The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 1985-01-24 Minutesv 6 CITY OF Ml Ml COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 24, 1985 OF MEETING HELD ON (PLANNING & ZONING) PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL RALPH G.. ONGIE CITY CLERK ft ia 7 INDEX MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA JANUARY 240 1985 ITEM NO. SUBJECT LEGISLATION PAGE NO. 1. PROCLAMATIONS, PLAQUES, KEYS TO CITY AND SPECIAL ITEMS DISCUSSION 1 2 ALLOCATE $69000 FOR USER FEE BAYFRONT PARK AUDITORIUM MIAMI GRAND PRIX FEBRUARY 24-26, 1984 R-85-56 1-2 3 GRANT REQUEST FOR FUNDING: 2ND ANNUAL MINI GRAND PRIX FEBRUARY 159169171 1985 M-85-57 2-4 4 DISCUSSION ITEM GARBAGE FEE INCREASE INSPECTORS GIVING OUT CITATIONS TO HOMEOWNERS FOR VIOLATIONS ETC.(COMMISSIONERS DAWKINS AND PLUMMER) DISCUSSION 4-6 5' DISCUSSION ITEM: QUESTION TO ADMINISTRATION AS TO WHY SANITATION WORKERS WERE NOT HIRED WITH POLICE OFFICERS, DISCUSSION 6-7 6 APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE PROPOSED SCHEDULE: POLICE SUBSTATIONS IN LITTLE HAVANA AND LIBERTY CITY - ARCHITECT, CONSTRUCTION BIDS -GROUNDBREAKING. M-85-58 7-13 7 PERSONAL APPEARANCE -MEMBERS OF LITTLE HAVANA TOURIST AUTHORITY REQUESTING FUNDING FOR EXPANSION AREA OF CALLE OCHO, CARNAVAL, PASEO FESTIVALS. DISCUSSION 13-20 8 ADDIT.IONAL DISCUSSION: HIRING OF SANITATION WORKERS - COMMISSIONER DAWKINS REQUESTS DEAN MIELKE TO CLARIFY AT NEXT MEETING. DISCUSSION 20 9 FUNDING REQUEST: CHILD ABUSE PREVENTATIVE PROGRAM. DISCUSSION 20-21 10 APPROVE LOAN REQUEST TO MIAMI CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT INC. $889989.62 WITH REPAYMENT CONDITIONS. M-85-59 21-23 11 APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE RECOMMENDATIONS FO PUBLIC - WORKS DEPARTMENT CONCERNING PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR FOR JOSE MARTI PARK PROJECT. M-85-60 23-25 - 12 DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL ALLOCATION FOR - DEDICATION CEREMONIES JOSE MARTI RIVERFRONT PARK DISCUSSION 25-26 - 13 LONG PUBLIC HEARING AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL: - REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION: - 2210 S.W. 16 ST., 1600-02 S.W. 22 AVENUE RS-2/2 TO CR-1/7. DISCUSSION 26-47 14 SECOND READING: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION = 2711-13 S.W. 27 TERRACE RF-1/3 TO CR 3/7. ORD. 9950 47 15 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: APPLY HC-3 HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO J.W. WARNER HOUSEO.111 S.W. 5TH AVENUE. ORD. 9951 47-48 16 PLAT ACCEPTANCE: COCONUT GROVE ARCADE. R-85-61 48-49 17 PLAT ACCEPTANCE: NUGENT GROVES. R-85-42 49 18 PLAT ACCEPTANCE: DOWNTOWN CENTER TRACT "A" R-85-63 50 19 DISCUSSION: REPORT FROM BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 9500. . DISCUSSION 50-53 20 REQUEST MANAGER TO MEET WITH COCONUT GROVE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND OTHER GROUPS REGARDING POSSIBLE USE OF GLASS HOUSE IN PEACOCK PARK. M-85-64 53-57 21 PLAT ACCEPTANCE: "MEMORIES SUBDIVISION". R-85-65 57-59 22 APPROVE REQUEST AND ALLOCATES $80,000 PURSUANT TO FUNDING REQUEST -CALLS OCHO CARNIVAL MIAMI AND PASEO FESTIVALS, STREET CLOSURES, ETC. M-85-66 59-61 23 LONG PUBLIC HEARING AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL: REQUEST CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 3000-3006 AVIATION AVENUE RS-2/2 TO RO-2.1/5• DISCUSSION 61-86 24 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 2210 S.W. 16TH STREET AND 1600-02 S.W. 22ND AVENUE FROM RSS-2/2 TO CR-1/7. ORD. 9952 86-90 25 DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER DAWKINS REGARDING DAVID WEAVER APPOINTMENT TO OFF STREET PARKING AUTHORITY. DISCUSSION 90 26 REINSTITUTE CITY HIRING FREEZE - NO NEW HIRES PENDING PERMANENT CITY MANAGER APPOINTMENT, FURTHER EXEMPTING CERTAIN POSITIONS, POLICE, FIRE AND SOLID WASTE. M-85-67 90-93 27 COMMISSIONER DAWKINS REQUESTED THAT MATTER OF HOWARD GARY'S SEVERANCE PAY BE PLACED ON NEXT REGULAR AGENDA. 93 28 LONG PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING ORDINANCE: SPI-SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICT. DISCUSSION 93-137 29 DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL: GRAPELAND BOULEVARD, TIGERTAIL, AVIATION PLACE. DEP. REQ. CH. ZO. CL. RG-2/5 TO RO-3/6. DISCUSSION 138-143 30 SECOND READING ORGINANCE: ATLAS CHANGE BY REMOVING SPI-3 COCONUT GROVE MAJOR STREETS OVERLAY DISTRICT. ORD. 9954 144 31 ADOPT IN PRINCIPLE: DINNER KAY MASTER PLAN - PUBLIC PROPERTY SEWARD S. BAYSHORE DRIVE, PEACOCK PARK, KENNEDY PARK. R-85-70 144-151 32 ALLOCATE $7,738. LATIN ORANGE FESTIVAL PRESENTATION OF "FIESTA BY THE BAY" HELD DECEMBER 319 1984. R-85-71 152 33 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ART. 5 PLANNED DEV. (PD) DISTRICTS ART. 159 ART 20, ART.21, ART. 259 ART.300 ART.31, ART.36. ORD. 9955 152-158 34 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION GRAPELAND BOULEVARD, TIGERTAIL, AVIATIOON, ETC. RG-2/5 TO RO-3/6. ORD. 9956 159 35 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ATLAS CHANGE - APPLY SPI-17 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT. ORD. 9957 159-160 36 AUTHORIZE DEVELOPMENT ORDER. TERREMARK CENTRE PROJECT A.R.I. 2560-2580 TIGERTAIL AVENUE, 3204- 3240 AVIATION AVENUE, 2583-2585 S. BAYSHORE DRIVE. R-85-72 160-166 37 AUTHORIZE APPLICATION FOR FINAL MAJOR USE PERMITi TERREMARK CENTRE PROJECT DRIVE IN TELLERS, ETC. R-85-73 166-168 38 ALLOCATE $15,800.00 IN CONNECTION WITH DEDICATION OF JOSE MARTI PARK EVENT AND PARADE. R-85-74 169 39 ALLOCATEE $699000. TO MORTY FREEDMAN AND ASSOCIATES INC. 1985 INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL. R-85-75 169 40 ADOPT IN PRINCIPLE: PLANNING STUDY I-95 S.W. 15 ROAD PROPOSING CERTAIN ZONING ACTIONS AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS. R-85-76 171 41 MOTION STIPULATING ALL ITEMS FROM TODAY'S AGENDA NOT TAKEN UP SHALL BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 28, EXCEPT 9 TO MARCH 28 WITH ADDITIONALL EXEMPTIONS AND PROVISOS. M-85-77 174 42 RELAX RESTRICTIONS AS TO TIME FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY DOWNTOWN MIAMI FEBRUARY N1, 19859 BEYOND 9 PM. BUT BEFORE MIDNIGHT. R-85-78 175 43 MOTION TO CONTINUE PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMD. TO 9500 ARTICLE 15 SPI S.E. OVERTOWN/PARK WEST ETC. TO 2/28/85. M-85-79 178 44 MOTION STIPULATING CONTINUED ITEMS FOR FEB. 28 ITEMS 23 THRU 28 S.E. OVERTOWN/PARK WEST 22 AT 9 A.M. AND ITEMS 23-28 IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER. M-85-80 181-182 45 CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND CONTINUANCE TO FEBRUARY 14, 1985: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT - 3000-3006 AVIATION AVENUE FROM RS-2/2 TO RO-2.1/5. M-85-81 182-187 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA {'1 On the 24th day of January, 1985, the City Commission of Miami regular meeting Florida,' met at its re g g place in the City Hall Y , 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in regular session. `a The meeting was called to order at 9:24 O'Clock A.M. by Mayor Maurice A. Ferre with the following members of the Commission found to be present: if Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins ,t Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. i Mayor Maurice A. Ferre ~` { ALSO PRESENT: Randolph B. Rosencrantz, City Manager Lucia Allen Dougherty, City Attorney Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk Matty Hirai, Assistant City Clerk ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. An invocation was delivered by Mayor Ferre who then led f! those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. 1 PROCLAMATIONS, PLAQUES, KEYS TO CITY AND SPECIAL ITEMS 1. Key of the City presented to Hon. Jacobo Majluta, President of the Senate of the Dominican Republic and former President of that country. 2. Proclamation presented declaring February, 1985 as American History Month. Presented to Mrs. Martha W. Fabing and Mrs. Mary W. White, of the John Macdonald Chapter of Daughters of the American Revolution. ---------------------------------------- - 2 ALLOCATE $69000 FOR USER FEE BAYFRONT PARK AUDITORIUM MIAMI GRAND PRIM FEBRUARY 24-26, 1984 ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: Ladies and gentlemen, we now move onto pocket items, Mr. Plummer. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I only have one, which is routine. City Attorney, have you distributed this to all members of the Commission? In the agreement, Mr. Mayor, with the Grand Prix a resolution allocating $6,000 from Special Programs and Accounts, Quality of Life, for the user fee of Bayfront r sl 1 January 24, 1985 Park Auditorium in connection with the staging of Miami Grand Prix February 24-26, 1984. This was for last year. This was part of the agreement. It is ratifying that agreement. If it is in order, Mr. Mayor, I so move. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Dawkins: Are you looking for me to second it? Mr. Plummer: Do you want to third it or fourth it? Mr. Dawkins: Yes, I'll second it. Mayor Ferre: Is there further discussion? No problems with the Law Department or the administration? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 85-56 A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING $69000 FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS, QUALITY OF LIFE FUND, FOR THE USER FEE OF THE BAYFRONT PARK AUDITORIUM IN CONNECTION WITH THE STAGING OF THE MIAMI GRAND PRIX FEBRUARY 249 26-9 1984. (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 ::a:, passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo 3 GRANT REQUEST FOR FUNDING: 2ND ANNUAL MINI GRAND PRIX FEB. 159 169 179 1985 Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, the other is to recognize Mr. Willy Gort. As you know, you participated last year in the Mini Grand Prix, benefits three charities in this community. Mayor Ferre: Let me correct that. I was going to participate, but when I got there, I noticed that you had rigged my car. See, when there is recognition in the audience of the truth of what I'm stating. You wanted me to compete with a rigged car, and I wasn't foolish enough to fall into that trap, so I.... Mr. Plummer: It wasn't rigged, Mr. Mayor, it just wouldn't make a left turn.. It was headed for the bay. As you know, we funded them last year for this Mini Grand Prix event, which is solely put on by the three charities. I'd asked Mr. Gort to make his presentation and if in order, they have a request to which I would be willing to make a motion at the end. sl 2 January 24, 1985 IA 0 Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir, Mr. Gort. Mr. Wilfredo Gort: Mr. Mayor, Wilfredo Gort, 2660 N.W. 14th Avenue. Like last year, we'd like to extend this; we'd like to make an exception this year. We'd like to do it the 15th, 16th, and 17th of February with the Mini Grand Prix taking place the race between the elected officials and the press on Sunday. The amount that we need is the same amount that was given to us as the co-sponsor, the City of Miami, last year. Mayor Ferre: Which is how much? Mr. Gort: It was $10,000. Mr. Plummer: $10,000, the same as last year. Mr. Mayor, if it is in order.... Mayor Ferre: How much did you raise last year? Mr. Gort: Last year the total that was raised, I believe, was around $16,000. Mayor Ferre: $60,000? Mr. Gort: $16,000, so our ten gets $16,000. Mayor Ferre: So if we give you $6,000, we're $4,000 ahead. =; Mr. Plummer: Well excuse me no Mr. Mayor, last � Y � year, let's remember, was the first year. This year, we will benefit by our mistakes, and we hope to double that amount. Mayor Ferre: O.K., based on that, then...it's you, the All Urban League, and who else? Who's the third? Mr. Gort: The Little Havana Activity Center, Switchboard of Miami, and the Urban League. Mayor Ferre: They share on an equal basis on third each. Mr. Plummer: Then, of course, Mr. Mayor, you are once again, whether you vote for the motion or not, once again, invited to participate on Sunday. We want you to know this year we don't have a rigged cart, but we have a thing called a jet -ski for you. Mayor Ferre: We have a motion of approval. Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Any problems with the Law Department or the City administration? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 85-57 A MOTION GRANTING A REQUEST FOR FUNDS MADE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SECOND ANNUAL MINI -GRAND PRIX, AN EVENT TO BE HELD FEBRUARY 15, 169 AND 17, 1985; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ALLOCATE AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 IN CONNECTION WITH SAID EVENT. '? sl 3 January 24, 1985 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote -- AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Ferre: Mr. Gort, later on I need to chat with you whenever you have a moment on this. ------------------------------------------------------------ 4 DISCUSSION ITEM GARBAGE FEE INCREASE INSPECTORS GIVING OUT CITATIONS TO HOMEOWNERS FOR VIOLATIONS ETC. (Comm. Dawkins & Plummer) ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I have a couple here. The first one is to honor Mrs. Levenshawn, the designer of our poster. She is ill. We'll do this at a later date. The second one I have is the severance pay of Mr. Howard Gary, which I will hold until we have a full Commission, if that is all right with you, sir. Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: Before I wanted to revisit and reconsider the appointment of Mr. David Weaver to the Off -Street Parking Board. I'd like to hold that for a full Commission. My other problem is, my other pocket item is, Mr. Manager, through you or through Mr. Patterson, I have gotten more complaints in the last month regarding the garbage fee increase than I have in anything since we've been here. I am a little ticked off because those of us in this Commission, in my opinion, were backed into a corner where we had no alternative other than to vote this, because the Mayor will tell you that he had word that we were in violation of the State Law, as having not passed a budget and many of us up here fought that I could not see why I had to increase my garbage fee $60.00 when the year before I increased it $25.00 to hire policemen, and it didn't pick up any garbage, and at that time I felt that somebody in the administration was going to work out -that's a lie. I thought somebody in the Sanitation Department was going to work out something and bring back to this Commission that I could intelligently discuss with the residents who called me the reason why $30.00 was added to their garbage fee. I do not have that. I need to know from you, sir, by the next meeting and in writing, with charts, graphs, whatever, showing me the need for $60.00 increase in the garbage fee and show me how I can justify the $30.00 that you added to the bill, sir. Not you, sir, but the other administration. See, everybody needs to understand, this is not Mr. Rosencrantz's problem. He inherited this. I am not arguing with Mr. Rosencrantz. I am arguing with the other City Manager because that is who I had the problem with. I mean, I don't want anyone to get the idea that this is a personal vendetta against him. No, no, no, it's with the administration and he inherited it. Go ahead, Mr. Rosencrantz. sl 4 January 24, 1985 Mr. Plummer: Let me go one step further. Maybe you can answer them both. My neighbors and myself are up in arms, Mr. Manager, about these twelve inspectors that you have around this City writing notice of violations, about the fact that you have to put out your trash the night before. I don't know what you're supposed to do with it between the times that they occasionally show up. They haven't even published a schedule this year. They sent me a little photostat off an adding machine. You know, that's fine to tell the people that we want to clean up this City. We do. But I'm asking the administration, since you were smart enough to impose these regulations, then I'm asking you to be smart enough to come up with a solution, because I'm not going to keep my trash in bags in my garage or in my living room. Obviously, that's were you want me to keep them. I don't know where. But I want to tell you the way this system is right now, I have received, I think, a warning and two notices of violations. Mayor Ferre: So have I. Mr. Plummer: My immediate suggestion is to take those damn twelve guys writing the notices of violations and let them pick them up, and we won't have any problem, but I want to tell you, it is ridiculous. My neighbors are up in arms. I'm up in arms. The only justification I got is to show them the notices that I wasn't any special interest. It's impractical. I can't tell my gardener when to cut my grass. Let me finish, Maurice. I came home; he had been there after I left, cut the grass, put it out at the side, as he's always done. When I got home, I got a notice of violation on my door. That was the first time I knew the gardener had been there. You know, something has to be worked out besides this Mr. Patterson's 99000 gallon container on wheels. But what you have I admire and I want to work with you to accomplish a better and a cleaner City, but the thing that you're doing now is not working. Something has to be done. I'm going to tell you, Mr. Rosencrantz, I'm going to invite you or subpoena you to appear with me before the Code Board when they jerk me in there for these Code violations. I would hope that the very smart administration who saw fit to impose rules which I feel are not workable would likewise exert as much energy to make solutions that will make it a workable plan and something that can be worked out. I leave that with you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: The original intention, Mr. Patterson, are you around? Mr. Clarence Patterson: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: The original intention of getting those twelve inspectors was because there were some real serious violations of people throwing out mattresses and old refrigerators and a lot of garbage. It was that kind of a violation. I don't think the Commission ever really intended, at least I didn't, and I'm sure the rest of my colleagues didn't either to go around and make life -hard for homeowners who want to keep and beautify their property and are cutting grass and limbs and then putting them out where they normally put them out. I mean, what are those people going to do with those limbs and the grass that they cut? It seems to me that it is an unreasonable imposition to ask people with regards to tree cuttings, branch cuttings, and grass to put them in sacks and keep them in their garage until the day of the pick up. I think our efforts are best served that those inspectors do their job of people throwing out old refrigerators, mattresses, suitcases, boxes, and appliances. By the way, I will admit that I have been a violator of that recently, because I moved into my house, so sl 5 January 24, 1985 I've been one of those guys throwing out a lot of old boxes and things, but I think there is some justification. I do feel that the main issue here is garbage and dirt and violators of people throwing things in other people's property, rather than to go out after people that are on the contrary, doing the job of trying to make their property look beautiful by cutting the grass. We shouldn't be penalizing them. We should be thanking them for trying to make the City more presentable. So could you look into that and try to clear that up a little bit? Mr. Rosencrantz: This is the new program that each of you Commissioners know and anytime you implement a new program, you always have the difficulty of trying to find some balance as to how strict to be or how strict not to be. We will revisit that issue and hopefully be able to get back to the Commissioners in a timely fashion. Mr. Dawkins: But any issue has room for adjustments. With ten inspectors, I see no reason why, and this is just my opinion, Mr. Manager, I was one of the ones who complained because in my area a lot of people don't even have garbage cans and they put the garbage in a bag and throw it in a pile for the trash, but there is no reason in my opinion, why those ten inspectors cannot go around in a trash truck and if they see a violation like the Mayor says, mattresses and appliances, write a citation. But since they are riding through the area and nothing else to do, let them pick up the bags of leaves and trash and throw it on the truck. They are being paid.... Mr. Plummer: I want to be just as quick to come out and take care of the problem as they are to sell you a sign for $7.50, which says NO DUMPING. By the way, I don't Maurice, if they have built you a hot tub at your curb -side yet? Yes, they come out and when they use that scoop.... Mayor Ferre: They dig a hole. Mr. Plummer: Every three months, I have a hot tub in front of my house as a the drainage pit and then they come out ... let me tell you one better. You call old pipe smoker over here and you raise holy hell and you say, "I got a crater in front of my house. Take care of it immediately." They do. They come out with eight yards of rock. Now you don't have a crater. You got a hill. And they work on that hill for three months, and now you have a hot tub. The taxpayers don't realize that they get that free of charge. Mayor Ferre: Anything else on this? Mr. Dawkins: No sir, not on that. 5 DISCUSSION ITEM: QUESTION TO ADMINISTRATION AS TO WHY SANITATION WORKERS WERE NOT HIRED WITH POLICE OFFICERS Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Manager, prior to your arrival, this Commission was influenced... this is my personal opinion. ..influenced by the Citizens Against Crime to hire 25 additional policemen, and prior to that, we had hired 50 additional policeman and eliminated people in Sanitation, Recreation, etc. through attrition and retirement. I want you to check back now, because I'm going to be checking myself, and the agreement reached was for every policeman hired, ten sanitation workers would be hired. I mean one. sl 6 January 24, 1985 Ten new policemen were hired and not one sanitation worker was hired. Mr. Plummer: Inspectors. Mr. Dawkins: No, I want sanitation workers, see, that's what the agreement calls for. When I discussed it with you, and I don't hold this against you, I'm merely giving this as information, you said to me that you did not know if 25 vacancies existed. If you do not know this afternoon, I will bring you the budget from last year and this year's budget telling you how many sanitation positions were eliminated in order to hire 50 policeman. Therefore, I don't have to create a position. The need is there. There is a resolution, I'm not asking you to violate the charter. A resolution was passed to hire ten garbage men, sanitation workers. This has not been done. It's been over a year. I need to know from you at the next meeting who the ten men were who were hired and when they were hired, and I'm a little disturbed at this paper I got from your office telling me about temporary people. Where is it? You know, it says, 12-11-84, lenar cranes, solid waste, then under action it says appointment, temporary, and then on the other position it says, on the other side it says positions stand by laborer. We are supposed to hire ten permanent people. To me this belittles my intelligence in my opinion. I would like for you and I to get together by the next meeting and come up with the ten people we're going to hire and that's it. O.K.? Mr. Rosencrantz: We can do that. 6 APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE PROPOSED SCHEDULE: POLICE SUBSTATIONS IN LITTLE HAVANA & LIBERTY CITY -ARCHITECT, CONSTRUCTION BIDS -GROUNDBREAKING Mr. Dawkins: My last one, Mr. Mayor, is police stations in Liberty City and Little Havana. I sent the Manager some questions, which he asked that I ask him. Has an architect been selected? Has the land been identified? If the land has been identified, has it been secured? Has the $10,000,000 on hold for the construction of the two facilities, what is the schedule worked out by fast track team? He replies, question one, has an architect been selected? No, upon acceptance by the City Commission, of the proposed activities that take place in the substations, request for proposals would be solicited from architect. So now what is that in plain English? Mr. Rosencrantz: What that says, Commissioner Dawkins, is that the next meeting of the City Commission I plan to have the Police Chief and some of his other people here to explain to the Commissioners how the substations will be structured, what activities will take place at the substations, and if the City Commission is in concurrence with that proposal, then we can start the design of the substations. It's necessary for us to have the program that's to be implemented by the substations approved before we secure the architect. Mr. Dawkins: What dates were these bonds passed? Mr. Rosencrantz: The bonds were approved by the voters at the last election. I think that was in last Spring. 81 7 January 24, 1985 Mr. Dawkins: And since then until now no one has thought to get an architect or anything to bring to this Commission. I'm ticked off again! Not at you, but at the past City Manager, I mean this is a shame! Here it is one year since this has been done, and we're dragging our feet. Have we secured the land? Has the land been secured? Mr. Rosencrantz: Yes, do you want to respond to the Commissioner. Ms. Juanita Shearer: Commissioner Dawkins, for the north substation, the Liberty City substation, the answer is to questions 2 and 3, the previous City Manager and County Manager, Merritt Stierheim worked together and there is a lease being prepared by HUD through whom we are getting the property for the north substation. The County Manager's office promised we would have that lease for our Law Department to review probably by Friday, which is tomorrow. Mr. Dawkins: I've called this County and the Law Department and they said it's ready. I don't know who's lying; I don't know what's what. Ms. Shearer: I don't know, sir. I spoke with the County Manager's office yesterday and this is what they told me. Mr. Dawkins: I will be in the County Manager's office in the morning personally and find out what's what. Mr. Plummer: Wait, let me ask a question. I don't ever remember this Commission approving or designating the location. Ms. Shesrcr: You have not done so sir; you have not seen the document. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, if we have not done that, what right does the administration have to go forward and purchase property without this Commission's approval? Mayor Ferre: That's correct. Ms. Shearer: The property for the north substation, Commissioner Plummer, is not being purchased. It is a lease agreement, which has not yet.... Mayor Ferre: That's not the point. That's not the point whether it's being given, purchased, leased, or otherwise, that is a policy decision that this Commission must make and not the administration. So what the Commissioner is saying is, it's an important decision. I for one, and I'm sure all of us want to know where is the location. I have some very strong feelings about some of these things. I'm sure Miller does and all of us. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, as we are all very sadly aware, there is a big controversy in the Little Havana station as to where it should be located. Mayor Ferre: Precisely. Mr. Plummer: I think that matter has to be addressed by this Commission. .This Commission will make that decision as to where it goes. I'm at a loss to understand the administration proceeding to designate a spot and the thing to fear that I have is that you are going to come here before this Commission and you are going to tell us that was the only site available and if you don't vote on it today, sl 8 January 24, 1985 t t' we're going to lose it, because that is what history has been done by the administration. I'm telling you right up r Y front now to stop what you're doing, bring it before this Commission, and let us make the policy decision. Mayor Ferre: In other words, no more crisis, last minute , decisions that we've got to make or we'll lose the property because tomorrow the contract runs out or the lease expires or something. Mr. Rosencrantz: On the fourteenth we can bring in the whole array of potential sites and we can go over them with the Commission. Mayor Ferre: Well, today is the 24th of January. I just want to state to you on the record, Mr. Manager, and through you to the rest of your staff that I am not privy to any locations anywhere. I've never heard of any locations. I haven't been told. I subscribe to what Commissioner Plummer is saying, don't bring it up on an item and expect for us to vote on it without having had time to think about it and talk to our constituencies whether or not that's an appropriate place. Where is the Metro location, could you tell me? Ms. Shearer: The north station location is currently being considered. It's at 1060 N.W. 62 Street. Mayor Ferre: How far away is that from the County line? Mr. Plummer: Seven blocks. Ms. Shearer: The locations and consideration with all due respect to the comments you've made, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the Police Department has been working along with the Planning Department with two community based groups who have made proposals along with the Planning Department as to possible locations. Mayor Ferre: We're a community based group too. Ms. Shearer: I understand that, sir; I just wanted to provide you with that information. Mayor Ferre: What I mean to say to you, with all due respects to you is that these five people here are a community based organization. Let me tell you how we become a community based organization. There are people that are called voters and they vote for us and elect us. We represent them. Therefore, we are entitled to be a community based organization. I have no objections to you taking to other community based organizations. All I'm saying is that this community based organization wants to be kept appraised of what's going on because finally, the ultimate decision is ours. I just have one last question on that and that deals with Metro. This is a piece of property that Metropolitan Dade County owns. Ms. Shearer: That is my understanding, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Are they proffering to have a joint substation? Ms. Shearer: Not to my knowledge, sir. Mr. Plummer: They couldn't, Maurice, it's seven blocks from the County. Mr. Dawkins: What it is, Mr. Mayor, to help you get orientation of where it is. Do you know where Tacolcy is? sl 9 January 24, 1985 J Mayor Ferret Mr. Dawkins: Ah-huh . The land west of Tacolcy, that vacant lot. Mayor Ferret Oh, yes. Mr. Dawkins: That and from there 17th Avenue is the County line. Mayor Ferret Yes. Mr. Dawkins: So you know where that is. Mayor Ferret Yes. Mr. Dawkins: County is not doing you any big favor. This land was acquired with Model Cities Funds. Mr. Plummer: Oh, I thought they were going to use the Orange Bowl money for that. Mr. Dawkins: The next thing that gets me is question four. Again, I need it in plain English. Is the $10,000,000 on hold for the construction of the two facilities? The answer I got -and listen closely now- sufficient funding is available through the bond program. That's not what I asked. Mr. Rosenerantz: The bond authorization was for $20,000,000, Commissioner Dawkins. None of that money has been spent. Mr. Dawkins: I'm going to rephrase it and ask it as elementary as I can. I made a motion that $10,000,000 be put on hold and not touched for anything else in the City of Miami except the construction of two police stations, one in Little Havana and one in Liberty City. If any money was left after that, it could be used for anything else within the City of Miami. Is that $10,000,000 on hold earmarked any place to be used only specifically for the construction of police stations? Mr. Rosenerantz: I'd like to give you a yes or no answer, Commissioner Dawkins, but it may be difficult to do that. Let me recite some history that.... Mr. Dawkins: All right, let me tell you this. No, no, let me tell you this. I will give you until Friday to get me this answer of next week. Then, if you don't have it, then I have some decisions to make, because then it means to me that the administration isn't cooperating with me and don't care about what I say, and other people get priorities and their things get done and mine don't. That may be a selfish attitude to take, but that's one that I'll have to take, sir. Mr. Rosenerantz: Just let me.... Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no, no, either next Friday tell me where the money is and that's it, because a resolution was passed, sir. Right here, as the Mayor says by this CBO that this $10,000,000 has to be placed on hold and not touched. All I need from you by next Friday is where it is and that's all. I don't need to know that you had to borrow it to pay your water bill, your light bill, and you're going to put it back. I don't need that. Mr. Plummer: May I inquire about the police bond issue; Mr. City Manager, you and I attended the Pig Bowl a couple of sl 10 January 24, 1985 1 16 weeks ago. Miami was doing well until the last 58 minutes of the game. During that period of time, Mr. City Manager, I saw a helicopter that said Miami Police Department. Mayor Ferre: I saw that too. Mr. Plummer: I don't recall this Commission allocated that very expensive toy from the bond fund. I'm questioning, and I would like an answer, as to the Miami Police Department helicopter, where the funds came from to pay for it, because I will tell you it is, I'm sure, it cost more than $4500, and as such requires this Commission's approval. I would just like an answer back on that because I have to question; as Commissioner Dawkins is, that possibly this money is being used without us knowing about it or without us making decisions and we're going to suddenly wake up and the cupboards are going to be bare. Mr. Rosencrantz: Let me clarify a few things so that we don't have a misunderstanding about this. I don't know who owned the helicopter at the Pig Bowl game that had City of Miami on it. To my knowledge, the City of Miami does not own any helicopters. Mr. Plummer: That scares me even more if it's not with your knowledge. You are the City Manager. That helicopter clearly stated Miami Police Department. Mayor Ferre: If something were to happen, an accident, God forbid.... Mr. Plummer: That liability is ours. Mayor Ferre: Who authorized them to put City of Miami on the helicopter? Mr. Rosencrantz: I will find out. I will find out for you. Mayor Ferre: Would you clarify this for us? Mr. Rosencrantz: The other thing that I want to make sure that we understand, the original bond referendum passed by the voters was for $20,000,000. That money is still intact. I has not been spent. There is nothing spent. Mr. Plummer: All I'm saying to you is that the resolution of this Commission by Commissioner Dawkins that $10,000,000 of that was definitely restricted. Mr. Rosencrantz: Yes. Mr. Plummer: The other amounts of money, I'm sure every Commissioner sitting here had the same thought and that is that any of those monies, any of those monies to be touched would be approved by this Commission. I think we have to go back to thee 1972 bond issue, which was passed, which you were not a part of, Maurice and I were, and we passed a bond issue that at that time included a helicopter, that included T.V. street monitors, that included automatic vehicle locators, and those things as we are well and sadly aware are not in place, but all of the monies were used. I don't want to see that happen again. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Rosencrantz, I think you and I need to get together, because of the $20,000,000 police bond, if my memory serves me correctly, I received a memorandum which stated that $7,000,000 or something was taken from it to pay with fire bond money for the meghertz system. So, some of that money, see that money is not intact. Anyway, we will get to that; no problem. Now, you gave me a preliminary sl 11 January 240 1985 x projection development schedule on the Miami Police Department stations, where you say May 19, 1987, it will be occupied. I'm going to tell you, sir, that any City Manager who comes here must have this station operational no later than a year from this date. I don't care, you could do anything else you want to do, and this is a station that I've been after. This Commission has O.K.d, so you people have one year to get your act together. Mr. Mayor, do I need to make a motion that they get this completed in a {; year, or anything? Mayor Ferre: I think we have to discuss a policy of times. Commissioner.... Mr. Plummer: Defer that. Mayor Ferre: I don't think, I frankly don't think that even if this were the private sector, that you could build a '.i complicated structure like that in a year. But I do think we need to put some limitations is to say that an architect be selected within 45 days from today and that a contract be i signed within six months, or something like that. That I xk think you can do, because that's within the reasonable purview. ' Mr. Dawkins: I don't know, Mr. Mayor, when we get ready to lose federal funds or if we're going to lose state funds, we get it done. Mayor Ferre: I agree with you. I'll accept your motion any way you want to.... Mr. Dawkins: No, no, we're going to go with what you said. I would rather go the way the Mayor said and we all have time, than for someone to come up and say, Miller, you know t; we were working with an impossible situation to begin with. Mayor Ferre: What, Ms. Shearer, is a reasonable time for us to have an architect on board? Ms. Shearer: I believe that we have placed in the schedule that by March of 85 we'd be ratifying the agreements for the professional design consulting team. That's based on a schedule that when the Police Department brings the building programs to you so that the Commission can.... Mayor Ferre: Could you accelerate that to February 28th? That would give you a month and five weeks. Mr. Dawkins: There is enough minority architects out here with nothing to do that you all could put them to work. Mayor Ferre: The other alternative date would be March 14th. Ms. Shearer: I believe we could make by March 14th. We have to.... Mr. Dawkins: You might not be able to get the big ones to do it, but there's enough minority contractors out there who need work who would be glad to work Saturdays and Sundays to get this done. Ms. Shearer: I believe we could make it by the first Commission meeting in March. Mr. Dawkins: No, ma'am, I want it the 28th. Mayor Ferre: All right, how about the contract itself, I mean the construction, how long do the architects need to draw it up? sl 12 January 24, 1985 Ms. Shearer: It's been our in-house estimates, Mr. Mayor, that we need approximately five to six months to complete the construction documents, because of the complications of the building. We're talking about substantial parking structures, as well as buildings. It's not a simple, free- designable item. That's why we had the March to December time frame. We believe we can accelerate this schedule before, but we didn't want to promise you something that we couldn't deliver. Mayor Ferre: As I understand, what the Commissioner is now saying, is that you have an architect selection before the Commission, professional selection by the meeting of February 28th, and that five months later you have a contract package, which puts it at the end of July. Ms. Shearer: So that would allow us to go out to bid in five months? Mayor Ferre: Say August 1st. Ms. Shearer: August 1st to commence bidding. Mayor Ferre: That would be five months. Ms. Shearer: So that we could accept the construction contract in the September Commission meeting. Mr. Dawkins: And break ground in October. Ms. Shearer: We should be able to have a ground breaking prior to that, but commence construction in October. Mayor Ferre: Is there such a motion? Mr. Dawkins: So move. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll on the motion. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 85-58 A MOTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING IN PRINCIPLE A PROPOSED SCHEDULE PRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATION ON THIS DATE IN CONNECTION WITH TWO POLICE SUBSTATIONS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT IN THE LITTLE HAVANA AND LIBERTY CITY AREAS, WHICH SCHEDULE READS BASICALLY AS FOLLOWS: (1) ARCHITECT FOR PROJECT SHOULD BE SELECTED AT THE FEBRUARY 28, 19885 COMMISSION MEETING; (2) BIDDING FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SHOULD COMMENCE ON AUGUST 1, 1985; (3) BID SHOULD BE APPROVED AT THE FIRST COMMISSION MEETING IN SEPTEMBER 1985; AND (4) GROUNDBREAKING SHOULD OCCUR IN OCTOBER 1985. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote- sl 13 January 249 1985 4 A AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Ferre: Mr. Dawkins, do you have anything else? 11 Mr. Dawkins: That's all I have, Mr. Mayor. 7 PERSONAL APPEARANCE - MEMBERS OF LITTLE HAVANA TOURIST AUTHORITY REQUESTING FUNDING FOR EXPANSION AREA OF CALLS OCHO, CARNAVAL, PASEO FESTIVALS Mr. Dawkins: I have one more. My good friends, I'm sorry, from Calle Ocho asked me if I would sponsor them. From the gentlemen...I fly Eastern, if you noticed by the Herald this morning, so come on up. Mr. William Alexander: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, my name is William Alexander. I'm special advisor for Latin American affairs, Eastern Air Lines. I'm also the chairman of Carnaval Miami, Little Havana Tourist Authority and I have my president, Mr. Leslie Pantin with me and also we have the president of the Kwanis, as you know produce all the events of Carnaval We are here to request money situations. We are requesting $45,000. $24,000 is for the Carnaval Miami and twenty-one is for Paseo. We sent to the City Manager, Mr. Randolph Rosencrantz, all the information. Yes, sir, this is it. That's a great program for the City of Miami. Mr. Dawkins: Where does it say City of Miami? Mr. Alexander: In our hearts. Mayor Ferre: In your hearts, well, I think that's where you can find money too. Mr. Dawkins: Well, each of you go into your pocket books. Take it out your heart from your pocket and put it in your heart. Mr. Alexander: Well, this is the City of Miami. Calle Ocho is in the City of Miami. Mr. Dawkins: But I fly Eastern, it's true, you know, because you're my friend. Mayor Ferre: Why do you put Eastern Airlines, if everybody knows that it's Eastern Airlines, why do you put Eastern Airlines in the brochure? Mr. Alexander: I buy that. Mr. Plummer: Because that's in his pocketbook, not in his heart. Mr. Alexander: It's the City of Miami also? Mayor Ferre: Yes, but it doesn't say the City of Miami anywhere. It says Eastern Airlines. This one says Florida Power and Light, and this one says the Miami Herald. sl 14 January 24, 1985 ,4 Mr. Dawkins: We went through this last year, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferret You show me where it says the City of Miami anywhere in that brochure, one place. Mr. Alexander: It is. Mayor Ferre: Show me, point out to me where it says sponsored by the City of Miami to the tune of $35,000. Mr. Plummer: Kilito. Mayor Ferre: Even in small writing, as a footnote on the back page, where does it say, "Thank you, City of Miami for your support"? I see Eastern; I see Florida Power & Light; I see Miami Herald. I don't know whether ... does Eastern give $35,000 and $25,000. How much money does Eastern Airlines give? Mr. Alexander: Well, we spend about close to $100,000, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: How much does the City of Miami expend? Mr. Alexander: Forty-five. Mayor Ferre: Plus. Mr. Alexander: We have 8% of the program is presented by the free enterprise system, by all the sponsors. Mayor Ferre: How much does Metropolitan Dade County give you? Mr. Alexander: Forty-five matched monies, sir. Mr. Plummer: No, that's from the TDA, that's not from Metropolitan Dade County. Mayor Ferre: You see, this comes from the taxpayers pockets. Mr. Alexander: The Council of Arts and Science. - Mr. Plummer: No, it comes from the bed tax, which 40% of that is raised in the City of Miami; sorry, forty-five. Mr. Alexander: Well, all the events, as you all know, as you participate in that, is in the City of Miami, is in the Orange Bowl. This year it's going to be at Biscayne and we're going to use the bleachers that the Grand Prix are going to give us for the facility of the community, is right there Paseo. Also we have more than -how many millions of people see Miami in that? About 100,000,000 people see Miami with these festivities. As you know, we cannot sell the program to you because you know the program pretty good. I think it is one of the best programs in the whole United States that present in ten days from March 2nd to March 10th a City of life with all the facilities that we can present, that we are a City that you can live and you can have fun. Carnaval Miami, Calle Ocho, Paseo is a community event I would say together with the Grand Prix, is one of the best things that we can show to all the world. Mr. Dawkins: So you penalize us by not putting us on here because we let you have it in the City of Miami? Is that what you're saying? sl 15 January 24, 1985 4 a Mr. Alexander: No, no, this is our program, this is the City of Miami program, as you all know. I mean, I think that you are right, I'd like to accept and apologize and wait because we think that when we say Carnaval Miami, we say Miami. Mr. Dawkins: Your other friend, who said the same thing, sat down, he said the same thing last year. Mr. Perez: William, how are you planning to expand, to extend the Calle Ocho this year? Mr. Alexander: Well, I will bring the men who are responsible for Calle Ocho, the president of the Kiwanis Club. Mr. Ivan Llorente: Commissioner Perez, my name is Ivan Llorente, I'm president of the Kiwanis Club of Little Havana; with me is Mauricio Magarolas, a co-chairman of Calle Ocho. This year, because of the Commissioners last year requesting for us to study the feasibility of extending the festival of Calle Ocho, we have extended the festival to 7th Avenue, so Calle Ocho Festival for 1985 will be from 7th Avenue to 27th Avenue. Mr. Perez: From 12th to 7th, five blocks addition. Mr. Llorente: Five additional blocks. Mr. Perez: How much are you requesting this year? Mr. Llorente: We are requesting $35,000 as opposed to the $25,000 that we requested last year. Mr. Perez: Is the $35,000 in -kind service or cash? Mr. Llorente: Cash or in -kind services. Mr. Perez: That's the total amount, $35,000? Mr. Llorente: This is for the Calle Ocho Festival. Mr. Perez: But Carnaval is not included in that budget? It's thirty-five. You are requesting all the funds today? Mr. Llorente: We are requesting funding for both events; that is correct. Mr. Perez: How much is Carnaval? Mr. Alexander: $45,000, Carnaval is $24,000 and Paseo is $21,000; making a total of forty-five. Mr. Dawkins: Forty-five and thirty-five. Mr. Alexander: I think we sent a copy to.... Mr. Perez: How much did we grant last year? Mayor Ferre: Thirty-five. Mr. Alexander: Last year was the same amount. Mayor Ferre: No, no, in Calle Ocho last year was $10,000 less. You are asking for $10,000 more because you extended the seven blocks at our request. Now, let's make sure we understand. How much do you get from the bed tax in Metropolitan Dade County for Calle Ocho? Nothing, you get no funding from Dade for Calle Ocho. How much do you get from the bed tax for Carnaval and Paseo. sl 16 January 24, 1985 ■ 0 Mr. Alexander: $45,000. Mayor Ferre: Which is what you are asking us. In addition, are there any other funds, are we waiving fees of any kind? Mr. Llorente: That $45,000 is for all City services. That will cover the Orange Bowl rent. That will cover police, that will cover the cleaning, sanitation, everything. This money that we've always requested from the City of Miami comes right back to the City of Miami. All the funding is done through private enterprise. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Perez, let me say I am totally for Calle Ocho, Paseo, and Carnaval. It's one of the best things that happen in Miami. It's well organized; it's well run. We have had no incidents. We get tremendous international publicity. I'm very proud that we sponsor it. I'm proud that Eastern puts $1009000 into it. Now you can afford it, now that you're back on making money. I'm glad that the Miami Herald from the $50,000,000 it makes in this community puts some of the money back into it in this project. That's all terrific. My only concern is that I want to make sure that it is clearly understood that we expect recognition. I want to put it on the record with you that I do not consider that the fact that you have Miami somewhere in this brochure, and I can't even find it, I don't know where it is. It's no where visible. That is not enough. There is no question what this is; it's the Miami Herald. There's no question that the brochure ... I gave it back to you. It says Eastern Airlines, it says Florida Power and Light, and for you to tell me that it's in your heart is very nice, but that is simply not acceptable. Mr. Llorente: I understand and I accept that. However, you know, we thought that the fact that the name of the event is all Carnaval Miami was representative, but we take your comments and I appreciate it. Mayor Ferre: Carnaval Miami is a generic name, just like airlines...why don't you put sponsored by a prominent airline, by the airline industry. It doesn't say the airline industry; it says utilities, it says Florida Power and Light. Why don't you say sponsored by the major daily newspaper; you say the Miami Herald. Well, you know, you could say a Miami newspaper. Mr. Paredes: We weren't sensitive enough. We'll accept your comments. We thought that the name of Carnaval Miami was representative of Miami, our community. All our events are within the City. We'll be happy to do this. Mayor Ferre: Paredes, I want to point out to you that if we approve this today, this is almost $80,000, $90,000? There is no other event where the City of Miami spends $90,000 that I know of, and I think it requires and these are not bed tax. These are taxpayers monies. These are monies that are not spent in sanitation and is not monies that are spent in the Police Department and would otherwise be spent on those things. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, the reason I brought it as a pocket item; they have submitted their proposal to our new funding mechanism, and they don't seem to think that it will get through this mechanism in time, so that's why we made it a pocket item. From there on, you're on your own. Mr. Cesar Odio: Commissioner, let me clarify that. They went through the process. They went through the festival advisory board. The festival advisory board recommended sl 17 January 24, 1985 0 a $15,000 for the whole thing. Then, the process was stopped because Commissioner Carollo passed the motion freezing all festivals. That's why they are here today, but they did go through the process. They received $25,000 last year. Then you gave them another $20,000 to pay for their deficit of police services and sanitation. Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute. I didn't hear that. We have them twenty five and then we have them twenty more? Mr. Odio: To pay the deficit, to cover the deficit that they had. Mayor Ferre: So we have them $45,000. Mr. Odio: $45,000 last year. Mayor Ferre: Did we also give Paseo and the other thing.... Mr. Odio: That was the total monies that they received. Mayor Ferre: EVerything was $45,000; so now this year what they want is $35,000 and $45,000. Is that right? Mr. Odio: Yes. Mr. Paredes: Mr. Mayor, if I may, I believe the $45,000 was given to Carnaval Miami, to Paseo and Carnaval. Calle Ocho did receive $20,000 last year from the City. Mr. Odio: That's separate, yes. Mayor Ferre: In addition to the $25,000. Mr. Paredes: In addition to the $45,000. Mayor Ferre: I'm all confused. We originally approved $25,000. Is that right? Mr. Paredes: For Carnaval Miami. Mr. Odio: For Carnaval Miami. Mr. Paredes: Subsequent to that, another $20,000 was approved for a total of $45,000 on Carnaval Miami. Mr. Odio: That's correct. Mr. Paredes: Calle Ocho was initially granted $20,000 and that's all they got last year. Mr. Odio: That is a total whole packet of sixty-five. Mayor Ferre: So last year we put $65,000. Mr. Odio: Into the whole three events. Mayor Ferre: This year you are asking for $80,000. They are separate, I know. Mr. Odio: What he's saying is that they expanded the Calle Ocho Festival from 12th Avenue. Mayor Ferre: I understand, but see, this year they are asking for thirty-five and forty-five, that makes $80,000. Mr. Perez: Let me ask him, what kind of profits did you make last year from the vendors on S.W. 8th Street? How do you operate the vendor operation? It's concessions, you make a per cent? sl 18 January 24, 1985 Mr. Paredes: The vendors apply to the office of the club for a license to sell in Calle Ocho. In that application, we put forth all of the requirements of the application, because there is an ordinance passed by the City now as to . ♦ . . Mr. Perez: Who sells the license, the City? Mr. Paredes: The City gives us an overall license, which is part of what we're asking for.... Mr. Perez: How much does the City.... 'j Mr. Paredes: ....that they suspend to the provisions of Chapter 31 Mr. Perez: How much the City received last year from u licenses? Mr. Paredes: The vendors fees were used to pay for events. } We did pay, I forget, for the overall license we did pay a fee to the City? Mr. Perez: Do you have that information, would be possibly rd z to any? 1 I Mr. Paredes: I don't have the exact amount that we paid to F kt the City for the overall license. I can get you that information. Mr. Perez: I would like to have more details, you know, because last year, and Cesar is a witness, I had a lot of requests from disabled citizens trying to have an opportunity to be a vendor there and Cesar made some arrangements, but it was not easy to contact the organization. Anyhow, I received the cooperation... Let me emphasize something. I am supporting in full the project. I don't have any inconvenience, but I want to clarify some detail. When the Mayor give the opportunity, I will be the first to make the motion supporting in full what you are requesting. But I would like to clarify some detail, because during the year we received a lot of questions and petitions and we need to have solutions. - Mr. Paredes: Mr. Commissioner, we have a person that's now in the office on a part time basis strictly to handle all of the vendors applications, anyone from the City or outside the City that wants to call that number and get information or get the packet with the application form and all of the rules and regulations can call the club and get that. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I brought this up and out of respect to Commissioner Carollo, since I heard someone said that he was the one who had complaints, I'd like to defer this and I'm going to vote with it, but I'd like to defer it until Commissioner Carollo is here so he'll have a chance to express his views on it. j Mr. Willy Gort: Mr. Commissioner, I like to having opportunity to be in working with the merchants at all times; that's my subcommittee within the festival. The one reason we had to put this is because in the last years, it i was impossible with the amount of people that were out in ' the streets, we had to have certain controls to it. All of the revenues that come from this, it takes to pay for the event itself itself. Whatever is left over from the revenue, we work with the City of Miami Public Works, to use sl 19 January 24, 1985 that money to improve S.W. 8th Street. So all the money that we get from this event goes back into the community. Mayor Ferre: Thank you very much and we'll see you this afternoon. Mr. Plummer: Are you going to defer it until then or until the 14th? Mayor Ferre: No, they need to have an answer today. Mr. Plummer: I think they ought to come back on the 14th of February; that's the Valentine massacre. Mr. Llorente: Commissioner, we respectfully request for this item to be included today. Mr. Plummer: I want to tell you this discussion this morning has been very good and very healthy. Leslie Pantin worrying in his seat has lost 12 lbs. It has been a healthy discussion. Mr. Dawkins: We can't do anything without the fifth Commissioner. ------------------------------------------------------------ 8 ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION: HIRING OF SANITATION WORKERS — COMMISSIONER DAWKINS REQUESTS DEAN MIELKE TO CLARIFY AT NEXT MEETING. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Dawkins: I have one more, but Mr. Rosencrantz, I've taken up quite a bit of time, but would you instruct Mr. Mielke to get with me and Mr. Smith from the sanitation workers to clear some issues I have concerning this so that I don't have to prolong the meeting, please? ------------------------------------------------------------ 9 FUNDING REQUEST: CHILD ABUSE PREVENTATIVE PROGRAM Mr. Perez: The only pocket item that I would like that you recognize Mr. Andres Boni, who is the Overtown Daycare administrator. Mayor Ferre: Name and address for the record. Mr. Andres Boni: Andres Boni, administrator of Overtown Daycare Center 1401 in North Miami Avenue. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Commissioners, it is almost the time for us to plan for next year. Yet, we haven't looked the part of the City of Miami to carry on the program. That means many children are in your part and you wouldn't like something like that to happen to any of the children. We know right now the waiving tide of child abuse and soon going on and we want to avoid that. The best way to avoid that it is really to take care of our young children. You are the fathers of the City, Mr. Mayor,• Mr. Commissioners. Certainly, when you remember the first years of your loved ones, what you wanted for them and today what you have made of them. The same thing you would like for the children of the City. sl 20 January 24, 1905 0 0 Mayor Ferre: Sir, we are now fifteen minutes behind schedule. Mr. Boni: What I am requesting is the remaining $399259 to carry on the program and to keep doing the same way we have been doing in Overtown. Thank you. Mr. Perez: Did you make the ... I think you make an application for federal revenue, no? Alicia, you made already the application. What kind of recommendation did we receive from community development? Mr. Frank Castaneda: Mayor and Commissioners, this application was Catholic Community Services, Overtown Daycare Program. This was an on -going program for a number of years. It was considered for funding during revenue sharing. It received 19,628 to cover through the month January 30, 1985. At that time, we ran out of money. You can remember that was the day we used the chalk board to make the allocations. That was one of the agencies that only had money until January 30th. The balance funding to bring them to their full allocation would be $39,259. Mayor Ferre: We just simply don't have the monies. I'd be willing to consider this, but you need to tell me who we are going to take it away from. What other social program do you recommend that we cut to do this? Mr. Plummer: Something has to give. Ms. Alicia Abreu: Excuse me, Alicia Abreu, from Catholic Community Service, Overtown Daycare, 9401 Biscayne Boulevard. What I am requesting is to see within your wisdom and knowledge of other possible funding sources or contingency funds or other kinds of emergency funds that you might have that consideration be given to look into those other possible funding sources, because I'm aware that evening I was here with all of you until past 9:00 o'clock that evening and that federal revenue sharing ran out, but to request with the knowledge that you have of other possible type of funds that could be used to continue to carry over this program until the end of September. Mayor Ferre: As I recall, we ran out and ran out and ran over about $300,000 or $400,000, which we had to get from the taxpayers' pockets. Ms. Abreu: So the possibility is of other possible funding. Mayor Ferre: Taxpayers' pockets. Ms. Abreu: Yes, correct, contingency funding and so on, so that we can carry the same level of service for all of these children until the end of September. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, what is the recommendation of the administration on this? Mr. Plummer: You have to keep in mind that if you grant this one, all the rest of them we denied will be back in here. Mayor Ferre: Oh, yes. Mr. Rosencrantz: Mr. Mayor, let me get back to the Commission before the lunch break with a recommendation on this. Ms. Abreu: I appreciate the opportunity to come back to you again. sl 21 January 24, 1985 0 0 10 ♦PPROVE LOAN REQUEST TO MIAMI CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT INC. $88,989.62 WITH REPAYMENT CONDITIONS ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: I have two pocket items. One is a letter to Walter Pierce, Assistant City Manager, dealing with a letter from Mr. Ojeda of the County in dealing with Miami Capital. I understand that the administration has worked out an agreement on this. Mr. Walter Pierce: Mr. Mayor, basically, Miami Capital is asking for us to advance the monies that would allow the covering of an administrative deficit based on the inability at this point to be covered by interest income on the revolving loan funds. There is a provision in the contract with the City that in the future Miami Capital is to be independent of the City and is to subsist off that interest income. They are asking that we make an advance on that to be repaid from the interest income. Mayor Ferre: Is that the $54,000 that Metro has withheld? Mr. Pierce: Yes, that is a factor. Mayor Ferre: What's the will of this Commission? Mr. Rosencrantz: Mr. Mayor, I looked over these documents. I'd like to recommend to the City Commission at this point that perhaps ;,u could approve this in concept, but I'd like an opportunity for staff to have a more careful examination of the issues involved here. Mayor Ferre: In other words, we would approve it and leave it in your hands. Mr. Rosencrantz: yes, if you would, please. I'll get back to the City Commission as to what the final decision is. Mayor Ferre: Any objections to that? Is there a motion? - Mr. Plummer: Move it. Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves, Perez seconds. Further discussion that in principle we approve this loan. Mr. Plummer: Wait, no, not in principle, we approve it subject to the Manager's review. Mayor Ferre: I'm sorry, I stand corrected, approve it subject to the Manager's final review. Further discussions? sl 22 January 24, 1985 Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION N0. 85-59 A MOTION APPROVING A LOAN REQUEST MADE BY ALFREDO IZAGUIRRE, ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF "MIAMI CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, INC." IN THE AMOUNT OF $88,989.62; FURTHER STIPULATING "MIAMI CAPITAL" WOULD REPAY THE CITY FOR SAID LOAN AS FULLY DETAILED IN LETTER WRITTEN BY MR. ISAGUIRRE, ADDRESSED TO MR. WALTER PIERCE, AND DATED JANUARY 21, 1985; AND FURTHER STATED THIS LOAN WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo 11 APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE RECONN9NDATIONS OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. CONCERNING PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR FOR JOSE MARTI PARK PROJECT Mayor Ferre: Now we Riverfront Park with gentlemen, Mr. Ortega Hopefully we were going have not worked it out what's the problem? have a problem with Jose Marti Better Construction Inc. These and the son were here last time. to work things out. Evidently, -we Where do we stand? Mr. Ortega, Mr. Jose Ortega: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, my name is Jose Ortega. I am with Better Construction. The park is complete and we're requesting final payment for phase I and phase II of the park. Mayor Ferre: That's what you did last time, but evidently the City is not ready to pay you. What's the problem, Mr. Long? Mr. Luther Long: I'm Luther Long, assistant director of the Department of Public Works. The last time, I think it was two weeks ago or four weeks ago, when we came here when we asked for a reduction retainage on both of these projects and you gave it to us. At that time, we promised you that we would not recommend final payment on these projects until all the work was completed. We do consider the work completed on phase I and are perfectly willing to recommend that you make final acceptance and authorize final payment on that project. We do not consider the work completed on phase II. Mayor Ferre: I don't know the rest of the Commission, but my position is I'm going to follow the advice of the sl 23 January 24, 1985 administration. This is a technical matter or we are not going to superimpose our will over the administration's. 1 would ask for a motion, or I would move that we in principle approve your recommendation that the final payment be made on phase I and that phase II be held until the administration is ready to sign off on it. Is there such a motion? Mr. Long: I'd like to point out that a lot punchless items but they're minor. We scheduled this for final payment on the 14th. We should have no problem finishing it. But we would not recommend it until it's done. Mayor Ferre: All we're doing is in principle.... Mr. Plummer: Let me ask a question. You say that phase II, and I don't know the scope of phase II, but I do know there is a dedication scheduled for Monday. Mr. Long: Yes, sir, that's the reason I'm very interested.... Mr. Plummer: You're telling me it's not finished. Mr. Long: ....in getting these punch list items completed. Mr. Plummer: That is one working day from today. Mr. Long: Well, it's three working days as far as I'm concerned, because we're going to be working all three of those days, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Mayor Ferre: Well, as I see it, your contract amount for phase I was a million nine, seventy two, and what's outstanding is $24,342.06. Mr. Long: Right. Mayor Ferre: And in phase II, it's nine hundred and seven, and what's outstanding is $60,968. What you're saying is that you're ready now to release phase I, which is $24,000. You are not ready to release phase II, which is $60,000. Mr. Long: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: All I'm doing is asking for a motion to give you the authority to do that, just the way you are recommending it. Mr. Plummer: So move. Mr. Perez: Second. sl 24 January 24, 1985 0 0 Mayor Ferret Further discussion? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 85-60 A MOTION APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IN CONNECTION WITH A CERTAIN REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT TO "BETTER CONSTRUCTION, INC." FOR COMPLETION OF PHASE I OF THE JOSE MARTI RIVERFRONT PARK PROJECT, AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT OF PHASE II OF THE PROJECT UNTIL THERE IS A DETERMINATION BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THAT SAID FINAL PAYMENT ON PHASE II IS IN ORDER. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo 12 DISCUSSION & TEMP DEF. ALLOCATION FOR DEDICATION CEREMONIES JOSE MARTI RIVERFRONT PARK Mayor Ferret The only other pocket item that I have is, Nestor, a request on Jose Marti Park dedication. I don't have the memorandum on that. Is Mr. Odio, are you prepared to explain that or Mr. Kern or who is ready to explain that? This is a memorandum from Carl Kern, Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation. It is recommended that $25,000 be allocated. As I remember, we had previously allocated $4,500. Mr. Carl Kern: Yes, sir, we are recommending up to $25,000 be allocated for the dedication. The parade and the dedication have been more or less combined. Mayor Ferret THat's an awful lot of money, Carl. Why are we all of a sudden spending $25,000 to dedicate a park. Mr. Kern: Well, sir, it's turned out to be a very major event. Mayor Ferret Well, it should be, but I mean $25,000! Mr. Kern: We have over 2,000 lunches that we're going to be giving out to the children. Mayor Ferret Two thousand lunches? Mr. Kern: Yes, to the participants in the parade. We have publicity, printing expenses, balloons. sl 25 January 24, 1985 V y., M Mayor Ferre: The 2,000 lunches is $3000. Mr. Kern: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Why are you spend....? Mr. Kern: There is a break out there with you. We have major musical acts that are coming in. This is, as you know, one of our biggest park dedications we have ever done. Mr. Perez: How many lunches have you ordered? Mr. Kern: There are 2,000 lunches, sir. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I'd ask this be deferred until this afternoon, where we can see a complete break down. I've not received anything on it. Mayor Ferre: All right, this item is deferred. Anything else? 13 LONG PUBLIC HEARING & TEN DEFERRAL: REQUEST FOR CHANGE E OF ZUBING CLASSIFICATION: 2210 S.V. 16 ST., 1600-02 S.V. 22 AVE. RS-2/2 TO CR-1/7 Mayor Ferre: We're now in the 10:15 agenda. I apologize for the 22 minute delay. We're on item number 1; it's an ordinance to zoning atlas on second reading, Jemajo Corporati^r.. mr. Cardenas. Mr. Al Cardenas: Good morning, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Manager, could you get the police officer to clear the deck over here. There are about 30 people in the back of the room congregated. They can either come in or go out, either way. There are plenty of seats inside. There's a lot of talking going on back there. Proceed. Mr. Richard Whipple: Mr. Mayor, this is a request .for change of zoning, which was recommended for denial by the Zoning Board. It was recommended against by the Planning Department. We feel it is improper change of zoning. It's spot zoning. We believe it is detrimental to the community and to the neighborhood. At the last meeting, you did pass it on first reading and there were certain proffers that were being made by the applicant with respect to restrictions that they would agree to before this Commission and in writing. I believe they are better equipped to discuss those items with you at this time. s Mayor Ferre: Before we do that, and before I recognize Mr. Cardenas, let me say that I have received a letter from Mrs. Gertrude R. Marks, dated January 22nd. She is asking that a copy of their declaration of restrictions... I'm sorry, that a copy of response in its entirety be entered into the public record on January 24th. There is attached a letter dated January 21st, signed -just for identification purposes- is a six page letter, it is signed by Mr. Hartwell D. Marks. Along with it is a subsequent letter of January 18th signed by Laura Tindell Howell, and attached to it stapled is a declaration of restrictions. I am putting all of this into the record. Is Mrs. or Mr. Marks here? Mrs. and Mr. Marks, I will put this into the record now officially. Counselor, I recognize you. : sl 26 January 24, 1985 V Mr. Cardenas: Thanks, Mr. Mayor, my name is Al Cardenas. I am an attorney practicing law in the City of Miami. I represent the applicant, Jemajo Corporation. I'll bring you up to date in a hurry. This is a matter which was continued from the meeting of December 20th, where counselor requested in the afternoon session that the matter be continued so that the issue can be heard by a full Commission. At that time, I had just been retained earlier that afternoon, if you recall, by the client and it was suggested to me by the Mayor and the Commission that I review the transcripts of the earlier meetings so that a declaration of restrictive covenants could be prepared and proffered, which would in essence contain the commitments made by the counselor for the applicant; it was further suggested that this declaration be proffered and shown to the neighbors. I did just that. We had an opportunity to review the transcripts. I had the opportunity to prepare a declaration of restrictive covenants, which included every single commitment that counselor for the applicant had made to the Commission at the November hearing. From approximately January 4th on, we attempted to contact the Marks because the transcripts suggested that we work through them and to work with the neighbors in the matter. Apparently, Mrs. Marks had gone out of the country shortly after the December 20th hearing. Between January 4th and the 14th, we tried contacting them just about every day, if not every day, to no avail. Then, Laura Howell, on our behalf, forwarded a letter with a copy of the declaration that we had prepared, to Mrs. Marks; that was hand delivered to her home on January 10th. Subsequent to that time on January 17th, we spoke by phone, Laura did, with a couple of the neighbors, who suggested that we wait until the Marks arrived. We did just that. Subsequent to that, they had a chance to review the declar"-tion of restrictive covenants. We, in turn, had the opportunity to proffer these to legal staff. Miriam Maer of the City Attorney's office in turn suggested that we make a couple of additions, which had not been proffered previously by counsel. We agreed to do that. In addition to that, we agreed voluntarily and on our own to add two additional items which we felt would be of advantage to the neighbors. Those items were the following. That the hours of operation for all retail establishments would conclude by 9:00 P.M. daily to make sure that the issue dealing with night traffic was properly handled. We also agreed w-ith City Attorney, although it had not been previously proffered, that we would not have an operation with a drive- in or drive -through teller facility for financial institutions. So, what I'm here to tell you this morning is that we have a declaration of restrictions, which has been proffered, which not only contains everything which had earlier been proffered, but in addition to that, has quite adequately gone beyond that to make things as fine as possible for the neighbors. In addition to that, we brought an architect's rendering today, which sets forth where the pick up for the trash and so forth would be; indicates the fact that there would only be a five foot high wall in the premises; indicates the fact that there would be no rear door, windows, or entrances on the back of the building so that there would be no interaction in the back of the facility with the adjacent land owners. We feel that this adequately answers your questions of November, and respectfully request that a motion be made in granting approval of this zoning change. Mayor Ferre: Are you concluded with your presentation? Mr. Cardenas: Yes, I just reserve my right to comment in the event that the neighbors may want to. sl 27 January 24, 1985 Mayor Ferret You will, of course, have that right. At this time, I will recognize... Mrs. Marks, do you want to lead the parade here? How many other speakers are there? MAYOR COUNTS HANDS• Three, I will recognize four. Do any of you need more than three minutes? Mrs. Gertrude Marks: I believe one or two will, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferret I think this is an important subject. I'm not going to put a restriction as I normally do. I would ask that you try to conclude your statements within a half an hour. I'm talking about jointly, the four of you. Mrs. Marks: I'm Gertrude Marks, 2207 S.W. 16 Terrace. Mr. Mayor, when I received the paper after my return to Miami, as you have in the memorandum I have transmitted to you, I asked my brother, who is accustomed to dealing with covenants, to reply for me. I would like for him to speak now in my behalf. Thank you. Mr. Hartwell D. Marks: Good evening, my name is Hartwell D. Marks, 2207 S.W. 16 Terrace. Honorable gentlemen, I am here not to repeat the arguments which should by now be familiar to all parties. I'm here to make some observations and ask some very direct questions of importance. At the last Commissioners meeting of December 209 the Jemajo Corporation in public session proffered a set of covenants not in accord with its promises and basically unresponsive. The record of the proceedings and the reaction of the people, as well as the Commissioners, is a matter of public record and may be referenced on pages 16 through 23 of the transcript of that date. The community at that time expressed exasperation and growing concern over the failure of the Jemajo Corporation to deli:cr on its word with substance and clear and binding language. The Mayor and Commissioners admirably and correctly in the best public spirit and with the interest of the community expressed their exasperation as well. I wish to site the Mayor's statement to Mr. Pablo Perez, president of the Jemajo Corporation, in which Mayor Ferre in the very final minutes of the December 20th meeting, directed his statements to Mr. Pablo Perez and said, "Where the problem is is that you and your attorney on the record made a whole series of agreements of things you were willing to do, and they have not been documented and there is no way that anybody who plans to vote for this is going to vote for it unless these things are carefully documented." We agreed then and we agree now with Mayor Ferre's statement. Again, the Honorable Commissioner Dawkins in the best interest of the public and expressing the exasperation and growing fatigue with this matter stated in the December 20 proceedings and I quote him, "Now, if the owners do not have a lawyer to meet with the people and come up with something that everybody can live with, when it comes back before me, if the neighbors are not satisfied, I'm voting no; I'm voting with the neighbors. See, they have been harassed and I have been through this enough." Well, we agreed with Commissioner Dawkins. Gentlemen, your guidelines and instructions to the Jemajo Corporation leave absolutely no doubt as to what was expected of them prior to this assemblage here today. There can be no question as to whether they know the nature of their promises. Let there be no doubt in your mind that they know full well what they have promised by way of voluntary commitment, and your instructions to them, Mayor Ferret was to deliver on those promises. The people have patiently waited for the full, honest, and binding delivery during these past months that have elapsed. The covenants delivered to Mrs. Marks' house and the others in the community on the evening of January 19th, January 19th, signed and sealed, as I have stated in my letter to the Jemajo Corporation, bear only an oblique sl 1 28 January 24, 1985 correlation to their expressed and precise promises before the Commissioners and the people. We have examined that set of documents as I'm sure you gentlemen have. What other, and how many new versions can we expect from the Jemajo Corporation? What are we to believe? Are we to believe the property used elements, as stated on the public record of December 20, 1984 as expressed by Mr. Cardenas, and I quote, "will not accommodate pinball machines, adult book stores, liquor selling establishments, bars, lounges, pawn shops, gun shops, massage parlors, and the like." What are we to believe? Are we now to believe the substance of the document proffered and dated January 17, 1985, in which the property will not be used for residents hotels and the like, private clubs, lodges and the like, playgrounds and play - fields, package liquor stores, coin operated laundry and dry cleaning facilities, restaurants, tea rooms and cafes, and finally noxious odors and loud noises. This version commented on in my letter to the Jemajo Corporation, which letter duly notes the lack of any specific enforcement paragraph, that is paragraph six, which paragraph we consider to be totally deficient in terms of effective, practical enforcement. Or Mr. Mayor and gentlemen, are we to believe that after receiving my letter dated January 21, 1985, to the Jemajo Corporation with a copy to the Mayor and Commissioners, three days before this meeting here today, their memory having suddenly been jarred a new voluntary version spills forth. Is this what voluntary proffered covenants means? This time they have added some content, but deleted other items. In this particular version, they mention package liquor stores and bars, but no express provision prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages, nothing prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages. Here is an interesting one, retail establishment for the sale of groceries, meat markets, and bakeries; sounds innocuous enough. Perhaps this is a new kind of retail establishment. Gentlemen, I do not know what a retail establishment for the sale of meat markets and bakeries is. Do you? Is this a specialized real estate brokerage house dealing in these businesses? While this may sound innocuous to you, this document was ostensively prepared by a professional, legal staff. As I read this document, it does not in fact, prohibit bakeries, supermarkets, items of food, delicatessens, and the like which was on record before you, Mayor Ferre. I also note again that in paragraph- 6, enforcement of the latest version proffered yesterday, that precisely the same wording was used in the January 17, 1985 version and in my letter I have stated that the property owners in Vedado and areas adjacent to lots 1, 2, and 3 hold no power of enforcement by court action, except through the City of Miami. What are we, the public, to make of this? Perhaps you would like to ask the City legal staff what this enforcement clause means. When was the last time the City of Miami took legal action in a court of law against an infraction of a covenant? When was the last time the City of Miami sued a commercial establishment for violating a set of covenants? What does it take on the part of the community by way of complaint to the City of Miami to cause and move the City of Miami to enforce some provision of this document? What does it take on the part of the community? Will the Mayor and the Commissioners authorize the funds necessary to take action including cease and desist orders, injunctions, and derive court actions to insure compliance. Gentlemen, proffered what they before us sl what they have put into this ostensibly voluntary document, they have taken away with the right hand put in with their left. We have a big problem today. It is no longer the problem of the Jemajo 29 January 24, 1985 Corporation. It is now your problem and our problem. Are you going to continue to allow this infliction of what appears to be a calculated paper game upon the good people who reside in this area? I can tell you now that if it takes 100 continuances with date certain, all that would happen is you would get some items put in and other items removed. You might resolve the enforcement issue in one meeting only to find something else removed. As soon as we satisfy that issue while we were diverting our attention on another, they would modify some other matter, if history serves as a guide to the future. Have any of you gentlemen ever chased rabbits down one hole and up another? Do you want to be in the rabbit chasing game? We don't. Now, Gentlemen, the issue before you today is not primarily as I see it, if we have had enough meetings, if enough people had wasted their time, effort and work driving to and from these meetings. They have in part. The issue is not whether you meet at some future date, gaining a level of compliance as to the documents of the Jemajo Corporation. The issue is the Jemajo Corporation itself has now become a credibility problem, and by voting for this variance, you are transferring that problem directly upon the backs and shoulders of the people who reside in the immediate area to be plagued for the foreseeable future. I ask if you, on the public record, cannot reasonably obtain their voluntary cooperation and compliance in a timely manner, pray tell, how do you expect the neighborhood, once this measure is passed, to satisfactorily obtain their cooperation - even if you obtain 99%, can the neighborhood reasonably expect it to act as a watchdog on a continuing basis, continuing to hold over the Jemajo Corporation the threat of action and law? Gentlemen, the issue as I see it is one of credibility. If you, Mayor Ferre, could obtain every centile of agreement at this junction, I would have to tell you, Mr. Mayor, that the behavior of the Jemajo Corporation before this Commission and the public has left in its wake a deep and wide river of distrust and lack of credibility, and I believe, before the Commission. We conclude, Gentlemen, that enough is enough! There is no reasonable excuse that will rationalize their conduct. We therefore appeal to you in the most direct manner that we know how, and we plead with you in light of the public record of these entire proceedings, namely the Zoning Board vote of 8 to 0, your Planning and Development staff has repeatedly informed you that this is a blatant, violent, act of spot zoning. The people have voted with cards and letters and their presence at these meetings overwhelmingly telling you they do not want it. The behavior of the Jemajo Corporation leaves no doubt that the no vote of the people is essentially accurate and correct. We therefore urge you as directly as we know how, to act upon your own statements of record and instincts and end this painful and sad episode once and for all, by voting no! There is a point where the patience of the people reaches it's end, and for you Gentlemen to expect the good people of the community to continue to put up with this performance is unreasonable and unwarranted. A zebra does not change its stripes, a leopard does not change its spots and a community nightmare, once inflicted, remains what it always has been, a nightmare forever unfolding. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Marks, let me congratulate you for being as specific and as brilliant in your position as your wife was a couple of meetings ago in your position today. All right, now there were three other speakers. We have now a letter and Julianna Stensmen, who have requested that this letter be put on the record and I will do so. Yes, Ma'am? Ms. Gudrun Brindley: I am Gudrun Brindley. I live at 2245 S. W. 16th Terrace. Mr. Mayor, and City Commissioners, this is the sixth time that I speak on this matter - twice before sl 30 January 24, 1985 a �f the Zoning Board and this is the fourth time with you Gentlemen. We, the opposition to the rezoning are aware of the serious implications the zoning will have on adjoining properties and therefore we firmly oppose it. You Gentlemen know even better than we do how this commercial blight in a residential neighborhood can spread overtime to include the entire block and thereby making residential property after property less desirable. Our opposition is becoming stronger and stronger, because we know realize what effect it will have on adjoining properties. An approval of the rezoning would show favoritism toward the Applicant over the wishes of so many property owners within the circle, who oppose this intrusion into residential neighborhood. This attempted invasion into our nice residential neighborhood must be prohibited. Now I have a question, Mr. Mayor. I would like to ask you about the last paragraph on Item Number one of the December 20th agenda. It says "If this application is not legislatively decided within 34 days of December 200 1984, this application shall be deemed to have been denied". That was yesterday. Today is 35 days. Mayor Ferre: We need a legal interpretation. Ms. Brindley: Okay, it is 35 days today. Mayor Ferre: Well, I am not a lawyer and we look for our City Attorney to give us ... Ms. Brindley: Yes, will you please explain it? Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, the ordinance that that provision refers to has been amended so that if you continue an item to a date certain, that legislatively decided language does not apply. Mayor Ferre: So, it is legally before us at this time? All right, thank you. All right, next speaker? We have two more speakers. Mr. Umberto Fernandez: My name is Umberto Fernandez. I live at 3195 S. W. 16th Terrace. I asking the Mayor and the Commission that if you bought a house 15 years ago, you pay more money because you want to live in a residential area. How are you feeling now when somebody comes and want- to change the zoning? That is what I wonder if you have in mind that is what they have in mind in changing the zoning. Mayor Ferre: We had one more speaker that wanted to speak on this issue. Mrs. Juana Carrera: (As translated by Mr. Perez-Lugonez) We are not in accordance with the zoning change. It is prejudicial. It affects us in every way. We always wanted to live with tranquillity in a residential area. That is why we decided eight years ago to live there, myself, as well as my neighbors. Thank you, very much. Mayor Ferre: All right, I assume this concludes the speakers in the neighborhood. Is there anybody else who wishes to say anything into the record. All right, Counselor ... Mr. Marks, or Mrs. Marks, I will give you time for further statements if there are any rebuttals that need to be made. I will not deny you that time. Mr. Al Cardenas: Thanks Mr. Mayor. When I was originally retained last December 20th to represent the applicant in this case, I, at that time, was properly advised by the Commission and I heard from the neighbors about their concern for lack of interaction between the neighbors and the applicants and feedback back and forth, and I took that sl 31 January 240 1985 P 40N as a most important task or mission prior to my coming here today. Before doing anything else, I ordered the transcripts of all previous hearings. I underlined and looked at carefully each and every commitment that had been made by Applicant's counselor to this Commission and I assure you that the decoration of restricted covenants, which has been voluntarily proffered and is before the record today exceeds what it was that proffered by Counselor at that time. Mayor Ferre: Well, let me stop you there, because Mr. Marks read a whole list of things and I wrote some of them down. I see where there is a - in your voluntary restrictions; bars are covered, but I don't see any restrictions to pinball machines, parlors, or massage parlors. Mr. Cardenas: Everything that is listed here, Mr. Mayor, is taken from the uses permitted by the zoning requested, CR- 1/7, and what we did, was we took verbally everything that Counselor said for the Applicant and subsequent to that, we added additional things, so that everything that was proffered by the Applicant to you is listed here. I have got the transcripts here, they are underlined. Mayor Ferre: I know, by my question - Mr. Mark's question is, can somebody put up a pinball hall, or massage parlor on this property if it is rezoned? Mr. Cardenas: My answer is that they cannot. It is not zoned to permit that. Mayor Ferre: Would the Administration, on the record confirm that? If this thing were to be rezoned, would these rest rict_,tre=-:,enants - can a message parlor be placed on this property? Mr. Whipple: No, sir, that is not a permitted use in the CR-1 district. mayor Ferre: Can a pinball hall be placed there? Mr. Whipple: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Marks, I wrote down most of the things, and I think everything else is covered. Was there anything you mentioned in your list that has not been covered. Mr. Cardenas: Not only that, if I may, Mr. Mayor, we went beyond what was stated by Counselor at his covenants and we added three things which I think are most important. Mayor Ferre: What are they? Mr. Cardenas: One is that we voluntarily proffered that the hours of operation for all retail establishments would conclude at 9:00 P.M. daily. That item had not previously been covered. We also stated that there would not be an operation of any drive in or drive -through facilities and we also agreed that there would be no repair shops that there would be ... Mayor Ferre: Did you say repair or retail? Mr. Cardenas: Repair. Mayor Ferre: Okay, repair shops - you mean for automobile repairs, or air conditioning repairs. Mr. Cardenas: That is correct. So, we added three items which I did not find anywhere in the transcript, because we sl 32 January 24,-1985 I felt they were important to the neighborhood. There is one thing that I ... Mayor Ferre: So in other words, any food products. Mr. Cardenas: That is correct. Mayor Ferre: Including ... well, I think you were covered ° on that on the issue of smells, obnoxious odors - any use which would necessarily produce obnoxious odors or loud y� noises, so obviously, something that would have odors. Mr. Cardenas: That is right. Paragraphs 5 and 60 which Mr. Marks mentioned, as perhaps not being protective enough of the City are paragraphs which I have in the past prepared and submitted for similar purposes and these have been _? reviewed by the City Attorney's office, Miriam Maer, specifically, so I assure you, Mr. Mayor, that that right interaction has taken place. There is one last matter which t' I did want to bring to the Mayor's attention and the Commission's attention and that is that I did wish that we had the opportunity and had the appropriate interaction with Mr. Marks and the neighborhood and I am sorry that we not given that opportunity and I would like to at this time for the record just restate that if I may, because it is the neighborhood's prerogative to meet or not meet with someone, but I just think it would have felt so much better had we had a chance to personally meet before today, as shortly after December 20thf Mrs. Marks, MMksf and I believe Mr. Marks left the country, or left the area. We didn't know that and we attempted to communicate with them from January 4th a i through the 14th. Finally after not hearing from them, we left a letter in their home somewhere around January 10th. On January 14th, Laura Howell from my office contacted Mrs. Brandis and someone else and Mrs. Burkberger by phone and spoke them and requested that we all meet January 17th, the architect, ourselves, the clients and the neighbors. At i^f! that time, I think they all agreed that Mrs. Marks should be {t involved. Our client was advised by both Mrs. Brindley and rz.t Mrs. Burkberger that she had been out of town since the hearing of December 20th and would not be back the thought, until the 19th, so we had - at that time we left it that we would meet with Mrs. Marks and the neighbors on the •K;,� 21st. However, subsequent to that time, Laura had a .� conversation with Mrs. Marks - very y polite she was, so I can 3 n. certainly reflect that on the record, where she stated that she wanted to take a look at the declaration of restrictive covenants and in all probability the neighbors would not y; r want to meet with us, because they just would not be for the project, and that is pretty much chronologically the outcome t; of this thing. I think we could of perhaps understood each !�. other a little bit better, but I assure the neighbors, Mr. t� Marks and this Commission that everything that had previously been proffered and more, is included in this declaration. The uses which are not excluded are uses which ' i are not permitted b the zoning which we are requesting. P Y B Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Marks, is there anything else you want to add to the record? Mr. Marks: Yes, sir, a couple of items. In your interrogation of Mr. Villalobos, you asked him point blank what is a convenience store. Could you sell food? His answer - "No, we will not sell food. Clothing, boutiques". Mayor Ferre: - "Non-food shops?" Mr. Villalobos - "This is correct". Mayor Ferre: Well now, Mr. Marks, Mr. Villalobos, is evidently no longer representing these people. I don't mean er in any way to cast any disparaging remarks about anybody's r ld 33 January 24, 1985 t a 4 4x- professional competence, or but the fact is he is no longer representing this corporation. Now, with regards to food, " as I understand it, with what Mrs. Dougherty just told me, " �=S the now added ... would 9 y you put the words in . s µ Mr. Dougherty: Number "I" now states "retail establishments r for the sale of any food products, including grocery stores, w;s meat markets and bakeries. { Mayor Ferre: So I think, as I understand it, all those things that have been g previously stated on the record has r now been covered. Nowo I am not saying that this makes it good or bad, I'm Just saying that at least now on the covenants, they have restricted it to such a point that I 4 frankly don't know what in the world they are going to do that with property with all the restrictions they have put '? on it, because they evidently restricted Just about every single use that that zoning provides! I don't know what else is left, and they can't put hotels, lodging houses, clubs, lodges, playgrounds, auditoriums, liquor stores, tea ji rooms, restaurants, cafes, bakeries, food stores - what else is there? fh Mr. Plummer: Funeral homes? Mr. Marks: Can they sell alcohol? Mayor Ferre: No. They said here - "package liquor stores and bars". Now, how else can you sell alcohol of you don't -,k put up a package store and you don't allow a bar. Now, how else are you going to sell alcohol? And they say here ... 47 ., Mr. Marks: Can you sell wine, beer in cans? i Mayor Ferre: They have no restaurants, no hotels, no package stores, no bars! yr if Mr. Marks: How about a lounge, sir? { u '}' Mayor Ferre: No lounge! A bar is a lounge, I would imagine, legally. Wii Mr. Marks: The reason I bring it up is they put lounge in ii the version of three to five days ago, and subsequently z# dropped lounge. Mayor Ferre: Madam City Attorney, is a bar and a lounge technically and legally the same - it is a place where they ' sell hard liquor, right? Mrs. Dougherty: I think they probably are, but on the other hand there is no reason why we can't insert the word 1 "lounge" right now. ' Mayor Ferre: Put in lounge. Well, wait a moment - that is up to the ... C' Mr. Cardenas: Yes, Mr. Perez would be more than willing to 1. insert the word lounge now and initial it. Mayor Ferre: No repairs, nothing that has odors, noises, no fans - Mike, I really don't know what these people are going to do with this property? - Mr. Marks: 5; me what, or procedure is -- violated? - E ld Except enforcement, Mayor Ferre. Can you tell directed to the legal staff, as to what the for the public? Let's say that this is 34 January 24, 1985 4 Mayor Ferre: Madam City Attorney, I think the neighborhood, It'jand Mr. Marks well represents their concerns if ... Mrs. Dougherty: I can only tell you what happened in the only other time ... ` Mayor Ferre: Excuse me. If this zoning is granted, with all these covenants, and if three years from now, or five years from now the owner of this property decides to put up ' a bar, and a meat processing plant there, what are the legal rights of the neighbors and the City? Mrs. Dougherty: The City can specifically enforce this covenant, and probably the way that would occur is that the Tsai neighbors would complain to the Planning Department or the Code Enforcement Department. They would realize ... + Mayor Ferre: Or the Code Enforcement Department could start the proceedings. f Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, they would realize there was a covenant on the land. They would notify the City Attorney. The City Attorney would bring it to you to ask for authorization to enforce the covenant. As a policy matter, K yt you could give the rights to the neighborhoods to specifically enforce it themselves, but you would have to do �i so, such as this could be enforced by the surrounding property owners within three hundred feet or something like that. ,. Mayor Ferre: I would have no objections to passing an ordinance to that effect. f, Mrs. Dougherty: Not an ordinance. You could put it right C: in this covenant. Mayor Ferre: Well, it would have to be proffered voluntarily, I guess, again - say a voluntary covenant. In other words what we are saying is, that if at any time there is a violation of any of these things, Counselor, the neighborhood itself could, if we put it into the vote, could institute - provided that they were speaking the truth - in other words, there has to be verification of the accusation. Mr. Cardenas: Well, I would have no objection, once a determination is made, that a violation has occurred, for the neighborhood to take legal action. I would not like to proffer the wording where they would have a right to start filing suits without a determination that a violation had been made, been made before that. Mayor Ferre: How can we do that legally? Could you ... Mrs. Dougherty: The City Commission has to determine that there is a violation and then the covenant could be enforced either by the neighborhood, or people within 300 feet. I think you would have to specify. Mayor Ferre: Well, there would obviously have to be a determination of facts. You can't say that there is a bar there when there is no bar. Be it a determination of facts by the Commission, or would you rather have the Code Enforcement Department to the Commission? Mayor Ferre: Both. Mr. Dawkins: Give it to the Code Enforcement and we go and check it out! ld 35 January 24, 1985 Mr. Marks: In Paragraph 4, Sub. (f), hours of operation of all retail establishments shall conclude at 9:00 P.M. daily. Could they open one minute later? Mayor Ferre: No, sir. Mr. Marks: When can they open? Mayor Ferre: Madam City Attorney? If they are concluded at 9:00, is there a legal loophole that they could start them up again at 9:30? In other words, I think the concern is ... I think the clear language would be hours of operation for all retail establishments shall conclude at 9:00 P.M. daily and will not commence until the following day at daylight, or something like that; or until the following day in the normal working hours of business. Mr. Plummer: That is for all retail establishments? Mayor Ferre: They are saying they are closing down at 9:00 P.M. and what Mr. Marks is saying is, you know, is there a legal ... Mr. Plummer: Oh, I understand what he is saying. Are they agreeing to closing down all retail at 9:00 P.M.? Mayor Ferre: That is what they are saying - hours of operation for all retail establishments shall conclude at 9:00 P.M. daily. Now, what he is saying is, can they begin at 9:01? I am saying is Counselor, if you would put a comma, and would not commence .... Mr. Cardenas: It might be simpler, Mayor, to just put the i hours of operation shall be limited from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 E P.M. daily. Mayor Ferre: I think that would be clearer. Mr. Marks: And exclude all others. Mayor Ferre: Is that acceptable? Mr. Cardenas: Yes, your Honor. Mayor Ferre: Okay, that is being proffered by you, Mr. Cardenas for your client? Mr. Cardenas: That is correct. I am stating it on the record, Mayor. Mayor Ferre: All right, anything else, Mr. Marks? i Mr. Marks: The other item I would like to address, is Item I'V, package liquor stores and bars. You have touched on i that, but could you obtain voluntary ... Mayor Ferre: You are talking about 2, sub. (d). Mr. Marks: Yes, 2, sub. (2) - sorry. Mayor Ferre: Go ahead. Mr. Marks: Could this be clarified, simply reduced to no alcoholic beverages sold in any form at any time, period? That makes it plain! Mayor Ferre: Now, there is no liquor store, there is no i bar, there is no lounge, there is no hotel, there is no restaurant. Now, as I know, convenience stores don't sell hard liquor. They do sell wine and beer, and I guess that ld 36 January 24, 1985 a 0 is the only ... I mean a Seven -Eleven, which would never go in there with these restrictions, because it would have to be changed to Seven --Nine! But if there were able to get somebody that would operate a convenience store from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P. M. , I am sure, and I don't think that would be ... Mr. Marks: Let me phrase to the flip side of the coin. Can you obtain a direct answer - do they intend to sell beer and wine on the premises. Mayor Ferre: Let's ask the question - do you intend to sell beer and wine on the premises? Mr. Cardenas: There is no intention at this time. There is no intention at all, that I know of, to sell beer and wine on the premises. Mayor Ferre: Do you have any problems with that - restrictions? Mr. Perez: No, your Honor. We have no intention of selling alcoholic ... Mayor Ferre: Are you proffering that you will put that in there - there will be no sale of any alcoholic beverages on the premises? Mr. Cardenas: We will proffer it, or add it. I think the document speaks for itself, but we will be happy to add it on. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Marks. Mr. Marks: I was just conferring with Mr. Whipple. Mayor Ferre: I am beginning to wonder what ... Mr. Plummer: About the only thing left - you had better talk to me, because about the only thing I know that could go in there is a funeral home! (LAUGHER) There is nothing else left! Mr. Marks: Shall I phrase the question? - Mayor Ferre: You know, I will tell you, I am curious as to what they want to build there, because there isn't anything else left! Mr. Marks: Well, when the Hyatt -Regency goes in there and we come down here and complain, you will know why! Mayor Ferre: I think the Hyatt -Regency would not really - with all due respect to your neighborhood, would not really want to be there. Mr. Marks: That is all, your Honor. Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, in the procedure, we just wanted to point out to you the precedent that might be established. It is true all these limitations are be proffered, but the zoning change is there and it does establish a precedent to suggest that other properties will come in and request the same zoning and we believe that this will be additionally harmful to the neighborhood. The second point ... Mayor Ferre: Mr. Whipple, you have already made that statement into the record several times. We understand that h I I J ld 37 January 24, 1985 you and the Department and you of course, are entitled to your opinion - we understand you professionally do not recommend it. I have all along maintained - it is my opinion that 27th Avenue and 22nd Avenue as main, major arterials in this city, are bound to change, in the same way that Coral Way, thirty or forty years, has changed. I think you are going to see that happening. Now, I understand what you are saying. This may be the beginning of that process in the same way that in Coconut Grove, twenty-five years ago, the construction of the Coconut Grove Bank was the beginning of high-rises in Coconut Grove. Seems to me, that if the other zoning changes in the future have the kinds of restrictions that we are imposing ... I am sorry; I mean are being voluntarily placed and that we are accepting on the record, I frankly don't know what is left for these people to build! I don't understand why it is that they want a zoning change with so many restrictions because I am curious to know what it is they intend to build there. Mr. Whipple: The only other point that I wanted to bring to the Commission's attention, not in an argumentative way, but the two lots that were eliminated ... Mayor Ferre: The two what? Mr. Whipple: The two lots that were eliminated from the additional application ... Mayor Ferre: Four and five. Mr. Whipple: ... they would be available for transitional use provisions, which would allow an office or a two family dwelling or something of that nature on those two lots, or consider,ticr. for off-street parking. Mayor Ferre: Unless they would also include that voluntarily, is that what you are saying? Mr. Cardenas, do you understand what he is saying - is that even though four and five were eliminated, in effect, if we grant this change of zoning, four and five in the future could apply as transitional, unless of course, there is a covenant that that would not occur. What is your client's position on that? Mr. Cardenas: Let me check. Mayor Ferre: Yes, Ma'am, come right up, please. We cannot listen to you from way back there. Your name for the record. Ms. Gudrun Brindley: I live at 2245 S. W. 16th Terrace. I would like to ask you again - why can't the Applicant build homes on the empty lot? That is what we would prefer. Mayor Ferre: I cannot answer that. Mr. Brindley: It is residential. Please leave it that way and if he could build homes, to get out of the commercial zoning! That would be an alternative. Mayor Ferre: All right, yes Ma'am, this is a public hearing and you are entitled to speak. Wait a minute, we have a lady from the public ... Ms. Bonnie Scheiner: My name is Bonnie Scheiner and I wanted to raise this question. I don't like all these high ski -rise buildings being built. Is there any way to limit those tall buildings, like the lady before me that spoke - just have houses built? ld 38 January 24, 1985 0 Mayor Ferre: Yes, Ma'am, this does have a height limitation. The answer is yes. Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, we would be willing to proffer that lots four and five would not be developed for commercial activity. Mayor Ferre: Okay, it is a voluntary part of the covenant. Mr. Marks, what else have you got? His answer was that they are proffering the lots four and five which would not be used for any commercial development and that is part of the covenant that goes in. The question was raised by Mr. Whipple that in effect, if we grant this change of zoning for one, two and three, that four and five would be transitional, could be used as transitional and they are now proffering that they would restrict it so that four and five would never be used for commercial purposes. The only additional question which I addressed in my letter - I've got to go your chart, just a second ... Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Mr. Marks: Those three lots? Mayor Ferre: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Marks: 20, 21 and 22 now fall under that same ... Mayor Ferre: That is true. Mr. Marks: That means that by this action you are allowing all of 22nd Avenue, from 16th Street down to 16th Terrace and to the mid -point of 16th Street to come under the flavor of commercial activity. Mayor Ferre: Under these type of restrictions, I am sure in a court of law, they could go and get that zoning for those three lots the same this, if they would proffer these same restrictions. I think that is correct. Now, any further statements, questions? Mr. Cardenas: Just in conclusion, Mr. Mayor, that we have come a long way since the original meeting that we had relative to this application. Mayor Ferre: I'll say! Mr. Cardenas: The lots four and five were removed and I know that those were strong objections that Mr. Plummer had at that time. I think Lots one, two and three comport in that intersection with the use that is intended here. It has been so limited that the neighborhood is assured of its very low key use and we feel it is a total perfect compliment to the increase traffic and development of 22nd Avenue. At the same time, we proffered limitations which will in no affect the current standards of the neighborhood community and as such we respectfully request that a motion be entertained and granted, accepting the zoning change, approving the zoning change, with a proviso that the declaration of restrictive covenants proffered be accepted as well. Mayor Ferre: All right, questions from the Commission? Statements? All right, what is the will of this Commission? Mr. Rodriguez: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Oh, I am sorry. I asked for questions or statements. Id 39 January 240 1985 0 a Mr. Rodriguez: Let me ask a question - a question on the transitional use and limitations. Does that refer specifically to offices also. Mayor Ferre: All commercial. Mr. Rodriguez: All commercial and parking? Mayor Ferre: All commercial activities. Mr. Rodriguez: Because that was additional to what was discussed before and some of the neighbors didn't want to have any parking located in those two lots and on the transitional use you can have parking there. I want to make sure that we understand. Mayor Ferre: I think the wording he used is commercial activities. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but parking is not a commercial activity and office space is not a commercial activity. Mayor Ferre: Counselor? Mr. R^'M= ^�• We would be willing to proffer that there U `. . would be no office or commercial development in that property. Mayor Ferre: Okay, in other words, it is the intention of the property owner to put parking there. Mr. Cardenas: No, not at this time at all. Mayor Ferre: But it might happen. Mr. Cardenas: I don't know. I just hadn't checked that with him. Mayor Ferre: Well, there is no question, as I understand what you are saying is, that it could happen that four and five could be in parking, but as I understand it, what he just said, there would be no buildings, no offices, and no commercial usage of the property. Mr. Cardenas: That is my understanding. Mayor Ferre: Alright, Mr. Marks? Mr. Marks: Under this present determination on Lots five and five, could you have a dental clinic or a medical clinic? Mayor Ferre: No, the answer is no. Mr. Marks: An attorney's office, an accounting office? Mayor Ferre: Madam City Attorney? Any kind of office - dental, offices of any sort. Mrs. Dougherty: No, I am ... Mayor Ferre: The answer is no. Mrs. Dougherty: I am sort of confused about the parking. Is that something that we want to permit or not? Mayor Ferre: Well, we do not want ... they are proffering voluntarily. ld 40 January 240 1985 Mrs. Dougherty: It is at least possible we would make the determination that parking would be commercial, if it is associated with the other ... Mayor Ferre: I asked Mr. Cardenas what he meant because Mr. Rodriguez asked for clarification. Mr. Cardenas said no offices of any sort. Mr. Cardenas: No office or commercial development of any sort. Mayor Ferre: Or commercial activity. When I asked him about parking, he said, well he had no intentions - they had no intentions of parking, but that he didn't know in the future - now that means yes! It means it is their intention - it could be there intention to park cars there. Mr. Cardenas: We have no intentions whatsoever in this present development to use lots four and five for parking. Mayor Ferre: But it might happen in the future, Counselor, and I think it is very important that we be very straight forward, whatever happens here, and whatever the will of the majority of this Commission is, that this be very straight forward ark Nearly on the record! Mr. Cardenas: Let me find out from the clients - I have not proffered that question before. Mr. Mayor, we will not entertain any parking activity in those two lots either. Mayor Ferre: All right. Yes, Ma'am? Mrs. Scheiner: My name is Bonnie Scheiner and I live at 3034 Oak Avenue, Coconut Grove. My question is regarding the use of recreational facilities, such as a swimming pool to be built there. Is that considered commercial? Mayor Ferre: There is no provision that I know of of building ... you mean a private swimming pool? Mrs. Scheiner: A public swimming pool? Mayor Ferre: No, there is no way to build a public swimming pool there. Mrs. Scheiner: There is not? Okay, but any other recreational facilities for the ... what? Mayor Ferre: Funeral home! No commercial activities of any sort on four or five. Mrs. Scheiner: Does that include anything recreational? Mayor Ferre: And they charge for it, that would be a restriction. Mrs. Scheiner: Okay, thank you. Mayor Ferre: Are there any further ... yes, sir, Mr. Marks. Mr. Marks: One final....e patience, sir. Mayor Ferre: All right, you are entitled to that. Mr. Marks: It has come to my attention that the determination of whether a violation in fact of these covenants, whether a violation has occurred is a matter for a court, and not for a City Clerk, and not for the Commission, and we ... ld 41 January 24, 1985 Mayor Ferre: I understand - let me explain that to you. Mr. Marks: Okay. Mayor Ferre: What the City Attorney is recommending, because a court will always say "Have you exhausted your administrative solution", and you have to answer yes or no. If you have not, then the judge is going to say "Well, go back to the City and get it cured " and they won't take jurisdiction until that has happened, so all we are doing is, we are extending the right to begin a lawsuit to the neighborhood rather than to the City Commission. All that would then determine whether or not we would sue, Madam City Attorney, would be a determination by first the enforcement agency, and secondly by the Commission, both, that there is indeed a violation of the covenant - if they put a bar up for example, and Mr. Marks writes a letter and says "They have put a bar in, this is a violation and we want the City to sue", the City will sue, providing however, there is a clear determination of fact, so therefore the burden is on us, but you could institute the lawsuit, plus the fact is proven. Mr. Marks: Without waiting. Mayor Ferre: Without waiting for six months for a long rigmarole. That is correct. Mr. Dawkins: Before you leave, Mr. Marks, I need to know that the neighbors are satisfied with the cooperation between the attorney, yourself, and that you can live with what we have. Mr. Marks: I don't represent ... I am speaking for Mrs. Marks - could we ask the neighbors? I can speak for myself very plain ... Mr. Dawkins: Okay, no, I'll do a little better than that, sir. Okay, as you know, we said that the problem was that - and not enough consideration was being given to the wants of the residents. Will those residents who agree that this is admirable and that everybody could live with this, please stand? All right now, all of those who figure you can't live with this stand. All right, will one person in 'the group come forward and tell me why you can't live it. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mr. Dawkins: Okay, please be seated. Somebody - anybody can come forward and tell me because, when we left here, the other side said they would sit down with you and attempt to arrive at something that we all can live with. Mr. Marks: They have not done that. Mr. Dawkins: Okay, what is the hangup in why we have not done that. Mr. Marks: Sir, you are asking ... Mr. Dawkins: I think a lady behind you has the answer. Mrs. Hazel Lifset: My name is Hazel Lifset. I live at 2131 S. W. 16th Street, and I have lived there since 1957. It has been a nice quiet residential neighborhood and I do not want all of this traffic, no matter if things do close at 9:00 P.M. We have enough congestion there as it is with what commerce and everything that there is in the neighborhood. We do not, and we do not want and we do not need anything else. ld 42 January 24, 1985 Mr. Dawkins: Okay, is that the consensus of opinion, now? I mean, she spoke for the consensus of opinion? (APPLAUSE) Okay, well, somebody from the group back there come forward and tell me that even though progress is going on and if you do not - I mean how we as City Commissioners can serve the interest of progress in Miami and keep the neighbors happy now, because somebody is going to come up here next time with something that may not be as palatable as this, and then when I ask that lawyer to sit down and try to work out something with the neighbors, they are going to tell me it is useless because the other guy tried that. So now, will someone come forward and tell me what should I tell the next guy who comes before me, who purchases this land from the present owner and goes to do something still that is not as compatible as this and then you are going to be back again! (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mr. Dawkins: Theoretically? All right, no problem, you are correct. Mr. Marks: May I remind Commissioner Dawkins as reverently as possible sir, your statement last time was that if the neighbors were not happy ... Mr. Dawkins: That's right. Mr. Marks: ... and if they had not met with them through their attorney to placate, satisfy, mollify, and otherwise smooth the waters, you were going to vote "no". Mr. Dawkins: That is right. Mr. Marks: And I remind you again, sir, they have not done that. Mr. Dawkins: But, did they try? Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Marks, I want you under oath, to state into the microphone that we have not made efforts to meet with you on more than one occasion - on the record, under oath, under threat of perjury that a bonafide effort has not been made to meet with the neighbors more than one occasion, time and time again. I want you under threat of perjury to make that statement on the record. Mr. Marks: I believe the Mayor is in charge here, Mr. Cardenas, not you. Mayor Ferre: Go ahead, Mr. Marks, let's not let this get into a personal ... Mr. Marks: Well, that is what he is making it, sir. Mayor Ferre: And I apologize for not jumping into it quicker. You are ... Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I think it is a reasonable question. Mr. Marks, not under the threat of perjury - you are a gentlemen. I think you have conducted yourself that way. For the record, sir, have they tried to contact you and have they tried to set up appointments? I think that is a reasonable question. Mr. Marks: If, sir, if I can be allowed to stipulate the "whens" in the matter. If you mean, have they contacted us in the confines in all of this two month period, one month before this meeting of today, the answer is yes. If you say have they cooperated in terms of contacting us during November and December and to date, the answer is no! ld 43 January 24, 1985 ♦ 16 Mayor Ferre: Mr. Marks, let me put it to you this way. My observation of this is that obviously these people are not Y proficient and not experts in the process that is involved, k' and I think they created a very, very bad situation for themselves and frankly, I think they made a mountain out of t' a molehill. I think they have created a nightmare situation for themselves. Now, on the other hand, I must say that reading this document of declaration of restrictions, as it has been further amended and tightened during the process d, here, that I don't frankly know what in the world these people are going to build on these three lots because they, you and we have stripped, voluntarily on their part, just about everything and anything that you can ... they can't put up a meat place, they can't put up restaurants, lounges, bars, message parlors, pinball halls playfields, playgrounds, auditoriums - I mean, it gets to a point I don't know what they are going to put there! 3 Mr. Marks: Sir, I recognize that and I will grant you ,j everything you have said, but the issue, as we see it in the neighborhood is that this is a variance and the specific r conditions as set forth by these Commissioners was - you go out there and smooth the waters with these people. Now ask them - I don't even know who these people are. I am not organizing this. tc- Mayor Ferre: Mr. Marks, I understand. The people do not want a change of zoning in that particular lot under any circumstances, no matter what the restrictions, no matter what is happening in the community, no matter what changes! r f I understand that. Mr. Marks: As long as you understand on the record that your specific instructions to them to meet with these people to satisfy the requirements as per your instructions and r Commissioner Dawkins at the last meeting, have not been met! 2 " Those are matters of record. I just ... Mayor Ferre: Well, I disagree with that conclusion, but on the other ... because I think we have done that right here in the past hour and fifteen minutes. All right, sir, go ahead. Yes, sir? 1; Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, I did want to proffer one thing. Just to clarify this thing on Lots four and five, I think it might be easier, Madam City Attorney, if we just proffered for the record that the use of Lots four and five will be limited exclusively to residential use and I think that 1 wording will better serve and I also wanted to tell Mr. Marks that I had a long day yesterday and today, and I didn't mean to blow up the way I did. I think he is a gentlemen. I think his sister and he are doing the best they can for themselves and I went a little bit out of my way there. Mayor Ferre. All right. Mr. Cardenas: Okay. i Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Mr. Umberto Gonzalez: (Request in Spanish for translator) Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. Can we get someone - Mr. Perez? ej Mr. Gonzalez: (As translated by Mr. Perez-Lugonez) My name is Umberto Gonzalez, 2225 S. W. 16th Street - just across the street from the piece of property under consideration, on 16th Street. There is no commercial activity. To have 1985 ld 44 January 24, a this imposition, to change the zoning, to impose commercial activity on 16th. This piece of land has been barren for many years and it is for three houses the use - that it could be an asset to the neighborhood, unless they propose to bring something like decoration from Cypress Gardens. I have heard about making the area better, decorating the area. The neighbors which are here, and those who are not here - those who didn't come because they couldn't miss work - we who came, we have missed work for six consecutive times. They are not in accordance with a shopping at that place. Please do not insist anymore in this. Mr. Perez, if they want to build anything, let them build three houses there. This is all I have to say. Please, if we can finish this today, because we are not in the position of missing any more work. Please do not take this under oath. They are playing with us. They have changed lawyers, they have changed times, they have sent us out and then come back again. Let's stop this. Let's change this today! Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir. I think it is time for this Commission to make a decision one way or the other. Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, in conclusion, I did want to recognize the folks who were here for the project. That we hadn't done, and I would like for them to stand up if they could - people who are for the project. Also, Mr. Mayor, by way of historical significance, just prior to your delivering on your vote, I want you to remember that there used to be a gas station in these lots and that most of these folks lived there at the time that the gas station was E in operation. Subsequent to that, the lots became vacant. This is the next use that is being suggested for that property after the gas station and those six meetings have F served, I believe, to have come back to a proposed use which is so much more in keeping with the neighborhood than the original application. Mayor Ferre: All right, yes, Ma'am? Mrs. Lifset: May I speak for the gas station. As I stated before, I have lived in that neighborhood since 1957. I knew the couple that originally owned the gas station and to use the vernacular of the day, it was a Mom and Pop operation and later on, I am glad to say there was some rice people that had originally come from Cuba that took this station over and they lived about three blocks from the corner of 16th Street and there was nothing to cause any confusion or anything to disturb the neighborhood. The gas station was just about the same as the little corner grocery store that would maybe close when dark came and to put whatever they are planning to put in there, to compare that . Mayor Ferre: Well, they can't even do that, the way I see it. Mrs. Lifset: ... with the little one pump gasoline station, forget it, Charlie! Mayor Ferre: All right, anything else? What is the will of this Commission, one way or the other? On item one, second reading. It was previously moved by Commissioner Perez and seconded by Commissioner Plummer, who subsequently voted against it. Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor, It think that this is a very controversial issue in the neighborhood, but we have two groups in this part. We have a group against the project, but we have also a group in favor of the project on the other side. I know the neighborhood from a long time. I ld 45 January 24, 1985 have a school about ten or twenty blocks from there. I know that they have a gas station on that corner. They have a grocery market store just across from this property at this time and for that reason I don't think that be too strange any kind of commercial activity. I tried to follow the Zoning Board recommendations and the Planning Department recommendations, but it has a difference at this time. At this time we have declaration, or statements or restrictions I don't think that they presented before the Zoning Board. Did you present, Mr. Counselor before the Zoning Board the same restrictions? Mr. Cardenas% No, it wasn't. At that time also there were five lots instead of three, up for zoning change. Mr. Perez: I think that the Zoning Board has the opportunity to have this restrictions, they would have an opportunity to have options in the decision. Now, we have some options, and we have the concern of both sides and I am completely in favor of what are the requests of this group of neighbors. I am completely in favor of their concerns about the residential character of the neighborhood, but I think that we cannot stop what is the private initiative. In this case these people with this declaration of rest ri,,*inn-, they are making a sacrifice in favor of their own benefit, but also, I think it is in favor of the character of the neighborhood and without any doubt, I know that maybe it is a public sacrifice, because you cannot satisfy everybody, but I would like to move again a motion to grant this petition. Mayor Ferre: All right, is there a second to that motion with the restrictions as proffered ... Mr. Perez: Subject to all the restrictions that appear here. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second to the motion? Lastly, is there a second to the motion? Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, could I move that this be held for a full Commission, because I made a promise which I have to keep and I will if the citizens are not satisfied, but I still do not know how three other people are going to vote, but I think that Mr. Cardenas would want a full Commission - should have a full Commission. Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a request by Commission Dawkins that we wait until Commissioner Carollo is here. He sent word to us that he had a fever and was home sick and would not be here until maybe this afternoon. This has occurred now on several occasions and I think nevertheless that the Commissioner is entitled to that and this is not the first time today that you have requested that. Mr. Dawkins: Well, if Commissioner Carollo does not show up, I will bring it back up and we can move on it. Mayor Ferre: All right, that means that we are not going to vote on this at this time. Mr. Dawkins: But we will be voting, so I mean, I don't want to infringe on you anymore by asking you because my mind is made up, so there will be a vote, so those of you who would like to stay here, because I don't when Commissioner Carollo is going to come, you may stay. Those of you who want to leave, may leave, but there will be a vote on this today sometime. ld 46 January 24, 1985 Mayor Ferre: We now move to the next item on the Agenda, and leave this in abeyance until the afternoon session. .... �.-�...------------------ -----..--- 14. SECOND READING: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 2711-13 S.Y. 27 TERRACE RP-1/3 TO CR-3/7. - -- r - - - - - - - - -- - - --- -- -- -- - ------- - - --- -- -- - - - - -- --- ---- - - --- Mayor Ferre: This is an ordinance on second reading on Item 2, Daniel A. Kavanaugh, and Elliott Y. Denner. We will be breaking at 12:00 noon and returning at 2:00 P.M. Mr. Richard Whipple: This is a change of zoning, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. It was recommended by the Zoning Board and the Department. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mayor Ferre: I am sorry, Plummer made a motion to move Item 2. This has the approval of the Planning and Zoning. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Ferro- Tf has the Zoning Board recommendation 9 to 0. Are there any opponents to this? If not, is there further discussion? Read the ordinance, please. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 95009 THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, dr CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2711-13 SOUTHWEST 27TH TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RG- 1/3 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL (ONE AND TWO FAMILY) TO CR-3/7 COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL (GENERAL) BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 111 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 3, SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of December 20, 1984, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Mayor Maurice NOES: None. Miller J. Dawkins J. L. Plummer, Jr. Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. A. Ferre ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9950. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. ld 47 January 24, 1985 15• SECOND READING ORDINANCE: APPLY HC-3 HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO J. V. VARNER ROUSE, 1i1 S.V. 5TH AVENUE. -- - ----- - - --- - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- -- - -- - --------------------- Mr. Dawkins: Item 4, Mr. Manager? Mr. Manager said Item 4. Mayor Ferre: Did you say Item 4? Mr. Rosencrantz: Yes. Mayor Ferre: On second reading, the Planning Department - Magic City Restoration Company. This is amending the historic designation of the J. W. Warner House. It is unanimous by the Conservation Board. The Planning Department recommends and it is 7 to 1, Planning Advisory Board. So, it is moved by Plummer, seconded by Dawkins. Further discussion on 4? Read the ordinance. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS ORDINANCE NO. 95009 THE ZONING ORDINANCE nF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY APPLYING THE RC-3: RESIDENTIAL OFFICE HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ADDITIONAL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE "J.W. WARNER HOUSE," LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 111 SOUTHWEST 5TH AVENUE, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 36 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of December 20, 1984, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Mayor Maurice NOES: None. Miller J. Dawkins J. L. Plummer, Jr. Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. A. Ferre ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9951. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 16. PLAT ACCEPTANCE: COCONUT GROVE ARCADE. Mayor Ferre: Take up Item 13, which is a plat acceptance. The Plat and Street Committee recommends. Moved by Dawkins, is there a second? It is called Coconut Grove Arcade. Mr. Perez: Second. ld 48 January 24, 1985 Mayor Ferre: It is seconded* roll on 13. Further discussion? Call the The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner X, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 85-61 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED COCONUT GROVE ARCADE, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND ACCEPTING THE COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND POSTPONING THE IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS UNTIL REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: rnmmissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo 1T. PLAT ACCEPTANCE: NUGENT GROVES. Mayor Ferre: Take up 14. Same thing. recommends. Mr. Plummer: Move it. Mr. Perez: Second. Plat Committee Mayor Ferre: Moved by Plummer, seconded by Perez. discussion of 14? Call the roll. Further The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: ld RESOLUTION NO. 85-62 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "NUGENT GROVES", A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI; AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND ACCEPTING THE COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND POSTPONING THE IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS UNTIL REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) 49 January 24, 1985 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo --- - . - - - - --- - - - - ------------- - - - 18. PLAT ACCEPTANCE: DOWNTOWN CENTER TRACT "A" Mayor Ferre: Take up Item 15, Plat and Street Committee recommend. Mr. Plummer: Move it. Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: It has been moved by Plummer, seconded by Perez. Further discussion? Call the roll on 15. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 85-63 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "DOWNTOWN CENTER TRACT", A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI; AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND ACCEPTING THE COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND POSTPONING THE IMMEDIATE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS UNTIL REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS 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 Perez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo ------------------------------------------------------- 19. DISCUSSION: REPORT FROM BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 9500. ----- ------ - -------- -- - --- ---------------- ---- --------- ----- Mayor Ferre: Mr. Freixas? ;j' ld 50 January 24, 1985 Ll fi Mr. Guillermo Freixas: Mr. Mayor, members of Blue Ribbon Committee have to go. All we want to do is just give you our report and then the staff will take it item by item. Mayor Ferre: Why don't you go ahead and do that. How long M# will it take you to do that? Mr. Freixas: Five minutes. "V Mayor Ferre: Is that all right with you - five minutes? We are not going to anything but just hear your report. Mr. Freixas: Just give you the report' and then this afternoon the Planning Department will take it item by item at the public hearing. r Mayor Ferre: We will hear your report - go ahead, Item 32. Mr. Freixas: Item 32. Mr. Mayor and members of the t Commission. You formed the Blue Ribbon Committee on November 15th and we have met on January 11th, 14th and 23rd, because I have been advised today that for most of those amendments and most of them you already passed on <Ff first reading. then will be spared. Our recommendations on the proposed Amendment"L" on the SPI-3 portion, although already approved on second reading, the committee recommends _} that the City Commission instruct the Planning Department to _- review the RO-3 district carefully when conducting the x� proposed 27th Avenue study. On "b" on the same amendment "L", the reduction of transitional use of this area, for specified uses in CR and CG districts should require a `aE special exception and in all instances a ten foot landscape 4; buffer should be maintained. The committee suggests special u� exception because it will provide notice to adjacent property owners, where a Class C permit will not, and we felt that was very important that the neighbors be notified of such change. The interim parking lots, the committee voted to uphold the proposed amendment as we ... on the wild It animals ordinance, committee recommends that the proposed amendment be revised to control any poisonous animals or reptiles, in addition to all Class two wild animals in residential districts or those districts permitted stia.v residential uses. On SPI-15, Zoning Text Amendment, the committee recommends that the following changes - be incorporated to the proposed amendment - SPI-160 16.1 and _ 16.2, floor area limitations. SPI-160 floor area limitations restrictions for nonresidential floor area. The maximum floor area for a mixed use used building shall not E exceed 4.32 times the gross land area. The maximum floor H area for residential buildings shall not exceed 4.32 times the gross land area. The maximum floor area for non- residential use shall not exceed 1.72 times the gross land area, provided however, that no residential use be permissible only if a mixed -use building with at least one and one-half square feet of residential use shall be provided for every one square feet of non-residential use. This is really what most of the property owners in the area had a problem with because of the proposed ordinance on Overtown Park West, they were really taking away the 1.72 commercial floor area ratio that they have and they felt that this was being taken away from this, so what we need is we can compromise by mix both of them, by the same time trying to accomplish what the City has in mind, which is to MA create a residential community in the area. On SPI-16.1, floor area limitation exceptions, the maximum floor area for a mixed used building shall not exceed 5 times gross land area. The maximum floor area for residential buildings shall not exceed five times gross land area, except as =; modified by Section 15165.3.2.1 below - residential use shall not exceed two times the gross land area. SPI-16.1 -M r ld 51 January 24, 1985 '.j allows an increase in no residential floor area for the provision of on site, off site residential use. For every square foot of residential use provided either on site, in as mixed use building, or off site within the boundaries of SPI-15 district and concurrently with non residential use, the non residential floor area ratio shall be increased by one square foot, provided however, that the maximum increase in floor area shall not exceed three times the gross land area. The maximum total non residential floor area ratio shall not exceed 5.0 of the SPI-16.1 site. In addition, the committee has noted that if the sports arena and complexes developed between N. W. 6th and 8th Streets, the SPI-16.2 district should extended to include the complexes and the urban designed standard guidelines should be modified to better integrate the complex into an overall redevelopment of the programs for the Overtown Park West area. I want to emphasize this a little bit, because it is very important for what the plans that we saw and the input that we got from the neighbors and the meetings that we held, if this arena, if the Commission chooses to decide, it will really have an impact, tremendously, especially on 8th, you know parking there - the proposed sports arena and convention center. On Amendment "F", we are, with the exception of two items, 10 and 14, the rest of it we came to, most of them where anoroved as presented as you have in your package and I will only go to expedite this, just to the ones that we change, which was Number B. We changed the approved recommendations to add to the end of the Section 2102.1, provided as such use, otherwise permitting in the district and for Class C permits, approve the recommendations to correct numbering, because this was just a minor change - the numbers were incorrect, so it was not a problem. On Number 11, appeals from the decisions of the Zoning Administrator or Director of the Planning Department, notice of requirement to appeal before the Zoning Board is to include persons who have recently requested to be notified. Approval as presented - in addition, we felt that the process should be reviewed. This is a case where the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Administrator make a decision - they have not notified anybody and then to really make an in house decision, that ruling is not appealed within fifteen days, it becomes the law of the land and binding for the whole City of Miami. We felt that we just presented amendment to inform you that I think this Commission should tell the Planning Department to revise the way that process is being worked out and how it is diseminated and how they come into effect. Mr. Plummer: That is fine. Just simply make it fifteen days after public notice. Mr. Freixas: Okay, and Number 12, is approved as presented, and 13, the definition of families modified to include members related by blood, marriage, or adoption, plus 3 rather than 5 unrelated persons, a provision relating to 4 roomers or less is deleted. Approval with recommendations clarifies that language by changing the text as follows: family - family is one or more persons occupying a single dwelling or lodging unit, provided that unless all members are related by blood, marriage or adoption; in addition, such family shall not contain over three unrelated persons; and Number 15 was approved as presented. So Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, that is our recommendations. They are in front of you and the planning staff will take it item by item this afternoon when it comes in front of you. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Freixas, let me ask you a question. There were five members of the committee. Where all these changes were voted upon, were records kept? ld 52 January 24, 1985 t-1 Mr. Freixas: Yes. We kept records, we have kept tapes. It was a public meeting. It was advertised in the paper and we had a lot of response from the community. Mayor Ferre: All these recommendations that you are proffering was it unanimous, was it a 5 to 5 ••• Mr. Freixas: I would say that 99% were unanimous. Mayor Ferre: Does the Department concur with all of these changes? We are going to get into that this afternoon. Mr. Rodriguez: We do. Mayor Ferre: You do - okay. Mr. Rodriguez: The only thing I want to bring your attention to - it being brought to my attention now, that Ms. Cooper has problem with one of the items now - Item Number five of amendment "F". For the rest of the committee members, I believe there was not any problem. Mayor Ferre: We will hear from Ms. Cooper then this afternoon. Thank you very much. Mr. Dawkins: One thing I would like to say is that, I will be discussing this afternoon - although you won't be here, and that is the reason you are giving the bonus, Mr. Rodriguez to acquire affordable housing, is that right? Mr. Rodriguez: You mean in South East Overtown? Mr. Dawkins: Yes. Mr. Rodriguez: The reason the bonus is given is to either build on site or buy within SPI-15 area for low income affordable housing. Mr. Dawkins: I'll be discussing this later this afternoon. Me and Mr. Traurig have a minor disagreement now. Mrs. City Attorney, I want the legislation to spell out that whoever said that they are going to build houses, that they build houses that under no circumstances will cash money be accepted because the dollars given at that time may not- be able to cover the construction dollars at that time. Mr. Freixas: Commissioner Dawkins, that was one of our main concerns and it was the decision and it was voted unanimously of this Board that the idea was to develop the area into a housing center area and the reason we are giving these bonuses along Biscayne Boulevard and letting them go up to 5 is that they provide from 2 to 5 the floor area ratio in that area and by the way, not only we will not accept, but we recommend not to accept cash contributions, but that they have to built at the same time and it is spelled out in our report and if you have a chance to review it you will see that it was ... Mr. Dawkins: You know yourself, we have a way of giving out, I mean, accepting, green olive trees, black olive trees and what have you. We don't accept that. WHEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO A RECESS AT 12:15 P.M. RECONVENING AT 2:30 P.M. WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FOUND TO BE PRESENT, except Commissioner Demetrio Perez. ld 53 January 24, 1985 4b 110 5.. 20. REQUEST MANAGER TO MEET VITH COCONUT GROVE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND OTHER GROUPS REGARDING POSSIBLE USE OF GLASS HOUSE IN PEACOCK PARK- ------------------ -- -- -- --- -- --- --- ------ - -- ---- Mayor Ferre: All right, go ahead, Commissioner Carollo. Mr. Carollo: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, if I can ask the representatives of the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce to come up, please - Doreen and anybody else who would like to be a spokesperson. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, this pocket item has to do with the Glass House in Coconut Grove and I would like to have the members of the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce explain to you, the Commission, the request they would like to make and after that we will have the different members of the Commission have whatever questions they might have answered. I would like to bring a motion up at that time then. Doreen? Ms. Doreen LoCicero: My name is Doreen LoCicero, I am the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce. We would like to ask the City Commission to have usage of the Glass House which is the facility in Peacock Park. We feel that it is under utilized and we feel that because we are Chamber of Commerce representing the town and representing all organizations, merchants and tourists and everyone in Coconut Grove, that it is important to be in a facility where we have high visibility, where we can do a lot for the community. We feel we can clean up the area considerably. We would like to have maintenance of the building, and be in charge of with maintenance of the building. There are two staff workers of the Chamber of Commerce who would maintain the building - office hours nine to five, Monday through Friday as well as Saturday. There are plenty of events going on in Peacock Park in which the Chamber needs to get Commission permission to use the building and if we are already there, we feel that we would eliminate a lot of the red tape that goes on - so basically what we are asking for is usage of the Glass House facility. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Manager, what will be the quickest way that we can go about in expediting, giving the Chamber of Commerce in Coconut Grove the full use of the Glass House, with whatever contract might be needed for them to keep up the maintenance of that location? Mr. Rosencrantz: I think there is probably, Commissioner Carollo, a couple of processes that we would need to go through. I think probably the first issue would reside with the law office in terms of determining what funds were used to acquire and what restrictions were placed upon those funds and the acquisition of that. For example, if it was required to be a bond fund for park and recreation purposes, the Law Office would have to make determination whether or not it could be used for this particular purpose. If we find out that that is not the case, and we still move forward with it, there is a process in the code and in the Charter, of us making the property available to various organizations for a bid process. Mr. Carollo: Then we would have to come up with an RFP then? Mr. Rosencrantz: Of some description, yes. Mr. Carollo: correct? That we would determine - the Commission, January 249 1985 Id 54 4 L,V, Mr. Rosencrantze Yes. I think the first step, Commissioner Carollo, would be to go through the legal process of the Law Office to make sure that there is no legal impediment to v doing that. `= t Mr. Carollo: Madam City Attorney, how quick can y y, q you come back to the Commission with a legal opinion in as far as the w usage of that particular property? Mrs. Dougherty: Oh, we could have that by the end of this week, probably Monday at the latest. We could research the . bond question. s: Mr. Carollo: On Monday. Well, seeing that legally we would meet all of the requirements - I am sure we would, because even if there is the requirement the Manager mentioned, I am sure that we could get around to meet the intent of the law on that. What I would like for the Manager to do is to meet with the representatives of the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce and come up with an RFP that would be acceptable to them and to the Commission so that we can put that out and I am sure that the way the RPF would be written, to be very specific, and would limit many other people from other areas to come into it, that if you could bring that to the Commission at the very next meeting that we have - it would be February 14th. Would that give us sufficient time, Mr. ;! Manager? Mr. Rosencrantz: Yes, I think we ought to be able to meet E with them and to start through that process and should there be some other impediment that we are not aware of, then we will be back in touch with you. Mr. Carollo! That will give us approximately three weeks so if we can have it before us on the 14th and vote upon the RFP and put it out, I would say that we can probably finish the process by late March, or early April at the latest. Mayor Ferre: My only concern is that other organizations that are Grove based be afforded an equal opportunity to either to participate with you - join you, and that includes Mrs. Gibson's organization and that includes Tigertail Association and that includes your group - what is the formal name of your group anyway? (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mayor Ferre: Coconut Grove Marketing Association? Okay, I am not trying in any way to create competing groups, but I don't want, either one, to have somebody say "Well, we never knew about it", and two, I would not want a legal action to preclude - I would imagine that the process is that we have got to go through and RFP process and that would be ample time for people, but I would rather not have a serious �! competition. I would rather that it all be worked out !� amongst the various groups. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, I think basically I think all of the different Grove organizations have been working with the I;I Chamber and they are all pretty much in accord in what the Chamber of Commerce is trying to accomplish. I don't see any problems in that particular area. f; Unidentified Speaker: .... Coconut Grove Civic Club and we were never informed of any of this. �a 4 ld 55 January 24, 1985 -i 44 Oft Mayor Ferre: Madam, let me say that this is just the beginning, see, and I understand, knowing the Grove as we all know the Grove, we knew this was going to happen, and I just want to, on the record, on behalf of all of us say that we will all have ample opportunity, whether it be the Tigertail Association, the Coconut Grove Civic Organization, the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce, the Marketing Association, Black Grove Incorporated - all these different groups need to discuss it. I would hope that you could all, Mr. Wepman, since you and I have been through this on many occasions in the past, I would hope that you and your organization would invite all of these people to sit down so we don't have, you know, one of these typical Coconut Grove fights. Mr. Warren Wepman: Indeed, what the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce has in mind is increasing the utilization of that Glass House and being the organization that offers itself to coordinate its use by everyone in the City - everyone in Coconut Grove and everyone in the City of Miami. Mayor Ferre: I think it is a great idea that Commission Carollo has come up with. I support it in principle. I just do not want to end up in a confrontation in this situation and then have Friends of the Everglades, or Marjory Stoneman Douglas on Mrs. Dann say "Well you know, we never were consulted and we didn't know and Marjory Stoneman Douglas wants to have an office there or something or other and we weren't considered". Mr. Wepman What we were hoping was that we could promote its being used more than it is now and that everyone would have an opportunity to use it and that we would be the catalyst to that. The Coconut Chamber seems to be the appropriate 000 Mayor Ferre: I think you are too and I do think that if you push it on a community open basis, then we don't we don't have the confrontational situation that just occurred 30 seconds ago with a lady from the civic association saying "We never knew about it!" Ms. LoCicero: The civic club did know, because I discussed it with Joanne Holzhouser a long time ago. Mayor Ferre: Yes, but Joanne Holzhouser doesn't disseminate. Go ahead. Ms. LoCicero: We had a board meeting and we unanimously decided that we did not like this idea, only because it is a public park and the public ought to be asked, that is all! We may end up being that way, but we wanted a discussion. Mayor Ferre: All right, look, we are not making any decision here today. All we are saying is, if we can work it out peacefully, that would be nice for a change. Ms. LoCicero: Thank you very much. Mr. Carollo: All right, Mr. Manager, the. motion that I am going to make is, that the representatives of the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce be asked to meet with the different representatives of the different groups in Coconut Grove by next week and that you immediately meet with them right after that and that you be instructed to bring up an RFP to the City Commission to vote upon it by the 14th of February - the meeting of the 14th. I would hope that the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce would be able to give their input and the input from the other organizations they ld 56 January 24, 1985 04 4 have met with before you write up the RFP and I think that would give us plenty of time and then we could vote upon it on the 14th, so with that, I do make my statement in the form of a motion. R, wx' Mayor Ferre: All right, is there a second? Mr. Plummer: Second. A Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo who moved its adoption: MOTION N0. 85-64 Y A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO REQUEST THE COCONUT GROVE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO MEET WITH THE DIFFERENT GROUPS 1 IN THE COCONUT GROVE AREA IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR EXPRESSED DESIRE TO OCCUPY THE GLASS HOUSE LOCATED IN PEACOCK PARK; FURTHER INSTRUCTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO PROCEED WITH THE DRAFTING OF APPROPRIATE R.F.P.'S, fs f; AND TO BRING THIS ISSUE BACK BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION FOR A VOTE AT THE MEETING ,S PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 14, 1985• ? �7 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion I was passed and adopted by the following vote- k AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. 21. PLAT ACCEPTANCE: "MEMORIES SUBDIVISION" Mr. Carollo: If I may Dr. Julio Sotolongo or his attorney come up, please? Dr. Julio Sotolongo: I'd be happy to. Julio Sotolongo. Mr. Carollo: Okay, if you can explain to the members of the Commission the problems you had and see if we could come up with a solution for it. Dr. Sotolongo: I believe we really have no problem. The problem is getting on the agenda. Mr. Carollo: That is a problem! Dr. Sotolongo: That was a problem and that has been resolved and it will be added on as a pocket item and that would be in the final plat approval of the memories subdivision plat. I spoke this morning with Mr. Walter Pierce, who I believe there is no problem at this time. He had originally scheduled this for the 24th and it is not ... Mayor Ferre: The 24th of what? 31 Dr. Sotolongo: Today. It was scheduled for today. -t — ld 57 January 24, 1985 Alt 01 Mayor Ferret Today? Why was it removed? Dr. Sotolongo: I believe there was some confusion as to whether it was not ready to be on the agenda or not. Mayor Ferret You are an attorney aren't you? Dr. Sotolongo: Yes, I am. Mayor Ferret And this does not cause any legal problems? Dr. Sotolongo: We are on the agenda, so I think we are all right. Mayor Ferret Madam City Attorney, are there any legal ...? Mrs. Dougherty: They are not on the agenda, however it is permissible to bring it out of pocket since no public hearing is required. Mayor Ferret So there is no legal impediment to this? Mrs. Dougherty: That is correct. Mr. Carollo: I so move the plat acceptance. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, may I see a copy of where the location is? I don't have anything on it. Mr. Carollo: Let me pass this out - I am sorry. Mr. Plummer: Did it go through the Plat Committee? Dr. Sotolongo: Yes. Mayor Ferret And it passed unanimously? Dr. Sotolongo: Does the Administration have any problems? Mayor Ferret Would you bring us the drawings and maps for the record? Let the record reflect that there is a letter which we will place into the record from Adrian V. Fernandez - of Hugo and Fernandez dated January 24th. " We will also place into the record a drawing which was approved by the plat committee and let the record further state that there is no legal impediments, there is no requirement for this to be advertised, or there is no other legal impediment why this cannot be accepted at this time. Mr. Carollo: Further, Mr. Mayor, if I could state for the record that it is a resolution for plat acceptance and the applicant owner is Julio Sotolongo and the property address is 34th Avenue, S. W. at 21st Street and the petition (thereupon Commissioner Carollo reads resolution into the Public Record) The Plat and Street Committee recommend approval. I so move. Mayor Ferret Is there a second? Mr. Plummer: Second. ld January 24, 1985 Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 85-65 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "MEMORIES SUBDIVISION", A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI; AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT AND PROVIDING FOR THE ' RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC ha RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. E (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) i� Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins k Vice Joe J. L. Plummer, Jr. Carollo -Mayor Mayor Maurice A. Ferre �i NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. 22. APPROVE " R""QUEST A ALLOCATE $809000 PURSUANT TO FUNDING REQUEST - CALLE OCHO CARNIVAL MIAMI AND PASEO FESTIVALS, STREET CLOSURES, ETC. Mr. Carollo: If I may have Mr. Leslie Pantin, Jr. come up - Leslie, can you and Yvonne briefly restate the request that you had made for the record so that we can get on with it. Mr. Leslie Pantin, Jr.: Basically we are asking _for Carnival Night and for Calle Oeho and for Paseo, the same amount that we got" last year, which is $45,000, and also the closing of the streets and all the logistics and legal stuff. And for Calle Ocho we are requesting $35,000. Mr. Carollo: Is the Paseo where we have a request for $35,000' is that correct? Mr. Pantin: Paseo and Carnival. Mr. Carollo: And Carnival - that is $45,000. Mr. Pantin: Right. Mr. Carollo: And Calle Oeho, $35,000. i Mayor Ferre: Commissioner Carollo, the only thing that we brought up this morning by several of us, including myself, is that you will notice on the schedule of events and on the brochures and on all their literature, there is recognition of Florida Power and Light; Eastern, Airlines, the Miami Herald, amongst others half Dougherty Graphics Inc., seem to be the ones that are recognized. There is no mention anywhere at any time of the City of Miami. The thought was that since the word is Carnaval Miami and it seems to me that for $80p000 plus that we are contributing, closing streets and so on, we ought to get a little recognition. ld 59 January 24, 1985 o t Mr. Carollo: How many of these did you print out already? Mr. Pantin: 80000 of the posters. Mr. Carollo: 8,000 of the posters? Mayor Ferre: That we can't change. Mr. Carollo: That we can't do, but I think the way to go around it, Mr. Mayor, is that I am sure they would commit <, from now on to make sure the City of Miami has the proper representation and acknowledgment in all these posters and programs and so on. At the same time, it gives some added recognition to the City's participation in the night of the events and throughout all of the different events that they have leading to this. Mr. Pantin: Yes, sir, thank you. Mayor Ferre: That is the only thing that I think we all "CI want and it isn't to take away from Eastern Airlines or the Miami Herald. We are very grateful for their contribution, but we think we contribute too and we need to feel that the t City c,:cc' cically is recognized for the work it does for Calle Ocho. ti! x,t Unidentified: Thank you - Mr. Mayor, I want to bring out that the reason why the City's name does not appear on those ^^� two brochures on the posters is that those companies specifically contributed to that. However, on the insert - 'A``.; that has a distribution of 600,000, which goes inside the Miami Herald, and Diario Americas, the City of Miami appears as a sponsor. Mayor Ferre: May I see that? You see, I would guess that you have probably 60 or 70 sponsors. If you are telling me that Capri -sun Nectars and the Everglades Hotel and "EZE 105 and Galavision all contribute in equal amounts to the City of Miami, then I would say you are right, but it seems to me that if you are asking us for $80,000 and that Taco Viva is giving you $1,500, then I don't frankly think that that satisfies me. Mr. Carollo: I think what the Mayor is trying to say is that he would like see a little bigger recognition of the City of Miami. Again, I am sure it is not going to be any problem whatsoever, Mr. Mayor, knowing these gentlemen as I do. Mr. Carollo: Well; having seen that they have agreed to all of the requests the Commission has made; and this being one of the key events that the City of Miami sponsors in any given year; I so move that we approve the request that has been made for $809000. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me - on the record; there was another problem. It is not theirs, it is ours. This is; Commissioner; a festival. As you are well aware, it was your motion who stopped and put a freeze. This is Item 38; intentionally, which is Item 37 is to discuss the lifting of the freeze, and I would assume that if we are going to follow proper procedure ... Mayor Ferre: We also have Marty Friedman ... Mr. Plummer: Okay, but I think what we need to do is to discuss 37 or policy. It makes no difference to me, I am ld 60 January 24, 1985 1 At voting with the motion, I want you to know that. I am just saying that procedurally wise, Item 37 is the discussion of the freeze on festivals and you are the one, 380 right after it, so you do what you want - it is fine with me. r Mr. Carollo: J. L., if you will recollect when I made that motion, I made it stipulating at the time that there were several organizations and this is one of the ones that I <! mentioned, that we had agreed to, and we are going to sponsor it. The difference was, when I made that motion, that you were having all kinds of people popping up, asking for $100,000 plus, $90,000, $50,000 and you know, it is nice, but you wouldn't get 1,000 people to! That was the rr difference. For instance, on Carnival Night, how many people see that, all over the world? r Mr. Pantin: 100,000,000, approximately! �p Mr. Carollo: 100,0009000! You know, for $80,000, this is a heck of a media bust in Miami. h Mr. Plummer: Cheap! Mayor Ferre: It is almost as good as Miss Universe. Mr. Carollo: Just about! f Mr. Pantin: Better. Mayor Ferre: You ought to know, right? Is there a second to the motion? Mr. Plummer: Second the motion. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion, call the roll. Mr. Plummer: I can't understand it. All that Bill Alexander continuously asks us for - what does it mean in Spanish - Kilito? Mr. Pantin: Centavo. Mr. Plummer: Centavo, that is all you ever ask for! The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 85-66 A MOTION APPROVING A REQUEST MADE BY LESLIE PANTIN, JR. IN CONNECTION WITH "CALLE 81, "CARNIVAL MIAMI", AND "PASEO" FESTIVALS, AND ALLOCATING FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $809000 IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; FURTHER APPROVING CLOSURE OF PERTINENT STREETS, ETC., AS REQUESTED BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION ON THIS DATE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the motion —_ was passed and adopted by the following vote- AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Demetrio Perez Jr. 4 ld 61 January 24, 1985 =a -i Mr. Dawkins: I would like to put on the record that this was agreed to this morning, but of courtesy to Commissioner CArollo, we said that he needed to have input into it. Mr. Carollo: I appreciate that. Thank you. 23. LONG PUBLIC HEARING AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL: REQUEST CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 3000-3006 AVIATION AVENUE RS-2/2 TO RO-2.1/5. Mayor Ferre: We will now do Agenda Item 3. Mr. Cardenas, this is your client, as I see. Mr. Cardenas: Yes, we are on Item 3? Mayor Ferre: Item Number 3, second reading, Arthur and Maryann Stifel. This is 3000-3006 Aviation Avenue. Mr. Cardenas, several property owners in the vicinity and I see them in the public represented here, have come to me and they want to know; on the record, who the owners - who the developer is going to be. Now, you may recall, we went through a long situation with the Jacerol property near the airport and we passed a resolution and an ordinance about disclosure of ownership and so on and so forth; so we need to have on the record, not who the present owner is, but who the potential developer is. Mr. Cardenas: Not only that; he is here, and I would like to introduce him, if I may - Mr. Hernando Carrillo. Mr. Carrillo, would you come forward and I would like for him for the record to give his name and business address and introduce himself. Mr. Hernando Carrillo: Good afternoon, my name is Hernando Carrillo and I live at 1641 Tigertail Avenue and my office is at 3460 South Dixie Highway, and I am the ... Mayor Ferre: You will be the developer of record? Mr. Carrillo: I will be the owner of the property. Mayor Ferre: Will you be developing this property on your own? There are no other trusts or owners? Mr. Carrillo: No, I am the owner of record on that. I will be the owner of record. Mr. Carollo: Well, when you say you will be the owner on record, does that mean you are going to buy it if this is approved, or have you been the owner already? Mr. Carrillo: No, I am the owner of part of the property. It is currently zoned RO-2.1-5 and I have a contract to buy part of the property that is currently being rezoned. Mr. Carollo: Mr. Counselor, I think what we need to establish is, who the present owners are for what lots. Mr. Cardenas: I certainly will be happy to explain that. There are ... Mayor Ferre: Well, the applicants are Arthur and Maryann Stifel. Mr. Cardenas: That is right. There are three owners who own property in that small island. The parcel that is ld 62 January 24, 1985 41T' At currently marked in red there in the island is owned by a Mr. Pittone. The parcels that are in blue ..• Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute - you mean Lot 119 because Mr. Pittone doesn't own Lot 3. Mr. Cardenas: That is why I referred to the red color, Mr. Mayor, for the record. On the one island now, Lot 11, that is owned by Mr. Pittone. The portions of the lot which are colored in blue on the map before you are already owned by Mr. Carrillo, who I just introduced to you. The remaining portion of the property, that colored in yellow, is currently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Stifel. Now, that property is under contract to be purchased by my client, Hernando Carrillo, and let me add for the record, that is not an option contract subject to zoning. It is a straight purchase agreement. I hope that clarifies it. Ms. Janet Cooper: Mr. Mayor, my name is Janet Cooper. My office is at 169 East Flagler Street. I am here representing Fenimore Pittone who owns the property on Lot 11. He also owns Lot 7 across Inagua Avenue and a portion of the subject area. I am very interested to hear this question and I am very anxious to just to hear some of the answers Mr. Cardenas has provided us, because in my review last night of the folder, I came upon some rather disturbing information. The owners of the property, Mr. & Mrs. Stifel are not the applicant in this case. The application was filed on November 14th by a man named Fried. Mr. Fried had no authority on November 14th to file an application. He was not owner and there was no indication in the record that he had any authority to represent the owner. There is a power of attorney from Stifel to Mr. Fried dated two days after the application on November 16th. That power of attorney is specifically limited to signing or executing an agreement between Mr. Carrillo and the Stifels and doing things necessary to convey title, which means signing the deed, ordering an abstract. Mayor Ferre: Is Mr. Fried an attorney? Ms. Cooper: I don't know Mr. Fried. COMMISSIONER DEMETRIO PEREZ ARRIVED AT 3:25 P.N. Mr. Cardenas: Yes, he is, Mr. Mayor. Steven Fried was here this morning. He is an attorney. He is the attorney of record to the Stifels. Mr. Stifel is a captain who flies constantly. He does not live here. Not only is he an attorney in the State of Florida and in the City of Miami; not only did he file in their behalf, but he has a general Power of Attorney which even proceeds the document that Janet is referring to. Mrs. Cooper: This is not a part of the record. Mayor Ferre: Janet, excuse me. So we can move along, will you show all this information to the City Attorney and I will ask her to rule whether this is ... so that we can proceed with this legally or not. Ms. Cooper: I have shown the documents that are a part of the file, which are the only things I believe that can be considered to the City Attorney, and I would like to present the rest of my arguments if I may. This Power of Attorney so* Mayor Ferre: Well wait, before you do that. Madam City Attorney, and I will let you speak further, but you let me run the meeting, all right? ld 63 January 24, 1985 '°� At Ms. Cooper: Absolutely. Mayor Ferre: Now, have you looked at these documents? Mrs. Dougherty: I have not actually reviewed the documents. She to d me What was in the file and even taking it at face value would like to put on the record that the Planning Department did not deem the application accepted until the 21th, which was sometime later, and further, the Code requires that you can file an application if you are the attorney, or an agent. Agency does not have to be created in writing necessarily, although that is something that we properly do require, but is not necessary. Mayor Ferre: All right, Ms. Cooper, this is not a court of law. I will out of courtesy to you allow you five minutes to make your presentation and then we are going to proceed with hearing this case unless the City Attorney changes her position. Ms. Cooper: I would point out that Mr. Fried did not make it known in the record that he was an attorney representing them, that he submitted his Power of Attorney which is limittu �u Cxec;ute a certain agreement and to perform all actions necessary to convey title; however on the same date, the 14th that he filed the application for the rezoning, he issued a Power of Attorney to Mr. Carrillo. That Power of Attorney grants the power and authority to represent the owner in connection with an application for rezoning, but he did not have on the 14th, according to the evidence in the record, he did not have any authority to give the power of attorney to Mr. Carrillo. Mayor Ferre: Did he have it on the 28th when the application was accepted? Ms. Cooper: The only thing that is in the record that would indicate there was any power is the Power of Attorney that is signed on the 16th and that is limited specifically to executing an agreement for purchase and sale and conveying title. Now, when I spoke with Mrs. Dougherty earlier, she said to me that if the contract was contingent upon rezoning, then the authority to file an application for rezoning might be included in this power of attorney where it says it is the power to convey title. However, Mr. Cardenas has told us just earlier, just a moment ago, that it is not an option contract and therefore he does not have the power to file an application for rezoning. In addition, I would like to point out that all letters addressed to Mr. Fried have been returned to the Planning Department, in spite of the fact that he filed the application on November 14th. Notice was mailed to him on November 21st, only seven days later. That letter was returned with the stamp "No such number". Similarly a letter mailed December 7th was returned stamped "No such number" and a certified letter sent on January 9th was returned say that forwarding had expired. If an application had not been filed or deemed to be accepted until the 21st, I question how it could have been processed and notice could have gone out on the same date that the application had been requested. I submit to you that there is no valid application here because the owner has not submitted the application, nor has the owner executed Power of Attorney to anyone who has filed an application, or who is empowered to file an application. In addition, just for you information, the fee, according to the receipt, which was dated on the 21st, the receipt was made out to an S.M.C. Enterprises Inc., which is yet another party, so we have the owners of the property, the Stifels, we have a Mr. Fried, we have a Mr. Carrillo, we have an ld 64 January 24, 1985 111� fi S.M.C. Enterprises Inc., and then there is another issue, which is who owns Lot 10. Mr. Pittone owns a portion of Lot 100 but in a letter, Mr. Carrillo has claimed to own a portion of Lot 10 and on Page 7 of the Zoning Board transcript, Mr. Cardenas claimed that Mr. Carrillo owned a portion of Lot 10, but if you look at the list of property owners submitted by Mr. Fried, it says that Eugene Jones and Fenimore Pittone are the owners of Lot 10. So we have significant questions in my mind as to who the owners of the property are, and whether the owners have authorized an application for change of zoning. Mayor Ferre: Thank you, Ms. Cooper, I am sure that is something that a Judge would take a great deal of interest in. I don't know Mr. Cardenas, if you want to add anything to it. I will ask, after you make your brief statement, a ruling from the City Attorney and then we will be guided accordingly. Mr. Cardenas: Okay, Mr. Mayor, just for the record, the application was filed by Steven Fried, whose address is 9 N. E. 9th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I know him personally. He is an attorney at law and a member in good standing of the Florida Bar and he has been so for over 10 years. ►4c :il,=u the application. As you know, an attorney, a member of the Florida Bar can file on behalf of an owner. b We hare not talking about Lot 10 in the application. The application only involves Lots 18 and 19, Parts of lots 8 and 9. All of the properties in question, as that were part of the application are currently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Stifel. Furthermore, subsequent to the rightful filing of the application of Mr. Fried, we had documents filed of record with the City of Miami and documents in my possession and those documents are a general Power of Attorney, specific Power of Attorney and affidavits from Mr. Carrillo and myself, so that there has been total and full disclosure. I am believe there has been more than ample legal representational stages of this thing properly documented, and I am more than willing to stand on the record and defend that record. Mayor Ferre: All right. Ms. Cooper: I would just state that there is no general Power of Attorney in the file. Mayor Ferre: Madam City Attorney - your ruling? Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, the Code requires an attorney to file on behalf of an owner and this case he is an attorney and therefore the application is valid. Mayor Ferre: All right, we will proceed then. The Chair rules that this is properly before us and we will now listen to the arguments of the Applicants, if any, and then we will listen to the opponents, if any. All right, start, lay the ground work. Mr. Richard Whipple: Mr. Mayor, the Planning Department, as it indicated last time, recommends denial of this item. We believe that it is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. We do not believe that it fulfills the intent of the zoning that was applied along S. W. 27th Avenue. It does not front on S. W. 27th Avenue which the representative of the Applicant is going to try to indicate to you. It does affect a very sound, stable residential area. (T A P E 8) It is an undue encroachment and adverse influence upon this residential area. We have no significant change in character that would indicate that this requested change of zoning is needed and on those summary reasons, we recommend denial of this item. ld 65 January 24, 1985 Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Mayor - I'm sorry, Mr. Campbell. Mr. George Campbell: If I may - Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, George Campbell representing the Department of public Works. As I said before, we have a problem with this rezoning in two standpoints. One, we have a fairly new sanitary system in there. While this particular development would not - one lot would not necessarily overload it, we, the Department, perceive a continuing request or continuing for changes of zoning, particularly lets say in the lots to south of Bird Road there - there is lots one, two and three, which are now ... I just was by there this afternoon, which are currently small, or townhouse development. Certainly if that were to go to the higher density development, then it would become economically feasible to replace them. In addition, we have a ... Mayor Ferre: Mr. Campbell, if I may, let me just ask a question. My previous vote on this thing and it was a unanimous vote on this Commission was based on the basic premise - Dick, if you would address it, that there is a natural barrier, that is the street that separates the area you just pointed out and those two islands and I for one, and on the record, see absolutely no reason for any changes in the AND RG-1/3. Is that RG-1/3? Mr. Campbell: The three lots in question, yes, sir. The one plus, one, two and three. Mayor Ferre: So in other words, that area down there is all SPI-1/3. Is that correct? Mr. Campbell: SPI-3 is along 27th Avenue. Mayor Ferre: Oh, I see, so this is RG-1/3? Mr. Campbell: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: RG-1/3. Mr. Campbell: Correct. Mayor Ferre: It is an overlay. RG-1/3 is what that whole neighborhood is. I just want to say on the record that I see a natural barrier there and I don't - would a court of law say that because that property is across the street that they would be legally entitled to that zoning? Mr. Campbell: I have no idea, your Honor. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Whipple? Usually it is a contiguous and continuous piece of property. Mr. Whipple: The point we are trying to make, Mr. Mayor, it isn't office, it is a multiple -family RG-1 district and not office. What is being suggested and requested before you today is that we rezone it from multiple -family residential to office, and we are saying the office doesn't fit in that area. Mayor Ferre: Yes, but see, I disagree with you and I agree with the Board that voted in favor of it, and that is my opinion. You have yours, I have mine. I am just saying that legally, I do not see that our voting this way in any way infringes on the RG-1/3 across the street, since there is a natural barrier, so I doubt if legally ... thank you, I do not need to talk to you anymore. Madam City Attorney, would you answer for me, it is a legal question. Whipple doesn't want to give me an answer. I need to understand ld 66 January 24, 1985 1 legally, if I, as the owner of one, two, or three across the street, in the RG-1/3 - I am talking along the extension, is it Bird Avenue? Mr. Campbell: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Bird Avenue off of Aviation. If I, tomorrow apply for SPI-3, the same as these people are requesting, and take it to Court, do I have a legal leg to stand on because it is continuous and contiguous, or is the street, Bird Avenue, that divides it a natural barrier? What does the law say? Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, I think the law would ... if you denied one, two and three, as proposing ... Mayor Ferre: And they appeal and they went to Court and they sued the City, saying "They gave it to them across the street, we have a legal right to it" - do they have a legal right? Mrs. Dougherty: The law would state if you had rational and reasonable basis to make the distinction, than you ought to be upheld; that your decision ought to be fairly debatable - there 3'ou ` be a rational, reasonable basis to make that distinction and so that is a planning concept. Mayor Ferre: Is the dividing of a major street, such as Bird Avenue, a sufficient legal argument, in your opinion? Ms. Dougherty: I think that is one argument that can be made - the maintaining of that residential neighborhood to the south, but I think there is probably something else, because every single zoning dividing line has a barrier. I think the record would have to reflect other reasons besides just the street. Mayor Ferre: In other words, the fact that that is a continuous, contiguous integral neighborhood, residential community, and that there is a major street named Bird Avenue that divides this island and that the island is an island and not part of a special world, and if we grant this zoning to these yellow lots, in effect, we would them the same zoning that Lots 11 and 10 have and that the island across the street has, so therefore that is the rationale in law for the granting of this, since these are islands onto themselves and not part of the mainland across the street and it is regional neighborhood structure. Mrs. Dougherty: I think it could be sustained, yes = your decision not to rezone those other properties could be sustained. Mayor Ferre: The gentlemen that came to see me this morning, and I think they are still here. What their concern was that this whole thing be treated in totality and I am going to ask them to explain that in a moment, after the presentation of both sides. Mr. Pittone, I don't know whether you are still here. Fine, in a little while I am going to recognize you. Okay. Mr. Campbell: I will be brief on this. By the way, what you were just saying, was one of the statements that was made by worthy counsel for the Applicant, that the lot to the north, which would be Lot 3 on the map there, was zoned RG-2/5 and it was more or Tess in line and so on, and that this was just a continuation of the same thing and therefore because it is across the street, it also should be zoned the same - RG-2/5, or have the SPI-3 overlay on it. 2.1, all right. So that is the argument that has been brought ld 67 January 24, 1985 II forth - that because we have this piece to the northo which was zoned and to the best of my knowledge, rationally zoned so, that also here should be zoned the same way. Now, I was ... Mayor Ferre: And half of the island! In other words, that island is split in half. Half of it ... Mr. Campbell: Well, it follows lot lines - the zoning follows the lot lines. Mayor Ferre: But, see that is a relatively small island and of the three lots, three of them are unevenly configured. They are not either squares or rectangles. Mr. Campbell: That is correct. Mayor Ferre: So I think there are plenty of legal arguments that could be made, as I understand the law. Mr. Campbell: Now, in addition, I was out there - I stopped by this afternoon and on the existing development to the north, there were seventeen spaces assigned - assigned spaces with numbers, room numbers and office numbers on them on the existing site. Ten of those spaces were occupied. Obviously the others were absent, but there were seven vehicles, apparently visitors or employees parked in the right of way in the periphery around that building to the north on Lot 3. I am sure that there are other vehicles from time to time, those clients, or whatever, that come in and out of there, deliveries and so on. One of our concerns is the traffic in the street, Inagua Avenue there, which comes in very close to Bird Road - to increase traffic on that street and I don't have traffic counts because they have not been made, but to increase any kind of traffic on that street would be, we feel, detrimental to the public as well as to the infrastructure, so we have two questions - the Department does - one, is the impact, particularly if this type of zoning continues - the impact on the sanitary system to the impact on the infrastructure, as far as the number of vehicles, the traffic flow, and the impact on the physical characteristics of the pavement itself. Mayor Ferre: Is there anything else, Mr. Whipple, that you would like to add? Mr. Whipple: Mr. Mayor, just one point, with respect to the potential, what somebody might be entitled to if they go to Court or something like that - I want to point out that the request is to go from a single family zoning to an office zoning. Now, if they were requesting single family to multiple family, like is across the street on Bird, that might be another issue, but that is not what the request is before you. It is office. Mr. Carollo: What I see about that area there, Mr. Whipple, is that that island there is just absurd to have it at single family zone. Across the street you have the Country Store - the Kwik-Chek, which we go shop there a lot, and I am sure now that the Mayor has moved to the City, will too. We are both quite close to it. That place there is crowded around the clock - 24 hours of the day and night, you got people coming in and out of there. The parking is really insufficient most of the time, so people are parking around there. There is no way that anybody wants to have a home in any of those lots across the street. It is not appropriate. That whole area around there is all very commercial, commercial as it can possibly be. In fact, I don't even think that going from single family to townhouses, as you have on Bird Road, or twin homes wouldn't even be ld 68 January 24, 1985 appropriate. That area is very commercial and I for one think that the best zoning that we could have for that island is some office type of zoning. I think that the natural barriers that Aviation has and that the extension that Bird has in Swanson would stop any additional growth across in the residential areas, but the natural boundaries, in my opinion, where you have to draw the line, is in Aviation, in Swanson and Bird and that island is really part of the other growth that you have across the street - the office, commercial type of zoning that you have across the street, and that is where the line should be drawn. From then on I think we should do everything to protect the residential area - the truly residential area that is across the street, but that island, maybe years ago it was appropriate for it to be residential - not today! Mr. Whipple: Commissioner Carollo, if I just may do a clarification. If I could add ... Mayor Ferre: Mr. Whipple, we have not heard yet from the Applicant and I think you are about to get into a debate here, which you have been pursuing for the last ten minutes with the Commission, and I think what we really need to do is to let the Applicant present its case and then I will recognize you for your further comments. All right, sir. Mr. Al Cardenas: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, my name is Al Cardenas. I am an attorney in this City of Miami and I represent the applicant in this case. I will make my presentation very brief. I think I made a rather substantive one last time, but basically our position was as follows and I think it is a one as the logic that was followed by the Zoning Board when it voted to recommend approval five to two and by this Commission when it voted approval on first reading unanimously. Basically, the concepts are as follows: First, the surrounding area - the north side of Bird Road, all the way east and west of 27th Avenue there and Bird Road ends there, is zoned commercial, even part of the property, now lot 11 and parts of lots 9 and 18 and 19 and all of lots 10 is already zoned RO-2.1/5. All I am asking to do is for the rest of the island to be so zoned in keeping with Bird Avenue - so that development of the north side of Bird, in keeping with a commercial development, was once substantive planning reason why trhat would be its best land use. Second of all, there was, as you will recall, a discrepancy between planning and ourselves, where the islands themselves faced 27th Avenue. Our statement was that it did because it joined the right- of -way. The Planning Department said "Well; unless it is the actual thoroughfare it is not", but I think the concept is, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, that it is an island; just like the one immediately north of it, that is really part of the 27th Avenue thoroughfare and it is also part of the north side of Bird Road thoroughfare. Third of all and most important, it is an island. Fourth, it should be treated the same as the island immediately north of it, where it is all treated RO-2.1/5• Part of this island is already treated RO-2.1/5. As a matter of fact, already lots; 11; 9; 10; and parts of 18 and 19 are so zoned. So; what we are really asking here for you to do is to zone the lots 9; 8; parts of 18 and parts of 19 in accordance with the rest of the island. I believe, Mr. Mayor, that the comment was made that since we were not adjacent to any residential property the concept of establishing a precedent was not a real danger and as such we would not have to alarm the residents of the area. A this time I think those were the four basic premises and we encourage you to vote the same way. Thank you. ld 69 January 24, 1985 Mayor Ferre: All right, now the opposition. Ms. Cooper, are you going to lead the way? How many speakers wish to speak today? Nine? Mr. Pittone, we will start with you, since you had the courtesy to come see me this morning and I will ask your neighbors to step forward too. Mr. Fenimore Pittone: My name is Fenimore Pittone. I live at 2694 Inagua Avenue. and that is on the corner of 27th and Bird. Mayor Ferre: Does anybody have any problems with three minutes? Because nine, that would make it half and hour and I will let Ms. Cooper talk a little bit longer. Mr. Pittone: I am kept reminding that there is no residence there. There is a residence! I have lived there the better part of 20 years, single family home! I enjoy myself there. I like it. I know it is zoned RO-2/5. I have been approached many times to sell, but I have a love for the Grove and I love my property and I love my home. I spend my time in the yard and I have wonderful neighbors and I don't want to move. I am being told that I should move because it is zoned commercial. Now, I don't think I should. There is the other property on lot 10. Although it is zoned RO-2, there aro +-wn apartments there. Wonderful people live there. I don't know why we have to give up our homes just because it is zoned commercial. I don't think I should. Mr. Dawkins: May I ask you a question, sir? Mr. Pittone: Yes, Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: You own your home mortgage free, is that correct, sir? Mr. Pittone: That is correct, sir. Mr. Dawkins: And if you move, they will give you approximately how much for your home? Mr. Pittone: It has no value as far as I ... Mr. Dawkins: Okay, no, no, I mean approximately what, sir? Mr. Pittone: I don't know - I never gave it any thought. Mr. Dawkins: Do you think that will purchase you a home where you move, whatever they give you? Mr. Pittone: I don't know what - I've been looking. Mr. Dawkins: Okay; so what I am trying to get to; sir. No; no, Janet, let me handle this; please. Let me handle this. Ms. Cooper: I just want to give you some additional information. Mr. Dawkins: No, wait let me finish with him; because see they will say you are putting words in his mouth; okay.) What I am saying sir, is this. At your age, you have a home that is paid for, okay? Now, someone is going to come along and root you up and give you a third of what it will cost you to move and therefore at your age, we expect you to move and assume a mortgage, which I think is wrong, and I agree with you. I don't see why you, having worked all these years, and paid for a home, to live out the rest of your days in on a fixed income can give this up to anybody and move out and assume a mortgage at your age. Now, if they are willing to take a piece of property and give you a condominium or a home for your land, mortgage free and debt ld 70 January 24, 1985 free, than I would be willing to listen to them and to you sir, but I am with you 100%6 I think you need to move. Mr. Pittone: Mr. Dawkins and Commissioners, Mayor Ferre - there is somehting in a person sometimes that money cannot buy. I love that area. I am familiar with that area, and I almost lost my life. I was hit by a cab and why? ..• because I spend most of my time taking care of yards, the hedges and trim the trees. When I feel that I have had enough, only then will I put it up for sale. Right now, I don't feel like selling. I don't know where I will go that I will be happy with and I think the most important part of my life now is happiness. I have worked all of my life, I am 72 years old and I don't want to be pushed off, sir. Thank you very much, unless there is other questions. Mr. Dawkins: Thank you. Ms. Cooper, I didn't intend to be rude or anything, but I wanted to be sure that I heard from him. Ms. Cooper: No, you were not being rude in the least, and your point is very well taken, but you wouldn't hear Mr. Cardenas or any of the other developer's attorneys come in and tell you "If you buy my property, which has 27th Avenue and Bird 13cation, or give me another home to live in, or give me a condominium to live in mortgage free that I should take a fair trade on this". You would hear and, I am not speaking now from Mr. Pittone, because he has told me repeatedly that he does not want to sell his property and I believe him and I am just talking to you ... Mayor Ferre: Are you going to speak now? Mr. Cooper: No, I am just answering the question and I will only be another 30 seconds. In the event that there is an office for sale which I spoke very briefly with Mr. Cardenas about, and there was a vague offer, but no offer with any numbers - an offer to discuss it is what it was, but if there were to be an offer, it wouldn't be and it shouldn't be on the basis of giving this man a mortgage free home. It should be on the basis of the value of the property to a developer, which is business, and which is what everybody else would be talking about. Mayor Ferre: Your 30 seconds are more than up. Ms. Cooper: That is it. Mayor Ferre: But Ms. Cooper, let me say, and Mr. Pittone, with all due respects to you and to your neighbors, you came to see me this morning at 8:30 A.M. We met about 8:45 A.M for about 15 minutes. I am confused. Was that off the record, that discussion? It is off the record? Okay. then I won't say anything else on it. Okay, next speaker. Mr. Russell Grayling: Good afternoon, Commissioners, my name is Russell Grayling. My address is 2547 Swanson Avenue. It is actually the next lot - the white lot 18 past the block of red lots across Aviation. You keep going down the the pen and then further - right there. That is my property. I am coming almost from the other end of Mr. Pittone, as a young person who has worked hard and saved finally purchased a home. I think of it as other young people do. This is an investment I have made and what I hoped would be a' long term investment and in an atmosphere and in an ambience that I wanted to remain more or less stable, because I was buying into a neighborhood which was said before, has been a stable neighborhood for many, many years, and there is nothing in the neighborhood itself that would cause a need to be changed. One point that I would Id 71 January 24, 1985 like to make is that people speaking before keep mentioning Bird Avenue as if Bird Avenue across 27th Avenue is the same as Bird Avenue on the other side. The whole atmosphere �xk changes at 27th Avenue. Bird Road did not have the character on that side of the street that it does on the other side of the street. For anybody who lives in that neighborhood, that is very clear. Also, on Aviation, Aviation may be a thoroughfare down to Bayshore and up to 27th, but Aviation also retains the character of the neighborhood. It is a t. residential neighborhood. People buy homes to live in homes. They do not buy homes to be confronted directly with commercial property and the immense amount of traffic increase that that would bring about and I just think for the neighborhood there, any encroachment on that f neighborhood, and this would clearly be an encroachment. Also, let me say that that island is being contiguous and somehow separate from the neighborhood. For those of that live in that neighborhood, that is very funny. It doesn't work! That island that faces on Aviation is a definite contiguous part of the neighborhood and for those of us that have saved our money and bought a place to live and bring up families, that is the kind of neighborhood we want to keep. Thank you. r' Mr. uarton: My name is Herbert Quarton. I live at r n 2584 Inagua. That is Lots 8 and 9 immediately across the street from the subject property. I have been there for 33 years and I have seen a lot of changes in the neighborhood. T' I would like to say to Commissioner Carollo - you gave the impression, sir, there is nothing between the Country Store and 27th Avenue in that piece of property, but that is not correct. Mr. Pittone's home is between that property and 27th Avenue, and that is a very, very, nice home. Your own Planning & Zoning people seem to be very, very strongly in objection to this project, this change, no more strongly than myself and my neighbors. There is no way that I am not *Fs afraid of the domino concept along Aviation. This is not a very big piece of property. You referred to it as an _ island. It truly is an island. It truly is an island. The part of the island that we are dealing with is really a e small piece of property. There have been for many, many years. They are two single dwellings. They have been allowed to kind of go to rack and ruin because elderly people lived in them and have gone. That doesn't mean that somebody couldn't move next to Mr. Pittone and restore that . house. That is a first class house, unfortunately, I guess the value of the property has increased immeasurably as it goes commercial. As a property owner, as a person who pays taxes for 33 years in that location, I came here weeks ago and I asked for the same protection that anyone would ask of this Commission - protect me. There is a young man just moved into my neighborhood, bought and old house and restored it. He is around the corner. He came here because it is a solid residential area. He didn't anticipate that we were going to have this kind of change, or be under this sort of challenge. Protect my property. Now, I might add a also - Mr. Mayor, I don't know why - that property is presently for sale. There appeared within the last ten days a "for sale" sign in two locations on that property, the subject property - exactly where that pin is now. Now, those had been long gone, long removed. Now, you discussed ownership and who is in charge and who has made the application. Why is there again "for sale" signs on that property? What mystery is taking place there? Thank you. Mr. Cardenas: If I may for the record - there were two signs erected on that property. Those were for rent signs to rent the existing dwellings on the site. They have since been removed. Are they there now? Okay, they are for rent signs, air. That is what they should be. Id 72 January 24, 1985 Mayor Ferre: No - 'for sale" signs! ` Mr. Cardenas: "For sale"? Mayor Ferre: Well, ask your client why is has "for sale" signs if he asking for all of this. f 1' Mr. Cardenas: They are for rent signs. _ � S (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Ma or Ferre: Wait a minute! Mr. Carrillo, on the record, y } are you selling this property? Mr. Carrillo: No, I am not selling this property. Mayor Ferre: Would you tell the neighborhood why you have a ' "for sale" sign on two of those lots? A ` Mr. Carrillo: Mr. Mayor, the reason - it was a mistake. We have two duplexes on there. We are trying to rent them. Mayor Ferre: You are trying to rent them, not sell them? Mr. Carrillo: Right. Exactly. Mayor Ferre: Well, as you know, I think the neighbors are properly alarmed when you come in here and asking for these changes and they see "for sale" signs. I think they are ;. duly concerned! x t� Mr. Carrillo: Justifiably so. Mayor Ferre: All right, next speaker. Mrs. Joanne Holzhauser: Joanne Holzhauser, 4230 Ingraham Highway, Coconut Grove. I am President of the Coconut Grove Civic Club. We are here to reaffirm out position opposing this. I would like to point out that the signs are in two separate locations. They definitely say "for sale" and they are by a realty company, the owner or president was here asking you to approve this zoning when it came before you before. He was one of the primary speakers asking you- to rezone it. At that time there were no signs on it. The signs are there today - two "for sale" signs, and they are not just on the duplexes. I would like to comment that on Virginia and Oak, we had a situation some years ago in which although we fought and fought, you all in your infinite wisdom chose to rezone the piece of property across the street from the fire station and the reason given was it was, I believe, it was "adjacent property", and therefore it was properly zoned to the use that was caddy -cornered across the street. It wasn't directly across the street, it was caddy -cornered across the intersection, so if you found that an appropriate use then, and you did rezone that then, and the builder did build condominiums on it then, and I do have to smile when I say that I think any of them has however, they are there now, and there is not a mini -park there, which we would like to have seen, but you all rezoned it then. I find rather difficult to understand how you think running a zoning line down the street is going to make us feel safe, if there is at least one case a few blocks away in which it didn't make us feel safe - you need to cross an intersection. It was, as I say, this adjacent zoning, we got into these complicated dialogues and hear about what touches the line and here and here and it went on for probably days. If you are going to talk about the street as being the natural barrier as one of you did - then if the street of Aviation is going to be the natural ld 73 January 24, 1985 % barrier, what is going to happen if ... (thank you, Mr. Whipple, go right down there on Aviation, right down there) okay, well if that is the natural barrier, what is going to stop you all from listening to the next developer who wants that to be the natural barrier when you are asked to rezone where that dotted line is, right down there? Okay, does that stop being a barrier? - because right now that is what is protecting the residential area on 27th Avenue. You are going to go back now to Aviation and say "Well, we are going to go back to the street, and the street is going to be the natural barrier." We have felt for many, many months, that area is right in the middle of a pincer and today you are looking at a real pincer. This is going to go to the street as a divider. It is unconscionable to divide up that little, whatever you want to call it, block, wedge, island, I don't care. Whatever it is, it should be used for what the neighborhood directly around it is. I think there is any question about it. The people have come before you probably at least two dozen, by now and pleaded their case. For once the Planning Department and we are together. Is there nothing we can say that will possibly, possibly get you all to hear us. We asking for a neighborhood of human beings! And the developer is coming, asking, I believe, is he not still asking for R/0? Where is the R? Where is the Rs There isn't any R, it is all 0. He isn't even making a gesture - "Well, I am going to put two offices and two residences". Even that we might have been able to deal with, but all office in that. Look at these people - it is their homes! Please, please, why, why? What are they going to put there that is more valuable than these dozens of citizens that are here before you now, and their homes? Mayor Ferre: Next speaker. Mr. Steven Cooke Yarborough: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, my name is Steven Cooke Yarborough. I live at 3550 Crystal Court in the north Grove. I am also a member of the Tigertail Association, which has most of our members in the area this side of Aviation. I want to bring up three points. One, the area of the lot under question to rezoning is less than 40,000 square feet, which is the minimum that you can apply for for rezoning, unless it is contiguous to another zone. If you look at the map on the wall, the -two blue pieces represent perhaps one -fifth or one -sixth of the total area. That, I would say, is the dominant zoning - the blue area is contiguous to the dominant zoning, which is the yellow area. This is if you zone it the other way, so that the yellow area catches up with the blue area is a bad case of the tail wagging the dog. Secondly, if you once let offices into Aviation Avenue at that point, and I don't care what any of you gentlemen say, that is the start of the dominoes tumbling all the way down! Because there is also other areas there - I can see Lot 14 outlined in brown, Lot 269 Lot 3 - they are contiguous to the RD-2/5, so the next thing we are going to know, the RD-2/5 will slip over. Third point - that rezoning that needs a change in the comp. plan. A change in the comp. plan has to be noticed to the public. Has this change in the comp. plan been noticed? Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, next speaker. Mr. David Strong: My name is David Strong and I live at 2321 Trapp Avenue and I would like to go on record as being opposed to any change of zoning in this particular area, and particular with an overlay of an SPI district. I think the SPI district is going to just knock the hell out of the whole business and we are going to infringement on these residential areas adjacent to it. My wife and I had occasion last weekend to circulate a petition and during ld 74 January.24, 1985 >: that time we interviewed many people along Inagua, Swanson, Trapp, Lincoln and Aviation, and I would say that 95% of the people in that area whom we talked with are opposed to any � change in zoning. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, next speaker. Yes, sir! This is a public hearing. Anybody who wishes to speak ... Mrs. Sue Ellen Strong: My name is Sue Ellen Strong. I live at 2321 Trapp Avenue. This change of zoning will be of no benefit to our residential north Grove neighborhood, It can only destroy the character of the historic area that we reside in. I believe it should be our choice if we wish to live accross from E-Z-E Kwik. I urge you to allow it to ^ continue to live in our area of north Grove. The zoning 1 should remain and it should protect us. ' Mayor Ferre: All right. i Mr. Ernie Fannotto: Ernie Fannotto is my name and I am °. President of the Taxpayer's League, Miami and Dade County. I see this here as a definite infringement on this Al neighborhood. It is a clear cut case. They are 100% right. i It appears to be confiscation and this is not one of these ! cases where the people should lose this property by using high pressure tactics to buy property. They want their satisfaction - satisfaction comes first, money comes second and I hope you manage to vote against it. Mrs. Norma Post: Norma Post, 2061 Tigertail Avenue. I have two points to make, and one is that if you continue down Aviation to Bayshore, the matter which you are going to be considering soon, you will find that on both sides of Aviation you have the office building zoning. At one point n, in time when somebody said that if we had the office on one side, you should have it on the other, and now where are we going to stop there on Bayshore now that we have crossed Aviation? On this particular property, you already have the office zoning on 27th Avenue. Leave it on 27th Avenue. If this gentlemen is going to have office zoning behind him, that means that he is going to be like living in the Alps! w1 He is going to have his little house below and he is going to have enormous buildings all around him so he doesn't even have any fresh air to breath! Let's stop the zoning right ti I where it is - 27th Avenue is office, and let's leave it at 'ems„ that and give people a chance to breathe some fresh air and look at some trees for a change. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Next speaker. Mr. Jim McMaster: My name is Jim McMaster, I live at 2940 S. W. 3Oth Court. I can understand rezoning this property at 27th Avenue, if you want to go to office buildings, U. S. 1 around the Metrorail, Bayshore Drive has been fully redeveloped, but really, why are we spreading the office zoning when there is so much empty land along 27th Avenue? There is no valid reason to infringe upon a stable neighborhood when we don't need anymore zoned office buildings. I would like to ask Mr. Cardenas and Mr. Carrillo, both to, as I finish speaking come up, state their names and indicate they have no intentions of selling this property, at least for a year because both those signs are the farthest corners they can be of that property, Coconut Grove Realty, Vincent Pastore exclusive listing! They are not "for rent" signs. They are "for sale" signs. And I would like someone here to name me one major street in this city which has two different zonings - let's say office zoning on one side and single family on the other. The first time I was down here for a rezoning issue was Jack Luft telling us that we should rezone one side of the street ld 75 January 24, 1985 ` because it was a different zoning than the other and that "j you don't draw zoning lines down the middle of the street. +; I think the natural barrier we have in Coconut Grove is the existing historic zoning and if g g you gentlemen intend to break the historic zoning here, I will remind you that Bridgeport, 30th Court, Coconut, all these streets in the Grove have higher density zoning at their ends, where are you going to stop. I would like to bring out the fact that this is from the front page of the New York Times last week. "Homeowners unit in selling to Developer". In Atlanta, 144 homeowners got together and acquired residential area north of Atlanta and "banded into a corporation and last month ` closed a deal to sell the whole 85.5 acre parcel to the developers of the proposed office complex for $35,000,000". I can go through city after city after city where homeowners have come down and fought time after time after time to save their property and see they can't and eventually come back and ask the city to rezone, and the same thing will happen here too. I think that Jack Luft came up with a plan that would be very logical in this case. He drew a plan where Mr. Pittone and Mr. Cardenas' client and Mr. Pancoast could all get together - we could get a planned unit development in here which would protect the neighborhood and protect E! everyone's interest and I think we should look into this and I woll1r; 141— you to defer it and see if Mr. Pittone and these people can get together. Now, I would also like Mr. k" ' Cardenas to show you - he has a survey here of his property and it shows the layout. It shows you that Mr. Pittone's property actually juts way out into the middle of his property and I would like to know where ... he talks about k +, covenants for ingress and egress, I would like to see those and the could you show Commissioners a survey of the �r property and how Mr. Pittone's property juts way out into the middle of it? c`t Mr. Cardenas: I think that the map layout that they have ., speaks for itself. ' Mr. McMaster: Before I go, I would like to say it does not. That is not accurate. Mr. Pittone's property juts way out into the middle of Mr. Carrillo's, as you can see right r� there. If you would like to show it to them, go ahead. Mr. Cardenas: It is up to the Commission. I would be happy to show it. It is not a document. It is part of our application and I don't want to get involved in that entanglement, but I will show g , you anything you want me to .`.: show you. Mr. Plummer: What is to be accomplished by producing this? Excuse me, sir. Are you finished? What is to be gained by producing of this document? Is it the ingress and egress of j� what is proposed and what is present? Mr. McMaster: Excuse me. The reason would be that the Ingress and egress will be rather difficult on Bird, since he only has 27 feet of what the present office building zoning on Bird itself, and Mr. Pittone's property juts .:. you know, if he will just show it to you, you will see what I am talking about. It would be very difficult to put a building on this site without getting Mr. Pittone's property. Mr. Plummer: My question is, are you saying to produce a plan that shows what it is presently, or what is proposed if there is to be a change? If it is to be a change on there, then it becomes very relevant to how you would ingress and egress this property. As it stands today, if no changing takes place, to me it is irrelevant. ld 76 January 24, 1985 It V Mr. McMaster: Okay, I am not sure that I understand, but I guess what I am referring to is last time at first reading he said he would come here with covenants for ingress and egress, which would only allow ingress and egress to Bird and Inagua in order to protect the residential neighborhood and I am saying that the layout of the property - I'd like to see those, the layout of the property makes it very difficult. Thank you for your time. Mayor Ferre: Any other speakers? I would like to state - I guess there are no other speakers. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Joseph T. Calay: My name is Joseph T. Caley, I live at 2985 Aviation Avenue. I just been handed a piece of paper by one of the concerned neighbors. It says there are three pieces of property and they are asking 1.3 million dollars and this is supposedly received from the Coconut Grove Realty just now, by telephone. Mr. Plummer: What? Mr. Calay: 1.3 million dollars! Mr. Plummer: For what? Mr. Calay: For this piece of land. Mr. Plummer: 1.3 million as it is presently zoned? Mr. Calay: For the piece of property that is under discussion right now. Mayor Ferre: All right, let's get this straight on the record. 1:r. Carrillo, would you step forward, sir? I am going to ask you if you have any objections to going under oath. Mr. Carrillo: Nov your Honor. Mayor Ferre: Would you swear him in, please? I am just going to ask you about ownership and about intentions to sell, that is all the questions. I will let you know up front what I am going to ask you. Mr. Ralph Ongie: Raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear the statements you will make in regard to this matter before the City Commission will be the truth, so help you God? Mr. Carrillo: Yes, I do. Mayor Ferre: It is my understanding that you will be, if you exercise your option, the sole owner of this property and it is your intention to develop this property. Mr. Carrillo: It is my intention to be ... I will be the sole owner of the property. It is my intention to develop the property. Mayor Ferre: Is the property today for sale, or do you have in mind selling it? Mr. Carrillo: All the properties that I own, Mr. Mayor, are for sale always. Mayor Ferre: I along and does property. ld see. All right. Okay, so someone comes offer you $1,300,000, you would sell the 77 January 24, 1985 I* V Mr. Carrillo: If somebody comes along and offers me less, I may sell the property, and I may not sell it at $10 00,000. Mayor Ferre: Okay, I understand. I think that is an honest answer and that is what we needed to get on the record, and I thank you. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, let me ask you a question. I think we need to get this thing one step further. You, as the owner of record today, to your knowledge, does Coconut Grove Realty have a contract for sale? Mr. Carrillo: Nov they don't. Mr. Plummer: They do not? Mr. Carrillo: They do not have a contract for sale. Mr. Plummer: On the record you are indicating that at best to your knowledge that they an option to rent. Mr. Carrillo: Rephrase ... you are asking ... Mr. Plummer: Well, you made the statement, or Counselor made the ctatcmcnt - that the signs that say "for sale" were a mistake, they should have been "for rent" signs. Mr. Carrillo: Nov they ... let me suggest to you the way it is. The signs that were put up there were put up there with a rental sign on it, a small little attachment to it. The attachment. The attachment happened to be missing. However, the property is for rent, and is for sale. Mr. Plummer: Honest and above board! Ms. Cooper: Mr. Plummer, let me point out to you that this gentlemen who just spoke to you is not the present owner of the property. He has a contract to purchase the property. You asked him as the owner today. Mr. Plummer: He says he has the right, and he has a contract to buy from Arthur and Maryann Stifel. Ms. Cooper: Correct, and someone who, we don't know who it is, but someone has given a listing, apparently, to Coconut Grove Realty. They have a sign, and if you telephone them, they tell you a price of the property. Mr. Plummer: Janet, he just said, under oath, that any property that he owns he will entertain an offer for sale. Ms. Cooper: Of course, and even if he told you ... Mr. Plummer: So he is not saying that it is not for sale. Ms. Cooper: Of course, but the issue was, is there an active effort being made at the moment to sell it, and apparently there is, because there is a sign. Mayor Ferre: I'm, sorry, you are still under oath, Mr. Carrillo, come back. You are still under oath, you understand that. Mr. Carrillo: I understand. Mayor Ferre: All right now, are you actively trying to sell the property at this time? Mr. Carrillo: actively? Would you please clarify what you mean by id 78 January 24, 1985 It It Mayor Ferre: Well, do you have it ... Mr. Carrillo: You asked me if the property was for sale. I told you that everything that I ... all the properties that I own, Mr. Mayor, are for sale. 1? Mayor Ferre: Mr. Carrillo, let me be more specific. Have you told any real estate broker to go out and try to sell the property? Did you instruct them to put a "for sale" sign? Mr. Carrillo: I instructed them to put a "for rent" sign, and to put a ..• I guess a "for sale" sign was on there, but I instructed them to put a "for rent" sign, because I have property on here that is not rented at the moment, but yes, all the property that I own, that and other properties in the Grove are for sale at all times. Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you. Go ahead, sir. Mr. Calay: Joseph P. Calay, 2985 Aviation Avenue. I have, night after night after night witnessed the gentlemen living in the residence, which I believe is 3000 Aviation Avenue - if he is not renting it, I guess he is just the night ,: watchman. I have heard here today the concept of transition zoning. I would like to remind the Commission that 27th Avenue will soon be a street similar in traffic count, and when I say "similar", it will become alarmingly similar, as U. S. 1, in the very near future. If you look a e traffic counts that they are generating - my traffic count on U. S. 1 was one car per second and that was around December. I'd like to make the point before this item is , voted on, and that is that this R-2.1/5 zoning was intended to be a transitional zoning and it has been used effectively ! as a buffer along U. S. 1. The people in the area of 22 1 have the Avenue to 17th Avenue south of U. S. received benefits of this transitional zoning, and that that zoning fronts on an active, busy, heavily traveled street, and the back side of all of those properties have carried a restrictionp protectingthe neighbors whose backyard fronted :a on that zoning. The English language fails me when I say the back yard fronts on the zoning, but essentially what e they had was the backyard of the house was the portion of the property adjacent to this zoning. If the piece of property in question was zoned RG-1/39 leaving the existing s. �! 2.1/5 zoning on 27th Avenue, we would have that transitional zoning. If the.streets are a natural barrier, then Inagua is a natural barrier to the zoning that the Pancost building ., has. My feeling is very simple. I live in the area. What the gentlemen told you about Atlanta has already been L discussed with Mr. Quarton, who lives at Inagua and Aviation,. our interior neighbor, Mrs. Milton, and myself; we own that interior piece - the three of us together represent the piece from Inagua to Aviation, and although I have spent a lot of money moving the old Dade County pine and cypress home from where Mr. Pancost's building is onto that corner, and it would make me very unhappy and very sad to see that building torn down to put up something that could afford to this five -story that these people are able to put up there without any other transitional zoning, the natural barrier I feel will be the traffic on Aviation Avenue, generated by Terremark, and if you are able to s; 4 comprehend the immensity of documents about traffic, you k, will see that up Aviation Avenue and down Aviation Avenue r and across Bird Road, you will be lucky to walk across the street to the Easy-Kwik, Mr. Carollo, so I advise you to drive your car and join the traffic in the Grove. Thank you very much. ld 79 January 24, 1985 Mayor Ferre: All right, I assume that was the last speaker? Oh, we have one more. We now have been close to two hours on this �= Mrs. Edythe Quarton: My name is Edythe Quarton. I live at 2584 Inagua Avenue, which is directly across the street from the property involved and I am definitely opposed to this #{+j situation. I would like to remind the Commission that this entlemen is nothin but a s . He does not own the g g peculator property. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, Ms. Cooper. Ms. Cooper: Thank you. First, I would like to say that I a bit perplexed after driving past this property why everybody is calling it an island. It is not an island. There is no ' moat around it, there is no water around it and it is a very normal neighborhood sized street! If you go by it, you will see that it is not unusual, just a regular neighborhood. You have before you very strong Department recommendations in opposition to this requested change of zoning. What is being requested? From single family homes, the uses for example, that are being requested are the following: drug store, news stand, sundry stores, hardware stores, marine ". hardware stores, grocery stores, fruit and vegetable, fish or meat market, delicatessens, bakery goods shops, shoe repair, barber shop, beauty parlor, dry cleaning or laundry agency, restaurant - can you imagine a restaurant on this piece of property. Opposite, medical or dental offices or clinics, which I assume would include HMO type operations, commercial parking lots and community based residential s}' facilities that would house up to 50 residents. This is some of the list of permitted uses that are permitted under _ the requested zoning of RO-2.1. Now, what about the size of R, the building? What are we talking about when we are talking about how big is the building? The current F.A.R. permitted �sL is 0.26. The requested F.A.R., by virtue of the 5 sector number is 0.75. That is tripling the F.A.R. that is ' ! permitted. Now, Mr. Cardenas testified, or was arguing at the Zoning Board hearing that the maximum that could be permitted on this property if it were built down, would be # less than 10,000 square feet. An accurate calculation, k .:� which was verified by the Planning Department this morning, is over 18,000 square feet. The subject property is 17,000 square feet of approximately. However, because it fronts on three sides of the street due to the gross lot area inclusion of half of the street, you will find ... I will u_:• j just wait, I don't mind waiting ... Mayor Ferre: Go ahead. Ms. Cooper: Thank you. If you use the gross lot area calculation, which is what the developer will use and is entitled to use under the Code, then he will add approximately 5,000 square feet, due to the inclusions of the street and he will as a result be able to build over 18,000 square feet on this property, which is an F.A.R. under the old terminology of over 1 in a single family neighborhood, gentlemen! .. including possibly restaurants and medical clinics. The criteria listed in Section 3509, which are to be looked at in order to determine whether or not you should change zoning overwhelming supports that you should not change the zoning on this property. I won't bore you with it because I know that you all are familiar with those criteria, dealing with them daily. Your Department recommendations indicate that those criteria are not being met. The only reason for RO-2.1 zoning in this area is for those properties that touch 27th Avenue. This property does not touch 27th Avenue. The block that it is on touches 27th Avenue, but it does not. All the other ld 80 January 24, 1985 properties, including the block to the north, has 27th Avenue frontage, 27th Avenue access. The other speakers that have come before you have talked about how concerned they are with the domino theory. I am concerned about that, but I am more concerned about the effect of the particular development that will go on this lot, the traffic that will be generated by this into the single family neighborhood is not going to be good for the neighborhood. There is sufficient testimony in the record from the Planning Department to show that that is the case. It is a stable residential neighborhood and should not be encroached upon. This has been told to you by the Planning Department and by the many people who have come here for all three hearings to tell you and the Zoning Board that this should not be granted. As a matter of fact, the traffic situation is a hazardous one. Someone was killed on the corner approximately two weeks ago ... two months ago on the corner of Inagua and 27th and Aviation. Inagua is a very narrow street. It will not hold the kind of traffic that will be generated by a development of 18,000 square feet, neither will Bird. There is a problem with the traffic because of how close Bird and Inagua are. If you look on the map, you will see that they are very close on 27th Avenue. As a matter of fact, it is approximately 50 feet between those two intersections and there is a conflict in the traffic pattern between cars coming in and out, and how those cars will deal with each other when those streets are so close to each other. The existing hazard will only be multiplied many fold if you allow a development of 18,000 square feet on this property. In addition, if you give this variance with the sector number of 5, you are inviting a request for variances on this piece of property, which is not a good way to plan zoning. You will be giving him such a high F.A.R., such a high floor area, that it would be practically impossible to build it. As a matter of fact, with 189000 square feet, he will be required to put 40 parking spaces on that property and it looks to me like it will be impossible to do on the property without either building the second floor parking, or covering at the very least the entire lot with parking and I am asking you, do you want to put an 18,000 square foot building with lot line to lot line parking, or perhaps two floors of parking facing the single family homes on Aviation Avenue and facing the single family homes south of Bird, or east of Bird. Do you want to put this type of structure in this residential neighborhood when this type of zoning was intended for properties fronting on 27th Avenue. Mr. Cardenas has submitted into the record an unsigned declaration of restrictions that would prohibit development on the condition the zoning is granted, which makes me question the validity of the restrictive covenant and of any rezoning that might be granted, but he attempts to covenant that there would be no access, no ingress or egress on Aviation and I suggest to you that channeling any ingress and egress onto Inagua and onto Bird would create very dangerous situations and will not eliminate the traffic that will result on Aviation. You can't prohibit the traffic that will occur there anyway. There is another alternative that has been discussed, I understand. This is unfortunately my first hearing on this matter. I understand there was some discussion about the closing of Inagua and that might be something that should be pursued. If there is any discussion on the covenant, I will be glad to answer further questions on it. Basically there is no justification. The Code is not met with the criteria. Your Planning Department recommendations are very strong and I suggest that you uphold them and request it respectfully. Thank you. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, may I ask one question? ld 81 January 24, 1985 Mayor Ferret Yes. Mr. Dawkins: I may get out of my dilemma. The gentlemen from Public Works, please• =y Mayor Ferret Mr. Campbell. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Cardenas, I would like for you to listen, s you. According because I need some answers from both of g to { Public Works, and I am reading from what you sent me - the existing sanitary sewer system that serves this property was not designed for the sewage flow that could be generated if the property is rezoned RO-2.1/5• Would you explain that, E please, sir. f' Mr. Campbell: Yes, sir. At the time that the sanitary sewers were designed in that area, we designed them based on the then existing zoning and the projected sewer flow from there. At that time the existing zoning was and still is - I believe that is single family, isn't that correct, Joe? (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENT) Mr. Campbell: It is single family in there. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Cardenas, I am pretty sure that you saw What does our client propose to do to correct this? that. W y P P Hold it, it doesn't have to exist, but what have you, along the lines of ... `4 Mr. Cardenas: Right, I am familiar with the issue, because it is an issue which affects not only this property but a lot of other already commercially zoned properties and to be rezoned properties in the City of Miami. It is an issue which faces the whole City. It is not an issue which is particular to this particular lot, but it is particular to the lot is located. I don't foresee, the area where frankly, Mr. Commissioner, that that in and of itself is a controlling issue here because if we developed the property without variances which is what it should be happening, that is a property which should be about 10,000 square feet in development and that in and of itself is not going to tax the system to a point where the system, because of that particular development, will have difficulty servicing the t area. It is a problem not only facing this property, including Mr. Pittone's when it is developed, it is a !r problem involving all of the Grove and most of the City that I understand has to be addressed, but addressed as a collective, you know, major issue. Mr. Dawkins: Well, is that what you are saying total area, or are you saying this piece of property? Mr. Campbell: In general, I believe what I said in the minutes there was that while this one piece would not be detrimental, would not destroy the whole thing, the concern that the Department has is the continued rezoning of these areas. The area, for instance, along 27th Avenue was the sewage was developed to consider the zoning along 27th Avenue, back in the single family, duplex areas, similarly for that area. Continued rezoning to these higher levels can be detrimental and it can be very costly. This sewer is about 15 years old. To the best of my knowledge, the assessments have been, or are about to be paid off, so that to come in and have to reassess, have to come back in and rebuild or enlarge the sanitary system, with a reassessment against the property owners would be, well, contrary to the sense of the City, I believe. ld 82 January 24, 1985 4*. Mayor Ferre: Well, Mr. Cardenas, we have been well over two hours on this subject. There are 43 subjects on the agenda today. We cannot spend two hours on each one and we need to move alone. There are people who have been here all day on Item 1, waiting, and we have all kinds of other items. We must move along now. f Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I inquire - Janet, you spoke of a covenant. Has there been a covenant given? }. Mr. Cardenas: I have proffered, Commissioner, at last hearing, it was ... Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, I don't have a copy of any covenant ` is why I am asking, Al. Mrs. Dougherty: It was given to me at lunch. Mr. Plummer: Oh, thank you, I have it now. Mayor Ferre: Are there copies for other members of the Commission? f y: Mr. Plummer: You want to make a copy so we can all have one? F,. Ms. Cooper: Mr. Plummer, I understand that that covenant is not signed by the property owner. Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute. Much more important than that, is it your intention to have the Commission look at this covenant, or ... I don't understand! Mr. Cardenas: At the last hearing, Mr. Mayor, I volunteered that if the Commission and the City wanted to avoid the sign of having ingress and egress on Aviation, we were perfectly ready, willing and able to do so, and proffered the covenant for that very basic purpose. I don't know that that is the will of the Commission or the City staff, but in the case it is, I wanted to make sure that that document was in the hands of the City Attorney. Mayor Ferre: Okay, would you have copies passed? Mr. Plummer: They are making them now, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Rodriguez: Mr. Mayor, if I may - the Planning Department has not seen the covenant. We haven't had a chance to review it or react to it. Mr. Plummer: Nobody has. The City Attorney has. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Cardenas, do you want to wind up your arguments? Mr. Cardenas: Yes, I do, Mr. Mayor, and I understand this has gone a long way, the last hearing was very long. The one at the Zoning Board was very long and I think the results are pretty much the same. There are five major reasons why this property should be rezoned. I think we agree with 95% of what the citizens of this area are saying I ' and we don't believe that a vote in favor of this request will in any way affect that neighborhood and here are the five reasons why - Number one, development commercially on Bird Road, up to 'and including the subject island, including Mr. Pittone's property is zoned for this purpose. Number two, this island and the one immediately north of it, as well as the SPI-12 district immediately north of it all face 27th Avenue, which is design for a major commercial growth. You know of the 27th Avenue Commission and its work in this ld 83 January 24, 1985 _ 7i j 4 area# and I think the Commission cognizant of that effort. Those are two main reasons. The third main reason, our property lies within that small island. It is next to Mr. Pittone's property. Mr. Pittone's property is zoned the zoning that we are requesting. We are also facing the property owned by Mr. Pancost and his neighboring landowner, who is also Mr. Pittone. Those properties are also zoned what we are requesting, so we are fronting commercial property with Mr. Pancost. At the time there was a discussion made about a Aviation Avenue. We discussed and decided to proffer and have been willing to proffer and did proffer a document which in fact said we would not have ingress and egress on their property. Lastly, to review this situation in its proper perspective, there are three full lots which are already zoned RO-2.115, which is the zoning we are requesting. That is Lots 9, 10 and 11. We are requesting that ... and parts of 18 and 19. We are requesting that all of Lot 8, and the remaining portions of 18 and 19, as well as Lot 9, be rezoned to have the whole island in a proper perspective and I assure you that by the time this property is developed, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we will have one major property and in all likelihood involving Mr. Pittone's property in a project that the whole City can be proud of and for that reason I respe^*rvlll ly request that you once again vote in favor of this request. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right. Ms. Cooper: With regards to the five ... Mayor Ferre: You have three minutes for a closing argument and that is the end of the discussion today. Ms. Cooper: With regards to the five comments. Development on 27th Avenue is development on 27th Avenue, this is not. the islands north of this ... the block north of this block and the SPI-12 property all front on 27th Avenue. This property does not front on 27th Avenue. True, Mr. Pittone's property is zoned RO-2.1, but he did not request it. This was an action of the City and as you know, it is being used and has been used for the last 20 years as a single family home and you heard the intention is to continue to use it as such. The issue of the 3 full "lots", already being zoned this - two of those three lots are significantly sub- standard lots and could not be built upon. Only Mr. Pittone's property is a standard sized lot. With regard to the covenant - my understanding is that this is something that has been proffered by Mr. Cardenas, but we have no idea whether or not this is something the City wants. What would be the effect of putting all the ingress and egress from the possible 18,000 square foot building on Inagua, which is 20 feet wide, which barely can have two cars pass each other, or on Bird, which is so close on 27th Avenue to Inagua as to create a dangerous situation. I am not sure that this covenant is going to be helpful to the traffic situation. As I said before, I don't think it will prevent the traffic from driving on Aviation, and it certainly will create a danger on Inagua. I think before you do anything like that you need to review it and have staff review it and get some professional opinions as to whether or not that is going to be a satisfactory solution. The form of the covenant is definitely not acceptable to me as representing my client, Mr. Pittone and should not be acceptable to the City. It doesn't provide basic provisions, such as the length of the covenant, procedures for amending it are extremely vague and indefinite and non, in my opinion, enforcable and is very poor form. In addition, if we are going to talk about a covenant, let's talk about a covenant with some substance in it. Let's talk about a covenant that perhaps would limit ld 84 January 24, 1985 some of the offensive uses. Let's talk about a covenant incorporating the statements that Mr. Cardenas made to you that this property should be developed without variances and that it should have a maximum of 10,000 square feet. Let's not talk about a 'covenant that only has one questionable issue in it. If we are in fact going to talk about covenants, let's talk about what it really ought to contain. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Cardenas, I just want to state that I agree with what Ms. Cooper has just stated and I do think and this is just on a personal basis - I am going to ask that this item be continued for a while and I will be willing to bring it back so that you and she representing the neighborhood and her client can discuss the format and Madam City Attorney, I want to make sure that when we come back that you can tell us on the record this is ... since we have just seen it, and it is brand new, if there are any modifications made to it that this is legal, something that you feel will stand up, in court and then we can then proceed. Ms. Cooper: One of the main issues is whether or not we want to restrict the ingress and egress and I don't think that can be determined by us today. Perhaps a deferral to the next, meeuing so that we can get information ... Mayor Ferre: No, I am not willing to do that, Janet. I am willing to defer it for a bit, but I think we have been on this now for a long, long time. This is the second hearing. If somebody else wants to defer, that is okay with me. Ms. Cooper: I will point out there have been no deferrals on this item. This would be the first deferral. Mayor Ferre: If somebody wishes to defer it, then they have that right. I will not make that request. I am willing to vote on this today. Mr. Plummer: I will consider the motion to defer after I have seen what you have worked out .. Mayor Ferre: That is right. Mr. Plummer: ... in the way of a compromise. Ms. Cooper: Can you instruct staff to join us - Planning staff, to talk about this traffic situation. Mayor Ferre: Okay. Is the Committee of The Whole room available? Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, I understand the issue is the covenant involving ingress and egress to Aviation Avenue. That was the ... Mayor Ferre: No, there are other issues that you and your client may want to proffer and I don't know if you do or you don't. Mr. Cardenas: That was the one issue that we had proffered - to present a covenant and that is the one issue that we still feel that way about. Mayor Ferre: Counselor, it is like Item 1, which you are also representing, and by the way, we are going to Item 1 right after this, I don't know whether you are going to have a problem - you have two clients that you are representing, so they are going to have to wait anyway. Mr. Plummer: Are we going to take up Item 1 now? ld 85 January 24, 1985 n Mayor Ferre: Yes, these people have been here all day! i ;w Ms. Cooper: So what are doing with this? We are waiting? Mayor Ferre: Yes, we are giving you and your client more 4;;eV time to meet with him and his client and work out whatever covenant he is willing to proffer and then we are going to take it to a vote. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENT) Mayor Ferre: You may, and Madam City Attorney, can you have somebody representing the City Attorney's office there? Mr. Manager, can you have members of staff at that meeting? Mr. Rosenerantz: Yes. ------------------------------- --------------------------- 24. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION 2210 S.W. 16TH STREET AND 1600-02 S.W. 22ND AVENUE FROM RS-2/2 TO CH-117. --------------------- --------------------------------------- M,, a Mayor Ferre: All right, we are now back to Item 1. Members of the Commission, and specifically Commissioner Carollo, } this item was about to be voted upon. There was a request a, 5 that there be a full Commission. The issue that occurred this morning this morning, if I can very quickly paraphrase it, is that Mr. Cardenas proffered a covenant which was then w; subsequently amended. The amendments to the covenant were quite extensive and precluded additional uses of the proper - a, r. ty. It added the word "lounge" for example, in addition to "bar". It limited the operating hours from 7:00 A.M. to i 9:00 P.M. in the evening. It specifically stated a whole series of it - all right, is there an amended covenant? Ii Would you pass the amended covenant around? And it goes �r on - lounges, bars, restaurants, tea rooms, so on. The Y.{ neighbors have specifically stated that they are not satis- fied with these covenants, no matter how extensive they are. .� They feel this is an encroachment on the residential charac- ter of the neighborhood and it is going to be unfair to the neighborhood. We are back to where we were before, which is a four member Commission. Anyway, we can't delay this any >U further, so the issue is before us at this time on Item 1.� y Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I am looking at the covenant prof- fered by the owners and it very obviously it doesn't contain i massage parlors! y Mrs. Dougherty: They are not permitted anyway. Mayor Ferre: Massage parlors are not included in that zoning. Mr. Whipple: It is not permitted in that district, Commis- sioner Plummer. j{ Mr. Plummer: All right, there is one other thing that I need to do to incorporate Mr. Cardenas. You might recall there was something in reference to garbins and the hours u that they can be picked up. I don't find that in the cove- nant. 14t Mrs. Dougherty: It is in there. iF Mr. Plummer: It is? Mrs. Dougherty: "C", at the top of the second page. ld January 24, 1985 86 Vj r] Mr. Cardenas: Yes, Commissioner, if you will refer to Paragraph three, Sub -paragraph "C", it states that no refuse collection shall take place except from S. W. 22nd Avenue and no such refuse collection shall take place after 9:00 A.M. and before 4:00 P.M. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Cardenas, that is half right and half wrong. As I recall, it was the concern of the neighbors that the garbins would not be put to the residential side. They would be put in such a manner that if there were obnoxious odors, it would be away from the residential. Mr. Cardenas: Yes. Mr. Plummer: I don't see any big problem with that, but I do recall that as one of the stipulations. You recall that one of the neighbors made a comment that they would put the garbin in the very back, which would be toward the residential area and I recall that as one of the points and I am not going to make a big deal out of it. Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, I would like to point out one thing on Declaration Number 6, we have in there that the violation, the existence of the violation, that fact had to be made by the City Commission and the Code Enforcement Board. I had actually thought of the Code Enforcement staff, they thought I meant the Board. Mr. Marks doesn't care which one it is, so it is up to you, whichever you prefer, whether it be staff or Board. Mr. Cardenas: Whichever the City prefers is fine. Mayor Ferre: Well, I think both. Mrs. Dougherty: They way we have the Board and the Commission and ... Mayor Ferre: All right, any other changes or amendments? What is the will of this Commission? Mr. Plummer: Demetrio made a ... Mayor Ferre: All right, there is a motion on the floor -by Commissioner Perez that this item be approved with the covenants proffered. Is there a second. Mr. Carollo: Second to that motion. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? All right, read the ordinance. (THEREUPON, AT THIS POINT, City Attorney reads ordinance into the public record. Mayor Ferre: As amended by the declaration of restrictions on the record voluntary covenant. Is that correct? Mrs. Dougherty: As amended? Mayor Ferre: Well, is the ordinance that you read inclusive of the declaration of restrictions, of the voluntary covenants proffered? Mrs. Dougherty: No, sir, Mr. Mayor. Those are voluntary restrictive covenants that they have proffered and I will record them and they will be applicable to the property, but this zoning ordinance is not contingent on it. ld 87 January 24, 1985 - Mayor Ferret Madam City Attorney, I asked a question. The question was to the maker of the motion and the seconder, that as read, but as amended to include the voluntary proffered declaration of restrictions that Mr. Cardenas has submitted into the record. Mrs. Dougherty: Perhaps we are just using the wrong language. You can't amend an ordinance to include it, but what you are doing is accepting on behalf of the City the voluntary covenants. Mayor Ferret I stand corrected. The motion stands as read in the ordinance, but for the record, it is the intention of the maker and seconder of the motion to include the declaration of restrictions as amended and proffered, which is part of the record at this time, signed by Jemajo Corporation, Pablo Perez, President, and as presented by Jemajo Corporation's attorney, Mr. Al Cardenas before us at this time. Is that correct, Madam City Attorney? Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferret And that is the intention of the maker of the motion and of the seconder of the motion? All right now, we are r,:a.- , .:. vote, call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 95009 THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2210 SOUTHWEST 16TH STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 1600-02 SOUTHWEST 22ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) FROM RS- 2/2 ONE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL TO CR-1/7 COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL (NEIGHBORHOOD) BY MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 39 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS MADE A PART OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500 BY REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTION IN ARTICLE 39 SECTION 300, THEREOF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of November 15, 1984, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Perez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES : Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. ABSENT: None THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9952. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. ON ROLL CALL: Id 88 January 24, 1985 �J LA Mr. Dawkins: I have to prephrase my statement by saying that I locked myself into something that I will never do again that is, I said that I would not vote for this unless the residents are satisfied and I assumed at that time that something could be worked out. I did not know at that time that there were some residents who did not intend, regardless of what happens to come to an agreement because they were dead set on anything, so that is an error I made, but if you sit up here long enough, you will make mistakes, so therefore, as I promised you, that if you were not satisfied, I would vote against it, although in principle I agree with it and I think it has to be developed, but because I made the promise to you and all I have to give you is my word, it is against my better judgment, but because I promised you, I will vote "no".(NOTE: COMMISSIONER DAWKINS LATER ASK TO BE SHOWN AS VOTING WITH THE MOTION, AND SHOWN HEREINBELOW.) Mayor Ferre: I am going to be voting with the motion, but I want to explain on the record the logic of why I am doing this - there are those who, and a Miami Herald Editorial Board and the Miami News and a lot of community news that are very, very strong in their premise there should never be any zoning variances or changes. A young man who came up recently rccu do article in the New York Times - in the Coconut Grove area - is he still here? It was dealing with the issue of Atlanta and a group of property owners in Atlanta going out and buying or selling all of their homes to a developer because of the intrusion. The City of New York, since 1953 - it makes it 31 years - has had 13,000 changes of zoning law and these are not variances granted, they are in the millionsl the difference, as I see it, in this community is this. You saw what happened in Miami Beach. Miami Beach said, "We do not want to continually chip away our zoning. So we are going to stop all of this and they came up with a master plan, which is so rigid and so impractical that it never became a reality." As a consequence, Miami Beach is in serious economic trouble. There are those who have criticized me and those who serve on this Commission for voting for changes along Brickell Avenue, in downtown Miami, in the Omni area, in Coconut Grove. I submit to you that one of the reasons why Miami has continued to grow, why Miami has prospered, why our economic base has expanded, why we're able to hire more police officers and render more services, is precisely because we have not been rigid in our view on zoning. You may say, "Well, then your fate will be the same of New York's or Atlanta." My answer to you, with all due respect to you, is I hope so. Because it is clearly the intention, at least it is of this voting member, that this inner City, this downtown of Dade County, which is the City of Miami, this center of South Florida, this City that is, as Dr. Herbs put it the other day, the main jewel in the crown of Florida, the largest city in the State, is going to develop, has been developing in the last ten years, and will continue to develop into a major metropolitan area. As that happens, there is pain, there's no question about that, and as it happens, the pain comes because of change. Nobody wants change. I understand that. The people of Coconut Grove were continually upset because we vote. The people of Brickell Avenue twenty years ago, when all these changes began, were upset there too. That was a residential; I was one of them. The first time I ever appeared before the City of Miami Commission, Bob High was the Mayor, and I came down to protest as a home owner on Brickell Avenue, the change of zoning because my taxes were going to go up and I didn't want to see that change come about. Good gracious! That was twenty years ago. Change is going to occur 22nd Avenue is going to become, whether we vote yes or no today or tomorrow ld January 24, 1985 89 or next week or next year, is going to become a major arterial road. There is no way around it; in the same way that 27th Avenue is a major arterial road; in the same way that Coral Way is a major arterial road. There are those who believe this is great, there are those who don't like it. The neighbors, I'm sure, are not happy. It is my hope that because of the covenants that have been placed, the restrictions, that the process of change will begin slowly and it will not have a major impact on the character of the neighborhood. I think it is better the change come about slowly in this way than in a very abrupt, harsh way. But change we are going to have, and I vote yes. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I agree with you that change has become, I'm sorry that the neighbors did not accept it better. Since it has passed, I will change my vote to yes, make it four -one. Mayor Ferre: There are people who are happy; there are people who are unhappy. I'm sorry that's the way these things occur, but I'm afraid that is the democratic process. Thank you, Mr. Cardenas. 25 DISCUSSION: COMMISSIONER DAWKINS REGARDING DAVID WEAVER APPOINTMENT TO OFF STREET PARKING AUTHORITY. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Carollo, I have two items that I wanted, I know, I wanted to reappoint Weaver to the Off -Street Parking Board and I needed you here for that. Mr. Carollo: Thank you, Miller. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Weaver has not called any members of the Commission on his request. I think out of courtesy to those who might vote for him, that it would be appropriate to and as a matter, as you said, of personal privilege, I will, on personal privilege, ask that this matter be put on the regular agenda, rather than the zoning agenda, so that there will be ample time for those who have an interest, to further expand their interest. Mr. Dawkins: Thank you, I accept that, Mr. Mayor. 26. REINSTITUTE CITY HIRING FREEZE - NO NEW HIRES PENDING PERMANENT CITY MANAGER APPOINTMENT, FURTHER EXEMPTING CERTAIN POSITIONS, POLICE, FIRE AND SOLID WASTE. Mr. Dawkins: The other item I had, Joe, that I needed you to hear is, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that since there is an interim Manager, and since a permanent may be desirous of making changes, and since we are making wholesale changes almost every day, I make a motion that the hiring freeze be reinstated and that there be no new hiring until a new Manager is hired. Mr. Carollo: I second that motion. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, please, I beg of you to exclude from that police and fire. That is life-giving service. ld 90 January 24, 1985 ilk Mr. Dawkins! Police, fire, and my ten sanitation workers I will excuse. Mr. Carollo: Let's include in that, Miller, patrol positions, the guy in the street, the same for fire fighters. Mr. Plummer: Joe, the hiring is only recruiting to get them into the school. It is not to a division or anything else. Mr. Carollo: Yes, Commissioner Plummer, but since I have been told at times by the Manager of bringing in people from Dade County that have the rank of major there to the City of Miami.... ,,. Mr. Plummer: I accept what you are saying. Mr. Carollo: I do not want that to happen now. Mr. Plummer: I accept what you say. �i Mr. Carollo: Even though I'm sure that there will be people here that will swear and lie under a hundred bibles that was not so, that was told to me very clearly and precisely. Mrs. uougnerty: Commissioner Dawkins, are you also including in that hiring freeze the specific appointments to x the Law Department, such as secretaries. Mr. Dawkins: Everything other than fire, police.... ,.r _. Mr. Perez: I would like to clarify first; I think that we unfroze some positions. ----------------- Mr. Plummer: Four. Mr. Perez: Four, but before that one, didn't we unfreeze others? Mr. Dawkins: What positions did we unfreeze? Mayor Ferre: I think 42 of them. Mr. Perez: I think that about 42, no? Mr. Plummer: No, no, Mr. Manager. Mayor Ferre: The record will reflect that when we met at the downtown college, the last time we unfroze four. Previous to that, there had been a...we went specifically on the record and unfroze a whole bunch of positions which this Commission deliberated on. I don't remember what they were. Mr. Plummer: You're correct. Planning. I remember that. Mayor Ferre: Some in Planning. You're right. Some were Mrs. Dougherty: Some in the legal department. Mr. Rosencrantz: I think that the meeting referred.... Mr. Dawkins: The legal department was unfrozen. The legal department, the Planning Department, and what else? i Mr. Rosencrantz: The meeting referred to by the Mayor, we have a very specific list of positions that were approved— or unthawed by the City Commission at that time. At the very last meeting of the City Commission, you authorized the additional unfreezing of four positions.... 7 Ij = 1 ld 91 January 24, 1985 Mr. Dawkins: What were they? Mr. Rosencrantz: ....and did not designate which four positions they were to be. Mr. Dawkins: I will freeze them back. Mr. Carollo: I think what we need to do, Miller, is that if there has been any hiring as of today, fine, but any non - hiring, any one of those positions that has not been filled as of today, we freeze again. Mr. Rosencrantz: Mr. Mayor, may I make an observation, please? Part of the problem.... Mr. Dawkins: All that have not been interviewed for the position, because if they have been interviewed, I don't want to, you know.... Mr. Rosencrantz: There's a number of positions that we are in the process of filling. We've made offers to some of the people. We've done interviews with some of the people. We'd like to continue that process of those that are in the pipeline at this point in time. Mr. Plummer: O.K., I tell you what's fair. You continue the pipeline, but before they're hired, you bring them before this Commission on the 14th of February. Mayor Ferre: That's fine, I have no problems with that. Mr. Carollo: O.K. Mr. Dawkins: But after that, I mean, my motion which was seconded, which we have to vote on, is to freeze everything until a permanent Manager -because you could be the same Manager, so you can't say new. Mr. Plummer: With the exception of police and fire as so designated by Commissioner.... Mayor Ferre: And sanitation. Mr. Carollo: But what we're talking is about front line positions. Mr. Plummer: Exactly. Mr. Carollo: Including sanitation, garbage toters. Mayor Ferre: And those that were previously approved, provided that you bring them up one by one to the Commission on the 14th. Mr. Plummer: With justification of the need. Mr. Carollo: The stipulation is that the Commission has to give the final approval in those other positions that he has not filled, that he is interviewing for. Mayor Ferre: That'•s fine, I have no problems with that. Mr. Plummer: Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who moved its adoption: ld 92 January 24, 1985 MOTION 85-67 A MOTION REAFFIRMING THE CITY-WIDE 3n.. HIRING FREEZE; STIPULATING THAT THERE WILL BE NO NEW HIRING FOR THE CITY LABOR FORCE UNTIL A PERMANENT CITY MANAGER IS h APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION; FURTHER STIPULATING THAT POSITIONS IN THE INTERVIEW STEP OF HIRING BY THE CITY s MANAGER SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL µ AT THE MEETING OF FEB. 149 1985; AND :u FINALLY EXEMPTING FROM THE FREEZE FRONT LINE POSITIONS IN POLICE, FIRE AND 10 x POSITIONS IN SOLID WASTE, ALL OF WHICH HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. -1 Vice -Mayor Demetrio Perez, Jr. ;j Mayor Maurice A. Ferre .J r NOES: None. ABSENT: None. :. ------------------------------------------------------------ ;ys 27. Commissioner Dawkins requested that matter of Howard Gary's severance pay be placed on next regular agenda. ;... _ ------------------------------------------------------------ 28 LONG PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING ORDINANCE: SPI- SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICT Mayor Ferre: We're now on item 5. Is there anybody here -on item 5? Proceed on item 5• Mr. Jack Luft: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, my name is Jack Luft. I'm with the Planning Department. We're recommending to you today adoption of the SPI-17 Overlay District, a change of zoning along Tigertail from RG-3/5 to RO-3/6, and the replacement of the SPI-3 Overlay along Tigertail with the SPI-17 ordinance. These districts and changes are in accord with the Bayshore Drive Development Plan, which was adopted by this City Commission in December. They are implementing in effect certain controls on the height, density, design review, set backs, and parking in the Bayshore Drive corridor between Aviation Avenue and McFarland Road. The SPI-17 ordinance has several basic effects which I will summarize. It is important to note that we are not recommending a change in the base floor area ratio, that the sector number of six remain. This would mean that as a matter of right, an F.A.R. 1.21 would be the limitation for all development, hotel, condominium, and office. That would not expand in any way the use provisions of the ordinance to include additional commercial uses or change the basic character of the district. We would recommend that a floor area bonus of .5 F.A.R. be provided to those projects that provide a substantial number of parking spaces to be used by the public. We are recommending that we establish a 22 story height limit, or Id 93 January 24, 1985 r r 250 feet for all projects and that a 100 foot depth from Tigertail Avenue be reserved as a set back buffer to be used .x only either for landscaped yard area or for town house development built at a sector 4 floor area ratio. �~ Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, may I stop you? Mr. Luft, in particular to Dan Cavanaugh's property, is it, would the wording be better suited and fair in that parcel that be applied where it is contiguous to Bayshore Drive? Mr. Luft: Yes, the Commission's original principle that was involved in the change of zoning on those properties are Darwin, Grand Bay Plaza, where the RG-2 residential district was changed to RO. The principle stated at that time was that for those properties that were continuous from Tigertail to Bayshore, for those properties in order to promote and foster unified development of the site, in a cohesive fashion and not to divide the site against itself into separate project with separate parking and separate driveways, that those parcels be consistently zoned and thus the RO district was extended. That was the basis for it. So, you would add to that basic provision the clarification that the buffer zone would not be RO-3/6 district, unless it was contiguous to a parcel under the same ownership extending to Bayshore Drive. k` Mr. Plummer: Let me ask it in reverse. Addressing to that one segment there that I would call north of Aviation, does that same principle apply from someone who extends from Bayshore back? Mr. Luft: North of Aviation? '.. Mr. Plummer: T_'m saying to the north. F� k Mr. Luft: To the east. Mr. Plummer: This way. Mr. Luft: Yes, it would. Mr. Plummer: In other words, what you are saying is that the property that is facing Bayshore that runs back, which is the RO-3/6, that property would have to...as a project, would have to have 100 foot buffer on the back side of that property. Mr. Luft: If the property on Tigertail was zoned RO-3/6.... Mr. Plummer: If the property is not. Mr. Luft: It is not zoned RO-3/6, it is now zoned as single family. That is the only way it could be used, so the 100 foot buffer is really irrelevant in that case. There is a single family zone there. Mr. Plummer: You don't follow me. Mr. Luft: I'm sorry. Mr. Plummer: Let me go to the map. It seems here from here back is where you're proposing the 100 foot. This is not contiguous to Bayshore. From Bayshore coming back this way to this property, is there a 100 foot buffer between here and here? Why wouldn't there be? What is the zoning on the back parcel? Mr. Luft: The zoning on the back parcel is RG-2/5 multi- family, moderate density to high density apartment. sl 94 January 24, 1985 Mr. Plummer: So in your estimation, in your opinion it doesn't need a buffer. Mr. Luft: No, sir, because the buffer we're creating west of Aviation is precisely that use. We are saying to all projects to Aviation west toward 27th that you must either build park land or landscape or multi -family apartment town house scaled residential development. Mr. Plummer: That's where it runs from street to street. Mr. Luft: Right. Mr. Plummer: This particular parcel doesn't do that. For example, the next parcel over to the north, there will be no buffer proposed -no, not there- there, from that point right there west, there is no buffer. But it doesn't run from street to street. Mr. Luft: That's right. Mr. Plummer: Why isn't a buffer proposed there? Because that is RS, it is not the RO-3/6. Mr. Luft: That is a rear yard facing relationship, the single family facing Tigertail, the development of the Harbor Hill Apartments, the adjacent apartment buildings at some point in the future, would have a rear yard relationship. We have not introduced a buffer between rear abutting properties, only between those properties that face Tigertail from the other side, so that all of this single- family area is being buffered from the office district here. This uses space in Tigertail and share the frontage with single-family homes, thus a buffer here is in our opinion, unnecessary. Mr. Plummer: In other words, see, where I find the discrepancy is the back portion of that is single-family homes. You're not providing any buffer for the RO-3/6 to those single family homes, but you are providing a buffer from the Tigertail. You and I have no discrepancy from Aviation south. Where I find a discrepancy is the fact that the same protection is not being afforded to those people in what I call the north, that's it. Mr. Luft: It is not, if you conclude that a rear yard relationship is the same as the front yard relationship. It is not consistent. Mr. Plummer: I relation zoning to zoning. Mr. Luft: I cannot speak for the department on this issue. We have not addressed it in terms of policy. I can only say ;r that if you want it to be consistent, the single-family zoning would be RG-2/5, as it is to the west on Tigertail. That would be the only issue, I think, that would correct the discrepancy you are speaking of. We are recommending that a Class C review approval be i provided within this district for all new projects. These are the basic provisions of the SPI-17 ordinance. They are designed to protect both the neighborhoods to the north and the public open space in Dinner Key. It is important to emphasize that effect of this zoning is to P g preserve the existing town -house buffer on the north. The zoning changes, but the buffer remains as it is today. The effect of this ordinance is to preserve the open space that exists .. today in Dinner Key without introducing parking into public parks. I would only point out in that regard that this past week, two weeks, events in the Grove have led to parking situations where the entire median of Bayshore Drive is sl 95 January 24, 1985 filled with cars. All of Ken Myers Park was filled with automobiles. All of Pan American Drive was filled with automobiles. All of the area of Virrick Gym was filled with cars; all of the abutting side streets; all of the vacant Commercial properties in the Bayshore corridor were filled with automobiles. Tigertail was filled with automobiles. The parking garages at commercial office buildings on Bayshore Drive were empty. This ordinance was designed to take advantage of the fact that increasingly we must utilize the resources that are there and in the future, and this provides for efficient utilization of parking to the public advantage in exchange for a .5 bonus If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Ferre: Are there any public speakers on item 5? 1 will accept your statements if you come to the microphone. We're now on item 5; it is a public hearing. It is an ordinance on second reading. Mr. Traurig, I will.... Mr. Robert H. Traurig: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, my name is Robert H. Traurig. I'm an attorney at law with offices at 1401 Brickell Avenues I'm here to support the ordinance submitted by the Planning Department and described by Mr. Luft as a representative of the Planning Department. We have already made a brief statement into the record at the time of first reading of this ordinance. We will very briefly ratify those statements and submit certain things to you. First of all we will acknowledge the ambience and the life style of Coconut Grove and acknowledge also that Coconut Grove is a contrast There are commercial areas and there are residential areas. if f The property which is the subject to the SPI-17 consideration is an established commercial area, as contrasted with what is generally found in the north Grove. The issue that you are considering in your deliberations over SPI-17 is whether that ordinance would enhance Coconut G. Grove. As we called to your attention previously, I think that the intent in the preamble paragraph very clearly established that the regulations are intended to apply to that mixed use development abutting South Bayshore by providing,, and these are the things that will enhance the development of Coconut Grove, height limits, special set back in view corridor requirements, transitional use, and design requirements, incentives to provide publicly available parking for Dinner Key activities and design review guidelines. We support the change notwithstanding the severity of some of the restrictions on development that are imposed by the ordinance. There are F.A.R. limitations. You retain the F.A.R. 1-21t which is the sector six and you grant additional F.A.R. as a bonus only under veryp very 'ate r stringent conditions, that's if the public interest is served by the provision of excess parking spaces to serve the general community. We call attention again to the fact that the Dinner Key plan recommended an additional 831 parking spaces. We would call attention to the fact that within that plan, the language says that those spaces ought to be provided privately off site. The maximum bonus is .5. The issue has been raised by others as to whether or not that is consistent with the ordinances which control other SPI districts. We call again to your attention the fact that the SPI-5, the SPI-7P 7.19 7.2, and SPI-8 all provided mechanisms for increasing density through bonuses under certain conditions including the provision of underground parking or other parking generally. This ordinance establishes height limits. Our height is only eighteen stories. The height limit is 22 stories. We're not asking for the height, which is generally provided for under this new ordinances But the benefit to Coconut Grove is that this ordinance establishes a height limit which is consistent with heights previously granted by this sl 96 January 249 1985 IP 0 Commission. There is a provision for the Class C permit in the process of which your department would consider open space and view corridor relationships and landscaping and the visual linkages to the public recreation areas. It provides vehicular egress from private drives on to Tigertail would be prohibited. We go on and on by saying and the ordinance says that there are a number of public benefits to be derived by the passage of this ordinance. Very, very clearly it establishes a Tigertail Transition area. It's either going to be residential, such as the town -houses or it will be open space and landscaping. We would ask you, though, in your consideration of the ordinance, if you would make some very minor language changes, which we called to your attention when this matter was approved by you at first reading. I would again pass to you and to the City Clerk and to the City Attorney some language which we think fairly meets this objective. That is to be definitive about those areas for which bonuses would be granted by very clearly defining the relationship between those areas and the public areas that are to be benefited. Consequently, I would give the original to the Clerk and pass copies to each of you. In doing so, I will also simultaneously give you copies of letters that have been written first by Mr. Bermello, as the architect for the project known as Terremark Center, and also two letters written oy Mr. Gould of our office to the City Attorney in response to letters which have previously been sent by Ms. Cohen and read into the record in other hearings. We would like these letters to be part of the record. I would give York, since 1953 - it makes it 31 years - has had 13,000 changes of zoning law and these are not variances granted, they are in the millions! The difference, as I see it, in this community is this. You saw what happened in Miami Beach. Miami Beach said Would that be alright with members of the Commission? ...in response to letters which have previously been sent by Ms. Cohen and read into the record and other hearings. So, we would like these letters to be part of the record and I will give to the clerk and to each of you, copies of letters which we would like very clearly marked and made a part of the record in this hearing. And finally I would like to call to your attention a letter written by Mr. John E. Fernsler, AIA senior associate at Wallace, Roberts and Todd who were the draftsmen in connection with your original master plan, your neighborhood plan and this a letter written on January 24, 1985 to Willie A. Bermello. And it reads "Dear Mr. Bermello: I have reviewed the SPI-17 South Bayshore Overlay District relative to the 1975 Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. It is my opinion that the proposed district does not conflict with the intent of thee Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, I find that the incentives that the districts offers for the provision of excess parking to serve Dinner Key is entirely consistent with the comprehensive plans policy to "reduce paved surfaces, expand marine recreational retail and entertainment activities" in order to serve expanded Dinner Key activities while reducing paved surfaces parking must be provided off site on nearby properties along South Bayshore Drive and that consistent with what your Planning Department has said and what your Bayshore Drive Study has proposed. We therefore, urge that you adopt the ordinance as submitted, but modified by the language which I have recently given to you. sl 97 a January 24, 1985 0 0 u: Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute, do we have a copy of that letter? Because there is another letter here also, I think from Willie A. Bermello but I think this one is an architect for the project. That one is as an architect for the City. , Mr. Traurig: Let me explain the two. We gave to you three F letters, two letters from our firm to the City Attorney, one letter from Mr. Bermello to the City Attorney. All addressing issues raised by Ms. Cohen in connection with prior hearings. Mayor Ferre: These are the letters? Mr. Traurig: Those are the letters. The letter which I have just read and Mr. Fernsler is here to testify, if you would like to have has testimony as a senior associate of the firm which drafted your neighborhood plan and who is here to testify that what is being proposed as SPI-17 is consistent with the objective of that plan. This letter dated January 24, 1985 was not addressed to the City it was addressed to Mr. Bermello and I read it into the record, but I will be happy to hand it to you for your personal a examination Mr. Mayor. P. Mayor Ferre: Oh, I see, this is from Wallace Roberts and z - Todd? �r Mr. Traurig: Who were the City consultants. Thank you very much. ;t= Mayor Ferre: All right, I thank it probably would be appropriate if we allowed Susan Cohen to make the first r, ' presentation. P Mrs. Cohen, are you here? Oh, yes. All ;! right. And then we can proceed with the other opponents. Ms. Susan Cohen: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, good evening. fI'm Susan Cohen attorney. I'm here on behalf of the Coconut Grove Civic Club, the Tigertail Association, both Home Owners Associations of several hundred members, Mr. & Mrs. Ron Cold 2542 Lincoln Avenue, Coconut Grove and Mr. Barry Feldman 2539 South Bayshore Drive, Coconut Grove. I'm also authorized by the Friends of Everglades to speak tonight on their behalf on the record. Coconut Grove has several different areas as you know. The South Grove, Central Business District, Bahamian section and North Grove. And North Grove as I mentioned before is characterized by low density residential, quite streets, single family homes, lust vegetation, large yards and tranquillity. The members of the Tigertail Association own homes in the North Grove area and some have been there twenty to thirty years. The proposed rezoning amendments will impact their area. One border of the property being rezoned is Tigertail Avenue. The proposed rezoning will allow almost a triple increase in existing density and will allow office, commercial and any type of land use in contrast to the current residential zoning. And such proposed changes will triple the available floor space, increase the density, increase the traffic lead to winding of the streets in the North Grove and destruction ' of the residential neighborhood. Mr. and Mrs. Cold own a home one block north of the area being rezoned and are within three hundred seventy-five feet of the area and they have lived there twenty years. Mr. Barry Feldman owns a condo across the street from the proposed area. He is also within three hundred seventy-five feet. He has lived in Miami for thirty .years and in the Grove for a decade. My clients face elimination of the integrity of their neighborhood by the Items 5 thru 8 and I'm going to address all of them together, because they are related and consequently my clients face a radical alteration in the quality of their life and we ask you to carefully consider, K7 98 January 24, 1985 P P p •rx2 Q H� as I know you will, the change of their neighborhood. I have a few brief procedural points I must make before I address you on the merits of the Items 5 thru B. Mayor Ferre: Ms. Cohen, I's afraid that... you know, last time out of courtesy to you and your clients I let you go on and we went on until 12:30 at night. I need to ask you how long and you know, we went through this thing that you presented an hour of testimony and then after that you said well that was only procedural now I want to get into substantial issues and we went into that whole... Now, today you were supposed to address us on substantive issues. Now, you... the reason I'm stopping you is because you know say I need to address then procedurally. Now, are we going to start in another hour of procedural discussions. Ms. Cohen: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: All right, how long is the procedural presentation going to take? Ms. Cohen: Approximately five minutes. Mayor Ferre: And how long is the substantive presentation going to take? Ms. Cohen: Approximately fifteen minutes. Mayor Ferre: Ok. I will because of the special circumstances here I will... if you expand that instead of 17.39 I mean 7.3, which is what she has left, make it 17.3.- Ms. Cohen: Thank you. I incorporate by reference all of our past arguments and the documents already put into the record and in view of your remarks this afternoon about the relationship between the Dinner Key Master Plan and Items 5 thru 8 on the agenda today, we renew our argument that the notice for these items for the prior hearings December 19th, January 2nd, January 10th and today are defective and the City Commission is without jurisdiction to act on these items because the actual ordinance incorporates the Dinner Key Master Plan. Therefore, it's now substantially different from the matters in the notice and it is substantially different from the matter being heard here. This is a prejudice to my clients by denying them the public input at prior hearings by properly noticed public. It's a violation of 3515.2 & 3 in Ordinance 9500 as amended and according to 3515.4 must begin the process again. The Dinner Key Master Plan is not yet enacted and is in a state of flux and the notice ... The notice area changes- for the amendments with the Dinner key Master Plan have been added and it violates Section 62-55 of the City Code and Florida Statutes 166.0413 (3) (c) (1). My other points are that the repealer clause in the actual ordinance may repeal Section 2019 of Ordinance 9500 which limits the size of the parking garages. SPI-17 allows substantial increases in the parking garage sizes and we object to this. The radical change of the zoning code and is not in the noticed manner. The repealer clause with this effect in the actual ordinance is substantially different from the proposed amendments in the notices and that we object to this improper procedure, because the notice of the repealing of section 2019 is defective, you are without jurisdiction to repeal 2019 now and is a violation of 3515.2. The thirty day notice for this hearing is not in the public file. The actual ordinance as includes 15150 which refers to Overtown/Park West. That is radically different from Items 5 thru 8 and we urge you to strike this from the actual ordinance. The repeal of 3514.1 of Ordinance 9500 is in this ordinance and we object to the indirect way of during this without proper notice. A further procedural point is that the text... sl January 24, 1985 qk 0 Mayor Ferre: Ms. Cohen, will you excuse me for interrupting and would you cut the time off. I would like to recognize a very former and very distinguished former City of Miami Commissioner who served this city with great distinction for many many years, Commissioner Alice Wainwright. Ms. Wainwright we are always happy to see you here and we always have, I guess what. Legally it's called senatorial courtesy. So, is there anything that we can do for you on this day? (BACKGROUND COMMENT INAUDIBLE). Mayor Ferre: On 22, I see. We will try to accelerate that. All right, yes Ma'am. Oh, I'm sorry proceed. Ms. Cohen: The next procedural point is that the text of 15173.2 talking about documents for application is not related to the title of that section at all and we object to this. And finally, the amendments added by Mr. Traurig for 15172.2.1(c) do not clear up the vagueness problem and they do not clear up the attempt to base a parking bonus on future unspecified needs for parking. We object to the references to the Dinner Key Master Plan which is not yet enacted. The merits of SPI-17, I have a few comments and then Lhe residents will address you. I would like to discuss generally what is SPI-17? Generally it allows an increase in floor area over existing area allowed based on providing extra parking spaces for Dinner Key activities. The extra floor space is for any use. Now, how much increase is allowed. Well, that depends on the number of extra parking spaces provided. A building can be doubled in size by the bonus, even though the ordinance limits the bonus to .5 FAR. For example, if the property is allowed to have forty thousand square feet of floor space one hundred spaces will allow an extra twenty thousand square feet. Now, what is this extra floor space for? The ordinance reads any use that is unzoned floor space. It creates an unzoned area vertically for the bonus floor space. What Dinner Key Activities? We have argued before this is vague. The Dinner Key Master Plan is in a state of flux. We object to this. How much parking is needed for the Dinner Key activities. The Dinner Key Master Plan page 23, indicates after restriping that six hundred fifty spaces will -be needed for the existing plan expansions, but SPI-17 has no cap on the number of spaces needed. The bonus floor space should be given out based on the amount of parking needed. And applicant should... Mayor Ferre: Ms. Cohen, I'm sorry to interrupt you again, but I see of course, that our distinguished former Attorney General Bob Shevin is here. Mr. Shevin, I assume that you are here on the Overtown Park West rezoning issue as are you legal associates. Ms. Wainwright is here on Item 22. We are just now on Item 5. Item 5 runs concurrently with Items 71' 8, 9 and I think 10 and 11 and 17 which is a 7 o'clock hearing. It's now 5:45. My guess is... and after that we have to go back to Item 3 which Mr. Cardenas is trying to negotiate with other attorneys to see if they can come to an agreement. Now, my guess is that just on this series that is before us now Mrs. Wainwright and Item 3, we are talking about a couple of hours. I don't frankly see that we will be at any of these other items before 8 o'clock. So, if you all want to go home and rest or go have a drink or have dinner or whatever you... you came by taxi. Well, we would be happy to have somebody ride you back and pick you up later on if you want. Nestor. Mr. Dawkins: stay. Mr. Vice Governor Ron Book are you going to 100 January 24, 1985 W. P 0 Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Manager, would you have somebody give Mrs. Wainwright a ride back. It's only about five or six blocks to her home and have her picked up right before 8 o'clock. All right, thank you. (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD). Mayor Ferre: Mr. Shevin, I wish I could tell you. You know, I... We have Bob Traurig who is not a overly windy fellow, but he does take his time to make his legal case. Mrs. Cohen who represents the opposition position is also a very throughout attorney who wants to speak twenty minutes, I guarantee you there will be rebuttals back and forth. We have seven or eight citizens that want to speak. They have three or four minutes, by the time it's all done and over with, just on this series in Coconut Grove, we are talking I think an hour and a half. Mr. Plummer: Well, you got the 7 o'clock hearing too. Mayor Ferre: Now, we have got a 7 o'clock hearing which ties into all of this. So, I just wanted to out of courtesy to those of you on other items, it is my opinion that we are not going to take up anything other than these series on Coconut Grove and Item 3 which is also Coconut Grove and Mrs. Wainwright as a former City Commissioner and as an activist in Coconut Grove for many many years you know that Coconut issues take about five times longer than any other issue before us. All right, proceed Mr. Cohen. Ms. Cohen: Thank you. Were discussing generally what SPI- 17 means. How much floor space increase is there. What is the extra floor space for. What use. What are the Dinner Key activities how much parking is needed and as I was saying, the SPI-17 has not cap on the number of spaces needed. The bonus floor space should be given out based on the amount of parking needed. Which is six hundred fifty spaces and the applicant should demonstrate the need for it. If Terremark is going to take a batch `of the spaces the applicant should demonstrate how many spaces are left for his bonus. However, SPI-17 does not do this. SPI-17 gives out bonus floor space based on a parking garage within six hundred feet of the Dinner Key activity. Therefore, as new activities are built on Dinner Key they radius will move right down Bayshore Drive to Peacock Park. The bonus is thus open ended based on future activities unknown at this time and unknown parking needs cannot support the SPI-17. SPI-17 also allows buildings to duplicate the bonus spaces, because the buildings will be in the same radius area. It is thus unrelated to the Dinner Key Master Plan parking space needs and it is without standards and guidelines. We have suggested alternatives. Mayor Ferre: Ms. Cohen, you have ten minutes left. Ms. Cohen: Thank you. We have suggested alternative means to obtain the needed parking spaces at the January 2nd PAB hearing and we have a chart. Mr. Luft, would you assist me please? I have an overlay chart here. This chart shows the existing allowable square footage in the Bayshore area. The existing use to day and the parking spaces required and you can see in the second column if the existing use and the potential use under the existing zoning is built up, that is the floor space you will have and you get down to the parking spaces required, there are thirty-one hundred spaces. This is based on the figures the Planning Department gave out at prior hearings. In the third column under SPI-17 you see the floor space allowed combined with the existing use and you see that the parking spaces that sl 101 January 24, 1985 0 0 would provide would be fifty-one hundred, over five thousand spaces. Mayor Ferre: I don't understand the difference between column one and column two. Ms. Cohen: Column one is what is built, what's built today. v; Mayor Ferre: Oh, that's what built today? �. Ms. Cohen: Yes. Mayor Ferre: And the other is what could be built under what we have today. Ms. Cohen: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: And but you don't have... do you have the parking? How many parking spaces do we currently have in the Grove? Ms. Cohen: I don't know that. I Mayor Ferre: All right, go ahead. Ms. Cohen: Ok. The... when the vacancy rates are so high in Miami, twenty per cent, this proposed development make no sense and it is unrelated to the parking needs of Dinner Key. As you can see the development of existing zoning will over double the floor space in the area and the SPI-17 Development edit to what exist today triples the amount of floor space in the area. Thank you, very much Mr. Luft. Thus the parking for the Dinner Key activities can be n - provide under existing zoning. The least restrictive alternative to solve the parking problem has now been chosen. The bonus building size for the parking is not a f reasonable means to reaching the goal of providing six hundred fifty spaces. We have suggested a cap of six ;k 1 hundred fifty spaces. This has not been accepted. Further, -r•. , SPI-17 will result in huge g parking garages. Terremark it parking garage is a big as the building in floor space. Is in consistent with 2019 in the code which limits the size of parking garages. What else does SPI-17 do, well let's look a. at Tigertail. The existing zoning is two hundred twenty feet deep as SPI-3. We have argued that the existing zoning ordinance was created to preserve and protect the existing neighborhood under SPI-3, because there is substantial public interest in doing so. And you heard the residents of a North Grove address you on their desire that the neighborhood remain the same on January 10th. SPI-3 has a height limit of forty feet and we have argued that to remove SPI-3 needs a greater public interest than preserving the integrity of the neighborhood. The undefine parking needs -- �' and SPI-17 are inadequate to remove the SPI-3 for the reasons we have argued tonight. They do not..* the control - height of SPI-17... not because the existing zoning controls the height by limiting the amount of gross square footage in e the building. Does SPI-17 preserve the Tigertail area? No, because the rezoning increases the land use on Tigertail to residential office. There is no mandatory townhouse provision. The parking garage will be fifty feet from - Tigertail. Therefore, we argue there is no greater public interest which exist than preserving the integrity of the neighborhood and we urge you to leave SPI-3 and RG-2/5 as they are, but what else does SPI-17 do. The bonus floor -- space for extra parking will create parking garages and these are incentives to drive into the area on streets - already over burden. We know that there are levely services _= on these streets which is the worst traffic problem. The -- area has limited access, 27th Avenue and Bayshore. It makes gl 102 January 24, 1985 Ok no sense to give parking bonus to encourage driving to an area with unacceptable levels of traffic. It's inconsistent with the Metrorail concept. It makes more sense and is consistent with Metrorail to eliminate the parking in these buildings totally. Avoid worsening the traffic problems in the Grove. Give a bonus to a developer who is going to put a parking garage somewhere else. If you are going to wind 27th Avenue run a trolley down 27th Avenue from Metrorail. It makes even more sense to encourage building along the Metrorail line, which I know is being done, rather than in the limited access areas in the Grove. SPI-17 changes the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan as we have argued before. We hear about the area changing, so rezoning is needed. And we say when the developers argued that it's changing because land speculation is created, which the developers create themselves. This is not a rational basis for changing the zoning. To say this is a rational basis erodes the zoning law and the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan by the whim of the land speculator, rather than for the welfare of the citizens. We have petitions we are turning in here of approximately one thousand to twelve hundred signatures of residents of the City of Miami, I hope, indicating they do not want increase in density in the Grove by rezoning. I will turn them in. We counted up to seven hundred and the additional obtained recently, I would estimate would be twelve hundred signatures. There is a letter from the Miami Civic League, I believe, which was sent to all the Commissioners. Miami Civic Leagues does not support the density increase by the zoning and we urge you to protect the integrity of the neighborhood by denying SPI- 17 Items 5 thru 8. Thank you very much for your attention as always. I incorporate these remarks by reference for the Friends of Everglades. The neighbors would now like to addrez-- you. If you have any questions I would be happy to .. Mayor Ferre: Well, I'm sure we will get back to you subsequently. All right, the next speaker. Now, in the interest of time in getting to the other important issues that we have before us I would like to see... does anybody need more than three minutes? How much time do you need sir? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ten. Mayor Ferre: Anybody else need more than three minutes? Ok. I'm going to give the opposition accumulative time and I wanted to explain to you that I think out of fairness to the other people on other issue, I will put a limit to this whole discussion to no more than one hour and at that time we are going to vote. So, you can take ten minutes of that hour. Mr. Steven S. Cook Yarborough: Mr. Mayor and Mr. Commissioners, my name is Steven S. Cook Yarborough. I live at 3550 Crystal Court in the North Grove. Since 1939 I have been a civil engineer in charge of projects of wide variety in many parts of the world. These have included ports, airports, harbors, roads, new towns, sanitary systems and so that I have covered the whole gamut of engineering. I am familiar... .I have studied the zoning code of the City of Miami and I have studied in detail the matters that are before the Commission on this issue. At the first reading of this matter I started to show some of the incorrect or confusing statements that have been presented in support of the proposed rezoning. Time did not permit delivery of my full representation and since then thanks to the good offices of Commissioner Dawkins ---thank you, Commissioner --- the full presentation has been typed and delivered to you for studying. My presentation show that contrary to what is gl 103 January 24, 1985 f 0 being indicated the proposed rezoning would substantially increase the intensity of development over that permitted under the present zoning. It showed deficiency of parking for activities on the Bayside or South Bayshore Drive c appears to be incompletely analyzed as the amount and e location, but could be as much as six hundred fifty of which a hundred sixty-five spaces would be needed for the Exhibition Center and between a hundred ten and three hundred fifty -one ---note the spread--- for the gym on Morty Trainer's area at the other end of the project area. Mr. Traurig said that the number is eight hundred thirty-one. That's is correct, but he forgot to say that a large--- I think it's a hundred eighty -one ---can be produced by restriping existing parking lots and that is how the Dinner Key got back to six hundred fifty is what they would put in a single parking garage. It is important to understand that if you are going to give parking bonus or an FAR bonus with respect to parking this I believe under- the definition is only parking that can be demonstratively needed within the six hundred radius of (TAPE #13) where the extra parking is being provided. So, you need to understand where the parking is being general on South Bayshore. The proposed modification of SPI-17 enumerated the the public activities that would qualify across Bayshore. Those were given today. The way I read it, this in fact would reduce the number of parking spots, because it excluded certain items which were - included in six hundred fifty. The SPI-17 is totally deficient in establishing the conditions under which an FAR bonus can be claimed. It does not require that a properly demonstrated need in excess parking with six hundred feet of ;� the building be established. And it does not state how this need if occurring within six hundred feet of two more s; e buildings is to be apportioned. So that each building contain an a,Yropriate bonus. It also has not been shown that the bonus FAR for parking is the optimum solution to the parking problem and will result in over construction of parking facilities. I'm referring here to the very large inventory of parking privately own that is empty most of the night and on weekends. My previous presentation pointed out =_ that SPI-17 is written to meet the requirements of a specific project and this is legal. I would now like to I_%. draw you attention to two other confusing claims. It's being claimed that SPI-17 is not in conflict with the comp plan... the Miami Comp. Plan. I submit that it is. It may bekt not be in conflict with the intent but is in conflict with the actual fact, because in the comp plan, the area along Tigertail which was previously two hundred feet wide approximately and which was RG-2/5 was for moderate density A-i housing, by extending R03/6 right up to Tigertail, even if you have got some restrictions because they can fall off z like leaves in Autumn, even if you do that you are still theoretically moving RO-3/6 up to Tigertail and that's z ! contrary to the comp plan. I would like to submit this. I you think will see the y purple area... the purple area here is commercial and the yellow is residential. My second oint it has been stated that b replacing the t 2/5 YM1 and SPI-3 alon the Southern side of Ti ertail g gwill 4r ensure a buffer zone to the residential district on the other side of the avenue. I have passed to each of you an } illustration. The illustration shows a cross section of two possible methods of developing the South side of Tigertail. Now, a cross section if you are not familiar with the term means I have cut across Tigertail and on the illustration as you look at it ... nobody is. So, I don't know how I can P 5 explain what I'm -doing. On the left hand side of Tigertail is the single family story development. On the right hand - side of Tigertail in both these cross sections are what you =`Q,try can build on the present and future zoning. Upper section is on the proposed zoning and the lower is under existing rrF. zoning. Clearly the buffer zone is more affective under the gl 104 January 24, 1985 0 0 present zoning. It gives us a wider distance of lower level ' before you can shot straight up into the sky. Would you just hold that so the gentlemen can see. They don't seem to t� be... Mayor Ferre: No, no, we have it. We have seen it. r>. Mr. Yarborough: Clearly the buffer zone is more affective under the present zoning. So, the change is not in the public interest. It has been said that SPI-17 gives height restrictions. It does. It increases the potential height in the buffer zone from forty to forty-five feet. Is this in the public interest? SPI-17 also gives a maximum height to the underlined RO-3/6 district where no such limit now exist. This is true, but FAR setbacks... FAR setbacks, light planes and the economics of building construction exercise a degree of height control, if not, why aren't the present buildings that were constructed under RO-3/6 higher? And their maximum height evolved under existing restraints and as recommended by the Planning Department as the maximum for future building happens to be about twenty-two stories. That was because that's the economic limit with that side of site and the FAR limits imposed. You could if you wish build, if you got a hundred thousand square feet of building space you could put a thousand stories a hundred feet square :I foot, but this isn't economically possible. Mayor Ferre: You have got two minutes left. r- Mr. Yarborough: There is yet another existing control. An RO district is defined as intended to apply in areas in which primarily residential in character with offices would also be appropriate compatible scale intensity. Look at the ;! cross sections on the illustration. Are those highrise kF office buildings a compatible scale and intensity with low density single family homes across Tigertail. If, which is likely the criterion of compatibility as set forth in the x district regulations were applied excessive height would not 4 be permitted. The final point on the protection of zoning and particularly the SPI-17 is said to give to the Y neighborhood. This protection is a illusionary as evidence by the applications have changed the protection given by the existing zoning. Even now before SPI-17 has been adopted. It appears that staff is working on modifications to -it, that will start through the hearing process in the next few r c weeks. In conclusion, I have pointed out numerous instances . of incomplete information, rules or directives. If SPI-17 is adopted it will help change forever the character of the North and Central Grove and create precedents that could threaten the South Grove. SPI-17 is not in the public's ,w.:. interest and is too sloppy written in composition to become law. Thank you gentlemen. Mayor Ferre: All right, the next presentation. Can you limit it to three minutes. Ms. Judy Berg: Two minutes. My name is Judy Berg from the law firm of Fine Jacobs Schwartz Nash Block and England, 2401 Douglas Road. I'm here on behalf of Bayview Executives Association who are the owner of a tract of land on Aviation between Bayshore and Tigertail. At the January 10th meeting Martin Fine addressed this Commission in Opposition to the Bayshore ordinance. Our main objection was to Section 15172.2.1 which is the .5 FAR bonus for any developer that could give in excess of one hundred parking spaces open to the general public. We felt that the arbitrary use of one hundred was discriminatory and in favor of those property owners who could put together large parcels of land and also j that it bore no rational relationship to the public health safety or welfare. Because of the overwhelming need for gl 105 January 24, 1985 0 .. parking in the area we asked the Commission to grant an amendment to the ordinance to allow anyone who would provide fifty excess parking spaces be allowed to take advantage of the bonus density and pursuant to the Commission's instruction the Planning Department has drafted that amendment. It's due to be heard before the Planning Board ' 4 on February 6th and this Commission first reading on =T February 26th. Due to that fact, we would like to with draw our objection and voice our overwhelming support for the Bayshore ordinance with the eventually inclusion of the amendment. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Thank you. Next Mr. Kavanaugh. Mr. Dan Kavanaugh: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. My name is Dan Kavanaugh. My residence address is 3652 Poinciana Avenue, Coconut Grove and my office address is 2964 Aviation Avenue, also Coconut Grove. I have just handed to you a copy of an excerpt from the Bayshore Study and if you have had a chance to open it up you will notice that on the... toward the right side of that is circled a property that I want to speak to you about very ' briefly. that's a property that I have owned for approximately ten years and what I would like to suggest to you is this, that to include that in the mandatory buffer y zone is really not the right thing to do with that piece of property. In principle the mandatory buffer zone along Tigertail, I think could be a good idea and I think it will be a good idea. The reason it's not a good idea to apply it to this particular piece of property is that that is an older building. It is really not in character with the rest w ,{, of the neighborhood. It has a few serious negatives that are a serious detraction from the rest of the neighborhood. Although, it is extremely well maintained, but for example, the parking for that building is along the north side of the building and it must back out onto Tigertail Avenue. It's 1 an awkward situation. The building faces a long blank wall r along the its north side toward the Tigertail residential area and yet to place that in the mandatory townhouse zone means that you are going to perpetuate that use for ever, because I don't think anybody is ever going to tear down a sixteen unit building in order to build five or six - townhouses. So, what I respectfully suggest to you with all due respect for all the work the Planning Department has done on this is that to apply the mandatory townhouse zone to that particular property which I think you can see mu clearly on the chart in front of you. It's really not the a thing to do. The mandatory townhouse buffer zone should end at Aviation Avenue... Mayor Ferre: And so, what should we do with your property? F ' " Mr. Kavanaugh: I would suggest g Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, you simply leave it RG-2/5 as it is now, let the property resolve itself. I think that eventually... Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Pareda do you... does the department concur with that recommendation? And if not, why not? Or Mr. Luft. I'm sorry. Is anybody paying attention? Mr. Luft: Mr. Kavanaugh has requested that RO-3/6 zoning be applied to his property as opposed to its... Mayor Ferre: No, RG-2/5• Mr. Luft: That's what it is today. Mayor Ferre: That's what he wants to stay at. gl 106 January 24, 1985 f r Mr. Luft: But he would like the SPI-17 ordinance to grant him the privilege of putting an office building on that corner. Mayor Ferre: Well, now you can't have it both ways Dan. Mr. Kavanaugh: No, and that's not the intention. I think ultimately that would be the preferable use of the property, but that's not what I'm here before you to discuss tonight. What I'm saying tonight is that I would suggest it simply be left a RG-2/5 and not be included in the buffer zone. As simple as that. Mr. Luft: That's fine. There is no need for a buffer zone over an RG-2/5 since that itself is the intended original buffer zone. Mayor Ferre: If we were to do something like that Ma'am City Attorney would that in anyway jeopardize... that certainly is not a substantial change. Ms. Dougherty: No, but in fact that would be deleting a portion from the ordinance that would leave it the way it is and that would not be a change that would require going back to the Planning Board. Mayor Ferre: So, if we leave it the way it is, then the zoning would be changed. Ms. Dougherty: It would be lessening it. It would be lessening the intensity of the proposed zoning by leaving it where it is. Mayor Ferre: Well, that's what he wants. Ms. Dougherty: Yes. So, it does not have to go back to the Planning Board. Mayor Ferre: I see. Ok. All right, let's see if the attorneys representing the other property owners... is the attorney from Fine Jacobson here or has she left? (BACKGROUND COMMENT OFF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Traurig, are you around? Mr. Traurig: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Do you concur with the statement that was just made by the City Attorney and that is that if we grant the request of Dan Kavanaugh, that is deleting that property on the other side Aviation and leave it at RG-2/5 that since in effect it is less zoning... I mean, less volume. Therefore, there would be... it would not have to go back to any planning and there is no legal jeopardy on the main ordinance. Mr. Traurig: I think that the issue that Dan raises relates to the mapping and the passage of the zone changes rather than the ordinance itself. This is a new ordinance to be adopted a special overlay district, the SPI-17 and the question is should it be applied to his property and that could accomplished$ I believe, in the mapping. When you ultimately on which ever item would apply to his property adopt the changes in zoning for... or put the overlay on those properties, then you can delete his property if you care to, but I don't it applies to the ordinance that you are considering as this item. Mr. Kavanaugh: gl Now; Mr. Mayor... 107 January 24, 1985 0 0 M Mayor Ferre: Now, Dan are you willing to believe the master in legal opinion of zoning? Mr. Kavanaugh: I concur with Bob's opinion. It was my opinion from the the beginning that you have the authority tonight without in anyway jeopardizing your general action to go ahead and remove that from the mandatory townhouse zoning. Mayor Ferre: Well, I think we can certainly say that that's the legislative intent and then when we get to the mapping it can be done that way. Mr. Kavanaugh: Now, I want to be very candid with you and say that I think the reason for doing that is to put that in the mandatory townhouse buffer zone and to leave it there just sort of locks it into a situation that is of no benefit to anybody and that by leaving it in the same situation it is now at least we can come back and visit it later in a way that might improve the whole neighborhood. Mayor Ferre: Well, we will see if there are any objectors to that. I certainly have no objection to it. I think that's a reasonable request and I don't think it does any harm if we do it the way Mr. Traurig is recommending. Mr. Kavanaugh: I appreciate it Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. Now, I would like to ask you, I know these hearings go on for about two or three hours. There will be a need however, toward the end of the hearing for someone to make that motion. Mayor Ferre: Yes. All right. Mr. Kavanaugh: Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Yes, Ma'am. Ms. Roberta C. Gross: Gentlemen, I'm Roberta C. Gross. I live at 3120 Lucaya Street, which has been my home since February 23, 1946 and where I hope to stay until I die. I have lived in Miami 66 years as my father came here in 1903. I approve of the statement in the intent section of the S-PI- 17. It is the intent of these special public interest district regulations that future public and private development shall respect and enhance Coconut Grove's desirability as a place to live and work. That I approve of. Anything beyond that as far as I can see is a detriment to our district and area. From your district regulations, the definition of R0, residential office, this district designation is intended to applied in areas which are primarily residential in character, but within which would also be appropriate at compatible scale and intensity either in separate buildings or in combination with residences. So, the ordinance as presented I feel is incorrect, because the buildings that are going to be allowed certainly are not in compatible scale and intensity with the residences in the area. So, I feel that this designation is incorrect. I don't understand how that designation can apply. I also object to the claim that so many extra parking spaces are required for public uses and for these parking spaces we are going to give the developers bonuses of extra space in their building which will increase the density tremendously as far as I can tell about forty-one per cent. This is no way to appropriate at compatible scale an intensity. As another point I do not see how taking away our two hundred foot setback on Tigertail as a residential buffer zone which we have in SPI-3 is giving us anything when you take that and give us a fifty foot setback which is what we come to if the gl 108 January 24, 1985 0 developers take all the exceptions that they are allowed to take under the new SPI-17. You also know as I do that the traffic in this area is impossible already. Increasing the density as proposed by SPI-17 would make it impossible for those of us who live here to get to and from our homes in the morning rush hour or in the evenings and difficult the rest of the time. I do not consider this appropriate usage. The sewer problem has already be called to your attention by that department of our city government. I request that you heed the warning of what will come about do to this zoning change as stated in the article in the Miami News, Wednesday the 23rd of January, 19859 which was yesterday and I have a copy of that right here. I would also like to go on record as stating that I am a retired business woman living on a small fixed income and social security and if the taxes continue to increase in this area over the next ten years as they have in the last ten, the City of Miami will be forcing me out of my home and I think this is unfair to a citizen of the City. I thank you for your time. Mayor Ferre: I just wanted you to see the pictures of some of the parking problems that I'm sure you are well painfully aware of and after you look at them, would you give them to Mrs. Cohen and perhaps the opponents can... Ms. cross: Sir, I'm aware on weekends and special occasions. Mayor Ferre: Yes, and on festivals and things that happen in Peacock Park and the marathon and the art festival. Ms. Gross: But this is when... these things go on when business is not using the parking that is available and I think we should make that parking available to those people. Mayor Ferre: All right the next speaker. Are there any other speakers at this time? All right, go ahead. We need to move along. It's now close to 6:30. We will be breaking at 9:00. It's unfair to the other people that are here on major issues. I will not go as I said beyond the hour and we are getting very close to it. So, we are going to vote very soon. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, to us this is a major issue. Mayor Ferre: Yes and we have been here since 9 o'clock this morning on this and other major issues. You proceed. Mr. Jim Stuart: Jim Stuart. I live at 2541 Lincoln Avenue. The next block over from where this development or let's say from where these zoning changes and SPI district changes are intended to occur. To be brief. I think that the SPI-3 which we have right now to deal with suits the purposes of the area quite well. It's a district which requires review by the department and this Commission for anything that is intended to be developed there. Changing this and removing the residential zoning along Tigertail will only further enhance and unreasonable in which the number of office buildings and the number of square feet of office built in this section of Coconut Grove. One of the questions that's been raised quite often is "well this is going to happen anyway isn't it? I mean, look at what they have done down at the corner of 27th and Tigertail where that was changed to RO-3/6. It's true, I think that we abondon our responsibilities when we didn't fight that tooth and nail because that was directly across the street from the gas station and at a major intersection. What they got they certainly used to put to good use, because right now it's really an offensive corner with those air vents coming out gl 109 January 240 1985 0 C W looking like the thing is about to take off and head into the bay. It is rude and insulting to think that we who live on Lincoln want to walk to Mayfair have to pass by something that looks like the exhaust of a rocket ship pointed right S YL at the sidewalk. That is really something we want to avoid r, A41 here on Tigertail. This optional idea of a hundred foot setback which is really a fifty foot setback which is really a twenty foot setback for the townhouses, I don't believe it's going to be sufficient. Because living close by there is no restriction. I mean, if there was some thought given to the idea of keeping the major development down on Bayshore. It's not. They are going to take that tower and push it right up on top of the hill. It's going to be over looking every single person's back yard for blocks around up in the residential area. When we bought, for me eleven years ago, and we have lived there for a long time. We are very happy with the neighborhood. As we brought before the Commission some points before the traffic is becoming quite heavy and dangerous on some of the small side streets as it is now. After they finish building it's going to be that much worst and I wish the rest of the Commission was here so that I could ask a question of do you really know what you are doing. I don't mean that to be insulting, but do you know what you are doing. We talk about density and forty per cent. My business is real estate and I have to sell property on Lne potentials of an area. This is not a forty per cent increase. We are talking about taking a site for office buildings, doubling the size of it by moving it all the way up to Tigertail using all to the middle of the streets around it and then fifty per cent additional and when you add the bulk of the additional parking places --- and Jack, you tell me if I'm wrong ---we are going to end up with two hundred twenty-five per cent of the development on that fir= site cnmrmrad to what it would have been even using the fullest, the office parking and residential that could be permitted today and I don't think that point has really been 'a addressed. If this building isn't going to be forty or point five, it's going to be two and something times as big as what we have and it's going to be across the street from single family houses. Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you. Mr. Stuart: Thank you very much. yLY'F'' t Mayor Ferre: All right, next speaker. Mr. Jim McMaster: Jim McMaster, 2940 Southwest 30th Court. I think what I'm most concerned with is he just said is the increased density and traffic that this is going to generate. Beth Dunlap in the Herald, I think, states it very well that "I think what we are going to end up with here is in effect another Brickell Avenue", she states, "without sensitive architecture South Bayshore will become a street of very different demeanor, one with a kinship to Brickell Avenue or Biscayne Boulevard with bulkier buildings and prominent garages. This could make Coconut Grove look much less like Coconut Grove and more like any another place in South Florida and that is a big price to pay for parking". And in the Miami News they say "the long view would emphasize, possibly, even encourage development farther west along South Dixie Highway and near the Metrorail line. That approach to zoning would have the highrises increased where they ought to be and not in a neighborhood still largely single family and the article I alluded to earlier from the New York Times. I think just what the article is saying that there are neighborhoods all over the Country in cities like Miami that when massive zoning changes like this occur, the residents were smart enough, basically upper middle income residents and older R7 kr gl 110 January 249 1985 0 0 established neighborhoods like this behind Tigertail to know that after a while they just get tired of fighting. And what are their options?, and their options are to band together and to sell out and I think that's what this plan is going to lead, this increased density, these massive Brickell Avenue type structures and the traffic and the congestion they are going to cause is not going to... this SPI-17 is not going to protect the neighborhood behind it, it is going to lead to them banding together and I would like to remind you gentlemen, if a hundred forty-four individual home owners in an eighty-five and a half acre area can get together and agree to sell their entire subdivision to a developer, certainly these people in these streets here block by will get together and it was not only there. It was in Houston, Washington... here is a quote from the director of real estate research for the Rice Center and Urban Research Institute at Rice University in Houston. "what seems to be happening is that home owners who once fought development are now banding together and saying since we can't stop it let's make some hay out of a bad situation". And many of these people are making three and four times what their homes are worth and that's they are going to be back to in the years, you know, after these big highrises are put up, these same people who are fighting now will finally give up and say "fine" and they will sell out ana coconut Grove will no longer be an asset to the City of Miami. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, thank you Mr. McMaster. Next speaker. Ms. Joanne Holzhouser: I would like if I may first to read a statement from Marjorie Stoneman Douglas who could not be here. Mayor Ferre: Go right ahead. Don't put this on her time. Go ahead. Ms. Holzhouser: Marjorie Stoneman Douglas, and I'm sorry I don't have correct address. "Coconut scant few years over the century mark is facing destruction as a real village while planners and developers prayed of change, growth and progress. Change is inevitable, but the nature of that change will determine whether it is to be fruitful, healthy -_ growth or a wild thing which will destroy us all, even those who seek it. The future of Coconut Grove and all of the people who live here is in your hands today. Recognize the turning point. Keep our present zoning until a better plan is agreed upon by the people who a most affected by it. The residents of our community of Coconut Grove". And then for the record, I am Joanne Holzhouser. I live at 4230 Ingraham Highway in Coconut, Grove. A lot of talk has been made about the enormous crowds who come to Coconut Grove and I want to say here on the record tonight what I am trying in my copious free time to write a position paper about and that is that Coconut Grove needs to face up squarely to the fact that we have already reached the point at which we have too many large crowd events in Coconut Grove. We need to face the fact that Downtown Miami needs to be made a festival zone. We need to monitor carefully the sizes and the scope and the activities of various groups and put them in appropriate place. My history of working for three years with crowds of people in Coconut Grove is that we long ago exceed the danger point with crowds in the Grove on the street. A parking garage for every building now on Bayshore Drive and to be built on Bayshore Drive in the future is not going to be enough for special event occasions. There is just no way you are ever going to satisfy the parking needs of people if you are trying to provide for them to come here, hundreds of thousands of them in cars. I do believe gl 111 January 249 1985 r 0 ga �.�.}.a that we can do a better plan than this one. I think that it is a travesty to be offering up something tonight and the `t Planning Department was writing amendments to it before it was even brought up to you. I really think that we need to rt i f t figure out someway to do better zoning along this corridor and not remove the zoning that is already here that is protecting people. Thank you very much. Mayor Ferre: All right, next speaker. Mr. Barry Feldman: My name is Barry Feldman. I live at hr 2539 South Bayshore Drive and I have been in Miami thirty X, ps years. I have lived in the Grove for the last ten years. I believe that part of my responsibility as a resident and member of our community is to contribute and participate in our community's growth. I have been actively contributing and participating in this growth since my high school years about fifteen years ago. As a high school senior I received the silver knight community service award from the Herald and the public schools. Since then I have continued to be actively involved in our community. For the last seven years I have been a curator of photography for the Metropolitan Museum and Art Center on a non -paid volunteer basis. I have also served as a non -paid advisory to other organizations in our community. Such as our new center for the fine arts Downtown, Viscaya Museum and Gardens and Photo Group Miami. Recently I became a volunteer guide for Fairchild Tropical Gardens. When I learned about this study the City's Planning Department was undertaking regarding my community and neighborhood, there was no question in my mind that I wanted to participate. This study as you know is ,., h 5 called the "South Bayshore Drive Development Study". During the past few months I have been attending various meetings of the City Planning Department, the South Florida Regional Development Council, the Planning Advisory Board and the City Commission, trying to have input to the process that in r �,- effect determines my future and the future of the area I t� live in. At this point I feel very frustrated. Although, I ` have been told that public input was part of the process, that input which I and other residents have made is not reflected in the South Bayshore Drive Development Study. I would like to quote for a study regarding its purpose even though you have heard this once it's very important that and tw i I quote "this raised the central question to be addressed -by ., this study. What is the proper zoning for South Bayshore Drive and what are community needs that dictate proper -_" zoning?" If residents of the community have not been about to have meaningful input to this study, how can this question about their needs be answered? Well, the way it can be answered is poorly, and in fact this central question has been poorly answered by the present study. The South s Bayshore Drive Development Study itself has numerous inconsistencies which I pointed out at the last Commission T+ meeting. I will incorporate by reference the comments I Yx` made then on January 10th rather than repeat myself now. It's just frustrating to me that the proposed SPI-17 zoning amendment before you today was prepared by the Planning - Department without public input. The first time I saw the preliminary draft of the SPI-17 South Bayshore Drive overlay district, I was shocked. The form it took had very little to do with the public discussions and meetings I attended with the City's Planning Department. Neither I nor to the �M best of my knowledge was any other member of the public involved in preparing this preliminary draft of SPI-17, nor did we have input to it's preparation. It's the same draft with just one change from and to or, or vice versa that's before you today. One of the results of this lack of meaningful public input is that the SPI-17 zoning amendment is not consistent with the recommendations that the South Bayshore Drive Development Study makes. Another result of _I —� ;I( gl 112 January 249 1985 this lack of meaningful public input is that the SPI-17 zoning amendment contradicts itself. I would like to refer to the section titled "intent". Mayor Ferre: Mr. Feldman how much longer do you have to go because... Mr. Feldman: Probably about a minute and seventy-four seconds. Mayor Ferre: Fine. Please take your minute and seventy- three seconds, two, one, one seventy. Go ahead. Mr. Feldman: Well, anyway as I was referring to the preliminary copy of this SPI-17 which is effectively the same thing before us now and it says in the first paragraph of the section titled "intent" that... it gives the character of the neighborhood. In the second section... I won't read that paragraph to save time. In the second paragraph it says "it is the intent of these special public interest district regulations that future public and private development shall respect and enhance this character preserving area wide property values and enhancing Coconut Grove's desirability as a place to live and work". This sounds great, but as Mrs. Gross has pointed out, unfortunately, the affect of the SPI-17 zoning amendment is the opposite of its intent. I have summarized some changes that the proposed zoning makes. It changes low density residential zoned area now in place along Tigertail to high density office zoning. It also makes some other things which I won't read to you, but I will present for the record if you are interested in seeing a copy I have typed it up. Anyway it's clear to me that these changes which are the affect of the SPI-17 did not respect and enhance the character of the area. I'm disturbed at the time and energy I have spent in trying to help determine the future of my community and neighborhood seems to have been in vain. The process which provides for meaningful public input at least in this case of SPI-17 as failed. It's now up to you Mr. Mayor and Commissioners to determine the future of the area. I would like to close with some general comments. I have watched our city grow and change since I was born here thirty years ago. In fact I have help it grow and I am part of what it's become. Growth and change can happen in ways that improve the quality of life, in ways that encourage harmony and cooperation between commercial residential interest and in ways that respect and enhance the character of an area. Growth and change can also happen in ways that strain public services and polarize commercial and residential interest. The changes that will occur as result of the proposed SPI-17 rezoning are of this last type. If this rezoning is approved you will let us the public know that our elected officials are not interested in improving the quality of life in our city, but are taking actions that are erode the progress we have already made and worked so hard to achieve. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: All right, Mr. Feldman thank you. Any other speakers? We have got three more speakers. All right, please come forward. Eight. All right. Mr. Lloyd Charbonnet: Mr. Mayor and Commission, I have got some photographs I would like to pass out. Mr. Plummer: We have already seen those. You can pass them again. The ones that were just passed around are more than what you have. Mayor Ferre: Pass them out. I don't want anybody to feel that they have been denied the right to speak. gl 113 January 24, 1985 0 0 Mr. Lloyd Charbonnet: Good afternoon Mr. Mayor, distinguished Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Lloyd Charboney and I have been an active office building developer in Miami for approximately fifteen years. Our offices are located at 3326 Mary Street... Mayor Ferre: Mr. Charbonnet, I don't mean to be rude to you, but I assume you are in favor of this. Mr. Charboney: Yes. Mayor Ferre: You just wanted to include all the properties. Is that correct? Mr. Charboney: Yes, but there are some other items I would like to address. Mayor Ferre: Ok. If you just don't repeat what you.. because what's happening here is that people... I don't mean to be rude, but people are coming up, they are going on instead of three minutes, they ramble on for ten minutes. They repeat the same thing they said last time around. They repeat the same thing the other speaker said and we end up without adding anything to the deliberation and just taking up two hours of time, when in effect we have ten other important items that are just important to the people that are affected as this is to you, you know, just sitting by waiting and hearing a repetition of things. Now, I know this is important to all those that live in the area, but make your point quickly would you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Charboney: I will give it my best try and I live in the Grove as I have mentioned previously. We feel that there is an extreme parking need at the west side of the Grove and we feel that these pictures that were passed out adequately document that. These pictures were taken on the 13th January during the Coconut Music and Food Festival and you will notice that cars are parked in the median, parked on the rights of way, parked every where, parked particularly on the Kolisch property and this property presently is exempted from the proposed ordinance. We understand there is proposed amendment to the ordinance and we are satisfied with the proposed draft that has come forth from the staff Planning Department which was directed by the Commission at the last hearing. However, in the ordinance, proposed amendment tonight that Mr. Traurig presented to you, there appears to be a conflict between the changes that he is suggesting and the proposed amendment that the staff has recommended and I think will be advertised the first time tomorrow. I have a copy of Mr. Traurig's proposed amendment to SPI-17 and I have a copy of the Planning fact sheet which supposedly will be advertised the first hearing tomorrow. So, I would like to have the City Attorney, if possible, comment as well as staff if there is in fact a conflict. Mayor Ferre: Jack would you step six inches away from the microphone, my ears about to... Mr. Luft: We will have tomorrow a draft of the amendments which Mr. Charboney spoke that deal with the distance and the number of spaces issue which this Commission directed be passed on to the Planning Advisory Board for consideration. Mr. Traurig's suggested language deals with the definition of activity centers and the clarification of language in the existing code as to how to measure a distance and from which places. It is a different type of consideration. Two different things. gl 114 January 24, 1985 r N Mayor Ferre: All right, are we ready to go to the next { �. speaker? Will the next speaker step up please so that we can move right along. Just hold off for a second while Mr. Charboney... y y' Mr. David Freedman: David Freedman, 2331 Tigertail Court. I have resided in Coconut Grove for over thirty years and I share the concerns of the neighborhoods as to my neighbors, but I have a different opinion as to the affects of the proposed SPI-17. It appears to me that we are dealing with an existing reality which starts at Aviation Avenue and proceeds westward on Bayshore Drive and that reality is an area of high intensity use. The problem is we have no comprehensive plan to control future development in that area. The proposal now before , I feel to be in the public interest. It does several things. Number one, it sets up a mandatory buffer zone on Tigertail which must either be undeveloped landscaped area or townhouse construction. No longer would we have to worry about people nibbling into r Tigertail Avenue and invading the neighborhood. Number two, it sets up a definite height limit for the area. As I understand it one could put together enough property in the area to build buildings substantially higher than those now in existence. And number three, to the extent that it takes the pressure off of the bay side of Bayshore Drive for parking, I think that's admirable. If a developer gets a bonus to put in parking that will serve the public, if that b keeps it off our waterfront, then I'm for it, because I � think the waterfront is for people and not for cars. Let me go on to say that I think that this passage of SPI-17 should be a first step. We need to protect the rest of the neighborhood all the way up Bayshore Drive and Tigertail up to 17th Avenue and beyond. And I think this is a good ,.. starting point. Thank you. I - y�4 u Mayor Ferre: Next. Mr. Ron Cold: My name is Ron Cold. I live at 2542 Lincoln Avenue and I have owned that property for sixteen years. Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, at the out set I should like to thank the Mayor for his kind comments about my remarks on these issues at the January 10th Commission meeting. As you may recall my theme was "does an existing stable neighborhood have value?" Although, my argument at that time were not persuasive enough to influence his vote or that of the other Commissioners. It was gratifying to know that the viewpoints of residents are being acknowledged and considered. To make our position somewhat more compelling, hopefully, not be repetitive I have attempted to evaluate the Commission's response to our arguments last time as reflected by comments made by Mayor Ferre and Commissioner Carollo. In so doing I hope to be positive emphasizing some of our points of agreement as well as underscoring our fundamental differences. First of all, Mayor Ferre sited the zoning difficulties in Greenwich Village as a comparison to Coconut Grove. While Greenwich Village has been compared to our village of Coconut Grove, it is useful to point out the differences. While each area is unique, Greenwich Village is almost totally a reflection of the cultural landscape. The things that man has added to land. Whereas Coconut Grove relies heavily on its natural features such as lust vegetation , the bay and rock cropoots for it's distinctiveness to make it unique. Commissioner Carollo, you sited Chicago and lauded for it's cleanliness and its vitality. I have been to Chicago. I agree with you, but I think there are vast differences there . Vast differences in urban scale. But again, we might point out that Chicago has done a much better job preserving the bayfront or their lakefront with Lake Shore Drive than we have. And another comparison Mr. Mayor, you lack in South Miami today to the gl 115 January 24, 1985 OW r Coconut Grove of thirty years ago, suggesting the 'L inevitability of change. Well, none of us as home owners would suggest that change is not inevitable, but we would suggest the we, you have the power to control and direct that change. That it is not inevitable. That every parcel of land must be developed to the maximum. That there is no divine right of developers to build to that limit except to the extent that you as the custodians of our land use permit it. Mr. Mayor, you sited the example of the french company that paid a seemingly unbelievable high price per square foot for land in central Grove higher than land is going for in Brickell, implying that they wouldn't have done so unless they were confident that their development would be at least as profitable as properties developed on Brickell. This brings us to a very basic question. Who determines public policy? Our elected officials or developers who have a vision which may not be at all compatible with the best interest of the community. I don't know of any City ordinance, including 95009 that guarantees and individual a profit on his or her investment in property. We have a very strong feeling that community values are being sacrificed in favor of developers. It is often said to us as single a'. family homeowners, if you own such and such property r� wouldn't you want to develop it to the maximum and make all you could? They answer in must cases would very likely be "yes", but that still wouldn't make it right if the best interest of the community weren't being served and herein - lies the rub What interest is the best interest? Again, we applaud good development. It was pointed out at the January }' 10th meeting that one of our most ardent activists Ms. ,4 ' Holzhouser was the godmother of Grand Bay, but quality of f eonstructic^ {c not the only factor. Our concern is with the scale of development as it impinges in an existing neighborhood. We used to have bumper stickers in the Tigertail Association which said "Coconut Grove where highrise means trees". Well, of course, we abandon those. , When I'm Downtown I marvel the Southeast Bank Building and the other high vitality development that is going on there .' ;:.>.... and I think that's where it's appropriate, but we plead once ;l again and this repetitive, that the value that we have in Coconut Grove for its distinctiveness will be lost forever if we allow this untrammeled high density development encroaching into our neighborhoods and destroying that which we have come to Coconut Grove for. Thank you very much. Mayor Ferre: All right, any other speakers? Yes, Ma'am. Ms. Mary Ann Andrews: My name is Mary Ann Andrews. I live at 1600 South Bayshore Lane, Coconut Grove. I'm a real estate sales person. I am very aware of what's happening in development and real estate values in Coconut Grove. I think everything has been said tonight and I think you people probably have already made up your mind about this ordinance and everything on the agenda tonight. Am I right? Mayor Ferre: I can't speak for anybody else. Ms. Andrews: But you have pretty much made up your mind. Mayor Ferre: I have made my statements into the record very clearly when I voted last time. Ms. Andrews: Ok. Well, then perhaps my voice has no meaning at all. Perhaps I'm just being a fool again to get up and speak. Mayor Ferre: That's not true. I think you will find many occasions that this Commission has reversed it's position. '' gl 116 January 24, 1985 0 Ms. Andrews: Then perhaps we will have a miracle tonight Mg,p where there will be sometime spent in thinking this over very carefully. This... practically everything on this agenda tonight has been jammed down people's throat at a ; time of the year January 2nd when people are not really f aware of the long term impact of these kind of developments and this kind of density. I have friends that are involved in this. Monty Trainer. There is a lot of people involved in this. Stuart Sorg, I know he has plans. I know you have thought about the overall picture here and I think you have an idea of what you want to see happen in Coconut Grove. It's going to be very glitzy It's going to be, I think, very fat on office space right now and parking. I think that five levels of parking is abominable. I think that if you think you are ever going to provide enough parking for fifty thousand people who come to the Grove on special events, you are fools, because you will never be able to t provide enough parking. You think that... now the graph showing the allowable space that can be built now as compared to the bonus plan is no longer here. Mayor Ferre, 4 I think you brought up a point of how many parking spaces do we have in the Grove right now and how many do we really need. Has that really been looked at? I don't know if Mr. Cook Yarborough is still here, but I speak for many citizens, not just myself. I don't live in that neighborhood. I used to live there, but I don't live there , any more. I see Clara Harden is here. I think that the average citizen, people like yourselves are businessmen. May be not you, Mr. Ferre, because you are not an average "A citizen. Mr. Dawkins, I don't know about yourself. Mr. Perez is an educator. I know that he has a conscience. He must have and a heart, because I'm sure he has some `3 intelligence. Surely there would not be this kind of an outrage by this many people to serve a small group of developers and a group of money that comes, not even from this area. This is money from Turkey and the Mid East that wants to come in here and put it into Coconut Grove, because " it is the jewel of the South Florida Coast. So, all I want '! is, again, for the record that the people of this community �would like a little bit of time before we have this kind of intense development and parking. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Next speaker. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor and Commission, I have heard tonight Coconut Grove compared to New York and Chicago and some other cities that I know, but I also know Aspen, Colorado very well and Aspen is a very magic, tiny jewel in the mountains and I think Coconut Grove comes closest to Aspen, Colorado. I have lived here twenty-five years and I have know Aspen for about twenty and it's very similar. I object to a major zoning change that will benefit the big developers, but will ultimately destroy our old established neighborhood in North Grove that borders this huge development. If, indeed, you are elected officials who represent the need of the people who elected you, then to truly represent us, you are going to vote "no" on this. Thank you. Mr. Joseph T. Calay: Joseph T. Calay, 2985 Aviation Avenue. Mr. Mayor, my recollection is that the January 10th meeting there were a couple of items addressed to staff that they should respond to. Are they prepared to respond to it at this time? Mayor Ferre: Jack. Mr. Luft: Sir, if you would be so kind as to recall those by point I will respond. ��. gl 117 January 24, 1985 r N Mayor Ferre: Well, that's not quite fair. Mr. Luft: One of the questions was, are we going to require parking spaces to be identified in the garages? Is that correct? Mr. Calay: That's correct. Mr. Luft: No, sir we are not. Parking practice as we have discovered in Downtown. The Parking Authority can speak to this. In Brickell... All of the parking garages that we b are now requiring, it is best not to mark or designate spaces for visitors or for employees or for guests, etc. The preferred practice at this point is to leave those spaces open and flexible. You get the most efficient use of spaces for that in the long run. Whereas if you marked them you tend to diminish the efficiency of that garage. We a would not recommend that they be marked or designated. The second item you asked was, is the bonus that is received by a developer for additional parking, will that require additional parking? The floor area that they receive. The answer is "yes". Mr. Calay: The answer is "yes" to the second question. {w Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Calay: And that is that when a developer provides one hundred additional parking spaces receiving an additional 20,OOOsquare feet, that he will then have to provide fifty additional parking spaces based on one parking space for each four 'z;:^dred square feet. Is that correct Mr. Luft? Mr. Luft. Yes, sir. He must provide all required parking for all permitted development space, be it by base floor area ratio or bonus. �y Mayor Ferre: All right, we are getting close to seven now. Mr. Calay: All right, Mr. Mayor, I would just like to request that an amendment be drafted by the City Attorney to clarify that issue, so that there is no question in the ordinance that for each... it may be standard sir. Mayor Ferre: I think that's a valid request. I don't think it does any harm and we will deal with that. Mr. Calay: Mr. Mayor. I would appreciate that. In relationship to the first item and that is the identification of the parking for the public space. For the public which is the basis for the granting of this additional floor area ratio. I want it to be very clear on the record that I strenuously object to not identifying those spaces, because if those spaces are not identified, you have no way of enforcing the ordinance which permits these people to gain the additional floor area ratio, because you have no way of identifying the occupants of the building, habitually using the spaces which are the basis of this ordinance and I therefore, strongly suggest that unless you want this item to continue through the courts, that there be identification on the bonus parking. So that you can see and the city officials can see and the zoning inspectors can see and test the fact that those spaces are not being used by the building occupants. Thank you very much. Mayor Ferre: All right, next speaker. Mr. Bob Worsham: Commissioners, opportunity. My name is Bob Worsham. thank you for the I'm president of the gl 118 January 2k, 1985 f Miami Civic League. I won't repeat much that's been said. I spent the day here with you, so I have other things to do too. The Miami Civic League has been meeting and working with the Coconut Grove Association and we concur with them totally and fully in what they are requesting of you. The q concurrence runs to the point that we are speaking in our numbers as the Miami Civic League and the people and also in whatever backing they feel is necessary to pursue their end result. We ask you a very careful and serious consideration of this ordinance this evening. Thank you very much. Mayor Ferre: Next speaker. Ms. Norma Post: Norma Post, 2061 Tigertail Avenue. I have a preference and then a question and a comment. First of all, since we seem to epitomize New York City is what we want to have here. I'm going to... I, although I have lived here twenty-eight years, I was born and raised in New York City. So, I'm going to give you a little bit of the atmosphere of the City of what we have if I remember how I ' used to speak before I came to this wonderful city, because in New York you have to speak quickly because everybody is in a hurry. Rr You have to run across the street in a hurry before somebody will run over you. You have to be able to say =4 whatever you want to say in a hurry, because nobody is going _`'•' to stand there waiting for you to say something. You Commission meetings will be over much more quickly if you get people to speak like the New Yorkers. For instance, we have in New York City when I was growing up, we had dirty air we had dirt on the streets, we had fouler air, we had 7 excess traffic, the businesses had to move out of New York City because they were overtaxed and they finally the City went bankrupt. They had to appeal to the federal government so the federal government could rescue them. This is what we want here in the City. So let's get used to this .°' atmosphere. Everybody is nervous in the City. They are in Ash litigation in the courts constantly, because there are too --. many people; too many problems; living too close together in so many highrises. I remember them when I lived there. I used to walk down the streets and I looked up at the high -'` rises to try and see the sky and the sun. I used to think I lived for the day when I can get out of that atmosphere and ., come to this wonderful City of Miami and relax. But, I have to get this said to you in a hurry, so I don't waste your ;} time. I want you to also consider, if you are going to =dx consider a big city, like New York City, I had the advantage - ' thirty-three years ago to study in Paris. I returned there fiw this year. I found that in Paris they still do not have skyscrapers on the Champs de Elysee, on the Place de la Concorde. They have them on the outside of the city. They Y want to preserve their beautiful city. So that's one big city in the world where they don't want to be like the rest of the world. San Diego, California is another one, and Seattle. I think you'll find many cities in the world where we don't have to be like New York, Chicago, all of these ,- wonderful places where they're in such a hurry and they have _ so much to do, and they want to make so much more money, because they want to make that much money because then they - want to be able to buy someplace outside of the city where _ �... they can relax and get away from this. -- LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE. Ms. Post: They're talking about the parking down here in Coconut Grove. Well, I think the problem is that the i = �i gl 119 January 24, 1985 O 4N parking should be right downtown, right there west of 27th Avenue. You have loads of room for parking. You can build 15 them high rise and nobody is going to object to this. You don't have the residential community there. That's why you have the parking on Bayshore, because everybody wants to go P,- down into the center of the town with all of the activities. I also might question you, you know, New York City is a very exciting place. We have all kinds of art and literature and every thing, places to go. What's the matter with downtown Miami? It's dead! There's nothing going on there. Coconut Grove has kept this place alive here with activities. It's dead after 5:00 o'clock. Why don't you concentrate down there and get all of the skyscrapers together. There's still lots of room. You could squeeze a lot more into the downtown City. Tell me, there's another question I'd like to ask you. That is about this bay here. What's going to happen? Does anybody know? I can't get any answer to Merryl Stevens. Are the bids out on Merryl Stevens? Are they going to have the same kind of a thing that we have there? What's happening there? Why do we need all this extra parking? What's planned for the bay? These questions are not answered. I think we should know this before we -' make any decisions about the highrises on Bayshore Drive. Will somebody here tonight answer me what's going to happen by the bay that we need so much parking? Also would you tell me if we're going to intend to develop this City of Coconut Grove. We want to make another New York City and highrises, and whatever, why are we doing it piece meal? I proposed to you the last time I was here why shouldn't we do this all together. Let us all take advantage of it and get all the money. Then, when we have enough money, we can get out, like New York City and run someplace else and buy the acreage. Now we can't afford the acreage. We can't get enough money for our properties so that we could buy that =' acreage and get away from that wonderful city. I hope that will enjoy living and talking like this, because z everybody � :. that's the way it has to be in New York. APPLAUSE. Mayor Ferre: Are there any other speakers? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't think I can make as eloquent a presentation. I have to slow down anyhow. The SPI-17 is necessary to allow the proposed construction on an area of Aviation Avenue to go ahead and without it, it could not go. Without it the zoning would remain the same. It is my proposal that there be a moratorium on zoning, a moratorium on SPI-17, and listen to what people are trying to tell you. What does it take to tell you what the people want, the people that live in the neighborhood, the people that are more concerned with the area than perhaps people who live elsewhere. I'm not very well expressing myself, but that's part of my feelings and I thank you. Mayor Ferre: I think you expressed them very well. Are there any other speakers. All right, I would imagine that's been about an hour and a half cumulatively. I think we certainly have given everybody an opportunity to expound amply. Mr. Traurig, or any other members on the pro side, do you want some rebuttal time? I would appreciate it if you don't take an hour and a half. Mr. Robert H. Traurig: Two minutes, Mr. Mayor, the principle addressed to you by the opposition to the ordinance was by Ms. Cohen. She addressed you on the procedure on the legal and substantive issues. I would like you to know that the letters which we have previously given to you, the two letters by Mr. Gold to the City Attorney, and a letter by Mr. Bermello, all have dealt with those issues and I think satisfactorily. You have them in front = '' gl 120 January 249 1985 4P of you and I think they answer every question that she has asked in connection with all three categories. There were some suggestions that there were relationships to the South Bayshore study and the Dinner Key Master Plan. I would tell you that the South Bayshore study has been adopted in principle by this board and that the Dinner Key Master Plan was mentioned really for only two purposes. One, the factual assertion in the plan as to the parking shortage and I do think that it might be in the best interest of the Commission to address the Planning Department and have a specific analysis of that. Number two, the reference to the defined Dinner Key activities, which are the points from which the radii are measured. So we urge you to adopt the ordinance. We think that if you have any question whatsoever with regard to whether or not there is in fact a shortage of parking, that should be addressed. With the suggested change that we have submitted to you, we urge that you adopt the ordinance as submitted to you by staff. Mayor Ferre: After two hours of deliberation, I hope that we're talked out, and I will entertain a motion at this point, to close the public hearing. Mr. Plummer: So move. Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: Before we vote, Mrs. Cohen. Mrs. Cohen: I just want to respectfully disagree with the opinions presented by Mr. Traurig and his firm on the issues raised. Mayor Ferre: Of course, all right, are we ready to vote? Call the roll on the closing of the public hearing portion. THEREUPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THIS ITEM WAS CLOSED. Mayor Ferre: Now the Commission, questions, first of all, before we get into comments. I have a question. Mr. Luft, one of the key things that keeps popping out for the last two hours, the last time we met on this January 10th, dealt with parking. Is there a need for more parking in Coconut Grove? How much parking is there a need of? What do you base your opinions on? How did you come to this conclusion? Why are you recommending this solution? Mr. Luft: As the Commission knows, it approved in principle this past December, the Dinner Key Master Plan, which provided you complete documentation as to the present parking need. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Luft, again, I'm not asking you to make a statement. I just want you to answer questions. I'll go through them again. Is there a need for more parking? Mr. Luft: Yes, there is, sir. Mayor Ferre: How much parking do we need in your opinion or the department's opinion at this present time? Mr. Luft: As a minimum to serve the public needs, 650 spaces by the year 1990. Mayor Ferre: What do you base that conclusion on? Is it intuition? Is it studied? Did you make a study? Mr. Luft: Committed and contractually obligated growth in Dinner Key thh t wi 1 ener t additional parking needs in excess of . a ng alrea-dy existing. gl 121 January 24, 1985 V 4 Mayor Ferre: Where does the Merryl Stevens RFP stand today? Mr. Luft: It is under preparation. Mayor Ferre: When will it be ready for bid? A month, six months? Mr. Rosenerantz: It shouldn't be more than two months at the very most, Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Two months for the document to be ready, so the bid will be before the end of the year? Mr. Rosenerantz: Yes. Mayor Ferre: You are following, we had a long and heated public hearing. Many of you were here. There were specific recommendations. We came to a conclusion. There was a long, long, long, typical Coconut Grove process. We came to a conclusion. Are you going to vary from the conclusion? Mr. Luft: As adopted by this Commission, no, sir. Mayor Ferre: Is the record clear as to what this Commission.... Mr. Luft: Yes, sir, it is. Mayor Ferre: Is the record available to Mrs. Post and to other members? Mr. Luft: Yes, sir, it is. Mayor Ferre: Of this community, so there shouldn't be much question; all they have to do is read the final ordinance, as passed. With regard to parking, getting back to the parking issue, I understand that the issue of parking and the trade off and additional bonus is something that you, the department, came up with. Did you come to this conclusion on your own? Mr. Luft: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: This is on the record now, there was nobody other than your own deliberations came to that conclusion. Mr. Luft: When this Commission, as per citizens comments and requests at the Dinner Key hearing, this Commission excluded parking garages as originally recommended and directed that the Dinner Key Master Plan would not include parking garages. This department concluded that the need still remained and that other mechanisms must be found to provide it. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Luft, did you meet with, did you, the department, meet with the neighborhood groups, including the Tigertail Association and others? Mr. Luft: Yes, sir, we had advertised meetings. Mayor Ferre: How many times? Once? Mr. Luft: We met once to prepare basic information to present to them as to the state of conditions on Bayshore, that was at Peacock Park. We had a second meeting to present a summary of findings and preliminary recommendations. We then met with the Tigertail Association Board in their home. gl 122 January 241 1985 I P C Mayor Ferre: How many times, Mr. Luft? Mr. Luft: We have met four times with the general public and specific civic organizations. Mayor Ferre: Did you deny anybody an opportunity to discuss or was anybody out off at any time? Mr. Luft: No, sir. Mayor Ferre: Was information denied anybody? Mr. Luft: We not only provided them with copies of all report findings, we presented them with forms in which we solicited their written responses to our alternative recommendations. We passed out in excess of one hundred forms. We received one. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Luft, not you, but Mr. Rodriguez, on at least two and may be three occasions came to see me. You had in one occasion met with the community before and made some basic commitments on change. Mr. Medina, who it has been known all along, was planning this building, started out with a building almost twice the size of what is being proposed now. As I remember the height was close to thirty stories, I forget whether it was twenty-seven, and the other one was twenty-two. He had a hundred or some apartments in one of those towers. You, the department, without any discussion with members of the Commission or anybody that I know of, met with the Tigertail Association, changed your position, or came up with a position; you established a position. Mr. Medina, you met with him subsequently to explain it to him. He was all upset since it meant a major change in his building. Finally, after a few days of deliberations, it was my understanding that Mr. Medina had accepted these changes. Is that basically correct? Mr. Rodriguez: We didn't change our position. Mayor Ferre: You came up with a position after you went to the Tigertail meeting, then you took a position; you informed Mr. Medina after you met with.... Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: You didn't discuss it with Medina. You told him of your position. Mr. Rodriguez: We told him what we were taking as a position. Mayor Ferre: He came in all upset. You spent a week calming him down and all that and he finally changed his position. After he did that ...I want you to listen to this very carefully, because I want to put this in the record, after you did that, you went back and met with the Tigertail Association another time. Once again, without discussing it with anybody previously, including some of the property owners or members of the Commission, you made further concessions. Mr. Medina was told subsequent to that meeting with Tigertail. He got all upset, called you up again, and you had to go through the process again. At this last go around, he was very reluctant to change, because it meant substantial changes in his plan, including the giving up the residential portion of it and subsequent significant changes of one sort or another. He then, as I recall, and you and I talked, he told me what your position was. You said that was firm; you were not going to change your position, and that was the end of it from a professional point of view. You were very upset, not very, you were relatively upset gl 123 January 249 1985 that Mr. Medina did not understand that you had to come to a conclusion as a professional. You talked to Mr. Medina a couple of times. He came back, as I understand it and finally agreed to the things that you had as a professional concluded. At that point, it was my understanding, that the Tigertail Association and the neighbors were going to be satisfied. As I recall, in my discussion with you, when you came to tell me I asked you specifically, I said, "Sergio, you've gone a long way and this project has changed substantially. Do you feel that beside doing a professional job, that you've satisfied the neighborhood?" As I recall, you told me at that time that you thought that there had been some major changes and major concessions granted and that you thought that this was going to be acceptable to the neighborhood. Is that correct? Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, let me clarify that.... Mayor Ferre: Please do. Mr. Rodriguez: ....I couldn't of course, guarantee it, but I thought that because of the position that we took, which we felt was very strong and firm about keeping the sector 6 in the base, that the citizens from the area would be, I thought, agreeable to that position. Mayor Ferre: I'm not in any way alleging that anybody dealt in bad faith, because I don't believe that's the case. But certainly at each concession point, there was a feeling on your point that you had done what the neighborhood wanted and that they would be satisfied. You were wrong twice. It is evidcnt that you were also wrong the third time as can bee seen by the two hours that we've gone through now. I'm not saying this in criticism. I'm just putting it on the record. Mr. Rodriguez: I felt that because the applicant was proposing a sector 8, which was double the intensity of what was there before, and because the Planning Department had taken a firm position of keeping the sector 6 as a base, and because we were following the directions of the Commission that we should consider a zoning bonus for parking, that -we had what we believed was the best possible position. Mayor Ferre: Wait, wait, woa! That contradicts what Luft said. You say that the City Commission told you. You tell me who, when and where in what record, who told you that there was going to be a planning bonus to be granted? Mr. Luft: No, sir, if I could correct the director, if he'd be so kind as to permit me. The motion that was passed by this Commission on Dinner Key was in the wake of removal of the parking garage to direct the Planning Department.... Mayor Ferre: That's correct. Mr. Luft: ....to study the issue and recommend to this Commission a mechanism for providing parking through possible private cooperation. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Luft, at any time did this Commission at any time on the record ever give you, the Department, an order as to how to solve the parking problem? Or did any member of this Commission directly or indirectly in writing, in person, through messages, or verbally ever indicate to you that this was a solution that was needed and that you should proceed in that way? Mr. Luft: No, sir. al 124 January 24, 1985 il+ Mayor Ferre: So you came that conclusion totally on your E own. Mr. Luft: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: On the record. Excuse me for stopping you, but that was a contradiction and I wanted to make sure we understood each other. Mr. Rodriguez: What I meant by this is that you asked us as part of the motion to consider the possibility of zoning bonuses. Mayor Ferre: You show me on the record where that was because I don't remember that this Commission ever voted to ask that be done. Did we? Sergio, wait a moment, after you brought it up in the plan, we adopted your recommendation and passed it. Oh, yes, that's different. That's a very different thing. But that was your recommendation which we adopted and passed. We were not the originators of that. Mr. Luft: The plan specifically stated even before the issue of the removal of the garages that the City would be well advised to consider approaches for utilization of private parking garages on the north side to more efficiently contribute to the parking need and to eliminate the pressure on Dinner Key for further public parking. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Rodriguez, this is the last question I have, so I want to put all these things into the record. Mr. Rodriguez, when first you advised me of what your conclusions were and staff, and you then advised me Mr. Medina was very upset. You told me that was your professional position and that you would not vary from that. Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: Then there was a second series and we went through that same thing again. You again advised me you had taken a professional position and that you didn't care what Mr. Medina or anybody else felt, that was your professional position. Now the neighbors have come up with a series -of differences. The position that is before us now, is this your professional position? Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: And you stand by it? Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir. Mayor Ferre: I have no further questions. Mr. Rodriguez: If I may read from the record, though, Motion 84-1187 in relation to the Dinner Key Master Plan. Mayor Ferre: In relation to the Dinner Key Master Plan? Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Mayor Ferre: The Dinner Key Master Plan had been presented? Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir, it was approved in principle on October 19, 1984. In relation to that Dinner Key Master Plan, there was a motion passed authorizing and directing the City administration to conduct a study through the Planning Department on the feasibility of assisting, which would award zoning bonuses for the development of private and public parking on any future buildings or even in existingbuildin s p hhiieh parlIddng allow sUSq combine dat to accommoate excels ublic ki i the ter: sl 1�5 January 24, 1965 a c Mayor Ferre: Thank you, that was in motion...I remember that. That was in October and there was a motion made by Mr. Plummer. Mr. Plummer% That's correct. Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: That was immediately following my motion that said that there would be no parking structures between South Bayshore Drive and the water. Mayor Ferre: O.K., the record is clear. Thank you for clarifying that. Are there any other questions? Mr. Dawkins: I have a question, the bonus is to be given for the provision of parking. Is that correct? For public parking. Mr. Luft: For parking accessible by the public in excess of required needs. Mr. Dawkins: Hold it now, I want the wording to be specific. Are we going to provide public parking for the . public or are we going to give them the right to provide parking accessible to the public? There is a difference in # my mind now. In my mind, public parking will be that public only and to be used by the public. Parking accessible to the public will be parking that the public can use only when it's accessible. ' ' That's my interpretation. If I m incorrect, straighten me out, please. Mr. Luft: Public parking, accessible by the public, it would be owned privately. Parking is built and owned by the �< private developer, it would be accessible during all normal hours of public functions and activities in Dinner Key by "rw the public. The parking spaces would not be designated for sole public use only. Mr. Dawkins: Then what's the advantage of giving the bonus? Mr. Plummer: The additional parking. Mr. Luft: Because the parking is in excess of the needs required by the developer. Mr. Dawkins: Why do you want excess parking in needs of what the developer needs? Mr. Luft: Because the parking would be used for the public. Mr. Dawkins: So now, if it's going to be used for the public, then it's the public's parking. Mr. Luft: Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: If it's not the public's parking, it's private parking. Mr. Luft: Private parking exists today. Mr. Dawkins: But it's not enough private parking, is that correct? Mr. Luft: It is private. It cannot be accessed or used by the public. It is closed. Mr. Dawkins: So we are going to give the builder a bonus to provide public parking. Is that correct? sl 126 January 24, 1965 z C Mr. Luft: Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: So then we're not giving him a bonus to provide parking accessible to the public. Am I right? ;. Mr. Luft: Yes, we are. u. Mr. Dawkins: No, I tell you what, we won't. Mr. Luft: We are providing a bonus. Mr. Dawkins: No, no, we are going to provide public parking, and it must be set aside and identified as public parking and public parking only. We're not going to sit here and play games with the public. If you are going to tell a developer that he must provide 50 parking spaces for being allowed to build X amount of building, then you are ' going to take those 50 parking spaces and mark them public ,.° parking, and that's it. Otherwise, Mr. Luft, and if I'm in error, with your professionalism, you show me where I'm in error. But you can't tell me that I'm going to allow a builder a bonus of 50 parking spaces that are supposed to be to alleviate the need that we have for public parking and tell me it's only accessible to him when the private owner wants to use it. Let's get this together before I vote on this. Mr. Luft: I want to make it clear to the Commission that if you were to require those excess spaces to be marked for public use only, we would have to device a way to determine if the car in that space was put there by a driver who is not in the building. With all good conscience, I cannot suggest to you that we would be able to determine if any car in that space had a driver that was in the building or out of the building. Mr. Dawkins: Is there such a thing as a ... what will this be? A parking lot, a parking garage, or parking what? Mr. Luft: Parking structure. Mr. Dawkins: A parking structure, is there a law which says that the first two floors can only be used by the public and that there is only an entrance to those two floors by the public; then you have another entrance that goes up to the third floor that goes up to the other people? Mr. Luft: No, there is no law that says that. Mr. Dawkins: So all I'm saying is there is a method, there is a means and a method of securing these parking for public only. If you do the way you're telling me is that first come, first served, and we're not going to put a policeman there to say, well, you don't work here, so that's private and what have you. But there is a way, now, Mr. Luft, for us to identify these spots for the public and leave them for the public. Mr. Luft: I want you to be aware that you can separate the entrances, and you can say that if you drive through this entrance, you must be public and you cannot be going into this building. Then you must follow that car in and then you must determine that driver has left the building. It's not enough to say that's the only entrance. You are suggesting that we have to ... that is enough to rely on the good faith of the drive that he will only enter the proper entrance. I'm saying that I don't want to present to this Commission or to the public a response to you that can be done, because I don't think it can be. What we're trying to sl 127 January 24, 1985 y S C say, sir, if I may, is that this parking would not be for residential uses. It would be for non-residential uses. As you are aware, the primary parking need, as evidenced by the Dinner Key study is during non -working hours during those periods on week -ends and evening. That's why the time constraints are put in there, so that they don't close this garage. In this way, we can assure that there will be spaces available for the public because that's the way they are used. To put the limitation in there that only the r public can use it, would be to invite the users of that office building to violate the law and to put the City in the position of the inability to enforce it. While that may sound good, I think it is a very difficult task that I would not want to recommend. Mr. Dawkins: I hear you and I can understand what you're saying by not being able to identify it, but somewhere along the lines, I do not hear spelled out clearly and specifically that this individual is going to build X amount .. s of space and for X to the X power -whatever the power is- a parking space will be provided to that number to the power for the public. Because what you're telling me is that the building can only be built and as long as the individual, Sit.. and what I hear, as long as the individual made these spots that we require available after hours, then he's made public property available. I just don't buy that. Mr. Plummer: Let me speak to that. First of all I think it has to be considered and I'm using hypothetical numbers. Because I dc^'t even know the numbers involved with anyone of the particular projects. My good friend, Miller, s`- hypothetically, a building has to provide by code 100 parking spaces. Let's use that as a hypothetical case. Mr. Dawkins: Right. Mr. Plummer: Now, he can build his building, receive no bonuses, and he's got 100 parking spaces and absolutely none available to the public. Under the bonus system, he builds in excess of the hundred available to the private and to the public and he builds 150 parking spaces. We've got 50 more parking spaces available as if he didn't use the bonus. I think that the need in Coconut Grove, and I think most people have spoken to that this evening, is primarily on week -ends when these big, special events occur, which primarily an office building is not in use on week -ends. I would have a problem if you designated one entrance for the public and another for the building, where in reverse, you could not use it all for public on the week -ends or when it is needed. I think it really boils down to this. You don't want to give bonuses. You're going to get 100 parking spaces under my hypothetical case for that building and absolutely nothing available to help alleviate the problem that exists. Or, you consider the bonuses, make 50 spaces more available under my hypothetical case, to the public and on week -ends, possibly the 150 spaces available. As I see it, that is the choice as far as the bonus system is concerned. You give a man incentive; in return, he provides. v Mr. Dawkins: I hear you, Commissioner Plummer, and I agree with what you're saying. But I want it spelled out for the public and for me that we're talking in terms of giving a bonus and the individual will build 50 extra spots and they will be included in all of the spots. Don't lead me to believe and have all these people thinking that oh yes, we -- let him put up an extra so many square feet, therefore, X number of public parking spaces are made. There are no si 128 January 24, 1985 4 I a public parking spaces made. It will be 50 additional places for parking, which can be used for the public after hours. mean I have no problems with that, but I want it spelled out now so that later on, when people approach me, I mean they can't say, you all promised me 50 parking spaces for Y� the public and I don't see them. That's all I'm saying. = Mayor Ferre: Let me y just add one brief paragraph to this. _:• The telephone system, what is that called? What is that new telephone system called, J.L.? In the automobiles? ` Celular, in this new system coming u y g p on portable telephones and even in the ones that are in existence today, they've got, for example, an existing system, they have 20 lines. The question is how can they put 600 customers on 20 lines? The more lines they have, the probability increases of a spot available. It's a geometric increase. When you have a h thousand parking spaces and you only need 600 under the requirement of the code, if you have a thousand available, under most circumstances the probability of finding a parking space increases geometrically as you go over the basic need. I mean that's just pure, simple mathematics. The only time when it becomes a problem, which is what Jack is addressing and what J.L. was addressing, is when you have a special need. True, Mr. Andrews was saying that an idiot would realize that we'll never be able to provide enough A parking space for a special event when 50,000 people come down to Coconut Grove. That's true, but those are the peaks and valleys and the mathematical proportion that may be reached once or twice a year. But there are a vast number t of times when there are activities Saturday night or at Peacock Park or going on at Monty Trainers or what may be happening n at. other pp E parts of Coconut Grove where a thousand parking spaces becomes a major relief to that area. Those ..-'; are the times that we're trying to deal with. We can't deal }`k with the times when there are 400,000 people at the Art Festival in Coconut Grove. Obviously, there's never going to be enough parking for that. That's not what we're dealing with We're dealing with other times. I think we are at the question and by the way there is food. We've 1, been here all day since 9:00 o'clock, so those of you who - want to get a sandwich, feel free to go ahead and do it. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I have no problems with everything that has been said. I too realize that we need parking, and I am in favor of the bonus, because I would rather see a parking facility built that is useful and has some space in it, than that catastrophe that we have down there at the Hyatt center. You can't turn a corner, you have to back up. I would rather you plan a parking structure that people can utilize. But I just don't want the stigma of public parking when it's not public parking, that's all. Mayor Ferre: We're in the question period. Are there any further questions? Are we ready for statements then? Mr. Dawkins: I want to make a statement to the lady there with the white clothes. Mayor Ferre: Ms. Andrews. Mr. Dawkins: Ms. Andrews, I'm one of the few who can sit here and tell you that I've watched a neighborhood destroyed. When I first came into Miami they came into the Overtown area with urban renewal and everyone had to move out to the suburb, I mean out to Allapattah. Then they got the bright idea to put I-95 in there. Move individuals had to move out. So I'm in complete sympathy with what's going on. That's why earlier today I asked why is it that Individuals who have worked their lives and paid for a home now must pull up and move out and they're not given the sl 129 January 24, 1985 value of their homes and they have to assume a mortgage. I I OXX could not move from where I am. I owe $4,000 on my house i0. and my mortgage is 5 1/4. But if I had to move, it would A take three times what I built my house for; and they're going to give me 1/3 of it and I would have to assume that .3 mortgage, so therefore I sympathize. This problem is brought on by your neighbors. If your neighbor had not sold the property to the individual who came in here, then that individual would not be asking me for variances to put more on the land than he wanted. Mayor Ferre: If there was no demand, then there wouldn't be any need. Mr. Davlkins: Don't feel mad with me, the Commissioner. Get -a your neighbor who sold the land. Mayor Ferre: See, the question is, Commissioner, I felt , kind of bad for Mr. Batome until we found out that the piece of property next to him is being offered for a million three. I guarantee that Mr. Batome if he were to sell his property, and he's sitting right here, for half of that, w he'd be a happy man. Wouldn't he? I'm sure he can find other suitable arrangements in the neighborhood that would rX;• make him very happy. I don't feel too bad for Mr. Batome. r¢ It's called supply and demand, and we're going to get into that in a moment. But J.L., while you were off, I asked if rZ there were any other questions. We're now into statements. R I hope we can come to a vote pretty soon. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, the only statement, it doesn't in feeling pertain to t".is particular number, I am concerned the fairness of equity, Mr. Cavanaugh has a legitimate �= possible problem and it should be addressed. I will do that, sir, under the proper number. It is not number 5• g1 Mayor Ferre: I will recognize you at that time. k y i 4R Mr. Carollo: Jack, approximately how much taxes is that Pro ertY paying now, approximately? y Mr. Luft: I honestly don't know what the assessed value -of the land is. It's certainly not as high as what it sold r^ for. It's probably quite low. Mr. Carollo: My next question would be how many times over _ g- whatever the assessed value is, maybe the owners can tell us or Mr. Traurig can tell us, how many times over do you think - this is going to be multiplied in taxes. - Mr. Luft: It would have to be twenty or thirty times. - Mr. Carollo: That's sounds like a very important point, that we're overlooking in at all this. There is no land left in the City of Miami for any more buildings. The only -- way that you could go up, what I'm trying to say, the only way you can grow is by going up. We are living in times that the majority of us, I think, agree that locally, state, - and nationally that we don't want to be taxed anymore by government, whether it is local, state, or national = government. Therefore, we have to find local solutions to _ is our tax problems. The only way that the City of Miami can increase substantially its tax base is by more growth. It - has to be controlled, but by more growth. Frankly there is �= another way. That is to come up with new ideas for property =_ that the City might own to have restaurants, what have you, marinas, that do bring additional revenues to the City of _= Miami. We talk about Miami being a major city, an _ international city, and it is. You go to other major cities I in the United States; that's when you really find our how I _ sl 130 January 24, 1985 i 4 l. young Miami really is. You go to just about any major city in the country, and they'll look at discussions like this, and public hearings like this and they wouldn't believe it. t" I'm not trying to say that we all are right in being r concerned, but most major cities around the country, 16, 15, 18 story building, whatever it is, is no concern. What I'm trying to say is that the City of Miami needs growth. The only way that we're going to be able to pay for the service of the protection of life and property in the City is going to be by growth. I'm not one of those who believes that no, you have to do it all the way around; just raise the taxes, raise the taxes, raise the garbage fee, and go through that solution for it. On the contrary, I think that we have constructive growth in the City. There will be a time and not too far off that instead of raising taxes, instead of raising garbage fees, you could lower taxes and lower garbage fees if not do away with them completely. But you s have to have a balance somewhere. While you have to protect a very distinct, special area like Coconut Grove, you have to have a balance in how you go about it. I'm sure that the Indians that were in this area didn't want any change either. If they would have had their way, you know that the White men would have still been in the thirteen original colonies. But nothing in life stays the same. What we have to do is find a balance. If you think that this whole complete area of South Bayshore Drive is going to stay the same even five years from now, ten years from now. There is no way because five, ten years from now the City of Miami instead of having a population of 400,000, is probably going to be a half a million, maybe more. You have to find room _ for those people. You have to find the monies to pay for the needs those people are going to require of government. The sole reason whyexist the we , protection of life and property. To me what is being proposed here, it's been scaled down tremendously from what they had originally, I z think to me that is a balance of being reasonable. If you go down South Bayshore Drive building by building, I frankly can't find anything there that can make you maybe more outraged as to what is proposed here. What is the difference of all the other buildings that you have up already? Is there that much of a difference between half a block from the Coconut Grove Hotel to what they are proposing there? I don't think so. I mean I guess the bottom line of what I'm saying is that I could understand if this were the first building going up and we're fighting not to have a single tall, large building in South Bayshore Drive, but that's not the case. We have other buildings that are just as large as this one being proposed. Frankly, I think that some of these buildings have been very positive for this area, not only for the tax structure of the City to make it more sound. The Grand Bay Hotel, what that has a brought to the City is just unreal. It's been just what Ted '' Gould place was to downtown Miami. I think this is where we have to draw the line. Yes , we have to protect the residential areas of the Grove, but Miami is going to change whether we like it or not. Whether it's this Commissioner or the next Commissioner or the one after, it's going to change. So, if it is going to change, let's try to at least *' have an impact into making it change in the best possible r more balanced way that we can. I assure you five years from two.` now, whatever Commissioner sitting here, they'll approve even more than is being proposed now after the cut off, because Miami will be changing and the City will be requiring not only the additional office space and additional apartments for _ p people to move into, but it will be requiring the additional tax base that we need and we're deriving from these buildings. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, my statement is simple. I think all the arguing has been done about the parking. There are sl 131 January 24, 1985 4% 4 k differences of opinion. You have to provide parking somewhere. There's no question about it. I took a very strong stand. I didn't ask it to be popular, but the stand was that there was to be no parking between Bayshore Drive `l r and the water which means it had to o somewhere. So as � g r far as the parking, I have no qualms in my mind that it is definitely a bonus. It is something that is worth while. t` It is something that will benefit the Grove. Let me talk to another subject. I just spoke with the Department, because �a I most of the comments that I heard here this evening were comments predicated on heights. The woman spoke of the very tall structures, one spoke of putting a downtown; one spoke of doing this. I think the woman who spoke from New York, I don't know what the hell she spoke about, but anyhow, I think we have to understand that what they can do today without any change whatsoever, what is that developer { entitled to predicated on existing zoning that's there? He can go more than 22 floors based on what is there. There is no height limit. It is on the light plane, the square 7 footage of the property and things of that nature. It would seem like to me that some people would be grateful that this " does in fact impose a cap. You might not agree with that cap, but if you don't agree with it, you should have disagreed with it prior to today, because what's existing he can go higher than that. I think that this is beneficial, it has established a cap of a maximum height. It establishes a bonus system for parking, which is sorely needed. I just personally think that it is to the benefit y, of this area that this matter be passed. Mayor Ferre: Further statements? Mr. Perez: Mr. Mayor, I don't think that we have too much ` to add but I think that one of the main difference between the City and the beach this time is the leadership that the { City of Miami has taken thinking of the future of this community. I'm very proud of the zoning exposure of this community for the last ten or fifteen years. I think that the change that we're going at this time would represent a lot in the future of this community. I don't have any doubt j to support again as I move in the first reading this project. I think this is an asset to this community and I don't have any inconvenience to move again. Mayor Ferre: All right, I will recognize you in a moment. In my statement I want to read the following Herald Editorial, which I don't usually do, but this is October 31st - it is called "Dinner Key Tradeoffs", and I want to put it into the record and I will read portions of it. "Balancing the public's interest with that of a private developer eager to make a buck is not an easy trick. Coconut Grove residents thus have a legitimate reason to worry as the politically unpredictable Miami City Commission considered a master plan for development of the Grove waterfront area that surrounds Dinner Key. Given the many variables and prior legal obligations, the Commission's options were limited. Grove residents and South Floridians determined to preserve the Grove's unique qualities should be satisfied. Their plan preserves their interest relatively well, provided that the City Commission insists on some concessions from prospective developers on both sides of South Bayshore Drive. The City is legally bound to provide additional parking for Monty Trainer's proposed festive retail centers. One aspect that makes the approval plan attractive is if it could meet Mr. Trainer's required parking needs without paving sl 132 January 24, 1985 'fi7a`S over existing green areas near the waterfront. Commissioners suggest offering zoning bonuses to N developers who provide public parking in their private projects near Dinner Key. Make no mistakes about it, this opens the way for developer Manuel Medina to obtain a zoning variance that he needs to build a massive office, ,., condominium and townhouse complex across Bayshore IF, Drive from Dinner Key. Still, Mr. Medina already has the zoning needed to build his office towers, so a tradeoff permits Monty Trainer's customers to park in his building and he receives variances to add townhomes, condominiums to his project would be acceptable, particularly if Mr. Medina provides political and financial assistance so that the City might be able to buy the Naval Reserve Center site from the Federal Government. The public would benefit substantially if this site, one of the Groves few remaining large tracts, could remain in the public property, otherwise it will be sold and densely developed. Mr. Medina owns the land on both side of the Naval Reserve Center. The green area between his proposed building would 1 enhance the value of his property. One last caveat - the approved plan calls for developers to bid on a full service marina on the site where the Merrill Steven's boat yard now stands. This is a '` mistake. The City should insist that a full service boat yard, as differential from a marina, remain there. It needs to maintain Dinner Key's r character and to serve a large boating community. Other than that, the Dinner Key Development Plan y:F is sound. To make it complete, the City should require that Mr. Medina keep his pledge to help in y the public acquisition of the Naval Reserve Center and it should insist that a full service boat yard be a part of any proposal on the Merrill Steven w.. site." I would like to point out, that since October 31st, you have heard no other word from the Miami Herald's editorial section. Yet, on Sunday they had an article written by Beth Dunlap. Beth Dunlap is an extremely astute and I think R, quite capable architectural and urban critic and I think she Is very right in some of the things - and on the record I r. would like to say I think that her observations about the glass mirror aspects of the proposed design is correct, but that is an architectural consideration, and I think Mr. �_. Bermello I don't know whether he is still here � yet, quite 1 ably answered that he had only had short time and that this did not fix the architectural considerations and I would hope both he and the owner would spend some time in pursuing what Mr. Bermello already admitted to Beth Dunlap, and I think it was a wise observation on her part, and a wise concession on Mr. Bermello's part. Secondly, Beth Dunlap talks about the massiveness of the parking garage. Well, `4k �Ay that certainly is not Mr. Medina's fault. That is something that the circumstances of the Dinner Key Master Plan and the Y'. process of trying to get more parking, has brought us to. I would also like to recommend to you, Mr. Bermello, and to Mr. Medina that you consider doing what is being done in x.: downtown in the Bayside Project that is designed by Ben Thompson of Boston for the Rouse Company, and that is, at Fyn the Rouse Company's insistence - they insisted that instead of a straight up and down wall for a parking garage, that there be some andulation so that there can be green spaces a; �x. or trees or something and that perhaps it be offset so that not all of the parking floors be exactly the same, even at the variance of one foot or the other -. maybe two feet, or five feet or whatever, so that it has some character as it sl 133 January 24p 1985 a 4W goes up to the forty or fifty foot height, which is not as much as the ninety foot height that downtown parking garage is going to have. Nevertheless, I think it is a valid �a4 observation of Beth Dunlap, and I would commend to you that you carefully consider some kind of a undulation there. Now, some few comments on some remarks that were made to us e at the presentations. Aspen, yes - Aspen is a beautiful city, and I have been to Aspen. It is totally different from Miami. Aspen is a small community on a mountain that used to be an abandoned - it was an abandoned mining town. It is not a major center of international trade and commerce. It does not have a major airport. 259000,000 people do not fly through Aspen as people fly through Miami. It is not a seaport where 20000,000 ... Aspen is what it is. It is a small little town. It is a ski resort. That was the past of Miami, but Miami is no longer gust a resort town. Chicago - yes, Chicago did a great job, Mr. Cole, in their waterfront. Do you know how great a job they did? f They built right up to the lake. Then you know what they had to do? They had to go fill the lake, that is how Chicago got its beautiful park waterfront. It wasn't because they planned it that way - it was because they built everything thPv could - and I mean monster buildings right to the water's edge, and then when they did that, they went out and they filled the lake. Most of that waterfront from beyond the Field Museum and from the anthropological museum all the way to the art museum and beyond that, the river is all filled land, and if you go beyond the bridge on the ' river and you go up to the north side, as it curves around that very, very expensive part of Chicago, that is all filled land! Now, to the question of Paris - oh yes, I y realize Li,aL Paris is a great beautiful, controlled city and w Mrs. Post has left, but to her I might point out - try to get an apartment in downtown Paris. You know, we complain about apartments selling for $100 a square foot, do you know what a good comparable apartment sells for in Paris, France today? ... $500 - $600 a square foot. Now, that means, f guess who lives in downtown Paris, nice beautiful sections?... rich people! Guess where the working people of Paris live? They live out in a place called La De Fonce. y Do you know what La De Fonce is? La De Fonce is solid wall- to-wall high rise buildings. They are the ugliest, most monstrous buildings that I have seen in any major city . anywhere in the world. Paris is beautiful for the rich - those who are able to live Elysee or down the Avenue Foch or n all those beautiful places where you buy apartments for $500 h a square foot but for those average q , g people who are middle s� �n class working people in Paris, the have got to take that train - they have got to go way the heck out of town and they have got to live in those monstrous, horrible high rise buildings. Nowhere in America do I know of any place as ugly as the high rise cities that surround Paris France. With regards to Seattle and San Diego, if you think Seattle hasn't changed, you haven't seen anything! Seattle is one of the most progressive and most dynamic and most changed downtowns of any major American cities. I spent two days there looking at it this summer out at the Democratic = convention and I was amazed! Variances? Listen, in Miami, ..;� we are pikers compared to what they do out there in Seattle. In Seattle it is unreal some of thins and how they are changing that city. San Diego, well, San Diego is probably the most changed city - in the last twenty years if there ; has been change in the cityanywhere in the west coast of the United States, the name of it is San Diego, California. Now, there was some statements that were made with regards to the parking need. I think we have clarified those. -_ There was a question about Merrill Stevens. I hope we have clarified those. There are two last things that I want to _ say. Somebody made the statement of elected officials and =_ our responsibility to represent the neighbors of the 81 134 January 24, 1985 4 neighborhood, and the importance of listening to people who live in the neighborhood. I guess I have been making this little speech for eleven years as Mayor and for three and k 'a one-half years as a member of the Commission before that. It is very simple. All of the votes that are controversial without any exception before this board is simply a balance between two things - the right of individuals who own homes in the neighborhood and the right of the community to have balanced and orderly growth. For those cities that have taken drastic positions like Boca Raton, or like Miami Beach are now paying the price. Miami Beach, with all due respects to my good friend Michael Fromberg and the members of the Commission over there, is a City doing a death's dance. Hopefully, they will be able to overcome that. I think they will. I think they are doing a great job. What happened in the past ten years shouldn't happen to anybody. What they did was, they got so concerned about growth, about the neighborhood approach, that they listened to the senior citizens who basically dominated those neighborhoods and out of respect to them, they stopped everything, and then they got into a mess. Now, you know who is to blame for what is a happening in Coconut Grove? Why, she is right here, and he is right here! Alice Wainwright, Dave Kennedy, Bob High, Randy Christmas, Abe Aronowitz, who is no longer with us, George Aronowitz who sits on the Federal Court. You know why? Because they had the wisdom to allow the Coconut Grove Bank to built. Alice, I don't know whether you voted for it or against it, or whether Dave voted for it or against it. I don't know who voted for it, but when that happened, the die was cast for the future. Now, those things happen in America. I will tell you what makes a decision as to whether you become an Atlanta or a Houston, and New York is not my model. I just use that because it is the most, in my opinion, exciting City in the world, bar none. In my opinion what happens in this whole process is something very simply called supply and demand and it sometimes works for ,y you, and sometimes works against you. I don't want you to �wmisunderstand and think I have become a Republican. I am not a Republican, and I am not going to become a Republican, but President Reagan has proven a point. Nobody understands how. There isn't an economist alive that can explain what A this is all about, but he said, (by God it has worked out!) he said "Let the supply and demand " pp y process work in America", and all this deregulation and all these things that we were all petrified of when we deregulated gas, and we deregulated the airlines and deregulated this and that, that wasn't going to work out - well, it has worked out! Now, President 44. Reagan's grandfather came from Ireland, and he came here as a victim of the harsh, and I think unbelievable policies of the British government and what they called the free r: enterprise system in those days, one hundred fifty years N... ago, and it was called then laissez-faire and it was laissez-fair - it wasn't the potato famine that got the Irish down on their knees. It was the government in England, in London, in Parliament who decided it was going to permit the marketplace to reign and that is what bankrupted Ireland and that is why half of those Irish people had to leave one hundred fifty years ago and many of your ancestors came because of that. Now, what is happening here and what is going to happen in a community like Miami, syry'' is unfortunately, in some cases unfortunate, and in others tR: it is called a free market place. As long as you have a free society, it is the free marketplace that determines direction of the community. I don't care how many zoning laws you have. I don't care what master plans Y p you impose. I dare you to name me one major progressive American City - fi one! ... that hasn't time and time and time again changed its zoning, its variances because unfortunately, that is the way a free, open society functions and what determines whether there is a ten story building or a two story sl 135 January 24, 1985 Ilk '_. t.. building is whether or not people are willing to pay for it, and the reason why apartments sell in Paris for $500 a square foot and $100 in Miami, if you are lucky enough to get it, is because of the demand in Paris for those apartments, and the reason why the demand is because there is so few of them, and it is just that simple, and therefore, I must again reiterate my position. I think that under the circumstances, after all of the give and take, after all of the negotiations, after all of the things the Planning Department did and everybody else did, and all these public hearings and what have you, I think we have come, in my opinion, to a fairly reasonable solution, and it is my intention, Mrs. Andrews, to vote once again, as I said before, with this motion. At this time, I think everybody has made their statements and I will be happy to recognize somebody to make a motion. Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, could I introduce some amendments for your consideration? Mayor Ferre: All right, what are the amendments? Mrs. Dougherty: The first amendment was introduced by Mr. Traurig that defines the activity centers and how to measure the 600 foot distance. Mayor Ferre: Does anybody have any objections to that as presented? Mrs. Dougherty: That's the one that was passed out and distributed to you by Mr. Traurig. Mayor Ferre: It defines the 600 feet and the activity centers and specifically spells out exhibition hall, auditorium, etc., etc. Mrs. Dougherty: The second one I'm going to read to you.... Mayor Ferre: Wait, let's go one at a time. Does anybody want to object to that? If not, is there a motion? Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. I have to ask a question. The question is that to be an amendment as adopted now? Mayor Ferre: Yes. Mrs. Dougherty: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Now, there are those of you who have properties and you want it to be 300 feet or you want it.... That's something that we're going to be dealing with at a future meeting. Mr. Plummer: That's the ones we sent back. Mayor Ferre: Come on! So we don't have any law suits on this that the judge says we didn't give people a chance to speak. The public meeting is closed, but this is on this specific subject. Mr. James Kolish: This is on this specific amendment. My name is James Kolish. I live at 3648 Mathesson Avenue, Coconut Grove. Yes, I do have an objection to the amendment because in the last time when the Commission met, is that the entire thing was read and it was said that as it stood at that time, it was defined as a major activity center. Now what I see is the amendment continues to whittle it down to a specific three buildings. I don't quite understand this. It seems also that we are also mentioning one aea°I ngrmorer han �n� p ��ettO fan dyOyu that we're sl 136 January 24, 1985 Mayor Ferre: Now, what's the answer to that? Mr. Luft: The answer is that the activity centers that the original ordinance defined are the same ones as Mr. Traurig amendment addresses except that he clarifies the language to specifically pin it to those on the map that have been defined in the Dinner Key study. Mayor Ferre: Do you accept it? Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, that doesn't mean that with any future amendments, that can't be amended. Mayor Ferre: That's correct. r Ms. Cohen: We made prior objections to Mr. Traurig's amendments. I would just incorporate them now at this point. Mayor Ferre: Let the record reflect that all those prior statements by Ms. Cohen in opposition are a part of this vote. Is there a motion? Mr. Carollo: There is a motion, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Second, further discussion on the amendment as presented, as clarified? Call the roll. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. Are we voting on the amendments or the motion? Mrs. Dougherty: The amendments. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Traurig's amendment that specifically deals with the 600 foot from the entry and defines what -an activity center is. Are we ready to vote? Call the roll. THEREUPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED THE ABOVE AMENDMENT WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ------------------------------------------------------------ NOTE FOR THE RECORD: See later amended ordinance No. 9953• -------------------------------- ---------------------------- Mayor Ferre: Lucia, what's the next amendment? Mrs. Dougherty: The next amendment is also a clarifying amendment. It was raised originally by Susan Cohen. I ran it past Mr. Traurig. He concurs in the amendment and so does the Planning Department. I'm going to read you the language; it will be the bottom of page 2, the last paragraph. al 137 January 24, 1985 y^ "For every non-residential parking space provided in excess of off-street parking requirements, an_ additional 200 square feet of floor area for any use." This is the added language. ,.-. "....permitted in the zoning district shall be permitted provided however...." So the language permitted in the underlying zoning district is just a clarification. It's not just any use, but it's only those uses permitted under the underlying zoning district. Mayor Ferre: All right, is that clear? Does anybody have any objections to that? Let the record reflect that Mrs. Cohen's objections are made a part of this motion. Mr. Plummer: No, no, no, you are objecting to this? It was her suggestion. x Mrs. Dougherty: She's objecting to the process, I imagine. Ms. Cohen: Yes, it's not this specific amendment, but I - have raised notice, issues, and other procedural arguments �.� and other arguments. Mayor Ferre: So as to avoid her making that statement over and over again, I am just saying the previous statement made by Mrs. Cohen, which she asked be made a part of the record, is hereby made part of the record on this vote also. Are 4 drr w there any other problems on this? If not, is there a \ motion? I assume the administration accepts this, Jack. Mr. Luft: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Move it. Mayor Ferre: Plummer moves. Is there a second? Mr. C arollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: Dawkins seconds. Further discussion, call the roll. - THEREUPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED, THE PRECEDING AMENDMENT WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo • Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. . ------------------------------------------------------------ NOTE FOR THE RECORD: See later amended ordinance No. 9953• ------------------------------------------------------------ Mrs. Dougherty: The next amendment was as a result of the gentleman who spoke earlier and you wanted some clarification in the ordinance about the required parking would not be considered as part of the excess parking. So, at the bottom of "e", I have inserted the language and worked it out: "Required parking shall be provided for all bonus floor area and shall not be considered as excess parking under the provisions of this ordinance." �_�� - sl 138 January 240 1985 Mayor Ferre: Is that acceptable to the administration? Mr. Luft: Yes, it is. Mr. Plummer: Move it. Mayor Ferre: Wait a minute. Any of the attorneys, other than Mrs. Cohen's objection...? Ms. Cohen: Would you please read that again? Mrs. Dougherty: "Required parking shall be provided for all bonus floor area and shall not be considered as excess parking under the provisions of this section." Ms. Cohen: We're going to preserve our objection to this. We don't agree to any of this. Mayor Ferre: All right, anybody else? If not, who moves, Plummer? Mr. Caroiio: Second. Mayor Ferre: Seconded by Carollo. Further discussion? Call the roll. THEREUPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED THE PRECEDING AMENDMENT WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer; Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ------------------------------------------------------------ NOTE FOR THE RECORD: See later amended ordinance No. 9953- ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: Next? Mrs. Dougherty: That's all. Mayor Ferre: Is that it? All right, Dan's doesn't come up on 5. Mr. Plummer: No. Mayor Ferre: It comes later. Is there further amendments or statements on 5? If not, I'm open for a motion on the main ordinance. Mr. Carollo: So move. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? sl 139 January 24, 1985 AN Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll. r AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF ORDINANCE N0. 95009 THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY tM, AMENDING ARTICLE 15 ENTITLED "SPI: SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICTS," BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 15170 ENTITLED "SPI-17: SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT," AND ASSOCIATED NEW SECTIONS 15171 THRU 15173; PROVIDING FOR INTENT, EFFECT, AND CLASS C SPECIAL PERMIT REQUIREMENT; AND CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of 1 January 10, 1985, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Perez, the Ordinance was ={-n thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9953 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 29 DISCUSSION & TEMPORARY DEFERRAL: GRAPELAND BLVD, TIGERTAIL, AVIATION PL.DEP. REQ.CB.ZN.CL RG-2/5 TO RO- 3/6 ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: The next item is number 6. This is this whole series. Mr. Plummer: But you're going to have to open it up for public hearing. Mayor Ferre: All right, does anybody wish to speak? No, the public hearing was on all these items. I would be happy to recognize anybody who wants to make any additional statements. Ms. Cohen, do you want to put your...? Ms. Cohen: You know I have to do this for the record, Susan Cohen. I incorporate all of our objections on items 6 and 7 and 8 as you raise them. Mayor Ferre: All right, are you ready to...yes, sir. Is there a motion on 6? al 140 January 24, 1985 Mr. Plummer: Mr. Luft, where do we address, where is it proper to address the Cavanaugh problem? Mrs. Dougherty: This one. Mr. Luft: This, number 6, changes the zoning form RG-2/5 - along Tigertail to RO-3/6. Number 8 applies the SPI-17, which then puts the buffer in. By exempting Mr. Cavanaugh from both 6 and 8, he is left, as he requested, as RG-2/5 today. Mayor Ferre: Plummer so moves. Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Mr. Plummer: Yes, I still am concerned, Mr. Luft, about those properties which run all the way then to Bayshore Drive, having a buffer. So where do I address that? Mr. Luft: It is the intention of this department, as per the Bayshore Drive study to visit the issue of the transition between the RO-3/6 district and the estate areas to the east. We will be meeting with residents of that area within a week to discuss their feelings about it. Mr. Plummer: You are going to address the problem. Mr. Luft: We will address the problem. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion to the amendment to item 6 to exempt the piece of property that Mr. Cavanaugh has described? Call the roll on the amendment. THEREUPON MOTION DULY MADE AND SECONDED THE PRECEDING AMENDMENT WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. - Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ------------------------------------------------------------ NOTE FOR THE RECORD: See later amended ordinance No. 9956. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: Now on the main ordinance, is there a motion on 6? Mr. Carollo: Move. Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: It's been moved and seconded. Further discussion on 6? Read the ordinance. Mrs. Dougherty: (STARTS TO READ ORDINANCE) Excuse me, Jack, doesn't that have to be amended? Mr. Luft: This is number 8? Mrs. Dougherty: has to be.... This is number 6, this legal description sl 141 January 24p 1985 a" Mr. Luft: That legal description has to be amended and we would like for Mr. Cavanaugh a legal description so that we can make the amendment in accordance.with that. �4 _ Mrs. Dougherty: It's straight down Aviation Avenue and Tigertail Avenue. - Mr. Luft: Instead of 100 feet east of.... Mrs. Dougherty: It's on Aviation Avenue and Tigertail per plans on file in the Department of Planning and Zoning Boards Administration to RG-2/5 general residential to R0- _ 3/6 residential office, by making findings and making all the necessary changes on pages 45 and 46 of Zoning Atlas, containing a repealer provision and a severability clause. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Traurig, you don't have any legal problems with this? Mr. Traurig: No, we don't have any problem with your: M deleting that property east of Aviation Avenue. ' Mayor Ferre: No, that's not the question, but O.K. Mr. Traurig: I would like to say that so that the record will be clear that there has been testimony given at this K hearing to support this action on item number 6. We anticipate that all of the presentations previously made by the Planning Department, especially the Planning Fact Sheets, are incorporated in this so that the record on =Y }k appeal will be.... Mayor Ferre: Mr. Traurig; I don't mean to practice law even though I am a bonna fide member of the Dinner Key Bar Association, but I just want to make sure because I remember that on other occasions when we have not had an ordinance properly in writing and before us and copies available to the public, that on that technicality, when it goes through a court of law, sometimes people that are opposing and are trying to knock out on a legal technicality, I don't mean to in any way belittle the wonderful work that Janet Cooper does, but are you sure that you don't want this typed out writing and available to members of the public? Mr. Traurig: May we ask the City Attorney to answer? But it may very well be that on this item 6, that legal description can be prepared between now and the end of this meeting. Mayor Ferre: I think that is a wise counsel. Would you have somebody put that in writing and typing and we will then vote on it at that time. Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, we will do it by interlineation and pass it out. Mayor Ferre: Would you do that so that it's in writing and before us and members of the public? We will then come back to item 6 and redo it once we have it that way. Mr. .Traurig: I'm going to apply for the Dinner Key Bar Association. It obviously is a qualified association. Mayor Ferre: You got to learn something, if you're around here long enough. Not much, but a little bit. Mrs. Hirai: Mr. Mayor, we need to call the roll on 6. sl 142 January 24, 1985 1= L` a { s Mayor Ferre: No, what we're doing is we'll come back to 6 ?? and then it will have to be reread and all that. :.. ----------------- ---- -------------------------------------- f 30 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ATLAS CHANGE BY REMOVING SPI-3 -: COCONUT GROVE MAJOR STREETS OVERLAY DISTRICT ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: We are now on 7. Is that right? This is necessary to remove portion of existing overlay currently situated on proposed overlay area. Mr. Luft: There is an existing overlay there today. Mayor Ferre: This is a legal technicality, to clean it up. 1 Mr. Luft: We need to remove that, so that we can apply the SPI-17 and there will not be a conflict. r, Mayor Ferre: Does anyone wish to speak on that? Mr. Joseph Calay: Being a junior member of the Dinner Key Bar Association.... Mayor Ferre: I certify that. r^ Mr. Calay: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Joseph Calay, 2985 Aviation Avenue. The thought occurred to me earlier today t.h?* in the event that SPI-17 is successfully j challenged in court, where would the City be if they approved the removal of SPI-13? Would we be into the open zoning area? Do you understand my point? Mrs. Dougherty: Normally, the zoning ordinances have a provision if it's unzoned, it's zoned single-family. But I imagine the court, any court that would declare it unconstitutional would make some provision for that. Of course, we could rezone it again. Mayor Ferre: It would revert back. Mr. Calay: I'm sorry, I didn't understand. Mrs. Dougherty: It usually reverts back to single-family zoning, if there is no zoning at all, but I imagine the court would make a provision for that and the City Commission would then have the provision to rezone it. Mr. Calay: Or would it be more possibly simpler to make the provision that the removal of SPI-13 contingent upon SPI-17 flying? Mayor Ferre: That's a good suggestion. Is that valid? In other words, if SPI-17 is challenged and gets knocked out of court, it would revert back to this. Mr. Luft: SPI-3, which is what we are removing, is only height controls and design review. It is not a zoning district, per se, full and complete. Mayor Ferre: So what you're saying is if we lose it, we haven't lost much. Mr. Luft: If we lose it, we just have an apartment district with no height controls on it. Mayor Ferre: That's what Joe was worried about. al 143 January 240 1985 Mr. Luft: But it's not a non -zoned piece of property. It's still zoned. Mayor Ferre: Is there a motion on 7? Mr. Luft: I wanted to point out that instead, we will want to leave SPI-3 on Mr. Cavanaugh's property with the height control as it is today. We don't want to remove that. Mayor Ferre: Are we ready to vote on 7? Is there a motion? Mr. Perez: Move. Mayor Ferre: Moved by Perez. a second? Mr. Carollo: Second. Is there a second? Is there Mayor Ferre: Second by Carollo on 7. Read the ordinance. Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THEE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY REMOVING THE SPI-3: COCONUT GROVE MAJOR STREETS OVERLAY DISTRICT FROM THE AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY MARY STREET, A LINE RANGING FROM APPROXIMATELY 100 TO 200 FEET SOUTH OF AN PARALLEL TO TIGERTAIL AVENUE, AVIATION AVENUE, AND TIGERTAIL AVENUE, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGES NO. 45-46 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of January 10, 1985, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Perez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9954 The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. sl 144 January 24, 1985 AASS i 1 .... ' 4 i 6 ------------------------------ i----------------------------- 31 ADOPT IN PRINCIPLE: DINNER KEY MASTER PLAN - PUBLIC 1 PROPERTY SEWARD S. BAYSNORE DRIVE, PEACOCK PARK; KENNEDY PARK .. - -- - -------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Ferre: We are now on item 11. Is there anybody else who wants to speak on 11, other than what's been said so far? It's the Dinner Key Master Plan. Are we ready now to vote on the Dinner Key Master Plan? Mr. Luft: Mr. Mayor, at the last meeting in December, December 20th you deferred this item so that we could insert language at the request of Joanne Holshouser to clarify some of the amendments that were passed when this was adopted in October. We have for you here, the amendments are the same as we presented last time, but it has clarifying language in it. We have met with her and she had agreed upon, and we are giving this to you so that it can be adopted in that form. 1 Mayor Ferre: Does anybody have any objections that they wish to discuss at this.... 1 Ms. Nancy Brown: Mr. Mayor, I'm speaking for Marilyn Reed, s who is unable to be here this evening because she is in Tallahassee on City business with the Growth Management Plan. Tell me if this is an appropriate time to repeat some things that she said perhaps to the Planning crew. Mayor Ferre: Absolutely; yes, ma'am. Ms. Brown: Nancy Brown, I'm speaking for Marilyn Reed' Friends of the Everglades. She is in Tallahassee. She thought it important enough an issue to ask me to speak for her. So I'm going to try to make this brief, but it is a a large plan. Generally, this master plan provides an exciting opportunity for the public to enjoy the bay, however, there are several contradictions in the plan and j� some proposals that are questionably permissible. The contradictions are the proposals for a berm and a heavy landscaping at Ken Meyers Park for thousands of people whose only ability to see the bay is when they drive by going on jt their way to work or to other places. Their view of the bay : is limited to a view from cars and so the so-called buffer Als amounts to a Chinese wall and seems to be a contradiction. Mayor Ferre: Let me just on the record say that I subscribe to that idea in that particular area. I think there should be a clear, uninterrupted view of the bay. We shouldn't make the mistake that we did in Bicentennial Park ten, twelve years ago. Mr. Luft: This was only for the width of the sailing club, where there is a fence and boat storage. We were not going to block any of the berm was not anywhere but where that boat storage area was. Ms. Brown: I have trouble seeing the cut -down version of the drawings; so if I make a mistake, just disregard that. The proposal for the huge parking structures between Bayshore and the bay accomplishes the same thing, a closing off the bay, the boats, the sky from public view. Mayor Ferre: That's been clarified, Nancy. sl 145 January 24, 1985 AN 11 Ms. Brown: All right, my point is that even though it is behind what are presently some large buildings, those buildings are old hangers and may disappear. Mayor Ferre: Nancy may I interrupt you for a moment? Joanne Holshouser, this is your item we're on. These are your amendments. I think you might want to be in here. Go ahead. Ms. Brown: One suspects that perhaps all of this increase parking is to be used as a bargaining chip on future private development. I see that's happened. The large number of surface parking lots proposed between Bayshore and the bay are inappropriate uses of public bayfront. It's unfortunate, but there's only so much land. You just can't put all in that relatively small public area, so you have to put the priority on what you have this bay for and that's for viewing and for uses that are not strictly parking. You have to look at the Dinner Key Master Plan as public use of a public amenity, and the water dependency should be the key there. Another performing art center, again we're talking contradiction, another performing art center, when the Knight Center is presently in trouble, seems like an unsound proposal that is indeed inducing too much activity into a very small area. The second concern is for proposals that may not be able to be permitted under existing state or federal law. The Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act of 174 whether anyone likes it or not, is the criteria by which all bay structures and dredging and filling are determined. That act says that there will be no structures other than marinas, docks, and piers in the water, period. The act goes on to say what can be put on top of the marinas, docks, and piers. It's a very limited use that can be made of the docking areas. First of all, the over water structure on Peacock Park, no matter how historic it is, does violate the prohibition against non - water dependent structures. Likewise, what appears to be a over water structure at the Seminole Dock is not permissible. I believe there is already a permitted activity at the Seminole Dock. I don't know what use this is supposed to be. The excessive dock lengths depicted behind Monty Trainer's, an existing dock had to be cut off short because it was illegally put there and had to be shortened and others have not been permitted. The lengths that are shown in the drawings would extend into the navigation channel, if they were looked at a little more closely. The over water walkways in Kennedy Park have been modified by an agreement with Dade County and now are completely upland and do not extend into the water. Fourthly, the oversized so-called boat dock pier...I don't know how that defines out, had better be decided, the use of that had better be decided. The Aquatic Preserve Act, as I said, permits docks and piers; but clearly specifies the uses that can be put on those docks and piers. Such a large size is clearly not needed for boating use, but it does clearly invite sudh prohibitive uses as restaurants or other lease concessions. So, I think, the decision on the use of that pier and the size of it may cause trouble when it comes time to be permitted. I appreciate your attention to these concerns. Thank you so much. al 146 January 24, 1985 'lr e �= u wd s tiff Mayor Ferre: Thank you very much, Nancy, Joanne. Those of -„ you who wish to be speakers, I would very grateful if you would step up quickly as soon as the one speaker leaves, so that we can move along. We're now beyond 8:30. Ms. Joanne Holshouser: Joanne Holshouser, 4230 Ingraham Highway, Coconut Grove. I'm president of the Coconut Grove Civic Club. Mr. Luft and I did have a very nice meeting last week about this, and basically this is what we talked about. I would like to reiterate on the public record that one of the things that we discussed -it says it here, but I want to reiterate it- is that the baywalk in Peacock Park is =' exactly that. It is a baywalk; it is not any sort of roadway for vehicles to use in any manner. I want to make it very clear. We will be very upset if anybody comes back and says but that was in the Dinner Key Plan, because it was not. We talked about the park. We talked about the °`- cooperative efforts for the arcade. I'm sorry that I wasn't here when the item came up about the glass house. What we'd like in the glass house, of course, is a large recreational program and I'm willing, at the request of Mr. Cisero, a letter talked about the Coconut Grove Civic Club, but I have to tell you on the record that on Monday night we took a vote on that and it was unanimous that we don't want to see any use of that glasshouse other than park and recreation use. I believe that Mr. Luft has addressed everything in this. We were not pleased with the Kennedy Park deal, but that was it. I would like to mention, however, that it did include the RFP. I have been unsuccessful in getting anything at all about the RFP from Mr. Rodriguez or from the w - Planning and Zoning Board. I do think that there is a time, this has been long enough. The public really should have some idea about what's going on with the RFP. I just say ' that for the record. But I do appreciate that time you extended us so that I could talk to Mr. Luft. I think we have worked out something. The other thing is I hope the sailing club people will be happy that the McFarlane Road thing has been worked out very nicely and I want to thank you all for extending us the time. r. Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: Mr. Mayor, in relation to the s - statement made by Ms. Holshouser, the reason we haven't r Yn: given her anything on the RFP is because we're not working 4y s on the RFP. The Planning Department is not working on the 3 }s .. RFP. Ms. Holshouser: Well, nevertheless, when the Planning Department's item is the Planning Department's item and a citizen requests it, I think the citizen should be given that. I think that is under the laws of the State of Florida. I just want to say that again; we should have been given it. Mr. Plummer: He said there's nothing to give you. Mayor Ferre: Well, you know, see, as soon as there's something for the public record, then you can have it. Otherwise, join me in my law suit with the Miami Herald and watch and see what develops. Ms. Holshouser: No, what I'm saying is we want to know as soon as we've got some preliminary plans. We don't want it to happen the way the Dinner Key Master Plan happened, Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Yes, O.K. Ms. Holshouser: We don't know about it until it's finished, O.K. Thank you very much. sl 147 January, 249 1965 1 Mayor Ferre: As soon as they have something preliminary to PA A, share with you, they will. But right now, it's not a matter of public record until they are concluded. Then we go through the public process. I hope so. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, Mr. Luft.... 1 Mayor Ferre: I just have one question for you. Is this gneeeh rehearsed or is this an extemporaneous speech? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, what made you think that anything I said heretofore was rehearsed? Mayor Ferre: I tell you, in thirteen years I haven't heard a better speech with better timing than the one you made the _ last time you were up. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You saw "My Fair Lady." Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, Mr. Luft, we are requesting only some clarification with respect to the amended plan. With the questions regarding these clarifications, I would like the in-house engineer from Merrill Stevens, Ron Falkie, to address these questions, if I may. 3 Mr. Ronald Falkie: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, my name is Ronald Falkie, 2640 South Bayshore Drive. I am the director r._.. of special projects for the Merrill Stevens dry dock company. I'm here this evening to ask the Planning L Department for several clarifications between the Dinner Key Master Plan amendments and the Dinner Key Master Plan Study }� documents. For the record number one the illustrated site plan of the amendment sheet three, indicate the small hanger on the Merril Stevens leasehold have been removed from the bid site. Is this the case? Mr. Luft: No, sir, we are simply saying as on that amended plan that the current boundaries of the Merrill Stevens lease be the boundaries of an RFP and that whatever is proposed, be it keeping that boat shed or removing it, be the decision of the proposers. Mr. Falkie: Thank you. Number two, again in the illustrated site plan, it indicates retail shopping in the form of new structures drawn around the perimeter of the large hanger. Is this your concept. Mr. Luft: The illustrated site plan does not show commercial shopping. It shows the possibility of services related to a boat yard, such as a ship's chandler yacht broker, that sort of thing. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but let's clear the record there, Mr. Falkie. I think the Mayor and myself at least two who spoke that those sheds that are presently, the successful bidder will show us how they will disappear. Let's not have any misunderstanding. Mr. Falkie: That is our concept also, but it's not again of the plan. Three, section 7 party of the original master plan relocates the north boundary of the Merrill Stevens leasehold 150 feet to the south. Again, you've explained that is not the conditions. Number four, the same section, envisions the specific development at 15,000 square feet of special retail shopping on the Merrill Stevens leaseholds. Again, this is a condition of the bidding. How much or smaller.... Mr. Luft: This would be up to the proposer to provide in concert with the Commission's request for innovative sl 148 January 24, 1 AN ON r » supportive services. However the Commission would define that and view that in the context for proposal is strictly their decision. This Dinner Key Master Plan simply suggests that those would be an option. Mr. Falkie: Thank you very much, Mr. Luft. My purpose in asking these points of clarification is that to make certain x that we have interpreted the amendments correctly. Thank `. you very much. Mr. Don Deresz: Don Deresz, 1852 S.W. 24th Street, Miami, just for the record, when the landscape architect drew up a survey of the Dinner Key Master Plan, he identified some trees along S. Bayshore Drive right on Kennedy Park there as Australian pine trees, which they are not. He admitted that he was wrong. They are mangrove trees. Considering all this development that's occurring in the Coconut Grove area, if there's any future talk of widening S. Bayshore Drive, that would be an impossibility because these mangrove trees are protected by state law. I think you gentlemen, when you are considering developing the Coconut Grove area, you should.... Mayor Terre: wait, wait, who says we're going to widen? If I did that, Rose Gordon would be after me. She's here. She'd never forgive me. Listen, I don't want any more problems with Rose Gordon. Mr. Deresz: I respect that, Mr. Mayor, but then what I wonder is by increasing the density of the Coconut Grove a area, how are people going to get to and from the area itself? Mr. Plummer: 27th Avenue, it's easy 27th Avenue is proposed $` to be widened; that will be the main entrance to the Grove. y We're going to seal off Mercy Hospital. Mr. Deresz: Thank you; Mr. Commissioner; for the record, I want to make a point about those trees. Y.: Mr. Barry Feldman: Ready to hear someone else? This is Barry Feldman, 2539 South Bayshore. _ Mayor Ferre: You have one minute and seventy-four seconds, Mr. Feldman. Mr. Feldman: Thank you for your generosity. I would just like to say that I've been very interested in the Dinner Key Master Plan as well as the other things happening in the neighborhood. I requested from the Planning Department during the last two weeks copies of the amended plan, but I never received one, although I have been told that I would get one. There we are for the record. Also I would like to say that these amendments have not be discussed during the last two months at the public meetings that I've been attending. Thank you. Ms. Holshouser: I'm sorry, Joanne Holshouser, could I put one more comment on the record? Jack and I did not discuss the parking decks surrounding the Dinner Key Exhibition Center that the alternate plan suggested. There's a mention of it in here about it would never be... Don't say never, because I still really hope that you all will see the wisdom eventually. Mayor Ferre: Never say never; I heard that before. Ms. Holshouser: Please; please, will you? I think it will be a shame for you all tonight to out off any possibility of putting some parking around that very nicely done. I want sl 149 January 24, 1965 to assure this gentleman that nobody's going to protect those mangroves more than we people in Coconut Grove. Mayor Ferret Thank you. We have the distinguished Arthur F Teale, former director of the Urban Mass Transit Authority of the United States of America. Mr. Teale, welcome to your home. We hope that coat you are carrying around means that you've been traveling and not that you are sending any messages about our weather to the Chamber of Commerce. Do we have any other speakers on item 11, so that we can vote on it. Mr. Plummer: The only question I have, Mr. Mayor, in the = original plan there was an amendment that spoke to the west or north of the glass house. Is that incorporated? I don't see that in the amendment. Mr. Luft: Yes it is. y Ms. Holshouser: Yes it is incorporated, it's in there. Mr. Plummer: In this one? Ms. Holshouser: Yes, Jack and I discussed it exhaustively. Mr. Plummer: Must have read too quickly. Ms. Holshouser: I can tell you that we're going to have the i cooperation of several developers at least and several groups. .._. Mr. Pluwwci: Joanne, I'm not getting in an argument about the glass house itself. '� <w Ms. Holshouser: No the plaza, that's what I'm telling you. Mayor Ferre: Are we ready to vote? Mr. Carollo: Move. Mayor Ferret Moved by Carollo. Is there a second? Mr. Plummer: The overall amendment? Mayor Ferret Yes, no, the overall ordinance. Mr. Plummer: Second. Mayor Ferret Second by Plummer. It is a Dinner Key Master Plan resolution, so it doesn't have to be read. Are we ready to vote now on item 11 before us? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I just want to add one comment, because it keeps recurring and recurring. I will keep my travel log down to just the Dinner Key area. Please, don't anyone go away from here this evening... This is a master plan. It is not set in concrete. There will be, I am sure, changes made to this plan in the future; some you will agree with and some you won't. But I don't want to have a year from today come back to this Commission and say "You put in a master plan and by Godl that was in concrete and that was law." Mayor Ferret Commissioner, I want you to know that the proper wording is chiseled in stone. Senator Plummer would know that. Mr. Plummer: Sir, in my business when you chisel things in stone it has a different meaning. (LAUGHTER) All I'm saying is that you know, these are plans that have to be sl 150 January 24, 1985 ' workable plans. They are a blueprintf hopefully, to do something good, but they can be changed. I wanted to add that into the record, you know. People came here tonight on the other issue and said, "Well, the comprehensive plan said this." As if the comprehensive plan was never to be changed. Well, it is to be changed. Sometimes you agree t{ and sometimes you don't. Mayor Ferre: Are we ready to vote now? Mr. Plummer: Sir, I moved it. Mayor Ferre: It's been moved and seconded. Further discussion? Call the roll on 11. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: x RESOLUTION NO. 85-70 A RESOLUTION APPROVING, IN PRINCIPLE, THE DINNER KEY MASTER PLAN, 19$4, AS r AMENDED DECEMBER, 19849 PROVIDING FOR RESTRICTIONS ON PARKING GARAGES, AN AMENDED DESIGN OF McFARLANE ROAD, INCLUSION OF A PUBLIC PLAZA ADJACENT TO THE PEACOCK PARK COMMUNITY CENTER, AND LEASE OF THE MERRILL STEVENS SITE FOR A MARINA, FULL SERVICE BOAT YARD, AND SUPPORTIVE INNOVATIVE USES; PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMISSION '= Ar ROVAL, PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS. (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 Demetrio Perez, Jr. - Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 32 ALLOCATE $79738 LATIN ORANGE FESTIVAL PRESENTATION OF "FIESTA BY THE BAY" HELD DECEMBER 31, 1984 Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, can I get off the hook and get this resolution while she's doing whatever she has to, a resolution allocating $7,738 from Special Programs and Accounts in support of the Latin Orange Festival Council's presentation "Fiesta by the Bay." Mayor Ferre: Moved by Plummer. Mr. Carollo: Second. Mr. Plummer: This is one of the ones that was approved. sl 151 January 24, 1985 40*\ Afth, Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll. S The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 85-71 A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING $7038 FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS IN SUPPORT OF THE LATIN ORANGE FESTIVAL COUNCIL'S PRESENTATION OF THE "FIESTA BY THE BAY" PROJECT HELD DECEMBER 319 1984. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) ,u Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. 33 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ART. 5 PLANNED DEV (PD) DISTRICTS ART. 159 ART 20, ART. 219 ART. 259 ART. 30 ART. 31; ART. 36 Mr. Carollo: Mr. Mayor, briefly, if we could move 19 on second reading. If they don't get it approved tonight, -it has to go back for a whole year. It's the one on not having to abide by the 50 foot frontage for housing. Mr. Plummer: What number, Joe? Mr. Carollo: 19. Mr. Dawkins: Move it. I mean, did you move it? Mr. Carollo: Yes, I moved it. Mayor Ferre: Wait, this is a 5:00 P.M. on second hearing. Did anybody want to speak on that? Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Is anybody an objector? Legally we need to do it that way. Mrs. Dougherty: What is he talking about now? Mr. Rodriguez: Number 19 is part of the Blue Ribbon Committee, and you shouldn't approve it completely tonight, but most of it except for three sections, as per discussion this morning, 19. Mr. Dawkins: What does that have to do with the Blue Ribbon Committee report I have in my hand? 31. 152 January 24, 1985 "N ..,b�l Mr. Rodriguez: The Blue Ribbon Committee that you appointed discussed item 19 among other items. Mayor Ferre: Do you have any objections to our passing 19? Mr. Rodriguez: You can pass 19 without three items in 19. I can identify them, if you want to. Mr. Carollo: We'll give you a proclamation so you'll feel good, Sergio, but if this is not approved now you know it's going to take a year. It's not fair to these people. These are the little guys of the City of Miami. Mayor Ferre: I feel that we should approve the whole thing or not approve any of it, because I think otherwise what we're going to do is kill Overtown and all the work that Art Teale and all of us have been doing. Mr. Dawkins: Joe moved it. I second. I call the question. Mr. Rodriguez: 19 is not Overtown. 19 is Amendment F. Mayor Ft-rre: Well, it's not properly before us. Mr. Carollo: Motion and a second, Commissioner calls the question. Mayor Ferre: Wait, wait, Miller, that item is not properly before us. We're just discussing it. Mr. Dawkins: Why? Mayor Ferre: Because it's not in the sequence of events. Mr. Dawkins: When have we followed the agenda in sequence since I've been here, the whole four years I've been here. Mayor Ferre: Are we going to do any harm to Overtown by doing this? Mr. Carollo: None whatsoever. Mr. Rodriguez: It's separate. The only thing that you would be doing if you approve 19 is that you would not be following the recommendation from your Blue Ribbon Committee that asked you to remove two items from 19. Mayor Ferre: Would you tell us what items we're removing f rom 19? Mr. Rodriguez: You will be removing item number 10, which deals with major use special permits. You should be removing item number 14. Mayor Ferre: Does anybody object to that? Mr. Plummer: What was 14? Mayor Ferre: Does the maker of the motion...? Mr. Rodriguez: Item 14 deals with residential offices. These two items are going to be considered by the Blue Ribbon Committee on February. Mr. Dawkins: Residential offices where? Mr. Rodriguez: It's an amendment to the zoning ordinance dealing with residential office district. The Blue Ribbon Committee had not reviewed this item, yes. sl 153 January 24, 1985 Mr. Dawkins: Let me understand one thing. The residential and commercial... what you are saying now this deals with? Mr. Rodriguez: Residential office districts anywhere in the City. Mr. Dawkins: I want it understood clearly here and now, I've said from day one and I'm going to say it as long as I sit here, anything you do east of the rapid transit line, which I call my dividing line, you must do west of the dividing line. Mr. Plummer: Woa! Didn't you make a motion that adopted the policy of this Commission that all activity shall start on the west and work east? Mr. Dawkins: Yes, I did. Mr. Plummer: You're speaking of Overtown. Mr. Dawkins: That's right. Mr. Plummer: But that has nothing to do with this. Mr. Dawkins: Yes, it does, you see, what they are going to do is start with Biscayne Boulevard... wait, let me tell you what I know. See, if I don't say it, nobody knows I'm thinking it. I don't want you to start anywhere over here on Biscayne Boulevard, and then when commercial and then as you get on the other side of the railroad track where the Black people own the land, now you want to go commercial. I want the same thing that you put over here, over there. If you are going to put a Brickell Avenue like rating anywhere on Brickell Avenue and Park West, I want it east of the expressway. That's all I'm telling you. I didn't just start saying that. I've been saying that ever since I sat here. Mr. Rodriguez: If I may, this has nothing to do with that. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute. I have to address something which was in the Blue Ribbon Committee. I got to address that class C permit, because I want to tell you a lot of people are getting hood -winked on that thing. Now is that an amendment to this, Madam City Attorney, that the 15 days of appeal does not start running until after public notice? The way it stands today, the Planning Director can play God and make a denial without publication and nobody knows about it and fifteen days later it is signed and the death warrant is issued. What I'm saying is.... Mr. Dawkins: We, the Commissioners, had nothing to do with it. Ms. Janet Cooper: Mr. Plummer, the Blue Ribbon Committee is aware of that. One of their recommendations...we couldn't make the recommendation on the proposed amendment because that wasn't a portion of it, but one of the comments from the Blue Ribbon Committee is that this procedure is really deficient for the best interest of the City. Mr. Plummer: But it's easily corrected. Ms. Cooper: We need to correct it. Mr. Plummer: It's easy. Ms. Cooper: Unfortunately within what has already been proposed and gone to the PAB and been here for first ---- ----- - - - 154 January 24, 1985 reading, we can't correct it. But we would be happy to work as a committee. ..said they would be happy to review it and work on it and come up with a fair solution. Mr. Plummer: Yes, but if I hold this hostage. • Mr. Dawkins: But wasn't that the charge we gave the Blue Ribbon Committee? Ms. Cooper: Nov sir. Mr. Dawkins: What was the charge we gave the Blue Ribbon Committee? Ms. Cooper: To review the proposed amendments that were specifically delineated and that was not one of them. There was a very minor proposed change to one small section of that procedure, but it did not deal with that issue. We did deal with that issue in discussion. In discussion we came to the recommendation that needs to be corrected. The sentiment is there. Mayor Ferre: Where is Mr. Freixas in all of this? He was hanging arouna nere waiting. Ms. Cooper: That's in the recommendation in the green sheets that you received. Mr. Rodriguez: If I am allowed to present it, maybe I can clarify it. In relation to item 19, the Blue Ribbon Committee... you have 15 items that the Blue Ribbon Committee • addressed. Of those 15, the committee wanted to keep on reviewing two of the items. One is item number 10 and the other is item number 14. In addition to that, they made - some corrections in relation to item number 8, item number 9, and item number 11. They are in a memo that you have in front of you dated January 23rd, in green. Mayor Ferre: I pass the gavel to the Vice Chair and move that those amendments that have been read into the record by Sergio Rodriguez be eliminated from item 19, as recommended by the Blue Ribbon Committee. Mr. Plummer: You can't do it. Mayor Ferre: Why? Mr. Plummer: Because part of the amendments are not now incorporated in 19, so you can't remove them. Mr. Carollo: Not only that, but you had a motion and a second already. Mr. Plummer: No, excuse me, Joe, the Mayor is talking about those items brought forth by the Blue Ribbon Committee that needed change be removed from the ordinance. That one relating to the Class C permit is not in 19. Am I correct? Ms. Cooper: You're correct, Commissioner, but there's no reason why you can't eliminate those two. Mr. Plummer: Where are you going to address it? Mr. Carollo: Gentlemen, since I'm holding the Chair, I declare this all out of order. We still had a motion and a second. Unless, the Mayor would like to take the Chair back, I call the question on the original motion that we had a motion and a second for. sl 155 January 24, 1985 .N Mayor Ferret If I give you the Chair for purposes of making a substitute motion or an amendment to the motion, by parliamentary procedure, you must recognize me to make that amendment. Mr. Carollo: If you acknowledge that it's a substitute motion. Mayor Ferret It is, of course, a substitute motion or an amendment to your motion, as you wish. Mr. Carollo: It would have to be a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferret Fine. Mr. Billy Freixas: Mr. Mayor, maybe I can interject something here. The only reason we took that out of this recommendation, so not to consider here tonight, was because of the time element involved. We consulted with the City Attorney's office. I was there with Joe, and he indicated that was proper to do it this way. If now they have changed their minds, then I.... Mayor Ferret Look, I don't even know frankly what the details of all the things that you are talking about. I'm just...if we have a blue ribbon committee and they've come with this recommendation'. I think why have we wasted all of this time in months and months and then totally ignore this Blue Ribbon Committee. I don't even know what it is you are recommending, frankly, but I'm just supporting you just on general principle, as Father Gibson used to say. Otherwise, why do we appoint a committee for? So, my motion is that we support the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee on number 19, as put into the record, whatever they be. I so move. Mr. Carollo: There is a motion, which as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Mayor, was the same motion that I made and Commissioner Dawkins seconded. We approve exactly what's -on 19 here. Mayor Ferret No, that's not what Mr. Billy Freixas is saying. That's not what Sergio Rodriguez said. Mr. Freixas: Vice Mayor Carollo, what we have to do on this article 19, we have to withdraw three items from it, three parts of it. One, because it was worded wrongly; two because of the time element on Wednesday, when we met yesterday, we could not take it up. It was not enough time for that to prepare the ordinance and everything to be in front of you today. So we just took that away to be considered at the following meeting on February 4th. Mr. Carollo: Answer this briefly, Billy. How is that going to affect the frontage of people that don't have 50 feet in front? Mayor Ferret All I'm doing is different from the motion made by the two of you, unless you want to amend your motion, and that is to incorporate into your motion those corrections recommended by the Blue Ribbon Committee, as put on the record by Sergio Rodriguez. Mr. Carollo: Based on the explanations that was given to us on the record, and going on that, that it would not affect the construction on lots that don't have at least a 50 foot frontage, I incorporate that in the original motion that we had. al 156 January 24, 1985 Mayor Ferre: Does the seconder of the motion accept that? Mr. Dawkins: Yes. Mayor Ferre: Then we're ready to vote. Read the ordinance. Mayor Ferre: Lucia, as you read it, that was as amended? Mrs. Dougherty: That is as amended and recommended. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING TEXT OF ORDINANCE NO. 95009 THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 515.1 TO DELETE AN ERRONEOUS REFERENCE, SECTION 606 TO PERMIT CERTAIN FACILITIES IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, SUBSECTIONS 612.6 TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO LIGHT PLANES, SECTION 1568 TO CLARIFY OFF- STREET PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS, SUBSECTIONS 2000.1.1 AND 2000.1.2.1 TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE RELATIVE TO VARIATIONS IN FLOOR AREA RATIOS AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, SUBSECTIONS 2003.5 TO CLARIFY LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS, 2008.8.1 TO CLARIFY RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICTS, 2102.1 TO INCLUDE ONE - FAMILY SEMI-DETACHED, TWO-FAMILY DETACHED MULTIPLE DWELLINGS AND ADDING NEW LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO THE USE OF NON -CONFORMING LOTS, 2102.1.1 TO PROVIDE FOR CLASS C SPECIAL PERMITS FOR USES EQUIVALENT TO ONE -FAMILY SEMI-DETACHED, TWO-FAMILY DETACHED, AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS, 2510.2.3 TO CLARIFY HEIGHT AND LIGHT PLANES, 2510.3.2 TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE, 251.0.2.3 TO CLARIFY HEIGHT AND LIGHT PLANES, 2510.3.2 TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE; 3004 PERTAINING TO NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, SUBSECTION 3101.1 TO PROHIBIT FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES, 3602 TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF "FAMILY"; FURTHER, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS: PAGE 29 BY ADDING "RESIDENTIAL" TO THE TITLE OF TABLES 1 AND 2; PAGE 39 BY ADDING "NON- RESIDENTIAL" TO THE TITLE OF TABLES 3 AND 4; AND PAGE 49 CR-20* COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL, PERMISSIBLE ONLY BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND CR-3, PERMISSIBLE GENERALLY, BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS TO "NEW" AUTOMOBILES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of December 20, 1984, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and sl 157 January 24, 1985 passed and adopted by the following vote- AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9955• The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. -------------------------------------- --------------------- 34 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING CLASSIFICATION GRAPELAND BLVD., TIGERTAIL, AVIATION ETC. RG-2/5 TO RO- c: 3/6 ---------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Ferre: Now we are on item 6, Lucia. i` Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I'm reading the ordinance. krrF Mayor Ferre: Wait, will the record reflect who made the motion? I think Carollo made the motion and Perez seconded. Mr. Carollo: Right. Mayor Ferre: Item 6. Lucia, on the previous motion that we voted on, which is 19, we need to pass a motion after we vote on this, extending those items that we deferred to a date certain. Please remind us to do that. We're now on 6, as read and amended. Are we ready to vote on this? Let the record reflect that Ms. Cohen has all her previous stipulated objections. Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE - 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 THE AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY SOUTHWEST 27TH AVENUE, A LINE APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET SOUTH OF, AND PARALLEL T09 TIGERTAIL AVENUE, AVIATION AVENUE, AND TIGERTAIL AVENUE, PER PLAN ON FILE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDS ADMINISTRATION, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); FROM RG- 2/5: GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TO RO 3/6: RESIDENTIAL OFFICE; MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGES 45 AND 46 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of January 10, 1985, was taken up for its second and final sl 158 January 24, 1985 4 reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Perez, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9956. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 35 SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ATLAS CHANGE - APPLY SPI-17 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: Now we have to take up item 8. Is there anybody wishing to speak on 89 8 is the last of the Coconut Grove, Bayshore Drive issues that Mr. Traurig requested be done after we did 6. Mr. Dawkins: Move it. Mayor Ferre: Is there a second? Second by Perez. Is there further discussion? Does anyone wish to speak on this? Read the ordinance. Call the roll. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse me, that's northeast, not southeast in your reading of the legal description, it was northeast not south. / L sl 159 January 24, 1985 Mayor Ferre: Let the record reflect that change. Ms. Cohen wants the record to reflect her previously stated objections to be put on the record. Further discussion? Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 95009 THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY APPLYING THE SPI-17 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY McFARLANE ROAD, SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, A LINE APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF, AND PARALLEL TO AVIATION AVENUE (EXCLUDING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AVIATION AND TIGERTAIL COMPRISED OF AN AREA 100' ALONG AVIATION AND 150' ALONG TIGERTAIL AVENUE), TIGERTAIL AVENUE, MARY STREET, GRAND AVENUE, AND A LINE APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET WEST OF, AND PARALLEL TO MARY STREET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; MAKING FINDINGS; AND BY MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGES NO. 45 AND 46 OF SAID ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of January 10, 1985, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Dawkins, seconded by Commissioner Perez, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 9957. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. ------------------------------------------------------------ 36 AUTHORIZE DEVELOPMENT ORDER - TERREMARK CENTRE PROJECT D.R.I. 2560-2580 TIGERTAIL AVE.; 3204-3240 AVIATION AVE; 2583-2585 S. BAYSHORE DR. Mr. Traurig: 17 and 18 are companions. Mayor Ferre: I know that, Mr. Traurig. We're now on item 17, which is a resolution on Terremark Centre. Is there anybody who wishes to speak on that? Is there a motion on item 17? Mr. Carollo: So move. sl 160 January 24, 1985 n Ms. Susan Cohen: I'm Susan Cohen; I'm here representing the same parties I've represented on items 5 through 8. I have ,.. just a few comments on Terremark Centre, if you will give me a moment to find them. I'm representing the Coconut Grove Civic Club, Inc.; the Tigertail Association, Inc.; Mr. and Mrs. Ron Cole; and Mr. Barry Feldman. I'm also authorized :µ to speak tonight on behalf of the Friends of the Everglades and to appear on the record for them. We incorporate our previous arguments made at January 16th PAB hearing on this. Our procedural arguments are that we object to Exhibit A, number 26, in the proposed development order, which is an attempt to waive substantial compliance with the development order. Procedurally, this City Commission is without any authority to approve this. It's a brash attempt to eliminate the statutory compliance provisions of Chapter 38.06(14)(15)(16)(17). The City Commission is without authority to approve this because it is an attempt to rewrite Florida Statute, Chapter 380 in its protections to the public from environmental impact of large projects. We ask that number 26 in Exhibit A be stricken from the development order. We also object to Exhibit A, item no. 20. There should be a project director who is independent of the developer or the Planning Department, given the facts of this case. Thirdly, we argue the 60 day notice is defective, which I've raised before because of the vagueness of the rezoning and consequently, the City Commission is r;. without authority today to issue the development order. Next the revisions of the 80-a were not available to the public when the 60-day notice went out on November 23rd. They were r.ct In file until December 14th or January 7th, depending on how you read the file. Next, the parking garage of Terremark is inconsistent with Miami Comprehensive ` Neighborhood Plan. It is within 50 feet of Terremark for : non-residential office use. The City of Miami Code Section 2-137 is violated: "all permits shall comply with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan or receive approval of the Planning Advisory Board, the Zoning Board and the City Commission." Since the Zoning Board has not heard this permit, the City Commission has no jurisdiction to issue the permit to Terremark Centre now. There is a violation of the r major use special permit, article 28, number 2802.79 because :R.•' there have been only 8 days between the Planning Advisory Board hearing and the City Commission hearing on major use special permit. There's notice violations in it. In s _ regards to SPI-17. it's been very unclear with all of the amendments going on and the proposed amendments and the =` Planning Department has a draft amendment, exactly what Terremark is supposed to be consistent with. We're going to object that the review procedure has not been completed by the local agency, the City of Miami, at this point in time, y and you have no jurisdiction to issue the development order. Please let the record reflect the inattention of two of the members of the Commission. There may be some residents who are still left. Let's also reflect it's 9:10. There may be :....s some residents who may want to be addressing some of the issues of the environmental impact which have not been heard r, = before. Is Mr. Brennan here? Yes, he's here. Thank you. Mr. John Brennan: My name is John Brennan, 2336 Swanson Avenue. Here is, if you like, an environmental expert. As long as Marilyn is not here, I guess that's fair. We.have not addressed at any of these meetings that I can remember.... Mayor Ferre: You better be careful or we'll send you to Tallahassee too. sl 161 January 24, 1985 6 0 Mr. Brennan: Please, not without a warm coat. We have not addressed at any of these meetings the potential impact of what happens when a project is started. I'll cut it really brief. We're looking at a bay that is being invaded from the land, if you like, with a constant flow of trash that flows down every outfall and every rain storm to fill in the ' bay. The Coconut Grove Sailing Club had to dredge recently just so they could get their boats in. I do believe that ". Monty Trainer has also dredged in his area. The problem with any of these developments is that the project developer °" r., does not a attention to this pay particular problem. If you go to Durham, they will not talk to you about it, unless you are talking about a specific project. I watched after this building next to Mayfair was started. The discoloration of the bay in front of the sailing club from the shoreline all ' the way out to the end of pier 5 -this is marram that was being pumped out in order to clear the water out. The marram is easy to determine. You can see it when the rains ' wash it in or when the project requires pumps and they dump them into the storm sewer. The thing you don't see is the dirt that's washed off the streets. I would like to ask that the Commission pay a little attention to this particular environmental impact on not only this particular job, but on any jobs that they address in the future, because what you're doing is you are adding a layer of trash on top of the bay that's seeping out and killing off the grass and the growth on the bottom. Thank you. '4 Mr. Barry Fellman: Barry Fellman, 2539 S. Bayshore, I'll :. try to be brief also. I've been actively participating, as s you know, in these recent public meetings, including their meetings regarding Terremark and South Bayshore Drive Development Study, so that I can have meaningful input to W. the decision making process that will determine the future of my neighborhood and our City. Although I met with the South Florida Regional Planning Council along with other concerned members of our community about three weeks prior � to the council meeting on January 7th, the only opportunity I had to raise issues or to have input to the development of max.` regional impact draft report was at that council meeting. Prior to that meeting, I contacted the City of Miami Planning Department a number of times to review plans with the project. However, each time I was told that the . department did not have a set of p plans. At the South k Florida Regional Council meeting on January 7th, I raised issues which were not addressed in the development of regional impact draft report. These issues were related to the effects of the construction outfall the project will gam; produce. This construction outfall is milky -white water containing sediments and would presumably be pumped into the bay. Another major issue that wasn't addressed is what will happen in the event of a hurricane. For example, how will the addition of over a thousand extra parking spaces affect emergency evacuation when major traffic arteries are already at poor service and can't be widened. I also raised the issue that existing sanitary sewer system is adequately g Y Y ., designed only for existing zoning. The existing system cannot handle the increased intensity of the Terremark - Project or other projects taking advantage of the parking and other bonuses offered by SPI-17. These issues were not addressed by the Planning Council staff, the South Florida Regional Planning Council staff at the meeting on January --`, 7th, nor have they been addressed since. I would like to point out that the South Florida Regional Planning Council r� staff did not consider input from the public or residents in " making their assessments and recommendations on "once sentence from the introduction of the DRI report." The �-: assessment is based on information supplied by the applicant, by Miami and Dade County staff, official plans consultants, and field inspections. It doesn't mention the sl 162 January 24, 1985 public, because the public wasn't included there. The study, as I pointed out, the South Bayshore Drive Development Study, is part of what the DRI report is based on. This development study, as I pointed out earlier, is contradictory in a number of ways and is really not a good basis for the assessment of a major project, such as the one being presented tonight. The traffic situation is, of course, of great concern to us. The DRI draft report, which was adopted on January 7th by the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the draft report states that, and I quote from page 61: "by 1987, the year used by the applicant, traffic analysis as project build out, unacceptable levels of service are projected on nine regionally significant arterials (13 roadway segments) in the impact area during peak hour." The proposed addition of a thousand cars into the existing situation will have a major impact, which is has not been properly addressed by proposing shuttle busses, as the DRI report proposes, because these shuttle buses are probably going to be stuck in traffic like the rest of them. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Fellman, with all due respects to you, besides your running out of time, these are all arguments which you have presented ably before the DRI, and since they're issues before the DRI and they have been resolved at least administratively, your process now with Mrs. Cohen is through court. Mr. Feld loran: I don't have the right to make comments to the Commission regarding this DRI project. Mayor Ferre: You do. You absolutely do, but we have no Jurisdiction over the DRI, so we can't here castigate the DRI override its rulings. Mr. Feldman: But you can listen to comments from the public on which to make a decision whether to approve the DRI. Mayor Ferre: I think we've been doing that since 9:00 o'clock this morning, as I recall. Mr. Feldman: So can I continue to make some comments? Mayor Ferre: For a very brief few seconds. Mr. Fellman: Maybe 46 seconds worth? I have about 46 seconds worth of comments to make. Mayor Ferre: Fine, take 46 seconds, but let's go. Mr. Fellman: In summary, the issues I raised at the South Florida Regional Council have not been addressed. The public has not had an opportunity to participate or contribute to the DRI report process. South Bayshore Drive Development Study did not reflect concerns I or other residents have raised. The development study contradicts itself in a number of major ways, some of which I have pointed out tonight, and our regional planning council has based its recommendations in part on this contradictory information. Answers to the traffic problem need further exploration. The project being considered tonight will have a major impact on my neighborhood and it concerns me greatly that these impacts have not been properly studied or looked into. For these reasons I do not think the Terremark Development Order should be issued. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Next speaker, if any. If not, are we ready to vote? There's a motion and a second on item 17. Further discussion? a. sl 163 January 24, 1985 S. 9 4yyY { Mr. Robert H. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, I'm terribly sorry, and I 1 hate to abuse this Commission, which has been so nice to us ti today. But I'm afraid if we don't put something in the record and this matter goes to court, that the court might say that the basis for your action,that the predicate may not have been laid for your action. If you would indulge us just a few seconds, I would like to just put enough in the record for you to be able to link it to the things that you already have in your kits which you have already read and which you already understand. This being the Terremark Centre mixed used development application for development order. You, Mr. Mayor, indicated that the regional planning council has already concluded its deliberations, which are true and others have had an opportunity to appear there. But the development order has to be issued by the City of Miami and it's based upon the report of your staff that was i approved by the Planning Advisory Board, which came to you and which is now the subject of this particular hearing. Mayor Ferre: Mr. Traurig, just to help you expedite things. For the record, as a member of the South Florida Regional Planning Council, of course I was there and voted on this issue. The members of this Commission have been afforded a letter dated January 8th from Mr. Barry Peterson to the City of Miami, of which you have a copy, explaining the regional impact study and the process that was adopted by that body. It is part of the record. I will give a copy of this to the Clerk to make it part of the record. x" Mr. Traurig: • I would just like to conclude briefly by saying we'd like to incorporate those letters, which we previously gave you in connection with the SPI-17 ordinance, the two letters written by Mr. Gold to the City Attorney and the one letter written by Mr. Bermello. We'd like that the ` South Florida Regional PlanningCouncil report recommendations included and also all of the documentation which came to you from the Planning Advisory Board with regard to this project which includes an 18 story office building with an office tower of 315,000 feet with 8,000 feet of retail and with 199200 feet being the townhouse development along Tigertail. This is consistent with all of s the neighborhood plans and the Coconut Grove studies. This is now totally in accords with the SPI-17, which you have Y, just adopted. The analysis has been done by your staff as well as the Regional Planning Council as to air quality issues, the flood and wetland issues, the water drainage and hazardous materials issue, vegetation and wildlife, historical and archaeological sites, the economy, which s shows a very positive $19000,000 fiscal surplus per annum, rf the public facilities, energy, recreation, and open space, health care and fire, police, transportation, and in summary, to r, we urge you adopt the recommendations which you have previously received and to approve this development order in accordance with the staff recommendations and the PAB recommendations. Thank you. Mayor Ferre: Thank you; Mr. Cole. Mr. Ron Cole: Ron Cole, 2542 Lincoln Avenue, I have no new arguments to make. I would like to reaffirm what I said before. During those comments before I thanked the Commission for their attentiveness to it, and I was very disappointed as to your inattentiveness to the arguments of our counsel, Mrs. Cohen. I would like to ask the Commission, do you plan to respond to what we think are very serious concerns that she raised, and if so, in what form will that response take? Mayor Ferre: Jack, can you answer for the administration? sl 164 January 24, 1985 V Mr. Luft: I was answering another question, I'm sorry. Mayor Ferre: Well, the question was Mrs. Cohen presented some cogent arguments. They want to know whether this City is going to respond to the arguments that Mrs. Cohen has raised. I think that we ... well, you speak for yourself as the administration. Mr. Luft: The arguments concerning environmental impacts were addressed by the South Florida Regional Planning Commission in their analysis. We accept those. In terms of the non-conformance of the zoning, we contend that it is. Mr. Cole: There were some procedural questions. Mayor Ferre; Procedural questions are legal questions. They've been addressed, I think, by Lucia Dougherty. Those that are not, you'll have to take to court. Mr. Traurig: Mr. Mayor, they've been addressed by Mr. Gold's two letters and by Mr. Bermello' letter and they're in the files and we incorporate them by reference, even though we put them into the record in SPI-17. Mayor Ferre: I will further take all of those letters and I will read them into the record. Susan R. Cohen's letter of January 23rd, Wallace, Roberts & Todd's letter of January 24th, the letter of Willy Bermello, the January 23rd letter of Willy A. Bermello, the January 23rd letter, hand delivered by Alan S. Gold, and the January 22nd letter of Alan S. Gold both to Lucia Dougherty. They are all in the record. Mrs. Cohen: I have made a few new procedural arguments this evening. I don't know if Mrs. Dougherty plans to address them or not. Mayor Ferre: Further statements by Mrs. Dougherty? We are ready now to proceed on the vote. Mr. Stephen Wisotsky: Mr. Mayor, may I address the Commission? Mayor Ferre: You may indeed, sir, this is a public hearing. I don't want anybody to feel deprived. Mr. Wisotsky: My name is Stephen Wisotsky; I live at 3050 Jefferson Street, very close to the affected neighborhood. Although this looks like it's a fait acompli, I just would like to go on record as opposing the application of the Terremark Centre as being too much. Two words for the Commission: too much. Thank You. Mayor Ferre: Are we ready to vote now on 17. A motion has been made; it's been seconded. Arguments have been presented. The record is complete. We're ready to vote sl 165 January 24, 1985 ON P f now. Call the roll on 17. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 85-72 r A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE TERREMARK CENTRE PROJECT, A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2560-2580 TIGERTAIL AVENUE, 3204-3240 AVIATION AVENUE, AND 2583-2585 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR SAID PROJECT ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A"; APPROVING SAID PROJECT WITH CONDITIONS„ AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL AND THE _ PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF MIAMI; SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE nFVFt,OPMENT ORDER ATTACHED HERETO AND THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL = INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE; FURTHER, DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO SEND COPIES OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION AND SAID DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO AFFECTED AGENCIES AND DEVELOPER. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office k.. of the City Clerk.) °s Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------- - - - -- ��` 37 AOTHORIZE APPLICATION FOR FINAL MAJOR USE PERMIT: t .3 TERREMAR[ CENTRE PROJECT DRIVE IN TELLERS ETC. --------------------------------------1---------------------- v'+T Mayor Ferre: We're now on item 18. Mr. Carollo: Move. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Ferre: Moved and seconded. Is there anybody who wishes to address this Commission on item 18? Mrs. Cohen. This is the Grove Bay Plaza Limited, go ahead. Mrs. Cohen: I incorporate by reference all of the arguments that we've made for item number 17. Is that correct? The one right before. sl 166 January 24, 1985 Mayor Ferre: Yes, ma'am, that's accepted and into the record. } Mr. Robert H. Traurig: Robert H. Traurig, attorney for the " applicant, Terremark Centre. All of the documentation that was previously submitted in connection with the prior hearing that you just read into the record, Mr. Mayor, we'd like to have as a part of this record. In addition, we would like to say that the report and recommendations from your Planning Department and from your Planning Advisory Board, which very clearly delineate all the issues and indicate that all of the concerns have been met positively, I think, auger well for the project, and we ask they be incorporated in this hearing and in this record. We urge you to approve this in accordance with staff recommendation. - Thank you. Mr. Joseph D. Calay: Joseph D. Calay, 2985 Aviation Avenue, m in reference to item number 18, the first item A, the final application for major use special permit for the Terremark Centre Project, I don't quite understand that one, but I do Fe understand B, which is a consideration of drive-in tellers as a special exception, and C, authorization of subsequent issue a Class C special permit. In particular reference to item B, which is the drive-in tellers, I am uncertain as to whether or not the floor plan and the traffic flow through the project as submitted to as part of the DRI is binding hf upon the applicant. What I observed was that there were h, four lanes, two lanes ingress, two lanes egress into the parking area, three lanes of egress from the drive-in - tellers, and one additional lane of service vehicles leaving the site, meant that a person trying to walk from Tigertail Avenue down to South Bayshore would have to cross eight continuous lanes of traffic, which is an assault on ORK the human's scale. The building is an assault on the human scale; it's an assault on the neighborhood and the ,,..., environment, but to cause a pedestrian to have to cross eight lanes of traffic to get from South Bayshore up to Aviation or from Tigertail back down to South Bayshore is an assault and I believe that certain restrictions on the exiting of the traffic from the drive-in tellers should be considered before the granting of a special exception for the drive-in tellers. Thank you. xr_ Mayor Ferre: All right, further statements on item 18? R= It's been moved and seconded. x� ` Mr. Plummer: McMaster's. Mayor Ferre: Mr. McMaster. Mr. Jim McMaster: Jim McMaster, 2940 S.W. 30th Court I'd just like to ask -maybe I missed it- but has anything been done about the sewers as far as the fact that all this ... I'm not speaking specifically on Terremark, but Terremark and all the rest of these large buildings ... is anything being done to provide for the payment of increased sewers? Mr. George Campbell: May I respond to that, Mr. Mayor? �J ,T Mayor Ferre: All right, are we ready to vote on this, 18? sl 167 January 24, 1985 fi h Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 85-73 A RESOLUTION ISSUING A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT, ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE; APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE TERREMARK CENTRE PROJECT, PROPOSED BY GROVE BAY PLAZA LIMITED, FOR APPROXIMATELY 2560- 2580 TIGERTAIL AVENUE, 3204-3240 y AVIATION AVENUE, AND 2583-2585 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, MAKING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR ISSUANCE OF A CLASS C PERMIT; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO PERMIT A DRIVE-IN BANKING FACILITY; AND PROVIDING THAT SAID MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT SHALL BE BINDING ON THE APPLICANT AND SUCCESSORS rtf: IN INTEREST. (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 Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. > Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. - - "' 38 ALLOCATE $15'800 IN CONNECTION WITH DEDICATION OF JOSE MARTI PARK EVENT AND PARADE art.£ Mayor Ferre: We need to adopt a resolution on Jose Marti u ,r'.` Park and Parade dedication. Is there a motion? Mr. Carollo: Move. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll. Mr. Plummer: What are you on? Mayor Ferre: Jose Marti Park dedication, as presented. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Carollo, who moved its adoption: sl 168 January 24, 1985 z 46 RESOLUTION NO. 85-7 A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,800 FROM THE SUPPLEMENTAL ECREATION BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ARKS AND RECREATION, IN CONNECTION WITH THE JOSE MARTI PARADE AND PARK DEDICATION. (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 Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ------------------------------------------------------------ 39 ALLOCATE $69,000 TO MORTY FREEDMAN & ASSOCIATES INC., 1985 INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear 12, 23, 28, 34, and 35• I move that all other items be continued, because it'll be 10:00 o'clock and it's time to go home. Give Morty his money. I move that Morty gets his $60,000 now. Mayor Ferre: There is a motion on the floor, that I'll recognize on item 38. Is there a second? Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Ferre: Further discussion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 85-75 A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $699000 FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS, CONTINGENT FUND, TO MORTY FREEDMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., IN CONNECTION WITH THE 1985 INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL; FURTHER ALLOCATING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $139500 FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS, QUALITY OF LIFE FUND, FOR A FEE WAIVER FOR THE USE OF THE COCONUT GROVE EXHIBITION CENTER IN CONNECTION WITH SAID EVENT; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH MORTY FREEDMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM ATTACHED HERETO, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Carollo, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote- sl 169 January 24, 1985 rul AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo .Y Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. DURING ROLL CALL: Mr. Plummer: What is it? What item? Mrs. Hirai: Roll call on 38. Mr. Plummer: Yes. w - -- --- --- -------------------------------------- 40 ADOPT IN PRINCIPLE: PLANNING STUDY I-95/S.W. 15 ROAD; :,'... PROPOSING CERTAIN ZONING ACTIONS & TRANSPORTATION IHPROVEHENTS -------- ---------------------------------------------------- ' Mr. Perez: Number 12. Mayor Ferre: We are now on number 129 which all these people have been waiting for since 9:00 o'clock this ` morning. Tell us quickly what item 12 is. �f Mr. Plummer: Is this the last item? Mr. Dawkins: Nov we have 12, 349 35, 219 23, and 48. Mayor Ferre: This is the up -grading of the I-959 S.W. 15th Road Planning Study; it's been approved by the Planning Department, approved unanimously by the advisory board. They were three opponents present at the... Are there any opponents to item 12? Is there anybody here, would you tell us into the record briefly why the Planning Department is recommending this? Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: The Planning Department, following directions from the Commission to study this area, studied the area and came out with recommendations that some portion of the area should be zoned from RS-2/2 and RG-2/5 to RO-1/5 and RO-3/5 and that the study take into consideration sewer and transportation improvements in relation to these. We met several times with the residents of the area and I believe that we have full and complete support for the recommendations that we're making and our next step.... Mayor Ferre: Thank you, further discussion? All right, is Ma there a motion on item 12? Mr. Plummer: Move it. Mayor Ferre: Moved by Plummer Mr. Perez: Second. 170 January 24, 19.85 A A Mayor Ferre: Second by Perez. Further discussion? Call ,KP the roll on item 12. s The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: ' RESOLUTION N0. 85-76 A RESOLUTION APPROVING, IN PRINCIPLE, "THE I-95/SOUTHWEST 15TH ROAD PLANNING STUDY," DATED DECEMBER 19849 IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM ATTACHED HERETO, AS A GUIDE FOR ZONING ACTIONS AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SUBJECT AREA. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre ` b3L NOES: None. k 1 'F ABSENT: None. 17 rtzi x -------:---------------------------------------.----- 41. NOTION STIPULATING ALL ITEMS FROM TODAY'S AGENDA NOT TAKEN UP SHALL BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 28, EXCEPT 9 TO MARCH 28 WITH ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS AND PROVISOS f f V dhr ---------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Ferre: Would you make the motion to continue what you want to continue? Mr. Dawkins: All the rest of the items be continued for certain date, because we got people here on Overtown, we got people on the bus benches and we'll be here until 12:00 o'clock. Mayor Ferre: There's a motion, which I will accept that items that we have not covered, it's 9:32, will be covered on the next zoning meeting, which is the 28th day of February. This Commission has been in session for twelve hours. Mr. George Knox: Please, respecting item number 22, Mr. Mayor, there is a time problem. This item must be legislatively decided within 16 days. Mayor Ferre: Madam City Attorney, we want on the record your ruling that we can make a motion to continue all the items that have not been voted on for a date certain of February 28th and that there will not be any legal jeopardy. Mr. Plummer: And that all of those items be placed first on the agenda, starting in the morning. We've already done 22. sl 171 January 24, 1985 ax Mayor Ferret We have not done 22. Are we continuing everything, but item 3 now? k INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mr. Dawkins: I move it. Mayor Ferret Wait Miller, you have the other motion on the floor. We have to vote on a continuance of everything now, but 21 and 3 to a date. ..21 and 3 are the only ones that we're going to now... and the date is going to be February 28th. All items not done tonight will be continued to a date certain. Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: Mr. Mayor. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Ferret All right, except item 9, which will be continued to March. Mr. Knox: Mr. Mayor, is the City Attorney's opinion on the record respecting the 90 day rule? INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, so long as it doesn't exceed 60 .. days beyond that normal time limit, you're O.K. Is your 60 days beyond that time? Y;.. Mayor Ferret Bob Traurig, where did Bob Traurig go? March is not 60 days. So you're talking about the March meeting would be March 28th. Is that 60 days? �z Mr. Plummer: No, February 28th. Mayor Ferret No, he wants his to March. Mr. Plummer: He's greedy. Mayor Ferret Madam City Attorney, the question is, if item 9 is deferred until March 28th.... Mrs. Dougherty: Is item 9 the first reading of it? Mayor Ferret Item 9 on first reading. Mrs. Dougherty: Then there is no problem. Mayor Ferret All right, so the motion therefore is, Miller, all items that have not been attended to today are deferred until the next zoning meeting, which is February 28th; with the exception of item 9, which is deferred to March 28th. Item 21 we are going to hear now and item 3 we are going to hear now. Is that correct, Al? Mr. Rodriguez: Mr. Mayor, item 21 cannot be heard today. Mayor Ferret Why can it not be heard today? Mr. Rodriguez: Because you haven't dealt with the amendment to the zoning ordinance that dealt with that. Mayor Ferret So it must be continued along with others. Mr. Rodriguez: Right. sl 172 January 240 1985 e ,T` e Mayor Ferre: So, everything is continued except 3. -.'.` Mr. Knox: We have to have a ruling on 22, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Do we have a ruling, Lucia? We need a ruling on 22. Counselor is concerned that his client may be in _ jeopardy if we don't vote on it today. Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, we're looking at that right now. We're trying to determine that. Mayor Ferre: We're going to vote on everything but 22, and we will take that separately. There is a motion for everything but 22 and 3 continuance. Overtown is included in that motion, all of it. It is continued until February 28th. Mr. Plummer: Can I make a statement? Mayor Ferre: We're not continuing 22.` INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Ferre: I don't know, we'll let you know in a moment when we get a legal ruling on that. I understand. Now we have a motion and a second, as clarified on the record. Are we ready to vote? E Mr. Plummer: On what item? Item to defer everything to a date certain? Yes. Mayor Ferre: For the fourth time, to defer everything except 3 and 22. Mr. Rodriguez: If you do that, you have to follow the rule, r you have to send this to the Planning Advisory Board and the Zoning and then a date certain for the Commission. Check with the Law Department. Mayor Ferre: That's not what the Law Department told me. Now you're going to make law. - Mr. Rodriguez: O.K., sir. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Ferre: Whatever the legal proper procedure is, all items are being deferred, sent to the Planning and Zoning Boards respectively, as provided in the law, if it is provided in the law, and to come back before this Commission on the 28th day of February, except item number 9, which comes back on March 28th. Is that legal? Sergio says that it must go back to the Planning and Zoning Board. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Ferre: Let the record so reflect that is the legal sl 173 January 24, 1985 procedure. Further discussion? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced b Commissioner g Y Dawkins, who moved its adoption: �r 1 MOTION No. 85-77 A MOTION STIPULATING THAT ALL ITEMS IN x TODAY'S AGENDA WHICH WERE NOT TAKEN UP, SHALL BE CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 28TH 9 MEETING, EXCEPT AGENDA ITEM NO. 99 WHICH IS HEREBY CONTINUED TO MARCH 280 1985; FURTHER EXEMPTING AGENDA ITEMS N0. 3 AND 22 WHICH WILL BE TAKEN UP ON THIS DATE; AND FINALLY STIPULATING THAT ALL ZONING ITEMS WHICH WERE CONTINUED SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY SENT BACK TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD OR TO THE ZONING BOARD, I AS NEED BE, FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE COMMISSION REVIEWS THEM AGAIN AT THE FEBRUARY 28, 1985 MEETING. i Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. a Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. *i ABSENT: None. ,. 42 RELAX RESTRICTIONS AS TO TIME FOR FIREWORKS DISPLAY DOWNTOWN MIAMI FEBRUARY 1, 1985 BEYOND 9 PH BUT BEFORE MIDNIGHT ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: While we wait for your ruling, we need to move on the Miami Film Festival which wants to have fireworks display on February 1st and February loth. Is there a motion? Mr. Plummer: Where? Mayor Ferre: Where? Who knows? Who's with the fire? Mr. Dawkins: You don't worry Howard Gary don't work for himself; he's going to work for us, so put it in the Orange Bowl. Mr. Plummer: No, no, no. Mayor Ferre: Where is the Film Festival? I would imagine it's at Gusman Hall. Carol Ann Taylor? Gusman Hall. Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Plummer: Fireworks at Gusman Hall? Mayor Ferre: At Bayfront Park. How do I know where it is? I mean, you know, wherever it is. sl 174 January 24, 1985 LLI z ,, Mr. Plummer: Well, let me put it on the record right now. never vote for fireworks in the Orange Bowl again. I was there. So I think it's very important where it is. If ....: it's an open total area without people involved. Mayor Ferre: In Bayfront Park we'll let them shoot them off there. Plummer moves. Is there a second? Second by Perez, fireworks for Film Festival for March... February 19 February 10th. Further discussion? Call the roll. 4: The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner 4: Plummer, who moved its adoption: E RESOLUTION NO. 85-78 7 A RESOLUTION RELAXING THE TIME RESTRICTIONS FOR A DISPLAY OF FIREWORKS TO TAKE PLACE IN DOWNTOWN MIAMI, INCLUDING OFF -SHORE DISPLAY ON FEBRUARY 1, 1985, BEYOND 9:00 P.M.; SAID DISPLAY TO TAKE PLACE BEFORE 12:00 MIDNIGHT WITH THE HEREIN RELAXATION BEING SUBJECT TO OBTAINING THE NECESSARY PERMITS FROM FIRE, RESCUE AND INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT. . -n (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote- AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins �F Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. � ABSENT: None. i flh f 4YP a t . — --- --- ------ -- --- -- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- -- ----- -- 43 !MOTION TO CONTINUE PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AND. TO 9500 x,• ARTICLE 15 SPI S.S. OVERTOWN/PARK WEST ETC TO 2-28-85 -------------------------------- ---------------------------- Mayor Ferre: Yes, sir, into the record, Mr. Shevin, so we can have a record. Mr. Bob Shevin: I'm Bob Shevin and I represent Park West Civic Association. We heard something tonight that is a little.... Mayor Ferre: I tell you, that was a relief. I thought you were here on the Miami Dolphins and Joe Robbie. You got me scared for a moment. Mr. Shevin: No, sir, we're in the Supreme Court on that one. We heard something tonight that causes me some concern. When the Park West people showed up here on first reading, they were told by you, Mr. Mayor, they don't have to speak and don't worry about amendments because second reading is public hearing, that's when you'll have your chance. Tonight we were told, if these amendments that we've proposed, that we've sent you all letters, if you all sl 175 January 24, 1985 yw 3is ` happen to adopt them, there's going to be an opinion rendered that it now has to go back through the whole process because it becomes a substantive change. Either you r have the right to amend or you don't have the right to e amend. Either we have the right to be heard or we don't have the right to be heard. �t Mayor Ferre: We do have the right to amend, and you do have the right to be heard. If they are substantive and are ruled to be substantive, it will have to be on first reading. Mr. Shevin: That's fine. Mayor Ferre. Then we will do second reading, I would imagine, Lucia? Mr. Shevin: Well, we don't want to be in the situation to = come back on February 28th, make a bunch of suggestions, perhaps get a majority vote and then be back on square one again. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I think substantive changes have to E go back to the Planning Board, I believe. I don't want Bob } to walk out of here with a misconception. Mr. Shevin: That's what we were told, but it seems to me G that procedure is.... x P Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, that's substantive changes more p than what is advertised. We can give you less with no problem, but I don't know of anybody that's ever asked for less; that's the problem. Mr. Shevin: I understand, that's why I'm saying, send it back now and put it back on first reading, because the Blue Ribbon Committee has made substantive changes. Your staff z}, was going to recommend the Blue Ribbon Committee.... Mayor Ferre: I think I'm convinced once again that you learned a lot while you were up there in Tallahassee being Attorney General for eight years, so I will accept a motion that all these items be sent back to the Planning Board so that they can be reconsidered on first reading, so that we don't lose more time, with the changes that you are going to present. Mr. Billy Freixas: Mr. Mayor, actually, it's only one part; that was the opinion that we got, legal opinion, that has to go back. The rest are not substantial changes. They were changed within the framework. Mayor Ferre: You don't know what they are coming up with. Mr. Freixas: But the City Attorney's office reviewed everything and they only have one problem on one item that has to go back. Right, Joe? Isn't that what you told us? Mayor Ferre: Bob, is that acceptable to you? Mr. Shevin: If any one item has to go back, you are really denying us the opportunity.... Mayor Ferre: You're absolutely right. The motion should be that they should all go back. Mr. Freixas: Then send them all back. Mayor Ferre: I will accept such a motion. sl 176 January 24, 1985 Mr. Plummer: Can't do it. Mayor Ferre: Why not? Mr. Plummer: We already set the date for it in February 289 now you have to rescind that motion first. { Mayor Ferre: We can rescind that. I think you're technically right. We have to rescind the previous motion per...hold on...you have to rescind the previous motion on : R items 23, 24„ 250 26, 279 and 28; then once that's rescinded, we have to send them back to the Planning Board for their consideration on changes that are substantive in nature and to come back on first reading. Mr. Herb Bailey: But Mr. Mayor, those changes have not been accepted or adopted by the Commission. They are -a recommendations that we haven't even heard. We don't know what those changes are going to be. S Mr. Plummer: We always listen to Billy Freixas. Mr. Bailey: So you are sending back something to the Planning Advisory Board that has not even been heard or adopted by the Commission, so they are not necessarily changes. Mayor Ferre: What Bob Shevin is saying is that if we come back and hear this on the 28th and then we adopt substative changes, in effect, we are denying him, I mean his clients, z a a the right to those substantive changes.... Mr. Bailey: No, no, no, no. w _r; .,t Mayor Ferre: ....unless we go back through the whole process. Mr. Freixas: Mr. Mayor, the Commission chose to appoint a Blue Ribbon Committee. They had ample time to go in front of us. We held three public hearings on three different days. The owners or proprietors of Park West were present with their attorneys and their architect and they made their presentation. We came to certain conclusions and got the input from them and from staff and from everybody. These are our recommendations. Out of those recommendations there is only one that the City Attorney's office has said that is a substantial change. It's not fair that now, after all this work we come in here and reopen the hearing. Mayor Ferre: I stand corrected. Which is the one we have to send back? Mr. Freixas: SPI-16. Mayor Ferre: Which is ten? What number is it on the agenda? Mr. Plummer; What is the problem of sending it all back? Mayor Ferre: Did you Just hear what he said for the last five minutes? Mr. Plummer: For consideration. Mayor Ferre: Freixas, make your speak over again. He wasn't listening. Mr. Freixas: Mr. Plummer, what I'm saying is that you impaneled a Blue Ribbon Committee. They had their representation at three public hearings over there. We sl 177 January 24, 1985 Y B E 1 heard all their cases and we came to certain agreements with them and staff. The only one part that we have a problem r, with that is what they are differing with is going anyway to the PAB. So why kill all this time, why kill these public hearings that we had, and reopen the public hearing. You sure didn't just do that and don't impanel a Blue Ribbon F_ ` Committee. ' Mayor Ferre: I assume you don't have to make that speech _ r the third time. Which is the item that has to be sent back to the PAB. Mr. Freixas: SPI-16. � • e Mayor Ferre. What number is it? Mr. Freixas: It's the part that says floor area 15165.3.1. Mayor Ferre: What item is that? *, Mr. Freixas: What item is it, Joe? Item 23, it's just a part of item 23. Mayor Ferre: The part of item 23 that has been F discussed.... Mr. Freixas: That deals with floor area ratio limitations. 4 Mayor Ferre: If not, is there a motion that be sent back to the PAB for proper reconsideration. ,F;,.4',. Mr. Dawkins: Yes, so move. Mayor Ferre: Dawkins moves. Mr. Perez: Second. Mayor Ferre: Perez seconds. Further discussion? Plummer, are you ready to vote? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who moved its adoption: - MOTION NO. 85-79 A MOTION REFERRING TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR RECONSIDERATION CERTAIN SPI 16 PORTIONS OF AGENDA ITEM N0. 23 (A PROPOSED SECOND READING ORDINANCE DEALING WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SPI 16- SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICTS/SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARKWEST OVERLAY -COMMERCIAL - RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS) FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, F.A.R. LIMITATIONS. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Demetrio Perez, Jr. Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: None. sl 178 January 249 1985 INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Ferre: No, no, no, just that portion.... f{ Mr. Freixas: Just the part that deals with the floor area �r ratio limitations. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Ferre: That's what we're sending back. INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mr. Freixas: The rest of the SPI-16, if you read it, Mr. Shevin, says 2.6 Residential. What you're talking about is the commercial. That's your concern. That's the one you're talking about. That's the one we're sending back. The other remains of the City Commission approval on first reading. ar INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor Ferre: That's what we're sending back, so you're " 't covered. -------_-" - - ..--------------- - - ------------------------ 44 NOTION STIPULATING CONTINUED ITEMS FOR FEB. 28 ITEMS 23 s z THRU 28 S.E. OVERTOWN/PAR[ WEST. 22 AT 9 A.M. AND ITEMS 23-28 IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER �1 f'. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Ferre: Mrs. Dougherty, can we have your attention on item number 22. You were asked ... now we have already voted. We're all done with Overtown. We voted on that, Park West. We're now back asking you for Mr. Knox's question in your ruling on it as to whether or not it can be deferred. Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, it can be deferred. Mayor Ferre: Without jeopardy legally to his client? Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, sir. It actually is continued to a date certain. Mayor Ferre: There is a motion then by Commissioner Perez, and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins that item 22 be continued to the meeting of the 28th of February, 9:00 o'clock in the morning, so be it. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I've been here three times since October (INAUDIBLE)...each time I've been here (INAUDIBLE) ...politics of the City and this item has not been brought up. Mayor Ferre: What politics? What are you talking about? What politics? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, the first time it was the firing of the City Manager. The second time.... Mayor Ferre: Oh, I see, I got you. That's a good reason. sl 179 January 24, 1985 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ....it was something else. �� Hv (INAUDIBLE) ,ax Mayor Ferre: We're about not to have a quorum here, because all you need is for one person to walk away and the meeting . is over. W 5F ° UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can I make a two -minute statement? a Mayor Ferre: Yes, sure. Mr. Freixas: Mr. Mayor, while he gets to the phone, I y understand that we need a motion to defer items 23 through s 28 and 31, because the vote was not taken. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Do I have a quorum to listen to this? j I'm here as a family man and I'm also representing the voters of the Shenandoah, Silver Bluff Home Owners Association. I'm asking you to oppose the E.A. Hancock Advertising Company's request to drop a city ordinance banning billboards facing the expressways. To put the ordinance in a historical perspective, in the early 60's Americans across our great land, the United States of ' America, under the leadership of President Johnson, demanded that communities remove billboards from the highways as they were aesthetically displeasing. They were and are visual pollution. The Miami Commissioners responded to that challenge in 1962. I believe Mrs. Wainwright was here and they passed the present ordinance dropping or even �. compromising on that ordinance that bans billboards as a N> step backward. We are a progressive City, not a backward City. Mr. Knox and Mr. Sisser lobbying on behalf of Hancock Advertising are paraphrased in an article in the Miami �4 Herald as stating arguments that the signs aren't aesthetically pleasing don't wash because there already are Those signs have been billboards facing the expressways. g there since before the City imposed its billboards restrictions in 1962 and the City has never forced them to '. be removed. If that is true, let's enforce the law. Let's " find the culprits, the law breakers, get some income for the City, and get those illegal billboards down. The character of our environment is so important to the welcoming of our tourists and also our out of town and international businessmen. As presented, Hancock Advertising's proposal requests billboards to be spaced every one thousand to f{-fifteen hundred feet along the expressways. I need `{ everybody's attention on this, because I want you to realize that at 1,500 feet spaced apart and driving 50 miles an hour down an expressway, that means you're going to see a billboard approximately every 20 seconds. If the billboards ' are spaced at 1,000 feet apart, that means you're going to see a billboard as you drive per 50 miles per hour every ten seconds, EVERY TEN SECONDS. I wish to lay to rest any rz=w repeated requests to drop the billboard ban ordinance. Raising your family in the City of Miami, do you want your R children to see ads depicting the drinking of liquor, smoking Winstons, tanning sexy Coppertone bottoms, and zr flights to other tourist meccas or even New York? Or do you -t want people to view the beautiful skyline, the harmonious ,...?y architecture, this magic city that all of you have worked so hard on to dynamically develop and are still pursuing, hopefully, positive social and environmental goals. Let's work together to keep Miami environmentally pure and that ' includes what we see. I thank you very much. Mr. Lee Ruwitch: Mr. Mayor, may I have your attention for a moment? I'm Lee Ruich, president of the Park West Association. I plead with you to set a specific time on February 28th when we might be heard. We have attorneys, we have architects that we're paying by the hour. Our funds sl 180 January 24, 1985 4ti1 4, are being exhausted, and I think it's unfair for us to spend five hours. i- �'S^Y,> -- - .- -- t r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ra. r r r r r rr r r r r r w r r r r r rr- r r rrrrrrrrr wrr r NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Commissioner Carollo left the meeting 3 at 9:41 P.M. —rrrrrrrwrrrrr Mayor Ferre: Mr. Ruich, I'm willing to hear you right now. I have no problems with that. It has been the request. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Ruich, you do not have a quorum, sir, and I will give you a time certain, if we can get, because the Mayor said he's willing to. ..that makes him look good when time comes to run. Mayor Ferre: No. a Mr. Dawkins: Yes, yes, it does, and it makes the rest of us look bad. _ 4 J Mayor Ferre: Hey, Miller, Miller. Mr. Dawkins: Oh, no, I'm not Maurice. Mayor Ferre: Miller, what I'm trying to say to Lee Ruich is .. hey, listen, what I'm trying to say is that the reason why this Commission hasn't heard this, is that the request of the majority of the people here, all of us here, including ? Miller Dawkins, which everybody heard on the record, so I 1 don't know why you're having a temper tantrum, Miller himself stated that he was willing to stay for items 23 through 28 on Overtown. You heard him say it. You don't x need me to repeat what the man said, but you saw that "=- everybody around here requested that this thing be i continued. At that time, you didn't stand up. Now, at the end of all of this, you stand up with indignation. Mr. Ruwitch: I'm asking you at this time to give us a specific time to be heard on February 28th so we don't blow another five hours waiting to be heard. Mayor Ferre: That's a fair request. On the 28th, Mr. Manager, I think the best time so we can start on a time certain with them, we're committed to do 22 first. Is there any reason why after we do 22, we can't do these five Overtown items in the morning? Mr. Rosencrantz: There isn't any legal impediment. Mayor Ferre: Do you have any objections to that? Do you have any objections to that? Does anybody have any objections? We will start on item 22 on the 28th of February. We will then go to Overtown/Park West in the series of items which today are identified as 23 through 28 at that time. Mr. Ruwitch: Fine, thank you very much. Mr. Freixas: Mr. Mayor, I need a motion because the vote was not taken. It was put on the floor to defer items 23 to 28. That's what Sergio is telling me that. Mayor Ferre: We have done that. Mr. Freixas: No, no, you made the motion, but the roll was not called. That's what I understand. Mayor Ferre; Is that correct? There is a motion. Miller Dawkins moves that all ... Demetrio Perez moves that all items sl 181 January 24, 1965 not heard tonight will be continued until February 28th and that item 22 will be first on the agenda, that items 23 through 28 will be second on the agenda, and everything else will follow after those items, except item 9 which will be heard on March 28th and item 39 which will be heard this evening. Are we ready now to vote once again on this issue, which we have now voted on twice. Call the roll. Seconded by Perez. Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 85-80 A MOTION STIPULATING THAT ALL AGENDA ITEMS WHICH WERE NOT TAKEN UP TONIGHT, SHALL BE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 289 1985; FURTHER STIPULATING THAT ITEM 22 SHALL BE FIRST ON THE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 28TH, TO BE HEARD AT 9:00 O'CLOCK A.M.; AND FURTHER STIPULATING THAT IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER THE CITY COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER AGENDA ITEMS 23 THROUGH 28 IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST PROJECT; AND FURTHER STATING THAT ALL OTHER ITEMS SHALL BE CONSIDERED THEREAFTER. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Perez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Mayor Maurice NOES: None. Demetrio Perez, Jr. Miller J. Dawkins J. L. Plummer, Jr. A. Ferre ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo 45 CONTINUED.DISCUSSION AND CONTINUANCE TO FEB. 141 1985: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT - 3000-3006 AVIATION AVENUE FROM RS-2/2 TO RO-2.1/5 Mayor Ferre: Now on item three is there any reason we cannot...we took this item this morning, we deferred it so you could work out some legal details. Are you ready to report back? Mr. Al Cardenas: Yes, I am. Mayor Ferre: Tell us what your conclusions were. Mr. Cardenas: For the record, again, my name is Al Cardenas. I'm an attorney in the City of Miami representing the applicant. As you may recall, we had a public hearing lasting in excess of two hours relative to this matter. It's a matter on second reading after recommendation approval by the Zoning Board and unanimous approval by the City Commission on first reading. Notwithstanding that, Ms. Janet Cooper, on behalf of Mr. Pittone neighboring land owner of this parcel, expressed some objections to the form of the declaration of restrictive covenants, which was proffered. For that very ... and requested a deferral. At sl 182 January 24, 1985 that time, a deferral was denied, but you agreed that we would go back and meet on the issue. We did. We met for over an hour with Mr. George Campbell of the City, with the Assistant City Attorney and we developed a three page or a two page declaration of restrictions, which was prepared by Ms. Janet Cooper, executed by myself on behalf of the applicant, and executed by the prospective purchaser, Mr. Carillo. It provides basically for three additional items that we're proffering. One, that the property will be developed in accordance with all provisions so the 5PI-3 overlay zoning district; two we limited the number of uses on the property and excluded about 12 uses, which were otherwise permitted; and number three, we agreed with Ms. Cooper's client, that in the event that the City or all of the neighbor land owners decided to vacate or abandon in Inagua Avenue, that we would agree with that. Because of that, Mr. Mayor, I respectfully request that a vote at this time be taken to approve on second reading this matter, which had been previously unanimously approved. Mayor Ferre: I have a question of you, Mr. Cardenas. The statement, the Planning Department has stated that it is not at your proposal and it is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Then I think it is incumbent upon you to put on the record the reasons why it is in compliance with the plan. Otherwise, I think you may have some legal jeopardy. Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, if you will recall, at the time that this particular matter was first heard, it was determined that we did not have to amend the land use plan in order to adopt this ordinance. That was a legal conclusion which was reached and one which I agreed upon and that's why the application was filed without amending the land -use plan. the particular use, which we are discussing here, is a use which abuts a piece of property which is similarly zoned. It is divided by streets from other uses. It does not establish legal precedence. It has been established at facing commercial property already, and facing the fact that it's adjoining also commercially zoned property, this particular application submits a zoning change which will providing the best land use possible for the City of Miami. It does not in any way affect the comprehensive land use plan of the City of Miami. I respectfully state that on the record, if I may. Mayor Ferre: I don't know what that he's done, but he was supposed to do, but.... Ms. Janet Cooper: When you're ready for me. Mayor Ferre: I'm ready for you now. Ms. Cooper: First of all, nothing that Mr. Cardenas has said has indicated why this proposed change of zoning is in accordance with the comprehensive land use plan, which it is not. With regard to the restrictive covenant, we discussed the substance of the restrictive covenant, which we have agreed to. We're still not happy with the rezoning, but if it's going to go through, we're better off with some protection. Although I prepared it, I have not been afforded the opportunity to see a copy of the signed document. I've asked Mr. Cardenas for it and he did not give me one, which I would need for my records. In addition, the only party who is legally able to bind the covenants to the land is the property owner. The property owner has not executed the restrictive covenants. Mr. Cardenas, who in my legal opinion, is not an authorized sl 183 January 24, 1985 F µ: representative of the owner and who certainly, Mr. Cardenas has agreed that he has no authority to bind these restrictive covenants to the land so that they are not binding by his signature or Mr. Carillo's signature. I have ;. to advise my client and I have to advise the City that these restrictive covenants as they stand are not worth the paper a.k they're written on. I have suggested to Mr. Cardenas that it is to his benefit to defer it to get it signed and executed by the proper part and in y a proper fashion. It is certainly to the benefit of the City to do so, as well as to all the property owners. There's substantial opposition here. The restrictions that we obtained in these restrictive covenant, first of all, we have no idea if the property owner will agree to it. The indications from Mr. Cardenas are that they will, but we have not spoken with the property owner. The first restriction is in SPI-3 overlay. There is no other property in the area that is zoned RO-2.1 that does not have the SPI-3 overlay. So agreeing to it is doing nothing more than correcting an oversight of the Planning Department, which hopefully would have added it when they reviewed it. The second restriction is limiting some of the offensive uses, but does not limit any of the office uses, which is one of the objectionable things. The third is agreeing to close Inagua or to cooperate in "'- executing documents. However, the language was changed without my approval on that. Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, we had this two hour meeting, and r`.. the document that Janet prepared and which was attended b P P y the Assistant City Attorney and others. I'll be very candid with you, because we acceded to a number of items here in } order to acre the matter, placate everyone, and have a vote 9 taken with as much community support as possible. If Janet >: at this time is going to be raising these issues, I am personally going to request that the declaration of restrictive covenants, which have been proffered and which I believe can .be binding on the applicant and the City, be removed if the matter is to be deferred as she suggests. In other words, I am willing to proffer these declarations of restrictive covenants today, voluntarily proffer them to the Z City and have a vote taken by the Commission making itsubject to these declaration of restrictive covenants. I will withdraw the declaration, as I mentioned to Janet already during our work-out >.t session if she raised the objections as she's raised tonight resulting in a deferral. I believe that we have spent a lot of time on this. She was retained by an objector less than 24 hours ago. I heard her ' objections first during the public hearing. We've worked for two hours. We bent over backwards to be cooperative. I'm ready for a suggestion, Mr. Mayor, that we take thematter up for a vote. Mayor Ferre: Janet, do you want to look at those things and see if you still.... Ms. Cooper: I have a slight problem with number three, which has been discussed and which has not been agreed to. However, my main problem, and I think that if Mr. Cardenas tells you the same thing that he told us in the meeting, my main problem is that we do not have these three pieces of paper do not constitute any binding restrictive covenants. They are not signed by the owner of the property. I could accept this.... Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, she happens to be right. Mr. Cardenas has signed as the attorney for the owner and has repres.... Mayor Ferre: Can we pass it subject to the proper....- sl 184 January 24, 1985 Mrs. Dougherty: He said he will get the subject property owner to sign it in five days and have it in to us. Ms. Cooper: However, Mr. Mayor, that would be contract zoning. If you seek to enforce that, if you pass this change of zoning and if he doesn't produce it in five days, you have no recourse whatsoever and neither does the public. Furthermore, he did not sign it as attorney for the owner, he signed it as attorney for the applicant. If you will remember my argument, I contended that the applicant had no authority to file the application. Mr. Cardenas: The applicant is the owner. Ms. Cooper: The applicant is Larry Fried or Steven Fried, who according to the documents in the file is neither the owner nor by power of attorney has the authority to represent the owner. It's an extremely iffy thing and a deferral at this very late hour -I've been here since 10:15 on this- would seem to be the prudent thing to do. Or you could deny it. Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, I would be willing to, if it would #` '.` clarify aim iooue, withdraw the declaration of restrictions. I have worked on this with Janet, even after we had '{k clarified the land use issues, to delve further into the 5.;. matter in order to satisfy Mr. Pitonne who I believe is a .,. good citizen, and make sure that he's well taken care of. But if by helping out Mr. Pitonne I'm going to injure my clients, the only thing I can do is withdraw the declaration and request that a vote be taken. Ms. Cooper: He's not helping out Mr. Batonne. He's helping f ; out himself, which he is certainly entitled to do. il :. Mayor Ferre: I don't blame him for that. llk� Ms. Cooper: I don't blame him for it either. I am just saying he would be better helping out himself and his client ... you know this item has never been deferred. # � Y Controversial items the expect deferrals. To have one deferral from a second reading to a second, second reading would not be the end of the world for this development. I have even been told that they haven't even closed on the {� ' property. It s not contingent. Their closing isn't for months. Defer it. What's the difference? Mayor Ferre: Look, it's after 10:00 o'clock. Dawkins and Plummer and Perez, you have heard both arguments. What's the will of this Commission? She wants to defer it. He doesn't want to defer it. He wants it voted on. She won't accept the ... she has the legal technicality. Mr. Plummer: What does the City Attorney advise us to do? Mayor Ferre: The technicality, but signed document, property. City Attorney says that there is a legal it can be cured by his submitting the signed properly by the owner of the Mrs. Dougherty: If he does not have a signed in the next five days, I will recommend you rezone it back in the next Commission meeting. Mr. Plummer: You can't do that because it's a change of zoning and you can't conditional. Mrs. Dougherty: I know that. Mayor Ferre: Can't contract zone. sl 185 January 24, 1985 gK,+� Mrs. Dougherty: That's correct. I think that eitr zoning, though, would be considered reasonable. M tF. Mayor Ferre: I tell you, I'm not an attorney, but I've be around here long enough. I've watched Janet operate for t last three or four years. My advice to you is if you wa to go through a legal process in court and have this thi held up on, and on, and on, that's your right to do it. think you're better off waiting. I don't mind putting it the regular session of February 14th and we'll put it fir item on the agenda. Then you can get your owner to sign and all this other stuff. Mr. Plummer: So move. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mr. Plummer: Under discussion, Mr. Cardenas, I apprecia all that you've done for Janet Cooper and for the neighbor I never heard the first word what you're going to do for t City. To help our both of my colleagues, there is a gre need of whit.P olives in Jose Marti Park. How do you li that for an ethnic background. Mr. Cardenas: Yes, sir. M " Mayor Ferre: There is a motion and a second. Call t R :. roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissior. Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 85-81 i A MOTION CONTINUING TO THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 1985 AS THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, AGENDA ITEM N0. 3 OF TODAY'S AGENDA REGARDING A PROPOSED SECOND READING ORDINANCE REQUESTING ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT AT APPROXIMATELY 3000-3006 AVIATION AVENUE TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM RS-2/2 TO RO-2.1/5 AND APPLYING THE SPI-3: COCONUT GROVE MAJOR STREETS OVERLAY DISTRICT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the moti was passed and adopted by the following'vote- AYES: Commissioner Miller J. Dawkins Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Demetrio J. Perez, Jr. Mayor Maurice A. Ferre NOES: None. ABSENT: Vice -Mayor Joe Carollo DURING ROLL CALL: Mr. Dawkins: Before I vote, I'm going to say somethin I'm going to have to agree with the Mayor. I don't know h we're going to stop it, but Mr. Mayor, the reason why we' here. We hear more legal arguments than we are zoni arguments. We are not, this is not a court of la Somewhere along the lines, we have to tell lawyers that th have to go to court, or we are going to be here every nie like this if we let a lawyer get up and exercise their lee training on us. I vote yes. sl 186 January 24, 1985 Mr. Cardenas: I understand this is set for February 14th. Ms. Cooper: Thank you. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSIONO THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:10 P.M. ATTEST: Ralph G. Ongie CITY CLERK Matty Hirai ASSISTANT CITY CLERK Maurice A. Ferre M A Y 0 R January 24, 1985 s oF. PAJAMI ft DOCUMENT MlEETING L' ATIE: JANUARY 24, 1985 INDEX I of 2) VAL DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION COAtTieNON ANn CODE O. ALLOCATE $6, 000 FOR THE USER FEE OF BAYFRONT PARK AUDITORIUM IN CONNECTION btiITH THE STAGING OF MIAM1 GRAND PRIX. ACCEPT THE PLAT ENTITLED COCONUT GROVE ARCADE AND THE DEDICATION SHOWN ON SAID PLAT. AUTHOR T— ZE/DIRECT CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT. ACCEPT THE PLAT ENTITLED "NUGENT GROVES", AND THE DEDICATION SHOWN ON SAID PLAT. AUTO— RIZE/DIRECT CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT ETC. ACCEPT THE PLAT ENTITLED "DOWNTOWN CENTER TRACT" AND THE DEDICATION SHOWN ON SAID PLAT. ' AUTHORIZE/DIRECT CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT. ACCEPT THE PLAT ENTITLED "MEMORIES SUBDIVISION" AND THE DEDICATION SHOWN ON SAID PLAT. DI— RECT CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT,ETC. APPROVE DINNER KEY MASTER PLAN PROVIDING FOR RESTRICTTIONS FOR PARKING GARAGES/PUBLIC PLAZA y` ADJACENT — PEACOCK PARK. ALLOCATE $7,738 IN SUPPORT ON THE LATIN ORANGE FESTIVAL COUNCIL'S PRESENTATION OF "FIESTA BY THE BAY" (12-31-84). CONCERN THE TERREMARK CENTRE PROJECT AT 2560— aa 2580 TIGERTAIL AVENUE 3204-3240 AVIATION AVENUE AND 2583-2585 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE; AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR SAID PROJECT (EXHIBIT "A"). FURTHER DIRECT CITY CLERK TO tfi SEND COPIES OF HEREIN RESOLUTION AND SAID DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO AFFECTED AGENCIES AND THE DEVELOPER. =�xa ISSUE A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS TERREMARK CENTRE PROJECT PROPOSED BY GROVE BAY PLAZA LIMITED (2560-2580 TIGERTAIL AVENUE 3204-3240 AVIATION AVENUE, AND 2583-2585 SOUTH r E. BAYSHORE DRIVE, ETC. - ALLOCATE $15,800 FROM DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION IN CONNECTION WITH JOSE MARTI PARA— a. DE AND PARK DEDICATION. 85-56 85-61 85-62 85-63 85-65 85-70 85-71 85-72 85-73 85-74 : C 1991 N CONTINUED DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION ACTION A ALLOCATE $69,000 TO MORTY FREEDMAN AND ASSO- CIATES, INC., IN CONNECTION WITH INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL (1985); FURTHER ALLOCATE $13,500 FOR A FEE WAIVER FOR THE USE OF THE COCONUT GROVE EXHIBITION CENTER AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH MORTY FREEDMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ETC... APPROVE "THE I-95/SOUTHWEST 15TH ROAD PLANNING STUDIO," (DECEMBER 1984) AS A GUIDE FOR ZONING ACTION AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT IN THE SUBJECT AREA. RELAX TIME RESTRICTIONS FOR A DISPLAY OF FIREWORK TO TAKE PLACE IN DOWNTOWN, MIAMI, INCLUDING OFF -SHORE DISPLAY, ON FEBRUARY 1, 1985 BEYOND 9:00 P.M.; SAID DISPLAY, TO TAKE PLACE BEFORE 12:00 MIDNIGHT WITH THE HEREIN RELAXATION SUBJECT TO OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMITS FROM FIRE, RESCUE, AND INSPECTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT. 85-75 85-76