will go down in defeat.
Mr. Plummer: It already has. It did last year.
Mr. Fine: Well, that is why I feel comfortable predicting it.
Mr. Plummer: And I would not vote to put it on the ballot, because the
people already spoke to it.
Mr. Fine: And I understand that, and I applaud your stand, and I am grateful
for it.
Mrs. Kennedy: Going back, Mayor, to the salaries, I would then urge you to
consider two proposals, if we decide to do it, to set our basic salaries at a
rate that is acceptable to everyone, and then to amend the Charter so that our
salaries are set automatically on a yearly basis according to the increasing
population and to the cost of living.
Mr. Fine: I would certainly have no problem with those two issues being on
the ballot without the other issues of strong mayor and districts.
Mr. Plummer: Well, my prediction is, that if you do it, if you put the two
issues on, you kill them both.
Mr. Fine: Well, I feel like you do, J. L., but I am reluctant for any of you
to perceive that I don't think you are entitled to more money. It is just
that I don't know if the voters are going to give it to you.
Mayor Suarez: The other thing I...
Mr. Fine: Not just to you - to elected public officials. I would say in all
candor, the big problem we have in government, in my opinion, is always at the
local level. Richard Stone once told me is that the best place to run is as
far away from Miami or Dade County as you can, and the only office he ever ran
for was in Tallahassee or Washington, and he is a very smart fellow, and it is
very hard when you have got to face the issues you do every day. You make
enough people angry, where some of them may think you are getting overpaid at
$5,0001
Id 6 March 27, 1986
Mayor Suarez: Because certain issues cause specters to be raised in the minds
of certain people and I understand it, because I have had conversations with
people since I was elected, and certainly during the campaign, we had to deal
with the issue of the strong mayor right in the midst of mayoral campaign in
August of last year, which made absolutely no sense, and I so indicated and
argued against it. I would like to say on that, that from my own perspective,
and so that anyone who is concerned about any rumors might, by this official
and public means, have them dispelled. In the four months that I have been
here (a little over four months) I myself have become convinced that a well
functioning Commission does not need a strong mayor form of government, nec-
essarily, and the City can move quite well. In fact, an idea that would pay
compensation, a fair compensation, to the Commissioners and the Mayor - the
Mayor being another Commissioner, really under the Charter - makes a lot of
sense at the same time as extending the four years, which I think makes a lot
of sense on its own. I think you are right on that particular point, and I
would even dare to characterize it as a strong Commission form of government a
little bit, in the sense that we are all expected to have a more direct role
in the details of running the City, and frankly, the people expect that
already, and the least they can do is compensate us fairly for it. I, myself,
would always want to limit what the Mayor gets paid, and the Commissioners,
because I have a thing about high salaries in City government - everyone knows
about that by nowt But, we could probably build all of that into a set of
proposals at public hearings, depending upon how this Commission is disposed,
and I think, Marty, that we have now heard from you twice, and we appreciate
it a great deal. We have got other items to get to, and I would appreciate
hearing from this Commission, if they want to take this item, at least to the
point of recommending it for public hearing, at which time I am sure we will
hear more from the general public.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me state on the record the only problem that I
have with the salary is the insult when they call it a salary. I think it is
a partial reimbursement of expenses. My father used to say to me, he could
not understand why I spent 80 percent of my time, where I got 5 percent of my
income. The deader he gets, the smarter he was. Mr. Mayor, if you are going
to open it up to the public, I will wait.
Mayor Suarez: Why don't we decide what the Commission's
could be that the Commission will simply not act on it, Mr.
have public hearings, we are going to have at least two,
will be able to have plenty of time to say what you would
of considering whether we should consider this further. It
Mr. Otis Shiver: Excuse me.
Mayor Suarez: ... all right.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me express... oh, I am sorry!
Mr. Shiver: Please, pleasel
pleasure is. It
Shiver. If we do
at which time you
like. We are sort
doesn't really...
Mayor Suarez: No, sir, you are not being given... Commissioner, do you want
to hear from Mr. Shiver at this point? No, sir, we are not going to hear from
you at this point. We are only considering whether we are going to consider
this issue at a full hearing, so please...
Mr. Shiver: You will hear from me.
Mayor Suarez: Oh, I am sure we will. I am sure we will, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I will start it off. I have indicated to you, that I
would vote favorably to put it on a ballot, with the full understanding that
nothing else ... oh, excuse me... that the second reading would go at exactly
the deadline date for the referendum, and would suggest, Mr. Mayor, that we
hold our first public hearing somewhere along in June, and that way we would
have the second hearing, I would assume, in July, which would be about 60 days
prior to the September, which Marty recommended. I have no qualms about what
ballot it goes on, so I air speaking for one, that I would be disposed to vote
on that, if it is the feeling of the Commission.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor.
ld 7 March 27, 1986
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner?
Mr. Dawkins: I would not vote to put it on the ballot, in that, we have the
same issue being discussed in over all Dade County, of which the City of
Miami is one of the municipalities that is governed by Miami, and the total
Dade County has shown little, if any interest, in this issue, so now, if the
people in the county, which is a part of Miami, has not shown an interest, I
would not vote to put it on the ballot.
Mrs. Kennedy: We are talking about...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse we. Just for clarification, Commissioner Dawkins, I am
not speaking that I would vote in the final analysis to put it to the ballot.
I am speaking to having a public hearing.
Mayor Suarez: And you propose a date in June, approximately, right?
Mr. Plummer: I said June, and I interrupted my colleague, and I don't...
Mrs. Kennedy: I was going to say that if you want to go ahead and move to
have it in June.
Mr. Plummer: I only said June because if we were to go to the September
ballot, we would have the first public hearing in June, the second one in
July, which would put us somewhere about the 60 days prior to the September
ballot. I make it very clear, that I want to protect against any smoke
screen, chismosa, rumors, anything, OK? I don't make any bones about that, so
that is why I propose those dates for public hearings. I want you to know that
I fully reserve my right, at that second hearing, as an independent vote, to
vote "yes" or "no". If it is in order, I move it, "yes".
Mrs. Kennedy: And I second your motion.
Mayor Suarez: Does the motion include a reference that both of these items
that have discussed be advertised as being the subject of discussion in those
public hearings, or generally - at least describe generally, as including the
possibility of compensation before the Commission, and a four year term for
the Mayor, is that the general thrust of the motion?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, for the public hearing, I have no problem. I will
be opposed to putting the salary issue on the ballot, as I know it now, but I
have no problem of letting the public coming ':,ere and speaking.
Mrs. Kennedy: There is a motion and a second.
Mayor Suarez: So moved and seconded. Let me just say in furtherance of what
Commissioner Dawkins has said that I don't, in the last four and one-half
months of being Mayor, Marty, and going through the City of Miami, and hear-
ing the concerns of the people, do not consider either one of these two
measures to be a number one priority to the people of Miami in any way, and
that is the reason that I would like to move this along as quickly as possi-
ble. The hearings themselves will be advertised as such that people have a
choice. I must say that the thing that you have carved out as a proposal is
one of the ones that people have mentioned - why not a four year term? Why do
we have constantly elections, and the compensation for the Commissioners is
the other thing. The strong mayor thing, at least in my mind, has not been
something that people have constantly mentioned to me throughout the communi-
ty, and the only point I am trying to make of all of this, Commissioners, is
to let you know that my own feeling is that we should debate this and get on
with it, and not have happen what happened last year, where we took - I don't
know how many meetings was it, that it took up - five, six, seven, Commission
meetings? ... three, four, five, six, hours at a time? It really became a
political football.
Mr. Dawkins: Call the question, Mr. Mayor, and let's move on. I think we
have an agenda here.
Mayor Suarez: So, because of that philosophical stance, unless you want a
clarification, Marty, I am disposed to call the question.
Mr. Fine: I would hope that your motion reads first about the four term, and
second about the salary, because I think that is the importance in the manner
in which the public ought to perceive it.
ld 8 March 27, 1986 1
Mayor Suarez: At this point, we are going to have hearings, so I guess it
really doesn't make that much sense, but I believe that is the way it was
phrased, and so hearing no further discussion from the Commission, please call
the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 86-228
A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY ADMINISTRA-
TION TO ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD EITHER
IN JUNE OR JULY REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF PLACING IN A
FUTURE REFERENDUM A PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE MAYOR'S TERM
OF OFFICE FROM TWO TO FOUR YEARS, AS WELL AS THE POSSIBIL-
ITY OF INCREASING THE MONETARY COMPENSATION PRESENTLY
RECEIVED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Plummer: With the comments and stipulations that I have inserted, I vote
"yes".
Mr. Dawkins: Never being one to stop the public from being heard, I vote for
the public hearing. I will be voting "no" against putting this on the ballot,
regardless of what the public hearing brings forth.
Mayor Suarez: "Yes", and I also have the same reservations, but I want
something to be on the ballot, that people are likely to vote for, and we will
reconsider all of this at that point. Thank you, Marty.
3. LITTLE HAVANA ACTIVITIES AND NUTRITION CENTERS TO ACQUIRE BUILDING AT 700
S.W. 8TH STREET
Mrs. Kennedy: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner.
Mrs. Kennedy: I have an emergency item that I would like to bring at this
time. It is just a technicality, but because of time limitations it must be
taken up today with regards to the lease on the Little Havana Activities
Center, and I see Josefina Carbonel in the audience, she is Executive Direc-
tor, and I think she would like to say something on their behalf.
Mayor Suarez: This is a matter that we voted on, and we approved, and now we
have some technical defect of some sort, Mr. City Manager?
Mr. Odio: V77. Mayor, yes, you approved $300,000, and we would have first
position on the building, if something should happen in the form of a loan.
What happened, they didn't get enough money, this year, from the State. They
will get the balance of the monies after July 1st.
Mayor Suarez: We will have the first mortgage?
Id 9 M,srch 27, 1986
Mr. Odio: We would have the first n.ortgage after July 1st. From here until
July 1st, we have a second position, and that is why I decided...
Mayor Suarez: What gets paid July 1st, that we will become first in line,
after July lst?
Mr. Odio: We will become first in line after July 1st.
Mayor Suarez: What gets paid July 1st?
Mr. Odio: They get the rest of the money from the State.
Mr. Plummer: No, no, no. Tell me more importantly, who is first before us.
Mayor Suarez: Exactly. Who is first now?
Mr. Odio: Go ahead and explain it, Josefina.
Mayor Suarez: Because, if the first mortgagee chooses to foreclose, or if
the payments are not made, I would like to know that we are not going to be
left out in the cold here.
Mr. Castaneda: Basically, what is happening is that The Little Havana Activi—
ty and Nutrition Center only has $140,000.....
Mr. Odio: Okl
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Frank, I asked a simple question. Give me a simple
answer, then if you want, I will go to the bathroom and you can discuss it.
Mr. Castaneda: The bank?
Mr. Plummer: The bank.
Mr. Castaneda: Will have the first mortgage position.
Mr. Plummer: And how much is the bank putting up?
Mr. Odio: The total amount. Then, when they get the money from the State,
and the bank gets paid, we become first in line.
Mr. Castaneda: What they are doing at the present time, is buying out the
existing owner and they are assuming the mortgage.
Mr. Dawkins: They are buying out the existing mortgage. They are buying it
out for how much?
Mr. Plummer: $750,000, obviously.
Mr. Odio: No.
Mr. Castaneda: No, no, they are negotiating still, the price.
Ms. Josefina Carbonel: The price is still to be negotiated and the set price
will be next week. It is less than $750,000.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me — less than $750,000?
Ms. Carbonel: Sure.
Mr. Plummer: My fear is this, knowing how the State is going, it is an
election year. If you don't get monies from the State...
Mr. Odio: The monies are promised, Commissioner. It is just that she won't
get the checks until after July 1st.
Mr. Plummer: Hey, did you ever try to cash a promise at the grocery store?
Mr. Odio: Well, forget the promise. The money has been budgeted.
Mr. Dawkins: Budgeted? Where, in our budget?
Id 10 March 27, 1986
Mr. Odio: In the State, for $150,000 after July 1st.
Mayor Suarez: Is that the Governor's budget you are talking about?
Mr. Plummer: Here is my fear. My fear is, if the money doesn't come through,
then where are we? What position are we in? We don't want the building. We
don't need the building. I have to question if for some reason, the State
does not come throught That is my question.
Ms. Carbonel: Commissioner, Mayor, the State of Florida, because there is
that time lapse between purchasing the building and the money to be legally
authorized past July 1st, the State has authorized the use of existing State
monies within our budgets that are paying for rent at this present time to be
used for mortgage payments until that time, so if the State is taking the
risk, and the State is coming up with, you know, the same amount of dollars,
plus the mortgage payments, the State is going to go through with this, I can
assure you. It is in the budget.
Mr. Plummer: What happens... I am assuming the building on 12th Avenue is
being sold.
Ms. Carbonel: That is correct.
Mr. Plummer: What are the proceeds from that sale going to be used? What is
that being sold for?
Ms. Carbonel: That is not our building. We are leasing the building.
Mr. Plummer: You are just a lessee?
Ms. Carbonel: Yes.
Mrs. Kennedy: I see their lease expires April 30th.
Ms. Carbonel: It expired March 31st, and we extended for one month for final
negotiations.
Mr. Plummer: Josefina, I have no problem. I understand. I am just merely
questioning, knowing the problems that the State is having, is all. What
happens, if in fact, the State doesn't come through? That is my only concern.
Mr. Odio: Well, the bank gets the money first, and we are second in line to
get whatever balance there is left.
Ms. Carbonel: Right.
Mr. Odio: That is exactly what would happen.
Mr. Plummer: Has the appraisal shown the facility to be in excess of
$750,000?
Ms. Carbonel: Yes, the appraisal is for. $807,000? The appraisal is for
$807,000, and the tax assessment value is over $780,000.
Mr. Plummer: Ok.
Mr. Odio: So, what we are asking for is to pass this resolution amending the
prior resolution so that we can proceed, if you so choose, to give her the
money, so she can finish the transaction.
Mrs. Kennedy: So moved.
Mr. Castaneda: Commissioners, let me just clarify, under this tab will only
be giving out $140,000. We would only release th.-,, rest of the funds when we
have first position.
Mr. Odio: How much is the release, prior to obtaining first position, then?
Mr. Castaneda: $140,000.
Mr. Plummer: So, you are retaining $160,000?
Id 11 March 27, 1986
Mr. Odio: $160,000.
Mr. Plummer: That is fine. That is even better.
Mayor Suarez: Since you spoke after Commissioner Kennedy had made her motion,
we are going to refer to you as Commissioner Castaneda from here on. We have
a motion. Do we have a second?
Mr. Plummer: I second the motion.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion from the Commis-
sion? Hearing none, please call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 86-229
A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 851234,
ADOPTED DECEMBER 19, 1985, ALLOCATING $300,000 OF COMMUNI-
TY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO THE LITTLE HAVANA
ACTIVITIES AND NUTRITION CENTERS OF DADE COUNTY; INC. FOR
THE PURPOSES OF ACQUIRING A BUILDING LOCATED AT 700 S.W.
EIGHT STREET; AMENDING THE CONDITIONS FOR ALLOCATING
FUNDS TO SAID AGENCY.
(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 J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
NOTE FOR THE RECORD: AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 WAS WITHDRAWN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: PROVIDING REGULATIONS FOR NONMOTORIZED VEHI-
CLES FOR HIRE.
Mayor Suarez: We are on agenda item numbei 3, I believe, on first reading.
Mr. Odio: This is the nonmotorized ordinance. Number 3 is an ordinance which
regulates the activity of nonmotorized for hire vehicles. We are requesting
an inspection fee of $25.00 per vehicle, and this is incorporated in this
ordinance, to help defray the cost of enforcing the ordinance, and should be
reviewed before the end of the fiscal year, and the beginning of the next
licensing year. It is important that we deal with this ordinance because
there are several companies that have been waiting to obtain licenses and this
activity impacts directly upon the safety of passengers of such vehicles, as
well as other travelers on City streets. This ordinance, by the way, is
patterned after the City of Tampa's regulatory ordinance, and we request that
you pass it on first reading, sir.
Mayor Suarez: I meant to mention before, and I'm sorry I forgot that we ought
to recognize the presence of Marty Saffir and the crew of "60 Minutes." He
Just stepped out. He was here a little while ago. I think they heard a rumor
ld 12 March 27, 1986
a s
that the strong mayor was going to be voted on today in New York. We acknowl-
edge your presence, and we are happy that you are going to do c very positive
article on the City of Miami. I don't know how the Commission feels on this
ordinance, but is there a problem out there? Have there been any accidents
with these quite colorful rickshaws that you see out there, and the people
driving them ... or whatever you call that.... pulling them.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me put some stuff into the game, here. Put some stuff
into the game, because we have the horse carriage and I guess we have plenty
of stuff! It is my understanding that what you are proposing to do is to
regulate by this ordinance, is that correct? OK, I have, and continue to
have, a real problem with the rickshaws in Coconut Grove on Friday night and
Saturday night. I think when we stop and consider at the present time, that
we are having to use, as I recall, 42 policemen on each night to help elimi-
nate the congestion that is in that area, they definitely, in my estimation,
no question, and I don't think in anybody's estimation, they do add to the
congestion, just one more person there. I also see that we have before us a
memo to Sergio Pereira, but I guess it is from Carlos, so it is still a City
memo, a request for horse drawn carriages. They do propose in here that they
would only operate in certain places on certain Hours. My concern continues
to be, if this is a vehicle in which we are going to be able, for example, to
eliminate the rickshaws in Coconut Grove, in a congested area, let me put it
that way, and the horse drawn, in a congested area during periods of opera-
tion, I think it is a very fine ordinance. I don't think that we are looking
for revenue, when you are talki.ntc about one horse... what was it? For one
horse, you are going to charge $12.00, and for two horses, $23.00. I can't
envision that it is going to even be worth the money it is going to take to
inspect the horse and I don't know how you inspect a horse!
Mr. Odio: Check their tail?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, well, let me tell you what I have been told, because some
of the things are interesting about these horses and the asphalt on which they
go upon. I am in favor of this ordinance, if it gives this Commission some
control to help alleviate the congestion which I feel is being created. If it
is not, then I think the ordinance is not worth the money it is written for
and I don't know what it accomplishes. So I am just making that one point,
where this vote is. Somebody has got to convince me, that by passing this
ordinance, we will help to eliminate congestion, not add to it, so I have
made my comments known.
Col. Arthur Vincent: Honorable Mayor and Commissioners, this ordinance has
provisions that will allow us to exercise control. Right now we have about
eight to twelve rickshaws, as you know, every Friday and Saturday night in
Coconut Grove. They have been issued licenses and they operate, and we have
been trying to deal with them through the State statutes governing bicycles,
and whatever State statutes governing traffic we can. All of the decisions in
Court have been inconsistent, so this ordinance has been developed, and it is
patterned after Tampa. This contains provisions that we feel will give us the
control that we need over the rickshaws that are there and if the horse drawn
carriages are licensed, then we can also control them. Prior to a license
being issued, there is a provision that they must go to the Police Department
with an application and we have incorporated provisions where they have to
give us the proposed routes, the hours of operation. We are going to be able
to control the areas of the City that they are in, and we have made...
Mr. Plummer: At the time?
Col. Vincent: Yes, sir. At the time that they can operate, the number of
vehicles, so we have incorporated so much into it...
Mr. Plummer: As far as I am concerned, it is a good ordinance.
Mr. Odio: Let me add that I have been in the Grove on weekends, and those
things get on top of the sidewalks, they run people over. They are not very
good. They get in front of the cars and they cross -cross in and out, al -id
somebody is going to apt hurt.
Mr. Plummer: I like the oae with the guy that has the horns. Are you the one
with the horns? That is the one I like!... as you jump up and down the street
as you are going up and down.
ld 13 March 27, 1986
Col. Vincent: He is there every Friday and Saturday. He is next to me now,
Commissioner.
Mr. Plummer: Let him be there every night but the congestion night, that is
what I've got a problem with.
Mayor Suarez: We are all debating what your rank is, and apparently the
Commission can't agree, so we can refer to you properly. What is your rank?
Col. Vincent: It is Col. Arthur Vincent, Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: Colonel. I was just going to ask you a question. Have there
been any accidents, any lawsuits, even, resulting from an accident having to
do with the rickshaws?
Col. Vincent: There have been accidents with the rickshaws that I am aware
of. One occurred on a Friday or Saturday night about a month ago. As far as
lawsuits, I don't know, and...
Mayor Suarez: What kind of an accident was it? Was it the driver himself, or
passenger, or other people?
Col. Vincent: The rickshaw collided with a Mercedes-Benz, and there was
damage to the vehicle...
Mr. Plummer: Who won?
Col. Vincent: I think the Mercedes, but I don't believe there were any
injuries on that.
Mayor Suarez: I thought Commissioner Dawkins was involved in that accident.
Col. Vincent: No, I don't think so.
Mrs. Kennedy: How many applicants have we had?
Col. Vincent: Well, for the horse drawn carriages, two applicants, and for
the rickshaws, they are licensed already, Commissioner, and there are about
eight to twelve of them, and what we want to do is bring them in and have them
fill out applications with the Police Department so we can govern their
behavior.
Mrs. Kennedy: Let me tell you that maybe they tell me that I voted for this
because I am a woman, and maybe they are right, because I can see the days in
New York where I saw the horse drawn carriages, and the couples in love riding
around, and I can see the days where in Miami, we can have this near Bayside
and downtown Miami, in Coconut Grove and in the Latin Quarter that I hope one
day will become a reality. In addition...
Mr. Dawkins: Commissioner, you are not voting for it because you want women
to draw some of them, run in front of some of them, are you?
Mrs. Kennedy: No, Commissioner, but I voted for it, because I have heard...
Mr. Dawkins: OK, I just wanted to know - I am just asking you.
Mrs. Kennedy: ... no, but let me answer your question - I have heard that what
this Commission needs is a little romance, and maybe I can give you some heart
into this issuer
Mr. Dawkins: Well, romance and finance go together!
Mr. Plummer: We go from a circus to X-ratedl Where is Maurice Ferre and the
porno?
Mr. Odio: Is this a public hearing?
Mr. Tom Chi: Mayor and Commissioners, it is good to see you today. This is
the first time I've been to one of your meetings. My name is Tom Chi, 5943
S.W. 60th Street. I represent the Rickshaw Operators Association. If I may,
I'd like to pass out some of these short notices.
ld 14 March 27, 1986
(INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) a.
Mr. Plummer: This is only first reading, so anything you want, you will have
a chance at second reading.
Mr. Chi: I believe the Mayor has already seen a copy of this. I will just -
wait a quick second so you can peruse it.
Mayor Suarez: Go ahead, just paraphrase, whatever you like. We will be happy
to read it and...
Mr. Chi: OK, basically, it talks about what we have done for tourism, and
media and all that kind of thing. As far as our accident record goes, that
one accident is no problem, because we settled. There was no injuries. The
rickshaw was going two miles per hour, the car was going two miles per hour.
One thing that I say about the congestion in the Grove, which is certainly a
problem. To eliminate rickshaws from the congestion in the Grove, now,
rickshaws move very easily through traffic and around traffic, in fact, they
move rather quickly, and we are a major means of getting around in the Grove.
I think that to eliminate rickshaws in order to take care of the traffic in
the Grove would be to eliminate the Commissioners to take care of the overflow
of traffic in the City Hall here, instead of taking care of the traffic and
finding a good means of regulating that, you would just get rid of the Commis-
sioners, and then you kind of lose the flavor of the whole thing, and that is
what is going to happen to the Grove. Now, the 42 officers in the Grove,
their main function was to write tickets, and they wrote 500 to 800 tickets
each weekend, as I understand it, to people in their cars, and shut down the
business in the Grove to about 50% of what the businesses were making. I am
a spokesperson for the night time businesses in the Grove, excluding Monty
Trainer's, I speak for all the other cafes and shops, etc., etc. We lost an
awful lot of revenue down here because the Grove was completely shut down, and
that is beside the point. You will find if you speak with Col. Vincent, that
he has no problem with the rickshaw drivers, that we follow his orders, as
necessary, and help to alleviate any problems. Addressing this ordinance,
unfortunately, I think that the ordinance is a little too comprehensive, in
that it makes it impossible for us to hire drivers. If they have a
chauffeur's license, which they could drive children at a 100 at a time in a
school bus at 55 miles per hour, that is not adequate to drive two or three
people at two miles per hour through the Grove. Instead, they have to have
two sworn statements to complete criminal history, pictures, and a special
license from the Police Department, I think even Col. Vincent will agree that
that is not necessary, but what is necessary, is that they know where we are
going to run, when we are going to run. Also, the ordinance is restrictive,
in that instead of allowing us to continue to operate the way we are, since we
have had no incidents, and since we seem to function very well, and we did the
Grand Prix and some special events, that when there is a special event, that
we first consult with the Police Department and make sure that we have at
least a verbal, or written type of approval, instead of having 90 days to
decide whether we can go to the Grand Prix, when we were certainly welcomed
with open arms, there. This ordinance says that if you leave a rickshaw
unattended to go to the bathroom, even if it is legally parked, that you are
subject to 60 days hard labor and $500 fine.
Mayor Suarez: Hard labor?
Mrs. Kennedy: Hard labor?
Mr. Chi: Yes, sir. It also says that you may leave the rickshaw parked over
night legally, and yet it also says you may not leave the rickshaw.
Mayor Suarez: You really have the City Attorney worried now.
Mr. Chi: I don't think they have had a chance to read this, yet.
Mayor Suarez: Sixty days hard labor?
Mr. Chi: Yes, sir.
Mayor Suarez: Please don't put that on Sixty Minutes. This is just kidding
here now. We don't have anything like that coming out of this City.
ld 15 March 27, 1986
Mr. Chi: It tells us what temperatures we may operate at. If it is over 90
degrees, rickshaw drivers may not operate. It has a vehicle inspection that
means that since there is a decal affixed, and a fee, and a license ',r each
individual unit, if we would like to replace a unit because we find that one
is faulty or needs a new seat, and we have a whole warehouse full of rick-
shaws, we will be unable to do so, and will have to take that rickshaw out of
service. Now, we only operate eight or ten rickshaws, and many of them are
operating down by the bay and all that kind of stuff. We are very visually
oriented. You can see us from anywhere, but most people really like the
rickshaws. This ordinance is so overwhelming, that if it is passed in this
state that it is drawn, there will be not be a rickshaw on the road, and I
think you will find.... this gentlemen will not be able to hire a driver
either, that finding out that he made an illegal left turn is subject to 60
days hard labor and a $500 fine.
Mayor Suarez: Well, let's hear from him. We appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Chi: I am saying, no matter who it is, any nonmotorized person will be
subject to this, even if you submit the wrong size photograph, you are liable
to 60 days, and I really think that perhaps we could table the proposal and
have the City Manager's office study it with our expert help, because we have
been involved in franchises from Canada and all over the country, and I think
we could come up wi`.h something simple that addresses the chauffeurs' license,
insurance, routes, and that type of thing, and you won't have... this is a
very big, complex thing. It is very ambiguous.
Mayor Suarez: I think for my own vote, that is far as I would ever go, just
to specify the routes and make sure that you aye insured and licensed. That
is as far as I would ever go. Commissioner Dawkins?
Mr. Dawkins: Section 19 says, "Any person violating the provisions of any
section of this ordinance, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than
$500, or be imprisoned at hard labor on streets, or other work of the City for
not more than 60 days." That is City law, Madam City Attorney?
Mrs. Dougherty: That is the general provision of the City Code already.
Mr. Dawkins: Of the City Code? So, all right, there is nothing we can do
with that, so we would have to go to a referendum to change that?
Mrs. Dougherty: Well, no, the judge... this is a maximum fine. The judge
assesses the fine.
Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no. He wants us to take it out, Madam City Attorney.
Mr. Chi: This says of this ordinance, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: Beg your pardon?
Mr. Chi: That says, of this ordinance, and if we are covered under this
ordinance, then we will have a $500 fine and 60 days, in addition to what the
State has already quite adequately described as necessary to deal with vehic-
ular traffic. The State has a very comprehensive.....
Mr. Dawkins: Can we legally take this out, Madam City Attorney?
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, you can make any provision you want to for the penalty.
Mr. Dawkins: For the penalty. Double hard labor, if I want to?
Mr. Chi: Labor camp, I think would be good reeducation.
Mr. Dawkins: No, I think you'd do better, Kromel We don't have anybody out
there that looks like you.
Mr. Chi: I don't speak enough Spanish, unfortunately.
Mayor Suarez: Sir, go ahead.
Mr. John Johnson: My name is John Johnson, and I represent the Horse Drawn
Carriage Society, and we operate presently in Miami Beach, and also in Atlan-
ta, Georgia. We have been operating horse-drawn carriages for the last twelve
Id 16 March 27, 1986
years in Atlanta, Georgia, and we have been in the Miami area since December.
At this time, the people on the Beach are happy with the service. We think
they would be likewise received over here in the Miami area. I think we have
helped... the Dade County Department, we helped them to put this thing togeth-
er. I don't have a whole lot of objections to it, the biggest complaint we
have is the chauffeurs, or licensed part of it. Most cities that have the
horse drawn carriages - New York, New Orleans, and so on, require that there
is some form of license, because we all have to operate by the rules of the
roads of automobiles, and it is generally a regular automobile's license.
That is generally sufficient. We are not trying to make it too strenuous that
people can't get a job in this type of thing. In this area, we vowed to the
Miami Beach people that we would hire local, and not bring in people from out
of State, so in an effort to do that, it is hard enough to train these people,
as it is, to drive animals in a metropolitan city. To put this other stipu-
lation on it, I think we kind of make it just that much harder for these folks
to get these types of jobs. We are bringing a new industry into the City that
will benefit this area, horse-drawn carriages, are similar to rickshaws, but
different from rickshaws to the extent that we are bringing back a touch of
history, part of this country's beginning, and so on. We find that most
people like it. We operate also... setting... peak traffic time. We do carry
divers and and so on, so we don't mess up the streets. We do every-
thing that we can to make the job a little easier for everybody, and we can
get a little help on this chauffeur's license type thing, I don't think we
will have any problem with this.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: Do you have something to say, Colonel?
Mayor Suarez: Col. Vincent.
Col. Vincent: Only that the provisions, I believe, contrary to Mr. Chi ?-::re,
are reasonable. We have provisions, that when you apply, you give a photo-
graph, you are 18 years old, you not convicted of D.U.I., or three moving
violations within the past year, or prior to submitting application. We have
provided for sanitation, if you are going to operate a horse-drawn carriage.
We have provided that we want a Certificate of Soundness for the animal, so
the animal is not abused. We also have prohibited the use of whips we have
gone through this, and we made it comprehensive to protect the public and the
animal. We have regulated the parking. We have tried to look at this from
the standpoint of researching...
Mayor Suarez: What about the affidavits you mentioned before?
Col. Vincent: There is a sworn affidavit in which...
Mayor Suarez: One or two sworn affidavits?
Col. Vincent: I have here, Honorable Mayor, that there is a sworn statement
from the person indicating that he is of good character, and I feel that if
you can't give that, it wouldn't be reasonable to give him...
Mayor Suarez: Well, the thing is that is not needed for any other license of
that sort, really.
Mr. Plummer: What is required of a taxi driver, or a chauffeur?
Mayor Suarez: You are able to check their traffic record on a computer very
quickly.
Col. Vincent: The ordinance is comprehensive, but I don't believe from the
standpoint of the Police Department that there is that unreasonableness that
he has indicated.
Mayor Suarez: Any additional requirement, unless it is completely reason-
able, has problems associated with it - of course, bookkeeping, and then we
have got... it tends to monopolize something, you know, the guy that knows how
to get it, and can spend the money to do it tends to be able to get it done,
and other people cannot, and then you have got less individuals providing the
service, that is what worries me. I like just the very simplest of all
regulations, if we must have them, and maybe the Commission has a feeling, the
consensus of the Commission is that there should be some regulation. I am not
convinced that there should be at this point.
ld 17 March 27, 1986
y
Mr. Chi: I could add one more thing.
us entertain some folks from upstate.
get it from all ranges, and sometimes
they needed rickshaws to go downtown.
About six months ago, the Governor had
I just say that to impress you that we
even from the Governor's office, and
Mayor Suarez: That won't help you any on this Commission.
Mr. Chi: OK, anyway, we picked them up and took them where they were gone
downtown, it was no problem, but under this, we would have to have prior
approval of 90 days. If I get a party for Saturday on Friday, we can't do it.
Mayor Suarez: We are going to cut this short very quickly. Do you want to
make a last statement to contradict or clarify anything that has been said?
Mr. Johnson: Well, once again, I think that the ordinance, is well prepared -
we do need regulations, there is no doubt about it. Unlike rickshaws, to me
it is a cardinal sin for a driver to walk off and leave a horse, so I would
like to see that in black and white, and support it by the Police Department.
It is a lot of things that are related to horses that would not relate to
them. We can't be considered a taxicab. We shouldn't even be thrown in that
same light. We are a tourist organization. At least, that is what our
company operates under, but like I told Mr. Looney the other day, the only
thing that I object to, I think the whole thing was well written, I think it
will help us - it will help you run a good organization in this City, and the
laws and everything they have got on it for the most part are good. I have
one objection and that is the chauffeur's license, because I have to train
these people myself, and it is hard enough to find good people, and if we can
just make it where they got regular driver's license so you can check and see
if they are not criminals, because we want to know that, and that type if
thing, and if they follow the rules of the road, I think we can go with it.
Mayor Suarez: Probably neither one of the two licenses would really particu-
larly tell you whether a person could drive a horse drawn carriage, but one is
less problematic than the other to obtain, and less costly...
Mr. Johnson: Right, but you...
Mayor Suarez:...than a driver's license.
Mr. Odio: We have no problem in changing that to a regular, because a
chauffeur's driver's license, you have to have expertise in tractor -trailers
and I don't think that is fair.
Mr. Johnson: Right, but I would like to know, from the City's view point,
that if a guy is a criminal, I don't want to hire him. So if you send him down
there and he has got to get finger prints and all of that kind of stuff, that
helps us too, so I have no problem with that but a regular driver license I
think is sufficient, and that should get it done.
Mr. Lewis Waxler: Mr. Mayor, I would like to speak as a resident of Coconut
Grove. I built a home in South Grove some 14 years ago......
Mayor Suarez: Give us your name and address, please.
Mr. Waxler: My name is Lewis Waxler. I am a taxpayer and a registered voter
here for 35 years. My home in South Grove is like many other residences who
have been obstructed by the traffic problems of Coconut Grove. I once owned a
retail business, an art gallery in the Grove., on Main Highway, and due Lo the
problems of security, which Commissioner Plummer alluded to, when the police
force has to enforce traffic rules and can't use their powers and their
abilities to take care of security problems, we have a problem here. I happen
to be the one, the operator, of that Mercedes vehicle that was struck on
Commodore Plaza. It was not my car, and I was quite embarrassed at that time
of night.... The Police Department were powerless, and I say powerless, be-
cause I asked the Colonel about this specifically. The problem is you have a
hybrid. You have a vehicle here that is not a vehicle, that is the reason why
you need regulations. It is not a bicycle, but what it is it? It is a
vehicle for hire and it rides on the sidewalks, and it goes in one way
streets, and it makes "U" turns and when I operate my car, as any other person
in Coconut Grove, needless to say on Friday and Saturday night, I can't go
through the Grove. I've got to go out Douglas Road, or Le Jeune Avenue to get
ld 18 March 27 1986
to Dixie Highway. How does one operate and live in Coconut Grove, if the
traffic problem is such?
Mayor Suarez: We understand that, but that is not caused by the rickshaws.
Mr. Wexler: The rickshaws decorum of violating what normally would be a
traffic rule, the right that they have empowered themselves with, and this
glib attitude that "everything is settled." It is not settled. I have not
been to court. I have not been noticed. There has been no disposition, and
Mr. Chi, who represents himself to the police, and he was there at the scene
of the accident, as being licensed and insured by the City, but the City does
not license him and the City does not insure him. I read that article very
carefully in the Herald today, and that is the reason why I came, because I
want it made evident. The facts are, as your City Manager and City ally will
both bear out, that they are not licensed and not insured, and I, as a taxpay-
er, and a resident of Coconut Grove want regulations of these vehicles. They
are either bicycles, or they are motor vehicles, and when that man was ticket-
ed to operate the quote, "vehicle", he didn't have a driver's license, he
didn't have a residence address, and the owner was not known, and has never
been found. There is over $500 worth of damage to someone's vehicle that has
not been settled. That rickshaw was going the wrong way on Commodore Plaza,
and that is hard to do on a two way street. Thank you.
Mr. Chi: A very brief rebuttal - I don't want to touch too much on that,
except to say that obviously your licensing permit can show you a copy of our
license. You a copy of our insurance when we got our licenses.
Mayor Suarez: This is occupational license, you are talking about?
Mr. Chi: Occupational license. That rickshaw was passing. If Mr. Wexler
had been looking where he was going, and the rickshaw driver was looking where
they were going, they wouldn't have scraped.... He said he wanted to take us
to court.....
Mayor Suarez: You are sure this case was settled, you said?
Mr. Chi: He called up and said he wanted to take us to court. He said, "Pay
me today, or you are going to court" , so I called up his lawyer and said we
had tried to cooperate in every way that we can. If he wants to take us to
court, and he'll feel more fulfilled, we will be happy to do that too, but the
important thing here is I feel Mr. Wexler may have a bone to pick with us.
One night his son pulled a gun from his Jaguar, pointed at a rickshaw driver
just for fun. When he was pulled over, he was too drunk to drive. The
officer drove him home, and had another officer drove the Jaguar home, rather
than to look for the gun or give him a test, and he has been complaining about
us ever since, and it is unfortunate that he would come up here now and use us
for a scapegoat for the traffic in the Grove.
Mayor Suarez: Boy, it sure doesn't sound like you guys have settled your
differences, but...
Mr. Chi: No, it doesn't, but I think a court of law is the proper place. It
is not like we are really on the sidewalk, because we are not.
Mayor Suarez: No, and this is not a court of law, so why don't we leave it at
that. If you want to insert anything into our record, as to those particular
allegations, Mr. Wexler, you are entitled to do so.
Mr. Chi: And State law definitely regulates rickshaws as bicycles and as
"for -hire -vehicles."
Mayor Suarez: But, I, you know...
Mr. Plummer: Well, but State law does not regulate the congestion that occurs
on Friday and Saturday nights in Coconut Grove, and that is what I am hopeful,
if we pass this ordinance, what I am looking for, is to try to return a little
sanity to the flow of traffic in Coconut Grove. I have no problem with you
operating every other night, or every day, as long as you do it safely, but I
just don't think that this Coconut Grove can stand more congestion.
Mr. Chi: We have been there for two and one-half years. If you don't want
more congestion, then, you shouldn't build more shops there without parking.
id 19 March 27, 1986
Mayor Suarez: Sir, we don't go back and forth here between Commissioners and
the audience, otherwise we never end. Sometimes we don't even end when it is
just Commissioners.
Mr. Chi: Excuse me. I am sorry, I didn't mean any disrespect. I think we
should improve...
Mayor Suarez: We have heard from you enough. Thank you. Commissioners, what
is your prove.....
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I have a problem with 60 days hard labor on first
conviction. I think the $500 fine is appropriate. That is the maximum. The
judge can do less. I would say that before second reac'ing, that we ask the
recommendation from the City Attorney, that after, let's say, the second
conviction, we could talk about some jail time, because then it becomes a
defiant thing, and I am not talking about 60 days, I am talking about for the
second conviction, 10 days, and then appropriately thereafter, but I don't
think there is anything wrong with having up to a maximum of $500 fine, which
would pay for Mr. Waxler's car, which I am of course kidding... but I would
move the ordinance with that amendment, at any time that you are ready, if it
is the feeling of. the Commission.
Mayor Suarez: Do you want to, as a friendly amendment, build in the modifica-
tions suggested?
Mr. Plummer: Sure, I don't think it is necessary...
Mayor Suarez: All right, it will only be a regular license, as opposed to a
chauffeur's license?
Mr. Plummer: Fine, I have no problem with that.
Mr. Dawkins: I am going to second the motion, and in seconding the motion, I
would like to ask the City Attorney, when she brings it back for the second
reading, bring back section 19. and have something different, because there is
no such thing in Dade County as hard labor. All prisoners do all day long is
lay up in jail and watch television, so there is no such thing as hard labor,
so let's take this out and let's don't fool the public.
Mrs. Kennedy: Hard labor is what we do here.
Mayor Suarez: Please repeat that before Sixty Minutes, leaves, so we
don't......
Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I propose that we amend, at this
time, Section 19 by interlineation to read as follows, "Any person violating
the provisions of this Section, shall upon conviction, be fined not more than
$500 upon the first conviction, and upon the second conviction, not more than
$500 and/or imprisonment for not more than ten days. Each day that such
violation shall continue it shall constitute a separate offense."
Mr. Plummer: That is fine with me, and change the other part that Miller
wants to say the only thing they have to provide is a driver's license and
drop the word "chauffeur."
Mrs. Dougherty: That will be on page 2.
Mr. Plummer: I move it as so amended.
Mrs. Dougherty: And I have one more amendment. One section 7-b, should Read:
"Vehicles must be operated in accordance with the provisions of State law
regarding vehicles and their operation." Presently, it says binycles, and I
really meant vehicles.
Mr. Plummer: I move it as amended.
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Suarez: I am going to look at that one before the second reading,
because of the possibility that if you have to operate it as a vehicle, does
that mean that you have to have left turn, or right turn signals and all that
ld 20 March 27, 1986
kind of stuff? I mean, as a bicycle, it was probably meant to imply that, you
know, by giving some indication, you can tyke turns, and so on.
Mr. Chi: There are specific rules and regulations for rickshaws and for horse
drawn carriages that are covered in the State law.
Mayor Suarez: I am going to look at all of this carefully before second
reading, I guarantee you that. Thank you.
Mr. Chi: That is why it needs to state, "bicycle laws."
Mayor Suarez: We have heard enough from you. We are going to have a second
reading of this. You will be able to give us your input.
Mr. Chi: OK, thank you very much. That is what I was wondering.
Mr. Waxler: Mr. Mayor, since Mr. Chi was allowed to readdress the Council I
would just like to add for the record, since in case I have any litigation on
this matter, personally, that the Police Department never charged my family,
or anyone with anything in the so-called alleged incident that Mr. Chi re-
ferred to. Also, that the police did charge a head on collision with the
rickshaw the vehicle that I was operating. That has never come to court in
the traffic court in the City of Miami. I have never been noticed of that.
Mayor Suarez: We don't have a traffic court. We used to have a traffic
court.
Mr. Waxler: Well, then the County has it.
Mayor Suarez: Well, you guys obviously have some more dispute that you need
to resolve in court. I am also curious about what a head-on collision means
when you are talking about a rickshaw whose head are you talking about? In
any event, we have a motion that has been seconded. Hearing no further discus-
sion from the Commission, please call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION, LOCATION
AND OPERATION OF NONMOTORIZED VEHICLES FOR HIRE ON
THE STREETS AND SIDEWALKS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI;
PROVIDING A PENALTY PROVISION; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner
Dawkins and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
ON ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Plummer: As amended, yes.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and an-
nounced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and
to the public.
Id 21 March 27, 1986
5. APPROVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE AGREE-
MENT, LODGE NO. 20 (OCT. 1, 1986-SEPT. 30, 1987).
Mayor Suarez: Item 4, Collective Bargaining Agreement pertaining, I believe
to the F.O.P.
Mr. Odio: In order to open this item, item 4, I am happy to say that we have _
a ratified contract by the F.O.P., that it was approved 77 percent, against 22
percent, by the members of that organization, and I believe that this is the
first Police Department in the country that has approved a drug testing
program and I am very proud of that.
Mayor Suarez: Do you want to address that point, Commissioner Plummer, or do
you want to hear further from...
Mr. Plummer: Well, I've got to address it and put it on the record. Mr.
Manger, I brought up the other day, in reference to favor the nation clause.
This contract does not contain that, yet you have indicated that you gave your
word.
Mr. Odio: I gave my word...
Mr. Plummer: OK, but it is not in black and white, and not enforceable, so I
just wanted to go on the record right now that you gave your word, but it is
not contained in this contract.
Mr. Odio: There is no favored nation clause in the contract, there is howev-
er, my word to them during negotiations that if the economic package was
accepted - that is the 4 and the 3 and the 20 and 23 percent and the insurance
that we would not offer to the other unions more benefits in the economic
package than they were receiving, and...
Mr. Plummer: OK, Madam City Attorney, I am assuming that an oral guarantee of
the Manager is not enforceable by law.
Mrs. Dougherty: That is correct.
Mr. Plummer: OK, so what do you recommend?
Mayor Suarez: Let me ask Ken something on that, Commissioner. Is it clearly
understood by the membership and by yourself, or did you so instruct them,
that we might negotiate with the Fire Fighters, for example, or the Sanitation
Worker's Union, noncompensatory items, like the number of hours the Fire
Fighters work, and that that would not affect in any way the contractual
arrangement with your union?
Mr. Ken Nelson: For the record, I am Ken Nelson, I am President of the F.O.P.
We had talked about the offer to the Fire Department to change their weekly
work hours. We don't feel that that is a monetary item, that would be compen-
sable. We wouldn't be in any disagreement with them in reference to that.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, the Sanitation Workers have informed me, Mr. Mielke, that if
we give the Firemen a shorter work week, it would constitute a five percent
increase in salary. Is that near correct, or incorrect?
Mr. Mielke: That is basically incorrect.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, if we gave them... cut their hours to 48 hours, what
would that amount to in money, monetarily, to go into their package?
Mr. Mielke: Well, it depends on when you incorporated it. If you started it
in October...
Mr. Dawkins: Well, let's say I started in January. It doesn't mare much
difference when we started. It is still money.
Mr. Mielke: You are right. For purposes of trying to calculate the impact on
the employer, it would depend upon when you kicked it in. Let's assume that
ld 22 March 27, 1986
you kicked it in October 1 of this year. It would be probably approximately
three percent cost of payroll to us as the employer, 3.4 percent, roughly.
Mr. Dawkins: So, if the Policemen settled for... what did you settle for,
three and three?
Mr. Nelson: Four and three.
Mr. Dawkins: Four and three. Then in essence, if the Firemen get the same
thing, four and three, then they are getting four, three, three and three, is
that correct?... if we were to look at the day off as a monetary gain.
Mr. Mielke: I don't think you can make the same comparison, because what you
are talking about is a 2,080 hour work week, and a 2,500 hour a year work
week, which is the what the Fire Fighters work, roughly, so you are trying to
compare work weeks that are not the same.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, no, all I am trying to compare is, if it is, or is not a
monetary gain. That is all I am trying to say.
Mr. Mielke: Well, from the employee's standpoint, they are going to get the
same pay - the Fire Fighters are getting the same pay as far as the pay
package in their paycheck, as the Police Officers.
Mr. Dawkins: How can he get the same... OK, he will get the same pay for less
work, so he has got a benefit.
Mr. Mielke: That is correct. He will work 1.9 hours less a week.
Mr. Dawkins: So, that is a benefit.
Mr. Mielke: I am not suggesting it isn't.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, well then, you are not suggesting that it is, either! That
is why me and you got a problem. I am saying that it is, and you are just
saying that it could be.
Mr. Mielke: No, I don't believe I said that, Commissioner.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, now, let me go back to the Firemen, now, I mean to the
Policemen. Are you saying that, if the Fireman gets the reduction in the work
week, that you and your union will not come back and ask for another three
percent, which they say this amounts to.
Mr. Nelson: Commissioner Dawkins, we view it as a change in their working
conditions, their work environment. We don't look at as an economic factor at
this point.
Mr. Dawkins: You still didn't answer my question, sir. I need a "yes", -)r
"no".
Mr. Nelson: The answer is, no, we will not be coming back to the Commission.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, thank you.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I have read the contract. I am in concurrence with
the contract. I am only questioning that all members of this Commission and
the public understand that the Manager has given his word, and I am assuming
that this Commission is going to, even though it is not in writing, back up
the position of the Manager, or not back it up, and I want that clear on the
record. That is the only reason I brought it up. Now, let me tell you where
I am at, and then we will open it for discussion. I am willing to approve
this contract with the proviso and understanding that the Manager's word, as
given, will be backed by this Commission. I just want this on the record, so
you can open it up anyway you want.
Mayor Suarez: I just want to clarify on that, that all we are saying is
assuming we reach an understanding with the Fire Fighters and assuming that
that understanding includes a reduction of the work week, and that no other
compensation is given, and so on, that that means the Police Union will not
come back and that is what I understand to be the Manager's proposal and Mr.
Nelson has said that that is the way they understand it in those circum-
ld 23 March 27, 1986
stances. I don't want to imply in any way that we are ready to do anything
with the Fire Fighters, and I think that is clear in this Commission, because
there is still a lot of flexibility in the negotiations with the Fire Fighters
that include the issue of 48 hours.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I think the favored nation clause speaks for itself.
We are not speaking to any particular issue, or I am not. We are not speaking
to any particular item. It is the favored nation clause which, in effect, the
Manager has given his word, that if there is a difference, favored nation
clause would kick in Now, whatever those particulars might be, we either are
going to back up the word given by the Manager, or we are not, and I want to
include it in there, so that we are protected, since it doesn't appear in
writing.
Mr. Odio: Mr. Mayor, if I may, let me say my reasons why I gave my word on
that 4 and 3. When we were negotiating, it was not fair, if the Police
Department, if their...
Mr. Dawkins: That is not necessary - you are the Manager. All Mr. Plummer is
saying, is either we back the decision you took, or we don't. That is all he
is saying, and I agree, since it was verbal, and not in writing, that is a111
Mayor Suarez: It is a clarification that probably is not quite as much of a
clear contractual decision here, as some would like it to be, but it is a
clarification that is worth making, and ...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me! It is in the Firemen's contract.
Mayor Suarez: Yes. Interestingly, is in the other contract, and you could...
this is for Don Teems to think about, and his lawyers. I guess you could...
if parity were not maintained, actually, what it might do, is put the Fire
Fighters at a disadvantage that they have got that clause in their contract,
but that is there problem, it is not the F.O.P.'s problem. Further discussion
from the Commission on this?... because we have gone around and around on this
one a long time, and if we don't get one, I don't know if we will ever get any
other ones.
Mr. Plummer: I so move the approval of the contract with the stipulation that
the Manager's word be understood, and this Commission backs him in his word.
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mr. Plummer: It has been moved and seconded. Any further discussion from
the Commission? Commissioner Kennedy?
Mrs. Kennedy: Let me just say under discussion that it is funny that we only
read about the difficulties that other municipalities have in negotiating the
contract, and I really want to commend the whole Administration, particularly
Cesar Odio for the hard work and diligence, as well as the Fraternal Order of
Police for reaching this agreement and making it something that all of us can
live with. That is all.
Mayor Suarez: Call the roll, please.
Id 24 March 27, 1986
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 86-230
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI
AND THE EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE FRATERNAL
ORDER OF POLICE, LODGE, NO. 20, FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER
1, 1986, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1987 UPON THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT; FURTHER
EXPRESSING THE CITY COMMISSION'S FULL SUPPORT OF THE CITY
MANAGER'S VERBAL COMMITMENT TO SAID ORGANIZATION THAT HE
WOULD NOT OFFER TO OTHER CITY EMPLOYEE COLLECTIVE BARGAIN-
ING ORGANIZATIONS MORE BENEFITS IN ANY ECONOMIC PACKAGE
OF BENEFITS THAN ARE BEING AFFORDED THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF
POLICE, LODGE, NO. 20. IN THE HEREIN AGREEMENT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Mr. Plummer: I don't know why you are neglecting Dean Mielkel
Mrs. Kennedy: And Dean Mielke, of course.
Mayor Suarez: That is part of "most favored nation," to have Dean Mielke
included in any phrases that we hand out here. Anything else on this item?
Mr. Nelson: I'd just like to acknowledge one thing, and that is the vote was
passed resoundedly as stated by the City Manager, which I think is a reflec-
tion on the part of all the police officers here to emphasize to the community
that we are proud and we are Miami's finestl Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you, Ken.
6. DISCUSSION REGARDING DEMONSTRATION AGAINST NICARAGUAN CONTRAS AT THE
TORCH OF FREEDOM.
Mayor Suarez: Could you take a reasonable amount of time, Ray, because we
have got other items. We are going to take this item even though it was not
on the agenda, among other things. As I believe you are going to be address-
ing at some point the request for a permit which would take place - the
demonstration, or public avenue would take place prior to the next Commission
meeting?
Mr. Ray Fauntroy: It will be on April 5th, Saturday.
Mayor Suarez: In which case, it will be proper for us to at least consider
this.
Mr. Fauntroy: My name is Ray Fauntroy, I represent the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference. I am here to address an issue of Saturday, March 22.
We were part of a crowd of the Peace Coalition that was addressing the issue
of Nicaragua. We were called Communists, Marxists, and Leninists, and I am
here to set the record straight. We represent ancestors and grandfathers and
fathers and brothers and uncles who have lost their lives in defense of this
ld 25 March 27, 1986
country. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his life for our right to the freedom
of speech, and to be a part of this country, and to be a part of the daily
activities and government in this country, and we are going to conduct on
April 5th, Saturday, at the Torch of Friendship, a peace rally, and a rally
for the freedom of speech. We feel that we were not protected properly on
past Saturday, and we have put an application in to the City, on past Monday
for an application for thrL. I've spoken with Mr. Odio regarding that just
today since I have been here. We intend to be at the Torch of Friendship,
Saturday, April 5th at 12:00 noon, and we would urge that you would give us
that permit to be there, and to reassure you that the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference does stand for peace. It does stand for non -violence,
and it stands for justice, and we intend to make sure that that happens in
this community, since we are a part of it.
Mr. Odio: Mr. Mayor, if I may....
Mayor Suarez: Wait. I just want to clarify, Ray, is the organization that
is asking for the permit, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference?
Mr. Fauntroy: Yes, it is.
Mayor Suarez: And, is that the only organization sponsoring it, or are you
going to have more organizations there?
Mr. Fauntroy: There will be other organizations there. We never stop anyone
from attending our events, and other organizations will be there, and they
will be allowed to speak.
Mayor Suarez: Because sometimes a flyer goes out, calling for a demonstra-
tion, as it did in this case, including other organizations that may not have
the same peaceful purposes that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference
has, and that is why I am asking, but the permit is being requested by
S.C.L.C.?
Mr. Fauntroy: Yes, but let me also say that on Saturday, the organization,
the Peace Coalition, was a peaceful organization. There was no violence on
the part of the people involved on that side of the ... we don't like to call it
a demonstration, but on that side of the peace rally, because it was not a
demonstration, it was a peace rally, and I want to make that clear.
Mayor Suarez: Just so you know, there is one individual that came from the
peace rally side to the other side, and he had to be taken care of and pro-
tected. I don't know why he came from one side to the other, but by a friend
of mine whose name is Francisco Hernandez, who can be reached at 279-8500, and
he will tell you all about it, if you are interested in that, because there
was some, at least one incident of someone coming from the peace side to the
other side.
Mr. Odio: Mr. Mayor, I told Ray that we have a problem with the Torch of
Friendship. It will be closed. That is part of the reconstruction of
Bayfront Park. The torch is coming down tomorrow morning, and we have a
fence that is going up there to protect the public from getting hurt. We are
steam cleaning the stones and the metals that are there that had been unfortu-
nately left out of all the parts of the reconstruction of the park, and we are
taken care of that starting tomorrow morning, so I told him that he should
meet with the Police Chief and that the Chief will give him a permit on
another location that would be acceptable to both sides. That is...
Mayor Suarez: What is our discretion, and it is one of the most difficult
constitutional questions of our day, I suppose, Madam City Attorney, on
denying, or not denying, a permit, or specifying a location, as far as the
Commission, just to clarify that - not implying in any way that I would not
want to grant the permit.
Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, that would be a difficult question to outline what
your discretion is in every case, but in this case, I think that when you have
the interests of the City to reconstruct the park, and tomorrow morning you
are going to erect a fence for that reconstruction, it is within the discre-
tion of the City Manager to say that at that time, or at this particular time,
it is not within the health, safety and welfare of the citizens to have the
demonstration at that location, so, it is my view that you have the discretion
to deny it at that place, for a reasonable cause. Now, I want to take them on
a case by case basis, as opposed to laying a...
ld 26 March 27, 1986
Mayor Suarez: I understand. If we deny the permit, wouldn't they still have
a constitution right to assemble there?
Mrs. Dougherty: There, if you have it fenced in, and you are under recon-
struction? No.
Mayor Suarez: Or, whatever public parks of that particular location are left
after that reconstruction?
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, they do have a constitutional right to gather and rally
in our public parks.
Mr. Odio: And we are saying, Mr. Mayor, that we are willing to work with them
in finding a suitable location to hold that rally in Bicentennial Park, if
they choose, inside the park, and...
Mayor Suarez: It doesn't sound like you have a lot of time left to work this
out.
Mr. Odio: Well, it is easy to pick a park.
Mr. Dawkins: When you take the flame down, the fence will go where? Where
the flame is...
Mr. Odio: On the sidewalk, sir.
Mr. Dawkins:... middle ways, to the sidewalk, all the way to the end of the
sidewalk, or all the way to the streets?
Mr. Odio: All that will be left is the opening, a small portion of the
sidewalk, So that people can walk by without walking on the street.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, so from the sidewalk, from the street in back will be open,
is that right? And the fence will only encompass some of the place where the
torch is, is that correct?
Mr. Odio: And the ground of the torch around it, is bricks and we have to
clean that up with steam, as I was told, so the only portion that will be left
is part of the sidewalk open.
Mr. Dawkins: All right, are you going to clean the bricks between now and
the 5th, or after the 5th?
Mr. Odio: We're going to start tomorrow morning taking the torch down because
the gas doesn't flow through and we need to open up the gas lines and that
place will be fenced in before we can start work tomorrow morning.
Mr. Dawkins: But what I'm saying though...
Mr. Odio: It is going to take about two months.
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, but what I'm saying is how much will be fenced in? Is
there enough between the fence and the street all the way down for people to
stand and have a peaceful rally?
Mr. Odio: Five or six people, yes, but not two or three hundred people, no.
There will not be enough room there, s4r, and it would not be safe.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, that's what you said the other week that it one would be
safe last week and it wasn't. Now maybe this may be the one that will fool
you, this one may be safe. So see, we're assuming, that is an assumption that
it will not be safe.
Mr. Odio: No, I mean because of the cars coming by at high speeds.
Mr. Dawkins: Oh, that's no problem, all we've got to do is reroute the
traffic. I'm thinking about person to person contact, I'm not thinking about
the automobiles, Mr. Manager.
Mr. Odio: I see.
ld 27 March 27, 1986
Mrs. Kennedy: Any other reasons why you think it wouldn't be safe?
Mr. Odio: No, it is just that there is not room enough on a sidewalk to hold
a rally, not if they're going to have more than five or six people and, you
know, so we are offering them any park in the City that they so wish to hold
that rally.
Mayor Suarez: And we can't sell tickets and limit the number of people that
come, that's for sure.
Mr. Odio: That's right.
Mr. Ray Fauntroy: I see no problem with blocking the traffic off and allowing
the rally to proceed and then in. I think the confrontation last week was
unfortunate in that it was structured that way to be a confrontation, in our
point of view, and I think that if that is avoided this time that that won't
be a problem. We intend to have more than five or six people on April 5th and
I think it is important that the people understand why we're going back to
that spot.
Mr. Odio: We also Nave gas lines in there, Commissioner, I tell you my
recommendation is that they find another place to hold this and that we don't
issue a permit for that site.
Mr. Plummer: Well, this Commission does not issue the permit, we did not
issue the last permit.
Mr. Odio: It is the Police Department. Right.
Mr. Plummer: And I would assume the only action of this Commission would be
if, in fact, we were to feel that it should be denied and that has not been
the expression of the administration and it would process through its regular-
ly orderly channels of the Police Department. Why would it be any different?
Mr. Fauntroy: I was in a meeting last Friday and it was clearly put to me
that the decision for the counter demonstration did not come from the Police
Department and I made a point of getting that point of clarification.
Mr. Odio: Mr. Fauntroy, I don't know who told you that, sir, but whoever told
you that is a liar and I'll tell him in his face because the permit was issued
by the Police Department without the knowledge of the administration, it was a
total decision made by the Police Department which I fully support and I will
always support it because I made the decision once they brought it to me that
they were the professionals and I had to trust the people that we pay to make
the right decision and whoever told you that is a liar and I'll tell him in
his face.
Mr. Fauntroy: Well, then that CRB meeting on last Friday needs to be held
again and then we need to find out because I asked the question.
Mr. Odio: Whoever said that, you tell him to come here and tell me in my face
whether that is true or not and I'll tell him in your face that he is a liar.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Fauntroy, is there any reason, I mean any objections to
using Bicentennial Park where that fountain used to be?
Mr. Fauntroy: I will make tb'; recommendation to my executive committee
tonight when I meet them to explain to them what happened today and they will
make the decision as to ...
Mr. Dawkins: I want you to understand now, what you're doing is prolonging
the effort. Now, if you're telling me that you've got to go back - which I
don't have no problem with - go back to your board and have your board rubber
stamp something for you to do and then you come back to this Commission it is
going to be past the hour. I mean you hear what I'm saying.
Mr. Fauntroy: Yes, I understand. I understand clearly, and I just want to
make our point clear and that is I will talk with them and we will discuss
exactly what we are going to do, but we do intend to have a rally on the 5th
of April at 1.2:00 noon and it will be up to them whether we will have it at
the Torch of Friendship or whether we will select another site.
Id 28 March 27, 1986
9 0
Mr. Dawkins: Well no, you need to say now whether you want another site or
not. If you're not going to consider another site...
Mr. Fauntroy: We will consider another site at or meeting tonight, but
again, I will let the board make that decision and we could contact the City
Manager tomorrow morning.
Mayor Suarez: Ray, I want to say one other thing. If you reach an impasse
between now and April 5th I would appreciate a phone call and I will let my
office know at all times where I'll be to see if it can be resolved although
it is not within certainly our jurisdiction to decide on permits, we can
certainly give instructions and suggestions to the City Manager on policy, so
I would like one last shot at it if you have an impasse.
Mr. Fauntroy: Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you.
Mrs. Kennedy: I think your decision to find another site is in the best
interest of everybody and I thank you for trying.
Mr. Fauntroy: Thank you.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, you know where I live so I don't have to go through all
that.
Mayor Suarez: Tony, I think we've heard everything on this issue, I can't
imagine that you would add anything to the issue of permitting unless you're
asking for another permit which I hope you're not.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, I'm not asking for a permit, I just want to make a
point here. I think that if these people are coordinating their efforts with
the Antonio Maceo Brigade, which are Castro supporters, I just want you to
consider one thing - there will probably be violence in that demonstration.
Mr. Dawkins: Violence leads to violence. Let me tell you something. If
you're going over there for violence I'm damned sure you'll find it. OK?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sir, I'm not going there for violence.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, that's what you just said.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What I'm trying to say is for the Commission...
Mr. Dawkins: No, you just said that you're going over there with violence.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I didn't say that, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: You said there will be violence.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I said there is a potential for violence whenever
Castro supporters in this City...
Mr. Dawkins: There's always potential.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, that we're all aware of, Tony.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's all I'm saying, I'm not saying that I will go
there for violence.
Mr. Dawkins: Oh, OK then.
Mayor Suarez: That we're all aware of and believe me, we'll do our best to
make sure there is no violence, first of all in terms of our policy -making
function and in addition to that, in my particular case, I'll be out there
making sure there is no violence if it means throwing myself in the way, but
thank you for your caution on that.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I just want to make a point to the Commission, I was
there on Saturday trying to stop the violence but it continued.
Id 29 March 27, 1986
Mr. Dawkins: Well look, all of us, I know you and you know me, none of us are
for violence. All of us are for harmonious living in the City of Miami. I
know that.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I just wanted to make a suggestion in order to avoid
this confrontation not to have these people be part of this...
Mr. Dawkins: I don't want to put words in the Mayor's mouth, but did you hear
the Mayor ask: Are you and your agency the one sponsoring it? That's what he
asked Mr. Fauntroy. Will it be other names on the flier? That's what he was
alluding to. If those other names that you're talking about are on the flier
I'm pretty sure the Mayor is going to vote against the rally, I mean I think
it, I don't know. OK?
Mayor Suarez: Thank you, Tony.
7. DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF PROPOSED AGREEMENT WITH GOTTLIEB
FINANCIAL SERVICES (COLLECTION OF RESCUE TRANSPORTATION FEE) (See label
#9)
Mayor Suarez: We're on item 5, Mr. City Manager, regarding the collection of
Rescue transportation fees.
Mr. Dawkins: Why is it that we're going to an outside firm to collect this
when you have, and if I'm in error please correct me, you have a collection
going on in the Sanitation Department along the same line?
Mr. Odio: Well, I'm glad you asked me, Mr. Commissioner, as you know, we have
been reviewing the Solid Waste Department all the way up and down and one of
the things that we're very concerned is that we are not collecting as we
should the Solid Waste Fee and we 0� going to propose soon that we'll change
the method of collecting those Solid Wi.:ste fees because we're losing a lot of
money and one of the ways we're think;;;g of is going through the Tax Collector
but in the case of the Fire Department, the Chief reviewed in each case how
fees were collected and he felt, and I supported him on this, I have to tell
you that, that the best way is to go with a professional firm that is dedicat—
ed just to collecting fees, that we would get more collected that way than if
we tried to do it ourselves. We're not very good collectors.
Mr. Dawkins: At $50,000, we couldn't hire two people to collect?
Mr. Odio: That's the problem, they will not do what these people can do with
a full organization behind them, computers and all of that. Ken, do you want
to explain that?
Mr. Dawkins: We've got a computer, we've got computers. We've got personnel.
Mayor Suarez: We've got a $5,000,000 Computer Department, if I remember the
budget correctly.
Mr. Odio: I should not mention the word computers. The thing is that we
really are not in the collecting business. We don't...
Mr. Dawkins: For $50,000 we can get into it.
Mr. Odio: Well, you set the policy, Commissioner, I can only recommend to you
that we feel the best way to go is to go with a professional firm that all
they do is collect fees and they do it for Dade County too.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, what assurance do I have that they will collect? Suppose
they don't collect anything?
Mr. Odio: Then we need to replace them immediately.
Chief Ken McCullough: This contract that is proposed is for six months. The
billing would be within five days of receipt of the rescue transportation
report. They would bill as many as six times, we contacted five of the people
who they provide this service for, Martin County, Brevard County, Flagler
Id 30
March 27, 1986
4V 0
County, Union County, and their record runs from 61% to 72% collection. Dade
County has just switched their contract to Gottlieb and they don't have a
track record yet. All of these organizations were very satisfied with their
efforts. In the contract, it is stated that if they exceed 50% collections
they would receive a benefit of 30% of those fees collected over 50%. One of
the agencies that they have collected for say that this company has tripled
their collections.
Mr. Dawkins: Approximately how many accounts are we anticipating collecting
from?
Chief McCullough: Approximately 1,000 a month would be billed, we feel that
our experience in the first year would probably be in the neighborhood of 40%
to 43%.
Mr. Dawkins: We're talking about 500 a month and .... You're talking 6,000
and it says here they will bill and collect $3.00 for each individual account.
So that's $18,000 right there that he will get if he don't collect one penny.
Mr. Plummer: That's right, that's correct.
Mr. Dawkins: So why can't I hire some, since we've got high unemployment in
the City of Miami, people looking for jobs, why can't we hire somebody for
$18,000 a year and then if they don't collect then we go back to them?
Chief McCullough: In our conversations with the Finance Department, they felt
that they would need a great deal of support to develop the programs, they
would have to hire two or three people because this is not the type of billing
that they ordinarily do. This company also has the expertise of, there is a
place on the form to check if you want to assign the collections to them they
will even fill the forms out for you. They would do the billing to Medicare,
to Medicaid, to Workman's Compensation and this is their business, they are
sophisticated at it. They have been doing it for quite some time.
Mr. Dawkins: And all the while we were working along the lines of getting a
$75 user fee we never worked along the lines to develop the mechanism for
collecting so we just had to go out, after we got it now, now we say we're
going to go out and give it to somebody else.
Chief McCullough: No, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: Why didn't we design the collection agency at the same time
while we were developing everything else?
Chief McCullough: Commissioner, we have been working at this. We went out
and sought the experience of people who had a transportation fee and how they
were collecting it and this is what they suggested to us to be the best way.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I would make a motion that we do it in-house. I think in-
house is just much better and I share the concerns of Commissioner Kennedy
that we don't want any of these matters taken to court, we don't think it is
proper that they should go to court and outside collections agencies incen-
tives sometimes work great but they also sometimes work against you. And if a
man is on an incentive he might go overboard in trying to collect. That was
never our intent. Our intent was to try to collect from those agencies who
under normal circumstances, day in and day out, provide the moneys for the
transporting of their patients such as insurance, medicare and the likes, that
if, in fact, they would pay a regular ambulance service to do it that we were
entitled to collect the same... Yes, I know she's ... Oh, boy.... Guess
what?
Mr. Odio: That's all right, I know what it is.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, I know what it is too.
Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, that's the problem, we all know what it is.
Mr. Odio: We've got a war going on out there.
Mr. Plummer: So my recommendation is that it be done on an in-house basis.
Id 31
March 27, 1986
Chief McCullough: I guess certainly we can move in that direction, the only
problem would be if this goes into effect on the first of April, we might lose
4, 5 or 6 months fees.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I don't think that is the case, Kenny. I think your
Computer Department can set it up. You're not going to be billing for 10 to
12 days afterwards anyhow so that would give you at least 20 days to get
something in operation.
Chief McCullough: They tell me they couldn't do that.
Mr. Plummer: Well, they tell you that because they don't want to take on the
extra work with a cutback in personnel and I understand, you know. It isn't a
matter that ti.-,v can't do it, it is a matter they feel that it can be done
otherwise. (INAULIBLE BACKGROUND STATEMENT NOT PLACED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
Because I don't 1'.ke the idea of the $3.00 for each one of the applications.
They can get $20,06" and never collect a dime.
Chief McCullough: This .� ultimately going to generate thousands of phone
calls with people seeking help on how to fill their forms out, "I just got
this bill, what should I do?" This company provides this phone number on all
the bills, they handle that, they assist them in filling out the forms. We're
looking at needing several people just to answer the telephone. It is going
to generate hundreds of phone calls!
Mr. Plummer: Can we try it for less than 6 months?
Chief McCullough: The contract would have to be redrafted, I doubt if they
would be interested in it for less than six months because it will probably be
a couple months before they make the first dime.
Mr. Plummer: I've got a problem with the $3.00 fee, that's where my...
Mr. Carlos Garcia: Commissioner, if I may, the concern that we have, although
we have computers we don't have the program to take care of this type of
billing. It will take several months before we can develop that. So we will
not be able to do any billing I would say for at least two or three months.
Mr. Plummer: If I made your salary dependent on it you'd find a way to do it.
Mr. Dawkins: I'm going to call Samit Roy and see how long it takes to develop
a program.
Mr. Plummer: He can't answer that for you.
Mayor Suarez: This Commission is in recess for five minutes.
AT THIS POINT THIS MATTER WAS TEMPORARILY DEFERRED.
THEREUPON THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT 3:51
P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 4:08 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF
THE CITY COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT EXCEPT FOR
COMMISSIONER CAROLLO.
8. OPEN SEALED BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DESIGN PLAZA HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT B-
4509.
Mayor Suarez: Item 10, recjipt of bids.
Ms. Hirai: We need a motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: We need a motion to open bids.
Mrs. Kennedy: So moved.
Id 32 March 27, 1986
Mr. Plummer: Second.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 86-231
A MOTION TO RECEIVE, OPEN, AND READ ALOUD SEALED BIDS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF DESIGN PLAZA HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT B-4509;
FURTHER REFERRING SAID BIDS TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR
APPROPRIATE TABULATION OF SAME.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Mr. Plummer: Projected cost of the bid? 725? Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: I presume that was $725,000, right?
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Ms. Hirai: Mr. Mayor, these are bids for construction of Design Plaza
Highway
Improvement, B-4509.
BIDS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING FIRMS:
Garcia -Allen Construction Co., Inc.
_
Marks Brothers Co.
Miri Construction, Inc.
M. Villa and Associates, Inc.
F.R.E. Construction Co., Inc.
Williams Paving Co., Inc.
P.N.M. Corp.
P.J. Constructors, Inc.
Ms. Hirai: Mr. Mayor, those are all the bids.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you Madam City Clerk. Commissioner Dawkins?
Mr. Dawkins: Madam Clerk, is either one of those bids the guy who is
working
on S.W. 7th Street, S.W. 8th Street or N.W. 12th Avenue?
Mr. Cather: The first bid you read, you read Garcia -Allen, is working
on 7th
Street. And he is the one that was working on...
Mr. Dawkins: Is he the one that messed up 12th Avenue too?
Mr. Cather: Yes.
Mr. Dawkins: How do we eliminate him to be sure that he don't mess
up any
more streets in Miami?
Mr. Cather: He did it himself.
Mr. Dawkins: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Cather: He did it himself.
Mr. Dawkins: He's out?
Id 33 March 27, 1986
Mr. Cather: He's out.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, thank you.
Mrs. Kennedy: Madam City Clerk, what was his bid, Garcia-Allen's?
Ms. Hirai: The one from Garcia -Allen was $787,544.
Mr. Plummer: They'll take the uciir" se for tabulation.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you, Madam City Clerk.
9. (CONTINUED DISCUSSION) REQUEST CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATE METHODS OF
COLLECTION OF RESCUE TRANSPORTATION FEE. (See label 17)
Mr. Plummer: We never finished 5.
Mayor Suarez: That's correct. On the collection.
Mr. Plummer: How long would it take you to rebid?
Chief McCullough: A couple of months, 60 days probably.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Plummer, I called the Computer Department, they said they
could put a program on the computer in 60 days.
Mayor Suarez: Chief, is the purpose of this agency to act as a typical
collecting agency in any kind of a collection situation or is it more as in
medical billing processing when you try to collect from Medicare and so on to
actually process?
Chief McCullough: They will process, if you ask, the first collection bill
they send you, there is a place on there to check if you want them to do the
billing to Medicare, Medicaid, Workman's Compensation and would assign that,
they would do that for you. It would be more typical medical type assistance.
They have a phone ...
Mayor Suarez: But as proposed right now, what they basically do is try to
collect when a person doesn't pay like after the first notice by the City?
Chief McCullough: Yes, and they would send us up to as many as six bills.
Mayor Suarez: I believe if that's what their function is we can computerize
it and do it ourselves. If you told me that they could, I mean, if they would
actually have some technique for collecting from Medicare,you know, in accor-
dance with the latest state of the art and all of that that might make more
sense to me.
Chief McCullough: They have that.
Mayor Suarez: But just to send six letters, you know, a good computer could
do that quite quickly, each one more nasty than the prior one.
Chief McCullough: Either I don't understand your question or you didn't
understand my answer. They will actually do the billing to Medicare by
filling out the forms for you, the form to Medicare to collect.
Mayor Suarez: But that's not part of the proposal.
Chief McCullough: Yes, it is. Yes, it is.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioners, is it going to die for lack of interest?
Mr. Plummer: Well, I would much prefer to handle it in-house.
Mrs. Kennedy: But that implies 60 days.
Id 34 March 27, 1986
Mr. Plummer: 60 days either way, 60 days to rebid or ...
Chief McCullough; I don't have the skill or ability to do it, someone else
would have to actually do it.
Mr. Odio: If you want us to do it, we'll do it.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I think what you're looking at, Cesar, in reality is if it
doesn't work out we can always go out afterwards if it doesn't work out.
Mr. Odio: Fine. OK. Mr. Garcia will start implementing ...
Mr. Plummer: Well, see what the Commission feels, I'm only one vote.
Mr. Odio: If you so choose. Could I ask you to defer the item so that the
director of Finance can look at how he can implement, that way we don'L have
to rebid.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mr. Dawkins: There is a motion.
Mrs. Kennedy: It has been seconded.
Mr. Dawkins: It has been properly moved and seconded that we continue this
item for the Chief to bring it back in another form. Any other discussion?
Mayor Suarez: Consider doing it in-house, I guess in the meantime, seeing if
it can be implemented.
Chief McCullough: Do you want me to bring this back of the Finance Director?
Mr. Dawkins: OK, I would like to make a motion that the Fire Chief, the
Finance Director and the Director of Computers get together and bring back
something that is feasible and that will work. I don't want one person
bringing the same - me personally - I don't wti"t person bringing back the same
thing I've got.
Mayor Suarez: I'll accept a friendly amendment.
Mr. Dawkins: Will the seconder?
Mrs. Kennedy: Yes.
Mr. Dawkins: Any further discussion? Madam Clerk, call the roll, please.
The following motion was introduced by Mayor Suarez, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 86-232
A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AGREEMENT
WITH GOITTLIEB'S FINANCIAL SERVICES (G.F.S.) FOR COLLECTION
OF RESCUE TRANSPORTATION FEE IN ORDER THAT THE ADMINISTRA-
TION MAY CONSIDER AN ALTERNATE METHOD FOR COLLECTION OF
SAME; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE
FIRE CHIEF, THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, AND THE DIRECTOR OF
THE COMPUTERS DEPARTMENT TO GET TOGETHER IN ORDER TO
DEVISE AN ALTERNATE PLAN FOR COLLECTION OF SAID FEES TO BE
CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COMMISSION AT A FUTURE MEETING.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote-
ld 35 March 27, 1986
•
0
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
10. IMPLEMENT GIBSON PARK ATHLETIC COURTS RESURFACING PROJECT -(AWARD TO AGILE
COURTS, INC).
Mayor Suarez: Now we're on item 6 requiring an emergency purchase.
Mr. Odio: This is to resurface the athletic courts in Gibson Park.
Mr. Plummer: Move it.
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez: It's been moved, seconded, thirded. Hearing no further discus-
sion from the Commission and certainly not planning to engage in any myself,
please call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 86-233
A RESOLUTION RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING, BY A
4/5THS AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMIS-
SION, THE ACTIONS OF THE CITY MANAGER IN FINDING THE
GIBSON PARK ATHLETIC COURTS RESURFACING PROJECT TO BE AN
EMERGENCY, AND IN AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF AN EMERGENCY
PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SAID PROJECT TO
AGILE COURTS, INC. UNDER A CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE METROPOLI-
TAN DADE COUNTY CONTRACT, FOR FURNISHING ALL LABOR, MATE-
RIALS AND EQUIPMENT AS REQUIRED, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
PARKS AND RECREATION AT A TOTAL PROPOSED COST OF $16,200.;
ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM THE 1985-86 SPECIAL PRO-
GRAMS AND ACCOUNTS, PARKS IMPROVEMENT FUND.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Id 36 !larch 27, 1986
w
11. REFER TO MEMORIAL COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR CODESIGNATION OF N.W. 5TH COURT
AS "RED RAIDERS ROAD".
Mayor Suarez: Item 7.
Mr. Plummer: Move to send it to the Memorial Committee which is standard
procedure.
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Does that include our recommendation that
the street so be named?
Mr. Plummer: If we don't send it then we don't recommend it. If we don't
recommend it we don't send it.
Mr. Dawkins: See, what happened, Mr. Mayor, is Edison School wanted to change
N.W. 62nd Street to "Red Raiders Road" but it is already co -designated as 62nd
Street and "Martin Luther King Blvd." so we couldn't add another name. So
then the school accepted the court that runs north and south with it and they
want to rededicate 5th Court and call it "Red Raider Road".
Mayor Suarez: It has been moved and seconded and I guess, at least from my
understanding, includes the recommendation that that be the name. Any
further discussion from the Commission? Please call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 86-234
A MOTION REFERRING TO THE CITY OF MIAMI MEMORIAL COMMITTEE
A REQUEST FOR CO -DESIGNATION OF N.W. 5TH COURT BETWEEN
N.W. 60TH STREET AND N.W. 62ND STREET AS "RED RAIDERS
ROAD"; FURTHER REQUESTING SAID COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THIS
REQUEST AND TO FORWARD THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COMMISSION.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Mayor Suarez: Thank you, Sandy, I don't know if you want to add anything.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well,, I would just like for the Commission to recog-
nize and to see some of the people that came with me today who have a special
interest in this. Wn have two students here, the Principal and the Assistant
Principal, Mr. Sturgeon is the Principal and the Assistant Principal is Mr.
Davis and we have the chairman of our PTA and her assistant. As a matter of
fact, Mrs. Campbell Stone is the lady that you Commissioners took notice to
when you added me to the advisory board. Mrs. Campbell Stone is the lady that
was not here that night and perhaps if she had been here she may have gotten
that position. But I consider it an honor...
Mayor Suarez: I think she would have.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I consider it an honor to be here with you people today
and it is a very interesting thing for us and for the community that this 5th
Court be named "Red Raider Boulevard". Thank you very much, sir.
ld 37 March 27, 1986
-- r
Mayor Suarez: Principal Sturgeon, if you have any activity that would merit
any one of us addressing the student body or from my perspective, participat-
ing in any athletic activities, please let me ':now, I'd be happy to do that.
Basketball happens to be my favorite sport.
12. APPOINTMENTS TO MDC'S AUDIT REVIEW COMMITTEE. (APPOINTEES WERE: THOMAS
McGAHEY AND ALEX SOTO).
Mayor Suarez: Item 8.
Mr. Odio: This is the appointment of the WASA Audit Review Committee members.
Mr. Plummer: I'll recommend that which was requested and that is the previous
members of the Water and Sewer Board be nominated as the Audit Committee.
Mrs. Dougherty: There are only five, you'd have to appoint four others.
Mr. Dawkins: Run that by me again?
Mr. Plummer: There's only five members and there's to be nine on the Audit
Committee.
Mayor Suarez: Do you want to reappoint the entire membership? Can I know who
they are? I don't know who they are.
Mr. Dawkins: Why is it that we continue to appoint people who do not reside
in the City of Miami to handle City of Miami business? Is Homestead?
Mrs. Kennedy: I'm glad you brought that up because I was about to do it.
Mr. Dawkins: Coconut Grove which is us; Dr. Willie Robertson, President of
Florida Memorial College, Opa- Locks; I mean Coral Gables and here is Gene
McArthur Davis, P.O.B.... I don't know where that is, Miami, F1. So why is it
that we constantly, Mr. Manager, appoint people to boards who don't live in
the City of Miami when we can appoint people who live in the City of Miami to
serve the City of Miami?
Mrs. Kennedy: Also, I don't know about you, but I have not been contacted by
any of these people if they were so interested, I imagine that they would have
called at least and expressed their...
Mr. Dawkins: Move to continue and bring back some more names.
Mr. Plummer: I stand corrected, there is only supposed to be five total on
this Audit Review, I thought it was the other way around.
Mayor Suarez: Why don't we each have an opportunity to contact some of these
individuals or be contacted by them. I happen to know the chairperson, he
seems like, he lives in the City of Miami, he might be an interesting reap-
pointment. Commissioner Plummer, you might know him.
Mr. Plummer: I'll nominate Mr. Thomas McGahey who is well known.
Mayor Suarez: Do you want to get your appointment done, in lieu of these
five, is that what you're saying?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, fine, but I'm picking from this list. Tom McGahey is well
known in this community and has been for a long time so I have no problem
proffering.
Mayor Suarez: I see seven then, if....
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but only five will be on the Audit
This was part of the negotiated settlement over the suit.
Committee, Mr. Mayor.
ld 38 March 27, 1986
Mayor Suarez: OK. We have a nomination for Mr. McGahey. We also have a
motion to continue this. How do you want to handle it, Commissioner Dawkins,
do you want to vote on one?
Mr. Dawkins: I'll bring back a black for me and you guys, you can get who you
all want, that's no problem.
Mayor Suarez: I'll renominate the chairperson, Mr. Soto, who lives in the
City of Miami and I know.
Mrs. Kennedy: I'd like to defer my appointment, I'm not ready.
Mr. Dawkins: And I'll reserve Joe until he comes next meeting. So the three
of us, Carollo, Commissioners Kennedy and Dawkins will have a nominee at the
next meeting.
Mr. Plummer: I move that the two names be accepted.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez: So moved and seconded, please call the roll.
The following resolution was intrc.duced by Commissioner Plummer, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 86-235
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AND APPOINTING TWO INDIVIDUALS TO
SERVE AS MEMBERS ON THE AUDIT REVIEW COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED
BY DADE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 86-8, ADOPTED FEBRUARY 4,
1986, ENTITLED: "ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN AUDIT REVIEW
COMMITTEE TO PERFORM AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE MIAMI-DADE
WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT'S BUDGETS AND SEGRE-
GATION OF FUNDS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE"; FURTHER
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FORWARD A CERTIFIED COPY OF
THIS RESOLUTION TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(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 J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
13. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR COOPERATIVE PROJECT IN LITTLE HAVANA FOR A LATIN
ORIENTED SPECIALTY CENTER, A MODERATE INCOME HOUSING PROJECT, AND A
PARKING GARAGE.
Mayor Suarez: Item 9.
Mr. Odio: Item 9, Mr. Mayor, at the initiative of Commissioner Kennedy we
began talks with the Off Street Parking Authority and I think that some
understanding has been reached. There is a specific project that they now
have in mind and I want Roger Carlton to explain it to you.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK, before your presentation, Roger, let me just say, Mr.
Mayor, that suffice it to say that this project, if the feasibility study so
determines, provides us in this City with a very unique opportunity. One is
ld 39 March 27, 1986
AV, 0-
to provide housing for our needy and second is to revitalize a very important
part of our heritage. What we are talking about here is a program that would
provide moderate income housing as well as a focus point on S. W. Sth Street.
Hopefully, all of this will be done with moneys provided by the Department of
Off Street Parking and private enterprises. I think that in this town when we
can no longer count on the federal government to provide us with the necessary
funds to help our needy, we have to come up with solutions to help those
people that really need it. I contend that this proposal on which I have been
working since the day almost that I took office, accomplishes precisely that
and if taken into context with the housing units that we recently approved in
East Little Havana and in Liberty City, people in this community will finally
come to the realization that in this new City Commission we mean business.
Roger.
Mayor Suarez: Let me just say something, Commissioner. You mentioned the Off
Street Parking Authority and the private sector working jointly. Now the Off
Street Parking Authority, unlike the private sector, is a quasi -governmental
authority deriving its income from parking meters and governmentally autho-
rized parking structures all over the City, a lot of which ate not particular-
ly desired by the people of Miami. So I am always going to look very careful-
ly at anything that the Off Street Parking Authority does from my own perspec-
tive and I know you're coming here in an advisory capacity, I presume, Roger.
I'm going to take the time to very carefully survey the feelings of the people
in the area. I lived in that area for 10 years, I've never seen the need for
any public parking structures. If it is a way to somehow do a very needed
project in a mixed use situation because you've got income and otherwise
resources that there is no other way to obtain to build something, then I
might be interested, but a simple parking structure plus retail, it sounds
like an unholy matrimony between t'ie private sector and Off Street Parking
Authority and I'm going to have a lot of problems with it.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK, I understand that, but first of all, this is not a justifi-
cation of parking meters and it is not the time nor the place to discuss that.
Their value to the merchants will be discussed at another time. What we're
talking about here is a study that costs $35,000 which is going to come out of
the ...
Mr. Dawkins: Move it.
Mrs. Kennedy: It is not going to cost the City any money.
Mr. Dawkins: Move it, if you keep talking I won't move it.
Mrs. Kennedy: Oh, move it you said.
Mayor Suarez: He moved it. He didn't say to move you, he said to move the
item.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second. Thanks for coming, Roger.
Mr. Roger Carlton: It is the shortest and best presentation I ever gave.
Mr. Plummer: Let that be advice to you in the future. Don't leave, I want to
pick on you for a minute.
Mrs. Kennedy: But I won't talk on your behalf at any other meetings. OK.
Mayor Suarez: I was hoping you guys would forget about calling the roll, see,
then it wouldn't have any... As I stated before, and again, just to explain
why I'm going to vote against it, not to be an obstructionist here, I want to
know a lot more, Roger, before I'm inclined to vote in favor of this. Call
the roll.
ld 40 March 27, 1986
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 86-236
A MOTION AUTHORIZING A FEASIBILITY STUDY FUNDED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF OFF STREET PARKING IN CONNECTION WITH A
PROPOSED COOPERATIVE PROJECT IN THE LITTLE HAVANA AREA
WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A LATIN ORIENTED SPECIALTY CENTER, A
MODERATE INCOME HOUSING PROJECT, AND A PARKING GARAGE;
SAID FEASIBILITY STUDY TO DETERMINE IF THE ABOVE -CITED
PROJECT COULD BE ACHIEVABLE AS A PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNER-
SHIP.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
NOES: Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL:
Mrs. Kennedy: I don't understand how anybody can vote against, but...yes, of
course.
Mayor Suarez: She really set me up for this. Being as stupid as I am, I must
vote no.
14. BRIEF DISCUSSION ITEM: COMPLAINT FORM BUSINESS ON FLAGLER REGARDING
REMOVAL OF METERS ON S.W. 8TH STREET.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Carlton, sir,you have been threatened with a machete. I
want to just express to you a concern expressed by the people of where I do
business - not my clients, they don't speak. I am telling you that they are
very much aware of what you are doing in removing meters on S.W. 8th Street.
OK? The people on Flagler Street say they are part of Little Havana, they are
being neglected, they are not receiving the same preferential treatment as
others, and they are demanding that every time you remove a parking meter off
of S.W. 8th Street you concurrently remove one off of Flagler Street. And if
it is not done, I want to tell you, those people are calling me, the merchants
up and down Flagler Street say, " Hey, S. W. 8th Street is not the only street
in this town." We don't want special favors, but if they are going to be
granted to others we're asking for fair and equitable consideration. Now, all
I'm saying to you is my constituents are calling and I think they have a
legitimate concern and I express it to you and I hope, in the interest of
fairness, that this matter will be considered by your department.
Mr. Roger Carlton: Commissioner, I would like to get with you and show you
where the meters came out (1) and (2), we have some members of the Little
Havana Parking Advisory Committee and I would like you to give me a list of
those merchants so that they can become a part of the process and be on that
committee.'
Mr. Plummer: Well, I'm just saying that I think they've made a reasonable
request and I think that it behooves your department to honor that request and
take it from there.
Mr. Carlton: Yes, sir, we'll get with you and I'd like some of those names so
we could get them part of the process.
Mr. Plummer: You know what happens when you do that?
and harassed my barber and now he cuts my hair sideways.
The last time you went
ld 41 March 27, 1986
Mr. Carlton: Is that why it's thin?
Mr. Odio: What hair?
Mr. Plummer: What do you mean what hair?
15. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND ZONING.
Mayor Suarez: Item 11, second reading of the ordinance reestablishing Build-
ing and Zoning, is that what it is?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I once again want to raise my objections to that
part... Wait a minute, I'm sorry. My objections stand on the record, I'm on
another item. I'm talking about one that has the accessory uses of the
restaurants.
Mr. Odio: This is second reading.
Mr. Dawkins: Second reading, move it.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded, any further discussion? Hearing none,
please call the roll.
THEREUPON THE CITY ATTORNEY READ THE ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD BY TITLE
ONLY.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Manager, this does not in any way say, I hope, that's why
I'm asking, that Fire Chief Teems, after having gathered all the information
and training, that he has gathered while being over there, that it will not
continue to be utilized, does it?
Mr. Odio: No, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Before we vote, I believe it is proper to hear from the general
public with the understanding that we have previously had quite a bit of
discussion on this. Did you wish to address the Commission on this item?
Please approach the mike and tell us your name.
Mr. Bill Brammeyer: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, my name is Bill
Brammeyer. My office address is 14105 N.W. 58th Court. I address you today
in two capacities. Because Trudy Burton became the mother of a brand new baby
over the last weekend, as immediate past chairman of the Construction Industry
Advisory Council, I'd like to speak for that Council first.
Mr. Plummer: Could you speak up a little louder or turn up the mike or
something?
Mr. Brammeyer: Is that better? In this capacity, I again reaffirm the
Council's position as stated to you and this Commission in our letter of
January 2Oth. For the record: The member organizations of the CIAC who
unanimously approved the suggestions in that letter are: the American Society
of Plumbing Engineers, the Associated Builders and Contractors, the Associated
General Contractors, the Associated Swimming Pool Industries, the Association
of Glass and Glazing Contractors, the Builders' Association of South Florida,
the Certified Construction 'Inspectors' Association, the Certified Plumbers of
South Florida, the Engineering Contractors Association, the Florida Power and =
Light Company, the Greater Miami Gas Institute, the Latin Builders' Associa-
tion, the Miami Builders' Exchange, the National Electrical Contractors'
Association, the Plumbing Industry Program, the South Florida Building
Officials' Council, the South Florida Sheet Metal Contractors' Association and
the Underground Contractors' Association. We respectfully urge this Commis -
$ion to reactivate the Construction Advisory Committee that was set up to
ld 42 March 27, 1986
advise this Commission on just such matters as this. Gentlemen, that's talent
that you can't afford to hire that is being offered for free. As executive
director of the Certified Plumbers of South Florida, I feel that there is no
need to repeat the points I made at the first reading. However, there are a
couple of points that must be brought out.
Mayor Suarez: On the review board that you just recommended, may I suggest
that you bring that up at some later time as a separate item so we vote on
that and consider that? I haven't thought about that but it sounds like a
good idea.
Mr. Brammeyer: All right. The points I do want to bring out, as executive
director of Certified Plumbers' of South Florida. Under the administration of
the Fire Rescue and Inspection Services, the Building and Zoning Department
achieved an increase of 56% in the number of complaints handled and a 157
increase in the number of violations issued. And I must be honest, there are
a lot of people in the industry that feel that's why this ordinance is being
adopted. Also, an overwhelming majority of those who spoke in favor of this
ordinance at the first reading said they were unable to find the correct
heading for the department in the phone book. That is a valid complaint. It
is difficult to find. However, for $9.55, a month Southern Bell will put a
line in there telling you what number to call and that is a lot cheaper than
$175,000 a year. Also, the March 16th edition of the Miami Herald carried an
ad advertising for a Director for the Building and Zoning Department.
Mayor Suarez: Could you summarize your comments, because you've exceeded the
time limit.
Mr. Brammeyer: I'm speaking for two groups too.
Mayor Suarez: I uidersl-.bnd.
Mr. Brammeyer: Thor, salary range was $58,081 high and that was run before
this second reading. This ordinance is not legal yet and you're advertising
for the director. It shows an awful lot of confidence. In closing, for the
record, I think in all fairness, if nothing else, Chief Teems should have the
opportunity to answer some of the statements that have been made at the
previous hearing.
Mayor Suarez: If Chief Teems wants to say anything, any time he wants to he's
got an absolute right and it will be acceded to on this Commission. Are you
going to speak in favor of the ordinance?
Mr. John Lindstrum: No, sir, I'm against it.
Mayor Suarez: Go ahead, please.
Mr. John Lindstrum: I'm John Lindstrum. I'm the president of the Licensed
Trades Council. It is a group of employees and contractors formed to create
better labor management relations in the area. We employ close to 6,000
workers and about 500 contractors. We have unanimously voted to oppose the
ordinance, to leave it like it is. We feel if the wheel is not broken don't
fix it and if it needs to be cleaned up a little bit we can but we are opposed
to the ordinance and we wish that you all would vote against it. Thank you.
Mr. Rod Borden: My name is Rod Borden. I'm here as an individual electrical
contractor. My office is on N.W. 7th Street, we've been there for 40 years.
Mayor Suarez: Again, before you speak, are you going to speak in favor or
against the ordinance?
Mr. Borden: Against, sir. We are currently working in the City of Miami on
two multi -million dollar projects, specifically Museum Tower and Mercy Hospi-
tal. My concern is that we have a system which works very well right now.
It is very efficient. You can hear the statistic to say it is a very effi-
cient operation. Apparently the new change is going to require expenditures
of at least $175,000 and all I'm asking is as a taxpayer and as a person the*
pays permit fees in the City of Miami, am I going to have to pay more money to
pay for something that is highly efficient now? The fiscal responsibility, if
you're going to pay more for something, how is it going to be financed? Are
my permit fees going to go up as an electrical contractor? The City of Miami
today in this community including all municipalities in Dade County, has the
ld 43 March 27, 1986
highest fee rate. And granted, you get excellent service for it. But are we
going to have to pay more money to change this because you can't find the name
in the phone book? All I'm asking is that you consider this from a fiscal
responsibility standpoint that you're going to charge more money for a service
that now rates very efficient. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your comments. Sir?
Mr. Emilio Diaz: I oppose this. My name is Emilio Diaz. I'm an electrical
contractor, F & D Electric. I'm located at 720 N.W. 76 Avenue. I'm the
president and the owner of this electrical contracting firm. At the present
time we are doing two large projects at the waste water treatment plant 285
and 284. We have completed two projects in the City of Miami which is Starnet
and American Satellite ranging in the neighborhood of a half million dollars
worth of work. We have worked very closely with the building and Zoning
Department. I'm also the chief electrical inspector for Bay Harbor Islands,
I've had the opportunity to work with the inspectors of Miami. I'm also on
the Board of Rules and Appeals, I've had the privilege of serving with Chief
Teems which we all agree on one thing, he has done his job very well. We see
no reason to change this organization the way it is set up and with your
wisdom, I'm sure you'll make the right decision. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: That last thought was particularly appreciated. You ready to
speak against, I mean in favor, Dr. Alonso? Let me tell you something before
you. You've got someone here who has moved this item, this is a second
reading, you've got someone, another Commissioner who has seconded it, I
intend to vote for it, there is absolutely no need for you to say one more
thing and if you do, it could always go against your own interest. Unless
someone who moved or seconded goes against their own motion or second, which
has happened before here in the past, much to our surprise...
Dr. Alonso: Mr. Mayor, we agree with you.
Mayor Suarez: Hearing no further discussion, please call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 9457, ADOPTED
JUNE 24, 1982 IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND AMENDING THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, TO PROVIDE
THEREBY THAT THE NAME OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING
AND ZONING INSPECTION THAT IS BEING REESTABLISHED BY
THIS ORDINANCE BE CHANGED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILD-
ING AND ZONING; FURTHER PROVIDING FOR THE ASSIGNMENT
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND ZONING OF ALL
BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION FUNCTIONS WHICH ARE
CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO THE EXISTING DIVISION OF BUILD-
ING AND ZONING INSPECTION, DEPARTMENT OF FIRE,, RESCUE
AND INSPECTION SERVICES; FURTHER SETTING FORTH AMEND-
MENTS TO PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE SECTIONS 2-69, 2-70,
2-71, 2-72, 2-89 AND 19-50 WHICH WILL BE IN FORCE AND
EFFECT UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE;
REPEALING CITY CODE SECTION 2-73, IN ITS ENTIRETY,
WHICH CODE SECTION HAD PROVIDED FOR A DIVISION OF
TRADE STANDARDS; AND MORE PARTICULARLY AMENDING SAID
CITY CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 2-74 AND 2-75 OF THE
CITY CODE AS SAID SECTIONS WOULD HAVE EXISTED UPON THE
HEREIN REPEAL OF SAID ORDINANCE NO. 9457; FURTHER
PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSFER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
BUILDING AND ZONING OF FUNDS, PERSONNEL, RECORDS, AND
EQUIPMENT CURRENTLY BUDGETED IN THE DIVISION OF
BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTION OF THE FIRE, RESCUE AND
INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of February 27, 1986,
was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On
motion of Commissioner Dawkins, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the Ordi-
nance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and
adopted by the following vote-
ld 44 March 27, 1986
/h
AYES: Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10089.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and an-
nounced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and
to the public.
COMMENTS MADE ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Plummer: For reasons so -stated in the past and on the record, I vote no.
Mrs. Kennedy: For reasons so -stated in the past, I vote yes.
16. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING ATLAS AT APPROXIMATELY 577 N.E.
68 STREET & APPROXIMATELY 578 N.E. 69 STREET FROM RO-3/6 TO CR-2/7 COM-
MERCIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY WITH SPI-9 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NORTH OVERLAY
DISTRICT.
Mayor Suarez: We missed the Planning and Zoning agenda by 10 minutes which
could be an all time record but we're ready to move on PZ-1. (APPLAUSE) Don't
need to clap.
Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, item 1 is a change of
zoning from RO-3/6 to CR-2/7. The main issues are that the lots fronting
Biscayne Boulevard on the west side in this general area are about 100 feet
deep which makes it difficult to develop.
Mr. Odio: Guillermo, let me just ask - is there anyone here that wishes to be
heard on PZ-1, in particular is there anyone that wishes to be heard against
it?
Mr. Plummer: I have a question. Is Pam Bay the same as Palm Bay?
Mr. Pierce: Since that's close to where I live, let me answer that question,
Commissioner. It is Palm Bay. The reason is the guy just did it phonetically
and he is Spanish so it is Pam Bay in Spanish.
Mr. Plummer: Well, OK, what do they projected to do? That's what I need to
know.
Mr. Olmedillo: A new service station. There is a service station existing on
the site right now and they propose a new service station with additional
services for car care.
Mr. Plummer: This is on the boulevard itself?
Mr. Olmedillo: On the Boulevard, this is an SPI-9 district for which we
require a class C permit and a plan review by the Planning Department. It
abuts a CR-2 district and the RO-2 district in the back in which the two lots
are located that are...
Mr. Plummer: Isn't this the man that spoke up at the northeast?
Mr. Pierce: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: He spoke up there that he and his son, as I recall, that they
were going to put extensive money in there to put something decent?
Mr. Pierce: That's it.
ld 45 March 27, 1986
Mr. Plummer: I'll move item 1.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez: All right, it has been moved and seconded by Commissioner
Kennedy. Any further discussion or anyone from the audience that wishes to be
heard for or against? Hearing none, please call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE
NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
APPROXIMATELY 577 NORTHEAST 68TH STREET AND APPROXI-
MATELY 578 NORTHEAST 69TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA,
(MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RO-3/6
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE TO CR-2/7 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
(COMMUNITY) WITH SPI-9 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NORTH
OVERLAY DISTRICT; MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY FLAKING ALL
THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 14 OF SAID ZONING
ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500 BY REFERENCE
AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF;
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner
Kennedy and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and an-
nounced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and
to the public.
17. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ATLAS AT 3200-3202 S. W. 1 AVENUE FROM
RG-1/3 TO RG-3/7.
Mayor Suarez: Planning and Zoning item 2.
Mr. Olmedillo: The request is a change of zoning from RG-1/3 to an RG-3/7.
The Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1976-1986 designated this particular area
as flexible uses to allow the City discretion on the final zoning classifica-
tion due to its proximity to the Metro Station.
Mayor Suarez: How proximate to the station does it have to be? How is the
area defined? Is it one mile or is it half a mile?
Mr. Olmedillo: There is a statement in the SADD Plan which states 600 feet
from the station area, from the gate of the station area.
Mayor Suarez: 600 feet?
Mr. Olmedillo: Right.
Mayor Suarez: Is this within the 600 feet radius?
Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir. In 1979 the City Commission, after meeting with the
community, approved in principle the SADD Plan which was to serve as a general
guide for the resulting zoning. These actions were postponed until the
property owners and the City recognized a real demand for housing development
Id 46 March 27, 1986
in the vicinity of the Vizcaya Station, avoiding false market expectations and
land speculation that would accelerate deterioration in the neighborhood.
This is the first case that we have that general guidelines are to be realized
and translated into zoning. The Planning Department has recommended approv-
al...
Mayor Suarez: This is the first case in the entire City?
Mr. Olmedillo: No, this particular station.
Mayor Suarez: Has it been implemented at any other Metrorail Station?
Mr. Olmedillo: Other stations, nct the zoning...
Mayor Suarez: So it is the first one in the entire City.
Mr. Olmedillo: Right.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me give you a little bit of background on this
because I was here. I think the truth of the matter is that you need to know
Metropolitan Dade County tried to take over the zoning from the City of Miami
as it related around and through the Metrorail System. The concern expressed
by everyone that these stations would create an atmosphere that could be
detrimental to the neighborhoods and so Metropolitan Dade County, in their
wisdom, I guess, came in and said, "We're going to take over all the zoning
around the Metrorail Stations." They also had in the back of their mind that
was a way they were going to get some money to do Metro...
Mayor Suarez: To actually build the stations, wasn't that the idea?
Mr. Plummer: Well, no, to run it, to operate it. That is $100,000,000 of
subsidy. And the City of Miami flatly told them very quickly, "You're not
going to come in and exercise any rights of zoning in our City." They said
"Fine, you do it and then we won't do it." So that is what prompted all of
these. There were tremendous studies that were done. There was tremendous
public input that was done and that is how we came about with these overlay,
if you want to call, districts in and around the Metro stations and that is
really how it came into effect.
Mr. Olmedillo: The Planning Department has recommended the approval of the
RG-3/7 which establishes that the use is primarily residential, that a medium
to high density with a sector number of 7 which is translating into an FAR of
1.72, with, of course, the limitations contained in the LUI tables. As you
well know, the zoning district establishes a building in envelope which is
particular to each site and any project presented must be viewed within that
building envelope. As a result of the Claughton Island housing covenant, the
City Commission resolved to assign 114 housing units for this particular site.
This district, among the ones existing in Ordinance 9500 is the one that
really accommodates and it is more closely related to the type of residential
development for the area in the vicinity of the Metro Station. Conditions in
areas surrounding the station make it important that the developer and the
architects work closely with the Planning Department to achieve the adequate
design. Zoning cannot be conditioned, but if we could get approval by the
City Commission or by the applicant to have a covenant which will enable us to
include the following aspects: (1) Is to require a site development and plan
review approval; (2) is to require relocation of mature site shade trees to
the 32nd Road parkways as proposed in the design of the plan, the design for
the area; (3) to limit the driveway width to parking garage from 32nd Road to
not more than 20 feet in order to reduce the throat; (4) an agreement of
developer to landscape and maintain the cul-de-sac closures of the streets on
22nd Terrace to screen views from local residential streets towards the
project and a pedestrian connection (5) will be a pedestrian connection from
22nd Road, 22nd Terrace into the station to allow people to walk to the
station.
Mr. Dawkins: Pardon me, sir, what parking garage are you talking about?
Mr. Olmedillo: The building itself, the building with the 100 plus housing
units would have to provide for a parking garage because the site is not big
enough in order to accommodate all the parking in one level, one ground level
parking. So they must have at least, we think, two levels of parking.
ld 47 !larch 27, 1986
Mr. Dawkins: Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Is the applicant willing to accept the conditions in that
covenant as stated?
Mr. Robert Traurig: Mr. Mayor, let me introduce myself. My name is Robert H.
Traurig. I'm an attorney with offices at 1401 Brickell Avenue. We are
prepared to submit a covenant between this first reading and the second
reading that would include all of the recommended covenants provided, however,
that the site plan review occur based upon the plan that we currently have
submitted for purposes of your consideration here at the zoning hearing which
would be a floor area ratio of 1.62. We think that your site plan review of a
plan whose FAR does not exceed 1.62 would be reasonable, therefore, based upon
that, we will accept the suggestions and incorporate all of those suggestions
in written enforceable covenants.
Mayor Suarez: Do you want to add something, Sergio, before we hear from the
applicant further and then opponents? I presume there are some.
Mr. Rodriguez: We would like to make sure that if they voluntarily proffer a
covenant on this that they will include the site plan review of the project.
We cannot comment on the proposal because at this point we haven't reviewed a
proposal yet and we haven't received one either. We are dealing with a zoning
matter and as you know, we cannot put any conditions on it and there is no
plan attached to it either.
Mr. Traurig: Rather than to ....
Mr. Rodriguez: My name is Sergio Rodriguez, Planning Director for the City of
Miami.
Mr. Traurig: Rather than to belabor this issue at this time in the hearing,
let me make a presentation of what we propose to do and then I think you will
recognize that we are really in essence accepting the basic recommendations of
staff. Thank you. I indicated to you before that I am Robert H. Traurig,
1401 Brickell Avenue and I represent Vizcatran Limited whose principal is Juan
Delgado. The property which is the subject of this hearing is reflected on
the map in the yellow. It includes three different parcels, one at 3200 S. W.
First Avenue, one at 168 S. W. 32nd Road, the other at 200 S.W. 32nd Road,
32nd Road being that main artery that leads from Coral Way to the Vizcaya
Station. We are on the west side of 32nd Road immediately to the north of the
Vizcaya Metrorail Station in an area which is reflected in the station area
design and development plan for development similar to what we are proposing.
You will note from the map, that the current zoning; on that property is RG-
1/3. We're asking you to consider favorably a change to RG-3/7. We think that
that would be consistent with the Vizcaya Transit Station Area Plan which has
been adopted by you as an ancillary study to the Comprehensive Neighborhood
Plan of the City of Miami. I would call to your attention, that resolution
79-708, passed and adopted by this City on October 17, 1979 approved the
Vizcaya Transit Station Area Plan as an ancillary study of the Miami Compre-
hensive Neighborhood Plan and defines the geographic boundaries of it and it
says that that approval was granted and we'll talk a bit more about that
hearing in 1979 and the predicate for the passage of this resolution. But it
is important to note that that resolution was passed after considerable study
and considerable presentation and after a recommendation for approval from
your Planning Advisory Board. Let me deal with that presentation, given on
behalf of the Planning Department by Joyce Meyers on October 17, 1979 so you
can see the applicability of this application to what you approved at that
time. At that time, the initial presentation was made of the study that had
been done called the Rapid Transit Developmental Impact Committee Study and
that committee consisted of your City Manager along with representatives of
the County who formed the County's Executive Council of the D.I.C. The
conclusions in that study were that in this particular area, serving the
Vizcaya Station, there would be 280 apartments and 61 townhouses, there being
a recognition that feeding the station with residences that are in close
proximity to the station would increase the ridership, would add to the
ambiance of the neighborhood and would balance the neighborhood itself. And
it was suggested that there be that type of development on both sides of 32nd
Road. When Ms. Meyers approached you and presented - you meaning your prede-
cessor Commission - and presented the position of the Planning Department, she
said this, and I'm not going to read from the entire transcript, but I'm going
to read from pertinent sections which I think will create the basic atmosphere
Id 48 March 27, 1986
that existed at that time. She said that "the recommendations are the result
of a lengthy deliberate planning process," as Commissioner Plummer just
indicated, "conducted by the Planning Department working hand in hand with the
residents and property owners in the Vizcaya Station area There were seven
public meetings and workshops attended by over 110 different neighborhood
residents." She went on to say that Vizcaya is, as our neighbors will indi-
cate, a very unique and sensitive station area ar•c9 that the development of the
transit station presents some special problems. And even then, before your
predecessor Commission, she said, "... understandably, the residents of these
well -kept homes were quite concerned about how their lives and property would
be affected by this transit station and all its traffic and activity." Then
referring to the various plans that had been studied by staff, she went on to
say that "we feel that this plan, meaning the plan that was ultimately adopt-
ed, meets the needs of the residents quite well and still responds to the
larger objective of maximizing the advantages of transit" which is similar to
what I said earlier when I said that this would feed passengers to the transit
station, "concentrating on jobs and residences close to the station." In
order to understand why we say some areas are directly affected by the transit
station and other areas are not affected at all, we need to look at the
traffic circulation plan. This plan, incidentally, has been reviewed by the
Dade County Department of Traffic and Transportation, by the City Public
Works, Fire and Police Departments. What they had proposed was a one way
system with 32nd Road leading into the station and 31st Road to the east
leading away from the station. And then she said, "we concluded that the one
land use alternative that satisfies the concerns of the residents as well as
all the planning policies advocated for the station was this particular plan
that got adopted. This plan would provide us with between two and three
hundred much needed new housing units in the City for middle income families
that would like to live near the transit station." And then she talked about
other aspects of the plan and ultimately, Commissioner Plummer, it was you, in
recognition of the benefits that would develop in favor of the City by having
this plan adopted in proximity to the Vizcaya Station, you moved for the
adoption of the plan, Commissioner Gibson seconded that motion and it was
adopted unanimously. And I must say also, Commissioner Plummer, that in your
motion for adoption, you made it very clear that no one had come forward to
object to that particular proposal. And so we adopted a plan that provided or
projected 280 apartment units in this particular neighborhood. As the Plan-
ning Department has now indicated, you have now taken action as the result of
your February 26th meeting which approved the relocation of the low income
housing from Claughton Island to three different neighborhoods with this
neighborhood to have moderate income housing and 104 units were specified in
that particular resolution. What has bF�?n proposed is moderate income housing
to be sold as condominiums with prices in the high 50's and the low and middle
60's depending on unit locations and sizes. And we infer from the Commission
action taken last month that there was at least a tacit or implied understand-
ing that there would be some units here although it wasn't clearly understood
at any time that you had approved the zoning and that you were going to look
at the zoning objectively when the zoning matter came before you. Consequent-
ly, we call your attention to that refinement of your Comprehensive Neighbor-
hood Plan by way of the Vizcaya Station Plan which says that this particular
kind of intensity of development was approved back in 1979. We acknowledge,
and you will hear from our neighbors, that the Vizcaya Plan suggested an FAR
of 1.5 and the plan which we are working on - and this is not for.approval of
a detailed site plan - reflects an FAR of 1.62. Let me call your attention to
the fact that in your zoning deliberations you consider sector numbers, you
consider either a sector 5 or a sector 6 or a sector 7. The sector number
closest to the 1.5 is sector 7. Consequently, we are asking for a sector 7 to
be approved. That would be totally consistent with the Neighborhood Plan.
But just as your staff has indicated, it thought that it would be beneficial
if there were a covenant presented which could limit certain aspects of
development and which would create a landscaped environment. We are prepared
to submit that and in our submission, we would limit the floor area ratio to
1.62. Why 1.62? Because you have mandated that we create 104 units and in
our analysis of a building that would provide 104 units and the sizes of
apartments that are necessary in order to create a healthy wholesome residen-
tial environment we have determined that the minimum size apartment cannot
possibly be created under the 1.5, and that the 1.62, if we're to build 104
units, is absolutely necessary. So we have asked for the sector number, we
have not yet submitted plans, those plans will be reviewed by staff as part of
the normal process, but I would like to show you what we have considered from
a design standpoint so that you can understand our sensitivity to the neigh-
borhood. Before doing so, however, let me show you the Dade County Transpor-
ld 49 March 27, 1986
tation Improvement Program Plan for the Vizcaya Station. In order to create
the Vizcaya Station here along U.S. 1, South Dixie Highway, these seven
buildings, eight buildings had to be removed. These were, for the most part,
apartment buildings and other buildings which were multi -family buildings
including one four story building which was taken down on the east side of
32nd Road between 32nd and 31st Road.
Mayor Suarez: Do you have any guess of what the FAR of that one building may
have been, Bob? Just to have a comparison.
Mr. Traurig: No, I haven't, but I have an apology to make to the neighbors
and a clarification to make for the record because I believe that that was an
8 story building when I made the presentation to the Zoning Board. Now that
we have a copy of the plan, we see that that was a 4 story building but what
we really were trying to say is that multi -family development already existed
in that neighborhood prior to the station and it was multistory as well as
multi -family.
Mayor Suarez: Any rough estimate of FAR on any of those?
Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, I haven't got it but if you would like that answer
then between first reading and second reading we will provide the answer and
you can consider that in your deliberations. I do not know but I do believe
that the records of your City will reflect it because the building permit that
was issued, I'm sure, is on microfilm and we can get it.
Mayor Suarez: Unless they didn't have FAR calculations at this time in which
case you'd have to ...
Mr. Traurig: No, I think the City has been using FAR for a long time. I
would like you to see (PART OF STATEMENT NOT PLACED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD)
site plan. You'll note, that this is 32nd Road, this is your station, this is
the 'V' shape of the building. One of the things that has been suggested to
us by your Planning Department is that we are sensitive to the needs of people
who live in the area behind our building to the west of our building to be
able to get to the station. One of the things that we'll do, and we'll
confirm that by covenant, is that we'll create a landscaped easement so that
they can go across our property to get to the station. This building that is
being proposed has one story of parking underground and one story of parking
at grade. 22nd Terrace would be closed if the vehicular traffic, and it is
closed now, as a matter of fact, by he joint action of the County and your
City. We intend to landscape and beautify that portion of the right-of-way
that is not going to be used for development. We intend to comply with all
the suggestions that were made by your staff and we believe that the result
will be a fine project, but more important, a project totally consistent with
your Master Plan. It was suggested at the Zoning Board hearing that if we
build the 104 units we would be absorbing most of the units that had been
contemplated for development when the SADD was proposed. We're asking for 104
out of 280 units and we're asking for it based upon the mandate of this
Commission that we create 104 units to supplement the units to be built in
East Little Havana and to be built on the Shell City site. And I'm not sure
that 280 units is c figure that will ever be met by other neighborhood devel-
opment but I want to acknowledge that yes, we are eating into that 280 units,
and we're doing it at the best site, the largest site, and there is very
little property reflected on the SADD for the multi -family development. So
that if anyone suggests to you that we are taking an inordinate share of the
total of 280 units initially contemplated I would say to you that that is
totally reasonable given the fact that we have this close proximity to the
station and the most developable site. I think that the rest of our presenta-
tion should be left for rebuttal, recognizing that a number of our neigh-
bors...
Mayor Suarez: For which you'll get 30 seconds.
Mr. Traurig: Well, then let me address some other issues prior to the rebut-
tal time.
Mayor Suarez: 45 seconds.
Mr. Traurig: Among the other things that our neighbors said at the Zoning
Board hearing were that there is a very heavy traffic load being born by the
single family people on 31st Road. We're not going to impact that. The heavy
Id 50 March 27, 1986
e
traffic from this - excuse me, let me back up a little bit,... and that load
is a result of traffic leaving Vizcaya Station. You know from the traffic
patterns that people arrive home and leave the Vizcaya Station in late after-
noon. Our heavy traffic will be outbound in the morning and inbound in the
afternoon to our building if we are using automobile traffic. So, therefore,
we'll be going down 32nd Road to arrive at our building during that afternoon
peak hour, not going down 31st Road which is outbound traffic, 31st Road being
utilized by people who are leaving the Vizcaya Station. I think you will also
hear that there is a limitation of 55 units per acre based upon the SADD and
that is incorrect. This City does not have a zoning code that prescribes a
certain number of units per acre. You control bulk. We can build a certain
number of square feet on a site and we can get as many apartments as the Code
would permit and you do not control the number of units, you control the bulk
of the building. And we are sayirg to you that the FAR of 1.62 which is
within the sector 7 is the controlling influence and, therefore, if you were
to hear from our neighbors that we're limited to 55 units per acre, I would
ask you to reject that because it isn't the say density is controlled within
the City of Miami. We urge you to approve this in accordance with the recom-
mendations of your staff and particularly because it comports with your
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan as modified by the SADD which was the 1979
study. Thank you very much.
Mayor Suarez: Can I have a show of hands on how many opponents to this
application we've got here? How many actually want to make a presentation
today? We'll try to be totally fair and give you the same amount of time as
the applicant has used, and I sort of guessing roughly, to keep it to 3
minutes for each one. Do you want to go ahead and proceed? Nice to see my
neighbors come to make presentations at City Hall.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, is it possible for me to get approximately 5
minutes on this? Because I know I'm going to need it...
Mayor Suarez: I have a feeling that you will use a little more than the rest
because of the technicality of your presentation. Go ahead.
Ms. Nancy Schlifer: Mr. Mayor, my name is Nancy Schlifer. I am an attorney
with Sparber Shevin, Shapo and Halbrenner and we own some property on the
chart that was on there, we were lot 3, which is two houses adjacent. It
should go sideways. Which is two houses adjacent to the planned property. I
am going to be focusing on your zoning plans and the SADD Plan which is the
Station Area Design and Development Plan. It is, as you say, going to be
quite a technical presentation. And I'm going to show you why, despite Mr.
Traurig's comments, this proposed development doesn't conform with either your
Zoning Ordinances or the SADD Plan. I'm going to do that in a moment. Are
you having difficulty hearing me? Is this better?
Mayor Suarez: Yes, you can even lower it a little bit more if you want.
Ms. Schlifer: Just to go back into the history for one minute, because he is
accurate, this Commission voted for the SADD Plan unanimously in 1979. There
was a Citizens Commission back then that consisted of people who attended from
1 to 7 of those committee meetings, I did not have this property at that time,
they had some input into this plan. The plan obviously was a well -considered
plan, it cost a lot of money to develop. The SADD Plan required an amendment
to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Vizcaya and other transit station
areas, residential areas. And the idea of that was to create a Special
Planned Development District which would confirm those public objectives to
ensure compatibility with the residential area. This Commission - it must
have been this Commission I imagine - then did amend the ordinances - evident-
ly you people don't believe in pocket parts or books, this is what we received
for your ordinance. It is actually the Schedule of District Regulations. And
you did, indeed enact a very special type of ordinance for this type of
district. It is called the RG-2.3 Residential Transit. Now, I don't believe
that they have any other choice in developing this. But to come within the
RG-2.3 residential transit section of the Schedule of District Regulations.
Now, let me confront one of the issues that Mr. Traurig had spoke of. He said
that we would say that there was a 55 unit quota per acre in the SADD Plan.
That is true and that is accurate. I have developed a chart for this presen-
tation to show you what the SADD Plan, indeed, required because I have taken
it from the SADD Plan. And what the RG-2.3... - and that's what they should
be asking for, to come within this because that is the zoning for this kind of
area close to a transit station. What the RG-2.3 requires I want the petition-
ld 51 March 27, 1986
ers asking for so basically I'm going to run down these with each of the
requirements plus add a few other things that the SADD Plan suggested. First,
number of units. The SADD Plan suggested and, in fact, required 55 units per
acre and it said that you were to offer substantial disincentives for small
lot developments. Now, on the transparency overhead over there you will
see.... Linda Koenigsburg is going to go and point out the areas. You will
see several areas with large polka dots on them. That's the area that they
are planning to build in. They are planning to take up three of the seven
houses that were planned for that one apartment unit development area, and the
plan, of course, did call for special disincentives to speculation to over-
development. That plan called for 55 units. The RG-2.3 which was enacted
thereafter, does specifically call for units. As a matter of fact, the FAR
ratios do not apply to the RG-2.3. RG-2.3 calls for 30 to 60 units per net
acre. They're asking for 104 units but that 104 units is spread over, I
believed it was about a half an acre on my calculations. I have just been
informed by an architect who will also be presenting some opposition here
today, that by his calculations it is only one quarter acre. That means that
they're not going... I had thought they were about approximately four times
the amounts suggested under the SADD Plan and the RG-2.3, they're actually 8
times the amount suggested. So you're talking about substantially higher
units per acre than was ever considered either by this Commission when it
enacted RG-2.3 or by the SADD Plan.
Mayor Suarez: If it is 8 times more dense in terms of units per acre, why is
not reflected in the ratio of FAR's. Do you have any idea, Nancy?
Ms. Schlifer: Actually, it is, because the RG-2.3 was specifically exempted
by the standard ratios. If you look at the...
Mayor Suarez: Or as compared to the SADD Plan.
Ms. Schlifer: Excuse me?
Mayor Suarez: As compared to the SADD Plan.
Ms. Schlifer: No, as compared to all of the other developments that are.....
in other words, the Schedule of District Regulations, I can point to it
because if you see them then you'll be aware of just from where I'm pointing
what I'm talking about. It has a little table here which includes the FAR
ratios and this table specifically says applying to specified residential uses
other than in planned developments, the General Residential Transit is a
planned development, and that is what was called for by the SADD Plan. Does
that adequately answer your question? So, Mr. Traurig is just wrong. In
fact, there is a unit requirement and a unit limitation for this particular
area. With respect to parking, that is virtually the only thing from what his
presentation was back before the Zoning Board, that does comply with any of
this. It does comply with the RG-2.3, which applies to general residential
transit. However, it does not apply to the SADD Plan. The SADD Plan required
1.5 five units for one and two bedrooms and 2.0 units for more than two
bedrooms, which would be at least double what he is offering in way of park-
ing. Now, the SADD Plan applies ---that I'm talking about, applies to the
Vizcaya area itself, OK, and I do believe that we would suggest that you are
consistent with the SADD Plan on the parking, because the roads area in that
side of the roads, ---not our side ---has a particular parking problem due to
Metrorail and due to the businesses that have popped up because of Metrorail
over there.
Mayor Suarez: What times of the day would you say that there is a parking
problem out there? I have never seen one, and I have driven by there enough
times.
Ms. Schlifer: I don't know. My house, before we moved, was about two blocks
from Metrorail on the other side of 31st Road and I only came home, you know,
on the week days at night and in the morning, and there was always people
parking outside my house. Always. I never came home where there weren't
people parking outside my house. The height regulations...
Mayor Suarez: We have people parking outside our respective houses now all
the time, but I don't know if that's exactly a parking problem, but go ahead.
Ms. Schlifer: I don't think we have the parking problem though. Most of
our...
Id 52 March 27, 1986
r r
Mayor Suarez: During Vizcaya events.
Ms. Schlifer: Oh, the Vizcaya events, but that's not the problem here. Next
is the height regulations. The height regulation under the SADD Plan six
stories, under the RG-2.3 two to six stories and under the petitioners' plan
it's eight stories. Finally, is permit approval. The SADD Plan ---and it was
very emphatic on this required site approval before there could be a zoning
change. The RG-2.3 requires a class "C" permit and it's absolutely required.
It's written in specifically to protect this. Now, the petitioners as you
well know, that was one of the first things that was brought out here today ---
have not applied for a permit on this, and we asked them if they would and
they categorically said "no" they don't have any intention on doing it. The
other thing I wanted to mention is that the SADD Plan did call for moderate
housing of approximately seventy thousand dollars and up. That was back in
1979. The dollar amount that this City has required is in the fifty thousand
dollar range. We feel...
Mayor Suarez: You have much exceeded five minutes, so please bring it to a
close.
Ms. Schlifer: OK. We do feel that passing this proposed resolution would
violate years of planning. We know that the City is involved in a settlement
on this, but we feel that the City doesn't want to really violate its own
plans, its own years of planning and its own zoning ordinances and we request
that you do not adopt this petition.
Mr. Plummer: Can I interrupt you. Can we get an engineer here? I don't know
about the rest of you, but I'm cold. Can we get somebody in here please to
make it reasonable?
Mr. Walter Pierce: Mr. Ruder, is going to work on that problem right now,
sir.
Mr. Plummer: That scares me if, Mr. Ruder, is working on it. He doesn't know
a thing about air conditioning. It will be forty-two in here. Thank you.
I'm sorry to interrupt.
Mayor Suarez : Next opponent? Does someone want to voice a quick opinion on
this while you get ready? Go ahead. Try to keep to it three minutes from
here on please.
Ms. Linda Koenigsberg: I was going to ask you for more time.
Mayor Suarez: Well, then we'll be going beyond what the applicant used. I
have a feeling with the number of people here then he will want more time and
we will never get out here. We have got a lot of other items. Co ahead.
Ms. Linda Koenigsberg McGuiness: OK. My name is Linda Koenigsberg McGuiness
and I live at 144 Southwest 19th Road. My husband Bryan and Mr. and Mrs.
Schlifer and I own the property at 1146 to 1148 Southwest 22nd Terrace. We
want an extension of time today, just as the developer had an extension of
time on the Claughton project for so many years. We want an extension of time
to have more time to prepare this case to show it to you and so you will have
more time to think about it to think about our objections. We just had a
zoning hearing last week. The developer said waive those thirty days so we
can come to the Commission right away. That's a very short period for us and
we have only had like twelve days to learn about the Claughton project, and I
didn't even know what it was. We have been running all over town trying to
get information, correct, information to present to you, and I would just like
more time to be able to do more research. The public, I'm sure, is not aware
of many of these issues and they deserve some time too. With regard to the
Claughton Island Project, you finally comprised on Claughton Island and the
developer can now pick and choose one, two, of three sites for him to build.
He had two hundred sites there and now he can build many, many more sites on
it. The Shell City Site, the East Little Havana Site and this, our Vizcaya
road section. The Shell City Site I believe is a totally cleared piece of
land and you can put a sprawling, sprawling community there. The East Little
Havana Site ...
Mr. Dawkins: Let me interrupt. I don't want no sprawling for running through
there no more than you want one in your neighborhood. So, I resent the fact
ld 53 !larch 27, 1986
that you stand up here and tell me that I can put a sprawling housing project
out there and you don't want one in your neighborhood. I live out there.
Ms. Koenigsberg: OK. On the East Little Havana Site, I know little about
this area except it's available to build a substantial project. In the
Vizcaya Road Section as SADD Seven indicated, this is a uniquely situated area
of purely residential nature. We have some slides here Bryan, if you wouldn't
mind showing the slides of tho, area while I'm talking. It was expressly
recognized by SADD Plan Seven is promulgated as an area which should be
protected and it must be protected. Not only are other sites available for
the developer's project, but there are other ways of building here at Vizcaya,
if and only if, the Master Plan and SADD Seven are followed to the "T". These
are guidelines, yours and ours to follow and they should be the developers'.
I talked to Rita Fenwich, who was the Chairman you will recall of the Citizen
Committee in helping to formulate SADD Seven. She is sadden by this attempt
by the developer and the actions of the Zoning Board to overthrow everything
that she and the citizens and this government worked so hard to put together.
She told me "We worked too hard on the plan with the citizens to now have it
violated." Apparently, Mr. Plummer, no one objected to the SADD Plan because
it took so much time and so much input everybody was satisfied with it. We
are satisfied, we are going along with, but that's not what the developer
wants. The proposed RG-3/7 zoning and the proposed development is a viola-
tion. Actually, violation is one word for it, but I think it's a rape of this
neighborhood. We shouldn't compromise the public or ourselves. Nancy
Schlifer has told you succinctly that SADD Seven was instituted with the pure
intent to make progress in a unified way in this neighborhood. We can't have
a gang of developers coming in here and piece meal developing a little piece
of land here and a little piece of land there, and what we do need and I will
show this later on the overhead, if you will look at, I believe, page 68 of
the SADD program, it gave you a pretty good outline of what they wanted to see
here and we would like that instituted. Furthermore, a class "C" permit is
required. That's because RG-2.3 zoning is required. We want you to tell the
developers we are not going to violate our own ordinance. RG-3/7 is not the
zoning of choice. RG-3/7 has nothing to do with this area and we have no part
of your request for RG-3/7 zoning. Tell the developer that RG-2.3 is the
required zoning and he must comply with it's requirements. Tell the developer
that if he is so sure that he is developing a beautiful structure in compli-
ance with all the laws and recommendations previously promulgated, he should
prove it by complying with the class "C" permit. Tell tLa developer that a
class "C" permit is required in this case. Tell him, show us your plans,
submit them to us, let's look at the landscaping, let's look at the open
sites, let's see if they comply. Why should he be scared to show them to us?
Mayor Suarez: Let me interrupt you to just say that from the Planning Depart-
ment at some point I would like an answer on that particular issue that's
being raised on the site plan. Go ahead.
Ms. Koenigsberg: Thank you. Tell the developer that you are going to comply
with the Claughton Island settlement, you have no reason to go back on it, but
not in a heated rush with compromises and compromised SADD Seven and the
zoning laws. Well, what other violations are there? There are violations that
were raised in the Planning ... or the Zoning Board meeting and a lot of these
people are going to talk to you about parking problems, and Mr. Traurig, said
"Well, even if we don't have enough parking and I believe we have, we can just
sprawl across the road to Metrorail." I have a letter here from the Metro
Dade Transportation Administration which I would like to show you and I talked
to Breatrice Larosa over there who is the contract administrator, and Joseph
Fletcher wrote you a letter and he said it's outrageous. They can't usurp
public property and use it for their own personal purposes.
Mayor Suarez: Even if no one is using it for Metrorail?
Ms. Koenigsberg: Well, let me tell you this, Mrs. Larosa told me that they
have the same problems down in the South Dade stations and two days ago, they
implemented a plan to stop non -patron use. They don't want it. They want an
ordinance even suggesting that people who want to use it pay five dollars a
day if they are not patrons. So, that's going to be the case here and it's
not going to happen. The developer hasn't even talked to the Transportation
Administration on this. We want SADD Seven complied with and respected. We
are not opposed to tasteful building with open spaces, recreational areas, or
buffer zone between them, and some amenities that would make the hope for,
middle income people want to move into this area and this development and own
ld 54 March 27, 1986
one of its units. One of the problems we have also, is the fifty-five unit
which was indicated, by Ms. Schlifer. If there is fifty-five units which was
indicated and you give it to one developer, it's like giving fifty-five apples
away to one person out of fifteen who might want it. What's left for the rest
of us to develop our own pieces property, nothing. We won't be able to
develop our property the way we want to and the way that SADD tells us we want
to. The developer isn't giving the neighbors anything in return for its
raping of this area. It builds, it's sells, it leaves. Even if you don't
think this area requires a class "C", which I suggest it does, you can order
it anyway. You are giving them a public street for their own use, get some-
thing in return, get a class "C" permit, but we all know that a class "C" is
required by RG-2.3 that's what should be used here, that's what is required to
be used here. The Sierra Club has a good motto which is applicable here.
They believe it, I believe it and it states "Not blind opposition progress,
just opposition to blind progress." Please don't let this be blind progress.
Give us time ---a new time to do more research. Give us what we want and you
fought for before, the SADD Seven Plan. Give the developer a chance to put
his money where his mouth is. Force him to obtain a class "C " permit and
stick by it, and in turn to give a chance for us to have RG-2.3 zoning in our
neighborhood. Give this Neighborhood a chance to retain its beauty, to
progress with the times, not to become another blighted area while a hand full
of people will say "The Roads, oh yes, I remember the Roads, it used to be a
nice place to live, but those are only memories now. And I would like you to
please look at the slides of the Roads that we have showing what tasteful,
nice community it is these days. People love to have it and love to live
there. People are moving back to it. (BRIEF SLIDE PRESENTATION) Just for
informational value, we took a picture of an eight story building to show you
how it conflicts and contrasts with the areas you have just looked at. This
is an eight story building on Coral Way. This project that's projected here
would be much larger in character, but just as tall, and we would suggest that
it definitely doesn't fit the neighborhood. Thank you, very much.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you, for the presentation. Would you approach the mike
if you are in opposition to this project and make your comments as brief as
possible and if you have heard everything that there is to say, you can just
say your name and say that you add your name and vote really against the
project and not have to repeat anything that's been heard already. Believe me
we have heard just about everything. The Roads area is quite familiar to all
the Commissioners that are here. I mean, it was a nice slide presentation,
but I think we all know what it looks like.
Mr. Erwin Slitkin: My name is Erwin Slitkin. I live at 101 Southwest 32nd
Road and I have live there since 1958 when we bought the property. I made a
few items here which I intend to talk about, but these two ladies really
covered it a lot better than I ever could attempt to, but as a resident here,
I would like to mention a few things. When they had the meeting before the
Building and Zoning, I thought sure that when I saw the pictures that the man
had on the proposed building, I was shocked and I asked ... and we were told
that we could ask questions which he would answer. Well, there were quite a
few questions that were asked and he just brushed us off, never did answer
them. I don't know anything about Building and Zoning, but I couldn't under-
stand how they could build that...I inquired, how could they build the build-
ing right over the street, take the street. Now, that's... when they made 22nd
Terrace dead end, they told me that they couldn't close it entirely, because
the Fire Department or ambulances are ---in case for emergency they have to be
able to get around it. Well, now they plan on building the building right
through the street. Then another woman asked about schooling and she has
her ... she had to take her kid out from the schooling right in that area and
put him in a private school. The schooling was inadequate. Now, with a
hundred four apartments I'm sure there will be quite a lot of kids. I'm also
sure as we have already heard, that there will be a lot of automobiles that I
don't think they will have adequate parking for. Now, for three years we...I
have a duplex at that corner of Southwest 32nd Road and 1st Avenue, for three
years while the Metrorail was being built we had to keep ---we had our air
condition on and I have kept my duplex empty. I didn't even attempt to rent
it, because I live right at the exit out where the buses, their automatic
transmissions shift gears and I hear that all during the day and I wouldn't
attempt to have a tenant without the central air conditioning that I have...
(BACKGROUND COMMENTS OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD).
ld 55 March 27, 1986
Mr. Slitkin: But I still can't understand how they can close up a street,
just take the street automatically and put a building on it. Do I have that
privilege? Can anyone explain to me how that's done? It evidently must be
legally right as I am sure they wouldn't have attempted to do that. And I
guess that about covers as much as I have to say.
Mayor Suarez: Yes, the first two speakers were quite thorough on technical
points and if you want to keep adding additional concerns or ... yes, sir? Make
them as quick as you possibly can please.
Mr. John Rodriguez: My name is John Rodriguez. I live at 119 Southwest 32nd
Road. I just want to address two specific issues. One is the parking and we
have talked about the parking, but in particular, I think one of the things
that we are concerned about is they are talking about using Metrorail parking
as sort of an overflow situation. I understand...
Mayor Suarez: We have got a letter on that that says they can. So, I don't
know that that...
Mr. Rodriguez: OK. Well, I understand that they supposedly can. I'm con-
cerned with the fact that when you have a hundred four units there and you
have people who can't find parking, they are going to be using the Metrorail
Station and while right now there may not be an incredible amount of rider-
ship, hopefully, some where down the line we are going to have an increased
use in the ridership and you are not going to accomplish that if people drive
up to the station and don't find parking when there should be parking avail-
able. The other issue that I'm very concerned about is the schooling. I know
that the school is not properly an issue for the Commission, but it's some-
thing I think that they should be concerned about and that is when you put in
a hundred four units, a hundred four families, you are going to have an
incredible amount of children who are going to be attending the school. The
school in that area is Coral Elementary. It's overcrowded as it is right now.
I understand that according to the School Board, they have capacity for an
additional thirty students. A hundred four units or a hundred fourteen units
would undoubtedly bring in more than thirty students. It's going to create a
situation which is detrimental to the area as a whole. I just wanted to add
those points, becau3e I think that they are things that need to be considered,
to simply view what it's going to do to property value or other situations,
obviously, is important, but you have to look at the overall picture and how
it's going to impact all of the residents in the area. Thank you very much.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you.
Ms. Diana Isidro: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, my name is Diana Isidro and I
live at 228 Southwest 31st Road. I object very strongly to the traffic
problem. I agree with everything that's been said by our neighbors, but I
need to reiterate two things. I do not myself, understand how the City can
give a private developer a street to build on. I would like somebody to
explain that to me.
Mayor Suarez: We will get someone from the Planning Department to address
that.
Ms. Isidro: Because I know when a developer wants to build the property, they
have to dedicate property to the City, but I don't understand how the City can
give it to a private developer. Secondly, if there were... I lived in my
house at the time that this was all planned and I went to these meetings and I
voted for it and I was very much for it and I reiterate what Commissioner
Plummer said, at that time there was nobody opposed to it. It was all worked
out previously. We liked it, but this development is not what we wanted at
that time. It's not what was planned. It was seven years ago, I understand
that and things change, but they are asking for a hundred and four units in an
area where the total area was allowed three hundred units. Fine. I will go
along at that, but like one or my neighbors said "What's left for the rest of
us?" If they are allowed to do fifty-five units per acre and they want to
build a hundred four units on less than a half acre. I don't understand that
either, and that's another question I would like answered.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you much for your presentation.
Ms. Isidro: You are welcome.
ld 56 March 27, 1986
Mayor Suarez: Make it quick please.
Mr. Julio Lopez: My name is Julio Lopez, I live at 1188 Southwest 22nd
Terrace. According to what the plans he said on this gentleman here, OK, in
the said property he is talking about and I wish somebody could get it up on
the transparency so I could show you the three lots of land which are being
turned over or which they want to attempt to rezone. OK. The total amount...
I have been doing my homework real good, because I am an architect. OK. I
have been doing my homework real good and I figured it out real good every-
thing. OK. What he has on that... between the three lots without counting the
street, it is less than a counter of an acre of lot, of land. OK. And he is
telling me, he is going to put a hundred four units on there? Ten stories
high, one underground and nine over.
Mayor Suarez: If you are saying it's less than a quarter between the three of
them, among the three of them...
Mr. Lopez: He cannot build it, it's...
Mayor Suarez: ...then you are saying it's approximately ten thousand square
feet. Then you are saying each one is a hundred by a hundred. I mean, the
three of them are not a hundred by a hundred, which I doubt your mathematics,
but go ahead
Mr. Lopez: They are not. They are not big. OK. You just have to drive by
and see the size of the lot and the shape they are in and the awkward of the
angles they are in, and you will see that it's not quite clear and squared
away. OK. So, he does not have that land to being with. OK. Another thing
is according to the ordinance of the building in the living area, I don't
remember right now, OK?, he has to leave approximately, and this gentleman
from the Planning Department can quote me or set me straight or whatever,
It's sixty-eight percent he has to leave to open land. OK. And according to
that plan he showed us, he wants to use up to the last inch. What's going to
happen to the people on 22nd Terrace when we got a ten story building blocking
off our whole street? What is going to become of the value of our property.
What is it going to become to the neighbors on 32nd Road looking at a ten
story building in front of your face? Apart that we have enough problems with
the traffic flow on 31st Road. In the mornings it's like a war zone trying to
get through there between buses and cars, and I know because I leave to work
at 6 in the morning. OK. And this guy is coming in here and he is saying he
is going to do this. How? Either we go by what the Master Plan says or
nothing. There is...there...you know, you are saying one thing here and then
we turn around and do something else, then what's the use of this book?
What's the use of seven years? What's the use of, Mr. Plummer, and all these
other people that sat on these committees for years and the money the taxpay-
ers spent? What's the use of it? That's all I got to say. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Sir, thank you for your presentation.
Mr. Lewis P. Rothford: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, my name is Lewis P.
Rothford. I live at 1110 Southwest 22nd Street. I have been there twenty
years. What about crime in this area? My older sister, eighty-two years old,
was mugged right on my door step. Diagonally across the street. John Tucker,
lives there. He went out to mow his lawn and he goes in the house and hears
somebody in this house. The Opera Guild is down the street from my house. We
can't park in front of our houses anymore, they take up all the spaces. With
all these other new cars coming in, this neighborhood is just going to be
dead. I hope you don't allow this thing to go in our area. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you, for the presentation. Sir, briefly.
Mr. Sidney Brown: When Mayor Ferre was in office, we brought up a subject...
Ms. Hirai: Your name for the public record please.
Mr. Sidney Brown: ...of a house that was requested that it be torn down
behind...
Ms. Hirai: Excuse me, could you state your name for the public record please.
Mr. Sidney Brown: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Sidney Brown. I live at 1210
Southwest 22nd Terrace, right across from the item I'm on. This house was
ld 57 March 27, 1986
requested to be torn down by the Opera Guild to make more room for parking,
and this is verifying his troubles around his building with parking at the
Opera Guild. Now, they turned down the ... the Mayor refused to give them the
permission to tear down that building down, because it's strictly a residen-
tial area, and this is just a little off the path, but this is just an idea of
what happened a couple of years ago, and I think Mr. Plummer, was on that
Commission at that time. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: Sir, we have heard from you already. Let's see if we can
complete this. We have heard just about every possible concern there is on
this item and I guarantee you that it's getting repetitive at this point. Any
other opponent that has not been heard from that would like to be heard? Bob,
would you like to answer some of the things briefly, issues raised and the
Planning Department too, on the, ones that we specifically ask to hear on?
Mr. Traurig: Yes, I would like to compliment our neighbors, because it's
obvious, that they have demonstrated a concern for the neighborhood and for
the pattern of development in the neighborhood. I have to distinguish,
however, between the Neighborhood Plan and their aspirations for the neighbor-
hood. The Neighborhood Plan is something already approved by the City. It's
an official document of the City and it's the plan to which we are relating at
the present time. Let me tell you the notes that I made during the presenta-
tion. When Mrs. Schlifer, spoke the first thing she said was we didn't own
the property during this period of time in which the plan was being discussed,
but now we are reacting to it, and I'm saying to you that the plan was ap-
proved as a result of a deliberative process and when she bought, she ---being
a good lawyer with a good law office ---I'm sure she knew what not only the
zoning was, but what the plan was. So, she bought subject to the plan. Mrs.
McGuiness, said "Take a look at all these pictures of how nice the Brickell
Estates Roads section is." We acknowledge that. It's a beautiful residential
community, but we have to distinguish between that community that she showed,
which was incidentally, further north and the area within the shadow of the
Vizcaya Station. Our request relates to the Vizcaya Station. It's in accor-
dance with your Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. Number three, Mr. Slitkin
asked a question about the road closure. This hearing is part of a process.
We are merely asking you to change the sector number applicable to this
property. You see the RG-1/3. We are asking you to make the three into a
seven and make it a three seven in accordance with what we interpret to be the
Neighborhood Plan. The road closure is a separate process. I£ it never get's
closed and we are left with two separate distinct parcels, we have to develop
those parcels, as difficult as it will be within the confines of what we have
had approved. This is not a hearing dealing with the subject of the road
closure. Your Public Works Department and your Planning Department and all
other departments that deal with that subject will deal with it as part of
another deliberate process to determine whether or not a street which is now
physically closed can be legally closed by vacation of the public street.
It's a vacation of the right-of-way that we are talking about at sometime in
the future. Mr. Rodriguez, spoke about the Metrorail parking. We don't need
the Metrorail parking. The parking that we propose fully complies with the
existing ordinance, but more than that, if it didn't we would have to. When
we get through these various processes, at some point in time we will apply
for a building permit. It will have to comply fully with all of the require-
ments of your Code and that is that we have to provide the parking that the
Code mandates. Ms. Isidro, says give a street and I have already dealt with
that. Let me point out to you that if the sector number that we have request-
ed is approved. The process would be that that would translates into FAR and
the FAR would then be applied as in any other neighborhood. For example, if
we had ten thousand square feet and we had an FAR of one, we could only build
ten thousand square feet of structure. So, therefore, when the time comes for
the City to review our plans, whatever number of square feet we are legally
entitled to is the maximum. Now, what we have said to you is we will live
with 1.62. I want to change that. I want to live with the 1.5 that they has
so articulately pointed out is the maximum FAR that that Neighborhood Plan
should allow, and so therefore, we will accede fully to the suggestions made
by your staff when, Guillermo, read the recommendations of staff for the
covenant We have made note that, we will comply fully and we will limit our
FAR, not to the 1.62 not to the 1.72 that the Sector Seven permits, but only
to the 1.5 that the ordinance, rather the area study permits. There are only
a few issues here. One is density and we have already addressed that by
saying we will take 1.5 which is exactly what the study permits. The parking
which is controlled by ordinance and which we say, we will comply with fully
and we have agreed in order for the City to exercise the kind of control over
ld 58 March 27, 1986
development that you think would be in the best interest of this neighborhood,
we will agree fully to site plan approval process, so we will submit our plan
to the Planning Department for its review. We think therefore, based on the
fact that we have indicated to you that we will give you voluntarily a cove-
nant that will address all of the issues, and since this is fully in accor-
dance with a plan formally adopted seven years ago by this City, that this
ought to be approved, number one, in accordance with the Planning Department
recommendation; and number two, in accordance with the recommendation to you
unanimously by your Zoning Board. We urge that action by this Commission.
Mayor Suarez: I think that, Mr. Traurig, has addressed the issues that we
instructed you previously to get back to us on, unless you have got something
else you want to add. I will tell you briefly, all of you, I have gotten a
letter from Carol Dennison and I would like the record to reflect it. She is
at 1160 Southwest 22nd Terrace, opposing this rezoning and I just got it today
and I was looking at it and making it part of my consideration as I was
listening to the speakers and I replied to her as follows, and this will
reflect my vote: "Dear Ms. Dennison, I'm reading this letter just I listen to
arguments on the zoning change you are concerned about. It has been a very
difficult question for me. I am a resident of the area. I generally oppose
unnecessary zoning changes. This one has a peculiarity. It is part of a
settlement that took ten years to hammer out. That settlement included this
site. I did not favor this specific site at the time of the settlement, but
had to accept it in order to achieve the settlement. Since the City tells me
the rezoning is in accordance with our Master Plan, I will accept the
rezoning. I guarantee you, however, that this will not have a domino affect
as far as my vote goes. In fact, I'm going to recommend that the Master Plan
be reviewed so as to clearly prohibit this kind of rezoning in the future.
Parenthetically, I'm glad to have at least obtained a density concession from
the developer down to 1.5 FAR in accordance with the area study. That will
reflect my vote and I know that the Commissioners heard quite a bit of testi-
mony in technical support of it. If you want to state something in addition
to this for our consideration.
Mr. George Campbell: For the record, George Campbell, representing the
Department of Public Works. Point of clarification, if I may, on the right-
of-way situation. All the right-of-ways that are dedicated to the public and
by plats such as this has been done many moons ago are, have the underlying
title, fee simple title, vested in the abutting property owners and the City
holds these rights -of -way in trust for the public. Now, they can be closed by
filing a new subdivision or a new plat and they go through the whole process
which includes public hearing, etc. But there is the provision for the return
of the right-of-way to private hands under these circumstances.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioners?
Mr. Plummer: And also, put on the record, George, in cases in the past of
recent, that we have done that, we have done it on a square foot basis,
because I heard one person bring up, if they get that what do we get, and we
haven't been the cheapest real estate salesman in town.
Mr. Campbell: Correct.
Mr. Plummer: Put that on the record also.
Mayor Suarez: By the way, I believe the minimum lot in the City of Miami for
a single family residents is approximately five thousand square feet or
roughly one ninth of an acre. If you had three of those you would already be
up to a third of an acre. So, you might want to check at your figures whoever
stated this was a quarter of an acre between —composed of three lots.
Mr. Olmedillo: One additional comment Mr. Mayor, is that the choice of the
RG-3 as opposed to an RG-2.3 which was mentioned in one of the presentations
by the opposition is that the RG-2.3 is a more liberal district, because it
allows retail establishments, service establishments with a simple class "E"
permit. The RG -3 residential district is a natural residential district and
only by special permit and special exceptions other activities are allowed
which are complimentary to the residential use. So, we felt... The Planning
Department felt that the RG-3 is a more natural district designation for this
area, and we are glad to have heard the applicant to abide by an additional
requirement which is the 1.5 FAR which they have committed themselves to meet.
ld 59 March 27, 1986
Mayor Suarez: Commissioners, what's your pleasure on this item?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I will make my comments for the record, and let the
others have the same opportunity. I stated at the time that this was select-
ed, that in no way did it hamper right or my independent vote for this as a
zoning matter. I am convinced and there is no question in my mind that you
are going to see projects of residential that are going to be up and down the
Metrorail, no question in my mind about it, and I think it's something that
needs to be encouraged. The only problem that I have and I heard the woman
who asked for the continuance, I would ... my problem is the height of the
building, that's my problem. I think the building...I have no problem and I
want to be on the record, I have no problem with a hundred four units, but I
just think that eight stories or nine stories is high, and I would have
preferred or I would prefer that the possibility that it could be reduced, I
don't know, I have not seen the plan whether the units could be reduced and
reduce it a floor or two, but I just have to have an objection to the height
of the building, that's... I have no objection to the number of units.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I move the item as per the Planning and Zoning
recommendations.
Mayor Suarez: So, moved. Do we have a second? Will it die for lack of a
second? I will second it.
(Mayor Suarez passes the gavel to Commissioner Plummer.)
Mr. Plummer: I don't need the gavel.
Mrs. Kennedy: Let me...
Mr. Plummer: Under discussion. We have a motion made and duly seconded, to
uphold the recommendation of the Planning Department and the Planning Board.
Under discussion, Commissioner Kennedy.
Mrs. Kennedy: Under discussion, let me just say that this is a very hard
choice for me, but people in this community have to understand that we have to
have growth and the only way to do it is through an orderly fashion and in
reading the Planning Department's recommendation there is a part here that
says "It is the intent of the plan to intensify residential density in areas
adjacent to Metro Stations." This falls under that category, and that's why
I'm going to vote "yes".
Mr. Plummer: Any further discussion? Motion understood. Call the roll,
please. Read the...is it an ordinance? Read the ordinance. Motion under-
stood, call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE
NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
APPROXIMATELY 3200-3202 SOUTHWEST 1ST AVENUE, 168
SOUTHEAST 32ND ROAD AND 200 SOUTHWEST 32ND ROAD,
MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN)
FROM RG-1/3 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO RG-3/7 GENERAL
RESIDENTIAL; MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE
NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 44 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS
MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500 BY REFERENCE AND
DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF;
CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins and seconded by Mayor Suarez and
passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Id 60 March 27, 1986
L 11
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and an-
nounced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and
to the public.
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Plummer: I'm voting "no". I felt that a continuance might have been able
to reduce it, but... I like the project, but I just can't go with the height.
I have to vote "no". The item passes three to one on first reading.
Mr. Traurig: Thank you very much.
18. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED SECOND READING ORDINANCE ON "AMENDMENT Q"
(PARKING OF BOATS AND TRAILERS IN FRONT OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES.) NO ACTION
TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION.
Mayor Suarez: Planning and Zoning Item #3.
Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: For the record, my name is Sergio Rodriguez. Item #3
is a second reading on "Amendment Q-2". "Amendment Q-2" relates specifically
to the boats on the front yard that we have discussed before. This item was
continued the last time when we had this item before you. It was recommended _
for approval by the Planning Department and was recommended for denial by the
Planning Advisory Board. If you want to, I can go into the details again of
what we are recommending. I believe we went extensively last time in this
issue. Basically, what we are trying to do with this amendment based on a
request from the City Commission that instructed us to contemplate the amend-
ment, is to allow boats and boat trailers in front of homes in the RS and RG-1
districts only, subject to restrictions of the space available of fifty feet
by twenty feet and that the number of trailers be limited to one and the
maximum size of the boat be twenty-four by eight, and also, that this cannot
be parked parallel to the front of the house and that all masts will have to
be down. If you have any questions I'm ready to answer.
(BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT PLACED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD).
Mr. Dawkins: I have got some questions. Number one, what will be "parallel"?
Mr. Rodriguez: Let me show an example that I have here.
Mr. Dawkins: See, because we got into this parallel argument with the sign
boards. OK? So, I need to know what "parallel" means.
Mr. Rodriguez: If you will look at the illustration that you have on the
screen, what we are saying is it should be perpendicular to the house.
Mr. Dawkins: OK. So,...
Mr. Rodriguez: We are not trying to allow it to be parallel to the house that
will block the whole frontage of the house.
Mr. Dawkins: So, if it's six degrees, an angle like the sign boards, then
it's not parallel. Now, how are we going to enforce that?
Mr. Rodriguez: I think it will be very clear. If it is perpendicular to the
building it is not parallel.
Mr. Dawkins: It's in violation, then what are we going to do?
Mr. Rodriguez: You deny it. I mean, the Building and Zoning Department when
they review it if it's not in conformance with the law, they will deny it.
Mr. Dawkins: No, but I'm saying if I have a boat and I decide that I don't
want it parked parallel and I want to put it on an angle, thirty degree angle,
that's not parallel.
Mr. Rodriguez: Right.
Id 61 March 27, 1986
s
11
Mr. Dawkins: So, now what?
Mr. Rodriguez: Chief. Are you going to talk?
Mr. Walter Pierce: Mr.. Vice -Mayor?
Mr. Dawkins: Yes, sir?
Mr. Pierce: Zoning people are not going to be out there with a compass. If
we see a boat...
Mr. Plummer: They were on the billboards!
Mr. Rodriguez: After complaints.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me?
Mr. Pierce: After complaints.
Mr. Rodriguez: After there were some complaints.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, if the neighbors complain you better go out with another
compass.
Mr. Pierce: Right, but...
Mr. Plummer: See, I think this is just as ridiculous, really.
Mr. Pierce: No, if the boat is more or less perpendicular, then there is no
problem. Thirty degrees is one third of the required angle.
Mr. Plummer: That's what I heard Gene Hancock say.
Mr. Dawkins: OK. Now, when we passed this I think we passed this dealing
with boats. Now, how did we get in here under "D" on page three "Major
recreational equipment maybe parked or stored in any required yard not adja-
cent to a street. If it exceeds a height of six feet above the ground,
provided, however, that masts, antennas, vent stacks, windshields or other
minor accessories may not exceed this height." Then it goes on to tell me
that it deals with winnebagos, school buses, reconverted school buses, and
etc. Now, how did we get into this?
Mr. Rodriguez: All of that was in the previous amendment, in the previous
ordinance, that is already in effect. What we are doing with this is that we
are allowing now to have boats and also, boat trailers, and that's why we are
defining it that way.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, but... Well, all right...well, why do you mention then the
converted trucks or buses, motorized homes, tent campus, tents or other short
term housing can be done?
Mr. Rodriguez: As I mentioned, that's already permitted in the existing
ordinance. That's already there in the ordinance. We are not amending that
section of the ordinance. I's already allowed.
Mr. Pierce: It's already there.
Mr. Dawkins: You mean to say if the guy who lives next to me who has got a
winnebago, who is parking it in the back yard, he has a right to park it in
the front yard?
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes. sir. The underlining that you see here is a new language
in the ordinance that is in front of you. The striking out is the language
that has been eliminated. Everything else is the ordinance as it is now.
Mr. Plummer: The winnebago maybe is not too bad. It's those ones that they
build their own and home grown and look like a moat and a fort. Let me ask
you...
14 62 lurch 27, 1986
Mr. Rodriguez: It says though that it cannot exceed six feet above ground, if
you look at the language, so, you are limiting that.
Mr. Plvmmer: That's called a pop-up trailer.
Mr. Rodriguez: In reality, what is happening now, and you know this already,
there have been a lot of complaints that we are enforcing selectively now the
ordinance, because we don't have a clear ordinance that establishes what we
can do or not do. Now, at least we will have something that we can follow,
and...
Mr. Plummer: You are telling me that according to this ordinance, they can
park a trailer by itself in the front yard.
Mr. Rodriguez: Perpendicular.
Mr. Plummer: But without the boat on it?
Mr. Rodriguez: Let me read it again to make sure that I'm not getting in
there.
Mr. Plummer: You wrote it. Let me just state on the record...
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, they could.
Mr. Plummer: OK. Let me state on the record my feeling. I think that,
aesthetically, this ordinance is devastating. I think it has lack of control.
I don't think it is clear in delineating the perimeters. I would think
differently if a man had to use his boat to make a living, but to me in
ninety-nine percent of the cases a boat is a luxury and if you afford a
luxury, then you have to afford the accessory uses that go with it. I have no
problem with boats being parked in a backyard where they are not visible and,
to me they create a blight as you drive down the street. Now, it's just that
simple. You know, I have heard all kinds of arguments but I just personally
don't think ... if every boat was a fifty four foot Bertram polished and kept in
good condition, I might think differently, but this town is full of wrecks and
that doesn't preclude they can work on the boats in their front yard, they can
fiber glass the boat, rebuild it in their front yard, and I just don't think
that that's what this community wants to develop, at least I don't. So, I'm
on the record. I'm opposed to it.
Mr. Rodriguez: Sir, if I...
Mayor Suarez: Sergio, the last time that we considered this item I asked what
effect, if any, would we had if we passed it and then someone obtained some
sort of grandfathering or vested rights to have a boat parked in the front
yard like that, would we at some point be able to take it back if, our rights
to prohibit this, if we decided that the whole city had become an eye sore and
so on. In other words, could we go back on our decision at a later point and
take away these rights. Did we ever get an answer on that?
Mr. Rodriguez: No, the only answer I can give you is that this will be
controlled under the Zoning Ordinance and the Code Enforcement Board and if
they are not, I guess, in good shape, there might be a way of taking it. I
don't know. I'm giving you an answer without really knowing. Let me add
something though. I agree with, Commissioner Plummer, that definitely this
would have an influence in the way that the City might look if everybody were
to follow this now legally, but another reality is that this is a marine
oriented City and we have water in the area. There are forty-one thousand
boats in Dade County and we estimate that twenty-five percent of those are
within the City of Miami. There are only four hundred fifty slips in the City
marinas. So obviously, those boats have to go some where and obviously, we
have a lot of illegal boats now which are placed in the driveways. We either
acknowledge it or not, and if we are going to deny this ordinance and you are
going to vote against it, there will be enforcement of everybody else that is
now presently locating the boats in the front.
Mr. Dawkins: But Mr. Rodriguez,...
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir.
Id 63 March 27, 1986
Mr. Dawkins: ...I'm not opposed to the boats and when you came before me to
sell me on the idea, you sold me on the boats.
Mr. Rodriguez: Right.
Mr. Dawkins: Now, today you got me okaying winnebagos, converted school buses
and anything else. Now, if you want to take this back and rework it and bring
it back, I have no problems with it, but I just...
Mr. Rodriguez: I'm sorry, when I...
Mr. Dawkins: I mean, I can understand what you are saying. OK, you tell me
that this is the present law. I don't mind that, but nobody told me when they
were selling me on the boats that this was the rest of the law. You just told
me that we were trying to get some place legitimate for people to park their
boats. That's all was said to me up here.
Mr. Rodriguez: If I may, I guess when I told you...
Mrs. Kennedy: Sergio, I stepped out of the room for a moment and I'm hearing
Commissioner Dawkins talk about winnebago and... what is this?
Mr. Rodriguez: Let me try to explain something though that I... in relation to
Item "D" which I think I gave you wrong information.
Mr. Pierce: Go ahead.
Mr. Rodriguez: Wrong information. When I was reading this portion a few
minutes ago to Commissioner Dawkins, I went through it fast, through the whole
thing, and I didn't realize that in the language that we have now, definitely
will not allow the recreational equipment in the front yard. It has to be on
the side or in the back. So, I gave you the wrong information on that. I'm
sorry.
Mr. Plummer: Why not apply the same to the boat?
Mr. Rodriguez: We could apply it. One of the problems that we have in the
City with the laws that we have is that we have very narrow lots, and that is
a reality and...
Mr. Dawkins: OK. Wait a minute, one minute. 2020.2.2. Section (a) ---Now,
you struck out the first three lines ---"parking shall be permitted anywhere on
the premises or on a adjacent streets or alleys."
Mr. Pierce: For not to exceed twelve hours.
Mr. Rodriguez: If you keep reading the language, it says "not to exceed
twelve hours".
Mr. Dawkins: Uh huh.
Mr. Rodriguez: And then when you read the rest of the language we are specif-
ically defining boats as a separate type of equipment which is Item "B".
Mr. Dawkins: All right, OK.
Mr. Rodriguez: And then we go and we define on Item "C" what will happen in
residential districts which are not RS or RG, which are single family and
single family and duplex, which says "that you have to park or store those
behind the nearest portion of the building...
Mr. Dawkins: "Shall be", it didn't say "will be".
Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Shall be is...
Mr. Dawkins: Shall be.
Mr. Rodriguez: "Shall be" means "will be", yes.
ss
L
Id 64 March 27, 1986
Mr. Dawkins: Well, if you ... I mean, if you want to take it back and bring it
back I'm for it, but I will have to vote against this in its present form.
Mr. Pierce: Mr. Vice -Mayor, we will be glad to take this back to the Planning
Advisory Board and then bring it back to the Commission.
Mr. Dawkins: OK. I move that it go back for further consideration and more
information please.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Does that make sense procedurally at this stage Madam City
Attorney for us to just refer back to the P.A.B. on second reading as op-
posed... Can we send it back to the Planning Advisory Board at this point for
further consideration?
Ms Dougherty: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: We have a motion and a second, and it's proper to do it. It
seems like there is no chance this Commission would agree to, from what I have
heard, to pass this in any event, because I was going to vote against it for
my concerns as I mentioned them before. So, why don't we call the roll at
this point.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, under discussion.
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Plummer.
Mr. Plummer: I'm voting against the ordinance. I think it's a bad ordinance.
I don't think it needs to be reconsidered. I think it needs to be thrown out.
So, I am voting against it.
Mr. Dawkins: I withdraw my motion. There is no motion.
Mr. Plummer: I move to deny.
Mayor Suarez: A motion to deny. Do we have a second on the motion to deny?
Do we have a second on the motion to deny or disapprove the ordinance proposed
on second? It's going to die for lack of interest. I will second the motion.
Vice -Mayor Dawkins?
Mrs. Kennedy: Under discussion. Sergio, I'm all confused now. You had all
of our votes the first time except for Commissioner Plummer, what has happen
now?
i
Mr. Rodriguez: Right. I think that you have four Commissioners here.
Commissioner...
Mrs. Kennedy: I mean, I stepped out of the room for a second and I come back
and I hear all these arguments against it.
Mr. Pierce: Madam Commissioner, don't leave the room again please.
Mr. Rodriguez: There are two changes over, if I may, Commissioner Carollo,
which was the one that got a motion before to get the staff to review this is
not here today, I believe, and I think Commissioner Plummer, was excellent in
convincing the rest of the Commissioners. I think.
Mayor Suarez: I said my particular concern was never resolved that I thought
that I had asked for a memorandum on it, but in any event, I'm disposed to
vote in favor of the motion. People are getting grandfathered in and having
vested rights to maintain this kind of zoning if we later change our minds and
decide that the City had become a great eye sore with people having all kinds
of junk in their front yard.
Mr. Rodriguez: But you have the same situation today with cars, people have
their cars sometimes in the front yard and they...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, a car is the way a man makes his living. That's a
necessity. I spoke to that before. Yes, I would prefer not to have the so -
Id 65 March 27, 1986
called junk cars in the front yard, but if that's all that man can afford to
make his living then I think he has to be afforded the right to park on his
own private property. I would prefer it not to be, but if that's how he makes
his living, then I have got to grant him that right.
Mr. Dawkins: Under discussion, sir, you wanted to say something, sir?
Mr. Sanford Cohen: Oh, yes. My name is Sanford Cohen. I reside at 1510
Southwest 15th Street and I am here to represent myself and the health, safety
and the welfare of the public, and I submit the proposition that you deny
"Amendment Q-2" by voting "no" on this second reading, for the reason that
this is a camel's nose under the tent ordinance, and... it is based on circui-
tous thinking. Both of these gentleman across the room from me appeared at a
Planning Advisory Board meeting on November 20th and stated that the Planning
and Zoning Department considered complaints by people who's neighbors already
have boats, and that...
Mr. Dawkins: May I inform you, sir, that it appears that the votes are
against this and you are speaking against it and I think you may talk and turn
somebody's vote around.
Mr. Cohen: I certainly wouldn't want to do that.
Mr. Dawkins: OK.
Mr. Cohen: Well, the picture is off the screen, so I would really wish to
infer that the reasoning I...
Mr. Dawkins: You want us to put it back?
Mr. Cohen: No, let's ... I will...
Mr. Dawkins: That's the one you wanted back?
Mr. Cohen: Yes.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, go right ahead, sir.
Mr. Cohen: I would just wish to briefly express my concerns that this opens
the door for the same concerns that, Commissioner Plummer, has voiced. This
picture shows... Excuse me, Mr. Rodriguez, will you extend your hand to me?
Will you extend your hand? Just where you are, just extend your hand. OK.
Now, if you... the center of your head was the boundary line five feet from
that would be where the boat may be positioned. I will be the other boundary t
line, OK, and if a house is built on property according to the schedule of
district regulations, it has to be five feet, so that five plus five, the
question here is what are we obstructing, not in matter of fifty feet, but in
a distance of forty feet, and I wish to just clarify that the distance for the
front yards for a house built today for RS-1 is fifteen feet in the front and
RS-2 is ten feet. So, there really is a problem developing and I would like
to make the recommendation that Planning and Zoning consider, for reasons that
they recognized concerning a person's interest in the marine sort of luxury or
recreation area, that ---thank you ---that the change of a five feet distance be
extended to eight feet to accommodate the placement of a boat behind the
forward property. Thank you.
Mayor Suarez: I thank you for your comments.
Mr. Plummer: Commodore, do you have anything else to say?
Mr. Rodriguez: Listen, Commissioner, you were the one that instructed me
to ---you all, the Commission ---to bring this before you and I brought you the
good parts and the bad parts and the ugly so.
Mr. Plummer: Right, and may your canoe have a hole in the bottom.
Mr. Dawkins: Any further discussion? Further discussion? Read the motion so
it's clearly understood please.
Ms. Hirai: A motion to deny.
ld 66 March 27, 1986
a
•
Mr. Dawkins: OK. Thank you. Call the roll, please.
THEREUPON a motion was made by Commissioner Plummer, and seconded by Mayor
Suarez to deny Amendment Q-2 was defeated by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
ON ROLL CALL:
Ms. Kennedy: I don't know. I'm going to stick with my original vote and vote
"yes". I mean, vote "no" to deny, which means "yes" for the boats.
Mr. Dawkins: If I vote "yes" it's going to die because it's a two two tie.
Ms. Kennedy: No, "yes" is a three one.
Mr. Plummer: Careful, your name will be Fred Tasker's column.
Mr. Dawkins: No, I won't. One thing I can say about Mr. San Pedro, he is
prejudiced, he doesn't like me.
Ms. Kennedy: No, the motion is to denied, you have Plummer and Suarez saying
"yes"...
Mr. Dawkins: And me and you saying "no".
Ms. Kennedy: ... and me and you saying "no" or you saying "yes" with them and...
Mr. Dawkins: If I say "yes" to deny, I want to approve it. So, now if I say
"no" with you it's going to die and it's denied any.
Ms. Kennedy: Right.
Mr. Dawkins: So, either way you vote it's denied.
Mayor Suarez: Please don't say "maybe".
Mr. Dawkins: OK. I vote "no", and it's denied, because it's a two/two tie.
Therefore...
Mr. Plummer: No, you are wrong.
Ms. Kennedy: No, no, no it's the other way.
Mr. Plummer: I'd like for you to be right, but you are wrongs two/two denies
the motion. It is not denied. It is still as it was before.
Mayor Suarez: We have a pending request for an ordinance on second reading.
It has not passed, so unless we hear another motion from any Commissioner, the
matter will just be automatically tabled, as far as I know. Madam City
Attorney, is that the case?
Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no.
Mrs. Dougherty: It could be automatically put on the next agenda. No action
has been taken with respect to this.
Mayor Suarez: There is no action taken at this point. Any other motions?
34 67 March 27, 1986
a a
19. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMENDMENT "Q-1" REGARDING ACCESSORY USES (RES-
TAURANTS, BARS) IN CONDOMINIUMS.
Mayor Suarez: Agenda item 4, Planning and Zoning item 4.
Mr. Rodriguez: Item 4 is amendment Q-1, or also known as Commissioner
Plummer amendment, and it relates specifically to the concern that he had
before in relation to accessory uses in relation to residential and office
uses. Everything else, I believe, in the ordinance, has already been taken
into account by this Commission before, and I believe that the only item that
was of some contention was the one that relates to a section 2003, on accesso-
ry uses and structure. We have changed the language from what we had before,
and we have now recommended, and it has been supported by the Planning Adviso-
ry Board, that convenience establishments, and part of the intent of the
section, you know, convenience establishments are intended to be only basical-
ly for the use of the occupants of the principal use, and their guests, and a
more specifically, we have established that all applications for special
permit to have a convenience establishment under this section will require a
listing of all the owners, if it is a condominium, all the renters, if it is a
residential apartment, or all the lessees, if it is an office building,
indicating their approval or disapproval, which then will be taken into
account in granting, the approval or denial of the permit. Also, we require
under the proposal that we have now, that the application, or the applicant,
will mention that the restaurant use is to be restricted to the owners,
renters, or lessees, and their guests, or the residential and office unit.
There is a section over here that deals with accessory uses which are in
existence at the time of the adoption of this ordinance, and which are not in
compliance with the terms of the subsection, and we are dealing with that
section, specifically, with section 2003.7.4. I believe Mr. Stanley Price has
something to add to that portion. The Planning Advisory Board, by the way, in
dealing with these recommendations for change in zoning, passed a resolution,
which is resolution PAB 1186, which is on page 6 of your package, in which
they recommend to the City Commission that a special consideration be given
to Hamilton on The Bay, located at 555 N.E. 34th Street, also described as
tract "A", Baypoint Place, 117-87, P.R.D.C., aL time of public hearing, based
on certain equities, which were brought to the Planning Advisory Board's
attention. Basically, the position that they have, and I will let Mr. Price
explain it in more detail, is that they already have a permit for 167 seats,
and under this ordinance, if they were to be grandfathered, that they are
approved under the present ordinance as to being a permitted used, that they
could apply, I believe, this new section of the ordinance, and see if they
arrive to a larger number of seatings in the restaurant.
Mrs. Kennedy: Sergio, I am still very new here. Please tell me what this can
and cannot do.
Mr. Rodriguez: Basically, what you can do with this, is if you have a resi-
dential building, or an office building, you can have certain accessory uses
related to that. In the ordinance that we have now, in effect, we allow to
have restaurants and other uses as being accessory to the building. There are
certain portions in the ordinance specifically telling you how many units you
have to have in the building before you can have this as an accessory use, and
what conditions you can have, and there are certain permits which are required
to be obtained by the applicant. The concern that Commissioner Plummer has,
and he can explain this better than I do, is that in some cases in the past,
there have been night clubs, or other major facilities permitted that had a
negative effect on the residents of the building. For that reason, he was
interested in trying to have some control over that.
Mr. Plummer: Let me vo back a little even further than that, Sergio, because
I sat on this Commission back in the days when there were no uses allowed in
those areas because it was residential. It was the petition of a number of
people, particularly, to condos, that they would like to see accessory uses on
the ground floor, mostly, for their use - a little grocery store, a pick up
place for dry cleaning, things of this nature, and yes, even a restaurant.
This thing became so far out of line, that we had major condominiums, and I am
ld 68 March 27, 1986
A 0
looking right down Brickell Avenue, in which, the tenants had no say whatsoev-
er, when a private night club went into that building. It was a right re-
served onto the developer. What we found happening was, that the tenants were
up in arms because it was not for the use of the tenants. They even had to
join the club and pay a fee. It was open to the general public. There was
never ample parking, unfortunately, in one particular case, it became a very
bad situation with murders and rape and mayhem, and that one is now out of
business. I think typified is the Brickell Townhouse, who used to have a very
fine restaurant in there, and finally the owners got together somehow or
another, and that restaurant does not exist anymore, because it was a tremen-
dous inconvenience to the owners. What I am saying is, that these uses, as we
have been allowing them in the past, have been predicated upon the fact that
they were accessory uses, or uses for the owners, so that they didn't have to
go out, they could take, and do their little bit of shopping right there. It
got so far out of proportion, that in no way, shape, or form, could they
build these buildings, or have that location, if it was strictly a zoning
matter. A liquor license could never go on Brickell Avenue, no way, shape, or
form. What this proposes to do in this new language, and I am very happy
with this new language, that if 50% of the owners of the condominium are
opposed, it is an absolute denial.
Mrs. Dougherty: No.
Mr. Plummer: No? Then I am not happy with the language.
Mrs. Dougherty: You can't have that.
Mrs. Kennedy: What does it mean?
Mr. Rodriguez: I want to make clear that it reads...
Mr. Plummer: OK, the other part of the language, by the owners, I guess that
I am still happy with, is that it can only be used renters, lessees, and their
guests. It cannot be open to the general public. Is that correct?
Mr. Rodriguez: That is. The owners, the applicants will have to submit a
covenant, saying that they will do that.
Mr. Plummer: And at such time, if he ever violated that, he would lose the
privilege. Then tell me, what is the language here, about the fact all
applications for a special permit of this subsection shall contain a listing
of all owners, condominium renters, residential apartments, lessees, office,
as the case may be, indicating their approval, or disapproval. The disap-
proval of the majority of the owners, renters, lessees. as the case may be,
will create a rebuttal presumption. You mean, it is only an argument? -
Mr. Rodriguez: Everything the City Council can, I mean a, lawyer can explain
to you better the reason for this, but I understand that you cannot transfer
the rights that you have, or zoning, to a property owner, and that's why we
have to have proper delegation of authority.
Mr. Plummer: All right, I don't disagree with that. I don't disagree with
that. What I am saying... And you correct me if I am wrong, the new language
makes it that only the people who occupy the building, or their guests, can
use the facility, is that correct?
Mr. Rodriguez: That is what the language says, yes.
Mr. Plummer: Thank you. This speaks only to restaurants and lounges.
Mr. Rodriguez: How does that stack up with the remaining portion of what we
have seen as so-called accessory uses?
Mr. Rodriguez: This was the only portion that was before you, and you know...
Mr. Plummer: So, the rest remains as is?
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, and just for your... you were asking before about bars,
specifically. In the case of a bar, it will only be allowed to apply for a
special exception in buildings that have more than 100 residential units, so
you have to have at least 100 units before you apply for a special exception.
ld 69 March 27, 1986
0
Mr. Plummer: Why not 200?
Mr. Rodriguez: Well, that is what we had before.
Mr. Plummer: Is it within the purview of this Commission to mandate 200?
Mr. Rodriguez: I think it could be, but I don't know if it is properly
advertised today, though, that section of the ordinance.
Mr. Pierce: Not tonight, but you can revisit that question, J.L.
Mr. Rodriguez: It think you can ask, for example, in the future, to contem-
plate a possible change of the ordinance again, as an amendment, and... -
Mr. Plummer: Gambling is carrying 500 qualifications.
Mr. Rodriguez: But not today.
Mr. Plummer: Oh, OK. Hey, I am happy as long as it is an accessory use for
the owners, lessees, and whatever, and their guests, all right? When it is
open to the general public, it can in fact,and I know it did happen down the
street, here, people in the building, if they wanted to, couldn't even get in.
Mr. Pierce: A Private club.
Mr. Plummer: Was that a private club?
Mr. Pierce: Yes.
Mr. Plummer: That would exclude this. On the record, this would exclude a
private club open to the general, or to the public. It is specifically to the
people of the building, is that correct?
Mr. Rodriguez: That is what we covered with the intent section of this.
Mayor Suarez: Stanley.
Mr. Stanley Price. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, Stanley Price,
the law firm of Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, 2401 Douglas Road. I have a
presentation in regards to the equities involved with my client, "Hamilton on
The Bay," Hamilton Development Corporation. However, if we get an interpreta-
tion as to one sentence in this ordinance, it would shortcut my entire presen-
tation.
Mayor Suarez: We would love to know what that sentence is so we could get it
resolved.
Mr. Price: OK, page 4 of the ordinance It says, "All such accessory restau-
rant usF, in existence on adoption of this paragraph, and not complying with
the terms of this subsection, are deemed nonconforming uses, pursuant to
section 3403.4. "Hamilton on The Bay," has a presently existing ancillary
accessory use, Mila's Restaurant. We have 167 seats in the restaurant today.
Under the latter part of the ordinance, because of the change in the formula
use to calculate the number of seats in the restaurant, we would automatically _
go to approximately 215 seats. My question is, the way I read this ordi-
nance, my client, who already has an existing accessory use, would be
grandfathered in, and not have to meet the other terms of the ordinance.
Mr. Plummer Is your client open to the general public?
Mr. Price: Yes, Commissioner, and under the existing ordinance, they have the
right to be. [hider 9500, they have the right to be open to the general
public.
Mrs. Dougherty: I concur with his interpretation. Under the existing ordi-
nance, and under the amendment, he does not have to come in for a special
exception. He automatically has the increased seating and therefore, he
doesn't have to apply, he doesn't have to get the concurrence of the unit
owners, and furthermore, he does not have to have the covenant submitted.
ld 70 !larch 27, 1986
A 0
Mr. Plummer: What you are saying is then, that this particular client can
have his cake and eat it to. If what you are saying is that he is
grandfathered......
Mrs. Dougherty: He is grandfathered because he's existed...
Mr. Plummer: .....by virtue of the old ordinance.
Mrs. Dougherty: Correct.
Mr. Plummer: Yet, you are saying that if this ordinance passes and allows a
reconfiguration of seating, that he would be able to take advantage of that,
without complying with the nonconforming use?
Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, because with the increased seating, which is permitted
by right, under this ordinance, he doesn't have to come in for the...
Mr. Plummer: No, no. He is grandfathered under this ordinance.
Mrs. Dougherty: Correct.
Mr. Plummer: He is grandfathered in that which he presently has. If he
applies the new configuration of seating, he is no longer grandfathered.
Mrs. Dougherty: Commissioner Plummer, if that is your intent, we would have
to change the ordinance.
Mr. Plummer: Well...excuse me, I'm sorry. If in fact he has 167 seats
today...
Mrs. Dougherty: That is correct.
Mr. Plummer: He is grandfathered to that. I can't do anything about it. I
think it is wrong, but that is what he is entitled to, unless he goes out of
business and it is closed for six months and a day, or 50% destroyed by fire.
OK, I understand that, but he has no grandfather to get an additional benefit,
if this ordinance passes under the new configuration. I don't understand how
that can be. That is the same as giving him his cake, and eating it too.
Mr. Price: Commissioner, may I ask you this, then. Are you saying that I had
the right to 167 of my seats?
Mr. Plummer: No, sir, I am not saying that. The City Attorney is, that you fi
would be grandfathered... if you presently have a permit, and you are operat—
ing that facility today, you are grandfathered. You got out before we closed
the door.
Mr. Price: So, 167 of our seats can be opened to the general public and the
remaining seats have to be excluded...
Mr. Dawkins: No, there will be no remaining seats.
Mr. Plummer: There will be no other seats.
Mr. Dawkins: No remaining seats.
Mr. Plummer: No, nol
Mr. Dawkins: Oh, yes, yesl
Mr. Plummer: The only thing you are grandfathered for, is those which you
presently have today.
Mr. Dawkins: You see, sir, you can't have the cake and eat it too. You want
me to give you the additional seating, on another ordinance, but you don't
want to conform by not letting the public in. You can't do that. You either
have it all, or none!
id 71 March 27, 1986
Mr. Price: Commissioner, then I would have to go back to my full presenta-
tion, which I made to the Planning Advisory Board.
Mr. Dawkins: It will not change the vote. You can go back to anything you
want, sir. I mean, if you can explain to me how I can have three apples,
OK?... and three oranges and because I paint the oranges red, that won't make
them three apples, because I will have six apples.
Mr. Price: Sir, it depends who is doing the painting. We are not the ones
requesting the additional seating.
Mr. Dawkins: And you are not the one that can demand it. We are the ones
that can give it to you, and we are not going to give it to you.
Mr. Price: I am not demanding, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: No, no, you see, what you are saying is, you didn't do this. I
am telling you, we did, and you can't make us do what you want to do, because
we have already done what we are going to do.
Mayor Suarez: We have got a technical problem though, besides your full
presentation, and I don't know how full your other presentation was, I hope
this one is not too full, but we have got a technical problem now. As pro-
posed, the ordinance would allow us to extend the seating, would it not?
Mr. Dawkins: No.
Mr. Plummer: Yes.
Mr. Dawkins: Yes?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, the new ordinance would give it an additional benefit, but
then they are not grandfathered.
Mayor Suarez: So, if this Commission is not disposed to accept that addition-
al right vested, or grandfathered in, to a situation such as this, then we
can't deal with the present ordinance as proposed.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I think simply said, that if they apply themselves to the
new ordinance, which gives them additional seating they lose their grandfa-
ther, just that quick. They become a granddaughter.
Mr. Dawkins: All we are saying is that he is grandfathered in, and that beats
the requirement of eliminating access to the public, OK? that is what we are
saying, but he doesn't mind doing that. But, he also now, wants to go to the
new ordinance, and take advantage of the additional seating, but he doesn't
want to go back and live by the whole... he just wants to take out the parts
he wants.
Mr. Price: I can easily obtain the 50 percent requirement from the residents
of our building, sir. I am not concerned about that, but to fully understand
the reason why the Planning Advisory Board unanimously passed that resolution
before you, whether it makes a difference or not, Commissioner, there are
certain inequities here that I have been denied a right to file for a public
hearing from the City for over one year, and I stand before you, where I could
have sought, and at least I could have gotten to you, six months ago, with
requesting a variance for 200 seats. I am not saying you would have granted
it to me, but I have been denied that opportunity, based upon an erroneous
interpretation by your zoning staff, which was eventually clarified by the
City Attorney's opinion, which the staff still refused to recognize, and it
took me four additional months for me to file my application, and before I
could file my application, amendment "Q" was drafted, not with any of the
language that Commissioner Plummer has inserted today, but the original
amendment "Q." as drafted, would have given my client all the rights they
could have today, we wouldn't be before you. And now we have waited over a
year to find out that we have nothing, and we have been robbed of that oppor-
tunity.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Mr. Price. I don't see how you call 167 seats in a
residential area nothing. You could not, sir, go and build a 167 seat restau-
ld 72 March 27, 1986
rant in a residential area, what you are doing, open to the general public.
Now, if you call that nothing, I don't know how to argue with you.
Mr. Price: Commissioner, with all due respect...
Mr. Plummer: You could not build that facility which you are presently
allowed to do, under that zoning, otherwise.
Mr. Price: Sir, I respectfully beg to differ with you. That is how we have
gotten our permit.
Mr. Plummer: That is what makes ball games, Counselor.
Mr. Price: I understand that, but there is a procedure in the ordinance which
we complied with. We didn't...
Mr. Plummer: You can build today!....
Mr. Dawkins: You and I don't have no argument, because I don't understand
9500. I have been telling you that ever since you and I have been here. I
don't know what 9500 is, or means. 9500, I don't know what it is, and I don't
know what it means. I don't have no problem with...
Mayor Suarez: Let me just get an idea of how many other situations like this
would we have if we approve the ordinance as presently drafted. How many
nonconforming uses of this sort would we have grandfathered in, would you
know, Sergio?
Mr. Rodriguez: I couldn't tell you, sir. Maybe the Building and Zoning
Department might be able to answer that.
Mayor Suarez: Slightest idea?
Mr. Rodriguez: I couldn't tell you, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I don't know that we can even address the grandfather
issue, and I don't know that that is really material, because we can't turn
that around. I think what is...
Mayor Suarez: No, no, but, we are proposing... at least the consensus of this
Commission seems to be, to propose to further restrict the grandfathering ...
I would say, further, from what this ordinance would do, as now drafted, is
that what you are proposing to do?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir.
Mrs. Kennedy: I think that is what the consensus of all of us is to draft the
ordinance.
Mayor Suarez: Right, so if we are going to do that, I was just wondering, you
know, how many other cases would be affected, but... and I know Stanley has
the unique situation that he has been already proceeding to try, under the
existing ordinance, to get fuller rights, and may claim that he was denied
that prior to our changing the ordinance and taking away rights that new
applicants would have had under the existing one. In any evert, in view of
this Commission's consensus, can we have this ordinance redrafted so as to
reflect our concerns?
Mr. Plummer: It is already done, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Suarez: Would you read it back to us?
Mr. Plummer: It is here. It is under section 2003.7.4., "Applications for,
and limitations on size of restaurant as accessory convenience establishments:
"All applications for special permit under this subsection shall contain
a listing of all of the owners, condominiums, renters, residential
apartments, or lessee's office, as the case may be, indicating their
approval or disapproval. The disapproval of the majority of the owners,
renters or lessees, as the case may be, will create a rebuttal presump-
14 73 March 27, 1966
A
tion, that a restaurant of this type would not be in the best interest
of the owners, renters, or lessees, as the case may be. The application
shall also acknowledge that the restaurant use is to be restricted to
owners, renters, or lessees, and their accompanied guests of the resi-
dential and/or office units, in the principal use, and that applicant is
prepared to offer a covenant to that effect. All such accessory restau-
rant uses and the existence on adoption of this paragraph and not
complying with the terms of this subsection are deemed nonconforming
uses pursuant to section 3403.4., certificates of use for nonconforming
use of this ordinance."
That is the proposed change.
Mrs. Dougherty: No, no, no.
Mayor Suarez: No, that is the existing proposed ordinance.
Mrs. Dougherty: That is the ordinance that I was interpreting, and said that
under that ordinance, what I suggest is that you add language to that language
you just read, saying...
Mayor Suarez: What would that language read?
Mrs. Dougherty:... "Provided however, that any increase in the number of seats
shall cause the entire establishment to apply for a special permit under this
ordinance."
Mr. Plummer: You are talking now to the number of units?
Mrs. Dougherty: The number of seats.
Mr. Plummer: Square feet.
Mrs. Dougherty: Seats.
Mr. Plummer: Seats, OK, and that number is how many?
Mayor Suarez: If he wants to go beyond the existing number of seats, he would
then have to go through the ordinance application like anyone else.
Mrs. Dougherty: Whateverl The number of seats that they have existing for
this.....
Mr. Plummer: Oh, OK. In other words, if he were to relinquish his grandfa-
ther clause, and want to apply under the new ordinance for the new configura-
tions, he would be relinquishing his grandfather, and apply as a new appli-
cant.
Mayor Suarez: If he wants to expand, right, he has to go back to the new
ordinance.
Mr. Dawkins: Madam City Attorney...
Mayor Suarez: We will hear from....as to whether that is a violation of his
rights or not. Go ahead, Commissioner.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Price has said that already in the six months, somebody has
been paying him, and I know they are tired of paying him, so now we are going
to extend it so that it puts an extra burden on his client where they have got
to continue paying him if we don't settle this. Second thing is, Mr. Price
stated that he would have no problem getting 50 percent of the residents of
the building to sign, so if he got the 50 percent, wouldn't that make every-
thing...?
Mr. Plummer: No, because he couldn't open to the public.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, thank you.
Mr. Marty Fine: Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission, may I try to
clarify this? I think I might be able to be helpful. For the record, my name
is Martin Fine, I'm Stanley Price's partner. This building was built about
1d 74 March 27, 1986
4 a
four years ago. It is one of the most beautiful, most luxurious, most magnif-
icent buildings in the City of Miami. It is on the Bay at 34th Street. Now,
anyone who has been involved with this as much as some of you know that a
restaurant of 167 seats cannot exist serving only people in any building and
their guests. It is impossible. This restaurant is open to the public. The
reason Mr. Price feels, and I believe the first interpretation of your counsel
is correct, that, by going to 200 seats, by the way, which is all we want in
this case, you are entitled to serve wine and liquor to the people who eat
there, only in conjunction with that food.
Mr. Plummer: But, Marty, that is the way I got you. Without wine and liquor,
your restaurant is not going to be successful.
Mr. Fine: Well, what I am really suggesting to you is if you would try not to
get us, and just let us finish and tell you what our problem is.
Mr. Plummer: I apologize.
Mr. Fine: That is all right. What we are trying to do is to say there is an
existing use. Now, in all candor, 33 more seats isn't really going to change
anything, in terms of your overall concern. It seems to me that you all are
very reasonable and would recognize that the use is already there, and you
just acknowledged, all of you, that it is an existing use, and is grand -
fathered in. What the Planning Board did, after taking an awful lot of time
to listen to the argument, is to say, "This is an inequity on this group, and
simply to have 200 seats, and be able to serve wine and liquor only to those
people there and not to the public just to come in to drink, but only those
who come in to eat, is a fair and equitable solution to a very difficult
problem", and we are not here in an effort representing someone who is a flaky
developer trying to get rich quick. This is Ted Arison, of Carnival Cruise
Lines, who has built a magnificent building. Your Planning Department, when
they first recommended it on some very minimal variances, through it was one
of best and most magnificently designed buildings in this town. The owner -
cannot make it without serving wine and liquor, and that is what we are
really here all about. We have a severe, genuine, hardship, and if you were
to adopt this ordinance, and simply recognize that what we are going to do,
by covenant, is limit ourselves to 200 seats, 33 more seats than we have now -
I really don't think you would be defeating what you want to accomplish.
Mr. Plummer: Are you finished, Marty?
Mr. Fine: Yes, I am.
Mr. Plummer: Marty, I have absolutely no problem if the owners and their
guests want to have a drink, I have no problem with that at all, but I do have
a problem when you have got outsiders who have not t.t;. same pride of ownership
in their residence that you have among the people who own the condominiums,
who can come in there and cause a problem for those who that is their home.
I've got a problem with that.
Mr. Fine: Let me explain to you the difference between that and the building
you referred to on Brickell, which shall remain nameless. The owners cannot
even come down and have a drink. They must have dinner there, or lunch there.
Liquor or wine can only be served with food, whereas the other place, all of
them on Brickell were serving liquor across the board. Now, I cannot conceive
that any restaurant is going to be able to really change its character because
of 33 more seats.
Mr. Plummer: Well, it will change its character because of alcohol being
served to the general public. I think that would change it.
Mr. Fine: Alcohol cannot be served to the general public unless it is in
conjunction with food.
Mr. Plummer: I understand that, but today it can't be, and I will tell you...
Mr. Fine: OK, I mean, I don't want to take any more of your time. You have
the right to deny it, and I assume, frankly, it would be an exercise in
futility for us to get 50 percent of the owners to sign it and come back,
because you are going to deny it again.
14 75 March 27, 1986
4
Mr. Plummer: No, under this, that would not kick into play at all, because
under this, even 50 percent signing it, still restricts it to the residents
only, under the new ordinance.
Mr. Fine: Excepting, you ask for an exception, and from what we are hearing
today, you wouldn't give us an exception, so we have a very untenable, diffi-
cult situation after having waited one year for this ordinance to be drafted
and having opinions before that we were in compliance and could do it, so I
really don't think it is asking too much to allow this owner who finds himself
in a very untenable, uneconomic position to do it, but if you do, go ahead and
vote, whatever you think you ought to do.
Mr. Plummer: You say the restaurant has been in operation for four years?
Mr. Price: No, the building is being constructed. The restaurant has been in
operation for approximately three months.
Mr. Plummer: Three months?
Mr. Fine: Yes, sir.
Mr. Plummer: So you really didn't lose anything.
Mr. Fine: Oh, sure, it was only an operation, but it started building about a
year and one-half ago, and the restaurant was planned four years ago, and the
space was there, and the economics of the restaurant business are such that
you cannot survive serving the tenants only and their guests. It just doesn't
work.
Mayor Suarez: How many seats was it planned for, Marty?
Mr. Price: It has a capacity to seat 225 people, but we are going to limit it
to 200 people.
Mr. Plummer: Well, I hate to disagree with my friend, Marty, but I know of a
lot of places, condos on Miami Beach, that only serve the residents of their
condos. They have 150 seats. They do very well, they serve liquor and they
are restricted to the use of their tenants.
Mr. Fine: If they only have 150 seats, Commissioner, I don't ever like to
argue with you, they can't serve liquor. There isn't a condo in Miami
Beach...
Mr. Plummer: There are Miami Beach condos that are legally serving liquor,
and they enjoy it. (LAUGHTER)
Mr. Kennedy: And you never go there?
Mr. Price: J.L., you are always right! I should know I should never argue
with yowl
Mr. Plummer: And I did not have a drink therel
Mr. Fine: No? All right, I understand. We would like you just to take a
minute or two and ponder that. I cannot conceive that you would be doing this
community a disservice by perm'tting this owner to have 33 additional seats
and serve liquor only in conjunction with food, as recommended eight to zero
by the Planning Board.
Mayor Suarez: We have a legal problem if we deny this particular section, do
we not, Madam City Attorney?... in view of the fact exception that they have
had this application proceeding for approximately, what was it twelve months?
Mr. Plummer: No, they got it grandfathered.
Mr. Price: I want to make it perfectly clear. There is no application
pending, because we weren't permitted to file the application...
Mayor Suarez: Stalled for twelve months, then.
ld 76 March 27, 1986
V V
Mr. Price: ... even though we had a legal right to file the application.
Mr. Price: You know, just one last thing. We have come before this Commis-
sion over the last long, long, period of time. We never come when we think we
are really not entitled to something that at least the prima facie has a good
case. This one is such a gross inequity on this owner....
Mr. Plummer: Let me tell you where I am, based on your statement, OK? You
never come with anything but the truth. Madam City Attorney is it possible
that we can pass this ordinance as proposed, excluding and deferring this
portion of it until each member of this Commission has had the right to go up
and look and speak with the tenants. Is that possible?
Mrs. Dougherty: Deferring the rest of the ordinance would automatically give
them permission to have 200 seats. Is that what you are talking about? I
Would suggest deferring the whole ordinance, until you have talked to them.
Mr. Plummer: What do we accomplish by deferring it?
Mrs. Dougherty: You said you wanted to talk to the owners of the units.
Mr. Plummer: I have no problem with that. The only fear I have, can somebody
else sneak in and open 167 seats?
Mrs. Dougherty: Well, yes.
Mayor Suarez: Will we accept, in the meantime, their application for whatever
it is that they are trying to do there?
Mr. Price: We wanted to get a variance of the number of seats under the old
ordinance, which would give us 200 seats.
Mayor Suarez: The old ordinance would be in effect if we defer at this time
action.
Mr. Price: By the time that ordinance gets to you, I am sure this ordinance
will be in effect. If we are permitted to proceed under the old ordinance, we
are pleased to proceed under the old ordinance - take our chances with the
variances.
Mr. Plummer: This doesn't take effect until 30 days after second reading.
They could file a variance now.
Mr. Pierce: Right. Tomorrow.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, you can do that. If this is passed as is, this does not
become effective law for 30 days after second reading. You can file for a
variance tommorrow. Am I correct?
Mr. Pierce: Yes.
Mrs. Dougherty: Do you want to pass it as is, or with the amendment that
would require them to have....?
Mr. Plummer: No, with the amendment.
Mrs. Kennedy: With the amendment, yes.
Mr. Plummer: Well, still, it is not effective law, correct?
Mrs. Dougherty: That is correct.
Mr. Plummer: And as such, they could still file for a variance.
Mrs. Dougherty: That is correct.
Mr. Plummer: Don't know that they will get it, but...
ld 77 March 27, 1986
,ov
Mayor Suarez: Well, the staff has well recommended to take the application
very quickly, because you know, if you have been stalled for that period of
time, we don't want to have the legal problem of having taken away rights that
you would have otherwise had during that period of time, until we got the new
ordinance in place. Don't need more law suits!
Mr. Price: We would be happy to file tomorrow.
Mr. Plummer: I don't know that I am happy that you are going to file, but...
Mr. Fine: We would be happy to file.
that application tomorrow?
Mr. Plummer: They have no choice.
Are they going to be happy to accept
Mayor Suarez: I strongly suggest that they do accept the application, other-
wise...
Mr. Pierce: Staff will accept the application tomorrow.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move item PZ-4, as amended.
Mrs. Kennedy: I will second your motion.
Mayor Suarez: So moved and seconded. Hearing no further discussion from the
Commission, please call the roll.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED,
THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING
ARTICLE 15, SPI-SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICTS,
SECTION 1520, SPI 22, COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT, SUBSECTION 1526.3 MINIMUM OPEN SPACE RE-
QUIREMENTS, TO DELETE REFERENCE TO A "COMMON WALL"
AND SUBSTITUTE THEREFOR "PROPERTY LINE"; ARTICLE 20,
GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS, SECTION 2003.
ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES, SUBSECTION 2003.7
CONVENIENCE ESTABLISHMENTS AS ACCESSORY TO RESIDENTIAL
OR OFFICE USES, BY AMENDING AN INTENT STATEMENT,
SUBSECTION 2003.7.4 LIMITATIONS ON SIZE OF RESTAURANTS
AS ACCESSORY CONVENIENCE ESTABLISHMENTS, BY AMENDING
THE TITLE, ADDING ADDITIONAL CRITERIA BY ESTABLISHING
A SPECIAL RESTAURANT CATEGORY, LIMITING EXISTING USES
AND BY REVISITING THE FORMULA FOR COMPUTING THE
MAXIMUM SIZE OF, AND SEATING, IN, RESTAURANTS; AND BY
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULA-
TIONS, PAGE 3, RO-3, RESIDENTIAL -OFFICE, PRINCIPAL
USES AND STRUCTURES, TO THE REFORMAT LANGUAGE BETWEEN
PERMITTED AND PERMISSIBLE USES FOR CLARITY; PAGE 4,
CR-2, COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL (COMMUNITY), PRINCIPAL
USES AND STRUCTURES, TO GENERALLY PERMIT RADIO AND
TELEVISION STUDIOS, PROVIDING FURTHER THAT RADIO AND
TELEVISION STUDIOS WITH EXTERIOR ANTENNAE ARE PERMIS-
SIBLE ONLY BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION, PAGE 5, CG-2, GENERAL
COMMERCIAL, TRANSITIONAL USES, STRUCTURES AND REQUIRE-
MENTS, TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN SPECIFIED USES MUST
OBSERVE A 50 FOOT TRANSITIONAL AREA WHERE THEY ADJOIN
RS-1, RS-2, RG, RO AND 0-1 DISTRICTS, PROVIDING THAT
THE RETENTION OF THE TRANSITIONAL AREA IS PERMISSIBLE
BY SPECIAL PERMIT, PROVIDING LIMITATIONS, AND SPD-1,
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUC-
TURES, TO GENERALLY PERMIT WHOLESALE JEWELERS AND
JEWELRY FABRICATION AND PRODUCTION SUBJECT TO LIMITA-
TIONS AND EXCEPTIONS AND DELETING THE CORRESPONDING
LANGUAGE UNDER ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES, AND PAGE
6, I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, PERMITTED USES AND STRUC-
TURES, TO GENERALLY PERMIT AUTOMOTIVE TOWING SERVICES,
SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS, CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVI-
SION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
14 78 March 27, 1986
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner
Kennedy and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer. Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
*NOTE: Although absent at roll call, Commissioner Kennedy asked of the City
Clerk to be shown as voting with the motion.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and an-
nounced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and
to the public.
Mr. Fine: Thank you very much.
Mayor Suarez: Although I mentioned that we don't like to get sued, I do want
to read into the record, or mention for all those who are here that we occa-
sionally do get sued and win in the Appellate Court and, in this case, in the
Circuit Court acting as an Appellate Court, a case just ended, an opinion
ended, two days ago, March 25, 1986, in the case of Lucia Anton and Richard
Heissenbottle, Appellants, vs. City of Miami, Stuart C. Taylor and Day Center
Corporation, and the City was affirmed a couple of days ago, our position,
that is. The attorney who handled the case is here with us, Joel Maxwell.
Congratulationsl We like to win cases.
20. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: EXTEND TIME LIMITATIONS IN WHICH COMMISSION HAS
TO ACT ON LEGISLATION RECEIVED FROM LOWER BOARDS.
Mayor Suarez: Agenda item number 5.
Mr. Plummer: I move item 5.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Mrs. Kennedy: I second and under discussion, let me just ask, what was the
purpose of the original 90 days? How did that come about?
Mr. Plummer: To stop people like him standing up saying he has been knocked
out for six months of the year.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK.
Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: Move or less.
Mr. Dawkins: Under discussion, are we saying that 12 months from the first
day, regardless of how many continuances that you have, that after the 12
month period, it is dead?
Mr. Rodriguez: After the 12th month after the first reading, it will be dead.
Mr. Dawkins: OK. How many continuances have you had?
Mr. Rodriguez: In the past, what has happened, I don't know if you remember,
Commissioner Dawkins, but in order to continue to keep this alive, you re-
ferred it back to the Planning Advisory Board, and we had to necessarily go
through the P.A.B., and so on, and then coma back, just to keep the whole
thing alive. This will not require you to do this anymore.
Mr. Dawkins: But I make a...
ld
79 March 27, 1986
Mr. Rodriguez: That means that you can continue and continue, and at some
point, after 12 months, it will be dead.
Mr. Dawkins: Regardless, I mean there are no exceptions? At 12 months it is
dead, no exceptions.
Mr. Rodriguez: In 12 months it is dead. The only exception on here is, if
there is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan involved, you can extend it
another 12 months, that amendment. That is to comply with some of the re-
quirements in the existing State law.
Mr. Plummer: Sergio, you will be unhappy to learn that I was yesterday
appointed by the Governor to serve on the Growth Management Advisory Commit-
tee. Sir, welcome homelll
Mr. Rodriguez: You win is our win If I can be of any help in trying to
guide you, I will very gladly offer my services.
Mr. Pierce: He will be happy to attend the meetings with you.
Mr. Plummer: Sure, sure. I will ask for that help the minute the Sanitation
Department takes the snow plows off of Flagler Street. -
Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you, for your confidence, sirl
Mrs. Kennedy: OK, we have a motion, and we have a second.
Mayor Suarez: It has been moved and seconded. We need to read the ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED -
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF ORDINANCE NUMBER
9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 3513 ENTITLED "FAILURE OF
THE CITY COMMISSION TO ACT.," OF ARTICLE 35, ENTITLED
"AMENDMENTS", BY EXTENDING THE TIME LIMITATIONS IN
WHICH THE CITY COMMISSION HAS TO ACT ON LEGISLATION
RECEIVED FROM THE LOWER BOARDS; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner
Kennedy and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. r_
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
•NOTE: Although absent at roll call, Commissioner Dawkins asked of the City
Clerk to be shown as voting with the motion.
The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and an-
nounced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and
to the public.
Id 80 !larch 27, 1986
21. SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO MIAMI CENTER I DEVELOP-
MENT ORDER.
Mayor Suarez: OK, part of item number 6, what exactly is the reason we should
consider Miami Center I? They really are requesting a continuance, is what
they are requesting.
Mrs. Dougherty: They are requesting a continuance. We are not recommending a
continuance. We are recommending that you set a public hearing 60 days hence
for the first meeting in June to consider this item.
Mr. Plummer: I thought it was withdrawn at the last meeting.
Mrs. Dougherty: No, you continued it until this meeting, it never got on the
agenda.
Mr. Plummer: All right, if we take no action, then it is automatically
continued to the next meeting, is that correct?
Mrs. Dougherty: No, we are saying that you must publish a 60 day notice, in
accordance with the law, and we recommend that you put it on the first meeting
in June agenda, June 12th.
Mayor Suarez: We continued it to this agenda, and it did not make it to the
agenda.
Mr. Ethan Minski: That is correct. For the record, my name is Ethan Minski.
I am an attorney representing Miami Center Joint Venture. My office is at 801
Brickell, Suite 1401. We were originally scheduled to be heard on February
27th. Because of a slight mix-up, the agenda item was marked withdrawn at the
February 27th hearing. We intended to be heard at this hearing. We, some
two weeks ago realized that it would not be possible and decided to come and
ask for a continuance from this hearing to the next hearing, which is still
what we would like to request. Unfortunately, for reasons unbeknownst to
perhaps anybody, the item was not included on the agenda, even through the
City Commission did continue the item until today.
Mayor Suarez: We had continued it to this meeting, right? Now, basically,
what you are asking is, approval of the same plan that with modifications went
through the South Florida Regional Planning Council?
Mr. Minski: That is correct.
Mayor Suarez: As opposed to what our Planning Department is recommending.
Mr. Minski: Well, that is correct.
Mayor Suarez: Or, have you been working with our Planning Department dili-
gently to resolve all differences?
Mr. Minski: We have been working with the Planning Department. Whether we
have resolved all differences...
Mayor Suarez: And are ready to announce full agreement.
Mr. Minski: No.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let's understand something else, Mr. Mayor. This is not a
new D.R.I. This is a modified D.R.I. Now, I met with the principal, Mr.
Worth, and I told him at that time that under no circumstances would I consid-
er letting him, as one vote on this Commission, put his shovel in the ground
based on the presentation which he made to me, I assume he was consistent and
made to others. For example, one of the biggest things that I have in my
craw, is the money for the bifurcation, OK? Now, at that time, he was going
to build the first ten floors of mixed used and the first tower, and he wasn't
going to put any money in escrow, or his proportionate share for the bifurca-
tion, which is required under the D.R.I. Now, the modification of the D.R.I.,
they have said that he has to put $5,600.000 in escrow, but it is been so
ld 81 March 27, 1986
written that that is a loan and he gets the money back. Now, as far as I am —
concerned, I would ask the City Attorney and the Planning Department, if this
Commission is not better protected in making this individual go through a new
D.R.I. process in which this Commission then can set forth the new criteria
and not on a modified version.
Mr. Minski: With all our respect Commissioner Plummer....
Mr. Pierce: The same concerns can be handled through the modification of the
existing D.R.I. As a matter of fact, staff is already on record as opposing
any front end loans and requiring those to be contributions, developer contri-
butions.
Mr. Plummer: Well, OK, then, then I think that the question that we need to
ask... are you representing the developer?
Mr. Minski: I represent the owner of the property, Miami Center Joint Ven-
ture.
Mr. Plummer: OK, well, are you willing to make a commitment that that contri-
bution is going to be up front? Because if you are not going to... you know,
you might not be in that position, but if you are not going to make that
commitment... excuse me, I have to have a caucus consultation. Mr. Mayor, as
I have been known to do in the past, I am stepping out of the line of the
process, and I shall get in line by saying God help youl
Mayor Suarez: You might be ready to clarify, once we schedule this for a full
hearing, exactly what it means when you are going to approve a front end loan.
I don't know that it is right that you are going to get the money back. I
think what the difference is that you instead of having to put the cash up
front, you are able to get a loan through a variety of agencies, or whatever,
that then gets repaid, but you don't get repaid back. In any event, is the
Commission ready to vote on scheduling this for a time? Sir, do you want to
oppose this?
Mr. Jeff Berkall: Yes, sir. My name is Jeff Berkall. I am an attorney at
Steel, Hector and Davis, who are representing the owners of the Pavillon
Hotel, now the Intercontinental Hotel, and the Edward Ball Building. We would
like to oppose this request. To give you a little bit of history, the appli-
cation itself was withdrawn before the Planning Advisory Board in February.
The application was withdrawn on the record. You had nothing to consider.
You had nothing to defer on February 27th. We don't think that you have
anything to consider or defer today. There is no application. There has been no disclosure. There have been no fees. There is no P.A.B. recommendation.
We would agree with the City Attorney's Department that a 60-day notice is
required in addition to the various requirements of Chapter 9500 of the City —
Zoning Code. We would ask that you would deny the request. _
Mr. Plummer: He is saying that there is nothing to defer.
Mr. Minski: If I may respond.
Mayor Suarez: The relationship between your respective clients is one that
would take books to write about, and explain it to us, and maybe it will all
sort of fall apart at the end, but as I stated before, it is not that I want
to give them enough rope to hang on, but I do want to give them enough rope to
proceed with their project at some point, until we can determine whether it is
really feasible or not. It is a major project for the City. In any event...
Mr. Dawkins: What property are we talking about?
Mr. Minski: This is the southern portion of Block one, Tract "D", Dupont
Plaza. It is right on the confluence of the Miami River, and Biscayne Bay.
Mr. Dawkins: Not the one behind the Pavillon
Mr. Minski: The one behind... yes, air.
Mr. Dawkins: The piece behind the Pavillon?
Mr. Minski: Yes, sir. We are trying to get a piece of land. In response to
what Mr. Berkall has just said to the Commission, I would like to say that
ld 82 March 27, 1986
what was withdrawn before the Planning Advisory Board was the application that
was attempted to be filed before the Planning Advisory Board, and it has
nothing to do, in my opinion, with an application to be heard by this City
Commission. In fact, that application that was withdrawn at the Planning
Advisory Board, was filed one month after the City Commission itself set the
February 27th hearing.
Mr. Plummer: Well, the City Attorney
it, at this point, is not to continue,
60 days.
Mr. Minski: I understand.
is advising that the proper way to do
not to defer, but schedule a hearing in
Mrs. Kennedy: I have a letter here, written by Sergio Rodriguez that says
that you must not only request approval for D.R.I. status, but must also ask
for approval under all applicable local zoning laws, because the definition of
a development permit includes all requests for zoning approval. So right now,
no appropriate application has been received for the variance or permit.
Mr. Minski: I am not asking the Commission to issue a development order at
this hearing, and I understand that Mr. Rodriguez and I have some disagreement
as to what is the law. We are discussing our disagreements and we hope to lay
those to rest before we ask you to decide on a Development Order.
Mrs. Kennedy: OK... be able to discuss it there. Good enough.
Mrs. Dougherty: You are going to set a hearing on June 12th.
Mr. Plummer: And that hearing is for what purpose?
Mrs. Dougherty: It is a non Planning and Zoning item.
Mrs. Kennedy: Is that June 12th?
Mrs. Dougherty: This is a non -Planing and Zoning item, on June 12th.
Mr. Plummer: And that is going to cover what we need . Mr. Mayor, I am
informed that we are setting a public hearing for June 12th that is a non
Planning and Zoning item.
Mrs. Dougherty: It is on the non -Planning and Zoning agenda, I just wanted
you to know that.
Mayor Suarez: It'll just make it that much longer, I guess. Last one, we had
91 items. This one maybe we will set a record. We need a motion to that
effect, Madam City Attorney? Do I have a motion to that effect?
Mr. Plummer: I will move it. I assume that at that time everything will be
in order, after 6:00 p.m. o'clock.
Mrs. Kennedy: I will second.
Mayor Suarez: Under discussion. Now, Mr. Worth also told me that he is going
to put up the money for the bifurcated structure. Now, in the event that I
don't see that money, I will not be voting. I do not want to see it as a
loan. I want to see it in the bank where Miami can draw the interest, OK?
Mr. Minski: Commissioner Dawkins, I do not represent Russell Worth, or Worth
and Company. Whatever he may have represented to you...
Mr. Dawkins: Well, Worth represents the people who are trying to pay the
$35,000,000 for the slip of land to build the two towers on it, is that
correct, sir? You are representing the people who are going to put the two
towers on the piece of land that you are going to pay $35,000,000 for.
Mr. Minski: Not, that is incorrect. I represent the people who are going to
sell Worth and Company the land.
Mr. Dawkins: Oh! That is a different ball game. Then, if he don't come up
with the money, I don't let him sell the land. No problem!
Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute! What vested rights does Mr. Worth have?
ld 83 March 27, 1986
Mayor Suarez: Contract to buy, and he has got to put up some money on an
option pretty soon, doesn't he?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Worth today doesn't have any rights today, is that correct?
Mr. Minski: Worth and Company, which is the partnership, a California part-
nership, of which Mr. Worth is a partner, has a contract to purchase that
piece of property.
Mr. Plummer: But as such, as no rights before this Commission.
Mr. Minski: Well, they have whatever rights they may enjoy under the con-
tract.
Mr. Pierce: Mr. Plummer, the actual applicant will be Miami Center Joint
Venture, which is comprised of...
Mayor Suarez: Don't say it. Don't say it. We will be able to review all of
this, Commissioners, at a hearing, and by that time there may or may not be a
contract, at which time we will determine whether there is a viable entity to
come to this Commission to apply, and once again determine whether this
project is viable or not, and there is a lot of guesses around town whether
you will ever have the money, but in the meantime, why don't we schedule it
for a full hearing? You can have all of these concerns aired at that point.
Mr. Minski: Would I be correct in assuming that that means that we are not
going to continue the item from tonight to the last hearing in April?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I am sorry. I am informed that we would be better on
the 26th, since it is a zoning matter, that it should be on the 26th of June.
26th of June is our zoning hearing.
Mayor Suarez: Do you so make a motion?
Mr. Plummer: Yes, sure, fine.
Mayor Suarez: Do we have a second?
Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, I second it.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
Mr. Plummer: Discussion. What is the fee?
Mr. Pierce: We don't really know yet.
Mr. Plummer: Well, but they are going to have to...
Mr. Pierce: It is going to be fairly decent, though.
Mr. Plummer: They are going to have to pay the fee prior to the hearing, is
that correct?
Mr. Pierce: Oh, absolutely! At the time of filing.
Mr. Plummer: That is in good old American, hard, green currency!
Mayor Suarez: Are you talking about the impact fee?
Mr. Pierce: No, we are talking about the application fee.
Mr. Plummer: We are talking about that delightful fellow.
Mayor Suarez: I'd like to see it in cold, hard, cash too, myself, in rela-
tion to this project, and the option money will be interesting too. We have a
motion and a second? Any further discussion from the Commission? Hearing
none, please call the roll.
rMA
04
March 27, 1900
ry.1 j,
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 86-237
A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO SCHEDULE A
PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
THE MIAMI CENTER I DEVELOPMENT ORDER INCORPORATING APPLI-
CATION DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, SAID
PUBLIC HEARING TO BE SET FOR THE JUNE 26TH AGENDA.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
22. DENY PROPOSED CHANGE TO MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AT APPROXI-
MATELY 3471 MAIN HIGHWAY.
Mr. Olmedillo: Agenda item 6 is a request to amend the comprehensive plan to
change the land use from a combination of low density residential, and a small
portion of mix use to mix use. This request is a prerequisite to a change of
zoning requested, asked item 7. The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan,
1976-1986 designated the greater portion of the subject property as a low
density residential. Only the first hundred feet, approximately, of the
narrow site facing Main Highway is considered for mixed use. To change all
the property to the latter is in conflict with the comprehensive plan. This
request creates the potential for high intensity mixed use development on the
bay side of Main Highway, which is presently developed as low density residen-
tial, churches, and educational facilities from Peacock Park, south to and
beyond the City limits. The fact that a very small portion of land is consid-
ered for a particular use cannot be construed as the main parameter to induce
change to the rest of the property. The proposed change is out of scale with
the needs of the Grove, and its vicinity. The zoning district requested
under item 7 provides for bonuses that result in an F.A.R. over 2.0, creating
a potential development of approximately 800,000 square feet, on a site of
about 270,000 square feet. The realization of this potential development
would negatively impact the traffic pattern, creating a more objectionable
condition than the one existing today. The potential load generated by the
proposed change and the infrastructure of services is detrimental to the rest
of the community by absorbing a good portion of their capacity. The wide
range of uses is compatible with the surroundings. The Planning Department
recommends denial of the requested change. I would like to read three let-
ters which relate to this particular amendment. As you know, this went up to
D.C.A. for their review, and this letter is signed by Robert Kessler, Chief,
Bureau of Local Resource Planning, D.C.A. It says, (this is paragraph 2 I am
reading)
"Our review indicated that the proposed amendment would create an incom-
patible land use situation, which is not consistent with statutory re-
quirements indicated in section 163.3177, paragraph 6(a), Florida Stat-
utes, in that the amendment is not in accord with the principles and
standards of the Comprehensive Plan and this act."
I shall also read the letter from the South Florida Regional Planning Council,
and I shall read from the second paragraph:
"!lain Highway is already operating at a daily level of service (b) below
the transportation policy guide recommendation minimum level of service
(c). The addition of high volume commercial traffic will further strain
an already overloaded road system. The proposed change will also insert
Id 85 March 27, 1986
high density commercial uses into a low density residential area, an
inappropriate intrusion in scale and in character."
This is the South Florida Regional Planning Council, addressing Ralph Cook.
Third letter is from the Shoreline Development Committee, and I shall read
from the second and third paragraphs.
"The existing RS-1 zoning districts in general, permits one family de-
tached dwelling on individual lots in the City of Miami. Considering the
firmly established low density uses, noted above, the change to SPI-2
would be incongruous and totally out of character with the low density,
low profile community image."
The Parks and Recreation Department showed concern that this development may
be detrimental to Peacock Park and the Barnacle. Public Works Department, and
I state from the record:
"The proposed zoning change could result .in a development that exceeds
the design capacity of the sanitary sewer system. If the development
was maximized, the sewage generated could be more than 25,000 gallons per
day in excess of the sanitary sewer system."
A different version of development was quoted in the past by the Planning
Department. Its intensity was substantially reduced, and most importantly,
the project was bound to a recordable site and development plan. That calls
for about 240,000 square feet. Most recently, this item was deferred prior to
a Planning Advisory Board meeting on November 6, 1985, at the applicant's
request. At its meeting of December 4, 1985, the Planning Advisory Board
adopted resolution P.A.B. 6785 by and 8 to 1 vote, recommended denial of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment. At its meeting of December 4, 1985,
the P.A.B. adopted resolution P.A.B. 6885 by an 8 to 0 vote, requested the
City Commission to waive time limits in establishing date certain to consider
the ordinance for proposed amendment to the Miami Comprehensive Plan. As I
stated before, the item 7 holds a close relationship with item 6, and although
they are completely different actions, I would like to continue with item 6
and 7 at this time. The request is a change of zoning classification from an
RS-1/1, which is a single family residential, to an SPI-2, Coconut Grove
Central commercial district for the subject property. The issues considered
in item 6 were those pertaining to the Comprehensive Neighborhood Master
Plan. Now, one must review the zoning issues resulting from the request.
The SPI-2 district was created to generate a certain kind and intensity of
activity. The intensity of development is arrived at through a system of
bonus percentages added to the basic F.A.R. The potential of the F.A.R.
depends on how many of these features are contained within a given project -
covered parking, mixed uses, community theatre, split-level store fronts, all
receive a bonus, which added, resulted in an F.A.R. higher than 2.0 on gross
lot area basis. By virtue of this, the changes to an SPI-2 creates the
potential for development of approximately 800,000 square feet of construc-
tion in 270,000 square feet of land, approximately. With setbacks of 5 feet
in the front, and a height limitation of 50 feet, the potential burden on the
infrastructure is something to be considered. An office building unloads a
great number of automobiles at peak hours. The Planning Department recom-
mends denial of the request to change the RS-2/2 designation to SPI-2. In
the past July of 1985, the applicant presented a change of zoning to an RS-1/4
to a P.D.M.U., as per plans on file - a much smaller project, which is the one
that I mentioned, and is supported by the Planning Department and it was
denied by the City Commission.
Mr. Plummer: Repeat that last statement. Repeat your last statement.
Mr. Olmedillo: The Planning Department recommended approval of that change
from the RS-1/4 to a P.D.M.U.
Mr. Plummer: The Commission denied it?
Mr. Olmedillo: The City Commission denied it.
Mr. Plummer:
are seeking
Department?
Did you indicate in your presentation now that that which they
would give them much greater usage than what was approved by the
Id 86 March 27, 1986
Mr. Olmedillo: Much higher, that is why I called your attention to 240,000
square feet, which were proposed in the past, as proposed, to about 800,000
square feet, which is proposed now, within the SPI-2 district regulations.
Mr. Plummer: Well, it is not proposed. That is what they would need. They
could maximum out at 800,000.
Mr. Olmedillo: It creates the potential to have...
Mr. Plummer: Four times the amount of before.
Mr. Olmedillo: Approximately. The Planning Department recommends denial of
the present request. I saw in the audience one of the signees of one of the
letters - the Shoreline Ordinance Committee, so if there are any questions in
that sense.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you, Guillermo. We hear from the applicant, and then
objectors or opponents, if any, and I have a feeling there are some.
Mr. Al Cardenas: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission. For
the record, my name is Al Cardenas, I am an attorney at law, with the law
firm of Broad and Cassell. Our offices are at One Biscayne Tower, Miami,
Florida. Our clients in this case, Mr. Howard Scharlin, Ken Treister, are
here with us today, and also an applicant in the case is Mr. Gerald Katcher.
Also with us, and I will be introducing them, at greater length later, are
three individuals who will speak of economic impact, land use, and traffic.
They are Miles Moss, Paul Stutsman, Jack Katsicos. I would like to also
introduce to you, if I may, a special council that is here with us today,
special council, the applicants, and myself, a colleague of mine, Mr. Toby
Brigham, who is here with us. Charles Treister, an architect in the project
is here, as is Art Berger from the law firm of Broad and Cassell. Also here,
I believe, in support of the application, are members of the church adjacent
to the property, Father Hingston and Dr. Lina Ryan. In addition to them,
there are a number of other people in support of the project, who are here
with us this evening, as well. I won't introduce them for the sake of brevi-
ty. Mr. Mayor, if you take account, I am sure they can be recognized. I
have agreed to condense my presentation as much as I can, insofar as, regard-
less of the decision that you may make here, this evening, and later this case
may receive judicial review. It is only appropriate that I bring to the
record the information that I think is required in order to preserve that
record. I believe that the presentation should take between 45 to 50 minutes,
including the expert's testimony, the full presentation.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. Did you say brief?
Mr. Cardenas: Yes, I did. I believe that as we fly through this thing,
Commissioner, we all will enjoy the process. I think time flew at the earlier
proceeding. I made similar remarks before the Planning Board and Zoning
Board, and those presentations I made lasted about 45 minutes, but the hear- _
ings lasted close to 3 hours, and I didn't see anyone leaving, and I think the
process went rather well.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, I do plan to leave.
Mr. Cardenas: OK.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, so I will let you know that. If you plan to talk 3 hours, I
will not be here.
Mr. Cardenas: No, I wouldn't do that. I said my presentation will take about
45 minutes. The process took about 3 hours, and there were a number of
presentations.
Mr. Dawkins: I am only kidding, Al. Go ahead.
Mr. Cardenas: I also want to join...
Mr. Plummer: You might be kidding, but I'm notl
Mr. Cardenas: I also want to join the Mayor in congratulating Joel Maxwell in
that recent victory. I know that as a participant in that process, we are
quite pleased with that decision, and hope our luck holds up to it. Let me,
id 87 March 27, 1986
04 . A
if I may, start the process by making what I hope are a few clarifications as
to what we have here before us this evening, and what we don't, as far as I
perceive it. This property that we are speaking of, and I will describe it in
greater detail later, is currently zoned single family residential. It is
hoped that there will be an amendment to the Comprehensive Master Plan, as
well as an amendment to the zoning atlas, to zone it SPI-2. SPI-2 is mixed
use. Mixed use designation, in the City zoning code, the only designation
for mixed use is SPI-2, so, if you want to have a mixed use project, the only
thing you can ask for in the City of Miami, other than through a planned
development process, of course, strictly on a land use basis, is an SPI-2
designation. That is what we have done. Let me also clarify the record as to
the statements which have been made by staff and opponents, relative to the
potential size of the project. Let me respectfully suggest that what you have
here before you this evening, is considerably limited, and you should so
hopefully, judge, or make your vote, based on those limitations. Number one,
you have threshold provisions within which any applicant must apply for what
is known as a major use permit. You have a considerable, lengthy, and very
thorough section of your code, dealing exclusively with major use permits.
Now, major use permits provide that any time you plan to have 500 automobiles,
or more in your project that must be provided, you must go through a major use
permit process. If I calculated properly, and we did, if you wanted to put up
to 500 automobiles, the most you can have in your property is between 200,000
to 250,000 square feet, which is less than what we originally applied for, in
the planned development process, which was 260,000, which was subsequently
lowered to about 240,000. So, assume we leave here this evening with a vote
in favor of our project, the most we could immediately begin to do is to
prepare sight plans, drawings, and everything that is necessary to seek a
building permit without further review from this Commission, or further
administrative proceedings for a project the size of which, of course, would
be less than 250,000 square feet. In addition to that, there will be a number
of administrative proceedings which we would still have to go through, in
order to go for that reduced size project, so let's put that in proper per-
spective. Number two, I have heard the number 800,000 square feet tossed
about, which in our opinion, of course, is totally inapplicable to these
particular proceedings. They are subject to arguments, if you are dealing
with a major use permit process. If we wanted to build a project which had an
excess of 500 parking spaces, in excess of the square footage amount that I
talked about, the major use special permit process requires you to go to the
Zoning Board, Planning Advisory Board, City Commission, Heritage Board,
Shoreline Development and Review Committee, and ad infinitum. We still must
go for final plat approval, and a number of other changes. So, this project
was designed to, and I don't perceive it to be, but if it was designed, or
contemplated in the future to be a larger project than what I said before,
this is not the hearing to discuss that matter, because you have nothing
before you on that basis, so I would hope that anything which deals with those
issues, would not be dealt with here this evening. We are dealing with land
use, and we are dealing with impact issues dealing below that particular
threshold. Let me, as a matter of fact, tell you how ridiculous a figure of
800,000 square feet is, which has been tossed about. If you use that figure
for an example, and you wanted to build something of that size, over half of
that property would be comprised of a parking garage five stories high,
including 2,000 cars, and by the time you are through with that process, the
amount of land that you have left over, in protecting the hammock, setbacks,
and the other requirements of the zoning code, you could put 100,000 square
feet worth of building there, so let's ... I would hope that the comments
that we share with you this evening are reasonable, and get to the point, and
do not deal with hypotheticals which are not before you this evening. I will
be very brief in reviewing with you, if I may, the process which has lead to
us being here this evening. It is a process that we feel is essential to
protect the record, to read into the record. It is rather short. I would
like to do it as fast as we can. The first hearing that our clients, as
owners of this property had relative to this particular parcel of land, took
place June 19, 1984. The first hearing before the Heritage Conservation Board
was June 19, 1984. At that time, the proposal of the applicant was approved
unanimously 5 to 0. The second hearing was June 30, 1984, by the Planning
Advisory Board, concerning the preliminary application for the major use
permit. At that time, the Planning Advisory Board recommended approval of the
preliminary application by a 7 to 0 vote. This is the 260,000 square foot
proposal that I referred to earlier. On June 28, 1984, the City Commission
approved the preliminary application for major use permit. On August 31,
1984, the Planning Department recommended in a glowing tribute to the project,
in excess of eight pages, approval of the proposed major use permit, including
Id 88 March 27, 1986
an analysis of traffic, ec,nomic impact, and public works, etc. The City
Commission, on September 20, 1.:Q4 approved a proposal on first reading by a 4
to 1 vote. At that meeting, the City Commission suggested to the applicant
that the art pavilion be only one story, that there be additional landscaping
along Peacock Perk, f-.hat the height limitation on penthouse structures near
the shoreline be limited and that the applicant agree to plant palms and
construct a boardwalk in Peacock Park. These suggestions were subsequently
incorporated into the application. On September 23rd, the local newspapers
published editorials endorsing the Commodore Bay proposal. The item was
continued on October 24, 1984. I think many of you will remember that date
explicitly. Due to technical questions from the opponents, on November 15th
of 1984, the Commission continued the items so that the Law Department could
make a ruling on the legality of the application. At that time, we, together
with the Law Department and other interested parties decided to submit a new
application which was done on December 6, 1984. On December 12, 1984, the
City Commission denied the application. On February 28, 1985, the City
Commission waived the time limitations of 18 months between applications, and
on May 1, 1985, a revised application was submitted to you, this time lowering
the project size to approximately 240,000 feet, with a smaller project, and
including the things that had earlier been asked for. The Heritage Conserva-
tion Board this time, the same individuals sitting on the Board, denied the
application, also unanimously, when they had earlier endorsed it unanimously,
5 to 0. The Planning Department, on July 56, 1985, gave a second recommenda-
tion, again in favor of the application. On July 15, 1985, the Zoning Board
voted on a motion for approval, 4 votes in favor, 3 against, and it died for
lack of an appropriate number of votes. On July 17, 1985, the Planning
Advisory Board voted on a motion, which tied by a 3 to 3 vote, therefore
constituting a recommendation of denial. On September 12, 1985, when we were
to be before the City Commission, Mayor Ferre distributed a letter requesting
a mandatory roadway through Peacock Park, to be constructed by the applicant.
There was no time to discuss the matter prior to the meeting with the Mayor
and applicant was unprepared on that issue on such short notice, and withdrew
their request. The City Commission, even though the item had been withdrawn,
heard testimony from Mr. Ted Slack, the City's appraiser, who, at that time,
stated that the property rezoned as requested by the applicant, would be worth
approximately $6,700,000. The value of the property under the current zon-
ing, according to Mr. Slack, was $1,900,000, and that became embedded into the
record. One of the concerns that we have, is that this process received what
we considered to be an appropriate administrative review dealing exclusively
with land issues. Let me, if I can, before I proceed, clarify two matters
which were brought into the record by the Planning Department. One was a
letter from the South Florida Regional Planning Council, which recommended
upon a review of our application, in conjunction with the existing comprehen-
sive master plan, that you deny our application. Here is what the South
Florida Regional Planning Council said, and it is very important. Please
listen to this sentence.
"The proposed change from mixed use and residential to mixed use may
unduly impact the area facilities."
The South Florida Regional Planning Council did not review this project from a
single family residential to a total project of SPI-2. The only authority, or
area of jurisdiction that they allowed themselves, or that legally had, as
well as the Department of Community Affairs, by the way, was to take a look
at your comprehensive master plan, and to take a look at what we were propos-
ing. They never said that this property should not be zoned in accordance
with the comprehensive master plan. As a matter of fact, they took it for
granted that you should not change from mixed use and residential, to strictly
mixed use, and that is the wording of their letter, a copy of which is part of
the public record, because it was forward to the City. The second comment...
Mayor Suarez: Counselor, you just...
Mr. Cardenas: Yes.
Mayor Suarez: ...talking about the Department of Community affairs?
Mr. Cardenas: That was the South Florida Regional Planning Counsel. I will
now get to the Department of Community Affairs. After the letter...
Mayor Suarez: Let me ask you a question, as long as you are talking about the
South Florida Regional Planning Council. What authority would they have
had... what jurisdiction, rather, would they have had over this?
Id 89 March 27, 1986
i
Mr. Cardenas: Strictly advisory, at this stage. The Department of Community
Affairs, again, Mayor - Mr. Bob Kessler, forwarded a letter to the City
Planning Director, Mr. Sergio Rodriguez. In that letter, Mr. Kessler also
indicated that a proposed request would be an incompatible land use situa-
tion, based again on the comprehensive master plan, but Mr. Kessler's letter
confused me, because in it, he made reference to Mr. Rodriguez that he was
forwarding a number of documents, which had been forwarded to him in support,
or in conjunction with the request for a recommendation. I took it, when I
read the letter, that it could be implied that he took into consideration all
of the deliberations that were transcribed and forwarded to him, in coming up
r
with his opinion, and therefore, in order to clarify the matter this past
Monday, I personally visited with Mr. Kessler in Tallahassee, accompanied by
one of my clients - one of the applicants, Mr. Howard Scharlin, who is also an
attorney. We both visited with Mr. Kessler for an hour and one-half, together
with a Miss Dana Minerva, who is the attorney in the Department of Community
Affairs reviewing this matter, and they both assured me that the only docu-
ments which they took into consideration in preparing their letter were the
comprehensive master plan of the City of Miami, and our application, and that
none of the things which we discussed with them over that hour and one-half,
nor any of the documents or supporting data that were forwarded to them by the
City of Miami, or Dade County were taken into consideration by them, because
they had no jurisdiction to take these matters into consideration. As a matter
of fact, both Miss Minerva and Mr. Kessler assured us that until such time as
in 1987, or 1988, that the Department of Community Affairs ratifies the City's
submitted local comprehensive master plan, pursuant to the new growth manage-
ment act, they have no jurisdiction whatsoever on whatever it is you do with
this application; that the State has no teeth, they have no jurisdiction, they
cannot be enjoined in a lawsuit, I can't sue them, you can't sue them, for
their recommendations. They are really recommendations. They have three
provisions of the local comprehensive management plan. Those three provi-
sions each have different areas of jurisdiction. The area of State jurisdic-
tion, dealing with State sanctions, or State jurisdiction, or a decision
which you make, which is not in conjunction with their recommendations, has
to do with the particular section of the local comprehensive management act
that deals with the certification of your comprehensive plan, until to make a
long story short, such time as they certify in Tallahassee your local compre-
hensive plan, which they will do eventually, I presume, in 1987, or 1988,
that particular provision of the State law is not applicable to the City of
Miami, or to anyone under similar circumstances, so there is no jurisdiction,
there is no cause and effect, there is nothing whatsoever in the State act,
which in any way prevents you from making whichever decision you wish to make
this evening. Now, let me, if I may, now that hopefully I have clarified the
record, get into the merits of my client's presentation. The first thing that
I want to do is to discuss Coconut Grove since 1974. In 1974, as a matter of
fact, Jack Luft, who is the author of your Coconut Grove neighborhood study,
did two things. They recommended at that time, intense mixed used with
commercial development, along with what they considered to be the village
center streets. One of the village center streets mentioned in the 1974 study
=
was Main Highway, where our property fronts. They recommended mixed us for
=
Main Highway at that time. They also did another thing. As part of the
goals and objectives of the neighborhood study of 1974, they suggested that
o
our client's property be purchased as park in the future, and that was your
1974 Coconut Grove neighborhood study. That is the first document during the
last 12 years which dealt with this particular property. Subsequent to that,
however, in 1976, you and the City of Miami adopted a comprehensive master
plan, which still rules to this day. That particular comprehensive master
plan provides that the part of our property fronting Main Highway be designat-
_
ed as what is now known as SPI-2. The remainder of the property, your compre-
hensive master plan is designated for low density residential up to 7 units
per acre. That is what you did in 1976. I forwarded as a result of that, a
_
letter to the City Attorney, and copies to you, which has been incidentally
responded to by the Assistant City Attorney, and in that letter, I quoted
provisions of State law, and I will get into that later, excuse me - which
basically says that you must comply in your zoning atlas, with what you
designated for in your comprehensive master plan, and the City Attorney, in a
partially correct way, responded, "Yes, but that is a future plan, and within
that 10 year period of time we have a right to act. We must not act immedi-
ately to ... and there is some case law which supports that, including a City
of Jacksonville case." Where I disagree, and I think the courts disagree, and
I guess we will find out one way or the other, in that particular version, is
in a very simple situation, and that is that all of the case law, which I
n
ld 90 March 27, 1986
,.
i
know, which is pretty strict on this subject, says that you must eventually
have a zoning atlas comport with the comprehensive master plan. There is a
provision, and there is case law which says "yes", but municipalities have a
right to have a scaled up version, in other words, you don't have to get to
the future, meaning 10 years, I presume, since that is the time span for your
master plan - you don't have to get the future immediately. Well, that is
fine, but the future is now. This comprehensive master plan was adopted in
1976. It is now 1986. It is the end of the time period for the comprehensive
master plan. There is no longer the argument that you can scale upwards -
that you can take a step by step in increasing the intensity which the compre-
hensive master plan calls for, and that the zoning atlas does not comport
with. Let me however, tell you how inconsistent a view point of scaling up to
a zoning request it is in connection with what else you have been doing
throughout the central part of Coconut Grove. There are three major studies
done during the past three years, all of which have been adopted by the City
Commission. One, is the Dinner Key Plan study. That Dinner Key Plan study
called for increased pedestrian traffic, a promenade linking the village
center, Peacock Park, all the way to what is now known as the Monte Trainer's
property, and the Underwood Marina area, and creating a true pedestrian
traffic flow so that there is a linkage to people and the bay for the enjoy-
ment of all the people in the Grove. In addition to the Dinner Key study
which calls for a more intense development of the area, and gave particular
credence to the commercial development of the bay area, you have the 27th
Avenue Area study. That area study has in fact, modified your comprehensive
master plan, and what has it done. It has increased the intensity of the
comprehensive master plan. It has increased its intensity considerably
because it in effect has said "You know we have planned for a 10 year period
of time, but things have become more intense than we expected, and we are
going to be even more intense in the density of the Grove that we were at the
time that we adopted the master plan in 1976. There is a third study which
you adopted. That third study is known as the Bayshore Area study, which
incidentally, gets to the boundary line of our property, up to and including
Peacock Park. That South Bayshore Drive Area study, which is also adopted and
is now part of your zoning code, increased considerably - increased consider-
ably the intensity of the development that you have in the South Bayshore
area. In addition to that, I researched the record, and recently (this is
recently) there have been 17 zoning changes in the Coconut Grove area adopted
by the City of Miami, which in effect, have increased the intensity called for
in the comprehensive master plan. There has not been one zoning decision
which has decreased the intensity called for in the comprehensive master
plan, and those are the Abitare, the second one was the S.W. 27th Avenue,
between Bird Road and 28th Street. In 1977, Oak and Virginia Townhouses;
October 17, 1979, 3215 Aviation; October, 1980, Aviation between Tigertail
and South Bayshore - Tigertail behind South Bayshore; September of 1983, 27th
between Bird and Andros; 1983, Gifford House between Abaco and Aviation;
October of 1983, Tigertail, Grand Bay Office Tower; November of 1983, you
changed the SPI-3 district height limits, which increased intensity; in
January of 1985, the Grand Bay Hotel facing Tigertail; in January of 1985,
Tigertail between Darwin and Aviation; January of 1985, you allowed an F.A.R.
bonus along South Bayshore Drive. That was part of the study adopted in 1985.
Aviation and Bird you changed on February 14, 1985; Tigertail and 27th in late
1984 or 1985; north of Day Avenue between Center Street and 27th in the spring
of 1985, and now you have the proposed 27th Avenue plan.
Mayor Suarez: Counselor.
Mr. Cardenas: Yes, sir.
Mayor Suarez: Let me interrupt you for a second. You said there were 17
zoning changes?
Mr. Cardenas: Increasing the intensity in the central...
Mayor Suarez: Beyond the comprehensive master plan, and none that were
decreased...?
Mr. Cardenas: That is correct. None that reduced the intensity of the
comprehensive master plan.
Mayor Suarez: Why would anyone come to this Commission and ask to have the
intensity reduced under the comprehensive master plan?
Id 91 March 27, 1986
t2� �. 'LaRL�a:.i.Y3�`-. �• .e' �-'� y_y. .i . _ .. ... �"' %�+ �C W
Mr. Cardenas: No, the point being, Mr. Mayor, that it was a feeling in the
City of Miami ... there was a feeling in the public body of the City of Miami
that the intensity levels called for were higher than needed. There could
have been a decision made by this Commission to roll back the zoning on
properties. That was never done by this Commission, and that omission, Mr.
Mayor, I think, indicates that you have been quite satisfied with the compre-
hensive master plan. You adopted it, you increased it upwards, but you have
never increased it downwards. The only property in the central part of
Coconut Grove, which is not in keeping, in other words, its zoning is less
intense than called for in the comprehensive master plan, is our client's
property. Now, let me bring to your attention a little bit, what else you
have done here. Our client's parcel, right here... let me read into the
record the abutting part of the parcel. Our client's parcel is the only zoned
single family parcel in the village center eastward. There is no other single
family zoned parcel from our property eastward. There is no other single
family zoned parcel which faces what know as the Coconut Grove village center.
As we know, Coconut Grove has become an activity center for all walks of
life - the village center especially so. People go to the village center to
enjoy the things that we are familiar with. The Grove's retail mass is small,
and yet it must compete with higher, intenser uses elsewhere. The inclusion
of this particular parcel as an SPI-2 district parcel will enhance the synergy
that is created, that is already there, that will allow the Coconut Grove to
compete successfully with other commercial areas. This property that is owned
by our clients, Mr. Mayor, has been zoned single family since 1931. Other
properties in the same area which were previously zoned single family are now
commercially and multifamily. This is the only piece of land which fronts
Main Highway, abuts a bay shore area, and is a part of a village center, which
has not been changed. I also want to bring to your attention things which
the City has done, that if at one time, this property was appropriately zoned
single family because of the actions of the public body for the benefit of the
community which have been taken, has made it totally undesirable for single
family purposes, and I refer, of course, to Peacock Park, which directly abuts
our client's property. I think the activities in Peacock Park are well known
by all of us. There are night softball games 4 or 5 times per week, mostly
year around. Over 100 teams play iiz Peacock Park from approximately 7:00 p.m.
to 11:00 P.M. This property abuts what the City proposes to be a single
family residential development. There are major festivals in Coconut Grove -
25,000 to 75,000 people, sometimes. These are held yearly. Let me give you
some examples. For three days there is the Coconut Grove Art Festival. The
police estimated that there were 1,000,000 total people enjoying this festi-
val, 75,000 in Peacock Park. Now, as you know, during those three days, the
streets are blocked off. You could not get in a car to or from our client's
property. If that was a single family development, I would like to know what
Jane and Joe Doe and their three kids and two cats and station wagon would do
to get to and from their house. Let me, if I may, pass around pictures which
are self evident relative to the kind of people intense activities that go on
right in front of our client's property, which is currently designated for
single family use.
Mayor Suarez: I would like Planning, when we get to the completion of the
applicant's case to answer that question. Silly as it sounds, but how would
people get to their homes in that area during those times of the festivals, if
we had single family homes there?
Mr. Dawkins: See, I would like for you to tell me too - it would be the same
way that they would get to the other planned development if it was there,
wouldn't it?
Mr. Cardenas: If I may go on, I think you will hear shortly from one of the
experts who will testify as to why there will be a major difference between
the users of the mixed use project, as compared to single family residents,
but let me, if I may, go on. There was a P.A.C.E. Big Orange Festival con-
cert. That was held in February of 1986. That had 35,000 to 40,000 people at
Peacock Park. Taste of The Grove had 20 to 30 food booths. That had 50,000
people. The Coconut Grove Bed Race, and a large concert, that was in May of
1986, it is scheduled for. The Goombay Festival - exhibits, food, and con-
certs, June and July. That is a two day festival. The Banyon Festival is a
two day festival. Octoberfest, P.A.C.E. free concerts. The festival in
Peacock Park, University of Miami benefit. March of Dimes, Antique Auto Show,
Easter Egg Bunt, Billfish Tournament, American Biker's Association, Sen
thousand bikers rally and have a food concert in Peacock Park. The French
Independence Day, King Mango Strut, Chamber of Commerce, Waitress -Waiter
Id 92 March 27, 1986
IN
Race, and so on and so forth. The number of festivals that we have take over
36 days out of the calendar year that you would ifiterrupt seriously those who
would desire single family type ambience. In addition to that, you physically
close the streets, prohibiting ingress and egress for a total of seven days -
out of the year, and the way things are going, it will be more and more as the
years go on, and these festivals become more popular. A major component of
the recently adopted Dinner Key Master Plan is the creation of Bayfront Prome-
nade, which I pointed out earlier, linking Peacock Park to Kennedy Park. The
Promenade is intended to create public spaces at certain strategic locations.
The development of Commodore Bay will help initiate implementation of a bay
shore promenade concept, and will extend the concept to provide public bay
front access to the proposed urban square. Many in the City finally, oppose _
commercial activity anywhere on this property, yet in similarly situated
publicly owned tracts, this City has granted the private sector leases for
commercial development activities, such as Monty Trainer's, the Chart House,
J.P.'s, Merrill Steven's Dockage, Grove Key Marina, Bayside, and others. I _
will discuss this issue and the legal ramifications that the City faces when
allowing publicly owned land for uses that it does not permit Eor public
sector activities. Let me, if I can, deal now directly with our property. I
think we have discussed amply, Coconut Grove, where it has been, what has
happened here in the last 12 years, the studies that the City has adopted, and
in essence, I think, the flavor we have depicted, and I hope we have depicted,
is that Coconut Grove has become an exciting, busy, active place, that if you
drive through Main Highway in front of our client's property at 4:00 p.m. in
the afternoon, or at 1:00 p.m. in the morning, the same intense pedestrian
vehicular traffic is there. These are not activities that a single family
neighborhood calls for. As a matter of fact, you in the City of Miami, the
closest property, which is south of our client's property, facing Main High-
way, and also extending to the bay, you rezoned that to a more intense resi-
dential use to townhouse. That was the Avitare property. The other single
family property, which is south of that, which still remains from Main Highway
to Bayshore, which is then outside the village center, and demographically,
really has nothing to do similarly with our client's property, has been a
total commercial failure, and there is an expert here to tell you that,
because, the intensity of the uses nearby does not permit that to be a suc-
cessful single family neighborhood. Let me, if I can, discuss the subject
property's characteristics. This is a 6.3 acre piece of property. SPI-2
designation, as you know, is supposed to be to strengthen... here is reading
from the City's zoning code:
"SPI-2 district, intent. Within the commercial center of Coconut Grove,
it is special and substantial public interest to strengthen the unique
historic and cultural character. It is further intended to encourage
activities, arrangements and amenities generating pedestrian street
lights, cultural art facilities appropriate to the area, and noted site
planning and architectural design, and to create opportunities for com-
bining residential and nonresidential uses in a pattern minimizing poten-
tial adverse effects of such combinations."
You have already in your master plan 10 years ago agreed that part of our
properties should be SPI-2. Let me respectfully suggest-. ; Nit-. w; th all of the
studies that you have conducted that calls for an increased intensity of uses
in Coconut Grove, that it is now high time that this property be all zoned
SPI-2. Let me tell you why the RS-1 zoning is inappropriate to our particu-
lar property. No large single family estate home sites are currently adjacent
to the property, so the present single family state would be an example of
reverse spot zoning. The density currently allowed on this site is improper
and arbitrary, based on the currently allowed zoning in other adjacent or
nearby properties - Peacock Park situation, which I just mentioned to you.
We are 500 feet from South Bayshore Drive, which is zoned high rise intense
development with office buildings, banks, restaurants, clubs, hotels, apart-
ments. We are not contiguous to any parcel zoned RS-1/1. We are bounded on
the east by the bay, on the northeast by existing public park zoning - Peacock
Park, and on the southwest by existing zoning where the Barnacle is. The
border on Main Highway is central business district of Coconut Grove. The
predominant character of the area is a business district. There is a strong
relationship between the central business district and the Commodore Bay
property, while the nearest residential parcel to the southwest is a planned
townhouse development known as Avitare. This is buffered by the Barnacle
State historic site. The site for this proposed development is near the
publicly owned Dinner Key waterfront on the south. It will have no direct
visual impact whatsoever on any Coconut Grove residential single family
ld 93 March 27, 1986
ON
neighborhood. The gradual development of the village center as a significant
activity center is certainly contemplated. A low density single family
subdivision is no longer appropriate on the subject property. I mentioned to
you the characteristics of the abutting and surrounding properties. I men-
tioned to you the growth of the Grove, and I also mentioned to you the things
that you in the City have done to make this a not so palatable single family
neighborhood, and what the City has done, in case by case, is approved more
festivals, more activities on Main Highway, which are of tremendous interest
to this community, and the right thing to do. In the meantime, as you have
created a higher intense level of participation, you have, in effect, made the
single family residential zoning non -palatable and unacceptable. There were
other things which have been said before.
Mayor Suarez: Let me just interrupt you very quickly.
Mr. Cardenas: Yes, sir.
Mayor Suarez: You mentioned all the abutting areas, except for one, the bay.
Mr. Cardenas: Which one?
Mayor Suarez: The bay! The water.
Mr. Cardenas: Right, that is correct. It is the same water, Mr. Mayor, if I
may, where there is J. P.'s4 Monty Trainer's - now a proposed development
adjacent to Monty Trainer's, and 1 would presume the Chart House, and I would
presume, based on the Dinner Key master plan study, even greater increased
commercial activities. Let me, if I may now, introduce to you our expert
witness, who will deal with this particular subject matter in a concise fash-
ion, but will introduce evidence which is very important for us. First, I
would like to introduce to you Mr. Paul Stutsman. Mr. Stutsman is president
and director of Stutsman Design Group, Inc. He has got a bachelor's degree in
civil engineering from Purdue University, juris doctor from Indiana University
School of Law. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Plan-
ners, a registered professional engineer in Florida, member of the American
Planning Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers, Florida Engi-
neering Society, the National Society of Professional Engineers, and President
of the South Florida Chapter for the Florida Planning and Zoning Association,
and a vice-president of the State Association. He and his firm have prepared
local government comprehensive plans for several cities in Dade and Broward
counties, and he has written zoning ordinances and land use regulations for
several of these communities. He directed the preparation of the Downtown
Development Plan, including the river front protection design for Fort
Lauderdale, and has prepared many planning studies for Dade County and for
private clients. Mr. Stutsman, will you join us, please.
Mr. Paul Stutsman: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, for the record, I am Paul
Stutsman, with offices at 7925 N.W. 12th Street, Suite 102 in Miami, and that
is the firm of Stutsman Design Group, where I am president. For purposes of
conciseness and accuracy, I would like to read my comments. They are only a
couple of pages, and they will go very quickly.
"In preparation for commenting on the proposal to amend the City of Miami
comprehensive plan and rezone the land to permit a mixed use development
on the Commodore Bay site, I have reviewed the location, the comprehen-
sive plan recommendations for the area. Also, I have read and evaluated
the planning fact sheet, and the zoning fact sheet prepared by the Plan-
ning Department of the City, and the comments of the staffs of the South
Florida Regional Planning Council, and the Florida Department of Communi-
ty Affairs. This study and evaluation by me is supplemented by 20 years
of experience of enjoying the restaurants, and shops and the events in
the Grove, and of commuting in the 60's and 70's up from Old Cutler Road
to Main Highway and Bayshore through the district. It was my pleasure
to enjoy that during those years. From an urban planning point of view,
this effort has resulted in two broad conclusions being reached. First,
the site of the Commodore Bay Project is no longer suitable for low
density, residential development, a designation, which today appears to
be a relic of the past. Second. the site is an ideal location for a low
profile, mixed use development, connecting the Grove Center to the water-
front and the park system. This site is no longer suitable for single
family residential housing and it is incorrect to continue the planned
designation of low density residential, and the zoning of RS-1/1, one
ld 94 March 27, 1986
family detached residential for several reasons. One, the designation of
this site for low density residential is inconsistent with the develop-
ment of the surrounding Coconut Grove Village Center, as a diversified
activity center. Two, the high level of business, restaurant, and spe-
cial event activity in the immediate area is incompatible with low densi-
ty residential housing. Three, the adjacent Peacock Park, is one of the x
most active recreational facilities in the City of Miami, and its host
of activities, including night softball, festivals, concerts, and so
forth, would make it a nuisance to an adjacent single family residential --
development. Four, security needs in the area would require any low
density residential development to be surrounded by a wall, and this
would not only prevent public access to the waterfront, but would effec-
tively separate the existing park and the historic site. Five, the
adjacent school and church are high intensity uses, generating heavy
peak hour traffic, which is incompatible with the development of single
family housing on neighboring land. There are several positive urban
design achievements and public policy benefits, which would result from
the use of this site for a mixed use development of a type permitted
under the SPI-2 Coconut Grove central commercial district zoning. These
benefits include one, a pedestrian linkage of Main Highway and Commodore
Plaza to the bay front would be created. A boardwalk, pedestrian way
along the bay front to Peacock Park, and connecting Peacock Park with the
Barnacle State historic site can be achieved. Two, a mixed use project
under SPI-2, will offer a creative mix of residential, retail, cultural
and entertainment activities, which is consistent with good urban design
in general, and with the adjacent SPI-2 zoning districts specifically.
Three, the housing type to be developed as part of a mixed use develop-
ment will be inherently more affordable than low density, single family _
units, developed in accordance with existing zoning. Four, the site
remains physically separated from all the nearby single family neighbor-
hoods, consequently, there will be no direct adverse visual impacts, and
five, proper site planning under SPI-2 zoning permits the avoidance of
significant disruption to the existing hammock on the site, whereas the
hammock would be destroyed by the development of single family housing.
It should be noted, in conclusion, that the proposed plan amendment and
the rezoning will control the use and intensity of development of the
site. Any plans required by the City, and its subsequent step in the
permitting process and development will address the design matters."
Thank you.
Mr. Cardenas: Thank you, Paul. He will be available later for any questions
or comments from staff. I would like to clear the record on one thing, Mr.
Mayor, and that is that I had made statement that no other property was zoned
single family abutting or near our client's property. As a matter of fact,
next door to us, the school and church property, I believe are still zoned in
the zoning atlas as residential, but of course, what I meant was that no
property was being given to single family use, and I think that the use of a
school and the church, we all realize the intensive use that it is. It is
certainly not a single family type of use. I'd like to next introduce Mr.
Miles Moss, who is president of Miles Moss and Associates. He is a registered
professional engineer - transportation consulting engineer, previously em-
ployed by the Metro -Dade County Department of Traffic and Transportation for
12 years - safety project engineer, acting safety engineer, and so forth. He
has been a consulting engineer for the past four years, specializing in
transportation, safety, and traffic impact analysis. He is winner of the out-
standing citizen award from Dade County Citizen's Safety Council.. I would
like to introduce at this time, Mr. Miles Moss.
Mr. Miles Moss: Thank you very much, and I will try to be as brief as possi-
ble. I have had the opportunity previously to review this project in terms of
Commodore Bay, and the various reports that were generated as far as what was
proposed. I reviewed the current status of the proposed zoning change, and
assuming the use of this property would be less than the requirements for a
special use permit, or up to the actual amounts shown and previously submit-
ted, the impact of this development, we have determined, will not reduce the
level of service at the intersection of Main Highway and Commodore Plaza, nor
at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Main Highway and McFarland Road. In
addition to signalization of the Main Highway, Commodore Plaza intersection,
this project would not adversely affect the level of service at this inter-
section, and would substantially increase the level of safety, especially for
pedestrian traffic. A substantial percentage of the present usage on Main
ld 95 March 27, 1986
Highway are through trips and do not begin or end in the Coconut Grove area,
but travel this route because of the aesthetics in the area. Alternate
routes, such as travel on U.S. 1, South Dixie Highway, provide as good, or
better service for these through trips. It is for this reason that traffic
generated by this proposed development, or by other developments approved by
the City in this area, would not generate as much new traffic on the roadways,
as they will tend to displace through traffic to other roadways. Some esti-
mates have been as high as 80 percent of the traffic utilizing this area, are
actually through trips traveling through the area. As the saturation contin-
ues, you end up displacing existing trips that are traveling through the area.
Should the proposed development meet the requirements of a major use special
permit, a detail analysis of this special specific site plan and development
composition will have to be made. In summary, or review, indicates thatthis
proposed zoning change will probably not cause any deterioration to the levels
of service of the area roadways, and probably only cause a displacement of
these through trips to the area itself.
Mr. Cardenas: Thank you, Mr. Moss. While we are in the traffic issue, I
would like to point out that there are other projects which the City is
contemplating in Coconut Grove at this time, that will generate considerably
more traffic, such as the Coconut Grove Playhouse parking lot, and others. I _
am sure that we all realize that different treatment cannot be given from an
impact point of view, in considering projects that have a quasi, or full
public purpose, as compared to those that have a private purpose. We believe
that we are an integral part of the Grove, we are part of the village center.
It is facing some decisions that have to be made, but we are going to be part i
of that component. We will be part of the answers. We will be part of the
solutions, and we are also part of the questions that need to be answered, but
to be treated differently than the rest, would not be an appropriate thing to
do. Let me, if I can now, introduce the third and last of our expert witness-
es, Mr. Jack Katsicos. Jack is a member of the Appraisal and Real Estate
Economics Associates, Inc., a company headed by Michael Cannon. Michael
Cannon is past governor of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers. He has
served on 11 society's international committees, including chairman of four of
them. He holds the society's senior real estate analyst designation, as well as a number of others. He has been in the consulting and finance business in
Miami, real estate analysis, for 25 years, and his firm publishes the
A.R.E.E.A. report for South Florida. It is a concise 20 page monthly publica-
tion which tracks real property activity in Florida through his association
with Mr. Charles Kimball, economic advisor. Additionally, he has written
numerous articles and reports which have been published, in local, state, and
national press. He has been an instructor in real estate analysis at the
University of Miami, and Florida International University. He has also been
an expert witness in real estate matters in U.S. District and Circuit Courts. _
With us today is Mr. Jack Katsicos, of that firm, who is a commercial real
estate appraiser. From December, 1980, to August of 1985, Mr. Katsicos was a
real estate appraiser for Dade County Property Appraiser's office. His last —
position held with Dade County was a supervisor of the income analysis sec-
tion. Mr. Katsicos.
Mr. Jack Katsicos: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and fellow City Commissioners. I
apologize once again for the president of the company not being able to make
it here. I will try and read this is quickly, but legibly as I can.
"This is a summary opinion and commentary relating to the economic impact
and market perception of the property located at 3461 Main Highway,
Coconut Grove. Areas of opinion and comments are based upon extensive
studies conducted over the past two years on the subject property, as
well as extensive studies performed on several other properties in Coco-
nut Grove over the past 10 years. From an economic and market stand-
point, we believe there are two essential questions here. Question
number one, is the current zoning use as RS-1/1 appropriate? Is it
economically viable and what is its impact? Question number two, is the
proposed zoning category SPI-2, is it appropriate, and is it economically
viable, and what would its impact be. Area concludes that in answer to
question number one, the RS-1/1 zoning for the subject parcel will allow
a maximum 24 single family detached homes located on a minimum lot size
of 10,000 square feet. Single family detached homes would not be an
appropriate use for the following basic reasons - there would be located
across from and adjacent to retail commercial uses, which attract great
numbers of pedestrians day and night, who shop and walk to the village
center. Secondly, the parcel is adjacent to Peacock Park, as was said
ld
96 March 27, 1986
before, which is one of Greater Miami's most intensely used parks and it
is considered that this would be a nuisance to some of the single tangly
owners there, if it were developed as such. Single family detached homes
would not be a viable use for the following reasons - marketability
studies conducted related to buyer preference reveal that purchasers in
the price range that would have to be developed upon the 24 single family
sites would reject this location because the parcel lacks exclusivity,
security, seclusion, quiet, enjoyable lifestyle, and solitude. Sec-
ondly, development, such as Camp Biscayne, Avitare, and 'L Hermitage,
which are not located adjacent to and across from retail commercial
sites, have, in our experience seen low sales and poor market response,
due to their similar location and luxurious price range. Single family
detached homes, if developed, would have a negative impact upon the
immediate area for the following basic reasons - first, public access to
the bay, which is very important, would be excluded. Bay front use would
only be accessible to the 24 single family home owners there. Secondly,
public access to the water and connection with the City's proposed water
promenade, linking Peacock Park to the Barnacle would be restricted and
estopped, and finally, single family detached homes would not contribute
to the retail commercial establishments, nor would this concept be cohe-
sive with the St. Stephen's Day School. In regard to question number
two, is the proposed zoning, SPI-2, appropriate, economically viable, and
what is its impact area concludes the following - a mixed used develop-
ment consisting of retail -commercial, including shops, restaurants,
offices, and moderate priced residential apartments would be an appro-
priate use for the following basic reasons - nationwide mixed use devel-
opments are increasing in popularity, as further migration to centralized
locations, such as Coconut Grove continues. In the future, mixed use
development should continue to gain in popularity, as more people migrate
back to urban areas and there are many examples of this throughout Dade
County. Secondly, the size and cohesiveness of the Grove village center _
retail district is approximately five walking blocks. Commodore Bay's
location within the central district would increase the variety of shops,
restaurants, and cafes provided, all of which cater to the strolling
patron who visits the Grove to shop, eat, drink and enjoy the village
scene both day and night. Thirdly, Coconut Grove has become an activity
center for all walks of life. Those who go into the Grove enjoy its
artistic nature, attractions, festivals, restaurants and shops, parks,
and marinas which overlook Biscayne Bay and the Dinner Key waterfront.
A mixed use development would include restaurants, shops, and residen-
tial apartments, would continue to reinforce the image of Coconut
Grove."
It is just one and one-half pages more. Hold on.
"The mixed use concept would be..."
Mr. Plummer: How much more do you have?
Mr. Katsicos: One and one-half pages.
Mr. Plummer: You know - excuse me, Mr. Mayor, I realize what is
being done. I think we all realize what is being done here. Mr. Cardenas,
you told us 45 minutes. The Code says you have 10 minutes. Only with special —
exception can you go beyond, and I am now tired of hearing the repetition. I
have heard the Peacock Park is the most active park, and for that I am damn
glad, but I am tired of hearing it from every speaker. Now, you know, if you
want to establish a record, you can do it in writing, and you can surrender it
to the Clerk, and that is a part of the document of law, for which you can
base your lawsuit. If somebody has something new to say, I am willing to
listen, but the last three speakers that I have heard have been very, very
repetitious.
Mr. Cardenas: How about a deal? How about giving me three minutes for my
conclusion?
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me?
Mr. Cardenas: How about giving me three minutes for my conclusion?
Mr. Dawkins: You know,
case, and your have buil
t
I am just like Plummer. I know you are building a
your case, and I don't mind your going to court,
ld
97
March 27, 1986
OK?... if that is where you want to go, but I mean, these people want to be
heard too, Al, and I am not going to stay here until midnight!
Mr. Plummer: I accept your deal - three minutes.
Mrs. Kennedy: Let me tell, you...
Mr. Cardenas: Thank you very much. In my conclusion, let me say the follow-
ing.
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, let the record reflect that anything that you wish to
surrender in writing to the Clerk to establish your record, you are welcome to
do.
Mr. Cardenas: Thank you, thank you, Mr. Plummer. There are three tempting
reasons for denial here. I don't know one of them that is legal, however.
One reason for denial that I can think of the requested application is the
fact that there are many important influential and active leaders of various
interest groups here advocating park, the retaining of a pristine state to
satisfy the environment of the nearby school, and there are some environmental
advocates, who have also expressed their concern over the development of this _
property. Let me, if I may, add that to make a decision to satisfy these
important leaders of the community and deny this application on that basis, as
we know, would not be legal or appropriate. There is a second tempting reason
I could think of why we may want to consider denying this application. That, _
of course, would be that both the City and the State have expressed in
writing that they want the site for a park. The State Conservation and
Recreation Land Program has already issued an R.F.P. for two appraisers. They
have listed their property with the Department of Natural Resources to be
acquired and the City has taken similar steps. To deny the application based
on those intentions, as good or worthwhile as they may be, as we know, is also
not legal or appropriate. There is a third reason that is tempting in order
to deny this application. That third reason would be that the City is facing -
a very difficult situation with its budget and with its tax base. As such,
it needs as much revenue as possible. There are a number of City public
properties that are currently used for commercial purposes along the bayfront. �-
I cited some of them earlier during my presentation, such as Bayside, Monty
Trainer's, Underwood Marine Development and in the future, perhaps, Virginia
Key and Watson Island. Let me, at this time, say that to think of restrict-
ing commercial activity to publicly owned lands and depriving private lands
that are similarly situated would also be, although albeit public purpose,
would be a wrong legal purpose. Let me, if I can, get to the final aspect of
my conclusion, which I suppose some of you are most interested in, and that is
a legal rationale for why this application cannot be denied. One, is poten-
tial antitrust concerns that this City must have. The City's Bayside,
Underwood Marina, Monty Trainer's, Playhouse, Watson Island and other projects -_
have been receiving consideration, treatment and handling through administra-
tive process for the public good. But as far as that is concerned, we all
realize that you cannot treat the public sector in the decision making process
any differently than you treat yourselves. There are some basic antitrust
provisions in the Act and in case law that I strongly urge you to consult
with your City Attorney on. Those things are there for a reason. It's not
right to treat us differently than the public sector. There are also some
civil rights issues involved here. The fact that your reasoning in zoning our
property cannot be arbitrary and confiscatory. We cannot have unequal treat -
went before the law. Before and after our turndown here there have been many
approvals of other zoning changes in our area. The Bayshore redistricting, -
27th Avenue, etc., etc. To deny us the same right to have appropriate zoning
in view of the situation in the Grove would not be appropriate. This consti-
tutes spot zoning in reverse, to not allow us the zoning which we are re-
questing. There is also inverse condemnation. Inverse condemnation says
that to deprive us of an economically viable use of our property is inverse
condemnation. We believe that if your Master Plan calls for a specific zoning
and you are not providing us with that zoning after ten years of it being in
existence, that that constitutes inverse condemnation if you continue it on
that basis. The unsuitability for single family due to City actions, Peacock
Park, jazz festivals, and others; the unsuitability for single family resi-
dents because of the existing conditions which have been permitted, the
school, State etc. The requested zoning is compatible with the
neighborhood uses. It is less than the original Commodore Bay Plan and it's
in compliance with the Master Plan. So, in conclusion, let me say the fol-
lowing. You have really two choices.
Mayor Suarez: This is the final conclusion. Right?
Mr. Cardenas: That's right. You have two choices.
Mrs. Kennedy: Al, this is an overkill.
Mr. Cardenas: You can vote to approve or deny our request for application.
Second, at the very least, you can zone the property in accordance with the
Comprehensive Master Plan, which you believe your legal duty to be. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Plummer: My only comment is I pity the poor judge.
Mayor Suarez: For the record, it is now 8:28 P.M. and you began at approxi-
mately 7:23 P.M., so we've given you a little more than an hour. That doesn't
mean that you guys are going to take an hour, does it?
Mr. Plummer: I tell you, much after nine you are going to be here talking to
I don't know who. Hill Street Blues comes on at 10:00 o'clock and I haven't
had dinner yet.
Mayor Suarez: The last argument, by the way, prior to your getting started,
sounded like the Comprehensive Master Plan must be immediately or at some
point made into our Zoning Code otherwise we have inverse condemnation, which
is an interesting argument. I have to commend you for being creative on that
one, Al.
Mr. Dawkins: While they are getting ready, Madam City Attorney, everyone has
a right to go to court. In the event -not in the event- when this is taken to
court, and we win, do we have a right, as the City Commission, to sue for
damage the same as they are trying to seek?
Mrs. Dougherty: No, sir.
Mr. Dawkins: We don't, thank you.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I think that we have some decisions to make before we
start. As proposed here of the suggested speakers, if each one of these
speakers takes the norm of three minutes, and I know Mr. Parsons just as
biting at the bit couldn't hold it to three minutes if he tried, there are 24
proposed speakers. Twenty-four proposed speakers, if that's what they go
with, at three minutes each, is 75 minutes or an hour and a half; that's 10:00
o'clock, then rebuttal. I think we better make some decisions because, as you
know, the policy of this Commission is to end at 9:00 P.M. Now I'm willing to
stay a little beyond that. I've not had dinner. I don't know if you have.
I'm tired and I don't mind denying it. And I just think we better make some
basic decisions. Are we going to try to bring this thing to a conclusion? If
so, you're going to have to limit speakers. Or are we going to continue and
hear it at another meeting and I'll abide by whatever my colleagues in this
Commission want to do. But I want to tell you, I'm not much willing or
disposed to stay much more than another hour. I'm giving you my thoughts and
I can't speak for the rest of my colleagues.
Mayor Suarez: How about it if we keep yours to 50 minutes, in which case,
they would have no more than ten minutes for rebuttal. That would be a total
of an hour and we'd be out of here by 9:30 P.M.
Mr. Huber Parsons, Jr.: Mayor and Commissioners, I think we can make that.
In fact, about half those people have letters to present. We can dispense
with the reading of them and simply submit them.
Mr. Plummer: I have no problem with an hour. I'd like to home now, but I'll
wait the hour.
Mayor Suarez: Proceed as quickly as possible.
Mr. Dawkins: We don't have a commitment for the rebuttal.
Mayor Suarez: No, that's all they're going to get. There won't be any
commitment. They're going to get ten minutes and after that point, that will
be the end of that.
ld 99 March 27, 1986
Mr. Dawkins: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Lee Rollinson: Mr. Mayor, my name is Lee Rollinson, representing the
Dade County Manager's office, the Shoreline Development Review Committee.
I'll be brief. You have in your kits a copy of a resolution adopted unani-
mously by the Metropolitan Dade County Shoreline Development Review Committee
urging you to deny this application, obviously for its incompatibility with
existing uses along Biscayne Bay in that vicinity. Thank you.
APPLAUSE
Mayor Suarez: The clapping is nice, but it will delay us.
Mr. Huber Parsons, Jr.: Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor and Commissioners, thank you
very much for allowing us to be here tonight. I have prepared remarks, but
first let me say a couple of things I think will be useful because of the
sort of presentation that the applicant has made. The first thing is that
there has been a great argument made that residential is not the appropriate
use for this property. I think it's important to lay on the record the
matter of statements made directly to me by Mr. Howard Scharlin, one of the
owners of the property previously with respect to this property. I think
it's important for the record to reflect this, the Mayor, Vice Mayor and
Commissioners may also find it interesting. Prior to the acquisition of this
property, Mr. Scharlin informed me that a check was made with zoning counsel
in the City of Miami, Mr. Robert Traurig, regarding what the zoning was at
that time and an answer was given, which was its current zoning "single family
detached."
Mr. Dawkins: Pardon me just a minute. Are you saying, sir, that when this
land was purchased, it was purchased with the understanding that it was zoned
"single family?"
Mr. Parsons: Yes, Mr. Vice Mayor, I'm telling you that is what Mr. Scharlin
directly has stated to me in the past and that the decision of the develop-
ment group at that time was to develop a residential development, a French
village. It was only subsequent to acquisition that because of an interest
that they developed in going to Europe and visiting a town that they decided
to change their whole plan to involve a development of some other type. The
point is that the investment decision was made with knowledge of the then
existing and currently existing zoning. I think that is rather telling.
Mr. Dawkins: Thank you.
Mr. Parsons: My name is Huber Parsons, Jr. I'm maintain offices at 799
Brickell Plaza, Miami, Florida. I speak this evening in order to urge that
you vote the application be denied for the several reasons to be given in my
remarks and to be given by others. Although I am a practicing attorney, I
appear simply in the unremunerated capacities of father and citizen. My older
children are fraternal twin boys, age 7, who attend second grade at St.
Stephens Episcopal day school on the property contiguous to and on the north-
erly and westerly end of the so-called Commodore Bay property. My younger
twin children, a girl and boy aged 3, are registered to attend St. Stephens in
the future. It was on account of my parental interest and the well-being of
my children and the other school children that I initially, more than a year
and a half ago, became aware of and inquired into the nature of the own-
ers/developers' proposals. After making inquiry and conducting analysis, it
became clear to me that the development proposals being advanced by the
owners/developers were and are inimical to the public interest for many
reasons. Many others have independently reached the same conclusion. In
fact, there are now some dozens of principle, and I should say also principal
individuals, and more than a score of community organizations representing -I
am given to understand in excess of 35,000 members who have come for various
reasons to oppose the development and land use proposals being made by the
owners/developers. The interest represented by those in opposition span
indeed a rather broad array of community interest areas. They include busi-
ness, civic, environmental, historic preservation, and other groups. To the
extent that there is a united citizen coalition in regards to this matter, it
is nonetheless multifaceted. As opposed to all that, the owners/developers
can much more easily be understood. They are simply interested in advancing
their economic interest and in making money. For this reason, Mr. Mayor and
Commissioners, you may find it interesting to note that essentially as you
will note from the scant applause you heard a few minutes ago, the only
Id 100 March 27, 1986
persons here tonight who support the application are two of the own-
ers/developers, a wife of an owner/developer, paid counsel for the own-
ers/developers, and paid experts. There appear to be no others in the audi-
ence of the Commission Chamber that is virtually filled and in fact, is
overflowing. Some of you may, of course, recall one of the other of prior
applications. However, those proposals were susceptible of analysis and
understanding in that as a major use special permit had been voluntarily
applied for. The application was accompanied by a somewhat specific site plan
and agreements relative to the development, as well as after it was pointed
out the insufficiency of the application, some analysis studies. Here in
stark, cold contrast nothing whatever is clear or precise with regard to the
application and the zoning sought would allow a structure several multiples,
several times the size of the prior submission. In short, the point is simply
this, even a person earlier disposed to favor a prior application can see
clear and distinguishing reasons to vote denial of the current application.
As to the matter of recommendations made to you, every, yes, every Municipal,
County, and State governmental board or department considering this applica-
tion has recommended denial. The Planning Department of the City of Miami
has recommended denial. The Public Works Department of the City of Miami has
recommended denial. The Parks Department of the City of Miami has recommended
denial. The Zoning Board of the City of Miami has recommended denial. The
Planning Advisory Board of the City of Miami has recommended denial. The
staff to the Shoreline Development Review Committee of Metro Dade has recom-
mended denial. The Shoreline Development Review Committee of Metro Dade has
recommended denial. The Planning Department of Metro Dade County has recom-
mended denial. The South Florida Regional Planning Council has recommended
denial. The Department of Community Affairs of the State of Florida has
recommended denial. The City's Planning Department, which previously did
recommend approval of the prior applications, is recommending denial, for the
several thoughtful and principled reasons which are stated in the agenda
packages before you. Those recommendations should not at all be taken lightly
and in fact, virtually any one of the reasons stated are alone sufficient to
justify a recommendation of denial. The City's Public Works Department is
recommending denial. The singular reason for this recommendation is, of
course, of great importance since Public Works is indicating that the design
capacity of the sewage system would be severely exceeded if a build -out
occurred to the extent allowed by the proposed rezoning. The City's Parks
Department is recommending denial because of the severe adverse impacts of
both Peacock Park and the Barnacle State Historic site. The property is an
elongated rectangular configuration in the heart of the Vi'loge of Coconut
Grove between Main Highway and the Bay. It exists in virtually its pristine
state. I has always been used for residential purposes. It has essentially
always been zoned for single family residential purposes. As even a quick
look at the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan indicates, residential use
of this property is consistent with all, yes all, private property bayfront
uses along Biscayne Bay through the southerly portion of the City of Miami.
As the Commission is undoubtedly aware, in fact, there are no commercial uses
of bayfront property on private land south of the Rickenbacker Causeway and
none on public or private land south of Dinner Key. The Commission would also
undoubtedly recall that there has never been any principal argument advanced
in any thoughtful private or public study that this bayfront property, or any
bayfront- property in its immediate vicinity, be zoned for commercial uses.
The adjoining and contiguous parks, the adjoining and contiguous school and
church, the bayfront, the neighborhood, the Village of Coconut Grove itself
demand and require that the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan be main-
tained intact and that the requested rezoning and plan change be denied. It's
shocking to contemplate the magnitude of that which could result if the
rezoning and plan change were in fact adopted. The Planning Department
estimates that it is possible that in excess of 800,000 square feet of
building area could be built. This, mind you, is not inclusive of the square
feet of building area which would be devoted to parking and driving areas.
That is a staggering volume of building mass. It would be offensive to the
parks. It would be offensive to the church and school uses. It would be
offensive to the shoreline of Biscayne Bay. It would be offensive to the
Village of Coconut Grove and it is offensive to our community. Now, a few
thoughts for your consideration on the owners/developers arguments advanced
before you this evening. First, the owners/developers are conducting a shell
Same -now you see it, now you don't. First, certain so-called experts have
been introduced. Yet, as was pointed out by Commissioner Plummer, they have
not filed any written reports of the application before you. Second, the
owners/developers state, in essence, that the proposed SPI-2 rezoning and
change is somehow, but inexplicably, appropriate. Yet the owners/developers
Id 101 March 27, 1986
ON
refuse to describe what it is that they intend to do with the property, what
the specific uses will be, what the building mass will be, what the building
configuration will be, what the impacts on the parks will be, what the im-
pacts on the school and church will be, what the impacts on the Village of
Coconut Grove will be, what the impacts on Main Highway will be; other than, I
might add, the most interesting argument advanced by the traffic expect, which
essentially seemed to be that since a good bit of traffic would be thrown out
by this development, therefore creating congestion and, naturally, through
traffic would find some other route, I do think that is a convincing argument.
Additionally many items have been partially quoted from the record of the
prior applications made, yet first the prior record, as a whole, has not been
presented. I would therefore incorporate by reference the entire prior
record before the City of Miami for the last year and a half regarding this
matter, so that at leapt there would be some attempt for it to be complete.
Second, the owners/developers are, of course, providing no assurance whatev-
er. They don't have to legally, but they could proffer restrictions on the
zoning sought, of course, regarding what would be developed. So you can't
have it both ways. You can't argue that some specifics support you, when in
fact you don't limit yourself to specifics. I will simply say in conclusion
that the proposal before you is truly an outrageous one. The classification
sought to be placed upon this environmentally and historically sensitive
piece of property, which is located in the heart of the Village of Coconut
Grove, on one of the busiest streets in town, between two of our most impor-
tant parks, would allow a building mass of more or less one third to one half
the size of the Southeast Financial Center in downtown Miami, or a builiing
of one third to one half the size of Dadeland Shopping Center. Take your
pick. Regardless of the offensive nature and size of the earlier proposals,
the file will reflect that the owners/developers said that they wanted to be
sensitive with regard to Coconut Grove. This application is not sensitive.
Thank you.
APPLAUSE.
Mr. David McCrea: Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak to
you this evening. My name is David McCrea. I'm a partner in the law firm of
Finley, Kumble, Wagner. My office address is 777 Brickell Avenue. My resi-
dence address is 6755 Royal Palm Drive. I'm appearing this evening as an
attorney on behalf of my father Sloan McCrea, who is a property owner at 1990
Tigertail Avenue in the City of Miami. We have heard this evening, Commis-
sioners, from people who purport to be experts on behalf of the applicant.
Well, let me tell you, we have a whole room full of experts right here. They
live, work and play in Coconut Grove. I'd like to show you the hands of the
experts who are opposed to this project. Would you all raise your hands?
Now, there are people out there who have lived in Coconut Grove....
Mayor Suarez: Are they charging an expert fee?
Mr. McCrea: ....who have lived in Coconut Grove longer than those three
experts have been alive combined. I too have lived in Coconut Grove. I was
born and raised in Coconut Grove. I spent six years riding my bicycle to
school past this very property. So I too feel qualified to speak on whether
or not this particular proposal for change of zoning and change to the Master
Plan is appropriate. Let's look at some of the things which have been said on
behalf of this proposed change. First, let's look at the proposed change to
the Master Plan, and let's look at what the Master Plan says about the Coconut
Grove Village Center. I want you to concentrate on the word 'center.' The
Master Plan says that the purpose of the designation of the property in the
central Grove Village Center is to encourage concentrated development and
continuous retail use. Well, this property sticks out like a sore thumb from
the central Grove business district. If that is concentrated economic use of
the land in Coconut Grove, then that map is lying to us. Number two, these...
I want to talk to you about gamble and risk. These people purchased this
property in August 1983. They knew when they purchased it that it was bor-
dered on two sides by parks. They didn't buy it and later find out that land
was going to be a park. They bought it knowing full well the situation of the
land. They took a big risk because they knew the zoning designation too, and
they lost. They've lost every time it's come up for a major decision. I'm
sorry, but that's an entrepreneur's risk. They say they've been treated
specially? How have they been treated specially? Every piece of property
south of St. Stephens School to the City of Miami line is zoned single family
residential or some very close variation. There has been no demonstration
here that some slightly higher density might not be permissible as a residen-
tial use. They say this property is not suitable for single family residen-
ld 102 March 27, 1986
tial dwellings. Well, they make reference to L'Ermitage and some other
projects. Well, let's_ook at what's happened all up and down Brickell Avenue
and the City of Miami and Dade County in condominium and town -house building.
There are more unsold condominiums and town -houses in Dade County right now
than there have ever been in the history of Dade County, worse than it was in
1974 and 1975. The reason why they can't sell residential spaces in that
particular market has nothing to do with this particular piece of property.
It has to do with lack of demand. Speaking of demand, let's talk about
whether or not there is demand for more commercial space in the Grove. Go
to Mayfair I and Mayfair II and look at the empty stores. Tell me, why are
those stores empty? It doesn't take too much to figure out that the demand
simply isn't there. Let's talk about the demand for restaurants and bars.
Is there a demand for restaurants and bars in the Grove? I guess there is
because we certainly don't have enough. There is enough glitz in the Grove
and we sure as hell don't need any more. The analogy of this project to Monty
Trainer's property or to Bayside or to Watson Island is one of the most absurd
things I've ever heard. As long as I've been alive, there hasn't been a tree
on the property that Monty Trainer has leased and on which there is a planned
specialty center as long as I've been alive. There is not a tree on it. As a
matter of fact, there is not any grass. It's only asphalt and building. The
same thing with respect to Bayside. There's no hammock there. There's no
tree there. The same thing with respect to Watson Island. Therefore, the
analogy to these other projects is totally absurd. Once again, the park has
been mentioned. Well, look at who mentioned the park. The park has been
mentioned by the developer. If you look at the criteria that are set forth in
section 3509 with respect to the considerations for a change of zoning. I
don't find zoning by intimidation to be one of them. I'd like the record to
reflect that the first time the park was mentioned tonight, it was by the
developer, not by us, rot by the Commissioners, by the developer. Let's look
at the criteria set forth in section 3509, which you are required to consider
in making a determination as to whether or not it is appropriate to change the
zoning to SPI-2. One of the first criteria is whether or not the proposed
change is contrary to the established land use pattern. The established land
use pattern is Abitare, it's Camp Biscayne next door. This is contrary to the
established land use pattern. Then I say another criteria is whether the
proposed change would create an isolated district, unrelated to adjacent and
nearby districts. Well, they'd like to have you believe that it's more
related to SPI-17 or 27th Avenue or something like that. Let's look at the PR
districts that are right next door to this property. It would be a gross
encroachment on the public's right to use those properties to have this
property utilized in the way that they are prepared to use it. We've heard
testimony tonight from their traffic person and their economic viability
person about the "project." I submit that all of that testimony is largely
irrelevant because there is no specific project. How can they determine the
impact of this project in the Grove on traffic or economic considerations
when they don't even know what the project is going to look like admittedly.
They are not required to have a specific site plan, but how can they base
their testimony on a phantom that's not really there. Speaking of traffic
you don't need to drive through the Grove very often to notice what's happen-
ing there in terms of traffic. We appreciate the efforts that have been made
recently to improve the situation on Friday and Saturday night, but it's
gotten worse. Let's think about this project on Friday or Saturday night and
the congestion that goes on. What happens if the people decide to turn left
instead of right at the Commodore Plaza Main Highway intersection? Is Mr.
Treister and Mr. Scharlin going to stand out front like they do at Studio 54
and say you can come in but you can't? Come onl This project would make that
intersection deadly dangerous to the pedestrians, the bicyclers and everybody
else in Dade County. I'm tired about hearing about preserving the Hammock.
You know, they say they're going to do us great favors with the Hammock.
Well, go down there and look at it now. They've owned this property for three
years. If they were going to help us with the Hammock, why haven't they
started it before now? It's overgrown, there's trash on it. It looks horri-
ble! If they're the big friends of the Hammock, why haven't they done some-
thing before this? Speaking of the Hammock, just think what it would be like
to have big cement trucks, etc. etc. etc. driving through the Hammock...
VRRRRR, VRRRRR, VRRRRR in and out. That's going to be great for the trees.
Mayor Suarez: I'm going to buy your sound effects for my next case.
Mr. McCrea: In summary, Commissioners, if you look at the specific legal
criteria which you are required to consider, i.e., the parameters and the
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, in Section 3509, which relates to the
Id 103 March 27, 1986
zoning change, it is clear this proposed change of zoning would be an atroci-
ty. Please, please deny it. Thank you.
Mr. Plummer: (directed toward court reporter) Doesn't anybody feel sorry for
this poor guy who hasn't stopped for an hour? He's going to go home doing
this and it's all over. Don't you need a break of two minutes? You want to
get it over with too. All right, go ahead. All he sees are dollar signs
going. I notice you didn't put that in there.
Ms. Mary Therese Delate: Our next speaker was scheduled to be Marjory
Stoneman Douglas. Unfortunately, with the late hour and just having returned
from Seattle to get an award from the National Wilderness Foundation, she is
unable to make it, but asked me, as her representative to request that you
deny the application. Thank you.
Mr. Plummer: Mike, are you here representing Janet Cooper?
LAUGHTER.
Mr. Mike Simonhoff: She can't afford mel Mr. Mayor, members of the Commis-
sion, I'm going to be very brief. My name is Mike Simonhoff. I live at 3503
Main highway, which is right about in the middle of that red section there,
which incidentally is zoned single family residential. I think as long as
we're pushing for a lawsuit here, I want to set the record straight, so that
we have on the record exactly what the facts are. Along Main Highway there
has not been anything except a residential nature development. That has to do
with Abitare, which was a planned area development residential; that has to
do with Camp Biscayne, which is the development that David Swetland and I
developed in 1977. In fact, if you were to zone or agree to zone the Commo-
dore Bay property commercial or SPI or multi -use, you, in fact, would be spot
zoning, because there is nothing but residential and park along that side of
the corridor. I also wanted to emphasize that this is not South Bayshore
Drive. South Bayshore Drive, which Mr. Cardenas and Mr. Treister referred to
in the planned studies, most of which was zoned for high-rise or more intense
usage, cannot compare to the zoning which is along Main Highway. So there
really is no comparable to say what happened, as far as a zoning study or
master part of a plan along South Bayshore to compare it with Main Highway. I
also want to say that downtown Coconut Grove and Camp Biscayne is about a
third. So when we're talking about residential usage, whether our use is the
highest and best use, in 1977 there was no commercial across the front as
indicated by Mr. Cardenas. That was all zoned commercial... zoned residen-
tial, there was no commercial corridor at the point of 1976 and we began in
1977. So just to put the record straight, I would recommend that the Commis-
sion deny this because it really isn't applicable and in fact would be spot
zoning. Thank you.
Mr. Jim McMaster: My name is Jim McMaster. I live at 2940 S.W. 30th Court.
I'm president of the Coconut Grove Civic Club and I'd just like to introduce
into the record a tape of the Plat and Street hearing of May 30, 1984, when
Mr. Treister's son, Charles, went there to plat this property and he corrobo-
rates what Mr. Huber Parsons has said about them considering residential.
There is a long discussion in here about —with their options on the property
and how they might go single family residential. I'll give that to the Clerk.
What amazes me here is we keep talking about this project. Well, the first
time around we did have a beautiful project and we all felt that it was a
beautiful project in the wrong place. This time, we don't have a beautiful
project and the zoning in the Village Center does not include residential.
The building at the corner of Mary and Oak, which is an office building with
airline offices in the first floor, that is Village Center zoning. They can
put on this site an office building, if they care to. They do not have to
put any residential. Gone from the first two proposals are the 70% guaran-
teed residential. Gone are the minority employment. Gone are the artists
hammocks that were going to bring artists back to the Grove. Gone is the
$100,000 for an off site new Grove House. Gone are the open accesses to the
bayfront. Who says that this is going to be open to the public? It can be an
office building. It can be open one hour or two hours. We have 115 acres of
park land next to this. We don't need another 247 feet. What he expects us
to give up is too much. Gone are the elaborate plans to plant trees along the
adjoining Barnacle and Peacock Parks to help shield them from any building.
Gone are the restrictions on the height of the buildings on the Barnacle site.
By the way, before they were talking about 35 feet. Now it will be 50 feet.
Gone are the plans that show the development saving all the trees along the
Barnacle property line, while at the same time showing a parking garage, that
ld 104 March 27, 1986
while eight feet six inches in the property line above ground, jetted out
almost to the property line under the ground, under the same trees they
claimed to be saving. Gone are the plans that detailed how they were going to
save the Hammock by covering _approximately two thirds of its 35,000 square
feet with either roads or conch houses. The reason for these conch houses is
this is an isolated site. They have to have something that will lead people
down this long, narrow site to this massive structure. I think the reason
you're not seeing any PDMU here is that when they came up with the building
that was around 200,000 square feet, there were so many problems with it... I
remind you they withdrew this the last time the morning of the hearing. Why
didn't they go through with it? Because they knew you'd turn it down. Now
they come back with a proposal and if I use the figures of the Village Center,
if they go for the mixed uses 1.21 we only end up with a building with 513,949
square feet. If they go for what Mr. Fine did at Post Office Plaza at the
other end of Commodore Plaza, they could have a building using the F.A.R. Mr.
Fine used, using all his bonuses of 976,929 square feet. The largest building
on Bayshore Drive today is the Grand Bay office tower at 175,000. If you
grant them this rezoning, there are no restrictions. They can put an office
building here if they want to. We will have a continuation of SPI-17 right
down Bayshore Drive. I'd like to say that if Mr. Treister was a rich tool and
dye manufacturer from Minneapolis and he got suckered into buying some
meleleucas swamp land out there someplace, I'd feel sorry for him. But he's
lived in Coconut Grove. He knows what Coconut Grove is. He knows that they
have never allowed a rezoning around SPI-2. The farmer's market has never
been rezoned after all these years and two or three different owners. Post
Office Plaza, just at the other end of the street, is spot zoned. They went
for a special exception parking garage and this Commission just turned them
down for a special exception parking garage; no up zoning. Mr. Treister knows
that a year and a half before he bought this property a developer tried to re-
zone it to 46 residential units. The buildings would have had set backs 30
feet from both sides, 50 feet from the bay. The Planning Department on a
zoning fact sheet on the project recommended denial of the application, be-
cause -and I quote- "The proposed development is not in character of the
surrounding area and does not reflect the low density, single family nature
of the underlying zoning. The department has constantly recommended the
building heights and lengths be reduced...," etc., etc. He knew what this
property was. He knew two years earlier. Mr. Traurig, one of the best zoning
lawyers in town had deferred it twice and then backed out from opposition.
For him to say that he's being denied his rights is ridiculous. Him coming
here in the first place was trying to use special privilege to get this
rezoning. Deny this rezoning. Thank you.
Ms. Mary Munroe: My name is Mary Munroe. I live at 7920 S.W. 53 Court.
Coconut Grove is one of Miami's biggest assets with the result that since the
world has discovered Coconut Grove there is so much building that there is
very little left of the village, unless you go down into the Barnacle, and the
State, in its wisdom, ten years ago bought that to save it so that generations
to come would know at least the way it used to Look in the day... I lived
there for 40 years, and if the Commodore came back today, he'd smile and say,
"It's just as I left it." Because the trees and everything hide it complete-
ly; there is no city, view of the city at all. You go out there, you're in
the country; no sign of any city buildings. But if the trees on the adjacent
side to the north are cut and commercial buildings are put slap up against the
thing, the entire atmosphere of the early days is gone. I leave the decision
to you.
Mr. Jack Rice: I'm going to make it short and sweet. Mr. Cardenas, has
taken as his last straw....
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Jack Rice, for the record.
Mr. Rice: Oh, yes, my name is Jack Rice. My address is 2424 N.W. 1 Street.
My client is Charles Jerry McCormick, who owns a ten acre site just about two
blocks south of where this site is and has one house on it. Mr. McCormick has
constantly fought any increase in the volume of the zoning, where you could
enhance it by commercial use or even enhance it by substantial residential use
in the Coconut Grove area. To whit one example through our hard fighting
we've got the Hughes Medical Center next to his property when initially they
wanted to put something like 47 houses about 50 foot high because of the water
level there which required an exceptionally high structure. Mr. Cardenas only
wants to get this not because he's entitled to it, but because if you don't
ld 105 March 27, 1986
give it to him, he's going to bring an antitrust suit against you, he's going
to sue you for civil rights, he's going to sue you for inverse condemnation.
In other words, he's threatening yol� if you don't give it to him, he's going
to make you very sorry that you didn't do it. What does he come down to offer
you to make himself entitled to it? He asked to be zoned SPD-2. That's the
highest zoning that he could ask for in Coconut Grove. He didn't ask for any
PDMU, where he could put a reasonable amount of housing units there or a
reasonable, even a small amount of office space there. He's asked for every-
thing he can get. Two of the Commissioners weren't here, the Mayor, Mr.
Suarez, and Mrs. Kennedy. Did you know in that first application they were
going to dig a trench 350 foot long from property line to property line to
put the parking garage. With this SPD-2 he says mixed use, but you know under
this SPD-2, you don't have to have mixed use. You can have all apartments.
You could have all office; whatever you wanted to do. And there are no guide-
lines that require him to follow in order to get a building in this particular
end. He says in his application that he must file for a permit, class C
special permit. But you know in a class C special permit you can't deny him
anything. You have to give him everything you've given to everybody else in
Coconut Grove. You can't treat him differently. You can't reduce the amount
of his units. You have to treat him just like you... well, I hope you treat
him just like you did Mr. Fine. And he says, by the way, he said that every-
thing has been rosy and everybody has been getting what they want, but Mr.
Fine didn't get his. And that's a much smaller project than this project and
it' s located on the other side of ... about two blocks over to the north and
it's next to McDonalds. The size of this project is overwhelming. The
820,000 square foot, there's just no building down there in Coconut Grove with
820,000 square foot. He could put six restaurants. He could put so many
different facilities in this piece of property that it staggers your imagina-
tion. I ask you to assist us in Coconut Grove by requiring him if he's going
to do something with his property, make it something reasonable and make it
residential. Thank you very much.
Mr. Margaret Neale: Good evening Mayor Suarez, Honorable Commissioners. I'm
Margaret Neale, 3185 Via Abitare. A member of one of the 21 families who are
owners of property contiguous to the Barnacle State Park southern boundary.
There are 21 town houses on this property, approximately two-thirds the size
of Commodore Bay. We endure the current noise and traffic. But Mr. Cardenas'
argument that overwhelming congestion can be cured by more congestion just
doesn't hold water; nor that his clients would be discriminated against if
they are not allowed the privilege of over-densifying. As a member of a group
of concerned citizens who have joined together to resist this plan, I've found
the battle long and at times bitter. I regret this but it seems to have been
necessary. Our numbers are growing. They'll thin somewhat tonight by a
religious holiday and the advent of a three day weekend. Many of us are out
of town. Time and after time, as concerned citizens, we have appeared before
you, and the City of Miami's related boards. We want to save the permanent
things in this community that money can't buy, but uncontrolled development
can destroy. Please vote no to Commodore Bay and don't let upscale zoning
turn Main Highway into a concrete canyon fringed by a stunted Hammock and
high-rises. Thank you.
Ms. Arva Parks: Mayor Suarez, members of the Commission, my name is Arva
Parks and I live at 1006 S. Greenway Drive. As I sit- here tonight looking at
the seal of the City of Miami in 1896, I'm reminded that five years before
Miami was a City, Ralph Monroe was living in the Barnacle in Coconut Grove.
Mayor Suarez: That's about the time Commissioner Dawkins was born.
Ms. Parks: And that is the main reason that I'm here tonight, as caretakers,
really, of the City of Miami, which you all are. There is only one Barnacle
in the entire City of Miami. There's no place else like it in the whole
community. As such, it deserves special consideration now and always. Thank
you.
Mr. James A. White: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, my name is James A. White. I'm
the Assistant Superintendent in Cape Florida State Park and the Barnacle
historic site, and I have just a small note here. The Division of Recreation
and Parks Department of Natural Resources manages the Barnacle historic site _
in Coconut Grove. This park property harkens back to the era of the bay, when
early families homesteaded the rich. As we have stated previously, we want to
express our concern for development that may have a considerable impact on
the quiet atmosphere the park presently enjoys, which is in character with the
ld
106
March 27,
1986
historic past of the Barnacle. We feel that to endure as a community, the
Grove must continue to keep its own distinct personality based on its past.
In addition to potential increase in noise and traffic, we are virtually
concerned with visual impacts since structures taller than two stories would
intrude on the historic view from the Barnacle. Additionally removal of any
tropical hardwood tree should be minimized. Since we have not had the oppor-
tunity to review any new proposals, our thoughts are necessarily general in
nature and are based on earlier applications. We thank you for considering
our thoughts and we continue to appreciate the citizens of Dade County for
their support and their involvement in the Barnacle historic site. Thank you.
Ms. Mary Therese Delate: My name is Mary Therese Delate and I'm reading a
letter from the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce, of which I am a member.
"To Whom it May Concern....
Mayor Suarez: It seems like deja vu here!
Ms. Delate:
"The Board of Directors and the members of the Coconut Grove
Chamber of Commerce oppose the rezoning of the land adjacent to
the Barnacle known as Commodore Bay.
'It is our feeling that this action will protect and enhance The
Barnacle and Peacock Park. We believe that generations to come
will laud this decision to preserve its bayfront land and the
natural hammock on this ridge.
'Coconut Grove has a delicate charm that could forever be upset by
unnecessary rezoning and indiscriminate development."
Signed Ed Boen, President. Thank you.
Ms. Carol Knisely: I'm Carol Knisr.ly of 3877 Little Avenue in Coconut
Grove. I'm secretary of the Coconut Grove Civic Club. I'd like to incorpo-
rate this letter into the record. It states the reasons previously given by
other people. We would ask that the applicant's request for rezoning to
SPI-2 be denied. Thank you.
Ms. Ilea Neale: Mayor and Commissioners, my name is Ilea Neale. I reside
with my family at 3681 Palmetto Avenue, Coconut Grove. I have a resident of
the City of Miami for 23 years. I have been asked to read and deliver a
letter from the Cousteau Society relative to the property located at 3471
Main Highway.
"Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing to you on behalf of Jean -
Michel Cousteau regarding the above noted site. On a recent visit
to Miami both he and I became acquainted with the importance of
the Barnacle and its adjacent hardwood hammock.
'The Cousteau Society is dedicated ,to the preservation and protec-
tion of all life on this water planet. Of primary importance,
from our standpoint, is the condition of the environmental legacy
we hand down to future generations. Therefore, we feel it is
vitally important, for both environmental and historical reasons,
that the above site be spared from the encroachment of a growing
urban Miami. In our opinion, this area contains many valuable
plant species as well as hardwoods that are becoming increasingly
rare in South Florida. Of equal importance is the need to main-
tain the integrity of Florida's natural shoreline.
'All of us living today share a responsibility to provide future
generations with a healthy natural world, filled with the same
bounties we have enjoyed. We ask that most careful consideration
be given to the preservation of the Barnacle and the adjacent
natural coastal hardwood hammock.
'Thank you for your concern regarding this issue.
Sincerely, Tim Knipe, Public Events Director, of the Cousteau
Society, Associate Editor of the Calypso Log"
I'm submitting the original letter and copies for the convenience of all
members. Thank you.
Mr. Don Slesnick: Mayor Suarez, Vice Mayor Dawkins, Commissioner Plummer,
Commissioner Kennedy, I am Don Slesnick, 2285 S.W. 17th Avenue, Miami. I am
here tonight representing the Dade Heritage Trust. This is only my second
time in about five years that I appear before you on a preservation matter.
That is because we have always considered this Commission a friend of preser-
vation and we have not had to appear. I come to you tonight at the bequest of
John Ward Clark, our President and the Board of Trustees. I delivered to you
a March 27th resolution of the board which says:
ii,t����
"Resolved the Miami City Commission be informed that the Dade
Heritage Trust, Inc. recommends and urges that the proposed
rezoning from residential to commercial of the "Commodore Bay"
property located at 3471 Main Highway, Coconut Grove, Miami,
Florida, be denied on account of the severe adverse and negative
impact which the utilization of such zoning would have on the
Barnacle, one of the principal and unique built heritage assets
of the City of Miami and Dade County."
I would also say to you that as I listened to the presentation of the other
side, and I will say hello tonight to my colleague Al Cardenas on a very fine
job that he is doing, but I would say to you that as I listen and heard talk
about the fact that this property is no longer fit for single family housing,
I may agree. It's not fit for single family housing; it should be kept open
space for the citizens of Dade County and Miami and a gateway to the bay.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Linda Dann: I'm Linda Dann, 803 Anastasia Avenue, Coral Gables. Very
interested in the Grove as is everybody in Metropolitan Miami and the State.
I'm here to say that we are going to stop speaking to you and just give you
our letters and I am very pleased to have one here from Marjory Stoneman
Douglas. I'd also like to give Mayor Suarez and Rosario Kennedy, our new
Commissioner, a picture of this property. We've been here, all these organi-
zations have written letter after letter, year after year, and I hope that
this evening will terminate it and thank you for considering the interests of
the citizens now and of the future.
Mr. Lawrence Terry Jr.: I'm Lawrence Terry Jr., 1896 Tigertail Avenue,
Coconut Grove. I'm presenting a letter from the Florida Trust for Historic
Preservation requesting denial.
Ms. Carol Albietz: I'm Carol Albietz from the Miami Group of the Sierra Club.
I'd like to present a letter requesting the denial.
Ms. Germaine Tony: I'm Germaine Tony, I'm representing Louise Hill, who is
representing 40 garden clubs in district 12 of the Florida Federation of
Garden Clubs, request that you vote no to Commodore Bay.
Mr. Charles Baron: I'm Charles Baron, I'm presenting a letter form Dr. Robert
Kelley of the Tropical Audubon Society of Miami, who recommends that you vote
no to the application. I also want to add that I personally frequently ride
my bicycle in the Grove and I want to express my concern for the safety of all
the bikers and pedestrians in the Grove. Thank you.
Ms. Anna Ehlert: My name is Anna Ehlert. I live at 6300 Castaneda Street.
I'm here on behalf of the Junior League of Miami. I'd like to tell you that
the Junior League of Miami was one of the original groups who helped to
preserve the Barnacle and we also request denial.
Mr. Michael Maxwell: Good evening, I'm Michael Maxwell, at 1037 Sevilla. I'm
here representing the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I'd like to
submit a letter, but I'd also like to tell you that the National Trust has a
membership nationwide of 175,000 and we have a letter from its president of
which the key phrase reads, "The Barnacle, as you well know, dear Commission-
ers, is one of the priceless historic treasures of South Florida and is a
registered historic landmark. It is an irreplaceable reminder of the historic
origins of the Coconut Grove and Miami communities and a historic site of
truly national significance." Thank you.
Mr. Ron Cole: My name is Ron Cole. I live at 2542 Lincoln Avenue. I'm the
vice-president of the Tigertail Association and I would like to submit a
letter from my organization in opposition to the zoning change.
Mayor Suarez: Thank you, Ron.
Ms. Peggy Hancock: I'm Peggy Hancock from 3856 Douglas Road, Coconut Grove.
I'd like to tell you that we have made 24 speeches in less than 50 minutes.
Mr. Plummer: Yes, but Peggy, you're not on this list, so you spoke out of
turn.
Mayor Suarez: I think some of the transportation issues raised by the appli-
cant would be useful to address, Mr. Rodriguez.
ld 108 March 27, 1986
eol�l e0A1
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, for the record, my name is Sergio Rodriguez. I'm the
Planning Director of the City of Miami. As part of the testimony presented by
Mr. Cardenas, he mentioned a lot of professional expertise as reference in
support of his position. I would like to add to the record that in addition
to all the expert opinion that has been given by the staff of the City of
Miami in the different departments, that includes professionals in the fields
of planning, architecture and also in Public Works engineers and so on. In
the record I would like to include the letter dated March 7, 1986 from Mr.
Robert Kessler, Chief of Bureau of Locai Research Planning to Sergio
Rodriguez, Director of Planning. In addition to that, I would like to include
the letter. from Ann Deister, Interim Executive Director from the Regional
Planning Council, dated January 16, 1986 to Ralph Hook, Department of Communi-
ty Affairs, and also, in addition to that, a letter from Mr. Reginald Walters,
A.I.C.P., Planning Director for Dade County, to Mr. Ralph Hook, Department of
Community Affairs, of January 21, 1986, and....
Mayor Suarez: On that score, let me say that we don't necessarily agree with
counsel's opinion as to the jurisdiction of either the South Florida Regional
Planning Council or the Florida Department of Community Affairs. I have my
own views as to whether they should have any jurisdiction on these matters.
And my philosophical views might agree with Mr. Cardenas, but legally, we can
test and disagree with most of the statements he made in regards to their
jurisdiction.
Mr. Rodriguez: Right, they have to respond as part of the Florida legisla-
tion; they have to respond to any plan amendment and they have to make com-
ments on it. In addition to that, we have also William O'Leary, Chairman of
the Shoreline Development Review Committee, Resolution Number 85-4. All of
these letters and documents are part of the packet, which is dated March 17,
1986 from Mr. Cesar Odio, City Manager, to the Mayor. I would like to also
mention that the comments that have been made by D.C.A. in relation to this
issue, and all of these are in opposition to the proposed change of zoning.
The letter by D.C.A. and the comments made by them are important at this
point, because significantly the proposed revised comprehensive plan, which is
scheduled for the April 22, 1986 City Commission agenda, reflects the same
maximum land use for the subject property and does not permit additional
development, notwithstanding the ten years that have elapsed since adoption of
the plan. In addition to that, Mr. Cardenas mentioned in his presentation as
part of the history of zoning in the property some of the information that is
included in the fact sheet of the Planning Department. The position that we
have is that it's only mentioned over there for history purpose. In reality
none of this is applicable to this case now, because we have at this point
before the City Commission a different type of proposal. In the land use
plan, this area is not zoned for SPI-2. The land use plan that we have, we
have a mixed use designation. Just for the record, I would like to clarify
that in the zoning ordinance of the City of Miami, Zoning Ordinance 9500, we
have more than 15 different mixed use in the zoning categories, all of which
could be applied, that could be acceptable as any other, as compared to SPI-2.
In addition to that, I believe Mr. Cardenas mentioned this is the only single
family zoning facing the Coconut Grove business area. If you refer to the
transparency that is on the screen, you will see that in both sides of the
yellow area we have single family zoning, RS-1/1 all the way through. Fur-
thermore, architect Mike Simonhoff, who was talking in relation to single
family use in the record before, mentioned also about the single family char-
acter of the area. If you look along Main Highway in the zoning atlas of the
City of Miami, which is an accompanying document to the Zoning Ordinance
9500, all the areas south and east of Main Highway, are zoned for single
family only. In addition to that, the subject property I believe was men-
tioned by Mr. Cardenas, that is not contiguous to RS-1/1. If you look again
at the zoning atlas and the transparency which is on the screen, it's not
only surrounded by it, but go all the way to the City limits in that same
classification. In summary, in relation to that issue, the predominant
character of this area on the east and south side of Main Highway, is single
family. We believe this property, against the opinion from Mr. Cardenas,
could be ideal for residential use because of the proximity to the water. The
area is perfectly compatible with single family development. In relation to
what Mr. Cardenas mentioned about the possibility of using this property for
access to the waterfront and for possible residential, retail and cultural
uses, in reality there are no guarantees, no covenants, no plans. What Mr.
Cardenas is asking is for a blank check. A blank check in zoning could really
have a very negative consequences for the City of Miami and for the neighbor-
ld 109 March 27, 1986
F
1� eONN
hood. In relation to the position of Mr. Cardenas that this amendment would
control the development of the site, we believe that the existing zoning
appropriately controls the development of the site. In reference to the
Playhouse Theater possible zoning, the position that we have is that at point
that issue is not properly before you, because we are not discussing at this
point the Playhouse Theater project. As to the final conclusions from Mr.
Cardenas for the reason for denial, he mentioned basically three different
reasons. He mentioned first that there have been influential leaders that
have been getting, putting pressure for the denial of this project. Also that
there has been the possibility of a use of a park for this site. By the way,
this was mentioned by Mr. Cardenas only. In both of those two items, I would
like to put on the record that this has not had any influence whatsoever in
the recommendation by the Planning Department and all the professional staff
that has been involved in this issue in the City. In relation to the issue
that the only commercial projects that we have in the City waterfront are on
public land, I would like to suggest to Mr. Cardenas that he look at the
atlas of the City of Miami and he will find that we have commercial develop-
ment throughout the waterfront in different parts of the City. Finally, I
would like to add for the record the following. I would like to add zoning
board resolution ZB-161-85, Zoning Board resolution ZB-162-85, Planning
Advisory Board resolution 67-85, letter from the Grove Chamber of Commerce, a
letter from the Department of Natural Resources Division of Recreation and
Parks, a letter from the Cousteau Society, a letter from the Florida Trust for
Historic Preservation, all of which are basically expressing concern or
opposition to the rezoning of this property. In summary, all the different
experts and people that have been making an opinion on this from the public
sector and from other groups are basically in support of the position from the
Planning Department to recommend denial of this application.
Mayor Suarez: Sergio, before you step away, would you briefly state your
qualifications to give opinions on matters affecting planning in the City of
Miami?
Mr. Rodriguez: I have a F_.helors Degree in Architecture from the University
of Florida that I received in 1967. I have a Masters Degree from the Univer-
sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that I received in 1969. I have been in
the planning field for the last -more than I would like to care to say- about
25 years because I, before that, worked in planning. You should be impressed.
I should get a salary increase soon, I hope. In addition to that....
Mayor Suarez: No salary raises.
Mr. Rodriguez: In addition to that, I have worked before for the Anarabo
County, Planning and Zoning Office, in Maryland. I worked as a consultant for
the private sector before as an architect and in planning field. I worked
for 11 years in the Maryland National Capitol Park and Planning Commission.
I have been the Planning Director for the City of Miami for the last three
years. I have received numerous national recognition awards from the American
Planning Association. In addition to that, I am an A.I.C.P., which is a
member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, which is the equiva-
lent of the professional society membership of, for example, like the Ameri-
can Medical Association and so on. It's something that you have to apply and
be accepted after meeting all the requirements of many years of experience and
passing a series of tests.
Mayor Suarez: I was beginning to have my doubts about you, I thought I'd get
them clarified. I don't know if you can introduce any more documents, but
before I forget, I want to tell, instruct the City Clerk to accept all the
documents submitted by the speakers as part of the record, as well as all the
documents of the Planning Department, including our own package marked PZ-6
and PZ-7. Counselor., you have until 9:38 P.M.
Mr. Cardenas: Making a living as a zoning lawyer, Mr. Mayor, is hard enough.
Now to have a Harvard graduated lawyer for a Mayor can be even harder.
Mayor Suarez: I don't expect a lawsuit. I just do that for fun.
Mr. Cardenas: I wanted to say just a couple of quick things. To Mr. Parsons'
comments relative to the number of people here present on each side, I wanted
to clarify for the record that a non -paid member of our group is also here, my
wife, who is sitting is the back. As a matter of fact, she's expecting
dinner this evening, so it's going to be a more expensive proposition. At any
rate, I did count and we're outnumbered....
Id 110 March 27, 1986
Mayor Suarez: Will you invite all the Commissioners who vote against your
project?
Mr. Cardenas: I always will. As a matter of fact....
Mrs. Kennedy: He has to come again on other issues.
Mr. Cardenas: As a matter of fact, I made a head count and we're outnumbered
by less than ten to one. which is better odds than Custer had, so I wanted to
make that for the record. I also wanted this Commission to remember Mr.
McCrea's comments that there were no trees in Watson Island. I know that
project is coming up soon, so I hope that you take that into consideration
when I address the issue.
Mr. Plummer: Don't forget what happened to Custer.
Mr. Cardenas: As to Mr. Mc Master's statement, he mentioned a number of cases
which had been denied zoning requests recently. I want to, for the record,
add a major distinction. All of the cases which he made mention of in the
record, are cases that were zoned in accordance to their status in the
Comprehensive Master Plan. This particular application is the only case that
I know of that has been brought to the fore as of late that is not in accor-
dance with the Comprehensive Master Plan. The only one where the Commission
has the opportunity and we submitted earlier, the legal obligation to zone
its atlas in accordance with the mandate of the Comprehensive Master Plan.
In conclusion, I want to thank you for your patience. I know it's been a long
and delayed process. I thank everyone for their participation. I know that
collectively, we all have the best interest of the community at heart, al-
though we look at it in different directions. I always at the conclusion
want to say that this great country of ours is great because of its constitu-
tion and the rights it protects and we fully feel that we have a number of
them which are dear to the constitution and indeed will be protected. Thank
you.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me make one comment. I'll take a brief second.
I don't remember of ever having a hearing such as this relating to Coconut
Grove that was on both sides more honorable, dignified and orderly process
than I've seen here this evening. For one, I thank you.
Mrs. Kennedy: How many times have you been before this Commission on this
issue?
Mr. Cardenas: On this one issue, this is the first time I address the City
Commission. There were other people before me.
Mayor Suarez: General Custer.
Mrs. Kennedy: Ken, I think your motto has been if at first you don't succeed,
try, try again.
Mayor Suarez: If I were to vote based on personal attributes, perseverance
being the one most noted in this particular case, and I being noted for having
run a total of four times before I got elected, I would definitely have to
side with the applicant. But this proposed change is illustrative of every-
thing that I am against and everything that I ran to try to prevent from
happening in the City of Miami, particularly in Coconut Grove. I not for the
slightest moment have doubted that I would vote against it. My feeling really
is that despite the perseverance, your chances of ever getting this through
are really declining and not increasing in any way and that I would just
assure you that we will be ever vigilant to make sure that the rest of
Coconut Grove does not deteriorate or change in character from the most
beautiful face of Miami, as I've always called it. It's been a long day. We
all lose our eloquence, and I finally just end up by saying that from my
perspective, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that this thing would
ever &o through or get my vote.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, fellow Commissioners, when I was campaigning, I too
made a vow that I would work against unreasonable zoning in Miami, especially
in Coconut Grove. My concern is such that I have created a task force in the
Grove, who advises me on zoning, and they too are concerned with the density.
Density must be important, because the only thing that I heard from the
ld ill March 27, 1986
attorney was the proposed density. He himself said that this Commission has
never reduced the density. We have always awarded great density. So now we,
this Commission, is concerned about density. We've said so from the very
beginning. But instead of density being the issue with the attorney, he says
a lot of other things. It's amazing how single family homes are important to
some and not important to others. Everyone thinks zoning is his own thing.
Mr. Cardenas, single family homes are a necessity. So much so, that a group
of people went all the way to Rolling Oaks and built some homes. But when
issues like this came up, they didn't help anybody. They didn't come down and
speak against the density. Now their neighuorhood is being destroyed with the
Joe Robbie's football park and that's why I'm going to have to vote against
this to insure that the density is controlled in the Grove and that we will
have building and we will have development in the Grove, but it will be
controlled.
Mrs. Kennedy: Mr. Mayor, I also campaigned against this issue. It's kind of
late and we're tired and hungry. So let me just say I think my views are best
expressed by attorney Huber Parsons in the letter where he says, "The property
has always been used for residential purposes. The property has always been
zoned for residential uses. The application would, if granted, allow for one
of the densest developments in the City of Miami." I agree with you.
Mr. Plummer: I really don't have to make statements.
Mr. Dawkins: Speak up, senior citizen.
Mr. Plummer: I don't think it's funny at all.
Mayor Suarez: You each get three minutes on that one.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, to the consternation of a lot of people, I voted for
the project before. I honestly sincerely believed at that time that the
project was a good project. I still believe that way. But I also believe
that we, at all times, retained control. We did have the right to designate
what we wanted and what we saw fit, and what should go in that project. This
application before us today gives us absolutely no control, none. First of
all, there is no project that I have seen or anyone has brought forth, it is
merely asking that the zoning be changed, and whether you agree or disagree, I
think that it is agreeable that that which is being requested and sought here
this evening is mammoth in numbers. There is no way that I could sit here and
allow anyone to have in my estimation that kind of a carte blanche without
this Commission at all times retaining 'full', and I underline the word full
control. There is no way that I can vote for that kind of change as presented
here this evening. That's where I'm at.
Mayor Suarez: Will somebody make a motion because we have one last item to
resolve very quickly, Commissioners.
Mr. Plummer: Commissioners, Mr. Mayor, I move to deny item six.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Seconded, hearing no further discussion from the Commission.
There is no further discussion. Call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 86-238
A MOTION TO DENY PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE WHICH
WOULD HAVE AMENDED THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD
PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE OF SAID PROPERTY FROM MIXED
USE AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE AT APPROXI-
MATELY 3174 MAIN HIGHWAY.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion was passed and
adopted by the following vote -
Id 112 March 27, 1986
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
23. DENY ATLAS CHANGE FROM RS-1/1 TO SPI-2 AT APPROX 3471 MAIN HWY
Mr. Plummer: I move to deny item 7.
Mrs. Kennedy: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Hearing no further discussion from the
Commission, not being disposed to entertain any, please call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved
its adoption:
MOTION NO. 86-239
A MOTION TO DENY PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE WHICH
WOULD HAVE AMENDED ORDINANCE 9500 ATLAS BY CHANGING THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM RS-1/1 TO SPI-2 COCONUT GROVE
CENTER COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (3471 MAIN HIGHWAY).
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion was passed and -
adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor, if I may, on this item, one piece of unfinished r
business. Because of the Florida Statutes requiring a fourteen day separation
between first and second readings because it's an amendment to amend the
Comprehensive Plan, this item is already with the newspapers for publication
tomorrow for second reading. We had to take that precaution. We want to -
announce now that based on the vote of the City Commission here, please
disregard that item when it appears in the newspapers. _
Mr. Plummer: We'll beat you for wasting our money.
Mr. Pierce: We had to, State law.
Mr. Dawkins: We'll take it out of your salary. We will not beat you.
24. RESCHEDULE MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1986 TO COMMENCE AT 2:00 P.M.
Mayor Suarez: We need a resolution to provide that the scheduled City Commis-
sion meeting on April 22, 1986 commence at 2:00 P.M. instead of 9:00 A.M.
Mrs. Kennedy: Move.
Mayor Suarez: So moved.
Mr. Dawkins: Second.
Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Hearing no discussion from the Commission, please
call the roll.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy, who
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 86-240
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE APRIL 22, 1986 CITY COM-
MISSION MEETING TO COMMENCE AT 2:00 P.M.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here
and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the resolution was passed
and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
4-
25. EXTEND THE PERIOD OF TIME FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION DISBURSEMENT
SCHEDULE OF FUNDS EARMARKED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING OFF CLAUGHTON
ISLAND
Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, do you want to take up a resolution which would
continue or extend the period of time for the Claughton approval of the....
Mayor Suarez: I would entertain such a motion.
Mr. Plummer: For what?
Mrs. Kennedy: What?
Mayor Suarez: The schedule of construction disbursements.
Mrs. Dougherty: The schedule of construction disbursements were supposed to
be approved within fifteen days by the Commission. All I'm asking is for you
to continue that period of time to the next Commission meeting.
Mr. Plummer: We continue it.
Mayor Suarez: So moved, seconded, call the roll on that, please.
ld 114 Mairah 27, 1966
The Followiftg resolution was introduced by Commissioner -Plummer, Ao
saved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 86-241
A RESOLUTION EXTENDING TO APRIL 10, 1986 THE 15-DAY TIME
LIMITATION IMPOSED BY RESOLUTION NO. 86-169, ADOPTED
FEBRUARY 27, 1986 FOR THE APPROVAL BY THE CITY COMMISSION
OF A CONSTRUCTION DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE OF FUNDS EAR-
MARKED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MODERATE -AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNITS OFF CLAUGHTON ISLAND AT THE SHELL CITY AND EAST
LITTLE HAVANA SITES.
(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 J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
TBERE BEIM NO FURTBER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CM COMMISSION. THE
NBBTDG VAS ADJOURNED AT 9:40 PON.
A27=:
Natty Hirai
027 CLERK
r,
t.
6,
Xavier L. Suarez
N A Y 0 R
Vl.r"ti 4L
�y
,•�� •,.ram „+,1 �h r�', 1
1
1
115.
March 27, 1980
t,
U
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 27th day of March, 1986, the City Commission of Mi-
ami, 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 2:04 O'Clock P.M. by
Mayor Xavier Suarez with the following members of the Commission
found to be present:
Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
Absent: Commissioner Joe Carollo
ALSO PRESENT:
Cesar Odio, City Manager
Lucia Allen Dougherty, City Attorney
Matty Hirai, City Clerk
Walter Foeman, Assistant City Clerk
An invocation was delivered by Mayor Suarez who then led
those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag.
1. PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ITEMS.
PROCLAMATION: Friendsday: Presented to representatives of the
Dade County Mental Health Centers who make up the
Friendsday Committee, in recognition of their in-
valuable services to the community.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATES REGARDING TERM OF MAYOR AND
COMMISSIONERS' SALARIES.
Mayor Suarez: First item of business - and I know Commissioner
Plummer is going to come back in a couple of minutes. I don't
think there is any need to delay. It is your personal appear-
ance, Mr. Fine. I've read what you submitted. My only comment
is you make reference to the election of September of 1987, and
of course, the elections here, unless I am wrong, are always in
November, so...
Mr. Martin Fine: I like to make a mistake and not appear to be
perfect! For the record, my name is Martin Fine, 2401 Douglas
Road, Miami. I know you probably have a very busy zoning agenda
and I will try to be brief, but I would like to take up enough
time to discuss this is a manner that will be meaningful from our
ld 1 March 27, 1986
over all perspective. Firstly, may I once again repeat that I am
here as a private citizen, and not as chairman of the Chamber_ of
Commerce, although I am very proud and pleased to serve in that
capacity. I also want to say, that I, as all of you know, have
not discussed this with any of you, only because I did want to
give -any appearance of doing that because it might be of help or
interest to any particular person. Rather, I am pleased to
present to the City Commission this proposal to amend the Charter
to expand to four years the term of the office of Mayor, and re-
quest that change, in the interest of economy, continuity and
stability of democratic and highly principled city governments be
place on the election agenda in September of 1986, or indeed, if
in your judgement, you think it should be November of 1986, that
would be fine with me. I would like to sort of clarify a point
that perhaps I did not do as well as I could have last time, and
that is, that I would expect that it would become fully operative
in election of September, or, as the Mayor corrected me, in No-
vember, of 1987, so that the person elected as Mayor next time
would serve for a period of four years. I believe once this
principle is fully understood, the four year mayoral term of of-
fice should have an overwhelming appeal to the public's concern
for stability of reflection time in office, continuity for devel-
opment of skill and experience, deliberation - I repeat, deliber-
ation of the Mayor and the staff of continual contribution in
campaign concerns, and in a manner of speaking, the mayoral cam-
paign cost control to less frequent elections. I believe that
few of us who take the time to examine closely our local politi-
cal process, have any doubt as to the inefficiency and exorbitant
cost of a two-year election system. By the way, I am not reading
this whole paper, I am just taking some highlights from it. In
my judgment, this process remains in effect, not because of any
ineptitude, but because of the logic of these two frequent elec-
tions has never been challenged locally, perhaps due to a lack of
curiosity, or simply a complacency to leave traditional status
quo. The rationale, and this is a point that I would really like
you to react to, when and if you are kind enough to share your
thoughts with me and with the community. The rationale behind
the distinction and inequity of the mayoral two year term and the
Commissioner four year term is not clear. Do not the Mayor and
the Commissioners answer to the same electorate? Is the integri-
ty of the Mayor more suspect than that of the Commissioners, and
therefore to be tested by a shorter term gamble. I think those
answers are very obvious, and I would hope that we might discuss
them. Among the positive effects of a longer mayoral term of of-
fice would be provision oftimes for long range reflections on so-
lutions to local problems we face as a community, a society, and
I might just say that I think those problems are going to be
overwhelming in their complexity, as we deal with little problems
like Graham -Rudman, like the reduction in revenue sharing funds,
and that like which we all want to accomplish, a balanced budget
in the near future, but please remember, when we want Uncle Sam
off our backs, we have to get, as local governments and state
governments out of Uncle Sam's pocketbook, and that is a real
concern to me, and I think stability in government, and the of-
fice of the Mayor would help in that regard. Ideally, the office
of Mayor is a pursuit that demands a high level of skill, conti-
nuity and experience. I believe the current two year term, that
system fails us in that regard. Think about it for a moment.
The kind of long term development needs we have, I think you will
agree, requires long term leadership. It is very improbable for
a man or a woman, serving a part time two year mayoral term, to
become conversant with the nuances of issues, to develop pro-
grams, consider alternatives, oversee implementations of new
programs and policies, and a host of other things that you know
need to be done better than I. In the essence of time, I just
want to bring your attention to the fact that of three or four of
the largest cities in this state - there is a chart on page six,
and then subsequently followed by an additional one, but in
Florida, Jacksonville, Tampa, and Orlando, have four year terms
as mayors and some of the other cities have three terms, and in
my opinion, are headed to four year terms.
ld 2 March 27, 1986
Mr. Plummer: Jacksonville, Orlando, and what other one?
Mr. Fine: Jacksonville, Tampa, and Orlando.
Mr. Plummer: All three are strong mayors?
Mr. Fine: Could be.
Mr. Plummer: No, I am telling you. I know them personally.
Mr. Fine: OK. If anybody knows them, you know them.
Mr. Plummer: Jake Godbold, Bill Frederickson, and Bob Martinez,
are all three, strong mayors, and that is the argument.
Mr. Fine: In terms, of a phrase we use around here very fre-
quently, being a world class city, I want to share with you on
page 7, there are cities ranging from New York, Chicago, Los Ang-
eles, San Francisco, Denver, Atlanta, Philadelphia, that have a
four year term, and indeed, some of them may he strong mayors and
that is not my role to get into arguing about that system now, or
deal with it, but, I bring that to your attention. I think there
appears to be very little risk, but much potential to be gained
from this proposed change. I always like to be in a win -win sit-
uation. I think it is nice to be able to do something where you
are really are going to win, no matter what happens. If we sub-
mit it to the electorate and they turn it down, you have given
the electorate an opportunity to express itself. If you submit
it to the electorate and they pass it, I think if properly imple-
mented, we will have a better run city and a better community,
and a better overall Dade County. The negative aspects fade in
relative importance to the probable benefits in better govern-
ment and stability and citizen's satisfaction. I think the pub-
lic should be greatly pleased, and will be greatly pleased to see
monies being conserved, not wasted on unnecessary frequent elec-
tions. The citizens apathy, and cynicism grows deeper with each
too frequent election, and growing million dollar campaign costs
for a $6,000 a year salaried position.
Mayor Suarez: $5,000.
Mr. Fine: $5,000. I tried to give you a $1,000 raise, I am sor-
ry. I think it is the County Commission that is $6,000. We
should very seriously consider doing something about this. I was
intrigued in the morning paper to see that, I think it is the
speaker of the house, that is proposing something along these
lines, with a limit, at the state level.. I would like to go on
for a long time, Mr. Mayor, talking about this, but I don't think
that is fair. I would be delighted to try to answer some ques-
tions, but in closing, I would like to just make one or two final
comments. I understand, and I always appreciate learning from
Mr. Plummer, who is a veteran here, that in order to get an item
like this on the ballot, you have to have public hearings. I am
very much in favor of that process, and I would hope that you
would have some public hearings on this matter. My indication
is, that they would be a lot better attended than some public
hearings on some Metro proposals, which for some reason or other,
there is that kind of apathy, maybe, in the County, but not in
this City. I think our City is alive and well and interested
and active and we need to be concerned when people don't show up,
but I don't think you will have that problem. I personally hope
after the public hearings, you will place it on the ballot. Now,
I don't want to deal with other issues, such as the strong mayor,
or Commissioners elected by districts, or more Commissioners; I
don't want to be presumptuous. I really don't have very strong
feelings about that, and didn't feel it appropriate to come to
and deal with that. I did, however, feel, that enclosing the
little memo I sent to you, I wanted to just mention a limit on
campaign spending, and I don't want to get away from that, go in-
to that entirely, but, I must tell you I am in the middle of re-
viewing that Supreme Court decision, or want to start doing it.
Its a U. S. Supreme Court decision. I can't quite understand the
ld 3 March 27, 1986
rationale of limiting campaign contributions, but not being able
to limit campaign spending. I can't believe that the framers of
the Constitution ever had in mind, not being able to limit cam-
paign spending, as a violation of First Amendment rights, but
that is a subject for another day, and one of these days we ought
to deal with that, and frankly, if I get enough energy, or extra
time, I might deal with it later, but because, it intrigues me, I
am appalled by the kind of money that you all have to raise to
spend to run for office. I really am! From a personal point of
view, if you had limits, it would help all of us. Tt would be
good. That was an attempt at humor. Obviously, it didn't sell.
Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, may I simply share with
you that I am flattered at being able to come before you and to
bring this to your attention. I'd be glad to answer any ques-
tions. I'd be even more glad if you would schedule some dates
for some public hearings. Thank you, very much.
Mr. Dawkins: Marty, pardon me, but said that the public hear-
ings, if we held them, would be better attended than the ones in
the county. Why? Why do you say that?
Mr. Fine: Well, I must tell you - that is almost like having a
good friend as a shill in the audience. I must tell you, having
lived in this city for 40 years, that I believe the electorate in
this city has been, and continues to be, and even more so now,
more interested than county voters, for a reason that I can't ex-
plain. I think...
Mr. Dawkins: When it is issues that are dear to them.
Mr. Fine: You asked me a question, I want to give you my answer.
I want to share with you, if I may, that I have no evidence of
that, Miller.
Mr. Dawkins: OK.
Mr. Fine: It is a visceral feeling that I have, very strongly,
that this room will be packed when you have it. Now, maybe peo-
ple who want a four year term, and intend to run for it, are go-
ing to have their friends pack it, I don't know, but we will get
a lot of interested citizens here that day.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, the other question is, Marty, why, knowing how
sincere you are for better government, and how much you appreci-
ate working for the betterment of the City of Miami, why didn't
you see about making the salary commensurate with the work we are
doing up here. if you are going to do one, I mean, if you are
going to do something, let's do something. Just don't come here
with a half-cocked gun; let's shoot the full gun.
Mr. Fine: Now, Miller, I will be glad to answer that, if I may.
On the very first page of the memo I sent to you, I suggested
that you might want to deal with the question of increasing the
number of Commissioners and, I must say, that I did not insert in
there, "or, increasing their salaries", but I'd be happy to dis-
cuss that. I would be pleased to discuss it with you. Do you
want to put it on the table at a public hearing, having these
other issues on the table too? My concern is, sometimes when you
put more than one issue on a ballot, and people are opposed to
one, they are going to vote against them all. Now, am I grateful
for the fact that you all are willing to serve at $5,000 a year?
You bet I am! I think it is the best buy any taxpayer ever gets,
and I think that somehow or other, that ought to be changed. How
to go about doing it, I don't know. If you are asking me would I
be part of an effort to try to do it? The answer is yes. Would
I like it on the same ballot? No. Am I being ambivalent? I
hope not.
Mr. Dawkins: OK, thanks, Marty.
Mrs. Kennedy: I agree, Commissioner Dawkins. I don't think any-
body in this community expects us to work the way we do for
ld 4 March 27, 1986
?",
$5,000 a year, considering that each one of us puts over 40 hours
a week over here, but Marty, let me go back to your proposal. I
never doubted this. I don't think our city is served, whel every
two years we go over a bitter, and emotional, and disruptive
campaign. Our City cannot afford having three men running for
office and to raise over, almost, I think, $2,000,000, it was
this last time, for an office that Pays $5,000 a year.
Mr. Plummer: How about a woman?
Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, this time no woman ran. I hope a lot of wom-
en run in future races. I think that regulating campaign contri-
butions is difficult, because of First Amendment issues. What
we can do, is to hold these elections every four years, so that
there is less disruption in the community, and we give the
chance, to whoever is elected mayor to be a good mayor for three
and one-half years, and then, be a good politician for the re-
mainder of his term. As it stands right now, a person is elected
one day, and starts campaigning, literally, I think, the next,
and this is not good for the Mayor, for any mayor, nor for the
citizens of Miami.
Mr. Fine: I am not sure that I follow you. Are you saying that
everyone runs at one time?
Mrs. Kennedy: No, no, no. I think every four years. I agree
with your proposal.
Mr. Fine: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I don't think
it will change the course of history of this community, but I
think it will help a great deal. I am sure by now Mayor Suarez
knows some of the problems that perhaps he thought were a little
more easy to deal with when he was Candidate Suarez, appear a lot
more formidable now. I personally resent the fact that he has to
start being concerned in a few months about the next election I
want him to use his creativity to do the things that he is capa-
ble of doing, along with the rest of this Commission.
Mr. Dawkins: Well, Marty, I will be campaigning against it, for
I don't see it for nothing but a smoke screen. This is my per-
sonal opinion now - personal opinion. I see it as nothing but a
smoke screen for the strong mayor form of government, which I am
anti.
Mr. Plummer: Well, let me throw some water on that smoke, OK?
Let me tell you a few things, Marty. First of all, when I ran in
1971 for the first time, there was a limit on spending. You
ain't going to believe this one - $10,000! Okay, and then it was
taken to court, and it was decided in court that the maximum
spending limit was beneficial to the incumbent, because he had
his name known, and he had his person known, and detrimental to
the challenger, who had to spend money to get his name in the
press and in the public, and I fully understand it. As far_ as I
am concerned, I agree with you, these amounts of monies that are
going out just don't make any sense at all. Marty, the problem,
you can't stop the newspapers, who have a special rate for polit-
ical ads; you can't stop the television stations from charging
what they think they have the right to charge, and I want to tell
you, one quarter page ad in the morning tabloid is something in
the neighborhood of about $4,000. It used to be something like
$600. One spot on T.V. used to be $600, it is now $2,400. You
know, these are the problems that are incurred. Your printing -
I used to buy bumper stickers - one cent a piece. Now, they are
a nickel a piece, OK? Let me tell you something else. The two
things that I am assured of in my 17 years of service on this
Commission, is that the public has spoke time and time again to,
and will continue to do so - one, is the salary of the Commis-
sioners, and the second, if you try to change the location of
City Hall. I think they have spoken to the change in location
four times, and they talked to the Commission's salary three
times.
ld 5 March 27, 1986
Mr. Fine: You mean, they are not in favor of it?
Mr. Plummer: They turned it down, every time. I think there is
merit to a four year term. I will tell you quite honestly and
candidly, one of the reasons I have never seriously considered
running for Mayor was just that reason - that you are no sooner
out of the campaign, then you are back into it again, and cam-
paigning is not my forte, I don't like it, but you have to do it.
Whether I am good, obviously, history will say. I have no prob-
lem with allowing the public to speak to the issue, even though I
think the public spoke to this issue, coupled up with the rest
last year, because it was proposed - a four year term for the
Mayor, coupled with the strong mayor, coupled with the salary,
coupled with all the rest, but I am going to tell you something.
I am just as nervous about this smoke screen around City Hall
(No rumor mill is any better, except in the Police Department) -
that this is just a front, that once this is opened up, then we
are going to be talking about districting, we are going to be
talking about increasing the size of the Commission, we are going
to be talking about salaries. I will only vote favorably today,
or at the first hearing to put it on the ballot to let the people
decide, with a full understanding that the second and final hear-
ing is 45 days before the election. That assures me that if any-
body has any smoke screen or any ideas of bringing anything else
on the ballot, I've got the right to vote against it on the sec-
ond go around.
Mr. Fine: I would subscribe to that and support you and thank
you.
Mr. Plummer: OK, so that smoke screen, if it does exist, and I
don't know that it does, but if it does, I am going to protect my
vote, predicated on the second, and final hearing, being 45 days,
which is the cutoff, as you know, to get something on the ballot,
OK?
Mr. Fine: Mr. Mayor, may I just make one comment. I assume that
neither Commissioner Dawkins, nor Commissioner Plummer are indi-
cating that I proposed this as a smoke screen, because we know
each other too well. If I had other things in mind, I would come
out and say it, and I am always ready for people to question my
intelligence, but never my integrity, so I just want to make sure
where we are at.
Mr. Plummer: Marty, no one... you are not smart enough to start
the rumors at City Hall.
Mr. Fine: I don't...
Mr. Plummer: It takes a dumb man to do that, OK?... and they do
it very well.
Mr. Fine: OK, thank you very much.
Mayor Suarez: I just want to say, Marty, before we begin to take
some action on this, presumably, one way or the other - on number
one item that you mentioned, the one that you referred to, not
necessarily first, that constitutional opinion, at least the one
I am familiar with, on being able to limit spending, is about 55
pages long, quite confusing to me, and if you have any ideas on
how that could be done constitutionally at this particular time,
in this particular city, I would be disposed to vote in favor of
anything that would accomplish that. If I run for reelection, I
have already said I would limit the amount of money that I would
spend. It is easier for the incumbent to say that. I understand
the challenger has to spend more money.
Mr. Fine: There is a very interesting dissent in that case, and
frankly, a couple of my partners who are far smarter than I, and
more capable as constitutional lawyers, have agreed to review
that, and we have had a little experience in testing constitu-
tional issues, and we might deal with that when we come back to
you and make a recommendation.
Id 6 March 27, 1986
Mayor Suarez: On the issue of salaries for the Commission, I
thought, and toyed with the idea, proposing to the Commission
that they consider putting that on the ballot at the same time.
When you indicated that you would not have that on the ballot at
the same time, you mean that it would not be the same question.
Mr. Fine: Well.
Mayor Suarez: But, it could be two separate questions on the
same referendum ballot.
Mr. Fine: Let me just share this with you. The one thing I
don't want to appear is being presumptuous. If I had my choice,
I would hope that this might be a single issue, so that it was
clear. On the other hand, if it were just the salary added to
this, I don't think it would change too much, but if we end up
with the smoke screen coming through, and somebody tries to get a
strong mayor ballot on there, a districting ballot, a salary in-
crease and a four year term, my prediction is all four will go
down in defeat.
Mr. Plummer: It already has. it did last year.
Mr. Fine: Well, that is why I feel comfortable predicting it.
Mr. Plummer: And I would not vote to put it on the ballot, be-
cause the people already spoke to it.
Mr. Fine: And I understand that, and I applaud your stand, and I
am grateful for it.
Mrs. Kennedy: Going back, Mayor, to the salaries, I would then
urge you to consider two proposals, if we decide to do it, to set
our basic salaries at a rate that is acceptable to everyone, and
then to amend the Charter so that our salaries are set automati-
cally on a yearly basis according to the increasing population
and to the cost of living.
Mr. Fine: I would certainly have no problem with those two is-
sues being on the ballot without the other issues of strong mayor
and districts.
Mr. Plummer: Well, my prediction is, that if you do it, if you
put the two issues on, you kill them both.
Mr. Fine: Well, I feel like you do, J. L., but I am reluctant
for any of you to perceive that I don't think you are entitled to
more money. It is just that I don't know if the voters are going
to give it to you.
Mayor Suarez: The other thing I...
Mr. Fine: Not just to you - to elected public officials. I
would say in all candor, the big problem we have in government,
in my opinion, is always at the local level. Richard Stone once
told me is that the best place to run is as far away from Miami
or Dade County as you can, and the only office he ever ran for
was in Tallahassee or Washington, and he is a very smart fellow,
and it is very hard when you have got to face the issues you do
every day. You make enough people angry, where some of them may
think you are getting overpaid at $5,000!
Mayor Suarez: Because certain issues cause specters to be raised
in the minds of certain people and I understand it, because I
have had conversations with people since I was elected, and cer-
tainly during the campaign, we had to deal with the issue of the
strong mayor right in the midst of mayoral campaign in August of
last year, which made absolutely no sense, and I so indicated and
argued against it. I would like to say on that, that from my own
perspective, and so that anyone who is concerned about any rumors
might, by this official and public means, have them dispelled.
ld 7 March 27, 1986
Mayor Suarez: On the issue of salaries for the Commission, I
thought, and toyed with the idea, proposing to the Commission
that they consider putting that on the ballot at the same time.
When you indicated that you would not have that on the ballot at
the same time, you mean that it would not be the same question.
Mr. Fine: Well.
Mayor Suarez: But, it could be two separate questions on the
same referendum ballot.
Mr. Fine: Let me just share this with you. The one thing I
don't want to appear is being presumptuous. If I had my choice,
I would hope that this might be a single issue, so that it was
clear. On the other hand, if it were just the salary added to
this, I don't think it would change too much, but if we end up
with the smoke screen coming through, and somebody tries to get a
strong mayor ballot on there, a districting ballot, a salary in-
crease and a four year term, my prediction is all four will go
down in defeat.
Mr. Plummer: It already has. It did last year.
Mr. Fine: Well, that is why I feel comfortable predicting it.
Mr. Plummer: And I would not vote to put it on the ballot, be-
cause the people already spoke to it.
Mr. Fine: And I understand that, and I applaud your stand, and I
am grateful for it.
Mrs. Kennedy: Going back, Mayor, to the salaries, I would then
urge you to consider two proposals, if we decide to do it, to set
our basic salaries at a rate that is acceptable to everyone, and
then to amend. the Charter so that our salaries are set automati-
cally on a yearly basis according to the increasing population
and to the cost of living.
Mr. Fine: I would certainly have no problem with those two is-
sues being on the ballot without the other issues of strong mayor
and districts.
Mr. Plummer: Well, my prediction is, that if you do it, if you
put the two issues on, you kill them both.
Mr. Fine: Well, I feel like you do, J. L., but I am reluctant
for any of you to perceive that I don't think you are entitled to
more money. It is just that I don't know if the voters are going
to give it to you.
Mayor Suarez: The other thing I...
Mr. Fine: Not just to you - to elected public officials. I
would say in all candor, the big problem we have in government,
in my opinion, is always at the local level. Richard Stone once
told me is that the best place to run is as far away from Miami
or Dade County as you can, and the only office he ever ran for
was in Tallahassee or Washington, and he is a very smart fellow,
and it is very hard when you have got to face the issues you do
every day. You make enough people angry, where some of them may
think you are getting overpaid at $5,000!
Mayor Suarez: Because certain issues cause specters to be raised
in the minds of certain people and I understand it, because I
have had conversations with people since I was elected, and cer-
tainly during the campaign, we had to deal with the issue of the
strong mayor right in the midst of mayoral campaign in August of
last year, which made absolutely no sense, and I so indicated and
argued against it. I would like to say on that, that from my own
perspective, and so that anyone who is concerned about any rumors
might, by this official and public means, have them dispelled.
ld 7 March 27, 1986
In the four months that I have been here (a little over four -
months) I myself have become convinced that a well functioning
Commission does not need a strong mayor form of government, nec-
essarily, and the City can move quite well. In fact, an idea
that would pay compensation, a fair compensation, to the Commis-
sioners and the Mayor - the Mayor being another Commissioner, re-
ally under the Charter - makes a lot of sense at the same time as
extending the four years, which I think makes a lot of sense on
its own. I think you are right on that particular point, and I
would even dare to characterize it as a strong Commission form of
government a little bit, in the sense that we are all expected to
have a more direct role in the details of running the City, and
frankly, the people expect that already, and the least they can
do is compensate us fairly for it. I, myself, would always want
to limit what the Mayor gets paid, and the Commissioners, because
I have a thing about high salaries in City government - everyone
knows about that by now! But, we could probably build all of
that into a set of proposals at public hearings, depending upon
how this Commission is disposed, and I think, Marty, that we have
now heard from you twice, and we appreciate it a great deal. We
have got other items to get to, and I would appreciate hearing
from this Commission, if they want to take this item, at least to _
the point of recommending it for public hearing, at which time I
am sure we will hear more from the general public.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me state on the record the only
problem that I have with the salary is the insult when they call
it a salary. I think it is a partial reimbursement of expenses.
My father used to say to me, he could not understand why I spent
80 percent of my time, where I got 5 percent of my income. The
deader he gets, the smarter he was. Mr. Mayor, if you are going
to open it up to the public, I will wait.
Mayor Suarez: Why don't we decide what the Commission's pleasure
is. It could be that the Commission will simply not act on it,
Mr. Shiver. If we do have public hearings, we are going to have
at least two, at which time you will be able to have plenty of
time to say what you would like. We are sort of considering
whether we should consider this further. It doesn't really...
Mr. Otis Shiver: Excuse me.
Mayor Suarez: ... all right.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, let me express... oh, I am sorry!
Mr. Shiver: Please, please!
Mayor Suarez: No, sir, you are not being given... Commissioner,
do you want to hear from Mr. Shiver at this point? No, sir, we
are not going to hear from you at this point. We are only con-
sidering whether we are going to consider this issue at a full
hearing, so please...
Mr. Shiver: You will hear from me.
Mayor Suarez: Oh, I am sure we will. I am sure we will, sir.
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I will start it off. I have indicated
to you, that I would vote favorably to put it on a ballot, with
the full understanding that nothing else...oh, excuse me... that
the second reading would go at exactly the deadline date for the
referendum, and would suggest, Mr. Mayor, that we hold our first
public hearing somewhere along in June, and that way we would
have the second hearing, I would assume, in July, which would be
about 60 days prior to the September, which Marty recommended. I
have no qualms about what ballot it goes on, so I am speaking for
one, that I would be disposed to vote on that, if it is the feel-
ing of the Commission.
Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor.
ld 8 March 27, 1986
Mayor Suarez: Commissioner?
Mr. Dawkins: I would not vote to nut it on the ballot, in that,
we have the same issue being discussed in over all Dade County,
of which the City of Miami is one of the municipalities that is
governed by Miami, and the total Dade County has shown little, if
any interest, in this issue, so now, if the people in the coun-
ty, which is a part of Miami, has not shown an interest, I would
not vote to put it on the ballot.
Mrs. Kennedy: We are talking about...
Mr. Plummer: Excuse me. Just for clarification, Commissioner
Dawkins, I am not speaking that I would vote in the final analy-
sis to put it to the ballot. I am speaking to having a public
hearing.
Mayor Suarez: And you propose a date in June, approximately,
right?
Mr. Plummer: I said June, and I interrupted my colleague, and I
don't...
Mrs. Kennedy: I was going to say that if you want to go ahead
and move to have it in June.
Mr. Plummer: I only said June because if we were to go to the
September ballot, we would have the first public hearing in June,
the second one in July, which would put us somewhere about the 60
days prior to the September ballot. I make it very clear, that
I want to protect against any smoke screen, chismosa, rumors,
anything, OK? I don't make any bones about that, so that is why
I propose those dates for public hearings. I want you to know
that I fully reserve my right, at that second hearing, as an in-
dependent vote, to vote "yes" or "no". If it is in order, I move
it, "yes".
Mrs. Kennedy: And I second your motion.
Mayor Suarez: Does the motion include a reference that both of
these items that have discussed be advertised as being the sub-
ject of discussion in those public hearings, or generally - at
least describe generally, as including the possibility of compen-
sation before the Commission, and a four year term for the Mayor,
is that the general thrust of the motion?
Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, for the public hearing, I have no prob-
lem. I will be opposed to putting the salary issue on the bal-
lot, as I know it now, but I have no problem of letting the pub-
lic coming here and speaking.
Mrs. Kennedy: There is a motion and a second.
Mayor Suarez: So moved and seconded. Let me just say in fur-
therance of what Commissioner Dawkins has said that I don't, in
the last four and one-half months of being Mayor, Marty, and go-
ing through the City of Miami, and hearing the concerns of the
people, do not consider either one of these two measures to be a
number one priority to the people of Miami in any way, and that
is the reason that I would like to move this along as quickly as
possible. The hearings themselves will be advertised as such
that people have a choice. I must say that the thing that you
have carved out as a proposal is one of the ones that people have
mentioned - why not a four year term? Why do we have constantly
elections, and the compensation for the Commissioners is the oth-
er thing. The strong mayor thing, at least in my mind, has not
been something that people have constantly mentioned to me
throughout the community, and the only point I am trying to make
of all of this, Commissioners, is to let you know that my own
feeling is that we should debate this and get on with it, and not
have happen what happened last year, where we took - I don't know
how many meetings was it, that it took up - five, six, seven,
ld 9 March 27, 1986
Commission meetings? ... three, four, five, six, hours at a time?
It really became a political football.
Mr. Dawkins: Call the question, Mr. Mayor, and let's move on. I
think we have an agenda here.
Mayor Suarez: So, because of that philosophical stance, unless
you want a clarification, Marty, I am disposed to call the ques-
tion.
Mr. Fine: I would hope that your motion reads first about the
four term, and second about the salary, because I think that is
the importance in the manner in which the public ought to per-
ceive it.
Mayor Suarez: At this point, we are going to have hearings, so I
guess it really doesn't make that much sense, but I believe that
is the way it was phrased, and so hearing no further discussion
from the Commission, please call the roll.
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer,
who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 86-228
A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY AD-
MINISTRATION TO ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO
BE HELD EITHER IN JUNE OR JULY REGARDING THE POS-
SIBILITY OF PLACING IN A FUTURE REFERENDUM A PRO-
POSAL TO INCREASE THE MAYOR'S TERM OF OFFICE FROM
TWO TO FOUR YEARS, AS WELL AS THE POSSIBILITY OF
INCREASING THE MONETARY COMPENSATION PRESENTLY
RECEIVED BY MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion was
passed and adopted by the following vote -
AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr.
Commissioner Rosario Kennedy
Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins
Mayor Xavier L. Suarez
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo
ON ROLL CALL:
Mr. Plummer: With the comments and stipulations that I have in-
serted, I vote "yes".
Mr. Dawkins: Never being one to stop the public from being
heard, I vote for the public hearing. I will be voting "no"
against putting this on the ballot, regardless of what the public
hearing brings forth.
Mayor Suarez: "Yes", and I also have the same reservations, but
I want something to be on the ballot, that people are likely to
vote for, and we will reconsider all of this at that point.
Thank you, Marty.
Id 10 March 27, 1986
I �:'Y OF lVo.r.".'AMI
DOCUMENT
MEETING DATE
MARCH 27, 1986
NDEX-
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION
ALLOCATE $300,000. TO THE LITTLE HAVANA
ACTIVITIES AND NUTRITION CENTERS OF DADE
COUNTY, INC. TO ACQUIRE A BUILDING LOCATED
AT 700 S.W. EIGHT STREET; ETC....
AUTHORIZE TO ENTER INTO A COLLECTION BAR-
GAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE EMPLOYEE ORGANIZA-
TION KNOWN AS FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE
LODGE 20, (OCTOBER 1, 1986 - SEPTEMBER 30,
1987).
RATIFY/APPROVE AND CONFIRM BY THE CITY
COMMISSION MEMBERS THE ACTION OF THE CITY
MANAGER FOR FINDING GIBSON PARK ATHLETIC
COURTS RE -SURFACING PROJECT TO BE AN EMERGEN-
CY AND AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE
ORDER FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SAID PROJECT
TO AGILE COURTS, INC.
DESIGNATE/APPOINT: THOMAS McGAHE AND ALEX
SOTO TO SERVE AS MEMBERS ON THE AUDIT REVIEW
COMMITTEE TO PERFORM AN ANNUAL REVIEW
OF THE MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT BUDGETS AND SEGREGATION OF
FUNDS; ETC...
PROVIDE FOR THE APRIL 22, 1986 CITY COM-
MISSION MEETING TO COMMENCE AT 2:00 P.M.
EXTEND TO APRIL 10, 1986 THE 15-DAY TIME
LIMITATION (RESOLUTION NO. 86-169, FEBRUARY
27, 1986) FOR APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION
DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE OF FUNDS EARMARKED
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING OFF CLAUGHTON
ISLAND.
ISSION
�l7
86-229
86-230
86-233
86-235
86-240
86-241